Thurston County: Capital Improvement Program Concerns
The Thurston County Planning Commission, a body central to ensuring transparent government and resident oversight in county planning, recently delivered a striking "No Recommendation" for the adoption of the 2025-2030 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). This decisive 7-1 vote underscored deep concerns over how the program’s proposed projects and its very review process could significantly impact future development, land use planning, and public participation in shaping the county's growth.
The CIP is a cornerstone of the county's development strategy, mandated by the Growth Management Act as a vital six-year financing plan for capital facilities. It dictates where and how crucial infrastructure — essential for accommodating anticipated growth — will be funded. Updated annually, this program outlines projects that directly influence development patterns and the availability of public services to support a growing population. The proposed 2025-2030 CIP is a comprehensive overhaul, replacing its predecessor, and is currently undergoing environmental review as a non-project action.
However, the Planning Commission raised substantial objections regarding the development implications of the program's content. They observed a "loose" interpretation of "Capital Facilities," a term explicitly defined in the Comprehensive Plan. This flexible application, seemingly for funding expediency, could lead to infrastructure development that deviates from established land use policies and long-term planning. A more critical issue revolved around "Place Holder" projects, particularly those categorized as "Land Acquisition." The Commission warned that this practice, exemplified by the acquisition of the 1111 Israel Building, fosters reactive rather than thoughtful community development. Crucially, classifying significant new facilities, such as the proposed Sheriff’s facility, as mere land acquisitions effectively bypasses the comprehensive planning process designed for integrating major new development. This method dramatically curtails public notice, participation, and oversight, directly violating Comprehensive Plan Policy 1(F) Policy 5, which mandates formal plan amendments for unanticipated new facilities, thereby reducing public input on development decisions by as much as a year.
Concerns also extended to the development planning process itself. The Commission noted a severe lack of adequate time and critical data, such as Level of Service and Funding analyses, necessary to properly assess the program’s development implications. Without this, they could not verify if proposed infrastructure development was genuinely aligned with future growth needs or if funding mechanisms were sustainable. Skepticism mounted over the use of REET as debt service for bonds and the early collateralization of the Public Safety Sales Tax, which they viewed as financially irresponsible arrangements that could strain future development financing. Furthermore, the recent adoption of the Minor Amendment Process for the CIP was criticized for directly undermining public participation. This process, considered unnecessary given the Commission’s prior record of recommendations, now excludes direct public engagement on new additions to the CIP, thereby limiting the community's voice in vital infrastructure and land use decisions.
In light of these comprehensive concerns about the CIP’s impact on responsible development and public involvement, the Planning Commission firmly refused to endorse the program. They clearly communicated their inability to "rubber stamp" the adoption. The process is set to continue with a proposed public hearing on September 18, 2024, followed by further Board of County Commissioners sessions, with a final decision anticipated by December 17, 2024. The Commission expressed a strong desire to collaborate with staff to establish a more transparent and effective development planning process moving forward.