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
Top Related