GOAL CF 1. – To ensure that the elements of the comprehensive plan are fiscally achievable. Policy CF 1.1. Provide capital improvement funds to correct existing deficiencies, to replace worn out or obsolete facilities, and to accommodate desired growth.
Strategy CF 1.1.1. Proposed capital improvement projects will be evaluated and prioritized by the following criteria:
The purpose of the project; including whether the project eliminates capacity deficits, eliminates public hazards, or meets city needs based on projected growth patterns.
The type of project; new development or redevelopment; and
Plans of other state and local agencies.
Policy CF 1.2. Maintain an up-to-date schedule of capital improvement projects. Capital improvements with cost less than $10,000 should be reviewed for inclusion in the Capital Improvement Program and the annual capital budget.
Policy CF 1.3. Require that developers bear a fair share of facility improvement costs required for their developments.
Strategy CF.1.3.1. Review the impacts of new development to ensure that the facilities necessary to support those developments at the adopted levels of service are in place or will be provided within six years of approval of the development
Strategy CF 1.3.2. Review new development to ensure that the impacts of new development on city facilities are adequately mitigated by the development. Strategy CF 1.3.3. Establish park and recreation impact fees that are sufficient to address the fair share of park development and improvement costs required by new development.
Policy CF 1.4. Manage fiscal resources to support the provision of needed capital improvements.
Strategy CF 1.4.1. Adopt an annual capital budget and six-year capital improvement program (CIP).
Strategy CF 1.4.2. Manage debt within the statutory limits on general obligation debt (7.5% of assessed value).
Strategy CF 1.4.3. Actively work to secure grants or private funds when available to finance capital improvements.
Strategy CF 1.4.4. Do not budget capital facility projects which are not consistent with Capital Facilities Element (this element and as it may be revised). Policy CF 1.5. Coordinate land use decisions and a schedule of capital improvements with financial resources.
Strategy CF 1.5.1. Require that the city and/or developers provide public facilities and services that are necessary to support new development at adopted levels of service are available at the time of development as defined in Goal CF-3.
Strategy CF 1.5.2. Support and encourage the joint development and use of cultural and community facilities.
Strategy CF 1.5.3. Emphasize capital improvement projects that promote the conservation, preservation or revitalization of local residential, commercial and industrial areas. GOAL CF 2. -.To address the community’s capital facility needs through effective public facility planning.
Policy CF 2.1. Use the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) as a tool to assist the City plan for and implement future capital improvement projects.
Strategy CF 2.1.1. Review the CFP on an annual basis, preferably in conjunction with the preparation of the annual City budget.
Strategy CF 2.1.2. Update the CFP to account for changing conditions and community needs.
Strategy CF 2.1.3. Adjust service rates to account for the fiscal year's expenditure, to keep pace with inflation, and to address capital funding needs. Policy CF 2.2. Combine, where feasible, improvements from several of the public works systems in a given area into a single project.
Policy CF 2.3. Utilize a mix of current existing funds, anticipated revenues, available loans and grants, and necessary revenue bonds to optimize funding.
Policy CF 2.4. When appropriate use current existing and reserve funds (the "pay as you go" approach)to avoid paying interest on borrowed money and, in turn, to earn interest on accumulated balances.
Policy CF 2.5. Further facilitate construction financing, especially on projects over $500,000, by using other recommended funding sources such as revenue bonds repaid from system revenues, the Public Works Trust Fund (PWTF) program for replacement projects, and the Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) funds, and Federal (TEA 21) funds for arterial projects.
Strategy CF 2.5.1 During the annual review of the CFP, determine which funding applications should be submitted for upcoming improvements.
Policy CF 2.6. Management of capital facilities should emphasize the following concepts:
1. Provide preventive maintenance and cost effective replacement of aging facilities and components;
2. Plan for extension and upgrades of capital systems while recognizing that system extension associated with new development should be the responsibility of those desiring service:
3. Inspect systems to ensure conformance with construction standards.
CF 3. – To ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below the city’s established minimum standards. Policies:
Policy CF 3.1. Define the terms used in this goal as:
Streets, water, sewer, storm water drainage, schools and parks shall be considered those facilities “necessary to support” new development.
The “established minimum standards” shall be those minimum levels of service defined and set forth in LOS Goal 1.
In addition to the level of service based on roadway capacity as specified in the Transportation Element, the following improvements shall be considered “established minimum standards” for streets:
projects that are needed to improve substandard streets to City standards,
projects necessary to provide urban level access, at adopted City street standards, to new development, and
projects required to provide adequate circulation.
“Available at the time of development” shall mean that such facilities are in place or that a financial commitment is in place to complete the improvements or strategies within six years of the time of development. In the case of park facilities, “available at the time of development” includes development contributing toward the financing of a community park in accord with the financing strategy contained in this plan.
Policy CF 3.2. Develop an integrated program of capital improvements that include all projects intended to support and enhance the current level of service in the community along with projects that are necessary for new development into an integrated program of capital improvements.
Strategy CF 3.2.1. City Capital Projects shall include four types of projects:
Projects that provide facilities which are “necessary for development” as defined in CF Policy 3.1 and are required to be provided pursuant to this plan prior to the approval of new development.
“Basic needs” projects that provide facilities to address basic community needsor facilities that need to be provided to remove hazards, create efficiencies, or reduce costs, but are not directly necessary to support new development, or
“Enhancement” projects that raise levels of service above minimum levels or provide community amenities to improve the overall quality of life in the community. These projects are not projects that are necessary for new development but are goals and targets for the community to achieve if revenue can be generated especially in the form of grants, or voter approved bond issues.
“Key” projects that provide facilities that remove a significant barrier for further economic development. While these facilities are closely related to the system projects that may be necessary for development, these projects facilitate the potential development of a broad area of the city or UGA and provide benefits to the community as a whole.
Strategy CF 3.2.2. The City shall encourage all governmental entities with capital facilities serving the city to continue to develop those facilities consistent with community needs and consistent with this comprehensive plan.
Policy CF 3.3. Allow new development only when and where such development can be adequately served by necessary public services withoutreducing levels of service elsewhere below established minimum standards.
Strategy CF 3.3.1. Require a feasible plan to provide an adequate level of service of all facilities needed for development prior to annexation of, or the extension of any City service to properties within the UGA. Such plan shall include measures to ensure that levels of service to existing city residents will not be lowered below established minimum standards in order to serve the annexed or unincorporated area.
Strategy CF 3.3.2. Encourage the phasing of development of the UGA outside the city limits so that public facilities and services can be provided for both existing and future growth in a manner that does not outpace the City's ability to provide and maintain established minimum standards of service for facilities necessary to support development.
Strategy CF 3.3.3. Base land use decisions on a finding that any proposed development, along with the cumulative impacts of other developments, can be supported by public facilities necessary for development at established minimum standards consistent with this plan. Policy CF 3.4. Require that facilities be provided to meet the cumulative impact of any significant new development where there is or is anticipated to be a substandard system of services and public facilities.
Strategy CF 3.4.1. Evaluate the cumulative impact of any significant development proposal (defined as any development that is not a categorical exemption under the State Environmental Policy Act) under SEPA.
Strategy CF 3.4.2. Whenever there are insufficient facilities to support new development, the City will require a feasible plan for providing public facilities necessary for development at established minimum standards to serve the development prior to the approval of the development.
Strategy CF 3.4.3. The City shall encourage property owners and developers to work together to finance necessary improvements such as Local Improvement Districts, developer extension agreements and latecomers (reimbursement) agreements to jointly finance entire systems of improvements. Policy CF 3.5. Coordinate with the county on the planning and development of transportation system, including bicycle facilities, to provide adequate mobility throughout the area.
Level of Service Policies
GOAL LOS 1. – To establish level of service (LOS) standards to guide future capital facility development and planning and to ensure that new development is served by a minimum level of services necessary to serve the new development. Policy LOS 1.1. Adopt the following level of service standards as goals to guide the future planning and development of public facilities in the future:
Municipal Water: 450 gallons of potable water per household per day for summer time domestic use.
Sanitary Sewer: 200 gallons per dwelling unit per day. The acceptable level of service for the sanitary sewer collection system would be the daily load demand times 2.5.
Parks & Open Space:
3.0 acres of Neighborhood Park per 1,000 population and accessible within 0.5 miles of residential site;
6.0 acres of Community Park per 1,000 population and accessible within one mile of residential site.
Traffic and Pedestrian Circulation (and as contained in the Transportation Element):
LOS “C” for peak hour as defined by the Transportation Research Board’s Highway Capacity Manual for all City streets except those located in the commercially designated area of downtown south of the railroad tracks, where the level of service is “D” for peak hour traffic.
Adequately constructed roadway or intersection facilities (including signalization) to accommodate traffic movements without creating hazardous conditions to vehicles or pedestrians.
State Highway: LOS C and the absence of hazardous conditions for vehicles or pedestrians.
Collectors and Local Streets: City accepted design standards.
Sidewalks and pedestrian facilities: Sidewalks on all street frontages and adequate provision for pedestrian movement with appropriate separation of vehicles and people.
Bicycle facilities: The city will consider developing and implementing level of service standards for bicycles.
Drainage Control Devices: 25-year, 24-hour event Stormwater Management Systems: Retain on-site the runoff from 25-year, 24-hour storm at peak discharge rates. Development will be regulated to ensure that its post-development runoff to city systems does not exceed the predevelopment discharge value or rate. This limitation will ensure the LOS of the existing stormwater system is not compromised.
Solid Waste: Consistent with the Solid Waste Plan.
Schools: Ensure that adequate space is available for future school sites in the city.
Policy LOS 1.2. Designate municipal water supplies, sanitary sewer services, parks and open space, traffic and pedestrian circulation facilities, storm drainage facilities and solid waste facilities as “facilities necessary to support new development.”
Policy LOS 1.3. Require any new development to be served by a minimum level of service from “facilities necessary to support the development” (as set in LOS 1.2) without reducing the level of service provided by these services to existing residents:
Strategy LOS 1.3.1. Review all new development proposals under the State Environmental Policy act to ensure that the adopted LOS standards (in policy LOS 1.1) are met for municipal water, sanitary sewer, traffic and pedestrian circulation, storm drainage and solid waste, and require (through SEPA) appropriatemitigation measures when deficiencies are found.
Strategy LOS 1.3.2. Require any new development to provide a minimum of 4.81 acres of parks per thousandpopulation. Such facilities may be provided either through direct construction or by financial contributions to the City to finance the acquisition and construction.
Strategy LOS 1.3.3. Since the requirement in LOS 1.3.2 is based on the current supply of parks to existing residents, the required developer mitigation set in policy LOS 1.3.2 shall be adjusted whenever the City adds additional parks [up to the LOS set in LOS 1.1]). Policy LOS 1.4. Continually reassess the implementation of the comprehensive planto ensure that adequate public facilities are available to meet the growth needs of the City while reducing the need for developer financing wherever possible.
Strategy LOS 1.4.1. Periodically monitor growth under this plan to ensure that adequate capacity is present in water, sewer and circulation systems to accommodate at a minimum the GMA population allocations, and to meet the region’s economic development needs within the City of Prosser. Strategy LOS 1.4.2. As part of updating the six year CIP, assess whether sufficient funding and/or regulatory mechanisms are in place to ensure that the facilities necessary (as defined in Goal CF 3) to support any development that may occur during the following six year period are available (as defined in Goal CF 3) at established minimum standards (as defined in Goal CF 3). This evaluation will include at a minimum the following questions:
Will minimum levels-of-service (as defined in Goal CF 3) for those public facilities necessary for development be maintained for anticipated new development by the projects included in the CIP?;
Will potential funding shortfalls in necessary services provided by the city and other governmental agencies warrant a reassessment of the comprehensive plan?; and
Can regulatory measures reasonably ensure that new development will not occur unless the necessary facilities are available to support the development at the adopted minimum level-of-service as these terms are defined in Goal CF 3?
Strategy LOS 1.4.3. Consider and implement, as may be appropriate, strategies to reduce consumption especially including Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Strategies and water conservation programs.
Strategy LOS 1.4.4. In the event anticipated funding levels fall short of being able to finance planned necessary capital facilities needed to serve growth at the adopted levels of service, or if existing regulatory measures are not adequate to ensure that new development will be served by such facilities, reassess the Land Use and other elements of the Comprehensive Plan. This reassessment includes considering revision of the comprehensive plan by applying any or all of the following strategies:
Reduce the level of service standard, or
Increase revenues to pay for the proposed level of service standard, or
Reduce the average cost of the capital facility by alternative technology or alternative ownership and financing) thus reducing the total cost, and possibly the quality; or
Reduce the demand by changing the land use plan, or
Reduce the demand by reducing consumption through conservation, including application of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies, or
Develop additional land use regulations to ensure that new development provides facilities necessary to support that new development.
Capital Facility Inventories, Needs and Costs
Summary Capital Facility Inventories
Detailed capital facility inventories are included in the narratives of this plan and in numerous planning documents of the City. These inventories identify the location and capacities of all City facilities. Inventories contained in this plan include:
The Community facilities and Services Element including Parks and Open Space.
The Transportation Element
The inventories contained in the following documents are incorporated herein by reference:
General Governmental and Parks: City of Prosser,2008 Inventory of City Capital Assets, February 2008.
Water Facilities: Draft City of Prosser, Water System Plan, Huibregtse, Louman Associates, Inc., May, 2008.
City of Prosser, Draft General Sewer Plan, Huibregtse, Louman Associates, Inc., , Inc., July 2005.
Street Facilities: Prosser Citywide Transportation Study, January 1997.
Further inventory information on these facilities are also located in the 1996, 2002 and 2004 comprehensive plan documents.
Overview of Capital Facility Needs and Costs
This section of the comprehensive plan describes the investments that the City plans on making in the infrastructure the city owns and operates. The City of Prosser owns and operates roadway, domestic water and irrigation, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, and parks systems within its immediate service area. The City of Prosser continually plans for the upgrade and operation of each of these individual systems. This plan summarizes the capital improvement plans of these systems into a single plan. If additional information is needed pertaining to the public works system inventories, needs, design criteria, and planning rationale, the reader is directed to the documents referenced below. This section of the comprehensive plan will be periodically updated as new financing is developed and projects move through various stages of development.
This section of the Plan:
Summarizes the inventory of major system components and assesses the overall capital needs for the specific systems,
Forecasts future needs for the capital facilities,
Identifies, places in priority, and coordinates major capital improvement projects over a six-year period, and
Estimates capital project costs; identifying financing alternatives for the overall public works system (not necessarily for each capital project listed).
The selection of capital improvement projects reflects a number of criteria, including the following:
Providing for public health, safety and welfare, and compliance with regulatory requirements.
Improving system reliability, and including both the construction of those components which must be added to provide redundancy to critical system elements, and the replacing facilities which have reached the end of their service lives.
Reducing maintenance needs, as determined through a review of available maintenance records, and eventual system replacement.
Planning for growth.
As provided in the CFP goals and policies, the burden of financing facilities necessary for growth should be borne primarily by the beneficiaries of such investments. If a developer or other person desires to extend services, it is intended (consistent with the capital facility policies of this plan) that they do so at their own expense, provided they comply with the standards and other requirements of the City of Prosser. The City may administratively assist property owners who wish to establish a Local Improvement District, or another form of developer financing that involves the City, for the purposes of constructing capital system improvements. The City may participate in the financing of key facilities that are strategically needed to promote the orderly growth and economic development of the city.
Where applicable, projects for the different public works systems should coordinated to provide for single-project construction in a given project area. For example, a street project should include all related water, sewer and storm drainage facilities associated with that roadway. Whenever possible, funding sources should be combined to provide maximum benefit to the community, and care could be taken to prevent digging into recently constructed streets for new underground facilities. If funding is available, the proposed improvements could be accelerated to consolidate several years of improvements into a single larger project. Although it is intended that developers extend services at their own expense, nothing in this Plan prohibits the City of Prosser from extending services at City expense. The City of Prosser will continue to apply for low-interest loans and/or grants to assist in extending City services throughout the community.
Future capital facility needs are addressed in detail the following and this information is hereby incorporated by reference:
The Community Facilities and Services Element including Parks and Open Space.
The Transportation Element
General Governmental and Parks: City of Prosser, 2008 Inventory of City Capital Assets,February 2008.
Draft City of Prosser, Water System Plan, Huibregtse, Louman Associates, Inc., May, 2008.
City of Prosser, Draft General Sewer Plan, Huibregtse, Louman Associates, Inc., Inc., July 2005.
Prosser Citywide Transportation Study, January 1997.
This Capital Facilities Element is developed from a series of land use and needs studies conducted by the city during 2008 and these reports are hereby incorporated as background studies.
The growth anticipated in the city comprehensive plan will increase the need for capital facilities. The need for these facilities and their costs are described in detail in City of Prosser’s Fiscal Capacity. This report draws on the needs identified in the resource documents noted above.
All cost estimates, unless otherwise indicated, are broad planning level estimates that would be refined as projects are developed for funding. In most cases, services to the UGA are very generalized and are based on rough estimates of potential costs in order to determine the general level of funding needed to serve the area. Most costs are either from estimates by Huibregtse, Louman, Associates, Inc. (HLA), the city’s contract engineering firm, or by Dugan Planning Services (DPS) based on similar work in other communities.
Street Facilities, Inventory Needs and Costs
A. General Inventory The City of Prosser has approximately 42 miles of paved streets. There are three bridges4 on the local street system serving the City of Prosser: one on Wine Country Road crossing the Yakima River, and one, owned by the County, on Grant Avenue crossing the Yakima River. A complete inventory of the city system can be found in the Transportation Element.
Included in the roadway system is the City's storm drainage system. When roadway improvements are made, the associated drainage facilities are evaluated and the necessary improvements are incorporated into the street project. The Prosser roadway system is shown on Figure 10 of this Plan.
B. City Needs The transportation needs of the city have been addressed in several studies over the years. including those referenced above. These needs have been incrementally addressed each year in a Six Year Transportation Improvement Program which is adopted by the City on an annual basis. In the past, Prosser has relied upon personal property taxes, real estate taxes, and motor vehicle fuel taxes to finance minor street maintenance and improvement projects. Larger projects have received funding assistance from the TIB Small City Program (SCP), the Federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Enhancement Act (ISTEA), Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century (TEA 21), Rural Economic Vitality (REV), or other state and federal funding sources. This plan carries forward that system of planning and implementation to meet the city’s internal transportation needs.
Specific needs are identified on Table CFP -1. Table CFP-1 includes many of the projects identified by the Benton Franklin Council of Governments in the Regional Transportation Plan (Table 8-7 of that plan and reproduced below as CFP Table 2). However the regional plan lists of the projects in the 2015 to 2025 time frame that are not listed in table CFP-1. The costs of these facilities are identified as $4.89 million (shown on Table CFP-2).
CFP Table: : Street 2010-2015 Capital Improvement Program
CFP Table: City of Prosser Projects Identified by BFCOG
C. UGA Needs
The need studies conducted in 2008 extended the past needs assessments prepared for the area within the city limits to the urban growth area outside the city.
Figure CFP 1 identifies the streets in the UGA by classification as set in the adopted transportation element of the comprehensive plan. None of the streets are currently at urban standards but are built to rural county road standards. The major collectors are constructed to good quality county arterial standards, while the local roads are constructed to minimal standards to serve low-intensity rural uses.
All of these streets would need to be upgraded with curb gutter, sidewalks, etc. to support urban level intensities and densities. While the rural arterial roads are capable of accommodating significant traffic volumes, they are not constructed to support more intensive urban uses, especially commercial uses that are planned along some of the routes.
CFP Figure: : UGA Street Classifications
CFP Table: : Long Range Street Development Costs
Table CFP-3 estimates the costs to upgrade these streets to urban standards as defined by the adopted city street standards. In addition to these street improvements that are necessary to provide a transportation system adequate to support urban development in the UGA, additional streets would be needed for access as the larger parcels are subdivided to urban densities under the comprehensive plan. Added to these projects are projects on CFP Tables 1 and 2 that have been identified to meet city needs.
City Utility Needs and Costs
Domestic Water System
A. General Inventory
The existing City of Prosser domestic water system consists of three main distribution pressure levels, and a separate isolated pressure level (Painted Hills Zone). The City is supplied water from five primary source wells. The maximum pumping capacity of the five primary wells is currently 4,920 gallons per minute or 7.13 million gallons per day, although peak production has never exceeded 4,109 GPM or 5.92 million gallons per day. All five wells pump water directly to the City’s 5.0 MG water treatment plant. Four reservoirs serve the City with a combined capacity of 4.7 million gallons. The existing transmission and distribution system is looped in most areas and generally consists of 6-inch or larger water mains. The City has approximately 36 miles of domestic water piping. A detailed inventory of the water system may be found in the draft Water System Plan.
B. City Needs A draft Water System Plan was completed in May 2008 for the City of Prosser, which examined in detail the needs for the system and developed a program for implementing the recommended improvements. The next table lists the capital improvement program based on recommended improvements in the water plan by year, showing estimated costs and proposed funding sources.
CFP Table: : Water System 2010-2015 Capital Improvement Program
Sanitary Sewer System
A. General Inventory
The City of Prosser wastewater facilities consist of a sewage collection system and a wastewater treatment facility. The sewage collection system includes approximately 129,175 linear feet (LF) of gravity pipe (with a majority of the pipe being 8-inch in diameter), 11,874 LF of force main, and 6 sewage lift stations. A detailed inventory of the sanitary sewer system can be found in the draft General Sewer Plan
Since 1948, the City of Prosser has provided treatment and disposal for residential, commercial, and industrial wastewater generated within the City. Prosser’s wastewater treatment facilities have undergone many expansions and upgrades since original construction. These modifications have been in response to increasing population, increasing industrial waste treatment needs, and increasingly stringent discharge requirements.
Prosser’s wastewater treatment facilities are located on the north bank of the Yakima River, below Prosser Dam, and immediately adjacent to the Chandler Canal. Wastewater enters the treatment facility at the headworks, where large incoming solids are removed by a mechanical fine screen. Heavy material is then removed from the waste stream via an aerated grit chamber. From the headworks, wastewater flows to the primary clarifier where settleable material is removed. The material which settles in the primary clarifier is pumped to the primary anaerobic digester for further treatment. Wastewater exiting the primary clarifier is pumped to the trickling filters where biological treatment occurs. From the trickling filters, wastewater flows to the intermediate clarifier where biological solids produced as a result of the trickling filter process are removed prior to the wastewater entering the sequencing batch reactor (SBR). Biological solids settled in the intermediate clarifier are returned to the primary clarifier influent for co-settling with the primary solids. Within the SBR, additional biological treatment of the wastewater occurs, including ammonia removal. Biological solids generated as part of the SBR process are removed to the aerobic sludge holding tank. The finished wastewater is disinfected in the SBR chlorine contact tank, and then discharged to the Yakima River.
Wastewater solids removed from the primary clarifier are pumped to the primary anaerobic digester, which is both heated and mixed. Sludge overflowing the primary digester goes to one of two secondary anaerobic digesters which are not heated or mixed. Periodically, liquids are decanted from the secondary anaerobic digesters back to the treatment process. Every two years, sludge is removed from the secondary anaerobic digesters, dried in the sludge drying beds, and land applied in accordance with the City’s biosolids permit.
Biological solids removed from the treatment process by the SBR are pumped to the aerobic sludge holding tank where they undergo further treatment. From the aerobic holding tank, sludge is thickened by the belt filter press prior to being placed in the sludge drying beds for drying. Dried biosolids (sludge) are land applied in accordance with the City’s biosolids permit. Solids removed from the aerated grit chamber are pumped to a grit classifier where they are washed and made suitable for landfill disposal.
B. City Needs
Prosser has completed three documents identifying collection and treatment system needs. The first two of these documents were the 1994 Draft General Sewer Plan and the 1997 Wastewater Facility Plan. Many wastewater treatment plant improvements were constructed in 2001 based upon the recommendations contained in the 1997 Wastewater Facility Plan. In 2005 this planning was updated with the Draft General Sewer Plan by Huibregtse, Louman Associates. While this update identified all of the projects required for 2025, it did not cost those needs or identify a specific capital improvement program. That plan however has been used to develop six year capital improvement programs. Projects included in the 2007 CIP are identified on Table CFP-5
CFP Table: : Sewer System 2010-2015 Capital Improvement Program
Storm Drainage System
A. General Inventory and Needs
The City of Prosser does not operate a separate storm drainage utility; instead, the City's storm drain system is included in the roadway system. When roadway improvements are made, the associated drainage facilities are evaluated and the necessary replacements or modifications are incorporated into the street project.
Each catch basin within the City is cleaned annually, and storm drain lines known to receive large amounts of leaves or debris are rodded annually. In addition, catch basin lids are inventoried annually as to their condition and replaced if necessary.
The Water Quality Act of 1987 may have a long-range impact on storm water disposal for the City of Prosser. Large municipalities (with populations greater than 100,000) and other designated cities in urbanized areas are required to obtain NPDES Storm Water Permits, and to develop and implement storm water management programs. However, current storm water regulations do not impose requirements on municipalities the size of the City of Prosser.
Improvements to the storm drain system are typically constructed as part of a street improvement project, or on an as-needed basis. Since the drainage improvements are part of street improvement projects, total costs of the improvements are included in the road improvement costs.
UGA Utility Needs
Table CFP-6 below summarizes the long range utility needs in the UGA. There are currently no sewer or water services provided in the UGA outside the city limits. Consequently, these services would be needed in order for the planned urban development to occur. Table CFP 65 estimates the costs of providing these services along with other planned system improvements to serve the city.
CFP Table: : Long Range Utility Capital Needs
CFP Figure: : UGA Sewer Needs
Costs for the water system are derived from the recent Draft Water System Plan. Although this water plan comprehensively identifies and provides cost estimates for the improvements needed within the city during the forecast period, it does not provide any analysis of needs in the UGA. In estimating UGA costs, it was assumed that water lines would be built along the street right-of-ways identified on Figure CFP-1 (above). It was assumed that 12-inch lines would be constructed on the major collectors and 8-inch lines along the other streets. In addition, a cost estimate was made of the costs of extending water service across the freeway.
Cost estimates for the sewer system improvements on CFP Table 6 are based on the Draft Sewer Plan prepared in 2005. While this sewer plan identified potential project needs to serve both the city and the UGA, it did not include cost estimates. Consequently, potential costs were estimated by using generalized cost estimates based on work in other communities. Since the sewer plan did identify potential service lines to serve the UGA, these lines were used, with some adjustments to estimate costs to serve the UGA. In addition, a cost estimate was made of the costs of extending water service across the freeway. In addition to these longer-term projects, uncompleted projects from the 2007 adopted capital improvement program are added to CFP Table 6.
Since 2005 draft plan did not include any major costs needed for the sewer treatment plant, this analysis does not include such estimates. However, HLA and city staff are evaluating potential projects including relocating the drying beds to make room for future expansion of the SBRs, digester improvements, and a project addressing BOD and solids removal. Some of these costs are included on CFP Table 6.
As discussed in Land Capacity and Absorption, the second report in the background studies for this CFP, the construction of the new reservoir and the freeway crossing for water and sewer are key facilities needed to support any development north of the freeway and in the commercial development in the most northwestern part of the city.
Other Needs and Costs
A. General Inventory
The city park system and long-range needs are described in detail in the Parks and Open Space Section of Chapter XII Community Facilities, Services and Resources Element.
B. City Park Development Needs
The Community Facilities, Services and Resources Element estimates the future need for new parks to serve both the city and the UGA. The costs associated with these needs are described below. In addition, past capital facility planning has identified a range of park projects needed to improve the existing park facilities in the city. These projects are listed on Table CFP-7
CFP Table: : City Park 2010-2015 Capital Improvement Program
A. Inventory The City of Prosser owns several buildings which are used for many types of activities and operations on a regular basis. A detailed inventory is found in General Governmental and Parks: City of Prosser, 2008 Inventory of City Capital Assets, February 2008. Five of these buildings, which receive heavy usage daily, are described as follows:
City Hall/Annex - This two-story building, constructed in the 1900s, is currently occupied by the City’s Administrative Department, the Public Works Department, the Building Department, Recreation Department, and the Prosser Police Department. This building underwent a major remodel in 2000, although the remodel did not include the second floor or the area occupied by the Police Department. A portion of the second story is currently leased to the Masonic Lodge.
Fire Station - This two-story building, constructed in 1997. The City owns two thirds of the building with the remainder owned by Benton County Fire District No. 3. This building houses firefighting apparatus, offices, and a meeting room. The second floor, which is only partially completed, contains a modern galley, living quarters, and unfinished dorm rooms.
Prosser City Library - This single-story building, constructed in 1971, is occupied by the city’s library. Library services are provided by the Mid-Columbia Library District under a contract with the city. The building has a basement which is currently occupied by the American Legion.
Prosser Activity Center - This single-story building, constructed in 1984, is occupied by the City’s Senior Citizens organization. The building is also used for private functions (wedding receptions, etc.). The building contains a full galley, meeting hall, office spaces, reception room, and ADA-compliant restrooms.
Meade Avenue Building - This single-story building, constructed in the 1950s, is occupied by Prosser Memorial Hospital’s physical therapy facility. The building was remodeled in 2001 to accommodate the hospital’s needs.
B. Building Improvement Needs Past CIP planning have identified a range of projects to meet the building needs of the city Table CFP-8 presents those projects and costs.
CFP Table: : General Government 2010-2015 Capital Improvement Program
Total General Government Long Range Needs
As discussed in Land Capacity and Absorption, the second report in the background studies for this update of the CFP, additional park services are needed to serve both the existing city and the planned residential development in the UGA. Table CFP 9 presents the total cost of projects that have been identified for park and general government along with the specific projects itemized above.
CFP Table: 9: General Governmental Costs 2010-2015 Capital Improvement Program
Land Costs Per Acre
Hillside Acquisition and Trails
Water Front Trail
Other Park CIP**
New Shop Construction
Total General Government
* Assumes it will be developed on City Property.
** Other from City CIP
***Would be financed by revenues from the course or grants.
Total Costs of Unconstrained Needs
The various need assessments being conducted as part of this planning process have identified 151 million dollars in needs for various public services (Table CFP 10). Fifty-one percent (53%) of these needs are associated with the city’s transportation system.
CFP Table: : Unconstrained Public Facility Needs
apital Facility Funding Resources The city’s fiscal capacity is analyzed in detail and compared against the future need of the city for public facilities City of Prosser’s Fiscal Capacity. This report provides the financial basis for this element. While more detailed information and analysis of the potential funding capacity for various sources of revenue is provided in City of Prosser’s Fiscal Capacity, basic revenue sources are summarized below.
Local General Sources
Property Tax – The chief source of local revenue. Usually such taxes go to the general fund and are then appropriated for transportation purposes. Property taxes are dependent upon local economic conditions; however, they remain a steady reliable source of revenue.
General Funds – General funds include all local funds subject to appropriation by the governing body – property taxes, local option sales taxes, utility taxes, general state shared revenues, business license fees, etc.
Real Estate Excise Tax – A tax imposed by city or county governing bodies not to exceed ½ of one percent of the real estate selling price. The tax is for only for any capital improvements.
Local Improvement Districts – A district formed for bond issue where the district residents vote to place additional tax levies on their property to pay the bond debt.
Bonds – Public authorized loans for any capital improvement (transportation, water, sewer, etc.). Two types of bonds available under statute: Councilmanic Bonds which are authorized by jurisdiction governing bodies for specific capital improvements, and Voter Approved Bonds which are authorized by jurisdiction voters for specific capital improvements.
Sales Tax – Locally levied and distributed by the state to each city on the basis of collections within the jurisdiction. State law authorizes up the city to levy a tax of one percent of the value of the sales transaction for items subject to the tax. (.15% of the sales transaction however goes to the county and a small portion is withheld by the state to cover the administrative expense of collecting the tax).
Transportation Funding Sources
Federal Sources Interstate Maintenance (IM) – This program provides funding for resurfacing, restoring, rehabilitating and reconstructing most routes on the interstate system.
National Highway System (NHS) – This program provides funding for improvements to rural and urban roads that are part of the NHS, including the Interstate System and designated connections to major intermodal terminals. Under certain circumstances, NHS funds may also be used to fund transit improvements in NHS corridors.
Surface Transportation Program(STP) – The STP provides flexible funding that may be used by States and localities for projects on any Federal-aid highway, including the NHS, bridge projects on any public road, transit capital projects, and intracity and intercity bus terminals and facilities. A portion of funds reserved for rural areas may be spent on rural minor collectors.
Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program (HBRRP) – This program provides funds to assist the States in their programs to replace or rehabilitate deficient highway bridges and to seismic retrofit bridges located on any public road.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 5309 – This program provides capital assistance for new rail systems, modernization of existing rail systems and for new and replacement buses and facilities.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 5311 – This program provides formula funding to states for the purpose of supporting public transportation in areas of less than 50,000 population. Funds may be used to provide administrative, capital or operating costs of local transportation providers.
Rural Economic Vitality Program (REV) – This program provides federal funds for roadway improvements that foster economic development for rural areas and state community empowerment zones. Eligible projects include traditional transportation improvements on state and federal highways, county roads and city streets.
State Sources Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) – Funded by the state legislature, the TIB administers state funding programs for local government transportation projects. Projects are funded by combining TIB revenue with local matching funds and private sector contributions. Some of the major TIB programs are listed below.
Transportation Partnership Program (TPP) – This TIB program allocates to local governments (population of 5,000 or over) for street improvement projects, multi-agency projects, and arterial improvement projects. Funds are directed toward relieving urban congestion problems caused by economic development and growth. Local matching funds are required.
Arterial Improvement Program (AIP) – This TIB program provides funding for city and urban county arterial street road and street projects to reduce congestion and improve safety, geometrics, and structural concerns. Projects can receive a maximum of 80% reimbursement depending on agency population.
Pedestrian Safety & Mobility Program (PSMP) – This TIB program provides funding for pedestrian projects that provide access and address system continuity and connectivity of pedestrian facilities.
Small City Program (SCP) – This TIB program provides funding for street improvement projects in cities with a population less than 5,000. Also includes a Pedestrian Safety & Mobility Program (PSMP).
Public works Trust Fund (PWTF) – A revolving loan fund administered by the Public Works Board. Provides low interest loans to local governments for infrastructure improvements.
Urban Arterial Trust Account (UATA) – Provides grants for construction and improvement of city and county arterials within urban areas.
City State Gas Tax Distribution (Motor Fuel Tax) – A portion of the state gas tax is distributed directly to cities based on allocation formulas after deductions for non-highway distributions and collection/distribution costs. These funds may be used for any transportation purpose with most directed to maintenance, operations, and administration, and small portions matching grants for capacity and non-capacity road improvements.
City Hardship Assistance Program (CHAP) – This program provides funding to offset extraordinary costs associated with the transfer of state highways to cities with a population under 20,000.
Utilities Funding Sources
There are several state and federal funding opportunities available to local jurisdictions for the improvement of water and sewer projects. However, the program emphasis changes periodically and it is difficult for a small city to keep abreast of the funding opportunities. At the current time Prosser should become familiar with the Washington Community Economic Revitalization Team (WA-CERT), the Centennial Clean Water Programs and the Community Economic Revitalization Board (CERB).
The WA-CERT system is actually a process rather than a funding program. The WA-Cert system provides a partnership program bringing to Benton and Franklin Counties ten state and federal program grant and loan administrators who collectively manage more than 180 different types of project applications in four different categories. The coordination of the WA-CERT team is administrated through the Office of Trade and Economic Development.
The Centennial Clean Water Fund and the State Revolving Fund has a separate funding process and is administrated by the Department of Ecology.
CERB provides financing for construction of public facilities that support private sector development and increased employment opportunities.
Economic Development Funding Sources
To create new basic employment the Economic Development Administration (EDA), a federal agency, provides infrastructure grant opportunities to site new industries. Infrastructure projects to promote the creation of new basic employment are ranked by category through the local Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) process administered by the Benton-Franklin Economic Development District, a division of the Benton-Franklin Council of Governments.
The EDA is additionally a member of the WA-CERT team administered by the Office of Trade and Economic Development. The WA-CERT system provides a partnership program bringing to Benton and Franklin Counties ten state and federal grant and loan program administrators who collectively manage more than 180 different types of applications in four different categories.
The Community Economic Revitalization Board (CERB) is a state economic development resource strategically focused to help business and industry create and retain jobs in partnership with local communities. CERB provides financing (grants and loans) for construction of public facilities that support private sector development and increased employment opportunities. The Office of Trade and Economic Development, working to enhance and promote sustainable economic vitality, provides management support to CERB.