B. Capital Facilities Goals and Policies

Goal CF-1: Contribute to the quality of life in Kirkland through the planned provision of public capital facilities and utilities.

Goal CF-2: Implement sustainable development principles with the design and construction of public facilities.

Goal CF-3: Provide a variety of responses to the demands of growth on capital facilities and utilities.

Goal CF-4: Identify level of service standards that ensure adequate public facilities to serve existing and future development.

Goal CF-5: Ensure that water, sewer, and transportation facilities necessary to support new development are available and adequate, and concurrent with new development, based on the City’s adopted level of service standards.

Goal CF-6: Provide needed public facilities that are within the ability of the City to fund or within the City’s authority to require others to provide.

Goal CF-7: Ensure that the Capital Facilities Element is consistent with other City, local, regional, and state adopted plans.

Capital Facilities for Quality of Life

One of the basic premises of this Element is that the provision of public facilities contributes to our quality of life. Fire stations, roads, bicycle and pedestrian systems, parks, and other facilities are a physical reflection of community values. The challenge is in keeping up with the demands for new or enhanced facilities as growth occurs or as needs change.

Goal CF-1: Contribute to the quality of life in Kirkland through the planned provision of public capital facilities and utilities.

Policy CF-1.1: Determine needed capital facilities and utilities based on adopted level of service and forecasts of growth in accordance with the Land Use Element.

Levels of service are measurements of the quantity and quality of public facilities provided to the community. By comparing the inventory of existing facilities to the amount required to achieve and maintain the level of service standard, the needs for capital facilities can be determined.

Policy CF-1.2: Design public facilities to be sensitive in scale and design with surrounding uses, and to incorporate common design elements which enhance a sense of community and neighborhood identity.

As the Vision Statement and Guiding Principles describe, a high priority for Kirkland residents is maintaining and enhancing Kirkland’s strong sense of community and neighborhood identity. To achieve this, it is important that public facilities are compatible in building height, bulk, and materials with adjacent uses.

Mark Twain Park and Water Tower

Policy CF-1.3: Encourage public amenities and facilities which serve as catalysts for beneficial development.

One of the Guiding Principles strives to promote a sustainable and resilient economy. Certain public facilities, such as parks, utility lines, bicycle lanes, pedestrian walkways, and roads add to the economic viability of surrounding private development. By providing these improvements, the City creates an environment which attracts desirable economic activities and supports the business community.

Policy CF-1.4: Protect public health and environmental quality through the appropriate design and construction of public facilities and through responsible maintenance and operating procedures.

As the Vision Statement and Guiding Principles describe, another high priority for Kirkland residents is protecting the environment. By designing, installing, and maintaining public facilities that are protective of the natural and built environment, the City can take leadership in preserving the natural systems and features and maintaining the urban tree and vegetation canopy in Kirkland.

Goal CF-2: Implement sustainable development principles with the design and construction of public facilities.

Policy CF-2.1: Promote conservation of energy, water, and other natural resources and reduce waste in the location, design of public facilities and utilities using a variety of techniques, including low impact development and sustainable development practices.

Through the location, design and operation of public facilities and utilities, the City can conserve energy, water, and other natural resources, minimize impacts to the natural and built environment and reduce waste. The City can be cost-effective with its public facilities by establishing conservation programs in City buildings for energy consumption, materials equipment usage, and constructing buildings based on sustainable development practices. The practices include integrated building and site design, reduced impervious surface, reused waste water for irrigation, alternative sidewalk design, and landscaping used to reduce heat emissions and filter surface runoff. Other measures can be taken, such as increasing energy efficiency in street lights and signals, incorporating sustainable measures into roads, sewer and stormwater projects, and maintaining facilities. See the Built Environment section in the Environment Chapter for additional goals and policies on sustainable practices for public facilities.

Policy CF-2.2: Use life cycle cost analysis to determine the most cost-effective facility design and construction strategies over the lifetime of a public facility.

Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) is a process of evaluating the economic cost of a facility over its lifetime. LCCA balances the initial monetary investment with the long-term cost of owning, operating, and maintaining a facility. LCCA analysis looks at the trade-offs between low initial costs and long-term cost savings, determines the most cost-efficient facility design and construction strategies, and calculates how long it will take for a specific design to pay back its incremental cost. The cumulative cost of operating and maintaining facilities is considered in the LCCA analysis. Over the long run, LCCA analysis would reduce total cost of facility ownership resulting in a cost savings to the City.

Response to Growth

The Growth Management Act requires that the City accommodate its fair share of the forecasted regional growth and, at the same time, provide and maintain acceptable level of service standards that are financially feasible. The Act also requires that the City ensures that the public facilities and services necessary to support development are available for occupancy and use without decreasing the adopted level of service standards.

Goal CF-3: Provide a variety of responses to the demands of growth on capital facilities and utilities.

Policy CF-3.1: Concentrate land use patterns to encourage efficient use of transportation, water, sewer and surface water management facilities and solid waste, police, and fire protection services in order to reduce the need to expand facilities and services.

Land use patterns, including density, location, type and mix of uses, affect the demands on all public facilities and the levels of service provided to each neighborhood. One example is encouraging new development or redevelopment where public facilities already exist which may alleviate the need for constructing new facilities.

Policy CF-3.2: Provide additional public facility capacity consistent with available funding when existing facilities are used to their maximum level of efficiency.

Before additional facilities are built, existing facilities should be used to the maximum extent possible by efficient scheduling and demand management. When increased capacity is warranted, costly retrofits should be avoided by incorporating all improvements up front. For example, the addition of bike lanes and pedestrian walkways identified in the City’s Transportation Master Plan and Active Transportation Plan should be included when streets are widened, or newly constructed.

Policy CF-3.3: If all other responses to growth fail, then restrict the amount and/or location of new development in order to preserve the level of service of public facilities and utilities.

The Growth Management Act provides that funding and LOS standards can be adjusted to accommodate new development or redevelopment and still meet the concurrency test (see discussion in the Introduction, “What is concurrency?” in this Element). However, if these adjustments are unacceptable, then the amount, location, or phasing of new development should be restricted.

Level of Service Standards and Concurrent Provision of Adequate Public Facilities

Level of service standards are the benchmark the City uses to determine the adequacy of public facilities to serve existing and new development. The City may choose the level of service standards it desires, but they must be achievable with existing facilities plus any additional capital improvement projects identified in the Comprehensive Plan.

Goal CF-4: Identify level of service standards that ensure adequate public facilities to serve existing and future development.

The Capital Facilities Plan includes project lists and a financing plan to assure that adequate public facilities can be provided concurrent with their demands. The City must ensure that the improvements are made in a timely manner so as to not jeopardize concurrency requirements. One of the basic goals of GMA is to ensure that growth does not outpace the demand for public facilities. In that sense, the community is assured that its infrastructure needs are met when development occurs.

Sewer and Water Facilities

Water and sewer facilities are essential to public health. Therefore, they must be available and adequate upon first use of development. The Growth Management Act permits up to six years to achieve standards for transportation facilities after new development is completed.

Marina Park sewer lift station

Policy CF-4.1: Use the following level of service standards for determining the need for public sewer and water facilities:

Table CF-1

Sewer and Water Level of Service
Facility	Standard
Water distribution for residential use	103 gallons per day per person
Water distribution for all other uses (irrigation, business and fire suppression)	249 gallons per day per person (includes 1.5 million gallons for fire storage)
Sanitary sewer collection	100 gallons per day per person

Sewer and water facilities are essential to the protection and enhancement of public health and thus are tied directly to concurrency requirements. While the City does not provide the source for water, nor the treatment for sewer, level of service standards are used to determine the capacity of facilities to accommodate growth at the local and regional levels.

Transportation Facilities (Including Transit)

Policy CF-4.2: Use the following level of service standards for determining the need for transportation facilities, including auto, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, and transit service:

Table CF-2

Transportation Level of Service
Level of Completion Area	What is to be completed with the 20 year plan
Maintain: Pavement condition	All collector and arterial streets have new surfaces.
Walk: School walk routes	Sidewalk on one side of school walk routes on collector and arterial streets.
Walk: 10 minute neighborhoods	Sidewalk on one side of collector and arterial streets in highest scoring 10 minute neighborhood routes.
Walk: Crosswalks	Upgrade 85 crosswalks on arterials that have limited improvements and 71 crosswalks with poor lighting.
Bike: On-street bike lanes	Improve the bike system to better than 5' wide unbuffered lanes.
Bike: Greenway network	Complete the greenway network1
Transit: Passenger environment	Improve lighting, shelters, etc. at 30 highest ridership locations.
Transit: Speed and reliability	Transit signal priority at 45 intersections2 on high priority transit routes.
Auto: Intelligent Transportation System (ITS)	Improvements to ITS system3 including connecting signals, parking technology, advance control methods, and improved traveler information.
Auto: Capacity projects	NE 132nd Street: intersection and street projects 100th Avenue: design and construction Interchange design/development Juanita Drive: auto improvements

1 Excludes two bridges over I-405

2 Placeholder improvements pending completion of transit plan

3 Improvements beyond work currently funded

Level of service standards for each mode in Table CF-2 primarily address completeness of various aspects of the transportation network, in order to complement the concurrency system and to directly measure standards for which the City has control. Therefore, the City uses the term “level of completion” in place of “level of service” when referring to the actual measure. The Growth Management Act requires the City to use the term “level of service” for the overall approach. The level of completion choices made for each mode are aligned with the proposed 20-year network project list as shown in the table below. Time is the basis for evaluating the level of completion. Level of completion measures the rate of project completion over the course of the 20-year period. See Transportation Element for more on Level of Service standards.

Other Public Facilities

The “concurrency” requirement does not apply to the facilities listed in Table CF-3. New development will not be denied based on the standard found in Table CF-3. However, mitigation, impact fees, or other developer contributions may be required to meet the standards for the public facilities found in Table CF-3 for level of service.

Policy CF-4.3: Use the following level of service standards to determine the need for public facilities:

Table CF-3

Six-Year Public Facilities Level of Service for Surface Water Management, Fire and EMS, and Parks
Facility	Standard
Surface water management	Conveyance, flow control, and water quality treatment per the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington or equivalent to prevent flooding, and protect water quality and habitat in streams and lakes
Fire and EMS	Response times: • Emergency medical: 5 minutes to 90% of all incidents • Fire suppression: 5.5 minutes to 90% of all incidents
Parks	Capital Investment per Person Standard: Replacement Value of Inventory at $333,118,273 Population of 82,590 Investment per Person = $4,093.94

[Note: the Parks Investment per Person Standard will change over time to reflect the change in the impact fee rate.]

Although the above level of service standards are not tied directly to concurrency requirements, they are important to the City’s functioning and the City should strive to meet or exceed them. The LOS standards identified here are one factor to consider when making decisions on these types of capital projects. Other factors which should be considered are community goals and values, system connections, such as trails, sidewalks, and pathways, and location and proximity to population served.

Policy CF-4.4: Provide, or arrange for others to provide, the capital improvements listed in this Capital Facilities Plan needed to achieve and maintain standards adopted in this Plan.

While the City is responsible for its Capital Improvement Program, in many cases, capital facilities are provided by others – such as the State, developers, or special districts. The City should coordinate the provision of these facilities in order to ensure that the levels of service identified in the plan can be achieved.

Concurrency

Policy CF-5.1: Monitor the levels of service for water, sewer and transportation facilities and ensure that new development does not cause levels of service to decline below the adopted standards.

The City should evaluate the capacity needs of new development against existing or planned capacity to ensure that the adopted levels of service are maintained for water, sewer, and transportation.

Policy CF-5.2: Ensure levels of service for water and sewer are adequate no later than occupancy and use of new development.

Water and sewer facilities are essential to public health, therefore they must be available and adequate upon first use of development.

Policy CF-5.3: Ensure levels of service for road facilities are met no later than six years after occupancy and use of new development.

The Growth Management Act allows up to six years to achieve standards for transportation facilities because they do not threaten public health, are very expensive, and are built in large “increments.”

Concurrency is a benchmark for determining the extent to which new development must address the impacts that it creates on selected facilities: water, sewer and roads. If concurrency is not met, several options or a combination thereof are available to meet concurrency:

(a) Improve the public facilities to maintain the levels of service; or

(b) Revise the proposed development to reduce impacts to maintain satisfactory levels of service; or

Funding and Financial Feasibility

Financial feasibility is required for capital improvements by the Growth Management Act. Estimates for funding should be conservative and realistic based on the City’s historical track record. Financial commitments should be bankable or bondable. Voter-approved revenue, such as bonds, may be used, but adjustments must be made if the revenue is not approved. Adjustments can include substituting a different source of revenue, reducing the level of service, and/or reducing the demand for public facilities.

In addition, facilities should not be built if the provider cannot afford to operate and maintain them or to arrange for another entity to operate and maintain the facilities.

Goal CF-6: Provide needed public facilities that are within the ability of the City to fund or within the City’s authority to require others to provide.

Policy CF-6.1: Base the Capital Facilities Plan on conservative estimates of current local revenues and external revenues that are reasonably anticipated to be received by the City.

Financial feasibility is required for capital improvements, and “financial commitments” are required for transportation improvements. Estimates for funding should be conservative and realistic based on the City’s historical track record. The forecasts need not be the most pessimistic estimate, but should not exceed the most likely estimate. “Financial commitments” should be bankable or bondable.

Policy CF-6.2: Consider adjustments to the adopted levels of service, land use plan and/or revenue sources if funding is not available to finance capacity projects for capital facilities and utilities.

If projected funding is inadequate to finance needed capital facilities and utilities based on adopted level of service standards and forecasted growth, the City should make adjustments to one or more of the following areas: level of service, Land Use Element, sources of revenue, and/or the timing of projects.

If new development would cause levels of service to decline, the City may allow future development to use existing facilities (thus reducing levels of service), or reduce future development (in order to preserve levels of service), or increase revenue (in order to purchase facility level of service to match future development). Naturally, the City can use a combination of these three strategies.

Policy CF-6.3: Use a variety of funding sources to finance facilities in the Capital Facilities Plan.

The City’s first choice for financing future capital improvements is to continue using existing sources of revenue that are already available and being used for capital facilities. These sources may include gas tax, business licenses, utility connection charges, utility rates, roads and park levies, reserves, general funds, real estate excise tax, interest income, debt, impact fee for roads and parks, grants and infrastructure financing programs. Use of real estate taxes (REET 1 and REET 2) have specific limits in State law that must be considered as part of the City’s overall funding strategy.

If these sources are inadequate, the City will need to explore the feasibility of additional revenues.

Impact fees are subject to a number of limitations in State law:

♦ Impact fees are authorized only for roads, parks, fire protection, and schools.

♦ There must be a balance between impact fees and other sources of public funds; the City cannot rely solely on impact fees.

♦ Impact fees can only be imposed for system improvements which:

(a) Reasonably relate to the new development;

(b) Do not exceed a proportionate share of the costs related to the new development;

(d) Are not for existing deficiencies.

♦ Impact fee rates must be adjusted to reflect the payment of other taxes, fees, and charges by the development that are used for the same system improvements as the impact fee.

♦ Impact fees may serve in lieu of some of the facilities required to be provided by developers.

Impact fees for roads have replaced, in most cases, mitigation fees and concomitant agreements collected under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) to create a more simplified and predictable system.

Policy CF-6.4: Utilize the surface water utility to fund projects needed to meet established level of service standards.

One method for financing surface water management is a utility-based service charge. Municipal surface water utilities are established under Chapter 35.67 RCW and are funded through a monthly service charge. Rates are based on a charge per equivalent residential unit or on impervious area for commercial and industrial properties.

Policy CF-6.5: Match revenue sources to capital projects on the basis of sound fiscal policies.

Sound fiscal policies include (a) cost effectiveness, (b) prudent asset and liability management, (c) limits to the length of financing to the useful life of the project, (d) efficient use of the City’s borrowing capacity, and (e) maximizing use of grants and other nonlocal revenues.

Policy CF-6.6: Arrange for alternative financial commitments in the event that revenues needed for concurrency are not received from other sources.

The concurrency facilities (water, sewer, and transportation) must be built, or else desirable development that is allowed in the Comprehensive Plan may be denied. If the City’s other financing plans for these facilities do not succeed, the City must provide a financial safety net for these facilities. One source of funding that is available at the discretion of the City Council is councilmanic bonds or revenue bonds (for utilities). The only disadvantage of these bonds is that their repayment is from existing revenues (that are currently used for other purposes which will be underfunded by the diversion to repayment of councilmanic bonds).

Policy CF-6.7: Revise the financing plan in the event that revenue sources that require voter approval in a referendum are not approved.

The financing plan can use revenues that are subject to voter approval, such as bonds, but the plan must be adjusted if the revenue is not approved. Adjustments can include substituting a different source of revenue, reducing the level of service, and/or reducing the demand for public facilities.

Policy CF-6.8: Ensure that the ongoing operating and maintenance costs of a capital facility are financially feasible prior to constructing the facility.

Facilities should not be built if the provider cannot afford to operate and maintain them.

Policy CF-6.9: Ensure that new development pays a proportionate share of the cost of new facilities needed to serve such development, including transportation facilities, parks, or the extension of water and sewer lines as needed to serve the development proposal.

New development should contribute its proportionate share of the cost of facilities needed by the development. The contribution may be in the form of installing the improvements (i.e., extension of utility lines), a contractual agreement to contribute towards the installation of the facilities upon determination of need by the City, or in cash.

Policy CF-6.10: Where appropriate, the City may use local improvement districts or latecomer fees to facilitate the installation of public facilities needed to service new development.

Some new development may be able to fulfill its obligation by creating a special district. Others may be required to build or pay for entire facilities, such as a new road, to serve their development, but they may recoup some of the cost from other subsequent development through “latecomer” agreements that use the excess capacity created by the new public facility.

Policy CF-6.11: Where appropriate, the City may use infrastructure financing programs to fund capital improvements in areas designated for growth.

When partnering with King County on regional Transfer Development Rights (TDR) efforts, the City may require King County to provide funding for capital projects in neighborhoods accepting increased development capacity through TDR, such as transportation and park improvements.

Consistency with Other Plans

Many of Kirkland’s public facilities and utilities are integrally connected with other local and regional systems, such as water, sewer, surface water management, and fire and emergency management. In addition, parts of Kirkland receive water and sewer service from separate utility districts.

The Growth Management Act requires close coordination among local, regional, and State plans and programs. This requirement assumes that each jurisdiction is part of a larger whole and that the actions of one affect and are affected by the actions of other jurisdictions.

Goal CF-7: Ensure that the Capital Facilities Element is consistent with other City, local, regional, and State adopted plans.

The following documents have been reviewed and taken into consideration during the development of the Capital Facilities Element. These are considered to be “functional or management plans.” They are intended to be more detailed, often noting technical specifications and standards. They are designed to be an implementation tool rather than a policy-guiding document.

Table CF-4

Functional and Management Plans
City of Kirkland Fire Strategic Plan
City of Kirkland Water System Plan
City of Kirkland Sewer Plan
City of Kirkland Capital Improvement Programs
City of Kirkland Surface Water Master Plan
City of Kirkland Transportation Master Plan
City of Kirkland Active Transportation Plan
Totem Lake Urban Center Enhancement and Multimodal Transportation Network Plan (R-5316)
Sustainability Master Plan
City of Kirkland Commute Trip Reduction Basic Plan
City of Kirkland Natural Resource Management Plan
City of Kirkland Urban Forestry Strategic Management Plan
City of Kirkland Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan
City of Kirkland Downtown Strategic Plan
City of Kirkland Housing Strategy Plan
City of Kirkland Climate Protection Action Plan
City of Kirkland Shoreline Master Program
King County Solid Waste Division Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan
Northshore Utility District Comprehensive Water Plan
Northshore Utility District Sewer and Water Plan
Woodinville Water District Plan
Lake Washington School District Capital Facilities Plan

Policy CF-7.1: In the event of any inconsistency between the City’s Comprehensive Plan and a functional or management plan, the Comprehensive Plan will take precedence.

As required under the Growth Management Act, the Comprehensive Plan is the overall plan to which all other functional plans must be consistent. Table CF-4 lists the City’s major functional and management plans. As functional and management plans are updated, they may result in proposed revisions to the Comprehensive Plan.

Policy CF-7.2: Reassess the Comprehensive Plan annually to ensure that capital facilities needs and utilities needs, financing and level of service are consistent, and that the plan is internally consistent.

The Growth Management Act requires that the Comprehensive Plan be reviewed on an annual basis to determine if the adopted level of service standards are still appropriate, if the capital facilities and utilities needs are being met, and if the financing plan is balanced. Also, the Capital Facilities Element must be revised as necessary to ensure consistency with other Plan elements.

Policy CF-7.3: Coordinate with non-City providers of public facilities on a joint program for maintaining adopted levels of service standards, concurrency requirements, funding, and construction of shared public facilities.

To assure that all Kirkland residents are provided comparable levels of service, the City should work with the non-City providers to agree on LOS standards, to implement and fund programs to meet those LOS standards, and establish consistent concurrency requirements.

Policy CF-7.4: Ensure the efficient and equitable siting of essential regional capital facilities through cooperative and coordinated planning with other jurisdictions within the region.

As required by the Growth Management Act, the City must facilitate the siting of essential regional facilities that need to locate in Kirkland. In Goal LU-8 and its related policies under the Land Use Element, the City sets forth criteria and processes for siting of regional facilities.