2992 Comp Plan UpdateORDINANCE 2992
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MOSES LAKE,
WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE 2021 UPDATE TO
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN LAND USE MAP & RECOMMENDATION OF
THE AREA OF URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY
ADJUSTMENT
WHEREAS, the Washington State Growth Management Act, RCW 36.70A, et
seq. requires that the City of Moses Lake adopt a comprehensive plan; and
WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act, in RCW 36.70A.130, requires the City of
Moses Lake to take legislative action to review and, if needed, revise its comprehensive plan
and development regulations to ensure their continued compliance with the requirements in
Chapter 36.70A RCW; and
WHEREAS, in June 2020, the City of Moses Lake established and broadly
disseminated to the public the draft scope of work, schedule and public participation plan
for the update to the comprehensive plan in accordance with RCW 36.70A.130(2),
36.70A.035 and 36.70A.140; and
WHEREAS, the City of Moses Lake has followed its adopted public participation plan, as
described in Exhibit 1; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and City Council, through the public
participation process, established five key vision concepts to help guide the comprehensive plan
update process. The five concept areas are: (i) Embrace the city’s diversity and foster
inclusivity; (ii) Foster economic innovation and opportunity; (iii) Strengthen the character and
identity of Moses Lake; (iv) Build upon the city’s recreational amenities; (v) Carry out long term
planning to ensure sustainability.; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Community Development Department reviewed the
2021 Comprehensive Plan Update, as originally proposed, and issued a Determination of
Non-Significance (DNS). A revised DNS for subsequent revisions and additional
information was issued on October 19, 2021, which did not substantially change the analysis of
the original DNS. Copies of both the DNS and revised DNS are attached as Exhibit 2; and
WHEREAS, the City of Moses Lake provided the draft 2021 Comprehensive Plan
Update to the Washington State Department of Commerce on August 24, 2021, in
accordance with RCW 36.70A.106. Department of Commerce completed its review on
October 8, 2021. A copy of the Department of Commerce letter is attached as Exhibit 3; and
Document Ref: VSKO5-WQKUU-JBAEW-PHPI3 Page 1 of 4
WHEREAS, the City of Moses Lake Planning Commission held public hearings on
September 16, 2021 and September 23, 2021, during most of which public comment was taken
on the 2021 Comprehensive Plan Update. Those comments were addressed in the Summary of
Comments and Requests considered by the Planning Commission (Appendix B of Staff Report
to City Council, Updated November 2, 2021); and
WHEREAS, the City of Moses Lake Planning Commission recommended adoption
of its final draft 2021 Comprehensive Plan Update with changes to the Urban Growth
Boundary on September 23,2021 and presented the plan to City Council on October 12,
2021 in a workshop; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on October 26, 2021, on the
Planning Commission's and Staff’s recommended version of the 2021 Comprehensive Plan
Update and Urban Growth Boundary. City Council continued the Public Hearing to
November 9, 2021. City Council deliberated on November 9, 2021, on the final version of the
2021 Comprehensive Plan Update and recommendations for Urban Growth Boundary after
consideration of all public comment was received; and
WHEREAS, the City Council received extensive oral and written testimony on the
2021 Comprehensive Plan Update and Urban Growth Boundary at the noticed public
hearings and during time allocated for public comment at City Council regular meetings;
and
WHEREAS, RCW 36.70A.070(3) requires that comprehensive plans include a
capital facilities plan element consisting of, among other items, " ... at least a six-year plan that
will finance such capital facilities within projected funding capacities and clearly identifies
sources of public money for such purposes ... " The CFP includes a complete six-year capital
improvement program with identified funding sources.
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the 2021 Comprehensive Plan Update
identifies the infrastructure and capital facility investments to support the forecasted
growth and future community needs, and is linked to plans for transportation, utilities,
and other public facilities; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the complete record associated with all
proposed revisions, additions and alterations to the 2021 Comprehensive Plan Update; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds it necessary and in the public interest that the
2021 Comprehensive Plan Update with appendices be adopted; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the 2021 Comprehensive Plan Update adopted
by this Ordinance maintains the public health, safety, and welfare; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the 2021 Comprehensive Plan Update seeks
to preserve and enhance quality of life, including economic opportunities, public safety,
Document Ref: VSKO5-WQKUU-JBAEW-PHPI3 Page 2 of 4
human services, housing, education, parks and natural areas, and quality neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the 2021 Comprehensive Plan Update seeks
to protect and restore ecological systems of the natural environment, including protecting
critical areas and preserving open space areas; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the adoption of the 2021 Comprehensive
Plan update meets the comprehensive plan amendment review criteria set forth in MLMC
Chapter 19 and all other applicable legal criteria; it fully reflects the issues and opportunities
facing the City and is consistent with the Grant County Countywide Planning Policies; and
WHEREAS, the City of Moses Lake will review its development regulations for
consistency with the 2021 Comprehensive Plan Update and the Growth Management Act,
and will revise its development regulations to be consistent therewith; and
WHEREAS, this Ordinance is supported by the exhibits to this Ordinance and
documents on file with the City of Moses Lake; and
WHEREAS, this Ordinance is adopted pursuant to RCW 36.70A and Article XI,
Section 11, of the Washington State Constitution; and
WHEREAS, with the adoption of this Ordinance, the City of Moses Lake has
completed the required Periodic Review of its Comprehensive Plan,
NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MOSES LAKE, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals above constitute and shall be
treated as findings and conclusions in support of this Ordinance and, together with the
exhibits to this Ordinance and the public record compiled by the City during the
development of the 2021 Comprehensive Plan Update, comprise the analysis required by
applicable provisions of the Moses Lake Municipal Code and the Washington State Growth
Management Act.
Section 2. Adoption of the City of Moses Lake Comprehensive Plan. The 2001
City of Moses Lake Comprehensive Plan is hereby repealed and replaced with the 2021 City
of Moses Lake Comprehensive Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit 4, and consisting of the
Comprehensive Plan and Appendices.
Section 3. Amendment to Comprehensive Land Use/ Zoning Map. The changes to the
land use designation set out in the Future Land Use Plan map, Exhibit 3-10 of the 2021 City
of Moses Lake Comprehensive Plan (supra, page 3-29) is approved. The Planning
Department is directed to revise the City's Official Land Use Designation and Zoning Map
based on said changes. The Planning Department is directed to communicate these
recommended changes to Grant County as necessary.
Document Ref: VSKO5-WQKUU-JBAEW-PHPI3 Page 3 of 4
. . This Ordinance shall be submitted to the Washington State Department of
Commerce for their records within 10 days of adoption.
Section 5. Severability. If any term or provision in this Ordinance shall be held to be
invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or
unenforceability shall not affect the validity or enforceability of any other term or provision of
this Ordinance.
Section 6. Publication and Effect. This Ordinance, or a summary thereof, shall be
published in the official newspaper of the City of Moses Lake and shall take effect and be in
full force five (5) days after passage and publication, except as follows:
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Moses Lake, Washington, this 9th day of
November, 2021.
________________________________________
David Curnel, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Debbie Burke, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________
Katherine L. Kenison, City Attorney
Riggs Liebrecht Myers Jackson Curnel Eck Hankins
Vote:
Date Published:November 15, 2021
Date Effective: November 20, 2021
AYE AYEAYE AYENayNayAbsent
Document Ref: VSKO5-WQKUU-JBAEW-PHPI3 Page 4 of 4
Signature Certificate
Document Ref.: VSKO5-WQKUU-JBAEW-PHPI3
Document signed by:
Katherine Kenison
E-mail:
kkenison@basinlaw.com
Signed via link
IP: 173.209.171.7 Date: 10 Nov 2021 22:46:39 UTC
Mayor David Curnel
E-mail:
dcurnel@cityofml.com
Signed via link
IP: 63.142.221.35 Date: 11 Nov 2021 15:43:25 UTC
Debbie Burke
Verified E-mail:
dburke@cityofml.com
IP: 63.135.54.162 Date: 15 Nov 2021 17:54:52 UTC
Document completed by all parties on:
15 Nov 2021 17:54:52 UTC
Page 1 of 1
Signed with PandaDoc.com
PandaDoc is a document workflow and certified eSignature
solution trusted by 25,000+ companies worldwide.
1
Public Engagement Plan
Moses Lake Housing Action Plan – August 2020
Introduction
The Public Engagement Plan provides a framework for understanding how engagement will be
coordinated with the Moses Lake Housing Action Plan (HAP). It is a tool the City and project team will use
to organize and direct their efforts. In addition to outlining the purpose and objectives of engagement,
this Public Engagement Plan identifies key stakeholders and possible methods of engagement. As the
project progresses, the team will use this Public Engagement Plan to select and design events that are
aligned with the project schedule and respond to community needs. The Public Engagement Plan identifies
a range of engagement options that meet the needs of the people, businesses, and agencies affected by
the HAP planning effort, including a range of methods that meet requirements for public health and
safety in response to COVID-19.
Objectives
Effective public engagement is essential to the development of Moses Lake’s HAP. It is also a requirement
of the Housing Action Plan, the goal of which is encouraging construction of affordable and market rate
housing that provides greater choice of housing types and is accessible to a range of incomes. Public
engagement also offers an opportunity to ground truth information learned through the data collection and
analysis phase of the planning process. Objectives for outreach and engagement for this HAP include:
▪ Clearly communicate the project’s purpose, process, timeline, and final recommendations, so the
community is well-informed.
▪ Build project support through outreach and engagement efforts that invite meaningful input.
▪ Actively solicit questions, priorities, and concerns from community members, community groups, local
builders, local realtors, nonprofit housing advocates, and local religious groups.
▪ Seek perspectives of affected parties and those unlikely or unable to participate.
▪ Provide safe, accessible, and enjoyable engagement opportunities.
Stakeholders
The City of Moses Lake is a small commercial center and residential community in Central Washington’s
Grant County. Like many communities in Washington, the city has seen an increase in residents over the
last decade. The city is a small hub for businesses, retail, restaurants and bars, and social services
August 2020 City of Moses Lake | Housing Action Plan 2
providers and provides cultural events, tourism and recreation opportunities for the Central Washington
region. Hispanic/Spanish-speaking community members represent 42% of the Grant County population
and 38.4% of the Grant County population do not speak English at home). 15% of Grant County are non
US-citizens, roughly double the percentage for WA state as a whole, which is 7.5%. People who are non-
white, non-Hispanic represent 4.6% of the Grant County population (API 1.2%, American Indian/Native
American 1.2%, Black 1.1%).
The following chart identifies the stakeholders that this planning process should engage and suggestions a
prioritization framework for how to invest planning resources.
August 2020 City of Moses Lake | Housing Action Plan 3
August 2020 City of Moses Lake | Housing Action Plan 4
Methods and Tools
OUTREACH AND COMMUNICATION
People must be aware of the HAP planning process to participate. The tools listed below will help build
this awareness. Those indicated with an * will be led and executed by City staff.
▪ Project webpage*. The City will host and maintain a website that will service as a repository for
Plan information, including status updates, draft documents, schedules, official notices, and links to
partner agencies. Consultants will provide specialized content, such as links to digital engagement
activities that can be accessed via this website.
▪ Print and social media*. City staff will share information about the HAP planning process through
the City’s social media platforms and other online accounts, as well as through print mailings and
newsletters. Consultants can provide some graphics to support posters and signs.
▪ Official notices*. City staff will comply with notification requirements for comment periods and
public hearings specified by the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and the Moses Lake Municipal
Code.
▪ Interested parties list*. City staff will maintain a list of interested parties who will receive electronic
notification of public meetings and project milestones. Participants who provide contact information
to the City will be added to the list.
▪ Phone calls*. City staff will call potential stakeholders and community members to recruit for
interviews and focus groups.
▪ Local advocacy and business organizations. Staff and consultants could ask local advocacy and
business organizations to distribute information to their memberships. This effort could target hard-to-
reach stakeholder groups.
▪ Postcard mailings*. The City will mail postcards to businesses and residents in the visioning phase
and prior to the release of the Draft Plan Mailer should be accessible to non-English speaking
households/businesses via translation and/or links to online information.
▪ Place-based outreach*. Posters and signs can be an effective way of informing people of a project.
Combined with engagement, place-based outreach may include pop-ups, canvassing, participation in
community events, or other efforts that provide casual interaction with the community. Social
distancing requirements may limit opportunities for place-based outreach. Potential locations in
Moses Lake may include: Vacant storefronts, City Hall, virtual recreation programs (Tiny Tots,
exercise classes, etc.), farmer’s market, golf course, boat launches, substations. Consultants can
provide some graphics to support posters and signs.
▪ Translation, interpretation and digital access. Translation of key web content, print materials and
interpretation at meetings will be available as needed. Staff and consultants should work with
trusted advisors and community leaders to determine the most effective way of distributing materials
in other languages. Digital engagement tools should be formatted for smart-phones as much as is
August 2020 City of Moses Lake | Housing Action Plan 5
feasible to facilitate engagement with people who don’t have easy access to fast internet.
Consultants can advise on digital engagement tools that meet the above recommendations.
ENGAGEMENT
Engagement methods could include in-person and remote applications, which may be used to reach a
broader audience or to comply with public health orders. Methods indicated with an * below will be led
and executed by City Staff. Dots indicate which of the priority groups each engagement event is
intended to reach. (Prioritize: Collaborate: Monitor for Change: Leverage: )
▪ Stakeholder Group. An advisory group of community representatives that meets with the
team periodically during the planning process and helps to shape the development of the
plan.
▪ Interviews. Gather in-depth feedback through scripted interviews with key stakeholders—
such as community or advocacy groups—to learn more about the needs of specific
populations. Interviews are typically conducted by phone or online meeting platform.
▪ Community liaisons. Community contacts that can assist City staff and consultants connect
with people in the community, particularly those in prioritized groups.
▪ Focus groups. These small, facilitated discussions collect in-depth input from a variety of
groups. These may be conducted by phone or online meeting platforms, and may be
effective at engaging smaller groups of community members with a shared interest, such as
homeowners with existing septic systems. A “meeting-in-a-box” could also enable groups to
host their own discussions and record key takeaways that they then return to the City.
▪ Community events, pop-ups, and intercepts*. This type of engagement brings opportunities
to participate out into the community, such as tabling at a Farmer’s Market, interviewing
people at parks and recreation sites, or canvassing a business district. While these
conversations are best held in person—particularly with hard-to-reach populations—remote
methods can provide adapted approaches.
▪ Public meetings. Public meetings can include in-person and virtual open houses,
workshops, town halls, or charettes. They invite the community to learn more about the
project and provide comment, and can include interactive activities like live polling,
small group discussions, and “walkshops.”
While public meetings are traditionally held in person, remote options include:
Real-time remote meetings. Meetings may be held in real time using conferencing
platforms accessed by computer or smart phone. These allow for moderated
discussions, question and answer sessions, presentations, and small group discussions.
Those without a smart phone can participate by dialing in with any phone and using a
supplemental packet of hardcopy or digital materials made available in advance.
Real-time meetings can be recorded and posted online for people to review at their
convenience.
Online open house. These are interactive platforms with which people can engage at
August 2020 City of Moses Lake | Housing Action Plan 6
their convenience. Depending on the platform, they provide information with
embedded opportunities for input, such as interactive maps, tools, and surveys.
▪ Commission meetings. City Staff and consultants will provide periodic updates to the
Planning Commission throughout the project. These updates may be done remotely if public
health concerns limit travel and/or in-person meetings.
ENGAGEMENT BY PHASE
Development of the HAP will occur over a series of phases lasting just over a year. Prior to each phase,
the project team will use this Public Engagement Plan to develop a tactical engagement approach that
identifies timelines, roles, and responsibilities. This Public Engagement Plan will adapt to evolving project
and public health needs. The Project team will regularly assess objectives and equity considerations and
adjust outreach and engagement to ensure community perspectives are represented.
Engagement activities indicated with an * in the table below will be executed by City staff.
Outreach Phase Engagement Activities
Phase 1
Project Launch
Inform stakeholder and community groups
about the project and to draw out and
prioritize important issues in the beginning
of the process.
Summer 2020
▪ Phone calls with key stakeholders
▪ Launch City-hosted website*?
▪ Social media and email communication*
▪ Mailer*?
▪ Flyers*
Needs Assessment
Identify housing needs.
Summer and Fall 2020
▪ Stakeholder committee meeting to review feedback from
stakeholder interviews and review broader engagement
▪ Community events*
▪ Focus group interview with homeowners regarding
septic/sewer utilities issues
▪ Social media and email communication*
▪ Planning Commission update
Phase 2: Draft Plan
Draft Plan
Share draft plan and gather feedback
Winter 2020-2021
Final Plan
▪ Stakeholder committee meeting to review phase 1 work
and outline draft plan
▪ Online or in-person open house to share draft plan and
gather feedback.
▪ Official notice / Mailer*?
August 2020 City of Moses Lake | Housing Action Plan 7
Outreach Phase Engagement Activities
SEPA Review ▪ Flyers*?
▪ Social media and email communication*
▪ Planning Commission update
Final Plan
Communicate final plan and
recommendations
Spring 2021
▪ Stakeholder committee meeting to review and provide
feedback on draft plan
▪ Social media and email communication*
▪ Planning Commission update(s)
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.
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
SEPA
ENVIRONMENTAL
CHECKLIST
(Integrated SEPA/GMA Process)
A.Background Information
Proposal:City of Moses Lake Comprehensive Plan 2021 Update
Applicant:Melissa Bethel, Community Development Director
509.764.3751
321 S Balsam st., Moses Lake WA 98837
Contact:Vivian Ramsey, Planning Manager
509.764.37 49
321 Balsam st., Moses Lake WA 98837
Brief Description of the Proposal 's Scope and Nature
1. General description: Proposed overall update to the City's Comprehensive Plan. Plan
updates are as outlined below.
a. Incorporate the 2021 City of Moss Lake Housing Action Plan by reference and revise
the Housing Element policies and goals to reflect the Housing Action Plan
recommendations
b. Update data and inventories
c. Amend goals and policies to reflect changes in the community since the last
Comprehensive Plan Update.
d. Revise the future land use map and zoning map
2. Site Acreage: Applies citywide
3. Number of dwelling units/buildings to be demolished: N/A
4. Number of dwelling units/buildings to be constructed: N/A
5. Square footage of Buildings to be demolished: N/A
6. Square footage of buildings to be constructed: N/A
7. Quantity of earth movement (in cubic yards): N/A
8. Proposed land use: N/A
9. Design features, including building height, number of stories and proposed exterior
materials: N/A
10. Other: N/A
Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): The Planning Commission will hold a
public hearing on September 16, 2021. A public hearing and final action on the proposal by the City
Council is scheduled for October 26, 2021.
Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with
this proposal? If yes, explain. Development regulations informed by the proposed Comprehensive Plan
policies are proposed to occur in conjunction with future Moses Lake Municipai Code amendments.
Zoning Code amendments will include the creation of minimum density. Staff will also evaluate
development standards for residential development consistent with the recommendations of the
Housing Action Plan, which may result in Zoning Code amendments to allow more diverse housing types
in single-family residential zones.
List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared,
directly related to this proposal. N/A
Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly
affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. List dates applied for and file numbers,
if known.
No.
List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. If permits
have been applied for, list application date and file numbers, if known.
The City Council will consider the Planning Commission's recommendation and adopt the
Comprehensive Plan amendment by ordinance. The Grant County Commissioners will consider any
changes to the Urban Growth Area designation
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
Discussion of the individual Environmental Elements is not required for GMA actions per WAC 197-
11-235.3.b.
C. SUPPLEMENTALSHEETFORNONPROJECTACTIONS(donotusethissheetforprojectactions)
SUMMARY
Project Summary: This proposal is an update of the City of Moses Lake Comprehensive Plan, in
fulfillment of the Growth Management Act requirements. The Plan sets the community vision and
supporting goals which inform the goals and policies for each of the required planning elements.
The Comprehensive Plan incorporates by reference the city"s Housing Action Plan and Housing
Needs Assessment to supplement the Housing Element.
Environmental Summary per WAC 197-11-235(3%b):
State the proposal's objectives: The objectives of the proposal are as follows:
1. Provide a policy basis to implement the recommended actions of the Housing Action Plan
and plan for the housing need of the coming 20 years.
2. Prevent underdevelopment of land resulting in reduced housing and jobs capacity
3. Provide a service-oriented government that works with all interests in the community to
implement their vision
4. Ensure frequent and open communication as an operating principle in all city affairs
5. Encourage community organizations that highlight service and respond to issues and needs.
Page 2 of 5
6. 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 oflife through responsive
and responsible investment of public funds toward social and human services.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
Specify the purpose and need to which the proposal is responding:
The purpose of the amendments is to provide a policy basis to meet the long-range goals of the
community, as established through the visioning processes conducted in 2020 through 2021.
State the major conclusions, significant areas of controversy and uncertainty:
Staff anticipates that there may be comment though the public hearings and Council review process
with some disagreement with the recommended land use designations.
A public hearing with the Planning Commission is scheduled for September 16, 2021. City Council
will hold a public hearing on October 26, 2021.
State the issues to be resolved, including the environmental choices to be made among alternative
courses of action:
Issues to be resolved include the proposed Comprehensive Plan update and directions to guide city
growth and development.
State the impacts of the proposal, including any significant adverse impacts that cannot be
mitigated:
The proposal is a non-project action to update the City of Moses Lake's Comprehensive Plan
bringing the City into compliance with the Growth Management Act and adopting the Housing
Action Plan by reference. Adoption of the proposed Comprehensive Plan update would not result in
adverse environmental impacts. The proposed amendments consist primarily of broad policy and
will not have immediate land use impacts. Future amendments to development regulations will be
analyzed for environmental impacts.
Describe any proposed mitigation measures and their effectiveness: No specific development is
being approved with this proposal. No significant environmental impacts have been identified,
therefore no mitigation measures are proposed.
Page 3 of 5
Environmental Checklist-Supplemental Sheet for NonProject Actions
1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; pmduction,
storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise?
Adoption of the proposed update will not directly result in discharges to water; emissions to air;
production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise.
Production of noise: Adoption of the proposed amendments will not directly result in increased
noise.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: These measures will be evaluated on
a project level basis.
2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish or marine life?
Adoption of the proposed comprehensive plan update will not increase potential impacts to
plants and animals
Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish or marine life are: These
measures will be evaluated on a project level basis.
3. Howwouldtheproposalbelikelytodepleteenergyornaturalresources?
Adoption of the proposed comprehensive plan update will not result in depletion of energy or
natural resources.
Proposed measures to project or conserve energy and natural resources are:
These measures will be evaluated on a project-level basis.
4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas
designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental pmtection; such as parks, wilderness,
wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites,
wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands?
Adoption of the proposal will not negatively affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas
designated or eligible for governmental protection.
Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are:
Impacts to environmentally sensitive areas will be reviewed on a project level basis.
5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would
allow orencourage land orshoreline uses incompatible with existing plans?
Adoption of the proposal will not affect any shoreline areas.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are:
Adoption of the proposal will not affect any shoreline areas. Impacts to land and shoreline use
will be evaluated on a project-level basis.
6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and
utilities? Adoption of the proposed amendments will not impact demands on transportation or
public services and utilities.
Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are:
Page 4 of 5
These measures will be evaluated on a project-level basis.
7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or
requirements for the protection of the environment.
The proposal is not expected to conflict with local, state or federal laws or requirements for the
protection of the environment and is intended to maintain compliance with the Growth
Management Act of Washington State. Annual Comprehensive Plan amendments within the
City of Moses Lake are evaluated based on their compliance with GMA policies, Grant County
Planning Policies and the City of Moses Lake's Comprehensive Plan goals and policies, as well as
Comprehensive Plan amendment criteria, and other applicable laws.
The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead
agency is relying on them to make its decision.
signatureX4!9 oatesubmitteoPX/27ffi
Page 5 of 5
MOSE!S LAKE
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT
Revised SEPA Determination of Non-Significance for City of Moses Lake 2021 Comprehensive
Plan & Future Land Use Map and Urban Growth Boundary Amendment
October 19, 2021
City of Moses Lake
Melissa Bethel, Community Development Director
509.764.375; mbethel@cityofml.com
321 S Balsam st., Moses Lake WA 98837
File Number: PLN2021-0069
Description of proposal: The revised DNS includes an updated Environmental Checklist with the
updated draft Comprehensive Plan, City Council Staff Report and Presentations made at hearings.
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 new designation and/or rezoning.
3. Inclusion of new land use designations: Gateway Commercial and Mixed Use
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 Downtown Creative District, Broadway Revitalization Corridor, EPA
Groundwater Institutional Control Boundary.
6. Proposed changes to reduce the overall Urban Growth Area.
Location: The shidy area consists of the Moses Lake city limits and the Moses Lake Urban Growth
Area portion of the Grant County Urban Growth Area (UGA) boundaiy.
MOSE5 LAKE
The City of Moses Lake has confirmed its SEPA threshold determination of non-
significance issued on September 1, 2021 in consideration of the following additions:
The City is providing updated documents which will inform and enhance the environmental
review of the project. Notable documents submitted with this revised DNS include an updated
draft Comprehensive Plan, City Coiu'icil Staff Report, Presentations, and revised SEPA
Environmental Checklist.
The City of Moses Lake has reaffirmed that this proposal wig} not have a probable
significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS)
is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(C)(ii). This determination is based on the
following findings and conclusions: The proposal is a non-project action to update the City of
Moses Lake's Comprehensive Plan bringing the City into compliance with the Growth
Management Act and adopting the Housing Action Plan as an appendix. The updated
Comprehensive Plan is designed to minimize through goals and policies the environmental
impacts to the natural and built environment that could result from future growth and
development. See attached updated documents for a complete overview.
This GGrevised" DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2)(f) and includes additional notice
and comment period.
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 November 8, 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.
MosesLakeWA 98837
Email: planning(,cityofi'nl.com
Public Hearing: The City of Moses Lake will hold the following public hearing 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.)
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 9883 7. The Draft documents are posted on the City of Moses Lake's website at
www.cityofinl.com.
(electronic signahire or name of signor is sufficient)
Date MAq/z-/
Appeal process: Appeals may be filed in accordance with MLMC 14.06.070 C
REVISED SEPA
ENVIRONMENTAL
CHECKLIST
(Integrated SEPA/GMA Process)
Use of checklist for non-project proposals: For nonproject proposals (such as ordinances, regulations, plans and programs), complete the
applicable parts of sections A and B plus the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part
D). Please completely answer all questions that apply and note that the words "project,"
"applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proponent," and "affected geographic area," respectively. The lead agency may exclude (for non-projects) questions in Part B - Environmental Elements –that do not contribute meaningfully to the analysis of the proposal.
A. Background Information
1. Proposal: City of Moses Lake Comprehensive Plan 2021 Update in conformance with the State
Growth Management Act.
2. Name of Applicant: City of Moses Lake
3. Address and phone number of Applicant and contact person:
City of Moses Lake
321 Balsam St. Moses Lake, WA 98837
509.764.3751
Melissa Bethel, Community Development Director
4. Date Checklist prepared: October 14, 2021
5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Moses Lake
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing if applicable):
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;
REVISED SEPA
ENVIRONMENTAL
CHECKLIST
(Integrated SEPA/GMA Process)
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 Youth Baseball representatives; and Former City of
Moses Lake employees.
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.
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
REVISED SEPA
ENVIRONMENTAL
CHECKLIST
(Integrated SEPA/GMA Process)
Public Hearing Process: The Planning Commission was invited to joint meetings with the City
Council at work sessions from approximately April through July 2021 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 2021 to review the Draft Plan
elements.
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.
October 12, 2021 the City Council held a workshop to review the Planning Commission
recommendations as well as input from State agencies consistent with GMA. A public hearing has
been scheduled for October 26 for the City Council to take public testimony. Adoption is
anticipated in November.
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or
connected with this proposal? If yes, explain.
The Comprehensive Plan will be reviewed and amended on a regular basis to reflect changing
conditions. The plan is implemented through the City of Moses Lake Development Code which will
undergo an update immediately following adoption of the Comprehensive Plan to reflect the new
goals and policies in the Plan. Future actions regarding the Comprehensive Plan or the municipal
code will be subject to independent SEPA review and threshold determinations.
8. List any environmental information you know that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly
related to this proposal:
A Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) was published 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. Chapter 1 in the draft Comprehensive Plan outlines some of the subsequent plans the City
hopes to update or adopt:
Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan update: In process.
Master Street Plan: The City currently does not have a master street plan.
Shoreline Master Plan: In process.
Wastewater System Master Plan: Last updated in 2015
Comprehensive Water System Plan update: Completed in 2000 and updated in 2016.
Stormwater Comprehensive Plan: The City currently does not have a Plan.
In addition: Sub Area traffic plans were completed for Mae Valley and Yonezawa Blvd areas.
REVISED SEPA
ENVIRONMENTAL
CHECKLIST
(Integrated SEPA/GMA Process)
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other
proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain.
The Comprehensive Plan provides policy guidance for the City of Moses Lake. On an ongoing basis,
the City receives private and public proposals for land use and other actions that are within the area
covered by the Comprehensive Plan. These proposals are reviewed for consistency with the current
adopted Comprehensive Plan and implementing regulations.
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known.
Moses Lake City Council adoption
Verification of GMA compliance by WA Department of Commerce
Certification by the Grant County Commissioners
11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the
project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain
aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may
modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.)
The proposed action is the adoption of the 2021 update to the Moses Lake Comprehensive Plan. The
City of Moses Lake adopted the current Comprehensive Plan in 2001. Extensive updates were
completed in 2014 of the Land Use, Housing, and Utilities Elements, and in 2012 for the
Transportation and Capital Facilities Elements and the Vision Statement, in 2016 for minor updates to
the Transportation Elements and Utilities Elements and in 2017 a re-designation of 25 acres from
Parks/Open Space to Public Facilities. The 2021 update is intended to achieve consistency with
adopted state legislation as well as recognize local changes.
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 Introduction documents the public engagement process that guided the development of the
draft plan. It incorporates the general goals and policies formerly contained in the Roles &
Responsibilities element. The Introduction also updates the discussion of Plan Implementation
Measures to reflect items completed since the last periodic update and new items identified in the
current draft plan.
REVISED SEPA
ENVIRONMENTAL
CHECKLIST
(Integrated SEPA/GMA Process)
The Vision Element identifies a list of future catalyst projects that would help implement the
Comprehensive Plan. The Vision Element establishes a new vision statement for the Comprehensive
Plan based on public input and a series of supporting goals.
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 Land Use Element updates the 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. It updates the description of
existing land uses, economic conditions, and environmentally critical areas. The Land Use
Element 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. Two new future land use designations are created:
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.
The existing Business & Office Center and Residential Redevelopment Area Future Land Use
Map designations are removed.
It 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, and the EPA Groundwater Institutional Control Boundary.
The Housing Element Updates the 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. It Incorporates by reference the
2020 Housing Needs Analysis and the 2021 Housing Action Plan, which establishes the City’s
strategy for meeting ongoing housing needs in Moses Lake.
REVISED SEPA
ENVIRONMENTAL
CHECKLIST
(Integrated SEPA/GMA Process)
The Housing Element refreshes the 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.
The Utilities Element Updates the 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. It establishes Level of Service (LOS) standards
for City-provided utility services for the purpose of evaluating concurrency under GMA and
refreshes and reorganizes goals and policies for clarity and to remove duplicative policy
language.
The Transportation Element 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. It 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 and refreshes and reorganizes goals and
policies to better align with GMA concurrency requirements and better promote transit and
non-motorized transportation.
The Capital Facilities Element updates the 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. It 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 and 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.
12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location
of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if
known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s).
Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available.
While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or
detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist.
REVISED SEPA
ENVIRONMENTAL
CHECKLIST
(Integrated SEPA/GMA Process)
The City of Moses Lake is located in central Washington and resides within Grant County. Moses
Lake is the largest city in Grant County. The City is bisected by two major highways; Interstate 90
and State Route 17. it is accessible by highway, rails and air. (see future land use map attached for
city limits and UGA boundary).
B. Environmental Elements
1. Earth
a. General Description of the site: Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other
The City of Moses Lake is located in central Washington and relatively flat with some rolling hills.
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? The steepest slopes in
Moses Lake vary from 0 -15%
c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If
you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any agricultural land of
long-term commercial significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of these
soils. The City of Moses Lake soils are generally gravelly, silty and sandy.
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so,
describe. No.
e. Describe the purpose, type, total area, and approximate quantities and total affected area of
any filling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill.
No filling or grading is proposed as part of this non-project proposal. Development proposals
emerging subsequent to the adoption of this update will be evaluated relative to federal, state and
local regulations and standards on an individual project-specific basis.
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe.
No erosion would result from the adoption of this non project proposal. Future development
proposals will be evaluated and subject to the federal, state and local regulations and standards as
well as in conformance with the Shoreline master plan. The City is currently in the process of
updating the SMP.
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)?
The Comprehensive Plan is a non-project proposal. Future development will be evaluated and
subject to the regulations and standards.
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any:
As a non-project proposal, no specific development conditions are presented. Future
development will need to conform to City standards and regulations during project review. The
proposal includes the Element titled “Land Use” that incorporates a section on the Moses Lake
environment and Critical Areas. It also includes goals and policies designed to enhance and
REVISED SEPA
ENVIRONMENTAL
CHECKLIST
(Integrated SEPA/GMA Process)
protect these environmentally sensitive areas, as well as the overall environmental quality of
the City.
2. Air
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal during construction,
operation, and maintenance when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give
approximate quantities if known.
The non project action would not directly produce air emissions. Indirectly, future growth could
produce traffic and related air emissions. Commercial development could emit air emissions or
odors. Short-term air emissions including construction equipment exhaust and fugitive dust may
occur during the construction phase for a new development. However, the intent of the plan
update is to encourage residential diversity and to increase multi-model transportation. The plan
also encourages in-fill development and limiting sprawl. Project-specific proposals would be
reviewed for consistency with the applicable provisions of the City of Moses Lake Municipal Code
and City SEPA procedures.
b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe.
Not Applicable. The proposal is a non-project proposal and does not recommend project action
on a specific site. Project specific proposals will be reviewed for consistency with the applicable
provisions of the City of Moses Lake Municipal Code and the City SEPA procedures.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any:
The draft Comprehensive Plan includes goals and policies to help reduce sprawl and increase
density within the City and provide for a healthy City. (see Goal 3.6).
3. Water
a. Surface Water:
1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site
(including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If
yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it
flows into.
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 as part of the Columbia Basin Project which
supplies water stored behind Grand Coulee Dam to over 500,000 acres of farmland.
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. Islands in the lake, shoreline and riparian areas, and other locations that provide
REVISED SEPA
ENVIRONMENTAL
CHECKLIST
(Integrated SEPA/GMA Process)
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 can inundate adjacent lands.
2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described
waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans.
The proposal includes Goal 3.7 which states “Reinforce and enhance Moses Lake’s
environmental stewardship while allowing for growth of the city and reasonable use of private
property”. The policies that follow encourage minimizing impacts to critical areas when
developing. The City is currently updating its SMP.
3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or
removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that
would be affected.Indicate the source of fill material.
Not Applicable. The proposal is a non-project proposal and does not recommend
project action on a specific site.
4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
Not Applicable. The proposal is a non-project proposal and does not recommend project
action on a specific site.
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan.
The City is currently in the process of updating its SMP and will continue to evaluate site
specific projects through City, State and Federal regulations.
6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge
The proposal is non project specific and does not recommend project action on a specific site.
However the City plans to create a stormwater master plan in the future which will help
regulate and improve the health of the Lake.
b. Ground Water
1. Will groundwater be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? If so, give
a general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn
from the well. Will water be discharged to groundwater? Give general description, purpose,
and approximate quantities if known.
REVISED SEPA
ENVIRONMENTAL
CHECKLIST
(Integrated SEPA/GMA Process)
In addition to the policies in the proposed Comprehensive Plan, 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.
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
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 six
pressure zones which operate under a separate hydraulic grade line under normal
conditions. The pressure zones are interconnected by distribution system piping and control
valves, with booster pumps used to boost flows from a lower pressure zone to a higher-
pressure zone.
2. Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks
or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the
following chemicals ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or
the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve.
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 number of dwelling units
indicates that over 1,500 on-site septic systems are in use within the
unincorporated area. The Comprehensive Plan incorporates goals and policies to
encourage inward growth and to provide services to existing city limits. Capital
facilities plans, traffic and growth will be balanced with the decision to limit the
UGA boundary.
C. Water runoff (including stormwater):
1. Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal,
if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow?
Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe.
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
REVISED SEPA
ENVIRONMENTAL
CHECKLIST
(Integrated SEPA/GMA Process)
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 plans to create a Storm Water Master Plan
in the future to help guide and address future stormwater regulations for the City of Moses
Lake.
2. Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe.
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
(See exhibit 5-4 of project). Groundwater remediation efforts are ongoing, and the City is
studying the potential for future reuse of the water sources in this area.
3. Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the
site? If so, describe.
The proposal is non project specific and does not recommend project action on a
specific site.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water, and
drainage pattern impacts, if any:
The proposed Comprehensive Plan provides a policy framework that is intended to
protect water quality and quantity. Specifically Goal 5.2 – which states, “Facilitate the
provisions of utilities that are environmentally sensitive, safe, reliable, aesthetically
compatible with surrounding land uses, and available at a reasonable price.”
4. Plants
a. Check the types of vegetation found on the site:
__X__deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other
__X__evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other
__X__shrubs
__X__grass
__X__pasture
__X__crop or grain
__X_ Orchards, vineyards or other permanent crops.
__X_ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other
__X__water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other
__X_other types of vegetation: Native cactus, shrub steppe
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
No vegetation will be removed as a result of this proposal for a Citywide Comprehensive
Plan update. Removal of vegetation will be evaluated with each specific development at
project level review.
REVISED SEPA
ENVIRONMENTAL
CHECKLIST
(Integrated SEPA/GMA Process)
c. List threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site.
There are no known threatened or endangered plant species in the City.
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance
vegetation on the site, if any:
The Comprehensive Plan contains goals and policies that support retention of existing vegetation
and incorporation of landscaping in new developments.
e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site.
The City is under the jurisdiction of the Grant County Noxious Weed Control Board. Types of
noxious weeds are listed on the website: https://www.grantcountyweedboard.org/all-weeds
5. Animals
a. List any birds and other animals which have been observed on or near the site or are
known to be on or near the site. Examples include: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other:
mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other:
fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other ________
The City is home to several species of birds, mammals and fish: Birds include Hawks, owls, ravens, cliff swallows heron, pheasant, quail, magpies. Mammals include: squirrels, raccoons, skunks, opossums, deer, elk, and beaver. Fish include: Black
crappie, Bluegill, Channel catfish, Common carp, Lake whitefish, Largemouth bass, Rainbow trout, and Smallmouth bass.
b. List any threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site.
Threatened or endangered species include the Burrowing Owl, Washington Ground
Squirrel and the Northern Leopard frog.
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain
The City is part of the Pacific flyway.
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:
The proposed Comprehensive Plan includes a Critical Areas component under the Land
Use Element and incorporates goals and policies to preserve and protect
environmentally sensitive areas (Goal 3.6).
e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site.
It is unknown if there are invasive species in the Moses Lake area.
6. Energy and Natural Resources
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet
the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating,
manufacturing, etc.
REVISED SEPA
ENVIRONMENTAL
CHECKLIST
(Integrated SEPA/GMA Process)
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.
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.
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If
so, generally describe. As a non-project action, the proposal would not impact the use
of solar energy at any specific location. Any impacts resulting from projects stemming
from this non project action will be determined at the project level review.
c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal?
List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: The
proposal does not relate to a specific action. Future projects will be evaluated at the
project level and project impacts will be conditioned at that time.
7. Environmental Health
a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals,
risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this
proposal? If so, describe. As a non project action, the proposal is not expected to cause
environmental health hazards. Use of any hazardous materials on a project by project
basis would be subject to the requirements of federal and state law.
1. Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past
uses.
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 (See Exhibit
5-4)
2. Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project
development and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas
transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity.
REVISED SEPA
ENVIRONMENTAL
CHECKLIST
(Integrated SEPA/GMA Process)
Within the city, underground mains carry natural 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.
3. Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or
produced during the project's development or construction, or at any time during
the operating life of the project. The proposal does not relate to a specific action.
Future projects will be evaluated at the project level and project impacts will be
conditioned at that time
4. Describe special emergency services that might be required. The proposal does not
relate to a specific action. Future projects will be evaluated at the project level and
project impacts will be conditioned at that time.
5. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any:
Proposed goals and policies in the draft Comprehensive Plan are intended to reduce
environmental health hazards.
b. Noise
1. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example:
traffic, equipment, operation, other)?
This proposal is for a non-project action. However, growth within the City and
surrounding area will contribute to increased traffic which in turn leads to higher
noise levels impacting properties along the state highways. The updated
Transportation Element states, “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. (See Transportation Element -Chapter 6 for more
details regarding road system and LOS). AIRPORTS: The Grant County Airport and
Municipal Airport also create air traffic noise. 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 multimodal
REVISED SEPA
ENVIRONMENTAL
CHECKLIST
(Integrated SEPA/GMA Process)
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.
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.
2. What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project
on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation,
other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site.
This is a non-project action, however for information regarding ongoing noise within
the City of Moses Lake, please see #1 above and the draft Transportation Element of
the Comprehensive Plan -Chapter 6.
3. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: It is the City’s policy
to minimize and prevent adverse noise impacts. Future development proposals will
be evaluated and subject to City regulations and standards.
8. Land and Shoreline Use
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Will the proposal affect
current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe.
Within the City limits there is both developed and undeveloped land. Land Use
varies throughout the City, and includes single family residential, multifamily
residential, commercial uses and Industrial. The 2021 Comprehensive Plan provides
REVISED SEPA
ENVIRONMENTAL
CHECKLIST
(Integrated SEPA/GMA Process)
new definitions, goals and policies for Land Use (See Chapter 3). As a City wide
proposal, there are no project specific sites in this non-action project.
b. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If so,
describe. How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance
will be converted to other uses as a result of the proposal, if any? If resource lands
have not been designated, how many acres in farmland or forest land tax status will be converted to nonfarm or nonforest use?
The City limits contains approximately 1,733 acres of agricultural lands which is
about 17% of the total area (see Exhibit 3-6 chapter 3). The Comprehensive Plan
states the City of Moses Lake has the capacity to accommodate the expected 2038
population growth all within its boundaries. This will require some Agricultural land
within the City to be converted to housing or other urban style land use. However,
by maintaining population growth within the City limits, unincorporated UGA
Agricultural land (4,216 acres) will be sustained for a longer period of time.
1. Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land
normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of
pesticides, tilling, and harvesting? If so, how:
The proposal is non-project specific. However, recognizing the interplay between
urban and rural areas, the 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.
c. Describe any structures on site.
Within the City of Moses Lake, there are buildings and structures associated with
single family, multifamily, commercial, and industrial uses.
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
The proposal is non-action and does not propose demolition of any structures.
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site?
Zoning varies throughout the City. Zoning classifications in Moses Lake include 4
residential zones (R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4), a Neighborhood Commercial Zone (NC),
Central Business District Zone (C1), General Commercial and Business Zone (C-2),
and Transitional Business Zone (C-1A). The proposed Comprehensive Plan includes
new land use designations: Downtown and Gateway Commercial.
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?
REVISED SEPA
ENVIRONMENTAL
CHECKLIST
(Integrated SEPA/GMA Process)
Comprehensive Plan designations in the City of Moses Lake include Single Family
Residential, Duplex, Multifamily Residential, Mobile Home Park, Commercial,
Industrial, Port District Properties, Agriculture, Public or Quasi Public, ROW/WSDOT,
Vacant. New proposed land use designations are reflected in the Land Use Element
(Chapter 3) and include: Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, High
Density Residential, General Commercial, Industrial, Public Facilities, Parks and
Open Space, Environmentally Sensitive, Port of Moses Lake, Gateway Commercial
and Downtown.
g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the
site?
The City of Moses Lake Master Shoreline program establishes eight shoreline
environments for the City of Moses Lake and its UGA: H = High Intensity H-R =
High Intensity—Resource Area SR = Shoreline Residential SR-R = Shoreline
Residential—Resource Area SR-S = Shoreline Residential—Special Resource Area
W = Water-Oriented Parks and Public Facilities N = Natural A = Aquatic Resource
designations (“High Intensity—Resource Area”, “Shoreline Residential—Resource
Area”, and “Shoreline Residential—Special Resource Area”) indicate the need for
special consideration to protect ecological functions and values. The program was
last updated in 2014 and is currently undergoing an update with the anticipated
completion date of June 2022.
h. Has any part of the site been classified as a critical area by the city or county? If
so, specify
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 USBRinitiated flow changes can inundate adjacent lands.
REVISED SEPA
ENVIRONMENTAL
CHECKLIST
(Integrated SEPA/GMA Process)
▪ Geologically hazardous areas identified through use of soil surveys and seismic
zone maps.
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project?
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. 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.
j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace?
The proposal is for a non-project specific action. The draft Comprehensive Plan
indicates the City has enough land inside the City limits to handle the growth
projections (see HAP).
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any:
As a non-project action, the proposal would not directly cause displacement and
no mitigation is proposed. Future project-specific development proposals within
the City that may result in displacement will be reviewed consistent with
applicable provisions of the Moses Lake Municipal Code and SEPA procedures.
l. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and
projected land uses and plans, if any:
The draft Comprehensive Plan provides guidance intended to ensure that new
development is compatible with existing land uses. It also includes guidance to
use the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to guide land use and
development regulations and to ensure that the City’s functional plans support
the land use patterns outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. Proposed policy
guidance is consistent with and builds on the direction established in the current
Comprehensive Plan and current City regulations.
m. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts to agricultural and forest lands
of long-term commercial significance, if any:
The City of Moses Lake’s Land Capacity Analysis indicates 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
REVISED SEPA
ENVIRONMENTAL
CHECKLIST
(Integrated SEPA/GMA Process)
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. Removing portions of the UGA is being considered with
this proposal.
9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high,
middle, or low-income housing.
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.Future housing needs for the City of Moses Lake is addressed in the Land
Capacity Analysis and Housing Needs Assessment. The City of Moses Lake’s Land
Capacity Analysis indicates 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. Removing portions of the UGA is being
considered with this proposal.
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high,
middle, or low-income housing.
As a non-project action, the proposal is not expected to eliminate any housing units.
The Housing Needs Assessment and proposed Comprehensive Plan provide strategies
for increasing density and housing units within the City Limits.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:
The draft Comprehensive Plan includes policies intended to provide an adequate
supply of housing that meets the City’s growth target, to preserve and enhance the
unique character of the City’s residential neighborhoods, and to provide a range of
housing opportunities to serve special needs and all economic segments of the
community. Proposed policy guidance is consistent with and builds on the direction
established in the current Comprehensive Plan and current City regulations.
REVISED SEPA
ENVIRONMENTAL
CHECKLIST
(Integrated SEPA/GMA Process)
10. Aesthetics
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what
is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed?
The proposal is a non-project action that does not include any proposed structures.
The tallest building height allowed in the City’s development regulations is unlimited
in the Heavy Industrial Zone (subject to airport height restrictions if applicable).
MLMC18.40.050 Table 2.
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?
The proposal is a non-project action that will not alter or obstruct views. Future
projectspecific development proposals within the City that may result in alteration
of views will be reviewed consistent with applicable provisions of the City’s
Municipal Code and SEPA procedures.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any:
The Land Use, Housing and Economic Development elements of the draft
Comprehensive Plan includes goals and policies intended to ensure that
development is aesthetically pleasing and does not have negative impacts on
community character. Proposed policy guidance is consistent with and builds on the
direction established in the proposed Comprehensive Plan and will be implemented
with the future City development code.
11. Light and Glare
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it
mainly occur?
The proposal is a non-project action that will not produce light or glare. Future
project specific development may result in additional light and glare typical to urban
areas. Future development codes will most likely address light and glare impacts.
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? The proposal is a non-project action. See above response to 11.a.
c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?
The proposal is a non-project action. See above response to 11.a.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any:
The draft Comprehensive Plan includes policies intended to prevent negative
impacts to the community resulting from light or glare. Any measures to reduce or
control light and glare impacts would be determined as a part of specific project
level review and approval.
REVISED SEPA
ENVIRONMENTAL
CHECKLIST
(Integrated SEPA/GMA Process)
12. Recreation
a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate
vicinity?
The Moses Lake Park system has over 39 parks and facilities with nearly 190 acres
dedicated for mini, neighborhood, and community park sites dispersed throughout
the community. There are over 140 acres of regional park sites that provide both
active and passive recreational opportunities. The park inventory has three
extraordinary natural open space parks, one of which is the John E. Calbom Island
that is preserved and protected as a natural habitat site. Marina Park and Neppel
Landing serve as linear parks along the waterfront trail system. The City hosts
opportunities for swimmers, artists, ballplayers, and ice skaters Recreational
participants enjoy an array of camps and clinics, educational programs, enrichment
opportunities, aquatic activities and fitness sessions as they join hundreds of various
programs and classes annually. The City is currently updating its Parks and
Recreation Masterplan.
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe.
The proposal is a non-project specific action that will not displace any existing
recreational uses. The updated Parks and Master Plan will compliment the proposed
Comprehensive Plan to preserve and enhance our park system.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation
opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any:
The draft Comprehensive Plan will reference the updated Parks and Recreation
Master Plan. The updated Parks and Master Plan will provide guidance for
maintaining and improving the City’s parks system to meet community needs. The
draft Comprehensive Plan for the City incorporates Policy 3.6.3 to preserve open
space as passive or active recreational space.
13. Historic and cultural preservation
a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are over
45 years old listed in or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation
registers? If so, specifically describe.
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.
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.
REVISED SEPA
ENVIRONMENTAL
CHECKLIST
(Integrated SEPA/GMA Process)
b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or
occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any
material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site?
Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such 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. This proposal is a
non-active project and no known studies are available.
c. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic
resources on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and
the department of archeology and historic preservation, archaeological surveys,
historic maps, GIS data, etc.
This proposal is non project specific. Potential impacts due to development will be
identified through the project specific SEPA review process. Project-specific impacts
would be identified at the time of development.
d. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that
may be required.
This proposal is non project specific. Potential impacts due to development will be
identified through the project specific SEPA review process. Project-specific impacts
would be identified at the time of development.
14. Transportation
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area and
describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any
Within the proposed Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element, Table 6-1 shows
the WSDOT functional classification map and 6-2 identifies local street classifications
within Moses Lake. 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. 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. (Proposal
Chapter 6, page 6-4).
REVISED SEPA
ENVIRONMENTAL
CHECKLIST
(Integrated SEPA/GMA Process)
b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so,
generally describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit
stop?
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.
c. How many additional parking spaces would the completed project or non-project
proposal have? How many would the project or proposal eliminate?
The proposal is a non-project action. Any future development in the City will create
or eliminate new parking spaces on a specific project basis only depending on the
land use and zoning regulations for a particular site
d. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets,
pedestrian, bicycle or state transportation facilities, not including driveways? If so,
generally describe (indicate whether public or private).
The proposed Comprehensive Plan has a Capital Facilities Plan (Appendix C) which
addresses infrastructure (such as streets, roads, traffic signals, sewer systems,
stormwater systems, water systems, parks, etc.) and improvements.
e. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or
air transportation? If so, generally describe.
The City of Moses Lake is located near water, rail and air transportation. The draft
Comprehensive Plan addresses Water, Rail and air transportation all in Element 6
titled Transportation.
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project or
proposal? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage
of the volume would be trucks (such as commercial and nonpassenger vehicles).
What data or transportation models were used to make these estimates?
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
REVISED SEPA
ENVIRONMENTAL
CHECKLIST
(Integrated SEPA/GMA Process)
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.
(See Transportation Element)
g. Will the proposal interfere with, affect or be affected by the movement of
agricultural and forest products on roads or streets in the area? If so, generally
describe
The proposal is a non-project specific action and no known impacts will be made to
the movement of agricultural and forest products on roads and streets in the area.
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any:
The Transportation Element of the draft Comprehensive Plan provides guidance for
maintaining and improving the City’s transportation system. It includes level of
service standards and goals and policies intended to limit negative environmental
impacts and encourage walking, bicycling and transit use.
15. Public Services
a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire
protection, police protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If so,
generally describe.
The draft Comprehensive Plan does not result in an increased need for public services,
however as growth continues, it acknowledges it and incorporates goals and policies
to help provide for those services in an efficient manner.
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any.
The Capital Facilities Element addresses public schools, fire and police services,
parks, transportation, and potable water services. Future needs are based not only
upon the projected growth of the community, but also by maintaining level of
service standards to be provided by those facilities. 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 will need to codify policies and regulations through future updates to the
development regulations.
16. Utilities
a. Circle utilities currently available at the site:
REVISED SEPA
ENVIRONMENTAL
CHECKLIST
(Integrated SEPA/GMA Process)
electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic
system, other ___________
All services will be available per the policies and plans specified in the Utilities
Element of the Comprehensive Plan Update. The proposal to update the existing
Comprehensive Plan is a non-project proposal and, as such, does not affect a
specific site.
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the
service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate
vicinity which might be needed.
All services will be available per the policies and plans specified in the Utilities
Element of the Comprehensive Plan Update. The proposal to update the existing
Comprehensive Plan is a non-project proposal and, as such, does not affect a
specific site.
D. Supplemental sheet for nonproject actions 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; pro-
duction, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise?
The impacts could result from increased urban levels of development density or intensity.
The Moses Lake 2021 Comprehensive Plan calls for increased levels of development in
certain areas of the City to take advantage of existing infrastructure and to minimize
sprawl. The purpose of the subject amendments in conjunction with other City code
provisions is to enable this desired level of development to occur with provisions for
mitigation of environmental impacts as part of the development review and approval
process.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: The City’s draft Comprehensive Plan provides a policy framework that is intended to
protect water and air quality, minimize excessive noise, and prevent pollution such as
release of toxic substances. This proposed policy guidance is more progressive than the
previous Plan and will facilitate the implementation of new development code and master
plans which will result in a healthier environment for Moses Lake. Project level approval
will be conditioned in accordance with City review and appropriate additional
environmental analysis to be determined at the time of application. Other mitigation
measures will be identified and applied during the project review based on information
provided by the applicants and/or City-mandated analyses.
2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life?
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
REVISED SEPA
ENVIRONMENTAL
CHECKLIST
(Integrated SEPA/GMA Process)
growth in Moses Lake exceeds the rate of growth in both Grant County and Washington
State (Exhibit 3-1).
Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are:
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
will seek (through the goals and policies of the draft Comprehensive Plan) 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. In addition, 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.
3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? 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.
Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are:
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. Through
the adoption of the proposed Comprehensive Plan update, the City will 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. Included in the Comprehensive
Plan is Goal 3.7 which states, “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”.
REVISED SEPA
ENVIRONMENTAL
CHECKLIST
(Integrated SEPA/GMA Process)
4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or
areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks,
wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or
cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands?
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.
Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are:
The 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 goals and policies that
protect resources and reduce impact: Most notably in the proposed Comprehensive Plan is:
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
REVISED SEPA
ENVIRONMENTAL
CHECKLIST
(Integrated SEPA/GMA Process)
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.
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
REVISED SEPA
ENVIRONMENTAL
CHECKLIST
(Integrated SEPA/GMA Process)
consideration of physical health and well-being into the location and design of public
facilities
5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it
would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans?
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. 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.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are:
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. The proposed Comprehensive Plan outlines goals and
policies which will mitigate shoreline impacts. In addition, the City is currently updating its
Master Shoreline Plan and in the future create a Master Stormwater Plan.
6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public
services and utilities?
Although the Plan does not directly impact increase demand on transportation or public
services and utilities, projected growth does have an impact. 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). 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. 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
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.
REVISED SEPA
ENVIRONMENTAL
CHECKLIST
(Integrated SEPA/GMA Process)
Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are:
The Transportation Element gives the City an opportunity to plan for growth, to ensure
there is an efficient multimodal transportation system developed to meet the future needs
of the City. 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.
7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or
requirements for the protection of the environment.
Adoption of the proposed Comprehensive Plan will bring the City into compliance with the
State GMA.
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.
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
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
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
Laura Hodgson, Associate Planner, Growth Management Services
George Mazur, Regional Transportation Planner, WA Department of Transportation
November 2021
Prepared by:
BERK Consulting
MAKERS
Perteet
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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
Ch. 1 Introduction
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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;
Ch. 1 Introduction
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 1 Introduction
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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
Ch. 1 Introduction
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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,
Ch. 1 Introduction
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 1 Introduction
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 1 Introduction
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 1 Introduction
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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).
Ch. 1 Introduction
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 1 Introduction
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 1 Introduction
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 1 Introduction
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 1 Introduction
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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
Ch. 1 Introduction
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
November 2021
Prepared by:
BERK Consulting
MAKERS
Perteet
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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
Ch. 2 Vision
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 2 Vision
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 2 Vision
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
November 2021
Prepared by:
BERK Consulting
MAKERS
Perteet
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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
Ch. 3 Land Use
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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%
Ch. 3 Land Use
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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
Ch. 3 Land Use
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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).
Ch. 3 Land Use
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 3 Land Use
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 3 Land Use
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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
Ch. 3 Land Use
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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%
Ch. 3 Land Use
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 2021 3-9
Exhibit 3-9. Existing Land Use Map
Sources: City of Moses Lake, 2021; Grant County Assessor, 2021; BERK, 2021.
Ch. 3 Land Use
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 3 Land Use
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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
Ch. 3 Land Use
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 3 Land Use
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 3 Land Use
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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
Ch. 3 Land Use
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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
Ch. 3 Land Use
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 3 Land Use
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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
Ch. 3 Land Use
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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
Ch. 3 Land Use
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 3 Land Use
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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).
Ch. 3 Land Use
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 3 Land Use
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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
Ch. 3 Land Use
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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;
Ch. 3 Land Use
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 3 Land Use
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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
Ch. 3 Land Use
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 3 Land Use
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 3 Land Use
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 3 Land Use
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 2021 3-29
Exhibit 3-10. Future Land Use Map
Sources: City of Moses Lake, 2021; Grant County Assessor, 2021, BERK, 2021.
Ch. 3 Land Use
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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%
Ch. 3 Land Use
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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
Ch. 3 Land Use
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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
Ch. 3 Land Use
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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
Ch. 3 Land Use
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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,
Ch. 3 Land Use
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 3 Land Use
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 3 Land Use
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 3 Land Use
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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
November 2021
Prepared by:
BERK Consulting
MAKERS
Perteet
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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
Ch. 4 Housing
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 2021 4-2
Exhibit 4-1. Moses Lake Housing Strategy Implementation
Source: City of Moses Lake, 2021.
Ch. 4 Housing
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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%
Ch. 4 Housing
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 4 Housing
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 4 Housing
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
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
Ch. 4 Housing
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 2021 4-7
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.
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
Ch. 4 Housing
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 2021 4-8
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
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.
Ch. 4 Housing
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 2021 4-9
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
seasonal, recreational, or occasional use, and 30% are simply listed as other vacant.
Ch. 4 Housing
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 2021 4-10
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
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.
Ch. 4 Housing
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 2021 4-11
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.
Ch. 4 Housing
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 4 Housing
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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
Ch. 4 Housing
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 4 Housing
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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
Ch. 4 Housing
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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
Ch. 4 Housing
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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)
November 2021
Prepared by:
BERK Consulting
MAKERS
Perteet
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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
Ch. 5 Utilities
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 5 Utilities
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 5 Utilities
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 5 Utilities
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 2021 5-5
Exhibit 5-2. Moses Lake Sewer Infrastructure Map
Source: City of Moses Lake, 2020.
Ch. 5 Utilities
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 5 Utilities
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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:
Ch. 5 Utilities
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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
Ch. 5 Utilities
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 5 Utilities
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 2021 5-10
Exhibit 5-4. Moses Lake EPA Superfund Groundwater Contamination Area
Source: City of Moses Lake, 2020.
Ch. 5 Utilities
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 5 Utilities
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 5 Utilities
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 2021 5-13
Exhibit 5-5. Moses Lake Water Infrastructure Map
Source: City of Moses Lake, 2020.
Ch. 5 Utilities
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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
Ch. 5 Utilities
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 5 Utilities
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 5 Utilities
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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
Ch. 5 Utilities
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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;
Ch. 5 Utilities
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 5 Utilities
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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:
Ch. 5 Utilities
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 5 Utilities
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 5 Utilities
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 5 Utilities
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 5 Utilities
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 5 Utilities
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 5 Utilities
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 5 Utilities
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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)
November 2021
Prepared by:
BERK Consulting
MAKERS
Perteet
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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
Ch. 6 Transportation
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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:
Ch. 6 Transportation
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 6 Transportation
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 6 Transportation
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 2021 6-5
Exhibit 6-2. City Street Classifications.
Source: City of Moses Lake, 2021; Perteet, 2021.
Ch. 6 Transportation
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 6 Transportation
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 2021 6-7
Exhibit 6-3. Existing Active Transportation Facilities.
Source: City of Moses Lake, 2021; Perteet, 2021.
Ch. 6 Transportation
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 6 Transportation
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 6 Transportation
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 6 Transportation
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 6 Transportation
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 6 Transportation
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 6 Transportation
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 2021 6-14
Exhibit 6-6. Traffic Signal Controlled Intersection LOS.
Source: FHWA
Ch. 6 Transportation
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 6 Transportation
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 6 Transportation
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 6 Transportation
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 6 Transportation
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 6 Transportation
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 6 Transportation
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 6 Transportation
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 6 Transportation
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 6 Transportation
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 6 Transportation
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 2021 6-25
Exhibit 6-13. Map of Road System Improvement Projects
Source: Perteet, 2021.
Ch. 6 Transportation
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 6 Transportation
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 2021 6-27
Exhibit 6-14. Future Trails, Sidewalk Connections, and Bike Lanes
Source: City of Moses Lake, 2021; Perteet, 2021.
Ch. 6 Transportation
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 6 Transportation
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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
Ch. 6 Transportation
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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
Ch. 6 Transportation
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 6 Transportation
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 6 Transportation
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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
Ch. 6 Transportation
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 6 Transportation
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 2021 6-35
Exhibit 6-19. Map of Active Transportation System Improvement Projects
Sources: City of Moses Lake, 2021; Perteet, 2021.
Ch. 6 Transportation
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.”
Ch. 6 Transportation
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 6 Transportation
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 6 Transportation
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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
Ch. 6 Transportation
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 6 Transportation
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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
Ch. 6 Transportation
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 6 Transportation
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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
Ch. 6 Transportation
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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:
Ch. 6 Transportation
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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
Ch. 6 Transportation
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
November 2021
Prepared by:
BERK Consulting
MAKERS
Perteet
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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
Ch. 7 Capital Facilities
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 7 Capital Facilities
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 2021 7-3
Exhibit 7-1: Existing Public Facilities
Source: City of Moses Lake, 2020.
Ch. 7 Capital Facilities
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 7 Capital Facilities
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 7 Capital Facilities
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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)?
Ch. 7 Capital Facilities
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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
Ch. 7 Capital Facilities
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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
Ch. 7 Capital Facilities
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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
Ch. 7 Capital Facilities
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 7 Capital Facilities
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 7 Capital Facilities
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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
Ch. 7 Capital Facilities
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 7 Capital Facilities
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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).
Ch. 7 Capital Facilities
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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
Ch. 7 Capital Facilities
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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
Ch. 7 Capital Facilities
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 7 Capital Facilities
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 7 Capital Facilities
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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
Ch. 7 Capital Facilities
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 7 Capital Facilities
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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;
Ch. 7 Capital Facilities
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 7 Capital Facilities
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 7 Capital Facilities
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 7 Capital Facilities
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 7 Capital Facilities
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 7 Capital Facilities
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 7 Capital Facilities
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 7 Capital Facilities
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Ch. 7 Capital Facilities
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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
November 2021
Prepared by:
BERK Consulting
MAKERS
Perteet
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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
Appendix A. Proposed UGA Boundary Amendments
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Appendix A. Proposed UGA Boundary Amendments
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Appendix A. Proposed UGA Boundary Amendments
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 2021 A-4
Exhibit 3. Unincorporated UGA Subareas
Sources: City of Moses Lake, 2020; ESRI, 2020; BERK, 2021.
Appendix A. Proposed UGA Boundary Amendments
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 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.
Appendix A. Proposed UGA Boundary Amendments
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | November 2021 A-6
Exhibit 4. Potential UGA Boundary Amendments
Sources: City of Moses Lake, 2021; BERK, 2021.
MOSES LAKE HOUSING
ACTION PLAN
Contents
Exhibits
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.
Introduction
Document Outline
1. Housing Needs in Moses Lake
2. Housing Policy Review
3. Goals & Strategies
4. Implementation & Monitoring
Housing Needs in Moses Lake
Housing production is not keeping pace with
demand.
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
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%
Housing Policy Review
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
Goals & Strategies
Housing Action Plan Goals
Housing Action Plan Strategies
⚫
⚫ ⚫
⚫
⚫
⚫ ⚫
⚫
⚫ ⚫
⚫
Reduce minimum lot sizes in residential zones.
Increase allowed housing types in existing
zones.
Streamline permitting process.
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.
Implementation & Monitoring
Implementation
▪ ⚫
▪
▪
▪ ⚫
▪
▪ ⚫
▪
▪
⚫
▪ ⚫
▪
▪
▪
▪ ⚫
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪ ⚫
▪ ⚫
▪
▪ ⚫
▪ ⚫
▪
Key Performance Indicators
Appendices
A Housing Needs Assessment
B Public Engagement Summary
C Policy Review
Appendix A
Housing Needs Assessment
MOSES LAKE HOUSING NEEDS
ASSESSMENT
Contents
Exhibits
Summary of Key Findings
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.
Population Characteristics
Current and Future Population
Moses Lake is growing and aging.
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
▪
▪
▪
▪
Race, Ethnicity, and
Language
Households
Household Income
Household income brackets reveal disparities between White and Hispanic
households in Grant County.
Moses Lake households are roughly split between renters and owners, but renters
have lower incomes overall.
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.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Workforce Profile9
Travel to Work
Employment Projections
Housing Inventory
Housing Supply Characteristics
There is a mismatch between household size and housing unit size with existing
housing stock.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Housing Age and Production
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
Housing Affordability
Home Ownership
Rental Housing
Subsidized Housing
▪
▪
▪
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
Housing Choice and Diversity
Home Ownership
Rental Housing
Housing Needs by Income Level
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
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
Homelessness
Glossary
A Appendix A: Household Types
B Appendix B: Housing Affordability
Calculations
C Appendix C: Point in Time Estimates &
Students Experiencing Homelessness
Appendix B
Public Engagement Summary
Public Engagement Summary
Introduction
▪
▪
▪
▪
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
Concerns
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
Hopes and Desires
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
Important Topics for the HAP and Comprehensive Plan
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
Housing Market and Production
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
Employment
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
Equity
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
Environment and Parks
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
Transportation and Utilities
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
Appendix C
Policy Review
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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 Together
Comprehensive Plan Update 2021
Appendix: Capital Facilities Plan
November 2021
Prepared by:
BERK Consulting
MAKERS
Perteet
Prepared for:
City of Moses Lake
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
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
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 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 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 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 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 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 $329,000 for REET 1, which is annually adjusted for inflation
based on the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Price Index: U.S. City Average. REET 2
revenues are estimated to match REET 1 revenue projections from 2022 to 2038. See Exhibit 1.
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | Appendix: Capital Facilities Plan 6
Exhibit 1: Actual and Project Street Repair/Reconstruction Fund REET 1 & REET 2 Revenues
(2015-2038), YOE$
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 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 $15 per capita rate
and grow with the rate of population growth. Revenues are adjusted for inflation based on the U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Price Index: U.S. City Average. See Exhibit 3 for actual and
estimated grants and miscellaneous revenues for the Streets Repair/Reconstruction Fund from
2015 through 2038.
0.0 M
0.5 M
1.0 M
1.5 M
2.0 M
2.5 M
3.0 M
3.5 M Actual ProjectionsBudget
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | Appendix: Capital Facilities Plan 8
Exhibit 3: Actual and Projected Street Repair/Reconstruction Fund Grants and
Miscellaneous Revenues (2015-2038), YOE$
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 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 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 $130,000 annually from 2017 to 2019.
Collections for 2016 were unusually high and excluded from the average to be more conservative
for planning purposes.
This analysis leverages budgeted projections for mitigation fee revenues for 2020 and 2021.
Mitigation fee revenue projections after 2021 are based on average annual mitigation fee revenue
the City received from 2017 to 2019, which is annually adjusted for inflation based on the U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Price Index: U.S. City Average. See Exhibit 7 for actual and
estimated park mitigation fee revenues for the Park Mitigation Capital Fund from 2015 through
2038.
0.0 M
0.1 M
0.2 M
0.3 M
0.4 M
0.5 M
0.6 M
0.7 M
0.8 M Actual ProjectionsBudget
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | Appendix: Capital Facilities Plan 11
Exhibit 7. Actual and Projected Park Mitigation Capital Fund Park Mitigation Fees Revenues
(2015-2038), YOE$
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 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 $7,880,000 for the
Water/Sewer Construction Fund. These funds are also available to cover water/sewer capital costs
during the 2020-2038 time period.
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | Appendix: Capital Facilities Plan 13
Exhibit 10: Projected Water and Sewer Capital Revenues (2020-2038), YOE$
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) $475,000
1Inflation adjusted and will not match costs in the Capital Facilities Inventory, Demand, and Planned Project Lists section.
Sources: City of Moses Lake, 2021; Washington State Auditor’s Office Financial Intelligence Tool, 2017, BERK, 2021.
More information on specific Water/Sewer projects can be found in the Capital Facilities Inventory,
Demand, and Planned Project Lists section.
Six-Year Cost and Revenue Comparison
Total Capital Revenues
Exhibit 12 summarizes the projected total capital revenues available over the planning period,
including fund balances.
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | Appendix: Capital Facilities Plan 14
Exhibit 12: Projected Total Capital Revenues (2020-2038), 2021$
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 - $3,000,000 TBD
Sources: City of Moses Lake, 2021; BERK, 2021
Moses Lake Together – Creating Our Future | Appendix: Capital Facilities Plan 53
Capital Project Summary
Exhibit 41 shows consolidated 6-year and 20-year planned capital costs by facility/service
category. As shown in the preceding sections, cost estimates are not available for all anticipated
projects, particularly projects planned for the 2028-2038 period. As a result, estimated capital costs
shown for this period may not represent the full costs of future projects, and additional capital
planning efforts will be necessary over the coming years.
Exhibit 41: Total Estimated Capital Project Costs by Category, 2020$
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