HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 App D CFP Tech Appendix 2021_02_01
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 ....................................................... 11
1.4 Reassessment Policy ............................................................ 14
2 Fiscal Analysis ..................................................................... 14
2.1 Background & Purpose ........................................................... 14
2.2 Dedicated Capital Revenues ..................................................... 15
2.3 General Capital Revenues ....................................................... 16
2.4 Notes, Bonds, & Grants ......................................................... 17
2.5 Six-Year Projected Funding & Cost Comparison .................................. 18
3 Capital Facilities Assessment ....................................................... 19
3.1 Law Enforcement ................................................................ 19
3.2 Parks & Recreation ............................................................. 23
3.3 Public Administration .......................................................... 27
3.4 Sewer .......................................................................... 32
3.5 Solid Waste .................................................................... 35
3.6 Stormwater ..................................................................... 37
3.7 Transportation ................................................................. 38
3.8 Education ...................................................................... 45
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 2
3.9 Fire Protection ................................................................ 60
3.10 Water .......................................................................... 72
Capital Facilities Element Strategies .................................................. 81
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 $) ............ 17
Exhibit 2-2 Estimated Capital Project Costs by Category (2018$) ...................... 18
Exhibit 3-1 Inmate Correction Facilities Inventory ................................... 20
Exhibit 3-2 Sheriff's Administration, Investigation, Patrol Inventory ................ 20
Exhibit 3-3 Justice Facilities Inventory ............................................. 20
Exhibit 3-4 Inmate Correction Facilities Capacity Analysis ........................... 21
Exhibit 3-5 Sheriff's Administration, Investigation, Patrol Capacity Analysis ........ 21
Exhibit 3-6 Justice Facilities Capacity Analysis ..................................... 22
Exhibit 3-7 Law Enforcement: Project List & Funding Source (Cost in Thousands 2018$) . 23
Exhibit 3-8 Law Enforcement Summary of Capital Costs (2018$) ......................... 23
Exhibit 3-9 Law Enforcement Summary of Capital Revenues (2018$) ...................... 23
Exhibit 3-10 Jefferson County Parks ................................................... 24
Exhibit 3-11 Parks Levels of Service Analysis ......................................... 25
Exhibit 3-12 Parks Levels of Service Alternative ...................................... 26
Exhibit 3-13 PROS Plan Parks Project List & Funding Source (Cost in Thousands 2018$) .. 27
Exhibit 3-14 Animal Control Shelter Current Facilities Inventory ...................... 28
Exhibit 3-15 Community Centers Current Facilities Inventory ........................... 28
Exhibit 3-16 General Administrative Offices Current Facilities Inventory .............. 28
Exhibit 3-17 Maintenance Shop Facilities Current Facilities Inventory ................. 29
Exhibit 3-18 Animal Control Shelter Capacity Analysis ................................. 29
Exhibit 3-19 Community Centers Capacity Analysis ...................................... 30
Exhibit 3-20 General Administrative Offices Capacity Analysis ......................... 30
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 3
Exhibit 3-21 Maintenance Shop Facilities Capacity Analysis ............................ 31
Exhibit 3-22 Public Administration Project List & Funding Source (Cost in Thousands $) 31
Exhibit 3-23 Public Administration: Summary of Capital Costs (2018$) .................. 32
Exhibit 3-24 Public Administration: Summary of Capital Revenues (2018$) ............... 32
Exhibit 3-25 Growth & Potential Sewer Demand .......................................... 34
Exhibit 3-26 Solid Waste Facilities Current Facilities Inventory ...................... 35
Exhibit 3-27 Potential Solid Waste Demand ............................................. 36
Exhibit 3-28 Funding Strategies for Recommendations ................................... 37
Exhibit 3-29 County Road Miles by Functional Class (Thru Lane Surface) ................ 38
Exhibit 3-30 Transportation Capital Facilities Projects, 2018-2023 .................... 40
Exhibit 3-31 Transportation Funding Sources, 2018-2023 ................................ 40
Exhibit 3-32 Port Hadlock/Irondale Area Improvement Projects .......................... 43
Exhibit 3-33 SR 19/SR 20 Corridor Plan Intersection Improvement (2009$ in Millions) ... 44
Exhibit 3-34 School Districts Serving Jefferson County ................................ 45
Exhibit 3-35 School Districts Map ..................................................... 46
Exhibit 3-36 Brinnon District Student to Teacher (S-T) Ratio .......................... 47
Exhibit 3-37 Brinnon District Facility Information .................................... 47
Exhibit 3-38 Chimacum District Student to Teacher (S-T) Ratio ......................... 48
Exhibit 3-39 Chimacum District Facility Information ................................... 48
Exhibit 3-40 Port Townsend District Student to Teacher (S-T) Ratio .................... 49
Exhibit 3-41 Port Townsend District Facility Information .............................. 49
Exhibit 3-42 Queets-Clearwater District Student to Teacher (S-T) Ratio ................ 50
Exhibit 3-43 Queets-Clearwater District Facility Information .......................... 50
Exhibit 3-44 Quilcene District Student to Teacher (S-T) Ratio ......................... 50
Exhibit 3-45 Quilcene District Facility Information ................................... 51
Exhibit 3-46 Quillayute Valley District Student to Teacher (S-T) Ratio ................ 51
Exhibit 3-47 Quillayute Valley Facility Information ................................... 52
Exhibit 3-48 Sequim District Student to Teacher (S -T) Ratio ........................... 52
Exhibit 3-49 Sequim District Facility Information ..................................... 53
Exhibit 3-50 Washington State General Education Average Class Size .................... 54
Exhibit 3-51 Brinnon School District Level of Service ................................. 54
Exhibit 3-52 Chimacum School District Level of Service ................................ 55
Exhibit 3-53 Port Townsend School District Level of Service ........................... 55
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 4
Exhibit 3-54 Queets-Clearwater School District Level of Service ....................... 56
Exhibit 3-55 Quilcene School District Level of Service ................................ 56
Exhibit 3-56 Quillayute Valley School District Level of Service ....................... 57
Exhibit 3-57 Sequim School District Level of Service .................................. 57
Exhibit 3-58 Fire Districts Serving Jefferson County, 2017 ............................ 60
Exhibit 3-59 Fire Districts Map ....................................................... 61
Exhibit 3-60 Jefferson County Fire Districts & Stations ............................... 62
Exhibit 3-61 East Jefferson Fire & Rescue Inventory of Apparatus ...................... 63
Exhibit 3-62 District No. 2—Quilcene Inventory of Apparatus ........................... 64
Exhibit 3-63 District No. 3—Port Ludlow Inventory of Apparatus ........................ 65
Exhibit 3-64 District No. 4—Brinnon Inventory of Apparatus ............................ 66
Exhibit 3-65 District No. 5—Discovery Bay—Gardiner Inventory of Apparatus ............. 66
Exhibit 3-66 District No. 7—Clearwater Inventory of Apparatus ......................... 67
Exhibit 3-67 East Jefferson Fire & Rescue Level of Service ............................ 68
Exhibit 3-68 District No. 2—Quilcene Level of Service ................................. 68
Exhibit 3-69 District No. 3—Port Ludlow Fire & Rescue Fire District Level of Service .. 69
Exhibit 3-70 District No. 4—Brinnon Fire District Level of Service .................... 69
Exhibit 3-71 District No. 5—Discovery Bay—Gardiner Level of Service ................... 70
Exhibit 3-72 District No. 7—Clearwater Level of Service ............................... 70
Exhibit 3-73 Potable Water System Current Facilities Inventory ........................ 72
Exhibit 3-74 Department of Health Water System Compliance ............................. 73
Exhibit 3-75 Individual Water Current Capital Inventory Serving More Than 100 People .. 73
Exhibit 3-76 Group A Water Systems .................................................... 75
Exhibit 3-77 1997 Population Projection for 20-year Planning Horizon .................. 76
Exhibit 3-78 Growth & Potential Water Demand .......................................... 77
Exhibit 3-79 Port Townsend Water System Project List & Funding Source ................. 77
Exhibit 3-80 Public Utility District #1 Project List & Funding Source (2011$) ......... 78
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
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 6
Capital Facility & Service
Topic
Description
Parks and Recreation Owning and maintaining public parks and recreation
facilities
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 bounda ries 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 capi tal
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
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
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 8
Service Topic Providers Guiding Plans
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
Port Hadlock Sewer Facility
Plan Update, 2020
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.
In conjunction with its budget, the County may revise this Element, as needed, to add new
projects needed to accommodate changing development circumstances, remove projects that
have been built, and to reevaluate projects remaining in the inventory.
In 2020, Jefferson County revised the 2008 Port Hadlock Wastewater System: Urban Growth
Area Sewer Facility Plan and 2013 Design Plans & Specifications for the Port Hadlock UGA
with technical design updates to provide for a more cost -effective system. The 2020 Sewer
Facility Plan Update is currently und er review by the Washington State Department of
Ecology and is incorporated by reference, as it may be amended, into the Comprehensive
Plan.
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.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 10
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.
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 broad er 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 bal ance 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.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 11
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 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
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
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
Sewer
Pending
132 gallons per
day/ERU
Pending
132 gallons per
day/ERU
Pending
132 gallons per
day/ERU
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
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
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 13
County Facility 2023 2038
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**
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
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 14
▶ 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))
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:
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 15
▶ 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.
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 ta x base with
transportation revenues among the lowest in western Washington when measured in
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 16
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 appro ved) and
unlimited tax general bonds (voter approved).
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
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 17
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.
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, bor rowing
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.
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
$1,400,000
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 18
2.5 SIX-YEAR PROJECTED FUNDING & COST
COMPARISON
The purpose of this section is to compare Jefferson County’s dedicated capital facilities
revenue sources with its planned project costs for the six -year planning horizon of 2018-
2023 to understand the difference between near -term future dedicated capital revenues and
planned future costs. In Jefferson County, future capital costs are generally larger than
future dedicated capital revenues. This trend is seen in most counties and cities
throughout Washington State, given the structural and legal limitations on capital
funding sources.
Understanding the magnitude of this difference can help the County plan for ways to fill
in the gap through other funding methods, such as operating transfers or bonds.
EXHIBIT 2-2 Estimated Capital Project Costs by Category (2018$)
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
$25,900,138*
2018-2023
$27,099,138*
2021-2026
$0
$25,900,139*
2018-2023
$27,099,138
2021-2026
$0
$11,903,121*
2018-2023
$13,102,121*
2021-2026
Seek funding: grants, low
interest infrastructure
loans, local improvement
district, connection
charges, and revenue from
service rates.
Local funding: Local
improvement district,
connection charges, local
borrowing, and revenue.
Outside funding: WA
Legislature appropriations,
WA Dept of Ecology Combined
Water Quality Program grant
funding, USDA grant funding,
and US Economic Development
Administration Public Works
Program grant funding.
Solid Waste3 $0 $0 $0 Rates per 2016 Solid Waste
Management Plan.
Stormwater $0 $0 $0 See Transportation.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 19
Facility Costs:
2018-2023
Revenues:
2018-2023
Local
Funding
Strategies
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
$54,176,846
$30,399,363
$54,176,846
$6,627,617
$18,530,738
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.
4 Includes 6-year financing costs for the Port Hadlock UGA Sewer from 2018-2023 (period of last full
update) and 2021-2026 (current update to sewer costs and financing).
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 20
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
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
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 21
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 al l 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
2019 31,978 311 7,675 75 8,000 325
2020 32,291 313 7,750 75 8,000 250
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 22
Year Service
Area
Population
Population
Change
Square
Feet
Required
Square
Feet
Change
Available
Square
Feet
Reserve
Or
(Deficit
)
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
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 23
Superior Courts in the 7-20-year planning period to better meet operational needs and
requirements.
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 24
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
Coyle Community Center (Laurel B. Johnson) 1.0 South Toandos
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 25
Parks Acres Location
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
Existin
g 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 those facilities. This can be reflected in the
Facilities and Utilities Element with corresponding changes in the PROS Plan, or the
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 26
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
$501,500 plus make up in part for less spending in 2015-2017. It is likely that projects
incomplete in the 2015-2017 years would carry into 2018-2023 and 2024-2038 periods. The
County could seek higher grants and donations to make up the difference as well .
The projects that would add capacity for new population include trail projects. Non -
capacity projects include facility capital maintenance or replacement projects at parks
across the system. See the 205 PROS Plan for more detail.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 27
EXHIBIT 3-13 PROS Plan Parks Project List & Funding Source (Cost in
Thousands 2018$)
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 28
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 Distr ict. 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 foo tages.
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 29
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 30
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 31
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 $4,373
Source: Jefferson County 2018
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 32
EXHIBIT 3-23 Public Administration: Summary of Capital Costs (2018$)
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. In 2020, Jefferson County revised the 2008 Port
Hadlock Wastewater System: Urban Growth Area Sewer Facility Plan and 2013 Design Plans &
Specifications for the Port Hadlock UGA with technical design updates to provide for a
more cost-effective system. No changes to the service area, phasing, or level -of-service
are planned. The 2020 Sewer Facility Plan Update is currently under review by the
Washington State Department of Ecology and is incorporated by reference, as it may be
amended, into the Comprehensive 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.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 33
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.
Inventory of Current Facilities
The County currently does not own or operate sewage collection or treatment facilit ies.
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 and Sewer Facility Plan Update, dated August 2020, as it may be amended,
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. Jefferson County is currently revising
the 2008 Port Hadlock UGA Sewer Facility Plan to focus on a more cost -effective system.
No changes to the service area or phasing are anticipated. Once adopted by Jefferson
County and approved by the Department of Ecology, Jefferso n County will update its
Comprehensive Plan to incorporate level of service standards from the revised plan.
The 2008 Jefferson County―Port Hadlock UGA Sewer Facility Plan 2020 Sewer Facility Plan
Update estimated population in the potential service area through 20308, which included
an effective level of service based on assumed flow projections per equivalent
residential unit. The 2020 Sewer Facility Plan Update used a 2038 population projection
of 5,394 residents which is slightly lower than the 5,776 re sidents projecte in the 2008
Jefferson County Port Hadlock UGA Sewer Facility Plan. The 2038 population projections
are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s population projections. 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
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 34
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
784,844
0.96
1,154,922
1.28
1,651,448
2.59
3,359,568
STEP Collection System 0.63
626,783
0.82
870,412
1.05
1,177,265
2.26
2,664,100
Grinder Pump Collection System 508,238 657,029 821,629 2,142,499
Source: Port Hadlock Sewer Facility Plan, 2009, BERK, 2018.Port Hadlock Sewer Facility Plan Update, 2020.
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 mo st 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 ra tes 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.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 35
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), t he 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 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
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 36
Name Capacity
(Net Sq.
Ft.)
Location
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 20 18
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.
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.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 37
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
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.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 38
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.
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
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 39
Functional Classification Miles
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.
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 direct ional 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)
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 40
▶ 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%
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%
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 41
Funding Source Amount Percent
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
▶ 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.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 42
Under GMA and SEPA, new development and growth would not be required to mitigate existing
deficiencies. The County could require new development to mitigate condition s 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 main tain
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 43
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 44
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 45
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 46
EXHIBIT 3-35 School Districts Map
Source: Jefferson County, 2018.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 47
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
Instructiona
l 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 48
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
Instructiona
l 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 49
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
Instructiona
l 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 50
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 51
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 52
Building conditions are fair to excellent.
EXHIBIT 3-47 Quillayute Valley Facility Information
School
Square
Feet
Instructiona
l 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 P re-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 53
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
Instruction
al 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 t he 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 Financia l 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 schools. Laws regarding class size reduction standards have had
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 54
implementation delays and has been subject to on-going revisions regarding requirements,
and some districts will not be required to meet the same stand ards 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
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 55
households in the district would 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 s tandard 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 56
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 57
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 58
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 School3.
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 op erations4. 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 operations5.
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 59
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 60
3.9 FIRE PROTECTION
Overview
Fire protection service in Jefferson County is provided by seven fire districts8, 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 Distri ct.
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 61
EXHIBIT 3-59 Fire Districts Map
Source: Municipal Research & Services Center, BERK, 2018.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 62
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 63
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 64
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 65
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.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 66
EXHIBIT 3-64 District No. 4—Brinnon Inventory of Apparatus
Apparatus / Unit Id Year Built Make & Model Capabilities / Description
Headquarters—Station 4-1
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
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 67
Source: Fire District 5 website, retrieved April 2018
Note: Apparatus details and location were not available at the time of final publication.
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 ye ar
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.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 68
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.
▶ 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
Effectiv
e 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
Effectiv
e 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.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 69
Unit Type Apparatus Number Population
Served
Effective
LOS
Growth
(2018-2038)
Need
with
Effectiv
e LOS
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.
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.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 70
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.
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.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 71
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.
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 equipment10.
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
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 72
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.
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
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 73
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.
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 Distributio
n 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
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 74
System Connections Water Use System Capacity
System Name Pop.
Served
Existing Approved Water Produced
and Purchased
Authorized
Consumption
Storage Distributio
n Capacity
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
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 75
EXHIBIT 3-76 Group A Water Systems
Source: Jefferson County, BERK, 2018.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 76
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).
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 77
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
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
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 78
▶ Kala Point
▶ Lazy C
▶ 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
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 79
Project / Type Revenue
Sources
Cost:
2017-2025
Cost:
2026-35
Total
SC-3 Back-up Power SDC $5,000
$5,000
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 unde r 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)
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 80
▶ WRIA 17: Quilcene/Snow (active role)
▶ WRIA 20: Soleduck/Hoh (active role)
▶ 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 81
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 82
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 Compre hensive
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 f acilities
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:
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 83
A. Reconstruction, rehabilitation, remodeling, renovation, or replacement of
obsolete or worn out facilities that contribute to achieving or maintaining
adopted LOS standards.
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
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 84
referenda, and apportioning the cost of capital improvements between existing and future
development.
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.
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 85
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;
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 F acilities 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;
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 86
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;
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 implementi ng 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:
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 87
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:
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 subj ect 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
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 88
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.
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 t he
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
December 2018 Jefferson County | Capital Facility Plan Technical Document 89
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.