Snohomish County Planning Commission Briefing August 26,

2 Capital Improvement Program Financial Summary - Detail Statement of Assessment Necessary to Support Development Roads/Transportation Parks Surface Water Management Water Sewer/Wastewater Schools Electric Power Capital Project Needs 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

 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 Preface Section I: Introduction and Background Section II: Financing Strategies Section III: CIP Project Summary Section IV: Statement of Assessment on GMA Goal 12 Section V: Detail Departmental Capital Improvement Program Section VI: Text of Statements of Assessment Section VII: Minimum Level of Service Reports 5

 Presented at Planning Commission Briefing  Summary 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 Hearing  Detailed 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 Infrastructure 13

 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 LOS key 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 LOSMinimum 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

 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

Questions? 24