Moses Lake council adopts Comprehensive Plan update, keeps large urban growth area intact

The Moses Lake City Council voted to adopt Ordinance 3065 on first reading, approving a package of amendments to the city's 2024 Comprehensive Plan that updates future land-use maps, the transportation element and capital facilities appendix.

The ordinance covers several separate cases, including PLN 20220010 (an urban growth area amendment for parcel 170-845000 in the May Valley area), PLN 20230036 (Urban Build Developers, a land-use and rezone request), PLN 20230055 (Jenks, a redesignation and rezoning request), PLN 20240121 (Community Gardens, a parks-to-downtown map change), and a broader update to the transportation/"future streets" maps and the 20-year transportation improvement plan. Planning staff told council the proposed amendments were processed with state and local notifications and that the Washington State Department of Commerce and other agencies submitted comment letters.

Planning manager Vivian told the council the amendments were submitted to the Department of Commerce on Nov. 22, 2024, and that the planning commission held a public hearing on Dec. 12, 2024. She said the commission recommended denial of the transportation element'specific "future streets" amendment but recommended approval of the remaining amendments.

Council members discussed what inclusion in the city's Urban Growth Area (UGA) means in practice. Council member Martinez asked whether adopting the amendments obligates the city to provide services; planning staff and Public Works Director Richard explained that inclusion in the UGA does not create an immediate obligation to provide water or sewer, but that land in the UGA is typically planned for future annexation and that capital-facilities planning should account for potential service needs over a 20-year horizon. Richard added that short-term extensions are possible but noted trade-offs if the city extends services outside existing city limits because tax revenues from properties outside city limits flow to the county, not the city.

Several council members urged continued coordination with Grant County about service expectations and possible revenue-sharing or developer agreements. Council discussed the proposed "future streets" map'staff described the map as intended to facilitate collaboration on street and utility placement and not as a mandate that a road be built in the exact depicted location.

A motion to adopt Ordinance 3065 as presented passed; no further roll-call tallies were recorded in the transcript. Council members also directed staff to bring the transportation/future-streets map to the Planning Commission for review alongside the 6-year Transportation Improvement Program in the spring.

Why it matters: The Comprehensive Plan defines growth expectations, future street connections and infrastructure priorities for the next 20 years. By keeping the UGA areas under consideration and adopting the broader package of map and policy updates, the council preserved options for phased development while emphasizing the need for intergovernmental coordination on service delivery and annexation.

What comes next: Council directed staff to bring the transportation element and the updated future-streets map to the Planning Commission for detailed review and to continue outreach with Grant County on UGA/service issues. The council indicated it will revisit related capital-facilities and service agreements as developers seek specific approvals.