skip navigation
MRSC logo

Have a Research Question?

Ask MRSC

Have a Research Question?

Ask MRSC

Capital Facilities Planning

This page provides information about capital facilities planning for cities, towns, and counties in Washington State, including statutes and regulations, recommended resources, and sample plans and policies.

It is part of MRSC’s series on the Growth Management Act.

Overview

The purpose of capital facilities planning is to provide adequate public facilities to serve the community by planning for and leveraging available resources. A capital facilities plan (CFP) can help ensure facilities that serve existing development are maintained and upgraded when needed, and that new facilities can be provided when development occurs.

The Washington Department of Commerce (Commerce) Capital Facilities Planning Guidebook points out:

Capital facilities plans can help your jurisdiction use its limited funding wisely and most efficiently to maximize your funding opportunities. By planning ahead to determine what your needs are, you can prioritize projects, coordinate related projects, and apply successfully for loan and grant opportunities. When the comprehensive plans, development regulations, budgeting policy and decisions are made in a coordinated and consistent manner, the outcome can be better implementation of the adopted community vision. Preparing the plan is an investment in the future.

What Is a Capital Facility?

When developing a list of local capital facilities, WAC 365-196-415 recommends including, at a minimum, water systems, sanitary sewer systems, stormwater facilities, reclaimed water facilities, schools, parks and recreational facilities, police facilities, and fire protection facilities.

Ideally, "capital facilities" are defined in the local CFP as having a minimum dollar value and a useful lifespan. For example, the Capital Facilities Element of Envision SeaTac 2044 defines it as having a value of $25,000 and a useful life of greater than 10 years.

In contrast, public expenditures for facilities and other physical items not meeting those two criteria typically are categorized as replacement and maintenance expenditures. For example, replacement of a fire engine would be defined as a capital facility while replacement of a fire hose would be viewed as a replacement item.

Requirements Under the Growth Management Act

The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) requires jurisdictions fully planning under the GMA to have a capital facilities element within their comprehensive plans — see RCW 36.70A.070(3). For some jurisdictions, this element constitutes the entire capital facilities plan. For others, the CFP consists of the capital facilities element plus a financing plan that is included in a separate document (such as a capital budget).

The CFP is one tool to help implement the land use element of the comprehensive plan, and these two elements (including the financing plan within the capital facilities element) must be coordinated and consistent. The CFP should be updated on a regular basis (ideally, annually).

The GMA also requires a separate transportation element, which may include a separate list of transportation-related capital projects and must also be coordinated and consistent with all other comprehensive plan elements. Transportation-related capital projects may also be included in the capital facilities element, but that is not necessarily required (see Futurewise v. Spokane County (2022). For more information, see MRSC’s webpage on Transportation Plans and Plan Elements.

A GMA-compliant capital facilities element must include:  

  • An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by public entities;
  • A forecast of the future needs for such capital facilities;
  • The proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new capital facilities;
  • A capital facilities finance plan (covering a minimum of six-years) indicating projected funding capacities and sources of public money; and
  • A requirement to reassess the land use element if probable funding falls short of meeting existing needs and to ensure that the land use element, capital facilities plan element, and financing plan within the capital facilities plan element are coordinated and consistent.

Some GMA-compliant capital facilities elements are discussed in greater detail below.

Inventory of Existing Capital Facilities

The inventory of existing facilities must identify all public entities that own capital facilities within the jurisdiction as well as the location and capacity of each facility. The city or county must work with those entities in good faith to gather and include the required information.

Forecast of Future Needs

A forecast of future needs should include a list of capital projects anticipated to be needed over the comprehensive plan’s entire planning horizon (usually 20 years), including proposed locations and capacities.

Financing Plan

The CFP must include estimated costs and proposed methods of financing for projects within the first six years — this is sometimes referred to as a six-year capital improvement program (CIP).

A capital facilities element is required before a jurisdiction can impose impact fees under the GMA. Jurisdictions are also required to have a capital facilities plan in place before imposing certain taxes, such as the real estate excise tax, and to qualify for state funding for capital facilities.

As part of the requirement to develop a comprehensive plan transportation element, jurisdictions are required under RCW 36.70A.070(6)(a) to establish multimodal level-of-service standards (LOS) for arterials, transit service, and other facilities that must be met in order to permit new development: This is known as “concurrency.” Jurisdictions also may adopt a concurrency mechanism for other public facilities under WAC 365-196-840(2).

In order for a jurisdiction to maintain concurrency, RCW 36.70A.070(6)(b) requires that adequate public facilities must be set in place to serve new development as it occurs or within six years of it occurring. This requirement can be met by including these planned facilities in the CFP's six-year financing plan. For more information, see MRSC’s webpage on Concurrency.

Statutes and Administrative Regulations

Growth Management Act

  • RCW 36.70A.070(3) – Capital facilities is one of the mandatory elements of comprehensive plan under the GMA; also see (6)(B) and (C) regarding level of service and transportation
  • RCW 36.70A.020 – Planning goals (1) and (12)
  • RCW 36.70A.030(32) – Public facilities definition
  • WAC 365-196-415 – Capital facilities element

Other Statutes

  • RCW 58.17.110(2) – Consideration of public facilities for a subdivision and conditions for approval
  • RCW 82.02.050(5)(a) – Requires capital facilities plan prior to imposition of GMA impact fees to finance system improvements related to the new development
  • RCW 82.46.010(6) – "Capital project" definition for REET 1 (real estate excise taxes)
  • RCW 82.46.035(5) – "Capital project" definition for REET 2 (real estate excise taxes)

Relationship To Other Plans and Budgets

A critical step in creating a capital facilities plan is to ensure its consistency with other plans and budgets that apply within and adjacent to the jurisdiction. Uncoordinated efforts to fund public facilities — by cities, counties, special purpose districts, tribes, or other service providers — can result in costly inefficiencies and gaps in providing public services to the community.

For this reason, counties and cities fully-planning under the GMA are required to ensure consistency among all elements of their comprehensive plans, including the CFP (RCW 36.70A.070). The GMA also requires that county and city capital budgets be consistent with the CFP (RCW 36.70A.120). For jurisdictions that update their CFP annually, the first year of funded projects in the CFP is typically adopted as the capital budget for that year.

The comprehensive plan’s future land use forecast is the primary driver for identifying capital facilities that will be needed to serve new growth. Some local governments also adopt area-specific plans (such as subarea or corridor plans) that provide more detail about facilities needed to serve projected growth in certain geographic areas.

Facilities to serve new growth, when combined with maintenance/upgrade needs and the need to address existing deficiencies, create the CFP’s list of capital facilities for the next 20 years — see WAC 365-196-415(3) and (5). That list is prioritized, and funding sources are identified to develop the CFP’s six-year financing plan. The jurisdiction’s annual/biennial capital budget implements the CFP by including capital projects identified in the first one - two years of the CFP financing plan.

To help identify when, where, and which projects are needed in the CFP, local governments and other public service providers adopt master plans for specific types of facilities (e.g., water, sewer, stormwater, parks, transportation), which provide more detail about the types of facilities needed based on the forecast of new growth, maintenance needs, and adopted levels of service. Master plans often include preliminary cost estimates for major capital projects.

Below are some of the master plans (i.e., improvement plans or functional plans) that may be adopted by a city, town, or county and should be consulted to develop the CFP. Local governments may adopt such plans by reference as part of their comprehensive plan’s capital facilities element.

The CFP should also reference and/or include a summary of master plans of other public service providers such as special purpose districts, port districts, public development authorities, public utility districts, Tribes, private utilities, and private or nonprofit corporations — see WAC 365-196-415(4). Coordinating with all service providers within and near the county or city will help ensure all needed capital facilities are included in the CFP. 

A CFP must be consistent with many other local plans.

Counties and cities should coordinate their approaches to capital facilities planning for unincorporated portions of urban growth areas (UGAs). When a comprehensive plan calls for such an area to eventually be annexed into a city, the county and city CFP’s should be consistent in ensuring timely provision of appropriate public services and facilities during that transition. Commerce’s Urban Growth Area Guidebook details methods for achieving this consistency.

Jurisdictions may also refer to regional plans or state plans when assembling CFPs. Coordinating with regional or state plans may reveal areas of overlap, joint projects, justification for including projects, or strategic timing. Plans related to infrastructure may come from regional bodies, county planning policies, and state infrastructure plans. Examples of regional plans include the Puget Sound Regional Council Vision 2050 or Spokane Regional Transportation Council Horizon 2045.

Developing a Capital Facilities Plan

Jurisdictions take a variety of approaches for creating and enacting CFPs. For example, a CFP may be updated regularly, as part of a comprehensive plan amendment process, or some jurisdictions adopt a six-year financing plan (i.e., the CIP) as part of the capital facilities element of their comprehensive plan.

Some jurisdictions draft both a CIP and a CFP in which the CIP is primarily focused on maintenance as part of operations and the CFP addresses major capital expenses not related to maintenance. For example, Edmonds’ Capital Improvement Program and Capital Facilities Plan is a combined document that includes both maintenance and major expenses.

For a jurisdiction aiming to produce an annual CFP, one approach may include these common steps:

  • Determine policies and criteria for including and rating projects;
  • Determine the inventory of services and desired levels of service;
  • Solicit projects/proposals from departments, including newly identified projects and/or projects from master/regional/other organizational plans;
  • Coordinate and prioritize projects based on the policies and rating criteria; 
  • Collate projects into a single document and determine the financial impacts;
  • Submit the single document for review and approval (by planning commissions, councils, other decision-making bodies); and
  • Adopt the plan and/or document into the budget for the designated period. 

Determine Levels of Service 

Levels of service (LOS) are the minimum standards at which a local government provides services to customers/residents in an area. LOS can be quantitative or qualitative and are a tool to evaluate how a jurisdiction is faring in its provision of these services.

Interim guidance on establishing multimodal levels of service is available from Commerce under WSDOT Multimodal Level of Service Interim Guidance (2024) relating to the requirements under RCW 36.70A.060(6)(a). Further information on LOS is in Commerce’s Capital Facilities Planning Guidebook, Chapter 3.

Setting and maintaining LOS can:

  • Provide policy guidance for future investments and clearer cost estimates for future budgeting;
  • Be a justification for including a project in a CFP, among other evaluation approaches;
  • Reflect organizational goals (such as public safety or access to parks) or standards set by associations (such as the National Fire Protection Association or National Recreation and Park Association);
  • Be informed by existing facilities and capabilities, as determined through an inventory; and
  • Be established for any service (not just physical goods like water, sewer, roads) to cover other types of infrastructure including police and fire services, parks, and libraries.

Ensure Internal Coordination

Typically, a single official in a jurisdiction coordinates the development and delivery of the CFP in coordination with a committee of staff, internal and external partners, and the public. The CFP coordinator will lead the process for internal departments to submit project requests, usually through forms, guidelines, or other instructions.

Coordination between a jurisdiction’s departments works best when the agency uses methods already favored by staff, such as a CFP-focused committee, staff meetings, or other formal and informal procedures. Coordinating requests while assembling the plan can help reduce redundancies, improve efficiency, or identify areas of overlap. Coordination should also include references to other local plans and external service providers to guide CFP contents.

Prioritize Projects

Prioritization or evaluation of projects is important because limited resources will constrain the number of projects to pursue, and requests will exceed available revenue. Prioritization and evaluation of projects can stem from organizational values, LOS minimums, or other organizational guidelines, and criteria should be set before projects are solicited.

Project evaluation can be accomplished using a decision matrix (see Commerce’s guidelines for using a decision matrix to help prioritize funding commitments). Prioritization and evaluation of projects to include in the CFP can be based on an organized system (using cost-benefit analysis or other weighted criteria) or a matrix of values that might include: 

  • Expertise and experience-based judgment, 
  • Quantified level of service objectives,
  • Broad categories of need based on urgency and/or importance to community,
  • Project urgency, and/or
  • Likelihood of meeting goals of the agency/community.

Here is a local example of a prioritization matrix and an additional resource:

Conduct Public Engagement 

Public engagement is required under the GMA as part of the comprehensive plan process, under which the capital facilities element falls. Public involvement is important in developing a CFP and can occur throughout the process. Typically, internal work occupies the first half of the project timeline, where departments submit proposals and the project lead drafts the budgetary document. Once drafted, the document may be published online, shared with other agencies and interested stakeholders, and reviewed for comments by relevant community advisory committees.

For example, Olympia’s public engagement opportunities for the capital financing plan include several touchpoints. The CFP is published around August each year, posted on the city’s website, and provided to interested members of the public. The city holds many public meetings during the CFP process, including a briefing for the planning commission and at several planning commission finance subcommittee meetings, at Olympia Metropolitan Parks District meetings, at a planning commission public hearing, and during a city council meeting and a council public hearing. Olympia’s CFP projects are guided by related master plans (transportation, water, sewer, parks, and others as applicable), and each master plan is updated on a different schedule with opportunities for public comment and engagement. 

For additional information on public outreach, see the Community Engagement Resources webpage.

Identify Funding 

The capital facilities plan must identify revenue sources that will be used to finance the capital facilities needed.

Many jurisdictions find it very helpful to adopt financial policies to guide complex decisions about which revenue sources, or combination of sources, should be used for each capital project. Financial policies that specifically guide capital facilities funding are often included in the CFP but may be incorporated into the capital budget or adopted separately.

Financial policies can be crucial in ensuring that the prioritization of capital project funding is coordinated and consistent with the policy direction in the other elements of the comprehensive plan, long-term utility financial plans, and other related plans. For more detailed information and examples, see MRSC’s Financial Policies Toolkit.

For cities and counties required by the GMA to adopt a capital facilities element of their comprehensive plan, the policies must include a requirement to reassess the land use element (and other elements, if necessary) if probable funding falls short of meeting existing needs. The policies should also address the ongoing funding of capital facilities maintenance and operations. For more details on this process, see Capital Facilities Planning: If There’s No Math, You’re Not Doing It Right (2022).

Important: Some revenue sources—such as real estate excise taxes (REET), impact fees, and many grant or loan programs—may only be used to fund projects that are listed in the CFP and/or may have restrictions on which projects they can fund within the CFP. Always consult the relevant laws or terms & conditions.

The resources below provide information on potential funding sources for capital facilities: 

Examples of Local Capital Facilities Plans and Policies

Recommended Resources 

These resources provide general information regarding capital facilities planning: 


Last Modified: November 25, 2025