HomeMy WebLinkAbout129-08 - Ord. Amending Chapter VI Capital Facilities and VII Transportation of County Comprehensive PlanAM
(L,/1
DAAH,
R. V
RDR\C F �\
A P
S73
., J V u W I'-1
R V
RTTAT.
Rid'=NA\0= amending t1hLe Capita, F
TiTransportation aement (Chapter
under she authority of RCW 36.70A07
acc
129-08
(CA?
L
J AC
vv
LES)A
C01
itios element (Chapter V
of the Mason County Com
00
and the
jrehensive
0
ar
H�RCc�
n.. ,-�� the a ash pn ton Stale �Growth Management Act (RCW 3 .70Ae ` 3C)
�i�%
s each county,inc�uding Mason County, to take Legisative action to
� c�a�a��re
review anc revise its comtip rehens've pan and deve,opment regulations to
ensure that the p re lan and u abions continue to comp,y with the requirements
g
of the Act; and
WJ LEJ�
R �, the on p
FA September ' 5, 2C38 the Mason County planning Advisory
Corm �ssl� �i n had a pubLic hearing about the proposed changes to the Capitat
�
Facilities element of the Cmprehensive Nan, and passed a motion to
recommenc approva, of said changes; and
the Panningg Advisory Commission hed Llearings fo.r the
WHEREAS,
il
T ar�sp®� Ptat3,an or ion e�emer : September 29, 2008, October 20, 2308, an
d
r
N®9 vember 2008 about the proposed changes, and passed a motion to
recommend aonrovaof said changes; anc
WHEREAS, based upon staff's report, the proposed revisions to the Mason
County Comprehens
ive ?tan, bic testimony, the Mason County Board
C®mapp
roved has a roved tie 'finding of fact to support its decision as
A lEI AC AIM- ►N " A.
OW mLE!JE = SRE, BE �_J HE VEY
Commissioners hereay alpproves and A
Facilities element) and Chapter V
County Comprehensive plan as desc
res Dactively.
AT
', D this 9 t h day
Board of Co
son Coun
m
of -Deice
issione Ps
y, Washington
°�
A:N! ®g 1� F E Mason County 3oard of
)OPTS revisions to Chapter VI (Capital
(Transportatisfl ele gent) of the Mason
bed Pby Afi(i ACHMENTS 3 and C,
Huber, 2008.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMM SS ON E RS
ASOJ ASH NGTON
im She
don, Chair
erk of the Board
Rebecca S. Rogers, C
AP PROVLE D AS TO FO
JONCOU
N
C o kW
E
ATTAC
--WENT A
GS
FAC
0
AM
rNDviI=\llS T
CHAP'
CH
p
ER
•NC
(CAP
Sp
AUJ
TAT
COM
0
rJ
December 9, 2008
c
5
or
':LEA(4,
VE p
noer consideration in this update of these elements for 2008 stating
-he planned maintenance aid improvements to p„bicly owned roads and
facilities over the six year period 23 9 2O' 4; these elements include
irpo' a, t Do:icies that affirm tie reeds .for tnese road and faciities and
on=onino ni2inten2nce and/or improvements.
2Q Listings of the extei
3
of these roads and factities and their costs are
prepared as the important step for establishing annua, budgets for each
year of the six -year period for the various cal my departmen tso
30 Based on te contributions of the county departments in the preparation
of the Capita, Facilities and Transportation elements, the Board of
County Commissioners finds the proposed update to the Compreiensive
Pan Chapters v0 (Capita Facilities) and V00 rransportation) shall be
adopted as part of the current Mason County Comprehensive Pyar.
Chair, Mason County Board of
Commissioners
Date: /t//IL/ zoor3
ATTACHMENT B
To Ordinance Noe 129-08
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008)
t-r
VI - 1 INTRODUCTION
Capital Facilities
Purpose
The Capital Facilities Chapter contains the capital facilities element, one of the six elements
required for Mason County's Comprehensive Plan under the Growth Management Act (GMA)
(36.70A.070 RCW). This element provides an inventory of existing conditions and publicly
owned facilities by quantifying capital facilities currently provided by Mason County or by other
jurisdictions operating in the County.
The chapter also contains goals and policies for the capital facilities operated by Mason County,
except for transportation facilities, which are discussed in the Transportation Chapter.
The capacity of the County facilities and the level of service they provide is discussed and
compared with the County's desired levels of service. The "level of service" is an objective
measure of how well services are provided to the public. Deficiencies and improvement needs
are identified, improvement costs are estimated, projects are scheduled for six and 20-year
planning horizons, and a six -year finance plan and possible financing options are discussed.
Besides the City of Shelton, there are other public organizations and special districts that have
capital facilities and taxing authority which exist in the county. These include the school
districts, hospital districts, port districts, cemetery district Public Utility Districts regional library
system, and fire districts. These distracts have their own governing body and capital facilities
planning. The county coordinated the comprehensive plan with these bodies, through meetings,
correspondence, and by providing draft of the comprehensive plan to these districts for
comment. A list of these districts is provided as follows:
12.12.08
V1.1
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008)
Mason County Hospital District #1
Mason County Hospital District #2
P ort of Allyn
P ort of Dewatto
P ort of Grapeview
Port of Hoodsport
P ort of Shelton
S outhside School District #42
Grapeview School District #54
Elma School District #68/137
S helton School District #309
Mary M Knight School District #311
P ioneer School District #402
N orth Mason School District #403
Hood Canal School District #404
Fire: Protection District #1
Fire Protection District #2
Fire
Fire
Fire
Fire
Fire
Fire
Fire
Fire
Fire
P rotection
P rotection
P rotection
P rotection
P rotection
P rotection
P rotection
P rotection
P rotection
Fire Protection
Fire Protection
Fire Protection
Capital Facilities
District #3
District #4
District #5
District #6
District #8
District #9
District #11
District #12
District #13
District #16
District #17
District #18
Cemetery District #1
Belfair Water District #1
P ublic Utility District #1
P ublic Utility District #3
Organization and Contents
The following section of this chapter, VI-2, includes a. list of goals and policies that
provides the direction for future capital facility decisions for Mason County.
S ubsequent sections, VI-3 through 9, profile and analyze seven types of capital facilities
in the County, as follows'
Water and Wastewater Utilities
Solid Waste Utility
P arks and Recreation Facilities
County Administration Buildings
P olice and Criminal Justice Facilities
Stormwater Management Facilities
P ublic Works Facilities
S ections 3 through 9 each includes a brief description of the existing systems and public
entities that provide the facilities An assessment of future facility needs is also
developed for each category of facility. The last section of this chapter, VI-10, discusses
financing for county owned and operated facilities for the six -year financial planning
period 2009 to 2014.
12.02.08
VI.2
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
Facility Needs
A number of methods can be used to determine Mason County's capital facility needs
over the next six and 20-year GMA planning periods. As not all capital facilities require
the same level of analysis to determine needed improvements different analytical
techniques can be employed to identify facility needs as long as they accomplish the
goal of determining future need for the capital facilities.
While the state Growth Management Act requires that level of service (LOS) standards
be established to identify transportation improvements the need for other capital
facilities can be assessed using either LOS or planning level assumptions (WAC 365-
195-315).
The advantage of using LOS standards is the ability to quantify deficiencies and identify
improvement needs. The LOS can also be used as a performance standard for
concurrency by comparing the service level being provided by a capital facility against
the quantitative LOS standard. The service is considered deficient if it does not meet the
service level standard that the County has determined it wants to deliver to its residents
and user&. The LOS approach makes the most sense where there are easily
quantifiable facilities or where the state has defined the standards, such as for sewer
and water facilities.
The less rigorous planning assumptions approach also has advantages. The capital
facilities planning assumptions are not quantitative measures of facility need. Instead,
they identify facility improvements based upon the need to serve growth and
development anticipated in the land use element. This approach works best where
identification of quantitative measures would be difficult, where there are no statewide
standards, or where the necessary information or data to apply quantitative measures
would be difficult or too time-consuming to obtain. Facilities such as parks and
recreation andstormwater facilities might best be handled with this approach.
Financing
Facility needs are identified, and a six -year finance plan is developed, in section VI-10
for the following County -owned -and -operated facilities.
• Sewer
• Water
• Parks and recreation
• Stormwater
This section also includes the results of facility planning efforts completed by the County
for County administrative buildings police and criminal justice facilities and solid waste
facilities Financing needs and options are included for these facilities as well. The
section includes by reference the capital facilities plans for Grapeview, Hood Canal,
North Mason Pioneer, and Shelton School Districts to facilitate orderly growth and
coordination in the provision of future capital facility needs.
12.02.08
V1.3
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
Concurrency Management
One of the Growth Management Act goals, referred to as 'concurrency," is the provision
of infrastructure facilities and services to serve projected growth at the time such growth
occurs, or within a reasonable time afterwards. This starts with identifying specific
facility needs using the. strategies previously discussed. Another important aspect of
concurrency is the ability to monitor the development of infrastructure improvements to
assess whether they keep pace with approved development.
Concurrency management, as it is called, involves a set of land use and permit approval
processes designed to ensure facilities and services keep pace with growth. In some
cases, development codes could be enacted to require that specific LOS standards be
promulgated through the development of identified improvements.
In other cases, restrictions to growth may be imposed until appropriate service standards
for capital facilities are achieved. Land use applications for certain development
proposals, in areas targeted for future growth could have their approvals withheld
pending concomitant development of appropriate urban service level facilities (e g.,
sewer facilities). The municipality would be responsible for managing the concurrent
development of these urban services. This can be accomplished by requiring that
individual developers fund and implement needed improvements. Under this
arrangement, the final tenant (e.g , homebuyer or building purchaser) would ultimately
pay for the new facilities through a higher initial purchase price or through a periodic
assessment.
Mason County's policies for concurrency management are contained in the following
section, VI-2.
12.02.08
V1.4
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
VL2 GOALS AND POLICIES
Introduction
Mason County's Capital Facilities Element is guided by goals and policies for the
preferred service philosophy of the County. Goals and policies are required as part of
the Capital Facilities Element (RCW 36.70A) of the overall GMA Comprehensive Plan.
Development Process
Mason County evaluated its existing facilities, it's future needs, it's costs, and the types
and levels of services which it should require or provide in the county. The goals and
policies listed herein are the result of this process. Policies listed under General Capital
Facilities apply to all facilities addressed in the Capital Facilities Chapter. Facility -
specific policies apply only to those facilities.
General Capital Facilities Policies
Land Use
Manage land use change and develop County facilities and services in a manner that
directs and controls land use patterns and intensities.
CF-101 Establish urban services that shall require concurrency under the GMA.
CF-1.02
CF-103
CF-104
CF-105
CF-106
CF-107
CF-108
Ensurethat future development bears a fair share of capital improvement
costs necessitated by the development. The County shall reserve the
right to collect mitigation impact fees from new development in order to
achieve and maintain adopted level of service standards.
Extend facilities and services in a manner consistent with the following
County -wide policies previously adopted in 1992 (see Section 11-3).
County facilities shall be provided at urban or rural levels of service, as
defined in the Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
Develop capital facilities within established urban growth areas (UGAs) to
conform to urban development standards.
Develop capital facilities within UGAs that are coordinated and phased
through inter -jurisdictional agreements
Coordinate and support other capital facility plans from special purpose
districts, cities and towns, and other non -county facility providers that are
consistent with this and other chapters of the Comprehensive Plan.
As the capital facilities plan is amended to reflect a changing financial
situation or changing priorities, the land use chapter shall be reassessed
12.02.08
V1.5
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
on at least a biennial basis to assure internal consistency of the land use
chapter with the capital facilities chapter and its six -year financial plan.
Concurrency
Establish standards for levels of service for County public facilities, and ensure that
necessary facilities are available at the time new development impacts existing systems.
CF-201 After adoption of this Comprehensive Plan and subsequent development
regulations, level of service standards for each type of public facility shall
apply to development permits issued by Mason County.
Adopt level of service standards and concurrency requirements
recommended in this plan for wastewater/sanitary systems, water supply
systems, transportation facilities, and Storm water management facilities.
Public facilities needed to support development shall be available
concurrent with the impacts of development or within a reasonable time
thereafter. The county shall establish development regulations that will
establish procedures and requirements to assure that the concurrency
requirements are met.
New development which has potential storm water impacts shall provide
evidence of adequate storm water management for the intended use of
the site. This policy shall apply in all areas of the county.
Building permits for any building necessitating domestic water systems
shall provide evidence of an adequate water supply for the intended use
of the building. Proposed subdivisions and short plats shall not be
approved unless the county makes w(tten findings that adequate
provisions for potable water are available for each development site. This
policy shall apply in all areas of the county.
Building permits for any building necessitating wastewater treatment shall
provide evidence of an adequate sanitary sewer system for the intended
use of the building. This policy shall apply in all areas of the county.
CF-202
CF-203
CF-204
CF-205
CF-206
Finance
Develop a six -year finance plan for capital facilities that meets the
recommendations of the comprehensive plan, achieves the County's levels of
service, and is financially attainable.
CF-301 Adopt a six -year capital improvement program that identifies projects,
outlines a schedule and designates realistic funding sources for all
County capital facility projects
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
CF-302 For all capital facility projects, evaluate alternatives to programs, purpose,
and service as a method to reduce capital facilities and associated
operating costs.
CF-303 Develop a public process that informs, notifies and allows participation on
all capital facility proposals.
Essential Public Facilities
Facilitate the siting of essential public facilities' sponsored by public or private entities
within unincorporated areas when appropriate.
CF-401 Identify and allow for the siting of essential public facilities according to
procedures established in this plan Essential public facilities shall
include group homes, state and local correctional facilities, substance
abuse facilities, and mental health facilities. Work cooperatively with the
City of Shelton and neighboring counties in the siting of public facilities of
regional importance. Work cooperatively with state agencies to ensure
that the essential public facilities meet existing state laws and regulations
that have specific siting and permitting requirements.
CF-402 Review proposed development regulations to ensure they allow for the
siting of essential public facilities consistent with the goals, policies and
procedures established in this plan.
Facility -Specific Policies
Wastewater/Sanitary Sewer
Assure that wastewater facilities necessary to carry out comprehensive plan are
available when needed, and finance these facilities in an economic, efficient, and
equitable manner.
CF-501 Maintain a safe, efficient and cost-effective sewage collection and
treatment system.
CF-502 All new development within designated urban growth areas and rural
activity centers shall connect to existing sewer systems or provide a plan
for connection to proposed public sewer systems when available. Public
1 RCW 36.70A.200(1) The comprehensive plan of each county and city that is planning under RCW
36.70A.040 shall include a process for identifying and siting essential public facilities. Essential public
facilities include those facilities that are typically difficult to site, such as airports, [marinas railroad systems],
state education facilities and state or regional transportation facilities as defined in RCW 47.06.140, state
and local correctional facilities solid waste handling facilities and in -patient facilities including substance
abuse facilities, mental health facilities, group homes, and secure community transition facilities as defined
in RCW 71.09.020.
12.02.08
VI-7
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
CF-503
CF-504
CF-505
CF-506
CF-507
sewer systems are those owned and operated by any legally recognized
municipal organization as a public utility.
Allow existing single-family homes with septic systems to continue using
septic systems, except in areas where public sewers are being
developed, that conform to existing standards. Replace deficient septic
systems in a timely fashion.
Provide a septic system management and education program to protect
groundwater quality and promote the proper care and use of septic
systems.
Eliminate any unlicensed point or non -point pollution sources associated
with sewage transport and disposal.
Monitor infiltration and inflow in major public systems through routine
inspection. Conduct improvements to limit and reduce current infiltration
and inflow.
Encourage innovative approaches to onsite wastewater treatment.
Water Supply
Assure that water facilities necessary to carry out the comprehensive plan are available
when needed, and finance those facilities in an economic, efficient and equitable
manner.
CF-601 Ensure that the supply and distribution of water in public systems is
consistent with the Mason County Comprehensive Plan.
Ensure that future water system expansions and service extensions are
provided in a manner consistent with the Land Use Element of the
Comprehensive Plan. Where possible, those uses designated by the
Land Use Element to require fire flow should be serviced by a Class A
water system.
CF-603 Create ways to use Class A reclaimed water for beneficial use to replace
withdrawals form the community's fresh water aquifers.
CF-602
Parks and Recreation
Achieve level of service targets for park land and facilities that support County objectives
and priorities.
CF-701 Identify and preserve significant geographic, historic and environmental
features and other characteristics that reflect Mason County's natural and
cultural heritage.
CF-702 Increase park development within urban areas and develop a
comprehensive system of multi -purpose trails throughout the County.
12.02.08
VI-8
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
CF-703
CF-704
Develop and adopt a realistic long-range schedule for park management,
maintenance, and operation. Adopt a workable County capital
improvement program (CIP) every six years, to be amended as needed.
Update current 2006 Comprehensive Parks and Recreation
Comprehensive Plan in 2011 to project future demands and needs; define
acquisition, leases, and development opportunities; draft financial
implementation programs; and be eligible for state and federal grants.
Administrative Services
Develop and implement a long-range program of expansion and improvement to
accommodate the County's projected administrative staffing requirements.
CF-801 Annually review the long-range facilities plan for buildings and space
improvements to efficiently provide work space for projected staffing
levels.
Police and Criminal Justice
Develop and implement a coordinated facility program among the departments and
agencies that provide the County's police and criminal justice services.
CF-901 Complete a strategic long-range plan forthe effective and coordinated
operation and management of all County police and criminal justice
functions, including a full analysis of all space and facility needs required
to support the plan
CF-902 Explore alternative funding sources for law and justice facilities and
operations, including contracts for service with other agencies and joint
use of facilities.
Stormwater Management
Create a facilities strategy that preserves and supplements necessary natural drainage
processes and other natural systems to minimize runoff impacts from development.
CF-1001 Investigate needs and means for implementing and maintaining a safe
and cost-effective storm and stormwater collection system in identified
problem areas.
CF-1 002 Protect surface and ground water quality through state and local controls
and public education on water quality issues.
CF-1003 Design stormwater systems to meet the approval standards prescribed in
the Mason County Stormwater Management Ordinance.
CF-1 004 Protect physical and biological integrity of wetlands, streams, wildlife
habitat, and other identified critical areas.
12.02.08
VI-9
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
CF-1005
CF-1006
CF-1007
CF-1008
CF-1009
Solid Waste
Maintain water quality within all Shoreline Management Act waterfront
areas through careful design, operation, construction, and placement of
public facilities.
Carefully control development in areas with steep slopes where surface
water runoff can create unstable conditions. Maintain natural vegetation
for slope stabilization
Public facility development shall minimize impacts to shorelines,
preserving the natural stream environments where possible.
Comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) and state regulations.
Under no circumstances should hazardous waste be allowed to
contaminate the groundwater, surface water, or sewer systems of Mason
County. Dispose of hazardous wastes only in locations designated for
that purpose.
Ensure that garbage collection and recycling needs of the County are met in an efficient
and cost-effective manner.
CF-1101.
CF-1102
CF-1103
CF-1104
Manage a cost-effective and responsive solid waste collection system.
Manage solid waste collection methods to minimize litter, neighborhood
disruption, and degradation of the environment.
Promote the recycling of solid waste materials through waste reduction
and source separation. Develop educational materials on recycling and
other waste reduction methods.
Work cooperatively with cities., the Washington State Department of
Ecology, and the Mason County Health District to achieve an
environmentally safe and cost-effective solution to the disposal of catch
basin wastes and street sweepings.
12.02.08
VI-10
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
VI.3 WATER AND WASTEWATER UTILITIES
Introduction
The County owns and operates small water and sewer systems for the Rustlewood, and
Beard's Cove communities. 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 850 additional equivalent residential units within the existing service
area.
The Belfair Water Reclamation facility is under design and is expected to be operational
by late 2010. This Membrane BioReactor plant will treat sewage from more developed
areas of the Belfair UGA to Class A reclaimed status. Future sewer extensions and
plant upgrades will follow a schedule, which will provide service to the entire Belfair UGA
by 2025.
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 andwastewater 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
2008 through 2013 A summary table that provides overall costs and funding sources
for each water and sewer system follows each section.
Financing the planned utility improvements requires the use of grants, loans, utility fees,
system development charges, developer contnbutions, and capital reserves. The
specific combination of funds, and the availability of grants and loans,will 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 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) developer contributions
5) Some combination of 1-4 above.
Project costs shown in each section range in accuracy from + or — 40% to + or — 15%.
12. 02. 08
VI-11
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
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 design work.
Future System Development
Included in the wastewater sections of this document are additional projects that are not
associated with the existing County -owned utility systems. These projects represent
efforts to provide utility services to areas which have been identified as problems with
regard to density and water quality, but where no established systems are currently in
place. There are two such areas where the County is currently investing resources in
the long-term resolution of identified problems.
Belfair Urban Growth Area
The County has amended the Belfair/Lower Hood Canal Water Reclamation Facility
Plan Supplemental Information to reflect the most recent population projections and the
proposed service area boundary for the Belfair sewer project. The Department of
Ecology in May 2007 approved the Belfair Facility Plan which outlines the development
of an. MBR facility adjacent to the UGA as the preferred action for treatment of sewage
from Belfair
Hoodsport /Skokomish Area
A Tri-Party planning and implementation group that includes Mason County, Public
Utility District #1 and the Skokomish Indian Tribe was formed in 2006 to improve water
quality in the middle and upper reaches of Hood Canal. Sewer facility plans has been
completed for the Hoodsport Rural Activity, the Potlach State Park Area and major
portions of the Skokomish Tribal lands The funding for any recommended system
development will initially be provided through grants and/or loans until there is an
established rate base to provide payments for the system.
12. 02. 08
VI-12
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
2009-2014 Capital Facilities Plan Worksheet
Utilities, & Waste Management
Fund: 410-Hartstene Pointe Sewer
Project Name. Minor Facility and System Improvements Program
Estimates. Planning Level
Description: Annual improvements program for system facilities, buildings, and
grounds Projects may include small piping improvements, pump stations lighting,
exterior painting, and other general improvements.
Justification: The treatment plant and system construction provided basic functionality,
however the facilities and system need 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 in addition
to the plant operations. It is also anticipated that the work can be completed
professionally and more expediently through contracts with specialty firms.
Estimated Project Costs (in thousands
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014.
TOTAL
Prelim
Engineering
Design
Engineering
Construction
25
25
25
25
25
25
150
TOTAL
COST:
25
25
25
25
25
25
150
Funding
Sources:
Grants
Loans
25
25
25
25
150
Rates
25
25
TOTAL
FUNDING:
25
25
25
25
25
25
150
12.02.08
VI-13
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
2009-2014 Capital Facilities Plan Worksheet
Utilities, & Waste Management
Fund: 403 - NBCI
Project Name. Minor Facility and System Improvements Program
Estimates. Planning Level
Description: Annual improvements program for system facilities, buildings, and
grounds Projects may include small piping improvements, pump stations lighting,
exterior painting, and other general improvements.
Justification: The treatment plant and system construction provided basic functionality,
however the facilities and system need 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 in addition
to the plant operations. It is also anticipated that the work can be completed
professionally and more expediently through contracts with specialty firms.
Estimated Prooect Costs (in thousands
2009
2010
2011
2012
:2013
2014
TOTAL
'
Prelim
Engineering
Design
Engineering
Construction
74.3
25
25
25
25
25
199.3
74.3
25
25
25
25
25
199.3
TOTAL
COST:
Funding
Sources:
Grants
Loans
74.3
25
25
25
25
25
199.3
Rates
TOTAL
FUNDING:
74.3
25
25
25
25
25
199.3
12.02.08
VI-14
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
2009-2014 Capital Facilities Plan Worksheet
Utilities, & Waste Management
Fund: 403-North Bay Sewer System
Project Name. Treatment Plant Capacity Upgrades
Estimates: Planning Level
Description: Analyze the options for providing additional treatment plant capacity and
provide engineering to design the improvements for construction in subsequent years.
Justification: The existing plant may be reaching design capacity for treatment in 2010.
This will require us to revisit the original sewer facility plan and address how we will
maintain sufficient capacity for the twenty-year period beyond 2010. This project
outlines the need for funding to conduct the analysis and design the next increment of
capacity for the plant
Estimated Project Costs (in thousands
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
TOTAL
1
40
40
Prelim
Engineering
Design
Engineering
125
125
Construction
TOTAL
COST:
0
165
0
0
0
0
165.
Funding
Sources:
Grants
Loans
165
0
0
165
Rates
TOTAL
FUNDING:
0
165
0
0
0
0
165
•
12.02.08
VI-15
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
2009-2014 Capital Facilities Plan Worksheet
Utilities, & Waste Management
Fund: 405 — Wasterwater Development Fund
Project Name. Basin Analysis and Developer Review Services
Estimates• Engineers Estimate
Description• Engineering services to assist staff in planning for future development and
developer review
Justification: The Allyn UGA will develop and grow. Currently there are many large lots
that will be divided and platted.. There are also many small lots that will be combined and
developed. In addition many of the rights of way and easements have been vacated and
are now private property. This analysis will assist county staff with the identification of
sewer system expansion needs within the UGA and with review of developer submittals
as this growth occurs.
Estimated Project Costs (in thousands
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
TOTAL
Prelim
Engineering
Design
Engineering
20
20
20
20
20
20
120
Construction
TOTAL
COST:
20
20
20
20
20
20
120
Funding
Sources:
Grants
(.09
funds)
Loans
20
20
20
20
20
20
120
Rates
20
20
20
20
20
20
120
TOTAL
FUNDING:
12.02.08
VI-16
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
2009-2014 Capital Facilities Plan Worksheet
Utilities, & Waste Management
Fund: 412 Beards Cove Water
Project Name Beards Cove Booster Pump
Estimates: Planning Level
Description: Installation of a booster pump to improve water pressure to residences
near the water storage tank and provide additional fire flow to the entire community.
Justification: Currently only the top 16.7 feet or 120 000 gallons of the 60' 400,000
gallon Storage tank can be considered for usable storage. The total requirement for this
system identified in the 2002 water system plan is 250,050 gallons. That document
identified fire flow as 500 gpm for 30 minutes or 15,000 gallons. That number has
increased to 45,000 gallons under the code adopted by the county since the water plan
was written. Technically the system is 150,000 gallons deficient on usable storage. The
addition of a booster pump to provide pressure to all homes with an elevation within 57'
of the storage tank base will allow for the use of the systems entire water storage
capability and meet the system's storage requirements.
(
n
thousands)
Estimated
Project
Costs
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
TOTAL
Prelim
Engineering
Design
Engineering
Construction
60
60
TOTAL
COST:
60
0
0
0
0
0
60
Funding
Sources:
Grants
Loans
60
60
Rates
TOTAL
FUNDING:
60
0
0
0
0
0
60
12.02.08
VI-17
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
2009-2014 Capital Facilities Plan Worksheet
Utilities, & Waste Management
Fund. Hartstene Pointe Water
Project Name: Water Service Meter Installation
Estimates: Planning Level
Description: Water service meters will be installed at every service in the development.
The project began in 2008 with a total project cost anticipated to be $575,000.
Justification: Implementation of the Water Use Efficiency Rule will require Hartstene
Pointe to install service meters at all connections by 2017. Although the rule allows up to
twelve years for installation, it will benefit the community to begin the process as soon as
possible. Water service meters will benefit Hartstene Pointe by providing system leakage
data, and will allow billing based on usage.
Estimated Project Costs ( n thousands
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
TOTAL
Prelim
Engineering
Design
Engineering
Construction
100
100
100
100
400
100
100
100
.
100
400
TOTAL
COST:
Funding
Sources:
Grants
Loans
100
100
100
100
400
Rates
TOTAL
FUNDING:
100
100
100
100
400
12. 02. 08
VI-18
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
2009-2014 Capital Facilities Plan Worksheet
Utilities, & Waste Management
Fund. Hartstene Pointe Water
Project Name Booster pump Installation
Estimates: Planning Level
Description: Installation of a booster pump to improve water pressures and increase
usable storage capacity.
Justification: A result of the system's storage analysis indicates a deficiency in the
usable storage available in the community's water storage tank. A booster pump would
allow usage of the entire volume of the existing tank and provide sufficient storage for
the entire twenty-year planning period.
Estimated Project Costs ( n thousands
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
TOTAL
Prelim
Engineering
25
25
Design
Engineering
Construction
246
246
0
0
0
.0
271
271
TOTAL
COST:
Funding
Sources:
Grants
Loans
271
271
Rates
0
0
0
0
271
271
TOTAL
FUNDING:
12.02.08
VI-19
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
2009-2014 Capital Facilities Plan Worksheet
Utilities, & Waste Management
Fund: Hartstene Pointe Water
Project Name. Stationary Generator Installation
Estimates: Planning Level
Description: Install a Stationary Generator at Well #1
Justification: The December 15, 2006 windstorm knocked out power to the Hartstene
Pointe community for approximately seven days. In addition a secondary power line to
the well houses and community center faulted and PUD crews could not repair it until all
primary power lines were repaired. County Staff worked around the clock to prevent the
sewage pump stations from overflowing and needed the same portable generator used
to power well number one. It was realized at that time that the plan to provide
emergency power to all the facilities using one portable generator was flawed as a result
of the failure to compensate for sewer system Infiltration & Inflow when calculating the
needed frequency that the sewage pump stations needed. pumping
Estimated Project Costs (n thousands
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
TOTAL
Prelim
Engineering
Design
Engineering
3
3
Construction
97
97
TOTAL
COST:
0
0
100
0
0
0
100
Funding
Sources:
Grants
Loans
100
100
Rates
TOTAL
FUNDING:
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
12.02.08
VI-20
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
2009-2014 Capital Facilities Plan Worksheet
Utilities, & Waste Management
Fund: 411
Project Name. Rustlewood Water Distribution System Improvements
Estimates: Planning Level
Description: Water Distribution System Improvements
Justification. Over the past two decades, maintenance activity for the water system
has consisted primarily of leak repairs and service repairs or replacement. To insure the
continued performance of the system, it is necessary to replace key components as they
wear out. These small projects for pipe replacement are beyond the current staff
resources and much more efficiently performed by outside contractors. Finally, several
of the fire hydrants on this system are in need of replacement.
Estimated Project Costs (in thousands)
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
TOTAL
Prelim
Engineering
Design
Engineering
1
1
10
1
1
1
15
Construction
4
4
4
44
4
4
64
TOTAL
COST:
5
5
14
45
5
5
79
Funding
Sources:
Grants
Loans
40
40
5
5
14
5
5
5
39
Rates
TOTAL
FUNDING:
5
5
14
45
5
5
79
12.02.08
VI-21
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
2009-2014 Capital Facilities Plan Worksheet
Utilities & Waste Management
Fund: 411 — Beards Cove Water
Project Name Beards Cove Water System Meter Installations
Estimates: Planning Level
Description: Installation of Water Service meters on all new and existing water service
connections
Justification The Water Use Efficiency Rule requires all water systems install service
meters by 2018 Although the rule allows twelve years to implement installation, the
community will benefit by implementing the process as soon as possible. The community
will benefit from meters by providing leakage data and allow billing based on usage.
This plan is designed to fund this effort entirely through rates. The water rate must
increase from 27 per month to 32 to fund the effort.
Estimated Project Costs (in thousands
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
TOTAL
Prelim
Engineering
Design
Engineering
Construction
100
100
100
100
100
100
500
100
100
100
100
100
100
500
TOTAL
COSTS:
Funding
Sources:
Grants*
Loans
100
100
100
100
100
100
500
Rates
TOTAL
FUNDING:
100
100
100
100
100
100
500
12.02.08
VI-22
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
2009-2014 Capital Facilities Plan Worksheet
Utilities & Waste Management
Fund: 411 — Rustlewood Water
Project Name. Rustlewood Water System Plan
Estimates: Planning Level
Description: Develop a Small Water System Plan
Justification: There is currently no plan in place. To secure future public grants and
loan funding for needed improvements to the system a Small Water System Plan is
required.
Estimated Project Costs (in thousands
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
TOTAL
Prelim
Engineering
Design
Engineering
10
10
Construction
TOTAL
COSTS:
10
0
0
0
0
0
10
Funding
Sources:
Grants*
Loans
Rates
10
10
TOTAL
FUNDING:
10
0
0
0
0
0
10
12.02.08
VI-23
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
2009-2014 Capital Facilities Plan Worksheet
Utilities, & Waste Management
Fund: 405 - Capital Development Fund
Project Name Belfair Sewer Development
Estimates: Construction Level
Description: Design and develop documents required for constructing the Belfair
Sewer Collection and Reclamation Facilities and provide construction management
services.
Justification: In 2007 the County entered into an agreement with CH2Mhill to design
the Belfair Sewer Utility The project will begin construction sometime in 2008 and
should be completed in late 2010 or early 2011. The Belfair Long Range Water
Reclamation Financing Plan, developed in 2008 will guide the expansion of the Belfair
sewer system to build out in 2025.
Estimated Project Costs ( n thousands).•
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
TOTAL
PFelim
Engineering
200
200
400
Design
Engineering
750
500
150
200
200
1800
Construction
10000
10000
5000
400
400
25800
TOTAL
COST:
10750
10500
5150
800
800
28000
Funding
Sources:
Grants
(CTED)
10750
10500
4350
Loans
Rates/GFC's
800
800
800
1700
TOTAL
FUNDING:
10750
10500
5150
800
800
28000
12.02.08
V1-24
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
2009-2014 Capital Facilities Plan Worksheet
Utilities, & Waste Management
Fund: 405 - Capital Development Fund
Project Name. Hoodsport Sewer Design
Estimates: Planning Level
Description: Design and Construct the Hoodsport Sewer System
Justification: The low oxygen levels in Hood Canal are partly attributed to the inability
of onsite septic systems to reduce nitrogen. By conveying wastewater to a
technologically advanced sewage treatment facility that can significantly reduce nitrogen,
and apply the effluent upland, this project will reduce the human contribution of nutrients
to the waters of Hood Canal.
Estimated Project Costs (in thousands
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
TOTAL
Prelim
Engineering
Design
Engineering
2000
100
2100
Construction
2500
2500
5000
TOTAL
COST:
2000
100
2500
2500
7100
Funding
Sources:
Grants
(Centennial)
2000
100
2500
2500
7100
Loans
Rates
TOTAL
FUNDING:
2000
100
2500
2500
7100
12. 02. 08
VI-25
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
2009-2014 Capital Facilities Plan Worksheet
Utilities, & Waste Management
Fund: 410
Project Name. Water Filter Refurbishments
Estimates: Planning Level
Description: Changing the media and painting of the tanks and piping
Justification: The media requires refurbishment as small amounts are washed out
during backwash cycles eventually filtration of contaminates is reduced. Well #2 is in
particular need of painting.
Estimated Project Costs (in thousands
2009
2010
2011.
2012
2013
2014
TOTAL
Prelim
Engineering
Design
Engineering
Construction
.
20
20
TOTAL
COST:
20
20
Funding
Sources:
Grants
Loans
20
20
Rates
TOTAL
FUNDING:
20
20
12. 02. 08
VI-26
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
2009-2014 Capital Facilities Plan Worksheet
Utilities, & Waste Management
Fund: 410
Project Name. WRP PLC upgrade
Estimates: Planning Level
Description. Replace the water treatment plant's Programmable Logic
Controls.
Justification: The existing mechanical rotary switch is outdated and should it fail would
not be able to be repaired. Replacing the unit with a PLC would improve the system
operations and reliability.
Estimated Project Costs (in thousands)
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
TOTAL
Prelim
Engineering
Design
Engineering
Construction
12.6
12.6
TOTAL
COST:
12.6
12.6
Funding.
Sources:
Grants
Loans
12.6
12.6
Rates
TOTAL
FUNDING:
12.6
12.6
12.02.08
VI-27
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
2009-2014 Capital Facilities Plan Worksheet
Utilities, & Waste Management
Fund: 410
Project Name. WTP Environmental Controls
Estimates. Planning Level
Description: Install better environmental controls in the WTP buildings.
Justification: Excessive corrosion in both filter rooms needs to be mitigated by
providing better environmental controls using dehumidifiers and better ventilation
systems.
Estimated Project Costs (in thousands
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
TOTAL
Prelim
Engineering
Design
Engineering
Construction
13.1
13.1.
TOTAL
COST:
13.1
13.1
Funding
Sources:
Grants
Loans
13.1
13.1
Rates
13.1
13.1
TOTAL
FUNDING:
12.02.08
VI-28
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
2009-2014 Capital Facilities Plan Worksheet
Utilities, & Waste Management
Fund: 403 — North Bay Sewer System
Project Name Biosolids thickening facility
Estimates• Engineers Estimate
Description: The purchase and installation of thickening equipment required to
achieve a 20% solids concentration.
Justification: The current method of hauling and disposing of liquid biosolids with
concentrations of about 2% is not cost effective. In addition it is not suitable for
composting without significant de -watering. With the increasing generation of this
material at the treatment plant alternative to the current process needs to be
implemented.
Estimated Project Costs (in thousands
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
TOTAL
Prelim
Engineering
60
60
Design
Engineering
550
550
Construction
60
550
610
TOTAL
COST:
Funding
Sources:
Grants
Loans
60
550
610
Rates
60
550
610
TOTAL
FUNDING:
12. 02. 08
VI-29
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
VI.4 SOLID WASTE UTILITY
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.
Household hazardous wastes (HHW) are collected and disposed of by Mason County
staff at the Shelton transfer facility. Residents in North Mason County can take their
HHW to the Kitsap County transfer station. This arrangement is established through
interlocal agreement and Mason County pays approximately $60 per customer for
collection and disposal or materials from residents who take their materials to the Kitsap
County facility.
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 Sheltonfacility 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. 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.
12.02.08
VI-30
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
2009-2014 Capital Facilities Plan Worksheet
Utilities, & Waste Management
Fund: 402 - Solid Waste
Project Name. Minor Facility Improvements
Estimates- Design Report
Description: Annual program to ensure continued operational effectiveness of transfer
station facilities and preserve existing assets. Improvements will include: road
resurfacing facility roof replacements, minor building modifications, storage or handling
facility construction, or modifications to comply with regulatory requirements or preserve
capacity.
Justification: Normal operation of transfer station facilities requires ongoing facility
improvements to existing fixed assets to maintain overall operational capabilities.
Providing an annual program and funding to complete these improvements is more
efficient from an administrative perspective and prudent in terms of ensuring the
longevity of existing assets.
Estimated Project Costs (in thousands
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
TOTAL
Prelim
Engineering
Design
Engineering
Construction
21
22
22
24
24
28
141
TOTAL
COST:
21
22
22
24
24
28
141
Funding
Sources:
Grants
Loans
21
22
22
24
24
28
141
Tipping
Fees
TOTAL
FUNDING:
21
22
22
24
24
28
141
12.02.08
VI-31
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
2009-2014 Capital Facilities Plan Worksheet
Utilities, & Waste Management
Fund: 402 - Solid Waste
Project Names Belfair Household Hazardous Waste Facility Improvements
Estimates: Design Report
Description: Design and construct a facility to provide household hazardous waste
collection services to north county residents.
Justification: Currently north county residents must take their household hazardous
waste to the Kitsap County facility. This service is provided through an interlocal
agreement that costs $65 00 per visit The costs are the same no matter what type of
material is dropped off at their facility. Our own facility would save us considerable cost
for disposal of less harmful materials such as motor oil or latex paints. Operation of a
county -owned facility would allow us to tailor the hours of operation and types of material
accepted to decrease these costs.
Estimated Project Costs in thousands
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
TOTAL
Prelim
.Engineering
4
Design
Engineering
4
Construction
31
31
0
0
0
35
TOTAL
COST:
0
35
0
Funding
Sources:
Grants
Loans
Tipping
Fees
35
35
TOTAL
FUNDING:
0
35
0
0
0
0
35
12.02.08
VI-32
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
2009-2014 Capital Facilities Plan Worksheet
Utilities, & Waste Management
Fund: 402 - Solid Waste
Project Name. Household Hazardous Waste Facility Improvements
Estimates: Design Report
Description: This facility serves the south end of the county by providing residential
drop off of household generated hazardous wastes seven days a week The volumes of
materials have been increasing annually, and the facility is both outgrowing its current
structure and behind on needed safety improvements. Further, the changes in
regulations in recent years and the near future will necessitate increased capacity.
Justification: Due to policy changes at the state and national level, the facility itself is
inadequate to meet the standards mandated. Since some of these changes are state
priorities, state funding may be available..
Estimated Project Costs (in thousands)
2009
2010
2011
•
2012
2013
2014
TOTAL
3
3
Prelim
Engineering
Design
Engineering
50
50
Capital
Equipment
(scale)
Construction
75
10
1
5
5
2
98
TOTAL
COST:
125
10
1
5
8
2
151
Funding
Sources:
Grants
95
95
Loans
30
10
1
5
8
2
56
Rates
TOTAL
FUNDING:
125
10
1
5
8
20
151
12.02.08
VI-33
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
2009-2014 Capital Facilities Plan Worksheet
Utilities, & Waste Management
Fund: 402 — Shelton Transfer Station
Project Name. Transfer Station System Improvements
Estimates: Planning Level
Description: This facility serves as a hub for all the garbage in Mason County. When
o riginally constructed in the early 1990's, throughput was a fraction of current levels. In
o rder to safely and efficiently serve the needs of the public and our commercial
accounts, a second access road with a scale is needed. Other minor improvements and
e nhancements will be required to maintain the system over the next few years, such as
road work, tip walls and typical wear and tear.
Justification: Over the past 15 years, the number of customers has grown
dramatically, along with tons exported. Steps to improve customer safety, reduce wait
times, and increase efficiency for commercial customers will allow the facility to
postpone major construction for this planning.. period..
Estimated Project Costs (in thousands)
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
TOTAL
1
1
1
1
3
Prelim
Engineering
1
15
5
21
Design
Engineering
Capital
Equipment
100
100
(scale)
Construction
10
100
10
10
50
10
190
TOTAL
COST:
12
202
11
25
55
11
314
Funding
Sources:
Grants
Other:
timber
100
100
Loans
50
50
Rates
12
52
11
25
55
11
214
TOTAL
FUNDING•
12
202
11
25
55
11
314
12.02.08
V1-34
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
2009-2014 Capital Facilities Plan Worksheet
Utilities, & Waste Management
Fund: 402 — Belfair Drop Box
Project Name Belfair Improvements
Estimates: Planning Level
Description: This facility serves the north end of the County by providing residential
drop off of wastes and recyclables seven days a week. Growth in the portion of the
County is significant, and will likely increase at the current high rate for the near future.
Minor improvements and enhancements will be required to maintain the system over the
next few years, such as road work, tip walls and typical wear and tear. A wholly new
facility, with a scale and compaction equipment, may be necessary by the end of this
planning period.
Justification: Currently, our system is able to support the Belfair area. However, the
current and projected growth may exceed the capacity of this facility in the relatively near
future. Due to the location, it does not make sense to increase the tonnage without:
exporting directly to rail, or at least to rail containers. To do so, a new facility would be
necessary.
Estimated Project Costs (in thousands
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
TOTAL
1
5
6
Prelim
Engineering
Design
Engineering
25
25
250
250
Capital
Equipment
(scale)
Construction
5
10
1
5
25
250
296
TOTAL
COST:
5
10
2
10
50
500
577
Funding
Sources:
Grants
50
50
Other:
timber
100
100
Loans
Rates
5
10
2
10
50
350
427
TOTAL
FUNDING:
5
10
2
10
50
500
577
12.02.08
VI-35
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
2009-2014 Capital Facilities Plan Worksheet
Utilities, & Waste Management
Fund: 402 — Hoodsport Drop Box
Project Name. Hoodsport Improvements
Estimates: Planning Level
Description: This facility serves the north and west end of the County by providing
residential drop off of wastes and recyclables several days a week. Growth in this
portion of the County is occurring, and will likely increase in the near future. Minor
improvements and enhancements will be required to maintain the system over the next
few years, such as road work, tip walls, and typical wear and tear.
Justification: Currently our system is able to support the Hoodsport area However,
the current and projected growth may exceed the capacity of this facility in the relatively
near future, which can be addressed by simply increasing the days and hours of
operation.
Estimated Project. Costs (in thousands)
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
TOTAL
Prelim
Engineering
3
3
Design
Engineering
Capital
Equipment
(scale)
Construction
2
10
1
5
5
20
43
TOTAL
COST:
2
10
1
5
8
20
46
Funding
Sources:
Grants
Other:
timber
Loans
2
10
1
5
8
20
46
Rates
2
10
1
5
8
20
46
TOTAL
FUNDING:
12.02.08
VI-36
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008.) Capital Facilities
2009-2014 Capital Facilities Plan Worksheet
Utilities, & Waste Management
Fund: 402 — Union Drop Box
Project Name. Union Improvements
Estimates: Planning Level
Description: This facility serves the south end of the canal area by providing residential
drop off of wastes and recyclables several days a week. Growth in this portion of the
County is occurring, and will likely increase in the near future. Minor improvements and
enhancements will be required to maintain the system over the next few years, such as
road work, tip walls and typical wear and tear.
Justification: Currently, our system is able to support the Union area. However, the
current and projected growth may exceed the capacity of this facility in the relatively near
future, which can be addressed by simply increasing the days and hours of operation..
Estimated Project Costs (in thousands
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
TOTAL
3
3
Prelim
Engineering
Design
Engineering
Capital
(scale)
Equipment
Construction
2
10
1
5
5
20
43
2
10
1
5
8
20
46
TOTAL
COST:
Funding
Sources:
Grants
Other.
timber
Loans
2
10
1
5
8
20
46
Rates
TOTAL
FUNDING:
2
10
1
5
8
20
46
12.02.08
VI-37
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
V1.5 PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES
System Description
Recreational opportunities in Mason County include parks for day -use activities and
overnight camping; fresh and salt water areas for boating and other water sports;
facilities and equipment for sports and play activities; and wilderness areas and other
open spaces for hiking, hunting, and horseback riding.
Existing parks and recreation facilities in Mason County are available through a variety
of public and private entities. Federal and state facilities include camping, boating, and
day -use parks. The County -owned park system includes day -use and water access
facilities, sports fields, and related recreational areas. Other agencies providing park
and recreational resources include municipalities, port districts, and public schools.
Some private recreational facilities are open to the public as well.
Mason County has adopted a Parks and Recreation Plan in November of 2006 and a
Mason .County Regional Trails Plan in March of 2008. Both of these plans are
incorporated herein by reference.
County Park Facilities
The County currently manages 21 park properties in Mason County two of which are
u ndeveloped, and three others have large portions that are also undeveloped. Of the
developed parks, two are large baseball/softball complexes, five provide saltwater
access parks, three are located on freshwater lakes, and three provide upland dayuse
and recreation facilities (see FIGURE vl 5-1). In addition to the day use facilities, the
County also owns and maintains one above -ground skate park The conditions of these
facilities vary by location, however, significant investment in facilities has been made in
the last two years from Real Estate Excise Tax proceeds (REET 2). The capital plan for
the next six years continues this trend of investment in park development and facility
u pgrades. The heavy use and demand from both county and non -County residents are
particularly high during the spring, summer and fall.
In recent years, parks operated by Mason County have received substantial increases in
visitors. Total visits increased 52 percent from 1992 to 1993, from 180,600 to 274,500
annual visits Nearly half of the total increase was at Sandhill Park a sports park in
Belfair. Sandhill's visitation increased by 230 percent, from 20,300 to 67,000 visits, due
in large part to increased use of the park by local baseball softball, and soccer leagues.
Sandhill Park received significant improvements in 2006 and use of this park has
continued to grow. Mason County Recreation Area, the largest baseball/softball complex
has grown in use the last several years and is now recognized regionally as a preferred
site for major tournaments.
There are no facilities for overnight camping throughout the Mason County Parks
system. The last county -wide park plan was developed in 1991 and subsequently
u pdated in 2006. Camping options will be examined in the long-term development plan
being crafted for these and other park properties with large portions of undeveloped
land. Mason County developed a new county -wide parks plan in 2006, which includes
12.02.08
VI-38
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
analysis and recommendations to address recreation needs within the county. Camping
by special use permit is being examined for Truman Glick Park and Foothills Park.
Inventory
An inventory of all Mason County parks including federal, state, private, and County -
owned parks is lasted in TABLE v1.5-1. Also included are the number of acres and
amenities available at each park location. The locations of parks and recreational
facilities operated by the County are shown on FIGURE v1.5-1.
Figure VI.5-1
Jerson
County
Grays Harbor
County
(1
t
fss
T yJ
TawneI „";
Knsap County
Thurston County
Norco County
Mason County
County Parks
Legend
4. C"M, f a:b
/\/ Cant) Ease
/\f H4^114rtn
tee a
CpLnb n=unr: a
Fuckarar Land.
Olymf ra:1=nnl Far. t
J Gynnyc Na?icnal Piz
Mies
r-ral., Sr Zorn a;y(.:eArt
»ilrin.'. r
I .x, e to HN i
ltgnl Festi =,t 4 rn(M s a:rlt Rco
r x id e, 1:waist are .tn, kstin _.+r:o-; r,:.ru
m.
-ts rEtwatrittWid u9NA:ca5'a!
n>..
na.trrla,C,Ibtrotan,mrfre,,Art:cciWexCeth The
t:LIthres :eon
�h
12.02.08
VI-39
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008)
Capital Facilities
TABLE
VI.5-1.
Inventory
of
Parks
Name
of
Facility
Acres
Amenities
Available
Washington
State
Parks
Belfair
State
Park
62.77
(3,780
ft
Camping:
134
tent
sites,
47
utility
tidelands)
sites
accessible
primitive
trails
sites,
trailer
wheelchair
dump
facility.
Harstine
Island
State
Park
310
tidelands)
(3,100
ft
Currently
development
undeveloped.
Future
day
area;
campsites
walking/hiking
plans
include:
trails;
50
use
Hoodsport
Trails
80
Natural
area
with
trails.
Hope
Island
106
Currently
Future
development
undeveloped.
trails;
(8,540
ft
tidelands)
plans
include:
picnic
tables*
rest
rooms;
6
to
8
campsites;
people.
Washington
group
camping
Water
for
Trails
150
site.
Jarrells
Cove
42.6
Camping:
20
tent
sites;
group
site
for
maximum
of
64
2
(3,500
ft
tidelands)
facilities
people,
for
handicapped,
picnic
shelters,
wheelchair
pump
outstation,
accessible
2
docks
trails,
providing
marine
500
buoys.
feet
Fee
of
moorage,
required.
14
mooring
Lake
Isabella
193.75
Currently
undeveloped.
Future
development
include:
full-
plans
service
park
camping,
picnic
area,
lakefront
beach,
Plans
be
rest
the
rooms.
10
to
20
will
completed
in
next
years.
Lilliwaup
Tide
Land
ft
tidelands)
Tidelands
for
use
No
facilities.
(4,100
public
Small
shoulder
area
for
parking.
McMicken
Island
11.45
Currently
Boater
undeveloped.
ft
tidelands)
destination;
Plans
to
(1,660
develop
clamming
5
to
8
include:
camping
sites,
composting
toilet.
Potlatch
State
Park
56.95
Camping:
17
tent
sites;
18
utility
sites;
ft
tidelands)
Underwater
trader
(9,570
primitive
sites.
park,
dump
facilities.
Schafer
State
Park
119
Camping:
47
tent
sites,
6 utility
sites,
primitive
trailer
dump
sites,
day
facilities
use group
area,
Squaxin
Island
31.4
Closed
indefinitely.
12.02.08
VI-40
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008)
Capital Facilities
TABLE
Vi.5-1.
Inventory
of
Parks
(Continued)
Name
of
Facility
Acres
Amenities
Available
Stretch
Point
(610
ft
4.2
tidelands)
Natural
development.
mooring
area.
buoys.
Day
No
use
plans
only;
for
5
future
Twanoh
State
Park
(3,167
182
ft
tideland)
Camping:
primitive
wheelchair
sites,
30
accessible
tent
handicapped
sites,
trails
9
utility
facilities,
sites,
Total
(38,027
1208.02
ft
tideland)
Washington
State
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife
Aldrich
Lake
0.5
Unpaved
vehicles.
boat
launch,
parking
15
for
Benson
Lake
78.8
Boat
for 100
launch,
vehicles.
beach
access,
parking
Cady
Lake
1.6
Unpaved
vehicles.
boat
launch,
parking
for 10
Clara
Lake
9
Unpaved
vehicles.
boat
launch,
parking
for 30
Devereaux
Lake
1.3
Boat
for 40
launch,
vehicles.
beach
access,
parking
Haven
Lake
4.1
Unpaved
vehicles.
boat
launch,
parking
for 50
Island
Lake
access
1
Freshwater
boat
launch,
toilets.
Isabella
Lake
1.6
Boat
launch,
parking
for 20
vehicles.
Lake
Kokanee
44
Boat
Launch,
parking
for 100
vehicles.
Lake
Limerick
0.5
Boat
for 30
launch,
vehicles.
beach
access,
parking
Lost
Lake
1.3
Boat
launch,
parking
for 40
vehicles.
Lake
Nahwatzel
2.0
Boat
toilets
launch,
parking
for 10
vehicles,
Maggie
Lake
0.4
Unpaved
vehicles.
boat
launch,
parking
for 15
Mason
Lake
Boat
launch,
parking
for 30
vehicles.
Panhandle
Lake
20
Undeveloped
Panther
Lake
3.8
Unpaved
vehicles.
boat
launch,
parking
for 30
Phillips
Lake
1
Boat
for
40
launch,
vehicles
beach
access,
parking
Pricket
Lake
0.5
Unpaved
vehicles.
boat
launch,
parking
for 30
Skokomish
River
64
30.6
parking
feet
of
for
riverfront,
20
vehicles.
shore
access,
Spencer
Lake
2
Boat
for 50
launch,
vehicles.
beach
access,
parking
River
2.9
4,400
feet
of
riverfront,
parking
for 10
Tahuya
12.12.08
VI-41
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008)
Capital Facilities
Acres
Amenities
Available
Name
of
Facility
3.6
Unpaved
boat
launch,
for 20
Tee
Lake
parking
vehicles.
Twin
Lake
3.6
Unpaved
vehicles.
boat
launch,
parking
for 15
Union
River
61.8
8,098
feet
for 10
vehicles.
of
nverfront,
parking
Victor
Bay
access
to
North
,.5
Boat
launch,
pit
toilets
Wildberry
Lake
10
Undeveloped.
Wooten
Lake
1
Unpaved
boat
launch,
parking
for 60
vehicles.
Total
318.3
Washington
State
Department
of
Natural
Resources
(approx.)
24
1,700
feet
waterfront,
hand
boat
Aldrich
Lake
Camp
launch,
toilets,
drinking
4
picnic
tables,
lake
4
campsites,
with
trout
parking
water,
for
16
vehicles.
stocked
Day
use
only
Camp
Pond
Camp
Spillman
(approx.)
10
800
group
feet
sites,
waterfront,
toilets
drinking
6
camp
sites,
water.
4
Elfendahl•
Pass Staging
5
11
okay,
picnic
toilets,
sites,
drinking
self-contained
water
RVs
Area
}
Howell
Lake
3
boat
group
launch,
sites
toilets,
10
campsites
drinking
hand
parking
for
20
vehicles.
water,
2
campsites,
toilets
Kammenga
Canyon
1
Parking
for
trail
access
Mission
Creek
Trailhead
1.1
175
feet
waterfront,
hand
boat
launch,
Robbins
Lake
3
picnic
tables
toilets.
Day use
only.
Tahuya
River
Horse
(approx.)
12
1,600
feet
9
2
group
horse
sites,
corrals.
waterfront,
toilets,
drinking
campsites,
water,
20
Camp
Toonerville
5.7
570
feet
4
2
waterfront,
campsites,
picnic
sites,
toilets.
Twin
Lakes
6 camp
sites,
3
picnic sites,
toilets,
hand
boat
launch.
Lake
is
with
trout
stocked
Melbourne
Lake
1,000
feet
5
campsites,
setting,
toilets.
waterfront,
Lilliwaup
7
Stream
campsites
setting,
toilets,
500
drinking
feet.
waterfront,
water.
13
Public
Tidelands
#24
Water
access only.
Water
Public
Tidelands
#33
access only.
Water
access only.
Public
Tidelands
#34
Road
access, clamming.
Public
Tidelands
#113
12.02.08
VI-42
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008)
Capital Facilities
Amenities
Available
Name
of
Facility
Acres
Public
Tidelands
#14
a
a,b
fishing.
Road
access, clamming,
crab
pot
Water
oysters,
Public
Tidelands
#46
shrimp
access
pot
fishing.
only,
clamming,
Public
Tidelands
#47
Water
access
only,
clamming,
oysters.
Public
Tidelands
#18
Water
access
only,
clamming
oysters
Eagle
Creek
Recreational
Road
access,
clamming,
crabbing.
Tidelands
Rendsland
Creek
Road
access,
clamming.
Tidelands
Total
United
States
Forest
Service
Brown
Creek
6
78
camp
sites,
toilets.
Campground
Hamma
Hamma
5
Picnic
area,
12
campsites.
Campground
Lower
Lena
Lake
6
Hike
-in only,
40
camp
sites,
pit
toilets.
Campground
Upper
Lena
Lake
7
Hike
-in
only,
14
camp
sites,
pit
toilets.
Campground
Total
24
City
of
Shelton
Parks
and
Recreation
Department
Brewer
Park
0.3
3
picnic
tables,
curbside
parking
only.
Lighted
field
Callanan
Park
6.9
softball
with
spectator
7
tables
2
1
stands
picnic
swings,
slide,
foot
rest
room,
depression,
foot
trails
across
space
40
for
30
natural
vehicles
plus
additional
parking
parking
along
street.
1.75
Currently
City
Park
undeveloped.
Eleventh
Street
Site
0.92
Deep
well
location
with
the
potential
to
be developed
into
a
city
park.
Huff
and
Puff
Trail
80 .
2 miles
of
jogging
trail
and
20
incorporated
drinking
fountain
trailhead.
exercise
and
stations,
parking
for 20
vehicles
at
Kneeland
Park
3.9
2 slides,
swings,
1
merry-go-round,
horizontal
bars,
1
dome
climber
1
large
box, 1
log
sand
small
playhouse,
a
horseshoe
picnic
10
few
rocking
shelter,
tables,
pit,
saddle
deteriorated
aging
2
tennis
mates
rest
room
clubhouse,
and
in
need
picnic
of
resurfacing,
street
courts
parking
for
approximately
25 vehicles.
/2.02.08
VI-43
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008)
Capital Facilities
Name
of
Facility
Acres
Amenities
Available
Johnson
Park
0.5
1
basketball
substandard
parking
merry-go-round,
for
backboard
approximately
concrete
1
swing,
and
court,
10
single
street
vehicles.
Loop
Field
4
2
field,
1
room,
tennis
picnic
jogging
parking
courts,
shelter,
for
softball
along
5
100
picnic
vehicles.
field,
the
tables,
soccer
perimeter,
rest
trail
Oakland
Bay Overlook
1.03
Views
waterfront
Olympic
display
interpretive
for
the
rest
additional
of
vehicles.
with
2
downtown
Mountains
years
parking.
Oakland
large
information,
kiosk,
Development
log
small
Shelton,
Bay,
historic
section
paved
and
picnic
band
industrial
the
and
plans
parking
saw
for
5
next
rooms,
area,
shelter,
include:
Pine
Street
Boat
Launch
60
feet
deteriorating
Crude
gravel
boat
wooden
launch
boat
and
repair
a
grid.
Total
99.3
Port
of
Dewatto
Port
Campground
of
Dewatto
1
Camping:
sites
trails
shelters;,
plans
tables
kitchen.
2 rest
23
to
and
picnic
1
add
Fee
11
rooms
kitchen;
to
with
hook-ups,
stoves
nature/hiking
fishing.
gravel
two
and
picnic.
around
19
Future
picnic
tent
tables;
more
required.
place
Port
of
Shelton
Sanderson
Field
1,170
5,000
skydiving;
society.
increased
feet
Future
of
rifle
hangar
runway,
club;
plans
model
availability.
tie
to
Flying:
downs,
aircraft
provide
Oakland
Bay
Marina
Boat
moorage.
1170
Total
Port
of Allyn
Waterfront
Park
in Allyn
2
400
to
20
15
vehicles
feet
boats),
waterfront,
Office
planned.
parking
dock
(for
up
for
moorage,
gazebo,
building
picnic,
Kayak
Park
.3
150
picnic
feet
tables,
waterfront
portable
small
toilet
parking
facilities.
lot,
North
Belfair/North
Shore
Ramp
Shore
1.2
150
floating
20
vehicles
feet
waterfront,
dock,
beach
trailers.
boat
access,
launch
parking
with
for
with
I2.02.08
VI-44
Mason County Comprehensive Plan.
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008)
Capital Facilities
Name
of
Facility
I Acres
I .Amenities
Available
Port
of
Hoodsport
Ingvald
Waterfront
Gronvold
Park
2
Dock
2
development
center
portable
saltwater
and
rest
picnic
rooms.
includes
beach
tables.
access,
an
Proposed
interpretive
tidelands,
future
Port of
Grapeview
Fair
Harbor
Marina
5
Boat
launch
and
parking
area
Mason
County
Latimer's
overflow
parking
Landing
area
2.5
Primary
neighboring
for
20
vehicles.
use
is
Latimer's
to
provide
Landing,
parking
parking
for
Foothills
Park
80
1
basketball
play
parking
field
area;
which
for
court;
picnic
serves
50
rest
tables;
as a multiuse
rooms;
children's
field;
vehicles.
Harvey
Lake
Rendsland
Jiggs
8
Currently
waterfront.
undeveloped;
1,905
feet
Latimer's
Landing
(Water)
.59
Saltwater
vessels
for
dock;
neighboring
parking
10
vehicles,
additional
no
area.
access
longer
Latimer's
portable
parking
boat
than
launch
Landing
20
toilet
available
in
feet,
2008.
for
boat
overflow
parking
at
Renovated
Mason
Fairgrounds
County
(Picnic)
12
100
additional
rooms
horse
area.
camp
arena;
and
sites
space
showers;
2
with
for
hook
tent
kitchens;
camping,
picnic
ups;
tables;
natural
rest
30
indoor
Mason
Area
(MCRA
County
Sport)
Recreation
40
7
serve
children's
maintenance
facility
batting
baseball/softball
the
as
seasonal
cage;
Mason
soccer
play
field
serves
and
concession
required
fields
as
user's
football
bleachers,
which
100
headquarters
storage
for
fields;
also
4
shop,
parking
area,
stand,
vehicles.
facility
for
the
Parks
County
use.
This
for
Department.
scheduled
Fee
Mason
Lake
Park
(Water)
17.36
1.36
rest
access/boat
no longer
maximum
owns
acres
rooms,
16
unused
than
of
currently
launch
4
50
picnic
18
vehicles.
feet
in
for
table;
use;
small
dock,
that
parking
freshwater
watercraft
play
County
be
area,
for
The
can
acres
12.02.08
VI-45
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008)
Capital Facilities
for
of
the
used
(possible
expansion
trails,
picnic
area,
park
and
remote
camping
area).
Phillips
Lake
County
Park
0.4
Passive
day
use
area,
picnic
area,
(Picnic)
located
Boar
Launch
next
to
with
State
vault
of
Washington
type
toilets.
fields,
one
SandhiII
Park
(Sport)
30
7
field,
baseball/softball
bleachers;
parking
is
available
multiuse
for
100+
vehicles;
4
fields
concession-restroom
building;
in
2006;
walking
and
path
parking
around
renovated
park.
Shorecrest
Park
(Water)
2.8
320
feet
waterfront,
longer
than
boat
16
launch
feet,
for
vessels
saltwater
tables.
no
beach
access
3
picnic
Truman
Glick
Memorial
35.46
Natural
setting,
creek,
trails,
tables,
picnic
Park
(Picnic)
barbecue
covered
pit,
vault
group
toilets,
shelter,
RV
area.
Future
construction
and
interpretive
improvements
of
group
signage
include:
camping
along
possible
area
trails.
Union
Community
Park
1.92
Picnic
shelter,
children's
play
area;
baseball
diamond,
basketball
(Picnic)
small
court;
rest
rooms.
Union
Ramp
0.16
Boat
ramp
for
access
to
Hood
Canal,
Boat
(Water)
portable
toilets,
no
parking.
2
tables,
bus
Hunter
Park
shelter
.5
picnic
Skate
Park
.6
11
above
ground
ramps
in
Shelton
Saltwater
to
Hammersley
Inlet,
Walker
Park
5.04
access
(Water)
beach
tables,
barbecues,
gravel
rest
area,
rooms,
interpretive
shelter,
picnic
center
children
providing
s
play
for 15
marine
information;
parking
vehicles.
Habitat
Oakland
Bay
80
preservation
area
and
Preservation
Area
education
center
(currently
undeveloped)
Watson
Wddwood
View
36
Undeveloped
Recently
transferred
from
the
Port
Mendards
Landibng
Park
40
of
beach
Tahuya
to
County.
Parks
areas,
provices
access,
toilet,
picnic
to
DNR
gazebo,
portable
tidelands,
and
canoes.
small
access
boat
launch
for
kayaks
Park
Undeveloped
Mason
Lake
Picnic
.9
6.9
Undeveloped
Harstene
Island
Total
328.03
Mason
County
Public
Schools
Belfair
Elementary
t
Playground.
12.02.08
VI-46
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008)
Capital Facilities
Playground.
Sandhdl
Elementary
Hood
Canal
2
bleachers
for
baseball
30
vehicles.
backstops,
playground,
1
track,
football
parking
field,
Elementary/Junior
High
School
Oakland
Bay
Middle
x
School
Olympic
Middle
School
x
2
baseball
backstops,
Pioneer
Elementary
area,
playground
covered
play
Grapeview
Elementary
Playground
Southside
Elementary
1
baseball
backstop.
Bordeaux
Football
track.
field,
soccer
field,
playground,
Evergreen
Elementary
Playground.
Mountain
View
5
soccer
baseball
field,
backstops,
playground.
football
field,
Elementary
Shelton
High
School
6
football
tennis
field,
courts,
2
baseball
field,
bleachers,
backstops,
2
soccer
swimming
pools,
track,
rest
rooms.
Mary
M.
Knight
District
2
bleachers
baseball
backstops,
playground.
1
football
field,
North
Mason
High
School
2
football
baseball
field,
backstops
field,
2
tennis
bleachers,
courts,
playground,
soccer
track.
Private
Facilities
Open
to
the
Public
Shelton/South
Soccer
Park
Mason
14
6
fields,
1
development
soccer
under
Glen
Ayr Canal
Resort
10
Adult
-only
RV
park
with
hookups;
no
tent
2
2
camping,
motel,
rest
rooms,
showers,
launch,
beach
laundry
access
facility,
tidelands,
saltwater
spa,
boat
fishing,
dock.
clamming,
oysters,
Lake
Nahwatzel
Resort
2
Camping:
12
5
utility
sites,
sites
without
hookups
launch,
freshwater
2
rest
rooms,
beach
2 showers,
boat
trails,
8
access,
tables,
nature/hiking
picnic
restaurant,
fishing,
swimming,
cabins.
Minerva
Beach
RV
Resort
20
Camping:
sites
showers,
with
23
hookups;
laundry
beach
sites
without
5
facilities,
rest
60
rooms,
hookups,
boat
launch,
50
6
Mobile
Village
and
saltwater
access,
picnic
tables,
driving
range,
scuba
dive
center.
Rest
and
-A
Marina
-While
RV
Park
15
Saltwater
boat
launch,
dock,
70-80
be
camp
for
sites
RVs
with
tents),
moorage,
hookups
4
(may
used
or
rest
rooms,
4
showers,
laundry
facilities,
beach
access, clamming,
oysters,
12.02.08
VI-47
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008)
Capital Facilities
fishing,
tables,
boat
rentals,
2
nature
trail,
60
picnic
with
kitchen,
concession
covered
picnic
stand.
areas
Future
to
improvements
boat
include
fuel.
easier access
marina,
and
unknown
Wetlands
trails
Theler
Center
interpretive
602.9
Camping:
51
tent
sites,
30 utility
sites,
Lake
Cushman
2
primitive
walk-in
sites,
group
site
with
cooking
shelter
for maximum
of
56
facilities
people,
for
rest
handicapped
rooms
with
showers;
boat
launch,
trailer
dump
facility.
Total
663.9
Other
Picnic
60
vehicles
area,
50 camp
sites,
parking
for
Olympic
Staircase
National
Campground
Park
-
Tacoma
Saltwater
City
Park
Light
6
boat
picnic
launch,
tables,
rest
rooms,
beach
saltwater
saltwater
access.
Mike's
Beach
Resort
Boat
launch,
SCUBA
diving
cabins,
beach
for
camping
access
guests
Robin
Hood
Village
16
access
RV sites
for
guests
cabins,
camping,
beach
63.032.27
COUNTY
TOTAL
Projects
The following pages provide details on specific Park projects proposed for the current
capital facilities planning period
12.02.08
VI-48
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
2009-2014 Capital Facilities Plan Worksheet — Parks & Trails Department
Fund Name:
Fund Number:
REET 2 Capital Improvement Program
351.000.000
351.000.000
594.80.41.1000 Planning
594.76.63.1000 Development
Project Name: Watson Wildwood County Park
Estimates: Construction Level
Description:. Scope of this project includes planning/design and development
services. Phase one is a master plan for the Park. Phase 2 would include
development of a parking area, restroom, trails. and passive recreation.
Park is 35 acres and was donated to the County. Development would
provide infrastructure for public access
Justifications:.
There is no current plan of record for this park site and is the only County
Park between Allyn and the Pierce County Border. Site also has potential
as a trailhead for a Regional Trail in the area.
Estimated Project Costs
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Total
Planning,
Design
25,000
25,000
Site
Prep
&
Utilities/
WeII
Construction
Engineering
Construction
290,000
Total
Costs:
25,000
290,000
315,000
Funding
Sources:
25,000
290,000
315,000
In
House
Grants
Loans
25,000
290,000
315,000
Total
Funding:
12.02.08
VI-49
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
2009-2014 Capital Facilities Plan Worksheet — Parks & Trails Department
Fund Name.
Fund Number:
REET 2 Capital Improvement Program
351.000.000 594.76.63.0900
Project Name. Walker Park Improvements
Estimates: Construction Level
Description:. Would involve improvements to the Walker Park Play Area equipment.
Justifications:. Play equipment does not meet current safety standards and is not ADA
accessible.
Estimated Project Costs
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Total
Preliminary
Engineering
Site
Prep
&
Utilities/
Well
Construction
Engineering
Construction
50,000
50,000
Total
Costs:
50,000
50,000
Funding
Sources:
In
House
50,000
50,000
Grants
Loans
0
0
Total
Funding:
50,000
50,000
12.02.08
VI-50
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
2009-2014 Capital Facilities Plan Worksheet — Parks & Trails Department
Fund Name.
Fund Number:
REET 2 Capital Improvement Program
351.000.000 594.76 63.0800
Project Name. Union Park Improvements
Estimates: Construction Level
Description:. Would involve improvements to the Union Park Play Area equipment.
Justifications:. Play equipment does not meet current safety standards and is not ADA
accessible.
Estimated Project Costs
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Total
Preliminary
Engineering
Site
Prep
&
Utilities/
Well
Construction
Engineering
Construction
42,000
42,000
Total
Costs:
42,000
42,000
Funding
Sources:
In
House
42,000
42,000
Grants
Loans
0
0
Funding:
42,000
42,000
Total
12.02.08
VI-51
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
2009-2014 Capital Facilities Plan Worksheet — Parks & Trails Department
Fund Name.
Fund Number:
REET 2 Capital Improvement Program
351.000.000 676.80.41.1100 Planning
351.000.000 594.76.63.1000 Development
Project Name. Union Boat Ramp
Estimates: Construction Level
Description:. Scope of this project includes planning/design and development to
renovate the existing County Boat Ramp in Union on Hood Canal.
Justifications:. Project listed as a high priority in the 2006 County Parks Plan. Project
would enhance water access and boating.
Estimated Project Costs
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Total
Planning,
Design
50,000
50,000
Site
Prep
&
Utilities/
Well
Construction
Engineering
Construction
465,000
465,000
Costs:
515,000
Total
Funding
Sources:
In
House
15,000
90,000
105,000
Grants
35,000
375,000
410,000
Loans
Funding:
50,000
465,000
515,000
Total
12.02.08
VI-52
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
2009-2014 Capital Facilities Plan Worksheet — Parks & Trails Department
Fund Name.
Fund Number:
REET 2 Capital Improvement Program
351.000.000 594.76 63.0500
Project Name. Sandhill Park Renovation
Estimates: Construction Level
Description:. Scope of this project includes planning/design and development services
to complete the renovation of Sandhill Park. Main work would include the
renovation of fields #1, #2, and #3. New backstops, ADA access,
irrigation, and complete field renovation would be included.
Justifications:.
This project is listed as a high priority in the 2006 Park Plan. Plan
recommended improving existing facilities before developing new
facilities.
Estimated Project Costs
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Total
Planning.,
Design
75,000
75,000
Site
Prep
&
Utilities/
Well
Construction
Engineering
Construction
725,000
725,000
Total
Costs:
800,000
800,000.
Funding
Sources:
In
House
400,000
400,000
Grants
400,000
400,000
Loans
Funding:
800,000
800,000
Total
12.02.08
VI-53
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
2009-2014 Capital Facilities Plan Worksheet — Parks & Trails Department
Fund Name.
Fund Number:
Project Name.
Estimates:
Description:.
Justifications:.
REET 2 Capital Improvement Program
351.000.000 594.76.63.1700
Harvey Rendsland County Park Planning and Improvements
Construction Level
Would involve completing a park plan to facilitate public access to the
park and then the development of a parking area, picnic facility, passive
recreation and support facilities..
This park was donated to Mason County in 2007 by Washington State
Parks. It provides water access to Jiggs Lake. Water access is the top
priority in the 2006 County Parks Plan Additional developed park space
is needed on the Tahuya Peninsula.
Estimated Project Costs
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Total
Planning
and
Design
20,000
20,000
Site
Prep
&
Utilities/
Well
Construction.
Engineering
Construction
265,000
265,000
Costs:
' 20,000
265,000
285,000
Total
Funding
Sources:
In
House
20,000
115,000
135,000
Grants
150,000
150,000
Loans
0
0
Total
Funding:
20,000
265,000
285,000
12.02.08
VI-54
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
2009-2014 Capital Facilities Plan Worksheet — Parks & Trails Department
Fund Name.
Fund Number:
REET 2 Capital Improvement Program
351.000.000 594.76.63.1400
Project Name. Phillips Lake County Park
Estimates: Construction Level
Description:. Scope of this project includes basic park improvements, including park
amenities such as tree removal, picnic tables, park benches, trash
containers, and signage.
Justifications:. This small park has have very little in the way of improvements and is
needed.
Estimated Project Costs
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Total
Planning,
Design
10,000
10,000
Site
Prep
&
Utilities/
Well
Construction
Engineering
Construction
Total
Costs:
10,000
10,000
Funding
Sources:.
In
House
10,000
10,000
Grants
Loans
Total
Funding:
10,000
10,000
12.02.08
VI-55
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
2009-2014 Capital Facilities Plan Worksheet — Parks & Trails Department
Fund Name.
Fund Number:
REET 2 Capital Improvement Program
351.000.000 594.76 63.1300
Project Name. Oakland Bay County Park
Estimates: Construction Level
Description:. The Oakland Bay property was purchased jointly by the County and the
Capitol Land Trust. Project scope would involve a two-phase
development program for the park. The first phase would concentrate on
public access facilities, the entry road, parking area, restrooms, and
signage. The second phase would concentrate on trail development,
environmental education facilities, and interpretative displays.
Justifications:. Project listed in the 2006 County Parks Plan as a high priority for
implementation.
roject Costs
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Total
Planning
and
Design
Site
Prep
&
Utilities/
Well
Construction
Engineering
Construction
700,000
700,000
1,400,000
Costs:
700,000
700,000
1,400,000.
Total
Funding
Sources:
In
House
350,000
350,000
700,000
Grants
350,000
350,000
700,000
Loans
Total
Funding:
700,000
700,000
1,400,000
12.02.08
VI-56
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
2009-2014 Capital Facilities Plan Worksheet — Parks & Trails Department
Fund Name.
Fund Number:
REET 2 Capital Improvement Program
351.000.000 594.76 63.1600
Project Name. Menards Landing County Park
Estimates: Construction Level
Description:. This park was transferred from the Port of Tahuya to Mason County in
2006. Project scope includes improvements that would incorporate ADA
access improvements, new picnic facilities, non -motorized watercraft
improvements to the present launch site, and new park amenities such
as park benches and garbage cans,
Justifications:. Project listed in the 2006 County Parks Plan as a priority for
implementation.
Estimated Project Costs
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Total
Planning
and
Design
Site
Prep
&
Utilities/
Well
Construction
Engineering
-
Construction
50,000
50,000
Total
Costs:
50,000
50,000
Funding
Sources:
In
House
50,000
50,000
Grants
Loans
Funding:
50,000
50,000
Total
12.02.08
VI-57
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
2009-2014 Capital Facilities Plan Worksheet — Parks & Trails Department
Fund Name.
Fund Number:
Project Name.
Estimates:
Description:.
Justifications:.
REET 2 Capital Improvement Program
351.000.000 594.76.63.0300
Mason County Recreation Area (MCRA) Improvements
Construction Level
Project scope would involve needed renovations and improvements to
MCRA Park. The improvements include: new field lights restroom
renovation, irrigation improvements drainage upgrades, new office, new
bleachers, play equipment surfacing, asphalt, scoreboards, and
concession building.
Project listed in the 2006 County Parks Plan for implementation.
Estimated Project Costs
2009
2010
2011.
2012
2013
2014
Total
Planning
and
Design
Site
Prep
&
Utilities/
Well
Construction
Engineering
Construction
800,000
800,000
1,600,000
Total
Costs:
800,000
800,000
1,600,000
Funding
Sources:
In
House
400,000
400,000
800,000
Grants
400,000
400,000
800,000
Loans
Total
Funding:
800,000
800,000
1,600,000
12.02.08
VI-58
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
2009-2014 Capital Facilities Plan Worksheet — Parks & Trails Department
Fund Name.
Fund Number:
Project Name.
Estimates:
Description:.
Justifications:.
REET 2 Capital Improvement Program
351.000.000 594.76.63.0400
Mason County Boat Launch Renovation
Construction Level
Renovation of existing boat launch facility, including the boat ramp, dock,
Entry and exit road and parking improvements. The parking would be
improved and expanded, entry road widened, and restroom improved for
ADA accessibility.
Park has not been renovated since initial development Listed in 2006
Parks Plan for renovation and expansion ADA improvements are
needed, especially access to dock and restrooms
Estimated Project Costs
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Total
Preliminary
Engineering
Site
Prep
&
Utilities/
Well
Construction
Engineering
25,000
20,000
Construction
950,000
950,000
Costs:
975,000
950,000
Total
Funding
Sources:
In
House
275,000
275,000
Grants
700,000
700,000
Loans
0
0
Total
Funding:
975,000
975,000
12.02.08
VI-59
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
2009-2014 Capital Facilities Plan Worksheet — Parks & Trails Department
Fund Name.
Fund Number:
REET 2 Capital Improvement Program
351.000.000 594.76.63.0220
351.000.000 576.80.41.0220 - Planning
Project Name. Latimers Landing County Park
Estimates: Construction Level
Description:. Scope of this project includes planning and design to develop 2.4 acres
of undeveloped land at Latimers Landing into additional boat and trailer
parking, and public access to Pickering Passage. The 2.4 acres was
purchased in 2008 to compliment the .59 acre Latimers Landing Boat
Launch.
Justifications:.
Project listed as a high priority in the 2006 County Parks Plan. Project
would enhance water access and provide additional parking for boats
and trailers.
Estimated Project Costs
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Total
Planning,
Design
90,000
90,000
Site
Prep
&
Utilities/
Well
Construction
Engineering
Construction.
750,000
750,000
Total
Costs:
840,000
Funding
Sources:
In
House
30,000
185,000
215,000
Grants
60,000
565,000
625,000
Loans
Total
Funding:
90,000
750,000
840,000
12.02.08
VI-60
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
2009-2014 Capital Facilities Plan Worksheet — Parks & Trails Department
Fund Name.
Fund Number:
REET 2 Capital Improvement Program
351.000.000 594.76.63.2000
Project Name. Lake Nahwatzel County Park
Estimates: Construction Level
Description:. Scope of this project includes planning/design and development services
to develop a future waterfront park on Lake Nahwatzel. Project would be
completed in cooperation with Green Diamond Resource Company
Justifications:. This project is listed as a high priority in the 2006 Park Plan because is
addressed a parkland deficiency in western Mason County and also
provides water access.
ct Costs
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Total
Planning,
Design
100,000
100,000
Site
Prep
&
Utilities/
Well
Construction
Engineering
Construction
400,000
500,000
900,000
Total
Costs:
500,000
500,000
1,000,000
Funding
Sources:
In
House
250,000
250,000
500,000
Grants
250,000
250,000
500,000
Loans
Total
Funding:
500,000
500,000
1,000,000
12.02.08
VI-61
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
2009-2014 Capital Facilities Plan Worksheet — Parks & Trails Department
Fund Name.
Fund Number:
Project Name.
Estimates:
Description:.
Justifications:.
REET 2 Capital Improvement Program
351.000.000 594.76 63.0600
Jacoby Park (Shorecrest) Improvements
Construction Level
Project scope would involve implementation of Park Improvement Plan
based on Park Site Plan developed in 2008. Improvements would
provide more amenities at the park than what currently exist.
Project listed in the 2006 County Parks Plan for implementation.
Estimated Project Costs
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Total
Planning
and
Design
Site
Prep
&
Utilities/
Well
Construction
Engineering
Construction
180,000
180,000
Total
Costs:
180,000
180,000
Funding
Sources:
In
House
180,000
180,000
Grants
Loans
Total
Funding:
180,000
180,000
12.02.08
VI-62
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
2009-2014 Capital Facilities Plan Worksheet — Parks & Trails Department
Fund Name.
Fund Number:
Project Name.
Estimates:
Description:.
Justifications:.
REET 2 Capital Improvement Program
351.000.000 594.76 63.1900
Goldsborough Creek County Park
Construction Level
S cope of this project would include the development of passive
recreation facilities at a 9.4 acre park site along Goldsborough Creek.
P roject would include passive recreation amenities primarily parking,
restroom, trails, and passive recreation along the creek, park benches
and picnic areas.
P roject listed as a priority in the 2008 County Regional Trails Plan and
would also provide additional parkland in the western section of Mason
County, which was listed in the 2006 Park Plan as an area of the County
with a park and open space deficiency.
Estimated Project Costs
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Total
Planning
and
Design
30,000
30,000
Site
Prep
&
Utilities/
Well
Construction
Engineering
Construction
320,000
320,000
Costs:
350,000
350,000
Total
Funding
Sources:
In
House
175,000
175,000
Grants
175,000
175,000
Loans
Total
Funding:
350,000
350,000
I2.02.08
VI-63
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
2009-2014 Capital Facilities Plan Worksheet — Parks & Trails Department
Fund Name.
Fund Number:
Project Name.
Estimates:
Description:.
Justifications:.
REET 2 Capital Improvement Program
351.000.000 594.76 63.0100
Foothills County Park
Construction Level
Project scope would include working with the Port of Hoodsport to
develop a Master Site Plan for Foothills County Park. Future
development of the park via a partnership with the County and Port of
Hoodsport would be likely
Project listed in the 2006 County Parks Plan.
mated Project Costs
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Total
Planning
and
Design
20,000
20,000
Site
Prep
&
Utilities/
Well
Construction
Engineering
Construction
Total
Costs:
20,000
20,000
Funding
Sources:
In
House
20,000
20,000
Grants
Loans
Total
Funding:
20,000
20,000
12.02.08
VI-64
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
2009-2014 Capital Facilities Plan Worksheet — Parks & Trails Department
Fund Name.
Fund Number:
REET 2 Capital Improvement Program
351.000.000 594.76.63.2100
Project Name. Camp Govey Trail Parking Lot and Support Facilities
Estimates: Construction Level
Description:. Project scope would include development of a parking and support
facility just off Forest Service Road #23 on Green Diamond Resource
Company Land for the Camp Govey Trail and view park. Improvements
include parking, signage, restroom facility, picnic area.
Justifications:. High priority project identified in the 2008 Mason County Regional Trails
Plan.
Estimated Project Costs
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Total
Planning
and
Design
Site
Prep
&
Utilities/
Well
Construction
Engineering
Construction
125,000
125,000
Total
Costs:
125,000
125,000
Funding
Sources:
In
House
32,000
32,000
Grants
93,000
93,000
Loans
Funding:
125,000
125,000
Total
12.02.08
VI-65
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
2009-2014 Capital Facilities Plan Worksheet — Parks & Trails Department
Fund Name.
Fund Number:
REET 2 Capital Improvement Program
351.000.100 594.76.63.0001
Project Name. Park Development Partnership Program
Estimates: Construction Level
Description:. The Park Development Partnership Program provides matching grant
funds to plan, construct, reconstruct, repair, rehabilitate and
improve parks in Mason County. To be eligible for funding, community
organizations and public entities must have an established a partnership.
Public entities include, but necessarily be limited to: school districts,
utility districts and cities. The public entity must submit the application.
Justifications:. Provides funds to improve parks in Mason County by promoting
partnerships with community groups and public entities. Program would
provide for one $50,000 project from 2009 to 2014
Project Costs
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Total
Preliminary
Engineering
Site
Prep
&
Utilities/
Well
Construction
Engineering
Construction
50,000
50,000
50,000
150,000
Costs:
50,000
50,000
50,000
150,000
Total
Funding
Sources:
In
House
50,000
50,000
50,000
150,000
Grants
Loans
0
0
Total
Funding:
50,000
50,000
50,000
150,000
12.02.08
VI-66
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
2009-2014 Capital Facilities Plan Worksheet — Parks & Trails Department
Fund Name.
Fund Number:
REET 1 Capital Improvement Program
350.000.000
Project Name. Trails Development Program
Estimates: Construction Level
Description:. Trail development program for Mason County.
Justifications:. Begin Implementation of a trail development program as per the County
Regional Trails Plan.
Estimated Project Costs
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Total
Planning
and
Design
75,000
75,000
150,000
Site
Prep
&
Utilities/
Well
Construction
Engineering
Construction
100,000
200,000
300,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
1,200,000
Costs:
Total
Funding
Sources:
In
House
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
400,000
Grants
100,000
100,000
200,000
.200,000
100,000
100,000
800,000
Loans
Total
Funding:
100,000
200,000
300,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
1,200,000
12.02.08
VI-67
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
2009-2014 Capital Facilities Plan Worksheet — Parks & Trails Department
Fund Name.
Fund Number:
REET 1 Capital Improvement Program
350.000.000
Project Name. MCRA Office Renovation
Estimates: Construction Level
Description:. Convert old maintenance garage to a ground level office building.
Justifications:. Current parks office is 25+ years old and can only be accessed up a
flight of stairs. Current office is not ADA accessible.
Estimated Project Costs
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Total
Acquisition
200,000
Site
Prep
&
Utilities/
Well
Construction
Engineering
Construction
200,000
Costs:
200,000
200,000'
Total
Funding
Sources:
In
House
200,000
200,000
Grants
Loans
Funding:
,200,000
200,000
Total
12.02.08
VI-68
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
2009-2014 Capital Facilities Plan Worksheet — Parks & Trails Department
Fund Name.
Fund Number:
Project Name.
Estimates:
Description:.
REET 1 Capital Improvement Program
350.000.000
Goldsborough Creek Park Acquisition
Construction Level
Acquire 9.4 acres on Goldsborough Creek in partnership with the Capitol
Land Trust.
Justifications:. High priority for acquisition for use as trailhead site and County Park.
High priority in both the. Regional Trails Plan and the County Park Plan.
Estimated Protect Costs
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Total
Acquisition
555,000
555,000
Site
Prep
&
Utilities/
Well
Construction
Engineering
Construction
Total
Costs:
555,000
555,000
Funding
Sources:
In
House
75,000
75,000
Grants
480,000
480,000
Loans
Total
Funding:
480,000
555,000
* County contribution would be proceeds from a land sale at Mason Lake.
12.02.08
VI-69
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
V1.6 COUNTY AND ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDINGS
System escra tion
Mason County owns several buildings, most of which are located in the City of Shelton,
the County seat. These buildings are used to support general County functions such as
internal management, health, public service, and general administration. Other buildings
owned by the County include Memorial Hall, the Cooperative Extension Office, the two
buildings on Pine Street, the Mason County Fair/Convention Center, the Public Works
Campus and the Belfair Public Works Shop. TABLE vi.6-1 describes these sites.
Locations of the facilities within the Shelton Campus are shown in FIGURE vl 6-1.
Memorial Hall and the two buildings on Pine Street are located in Shelton, a few blocks
from the main campus area. The Mason County Extension Office is located about 3
miles north of Shelton, on the northeast side of Highway 101, across from the Shelton
airport. The Public Works campus is located about 4 miles north of Shelton on the
northwest side of Highway 101. The Belfair Public Works Shop is situated on the north
shore of Hood Canal about 3 miles from Belfair
Inventory
Mason County's administrative offices and departments housed in the buildings are
listed in TABLE vi.6-2. Also provided is a summary of current office area allocations •for
the County departments and departmental functions.
Most of the County's administrative offices are located in the Shelton Campus, a four-
squareblock section of the downtown area. At this location, the County operates from 23
publicly owned buildings These include the Courthouse, Jail, Juvenile Detention Facility,
Building I, Building II, Building III Building IV, Building V, Building VI, Building VII,
Building VIII, and Building IX. Other county administrative offices are located at Building
XI (Cooperative Extension Building), the 3rd & Pine building (the Sheriff Office), the
Public Works campus, and the offices at the Mason County Fairgrounds.
Facility Needs
Facility needs are being developed through a space planning effort currently being
updated by the County. This work is based on an assessment of agency needs related
to growth in both the six- and 20-year planning horizons. While planning is continuing,
the county has identified the space needs for County administration, law enforcement,
and criminal justice facilities. Specific planned improvements for the first six -year
planning period and associated financing are detailed in Section VI.10, Finance Plan.
Based on the "Space Standards Manual' published by the State of Washington
Department of General Administration, 251 square feet are needed per employee. In
addition, certain governmentalfunctions have special requirements for facilities.
Currently the county has a deficit in space. Significant additional space will be required
over the next six and twenty years if the county is to offset that deficit and meet the
future growth. The information is summarized in Table VI.6-3. Needs analysis and facility
planning was done in 1995 and.1996. The background information and analysis can be
found in "Update to Mason County Space Needs Analysis for inclusion in the Mason
County and Master Plan update, June 16, 1999."
12. 02. 08
VI-70
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008)
Capital Facilities
Administration
Sites
TABLE
V.6-1
Summary
of
Site
Square
Feet
Acres
Shelton
Campus
169,200
3.88
12,000
0.275
Memorial
Hall
Approx.
18,600
Office
Extension
Not
43
Fairgrounds
reviewed
Belfair
Public
Works
Approx.
61,000
1.4
Shop
Campus
Public
Works
19,000
1.16
3rd
&
Pine
Property
Space Allocations
for
Administrative
Offices
TABLE
V1.6-2
Buildings
and
Department
or
Office
Area
Building
(square
feet
Assessor
2,525
Building
I
Auditor
3,228
Buildings
Courthouse
I, XI,
Operations
99
Building
I,
VII
Central
Clerk
1430
Courthouse
Community
Development
2,121
Buildings
I,
III
2,377
Extension
Office
Cooperative
Office
Extension
Coroner
99
Building
VI
County
Commission
1,508
Building
I
VIII
District
Court
2,322
Courthouse,
Building
Public
Rental
374
Buildings
I
IX,
III,
Equipment,
and
Works
Campus
Revolving
Fund
(ER&R)
Facilities
&
Grounds
757
Building
IX,
Courthouse,
3rd
&
Pine
3,299
Buildings
II,
III,
IV
Health
Services
Center
1,726
Building
III
Permit
Assistance
Services
1,383
Building
VIII
Probation
3,535
Building
VII
Prosecutor
Campus
Public
Works
Campus
Public
Works
61,000
Belfair.Shop
Public
Maintenance
Works
—
13,000
3rd
&
Pine
Property,
Sheriff
12.02.08
VI-71
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008)
Capital Facilities
Belfair
Sub
-Station
4,371
Courthouse,
Building
VI
Superior
Court
Treasurer
2,157
Building
Courthouse
I,
2007
Summary
Space
Sheet
Needs
Update
departments
not
Area
in new
Mason
for
County
primary
space
facility
needs
Projections
Shop
included
for
Department
Current
Projected
Allocation
(s.f.)
2007
need
(s.f.)
Deficit
(s.f.)
Deficit
(%)
2012
need
(s.f.)
2017
need
(s.f.)
Assessor
2,519
4,440
1,921
43%
4,218
4,440
Auditor
3,407
4,074
667
16%
4,296
4,518
2,481
2,442
-39
0%
1,998
1,998
Treasurer
Budget
Risk
Management
and
Finance
/
210
444
234
53%
666
666
Human
Resources
215
444
229
52%
666
666
Facilities
and
Grounds
7,096
3,500
-3,590
0%
5,500
6,500
Board
of
Operations
County
/
1,640
3,398
1,758
52%
3,620
4,892
Commissioners
Central
Clerk
1,277
3,508
2,231
64%
4,618
5,728
District
Court
2,925
7,664
4,739
62%
8,774
13,162
Superior
Court
5,090
12,400
7,310
59%
16,600
21,200
Probation
Services
4,745
4,608
-137
01'70
5,052
5,496
Juvenile
Alternatives
Detention
to
Detention
/
3,408
9,400
5,992
64%
12,200
15,000
Sheriff
7,239
16,000
8,761
55%
18,000
20,000
Adult
Alternatives
Detention
to
/
Detention
19,315
55,000
35,685
65%
61,000
67,600
Prosecutor
3,533
4,468
935
21
%
4,690
5,406
Coroner
294
744
450
61%
966
2,188
12.02.08
VI-72
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008)
Capital Facilities
Community
Planning
Development
-
1,998
3,552
1,554
44%
3,996
4,440
Community
Permit
Assistance
Development
-
3,681
5,550
1,869
34%
6,216
7,104
Center
Community
Utilities
Waste
Management
and
Development
-
635
1,554
919
59%
2,664
3,330
Public
Health
Services
1,695
8,992
7,297
81%
11,656
14,098
Parks
and
Trails
1,094
1,554
460
30%
1,776
1,998
WSU
MC
Extension
2,311
4,330
2,019
47%
4,774
5,218
Total
+/- 76.808
158,066
+/-
81,258
+/-51%
183,94
215,648
12.02.08
VI-73
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
V1.7 POLICE AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE FACILITIES
System Description
The Mason County Sheriff's Office provides police services including, patrol, traffic
enforcement, service of civil process, jail operation and investigative services to the
citizens in unincorporated Mason County. The Mason County Sheriff's Office currently
has a total of 98 employees Of those, 47 are commissioned officers, 30 are jailers, and
21 are civilian employees.
The Mason County Sheriff's Office currently serves 53,100 citizens covering an area of
961 square miles The Mason County Sheriff's Office also covers over 900 miles of
shorelines, 622 miles of county roads and nearly 115 miles of state highways.
The Mason County Sheriff's Office will be taking over primary responsibility for traffic law
enforcement and collision investigations on all county roads commencing July 1, 2009.
Accordingly the Sheriff's Office received authorization for 2 new positions to be
dedicated to traffic enforcement on January 1, 2008 and two more on July 1 2008,
providing for a total of 5 officers and a supervisor working traffic and investigating
collisions.
Criminal Activity
The following table illustrates calls for service for the Mason County Sheriff's Office 2004
through 2007.
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
19046
22177
20013
20052
19272
The following TABLE VI.7-1 illustrates Mason County Crimes from 2003 through 2007.
Figures for 2008 not yet available at the time of this update.
12. 02. 08
VI-74
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008)
Capital Facilities
TABLE VI.7-1. Mason County Crime 2003 through 2007
20032004 2005 2006
Murder
Forcible rape
By farce
Attempted - -
Robbery
Firearm
Knife
Other weapon
Strong arm
Assault;_-
irearm
Knife
Other weapon
mple assaults
urg ary
rced entry'
force
tempted
rceny-theft
hicle theft
221
6
26
412 - 405
2
6` 8
350 340
945 656
409 297
489 332
153
38 30
65 49
2,509 2391.
2007
0
31
27
13
6
1
419;
12
9
47
324
593
279
288
90
243
229 191"
226 273:
12.02.08
VI-75
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
Traffic in Mason County
2007 Traffic Infractions issued by MCSO
Criminal Non Traffic issued by MCSO
827
373
Total Traffic Collisions responded to by MCSO 710
Total Traffic Collisions investigated by MCSO 215
Washington State Patrol (WSP) maintains records for all citations and collisions within
Mason County. The Washington State Patrol has notified Sheriff Casey Salisbury that
they will no longer investigate non -injury collisions on County Roads starting July 1,
2009.
According to a Sheriffs Office analysis, the county for the county to take over the traffic
accident investigations on county roads with the associated enforcement component, at least
four deputies will be required. The Washington State Patrol currently has nine troopers
assigned to Mason County. Approximately 40 percent of all of the collisions in the county
occur on county roads. Additionally, according to WSP statistics, they have been conducting
about 4000 contacts per year with nine troopers on county roads, which accounts for about
40 percent of the total WSP contacts in the entire county. This amount of contacts along with
the collisions investigated takes up over 40 percent of WSP s time.
In 2006, there were 1,035 collisions in all of Mason County. Of those collisions, 383 resulted
in personal injuries. There were 15 fatalities with 5 of those fatalities occurring on County.
Roads. A total of 307 collisions occurred on County Roads. From January 1, 2007 to June
15,. 2007, WSP has responded to a total of 102 collisions on County Roads. Between 1993
and 2003 Mason County had the 4th highest Drinking Driver Involved (DDI) death rate in the
state. During the same time period Mason County had the 6`h highest traffic fatality rate in the
state.
Jail Facilities
The Mason County Jail opened in 1986 with a population capacity of 45 inmates. In
1989, capacity was increased to 51, and in 1991 it was increased to 58 beds with floor
space for 106. In 1993 the average daily population (ADP) was 62. In 2004 the ADP
was at 95 146% over capacity.
The Direct Supervision Unit (DSU) opened on October 1, 2006, bringing the jail capacity
up to 128 inmates. ADP for 2005 was 111, ADP for 2006 was 119 and ADP for 2007
was 113.7.
Strategic Plan
The Mason County Sheriffs Office has no current formalized strategic plan at this time;
however, the creation of a formal strategic plan is currently being considered
Alternate Funding Sources
The Mason County Sheriff's Office continues to explore alternative funding sources
including Federal Homeland Security Grants, Justice Assistance Grants' and grants from
other federal state and private sources. Additionally the Mason County Sheriff's Office
12.02.08
VI-76
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
is committed to forming community partnerships with public and private agencies to
more efficiently provide services and.utilize facilities to maximum efficiency.
Overall Facility Needs
In 2008, Foster and Williams conducted a space analysis to be incorporated in the
Mason County Comprehensive Plan. According to this analysis, the Sheriff's Office will
have a space deficit of 10,761 by 2012. However, not reflected in that analysis is the
County's acquisition of a building located at 3 d & Pine in Shelton. It is anticipated that
the Sheriff's Office will moving from its current location into the 3rd & Pine building
alleviating many of the department's spacing needs.
Space Allocation Criteria
Standard space allocations methods do not apply to all areas of the Sheriffs Office
because of the diverse functions found within the department such as training, locker
rooms, K-9 holding, briefing room, interview rooms, public receptions, fingerprinting,
criminal complaints, evidence processing and others. Space for many of the above
mission essential functions does not exist. Please note that full time work stations are.
not required for each patrolman. However, four to six work stations for patrol are
currently required.
Storage Needs
The most important need of the Sheriffs Office is thatof evidence storage. Property
taken in by the Sheriff's Office whether it's contraband found property, stolen property,
or safekeeping is held in trust by the Sheriffs Office. Therefore the Sheriff is responsible
for its security, preservation, chain of custody as well as its return, sale or disposal in the
same condition it was when we acquired it according to law. Currently evidence is
stored in a vault in the basement of the courthouse, on the third floor of the courthouse
and in buildings and containers at the impound yard at the county shop. Space allotted
for evidence storage space is currently 2908 square feet. It is estimated Sheriffs Office
evidence storage should be about 6000 square feet. This would allow for enough space
to properly store and process evidence and should take care of evidence storage needs
for at least the next 10 years. That space needs to include an 800 square ft space that
is heated and well lit for indoor vehicle processing. The evidence storage facility ideally
would be all in one location to eliminate the need for transportation to remote locations
for storage
Additionally the Mason County Sheriff's Office must have covered storage for it's three
boats, two personal watercrafts, light armored vehicle, ATV, skid car and trailer along
with spare vehicles Additional secure storage is needed for other training equipment,
tactical equipment and ordinance that is not routinely issued to officers and needs to be
in a secure location.
Storage needs will continue to be revisited and it is anticipated that the Sheriff's Office
move to the 3rd & Pine will address many of them.
12.02.08
VI-77
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008)
Capital Facilities
Courts
The Mason County District courts handled 11,195 cases in 2004, mostly infractions and
misdemeanors. Domestic violence and civil cases make up less than 13 percent of the
District Court caseload. Mason County Superior Court handled 2,541 cases in 2004,
with civil cases being the most common, followed by criminal actions, domestic cases,
juvenile offender cases, and probate/guardianship cases, in that order. TABLE vi.7-2
summarizes the caseload for the two courts for the years 2002, 2003, and 2004
TABLE
vi.7-2
Mason
County
Court
Cases
Case
2002
2003
j 2004
Type
Mason
County
District
Court
Infractions
4,213
5,591
6,574
Misdemeanors
2,278
2,980
3,192
Domestic
violence
296
293
258
Civil
cases
1,011
1,139
1,171
7,798
10,003
11,195
Total
Mason
County
Superior
Court
Criminal
actions
503
475
531
Civil
actions
1,020
1,146
1,199
Domestic
322
337
368
Probate/guardianship
212
185
192
Juvenile
offender
261
214
251
2,318
2,357
2,541
Total
Source: State of Washington; Courts of Limited Jurisdiction Annual Caseload Report
Facility Needs
In 1996, the Facilities Steering Committee and the Criminal Justice Working Team, working with
a consultant, assessed future County building needs. A report was issued jointly by the
Facilities Steering Committee and Criminal Justice Working Team in 1996, and updated in 1999
(`Mason County Space Needs Analysis for inclusion in the Mason County Master Plan update,
June 16, 1999') which identified four capital facility projects. Space needs are not determined
by a simple set of standards but by a comprehensive approach to the criminal justice systems
program needs The projected cost of this plan and potential funding sources are incorporated
in the finance plan contained in Section VI-10 of this chapter. A summary of space needs for
the next six -year and 20-year planning periods can be located on Table VI.6-3, in the previous
section VI.6.
12.02.08
VI-78
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
V1.8 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
System Description
Existing stormwater facilities in Mason County include both natural systems and built collection
and conveyance. Existing systems generally handle runoff from State and County Roads and
existing development. Run-off control is limited to new construction which is managed through
requirements in 1992 Ecology Stormwater Manual. More stringent control is proposed for the
Belfair/Allyn Urban Growth areas and the Hoodsport Rural Activity Center by implementing the
2005 Ecology Stormwater Manual and Low -Impact Development techniques.
Increases in the amount of residential and commercial impervious surfaces have increased
stormwater runoff in the county. In addition, forestry practices, such as logging, and new road
construction, have also increase runoff and created sedimentation problems in a number of the
county's creeks and streams resulting in diminished water quality and loss of critical aquatic
habitat. Stormwater runoff, erosion, sedimentation, habitat loss and flooding problems will likely
continue in the County especially in the designated urban growth areas if strong control
measures are not implanted.
Inventory
Mason County has adopted a Stormwater Management Ordinance (Mason County Code
Section 14:48). This ordinance adopts by reference the 1992 edition of the Washington State
Department of Ecology's Stormwater Management Manual, with the exception of the. Minimum
Requirer+iehts chapter, for use in designing best management practices (BMPs) for new
development and other improvements. The ordinance defines specific minimum requirements
andother approval standards for development on all ranges of parcel sizes
The City of Shelton has prepared a Surface Water Drainage Utility Master Plan. Their master '
plan identifies existing problems in the city and offers recommendations for improvements. The
city has scheduled improvements based on the existing master plan; the city intends to update
the plan before 2013.
The county is in the process of adopting stormwater plans for the Belfair/Allyn Urban Growth
Area, and the Hoodsport Rural Activity Center. A more general plan for the entire county is
expected to be developed in 2009 The specific plans and the more general countywide plan will
set the stage for the development of a utility that will implement programmatic and capital
improvement projects to manage strormwater. Activities will focus on addressing flooding in the
county, improving the water quality in South Puget Sound and protecting critical aquatic habitat.
Strormwater programs and capital improvements will be lunched through direct developer
contributions as new development occurs, grants and loans; a dedicated portion of the Real
Estate Excise Tax (REET 2) collected by the county; and utility fees.
Facility Needs
Mason County continues the development of a comprehensive countywide Stormwater
Management Plan. This planning process focuses on a review of existing stormwater policies
and the County s stormwater regulations. In addition, a review for regulatory consistency with
12.02.08
V/-79
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
the County's Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) and Low Impact Development (LID) Standards will
be completed. The plan addresses changing state, federal, and regional regulatory
requirements. This includes the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Phase II permit program of the Clean Water Act. This act controls water pollution by regulating
point sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the state. Also, the plan will consider
implementation of the 2005-2007 Puget Sound Conservation Plan as well as consider the
adoption of the Department of Ecology (DOE) 2005 Stormwater Design Manual for Western
Washington in .areas of the County beyond the designated Urban Growth Areas. The plan will
address evolving water quality needs affecting Hood Canal and South Puget Sound. Also the
plan will delineate program objectives and capital facility needs and identify funding sources to
implement required action elements.
The County will begin community environmental education and training activities in the Belfair,
Allyn Shelton and Hoodsport areas. This program will expand to other areas of sensitive water
quality in 2009 / 2010 and continuing throughout the county in later years.
The identification of capital projects to address both regional strormwater problems and the
need to retrofit existing development will complete during the planning process. Strormwater
planning in the urban growth areas and water quality monitoring by the County's Environmental
Health Section have identified needed capital projects. These projects will be address from
revenues secured from grants provided by the state. Revenues generated by the utility will fund
future capital facilities.
Floodingproblems in the Skokomish River watershed have been addressed in a
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan. This plan defines a total program of river
maintenance activities, valley creek maintenance measures, flood protection measures, ano
flood warning and emergency response procedures.
Mason County anticipates that the Skokomish River Watershed Comprehensive Flood Hazard
Management Plan will be completed and adopted in 2007.
12.02.08
VI-80
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
2009-2014 Capital Facilities Plan Worksheet
Public Works/Utilities & Waste Management
Fund: Storm Drainage System Development Fund/Stormwater Utility
Project Name. Storm Water Facilities Development
Estimates: Planning Level
Description: Upgrading and construction of stormwater facilities in the County to provide
affective stormwater management and treatment to reducing the risk of flood damage improve
water quality and enhance aquatic habitat.
Justifications: Stormwater planning has identified several areas within Mason County where
contamination is decreasing the water quality of South Puget Sound
Estimated Project Costs
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Total
Project
Management
27,000
12,000
6,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
135,000
Program
Design
Implernentatio
n
&
264,500
139,500
36,000
440,000
Strormwater
Project
&
Construction
Design
370,000
195,000
150,000
275,000
315,000
360,000
1,675,000
Total
Cost :
661,500
346,500
192,000
305,000
345,000
390,000
2,250,000
Funding
Sources:
150,000
100,000
50,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
360,000
Real
Estate
(REET)
Excise
Tax
Developer
contributions
Utility
GFC
Fees
&
10,000
10,000
225,000.
275,000
330,000
20,000
830,000
Grants/Loans
511,500
246,500
132,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
1,040,000
661,500
346,500
192,000
305,000
345,000
400,000
2,250,000
Total
Funding:
12.02.08
VI-81
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
* GRANT DETAIL
2009
$ 75,000 Oakland Bay
$ 75,000 Annas Bay
$ 361,500 New 1 Million $ grant
$ 511,500
2010
$246,500 New 1 million $ grant
2011
$ 142,000 New 1 million $ grant
2012
Unknown
Equals = $ 750,000 New 1 million $ grant
12.02.08
VI-82
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
2009-2014 Capital Facilities Plan Worksheet
Utilities, & Waste Management
Fund: Stormwater Utility
Project Name: Critical Habitat Rehabilitation
Estimates: Planning
Description: preservation and enhancement of critical aquatic habitat including purchase of
land or land conservation easement.
Justification: The loss of critical aquatic habitat can be attributed to poor stormwater
management. Improvements to and enhancement of aquatic habitat along county creeks,
streams, and in Puget Sound estuaries and shorelines will increase fish and shellfish
populations.
Estimated Project Costs (in thousands)
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
TOTAL
5
5
5
7.5
7.5
10
40
Prelim
Engineering
Environmental
5
5
5
10.5
2.5
2.5
30.5
Engineering
Design
Construction/including
accruing
critical
land
56.5
56.5
56.5
169.5
TOTAL
COST:
10
10
10
74.5
66.5
69
240
Funding
Sources:
5
5
5
10
15
40
Grants/Loans
Developer
contributions
Rates
5
5
5
64.5
10
46.5
10
51.5.
12.5
162.5
37.5
Real
estate
Excise .
Tax
(REET)
TOTAL
FUNDING:
10
10
10
74.5
66.5
69
240
12.02.08
VI-83
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
VI.9 PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES
Introduction
Mason County Public Works is responsible for engineering, construction, operation and
maintenance of approximately 640 miles of county roads. Currently staff are housed on the
S helton campus, the Central Shop on Johns Prairie Road and the Be!fair Shop.
Building 8, located on the Shelton campus, includes administrative services, accounting
services, environmental services, engineering and construction services and geographic
information services. The Information Services Section of Equipment Rental & Revolving Fund
(ER&R) is located a block away in Building 9. Road Maintenance and the Vehicle Maintenance
S ection of ER&R share the Central Shop facility located on Johns Prairie Road approximately 3-
miles north of Shelton. A small maintenance crew is located at the satellite shop in Belfair to
service roads in North Mason County.
P ublic Works has outgrown the Shelton campus facilities. The buildings located at the central
shop are over 50-years old, overcrowded and inefficient. The vehicle maintenance shop lacks
several modern amenities like insulation, women's restroom and building ventilation systems. A
lack of sufficient storage facilities results in expensive road maintenance equipment being
stored outside in the elements.
As a result, Public Works proposes to develop a master plan and construct a multi -use facility to
house the entire department. This will result in better communication and coordination of the
various sections in the department. A shared multi -use facility will provide more efficient use of
space and county resources. The Belfair Shop, however, will continue to operate as a satellite
facility.
Financing the planned multi -use facility requires the use of grants loans, and county road funds.
P roject costs shown 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 design work.
12.02.08
VI-84
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
2009-2014 Facilities Plan Worksheet - Public Works
Fund: County Road Fund and Equipment Rental & Revolving Fund
Project Name. New Belfair Shop
Estimates: Planning Level
Description. The Shop will include a work staging area, vehicle maintenance bay, crews
lunch/meeting room, restrooms & shower facilities, offices, vehicle and equipment storage and
materials storage.
Justifications: The current Belfair Shop is very old, it is located in a residential neighborhood
adjacent to Hood Canal and does not have it's own water source. The Shop is hooked up to the
neighbor's well. Concerns have been expressed about the proximity of the material storage to
the Canal. The site is woefully inadequate for the road maintenance services being provided to
the north end of the County. If the land trade negotiations are successful, there would be no
capital outlay for the land and the shop would be in a much more appropriate location.
Estimated Project Costs
2009
2010
2011
201.2
2013
2014
Total
Preliminary
Engineering
Install
8,000
8,000
Drilling
Site
Preparation
Utility
Well
25,000
25,000
20,000
25,000
25,000
20,000
Construction
Engineering
6,000
6,000
Construction
230,000
230,000
Cost :
314,000
314,000
Total
Funding
Sources:
In
314,000
314,000
House
Grants
Loans
Funding:
314,000
314,000
Total
12. 02. 08
VI-85
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
2009-2014 Facilities Plan Worksheet - Public Works
Fund: County Road Fund and Equipment Rental & Revolving Fund
Project Name. Satellite Maintenance Yard Development
Estimates: Planning Level
Description: Public Works will be developing selected sites at various locations across the
County to better serve the requirements of maintenance activities such as: clearing and grading,
installing wells and water systems, installing electric power to support site services constructing
equipment/materials storage buildings and facilities, paving storage sites and developing roads
on the properties. Acquisition of individual properties will supplement existing property holdings
to provide for uses such as sites for stormwater treatment facilities and disposal sites for ditch
spoils and slide materials from maintenance or construction excavations
Justifications: The changing mandates and requirements of road maintenance necessitate the
expansion / upgrade of certain facilities, while the need to develop stormwater detention
facilities and ditch spoil disposal sites require the purchase of property in specific locations.
Estimated .Project Costs
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Total
Preliminary
Engineering
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
60,000
Permits
Utilities
Property
Acquisition
Well
Drilling
&
20,000
20,000
30,000
20,000
30,000
30,000
150,000
Construction
Engineering
Construction
20,000
20,000
30,000
20,000
30,000
30,000
150,000
Cost:
50,000
50,000
70,000
50,000
70,000
70,000
360,000
Total
Funding
Sources:
In
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
300,000
House
Grants
20,000
20,000
20,000
60,000
Loans
Funding:
50,000
50,000
70,000
50,000
70,000
70,000
360,000
Total
12.02.08
VI-86
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
2009-2014 Capital Facilities Plan Worksheet - Public Works
Fund: County Road Fund and Equipment Rental & Revolving Fund
Project Name. Pole Barn Structure at Shelton -Matlock Road Site
Estimates: Planning Level
Description: The County Road Fund owns property on Shelton -Matlock Road that is currently
used as a fenced materials and equipment storage yard. The construction of a Pole Barn type
Structure on this site will help to facilitate the efficient deployment of crews and equipment to the
south end of the County, particularly during snow and ice conditions. The price below reflects a
fully enclosed metal structure.
Justifications: Currently crews assigned to maintain, plow and de-ice the south portion of the
County must go to the Central Shop to get the equipment needed to respond. When doing
scheduled maintenance in the south end, the crews end up using valuable working time
traveling to and from the Central Shop transporting heavy equipment, vehicles tools and
materials needed for their work. One of the Public Work's,long range goals is the placement of
satellite maintenance yards in several locations in the county to improve response and
efficiency.
Estimated Project Costs
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Total
Preliminary
Engineering
7,500
7,500
15,000
Site
Utilities
Prep
&
10,000
10,000
20,000
Construction
1,000
1,000
2,000
Engineering
Construction
57,500
57,500
115,000
Costs:
76,000
76,000
152,000
Total
Funding
Sources:
In
76,000
76,000
152,000
House
Grants
Loans
152,000
Funding:
76,000
76,000
152,000
Total
12. 02. 08
VI-87
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
2009-2014 Capital Facilities Plan Worksheet - Public Works
Fund: County Road Fund and Equipment Rental & Revolving Fund
Project Name. New Public Works Facility and Vehicle Maintenance Shop
Estimates: Construction Level
Description: The construction phase of this project will be complete at the end of 2008. In
2009, ER&R will be constructing the new Fueling Facility and the various divisions of Public
Works will be moving into the new facility. The Facility will hook up to City of Shelton Sewer
Service and Reclaimed Water in 2010 and Potable Water Service is scheduled to be available
in 2011. This final phase of the project will be financed with Public Works funds.
Justifications: The Central Shop used by the Road Maintenance division and the ER&R
Mechanical Shop has been identified as a priority replacement due to it's age, condition and
safety concerns Road Administration & Engineering have completely outgrown the current
office space and have personnel in other buildings and in hallways. The Emergency Services
department currently rents space from the Port, but the space does not comply with Homeland
Security's access restriction standards and the infrastructure is not reliable enough to serve as
the County's Emergency Operations Center.
Estimated Project Costs
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Total
Preliminary
Engineering
Utilities/
Site
Prep
Well
&
200,000
100,000
300,000
Construction
Engineering
Fuel
Facility
450,000
450,000
Costs:
450,000
200,000
100,000
750,000
Total
Funding
Sources:
In
450,000
200,000
100,000
750,000
House
Grants
Loans
Funding:
450,000
200,000
100,000
750,000
Total
12.02.08
VI-88
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
VI. 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 2009 to at least the year 2014 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
➢ Belfair Sewer 20 Year Finance and Rate Forecast (Appendix A)
➢ Cost Calculations for Build Out (Appendix B)
➢ Real Estate Excise Tax 1(REET1), REET 2, and .09 Sales Tax Revenues.
(Appendix C)
■ Solid Waste Management Facilities
County Administrative and Law Enforcement Buildings
P ublic Works Facilities
P arks and Recreation
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 2014. 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
12.02.08
VI-89
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008)
Capital Facilities
TABLE 10-1
COUNTY OWNED AND OPERATED CAPITAL FACILITY
IMPROVEMENT & FINANCE COSTS
YEARS 2009-2014
Capital
Facility
Category
Costs
Expenditures
Finance/Revenues
Improvement
Water
& Wastewater
Systems
30,781
30,781
30,781
Solid
Waste
Management
1,310
1,310
1,310
County
Administration
Buildings
&
Law
$4,612
$4,612
$4,612
Enforcement
Stormwater
Facilities
$2,532
$2,532
$2,532
Public
Works
Facilities
1,576
1,576
1,576
Parks &
Recreation
10,662
10,662
10,662
$141,417
$141,417
$141,417
Total
12.02.08
VI-90
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
Water and Wastewater Systems
The County owns and operates water utilities in the Belfair and Rustlewood areas. The County
also operates water treatment facilities for Rustlewood and Beard's Cove. There is no expected
expansion in any of the service utility areas with the exception fo the Belfair sewer. A 20 year
plan has been developed for sewer expansion to serve the entire Belfair Urban Growth Area. A
financial plan and rate structure has been developed to accommodate this growth. The Belfair
S ewer Finance and Rate Forecast, Facility Expansion Map, and Phasing Program Map are
incorporated into this Chapter as Appendix A.
Facility worksheets provided in Section VI.4 summarize the planned water supply and sewer
system capital improvements over the next six years.
S olid Waste
Facility Worksheets provied in Section VI.4-present revenue sources and expenditure levels for Mason
County solid waste services from 2009 to 2014.
Municipal Buildings and Law Enforcement Facilities
Anynecessary or proposed improvements to municipal buildings and law enforcement facilities are
provided in the worksheets in Section VI-7 for years 2009-21014.
Parks and Recreation
The .County has. identified over the six year period large number of park and recreation irprovements..
The projects include improvements to existing parks and boat. The total cost for these improvements
are expected to be approximately $10.6 million (see Section VI-5).
S tormwater Management
Mason County created a stormwater utility in 2008. The initial emphasis for Stormwater
management will be placed on the Belfair/Allyn area. The utility outlines future expansion to
other areas of the County with the whole county being included within the boundaries fo the
utility by 2013. the County also adopted the 2005 Department of Ecology Stormwater Drainage
Manual and Low Impact Development Standards which will be enforced in the Belfair and Allyn
U GAs first with the entire county being subjected to the requirements as water quality
monitoring dictates. The following tables outline expected Capital projects in the stormwater
utility in 2009 — 2014.
12.02.08
VI-91
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
APPENDIX A
ASON ' OUNTY ® = ELFAIR EWERING ''ROJECT
FINANCIAL AND '`ATE FORECAST - JULY 8, 2008
Purpose
The purpose of this document is to provide a current financial forecast for the Belfair sewer
project, to support the County's efforts to receive GMA approval for the project.
A financial forecast was prepared with the Wastewater Management Plan. Since completion
of that document there have been significant changes to financial assumptions including
additional service areas, updated capital costs, and additional secured grants.
The County has existing sewer utilities with policies in place to support fiscally and financially
prudent operation of those entities. This forecast presents a .rate forecast that modifies some
of those policy assumptions where it may bring the rate closer to an "affordable" range.
Doing so may bring on financial risk, and so two forecast scenarios are presented here: a
'conservative" scenario and an "affordability" scenario: In the conservative scenario, .the
County's current policies continue to be used in the Belfair area. In the affordability scenario,
the County uses all policy options to make the rates as affordable as possible in the initial
years.
Data Sources and Assumptions
The capital financing analysis uses capital costs, project timing, and capital inflation rate as
projected and provided by CH2M Hill Also provided were existing ERUs and new annual
connections, projected O&M costs and estimated timing of capital spending. Each set of data
was provided for four different phases including 1. Initial Connection (this is the Core Service
area evaluated in the Master Plan), 2. Old Belfair Hwy Connection, 3. New Kirk Road
Connection and 4. Southern Connection.
At the time of the forecast presented in the Master Plan, the County had secured $16 million
in grants and $2.4 million in state loans (SRF). The County has since secured a total of $24
million in grants and has $3 million of state loans available.
The forecast period includes 2008 through 2025. However, actual 2007 costs are included in
the summary and financing analysis in order to consider total costs and total resources for
the project.
12.02.08
VI-92
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008)
Capital Facilities
Capital Costs
The following table shows the capital costs, both in current dollars as well as inflated at 8%
annually to the year of projected spending. Capital costs are scheduled to be complete
before the first year of operation for each of the service areas.
Table 1. Capital Cost Data
Capital Costs (2008 $)
Initial Connection
Old Belfair Hwy Connection
New Kirk Road Connection
Southern Connection
Total
Escalated Capital Costs
2007 2008
2009 2010
2014
2015
2016
2018 2019
2024 2025
Total
$ 780,000 $ 4,500,000 $12,720,000
$ 780,000 $ 4,500,000 $ 12,720,000
$780,000 $ 4,500,000 $ 13,737,600
$20,000,000
$ 20,000,000
$23,328,000
4,785,000
$ 4, 785,000
$ 7,593,194
3,785,000
$ 3,785,000
$ 6,486,825
1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,850,930
3,298,760 1,592,511
$,3,298,760 $ 1,592,511
$ 7,121,775 $ 3,713,161
1,183,057
$1,183,057 $
$4,053,085 $
$ 38,000,000
9,570,000
4,891,271
1,183,057
$ 53,644,328
$ 73,164,570
The capital costs for the Initial Connection are projected 2007 through 2010, with year 1 of
operation, 2011. This includes treatment plant costs for enough capacity to serve the four
identified service areas (at the projected rate of growth), as well as the infrastructureplanned
to serve the Initial Connection service area.
Capital costs to build infrastructure to connect customers in the Old Belfair Hwy Connection
are planned for 2014 through 2016 with first year of operation targeted for 2017.
The New Kirk Road connection is projected to begin service in 2020 with capital spending in
the two years preceding, and the Southern Connection in 2025 after infrastructure is built in
2024.
Customer Base.
The customer base is defined in Equivalent Residential Units (ERUs), and it is projected to
grow at 5% annually. The Sewer Master Plan completed in 2007 forecasted growth at about
9% annually, though, the financial projections in that plan also used the more conservative
rate of 5% annually.
The customer base is defined with two types of service connections: existing and new. The
analysis distinguishes between developed properties with existing permitted septic systems
(as of Jan 1 2008) and new connections since the sewer project has begun.
The following table summarizes the annual ERU projection used in the forecast.
12.02.08
VI-93
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
Table 2 ERU and Growth Summary
ERUs
Initial Connection
Old Belfair Hwy Connection
Newkirk Road Connection
Southern Connection
Total
2011 2012
617
0
0
0
617
648
0
0
0
648
2013 2014
681
0
0
0
681
715
0
0
0
715
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
751
0
0
0
751
788
0
0
0
788
827
210
0
0
1,037
869
230
0
0
1,099
912
250
0
0
1,162
958
270
19
0
1,247
1,006
290
49
0
1,345
1,056
310
79
0
1,445
1,109
330
109
0
1,548
1,164
350
139
0
1,653
2025
1 223
370
169
21
1,783
Operations and Maintenance
Operations and Maintenance costs were provided in current dollars for the first year of
operation for each service area. For rate projections, annual O&M costs are escalated at 3%
annually. The rate forecast separately calculates excise taxes on projected rate revenue,
which are added to these O&M costs for rate projection calculations.
Table 3. Operations and Maintenance Projection
2011
Annual O&M
Initial Connection $341,800 $341,800 $341,800 $341,800 $341,800
Old Belfair Hwy Connection
New Kirk Road Connection
Southem Connection
Total
Escalated Annual O&M
MMM
EMEIN
MMM
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
$341,800 $341,800 $341,800 $341,800 $341,800 $341,800
- 97,000 97,000 97,000 97,000 97,000
- 35,890 35,890
$ 341,800
97,000
35,890
2023
$ 341,800
97,000
35,890
2024
$ 341,800
97,000
35,890
2025
$341,800
97,000
35,890
10,670
$341,800 $341,800 $341,800 $341,800 $341,800 $341,800 $438,800 $438,800 $438,800 $474,690 $474,690 $474,690 $474,690
$373,494 $384,699 $396,240 $408,127 $420,371 $432,982 $572,534 $589,711 $607402 $676,794 $697,098 $718,011 $739,552
$ 474,690
$761,738
$ 485,360
$ 802,226
The Initial Connection begins 2011 with $341,800 of O&M, escalated from 2008 to $373,494.
In year 2025 when the fourth service area begins receiving service, escalated O&M costs
total $802,226.
Capital Facilities Charge - CFC (conversion/connection charges)
Calculation of a connection charge for the Belfair sewenng project considers total project
costs, 2025 customer base secured grants toward funding the identified capital costs and
reduction of unit costs to customers paying a ULID to fund a portion of their capital costs.
Separate charges are calculated for conversions (existing development) and new
development. In order to distinguish the separate charges, the connection charge for existing
development is referred to as a `conversion charge,' while the charge for new development
continues to be referred to as a "connection charge."
The charges are calculated as three separate components of the total. One reason is so that
if a developer chooses to build and finance particular infrastructure ahead of the County
doing so, there is a clear dollar amount per ERU of credits that they may receive toward their
connection charge, based on the type of project they are building and for how many ERU
units. Another is to properly reflect the Old Belfair Hwy Connection ULID contribution and
adjust their connection charge accordingly. And finally, it is done to provide an opportunity
for existing development (as defined in the ERU section) to benefit from available grants
toward reduction of their treatment unit cost.
The total unit cost before adjustments is about $30,000 per ERU (using the number of ERUs
12.02.08
VI-94
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
projected in 2025).
The ULID-funded projects (in the Old Belfair Hwy Connection service area) are then
deducted from the cost total. The ERU basis is also adjusted to recognize ERUs served by
the ULID-funded projects.
The number of ERUs served by the identified treatment costs through 2025 total 1,783.
ERUs served by the trunk and collection costs after removing the Old Belfair Hwy Connection
portion total 1,413.
Capital Financing
As discussed in the Master Plan, utility formation requires consideration of unique cash flow
constraints. An existing utility has an existing revenue stream and some level of cash
reserves to support capital financing and debt repayment. In the case of a new utility, capital
costs will be incurred preceding a revenue stream from a rate -paying customer base Even
use of grant funds requires approximately 60 days of financing since funds are dispersed on
a reimbursement basis The capital financing analysis developed for this rate projection uses
a mix of the County's funding and financing options to complete 2007 through 2010 capital
spending preceding connection of customer base.
The capital financing analysis considers use of the lowest cost funding options first and
balances the total financing need with those that have a greater rate impact The financing
priority is as follows: ,1.. Secured grants (CTED), 2. Secured state loans (SRF),.3.
Accumulated cash reserves [from CFCs or projected Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) funds]
and 4. Revenue bonds.
An exception to this priority list is that the County is planning to fund the Old Belfair Hwy
Connection trunk and collection line costs with a ULID. The County would borrow funds to.
finance those costs, and they would be repaid through property assessments within the
service area boundary.
In order to have funds available to finance the first 60 days of grant use, a combination of
SRF and grant use is projected to fund capital costs for each of the four years of capital
spending Because SRF repayment begins the fiscal year after the first draw debt service
obligations are projected begin ahead of year one of operation and therefore require another
County resource for repayment. The County has pledged $200,000 annually of REET
monies from the General Fund beginning in 2009 to help fund the project. These funds allow
the County to make SRF payments that are due ahead of the 2011 first year of operation.
Without the REET funds, the County would not be able to utilize all lowest cost financing
options first, but rather would need to issue revenue bonds and capitalize the interest for the
period preceding utility revenue collection.
Revenue bonds are needed to balance the net financing need after use of all available
grants, state loans and any available cash reserves. Revenue bonds not only affect rates
through debt repayment obligation, but also carry a security requirement, bond coverage.
Bond coverage defines an annual minimum level of revenue the utility must collect. The
coverage factor is a factor applied to the utility's revenue bond payment in each year of
12.02.08
VI-95
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
repayment. It requires revenues be sufficient to make the bond repayment as well as an
additional percentage of that amount. For example a bond coverage factor of 1.25 requires
that rate revenue (along with any other eligible revenues) be sufficient to fund annual
operating and maintenance expenses plus 125% of the revenue bond payment. Coverage
will be discussed further with the rate projections.
The following table summarizes planned annual financing of the capital costs for this project.
Table 4. Projected Annual Capital Funding Plan
2007 2008 2009 2010
Capital Costs (2008 $)
Projected Capital Funding Need $ 780,000 $ 4,500,000 $ 13,737,600
ULID-Funded`
Grant -Funded
SRF Loans
Capital Reserves (CFC Rev, etc)
Revenue Bonds
Short-term Financing
Total Funding
$ - $ - $
780,000 31833,333 12,270,302
666,667 1,467,299
$ 780, 000 $ 4,500,000 $ 13, 737, 600
*Old Belfair Hwy Connection collection/trunk costs
$ 23,328,000
7,116,365
899,535
0
11,833,981
3,478,119
$ 23,328,000
2014 2015 2016
$ 7,593,194 $ 6,486,825 $ 1,850,930
$7,593,194 $6,486,825 $ 1,850,930
$ 7,593,194 $ 6,486,825 $ 1,850,930
2018 2019
$7,121,775 $3,713,161
1,487,387 1,069,338
5,634,388 21643,823
$ 7,121,775 $ 3,7131161
2024
$ 4,053,085
4,053,085
$ 4,053,085
Total
$ 73,164,570
$ 15,930,949
24,000,000
3,033,500
6,609,811
20,112,192
3,478,119
$ 73,164,571
The County is planning on a ULID to finance the Old Belfair Hwy Connection infrastructure
costs, planned for 2014 through 2016, totaling $9,570,000 in current dollars and $15,930,949
in projected future dollars. The County would issue debt for the projected $16 million total
and repayment would occur through annual assessment revenue collected from the Old
Belfair Hwy Connection properties
Secured grant funds are used from 2007 through 2010, totaling $24 million. SRF loan
proceeds are projected to be spent from 2008 through 2010. The balance of capital financing
needed for the Initial Connection period is $15,312,100. This consists of a projected $11.8
million in conventional municipal revenue bonds and $3.5 million of short-term financing.
The purpose of the short-term financing is to allow the County to use CFC revenue from
conversions and new connections in 2011 to reduce the rate burden from debt repayment.
Based on results of the connection charge analysis, an expected $4.1 million of CFC revenue
is anticipated to be collected in 2011. Of that, $400,000 is planned to support existing annual
debt service obligations, leaving $3.7 million available for project costs. Since capital
financing is completed before customers connect, it is assumed the County could secure
short-term financing for what could be repaid with the net available 2011 CFC revenue. This
reduces the debt repayment obligation from rates.
On July 5, 2008, the 2-year municipal bond yield was 2.75%. Assuming this interest rate and
a 0.5% issuance cost, the County could realize debt reduction of $3.5 million by using the
$3.7 million of 2011 CFC revenue.
The following table shows a summary of total costs to finance and total resources used.
Table 5. Summary of Capital Financing 2007-2025 — Affordable Scenario
12.02.08
VI-96
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008)
Capital Facilities
Total Costs Current $
Total Costs Escalated
Total Grants
Total State Loans
Total ULID
Total CFCs, other reserves
Total Revenue Bonds
$ 53,644,328
$ 73,164,570
$ 24,000,000
3,033,500
15,930,949
7,016,123
23,183,999
$ 73,164,571
The above capital financing summary represents a rate scenario in which some level of
available capital funds are used directly for debt repayment for rate relief, rather than
reserved and available for cash -funding capital. The most conservative scenario does not
consider capital revenues for debt repayment (with the exception of the short-term financing).
They are reserved in the Capital Fund and used to cash -fund future projects, which would
reduce the need for future revenue bonds.
The following table shows the capital financing summary for the more conservative forecast,
in which capital revenues are not utilized for debt. repaymentand are reserved in the Capital
Fund to cash -fund future projects.
12. 02. 08
VI-97
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008)
Capital Facilities
Table 6. Summary of Capital Financing 2007-2025 — Conservative Scenario
Total Costs Current $
Total Costs Escalated
Total Grants
Total State Loans
Total ULID
Total CFCs, other reserves
Total Revenue Bonds
$ 53,644,328
$ 73,164,570
$ 24,000,000
3,033,500
15,930,949
15,127,436
15,072,685
$ 73,164,570
The result is that no additional revenue bond borrowing is required after the Initial Connection
financing and $15 million of capital reserves fund the remainder of projected capital costs
(with the exception of the ULID).
Revenue
There are four types of revenue considered to meet annual cash obligations. These include
revenue from rates, interest earnings on the operating fund, and use of REET funds and CFC
revenue toward debt repayment. In order to provide the greatest level of rate relief, a
scenario is provided that uses 100% of REET funds and $400 000 per year of CFC revenue
(which represents about 70% of total CFC revenue initially, going to under 20% by 2025)
toward annual debt repayment. The conservative alternative is that REET funds are used
only for debt repayment that precedes utility operation. In the remainder of the forecast,
REET funds are reserved for cash -funding future capital. CFC revenue is also reserved for
cash -funding future capital rather than supporting annual debt repayment obligations.
REET funds and CFC revenue are also considered in the coverage calculation. The
County's bond counsel has indicated that dedicated REET funds would be an eligible
revenue for the coverage calculation and that the County could specifically write them in to a
bond covenant as an eligible revenue source. The risk is the potential that the County will not
collect sufficient REET funds to make the full $200,000 support to the utility in a given year.
Similarly due to the variable nature of revenue collection from CFCs which are also subject
to economic conditions, there is risk associated with including CFCs in the coverage
calculation as eligible revenue. Typically, coverage is tested at a higher factor when
including CFCs
The two scenarios vary in coverage calculation in that the conservative scenario tests
coverage at a 1.25 factor and excludes REET funds and CFCs as eligible revenues and the
scenario that targets affordability includes REET funds and 75% (an element of conservatism
within this scenario) of annual CFC revenue, though tests at a higher coverage factor of 1.50
The higher rate revenue need of the total cash and total coverage obligations becomes the
basis for setting rates. Coverage is the driving factor in most years before the second service
area begins operation The total rate obligation, divided by the total ERUs in each year
results in a monthly unit cost per ERU. Because this amount varies annually and typically
trends down with ERU growth, operating reserves are managed to set a single rate for
12.02.08
VI-98
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
periods within the forecast.
Sewer Connection Zone Characterization
Initial Connection Zone:
The area consists of scattered residential and the "core" commercial corridor for the Belfair
community. A majority of the commercial development is underutilized because of little organized
infrastructure, especially sewers. The area is the most problematic for the contribution of pollutants to
Hood Canal. The County has secured funds to construct a collection system and a Membrane
BioReactor (MBR) treatment facility to serve the area along State Route # 3 which transverses the
length of Belfair. Following the construction and commissioning of the NBR treatment plant all
properties within 500 feet of the initial sewers lines will be required to connect to the Belfair sewer
system. All on -site expenses incurred for connection will be borne by the property owner. Once
connection occurs a monthly utility rate will be collected from each property.
Old Belfair Highway Connection:
The area is a larger urban density residential community north of the Belfair "core" commercial
corridor. Many of the owner occupied structures are pre -and early posts World War II stock. The
structures use on -site systems as their method of sewage disposal. Because of older on -site systems,
denser development patterns and high ground water tables the area likely contributing nitrates and
fecal contamination to the canal. The area is low -to moderate income and financing large sewer.
improvements will be difficult without Federal and state assistance. The county will relay on grants
and loans and County supported Utility Local Improvement Districts (ULID) to develop sewers in the
area.
Newkirk Road Connection Zone:
The area is divided into two sectors. The area to the north is vacant, larger parcels held by four
developers. It is planned and zoned for commercial and industrial development. The area to the
south is comprised of vacant properties still in large parcels with a single owner. The land is planned
and zoned for higher destiny residential development. There is current demand for the development of
the northern area. The development of the sewer collection system to serve the northern area will
occur as the MBR plant is developed at developer expense. The southern area will remain in large
tracts until near the end of the UGA planning period.
Southern Connection:
The area is the most difficult to develop because of environmental constraints. There is some
scattered low -density residential development but most of the land remains in large undeveloped
tracts. Portions of the area will be impacted by the development of the Belfair by-pass. The properties
will remain vacant until the later years of the planning period.
12.02.08
VI-99
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008)
Capital Facilities
BELFAIR SEWER SYSTEM
Connection Zones
Map 1
2
Dom Commissioners
Ord:no ce Humber
Lynda Rang Erickson astray 1 Date
Tlm Sheldon D strict 2 Date
P.css GoAaPher D:s&ld 3 Date
Rebecca S Rogers. Lea el Me Board Date
7
IN
1
i
/ .l
/ / r
/
NEWKIRK RD CONNEciION
Legend
Mier amiss
�, �� �Bellul'UGP
County ea.my
'v SIMMS
12.02.08
VI-100
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008)
Capital Facilities
BELFAIR SEWER SYSTEM
Connection Zones
Map 2
County Commissioner.
Orcanan_e N•imuer
Lynda Ring Entdrson. Dian 1 Dale
DDm Sheldon, Dulncl 2 Dale
Ross oallagMx. CIsRM 3 Dale
Rebecca S Rogers, Clark of the Board Date
Legend
Water Bodin
County Scold/icy
'\. Saves
12.02.08
VI-101
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008)
Capital Facilities
BELFAIR SEWER SYSTEM
Connection Zones
Map 3
MURRAY SMITH ASSSSOCIA ES
avenge resart
County Commissioners
Ordinance Number
Lynda Ring Erickson Disbud 1 Dale
Tim Sheldon Dint 2 Dam
Rom Gallagher, O Irih 3 DWe.
Rebecca S Rogers, Clark al the Board Dale
,,.".WATER'''':
RECLAMATION
ss S.ACILR/ ..
0 530 110OG
NE1:445111.1cRO,CUWJECIRIN
,. •_ _ a_
U
1 APPLICATION
2,000
reet
0,25 0.5 1
Miles
12.02.08
V1-102
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008)
Capital Facilities
BELFAIR SEWER SYSTEM
Connection Zones
Map 4
FORCE Man.
12.02.08
VI-103
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008)
Capital Facilities
APPENDIX "B"
* these costs are from Facility Plan Supplemental Information Transmission to Belfair Facility
Items of Work and Material
U GA Gravity Sewer Collection System
8" Gravity Sewer Pipe 0-6 Feet Deep
8" Gravity Sewer Pipe 6-9 Feet Deep
8" Gravity Sewer Pipe 9-12 Feet Deep
10" Gravity Sewer Pipe 0-6 Feet Deep
15" Gravity Sewer Pipe 9-12 Feet Deep
18" Gravity Sewer Pipe 6-9 Feet Deep
48" STD Precast Manhole
Sanitary Sewer Service Connection
P ump Station
Electrical Service to Pump Station
P ump Station Mechanical Equipment
Wetwell
Chemical Feed/ Electrical Building
Odor Control
Electrical Equipment
Telemetry/SCADA
Generator
Fencing
S ite Work and Landscaping
Erosion Control
Valved and Vault
Meter and Vault
Total
6" Forcemain
Grinder Pump
3" Forcemain
48" STD Precast Manhole
RR Crossing
Unit Unit Price
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
EA
EA
LS
LS
LS
SF
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
LF
EA
LF
EA
EA
Contingency 20%
$85.00
$90.00
$100.00
$120.00
$200.00
$200.00
$5,000.00
$1,200.00
$10,000.00
$325,000.00
$80,000.00
$150.00.:
$60,000.00
$150,000.00
$35,000.00'.
$60,000.00
$5,000.00
$15,000.00
$3,500.00
$40,000.00
$20,000.00
$803,650.00
$50.00
$6,000.00
$35.00
$5,000.00
$25,000.00
$102.00
$108.00
$120.00
$144.00
$240.00
$240.00
$6,000.00
$1,440.00
$12,000.00
$390,000.00
$96,000.00
$180.00
$72,000.00
$180,000.00
$42,000.00
$72,000.00
$6,000.00
$18,000.00
$4,200.00
$48,000.00
$24,000.00
$964,380.00
$60.00
$7,200.00
$42.00
$6,000.00
12. 02. 08
VI-104
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
Appendix C
12.02.08
VI-105
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
N
N
0)
co
O
((t)
at
o
$ 2,232,936
$ 4,140,595
NC
r
$ 14,678
$ 186,000
69
$ 1,200,000
0
V
$ 3,100,000
$ 778,200
$ 6,478,878
m
m
o f
a
co
v
m
�
(9
(a
(»
69
(e
el
N
$ 56,464
$ 811,850
(h.
CO
(V
9
$ 871,137
7
r
N.
$ 31,000
0
00
Oo.
N
$ 200,000j
$ 300,000
I0
N
II:�0)
CO
69
N
I`-
r
W
LC)c
r
t`
CO
r
69
(A
(A
69
(A
MI
CO
ODm
LO
CO
r
IN
CO
N
$ 817,448
CO
(O
N
CD
0CV
$ 200,000
$ 200,000]
$ 200,000
MV
CN
at
CO
(0LO
n
M
$ 817,448
13
W.
M
m
O.
o
0
0
Q.
>,
h
ct
0
C:.
a
3
m
U
j
K
2
d
o
o
m
-
m
e
b
t
t
U
b
'11-
m
O
N
69
69
69
69
E9
'to the City of Shelton are. completed. It wilt be necessary SO adjust expenditures Infuture years for this scenario.
N
0)
c0
-(A
709102
°.
v
'C
07
W
2,498J
$ 31,000
000'00Z $
$ 200,000
o
o
o
0)
�
$ 662,418
CO
718,334
*
a
N
-.
.,
0
c
E
0
U
o
Ro
e.
Li
t
EA.
a.
m
n
E
E
N
C
V
0
N
C
NI
G
0)
LLO C)`m
fA
f•
Ni
69
N
yr
(9
e)
m
662,712
69:
(V
$ 31,000
$200,000
O
(H
$ 130,480
$ 663,859
W
69
$ 672,651
$ 672,651
O
N
to
�I
N
U
69
4 _
il-.
"erO.
C)
NI
814,680
619,357
$ 40,734I
P
CO
N
$ 31,000
$ 200,000
$ _ 200,000
O
O
-0)
69
O
m
r
$ 1,465,305.
CO
CI)
ti
ICE
et
r
V/
(A
(9
69
$ 2,232,936
LC)
$ 31,000
N'.
$ 200,000
$ 1,500,000
CO
(A
CO
er
(A
$ 814,680
NO
.3,
,'co
C)
0
N
N
CO
N.
ei
CO,,,'
V!
69
Beginning Balance
Rural Counties Sales.& Use Tax
Interest Income
ITotal Resources _I
'Expenditures/Uses
Interfund Chg for Services
Economic Development Council
Gapltal Improvement Projects:
lOakland Bay Shellfish Protection Dist
'Begat: Wastewater Water Reclamation System
0E
CO
t
2
City of Shelton Regional Sewer
Total Planned Expenditures
Total Ending Fund Balance
0
�0_
-
~
0
K
w
C
>
K
son Canty Rural Counties (.09) Fund Capital Improvement Plan 2009-2014 6-17-08.xls
excel/capimprpt
co
12.02.08
VI-106
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008) Capital Facilities
$ 589,455
COo
0)
��
O
$ 85,913
$ 5,407,306
CO
r
$ 686,505
00)
In
CO
Cl
Ea
$ 555,000
$ 11800,000
L $ 425,000
$ 400,000
0
O
QNI
(0
r
om
5,407,306
7-
69
04
69
69
09
69
69
69
CO
$ 74815951
'
f9
o
I'-
69
0)
Ea
55,066
69
0
0
OO
$ 85 000
r$ 754,331
$ 763,492
1998 GO Bonds - last bond payment is in 2012 - that payment is in the amount of$173,167 - in 2013 the 2008 GO Bond payment increases to $215,011
t_
N
69
�_
I
r
V
@
E9
N
Ea
N
69
69
69
(9
69
69
'(h
$ 42,949
$ 726,791
e
rr
CV
$ 771,888
CO COO
N
Ui
'
E9
10
(C)
fA
'
e3
$ 300,000
0
U)
CO
69
00
O
0
d3
$ 757,700
$ 14,188
$ 771,888
OO
«)
N
e3
63
e
€e
C
O
O'J iV
CU;N
$ 160,066
$ 705,622
'
(h
CD
0
CO
69
CO
CD
N
NCO-
(fl
N
CO
$ 55,066
EA
$ 300,000
$ 85,000',
0
Q.
0-
O.
f9
$ 830,742
$ 873,691
Note REST 1 increased 3 0% ea. yr, interest income 5% X Beg. Fund balance,interfund chgs increase 5% ea yr
CD
CO
C')
h
cor.
Efl
r
0
0))
N
0 r
L6
r
V
fR
r
e)
e3
Ef)
E9
S
yyam�}}
EEO
BS
$ 288,776
O�
0
CO
CO
E9
d3
COO.
$ 9881285
N- CS)
CO
69
(MO
r
$ 55,066
'
dj.
0
0
O
0
09
03
$ 85,000
0
0
O'
O
6f3
r
N
N
CO
d3
CO
O
O
CO
CO
N
of
O
f9
Purchase: of lower half of Building from Road Fund is $700,000 @ est 4,92 % for 20 years
r
0
N
r
63.
cr
69
E9
r
f9
r
6`3
E9
a te;
- =:0
J O
Cr
CO
N
(No
CD
69
CCOO
N
N
E9
172,962
0 55,066
'
69
O
O
O
CO
69
u 85,000
O
O
0
0
O.
O
0
N
611030:305 I
N.
N-
CO
W.
O
O)
O
0
0)
r
N
O
(n
r
l()
CO CD
CO
N
C)
CO
r
68
E9'
69
E9
E.
EA
�.
69
En
64
64
6-.
E9
EA
O
gn
sA
C� R
ltlo0�
$ 555,000
CO
V
N
(O
obir
CO
M
55,066
'
69
0
O
0
'
EA
CO
Qom)
N
CO
r.
Co
N
CO
N
CO
r
Q
O
CO
E9
CO;
L6O
II)
10
E9
N
ON
0
N
rCOO
N
E9
$ 64
C0
r
°
E9
r
r
E9
r
E9
N
r
r
E9
69
FA
e3'
E9
63.69
t
v�S
.�'
H
Revenues/Resources
`0
O
'Beginning Fund Balance.350-000-000 -
,-
W
C
Grant to purchase Gddsborough Creek Property
Interest Income
-
F
Expenditures/Uses
Interfund Chas
Bond Debt Service 1998 GOBonds
IBond Debt Service 2008 GO Bonds 3rd & Pine Property
Loan Purchase Property from Road Fund
Capital Improvement Projects'
Purchase Gddborough Creek Property_
ICap imprv/Repairsexisting facilities
c
ea
0
0
al
00-
U
0
0
Trails Development" Program - Annual - Parks.
Parks& Trails.Office Improvements
Total Planned Expenditures
Est. Ending Fund Balance 350-000-000
m
F
43
0.
ECC
0
W
to
CC
co
C2
12.02.08
VI-107
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008)
Capital Facilities
, pm
N
F
$ 405,102I
w
$ 4,176,937
080
www
$ 425,000 1
og
CD
www
w
$ 14,678
sog,
ww
N
09
www
$ 4,020,000
$ 561,875 I
s0,
m
ww
$ 230,000I
8
awwwwww
asses
$ 265,000.
ss
NN
wwww
s
N
$ 120,000.
$ 400,000 I
5' 200000I
8
$ 150,000
$ 300,000
$ 10,211,553
w
$ 1,087,048I
$ 748,594
co
as0
$ 35,000 I
0
a
.-
N
Etc,.
m
PO
O
45,000
$ 50,000
$182,753
$ 1,707,241
$- 1,889,994
$ 837,862:I
-Kr
rq
wco
cocoww
-$ 4,000,000.1
$ 5;606;546
$ 2,623
w0
$ 35,000.I
to
$ 4,000,000
w.
cow
V�
va
In
on
w
S 45,000
$ 1,087.048.
$ 5,606,546:
ante
N
$ 1,440,227 f
$_ 72,011
w.
$ 705,622
w
w
w
w.ww
w
ww
1
$ 35,000
$ 82500.I
$ I
www
win
$ 25,000
ww
ww
wwww
www
$ 290,000I
w
.»w
v
$ 20,000 I $ 20,000 I
$ 100,000 I $ 100,000 �I
20000I $ 20,000I
w.
$ -
$ 50,000I
ww
O>
w
N.
r
N
w
Note:Chgs for Accounting EOpertfr to CIE' increased 5%ea yr, REET3%ea. yr, int income 5% XBeginning .Fund -gal
�$r
CD
to
$ 685,070
69-
w
W
w:rq
O
co
w
$ 2,785,106I
$ 2,379
$ 10,000
O
N
w
$ 82,500
w
w
w
w8
www
o
"
w
w
w8
www
8w
d
ww
8
Nco
w
$ 25,000.
w8
w
w
o
w
$ 2,785,106
kCV
i
to
:o
w
?
R
�-
w
r
S.
w
�o
w
w
88
w
V
w
N
w
8888,
w
w
"
w
Nro;
w
w
$ 20,000
N
w.w
w
8
w
w
co
w
w
w
$ 230,000:_
w
-
w
8
..
_
8
o
ES
$ 1,067,766.I
or
r.
S
of
N
$
Tjn
I 1,479,755
$ 73,988
w
$. 645,744
$ 700,000 I
8
1p
se,
ww
i
Eft
w
`,$ 2959,487I
-
w
O
M
w0:“
pw
in
co
a
to
w
w
w
a
w
w
w
$ 230,000
to
a
to-
w6
a
V
a
co
co
wwww.
a
$ 30,000I
a � a
6>
-
jw.w
. g
3
.} S.
v^
w69�9
m
co
m
cv
s
5 �
e
..
Revenues/Resources,
Beg Balance (REST 2 Fund) budget.
Operations:
Interest:(REEf 2 Fund)
O
N.
RCO Grant Mason Lake Boat Launch
RCO.GrantTruman Glick
RCO Grant MCRA Improvements
08
>
a)0
a
r
0
t-
t
to
1_
a
I.L.
$_
Expenditures/Uses.
.ar
O
oar
g
E
0
=
inEo
b
U
C
0
z
0
0
o
p
�_.
Transfer Out to Storm Drainage System Dev F�
MCRA Professional Services
Latimers Landing Proj. Mgmt
Mason Lake Park Prof Svcs.
Oakland Bay Professional Services
MCRA Maintenance Facility
0
Latimer's Landing Boat Launch
(Mason County Recreation Area Capital Improvi
.MCRA Field Drainage
'..Mason Lake County Park
Sandhill:County Park
hill County Field #3 Renovation
_
L
Union Park.
a.
l$
vY
a
N
2
Watson Wildwood Park
Union Boat. Launch'
:Menard'S Landing Pads
Transfer Out To Parks: C/E reim-..capital .impry
rejects 1
welts
Rustlewood Dump Station
Rustievood Water System storage tank
Eaag bee &Gtawnde ItlfraslraCCtryYr
Sidewalks;parking lots
-fatal all REST 2:Expenditures
(Ending Fund Balance
Tntatllcac
RCO Grant Latimer's Landing Dev. PI
b.
a
E
O
Ein
fr
a
(Truman Glick M
Sand
CI
1541.40.63.0010
0
o
8
in
597 00 00 0480
t
576 80 41 0300
0
[57680 41.0400
576.80.41.0130
ni
�
[594.76.63.0100
594.76.63.0200
594.76.63.0300
594.76.63.0311
594.76.63.0400
594.76.63.0500
594.76.63.051E
0
I594.76.63.0700.
594.76.63.0800
594.76.63.0900..
594.76.63.1300.
08
cnomno
p
tAn
AO
8$
p
$8
•r c
Drainage
12.02.08
VI-108
ATTACHMENT C
To Ordinance Noe 129-08
Mason County Comprehensive Plan -
Transportation
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008)
Capital Facilities
BELFAIR SEWER SYSTEM
Connection Zones
Map 3
'��•. WATER'..-.'".:
REM:M.1A1tON
APPLICATION
$1?E
Legend
WON eo4 ,
Balra uc
L._l County Boundary
sv..is
Parcels
12. 02. 08
VI-102
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008)
Capital Facilities
BELFAIR SEWER SYSTEM
Connection Zones
Map 4
as
12.02.08
VI-103
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008)
Capital Facilities
APPENDIX "B"
* these costs are from Facility Plan Supplemental Information Transmission to Belfair Facility
Items of Work and Material
U GA Gravity Sewer Collection System
8" Gravity Sewer Pipe 0-6 Feet Deep
8" Gravity Sewer Pipe 6 9 Feet Deep
8" Gravity Sewer Pipe 9-12 Feet Deep
10" Gravity Sewer Pipe 0-6 Feet Deep
15" Gravity Sewer Pipe 9-12 Feet Deep
18" Gravity Sewer Pipe 6-9 Feet Deep
48" STD Precast Manhole
S anitary Sewer Service Connection
P ump Station
Electrical Service to Pump Station
P ump Station Mechanical Equipment
Wetwell
Chemical Feed/ Electrical Budding
Odor Control
Electrical Equipment
Telemetry/SCADA
Generator
Fencing
S ite Work and Landscaping
Erosion Control
Valved and Vault
Meter and Vault
Total
6" Forcemain
Grinder Pump
3" Forcemain
48" STD Precast Manhole
RR Crossing
Unit Unit Price
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
EA
EA
LS
LS
LS
SF
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
LF
EA
LF
EA
EA
Contingency 20%
$85.00
$90.00
$100.00
$120.00
$200.00
$200.00
$5,000.00
$1,200.00
$10,000.00
$325,000.00
$80,000.00-
$150.00
$60,000.00
$150,000.00
$35,000.00
$60,000.00
$5,000.00
$15,000.00
$3,500.00
$40,000.00
$20,000.00
$803,650.00
$50.00
$6,000.00
$35.00
$5,000.00
$25,000.00
$102.00
$108.00
$120.00
$144.00
$240.00
$240.00
$6,000.00
$1,440.00
$12,000.00
$390,000.00
$96,000.00
$180.00
$72,000.00
$180,000.00
$42,000.00
$72,000.00
$6,000.00
$18,000.00
$4,200.00
$48,000.00
$24,000.00
$964,380.00
$60.00
$7,200.00
$42.00
$6,000.00
12. 02. 08
VI-104
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated December 9, 2008)
Capital Facilities
88
w
.'8
C
L
5>L..
§kS
6 1,479,755
wwww
n888008
P
w
<
www
O
CO
^m0'OS��
w
ww
0
N
0
w
Ww
w
wwww
O
P
$ 561,875
8
m
w
w
88
N
w
w
w
$8888088
.-
w
.-
w
w
w
w
vi
N
w
n
w
N
w
w
8
N
w
w
i
w
n
g
CO
CO
Cyr
1,087,048
w
toorm
w
w
w
w
w
w
w69
_
aw
_
$ 35,000
w
a
a
a
w
w
w
64
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
Oakand Bay Park $ 125,000 $ - $ - $ 110001000 $ - $ -
w
to
44
w
aw
N
$ 157071241
$ 1,889,994
N
I $ _ 837,862.
S
www
w
w
w
w
5 4,000,000
$ 5,606,546
a-
fa
I.S 35,000
in SI
w
to
an
$ 4.000 000
N
in
w
M
to
Cr.
w
w
w
$ 45,000
$ 20 000
20,000 1
w
$ 1,087.048
$ 5,6061546
ante
�
H
NN
_
O'
law
$ 705,622
*•
w
w
w
w
c�
w
•V
w
N
e
O
w
O
M
w
-$ 82 500 1 $ 82,500
f$ $.
r
w
IA
i
r
w
1
w
$ 25,000
•1
www
w
•.
w
w
w
1•
w
w
•
ER
O
0.w.
O
V
$ 20 000,)
$ 100000I
.�j
$ 26,1300
••.•8
w
0
L)
-
Obi
O.W
w
rNn
m
c^"1
ERG
b
m
r
N
m
G
ll
a
¢,.
$. 85,716'.
w
$ 685,0701
w
weO
wwww
8
8
ry
^88
www
wwwwwww
8
U)
wwwwwww
8w
N,
wwww
88
N
w
w00-`
88,
eIn
ww
8� 8
wwd.
O 8
nN
r
ww,
`8
N0
k.
w
t "O
M
'
r
0
V
2,782,087
�888
N
O
,.,
i^
w w
.
w
I $ 20,000
88
0..
N
www
8
w
8
r
w
'
w
$ 2301000:
w
V
w
$€
O O
N i O
w
.88
N
ww
p
c
O
w
8F
^
ww
^
$ 2,782;0871
tEET3% ea.. yr, it
w
ww
w;
w•
w•
w
3,q;
h5{
$ 73,988
ww
et-b
�_. 700000
g
r$ 2,959-,487
.-
O
n
Oxf
w�;ww
a
4.4thR
$ 350,000
8
VI o
IR
40
8
S
'$ 42,000
8.8
CO'N
ww
w
8
N
8
�n
$ 2D 000 I
L jO`4^N,,, t is •
$ 100 000
4W� ii
R xr
$ 1do,DDbj
xg
0
a w
CO
CO
ww
CO
m
w,
K
CO
0
Revenues/Resources
1-Beg: Balance (REE7.2'Fund) budget.
'o
ti
o.
Interest (R EET 2 Fund)
Other:
RCO.Grant Mason Lake Boat Launch
RCOGrant Latirner's Landing Dev. Plan
RCO GrantTruman Glick
RCO Grant MCRA Improvements
RCo:Grant Oakland Bay Development
q
8
'o
•
„a
iv m
b
N
.v
s
m.
—
=..
0
R
t
l8
',V
N
U.•
mm,
N
�',
Drainage/Nordstrom
Transfer Out to Coop
Transfer Out fa Stomt Drainage stem:Dev Fy�
ntivnln Nl
't� MCRA Professional Services
Latimer% Landing Proj. Mgmt
Masan Lake Park Prof. Svcs
MCRA Maintenance Facility
Foothills County Park
Latimer's Landing Boat Launch
Mason County Recreation Area Capital Impro'
MCRA Field Drainage
Mason Lake County Park
Sandhi,' County Park
r6
0
8
jy
U
L
COK
Jacoby Park(Shorecrest)
Truman Glick Memorial Park
a
Watson Widwood Park. -- - - - _-�
Union Boat Launch
TransfeY Oil T6 Parks "CIF teimeanifal imnry 1
is Partnership Projects.
lewcod Dump. Station
Rustleweod Water System storage tank
Sidewalks,parking lots,
Total all REEF 2 Expenditures
Ending Fund Batante
Total Uses
m EE
U
O
'1
8
GC
o•
0.
a)
2
{
Menard's Landing Pali
Total
.
0
m
N
so
1541 40.63.0010
597.00 00.0010
0'" O
O0 'V
8 3 8
sr)a"N
s
LO
157680.41.0400
000
o^
N
'0
0
0
w
594.76.63.0200
1594.76.63.0300
594.76.63.0311
594 76.63 0400
594 76.63.0500
`594 76.63.0510-
O
.rY
-O.
594.76163.070E
1594.76.63.0800
o
CO
."
�.:
N.
ID M
Ito
OI
594 7E63.100D
594,76.63 0810
$
in
(0..
o0
o
ID
N
B'6„f
594 76 63 30o1n
..
_'6
b
U)
IN
E
0,24
17)
Drainage
V1408
12.02.08
ATTACHMENT C
To Ordinance No. 129-08
Mason County Comprehensive Plan -
Transportation
•
Mason County Comprehensive Plan -
Transportation
T
LE OF CONTENTS
Page
C"'TER VIII: T ' SPORTATION
VIIL I BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Introduction and Purpose VIII.1-1
Inventory VIII.1-1
Traffic Data VIII.1-2
Origin -Destination Survey VIIL1-5
Truck Traffic Patterns VIII.1-6
Collision Data VIII.1-8
System Analysis VIII.1-8
Level of Service VIII.1-11
Capacity Estimates for Mason County Roads VIII.1-12
Operational Review VIII.1-13
Traffic Model VIII.1-14
Future Travel Demand VIII.1-16
Future Trips VIII.1-16
Future Traffic Assignment VIII.1-17
Future Volume -to -Capacity Ratios and Level of Service Deficiencies VIII.1-17
Minimum Standards Criteria and Deficiencies VII1.1-17
VIIL2 GOALS AND POLICIES VIII.2-1
Transportation System Goals VIII.2-1
Coordination Policies VIII.2-1
1. Public Participation Policy VIII.2-1
2. Intergovernmental Coordination Policy VIII.2-2
3. Multi Modal Coordination Policy VI1L2-2
4. Utility Coordination Policy VIII.2-3
S. Special Interest Coordination Policy V11.2-3
6. Education/Publtc Information Policy VIII.2-3
Design and Capacity Policies VIII.2-4
7. Road Adequacy Policy VIlI.2-4
Roads in unincorporated UGAs V11.2-4
8. Functional Classification Policy VIII.2-5
8a. Airport Designations VIII.2-6
9. Functional Design Policy VIII.2-7
10. System Integration Policy VIII.2-7
Mason County Comprehensive Plan - Transportation
11. Safety VIII.2-7
12. Aesthetic Design Policy VIII.2-8
13. Transportation System Management (TSM) Policy VIII.2-8
14. Pedestrians and Bicycles Policy VIII.2-9
15. Maintenance Policy VIII.2-9
16. Access Policy VIII.2-9
17. Private Roads Policy VIII.2-11
18. Emergency Response Needs Policy VIII.2- 1 1
19. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Policy VIII.2-11
Land Use, Environment, and Economy Policies VIII.2-12
20. Land Use Policy VIII.2-12
21. Environmental Policy VIII.2-12
22. Economic Policy VIII.2-13
Priorities and Financing VIII.2-13
23. Project Priority Policy VIII.2-13
24. Financing Policy VIII.2-14
25. Concurrency Management Policy VIII.2-14
VIIL3 SYSTEM PLAN VIII.3-1
Functional Classification Plan V111.3-1
State Routes VIII.3-1
Major Collectors VIII.3-1
Minor Collectors VIII.3-1
Roads of Regional Significance VIII.3-3
Transit System VIII.3-6
Dial -a -Ride Service VIII.3-7
Park and Ride Lots VIII.3-8
Volunteer Services VIII.3-8
Rail Transportation V1II.3-8
Pedestrian/Bicycle Facilities V1II.3-9
Transportation System Management/Transportation
Demand Management VIII.3-10
Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities VII1.3-12
Transit Service VIII.3-13
VIIL4 ROAD DESIGN STANDARDS VII1.4-1
Principles of Desizn Standards VIII.4-1
Collector Road System VIII.4-2
New Construction VIII.4-2
Maintenance VIII.4-2
Low -Volume Local Access Roads VIIL4-2
Road Section VIIL4-4
Geometrics VIII 4-4
Mason County Comprehensive Plan -
Transportation
Clear Zone VIII.4-5
VIII.5 SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN VIII.5-1
Priority Analysis VIII.5-1
Financial Plan VIII.5-3
County Roads VIII.5-3
Transportation Benefit Districts VIII.5
State and Federal Assistance VIII.5-4
Revenue Sources VIII.5
Transportation Improvement Program
Concurrency Management System VIII.5-7
Principal Components VIII.5-14
Transportation Facilities to Meet Concurrency VIII.5-14
Level of Service Standards VIII.5-14
Traffic Impact Fees and Development Review VIII.5-16
Collector Road System Compliance VITi.5-16
Responsibilities of the Applicant V111.5-17
VIII.6 STATE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM VIII.6-1
VIIL.7 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT
Discussion of Issues
Plan Objectives
Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Geology, Soils, and Topography
Air Quality
Water Quality
Vegetation and Wildlife
Energy and Natural Resources
Land Use Alternatives
Appendix
Hard copy of all hyper linked Figures (illustrations)
VIII.7-1
VIII.7-1
VIII.7-1
VIT1.7-2
VIII.7-2
VIII.7-3
VIII.7-3
VIII.7-4
VIIL7-5
VIII.7-6
VIII.7-8
VIII.7-8
Mason County Comprehensive Plan - Transportation
apter VIII
T SP TATI
VIILI BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Introduction and Purpose
The Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element was updated by Public Works staff, under
the direction of the County Engineer in the Public Works Department and the Planning
Manager in the Community Development Department
Mason County is primarily rural in nature, with large forest areas, major water bodies, and
rolling to mountainous terrain. Approximately 80 percent of Mason County land is
pnvately held land devoted to commercial tree farming. The only urbanized area in the
County is Shelton, where approximately 20 percent of the County's population and
approximately 50 percent of commercial activities are located. FIGURE VIII.1-1 shows the
study area.
This element of the County's comprehensive plan defines existing facilities and establishes
future strategies that include funding, system expansion, and management. The plan
complies with laws and regulations of Mason County and coordinates with land use
planning and other agencies and the public. FIGURE VIII.1-2 shows a broad outline of
Mason County's transportation plan and the relationship of the existing facilities, goals and
policies, system plan, and standards and management of the transportation system.
Inventory
Mason County Public Works maintains an inventory of all county roads, which includes
their location, dimensions, attributes, and condition. Also included are inventories of other
roadway features (sign, culverts, bridges, etc). A combination of surveys, records, plans,
field inspections, and programmatic evaluations are used to define the existing condition of
the County's transportation system. Information from WSDOT and the Mason County
Transportation Authority is used for the inventory and existing conditions for their portions
of the transportation network.
VIII-1.1
Mason County Comprehensive Plan - Transportation
Traffic Data
Traffic counts have been taken on the majority of Mason County collector roads at key
locations. This was accomplished using recording counters to determine weekly, daily, and
hourly travel patterns. The technical appendix to the transportation element contains this
data. A summary of average daily traffic (ADT) volumes is shown in FIGURE V1B.I-3.
VIII-1.2
Mason County Comprehensive Plan - Transportation
See Appendix for hard copy of Figures
FIGURE VIII.1-1
STUDY AREA FIGURE
FIGURE VIII.1-3
DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
itt
Mason County Comprehensive Plan -
• •
c
N�0)
LL
06
• •
0
0
Goals & Po
as
a)
0
tia
E
®�in
VI
A era
C 0-
▪ L C
O coc
• LL
• • • •
N
CU
t
CO
• • • •
c
a
E
c
LL
C
f6
a
c
co
0
0
0
2 _
0 N .=
t W U)
2 ,, sCID a.
DJ
m
Ez
11
w o—
c=
o ®
W Z
Q
r C J
0.
W Z
2 co
LL • ce
o ®.
0 co
c z
2
co
Mason County Comprehensive Plan - Transportation
Origin Destination Survey
Two license plate origin -destination surveys were conducted to analyze existing traffic
patterns as part of the last Mason County transportation study. The information gathered at
that time is still representative of the driving patterns experienced in the county currently, so
a new survey was not conducted as part of this update. The Cloquallum Road/SR 101
survey provided information concerning the Shelton area, with particular emphasis on
Cloquallum Road traffic. This study provided specific information on traffic from
Cloquallum Road to SR 101. The Belfair area survey provided information on travel
patterns concerning SR 3, SR 300, SR 302, and SR 106.
The purpose of an origin -destination survey is to determine amount and direction of traffic
in a specific area. The survey identifies where vehicles enter and exit an area or if they
stopped within the study area. A survey is performed by placing surveyors on all major
roads serving an area; the surveyors record the license plate numbers and times vehicles
enter or leave an area By comparing license plate numbers using a computer -matching
program, the volume of through -traffic between stations can be determined. The survey
determines the number of trips that pass the survey station or stay within the area. This
origin -destination survey information is then used to analyze the existing road system's
efficiency. The data provides the basis for forecasting future travel patterns when coupled
with the anticipated economic and population growth information.
Origin Destination Conclusions
Cloquallum Road:
•
Cloquallum Road carries nineteen (19) percent of its traffic to SR 101 in the AM
peak hour and fifty-eight (58) percent in the PM peak hour traffic.
Seventy-three (73) percent of the Cloquallum Road traffic stays in the Shelton area
during the AM peak hour and twenty-two (22) percent in the PM peak hour
• Cloquallum Road carries very little traffic and only 20 vehicles exited on SR 101
during the AM peak hour and 63 vehicles in the PM peak hour
•
This study indicates that Cloquallum Road traffic does not need a direct connection
to SR 101 based on the small volumes currently making this connection. The need
for a direct connection (interchange) cannot, however, be based solely on traffic
volumes Savings due to travel time and vehicle -miles of travel should be weighed
against the cost of construction before a final decision could be reached regarding
the interchange.
VIII-I.5
Mason County Comprehensive Plan - Transportation
Belfair Area:
• The Belfair survey showed that a majority of traffic around the Belfair area had
destinations in Belfair This traffic amounted to approximately 60 percent on SR 3
and approximately 75 percent on other highways.
• Of the remaining 40 percent on SR 3, 11 percent was through traffic to Shelton, 8
percent was through traffic to SR 106
•
Of the remaining 25 percent on other highways, approximately 10 to 15 percent was
through traffic to Shelton and 5 percent was traffic towards SR 106
® An estimate of traffic that would use a new Belfair bypass (if constructed)
connecting SR 3 north of SR 300 to SR 106 is approximately 700 - 800 vehicles in
the PM peak hour and 600 - 700 vehicles in the AM peak hour This indicates a
new two-lane bypass for SR 3 around Belfair would be justified The Legislature
approved the Belfair bypass project in 2005. WSDOT is drawing up design plans to
implement this project.
Truck Traffic Patterns
A truck use survey was conducted as part of the last Mason County transportation study.
The information gathered from the survey at that time is still representative of the
transportation routes and demands for trucks in the county currently, so a new survey was
not conducted as part of this update. There were 24 trucking companies in the County at
that time which included dump trucks, heavy haulers, and freight carriers. A total of 10
companies responded to the mail -in truck survey form The businesses listed that 40
percent of their deliveries are made and/or received before 9:00 am and approximately 60
percent are between 9:00 am to 4:00 pm.
Primary routes include approximately 75 percent using SR 101 and 25 percent using SR 3.
This shows that the trucking industry has a minor effect on the PM peak hour traffic
generated on Mason County roads.
In 1994, the Washington State Legislature commissioned the Cost Responsibility Study
(CRS). The Transportation Commission recertified the Freight and Goods Transportation
System (FGTS) in 2004. One of the objectives of the CRS was to establish the FGTS The
CRS Committee established critena for determining the several Truck Route Classes, based
on Gross Annual Tonnage carried on the route. Mason County Public Works conducted a
truck classification study and identified 28 road segments that met the criteria established by
the CRS. These are the county roads that bring the logs to the mills and freight and goods
to and from the distribution point and the users. The information is updated as part of the
ongoing traffic counting and classification program.
VIII-1.6
Mason County Comprehensive Plan -
Transportation
Mason County FGTS Routes:
Road
Name
Approximate
Landmarks
Agate
Road
SR-3
-
Timberlake
Drive
Arcadia
Road
SR-3
-
Mill
Creek
Bridge
Bear
Creek-Dewatto
Road
N
of
Daly
Drive
-
Old
Belfair
Highway
Belfair-Tahuya
Road
SE
of
Haven
Way
to
SR-300
Brockdale
Road
Batstone
Cutoff
Road
-
US-101
Cloquallum
Road
City
Limits
-
Grays
Harbor
County
Line
Dayton
-Airport
Road
Little
Egypt
Road
- SR-102
US-101
-
End
County
Road
Golden
Pheasant
Road
Fire
Station
-
SR-3
Grapeview
Road
Shelton-Mat;pcl
Road
-
Cloquallum
Road
Highland
Road
Johns
Praene
Road
City
Limits
-
SR-3
Lakeland
Drive
SR-3
-
Old
Ranch
Road
Lynch
road
US-101
-
Sells
Drive
(2nd)
Mason
Benson
Road
SR-3
-
Trails
Road
Mason
Lake
Road
SR-3
-
Trails
Road
Matlock
Brady
Road
Shelton
-Matlock
Road
-
Grays
Harbor
County
Line
McEwan
Prairie
Road
Mason
Lake
Road
-
Brockdale
Road
SR-106
-
Brockdale
Road
McReavy
Road
North
Bay
Road
SR-3
-
SR-302
SR-300
-
Old
Belfair
Highway
Old
Belfair
Highway
Old
Belfair
Highway
N
of
Fish
Hatchery
Road
-
Kitsap
County
Line
Old
Olympic
Highway
SR-101
-
Taylor
Road
SR-3
-
Harstine
Island
Road
Pickering
Road
SR-300
-
Transfer
Station
Sand
Hill
Road
Shelton
Srpings
Road
SR-101
-
Shelton
City
Limits
Shelton
Matlock
Road
Shelton
City
Limits
-
Matlock
-Brady
Road
•
US-101
-
Lower Vance
Creek
Bridge
Skokomish
Valley
Road
Trails
Road
SR-106
-
Mason
Lake
Road
Mason County Comprehensive Plan - Transportation
Collision Data
Collision data was obtained from the Mason County Department of Public Works and
critical sections (i.e., sections with five or more collisions per year) were summarized.
Using the Collision Rate formula from the 1996 Washington State Highway Collision
Report, collision rates per million vehicle miles was calculated for each roadway section:
Collision Rate = (Number of Collisions) x (1 million)
(Section Length*) x (AADT**) x (365 Days)
*If section length is less than one mile, it is excluded from the formula.
**AADT = Annual Average Daily Traffic
A critical collision rate is defined by the ITE Traffic Engineering Handbook as the average
collision rate found on a particular class of roadway. The critical collision rates for Mason
County's Collectors is 1.77 collisions per million vehicle miles of travel.
TABLE VIII.1-1 summarizes the collisions on each roadway segment that has a collision
rate higher than the critical rate, and their corresponding collision rate per million vehicle
miles This table shows that the highest rate occurred on the Bear Creek-Dewatto Road
between the Public Access Road and Sand Hill Road. FIGURE VIE 1-4 locates these
collisions on a map.
The road segments with the highest collision rates are*
Bear Creek-Dewatto Road
McReavy Road
Highland Road
Cole Road
Bear Creek-Dewatto Road
Arcadia Road
Public Access Road — Sand Hill Road
SR-106 — Manzanita Drive
N of Little Egypt Road. — S of Karl's House
Lynch Road — Shadowood Drive
Kitsap County Line — Elfendahl Pass Road
Mill Creek Bridge — Lynch Road
The majority of these collisions involved a fixed object off the roadway. The leading causes
of these collisions were (1) excessive speed and (2) driving under the influence of alcohol or
drugs, which indicates the actions of the drivers involved were the cause of the collisions.
Approximately one-third of the collisions in Mason County occur during hours of darkness.
System Analysis
LOS is the primary method of analyzing the traffic capacity of roadways. Future land use
scenarios and traffic projections are discussed and Collector LOS is summarized. Criteria
for determining roadway deficiencies are described at the end of the chapter.
VIII-1 8
Mason County Comprehensive Plan -
Transportation
TABLE
VIII.I-1:
Critical
Collision
Locations
(2002
- 2004)
Road
Name
Approximate
Landmarks
Length
Volume
Collisions
Collision
Rate
(miles)
(ADT)
(3 year
total)
(per
MVM)
Agate
Road
Crestview
Drive
- Timberlake
Drive
1.60
2,250
8
2.03
Timberlake
Drive
-
Benson
Loop
Road
1.28
744
3
2.88
Arcadia
Road
SR-3
Railroad
Binns
Mill
-
Swiger
Creek
Railroad
Bridge
Bridge
Loop
Bndge
-
Binns
-
Road
Lynch
Swiger
-
Road
Mill
Loop
Creek
Road
Bridge
1.45
1.42
1.85
2.35
4,974
3,125
1,637
830
15
9
6
9
1.90
1.85
1.81
4.21
Bear
Creek-Dewatto
Kitsap
County
Line
- Elfendahl
Pass
Road
5.09
255
6
4.22
Road
Elfendahl
Public
Access
Pass
Road
Road
-
- Sand
Public
Hill
Access
Road
Road
1.54
1.46
1,204
852
3
28
14.55
2.09
Belfair-Tahuya
Road
North
Dewatto
Shore
Road
Road
-
Collins
-
Dewatto
Lake
Road
Road
4.29
2
10
353
909
6
7
3
3
62
35
Boundary
Road
West
Matlock
-Brady
Road
- Grays
Harbor
County
Line
2
31
178
1
2.22
Cloquallum
Road
Shelton
City
Limits
-
Gravel
Pit
1.45
1,592
6
2.37
Gravel
Pit
-
Rock
Bridge
#1
3.10
1,280
12
2.76
Rock
Bridge
#1
- Satsop-Cloquallum
Road
8.19
614
21
3.81
Cole
Road
Lynch
Road
-
Shadowood
Drive
1.61
1,187
9
4.30
Grapeview
Loop
Road
SR-3
-
Fire
Station
4.43
594
6
2.08
Fire
Staten
-
N
of
Cronquist
Road
1.67
1,078
8
4.06
Harstine
Island
North
Harstine
Island
South
Road
- North
Island
Drive
3.35
200
2
2
73
Road
Highland
Road
N
of
Little
Egypt
Road
- S of
Karl's
House
2.00
603
7
5.30
Lynch
Road
SR-101
Sells
Drive
-
NE
(2nd)
of
BNRR
-
Arcadia
Tracks
Road
1.10
3.97
2,648
587
7
7
2.19
2.74
Mason
Benson
Road
Trails
Road
-
Mason
Lake
Drive
East
0.60
1,000
2
1.83
Matlock
-Brady
Road
Ford
Loop
Rd
(1st)
- SW of
Evers
Bridge
2.62
597
7
4.09
McEwan
Prairie
Road
Mason
Lake
Road
- Brockdale
Road
2.45
3,551
21
2.20
McReavy
Road
SR-106
-
Manzanita
Drive
1.85
540
15
13.71,
Manzanita
Dnve
-
Commissioner
District
1.65
1,179
5
2.35
North
Bay
Drive
SR-3
-
SR-302
1.96
1,938
9
2.16
North
Island
Road
South
Island
Dnve
-
Harstine
Island
North
Road
3.09
945
10
3.13
North
Shore
Road
W of
Blomiie
Road
- Shorebrook
Drive
8.09
761
27
4.01
Pickering
Road
W
Schneider
of
Fire
Station
Road
-
-
Harstine
Benson
Loop
Bridge
road
road
1.77
1.02
2,174
425
9
1
2.14
2.11
Sand
Hill
Road
N
of
Grade
School
-
Bear Creek-Dewatto
Road
4.94
500
8
2.96
Satsop-Cloquallum
Road
E of
Plug
Mill
Road
- Satsop
Road
E
1.88
140
1
3.47
Shelton
-Matlock
Road
Power
Lines
- W of
Power
Lines
(2nd)
1.27
2,768
9
2.34
South
Island
Drive
W of
Waterland
Drive
-
Harstine
Island
South
2 42
564
3
2.01
Road
Tahuya-Blacksmith
Bear Creek-Dewatto
Road
-
Belfair-Tahuya
Road
7.95
85
2
2.70
Road
VI11.1
Critical
Rate
= 1
77 Crashes per Million
Vehicle
Miles
VIII-1.9
Mason County Comprehensive Plan - Transportation
See Appendix for hard copy of Figures
FIGURE VIII.1-4
COLLISION MAP
VIII-1.10
Mason County Comprehensive Plan - Transportation
Level of Service
IX LOS describes the quality of traffic flow on a roadway or at an intersection. The 1997
Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) uses three parameters to describe service quality for
two-lane rural highways.
1. Average travel speed
2. Percent time delay
3. Capacity utilization (volume -to -capacity ratio [v/c])
The percent time delay parameter is the primary measure of LOS recommended by the
1994 HCM with speed and v/c ratio as secondary measures Percent time delay is
typically used for extensive operational analysis and involves cumbersome computations
For planning applications, v/c ratio or speeds are the most common approaches
Average travel speed is not a meaningful indicator of LOS where speeds have been
restricted below 60 mph by an agency through a community. Therefore, v/c ratio or
capacity utilization are the more meaningful indicators for Mason County's road system.
Level of Service standards for this update will be based on the 1994 Highway Capacity
Manual, which defines six LOS definitions for two lane highways:
Level of Service A • LOS A relates to average speeds approaching 60 mph and delays no
more than 30 percent of the time by slow -moving vehicles. It corresponds to a volume -to -
capacity (v/c) ratio below 0.05 for rolling terrain and below 0.07 for level terrain, assuming
60 percent no -passing zones.
Level of Service B: This characterizes speeds slightly over 55 mph on level terrain, with
delays of up to 45 percent of the time. Typical volume -to -capacity (v/c) ratio assuming 60
percent no -passing zones are 0.05 and 0.17 on a rolling terrain and 0.07 and 0.19 on a level
terrain. Traffic flow is stable.
Level of Service C: This represents average speeds exceeding 52 mph on level terrain and
drivers experiencing delays 60 percent of the tune. Corresponding volume -to -capacity (v/c)
ratios for rolling and level terrains are 0.18 to 0 32 and 0 20 to 0.34, respectively. Traffic
flow may be said to be at stable conditions until this LOS.
Level of Service D: At this LOS, unstable traffic flow begins to occur. Passing demand is
very high, while passing capacity approaches zero. The fraction of no passing zones along
the roadway has little influence on passing. Motorists are delayed up to 75 percent of time,
although speeds of 50 mph can be maintained on a 60 mph design speed. For LOS D,
volume -to -capacity (v/c) ratios are between 0.33 and 0.48 on rolling terrain and 0.35 to 0.59
on level terrain.
VIII-1.11
Mason County Comprehensive Plan - Transportation
Level of Service E: It is defined as flow conditions having a percent time delay greater than
75 percent and speeds dropping below 50 mph on a 60 mph design speed. Passing is
virtually impossible. The volume -to -capacity (v/c) ratios are between 0.49 and 0.91 on a
rolling terrain and 0.60 to 1.00 on a level terrain.
Level of Service F: It represents heavily congested flow with traffic demand exceeding
capacity. Average speed drops below 40 mph on a 60 mph design speed and volume -to -
capacity (v/c) ratios exceed 0.91 for rolling terrains and 1.00 for level terrain. The percent
time delay experienced by drivers is 100 or more.
Capacity Estimates for Mason County Roads
Mason County roads have varying lane and shoulder widths. These variations result in
varying capacity values. Mason County's Public Works Department provided capacity for
roadways having different lane and shoulder widths. TABLE VIll.1-2 shows these capacity
estimates for different roadway types. This table assumes that the terrain is rolling or level
in nature and passing is not possible on 60 percent of roadway sections.
Roadway
Capacity
by
TABLE
VIIL1-2:
Type
Lane
(feet)
Width
Capacity
in Vehicles
Per
With
Shoulder
Widths
Hour
6 Feet
4
Feet
2 Feet
0 Feet
Level
Rolling
Level
Rolling
Level
Rolling
Level
Rolling
12
2,405
1,542
2,333
1,496
2,237
1,434
2,117
1,357
11
2,261
1,450
2,213
1,419
2,117
1,357
1,973
1,265
10
2,093
1,342
2,045
1,311
1,948
1,249
1,804
1,157
9
1,828
1,172
1,780
1,141
1,684
1,080
1,508
1,018
Note:
Table
assumes 60
percent no -passing
zones
Source: Mason County Public Works Department
Based on the capacity estimates in TABLE VIII.l-2, and the capacity definitions LOS
analyses were performed on all Mason County major and minor Collectors. The Collectors
rated at LOS C are listed in TABLE VIII.1-3. Remaining Collectors operate at LOS B or
better.
VIII-1.12
Mason County Comprehensive Plan -
Transportation
TABLE
VIH.1-3:
Collector
Level
of Service in
Mason
County
Collector
Segment
2005
Volume
Peak
PM
2005
Capacity
Peak
PM
Volume
Capacity
Ratio
/
LOS
Major
Collectors
Belfair
Tahuya
Road
Elfendahl
Pass
Road SR
300
434
1,450
0.30
C
-
Grapeview
Loop
Road
Fire
Station - Cronquist
Road
253
1,203
0.21
C
Old
Belfair
Highway*
SR
300 -
Milepost
1.4
580
2,165
0.27
C
Old
Belfair
Highway*
Milepost
1.4
- County
Line
430
1,997
0.22
C
Shelton
-Matlock
Road
Deegan
Road
- Carman
Road
376
1,474
0.26
C
South
Shelton
-Matlock
Road
Dayton Airport
-
Dayton Store
292
1,203
0.24
C
Shelton
-Matlock
Road
Dayton Store -
Milepost
10.76
268
1,418
0.19
C
Minor
Collectors
Agate
Road
SR 3 -
Pickering
Road
325
1,311
0.25
C
Cole
Road
Shadowood
Road
- Craig Road
362
1,419
0.26
C
Crestview
Drive
Agate
Road
-
Parkway
Boulevard
213
1,122
0.21
C
Lynch
Road
SR
3 -
Milepost
1.10
365
1,434
0.25
C
Mason
Lake
Road
SR
3 -
McEwen
Prairie
Road
314
1,512
0.21
C
C
McEwen
Prairie
Road
Mason
Lake
Road
-
Brockdale
328
1,512
0.22
Road
C
Sand
Hill
Road
SR
300 -
Transfer
Station
282
1,357
0.21
* Collectors where the LOS criteria is based on level terrain
Operational Review
A review of the County's road system was performed by field inspection. Intersections
where operational problems have occurred such as sight distance or inadequate traffic
control are listed in TABLE VIIL1-4.
TABLE VIII.1-4: Intersection
Problems
Intersection
Major
Operational
Problems
US
101
/
Lynch
Road
Inadequate
acceleration
distance
SR
106
/
McReavy
Road
-
Sight
distance
SR
106 / Webb
Hill
Road
Sight
distance
SR
3 /
Johns
Prairie
Road
Intersection
geometries
and
traffic
control
VIII-1 13
Mason County Comprehensive Plan - Transportation
Traffic Model
One of the most important tools of transportation planning is the development of a traffic or
transportation model. A transportation model that accurately depicts the existing traffic
conditions (i.e., calibrated to the traffic patterns) can often help in making better decisions
about the future transportation system. Therefore, it is important to have an accurate traffic
model for the planning process. The model used for Mason County is TMODEL2.
There are five basic steps in developing a traffic model:
• Establish traffic analysis zones (TAZs)
• Develop network description
• Allocate land use to the traffic analysis zones (TAZs)
• Calibrate the model to existing traffic conditions
• Forecast future traffic volumes
FIGURE VIII.1-5 shows the TAZ map and FIGURE VIII.I-6 shows Mason County's road
network used for modeling purposes.
The Mason County TMODEL2 was originally developed and calibrated in 1992 and was
used for preparing the 1996 Transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan. For this
current update the model calibration was reviewed by checkmg model volumes with actual
volumes at 22 locations on the County system. On State routes, traffic volumes were
assembled from WSDOT. PM peak model volumes were converted to average daily traffic
(ADT) using a k-factor of 0.09 whenever a model street segment consisted of two or more
links the volumes were averaged over the segment in the model to determine the value.
The calibration review showed that the model was under assigning traffic on many Mason
County roads.
As a result of the calibration review the model was updated by revising the land use
information for the Traffic Analysis Zones. New Traffic forecasts for 2025 were then
generated. Additional calibration reviews showed better results; however, it was still
evident that the model is under assigning traffic on some Mason County roads. In most
cases this is not significant since the overall volumes are low. The differences will not
effect major needs assessments; however, the model will not be useful for analyzing
intersection level operations. TMODEL2 is becoming obsolete as a traffic forecasting
model. New models are taking its place in the travel forecasting field. Future updates of
the Transportation element will need to employ a new Traffic Forecasting Model.
VIII114
Mason County Comprehensive Plan - Transportation
See Appendix for hard copy of Figures
FIGURE VIII.1-5
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONES (TRANSPO)
VIII-1.15
Mason County Comprehensive Plan - Transportation
Future Travel Demand
Future travel demand was forecasted for the 20-year scenario of the comprehensive plan.
The Mason County Public Works Department provided the growth rates in each TAZ
In the 20 year analysis, overall growth was calculated to approximately 1.8 percent per year.
The TAZs where growth exceeded 5 percent were TAZs 3, 4, 14, 15, 16, 33, 37, 41 and 42.
These TAZs were near Belfair-Tahuya, Harstine Island area, and Mason Lake. However,
commercial growth was limited to traffic analysis zones (TAZs) 4, 5 8, 9, 18, 19, 24, 25,
and 28. These traffic analysis zones (TAZs) represent Belfair and Shelton Urban Growth
Areas (UGAs).
The following is a summary of the total land use allocation for the county:
1992 Existing:
Permanent Housing 16,168 households
Employment 8,817 employees
Seasonal housing 6,315 households
2025 High Growth Scenario:
Permanent Housing 37,254 households
Employment 39,166 employees
Seasonal housing 9,935 households
Future Trips
Using trip generation and trip distribution created for Mason County's transportation model,
future trip tables were created for the 20 year analysis. These trip tables give information on
internal -internal trips, internal -external trips, external -internal trips, and external -external
trips. External trips are trips, which are generated outside the County's limits These trips
are shown in TABLE VIII.1-6.
VIII.1-6:
PM
Peak
Trip
Table
TABLE
Trip
Category
1992
Existing
20
Year
Internal
-Internal
7,165
12,713
Internal
-External
1,280
4,563
External
-Internal
2,255
5,769
External
-External
297
784
Total
10,997
23,829
Approximately 53 percent of trips are internal -internal while only 3 percent of the trips
are from external to external areas. this means that only 3 percent of Mason County
V11I-1.16
Mason County Comprehensive Plan - Transportation
traffic travels through the study area without stopping.
Future Traffic Assignment
Traffic assignment for the 20 year analysis was made using the adjusted model volumes.
County roads that were predicted to have traffic volumes in excess of 5,000 vehicles per
day were Lynch Rd, John's Prairie Rd, Agate Road, Belfair - Tahuya Road, Old Belfair
Highway, and Shelton -Matlock Road.
Future Volume -to -Capacity (v/c) Ratios and Level of Service Deficiencies
Based on the capacity estimates in TABLE VIII.1-3 and LOS definitions in TABLE
VIII.1-2, a future LOS analysis was performed on all Mason County major and minor
collectors The future LOS indicated that only one collector —Old Belfair Highway from
SR-3 to Newkirk Rd operates at LOS D. The remaining collectors operate at LOS C or
better. TABLE VIII.l-7 shows the collectors where LOS is C or lower.
TABLE
V11T.1-7:
2025
Projected
Collector
Level
of
Service in
Mason
County
Collector
Segment
v/c Ratio
LOS
Old
Belfair
Highway
SR-3
Newkirk
to
Rd
0.40
D
North
Shore
Rd
West of
SR-300
0.18
C
Skokomish
Valley
Rd
West
of SR-101
0.25
C
John's
Prairie
Rd
Brockdale
Rd
to SR-3
0.24
C
Agate
Rd
Fast
o
of
SR-3
0.25
C
Highland
Rd
South
of
Shelton
—
Matlock
Rd
0.28
C
Lynch
Rd
Sr-101
to Cole
Rd
0.29
C
Cole
Rd
Lynch
Rd
to SR-3
0.33
C
Minimum Standards Criteria and Deficiencies
Mason County Collectors are not deficient from a volume -to -capacity (v/c) ratio or a LOS
point of view. Many of the Collectors have pavement widths and shoulder widths that do
not meet current design standards. Some Collectors are also deficient from a vertical
alignment point of view where the grades are too steep; this is due to the preferred
practice of following the terrain to establish the road, rather than creating excessive cut
and fill sections. Mason County roads are well maintained and properly signed, and are
adequate for use by drivers who are attentive to what they are doing and are driving in
accordance with state laws, the rules of the road, and the signing. Mason County has
established minimum standards criteria to compare existing roads with current design
standards to establish a priority array to maximize road improvement funding.
VIII-1 17
Mason County Comprehensive Plan - Transportation
Mason County's minimum standards criteria for pavement and shoulder width and
horizontal and vertical alignment were deteinnined using A Policy on Geometric Design
Highways and Streets (Green Book), 2004 edition and the Guidelines for Geometric
Design of Very Low -Volume Local Roads (ADT <_ 400), 2001 as published by the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).
TABLE VIII 1-8 shows Mason County criteria. TABLE VIII.1-8 also shows a rating for
each range of values for a given criteria. A rating of 0 indicates no deficiency or an ideal
condition and a rating of 5 indicates the least desirable condition A rating of 3 indicates
average conditions of pavement and shoulder width, horizontal and vertical alignment, or
collision rate.
The AASHTO Green Book suggests that a pavement width of between 22 to 24 feet and a
shoulder width of 4 to 8 feet is acceptable where speeds are approximately 40 miles per
hour for volumes less than 400 to over 2000 vehicles per day. (NOTE- 10-foot travel
lanes and 3-foot shoulders are no longer acceptable on rural collectors. Under certain
circumstances the shoulder can be reduced to 2-feet) Therefore, these values were given a
rating of 3 in TABLE VIII.1-8. For vertical alignment, a grade of 6 to 8 percent is
considered acceptable by AASHTO. The rating for horizontal alignment in TABLE
VIII.1-8 shows a 60 percent no passing as an average condition. This value is an average
condition in Mason County and the capacity estimates were based on the assumption of
60 percent no passing. The critical collision rate described in Collision Data is given a
rating of 3 for this analysis Based on these ratings, each collector in Mason County was
evaluated for deficiencies. Note that any collector with a rating of 4 or 5 is deficient in
the respective criteria.
A number of Mason County Collectors are deficient in pavement and shoulder width. A
significant number of collectors are deficient in horizontal alignment and a few are
deficient in vertical alignment. In summary, the majority of Mason County s collectors
are deficient by the minimum standards criteria. This evaluation is based on comparing
the existing roadway to current design standards From an operations standpoint, Mason
County's collectors are adequate and will be able to accommodate future growth. From a
capacity standpoint, Mason County's Collectors will be able to accommodate future
growth.
VIII-1 18
Mason County Comprehensive Plan -
Transportation
VHI.1-8:
Mason
County's
Minimum Standards
Criteria
Rating
for
Collector
Roads
TABLE
Criteria
Rating
Pavement
Width
(feet)
Shoulder
Width
(feet)
Alignment
Vertical
Collision
vehicle
(per
Rate
Horizontal
Alignment
million
miles)
0
>12
>6
0%no
passing
0-2%
0-1.0
1
11.1-11.9
5-5.9
20%no
passing
2.1-4%
1.1-2.0
2
10.1
-
11.0
4
- 4.9
40%
no
passing
4.1
- 6%
2.1
- 3.0
3
=
10
3 - 3.9
60% no
passing
6.1
- 8%
3.1
- 4.0
4
9.1
- 9.9
1
- 2.9
80%
no
passing
8.1
-
12%
4.1
- 7.0
5
<9.0
0-0.9
100%no
passing
>
12%
>7.1
VIII-1.19
Mason County Comprehensive Plan - Transportation
VIII.2 Goals and Policies
Transportation System Goals
Mason County's goal is to provide adequate mobility for all people, goods, and services in
an efficient and economical manner. Transportation facilities will be maintained and
improved while minimizing changes to the physical and social environment so as to
preserve the "rural character" of the area. The transportation system shall support the
transportation needs of Mason County within the context of the County's Comprehensive
Plan.
Coordination Policies
Mason County's goal is to promote effective coordination between and among
governments, private enterprise, and the community. The County will facilitate effective
use of the transportation system through coordination of the transportation facilities and
services for all types of motorized and non -motorized transportation. These policies
address a wide range of issues which affect Mason County such as:
• Multi -agency planning and coordination
• Planning for pedestrians and non -motorized vehicles
• Consistency of transportation programs among jurisdictions
• Coordination of construction projects
• Transit service throughout Mason County
L Public Participation Policy
Mason County encourages and welcomes public participation in the transportation
planning process.
a) This transportation element was developed with the assistance of the Growth
Management Advisory Committee, established specifically to help prepare the
Comprehensive Plan. Mason County will continue to use a similar committee to
advise and periodically update the plan. Public participation in transportation
planning is encouraged through open workshops and public hearings. Citizen
groups can also provide valuable insight during the planning phase of road
projects.
b) The 6-year Transportation Improvement. Program (TIP) is prepared with the
assistance of the Transportation Improvement Program — Citizens Advisory Panel
VIII-2.1
Mason County Comprehensive Plan - Transportation
(TIP -CAP), and updated on an annual basis. Public hearings shall be held on the
6 Year TIP, as required by law (RCW 36.81.121).
c) Prior to the initiation of major construction projects, adjacent property owners and
area residents will be informed of the project and their input will be evaluated
during the planning process. The intent is to provide the community with an
opportunity to incorporate their input into the project.
2. Intergovernmental Coordination Policy
The County will coordinate efforts in planning, construction, and operation of
transportation facilities with other agencies' programs as appropriate. This coordination
will allow County efforts to support and complement the transportation functions of the
State, Peninsula Transportation Planning Organization (PRTPO), adjacent counties,
Shelton and neighboring cities, Mason Transit Authority (MTA), and other entities
responsible for transportation facilities and services in Mason County. Coordination will
be achieved by:
a) Participating in the activities of the PRTPO.
b) Working with other jurisdictions to plan, fund, and implement multi jurisdictional
projects necessary to meet shared transportation needs (including right-of-way
preservation and acquisition)
c) Making transportation planning decisions consistent with WSDOT, PRTPO, and
neighboring jurisdictions.
3. Multi Modal Coordination Policy
The County will cooperate with Mason County Transit Authority (the MTA) to provide
facilities that will enhance and encourage transit use. The MTA will be asked to provide
input into the County's six -year plan and annual construction program. The County will
support the MTA in:
a) Transit service between the urban centers.
b) Encourage demand -responsive service for Mason County citizens with less
transportation capability, such as elderly and handicapped.
c) Encourage demand -responsive service to the rural residential areas.
d) Transportation capability for access to essential services (i.e., medical, legal,
social assistance).
VIII-2.2
Mason County Comprehensive Plan - Transportation
4. Utility Coordination Policy
The County recognizes the effectiveness of coordinating utility services in transportation
corridors and provides standards that coordinate construction of utilities with existing and
future transportation needs. These will include:
a) Coordinate new utility construction with the County's six -year improvement plan
b) Coordinate improvement programs being developed by utility agencies' with the
County transportation system
c) Provide standards for repair and maintenance of utilities within the transportation
corridor (i.e., the County road right-of-way)
d) Establish traffic control standards for new construction and maintenance of
utilities consistent with Part 6 Temporary Traffic Control of the Manual on
Unifouit Traffic Control Devices 2003. (MUTCD).
5. Special Interest Coordination Policy
The County will assist in the accommodation of special interests that require use of the
transportation system. This will include but not be limited to:
a) Coordinate with the school districts to assist in providing safe and efficient school
transportation. As appropriate the County will work with the schools to enhance
school bus routes, student walking routes, and crossings. Traffic signing will be
provided in accordance with the MUTCD.
b) Provide for special events such as fairs, parades, athletic events, and large
meetings by making appropriate provisions for safe traffic operations with the
minimum effect on the general public. The cost of such provisions will be
assessed to the organizers of such events as appropriate.
6. Education/Public Information Policy
The citizens and other users of the Mason County transportation system will be provided
information to enhance the users' safety and convenience. The County will appoint a
public information representative from the. Public Works Department to provide
coordinated information to the general public and news media. This information will be
coordinated with the Sheriffs Office. Information efforts will include:
a) Informing the public of traffic safety measures for both the road system and
vehicles.
VIII-2.3
Mason County Comprehensive Plan - Transportation
b) Directly informing area residents about road projects planned for construction in
their locality.
c) Informing specific neighborhoods about maintenance projects that will affect
traffic flow.
Design and Capacity Policies
The County's goal is to provide a safe cost effective, comfortable, and reliable
transportation system. The design and capacity policies are based on AASHTO's A
Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets 2004, Guidelines for Geometric
Design of Very Low -Volume Local Roads (ADT 5 400), WSDOT Design and
Construction Manuals, and other proven standards that define criteria for:
• Design
• Maintenance
• Safety standards
• Roadway adequacy
• Transportation system needs
• Demand management strategies
7. Road Adequacy Policy
Road adequacy is broken down into two separate considerations, congestion and safety
Mason County will strive to provide a safe road network, which operates at an LOS that
reflects the preference of the community. The County will consider development of a
plan for the future transportation network to guide both private and public transportation
development. This planning should address issues in a multi -model fashion and be
coordinated with other planning processes, in particular the Mason County Master Trails
Plan. The plan should address location, design, and financial issues. Financial issues
should include when public/private partnerships or other financing mechanisms might be
appropriate.
Roads in unincorporated UGAs
The County actively supports the Belfair Future Road Map Study to evaluate the
performance of the Belfair UGA road system. It is anticipated that the study will address
at a minimum the following issues:
1. Assessment of the current UGA infrastructure.
2. Shortcomings of the current UGA road system.
3. A blueprint for identifying and addressing future UGA roads.
4. A long term plan for developing a comprehensive UGA road net
VIII-2.4
Mason County Comprehensive Plan - Transportation
Where possible, the methodologies employed by the Belfair Future Road Map Study will
be adapted and applied to the Allyn UGA.
Roads
The County will construct and maintain the road network in accordance with safety
standards established by AASHTO, WSDOT and the MUTCD. Upgrading existing
deficiencies will be accomplished on a pnority evaluation that considers collision
occurrence, traffic volumes, and compliance to design standards.
An LOS for the road system is based upon definitions in the 2000 edition of the Highway
Capacity Manual. The County has adopted LOS C for peak hour flow (congestion) on all
rural County roadways and LOS D for roadways lying inside designated UGAs.
Transit
To be coordinated with Mason County Transit Authority policies.
Pedestrians
Pedestrian walking areas shall be provided, terrain permitting, on all of the County's
collector road system as these roads are improved or reconstructed. This may be
accomplished through the use of shoulder areas, separate walkways, or sidewalks,
depending on the area needs.
Bicycles
Bicyclists will be accommodated in a similar manner as pedestrians. Facilities will be
provided, terrain permitting, on County collectors designated as bikeways in the Bicycle
Plan as these roads are improved or reconstructed. The extent of the bicycle facilities will
be dependent on the classification of the facilities as defined in the Bicycle Plan. For
example, on the routes that are on the collector road system, a minimum 4-foot shoulder
should help provide an area which pedestrians and bicyclist can utilize.
8. Functional Classification Policy
Mason County classifies the road network according to Federal, regional, and local
guidelines based on the following:
a) State routes will maintain designations as mandated by RCW 47.05.021.
b) County roads will follow the specified functional classification system in TABLE
VIII.2-1.
VIII-2 5
Mason County Comprehensive Plan - Transportation
c) The designation for "primitive roads" (as defined by RCW 36.75.300) will be used
when appropriate.
Mason County Public Works uses the Federal Function Classes (FFC), as approved by the
Federal Highway Administration, for departmental funding, design, and planning. The
FFCs were last updated in December 2003, based on the required Urban Area Update
based on the 2000 US Census The FFC determines which roads are eligible for federal
and state funding programs, and determine the design standards that will be used.
The County supports the Port of Shelton's goals and policies, as outlined in their Shelton
Airport Master Plan and their designation under the Federal Aviation Administration's
classification system for airports.
TABLE
vf.2-1
Functional
Classification
Categories
State
Routes:
Roads
owned
and
operated
by
the
Washington
State
Department
of
Transportation
(WSDOT)
These
highways
provide
for regional
and
inter
-regional
travel.
Major
volumes
Collectors°
of
through
-traffic,
Roads
that
with
provide
limited
for
direct
regional
access
and
to
inter
abutting
-regional
properties.
travel,
typically
carrying
large
Minor
Collectors:
Roads
that
connect
neighborhoods
and
commercial
areas
to major
Collectors
and
State
highways
operated
by
WSDOT.
They
provide
access
to major adjacent
land
uses
and
generally
carry moderate
volumes
of
traffic.
Local
Collectors
Roads
that
collect
and
distribute
traffic
between
neighborhoods,
business areas, and
the
rest
of
the
collector
system.
They
provide
for easy and
direct
access
to abutting
properties
and
carry
low
to moderate
volumes
of
traffic.
Local
Roads:
These
facilities
provide
direct
access
to abutting
property
and
carry
traffic
to
the
collector
system.
Local
roads
typically
carry
low volumes
of
traffic
at
low
speeds.
8a Airport Designations
Mason County supports the preservation of air navigation resources and facilities in the
County by:
a) Providing compatibility with surrounding land uses.
b) Preventing encroachment by development that negatively impacts airport
operations through a coordinated review process for proposed land development
located within the airport influence zone
c) Supporting adequate ground transportation to move people and goods to and from
the airport.
VIII-2.6
Mason County Comprehensive Plan - Transportation
9. Functional Design Policy
Functional design ensures adequate and safe access to property via a system of public and
private roads.
A range of design and construction standards adopted in Mason County Title 16 shall be
used for secondary roads and roads within developments. Standards for Collectors shall
meet the current edition of WSDOT's Local Agency Guidelines Manual (LAG Manual).
These standards include roadway alignment and location, roadway sections, and nght-of-
way. All roadway design will be coordinated with Mason County, the City of Shelton,
Washington State Department of Transportation, and the Federal Highway
Administration to achieve compatible design standards. These standards will be:
a) Linked to the level and type of land development served by the transportation
facilities.
b) Consistent with the collector road functional classification.
c) Compatible between jurisdictions.
d) In compliance with Federal (AASHTO) and State (LAG Manual) design criteria..
10. System Integration Policy
Mason County strives to maintain an interconnected network of roads with appropriate
pedestrian and bicycle facilities to serve the citizens' travel needs. This is achieved by the
following:
a) The present road system is the foundation which meets the majority of the
County's current transportation needs.
b) New routes designed to serve either new development or to reduce congestion and
conflicts will be established after thorough review of economic, environmental,
and public interests.
11. Safety
The goal of the County is to provide a safe roadway system maximizing the use of
existing facilities and prioritizing the improvement program with special consideration of
safety issues:
a) Incorporate safety features into all facets of the transportation system; AASHTO
VIII-2.7
Mason County Comprehensive Plan - Transportation
and the LAG Manual will provide guidance in the application of these safety
features.
b) Monitor high -collision locations and evaluate these areas to provide solutions for
corrective action.
c) Pursue grants for safety improvements from State and Federal sources.
d) Maintain a sign inventory and monitor sign condition for compliance with the
MUTCD.
12. Aesthetic Design Policy
The design and maintenance of the roadway system will include attention to aesthetic
qualities. Special consideration will be given to maintaining the natural and manmade
amenities of the community:
a) Establish cooperative programs to enhance the roadway appearance (i.e., Adopt -
A -Road Program).
b) Preserve the scenic character of road corridors with designs that follow as much of
the old alignment as possible. Realignments and major changes to the original
corridor will be topics specifically addressed with area residents in the planning
phase of the project.
c) Maintain .standards for erosion control, which encourage retention and restoration
of native vegetation, and naturally occurring landscaping for roadway projects.
d) Coordinate with other agencies and local communities to consider the
establishment of design guidelines and/or standards for urban gateway areas. The
intent of the review is to determine how best to guide both private and public
development in corridors identified as important gateways to the urban growth
areas.
13. Transportation System Management (TSM) Policy
Promote efficient operation of the transportation system through TSM strategies which
will maximize the efficient use of existing systems without major changes to the overall
road configuration. Considerations will include:
a) Access control for major and minor collectors to minimize disruptions in traffic
flow.
b) Geometric improvements to improve traffic flow and capacity.
c) The use of traffic signalization and other intersection treatments to control traffic
flow as these systems become warranted.
Mason County Comprehensive Plan - Transportation
14. Pedestrian and Bicycle Policy
Encourage and provide a safe means of travel for pedestrians and bicyclists on the County
road network. Mason County will provide facilities for non -motorized travel by:
a) Incorporating improvements for non -motorized travel into programmed road
improvement projects. The most appropriate design for these facilities will be
determined on a case by case basis.
b) Exploring opportunities to provide low-cost improvements within the existing
public right-of-way that improves conditions for non -motorized travel modes.
c) Developing a Bicycle Plan and Pedestrian Plan in coordination with the Mason
County Master Trails Plan and the Future Transportation System Network Plan.
Improved shoulders, off-street trails, and off-street paved corridors are examples of
typical improvements, which will accommodate non -motorized travel.
15. Maintenance Policy
The County will maintain the road network to provide safe, reliable, and effective
movement of people and goods. Specific maintenance considerations will include:
a) Emergency repairs required for public safety will receive the highest priority.
b) Provide safe and reliable roadway surfaces through pavement patching, sealing
and surface treatments.
c) Maintain visibility of traffic control and safety devices.
d) Maintain drainage facilities in proper working order.
e) Maintain roadside vegetation to meet safety requirements. If possible, this will be
done in a manner compatible with the natural character of the land.
Provide traffic control for maintenance work in accordance with Part 6 of the
MUTCD
0
16. Access Policy
The County will provide (or limit) access to the road network in a manner consistent with
the function and purpose of each roadway. The County will strive to consolidate access
points on State highways, major and minor collectors in order to reduce interference with
traffic flow on the collectors and discourage through -traffic on local access streets. To
achieve this, the County:
a) Supports the State's controlled access policy on all State highway facilities.
VIII-2.9
Mason County Comprehensive Plan - Transportation
b) Encourages and may possibly assist landowners cooperative efforts in preparing
access plans that emphasize efficient internal circulation and discourage multiple
access points to major roadways. Special design features (Traffic Calming) may
be used to discourage excessive through -traffic on local access roads such as
geometrics (roadway layout), signing, traffic circles and pavement treatment.
c) Encourage access to private developments through a system of local collectors
and local access streets, thus limiting direct access onto the arterial (State) and
primary County network.
d) Encourages consolidation of access in developing commercial and higher density
residential areas through frontage roads, shared use driveways, and local access
streets, which intersect with collectors at moderate to long spacing.
VIII-2.10
Mason County Comprehensive Plan - Transportation
17. Private Roads Policy
The County requires private roadways to meet the minimum design standards required by
the Mason County Fire Marshal per the Uniform Fire Coda These standards can be
found at the Public Works Depaitnient, the Building Department, and Department of
Community Development Private roads may be adopted into the County's road system if
they meet the minimum standards found in the Mason County Title 16 per Policy 9
Functional Design Policy and improve the County's road network.
18. Emergency Response Needs Policy
Police, fire protection, and medical response services are critical uses of the roadway
system. The County will coordinate and integrate emergency response needs into the
transportation program. This will include:
a) Coordination of maintenance and construction work with emergency response
agencies.
b) Review elements of the roadway system that support emergency response services
to help determine where improvements can serve to enhance emergency response
capabilities.
19. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Policy
The County will encourage the implementation of a TDM system through the following
strategies, as mandated by Washington State law. TDM encourages alternate modes of
transportation to reduce the numbers of single -occupancy vehicles. These include:
a) Encouraging the use of high -occupancy vehicles (HOV) bus, carpool, and
vanpool programs through both public and private programs under the direction
of the MTA
b) Encouragement and support for non -motorized travel.
c) Promoting flexible work schedules to encourage use of transit, carpools, or
vanpools.
d) Encouraging employers to provide TDM measures in the work place through such
programs as preferential parking for HOVs, improved access for transit vehicles,
and employee incentives for using HOVs. This will coordinate with the
Washington State law considering trip reduction programs for major employers.
VIII-2 11
Mason County Comprehensive Plan - Transportation
Land Use, Environment, and Economic Policies
The transportation network will support development in accordance with the Mason
County Comprehensive Plan.
20. Land Use Policy
The County transportation system is a critical component of land use planning. The
relationship between the transportation network and land use is based on mobility and
access needs. Land use creates the transportation demand and the road network serves to
provide circulation between the land use elements. Compatibility between transportation
services and land uses is critical to the success of the County's comprehensive plan.
a) Mason County will strive to maintain the rural character of the road system with
designs that emphasize safe road networks and aesthetic qualities that make the
County unique.
b) The existing and future land use plans shall provide the basis for access needs
c) The transportation network shall support the County's needs resulting from
population and economic growth.
e) To meet future travel needs, transportation corridors shall be preserved by
obtaining sufficient right-of-way and controlling access to the road network.
e) To meet future travel needs, the County will consider developing a future
transportation network plan. The plan will help guide the establishment of new or
improved roads and other transportation facilities during private or public
development The plan should support the Mason County Comprehensive Plan
and be coordinated with the Mason County Master Trails Plan.
21. Environmental Policy
The design of transportation facilities within the County shall minimize adverse
environmental impacts resulting from both their construction and operation.
a) Environmentally sensitive areas shall be protected and, if unavoidable impacts
occur, appropriate mitigation shall be implemented. Special attention will be
given to wetlands, aquifer recharge areas, fish and wildlife habitat, floodplains,
and geologically hazardous areas.
b) The construction and maintenance of the roadway system shall strive to be
compatible with the natural characteristics of the area. Erosion control, water
quality, and re -vegetation methods will be applied where appropriate.
VIII-2 12
Mason County Comprehensive Plan - Transportation
c) The transportation improvement program shall coordinate with the State and
Federal resource agencies to ensure compliance with regulations and best design
practices to minimize impacts on the environment.
22. Economic Policy
The transportation network shall be supportive of the economic and development goals of
Mason County. County emphasis will be based on:
a) Safe and convenient service to existing business and industry which minimizes
impacts to residential areas.
b) County goals for the transportation network will be prioritized in support of
network enhancement and economic growth and development.
c) The County shall establish and maintain a process to assess the traffic impacts of
new development
Priorities and Financing
The County will continue to develop a transportation network that distributes costs and
benefits equitably to the citizens. The maximum return from expenditures of County
funds will be accomplished through wise use of the limited resources (such as land, fuel,
and money). The County has the responsibility and challenge to make the best use of the
limited funds available to maintain and develop the County's road system. As such,
County transportation improvement projects are prioritized in an organized, analytical
manner that promotes a comprehensive transportation program. Project prioritization
relies on a matrix that includes such factors as Traffic Volumes, Road Deficiencies,
Accidents, and Service Rating. The service -rating criterion is divided into five general
categories: commercial, economic, recreation service oriented, and community oriented.
The infrastructure needs of the unincorporated UGAs would be identified and included in
the prioritization matrix in this category. It is the intent of Mason County to secure
funding and allocate these funds in a consistent and equitable method.
23. Project Priority Policy
a)
b)
A standardized, well documented, and objective process shall be used to establish
priorities for transportation expenditures.
The prioritization process shall include, as a minimum, the following factors:
•
0
Traffic Volumes
Traffic Collisions
Roadway Width
Horizontal Curvature
Grade
VIII-2 13
Mason County Comprehensive Plan - Transportation
• Sight Distance
• Clear Zone Criteria
• Fund Leveraging Ability
• Structural Adequacy
• Drainage Adequacy
• Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
• Current Service Rating (Economic, Recreation, Commercial, Civic)
• Future Service Rating (Opportunities for expansion of the transportation
network or implementation of the network system plans in cooperation with
private development or improvement projects.)
24. Financing Policy
a) Establish a procedure that maximizes the available funding from State and Federal
grant programs.
b) May require traffic impact mitigation from new development in accordance with
the County's concurrency management policy
c) Encourage the use of Local Improvement Districts (LIDs) by property owners to
upgrade roads to meet County standards.
d) Maintain a capital improvement program that balances expenditures for the
transportation system with available funding resources.
25. Concurrency Management Policy
As required by the Washington State Growth Management Act, the transportation element
of the County s comprehensive plan must contain a concurrency policy (RCW
36.70A.070.6e). This policy requires new development to mitigate traffic impacts, which
reduce the LOS or safety below the County s adopted standards. Mitigation measures are
required to be implemented concurrently with the proposed development to accommodate
or offset the impacts which the proposed development may have on public facilities. If
impacts cannot be properly mitigated, the new development may be denied. It is not the
intent of this policy to adversely impact an individual property owner who wishes to short
plat a single tract of land. However, it does recognize the need to analyze those areas,
which have the potential for providing dense growth due to a single subdivision and/or
several consecutive subdivisions. The result of such an analysis may require
contributions toward improvement costs of roads which cannot support additional traffic
volume resulting from new subdivisions. Short plats established in the same locality
within a six -year time frame may be considered as one contiguous development if there is
a substantial cumulative impact to the area.
a) The County may require construction or financial commitment for significant
VIII-2 14
Mason County Comprehensive Plan - Transportation
traffic impacts on County roads.
b) A Latecomers Agreement Program may be drafted and administered by the
County This type of agreement will help landowners recover some costs
associated with road construction which directly benefits a future developer.
c) Improvements shall conform to County road standards.
VIII-2 15
Mason County Comprehensive Plan - Transportation
REFERENCES
X Mason County Code
Highway Capacity Manual, 1997, Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C.
Local Agency Guidelines, WSDOT Highways and Local Programs Division, Olympia,
WA
Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2000, Revision 3, American Traffic Safety
Services Association, Fredericksberg, VA
Mason County Title 16 Plats and Subdivisions, 1991, Mason County Code
Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 2004, AASHTO, Washington
D.C.
Guidelines for Geometric Desia:s of Very Low -Volume Roads (ADT <_ 400), 2001,
AASHTO, Washington D C
PRTPO Comprehensive Plan, 1995, Clallum, Jefferson, Kitsap, and Mason Counties
Revised Code of Washington 35.72 and 35.91 Latecomers Clause
Revised Code of Washington 36.75.300 - Primitive Roads
Revised Code of Washington 36.78 - Growth Management Act
Revised Code of Washington 36.81.121 - 6-Year TIP
Revised Code of Washington 47.05.021 - State Route Classification
Revised Code of Washington 47.40 - Adopt -a -road
Uniform Fire Code, 1994, International Fire Code Institute Austin, TX
Adopted by Washington State - June, 1995
Adopted by Mason County - March, 1996
VIII-2 16
Mason County Comprehensive Plan - Transportation
VIIL3 SYSTEM PLAN
The Mason County transportation system is comprised of the State Routes, Major
Collectors Local Collectors, Local Access Roads, transit, railroads, and bicycle/pedestrian
routes. The backbone of the system is the collector roadways that serve the majority of
travel in and through the County.
Functional Classification Plan
The functional classification system is a uniform method of defining the collector roads that
is accepted by local, State, and Federal agencies. The purpose is to classify roads by their
primary use in serving traffic as through -trips or varying degrees of access to adjacent
property. FIGURE VIIL3-I shows the Mason County functional classification system for
use in GMA planning and analysis.
State Routes
The principal state routes serving Mason County are US 101, SR 3 and SR 106, SR 108, SR
119 and SR 302. The purpose of these highways is to provide for regional and inter-
regional travel and provide connections to recreational and population areas.
State Route
(SR)
From
To
SR
3
SR
101
Kitsap
County
Line
SR
101
Thurston
County
Line
Jefferson
County
Line
SR
102
(Dayton
Airport
Rd)
SR
101
Dayton Airport
Road
SR
106
SR
101
SR
3
SR
108
Grays
Harbor
County
Line
SR
101
SR
119
(Lake
Cushman
Rd)
SR
101
Staircase
Road
SR
300
Belfair
State
Park
SR
3
SR
302
SR
3
Pierce
County
Line
Major Collectors
Major Collectors are roads that have a primary function of carrying traffic to and from
major traffic generators. Some local access is provided, but the primary function is for
through -trips. These Collectors typically have speed limits between 35 and 45 miles per
hour (mph) and many connect to freeways.
Minor Collectors
Minor collectors serve as connecting roads between neighborhoods and provide some
through -trips with additional local access. The minor Collectors also provide access to
major community -wide traffic generators (i.e. hospitals, schools). Speed limits are between
VIII-3 1
Mason County Comprehensive Plan - Transportation
30 and 45 mph and they typically connect to major collectors.
The prime transportation routes through Mason County are U.S. Route 101 running north
and south. The northern section of this highway is on the eastern side of the Olympic
Peninsula along Hood Canal. The southern section of this highway passes through Shelton
and connects with Olympia. SR 106 extends easterly from U.S. 101 at the Skokomish
Indian Reservation and runs along the southern side of Hood Canal. SR 106 intersects SR 3
south of Belfair. SR 3, from Bremerton and other points on the Kitsap Peninsula, enters
Mason County at the Belfair area and runs in a southwesterly direction past Mason Lake to
Shelton. SR 300 provides access to the southern tip of the Tahuya Peninsula from its
intersection with SR 3. SR 302 branches off SR 3 toward northwest Pierce County. SR
108 south of Shelton intersects with U.S. 101 at Kamilche and continues southwesterly to
McCleary (in Grays Harbor County), providing connections with Aberdeen and points
along the Pacific Ocean. SR 119 (Lake Cushman Road) extends east -west from US 101 in
Hoodsport.
TABLE
: Collectors
in
Mason
County
U
Collector
From
To
Manor Collectors
SR
3
Binns Swiger
Loop
Arcadia
Road
-
Belfair
Tahuya
Road
Elfendahl
Pass
Road
SR
300
Brockdale
Road
Shelton
City
Limits
McReavy
Road
Loop
Road
Stadium
Beach
Road
SR
3
Grapeview
Harstene
Bridge
Road
Bridge
Johns
Prairie
Road
Brockdale
Road
SR-3
Old
Belfair
Highway*
SR 300 -
Milepost
1.4
County
Line
Pickering
Road
SR
3
Harstene
Bridge
Shelton
-Matlock
Road
City
Limits
Mile
Post
10.76
Minor
Collectors
Agate
Road
SR 3
Pickering
Road
Road
Craig
Road
Cole
Road
Shadowood
Crestview
Dnve
Agate
Road
Parkway
Boulevard
Harstine
Island
South
Road
Island
Shore
Road
County
Lme
Old
Olympic
Highway
County
Line
Kamilche
Point
Road
Lynch
Road
SR
3
Milepost
1.10
SR 3
McEwen
Prairie
Road
Mason
Lake
Road
Lake
Road
Brockdale
Road
McEwen
Prairie
Road
Mason
SR 300
Transfer
Station
Sand
Hill
Road
VIII-3.2
Mason County Comprehensive Plan -
Transportation
Roads of Regional Significance
The PRTPO has identified roadway of regional significance in Mason County.
Local roads that are not classified under the Mason County functional classification system
but have regional significance are
Roadway
From
To
Dayton Airport
Rd
Shelton
Matlock
Road
SR
102
Hurley-Waldrip
Rd
SR
108
Junction
SR
101
Junction
Blockdale
Road
SR
106 Junction
McReavy
Road
Purdy
Cutoff
Road
SR
101
Junction
SR
106
Junction
Old
Olympic
Highway
SR
101
SR
101
SR 300
Junction
Chfton
Lane
SR
3
Junction
Mason County's road system consists of major and minor collector roads Information
concerning the collector system was provided by the Mason County Public Works
Department
As FIGURE VIII.1-3 illustrates, Pickering Road, Brockdale Road, Arcadia Road, Mason
Lake, and Agate Road are some of the Collectors which have an ADT in excess of 2,000.
These volumes indicate that currently County Collectors operate at a satisfactory level, with
very little capacity problems.
Mason County Public Works uses the FFC system in their planning activities. Eligibility
for state and federal grants and funding programs is based on the FFC of the road. In order
to maximize the amount of state and federal funding Mason County roads receive, their
road planning processes, priority array, and analyses include all roads that are classified as
arterials and collectors in the Federal Function Class system. The FFC of a road also
dictates the design criteria to be used when a road is improved. FHWA administers the
establishment of and approves the FFC in each state. Proposed updates to the FFC system
can be made at any time as the functionality of roads change over time.
VIII-3. 3
Mason County Comprehensive Plan - Transportation
See Appendix for hard copy of Figures
FIGURE VIII 1-3
AVE'` GE DAILY TFFIC VOL
FIGURE VIII.3-1
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION EXHIBIT
VIII-3 4
Mason County Comprehensive Plan -
Transportation
FFC
Roads
Road
Name
From
Location
To
Location
Rural
Major
Collector
FFC
07
Agate
Road
SR-3
Timberlake
Drive
Arcadia
Road
SR-3
Lynch
Road
Bear
Creekl-Dewatto
Road
Elfendahl
Pass
Road
Old
Belfair
Highway
Belfair-Tahuya
Road
North
Shore
Road
SR-300
Brockdale
Road
Batstone
Cutoff
Road
McReavy
Road
Clifton
Lane
SR-3
SR-300
Cloquallum
Road
Shelton
City
Limits
Satsop-Cloquallum
Road
Cole
Road
Lynch
Road
Craig
Road
Craig
Road
SR-3
Cole
Road
Dayton
Airport
Road
Little
Egypt
Road
SR-102
Grapeview
Loop
Road
SR-3
SR-3
Harstine
Bridge
Road
Pickering
Road
South
Island
Drive
Harstine
Island
North
Road
Harstine
Island
South
Road
North
Island
Drive
Highland
Road
Shelton
-Matlock
Road
Cloquallum
Road
Johns
Prairie
Road
Shelton
city
Limits
SR-3
Lynch
Road
SR-101
Arcadia
Road
Mason
Benson
Road
SR-3
Mason
Lake
Drive
East
Mason
Lake
Road
SR-3
Trails
Road
Matlock
-Brady
Road
Shelton
-Matlock
Road
Grays
Harbor
County
Line
McEwan
Prairie
Road
Mason
Lake
Road
Brockdale
Road
McReavy
Road
SR-106
Brockdale
Road
Harstine
Island
North
Road
North
Island
Drive
South
Island
Drive
Old
Belfair
Highway
SR-300
Kitsap
County
Line
Pickenng
Road
SR-3
Harstme
Bridge
Road
Purdy
Cut
-Off
Road
US-101
SR-106
Sand
Hill
Road
SR-300
Bear
Creek-Dewatto
Road
Shelton
Road
Shelton
city
limits
Matlock
-Brady
Road
-Matlock
South
Drive
South
Island
Drive
North
Island
Drive
Harstine
Island
Trails
Road
SR-106
Mason
Lake
Road
VIII-3.5
Mason County Comprehensive Plan -
Transportation
Rural
Minor
Collector
FFC
08
Agate
Road
Agate
Road
Timberlake
Drive
Road
Kitsap
County
Line
Elfendahl
Pass
Road
Bear Creek-Dewatto
Boundary
Road
West
Matlock
-Brady
Road
Grays
Harbor
County
Line
Brockdale
Road
McReavy
Road
US-101
Cloquallam
Road
Satsop-Cloquallum
Road
Grays
Harbor
County
Line
Crestview
Drive
Agate
Road
Parkway
Boulevard
Matlock
Road
Grays
Harbor
County
Line
Deckerville
Road
-Brady
Dewatto
Road
Belfair-Tahuya
road
Dewatto-Holly
Road
Dewatto-Holly
Road
Dewatto
Beach
Drive
Kitsap
County
Line
Jones
Road
Dickinson
Avenue
City Limits
Elfendahl
Pass
Road
North
Shore
Road
Bear
Creek-Dewatto
Road
Harstine
Island
South
Road
South
Island
Drive
Camus
Drive
Turn
North
Kamilche
Point
Road
Old
Olympic
Highway
90
Degree
Trails
Road
Mason
Lake
Road
Mason
Lake
Drive
West
North
Bay
Road
SR-3
SR-302
Belfair-Tahuya
Dewatto
Road
North
Shore
Road
road
Old
Olympic
Highway
US-101
Kamilche
Point
Road
Parkway
Boulevard
Crestview
Drive
Shorecrest
Drive
Harstine
Island
Drive
Agate
Road
Pickering
Road
Satsop
Cloquallum
Road
Cloquallum
Road
Satsop
Road
East
Schaefer
Park
Road
Matlock
-Brady
Road
Satsop
Road
East
Shelton
Springs
Road
US-101
Shelton
City
Limits
Road
Shelton
Valley
Road
Shelton
-Matlock
Road
Cloquallum
Skokomish
Valley
Road
US-101
475
ft. West of
Govey
Road
(DNR)
Bear Creek-Dewatto
Road
Belfair-Tahuya
Road
Tahuya
Blacksmith
Road
Urban
Collector
FFC
17
Walker
Park
Road
Arcadia
Road
Shelton
City
Limits
Transit System
The MTA initiated transit service December 1, 1992 by establishing a Public Transportation
Benefit Area (PTBA) Board with the following goals:
VIII-3 6
Mason County Comprehensive Plan - Transportation
To develop a coordinated system of affordable public transportation that: operates within
existing financial limitations, maximizes the use of existing transportation resources
including volunteers, and is available, to some extent, in most areas of Mason County.
MTA has begun partnering with Federal, State, regional, local and private transportation
entities to improve planning and coordination of services. Current service includes dial -a -
ride service, scheduled route service, van pool/car pool coordination and volunteer
transportation.
Dial -a -Ride Service
This service was started with a system of service zones designed to allocate operations
based upon identified locations of population densities. Current service zones consist of 7
areas covering the populated areas of Mason County that can be safely accessed by bus
service. Service is on reservation basis and is subject to availability.
For Information orto schedule a ride, contact the Customer Service Center at
(360) 427-5033 or Toll Free 1-800-374-3747 or visit the Mason County Transportation
Authority for the most current information at: http://masontransit.org/
VIII-3 7
Mason County Comprehensive Plan -
Transportation
Park -and -Ride Lots
There are four designated park -and -ride lots in Mason County:
Location
Capacity
Usage
Maintenance
Pickering
Road
and
Highway
3 30
< 10% County
Shelton
-Matlock
Interchange
30
0-10% State
Highway
8 and
Highway
101
20
78% State
Cole
Road
and
Highway
3 20
25-30% State
Volunteer Services
Transportation services for special populations (i e , elderly and handicapped) are provided
by a number of different social service and community -based organizations The majority
of these services operate with volunteers using their own cars or vans. Organizations that
are able to provide van transportation include the Area Agency on Aging for Lewis -Mason -
Thurston Counties (contracting with Intercity Transit), Skokomish Indian Reservation and
Exceptional Foresters. Organizations that operate with volunteers are Harstine Island,
North Mason County Chamber of Commerce, Fiercely Independent Elders, Catholic
Community Services, Semor Activities, Colony Surf, and Matthew House. The availability
of volunteers can be a limiting factor in an organization's ability to provide these services.
Rail Transportation
There is no passenger rail transportation in Mason County. Rail services are used primarily
by the lumber and wood products industry. The main Mason County rail line follows the
same general alignment as SR 3 from Shelton through Belfair. From Belfair, the line goes
north to Bremerton and Bangor. The right-of-way for this segment of the railroad is owned
by the U.S. Government and operated and maintained by Burlington Northern Railroad
(BNRR). The line south from Shelton is owned by BNRR and runs in a southwesterly
direction to McCleary and Elma in Grays Harbor County.
The Simpson Timber Company owns and operates a line from Shelton to the Day-
ton/Matlock area. This line is used exclusively for the timber business. While Simpson and
other timber concerns had previously used rail extensively in their operations, all but this
one remaining line has been closed.
VIII-3.8
Mason County Comprehensive Plan - Transportation
Pedestrian/Bicycle Facilities
Mason County has two designated pedestrian/bicycle trails; these area (1) on Brockdale
Road from Wallace Boulevard to Island Lake Drive and (2) on Arcadia Road from SR 3 to
Binns-Swiger Road. Other informal paths off the roadway may exist within neighborhoods,
but otherwise bicycle and pedestrian travel is on the roadway or roadway shoulder. Much
of Highway 101 has a shoulder wide enough to accommodate bicycle travel. However, SR
106 and SR 3 generally do not have sufficient shoulder width to safely accommodate
pedestrian and bicycle travel and both are heavily traveled. The County's standard asphalt
road provides for at least a 5-foot shoulder. This type of roadway shoulder can be used by
bicycle and pedestrian travel. The factor which may disrupt continuous shoulder paving is
the contour of the land —rather steep hillsides.
In September of 2004, the Mason County Board of Commissioners signed a Resolution that
established a County trails committee. The work of the committee led to the development
of a Master Trails Plan.. The Trails Plan developed six new policy statements that
specifically address trails.
1. Destinations — Develop trails that lead to or between specific points of interest or
attractions
2. Population Center Linkages/Mobility — Develop trails that provide access and
mobility to, from, or between population centers.
3 Local Circulation — Develop trails to facilitate access and transportation within
urban areas or areas of intense rural development.
4. Opportunities — Develop trails that are designed or located to take advantage of
existing or future opportumties.
5. Off -Road Vehicle Trails — Develop trails that either lead to parks or sites that allow
ORVs; or trails that allow ORVs as an acceptable use. (Designating trails
specifically for ORVs to relieve the pressure on trails designated for bicycle or
pedestrian traffic.)
6. Water Resources — Develop trails that utilize, promote, and provide access to fresh
and saltwater activities.
VIII-3.9
demand management (TDM) strategies.
construction, but do reduce demand for
improvements should include:
Park -and -Ride Service
Mason County Comprehensive Plan - Transportation
Transportation System Management/Transportation Demand Management
Strategies for efficient utilization of existing transportation systems are called transportation
These strategies do not involve new road
new facilities. Specific strategies for future
Remote parking lots should be located at transit stops to allow those users beyond the
normal '/ mile walking distance to drive to a transit stop.
VIII-3 10
Mason County Comprehensive Plan - Transportation
Left blank intentionally
VIII-3.11
Mason County Comprehensive Plan - Transportation
Shuttle Systems
Short -distance transit services should provide reduced auto dependence (i.e., shuttle service
from places of employment to restaurants and shopping areas).
Employment Transit Subsidies
Employers should subsidize their employees' use of transit by giving cash subsidies for
purchase of transit passes.
Ridesharing
Carpooling and vanpooling offer tremendous potential for improving utilization of existing
transportation facilities. Modest increases in ridesharing should produce measurable
improvements.
Alternative Work Hours
Promotion of staggered work hours should spread peak period demand. An example of this
concept should include flex -time, which gives employees personal choice to determine their
work hours.
Parking Management
This strategy should include limiting the supply and availability of parking, preferential
parking for carpools and vanpools, or reducing the amount of free parking provided to
employees.
Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities
Provision of bicycle/pedestrian facilities should be based on the type of area served and
related travel needs for pedestrians and bicycles. The general types of travel by these users
are recreation, school, and commuting. As part of the transportation plan route, it is
important to designate pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Minimum needs to serve this type
of traffic should be based on adequate safety, and convenient service. Design and
provisions of facilities should implement the future transportation network system plan,
bicycle plan, pedestrian plan, Master Trails Plan, or other county plans as appropriate.
It is generally felt that all collector roads should have minimum areas for bicycle/pedestrian
lanes. Where appropriate, they should be separated from the road and serve the type of
travel warranted for the specific area.
VIII-3 12
Mason County Comprehensive Plan - Transportation
Transit Service
Mason County has a transit program underway that is providing service to the communities
and connections between the activities centers. Some of the key elements that need to be
considered in the transportation plan relating to transit service are
• Ridership
• Service Areas
• Social Needs
• Cost of Service
• Special Areas
• Route Structure
The Mason County Transportation Authority is providing planning for the transit system.
The Mason County Transportation Plan will coordinate with this agency's work to ensure
that the two plans are compatible.
VIII-3.13
Mason County Comprehensive Plan - Transportation
VIIL 4 ROAD DESIGN STAND S
The adopted design standards for roads in Mason County have been developed to provide
cost-effective design that is consistent with the road users' driving expectations and meets
the public safety needs. The needs of motor vehicles, bicycling, and pedestrians are all
elements of the transportation system.
The application of design standards creates the basic geometric configuration of the
roadway. However the philosophy of design establishes the character of the roadway by
integrating sensitivity to the terrain, environment, and visual appearance. Mason County's
philosophy is to design new or improved roadways in a manner that retains a natural and
rural character consistent with the prudent use of resources. The use of curvilinear
horizontal and vertical alignment can give a more interesting and changing visual effect
while not sacrificing safety, convenience, or economy. Retaining and restoring natural
vegetation to the graded areas of the roadway will enhance the visual appearance while
minimizing erosion.
Principles of Design Standards
The design standards for Mason County roads incorporate:
• Local Agency Guidelines City and County Design Standards, Washington State,
November 2004
• A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, AASHTO, 2004
These standards cannot provide for all situations Specific conditions may require
deviations from adopted standards but must be done using professional judgment to obtain
a design that is justified and considers economic, environmental, and public welfare.
The design standards are intended to achieve the following principles:
• The roadway meets the needs of safe, economic, and convenient transportation for
the public.
• The roadway design shall be sensitive to the environment and rural character of
Mason County.
The design will balance the life cycle costs of construction, maintenance, and
resources.
VIII-4.1
Mason County Comprehensive Plan - Transportation
Collector Road System
The Mason County collector road system design standards will conform to the guidance and
standards in the Local Agency Guidelines City and County Design Standards, Washington
State November 2004. The geometric standards of the roadway sections are shown in
TABLE VIII.4-1. FIGURE VIIL4-1 shows the definition of roadway section elements.
The County desires to retain and enhance the natural environment and rural character of the
collector road system. To accomplish this, special considerations are necessary for the
design and maintenance of the roadways.
New Construction
Road construction that involves new location, significant realignment, or major widening
will consider:
•
•
Natural terrain to minimize grading requirements for cuts and fills
Retention of natural drainage courses water bodies, and wetlands
Retention and enhancement of natural vegetation
Maintenance
Roadway maintenance is to be accomplished to retain the areas adjacent to the roadway
(clear zone), kept clear of fixed or non -traversable objects, and provide a surface that is safe
for use by errant vehicles. This area will be maintained with low -growing vegetation that
serves as erosion control as well as providing a natural appearance.
Low -Volume Local Access Roads
To maintain the rural character of Mason County's low -volume roads, the following
principles will apply:
•
•
•
Paved roadway surface will be minimized to reduce drainage requirements and
lower maintenance costs.
Disturbance or removal of vegetation and trees will be minimized.
Disturbance of soil will be minimized to reduce potential scarring of hillsides and
erosion.
VIII-4 2
Transportation
Mason County Draft Comprehensive Plan -
wo-Way Collector Roads
Right -of -Way 60 Feet Minimum
26' 28' 34' 40'
3' 4' 6' 8'
(V ,-1
O O O O
O O O O
32' 36' 40'
1
ch
..
.N..~-1 .
Below 100
1
.—I 1.1 H .--1
Q
_ H e0
o'--I
•--
,.•1
H
on
e Widt1
Exteri
Intern
2-Wa
Exclu
y
b
7:1
b
OO
4
n4
vi
a)
O
z
0
O
N
N
cj
1
O
0
0
0
a)
0
O
0
O
• g
a)
eti
(I
0
Y
a)
c+-1
N
1-4
. • ry
O
a)
cn774
dards may be used
T, the low volume road and street s
Q
Cid "Ed
N
O 0
W w
N
Design Hourly Vol
Average Daily Traffic
Mason County Draft Comprehensive Plan - November 2005
Transportation
SHOULDERED ROADWAY
R/W R/W
ROADWAY WIDTH.
CUT SLOPE
OR.
BACK SLOPE
SHOULDER SHOULDER
DITCH SLOPE
* DOES NOT INCLUDE WIDENING: FOR :GUARD RAIL
OR'OTHER SPECIAL PURPOSES
EMBANKMENT SLOPE
OR
FORE SLOPE
FIGURE VIII.4-1: Defmition of Roadway Elements. Shoulder Roadway
(Does not include widening for guardrail or other special purposes)
Low -Volume Local Access Roads (continued)
• Roadways will provide access to property at a minimal disruption to the natural
environment.
Where appropriate and safe, curvilinear alignments will be used.
These principles will apply on local access roads forecasted with less than 400 vehicles per
day traffic volume. Collisions on these roads are less than 50 percent of the average
collision rate for Mason County. The result of collisions is property damage only with
limited injuries. A non -continuous street will not exceed 700 feet in length without an
adequate turn around. Truck traffic will be limited to serving the local property owners
only.
Private Road Section
1 he Uniform Fire Code specifies that there will be 20 feet of unobstructed access to any
building. A 2-foot shoulder is required for a total roadway width of 24 feet. A 2 percent
cross slope must be provided to ensure removal of water from the roadway surface. Private
fire apparatus access standards are shown in Table
Geometrics
The minimum design speed for determining horizontal and vertical curves and maximum
grades will be 25 mph. This may not be the posted speed, so warning signs must be
integrated into the design. Stopping sight distance will be designed for 30 mph to provide
an unobstructed view of the roadway for 200 feet in front of each vehicle. Passing sight
VIII-4.4
Mason County Draft Comprehensive Plan - November 2005 Transportation
distance and intersection sight distance will be controlled by appropriate signage and
striping. No bicycle or pedestrian facilities are required unless a part of the
bicycle/pedestrian plan or near school/commercial/industrial areas.
Clear Zone
Drainage facilities provided through borrow ditches will be a part of the clear zone.
Utilities and other obstructions (i.e., culvert head walls) will be located on the outside of
drainage facilities as much as possible. Tree and vegetation removal will be minimized
except to remove an obvious hazard/obstruction on the outside of a curve or to provide
stopping sight distance on the inside of a curve.
TABLE
VIII.4-2:
Private
Fire Apparatus
Access
Road
Standards
Dwelling
Units
Easement
Width***
Min
Roadway
Section
Max.***
Grade
Distance
Min.
Sight
Max
Curvature
Degree/
Structural
Capacity
(Bridge)
*
Cul-De-Sac
Turn
and
Around
Min Radius
1-2
30'
12' **
14%
200'
90
Deg in 50'
NO****
NONE
3-4
40'
20'
14%
200'
38
Deg/
150'
H-20
YES
5-9
40'
20'
14%
200'
38
Deg/
150'
H-20
YES
10-20
60'
20'
12%
200'
20
Deg/ 287'
H-20
YES
21-100
60'
26' (3'shldrs)
12%
200'
20
Deg/ 287'
H-20
YES
NOTE: A MINIMUM
VERTICAL
CLEARANCE OF 13 FEET 6 INCHES MUST BE MAINTAINED ON ALL ROADS
* HS-25 IF ACCESS IS NEEDED TO AREAS WHICH MAY PROVIDE HEAVY LOADS. Licenced Engineering Required.
** SEE THE SECTION FOR DRIVEWAY STANDARDS ON PAGE 5.
*** THE MAXIMUM GRADE OF 12% AND THE 60' EASEMENT MAY APPLY TO THOSE DEVELOPMENTS OF LESS THAN 10
DWELLING UNITS, IF THE POTENTIAL DENSITY SERVED BY THE ACCESS ROAD COULD EXCEED 10 DWELLING UNITS.
**** ENOUGH OPEN SPACE MUST BE PROVIDED TO ALLOW EMERGENCY VEHICLES ROOM TO TURN AROUND AT
THE END OF THE DRIVEWAY.
VIII-4.5
Mason County Draft Comprehensive Plan - November 2005 Transportation
VIIL 5 SYSTEM AGEMENT PLAN
The Mason County Transportation System Management Plan provides a process to control,
prioritize, and finance the transportation improvement program. FIGURE VIII.5-1
graphically shows the process for managing the County transportation system. The key
elements are
• Priority analysis
• Financial plan
• Transportation improvement plan
• Concurrency management system
This report provides an evaluation of the existing system and identifies deficiencies in
pavement and shoulder width, horizontal and vertical alignment, and safety. These
deficiencies have been pnoritized into a six -year and twenty-year transportation
improvement program (TIP)
Priority Analysis
Transportation improvements are selected for construction by the County Commissioners
using the goals and policies, local knowledge, and an evaluation of physical and operational
criteria. The critena include pavement width, shoulder width, alignment charactenstics, and
safety. The evaluation of physical and operational criteria provides priority analysis. This
is coupled with the other selection considerations to develop the transportation
improvement program.
Mason County's Collectors were rated using the physical and operational criteria established
in Section VIII.1. The Collector and Arterials that are already included in the
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) are given the highest priority. That is, a
roadway having the highest total score was given the highest pnority and roadways with
lower scores were given lower priority. The list of projects was subsequently divided into
six -year improvement programs (TIPS) based on current and future funding availability.
The financial plan over the 20-year period is discussed in the next section.
VIII-5.1
Transportation
q
$
0
a.
k
ƒ
0
O
c 0
e o •
Es c
n c
C 0
ƒoO
o. c
0Q.<
0
§ cac
my
/ 2 2
al Et
3
/
Land Use Plan
4
mc
2
o
<
'1
0 co
2 § _0
CC §
a
E
c
E
c
0
0
ƒ
e
3
@
PO
\/2
- 0 ■ c
> E.°
rl E ■
o vt
t c 0
c / c
o
/
Enhancements
Mason County Draft Comprehensive Plan - November 2005 Transportation
Financial Plan
Funding a transportation system involves incorporating the resources from county, state,
federal, and private sources. The blending of these resources is dependent upon the needs
of the jurisdiction, as well as the political philosophies of the responsible governmental
units. 1 he following provides a discussion of funding resources.
County Funds
A county has the ability to utilize revenue from the following sources:
General Funds
Tax revenues that are not dedicated to specific use can be used by a county for the
transportation system.
County Road Fund - Portion of Property Tax
Property tax up to $2.07 per $1,000 assessed valuation can be used for roads in
unincorporated county areas. This funding source makes up almost half of the County's
road budget. A portion of this budget, limited by RCW 36.33.220, can be diverted to other
sources for services rendered to Public Works such as law enforcement for traffic and work
site operation.
Fuel Tax
The county's portion of the tax received from fuel sales is distributed by the state to the
various counties based on population and road mileage in accordance with a standard
formula.
Vehicle License Fee
A vehicle license fee up to $15 can be applied by a county for general transportation. This
is subject to referendum. These fees are not currently used by Mason County.
Special Fuel Tax
Based on voter approval, a 10 percent fuel tax can be added for highway construction by a
county. This tax is not currently utilized by Mason County.
VIII-5.3
Mason County Draft Comprehensive Plan - November 2005 Transportation
Transportation Benefit Districts
A special taxing district can be foamed for transportation purposes to issue voter -approved
general obligation bonds, revenue bonds, special property taxes, and Local Improvement
Districts (LIDs). These districts can range in area from an entire region (special property
taxes) to a neighborhood LID.
State and Federal Assistance
Transportation Equity Act for the 21 S` Century (TEA-21)
The Transportation Equity Act, 2005, updates and continues the TEA-21 passed in 1998
Funds are made available to the State of Washington and local agencies from federal
revenue sources.
The Transportation Equity Act, 1998, provides funds that are made available to the State of
Washington and local agencies from federal revenue sources. This program incorporates a
number of special programs such as bridge replacement, railroad/highway crossing, and
hazard elimination projects.
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA)
This Federal Transportation Act of 1990 was the predecessor TEA-21 and operated under
the same general guidelines. Mason County still has a few projects in the 6-Year TIP which
were funded under this program.
Federal Forest Funds
Based on the Federal forest lands within a county, funds are provided to construct and
maintain roads within these Federal areas.
Transportation Improvement Account (TIA)
This is aState-funded program for local agencies to alleviate and prevent traffic congestion
caused by growth This program has been established from revenue obtained from
Washington State's gas tax.
Urban Arterial Trust Account (DATA)
This is also a State -funded program for traffic improvements to alleviate congestion It is
funded by Washington State's gas tax and allocated to communities based on priority
evaluation of needs.
VIII-5 4
Mason County Draft Comprehensive Plan - November 2005 Transportation
Rural Arterial Program (RAP)
This is a State -funded program for counties to improve rural collector roads.
County Arterial Preservation Program (CAPP)
This is a program with Washington State funding to counties to preserve existing paved
county Collector roads.
Community Economic Revitalization Board (CERB)
This program provides low -interest loans and occasional grants to finance access roads for
specific sector development
Public Works Trust Fund (PWTF)
This is a low -interest loan program for public works improvements.
Private Sources
Based on State and Federal legislation of The Growth Management Act, The State
Environmental Protection Act, and The National Environmental Protection Act, mitigation
for new development can be assessed based on the requirements to serve the traffic demand
generated by the new development.
Revenue Sources
Mason County has used a wide range of funding sources for their transportation program.
TABLE VIII.5-1 identifies transportation funding sources.
This was then used to create a base year amount for each funding source. The base year was
then expanded using estimated percentage annual increases considering the growth of the
County changes anticipated in funding sources, and economic conditions. It is important to
note that the revenues and construction costs have not been adjusted for inflation. The
changes are only the result of growth.
VIII-5 5
1
4.1
•
Mason County Draft Comprehensive Plan - November 2005
unds
ix
asiox,
xcise
'unds
Other Sources
Carry Over Balance
Eason Counl
Tax
a
Mason County Draft Comprehensive Plan - November 2005 Transportation
Transportation Plan and Improvement Program
A Transportation Plan for the 20-year period was developed for Mason County utilizing the
priority analysis and financial plan as previously discussed The recommended plan for the
Collector road system is shown in FIGURE VIII.5-2. Projects scheduled to be funded in the
next six years are listed in the 6-year Transportation Improvement Program shown in
FIGURE VIII.5-2A. The revenue forecast indicates that adequate funds are available to fund
the projects contained in the next six year Transportation Improvement Program. TABLE
VIII.5-2A shows the list of projects over the 20-year period.
Concurrence Management System
The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) specifies that a transportation
element of a city or county comprehensive plan must incorporate a concurrency
management system (CMS) into their plan. A CMS is a policy designed to enable the city
or county to determine whether adequate public facilities are available to serve new
developments. This process is shown in FIGURE VIII.5-3.
The transportation element section of the GMA defines the CMS as follows:
` Local jurisdictions must adopt and enforce ordinances which prohibit development
approval if the development causes the LOS on a transportation facility to decline below the
standard adopted in the transportation element of the comprehensive plan, unless
transportation improvements or strategies to accommodate the impacts of development are
made concurrent with the development "
"Concurrent with development implies that public infrastructure improvements and
strategies that are required to service land development be in place, or financially planned
for, within six years of development use."
VIII-5.7
Transportation
Mason County Draft Comprehensive Plan — November 2005
See Appendix for hard copy of Figures
FIGURE VIII.5-2
FIGURE VIII.5-2A
oo
ti
Transportation
Mason County Draft Comprehensive Plan — November 2005
See Appendix for hard copy of Figures
FIGURE VIII.5-2A
6-Year TIP
Mason County Draft Comprehensive Plan — November 2005
Realign, Widen Shoulder & Pavt. 11,242
unty Collectors Only)
)ost Location ( Recommended Improvement Cost ($1000)
ign and Regrade 300
"Gold Creek Rd. Realign and Regrade 333
SR 3 Install New Traffic Signal 156
:ion Realign and Regrade 380
Fox lane Realign and Regrade 593
Road Realign and Regrade 277
Trails End Drive ( New Construction 1600
d Regrade 315
of pokes Road I Realign and Regrade 333
Road I Realign and Regrade 616
ign and Regrade 624
792
300
1 369
10
to
yr-
In
Cfl
N
O
N
..Zr
CO
CO
O
M
oad I Realign and Regrade 2E
c-
t
CO
C')
CO
O
CO
tore I Realign and Regrade
d Regrade
New Construction
New Construction for New Alignment
Realign and Regrade
Realign and Regrade
Nor. & Vert. Align., Widen Shoulder
Realign and Widen Shoulder
align and Widen Shoulder
Realign, Widen Shoulder & Pavt.
orizontal & V
- Bypass
toad
'ublic Access Area
Deegan Road West
lock Road
Road
f Lakeshore Drive South
1.3
O
Et
O
Cn
C)
2
At North Shore
0.16 mi. East o
rsection wit
isfer Sta
0.44 mi, North
At Grapeview S
-iic View
Approximately
At Cronquist Rc
Schneider RI
0.68 mi. South
At North Shore
At Delmore Rol
At Murray Roac
At Stadium BeE
i North of
At North Shore
O
Vicinity of Bell
At Shelton-M
L
0
O
C)
0.07 mi.
At City I
105 ft.
C
Co
E
in
Q
m
0.00-1.85
7.45-8.45
2.66-3.94
4.43-5.9
4.51-5.35
3.94-5.82
2.78-3.5
1.62-2.78
coE
co
co
Lo
N
0)
O
0
•
LTD
co
vjLo
CO
XO
CA
Lc)
O
h
CM
CO
r•
.-
r
0�
Pr
U7
cY
cc;IIIL
ABLE VIII.5-2A: Transportation Improvement I
co
M
O
CEO.
Q
COO
c
tf
OD
co.r
9Ch
r
Z
O
Q
c)
CO
CV
O
O
r
CO
C`7
r
CO
id
CT
O
Creek Dewatto Road - 1
lair-Tahuya Road - 1
)ar Creek-Dewatto Road - 2
tins Prairie Road/SR 3
Z - enua PUelsl 4t•c
rapeview Loop Road - 4
rapeview Loop road - 5
ing Road-5
Drth Shore Road
fendahl Pass Road - 1
3ndhill Road - 3
ielton Matlock Road
ie Road - 2
rapeview Loop Road - 2
rapeview Loop Road - 1
ear Creek-Dewatto Road - 7
ey Road - 2
elfair-Tahuya Road - 1
ew Frontage Roads (Bell
r
t
r
co
1
'o
Et
to
O
O
�i
CV
O
02
1
a
c-a
w
Aco
as
a)
Of
co
as
o
o
fo
'®
®
CO
Cs
E-
C
U
_E.cEt
O
C
o
3
c
o
n
4-
A
Z
Z
®m
2
w
65
in
2
0
m
w
m
H
m
m
m
co
o
c5
co
co
en
Transportation
Mason County Draft Comprehensive Plan — November 2005
O
O
O
N
co
N-
Lc)
r
Lp
co
co
aLc)
CO
958.5
M
LC>
N
N
N
LC)
CO
760.5
to
Ch
O)
CO
In
CO
CO
co
CO
Ln
O
O)
LO
N
CO
LC)
LO
210 ft North of 90 Degree Curve Right I Widen Shoulder 1747
0
0
0
cfy
0
0
LO
LO
N
N
In
5
LO
to
O
M
O
CO
O
M
CO
C1
d'
O
O
N
r
r
ti
LC)
Co
C7
d^
_
Lf
co
CO
4O
CO
4r
et
P�
IC
CO
O)
tC)
O
4
O)
CO
LC)
CO
r
if)
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
Hor. & Vert. Align., Widen Pavt.
Realign and Widen Shoulder
in and Widen Shoulder
Realign, Widen Shoulder & Pavt.
Realign, Widen Pavt. & Shoulder
Realign, Widen Pavt. & Shoulder
Lical Align.
Widen Shoulder & Pvt.
t
n, Widen Shoulder & Pavt.
Widen Pavement
L
luewened pue Japinoyg uep!M
Realign, Widen Shoulder
hand Shoulder
len Pavement
Widen Shoulder
N
:ical Alignment
Realign & Regrade, Widen Shoulder
Widen Shoulder
a
O
L
Widen Shoulder and Pavel
CI)
Recommended Improv
I pue Japinoyg uepim
C
C6
Widen Shoulder and I
fand
Widen Shoulder and I
C
c
a)
E
N
C6
d
c
N
'O
. 78 mi East of Tiger Mission Road
At 45 Degree Curve Left
Beginning Milepost Location
. 97 mi. SE of 40 Degree Curve Right
ley Road
--------------------
1.03 mi S. of Pvt. Rd. (Goat Ranch Rd.)
At Old Olympic Hwy.
At Bear Creek Dewatto Road
lypt Road
At Rock Bridge #1
At Hillcrest Drive
huya Road
Ile Road
At Ford Loop Road
f Ever's Bridge
55 ft West of Boundary Road
0.5 mi East of Highland Road
At Shelton -Matlock Road
At Bloomfield Road
0.98 mi South of 4-H Camp
of Mill Creek Bridge
0.74 mi Northwest of Lynch Road
At Bingham Creek Bridge
th of Panhandle Lake
At Mason lake Drive West
Lines
0.93 mi West of Lake Nahwal
N
O
W
0
CO
N
C6
d
E
7
L
as
(6
0
c
c
Q-
o
U
w
a
Q
Milepost
4.6-5.85
ti
Ls"
M
00
0-2.5
LO
N
ti
OO).
IC
O
5.85-7.98
co
1.85-3.5
16.86-20.91
20.91-23.22
co
26.38-27.81
O
CO
N
O
ti
co
dcm-
3.35-4.6
N
14.22-15.56
CD
CO
cri
co
N
N
N
M
N
t$)
•
M
O)CD
CO
CO
Ln
LO
N
'
CO
Ch.
co
t!)
Le)
d'co
M
tl)
O
C7
N
0
CO
r
CO
O
It
N
O
4
C?
O
CV
co
CO
CO
�'
4
N
O)
C•
co
t!ii
CO
00
4
O
r
O)
r
O
N
LC)
CN
4
d'
O)
r
co
O
r
r
r
Bear Creek Dewatto Road - 8
Creek Dewatto Road - 4
Project I.D.
Bear Creek Dewatto Road - 5
Cloquallum Road - 3
hl Pass Road 3
Kamilche Point Road - 1
ksmith Road - 1
S helton -Matlock Road - 2
Bear Creek Dewatto Road - 6
- peon wniienboio
Crestview Drive
Road - 2
Shelton -Matlock Road - 7
Shelton -Matlock Road - 8
lock Road - 9
ock Road -10
i
Highland Road - 1
(NIC6
1
Tahuya Blacksmith Road - 2
Arcadia Road - 1
Arcadia Road - 2
I Shelton -Matlock Road - 6
Shelton -Matlock Road - 1
S helton -Matlock Road - 5
S helton -Matlock Road - 3
-
o
W
E
coo
o
co
i
N
O
f6
®cc
CV
C
-
"O
M
E
O
O
CO
C6
O
ct
Tahuya BI
Q
V
Ca
O
7
V
en
C0
E
Y
i
e
Q
F
(n
U
co
I
Transportation
Mason County Draft Comprehensive Plan — November 2005
0
0
0
N
Total 2006-2029 Transportation Improvement Plan Cost 88319
446.
mst
vet
we
CD
In
CD
d-
r
ti
r
c
O
ccoo
ccoo
Widen Pavement and Shoulder
Recommended Improvement
New Construction
New Construction
New Construction
New Construction
0
0
C.
1
0)
c
0
0
0
CO
c
c
cm
22
<0
1.39 mi. SW of Highway Road "Y"
Beginning Milepost Location
SR 101 - Brockdale Road
Johns Prairie Road - Mason Lake Road
Mason Lake Road - SR 3
h Island Drive - Harsi
t
1.5 mi. North of CloquallL
>t of Nahwatz
Shelton -Matlock Road - 4 11.89-14.22 I
coCC
Milepost
Q
Q
Q
W
2.43-4.
1
co
Q
oct
Z
Z
Z
Z
co
Highland Road - 2
Highland Road - 4
Project I.D.
New Road
New Road
New Road
New Road
Transportation
Mason County Draft Comprehensive Plan — November 2005
New Developmen
• • • • •
c .to
> ca>,
E Its
~ <
0•
c
ca
Q
E
c
co
a
w
c
rn
cn
0
Z
m
n
E
.0
c0
0
0
a
1 1 1
2
0
O.
44
IL
W
en
>,
0
Cn
o H
C
O
0
CO
c
O
O
0
0 0
0 0
E _
a. [n
0 ea
0 CCD
0
I1
0
0
E
0
0
0
0
C
A
0
C
0
O
ea
73
0
2 U_
Involvement
• • • • •
Mason County Draft Comprehensive Plan — November 2005 Transportation
Principal Components
1 he concurrency management system (CMS) for Mason County includes the following
components.
Identification and definition of facilities and services to be monitored.
Establishment of LOS standards.
Identification of when, in the development approval process, the concurrency test is
applied
Responsibilities of the applicant and Mason County defined for determining
capacity.
Transportation Facilities to Meet Concurrency
The Collector road system (as defined in Section VIII.3) that serves Mason County will be
monitored to determine impact of new development on the established LOS standards.
The County Collector system is anticipated to meet the traffic capacity standard of LOS C
through the 20-year planning period. The design standards for the Collector road system,
which related to the physical features of the road (i.e., width of lanes, shoulders, etc.), will
be addressed in the 20-year TIP However, localized improvements may be required to
ensure safe traffic operations of the new development facilities.
The State Highway System is an integral part of the County's Collector road system and will
be momtored to determine conformance with the LOS standards established by the County.
Capacity and design standards will be applied to new development that impact the State
Highway System and localized improvements may be required as part of the development
approval. Although the State system generally will meet capacity standards, there are areas
that will not meet minimum design standards The County will work closely with WSDOT
to encourage timely completion of needed highway improvements to bring the system up to
the County's designs standards.
Level of Service Standards
LOS standards apply to all new development projects that generate ten or more peak hour
vehicle trips during an average weekday on any segment of a Collector road or intersection.
If the proposed development generates less than ten vehicle trips per hour, minimum design
standards will be met as described below.
LOS will be determined based on the assumption that the existing Collector road system
improvements that are included in the County's current six -year TIP are in place. Existing
VIII-5 14
Mason County Draft Comprehensive Plan — November 2005 Transportation
deficiencies that are corrected by the six -year TIP will not be considered a deficiency for the
new improvement
Two LOS standards will be the basis of compliance with concurrency requirements: traffic
capacity and design standards.
Traffic Capacity
The Collector road system will meet the LOS C. Capacity LOS is defined in the 2000
Highway Capacity Manual and is based on peak hour traffic during the most critical or
highest volume times of the day.
Design Standards
The Collector road system will meet the geometric and road section standards for the
Collector classification defined in Section VIII.4—Road Design Standards. Water and
sanitary sewer services will be coordinated with other project requirements.
Minimum design standards for projects that generate more than twenty vehicle trips per
hour shall include:
1. A minimum 26-foot-wide street section with sufficient traffic capacity to serve the
existing and project -generated traffic. The road will connect from the proposed
development to the closest fully constructed collector street.
2. A paved pedestrian path that connects from the development to either an equivalent
path or sidewalk on the Collectors serving the development where appropriate.
Existing Deficiencies
As per the analysis in Section VIII.1, pg VIII1.18, Mason County does not presently have
any existing LOS or traffic capacity deficiencies on the road system. Furthermore, only one
road segment in the County is expected to fall below LOS C, albeit just barely, for the
preferred land use alternative in the 20-year time frame. Suffice it to say that Mason County
has very few capacity concerns.
Growth has caused traffic volumes to increase to a point that several roads in the County
have fallen below the design standards (Section VIII.4) needed to support those volumes.
Some of those roads are County Collectors and are scheduled for reconstruction in the six -
year TIP These projects correct the many of the existing deficiencies on the system.
VIII-5. 15
Mason County Draft Comprehensive Plan — November 2005 Transportation
Growth Deficiencies
Growth may cause some localized capacity concerns not anticipated in the transportation
model. Overall, the County road system will provide a LOS C or better for the next 20
years.
New development may be required to mitigate impacts to the system if the proposed project
will require a higher design standard to properly service the additional traffic.
Note: Mitigation will only be required if the affected road does not meet current standards.
Traffic Impact Fees and Development Review
Traffic impact fees are collected to improve the transportation system to accommodate
the higher travel demand added by new development. The County needs to reassess its
traffic impact fee position where new developments are projected to adversely impact the
ability of the current transportation infrastructure to accommodate the additional demand.
The County may require a traffic analysis through the SEPA review process to determine
whether significant, localized impacts could be expected from a new development. Any
need for mitigation from the developer will be dealt with at that time (i.e., access issues,
impact to design standard thresholds etc.). If it is found that a development will cause
significant impacts to the surrounding road system which cannot be mitigated, the
development may be denied.
Collector Road System Compliance
The Collector road system and project funding that has been prepared for the County
transportation system will provide facilities to meet capacity and design standards. The
transportation improvement program has been based on prioritization of the projects and
will be accomplished based on the anticipated financial resources. If development occurs
that is compatible with the improvement program, there may be localized development
improvements required to the collector system. At specific locations, the concentration of
traffic by new development may cause a need for road or intersection improvements to
provide adequate capacity or operational feature.
VIII-5.16
Mason County Draft Comprehensive Plan - November 2005
Transportation
IIII Responsibilities of Applicant
The project applicant will provide the following information for concurrency review:
1. Traffic Impacts to be performed by a qualified Traffic Engineer.
2. Recommended off -site traffic improvements.
3. Development site traffic plan to include street sections, traffic
signing
The traffic impact studies will be prepared in accordance with the
requirements
control plan, and
County's adopted
VIII-5.17
Mason County Draft Comprehensive Plan - November 2005 Transportation
VIII.6 STATE T ' SPORTATION SYSTEM
Table VIII 6-1 lists a brief inventory of the state highways located within Mason County.
The State Highway System Plan is a publication produced by WSDOT which provides a
comprehensive review of the state system and identifies specific deficiencies and
summarizes respective remedies. The State Highway System Plan establishes the LOS
status of the state highways in Mason County and the surrounding region For highways of
statewide significance, the LOS thresholds are as follows:
Urban Areas:
Rural Areas:
LOS "D"
LOS "C"
Copies of this State Highway System Plan are available for distribution at:
Washington State Department of Transportation
Washington State Transportation Plan
P. O. Box 47370
Olympia, WA 98504-7370
360-705-7962
Mason County regularly coordinates with WSDOT, both directly and through active
participation with, the Peninsula Regional Transportation Planning Organization (PRTPO).
It is through these Joint efforts that Mason County maintains consistency with the State and
the surrounding Jurisdictions.
Route
BMP
EMP
From Location
To Location
Lanes
Length
LOS
SR 101
314.63
331.74
Mason/Jefferson County Line
SR 119 Jct/Hoodsport
2
17.11
B
343.44
SR 119 Jct/Hoodsport
SR 102 Jct/Dayton-Airport Rd.
2
11.70
C
SR 101
331.74
5.72
C
SR 101
343.44
349.16
SR 102 Jct/Dayton-Airport Rd.
SR 3 Jet
2
SR 101
349.16
353.05
SR 3 Jet
SR 108 Jet/Squaxin Casino
4
3.89
B
SR 101
353.05
356.92
SR 108 Jct/Squaxin Casino
Masonffhurston Co. Line
4
3.87
B
Total
42.29
SR 3
0.00
1.19
SR 101/SR 3 Jct
Shelton City Limits
(So.)
2
1.19
C
SR 3
1.19
3.58
Shelton City Limits
(So.)
Shelton City Limits
(East)
2
2.39
D
SR 3
23.26
24.91
SR 302 Jct in Allyn
SR 106 Jct/Enter Belfair
2
1.65
D
SR 3
24.91
26.38
SR 106 Jet/Enter Belfair
SR 300 Jct in Belfair
3
1.47
D
SR 3
26.38
28.20
SR 300 Jct
Mason/Kitsap County Line
3
1.82
D
Total
28.20
SR 119
0.00
10.93
SR 101 Jct in Hoodsport
Staircase Rd.
2
10.93
B
SR 106
0.00
20.09
SR 101 Jct
SR 3 Jct
2
20.09
B
SR 102
0.00
2.86
SR 101 Jct
Dayton -Airport Rd
2
2.86
B
SR 108
4.18
11.96
Mason/Grays Harbor Co. Line
SR 101 Jct/Squaxin
Casino
2
7.78
B
SR 302
0.00
5.01
SR 3 Jet in Allyn
Mason/Pierce County Line
2
5.01
B
SR 300
0.00
3.35
Belfair State Park
SR 3 Jct in Belfair
2
3.35
C
Grand
Total
120.51
VIII-6.1
Mason County Draft Comprehensive Plan — November 2005 Transportation
New State Routes
Belfair Bypass Road
A bypass highway would be constructed to redirect SR 3 through -traffic around the
community of Belfair - Figure Via 7-1. The proposed alignment would begin on SR 3 at
MP 23.70 near North Mason High School and continue generally in the northeasterly
direction until it connects with SR 3 north of Belfair at approximately MP 28.00 near the
Mason / Kitsap county line. The new State Route is largely within the Belfair Urban
Growth Area
VIII-6.2
Mason County Draft Comprehensive Plan — November 2005 Transportation
See Appendix for hard copy of Figures
FIGURE VIII.7-1
BELFAIR BYPASS EXHIBIT
VIII-6.3
Mason County Draft Comprehensive Plan— November 2005 Transportation
VIII7 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS.)
Discussion of Issues
The Washington State Growth Management Act of 1990 requires that all counties
experiencing growth and development meeting the criteria of the act adopt or update their
comprehensive land use plans to comply with the provisions of the Act. One requirement
of the Act is for counties to develop goals and policies in the form of a transportation
element that is consistent with the land use element of the comprehensive plan.
The transportation element consists of goals and policies aimed at providing a safe, cost-
effective, comfortable, and reliable transportation system As required by the Growth
Management Act, it contains a concurrency policy, which prohibits development approval if
the development causes the LOS or safety on a transportation facility to be reduced below a
prescribed level, unless measures are implemented concurrent with construction to
accommodate or offset the impacts on that facility. Other policies contained in the
transportation element focus on finance, design, public and inter -governmental
coordination, and system management.
Plan Objectives
It is the intent of the proposed updated comprehensive plan to provide for transportation
facilities that meet the needs of Mason County residents for the next 20 years. The
following objectives form the framework of this:
• Provide adequate mobility for all people, goods, and services.
• Establish an effective transportation planning process in Mason County.
• Provide a safe, comfortable, and reliable transportation system.
• Ensure compatibility between transportation facilities and surrounding development.
• Minimize negative environmental impacts on the physical and social environments
so as to preserve the "rural character" of the area
VIII-7.1
Mason County Draft Comprehensive Plan — November 2005 Transportation
Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Geology, Soils, and Topography
Affected Environment
The construction of roads involves removing or adding material, compacting soils, and
spreading of asphalt or other impermeable surfaces. The transportation element has several
goals and policies, which may require the construction of new roads or widened existing
ones The expansion of shoulders to accommodate bicycle lanes or pedestrian facilities will
require additional asphalt surfaces. The construction of new roads in urban growth areas
may be necessary to accommodate development. The construction of new facilities will be
required to achieve the prescribed LOS and eliminate safety problems where deficiencies
exist. It is likely that there will be environmental impacts associated with these structures.
Impacts
Grading for road construction changes topography and has a potential to divert or modify
stream and surface drainage patterns. Because roads are usually long and continuous,
stream flow diversion can be extensive. Modification of the natural streambeds can create
unstable conditions which may cause settlement or erosion. The removal of natural
vegetation can also change the stability of soil and topography Other conditions can
increase runoff with associated impacts on the soils and geology in the area.
Mitigation Factors
Preservation and restoration of vegetation will mitigate erosion impacts and provide an
aesthetically pleasing experience for the motorists. Natural vegetation stabilizes soils, helps
retam water runoff from road surfaces, and prevents erosion of soils. Design of dramage
facilities that includes ditches and restored streambeds through the use of proper grades,
construction materials, and runoff control will minimize the impacts of construction.
During the construction of new or expanded facilities, it is necessary to protect exposed
areas. Siltation traps and water control techniques can retain soils during construction.
Protection of wildlife and watersheds requires that County roads be managed in accordance
with the WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual that incorporates the Department of Ecology's
Best Management Practices.
VIII-7.2
Mason County Draft Comprehensive Plan — November 2005 Transportation
Air Quality
Affected Environment
The surface transportation system primarily affects emissions of carbon monoxide (CO)
from vehicles. Other pollutants generated by traffic include the ozone precursors,
hydrocarbons, and nitrate oxides. Fine particulate matter also is emitted in vehicle exhaust
and generated by tire action on pavement (or unpaved areas), but the amounts of particulate
matter generated by individual vehicles is small compared with other sources. Sulfur oxides
and nitrogen dioxide also are emitted by space heating and motor vehicles, but
concentration of these pollutants are generally not high except near large industrial facilities.
Impacts
The transportation element of the Mason County Comprehensive Plan will have minor
impacts on air quality in the area. Increased traffic flow will increase the pollutants in the
air Construction activities can also create dust and related air pollutants.
Mitigation Measures
The transportation element introduces a variety of strategies aimed at reducing single -
occupancy vehicle use and promoting alternative modes of transportation. These strategies
will reduce the impacts on air quality. Traffic demand management strategies include
incentives for the use of alternative transportation modes and disincentives for the use of
single -occupancy vehicles. The construction of improved roads will provide more uniform
traffic flow with better pavement surfaces: This will improve the efficiency of the
automobile, thus reducing vehicle emissions.
Water Quality
Affected Environment
The transportation system collects, transports, and retains water that is the natural runoff.
The roadways may require changes in natural drainage courses and can change the rate of
runoff. The roadway is also a source of pollutants that can infiltrate the water source.
Impacts
The construction of new or rebuilt roads will result in increasing impervious surfaces which
may cause adverse impacts on surface water quantity and quality. The change in runoff
characteristics can have an effect on groundwater due to potentially decreased recharge area
VIII-7.3
Mason County Draft Comprehensive Plan — November 2005 Transportation
and diminished water quality. The compaction of soils and the introduction of other
impemuieable surfaces reduces the soil's natural infiltration capabilities and can increase
contamination of lower lying soils. Surfaces that formerly were able to absorb and
moderate surface water runoff are replaced by non -absorbing surfaces that shed water. The
paved surface also is a source of non -point pollution, exhaust, oil, transmission fluid, and
radiator fluid from automobiles. The runoff washes these pollutants into ditches and
eventually into the lower lying soils, rendering them of less quality Loss of riparian
vegetation due to pollution can increase the problem of erosion adjacent to the roadway.
Mitigation Measures
The construction of detention ponds, biofilters, settling ponds, and erosion protection will
be used in design and construction of new roadways to protect surface water quality.
Maintenance practices by the County will incorporate the same methods of water quality
protection and enhancement.
Vegetation and Wildlife
Affected Environment
Much of the County road system is bordered by natural vegetation and wildlife habitat.
Stream corridors, shorelines, and wetlands are sensitive areas that can be affected by the
construction of new or expanded roadways.
Impacts
The construction of new roadways or widening of existing County roads reduces the
wildlife habitat and removes natural vegetation Increasing the number of vehicles on the
County roads will increase the exposure of animals to auto -related collisions, threatening
not only the animals but the motorist. Greenbelts located m proximity to open areas —like
clearcuts—provide deer and other animals with shelter and food. The preservation of
roadside vegetation creates a buffer for the enhancement of scenic roads that may increase
the number of animals exposed traffic.
Mitigation Measures
The environmental policy of the transportation element is aimed at natural vegetation and
wildlife protection. Avoidance of wildlife habitat, stream corridors, wetlands, and
shorelines will retain wildlife habitat and reduce impact on natural vegetation.
Technologies are currently being developed to deter large animals such as deer and elk from
entering a road corridor. Use of these types of measures could be implemented in wildlife
VIII-7.4
Mason County Draft Comprehensive Plan — November 2005 Transportation
corridors which come in contact with major roadways. Public awareness beyond the usual
deer crossing sign can help inform the public of the hazards of automobile and animal
collisions.
Energy and Natural Resources
Affected Environment
The transportation system creates demands on energy and natural resources. The powering
of vehicles requires energy and the roadways require space that affect natural resource areas
such as timberlands and agricultural areas.
Impacts
The primary impact of the transportation system on the energy and natural resources is the
consumption of energy resources and consuming area for transportation facilities.
Mitigation Measures
The primary measures included in the transportation element of the proposed Mason County
Comprehensive Plan would be the goals and policies which offer alternative modes of
transportation and strategies which will reduce single -occupancy vehicles. Additionally,
consideration of construction methods that minimize space requirements and impacts on
natural areas will reduce the effects of the transportation system on energy and natural
resources.
Land Use
Affected Environment
The relationship between a transportation system and land use is based on mobility and
access Land use creates the transportation demand and the road system serves to provide
circulation between the land use elements.
Impacts
The transportation plan has been coordinated with the Mason County Comprehensive Plan
and is consistent with the growth patterns and policies set forth by the County. On a local
level, the timing of land use changes and the mix and density of land uses could be affected
to some degree by the transportation system. However, it is assumed that community plans
and area zoning would continue to exercise primary control over the location, mix and
VIII-7.5
Mason County Draft Comprehensive Plan — November 2005 Transportation
densities and land uses. Land uses adjacent to the road network would be directly affected
where right-of-way acquisition displaces or encroaches on existing uses.
Mitigation Measures
Interlocal agreements can be used to coordinate actions on transportation issues As
community plans are prepared and updated, their visions will be coordinated with the
transportation planning efforts of the County. The Mason County transportation element
will be reviewed and updated regularly to respond to land use planning changes.
Consistency and compatibility of the transportation and land use elements of the
comprehensive plan will require continual review by the County. The County will also
conform to the requirements of the State of Washington Growth Management Act which
specifies that the transportation element will be compatible with the land use element
Some impacts will be unavoidable Land will be consumed as more right-of-way is needed
for new construction and major widening projects. Some existing land uses will be
displaced.
Developers may be required to assist the county in the provision of additional transportation
facilities needed to serve new developments in proportion to the impacts and needs
generated by their projects. This may make the cost of developing land more expensive
than if no mitigation were required.
Land Use Alternatives:
Four land use alternatives, described in the Rural Element, were analyzed to determine their
respective traffic impacts on the transportation system in Mason County Increased
population in any of these four alternatives will result in increased traffic and demand for
transportation system improvements. The impacts associated with theseimprovements are
discussed above. The degree to which a project impacts the surrounding environment will
vary depending on the specific conditions associated with that project.
The impacts to the transportation system associated with congestion (a result of growth)
were also studied. This analysis was performed using a transportation model (TMODEL2)
The traffic forecast for the 20 year projection for each land use alternative was calculated by
the model and discussed in Section VIII.1-17. Anticipated employment and housing factors
were used to update the traffic analysis zones in the traffic model. The following is a
summary of the results for the 20 year growth forecast:
• The findings show that there is no significant difference in the amount of traffic
loaded onto the road network by any of the four land use alternatives. This implies
VIII-7.6
Mason County Draft Comprehensive Plan — November 2005 Transportation
that impacts associated with overall road usage will be relatively the same in each
land use alternative.
• Traffic in the County will essentially double over the next 20 years
• All county roads should continue to operate at a LOS C or better. A few roads may
fall to an LOS D if a localized spike in the growth rate occurs in an area which
concentrates traffic to a single road.
Mason County roads are generally safe for drivers who are reasonably attentive to
driving, obeying the laws, rules of the road, and the signing. Impacts associated
with perceived safety deficiencies will necessitate improvements to the road
network. The need for these safety improvements primarily exists on roads built
before modern day design standards were put into practice. As these improvements
are made over the next 20 years, collision rates may decrease.
VIII-7.7
Mason County Draft Comprehensive Plan — November 2005 Transportation
Appendix:
Includes the following illustrations:
Figure VIII 1-1 Study Area
Figure VIII 1-3 Average Daily Traffic Volumes
Figure VIII 1-4 Critical Accident Locations
Figure VIII 1-5 Traffic Analysis Zones
Figure VIII 3-1 Functional Classification
Figure VIII 5-2 Potential New Roads
Figure VIII 5-2A Current 6-Year TIP
Figure VIII 7-1 Belfair Bypass Connector
VIII-7.8
Nahwatzel
Lake
MASON COUNTY
see -
Shelton
Isabella
Lake i
1
LLakeerry
Meraanifa Dr
Lake
Limerick
Mason
Lake
Kitsap count.,
0 3 m1. 6 m1.
SCALE IN MILES
County Limits
FIGUREviui.i-i
MA ON COUNTY TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
STUDY AREA
Nov 2005
MASON COUNTY
4'
arbor County
Price
Lake
Shelton
Isabella
Lake r
r
Tee
Lake
Rd
or Ilath
s
ui.a
tDr Scut
Haven 'l Is II
vacopP
Lake
se/
tel
mew
400 Cranberry " _•_� �✓ / QRS
�)1 a s
40.5
Mason
Lake
1:6
0
3 mi.
_48r abb..
Oeek
0
Kitsap County
Wan
3 mi.
ty,
oe North
Rd
0 mi.
400
air
4,200 Year 2000
(6,300) Year 2025
SCALE: I" = 3 Miles
County Limits
ADT from Mason County Comprehensive Plan
Dated: April, 199E
ADT from SR101 Connector Study
Figure Vill - 1-3
Mason County Transportat
Average Daily Traffic
1
on Element
Volumes
Nov 2005
IIIeLclp
Boundary
Road
Nahwatzel
Lake
Grays Harbor County
Skokomish
Jefferson County
MASON COUNTY
Itself
srr ham ak
4t,
4
Price
Lake
Art
c1/2,
Isabella —Cid#
Lake iv "e
1
Wakdnp Pd
Kitsap County
ftY
0
3 m1.
11
t
*,••.
7
North
Bay Rd
Mot
tw
6 m1.
Number of Accidents
Accident Rate
Figure VHI.1-4
Mason County Transportation Element
Critical Accident Locations
(2002-2004)
Nov 2005
SCALE: 1' = 3 Mlles
County Limits
MASON COUNTY
Price
Lake
Isabella P..." a
Lake
Grays Harbor County
Kitsap County
Haven ..1011.
Lake
NO SCALE
�~ J
County Limits
Figure VIH.1-5
Mason County Transportation Element
Traffic Analysis Zones
Nov 2005
a „Alining
@ ke IngSIUS„�'�►
ea �F. t� a 1=111111 a ,Ina, rima • -anal
iliningin- immoral.
i
i
1
Major Collector State Route
Minor Collector
3 ml. 0
1
1
3mL 6mi.
SCALE: 1" = 3 Miles
Figure Vill - 3-1
Mason County Transportation Element
Functional Classification
Nov 2005
POTENTIAL ROAD PROJECT INDEX:
1 STAR LAKE NE ACCESS
2 CLOQUALLUM TO SR 108
3 CLOQUALLUM TO SR 101 - NEW INTERCHANGE
4 CLOQUALLUM TO SR 101 - NORTH OF LAKE ISABELLA
5 CLOQUALLUM TO SR 101 - SOUTH OF LAKE ISABELLA
6 WEST US 101 FRONTAGE
7 EAST US 101 FRONTAGE
8 SHORECREST CONNECTION
9 TIMBER LAKE NORTH ACCESS
10 MCEWEN PRAIRIE CONNECTION
11 JOHNS PRAIRIE CONNECTION
12 HARSTINE CONNECTION
13 PICKERING CONNECTION
14 MCREAVY CONNECTION
Legend
Local Roads
Highways and Major Roads
s * Potential New Roads
Urban Growth Areas
Water Bodies
Mason County Boundary
15 GRAPEVIEW LOOP CUTOFF
16 MANZANITA CONNECTION
17 RASOR ROAD EAST CONNECTION NORTH
18 WADE ST
19 TRAILS ROAD HILL REVISION
20 LAKELAND VILLAGE WEST ACCESS
21 W T BUDDING ROAD
22 ROY BOAD EXTENSION
23 BELFAIR NORTH ACCESS - NORTH OF SR 3 RR XING
24 BELFAIR NORTH ACCESS - SOUTH OF SR 3 RR XING
25 UNION RIVER BYPASS
26 GOAT RANCH CONNECTION
27 WHEELWRIGHT ST
28 MASTERSON ST
Peential road projects are in no particular order The numbers are prese
Lines represent general corridors and are not exact locations of where a
Figure VIII 5.2
Potential New Roads
ntto aid In identification.
potential road would go.
Produced By: Mason County Public Works GIS Department
Project File: Potential_ Road_ Projects_2007_Update.mxd
Publication Date- 5/2/07
Map Data Sources:
Roads, Shelton City Limits and UGA Boundaries are from
Mason County GIS. County Boundary and Water Bodies
are from WA Dept. of Natural Resources.
This map was produced using ArcGIS 9 2
Mason County
Potential
Road Projects
DISCLAIMER AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
The data used to make this map have been tested for accuracy.
and every effort has been made to ensure that these data are
timely, accurate and reliable. However. Mason County makes no
guarantee or warranty to rts accuracy as to labeling, dimensions, or
placement or location of any map features contained herein. The
boundaries depicted by these data are approximate, and are not
necessarily accurate to surveying or engineering standards. These
data are intended for informational purposes and should not be
considered authoritative for engineering, navigational. legal and
other site -specific uses. Mason County does not assume any legal
liability or responsibility arising from the use of this map in a manner
not intended by Mason County. In no event shall Mason County be
liable for direct, indirect, incidental, consequential, special, or tort
damages of any kind, including, but not limited to. loss of
anticipated profits or benefits arising from use of or reliance on the
information contained herein. The burden for determining fitness for
use lies entirely with the user and the user is solely responsible for
understanding the accuracy limitation of the information contained
in this map.
6-YEAR TIP PROGRAM 2009 - 2014
2009
1
2
PRIORITY
2008
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
6
7
g
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
26
27
28
25
26
27
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
28
29
30
31
32
36
33
34
35
36
MCPW
Project
ACP Overlays
(maintenance)
BST on Gravel
(maintenance)
Safety
(maintenance)
Minor Const
(maintenance)
Large Culverts
(maintenance)
Belfair Tayhua Bridge Replacement
N orth Shore Road Slide
N orth Shore Road Slide
Finch Creek Bridge Replacement
Dewatto Holly Road Slide
S unnyside Road Slide
BMP
S unnyside Road Slide
Grapeview Loop Road Slide
Lower Elfendahl Pass Rd. Reconstr.
N orth Shore Road Erosion Repairs
Lynch Rd / SR 101 Improvements
Johns Prairie Rd
Grapeview Loop Road - 2 (4/17/09)
11.60
Bear Creek Dewatto - 2 (4/13/09)
S helton -Matlock Rd - 2 (4/18/10)
Cloquallum Road - 3R (4/29/11)
N orth Island Dr - 1
Rock Creek No. 1 Bridge
Matlock Brady Road - Phase 1
Weaver Creek Bridge C
nst
Trails Rd -2
Arcadia Roac
Hunter Creek Bridge
EMP
MN
MN
1 02
P ickering Rd =3
S helton - Matlock Rd = 1
var
0.00
2 52
Belfair - Tahuya Rd - 1
S outh Island Dr - 1
Matlock Brady Road - Phase 2
Cloquallum - 2
Deckerville Road - 1
Island Lake Drive
1.61
7 59
14.50
Johns Prairie/SR 3 Intesection
5.85
0.31
5.83
23 53
0.69
0.40
Rasor Road W Extension to SR 3
Newkirk Road Extension
Wheelwright Street
Wade Street
Masterson Street
5.50
1.73
3.35
1.87
var
0.91
0.00
0.00
1.06
3 45
3.50
16.86
4.58
0.00
0.44
n .a
n .a
n .a
n .a
n .a
10.00
15.50
6.85
1.31
5.87
28 79
1.59
7.07
1.80
4.45
1.38
1.15
1.80
23.53
5 23
1.86
1.1
n.a
n .a.
n a
n a
n .a.
n .a.
Misc Engineering ROW CosLs
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
1;10TES: (1) All dollar figures in thousands
(2) PE = Preliminary Engineering
(3) RW = Right of Way
(4) Constr = CE + Construction
(5) CE = Construction Engineering
2009
PE RW Constr
500'
101
600
15;
200
211 9; 200
9
31800
20j 100 451
20!
20;
50
40
35
151 5; 30
2010
PE RW Constr
1,200
1, 0 151 600
151
211
4 a 20! 400
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15 5! 30
10; 5; 10
5 181 613.
51
1
1
0
>: 0
0
30o; 500
0
0
i
1
01
1
1
25 0 601 595
2000 370
200 800
6z10
10o�
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
a
i
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
100; 7001
101 50; 2,292
10;
15g 400
25; 200 i
5/g 101
60
501
2011
PE RW Constr
1;400
15 i 600
5; 200
9; 200
15; 300
-,000
800
101 10! 400
30! 301
10B
50;
50 ; 25
30;
301
501
2012
PE RW Constr
1,400
100
600
1
200
200
301 i o 300
1,000
20-13-
PE RW Constr
1,680
0
0
1
600
5; 200
9; 200
300
2014
PE RW Constr
1
1
1
17680
1Ca
151 600
300
720
1,315
800
700
0
0
a
30i 20
,000
1.315
400
10
10
10
o
1
0
5; 200
21
200
151 300
75; 1001 200
100i 200
100; 200
100! 200
1001 200
1001 200
10 200
100i 200
100! 200
1001 200
Project
Total
7,884
3,750
1,320
1, 380
2,741
75
65
60
50
25
636
933
813
0
680
3,390
3,362
1,315
1,770
1,420
848
2,850
957
600
650
962
400
425
450
385
385
385
385
385
385
385
385
385
385
385
463
7,865
751 75!
0
7,009
0
603
75/3a 75
75 75
75;
900
45,021
45,021
APPROVED BY TIP -CAP
Date of Final Approval:
Page 1
APPROVED BY BOARD OF CO NIFY CO itADSSOONES
Hearing Date:
Date of Final Adoption:
Resolution Number:
Belfalr Bypass Connector
SCALE: 1 = 3 Mlles
Belfair
Bypass
Figure Vill - 7-1
Mason County Transportation Element
Belfair Bypass Connector
Nov 2005