Council requests clearer developer agreement language as staff refines ETA policy for UGA water and sewer allocations

City staff presented a revised draft Extended Time Agreement (ETA) policy for managing water and wastewater equivalent residential unit (ERU) allocations in the Moses Lake urban growth area and council asked staff to add clearer terms for large or phased developments and to return the policy for final consideration in the coming weeks.

Staff said the draft converts earlier options into a single policy and clarified several operational details: the city will provide five‑year capacity projections by zone each September, applications for ERU allocation will be accepted twice yearly (a November deadline with allocation in December and a May 1 deadline with allocation in June), and staff will classify requests into categories (0, 1 and 2) for streamlined review. The draft also adopts the Washington State Department of Health guidance point that 200 gallons per day may be used as a minimum per ERU for potable internal‑use demand estimates, noting the DOH document permits 350 gpd in some circumstances but identifies 200 gpd as a minimum.

A staff presenter summarized changes made after council feedback, including combining earlier option sets, adding the capacity‑by‑zone requirement and clarifying how vested projects in the permitting pipeline will be accounted for. “Yes. We did confirm with RH2, who’s currently our consultant handling our auto model, that they will be able to provide that to us by September,” a staff member said when asked about zone‑level capacity projections.

Councilors raised several clarifying questions. One councilor asked how the policy handles multi‑lot subdivisions that do not connect all lots within the two‑year ETA period; staff and council agreed the draft should be clearer about partial hookups and the consequences for ERUs that remain unused. Multiple councilors suggested that large, phased developments should be subject to a development agreement that explicitly states connection deadlines, phasing and consequences for inaction, and that such terms should be reflected in step 3b of the policy processing steps.

Staff outlined processing steps: initial classification by staff (class 0/1/2), council review of classified petitions, and a separate step for proposals that require a fuller review or developer agreement (step 3b). Staff also clarified that any ERUs associated with a terminated ETA would be returned to the pool for allocation at the next semiannual application deadline or become available for in‑city use, consistent with current city practices and references to Resolution 37‑17.

Councilors asked for sample contract language and asked staff to return with proposed developer‑agreement language for larger projects. A councilor recommended that the two‑year completion or hookup deadline remain a baseline but that the city add an explicit option for longer or different terms when those conditions are spelled out in a developer agreement. Staff said they would draft language to address that and return the updated policy to council in June or July.

No final action to adopt the policy was taken. Staff asked council for direction and further edits; council directed staff to revise the draft per the discussion and provide a sample development agreement or modified language for council review.

Next steps: staff will update the ETA policy to add clear developer‑agreement triggers for larger or phased projects, address partial hookup consequences, and return the revised draft to council for consideration.