Snohomish County Planning Snohomish County Planning Commission BriefingCommission Briefing

August 26, 2014August 26, 2014

1

2

Capital Improvement Program

Financial Summary - DetailFinancial Summary - Detail

Statement of Assessment

Necessary to Support Development

• Roads/Transportation• Parks • Surface Water Management• Water• Sewer/Wastewater• Schools• Electric Power

Capital ProjectNeeds

Capital ProjectNeeds

County Budget

General Policy Plan

- Capital Facilities Element

Capital Facilities Plan

Inventory

Forecast

General Policy Plan

- Capital Facilities Element

Capital Facilities Plan

Inventory

Forecast

Comprehensive Plan

Comprehensive Plan

Capital Projects Rolling six-year program Implements CFP on an annual

basis Identifies individual projects

Costs Funding – Revenue and Expenditure

Includes SOA – Evaluates GMA criteria

3

Planning Commission may recommend adoption of the CIP to Council if: Public facilities and agencies will maintain or

exceed a minimum level of service (LOS)

The County and other agencies have demonstrated projected revenues are adequate to fund the planned capital facilities

Development will not occur unless there are adequate public facilities to maintain minimum LOS

4

Item PrefaceSection I: Introduction and BackgroundSection II: Financing StrategiesSection III: CIP Project SummarySection IV: Statement of Assessment on GMA Goal 12Section V: Detail Departmental Capital Improvement Program Section VI: Text of Statements of AssessmentSection VII: Minimum Level of Service Reports

5

Presented at Planning Commission BriefingSummary financial information: Exhibit 4 – Capital Expenditures by Category & Type

Exhibit 5 – Capital Expenditures by Revenue Source

Exhibit 6 – Historical CIP Expenditures by Category

6

7

8

9

Presented at Planning Commission Public HearingDetailed Financial Information:

Exhibit 7 – Real Estate Tax Project List Exhibit 8 – Departmental Capital Improvement

Program List

Detailed Project Information: Section V – Departmental Capital Improvement Program Detail

10

Growth Management Hearings Board decision

Status in provision of facilities/services

Compares minimum LOS established in the 2005 CFP to current LOS

Evaluation - Determines if reassessment is required

11

Is there sufficient funding to complete projects/commitments for capital facilities “necessary to support development” over the next six years?

Are minimum levels of service being met for capital facilities that are “necessary to support development?”

Are regulatory measures in place that reasonably ensure development will not occur without public facilities available to meet minimum levels of service?

If answer is no - Reassessment process must be considered

Reassessment 2015 Comp Plan Update

12

Identified in GMA or 2005 CFP as “necessary to support

development”

Roads/Transportation

Parks Facilities

Surface Water Management Facilities

Schools

Electric Power Infrastructure

Water Supply Infrastructure

Sewer/Wastewater Infrastructure13

Defined in the Transportation Element Chapter of adopted GMACP

LOS standard is vehicular-based — travel speed

Concurrency Management System — monitors LOS on arterials

14

No arterial units in arrears

No forecasted LOS problems in the six-year planning period

Funding is adequate to maintain LOS standards

15

Parks current LOSkey findings: Minimum LOS for community parks, land and facilities are being met There are no deficiencies in community parks projected over the next six years

Parks Category

Current LOS Minimum LOS

Community–Land

1 park per 4,272 additional residents

One additional Community park (land) per 21,000 additional residents

Community–Facilities

1 new facility per 18,657 residents

One new fully developed Community (facility) for every 28,500 in population

16

Each school district establishes its own LOS in separate capital facility plans

Monroe School District meets minimum LOS for all grade levels

Lake Stevens School District meets minimum LOS for middle and high school grades

6-Year funding viability is established in school district CIPs

No reassessment is required based on current information

17

Wastewater service standards are determined by the State Department of Ecology

6 - Year funding viability is established in their own CIPs

Remedial work in the North Creek Interceptor and Swamp Creek areas is underway and should be completed by 2014

18

Water Supply service standards are determined by the State Dept. of Health

6 - Year funding viability is established in their own CIPs

No reassessment is required based on current information

19

Minimum Level of Investment = $8.35 M to maintain services to Snohomish County residents

Current Level of Investment = $71.7 M

No reassessment is required based on current information

20

Minimum Level of Investment = $790.2M to maintain services to Snohomish County residents

Current Level of Investment = $790.2M

No reassessment is required based on current information

21

Sufficient funding is reasonably expected to meet the need identified in GMA Goal 12, based upon: No capital facilities are projected to experience

shortfalls in funding between 2015 and 2020 Projected resources are reasonable to fund

public facilities needed to meet minimum LOS standards

Regulatory measures are in place that reasonably ensure development will not occur if LOS standards are not met

No immediate reassessment actions are required or recommended at this time

22

County charter requires Planning Commission review the Draft CIP and conduct public hearing

Hearing - September 23 Recommendation to County Council Commission provided with the following in

advance of the hearing: Draft findings for consideration/adoption Detailed financial information

23

24