HomeMy WebLinkAboutJefferson CP Appendices 2018_12
Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan
Appendices ∙ December 2018
Photos courtesy of the Collection of the Jefferson County Historical Society,
Carolyn Gallaway, and Jefferson County.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
December 2018
Appendix A
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
SUMMARY VISION 2038
Jefferson County
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Update
Summary of Public Comments and Feedback
June –November 2016
This word cloud shows the most popular words and terms citizens used to describe, “what they liked
about Jefferson County.” The larger a word appears, the more frequently it was used in responses.
8
Public Outreach Summary
Comments, Surveys & Listening Logs June-November 2016
2 | P a g e
Contents
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 2
Methods .................................................................................................................................................... 3
General Survey: ..................................................................................................................................... 3
Open House Public Comments and Informal Contacts (Listening Logs) ............................................... 3
Speak Up ............................................................................................................................................... 3
Stakeholder groups and Meeting in a Binder ....................................................................................... 4
Element Surveys .................................................................................................................................... 4
Compiling the Comments: Errors/Issues .............................................................................................. 4
General Suggestions/Comments by Comprehensive Plan Element ............................................................. 4
Major Themes/Issues: .............................................................................................................................. 5
Area Specific Themes/Issues generated during open house public comment period: ......................... 6
Specific Goal-Related Comments by Comprehensive Plan Element ............................................................ 7
Selected Miscellaneous Observations, Anecdotes, Comments, and Testimonial ........................................ 7
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................... 9
Appendices .................................................................................................................................................. 10
Executive Summary
This document summarizes public comments on the Jefferson County 2018 Comprehensive Plan (CP)
Periodic Update. To date, public meetings, online activities and other methods were used to solicit
public feedback on general topics related to the Plan update. Over 603 ideas/suggestions/comments
from six open houses, 43 SpeakUp (online) discussion responses, 7 SpeakUp (online) “Question of the
Week” responses, 66 element surveys, 71 general surveys and 4 comment letters/emails were received.
A local “meeting in a binder” event was held in Cape George by a resident planning commissioner.
Additionally, 28 general surveys were submitted in 2014 and these comments are reflected in Appendix
A and B. Public input will be continuously sought throughout the Plan update. Some of the most
common of all comments received are:
The need for innovation and flexibility in addressing affordable housing (e.g. tiny homes), water
supply, and residential wastewater treatment.
Access to family-wage jobs and small business opportunities
Support local agriculture and ensure food security
The request for greater pedestrian and bike trails without sacrificing rural character.
The complete list of reoccurring issues and themes and other reporting at public comment events
follows.
Public Outreach Summary
Comments, Surveys & Listening Logs June-November 2016
3 | P a g e
Methods
General Survey:
DCD currently provides a survey to citizens at the DCD office, open house meetings, via DCD
website and SpeakUp link, and through the Meeting in a Binder activity. The survey asks
quantitative questions regarding neighborhood location, familiarity with the Comprehensive
Plan, and asks users to rank various land use issues by level of importance. The survey also
asks qualitative questions. Staff compiled qualitative responses separately in the public
comment database. The quantitative response collection and analysis is in Appendix A. A
collection of 28 general surveys from 2014 outreach efforts by the planning commission was
included in the qualitative count.
Open House Public Comments and Informal Contacts (Listening Logs)
DCD collected public comments during the public outreach period coinciding with the
summer/early fall 2016 Planning Commission open house meetings held June through
November in Port Ludlow, Clearwater, Quilcene, Tri-Areas, Gardiner, and Brinnon.
The first hour was devoted to staff and Planning Commissioners greeting the public,
discussing CP elements, themes and process, with the element goals posted around the
room. Staff recorded notes in “listening logs” documenting informal contact comments.
Additionally, a survey for each Comprehensive Plan element was available for citizens to
complete as well as the general survey. The second half of the meeting included a sit down
with the Planning Commission taking formal comments from the public on their concerns,
comments, and ideas. One planner took notes during the public comment period of each
meeting. Staff reconciled any notes with this planner’s notes. Staff consolidated listening
logs and staff notes into a “Public Comment” database. This database, available in
Appendix B, also synthesizes the qualitative data generated from the general survey,
element surveys and SpeakUp comments. The element code table or key is in Appendix H.
Speak Up
Attending public meetings is not always an option for many people who work during the day
and take care of families at night. An on-line way for citizens to review proposals, provide
input, comments and allow polling of proposals is the best alternative for these people.
SpeakUpJeffco.com, available http://speakupjeffco.com is an online portal used to offer
citizens the chance to send in comments. All CP update information including meeting
advertisements, Comprehensive Plan link, DCD website, Meeting in a Binder and survey
files, and online forum access through “discussions” is available under the Comprehensive
Plan “project”. Within the “project” webpage, each Comprehensive Plan Element is
represented by a “discussion” webpage, which states the element’s purpose and goals. Each
element “discussion” webpage contains a series of “Topic” questions that reflect those in
the Element Surveys. The online forum begins here where users responded to the topic
questions and each other. Additionally, staff asked, “Questions of the Week,” accessible on
the SpeakUp homepage. The questions included “What is your favorite thing about living in
Jefferson county?”, “What is your favorite Jefferson county Park” (received no responses),
Public Outreach Summary
Comments, Surveys & Listening Logs June-November 2016
4 | P a g e
and “What is one transportation/ road improvement that you feel would significantly
improve your community or Jefferson County in general?” Responses to the questions of the
week are named “ideas.” Users voted on ideas and topic question responses. SpeakUp
output is available in Appendix G.
Stakeholder groups and Meeting in a Binder
The Cape George community convened a meeting in a binder and generated eleven
comments. The Food Policy Council held a stakeholder meeting attended by planner, Joel
Peterson, to discuss their proposed changes to the element goals and policies within the
Comprehensive Plan. The participants downloaded element surveys on SpeakUp to
collaboratively evaluate and present their proposed changes using the Meeting in a Binder
format. Their goal and policy-specific “line in/line out” suggestions are available in Appendix
C. The Local 2020 Climate Action and Transportation (T-lab) group also submitted a set of
proposed changes to Comprehensive Plan element goals, policies, and strategies elements
to address climate change impacts on the area, see Appendix I. The submission also
suggests climate change-related planning objectives and describes how plan elements relate
to climate change issues.
Element Surveys
The element surveys asked open-ended questions, “What is most important to you, or what
stands out about this element?” in order to solicit feedback about the element’s general
significance. The second part of the survey listed the element’s goals and asked which goals
stood out or were important, what would the respondent change, and how to accomplish
change. The latter portion of the survey provided feedback to inform the county’s CP goal
and policy analysis as detailed in the “Specific Goal-Related Comments by Comprehensive
Element” section below.
Compiling the Comments: Errors/Issues
Some participants attended multiple meetings and spoke during the public comment
periods. Therefore, some ideas and themes are overrepresented. Nonetheless, none of
these people introduced new ideas or themes that did not already have strong support such
as broadband internet, improving flexible sanitation and/or tiny homes regulations, and the
furthering of a healthy and sustainable farming community.
Speak Up provided the same ability to gather goal specific feedback; however many
SpeakUp comments described general issues relating to elements. The online format gave
respondents the ability to “do their homework” by providing facts, statistics, and more
narrative-based anecdotes. While SpeakUp is an invaluable tool, it is unfortunately less
accessible than hoped. This is because outreach revealed many rural areas in the county
such as Brinnon and Gardiner lack access to broadband or high speed internet.
General Suggestions/Comments by Comprehensive Plan Element
The “public comment” database, Appendix B, contains all comments collected. Comments were sorted
and classified according to positive (P) comments (used to generate the word cloud) with those that
contained specific suggestions or ideas (S). Comments were also categorized by element (see table
summary in Appendix D). Some comments related to multiple CP elements. Staff evaluators identified
Public Outreach Summary
Comments, Surveys & Listening Logs June-November 2016
5 | P a g e
these instances and highlighted secondary relevant elements. Staff also restricted two relevant
elements plus an “other” classification. The “other” class included suggestions for food system
development and health; however, many comments fell into this class due to septic/sewer/and water
suggestions that, though relevant to the utilities element, are subject to state law outside the purview of
the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff identified reoccurring or major themes generated by the element surveys, general surveys,
comment letters and open house comments below. Approximate number of repetitions is also shown.
Major Themes/Issues:
Comments relating to need for high speed internet
access (15)
Innovation and flexibility to improve housing and
sanitation (community septics, sewer/septic,
graywater, humanure, composting and wells) (32)
water resource/right sharing, lack of water rights(7)
Need to find ways to connect to Dosewallips State
Park sewer system (3)
ease regulations for permitting new/existing
businesses (21)
anti-retail/big box stores (2)
need more major retailers (5)
Anti-Brinnon MPR (9)
recreational/tourism based economy (7)
need more small businesses/jobs (11)
need more senior businesses
need more small manufacturing/lumber mill (5)
economic development should be sustainable and
protect the environment (5)
live here for way of life-not economic opportunity (2)
ease regulations for permitting tiny homes (9)
increase density of ADU's and tiny homes on land (5)
Small-scale, clustered housing
increase affordable housing (17)
Provide safe, mold-free affordable housing
More senior services such as housing, eldercare,
senior transportation (9)
no sprawl (3)
gentrification is an issue, need family wage jobs,
affordable housing and sewer without high
connection fees (2)
Need smaller parcel sizes on west side. Large acreage is unaffordable to families
need higher density zoning in some areas (especially around Rural Village Center and areas not
supporting agriculture) (6)
Tri-Area Open House Meeting on August 17, 2016
at the Jefferson County Library
Port Ludlow Open House Meeting on July 6, 2016 at
Port Ludlow Beach Club
Public Outreach Summary
Comments, Surveys & Listening Logs June-November 2016
6 | P a g e
attracting workers to move here (jobs, housing, land, farming opportunities/limitations)(16)
Increased food self-reliance (4)
Address farm worker housing (5)
Limit marijuana as agriculture-need more food (2)
year-round farmer's market
create food hubs
aging farmer and farm transition (4)
increase education relating to local food
availability
alternative energy development and electric
vehicle charging stations (2)
improve air quality (2)
climate change is a real issue that needs attention
(3)
Improve logging buffers/encroachment (Port
Ludlow MPR)(8)
Rescind Forest Transition Overlay zoning
classification
Don’t convert working forest and farms
Increase conservation and public access/trails
(specifically waterfront, bike, foot, boat trails) (5)
Add community gardens and orchards to open space
Improve safe pedestrian and bike trails and connectivity without sacrificing rural character (14)
Need space for future rail lines for non-gasoline transportation
Need Seattle foot ferry
Improve public transportation to outlying areas like Marrowstone, Cape George, Beaver Valley
Rd (2)
Need adequate mental health facilities (3)
increase number of sheriff patrols/staffing and provide training to help aging population (4)
Improve emergency planning (2)
improved intercounty medical coordination (7)
Area Specific Themes/Issues generated during open house public comment period:
Marrowstone: Broadband internet services
Quilcene: Too regulated (businesses and homes)
Gardiner: intersection/transportation/safety/bus stops, need bathroom stop, power reliability during
storms, fix boat ramp, wheelchair accessibility on busses, turn lane at Discovery Bay, modify turnoff on
Old Gardiner Rd, broadband internet services, enforce traffic laws
Brinnon: Master Planned Resort will overwhelm transportation, is inappropriately scaled for community,
has driven small businesses out of the area, and vetted poorly during the planning process. July 2016
letter represents many residents opinion on MPR. Dosewallips State Park sewer connection opportunity
should occur. Broadband internet services. Brinnon Community Center is underutilized.
Gardiner Open House Meeting on September 7, 2016
at Gardiner Community Center
Public Outreach Summary
Comments, Surveys & Listening Logs June-November 2016
7 | P a g e
Chimacum: limit density from UGA, improve pedestrian access without suburban feel, pedestrian-
friendly trail along Hwy 19 from the schools to Ness’ Corner
Cape George: more innovative alternative waste disposal, planning for waste water treatment facilities
outside of Port Townsend, retain rural character and provide farming, industrial and other economic
activities. Need affordable housing to support business’ workers.
Specific Goal-Related Comments by Comprehensive Plan Element
SpeakUp and element surveys asked how to improve specific goals in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff
sorted these responses in Appendix E to assist with “Fitness Table” (Appendix F) completion. As the
county updates the Comprehensive Plan, county reviewers will be analyzing existing goals and policies.
County reviewers should reference the public comments with both general and specific comments as
well as stakeholder input.
Selected Miscellaneous Observations, Anecdotes, Comments, and
Testimonial
“I don't like the fact that I must drive two hours to buy shoes.”
“I'm new to Jefferson County and like the phenomenal natural landscape that has been preserved--trees,
water--and like the agriculture. I've met some interesting people. There is a lot of civility here--there are
no security police needed at these meetings which is a good thing! Small, incremental steps don't work
well any more. Think inside and outside of the box--we need paradigm changes and eliminate the box.
Gentrification concerns me. We need major resources put into the county for a sewer system.
Developers can build affordable housing with sewer infrastructure.”
“Owner of computer company since 2008, has difficulty finding skilled labor because they can't find
housing. There is a limited ability to bring in new employees to the business.”
“Concern about marijuana growing and selling in our county-would like to see less ideally - no more pot
shops or farms”
“What is most exciting is when forests and farmlands are worked in an environmentally sustainable
manner that creates jobs and valued products. Tourists are not only attracted to wild areas, but to
communities that seem to have found answers in how to thrive and take care of the environment at the
same time. Hope and inspiration will always be a good sell!”
“Phased infrastructure development. I mention this because as an owner of Chimacum Corner
Farmstand, it is frustrating how so many of the roadblocks we encounter in trying to build our business
all come back to septic limitations. That and the lack of housing for our employees which again circles
back to septic limitations in the surrounding areas. What we are trying to do is consistent with the
community’s rural character and history. We're supporting local farmers who are creating rural jobs and
Public Outreach Summary
Comments, Surveys & Listening Logs June-November 2016
8 | P a g e
goods while stewarding the land. Seems to me this is just the type of economic industry the GMA
envisioned.”
“High technology is a false economy -trades information, money, gadgets, programs. Not items that
keep humans alive (food, water , shelter, clothes, transportation), or that builds culture and community
that is sustainable. We can build artisan, craft, tourist, maritime, health, food, shelter, natural resource-
based economies that provide family-wage jobs without bringing high tech to area.”
“Edwin Glazer article in the Atlantic [Thomas Jefferson quote] "Government works best has least hand".
If it doesn't grow here, will grow elsewhere. What businesses are allowed in Rural Village Center? Don’t
need over-regulation on types of businesses. There should no be heavy regulations on land use. Some
things regulations are okay on.”
“I have to live 35 minutes from work to afford housing on $10/hour wage.”
“Jefferson County has the oldest population in the state. We need to provide more opportunities to
attract and retain younger residents as well.”
“How can community activists put pressure on legislature to approve funding for tri-area sewer?”
“A park employee was killed this summer walking on Hwy 101. It was his first day on the job”
“My wife and I bicycled from Port Townsend to San Diego in 2014 and the most dangerous part of that
entire 2400 mile trip was the stretch of Highway 20 between Discovery Bay and Adelma Beach. It is a
very dangerous section of the otherwise beautiful and safe Olympic Discovery Trail that is used by a lot of
bikers and needs to be addressed.”
“Jobs are the main driving force behind the desire for economic development. Economic opportunity is
scant in Jefferson County - but I personally do not live here for economic opportunity. It has been hard
work to find employment but I accept it because the existing personality of this county is far more
important to me.”
“I'd like an inexpensive pub”
“I hope there are policies in place that will keep development in check and allow for some level of public
process. My hope is that the future economic development in this area will go to support existing local
Public Outreach Summary
Comments, Surveys & Listening Logs June-November 2016
9 | P a g e
businesses, local agriculture and those who want to launch local businesses.”
“How quickly JC is changing, cost of housing is sky rocketing. To afford to live here and raise a family
here…need to find a balance of infrastructure. Housing more affordable for young people. Make it
easier for youth to be here. JC is not innovative, behind on technology.”
“Quilcene needs farm worker housing. We need to find ways to allow for smaller & less costly housing
that is safe. Tiny homes without utilities or served by a common area. More houses per acre. Economic
development would be helped with creative use of community drainfields. Water system infrastructure
needs to expand, particularly with areas prone to saltwater intrusion.”
“Housing providers increase rental rates beyond affordable 30% of income for 59% of renters.
Professional county staff turned down positions because could not find housing. Many commute from
Clallam Co. 59% of renters in the county have insecure housing and pay more than 30% of income
compared to 19% in 2000. Section 8 has a five year wait list due to no housing available.”
“Need policy around food system development. Food is central to our economy. See book "The Town
that Food Saved". Surprised that the word "food" is non-existent in the Port Townsend City
Comprehensive Plan. Need to make food that sustains us all, make it easy to grow food and make a food
hub in the county that isn't hindered [by regulation].
Conclusion
This report is a summary of all comments to date. The county will continue to accept comments
throughout the Comprehensive Plan Update process through final adoption in summer 2018. The
outreach process demonstrates key reoccurring themes citizens care about, namely that they would like
to be involved in the update, and be part of helping identify what the Comprehensive Plan can and
cannot achieve.
Public Outreach Summary
Comments, Surveys & Listening Logs June-November 2016
10 | P a g e
Appendices
Appendix A: General Survey Quantitative Responses
Appendix B: Public Comment Database (master)
Appendix C: Food System Policy Line In/Line Out and element notes
Appendix D: General Suggestions/Comments by Comprehensive Plan Element
Appendix E: Specific Goal-Related Comments by Comprehensive Plan Element
Appendix F: Fitness Test Example
Appendix G: SpeakUp Output Reports
Appendix H: Element Code Table
Appendix I: Local 2020 Climate Action Group and Transportation Lab Group Input on
Comprehensive Plan
Available under separate cover from DCD.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
December 2018
Appendix B
RESOLUTION #38-15,
POPULATION FORECAST &
ALLOCATIONS
Jefferson County
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
December 2018
Appendix C
TRANSPORTATION
TECHNICAL DOCUMENT
Carolyn Gallaway
1
Transportation Plan
Technical Document
Prepared by Jefferson County Public Works (2018) & Transpo Group (2017)
December 2018
1 County-wide ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3
1.1 Criteria Used in Transportation Decisions ............................................................................................................................ 3
1.2 Existing Conditions ......................................................................................................................................................................... 8
1.3 Land Use & Transportation Planning Method ..........................................................................................................26
2 Urban Growth Area .................................................................................................................................................... 42
2.1 Existing Conditions ....................................................................................................................................................................... 42
2.2 Transportation Projections ..................................................................................................................................................... 48
2.3 Capital Facilities ............................................................................................................................................................................. 55
2.4 Conclusion ...........................................................................................................................................................................................62
Exhibit List
Exhibit 1-1 Level of Service Definitions—Roadways ............................................................................................................. 4
Exhibit 1-2 Functional Classification—East County .............................................................................................................. 11
Exhibit 1-3 Functional Classification—West County ........................................................................................................... 12
Exhibit 1-4 Jefferson County Transportation Network—Traffic Collisions by Roadway .......................... 13
Exhibit 1-5 Average Collision Rate 2013-2016......................................................................................................................... 14
Exhibit 1-6 Bicycle & Pedestrian Collisions (2013-2016) .................................................................................................. 15
Exhibit 1-7 Jefferson Transit Routes: Ridership—June 2016 ......................................................................................... 17
Exhibit 1-8 Transit Routes ...................................................................................................................................................................... 18
Exhibit 1-9 Freight Routes ..................................................................................................................................................................... 21
Exhibit 1-10 On-Road Bicycle Routes ............................................................................................................................................. 23
Exhibit 1-11 Multi-Purpose Trails ....................................................................................................................................................... 24
December 2018 Jefferson County | Transportation Technical Document 2
Exhibit 1-12 Land Use Forecasts for County Areas ............................................................................................................... 28
Exhibit 1-13 Existing and Forecast ADT & LOS......................................................................................................................... 29
Exhibit 1-14 Existing Traffic Volumes & Level of Service .................................................................................................. 39
Exhibit 2-1 Roadway Functional Classification Descriptions ..................................................................................... 42
Exhibit 2-2 Study Intersections ......................................................................................................................................................... 45
Exhibit 2-3 Existing Intersection LOS ........................................................................................................................................... 47
Exhibit 2-4 Land Use Forecasts for UGA ..................................................................................................................................... 48
Exhibit 2-5 Intersection Delay & Level of Service................................................................................................................. 49
Exhibit 2-6 Road Segment Average Daily Trips & Level of Service ....................................................................... 50
Exhibit 2-7 Forecast 2038 Baseline & With Project Intersection Operations ................................................. 54
Exhibit 2-8 UGA Transportation Capital Project Map ...................................................................................................... 58
Exhibit 2-9 UGA Transportation Capital Project List ......................................................................................................... 59
December 2018 Jefferson County | Transportation Technical Document 3
1 County-wide
1.1 CRITERIA USED IN TRANSPORTATION
DECISIONS
The County evaluates several factors when deciding which transportation improvements should be
undertaken. These factors include whether the roadway meets the adopted level of service (LOS)
standard, identified operational and safety factors, and the County's transportation goals and
policies.
Level of Service Standards
Level of service (LOS) is a multi-dimensional measurement of the quality of service provided by the
existing transportation system. The concept of LOS has traditionally been used in transportation
planning and engineering to describe an actual or expected operating condition for a road. A lower
LOS implies worsening conditions, either as perceived by the traveler, or as a measure of efficient
movement. LOS is the desired minimal operational condition for a facility, something against which
actual conditions can be assessed. By applying LOS standards and then monitoring the actual LOS,
a jurisdiction can implement a system for establishing traffic flow objectives, prioritizing
transportation projects and funding, and directing growth of the transportation network.
LOS can be described by one or more factors, such as travel times, levels of congestion, volume of
use compared to system capacity, frequency of service, comfort and convenience, or safety. LOS
measurements can address other modes of transportation including transit or bicycles. The Growth
Management Act requires the establishment of a level of service standard as a gauge for evaluating
the performance of the existing transportation network, including roads and transit. LOS is also
used to determine whether transportation improvements or transportation services will be made
available to serve proposed development.
Vehicular Traffic—Level of Service
For roadways, LOS is typically described in terms of congestion, which may be measured by average
travel speed or vehicular density. Exhibit 1-1 provides general definitions of LOS categories typically
used by traffic engineers for roadways. Six levels of service are defined from A to F with LOS A
representing the best operating conditions and LOS F the worst.
Jefferson County’s adopted level of service standards are consistent with the standards established
by the PRTPO and the Washington State Department of Transportation. These standards are as
follows:
December 2018 Jefferson County | Transportation Technical Document 4
▶ Rural Roads (roads outside an urban boundary line) = LOS C
▶ Urban Roads (roads within an urban boundary line) = LOS D
▶ Master Planned Resort Roads (roads within an MPR boundary line) = LOS D
▶ Highways of Regional Significance (rural corridors carrying an urban level of traffic) = LOS D
The LOS standards adopted in this plan for County roadways and State Routes, including the
existing Average Daily Traffic (ADT) and the maximum ADT are shown in Exhibit 1-1 below. The
maximum ADT is considered the roadway capacity for LOS evaluation. The roadway capacity is
based on the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) (Transportation Research Board, 6th Edition) for rural
two-lane highways and urban streets. The roadway capacity considers features of the roadway, such
as number of lanes, turn lanes, shoulder width, and intersection controls. State Route capacities
were also consistent with generalized daily service volumes found in HCM.
EXHIBIT 1-1 Level of Service Definitions—Roadways
Level of Service Category Definition
Level of Service A Describes a condition of free flow with low volumes and high speeds.
Freedom to select desired speeds and to maneuver within the traffic
stream is extremely high. Stopped delay at intersections is minimal.
Volumes are less than 29% of capacity.
Level of Service B Represents reasonably unimpeded traffic flow operations at average
travel speeds. The ability to maneuver within the traffic stream is only
slightly restricted and stopped delays are not bothersome. Drivers are not
generally subjected to appreciable tensions. Volumes are between 29%
and 47% of capacity.
Level of Service C In the range of stable flow, but speeds and maneuverability are more
closely controlled by the higher volumes. The selection of speed is now
significantly affected by interactions with others in the traffic stream, and
maneuvering within the traffic stream requires substantial vigilance on
the part of the user. The general level of comfort and convenience
declines noticeably at this level. Volumes are between 47% and 68% of
capacity.
Level of Service D Represents high-density, but stable flow. Speed and freedom to
maneuver are severely restricted, and the driver or pedestrian experiences
a generally poor level of comfort and convenience. Small increases in
traffic flow will generally cause operational problems at this level.
Volumes are between 68% and 88% of capacity.
Level of Service E Represents operating conditions at or near the maximum capacity level.
Freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream is extremely difficult, and
it is generally accomplished by forcing a vehicle or pedestrian to "give
way" to accommodate such maneuvers. Comfort and convenience levels
are extremely poor, and driver or pedestrian frustration is generally high.
Operations at this level are usually unstable, because small increases in
flow or minor disturbances within the traffic stream will cause
breakdowns. Volumes are between 88% and 95% of capacity.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Transportation Technical Document 5
Level of Service Category Definition
Level of Service F Describes forced or breakdown flow, where volumes are above
theoretical capacity. This condition exists wherever the amount of traffic
approaching a point exceeds the amount which can traverse the point.
Queues form behind such locations, and operations within the queue are
characterized by stop-and-go waves which are extremely unstable.
Vehicles may progress at reasonable speeds for several hundred feet or
more, then be required to stop in a cyclic fashion. Volumes are greater
than 95% of capacity.
Currently, all County roadways and State Routes are operating at, or above, the established LOS
standards. The Exhibit below depicts existing daily traffic volumes and LOS standards for specific
County roadways and State Routes.
Transit—Level of Service
Transit service within Jefferson County is maintained and operated by Jefferson Transit Authority
(JTA), which defines the transit level of service methodology. The Transit Development Plan 2017-
2022 & 2016 Annual Report (JTA, August 2017) provides goals for the transit operations and services
which include: preserve existing system, improve safety and security, improve mobility, promote
healthy communities, protect the environment, improve efficiency of services, and promote the
economy. JTA has plans to update the Transit Comprehensive Plan which may further refine transit
levels of service methods and standards. Jefferson County defaults to JTA’s definition and findings
of transit levels of service, but will collaborate with JTA on County’s transit system service needs.
Concurrency
Background
Concurrency is one of the requirements of Washington's Growth Management Act. Concurrency
occurs when public facilities or services needed to accommodate growth and development are
provided at the time that development occurs. Transportation concurrency is intended to ensure
that transportation facilities are available to accommodate expected traffic increases resulting from
development. This will ensure orderly growth and development and avoid significant transportation
impacts such as unacceptable levels of congestion. Achieving concurrency may require
transportation improvements ranging from constructing physical improvements (e.g., wider travel
lanes or shoulders, additional travel lanes, intersection improvements, or traffic signals) to
implementing travel demand management techniques (e.g., improved transit service, rideshare
programs, or staggered shift times for larger employers).
Coordinating transportation planning and capital facility planning is an essential part of
implementing concurrency. This requires maintaining an inventory of existing transportation
facilities and their level of service, forecasting traffic growth particularly in areas designated for
intense growth and development, projecting necessary improvements and their cost, identifying
revenue sources to fund those improvements, and prioritizing improvements in the County’s Six-
December 2018 Jefferson County | Transportation Technical Document 6
Year Transportation Improvements Program. Achieving concurrency may require contributions
from developers that are commensurate with the transportation impacts generated by their
project. This issue is discussed in more detail below under Issues.
WSDOT has separated highways into two categories—highways of statewide significance (HSS) and
regionally significant highways (non-HSS). HSS routes in Jefferson County include: US 101, SR 19, SR
20, and SR 104. The LOS standards for HSS facilities are set forth by State law. State law sets LOS D
for HSS facilities in urban areas and LOS C for HSS facilities in rural areas. However, GMA explicitly
exempts HSS routes from concurrency requirements.
Issues
Jefferson County is in an unusual situation because all of the roadways identified in the
Transportation Element's analysis as requiring capacity improvements are State Routes and are,
therefore, outside of the County's jurisdiction. At the same time, these State Routes form the bulk of
the County's arterial system and are not subject to concurrency under GMA, but are integral
components of the transportation system within the County.
While Jefferson County does have needs associated with transportation facility safety, road
shoulders, pedestrian facilities, and intersection capacity, the County is currently focusing primarily
on resolving LOS issues for the State Routes within the County that are forecast to exceed capacity.
To address these LOS deficiencies matters, Jefferson County has been an active and regular
participant in the development of the Peninsula Regional Transportation Plan and regularly
coordinates with the WSDOT to help address potential impacts as new development takes place.
The analysis of capacity-related improvements has focused on equity. Two main issues have been
identified. The first concerns State Routes and the regional traffic carried by those routes through
local jurisdictions. The second concerns the scale of responsibility for achieving LOS standards.
Increases in regional traffic flow, appropriately, should not be attributed to local development.
Jefferson County has regarded the need to share the burden of addressing LOS deficiencies
between locally and regionally-generated traffic as an important point of discussion because State
Routes provide both local and regional travel routes. As regional travel routes, State Routes within
Jefferson County provide access to the Olympic Peninsula and the Pacific Ocean and, therefore, are
important links in supporting the regional economy. At the same time, developers of projects that
serve local needs should not be required to mitigate declines in LOS that result from regional traffic
growth. This is one reason Highways of Statewide Significance are exempt from local concurrency
requirements.
There are also differences between roads that have the same functional classification, but serve a
community or area differently. For example, SR 104 and SR 19 are both State Routes and principal
arterials, but SR 104 does not serve adjacent needs to the extent that SR 19 does. Local development
will affect mobility on SR 19 to a greater degree than SR 104. Maintaining through travel capacity on
SR 104 is a higher priority than on SR 19. But as growth occurs within the Irondale-Port Hadlock
UGA, the SR 19 corridor will become congested, unless appropriate improvements are made and
access controls are implemented. The LOS standards address these differences in character.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Transportation Technical Document 7
A second equity issue surrounding LOS deficiencies is the scale of responsibility -- is a small
developer as responsible for mitigation of impacts as a large developer? The resolution of this
question centers around how development review is conducted and how appropriate mitigation is
decided upon.
A strict translation of the law would place developers of all sizes equally responsible for impacts
exceeding the LOS threshold. That is, a small developer whose project generated enough trips to
exceed the threshold would be held equally responsible as a large developer. This potential inequity
could be avoided by developing a transportation impact fee program that focuses on the
proportion of impact. Without a transportation impact fee program to help mitigate the impacts of
growth, mitigation will need to continue to be obtained as part of the State Environmental Policy
Act (SEPA) process.
Conclusions
Jefferson County should continue to implement concurrency and address LOS deficiencies utilizing
the SEPA review process, which allows the County to obtain mitigation fees on the basis of
significant LOS impacts rather than a more strict "impact/no impact" approach.
Regulations would be required under either the strict or the flexible approach to concurrency.
However, under the flexible approach, the regulations are guided by policies that identify when
concurrency requirements should be implemented and focus on significant impacts requiring
mitigation. The policies would identify the criteria to be used to determine when concurrency
should be implemented. For example, a policy could state that concurrency mitigation should
occur when a development contributes more than a particular percentage of the existing traffic
volume to a roadway. On the other hand, policy could state that mitigation is required for all
developments that contribute more than a set number of Average Annual Daily Trips (AADT) to the
roadway system. Developments that generate less AADT than this would be considered to have no
mitigation responsibility.
At the policy level, careful consideration regarding the utilization of adjacent land and direct access
to highways should be made. For example, policies might aim to preserve through travel capacity as
a priority along SR 19, due to high volumes passing through to Port Townsend and the impact that
urban development within the Irondale-Port Hadlock UGA may have on the mobility of this
roadway. Typical policies could address appropriate uses adjacent to SR 19 or access management.
The Transportation Element and this Technical Document projects that no concurrency issues or
LOS deficiencies will occur on County roads during the planning period. However, other issues
relating to safety, road shoulders, pedestrian facilities, and intersection capacity for intersections
with state highways may arise.
Transportation Demand Management Strategies
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies promote travel efficiency and energy
conservation while reducing the adverse environmental impacts of the transportation system. In
addition, TDM strategies lessen the need for additional capacity improvements by decreasing
December 2018 Jefferson County | Transportation Technical Document 8
dependence on single-occupancy vehicle use and preserving capacity on existing roadways. The
additional capacity created throughout the County’s transportation system can reduce the need for
improvements. These strategies can include commute trip reduction and demand and system
management strategies, telecommuting, non-motorized travel, site design standards, ridesharing,
encouraging commercial and freight shipping during off-peak hours, staggered shift times, flexible
work schedules and public transportation.
These strategies are typically achieved through employer-based programs with technical assistance
available from WSDOT, JTA, WA Rideshare, and Transportation Choices Coalition. The Department
of Transportation also provides incentives to individual employers willing to provide a financial
benefit to employees for reducing drive-alone commuting. The County should recognize and
financially support efforts to advance TDM techniques by funding subsidized proven programs,
planning and public information towards implementing these strategies.
Safety, Maintenance, & Preservation
Safety programs seek to reduce the frequency and severity of traffic accidents through
identification of high accident locations, corridors, or elements. Maintenance and preservation
practices protect the transportation infrastructure through regular repairs as well as responding to
emergency situations such as mudslides, culvert washouts, or flooding.
1.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Jefferson County's current transportation system is divided into two main categories: motorized and
non-motorized. The motorized transportation system includes all automobile and transit travel and
freight traffic, as well as some motorized transportation modes that travel on off-road routes (e.g., air
and waterborne freight). The non-motorized transportation system includes both on-road and off-
road modes for pedestrian and bicycle travel. The non-motorized transportation system is described
in detail in the Non-motorized Transportation and Recreational Trails Plan.
This section also discusses accident data, weather-related traffic hazard areas, and emergency
service routes.
Motorized Transportation System—Vehicular
A description of the motorized transportation system in Jefferson County begins with an overview
of the roadway functional classification system. This system is a hierarchy of roadway types. Each
type is described by standards that guide the road's design, use, and travel volumes.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Transportation Technical Document 9
Roadway Functional Classification
Roadways are categorized according to their role and use in carrying vehicles. The categorization is
a hierarchy of roadways ranging from principal and minor arterials and major and minor collectors
to local access roads and streets. The different categories vary in their ability to carry traffic for long
distances, and in their ability to provide access to land uses.
Principal arterials provide the most mobility. They provide for regional and inter-regional travel,
typically carrying large volumes of through traffic, with limited direct access to abutting properties.
Minor arterials compliment and support the principal arterial systems. They provide more access to
adjacent land uses, but still function primarily to link destination points. Minor arterials tend to link
intra-city destinations instead of inter-regional.
Collectors provide more access to adjacent land uses than arterials, but they do not provide the full
access that local streets provide. These roads collect and distribute traffic between neighborhoods
and business areas, and the rest of the arterial system. They provide for easy and direct access to
abutting properties and carry low to moderate volumes of traffic. Major collectors are those
collectors that carry higher volumes of traffic directly to the arterial system. Minor collectors
typically carry lower traffic volumes directly from local access roads or from less densely populated
areas and distribute the traffic to major collectors or directly to the arterial system.
Local access roads provide direct access to abutting land uses and carry traffic to the
collector/arterial system. Local access roads typically carry low volumes of traffic, at low speeds.
Because of the generalized level of analysis provided in a comprehensive plan, the inventory for the
transportation element does not present traffic data on all local roads, only those carrying higher
volumes or linking significant collectors.
The County's road network and functional classifications are depicted in Exhibit 1-2 and Exhibit 1-3.
State Routes, roads owned and operated by the Washington State Department of Transportation,
provide for regional and interregional travel. State routes within the County are US 101 and State
Routes 19, 20, 104, and 116. They are classified according to how they function, for example, as
principal or minor arterials or collectors. US 101 and State Route 20 are classified as principal
arterials. SR 104 is a rural expressway. SR 19 is a rural minor arterial. SR 116 is classified as a major
collector.
SR 19 is designated as a Highway of Statewide Significance (HSS) while its functional classification
remains a minor arterial. This change reflects the highway’s increasing importance within the region
as an HSS route that links SR 104 to Port Townsend. Although SR 19 currently serves adjacent needs
(direct access) more readily than other principal arterials, unfavorable restrictions to mobility that
may develop through this corridor should be avoided.
The Peninsula Regional Transportation Planning Organization has designated US 101, SR 19, SR 20,
and SR 104 in Jefferson County as highways of statewide significance and SR116 as a highway of
regional significance, using criteria developed by the PRTPO. These criteria require that PRTPO
Technical Advisory Committee members agree that such corridors serve as a primary conduit
providing access and mobility.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Transportation Technical Document 10
The County Road inventory consists of 399.29 miles of County Roads Thru Lane Surface: Major Rural
Collectors = 36.35 miles; Minor Rural Collectors = 102.13 miles; Local Rural Access = 255.67 miles; and
Urban Collectors = 5.14 miles. There are also 32 County-owned bridges. This inventory does not
include City of Port Townsend streets and State Routes. All roadways and bridges maintained by the
County are evaluated and ranked for inclusion in the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP), as funding becomes available. The County resurfaces approximately 20 to 30 miles of road
annually.
Road design standards are based on a roadway’s function and use as determined by the Federal
Functional Classification System. There are numerous County Roads that are classified as rural local
access roads that, in fact, function as collectors. They provide access to commercial and industrial
developments and to dense residential neighborhoods. Generally, roads classified as rural local
access are not eligible for grant funding. Since only limited local road funds are available,
improvements to these roads are not typically funded and collector road standards are not applied
when improvement are made.
In order to provide needed improvements to these roads and ensure that appropriate standards are
applied, a local functional classification system could be developed that recognizes these
distinctions. Such a system could create additional classifications such as Residential Neighborhood
Collector and Commercial and Industrial Area Local Collector.
Many of the County's roadways have minimal, gravel shoulders except in limited locations
bordering suburban development, commercial areas, and various public facilities. In these more
developed areas, some roadways have paved shoulders and/or sidewalks in addition to an upgraded
roadway cross section. The County also has a large number of roads with unimproved, gravel
surfaces.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Transportation Technical Document 11
EXHIBIT 1-2 Functional Classification—East County
Source: Transpo Group, 2017.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Transportation Technical Document 12
EXHIBIT 1-3 Functional Classification—West County
Source: Transpo Group, 2017.
Traffic Safety
The goal of the transportation system is to move people and goods in a safe and efficient manner.
Within any region, certain locations will have a higher incidence of collisions than others due to
December 2018 Jefferson County | Transportation Technical Document 13
factors such as general physical characteristics of the roadway and speed limits. Exhibit 1-4 below
lists collisions rates for both County Roads and State Routes in Jefferson County
EXHIBIT 1-4 Jefferson County Transportation Network—Traffic Collisions by
Roadway
Roadway Length/MP ADT* 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Anderson Lake Rd 2.77 miles 1,500 0 0 0 4 4 0
Cape George Road 7.55 miles 2,300 0 0 6 3 4 3
Cedar Avenue 0.63 miles 1,000 1 0 0 0 0 0
Center Road 15.01 miles 3,100 0 0 13 11 16 4
Chimacum Road 1.57 miles 5,000 0 0 1 1 3 0
Coyle Road 14.97 miles 400 0 0 1 4 2 1
Dabob Road 5.23 miles 500 0 0 1 1 0 0
S. Discovery Rd 4.84 miles 3,000 1 1 7 6 10 2
Eaglemount Road 5.34 miles 600 0 0 1 1 1 0
Four Corners Rd 1.29 miles 2,600 0 0 0 1 1 0
Fredericks Street 0.22 miles 400 0 0 0 0 1 0
Hastings Avenue 2.80 miles 1,600 1 1 3 1 2 4
Upper Hoh Road 12.04 miles 300 0 0 0 2 2 0
Irondale Road 1.93 miles 5,400 0 0 9 5 5 0
Larson Lake Road 4.06 miles 300 0 0 0 0 1 0
Mason – Thomas –
Patison Streets
0.83 miles 900 0 0 3 0 1 0
Mill Road 0.77 miles 1,900 0 0 1 0 1 0
Oak Bay Road 9.94 miles 3,600 0 0 11 5 14 0
Oil City Road 10.98 miles 200 0 0 1 0 1 0
Paradise Bay Rd 6.00 miles 3,500 0 0 6 8 6 3
Prospect Avenue 1.38 miles 2,700 0 0 0 0 3 0
South Point Road 3.05 miles 1,100
0 0 3 0 0 0
Swansonville Rd 3.21 miles 600 0 0 2 0 1 0
Teal Lake Road 3.46 miles 300 0 0 1 2 1 0
Thorndyke Road 8.52 miles 800 0 0 6 1 2 0
West Valley Road 5.56 miles 500 0 0 2 3 3 0
SR 19 MP 0.00 – 9.10 10,000 9 18 20 17 18 25
SR 19 MP 9.10 – 11.88 13,000 8 4 11 13 7 12
December 2018 Jefferson County | Transportation Technical Document 14
Roadway Length/MP ADT* 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
SR 19 MP 11.88 – 14.09 14,000 11 6 9 15 17 10
SR 20 MP 0.00-7.79 5,200 21 19 28 20 32 20
SR 20 MP 7.79-9.78 18,000 5 9 11 8 12 14
US 101 MP 143.98-184.62 1,100 24 15 17 15 14 17
US 101 MP 274.63-314.01 6,100 49 66 58 50 71 75
SR 104 MP 0.20-14.67 10,600 34 36 16 46 57 52
SR 116 MP 0.00-1.98 6,000 10 2 1 5 6 2
SR 116 MP 1.98-9.83 1,200 7 4 1 4 7 6
N/A—Not Available
*ADT—On roads with multiple segments, the highest ADT was used
To obtain a better understanding of the collision and safety characteristics of Jefferson County,
collision data for State Route segments identified in Exhibit 1-4 was used to calculate Average
Collision Rates. This rate is based on millions of vehicle miles traveled on each segment and ADT.
This rate is easily comparable to statewide averages and State Routes with similar characteristics to
Jefferson County. The Average Collision Rate for 2013-2016 is presented in Exhibit 1-5.
EXHIBIT 1-5 Average Collision Rate 2013-2016
Roadway Milepost ADT 2013 2014 2015 2016 Average
Collision Rate
2013-2016*
SR 19 MP 0.00 – 9.10 10,000 20 17 18 25 0.65
SR 19 MP 9.10 – 11.88 13,000 11 13 7 12 0.81
SR 19 MP 11.88 – 14.09 14,000 9 15 17 10 1.13
SR 20 MP 0.00-7.79 5,200 28 20 32 20 1.69
SR 20 MP 7.79-9.78 18,000 11 8 12 14 0.91
US 101 MP 143.98-184.62 1,100 17 15 14 17 0.92
US 101 MP 274.63-314.01 6,100 58 50 71 75 0.72
SR 104 MP 0.20-14.67 10,600 16 46 57 52 0.77
December 2018 Jefferson County | Transportation Technical Document 15
Roadway Milepost ADT 2013 2014 2015 2016 Average
Collision Rate
2013-2016*
SR 116 MP 0.00-1.98 6,000 1 5 6 2 0.81
SR 116 MP 1.98-9.83 1,200 1 4 7 6 1.30
Average 0.97
*Collisions per million vehicle miles of travel
Source: WSDOT 2016 Collisions in Jefferson County; Jefferson County Collision Data Summary.
WSDOT compiles State Highway accident data for all 39 Counties in Washington. The average rate,
on State Routes in Jefferson County, in 2015 was 1.20 collisions per million vehicle miles of travel.
Statewide, in 2015, the collision rate per million vehicle miles of travel was 1.96. Compared to
statewide averages, Jefferson County currently experiences a relatively low number of collisions.
Collision rates are evaluated to determine which roadways, if any, have potential safety issues.
However, the collision data does not reveal the cause of collisions, it only indicates areas where
further investigation of may be necessary. Further investigation at collision locations helps define
the problem and appropriate solutions.
Exhibit 1-6 summarizes the number of collisions involving a bicycle or a pedestrian from 2013
through 2017 along the major roadways in Jefferson County. Few collisions involving a bicycle or a
pedestrian occurred, with less than one collision per year for all roadway segments.
EXHIBIT 1-6 Bicycle & Pedestrian Collisions (2013-2016)
Roadway Milepost ADT Bike
Collisions
Pedestrian
Collisions
SR 19 MP 0.00 – 9.10 10,000 0 0
SR 19 MP 9.10 – 11.88 13,000 2 2
SR 19 MP 11.88 – 14.09 14,000 0 3
SR 20 MP 0.00-7.79 5,200 0 0
SR 20 MP 7.79-9.78 18,000 1 0
US 101 MP 143.98-184.62 1,100 0 1
US 101 MP 274.63-314.01 6,100 2 1
SR 104 MP 0.20-14.67 10,600 0 2
SR 116 MP 0.00-1.98 6,000 1 1
SR 116 MP 1.98-9.83 1,200 1 0
December 2018 Jefferson County | Transportation Technical Document 16
Weather-Related Traffic Hazards
Inclement weather affects driving conditions, contributes to accidents, and can damage roadways.
Higher elevation areas of some roads, such as Dosewallips and Duckabush Roads, are subject to
freezing conditions. During periods of thawing, the Public Works Department installs signs
informing travelers of load-limit restrictions, because heavy loads can damage the road structure.
Some roadway segments require sanding during winter conditions, including Irondale Road, Flagler
Road/Oak Bay Road intersection, SR 19 Beaver Valley Road/Center Road/Chimacum Road
intersection, Walker Mountain above 700 feet elevation, Dosewallips and Duckabush River Roads,
and several roads in the Brinnon area. In addition, some roads are subject to flooding and washouts
during storm events. These include the Oil City Road, Quinault-South Shore Road, and Upper Hoh
Road. In the past few years, the Upper Hoh Road has experienced severe flooding and washout
damage and has been totally closed on several occasions.
Emergency Service Routes and Facilities
During emergencies or disasters, the highway system is crucial for evacuation and the delivery of
supplies. The County has developed an Emergency Management Plan (2013) that addresses
transportation issues and needs.
The Emergency Management Plan provides for actions to be taken in the event that certain
transportation systems become disabled. It requires the cooperation of various County
departments, police and sheriff's departments, the City of Port Townsend, Jefferson Transit, school
districts, and the State of Washington. Major routes of travel in the County include northbound on
SR 101; westbound on SR 104; northbound on Center Road, SR 19, and eastbound on the Ness'
Corner Road segment of SR 116.
Fire trucks, sheriff's vehicles and ambulances must also be considered as part of the evaluation of
emergency service routes. These vehicles must be able to respond to emergencies as quickly as
possible. Access to roadways by emergency vehicles, as they leave the station, as well as the road
conditions on the way to the emergency, are both safety concerns. Potential safety hazard locations
include the Fire District 1 access to SR 19 in Chimacum and the Fire District 6 access to SR 19 at
Airport Road.
Public Transit
Jefferson Transit was created in 1981 to provide transportation services primarily to transit-
dependent persons. Jefferson Transit provides service between Port Townsend and Jefferson
County communities including Port Hadlock, Port Ludlow, Quilcene, and Brinnon with additional
service to Sequim and Poulsbo. Jefferson Transit provides links to adjoining transit systems
including Island Transit, Kitsap Transit (from Route 7), Clallam Transit (from Route 8), Mason Transit
(from Route 1) and Grays Harbor Transit (West Jefferson Transit service connecting Forks and
Amanda Park along the Pacific Coast). The link with Kitsap Transit provides Transit Service to the
Washington State Ferry terminals in Bainbridge Island and Kingston. Bicycle racks are available on
all Jefferson Transit routes. Exhibit 1-7 describes the destinations, passenger trips, and ridership per
service hour for June 2016. Major transit routes are depicted in Exhibit 1-8.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Transportation Technical Document 17
EXHIBIT 1-7 Jefferson Transit Routes: Ridership—June 2016
Route Route
Number
Passenger Trips Passengers/
Service Hour
Brinnon (M-F) 1 1,665 8.46
Brennon (Sat) 1 152 8
Fort Worden (M-F) 2 1,760 15.87
Fort Worden (Sat) 2 296 17.62
Castle Hill (M-F) 3 1,687 15.21
Castle Hill (Sat) 3 251 14.94
Tri-Area A (M-F) 6 1,335 13.79
Tri-Area A (Sat) 6 82 10.73
Tri-Area B (M-F) 6 1,142 15.87
Tri-Area B (Sat) 6 98 14.33
Poulsbo (M-F) 7 2,194 11.49
Poulsbo (Sat) 7 180 10.71
Sequim (M-F) 8 1,948 11.53
Sequim (Sat) 8 72 5.47
Downtown Shuttle (M-F) 11 6,980 29.88
Downtown Shuttle (Sat) 11 1,003 28.17
West Jefferson (M-Sat) 1,667 4.1
Fixed Route Total 22,512 13.09
Dial-A-Ride (M-Sun) 1,144 2.80
Other (Specials, Contracts, Vanpools) 1,032
Total Passenger Trips 24,688
Source: Jefferson Transit, 2016.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Transportation Technical Document 18
EXHIBIT 1-8 Transit Routes
Source: Transpo Group, 2017.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Transportation Technical Document 19
Air, Waterborne, & Freight Travel
Airports
The Jefferson County International Airport (JCIA) is owned and operated by the Port of Port
Townsend. It is situated about four miles southwest of the City of Port Townsend on about 316 acres.
Its runway is about 3,000 feet in length, and over 107 aircraft are based there. The Airport is
designated as a General Aviation (GA) airport by the FAA’s National Plan of Integrated Airport
Systems (NPIAS). In 2010, the total operations equaled approximately 58,030, a small percentage of
which are air taxi and commuter service and the majority of which are general aviation flights,
Airport use is anticipated to increase in the future. The Port’s Airport Master Plan Update (July, 2014)
identifies an expansion plan to meet a 2.8% growth rate for its 107 based aircraft and to stay within
FAA requirements for safety and efficient airside and landing facilities. The Port will apply for airport
development grants for eligible components of its preferred airport layout plan. The airport is
designated and zoned as an Essential Public Facility by Jefferson County. Some airport master plan
recommendations address height, noise, and other factors. (Port of Port Townsend, 2014)
Ferry Service
Ferry service is provided by the Washington State Ferry System (WSF) to Whidbey Island via the Port
Townsend/ Coupeville ferry route, and to the greater Puget Sound through Kitsap County via the
Kingston/Edmonds, Bainbridge Island/Seattle, Bremerton/Seattle, and
Southworth/Vashon/Fauntleroy routes. The ferry service can accommodate automobiles,
pedestrians, bicyclists, kayaks, and canoes. A private carrier, Puget Sound Express and whale watch
tour operator, provides passenger-only service between Port Townsend and the San Juan Islands.
WSF service at Port Townsend is provided by a Kwa-di Tabil class ferry with capacity for 64 vehicles
and 748 pedestrians. Propelled by diesel, the primary and spare vessels have 15 knot speeds and are
susceptible to tidal and weather conditions in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Schedules vary according
to the season, with fewer crossings during the winter months. Reservations are required nearly all-
year long to secure a vehicle fare on the auto deck. Service between Port Townsend and Coupeville,
in general, begins at 6:30 a.m., with the last ferry leaving Coupeville at 9:10 p.m. Special fares are
available for registered vanpools containing seven or more regular passengers. Discounted fares are
also available to qualifying passengers with a Regional Reduced Fare Permit, Medicare card or other
identification of disability or over 65 years of age. Bicycles are surcharged a small fee. The ferry
system supports a tourism loop that runs through the North Cascades Highway. The system brings
visitors to the City of Port Townsend and experiences overloads, particularly on weekends and
holidays.
Development of additional passenger-only runs from Port Townsend to areas within greater Puget
Sound is a long-range option for Washington State Ferries or other ferry boat operators. Expanded
foot ferry service would potentially decrease auto-dependent trips within the city and increase
pedestrian, bike transportation and reliance on the JTA downtown shuttle to the regional transit
hub, Haines Place.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Transportation Technical Document 20
Freight Travel
There are three basic forms of freight travel in Jefferson County: truck, waterborne (shipping and
ferry) and air. Trucking is the predominant mode of freight transportation. Most of the total
westbound truck freight is carried over the Hood Canal Bridge, towards Port Townsend, or up US 101
through Shelton.
Washington State Ferries are also a part of the freight transport system in the County, carrying
commercial trucks from East Puget Sound via Keystone to Port Townsend.
WSDOT maintains a classification system for freight corridors statewide, including Jefferson County.
The Washington State Freight and Goods Transportation System (FGTS) classifies highways, county
roads, and city streets according to the average annual gross truck tonnage they carry. Truck
tonnage values are derived from actual or estimated truck traffic count data that is converted into
average weights by truck type.
The FGTS uses five truck classifications, T-1 through T-5, depending on the annual gross tonnage the
roadway carries. Jefferson County has roadways or roadway segments that fall into every
classification level, except for T-1.
▶ T-1: more than 10 million tons per year
▶ T-2: 4 million to 10 million tons per year
▶ T-3: 300,000 to 4 million tons per year
▶ T-4: 100,000 to 300,000 tons per year
▶ T-5: at least 20,000 tons in 60 days and less than 100,000 tons per year
Corridors with the highest annual gross tonnage, T-1 and T-2 routes, are also identified as Strategic
Freight Corridors. SR-104 and US 101 are T-2 routes that run through Jefferson County and connect
to other freeways in Washington and Oregon. Freight corridors are illustrated in Exhibit 1-9.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Transportation Technical Document 21
EXHIBIT 1-9 Freight Routes
Source: Transpo Group, 2017.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Transportation Technical Document 22
Non-motorized Transportation System
Given the rural nature of Jefferson County, travel occurs predominantly by motorized vehicle.
However, bicycle and pedestrian circulation are important transportation modes that are used by
County residents. More residents would likely use non-motorized transportation modes if adequate
and more extensive facilities were available. Many County roads lack adequate shoulders that would
make bicycling and walking safer and more enjoyable. Pedestrian facilities including sidewalks and
walking paths would improve conditions for walking to school and in densely developed areas such
as Port Hadlock. Off-road trails would provide alternative routes for non-motorized travel.
In order to fulfill policies and action items of the Transportation Element and develop a systematic
approach for providing additional non-motorized transportation facilities, a Non-motorized
Transportation and Recreational Trails Plan was adopted in 2010 in conjunction with an update of
the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan. The Non-motorized Transportation and Recreational
Trails Plan has a detailed inventory of non-motorized transportation and recreational trail facilities,
goals and policies, design standards, a list of potential projects, discussion of alternative funding
strategies, and alternative capital facilities plans. Exhibit 1-10 and Exhibit 1-11 depict existing and
proposed on-road bicycle routes and multi-purpose trails, respectively. Since the 2010 document,
additional trail plans and trail construction have occurred. The 2010 NMRTP will be updated during
its periodic review. Planning figures for trails in this appendix have been updated.
The National Recreation & Parks Association established a methodology for existing level of service
for non-motorized recreational trails as a composite of all trail miles divided by the county
population. Their recommended standard is 0.5 miles of recreational trails for every 1000
population. Jefferson County exceeds the national standard with almost a 4:1 ratio. In the adopted
2002 Non-Motorized Transportation and Recreational Trails Plan (NMRTP), the baseline existing
conditions level of service (ELOS) was 1.8 miles of trail for every 1000 residents of county owned
facilities. Since then, the popular Larry Scott Trail (4.8 mi.) and its extension to the City limits, the
Rick Tollefson Memorial Trail (1.5mi.), Olympic Discovery Trail-Segment A (0.75 mi.), Gibbs Lake Park
(5 mi.) and Undi Road Bypass (1.2 miles as part of the Pacific Northwest Trail) have been added to
the inventory of non-motorized transportation trails. In 1998, the Jefferson County Board of
Commissioners adopted an ELOS for composite non-motorized recreational trails of 0.52 miles for
every 1000 residents. With this standard and the current 2017 population estimates, Jefferson
County has exceeded the ELOS threshold. The 2038 forecast year of 39,221 population exceeds the
Jefferson County ELOS standard by a 3:1 ratio.1
The NMRTP suggests a jurisdiction such as Jefferson County with great tourism appeal can maintain
an ELOS standard within the national standard range and pursue a plan for trail growth to meet an
economic development strategy. In the NMRTP Chapter 5, a long range vision for system demand
1 It should be noted that the 2015 Jefferson County Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan (PROS) describes the adopted LOS from the 2002
NMRTP as 1.83 miles per 1,000 population, and recommends that demand standard for pathways and trails in the PROS Plan. The PROS Plan
allows the County to be grant eligible for projects. To reconcile the NMTP and PROS Plans, this Comprehensive Plan identifies the 0.52 miles per
1,000 residents as a base LOS and 1.83 miles per 1,000 residents as a target LOS, if funding allows. See Appendix D, CFP for additional analysis.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Transportation Technical Document 23
from the years 2003 to 2022 is listed with planning level estimates. An update of the NMRTP will
commence before the next Comprehensive Plan Periodic Review.
EXHIBIT 1-10 On-Road Bicycle Routes
Note: Since the 2010 document, additional trail plans and trail construction have occurred. The 2010 NMRTP will be
updated during its periodic review. Planning figures for trails in this element and the Capital Facilities plan have
been updated.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Transportation Technical Document 24
EXHIBIT 1-11 Multi-Purpose Trails
Note: Since the 2010 document, additional trail plans and trail construction have occurred. The 2010 NMRTP will be
updated during its periodic review. Planning figures for trails in this element and the Capital Facilities plan have
been updated.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Transportation Technical Document 25
Existing Roadway Deficiencies
Jefferson County has developed a systematic approach for evaluating deficiencies of transportation
facilities (roadway segments, intersections, and bridges) and ranking them in the Six Year
Transportation Improvement Program. The Road Project Priority Programming System is used to
determine what structural, design, or other characteristics may need revision to improve the
functioning of roadway facilities. The State of Washington Inventory of Bridges and Structures
(SWIBS) is used by the County to evaluate bridges. The County also has two additional rating
systems: the Gravel Road Priority Program that rates gravel roads for upgrading to chip seal and the
Safety Priority Program that rates road safety projects. These two programs are funded through the
TIP.
Road Project Priority Programming System
The Road Project Priority Programming System was developed in order to equitably balance the
various needs of the transportation system: general capital and operational needs; safety needs; non-
motorized needs; transportation planning needs; and others. The model contains three main steps.
The first, needs identification and screening, identifies a list of potential improvements from a large
number of sources. Projects identified are then screened for 1) feasibility, 2) whether they are
maintenance projects rather than capital projects, or 3) inappropriateness because they conflict with
existing County policy or they are not the best solution to the problem. Remaining projects are
grouped according to the category of project (e.g., general transportation, non-motorized needs,
safety needs, planning project, or other). The second step evaluates prospective projects using a
technical evaluation and ranking. Twenty-four criteria have been developed (e.g., accident history,
non-motorized needs, public request or complaints, Average Daily Traffic).
A point system ranging from 1 to 10 has been developed to reflect the degree of need, deficiency, or
demand. The third step is to include the policy direction of the Board of County Commissioners that
determines the weight to be applied to the criteria and how transportation revenue is to be split
between categories. The end result is a ranking of road projects within the transportation system.
This ranking provides direction for the allocation of funding available for improvement projects.
These projects are then adopted in the annual update of the County's Six-year Transportation
Improvement Program.
State of Washington Inventory of Bridges & Structures
The State of Washington Inventory of Bridges and Structures utilized by the County enables all
bridges in the State to be inventoried and rated for structural and operational deficiencies. The
bridges can then be ranked much like roadway segments and intersections (as discussed in the
preceding text). The inventory meets the requirements of the Federal Highway Administration.
The methodology used to rate bridges consists of at least bi-annual inspections that include a rating
of individual members of the bridge for conditions; a structural rating based on the bridge design;
December 2018 Jefferson County | Transportation Technical Document 26
and, for bridges over water, a scour evaluation. Functional operation is also considered in the
evaluation.
Gravel Road Priority Program
This program uses factors such as functional classification, traffic volume, accident rating, and
commercial/industrial use to prioritize the limited funds available for upgrading gravel roads to chip
seal.
Safety Priority Program
This program uses an inventory of roadway and intersection characteristics, analysis of collision
data, and a benefit/cost analysis to analyze and prioritize potential roadway safety projects.
1.3 LAND USE & TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
METHOD
Transportation planning is closely linked with land use. Traffic forecasts are built on the location and
demand of traffic generators, which are controlled by the adopted land use designations. Analysis
for this Transportation Element is consistent with the land use designations and policies of the Land
Use and UGA Elements of the Jefferson County Comprehensive plan. The analysis of the established
land use scenario and its impacts on transportation in the County is available in the Environmental
Impact Statement prepared for the Comprehensive Plan and the Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement prepared for the Comprehensive Plan 1999 Amendments.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan designates two Urban Growth Areas; Port Townsend and
Irondale-Port Hadlock. This designation permits commercial, industrial, and residential
development at an urban scale and density. The Irondale-Port Hadlock UGA Transportation Plan
provides a complete examination regarding the transportation facilities necessary to support urban
development in the UGA.
A Master Planned Resort (MPR) is a GMA designation that permits rural development at urban
densities and intensities, consistent with MPR designation criteria and any specific local conditions
of approval for a designated zone. An MPR master plan also specifies urban levels of service
standards for transportation facilities. Jefferson County has two MPRs: Pleasant Harbor Master
Planned Resort, near Brinnon, and the existing resort community of Port Ludlow, which had been
designated as a Master Planned Resort after Jefferson County began planning under GMA.
Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort designation was approved in 2008 and Development
Regulations and Development Agreement adopted in 2018. Impacts to transportation systems were
December 2018 Jefferson County | Transportation Technical Document 27
addressed in the Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, 2015, and
in the development regulations. Traffic analysis for the planning period 2018-2038 were conducted
using the Peninsula Regional Transportation Organization Model using 20-year growth forecasts are
summarized in Exhibit 1-12 below.
Commercial areas in Quilcene and Brinnon are designated as Rural Village Centers. These
established historic rural business centers will continue to serve as commercial and service centers
serving their respective surrounding communities and rural neighborhoods, and are not to be
regarded as future urban growth areas.
The type and intensity of future commercial growth within the Rural Village Centers will be
regulated so as to allow for development that serves the needs of the surrounding rural area,
including the expected needs of the projected future residential population.
The Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan requires that any future subdivision of rural
residential land not exceed 1:5, 1:10, or 1:20 acre densities. The overall land use pattern intended for
unincorporated Jefferson County outside of the Irondale-Port Hadlock UGA is rural in nature, with
rural commercial activities focused in the Rural Village Centers.
It is recognized that the County has an excess of buildable lots needed for the growth projected for
the County. A large number of these lots are located within the Irondale-Port Hadlock UGA, but are
not projected to be served by a sanitary sewer system. Many of these lots located in rural areas are at
densities greater than the densities specified in the Land Use Element. Since these lots are
recognized as existing lots of record, they can be developed provided that they meet Health
Department requirements. As these lots are developed in the future and additional traffic is
generated, transportation system improvements, including non-motorized transportation facilities,
may be necessary.
It is important to note, however, that transportation growth and needs anticipated for the County
will remain unchanged with the addition of the Irondale-Port Hadlock UGA for the near-term. This is
due to the continuing constraint placed on development in the residential areas of the UGA
through lack of sewer facilities. Therefore, designation of the UGA will have little impact on
population and transportation trends, until the sewer system is complete. The UGA Transportation
Plan analysis takes into account the introduction of the sewer system and the effect this will have
within the UGA and surrounding area. An analysis of the build-out impacts (beyond the 20-year
planning horizon) due to the Irondale-Port Hadlock UGA addition, are contained in the FSEIS for the
proposed Comprehensive Plan 1999 Amendments.
Linking Land Use & Transportation
The link between the future land uses and the transportation system is the traffic forecasting
process. The demand for transportation is considered to be a derived demand. That is, people do
not travel specifically for the sake of traveling, but travel to perform other tasks that are in different
locations. Travel is secondary and derived from the need to perform other tasks.
Land use designations and development regulations determine the locations and intensities of
these activities. These variations in potential land use influence the travel demand. The travel
December 2018 Jefferson County | Transportation Technical Document 28
forecasts conducted for this transportation analysis were based on the land use designations and
policies discussed in the Land Use and UGA Elements. This forecasting procedure is described
below.
Traffic Forecasts
Land use forecasts were used to estimate future traffic volumes for County roadways and
intersections. The Quimper Peninsula Travel Demand Model was used to forecast traffic volumes for
all roadways north of SR 104 and east of US 101, and relies on land use inputs of households and
employment to generate vehicle trips within the County. In areas outside the travel demand model,
land use growth rates were used to forecast traffic volume growth. Land use control totals were
developed for the County areas as shown in Exhibit 1-12. These forecasts are based on Resolution 38-
15, which set population totals for the area. The land use for 2007 for households and employment
were based on the 2007 Quimper Peninsula Travel Demand Model land use data sets. Future
forecasts for households were based on the compounded annual growth rates from Resolution 38-
15. The forecast for employment were factored from the household forecast based on job-to-
housing ratios from Appendix C of the Quimper Peninsula Travel Demand Model Documentation
(Transpo Group, 2008). Exhibit 1-12 below lists the resulting land use control totals for County areas.
EXHIBIT 1-12 Land Use Forecasts for County Areas
Household Units1 Employment Units2
Area 2007 2018 2038 CAGR3 2007 2018 2038 J/H4
Port Townsend 4,643 5,254 8,046 1.13 5,451 6,221 10,120 1.26
North Peninsula 1,270 1,361 1,775 0.63 649 699 1,358 0.55
Mid-Peninsula 1,692 1,813 2,292 0.63 927 994 1,681 0.55
Port Hadlock UGA 1,230 1,446 2,566 1.48 1,007 1,206 2,364 0.92
South Peninsula 1,644 1,762 2,225 0.63 229 294 418 0.55
Port Ludlow MPR 1,328 1,499 2,250 1.11 330 371 546 0.24
Rural Jefferson
County
3,670 3,859 4,375 0.63 2,018 2,122 2,406 0.55
Total 15,477 16,994 23,528 10,611 11,907 18,893
Sources: Resolution 38-15; Jefferson County.
1 Household forecasts based on Compounded Annual Growth Rate from resolution 38-15
2 Employment forecasts based on Compounded Annual Growth Rate from resolution 38-15, and job-to-housing
ratio found in Quimper Peninsula Travel Demand Model Documentation (Transpo Group, 2008), Appendix C
3 Compounded Annual Growth Rate
4 Jobs-to-Housing Ratio
Traffic forecasts were based on the Quimper Peninsula Travel Demand Model as discussed above.
The model uses land use units of households and employment to forecast traffic volumes on the
transportation network. The model accounts for commuting trips between home and business,
shopping and school trips, as well as other trips. These model volumes were post-processed
according to industry standards for use in LOS analyses.
The traffic forecasts are shown in Exhibit 1-13 Existing and Forecast ADT and LOS. It depicts State
Routes and selected County Road segments, adopted LOS standards, road capacity in Average Daily
December 2018 Jefferson County | Transportation Technical Document 29
Traffic (ADT) at the adopted LOS standard, 2016 ADT, 2038 ADT, 2016 LOS, and 2038 LOS. Existing
ADT and LOS for selected State Routes and County Roads are also depicted on Exhibit 1-14Existing
Traffic Volumes and Level of Service.
EXHIBIT 1-13 Existing and Forecast ADT & LOS
Planning
Area
Roadway From To LOS Roadway
Capacity
2016
ADT
2016
LOS
2038
ADT
2038
LOS
Discovery
Bay
Gardiner
Highway
101
Jefferson/
Clallam CL
Old
Gardiner
Rd
D 27,000 13,0
00
C 14,950 C
Highway
101
Old
Gardiner
Rd
Store Rd D 27,000 13,0
00
C 14,950 C
Highway
101
Store Rd SR 20 D 27,000 9,10
0
B 13,750 C
Highway
101
SR 20 SR 104 D 27,000 2,60
0
A 4,000 A
SR 104 Hwy 101 Center Rd D 27,000 8,90
0
B 14,50
0
C
SR 20 Hwy 101 Eaglemon
t Rd
D 16,000 5,20
0
B 5,950 B
SR 20 Eaglemon
t Rd
Anderson
Lake Rd
D 17,000 5,20
0
B 6,900 B
SR 20 Anderson
Lake Rd
Four
Corners
Rd
D 21,000 5,20
0
A 7,550 B
Gardiner
Beach Rd
Clallam
County
Line
Old
Gardiner
C 16,000 200 A 250 A
Gardiner
Beach Rd
Old
Gardiner
SR 101 C 16,000 300 A 350 A
W. Uncas
Rd
Hwy 101 Hwy 101 C 17,000 100 A 100 A
Leland/
Quilcene
Highway
101
SR 104 Leland
Valley Rd
D 27,000 2,40
0
A 2,750 A
Highway
101
Leland
Valley Rd
Lords Lake
Loop Rd
D 27,000 2,40
0
A 2,750 A
Highway
101
Lords Lake
Loop Rd
Quilcene
City Limit
D 27,000 3,10
0
A 3,550 A
Highway
101
Quilcene
City Limit
Center Rd D 27,000 3,10
0
A 3,550 A
Highway
101
Center Rd Washingt
on St
D 27,000 5,50
0
A 6,300 A
Highway
101
Washingt
on St
Penny
Creek Rd
D 27,000 4,20
0
A 4,800 A
Highway
101
Penny
Creek Rd
Buckhorn
Rd
D 27,000 3,00
0
A 3,450 A
December 2018 Jefferson County | Transportation Technical Document 30
Planning
Area
Roadway From To LOS Roadway
Capacity
2016
ADT
2016
LOS
2038
ADT
2038
LOS
Center Rd Hwy 101 Dabob Rd
S. End
C 18,000 3,10
0
A 3,650 A
Center Rd Dabob Rd
S. End
SR 104 C 18,000 3,10
0
A 3,650 A
Dabob Rd Dabob
P.O. Rd
Center Rd C 17,000 500 A 600 A
E. Columbia
St
Center Rd Hwy 101 C 15,000 600 A 700 A
E. Quilcene
Rd
Center Rd Lindsey
Hill Rd
C 15,000 500 A 600 A
E. Quilcene
Rd
Lindsey
Hill Rd
McDonald
Rd
C 16,000 100 A 100 A
Leland
Valley Rd
Hwy 101 Leland
Cut-off
C 16,000 100 A 100 A
Leland
Valley Rd
Leland
Cut-off
Hwy 101
(south)
C 16,000 100 A 100 A
Lindsey Hill
Rd
E.
Quilcene
Rd
Lindsey
Beach
C 16,000 100 A 100 A
Linger
Longer Rd
Hwy 101 End C 16,000 600 A 700 A
Lords Lake
Loop Rd
Hwy 101 Lords Lake C 16,000 100 A 100 A
Lords Lake
Loop Rd
Lords Lake Snow
Creek Rd
C 16,000 200 A 250 A
Penny
Creek Rd
Hwy 101 National
Forest
Boundary
C 16,000 100 A 100 A
Snow Creek
Rd
Hwy 101 National
Forest
Boundary
C 17,000 200 A 250 A
Washington
St
Hwy 101 Hwy 101 C 16,000 300 A 350 A
Brinnon
Highway
101
Buckhor
n Rd
Bee Mill
Rd
D 27,000 3,000 A 3,450 A
Highway
101
Bee Mill
Rd
Dosewalli
ps Rd
D 27,000 3,000 A 3,450 A
Highway
101
Dosewalli
ps Rd
Mt.
Jupiter
Rd
D 27,000 3,100 A 3,550 A
Highway
101
Mt.
Jupiter
Rd
Duckabu
sh Rd
D 27,000 2,500 A 2,850 A
Highway
101
Duckabu
sh Rd
Seamoun
t Dr
D 27,000 2,500 A 2,850 A
December 2018 Jefferson County | Transportation Technical Document 31
Planning
Area
Roadway From To LOS Roadway
Capacity
2016
ADT
2016
LOS
2038
ADT
2038
LOS
Highway
101
Seamoun
t Dr
Mason/Je
fferson
C.L.
D 27,000 2,100 A 2,400 A
Bee Mill Rd Hwy 101 Point
Whitney
Rd
C 16,000 300 A 350 A
Black Point
Rd
Hwy 101 Fulton
Lake
C 17,000 200 A 250 A
Dosewallip
s Rd
Hwy 101 National
Forest
Boundar
y
C 16,000 100 A 100 A
Duckabush
Rd
Hwy 101 National
Forest
Boundar
y
C 17,000 300 A 350 A
Forest Dr Hwy 101 End C 15,000 100 A 100 A
Mt. Jupiter
Rd
Hwy 101 National
Forest
Boundar
y
C 16,000 100 A 100 A
Point
Whitney
Rd
Bee Mill
Rd
End C 17,000 100 A 100 A
Seamount
Dr
Hwy 101 Forest
Service
Rd
C 15,000 100 A 100 A
Tri-Area
SR 116/
Ness
Corner Rd
Rhody
Rd
Irondale
Rd
D 21,000 6,000 A 8,500 B
SR 116/ Oak
Bay Rd
Irondale
Rd
Flagler
Rd
D 21,000 6,000 A 8,500 B
SR 116/
Flagler Rd
Oak Bay
Rd
Indian
Island
Annex
Rd
D 16,000 2,600 A 2,900 A
SR 19/
Airport
Cut-off
SR 20 Four
Corners
D 24,000 14,00
0
C 21,35
0
E
SR 19/
Rhody Dr
Four
Corners
SR
116/Ness
Corner
Rd
D 21,000 13,00
0
C 18,85
0
E
SR 19/
Rhody Dr
SR 116/
Ness
Corner
Rd
Center
Rd
D 21,000 10,00
0
C 12,00
0
C
Anderson
Lake Rd
SR 20 Rhody
Dr/SR 19
C 21,000 1,500 A 2,050 A
December 2018 Jefferson County | Transportation Technical Document 32
Planning
Area
Roadway From To LOS Roadway
Capacity
2016
ADT
2016
LOS
2038
ADT
2038
LOS
Cedar Ave SR 116/
Ness
Corner
Rd
Irondale
Rd
D 17,000 1,000 A 1,900 A
Chimacum
Rd
Beaver
Valley
Rd/ SR 19
Elkins
Road
C 17,000 5,000 B 7,600 B
Chimacum
Rd
Elkins
Road
Oak Bay
Road
D 21,000 5,000 A 8,050 B
E. Maude
St
5th Ave 7th Ave D 16,000 300 A 450 A
Four
Corners
SR 20 Airport
Cut-off/
SR 19
C 17,000 2,600 A 4,000 A
Tri-Area
(Continued
)
Irondale
Rd
Rhody
Rd/SR 19
Patison
Street
D 18,000 5,400 B 10,40
0
C
Irondale
Rd
Patison
St
SR
116/Ness
Corner
Rd
D 17,000 5,100 B 10,50
0
C
Kala Point
Rd
Prospect
Rd
Kala
Point
Develop
ment
C 17,000 2,000 A 2,750 A
Lower
Hadlock
Rd
Oak Bay
Rd/ SR
116
Water St D 16,000 500 A 900 A
Mason St Cedar
Ave
Thomas
Dr
D 18,000 900 A 1,950 A
Oak Bay
Rd
Sentinal
Firs Rd
Flagler
Rd/SR 116
C 17,000 2,500 A 3,550 A
Patison St S. 7th St Irondale
Rd
D 17,000 800 A 900 A
Prospect
Ave
Airport
Cut-off/
SR 19
Kala
Point Dr
D 21,000 2,700 A 3,750 A
S. 7th Ave Thomas
Dr
Patison
St
D 16,000 500 A 1,000 A
Thomas Dr Mason St S. 7th
Ave
D 16,000 600 A 1,250 A
5th Ave Irondale
Rd
E. Maude
St
D 15,000 800 A 1,650 A
7th Ave Irondale
Rd
W.
Swaney
St.
D 16,000 900 A 1,700 A
3rd St Cedar
Ave
Irondale
Rd
D 16,000 300 A 450 A
December 2018 Jefferson County | Transportation Technical Document 33
Planning
Area
Roadway From To LOS Roadway
Capacity
2016
ADT
2016
LOS
2038
ADT
2038
LOS
Central/
Inland
Valley
SR 104 Center
Rd
Beaver
Valley
Rd/SR 19
D 27,000 8,900 B 13,85
0
C
SR 19/
Beaver
Valley Rd
Center
Rd
Swanson
ville Rd
D 21,000 7,100 B 10,90
0
C
SR 19/
Beaver
Valley Rd
Swanson
ville Rd
Larson
Lake Rd
D 21,000 6,400 B 9,900 C
SR 19/
Beaver
Valley Rd
Larson
Lake Rd
Oak Bay
Rd
D 21,000 6,400 B 9,850 B
SR 19/
Beaver
Valley Rd
Oak Bay
Rd
SR 104 D 21,000 6,400 B 9,750 B
Center Rd SR 104 Eaglemo
nt Rd
C 18,000 2,600 A 3,550 A
Center Rd Eaglemo
nt Rd
Egg and I
Rd
C 18,000 2,600 A 3,550 A
Center Rd Egg and I
Rd
Beaver
Valley
Rd/SR 19
C 18,000 3,100 A 4,250 A
Eaglemou
nt Rd
SR 20 Center
Rd
C 17,000 600 A 800 A
Egg & I Rd W. Valley
Rd
Center
Rd
C 15,000 200 A 350 A
Egg & I Rd Center
Rd
Beaver
Valley
Rd/SR 19
C 15,000 400 A 550 A
Larson
Lake Rd
Center
Rd
Beaver
Valley
Rd/SR 19
C 16,000 300 A 400 A
Sandy
Shore Rd
SR 104 Larson
Lake Rd
C 15,000 100 A 150 A
W. Valley
Rd
Eaglemo
nt Rd
Rhody
Dr/SR 19
C 21,000 500 A 750 A
Quimper/
Glen Cove
SR 20 Four
Corners
Rd
SR
19/Airport
Cut-off
D 21,000 5,200 A 6,600 B
SR 20 SR
19/Airpor
t Cut-off
Mill/Disc
overy Rd
D 24,000 18,00
0
D 26,70
0
F
Carrol Ave Glen
Cove Rd
S. 8th St C 10,000 300 A 400 A
Fredericks
St
SR 20 Otto St C 10,000 400 A 600 A
Glen Cove
Rd
North
Otto St
Carrol
Ave
C 10,000 300 A 400 A
December 2018 Jefferson County | Transportation Technical Document 34
Planning
Area
Roadway From To LOS Roadway
Capacity
2016
ADT
2016
LOS
2038
ADT
2038
LOS
Mill Rd SR 20 Paper
Mill
C 10,000 1,900 A 4,400 B
North Otto
St
Frederick
s St
Glen
Cove Rd
C 10,000 400 A 500 A
Otto St Frederick
s St
Seton Rd C 10,000 600 A 800 A
Seton Rd. SR 20 Otto St C 10,000 1,100 A 1,650 A
Thomas St SR 20 Paper
Mill
C 10,000 800 A 1,700 A
S. 8th St Carrol
Ave
Mill Rd C 10,000 300 A 400 A
Quimper
Cape
George Rd
Discovery
Rd
Beckett
Point Rd
C 16,000 2,000 A 2,850 A
Cape
George Rd
Beckett
Point Rd
Hastings
Ave W
C 16,000 2,300 A 3,250 A
Cape
George Rd
Hastings
Ave W
Discovery
Rd
C 16,000 800 A 1,100 A
Cook Ave
Extension
Hastings
Ave W
City Limit D 16,000 1,100 A 3,500 A
Discovery
Rd S
SR 20 Cape
George
Rd
(south)
C 17,000 3,000 A 5,050 B
Discovery
Rd S
Cape
George
Rd
(south)
Cape
George
Rd
(north)
C 16,000 1,400 A 2,600 A
Discovery
Rd S
Cape
George
Rd
(north)
SR 20 C 17,000 2,700 A 4,000 A
Hastings
Ave W
Cape
George
Rd
N Jacob
Miller Rd
C 16,000 1,600 A 2,100 A
Hastings
Ave W
S. Jacob
Miller Rd
City
Limits
C 15,000 2,500 A 3,850 A
Hastings
Ave W
City
Limits
F St D 15,000 2,500 A 5,150 B
S Jacob
Miller Rd
Hastings
Rd
SR 20 C 17,000 1,800 A 2,300 A
Shine/
Paradise
Bay
SR 104 Beaver
Valley
Rd/SR 19
Teal Lake
Rd
D 27,000 15,00
0
C 23,35
0
D
SR 104 Teal Lake
Rd
Paradise
Bay Rd
D 27,000 15,00
0
C 23,35
0
D
December 2018 Jefferson County | Transportation Technical Document 35
Planning
Area
Roadway From To LOS Roadway
Capacity
2016
ADT
2016
LOS
2038
ADT
2038
LOS
SR 104 Paradise
Bay Rd
Kitsap/Je
fferson
C.L.
D 27,000 18,00
0
C 27,70
0
F
Andy
Cooper Rd
Teal Lake
Rd
Paradise
Bay Rd
C 16,000 100 A 100 A
Paradise
Bay Rd
SR 104 Andy
Cooper
Rd
C 17,000 2,800 A 4,000 A
Paradise
Bay Rd
Andy
Cooper
Rd
Watson
Rd
C 17,000 2,900 A 4,250 A
Shine Rd SR 104 Teal Lake
Rd
C 17,000 300 A 400 A
South
Point Rd
SR 104 Thorndyk
e Rd
C 17,000 1,100 A 1,400 A
Teal Lake
Rd
SR 104 Andy
Cooper
Rd
C 15,000 500 A 800 A
Thorndyke
Rd
Milepost
2
South
Point Rd
C 17,000 800 A 1,050 A
Marrow-
stone
SR 116/
Flagler Rd
Indian
Island
Annex
Rd
Robbins
Rd
C 16,000 1,600 A 1,850 A
SR 116/
Flagler Rd
Robbins
Rd
Schwartz
Rd
C 16,000 1,100 A 1,250 A
SR 116/
Flagler Rd
Schwartz
Rd
Fort Gate
Rd
C 16,000 400 A 450 A
E. Beach
Rd
SR 116/
Flagler
Rd
E.
Marrowst
one Rd
C 17,000 200 A 250 A
E.
Marrowsto
ne Rd
Robbins
Rd
E. Beach
Park Dr
C 16,000 300 A 350 A
Robbins
Rd
Flagler
Rd/ SR
116
E.
Marrowst
one Rd
C 17,000 400 A 450 A
Coyle
Coyle Rd Dabob
P.O. Rd
Camp
Discovery
Rd
C 16,000 400 A 450 A
Coyle Rd Camp
Discovery
Rd
Thorndyk
e Rd
C 16,000 400 A 450 A
Coyle Rd Thorndyk
e Rd
Camp
Harmony
Rd
C 16,000 500 A 600 A
December 2018 Jefferson County | Transportation Technical Document 36
Planning
Area
Roadway From To LOS Roadway
Capacity
2016
ADT
2016
LOS
2038
ADT
2038
LOS
Coyle Rd Camp
Harmony
Rd
Hazel
Point Rd
C 17,000 400 A 450 A
Dabob Rd Center
Rd
Old
Tarbo Rd
C 17,000 500 A 600 A
Dabob Rd Old
Tarbo Rd
Dabob
P.O. Rd
C 15,000 300 A 350 A
Dabob P.O.
Rd
Dabob
Rd
Coyle C 15,000 600 A 700 A
Hazel
Point Rd
Coyle Rd Bay C 16,000 100 A 100 A
Thorndyke
Rd
Coyle Rd Milepost
2
C 17,000 800 A 900 A
Zelatched
Point Rd
Coyle Rd End C 16,000 100 A 100 A
Port
Ludlow/ N.
Port
Ludlow
Highland
Dr
Teal Lake
Rd
End D 17,000 800 A 1,200 A
Oak Bay
Rd
Beaver
Valley
Rd/ SR 19
Paradise
Bay Road
D 16,000 3,600 A 5,500 B
Oak Bay
Rd
Paradise
Bay Rd
Olympus
Blvd
D 17,000 3,600 A 5,050 B
Oak Bay
Rd
Olympus
Blvd
Olele Pt
Rd
D 17,000 3,600 A 4,700 A
Oak Bay
Rd
Olele Pt
Rd
Sentinal
Firs Rd
D 17,000 3,600 A 5,200 B
Osprey
Ridge Rd
Walker
Way
Oak Bay
Rd
D 17,000 1,100 A 1,550 A
Paradise
Bay Rd
Watson
Rd
Oak Bay
Rd
D 17,000 3,500 A 4,900 A
Pioneer Dr Swanson
ville Rd
Swanson
ville Rd
D 16,000 400 A 700 A
Swansonvil
le Rd
Beaver
Valley/
SR 19
Oak Bay
Rd
D 16,000 600 A 1,000 A
Teal Lake
Rd
Andy
Cooper
Rd
Paradise
Bay Rd
D 18,000 300 A 450 A
Walker
Way
Oak Bay
Rd
Osprey
Ridge Rd
D 17,000 800 A 1,150 A
West End
Highway
101
Jefferson
/Grays
Harbor
C.L.
Clearwat
er Rd
D 27,000 1,100 A 1,250 A
December 2018 Jefferson County | Transportation Technical Document 37
Planning
Area
Roadway From To LOS Roadway
Capacity
2016
ADT
2016
LOS
2038
ADT
2038
LOS
Highway
101
Clearwat
er Rd
Jefferson
/Grays
Harbor
C.L.
D 27,000 1,100 A 1,250 A
Highway
101
Jefferson
/Grays
Harbor
C.L.
Lower
Hoh Rd
D 27,000 1,100 A 1,250 A
Highway
101
Lower
Hoh Rd
Oil City
Rd
D 27,000 1,300 A 1,500 A
Highway
101
Oil City
Rd
Upper
Hoh Rd
D 27,000 1,500 A 1,700 A
Highway
101
Upper
Hoh Rd
Jefferson
/Clallam
C.L.
D 27,000 1,500 A 1,700 A
Clearwater
Rd
Hwy 101 End of
county
section
C 16,000 100 A 100 A
Clearwater
Rd
End of
county
section
Owl
Creek Rd
C 16,000 100 A 100 A
Clearwater
Rd
Owl
Creek Rd
Hwy 101 C 18,000 100 A 100 A
Lower Hoh
Rd
Hwy 101 Hoh
Village
C 16,000 200 A 250 A
Maple
Creek Rd
Owl
Creek Rd
End C 16,000 100 A 100 A
Oil City Rd Hwy 101 Goodma
n
Mainline
C 16,000 200 A 250 A
Oil City Rd Goodma
n
Mainline
National
Park
C 16,000 200 A 250 A
Owl Creek
Rd
Clearwat
er Rd
Maple
Creek Rd
C 16,000 100 A 100 A
Queets
River Rd
Hwy 101 Salmon
River Rd
C 16,000 100 A 150 A
Queets
River Rd
Salmon
River Rd
End C 16,000 100 A 150 A
Quinault-S.
Shore Rd
Grays
Harbor
Rd
National
Park
C 16,000 100 A 100 A
Upper Hoh
Rd
Hwy 101 Oscar
Peterson
Rd
C 17,000 300 A 350 A
Upper Hoh
Rd
Oscar
Peterson
Rd
Maple
Creek Rd
C 16,000 200 A 250 A
December 2018 Jefferson County | Transportation Technical Document 38
Planning
Area
Roadway From To LOS Roadway
Capacity
2016
ADT
2016
LOS
2038
ADT
2038
LOS
Upper Hoh
Rd
Maple
Creek Rd
National
Park
C 16,000 200 A 250 A
Source: Existing ADT Counts WSDOT and Jefferson County Traffic Counts from 2016, 2015, and 2014.
Forecast 2038 ADT based on growth rates defined in Traffic Forecast Section Above
Roadway Capacity based on Exhibit 15-46 in HCM 2010, and estimates developed by Transpo Group.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Transportation Technical Document 39
EXHIBIT 1-14 Existing Traffic Volumes & Level of Service
Source; Transpo Group, 2017.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Transportation Technical Document 40
Transportation Element Recommendations
Based on the policies of the Transportation Element and the Capital Facilities and Utilities Element,
Jefferson County requires concurrency only for County-owned transportation facilities. Analysis of
other transportation facilities is provided, but concurrency is not required.
Based on the level of service standards set forth in this Element and the projected impact of the
land use designations and policies on the transportation system, this Transportation Element
provides the following findings and recommendations:
Capacity Analysis
Motorized Transportation System—Vehicular
The capacity analysis and traffic forecasts indicate that at the planning horizon year of 2038, all
County roads are expected to operate at or above the adopted level of service (LOS) standard.
However, if any proposed development were to cause the level of service to significantly fall below
adopted levels, the proponents of the development would be required to mitigate the deficiency
prior to development approval.
A number of State Route segments will exceed their estimated capacity based on the level of
service standards established by WSDOT and the PRTPO, and the roadway LOS methodology
adopted by the County. These LOS standards are based on roadway classification. For this analysis,
the roadways within the UGA were assumed to be classified as urban (which increases the LOS
standard from LOS C to LOS D). It should be noted that they are currently classified as rural under
WSDOT standards. State highways that are forecast to not meet LOS standards within the planning
period include:
▶ SR 104 (Paradise Bay Road to Jefferson/Kitsap County Line)
▶ SR 19 (SR 116 to SR 20)
The LOS analysis performed utilized a roadway capacity analysis that evaluated classified roadways
throughout the County. Individual intersections were only analyzed within the County’s Tri-Area
UGA, and the results of the analysis are presented in the UGA Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan.
The Peninsula Regional Transportation Planning Organization utilized a similar methodology and
process for evaluating traffic forecasts and levels of service. However, it differed from the County as
it utilized directional PM peak hour roadway capacities instead of total daily volume capacities. The
differences in LOS methodology resulted in the following additional state highway segments
exceeding capacity:
▶ SR 104 (Eastbound direction from SR 19 to Paradise Bay Road)
▶ US 101 (Both directions from SR 104 to SR 20)
▶ SR 20 (Thomas Street to Kearney Street)
December 2018 Jefferson County | Transportation Technical Document 41
The state highway system is owned and maintained by WSDOT and serves regional and statewide
travel needs. While several roadway segments of the state highway system through Jefferson
County are expected to exceed adopted state LOS standards, further widening of the corridors to
accommodate future demand would require significant investments in capital dollars, impact
adjoining property owners, and would be beyond the financial capacity of Jefferson County. See
prior discussion in the concurrency section on strategies for addressing needs along State Routes.
Motorized Transportation System—Transit, Airports, Ferry Service, & Freight Travel
JTA has identified in the Transit Development Plan 2017-2022 & 2016 Annual Report (JTA, August
2017) capital improvements that are needed to maintain current services (replacement of vehicles
over defined time periods) or to improve facilities and communication tools. These are intended to
maintain the current levels of transit service with regard to transit operations. More details on transit
capacity analysis and changes to levels of service may be provided as JTA updates its Transit
Comprehensive Plan.
Capacity-related projects for airports and port facilities are presented in the Port of Port Townsend’s
Capital Improvements Plan. Freight service is partially addressed in this Element through the
evaluation of State Routes and County Roads. Air freight and port-related freight services are
addressed by the Port of Port Townsend.
Capacity Analysis
Non-motorized Transportation System
As part of the Non-motorized Transportation Plan, a standard of providing 0.5 miles of
multipurpose trail per 1,000 residents is established for Jefferson County. As of the 2010 Non-
motorized Plan, there were 48.2 miles of multipurpose trail, and a 2010 population of 29,872,
resulting in roughly 1.6 miles of trail per 1,000 residents.
In 2038, the forecast population is 39,221 and will result in approximately 1.2 miles of trail per 1,000
residents, still above the 0.5 miles per 1,000 residents required.
Non-Capacity Analysis
Motorized Transportation System—Vehicular
Detailed information regarding non-capacity-related motorized transportation system projects is
contained in the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program.
Non-motorized Transportation System
Detailed information regarding non-capacity-related non-motorized transportation and
recreational trail projects can be found in the Non-Motorized Transportation and Recreational Trails
Plan.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Transportation Technical Document 42
2 Urban Growth Area
2.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Functional Classification
The roadways and highways in the Irondale -Port Hadlock UGA have been identified according to
functional classification. The functional classification system is based on a road's ability to provide
either mobility or access to adjacent land. There are five road classes used to describe roads:
principal arterials, minor arterials, major collectors, minor collectors, and local roads. These classes
are further defined by specifying whether the road is part of an urban or rural roadway system.
Exhibit 2-1 provides a brief description of the roadway functional classification system. Exhibit 2-1 is
based on WSDOT publication, Guidelines for Amending Urban Boundaries, Functional
Classifications and Federal Aid Systems.
As stated above, mobility is a key component in the functional classification system. When
reviewing a regional road system, it is important to note that arterials provide the most mobility in
the functional classification system. Arterials connect major destination points such as cities and
communities.
Principal arterials and minor arterials are distinguished by the importance of the destination, and
the priority given to mobility. Collectors serve as the link between arterials and local streets. They
gather (or collect) traffic from the smallest streets (local access) and direct the traffic onto the
arterial system. Local streets are those which provide direct access to property and consequently
provide more limited mobility. For local streets, mobility is not considered as important as access to
land uses.
Roadway spacing and design standards are directly related to the functional classification of the
road. In addition, right -of -way width requirements, lane widths, design speed and other similar
characteristics are all related to a roadway's functional classification. Exhibit 1-2 illustrates the
updated functional classification of roadways in the UGA. It is noted that SR19 has been designated
as a Highway of Statewide Significance (HSS) and the functional classification will change from a
minor arterial to a principal arterial. This change reflects the highway's increasing importance for
the region and as an HSS route that links SRI 04 to Port Townsend.
EXHIBIT 2-1 Roadway Functional Classification Descriptions
Functional
Class
Urban
(5,000 population or more)
Rural
Principal Arterial Serves regional major activity areas.
Carries all inter-urban and significant
intra-urban auto and transit trips.
Carries statewide or interstate travel.
Serves most urban areas with
populations of at least 25,000.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Transportation Technical Document 43
Functional
Class
Urban
(5,000 population or more)
Rural
Offers most mobility, least land access.
Fully or partially controlled access.
Provides an integrated network.
Minor Arterial Interconnects and augments principal
arterials.
Distributed travel to areas smaller than
those associated with major arterials.
Places more emphasis on land access
than principal arterials.
Links cities, larger towns, and major
activity areas (e.g. resorts).
Forms integrated network of
providing interregional and inter-
county service.
Spaced so that all developed areas
are within reasonable distance of
arterial highway.
Provide for high travel speed with
minimum interference to through
movement.
Major Collector Provides both land access and traffic
circulation within residential area.
Provides intra-community continuity but
doesn’t penetrate identifiable
neighborhoods.
Carries local bus routes.
Provides service to county seats and
major towns.
Links county seats and major towns
with nearby cities and arterials
Serves the more important intra-
county travel
Minor Collector Collects traffic from local system and
channels it to arterials.
Provides both land access and traffic
circulation within residential
neighborhoods, commercial areas, and
industrial areas.
Collects traffic from local roads.
Provides for all developed areas to be
near collector road.
Provides service to smaller
communities.
Link locally important traffic
generators with their rural hinterland.
Local Provides direct access to abutting land
and access to higher classified cities.
Offers least mobility.
Usually contains no bus routes.
Through traffic deliberately discouraged.
Serves primarily to provide access to
adjacent land.
Provides service to travel over
relatively short distances.
Traffic Volumes & Level of Service
Exhibit 2-6 illustrates existing average daily traffic '(ADT) volumes at several locations within the
study area. The most heavily traveled roadways within the UGA include SR19, SR 116 and Irondale
Road. Existing traffic volumes are about 14,000 vehicles per day (vpd) on SR 19, 6,00Exhibit 2-60
vpd on SR 116 and 5,400 vpd on Irondale Road. As vehicle volumes fluctuate at various locations
along a roadway, level of service analysis was performed at locations where the ADT volumes were
the highest.
Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure that combines the features of speed, safety, travel
time, comfort, convenience and traffic 'interruptions. Creation of the Irondale-Port Hadlock UGA
changes the UGA land use designation from rural to urban. One of the impacts of this change is a
concurrent change in the level of service standard for roadways in the Urban Growth Area. See
Exhibit 1-1 for roadway level of service definitions. The level of service standard in Jefferson County
for rural roadways is LOS C, and in an urban area is LOS D. This difference reflects the understanding
that higher volumes of traffic are expected in urban areas because of a concentration of economic
activities and higher residential densities. These higher levels of congestion are considered
acceptable during peak hours.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Transportation Technical Document 44
In 1998 the Washington State legislature passed House Bill 1487 that separated state highways into
two categories: Highways of Statewide Significance (HSS) and Regionally Significant Highways (RS).
This bill authorizes WSDOT to set level of service standards on Highways of Statewide Significance.
SR 19 is designated as a HSS. The Level of Service standard for SR 19 is LOS D and is established by
WSDOT.
Existing roadway traffic volumes were measured by Jefferson County and obtained from WSDOT’s
annual traffic report. SR 19 currently operates at LOS C, an acceptable level for the Urban Growth
Area. Outside of the UGA boundary, SR 19 continues to operate at LOS C or better. Exhibit 2-6 shows
current Level of Service designations for roadways within the Irondale-Port Hadlock UGA.
In addition to roadway LOS, intersection LOS analysis was conducted for twelve intersections within
and surrounding the Irondale-Port Hadlock UGA, as shown on Exhibit 2-2. In urban areas, sources of
congestion and delay are typically first experienced at intersections because as volumes increase on
State Routes or County roadways, it can be difficult to gain access to and from adjoining properties.
Additionally, intersection control can degrade overall capacity of both State Routes and County
roadways. As a result, a comprehensive evaluation of key intersections throughout the UGA was
completed.
The intersection operations as a whole and individual turning movements can be described
alphabetically with a LOS range of A through F. LOS A indicates free-flow traffic and LOS F indicates
extreme congestion and long vehicle delays. LOS is measured in average control delay per vehicle
and is reported for the intersection as a whole at signalized intersections and for the approach or
turning movement that experiences the most delay at unsignalized intersections. Control delay is
defined as the combination of initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and
final acceleration delay.
Existing LOS, delays, and volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios were calculated at the study intersections
based on methods contained in the Highway Capacity Manual 2010 (Transportation Research
Board, 2010), or HCM 2010 methodology.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Transportation Technical Document 45
EXHIBIT 2-2 Study Intersections
Source: Transpo Group, 2017.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Transportation Technical Document 46
Planned Roadway Improvements
Jefferson County's Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for 2018 to 2023 includes a
number of transportation non-motorized capital improvements in the UGA. The projects include:
▶ Improving Chimacum Road in the vicinity of the Rick Tollefson Trail to realign an intersection
and make trail, sidewalk, and bike lane improvements from Church Lane to Redeemer Way.
▶ Extend Rick Tollefson Trail from Loperman Road to the Jefferson County Library and Chimacum
Creek Primary School.
▶ Cedar Avenue and SR 116 pedestrian and bicycle improvements including installation of
crosswalks, sidewalks, and bike lanes.
▶ Pedestrian and bicycle improvements from HJ Carroll Park to the Chimacum Road/SR 19
intersection.
WSDOT currently has no funded improvements for State Routes 19 or 116 through the UGA.
Current Deficiencies
Existing intersection level of service results show that five of the twelve study intersections currently
operate at LOS E and LOS F, as shown in Exhibit 2-5. Each of these five intersections are two-way
stop-controlled. For two-way stop-controlled intersections, HCM 2010 methodology bases the LOS
on the vehicle delay for the worst movement (generally vehicles making a left onto the major road
when stopped on the minor road). While this methodology shows five intersections operating
below standard, the vehicles traveling along the major approaches currently experience little to no
delay. Exhibit 2-5 summarizes the existing intersection LOS for the twelve study intersections in and
around the UGA.
Under GMA and SEPA, new development and growth would not be required to mitigate existing
deficiencies. The County could require new development to mitigate conditions back to existing
levels of service, if traffic conditions worsen due to development.
Under existing conditions and urban standards, there are no roadways currently operating below
LOS Standards in the UGA road system. Roadway level of service was calculated using volume to
capacity (v/c) ratios. Roadway capacities were calculated based on functional classification, as well
as roadway characteristics that affect capacity such as roadway width, shoulder width, the presence
of turn lanes and the presence of any traffic control. Exhibit 2-6 provides a summary of roadway LOS
for all major roadways within the Irondale-Port Hadlock UGA area.
Deficiencies in intersection and roadway level of service mean increases in travel delays for County
roadway users. Increased travel times can lead to increases in operating costs for local businesses
and residents. Traffic congestion can also lead to more frequent vehicle idling that can impact air
quality in the region.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Transportation Technical Document 47
EXHIBIT 2-3 Existing Intersection LOS
Source: Transpo Group, 2017.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Transportation Technical Document 48
Non-motorized Transportation
Jefferson County has worked to provide a network of non-motorized transportation facilities to
enhance alternative modes to travel by automobile and for recreational purposes. On-road bicycle
routes and lanes, wide shoulders, sidewalks and multipurpose trails that link destinations are
common examples. The Jefferson County Non-motorized Transportation and Recreational Trails
Plan contains a full and detailed list of County owned facilities. Additionally, the Non-motorized
Transportation and Recreational Trails Plan found no capacity related deficiencies for the planning
period based on the current level of service (LOS) standards adopted in the County's Comprehensive
Plan. The Non-motorized Transportation and Recreational Trails Plan also contains a listing of non-
capacity related potential projects and financing alternatives.
Transit
The Irondale-Port Hadlock UGA is served by the Jefferson Transit Authority that provides regular
scheduled service to the UGA as well as Port Townsend, Port Ludlow and Poulsbo. Weekday service
operates from 6:10 AM to 7:55 PM with Dial-a-Ride available for qualified individuals. Transit services
and levels of service are further described in the County-wide section above.
2.2 TRANSPORTATION PROJECTIONS
Land Use Forecasts & Growth Rates
Land use forecasts were used to forecast future traffic volumes for UGA roadways and intersections.
The Quimper Peninsula Travel Demand Model was used to forecast traffic volumes, and relies on
land use inputs of households and employment to generate vehicle trips within the UGA. Land use
control totals were developed for the UGA as shown in Exhibit 2-4. These forecasts are based on
Resolution 38-15, which set population totals for the area. The land use for 2007 for households and
employment were based on the 2007 Quimper Peninsula Travel Demand Model land use data sets.
Future forecasts for households were based on the 1.48 compounded annual growth rate from
Resolution 38-15. The forecast for employment were factored from the household forecast based on
a 0.92 job-to-housing ratio from Appendix C of the Quimper Peninsula Travel Demand Model
Documentation (Transpo Group, 2008). Exhibit 2-4 lists the resulting land use control totals for the
UGA.
EXHIBIT 2-4 Land Use Forecasts for UGA
Units 2007 2018 2038 CAGR
Population1 3,580 3,878 5,394 1.48%
Households2 1,230 1,446 2,566 1.48%
December 2018 Jefferson County | Transportation Technical Document 49
Units 2007 2018 2038 CAGR
Employment3 1,007 1,206 2,364 1.48%
Sources: Resolution 38-15; Jefferson County.
1. Population forecasts from Resolution 38-15; Population shown for 2007 actually represents 2010 conditions.
2. Household forecasts based on CAGR from resolution 38-15
3. Employment forecasts based on CAGR from resolution 38-15, and a 0.92 job-to-housing ratio found in Quimper
Peninsula Travel Demand Model Documentation (Transpo Group, 2008), Appendix C
Traffic Forecasts & Traffic Operations
Traffic forecasts were based on the Quimper Peninsula Travel Demand Model as discussed above.
The model uses land use units of households and employment to forecast traffic volumes on the
transportation network. The model accounts for commuting trips between home and business,
shopping and school trips, as well as other trips. These model volumes were post-processed
according to industry standards for use in traffic operations analysis. Exhibit 2-5 and Exhibit 2-6
show the traffic operations results based on established Jefferson County level of service thresholds.
EXHIBIT 2-5 Intersection Delay & Level of Service
Intersection Existing
Control
Existing
Delay
(sec)
LOS Baseline
2038
Vehicle
Delay
Baseline
2038
LOS
With
Project
Control
2038
with
Project
Vehicle
Delay
2038
with
Project
LOS
1. Chimacum Rd &
SR 19 AWSC 18.4 C 33.1 D RAB 6.4 A
2. Chimacum Road &
SR 116/ Oak Bay Rd AWSC 12.3 B 36.8 E RAB 20.6 C
3. SR 19 & Irondale
Road TWSC 161 F >200 F RAB 34.1 C
4. Irondale Road &
Montgomery Rd TWSC 13 B 20 C TWSC 20 C
5. SR 19 & Four
Corners Rd TWSC 52.5 F >200 F - - -
6. SR 19 & SR 116 TWSC 166 F >200 F Signal 43.4 D
7. SR 116 & Cedar Ave TWSC 18.6 C 58.3 F AWSC 27 D
8. Oak Bay Rd & SR
116/Flagler Rd TWSC 12.7 B 15.8 C TWSC 15.7 C
9. SR 19 & Airport
Rd/Woodland Dr TWSC 41 E >200 F Signal 8.2 A
10. SR 19 & Prospect
Ave TWSC 113.7 F >200 F Signal 18.1 B
11. SR 19 & Anderson
Lake Rd TWSC 15 C 32.6 D TWSC 30.3 D
December 2018 Jefferson County | Transportation Technical Document 50
Intersection Existing
Control
Existing
Delay
(sec)
LOS Baseline
2038
Vehicle
Delay
Baseline
2038
LOS
With
Project
Control
2038
with
Project
Vehicle
Delay
2038
with
Project
LOS
12. SR 19 & West
Valley Rd TWSC 15.8 B 29.8 D TWSC 29.8 D
EXHIBIT 2-6 Road Segment Average Daily Trips & Level of Service
Roadway From To LOS
Standard
Capacity Existing
ADT
Existing
LOS
Forecast
2038
ADT
Forecast
2038
LOS
SR 116/Ness
Corner Rd
Rhody
Rd
Irondale Rd D 21,000 6,000 A 8,500 B
SR 116/Oak
Bay Rd
Irondale
Rd
Flagler Rd D 21,000 6,000 A 8,500 B
SR
116/Flagler
Rd
Oak Bay
Rd
Indian Island
Annex Rd
D 16,000 2,600 A 2,900 A
SR
19/Airport
Cut-off
SR 20 Four Corners D 24,000 14,000 C 21,350 E
SR
19/Rhody
Dr
Four
Corners
SR 116/Ness
Corner Rd
D 21,000 13,000 C 18,850 E
SR
19/Rhody
Dr
SR
116/Ness
Corner
Rd
Center Rd D 21,000 10,000 C 12,000 C
Anderson
Lake Rd
SR 20 Rhody Dr/SR
19
C 21,000 1,500 A 2,050 A
Cedar Ave SR
116/Ness
Corner
Rd
Irondale Rd D 17,000 1,000 A 1,900 A
Chimacum
Rd
Beaver
Valley
Rd/SR 19
Elkins Road C 17,000 5,000 B 7,600 B
Chimacum
Rd
Elkins
Road
Oak Bay
Road
D 21,000 5,000 A 8,050 B
E. Maude
St
5th Ave 7th Ave D 16,000 300 A 450 A
Four
Corners
SR 20 Airport Cut-
off/SR 19
C 17,000 2,600 A 4,000 A
Irondale
Rd
Rhody
Rd/SR 19
Patison
Street
D 18,000 5,400 B 10,400 C
December 2018 Jefferson County | Transportation Technical Document 51
Roadway From To LOS
Standard
Capacity Existing
ADT
Existing
LOS
Forecast
2038
ADT
Forecast
2038
LOS
Irondale
Rd
Patison
St.
SR 116/Ness
Corner Rd
D 17,000 5,100 B 10,500 C
Kala Point
Rd
Prospect
Rd
Kala Point
Development
C 17,000 2,000 A 2,750 A
Lower
Hadlock
Rd
Oak Bay
Rd/SR
116
Water St D 16,000 500 A 900 A
Mason St Cedar
Ave
Thomas Dr D 18,000 900 A 1,950 A
Oak Bay Rd Sentinal
Firs Rd
Flagler Rd/SR
116
C 17,000 2,500 A 3,550 A
Patison St S. 7th St Irondale Rd D 17,000 800 A 900 A
Prospect
Ave
Airport
Cut-
off/SR 19
Kala Point Dr D 21,000 2,700 A 3,750 A
S. 7th Ave Thomas
Dr
Patison St D 16,000 500 A 1,000 A
Thomas Dr Mason St S. 7th Ave D 16,000 600 A 1,250 A
5th Ave Irondale
Rd
E. Maude St D 15,000 800 A 1,650 A
7th Ave Irondale
Rd
W. Swaney
St.
D 16,000 900 A 1,700 A
3rd St Cedar
Ave
Irondale Rd D 16,000 300 A 450 A
Deficiencies
Under existing conditions, roadway capacity on SR 19, SR 116, and all roadways in the Irondale-Port
Hadlock UGA are adequate. However, there are several unsignalized intersections along SR 19 in the
Irondale, Port Hadlock and Chimacum areas that experience long delays as vehicles wait for gaps in
traffic on SR 19. In order to accommodate the minor street delays while also maintaining mobility
on SR 19, a minimum number of interruptions to traffic flow (traffic signals or roundabouts) should
be pursued. The most appropriate way to avoid excessive traffic control is to minimize the number
of locations of traffic access onto SR 19 as well as control turn movements onto SR 19. The
intersection of SR 19 and SR 116 (Ness's Corner) currently experiences the greatest side-street delay,
and is therefore the most immediate need for signalization or roundabout installation. If traffic
control is installed, traffic could be redirected to this intersection by way of further road
improvements to facilitate traffic circulation and mobility. The benefits of this would include the
following:
▶ Limited access to SR19 would increase the mobility along SR19
▶ Minimize impacts of growth to the neighborhoods along Irondale Rd.
▶ Greater control of turn movements onto SR19
December 2018 Jefferson County | Transportation Technical Document 52
▶ Reduce existing delays on the minor leg of the intersection
▶ Provide safe, efficient route through the UGA for freight and other commercial traffic
Improved traffic control of the SR 19/SR 116 intersection would create sufficient gaps in traffic along
SR 19 to allow safer, more comfortable turn movements onto SR 19. To reduce this delay, relieve
congestion and enhance safety, this intersection should be signalized or have a roundabout installed
as identified in the project list summarized in Exhibit 2-9.
Several intersections experience similar problems to those of the SR19 /SR 116 intersection, such as
SR 19 and Irondale Road, SR 19 and Prospect Avenue, and SR 19 and Four Corners Road. Excessive
minor leg delays should be reduced by improved traffic control at these intersections.
Based on projected volumes, intersection improvements as shown in Exhibit 2-9 will be required at
the following intersections by 2038:
▶ Chimacum Road and SR 116
▶ SR 19 & Irondale Road
▶ SR 19 & 4 Corners Road
▶ SR 19 & SR 116
▶ SR 116 & Cedar Ave
▶ SR 19 & Woodland Dr
▶ SR 19 & Prospect Ave
As growth and development continues in the Irondale-Port Hadlock UGA as planned over the next
twenty years, further improvements to the road system will be required to maintain adopted Level
of Service standards. New development could be required to pay for these improvements through
new construction, or pro-rata payments to defined improvements as discussed in the
Transportation Facilities Assessment section. A TIA would be needed for new developments to
distinguish between existing deficiencies (not growth funded) and deficiencies caused by the new
development (growth funded). The forecast 2038 intersection operations, as well as the intersection
operations after the installation of improved intersection traffic control are shown in Exhibit 2-7.
Chimacum Road and SR 116 Intersection (Inside UGA). The Port Hadlock intersection is currently an
all way stop controlled intersection in the heart of the Port Hadlock commercial district. At current
traffic volumes, this intersection functions well as a stop-controlled intersection. As volumes build
toward projected 2038 levels, service at this intersection begins to break down and a traffic control
upgrade will be required to handle the denser, urban conditions that are expected as growth occurs
in the core Port Hadlock commercial district.
SR 19 and Irondale Rd (Inside UGA). The SR 19 and Irondale Rd intersection operates similarly to that
of the intersection of SR 19 and SR 116. Possible widening of SR19 through the UGA to four lanes of
traffic would further increase the difficulty and danger of vehicles turning onto SR19. Signalization
or roundabout installation at this intersection is required to handle the volumes on both legs.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Transportation Technical Document 53
Due to close proximity, it is possible that a signal at both SR 19/Irondale Rd and SR 19/Four- Corners
Rd (just outside of the UGA) could place unfavorable restrictions on the mobility of SR 19. Signal
Density on SR 19, as described in the Transportation Research Board's (TCB) Highway Capacity
Manual (HCM), is borderline to recommended levels with two signals at these intersections. To
minimize the number of stops along SR 19 and reduce financial costs, it is recommended that an
alternate solution to signalization of both intersections be studied, as suggested in the
Transportation Facilities Assessment, below.
SR 116 and Cedar Ave (Inside UGA). Development along SR 116 and in the Port Hadlock commercial
district will increase the importance of SR 116 as a major collector of SR 19. Both legs of this
intersection will experience increased volumes and an unacceptable level of service. It is desired
and anticipated that SR 116 will continue to be the primary route to connect the Port Hadlock core
and SR 19. Forecast 2038 volumes would require either an all-way stop controlled intersection, or
the installation of a traffic signal or roundabout.
Chimacum Road and SR 19 Intersection (Outside UGA). Increasing volumes at this all way stop
controlled intersection will require signalization or roundabout installation to maintain mobility on
SR 19 and handle increasing volumes along Chimacum Road /Center Road due to growth and
development expected in the Port Hadlock commercial core.
SR 19 and West Valley Rd (Outside UGA). Currently this intersection has both left and right turn
lanes with adequate storage in each. However, this intersection is the principal access to Chimacum
School and at peak times experiences long delays due to traffic to and from the school including
numerous school buses. Undesirable delays and safety concerns may dictate improvements at this
intersection.
SR 19 Roadway Level of Service capacity for SR 19 as a two-lane highway with turn lane median is a
maximum of 20,000 ADT for LOS threshold "D ". The 2038 volumes for all segments within the UGA
are projected to exceed capacity and result in the roadway operating at LOS E. Capacity
improvements will have to be completed to increase the level of service of SR 19 to acceptable
standards both inside and outside of the UGA. Typically, this involves the addition of travel lanes in
each direction including illumination, stormwater mitigation, right-of-way acquisition, and wetland
reparations. Access management improvements could improve the overall capacity, but would
require improved intersections treatments at Irondale Road to the north and SR 116 to the south.
SR 116 Roadway Level of Service capacity for SR 116 as a two-lane highway is a maximum of 20,000
ADT for LOS threshold "D". The 2038 volumes for the segments within the UGA are not projected to
exceed this threshold, and will operate at LOS B.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Transportation Technical Document 54
EXHIBIT 2-7 Forecast 2038 Baseline & With Project Intersection Operations
Source: Transpo Group, 2017.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Transportation Technical Document 55
Environmental Considerations
Human activity can have a major impact on vegetation, wildlife, and water resources. Land use
policies seek to protect the environment, conserve our resources, and permit future development
only in areas that can support it without significant adverse impact. Protecting the natural
environment, including environmentally sensitive lands in developed areas of the UGA requires the
following:
▶ Preserving ecological balance
▶ Maintaining or improving air and water quality
▶ Retaining open space in its natural state
▶ Protecting groundwater from pollution
▶ Providing public access to and setbacks from environmentally sensitive land
New developments within the Irondale-Port Hadlock UGA will be required to minimize and
mitigate adverse environmental impacts. The UGA designation will have little impact on the
transportation system. This is not to say that there will not transportation issues or needs associated
with growth in and adjacent to the UGA, only that designation as a UGA is not the overriding factor.
The foremost effect the UGA will have on transportation will be when the availability of sewers to
the commercial/industrial/multi-family zoned designated areas allows them to be developed more
intensely and generate higher traffic volumes.
Transportation decisions are not, and should not be, exempt from environmental review. Impacts to
the natural and built environment need to be taken into consideration before any major
transportation improvement projects are made. Most transportation projects are subject to state
and federal environmental regulations as well as any local environmental laws that apply. County
road projects routinely follow NEPA/SEPA regulations unless they are specifically exempted.
2.3 CAPITAL FACILITIES
Concurrency
The concurrency requirement in the Growth Management Act (GMA) states that "...public facilities
and services ... shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available
for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally established
minimum standards." [GMA, Section 2, Planning Goals (12)] This means that public facilities and
services must be in place to serve the proposed use at the level of service (LOS) set by the
community. Some improvements may be completed in whole or in part, by new development
within the UGA.
Under current State law and Jefferson' County Comprehensive Plan policies, highways owned by
the State (State Routes) are not bound by the constraints of concurrency requirements. In these
December 2018 Jefferson County | Transportation Technical Document 56
instances, the timing and prioritization of improvements is ultimately that of the Washington State
Department of Transportation. Typically, WSDOT coordinates with the local jurisdiction and regional
transportation planning organization to maintain a balance between the free -flow movement of
people and goods, and the needs of the local community.
Transportation Facilities Assessment
A list of long-term transportation improvement projects have been identified and evaluated to
address the needs and issues identified in the LOS evaluation. The transportation projects that have
been identified address the needs for motor vehicles and focus on improving mobility, safety,
circulation, and access in the Irondale and Port Hadlock UGA. Many of the improvements also
include facilities for non-motorized transportation, but specific non-motorized projects are
identified in the County’s adopted Non-motorized Transportation and Recreational Trails Plan.
Eventually the improvement projects will be incorporated into updates of the County six-year
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), the regional PRTPO Plan, and the WSDOT Sate
Highway System Plan.
The Quimper Peninsula travel demand model was used to evaluate improvement alternatives for
the roadways and intersections in the Irondale and Port Hadlock UGA. Low-cost improvements
were evaluated before more complex and expensive solutions were analyzed. Low-cost
improvements included minor traffic control changes, signal timing or phasing changes, or the
addition of turn pockets. More complex solutions included the addition of through lanes, changes
in traffic control devices, or geometric reconstruction and/or realignment of intersections and
roadways. Each improvement project was treated as an integral component of the transportation
system, and the effects of each improvement project on adjacent roads and intersections were
factored into the analysis.
Transportation Projects
The transportation improvement projects have been sorted into three categories: intersection,
roadway, and access management improvements. The projects are illustrated in Exhibit 2-8 and
listed in Exhibit 2-9. Exhibit 2-9 lists each improvement project and includes a brief description of
the project. The projects are based upon the detailed analysis completed as part of the Quimper
Peninsula Transportation Study, which contains a more detailed description of each project and a
brief justification summary.
Intersection Improvements—Intersection improvement projects include the construction of left-
turn lanes, right-turn lanes, refuge/merge lanes, roundabouts, and traffic signals. Many of the future
level of service deficiencies in the Irondale-Port Hadlock UGA are anticipated to be located at
intersections. Most of the major intersections along SR 19 will require some form of traffic control
improvement with the forecast traffic growth as left-turns to and from the highway will become
more and more difficult, increasing delays, and reducing safety. Intersection improvements will
need to be made at key intersections to compliment the access management improvements and
circulation roads envisioned in the UGA.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Transportation Technical Document 57
Roadway Improvements—Roadway improvements include the construction of new roadways,
extending and/or reconstructing existing roadways, adding truck climbing/passing lanes, and
realigning roadways. Roadway reconstruction projects involve rehabilitating or improving the base,
sub-base, and pavement surface of old or sub-standard roadways. Reconstruction might also
include roadway widening to increase lane widths and/or add shoulders, or the addition of curb,
gutter, sidewalk, street lights, and storm water facilities, where necessary. In the UGA, roadway
improvements mostly compliment the identified intersection improvements, such as re-alignment
of Four Corners Road to improve the intersection with Irondale Road. Other improvements include
a passing/truck lane on SR 19 as additional industrial development around the Airport and in the
region will contribute to a higher number of trucks in the future. The passing/truck lane allows
slower vehicles to ascend at a slower rate while leaving a lane open for passenger vehicles to
continue their journey unimpeded.
Access Management—Access management techniques are used to create an environment where
less traffic flow interruptions occur to vehicles on the main line by regulating the location,
frequency, and type of access that is granted along a corridor. Access management techniques on
SR 19 will be important as development intensifies in the UGA. The section of SR 19 between SR 116
and Irondale Road, expected to fall below the LOS standards by 2038, is a good example where
access management techniques should be considered. As growth occurs on SR 19, improved access
will be needed to make development viable. Reducing the number of driveways and consolidating
access points will be an important improvement strategy to address both safety and mobility, while
also allowing for more redevelopment opportunities along the corridor. Intersections such as SR 19
and SR 116, SR 19 and Kennedy Road, and SR 19 and Irondale Road could be designed as key
intersections from which access points to new local circulation roads and new development is
provided.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Transportation Technical Document 58
EXHIBIT 2-8 UGA Transportation Capital Project Map
Source: Transpo Group, 2017.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Transportation Technical Document 59
EXHIBIT 2-9 UGA Transportation Capital Project List
Map
ID1
Location Needed to
Resolve LOS
Deficiency?
Limits Description of Improvements
I1 SR 19 &
Center/Chimacu
m Rd
Intersectio
n
Construct a one-lane roundabout to improve
traffic flow and safety, and serve as a gateway
into the Port Hadlock UGA.
I2 SR 19 &
West Valley Rd
Intersectio
n
Construct a refuge/merge lane for motorists
turning left off of West Valley Road to
improve mobility, safety, and access. Would
be combined with pedestrian crossing
enhancements as part of the Rick Tollefson
Trail and/or a Safe Routes to School project.
I3 SR 19 & Anderson
Lake Rd
Intersectio
n
Add a left-turn lane on Anderson Lake Road
and a left-turn refuge/merge lane and
northbound left-turn lane on SR 19 to
improve mobility and safety.
I4 SR 116 &
Chimacum/Irond
ale Rd
Yes Intersectio
n
Construct a roundabout to eliminate the 4-
way stop control which would improve
mobility, safety, and serve as a gateway into
the Port Hadlock UGA.
I5 SR 116 &
Cedar Ave
Yes Intersectio
n
Add a southbound left-turn lane to Cedar
Avenue and an eastbound left-turn lane to SR
116 to improve mobility and safety.
I6 SR 19 & SR 116 Yes Intersectio
n
Install a traffic signal, or construct a one-lane
roundabout, to improve traffic operations,
mobility, safety, and provide an enhanced
pedestrian crossing.
I7 SR 19 &
Kennedy Rd
Yes Intersectio
n
The intersection serves as a placeholder to
identify the general area between SR 116 and
Irondale Road where intersection
improvements could be made to compliment
access management treatments on SR 19,
such as Project #A1. Further study may show
that a location in the vicinity of Kennedy
Road may be better suited to provide
frontage road traffic control or an opportunity
for u-turn movements to provide improved
circulation and access to development along
SR 19.
I8 SR 19 &
Irondale Rd
Yes Intersectio
n
Construct a two-lane roundabout to improve
traffic operations and improve mobility and
safety. A roundabout can serve as a gateway
to the Port Hadlock UGA. Coordinate with the
re-alignment of Four Corners Road (Project
#R6).
December 2018 Jefferson County | Transportation Technical Document 60
Map
ID1
Location Needed to
Resolve LOS
Deficiency?
Limits Description of Improvements
I9 SR 19 &
Prospect Ave
Yes Intersectio
n
Install a traffic signal, or construct a
roundabout, with emergency vehicle access
signage and channelization improvements
for the proposed fire station south of the
airport. The intersection could serve as an
alternate access point to a new local access
street serving the Port property south of the
airport on the west side of SR 19 while also
improving safety and access to Prospect
Avenue to the east.
I12 SR 19 & Airport
Rd
Yes Intersectio
n
Construct a traffic signal, or roundabout, with
a dedicated northbound left-turn lane to
improve traffic operations, mobility, and
safety. Coordinate with possible widening of
SR 19 to add a northbound passing lane
I17 Chimacum Road
& Elkins Road
No Intersectio
n
Reconstruct intersection to provide improved
channelization on the west approach and
center left-turn lanes along Chimacum Road
to improve mobility, safety, and access.
Includes pedestrian crossing enhancements
as part of the Rick Tollefson Trail and gateway
features to identify the entrance into the Port
Hadlock UGA.
R5 SR 19 Yes Prospect
Ave to
Theatre Rd
Construct a northbound truck
climbing/passing lane on the ascent to SR 20
to improve mobility and safety. Combine with
intersection improvement I12 to provide safe
access into and out of Woodland Drive.
R6 Four Corners
Roadway
Realignment
Yes From the
existing
intersectio
n with SR
19 to
Irondale Rd
Realign the roadway by moving the
intersection with SR 19 south to align with the
intersection of Irondale Road.A1
A1 SR 19 Yes SR 116 to
Irondale Rd
Access management, driveway consolidation,
and circulation road improvements
coordinated with improvements to facilitate
turn movements or u-turns at or near the
intersection of SR 19 with Kennedy Road.
1 The Map ID of each project corresponds to the project ID as illustrated in Exhibit 2-8, and also corresponds to the
project information contained in the Quimper Peninsula Transportation Study.
Addressing LOS Deficiencies
A total of 12 intersections were evaluated within or in the immediate proximity to the UGA. Of the 12
intersections, it was found that seven intersections operated at a LOS E or F during the PM peak
hour. In addition, the roadway capacity analysis resulted in a segment of SR 19 north of its
intersection with SR 116 to operate at LOS E by the year 2038.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Transportation Technical Document 61
The intersection improvements that are listed in Exhibit 2-9 are intended to reduce or eliminate the
number of intersections that will operate poorly in the future by reducing average control delays,
improving mobility and safety, and providing better access to properties expected to develop over
the next 20 years. The roadway improvements will provide additional capacity to key segments of
SR 19 that provide direct access to the UGA, thereby improving operating conditions and helping to
relieve future congestion.
The travel demand model was used to test the transportation improvements. The effects of each
improvement project on adjacent roads and intersections were factored into the analysis. Exhibit 2-
5 contains a summary of intersection LOS for existing conditions, future baseline conditions, and
future “With Projects” conditions for each study intersection. Two additional intersections have been
added, including the intersection of SR 19 and Kennedy Road which is part of an access
management strategy for SR 19 between SR 116 and Irondale Road, and the Chimacum Road and
Elkins Road intersection which improves the pedestrian crossing as part of the extension of the Rick
Tollefson Trail. A detailed summary of intersection LOS and channelization for each project is
summarized in the Quimper Peninsula Transportation Study document.
While additional intersection improvements will reduce delay for side street traffic volumes and
improve local access in the UGA, they are likely to increase travel times for regional highway users
along the SR 19 corridor. The County and WSDOT will need to work closely within one another to
consider the trade-offs between corridor mobility and local access needs when prioritizing and
implementing the intersection improvements identified for the state highways.
Growth and development in the Irondale-Port Hadlock UGA will have some impacts to the
transportation system. A significant portion of that impact will occur on SR 19. WSDOT has
jurisdiction over this corridor. Continued and increased intergovernmental coordination between
WSDOT and Jefferson County will become more important to coordinate transportation
improvements within and adjacent to the Irondale-Port Hadlock UGA. The coordination will be
necessary to accommodate future population growth and development while mitigating the
resulting impacts and increased congestion from growth both within and outside the UGA.
Project Implementation Considerations
Implementation of the Transportation Element involves several strategies. One strategy includes
coordinating with WSDOT and the PRTPO to build support and secure funding to complete the
transportation improvement projects along the state highways, as conditions warrant. Another
strategy includes the pursuit of grants and other regional or statewide funding, which will be
especially critical in the implementation of state highway improvements within the UGA and
completion of the non-motorized system. The County will also need to review its development
review processes regularly to assure that the impacts of growth are mitigated and transportation
improvements are completed concurrent with new development for County roadways. However, if
improvements are unable to be funded on County roadways to meet adopted level of service (LOS)
standards, then the County will need to reassess its LOS standards, land use plan, or funding
sources. The annual Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program will allow the County to match
shorter-term improvement project needs with land use activity and available funding.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Transportation Technical Document 62
2.4 CONCLUSION
The analysis shows that overall; impacts from the development of the UGA on the transportation
system and potential transportation needs in the UGA and adjacent areas are manageable. While
the UGA designation may impact transportation by increasing demand earlier than it would have
otherwise occurred, many of the impacts would still be likely to occur without UGA development.
The primary concern has been and continues to be the SR19 Corridor and how future adjacent land
use will impact its ability to carry through-traffic.
While this analysis considers the overall growth of the UGA and is based on the land use
assumptions provided and known at this time, further analysis of the transportation system should
be undertaken as development takes place to determine project implementation and timing.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
December 2018
Appendix D
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
TECHNICAL DOCUMENT
Jefferson County
1
Capital Facility Plan
Technical Document
December 2018
1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................................... 5
1.1 Background & Purpose ................................................................................................................................................................ 5
1.2 Fiscal Policies ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 10
1.3 Level of Service Effects ............................................................................................................................................................... 10
1.4 Reassessment Policy ..................................................................................................................................................................... 13
2 Fiscal Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................. 14
2.1 Background & Purpose ............................................................................................................................................................... 14
2.2 Dedicated Capital Revenues .................................................................................................................................................. 14
2.3 General Capital Revenues .........................................................................................................................................................16
2.4 Notes, Bonds, & Grants ................................................................................................................................................................ 17
2.5 Six-Year Projected Funding & Cost Comparison ..................................................................................................... 17
3 Capital Facilities Assessment .................................................................................................................................. 18
3.1 Law Enforcement ............................................................................................................................................................................18
3.2 Parks & Recreation ........................................................................................................................................................................ 22
3.3 Public Administration .................................................................................................................................................................26
3.4 Sewer ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 31
3.5 Solid Waste ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 33
3.6 Stormwater ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 36
3.7 Transportation .................................................................................................................................................................................. 37
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 2
3.8 Education ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 43
3.9 Fire Protection ................................................................................................................................................................................. 58
3.10 Water ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 69
Capital Facilities Element Strategies .......................................................................................................................... 79
Exhibit List
Exhibit 1-1 Capital Facilities & Services Addressed .............................................................................................................. 5
Exhibit 1-2 County-wide Population Growth Assumptions .......................................................................................... 7
Exhibit 1-3 Capital Facilities & Public Services Provided to Unincorporated Jefferson County ......... 7
Exhibit 1-4 Levels of Service for County-owned Facilities .............................................................................................. 11
Exhibit 1-5 Infrastructure Needs & Capacity Projections, 2018-2037.................................................................... 12
Exhibit 2-1 Real Estate Excise Tax Revenue 2009-2017 (Year of Estimate $) ................................................. 16
Exhibit 2-2 Estimated Capital Project Costs by Category (2018$) ........................................................................... 17
Exhibit 3-1 Inmate Correction Facilities Inventory ............................................................................................................. 19
Exhibit 3-2 Sheriff's Administration, Investigation, Patrol Inventory ..................................................................... 19
Exhibit 3-3 Justice Facilities Inventory ......................................................................................................................................... 19
Exhibit 3-4 Inmate Correction Facilities Capacity Analysis ........................................................................................ 20
Exhibit 3-5 Sheriff's Administration, Investigation, Patrol Capacity Analysis ............................................... 20
Exhibit 3-6 Justice Facilities Capacity Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 21
Exhibit 3-7 Law Enforcement: Project List & Funding Source (Cost in Thousands 2018$) .................. 22
Exhibit 3-8 Law Enforcement Summary of Capital Costs (2018$) ......................................................................... 22
Exhibit 3-9 Law Enforcement Summary of Capital Revenues (2018$) ............................................................... 22
Exhibit 3-10 Jefferson County Parks ................................................................................................................................................ 23
Exhibit 3-11 Parks Levels of Service Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 24
Exhibit 3-12 Parks Levels of Service Alternative ...................................................................................................................... 25
Exhibit 3-13 PROS Plan Parks Project List & Funding Source (Cost in Thousands 2018$) ...................... 26
Exhibit 3-14 Animal Control Shelter Current Facilities Inventory ............................................................................. 27
Exhibit 3-15 Community Centers Current Facilities Inventory .................................................................................... 27
Exhibit 3-16 General Administrative Offices Current Facilities Inventory ........................................................... 27
Exhibit 3-17 Maintenance Shop Facilities Current Facilities Inventory ................................................................ 28
Exhibit 3-18 Animal Control Shelter Capacity Analysis .................................................................................................... 28
Exhibit 3-19 Community Centers Capacity Analysis ........................................................................................................... 29
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 3
Exhibit 3-20 General Administrative Offices Capacity Analysis .................................................................................. 29
Exhibit 3-21 Maintenance Shop Facilities Capacity Analysis ....................................................................................... 30
Exhibit 3-22 Public Administration Project List & Funding Source (Cost in Thousands $).................... 30
Exhibit 3-23 Public Administration: Summary of Capital Costs (2018$) ............................................................... 31
Exhibit 3-24 Public Administration: Summary of Capital Revenues (2018$) ..................................................... 31
Exhibit 3-25 Growth & Potential Sewer Demand .................................................................................................................. 32
Exhibit 3-26 Solid Waste Facilities Current Facilities Inventory .................................................................................. 34
Exhibit 3-27 Potential Solid Waste Demand ............................................................................................................................. 35
Exhibit 3-28 Funding Strategies for Recommendations ................................................................................................. 35
Exhibit 3-29 County Road Miles by Functional Class (Thru Lane Surface) .......................................................... 37
Exhibit 3-30 Transportation Capital Facilities Projects, 2018-2023 .......................................................................... 38
Exhibit 3-31 Transportation Funding Sources, 2018-2023 .............................................................................................. 39
Exhibit 3-32 Port Hadlock/Irondale Area Improvement Projects .............................................................................. 41
Exhibit 3-33 SR 19/SR 20 Corridor Plan Intersection Improvement (2009$ in Millions) ......................... 42
Exhibit 3-34 School Districts Serving Jefferson County .................................................................................................... 43
Exhibit 3-35 School Districts Map ...................................................................................................................................................... 44
Exhibit 3-36 Brinnon District Student to Teacher (S-T) Ratio ....................................................................................... 45
Exhibit 3-37 Brinnon District Facility Information ................................................................................................................ 45
Exhibit 3-38 Chimacum District Student to Teacher (S-T) Ratio ............................................................................... 46
Exhibit 3-39 Chimacum District Facility Information ......................................................................................................... 46
Exhibit 3-40 Port Townsend District Student to Teacher (S-T) Ratio ...................................................................... 47
Exhibit 3-41 Port Townsend District Facility Information ............................................................................................... 47
Exhibit 3-42 Queets-Clearwater District Student to Teacher (S-T) Ratio ............................................................. 48
Exhibit 3-43 Queets-Clearwater District Facility Information ...................................................................................... 48
Exhibit 3-44 Quilcene District Student to Teacher (S-T) Ratio ..................................................................................... 48
Exhibit 3-45 Quilcene District Facility Information .............................................................................................................. 49
Exhibit 3-46 Quillayute Valley District Student to Teacher (S-T) Ratio .................................................................. 49
Exhibit 3-47 Quillayute Valley Facility Information ............................................................................................................. 50
Exhibit 3-48 Sequim District Student to Teacher (S-T) Ratio ...................................................................................... 50
Exhibit 3-49 Sequim District Facility Information .................................................................................................................. 51
Exhibit 3-50 Washington State General Education Average Class Size ............................................................... 52
Exhibit 3-51 Brinnon School District Level of Service ......................................................................................................... 52
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 4
Exhibit 3-52 Chimacum School District Level of Service ................................................................................................. 53
Exhibit 3-53 Port Townsend School District Level of Service........................................................................................ 53
Exhibit 3-54 Queets-Clearwater School District Level of Service ............................................................................... 54
Exhibit 3-55 Quilcene School District Level of Service....................................................................................................... 54
Exhibit 3-56 Quillayute Valley School District Level of Service .................................................................................... 55
Exhibit 3-57 Sequim School District Level of Service ......................................................................................................... 55
Exhibit 3-58 Fire Districts Serving Jefferson County, 2017............................................................................................... 58
Exhibit 3-59 Fire Districts Map ............................................................................................................................................................. 59
Exhibit 3-60 Jefferson County Fire Districts & Stations ..................................................................................................... 60
Exhibit 3-61 East Jefferson Fire & Rescue Inventory of Apparatus ............................................................................ 61
Exhibit 3-62 District No. 2—Quilcene Inventory of Apparatus ...................................................................................... 62
Exhibit 3-63 District No. 3—Port Ludlow Inventory of Apparatus ............................................................................... 63
Exhibit 3-64 District No. 4—Brinnon Inventory of Apparatus ........................................................................................ 63
Exhibit 3-65 District No. 5—Discovery Bay—Gardiner Inventory of Apparatus .................................................. 64
Exhibit 3-66 District No. 7—Clearwater Inventory of Apparatus .................................................................................. 65
Exhibit 3-67 East Jefferson Fire & Rescue Level of Service............................................................................................. 66
Exhibit 3-68 District No. 2—Quilcene Level of Service ........................................................................................................ 66
Exhibit 3-69 District No. 3—Port Ludlow Fire & Rescue Fire District Level of Service .................................. 67
Exhibit 3-70 District No. 4—Brinnon Fire District Level of Service .............................................................................. 67
Exhibit 3-71 District No. 5—Discovery Bay—Gardiner Level of Service ................................................................... 68
Exhibit 3-72 District No. 7—Clearwater Level of Service ................................................................................................... 68
Exhibit 3-73 Potable Water System Current Facilities Inventory .............................................................................. 70
Exhibit 3-74 Department of Health Water System Compliance .............................................................................. 70
Exhibit 3-75 Individual Water Current Capital Inventory Serving More Than 100 People ...................... 71
Exhibit 3-76 Group A Water Systems .............................................................................................................................................. 73
Exhibit 3-77 1997 Population Projection for 20-year Planning Horizon ............................................................... 74
Exhibit 3-78 Growth & Potential Water Demand .................................................................................................................. 74
Exhibit 3-79 Port Townsend Water System Project List & Funding Source ....................................................... 75
Exhibit 3-80 Public Utility District #1 Project List & Funding Source (2011$) ..................................................... 76
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 5
1 Introduction
1.1 BACKGROUND & PURPOSE
The Growth Management Act (GMA) specifies that the capital facilities plan (CFP) element should
consist of a) an inventory of existing capital facilities owned by public entities; b) a forecast of the
future needs for capital facilities; c) the proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new
capital facilities; d) a six-year capital facilities plan that will finance capital facilities within projected
funding capacities and clearly identifies sources of public money for such purposes; and e) a
requirement to reassess the land use element if probable funding falls short of existing needs. (RCW
36.70a.070 (3))
Recent Growth Management Hearings Board cases have placed more importance on the
preparation and implementation of CFPs. The key points include:
▶ Capital facilities plans should address the 20-year planning period and be consistent with
growth allocations assumed in the Land Use Element.
▶ Capital facilities plans should also demonstrate an ability to serve the full urban growth area
(UGA).
▶ Financial plans should address at least a six-year period and funding sources should be specific
and committed. Counties and cities should provide a sense of the funding sources for the 20-
year period, though it can be less detailed than for the six-year period.
Key Facilities
According to WAC 365-196-415, the inventory and analysis of capital facilities must include, at a
minimum, water systems, sewer systems, stormwater systems, schools, parks and recreation
facilities, police facilities, and fire facilities. This CFP Technical Document addresses the capital
facilities and services listed below. Note that utilities (electricity and telecommunications) are
addressed in Element 8, Capital Facilities & Utilities, beginning at Section 8.4.
EXHIBIT 1-1 Capital Facilities & Services Addressed
Capital Facility & Service Topic Description
Law Enforcement Policing and Sheriff services
Court systems
Corrections facilities
Parks and Recreation Owning and maintaining public parks and recreation
facilities
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 6
Capital Facility & Service Topic Description
Public Administration Government Administrative Offices
Community Centers
Maintenance Shop Facilities
Animal Control Facilities
Sewer County sewer plans for Port Hadlock/Irondale
Special district sewer system for Port Ludlow
Solid Waste County solid waste system
Stormwater County stormwater system
Transportation County road and transportation facilities
Education Special district educational facilities
Fire Protection Special district fire protection facilities
Water Special district distribution and treatment of potable water
Source: Jefferson County 2018; BERK, 2018.
Agencies providing services have physical assets – buildings, land, infrastructure, equipment, and
this CFP identifies what level of demand for these assets may occur as the Land Use Element is
implemented and the population grows. Agencies may identify projects that ensure the demand
for their services can be met over time. For the purposes of this CFP, a capital facility project is
defined as:
▶ Projects to create, expand or modify a capital facility that have a minimum cost of $15,000 and
have a life expectancy of at least five years.
Study Area
Jefferson County is in the north-central portion of Washington’s Olympic Peninsula. The county is
bounded on the west by the Pacific Ocean, and on the east by the waters of the Admiralty Inlet and
Hood Canal. Clallam County and the Strait of Juan de Fuca define the northern border, while the
southern boundaries are defined by Mason and Grays Harbor Counties. Jefferson County comprises
1,808 square miles. The Olympic National Park and National Forest, which bisect the county into
western and eastern halves, comprise approximately 65% of the county’s 1.16 million acres of land.
About another 20% of land is under the jurisdiction of federal and state agencies. The county is rural
with a population density in 2017 at 17.39 per sq. mi. Most of the county’s population, nearly 96%,
resides in eastern Jefferson County.
Jefferson County has one incorporated city, Port Townsend—the largest community. There are two
Master Planned Resorts, Port Ludlow and the designated—yet undeveloped—Pleasant Harbor. The
bulk of the county’s population is located primarily in the northeast portion of the county, in the
communities of Port Townsend, the Tri-Area (Irondale, Port Hadlock and Chimacum), and Port
Ludlow. Quilcene and Brinnon are the largest communities in the southern portion of the county.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 7
Population Growth Assumptions
Consistent with the Land Use Element, the CFP is based on the following population growth data
through the six-year (2018-2023) and 20-year (2018-2038) planning period.
EXHIBIT 1-2 County-wide Population Growth Assumptions
Year Projected
Population
2018 31,667
2019 31,978
2020 32,291
2021 32,608
2022 32,927
2023 33,250
2038 39,221
Source: Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM)
and Jefferson County Resolution #38-15 on October 26, 2015.
Responsibilities
Providers of capital facilities and services are listed in the table below, with a focus on those who
serve unincorporated Jefferson County. Many agencies by law or by choice prepare system plans
containing detailed inventories, levels of service, and capital projects. These system plans are hereby
incorporated by reference as amended.
EXHIBIT 1-3 Capital Facilities & Public Services Provided to Unincorporated
Jefferson County
Service Topic Providers Guiding Plans
Law Enforcement Jefferson County Sherriff Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office
Strategic Plan, Comprehensive
Version, 2018
Parks and
Recreation
Jefferson County Jefferson County Parks,
Recreation & Open Space Plan
Update, 2015, Jefferson County
Parks and Recreation,
Department of Public Works
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 8
Service Topic Providers Guiding Plans
Public
Administration
Jefferson County Jefferson County Strategic Plan,
County Administrator’s Office,
2018
Individual operations plans for
community centers,
maintenance facilities, and
animal control facilities
Sewer Port Hadlock/Irondale UGA – Jefferson
County
Port Ludlow – Olympic Water and Sewer
Port Hadlock Wastewater
System: Urban Growth Area
Sewer Facility Plan, 2008
Design Plans & Specifications,
2013
Solid Waste Jefferson County Jefferson County, Solid Waste
Management Plan, September
2016
Stormwater Jefferson County Port Hadlock / Irondale Urban
Growth Area Stormwater
Management Plan, May 2004
Jefferson County Surface Water
Management Plan, November
2006
Transportation Jefferson County
Peninsula Regional Transportation
Planning Organization
Jefferson Transit Authority
Port Hadlock / Irondale Urban
Growth Area Transportation Plan,
May 2004
Quimper Peninsula Travel
Demand Model, October 2008
Nonmotorized Transportation
Plan, 2010
Quimper Peninsula
Transportation Study, January
2012
Peninsula RTPO Regional
Transportation Plan 2035 (May
2013)
Jefferson County Public Works
Transportation Improvement
Plan, 2017
Jefferson Transit, Transit
Development Plan 2017-2022 &
2016 Annual Report, August 2017
Education Brinnon School District No. 46
Chimacum School District No. 49
Port Townsend School District No. 50
Queets-Clearwater School District No. 20
Quilcene School District No. 48
Port Townsend School District No. 50
Individual Operational Plans
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 9
Service Topic Providers Guiding Plans
Fire Protection Jefferson County Fire Protection District
No. 1—East Jefferson Fire and Rescue
Jefferson County Fire Protection District
No. 2—Quilcene
Jefferson County Fire Protection District
No. 3 – Port Ludlow Fire and Rescue
Jefferson County Fire Protection District
No. 4—Brinnon
Jefferson County Fire Protection District
No. 5—Discovery Bay—Gardiner
Jefferson County Fire Protection District
No. 6 – Cape George/Kala Point/Beckett
Point – Merged
Jefferson County Fire District No. 7 –
Clearwater-Queets
Individual Operational Plans
Water Port Townsend
Jefferson County Water District No. 1 –
Paradise Bay
Jefferson County Water District No. 2 –
Brinnon
Jefferson County Water District No. 3 –
Coyle
Port Ludlow Drainage District
Port of Port Townsend
Public Utility District No. 1 of Jefferson
County
Jefferson County Coordinated
Water System Plan, June 1997.
Pending update
Jefferson County Public Utility
District #1 Water System Plan
2011
Source: BERK, 2018.
Connections to Other Elements
This CFP Technical Document supports the Comprehensive Plan Facilities and Utilities Element,
which contains goals and policies per the GMA requirements for the CFP element. This Appendix
also supports watershed goals and policies in the Environment Element.
The CFP is consistent with the Land Use Element. The CFP also integrates inventories, service
demand, and potential improvements from the Transportation Element and the Open Space, Parks
& Recreation, Historic & Cultural Preservation Element. The CFP incorporates by reference more
detailed County system plans.
The CFP analysis responds to the Land Use Element proposals for growth and development. The
CFP analyzes fiscal impacts of growth and land use must be re-assessed if probable funding falls
short. The CFP may also adopt other policies, such as lowering its level of service standards, to keep
the CFP and Land Use Element compatible.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 10
The CFP also describes principles or prioritization to assist with balancing needs, costs revenues, and
public input.
Timeline
The CFP addresses a short-term six-year period and a 20-year period consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. The six-year timeframe is more detailed and incorporates more detailed fiscal
analysis. The 20-year horizon is more visionary and is driven by goals/policies, has broader
conceptual fiscal analysis, and may change more over time as context and priorities change.
1.2 FISCAL POLICIES
The CFP uses sound fiscal policies to provide adequate public facilities consistent with the Land Use
Element. In Chapter 2, the CFP presents revenue projections and compares revenues to identified
capital costs. The revenue analysis identifies the potential ability to fill potential gaps with other
funding sources. In Chapter 3, the CFP identifies funding sources for each capital project.
As part of the annual budget, the County adopts a more detailed capital improvement program
implementing the CFP. Additionally, the County adopts the six-year transportation improvement
program. These more detailed improvement programs draw from this broader and longer-term CFP
as well as other plan elements.
The County operates in a fiscally prudent manner. It has established minimum fund balance
requirements for most of its funds. The County uses a five-year General Fund balance projection
model to evaluate the impact of various potential decisions on the fiscal health of the General Fund.
This technique has enabled the County to take appropriate fiscal actions well in advance to ensure
minimum fund balance requirements are met. The County also manages its debt very responsibly in
accordance with its adopted Debt Policy. Borrowing is kept to the absolute minimum and is only
used for essential facilities.
1.3 LEVEL OF SERVICE EFFECTS
County Facilities
Levels of Service (LOS) are established in the CFP and represent quantifiable measures of capacity.
They are minimum standards adopted by the County to provide capital facilities and services to the
community at a certain level of quality and within the financial capacity of the County. For example,
acres of parks per 1,000 population.
LOS and the need for County facilities are inversely proportional. The higher the established LOS, the
more of the related facilities will be required. The reverse is also true: reducing the LOS reduces the
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 11
need for related facilities. There is a range of service levels that meet the needs of a growing
community. Service levels that are two low will fail to meet the demand. Service levels that are too
high may cause a community to add facilities that aren’t needed.
The table below identifies currently adopted levels of service, and how they are proposed for
adjustment in the six-year or 20-year planning period with this 2018 Periodic Update to balance
service quality, demand, and financial capability.
EXHIBIT 1-4 Levels of Service for County-owned Facilities
County Facility
Type
2017 Adopted LOS 2018 Plan
Adjusted LOS
through 2023
2018 Plan
Adjusted LOS
through 2038
Law Enforcement
Corrections Facility 1.9 beds/k residents 1.75 beds/k residents 1.48 beds/k residents
County Sheriff Facilities 244.5 sq. ft./k residents 240 sq. ft./k residents 200 sq. ft./k residents
County Justice Facilities 732.4 sq. ft./k residents 610 sq. ft./k residents 515 sq. ft./k residents
Parks and Recreation Per 2015 PROS Plan Per 2015 PROS Plan Amend PROS Plan
Regional 19.07 acres /k residents 19.07 acres /k residents 18.43 acres /k residents
Community 3.05 acres /k residents 3.05 acres /k residents 2.94 acres /k residents
Neighborhood 0.16 acres /k residents 0.16 acres /k residents 0.18 acres /k residents
Open Space 4.85 acres /k residents 4.85 acres /k residents 4.69 acres /k residents
Special Use 3.24 acres /k residents 3.24 acres /k residents 3.24 acres /k residents
Trails: Base LOS 0.52 miles/k residents 0.52 miles/k residents 0.52 miles/k residents
Trails: Target LOS if
funding allows
1.83 miles /k residents 1.83 acres /k residents 1.83 acres /k residents
Public Administration
Animal Control Shelter 74.9 sq. ft./k residents 69 sq. ft./k residents 58 sq. ft./k residents
Community Centers 1,277.6 sq. ft./k
residents
1,185 sq. ft./k residents 1,005 sq. ft./k residents
Administrative Facilities 1,509.7 sq. ft./k
residents
1,200 sq. ft./k residents 1,020 sq. ft./k residents
Maintenance Shop
Facilities
1,078.9 sq. ft./k
residents
975 sq. ft./k residents 825 sq. ft./k residents
Sewer & Water System
Port Headlock / Irondale
UGA
Pending Pending Pending
Solid Waste
Waste 4.20 pounds per capita
per day
3.12 pounds per capita
per day
3.12 pounds per capita
per day
Recycling 0.80 pounds per
capita per day
2.8 pounds per capita
per day
2.8 pounds per capita
per day
Stormwater
Standard Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 12
County Facility
Type
2017 Adopted LOS 2018 Plan
Adjusted LOS
through 2023
2018 Plan
Adjusted LOS
through 2038
Transportation
Rural Roads C C C
UGA Roads, MPR Roads,
Highways of Regional
Significance
D D D
Source: Jefferson County
Given the LOS adjustments in the table above, there are minimal deficiencies, consisting of trails as
documented in the 2015 PROS Plan. Regarding other park classifications, to avoid deficiencies in
2038 the plan would need to be amended.
EXHIBIT 1-5 Infrastructure Needs & Capacity Projections, 2018-2037
County Facility 2023 2038
Population Projected 33,250 39,221
Law Enforcement
County Corrections Inmate Facilities No Deficiency—Adjusted No Deficiency—Adjusted
County Sheriff Facilities No Deficiency—Adjusted No Deficiency—Adjusted
County Justice Facilities No Deficiency—Adjusted No Deficiency—Adjusted
Parks & Recreation Facilities
Regional Parks No Deficiency No Deficiency—Adjusted
Community Parks No Deficiency No Deficiency—Adjusted
Neighborhood Parks No Deficiency No Deficiency—Adjusted
Open Space No Deficiency No Deficiency—Adjusted
Special Use No Deficiency No Deficiency
Trails Deficiency (33.7) Deficiency (44.6)
Public Administration
Animal Shelter No Deficiency—Adjusted No Deficiency—Adjusted
Community Centers No Deficiency—Adjusted No Deficiency—Adjusted
County General Administrative Facilities No Deficiency—Adjusted No Deficiency—Adjusted
County Maintenance Shop Facilities No Deficiency—Adjusted No Deficiency—Adjusted
Sewer System Facilities
Sewer System Facilities Pending Pending
Solid Waste Facilities
Solid Waste Facilities No Deficiency—Adjusted No Deficiency—Adjusted
Stormwater Facilities*
Stormwater Management Pending Pending
Flood Control Facilities Pending Pending
Transportation: County Roads**
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 13
County Facility 2023 2038
Rural Roads No Deficiency No Deficiency
Urban Growth Areas (UGA) No Deficiency No Deficiency
Master Planned Resort (MPR) No Deficiency No Deficiency
Designated Highways of Regional
Significance
No Deficiency No Deficiency
*The County has adopted standards from the Washington Department of Ecology "Stormwater Management
Manual for Western Washington."
**The County Public Works department maintains a County Road Inventory; that inventory does not include Streets
in the City of Port Townsend or State Highways. The capacity analysis and traffic forecasts indicate that at the
planning horizon year of 2038, all County roads are expected to operate at or above the adopted level of service
(LOS) standard. A few State Route segments will exceed their estimated capacity based on the level of service
standards established by WSDOT and the PRTPO, and the roadway LOS methodology adopted by the County.
Concurrency applies to County roads as well as intersections in the Tri-Area. See 3.7 for additional information, as
well as Appendix C Transportation Technical Appendix.
Levels of Service Non-County Facilities
Level of service standards for non-county public services are evaluated including:
▶ Education: students per classroom
▶ Fire Protection: fire units and emergency service units per 1,000 population
▶ Water: gallons per day/equivalent residential unit
These standards were established in prior CFP elements. Where there are differences with adopted
standards, options are noted for adjustments.
1.4 REASSESSMENT POLICY
Those facilities and services necessary to support growth should have LOS standards and facilities.
The County must reassess the land use element and other elements of the comprehensive plan if
the probable funding falls short of meeting the need for facilities that are determined by a county
or city to be necessary for development.
Growth, LOS standards, and a funded capital improvement program are to be in balance. In the
case where the LOS cannot be met by any service or facility, the jurisdiction could do one of the
following: 1) add proposed facilities within funding resources, 2) reduce demand through demand
management strategies, 3) lower LOS standards, 4) phase growth, or 5) change the land use plan. In
the case of transportation, the County would have to deny development that would cause LOS to
decline below the adopted standards unless transportation facilities can be implemented at the
time of development or within six years: “concurrent with the development" means that
improvements or strategies are in place at the time of development, or that a financial
commitment is in place to complete the improvements or strategies within six years.” (RCW
36.70A.070(6))
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 14
The County should assess its ability to ensure adequate facilities are provided with growth no less
frequently than at the time of its Comprehensive Plan periodic review or during regular reporting
under Capital Facilities Element Strategies attached to this Technical Document.
2 Fiscal Analysis
2.1 BACKGROUND & PURPOSE
Overview
This section introduces the County’s capital facilities revenues for County provided facilities and
services. This analysis is intended to assist in project planning and where values are provided are not
intended as a precise forecast. Exact funding levels are subject to external circumstances and
context which creates uncertainty.
This analysis primarily looks at future funding for capital facilities planning as follows:
▶ Dedicated capital revenues: These revenues are required by law to be used for specific types of
capital expenditures.
▶ General capital revenues: These revenues are required by law to be used for capital, but the
types of capital projects are not restricted.
▶ Potential Policy Options and Other Funding Sources: This section covers other ways the
County could fund its capital project costs, including policy choices and other sources such as
notes, bonds, and grants. Many of these other policy options are identified in supporting system
plans.
Limitations
Annexation and incorporation of land into cities can have significant impacts on the County’s
revenues by decreasing the taxable base. No large annexations or incorporations are imminent, and
this Capital Facility Plan does not adjust costs or revenues for that situation. If incorporation or
annexations are proposed, fiscal analysis would be performed to inform the decision for the
community and the County.
2.2 DEDICATED CAPITAL REVENUES
Several sources of revenues are required by law to be used for specific types of capital expenditures,
as summarized below.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 15
Transportation
Potential sources of dedicated capital revenue for transportation projects include: Motor vehicle fuel
tax, road levy, federal and state grants and appropriations, and State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA) mitigation fees if applicable.
As noted in the Transportation Improvement Program 2018-2023, the County’s largest source is
from State and Federal funds. About $3.5 Million of the almost $17 million funds are secured.
The T.I.P. is strongly influenced by the availability of funding, and many of the projects
listed do not, as yet, have secured funding. Historically, projects on Jefferson County’s T.I.P.
have averaged more than 70% funding from State and Federal sources. Many non-local
transportation revenue sources however only fund certain types of improvements on
certain types of roads, and as such Federal and State priorities can strongly influence
what actually gets accomplished. Lack of available local match funds limits the number
and size of grants that can be utilized. Local funds available for this proposed 6-year
capital program average only $277,000 per year. Jefferson County has a limited tax base
with transportation revenues among the lowest in western Washington when measured in
terms of dollars available per road mile. The county road fund has seen a 25% overall
reduction in annual operating revenue due to loss of federal land timber revenue in recent
years.
Parks
Per the 2015 PROS Plan, parks capital projects can be funded by General Funds, Grants, and
Donations. Also, if large developments increase demand, SEPA Mitigation measures may result in
funds for, or development of, parks.
The 2018 Budget Hearing presentation noted: “Parks & Rec is short by over $100,000/yr. in funding
to maintain existing facilities and programs.
In addition to the sources described above, the 2015 PROS Plan indicated the following sources of
funds may be considered:
▶ Conservation Futures – 2002 Program in Place: Funds may be used for open space acquisition
and some limited parks and recreation facilities. The 2015 PROS Plan indicates the fund source
results in annual tax revenues of $220,000.
▶ Levy lid lift – Potential, Not in Place: Taxing jurisdictions with a tax rate of less than their statutory
taxing rate may ask the voters to “lift” the levy lid by increasing the tax rate to some amount
equal to or less than their statutory maximum rate. It was estimated that if instituted this source
could bring between $459,000-$734,000 funds annually.
▶ Bonds – both general obligation bonds (Board of County Commissioner approved) and
unlimited tax general bonds (voter approved).
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 16
Solid Waste
Solid waste service charges cover operational costs and include a capital component. Revenues
collected can be used to finance capacity expansions as growth occurs. Revenues streams are
predictable and reliable allowing for solid capital facilities planning.
The 2016 Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan identified several funding strategies
including: garbage rates, tipping fees, special user fees, grants, and other funding as available.
2.3 GENERAL CAPITAL REVENUES
Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) revenues are collected upon the sale of real property can be applied
to a wide variety of capital projects. REET is the principal revenue source used to build or acquire
general administrative facilities for the County REET revenues have been healthy in recent years and
have been trending upwards. However, REET revenues are heavily dependent on a healthy real
estate market and can fall substantially during recessions.
EXHIBIT 2-1 Real Estate Excise Tax Revenue 2009-2017 (Year of Estimate $)
Source: Jefferson County 2018
A substantial portion of the County’s REET revenues have been dedicated to making debt service
payments. Two bonds will mature soon, one in 2018 and one in 2022. Revenues freed up when
those bonds mature will be available to service new debt that could be used to finance the
construction of a new law and justice facility in the 7-20-year planning period.
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Total $559,398 $426,058 $443,450 $549,121 $707,883 $704,385 $1,196,934 $1,237,774 $1,285,270
$0
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
$1,400,000
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 17
2.4 NOTES, BONDS, & GRANTS
Other sources of funds may be considered for projects, including notes, bonds, and grants. Grants
are preferred, when available and appropriate for the work needed, because the monies can be
leveraged and do not impact revenue or debt capacity. Borrowing through notes or bonds is
sometime the only option for large capital projects. However, borrowing entails risk—will the
County’s revenue streams be adequate to service the debt? In the past the General Fund could
contribute funds for capital projects. Recently however, the General Fund has struggled to meet
ongoing operational demands and hasn’t been able to contribute to the capital program.
2.5 SIX-YEAR PROJECTED FUNDING & COST
COMPARISON
The purpose of this section is to compare Jefferson County’s dedicated capital facilities revenue
sources with its planned project costs for the six-year planning horizon of 2018-2023 to understand
the difference between near-term future dedicated capital revenues and planned future costs. In
Jefferson County, future capital costs are generally larger than future dedicated capital revenues.
This trend is seen in most counties and cities throughout Washington State, given the structural and
legal limitations on capital funding sources.
Understanding the magnitude of this difference can help the County plan for ways to fill in the gap
through other funding methods, such as operating transfers or bonds.
EXHIBIT 2-2 Estimated Capital Project Costs by Category (2018$)
Facility Costs:
2018-2023
Revenues:
2018-2023
Local
Funding
Strategies
Law Enforcement/
Justice
$1,090,492 $1,090,492 $1,090,492 REET, Rates, Bonds, Grants, Etc.
Parks and
Recreation2
$501,500 $501,500 $501,500 General Fund, donations &
grants. Seek additional grants
and donations for unmet goals
in periods prior to 2018 and
update phasing.
Public
Administration1
$3,372,750 $3,372,750 $3,372,750 REET, Fleet Services Fund
Balance
Sewer $0 $0 $0 Seek funding: grants, low
interest infrastructure loans,
local improvement district,
connection charges, and
revenue from service rates.
Solid Waste3 $0 $0 $0 Rates per 2016 Solid Waste
Management Plan.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 18
Facility Costs:
2018-2023
Revenues:
2018-2023
Local
Funding
Strategies
Stormwater $0 $0 $0 See Transportation.
Transportation $23,311,966 $25,434,621 $1,662,875 Federal and State Funding at
over 70%, Developer Fair Share
Contribution, and Local Funds.
Total $28,276,708 $30,399,363 $6,627,617 Principally Transportation: seek
Federal and State Funds.
Notes: 1 Public Administration includes the Animal Shelter, Community Centers, Administrative
Facilities, and Maintenance Shops.
2 Funds projected for 2018-2023 would meet the original PROS Program costs for the period, and
partially cover some uncompleted projects in prior years, which may require alternative phasing.
3 Regarding solid waste, assessments are planned for two County solid waste handling facilities, which may need
capital repairs. When studies are complete projects may be added to the 2018-2023 period or phased in 2024-
2038 period.
Source: Jefferson County 2018
3 Capital Facilities Assessment
3.1 LAW ENFORCEMENT
Overview
Jefferson County Law Enforcement facilities include the Correctional Facility, the Sheriff’s
administration, investigation and patrol building, the Sheriff’s Clearwater Annex on the west end,
and the Courthouse (Prosecuting Attorney, Clerk, Juvenile Services, and District and Superior Courts.
Inventory of Current Facilities
The Correctional Facility, located in Port Hadlock, was constructed in 1984 with a major addition in
1999. This facility serves both unincorporated and incorporated populations of the County. The
current inventory of inmate beds in the corrections inmate facility totals 58. The facility also
includes the Emergency Operations Center for the county. The table below lists each facility as well
as their current capacities and location.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 19
EXHIBIT 3-1 Inmate Correction Facilities Inventory
Name Location Capacity
# Beds
Correction Facility Port Hadlock 58
Clearwater Annex Clearwater 0
Total 58
Source: Jefferson County 2018
The Sheriff Administrative Facility in Port Hadlock was constructed in 2003 and early 2004 with
occupancy occurring in April 2004.
EXHIBIT 3-2 Sheriff's Administration, Investigation, Patrol Inventory
Name Location Capacity
Net Sq. Ft.
Administrative Facility Port Hadlock 8,000
Clearwater Annex Clearwater 4,072
Total 12,072
Source: Jefferson County 2018
The current inventory of Justice Facilities includes a total of 20,367 square feet including Superior
Court, District Court/Probation, Juvenile Services/Family Court, and the Prosecuting Attorney’s
offices.
EXHIBIT 3-3 Justice Facilities Inventory
Name Location Capacity
Net Sq. Ft.
Jefferson County Courthouse Port Townsend
Superior Court 8,846
District Court/Probation 4,077
Juvenile Services/Family Court 2,934
Prosecuting Attorney 4,510
Total 20,367
Source: Jefferson County 2018
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 20
Level of Service Analysis
Jefferson County is proposing to lower levels of service in two phases, one reduction for the 6-year
planning period and a second reduction for the 7-20-year planning period. The existing levels of
service are unnecessarily high and falsely indicate that the county needs additional facilities to meet
the demands of an increasing population. The proposed lower levels of service eliminate facility
deficits in all cases, eliminating the need to add capacity.
The proposed LOS right sizes the jail for the duration of the planning period. Average daily jail
population in 2017 was 35 inmates. It is anticipated that if a bed deficit occurs, the deficit will be
addressed by transferring inmates to a county with excess capacity or by adjusting sentencing
guidelines.
EXHIBIT 3-4 Inmate Correction Facilities Capacity Analysis
Year Service
Area
Population
Population
Change
Beds
Required
# Beds
Change
Available
Beds
Reserve
Or
(Deficit)
County Proposed LOS Equals = 1.75 Beds Per 1,000 population
2018 31,667 55 58
2019 31,978 311 56 1 58 2
2020 32,291 313 57 1 58 1
2021 32,608 317 57 0 58 1
2022 32,927 319 58 1 58 0
2023 33,250 323 58 0 58 0
County Proposed LOS Equals = 1.48 Beds Per 1,000 population
2038 39,221 5,971 58 0 58 0
Total Proposed 58 0
Source: Jefferson County 2018
The proposed LOS for Sheriff's Administration facilities creates adequate capacity at the end of the
planning period. No capacity projects are required. Since the Clearwater Annex is staffed by a single
officer, it was not included in the LOS calculation.
EXHIBIT 3-5 Sheriff's Administration, Investigation, Patrol Capacity Analysis
Year Service
Area
Population
Population
Change
Square
Feet
Required
Square
Feet
Change
Available
Square
Feet
Reserve
Or
(Deficit)
County Proposed LOS Equals = 240 Square Feet Per 1,000 population
2018 31,667 7,600 8,000 400
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 21
Year Service
Area
Population
Population
Change
Square
Feet
Required
Square
Feet
Change
Available
Square
Feet
Reserve
Or
(Deficit)
2019 31,978 311 7,675 75 8,000 325
2020 32,291 313 7,750 75 8,000 250
2021 32,608 317 7,826 76 8,000 174
2022 32,927 319 7,902 77 8,000 98
2023 33,250 323 7,980 78 8,000 20
County Proposed LOS Equals = 200 Square Feet Per 1,000 population
2038 39,221 5,971 7,844 -136 8,000 156
Total Proposed 8,000 156
Source: Jefferson County 2018
The proposed LOS for Justice Facilities yields a small reserve at the end of the planning period. No
capacity projects are required.
EXHIBIT 3-6 Justice Facilities Capacity Analysis
Year Service
Area
Population
Population
Change
Square
Feet
Required
Square
Feet
Change
Available
Square
Feet
Reserve
or
(Deficit)
County Proposed LOS Equals = 610 Square Feet Per 1,000 population
2018 31,667 19,317 20,367 1,050
2019 31,978 311 19,507 190 20,367 860
2020 32,291 313 19,698 191 20,367 669
2021 32,608 317 19,891 193 20,367 476
2022 32,927 319 20,085 195 20,367 282
2023 33,250 323 20,283 197 20,367 85
County Proposed LOS Equals = 515 Square Feet Per 1,000 population
2038 39,221 5,971 20,199 (84) 20,367 168
Total Proposed 20,367 168
Source: Jefferson County 2018
Capital Projects & Funding
Because there are no projected facility deficits capital spending on facilities will be confined to
capital maintenance, repairs, and replacements. While no deficit is projected for law and justice
facilities the County is considering constructing a new law and justice center for the Prosecuting
Attorney, Clerk, Juvenile Services and District and Superior Courts in the 7-20-year planning period
to better meet operational needs and requirements.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 22
EXHIBIT 3-7 Law Enforcement: Project List & Funding Source (Cost in
Thousands 2018$)
Project / Type Revenue Sources Cost:
2018-23
Cost:
2024-38
Total
Capacity Projects (Projects Required to Meet LOS)
Law and Justice Center REET, Rates, Bonds, Grants, Etc. $0 $15,000 $15,000
Non-Capacity Projects (Other Projects Needed for Maintenance and Operations)
Various Facilities
Improvements/Equipment
REET, Rates, Bonds, Grants, Etc. $1,117 $8,000 $1,917
Source: Jefferson County 2018
EXHIBIT 3-8 Law Enforcement Summary of Capital Costs (2018$)
Category
Summary
Cost: 2018-2023 Cost: 2024-2038 Total Cost
Capacity Projects $0 $15,000,000 $15,000,000
Non-Capacity Projects $1,117,492 $800,000 $1,917,492
Total $1,117,492 $15,800,000 $16,917,492
Source: Jefferson County 2018
EXHIBIT 3-9 Law Enforcement Summary of Capital Revenues (2018$)
Revenue Source Revenue:
2018-2023
Revenue:
2024-2038
Total Revenue
LTGO Bond $0 $15,000,000 $15,000,000
REET $1,117,492 $800,000 $1,617,492
Total $1,117,492 $15,800,000 $16,917,492
Source: Jefferson County 2018
3.2 PARKS & RECREATION
Overview
This section addresses parks and recreation facilities operated by Jefferson County based on the
Jefferson County Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (PROS) Plan, which was updated in 2015.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 23
Inventory of Current Facilities
Parks owned and managed by Jefferson County are summarized in the table below. A detailed
inventory of parks and recreation facilities, including parks, trails, community centers, and open
space is contained in the 2015 PROS Plan.
EXHIBIT 3-10 Jefferson County Parks
Parks Acres Location
Neighborhood Parks 7.0
County Courthouse Park 2.0 Port Townsend
Irondale Community Park 3.0 Port Hadlock
Quilcene River & Bay Park East 2.0 Quilcene
County/Community Parks 115.5
Bob Bates Field 12.0 Port Hadlock
Cape George Trailhead 43.0 Port Townsend
Chimacum County Park 14.0 Chimacum
East Beach County Park 1.0 Marrowstone Island
Hicks County Park in Shine 1.0 Port Ludlow
Irondale Beach County Park 12.5 Port Hadlock
Lake Leland County Park 9.0 Quilcene
North Beach County Park 1.0 Port Townsend
Quilcene County Park 8.0 Quilcene
Quilcene Sports Park/ Smackman Field 14.0 Quilcene
Regional Parks 723.0
Beausite Lake County Park & NW Kiwanis Camp 30.0 Chimacum
Gibbs Lake County Park & Trails 601.0 Chimacum
H.J. Carroll County Park & Trail 50.0 Chimacum
Larry Scott Trail 7.0 (8.5 mi) Port Townsend
Oak Bay County Park Lower 30.0 Port Ludlow
Oak Bay County Park Upper 5.0 Port Ludlow
Natural Open Space 183.8
Indian Island County Park & Trail 140.0 Port Hadlock
Broad Spit County Park 43.8 Quilcene
Special Use Areas 165.8
Jefferson County Memorial Athletic Field 5.0 Port Townsend
Jefferson County Fairgrounds 27.7 Port Townsend
Jefferson County Equestrian Park 80.0 Quimper
Jefferson Co. Sportsman Assn. Shooting Range 43.0 Quimper
Port Townsend Community Center 1.0 Port Townsend
Brinnon Community Center NA Brinnon
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 24
Parks Acres Location
Coyle Community Center (Laurel B. Johnson) 1.0 South Toandos
Gardiner Community Center 2.0 Gardner
Tri-Area Community Center 2.0 Port Hadlock
Quilcene Community Center 4.1 Quilcene
Total Jefferson County Parks 1,195.2
Source: Jefferson County Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan, 2015; Jefferson County, 2018.
Level of Service Analysis
The table below shows the application of adopted levels of service to the expected population of
33,250 by 2023, the six-year planning period. The PROS Plan was adopted in 2015 with a horizon
year of 2035. It assumed a 2035 county-wide population of 37,914. In addition to reviewing 2035, the
table below carries out the adopted levels of service to 2038, the Comprehensive Plan horizon, and
a population of 39,221.
At 2023 there is only a deficit of trails, and a surplus of park acres. At 2035 there is effectively a
balance between demand and supply of parks, though a continued deficit of trails. To address the
deficit of trails, the County has applied a base LOS that is achievable at 0.52 miles per 1,000
population; should funding allow, such as through grants, a target LOS of 1.83 miles of trail per 1,000
population is established.
EXHIBIT 3-11 Parks Levels of Service Analysis
LOS per 1,000
residents Existing 2023 2035 2038
Park Class Num. Unit Supply Demand Surplus
(Deficit)
Demand Surplus
(Deficit)
Demand Surplus
(Deficit)
Regional 19.07 Acres 723 634.0 88.92 723.0 (0.02) 747.9 (24.9)
Community 3.05 Acres 115.5 101.4 14.01 115.6 (0.14) 119.6 (4.1)
Neighborhood 0.16 Acres 7 5.3 1.67 6.1 0.93 6.3 0.72
Open Space 4.85 Acres 183.8 161.2 22.5 183.89 (0.08) 190.2 (6.4)
Special Use 3.24 Acres 165.8 107.7 58.1 122.84 43.0 127.1 38.7
Trails: Target LOS 1.83 Miles 27.2 60.9 (33.7) 69.4 (42.2) 71.8 (44.6)
Trails: Base LOS 0.52 Miles 27.2 17.29 9.91 19.72 7.48 20.39 6.81
Source: Jefferson County 2015, BERK, 2018.
Carrying out the adopted level of service to 2038, some deficits would be found not only in trails but
also with parks. The County’s park capital improvement program focuses on trial extension and
addition, and park maintenance and capital replacement. If the County wishes to continue a focus
on trails and avoiding addition of park acreage, the levels of service would need to be reduced for
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 25
those facilities. This can be reflected in the Facilities and Utilities Element with corresponding
changes in the PROS Plan, or the current levels of service can be retained and future parks capital
projects added in a subsequent PROS Plan to address the addition of parks acreage.
EXHIBIT 3-12 Parks Levels of Service Alternative
Park Classification Existing Park
Acres or Miles
PROS Plan 2015
& 2023 LOS
Alternative
LOS 2038
Regional Parks 723 19.07 18.43
Community Parks 115.5 3.05 2.94
Neighborhood Parks 7 0.16 0.18
Open Space 183.8 4.85 4.69
Special Use 165.8 3.24 3.24
Trails (Miles) Target LOS 27.2 1.83 1.83
Trail (Miles) Base LOS 27.2 0.52 0.52
Source: Jefferson County 2015, BERK, 2018.
Capital Projects & Funding
The 2015 PROS Plan identifies projects from 2015 through 2035. Planning level park and trail cost
estimates for the period 2018-2035 are provided in the table below; since some projects may not
have been completed in the 2015-2017 timeframe, the totals are listed below as well.
Based on 2015-2017 Budget information regarding Fund 175, County Parks Improvement Fund, the
County expended about $241,000 during that period, less than the $901,600 anticipated in the
PROS Plan. Considering spending over the slightly longer 2015-2018 period based on budgets, the
County would average over $98,000 per year, and for six years the total funds could equal $591,440,
which could cover the 2018-2023 PROS Plan estimate of $501,500 plus make up in part for less
spending in 2015-2017. It is likely that projects incomplete in the 2015-2017 years would carry into
2018-2023 and 2024-2038 periods. The County could seek higher grants and donations to make up
the difference as well.
The projects that would add capacity for new population include trail projects. Non-capacity
projects include facility capital maintenance or replacement projects at parks across the system.
See the 205 PROS Plan for more detail.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 26
EXHIBIT 3-13 PROS Plan Parks Project List & Funding Source (Cost in
Thousands 2018$)
Project /
Type
Revenue
Sources
Cost
2015-17
Cost:
2018-23
Cost: 2024-
38
Total 2018-
38
Adjusted
Total 2018-
23 with
2015-17
Carryover
Capacity Projects (Projects Required to Meet LOS)
New Trail
Network
General
Fund,
donations &
grants
$16.00 $12.0 $0 $12.0 $28.0
Non-Capacity Projects (Other Projects Needed for Maintenance and Operations)
Capital
Maintenance
and
Replacement
General
Fund,
donations &
grants
$885.60 $489.50 $2,450.00 $2,939.50 $3,492.40
Total $901.60 $501.50 $2,450.00 $2,951.50 $3,522.40
Source: Jefferson County 2015; BERK, 2018.
3.3 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Overview
Public Administration Facilities include the Animal Control Shelter, Community Centers, General
Administrative Offices in the County Courthouse, two General Administrative Buildings on Castle
Hill and Maintenance Shop Facilities in various locations.
Inventory of Current Facilities
Animal Control Shelter
The County-owned Animal Control Shelter was constructed at Critter Lane in 1994. The Animal
Control Shelter is available to residents of both the unincorporated and incorporated areas of the
county. The table below identifies the current facility capacity and location.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 27
EXHIBIT 3-14 Animal Control Shelter Current Facilities Inventory
Name Location Capacity Net Sq. Ft.
Animal Shelter Critter Lane, Jefferson County 2,313
Total 2,313
Source: Jefferson County 2018
Community Centers
The Brinnon Community Center was constructed during the 1960’s with a major remodel during
1986. The Gardiner Community Center was constructed in 1978 with a major remodel in 1999. The
Port Townsend Community Center was remodeled in 1991. The Quilcene Community Center was
constructed in 1976 with a major addition in 1999. The Tri-Area Community Center was constructed
in 1981. The Coyle Community Center is not owned by the County; it is owned and managed by a
special Park & Recreation District. The table below identifies the County’s current facility capacity
and locations.
EXHIBIT 3-15 Community Centers Current Facilities Inventory
Name Location Capacity Net Sq. Ft.
Brinnon Community Center Brinnon 4,820
Gardiner Community Center Gardiner 5,000
Port Townsend Community Center Port Townsend 17,708
Quilcene Community Center Quilcene 4,970
Tri Area Community Center Chimacum 6,975
Total 39,473
Source: Jefferson County 2018
The current inventory of County government administrative offices includes four County-owned
facilities (Courthouse, Courthouse Annex, Castle Hill Building West, and Castle Hill Building east).
The Table below lists the facilities and associated square footages.
EXHIBIT 3-16 General Administrative Offices Current Facilities Inventory
Name Location Capacity Net Sq. Ft.
Jefferson County Courthouse Port Townsend
Administrative Offices 15,420
Storage Building 2,112
Castle Hill Building-west Port Townsend 14,512
Castle Hill Building-east Port Townsend 8,000
Total 40,044
Source: Jefferson County 2018
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 28
The current inventory of County Maintenance Shop facilities totals 32,440 square feet, and includes
five (5) County-owned facilities: Brinnon Storage/Shop, Clearwater Road Maintenance Shop,
Quilcene Road Maintenance Shop, Hoh River Road Maintenance Shop, and the Port Hadlock Main
Shop.
EXHIBIT 3-17 Maintenance Shop Facilities Current Facilities Inventory
Name Location Capacity Net Sq. Ft.
Brinnon Storage Shop Brinnon 1,800
Clearwater Road Maintenance Shop Clearwater 8,400
Quilcene Road Maintenance Shop Quilcene 4,240
Hoh River Maintenance Shop West End 6,000
Port Hadlock Main Shop Port Hadlock 12,000
Total 32,440
Source: Jefferson County 2018
Level of Service Analysis
Jefferson County is proposing to lower levels of service in two phases, one reduction for the 6-year
planning period and a second reduction for the 7-20-year planning period. The existing levels of
service are unnecessarily high and falsely indicate that the County needs additional facilities to
meet the demands of an increasing population. The proposed lower levels of service eliminate
facility deficits in all cases, eliminating the need to add capacity.
The proposed Animal Control Shelter LOS yields a capacity reserve at the end of the planning
period. No capacity projects are required.
EXHIBIT 3-18 Animal Control Shelter Capacity Analysis
Year Service
Area
Population
Population
Change
Square Feet
Required
Square
Feet
Change
Available
Square
Feet
Reserve
or
(Deficit)
County Proposed LOS Equals = 732 Square Feet Per 1,000 population
2018 31,667 2,185 2,313 128
2019 31,978 311 2,206 21 2,313 107
2020 32,291 313 2,228 22 2,313 85
2021 32,608 317 2,250 22 2,313 63
2022 32,927 319 2,272 22 2,313 41
2023 33,250 323 2,294 22 2,313 19
County Proposed LOS Equals = 58 Square Feet Per 1,000 population
2038 39,221 5,971 2,275 (19) 2,313 38
Total Proposed 2,313 38
Source: Jefferson County 2018
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 29
The proposed Community Center LOS will yield a small reserve at the end of the planning period.
No capacity projects are required.
EXHIBIT 3-19 Community Centers Capacity Analysis
Year Service
Area
Population
Population
Change
Square
Feet
Required
Square
Feet
Change
Available
Square
Feet
Reserve or
(Deficit)
County Proposed LOS Equals = 1,185 Square Feet Per 1,000 population
2018 31,667 37,525 39,473 1,948
2019 31,978 311 37,894 369 39,473 1,579
2020 32,291 313 38,265 371 39,473 1,208
2021 32,608 317 38,640 376 39,473 833
2022 32,927 319 39,018 378 39,473 455
2023 33,250 323 39,401 383 39,473 72
County Proposed LOS Equals = 1,005 Square Feet Per 1,000 population
2038 39,221 5,971 39,417 16 39,473 56
Total Proposed 39,473 56
Source: Jefferson County 2018
The proposed General Administrative Offices LOS will yield a small reserve at the end of the
planning period. No capacity projects are required.
EXHIBIT 3-20 General Administrative Offices Capacity Analysis
Year Service
Area
Population
Population
Change
Square
Feet
Required
Square
Feet
Change
Available
Square
Feet
Reserve or
(Deficit)
County Proposed LOS Equals = 1,200 Square Feet Per 1,000 population
2018 31,667 38,000 40,044 2,044
2019 31,978 311 38,374 373 40,044 1,670
2020 32,291 313 38,749 376 40,044 1,295
2021 32,608 317 39,130 380 40,044 914
2022 32,927 319 39,512 383 40,044 532
2023 33,250 323 39,900 388 40,044 144
County Proposed LOS Equals = 1,020 Square Feet Per 1,000 population
2038 39,221 5,971 40,005 105 40,044 39
Total Proposed 40,044 39
Source: Jefferson County 2018
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 30
The proposed Maintenance Shop LOS will yield a small reserve at the end of the planning period. No
capacity projects are required.
EXHIBIT 3-21 Maintenance Shop Facilities Capacity Analysis
Year Service
Area
Population
Population
Change
Square
Feet
Required
Square
Feet
Change
Available
Square
Feet
Reserve or
(Deficit)
County Proposed LOS Equals = 975 Square Feet Per 1,000 population
2018 31,667 30,875 32,440 1,565
2019 31,978 311 31,179 304 32,440 1,261
2020 32,291 313 31,484 305 32,440 956
2021 32,608 317 31,793 309 32,440 647
2022 32,927 319 32,104 311 32,440 336
2023 33,250 323 32,419 315 32,440 21
County Proposed LOS Equals = 825 Square Feet Per 1,000 population
2038 39,221 5,971 32,357 (62) 32,440 83
Total
Proposed
32,440 83
Source: Jefferson County 2018
Capital Projects & Funding
Because there are no projected facility deficits capital spending on facilities will be confined to
capital maintenance, repairs, and replacements. Should the County build a new law and justice
center substantial additional administrative space will become available when law and justice
functions move out of the Courthouse.
EXHIBIT 3-22 Public Administration Project List & Funding Source (Cost in
Thousands $)
Project / Type Revenue Sources Cost:
2018-23
Cost:
2024-38
Total
Capacity Projects (Projects Required to Meet LOS)
None Not applicable $0 $0 $0
Non-Capacity Projects (Other Projects Needed for Maintenance and Operations)
Various Facilities
Improvements/Equipment
REET, Fleet Services Fund
Balance
$3,373 $1,000 $4,373
Source: Jefferson County 2018
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 31
EXHIBIT 3-23 Public Administration: Summary of Capital Costs (2018$)
Category Summary Cost: 2018-2023 Cost: 2024-2038 Total Cost
Capacity Projects None None $0
Non-Capacity Projects $3,372,750 $1,000,000 $4,372,750
Total $3,372,750 $1,000,000 $4,372,750
Source: Jefferson County 2018
EXHIBIT 3-24 Public Administration: Summary of Capital Revenues (2018$)
Revenue Source Revenue:
2018-2023
Cost: 2024-2038 Total Revenue
REET 2,872,750 800,000 3,672,750
Fleet Services fund
balance
500,000 200,000 700,000
Total 3,372,750 1,000,000 4,372,750
Source: Jefferson County 2018
3.4 SEWER
Overview
Jefferson County currently does not provide sewer services. However, the County has plans for
providing sewer services to the Port Hadlock / Irondale Urban Growth Area as the area urbanizes.
The potential service area is located approximately six miles south of the City of Port Townsend.
Information about these service plans are detailed in the 2008 Port Hadlock UGA Sewer Facility
Plan.
Jefferson County Public Health is responsible for permitting and programs related to onsite sewage
systems in rural areas.
Non-county sewer service providers include the City of Port Townsend, which provides sewer
services to its residents, and the Olympic Water and Sewer District, which provides services to the
designated Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort.
The City of Port Townsend serves the city limits and has adopted its 2000 Wastewater Facilities
Plan. The 2016 Comprehensive Plan also provides information about city sewer service.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 32
Inventory of Current Facilities
The County currently does not own or operate sewage collection or treatment facilities. Because of
the Port Hadlock / Irondale UGA designation, facility planning was undertaken to determine the
specific capacity needs, potential ownership and operations scenarios, and funding requirements.
The Port Hadlock UGA Sewer Facility Plan, dated September 2008, has been accepted by the State
Department of Health and State Department of Ecology as an engineering plan-level document.
The Port Hadlock UGA Sewer Facility Plan, dated September 2008 is hereby incorporated by
reference into this Capital Facility Plan Technical Document and the associated Comprehensive
Plan.
The City of Port Townsend’s Comprehensive Plan lists an inventory of sewer facilities that includes a
wastewater treatment plant, a secondary treatment facility, a compost facility, 70 miles of gravity
sewer, 3 miles of force mains, seven sewage lift stations, and 1,250 maintenance holes.
Olympic Water and Sewer maintains a treatment plant for its sewer services.
Level of Service Analysis
The County has not adopted a level of service for sewer services since service is pending in the
future when funding is available. However, the UGA sewer plan projected an effective level of service
for projected flow, shown in Exhibit 3-25. The sewer plan projects an area population of 5,776 by
2030, which is higher than this Plan’s population projections by 2038. For the effective level of
service standards, the sewer plan notes peak hour flows as the target service to be met.
The 2008 Jefferson County―Port Hadlock UGA Sewer Facility Plan estimated population in the
potential service area through 2030, which included an effective level of service based on assumed
flow projections per equivalent residential unit. The previous sewer plan analyzed service levels with
population projections through 2030, where it assumed 5,776 residents in the service area. Those
projections are slightly higher than current projections from the 2018-2038 Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan, which projects a 2038 population of 5,394. Thus, the ability to meet proposed
level of services for future sewage systems remains the same.
EXHIBIT 3-25 Growth & Potential Sewer Demand
System Projected Wastewater Flows
(Million gallons per day)
Annual
Average
Maximum
Monthly
Peak Day Peak Hour
Gravity Collection System 0.70 0.96 1.28 2.59
STEP Collection System 0.63 0.82 1.05 2.26
Source: Port Hadlock Sewer Facility Plan, 2009, BERK, 2018.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 33
The City of Port Townsend is responsible for its own level of service standards and is regulated by
the Department of Ecology.
Olympic Water and Sewer Inc. serves Port Ludlow and follows a Development Agreement approved
by Jefferson County in 2000 which capped development at 2, 250 residential "Measurement
Equivalent Residential Units" (MERU' s). One residential MERU equates to one residential unit and
equals 200 gallons per day of sewer waste water flow. In 2015, 1, 544 residential dwelling units had
been constructed, leaving 706 dwelling units remaining. (Jefferson County Resolution 38-15) The
Master Plan and associated utilities were sized for this growth. County plans assume most but not
all the remaining 706 dwelling units would be built.
Capital Projects & Funding
The Port Hadlock Sewer Facility Plan for the area considered seven alternatives, which would
include capital projects if selected. The first capital projects for sewer service would likely be a
treatment facility and a collection system. The County anticipates continuing to secure funding in
the six-year period of 2018-2023; implementation is not anticipated until after 2023. To allow urban
density pending the development of the full treatment system, the County may allow alternative
wastewater treatment systems that do not preclude future hook-up to traditional sewer. The
County has considered grants, a local improvement district, and revenue collected from service
rates to provide funding.
The City of Port Townsend maintains a Capital Improvement Plan it adopts annually. The most
recent CIP includes capital projects for sewer services within its 2017-2022 planning period.
3.5 SOLID WASTE
Overview
Jefferson County provides solid waste services, which includes collection of recyclables and disposal
of solid waste, programs for waste reduction, recycling, organics, and special wastes disposal. The
County’s 2016 Solid Waste Management Plan, is hereby incorporated by reference.
Inventory of Current Facilities
As described in the Solid Waste Management Plan (2016), the primary solid waste and recycling
facilities are co-located at 325 County Landfill Road, which is near Port Townsend about 0.75 miles
west of Highway 20, and is referred to as the Jacob Miller Solid Waste Facilities. The property is
zoned as an Essential Public Facility. The Jacob Miller Solid Waste Facilities include a closed landfill,
the Jacob Miller transfer station, the recycling facility operated by Skookum Contract Services, and
the City of Port Townsend’s Biosolids Compost Facility. There is one other facility open to the public
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 34
in Jefferson County for solid waste disposal, which is the Quilcene Drop Box at 295312 Highway 101.
That site accepts residential solid waste, recyclables, and a limited range of moderate-risk waste
(MRW). The MRW Facility at the Port of Port Townsend accepts a wider range of hazardous waste
materials. The inventory of Jefferson County solid waste facilities can be seen in Exhibit 3-26. The
County also coordinates with other waste services providers, and will transfer materials to other
providers as necessary.
EXHIBIT 3-26 Solid Waste Facilities Current Facilities Inventory
Name Capacity (Net
Sq. Ft.)
Location
SW Transfer Station – Buildings 12,050 Co. Landfill Road, Jefferson County
SW TS—Working Lot Area 51,290 Co. Landfill Road, Jefferson County
Solid Waste Drop Box Facility 30,320 Highway 101, Quilcene
Recycle Center—Buildings 10,900 Co. Landfill Road, Jefferson County
Recycle Center—Working Lot Area 58,100 Co. Landfill Road, Jefferson County
Moderate Risk Waste Facility 8,202 Port of Port Townsend
Total Net Square Feet 170,862
Solid Waste Management Facility Co. Landfill Road, Jefferson County
Actively Operated/Maintained Areas 35 acres
Buffer Area 66 acres
Total SW Facility Area 101 acres
Level of Service Analysis
The Solid Waste Management Plan projects population to 2035 up to 37,914, which is consistent
with the OFM 2012 Medium Forecast adopted by Jefferson County, just for the horizon year of the
system plan. Thus, it would be similar to the trajectory of the 2018 Comprehensive Plan. The County
effective level of service standards and demand projections for waste services are shown in the table
below. The effective level of service is based on 2016 figures from the Solid Waste Management Plan
and projected growth to 2038. The estimated demand generated by 2038 of garbage and recycling
waste is over 46,000 pounds per day collectively. Waste management programs and policies are
intended to reduce the amount of waste generated per capita, and these projections are
conservative.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 35
EXHIBIT 3-27 Potential Solid Waste Demand
Service Estimated Growth
(2018-2038)
Net Demand
Generated
Solid Waste, Garbage Effective LOS = 3.12 pounds per capita per day
Solid Waste, Recycling Effective LOS = 2.8 pounds per capita per day
Solid Waste, Garbage 7.916 24,698
Solid Waste, Recycle 7,916 22,165
Source: Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2016, BERK, 2018.
Capital Projects & Funding
The County Solid Waste Management Plan is updated regularly and projects capital projects over a
six-year planning period. The plan does note that assessments are planned for the two-county solid
waste handling facilities, which may result in capital planning changes when completed. Those will
be addressed in a separate study. The plan also anticipates that programs and facilities in Jefferson
County will generally be able to stay on the course established by this SWMP for the next twenty
years through 2035. Plans must be reviewed every five years and revised if necessary; the next
review is anticipated in 2021.
The County’s funding strategies include the following:
EXHIBIT 3-28 Funding Strategies for Recommendations
Project or
Activity
Garbage
Rates
Tipping
Fees
Special
Waste
Fees
Grants Other
Funding as
Available
Waste Reduction X X X
Recycling and
Organics X X X
Solid Waste
Collection X
Transfer and
Disposal X
Special Wastes X X X
Administration
and Education X X X
Source: Jefferson County 2016
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 36
3.6 STORMWATER
Overview
Jefferson County applies regulations that require development to manage runoff and pollutions.
The County’s stormwater infrastructure is largely associated with its road system. The County has
planned for urban stormwater infrastructure in the Port Hadlock/Irondale Urban Growth Area.
Inventory of Current Facilities
Most of the stormwater management facilities owned by Jefferson County serve County roads. In
addition, there are facilities to collect, treat, convey, and dispose of stormwater runoff from County-
owned buildings, including the County road maintenance facility, Community Centers, Sheriff’s
office, and jail. There is also a storm sewer system in the area around the main intersection in Port
Hadlock that collects runoff from Irondale Road, Chimacum Road, SR 116, and private properties
and discharges it to Port Townsend Bay. This system does not have a treatment facility.
Level of Service Analysis
Jefferson County has adopted the standards of the Washington Department of Ecology Stormwater
Management Manual for Western Washington as its level of service for designing stormwater
management facilities. The County has also adopted the Washington State Department of
Transportation Highway Runoff Manual as its LOS for stormwater management facilities for County
roads.
Capital Projects & Funding
Jefferson County has prepared two plans that govern stormwater management, and future capital
investment such as in the Urban Growth Area, and are hereby incorporated by reference:
▶ Port Hadlock / Irondale Urban Growth Area Stormwater Management Plan, May 2004
▶ Jefferson County Surface Water Management Plan, November 2006
Apart from investments in facilities that are associated with roads, no additional capital projects are
planned in the six-year period. Implementation of the Urban Growth Area infrastructure would
occur as urban development is approved, and as funding allows, over the 20-year planning horizon.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 37
3.7 TRANSPORTATION
Overview
This section addresses transportation facilities and infrastructure in the County and supports both
the Transportation Element and Capital Facilities and Utilities Element.
Inventory of Current Facilities
The County road inventory consists of 399.285 miles of County roads, with most roadways being
local rural access roads; see Exhibit 3-29. There are also 32 County-owned bridges.
EXHIBIT 3-29 County Road Miles by Functional Class (Thru Lane Surface)
Functional Classification Miles
Major Rural Collectors 36.35
Minor Rural Collectors 102.13
Local Rural Access 255.67
Urban Collectors 5.14
Total 399.29
Source: Jefferson County
Level of Service Analysis
For roadways, LOS is typically described in terms of congestion, which may be measured by average
travel speed or vehicular density. Six levels of service are defined from A to F with LOS A
representing the best operating conditions and LOS F the worst. Jefferson County’s adopted level of
service (LOS) standards are consistent with the standards established by the Peninsula Regional
Transportation Planning Organization (PRTPO) and the Washington State Department of
Transportation. These standards are as follows:
▶ Rural Roads (roads outside an urban boundary line) = LOS C
▶ Urban Roads (roads within an urban boundary line) = LOS D
▶ Master Planned Resort Roads (roads within an MPR boundary line) = LOS D
▶ Highways of Regional Significance (rural corridors carrying an urban level of traffic) = LOS D
The capacity analysis and traffic forecasts indicate that at the planning horizon year of 2038, all
County roads are expected to operate at or above the adopted LOS standard.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 38
A few State Route segments will exceed their estimated capacity based on the level of service
standards established by Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and the PRTPO,
and the roadway LOS methodology adopted by the County. These LOS standards are based on
roadway classification. State highways that are forecast to not meet LOS standards within the
planning period include:
▶ SR 104 (Paradise Bay Road to Jefferson/Kitsap County Line)
▶ SR 19 (SR 116 to SR 20)
The LOS analysis performed utilized a roadway capacity analysis that evaluated classified roadways
throughout the County. Individual intersections were only analyzed within the County’s Tri-Area
UGA, and the results of the analysis are presented in the UGA Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan.
The PRTPO utilized a similar methodology and process for evaluating traffic forecasts and levels of
service. However, it differed from the County as it utilized directional PM peak hour roadway
capacities instead of total daily volume capacities. The differences in LOS methodology resulted in
the following additional state highway segments exceeding capacity:
▶ SR 104 (Eastbound direction from SR 19 to Paradise Bay Road)
▶ US 101 (Both directions from SR 104 to SR 20)
▶ SR 20 (Thomas Street to Kearney Street)
The state highway system is owned and maintained by WSDOT and serves regional and statewide
travel needs. While several roadway segments of the state highway system through Jefferson
County are expected to exceed adopted state LOS standards, further widening of the corridors to
accommodate future demand would require significant investments in capital dollars, impact
adjoining property owners, and would be beyond the financial capacity of Jefferson County.
Capital Projects & Funding
County-wide
Annually, Jefferson County prepares a six-year transportation improvement program. Road and
intersection improvements, and non-motorized improvements make up most of the proposed
program.
EXHIBIT 3-30 Transportation Capital Facilities Projects, 2018-2023
Capital Investment Type Cost Percent
Engineering Assessments & County-wide Programs $584,000 3%
Non-Motorized Transportation $4,671,000 28%
Culvert & Bridge Replacement/Repair $3,670,000 22%
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 39
Capital Investment Type Cost Percent
Road & Intersection Improvements $7,495,000 44%
Permanent Repairs and Mitigation for Emergency Projects $524,000 3%
Total $16,944,000 100%
Source: (Jefferson County Public Works, 2017)
The six-year transportation improvement program is used to help seek federal and state funds.
Historically, projects have averaged more than 70% funding from State and Federal sources. Local
funds available for this proposed 6-year capital program average only $277,000 per year.
EXHIBIT 3-31 Transportation Funding Sources, 2018-2023
Funding Source Amount Percent
Local $1,662,875 10%
Other $0 0%
State $10,120,150 60%
Federal $5,160,975 30%
Total $16,944,000 100%
Source: (Jefferson County Public Works, 2017)
Port Hadlock/Irondale Urban Growth Area
Per Appendix C of the Comprehensive Plan Update, levels of service in the Port Hadlock/Irondale
UGA and vicinity have been evaluated for the 2018-2038 period. See that appendix for State Route
segment analysis; as improvements to state highways are not under County control, they are not
included in the County’s Capital Facility Plan Technical Document. However, several intersections of
County roads and State Routes are addressed in the analysis below.
Under existing conditions, roadway capacity on SR 19, SR 116, and all roadways in the Irondale-Port
Hadlock UGA are adequate. However, there are several unfinalized intersections along SR 19 in the
Irondale, Port Hadlock and Chimacum areas that experience long delays as vehicles wait for gaps in
traffic on SR 19. To accommodate the minor street delays while also maintaining mobility on SR 19,
a minimum number of interruptions to traffic flow (traffic signals or roundabouts) should be
pursued. The most appropriate way to avoid excessive traffic control is to minimize the number of
locations of traffic access onto SR 19 as well as control turn movements onto SR 19. The intersection
of SR 19 and SR 116 (Ness's Corner) currently experiences the greatest side-street delay, and is
therefore the most immediate need for signalization or roundabout installation. If traffic control is
installed, traffic could be redirected to this intersection by way of further road improvements to
facilitate traffic circulation and mobility. The benefits of this would include the following:
▶ Limited access to SR19 would increase the mobility along SR19
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 40
▶ Minimize impacts of growth to the neighborhoods along Irondale Rd.
▶ Greater control of turn movements onto SR19
▶ Reduce existing delays on the minor leg of the intersection
▶ Provide safe, efficient route through the UGA for freight and other commercial traffic
Improved traffic control of the SR 19/SR 116 intersection would create sufficient gaps in traffic along
SR 19 to allow safer, more comfortable turn movements onto SR 19. To reduce this delay, relieve
congestion and enhance safety, this intersection should be signalized or have a roundabout
installed per Appendix C.
Several intersections experience similar problems to those of the SR19 /SR 116 intersection, such as
SR 19 and Irondale Road, SR 19 and Prospect Avenue, and SR 19 and Four Corners Road. Excessive
minor leg delays should be reduced by improved traffic control at these intersections.
Under GMA and SEPA, new development and growth would not be required to mitigate existing
deficiencies. The County could require new development to mitigate conditions back to existing
levels of service, if traffic conditions worsen due to development.
As growth and development continues in the Irondale-Port Hadlock UGA as planned over the next
20 years, further improvements to the road system will be required to maintain adopted level of
service standards.
Based on projected volumes, intersection improvements will be required at the following
intersections by 2038:
▶ SR 19 & SR 116
▶ Chimacum Road and SR 116
▶ SR 19 & Irondale Rd.
▶ SR 19 & 4 Corners Rd.
▶ SR 116 & Cedar Ave
▶ SR 19 & Woodland Dr.
▶ SR 19 & Prospect Ave.
The locations of improvements are shown in the Exhibit 3-32 below.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 41
EXHIBIT 3-32 Port Hadlock/Irondale Area Improvement Projects
Source: Transpo Group, 2018
Costs of many of these improvements have been identified in a study of the SR 19/SR 20 Corridor.
See Exhibit 3-33.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 42
EXHIBIT 3-33 SR 19/SR 20 Corridor Plan Intersection Improvement (2009$ in
Millions)
Project Cost Range: Low Cost Range High Partners/Resources
SR 19 & SR 116 Intersection
Control
$3.6 $4.8 State
Chimacum Road and SR 116 Pending Pending State and Jefferson
County
SR 19 & Irondale Rd.
Intersection Control
$1.5 $2.0 State and Jefferson
County
SR 19/Four Corners Rd
Channelization
$0.5 $0.7 State and Jefferson
County
SR 19/Four Corners Rd
Intersection Control
Pending Pending State and Jefferson
County
SR 116 & Cedar Ave Pending Pending State and Jefferson
County
SR 19/ Airport Woodland Drive
Intersection Control
$2.2 $3.0 State and Jefferson
County
SR 19/Prospect Ave.
Intersection Control
$1.2 $1.5 State and Jefferson
County
Total All Projects $9.00 $12.00
Total (Excluding SR 19 & SR 16) $5.4 $7.2
Source: (Transpo Group, 2012)
If adjusted for inflation roughly to the Consumer Price Index, the Total (excluding the state
intersection of SR 19 & 2916) would equal $6.4 to $8.5 million. (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2018)
New development could be required to pay for these improvements through new construction, or
pro-rata payments to defined improvements. A Transportation Impact Analysis would be needed
for new developments to distinguish between existing deficiencies (not growth funded) and
deficiencies caused by the new development (growth funded).
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 43
3.8 EDUCATION
Overview
Public education in Jefferson County is provided by seven school districts. An inventory of each
district’s schools is provided in this section.
Inventory of Current Facilities
The table below lists each district and the population in its service area. The Port Townsend and
Chimacum School Districts contain the most population in their boundaries. A map of each district
follows.
EXHIBIT 3-34 School Districts Serving Jefferson County
Name District Population 2017
Brinnon School District No. 46 1,326
Chimacum School District No. 49 11,894
Port Townsend School District No. 50 14,996
Queets-Clearwater School District No. 20 645
Quilcene School District No. 48 1,851
Quillayute Valley School District No. 402 258
Sequim School District No. 323 390
Source: Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, Office of Financial Management, BERK, 2018
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 44
EXHIBIT 3-35 School Districts Map
Source: Jefferson County, 2018.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 45
Each district is further detailed with information about its number of students, teachers, building
space, and building condition. The building condition score definitions are below:
Building Condition Score Definitions
Excellent (range 95-100%) – New or easily restorable to “like new” condition. Only minimal
routine maintenance is required.
Good (range 85-94%) – Preventative maintenance and/or corrective repair(s) is/are
required.
Fair (range 62-84%) – Fails to meet code and functional requirements in some cases.
Failure(s) are inconvenient and extensive corrective maintenance and repair is required.
Poor (range 30-61%) – Consistent substandard performance. Failure(s) are disruptive and
costly – fails most code and functional requirements. Requires constant attention,
renovation, or replacement. Major correction, repair or overhaul required.
Unsatisfactory (range 0-29%) – Non-operational or significantly substandard
performance. Replacement required.
Source: OSPI, BERK, 2018.
Brinnon School District
The Brinnon School district serves the unincorporated Brinnon area with one elementary district.
Building condition is scored as in the fair range.
EXHIBIT 3-36 Brinnon District Student to Teacher (S-T) Ratio
School Grade
Span
Students
2016-17
Teachers S-T Ratio Address
Brinnon School District 46 62 5 12
Brinnon Elementary K-8 62 5 12 46 Schoolhouse
Rd, Brinnon
Source: Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, BERK, 2018.
EXHIBIT 3-37 Brinnon District Facility Information
School Square
Feet
Instructional
Square Feet
Classrooms Building
Condition
Score
Brinnon School District 46 13,737 13,737 4
Brinnon Elementary 13,737 13,737 4 71.88
Source: Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, BERK, 2018.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 46
Chimacum School District
The Chimacum School District operates six schools spanning grades K-12.
EXHIBIT 3-38 Chimacum District Student to Teacher (S-T) Ratio
School Grade Students
2016-17
Teachers S-T
Ratio
Address
Chimacum School District 49 1,064 82 13
Chimacum Creek Primary School K-2 242 16 15 313 Ness Corner
Rd Port Hadlock
Chimacum Elementary School 3-5 198 20 10 91 West Valley
Rd Chimacum
Chimacum Middle School 6-8 211 15 14 91 West Valley
Rd Chimacum
Chimacum High School 9-12 322 20 16 91 West Valley
Rd Chimacum
Open Doors Reengagement
Program
9-12 19 3 6 91 West Valley
Rd Chimacum
PI Program K-12 72 8 9 91 West Valley
Rd Chimacum
Source: Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, BERK, 2018.
The building condition scores are generally fair to good except for some buildings at Chimacum
Elementary that are poor.
EXHIBIT 3-39 Chimacum District Facility Information
School Square
Feet
Instructional
Square Feet
Classrooms Building
Condition
Score
Chimacum School District 49 216,025 214,597 53
Chimacum Creek Primary
School
29,739 29,739 16 88.24
Chimacum Elementary School 49,212 47,784 6 Bldg. 300-63.49
Bldg. 400-51.02
MP-79.77
Chimacum High School 77,186 77,186 14 68.02
Chimacum Middle School 59,888 59,888 17 Bldg. 100-72.34
Bldg. 200-80.22
Open Doors Reengagement
Program
PI Program
Source: Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, BERK, 2018.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 47
Port Townsend School District
The Port Townsend district operates four schools spanning grades K through 12. It serves Port
Townsend, the sole incorporated city in Jefferson as well as other adjacent territory.
EXHIBIT 3-40 Port Townsend District Student to Teacher (S-T) Ratio
School Grade Students
2016-17
Teachers S-T
Ratio
Address
Port Townsend School District 50 1,184 88 13
Grant Street Elementary K-5 376 33 11 1637 Grant St
Port Townsend
Blue Heron Middle School 4-8 402 28 14 3939 San Juan
Ave Port
Townsend
Port Townsend High School 9-12 338 24 14 1500 Van Ness
St Port
Townsend
OCEAN K-12 68 3 23 3939 San Juan
Ave. Port
Townsend
Source: Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, BERK, 2018.
Buildings are rated fair to good.
EXHIBIT 3-41 Port Townsend District Facility Information
School Square
Feet
Instructional
Square Feet
Class-
rooms
Building
Condition Score
Port Townsend School District 50 206,597 206,597 34
Blue Heron Middle School 60,124 60,124 3 88.29
Grant Street Elementary 35,702 35,702 17 76.34
OCEAN
Port Townsend High School 110,771 110,771 14 Main-67.71
Gym-75.94
Stuart-71.07
Math-72.78
Source: Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, BERK, 2018.
Queets-Clearwater School District
The Queets-Clearwater district operates one school serving grades K through 8. It has a small
enrollment of 33 students.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 48
EXHIBIT 3-42 Queets-Clearwater District Student to Teacher (S-T) Ratio
School Grade Students
2016-17
Teachers S-T
Ratio
Address
Queets-Clearwater School District 20 33 3 11
Queets-Clearwater Elementary K-8 33 3 11 146000 Hwy
101 Forks
Source: Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, BERK, 2018.
Building are rated fair to good. Discussions with school staff indicated that their main building is
likely past its useful life.
EXHIBIT 3-43 Queets-Clearwater District Facility Information
School Square
Feet
Instructional
Square Feet
Classrooms Building
Condition
Score
Queets-Clearwater School
District 20
28,849 28,849 5
Queets-Clearwater Elementary 28,849 28,849 5 Main-72.26
Playshed-90.00
Source: Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, BERK, 2018.
Quilcene School District
The Quilcene district operates three schools with grades Pre-Kindergarten through 12.
EXHIBIT 3-44 Quilcene District Student to Teacher (S-T) Ratio
School Grade Students Teachers S-T
Ratio
Address
Quilcene School District 48 309 33 9
Crossroads Community School 9-12 5 1 5 294715 US
Highway 101
Quilcene
PEARL K-8 100 13 8 294715 US
Highway 101
Quilcene
Quilcene High and Elementary PK-12 204 19 11 294715 Highway
101 Quilcene
Source: Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, BERK, 2018.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 49
The Quilcene district has buildings rated fair to good.
EXHIBIT 3-45 Quilcene District Facility Information
School Square Feet Instructional
Square Feet
Classrooms Building
Condition
Score
Quilcene School District 48 54,099 53,829 20
Crossroads Community School
PEARL
Quilcene High and Elementary 54,099 53,829 20 Elem-74.06
MS-76.87
HS-78.08
MP-87.41
Source: Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, BERK, 2018.
Quillayute Valley School District
The Quillayute district operates six school spanning grades Pre-Kindergarten 12.
EXHIBIT 3-46 Quillayute Valley District Student to Teacher (S-T) Ratio
School Grade Students Teachers S-T
Ratio
Address
Quillayute Valley School District 402 3,079 74 14a
District Run Home School K-12 21 1 21 382 South Forks Avenue
Forks
Forks Alternative School 9-12 32 1 32 161 East E Street Forks
Forks Elementary School PK-3 328 25 13 301 South Elderberry Ave
Forks
Forks Intermediate School 4-6 242 21 12 121 S Spartan Ave Forks
Forks Junior-Senior High School 7-12 440 26 17 261 South Spartan
Avenue Forks
Insight School of Washington 9-12 2,016 N/A N/A 411 South Spartan Ave
Forks
a Calculated using only teaching locations with students and teacher counts available.
Source: Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, BERK, 2018.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 50
Building conditions are fair to excellent.
EXHIBIT 3-47 Quillayute Valley Facility Information
School Squar
e Feet
Instructional
Square Feet
Classrooms Building
Condition
Score
Quillayute Valley School District
402
229,515 176,784 69
District Run Home School
Forks Alternative School 2,205 2,205 2 84.68
Forks Elementary School 68,570 68,570 28 Main-74.14
Playshed1-81.21
Playshed2-76.98
Forks Intermediate School 52,784 53 14 Main-76.11
Gym-87.14
Playshed-89.38
Forks Junior-Senior High School 105,956 105,956 25 Main-81.12
2000 Add-90.05
2012 Add-98.77
Auto-84.49
CTE-97.85
Insight School of Washington
Source: Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, BERK, 2018.
Sequim School District
The Sequim district operates five school spanning grades Pre-Kindergarten through 12.
EXHIBIT 3-48 Sequim District Student to Teacher (S-T) Ratio
School Grade Span Students Teachers S-T Ratio Address
Sequim School District
323
2,866 177 16
Greywolf Elementary
School
K-5 552 34 16 171 Carlsborg
Rd. Sequim
Helen Haller Elementary
School
K-5 621 43 14 350 W. Fir
Street Sequim
Sequim Community
School
PK-12 140 9 16 220 W. Alder
Sequim 98382
Sequim Middle School 6-8 637 38 17 301 W.
Hendrickson
Rd. Sequim
Sequim Senior High 9-12 916 53 17 601 N. Sequim
Ave. Sequim
Source: Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, BERK, 2018.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 51
Building rate from poor to good; poor buildings are found at the Sequim Community School and
Sequim Senior High.
EXHIBIT 3-49 Sequim District Facility Information
School Square
Feet
Instructional
Square Feet
Classrooms Building
Condition Score
Sequim School District 323 399,897 345,369 105
Greywolf Elementary School 43,659 43,659 23 80.77
Helen Haller Elementary School 48,617 48,617 29 A-70.46
B-73.82
C-71.78
D-77.45
Sequim Community School 71,135 34,248 5 Main-59.88
Gym-55.78
Sequim Middle School 88,669 88,669 26 89.69
Sequim Senior High 147,817 130,176 22 A-67.79
B-58.07
C-62.89
D-68.75
E-61.59
F-86.60
G-65.74
H-89.46
L-81.57
Source: Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, BERK, 2018.
Level of Service Analysis
This section compares Adopted level of service standards and effective level of service. Adopted
level of service standards are measurements of the minimum level of service provided to meet
community needs as adopted in Jefferson County’s Comprehensive Plan, while effective level of
service is what level of service is provided.
Future student generation is developed by estimating the number of future households and apply
student generation rates. The student generation rates are derived from current base year (2016-17)
students reported by district by Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, and the State of
Washington Office of Financial Management (OFM) small area estimates of households in each
district. Growth allocations identified in the Land Use Element were assumed in determining future
households. UGA and Master Planned Resort developments were considered in the appropriate
school district. Rural population was divided by the share of county-wide population by each school
district.
State laws to lower student to teacher ratios have passed since the last Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan. The Table below shows class size standards for Washington State prototypical
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 52
schools. Laws regarding class size reduction standards have had implementation delays and has
been subject to on-going revisions regarding requirements, and some districts will not be required
to meet the same standards depending on district need. This State average class size standard
could be used as a universal level of service in County policies, but since some districts have
implementation delays this analysis assumes application of the County’s current policies and
effective levels of service.
EXHIBIT 3-50 Washington State General Education Average Class Size
Grade Level Class Size
K through 3 17.00
4 through 5 27.00
7 through 8 28.53
9 through 12 28.74
Source: RCW 28A.150.260.
Brinnon School District No. 46
The adopted level of service standards for the Brinnon School District does not exceed 23 students
per classroom for grades K through 8. The table below shows the effective level of service standard
of students to classroom at well below the standard. The number of new students due to growth is
almost 50% above the small enrollment the school has now. Depending on the rate of growth more
classrooms may be needed; need may be temporarily met through portables.
EXHIBIT 3-51 Brinnon School District Level of Service
Adopted Level of Service Standard = K 8: not to exceed 23 students/classroom
Effective Level of Service = 15.5 students/classroom
District Students May 2017 Classrooms Students per Classroom 2017 Occupied Dwelling Units District Student Generation Factor New Households 2038 New Students Classroom Need @ effective LOS Brinnon School District No.
46
62 4 15.5 646 0.10 282 27 2
Source: Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, BERK. 2018.
Chimacum School District No. 49
The adopted level of service standards for the Chimacum School District is not to exceed 27
students per classroom for grades K through 12. The table below shows the effective level of service
standard of students to classroom at less than that standard. New households in the district would
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 53
include those moving into the Port Hadlock/Irondale UGA and Port Ludlow as well as rural
households. New classrooms may be needed depending on the rate of growth; alternatively, the
school may use portables, adjust school attendance areas, or other management.
EXHIBIT 3-52 Chimacum School District Level of Service
Adopted Level of Service Standard = K 12: not to exceed 27 students/classroom
Effective Level of Service = 20 students/classroom
District Students May 2017 Classrooms Students per Classroom 2017 Occupied Dwelling Units District Student Generation Factor New Households 2038 New Students Classroom Need @ effective LOS Chimacum School District
No. 49
1,064 53 20.1 5,388 0.20 1,707 337 17
Source: Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, BERK. 2018.
Port Townsend School District No. 50
The adopted level of service standards for the Port Townsend School District is not to exceed 26
students per classroom for grades K through 3, not to exceed 30 students per classroom for grades
4 through 6, and not to exceed 34 students per classroom for grades 7 through 12. Tabular data
below shows the effective level of service standard of students to classrooms to be above the K-3
number but below others. Given planned growth, over 300 new students would be expected. These
may need new classrooms. Depending on the rate of growth, portables or other management
measures may be needed.
EXHIBIT 3-53 Port Townsend School District Level of Service
Adopted Level of Service Standard = K 3: not to exceed 26 students/classroom
Grades 4 6: not to exceed 30 students/classroom
Grades 7 12: not to exceed 34 students/classroom
Effective Level of Service = 27.5 students/classroom
District Students May 2017 Classrooms Students per Classroom 2017 Occupied Dwelling Units District Student Generation Factor New Households 2038 New Students Classroom Need @ effective LOS Port Townsend School
District No. 50
1,184 43 27.5 7,298 0.16 1,899 308 11
Source: Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, BERK. 2018.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 54
Queets-Clearwater School District No. 20
The adopted level of service standards for the Queets-Clearwater School District is not to exceed 26
students per classroom for grades K through 12. The table shows the effective level of service
standard of students to classroom below that policy. Future growth would increase the need for
classrooms potentially, depending on the rate of growth. Portables or other management measures
may be needed.
EXHIBIT 3-54 Queets-Clearwater School District Level of Service
Adopted Level of Service Standard = K 12: not to exceed 26 students/classroom
Effective Level of Service = 24 students/classroom
District Students May 2017 Classrooms Students per Classroom 2017 Occupied Dwelling Units District Student Generation Factor New Households 2038 New Students Classroom Need @ effective LOS Queets-Clearwater
School District No. 20
338 14 24.1 82 4.11 23 94 4
Source: Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, BERK. 2018.
Quilcene School District No. 48
The adopted Quilcene level of service standards is not to exceed 26 students per classroom for
grades K through 12. The table following shows the effective level of service standard of students to
classroom at below that standard. Relatively few households are expected over the 20-year period
generating about 24 students, and potentially needing two classrooms though rate and timing of
growth would determine that need. Portables may be used.
EXHIBIT 3-55 Quilcene School District Level of Service
Adopted Level of Service Standard = K 12: not to exceed 26 students/classroom
Effective Level of Service = 15 students/classroom
District Students May 2017 Classrooms Students per Classroom 2017 Occupied Dwelling Units District Student Generation Factor New Households 2038 New Students Classroom Need @ effective LOS Quilcene School
District No. 48
309 20 15.5 843 0.37 65 24 2
Source: Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, BERK, 2018.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 55
Quillayute Valley School District No. 402
The adopted level of service standards for the Quillayute Valley School District are to not exceed 26
students per classroom for grades K through 12. The effective level of service standard of students to
classroom is less than that. Growth is expected to be minimal over the 20-year planning period and
no additional classrooms are projected.
EXHIBIT 3-56 Quillayute Valley School District Level of Service
Adopted Level of Service Standard = K 12: not to exceed 26 students/classroom
Effective Level of Service = 15.4 students/classroom
District Students May 2017 Classrooms Students per Classroom 2017 Occupied Dwelling Units District Student Generation Factor New Households 2038 New Students Classroom Need @ effective LOS Quillayute Valley School
District No. 402
1,063 69 15.4 3,042 0.35 9 3 0
Source: Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, BERK, 2018.
Sequim School District No. 323
The adopted level of service standards for the Sequim School District are to not exceed 26 students
per classroom for grades K through 12. The table below shows the effective level of service standard
of students to classroom is a little higher, though this is district-wide including the neighboring
county. Based on the minimal planned growth in the portion of the district within Jefferson County,
few students are expected to be added to current classrooms.
EXHIBIT 3-57 Sequim School District Level of Service
Adopted Level of Service Standard = K 12: not to exceed 26 students/classroom
Effective Level of Service = 27 students/classroom
District Students May 2017 Classrooms Students per Classroom 2017 Occupied Dwelling Units District Student Generation Factor New Households 2038 New Students Classroom Need @ effective LOS Sequim School District
No. 323
2866 105 27.3 14,573 0.20 14 3 0
Source: Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, BERK, 2018.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 56
Capital Projects & Funding
This section identifies if there are any known and planned improvements for schools within the
seven districts.
Brinnon School District No. 46
The Brinnon School District has no capital project list available currently. Previous capital projects
have been funded by the District through its capital projects fund. The District recently passed a levy
to fund maintenance and operations 1.
Chimacum School District No. 49
The Chimacum School District has no known capital projects list available currently. The District
School Board has voted on a resolution to authorize a levy for capital projects, which if passed will
include funds available for capital projects. The proposition would fund renovation, upgrades, and
modernization of District facilities 2.
Port Townsend School District No. 50
The Port Townsend School District has no capital project list available currently. Currently, the
District uses approved bond capacity and to fund capital projects, and education levy to fund
maintenance and operations. The approved bond was to fund the Grant Street Elementary School 3.
Queets-Clearwater School District No. 20
The Queets-Clearwater School District has no capital project list available currently. The District
recently passed a levy to fund maintenance and operations 4. In the past, the District has funded
capital projects with special purpose grants.
Quilcene School District No. 48
The Quilcene School District has no capital project list available currently. The District recently
passed a levy to fund maintenance and operations 5.
1 Source: http://www.peninsuladailynews.com/politics/brinnon-queets-clearwater-initial-results-approve-school-levies/
2 Source: http://www.csd49.org/userfiles/181/my%20files/resolution%202018-1.pdf?id=6436
3 Source: http://www.ptschools.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_154927/File/Bond%20Info/Draft%20Res.15-12.pdf
4 Source: http://www.peninsuladailynews.com/politics/brinnon-queets-clearwater-initial-results-approve-school-levies/
5 Source: https://www.quilcene.wednet.edu/
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 57
Quillayute Valley School District No. 402
The Quillayute Valley School District has no capital project list available currently. The District
recently passed a levy to fund maintenance and operations 6
Sequim School District No. 323
The Sequim Valley School District has no capital project list available currently, however the District
is current considering its capital project plans. The District recently passed a levy to fund
maintenance and operations 7.
6Source: http://www.peninsuladailynews.com/news/success-story-for-port-angeles-quillayute-valley-school-levies/
7Source: http://www.peninsuladailynews.com/news/sequim-school-district-considering-changes-to-capital-project-plans/
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 58
3.9 FIRE PROTECTION
Overview
Fire protection service in Jefferson County is provided by seven fire districts 8, one of which also
serves the City of Port Townsend. Fire District 7 also serve a population of 19 near Forks and does not
have publicly available information about the District.
EXHIBIT 3-58 Fire Districts Serving Jefferson County, 2017
Name Population in Service Area
Jefferson County Fire Protection District No. 1
- Operating as East Jefferson Fire and Rescue
- Serves City of Port Townsend
- Merged with Fire District 6: Cape George/Kala Point/Beckett Point Area
21,385
Jefferson County Fire Protection District No. 2—Quilcene 2,007
Jefferson County Fire Protection District No. 3—Port Ludlow Fire & Rescue 4,763
Jefferson County Fire Protection District No. 4—Brinnon 1,324
Jefferson County Fire Protection District No. 5—Discovery Bay—Gardiner 531
Jefferson County Fire District No. 7—Clearwater—Queets 19
Source: Municipal Research & Services Center, Office of Financial Management, BERK, 2018.
8 The Jefferson County online GIS mapping identifies District 8 in eastern and District 9 in western Jefferson County. However, other Municipal
Research Services Center and Office of Financial Management data does not list information about these districts.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 59
EXHIBIT 3-59 Fire Districts Map
Source: Municipal Research & Services Center, BERK, 2018.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 60
Jefferson County Fire Protection Districts work with JeffCom for 911 dispatching services. The
JeffCom dispatch services provide communications for the County Sheriff, Port Townsend Police,
County Emergency Management, in addition to five fire districts. While dispatch services are not
directly involved in fire department organization, they do play an important role in fire protection,
especially regarding turnout time performance. A small dispatch organization serving a relatively
large number of public service agencies may strain the ability of service providers to perform their
duties.
Inventory of Current Facilities
Each district’s stations and locations are inventoried in the chart below. More information about
each District’s apparatus is provided in subsections on following pages.
EXHIBIT 3-60 Jefferson County Fire Districts & Stations
Districts and Stations ADDRESS
FPD No. 1—Operating as East Jefferson Fire & Rescue
Station 1-1 The Wally Westergaard Station 9193 Rhody Drive, Chimacum
Station1-5 The Henry Miller Station 35 Critter Lane, Port Townsend
Station 1-6 The Uptown Station 701 Harrison St., Port Townsend
Station 1-2 The Marrowstone Island Station 6693 Flagler Rd., Nordland
Station 1-3 The Airport Station 50 Airport Rd., Port Townsend
Station 1-4 The Cape George station 3850 Cape George Rd., Port Townsend
FPD No. 2—Quilcene
Station 2-1 70 Herbert St., Quilcene
Station 2-2 30 Whitney Road, Quilcene
Station 2-3 3281 Dabob Road, Quilcene
FPD No. 3—Port Ludlow Fire & Rescue
Station 3-1 Headquarters 7650 Oak Bay Road, Port Ludlow
Station 3-2 121 West Alder Street, Port Ludlow
Station 3-3 101 South Point Road, Port Ludlow
FPD No. 4—Brinnon
Station 4-1 Headquarters 272 Schoolhouse Road, Brinnon
FPD No. 5—Discovery Bay—Gardiner
Station 5-1 12 Bentley Place, Port Townsend
Station 5-2 2000 Old Gardiner Road, Gardiner
FPD No. 7—Clearwater
Source: Municipal Research & Services Center, Fire District 2 and 4, BERK, 2018.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 61
Jefferson County Fire Protection District No. 1 —East Jefferson Fire & Rescue
Fire District 1 operates 6 stations total, with 3 unstaffed stations. The unstaffed stations are available
for volunteers who may use the station and apparatus in part of their duties as volunteer fire
responders.
EXHIBIT 3-61 East Jefferson Fire & Rescue Inventory of Apparatus
Apparatus / Unit Id Year Built Make and Model Capabilities / Description
1-1 The Wally Westergaard Station
Engine 11 2013 Spartan Engine 1500 GPM pump, 750 Gallon tank
Medic 11 2010 Ford/Braun E-450 ALS Medic Unit
Aid 11 2003 Ford/Braun F-350
4X4
BLS Aid Unit
Air 11 1992 Chevrolet 1-ton
4wd/Becker Utility
Truck
Articulating Light Tower and
breathing air cascade system
Tender 11 1993 International 6X6 2500 Gallon Water Tender
Brush 11 2008 Ford F-450 4X4 350 Gallon Brush Engine
1-5 The Henry Miller Station
Engine 15 2012 Crimson Engine 1500 GPM pump 750 Gallon Tank
Engine 152 2000 Pierce Reserve
Engine
1500 GPM pump 750 Gallon Tank
Aid 15 2008 Ford/Braun E-450 BLS Aid Unit
Medic 15 2010 Ford/Braun E-450 ALS Medic Unit
Brush 15 2006 Ford F-450 4X4 350 Gallon Brush Engine / Snow
Plow
Medic 152 2002 Ford/Braun E-450 Reserve ALS Medic Unit
1-6 The Uptown station
Engine 16 2012 Crimson Engine 1500 GPM, 750-gallon tank
Ladder 16 1988 Suphen Quint 90' aerial, 1500 GPM, 300-gallon
tank
Battalion 16 2003 Ford 4x4 Excursion Command vehicle
Medic 16 2014 Ford E-450 ALS Medic Unit
Aid 16 2008 Ford/Braun F-350
4x4
BLS Unit
1-2 The Marrowstone Island station
Engine 12 2001 Ford/E-One Engine 1250 GPM pump 750 Gallon tank
Aid 12 2000 Ford/Braun E-450 BLS Aid Unit
Antique Engine 1955 Ford Antique Engine Not applicable
1-3 The Airport Station
Engine 13 1988 Sutphen Engine 1500 GPM pump, 750-gallon tank
Tender 13 1992 White / E-One 2500-gallon Water Tender
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 62
Apparatus / Unit Id Year Built Make and Model Capabilities / Description
MSU-13 1999 Ford/Medtec E-450 BLS Mass Casualty Unit
1-4 The Cape George station
Antique Engine 1941 Chevrolet Pumper Not applicable
Source: BERK, 2018.
Jefferson County Fire Protection District No. 2—Quilcene
District 2 operates two stations with multiple apparatus listed below.
EXHIBIT 3-62 District No. 2—Quilcene Inventory of Apparatus
Apparatus / Unit Id Year Built Make and Model Capabilities / Description
Station 21
CMD 201 2008 Ford SUV Chief Command Rig
CMD 202 2005 Chevy Deputy Chief’s Rig
Aid 212 2005 Ford E450 Second out Aid Unit
Aid 21 2016 GMC First out Aid Unit
E21 2005 Freightliner Engine 21
E21 1986 International First out tender
Support 21 1996 Ford Support Van
Utility 21 2005 Chevy 2500 Utility truck
Utility 212 2005 Ford Escape Utility vehicle
Station 22
E22 1986 Ford First Out Engine
B22 1995 Ford 350 Brush Truck
Station 23
A22 1994 Ford 350 Third out aid car
Source: Personal communication, J. Morris, QVFD Secretary, 2018.
Jefferson County Fire Protection District No. 3 —Port Ludlow Fire & Rescue
Fire Protection District 3 protects the Port Ludlow area.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 63
EXHIBIT 3-63 District No. 3—Port Ludlow Inventory of Apparatus
Apparatus / Unit Id Year Built Make & Model Capabilities / Description
Station 31 (Headquarters)
Duty Chief 2008 Chevy Tahoe
Duty Officer/Reserve
Unit
2006 GMC Envoy
Medic 31 2016 International
TerraStar
Ambulance
Engine 31 2010 Darley/Spartan Fire
Engine
1250 GPM Pump w/ CAFS, 750-
gallon tank
Tender 31 2003 Freightliner FL-112 Class A Pumper/Tender, 1250 GPM
pump, 2500 Gallon tank
Aid 31 2003 Ford F-350 BLS Ambulance (Back up ALS
Ambulance)
Rescue 31 1997 Ford E-450
SuperDuty
Technical Rescue Unit (Back up
ALS/BLS transport Unit)
Marine 31 29' Life Timer Boat via partnership with North Kitsap
Fire
Pickup 31 2000 Ford F-250 Utility Pickup
Trailer 31 2010 Bull Ex Fire Safety
Trailer
KitchenFire Training, Natural
Disaster, Home Escape Drills, Kids
Fire Safety
Station 32
Brush 32 1994 Ford F700 Wildland Unit
Station 33
Aid 33 2009 Ford E-450 ALS Ambulance
Tender 33 2003 Freightliner FL-112 Class A Pumper/Tender, 1250 gpm
pump, 2500 Gallon tank
Source: District website; BERK, 2018
Jefferson County Fire Protection District No. 4 —Brinnon
District 4 apparatus is listed. The District recently has sold two of its station properties, what were
previously stations 4-2 and 4-3. Those stations were being used as storage at the time they were
sold, and equipment that was kept there has been moved to station 4-1.
EXHIBIT 3-64 District No. 4—Brinnon Inventory of Apparatus
Apparatus / Unit Id Year Built Make & Model Capabilities / Description
Headquarters—Station 4-1
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 64
Apparatus / Unit Id Year Built Make & Model Capabilities / Description
Engine 4-1
Aid 4-1
Tender 4-1
Tender 4-4
Brush 4-1
Utility Vehicle
Engine 4-2
Aid 4-2
Source: Personal communication, T. Manly, Fire Chief, 2018.
Note: Apparatus details were not available at the time of final publication.
Jefferson County Fire Protection District No. 5—Discovery Bay—Gardiner
District 5 apparatus is listed below.
EXHIBIT 3-65 District No. 5—Discovery Bay—Gardiner Inventory of Apparatus
Apparatus / Unit Id Year Built Make & Model Capabilities / Description
Station 51
Station 52
Fort Gary Engine 1,000 gallons water, Injectable Foam
Extrication Equipment
E-One Engine 10,000 gallons water, Injectable
Foam, Extrication Equipment
International 6x6 water
tender
2,800 gallons water
International Wild Land
Brush Truck
1,000 gallons water
North Star BLS Ambulance
Med-Tech BLS Ambulance
Ford Expedition Command Vehicle
Ford Expedition Command Vehicle
Ford Bronco Utility Vehicle
Source: Fire District 5 website, retrieved April 2018
Note: Apparatus details and location were not available at the time of final publication.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 65
Jefferson County Fire Protection District No. 7 —Clearwater
District 7 apparatus is shown below. The district does not have a headquarters, and its equipment is
stored at an old courthouse in Clearwater.
EXHIBIT 3-66 District No. 7—Clearwater Inventory of Apparatus
Apparatus / Unit Id Year Built Make & Model Capabilities / Description
Stored at Old Courthouse
Tanker
Engine
Source: Personal communication, C. Hay, Fire Commissioner, 2018
Note: Apparatus details were not available at the time of final publication.
Level of Service Analysis
Adopted level of service standards for fire protection services are set by appropriate legislative
bodies, however Fire Districts are required to establish service delivery standards, as detailed in RCW
Chapter 52.33. Fire department service delivery objectives include specific response time objectives
to be met, which may be set by legislative bodies or Fire Departments. Response and turnout time
levels of service are influenced by many factors unique to each provider.
For consistent comparisons of fire services provides by districts with different needs, the County has
adopted fire and EMS apparatus units per 1,000 capita. Fire suppression units includes fire engines,
water tenders, and other emergency units. Life support units include vehicles equipped with
advance life support or basic life support systems.
Base year (2017) population estimates are from the State of Washington Office of Financial
Management small area estimates by fire district boundaries. Future year population estimates are
consistent with Resolution #38-15; urban and master plan resort populations are assumed in the
appropriate district; rural growth shares were divided based on each district’s current share of 2017
population.
Where fire and emergency units per 1,000 population LOS policies are not met, use of the effective
level of service could be employed in policy amendments.
Jefferson County Fire Protection District No. 1 —Operating as East Jefferson Fire &
Rescue
Fire District 1 tracks turnout time but has not adopted it as a level of service standard.: The District’s
results show:
▶ 3 staffed stations average: average turnout time is 1 minute 23 seconds.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 66
▶ Station 1-1: Fire response turnout time is 1 minute 48 seconds. EMS turnout time is 1 minute 30
seconds.
▶ Station 1-5: Fire response turnout time is1 minute 50 seconds. EMS turnout time is 48 seconds.
▶ Station 1-6: Fire response turnout time is 2 minutes 8 seconds. EMS turnout time is 1 minute 18
seconds.
The District appears to be exceeding emergency medical service apparatus rates applying the Port
Townsend Fire Department Level of Service (the District serves the City and other districts have been
absorbed). As population grows, additional apparatus may be needed or may require replacement.
EXHIBIT 3-67 East Jefferson Fire & Rescue Level of Service
Unit Type Apparatus
Number
Population
Served
Effective
LOS
Estimated
Growth
(2018-2038)
Need
with
Effective
LOS
Adopted level of service standard = 0.29 EMS units in service per 1,000 population.
Fire Suppression
Units
12 21,385 0.56 4,330 2.43
Life Support Units 9 21,385 0.42 4,330 1.82
Source: Fire District 1, BERK, 2018.
Jefferson County Fire Protection District No. 2—Quilcene
Currently, Fire Protection District 2 does not appear to meet the fire level of service adopted in the
Comprehensive Plan, but does meet the emergency medical level of service policy. As population
grows, additional apparatus may be needed.
EXHIBIT 3-68 District No. 2—Quilcene Level of Service
Unit Type Apparatus
Number
Population
Served
Effective
LOS
Growth
(2018-2038)
Need
with
Effective
LOS
Adopted level of service standard = 4.1 fire units in service per 1,000 population and 1.4 EMS units in
service per 1,000 population.
Fire Suppression
Units
4 2,007 2.0 375 0.75
Life Support Units 3 2,007 1.5 375 0.56
Source: Personal communication, J. Morris, QVFD Secretary, BERK, 2018.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 67
Jefferson County Fire Protection District No. 3 —Port Ludlow Fire & Rescue
Currently Fire Protection District 3 does not appear to meet the fire level of service adopted in the
Comprehensive Plan, but does meet the emergency medical level of service policy. As population
grows, additional apparatus may be needed.
EXHIBIT 3-69 District No. 3—Port Ludlow Fire & Rescue Fire District Level of
Service
Unit Type Apparatus
Number
Population
Served
Effective
LOS
Growth
(2018-
2038)
Need
Adopted level of service standard = 1.25 fire units in service per 1,000 population and 0.5 EMS units in
service per 1,000 population.
Fire Suppression
Units
5 4,763 1.0 789 0.83
Life Support Units 4 4,763 0.8 789 0.66
Source: Fire District 3, BERK, 2018.
Jefferson County Fire Protection District No. 4 —Brinnon
Fire District 4 is meeting both the fire protection and emergency medical level of service policies,
and appear to have sufficient apparatus for planned growth.
EXHIBIT 3-70 District No. 4—Brinnon Fire District Level of Service
Unit Type Apparatus
Number
Population
Served
Effective
LOS
Growth
(2018-
2038)
Need
Adopted level of service standard = 1.25 fire units in service per 1,000 population and 0.5 EMS units in
service per 1,000 population.
Fire Suppression Unit 5 1,324 3.8 352 1.33
Life Support Unit 2 1,324 1.5 352 0.53
Source: Fire District 4, BERK, 2018.
Jefferson County Fire Protection District No. 5—Discovery Bay—Gardiner
Fire District 5 is meeting the fire protection and emergency medical levels of service and appear to
have sufficient apparatus for planned growth.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 68
EXHIBIT 3-71 District No. 5—Discovery Bay—Gardiner Level of Service
Unit Type Apparatus
Number
Population
Served
Effective
LOS
Estimated
Growth
(2018-
2038)
Need
Adopted level of service standard = 3.0 fire units in service per 1,000 population and 3.0 EMS units in
service per 1,000 population.
Fire Suppression Unit 4 531 7.5 99 0.75
Life Support Unit 2 531 3.8 99 0.37
Source: Fire District 5, BERK, 2018.
Jefferson County Fire Protection District No. 7 —Clearwater
Fire District 7 is meeting the fire protection and emergency medical levels of service and appear to
have sufficient apparatus for planned growth.
EXHIBIT 3-72 District No. 7—Clearwater Level of Service
Unit Type Apparatus
Number
Population
Served
Effective
LOS
Estimated
Growth
(2018-
2038)
Need
Adopted level of service standard = 2.0 fire units in service per 1,000 population and 0 EMS units in
service per 1,000 population.
Fire Suppression Unit 2 19 105 0 0
Life Support Unit 0 19 0 0 0
Source: Fire District 7, BERK, 2018.
Capital Projects & Funding
This will address if there are any known and planned improvements for fire protection facilities or
equipment.
Jefferson County Fire Protection District No. 1 —Operating as East Jefferson Fire &
Rescue
The Fire District has no capital project list available currently. While the Fire District considers an
annexation of Port Townsend, it is assumed that if passed the Fire District will begin a process to
assess its capital facilities and inventory and determine if it has any needs.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 69
Jefferson County Fire Protection District No. 2—Quilcene
The Fire District is in process of requesting grant money for a new tender and ambulance, for
$260,000 and $180,000. If acquired, each is expected to be located at Station 21.
Jefferson County Fire Protection District No. 3 —Port Ludlow Fire & Rescue
The Fire District has no capital project list available currently.
Jefferson County Fire Protection District No. 4 —Brinnon
The Fire District is seeking a new fire response vehicle through grant money and will continue to do
so. The District has also been evaluating the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort, and the District
has assessed it will require new equipment to serve the resort. The resort proponent has agreed to
fund some equipment if necessary, however development plans are on-going and no formal
agreements exist at the time. The District’s assessment is that serving the resort as currently
planned will require a 2,500-gallon pumper tender, an aid car, and a rescue boat.9
Jefferson County Fire Protection District No. 5—Discovery Bay—Gardiner
The Fire District has no capital project list available currently. While there are no specific projects,
the District is considering a bond that would provide for capital facilities and capital equipment 10.
Jefferson County Fire Protection District No. 7 —Clearwater
The Fire District has no capital project list available currently and is not pursuing any new capital
equipment. 11
3.10 WATER
Overview
The water section addresses current law regarding acquisition and delivery of water and the
available water supply. Group A water systems, Port Townsend and planned subareas are addressed
in more depth.
9 Personal communication, T. Manly, District Fire Chief, 2018
10 http://www.ptleader.com/news/election/fire-district-bond-would-create-fire-hall-community-center/article_5651dbcc-bf09-11e5-be7c-
4b7a204bf1ab.html
11 Personal communication, C. Hay, Fire Commissioner, 2018
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 70
Non-county water service providers include Olympic Water and Sewer, which provides services to
the designated Port Ludlow master planned resort.
Inventory of Current Facilities
Jefferson County has an inventory of 60 Group A Water Systems which serve about two thirds of the
population. Most of the water systems maintain a green permit, which means it meets
requirements for substantial compliance with regulations, and additional service connections up to
the approved connection is possible. The permit color information for regulation compilations and
service use is below the exhibit.
For the remaining one-third of residents who rely on private wells, the status of water rights and
watershed planning is addressed in the Environment Element and summarized at the end of this
section.
EXHIBIT 3-73 Potable Water System Current Facilities Inventory
System Count Population Served Connections
Group A Water Systems 60 25,057 14,130
Green Permit 50 24,999 13,926
Yellow Permit - - -
Blue Permit 10 58 204
Red Permit - - -
Group B Water Systems 122 625 484
Source: Department of Health, BERK, 2018
EXHIBIT 3-74 Department of Health Water System Compliance
Category Compliance DOH Views this system as
Green Substantially in compliance with regulations. Adequate for existing uses and for
additional service connections up to the
number of approved connections.
Yellow Substantially in compliance with all
requirements. But it:
Was notified to submit a legally compliant water
system plan and has not satisfied this planning
requirement.
Is under a compliance agreement to address the
system’s status as a state significant non-complier
and is also acting in accordance with that
agreement.
Adequate for existing uses and for
additional service connections up to the
number approved by the Department in a
water system plan or modified by the
Department in a compliance document.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 71
Category Compliance DOH Views this system as
Blue Substantially in compliance with requirements.
However, the system does not have a
Department-approved water system design or is
no longer operating consistently with that design,
or the system has exceeded the number of
Department-approved connections.
Adequate for existing uses, but not
adequate for adding new connections.
Red Substantially out of compliance with
requirements.
Inadequate for existing uses and no
additional connections are allowed. This
may result in denial of home loans, building
permits, on-site sewage disposal permits,
food service permits, liquor licenses, and
other permits or licenses for properties the
system serves.
Source: Department of Health, BERK, 2018.
Group A water systems that serve more than 100 people are shown below. Overall, these individual
systems serve more than two thirds of the County, the Port Townsend water system alone serving
about one third of the County. All systems below maintain a green permit and can accommodate
more connections up to the number of approved connections.
EXHIBIT 3-75 Individual Water Current Capital Inventory Serving More Than
100 People
System Connections Water Use System Capacity
System
Name
Pop.
Served
Existing Approved Water
Produced and
Purchased
Authorized
Consumption
Storage Distribution
Capacity
All Maintain
Green
Permits
Count Count Count Annual Volume Annual
Volume
Gallons and 3-
year Average
Leakage
Percent
Gallons # Sources,
Total
Gallons Per
Minute
Port
Townsend
10,124 5,844 5,844 330,866,614 317,430,415
(5.9% leakage)
6,000,000 2 sources:
17,800
Quimper 8,155 3,462 3,4621 218,343,530 207,900,810
(4.3% leakage)
4,369,500 17 sources:
2,290
Olympic
Water &
Sewer Inc
2,613 1,586 1,5861 105,980,776 96,441,106
(8.7% leakage)
882,225 8 sources:
824
Cape George
Colony Club
1,010 525 665 23,073,867 21,531,612
(6.6% leakage)
207,452 5 sources:
853
Bridgehaven
Community
Club
501 211 350 12,503,800 11,839,807
(5.4% leakage)
255,000 3 sources:
508
Bywater Bay 400 215 272 16,761,640 16,218,110
(3.3% leakage)
215,000 3 sources:
240
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 72
System Connections Water Use System Capacity
System
Name
Pop.
Served
Existing Approved Water
Produced and
Purchased
Authorized
Consumption
Storage Distribution
Capacity
Olympic
Corrections
Center
380 28 582 22,556,302 17,363,780
(30% leakage)
675,000 4 sources:
720
Jefferson
County
Water Dist
#1
280 205 282 7,085,047 6,574,924
(6.2% leakage)
180,000 2 sources:
100
Gardiner
LUD 1
275 131 350 9,253,300 7,451,290
(7.5% leakage)
220,000 1 source: 300
Lazy C 250 119 240 3,448,400 3,357,250
(3.2% leakage)
120,285 3 sources:
130
Olympus
Beach Tracts
123 72 90 3,722,041 3,461,521
(8.0% leakage)
44,270 4 sources:
50
Discovery
Bay Village
102 55 134 7,065,727 6,910,292
(2.4% leakage)
57,600 2 sources: 75
Subtotal 24,213 12,453 13,857 760,661,044 716,480,917
(5.8% leakage)
13,226,332 43,890
1 Note: approved connection information was not available; the number of existing conditions was used.
Source: Department of Health, BERK, 2018.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 73
EXHIBIT 3-76 Group A Water Systems
Source: Jefferson County, BERK, 2018.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 74
Level of Service Analysis
The 1997 Jefferson County Coordinated Water System Plan (CWSP) used the following anticipated
population and assumptions when making its 20-year level of service projections; in 1996 the future
2016 population estimate was 39,389 very similar to the 2038 projection at 39,221. Thus, county-
wide at a planning level, available rights and capacity demand can be met by the service providers.
Also, the CWSP projected a demand of 14.6 million gallons per day (MGD), which did not take into
account water efficiencies which have been met since the original plan.
EXHIBIT 3-77 1997 Population Projection for 20-year Planning Horizon
Area Population
1996
Population
Projection
2016
Change
Port Townsend 8,366 13,867 5,501
Quimper Peninsula 2,927 4,076 1,149
Marrowstone Island 839 1,015 176
Tri-Area 4,324 5,489 1,165
Discovery bay 1,085 1,470 385
Center/Inland Valleys 1,351 1,759 408
Port Ludlow/Oak Bay 1,985 4,901 2,916
Shine/paradise bay 897 1,471 574
Coyle/Toandos Peninsula 411 596 185
Quilcene 1,308 1,797 489
Brinnon 1,299 1,943 644
West End 962 1,005 43
Total 25,754 39,389 13,635
Source: Jefferson County Coordinated Water System Plan, 1997, BERK, 2018.
Overall, while the county has enough total water capacity to continue to meet forecasted demand,
future developments, e.g. master planned developments, and development in UGAs as well as rural
growth, may impact specific water systems. The following table shows planned developments and
demand generated. Average daily demand for water was used as an effective level of service. Other
service demands may include peak daily demand, or instantiations flow (for fire suppression).
EXHIBIT 3-78 Growth & Potential Water Demand
Planned Development Projected
Growth (2018-
2038)
Demand Generated
(gallons/capita/day)
Metered Consumption Per Day = 1,961,618
Group A Systems Population (that serve over 100 people) = 24,213
Effective Level of Service Standard = 81 gallons per capita per day 2016
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 75
Planned Development Projected
Growth (2018-
2038)
Demand Generated
(gallons/capita/day)
Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort 2,814 227,976
Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort 1,516 122,819
Port Hadlock/Irondale 789 63,921
Port Townsend UGA 352 28,517
Total 5,471 443,233
Note: For each individual water system, there is a water use efficiency annual performance report. The metered
consumption is the total amount for all Group A water systems that have a population of great than 100. The total
consumption per day totaled 1,961,618 gallons; the population using Group A systems totaled 24,213. This results in
81.02 gallons per capita per day. The data is from 2016.
Source: Department of Health, BERK, 2018.
Capital Projects & Funding
About two thirds of the county residents in areas served by Group A water systems, and largely
operated by either Port Townsend or Public Utility District #1.
Known projects under development by Port Townsend are listed below.
EXHIBIT 3-79 Port Townsend Water System Project List & Funding Source
Project / Type Revenue Sources Cost:
2018-23
Cost:
2024-
38
Total
City of Port Townsend Water Projects
Capacity Projects (Projects Required to Meet LOS)
None identified
Non-Capacity Projects (Other Projects Needed for Maintenance and Operations)
Water Street Enhancement
Project
TIB grant, PUD funds, utility
funds, city bond
$2.7 M $ $
Big Quilcene Diversion Dam
Repair
Total $2.7 M $ $
Source: City of Port Townsend, BERK, 2018.
Jefferson County Public Utility District #1 (JPUD) operates the following systems:
▶ Bywater Bay
▶ Coyle (formerly Jefferson County Water Dist #3)
▶ Gardiner
▶ Kala Point
▶ Lazy C
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 76
▶ Mats View
▶ Quilcene
▶ Quimper
▶ Snow Creek
▶ Triton Cove
▶ Valiani
JPUD adopted a 2011 Water System Plan, hereby incorporated by reference. A summary of projects
scheduled for 2017-2020, 2021-2025 and 2026-2035 are shown.
EXHIBIT 3-80 Public Utility District #1 Project List & Funding Source (2011$)
Project / Type Revenue
Sources
Cost: 2017-
2025
Cost:
2026-35
Total
Public Utility District #1 Water Projects
Capacity Projects (Projects Required to Meet LOS)
B-1 Extensions Developer $30,000 $15,000 $45,000
B-3 New Reservoir Rates/ System
Development
Charges (SDC)
$150,000 $150,000
G-2 Add'l Source Revenue $40,000 $40,000
G-4 East/ west End Loops Developer $40,000 $40,000
Quilcene New Storage Grants,
Developer
$600,000 $600,000
Quilcene Extend mains Developer $60,000 $60,000
SC-6 Booster Pump Station SDC $15,000 $15,000
MV-2 Additional Source Revenue $40,000 $40,000
Subtotal Capacity $785,000 $205,000 $990,000
Non-Capacity Projects (Other Projects Needed for Maintenance and Operations)
B-4 Paradise intertie Rates $15,000 $15,000
G-5 Back-up Power Revenue $10,000 $10,000
Quimper System Line Replacement Rates $270,000 $300,000 $570,000
SC-2 Pump House Upgrade Revenue $5,000 $5,000
SC-3 Back-up Power SDC $5,000 $5,000
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 77
Project / Type Revenue
Sources
Cost: 2017-
2025
Cost:
2026-35
Total
SC-5 Replacement Revenue $10,000 $5,000 $15,000
SC-6 Backup Power Revenue $20,000 $20,000
MV-3 Supervisory Control and Data
Acquisition
Revenue $10,000 $10,000
Subtotal Non-capacity $345,000 $305,000 $650,000
Total $1,130,000 $510,000 $1,640,000
Source: Jefferson County Public Utility District 2011, BERK, 2018.
Olympic Water and Sewer, Inc., a private development corporation, provides water and sewer
service to the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort. See the Sewer section for a description of the
development agreement and cap on units meant to manage the delivery of water and sewer
service.
Private Wells
The 2016 Washington State Supreme Court decision in Whatcom County v. Hirst, Futurewise, et al.
(the “Hirst decision”) changed how counties decide to approve or deny building permits that use
wells for a water source. The court ruled that Whatcom County failed to comply with Growth
Management Act (GMA) requirements to protect water resources, and required the county to make
an independent decision about legal water availability – in other words, local jurisdictions planning
under GMA have a duty to determine legal and physical water availability for development and
cannot simply defer to Department of Ecology adopted rules when making these determinations.
This decision changed how counties approve or deny building permits that use permit-exempt
wells for a water source.
To address the Hirst decision, the Washington State legislature passed a new streamflow restoration
law (ESSB 6091) in early 2018. ESSB 6091 allows local governments to rely on Department of Ecology
instream flows rules to satisfy their obligations under GMA for demonstrating water availability
based on Water Resource Inventory Areas (WRIAs), or geographic areas used to establish instream
flow and other water resource-related rules. The law focuses on 15 WRIAs with pre-2001 instream
flow rules that were impacted by the Hirst decision, and establishes standards for rural residential
permit-exempt wells in the rest of the state.
There are four WRIAs with a major portion within Jefferson County, and three in which the County
takes an active role:
▶ WRIA 16: Skokomish/Dosewallips (active role)
▶ WRIA 17: Quilcene/Snow (active role)
▶ WRIA 20: Soleduck/Hoh (active role)
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 78
▶ WRIA 21: Queets/Quinault
Under ESSB 6091, Jefferson County may continue to issue permits consistent with RCW 90.44.050
in WRIA 16, WRIA 20, and WRIA 21, all of which are not regulated by an instream flow rule. No
further action is required by ESSB 6091 to modify WRIA 17, which has a post-2001 instream flow rule
that regulates permit-exempt well withdrawals, and thus complies with GMA.
The 2009 Water Resource Management Program for WRIA 17 allocates an amount of water
available for future use by reserve management areas (WAC 173-517-150). These reserves are
available to a user only if the conditions set forth in WAC 173-517-150 are met, as well as any
applicable requirements of law, including, but not limited to, all water resource laws and
regulations. When each reserve is fully appropriated, the applicable reserve management areas are
closed to any further consumptive appropriation. Under such circumstances water for new uses
may be available in accordance with WAC 173-517-110.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 79
Capital Facilities Element Strategies
Draft September 2018
Jefferson County will use the following strategies for implementing the Capital Facilities and
Utilities Element. These strategies are both action items and detailed guidance for developing
implementing ordinances and the County’s Capital Improvement Program.
A. Strategy for Determining Quantities and Priorities for Capital Improvement Projects
B. Strategy to Finance the Six-Year Capital Facilities Concept Plan and Manage Debt
C. Strategy to Review and Update the Capital Facilities and Utilities Element
D. Strategy to Ensure Adequate Public Facility Capacity Concurrent with Development
E. Strategy for Monitoring Adequate Public Facility Capacity Concurrent with Development
A. STRATEGY FOR DETERMINING QUANTITIES AND PRIORITIES FOR
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Jefferson County will use the following strategies to determine the quantity and types of capital
improvements and to set priorities for capital improvements.
1. The quantity of capital improvements needed to eliminate existing deficiencies and to meet
future demand will be determined for each public facility using the following calculation:
Q = (S x D) – I
where Q is the quantity of capital improvements needed, S is the LOS, D is the demand (such
as the population), and I is the inventory of existing facilities. The estimates of demand will
account for demand that is likely to occur from previously issued development approvals as
well as future growth.
2. The LOS will not determine the need for a capital improvement in the following
circumstances:
A. Repair, remodeling, renovation, and replacement of obsolete or worn out facilities; or
B. Capital improvements that provide LOS in excess of the standards adopted in the
Comprehensive Plan provided the following conditions are met:
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 80
1) The capital improvement does not make financially infeasible any other capital
improvement that is needed to achieve or maintain the LOS standards adopted in
this Comprehensive Plan, and
2) The capital improvement does not contradict, limit or substantially change the
goals and policies of any element of this Comprehensive Plan, and
3) One of the following conditions is met:
a. The excess capacity is an integral part of a capital improvement that is needed to
achieve or maintain LOS (i.e., the minimum capacity of a capital project is larger
than the capacity required to provide the LOS); or
b. The excess capacity provides economies of scale making it less expensive than a
comparable amount of capacity if acquired at a later date; or
c. The asset acquired is land that is environmentally sensitive or designated by
Jefferson County as necessary for conservation or recreation; or
d. The excess capacity is part of a capital project financed by general obligation bonds
approved by referendum.
3. All facilities scheduled for construction or improvement in accordance with this strategy will
be evaluated to identify any plans by State or local governments or districts that affect, or will
be affected by, the proposed County capital improvement. Project evaluation may also
involve additional criteria that are unique to each type of public facility, as described in other
elements of this Comprehensive Plan.
4. The priorities for capital improvements among types of public facilities were established
during the development of the Capital Facilities and Utilities Element by adjusting the LOS
and the available revenues until the resulting public facilities became financially feasible.
5. Jefferson County will direct its capital improvements within types of public facilities to:
A. Address current deficiencies;
B. Provide new or expanded capital facilities and services currently enjoyed by County
residents;
C. Eliminate actual or potential threats to public health and safety; and
D. Retain the attractiveness of Urban Growth Areas as suitable for new residential
development.
6. The priorities for capital improvements within a type of County-owned public facility will be
in the following order:
A. Reconstruction, rehabilitation, remodeling, renovation, or replacement of obsolete or
worn out facilities that contribute to achieving or maintaining adopted LOS standards.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 81
B. New or expanded facilities that reduce or eliminate deficiencies in LOS for existing
demand. Expenditures in this category include equipment, furnishings, and other
improvements necessary for the completion of a public facility.
C. New facilities and improvements to existing public facilities that eliminate public
hazards.
D. New or expanded facilities that provide the adopted LOS for new development and
redevelopment during the next six fiscal years.
E. New facilities that exceed the adopted LOS for new growth during the next six fiscal years
by providing either:
1) Excess public facility capacity that is needed by future growth beyond the next six
years; or
2) Higher quality public facilities than are contemplated in the County's normal design
criteria for such facilities.
F. Facilities not described in the above priorities, but which Jefferson County is obligated to
complete, provided that such obligation is evidenced by a written agreement the County
executed prior to the adoption of this Comprehensive Plan.
7. In the event that the planned capacity within a type of County-owned public facility is
insufficient to serve all proposed development and redevelopment, capital improvements for
new and expanded public facilities of that type will be scheduled in the following order of
priority to serve:
A Previously approved redevelopment,
B. Previously approved development,
C. New approved redevelopment, and
D. New approved new development.
8. The County may acquire land or right-of-way in advance of the need to develop a public
facility.
B. STRATEGY TO FINANCE SIX-YEAR CAPITAL FACILITIES CONCEPT
PLAN AND MANAGE DEBT
Jefferson County will use the following strategies to finance capital improvements and fund debt,
including financing debt, funding excess capacity, adjusting for rejected referenda, and
apportioning the cost of capital improvements between existing and future development.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 82
1. Capital improvements financed by County enterprise funds (i.e., solid waste) will be financed
by:
A. Debt repaid by user fees, charges, and excise taxes, and/or connection or capacity fees for
enterprise services; or
B. Current assets (i.e., reserves, equity or surpluses, and current revenue, including grants,
loans, donations and inter-local agreements); or
C. Formation of a taxing district; or
D. A combination of debt, current assets, and taxes.
2. Capital improvements financed by non-enterprise funds will be financed by:
A. Current assets (i.e., current revenue, fund equity and reserves), or
B. Debt, or
C. A combination of debt and current assets.
3. Financing decisions will consider which funding source will be:
A. Most cost effective,
B. Consistent with prudent fiscal, asset and liability management,
C. Appropriate to the useful life of the project(s) to be financed, and
D. The most efficient use of the County's ability to borrow funds.
4. Debt financing will not be used to provide more capacity than is needed within the schedule
of capital improvements for non-enterprise public facilities unless the excess capacity:
A. Is an integral part of a capital improvement that is needed to achieve or maintain LOS
(i.e., the minimum capacity of a capital improvement is larger than the capacity required
to provide the LOS); or
B. Provides economies of scale, making it less expensive than a comparable amount of
capacity if acquired at a later date; or
C. Is land that is environmentally sensitive or designated by the County as necessary for
conservation or recreation; or
D. Is part of a capital project financed by general obligation bonds approved by referendum.
5. When a referendum, which is intended to finance capital improvements, is unsuccessful,
adjustments for lack of revenues may include, but are not limited to, the following:
A. Reduce the LOS for one or more public facilities;
B. Increase the use of other sources of revenue;
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 83
C. Decrease the demand for and subsequent use of capital facilities; or
D. A combination of the above alternatives.
6. The Board of Commissioners will determine whether impact fees, as allowed by law, are
necessary to maintain LOS. If adopted, impact fee ordinances will require the same LOS as is
required by Capital Facilities Policy 1.1 and may include standards for other types of public
facilities not addressed under Capital Facilities Policy 1.1.
7. Payments by existing development to fund capital improvements may take the form of user
fees, charges for services, special assessments and taxes. Payments by future development to
fund capital improvements may take the form of, but are not limited to, voluntary
contributions for the benefit of any public facility, impact fees, mitigation payments, capacity
fees, dedications of land, provision of public facilities, and future payments of user fees,
charges for services, special assessments, and taxes. Future development will not pay impact
fees for capital improvements to any public facility that reduces or eliminates existing
deficiencies.
8. Both existing and future development may have part of their costs paid by grant entitlements
or public facilities from other levels of government and independent districts.
C. STRATEGY TO REVIEW AND UPDATE THE CAPITAL FACILITIES AND
UTILITIES ELEMENT
The following strategy provides guidance for updating the Capital Facilities and Utilities Element,
for funding scheduled capital improvements, for monitoring implementation of the Capital
Facilities and Utilities Element, and for making minor corrections and modifications to the Six-Year
Capital Facilities Concept Plan.
1. The Capital Facilities and Utilities Element will be reviewed and updated regularly in
conjunction with the County budget process and the release of the official population
estimates and projections by the Office of Financial Management of the State of Washington.
The update will include the following:
A. Revise population projections;
B. Update inventory of public facilities;
C. Update cost of providing public facilities;
D. Review the LOS;
E. Update capacity of public facilities (actual LOS compared to adopted standards);
F. Update revenue forecasts;
G. Revise and develop capital improvement projects for the next six years;
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 84
H. Update analysis of financial capacity;
I. Amend the Capital Facilities and Utilities Element, including amendments to the LOS
standards, capital projects, and/or the financing plan sources of revenue.
2. Jefferson County’s annual budget will include capital appropriations for all projects identified
in the Six-Year Capital Facilities Concept Plan that are necessary to maintain the LOS
standards during that fiscal year.
3. Jefferson County will prepare regular evaluation reports to monitor the implementation of
the goals and policies of the Capital Facilities and Utilities Element. The evaluation will
include:
A. Regular reports of the Concurrency Implementation and Monitoring System.
B. Regular updates of the Capital Facilities and Utilities Element, including updated
supporting documents as appropriate.
4. The Six-Year Capital Facilities Concept Plan may be adjusted by ordinance not deemed to be
an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for corrections, updates, and modifications
concerning costs; revenue sources; acceptance of facilities pursuant to dedications which are
consistent with the Element; non-capacity projects which do not affect scheduling of
capacity projects; or the date of construction (so long as it is completed within the 6-year
period).
D. STRATEGY TO ENSURE ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITY CAPACITY
CONCURRENT WITH DEVELOPMENT
The following strategy provides guidance for developing implementing ordinances, including an
ordinance to determine if there is adequate public facility capacity concurrent with development.
1. Jefferson County will adopt an ordinance, which will establish policies and procedures for
determining if there is adequate public facility capacity concurrent with development.
2. For all public facilities, except roads, in order to determine that capacity is available to serve
development:
A. The facilities will be in place when a development approval is issued; or
B. The facilities will be under construction at the time a development approval is issued and
will be in place when the impacts of the development occur; or
C. Development approvals may be issued subject to the condition that the facilities will be
in place when the impacts of the development occur.
3. For Rural and Designated Tourist Road Facilities, in order to determine that capacity is
available to serve development:
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 85
A. Any of the three provisions listed in Strategy D.1. may apply; or
B. The County will have in place a binding financial commitment to provide the capacity
within six years.
4. Jefferson County will issue preliminary development approvals, which are subject to
concurrency if the applicant complies with one of the following:
A. The applicant receives a determination of the capacity of Category A public facilities as
part of preliminary development review and approval; or
B. The applicant requests preliminary development approval without a determination of
capacity of Category A public facilities, provided that any such approval is issued subject
to requirements in the applicable land development regulation or to specific conditions
contained in the preliminary development approval that:
1) Final development approval for the subject property is subject to a determination of
capacity of Category A public facilities, and
2) Neither rights to obtain final development approval nor any other rights to develop
the subject property have been granted or implied by the County's preliminary
development approval without determining the capacity of public facilities.
5. The following conditions will apply to development approvals subject to concurrency:
A. The determination that facility capacity is available will apply to specific uses, densities
and intensities based on information provided by the applicant and included in the
development approval.
B. The determination of public facility capacity and the validity of the capacity for the same
period of time as the development approval, including any extensions. If the
development approval does not have an expiration date, the capacity will be valid for a
period not to exceed two years.
6. County Development Regulations will address the circumstances under which public
facilities may be provided by applicants for development approvals at the applicant's own
expense in order to ensure sufficient capacity of public facilities.
7. Development applications, which require the provision of public facilities by the applicant,
may be approved subject to the following:
A. Jefferson County and the applicant enter into an enforceable development agreement,
which will provide, at a minimum, a schedule for construction of the public facilities and
mechanisms for monitoring to ensure that the public facilities are completed concurrent
with the impacts of the development, or that the development will not be allowed to
proceed.
B. The public facilities to be provided by the applicant may be contained in the Six-Year
Capital Facilities Concept Plan of the Capital Facilities and Utilities Element, and will
achieve and maintain the adopted LOS.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 86
8. Jefferson County will adopt policies and procedures for reserving capacity of public facilities
needed to serve vested development approvals.
9. Jefferson County will reserve capacity of public facilities in order to serve approved
development at the adopted LOS.
10. In the event that there is not sufficient capacity to serve the development, which would use
future public facility capacity, Jefferson County will develop criteria for determining which
applications will be deferred to a future fiscal year because of insufficient capacity of public
facilities during the current fiscal year.
E. STRATEGY FOR MONITORING ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITY
CAPACITY CONCURRENT WITH DEVELOPMENT
The following strategy provides guidance for a monitoring system.
1. Jefferson County will establish and maintain a regular Monitoring System, which will include
the following components:
A. A regular report on the capacity and LOS of public facilities,
B. A review of public facility capacity for development applications,
C. A review of changes to planned capacity of public facilities.
2. Report on the Capacity and LOS of Public Facilities: This report will summarize the actual
capacity of public facilities compared to the LOS adopted in the Capital Facilities and Utilities
Element. The report will also forecast the capacity of public facilities for each of the six
succeeding fiscal years. The forecast will be based on the most current schedule of capital
improvements in the Six-Year Capital Facilities Concept Plan. The report will provide the initial
determination of the capacity and LOS of public facilities for reviewing development permit
applications during the following 12 months. Each application will be analyzed separately for
concurrency, as described below.
3. Public Facility Capacity Review of Development Applications: Jefferson County will review
applications for developments in the unincorporated areas of the County to determine
whether there is adequate capacity of public facilities concurrent with development. Records
of all development approvals will be kept to indicate the cumulative impacts on the capacity
of public facilities.
Review will be conducted according to the terms of inter-local agreement(s) between the
County and municipalities.)
4. Review of Changes to Planned Capacity of Public Facilities: Jefferson County will review each
amendment to this Capital Facilities and Utilities Element in order to ensure that the
schedule of capital improvements is adequate to maintain the established LOS.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
December 2018
Appendix E
PORT HADLOCK/IRONDALE
LAND CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Carolyn Gallaway
Joel Peterson 5/3/17
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368
Tel: 360.379.4450 | Fax: 360.379.4451
Web: www.co.jefferson.wa.us/communitydevelopment
E-mail: dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us
Presentation to the Planning Commission – Urban Growth Area
1. Goals and Policies – incorporate Countywide Planning Policies
2. Minimum Requirements Checklist – look at Element chapter
Population and Dwelling Unit Capacity Analysis
3. Review related Elements
a. Economic Development
b. Housing
c. Capital Facilities
d. Utilities
Joel Peterson 5/3/2017 DRAFT – VACANT LAND AVAILABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368
Tel: 360.379.4450 | Fax: 360.379.4451
Web: www.co.jefferson.wa.us/communitydevelopment
E-mail: dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us
Results
1. IDENTIFY LAND AVAILABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT
Step A: Identify lands that are capable of accommodating future dwelling unit
and population growth (i.e., vacant and underdeveloped lands).
Definitions:
Vacant land
Land with no, or insignificant improvements.
All parcels designated within the Assessor’s land use code as 9100 or 9800 (i.e.,
“vacant”), or which have an assessed structural (improvement) value that is
equal to or less than $10,000.
Underdeveloped land
Land occupied by current development that is of relatively low density in relation
to parcel ownership size and/or of relatively low structural (improvement) value.
This is land that is seen as likely to support further or more intense levels of
development. If the value of the structures (improvements) is equal to or less
than $100,000 and the parcel ownership was equal to or twice the minimum lot
size of the applicable zone (e.g., 20,000 s.f. in the Low Density Residential
designation), the parcel is deemed likely to develop to its permissible higher
density within the 20-year planning period.
A typical example of underdeveloped land would include a parcel owners hip in a
neighborhood that currently accommodates one dwelling unit, but which contains
sufficient land area to accommodate one or more additional dwelling units and
still comply with the density limitations of the applicable urban zone.
Developed land
Land with no additional space for development and which has significant
structural (improvement) values. This is land that is not likely to support further
or more intense levels of development.
All land not identified as “vacant” or “underdeveloped” a s defined above, falls
within this category.
Joel Peterson 5/3/2017 DRAFT – VACANT LAND AVAILABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT
TABLE #2:
STEP “A” - IDENTIFY VACANT, UNDERDEVELOPED & DEVELOPED RESIDENTIAL LAND
Status
Low Density Residential
(4-6 d.u. per acre)
Medium Density
Residential (7-12 d.u.
per acre)
High Density
Residential (13-18 d.u.
per acre)
Total Gross Acreage
in Zone
637.74
57.47
46.67
Vacant Land Acreage in
Zone
224.56
4.15
3.71
Underdeveloped Land
Acreage in Zone
129.81
31.62
28.10
Developed Land
Acreage in Zone
283.37
21.7
14.86
Joel Peterson 5/3/2017 DRAFT – VACANT LAND AVAILABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT
Step “B”: Subtract areas incapable of development due to environmental
constraints.
Using the County’s GIS layers, the following critical area features and their associated
buffers have been identified and removed from the available land supply:
Wetlands (National Wetlands Inventory) – with a 100’ buffer width applied;
Streams (Streams Types layer) – with a 150’ buffer width applied to Type I
streams (i.e., Chimacum Creek);
Class I Geologically Hazardous Areas (e.g., landslide and erosion hazards); and
Marine Shorelines – with a 150’ buffer width applied.
These layers were combined as a composite critical layer and then overlaid on the
parcel base layer. The area of each parcel covered by critical areas is then subtracted
from the parcel’s gross area to derive a net-buildable area.
TABLE #3:
STEP “B” - REMOVE MAPPED CRITICAL AREAS & ASSOCIATED BUFFERS
FROM THE CALCULATION
Status
Low Density
Residential (4-6 d.u.
per acre)
Medium Density
Residential (7-12
d.u. per acre)
High Density
Residential (13-18
d.u. per acre)
Gross/Partial Net
Vacant Land
Acreages by Zone
224.56 –99.23 acres
in mapped critical
areas = 125.33
4.15 – 1.17 acres in
mapped critical areas
= 2.98
3.71 – 0.00 acres in
mapped critical areas
= 3.71
Gross/Partial Net
Underdeveloped
Land Acreages by
Zone
129.81 – 52.83 in
mapped critical areas
= 76.98
31.62 – 2.90 acres in
mapped critical areas
= 28.72
28.10 – 5.10 acres in
mapped critical areas
= 23.00
Joel Peterson 5/3/2017 DRAFT – VACANT LAND AVAILABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT
Step “C”: Subtract all lands that are assumed to be unavailable for development
within the 20-year planning horizon.
It is reasonable to assume that a certain percentage of vacant and underdeveloped land
will always be held out from development. In this analysis, a 25% unavailable land
factor has been applied to account for properties likely to remain vacant over the
planning period due to title disputes, encumbrances and property owner discretion.
TABLE #4:
STEP “C” - APPLY AN UNAVAILABLE LAND, OR “MARKET FACTOR”
Status
Low Density
Residential (4-6 d.u.
per acre)
Medium Density
Residential (7-12
d.u. per acre)
High Density
Residential (13-18
d.u. per acre)
Gross/Partial Net
Vacant Land
Acreages by Zone
125.33 – (125.33 x
0.25 = 31.33) = 94.00
2.98 – (2.98 x 0.25 =
0.75) = 2.23
3.71 – (3.71 x 0.25 =
0.93) = 2.78
Gross/Partial Net
Underdeveloped
Land Acreages by
Zone
76.98 – (76.98 x 0.25
= 19.25) = 57.73
28.72 – (28.72 x 0.25
= 7.18) = 21.54
23.00 – (23.00 x 0.25
= 5.75) = 17.25
Step “D”: Subtract lands that will be needed for road rights of way.
A 15% right-of-way infrastructure reduction factor has been applied to both vacant and
underdeveloped lands.
TABLE #5:
STEP “D” - APPLY A ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY REDUCTION FACTOR
Status
Low Density
Residential (4-6 d.u.
per acre)
Medium Density
Residential (7-12
d.u. per acre)
High Density
Residential (13-18
d.u. per acre)
Gross/Partial Net
Vacant Land
Acreages by Zone
94.00 – (94.00 x 0.15
= 14.10) = 79.90
3.11 – (2.23 x 0.15 =
0.33) = 1.90
2.78 – (2.78 x 0.15 =
0.42) = 2.36
Gross/Partial Net
Underdeveloped
Land Acreages by
Zone
57.73 – (57.73 x 0.15
= 8.66) = 49.07
21.54 – (21.54 x 0.15
= 3.23) = 18.31
17.25 – (17.25 x 0.15
= 2.59) = 14.66
Joel Peterson 5/3/2017 DRAFT – VACANT LAND AVAILABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT
Step “E”: Subtract lands that will be needed for other necessary public facilities
(e.g., “active” recreational lands).
Typically, this reduction factor would include utility corridors, landfills, sewage treatment
plants, parks, schools and other public uses (§36.70A.150 RCW).
However, in this analysis, a public lands reduction factor has not been applied uniformly
to all areas proposed for a residential land use designation and zoning.
Instead, an “active recreational” land reduction factor has been applied only to areas
proposed for multi-family residential use. This factor is intended to address the need for
usable “active” open space and recreational amenities within new multi-family housing
developments (i.e., as opposed to “passive” open space areas that could be found
within critical areas and their required buffers).
TABLE #6:
STEP “E” APPLY AN “ACTIVE” RECREATION
(PARKS & PLAYGROUNDS) REDUCTION FACTOR
Status
Low Density
Residential (4-6 d.u.
per acre)
Medium Density
Residential (7-12
d.u. per acre)
High Density
Residential (13-18
d.u. per acre)
Gross/Partial Net
Vacant Land
Acreages by Zone
79.90*
1.90 - 1.90 x 0.10 =
0.190) = 1.71
2.36 - (2.36 x 0.10 =
0.236) = 2.12
Gross/Partial Net
Underdeveloped
Land Acreages by
Zone
49.07*
18.31 - (18.31 x 0.10
= 1.831) = 16.48
14.66 - (14.66 x 0.10
= 1.466) = 13.19
*No reduction factor for active recreation spaces has been applied within Low Density Residential areas.
Joel Peterson 5/3/2017 DRAFT – VACANT LAND AVAILABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT
RESULTS: NET AVAILABLE LAND FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
The tables on the following pages summarize the step -by-step process described above
to identify the net acreage available for future dwelling unit and population growth within
the proposed UGA.
TABLE #7:
IRONDALE/HADLOCK UGA
VACANT* LAND AREA FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Methodology
Step/
Reduction
Factor
Percentage
Reduction
Calculation
Low Density
Residential (4-
6 d.u. per
acre)
Medium
Density
Residential (7-
12 d.u. per
acre)
High Density
Residential
(13 –18 d.u.
per acre)
A) Identify
Gross Acreage
of “Vacant”
Land
Not
applicable;
calculated
using GIS
Not applicable
224.56
4.15
3.71
B) Remove
Critical Areas
Not
applicable;
calculated
using GIS
A – B
224.56 – 99.23
= 125.33
4.15 – 1.17 =
2.98
3.71 – 0.00 =
3.71
C) Remove
Unavailable
Land (i.e.,
apply “market
factor”)
25%
B – (B x 0.25)
125.33 –
(125.33 x 0.25
= 31.33) =
94.00
2.98 – (2.98 x
0.25 = 0.75) =
2.23
3.71 – (3.71 x
0.25 = 0.93) =
2.78
D) Remove
Land for Road
Rights-of-Way
15%
C – (C x 0.15)
94.00 – (94.00
x 0.15 = 14.10)
= 79.90
2.23 – (2.23 x
0.15 = 0.33) =
1.90
2.78 – (2.78 x
0.15 = 0.42) =
2.36
E) Remove
Land for
Public
Facilities
10%**
D – (D x 0.10)
79.90
1.90 – (1.90 x
0.10 = 0.190) =
1.71
2.36 – (2.36 x
0.10 = 0.236) =
2.12
Net Acreage Vacant Land:
79.90
(35.58% of
gross land
area)
1.71
(41.20% of
gross land
area)
2.12
(57.14% of
gross land
area)
*“Vacant” land is that land area within the proposed UGA boundary designated for residential use that is identified by the Jefferson
County Assessor as 9100 or “vacant” or that has an assessed building valuation of less than $10,000.
** No public facilities reduction factor has been applied to areas proposed for Low Density Residential land use.
Joel Peterson 5/3/2017 DRAFT – VACANT LAND AVAILABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT
TABLE #8:
IRONDALE/HADLOCK UGA – UNDERDEVELOPED* LAND AREA
FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Reduction
Factor
Percentage
Reduction
Calculation
Low Density
Residential (4-
6 d.u. per
acre)
Medium
Density
Residential (7-
12 d.u. per
acre)
High Density
Residential
(13 –18 d.u.
per acre)
A) Identify
Gross Acreage
of “Under-
developed”
Land
Note
applicable;
calculated
using GIS
Not applicable
129.81
31.62
28.10
B) Remove
Critical Areas
Not
applicable;
calculated
using GIS
A – B
129.81 – 52.83
= 76.98
31.62 – 2.90 =
28.72
28.10 – 5.10 =
23.00
C) Remove
Unavailable
Land (i.e.,
apply “market
factor”)
25%
B – (B x 0.25)
76.98 – (76.98
x 0.25 – 19.25)
= 57.73
28.72 – (28.72
x 0.25 = 7.18)
= 21.54
23.00 – (23.00
x 0.25 = 5.75)
= 17.25
D) Remove
Land for Road
Rights-of-Way
15%
C – (C x 0.15)
57.73 – (57.73
x 0.15 = 8.66)
= 49.07
21.54 – (21.54
x 0.15 = 3.23)
= 18.31
17.25 – (17.25
x 0.15 = 2.59)
= 14.66
E) Remove
Land for
Public
Facilities
10%**
D – (D x 0.10)
49.07
18.31 – (18.31
x 0.10 = 1.831)
= 16.48
14.66 – (14.66
x 0.10 = 1.466)
= 13.19
Net Acreage Underdeveloped Land:
49.07
(37.80% of
gross land
area)
16.48
(52.12% of
gross land
area)
13.19
(46.94% of
gross land
area)
* Underdeveloped land is that land area within the proposed UGA boundary designated for residential use, that is at least two times
the minimum parcel size for the zoning designation, and that is identified by the Jefferson County Assessor as having an assessed
building valuation equal to or less than $100,000.
** No public facilities reduction factor has been applied to areas proposed for Low Density Residential land use.
Joel Peterson 5/3/2017 DRAFT – VACANT LAND AVAILABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT
Table #9 provides a summary of the final net vacant and underdeveloped residential
lands within the proposed UGA.
TABLE #9:
NET VACANT AND UNDERDEVELOPED RESIDENTIAL LAND
Status
Low Density
Residential (4-6 d.u.
per acre)
Medium Density
Residential (7-12
d.u. per acre)
High Density
Residential (13-18
d.u. per acre)
Net Vacant Acreage
in Zone
79.90
1.71
2.12
Net Underdeveloped
Acreage in Zone
49.07
16.48
13.19
Net Total
“Buildable”
Acreage in Zone
128.97
18.19
15.31
ESTIMATED DWELLING UNIT & POPULATION HOLDING CAPACITY
The estimated dwelling unit holding capacity of the proposed Irondale/Port Hadlock
UGA is determined by multiplying the net available land (i.e., vacant and
underdeveloped land area combined) in each zoning designation by the minimum and
maximum density permitted within each zone. This establishes a dwelling unit capacity
range. The minimum and maximum number of dwelling units is then multiplied by the
estimated household size at the end of the planning period to establish an estimated
population holding capacity range for vacant and underdeveloped lands within the
proposed UGA.
After the holding capacity ranges are established, the estimated number of existing
dwelling units and population located upon land identified as “underdeveloped” is
subtracted from the totals to arrive at a net additional number of dwelling units and
population that may be accommodated within the proposed UGA. Tables #10 and #11
on the following page depict the results of this approach, zone by zone, and
cumulatively for the proposed Irondale/Port Hadlock UGA.
Joel Peterson 5/3/2017 DRAFT – VACANT LAND AVAILABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT
TABLE #10:
VACANT & UNDERDEVELOPED LAND – ESTIMATED DWELLING UNIT &
POPULATION HOLDING CAPACITY
Low Density Residential
(4-6 d.u. per acre)
Net Vacant &
Underdeveloped
Acreage
Theoretical Dwelling
Unit Capacity Range
Theoretical
Population Capacity*
Range
128.97
516 – 774
1,084 – 1,625
Medium Density
Residential
(7-14 d.u. per acre)
18.19
127 – 218
792 – 1357
High Density Residential
(14 –24 d.u. per acre)
15.31
199 – 276
1340 – 1854
TOTALS:
162.47
842 – 1,268
3121 – 4694
* Obtained by multiplying dwelling unit capacity by 2.1, the estimated number of persons per household at the end of the planning
period (i.e., 2038).
TABLE #11:
VACANT & UNDERDEVELOPED LAND – ESTIMATED “NET ADDITIONAL”
DWELLING UNIT & POPULATION HOLDING CAPACITY
Estimated Total Capacity of
Vacant & Underdeveloped
Lands
Dwellings
Population
842 – 1268
1768 – 2663
Estimated Existing D.U.s &
Population on Underdeveloped
Lands*
119
250
Potential Net Additional
Holding Capacity Range
723– 1,149
1,518– 2,413
Source: Dwelling unit count obtained through GIS analysis conducted by Jefferson County Central Services; population estimate
obtained by multiplying the estimated dwelling units by 2.1 persons per household.
Once the “net additional” dwelling unit and population holding capacity has been
established, it must be added to the estimated existing (2003) dwelling unit and
population count in order to identify the total estimated holding capacity of the proposed
Irondale/Port Hadlock UGA at build-out. The result of this operation is set forth in Table
#12, below.
TABLE #12:
ESTIMATED TOTAL DWELLING UNIT & POPULATION HOLDING CAPACITY
Estimated Net Additional
Capacity of Vacant &
Underdeveloped Lands
Dwellings
Population
723– 1,149
1,518– 2,413
Estimated Existing D.U.s &
Population on Vacant &
Underdeveloped Lands
1,380*
2,898
Estimated Holding Capacity
Range at Build-Out
2103– 2,529
4,416– 5,311
* 1,352 in 2016 * 1.06% growth rate from 2010 to 2016= 1,380 (1261 in “developed areas; 119 in “underdeveloped” areas.Projected
population 2038 = 5,394 5,311-5,394=(83)