Loading...
05132014 Part 2May 7, 2014 TO: City Manager for Council Consideration FROM: Community Development Director SUBJECT: Draft Shoreline Master Program -Public Hearing The Planning Commission, at their regular meeting on March 27th, considered the final Draft Shoreline Master Program (SMP) and made a recommendation to the City Council that the SMP be adopted. Included in the agenda is the SMP as presented to the Planning Commission and forwarded to the City Council. Planning Commission and staff have been working for some time on the issue of amending the existing SMP after the legislature adopted new guidelines that required cities and counties to adopt SMP's consistent with the new legislation governing shoreline management in Washington State. The beginning of numerous study sessions began November 2004. See attached list of study sessions. The Draft SMP as recommended by the Planning Commission is provided to the City Council for their review and consideration . It is the intent of staff to go through this large planning document with the Council after the Council has had a chance to read the SMP. This will provide for better interaction between Council and staff. It should be noted that in terms of timing , the Council cannot formally act on the SMP until their first meeting in July in order to comply with the 60-day notice of intent to adopt requi rements (RCW 36 .?0A.106/WAC 173-26-100(5)). Procedurally, the City Council will conduct a public hearing and prepare a responsive summary within the 60-day notice period and prior to SMP approval. A public hearing has been scheduled and the City Council should open the public hearing and take testimony on the Draft SMP. The Council may wish to consider keeping the public hearing open until their June 241h regular meeting. Respectfully submitted ~ Gilbert Alvarado Community Development Director GA:jt Page 1 of2 SEA Program Home > Shoreline Management Home > SMP Home> Shoreline Planners Toolbox > Phase 5 Phase 5: Local approval Task 5.1: Assemble complete draft SMP I Task 5.2: Complete SEPA review and documentation I Task 5.3: Provide Gr Management Act (GMA) 60-day notice o intent to adopt I Task 5.4: Hold public hearing I Task 5.5: Prepare a respons summary I Task 5.6: Approve SMP and submit to Ecology I Task 5.7: Demonstrate how Phase 5 complies with the Gt Each local government developing a new Shoreline Master Program (SMP) or amending an existing one must conduct and approval process as provided in the Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58) and Ecology's procedural rules (WA< II). Because the steps are the same for both new SMPs and amendments, and new SMPs are rare, the term "amendn here to refer to the materials being submitted to Ecology for state approval, whether they are for establishing a new : an existing one. The local government must submit a locally approved SMP amendment to Ecology for state review and approval. The in effect until the amendment is approved by Ecology. Local governments should work collaboratively with Ecology throughout their local SMP process. Close collaboration c. alignment of the local SMP with state requirements and save valuable time and resources once the SMP amendment i the state for approval. Task 5.1: Assemble complete draft SMP The local government must assemble a complete proposed SMP amendment and submit it to Ecology for informal rev approval, together with supporting documents (Tasks 5.6 and 5.7). The amendment shall include: 1. General goals, policies and regulations 2. Environment designations 3. Shoreline use and modifications policies, regulations and standards 4. Draft administrative provisions 5. A clear description of final SMP jurisdiction boundaries 6. Copies of any regulations or codes adopted by reference Local governments also must use a process to assure that proposed regulations and administrative actions do not uni infringe on private property rights. Please refer to State of Washington, Attorney General's Advisory Memorandum, ~ Unconstitutional Takings of Private Property. This process must be documented in the SMP Checklist. No other produc Ecology. Task 5.2 : Complete SEPA review and documentation Local governments should conduct and document SEPA review pursuant to chapter RCW 43.21C, the State EnvironmE Most local governments submit a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) or Mitigated Determination of Non-Signific Some local governments have prepared Environmental Impact Statements. T ask 5.3: Provide Growth Management Act (GMA) 60-day notice of intent to a Upon conclusion of Tasks 5.1 and 5.2, local governments planning under the GMA must notify Ecology and the Depart Commerce of its intent to submit a locally approved SMP amendment to Ecology as least 60 days in advance of final I pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106 and WAC 173-26-100(5). http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/shorelines/smp/toolbox/process/phase5.html 5/8/201 4 Page 2 of2 Task 5.4: Hold public hearing Local governments must hold at least one public hearing prior to local approval of the draft SMP, consistent with the 1 WAC 173-26-100. The names and mailing add resses of all interested parties providing comment shall be compiled. Le must publish notice of the hearing in one or more newspapers of general circulation in the area where the hearing is I Task 5.5: Prepare a responsiveness summary Prior to approval of the draft SMP by the local elected body (e.g. city council, county commissioners), the local goven prepare a summary responding to all comments received during the public hearing and the public comment period, di the draft SMP addresses the issues identified in each comment. Task 5.6: Approve SMP and submit to Ecology The local elected body must approve the draft SMP. Local governments should then assemble the complete draft SMP submit the locally-approved SMP and supporting documents to Ecology. Deliverables must include two hard copies an copy in Microsoft Word format of the following, with accompanying maps: 1. A complete, locally approved SMP including maps, with relevant supporting documentation (Tasks 5.1 and 5.7 2. SEPA products: checklist, MDNS or EIS; SEPA notice (Task 5.3) 3. Evidence of compliance with GMA notice requirements (Task 5.4) 4. Public hearing record (Task 5.5) 5. Response to comments received (Task 5.6) WAC 173-26-110 requires the following as part of the submittal package: • A signed resolution or ordinance documenting local approval of the submittal. • Specific text amending or replacing the existing master program. • Amended environment designation maps. • A summary of proposed amendments and explanation text, staff reports, records of hearing and other materic • Evidence of compliance with SEPA. • Copies of all public, agency and tribal comments received and a record of names and addresses of interested i in the local government process. Task 5. 7: Demonstrate how Phase 5 complies with the Guidelines Local governments must fill in the SMP Submittal Checklist for the tasks completed under Phase 5. Back to top or Go to Phase 6, State Approval Copyright © Washington State Department of Ecology. See http://www.ecy.wa.gov/copyright.html. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/shorelines/smp/toolbox/process/phase5.html 5/8/2014 Moses Lake, WA -Official Website t\OW 00 \...1 • l'v\O .,c,rAl <..orii -- Search ... Agendas & Minutes FAQs Forms & Documents Jobs Maps Phone Numbers Photo Contest Photo Gallery Surf 'n Slide Water Park I of2 http://cityofinl.com/Archive.aspx?AMID=76&Type=&ADID= GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS VJSll'O.R.S Home > Archive Center Shoreline Master Program Study Session Minutes All Archives ~ 12-12-13 Discussed changes to the Environment Designation map & including MLIRD work as mitigation for shoreline impacts IE 11-14-13 Discussed modifications to Shoreline Environment Designation map 1B 10-24-13 Discussed Revised Cumulative Impacts Analysis and Revised Recommendations 010-3-13 Discussed Cumulative Impacts Analysis & Recommendations with the consultant who prepared them lt:l 7-11-13 Discussed Cumulative Impacts Analysis 1B 6-21-13 Reviewed Dept. of Ecology comments on Planning Commission's draft SMP IE 5-30-13 Preliminary review of Dept. of Ecology comments on draft 1B 3-28-13 Discussed the Mitigation Appendix 0 3-14-13 Discussed changes to Environment Designation map IB .1.:1.0..:.U Discussed changes to the Mitigation Appendix 0 12-13-12 Edited Chapter 13, Definitions, & discussed the Mitigation Appendix It] 11-29-12 Discussed changes to Chapter 12, Administration & Compliance 1B 11-15-12 Discussed changes to Chapter 11, Shoreline Protection & Restoration 1B 10-25-12 Discussed changes to Chapter 9, Shoreline Environment Designations IE 2..:..U.:1l Discussed changes to Chapter 8, Shoreline Modification Policies & Regulations IE 8-14-12 Discussed changes to Chapter 7, Specific Shoreline Use Policies & Regulations IB 1-19-12 Discussed changes to Chapter 7, Specific Shoreline Use Policies & Regulations IB 6-28-12 Discussion with Department of Ecology representative IE 5-10-12 Discussion of the City of Sammamish SMP IE 4-11-12 Discussion of changes to Chapter 6, General Policies & Regulations 1B 3-28-12 Discussion of changes to Chapter 6, General Policies & Regulations IB l.:.15.:.ll Discussion of changes to Chapter 5, Goals, & Chapter 6, General Policies & Regulations !El 3-12-12 5/8/2014 11:35 AM Moses Lake, WA -Official Website http://cityofinl.com'Archive.aspx?AMID=76&Type=&ADID= 2of2 Discussion of Chapter 1, Introduction, & Chapter 2, Public Participation IB 1-21-11 Discussion with Department of Ecology representative 1E14-6-06 Discussion of Chapter 9, Environment Designations, & Chapter 11, Shoreline Protection & Restoration 1B 3-30-06 Discussion of Chapter 8, Shoreline Modifications, & Chapter 9, Shoreline Environment Designations ltl 3-22-06 Discussion of Chapter 7, Specific Uses, & Chapter 8, Shoreline Modifications (ti 3-15-06 Discussion of Chapter 6, General Policies & Regulations, & Chapter 7, Specific Shoreline Use Policies & Regulations lfil 3-8-06 Discussion of Chapter 6, General Policies & Regulations 1E112-1-05 Discussion of shoreline environment designations (;g 11-17-05 Discussion of shoreline environment designations !El 6-30-05 Presentation of inventory & analysis, discussion of shoreline environment designation process (;g 12-2-04 Discussion of general policies It) 11-18-04 Discussion of general policies 1B 11-10-04 Discussion of general policies 1B 11-8-04 Discussion of general policies (;g 11-4-04 Discussion of goals 401 S, Balsam I P.O, Box 1579 • Home Copyright Notices Print Page Employees Powered by CivicPlus Moses Lake, WA 98837 I Ph: (509) 764-3701 Accessibility Sitemap Email Page Mobile Site 5/8/2014 11:35 AM PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION -SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM November 4, 2004 -7 p.m. Commissioners Present: Bob Bernd, Henry Wood, Jim Liebrecht, Tor Hartman, Rick Penhallurick, Dean Kastanis, and Todd Lengenfelder Absent: Yvonne Parker Staff Present: Anne Henning, Lori Barlow, and Judy Thompson The study session was called in order to discuss the Shoreline Master Program. Anne Henning, Associate Planner, distributed an Introduction to Washington's Shoreline Management Act, a draft outline of the Shoreline Master Program, proposed goals for the Shoreline Master Program, and a draft of general policies. Ms. Henning stated that the waters of the lake belong to all residents of the state and need to be regulated for the benefit of everyone. The city adopted its Shoreline Master Plan in 197 4 and the last update was in 1988. The existing Shoreline Master Plan is outdated. It needs to be updated and integrated with the Comprehensive Plan. She mentioned that the new state guidelines indicate that there is to be no net loss of shoreline function. This will require consideration of the cumulative effect of shoreline development. There was considerable discussion concerning the fact that shoreline development is only one aspect of water quality and how the city can reconcile no net loss of shoreline function along the lake shore with activities taking place in the lake that affect the lake shore. Ms. Henning pointed out that water quality is a concern of the Department of Ecology and is being looked at through other programs. She mentioned that shoreline planning is partly the responsibility of the city and partly the responsibility of the state. The state determines the end result and leaves it up to the local jurisdictions to provide the means to achieve that result. Lori Barlow, Associate Planner, pointed out that the new shoreline master program will be a tool that will make it easier for staff and the Planning Commission to inform property owners what type of development can be constructed or is encouraged along the lake shore. Sandra Strieby, of Highlands and Associates, stated that she will draft the plan, taking into account the local concerns and interests. She mentioned that Central Washington University has completed the inventory and is in the process of analyzing the information. When the analysis is completed, the information will be used to determine the current state of the lake. There is not requirement to return the lake to a pristine condition, but the current state should be maintained or, if possible, improved. Since the Department of Ecology must approve the final plan, she is keeping them informed and providing them with drafts. The work that was done by the city's Shoreline Advisory Committee was the starting point for the current draft. Ms. Henning pointed out that the goals from the Committee were three pages long. Those goals have been condensed and some of them have been moved to the policy section of the new plan. She mentioned that the proposed Economic Development Policies, the Critical Areas Policies 1 and 2, the Wetlands Policies, the Aquifer Recharge Areas Policies, the Frequently Flooded Areas Policies, the Geologically Hazardous Areas Policies, and the Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Policies are new; the Archaeological and Historic Resources Policies, the Environmental Impacts and Water Quality Policies, the Critical Areas Polices 3, 4, and 5, the Parking Policies, the Public Access Policies, the Signage Policies, the Utilities Policies, and the Vegetation Conservation Policies are the same as proposed by the Committee. The Commission reviewed the draft goals as follows: Economic Development Goal: Provide for economically productive industrial and commercial uses that are particularly dependent on shoreline location or use and that will support the local economy and foster healthy, orderly economic growth. No changes Public Access Goal: Provide, protect, and enhance physical and visual public access to shorelines, the waters they encompass, and adjacent shoreline areas, consistent with the natural character, features, and resources of the shoreline, provide property rights, and the public safety. No changes Recreation Goal: Provide for the preservation and enlargement of public and private recreational use of shorelines and the waters they encompass for both active and passive recreation in areas that will be able to accommodate such uses now and in the future without net loss of shoreline functions, and where recreational use is compatible with adjacent uses. No changes Circulation Goal: A safe, reasonable, and adequate circulation system, including major thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals, and other public utilities and facilities, correlated with existing and planned land use patterns and designed to have the least possible adverse effect on shoreline resources , including unique or fragile shoreline features, existing ecological systems, public access, and visual resources; and where feasible to contribute to the functional and visual enhancement of those resources. Change as follows: Circulation Transportation Goal: A safe, reasonable, and adequate traffic circulation system, including fl'lajor thoroughfares, transportation routes, terfl'linals, arid other public utilities and facilities, correlated ·with existirig and plarineel land use patterns and designed to have the least possible adverse effect on shoreline resources, including urii~ue or fragile shoreline features, existiRg ecological s~tefl'ls, public access, and visual resources; and where feasible contribute to the functional and visual enhancement of those resources. Shoreline Use Goal: Provide for reasonable and appropriate use of shoreline and adjacent land areas while protecting against adverse effects to the public health, the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the waters of the state and their aquatic life; minimizing damage to the ecology, environment, and other resources of the shoreline area; minimizing any interference with the public's use of the water, and recognizing and protecting private property rights consistent with the public interest. There was some discussion and the Commission felt this was confusing, unnecessary, and should be eliminated, since the Master Program addresses shoreline use. Whatever this goal was intended to address should be addressed in the other goals. The consensus was that this goal should be eliminated. Shorelifle Use Goal: Provide for reasonable and appropriate use of shorelirie Md adjaeeRt laAd aFeas while pmtectiAg agaiAst adveFse effects to the public health, the laAd aAd its vegetatioA aAd ·ovildlif-e, aAd the wateFs of the state aAd their aquatic life; miAimiziAg damage to the ecology, eAviroAmeAt, aAd other resources of the shoreline area; miAimizing aAy inteff-ereAce with the public's use of the water, aAd recognizing and protecting private pmperty Fights consisteAt with the public interest. Conservation Goal: Preservation and restoration of natural resources of shorelines and the waters they encompass, and protection of those resources against adverse impacts, including loss of ecological functions necessary to sustain the natural resources. Natural resources include but are not limited to scenic vistas and other natural aesthetic resources, fish and wildlife habitat, including shoreline vegetation and wetlands associated with shorelines, soils, (add to this list as appropriate based on inventory and analysis). There was some discussion and it was felt that "natural resources" could be included in the definitions rather than listed in this goal. Conservation Goal: Preservation and restoration of natural resources of shorelines and the waters they encompass, and protection of those resources against adverse impacts, including loss of ecological functions necessary to sustain the natural resources. Natural resources include but aFe not limited to sceAic vistas and other AatuFal aesthetic resouFces, fish aAd ·wildlif-e habitat, including shoreline vegetation and wetlands associated with shorelines, soils, (add to this list as appmpFiate based on irwentory and analysis). Historic, Cultural, Scientific. and Educational Goal: Identify, protect, and restore important archaeological, historical, and cultural structures, sites, and areas and other resources having historic, cultural, or educational values that are located in the shorelands of the state for educational, scientific, and enjoyment uses of the general public. There was some discussion and the Commission did not feel that restoration of a site should be required . Historic, Cultural. Scientific. and Educational Goal: Identify and protect and restore important archaeological, historiGal, and cultural structures, sites, and areas and other resources having historic, cultural, or educational values that are located in the state shoreline area for educational, scientific, and enjoyment uses of the general public. Flood Protection Goal: Minimize flood damage in shoreline areas and associated waters, including damage resulting from actions outside shoreline areas. No changes. The next study session was set for Monday, November 8, 2004 at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers. The study session was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. COVE WEST HOMEOWNERS AssocIATION April, 25, 2014 City Of Moses Lake City Council P.O. Box 1579 Moseslake,\NA 98837 Re: Cove \Nest HOA/Blue Herron Park Trail Dear Council Members, Received MAY O ;~ 2014 Administration City of Moses Lake On behalf of the Homeowners of Cove \Nest we respectfully ask to be added to your yupcoming May 13, 2014 Council Agenda so as to discuss the proposed Blue Herron Trail. \Ne look forward to meeting with you. Sincerely, /~-;;; ~ -c::__ ~ Tom Jones, Prest en (509)750-7301 Sophia Guerrero From: Sent: Jeff Ketchel <jketchel@granthealth.org> Monday, May 5, 2014 11 :41 AM To: Sophia Guerrero Subject: May 13 City Council Agenda Request Sophia, I would like to come to the May 13 City Council meeting to present the 2014 Grant County Community Health Assessment. I will need 15 minutes. Thanks, Jeff Jefferson Ketchel, MA RS Administrator -Grant County Health District PO Box 37 Ephrata, WA 98823 jketchel@granthealth.org (509} 754-6060, ext 26 -FAX (509) 754-0941 http://www.granthealth.org/ Grant Public Health -"Always Working for a Safer and Healthier Grant County" CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited and may be a violation of law. If you are not the intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering this message to an intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. This e-mail may be considered subject to the Public Records Act and as such may be disclosed by Grant County Health District to a third-party requestor. 1 May 8, 2014 TO: City Manager for Council Consideration FROM : Community Development Director SUBJECT: Ord . -amend 18.55 -Home Occupations - 1st Reading The Planning Commission, at their April 24th meeting, considered a request from Chris Rogers to amend the general requirements of MLMC 18.55, Home Occupations. Mr. Rogers proposed that the general requirements of MLMC18.55.040(8) be amended to allow a home occupation within a detached structure and not confine a home occupation to only within the residence and/or attached garage. Mr. Rogers also asked that the Commission consider amending the sign size limitation for a building sign associated with a home occupation. See attached letter. After discussion of the proposed amendments, the Planning Commission passed a motion to recommend to the City Council that MLMC 18.55.040(8) , General Requirements, be amended to allow a home occupation to occupy a detached structure. Attached is an ordinance that amends MLMC 18.55.040(8) to allow home occupations to occupy a detached structure. The ordinance is presented for Council consideration. The Council may to consider the ordinance and approve, modify or deny the ordinance. This is the first reading of the ordinance. Respectfully submitted Vil« Gilbert Alvarado Community Development Director GA:jt ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18.55 OF THE MOSES LAKE MUNICIPAL CODE ENTITLED "HOME OCCUPATIONS" THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOSES LAKE, WASHINGTON ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 18.55 of the Moses Lake Municipal Code entitled "Home Occupations" is amended as follows: 18.55.040 General Requirements: The general requirements for a home occupation are as follows: A. There shall be no structural alteration to accommodate the occupation. Entrance to the space devoted to the occupation shall be frorh within the residence, except when otherwise required by law. 8. The use, including all storage space, shall not occupy more than two hundred (200) square feet of the residence or accessory structure. 's floor area wl9icl9 is fiflisl9ed for liviflg puFposes ifleludiflg afl attacl9ed gaFage. No 19ome occupatiofl sl9all occupy afl accessory buildiflg or a detacl9ed gaFage. C. No home occupation shall have any outside storage of goods and materials associated with the home occupation. D. Only members of the family who reside on the premises and in any case no more than three (3) persons in any dwelling unit shall be engaged in the occupation(s). E. There shall be no window display nor shall sample commodities be displayed outside the building. F. Home Occupation Signs: 1. Signs identifying home occupations which are unlighted, placed flat against the structure, and which do not exceed two (2) square feet in size are permitted in the R-2 Zone, Single Family and Two Family Residential, and the R-3 Zone, Multi-family Residential. 2. Signs identifying home occupations located in the R-1 Zone, Single Family Residential, are prohibited except as required by law. Such signs, if allowed , shall not exceed two (2) square feet in size except as may be allowed by this chapter. 3. Signs identifying home occupations may be permitted to exceed two (2) square feet in size subject to the review and approval of the Planning Commission and after it has been shown that the sign will not adversely affect adjacent residential uses and that the extra size is essential to the sign being seen. G. No material or mechanical equipment shall be used which will be detrimental to the residential use of the residence or adjoining residences because of vibration, noise, dust, smoke, odor, interference with radio or television reception, or other factor. H. Materials or commodities delivered to or from the residence which are of such bulk or quantity as to require delivery by a commercial vehicle or a trailer, or the parking of customer's automobiles in a manner or frequency causing disturbance or inconvenience to nearby res idences or so as to necessitate a public parking lot shall be prima-facie evidence that the occupation is a primary business, and not a home occupation. I. Examples of uses or occupations which might normally satisfy the criteria of this section are: barbers, "bed and breakfast" facilities, custom florists, beauticians, professional service providers, dressmakers, photographers, home canners, watch repairers, licensed massage therapists, taxicab businesses with single vehicle service, and other similar uses. J. The following shall not be deemed permissible uses or home occupations: nursing homes, massage parlors, woodworking and cabinet shops, household appliance, furniture and electronic equipment repair shops, fumigation services shops, upholstering shops, car repair shops, small engine repair shops, taxi businesses with more than single vehicle service, and other uses deemed as "similar" by the Community Development Director or other similar position or a designee. K. A home occupation issued to one person shall not be transferable to any other person nor shall a home occupation permit be valid at any address other than the one appearing on the permit. L. Any person engaging in a home occupation shall register as a business under Chapter 3.16 of this code. Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) days after its passage and publication of its summary as provided by law. Adopted by the City Council and signed by its Mayor on Dick Deane, Mayor ATTEST: W. Robert Taylor, Finance Director APPROVED AS TO FORM: Katherine L. Kenison, City Attorney Anne Henning From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Chris Rogers [finishlineinstallations@gmail.com] Thursday, April 10, 2014 4:36 PM Ahenning@cityofml.com Finishline Installations Requesting Sign Waiver shop-sign 1 .jpg; shop-sign2.jpg; shop-sign 3.jpg; shop-sign 4.jpg To: The Moses Lake Planning Commission, I'm Chris Rogers, the Owner of Finishline Installations, I install Ignition Interlock Devices. I have recently relocated my business from an industrial area on Citation Road to my residence on 1152 W. Market Street due to expenses. I kept my business sign that my father-in-law and I had paid over $500.00 for. I have been displaying it at my current business location at my residence. But after reviewing Chapter 18.55 -Home Occupation Businesses, of the Moses Lake City Ordinance, I discovered that any sign displayed could only be two square feet in diameter. I'm requesting a waiver to this ordinance or a special permit that would allow me to continue to display my sign on the garage where the business is. The garage is located on the back alley which faces Highway 17 off Market Street. This would allow clients coming to my shop to locate it. My signs dimensions are 3' x 6' as seen in the attached photos. The sign can only be seen when in the alley. There were concerns of the sign possibly being seen from Highway 17, but as you can see from the photos it is only visible if you were heading southbound in the right outside lane and was looking down over the 30 plus foot embankment and looking for it. Otherwise it is not visible from anywhere except the alley way. The reasons I'm making this request is that my customers have a hard enough time finding my shop from the back alley even when given detailed directions, and It is a very expensive sign not to utilize. I'm respectfully requesting the Moses Lake Planning Commission to please let me keep my sign up as it has been a tremendous help for my new and existing customers in locating me. I have attached photos of different views and angles of the signs' location. One photo is of the sign its self. One is from the top of the highway looking down towards the sign. Another is the location of the sign on the shop looking at the highway embankment, and the last is looking southbound down the alley. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Chris Rogers 1152 Market Street (509)607-7983 1 Attachment 1 Sections: 18.55.010 Intent 18.55.020 Definition CHAPTER 18.55 HOME OCCUPATIONS 18.55.030 Application for Home Occupation Uses and Appeals 18.55.040 General Requirements 18.55.050 Notification CITY OF MOSES LAKE MUNICIPAL CODE 18.55.010 Intent: It is the purpose of this ordinance to protect residential areas from potential adverse impacts as a result of activities which may be deemed commercial in nature. It is also the purpose of this ordinance to permit residents of the community a reasonable use of their residence as a place of livelihood and/or for the supplementing of personal/family income. (Ord. 2144, 12/9/03; Ord. 1568, 1993) 18.55.020 Definition: A home occupation means any endeavor conducted for financial gain or profit in a dwelling unit where the endeavor is not generally characteristic of activities for which dwelling units are intended or designed, provided, that endeavors where the only activities include the receipt of mail, the use of a telephone, the occasional commercial delivery of goods and materials not inconsistent with such deliveries in residential neighborhoods, and occasional vehicular traffic not inconsistent with such vehicular traffic in residential neighborhoods, are not considered home occupations subject to permitting requirements under this title. To be defined as a home occupation, the occupation or activity: A. Must be carried on entirely within a residence by the occupants. B. Must be clearly incidental to the use of the residence as a dwelling. C. Must not change the residential character of the dwelling. D. Must be conducted in such a manner as to not give any outward appearance nor manifest any characteristic of a business in the ordinary meaning of the term. E. Must not infringe upon the right of the neighboring residents to enjoy a peaceful occupancy of their homes for which purpose the residential zone was created and primarily intended. An occupation which does not meet this definition or which is incapable of or does not comply with the general requirements of this ordinance shall not be deemed a home occupation. (Ord. 2144, 12/9/03; Ord. 1568, 1993) 18.55.030 Application for Home Occupation Uses and Appeals: An application for a home occupation use shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for consideration. The application shall be reviewed by the Community Development Director or other similar position or a designee. Such uses may be permitted by the Community Development Director or the individual designated to review the applications subject to the provisions of this chapter. Any party aggrieved by a decision rendered by the Community Development Director or other individual reviewing the application may appeal the decision to the Planning Commission, subject to the provisions of MLMC Chapter20.11. (Ord. 2144, 12/9/03; Ord. 1946, 5/9/00; Ord.1568, 1993) 18.55.040 General Requirements: The general requirements for a home occupation are as follows: A. There shall be no structural alteration to accommodate the occupation. Entrance to the space devoted to the occupation shall be from within the residence, except when otherwise required bylaw. B. The use, including all storage space, shall not occupy more than two hundred (200) square feet of the residence's floor area which is finished for living purposes including an attached garage. No home occupation shall occupy an accessory building or a detached garage. C. No home occupation shall have any outside storage of goods and materials associated with the home occupation. 111 (12/10) Attachment 3 CITY OF MOSES LAKE MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 18.55-HOME OCCUPATIONS D. Only members of the family who reside on the premises and in any case no more than three (3) persons in any dwelling unit shall be engaged in the occupation(s). E. There shall be no window display nor shall sample commodities be displayed outside the building. F. Home Occupation Signs: 1. Signs identifying home occupations which are unlighted, placed flat against the structure, and which do not exceed two (2) square feet in size are permitted in the R-2 Zone, Single Family and Two Family Residential, and the R-3 Zone, Multi-family Residential. 2. Signs identifying home occupations located in the R-1 Zone, Single Family Residential, are prohibited except as required by law. Such signs, if allowed, shall not exceed two (2) square feet in size except as may be allowed by this chapter. 3. Signs identifying home occupations may be permitted to exceed two (2) square feet in size subject to the review and approval of the Planning Commission and after it has been shown that the sign will not adversely affect adjacent residential uses and that the extra size is essential to the sign being seen. G. No material or mechanical equipment shall be used which will be detrimental to the residential use of the residence or adjoining residences because of vibration, noise, dust, smoke, odor, interference with radio or television reception, or other factor. H. Materials or commodities delivered to or from the residence which are of such bulk or quantity as to require delivery by a commercial vehicle or a trailer, or the parking of customer's automobiles in a manner or frequency causing disturbance or inconvenience to nearby residences or so as to necessitate a public parking lot shall be prima-facie evidence that the occupation is a primary business, and not a home occupation. I. Examples of uses or occupations which might normally satisfy the criteria of this section are: barbers, "bed and breakfast" facilities, custom florists, beauticians, professional service providers, dressmakers, photographers, home canners, watch repairers, licensed massage therapists, taxicab businesses with single vehicle service, and other similar uses. J. The following shall not be deemed permissible uses or home occupations: nursing homes, massage parlors, woodworking and cabinet shops, household appliance, furniture and electronic equipment repair shops, fumigation services shops, upholstering shops, car repair shops, small engine repair shops, taxi businesses with more than single vehicle service, and other uses deemed as "similar" by the Community Development Director or other similar position or a designee. K. A home occupation issued to one person shall not be transferable to any other person nor shall a home occupation permit be valid at any address other than the one appearing on the permit. L. Any person engaging in a home occupation shall register as a business under Chapter 3.16 of this code. (Ord. 2595, 12/14/10; Ord. 2144, 12/9/03; Ord. 1994, 11/14/00; Ord. 1946, 5/9/00; Ord. 1590, 1993; Ord. 1568, 1993) 18.55.050 Notification: Application for a home occupation use shall require notification to adjacent property owners of the proposed use. Notification shall be provided at least ten ( 10) days before a decision is to be made on the application. Written or oral comments should be provided to the Community Development Director or other individual reviewing an application before the decision is to be made on the application. Adjacent property owners shall also be notified of any appeal scheduled before the Planning Commission. A notice of the action before the Planning Commission shall be mailed to adjacent property owners at least ten (10) days prior to the scheduled appeal. (Ord. 2144, 12/9/03; Ord. 1946, 5/9/00; Ord. 1568, 1993) 112 (12/10) Attachment 3 April 14th, 2014 TO: City Manager for Council Consideration FROM: Chief of Police SUBJECT: Acceptance of Donation from Covenant Church Attached for Council approval is a resolution accepting donation from the Moses Lake Covenant Church in the amount of $156.00. These monies are to be used to offset costs for this year's National Night Out event. The Moses Lake Police Department would like to thank Pastor Jeff Wallace and the Covenant Church for their continued donation and support. · Respectively submitted, ses Lake Police Department Attachment: Resolution RECITALS: RESOLUTION NO. 3438 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A CASH DONATION OF $156 FROM THE MOSES LAKE COVENANT CHURCH 1. The Moses Lake Covenant Church has donated one hundred fifty six dollars ($156) to the City of Moses Lake. The funds will be used to offset the costs of the 2014 National Night Out event. RESOLVED: 1. The City of Moses Lake accepts the $156 donation. 2. The City of Moses Lake wishes to express its sincere appreciation to the Moses Lake Covenant Church. Adopted by the City Council on May 13, 2014. Dick Deane, Mayor ATTEST: W. Robert Taylor, Finance Director April 29, 2014 CITY OF MOSES LAKE Phone: (509) 766-9214 TO: City Manager for Council Consideration FROM: Chief of Police SUBJECT: Acceptance of a Grant from Wal Mart Foundation Attached for Council approval is a resolution accepting a grant from the Wal Mart Foundation in the amount of $1,200.00 These monies are to be used for the purchase of crime prevention materials that we can share with the public. The Moses Lake Police Department would like to thank Wal Mart for their continued support. Respectively submitted, Moses Lake Police Department Attachment: Resolution City Manager 766-9201 • City Attorne1 766-9203 • Community Development 766·9235 • Finance Department 766-9249 • Fax 766-9392 Fire Department 765-2204 • Municipal SerVice 766-9217 · Municipal Court 766-9201 · Parks & Recreation 766-9240 • Police Department 766-9230 RESOLUTION NO. 3439 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A GRANT FROM WAL MART FOUNDATION Recitals: 1. Wal Mart Foundation has given a $1 ,200 grant to the Moses Lake Police Department. 2. The funds are to be used for the purchase of crime prevention materials to be shared with the public. Resolved: 1. That the $1,200 grant is accepted. 2. The City of Moses Lake wishes to express its sincere appreciation to Wal Mart Foundation. Adopted by the City Council on May 13, 2014. Dick Deane, Mayor ATTEST: W. Robert Taylor, Finance Director M E To: From: Date: Subject: M 0 R A N D City Manager for Council Consideration Fire Chief April 28, 2014 Resolution to Accept Grant u M Attached is a resolution for council consideration to accept a $2,050.00 grant from Wal Mart. These funds will be used for fire prevention and education activities. We would like to thank Wal Mart for this generous donation. Respectfully Submitted, l\ \,L--- Tom Taylor J Fire Chief RESOLUTION NO. 3440 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A GRANT FROM WAL MART Recitals: 1. Walmart has given a $2,050 grant to the Moses Lake Fire Department. 2. The funds are to be used for fire prevention and education activities. Resolved: 1. That the $2,050 grant is accepted. 2. The City of Moses Lake wishes to express its sincere appreciation to Wal Mart. Adopted by the City Council on May 13, 2014. Dick Deane, Mayor ATTEST: W. Robert Taylor, Finance Director STANDARD & PO OR'S RATINGS SERVICES McGRAW HILL FINANCIAL RatingsDirect® Summary: Moses Lake , Washington; General Obligation Primary Credit Analyst: Chris Morgan, San Francisco (1) 415-371-5032; chris.morgan@standardandpoors.com Secondary Contact: Lisa R Schroeer, Charlottesville ( 1) 434-220-0892; lisa.schroeer@standardandpoors.com Table Of Contents Rationale Outlook Related Criteria And Research WWW.ST ANDARDANDPOORS.COM/RA TINGSDIRECT APRJL 28, 2014 1 1305457 I 300187765 Summary: Moses Lake, Washington; General Obligation Credit Profile Moses Lake GO Long Term Rating Moses Lake GO Unenhanced Rating Many issues are enhanced by bond insurance. Rationale A+/Stable Upgraded A+(SPUR)/Stable Upgraded Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised its long-term rating and underlying rating (SPUR) to 'A+' from 'A' on Moses Lake, Wash.'s general obligation (GO) debt based on the application ofour local GO criteria released Sept. 12, 2013. The outlook is stable. The bonds are secured by the city's full faith and credit, including the obligation to levy ad valorem taxes subject to statutory limitations that include a revenue growth limitation of 1 % per year (excluding new construction) and a levy rate cap. The rating reflects our view of the following factors for the city: • We consider Moses Lake's economy to be adequate, with a projected 2018 per capita effective buying income at 91 % of the U.S. level and 2014 per capita market value of $109, 700. The city is located in Eastern Washington along the state's main east-west highway and adjacent to a lake that serves as a regional tourist draw. The county unemployment rate for 2013 was 8.8%. • Low-cost electricity has been a significant influence on local economic performance, in our view, with the city adding major investments in manufacturing facilities for silicon products and carbon fiber auto parts. The largest taxpayer, REC Silicon, completed a major expansion in 2009 that contributed to a rise in the city's tax base and property tax revenue in 2010, but its appeals of its assessed value (AV) have contributed to noticeable fluctuations in the city's total AV and property tax revenue. Most significant, in our view, was when the county lowered REC Silicon's AV by 55% in 2013 pending a formal appeal of its valuation, although the county subsequently raised the taxpayer's value by 67% for 2014. We understand that REC Silicon and the county have reached a tentative agreement on this taxpayer's AV through 2012, and that the values of REC Silicon's holdings affecting collection years 2013 and 2014 are under appeal. The 10 largest taxpayers made up 31 % of total AV in 2013, and we anticipate that this ratio could exceed 35% for 2014 but will likely remain less than 45% for the foreseeable future unless the appeal process results in a significantly higher valuation. • In our opinion, the city's budgetary flexibility is adequate, with available reserves at $2.2 million, or 10.6% of adjusted expenditures, for 2012, up from 3 .3% at the end of 2011. This increase was partly the result of transfers of $1.9 million to the general fund from the water fund that we understand represented the city's imposition of an in-lieu fee to partly offset property tax revenue losses that year. (Management reports that that city repeated this transfer at a much smaller $500,000 for 2013 and has budgeted for $450,000 for 2014.) The city's 2013 actual results WWW.STANDARDANDPOORS.COM/RATINGSDIRECT APRIL 28, 2014 2 1305457 I 3001s115s Summary: Moses Lake, Washington; General Obligation and 2014 budget, which are produced on a cash basis of accounting, show declines to 9.1 % of adjusted expenditures for 2013 and 3.6% for 2014, reflecting, in part, revenue losses associated with lowered valuations of the city's largest taxpayer. • The city's budgetary performance is adequate, in our view. Inclusive of our analytic adjustments to remove certain one-time effects on operations and to treat recurring transfers-out as expenditures, we calculate a 1.2% general fund operating surplus for 2012, the first collection year in which the county used a lower valuation for the city's largest taxpayer. Total governmental funds operations were balanced, with a modest 0.2% of surplus in 2012. We calculate that the city's general fund experienced a major weakening in performance for 2013 (unaudited) on a cash basis of accounting, to negative 11.4% of adjusted expenditures. We believe that this was due largely to a one-time property tax rebate and lowered valuation for the city's largest taxpayer, which significantly lowered property tax revenue. Performance for 2014 appears poised to improve, with the general fund deficit narrowing to 1.4% of adjusted expenditures and total governmental funds positive, at 6.1 % of expenditures. • Supporting the city's finances is liquidity that we consider very strong, with total government available cash at 67% of total governmental funds expenditures and more than 18x annual debt service for 2012. We believe the city has strong access to external liquidity, with its latest GO issuance in 2012. • We view the city's management conditions adequate. Informing this opinion is our "standard" financial management assessment (FMA) score for the city, indicating our view that finance department maintains adequate policies in some but not all key areas. We revised our assessment to "standard" from "good" because of the cessation of the city's practice of preparing multiyear financial projections. • In our opinion, the city's debt and contingent liability profile is very strong, with 2012 total governmental funds debt service at 3. 7% of total governmental fund expenditures. Net direct debt was 54% of total governmental funds revenue in 2013. The city's overall net debt is a low 1. 7% of market value, in our view. • The city and its employees participate in the State Public Employees Retirement System and the Law Enforcement Officers and Fire Fighters Retirement System. The city's contribution to its pension and other postemployment benefit plans totaled 4.7% of total governmental expenditures in 2012. • We consider the Institutional Framework score for Washington cities adequate. Outlook The stable outlook reflects our view that the city's audited 2013 financial statement is likely to show negative general fund performance and that its available general fund balance is likely to continue to weaken in 2014 unless the property tax appeal case concludes strongly in the city's favor or the city revises its operations midyear. Although we view as a credit strength the city's demonstrated willingness to adjust revenue through an in-lieu fee on its water system in 2012, we could lower our rating during our two-year outlook horizon if further negative financial performance causes the city's financial position to significantly weaken. We do not anticipate raising our rating during the next two years because of our view of the city's economic characteristics and uneven financial performance. Related Criteria And Research Related Criteria USPF Criteria: Local Government GO Ratings Methodology And Assumptions, Sept. 12, 2013 WWW.STANDARDANDPOORS.COM/RATINGSDIRECT APRIL 28, 2014 3 1305457 I 3001s7765 Summary: Moses Lake, Washington; General Obligation Related Research S&P Public Finance Local GO Criteria: How We Adjust Data For Analytic Consistency, Sept. 12, 2013 Complete ratings information is available to subscribers of RatingsDirect at www.globalcreditportal.com. All ratings affected by this rating action can be found on Standard & Poor's public Web site at www.standardandpoors.com. Use the Ratings search box located in the left column. WWW.STANDARDANDPOORS.COM/RATINGSDIRECT APRIL 28, 2014 4 1305~57 ! 300137765 Copyright © 2014 Standard & Poor's Financial Services LLC, a part of McGraw Hill Financial. All rights reserved. No content {including ratings, credit-related analyses and data, valuations, model, software or other application or output therefrom) or any part thereof (Content) may be modified, reverse engineered, reproduced or distributed in any form by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of Standard & Poor's Financial Services LLC or its affiliates (collectively, S&P). The Content shall not be used for any unlawful or unauthorized purposes. S&P and any third-party providers, as well as their directors, officers, shareholders. employees or agents (collectively S&P Parties) do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, timeliness or availability of the Content. S&P Parties are not responsible for any errors or omissions (negligent or otherwise), regardless of the cause, for the results obtained from the use of the Content, or for the security or maintenance of any data input by the user. The Content is provided on an "as is" basis. S&P PARTIES DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE, FREEDOM FROM BUGS, SOFTWARE ERRORS OR DEFECTS, THAT THE CONTENT'S FUNCTIONING WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED, OR THAT THE CONTENT WILL OPERATE WITH ANY SOFTWARE OR HARDWARE CONFIGURATION. In no event shall S&P Parties be liable to any party for any direct, indirect, incidental, exemplary, compensatory, punitive, special or consequential damages, costs, expenses, legal fees, or losses (including, without limitation, lost income or lost profits and opportunity costs or losses caused by negligence) in connection with any use of the Content even if advised of the possibility of such damages. Credit-related and other analyses, including ratings, and statements in the Content are statements of opinion as of the date they are expressed and not statements of fact. S&P's opinions, analyses, and rating acknowledgment decisions (described below) are not recommendations to purchase, hold, or sell any securities or to make any investment decisions, and do not address the suitability of any security. S&P assumes no obligation to update the Content following publication in any form or format. The Content should not be relied on and is not a substitute for the skill, judgment and experience of the user, its management, employees, advisors and/ or clients when making investment and other business decisions. S&P does not act as a fiduciary or an investment advisor except where registered as such. While S&P has obtained information from sources it believes to be reliable, S&P does not perform an audit and undertakes no duty of due diligence or independent verification of any information it receives. To the extent that regulatory authorities allow a rating agency to acknowledge in one jurisdiction a rating issued in another jurisdiction for certain regulatory purposes, S&P reserves the right to assign, withdraw, or suspend such acknowledgement at any time and in its sole discretion. S&P Parties disclaim any duty whatsoever arising out of the assignment, withdrawal, or suspension of an acknowledgment as well as any liability for any damage alleged to have been suffered on account thereof. S&P keeps certain activities of its business units separate from each other in order to preserve the independence and objectivity of their respective activities. As a result, certain business units of S&P may have information that is not available to other S&P business units. S&P has established policies and procedures to maintain the confidentiality of certain nonpublic information received in connection with each analytical process. S&P may receive compensation for its ratings and certain analyses, normally from issuers or underwriters of securities or from obligors. S&P reserves the right to disseminate its opinions and analyses. S&P's public ratings and analyses are made available on its Web sites, www.standardandpoors.com (free of charge), and www.ratingsdirect.com and www.globalcreditportal.com (subscription) and www.spcapitaliq.com (subscription) and may be distributed through other means, including via S&P publications and third-party redistributors. Additional information about our ratings fees is available at www.standardandpoors.com/usratingsfees. WWW.STANDARDANDPOORS.COM/RATJNGSDJRECT APRIL 28, 2014 5 1305457 i 300187'155 May6, 2014 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: City Manager for Counci~ Con~on . Finance Director ,'/~ ~ Ambulance Cash Report for Apric;) Please find the attached Cash Ambulance Report for the month ending April 30, 2014. Cc: Fire Chief AMBULANCE CASH OPERATION APR Y-T-D REVENUE Collected on ALS/BLS/mileage $ 108,506.26 $ 382,003.19 Utility charge 75,807.51 300,895.01 State grant -Stay at work 1,649.81 State grant -EMS 1,473.00 1,473.00 Reimbursement from police Reimbursement from fire 10,668.25 36,425.85 misc 278.00 278.00 closure of debt service total cash received from operations $ 196,733.02 $ 722,724.86 EXPENDITURE labor $ 104,461.15 $ 455,671.02 benfits 40,471.12 166,477.61 supplies 6,072.06 19,756.77 services/repairs 29,551.96 101,795.62 transfers 33,855.00 135,415.00 capital purchases interest 1,014.95 1,014.95 transfers (now part of services above} total expenditures $ 215,426.24 $ 880,130.97 Net income (loss} before G.F. contribution (18,693.22} (157,406.11} contribution from general fund 22,982.00 91,926.00 net income (loss} $ 4,288.78 $ (65,480.11} Cash position Sterling 140,405.08 US Bank 111,298.15 251,703.23 change in total cash from previous month (20,102.68) May 5, 2014 TO: FROM: City Manager for Council Consideration Community Development Director UY\--- SUBJECT: April Building Activity Report Please see the attached building activity report for the month of April 2014. Also included is the building activity for the 2014 year to date. The following are highlights of the attached report: 1. 2. 3. 4. Building permits revenue generated for the month of April: Building permits revenue generated for the year to date: Building permits estimated valuation for the month of April: Building permits estimated valuation for the year to date: $61,285 $147,092 $4,709,538 $11,636,528 For the purpose of comparing April 2014 building activity numbers to April 2013 and April 2012 building activity numbers, the following 2013 and 2012 highlights are provided: 2013 5. 6. 7. 8. Building permits revenue generated for the month of April: Building permits revenue generated for the year to date: Building permits estimated valuation for the month of April: Building permits estimated valuation for the year to date: 2012 9. 10. 11. 12. Building permits revenue generated for the month of April: Building permits revenue generated for the year to date: Building permits estimated valuation for the month of April: Building permits estimated valuation for the year to date: $28,167 $52,355 $2,583,636 $14,024,913 $12,821 $22,939 $975,277 $3,013,327 May 2, 2014 TO: Community Development Director FROM: Planning and Building Technician SUBJECT: April Building Activity Report Attached is the April 2014 building pem1it statistics for your information. April 2013 and 2012 is attached for comparison. Please call me at Extension #3756 with any questions. cc: City Manager Building Official Municipal Services Director County Assessor File *XBPRPTl C I T Y 0 F M 0 S E S L A K E PAGE: 1 B U I L D I N G D E P A R T M E N T RUN BY: kwoodworth ISSUED BUILDING PERMIT STATISTICS DATE: THU, MAY 1, 2014, 3:24 PM FROM: 04/01/2014 TO: 04/30/2014 =================================================================================================================================== DESCRIPTION # OF PERMITS ISSUED 04/2014 # OF PERMITS ISSUED YTD 04/30/2014 ESTIMATED VALUATION 04/2014 ESTIMATED VALUATION YTD 04/30/2014 =================================================================================================================================== A434 RESIDENTIAL ADD AND ALT 10 17 233,695 483,095 A437 NONRESIDENTIAL ADD AND 4 19 142, 115 1,335,330 C320 INDUSTRIAL 2 2 1,407,255 1,407,255 C326 SCHOOLS & OTHER EDUCATI 0 1 0 1,699,840 C327 STORES & CUSTOMER SERVI 1 3 215,168 994 I 451 C438 GARAGES & CARPORTS COMM 0 1 0 58,424 M329 STRUCTURES OTHER THAN B 7 23 184,900 222,126 M801 MECHANICAL COMMERCIAL 0 2 0 0 M802 MECHANICAL RESIDENTIAL 0 2 0 0 M901 PLUMBING COMMERICAL 0 3 0 6,000 M902 PLUMBING RESIDENTIAL 4 13 0 0 RlOl SINGLE FAMILY-DETATCHBD 1 6 0 0 Rl02 SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED 13 24 2,246,030 4,411,241 Rl03 TWO FAMILY BUILDINGS 1 2 280,375 539,019 R104 THREE & FOUR FAMILY BUI 0 1 0 479,747 =================================================================================================================================== PERMIT TOTALS: 43 119 4,709,538 11,636,528 =================================================================================================================================== *XBPRPTl C I T Y 0 F M 0 S E S LA K E PAGE: 1 BUILDING D E P A R T M E N T RUN BY: kwoodworth ISSUED BUILDING PERMIT STATISTICS DATE: WED, MAY 11 2013, 8:11 AM FROM: 04/01/2013 TO: 04/30/2013 DESCRIPTION # OF PERMITS # OF PERMITS ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ISSUED ISSUED YTD VALUATION VALUATION YTD 04/2013 04/30/2013 04/2013 04/30/2013 --------- A434 RESIDENTIAL ADD AND ALT 6 9 85,137 97,894 A437 NONRESIDENTIAL ADD AND 4 15 169,508 341,224 C320 INDUSTRIAL 2 2 868,668 868,668 C323 HOSPITALS & INSTITUTION 0 1 0 442,000 C326 SCHOOLS & OTHER EDUCATI 0 1 0 6,838,301 C327 STORES & CUSTOMER SERVI . 2 5 117, 616 1,048,471 D327 DEMOLISH STORES & CUSTO 1 1 0 0 0328 DEMOLISH OTHER NON-RESI 1 1 0 0 M329 STRUCTURES OTHER THAN B 9 27 32,506 491,329 MBOl MECHANICAL COMMERCIAL 1 6 0 0 M802 MECHANICAL RESIDENTIAL 1 5 0 0 M901 PLUMBING COMMERICAL 1 4 0 0 M902 PLUMBING RESIDENTIAL 7 14 0 60 RlOl SINGLE FAMILY-DETATCHED 1 3 0 0 Rl02 SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED 4 18 830,454 2,937,472 Rl04 THREE & FOUR FAMILY BUI 1 2 479, 747 959,494 ----- PERMIT TOTALS: 41 114 2,583,636 14,024,913 *XBPRPTl C I T Y 0 F M 0 S E S L A K E PAGE: 1 B U I L D I N G D E P A R T M E N T RUN BY: kwoodworth ISSUED BUILDING PERMIT STATISTICS DATE: WED, MAY 2, 2012, 12:49 AM FROM: 04/01/2012 TO: 04/30/2012 =================================================================================================================================== DESCRIPTION # OF PERMITS ISSUED 04/2012 # OF PERMITS ISSUED YTD 04/30/2012 ESTIMATED VALUATION 04/2012 ESTIMATED VALUATION YTD 04/30/2012 =================================================================================================================================== A434 RESIDENTIAL ADD AND ALT 3 9 9,688 59,835 A437 NONRESIDENTIAL ADD AND 0 5 0 56,900 C320 INDUSTRIAL 1 2 l 01, 430 501,430 C325 PUBLIC WORKS & UTILITIE 0 2 0 290,000 C327 STORES & CUSTOMER SERVI 2 2 26,972 26,972 C328 OTHER NONRESIDENTIAL BU 2 3 23,329 49, 701 M329 STRUCTURES OTHER THAN B 7 14 21,900 51,450 MBOl MECHANICAL COMMERCIAL 3 5 0 0 M802 MECHANICAL RESIDENTIAL 0 3 0 0 M901 PLUMBING COMMERICAL 2 2 0 0 M902 PLUMBING RESIDENTIAL 7 29 0 0 RlOl SINGLE FAMILY-DETATCHED 1 5 0 0 Rl02 SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED s 12 791,958 1,973,615 R438 GARAGES & CARPORTS RESI 0 1 0 3,424 =================================================================================================================================== PERMIT TOTALS: 33 94 975, 277 3,013,327 =================================================================================================================================~= *XBPMTH2 C I T Y 0 F M 0 SES LAKE PAGE: 1 B U I L D I N G DEPARTMENT RUN BY: kwoodworth MONTHLY BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS DATE: 05/01/2014 FROM: 04/01/2014 TO: 04/30/2014 =================================================================================================================================== PERMIT PERMIT ESTIMATED REVIEW-FEES STATE-FEES PERMIT FEES APPLICATION NUMBER TYPE VALUATION CHARGED CHARGED CHARGED DATE ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20140091 M329 300 .00 4.50 30.00 04/01/2014 20140092 A437 9,800 122.03 4.50 187.75 04/01/2014 20140093 A437 10,000 .00 4.50 249.75 04/02/2014 20140094 A434 250 .00 4.50 30.00 04/03/2014 20140095 M329 9,320 122.03 4.50 187.75 04/04/2014 20140096 A434 .00 .00 27.00 04/04/2014 20140097 RlOl .00 .00 350.00 04/07/2014 20140098 M329 25,000 258.53 4.50 397.75 04/07/2014 20140099 R102 214,765 150.00 4.50 1,878.25 04/08/2014 20140100 R102 214,765 150.00 4.50 1,878.25 04/08/2014 20140101 Rl02 152,383 150.00 4 .50 1,511.05 04/08/2014 20140102 M329 3,200 67.43 4.50 103.75 04/08/2014 20140103 Rl02 194,578 995.96 4.50 1,755.25 04/08/2014 20140104 R102 650.00 4.50 1,223.00 04/08/2014 20140105 M329 .00 .00 .00 04/08/2014 20140106 M329 .00 .00 .00 04/08/2014 20140107 A434 .00 4.50 75.00 04/10/2014 20140108 A434 1,200 .00 4.50 51. 35 04/10/2014 20140110 A434 30,000 .00 4.50 589.75 04/14/2014 20140111 M329 24,000 249.43 4.50 383 .75 04/14/2014 20140112 M329 4,500 .00 4.50 117. 75 04/14/2014 20140113 C320 28,433,563 68, 737.07 4.50 105,749.35 04/17 /2014 20140114 A434 40,000 357.01 4.50 694.25 04/17/2014 20140115 M329 25,000 258 .53 4.50 397.75 04/17/2014 20140116 R438 7,844 .00 4.50 159.75 04/17/2014 20140118 A434 30,000 .00 4.50 496.25 04/17/2014 20140119 C328 871,800 3,254.71 4.50 5,007.25 04/17 /2014 20140121 M902 .00 .00 25.00 04/18/2014 20140122 Rl02 164,898 150 .00 4.50 1,580.25 04/18/2014 20140123 Rl02 139, 724 795 .76 4.50 1,433.25 04/18/2014 20140124 C320 1,583 .00 .00 63.55 04/22/2014 20140125 M902 .00 .00 27.00 04/22/2014 20140126 Rl02 164,898 150.00 4.50 1,580.25 04/22/2014 20140127 C320 .00 .00 350.00 04/24/2014 20140128 A434 6,000 .00 4.50 131.75 04/24/2014 20140129 Rl02 195,974 999.60 4.50 1,750.35 04/25/2014 20140130 A437 .00 4.50 .00 04/28/2014 20140131 M329 3,500 .00 4.50 103.75 04/29/2014 20140132 M329 .00 4.50 .00 04/30/2014 20140133 M902 .00 .00 27.00 04/30/2014 20140134 C327 265,000 1,250.76 4.50 2,186.75 04/30/2014 20140135 A434 42,639 376.70 4.50 689.55 04/30/2014 =========================================================================================Q========================================= REPORT TOTALS: 31,286,484 79,245.55 148.50 133,480.20 ====;============================================================================================================================== TOTAL FEES CHARGED: 212,874.25 ******************************************* *XBPSTAT2 C I T Y 0 F M 0 S ES LA K E PAGE : 1 B U I L D I N G D E P A R T M E N T RUN BY: kwoodworth APPLICATION STATUS DATE : OS/01/2014 FROM: 04/01/2014 TO: 04/30/2014 =================================================================================================================================== PERMIT PERMIT SERVICE APPLICATION ISSUE NUMBER TYPE ADDRESS DATE DATE ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20140091 M329 976 JUNIPER DR 04/01/2014 I I 20140092 A437 933 CENTRAL DR 04/01/2014 I I 20140093 A437 323 PIONEER WAY 04/02/2014 04/04/2014 20140094 A434 10952 FARMERS DR 04/03/2014 04/07/2014 20140095 M329 847 BROADWAY AVE 04/04/2014 I I 20140096 A434 1168 ASHCROFT 04/04/2014 04/04/2014 20140097 RlOl 1505 WHEELER RD 04/07 /2014 04/16/2014 20140098 M329 3500 AIRWAY DR 04/07 /2014 04/07/2014 20140099 R102 3624 WAPATO DR 04/08/2014 04/14/2014 20140100 R102 404 CRAWFORD LN 04/08/2014 04/14/2014 20140101 Rl02 400 CRAWFORD LN 04/08/2014 04/14/2014 20140102 M329 210 THIRD AVE 04/08/2014 04/25/2014 20140103 Rl02 1629 DYNASTY DR 04/08/2014 04/21/2014 20140104 R102 100 MIZZOU CT 04/08/2014 04/25/2014 20140105 M329 1318 BUELL DR 04/08/2014 I I 20140106 M329 1433 COUGAR DR 04/08/2014 04/08/2014 20140107 A434 2635 WALL ST 04/10/2014 04/14/2014 20140108 A434 1145 COLUMBIA AVE 04/10/2014 04/10/2014 20140110 A434 2116 BELAIR DR 04/14/2014 04/15/2014 20140111 M329 1221 BOYLE ST 04/14/2014 I I 20140112 M329 1550 YONEZAWA BLVD 04/14/2014 I I 20140113 C320 8781 RANDOLPH RD N 04/17/2014 I I 20140114 A434 918 SKYLINE DR 04/17/2014 04/18/2014 20140115 M329 900 JUNIPER DR 04/17/2014 I I 20140116 R438 3131 WAPATO DR 04/17/2014 I I 20140118 A434 636 VILLAGE AVE 04/17/2014 04/21/2014 20140119 C328 6171 FRONTAGE RD 04/17/2014 I I 20140121 M902 2042 CRESTMONT DR 04/18/2014 04/18/2014 20140122 Rl02 429 TRILLIUM WAY 04/18/2014 04/23/2014 20140123 Rl02 817 WILDER ST 04/18/2014 04/25/2014 20140124 C320 7761 RANDOLPH RD N 04/22/2014 I I 20140125 M902 1215 EASTLAKE DR 04/22/2014 04/22/2014 20140126 R102 422 TRILLIUM WAY 04/22/2014 04/29/2014 20140127 C320 7761 RANDOLPH RD N 04/24/2014 04/30/2014 20140128 A434 1309 CENTURY ST 04/24/2014 04/28/2014 20140129 R102 4180 LAKESHORE DR 04/25/2014 I I 20140130 A437 601 DIVISION ST 04/28/2014 I I 20140131 M329 980 CENTRAL DR 04/29/2014 04/29/2014 20140132 M329 723 THIRD AVE 04/30/2014 I I 20140133 M902 707 MARIGOLD ST 04/30/2014 04/30/2014 20140134 C327 1020 STRATFORD RD 04/30/2014 I I 20140135 A434 3820 LAKESHORE DR 04/30/2014 I I Building Permit Fees 2014 Over YTD January February March April May June July August September October November December Budget (Under) Build., Struct. & Equip. 104.381.39 26.096.35 20,583,05 13,925.26 43,776.73 240,000.00 -135,618.61 Plan Checking Fees 42,711.23 9,920.48 10,165.02 5,116.73 17,509.00 75,000.00 -32,288.77 Total 147,092.62 36,016.83 30,748.07 19,041.99 61,285.73 315,000.00 -167,907.38 2013 Over YTD January February March April May June July August September October November December Budget (Under) Build., Struct. & Equip. 380,287.21 12,421.85 5,378.95 27,659.65 21 ,085.32 31,956.56 15,794.73 35,913.25 14,509,50 23,209.45 59,877.45 111,595.15 20,885.35 230,000.00 150,287.21 Plan Checking Fees 102,146.63 3.774.24 2,593.90 4,757.01 7,081.98 4,353.01 14,338.40 5,038.31 8,730.59 6,879.73 30,986.10 7,797.63 5,815,73 75,000,00 27.146.63 Total 482,433.84 16,196.09 7,972.85 32,416.66 28,167.30 36,309.57 30,133.13 40,951.56 23,240.09 30,089.18 90,863.55 119,392.78 26,701.08 305,000.00 177,433.84 2012 Over YTD January February March April May June July August September October November December Budget (Under) Build., Struct. & Equip. 319,218.25 1,130.40 8,233.40 18,798.95 11,101.35 22,155.50 23,465.15 24,658.90 70,791.95 32,467.18 65,593.64 29,309.75 11 ,512.08 275,000.00 44,218.25 Plan Checking Fees 95,988.16 35.36 720.02 3,428.29 1,719.87 4,663.26 22,746.88 7.480.46 9,297.58 5,976.55 33,687.68 4,779,80 1,452.41 85,000.00 10,988.16 Total 415,206.41 1,165.76 8,953.42 22,227.24 12,821.22 26,818.76 46,212.03 32,139.36 80,089.53 38,443.73 99,281.32 34,089.55 12,964.49 360,000.00 55,206.41 2011 Over YTO January February March April May June July August September October November December Budget (Under) Build., Struct. & Equip. 222,114.90 18.336.45 15,519.95 26,936.21 21.968.40 13,566.55 38.552.75 12,985.60 13,571.68 15,331.15 19,583.81 9,674.10 16,088.25 300,000.00 -77,885.10 Plan Checking Fees 73,099.03 4,124.46 8,790.29 9,482.98 6,588.61 5,571.29 10,092.66 3,893.82 2,824,60 11 ,380,84 8,954,85 1,394.63 0,00 80,000.00 -6,900.97 Total 295,213.93 22,460.91 24,310.24 36,419.19 28,557.01 19,137.84 48,645.41 16,879.42 16,396.28 26,711.99 28,538.66 11,068.73 16,088.25 380,000.00 -84,786,07 Files\Bullding Permit Check 5/6/2014 9:16 AM May 7, 2014 Honorable Mayor and Moses Lake City Co uncil Dear Council Members CI T Y OF MOSES LAKE Attached is sales tax information for February 2014 sales which the City received on April 30, 2014. This report indicates the City received $402,265.84. The $402 ,265.84 in receipts for April compares with April 2013 receipts of $364, 137.97. For the year, the 2014 receipts are approximately 11 % higher than the 2013 receipts for the same period. Also provided is the transient rental income report for income the City received on April 30, 2014. This report indicates April 30, 2014 income (for February sales) of $31,468.50. This compares with $22,967.86 for the same period in 2013. For the year, transient rental income receipts are approximately 7% higher than the 2013 receipts for the same period. Respectfully submitted Joseph K. Gavinski City Manager JKG:jt City Manager 764-3701 •City Attorney 764-3703 •Community Development 764-3750 •Finance 764-3717 •Fire 765-2204 Municipal Services 764-3783 • Municipal Court 764-370 l • Parks & Recreation 764-3805 • Police 764-3887 • Fax 764-3739 401 S Balsam St.• P.O. Box 1579 •Moses Lake, WA 98837-0224 • www.cityofml.com May 5, 2014 TO: City Manager FROM: Utility Account Technician o/ SUBJECT: Sales Tax Receipts Attached is the Sales Tax Receipts -Monthly Report for April, 2014. cc: Finance Director Parks & Recreation Director Sales Tax Receipts -Mon~hly Month Sales YTD Received Period2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Change Jan Nov 373,688.80 367,830.83 403,504.15 401,499.05 430, 110.34 7% Feb Dec 560,731.77 488,453.72 459,218.16 491,341 .62 537,941.54 8% Mar Jan 276,352.86 324,247.20 331,644.01 373,707.66 443,309.81 11% Apr Feb 330,932.86 368,305.65 350,818.56 364,137.97 402,265.84 11% May Mar 402,951 .97 456,738.86 405,657.25 475,345.89 June Apr 384,565.04 439,396.45 399,414.06 437,909.92 July May 380,216.47 431,750.56 419,629.64 478,822.77 Aug June 456,372.87 453,961 .67 432,420.11 460,309.61 Sept July 407,935.17 411,796.14 407,813.31 457,908.37 Oct Aug 390,800.44 446,905.90 455,185.85 511,513.84 Nov Sept 438,011.36 411,689.43 422,198.39 465,603.85 Dec Oct 394, 167.42 406,648.97 424, 167.87 441,278.01 Totals 4 796,727.03 5,007,725.38 41911 ,671 .36 5,359,378.56 1!813,627.53 May 6, 2014 TO: City Manager FROM: Utility Account Technician ~ SUBJECT: Transient Rental Income Report Attached are the Transient Rental Income reports for April, 2014. cc: Finance Director Parks & Recreation Director TRANSIENT RENTAL INCOME -MONTHLY TOTAL RECEIVED MONTH SALES YTD RECEIVED PERIOD 2011 2012 2013 2014 Change ·-~· ·-JAN NOV 39 ,728.66 25,073.90 37,239.62 33,221.58 -11% FEB DEC 25,155.98 26,277.18 19, 145.26 28,737.22 10% MAR JAN 30,274.86 28,091.94 32,692.16 26,058.10 -1% APRIL FEB 35,015.70 22,286.68 22,967.86 31,468.50 7% MAY MAR 31 ,217.30 25,787.06 36,755.64 JUNE APRIL 43, 150.52 35,334.86 38,830.04 JULY MAY 65,576.42 45,674.12 64,910.04 AUGUST JUNE 57,975.95 55,497.56 49,135.32 SEPT JULY 55,399.42 53,987.68 62,363.32 OCT AUGUST 62,457.58 57,117.62 68,846.76 NOV SEPT 48,256.58 46,866.78 57,668.74 DEC OCT 37,670.80 34,675.70 41 ,957.82 TOTALS 531 879.77 456,671.08 532,512.58 119 485.40