19E.10.050 Level of Service (Scenario Driven) Method for Analyzing Capital Facilities.
A. Application of Standards. The County shall adopt standards for levels of service for PCC 19E.10.015 and shall apply the standards as follows:
1. Category A. The standards for levels of service of each type of public facility in Category A shall apply to development permits issued by the County after the effective date of implementation of the Plan, the County's annual budget beginning with the 1995 fiscal year, the County's Capital Improvements Program beginning with the 1994 fiscal year, and other elements of this Comprehensive Plan.
2. Category B. The standards for levels of service of each type of public facility in Category B shall apply to development permits issued by the County after the effective date of implementation of the Plan, and other elements of this Comprehensive Plan. Category B public facilities are provided by entities other than Pierce County, therefore the standards for levels of service shall not apply to the County's annual budget or the County's Capital Improvements Program; however the standards for levels of service shall apply to the annual budgets and Capital Improvements Programs of the entities which provide the public facilities.
3. Categories C and D. The standards for levels of service of each type of public facility in Categories C and D shall not apply to the concurrency management system.
B. Explanation of Levels of Service. Level of service means an established minimum capacity for public facilities or services that is planned to be provided per unit demand or other appropriate measure of need and is used as a gauge for measuring the quality of service. Levels of service are usually quantifiable measures of the amount of public facilities that are provided to the community. Levels of service may also measure the quality of some public facilities. Levels of service should be set to reflect realistic expectations consistent with the achievement of growth aims. Levels of service standards are valuable planning and budgetary tools, even if concurrency is not required for specified facilities, given that they are a measure of quality of service.
Typically, measures of LOS are expressed as ratios of facility capacity to demand (i.e., actual or potential users). Table 19E.10-1 lists examples of LOS measures for some capital facilities:
|
Table 19E.10-1. Sample Level of Service Measurements |
|
|---|---|
|
Type of Capital Facility |
Sample Level of Service Measure |
|
Corrections |
Beds per 1,000 population |
|
Library |
Building square feet per capita |
|
Parks |
Acres per 1,000 population |
|
Sewer |
Gallons per day per residential equivalent |
|
Surface Water and River Levees |
Design storm (i.e., 100-year storm) |
Each of these level of service measures needs one additional piece of information – the specific quantity that measures the current or proposed level of service. For example, the standard for parks might be five acres per 1,000 population, but the current level of service may be 2.68 acres per 1,000, which is less than the standard.
To make use of the level of service method, the County selects the way it will measure each facility (i.e., acres, gallons, etc.), and identifies the amount of the current and proposed (i.e., standard) level of service for each measurement.
There are other ways to measure the level of service of many of these capital facilities. The examples in Table 19E.10-2 are provided to give greater depth to the following discussion of the use of LOS as a method for determining the County's need for capital facilities.
C. Method for Using Levels of Service. The level of service method answers two questions needed to develop a financially feasible CFP. The GMA requires the CFP to be based on standards for service levels that are measurable and financially feasible for the six fiscal years following adoption of the plan. The CFP must meet the County's capital needs for the six-year CFP planning period.
1. There are two questions that must be answered in order to meet the GMA requirements:
a. What is the quantity of public facilities that will be required by the end of the sixth year?
b. Is it financially feasible to provide the quantity of facilities that are required by the end of the sixth year?
The answer to each question can be calculated by using objective data and formulas. Each type of public facility is examined separately (i.e., roads are examined separately from parks). The costs of all the types of facilities are then added together to determine the overall financial feasibility of the CFP. One of the CFP support documents, "Capital Facilities Requirements," contains the results of this method which answers the two questions for Pierce County.
2. Question 1. What is the quantity of public facilities that will be required by the end of the sixth year?
Formula 1.1: Demand X Standard = Requirement
Where: Demand is the estimated population or other appropriate measure of need (i.e., dwelling units), and Standard is the amount of facility per unit of demand (i.e., acres of park per capita).
The answer to this formula is the total amount of public facilities that are needed, regardless of the amount of facilities that are already in place and being used by the public.
Formula 1.2: Requirement - Inventory = Surplus or Deficiency
Where: Requirement is the result of Formula 1.1, and Inventory is the quantity of facilities available at the beginning of the six years covered by the Plan.
This formula uses the inventory of existing public facilities, plus facilities that will be completed by the beginning of the six-year planning period, to offset the total requirement of Formula 1.1. The answer to Formula 1.2 is the net surplus of public facilities, or the net deficit that must be eliminated by additional facilities before the end of the six-year planning period. If a net deficiency exists, it represents the combined needs of existing development and anticipated new development. Detailed analysis will reveal the portion of the net deficiency that is attributable to current development compared to the portion needed for new development (see the CFP support document Capital Facilities Requirement for the delineation between current development and new development).
3. Question 2. Is it financially feasible to provide the quantity of facilities that are required by the end of the sixth year?
A "preliminary" answer to Question 2 is prepared to test the financial feasibility of tentative or proposed standards of service. The preliminary answers use "average costs" of facilities rather than specific project costs. This approach avoids the problem of developing detailed projects and costs that would be unusable if the standard proved to be financially infeasible. If the standards are feasible at the preliminary level, detailed projects are prepared for the "final" answer to Question 2. If, however, the preliminary answer indicates that a standard of service is not financially feasible, six options are available to the County:
a. Reduce the standard of service, which will reduce the cost;
b. Increase revenues to pay for the proposed standard of service (higher rates for existing revenues, or new sources of revenue, or a combination);
c. Reduce the average cost of the public facility (i.e., alternative technology or alternative ownership or financing), thus reducing the total cost, and possibly the quality;
d. Reduce the demand by restricting population (i.e., revise the land use element), which may cause growth to occur in other jurisdictions;
e. Reduce the demand by reducing consumption (i.e., transportation demand management techniques, recycling solid waste, water conservation, etc.) which may cost more money initially, but may save money later; or
f. Any combination of options a-e.
The preliminary answer to Question 2 is prepared using the following formulas (P = preliminary):
Formula 2.1P: Deficiency X Average Cost = Deficiency Cost per Unit
Where: Deficiency is the result of Formula 1.2, and Average Cost/Unit is the usual cost of one unit of facility (i.e., mile of road, acre of park)
The answer to Formula 2.1P is the approximate cost of eliminating all deficiencies of public facilities, based on the use of an "average" cost for each unit of public facility that is needed.
Formula 2.2P: Deficiency Cost - Revenue = Net Surplus or Deficiency
Where: Deficiency Cost is the result of Formula 2.1P, and Revenue is the money currently available for public facilities.
The result of Formula 2.2P is the preliminary answer to the test of financial feasibility of the standards of service. A surplus of revenue in excess of cost means the standard of service is affordable with money remaining (the surplus), therefore, the standard is financially feasible. A deficiency of revenue compared to cost means that not enough money is available to build the facilities, therefore, the standard is not financially feasible. Any standard that is not financially feasible will need to be adjusted using the six strategies listed above.
The CFP support document, "Capital Facilities Requirements," contains the scenarios for Pierce County.
The "final" demonstration of financial feasibility uses detailed costs of specific capital projects in lieu of the "average" costs of facilities used in the preliminary answer, as follows (F = final):
Formula 2.1F: Capacity Projects + Non-Capacity Projects = Project Cost
Where: Capacity Projects is the cost of all projects needed to eliminate the deficiency for existing and future development (Formula 1.2), including upgrades and/or expansion of existing facilities as well as new facilities, and
Non-Capacity Projects is the cost of remodeling, renovation or replacement needed to maintain the inventory of existing facilities.
Formula 2.2F: Project Cost - Revenue = Net Surplus or Deficiency
Where: Project Cost is the result of Formula 2.1F, and Revenue is the money available for public facilities from current/proposed sources.
The "final" answer to Question 2 validates the financial feasibility of the standards for LOS that are used for each public facility in the CFP and in the other elements of the comprehensive plan. The financially feasible standards for LOS and the resulting capital improvement projects are used as the basis for objectives, principles and standards and implementation programs for the final CFP.
D. Setting the Standards for Levels of Service. Because the need for capital facilities is largely determined by the LOS that are adopted, the key to influencing the CFP is to influence the selection of the level of service standards. Level of service standards are measures of the quality of life of the community. The standards should be based on the community's vision of its future and its values.
Traditional approaches to capital facilities planning rely on technical experts (i.e., staff and consultants) to determine the need for capital improvements. In the scenario-driven approach these experts play an important advisory role, but they do not control the determination. Their role is to define and implement a process for the review of various scenarios, to analyze data and make suggestions based on technical considerations.
The final, legal authority to establish the LOS rests with the County Council because they enact the level of service standards that reflect the community's vision. Their decision should be influenced by recommendations of: (1) Planning Commission, (2) providers of public facilities (i.e., local government departments, special districts, schools, private utilities, the State of Washington, tribal governments, etc.), (3) formal advisory groups that make recommendations to the providers of public facilities (i.e., the Citizens' Advisory Group), (4) the general public through individual citizens and community civic, business, and issue-based organizations that make their views known or are sought through sampling techniques.
An individual has many opportunities to influence the level of service (and other aspects of the Plan). These opportunities include attending and participating in meetings, writing letters, responding to surveys or questionnaires, joining organizations that participate in the CFP process, being appointed/elected to an advisory group, making comments/presentation/testimony at the meetings of any group or government agency that influences the level of service decision and giving input during the SEPA review process.
The scenario-driven approach to developing the level of service standards provides decision makers and anyone else who wishes to participate with a clear statement of the outcomes of various LOS for each type of public facility. This approach reduces the tendency for decisions to be controlled by expert staff or consultants, opens up the decision making process to the public and advisory groups, and places the decisions before the County Council.
The final standards for LOS are adopted in CFP 2.2 in the Capital Facilities Element of the Pierce County Comprehensive Plan (Title 19A PCC). The adopted standards (1) determine the need for capital improvements projects, (2) are the benchmark for evaluating the adequacy of public facilities for each proposed development, and (3) for concurrency-related facilities, establish the test for concurrency pursuant to concurrency requirements. The adopted standards can be amended, if necessary, once each year as part of the annual amendment of the Comprehensive Plan.
E. Determining Public Facility Needs. The County shall determine the quantity of capital improvements that is needed as follows:
1. The quantity of capital improvements needed to eliminate existing deficiencies and to meet the needs of future growth shall be determined for each public facility by the following calculation: Q = (S x D) - I,
Where Q is the quantity of capital improvements needed,
S is the standard for level of service,
D is the demand, such as the population, and
I is the inventory of existing facilities.
The calculation shall be used for existing demand in order to determine existing deficiencies. The calculation shall be used for projected demand in order to determine needs of future growth.
2. There are four circumstances in which the standards for levels of service are not the exclusive determinant of need for a capital improvement:
a. Repair, remodeling, renovation, and replacement of obsolete or worn out facilities shall be determined by the County Council upon the recommendation of the County Executive.
b. Capital improvements needed to address health and safety issues, as determined by the County Council upon recommendation of the County Executive.
c. Capital improvements that provide levels of service in excess of the standards adopted in this Comprehensive Plan may be constructed or acquired at any time as long as the following conditions are met:
(1) The capital improvement does not contradict, limit or substantially change the goals and policies of any element of this Comprehensive Plan, and
(2) 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 standards for levels of service (i.e., the minimum capacity of a capital project is larger than the capacity required to provide the level of service); 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 contains critical areas, or is designated by the County for open space or recreation purposes; or
(d) The excess capacity is part of a capital project financed by general obligation bonds approved by referendum; or
(e) The Council has determined that the capital improvement addresses the goal of a jobs-based economy.
d. The County may provide noncapital alternatives to achieve and maintain the adopted standard for level of service. Noncapital alternatives use programs, strategies or methods other than traditional "brick and mortar" capital standards. Noncapital alternatives include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) Programs that reduce or eliminate the need for the capital facility (i.e., education, housing, and jobs programs as alternatives to incarcerating people who break the law because of insufficient economic opportunities).
(2) Programs that provide a noncapital substitute for the capital facility (i.e., electronic home monitoring or other sentencing alternatives to incarceration in traditional jail facilities).
(3) Programs that reduce the demand for a capital facility or the service it provides (i.e., telecommuting as an alternative to commuting to work; transit as an alternative to cars; recycling as an alternative to landfills).
(4) Programs that use alternative methods to provide levels of service (i.e., "natural" drainage in managed flood basins as an alternative to levees and dikes).
(5) Programs that use existing facilities more efficiently to reduce the need for additional facilities (i.e., night court as an alternative to more courtrooms during the day; flextime and evening and night shifts as an alternative to additional space for government staff).
3. Any capital improvement that is needed as a result of any of the factors listed in PCC 19E.10.050 E.2. shall be included in the regular schedule of capital improvements contained in this Capital Facilities Plan. All such capital improvements shall be approved in the same manner as the capital improvements that are needed according to the quantitative analysis described in PCC 19E.10.050 E.1.
4. Public and private community service providers should be encouraged to jointly plan, share, or reuse facilities, when appropriate, in order to reduce costs, conserve land, and provide convenience and amenity for the public. (Examples include schools, community centers, social service facilities, libraries, swimming pools, and recreational facilities, and open space, wetlands, or surface water management facilities that enhance other public facilities.)
F. Priorities. The relative priorities among capital improvements projects are as follows:
1. Priorities Among Types of Public Facilities. Legal restrictions on the use of many revenue sources limit the extent to which types of facilities compete for priority with other types of facilities because they do not compete for the same revenues. All capital improvements that are necessary for achieving and maintaining a standard for levels of service adopted in this Comprehensive Plan are included in the financially feasible schedule of capital improvements contained in this Capital Facilities Plan. The relative priorities among types of public facilities (i.e., roads, sanitary sewer, etc.) were established by adjusting the standards for levels of service and the available revenues until the resulting public facilities needs became financially feasible. This process is repeated with each update of the Capital Facilities Plan, thus allowing for changes in priorities among types of public facilities.
2. Priorities of Capital Improvements Within a Type of Public Facility. Capital improvements within a type of public facility are to be evaluated on the following criteria and considered in the order of priority listed below. The County shall establish the final priority of all capital facility improvements using the following criteria as general guidelines. Any revenue source that cannot be used for a high priority facility shall be used beginning with the highest priority for which the revenue can legally be expended.
a. Reconstruction, rehabilitation, remodeling, renovation, or replacement of obsolete or worn out facilities that contribute to achieving or maintaining standards for levels of service adopted in this Comprehensive Plan.
b. New or expanded facilities that reduce or eliminate deficiencies in levels of service for existing demand or that support the creation of a jobs-based economy for Pierce County.
c. New public facilities, and improvements to existing public facilities, that eliminate public hazards if such hazards were not otherwise eliminated by facility improvements prioritized according to PCC 19E.10.050 F.2.a. or b.
d. New or expanded facilities that provide the adopted levels of service for new development and redevelopment during the next six fiscal years, as updated by the annual review of this Capital Facilities Plan. The County may acquire land or right of way in advance of the need to develop a facility for new development. The location of facilities constructed pursuant to this Policy shall conform to the Land Use Element, and specific project locations shall serve projected growth areas within the allowable land use categories.
e. Improvements to existing facilities, and new facilities that significantly reduce the operating cost of providing a service or facility, or otherwise mitigate impacts of public facilities on future operating budgets.
f. New facilities that exceed the adopted levels of service for new growth during the next six fiscal years by either:
(1) Providing excess public facility capacity that is needed by future growth beyond the next six fiscal years, or
(2) Providing higher quality public facilities than are contemplated in the County's normal design criteria for such facilities.
g. Facilities not described in PCC 19E.10.050 F.2.a. through f., but which the 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.
3. All facilities scheduled for construction or improvement in accordance with this Policy shall be evaluated to identify any plans of State or local governments or districts that affect, or will be affected by, the proposed County capital improvement.
4. Project evaluation may also involve additional criteria that are unique to each type of public facility, as described in other elements of this Comprehensive Plan.