HomeMy WebLinkAboutDraft 2012.2017 Capital Facilities PlanCity of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
�i
WASHINGTON
DRAFT CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
(2012 - 2017)
Adopted by Ordinance No. xxxx, December xx, 2011 as part of the City of
Auburn Comprehensive Plan
City of Auburn
25 West Main
Auburn, WA 98001
(253) 931 -3000
www.auburnwa.gov
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
' * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2012-2017
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ExecutiveSummary .................................................................................... ............................... 1
1. Introduction
Purpose................................................................................................... ............................... 7
Statutory Requirement for Capital Facilities Elements ............................. ............................... 7
Concurrency and Level of Service ........................................................... ............................... 8
Implementation........................................................................................ ............................... 8
2. Goals and Policies
1. Capital Facilities Response to Growth ............................................... ............................... 11
2. Financial Feasibility ........................................................................... ............................... 11
3. Public Health and Environment .......................................................... ............................... 13
4. Consistency With Regional Planning ................................................. ............................... 13
3. Capital Improvements
Introduction............................................................................................. ...............................
15
Transportation......................................................................................... ...............................
17
Arterial Street (102) Capital Projects .................................................. ...............................
22
Local Street (103) Capital Projects .................................................... ...............................
74
Street Fund (105) Capital Projects ..................................................... ...............................
76
Water....................................................................................................... ...............................
81
SanitarySewer ........................................................................................ ...............................
117
StormDrainage ....................................................................................... ...............................
131
SolidWaste ............................................................................................. ...............................
155
Parksand Recreation .............................................................................. ...............................
157
General Municipal Buildings ........................................ ............................... ............................189
Community Improvements ........................................... ............................... ............................197
Airport...................................................................................................... ...............................
215
Cemetery................................................................................................. ...............................
221
GolfCourse ............................................................................................. ...............................
225
PoliceDepartment ................................................................................... ...............................
229
Valley Regional Fire Authority ................................................................. ...............................
231
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
' * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A capital facilities element is one of the comprehensive plan elements required by
Washington's Growth Management Act (GMA). Capital facilities generally have long useful
lives, significant costs and tend not to be mobile.
The GMA requires that capital facilities elements include an inventory of existing capital
facilities (showing locations and capacities), a forecast of future needs for such capital
facilities, proposed locations and capacities of new or expanded capital facilities and at
least asix -year plan to finance capital facilities with identified sources of funding. The
GMA also requires that the land use element be reassessed if probable funding falls short
of existing needs.
This document is the City's six -year Capital Facilities Plan (CFP). The CFP, in conjunction
with other City adopted documents, satisfies the GMA requirement for a Capital Facilities
Element. It addresses one of the GMA's basic tenets, that is, the provision of adequate
facilities to support development in accordance with locally adopted level of service
standards.
This CFP will enable the City to: (1) Make informed decisions about its investment of public
dollars, and (2) Make timely decisions about maintaining level of service in accordance with
this CFP and other adopted plans.
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN CONTENT
This CFP consists of the following:
Chapter 1. Introduction
Chapter 2. Goals and Policies
Chapter 3. Capital Improvements
Purpose of CFP, statutory requirements,
methodology.
Goals and Policies related to the
provision of capital facilities.
Proposed capital projects, which include
the financing plan and reconciliation of
project capacity to level of service (LOS)
standards.
This CFP is a companion document to the Capital Facilities Element of the Auburn
Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 5). The Capital Facilities Element of the Auburn
Comprehensive Plan identifies the City's planning approach and policy framework for the
provision of capital facilities. This CFP provides the background inventory, identifies
proposed projects and establishes the six -year capital facilities plan for financing capital
facilities.
The comprehensive plan contains timeframes which are the intended framework for future
funding decisions and within which future actions and decisions are intended to occur.
However, these timeframes are estimates, and depending on factors involved in the
processing of applications and project work, and availability of funding, the timing may
change from the included timeframes. The framework does not represent actual
commitments by the City of Auburn which may depend on funding resources available.
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
GROWTH ASSUMPTIONS
In planning for capital facilities, contemplation of future growth needs to be considered. The
CFP is based on the following City population forecast:
Year
Population
2010
681270
2011
701180
2017
75124
The population forecasts are based on information from the State of Washington Office of
Financial Management (OFM) as well as estimates developed by the City of Auburn
Planning and Community Development Department.
CAPITAL COSTS OF FACILITIES
Based on the analysis of capital improvements contained in this document, the cost of City -
owned and managed capital improvements for 2012 -2017 is summarized as follows:
Type of Facility
2012-2017
Transportation - Arterial (102)
$ 64, 615, 700
Transportation - Local (103)
12, 000, 000
Transportation - Street (105)
914001000
Water
38, 587,100
Sanitary Sewer
17, 253, 700
Storm Drainage
21, 567, 500
Parks & Recreation
35, 592, 800
General Municipal Buildings
513481400
Community Improvements
714471800
Airport
113891500
Cemetery
901000
Golf Course
3501000
Total
$ 213,642,500
2
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
FINANCING FOR CAPITAL FACILITIES
The financing plan for the citywide capital improvements includes:
Funding Source
2012-2017
Capital Facility
Grants
47, 864, 000
Transportation
(Includes grant funding that has not
517291100
Parks & Recreation
been secured)
1161100
Community Improvements
9511000
Airport
User Fees /Fund Balance
38, 510,100
Water
16, 601, 700
Sewer
2017621500
Storm Drainage
116621000
Community Improvements
6401000
Equipment Rental
4381500
Airport
901000
Cemetery
3501000
Golf
Arterial Street Fund
4,182, 800
Transportation
Bond Proceeds
771000
Water
6521000
Sewer
2051000
Storm Drainage
810001000
Parks & Recreation
1701400
Community Improvements
Municipal Parks Fund
116291500
Parks & Recreation
Property Tax
12, 000, 000
Transportation
Utility Tax
914001000
Transportation
Mitigation /Impact Fees
6,123, 300
Transportation
1801000
Community Improvements
General Fund
215201000
Community Improvements
REET 1
6791100
Parks & Recreation
412081400
General Municipal Buildings
REET 2
230991300
Community Improvements
751000
Transportation
Other Sources
633701600
Transportation
6001000
Storm Drainage
19, 555,100
Parks & Recreation
112001000
Community Improvements
Total $
213,642,500
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS ON FUTURE OPERATING BUDGETS
The forecasted impacts of new capital facilities on the City's future operating budgets (2013 -2018)
are as follows:
Budget Year:
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Total
1 Transportation
$ 321430
$ 681980
$ 951807
$ 951807
$ 1011907
$ 1111907
$ 5061838
2 Water
-
11200
11200
11200
11200
11200
61000
3 Sanitary Sewer
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4 Storm Drainage
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5 Solid Waste
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6 Parks and Recreation
2191000
2241000
2241000
2291000
2291000
2291000
113541000
7 General Municipal Buildings
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8 Community Improvements
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
9 Airport
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
10 Cemetery
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
11 Golf Course
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
12 Senior Center
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
13 Police Department
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
14 Fire Department
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total
$ 2515430
$ 2945180
$ 3215007
$ 3265007
$ 3325107
$ 3425107
$ 158665838
0
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) CONSEQUENCES OF THE CFP
Based on the proposed six -year capital projects and the projected population increase of
51062 (6.7 %), the LOS for the following City -owned public facilities will change as follows:
The LOS for the following facilities will be increased as a result of the CFP, comparing the
2011 LOS to the projected 2017 LOS.
CAPITAL FACILITY LOS UNITS 2011 LOS 2017 LOS
(Projected)
Cemetery
Burial Plots per 1, 000 Pop.
45.17
58.60
Community Parks
Acres per 1,000 Pop.
3.25
3.82
General Municipal Buildings
Sq. Ft. per 1, 000 Pop.
3, 559.65
3, 586.07
Neighborhood Parks
Acres per 1, 000 Pop.
0.70
0.77
The LOS for the following facilities will be maintained as a result of the CFP.
CAPITAL FACILITY
LOS UNITS
2011 LOS
2017 LOS
(Projected)
Roads
Volume /Capacity Ratio
"D"
"D"
Airport
% Air Operations Support
100%
100%
Sanitary Sewer
Residential GPCPD (Note 1)
158.00
158.00
Storm Drainage
N/A
Acres per 1, 000 Pop.
2.84
Water
Residential GPCPD (Note 1)
236.00
236.00
Note 1: GPCPD = Gallons per Customer per Day
Special Use Areas
Acres per 1,000 Pop.
The LOS for the following facilities will be decreased as a result of the CFP, comparing the
2011 LOS to the projected 2017 LOS.
CAPITAL FACILITY LOS UNITS 2011 LOS 2017 LOS
(Projected)
City Jail
Beds per 1, 000 Pop.
0.77
0.72
Fire Protection
Apparatus per 1,000 Pop.
0.14
0.13
Golf Course
Acres per 1, 000 Pop.
0.26
0.24
Linear Parks
Acres per 1, 000 Pop.
0.45
0.42
Open Space
Acres per 1, 000 Pop.
2.84
2.64
Senior Center
Sq. Ft. per 1, 000 Pop.
179.54
167.46
Special Use Areas
Acres per 1,000 Pop.
0.77
0.72
Level of Service (LOS) is a common measure used to determine the efficiency of
effectiveness of services. For the City of Auburn, LOS targets serves as a means to assess
the adequacy of public facilitiies in meeting the needs of the population for which it serves.
For example, in the case of park space, when there is an increase in population without a
corresponding increase in park acreage, the LOS unit of measure (acres per 1,000
population.) will decline, indicating a potential need to increase the total amount of park
acreage to keep pace with population growth. On the other hand, a slight increase in
population, coupled with a large increase in facilities, will result in an increased LOS. For
example, facilities such as buildings or burial plots may be constructed or expanded to keep
pace with anticipated population growth. While this will have the effect of increasing LOS in
the short -term, in the longer -term, the LOS will gradually decline to the targeted level based
on forecasted population. The impact of population growth to the LOS for facilities will vary
depending on the type of facility and long range planning by the City.
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
CFP ELEMENT SOURCE DOCUMENTS
Documents used in preparing this Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) are principally the
comprehensive plans for the various public facilities included in this CFP. These individual
comprehensive plans provide detailed identification of projects and identify their (projects)
proposed funding sources.
City documents include:
• City -wide Comprehensive Land Use Plan Element (2010);
• City Municipal Airport Master Plan Update (2001- 2020);
• City Comprehensive Water Plan (2009);
• City Comprehensive Transportation Plan (2010) and Six Year Transportation
Improvement Program (2012- 2017);
• City Comprehensive Drainage Plan (2009);
• City Comprehensive Sewer Plan (2009);
• City 2011 -12 Biennial Budget and 2010 Annual Financial Report; and,
• Master plan update for parks, as well as numerous other planning and financial
documents.
All documents are available for public inspection at the City of Auburn.
rel
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE
The Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) is a 6 -year plan (2012 -2017) for capital improvements that
support the City of Auburn's current and future growth.
In this plan, funding for general government projects is identified. To maintain consistency
with individual master and utility comprehensive plans, applicable projects in the 6 -year
window of those master /utility plans are included in this CFP. The CFP also identifies LOS
standards, where applicable, for each public facility.
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENTS
RCW 36.70A.070(3)(d) requires that the comprehensive plan capital facilities element
include "a six -year plan that will finance such capital facilities within projected funding
capacities and clearly identifies sources of public money for such purposes." RCW
36.70A.070(3)(e) requires that all capital facilities have "probable funding" to pay for capital
facility needs, or else the City must "reassess the land use element."
In addition, the capital facilities element must include the location and capacity of existing
facilities, a forecast of future needs, and their proposed locations and capacities. The State
Growth Management Act (GMA) guidelines suggest that this analysis be accomplished for
water systems, sanitary sewer systems, storm water facilities, schools, parks and recreation
facilities, police and fire protection facilities.
The GMA also seeks the selection of level of service standards for capital facilities. As a
result, public facilities in the CFP should be based on quantifiable, objective measures of
capacity such as traffic volume, capacity per mile of road and acres of park per capita. In
some instances, though, level of service may best be expressed in terms of qualitative
statements of satisfaction with a particular public facility. Factors that influence local level
of service standards include, but are not limited to, community goals, national and local
standards, and federal and state mandates.
To be effective, the CFP must be updated on a regular basis. State GMA guidelines
suggest that the CFP be updated at least every two years. In 2007, the City transitioned to
a biennial budget. With this in mind, the City will follow these guidelines and update the
CFP every two years, incorporating the capital facilities improvements in the City's biennial
budget process.
II
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
CONCURRENCY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE
Concurrency
The GMA requires that jurisdictions have certain capital facilities in place or available within
a specified time frame when development occurs. This concept is called concurrency.
Under the GMA, concurrency is required for transportation facilities, and is recommended
by the State for certain other public facilities, namely potable water and sanitary sewer.
Concurrency has a direct relationship to level of service. The importance of concurrency to
capital facilities planning is that development may be denied if it reduces the level of service
for a capital facility below the locally adopted minimum.
Explanation of Level of Service
As indicated earlier, the GMA requires that level of service be established for certain
transportation facilities for the purposes of applying concurrency to development proposals.
The State GMA guidelines recommend the adoption of level of service standards for other
capital facilities to measure the provision of adequate public facilities.
Typically, measures of level of service are expressed as ratios of facility capacity to
demand (i.e., actual or potential users). Table 1 -1 lists generic examples of level of service
measures for some capital facilities:
TABLE 1 -1
Sample Level of Service Measurements
Type of Facility Sample Level of Service Measure
General Municipal Buildings Square feet per 1,000 population
Parks Acres per 1,000 population
Roads and Streets Ratio of actual volume to design capacity
Sewer/ Water G al Ion s p er custome r p er day
The need for capital facilities is largely determined by a community's adopted LOS
standards and whether or not the community has formally designated capital facilities, other
than transportation, as necessary for development to meet the concurrency test. The CFP
itself is therefore largely influenced by the selection of the level of service standards. Level
of service standards are measures of the quality of life of the City. The standards should be
based on the City's vision of its future and its values.
IMPLEMENTATION
Implementation of the CFP requires constant monitoring and evaluation. The CFP is
sensitive to funding and revenue availability and therefore needs to be constantly monitored
against variations in available resources. To facilitate its implementation, the CFP should be
kept current.
8
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
Update of Capital Facilities Plan
Perhaps the most desirable way to keep the CFP current is to update it regularly so the six -
year plan is a rolling CFP. Again, the State recommends that the CFP be updated at least
biennially.
The City of Auburn will seek to update the CFP biennially in conjunction with the budget
process. Future updates will consider:
A. Revision of population projections, including annexations;
B. Update of inventory of public facilities;
C. Update of costs of public facilities;
D. Update of public facilities requirements analysis (actual level of service
compared to adopted standards);
E. Update of revenue forecasts;
F. Revise and develop capital improvement projects for the next six fiscal
years; and,
G. Update analysis of financial capacity.
Amendments to the CFP, including amendments to level of service standards, capital
projects, and /or the financing plan sources of revenue are all actions that can keep the CFP
current and relevant to City decision - making.
X
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
' * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED
10
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
CHAPTER 2
GOALS AND POLICIES
This chapter identifies goals and policies specific to the City's provision of capital facilities.
Goal 1 Provide a variety of responses to the demands of growth on public
facilities.
Policy 1.1 Establish land use patterns that optimize the use of public facilities.
Policy 1.2 Provide additional public facility capacity when existing facilities are used to
their maximum level of efficiency (consistent with adopted standards for level
of service).
Policy 1.3 Encourage development where new public facilities can be provided in an
efficient manner.
Policy 1.4 Exempt the following from the concurrency management program:
1.4.1 Development vested by RCW 19.26.095, 58.17.033 or 58.17.170.
1.4.2 Development that creates no added impact on public facilities.
1.4.3 Expansions of existing development that were disclosed and tested
for concurrency as part of the original application.
Goal 2 Provide needed public facilities that are within the ability of the City to
fund or within the City's authority to require others to provide.
Policy 2.1 Establish level of service standards that are achievable with the financing
plan of this Capital Facilities Plan.
Policy 2.2 Base the financing plan for public facilities on realistic estimates of current
local revenues and external revenues that are reasonably anticipated to be
received by the City.
Policy 2.3 Match revenue sources to capital projects on the basis of sound fiscal
policies.
2.3.1 The City shall continue to fund utility costs through utility enterprise
funds, based on user fees and grants. Public facilities included in
utilities are sewer, solid waste, storm drainage, and water.
2.3.2 Where feasible pursue joint venture facility construction,
construction timing, and other facility coordination measures for City
provided facilities, as well as with school districts and other
potential partners in developing public facilities.
2.3.3 The City shall continue to assist through direct participation, LIDs
and payback agreements, where appropriate and financially
feasible. Where funding is available, the City may participate in
developer initiated facility extensions or improvements, but only to
the extent that the improvements benefit the broader public interest,
and are consistent with the policies of this Capital Facilities Plan.
11
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
Policy 2.4 If the projected funding is inadequate to finance needed public facilities and
utilities based on adopted level of service standards and forecasted growth,
the City will do one or more of the following to achieve a balance between
available revenue and needed public facilities:
2.4.1 Lower the level of service standards;
2.4.2 Increase the amount of revenue from existing sources;
2.4.3 Adopt new sources of revenue;
2.4.4 Require developers to provide such facilities at their own expense;
and /or
2.4.5 Amend the Land Use Element to reduce the need for additional
public facilities.
Policy 2.5 Both existing and future development will pay for the costs of needed capital
improvements.
2.5.1 Ensure that existing development pays for capital improvements
that reduce or eliminate existing deficiencies, and pays for some or
all of the cost to replace obsolete or worn out facilities. Existing
development may also pay a portion of the cost of capital
improvements needed by future development. Existing
development's payments may take the form of user fees, charges
for services, special assessments and taxes.
2.5.2 Ensure that future development pays a proportionate share of the
cost of new facilities which it requires. Future development may
also pay a portion of the cost to replace obsolete or worn -out
facilities. Future development's payments may take the form of
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's fees,
charges for services, special assessments and taxes.
Policy 2.6 The City will determine the priority of public facility capital improvements
using the following criteria as general guidelines. Any revenue source that
cannot be used for the highest priority will be used beginning with the highest
priority for which the revenue can legally be expended.
2.6.1 Projects that eliminate hazardous conditions.
2.6.2 Refurbishment of existing facilities that contribute to achieving or
maintaining standards for adopted level of service.
2.6.3 New or expanded facilities that reduce or eliminate deficiencies in
level of service for existing demand.
2.6.4 New or expanded facilities that provide the adopted level of service
for new development and redevelopment during the next six fiscal
years.
2.6.5 Capital improvements that significantly reduce the operating cost of
providing a service or facility, or otherwise mitigate impacts of
public facilities on future operating budgets.
12
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
2.6.6 Capital improvements that contribute to stabilizing and developing
the economy of the City.
2.6.7 Project priorities may also involve additional criteria that are unique
to each type of public facility, as described in other elements of this
Comprehensive Plan.
Policy 2.7 Ensure that the ongoing operating and maintenance costs of a capital facility
are financially feasible prior to constructing the facility.
Goal 3 Protect public health, environmental quality, and neighborhood
stability and viability through the appropriate design and installation of
public facilities.
Policy 3.1 Promote conservation of energy, water and other natural resources in the
location and design of public facilities.
Policy 3.2 Require the separation of sanitary and storm sewer facilities wherever
combined sewers may be discovered.
Policy 3.3 Practice efficient and environmentally responsible maintenance and
operating procedures.
Policy 3.4 The siting, design, construction and improvement of all public buildings shall
be done in full compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Policy 3.5 Promote economic and community stability and growth through strategic
investments in public facilities and public private /partnerships.
Goal 4 Make the Capital Facilities Plan consistent with other elements of the
comprehensive plan, and - to the extent feasible - with other city,
county, regional and state adopted plans.
Policy 4.1 Ensure that the growth and development assumptions used in the Capital
Facilities Plan are consistent with similar assumptions in other elements of
the comprehensive plan.
Policy 4.2 Coordinate with non -city providers of public facilities on a joint program for
maintaining applicable level of service standards, concurrency requirements,
funding and construction of public facilities.
13
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
' * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED
14
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
CHAPTER 3
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
1. INTRODUCTION
This CFP includes City capital improvement projects, and the financing plan to pay for
those projects. It also contains the inventory of existing City facilities, and identifies level of
service standards, where applicable. Each type of City public facility is presented in a
separate subsection that follows a standard format. Throughout this section, tables of data
are identified with abbreviations that correspond to the type of facility: For example, Table
W -1 refers to Table 1 for Water (Supply and Distribution). Each abbreviation corresponds
to the name of the type of facility.
1. Narrative Summary
This is an overview of the data, with sections devoted to Current Facilities, Level of Service,
Capital Facilities Projects and Financing, and Impact on Future Operating Budgets.
2. Inventory of Facilities (Table X -1)
This is a list of existing capital facilities, including the name, capacity (for reference to level
of service), and location. This table also includes any proposed capital projects and the
planned inventory total as of December 31, 2017.
3. Capital Projects and Financing Plan (Table X -2, X -2A and
This is a list of capital improvements that identifies existing deficiencies, identifies facilities
needed for future growth, and identifies the repairing or replacing of obsolete or worn out
facilities through December 31, 2017. Each list shows the proposed financing plan followed
by individual worksheets showing the project detail.
4. Impact on Future Operating Budgets (Table X -3)
This is a list of new capital projects and the forecasted impacts on the City's future
operating budgets (2013 — 2018).
15
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
' * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED
16
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
TRANSPORTATION
Current Facilities
Roadway The City's roadway system consists of a network of limited access freeways and
216 miles of arterials, collectors, alleys and local streets. Table T -1 "Auburn Corridor Level of
Service" includes the most current Level of Service (LOS) for each defined arterial roadway
corridor.
Transit: Metro, Sound Transit and Pierce Transit provide transit service to the Auburn area.
Auburn is currently served by nine Metro bus routes, two Metro operated Sound Transit bus
routes, one Pierce Transit operated bus route for Sound Transit and one Pierce Transit bus
route. Six park and ride facilities with a total of 1,127 parking spaces also serve Auburn.
Eighteen Sound Transit "Sounder" commuter rail trains stop at Auburn each weekday at the
Auburn station located at 23 A Street SW. The Sounder also provides special event service to
selected sporting events.
Level of Service (LOS)
Washington's Growth Management Act (GMA) requires service level standards for both arterials
and transit routes. The GMA requires that each jurisdiction's Level of Service (LOS) standards
be coordinated within the region and be supported by local ordinance, but the standards and the
methods used are up to the local jurisdictions.
Under GMA, the focus is on the performance of the whole road system, not on individual
intersections or roadways. Level of service standards are a tool to help keep the transportation
system in balance with the needs of future population growth and development.
A methodology and set of standards have been drafted for the City of Auburn Comprehensive
Plan. The standards help determine concurrency (i.e., balance) between transportation and land
use elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan, as required by GMA. The City has four
choices if it finds the standards cannot be met.
• Modify the land use plan, placing tighter controls on the amount and type of development to
minimize traffic.
Construct additional transportation facilities to support increased travel demand from new
development.
• Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures.
• Relax the LOS standards. The City can accept lower level of service standards to
encourage further growth and minimize the need for additional transportation facilities.
The Transportation Land Use Balance will be monitored through the City's Concurrency
Management System as part of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Transportation
concurrency will be evaluated for key facilities and on a system -wide basis. By having system-
17
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
wide and facility -based roadway LOS standards, the City of Auburn can define preliminary
capacity needs.
The City and WSDOT can then begin to plan corridor studies that will define the characteristics
and location of a particular roadway improvement. At the project level, the State Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) process will continue to guide the more specific planning and analysis efforts.
Uses of Level of Service Standards
As measures of transportation system effectiveness, level of service standards can help
jurisdictions identify where and when transportation improvements are needed, and when
development or growth will affect system operation. Level of service provides a standard below
which a transportation facility or system is not considered adequate.
Level of service standards can be used to evaluate the impact of proposed developments on the
surrounding road system. They can assure that all developments are served by a safe, efficient
and cost - effective road system. They can also be used to identify problems, suggest remedial
actions, and apportion costs between public and private sources. LOS standards are a
cornerstone in the development of equitable traffic impact fee systems, which requires
developments to pay some of the costs for improvements to the transportation infrastructure.
In July 2001, the City implemented a traffic impact fee. The purpose of the fee is to mitigate
traffic impacts more equitably while making the costs of development more predictable to
developers. In 2007, the City implemented an additional transportation impact fee to address
the impacts of heavy truck usage on the City's transportation system. Both fees are regularly
updated to enable the city to construct road capacity to meet the traffic demand of development.
Measuring Transportation System Performance
Arterial Corridor Link Level. The level of service for roadway segments or links is analyzed with
two primary purposes in mind. First, this site - specific LOS can be used, with the help of a travel
demand model, to evaluate areas of congestion within a transportation network -- leading to the
development of a long -range transportation facilities plan.
Traffic forecasts from the model will be analyzed to determine where capacity improvements
should be considered. Second, arterial corridor LOS analysis is used to assess concurrency or
if facilities are meeting the LOS standards.
The City of Auburn currently uses Synchro 7 T traffic models to estimate LOS. Synchro 7 T
incorporates Highway Capacity Manual (HCM2000) Urban Street LOS methodology. Urban
Street LOS is based on average travel speed though a defined corridor. Table T -1 shows the 42
defined street corridors, LOS standards and most recent calculated LOS. Table T -1 b shows the
relationships between LOS, street classification, average travel speed, and free flow speed.
18