MATTAWA — Reversing a decision made June 16, Mattawa City Council members have voted to impose a moratorium on applications for annexation of property into the city. The vote at the regular council meeting July 7 was unanimous.

Council member Tony Acosta asked Mayor Maria Celaya why the moratorium ordinance was back on the agenda.

“Who asked for this to come back?” Acosta asked.

“Some of the votes that were opposed had asked to bring it back to back the agenda,” Celaya said.

She did not specify which council members asked for reconsideration.

“It’s being asked that no new petitions be accepted until Nov. 1, 2023,” Celaya said.

During the discussion Acosta asked for a clarification of the council’s options, whether or not the moratorium was approved.

“If this resolution does not come through, the council still has the authority to not accept annexation petitions, correct? Even if this was not in place we still have the authority to say no, knowing what we know now,” Acosta said.

Celaya and city attorney Katherine Kenison said the council does have the authority to reject individual annexation petitions.

“This sends the information and the message on the council’s position out to the development community, so they’re not surprised or they don’t come in with expectations that are different from what the council’s direction is,” Kenison said.

Council members approved the moratorium motion with the stipulation that annexation applications that have already been submitted could proceed.

City officials are in the process of updating Mattawa’s comprehensive plan, working on a housing action plan and a capital facilities plan. Celaya said the housing action plan is supposed to be finished by June 30 of next year, and the comprehensive plan update and capital facilities plan by Oct, 31, 2023.

Rachelle Bradley of SCJ Alliance, the city’s planners, said she recommended a moratorium to give city officials time to catch up on planning for growth that seems to be coming to Mattawa.

“I know you did vote ‘no’ for pausing the annexations,” Bradley said. “But I also recognize that some council (members) felt there wasn’t very much information provided to them prior to making that decision.”

Bradley said there are some important choices and decisions that are part of the planning process, such as where and how city officials want development. In addition, city officials need to look at the capacity of the city to accommodate growth, such as a review of the number of water connections available.

“It’s the problem of just extending and extending without having information about your capacity overall,” Kenison said.

Bradley estimated there are about 92 acres in the current city limits that are undeveloped or underutilized.

“I think part of the problem with that property being underutilized is very limited zoning regulations,” Bradley said.

In addition, planning for future growth involves determining what areas will be zoned as commercial and what will be residential. Bradley said that in the absence of a future land use plan, many areas annexed into the city currently are zoned to match designations in unincorporated areas, which is primarily zoned for commercial development.

“The city does not need more commercial,” she said. “I don’t have exact numbers, but I believe you have more parcels, acreage-wise, zoned as commercial than residential.”

Kenison said city officials also need to decide on development regulations, what will be the responsibility of the developer and what will be the responsibility of the city.