19E.10.040 New Capital Facilities Plans (CFP) vs. Traditional Capital Improvements Programs (CIP).
A. There are traditional and non traditional approaches to developing capital facilities plans. Two traditional approaches (used to develop CIP's) are needs driven, and revenue driven.
1. Needs driven: first develop needed capital projects, then try to finance them. This approach is sometimes called a "wish list."
2. Revenue driven: first determine financial capacity, then develop capital projects that do not exceed available revenue. This approach is also called "financially constrained."
Because of the non traditional requirements of capital facilities planning under the GMA, the traditional approaches to developing capital improvements can cause problems. The needs driven approach may exceed the County's capacity to pay for the projects. The revenue driven approach may limit the County to capital projects that provide a lower level of service than the community desires.
B. A hybrid approach that overcomes these problems is scenario driven.
Scenario driven: develop two or more scenarios using different assumptions about needs (LOS) and revenues. Use the scenarios to identify the best combination of level of service and financing plan.
The development of multiple scenarios allows the community and decision makers to review more than one version of the County's future. Each version is like a choice on a menu in a restaurant; the most desirable choices are often the most expensive, and the most affordable choices are often not as appealing. The same is true with the County's CFP; the highest LOS provide the best quality of life, but the greatest cost, while the lowest cost provide a less desirable quality of life. The scenario driven approach enables the County to balance its desire for high LOS with its willingness and ability to pay for those LOS.
Other advantages of the scenario driven approach include:
1. Helping the County analyze which approach achieves the best balance among GMA goals;
2. Helping prepare analyses required by SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act); and
3. Evaluating scenarios for the Land Use Element.
The scenario driven approach also provides a non traditional method of policy development. The other approaches begin by setting policies (i.e., needs or revenues) then building a plan to implement the policies. The scenario driven approach uses alternative potential policy assumptions as the basis for different scenarios. The establishment of County policies is accomplished by reviewing all scenarios, selecting the preferred scenario, then writing the policies that will implement the preferred scenario. The scenarios are used to test alternative policies and lead to selection of the policy that the community believes they can achieve. The formal language of objectives, principles and standards is written after the scenarios are evaluated and the preferred scenarios (and accompanying policies) are identified.