Planning commission reviews redline edits to economic development chapter of Liberty Lake comprehensive plan

City Manager Pat McAvoy presented redline edits to Chapter 10, the economic development element of Liberty Lake’s comprehensive plan, during the Planning Commission workshop on March 12, 2025. The packet included a redline version of the chapter and slides showing proposed changes and an expanded section on tourism.

The discussion centered on three themes: aligning the comprehensive plan with the city’s five‑year strategic plan and annual budget, strengthening language about sustainable funding and economic development drivers (infrastructure, public safety and amenities), and practical implementation – especially a proposed inventory of available commercial and industrial land.

McAvoy told commissioners that the comprehensive plan sits at the top of the city’s policy hierarchy and recommended explicit language tying the plan to the city’s strategic and operational plans so policies would carry forward into annual budgeting and implementation. He said staff had moved economic development policies into element chapters and had enumerated partner organizations; he also said tourism should be a larger emphasis in the revised chapter. “We’re proposing some changes, which you, can see in the red line version there,” McAvoy said.

Commissioners pressed staff on specifics. One asked what contingency plans would look like if a major employer left the city; McAvoy described scenario and replacement planning, including estimating “the number of jobs that would be affected and how we would propose to replace that number of jobs,” and said contingency plans would be developed with economic development partners and focus on like‑for‑like geographic footprints (for example, the facility on Mission). On the inventory requirement in policy 14, commissioners noted that Liberty Lake is largely built out and asked how the city could keep a usable inventory of land without annexation; McAvoy suggested reframing the policy to focus on a mix of uses rather than on industrial land alone.

Commissioners also discussed infill and redevelopment language. A commissioner asked whether infill/redevelopment provisions would apply to city‑initiated projects such as a community center or library; McAvoy said the infill language targets commercial development but that an example of city reuse (the Legacy Church purchase) would qualify as infill redevelopment. Commissioners recommended clarifying the definition of “available” land and adding underutilized parcels and buildings to the appendix inventory.

On wages and housing policy, a commissioner asked whether the city should pursue measures like rent control to support a living wage. McAvoy responded that he would not recommend rent control: “I would not recommend anything like a rent control measure,” and noted there is legislation at the state level on the topic that staff would need to review before making local recommendations.

Staff and commissioners agreed there would be no final action at the workshop. Planning staff will prepare suggested language and implementation steps and return to the commission at a future meeting; Lisa (staff) was identified as the lead on compiling appendices such as the commercial/industrial land inventory. Commissioners signaled general support for additional edits and for staff to draft recommended language rather than asking commissioners to produce the text themselves.

Next steps: staff will draft proposed language tying the comprehensive plan to the strategic plan, refine the infill/redevelopment and inventory language (including definitions of “available” and “underutilized”), and return to the commission for further review before any formal adoption actions.