CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND
CAPITAL FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
1995 - 2000
MARCH 14, 1995
A. INTRODUCTION
I. Purpose of Study
The purpose of this report is to use standards of levels of service (LOS) for capital facilities to forecast the amount of capital facilities that will be required for the City of Port Townsend for the next 20 years during the growth periods 1995-2000 and 2001-2014. -
The Capital Facilities Requirements (CFR) report provides the basis for preparing the City's Capital Facilities Plan (CFP). The CFP is an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan, and State regulations require that the CFP cover a time period of six years following the year of adoption.
Some of the LOS standards in this report have been identified in the City's master plans or engineering studies, while others have been identified by professional department managers.
This report includes objective, measurable standards for capital facilities as required in Washington's Growth Management Act (GMA), and it is the foundation of the City's Capital Facilities Plan (CFP). This report evaluates various standards of service which are used to calculate the type and amount of capital facilities that will be required during two growth periods: 1995-2000 and 2001-2014.
II. Methodology
This report conforms to the GMA requirement that the City's CFP be based on standards for service levels that are measurable and financially feasible for the six fiscal years following adoption of the Capital Facilities Plan. At a minimum, the CFP must meet the capital needs of eh City for the next six fiscal years: 1995-2000.
There are two questions that must be answered in order to meet the State requirements:
1. What is the quantity of capital facilities that will be required by 2000?
2. Is it financially feasible to provide the quantity of facilities that are required by 2000?
The answer to each question can be calculated by using objective data and formulas. Each type of capital facility is examined separately (i.e., roads are examined separately from parks). The costs of all the types of facilities are then added together in order to determine the overall financial feasibility of the CFP.
Question 1. What is the quantity of capital facilities that will be required by 2000?
Formula 1.1: Demand X Standard - Requirement
Where | Demand is the estimated 2000 population or other appropriate measure of need (e.g., dwelling units), |
and | Standard is the amount of facility per unit of demand (e.g., acre of park per capita)
|
The answer to this formula is the total amount of capital facilities that are needed, required of the amount of facilities that are already in place and being used by the public.
Formula 1.2: Requirement - Inventory = Surplus (Deficiency)
Where | Requirement is the result of Formula 1.1, |
and | Inventory is the quantity of facility available at the end of 1993
|
This formula uses the inventory of existing capital facilities to offset the total requirements of Formula 1.1. The answer to Formula 1.2 is the net surplus of capital facilities, or the deficit that must be eliminated by additional facilities before June 30, 2000. If a net deficiency exists, it represents the combined needs of existing development and antiquated new development. Detailed analysis will reveal the portion of the net deficiency that attributable to current development compared to the portion needed for new development.
Question 2. Is it financially feasible to provide the quantity of facilities that are required in 2000?
A "preliminary" answer to Question 2 will be prepared in order to test the financial of tentative or proposed standards of service. The preliminary answer will use "average costs" of facilities, rather than specific project costs. This approach avoids the problem of developing detailed projects and cost estimates that would be unusable if the standards are to be financially infeasible.
If the standards are feasible at the preliminary level, detailed projects will be prepared a "final" answer to Question 2. If, however, the preliminary answer indicates that a level of service is not financially feasible, six options are available to the City:
1. Reduce the standard of service, which will reduce the cost; or
2. Increase revenues to pay for the proposed standard of service (higher existing revenues, and/or new sources of revenue); or
3. Reduce the average cost of the capital facility (i.e., alternative techniques, alternative ownership or financing), thus reducing the total cost, and the quality; or
4. Reduce the demand by restricting population (i.e., revise the land use element), which may cause growth to occur in other jurisdictions; or
5. Reduce the demand by reducing consumption (i.e., transportation demand management, recycling solid waste, water conservation, etc.), which may cost more money initially, but which may save even more money later; or
6. Any combination of options 1-5 above.
The preliminary answer to Question 2 will be prepared using the following formulas (P = . preliminary):
Formula 2. IP: Deficiency X Avg. Cost/Unit = Deficiency Cost
Where | Deficiency is the Result of Formula 1.2, |
and | Average Cost/Unit is the usual cost of one unit of facility (e.g., mile or road, acre of park)
|
The answer to Formula 2. IP is the approximate cost of eliminating all deficiencies of capital facilities, based on the use of an "average" cost for each unit of capital facility that is needed.
Formula 2.2P: Deficiency Cost - Revenue = Net Surplus or (Deficiency)
Where | Deficiency Cost is the result of Formula 2. IP, |
and | Revenue is the money currently available for capital facilities.
|
The result of Formula 2.2P is the preliminary answer to the test of financial feasibility of the standards of service. A surplus of revenue in excel of cost means the standard of service is affordable with money remaining (the surplus), therefore the standard is financially feasible. A deficiency of revenue compared to cost means that not enough money is available to build the facilities, therefore the standard is not financially feasible and will need to be adjusted using the six strategies listed above.
The "final" demonstration of financial feasibility will use detailed costs of specific capital projects in lieu of the "average" costs of facilities used in the preliminary answer, as follows (F = final):
Formula 2. IF: Deficiency Projects + Non-Capacity (Repair) Projects = Project Cost
Where | Deficiency Projects is the cost of all projects needed to eliminate the deficiency (Formula 1.2), |
and | Non-capacity Projects is the cost of remodeling renovation or replacement needed to maintain the inventory of existing facilities.
|
Formula 2.2F: Project Cost (Surplus/Deficiency) - Revenue = Net Surplus (Deficiency)
Where | Project Cost is the result of Formula 2. IF, |
and | Revenue is the money available for capital facilities from current and proposed sources.
|
The "final" answer to Question 2 will validate the financial feasibility of the standards for levels of service that are used for each capital facility, in the CFP and in the other elements of the Comprehensive Plan.
The financially feasible standards for levels of service and the resulting capital improvement projects will be used as the basis for goals, objectives, policies and implementation programs in the completed Capital Facilities Plan.
III. Data Collection and Analyses
The calculations in this report provide answers to the questions and formulae described above. In order to perform the calculations, five separate areas of data collection and analysis were investigated: (1) types of public facilities, (2) growth scenarios with population/other demand factors, (3) levels of service standards, (4) inventory of existing facilities, and (5) average costs of new facilities.
1. Types of Capital Facilities. The GMA contains many references to requirements for capital facilities planning, levels of service, and concurrency. In keeping with the intent of the GMA, all City-owned capital facilities and some non-City providers have been included in this report.
In the future, as the capital facilities planning process continues, other levels of service information for other types of facilities will be included in the final CFP document. The GMA does not require the City to include in its CFP a capital facilities requirements analysis for facilities not owned by the City as required for City-owned facilities.
However, in order to meet the requirements of concurrency, the GMA does require the City to identify in its Capital Facilities Plan the adopted levels of service (LOS) for capital facilities owned and operated by "outside" providers not subject to the City's direct legal jurisdiction or financial control (i.e., state or county parks, etc.) The City may also incorporate into its capital facilities plan by reference the capital facilities plans of "outside" providers.
2. City Population Forecasts: The population projections used in this report as indicators of future demand for capital facilities are based on the Watterson Population Report commissioned by the City of Port Townsend in the spring of 1994. The moderate forecast, "Trends with Constraints", is recommended as the population forecast most likely to occur within the City over the next 20 years. Accordingly, it is assumed for now that the City's comprehensive plan will be adopted to accommodate the recommended population forecast of 13,013 by the year 2014. These are the population projections that are used in the Tables created for the Capital Facilities Plan.
The population forecasting methodology for the City limits is based on the City's future development capacity. Specifically, the City limits population projections in this report for 1995-2000 and 2001-2014 reflect a 2.5% average annual growth rate for the next 20 years.
3. Standards for Levels of Service: Some of the standards for levels of service (LOS) are derived from analyses of existing City master plans or engineering studies, and professional City staff recommendations, while others are based on recommendations of professional associations and national agencies adjusted to meet the specific needs of the City. In every case, the current "actual" level of service is used to create a "benchmark" for evaluating the recommended LOS.
4. Inventory of Existing Facilities. All of the capital facilities included in this CFR report which are owned, managed, or operated by the City of Port Townsend, were located and counted, and the inventories are summarized in this study.
5. Average Costs of New Facilities. In order to test the financial feasibility of levels of service prior to their adoption, an average cost per new facility is used in Formula 2.1, above. The average costs were developed by the City Department responsible for the facility.
Once the level of service standards are reviewed and determined to be financially feasible, capital facility project requests will be prepared to meet the standards. The detailed cost estimates for these projects then replace the average costs used in this study.
IV. LOS and "Adequate Public Facilities"
The standards for levels of service (LOS) that are adopted by the City of Port Townsend serve two purposes: (1) to calculate the amount of public facilities the City will need to serve planned future growth, as well as the costs for those facilities; and (2) to measure the adequacy of public services that serve existing and proposed development.
The first use of LOS is addressed by this report, as described above. The second use of LOS relates to the "adequate public facilities", or "concurrency" requirement of GMA. The two uses of LOS are connected by the use of the same LOS for both purposes: the LOS that determines which capital improvements are in the City's CFP is the same LOS that is the benchmark for approving or denying proposed development (and redevelopment).
The "adequacy of public facilities" (as defined in the Washington Growth Management Act) for certain types of capital facilities within the City of Port Townsend will be determined by the City's adopted levels of service (LOS). The City management team's process of identifying the current LOS and suggesting alternative LOS for certain types of capital facilities has been completed, and the results are reflected in this report.
The City Council will formally adopt levels of service (LOS) for the Capital Facilities Plan at the time it adopts the City's Comprehensive Plan in 1995. The adopted LOS will become the City's definition of "adequate public facilities", which in turn, will be the criteria to which GMA's "concurrency" requirement is applied.
The "concurrency" requirement in the Washington growth management law mandates that capital facilities be matched with development. Webster's Dictionary defines concurrent as. "... occurring at the same time; existing together." In growth management terms, capital within a reasonable time period (depending on the type of capital facility needed) following the impacts of development.
Concurrency is determined by comparing the capacity of capital facilities required by each applicant for development to the unused capacity that is actually available. If the unused available capacity is equal to, or greater than, the capacity required, the applicant passes the concurrency "test." If the unused available capacity is less than the capacity required, the applicant fails the concurrency "test."
"Concurrency" is a synonym for adequate public facilities and services. There are several references to adequate public facilities or concurrency in Washington's 1990 Growth Management Act (ESHB 2929). Sec. 2. PLANNING GOALS. (12) summarizes the concurrency requirement, as follows:
"... public facilities and services ... shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards." (RCW 36.70A.020)
The terms "public facilities" and "public services" are defined in the Growth Management act as follows:
ESHB 2929, Sec. 3. DEFINITIONS.
(12) "Public facilities" include streets, roads, highways, sidewalks, street and road lighting systems, traffic signals, domestic water systems, storm and sanitary sewer systems, parks and recreational facilities, and schools."
(13) "Public services" include fire protection and suppression, law enforcement, public health, education, recreation, environmental protection, and other governmental services. (RCW 36.70A.030)
Other sections in the Act further describe the concurrency requirement, as follows:
ESHB 2929, SEC. 52 SUBDIVISIONS.
(2) "A proposed subdivision and dedication shall not be approved unless the city, town, or county legislative body makes written findings that: (a) appropriate provisions are made for the public health, safety, and general welfare and for such open spaces, drainageways, streets or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and schoolgrounds ..." (RCW 58.17.110)
ESHB 2929, Sec. 7. COMPREHENSIVE PLANS - MANDATORY ELEMENTS.
(6) (e) "... local governments must adopt and enforce ordinances which prohibit development approval if the development causes the level of service on a transportation facility to decline below the standards adopted in the transportation element of the comprehensive plan, unless transportation improvements or strategies to accommodate the impacts of development are made concurrent with the development ... For the purposes of this subsection, "concurrent with the development" shall mean that improvements or strategies are in place at the time of development, or that a financial commitment is in place to complete the improvements or strategies within six years." (RCW 36.70A.070) ESHG 2929, Sec. 43. (IMPACT FEES).
(1)(a) "It is the intent of the legislature ... To ensure that adequate facilities are available to serve new growth and development." (RCW 82.02.050)
ESHG 2929, Sec. 63 (WATER RIGHT PERMIT).
"Each applicant for a building permit of a building necessitating potable water shall provide evidence of an adequate water supply ... in the form of a water right permit from the department of ecology ..." (RCW 19.27.097)
Some of the statutory requirements itemize specific types of public facilities and/or services that must be shown to be adequately provided at the time of the impacts of development (i.e., Section 2, 3, and 52 of GMA shown above); or available "concurrent* with development (i.e., public facilities and public services) as requiring concurrency tests. Section 52 (2) itemizes several facilities, but also refers to "public health, safety, and general welfare" which includes virtually all types of government facilities and services.
Local jurisdictions in Washington have interpreted differently the intent of GMA's concurrency requirement regarding public facilities and services which are subject to concurrency tests. As a result, some cities and counties are requiring all public facilities in their CFPs to be subject to concurrency tests, while others are requiring only a few public facilities to undergo concurrency tests. For example, highly specialized facilities that do not directly correlate to the amount of growth in the City may be placed in a separate "category" of the CFP which does not apply to concurrency (i.e.. City offices and support buildings, etc.). The City may use a LOS to determine the need for these facilities, but it may choose not to use the LOS as a test for approving or denying development.
For all other public facilities, however, the LOS that the City uses for planning and financial capital improvements in the CFP will be the same LOS that is used to test the adequacy of public facilities for "concurrency."
B. CALCULATION OF CAPITAL FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
The requirements for capital facilities are calculated for the "current" level of service and for the "recommended" level of service for each of the two growth scenarios. In most cases, the data is presented is six columns, as follows
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
| | Amount | | Reserve or | Net Cost @ |
Time Period | Population | Required @ | Amount | Deficiency | $000 Per |
| | LOS | Available | (-) | Unit
|
Column 1 is used to create a separate line of data and calculations for the time period shown on each LOS scenario: through the end of 1993; the first six fiscal years of the plan (1994-2000), and the additional 14-year planning period (2001-2014). These time periods distinguish between the needs of current residents and those of future growth.
Under column 1 , the first line of data is for current residents as of the end of the current fiscal year (1993). See, for example, Table A, p. 17. This line establishes whether or not there is a deficiency of existing service compared to the recommended level of service.
The second line presents data for the first six years of growth after the plan is adopted (1994-2000). The third line lists the estimated cost of non-capacity projects (i.e., repairs, remodeling, renovation of existing facilities, replacement of equipment, etc.) during the years 1995-2000. The total of the four line of data (current residents + transition + growth + non-capacity costs) is shown on the total through 1999. The remaining increment of growth from 2001-2014 is listed, along with any known non-capacity costs for the same time period. The "bottom line" is the total from "1993 Actual" to year 2014.
Column 2 shows the City's population or other demand factor. The population/other demand factor is allocated between present population and new growth, using the four time periods in column 1.
Column 3 shows the quantity of the facility that is needed to provide the level of service to the population. This "requirement" is calculated by multiplying the Demand (i.e., population) times the Level of Service (i.e., service units per capita) that appears in the heading of column 3. Each of the Scenarios uses two alternative Levels of Service: Current and Recommended.
Column 4 lists the amount of the capital facility that is available for the present population. These inventories of facilities are always attributable to the existing population, and are never shown on any data line for growth after the plan is adopted.
Column 5 shows the reserve or deficiency of current facilities (Column 4) compared to required facilities (Column 3). If the requirement for a facility is less than its inventory, the City has more than enough facilities to meet the level of service, and the extra facilities are counted as "Reserve". If the requirement is greater than the inventory, the shortage is preceded by a minus (-) sign or enclosed in parentheses and shown as a "Deficiency". The reserve/deficiency for "1993 Actual" is combined with the 6-year reserve/deficiency for 1995-2000 in order to arrive at the total reserve/deficiency as of December 31, 2000. In other words, a reserve of existing facilities will reduce or offset the deficiency caused by growth, and any deficiency of existing facilities will be added to the deficiency caused by growth. Column 6 shows two types of capital costs: (1) growth-related, or "capacity" cost, and (2) non-growth or "non-capacity" cost.
1. Capacity Cost: The purpose of this type of cost to eliminate each deficiency (or represent the value of reserve capital facilities) that occurs as a result of increased growth (i.e., population). The average cost of one unit of capital facility (e.g., mile, gallon, square foot, vehicle, etc.) is listed in the column heading.
The estimated cost of eliminating the deficiency is determined by multiplying the "Deficiency" times the "Average Cost/Unit". Any cost reserve/deficiency for "1993 Actual" is combined with the deficiency for 1994-2000 in the same manner as Column 5. The difference is that Column 5 shows the quantity of the facilities, and column 6 shows the dollar costs.
2. Non-Capacity Costs.: This type of capital cost pays only for projects in the capital facilities plan to repair, renovate, remodel, replace, or upgrade existing capital facilities currently owned and operated by the City. The City's existing capital facilities support the current LOS, and require improvements each year to maintain their ability to support the current LOS for both existing and future populations.
Each page contains a scenario with two levels of service (LOS) for most capital facilities within the format described above. For some facilities (i.e., roads, storm drainage, sewer, water), a different format is provided. In the standardized format, the top one-half of the page presents the current LOS (Scenario 1), and the bottom one-half of the page presents the Department's recommended level of service (Scenario 2).
1. CITY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES
The City administrative offices for the Finance Department, Building and Community Development Department, Utilities Billing Department and the Mayor's office are currently housed in the Port Townsend City Hall. Employees of Public Works Administration and the City Attorney are located at different locations. The Public Works offices are owned by the City, and the City Attorney office occupies a leased office space.
Level of Service: Table 1A shows that the current LOS is 852 square feet per 1,000 population (.85 square feet per capita), which is based on the existing inventory of 6,600 (4,600 square feet in City Hall and 2,600 square feet for Public Works) divided by the "1993 Actual" City population of 7,740. This LOS equates to 236 square feet per employee (including the City Attorney employees who are not housed within the 6,600 feet of space owned by the City). In order to maintain the current LOS, the City would need an additional 1,064 square feet by the year 2000 at a capital cost of $189,592 ("Total as of 2000" $714,592 less non-capacity costs of $525,000 = $182,592).
Non-capacity costs of $525,000 include roofing, concrete and seismic retrofit for City Hall.
The net cost of $150 per square foot (Column 6) was calculated by the City Administrative staff based on land, design, construction, and parking costs for a new building.
The City's recommendation of 1,150 square feet per 1,000 population equates to 318 square feet per employee. The recommended LOS is based on a study of comparable cities which included public works employees in their space calculations. Currently, at City Hall, most offices designed for one employee are being used by at least two employees, and three employees work out of leased office space in another location. Space for record storage, public information, and meeting rooms is insufficient for current needs. Because city administrative employees are housed in widely separated locations, communication between departments is less efficient and cost-effective, and citizens must often travel from one location to another to conduct business with the City.
The Recommended LOS of 1,150 square feet per 1,000 population (1.15 per capita) is 150 square feet per 1,000 (74%) higher than the current LOS. This LOS would require 4,011 square feet of additional space by the year 2000 at a capital cost of $601,657 ("Total as of 2000" $1,126,657 less non-capacity costs of $525,000 = $601,657).
Table 1A
CITY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES
City of Port Townsend
Analysis of Capital Facility Requirements
Current LOS: 594 square feet per 1,000 population
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| | Sq. Ft. Required @ | | | Net Cost @ |
| City | 0.59 | Square Feet | Net Reserve | $150 |
Time Period | Population | per capita | Available | or Deficiency | per sq. ft. |
1993 Actual | 7,740 | 4,600.00 | 4,600.00 | 0.00 | |
1994 Transition | 200 | 118.00 | 0.00 | -118.00 | $(17,700.00) |
1995-2000: Growth | 1,287 | 759.33 | 0.00 | 759.33 | $(113,899.50) |
Non-Capacity Costs | | | | | $(525,000.00) |
Total as of 2000 | 9,227 | 5,477.33 | 6,800.00 | 1,322.67 | $(656,599.50) |
2001-2014: Growth | 3,786 | 2,233.74 | 0.00 | -2,233.74 | $(335,061.00) |
Total as of 2014 | 13,013 | 7,711.07 | 6,800.00 | -911.07 | $(991,660.50)
|
Recommended LOS: 1,150 square feet per 1,000 population
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| | Sq. Ft. Required @ | | | Net cost @ |
| City | 1.15 | Square Feet | Net reserve | $150 |
Time Period | Population | per capita | Available | or deficiency | per sq. ft. |
1993 Actual | 7,740 | 8,901.00 | 4,600.00 | -4,301.00 | $(645,150.00) |
1994 Transition | 200 | 230.00 | 0.00 | -230.00 | $(34,500.00) |
1995-2000: Growth | 1,287 | 1,480.05 | 0.00 | -1,480.05 | $(222,007.50) |
Non-Capacity Costs | | | | | $(525,000.00) |
Total as of 2000 | 9,227 | 10,611.05 | 4,600.00 | -6,011.05 | $(1,426,657.50) |
2001-2014: Growth | 3,786 | 4,353.90 | 0.00 | -4,353.90 | $(653,085.00) |
Total as of 2014 | 13,013 | 14,964.95 | 4,600.00 | -10,364.95 | $(2,079,742.50)
|
2. CITY SHOP FACILITIES
The City Shop facility includes office space for the city draftsman, and meeting space for public works employees as well as vehicle and equipment storage and repair and maintenance facilities.
Level of Service: Table 2A shows that the current LOS is 1,550 square feet per 1,000 population (1.55 square feet per capita), which is based on the existing inventory of 12,000 square feet divided by the "1993 Actual" City population of 7,740. In order to maintain the current LOS, the City would need an additional 2,305 square feet by the year 2000 at a capital cost of $115,353 ("Total as of 2000").
There are no non-capacity costs.
The net cost of $50.00 per square foot was calculated by Public Works staff and is based on typical cost for a 12,000 square foot building expansion.
The recommended LOS of 310 square feet per 1,000 population (3.1 square feet per capita) is 155 per 1,000 (100%) higher than the current LOS. This LOS would require 16,604 square feet of additional space by the year 2000 at a capital cost of $830,185 ("Total as of 2000").
The recommended LOS is based on the expected predicted increase of vehicles in the fleet and equipment and staff with corresponding needs for storage and maintenance area.
Table 2A
SHOP FACILITIES
City of Port Townsend
Analysis of Capital Facility Requirements
Current LOS: 1550 square feet per 1,000 population
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| | Sq. Ft. Required @ | | Net Cost @ | |
| City | 1.55 | Square Feet | Net Reserve | $50.00 |
Time Period | Population | per capita | Available | or Deficiency | per sq. ft. |
1993 Actual | 7,740 | 12,000.00 | 12,000.00 | 0.00 | |
1994 Transition | 200 | 310.00 | 0.00 | -310.00 | $(15,500.00) |
1995-2000: Growth | 1,287 | 1,994.85 | 0.00 | -1,994.85 | $(99,742.50) |
Non-Capacity Costs | | | | | |
Total as of 2000 | 9,227 | 14,304.85 | 12,000.00 | -2,304.85 | $(115,242.50) |
2001-2014: Growth | 3,786 | 5,868.30 | | -5,868.30 | $(293,415.00) |
Total as of 2014 | 13,013 | 20,173.15 | 12,000.00 | -8,173.15 | $(408,657.50)
|
Recommended LOS: 310 square feet per 1,000 population A
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| | Sq. Ft. Required @ | | | Net Cost @ |
| City | 3.1 | Square Feet | Net Reserve | $50.00 |
Time Period | Population | per capita | Available | or Deficiency | per sq. ft. |
1993 Actual | 7,740 | 23,994.00 | 12,000.00 | -11,994.00 | $(599,700.00) |
1994 Transition | 200 | 620.00 | 0.00 | -620.00 | $(31,000.00) |
1995-2000: Growth | 1,287 | 3,989.70 | 0.00 | -3,989.70 | $(199,485.00) |
Non-Capacity Costs | | | | | |
Total as of 2000 | 9,227 | 28,603.70 | 12,000.00 | -16,603.70 | $(830,185.00) |
2001-2014: Growth | 3,786 | 11,736.60 | 0.00 | -11,736.60 | $(586,830.00) |
Total as of 2014 | 13,013 | 40,340.30 | 12,000.00 | -28,340.30 | $(1,417,015.00)
|
3. Fire and Emergency Medical Service (EMS)
The City of Port Townsend is responsible for fire protection within the City limits. The City's current inventory of fire protection facilities includes one fire station, a fire storage facility at Garfield & Harrison, and the following fleet of fire apparatus: 3 ambulances, 1 ladder truck, 4 engines/pumpers, 2 tanker/tenders, 1 salvage/utility, and 3 general purpose vehicles (1 cars/2 trucks). Current response time in the service area is 2-5 minutes.
Fire Station Bays
Level of Service (LOS) Table 3A shows that the current LOS is .6 Bays per 1,000 population (.0006 per capita). A "bay" represents one fire bay which has the capability of storing one to two pieces of apparatus (1,000 square feet) plus ancillary uses associated with the bay (e.g. restrooms, office space, storage, locker rooms) of 1,340 square feet for a total of 2,340 square feet per bay. The current LOS is based on the existing City inventory of 5 fire bays divided by the "1993 Actual" city population of 7,740. The current LOS is acceptable per the 1986 insurance rating from the Washington Surveying and Rating Bureau.
In order to maintain the current LOS, the City would need an additional .89 bays during 1994-2000 at a capital cost of $490,710 "Total As of 2000" $1,040,710 less non-capacity costs of $550,000 = $490,710. The net cost of $550,000 per bay (Column 6) was researched and calculated by Fire Department staff. The cost of each fire bay is based on the estimated construction cost of a new or replacement eight-bay fire station with ancillary functions, including land, excavation, construction, and architectural and engineering costs.
It is noted that the cost per fire station bay does not include the cost of the apparatus which would be housed in a fire bay. For each additional bay beyond those which now exist, the City Council must assume that a new apparatus at a cost of approximately $100,000 -$250,000 would be required to be purchased to be housed in the bay.
Non-capacity costs of $550,000 represent the cost of replacing two ambulances ($150,000) and two pumpers ($400,000).
The Fire Department's recommended LOS of 1 bay per 1,000 population (.001 bay per capita) is .4 bays per 1,000 population (67%) higher than the current LOS. This LOS would require an additional 4.49 bays by the year 2000 at a capital cost of $2,467,850 ("Total as of 2000" $3,017,850 less non-capacity costs of $550,000 = $2,467,850). Non-capacity costs are the same as the current LOS.
FIRE STATION REMODELING
Pending the outcome of the needs assessment to be conducted in 1995 for future police and fire facilities, the Fire Department is recommending the alternative of remodeling the existing fire station if a new facility does not come about or is not affordable within the next several years. The estimated cost of this alternative short term remodel project for the main fire station is $1,098,000. However, the existing facility and land base may not meet future space needs identified by the space study and may be deemed not cost effective. In conjunction with the remodeling of the existing fire station, it is recommended that the storage facility at Garfield and Harrison be upgraded to a fire substation at a cost of $534,750.
Fire-Police Training Center
The City's Fire/Police Department's planning for a training facility arises from standard fire department practice. National Fire Code standards, and the Washington Surveying & Rating Bureau which assists in developing individual property insurance rates for our property owners. The Washington Surveying & Rating Bureau states in its City of Port Townsend Fire Insurance Classification Improvement Statement (Sept. 1987) that the fire department should take action to provide "suitable training facilities including a drill tower, a structure in which fires may be built, a drafting pit, and one or more hydrants should be provided on an adequately sized, suitable surfaced area where generation of smoke and use of water will not be restricted."
The facilities are proposed to include not only the drill tower facility, but also restrooms, kitchen/lunch room facilities, and indoor apparatus bay for training and minor mechanical repair on the apparatus/equipment indoors. Based upon information provided by Police Department staff, it was determined that a combined police/fire facility would be practical, including an interdepartmental driver training course. Further, such a facility should be available to other agencies (county fire districts, county law enforcement), for which possible cost-share alternatives are expected.
The alternatives to planning and construction of this facility are to remain with present provisions for training which only provide live-fire training at the Washington Fire Training Center in North Bend, driver training for law enforcement at outside facilities, and use of commercial, institutional, and educational facilities located in the City as training grounds. The Fire and Police Departments must now send staff members to other locations for required and specialized training.
Level of Service (LOS). Table 2B shows there is no current LOS for the City as there is no existing inventory of square footage for a fire-police training center. The LOS recommended by the City of Port Townsend/Jefferson County Fire Districts is 226 square feet per 1,000 population (0.226 square feet per capita). This figure is based on the National Fire Protection Association 1402 Washington Survey and Rating Bureau guideline of 35 square feet per employee. There are currently 50 employees who would use the facility including fire and police department employees and volunteers. In order to achieve the recommended LOS, an additional 2,085 square feet of gross floor area would be required through the year 2000 at a capital cost of $338,492.50 ("Total As of 2000"). The net cost of $159.50 per sq. ft. (Column 6) is the average cost per square foot for this type of facility, and was estimated by the City of Port Townsend Fire Department staff.
Table 3A
FIRE STATION BAYS
Land Development Scenario 1: City Limits
City of Port Townsend
Analysis of Capital Facility Requirements
Current LOS: .6 Bays per 1,000 population
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
Time Period | City Population | Bays Required @ 0.0006 per capita | Bays Available | Net Reserve or Deficiency | Net Cost @ $550,000 per bay |
1993 Actual | 7,740 | 5.000 | 5 | 0 | $ |
1994 Transition | 200 | 0.1200 | 0 | -0.1200 | ($66,000) |
1995-2000: Growth Non-Capacity Costs | 1,287 | 0.7722 | 0 | -0.7722 | ($424,710) ($550,000) |
Total as of 2000 | 9,227 | 5.8922 | 5 | -0.8922 | ($1,040,710) |
2001-2014: Growth | 3,786 | 2.2716 | 0 | -2.2716 | ($1,249,380) |
Total as of 2014 | 13,013 | 8.1638 | 5 | -3.1638 | ($2,290,090)
|
Recommended LOS: 1 bay per 1,000 population
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| | Bays Required @ | | | Net cost @ |
| City | 0.001 | Bays | Net reserve | $550.000 |
| Population | per capita | Available | or deficiency | per bay |
1993 Actual | 7,740 | 8.00 | 5 | -3.00 | ($1,650,000) |
1994 Transition | 200 | 0.200 | 0 | -0.200 | ($110,000) |
1995-2000: Growth | 1,287 | 1.287 | 0 | -1.287 | ($707,850) |
Non-Capacity Costs | | | | | ($550,000) |
Total as of 2000 | 9,227 | 9.487 | 5 | -4.487 | ($3,017,850) |
2001-2014: Growth | 3,786 | 3.786 | 0 | -3.786 | ($2,082,300) |
Total as of 2014 | 13,013 | 13.273 | 5 | -8.273 | ($5,100,150)
|
Table 3B
FIRE - POUCE TRAINING CENTER
Land Development Scenario 1: City Limits
City of Port Townsend
Analysis of Capital Facility Requirements
Current LOS: 0.00 square ft. per 1,000 population
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| | Sq. Ft Required @ | | | Net Cost @ |
| City | 0.00 | Square Ft | Net Reserve | $159.50 |
Time Period | Population | per capita | Available | or Deficiency | per sq. ft. |
1993 Actual | 7,740 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
1994 Transition | 200 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | $0 |
1995-2000:. Growth | 1,287 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | $0 |
Non-Capacity Costs | | | | | |
Total as of 2000 | 9,227 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | $0 |
2001-2014: Growth | 3,786 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | $0 |
Total as of 2014 | 13,013 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | $0
|
Recommended LOS: 226 Sq. Ft. per 1,000 population
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| | Sq. Ft Required @ | | | Net cost @ |
| City | 0.23 | Square Feet | Net reserve | $159.50 |
| Population | per capita | Available | or deficiency | per sq. ft. |
1993 Actual | 7,740 | 1,780.20 | 0.00 | -1,780.20 | ($283,941.90) |
1994 Transition | 200 | 46.00 | 0.00 | -46.00 | ($7,337.00) |
1995-2000: Growth | 1,287 | 296.01 | 0.00 | -296.01 | ($47,213.60) |
Non-Capacity Costs | | | | | |
Total as of 2000 | 9,227 | 2,122.21 | 0.00 | -2,122.21 | ($338,492.50) |
2001-2014: Growth | 3,786 | 870.78 | 0.00 | -870.78 | ($138,889.41) |
Total as of 2014 | 13,013 | 2,992.99 | 0.00 | -2,992.99 | ($477,381.91)
|
4. LIBRARY
The Port Townsend City Library has a current inventory of 27,123 volumes and an area of 7,584 square feet.
Levels of Service (LOS): Volumes and Square Feet per Capita. Table 3A shows that the current LOS is 3.5 volumes per capita, which is based on the existing inventory of 27,123 volumes divided by the "1993 Actual" City population of 7,740. In order the maintain the current LOS, the City would need an additional 5,205 volumes by the year 2000 at a capital cost of $149,890 ("Total As of 2000" $181,013 cost less non-capacity costs of $50,900 = $130,113). Amounts in Column 6 are rounded to the nearest dollar.
The net cost of $25.00 per volume (Column 6) was researched and calculated by the City Library staff.
Non-capacity costs of $50,900 projected during 1994-2000 are taken from the current City Capital Improvement Program and includes heating-ventilation-air conditioning ($10,000), foundation work ($4,000), refinishing interior ($4,000), refinishing exterior ($4,000), exterior painting ($10,000), site work including irrigation, curb, repair and resurfacing of parking lot ($10,400), work station ($1,500), and lighting upgrade ($7,000).
The recommended LOS of 4.1 volumes per capita is .6 volumes per capita higher (17%) than the current LOS, and is based on the per capita August average for cities 5,000 - 9,999 compiled by the National Center for Educational Statistics - Public Libraries, 1992. In order to support the recommended LOS, the City would need to purchase 10,708 volumes by 2000 at a capital cost of $267,693 ("Total As Of 2000" $318,593 cost less non-capacity costs of $50,900 = $267,693).
Table 3B shows the current LOS of 980 square feet per 1,000 population, which is based on the existing inventory of 7,584 square feet divided by the "1993 Actual" City population of 7,740. In order to maintain the current LOS, the City would need an additional 1,457 square feet during 1994-2000 at a capital cost of $145,726.
The net cost of $100 per square foot was calculated by the Library Staff based on conversations with Lewis, Nelson Associates, an architectural firm which has done several library projects, including the existing City library.
The recommended LOS of 617 sq. feet per 1,000 population is 363 sq. ft. per 1,000 population lower ( 37 %) than the current LOS, and is based on the need identified by library staff for enough square footage by the year 2014 to accommodate 3 terminals, 5 PC's and seating for 30 more patrons. This is an additional 1,240 square feet and approximately 800 square feet are already available for these uses. A net total addition of 484 square feet would be necessary to accommodate these space needs by the year 2014. In order to support the recommended LOS, the city would need no additional square feet as of the year 2000 and therefore no cost would be accrued.
Table4A
LIBRARY
Land Development Scenario 1: City Limits
City of Port Townsend
Analysis of Capital Facility Requirements
Current LOS: 3.5 volumes per capita
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| | Volumes Req. @ | | | Net Cost @ |
| City | 3.5 | Volumes | Net Reserve | $25.00 |
Time Period | Population | per capita | Available | or Deficiency | per volume |
1993 Actual | 7,740 | 27,123.00 | 27,123 | 0.00 | $ |
1994 Transition | 200 | 700.00 | 0 | -700.00 | ($17,500) |
1995-2000: Growth | 1,287 | 4,504.50 | 0 | -4,504.50 | ($112,613) |
Non-Capacity Costs | | | | | ($50,900) |
Total as of 2000 | 9,227 | 32,327.50 | 27,123 | -5,204.50 | ($181,013) |
2001-2014: Growth | 3,786 | 13,251.00 | 0 | -13,251.00 | ($331,275) |
Total as of 2014 | 13,013 | 45,578.50 | 27,123 | -18,455.50 | ($512,288)
|
Recommended LOS: 4.1 Volumes per capita
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| | Volumes Req. @ | | | Net cost @ |
| City | 4.1 | Volumes | Net reserve | $25.00 |
| Population | per capita | Available | or deficiency | per volume |
1993 Actual | 7,740 | 31,734.00 | 27,123 | -4,611.00 | ($115,275) |
1994 Transition | 200 | 820.00 | 0 | -820.00 | ($20,500) |
1995-2000: Growth | 1,287 | 5,276.70 | 0 | -5,276.70 | ($131,918) |
Non-Capacity Costs | | | | | ($50,900) |
Total as of 2000 | 9,227 | 37,830.70 | 27,123 | -10,707.70 | ($318,593) |
2001-2014: Growth | 3,786 | 15,522.60 | 0 | -15,522.60 | ($388,065) |
Total as of 2014 | 13,013 | 53,353.30 | 27,123 | -26,230.30 | ($706,658)
|
Table 4B
LIBRARY
Land Development Scenario 1: City Limits
City of Port Townsend
Analysis of Capital Facility Requirements
Current LOS: 980 sq. ft 1,000 population
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| | Sq. Ft. Required @ | | | Net Cost @ |
| City | 0.98 | Square Feet | Net Reserve | $100.00 |
Time Period | Population | per capita | Available | or Deficiency | per sq. ft. |
1993 Actual | 7,740 | 7,584.00 | 7,584 | 0 | |
1994 Transition | 200 | 196.00 | 0 | -196.00 | ($19,600) |
1995-2000: Growth | 1,287 | 1,261.26 | 0 | -1,261.26 | ($126,126) |
Non-Capacity Costs | | | | | |
Total as of 2000 | 9,227 | 9,041.26 | 7,584 | -1,457.26 | ($145,726) |
2001-2014: Growth | 3,786 | 3,710.28 | 0 | -3,710.28 | ($371,028) |
Total as of 2014 | 13,013 | 12,751.54 | 7,584 | -5,167.54 | ($516,754)
|
Recommended LOS: 617 sq. feet per 1,000 population
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| | Sq. Ft. Required @ | | | Net Cost @ |
| City | 0.62 | Square Feet | Net Reserve | $100.00 |
Time Period | Population | per capita | Available | or Deficiency | per sq. ft. |
1993 Actual | 7,740 | 4,798.80 | 7,584 | 2,785.20 | $0 |
1994 Transition | 200 | 124.00 | 0 | -124.00 | ($12,400) |
1995-2000: Growth | 1,287 | 797.94 | 0 | -797.94 | ($79,794) |
Non-Capacity Costs | | | | | |
Total as of 2000 | 9,227 | 5,720.74 | 7,584 | 1,863.26 | $0 |
2001-2014: Growth | 3,786 | 2,347.32 | 0 | -2,347.32 | ($234,732) |
Total as of 2014 | 13,013 | 2,347.32 | 0 | -2,347.32 | ($48,406)
|
5. Parks
The current parks inventory within the City limits includes 59 acres of parks and 40 acres of water and wetlands. The table below shows the current parks inventory.
City-Owned Parks Within the City Limits
(Excluding water and wetlands) |
|---|
Park | Acres | Description |
|---|
Chetzemoka | 5 | "Regional" destination park with formal plantings, play equipment, beach access, picnic facilities. Also used as a neighborhood park. |
Kah Tai Lagoon (leased through 7/31/2012) | 40 | Open space/wildlife park, with trails, picnic tables, playground equipment. Number of acres listed excludes water and wetlands. |
Pope Marine | 1.2 | Community park with public facilities for meetings, transient boaters, benches, picnic tables. |
Sather | 4.9 | Greenbelt park, wildlife habitat with trails. |
Bishop | 2.5 | Greenbelt park, wildlife habitat with trails |
Bell Tower | .1 | Historic street end park with formal plantings. |
Terrace Steps//Haller Fountain | .1 | Street end park , historic fountain, greenbelt. |
Rotary | .1 | Picnic facilities and benches for ferry travelers. |
City Entrance | 2.5 | Greenbelt, non-destination park. |
Gateway Triangle: Mini Park I | .1 | Non-destination greenbelt, currently annual dahlia garden. |
Gateway Triangle: Mini Park II | .1 | Non-destination, visual greenbelt. |
Tidal | .1 | Large public "sculpture" |
Adams Street | .1 | Urban pocket, street end park, water access and view, mainly used by tourists. |
Cherry Street | 2.0 | Neighborhood Park |
Taylor Street Stairs | .1 | Uptown access, street end park |
Elmira Street | .2 | Street end park |
TOTAL | 59.1 |
|
Water and wetlands acreage includes 5 acres of tideland at Chetzemoka and 35 acres of water and wetlands at Kah Tai Park.
Chetzemoka Park, the Pope Marine Park/City Dock, and Cherry Street Park provide playground equipment for elementary school age children. Chetzemoka Park and Marine Park provide picnic tables and benches, and access to the water and shoreline. Marine Park includes a community building which is now open for public use. The 200 foot City Dock is the only downtown dock open to the public in the City. It attracts such diverse users as tall ships, children, fishermen and moon watchers. Sather Park, Bishop Park, and Kah Tai Lagoon have nature trails for citizens of all ages. Additionally, Kah Tai Lagoon has a fitness course, picnic shelters, and playground equipment. Rotary Park provides a resting area for ferry passengers at the new Ferry Terminal. Kah Tai Lagoon, Chetzemoka and Cherry Street Park have rest rooms.
LOS Methodology: The LOS analysis for park land focuses on City-owned park land current and recommended LOS, and corresponds to the requirements of the Growth Management Act. This is being done to distinguish specifically between current and future LOS requirements of park land available to residents within the City of Port Townsend which is owned and controlled by the City.
Current Levels of Service fLOS). This report analyzes the LOS for parks within the Port Townsend City Limits which are owned or leased by the City. Table 4A shows the current LOS (Column 3) for City-owned parks within the City limits at 7.6 acres per 1,000 population (.0076 acres per capita), which is based on the existing inventory of 59 park acres divided by the "1993 Actual" City population of 7,740. As column 5 shows, an additional 11.3 acres would be needed through the year 2000 at a cost of $791,084 ("Total As of 2000" $939,384 less non-capacity costs of $148,300 == $791,084) in order to maintain the current LOS.
Non-capacity costs of $148,300 (i.e., renovation, replacement, repair,, etc.) during 1994-2000 include development/improvements to Pope Marine Bidg. ($30,000), City Dock ($48,000), Tidal Park ($21,300), Chetzemoka Park ($12,000), Adams Street Park ($15,000), playground equipment ($10,000), and ADA Restroom Improvements ($12,000).
The net cost per acre of $70,000 (Column 6) is based on an average estimated acre cost of land within the city based on recent acquisitions of large parcels of undeveloped land (approximately $12,000/acre) and land bought as individual city lots (average $120,000 /acre).
The recommended LOS of 7.6 acres per 1,000 population (.0076 per capita) is unchanged from the current LOS. No increase in LOS is recommended, in part because of the large number of acres of park within the City limits owned by Jefferson County and the State of Washington, which are available to City residents. The tables therefore reflect the same net deficiency and cost for the recommended as for the current scenario.
The 1991 Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Plan includes a summary of the results of ongoing citizen involvement and a 1989 public performance survey in regard to the future plan for park facilities in Port Townsend. Results of the survey show a demand for additional community park sites as well as a high interest in recreation facilities at a community park.
Maintaining the current level of service would assure the City of having an adequate number of park acres per capita regardless of any changes in the future uses of the County and State owned parks. In addition, the establishment of neighborhood parks in areas which will be more heavily developed within the next six to twenty years will assure that all citizens of Port Townsend have convenient access to parks. The City will be in the process of identifying appropriate sites for future acquisition, with emphasis on sites which may be used in a multipurpose fashion; for example, park facilities may be established on land acquired for utilities rights-of-way, stormwater drainage, or other uses. At the present time, the Northwest portion of the city ( north and west of Discovery Bay Road) is the most likely area for acquisition of new park acreage.
There are several other parks within the city limits that are owned by the state and county. These are listed below. This abundance of acreage should be considered when determining the future of the City park system; however, none of this acreage has been included in the tables and projections because the City does not have any control over the management of this land in terms of types of facilities available and access, nor does the City have capital expenditures for State and County parkland and recreation facilities. It should be considered, however, when outlining the City's Capital Facilities projections for parks, that these facilities are at the present time, and for the foreseeable future, available to City residents.
STATE AND COUNTY PARKS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS |
PARK | ACRES | OWNER |
North Beach County Park | .61 | Jefferson County |
Jefferson County Fairgrounds | 22.7 | Jefferson County |
Memorial Athletic Field | 4.09 | Jefferson County |
Courthouse Park | 1.11 | Jefferson County |
Recreation Center Park | .92 | Jefferson County |
Fort Worden State Park | 439 | State of Washington |
TOTAL | 468.43 |
|
Other Recreational Facilities
Within the City Park System, there are currently some recreational facilities. There are, however, also within the City limits, a few state and county facilities which fulfill regional recreational needs. The county recreational facilities include the County Fairgrounds, Memorial Field (football, baseball, and soccer), the Recreational Center (basketball, games, conditioning), and Courthouse Park (basketball, one unlighted tennis court, and playing field). Fort Worden State Park, adjacent to the City, has two tennis courts, miles of trails, rough playing fields and beaches.
A table showing the current level of service has also been included for the city's golf course. The following inventory of recreational facilities shows those available within the City limits and includes those facilities owned and maintained by the City aas well as by the county, state, and school district.
| RECREATIONAL FACLITIES INVENTORY |
|---|
TYPE OF FACILITY | NUMBER | OTHER INFORMATION |
|---|
TENNIS COURTS | 4 | High School |
| 2 | Mountain View School |
| 1 | Courthouse Park |
| 2 | Fort Worden |
Total | 9 | |
BASKETBALL (INDOOR) | 1 | Mountain View (3/4 Court) |
| 1 | Grant St. School (3/4 Ct.) |
| 2 | High School |
| 2 | Blue Heron |
| 1 | Recreation Center |
Total | 7 | |
BASKETBALL (OUTDOOR) | 2 | Stuart Bidg. (School Dist.) |
| 2 | Grant St. School |
| 2 | Blue Heron |
| 1 | Courthouse Park |
Total | 7 | |
PLAYING FIELDS | 2 | Blue Heron (Softball) |
| 2 | Grant St. (Youth size) |
| 1 | Mountain View (Youth) |
| 1 | High School (Handball /Softball) |
| 1 | High School (Lincoln Field) Practice - Football/Soccer) |
| 1 | High School - Behind Gym (Youth size/Practice) |
| 1 | Mountain View (Youth Soccer) |
| 1 | Fort Worden (Rough Practice Field) |
Total | 10 | |
TRACK | 1 | Blue Heron |
Total | 1 | |
YOUTH PLAY EQUIPMENT (PLAYGROUND) | 1 | Mountain View |
| 1 | Grant Street |
| 1 | Chetzemoka* |
| 1 | Pope Marine Park* |
| 1 | Cherry St. Park* |
| 1 | Recreation Center |
Total | 6 |
|
Playing Fields: The current level of service (LOS) for playing fields owned by the City, County, and State is 1.2 playing fields per 1,000 population (based on a total of ten playing fields divided by "1993 Actual" population of 7,740). This includes all facilities within the city which may be used by city residents. When defined as a level playing area the size of a soccer field (180 x 330*), there are no playing fields within the City-owned park system. The only City-owned parks with large enough areas to develop as playing fields are Chetzemoka and Kah Tai.
A cost per field of $100,000 is estimated by other local jurisdictions in the state for the addition of a football or soccer practice field.
Playgrounds: The current level of service (LOS) for all playgrounds within the City owned by the City, County, and State is .8 playgrounds per 1,000 population (based on a total of six playgrounds divided by "1993 Actual" population of 7,740). This includes all facilities within the City which may be used by City residents. There are currently six playgrounds within the City, located at Chetzemoka Park, Pope Marine Park, Cherry Street Park, Community Center and at two school sites. In order to maintain current playgrounds and equipment, and to establish another playground if the LOS of City-owned parks were maintained, a non-capacity cost of $10,000 has been included in the non-capacity total for Table 5A. Acquisition of and development of land exclusively for a playground is estimated by other state jurisdictions to be $60,225. However, if more land were acquired for neighborhood parks to maintain the current level of service, the cost of establishing a playground area would be limited to the non-capacity costs of the equipment.
Golf Courses: There is currently one 55.7 acre, nine-hole golf course within the City limits which is leased by the city to a private operator. It includes a driving range and two sensitive areas, a 3 acre native prairie preserve (managed since 1988 by the Native Plant Society), and a 4 acre, spring fed, freshwater pond and associated marsh.
Table 5B shows the current level of service for the nine holes is one nine-hole gold course for the City of Port Townsend.
The net cost per hole of $111,000 (Column 6) is based on the average cost estimated by other local jurisdictions in the State.
A recommended LOS of one eighteen-hole golf course for the city an expansion of the current 9-hole course to 18 holes by the year 2000. As the table shows, in order to support the recommended LOS, the City would need to develop nine more holes at a cost of $111,000 per hole, or a total cost of $999,000 by the year 2000.
TABLE 5A
PARKS
City of Port Townsend
Analysis of Capital Facility Requirements
Current LOS: 7.6 acres per 1,000 population
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| | Acres Required @ | | | Net cost @ |
| City | 0.0076 | Acres | Net Reserve | $70,000 |
Time Period | Population | per capita | Available | or Deficiency | per acre |
1993 Actual | 7,740 | 59.0000 | 59 | 0.0000 | $0 |
1994 Transition | 200 | 1.5200 | 0 | -1.5200 | ($106,400) |
1995-2000 Growth | 1,287 | 9.7812 | 0 | -9.7812 | ($684,684) |
Non-Capacity Costs | | | | | ($148,300) |
Total as of 2000 | 9,227 | 70.3012 | 59 | -11.3012 | ($939,384) |
2001-2014: Growth | 3,786 | 28.7736 | 0 | -28.7736 | ($2,014,152) |
Total as of 2014 | 13,013 | 99.0748 | 59 | -40.0748 | ($2,953,536) |
Recommended LOS: 7.6 acres per 1,000 population
|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| | Acres Required @ | | | Net cost @ |
| City | 0.0076 | Acres | Net Reserve | $70,000 |
| Population | per capita | Available | or Deficiency | per acre |
1993 Actual | 7,740 | 59.0000 | 59 | 0.0000 | $0 |
1994 Transition | 200 | 1.5200 | 0 | -1.5200 | ($106,400) |
1995-2000 Growth | 1,287 | 9.7812 | 0 | -9.7812 | ($684,684) |
Non-Capacity Costs | | | | | ($148,300) |
Total as of 2000 | 9,227 | 70.3012 | 59 | -11.3012 | ($939,384) |
2001-2014: Growth | 3,786 | 28.7736 | 0 | -28.7736 | ($2,014,152) |
Total as of 2014 | 13,013 | 99.0748 | 59 | -40.0748 | ($2,953,536)
|
TABLE 5B
GOLF COURSE
City of Port Townsend
Analysis of Capital Facility Requirements
Current LOS: 9 holes per city
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| | Holes Required @ | | | Net Cost @ |
| City | 9.0000 | Holes | Net Reserve | $111,000 |
Time Period | Population | per city | Available | or Deficiency | per hole |
1993 Actual | N/A | 9.0000 | 9 | 0.0000 | |
1994 Transition | | | 0 | 0.0000 | $0 |
1995-2000: Growth | | | 0 | 0.0000 | $0 |
Non-Capacity Costs | | | | | |
Total as of 2000 | | 9.0000 | 9 | 0.0000 | $0 |
2001-2014: Growth | | 0.0000 | | 0 | |
Total as of 2014 | 13,013 | 9.0000 | 9 | 0.0000 | $0
|
Recommended LOS: 18 holes per city
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| | Holes Required @ | | | Net Cost @ |
| City | 18 | Holes | Net Reserve | $111,000 |
Time Period | Population | per city | Available | or Deficiency | per hole |
1993 Actual | 7,740 | 9.0000 | 9 | | $0 |
1994 Transition | | | 0 | 0.0000 | $0 |
1995-2000: Growth | | | 0 | 0.0000 | $0 |
Non-Capacity Costs | | | | | |
Total as of 2000 | 9,227 | 18.0000 | 9 | 9.0000 | $(999,000) |
2001-2014: Growth | 3,786 | N/A | | | $0 |
Total as of 2014 | 13,013 | 18.0000 | 9 | 9.0000 | $(999,000)
|
6 LAW ENFORCEMENT: POLICE DEPARTMENT FACILITIES
The City's law enforcement facility inventory consists of the downtown police station. This section of the report includes a level of service (LOS) analysis of the existing facility and a proposed new police station.
Level of Service (LOS): Table 5 shows that the current LOS is 518 square feet per 1,000 population (.518 square feet per capita), which is based on the existing inventory of 4,000 square feet divided by the "1993 Actual" City population of 7,740. This LOS equates to 333 square feet per employee (4,000 square feet divided by 12 employees in 1993 == 333 square feet per employee). In order to maintain the current LOS, the City would need an additional 770 square feet of office space by the year 2000 at a capital cost of $65,725 ("Total as of 2000" $86,725 cost less non-capacity costs of $21,000 = $65,725).
Non-capacity costs include $11,000 for materials to remodel the existing police station and $10,000 for purchase of a computerized records management system.
The net cost of $85 per square foot (Column 6) for the police station building is based on the average cost of building for a public safety building constructed in Bonney Lake, Washington, which was completed in 1994. A pending City space needs assessment to be conducted in 1995 will project a figure for the actual cost of a new police station or combined fire/public safety building.
The Recommended LOS of 1,000 square feet per 1,000 population is 482 square feet per 1,000 population (93% ) higher than the current LOS. This LOS would require 5,227 sq. ft. of additional space through the year 2000 at a capital cost of $444,295 ("Total as of 2000" $465,295 less non-capacity costs of $21,000 = $444,295). Non-capacity costs are the same as the current LOS.
The recommended LOS of 1,000 square feet per 1,000 population reflects the Police Department's recommendation to provide 450 square feet per employee is taken from studies by Ruth & Goins, an architectural firm cited by the International Association of Police Chiefs, as the standard for a small law enforcement agency. The Recommended LOS assumes an increase in number of employees from 12 to 29 during the growth period 1995-2014. This includes an increased number of police officers to 1.9/1,000 population, which reflects the average for all Washington cities with populations in the 5,000 to 10,000 range according to the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs. The ratio of officers in 1993 was 1.2 officers/1,000 population. The number of square feet currently available to the Police Department provides a minimal amount of space for current staffing and affects critical functions of the department; there are insufficient areas for record storage, evidence storage,
or interview space. Addition of projected new staff members will impact space constraints to an even greater degree
At the present rime, $2.6 million is being recommended in the City's annual 1995-2000 Capital Improvement Plan for a Public Safety Facility. There is no recommendation in this report about how money will be spent or space used pending the consultant's recommendation from the current space study to be completed in March or April 1995.
TABLE 6A
POLICE DEPARTMENT BUILDING
City of Port Townsend
Analysis of Capital Facility Requirements
Current LOS: 518 square ft. per 1.000 population
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| | Sq. Ft. Required @ | | | Net Cost @ |
| City | 0.52 | Square Ft. | Net Reserve | $85 |
Time Period | Population | per capita | Available | or Deficiency | per sq. ft. |
1993 Actual | 7,740 | 4,000.00 | 4,000 | 0 | $0 |
1994 Transition | 200 | 104.00 | 0 | -104.00 | ($8,840) |
1995-2000: Growth | 1,287 | 669.24 | 0 | -669.24 | ($56,885) |
Non-Capacity Costs | | | | | ($21,000) |
Total as of 2000 | 9,227 | 4,773.24 | 4,000 | -773.24 | ($86,725) |
2001-1014: Growth | 3,786 | 1,968.72 | 0 | -1968.72 | ($167,341) |
Total as of 2014 | 13,013 | 6,741.96 | 4,000 | -2741.96 | ($254,067)
|
Recommended LOS: 1,000 sq. feet per 1,000 population
| | Sq. Ft. Required @ | | | Net Cost @ |
| City | 1.00 | Square Ft. | Net Reserve | $85 |
| Population | per capita | Available | or Deficiency | per sq. ft. |
1993 Actual | 7,740 | 7,740.00 | 4,000 | -3,740.00 | ($317,900) |
1994 Transition | 200 | 200.00 | 0 | -200.00 | ($17,000) |
1995-2000: Growth | 1,287 | 1,287.00 | 0 | -1,287.00 | ($109,395) |
Non-Capacity Costs | | | | | ($21,000) |
Total as of 2000 | 9,227 | 9,227.00 | 4,000 | -5,227.00 | ($465,295) |
2001-1014: Growth | 3,786 | 3,786.00 | 0 | -3,786.00 | ($321,810) |
Total as of 2014 | 13,013 | 13,013.00 | 4,000 | -9,013.00 | ($787,105)
|
8. WATER SUPPLY AND DISTRIBUTION
The City's water supply and distribution system is broken down into four major categories: 1) raw water supply, 2) raw water storage, 3) treated water distribution and storage, and 4) treatment. These facilities can be further broken down into the City and the Tri-Area. This section of the plan, therefore contains a narrative and a table for each of these categories.
8.1 A Raw Water Supply - City
Introduction
The City of Port Townsend's raw water supply is the Big Quilcene River. The City's contract with the Port Townsend Paper Mill is for 5 million gallons per day (currently 4 million for the City and 1 million for the Tri-Area).
Current Level of Service
The current level of service shown on Table 8-1 A is based on 4 million gallons per day for a 1993 actual population of 7740 for an LOS of 517 gallons per day per capita. Table 8-1A shows the available raw water in 1993 and 1994 as 4 million gallons per day. However, by the year 2000, it is assumed that the Tri-Area will be on groundwater for their raw water supply and the extra 1 million gallons of surface water will be applied to the City.
As shown in Table 8-1A, to maintain the current LOS the city will need an additional 1.7 million gallons per day of raw water supply. However, there is no additional water available from the Big Quilcene unless the mill conserves the water that they receive under the contract. Some of this conserved water would undoubtedly go to instream flows and therefore it is assumed at this time that no additional water is available to the City and therefore no cost estimate can be placed on additional water.
No non-capacity costs are included in this analysis.
Recommended Level of Service
The Department of Health requires water purveyors to plan for ,800 gallons per day per connection for raw water supply. Using a household of 2.05 people for the City (based on Waterson Population Forecast report dated December 1994), this equates to 390 gallons per day per capita.
As shown in Table 8-1A, using 390 gallons per day per capita, the City will have a slight deficiency (approximately 78,000 gallons /day) in the year 2014. Negotiations between the City and Port Townsend Paper Mill will have to take place before 2014 for additional supply.
Table 8-1A assumes growth within the City's current limits. If Glen Cove is added to this projection, the net reserve/deficiency numbers will change.
Table 8-1 A
RAW WATER SUPPLY - CITY
CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND
ANALYSIS OF CAPITAL FACILITIES REQUIREMENTS
Current LOS: 517 Gallons per Day per Capita
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| City | GPD | | Net | Net Cost @ |
Time Period | Population | Required @ | | Reserve or | $ - |
| | 517 | Gallons/Day | Deficiency | per gallon/day |
| | GPD/Capita | Available | | |
1993 Actual | 7740 | 4000000 | 4000000 | -4.657E-10 | 0 |
1994 Transition | 200 | 103359.173 | | -103359.17 | 0 |
1995-2000 Growth | 1287 | 665116.279 | 1000000 | 334883.721 | 0 |
Non-Capacity Costs | | | | | 0 |
Total as of 2000 | 9227 | 4768475.45 | 5000000 | 231524.548 | 0 |
2001-2014 | 3786 | 1956589.15 | | -1956589.1 | 0 |
Non-Capacity Costs | | | | | 0 |
Total as of 2014 | 13013 | 6725064.6 | 5000000 | -1725064.6 | 0
|
Recommended LOS: 390 Gallons per Day per Capita
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| City | GPD | Gallons/Day | Net | Net Cost @ |
Time Period | Population | Required @ | Available | Reserve or | 0 |
| | 390.243902 | | Deficiency | per gallon/day |
| | GPD/Capita | | | |
1993 Actual | 7740 | 3020487.8 | 4000000 | 979512.195 | 0 |
1994 Transition | 200 | 78048.7805 | | -78048.78 | 0 |
1995-2000 Growth | 1287 | 502243.902 | 1000000 | 497756.0981 | 0 |
Non-Capacity Costs | | | | | 0 |
Total as of 2000 | 9227 | 3600780.49 | 5000000 | 1399219.51 | 0 |
2001-2014 | 3786 | 1477463.41 | | -1477463.4 | 0 |
Non-Capacity Costs | | | | | 0 |
Total as of 2014 | 13013 | 5078243.9 | 5000000 | -78243.902 | 0
|
8-1B Raw Water Supply - Tri-Area
Introduction
The raw water supply for the Tri-Area currently consists of 800,000 gallons per day of surface water from the Big Quilcene River and two groundwater wells to supply peak periods. The City envisions putting the Tri-Area on groundwater as the primary supply within 1995. The City's groundwater right on the two wells totals 1.25 million gallons per day average and 3.24 million gallons per day peak. However, the current capacity of the two wells is approximately 500,000 gallons per day.
Current Level of Service
As shown in Table 8-1B, the current LOS for the Tri-Area is based on 800,000 gallons per day (surface water) + 500,000 gallons per day (groundwater) divided by the 1993 Tri-Area population of 3922 which equates to approximately 331 gallons per day per capita. An additional 898,953 gallons per day are required on a peak basis to meet the City's other contract demands (Indian Island, Ft. Flagler, Fish Lab, PUD, Broders, and other government). The Tri-Area population is based on the Watterson report (January 1995) which uses the County's Tri-Area Planning Area boundaries; this does not correspond exactly to the City's Water Service area ( see attached figure for the boundaries of each area). The City's Utility Department tracks accounts based on whether they are in the City or outside of the City; they do not break down out-of-city accounts into Tri-Area. and other areas. Therefore, given the difficulty in accurately determining the exact number of residential and commercial accounts served by the City in the Tri-Area, it was assumed that the City was serving the same population as represented in the County's Tri-Area Planning Area.
Table 8-1B assumes that surface water supply will be replaced with groundwater by the year 2000. Therefore, available supply changes from 1.3 million gallons per day to 500,000 gallons per day from 1995 to 2000.
Maintaining the current LOS results in a deficiency of approximately 2.2 million gallons per day. To meet this need at least one additional well would be needed. Using a cost estimate of $300,000 for a new well with additional capacity of 1 million gallons, the cost for meeting the deficiency in twenty years would be approximately $650,000.
No non-capacity costs are included in this analysis.
Recommended Level of Service
The Department of Health requires water purveyors to plan for 800 gallons per day per connection for raw water supply. Using a household of 2.16 people for the Tri-Area (Waterson report, December 1995) this equates to 370 gallons per day per capita.
As shown in Table 8-1B, using 370 gallons per day per capita, the Tri-Area will have a deficiency of approximately 2.4 million gallons per day in twenty years. Additional well capacity to meet this need would cost approximately $715,000.
No non-capacity costs are included in this analysis.
Table 8-1B
RAW WATER SUPPLY - TRI-AREA
CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND
ANALYSIS OF CAPITAL FACILITIES REQUIREMENTS
Current LOS: 331 Gallons per Day per Capita
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| Tri-Area | GPD | | Net | Net Cost @ |
Time Period | Service | Required @ | | Reserve or | $0.30 |
| Population | 331 | Gallons/Day | Deficiency | per gallon/day |
| | GPD/Capita + | Available | | |
| | 898,953 | | | |
| | GPD (contracts) | | | |
1993 Actual | 3922 | 2,198,953 | 1,300,000 | (898,953) | $(269,686) |
1994 Transition | 163 | 952,982 | | (952,982) | $(285,895) |
1995-2000 Growth | 481 | 1,058,387 | (800,000) | (1,858,387) | $(557,516) |
Non-Capacity Costs | | | | | $- |
Total as of 2000 | 4566 | 2,412,416 | 500,000 | (1,912,416) | $(573,725) |
2001-2014 | 794 | 1,162,135 | | (1,162,135) | $(348,641) |
Non-Capacity Costs | | | | | $- |
Total as of 2014 | 5360 | 2,675,598 | 500,000 | (2,175,598) | $(652,679)
|
Recommended LOS: 370 Gallons per Day per Capita
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| Tri-Area | GPD | | Net | Net Cost @ |
Time Period | Service | Required @ | | Reserve or | $0.30 |
| Population | 370 | Gallons/Day | Deficiency | per gallon/day |
| | GPD/Capita + | Available | | |
| | 898,953 | | | |
| | GPD (contracts) | | | |
1993 Actual | 3922 | 2,351,546 | 1,300,000 | (1,051,564) | $(315,464) |
1994 Transition | 163 | 959,323 | | (959,323) | $(287,797) |
1995-2000 Growth | 481 | 1,077,101 | (800,000) | (1,877,101) | $(563,130) |
Non-Capacity Costs | | | | | $- |
Total as of 2000 | 4566 | 2,590,064 | 500,000 | (2,090,064) | $(627,019) |
2001-2014 | 794 | 1,193,027 | | (1,193,027) | $(357,908) |
Non-Capacity Costs | | | | | $- |
Total as of 2014 | 5360 | 2,884,138 | 500,000 | (2,384,138) | $(715,241)
|
8-2A Raw Water Storage - City
Introduction
The City currently stores raw water at Lords Lake which has a capacity of 500 million gallons. The City has a limitation at Lords Lake of an additional 300 million gallons if the dam and structures are raised.
Current Level of Service
The current LOS is based on a capacity of 500 million gallons divided by the 1993 population of the City of 7,740 which equates to 64,600 gallons per capita. To maintain the current LOS the City will need approximately 341 million gallons of additional storage. Based on a cost of $5.67 per 1000 gallons [cost estimate for raising the dam and structures], this additional storage would cost on the order of $1.9 million. However, with the limitation of 300 million gallons of additional storage, the cost would actually be $1.7 million for the additional 300 million gallons and undefined for the remaining 41 million gallons.
Non-capacity costs of $250,000 are included for diversion dam reconstruction at the Little Quilcene Dam.
Recommended Level of Service
The recommended LOS is based on 800 million gallons divided by the 20 year population of the City of 13,013; this equates to'61,477 gallons per capita. To maintain this LOS the City will need an additional 300 million gallons at a cost of $1.7 million.
Non-capacity costs of $250,000 are included for diversion dam reconstruction at the Little Quilcene Dam.
Table 8-2A
RAW WATER STORAGE - CITY
CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND
ANALYSIS OF CAPITAL FACILITIES REQUIREMENTS
Current LOS: 64.599 Gallons per Capita
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| City | Gallons | | Net | Net Cost @ |
Time Period | Population | Required @ | | Reserve or | $0.00567 |
| | 64,599 | Gallons | Deficiency | per gallon |
| | Gallons/Capita | Available | | |
1993 Actual | 7740 | 500,000,000 | 500,000,000 | - | $- |
1994 Transition | 200 | 12,919,897 | | (12,919,897) | $(73,256) |
1995-2000 Growth | 1287 | 83,139,535 | | (83,139,535) | $(471,401) |
Non-Capacity Costs | | | | | $(250,000) |
Total as of 2000 | 9227 | 596,059,432 | 500,000,000 | (96,059,432) | $(794,657) |
2001-2014 | 3786 | 244,573,643 | | (244,573,643) | $(1,386,733) |
Non-Capacity Costs | | | | | $- |
Total as of 2014 | 13013 | 840,633,075 | 500,000,000 | (340,633,075) | $(2,181,390)
|
Recommended LOS: 61,477 Gallons per Capita
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| City | Gallons | | Net | Net Cost @ |
Time Period | Population | Required @ | | Reserve or | $0.00567 |
| | 61,477 | Gallons | Deficiency | per gallon |
| | Gallons/Capita | Available | | |
1993 Actual | 7740 | 475,831,860 | 500,000,000 | 24,168,140 | $137,033 |
1994 Transition | 200 | 12,295,397 | | (12,295,397) | $(69,715) |
1995-2000 Growth | 1287 | 79,120,879 | | (79,120,879) | $(448,615) |
Non-Capacity Costs | | | | | $(250,000) |
Total as of 2000 | 9227 | 567,248,136 | 500,000,000 | (67,248,136) | $(631,297) |
2001-2014 | 3786 | 232,751,864 | | (232,751,864) | $(1,319,703) |
Non-Capacity Costs | | | | | $- |
Total as of 2014 | 13013 | 800,000,000 | 500,000,000 | (300,000,000) | $(1,951,000)
|
8-2B Raw Water Storage - Tri-Area
Introduction
Raw water storage for the Tri-Area is the aquifer supplying water to the groundwater wells. It is not possible at this time to calculate the volume of the aquifer and therefore no LOS standards have been set for this category.
8.3A Treated Water Distribution and Storage - City
Introduction
Treated water in the City is stored in the Howard Street reservoir with a capacity of 5 million gallons and the new 1 million gallon standpipe for a total capacity of 6 million gallons.
The Department of Health requirements for treated water storage depend on whether there is an alternate source of water available in the case of an emergency (more storage required when no alternatives are available). There are three components to the requirement for treated water storage: standby storage (to use in the event of an emergency), fire flow, and equalizing storage (to cover the daily fluctuations in water usage). Please refer to the attached figure.
Current Level of Service
The current LOS for the City for treated water storage is 6 million gallons divided by the 1993 population of 7,740 for a total of 775 gallons per capita. To continue this LOS the City will need approximately 4 million gallons of additional storage by the year 2014. Using the costs for the new standpipe as the base, this additional storage would cost approximately $5.3 million (see Table 8-3A).
The City anticipates replacing all 4 inch diameter pipe within its distribution system with 8 inch pipe by the year 2000 and all 6 inch diameter pipe with 8 inch pipe within 20 years. At a cost of $25 per foot, replacement will cost approximately $2.8 million by the year 2000 and an additional $3.6 million by the year 2014.
The City also expects to replace 20 fire hydrants per year on average and 10 valves per year. At a cost of $1,000 each, these non capacity costs will be $150,000 by the year 2000 and $420,000 by the year 2014.
The final non-capacity cost is replacement of water meters. The City anticipates that it will replace all the water meters within the next twenty years at a cost of $338,200.
Non-capacity costs to replace pipe, hydrants, valves and meters will be $2,992,250 by the year 2000 and an additional 4,343,775 by the year 2014.
Recommended Level of Service
Given that the City has no alternative sources of water, the required volume of treated water storage is: 800 gallons per connection + 3500 gallons per minute x 3 hours for fire flow, and 25 % of the maximum daily demand for equalizing storage. Basing the number of connections
on the 50 year population estimate (22451 people/2.05 people per connection), the LOS for treated water storage is 498 gallons per person.
As shown in Table 8-3A, using 498 gallons per person as the recommended LOS, the City will have a deficiency of approximately 480,000 gallons in the year 2014. The cost for this additional capacity will be on the order of $625,000.
Non-capacity costs are the same for current and recommended LOS.
Table 8-3A
TREATED WATER DISTRIBUTION AND STORAGE - CITY
CITY OF PORT TOWNSND
ANALYSIS OF CAPITAL FACILITIES REQUIREMENTS
Current LOS: 775 Gallons per Capita
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
Time Period | City Population | Gallons | | Net | Net Cost @ |
| | Required @ | | Reserve or | $1.30 |
| | 775 | Gallons | Deficiency | Per gallon |
| | Gallons/Capita | Available | | |
1993 Actual | 7740 | 6,000.000 | 6,000,000 | | $- |
1994 Transition | 200 | 155,039 | | (155,039) | $(201,550) |
1995-2000 Growth | 1287 | 997,674 | | (997,674) | $(1,296,977) |
Non-Capacity Costs | | | | | $(2,992,250) |
Total as of 2000 | 9227 | 7,152,713 | 6,000,000 | (1,152,713) | $(4,490,777) |
2001-2014 | 3786 | 2,934,884 | | (2,934,884) | $(3,815,349) |
Non-Capacity Costs | | | | | $(4,343,775) |
Total as of 2014 | 13013 | 10,087,597 | 6,000,000 | (4,087,597) | $(12,649,901)
|
Recommended LOS: 498 Gallons per Capita
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
Time Period | City Population | Gallons | | Net | Net Cost @ |
| | Required @ | | Reserve or | $1.30 |
| | 498 | Gallons | Deficiency | per gallon |
| | Gallons/Capita | Available | | |
1993 Actual | 7740 | 3,854,520 | 6,000,000 | 2,145,480 | |
1994 Transition | 200 | 99,600 | | (99,600) | |
1995-2000 Growth | 1287 | 640,926 | | (640,926) | $(833,204) |
Non-Capacity Costs | | | | | $(2,992,250) |
Total as of 2000 | 9227 | 4,595,046 | 6,000,000 | 1,404,954 | $(1,165,810) |
2001-2014 | 3786 | 1,885,428 | | (1,885,428) | $(2,451,056) |
Non-Capacity Costs | | | | | $(4,343,775) |
Total as of 2014 | 13013 | 6,480,474 | 6,000,000 | (480,474) | $(7,960,641)
|
Table 8-3B Treated Water Distribution and Storage - Tri-Area
Introduction
In the Tri-Area, currently treated water is stored in the Hadlock Reservoir which has a capacity of 1 million gallons.
The same DOH requirements apply in this case, except that the Tri-Area essentially has two water sources, the groundwater wells and the surface water from the City. Therefore, the amount of standby storage required is reduced from 800 gallons per connection to 254 gallons per connection.
Current Level of Service
The current LOS for the Tri-Area treated water storage is 1 million gallons divided by the 1993 population of 3,922 for a total of 255 gallons per capita. As shown in Table 8-3B, to maintain this LOS, the Tri-Area would need approximately 400,000 gallons of additional storage. This would cost approximately $477,000.
Non-capacity costs of $10,000 before the year 2000 are included for draining, cleaning, and inspecting the existing reservoir.
The City anticipates replacing all 4 inch diameter pipe within its distribution system with 8 inch pipe by the year 2000 and all 6 inch diameter pipe with 8 inch pipe within 20 years. At a cost of $25 per foot, replacement will cost approximately $1.29 million by the year 2000 and an additional $1.74 million by the year 2014.
The City also expects to replace 10 fire hydrants per year on average and 50 valves per year. At a cost of $1,000 each, these non capacity costs will be $75,000 by the year 2000 and $210,000 by the year 2014.
The final non-capacity cost is replacement of water meters. The City anticipates that it wiU replace all the water meters within the next twenty years at a cost of $150,700.
Non-capacity costs will be $1,376,150 by the year 2000 and an additional $2,098,125 by the year 2014.
Recommended Level of Service
Based on the DOH requirements, the recommended LOS for the Tri-Area is 230 gallons per capita. As shown in Table 8-3B, this LOS results in a deficiency of approximately 233,000 gallons by the year 2014 at a cost of approximately $303,000.
Non-capacity costs are the same for current and recommended LOS.
Table 8-3B
TREATED WATER DISTRIBUTION AND STORAGE - TRI-AREA
CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND
ANALYSIS OF CAPITAL FACILITIES REQUIREMENTS
Current LOS: 255 Gallons per Capita
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| Tri-Area | Gallons | | Net | Net Cost@ |
Time Period | Service | Required @ | | Reserve or | $1.30 |
| Population | 255 | Gallons | Deficiency | Per gallon |
| | Gallons/Capita | Available | | |
1993 Actual | 3922 | 1,000,000 | 1,000,000 | - | $- |
1994 Transition | 163 | 41,560 | - | (41.560) | $(54,029) |
1995-2000 Growth | 481 | 122,642 | | (122,642) | $(159,434) |
Non-Capacity Costs | | | | | $(1,376,150) |
Total as of 2000 | 4566 | 1,164,202 | 1,000,000 | (164,202) | $(1,589,613) |
2001-2014 | 794 | 202,448 | | (202,448) | $(263,182) |
Non-Capacity Costs | | | | | $(2,098,125) |
Total as of 2014 | 5360 | 1,366,650 | 1,000,000 | (366,650) | $(3,950,920)
|
Recommended LOS: 230 Gallons per Capita
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| Tri-Area | Gallons | | Net | Net Cost @ |
Time Period | Service | Required @ | | Reserve-or | $1.30 |
| Population | 230 | Gallons | Deficiency | Per gallon |
| | Gallons/Capita | Available | | |
1993 Actual | 3922 | 902,060 | 1,000,000 | 97,940 | $127,322 |
1994 Transition | 163 | 37,490 | | (37,490) | $(48,737) |
1995-2000 Growth | 481 | 110,630 | | (110,630) | $(143,819) |
Non-Capacity Costs | | | | | $(1,376,150) |
Total as of 2000 | 4566 | 1,050,180 | 1,000,000 | (50,180) | $(1,441,384) |
2001-2014 | 794 | 182,620 | | (182,620) | $(237,406) |
Non-Capacity Costs | | | | | $(2,098,125) |
Total as of 2014 | 5360 | 1,232,800 | 1,000,000 | (232,800) | $(3,776,915)
|
8.4A Water Treatment - City
Introduction
In addition to the water treatment facilities (chlorination) already in place for the City, Department of Health regulations may require a slow sand filtration system that will remove bacteria and protozoans.
Current Level of Service
Since there is no slow sand filtration capability for the City at this time, the current LOS for this is 0. Non-capacity costs include the costs for a 60 * x 60' building to youse water quality personnel and equipment.
Recommended Level of Service
Using 800 gallons per day per connection (and 2.05 people per connection) as a basis, the recommended LOS for filtration will be 390 gallons per day per person. As shown on Table 8-4A, this results in a required capacity of approximately 5 million gallons per day by the year 2014. Using cost estimates based on a Slow Sand Filtration Workshop held September 26 and 27, 1994, this capacity would cost approximately $7.4 million.
Non-capacity costs are the same as for the current LOS analysis.
Table 8-4A
WATER TREATMENT/SLOW SAND FILTRATION - CITY
CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND
ANALYSIS OF CAPITAL FACILITIES REQUIREMENTS
Current LOS: 0 Gallons per Day per Capita
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| City | Gallons/Day | | Net | Net Cost @ |
Time period | Population | Required @ | | Reserve or | $1.4 |
| | 0 | Gallons/Day | Deficiency | per gallon/day |
| | GPD/Capita | Available | | |
1993 Actual | 7740 | - | 0 | - | $- |
1994 Transition | 200 | - | | - | $- |
1995-2000 Growth | 1287 | - | | - | $- |
Non-Capacity Costs | | | | | $(260,000) |
Total as of 2000 | 9227 | - | 0 | - | $(260,000) |
2001-2014 | 3786 | - | | - | $- |
Non-Capacity Costs | | | | | |
Total as of 2014 | 13013 | - | 0 | - | $(260,000)
|
Recommended LOS: 390 Gallons per Day per Capita
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| City | Gallons/Day | | Net | Net Cost @ |
Time period | Population | Required @ | | Reserve or | $1.4 |
| | 390 | Gallons/Day | Deficiency | per gallon/day |
| | GPD/Capita | Available | | |
1993 Actual | 7740 | 3,018,600 | 0 | (3,018,600) | $(4,376,870) |
1994 Transition | 200 | 78,000 | | (78,000) | $(133,100) |
1995-2000 Growth | 1287 | 501,930 | | (501,930) | $(727,799) |
Non-Capacity Costs | | | | | $(260,000) |
Total as of 2000 | 9227 | 3,598,530 | 0 | (3,598,530) | $(5,477,869) |
2001-2014 | 3786 | 1,476,540 | | (1,476,530) | $(2,140,982) |
Non-Capacity Costs | | | | | $- |
Total as of 2014 | 13013 | 5,075,070 | 0 | (5,075,070) | $(7,618,852)
|
8.4B Water Treatment - Tri-Area
Introduction
The Sparling groundwater well in the Tri-Area currently requires treatment for iron and manganese.
Current Level of Service
As shown in Table 8-4B, the current LOS for iron and manganese treatment for the Sparling well is 500,000 gallons per day divided by the 1993 population of 3,922 for a total of 127 gallons per day per capita. To maintain this LOS the Tri-Area would need approximately an additional 1 million gallons in treatment capacity at a cost of approximately $1.3 million.
No non-capacity costs are included in this analysis.
Recommended Level of Service
The recommended LOS for groundwater treatment is based on the recommended LOS for raw water supply which is 370 gallons per day per capita. To meet this LOS, as shown on Table 8-4B, the Tri-Area will need approximately 2.4 million gallons per day of additional treatment capacity at a cost of approximately $2.9 million in the year 2014.
No non-capacity costs are included in this analysis.
WATER TREATMENT - TRI-AREA
CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND
ANALYSIS OF CAPITAL FACILITIES REQUIREMENTS
Current LOS: 127 Gallons per Day per Capita
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| Tri-Area | Gallons/Day | | Net | Net Cost @ |
Time period | Service | Required @ | | Reserve or | $1.20 |
| Population | 127 | Gallons/Day | Deficiency | Per GPD |
| | GPD/Capita + | Available | | |
| | 898,953 | | | |
| | GPD (contracts) | | | |
1993 Actual | 3922 | 1,398,953 | 500,000 | (898,953) | $- |
1994 Transition | 163 | 919,733 | | (919,733) | $(1,103,680) |
1995-2000 Growth | 481 | 960,274 | | (960,274) | $(1,152,329) |
Non-Capacity Costs | | | | | $- |
Total as of 2000 | 4566 | 1,481,054 | 500,000 | (981,054) | $(1,177,265) |
2001-2014 | 794 | 1,000,177 | | (1,000,177) | $(1,200,212) |
Non-Capacity Costs | | | | | $- |
Total as of 2014 | 5360 | 1,582,278 | 500,000 | (1,082,278) | $(1,298,733)
|
Recommended LOS: 370 Gallons per Day per Capita
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| Tri-Area | Gallons/Day | | Net | Net Cost @ |
Time period | Service | Required @ | | Reserve or | $1.20 |
| Population | 370 | Gallons/Day | Deficiency | Per GPD |
| | GPD/Capita + | Available | | |
| | 898,953 | | | |
| | GPD (contracts) | | | |
1993 Actual | 3922 | 2,350,093 | 500,000 | (1,850,093) | $(2,220,112) |
1994 Transition | 163 | 959,263 | | (959,263) | $(1,151,116) |
1995-2000 Growth | 481 | 1,076,923 | | (1,076,923) | $(1,292,308) |
Non-Capacity Costs | | | | | $- |
Total as of 2000 | 4566 | 2,588,373 | 500,000 | (2,088,373) | $(2,506,048) |
2001-2014 | 794 | 1,192,733 | | (1,192,733) | $(1,431,280) |
Non-Capacity Costs | | | | | $- |
Total as of 2014 | 5360 | 2,882,153 | 500,000 | (2,382,153) | $(2,858,584)
|
9. WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND COLLECTION
Introduction
The City's service area for wastewater collection and treatment is limited to the incorporated City. It consists of an interceptor trunk line and other collection piping, lift stations, a, wastewater treatment plant and an outfall.
Current Level of Service
The current capacity of the wastewater treatment plant is 1.27 million gallons per day (average annual flow). Based on the 1993 population of 7,740, the current LOS is 164 gallons per day per capita. As shown in Table WW-1, to maintain this LOS, the City would need an additional 864,000 gallons per day capacity at a cost of approximately $8 million.
From the Capital Improvements Plan, non capacity costs within the period 1995-2000 are $1,940,000 and include the following:
WWTP Equipment | $100,000 |
Effluent Line | $700,000 |
Financial Planning Update | $ 60,000 |
Undesignated Projects | $ 80,000 |
Pre-Treatment Program | $ 40,000 |
Comprehensive Sewer Plan | $160,000 |
Master Plan Implementation | $250,000 |
Line Flushing/TV Evaluations | $150,000 |
I/I Removal Projects | $170,000 |
GIS | $120,000 |
Undesignated System Improvements | $110,000
|
Currently, the City's interceptor line is at capacity and needs improvements. Within the next 20 years the City anticipates replacing this 18 inch diameter line (10,310 feet) with 30 inch pipe. At a cost of $107 per foot, this project will cost $1,103,170.
Also within the next 20 years the City anticipates replacing the outfall (2250 feet) with 30 inch pipe at a cost of $240,750.
The City's inventory of lift stations is as follows:
Monroe Street | 1,040 gpm capacity | Monroe & Water Streets |
Point Hudson | 150 gpm capacity | Jefferson and Hudson |
Galleon View | 200 gpm capacity | Galleon View Development |
Island Vista | 200 gpm capacity | Island Vista Development |
Port | 300 gpm capacity | Port of PT Boat |
Area Gaines Street | 2,000 gpm capacity | Water & Gaines
|
Within the next twenty years, the City anticipates remodeling the Gaines and Monroe lift stations at a cost of approximately $200,000.
In summary, non capacity costs within the period 1995-2000 will be $1,940,000, and within the period 2000-2014 will be $1,543,920 as shown on Table WW-1.
Recommended Level of Service
The recommended LOS for the treatment plant is based on the design capacity of the plant (1.27 million gallons per day) divided by the design population of the plant (10,400) for a total of 120 gallons per day per capita. As shown on Table WW-1, this LOS results in a deficiency by the year 2014 of approximately 292,000 gallons per day at a cost of approximately $6.8 million.
Non capacity costs are the same for current and recommended LOS.
10. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
Presently, the City does not have a comprehensive City-wide stormwater management plan that identifies specific needs and requirements, planned capital facilities projects, and a short-term/long-term financing plan. However, the City does include stormwater management improvements/ techniques in its capital facilities improvement projects (i.e., streets, bridges, buildings, etc.). In short, the City currently does not have a "stand-alone" stormwater capital facilities and financing plan, although the City's current 1995-2000 CIP includes proposed funding for development and implementation of such a plan.
The City's stormwater plan is intended to address two major issues: water quantity and water quality. Water quantity issues relate to collection and conveyance of water to avoid property damage during storm events. Water quality issues relate to protection of surface and groundwater form contaminants picked up by stormwater. Water quantity is typically addressed through protection of natural drainage corridors and construction of culverts and pipes throughout the City. Water quality can be addressed through a number of different methods including constructed wetlands, biofiltration swales, and oil/water separators.
Inventoiy of Stormwater Facilities
The current inventory of City-owned stormwater management facilities is shown below:
Capital Facility | Location | Type of Infrastructure |
|---|
Water St | Monroe/Gaines | |
Benedict St | Washington/SR20 | |
Washington St | Monroe/Benedict | culverts |
VanBuren/Pierce | | catch basins (2) |
Gaines/Washington | | outfall line |
Polk | North of Water | catch basins (2) |
| TyIer/N of Water | catch basins (2) |
Downtown | Side Sts/Pkng Lots | culverts and catch basins |
Blame St | Jackson/San Juan | culverts and catch basins |
Lincoln St | JacksonyTyler | culverts and catch basins |
Quincy St | Lincoln/Lawrence | driveway catch |
Roosevelt St | Monroe/Hudson | culverts, catch basins, gutters |
Clallam St | Roosevelt/McKinley | |
Jackson St | Roosevelt/Root | culverts |
Lawrence St | Jackson/Keamey | |
Clay St | Monroe/Walker | culverts and catch basins |
Franklin St | Madison/Walker | |
Quincy | South Franklin at bluff | catch basins (2) and open culvert mouths |
W End Franklin | Across Scott St | outfall culvert into field |
E Side Scott St | Franklin/Jefferson | parallel culvert |
Taft at Oak | | cross culvert |
Taft/Madison | | cross culvert and catch basins |
Tyier St | Taft/Jefferson | gutters and catch basins |
Jefferson St | Quincy/Walker | |
Lincoln St | Between Van Buren and Walker | |
Pierce St | Washington/Blaine east side | |
Jefferson St | Penny Saver/Bowling Alley | catch basin |
Keamey St | Jefferson/Blaine | catch basins |
Monroe St | Water/Blaine | catch basins |
Walker St | Washington/Blaine | culverts and catch basins |
Cherry St | Blaine/"W" St | catch basins, culverts, outfalls |
Beech St | "0"/"W" St | culverts and catch basins |
"W" St/Ash St | | cross culvert and outfall |
19th St | San Juan/Sheridan | catch basins |
Landes St | 19th/12th | culverts and catch basins |
Sheridan St | SR20/Corona | catch basins and culverts |
Silver and Umatilla | | cross culvert and catch basin |
SR20 | Gaines/CL | |
Jefferson General Hospital | Parking Lot | |
7th St | Gise/Holcomb | culverts |
12th St | SR20/Sheridan | catch basins and culverts |
14th St | Sheridan/Landes | catch basins and culverts |
15th St | 1 block E of Sheridan | catch basin and outfall |
16th St | Sheridan/Gise | catch basins and culverts |
Old Discovery Rd | San Juan/Howard | catch basins and culverts |
"F" St | San Juan/Fir | catch basins and culverts |
"F" St | Gulf Course pond | outfall culvert |
Fir and "G" St | | cross culvert |
Rose and "H" St | | cross culvert to ditch on "H" |
VanNess | 200' W of Fir | catch basins (2) into French drain |
Garfield St | Madison/Walker | catch basins and culverts |
McPherson | at 15th St | cross culvert |
McPherson | at about 14th St | catch basin |
Discovery Rd | at Eddy | culvert |
Eddy St | S of Discovery Rd | culvert to Kilham wetlands |
Grant St | Old discovery Rd to 16 th | catch basins |
Hancock St | Parkside/1Oth | |
7th St | 1 bik E of Hancock | cross culvert and Driveway |
8th and Hancock | | catch basins (2) and 12" culvert south side and catch basin in drainage swale at E end |
Parkside | | wooden catch basin at dogleg near morgue |
Thomas St | 9th/10 th | catch basins |
Logan St | 9th/12 th | catch basins |
Rosecrans | 10th/12 th | catch basins |
29th St | 1 bik W of Old Discovery Rd | catch basins and French drain |
Hastings St | Old Discovery Rd to Howard | driveway culverts and catch basins |
Thomas St S side | | catch basin on W end with 37'-12" culvert to E |
Cliff St N side | | 60' 12" culvert |
Spring St N side | | catch basin at W end with 52'-12" culvert to E |
Ivy St | | catch basin at W end with 52'-12" culvert to E |
Howard St | N of animal shelter | culverts (2) |
25th St | Sheridan/McClellan | catch basins and culverts |
Grant Place | N of 25 th | catch basins (2) |
Sherman St | 25th/Hastings | catch basins and culverts |
"W" St | Beech/Spruce | 3 catch basins and culverts, outfall to N between Beech and Spruce. Durvbeway catch and outfall N side at graveyard |
San Juan/49 th | | culvert |
Jackman at 49 th | | cross culvert |
Cook Ave | 57th to Peary | catch basins and culverts |
Collection | | |
Facility Treatment Plant | W of Sea View | catch basins and culverts |
51st St | 52nd on Jackman | catch basins and French drain |
Vista Drive | | catch basins and culverts |
Kanu Drive | | catch basins and culverts |
Wilson St | S of SR20 | catch basins and MH w/separator |
N of Lawrence on Filmore | | gutters |
Both Library parking lots | | catch basins |
Keamey/Sims | | catch basin in Triangle Park |
Between Penny Saver and bowling alley | | catch basin |
Tremont/Olympic | | cross culvert to French drain |
"M" St | W of Cherry at first corner | catch basin and culvert |
24th/Haines | | catch basin and outfall across st. |
Pump station wet well | Keamey/Washington | |
Unopened Rosecrans & 21 st | | Oil separator catch basin |
S end of Quincyparking lot | Old Ferry Landing | catch basins and oil separator |
Town Area | | grid for driveway culverts and corner culverts |
12th St | SR20/Sheridan | culverts and catch basins/Landes |
15th St | at Cleveland | catch basin and culvert |
llth St | at Cleveland | catch basin and culvert |
31st/Hancock | | catch basin |
31st/Sherman | | catch basin |
25th/Gise | | culvert |
25th/Holcomb | | culvert |
Holcomb | 25th/27 th | culverts |
Holcomb/Corona | | cross culvert |
Admiralty/Spruce | | culvert |
Hospital parking lot | | catch basins, culverts, and grates |
Clay St/Keamey | | culvert |
Keamey St | Clay/Jefferson | catch basins (2) W side |
3rd/Grant | | catch basin |
3rd/Hancock | | culvert |
Sherman St | SR20/2 nd | catch basins (3) and culverts |
3rd St | Sheridan/Cleveland | cross culverts |
Quimper Credit Union | | catch basins |
Grant Place | | catch basin |
First Federal Bank | | catch basin |
14th/Hill | | culvert |
14th/Landes | | cross culvert, catch basin, outfall |
Claridge Court | | driveway culverts and outfall crosses Landes |
Roosevelt/Jackson | | catch basin |
Hudson Place/Franklin | | cross culvert |
Landes at 16 th | | double outfall culverts |
19th at San Juan | | outfall pipe |
Kuhn St at 51 st | | double 18" outfall culverts
|
Stormwater Management Level of Service
The level of service (LOS) for stormwater management facilities frequently changes as a result of a local jurisdiction's changing goak and objectives. For example, stormwater detention and collection can focus on providing a system for conveying stormwater off properties, and controlling the increase in flow resulting from development, or it can identify controlling pollution carried in stormwater runoff as a high priority.
Stormwater Management LOS Standards. Stormwater collection and detention criteria varies according to local conditions and needs. Pollution control standards for local jurisdictions in the State include requirements to provide water quality control recommended by the Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin (revised February, 1992). The City of Port Townsend plans to formally adopt this manual in early 1995. In addition, the City will complete its Stormwater Master Plan in Spring 1995. The Master Plan will be the basis of the City's stormwater pollution control efforts, and will require consideration of all "land disturbing activities" that may affect stormwater within the City.
Level of service determinations for stormwater using the methods applied for the other city facilities do not work primarily because there is not a straightforward method of calculating stormwater collection and/or treatment on a per capita basis. The City's Stormwater Master Plan will set design standards including storm events to design to, water quality standards and culvert pipe sizes.
In Port Townsend, stormwater collection and detention depend on whether the site is within a closed depression or whether there is a stream as a receiving body of water. A water quality standard for stormwater will be applied universally (regardless of how the site is situated).
Rather than set level of service standards for this capital facilities plan, the City will use its Stormwater Master Plan (which will use the DOE Stormwater Management Manual) to prioritize capital improvements, and set LOS standards and impact fees.
City Development Review Process
Presently, the City's 1995-2000 CIP includes proposed funding for the storm drainage permit system to be used in continuing the development review process, which requires the use of the Best Management Practices (BMP's) included in the Department of Ecology stormwater management manual cited above when a permit is required by any party involved with planning, engineering, and construction of capital facilities that may affect stormwater. The manual, as explained above, focuses on the impacts of stormwater on water quality.
Capital Facility Requirements: 1995-2000
On-Going Stormwater Management Projects. As mentioned above, existing problems and deficiencies in the City's stormwater management system are remedied by on-going stormwater management improvement projects and techniques that accompany the construction of other City capital facilities, such as street, and buildings. Roadway capital facilities projects in the City's 1995-2000 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) include various stormwater management techniques/improvements, as required. Also, the City's development review process mentioned above identifies the need for on-going stormwater management projects as new residential or commercial development may require.
Flood Collection Management Projects. Stormwater collection management improvement projects are included in the City's capital improvement program, and are shown in the table below:
Stormwater Collection Management Projects (OP): 1995-2000*
Project | Cost ($) |
●Stormwater Master Plan | 20,000 |
●Stormwater Master Plan Implementation | 550,000 |
●Property Acquisition | 700,000 |
●Site Development Program | 350,000 |
●Storm Drainage Permit System | 50,000 |
●Undesignated Projects | 210,000 |
●Geographic Information System (GIS) | 160,000 |
●Shop Facilities | 225,000 |
●Golf Course Pond Improvement | 50,000 |
●KahTai | 150,000 |
●North Lagoon (Chinese Gardens) | 40,000 |
●FCAAP #1 - Basin 4 & 9 Flood Plain Planning | 210,000 |
●FCAAP #2 - Basin 5 & 8 Flood Plain Planning | 100,000 |
●Financial Planning | 35,000 |
●Catchbasin Replacement | 30,000 |
●City/Port Stormwater Treatment | 80,000 |
●Street Projects | 120.000 |
Total | $3,080,000
|
* Projects are currently unfunded.
11. TRANSPORTATION
Four categories of transportation facilities available to City residents are analyzed in this report. These categories, as identified by the Department of Public Works, include:
●Streets and Non-Motorized Facilities
●Transit Facilities
●Ferry System
●Airport
A. STREETS AND NON-MOTORIZED FACILITIES
Table 1 below summarizes the estimated costs and revenues for streets and non-motorized facilities needs and requirements as currently shown in the City's 1995-2000 CIP:
Table 1
Summary of Streets and Non-Motorized Facilities Needs/Requirements:
1995-2000 Costs and Funding Status
| | | | Future |
Projects | Costs ($) | Funded ($) | Unfunded ($) | 2001-2015 |
Transportation Master Plan | 75,000 | 0 | 75,000 | 100,000 |
Trans MP Implementation | 500,000 | 500,000 | 0 | 1,000,000 |
Property Acquisition | 400,000 | *400,000 | 0 | 500,000 |
Trans Repair/Maint Program | 420,000 | *420,000 | 0 | 825,000 |
Geographic Info System (GIS) | 30,000 | 0 | 30,000 | 0 |
Shop Facilities | 60,000 | 60,000 | 0 | 0 |
Police Parking Lot | 0 | 0 | 0 | 25,000 |
Bike/Pedestrian Facilities | 75,000 | *75,000 | 0 | 0 |
Sidewalk Repairs | 60,000 | *60,000 | 0 | 0 |
San Juan Improvements | 1,990,000 | *1,990,000 | 0 | 0 |
Park & Ride Project | 197,000 | *197,000 | 0 | 0 |
SR20 Climbing Lane | 1,000,000 | 0 | 1,000,000 | 0 |
Gateway Plaza Lane | 300,000 | 0 | 300,000 | 0 |
Gateway Right-of-Way | 150,000 | 0 | 150,000 | 150,000 |
Gateway Improvement Plan | 740,000 | 0 | 740,000 | 2,500,000 |
Parking Improvements | 15,000 | 0 | 15,000 | 0 |
Undesignated Projects | 60,000 | 0 | 60,000 | 100,000 |
Total | $6,072,000 | $3,702,000 | $2,370,000 | $5,200,000
|
1. City Streets
This section of the report (1) summarizes the City's street inventory, (2) defines PRTPO level of service (LOS) requirements for the City's arterial/collector street system; (2) identifies specific street segments projected to fall below PRTPO LOS standards by the year 2012; (3) and itemizes street improvements required to maintain PRTPO LOS standards.
The City's street system inventory consists of 93.78 street miles (See Appendix A for Complete Road Surface Inventory).
1A. Arterials/Collectors: Level of Service and Capacity Needs and Requirements
A level of service (LOS) for City streets is generally rated on a scale of "A" through "F", much like academic grading. Complex data collection and mathematical formulas are used to determine LOS. LOS is a qualitative measure which describes operational conditions within a traffic stream, and takes into account factors such as speed, travel time, delay comfort, and convenience. Generally, LOS "A" through "C" implies free flowing traffic with minimal delays, while LOS "D" and "E" imply unstable traffic flow with significant delays, and LOS "F" implies forced, unstable traffic flow with the potential for substantial delays.
The Transportation Element (Draft #1 September 9, 1994) of the City's Comprehensive Plan recommends that City streets LOS standards continue to be consistent with the Peninsula Regional Transportation Planning Organization (PRTPO) recommendations for LOS described in "A Peninsula Regional Community Guide to Transportation Level of Service Standards".
The PRTPO recommends that roads within an urban growth boundary (i.e.. City of Port Townsend) have a "regionally coordinated" standard of LOS "D". Urban and tourist corridors, which are rural corridors that carry urban levels of traffic, such as SR20, are also recommended by the PRTPO to have a LOS "D". As the City of Port Townsend is a member of, and has played an active role in, the PRTPO, the City's draft Transportation Element recommends that City's arterials and collectors be established at LOS "D".
Traffic Forecast Growth Scenario Alternatives
The City's draft Transportation Element has identified four growth scenarios to investigate estimate traffic increases due to potential new residential development within each of three planning areas (A, B, and C), as shown on page 4 of this report. A planning area is defined as a Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) or a group of TAZ's. The purpose of the scenarios investigation was to (1) test LOS standards on the City's transportation network, (2) identify specific arterial/collector LOS capacity deficiencies, and (3) evaluate alternative approaches for eventually making land use/transportation concurrency determinations.
Scenario 1: Low Growth. Scenario 1 is the low growth scenario which assumes an annual growth rate of 1.5%. The adjusted localized planning area traffic growth rates for this scenario were the following: "A" = 0.7%, "B" = 2.3%, and "C" = 3.2%. The background traffic growth rate was applied to SR20/Sims Way between the City limits and the ferry terminal.
Scenario 2: Medium Growth. Scenario 2 assumes an annual development growth rate of 3.0%, which represents nearly a doubling of current traffic volumes during 1995-2015. The adjusted localized planning area traffic growth rates for this scenario were the following: "A" = 1.4%, "B" = 4.3%. and "C" = 5.8%. Again, the background traffic adjustment of 1.5% was applied to SR20.
Scenario 3: High Growth. The development rate for this scenario assumes greater development activity in Port Townsend with resultant increases in traffic volumes at 4.5% annually, which is equivalent to an increase in traffic of 2.5 times existing volumes during 1995-2012. The adjusted localized planning area traffic growth rates for this scenario were the following: "A" = 2.2%, "B" = 6.1%, and "C" = 7.9%. The background traffic adjustment of 1.5% for SR20 was also applied.
Scenario 4: Total Build-Out. This scenario assumes that all available lots within the current City limits are developed. The resulting traffic volumes were estimated by a ratio of total available lots within a planning area to the number of currently developed lots within the same area. The factors (ratios) for each of the planning areas were as follows: "A" = 2.33%, "B" = 6.31%, and "C" = 9.24%. The background traffic adjustment of 1.5% for SR20 was also applied based on a time period of 50 years.
Traffic Forecasts and Recommendations: Scenarios 2 and 3
Scenario 2: Medium Growth. In addition to both Sheridan and Keamey Streets falling to LOS "E" or "F" under Scenario 1, forecasted traffic growth in Scenario 2 along Sims Way causes LOS to fall to "E", with volumes growing from the current average daily volume of 12,225 to 20,434 by 2012; the forecast volume for Sims Way is 23,189. The City's Gateway Development Plan forecast of 25,000 does fall within the City's Arterial Street Plan, and it also identifies specific intersection improvements to improve traffic flow along SR20/Sims Way and thereby allow the roadway to accommodate higher volumes of traffic.
In summary, the City's draft Transportation Element includes Scenario 2 capacity related improvement recommendations for the following roadways:
Name | Location | Cost($) |
●Water Street | Keamey to Monroe | $345,000 |
●19th Street | Sheridan to San Juan | 448,000 |
●Sheridan Street | SR20/Sims Way to Discovery Bay | 580,000 |
●Keamey Street | SR20/Sims Way to Blaine | 280,000 |
●SR20/Sims Way | City Limits to Ferry Terminal | 396,000 |
●Discovery Bay Road | City Limits to Sheridan | 1,189,000 |
| Total | $3,238,000
|
(Assumptions: reconstruction = $775,000/mile overlay = $160,000/mile Assumes reconstruction of all streets listed)
Scenario 3: High Growth. This scenario shows that the City would face LOS "F" conditions on several roadways, including Discovery Bay Road and Hastings Avenue. In order to minimize the 4.5% projected traffic growth impact on Keamey Street, the Transportation Element recommends (1) adjusting land use growth to direct the growth to the western edge of the City and cause traffic impacts on McPherson and other streets in the area; (2) developing an alternate north/south minor arterial generally along Howard Street extending north from South to SR 20/Sims Way to 49th Street to alleviate the demand for Keamey Street; and (3) developing an east/west collector route connecting San Juan Avenue at Center Street to the proposed Howard Street extension.
It is anticipated that these corridors would accommodate future development in the northwest section of the City as well as connect this sector to the City's arterial street system.
In summary, the City's draft Transportation Element includes Scenario 3 capacity related improvement recommendations for the following roadways:
Name | Location | Cost |
●Water Street | Ferry Terminal to Monroe | 345.000 |
●19th Street | Sheridan to San Juan | 448,000 |
●Sheridan Street | SR20/Sims Way to Discovery Bay | 580.000 |
●Kcarney Street | SR20/Sims Way to Blame | 280.000 |
●SR20/Sims Way | City Limits to Ferry Terminal | 396,000 |
●Discovery Bay Road | City Limits to Sheridan | 1.189,000 |
●Hastings Avenue | City Limit to Sheridan | 895,000 |
●"F" Street | San Juan to Cherry | 205.000 |
●"F" Street | Cherry to Tyier | 338.000 |
●Tyier Street | Jefferson to "F" | 286.000 |
●Ouincy Street | Water to Jefferson | 88,000 |
Total | S5.050.000
|
(Assumptions: reconstruction = $775.000/mile overlay = $160.000/mile Assumes reconstruction of all streets listed)
IB. Local Streets: Current Conditions and Non-Capacity Needs
The majority of the City's transportation system consists of local, residential streets that carry, varying but generally low levels of traffic. Only one major arterial. SR20/Sims Way, connects the City to the County and major State transportation corridors. There are also several minor arterials used for intercity travel, but all other streets are local access or residential streets.
The City's residential and collector street standards range from _ - _ feet in width. However, many existing streets in the City have been constructed below such standards. Street surfaces also vary from asphalt paving, to chip seal. to gravel and dirt roads, and many existing streets are poorly maintained and lack adequate right-of-way.
Most public rights-of-way within the City vary from 60-72 feet; however, the majority of improved streets within the City are relatively narrow, while abutting property owners use land within the right-of-way for parking and landscaping purposes. Many streets have been overlayed with chip seal, and have gravel or grass shoulders with no rolled edge. Stormwater for most streets is conveyed along the gravel or grassy shoulder areas of the right-of-way.
Although the City's 1995-2000 CIP proposes some appropriations for local street repairs and maintenance (Table 1). additional funding is required to implement a systematic and effective local street improvement program. Typically, many communities create street local improvement districts (LID's) to pay for and manage needed improvements to local streets.
2. Non-Motorized Facilities
The City's non-motorized facilities include pedestrian paved walkways (sidewalks), trails, and bikeways.
Pedestrian Paved Walkways. The City has approximately 1.6 miles of sidewalks currently found in the uptown and downtown areas, but in many areas the existing sidewalks do not connect. In places without sidewalks. residents and tourists use developed streets for walking. Most existing arterials in the City, such as San Juan Avenue and Discovery Bay road, do not have adequate or connected pedestrian walkways.
Sims Way/SR20 is also deficient in walkways, and increased traffic congestion presents a serious hazard topedestrians. In an effort to correct these deficiencies, the City's Gateway Development Plan anticipates that newdevelopment and expansion of the roadway will provide walkways as well as bikeways.
Currently, the City's 1995-2000 CIP shows a proposed appropriation of S60.000 for sidewalk repairs at various locations throughout the City.
Pedestrian Trails. Approximately 2.3 miles of unimproved trails are found at various locations throughout the City, including Kah Tai Lagoon, Fort Worden State Park. and "Cappy's Trails". Other unimproved trails are found throughout the City within unimproved street rights-of-way, while others are used for shortcuts through neighborhoods. Presently, the City does not have an interconnected pedestrian system.
Bikeways. Bicycle lanes/paths planning and development is based on criteria which reflects the needs of City residents, and the needs of bicycle commuters to and through the City from the region. Seven general criteria for bicycle path route selection commonly used in local communities include interconnecting various areas of the City. as follows:
1. Public facilities (i.e., schools, libraries, parks);
2. Employment centers;
3. Shopping centers and commercial areas;
4. Open space;
5. Neighborhoods;
6. Regional jurisdictions;
7. State and National bicycle paths.
Presently, there are no designated bikeways in the City. but "de facto" bike routes do occur throughout most of the area. The "de facto" bikeways. however, have a lack of good shoulders, deteriorated roadways with potholes, uneven surfacing and haphazard on-street parking, all of which contribute to safety problems for bicyclists.
The City's Transportation Element points out that all arterial and collector streets should be wide enough toaccommodate motorized and non-motorized travel. Currently, the arterials and collectors that have sufficientroadway width (28 feet of pavement) to accommodate bikes and motorized vehicles include 19th Street.Sheridan Street (Sims Way-Discovery Bay). Lawrence Street, Keamey Street, and Monroe Street(Roosevelt-Water). The Transportation Element also indicates that 22 arterial/ collector roadway segments within the City do not presently have sufficient roadway width to accommodate bicycling.
Currently, the City's 1995-2000 CIP shows a proposed appropriation of $75.000 for bikeway and pedestrian facilities improvements at various locations throughout the City.
B. TRANSIT FACILITIES AND SERVICES
Jefferson Transit employs both Transportation System Management (TSM) and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies for reducing vehicular travel demand, especially by single occupancy vehicles during peak commute hours.
TSM and TDM can offer means of increasing the ability of the City's transportation facilities and services to move more people without constructing more roads or traffic lanes. These strategies are particularly important where roadway facilities have already reached the practical limits for physical expansion, traffic congestion is severe, and projections for future traffic indicate continued growth.
Transportation System Management (TSM) includes capital projects such as park and ride lots, HOV lanes. transit centers, bus pullouts, and passenger shelters to produce reduced traffic demand. In short, TSM employs capital projects to encourage the use of alternatives to the single occupancy vehicle.
Transportation Demand Management (TDM), on the other hand, employs a wide variety of programmatic measures to increase the use of ridesharing, carpools, vanpools, transit, and non-motorized transportation such as bicycling and walking. These programmatic measures include such elements as transportation coordinators, ndematch assistance, preferential parking, flextime, transit subsidies, increased parking fees, reduced parking supply and provision of shuttle services in areas within the City lacking transit services.
As mentioned above, Jefferson Transit employs a combination of TSM and TDM strategies in providing public transportation services to transit-dependent persons in the City. Presently, Jefferson Transit Service serves Port Townsend and Jefferson County with additional service to Sequim and Poulsbo. Transfers are available between the City and County bus routes. Adjoining transit systems include Island Transit, Kitsap Transit (from Route 7). and Clallam Transit (from Route 8).
Table 2
Jefferson Transit TSM/TDM Facilities and Services: 1995-2000
Year | Programs/Facilities |
|---|
1995 | Expansion of Student Transportation Programs |
| ADA Paratransit Trip Coordination with Clallam Transit |
| Restructure Route #3 Shuttle and Route #5 Fort Worden/with Park & Ride Facility |
| Implement Community Van Program in Port Townsend |
| Paratransit Service In-House and add Weekend Paratransit |
| Open Park & Ride Transfer Center and Shuttle Service to Downtown Port Townsend |
| Implement West Jefferson County Transit Service Between Forks and Amanda Park |
1996 | Commuter Trips on Port Townsend/Fort Worden Shuttles |
| Expand Weekend/Weekday Paratransit Hours |
| Increase Service to Brinnon |
1997 | Commuter Trips to Sequim/Port Angeles |
| Expansion of Special Events Services |
| Second Commuter Trip to Poulsbo/Winslow |
| Expand Tri-Area Transit Service |
1998 | Late Night Services to Fort Worden |
| Expand Transit Service to North Kitsap County |
1999 | Marketing Coordinator Hired |
| Expanded Brinnon Commuter Service |
2000 | Tourist Services Inaugurated |
| Expand Services to Marrowstone and Port Ludlow
|
Jefferson Transits 1994-1999 Capital Improvement Program (CIP), includes several capital facilities projects designed to accommodate the proposed 1995-2000 facilities and services listed in Table 2 above. The CEP capacity and non-capacity transit facilities and equipment are shown in Table 3 below.
Table 3
Jefferson Transit 1994-1999 Capital Improvement Program
Category | Facilities | Cost($) |
|---|
●Buildings | Pullouts, Shelters, Signage | |
| Fuel Island Shelter, Security | |
| Enhancements, Lighting, Parking, | |
| Remodeling | 151,000 |
| Transfer Center and Park & Ride | 2,339,973 |
| Subtotal | 2,490,973 |
●Machinery & Equipment | 35-Passenger Trolleys (New-1) | 440,000 |
| 25-Passenger Trolleys (New-2) | 160,000 |
| Other Passenger Vehicles (New-2) | 500,000 |
| Other Passenger Vehicles | |
| (Replacements-12) | 2,234,750 |
| Paratransit Vans (New-4) | 197,400 |
| Paratransit Vans (Replacements-3) | 151,000 |
| Other Machinery and Equipment | 383,800 |
| Subtotal | 4,066,950 |
| Total Capital Expenditures | 6,557,23
|
C. FERRY SYSTEM
The ferry system available to City residents and tourists consists of ferry service provided by (1) the Washington State Ferry System [WSF], and (2) Puget Sound Express.
Washington State Feny System (WSF)
WSF provides primary ferry service to Whidbey Island (Port Townsend-Keystone route) and to the greater Puget Sound (Kingston-Edmonds and Bainbridge Island-Seattle routes). WSF service at Port Townsend is provided by two Steel Electric Class ferries, which can accommodate automobiles, pedestrians, bicyclists, and kayaks and canoes. WSF schedules generally begin at 7:00am and end with the last ferry leaving Keystone at 9:30pm. During weekends and holidays in the summer months, the WSF system experiences overloads, and creates traffic congestion when the loading dock is at maximum use.
The "Cross-Sound Analysis for the Washington State Ferries, Final Report (1988)", prepared by the Legislative Transportation Committee of the State legislature and State transportation commission, recommended that the 2000 service plan for the Port Townsend-Keystone route calls for no additional assignments to the two existing Sterel Electric Class ferries. The recommendation was based on (1) 1987-1992 low growth load factors and projections for that trend to continue in the near future, and (2) limitations of the Harbor at Keystone, and (3) the recreational aspect of the route.
Puget Sound Express
This privately-owned ferry system provides "passenger only" ferry service between Port Townsend and the San Juan Islands.
D. AIRPORT
Air transportation for City residents and tourists is provided by the Jefferson County International Airport (JCIA), which is located in the eastern portion of the County, approximately 5 miles south of the central business district of Port Townsend on the Quimper Peninsula.
General Aviation Trends and Forecast
The primary role of the Airport is to serve general aviation demand, which includes all civil aviation activity, except that of certified air carriers. The types of aircraft used in general aviation range from corporate multi-engine jet aircraft piloted by professional crews to home-built single piston acrobatic planes, balloons, and dirigibles. General aviation provides aviation services that commercial aviation carriers cannot or will not provide, and also creates economic opportunities related to the sale of aircraft, avionics, and other equipment, as well as the provision of support services, finance, and insurance.
The following three measures of general aviation demand are primarily considered in the airport planning process:
(1) Number of based aircraft
(2) Level of aircraft operations
(3) Peaking characteristics of general aviation operations
(1) Based Aircraft Forecast A based aircraft is a general aviation aircraft permanently stationed at an Airport. The Jefferson County International Airport Master Plan (July 25. 1994) includes a 20-year forecast for based aircraft by type at the Jefferson County International Airport, as shown in Table 4 below:
Table 4
Based Aircraft Forecast (Fleet Mix at JOA)
| Single Engine | Multi-Engine | | |
Year | Piston Piston | Jet | Total | |
1993 | 59 | 6 | 0 | 64 |
1994 | 60 | 7 | 0 | 67 |
2000 | 65 | 9 | 0 | 74 |
2014 | 80 | 15 | 0 | 95
|
(2) Aircraft Operations. An aircraft operation is any takeoff or landing performed by an aircraft. There are two types of aircraft operations, as described below:
Local Operation - A takeoff or landing performed by an aircraft that operates in the local traffic pattern, within sight of the airport, or that will execute simulated approaches or "touch-and-go" operations at the airport. Typically local operations are training operations.
Itinerant Operation - All aircraft arrivals other than local operations, which have a specific destination away from the airport. Typically, itinerant operations increase with business and industry use since business aircraft carry people from one location to another.
Table 5 shows the breakdown (local and itinerant) of projected annual aircraft operations during the next 20 years (Jefferson County International Airport Master Plan (July 25. 1994). In addition. Table 6 shows forecasted growth in total aircraft operations for Jefferson County during the growth periods 1995-2000 and 2001-2014.
Table 5
Annual Aircraft Operations Forecast (JCIA)
| Local | Itinerant | Total |
Year | Operations | Operations | Operations |
1993 | 14,940 | 29,000 | 43,940 |
1994 | 15,259 | 29,621 | 44,880 |
2000 | 17,177 | 33,343 | 50,520 |
2014 | 22,467 | 43,613 | 66,080
|
Air taxi operations are included in the itinerant operations forecast, and include limited scheduled commuter service, on-demand charters, and the transport of passengers, mail or cargo for hire. Although air taxi service is not considered a commercial air carrier as defined by the FAA, it can be an indicator of the need for air passenger facilities.
The current level of air taxi activity is approximately 2,500 annually, with an estimated 2-6 passengers per flight. Growth in air taxi activity can be expected to increase at about the same rate as total itinerant operations.
(3) Peaking Characteristics. Levels of aircraft activity during relatively busy periods can be closely correlated to needs of various airport facilities, such as runways, taxiways, and passenger facilities. Three elements of peak activity, which assist in measuring aircraft activity include:
Peak Month Operations: Calendar month when peak aircraft operations levels occur. A level of 10% of annual operation aircraft operations is used for JCIA.
Design Day Operations: Average day within a peak month, which is developed by dividing the peak month operations by 31.
Design Hour Operations: Peak hour within a design day, often between 10%-15% of the design day.
Table 7 below summarizes total airfield peaking at JCIA.
Table 7
Airfield Peaking Characteristics (JCIA)
| Aircraft | Peak Month | Design Day | Design HourYear |
Operations | Operations | Operations | Operations | |
1993 | 43,940 | 4,394 | 142 | 17 |
1994 | 44,880 | 4,488 | 145 | 18 |
2000 | 50,520 | 5,052 | 163 | 20 |
2014 | 66,080 | 6,608 | 213 | 27
|
Level of Service (Annual Aircraft Operations)
As stated above, the growth in the number of required aircraft operations annually atJCIA is a primary indicator of current and future demand for airport capacity, and thefuture facilities requirements to meet that demand. Essentially, JCIA's current andrecommended level of service assumes that 100% of forecasted demand for the next 20years, particularly for increased aircraft operations, will be accommodated by theexpansion and addition of airport facilities. Therefore, the same level of service (LOS) is shown on Table 6 for both the Current LOS and Recommended LOS (Airport CapacityEquals 100% Aircraft Operations Demand).
As Table 6 (Column 2) shows, there were 43,940 "1993 Actual" aircraft operations required, which is consistent with JCIA*s available capacity. During the next 6-year (1995-2000) and 14-year (2001-2014) growth periods, JCIA's financing plan includes capacity-related capital facilities projects to accommodate demand forecasts of 50,520 aircraft operations annually by 2000, and 66,080 aircraft operations annually by 2014 (Jefferson Country International Airport Master Plan (July 25,1994).
Scenarios 1 and 2 in table 6 represent the current LOS and recommended LOS, respectively (Column 3). Both scenarios, which are identical as explained above, are based on the "1993 actual" 43,940 annual aircraft operations required and the forecasted 50,520 aircraft operations for 2000.
In order to support the recommended LOS, Column (5) shows JCIA would need to accommodate an additional demand of 5,640 aircraft operations through 2000 at a capital cost (Column 6) of $1,041,600 ("Total As Of 2000" $3,953,600 cost less non-capacity costs of $2,912,000 = $1,041,600). Capacity-related projects shown in the July 25,1994 JCIA Master Plan include the airport drainage system (1995); terminal building and restaurant, and terminal area parking (1997); additional aircraft apron at Corporate/FBO expansion area, T-hanger taxilanes, and additional infrastructure at the Corporate/FBO and T-hanger expansion areas (1998-2002). During 2003-2021, additional T-Hanger access taxilanes and West T-Hanger parking area are included in the JCIA financial plan.
Non-capacity costs (i.e. repairs, remodeling, renovation) of $2,912,000 during 1995-2000 include South Side Commercial/Industrial property infrastructure (1997); and vehicle parking at Corporate/FBO expansion area, non-precision coordinate runway survey, additional infrastructure at South Side Commercial/Industrial expansion area (1998-2002). During 2003-2012, a new access road to West Parking and SR20 is included in JCIA financial plan.
APPENDIX A
ROAD SURFACE INVENTORY
City of Port TownsendRoad Surface Inventory |
14-Feb-95 | | | |
STREET | ROADTYPE | LENGTH IN FEET | LENGTH IN MILES |
|---|
1 | Bituminous surface | 238.68 | 0.05 |
1 | Gravel or rock | 481.17 | 0.09 |
| | 719.86 | 0.14 |
10 | Bituminous surface | 2265.06 | 0.43 |
| | 2265.06 | 0.43 |
11 | Bituminous surface | 1316.07 | 0.25 |
| | 1316.07 | 0.25 |
12 | Bituminous surface | 3082.36 | 0.58 |
12 | Gravel or rock | 273.62 | 0.05 |
12 | Not maintained | 490.82 | 0.09 |
| | 3846.80 | 0.73 |
13 | Bituminous surface | 274.75 | 0.05 |
13 | Not maintained | 2038.51 | 0.39 |
| | 2313.26 | 0.44 |
14 | Bituminous surface | 5064.69 | 0.96 |
| | 5064.69 | 0.96 |
15 | Bituminous surface | 181.05 | 0.03 |
| | 181.05 | 0.03 |
16 | Bituminous surface | 1117.84 | 0.21 |
16 | Gravel or rock | 878.18 | 0.17 |
16 | Not maintained | 683.82 | 0.13 |
| | 2679.84 | 0.51 |
17 | Bituminous surface | 37.26 | 0.01 |
17 | Not maintained | 921.72 | 0.17 |
| | 958.98 | 0.18 |
18 | Bituminous surface | 793.65 | 0.15 |
18 | Not maintained | 1214.15 | 0.23 |
| | 2007.79 | 0.38 |
19 | Asphalt concrete | 2742.73 | 0.52 |
19 | Bituminous surface | 560.53 | 0.11 |
19 | Not maintained | 196.90 | 0.04 |
| | 3500.16 | 0.66 |
20 | Gravel or rock | 2171.63 | 0.41 |
20 | Not maintained | 736.38 | 0.14 |
| | 2908.01 | 0.55 |
21 | Bituminous surface | 888.09 | 0.17 |
| | 888.09 | 0.17 |
22 | Bituminous surface | 1679.41 | 0.32 |
22 | Gravel or rock | 1676.25 | 0.32 |
22 | Not maintained | 516.65 | 0.10 |
| | 3872.31 | 0.73 |
23 | Not maintained | 1173.98 | 0.22 |
| | 1173.98 | 0.22 |
24 | Bituminous surface | 1280.12 | 0.24 |
| | 1280.12 | 0.24 |
25 | Bituminous surface | 761.28 | 0.14 |
25 | Gravel or rock | 2450.53 | 0.46 |
25 | Not maintained | 446.16 | 0.08 |
| | 3657.97 | 0.69 |
26 | Bituminous surface | 521.28 | 0.10 |
| | 521.28 | 0.10 |
27 | Gravel or rock | 1713.68 | 0.32 |
27 | Not maintained | 600.64 | 0.11 |
| | 2314.32 | 0.44 |
29 | Not maintained | 777.98 | 0.15 |
| | 777.98 | 0.15 |
3 | Bituminous surface | 1339.06 | 0.25 |
| | 1339.06 | 0.25 |
30 | Bituminous surface | 212.35 | 0.04 |
30 | Not maintained | 938.45 | 0.18 |
| | 1150.80 | 0.22 |
31 | Bituminous surface | 1030.73 | 0.20 |
| | 1030.73 | 0.20 |
32 | Bituminous surface | 834.01 | 0.16 |
32 | Not maintained | 74.71 | 0.01 |
| | 908.72 | 0.17 |
33 | Not maintained | 82.22 | 0.02 |
| | 82.22 | 0.02 |
35 | Bituminous surface | 1890.53 | 0.36 |
35 | Gravel or rock | 970.60 | 0.18 |
35 | Not maintained | 1503.12 | 0.28 |
| | 4364.25 | 0.83 |
36 | Bituminous surface | 852.74 | 0.16 |
| | 852.74 | 0.16 |
37 | Gravel or rock | 980.40 | 0.19 |
| | 980.40 | 0.19 |
39 | Not maintained | 3316.07 | 0.63 |
| | 3316.07 | 0.63 |
4 | Bituminous surface | 271.48 | 0.05 |
| | 271.48 | 0.05 |
42 | Not maintained | 319.07 | 0.06 |
| | 319.07 | 0.06 |
43 | Bituminous surface | 547.82 | 0.10 |
| | 547.82 | 0.10 |
45 | Bituminous surface | 497.62 | 0.09 |
45 | Not maintained | 874.31 | 0.17 |
| | 1371.93 | 0.26 |
47 | Not maintained | 762.44 | 0.14 |
| | 762.44 | 0.14 |
49 | Bituminous surface | 4106.55 | 0.78 |
| | 4106.55 | 0.78 |
5 | Gravel or rock | 300.42 | 0.06 |
5 | Not maintained | 124.26 | 0.02 |
| | 424.68 | 0.08 |
50 | Asphalt concrete | 12.13 | 0.00 |
50 | Gravel or rock | 47.38 | 0.01 |
50 | Not maintained | 266.98 | 0.05 |
| | 326.48 | 0.06 |
51 | Asphalt concrete | 13.00 | 0.00 |
51 | Gravel or rock | 508.03 | 0.10 |
| | 521.03 | 0.10 |
53 | Bituminous surface | 1277.10 | 0.24 |
53 | Gravel or rock | 773.96 | 0.15 |
53 | Not maintained | 851.03 | 0.16 |
| | 2902.09 | 0.55 |
55 | Gravel or rock | 266.96 | 0.05 |
| | 266.96 | 0.05 |
56 | Gravel or rock | 590.39 | 0.11 |
56 | Not maintained | 261.14 | 0.05 |
| | 851.53 | 0.16 |
57 | Asphalt concrete | 1140.20 | 0.22 |
57 | Bituminous surface | 258.34 | 0.05 |
| | 1398.53 | 0.26 |
58 | Gravel or rock | 520.36 | 0.10 |
58 | Not maintained | 464.01 | 0.09 |
| | 984.37 | 0.19 |
6 | Not maintained | 991.64 | 0.19 |
| | 991.64 | 0.19 |
7 | Asphalt concrete | 771.94 | 0.15 |
7 | Bituminous surface | 873.99 | 0.17 |
7 | Gravel or rock | 1213.50 | 0.23 |
| | 2859.44 | 0.54 |
8 | Bituminous surface | 267.00 | 0.05 |
8 | Not maintained | 160.16 | 0.03 |
| | 427.16 | 0.08 |
9 | Asphalt concrete | 1074.55 | 0.20 |
9 | Bituminous surface | 1321.81 | 0.25 |
| | 2396.36 | 0.45 |
A | Not maintained | 492.88 | 0.09 |
| | 492.88 | 0.09 |
ADAMS | Bituminous surface | 2973.01 | 0.56 |
| | 2973.01 | 0.56 |
ADMIRALTY | Bituminous surface | 901.42 | 0.17 |
| | 901.42 | 0.17 |
ALDER | Not maintained | 684.90 | 0.13 |
| | 684.90 | 0.13 |
ALWOOD | Not maintained | 860.47 | 0.16 |
| | 860.47 | 0.16 |
B | Not maintained | 215.47 | 0.04 |
| | 215.47 | 0.04 |
BEECH | Gravel or rock | 241.31 | 0.05 |
BEECH | Not maintained | 488.39 | 0.09 |
| | 729.71 | 0.14 |
BELL | Asphalt concrete | 1207.43 | 0.23 |
| | 1207.43 | 0.23 |
BENEDICT | Bituminous surface | 484.11 | 0.09 |
| | 484.11 | 0.09 |
BENTON | Bituminous surface | 2189.78 | 0.41 |
| | 2189.98 | 0.41 |
BLAINE | Asphalt concrete | 1512.66 | 0.29 |
BLAINE | Bituminous surface | 4431.12 | 0.84 |
| | 5943.78 | 1.13 |
CALHOUN | Bituminous surface | 2518.89 | 0.48 |
| | 2518.89 | 0.48 |
CAS | Bituminous surface | 249.49 | 0.05 |
| | 249.49 | 0.05 |
CASS | Bituminous surface | 2090.68 | 0.40 |
CASS | Not maintained | 400.49 | 0.08 |
| | 2491.17 | 0.47 |
CEDAR | Bituminous surface | 1493.79 | 0.28 |
| | 1493.79 | 0.28 |
CENTER | Bituminous surface | 1406.47 | 0.27 |
| | 1406.47 | 0.27 |
CHERRY | Bituminous surface | 5877.81 | 1.11 |
CHERRY | Not maintained | 271.35 | 0.05 |
| | 6149.16 | 1.16 |
CHERRY REDWOOD | Bituminous surface | 1730.91 | 0.33 |
CHERRY REDWOOD | Gravel or rock | 126.85 | 0.02 |
| | 1857.75 | 0.35 |
CHESTNUT | Bituminous surface | 701.48 | 0.13 |
CHESTNUT | Not maintained | 252.92 | 0.05 |
| | 954.40 | 0.18 |
CLALLAM | Bituminous surface | 959.27 | 0.18 |
| | 959.27 | 0.18 |
CLAY | Bituminous surface | 4980.18 | 0.94 |
| | 4980.18 | 0.94 |
CLEVELAND | Bituminous surface | 2423.06 | 0.46 |
CLEVELAND | Not maintained | 446.81 | 0.08 |
| | 2869.87 | 0.54 |
CLIFF | Gravel or rock | 1793.98 | 0.34 |
| | 1793.98 | 0.34 |
COOK | Bituminous surface | 7505.11 | 1.42 |
COOK | Not maintained | 232.68 | 0.04 |
| | 7737.79 | 1.47 |
CORONA | Bituminous surface | 486.89 | 0.09 |
CORONA | Gravel o rock | 1334.18 | 0.25 |
CORONA | Not maintained | 63.45 | 0.01 |
| | 1884.52 | 0.36 |
COSGROVE | Bituminous surface | 1436.23 | 0.27 |
| | 1436.23 | 0.27 |
D | Not maintained | 511.25 | 0.10 |
| | 511.25 | 0.10 |
DANA PLACE | Bituminous surface | 213.71 | 0.04 |
| | 213.71 | 0.04 |
DECATUR | Bituminous surface | 327.15 | 0.06 |
| | 327.15 | 0.06 |
DISCOVERY | Asphalt concrete | 440.65 | 0.08 |
DISCOVERY | Bituminous surface | 13071.67 | 2.48 |
| | 13512.32 | 2.56 |
E | Bituminous surface | 355.26 | 0.07 |
E | Gravel or rock | 502.03 | 0.10 |
E | Not maintained | 783.07 | 0.15 |
| | 1640.36 | 0.31 |
EAST SAPPHIRE | Not maintained | 261.17 | 0.05 |
| | 261.17 | 0.05 |
EDDY | Bituminous surface | 14.77 | 0.00 |
EDDY | Gravel or rock | 255.67 | 0.05 |
EDDY | Not maintained | 2322.91 | 0.44 |
| | 2593.36 | 0.49 |
ELIZABETH PLACE | Bituminous surface | 218.40 | 0.04 |
| | 218.40 | 0.04 |
ELMIRA | Not maintained | 2298.14 | 0.44 |
| | 2298.14 | 0.44 |
F | Bituminous surface | 2765.42 | 0.52 |
| | 2765.42 | 0.52 |
FILMORE | Bituminous surface | 1564.86 | 0.30 |
| | 1564.86 | 0.30 |
FIR | Bituminous surface | 4986.04 | 0.94 |
| | 4986.04 | 0.94 |
FOR WORDEN | Bituminous surface | 15430.19 | 2.92 |
FOR WORDEN | Not maintained | 24672.04 | 4.67 |
| | 40102.23 | 7.60 |
FOSTER | Bituminous surface | 1295.46 | 0.25 |
| | 1295.46 | 0.25 |
FRANKLIN | Bituminous surface | 4104.98 | 0.78 |
| | 4104.98 | 0.78 |
G | Gravel or rock | 268.12 | 0.05 |
G | Not maintained | 905.55 | 0.17 |
| | 1173.67 | 0.22 |
GAINES | Bituminous surface | 299.13 | 0.06 |
GAINES | Not maintained | 543.25 | 0.10 |
| | 842.38 | 0.16 |
GARFIELD | Bituminous surface | 4397.68 | 0.83 |
GARFIELD | Not maintained | 634.00 | 0.12 |
| | 5031.68 | 0.95 |
GISE | Bituminous surface | 2804.09 | 0.53 |
GISE | Gravel or rock | 858.22 | 0.16 |
GISE | Not maintained | 961.22 | 0.18 |
| | 4623.53 | 0.88 |
GRANT | Bituminous surface | 2128.73 | 0.40 |
GRANT | Not maintained | 822.39 | 0.16 |
| | 2951.12 | 0.56 |
HAINES | Bituminous surface | 2531.95 | 0.48 |
HAINES | Gravel or rock | 949.64 | 0.18 |
HAINES | Not maintained | 533.55 | 0.10 |
| | 4015.15 | 0.76 |
HALL | Not maintained | 246.30 | 0.05 |
| | 246.30 | 0.05 |
HANCOCK | Asphalt concrete | 1289.30 | 0.24 |
HANCOCK | Bituminous surface | 2340.22 | 0.44 |
HANCOCK | Not maintained | 1426.51 | 0.27 |
| | 5056.03 | 0.96 |
HARRISON | Bituminous surface | 2342.82 | 0.44 |
| | 2342.82 | 0.44 |
HASTINGS | Bituminous surface | 8417.22 | 1.59 |
| | 8417.22 | 1.59 |
HENDRICKS | Bituminous surface | 288.45 | 0.05 |
HENDRICKS | Gravel or rock | 2776.06 | 0.53 |
HENDRICKS | Not maintained | 5144.49 | 0.97 |
| | 8209.00 | 1.55 |
HILL | Bituminous surface | 2804.52 | 0.53 |
HILL | Not maintained | 325.40 | 0.06 |
| | 3129.92 | 0.59 |
HOLCOMB | Bituminous surface | 2028.73 | 0.38 |
HOLCOMB | Not maintained | 2651.24 | 0.50 |
| | 4679.97 | 0.89 |
HOWARD | Bituminous surface | 562.73 | 0.11 |
HOWARD | Gravel or rock | 3927.65 | 0.74 |
HOWARD | Not maintained | 1121.79 | 0.21 |
| | 5612.17 | 1.06 |
HUDSON | Bituminous surface | 1672.10 | 0.32 |
| | 1672.10 | 0.32 |
IVY | Gravel or rock | 1452.35 | 0.28 |
| | 1452.53 | 0.28 |
J | Not maintained | 529.88 | 0.10 |
| | 529.88 | 0.10 |
JACKMAN | Bituminous surface | 2147.56 | 0.41 |
JACKMAN | Not maintained | 2445.28 | 0.46 |
| | 4592.85 | 0.87 |
JACKSON | Bituminous surface | 3121.70 | 0.59 |
JACKSON | Not maintained | 1143.52 | 0.22 |
| | 4265.22 | 0.81 |
JEFFERSON | Asphalt concrete | 1160.51 | 0.22 |
JEFFERSON | Bituminous surface | 4756.02 | 0.90 |
JEFFERSON | Not maintained | 260.31 | 0.05 |
| | 6176.84 | 1.17 |
K | Not maintained | 521.57 | 0.10 |
| | 521.57 | 0.10 |
KANU | Asphalt concrete | 561.13 | 0.11 |
| | 561.13 | 0.11 |
KATHRINE | Bituminous surface | 345.79 | 0.07 |
| | 345.79 | 0.07 |
KEARNEY | Asphalt concrete | 1914.06 | 0.36 |
KEARNEY | Bituminous surface | 202.42 | 0.04 |
| | 2116.48 | 0.40 |
KUHN | Bituminous surface | 2533.08 | 0.48 |
KUHN | Gravel or rock | 101.34 | 0.02 |
KUHN | Not maintained | 1735.72 | 0.33 |
| | 4370.14 | 0.83 |
L | Not maintained | 266.06 | 0.05 |
| | 266.06 | 0.05 |
LANDES | Bituminous surface | 5619.43 | 1.06 |
LANDES | Not maintained | 408.21 | 0.08 |
| | 6027.64 | 1.14 |
LAWRENCE | Asphalt concrete | 4976.96 | 0.94 |
LAWRENCE | Bituminous surface | 439.84 | 0.08 |
| | 5416.80 | 1.03 |
LENORE | Not maintained | 868.28 | 0.16 |
| | 868.28 | 0.16 |
LINCOLN | Bituminous surface | 3461.37 | 0.66 |
LINCOLN | Not maintained | 592.67 | 0.11 |
| | 4054.05 | 0.77 |
LOGAN | Asphalt concrete | 879.56 | 0.17 |
LOGAN | Bituminous surface | 806.48 | 0.15 |
LOGAN | Gravel or rock | 467.54 | 0.09 |
LOGAN | Not maintained | 1545.33 | 0.29 |
| | 3698.91 | 0.70 |
LOPEZ | Bituminous surface | 1467.58 | 0.28 |
| | 1467.58 | 0.28 |
MADISON | Bituminous surface | 3459.76 | 0.66 |
| | 3459.76 | 0.66 |
MAPLE | Bituminous surface | 1022.95 | 0.19 |
MAPLE | Not maintained | 1858.59 | 0.35 |
| | 2881.54 | 0.55 |
MCKINLEY | Bituminous surface | 265.44 | 0.05 |
| | 265.44 | 0.05 |
MCNEILL | Bituminous surface | 417.86 | 0.08 |
MCNEILL | Not maintained | 777.73 | 0.15 |
| | 1195.59 | 0.23 |
MCPHERSON | Bituminous surface | 2974.39 | 0.56 |
| | 2974.36 | 0.56 |
MILL | Bituminous surface | 270.42 | 0.05 |
| | 270.42 | 0.05 |
MILO | Not maintained | 461.47 | 0.09 |
| | 461.47 | 0.09 |
MONROE | Asphalt concrete | 2348.78 | 0.44 |
MONROE | Bituminous surface | 1683.12 | 0.32 |
| | 4031.89 | 0.76 |
N | Not maintained | 297.13 | 0.06 |
| | 297.13 | 0.06 |
NORTH PEARY | Not maintained | 2658.06 | 0.50 |
| | 2658.06 | 0.50 |
O | Bituminous surface | 773.13 | 0.15 |
O | Not maintained | 261.25 | 0.05 |
| | 1034.38 | 0.20 |
OAK | Bituminous surface | 472.68 | 0.09 |
| | 472.68 | 0.09 |
OLYMPIC | Not maintained | 540.04 | 0.10 |
| | 540.04 | 0.10 |
P | Bituminous surface | 1853.44 | 0.35 |
| | 1853.44 | 0.35 |
PACIFIC | Not maintained | 538.83 | 0.10 |
| | 538.83 | 0.10 |
PARKSIDE DRIVE | Bituminous surface | 979.90 | 0.19 |
| | 979.90 | 0.19 |
PEARY | Gravel or rock | 1103.55 | 0.21 |
PEARY | Not maintained | 1153.45 | 0.22 |
| | 2257.00 | 0.43 |
PIERCE | Bituminous surface | 2188.36 | 0.41 |
| | 2188.36 | 0.41 |
PLACE | Not maintained | 290.30 | 0.05 |
| | 290.30 | 0.05 |
POLK | Bituminous surface | 1046.91 | 0.20 |
| | 1046.91 | 0.20 |
Q | Bituminous surface | 787.21 | 0.15 |
Q | Gravel or rock | 766.77 | 0.15 |
| | 1553.98 | 0.29 |
QUEEN ANNE | Bituminous surface | 592.16 | 0.11 |
| | 592.16 | 0.11 |
QUEEN MARY | Bituminous surface | 437.99 | 0.08 |
| | 437.99 | 0.08 |
QUINCY | Bituminous surface | 3479.59 | 0.66 |
| | 3479.59 | 0.66 |
RAINER | Not maintained | 1588.73 | 0.30 |
| | 1588.73 | 0.30 |
REDWOOD | Gravel or rock | 636.47 | 0.12 |
| | 636.47 | 0.12 |
REDWOOD CHERRY | Bituminous surface | 346.62 | 0.07 |
| | 346.62 | 0.07 |
REED | Bituminous surface | 951.56 | 0.18 |
| | 951.56 | 0.18 |
RENEE PLACE | Not maintained | 165.55 | 0.03 |
| | 165.55 | 0.03 |
ROOSEVELT | Bituminous surface | 1966.01 | 0.37 |
| | 1966.01 | 0.37 |
ROOT | Bituminous surface | 787.39 | 0.15 |
| | 787.39 | 0.15 |
ROSE | Bituminous surface | 467.43 | 0.09 |
ROSE | Not maintained | 2595.08 | 0.49 |
| | 3062.51 | 0.58 |
ROSECRANS | Bituminous surface | 1097.65 | 0.21 |
ROSECRANS | Gravel or rock | 355.35 | 0.07 |
| | 1453.00 | 0.28 |
ROSEMARY PLACE | Not maintained | 517.45 | 0.10 |
| | 517.45 | 0.10 |
ROSEWOOD | Gravel or rock | 1148.14 | 0.22 |
ROSEWOOD | Not maintained | 248.47 | 0.05 |
| | 1396.61 | 0.26 |
S | Bituminous surface | 638.26 | 0.12 |
| | 638.26 | 0.12 |
SAN JUAN | Bituminous surface | 7429.14 | 1.41 |
| | 7429.14 | 1.41 |
SCOTT | Bituminous surface | 1569.75 | 0.30 |
SCOTT | Not maintained | 241.63 | 0.05 |
| | 1811.38 | 0.34 |
SHERIDAN | Bituminous surface | 8045.80 | 1.52 |
| | 8045.80 | 1.52 |
SHERMAN | Bituminous surface | 1786.86 | 0.34 |
SHERMAN | Not maintained | 439.22 | 0.08 |
| | 2226.08 | 0.42 |
SILVER | Bituminous surface | 445.96 | 0.08 |
| | 445.96 | 0.08 |
SOUTH PEARL | Not maintained | 32.28 | 0.01 |
| | 32.28 | 0.01 |
SOUTH TOPAZ | Not maintained | 263.08 | 0.05 |
| | 263.08 | 0.05 |
SPRING | Not maintained | 1096.10 | 0.21 |
| | 1096.10 | 0.21 |
SPRUCE | Asphalt concrete | 26.54 | 0.01 |
SPRUCE | Bituminous surface | 448.15 | 0.08 |
SPRUCE | Gravel or rock | 246.05 | 0.05 |
SPRUCE | Not maintained | 1695.05 | 0.32 |
| | 2415.79 | 0.46 |
SR 20 | Asphalt over concrete | 12341.34 | 2.34 |
| | 12341.34 | 2.34 |
SUMMIT | Bituminous surface | 8.90 | 0.00 |
| | 8.90 | 0.00 |
SUMMIT WAY | Not maintained | 267.18 | 0.05 |
| | 267.18 | 0.05 |
SUTTER | Not maintained | 77.88 | 0.01 |
| | 77.88 | 0.01 |
T | Bituminous surface | 1299.31 | 0.25 |
| | 1299.31 | 0.25 |
TAFT | Bituminous surface | 1940.70 | 0.37 |
| | 1940.70 | 0.37 |
TAYLOR | Bituminous surface | 2738.78 | 0.52 |
| | 2738.78 | 0.52 |
THOMAS | Asphalt concrete | 762.91 | 0.14 |
THOMAS | Bituminous surface | 1149.06 | 0.22 |
THOMAS | Gravel or rock | 799.28 | 0.15 |
THOMAS | Not maintained | 2457.85 | 0.47 |
| | 5169.11 | 0.98 |
TOWNE POINT AVENUE | Bituminous surface | 1605.20 | 0.30 |
| | 1605.20 | 0.30 |
TREMONT | Bituminous surface | 1747.53 | 0.33 |
| | 1747.53 | 0.33 |
TYLER | Bituminous surface | 2899.17 | 0.55 |
| | 2899.17 | 0.55 |
U | Bituminous surface | 1044.24 | 0.20 |
U | Gravel or rock | 467.08 | 0.09 |
| | 1511.32 | 0.29 |
UMATILLA | Bituminous surface | 4330.76 | 0.82 |
| | 4330.76 | 0.82 |
Unknown | Asphalt over concrete | 322.93 | 0.06 |
Unknown | Bituminous surface | 3650.49 | 0.69 |
Unknown | Gravel or rock | 347.33 | 0.07 |
Unknown | Not maintained | 34763.08 | 6.58 |
| | 39083.82 | 7.40 |
V | Bituminous surface | 760.23 | 0.14 |
V | Gravel or rock | 253.41 | 0.05 |
V | Not maintained | 226.11 | 0.04 |
| | 1239.74 | 0.23 |
VAN BUREN | Bituminous surface | 1940.28 | 0.37 |
| | 1940.28 | 0.37 |
VAN NESS | Bituminous surface | 1642.75 | 0.31 |
| | 1642.75 | 0.31 |
VICTORIA | Bituminous surface | 1308.43 | 0.25 |
| | 1308.43 | 0.25 |
VISTA BLVD | Asphalt concrete | 426.40 | 0.08 |
| | 426.40 | 0.08 |
W | Bituminous surface | 2687.58 | 0.51 |
| | 2687.58 | 0.51 |
WALKER | Bituminous surface | 2163.06 | 0.41 |
| | 2163.06 | 0.41 |
WALNUT | Bituminous surface | 2835.08 | 0.54 |
| | 2835.08 | 0.54 |
WASHINGTON | Bituminous surface | 7337.20 | 1.39 |
WASHINGTON | Gravel or rock | 55.80 | 0.01 |
WASHINGTON | Not maintained | 71.13 | 0.01 |
| | 7464.14 | 1.41 |
WATER | Asphalt over concrete | 4138.51 | 0.78 |
WATER | Bituminous surface | 1099.20 | 0.21 |
| | 5237.71 | 0.99 |
WEST U | Bituminous surface | 293.63 | 0.06 |
| | 293.63 | 0.06 |
WILLOW | Bituminous surface | 533.89 | 0.10 |
WILLOW | Not maintained | 2692.00 | 0.51 |
| | 3225.89 | 0.61 |
WILSON | Gravel or rock | 1669.72 | 0.32 |
WILSON | Not maintained | 214.55 | 0.04 |
| | 1884.27 | 0.36 |
WOODLAND | Not maintained | 163.52 | 0.03 |
| | 163.52 | 0.03 |
| | | |
| | Grand Total: | 495167.98
|
City of Port Townsend | Summary | Road Surface Inventory |
14-Feb-95 | | |
ROADTYPE | LENGTH IN FEET | LENGTH IN MILES |
Asphalt concrete | 23261.42 | 4.41 |
| 4.70% | |
Asphalt over concrete | 16802.77 | 3.18 |
| 3.39% | |
Bituminous surface | 276051.79 | 52.28 |
| 55.75% | |
Gravel or rock | 38720.95 | 7.33 |
| 7.82% | |
Not maintained | 140331.04 | 26.58 |
| 28.34% | |
| | |
Grand Total: | 495167.98 | 93.78
|
