SECTION V Six-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
What is the Capital Improvement Program?
The Snohomish County CIP is a six-year document that is adopted as part of the annual budget process. The CIP is a component of the CFP, but is a physically separate document that fulfills two separate, but related, responsibilities of the county under state and local law. The Snohomish County Charter requires adoption of a CIP for all county facilities as an adjunct to the budget process. In addition, the state Growth Management Act (GMA) requires adoption of a six-year financing plan “that will finance . . . capital facilities within projected funding capacities and clearly identifies sources of public money for such purposes” (RCW 36.70A.070[3][d]). Pursuant to Snohomish County Code, the county combines the CIP required by the charter and the six-year financing plan required by the GMA into one document (SCC 4.26.024).
The CIP includes discussion and analysis of public facilities “necessary to support development” under the ‘GMA facilities,’ as well as other public facilities and services that are provided by the county but not “necessary to support development.” This is done because the CIP document fulfills the county’s financial planning responsibilities under two separate mandates. The CIP distinguishes between GMA and non-GMA facilities, as in the case of this CFP, because the GMA requires additional analysis to determine whether funding meets existing and anticipated needs in those services that are “necessary to support development.”
The CIP includes a six-year capital construction and investment program for specific projects and purchases for public facilities and services owned by the county and specific revenues that will finance such capital facilities within projected funding capacities. Part of the function of the CIP is to clearly identify sources of public money for such purposes. The CIP incorporates, by reference, the annual Transportation Improvement Program and its supporting documents for the surface transportation capital construction program. The CIP also incorporates, by reference, the annual Parks Improvement Plan and its supporting documents.
A determination for GMA facilities is also included in the CIP, consistent with RCW 36.70A.070(3)(e), (6) and RCW 36.70A.020(12)(Goal 12), whether probable funding and regulatory measures are sufficient to meet present and projected needs as determined by the adopted minimum level-of-service standards. If funding and other measures are found to be insufficient to ensure that new development will be served by adequate facilities, the GMA requires the county to take action to ensure that existing identified needs are met. This process is known as “Goal 12 Reassessment” and is discussed in more detail below.
CIP Content
Typically, the CIP consists of six sections:
1.Background describing guiding policies and decisions.
This section provides a review and summary of relevant policies and objectives that were used to shape the CIP.
2.Financing Strategies which include future revenue forecasts.
This section identifies the sources, timing, and projected amounts of revenues and provides the assumptions, policies, and funding strategies for the proposed capital improvements.
3.Six-Year CIP Summary Capital Program.
This section includes the following:
•A summary of projects that provides an overview of the planned capital projects and describes the objectives and purposes used in assembling the project lists;
•Departmental Capital Plan Summary List that provides a listing of capital projects by type in tabular form by year;
•Real Estate Excise Tax Projects List that provides a summary of capital projects that are funded with Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) funds by year; and
•Maps showing location of projects.
4.Statement of Assessment on GMA Goal 12
This section includes a summary assessment of whether the CIP maintains sufficient progress in funding of facilities necessary for new development in order to achieve GMA goal 12.
5.Detailed Departmental Capital Plan List
This section provides the detailed descriptions, costs, and revenues of county capital projects by department.
6.Statement of Assessment Text
This section contains the complete text of the global statement of assessment as well as the individual/categorical statements addressing specific county and non-county facilities.
Goal 12 Reassessment Policy
The CIP includes a statement of assessment that concludes whether sufficient funding and/or regulatory mechanisms are in place to provide the GMA-necessary facilities to meet existing identified needs. This conclusion carries out the county’s duty under the GMA to ensure that the county is in compliance with Goal 12, and RCW 36.70A.070(3) and (6) over the six-year period. This GMA requirement is summarized best by quoting Goal 12, which states, “…that those public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards.”
If the Statement of Assessment (SOA) in Section 4 of the CIP finds that there is a potential funding shortfall, then a determination is made of the ability to provide a minimum level of service (LOS) despite the expected shortfall in funding. The SOA answers the following questions to determine if an adequate LOS can be maintained:
1)Will minimum LOS for those public facilities necessary for development, which are identified within the Capital Facilities Plan, be maintained by the projects included in the CIP?;
2)Will potential funding shortfalls in necessary services provided by the county and other governmental agencies warrant a reassessment of the comprehensive plan?; and
3)Can regulatory measures reasonably ensure that new development will not occur unless the necessary facilities are available to support the development at the adopted minimum level-of service?
Goal 12 Reassessment Work Program – CFP/CIP Connection
This CFP draws information from the plans of many county and non-county agencies that meet a variety of statutory requirements. These plans are also prepared and developed over a variety of timeframes.
Many of these external plans were completed before the county developed its land use alternatives for the 2015 comprehensive plan update and an unknown number of external plans will not be completed before the 2015 comprehensive update has been adopted. The annual CIP–through its “Statement of Assessment” should regularly evaluate the effectiveness of internal and external plans in maintaining or improving levels of service.
The CIP would outline a work program to be implemented during a following year if the statement of assessment concludes the following:
1)That probable funding, as identified in the CIP, falls short of meeting existing needs, defined by the adopted minimum LOS in the CFP.
2)That regulatory measures are not adequate to ensure that new development will be served by such facilities.
The work program would include a reassessment of the comprehensive plan “to ensure that the land use element, capital facilities plan element, and financing plan within the capital facilities plan element are coordinated and consistent” (RCW 36.70A.070 [e]). The reassessment would present an analysis of potential options for achieving coordination and consistency. The range of options as articulated in the county’s previous CFP report is entitled “Capital Facilities Plan/Year 2015 Update.”
•“Reduce the standard of service, which will reduce the cost; or
•Increase revenues to pay for the proposed standard of service (higher rates for existing revenues, and/or new sources of revenue); or
•Reduce the average cost of the capital facility (i.e., alternative technology or alternative ownership or financing), thus reducing the total cost, and possibly the quality; or
•Reduce the demand by restricting population (i.e., revise the land use element), which may cause growth to occur in other jurisdictions; or
•Reduce the demand by reducing consumption (i.e., transportation demand management, recycling solid waste, water conservation, etc.), which may cost more money initially, but which may save even more money later; or
•Any combination of the options listed above.”
The reassessment work program would identify a process, based on these options, for determining possible modifications to the Land Use Element of the General Policy Plan and/or county development regulations in order to achieve coordination and consistency. The work program would then generate specific recommendations for appropriate actions or amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and development regulations.
Any changes proposed would be reviewed consistent with the county’s GMA public participation requirements.