HomeMy WebLinkAbout141-04 - Ord. Adopting Amendments to Mason County Comprehensive Plan Regarding Capital Facilities ORDINANCE NUMBER 141 - 0 4
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE MASON COUNTY
COMPRHENSIVE PLAN REGARDING CAPITAL FACILITIES
WHEREAS , the proposed update of the Mason County Comprehensive Plan is intended to
incorporate the current six year capital facilities planning and financial planning into the plan,
updating the plan for the period 2004 to 2009 (or 2010 for some facilities) ;
WHEREAS , the Planning Advisory Commission held a public hearing on October 18 , 2004 and
recommended approval by the Board;
WHEREAS , the proposed changes updates the county plan for water, wastewater, solid waste, public
buildings , the financial plan, and six year transportation improvement plan;
WHEREAS , planning capital improvements is necessary to provide for urban growth,
environmental protection, recreational opportunities and meet other goals of the Comprehensive
Plan and is made pursuant to RCW 36 . 70 and RCW 36 . 70A;
WHEREAS , updates to the Capital Facilities Element of the county plan may be made at the time
of the adoption or amendment of the county Budget;
WHEREAS , the Mason County Board of Commissioners held a public hearing on December 6 ,
2004, to get comment on and consider this issue ;
NOW , THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY ORDAINED , that the Board of Commissioners of
Mason County, also adopting on this day the Annual Budget for Mason County, hereby adopts
Attachment A, Amendments to the Mason County Comprehensive Plan and attached findings .
DATED this 2 8 t h day of December, 2004 .
Board of Commissioners
Mason County, Washington
ATTEST :
ta -
Herb Baze, Commissioner Clerk of the Board
APPROVED AS TO FORM :
Wesley E :Iohnson, Commissioner
the
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
Jayni K in, Commissioner
Mason County Ordinance No . 141 - 04
Attachment
Amendments to the Mason County Comprehensive Plan
Section I (of ) ®
Delete the existing Mason County Comprehensive Plan Sections -3
Wastewater/Sanitary Sewer and VI-4 Water Supply Systems with the following new
" Section VI-3 Water and Wastewater Utilities "
\\CLUSTERI _HOME_SERVER\HOME\RDF\WP\PLAN\update03\COMP PLAN UPDATE\capitalplan\Ord attachements CFP . doc
Mason County Comprehensive elan
. 3 WATER AND WASTEWATERUTILITIES
Introduction
The County owns and operates small water and sewer systems for the Harstene Pointe
and Rustlewood communities, and the water system for Beard' s Cove community. In
addition, the County operates a medium- sized wastewater collection system and
treatment plant for the North Bay Case Inlet area. This area was defined through studies
of the area contributing human sewage contamination to Case Inlet, and the system
service area was set accordingly. In the smaller community-based systems, there is no
planned expansion beyond the existing platted lots . These systems currently provide
services to approximately 1200 customers , with the potential to serve an additional 100 .
The North Bay Case Inlet system provides service to approximately 950 customers, with
additional capacity to serve an estimated 400 additional equivalent residential units
within the existing service area.
The following "Water" and "Wastewater" sections provide project-level detail on the
planned improvements necessary to meet state regulatory guidelines in the provision of
water and wastewater services for these systems . Each project in each section is
accompanied by a separate project sheet which provides a description and justification,
along with a table depicting the estimated costs and funding sources for planning period
2004 through 2010 . Each section is followed by a summary table which provides overall
costs and funding sources for each water and sewer system.
Financing the planned utility improvements requires the use of grants , loans , and capital
reserves . The specific combination of funds, and the availability of grants and loans, may
affect user rates for each system as well as the timing on projects . The ability to initiate
specific projects will be assessed annually based on the urgency of need, reserve funds
available, and commitments from funding agencies to provide grants and/or loans . The
decisions about whether or not to proceed with any planned project is the decision of the
Mason County Board of Commissioners for consideration in the in the annual budgeting
and rate-setting process . To the extent possible, projects will be funded through :
1 ) Rate revenues (capital reserves)
2) Grants ;
3 ) Low interest loans ; or
4) Some combination of 1 - 3 above .
Project costs shown in each section range in accuracy from + or — 40% to + or — 15 % .
Each project cost sheet identifies the accuracy of the estimated costs shown, based on the
following scale :
® "Planning Level" — The least accurate of costs estimates , in the range of + or — 40 % .
Cost estimates at this level are usually based on a project concept and some
assessment of relative scale, or annual program amounts commensurate with a level
of activity sufficient to accomplish the intent of the program over time .
VL34
Mason County Comprehensive Plan Draft update Oct 2004
2004=2010
WATER AND WASTEWATER UTILITIES
Summary of Capital x e it es by Fund
(in thousands)
WATER 20042005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 TOTAL
Hartstene Pointe410 0 20 20 20 20 20 20 120
Rustlewood411 0 50 2 4 65 0 0 121
Beard 's Cove-412 190 20 20 20 20 20 20 310
Total : 190 90 42 44 105 40 40 551
Funding
Grants :
Loans :
Rates : 190 90 42 44 105 40 40 551
Total : 190 90 42 44 105 40 40 551
WASTEWATER 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 TOTAL
North Bay CI403 95 35 35 25 25 25 240
Hartstene Pointe410 10 370 20 15 15 15 15 460
Rustlewood411 92 455 1165 1712
Total : 102 920 1220 50 40 40 40 2412
Funding
Grants : 5 5
Loans : 92 690 1165 1947
Rates : 5 230 55 50 40 40 40 460
Total : 102 920 1220 50 40 40 40 2412
WASTEWATER CONSTRUCTION -Future Systems
Belfair Sewer System 85 250 750 15000 0 0 0 16085
Hoodsport Sewer 25 25
Total : 110 250 750 15000 0 0 0 16110
Funding
Grants : 25 5000 5025
Loans : 85 250 750 10000 11085
Total : 110 250 750 15000 0 0 0 16110
2004 ®2010
Capital Facilities Plan Worksheet 1
VI43 -3
Mason County Comprehensive Plan Draft update Oct 2004
2004 ®2010
Capital Facilities Plan Worksheet
Utilities & Waste Management
Fund : 411 -200 Rustlewood Water
Project Name : Rustlewood Water System Storage Facility Improvements
Estimates ° Planning Level
Description : Evaluate existing storage requirements and future needs . Replace entry
hatch on one of the water storage tanks and coat interiors of both tanks .
ilstificatiom The storage requirements of this system need to be evaluated and an additional tank
may be needed to meet future system demands . In addition, the existing tank hatch cannot be secured to
prevent unauthorized access and ensure the preservation of water quality. State and federal regulations
require the County to prevent access to the storage tank by small animals and insects . Both storage tanks
are in need of a thorough cleaning and their interior protective coating needs to be restored to prevent
corrosion and weakening of the tank walls and to preserve water quality.
Estimated Project Costs
(in thousands)
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 TOTAL
Prelim Engineering 1 . 5 2 3 . 5
Design Engineering 2 . 5 4 6 . 5
Construction 46 65 111
TOTAL COST : 50 2 4 .65 121
Funding Sources :
Grants
Loans
Rates 50 2 4 65 121
TOTAL FUNDING : 50 2 4 65 121
VI . 3 -5
Mason County Comprehensive Plan Draft update Oct 2004
Capital Facilities Plan Worksheet
Utilities & Waste Management
Fun de 412 — Beard ' s Cove Water
Project e : Storage Tank Interior Coating
Estimates : Engineer ' s
Descriptions, Clean, inspect, and apply new interior surfacing to primary storage
facility for the Beard ' s Cove water system. Provide supplemental system pressurization
during construction .
JustiflcatlOn : The interior surfacing protects the steel tank structure from corrosion and
deterioration. The existing tank was built in and recent inspection noted some holes in the
surfacing which are beginning to affect the tank walls . If left too long, this condition could weaken the
tank walls and cause poor water quality for system customers .
Estimated Proiect Costs
(in thousands)
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 TOTAL
Prelim Engineering 3 3
Design Engineering 7 7
Construction 80 80
TOTAL COST : 90 90
Funding Sources :
Grants
Loans
Rates 90 90
TOTAL FUNDING : 90 90
VI . 3 -7
Mason County Comprehensive Plan Draft update Oct 2004
2004 �2010
Capitalcilities Plan Worksheet
Utilities & Waste Management
Fun de 3 -North Bay Sewer System
Project Name : ret et Plant Facilities improvement Program
Estimates : Pl iannng Level
Description : Annual improvements program to facilities , buildings , and grounds .
Projects may include small piping improvements , lighting, exterior painting, and other
general improvements .
JustificatlOn : The Water Reclamation Facility construction provided for basic facility functionality
however the facility needs improvements from time to time to correct deficiencies and improve operational
capabilities . Plant operations and system maintenance staff are not equipped to address these types of
improvements and such work is anticipated to be done through contract with specialty firms .
Estimated Project Costs
(in thousands)
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 TOTAL
Prelim Engineering
Design Engineering
Construction 10 10 10 10 10 10 70
TOTAL COST : 10 10 10 10 10 10 70
Funding Sources :
Grants
Loans
Rates 10 10 10 10 10 10 70
TOTAL FUNDING : 10 10 10 10 10 10 70
VI . 3 -9
Mason County Comprehensive Plan Draft update Oct 2004
Capital Facilities Plan Worksheet
Utilities & Waste Management
Fund : 403 =North Bay Sewer System
Project Namee Treatment Plant Telemetry System Improvements
Estimates : Design Report
Description : Improve the capability of transmitting data between the collection
system pump stations and the Water Reclamation Facility, for reporting and alarm
purposes . Analyze current communications interruptions and design/construct alternative
system or revise existing system to alleviate problems .
Justification : The Water Reclamation Facility receives ongoing data from reporting pump stations .
When an alarm condition exists, the information is transmitted to the treatment plant where a software
program determines the urgency of the alarm. This determination my result in a call out to an operator. The
existing system utilizes Qwest phone lines for data transmission at a cost of about $ 65 per month, per site.
Currently, the system experiences frequent communications interruptions . The cause of these interruptions
is unknown at this time . This project will look at the alternatives to leasing phone lines from Qwest and
increase system reliability. Failure to address the current problem could result in undetected system
overflows at pump station locations .
Estimated Project Costs
(in thousands)
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 TOTAL
Prelim Engineering
Design Engineering 5 5
Construction 15 15
TOTAL COST : 20 20
Funding Sources :
Grants
Loans
Rates 20 20
TOTAL FUNDING : 20 20
0 - 1
Capital Facilities Plan Worksheet
Utilities & Waste Management
Fund *® 403400 Northay Case Inlet Sewer
VL3 - 11
Mason County Comprehensive Plan Draft update Oct 2004
Capital Facilities Plan Worksheet 1
Utilities & Waste Management
Fund : 410 100 Hartstene Pointe Sewer
Project Name ® Hartstene Pointe Infiltration and Inflow Removal
Program
Estimates ® Planning Level
Description : Annual program to reduce the flow of surface water and groundwater
entering the collection system. Projects may include : system inspections, manhole
replacements, pipe replacement, and manhole or pipe connection sealing and grouting.
pipe, new or replacement valves and looping.
Justification ** Federal and state regulations require treatment systems to remove 85 % of the
contaminants from flows coming to the treatment plant. When inflow and infiltration is excessive, the
plant cannot achieve the required standard, resulting in potential permit violations . In addition, valuable
plant capacity is used to treat flows which do not require treatment. Plant operational costs also increase
with the excess flows due to infiltration and inflow.
Estimated Project Costs
(in thousands)
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 TOTAL
Prelim Engineering 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
Design Engineering 4 4 4 4 4 4 24
Construction 15 15 15 15 15 15 90
TOTAL COST : 20 20 20 20 20 20 120
Funding Sources :
Grants
Loans
Rates 20 20 20 20 20 20 120
TOTAL FUNDING : 20 20 20 20 20 20 120
VI . 3 - 13
Mason County Comprehensive Plan Draft update Oct 2004
Capital Facilities Plan Worksheet 12
Utilities & Waste Management
Fun de, 11400 — ustlewoo Sewer
Project Name : Rustlewood Treatment Plant Improvements
Estimates : Design Report
Description : Evaluate treatment plant deficiencies . Design and construct
improvements to address new water quality standards as well as rehabilitate aging plant
systems . Improvements to include : influent headworks, solids separation, sludge
treatment, effluent disinfection, remote system monitoring, and pumping capacities .
Justification : The existing plant is over 30 years old, and many of the main components are worn to
the point that rebuilding them would be more costly than replacement. In addition, regulatory expectations
for treatment performance have increased since the original plant was constructed, requiring upgrades to
the former treatment methods .
Estimated Proiect Costs
(in thousands)
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 TOTAL
Prelim Engineering 92 92
Design Engineering 155 155
Construction 300 1165 1465
TOTAL COSTS : 92 455 1165 1712
Funding Sources :
Grants *
Loans 92 440 1165 1697
Rates 15 15
TOTAL FUNDING : 92 455 1165 1712
VI . 3 - 15
Mason County Comprehensive Plan Draft update Oct 2004
Capital Facilities Plan Worksheet 14
Utilities & Waste Management
Fund ,e 103 — Distressed Area Capital Fund
Project Name : Hoodsport Sewer Facility Plan
Estimates : Engineer ' s
Description : Evaluate alternatives for wastewater collection, transmission, treatment
and disposal for the Hoodsport Rural Activity Center.
Justiflcatiow Contamination of Finch Creek due to failing septic systems led to the development of
the Finch Creek Feasibility Study. This study was commissioned by PUD # 1 and focused on the immediate
area around Finch Creek. Due to persistent low dissolved oxygen levels in Hood Canal, Mason County
decided to expand on the Finch Creek study and develop a Facility Plan for entire Hoodsport Rural Activity
Center,
Estimated Proiect Costs
(in thousands)
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 TOTAL
Prelim Engineering 25 25
Design Engineering
Construction
TOTAL COST : 25 25
Funding Sources :
Grants 25 25
Loans
Rates
TOTAL FUNDING : 25 25
V1 3 - 17
Mason County Comprehensive Plan - (Rev. draft Oct 2004) Ca2itallmproyement Program
. 4 SOLID WASTEUTILITY
Introduction
Mason County ' s solid waste utility provides transfer and disposal operations for solid waste at four transfer
station locations, and eight "blue box" drop off sites for household recyclable materials . The largest
transfer facility is located outside Shelton on Eels Hill Road. Materials collected from the other smaller
stations at Hoodsport, Union, and Belfair, are transported to the Shelton facility for shipping to Centralia,
WA. From there, the material is long-hauled via railroad to Roosevelt Landfill in Klickitat County, located
in Eastern Washington.
The Shelton transfer facility is located at the former Mason County Landfill. The current utility provides
post-closure monitoring and capital construction in support of the closed landfill. The Shelton facility
receives wastes collected by private and municipal haulers operating inside Mason County.
The Belfair and Shelton transfer facilities are nearing capacity in terms of the tonnage they can effectively
handle on a daily basis . Growth in the Belfair area and elsewhere in the County continues to impact
operations at these facilities and capacity improvements will need to be addressed in the near future .
The following pages provide details on specific projects proposed for the current capital
facilities planning period. As shown in the Water and Wastewater section, project
estimates range in accuracy from + or — 40 % to + or — 15 % . Each project cost sheet
identifies the accuracy of the estimated costs shown based on the following scale :
• "Planning Level" — The least accurate of costs estimates , in the range of + or — 40 % .
Cost estimates at this level are usually based on a project concept and some
assessment of relative scale, or annual program amounts commensurate with a level
of activity sufficient to accomplish the intent of the program over time .
• "Design Report" — Moderate accuracy, in the range of + or — 30 % . Based on design
report evaluation of options and an assessment of project elements and associated
costs .
• "Engineer ' s Estimate" — Most accurate estimate, in the range of + or — 15 % . These
estimates are based on a project design or significant completion of the design work.
VI 44
Mason County Comprehensive Plan - (Ir°ev. draft Oct. 2004) Capital Improvement Program
2004 ®2010
Capital Facilities Plan Worksheet 15
Utilities & Waste Management
Fun de, 402 ®Soli= Solid Waste
Project Name : Transfer Station Capacity Analysis and Improvements
Estimates : Pl iannng Level
Description : Analyze trends in solid waste disposal quantity and changes in waste
stream characterization , Forecast growth and demand for services relative to patterns of
development in the County. Identify options for responding to forecasted growth
together with facility needs and cost estimates to address forecasted demand. Design and
construct facilities to respond to emerging demands .
Justification : North county facilities and the main transfer facilities near Shelton, are nearing their
operational limits in terms of the tonnage and customer numbers they can accommodate . In addition,
growth forecasts for the entire county, especially in the north end, continue to show increasing trends .
Plans need to be established now to address this growth and allow sufficient time for facility planning and
design.
Estimated Proiect Costs
(in thousands)
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 TOTAL
Prelim Engineering 30 30
Design Engineering 80 80
Construction 300 600 900
TOTAL COST . 30 380 600 1010
Funding Sources :
Grants
Loans
Rates/Fees 30 380 600 1010
TOTAL FUNDING : 30 380 600 1010
VI4-3
Section 3
Reserve Mason County Comprehensive Plan " Section V -9 " for future use
Section
Delete the existing Mason County Comprehensive Plan Section VI40 Financial Plan
and insert the following new " Section VI40 Financial Plan "
\\CLUSTERl _HOME_SERVER\HOME\RDF\WP\PLAN\update03\COMP PLAN UPDATE\capitalplan\Ord attachements CFP . doc
Mason County Comprehensiv n Capital Facilities
Draft Version November 2004
Table 104
County Owned and Operated Capital Facility
Improvement & Finance Costs
Years 2004 - 2009
Capital Facility Category Improvement Expenditures Finance/Revenues
Costs
Water Systems $ 511 $ 511 $ 511
Wastewater Systems $ 181482 $ 18 ,482 $ 18 ,482
Solid Waste Management $ 1 , 121 $ 11121 $ 1 , 121
County Administration & Law $ 3 ,944 $ 3 , 944 $3 , 944
Enforcement Buildings
Parks & Recreation $ 3 , 352 $ 3 ,352 $3 , 352
Transportation $38 ,383 $38 , 383 $38 ,383
(Dollar figures in thousands)
Conventional Water and Wastewater Systems
The County owns and operates a combined water and wastewater utility which includes the
water supply and wastewater treatment facilities at Harstine and Rustlewood, and the Beard's
Cove water supply facility. There is no expansion in the service area of these utilities planned
to accommodate new growth outside of their existing service areas . Information about system
improvements needed to maintain acceptable levels of service for residents in the existing
service area has been provided by the Mason County Department of Utilities and Waste
Management.
The County is also in the process of developing or examining community-based wastewater
systems in the Belfair Urban Growth Area and its vicinity and in the Hoodsport area.
Information provided in Table VI. 4- 1 and the facility worksheets which follow it summarize
the planned water supply capital improvements over the next six years .
Solid Waste
Table VI .4-2-presents revenue sources and expenditure levels for Mason County solid waste services
from 2004 to 2010 . Further detail is provided in the facility worksheets that follow the table .
VI40 . 2
Mason County Comprehensiv( )n Capital Facilities
Draft Version November 2004
Table V1. 10=2
r` CO W OOOO OO (0
wv 0 0) 4tO 00 et•
OM00 rrr0 ' 00 4t
CO O CM CV O qe C ) _M O 0 0 11;r
N O N (0 M M O N OM O O M
® � M M
N
eck Ef3 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 64
CA (0 in N_ CO 0 LO
CI L6) (0 r r 0) 0 r
® r N CO LO N
N d %e - N IV
69 64 69 U91 40 E9 64 69 ug} 6G EA
� O h N LO 00 0 ti
00 ' ' M ti ' ' 1` CO M O 0 ' P
OI e- N r- O O LO tV
i N LO to c- r N Lt'
O ER 69 Eg E9 E9 69 61% 64 69 6@ 69 69 69 tfl�
O.
d ' ' CO M ' ' ti � 0 ' O 0 ° ti
E ®I Ct O M r N O O M
e0 LO-
N Ln LO r N LLt j
L
CL E!T 69 69 69 Ef3 Eiy ER EF} 69 69 Ef} (!? d4
E
CO 00 00 CO0 0 O 00 Go
r� LO 0 ' M
O' pl et LO d N N O L0 N
O V G LO
N LO In �- �- N LO
N
o �
N 69 69 69- 69 69 69 6e+ 69 69 69 69 69 69 69
O N 00 (O 0 to r- LO O O O (O
N 0 0) 0r0 V� Ln0000 O (D T�
(fl N C) O M LO 0) M ' O O M
OI d Lp d• O M r ti d O C) M
O O N CO 0 LO C) N
d CV M
69 69 69 E9 69 40 69 69 6q 69 69 69 6r}
Lv
LL 00 (0 O C) 000 (00 0 OQ
N ' ' (0 d 0 ' Y CO ti ' 0 ' r-
C I d M q!' CO t� 00 O 00
0 N LO to � C) N LN
O 6964 69 6964 60- t� 6 EF? 9 69 69 69 69
O
to
0
O
O �
N d N
0. N
w-
O 4) O j O
L LL u- �- N d c
I- 2 d O N 06 7+ n N
® N I- C: d 0 W a d axi m
4) W c L Q c p
x w �, ( ) O i > (n 0 U M CL ti
(Dsow � � °' `° N � n -) E wo m d
� c m o a� � c — � m N
UJ
C a) h- cLL c o ® = Ul a
9 Q w 0 0) c n �. o Y R
dOUS � J ® Um° co 6 U
VI40e
Mason County Comprehensiw - n Capital Facilities
Draft Version November 2001,
. 10 FINANCE PLAN
Introduction
This section discusses Mason County capital facilities needs and related funding sources . As
required under the Growth Management Act (GMA) a six-year finance plan has been prepared
for the years 2004 to at least the year 2009 for those facilities currently, or to be, owned and
operated by the County.
The following facilities are included in the financial planning :
¥ Water and Wastewater Systems
¥ Solid Waste Management Facilities
¥ County Administrative and Law Enforcement Buildings
¥ Parks and Recreation
¥ Transportation
Only County owned and operated facilities, except for the community-based wastewater
systems for rural activity centers, are included in the finance analysis . Several alternatives
have been suggested to deal with the problem of providing water and wastewater service in
areas outside the existing utility service area in which growth is forecast. The service area for
the solid waste utility is county-wide .
The finance plan identifies reasonably reliable funding sources, and forecasts revenue and
expenses to at least the year 2009 . Funding varies depending on the facility. The different
financing methods, public or private, could have significant implications on the cost of utility
service. Potential funding sources that could be used to fund unanticipated needs and shortfalls
are also discussed.
Financial Impact Overview
The financial impact for capital facility improvements have been analyzed for the six year
planning period . Information on transportation can be found in the Transportation Chapter. A
summary of the six year improvement costs , revenues and financing is listed in Table 10- 1 .
The Table displays the cost by capital facility category. The total of improvement costs and
expenditures is $ 65 , 793 , 000 . The total identified for revenues and financing is $ 65 ,793 , 000 .
VIA 0 . 1
Mason County Comprehensivf Nn Capital Facilities
Draft Version November 2004
Municipal ualdingsand Law Enforcement Facilities
The Facilities Steering Committee and the Criminal Justice Working Team, working with a
consultant, has assessed future County building needs . A report issued jointly by the Facilities
Steering Committee and Criminal Justice Working Team in early January, 1996 , has identified four
capital facility projects . At this time, the Department of Facilities and Grounds proposes to fund and
make necessary improvements over a number of years . Table VI. 10-2 shows the 2004-2009 plan.
Parks and Recreation
The County has identified over the six year period large number of park and recreation improvements .
The projects include improvements to existing parks and boat launches as well as the development
of new ball fields . The total cost for these improvements are expected to be approximately $ 3 . 9
million (see Table VI10-3 ) .
Drainage Management
Stormwater management for development in Mason County is managed by the county
stormwater ordinance, flood hazards management ordinance, subdivision ordinance, and other
regulations . The County does not have a formal drainage program or drainage comprehensive
plan . Drainage facility improvements in the County are typically related to the roadway
system. Table VHI. 5 -2 displays the improvement costs that are expected over the six year
planning period. All improvements are related to roadway system improvements . Section Vl-
8 has additional information on stormwater management .
VI40 . 3
Mason County Comprehensive -i Capital Facilities
Draft Version November 2004
Table VI. 10®3
0 O N r Of` O0000000 COOO (OOtiN Ln0 r
O CO O V OOOOO o00h0 MOP` 001` 0) 00 �1
® ° ° 00 ' qt N ONOOOOOO 'd' O ' 000M ° 00 00 tV
c sP w6� (0 lC) N ® d ® Ln CO In L17 M O C0 � (0 CO d CO CO M CO LO N
qq O M 0) M (0 ti O M r CO (0 r 0 CO ct' N (0 d CO CO CO M
O H q4t LO M r r N r 00 (D r r T•
N M M Cv)
64 64 6 > 64 69 64 64 64 69 64 64 6 ) 69 69 69 64 69T 69 69 40
O 0 0 r
O LO O O CD
Nh 1` N O N O ' ° ° ° 0 ° ° a ° ® a e O ' O ° O ' N
0 C0 0 ti O Ca (D ® Ln 0 LO CD
CV M M r N ® M
EfT69 (f} 64f29Ge 6464ER646061) 646936469Gq69� 69Efl6469606 > EA
•- O r O r 00 O O 000 O r
N LO 1` O 0 0 0 O ti
° e e ® ® 1 ° 'M LO 000 00 O O 000 O 00
1401
(0 0 t- O (0 LLB h Ln O C7 00 In Ln M M r C0 M O M LA M N CD
M
64 69 E13 tfT EFT Go!)- Grip69 64 64 69 64 69 64 69 69 EFT 69 (A 64 64 69 64 69 69 ER
ti O 1` O 000 O O O 00 ti
CO °) 00 00 O 00 0 0 O O O 0 O O 0 0 00
t CO O (0 O O ' ' ° O O O ° O ® 0 O ° O O ° , O
CO O CO 0 CM 00 O LO 0 (0 0 C) 0) Ln O CO
a N LN LO
r (0 r- M �- (0 0) CO CO CO LN
•m+
64 69 69. 1 401!T 69 64 64 64 69 64 69 64 67 69 64 69 6% 69 64 0!3' 64 En 64 64 69 44
d (0 00 V O eh O O . O O O O O O meti ti LO O U) O O O O O O 0 O O C0 LO
O Ln CD O ' ' ' ' O O O ' O ° O ' O ° ° O (0° '
$ OI C0 r ti O O ti N O C) Ce) LLB CD O i`
® N M M r (.0 M CO � M �- CO M
O
N M 64 64 64 EF3 69 64 64 64 69 H4 69 69 64 69 69 64 69 64 6% 69 69 69 69 69 69 4 %
d' •Q'
R ti O CD 0to0000000 O O O O O CD
N 0 LO O O O CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O CD
0) 00 ti 0 1` 0 0 0 0 0 00
W L01 'n 0) LO O ti O LO LO LO LO r- Ch N 00 0) O 0 in
R O dLA^ q* to N N 0 00
G. N r r r
a
6 E E69 69 VON- ET 64 64 EFT 64 69 64 69 64 64 69 64 Eg 69 69 W}
O
O O a7 CA O LO O 0 Co O O (0 P� N Lf) 0)
IT O qP 0 r O ti CM O P` CO r� 0) 0) V
C 00 N O O 0 O' '
OI O d0 U) OLLO N 1t dCO � r N � C7 LO
N �t d �- e-
E9 1 E9 161). 1 69 EA EF6 E 6 R9 69 69 E9 64 67 6464T4 4664 69 ER
C Y
J
C O c
° N
d ° U
o c Z to Q c
IL E cr5 m aroi ° Y .y
P Pi 0 aCi a �, o co a Pi CL °w° a S
Cv lg m ro v v ° n 3 Q ut
° c °; mg° m �c W 0 mc �C o>
O ° 2 a a 0 0> (L
aW ` Q CL
03
yOa CLn CL Dc vYoy
p0 Z +y
N ` J V UU m CL a) Lc)d ° ° ° nNoCC n � u E o
old® a w
` 140 . 5
o O
_ o °
y Dj Dj N N N N N N N N N' N
O (b J CA Cn A W N O CO fU Q> 01 A D� W N -= O W C1t A W N
O V z
0. N
� O
CD co coJ (A CAA W N O CO CO V CA1 " 1 CT O (O CO J (A W A W N -*
y co �' 00 W zaatn _o2 � � -Ir (n � m (n � yG7z ,� tnr � (nCoD �
O e, c �j CD O y 0 o 0 4 c o < = 0 CD 0 ° o R m m cn
n v D -I co ° a c a m o. ° 0 �• m m w = r v ° o m -i 00 �'
O m — D 3 —� G C O S ? (D (' °, A N ,7' N N O O CD N
° a r ° m m ° o °, o ° 0 m x 7 0 0
rn Sa+ ° mCD 0 ° x y H > > m nA � � vn3 vm <. (n <, a 0 > <Or.
4 a to � 07 an d -I o n m a a v m ° 0 3 c ti 0
� (n D �c (D ° d c'o o CD � @ CD 2 o p �
n -I D r 3 m @ o a m a CD w x N d o; �c 3 °; now n� d
n a m p o N n c x a z 0 m O CD o m o o. m < <
o u �_ M. 0 0 m 0 w W 0 0 0 3 co ° 0 0 CD F .« N m
N � m ° CD a � � x a � o ° u<`i fD m o. ° m ° �
2 m ° my R� 0, a m W '' a o °& Tic o m W M.
o0
nc*. O ;o p; 3 II> W O Co
0 3' F OC c N Nco CD I w (D3 33
O mu G CD -'O N 0 m D3i, N N 0
2 w z n CD > > >
m 0 0 3 c mCD
.. m CD
4CD
1 N w 'n 'w
C D —
m m N N N m CD CD eeee, 0
0
Co
Q° w �
d - la
UC i W V cj O 'A rs W ? aD ? PW O (T co Oi W �? O Clef N CO 01 co t» m U7 N
N < m
•°-n 0 '" O co ..a A V 01 ..a W V N tD CA O
-� I 'Mo IN �I 2a Ja ' O W CTC A. m CD (A
Cy CA W W CO tT CO Cn CO V V CO O7 Ch O O7 w OC C.n co A
O O C Co
WTI 00 G m Of Cell O mu
O
.60
to (� �1
w v b9 69 N N 2
O D
0 0 CD 0 0 0 CnCID
' D
Z 0
m z
cn
O
O O O O O CN71 CD 0 0 O O c
rn m
W {y3 r' 0A A 6
,Op7 OD N A CT N N Cy m UJ
coJ A 0 0 OD O O O O O O al —� x
m X D
OD `� 40 � �
� 0 �
0 cc
0 V� ? �' Go
ee y O
cocn A 14600
0 O O O O O O veeesCn
(n O O O O O L"
m O
m N
fN O_
CF 69 !A 69 63 E�9p
co C NCD CO 0 00 •P p C Cl
CA
G H ? N O
N W C>t b9 � 00 O O O O V aCA A w O O O O O CT
'0
m
v Efl 64 !0
�9 N
O O O O N � co N O
O O
O
Go A O
W �, 0 A O UO0 NO NO V 'N"
<11 00 O O O O O C1 '
IM
m
� 160
V &D (f1 EA 90
6) toe
ree) IN) NPO NNN
CA CO OOO O 6969 ( Cn Ocon 0 cc
Yel
O
'p O O CD
OV7 O 0 0 0 0 vy"
O O O O O CTI
W �CWO!bJD O(A1 VN(A eOOp CNJC WN ON NCh N N N N O O 69 V 6 V E W
COwN69 cco co N
mo
00
W C7 Clef 6001 Twton) ADW O OW
O Ob9OO 69 OV +9 ffNNAat ° O
FINDINGS OF FACT
Board of County Commissioners
December 28 , 2004
1 . The proposed update of the Mason County Comprehensive Plan is intended to incorporate
the current six year capital facilities planning and financial planning into the plan, updating
the plan for the period 2004 to 2009 (or 2010 for some facilities) .
2 . The Planning Advisory Commission held a public hearing on October 18 , 2004 and
recommended approval by the Board.
3 . The proposed changes updates the county plan for water, wastewater, solid waste, public
buildings , the financial plan, and six year transportation improvement plan .
4 . The planning capital improvements is necessary to provide for urban growth, environmental
protection, recreational opportunities and meet other goals of the Comprehensive Plan and is
made pursuant to RCW 36 . 70 and RCW 36 . 70A.
5 . The updates to the Capital Facilities Element of the county plan may be made at the time of the
adoption or amendment of the county Budget.
6 . The Mason County Board of Commissioners held a public hearing on December 6, 2004 , to
get comment on and consider this issue .
7 . For the reasons set forth above and by public , administrative and agency comment, the
adoption of these amendments is necessary to prevent and mitigate a serious threat to the
public health and safety.
Board of Commissioners
Mason County, Washington
Herb Baze.otonfmissioner Wesley . Joh, ison, Commissioner Jayhi kamin, Commissioner
Page 1
H: I WPIPLANI UPDATE031 COMP PLAN UPDATEI CAPITALPLANIFINDINGS.DOC