VII. CAPITAL FACILITIES & UTILITIES ELEMENT

INTRODUCTION

Growth Management Act Requirements

The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires that communities adopt comprehensive plans which are designed to guide orderly development and growth over the next 20 years. Capital facilities and utilities are defined as mandatory elements to be included in the Comprehensive Plan. The long range Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) and the short range Capital Improvements Program (CIP) make up the capital facilities element required by the GMA.

Capital facilities and utilities represent the infrastructure, or foundation, of a community and are integral to accommodating growth. Capital facilities are defined as public facilities considered necessary for community development. Utilities include private and public enterprises which supply Port Townsend with water, sanitary sewer, solid waste, storm drainage, electricity, telecommunications, and cable television. While some of these capital facilities and utilities are provided by the City, others are provided by private companies.

The Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) contains the overall policies and strategies for the provision of adequate public facilities and services. It also includes policy direction for funding and ongoing budgeting, a selection process, and maintenance of capital facilities for economic development. The plan also contains an inventory of existing and proposed capital facilities, and identifies deficiencies in capital facilities and the actions necessary to eliminate such deficiencies. The CIP contains the six-year finance plan for all capital facilities and lists sources of funding and scheduling of individual projects for all capital facilities.

The City of Port Townsend has combined capital facilities and utilities within one element. However, the GMA addresses capital facilities and utilities independently regarding planning requirements, particularly concerning funding issues. The joint presentation of capital facilities and utilities within this document is meant to increase the usefulness of this chapter and should not be viewed as imposing general capital facilities planning requirements on utilities.

The County-Wide Planning Policy Requirements

The Capital Facilities & Utilities Element of the Plan must also be consistent with the County-Wide Planning Policy for Jefferson County (Policy #2, "Promotion of Contiguous and Orderly Development and the Provision of Urban Services to such Development"). The relevant sections of that Policy are summarized below:

Scope

The scope of this plan primarily addresses land within the existing City limits, although some references to unincorporated Jefferson County have been included. This plan element covers all public capital facilities of the City of Port Townsend, consistent with the County-Wide Planning Policy for Jefferson County (CWPP #4). This element also addresses essential public facilities.

Capital facilities for the City include: administrative office space; water; wastewater; stormwater; law enforcement; fire and EMS; parks and recreation; transportation; and library. However, the provision of some facilities beyond the City limits (into the potential unincorporated portion of the FUGA) will need to be defined with certainty in a future supplement to this chapter. The County and the City will identify these services and locations through subsequent discussions related to the extension of urban services within the potential unincorporated portion of the Port Townsend FUGA. [Ord. No. 2825, § 3.3, (January 6, 2003)].

Purpose

The purpose of the Capital Facilities & Utilities Element is to identify and coordinate improvements necessary to accommodate orderly growth, set policy direction for capital improvements, and ensure that they are provided in a timely manner. The need to provide specific facilities and services is directly linked to community expectations.

Quality of Life

Capital facilities and utilities directly affect a community's quality of life. Determining the appropriate type, location and amount of public facilities and utilities is a key component of the Comprehensive Plan. These facilities will significantly influence the community's growth over the life of the plan.

Participants in the Port Townsend 2020 process defined several objectives as important to the quality of life in Port Townsend. These objectives are described within the Community Direction Statement contained in Chapter III of this Plan, and include:

All of these aspects of community development are dependent upon the provision of adequate capital facilities and utilities. [Ord. No. 2879, § 1.8, (February 7, 2005)].

Concurrency

To serve new growth and development, the GMA requires that certain facilities and services be provided concurrent with new development. In the case of transportation improvements, a financial commitment to provide them within six years must be made. Facilities which are subject to concurrency in the City are transportation, water, wastewater, and stormwater.

Other facilities and services (e.g., parks, and libraries) are accounted for in the Capital Facilities Plan, including locations and capacity. The plan for funding these facilities is part of the ongoing adopted capital facilities budget of the City of Port Townsend. This annual budget, upon approval of the City Council, will become the funding level for these facilities. The capital facilities budget is an expression by the City Council of the need and appropriate funding levels for public facilities and services in the near term. Longer term capacity and funding were also estimated for each service area. These long term capacity and funding estimates are contained in Appendices #2 and #3 to the Draft Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement issued on January 10, 1996.

Some facilities and services are controlled by other service providers, both public and private. Services such as electricity, telephone, and cable television services are provided, at least in part, by entities other than the City of Port Townsend. While these facilities are accounted for in the Plan, they are not the responsibility of the City, and are not required for concurrency. The City will work with service providers to reach agreement on ways to ensure that these services are available when needed. Additionally, the City will negotiate with franchisees (e.g., cable television companies) to ensure that adequate services are provided.

Essential Public Facilities

The GMA requires that the comprehensive plans of cities contain a process for identifying and siting "essential public facilities" (Chapter 365-195-340 WAC). "Essential public facilities" is a specialized term that relates to larger "regional" facilities, like landfills, prisons or airports. Typically, it is difficult to find locations for these facilities due to neighborhood opposition.

The GMA gives local jurisdictions authority to define essential public facilities which are subject to a separate siting process. The County-Wide Planning Policy for Jefferson County includes a list of difficult to site facilities and services (i.e., CWPP 4.1). This list is not intended to be all inclusive. Rather, it should function as a guide for the City, service providers, developers and residents. Listed facilities include:

The Comprehensive Plan and development regulations cannot prevent the siting of essential public facilities. However, policies should be established to ensure that these facilities are compatible with adjacent or nearby land uses. Therefore, evaluation of proposals for the expansion of existing essential public facilities or construction of new essential public facilities within the City should be made according to a set of criteria. The County-Wide Planning Policy for Jefferson County includes a list of criteria for the siting of essential public facilities which should be included in the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan. These criteria have been incorporated in policy 7.1 of this element.

Endangered Species Listings

In February 1997, the National Marine Fisheries Service announced its intention to list a number of salmon and steelhead stocks in the Northwest as "threatened" or "endangered." Port Townsend has no salmon streams within its City limits, but is surrounded on three sides by a sensitive marine habitat, and draws its water from rivers that are significant spawning grounds. Endangered species listings could have profound importance, and reemphasizes the City's commitment to take utmost care of our natural systems. The City has already taken important steps, including:

In the future, the City will participate actively with other jurisdictions in the development and implementation of regional management plans for protection of the listed species, will continue to improve the protection offered by our regulations, and will implement the capital facilities projects called for in this element of the Plan to improve the wastewater, water, and stormwater systems of the City. [Ord. No. 2670, § 1.12, (December 7, 1998)].

CAPITAL FACILITIES GOALS & POLICIES

The following goals, policies, and implementation strategy form the foundation for the Capital Facilities and Utilities Element of the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan. The element will be instrumental in carrying out the Community Direction Statement contained in Chapter III of the Plan.

Capital Facilities - Generally

Goal 1: To plan and provide adequate public capital facilities and utilities to address current needs and growth and development.

Policy 1.1:    Design public facilities to be compatible in scale and design with surrounding uses, and to incorporate common design elements which enhance a sense of community and neighborhood identity.

Policy 1.2:    Determine capital facilities and utilities needs based on adopted level of service standards, adopted population projections, and the growth patterns established in the Land Use Element. Use population projections for the 50 year planning period or ultimate build-out under the growth patterns established by the Land Use Element to determine City needs for water, wastewater and stormwater facilities. Recognize that limited water supplies, financial resources, and environmental constraints may restrict growth to a level below adopted population projections.

Policy 1.3:    Promote conservation of energy, water and natural resources and the use of alternative technologies in the location and design of public facilities and utilities (e.g., use natural drainage systems rather than constructing piped stormwater systems).

Policy 1.4:    Provide adequate public facilities and responsive and efficient public services in order to attract and support commercial and manufacturing development consistent with the Economic Development Element of this Plan.

Phasing of Capital Facilities & Utilities

Goal 2: To phase the timing and provision of capital improvements in a manner that promotes orderly growth and development and the efficient use of City resources.

Policy 2.1:    Ensure that the growth and development patterns established by the Land Use Element minimize facility demands for transportation, water treatment and distribution, wastewater treatment, surface water management, and police and fire protection,

Policy 2.2:    Make efficient and cost-effective use of existing public facilities, including such techniques as: conservation; demand management and improved scheduling; shared use of public facilities; and the use of alternative technologies.

Policy 2.3:    Expand public facilities, or construct new public facilities, only when necessary to achieve efficient service delivery or attain identified levels of service.

Policy 2.4:    Identify and designate urban capital facility and utility growth tiers which are consistent with and support the growth and development patterns established in the Land Use Element.

2.4.1    Designate areas that are currently characterized by urban development and densities, which are provided with the full range of public facilities and utilities, as "Tier 1" areas.

2.4.2    Designate areas currently provided with limited public infrastructure which are designated for commercial, manufacturing, or higher density residential development, as "Tier 2" areas.

2.4.3    Designate all remaining areas as "Tier 3." [Ord. No. 2825, § 3.3, (January 6, 2003)].

Policy 2.5:    Within the framework of the annual Capital Improvement Program (CIP) process, prioritize the provision of capital facilities, services and utilities.

2.5.1    Highest priority should be given to ensuring the continued operation and maintenance of urban capital facilities, services and utilities regardless of their location.

2.5.2    Second priority should be given to expanding capital facilities, services and utilities within Tier 1 areas.

2.5.3    Third priority should be given to expanding capital facilities, services and utilities within Tier 2 areas, within the 20 year planning horizon.

2.5.4    Lowest priority should be given to expanding capital facilities, services and utilities within Tier 3 areas.

Policy 2.6:    Consistent with policy 2.5, above, the City should not provide facilities, services and utilities in unserved areas unless clearly specified within the annual CIP. However, developers and home builders may, at their own expense, provide facilities, services and utilities for new development in presently unserved areas, based on adopted level of service standards.

Levels of Service

Goal 3: To provide adequate public facilities that achieve and maintain the level of service standards for the existing and future population.

Policy 3.1:    Use the following level of service standards for determining the need for public wastewater and water facilities:

TABLE VII-1: WATER & WASTEWATER LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS
FACILITY	STANDARD
City: Raw Water Supply	360 gallons/capita/day
Tri-Area: Raw Water Supply	340 gallons/capita/day
City: Raw Water Storage	50,000 gallons/capita
Tri-Area Raw Water Storage	N/A
City: Treated Water Storage	475 gallons/capita
Tri-Area: Treated Water Storage	535 gallons/capita
City: Wastewater Collection & Treatment	120 gallons/capita/day

Policy 3.2:    Use the following level of service standards for determining the need for vehicular transportation facility improvements:

TABLE VII-2: ARTERIAL/COLLECTOR LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS
ROAD TYPE	STANDARD
Urban/Tourist Corridor	D
Other Roads w/in Urban Growth Area (UGA)	D

(Note: Refer to the Transportation Element of this Plan for further detail).

Policy 3.3:    Use the following level of service standards to determine the need for public facilities:

TABLE VII-3: PUBLIC FACILITY LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS
FACILITY	STANDARD
City Administrative Offices	695 sq. ft./1,000 population
Public Safety: Fire & EMS Police Facilities:	0.53 bays/1,000 population 760 sq. ft./1,000 population
Library: Collection Building	3.75 volumes per capita 617 sq. ft./1,000 population
Parks	7.6 acres/1,000 population
Stormwater Management	As established by the DOE Stormwater Management Manual

Concurrency Management

Goal 4: To ensure that water, wastewater, stormwater and transportation facilities are provided concurrent with new development, based on the City's adopted level of service standards.

Policy 4.1:    Evaluate each development to ensure that it meets the City's adopted level of service standards for water, wastewater, and stormwater facilities prior to issuance of a building permit. Evaluate each development to ensure that it meets the City's adopted level of service standards for transportation facilities within six years of issuance of a building permit.

Policy 4.2:    Review and condition each development to ensure that appropriate provisions are made for facilities, services and utilities not required for concurrency, including, but not limited to:

a.    Fire and emergency medical services (EMS);

b.    Parks, open spaces and trails;

c.    Law enforcement; and

d.    Schools and school facilities.

Policy 4.3:    Provide the following options for applicants when adequate public facilities are not available concurrent with the impacts of development:

a.    Mitigate all development impacts on levels of service; or,

b.    Revise the proposed development to reduce impacts and maintain satisfactory levels of service; or,

c.    Phase the development to coincide with the availability of increased water, wastewater, and transportation facility capacity.

Policy 4.4:    Develop, adopt and implement a concurrency management system within one year following adoption of this Comprehensive Plan.

Funding & Financial Feasibility

Goal 5: To provide needed public facilities within the City's financial capabilities or within the City's authority to require others to provide such facilities.

Policy 5.1:    Base the Capital Facilities Plan on estimates of local revenues and external revenues which are reasonably anticipated to be received by the City.

5.1.1    Consider a wide variety of potential funding sources to finance the capital improvements specified in the Capital Facilities Plan, such as: real estate excise tax; user fees; general obligation bonds; and impact fees.

5.1.2    Match revenue sources to capital projects on the basis of sound fiscal policies. Sound fiscal policies include: cost-effectiveness; prudent asset and liability management; ensuring that the length of financing does not exceed use of the City's borrowing capacity; prudent use of the City's borrowing capacity; and maximizing the use of grants and other external revenues.

Policy 5.2:    Finance the six-year Capital Improvements Program to assure a positive balance between available revenue and needed capital facilities and utilities. If projected funding is inadequate to finance needed capital facilities and utilities based on adopted level of service standards and forecasted growth, make adjustments to one or more of the following:

a.    Level of service standard;

b.    Land Use Element; and/or

c.    Sources of revenue.

Policy 5.3:    Ensure adequate funding is available for long term operations and maintenance costs prior to the construction of new capital facilities.

Policy 5.4:    Ensure that new development pays a proportionate share of the cost of new capital facilities and utilities needed to serve the development.

Policy 5.5:    Ensure that developers provide capital facilities and utilities concurrent with new development, or provide a contractual agreement for the phasing of facilities and utilities, subject to approval by the City.

Consistency with Other Plans

Goal 6: To ensure that the Capital Facilities Element is consistent with other City, local, regional and State adopted plans.

Policy 6.1:    Ensure that functional plans (e.g., Stormwater Master Plan) and subarea plans (e.g., Urban Waterfront Plan) are consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive and Capital Facilities Plans.

Policy 6.1.1:    Where found inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, process initial adoption of/revisions to functional plans and subarea plans as a Comprehensive Plan amendment during the annual amendment cycle.

Policy 6.2:    On an annual basis, reassess the Comprehensive Plan to ensure that capital facilities, utilities needs, financing, and levels of service are consistent and that the Plan is internally consistent. [Ord. No. 3075, § 3.6, (June 18, 2012)].

Essential Public Facilities

Goal 7: To ensure efficient and equitable siting of essential public facilities through cooperative and coordinated planning, with Jefferson County and other jurisdictions within the region.

Policy 7.1:    Work with Jefferson County to jointly develop specific siting criteria and standards for essential public facilities. Elements of the siting criteria should include, but not be limited to:

a.    Proximity to major transportation routes and essential infrastructure;

b.    Land use compatibility with the surrounding area;

c.    Potential environmental impacts;

d.    Effects on resource lands and critical areas;

e.    Proximity to urban growth areas;

f.    Public costs and benefits, including operations and maintenance;

g.    Current capacity and location of equivalent facilities; and

h.    The existence, within the community, of reasonable alternatives to the proposed activity.

Policy 7.2:    Ensure that the Comprehensive Plan and implementing regulations do not preclude the siting of essential public facilities.

Unincorporated Areas Served by the City

Goal 8: To ensure that urban level public facilities and utilities are only extended into UGAs and LAMIRDs and otherwise extended only if consistent with official land use designations.

Policy 8.1:    [Deleted by Ord. No. 2825, § 3.3, (January 6, 2003)].

Policy 8.2:    [Deleted by Ord. No. 2825, § 3.3, (January 6, 2003)].

Policy 8.3:    [Deleted by Ord. No. 2825, § 3.3, (January 6, 2003)].

Policy 8.4:    [Deleted by Ord. No. 2825, § 3.3, (January 6, 2003)].

Policy 8.5:    [Deleted by Ord. No. 2825, § 3.3, (January 6, 2003)].

Policy 8.6:    Cooperate with Jefferson County to contain urban growth within appropriately designated UGAs, ensuring that commercial and manufacturing areas outside of UGAs:

a.    Are rural in character, scale and intensity;

b.    Are served at a rural level of service; and

c.    Do not accommodate businesses and services that directly compete with uses within UGAs; or

d.    Are approved Major Industrial Developments (MIDs), which MIDs are permitted and approved consistent with GMA and interlocal agreement between the City and Jefferson County providing for siting and permitting criteria. [Ord. No. 2825, § 3.3, (January 6, 2003); Ord. No. 2783, § 2.1, (November 19, 2001)].

UTILITY GOALS & POLICIES

Utilities – Generally

Goal 9: To ensure the provision of utilities to address current needs and growth and development.

Policy 9.1:    Ensure environmentally sensitive, cost effective, safe and reliable utility service that is compatible with the surrounding land uses.

Policy 9.2:    Encourage the joint use and provision of utility corridors, facilities and services.

Policy 9.3:    Coordinate planning and development review with other jurisdictions when utility additions and improvements cross jurisdictional boundaries.

Policy 9.4:    Ensure that above-ground utility installations (e.g., microwave relay towers) are located and designed in a manner most compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and natural characteristics of the land.

Policy 9.5:    Install new and, where feasible, relocate existing utility distribution lines underground. (Note: Placing utility lines underground will enhance the visual aesthetics of town, reduce the potential for power outages, and eliminate unattractive pruning of vegetation).

9.5.1    Explore prioritizing the placement of utility lines underground along major transportation routes with good territorial views.

9.5.2    Acknowledge the disproportionate costs of placing existing lines underground for smaller developments by allowing owners to defer until underground placement occurs as part of a larger project where economies of scale can be realized.

9.5.3    Consider the rates and tariffs of the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC) in determining which existing distribution lines should be placed underground.

Policy 9.6:    Work to ensure reasonable and equitable utility rates and regulations for Port Townsend residents by offering regular testimony before the WUTC.

Policy 9.7:    Periodically review the scientific research on risks associated with exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF). If warranted by new information or changes to state or federal regulation, modify policies and regulations.

Policy 9.8:    Ensure that public and private utilities minimize the clearing of trees and vegetation in the management of utility corridors and street rights-of-way.

City Water Utility

Water Service - Generally

Goal 10: To provide quality drinking water to all Port Townsend residents.

Policy 10.1:    Allow developers to provide service extensions within the City service area, provided: City design and construction standards and Washington State Department of Health (i.e., DOH) regulations and requirements are met; the costs of the extensions are paid for by the developer or new customers; off-site impacts are mitigated; all necessary permits are obtained; and all right-of-way issues are resolved.

Policy 10.2:    Ensure that water service extensions are consistent with this Comprehensive Plan, adopted level of service standards, the City's Water Master Plan, and the Coordinated Water System Plan (CWSP).

Policy 10.3:    Maintain commitments to provide water to existing retail customers. (Note: Water provided to contractual customers should be subject to the terms of the contract).

Policy 10.4:    Tier water system infrastructure improvements and service extensions in a manner consistent with Policy 2.5 of this element.

Policy 10.5:    Following installation and approval by the City, ensure that all water main extensions are owned, operated and maintained by the City.

Policy 10.6:    Meet federal and state water quality requirements.

Policy 10.7:    Coordinate water supply, delivery and service systems with adjacent water purveyors.

Policy 10.8:    Organize and participate in water education programs and develop and distribute materials to inform citizens about water system issues and concerns. Emphasize public health, water conservation and watershed protection as essential elements of the education program.

Water Service - Out-of-City

Goal 11: To ensure the continuity of high quality water service to the out-of-City service area, without sacrificing the ability to serve the residents of the City.

Policy 11.1:    Establish boundaries for the out-of-City service area that are based on the need to balance current service obligations with known limitations in the carrying capacity for the water resources available to the City. The City Council may adjust boundaries on an interim basis if an emergency exists.

Policy 11.2:    Provide water service to new customers only to the extent that excess water is available, as determined through the City's water reservation system.

Policy 11.3:    Allow service extensions within the out-of-City water service area under the following circumstances: the extension is consistent with the City's water reservation policy; the extension meets system design and construction standards and DOH regulations and requirements; the development costs are borne by the developer; off-site impacts are mitigated; and the extension is consistent with the CWSP.

Policy 11.4:    Allow service extensions outside the out-of-City water service area only for system looping, fire flow requirements, other specific system needs that provide enhanced service within the service area, or to meet prior contractual obligations.

Policy 11.5:    Continue to satisfy contractual obligations which require the City provide water to the Port Townsend Paper Company (PTPC). When renegotiating contracts or leases with the PTPC, give consideration to City water utility needs, historical partnership arrangements with PTPC, conservation requirements and opportunities, maintenance of the water system, in-stream flow needs and other related issues.

Water System Planning

Goal 12: To integrate water system planning with all other related planning efforts.

Policy 12.1:    Ensure that the City's Water Master Plan is consistent with this Comprehensive Plan (i.e., the Land Use Element, level of service standards and the Capital Facilities Plan set forth in this element).

Policy 12.2:    Participate in the Jefferson County Water Resources Council (which implements the Dungeness-Quilcene Water Resources Pilot Project Plan and addresses other regional water issues) to protect and enhance the overall water resources of eastern Jefferson County.

Policy 12.3:    Actively participate in the development of the Jefferson County Coordinated Water System Plan (CWSP) as a member of the Water Utilities Coordinating Committee (WUCC) and the WUCC Steering Committee.

12.3.1    Coordinate City GMA and water system planning with the CWSP process.

12.3.2    Assure that appropriate procedures are followed in the preparation of the CWSP, particularly public involvement processes and environmental review procedures.

12.3.3    Implement the policies of the Dungeness-Quilcene Water Resources Pilot Project Plan in the development of the CWSP.

Policy 12.4:    Regularly update, and implement the City's Water Master Plan, and monitor the effectiveness of the City's water system.

Policy 12.5:    Cooperate with the U.S. Forest Service to protect and enhance the water quality of the Big and Little Quilcene rivers. Update the Watershed Management Plan as needed to protect river resources.

Policy 12.6:    Use the joint County/City GMA population forecast to develop 20 and 50 year projections of water demand for both the in-City and out-of-City service areas.

Policy 12.7:    When projecting future water needs, anticipate possible reductions in demand which could be achieved through water conservation programs.

Water Supply

Goal 13: To develop and maintain water supplies to meet the needs of future City water utility customers.

Policy 13.1:    Reserve and develop the supply system capacity required to meet the current and future water demands of City water utility customers.

Policy 13.2:    Protect surface water rights. Cooperate with the PTPC, the Point No Point Treaty Council and other entities to develop an in-stream flow program for the Big and Little Quilcene Rivers.

Policy 13.3:    Protect groundwater rights and supply.

Water Conservation

Goal 14: To promote the conservation and prudent use of water resources.

Policy 14.1:    Ensure that water conservation is an integral component of the City's water supply planning program and that new development is designed to conserve water resources.

Policy 14.2:    Encourage all City water customers to voluntarily conserve and prudently use water resources.

Policy 14.3:    Develop an Emergency Water Shortage Response Plan to ensure that the essential needs of City water customers are met and that available water is distributed equitably. Give priority to the basic public health needs of all customers in the case of a severe water shortage.

Policy 14.4:    Examine opportunities for water reuse and recycling as an approach to reducing water demands. Potential uses include:

a.    Recycling water for manufacturing processes, industrial cooling, and power plant cooling;

b.    On-site wastewater treatment and recycling of effluent for nonpotable uses in residential and commercial buildings; and

c.    Reuse of treated effluent for municipal irrigation.

Policy 14.5:    Promote voluntary conservation and prudent use of water by all customers, including the mill, through City programs, and programs developed in cooperation with other agencies.

14.5.1    If conservation incentives are determined to be a cost-effective means of increasing the quantity of water available for municipal uses, the City should participate in these incentives, with such costs shared by all system users.

14.5.2    Design a water rate structure that encourages conservation.

Water Quality

Goal 15: To protect and enhance the quality of all surface and groundwater supplies.

Policy 15.1:    Continue to work with the Washington State Department of Health to implement the measures necessary to remain an unfiltered surface water supply system, while at the same time planning for the potential future requirement of filtration.

Policy 15.2:    Provide water that meets all state and federal water quality standards for source water and domestic supply to City retail customers.

Policy 15.3:    Develop and enforce a cross connection control program as required by the Washington State Department of Health and the Federal Environmental Protection Agency.

Policy 15.4:    Protect groundwater resources through the identification of aquifers and regulation of activities in aquifer recharge areas.

Policy 15.5:    Develop and implement a well-head protection program as required by the Washington State Department of Health.

Water Supply System Performance

Goal 16: To develop a more efficient water distribution system.

Policy 16.1:    Approve new service connections under the following circumstances:

a.    When sufficient water quantity and pressure exist to meet minimum design and construction standards in effect at the time of development; or

b.    When the necessary improvements are scheduled within the six year Capital Facilities Plan (CFP).

When development is proposed in an area where existing water system levels of service are below standard and no improvements are scheduled in the CFP, allow the project applicant to provide needed system enhancements to allow development to proceed.

Policy 16.2:    Ensure that new system connections do not reduce levels of service to existing customers.

Policy 16.3:    Design and construct all water system connections and extensions in accordance with the standards contained in the City's Design and Construction Manual.

Policy 16.4:    As financial resources become available, improve the existing distribution system in order to satisfy minimum standards for pressure and fire flow.

Water System Financing

Goal 17: To manage the City water utility in a fiscally sound manner.

Policy 17.1:    Operate the Water Utility as a self-supporting enterprise that maintains fiscal solvency and rate stability.

Policy 17.2:    Complete replacements and improvements to the water system in accordance with the Capital Improvement Program (CIP).

Policy 17.3:    Establish fees and charges that recover utility costs related to development.

Policy 17.4:    In instances where service extensions are requested before the City is scheduled to make the improvements, allocate the costs of extensions in accordance with the Water Master Plan policies.

Policy 17.5:    Require payment for off-site impacts related to system extensions in accordance with the Water Master Plan policies.

Policy 17.6:    Permit latecomer agreements for system extensions in accordance with the Water Master Plan policies.

Policy 17.7:    Ensure that the water utility rate structure allocates costs fairly between different classes of customers and service areas. Apply cost of service principles to determine appropriate cost allocations.

Policy 17.8:    Design a water utility rate structure that encourages conservation.

Policy 17.9:    Continue to provide water utility rate assistance to low income customers, as defined in Chapter 13.24 of the Port Townsend Municipal Code (PTMC).

City Wastewater Utility

Public Health & Safety

Goal 18: To assure proper disposal of wastewater to protect ground and surface water supplies.

Policy 18.1:    Ensure that all existing and new development within the Port Townsend Urban Growth Area (UGA) is supplied with adequate wastewater collection and treatment facilities and that connection to the sanitary sewer system is required wherever practical, or environmentally necessary [Ord. No. 2825, § 3.3, (January 6, 2003); Ord. No. 2716, § 3.2, (December 6, 1999)].

18.1.1    Require all new development to connect to the City's wastewater collection and treatment system when the development is located within 260 feet (i.e., 1 City block measured along public rights-of-way) of a wastewater collection line, measured from the nearest portion of the subject parcel [Ord. No. 2716, § 3.2, (December 6, 1999)].

18.1.2    Except for a single family residence on a parcel greater than 260 feet from a sewer and adequately mitigated through SEPA and/or ESA review when necessary, require new development that is subject to one or more of the following approvals to connect to the City's wastewater collection and treatment system, regardless of its location:

a.    Subdivision, short subdivision and planned unit development (PUD) approvals subject to the Subdivision Ordinance, Title 18 of the Port Townsend Municipal Code (PTMC);

b.    Land use or building permit approvals subject to review and threshold determination under the State Environmental Policy Act Implementing Ordinance, Chapter 19.04 PTMC; and

c.    Any land use or building permit approvals subject to the permit requirements of the Environmentally Sensitive Areas Ordinance, Chapter 19.05 PTMC [Ord. No. 2716 § 3.2, (December 6, 1999)].

18.1.3    Allow the use of individual on-site septic systems for new development not required to connect to the city sewer system under the provisions of Policies 18.1.1 or 18.1.2, provided the following conditions are met:

a.    Soil conditions will support the use of a septic system and the system is reviewed and approved by the Jefferson County Health Department;

b.    The system is designed to be efficiently converted to the City's wastewater collection and treatment facilities; and

c.    The developer enters into a no-protest agreement with the City (i.e., requiring connection to the City's wastewater system when available), filed on record title, as a condition of any building or development permit. [Ord. No. 2716, § 3.2, (December 6, 1999)].

18.1.4    Require existing development served by on-site systems to connect to the City's wastewater collection and treatment system within two years of notification by the City, except as follows:

a.    Allow the continued use of on-site systems in instances where the nearest wastewater collection line is more than 260 feet (i.e., one City block measured along public rights-of-way) from the nearest portion of the subject parcel; and

b.    Require immediate connection to the City's wastewater collection and treatment system in instances when an on-site system fails and the nearest portion of the subject parcel is less than 260 feet (i.e., one City block measured along public rights-of-way) from the nearest collection line. [Ord. No. 2716, § 3.2, (December 6, 1999)].

18.1.5    Require property owners to repair on-site systems to City and County Health Department standards in the event of system failures in areas not yet served by the City's wastewater collection and treatment system.

Policy 18.2:    Maintain and repair wastewater collection lines to prevent leakage into ground and surface waters, as well as to prevent infiltration into the system which would place unnecessary strains on collection line and treatment plant capacities.

Policy 18.3:    Ensure that commercial and manufacturing uses do not place unnecessary strains on the City's wastewater collection and treatment system.

18.3.1    Require pre-treatment of manufacturing discharges to reduce the concentrations of contaminants entering the City's wastewater collection and treatment system.

18.3.2    Base wastewater utility rates for commercial and manufacturing uses on the volume and concentrations (i.e., strength) of effluent entering the City's wastewater collection and treatment system.

Policy 18.4:    Require periodic inspections and pumping of septic systems.

System Development & Management

Goal 19: To efficiently develop and manage the City's wastewater collection and treatment system.

Policy 19.1:    Encourage infill development and the gradual, phased expansion within the Port Townsend Urban Growth Area (UGA). [Ord. No. 2825, § 3.3, (January 6, 2003)].

Policy 19.2:    Develop and implement an adequate maintenance schedule for all facilities, and place highest priority upon upgrading aging parts of the system.

Policy 19.3:    Pursue water conservation as a means to reduce wasteflows, minimizing future facility costs and environmental impacts.

Policy 19.4:    Recognize that growth and development will require the City to expand its wastewater collection and treatment system capacities within the 20 year planning horizon.

Policy 19.5:    Establish locational criteria for a new or expanded wastewater treatment facility that assures compatibility with the surrounding development and the natural features of the surrounding land, water and vegetation.

Policy 19.6:    Establish standards for wastewater collection and treatment facility design.

19.6.1    Design the wastewater collection system to convey the peak daily flow based upon a 20 or 50 year growth forecast and infiltration/inflow allowances.

19.6.2    Design treatment plants using a minimum of a 20 year growth projection, with planned expansion capable of serving the 50 year growth projection of the Port Townsend Urban Growth Area (UGA).

19.6.3    Determine the appropriate collection pipe to install based upon design flows, site conditions, and maintenance requirements.

19.6.4    Prohibit the connection of roof drains, foundation or sump-pump drains, or any surface water drainage facility to the wastewater system.

19.6.5    Place wastewater collection lines within public rights-of-way or dedicated easements of sufficient width to allow for the safe installation and continued maintenance of the pipe.

19.6.6    Design treatment facilities so that repair and replacement equipment is easily accessible for emergency use. [Ord. No. 2825, § 3.3, (January 6, 2003)].

System Development Phasing

Goal 20: To coordinate wastewater facility planning with land use, environmental, economic development, and growth management objectives.

Policy 20.1:    Tier wastewater system infrastructure improvements and service extensions in a manner consistent with Policy 2.5 of this element.

Policy 20.2:    Do not extend the wastewater system into areas outside the Port Townsend Urban Growth Area (UGA). [Ord. No. 2825, § 3.3, (January 6, 2003)].

Policy 20.3:    Develop and maintain a Wastewater Master Plan. Ensure that the Plan is updated at appropriate intervals and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.

Wastewater System Financing

Goal 21: To allocate the costs of wastewater collection and treatment in an equitable manner.

Policy 21.1:    Operate the Wastewater Utility as a self-supporting enterprise that maintains fiscal solvency and rate stability.

Policy 21.2:    Complete replacements and improvements to the wastewater system in accordance with the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Specifically identify revenue sources available for wastewater system related materials, projects, facilities, personnel, and maintenance and operation of equipment.

Policy 21.3:    Ensure that new development pays its fair share of the costs of wastewater system development through the use of system development charges.

Policy 21.4:    Continue to provide wastewater utility rate assistance to low income households, as defined in Chapter 13.24 of the Port Townsend Municipal Code (PTMC).

City Stormwater Utility

Stormwater Quality

Goal 22: To protect and manage Stormwater quality through the use of current design practices and standards.

Policy 22.1:    Review each public and private development project to ensure conformance with the standards of the City's Stormwater Master Plan, Stormwater and Drainage Ordinance and Procedures Manual, and the Department of Ecology's Stormwater Management Manual for Puget Sound.

Policy 22.2:    Use the DOE Stormwater Management Manual for Puget Sound for reviewing developments and require the use of best management practices for land clearing, control of runoff that may affect water quality, erosion and sedimentation.

Policy 22.3:    Regularly update the Stormwater and Drainage Ordinance and Procedures Manual to maintain up-to-date practices and standards.

Policy 22.4:    Ensure that discharges of Stormwater from treatment facilities into ponds, drainage corridors, wetlands, salt water, and other water bodies, do not result in a degradation of water quality.

Stormwater Quantity - Natural Drainage Systems Approach

Goal 23: To manage Stormwater quantity in a way that approximates the natural hydrologic characteristics of the area (i.e., a "natural drainage systems" approach) while ensuring that all Stormwater receives adequate treatment before discharge to surface water or infiltration to groundwater.

Policy 23.1:    Preserve natural surface and subsurface drainage systems to the maximum extent possible.

23.1.1    Protect and preserve critical drainage corridors and wetlands.

23.1.2    Regulate development within critical drainage corridors to preserve conveyance capacity, water quality and habitat quality and continuity.

23.1.3    Require that new developments and redevelopment preserve and employ natural drainage systems which incorporate means to hold and treat Stormwater and water pollutants.

Policy 23.2:    Pursue strategies intended to reduce Stormwater runoff to levels not likely to cause flooding, significant erosion to natural drainageways or significant degradation of water quality.

23.2.1    Integrate impervious surface reductions into development regulations.

23.2.2    Encourage alternative modes of transportation that reduce the need for streets and parking.

23.2.3    Develop standards for narrower residential streets, with reduced, but adequate, parking opportunities.

23.2.4    Encourage the use of pavers and other pervious surfaces for low use areas such as overflow parking and emergency access roads.

23.2.5    Encourage cooperative parking such as joint (i.e., combined), shared and coordinated parking.

23.2.6    Encourage underground or under-the-building parking in higher density areas.

23.2.7    Develop flexible parking regulations related that limit the amount of impervious surface, while still providing for parking needs.

23.2.8    Encourage cluster development that minimizes impervious surfaces.

Policy 23.3:    Ensure that stormwater quantity from development does not exceed natural historic flows, unless regional facilities are in place which can accommodate the increased flows without detrimental impacts to other properties.

Policy 23.4:    Regulate clearing, grading, dumping, discharging and draining and provide for flood and erosion control measures to protect wetlands and other environmentally sensitive areas.

Stormwater Facility Maintenance & Operation

Goal 24: To maintain stormwater facilities to ensure their proper and intended function.

Policy 24.1:    Inspect and maintain stormwater treatment facilities in accordance with the Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin.

Policy 24.2:    Work with private property owners to maintain stormwater treatment and detention facilities in accordance with the Stormwater Management Plan for the Puget Sound Basin.

Policy 24.3:    Allocate adequate resources to maintain stormwater facilities.

Stormwater System Financing

Goal 25: To provide financial resources to appropriately operate the Stormwater Drainage Utility and construct capital improvements.

Policy 25.1:    Maintain stormwater utility rates at a level appropriate to conduct necessary operations and maintenance activities and capital improvement projects.

Policy 25.2:    Establish fees and charges to recover utility costs related to development. Allocate costs to reflect the true cost to the utility.

Policy 25.3:    Pursue a wide variety of funding options, including low interest loans and state grants.

Cable Television

Quality of Service

Goal 26: To include within a negotiated franchise agreement provisions for high quality cable television service to all Port Townsend residents.

Policy 26.1:    Ensure that cable service incorporates the latest features and improvements as they become technologically and economically feasible.

Policy 26.2:    Ensure that all areas within Port Townsend have access to cable service.

Policy 26.3:    Ensure that the City's cable franchisee provides a high quality of customer service, programming variety, and signal transmission.

26.3.1    Work with the cable franchisee to establish and ensure conformance with minimum standards for signal transmission.

Policy 26.4:    Develop and maintain financial reserves sufficient to fund administrative oversight of the City's cable franchise.

Policy 26.5:    Work with the cable franchisee to appropriately place cable utility facilities within public rights-of-way.

Service to Public Buildings

Goal 27: To use advances in television cable technology to improve communications to and from public buildings.

Policy 27.1:    Require that cable service to and from major public buildings allows programs to originate from, and be received at, the same location.

Policy 27.2:    Ensure that cable service to schools, medical facilities, police and fire stations, libraries, and other major public buildings allows intercommunication among locations as such capabilities become technologically and economically feasible.

Local Access Programming

Goal 28: To assure that the local cable utility provides a high quality of local access programming.

Policy 28.1:    Ensure that cable service includes one or more cable service channels that are responsibly and fairly administered in the public interest.

28.1.1    Work with the local cable franchisee to establish a minimum level of service standard for public, educational and governmental (PEG) programming. Consider a LOS standard of .30 public access channels per 1,000 in population.

Policy 28.2:    Prepare a Community Television Plan to guide the administration of local access channels.

Policy 28.3:    Ensure that administration of local access channels emphasizes opportunities for programming of local interest, for example:

a.    Locally produced programs by organizations or individuals working with video, film, slides, or live performances;

b.    Educational programs for credit and/or for training purposes, or public meetings by local educational bodies;

c.    Public meetings held by governmental bodies; and

d.    Tele-conferences, and training programs by governmental bodies.

Policy 28.4:    Work with the cable franchisee to establish adequate local studio facilities.

Telecommunications

Goal 29: To coordinate with telecommunications utilities to ensure high quality service.

Policy 29.1:    Promote improvements and additions to communications facilities needed to accommodate demand, using such techniques as public-private partnerships.

Policy 29.2:    Encourage underground telecommunications utility networks in new developments.

Policy 29.3:    Include provisions within the zoning code that establish setbacks, criteria for land use compatibility, and fencing and vegetative buffering requirements for telecommunications facilities.

Policy 29.4:    Establish standards within the Port Townsend Municipal Code which ensure that new telecommunications infrastructure within the National Register Historic District will be designed and located to minimize adverse aesthetic impacts.

Policy 29.5:    Implement the recommendations of the Economic Development Element of this Plan to assist in providing state-of-the-art telecommunications infrastructure for business, education, public affairs, and consumer uses.

Electricity

Goal 30: To work with the serving utilities to plan and allow regional and local improvements to electric facilities and include prospective service plans for facility development within the City's Comprehensive Plan.

Policy 30.1:    Ensure that City decisions respecting electric utility facilities do not negatively affect the availability of safe and efficient electrical service in neighboring jurisdictions.

Policy 30.2:    Accommodate additions and improvements to electric utilities in a manner consistent with the needs and resources of Port Townsend as well as other neighboring jurisdictions.

Policy 30.3:    Encourage the serving utilities to make additions to and improvements of electric utility facilities to provide adequate capacity for projected future growth.

30.3.1    Provide the electric utility with annual updates of population, employment and development projections.

30.3.2    With the utility provider, jointly evaluate actual patterns and rates of growth, and compare those patterns and rates to electrical demand forecasts.

Policy 30.4:    Recognize the need for electric utility facilities that are sufficient to support economic development.

Policy 30.5:    Encourage the serving utilities to coordinate and cooperate with other jurisdictions in the implementation of multi-jurisdictional electric facility additions and improvements. Coordinate procedures for making specific land use decisions to achieve consistency in timing and substantive requirements.

Policy 30.6:    Encourage the use of joint utility corridors, provided that such joint use is consistent with limitations prescribed by applicable law and prudent utility practice.

Policy 30.7:    Work with providers to appropriately place electric utility facilities within public rights-of-way.

Policy 30.8:    Continue to implement the City's existing agreement with the serving utilities regarding vegetation retention and management.

Policy 30.9:    Continue to work with the serving utilities to eliminate the use of pesticides and herbicides in the management of electric utility facilities and corridors.

Policy 30.10:    In cooperation with the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), other direct energy providers, and the serving utilities, examine the possibility of purchasing electric power directly from BPA or other energy providers as a wholesale customer. [Ord. No. 2782, § 3.2, (November 19, 2001)].

Energy Conservation

Goal 31: To promote the efficient use of energy and resources, and the use of alternative energy sources and technologies.

Policy 31.1:    Facilitate and encourage the efficient use of resources to delay the need for additional facilities.

Policy 31.2:    Promote the conversion to cost-effective and environmentally sensitive technologies and energy sources (e.g., solar energy, natural gas, etc.).

Policy 31.3:    Ensure that City facilities and personnel conserve energy resources (e.g., examine the feasibility of converting City vehicles to cleaner fuels).

Policy 31.4:    Work in partnership with the serving utilities to promote public education efforts which emphasize the efficient use of energy and resources.

Policy 31.5:    Encourage construction of an electric car charging station in downtown Port Townsend. [Ord. No. 2782, § 3.2, (November 19, 2001)].

Solid Waste Management

Goal 32: To manage solid waste in a responsible, environmentally sensitive, and cost-effective manner.

Policy 32.1:    Follow the solid waste management hierarchy established in federal and state law, which sets waste reduction as the highest priority management option, followed by reuse, recycling, and responsible disposal.

Policy 32.2:    Promote the reduction and recycling of solid waste materials through differential collection rates, providing opportunities for convenient recycling, and by developing educational materials on recycling, composting, and other waste reduction methods.

Policy 32.3:    Seek to create a market for recycled products by maximizing the use of such products in the City's daily operations.

Policy 32.4:    Contract with private haulers to maintain a cost-effective and responsive solid waste collection system.

Policy 32.5:    Examine the feasibility of establishing a solid waste transfer station within Port Townsend in order to reduce costs to City residents.

Policy 32.6:    Manage solid waste collection to minimize litter and neighborhood disruption.

Policy 32.7:    Protect air, water, and land resources from pollution caused by the use, handling, storage and disposal of hazardous materials and substances.

32.7.1    Reduce City use of hazardous materials and safely manage, recycle and dispose of toxic products used in City operations.

32.7.2    Continue to participate with Jefferson County in the implementation of Jefferson County's Solid Waste Management Plan.

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS

Introduction

[Note: The remainder of this element contains the City's 6-year Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) originally adopted in 1996. As part of its budgeting process, the Port Townsend City Council has adopted annual updates to the CIP in order to maintain a current list of capital projects, project scheduling, and a financing plan that sets forth sources of funding.

Although the City Council has adopted these successive iterations of the CIP by way of ordinance, the original CIP has been left unaltered within the text of the Capital Facilities & Utilities Element for two basic reasons:

Accordingly, the City's 6-year CIP, as it now exists and as it may hereafter be amended, shall be considered an integral part of the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan, and is made part of and incorporated within this Plan by this reference.].

The need for capital facilities is generated by population growth, existing facilities deficiencies, major facility maintenance and repair needs, internal operations, and goals and policies of this Comprehensive Plan.

Capital facilities planning has been ongoing in the City for many years. However, the process usually followed the "wish list" approach - and funding was inadequate to carry out all of the projects included in the plan (i.e. the Capital Improvements Program). Under the GMA, Port Townsend's Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) must balance facilities needs against Comprehensive Plan requirements, level of service (LOS) standards, and available funding resources. The approach should provide better coordination between land use planning and capital facilities planning, and between services demanded by the public and actual dollars available to provide those services.

Early in the comprehensive planning process. City department heads conducted research and analysis of capital facilities, including production of an existing facilities inventory, calculation of current levels of service, and recommendations for future level of service standards. Lists were prepared of noncapacity capital improvement projects as well. The findings were reported in the report "Capital Facilities Requirements" (see Appendix #3 to the Draft Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement issued on January 10, 1996). At the same time, estimates were made of the type and amount of capital facilities which would be required to serve future growth, particularly within the next six year and twenty year periods. These figures, with the assigned unit costs, were projected based on future population growth, to determine the cost of maintaining current levels of service as well as providing the recommended levels of service.

After the analyses were completed, the City Council reviewed the current and recommended levels of service in the context of a City-wide plan and in terms of projected revenues. Levels of service were subsequently adjusted according to Council preferences.

Following release of the Draft Comprehensive Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement on January 10, 1996, the City and County agreed to revised population projections for use in GMA planning. These new numbers affected some of the Capital Facilities projections that were made in the Draft Plan. For the final adopted CFP, the following population numbers were used:

POPULATION ESTIMATES USED FOR CAPITAL FACILITIES PLANNING
YEAR	PORT TOWNSEND POPULATION	TRI-AREA WATER SERVICE AREA POPULATION
1994	7,953	3,455
1996	8,366	3,539
2001	9,494	3,773

[Ord. No, 2879, § 4.1, (February 7, 2005)].

Explanation of Levels of Service

Levels of service are usually quantifiable measures of the amount of public facilities that are provided to the community. Levels of service may also measure the quality of some public facilities.

Typically, measures of levels of service are expressed as ratios of facility capacity to demand (i.e., actual or potential users). The following list shows examples of level of service measures for some capital facilities:

TABLE VII-4: EXAMPLE LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS
TYPE OF FACILITY	SAMPLE LEVEL OF SERVICE MEASURE
Hospitals	Beds per 1,000 population
Law Enforcement	Officers per 1,000 population
Library	Collection size per capita
Parks	Acres per 1,000 population
Road and Streets	Ratio of actual volume to design capacity
Schools	Square feet per student
Water	Gallons per customer per day

Each of these levels of service measures requires one additional piece of information: the specific quantity that measures the current or proposed level of service. For example, the standard for parks might be 5 acres per 1,000 population, but the current level of service may be 2.68 acres per 1,000, which is less than the standard.

In order to make use of the level of service method, the City selects the way in which it will measure each facility (i.e., acres, gallons, etc.), and identifies the amount of the current and proposed (i.e., standard) level of service for each measurement.

There are other ways to measure the level of service of many of these capital facilities. The examples above are provided in order to give greater depth to the following discussion of the use of levels of service as a method for determining the City's need for capital facilities.

Method for Using Levels of Service

The level of service method answers two questions in order to develop a financially feasible CFP. The GMA requires the CFP to be based on standards for service levels that are measurable and financially feasible for the six fiscal years following adoption of the plan. The City is required to adopt a plan that meets its capital needs for the fiscal years 1996 through 2001.

There are two questions that must be answered in order to meet the GMA requirements:

1.    What is the quantity of public facilities that will be required by the end of the 6th year (i.e., 2001)?

2.    Is it financially feasible to provide the quantity of facilities that are required by the end of the 6th year (i.e., 2001)?

The answer to each question is calculated by using objective data and formulas. Each type of public 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. Appendix #3 to the Draft Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement issued on January 10, 1996 contains the results of the use of this method to answer these two questions for the City of Port Townsend.

Question 1:    What is the quantity of public facilities that will be required by the end of the 6th year (i.e. 2001)?

Formula 1.1:    Demand x Standard = Requirements (where "Demand" is the estimated 2001 population or other appropriate measure of need, (e.g., dwelling unit); and "Standard" is the amount of facility per unit of demand, (e.g., acres of park per 1,000 population).

When applied, this formula is used to identify the total amount of public facilities that are needed, regardless of the amount of facilities that are already in place and being used by the public.

Formula 2.1:    Requirement - Inventory = Surplus or Deficiency (where "Requirement" is the result of Formula 1.1; and "Inventory" is the quantity of facilities currently available).

Formula 2.1 subtracts the current inventory of existing public facilities in order to identify the net deficit that must be eliminated by additional facilities before December 31, 2001. If a net deficiency exists, it represents the combined needs of existing development and anticipated new development. Detailed analysis contained within Appendix #3 to the Draft Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement issued on January 10, 1996, reveals the portion of the net deficiency that is 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 by the end of the 6th year (i.e., 2001)?

A "preliminary" answer to Question 2 is prepared in order to test the financial feasibility of tentative or proposed standards of service. The preliminary answers use "average costs" of facilities, rather than specific project costs. This approach avoids the problem of developing detailed projects and costs that would be unusable if the standard proved to be financially infeasible. If the standards are feasible at the preliminary level, detailed projects are prepared for the "final" answer to Question 2. However, if the preliminary answer indicates that a standard of service is not financially feasible, six Options are available to the City:

1.    Reduce the standard of service, which will reduce the costs; or

2.    Increase revenues to pay for the proposed standard of service (higher rates for existing revenues, and/or new sources of revenue); or

3.    Reduce the average cost of the public facility (i.e., alternative technology or alternative ownership or financing), thus reducing the total cost, and possibly 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 techniques, recycling solid waste, water conservation, etc.) which may cost more money initially, but may save money later; or

6.    Any combination of options 1-5.

The preliminary answer to Question 2 is prepared using the following formulas (P = preliminary):

Formula 2-1P:    Deficiency x Average Cost per 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 (i.e., a mile of road or an acre of park).

The answer to Formula 2.1P is the approximate cost of eliminating all deficiencies of public facilities, based on the use of an "average" cost for each unit of public facility that is needed.

Formula 2.2P:    Deficiency - Revenue = Net Surplus or Deficiency (where "Deficiency Cost" is the result of Formula 2.1P, and "Revenue" is the money currently available for public 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 excess 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. Any standard that is not financially feasible must be adjusted using the six strategies listed above.

Appendix #3 to the Draft Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement issued on January 10, 1996, contains these scenarios for the City of Port Townsend.

The "final" demonstration of financial feasibility uses detailed costs of specific capital projects in lieu of the "average" costs of facilities used in the preliminary answer, as follows (F = final):

Formula 2.1F:    Capacity Projects + Non capacity Projects = Project Cost (where "Capacity Projects" is the cost of all projects needed to eliminate the deficiency for existing and future development (i.e., Formula 1.2), including upgrades and/or expansion of existing facilities as well as new facilities).

Formula 2.2F:    Project Cost - Revenue = Net Surplus or Deficiency (where "Project Cost" is the result of Formula 2.1F, and "Revenue" is the money available for public facilities from current/proposed sources.

The "final" answer to Question 2 validates the financial feasibility of the .standards for levels of service that are used for each public 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 are used as the basis for policies and implementation programs in the final Capital Facilities Plan.

Setting the Standards for Levels of Service (LOS)

Because the need for capital facilities is largely determined by the LOS standards that are adopted, the key to influencing the CFP is to influence the selection of the level of service standards. Level of service standards are measures of the quality of life of the community. The standards should be based on the community's vision of its future and its values.

Traditional approaches to capital facilities planning rely on technical experts (i.e., staff and consultants) to determine the need for capital improvements. In the "scenario-driven" approach used in this plan, these experts play an important advisory role, but they do not control the determination. Their role is to define and implement a process for the review of various scenarios, to analyze data and make suggestions based on technical considerations.

The final, legal authority to establish the LOS rests with the City Council, because they enact the level of service standards that reflect the community's vision. Their decision should be influenced by recommendations of:

An individual has many opportunities to influence the LOS. These opportunities include attending and participating in meetings, writing letters, responding to surveys or questionnaires, being appointed/elected to an advisory group, making comments at meetings that influence the LOS decision: and giving input during the SEPA review process.

The scenario-driven approach to developing the level of service standards provides decision-makers, and anyone else who wishes to participate, with a clear statement of the outcomes of various levels of service for each type of public facility. This approach reduces the tendency for decisions to be controlled by expert staff or consultants, opens up the decision-making process to the public and advisory groups, and places the decisions before the City Council.

Selection of a specific level of service as the "adopted standard" is accomplished by a 10-step process:

1.    The "current" level of service is calculated.

2.    Departmental service providers are given national/regional standards or guidelines and examples of local LOS standards from other local governments.

3.    Departmental service providers research local standards from City studies, master plans, ordinances and development regulations.

4.    Departmental service providers recommend a standard for the City's CFP.

5.    The first draft of the Capital Facilities Requirements support document forecasts needed capacity and approximate costs of two levels of service (i.e., the current actual LOS, and the department's recommended LOS).

6.    The City Council reviews and comments on the first draft Capital Facilities Requirements report and determines "Council-preferred" levels of service.

7.    Departmental service providers prepare specific capital improvements projects to support the current LOS (unless the City Council workshop indicates an interest in a different LOS for the purpose of preparing the first draft CFP).

8.    The first draft CFP is prepared using the current LOS.

9.    The draft CFP is reviewed/discussed during City Council - Planning Commission joint workshops prior to formal hearings on the CFP by the City Council.

10.    The City Council formally adopts levels of service as part of the CFP.

The final standards for levels of service are adopted in Policy 3.1 of this element. The adopted standards:

Once adopted, the standards can be reviewed and revised once each year as part of the City's annual amendment of the Comprehensive Plan.

Table VII-5 summarizes all of the adopted Level of Service Standards and the associated capacity and noncapacity costs for each category.

TABLE VII-5

SUMMARY OF ADOPTED LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS AND ASSOCIATED COSTS

CATEGORY	LOS	Capacity Costs	Non-Capacity Costs	Total Costs
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Government Administrative Offices	695 sq. ft/1000	$ 15,000	$ 110,500	$ 125,500
Public Safety	0.529 bays/1000 (fire)
760 sq. ft/1000 (police)	$ 640,000	$ 90,000	$ 730,000
Library	3.75 vols/person	$ 191,433	$ 52,730	$ 244,163
Parks	7.6 acres/1000	$ 380,000	$ 2,504,500	$ 2,884,500
Streets	"D"	$ 7,921,700	$ 1,333,000	$ 9,254,700
Public Facilities Subtotal		$ 9,148,133	$ 4,090,730	$ 13,238,863
WATER SUPPLY
City
Raw Water Supply	360 gallons/capita/day
Raw Water Storage	50,000 gallons/capit
Treated Water Distribution & Storage	475 gallons/capita
		$ 838,2251	$ 2,119,075	$ 2,957,300
Tri-Area
Raw Water Supply	340 gallons/capita/day
Treated Water Distribution & Storage	535 gallons/capita
		$ 1,260,0251	$ 1,761,675	$ 3,021,700
WASTEWATER	120 gallons/capita/day	$770,0001	$935,500	$ 1,705
STORMWATER	DOE standards	$ 409,9401	$1,184,642	$ 1,594,582
TOTAL COSTS		$12,426,323	$ 10,091,622	$ 22,517,945
Notes:
1Capacity costs determined from developer shares in CIP. City/Tri-Area split as per CIP.

Selecting Revenue Sources for the Financing Plan

Revenue sources that are available to the City of Port Townsend for capital facilities were also identified in the preparation of this plan element (see Appendix #2 to the Draft Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement issued on January 10, 1996). Council members examined all identified sources and again voted on their preferences as to which revenue sources should be explored for funding capital facilities. Table VII-6 summarizes all of the revenue sources available for capital projects based on the City Council's preferences. Table VII-7 summarizes the revenue sources available for capital facilities projects based on existing revenues in 1996.

After publication of the Draft Plan in January, 1996, the City Council held numerous meetings to discuss methods for financing the capital projects. In some cases, LOS standards were reduced in order to reduce costs. In most cases, however, noncapacity projects were reduced or deleted in an effort to reduce costs without impacting LOS standards. Council then identified revenue sources to be used for each category of capital facilities. In the case of City operated utilities (.i.e., water, wastewater and stormwater) Council recognized the need for a thorough rate study as the basis for determining how the revenues will be split between rates, system development charges (SDCs), use of the fund balance, bonding and/or other available sources. This rate study will be conducted later in 1996. The anticipated revenue sources for all of the capital projects are summarized in Table VII-8.

TABLE VII-6

SUMMARY OF POTENTIALY AVAILABLE REVENUES

MULTI-USE REVENUES
TAXES
	Ad Valorem Property Tax Levy and "Lid Lift"	$ 4,825,207
	Voted G.O. Bonds	$ 6,409,461
	Councilmanic Bonds	$ 8,943,266
	Real Estate Excise Tax	$ 1,190,000	(included in "existing revenue")
	Motor Vehicle Excise Tax	$ 118,648	(included in "existing revenue" for Streets)
	Utility Tax	$ 255,591
GRANTS/LOANS
	Community Development Block Grant	not forecast
	Community Economic Revitalization Brd	not forecast
	Rural Economic Community Develop.	not forecast
	Public Works Trust Fund	not forecast
Subtotal Multi-Use Revenues		$ 21,742,173
SINGLE PURPOSE REVENUES
A. Cultural Arts, Stadium/Convention Facilities
Taxes
	Hotel/Motel Tax	currently used for maintenance, promotional programs and debt service
B. Fire Protection & Emergency Medical Services
Taxes
	EMS Levy	$ 866,329
Fees and Charges
	Fire Impact Fees	$ 1,000,000
Subtotal Fire Protection and EMS		$ 1,866,329
C. Library
Taxes
	Library District	$ 1,732,660
D. Parks and Recreation
Taxes
	Open Space and Park
	General Obligation Debt	$ 16,335,764
	Park Districts
	$0.15 levy	$ 519,799
Fees and Charges
	Park Impact Fees	$ 1,115,572
Grants
	Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation Grants (IAC)	unknown - potentially $ 283,000 for Wildlife Corridor Aquis. and $ 140,000 for Union Wharf Water Access Imprvmt.
	Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account	$ 2,000,000
	for Union Wharf
Other
	Voluntary Contribution for Open Space	not forecast
Subtotal Parks		$ 19,971,135
E. Roads, Bridges and Mass Transit
Taxes
	Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax	$ 330,000	(included in "existing revenue")
	Local Option Fuel Tax	$ 432,129	(requires Jeff Co to enact this tax)
	Transportation Benefit District	not forecast
Fees and Charges
	Road Impact Fees	$ -
	Local Option Vehicle License Fee	$ 571,986	(requires Jeff Co to enact this fee)
	Street Utility Charge	$ 604,977
	Street Vacation Compensation	$ 60,000	(included in "existing revenue")
Grants
	National Highway System	no eligible projects identified
	Surface Transportation Program	unknown - potentially $ 2,205,000 for San Juan, SR20/Gateway
	Urban Arterial Trust Account	unknown - potentially $ 2,190,000 for SR20/Gateway Proj.
	Transportation Improvement Account	unknown - potentially $ 2,190,000 for SR20/Gateway Proj.
	ISTEA et al/Gateway funding	unknown - potentially $2,819,700 for San Juan/SR20/Gateway Proj.
Subtotal Transportation		$ 1,999,092
F. Sewer
Fees and Charges
	Utility Rates	$ 9,873,870	(not all available for CIP)
	System Development Charges	$ 600,000	(not all available for CIP)
	Miscellaneous Revenues	$ 534,870	(not all available for CIP)
Other Funding Sources (see Rate Study)		$ 210,000	(not all available for CIP)
Fund Balance		$ 981,104	(may not all be available for CIP)
Subtotal Sewer		$ 12,199,844	("existing revenue" includes that portion available for CIP)
G. Stormwater
Fees and Charges
	Utility Rates (portion of $5 monthly fee)	$ 2,085,201	(not all available for CIP)
	Reserve Capacity Charge	$ 287,456	(not all available for CIP)
Grants/Loans
	FCAAP (Stormwater)	$ 90,000	(included in "existing revenue")
	SRF loan (Stormwater)	$ 364,000	(included in "existing revenue")
Stormwater Reserve Fund		$ 1,024,487	(not all available for CIP)
Subtotal Stormwater		$ 3,851,144	("existing revenue" includes that portion available for CIP)
H. Water
Fees and Charges
	Utility Rates-City	$ 7,459,220	(not all available for CIP)
	SDCs - City	$ 697,200	(not all available for CIP)
	Miscellaneous Revenues	$ 667,863	(not all available for CIP)
	Other Funding Sources	$ -	(not all available for CIP)
	Total Fees and Charges - City	$ 8,824,283
	Utility Rates - Tri-Area	$ 4,069,517	(not all available for CIP)
	SDCs-Tri-Area	$ 298,800	(not all available for CIP)
	Miscellaneous Revenues	$ 286,227	(not all available for CIP)
	Other Funding Sources	$ -	(not all available for CIP)
	Total Fees and Charges Tri-Area	$ 4,654,544
Grants/Loans
	Centennial Fund	not forecast
	Rural Economic and Community Dev.	not forecast
	Department of Health	not forecast
Fund Balance		$ 981,104	(may not all be available for CIP)
Subtotal Water		$ 14,459,931	("existing revenue" includes that portion available for CIP)
TOTAL POTENTIALLY AVAILABLE REVENUE
MULTI-USE AND SPECIAL PURPOSE SOURCE		$ 77,822,307	(not all available for CIP)

TABLE VII-7

SUMMARY OF EXISTING REVENUE FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES PROJECTS

    1996 1996-2001

MULTI-USE REVENUES

Real Estate Excise Tax (REET)    $ 140,000 $ 840,000

REET Fund Balance    $ 350,000 $ 350,000

Subtotal    $ 490,000 $ 1,190,0001

SPECIAL USE REVENUES

StreetsMotor Vehicle Excise Tax    $ 18,999 $ 118,648

Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax    $ 55,000 $ 330,000

Street Vacation Revenues    $ 10,000 $ 60,000

Subtotal-Streets    $ 83,999 $ 508,648

TOTAL     $ 1,698,648

Notes:

1Split among general government categories.

TABLE VII-8

SUMMARY OF COSTS AND REVENUES FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS

ITEM    COST (1996-2001) REVENUE (1996-2001)

Capacity    Non-

Capacity    Total Existing1 Surplus/

(Deficit)    New Revenue2 Balance

PUBLIC FACILITIES

Government Admin. Offices    $ 15,000 $ 110,500 $ 125,500 $ 65,930 $ (59,570) $ 59,570 $ -

Public Safety    $ 640,000 $ 90,000 $ 730,000 $ 384,012 $ (345,988) $ 345,988 $ -

Library    $ 191,433 $ 52,730 $ 244,163 $ 128,390 $ (115,773) $ 115,773 $ -

Parks    $ 380,000 $ 2,504,500 $ 2,884,500 $ 176,000 $ (2,708,500) $ 2,708,500 $ -

Streets    $ 7,921,700 $ 1,333,000 $ 9,254,700 $ 944,316 $ (8,310,384) $ 8,310,384 $ -

Subtotal Public Facilities    $ 9,148,133 $ 4,090,730 $ 13,238,863 $ 1,698,648 $ (11,540,215) $ 11,540,215 $ -

WATER

City    $ 838,225 $ 2,119,075 $ 2,957,300 $ 1,640,309 $ (1,316,991) $ 1,316,991 $ -

Tri-Area    $ 1,260,025 $ 1,761,675 $ 3,021,700 $ 1,364,835 $ (1,656,865) $ 1,656,865 $ -

WASTEWATER    $ 770,000 $ 935,500 $ 1,705,500 $ 281,693 $ (1,423,807) $ 1,423,807 $ -

STORMWATER    $ 409,940 $ 1,184,642 $ 1,594,582 $ 268,022 $ (1,326,560) $ 1,326,560 $ -

1 See Table 2; REET and REET fund balance split among Public Facilities categories;

Existing revenues for utilities are funds available for CIP projects.

2 New Revenue Sources:

Public Facilities:     Streets: Water, Wastewater, and Stormwater:

Government Admin Offices    bonds Developers $ 4,661,534 Use of fund balance, bonding SDC &/or rate increases (to be determined through rate analysis)

Public Safety    bonds Grants $ 2,744,850

Library    bonds Impact Fees $ 300,000

Parks:     Street Utility Charge &/or additional revenue obtained through cooperation with Jefferson County $ 604,000

Developers    $ 167,500

Others    $ 18,500

Grants    $ 2,522,500 Total $ 8,310,384

Total    $ 2,708,500

Government Administrative Offices

Current Facilities

The inventory of City administrative offices totals 6,600 square feet (4,600 square feet in City Hall and 2,000 square feet for Public Works). Leased space for the City Attorney's offices is not included in the inventory.

Level of Service (LOS)

The current LOS of 830 square feet per 1,000 population is based on the existing inventory divided by the 1994 City population (7,953). City staff recommendation for Level of Service was 1,150 square feet per 1,000 population, based on a study of comparable cities Currently, most City Hall offices designed for one employee are being used by at least two employees, and three employees work out of leased office space m another location. Space for record storage, public information, and meeting rooms is insufficient for current needs. The configuration of the building considerably decreases usable space as well; approximately 2,200 of the 3,600 square feet are actually available for use as office space. 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.

Based on City Council recommendations, the recommended level of service was initially reduced to 1,000 square feet per 1,000 population. However, after an analysis of revenue sources available to cover necessary capacity and noncapacity projects, the City Council reduced the LOS to 695 sq. ft/1,000 population (i.e., the existing inventory divided by projected population in the year 2001 (9,494)). Thus, no increases in office space are anticipated over the next six years (see Table VII-9).

The projected costs that the City anticipates related to government administrative offices over the next six years are shown in Table VII-10. The majority of costs ($110,500) are noncapacity projects to upgrade existing facilities.

Capital Facilities Projects & Financing

Financing the Capital projects for government administrative offices is assumed to be covered through real estate excise tax (REET) money (approximately 366,000 over six years) and through councilmanic bonds (see Table VII-8).

Operating Impact of LOS Capital Improvements

Since the LOS for government administrative offices has been reduced so that there will be no new capacity projects during the six year planning period, there will be no net operating impact for this category.

TABLE VII-9

CITY GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND CAPITAL PROJECTS LOS CAPACITY ANALYSIS

Council Adopted LOS = 695 sq.ft/1000 population

Time Period    Service Area Population Sq. Ft. @ 695 per 1000 people Current Sq. Ft. Available Net Reserve or Deficiency

1994    7,953 5,529 6,600 1,071

1994-1996 Transition    413 287 0 (287)

1996-2001 Growth    1,128 784 0 (784)

Total as of 2001    9,494 6,600 6,600 (0)

Capacity Projects:

1. City Hall Annex Building Acquisition/Remodel

TABLE VII-10

GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES

RQD

(a)    % SHARE (b) NOTE DESCRIPTION 1996

CIP    1996-2001 PROJECT COST(c) PROJECTED CAPITAL COSTS (d) FUTURE (e)

C    D O G 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002-2017

     CAPACITY PROJECTS 0 100 NEW CITY ANNEX BLDG ACQUIS/REMOD 0 15,000 15,000 394,000

     Subtotal Capacity Projects 0 15,000 15,000 0 0 0 0 394,000

     NON-CAPACITY PROJECTS 100 CITY HALL ROOF/LIGHTING UPGRADE 10,000 10,000 0 0 0 0 0 0

    100 CITY HALL UPGRADE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 867,400

R    100 FUEL TANK REPLACEMENT 0 100,000 60,000 40,000 0 0 0 0

    100 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER A/V UPGRADE 500 500 0 0 0 0 0 0

     Subtotal Non-Capacity Projects 10,500 110,500 60,000 40,000 0 0 0 867,400

    ANNUAL TOTALS 10,500 125,500 75,000 40,000 0 0 0 1,261,400

Explanation:

(a)    Project is required to meet Federal or State regulations (R), Contractual obligations (C), or risk reduction (L).

(b)    Funding sources: City Utility Customers (C), New Development (D), PUD, School or other entity (O), or Grants (G)

%     SHARE shows the amount of contribution that can be justified, but not what will necessarily be received.

%     SHARE amounts shown for Development or Other users is based on estimated excess capacity that would be constructed for those particular uses.

(c)    Total estimated project cost in 1996 dollars for the years 1996 to 2001

(d)    Costs are in 1996 dollars

(e)    Future Costs are in 1996 dollars

Concurrency (Adequate Public Facilities)

In compliance with the GMA and policy 4.1 of this element, adequate administrative office space is not subject to specific concurrency requirements.

Public Safety

Current Facilities

The 1994 inventory of fire and EMS facilities totaled 0.6 bays per 1,000 population. 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) which comprise 1,340 square feet for a total of 2,340 square feet per bay.

The 1994 inventory of law enforcement facilities totaled 4,000 square feet in the downtown police station.

Level of Service (LOS)

Fire Facilities

The current LOS of 0.6 bays per 1,000 population is based on the existing inventory divided by the 1994 City population (7,953). The City staff recommendation for level of service was one bay per 1,000 population. This recommendation was based on the analysis of existing facilities and staff's projected needs to maintain and improve fire service and training facilities through the year 2001.

The cost per fire station bay does not included 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 $100,00 - $250,000 would be purchased to be housed in the bay.

Based on City Council's recommendation, the recommended LOS was reduced to 0.53 bays/1,000 population (i.e., existing inventory divided by projected population in year 2001 (9,494)). No additional bays would be required during the current six year period (see Table VII-11).

Police Facilities

The current LOS of 503 square feet per 1,000 population was based on the existing inventory divided by the 1994 City population (7,953). The City staff recommendation for level of service was 1,000 square feet per 1,000 population based on providing 450 square feet per employee, and given a projected staff increase of 17, with a resulting total of 29. Additional police officers would mean the ratio of officers would rise from 1.2/1,000 in 1994 to 1.9/1,000. This 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 number of square feet currently available to the Police Department provides a minimal amount of space for current staffing and restricts critical functions of the department; there are insufficient areas for record storage, evidence storage, and interview space. Addition of new staff members will gradually impact space constraints even more.

TABLE VII-11

FIRE & EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND CAPITAL PROJECTS LOS CAPACITY ANALYSIS

Council Adopted LOS = 0.53 bays/1000 population

Time Period    Service Area Population Bays @ 0.53 per people Current Bays Available Net Reserve or Deficiency

1994    7,953 4 5 1

1994-1996 Transition    413 0 0 (0)

1996-2001 Growth    1,128 1 0 (1)

Total as of 2001    9,494 5 5 (0)

Capacity Projects:

None for this planning period

Based on City Council recommendations, the LOS was reduced to 760 square feet per 1,000 population. This results in the need to acquire 3,215 square feet of additional space by the year 2001 (see Table VII-12).

The City's Law Enforcement Plan includes purchase of land for a future combined police/fire Public Safety Building which may be built sometime after the year 2001. Acquisition of an interim police facility is proposed in 1996 to provide the Police Department with enough space to house its operations and provide necessary services to the public.

Pending the Council's decision concerning a new fire and police Public Safety Building, funding for a new facility will be limited in this six-year period to an interim police facility ($490,000) and land acquisition for the new facility ($150,000). Remodeling of the existing fire station is proposed during the initial six year period to enable the Department to maintain an appropriate level of service through 2001 ($90,000). Refer to Table VII-13 for all of the projects and costs projected over the planning period.

Capital Facilities Projects & Financing

The revenue sources to be used to meet the costs of the capacity and noncapacity projects described above include use of real estate excise tax (REET) monies (approximately S384.000) and councilmanic bonds (see Table VII-8).

Operating Impact of LOS Capital Improvements

There are no net operating impacts identified for the period 1996-2001.

Concurrency (Adequate Public Facilities)

In compliance with the GMA and policy 4.1 of this element, adequate fire and EMS, and law enforcement services facilities are not subject to specific concurrency requirements.

TABLE VII-12

LAW ENFORCEMENT FACILITIES CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND CAPITAL PROJECTS LOS CAPACITY ANALYSIS

Council Adopted LOS = 760 square feet/1000 population Time Period    Service Area Population Square Feet @ 760 per 1000 people Current Square Feet Available Net Reserve or Deficiency

1994    7,953 6,044 4,000 (2,044)

1994-1996 Transition    413 314 0 (314)

1996-2001 Growth    1,128 857 0 (857)

Total as of 2001    9,494 7,215 4,000 (3,215)

Capacity Projects:

Interim Police Facility     3,215 0

TABLE VII-13

PUBLIC SAFETY

RQD

(a)    % SHARE (b) NOTE DESCRIPTION 1996

CIP    1996-2001 PROJECT COST(c) PROJECTED CAPITAL COSTS (d) FUTURE (e)

C    D O G 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002-2017

     CAPACITY PROJECTS; 100 INTERIM POLICE FACILITY 490,000 490,000 0 0 0 0 0 0

    100 LAND PURCHASE FOR PUB. SAFETY FAC. 150,000 150,000 0 0 0 0 0 0

    100 POLICE/FIRE OR P/S FACILITY 0 8,000,000

     Subtotal Capacity Projects 640,000 640,000 0 0 0 0 0 8,000,000

     0 NON-CAPACITY PROJECTS 0 100 REMODEL EXISTING FIRE FACILITY 0 90,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 0 0 25,000

    100 REPLACE I AMBULANCE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

    100 REPLACE I PUMPER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

     Subtotal Non-Capacity Projects 0 90,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 0 0 25,000

     ANNUAL TOTALS 640,000 730,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 0 0 8,025,000

Explanation:

(a)    Project is required to meet Federal or State regulations (R), Contractual obligations (C), or risk reduction (L).

(b)    Funding sources: City Utility Customers (C), New Development (D), PUD, School or other entity (O), or Grants (G)

    % SHARE shows the amount of contribution that can be justified, but not what will necessarily be received.

    % SHARE amounts shown for Development or Other users is based on estimated excess capacity that would be constructed for those particular uses.

(c)    Total estimated project cost in 1996 dollars for the years 1996 to 2001

(d)    Costs are in 1996 dollars

(e)    Future Costs are in 1996 dollars

Library

Current Facilities

The 1994 inventory of library volumes totaled 28,720 volumes.

Level of Service (LOS)

The current LOS of 3.61 volumes per capita was based on the existing inventory divided by the 1994 City population (7,953). The City staff recommendation for LOS was 4.1 volumes per capita. The recommendation was based on the per capita August average for cities 5,000 - 9,999 compiled by the National Center for Educational Statistics - Public Libraries, 1992.

At the direction of the City Council, the recommended LOS was reduced to 3.75 volumes per capita. This will require an increase of 6,883 volumes by the year 2001. This LOS will enable the City to maintain the current collection and add sufficient new volumes during the period (see Table VII-14).

Capital Facilities Projects & Financing

Financing of the Library capital projects ($244,163 for capacity and noncapacity projects over the six year period - see Table VII-15) will be from real estate excise tax (REET) monies and through councilmanic bonds (see Table VII-8). This money will cover computers as well as additional volumes. Noncapacity projects include interior and exterior work to the existing library building. Replacement volumes are assumed to come out of the library's Operations and Maintenance budget.

Operating Impact of LOS Capital Improvements

During the period 1996 - 2001, the net operating impact of the capital improvement projects required to maintain the adopted level of service standard is estimated to be on the order of $ 11,000 per year for a total of $66,000 over the six year planning period.

Concurrency (Adequate Public Facilities)

In compliance with GMA and policy 4.1 of this element, library facilities are not subject to specific concurrency requirements.

TABLE VII-14

LIBRARY

CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND

CAPITAL PROJECTS LOS CAPACITY ANALYSIS

Council Adopted LOS = 3.75 volumes/capita

Time Period    Service Area Population Volumes @ 3.75 per capita Current Volumes Available Net Reserve or Deficiency

1994    7.953 29,824 28,720 (1,104)

1994-1996 Transition    413 1,549 0 (1,549)

1996-2001 Growth    1,128 4,230 0 (4,230)

Total as of 2001    9,494 35,603 28,720 (6,883)

Capacity Projects:

Additional Volumes     6,883 0

TABLE VII-15

LIBRARY

RQD

(a)    % SHARE (b) NOTE DESCRIPTION 1996

CIP    1996-2001 PROJECT COST(c) PROJECTED CAPITAL COSTS (d) FUTURE (e)

C    D O G 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002-2017

     CAPACITY PROJECTS: 100 400 SF ADDITION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50,000

    100 WORK STATION 0 1,500 1,500 0 0 0 0 0

    100 COMPUTERS/PERIPHERALS 2,735 2,735 0 0 0 0 0 0

    100 ADDITIONAL VOLUMES 31,200 187,200 31,200 31,200 31,200 31,200 31,200 0

     Subtotal Capacity Projects 33,935 191,435 32,700 31,200 31,200 31,200 31,200 50,000

     NON-CAPACITY PROJECTS: 100 1 REARRANGE INTERIOR SHELVING 0 30,000 30,000 0 0 0 0 0

    100 REFINISH INTERIOR 0 7,000 5,000 0 2,000 0 0 0

    100 PAINT EXTERIOR 10,730 10,730 0 0 0 0 0 0

    100 NEW ROOFING & GUTTER WORK 0 5,000 0 0 0 5,000 0 25,000

     Subtotal Non-Capacity Projects 10,730 52,730 35,000 0 2,000 5,000 0 25,000

     ANNUAL TOTALS 44,665 244,165 67,700 31,200 33,200 36,200 31,200 75,000

Explanation:

(a)    Project is required to meet Federal or State regulations (R), Contractual obligations (C), or risk reduction (L).

(b)    Funding sources: City Utility Customers (C), New Development (D), PUD, School or other entity (O), or Grants (G)

    % SHARE shows the amount of contribution that can be justified, but not what will necessarily be received.

    % SHARE amounts shown for Development or Other users is based on estimated excess capacity that would be constructed for those particular uses.

(c)    Total estimated project cost in 1996 dollars for the years 1996 to 2001

(d)    Costs are in 1996 dollars

(e)    Future Costs are in 1996 dollars

NOTES:

1)    Over crowded conditions in Children's Room and need for additional shelf space for growing collection will require relocating Children's collection and service areas to a larger space in Library. Grant funds will be sought to off-set costs.

Parks

Current Facilities

The current parks inventory within the City limits includes 59 acres of parks and 40 acres of water and wetlands. Table VII-16 shows the current parks inventory.

TABLE VII-16:

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    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    0.1 Historic street end park with formal plantings.

Terrace Steps/Haller

Fountain    0.1 Street end park , historic fountain, greenbelt.

Rotary    0.1 Picnic facilities and benches for ferry travelers.

City Entrance    2.5 Greenbelt, nondestination park.

Gateway Triangle:

Mini Park I    0.1 Nondestination greenbelt, currently annual dahlia garden.

Gateway Triangle:

Mini Park II    0.1 Nondestination, visual greenbelt.

Tidal    0.1 Large public "sculpture."

Adams Street    0.1 Urban pocket, street end park, water access and view, mainly used by tourists.

Cherry Street    2.0 Neighborhood Park.

Elmira Street    0.2 Street end park.

TOTAL    59

Level of Service (LOS)

The Current LOS of 7.4 acres per 1,000 population was based on the existing inventory of 59 acres divided by the 1994 City population (7,953). The LOS for park land focused on City-owned park land only. This was done to distinguish specifically between current and future LOS requirements for City park land available to residents which is owned and controlled by the City, versus park land owned and controlled by other entities (i.e., Jefferson County and the Washington State Parks Department). The City staff recommendation for LOS was 7.4 acres per 1,000 population (i.e., a recommendation to maintain the current level of service). This LOS would result in assuring 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 which constitute an additional 468 acres of park facilities within the City limits. The establishment of neighborhood parks in areas which will be more heavily developed within the next six to twenty years would assure that all citizens of Port Townsend have convenient access to parks.

Based on City Council recommendations, the recommended LOS has been raised slightly to 7.6 acres per 1,000 population (based on the original LOS of 59 acres divided by the 1993 population of 7,755). This would result in acquisition of an additional 13 acres over the next six years. The capacity projects currently anticipated are development of the 35th Street Park playfield and other park and open space acquisitions (see Table VII-17).

Noncapacity projects over the next six years include improvements to various other park properties (see Table VII-18).

Capital Facilities Projects & Financing

Financing for the proposed capital parks, recreation and property projects will be from real estate excise tax (REET) monies ($176,000), developer contributions (approximately $167,500 in land or money), grants (approximately $2.5 million, including the $2 million for Union Wharf reconstruction) and other (volunteer) contributions (estimated to be worth $18,500). Please refer to Table V13-8 for additional information.

Operating Impact of LOS Capital Improvements

The net operating impact during 1996-2001 of the capital improvement projects required to maintain the adopted level of service standard for parks, recreation and property is estimated to be $38,400 per year ($230,400 over the six year planning period).

TABLE VII-17

PARKS, RECREATION AND PROPERTY

CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND

CAPITAL PROJECTS LOS CAPACITY ANALYSIS

Council Adopted LOS = 7.6 acres/1000 population

Time Period    Service Area Population Acres @ 7.6 per 1000 people Current Acres Available Net Reserve or Deficiency

1994    7,953 60 59 (1)

1994-1996 Transition    413 3 0 (3)

1996-2001 Growth    1,128 9 0 (9)

Total as of 2001    9,494 72 59 (13)

Capacity Projects:

Parks and Open Space Acquisition and

35th Street Park Development    13 0

TABLE VII-18

PARKS, RECREATION & PROPERTY

RQD

(a)    % SHARE (b) NOTE DESCRIPTION 1996

CIP    1996-2001 PROJECT COST(c) PROJECTED CAPITAL COSTS (d) FUTURE (e)

C    D O G 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002-2017 CAPACITY PROJECTS: 50 50 1 PARKS & OPEN SPACE ACQUISITION 25,000 305,000 56,000 56,000 56,000 56,000 56,000 200,000

C    60 20 20 1,6 35TH STREET PARK DEVEL. 30,000 75,000 15,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 0 0 Subtotal Capacity Projects 55,000 380,000 71,000 66,000 66,000 66,000 56,000 200,000 NON-CAPACITY PROJECTS: 100 ENTRANCE PARK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,000 50 50 OLYMPIC TRAILHEAD 0 10,000 5,000 5,000 0 0 0 0 50 50 2,5 ADAMS STREET PARK IMPR. 1,000 16,000 5,000 10,000 0 0 0 0 100 BOBBY MCGARRAUGH PARK IMPROV. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80,000 50 50 CITY TRAILS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50,000

L    100 1,4 PARK PLGRD EQUIPMENT 6,000 36,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 55,000

L     100 1,5 SKATEBOARD PARK IMPR. 2,500 7,500 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 0 100 7 UNION WHARF RECONSTRUCTION 2,000,000 2,350,000 350,000 0 0 0 0 200,000 90 10 8 RECREATION ENHANCEMENTS 0 30,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 0

R    100 9 PARKS & RECREATION COMP PLAN 10,000 20,000 0 0 0 0 10,000 0 50 50 10 HALLER FOUNTAIN IMPR. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15,000

C    100 1,12 GOLF COURSE IMPROVEMENTS 10,000 35,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 0

     Subtotal Non-Capacity Projects 2,029,500 2,504,500 382,000 27,000 22,000 12,000 32,000 405,000

     ANNUAL TOTALS 2,084,500 2,884,500 453,000 93,000 88,000 78,000 88,000 605,000

Explanation:

(a)    Project is required to meet Federal or State regulations (R), Contractual obligations (C), or risk reduction (L).

(b)    Funding sources: City Utility Customers (C), New Development (D), PUD, School or other entity (O), or Grants (G)

    % SHARE shows the amount of contribution that can be justified, but not what will necessarily be received.

    % SHARE amounts shown for Development or Other users is based on estimated excess capacity that would be constructed for those particular uses.

(c)    Total estimated project cost in 1996 dollars for the years 1996 to 2001

(d)    Costs are in 1996 dollars

(e)    Future Costs are in 1996 dollars

NOTES:

1)    Funding from Real Estate Excise Tax.

2)    Public process, design concept, and permits in 1996.

3)    Was Thomas Oil - deleted.

4)    Per risk assessment listing by Parks Director.

5)    Will rely on volunteer work & donations.

6)    Per County agreement.

7)    DNR Grant.

8)    For pool and recreation program.

9)    As required by IAC.

10)    Sidewalk, complete planters.

11)    Hotel/Motel funding.

12)    Specific projects are as per lease agreement.

Concurrency (Adequate Public Facilities)

In compliance with the GMA and policy 4.1 of this element, parks facilities are not subject to specific concurrency requirements.

Streets

Current Facilities

The City's street system consists of approximately 94 miles of constructed roads and streets. The road types and lengths are summarized as follows:

TABLE VII-19:

SUMMARY OF TYPES & LENGTHS OF CITY STREETS

ROAD TYPE    LENGTH IN FEET PERCENT OF TOTAL LENGTH IN MILES

Asphalt Concrete    23,300 4.7% 4.4

Asphalt Over Concrete    16,800 3.4% 3.2

Bituminous Surface    276,000 55.8% 52.3

Gravel or Rock    38,700 7.8% 7.3

Not Maintained    140,300 28.3% 26.6

TOTAL    495,100 100% 93.8

Level of Service (LOS)

A level of service 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 level of service (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. LOS "A" through "C" imply 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 of this Comprehensive Plan directs that City street LOS standards should 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 (e.g., City of Port Townsend) have a "regionally coordinated" standard of LOS "D." Urban and tourist corridors, which are rural corridors which carry urban levels of traffic, such as S.R. 20, are also recommended by the PRTPO to have LOS "D." As the City of Port Townsend is a member of, and has played an active role in, the PRTPO, the City's Transportation Element directs that the City's, arterials and collectors be established at LOS "D."

Capital Facilities Projects & Financing

It is anticipated that the funding for the City's six-year capacity and noncapacity capital street projects will be through a mix of real estate excise tax (REET) funds ($436,000), motor vehicle excise tax funds ($119,000), motor vehicle fuel tax funds ($330,000), street vacation revenues ($60,000), developer contributions ($4.7 million), grants ($2.7 million), impact fees ($300,000) and Street Utility charges or other revenue obtained through cooperation with Jefferson County ($604,000). Refer to Tables VII-7, VII-8 and VII-20 for further information.

Concurrency (Adequate Public Facilities)

In compliance with the GMA and policy 4.1 of this element, adequate roadways must be available within six years of occupancy and use of new development.

TABLE VII-20

RQD

(a)    % SHARE (b) NOTE DESCRIPTION 1996

CIP    1996-2001 PROJECT COST(c) PROJECTED CAPITAL COSTS (d) FUTURE (e)

C    D O G 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002-2017

     CAPACITY PROJECTS: 100 HOWARD ST: SR20 TO DISCOVERY 2,000,000 2,000,000 10 70 20 HOWARD ST: DISCOVERY TO HASTINGS 3,000,000 3,000,000 100 HOWARD ST NORTH EXTENSION 0 5,000,000 100 EAST-WEST COLLECTOR 0 8,000,000 28 22 50 SAN JUAN IMPROVEMENTS 729,700 779,700 0 50,000 0 0 0 550,000 100 1 SR 20 CLIMB. LANE/ SHERIDAN IMPROV. 0 1,000,000 100,000 900,000 0 0 20 80 GATEWAY PLAZA LANE 0 300,000 200,000 50,000 50,000 0 0 0 10 10 80 GATEWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY 0 0 300,000 20 80 GATEWAY IMPROVEMENT 0 640,000 240,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 2,600,000 100 ARTERIAL/COLLECTOR IMPROVEMENTS 20,000 120,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 200,000 100 PROPERTY ACQUISITION 20,000 45,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 100,000 100 BIKE/PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES 2,000 37,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 0 Subtotal Capacity Projects 771,700 7,921,700 472,000 232,000 282,000 1,032,000 5,132,000 16,750,000 NON-CAPACITY PROJECTS: 100 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT STUDY 25,000 25,000 80 20 NON-MOTOR1ZED (BIKE/PEP) PLAN 0 15,000 15,000 0 0 0 0 0 100 ARTERIAL/COLLECTOR IMPROVEMENTS 80,000 480,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 800,000 100 2 PROPERTY ACQUISITION 40,000 140,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 400,000 100 3 TRANS. REPAIR & MAINT PROGRAM 55,000 330,000 55,000 55,000 55,000 55,000 55,000 825,000 20 80 KEARNEY STREET WIDENING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 170,000 100 FARMERS MARKET PARKING LOT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25,000 100 4 BIKE/PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES 8,000 148,000 28,000 28,000 28,000 28,000 28,000 0

L    100 4 SIDEWALK REPAIRS (INCLUDES ADA IMP) 25,000 125,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 0 100 PARKING IMPROVEMENTS 0 10,000 0 0 0 0 10,000 100,000 100 UNDES1GNATED PROJECTS 10,000 60,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 100,000

     Subtotal Non-Capacity Projects 218,000 1,333,000 253,000 213,000 213,000 213,000 223,000 2,420,000

     ANNUAL TOTALS 989,700 9,254,700 725,000 445,000 495,000 1,245,000 5,355,000 19,170,000

Explanation:

(a)    Project is required to meet Federal or State regulations (R), Contractual obligations (C), or risk reduction (L).

(b)    Funding sources: City Utility Customers (C), New Development (D), PUD, School or other entity (O), or Grants (G)

    % SHARE shows the amount of contribution that can be justified, but not what will necessarily be received.

    % SHARE amounts shown for Development or Other users is based on estimated excess capacity that would be constructed for those particular uses.

(c)    Total estimated project cost in 1996 dollars for the years 1996 to 2001

(d)    Costs are in 1996 dollars

(e)    Future Costs are in 1996 dollars

NOTES:

1)    WSDOT Grant (100% Funding)

2)    Arterial right-of-way acquisitions

3)    Funding Source: Motor Vehicle Gas Tax.

4)    From 1/4 of 1% real estate tax.

Water

The City's water supply and distribution system is broken down into three major categories: 1) raw water supply; 2) raw water storage; and 3) treated water storage. These facilities can be further broken down into the separate categories for the City of Port Townsend and the City Water Utility's Tri-Area Water Service Area.

In-City

Current Facilities

Water Supply

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 five million gallons per day. Prior to 1995, four million gallons per day were reserved for the City and one million gallons per day for the Tri-Area. In 1995, the City began to use groundwater as the primary source of water for the Tri-Area, with all of the surface water reserved for the City. All of the following calculations are based on the fact that the Tri-Area is now served by groundwater and that the City has available five million gallons per day of surface water supply.

Raw (Nontreated) Water Storage

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.

Treated Water Storage

Treated water in the City is stored in the Howard Street reservoir which has a capacity of five million gallons, and the new one million gallon standpipe, for a total capacity of six million gallons.

Level of Service (LOS)

Water Supply

The current LOS of 629 gallons per capita per day is based on the existing inventory of five million gallons per day divided by the 1994 City population (7,953). The proposed LOS of 360 gallons per day is based on the Washington State Department of Health (DOH) requirement that water purveyors plan for 800 gallons per day per connection for raw water supply. Dividing the per connection LOS by the projected household size at the end of the 20 year planning period (i.e., 2.232 people per household) results in a LOS of 360 gallons per capita per day.

Raw Water Storage

The current LOS for raw water storage is approximately 62,900 gallons per capita, which is calculated based on five million gallons divided by the 1994 population of 7,953. The adopted LOS is based on maximizing the available storage at Lords Lake (500,000,000 gallons) to serve the 2001 population of the City (9,494 people). This results in an LOS of approximately 50,000 gallons per capita.

Treated Water Storage

The current LOS of 754 gallons per day per capita is based on the existing capacity of six million gallons divided by the 1994 population of 7,953. The adopted LOS is based on the required volume of treated water, calculated as 800 gallons per connection + 3,500 gallons per minute x 3 hours for fire flow, + 25% of the maximum daily demand for equalizing storage. The number of connections is based on the 50 year population estimate (23,035 people/2.232 people per connection = 10,320 connections). This calculation results in a LOS of 475 gallons per capita.

Capital Facilities Projects & Financing

Based on an LOS of 360 gallons per capita per day the City will require a raw water supply of approximately 3.4 million gallons per day in the year 2001 (i.e., based on a projected population of 9,494). The City's current water supply is therefore sufficient through 2001.

Within the next twenty years, the City will have to raise the dam at Lords Lake. The estimated cost for this project is $1.7 million. The raw water storage facilities are sufficient through the six year planning period (see Table VII-22).

The City has a sufficient amount of treated water storage facilities based on the LOS of 475 gallons per capita (see Table VII-23).

The capacity and noncapacity costs associated with serving water to the City residents over the next six years are $838,000 and $2.12 million, respectively (see Tables VII-5, VII-8 and VII-24 through VII-27). These costs will be financed through rates, system development charges, use of fund balance, issuance of new bonds, grants and/or other sources.

Operating Impact of LOS Capital Improvements

It is estimated that there will be no net operating impact during 1996-2001 for the capacity-related City water projects.

Concurrency (Adequate Public Facilities)

In compliance with the GMA and policy 4.1 of this element, each development must meet the City's adopted LOS standards for water supply before a building permit may be issued (note: this concurrency requirement applies only to areas lying within Port Townsend's corporate limits, and does not affect the City Water Utility's Tri-Area Water Service Area).

TABLE VII-21

RAW WATER SUPPLY - CITY SERVICE AREA

CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND

CAPITAL PROJECTS LOS CAPACITY ANALYSIS

Council Adopted LOS = 360 gallons/capita/day (gpcpd)

Time Period    Service Area Population GPCPD @ 360 Current GPCPD Available Net Reserve or Deficiency

1994    7,953 2,863,080 5,000,000 2,136,920

1994-1996 Transition    413 148,680 0 (148,680)

1996-2001 Growth    1,128 406,080 0 (406,080)

Total as of 2001    9,494 3,417,840 5,000,000 1,582,160

Capacity Projects:

None

TABLE VII-22

RAW WATER SUPPLY - CITY SERVICE AREA

CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND

CAPITAL PROJECTS LOS CAPACITY ANALYSIS

Council Adopted LOS = 50,000 gallons/capita Time Period    Service Area Populations Gallons/ Capita @ 5,000 Current Gallons/Capita Available Net Reserve or Deficiency

1994    7,953 397,650,000 500,000,000 102,350,000

1994-1996 Transition    413 20,650,000 0 (20,650,000)

1996-2001 Growth    1,128 56,400,000 0 (56,400,000)

Total as of 2001    9,494 474,700,000 500,000,000 25,300,000

Capacity Projects:

None

TABLE VII-23

TREATED WATER STORAGE - CITY SERVICE AREA

CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND

CAPITAL PROJECTS LOS CAPACITY ANALYSIS

Council Adopted LOS = 475 gallons/capita

Time Period    Service Area Population Gallons/ Capita @ 475 Current Gallons/Capita Available Net Reserve or Deficiency

1994    7,953 3,777,675 6,00,00 2,22,25

1994-1996 Transition    413 196,175 0 (196,175)

1996-2001 Growth    1,128 535,800 0 (535,800)

Total as of 2001    9,494 4,509,650 6,000,000 1,490,350

Capacity Projects:

None

TABLE VII-24

WATER SYSTEM - SUPPLY, TRANSMISSION & STORAGE

RQD

(a)    Service Area % SHARE (b) NOTE DESCRIPTION 1996

CIP    1996-2001 PROJECT COST(c) PROJECTED CAPITAL COSTS (d) FUTURE (e)

City    Tri-Area C D O G 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002-2017 100 30 70 1 MORGAN HILL RESERVOIR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,500,000

R    100 70 25 5 1.0 MG STANDPIPE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,050,000 100 25 75 2 370 PRESSURE ZONE PIPING, ETC. 50,000 50,000 1,300,000

R    100 100 3 5 MG STORAGE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,200,000

R     100 25 75 4 TRI-AREA WATER STORAGE 0 150,000 0 0 0 0 150,000 1,300,000 100 25 50 25 TRI-AREA IMPROVEMENTS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,000,000

R     100 50 50 5 WELL & TREATMENT SYSTEM UPGRADE 383,000 983,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 0 0 0

R     100 100 6 WELLHEAD PROTECTION & GW STUDIES 65,000 115,000 40,000 10,000 0 0 0 0 100 RAW WATER STORAGE RESERVOIR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,000,000 100 100 7 BIQ QUIL DAM RECONSTRUCTION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 750,000 100 100 7 OGWS PIPELINE BRIDGE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ANNUAL TOTALS 498,000 1,298,000 240,000 210,000 200,000 0 150,000 14,100,000

Explanation:

(a)    Project is required to meet Federal or State regulations (R), Contractual obligations (C), or risk reduction (L).

(b)    Funding sources: City Utility Customers (C), New Development (D), PUD, School or other entity (O), or Grants (G)

    % SHARE shows the amount of contribution that can be justified, but not what will necessarily be received.

    % SHARE amounts shown for Development or Other users is based on estimated excess capacity that would be constructed for those particular uses.

(c)    Total estimated project cost in 1996 dollars for the years 1996 to 2001

(d)    Costs are in 1996 dollars

(e)    Future Costs are in 1996 dollars

Notes:

1)    Area does not meet state criteria for pressure.

2)    After completion of 1.0 mg standpipe, additional distribution system improvement to serve currently unbuildable low pressure zones within City limits will only be constructed when required, financed through System Development (Impact) Fees.

3)    Additional treated water storage will be needed fairly soon (probably within 10 years), will probably be required by DOII.

4)    State requirements for pressure and storage.

5)    Well system needs substantial improvements (back-up power, redundant pump, second filter-train) to meet state requirements as full-time water source.

6)    Wellhead Protection Plans required by DOII.

7)    From OGWS Reserve.

TABLE VII-25

WATER SYSTEM - DISTRIBUTION

RQD

(a)    Service Area % SHARE (b) NOTE DESCRIPTION 1996

CIP    1996-2001 PROJECT COST(c) PROJECTED CAPITAL COSTS (d) FUTURE (e)

City    Tri-Area C D O G 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002-2017

C     100 50 50 OUT OF CITY SERVICE AREA IMPROV. 30,000 590,000 200,000 200,000 100,000 30,000 30,000 500,000 100 50 50 1 FIRE PROTECTION IMPROVEMENTS 20,000 120,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 150,000 100 100 2 MAIN REPLACEMENT PROGRAM 50,000 200,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 1,500,000 70 30 100 LEAK PROTECTION PROGRAM 0 14,000 0 7,000 0 0 7,000 50,000 100 100 TRANSFER STATION PIPELINE 2,000 2,000 0 0 0 0 0 0

     ANNUAL TOTALS 102,000 926,000 250,000 257,000 150,000 80,000 87,000 2,200,000

Explanation:

(a)    Project is required to meet Federal or State regulations (R), Contractual obligations (C), or risk reduction (L).

(b)    Funding sources: City Utility Customers (C), New Development (D), PUD, School or other entity (O), or Grants (G)

    % SHARE shows the amount of contribution that can be justified, but not what will necessarily be received.

    % SHARE amounts shown for Development or Other users is based on estimated excess capacity that would be constructed for those particular uses.

(c)    Total estimated project cost in 1996 dollars for the years 1996 to 2001

(d)    Costs are in 1996 dollars

(e)    Future Costs are in 1996 dollars

Notes:

1)    Fire hydrants for development and fill in for unprotected areas

2)    Includes "spaghetti line" replacement.

TABLE VII-26

WATER QUALITY AND CT COMPLIANCE

RQD

(a)    Service Area % SHARE (b) NOTE DESCRIPTION 1996

CIP    1996-2001 PROJECT COST(c) PROJECTED CAPITAL COSTS (d) FUTURE (e)

City    Tri-Area C D O G 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002-2017

R    50 50 50 40 10 1 ENGINEERING STUDIES/DESIGN/SDC 300,000 850,000 300,000 80,000 70,000 50,000 50,000 1,600,000

R    100 60 40 2 CITY CT PIPELINE 0 950,000 950,000 0 0 0 0 0

R    50 50 100 3 CT COMPLIANCE MONITORING EQUIP 0 30,000 30,000 0 0 0 0 0

R    70 30 100 4 WATERSHED PROGRAM IMPLEMENT. 0 50,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 450,000

R    100 50 50 5 3-4 MGD FILTRATION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,000,000

R    40 60 50 50 7 LAND ACQUISITION 200,000 580,000 100,000 100,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 500,000 70 30 100 8 WATER QUALITY CONTROL FACILITY 0 250,000 0 0 0 100,000 150,000 0 70 30 75 25 UNDESIGNATED WATER QUAL PROJECTS 10,000 80,000 10,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 210,000 0 ANNUAL TOTALS 510,000 2,790,000 1,400,000 205,000 155,000 235,000 285,000 5,760,000

 

Explanation:

(a)    Project is required to meet Federal or State regulations (R), Contractual obligations (C), or risk reduction (L).

(b)    Funding sources: City Utility Customers (C), New Development (D), PUD, School or other entity (O), or Grants (G)

    % SHARE shows the amount of contribution that can be justified, but not what will necessarily be received.

    % SHARE amounts shown for Development or Other users is based on estimated excess capacity that would be constructed for those particular uses.

(c)    Total estimated project cost in 1996 dollars for the years 1996 to 2001

(d)    Costs are in 1996 dollars

(e)    Future Costs are in 1996 dollars

Notes:

1)    Engineering Contract for CT Pipeline, Reservoir Improvements. Funding approved for studies/design.

2)    Pipeline construction per DOII Order for CT compliance

3)    CT compliance monitoring equipment required by DOII. Monitoring will also require ongoing O&M funding for testing and personnel.

4)    Gates, signs, equipment, Watershed management plan and update.

5)    Only if/when required by DOII

6)    W-Q will require additional equip, O&M and personnel for SDWA compliance

7)    Cost listed covers Tri-Area stor. site, pipeline right-of-way Tri-Area well. City Lake timber rights and additional land around City Lake, etc.

8)    Will house City Water Quality supplies and equipment.

TABLE VII-27

WATER SYSTEM - MISCELLANEOUS

RQD

(a)    Service Area % SHARE (b) NOTE DESCRIPTION 1996

CIP    1996-2001 PROJECT COST(c) PROJECTED CAPITAL COSTS (d) FUTURE (e)

City    Tri-Area C D O G 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002-2017

R    70 30 100 1 OPERATIONS & EMERGENCY PLAN 10,000 20,000 10,000 0 0 0 0 25,000

R    70 30 100 2 METER PROGRAM/EQUIPMENT 20,000 120,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 50,000

R    70 30 90 10 3 FINANCIAL PLANNING UPDATE 5,000 30,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 120,000

R    70 30 100 4 WATER SYS. PLANNING & IMPLEMENT. 50,000 190,000 30,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 50,000 150,000 70 30 100 WATER SYSTEM AUTOMATION 40,000 240,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 100,000

R    70 30 100 6 CROSS-CONNECTION PROGRAM 0 20,000 10,000 10,000 0 0 0 0

R    70 30 100 D/Q IMPLEMENTATION 10,000 60,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 50,000 100 50 50 AERIAL FLYOVER 0 70,000 0 10,000 10,000 50,000 0 0 70 30 100 SHOP FACILITIES 10,000 35,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 0 70 30 75 25 UNDESIGNATED - DISTRIBUTION 15,000 135,000 15,000 15,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 300,000

R    50 50 100 CWSP 25,000 45,000 0 0 0 20,000 0 100,000

     ANNUAL TOTALS 185,000 965,000 145,000 135,000 140,000 200,000 160,000 895,000

 

Explanation:

(a)    Project is required to meet Federal or State regulations (R), Contractual obligations (C), or risk reduction (L).

(b)    Funding sources: City Utility Customers (C), New Development (D), PUD, School or other entity (O), or Grants (G)

    % SHARE shows the amount of contribution that can be justified, but not what will necessarily be received.

    % SHARE amounts shown for Development or Other users is based on estimated excess capacity that would be constructed for those particular uses.

(c)    Total estimated project cost in 1996 dollars for the years 1996 to 2001

(d)    Costs are in 1996 dollars

(e)    Future Costs are in 1996 dollars

Notes:

1)    New State requirement

2)    Ongoing meter replacement/repair program should be included as part of annual operations budget. Construct testing bench in 1998.

3)    Council Resolution requires rate review no less than one time every two years.

4)    Required by State every 5 years. Funded under ongoing contract.

5)    Moved to O&M

6)    In addition lo equipment and construction required to resolve identified existing cross connections, the cross connection control program will require personnel for administration of the program, inspection of cross connection control devices, etc.

Tri-Area

Current Facilities

Water Supply

The raw water supply for the Tri-Area currently consists of groundwater from two wells - the "Sparling" and "Kivley" wells. These wells currently are capable of supplying 900,000 gallons per day (gpd). The City's combined groundwater right on the two wells totals 1.14 million gallons per day (mgd) average and 3.53 mgd peak.

Raw Water Storage

Since the Tri-Area is being served by groundwater, there is no need for raw water storage, as the groundwater aquifers actually represent this storage.

Treated Water Storage

Treated water for the Tri-Area is stored in the Hadlock Reservoir which has a capacity of one million gallons.

Level of Service (LOS)

Water Supply

The current LOS for the Tri-Area is 247 gallons per day per capita, and is based on 900,000 gpd serving a total of 1,455 connections (in December 1995) with an estimated household size of 2.5.

Using the DOH requirement that purveyors plan for 800 gallons per day per connection for water supply, the recommended LOS for the Tri-Area is 340 gallons per capita per day, based on an estimated future household size of 2.36.

Based on an LOS of 340 gallons per capita per day, with an estimated service area population of 4,982, the Tri- Area will need a water supply of 1.69 million gallons per day in addition to meeting estimated contractual commitments for 500,000 gallons per day, for a total of 2.19 mgd on a peak basis in 2001.

Raw Water Storage

The groundwater aquifer acts as the storage facility for the raw water for the Tri-Area. Therefore, no LOS is associated with this category.

Treated Water Storage

The current LOS for treated water storage in the Tri-Area is 275 gallons per capita based on one million gallons available divided by 1,455 connections with an estimated household size of 2.5. In determining the recommended LOS, the same DOH requirements apply (i.e., 800 gallons per connection + 3,500 gallons per minute (gpm) x 3 hours for fire flow + 25% MGD for equalizing storage). This results in an LOS of 535 gallons per capita (based on a future service area population of 5,675 people at 2.36 people per household).

Capital Facilities Projects & Financing

Based on the adopted LOS of 340 gallons per capita per day of raw water supply, the Tri-Area system will require an additional 382,000 gallons/day of supply by the end of the six-year planning period (see Table VII- 28). The City is currently upgrading the Tri-Area well and treatment system to add more capacity.

Based on the LOS of 535 gallons per capita, the Tri-Area will require an additional 1 million gallons of storage by the year 2001 (see Table VII-29).

The capacity and noncapacity costs associated with serving water to the Tri-Area over the next six years are $1.26 million and $1.76 million, respectively (see Tables VII-5, VII-8 and VII-24 through VII-27). These costs will be financed through rates, system development charges, use of fund balance, issuance of new bonds, grants and/or other sources.

Operating Impact of LOS Capital Improvements

The net operating impact from the proposed capital improvements to the Tri-Area water system are estimated to be on the order of S100,000 per year, for a total of $600,000 over the six year planning period.

Concurrency (Adequate Public Facilities)

This plan does not apply any specific concurrency requirement to areas lying outside Port Townsend's corporate limits. However, consistent with the GMA, Jefferson County requires proof of potable water supply prior to issuance of new building permits. The City Water Utility serves all new development within its Tri-Area Water Service Area; the City will require new development to meet City design standards as a condition of obtaining a water reservation.

TABLE VII-28

RAW WATER SUPPLY - TRI-AREA SERVICE AREA

CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND

CAPITAL PROJECTS LOS CAPACITY ANALYSIS

Time Period    Service Area Population Gallons/Day @ 340 plus contracts* Current Gallons/Day Available Net Reserve or Deficiency

1994    3,455 1,451,100 900,000 (551,100)

1994-1996 Transition    84 35,280 0 (35,280)

1996-2001 Growth    234 98,280 0 (98,280)

Total as of 2001    3,773 1,584,660 900,000 (684,660)

Capacity Projects:

Well and Treatment System Upgrades    684,660 -

* Contractual water used on a peak basis: 80 gpcpd

TABLE VII-29

TREATED WATER STORAGE - TRI-AREA SERVICE AREA

CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND

CAPITAL PROJECTS LOS CAPACITY ANALYSIS

Council Adopted LOS = 535 gallons/capita Time Period    Service Area Population Gallons/Capita @ 535 Current Gallons/Capita Available Net Reserve or Deficiency

1994    3,455 1,848,425 1,000,000 (848,425)

1994-1996 Transition    84 44,940 0 (44,940)

1996-2001 Growth    234 125,190 0 (125,190)

Total as of 2001    3,773 2,018,555 1,000,000 (1,018,555)

Capacity Projects:

New Storage Facility    1,500,000 481,445

 

Wastewater

Current Facilities

The service area for waste-water collection and treatment is limited to Port Townsend's corporate limits. It consists of an interceptor trunk line and other collection piping, lift stations, a wastewater treatment plant and an outfall.

Level of Service (LOS)

The current LOS of 160 gallons/day/capita is based on the current wastewater treatment plant capacity of 1.27 million gallons/day divided by the 1994 City population (7,953). The proposed LOS of 120 gallons/day/capita 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). This LOS will enable the City to maintain a net reserve through the year 2001 (see Table VII-30). However, the interceptor line is at capacity and will require improvements during the six year planning horizon.

Capital Facilities Projects & Financing

The proposed capital projects for the City's wastewater treatment and collection system are shown on Tables VII-31 and VII-32. Financing of the City's proposed capacity and noncapacity capital projects will be through a mix of rates, system development charges, use of fund balance, issuance of new bonds and/or grants or other available sources (see Table VII-8).

Operating Impacts of LOS Capital Improvements

The net operating impact during 1996-2001 of the capital improvement projects required to maintain the adopted level of service standard is estimated to be 520,000/year for a total ofS120,000 over the six year planning period.

Concurrency (Adequate Public Facilities)

In compliance with the GMA and policy 4.1 of this element, adequate wastewater treatment capacity will be required prior to issuance of a building permit.

Council Adopted LOS = 120 gallons/capita/day (gpcpd)

TABLE VII-30

WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT

CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND

CAPITAL PROJECTS LOS CAPACITY ANALYSIS

Time Period    Service Area Population GPCPD @ 120 Current GPCPD Available Net Reserve or Deficiency

1994    7,953 954,360 1,270,000 315,640

1994-1996 Transition    413 49,560 0 (49,560)

1996-2001 Growth    1,128 135,360 0 (135,360)

Total as of 2001    9,494 1,139,280 1,270,000 130,720

Capacity Projects:

None

TABLE VII-31

WASTEWATER TREATMENT

RQD

(a)    % SHARE (b) NOTE DESCRIPTION 1996

CIP    1996-2001 PROJECT COST(c) PROJECTED CAPITAL COSTS (d) FUTURE (e)

C    D O G 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002-2017

R    35 65 1 WWTP ENGINEERING 0 20,000 0 0 0 0 20,000 250,000

R     100 EFFLUENT LINE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,700,000

R    100 FINANCIAL PLANNING UPDATE 5,000 30,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 150,000

R     100 LAND ACQUISITION 0 200,000 0 0 0 0 200,000 0 100 UNDESIGNATED PROJECTS 10,000 90,000 10,000 10,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 0 100 PRETREATMENT PROGRAM 0 25,000 0 25,000 0 0 0 0 50 50 WASTEWATER REUSE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,000,000 100 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT 500 500 0 0 0 0 0 0

R     100 WWTF EXPANSION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8,000,000

     ANNUAL TOTALS 15,500 365,500 15,000 40,000 25,000 25,000 245,000 12,100,000

 

Explanation:

(a)    Project is required to meet Federal or State regulations (R), Contractual obligations (C), or risk reduction (L).

(b)    Funding sources: City Utility Customers (C), New Development (D), PUD, School or other entity (O), or Grants (G)

    % SHARE shows the amount of contribution that can be justified, but not what will necessarily be received.

    % SHARE amounts shown for Development or Other users is based on estimated excess capacity that would be constructed for those particular uses.

(c)    Total estimated project cost in 1996 dollars for the years 1996 to 2001

(d)    Costs are in 1996 dollars

(e)    Future Costs are in 1996 dollars

NOTES:

1)    Plant capacity could be expected before or by 2013 and require substantial further capacity additions.

TABLE VII-32

WASTEWATER COLLECTION

RQD

(a)    % SHARE (b) NOTE DESCRIPTION 1996

CIP    1996-2001 PROJECT COST(c) PROJECTED CAPITAL COSTS (d) FUTURE (e)

C    D O G 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002-2017

R    75 25 1 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN 60,000 60,000 0 0 0 0 0 0

R    50 50 1,2 MASTER PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 0 450,000 120,000 120,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 300,000

R    50 50 3 SEWER TRUNK LINE - TRAIL MITIGATION 60,000 360,000 100,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 2,000,000 75 25 GIS 40,000 40,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 25 UNDESIGNATED SYS. IMPROVEMENTS 10,000 60,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 0

R     100 4 NEW LIFT STATIONS 25,000 90,000 25,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 200,000

R    100 LIFT STATION REPAIRS/REPLACEMENT 30,000 180,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 700,000 50 50 AERIAL FLYOVER 0 70,000 0 10,000 10,000 50,000 0 0 100 SHOP FACILITIES 5,000 30,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 0

     ANNUAL TOTALS 230,000 1,340,000 290,000 235,000 185,000 225,000 175,000 3,200,000

 

Explanation:

(a)    Project is required to meet Federal or State regulations (R), Contractual obligations (C), or risk reduction (L).

(b)    Funding sources: City Utility Customers (C), New Development (D), PUD, School or other entity (O), or Grants (G)

    % SHARE shows the amount of contribution that can be justified, but not what will necessarily be received.

    % SHARE amounts shown for Development or Other users is based on estimated excess capacity that would be constructed for those particular uses.

(c)    Total estimated project cost in 1996 dollars for the years 1996 to 2001

(d)    Costs are in 1996 dollars

(e)    Future Costs are in 1996 dollars

NOTES:

1)    SRF loan is available at $218,000 with 0% interest over 5-year pay back.

2)    Very rough estimates. The costs will be better defined following completion of the Comprehensive Sewer Plan.

3)    New 30" line under San Juan Ave.

4)    Expected cost to City for oversizing lift stations = $25,000

Stormwater Management

Current Facilities

The City is currently in the process of finalizing a functional plan, the Port Townsend Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) that identifies specific needs and requirements, planned capital facilities projects, and a short-term/long-term financing plan. The final SWMP will identify projects and sources, of funding for the projects for a six year planning period. For the purposes of this CFP, the City has identified Stormwater projects in its Capital Improvement Program.

Level of Service

Rather than set LOS standards for this CFP, the City will use its Stormwater Master Plan (including the DOE Stormwater Management Manual) to prioritize capital improvements, set LOS standards, and identify sources of funding.

Capital Facilities Projects & Financing

The proposed capital projects for the City's Stormwater utility over the six year planning period are shown in Table VII-33. It is anticipated that funding for these projects will be through a mix of rates, reserve capacity charges, use of fund balance and/or grants or other available sources (see Table VII-8).

Concurrency (Adequate Public Facilities)

In compliance with the GMA and policy 4.1 of this element, adequate Stormwater management policies and facilities will be required prior to issuance of a building permit.

TABLE VII-33

STORM DRAINAGE

RQD (a)	% SHARE (b)				NOTE	DESCRIPTION	1996 CIP	1996-2001 PROJECT	PROJECTED CAPITAL COSTS (d)					FUTURE (e)
	C	D	O	G				COST (c)	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002-2017
R	25	25		50		STORMWATER MASTER PLAN	10,000	20,000	0	0	0	0	10,000
	50	50			1	PRIORITY PROJECTS	88,600	375,380	195,000	91,780
	75	25				SUPPLEMENTAL PRIORITY PROJECTS	185,000	185,000
	100				1	LOCALLY MANAGED PROJECTS	15,000	68,091	10,000	10,300	10,609	10,927	11,255	45,955
	100				1	NEIGHBORHOOD PROJECTS	10,000	52,473	8,000	8,240	8,487	8,742	9,004	32,182
	25	25		50		PROPERTY ACQUISITION	364,000	364,000	0	0	0	0	0	0
R	100				2	STORM DRAINAGE PERMIT SYSTEM	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
	75	25				UNDESIGNATED PROJECTS	10,000	30,000	5,000	5,000	5,000	5,000	0
	75	25				GIS	40,000	90,000	20,000	10,000	10,000	10,000	0	0
	100					SHOP FACILITIES	5,000	5,000	0	0	0	0	0	0
	50			50	3	KAH TAI	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
	50			50	3	NORTH LAGOON (CHINESE GARDENS)	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
	25	75				ORDINANCE AND STANDARDS	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
	25	25		50	4	FCAAP #2 - BASINS 5, 8, 9 & 10	65,000	90,000	25,000	0	0	0	0	0
	25	25		50	4	FCAAP #3 - OTHER BASINS	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	93,000
	25	25		50		FCAAP BASIN 4 IMPLEMENTATION	0	100,000	100,000	0	0	0	0	0
	75	25				FINANCIAL PLANNING	5,000	10,000	0	0	0	0	5,000	0
L	100				5	CATCHBASIN REPLACEMENT	5,000	25,000	5,000	5,000	5,000	5,000	0	0
	100				6	STREET PROJECTS	100,000	179,638	15,000	15,450	15,914	16,391	16,883	51,751
	50	50				AERIAL FLYOVER	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
						ANNUAL TOTALS	902,600	1,594,582	383,000	145,770	55,010	56,060	52,142	222,888

Explanation:

NOTES:

(a) Project is required to meet Federal or State regulations (R), Contractual obligations (C), or risk reduction (L). (b) Funding sources: City Utility Customers (C), New Development (D), PUD, School or other entity (O), or Grants (G) % SHARE shows the amount of contribution that can be justified, but not what will necessarily be received. % SHARE amounts shown for Development or Other users is based on estimated excess capacity that would be constructed for those particular uses. (c) Total estimated project cost in 1996 dollars for the years 1996 to 2001 (d) Costs are in 1996 dollars (e) Future Costs are in 1996 dollars

1) From SWMP draft (see list). 2) If and when required by law. 3) For pretreatment facilities and for water quality studies. 4) Action Grant PSWQA - City funding is only $24,000. 5) Required to replace obsolete grates which might pose danger to bicyclists. 6) Storm drainage share of street projects.

IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS

Capital Facilities

Projects

1.    Develop a concurrency management system.

2.    Consider new revenue sources for capital facilities and implement as appropriate.

3.    In future planning phases, if Port Townsend's Urban Growth Area is extended beyond the current city limits, cooperate with Jefferson County to study the capital facilities needs of the potential unincorporated portion of the Port Townsend Urban Growth Area (UGA). If a UGA larger than the City's incorporated boundary is designated, develop agreements with Jefferson County to coordinate the planning and development of capital facilities within the unincorporated portion of the UGA.

4.    Develop a process and criteria for evaluating, selecting and financing capital projects listed in the Capital Facilities & Utilities Element. [Ord. No. 2825, § 3.3, (January 6, 2003)].

Ongoing

5.    Annually update the Capital Facilities & Utilities Element to reflect the capacity of facilities, land use changes, level of service standards, and financing capability.

6.    Annually update the Capital Improvement Program to ensure consistency with the Capital Facilities & Utilities Element.

7.    Annually appropriate the coming year's Capital Improvement Program as a Capital Budget.

Utilities Element

Projects

1.    Review and improve procedures for forming local improvement districts.

2.    Develop public information campaigns to explain the issues associated with City water, wastewater, and stormwater utilities.

a.    Conduct activities to increase awareness of the functions of the different City managed utilities;

b.    Develop public education materials and programs to inform the public about the environmental impacts of individual practices (e.g., the impacts of pesticides and herbicides on stormwater quality); and

c.    Work with the Port Townsend School District to develop cooperative educational programs that encourage active participation from students and the public.

3.    Develop, adopt and implement functional utility plans for City-managed utilities (i.e., water, wastewater and stormwater master plans) that are consistent with the goals and policies of the Capital Facilities & Utilities Element of this Comprehensive Plan. Ensure that all functional utility plans include estimated long-term operations and maintenance costs associated with the construction of new capital facilities.

Ongoing

4.    Regularly update functional utility plans for City-managed utilities.

5.    Review utility plans for non-City-managed utilities. Work with non-City managed utilities to ensure that their Plans are consistent with this Comprehensive Plan.