Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Infrastructure topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council approves two extraterritorial utility agreements for Moses Point and Paradise Point developments

Moses Lake City Council · December 10, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Council authorized two ETAs: Moses Point (41 ERUs potable water/sewer) and Paradise Point (phased capacity for 612 ERUs). Paradise Point requires developer delivery of 153 acre‑feet of shallow water rights before phase 1 and construction of a new lift station and water main loop.

Moses Lake city council authorized extraterritorial utility agreements (ETAs) for two separate developments in the urban growth area.

Moses Point: The council authorized the city manager to finalize an ETA that commits 41 potable water and sewer ERUs to the Moses Point Fairway replat. The agreement requires developer installation at the developer’s cost, a two‑year maintenance bond, submission of building permits or final plat within specified timeframes or forfeiture of capacity, and a pro rata contribution to a new reservoir. Council voted 6‑0 to approve the motion.

Paradise Point: Council approved a larger, phased ETA for Paradise Point that provides rolling release of capacity totaling 612 residential ERUs. Conditions include phased performance tied to county approvals, a two‑year maintenance bond, payment of system development charges and extraterritorial utility rates by the developer, and specific infrastructure obligations: the developer must provide 153 acre‑feet of shallow water rights before starting phase 1, extend a 12‑inch water main and loop inside the development, and construct a new lift station at West Shore Drive and East Crossroads Drive. The council approved the ETA unanimously.

City staff noted a number of standard contract details remained under negotiation (insurance limits, bond terms) but described those as non‑substantive to the development commitments. Both agreements require developer financing of construction and carry forfeiture provisions if phasing conditions are not met.