Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
6698
ORDINANCE NO. 6 6 9 8 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO PLANNING; ADOPTING 2018 ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AND TEXT AMENDMENTS PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF RCW CHAPTER 36.70A AND ADOPTING CORRESPONDING REZONES RELATED TO CERTAIN MAP AMENDMENTS WHEREAS, since 1986 the City of Auburn has maintained a Comprehensive Plan, periodically updated and reaffirmed by the City Council, that includes a Map establishing the location of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations throughout the City; and WHEREAS, on December 14, 2015, the Auburn City Council adopted an updated Comprehensive Plan by Ordinance No. 6584; and WHEREAS, in May 2018 the City of Auburn published in the Seattle Times Newspaper an advertisement that the City was accepting comprehensive plan amendment applications and established a deadline for submittal of June 8, 2018; and WHEREAS, the City of Auburn received and processed three private -initiated map amendments for the year 2018 annual amendments; (Labrador Ventures LLC as CPA18-0001, Auburn School District as CPA18-0003, and Auburn School District as CPA 18-0004); and WHEREAS, the City of Auburn initiated three map amendments (File No. CPA18-0002) and nine policy/text amendments (File No. CPA18-0002); and WHEREAS, none of the City -initiated map amendments and all three of the private initiated map amendments have an associated rezone (zoning map amendment) to maintain consistency with the Comprehensive Plan; and Ordinance No. 6698 December 3, 2018 Page 1 WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan text/policy amendments and map amendments were processed by the Community Development Department as proposed Year 2018 annual amendments to the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act, RCW 36.70A, requires the City to maintain a current Capital Facilities Plan; and WHEREAS, the environmental impacts of the proposed Year 2018 Comprehensive Plan amendments and rezones were considered in accordance with procedures of the State Environmental Policy Act (File No. SEP18-0010 (city -initiated amendments), SEP18-0008 (Labrador Ventures LLC, private -initiated amendment), SEP18-0012 (Auburn School District Pioneer Elementary private -initiated amendment), and SEP18-0013 (Auburn School District Kersey WY SE private -initiated amendment) and were determined to have no environmental significance; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments were transmitted to the Washington State Department of Commerce, Growth Management Services Division, and other State agencies for the 60 -day review period in accordance with RCW 36.70A.106; and WHEREAS, after proper notice published in the City's official newspaper at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearings, the Auburn Planning Commission on November 7, 2018, conducted public hearings on the proposed amendments heard and considered the public testimony, viewed the evidence and exhibits presented to it, and made recommendations to the City Council on the proposed Year 2018 annual Comprehensive Plan map and text amendments and for certain amendments, on the associated rezones; and Ordinance No. 6698 December 3, 2018 Page 2 WHEREAS, on December 10, 2018, the Auburn City Council reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendations, and on December 17, 2017 considered the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments and rezones. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Application CPA18-0001 & REZ18-0002, Labrador Ventures LLC Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, requesting a land use designation change from "Single Family Residential" with a "Residential Transition Overlay" to "Multiple family Residential" and a rezone (zoning map amendment) from "R-7, Residential 7 Dwelling Units Per Acre" to "R-20, Residential 20 Dwelling Units Per Acre" for three parcels totaling approximately 1.89 acres, identified by King County parcel numbers: 000420- 0010, 000420-0027, and 000420-0028 is approved, the Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map are amended as set forth in Exhibit "A," and the findings and conclusions outlined in the November 28, 2018 staff report to the City Council, as set forth in Exhibit "B" are adopted. Section 2. Application CPA18-0003 & REZ18-0003, Auburn School District, Pioneer Elementary School Site Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, requesting a land use designation change from "Single -Family" to "Institutional" and a rezone (zoning map amendment) from "R-7 Residential — Seven Dwelling Units per Acre" to "P-1 Public Use District" for two parcels totaling approximately 0.9 acres, identified by King County parcel numbers: 1921059282 & 1921059190 is approved, as set forth in Exhibit "C," and the findings and conclusions outlined in the November 28, 2018 staff report to the Council, as set forth in Exhibit "B," are adopted. Ordinance No. 6698 December 3, 2018 Page 3 Section 3. Application CPA18-0004 & REZ18-0004, Auburn School District, Kersey Way SE Site Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, requesting a land use designation change from "Residential Conservancy' to "Institutional" and a rezone (zoning map amendment) from "RC, Residential Conservancy" to "I, Institutional Zone" for four parcels totaling approximately 22.08 acres, identified by King County parcel numbers: 3221059058, 3221059057, 3221059056, & 3221059016 is approved, as set forth in Exhibit "D," and the findings and conclusions outlined in the November 28, 2018 staff report to Council, as set forth in Exhibit "B", are adopted. Section 4. The 2018 Comprehensive Plan city -initiated Map Amendments (CPA18-0002) are approved, as set forth in Exhibit "E," and the findings and conclusions contained in the November 28, 2018 staff report to Council, as set forth in Exhibit B, are adopted. Section 5. The 2018 annual Comprehensive Plan city -initiated Text Amendments (CPA18-0002), as set forth in Exhibit "F," are approved. The full text of the Capital Facilities Plan of the City and the four school district's Capital Facilities Plans are adopted, copies of which shall be on file with the Office of the City Clerk, and the Findings and Conclusions outlined in the November 28, 2018 staff report to Council, as set forth in Exhibit "B", are adopted. Section 6. The adopted Comprehensive Plan as amended is designated as a basis for the exercise of substantive authority under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act by the City's responsible environmental official in accordance with RCW. 43.21 C.060. Ordinance No. 6698 December 3, 2018 Page 4 Section 7. The Mayor is hereby authorized to implement such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directions of this legislation to include incorporating into one document the adopted Comprehensive Plan map and text amendments, attached as Exhibit "A", Exhibit "B", Exhibit "C", Exhibit "D", Exhibit "E," and Exhibit "F" when preparing and publishing the amended Comprehensive Plan. Section 8. The provisions of this ordinance are declared to be separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section or portion of this ordinance, or the invalidity of the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this ordinance, or the validity of its application to other persons or circumstances. Section 9. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force five days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. ATTEST: Shawn Campbell, MMC, City Clerk Ordinance No. 6698 December 3, 2018 Page 5 INTRODUCED: DEC 17 2018 PASSED: DEC 17 2018 APPROVED CITY OF AUBURN 7 2018 APPROVED AS TO FORM: A4t--��5 Steven L. Gross, City Attorney Published: ,-1 \.0 - Ordinance No. 6698 December 3, 2018 Page 6 Exhibit "A" Colored Map as an excerpt of the City's Comprehensive Plan Map showing a change from "Single Family Residential" with the "Residential Transition Overlay" to "Multiple Family Residential" for three parcels totaling approximately 1. 89 acres, identified by parcel numbers: 000420-0010, 000420-0027, & 000420-0028 for Labrador Ventures LLC. (CPA18-0001) Colored Map as an excerpt of the City's Zoning Map showing a change from "R-7, Residential 7 dwelling units per acre" to "R-20, 20 Dwelling Units Per Acre" for three parcels totaling approximately 1. 89 acres, identified by parcel numbers: 000420- 0010, 000420-0027, & 000420-0028 for Labrador Ventures LLC. (REZ18-0002) (Please see "Comp. Plan Map Amendments CPA 18-0001" tab in the working binder). Ordinance No. 6698 December 3, 2018 Page 7 Exhibit "B" See Staff Report dated December 11, 2018 transmitted to the City Council for the Regular Meeting on December 17, 2018. Ordinance No. 6698 December 3, 2018 Page 8 Exhibit "C" Colored Map as an excerpt of the City's Comprehensive Plan Map showing a change from "Single Family Residential" to "Institutional" for two parcels totaling approximately 0.9 acres, identified by parcel numbers: 192105-9190 & 192105-9282 for the Auburn School District Pioneer Elementary School Site (CPA 18- 0003) Colored Map as an excerpt of the City's Zoning Map showing a change from "R-7, Residential 7 dwelling units per acre" to `P-1, Public Use" for two parcels totaling approximately 0.9 acres, identified by parcel numbers: 192105-9190 & 192105-9282 for the Auburn School District Pioneer Elementary School Site (REZ18- 0003) (Please see "Comp. Plan Map Amendments CPA 18-0003" tab in the working binder). Ordinance No. 6698 December 3, 2018 Page 9 Exhibit "D" Colored Map as an excerpt of the City's Comprehensive Plan Map showing a change from "Residential Conservancy" to "Institutional" for four parcels totaling approximately 22.08 acres, identified by parcel numbers: 322105-9016, 322105--9056, 322105-9057, & 322105-9058 for the Auburn School District Kersey Way SE Site (CPA 18-0005) Colored Map as an excerpt of the City's Zoning Map showing a change from "RC, Residential Conservancy" to "1, Institutional" "R- 7, Residential 7 dwelling units per acre" to "P-1, Public Use" for four parcels totaling approximately 22.08 acres, identified by parcel numbers: 322105-9016, 322105--9056, 322105-9057, & 322105-9058 for the Auburn School District Kersey Way SE Site (REZ 18-0004) (Please see "Comp. Plan Map Amendments CPA 18-0004" tab in the working binder). Ordinance No. 6698 December 3, 2018 Page 10 Exhibit "E" CPM #1 - Change the Comprehensive Plan Map, "Designated Areas, Map # 1.3" to remove "Environmental Park" Designated Area, since the area was rezoned in 2017 to M-1, Light Industrial and thus is not distinguished from other areas. CPM #2 - Add back the Historic Resource Inventory Map from former Chapter 10, Historic Preservation Chapter, from the pre -2015 Comprehensive Plan as a re -numbered Map 8.1. CPM #3 - Amend Comprehensive Plan Map to remove the mapped designation of 'Residential Transition Overlay". (See "Comp. Plan Map Amendments" tab in the working binder) Ordinance No. 6698 December 3, 2018 Page 11 Exhibit "F" Annual Comprehensive Plan Map (CPM) Amendments (CPA 18-0002 — City Initiated PIT #1 — Incorporate Auburn School District Capital Facilities Plan PIT #2 — Incorporate Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Plan PIT #3 — Incorporate Federal Way School District Capital Facilities Plan PIT #4 — Incorporate Kent School District Capital Facilities Plan PIT #5 — Incorporate City of Auburn Capital Facilities Plan PVT #6 - Modify text at the end of Volume 1, "Land Use Element" to clarify and distinguish between the various subcategories of "Special Planning Areas" that are already described in the Plan. Bring back some missing explanation from previous pre -2015 Comprehensive Plan to aid in describing the purpose and actions associated with each subcategory. The changes are shown in strike through and underline. Also, change Map No. 1.3 to correspond. See the related Map amendment CPM #1. PIT #7 - Amend text of Volume 6, Economic Development Element of Comprehensive Plan and the Comprehensive Plan's "Core Plan" (headline chapter) and specifically the Economic Development Vision Statement discussion to reflect preparation of the City of Auburn Ten - Year Economic Development Strategic Plan (TEDSP). Also, amend and the Appendices to include the document as one of the background documents to the Plan. The changes are shown in strike through and underline. PIT #8 - Amend text and policies of Comprehensive Plan to add back the contents of the former Chapter 10, "Historical Preservation" from pre - 2015 Comprehensive Plan as a new Chapter 8, with some minor revisions. Also, add a corresponding section to the "Core Plan" to maintain formatting, add a map of designated landmarks, as before and amend the Appendices to reflect the map addition. See related Map amendment CPM #2. The text changes are shown in strike through & underline. PIT #9 - Modify text of Volume 1, "Land Use Element" of the Comprehensive Plan to remove the mapped designation of "Residential Transition Overlay" from the Comprehensive Plan Map. The text requires modification to eliminate references to the map location. See related Map amendment CPM #3. (See "Comp. Plan POGCy/Text Amendments" tab in the working binder) Ordinance No, 6698 December 3, 2018 Page 12 Exhibit "A" Colored Map as an excerpt of the City's Comprehensive Plan Map showing a change from "Single Family Residential" with the "Residential Transition Overlay" to "Multiple Family Residential" for three parcels totaling approximately 1. 89 acres, identified by parcel numbers: 000420-0010, 000420-0027, & 000420-0028 for Labrador Ventures LLC. (CPA 18-0001) Colored Map as an excerpt of the City's Zoning Map showing a change from "R-7, Residential 7 dwelling units per acre" to "R-20, 20 Dwelling Units Per Acre" for three parcels totaling approximately 1. 89 acres, identified by parcel numbers: 000420- 0010, 000420-0027, & 000420-0028 for Labrador Ventures LLC. (REZ 18-0002) (Please see "Comp. Plan Map Amendments CPA 18-0001 "tab in the working binder). -------------------------- Ordinance No. 6698 December 3, 2018 Page 7 EXHIBIT 2 CPA 18-0001 Land Use Parcels DOWNTOWN URBAN CENTER HEAVY COMMERCIAL HEAVY INDUSTRIAL INSTITUTIONAL aLIGHTCOMMERCIAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE -FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL E7NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL OVERLAY rq/ Existing Land Use No OPEN SPACE U Proposed Land Use RESIDENTIAL CONSERVANCY RESIDENTIAL TRANSITION OVERLAY SINGLE FAMILY 0 80 150 240 320 400 FEET N & Printed On OW20-1 3 w , . E 5 htl'umtation sho%Nn is for general reference Purposes only :rid does not necesSarily tepresem eeacl eeouraphic or cartographic lora as mapped The City of Auburn makes no warranty as'to its accuracy. EXHIBIT3 REZ 18-0001 Zoning Parcels I Institutional Use District C1 Light Commercial District Lakeland Hills South PUD C2 Central Business District' LF Airport Landing Field District C3 Heavy Commercial District M1 Light Industrial District C4 Mizell Use Commercial M2 Heavy Industrial District CN Neighborhood Shopping District Open Space DUC Downtown Urban Center 11 Public Use District PUD Planned Unit Development i RMHC Residential Manufactured/Mobile Home Units R1 Residential 1 DU/Acre RO Residential Office District R5 Residential 5 DU/Acre + RO-H Residential Office District (Hospital) R7 Residential 7 DU/Acre + TV Terrace View R10 R—dential 10 DU/Acre R20 Residential 20 DU/Acre Residential Conservancy UNC Unclassified Use District Ea -mit Zoning r_qProposed Zoning 0 90 180 400 i i I N Primed 01 )`,_'0.I i ALyrIU tdh4 5 Information shown 15 fur general reference purposes only and does not necessxrdv tepresew exact ge0_lraphjc or eario,I'aplac data its mapped. I lie City of Auburn nlakas no ":a rant). as to its accul'acv. Exhibit "B" See Staff Report dated December 11, 2018 transmitted to the City Council for the Regular Meeting on December 17, 2018. -------------------------- Ordinance No. 6698 December 3, 2018 Page 8 Exhibit "A" Colored Map as n excerpt of the City's Comprehensiv Ian Map showing a chang ;from "Single Family Residential" w' the "Residential Transition Overlay" to "Multiple Famil esidential" for three parcels totaling approximately 1. 89 acr s, identified by parcel numbers: 000420-0010, 000420-0027 000420-0028 for Labrador Ventures LL'. (CPA 18-0001) Colored Map as an excerpt of the 1ty's Zoning Map showing a change from "R-7, Residential 7 welling units per acre" to "R-20, 20 Dwelling Units Per Acre" f three parcels totaling approximately 1. 89 acres,l entified by parcel numbers: 000420- 0010, 000420-0027, & 000420-0028 for Labrador Ventures LLC. (REZ 18-0002) (Please see "Comp. Plan Map Amendments CPA 18-0001 " tab in the working binder). -------------------------- Ordinance No. 6698 December 3, 2018 Page 7 AUBURN WASHINGTON AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: Ordinance No. 6698 Date: December 11, 2018 CPA18-0001 & REZ18-0002, CPA18-0002, CPA18-0003 & REZ18-0003, and CPA18-0004 & REZ18-0004, as the 2018 Annual Comprehensive Plan Map and Policy/Text Amendments Department: Department of Attachments: Ordinance No. 6698 Budget Impact: N/A Community Development See separate map amendment & policy/text amendment sections of the working binder Administrative Recommendation: City Council to introduce and approve Ordinance No. 6698 amending the Comprehensive Plan to include 2018 Annual Comprehensive Plan Policy/Text and Map Amendments and three associated rezones zoning map amendments). Councilmember: DaCorsi Page 1 of 45 AUBURN* MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED AUBURN WASHINGTON AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Background/Summary: Included under this agenda bill, and as part of Ordinance No. 6698, are the Planning Commission's recommendation on the 2018 package of annual amendments. This year there are 15 separate comprehensive plan amendments. The package of amendments are organized as follows: • The first page of the agenda bill provides a general overview of the 15 amendments. There are 9 policy/text amendments, 3 map amendments, and 3 privately initiated plan map amendments. • Pages 2 and 3 provide greater summary detail of each of the 15 amendments. P/T Amendments are Policy/Text Amendments and CPM Amendments are Comprehensive Plan Amendments. The CPM Amendments are broken into 2 categories — those that are city initiated and those that are privately initiated. • The remaining pages of the agenda bill provide background details about the legislative process up to this point and a few pages of detail for each of the 15 amendments. While the agenda bill provides a great deal of information it is actually an abbreviated summary of the process, analysis, public comment, findings, and recommendations for the package of amendments. Two large binders have been placed in the City Council library in the event that councilmembers would like to learn more about an individual amendment or the overall process. Each binder is identical. Included in the binders are all details related to staff's analysis, SEPA environmental review, state agency review, staff reports, application materials, public comment, etc. The City of Auburn adopted amendments to its Comprehensive Plan in 1995 in response to the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) requirements, as amended. Since then the Auburn Comprehensive Plan has been amended annually. The City adopted a substantially revised Comprehensive Plan in December 2015. Comprehensive plan amendments can be initiated by the City of Auburn (city -initiated) and by private citizens (private -initiated). This year the city is initiating: • Nine policy/text amendments • Three map amendments Also, the city received three (3) private -initiated plan map amendment by the June 8, 2018 submittal deadline. This staff report and Planning Commission recommendation addresses all of this year's amendments consisting of: • CPA18-0002, Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments (P/T) # 1-9 — City -initiated applications • CPA18-0002, Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment (CPM) # 1-3 - City -initiated applications • CPA18-0001 & REZ18-0002, Comp. Plan & Zoning Map Amendment — private -initiated applic. • CPA18-0003 & REZ18-0003, Comp. Plan & Zoning Map Amendment — private -initiated applic. • CPA18-0004 & REZ18-0004, Comp. Plan & Zoning Map Amendment — private -initiated applic. Comprehensive plan amendments are initially reviewed during a public hearing process before the City of Auburn Planning Commission, who then provides a recommendation to the City Council for final action. City Council consideration and action on the amendments generally occurs but is not required prior to the end of the year. Page 2 of 45 AUBURN* MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: Ord #6698, CPA18-0001 & REZ18-0002, CPA18- Date: December 11, 2018 0002, CPA18-0003 & REZ18-0003, and CPA18-0004 & REZ18-0004, - 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments — Map Amendments & Policy/Text Amendments & Assoc. Rezones I. Background At its November 7, 2018 public hearing, the Planning Commission considered the following set (docket) of Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments, consisting of map and policy/text amendments: A. Policy/Text (P/T) Amendments (File #CPA18-0002 — City -Initiated): P/T #1 — Incorporate Auburn School District Capital Facilities Plan P/T #2 — Incorporate Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Plan P/T #3 — Incorporate Federal Way School District Capital Facilities Plan P/T #4 — Incorporate Kent School District Capital Facilities Plan P/T #5 — Incorporate City of Auburn Capital Facilities Plan P/T #6 - Modify text at the end of Volume 1, "Land Use Element" to clarify and distinguish between the various subcategories of "Special Planning Areas" that are already described in the Plan. Bring back some missing explanation from previous pre - 2015 Comprehensive Plan to aid in describing the purpose and actions associated with each subcategory. The changes are shown in strike through and underline. Also, change Map No. 1.3 to correspond. See the related Map amendment CPM #1. P/T #7 - Amend text of Volume 6, Economic Development Element of Comprehensive Plan and the Comprehensive Plan's "Core Plan" (preliminary chapter) and specifically the Economic Development Vision Statement discussion to reflect preparation of the City of Auburn Ten -Year Economic Development Strategic Plan (TEDSP). Also, amend and the Appendices to include the document as one of the background documents to the Plan. The changes are shown in strike through and underline. P/T #8 - Amend text and policies of Comprehensive Plan to add back the contents of the former Chapter 10, "Historical Preservation" from pre -2015 Comprehensive Plan as a new Chapter 8, with some minor revisions. Also, add a corresponding section to the "Core Plan" to maintain formatting, add a map of designated landmarks, as before and amend the Appendices to reflect the map addition. See related Map amendment CPM #2. The text changes are shown in strike through & underline. P/T #9 - Modify text of Volume 1, "Land Use Element" of the Comprehensive Plan to remove the mapped designation of "Residential Transition Overlay" from the Comprehensive Plan Map. The text requires modification to eliminate references to the map location. See related Map amendment CPM #3. B. Map (CPM) Amendments (CPA18-0002 — City -Initiated) CPM #1 - Change the Comprehensive Plan Map, "Designated Areas, Map # 1.3" to remove "Environmental Park" Designated Area, since the area was rezoned in 2017 to M-1, Light Industrial and thus is not distinguished from other areas. (See also related text amendment P/T #6) CPM #2 - Add back the Historic Resource Inventory Map from former Chapter 10, Historic Preservation Chapter, from the pre -2015 Comprehensive Plan as a re -numbered Map 8.1. (See also related text amendment P/T #8) CPM #3 - Amend Comprehensive Plan Map to remove the mapped designation of "Residential Transition Overlay". (See related text amendment P/T #9) A. Map (CPM) Amendments — Private -Initiated) CPM #4 — (CPA18-0001 & REZ18-0002) Application by Labrador Ventures LLC to change the designation of three vacant parcels totaling approx. 1.89 acres located NE of Page 3 of 45 AUBURN* MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: Ord #6698, CPA18-0001 & REZ18-0002, CPA18- Date: December 11, 2018 0002, CPA18-0003 & REZ18-0003, and CPA18-0004 & REZ18-0004, - 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments — Map Amendments & Policv/Text Amendments & Assoc. Rezones 40th and I ST NE from "Single Family Residential" with the "Residential Transition Overlay" to "Multiple Family Residential" and associated rezone from "R-7, Residential 7 dwelling units per acre" to "R-20, 20 Dwelling Units Per Acre". Parcels are located on the east side of `I' St. NE, approximately 200 ft. north of 40th St. NE., Parcel Nos. 000420-0010, -0027, & -0028. CPM #5 — (CPA18-0003 & REZ18-0003) Application by Auburn School District to change the designation of two developed parcels totaling approx. 0.9 acres located west of Pioneer Elementary from "Single Family Residential" to "Institutional" and associated rezone from "R-7, Residential 7 dwelling units per acre" to "P-1, Public Use". Parcels are located on the east side of K ST SE in the 2200 block (between 21st ST SE and 25th ST SE, addressed as 2230 & 2236 K ST SE., Parcel Nos. 192105-9190 & - 9282. CPM #6 — (CPA18-0004 & REZ18-0004) Application by Auburn School District to change the designation of four parcels (3 developed; 1 vacant) totaling approx. 22.08 acres located west of Kersey WY SE from "Residential Conservancy" to "Institutional" and the associated rezone from "RC, Residential Conservancy" to "I, Institutional". Parcel Nos. 322105-9016, -9056, 9057, & - 9058. In short, with conclusion of the hearing, the Planning Commission forwarded its recommendation for "approval" to the City Council on all of the year 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments. II. Comprehensive Plan -Related Findings 1. The purpose of the City's Comprehensive Plan document is to provide a policy basis for development regulations to ensure that the Comprehensive Plan and implementing regulations are consistent, as required by the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) and the following City Code provision: "14.22.050 Conformance and consistency. The zoning, land division and other development codes contained or referenced within Auburn City Code shall be consistent with and implement the intent of the comprehensive plan. Capital budget decisions shall be made in conformity with the comprehensive plan." 2. RCW 36.70A.130 (The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA)) provides the process for amendments to locally adopted GMA-compliant comprehensive plans shall be considered by the city no more frequently than once per year, except in limited circumstances as provided for in State law and repeated in City Code Section 14.22.060, `Comprehensive Plan Amendments'. 3. The City of Auburn established a Friday, June 8, 2018 deadline for the submittal of private - initiated comprehensive plan applications (map or policy/text). Notice to the public of the application filing deadline was provided on the City's website, published in the Seattle Times Newspaper, and sent to a compiled notification list on May 4, 2018. The City received three (3) private -initiated plan map amendment by the submittal deadline. 4. The City of Auburn received annual updates to the four (4) school district Capital Facilities Plans whose districts occur within the City of Auburn. These Capital Facilities Plans, as well as the City's Capital Facilities Plan are proposed to be incorporated by reference in the current Capital Facilities Element (Volume 3), of the 2015 Auburn Comprehensive Plan and are processed as Policy/Text (P/T) amendments. Page 4 of 45 AUBURN* MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: Ord #6698, CPA18-0001 & REZ18-0002, CPA18- Date: December 11, 2018 0002, CPA18-0003 & REZ18-0003, and CPA18-0004 & REZ18-0004, - 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments — Map Amendments & Policv/Text Amendments & Assoc. Rezones 5. The environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) for the school district capital facilities plans were prepared individually by each school district acting as their own lead agency, as allowed by state law. 6. The City conducted the environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) for the city -initiated policy/text and map amendments. This resulted in a Determination of Non - Significance (DNS) (File #SEP18-0010) issued for the City -initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendments on September 19, 2018. The comment period ended October 4, 2018 and the appeal period ended October 18, 2018. The City did not receive any comments in response to the issuance of the Determination of Non -Significance (DNS). A copy of the DNS and environmental checklist application is provided in the working binder behind the "Environmental Review" tab. Also, the City conducted the environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) for the three (3) private -initiated Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments and associated rezones. This resulted in: • CPM #4 — Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) (File # SEP18-0012), Labrador Ventures LLC for the Comprehensive Plan amendment & rezone (CPA18-0001 & REZ18-0002) issued on August 16, 2018. The comment period ended August 31, 2018 and the appeal period ended September 14, 2018. One public comment was submitted regarding off-site vegetation that was replied by written staff comments; (See Exhibit 9 under "CPA 18-0001" near the end of working binder); no appeal was filed. • CPM #5 — Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) (File # SEP18-0012), Auburn School District for the Comprehensive Plan amendment & rezone (CPA18-0003 & REZ18-0003) issued on August 9, 2018. The comment period ended August 24, 2018 and the appeal period ended September 7, 2018. No public comments were submitted; no appeal was filed. • CPM #6 — Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) (File # SEP18-0013), Auburn School District for the Comprehensive Plan amendment & rezone (CPA18-0004 & REZ18-0004) issued on August 14, 2018. The comment period ended August 29, 2018 and the appeal period ended September 12, 2018. Three public comments were submitted mainly addressing vehicle and pedestrian transportation and site layout that were replied by written staff comments; (See Exhibit under "CPA 18-0004" near the end of working binder); no appeal was filed. 7. Auburn City Code Chapter 14.22, (Amendments) outlines the process for submittal of private - initiated amendments and the general processing of comprehensive plan amendments as follows: "Section 14.22.100, (Public Hearing Required by Planning Commission.) A. The planning commission shall hold at least one public hearing on all proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan. Notice of such public hearing shall be given pursuant to Chapter 1.27 ACC and, at a minimum, include the following: 1. For site-specific plan map amendments: a. Notice shall be published once in the official newspaper of the city not less than 10 calendar days prior to the date of public hearing; b. Notice shall be mailed by first class mail to all property owners of record within a radius of 300 feet of the proposed map amendment request, not less than 10 calendar days prior to the public hearing; 2. For area -wide plan map amendments: Page 5 of 45 AUBURN *MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: Ord #6698, CPA18-0001 & REZ18-0002, CPA18- Date: December 11, 2018 0002, CPA18-0003 & REZ18-0003, and CPA18-0004 & REZ18-0004, - 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments — Map Amendments & Policv/Text Amendments & Assoc. Rezones a. Notice shall be published once in the official newspaper of the city not less than 10 calendar days prior to the date of public hearing; b. Notice shall be mailed by first class mail to all property owners of record within the area subject to the proposed amendment; c. Notice shall be posted in at least two conspicuous locations in the area subject to the proposed amendment not less than 10 calendar days prior to the date of the public hearing. B. Notwithstanding the above, the director may expand the minimum noticing provisions noted above as deemed necessary. C. Planning Commission Recommendation. The planning commission shall conduct a public hearing on all potential comprehensive plan amendments and shall make and forward a recommendation on each to the city council. The planning commission shall adopt written findings and make a recommendation consistent with those findings to the city council. D. The city council, if it elects to amend the comprehensive plan, shall adopt written findings and adopt said amendments by ordinance. E. State Review. All comprehensive plan amendments considered by the planning commission shall be forwarded for state agency review consistent with RCW 36.70A.106. F. Any appeal of an amendment to the comprehensive plan shall be made in accordance with Chapter 36.70A RCW. (Ord. 6172 § 1, 2008.)" 8. Thus, Comprehensive Plan amendments are initially reviewed during a public hearing process before the City of Auburn Planning Commission, who then provides a recommendation to the City Council for final action. City Council consideration and action on the amendments generally occurs, but is not required, prior to the end of the year. 9. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, the proposed comprehensive plan amendments outlined in this agenda bill were sent to the Washington State Office of Commerce and other state agencies as required for the 60 -day state review. No comments have been received from the Washington State Department of Commerce or other state agencies as of the writing of this report. 10. Due to the nature of the city -initiated amendments and the scope and limited number of private - initiated amendments, the optional process available in the city code for staff to hold a public open house was not conducted. 11. With the City adoption of a substantially revised Comprehensive Plan in December 2015, the need for some policy/text amendments and map amendments is needed to correct some inadvertent changes. The changes are necessary to increase the consistency of the Comprehensive Plan and zoning as required by ACC 14.22.050, "Conformance and Consistency". Each of the Policy/Text (PIT) and map (CPM) changes are shown in greater detail behind the respective tabs of the `Working Binder'. 12. For the city -initiated amendments a public hearing notice was published on October 24, 2018 in the Seattle Times newspaper which is at least 10 -days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing, conducted on November 7, 2018, as required. The private -initiated applications were each the subject of separate hearing notices also published on, or before October 24, 2018. III. Zoning Code Related Findings Page 6 of 45 AUBURN *MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: Ord #6698, CPA18-0001 & REZ18-0002, CPA18- Date: December 11, 2018 0002, CPA18-0003 & REZ18-0003, and CPA18-0004 & REZ18-0004, - 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments — Map Amendments & Policy/Text Amendments & Assoc. Rezones 13. In June 2017 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 6655 which allows the Planning Commission and City Council to consider associated map changes (for Comprehensive Plan and Zoning map amendments), concurrently. This eliminates the need for the rezone (zoning map amendment) to subsequently be heard and decided by the Hearing Examiner through a separately scheduled hearing when it is related to a Comprehensive Plan map amendment. 14. Chapter 18.68 ACC (Zoning) Amendments)) outlines the process for submittal of private -initiated zoning amendments and the process. Per ACC 18.68.030(B)(1)(b), when the Planning Commission is considering a rezone (zoning map amendment) which requires a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment, the public hearings shall be conducted concurrently and a recommendation on both shall be forwarded to the City Council. -------------------NOVEMBER 7, 2018 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING ---------------- Comprehensive Plan Policy/Text (P/T) Amendments (File No. CPA18-0002, City -initiated) PIT #1 Incorporate the Auburn School District Capital Facilities Plan 2018-2024 into the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan. The CFP is provided in the working binder behind the "Comp. Plan Policy/Text Amendments" tab. Discussion The Auburn School District has provided the City with its annually updated Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) covering from 2018-2024. The CFP was prepared by the District staff and adopted by the Auburn School District School Board of Directors on June 11, 2018 and has been subject to separate SEPA review and a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) prepared by the District. Information contained in the School District CFP serves as the basis for the City's collection of school impact fees on behalf of the school district. The action is to incorporate the Auburn School District Capital Facilities Plan into the City's Comprehensive Plan by reference. A review of the Auburn School District's updated Capital Facilities Plan indicates the District is requesting a change in the fee obligations. The net fee obligation for single- family dwellings is proposed to be $5,715.68, an increase of $2,393.82 and the requested fee for multiple -family dwellings is $4,488.43, an increase of $2,407.14. The impact fees are established by ordinance through City Council action. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Planning Commission recommended approval of the Auburn School District Capital Facilities Plan 2018- 2023 to the City Council. P/T#2 Incorporate the Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Plan 2019-2024 into the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan. The CFP is provided in the working binder behind the "Comp. Plan Policy/Text Amendments" tab. Discussion The Dieringer School District has provided the City with its annually updated Capital Facilities Plan 2019-2024. The CFP was adopted by the Dieringer School District Board of Directors on June 18, 2018. The CFP has been subject to separate SEPA review and a DNS prepared by the District. Information contained in the School District CFP serves as the Page 7 of 45 AUBURN* MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: Ord #6698, CPA18-0001 & REZ18-0002, CPA18- Date: December 11, 2018 0002, CPA18-0003 & REZ18-0003, and CPA18-0004 & REZ18-0004, - 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments — Map Amendments & Policy/Text Amendments & Assoc. Rezones basis for the City's collection of school impact fees on behalf of the school district. The action is to incorporate the School District Capital Facilities Plan into the City's Comprehensive Plan by reference. A review of the Dieringer School District's updated Capital Facilities Plan indicates the District is requesting a decrease in the fee obligations. The net fee obligation for single- family dwellings is proposed to be $3,216.00, a decrease of $269.00 and the requested fee for multiple family dwellings is $450.00; a decrease of $631.00. The impact fees are established by ordinance through City Council action. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Planning Commission recommended approval of the Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Plan 2019- 2024 to the City Council. P/T #3 Incorporate the Federal Way School District 2019 Capital Facilities Plan into the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan. The CFP is provided in the working binder behind the "Comp. Plan Policy/Text Amendments" tab. Discussion The Federal Way School District has provided the City with its annually updated Capital Facilities Plan 2019. The CFP was adopted by the Federal Way School District School Board July 24, 2018 by Resolution No. 2018-10. The CFP has been subject to separate SEPA review and a DNS prepared by the District. Information contained in the School District CFP serves as the basis for the City's collection of school impact fees on behalf of the school district. The action is to incorporate the School District Capital Facilities Plan into the City's Comprehensive Plan by reference. A review of the Federal Way School District's updated Capital Facilities Plan indicates the District is requesting a change in the fee obligations. The net fee obligation for single-family dwellings is proposed to be $7,221.00, representing an increase of $379.00 and the requested fee for multi -family dwellings is $19,454.00, a decrease of $632.00. The impact fees are established by ordinance through City Council action. According to communication in 2017 from Tanya Nascimento, Student & Demographic Forecaster of the Federal Way Public Schools, there are several factors which have driven the impact fees to increase quite significantly prior to adoption last year. One factor is the steady increase in observed multiple -family student generation rates. In 2015, the first of three multi -family developments was opened and fully occupied in the City of Federal Way. The second was opened and occupied in late 2016 and the third was opened in fully occupied this summer. The first two developments have been included in the generation rate calculation for last year's plan. The specific generation rates can be found on Page 34. These multiple -family complexes are generating more than one student per unit which is significantly higher than past developments within the school district. In addition to the high student generation rates, the district completed work with its Facilities Planning Committee which determined a need for additional capacity at a number of schools. As a result of this work, Phase II of the District's plan was the subject of a voter approved capital bond. The facilities impacted during Phase II can be found on Page 7 of the Capital Facilities Plan. It is important to note that not all projects Page 8 of 45 AUBURN* MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: Ord #6698, CPA18-0001 & REZ18-0002, CPA18- Date: December 11, 2018 0002, CPA18-0003 & REZ18-0003, and CPA18-0004 & REZ18-0004, - 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments — Map Amendments & Policv/Text Amendments & Assoc. Rezones within Phase II will create additional capacity. Only costs associated with project increasing needed capacity are used in the formula for calculating Impact Fees. The specific cost calculations are outlined on Page 32 of the Capital Facilities Plan. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Planning Commission recommended approval of the Federal Way School District Capital Facilities Plan 2019 to the City Council. PIT #4 Incorporate the Kent School District Capital Facilities Plan 2018-2019 to 2023-2024 into the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan. The CFP is provided in the working binder behind the "Comp. Plan Policy/Text Amendments" tab. Discussion The Kent School District has provided its annually updated 2018-2019 to 2023-2024 Capital Facilities Plan. The CFP was adopted by the Kent School District School Board on June 27, 2018 and has been subject to separate SEPA review and a DNS prepared by the District. Information contained in the School District CFP serves as the basis for the City's collection of school impact fees on behalf of the school district. The action is to incorporate the School District Capital Facilities Plan into the City's Comprehensive Plan by reference. A review of the Kent School District's updated Capital Facilities Plan indicates the District is requesting a change in the fee obligations. The net fee obligation for single-family dwellings is proposed to be $5,397.00, representing an increase of $162.00 and the requested fee for multi -family dwellings is $2,279.00, an increase of $12.00. The actual impact fees are established by ordinance through subsequent City Council action. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Planning Commission recommended approval of the Kent School District Capital Facilities Plan 2018-2019 to 2023-2024 to the City Council. PIT #5 Incorporate the City of Auburn's 6 -year Capital Facilities Plan 2019-2024, into the City's Comprehensive Plan. The CFP is provided in the working binder behind the "Comp. Plan Policy/Text Amendments" tab. Discussion A Capital Facilities Plan is one of the comprehensive plan elements required by the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) (RCW 36.70A). The GMA requires that a capital facilities plan include an inventory of existing capital facilities (showing locations and capacities), a forecast of future needs for such capital facilities, proposed locations and capacities of new or expanded capital facilities, and a minimum of a six-year plan to finance capital facilities with identified sources of funding. The proposed City of Auburn 6 -year Capital Facilities Plan 2019- 2024 satisfies the GMA requirements for a capital facilities element as part of the Comprehensive Plan. Each comprehensive plan prepared under the GMA must include a capital facilities plan element. More specifically, RCW 36.70A.070(3) of the GMA requires the following: "A capital facilities plan element consisting of: Page 9 of 45 AUBURN* MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: Ord #6698, CPA18-0001 & REZ18-0002, CPA18- Date: December 11, 2018 0002, CPA18-0003 & REZ18-0003, and CPA18-0004 & REZ18-0004, - 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments — Map Amendments & Policv/Text Amendments & Assoc. Rezones (a) An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by public entities, showing the locations and capacities of the capital facilities; (b) a forecast of the future needs of such capital facilities; (c) the proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new capital facilities; (d) at least a six-year plan that will finance such capital facilities within projected funding capacities and clearly identifies sources of public money for such purposes; and (e) 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. Park and recreation facilities shall be included in the capital facilities plan element." A capital facility is defined as a structure, street or utility system improvement, or other long- lasting major asset, including land. Capital facilities are provided for public purposes. Capital facilities include, but are not limited to, the following: streets, roads, highways, sidewalks, street and road lighting systems, traffic signals, domestic water systems, storm and sanitary sewer systems, parks and recreation facilities, and police and fire protection facilities. These capital facilities include necessary ancillary and support facilities. The memo dated September 28, 2018 prepared by the City's Finance Department contained in front of the CFP in the working binder highlights the major changes in the CFP from last year's CFP by projects completed (removed) and new projects (added). The City of Auburn 6 -year Capital Facilities Plan 2019-2024 is proposed to be incorporated by reference in the Comprehensive Plan, Capital Facilities Element (Volume No. 3). PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Planning Commission recommended approval of the City of Auburn Capital Facilities Plan 2019- 2024 to the City Council. P/T #6 Modify text at the end of Volume 1, "Land Use Element" to clarify and distinguish between the various subcategories of "Special Planning Areas" that are already described in the Plan by bringing back some missing explanation from previous pre -2015 Comprehensive Plan to aid in describing the purpose and actions associated with each subcategory. The changes are shown in strike through and underline. Also, change Map No. 1.3 "Designated Areas" and Map #1.5 "Impression Corridors" to correspond. See the related Map amendment CPM #1, below. The changes are shown in strike through and underline in the working binder behind the "Comp. Plan Policy/Text Amendments" tab. Discussion The Land Use Element (Volume No. 1) of the Comprehensive Plan at Page LU -18 describes "Special Planning Areas". By Ordinance No. 6584, the City of Auburn adopted a new Comprehensive Plan at the end of 2015 that included a revised section in the Land Use Element titled "Special Planning Area Designation". This section provides descriptions, designation criteria, and policies for each of the four (4) types of Special Planning Areas (smaller geographic areas of the City). The four types of Special Planning Areas include: • Districts, • Subareas, Page 10 of 45 AUBURN* MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: Ord #6698, CPA18-0001 & REZ18-0002, CPA18- Date: December 11, 2018 0002, CPA18-0003 & REZ18-0003, and CPA18-0004 & REZ18-0004, - 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments — Map Amendments & Policv/Text Amendments & Assoc. Rezones Impression Corridors, and Gateways. The Special Planning Areas known as "Subareas" are further broken down into five (5) different types of Subareas: • "Identified Areas", • "Designated Areas", • "Designated Areas — Economic Development Strategy Areas" • "Designated Areas — Areas of Concern", and • "Adopted Areas". The purpose of designating these Special Planning Areas within the City of Auburn is to recognize smaller sub -regions that warrant additional emphasis in planning, investments, and policy development. Additionally, the policies contained within the Special Planning Area Designation section are intended to identify, provide guidance for, and deal with the unique problems or opportunities that exist in certain smaller portions of the City. This section is "...useful in developing and applying implementing tools (such as zoning provisions); for interpreting the associated land use designation Map (i.e. the Comprehensive Plan Map) as it applies to specific regulatory decisions or development proposals; and in adjusting or amending the associated land use designation map when changing conditions or land use markets warrant" (Chapter 14 - Comprehensive Plan Map, Land Use Element, Amended 2011, pg. 14-1). While the majority of the Special "Planning Areas Designation" section is derived from the former Chapter 14 "Comprehensive Plan Map", of the previous, now archived Comprehensive Plan, revisions are needed to improve its clarity and applicability. REQUESTED CHANGE For the purpose of summarizing the changes for review, the proposed revisions to the "Special Planning Area Designation" section have been categorized into "minor revisions" and "major revisions". 1.0 Minor revisions: minor revisions consist of the following changes: 1.1 Reorganization of designation criteria and policies; 1.2 Renumbering of designation criteria and policies; 1.3 Re -categorization of "Subareas"; 1.4 Improving the section nomenclature (e.g. making sure titles are the same); and 1.5 Aligning the list of "Impression Corridors" with the locations shown on the "Impression Corridors Map #1.5". 2.0 Major revisions: major revisions consist of the following changes: 2.1 Addition of policy language for "Designated Areas"; 2.2 Removal of "Auburn Environmental Park/Green Zone" as a "Designated Area — Economic Development Strategy Area"; Page 11 of 45 AUBURN* MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: Ord #6698, CPA18-0001 & REZ18-0002, CPA18- Date: December 11, 2018 0002, CPA18-0003 & REZ18-0003, and CPA18-0004 & REZ18-0004, - 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments — Map Amendments & Policv/Text Amendments & Assoc. Rezones 2.3 Identification of priority impression corridors; and 2.4 Identification of priority gateways; The text amendments to this section at the end of Volume 1, "Land Use Element" to clarify and distinguish between the various subcategories of "Special Planning Areas" is provided in the working binder behind the "Comp. Plan Policy/Text Amendments" tab. The nature of revisions are shown follow these guidelines: • Insertions are shown in green, underlined text. • Additions to inserted text is shown in green, underlined, bold text. • Deletions are shown in red, strikethrough tit. • Moves from are shown in blue, strikethrough text. • Moves to are shown in blue, underlined text. The next few paragraphs describe the "major revisions" in greater detail. MAJOR REVISIONS Addition of policy language for "Designated Areas" The current Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 2015 under Ordinance No. 6584, does not contain specific policies for the "designated subareas". While the previous, now archived, Comprehensive Plan (as was amended in 2011) featured policies for each "Designated Area" these were inadvertently removed during the update of the current Comprehensive Plan. However, Staff has concluded that having specific policies for the Designated Areas is necessary. The purpose of a subarea is to anticipate, support, and guide long-term growth and redevelopment through planned development and a unique vision for how that area should look and function in the future. Therefore, without specific policies for each designated area, Staff cannot anticipate or identify unique problems or characteristics for a particular area. Specific policies for the "designated" subareas, including Auburn Municipal Airport, BNSF Rail Yard, Stuck River Road, Lakeview, Mt. Rainier; the "Economic Development Strategy Areas" were added under the "Designated Areas Policies" (Page 9) discussion . Note that the majority of the changes are shown in green as the text for the policy language was derived from the previous, now archived, Comprehensive Plan. Minor changes, shown in green, underline bold text, were added to a few of the designated areas policies. The purpose of these minor changes is to update or provide clarification to the policy. Removal of Auburn Environmental Park (AEP)/Green Zone as a "Designated Area" from the Designated Areas list. The "AEP/Green Zone" designated area was originally an "Economic Development Strategy Area" special planning area within the previous, now archived Comprehensive Plan. The stated purpose of the AEP/Green Zone was to "...create an economically enhanced area that complements the Auburn Environmental Park and sustains environmentally sensitive industries". To complement the designation of this area as an economic development Page 12 of 45 AUBURN * MOR1 THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: Ord #6698, CPA18-0001 & REZ18-0002, CPA18- Date: December 11, 2018 0002, CPA18-0003 & REZ18-0003, and CPA18-0004 & REZ18-0004, - 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments — Map Amendments & Policv/Text Amendments & Assoc. Rezones strategy area, in 2006 (Ordinance No. 6036), the City adopted the EP, Environmental Park zoning district (EP zone), and a majority of the area was zoned EP. The EP zone was intended to focus on medical, biotech and "green" technologies including energy conservation, engineering, water quality, and similar uses. Its designation as a special planning area was carried over in the current Comprehensive Plan adopted in 2015 (Ordinance No. 6584). Specifically, in the current Comprehensive Plan it is a "Designated Area". However, since the current Comprehensive Plan was adopted, the portion of the area zoned EP has been rezoned by the City to M-1, Light Industrial (rezoned in 2017 under Ordinance No. 6660). The area was rezoned from EP to M-1 due to the lack of private sector investment into the privately owned properties within the EP zone, while substantial investment within the nearby M-1 and M-2 zoned properties occurred. Therefore, the focus on medical, biotech and "green" technologies or environmentally sensitive industries was not viable. Consequently, the need for the area to rem as a designated area or economic development strategy area no longer exists. Therefore, the proposal is to remove the AEP/Green zone from the list of designated areas and remove it from Map #1.3, the "Designated Areas Map", of the Comprehensive Plan. The corresponding map change is provided in the working binder behind the "Comp. Plan Map Amendments" tab. (See also CPM #1, below) Identification of priority Impression Corridors The Comprehensive Plan adopted in 2015 (Ordinance No. 6584) included a new section in the Land Use Element titled "Special Planning Area Designation" and "Impression Corridors" were adopted as a new special planning area within the new Comprehensive Plan. Impression corridors are aligned with a particular street, trail, river, stream, or specific linear corridor. The purpose of the impression corridors is to identify the key passageways in which residents, businesses, and visitors move throughout the City. Currently, 25 impression corridors are identified in the special planning area designation section of the Comprehensive Plan. While each of these corridors are key passageways throughout the City, due to the sheer number of impression corridors, some focus and refinement of priority corridors is necessary. Distinguishing key corridors provides direction to the City on which impression corridors take precedent. Priority is given to the impression corridors that are a part of a subarea. The corresponding change to "Impression Corridors Map #1.5" is provided in the working binder behind the "Comp. Plan Map Amendments" tab. (See also CPM #1, below) Identification of priority Gateways The 2015 Comprehensive Plan included a new section in the Land Use Element titled "Special Planning Area Designation" and "Gateways" were adopted as a new Special Planning Area within the new Comprehensive Plan. Gateways are specific places, intersections, or blocks within the City. Gateways are essential locations because they constitute the first impression of Auburn. Currently, eight (8) gateways are identified in the Special Planning Area section of the Comprehensive Plan. While each of the gateways constitutes a "first impression" into the City, the identification of key gateways is necessary. Distinguishing key gateways provides direction to the City on which gateways take Page 13 of 45 AUBURN *MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: Ord #6698, CPA18-0001 & REZ18-0002, CPA18- Date: December 11, 2018 0002, CPA18-0003 & REZ18-0003, and CPA18-0004 & REZ18-0004, - 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments — Map Amendments & Policv/Text Amendments & Assoc. Rezones precedent. Priority is then given to the gateways that are along a priority impression corridor. Priority gateways function as an entrance to an impression corridor. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Planning Commission recommended approval to the City Council of text amendments at the end of Volume 1, "Land Use Element" to clarify and distinguish between the various subcategories of "Special Planning Areas" that are already described in the Plan, as shown in the mark up (strike - through & underline). P/T #7 Amend text of Volume 6, Economic Development Element of Comprehensive Plan and the Comprehensive Plan's "Core Plan" (Introductory chapter) and specifically the Economic Development Vision Statement discussion to reflect preparation of the City of Auburn Ten -Year Economic Development Strategic Plan (TEDSP). Also, amend and the Appendices to include the document as one of the background documents to the Plan. The changes are shown in strike through and underline in the working binder behind the "Comp. Plan PolicylText Amendments" tab. Discussion In the fall of 2015, the City of Auburn embarked on a process to develop an Economic Development Strategic Plan guided by the City's Economic Development section of the Administration Department and prepared for the purpose of guiding the City's economic development and activities and investment over the next decade. The City hired a team of expert consultants in specialized subject areas that included: • TIP Strategies (an economic development consultant), • Heartland (a real estate advisory & investment consultant), and the • Retail Coach (a retail recruitment & development consultant). This consultant team ("Team") built on the then, recent "Imagine Auburn" public outreach and participation plan that had been implemented for the preparation of the city's Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The City's Comprehensive Plan was adopted by Ordinance No. 6584 on December 4, 2015. The development of the resultant document: City of Auburn Ten -Year Economic Development Strategic Plan, included its own outreach effort to inform its contents. The Team conducted extensive public input reaching out to more than 200 employers, community and regional leaders, residents, and other stakeholders. The Team also prepared a detailed analysis of demographic, economic, and market data for the City and regional context. The research and methodology are described on Page 8 of the Plan. The goals and strategies were also informed by the consulting team's knowledge of trends and best practices that shape economic development outcomes and programs across the nation. The result is a set of strategies and actions that will propel the City of Auburn forward towards its vision for 2025. The Findings of the investigative effort are described starting at Page 11 of the document. The timing of the preparation of the Plan was timely due to both the then, recent adoption of the guiding document --the City's Comprehensive Plan --and due Auburn's key location in the path of path of growth radiating from Seattle and the assets and attractiveness of Auburn as expressed by some important early development projects. In addition, this Plan is more extensive in scope and greater in depth than preparation of past economic development strategy document preparation efforts by the City. Page 14 of 45 AUBURN *MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: Ord #6698, CPA18-0001 & REZ18-0002, CPA18- Date: December 11, 2018 0002, CPA18-0003 & REZ18-0003, and CPA18-0004 & REZ18-0004, - 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments — Map Amendments & Policv/Text Amendments & Assoc. Rezones To recognize and incorporate the City's Ten -Year Economic Development Strategic Plan text/policy amendments are required and excerpts of the City's Comprehensive Plan documents are provided showing strike through and underline changes to show deletions and additions, respectively: • Volume 6 - The Economic Development Element, Pages ED -1 through ED -6. • Core Plan, Policy Elements Section, - Economic Development Policy Element, Pages C4-16 through C4-17. • Appendices (While this document is not provided, it is intended to be updated to add to the listing, the Ten -Year Economic Development Strategic Plan.), Page A-1 Key Changes/Points: As part of the 2018 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments, the city seeks to change the Comprehensive Plan to recognize and incorporate the Ten -Year Economic Development Strategic Plan. The main changes to the Comprehensive Plan document include: • Change wording to ensure consistency and agreement with the Ten -Year Economic Development Strategic Plan. It is appropriate to change the Comprehensive Plan to ensure consistency. • Update information due to the passage of time. • Update wording to increase clarity and understanding. • Align the policy statements with the strategies/actions listed in the Ten -Year Economic Development Strategic Plan. However, since the Comprehensive Plan document is a policy document while the Ten -Year Economic Development Strategic Plan is an implementation tool, not every strategy or action listed will have will have a corresponding policy statement. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Planning Commission recommended approval to the City Council of text amendments to Volume 6, Economic Development Element of Comprehensive Plan and the Comprehensive Plan's "Core Plan" to reflect preparation of the City of Auburn Ten -Year Economic Development Strategic Plan (TEDSP). Also, to amend the Appendices to include the TEDSP as a background document to the Plan. PIT #8 Amend text and policies of Comprehensive Plan to add back the contents of the former Chapter 10, "Historical Preservation" from the pre -2015 Comprehensive Plan as a new Chapter 8, with some minor policy and format revisions. Also, add a corresponding section to the "Core Plan" to maintain formatting, add a map of landmark and designated properties, similar to before and amend the Appendices to reflect the map addition. See also related Map amendment CPM #2. The changes are shown in strike through and underline to the previous chapter in the working binder behind the "Comp. Plan Policy/Text Amendments" tab. Discussion By Ordinance No. 6584, the City of Auburn adopted a major, new Comprehensive Plan at the end of 2015. There were so many changes being made to the document at the time that in oversight the Historic Preservation element was not included. Some "clean up" is now required. This omission leaves the city without policy guidance in our Comprehensive Plan and is not consistent with provisions of Auburn City Code Section 15.76, "Historic Preservation", which reinforces that the city shall consider historic preservation issues in its decision making and provides the process for contracting with King County Office of Historic Preservation for professional expertise. Page 15 of 45 AUBURN* MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: Ord #6698, CPA18-0001 & REZ18-0002, CPA18- Date: December 11, 2018 0002, CPA18-0003 & REZ18-0003, and CPA18-0004 & REZ18-0004, - 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments — Map Amendments & PolicyiText Amendments & Assoc. Rezones Staff proposes to add a new chapter to the Comprehensive Plan document to reincorporate much of the former Chapter with a few changes. These minor changes include: • Renumbering the added narrative as Volume 8, to fit in the context of the more recent Comprehensive Plan. The changes are shown as strike -through (eliminations) and underlines (additions) on the previous wording of Chapter 10. All of the changes would be additions to the current Comprehensive Plan document. • Supplementing the policy statements in response to a recent review by King County Historic Preservation Staff. The changes suggested by experts generally added to the range of tools available for flexibility without being more restrictive. Language continues to be permissive with "should" statements. • Reorganizing the information into the current format of the Comprehensive Plan, such as changing headings, dividing into specific sections and renumbering policies. • Add discussion in the "Core Plan" — Since the Core Plan (Introductory chapter) contains a recitation of the contents of the later Volumes (separate chapters later in the document) in order to provide this "working document" with actions emphasized, a new section is added at the end of the Core Plan on historic preservation. • Add back an updated Map of Historical Resources - The former Chapter 10, "Historic Preservation", contained a map of officially recognized properties located in the City of Auburn. Staff proposes to update and provide this map in the Plan. Updates are warranted due to new designations since the adoption. • Modify the Appendix - to recognize the addition of the map in the listing of maps in the Comprehensive Plan document. In addition, the table of Contents will be changed to reflect the new Volume 8. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Planning Commission recommended approval to the City Council of policy text amendments to create a "new" Volume 8, Historic Preservation Element of Comprehensive Plan and add discussion in the Comprehensive Plan's "Core Plan" (Introductory chapter) to correspond. In addition, modify the Appendix and Table of Contents to agree. P/T #9 Modify text of Volume 1, "Land Use Element" of the Comprehensive Plan to remove the mapped designation of "Residential Transition Overlay" from the Comprehensive Plan Map. The text requires modification to eliminate references to the map location. See related Map amendment CPM #3. The changes are shown in strike through and underline in the working binder behind the "Comp. Plan Policy/Text Amendments" tab. Discussion With the adoption of the overhauled Comprehensive Plan document at the end of 2015, the City of Auburn adopted a new Comprehensive Plan Land Use map containing a new mapped designation termed: "Residential Transition Overlay" (or "RT Overlay"). While the purpose of this new map designation or "overlay" was intended to ensure that, where there is a sharp transition in different land uses adjacent to one another, the Comprehensive Plan would provide the City with the authority to develop, adopt, and implement subsequent development regulations, such as zoning, to better manage negative impacts or conflicts that may result from the proximity of these disparate land uses. Since the adoption of the RT Overlay, practical challenges have been encountered regarding how the proposed policies can be implemented. Further, many of the areas mapped within the City that were included within the RT Overlay may not be appropriate given their location Page 16 of 45 AUBURN *MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: Ord #6698, CPA18-0001 & REZ18-0002, CPA18- Date: December 11, 2018 0002, CPA18-0003 & REZ18-0003, and CPA18-0004 & REZ18-0004, - 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments — Map Amendments & Policv/Text Amendments & Assoc. Rezones and their current land use. Staff is requesting to modify the RT Overlay policy language and map designation in order to better align it with its intent. The RT Overlay Comprehensive Plan designation was applied to areas currently designated as "Single Family Residential' and zoned R-1, R-5, or R-7 that are located adjacent to more intensive zoning districts throughout the City. These adjacent more intensive zoning districts include Commercial, Industrial, and Public Uses. The geographic areas covered by this mapped RT Overlay varies in width since it followed the parcel boundaries of any property that would be abutting the more intensive zoning districts, but generally, includes a 150-200 foot wide area. Through the adoption of the RT Overlay and Comprehensive Plan policies, the guidance and direction was established to enable the City to subsequently create zoning regulations that would directly implement the intent of the RT Overlay policies. The policy guidance of the Comprehensive Plan does not by itself regulate; as a policy document, it only provides guidance or policy that sets the direction for subsequent adoption of related development regulations. The policies or direction must be implemented by the City developing, adopting, and implementing these subsequent regulations. The policies themselves do not have regulatory effect; however, city code requires that the Comprehensive Plan and development regulations must be consistent. Practical difficulties in implementation Generally, any new regulations that are developed based on the policies of the Comprehensive Plan apply only to new development (new construction or alterations) that takes place after the new regulations are adopted, unless specified otherwise. Not making the regulations retroactive is generally preferable since it avoids surprising property owners and avoids creating non -conforming situations and risk. So, not being retroactive, the RT overlay would not correct any existing circumstances of adjacent disparate land uses; since it only applies to new locations. This reduces the effectiveness and takes longer to achieve widespread results. In addition, this proposed approach of incorporating transition overlays within their Comprehensive Plan is not generally common to jurisdictions, thus unexpected, and not likely to be understood by users as a comprehensive plan map designation. When the intent is to apply specific certain development regulations to a specific geographic area, this is more commonly accomplished through a "zoning overlay" rather than at the higher level, long-range focused comprehensive plan policy. Typically, an overlay is applied to existing zoning districts and adds a specific level of regulations that are geographically focused. Examples include applying view sensitive overlays that limit height in certain areas, or manufacturing/industrial type overlays that limit the amount of retail in certain areas. The concept of applying regulations to better manage the transition between incongruent land uses is laudable and found in many jurisdictions throughout the region and country. However, approach is generally opposite way; jurisdictions ensure that height limits, additional landscaping, and limitations on high intensity uses are applied to the more intensive commercial and industrial zoning districts that are located near single-family and multi -family areas, rather than the less intensive zoning districts. This is accomplished through zoning overlays that have specific standards or with transition zoning districts that only permit certain types of uses and have specific development standards. In some cases, such as with the Cities of Kent and Bellevue, any non -single-family residential site that is located within 300 feet from a single-family neighborhood is subject to additional transition Page 17 of 45 AUBURN *MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: Ord #6698, CPA18-0001 & REZ18-0002, CPA18- Date: December 11, 2018 0002, CPA18-0003 & REZ18-0003, and CPA18-0004 & REZ18-0004, - 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments — Map Amendments & Policv/Text Amendments & Assoc. Rezones standards found within the zoning code. Within the City of Auburn, there are multiple code requirements that are able to provide a transition between different land uses. The policies for the Residential Transition Overlay encourage connecting uses with pedestrian ways, allowing for a variety of housing types, and seeking to minimize noise, light, and air impacts. In the Comprehensive Plan narrative and mapped locations, the RT Overlay was applied to "Single -Family Residential" land use designations that were zoned R- 1, R-5, and R-7 that abut more intensive zoning districts such as commercial and industrial. While the general intent of the RT Overlay focuses on protecting less intense land uses from impacts resulting from nearby more intensive land uses, the mapped locations for the RT Overlay contain policies that would allow for single-family areas to be developed with more intensive multi -family and mixed-use developments. This dynamic results in a direct conflict with what the RT Overlay is trying to achieve, as areas that are currently reserved for less intense development would have the potential to be developed with more intense land use such as multi -family. For example, if the rear yards of single family and industrial lots border each other, allowing additional dwelling units may result in increased vehicle traffic to the single-family neighborhood. While purpose of this 2015 change was to provide an incentive to better manage the transition through allowing the bonus of intensifying development, it also places the burden on the single-family residence and generally the owner of a smaller property who is least likely to be able to afford it. On a small -lot -by -small -lot basis, managing the transition is likely to be less effective and not achieve the desired effect. Further, the areas designated for the RT Overlay were based off a mapping analysis that doesn't accurately reflect what areas are in need of having the RT Overlay applied. It does not adequately take into account existing man-made or natural features that serve as effective barrier to manage the transition. Examples include: • Single-family subdivisions that are separated by steeply sloped areas from nearby industrial properties in which an effective transition is already provided, such as along West Valley Highway; • Rural and undeveloped areas near the Auburn Adventist Academy and White River that are not located near any high intense land uses; • Single-family areas near Downtown Auburn that are already surrounded by intensive land uses and should be protected In addition, the name of "Residential Transition Overlay" closely resembles terminology from other designations used elsewhere in the Comprehensive Plan document, and thus, the multiple, similar sounding terms, each with different meanings and applications, is confusing to users. Specifically, the Comprehensive Plan contains provisions for a future "Residential Transition zoning district". This approach does not acknowledge the various zoning code requirements are already currently in effect to help ensure that a transition is provided between incompatible land uses. These requirements include: ■ Maintaining similar height limits for low intensity commercial uses and public facility type uses with single-family residential uses ■ Requiring commercial, industrial, and multi -family uses to provide minimum landscaping buffers when they abut single-family residential uses. ■ Requiring industrial and some commercial type uses to meet performance standards to minimize odors, noise, and other nuisances. Page 18 of 45 AUBURN *MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: Ord #6698, CPA18-0001 & REZ18-0002, CPA18- Date: December 11, 2018 0002, CPA18-0003 & REZ18-0003, and CPA18-0004 & REZ18-0004, - 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments — Map Amendments & Policv/Text Amendments & Assoc. Rezones ■ Establishment of the RO Residential Office zone, which allows for conversion of older single-family residences into low intensity commercial uses such as offices. These locations are generally located on busier roads and separate commercial or multi -family zoning districts from single-family residential neighborhoods. Proposed Change/Approach: To remedy this situation while maintaining the necessary policy framework that will assist in providing better transitions between incompatible land uses, it is recommended to remove the mapped RT Overlay from the Comprehensive Plan Land Use map while keeping slightly modified RT Overlay policy statements. This will allow for flexibility in approach and gives the basis for the city to, as a future action, implement a zoning overlay (rather than comprehensive plan overlay) by developing specific regulations in the future that can apply to the more intensely zoned areas to provide improved protection to residential uses. This requires a future code amendment that would be reviewed by Planning Commission and City Council. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Planning Commission recommended approval to the City Council of policy text amendments to Volume 1, "Land Use Element' of the Comprehensive Plan to remove the mapped designation of "Residential Transition Overlay" from the Comprehensive Plan Map. The text requires modification to eliminate references to the map location. Comprehensive Plan Map (CPM) Amendments (File No. CPA18-0002, City initiated) CPM #1 Change the Comprehensive Plan Map, "Designated Areas, and Map #1.3" to remove "Environmental Park" Designated Area, since the area was rezoned by Ordinance No. 6660 in 2017 to M-1 Light Industrial and thus is no longer unique and distinguished from other areas. Also, change to the Comprehensive Plan Map, "Impression Corridors Map #1.5" to agree with the list of streets provided in the Comprehensive Plan. The changes are shown in the working binder behind the "Comp. Plan Map Amendments" tab. Discussion (This is the same topic as text amendment P/T #6, but is repeated as a map amendment since it requires revision to both the text and map of the comprehensive plan document. See discussion and analysis under text amendment PIT #6.) During the Planning Commission regular meeting held on October 16, 2018, the Planning Commission requested that staff perform the following: 1.0 Reconcile the list of "Impression Corridors" included on Pages 7-8 of the "Amendment to Special Planning Areas Designation" Section of the Land Use Element, and those shown on the "Impression Corridors Map #1.5"; and 2.0 Determine why State Route 167 is shown as an Impression Corridor on Map #1.5, while State Route 18 is not. Page 19 of 45 AUBURN* MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: Ord #6698, CPA18-0001 & REZ18-0002, CPA18- Date: December 11, 2018 0002, CPA18-0003 & REZ18-0003, and CPA18-0004 & REZ18-0004, - 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments — Map Amendments & Policv/Text Amendments & Assoc. Rezones 1.0 Reconcile Impression Corridors list vs. Map #1.5 Staff reviewed the list of Impression Corridors provided on Pages 7-8 of the "Amendment to Special Planning Areas Designation" section of the "Land Use Element". To reconcile the list, staff reviewed drafts of the "Special Planning Areas" text and maps that were previously presented to the Planning Commission prior to adoption of the new Comprehensive Plan in 2015. It appears that due to a mapping error, the following Impression Corridors were omitted from the "Impression Corridors Map #1.5": • M ST SE/Harvey RD (between Auburn WY S and 15th ST NE) • 15th ST NW/NE (between Harvey RD and W Valley HWY) • 8th ST NE (between Auburn WY N and Lea Hill RD SE) • W Valley HWY (between the northern and southern City limits) Additionally, for ease in identification, labels were added to Map #1.5 for the following impression corridors: • Interurban Trail • Mill Creek • Auburn Black Diamond Road • Division Street • Green River Road Lastly, for consistency the following street labels included on Pages 7-8 of the proposed text amendment were changed to agree with the actual names depicted on Map #1.5: Lake Tapps Corridor was changed to Lake Tapps Pkwy SE 132nd St SE was changed to 132nd Ave SE 2.0 State Route 167 (SR 167) vs. State Route 18 (SR 18) Per the City's Transportation Element, the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has jurisdiction over three major routes within Auburn: SR 167, SR 18, and SR 164 (Auburn Way South). Unlike Auburn Way South, both SR 167 and SR 18 are "full control limited access highways" — within the City limits and access is only allowed at interchanges. SR 164 is classified differently and does not have the same access restrictions as SR 18 and SR 167. The City of Auburn classifies SR 164 as a "Principal Arterial"; principal arterials carry the highest traffic volumes, experience the longest vehicle trips, and have the highest speed limits of all City streets. As a Principal Arterial, the City has the ability to affect infrastructure changes within the right of way, including pedestrian and aesthetic improvements. Improvements to an impression corridor consistent of aesthetic signage, landscaping, and monument features, and the rehabilitation or removal of existing buildings and property. For that reason, neither SR 18 nor SR 167 are included in the Impression Corridor list because the City does not have the ability to make the these types of improvements. Therefore, staff concludes SR 167 was included on Map #1.5 in error and has been removed from Map #1.5 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Page 20 of 45 AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: Ord #6698, CPA18-0001 & REZ18-0002, CPA18- Date: December 11, 2018 0002, CPA18-0003 & REZ18-0003, and CPA18-0004 & REZ18-0004, - 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments — Map Amendments & Policy/Text Amendments & Assoc. Rezones Planning Commission recommended approval to the City Council of a map amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan Map, "Designated Areas Map #1.3" to remove "Environmental Park" Designated Area and change the Comprehensive Plan Map, "Impression Corridors Map #1.5" to agree with the updated list of streets in the Comprehensive Plan. CPM #2 Add back an updated "Historic Resource Inventory" map from the pre -2015 Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 10, `Historic Preservation Chapter', as a renumbered Map #8.1 retitled to "Historical Landmark & Registry Inventory Map" to correct an omission. Map shows landmark registry properties within the City. The changes are shown in the working binder behind the "Comp. Plan Map Amendments" tab. Discussion (This is the same topic as text amendment PIT #8, but is repeated as a map amendment since it requires revision to both the text and map of the comprehensive plan document. See discussion and analysis under text amendment PIT #8.) PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Planning Commission recommended approval to the City Council of a map amendment to add back an updated "Historical Landmark & Registry Inventory Map #8.1" from the pre -2015 Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 10, Historic Preservation Chapter. CPM #3 Amend Comprehensive Plan Map to remove the mapped designation of "Residential Transition Overlay" from Map #1.1. The mapped designation from 2015 Comprehensive Plan sets the stage for development of subsequent implementing regulations, however there are practical difficulties in formulating and applying these implementing regulations in location shown that warrant removing the mapped designation. (The map changes are shown in the working binder behind the "Comp. Plan Map Amendments " tab.) Discussion (This is the same topic as text amendment PIT #9, but is repeated as a map amendment since it requires revision to both the text and map of the comprehensive plan document. See discussion and analysis under text amendment PIT #9.) PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Planning Commission recommended approval to the City Council of a map amendment to Amend Comprehensive Plan Map to remove the mapped designation of "Residential Transition Overlay" from Map #1.1. CPM #4 Private -Initiated Map Amendment (File #CPA18-0001) and Rezone (File #REZ18-0002) Labrador Ventures LLC (Please refer to the 4th section (blue divider page) behind the "Comp Plan Map Amendments " tab in the working binder for the exhibits referenced for the Labrador Ventures LLC application materials.) FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Applicant, David Toyer, of Toyer Strategic Consulting, representing Brad Hughes, Manager of Labrador Ventures, LLC ("Labrador Ventures"), submitted a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment (City File No. CPA18-0001) and Rezone (REZ18-0002) applications on May 4, 2018. More specifically, the applications request a change in the land use Page 21 of 45 AUBURN *MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: Ord #6698, CPA18-0001 & REZ18-0002, CPA18- Date: December 11, 2018 0002, CPA18-0003 & REZ18-0003, and CPA18-0004 & REZ18-0004, - 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments — Map Amendments & Policv/Text Amendments & Assoc. Rezones designation of three vacant parcels totaling approximately 1.89 acres from "Single Family Residential' with a "Residential Transition Overlay" to "Multiple Family Residential' (See Exhibit 2); and the rezoning (zoning map amendment) from "R-7, Residential 7 dwelling units per acre" to "R-20, Residential 20 dwelling units per acre" (See Exhibit 3). 2. The proposed site consists of three adjacent parcels located on the east side of `I' St. NE, approximately 200 ft. north of 40th St. NE. The site is composed of King Co. Parcel Nos. 000420-0010, 000420-0027, and 000420-0028. Page 22 of 45 AUBURN* MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: Ord #6698, CPA18-0001 & REZ18-0002, CPA18- Date: December 11, 2018 0002, CPA18-0003 & REZ18-0003, and CPA18-0004 & REZ18-0004, - 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments — Map Amendments & Policv/Text Amendments & Assoc. Rezones 0 CPA1S•0001 LuidUse + ---- i --- 0— CJ _ 0 REZ1S-0001 zoning —0— r —.— a 3. Pursuant to Chapter 197-11 WAC and Chapter 16.06 ACC, this proposal is subject to State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") decision. A Determination of Non -Significance ("DNS"), for the Comprehensive Plan amendment and Rezone request was issued under City File No. SEP18-0008 on August 16, 2018; with the comment period ending August 31, 2018 and an appeal period ending September 14, 2018. One written public comment was received and responded to, and is attached as Exhibit 9; no appeal was filed. 4. The Applicant has supplied narratives for the Comprehensive Plan amendment and the Rezone request applications (See Exhibit 4). At this time there is no specific project planned for the property if the requests are approved. 5. As shown in the table below and the following map, the surrounding properties have varying degrees of development. The properties to the north contain existing single-family residences, the properties to the south and east are vacant and across `I' St. NE to the west is developed commercial land. 6. The current Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation, zoning classification, and land uses of the subject properties and surrounding properties are as follows: Page 23 of 45 AUBURN* MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: Ord #6698, CPA18-0001 & REZ18-0002, CPA18- Date: December 11, 2018 0002, CPA18-0003 & REZ18-0003, and CPA18-0004 & REZ18-0004, - 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments — Map Amendments & Policv/Text Amendments & Assoc. Rezones 7. The western -most of the three parcels fronts onto `I' ST. NE; the other two parcels are located adjacent and to the east. `I' ST NE is classified as a `Minor Arterial' street and connects to Auburn Way S ('Principal Arterial' classified street) via both 40th St. NE ('Local Residential') and 45th ST NE (`Residential Collector'). Future development of one or all of the parcels would require street frontage improvements to `I' ST NE as well as internal access and circulation for vehicles. 8. A Traffic Memorandum was submitted in support of the application and was reviewed the City's Traffic Engineer (Exhibit 5) to look at how many additional trips would be generated based on a project built at the R-20 density. If the three parcels were fully built -out at the R-7 density it would include up to 9 single-family homes and under R-20 up to 38 multi -family units. Based on the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (an industry standard), a project constructed under the R-7 zone would generate 9 PM peak -hour trips, and 21 PM peak -hour trips under R-20. "PM peak -hour trips" are weekday trips at the highest one-hour period between the hours of 4-6:OOPM and are what the City's Level of Service standards in the Comprehensive Transportation Plan are based off of (LOS -04). Detailed trip generation numbers are included in Exhibit 5. 9. The public hearing notice was published on October 24, 2018 in the Seattle Times newspaper, at least 10 days prior to this November 7, 2018 Planning Commission public hearing. Public notice was also mailed to property owners of record within 300 feet, posting on-site and on the city's webpage. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RELATED — CONCLUSIONS: The City Code provides certain criteria for decisions on amending the Comprehensive Plan under ACC 18.14.22.110. These criteria are listed below, followed by a Staff Analysis in italics. The Applicant's responses to these criteria are included in Exhibit 4. 1. Criterion #1 — ACC 14.22.11 O(A)(1): The proposed change will further and be consistent with the goals and objectives of the plan and the plan will remain internally consistent. Staff Analysis: The Comprehensive Plan (Land Use Element, Page LU -9) provides the following explanation for the "Multiple Family Residential" Land Use Designation: Page 24 of 45 AUBURN *MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Comp Plan Designation Zoning Classification Existing Land Use On -Site "Single Family R-7, Residential Vacant Residential" w/ "Residential Transition Overlay" North "Single Family R-7, Residential Single-family homes Residential" w/ "Residential Transition Overlay" South "Multiple Family R-20, Residential Vacant Residential" East "Multiple Family R-20, Residential Vacant Residential" West "Heavy Commercial" C-3, Heavy Commercial Commercial and Manufacturing Uses 7. The western -most of the three parcels fronts onto `I' ST. NE; the other two parcels are located adjacent and to the east. `I' ST NE is classified as a `Minor Arterial' street and connects to Auburn Way S ('Principal Arterial' classified street) via both 40th St. NE ('Local Residential') and 45th ST NE (`Residential Collector'). Future development of one or all of the parcels would require street frontage improvements to `I' ST NE as well as internal access and circulation for vehicles. 8. A Traffic Memorandum was submitted in support of the application and was reviewed the City's Traffic Engineer (Exhibit 5) to look at how many additional trips would be generated based on a project built at the R-20 density. If the three parcels were fully built -out at the R-7 density it would include up to 9 single-family homes and under R-20 up to 38 multi -family units. Based on the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (an industry standard), a project constructed under the R-7 zone would generate 9 PM peak -hour trips, and 21 PM peak -hour trips under R-20. "PM peak -hour trips" are weekday trips at the highest one-hour period between the hours of 4-6:OOPM and are what the City's Level of Service standards in the Comprehensive Transportation Plan are based off of (LOS -04). Detailed trip generation numbers are included in Exhibit 5. 9. The public hearing notice was published on October 24, 2018 in the Seattle Times newspaper, at least 10 days prior to this November 7, 2018 Planning Commission public hearing. Public notice was also mailed to property owners of record within 300 feet, posting on-site and on the city's webpage. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RELATED — CONCLUSIONS: The City Code provides certain criteria for decisions on amending the Comprehensive Plan under ACC 18.14.22.110. These criteria are listed below, followed by a Staff Analysis in italics. The Applicant's responses to these criteria are included in Exhibit 4. 1. Criterion #1 — ACC 14.22.11 O(A)(1): The proposed change will further and be consistent with the goals and objectives of the plan and the plan will remain internally consistent. Staff Analysis: The Comprehensive Plan (Land Use Element, Page LU -9) provides the following explanation for the "Multiple Family Residential" Land Use Designation: Page 24 of 45 AUBURN *MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: Ord #6698, CPA18-0001 & REZ18-0002, CPA18- Date: December 11, 2018 0002, CPA18-0003 & REZ18-0003, and CPA18-0004 & REZ18-0004, - 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Map Amendments & Policv/Text Amendments & Assoc. Rezones "Multiple Family Designation Description This category shall be applied to those areas that are either now developed or are reserved for multiple family dwellings. Densities may range from 20 to 24 units per acre. These communities are served by transit, have non -motorized connections to surrounding amenities and services, or have access to on-site amenities. Designation Criteria 1. Previously developed high-density residential or manufactured/mobile home parks; or 2. Properties that are connected to single-family and nonresidential designations by the Residential Transition designation and meet the development parameters of the multiple family designation. Implementing Zoning Designations R-20 Residential Zone and Manufactured/Mobile Home Park Policies Policy LU -22. Development regulations should include density bonuses and flexible development City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan standards that create incentives for innovative site and building design, incorporation of open space and public art, non - motorized connectivity to parks and commercial areas, proximity to transit services, supplemental natural resource protection, supplemental use of CPTED, and supplemental use of low -impact development techniques. Policy LU -23. Home occupations and shared housing should be allowed in this designation; however, given their high densities, it is appropriate to establish additional restrictions, procedures, and requirements in order to ensure that they are compatible with their surroundings and do not adversely affect the community. Policy LU -24. Live -work units are encouraged. Policy LU -25. Improve the quality of low-income neighborhoods and implement programs that encourage rehabilitation of deteriorating structures and facilities the downtown area, areas between lower -density residential uses and more intense nonresidential activities, and areas with high levels of transit service and available high-quality services. Policy LU -26. Multiple -family development should be subject to building and site design standards. These standards should address the appearance of buildings, compatibility with nearby uses, exterior lighting, connectivity with surrounding properties and uses, the relationship of ground floor spaces and entryways with the streetscape, and connectivity to nearby nonresidential hubs (shopping centers and schools). Policy LU -27. Provide a variety of housing typologies to suit the needs of various potential residents. Policy LU -28. Establish intensity limitations such as floor area ratios, density, building height, coverage ratios, setbacks, and other standards. Policy LU -29. Access to nearby amenities and health and human services should be considered when reviewing senior housing developments. Policy LU -30. Encourage development of permanent supportive housing to address the homeless population and those with special needs. Policy LU -31. Encourage adaptive reuse, particularly of historic properties." Per ACC 18.23.030(C), the intent of the R-20, Residential zoning district is: Page 25 of 45 AUBURN *MOPE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: Ord #6698, CPA18-0001 & REZ18-0002, CPA18- Date: December 11, 2018 0002, CPA18-0003 & REZ18-0003, and CPA18-0004 & REZ18-0004, - 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments — Map Amendments & Policv/Text Amendments & Assoc. Rezones "...intended to provide for multiple -family residential development and is further intended as a residential zone primarily of multiple -family residences, except as specifically provided elsewhere in this chapter. A related consideration is to make it possible to more efficiently and economically design and install all physical public service facilities in terms of size and capacity to adequately and permanently meet needs resulting from a defined intensity of land use. " As identified in the R-20 intent statement above, this zoning district is geared toward multi- family developments, however, also allows uses such as mixed-use, nursing homes, etc. The full list of uses allowed within the R-20 zone are attached as Exhibit 6. Although no specific use is proposed at this time, any future development will be governed by the codes and standards in place at that time. As shown and discussed above, the properties to the south and east are zoned R-20 (vacant land) and there is an existing apartment complex a few hundred feet to the southwest from the subject properties. Changing the Comprehensive Plan designation and Zoning classification to R-20 would not be out of character with the surrounding properties. The requested Comprehensive Plan amendment will remain internally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan through approval /adoption of the associated Rezone request. 2. Criterion #2 — ACC 14.22.110(A)(2): Whether the capacity to provide adequate services is diminished or increased. Staff Analysis: The proposed application for a change in the Comprehensive Plan designation has been reviewed by the City's Utilities, Traffic division, and the Valley Regional Fire Authority. Based on these reviews, the change would not adversely affect the provision of services. As is typical with development in the City, adequate infrastructure improvements will be required to be provided concurrent with future development. Although no specific construction activity is proposed or permitted with this amendment, eventual buildout of one or more of these parcels is not anticipated to be detrimental to public services. A Traffic Memorandum has been prepared and reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineer and no detrimental impacts to the City's transportation system are anticipated. 3. Criterion #3 — ACC 14.22.110(A)(3): Assumptions upon which the comprehensive plan is based are found to be invalid. Staff Analysis: While the policies of the Comprehensive Plan are not invalid, the Applicant's request to change three parcels from single-family residential to multi -family residential is not out of character with the designations or uses in the immediate vicinity. The requested change is a logical request based on these existing surrounding uses and land use designations. 4. Criterion #4 — ACC 14.22.110(A)(4): A determination of change or lack of change in conditions or circumstances has occurred since the adoption of the latest amendment to the specific section of the comprehensive plan that dictates the need for a proposed amendment. Staff Analysis: The proposed change is for three parcels to Multiple Family Residential, which is consistent with the adjacent parcels to the south and east. The Residential Transition Overlay was put in place during the 2015 update to the Comprehensive Plan and is proposed to be removed during this periodic update, thereby leaving a Single Family Page 26 of 45 AUBURN* MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: Ord #6698, CPA18-0001 & REZ18-0002, CPA18- Date: December 11, 2018 0002, CPA18-0003 & REZ18-0003, and CPA18-0004 & REZ18-0004, - 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments — Map Amendments & Policv/Text Amendments & Assoc. Rezones Residential designation on these properties. Both the Single -Family and Multiple Family designations could be appropriate designations, however, based on the location in relation to existing Multiple Family designated properties and proximity to a "minor arterial" street, the Multiple Family designation appears to be best -suited. 5. Criterion #5 — ACC 14.22.110(A)(5): If applicable, a determination that a question of consistency exists between the comprehensive plan and Chapter 36.70A RCW, the countywide planning policies for either King and/or Pierce County, as appropriate, and Vision 2040: Growth and Transportation Strategy for the Puget Sound Region. Staff Analysis: The change, if approved, would continue to be consistent with the Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70A RCM, the King County Countywide Planning Policies and Vision 2040. The proposal is consistent because upon future development it will provide housing. 6. Criterion #6 — ACC 14.22.110(A)(6): If the request is to change the land use designation of a specific property on the comprehensive plan land use map, the applicant must demonstrate one of the following: a. The current land use designation was clearly made in error or due to an oversight; b. The proposed land use designation is adjacent to property having a similar or compatible designation, or other conditions are present to ensure compatibility with surrounding properties; c. There has been a change in conditions since the current land use designation came into effect. Staff Analysis: The requested change is consistent with Item b in that the adjacent properties to the west and south are designated `Multiple Family Residential" REZONE RELATED — CONCLUSIONS: The Applicant has requested a rezone from "R-7, Residential" to "R-20, Multiple Family Residential'. Per ACC 18.68.030(B)(1)(b) if the rezone request also requires changes to the Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council. Chapter 18.68 ACC contains the intent and process for zoning code amendments, in this case a site-specific zoning map amendment has been requested. Auburn City Code does not contain any specific rezone criteria for City Staff to review; however, Case Law offers some rezone criteria ("A Little Bit Pregnant: The Multi -Personalities of Site Specific Rezones - Or - A Cheat Sheet for Everything You Need to Know about Site -Specific Rezones", by Phil Olbrechts on mrsc.org, April 1, 2013) as follows: "...require that the proponents of a rezone must establish that conditions have substantially changed since the original adoption and that the rezone must bear a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals or welfare. If a rezone implements the comprehensive plan, a showing that a change of circumstances has occurred is not required." With the change in City procedures by Ordinance No. 6655 to allow concurrent recommendations by the Planning Commission on both the Comprehensive plan and zoning map changes, the recommendations on each should be consistent and therefore does not need to show a change in circumstances has occurred. Page 27 of 45 AUBURN *MOPE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: Ord #6698, CPA18-0001 & REZ18-0002, CPA18- Date: December 11, 2018 0002, CPA18-0003 & REZ18-0003, and CPA18-0004 & REZ18-0004, - 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments — Map Amendments & Policv/Text Amendments & Assoc. Rezones The requested rezone bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals and welfare. Adequate public facilities such as water, sewer, and electricity, are capable of being provided for the parcels upon future development and would therefore not be detrimental to public health. The rezone itself is not anticipated to allow any uses or acts that would pose any detrimental effects on the morals or welfare of the public. No impacts to public safety outside of normal residential development are anticipated. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Planning Commission recommended approval of the Labrador Ventures LLC request for a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment for three parcels (Parcel Nos. 000420-0010, 000420-0027, and 000420-0028) from "Single Family Residential" with a "Residential Transition Overlay" to "Multiple Family Residential"; and a rezone from "R-7, Residential" to "R-20, Residential". EXHIBIT LIST: (CPA18-0001 & REZ18-0002) (For Exhibits, please rcfer to the 4th section (blue divider page) behind the "Comp Plan Map Amendments " tab in the working binder) Exhibit 1. Staff Report CPA18-0001 and RED 8-0002 Exhibit 2. Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment — Proposed Change Exhibit 3. Zoning Map Amendment — Proposed Change Exhibit 4. Completed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone Application forms and materials including Applicant's Narrative Statement Exhibit 5. Traffic Memorandum, Prepared by Gibson Traffic Consultants Exhibit 6. Uses Allowed in the R-20 Zoning District Exhibit 7. Completed SEPA environmental checklist application SEP18-0008 Exhibit 8. Combined Notice of Application and Determination of Non -Significance SEP18-0008 Exhibit 9. SEPA Comment Letter and City Response Exhibit 10. Dept. of Commerce 60 -Day Acknowledgement Letter Exhibit 11. Notice of Public Hearing Exhibit 12. Affidavits of Publication, Mailing, and Posting CPM #5 Private -Initiated Map Amendment (File #CPA18-0003) and Rezone (File #REZ18-0003) Auburn School District (Pioneer Elementary) (Please refer to the 5th section (blue divider page) behind the "Comp Plan Map Amendments - tab in the working binder for the exhibits referenced for the Auhurn School District application materials) FINDINGS OF FACT: The Applicant, Camie Anderson of Shockey Planning Group, representing Jeff Grose, Exec. Director of Capital Projects Auburn School District, submitted applications for a Comprehensive Plan map amendment (File No. CPA18-0003) and a related rezone (File No. REZ18-0003). More specifically, the applications request a change in the designation of the two parcels, totaling approximately 0.9 acres from the current designation of "Single -Family" to "Institutional" and a rezone from "R-7 Residential — Seven Dwelling Units per Acre" to "P-1 Public Use District". This will allow for the future reconstruction of Pioneer Elementary to include and occupy the subject two properties, as well as within its existing area. Specific details on the proposed reconstruction of Pioneer Elementary are unknown at this time. 2. The "Site", comprised of the two parcels, each with a single-family house are located on the east side of K ST SE in the 2200 block (between 21st ST SE and 25th ST SE, addressed as 2230 & Page 28 of 45 AUBURN *MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: Ord #6698, CPA18-0001 & REZ18-0002, CPA18- Date: December 11, 2018 0002, CPA18-0003 & REZ18-0003, and CPA18-0004 & REZ18-0004, - 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments — Map Amendments & Policv/Text Amendments & Assoc. Rezones 2236 K ST SE). The two parcels are identified as King Co. parcel numbers 1921059282 & 1921059190. 3. The Applicant submitted a Comprehensive Plan map amendment application on June 6, 2018, before the application submittal deadline for comprehensive plan amendments (June 8, 2018). Page 29 of 45 AUBURN* MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: Ord #6698, CPA18-0001 & REZ18-0002, CPA18- Date: December 11, 2018 0002, CPA18-0003 & REZ18-0003, and CPA18-0004 & REZ18-0004, - 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments — Map Amendments & Policv/Text Amendments & Assoc. Rezones CP.m 8-0003 Land Use 11!1111 ■■■■Ii�l ii !!!!!■■■■'Ii �■■_ �11l1�1 !��■����� � �■■ 11/111111 !/i!1111 ! nig 1 1111 IIS IIi! I/ !!!!!■ 11� = :I 1/iiiiINO ...�Milan Pr-m111 �. '1111111■ ■■■■■:,i� ll" 1!1111 MEIJI N :E■_ FAi111I11�1 -� ■■■0 MW■■. 1111111111 10— e3 Q __.- REZIS-0003 Zo=2 LL.1 I1 LJ -1-11 � !_LLTZTi !!!m j■ MEIN INN X111! 1 1 oil ► NJ ! ! ,�N` ,. ''' 11/11!1 ■ ■ !!'� ■■■ �■■' �Ii 1111 1� 111 1 I 111 Page 30 of 45 AUBURN* MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: Ord #6698, CPA18-0001 & REZ18-0002, CPA18- Date: December 11, 2018 0002, CPA18-0003 & REZ18-0003, and CPA18-0004 & REZ18-0004, - 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments — Map Amendments & Policv/Text Amendments & Assoc. Rezones 4. A Determination of Non -Significance (DNS), the environmental review decision required under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), for the application by Auburn School District for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Rezone was issued under City File No. SEP 18-0012 on August 9, 2018. The comment period ended August 24, 2018 and the appeal period ended September 7, 2018. There were no comments or appeals. 5. The current Comprehensive Plan designation, zoning classification and current land uses of the sites and surrounding properties are as follows: 6. The parcels border to the west by developed K ST SE, which is classified by the City as a "Local Non -Residential" street, which prescribes a two-lane road with 50 feet of right-of-way. The adjacent street is not currently fully developed to the "Local Non -Residential" street standards, as there is no sidewalk or vertical curb abutting the property. 7. The property is located within the King County portion of the City of Auburn. It was annexed to the City in 1958 by Ordinance No. 1239. 8. Based on historic zoning maps, the subject properties were zoned "R-2, Residential — Single Family", at the time of annexation up until 2009 when it was part of an area wide rezone to "R-7 Residential Zone — Seven Dwelling Units per Acre". 9. As indicated by the Applicant's narrative submitted with the application, the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and related rezoning have been requested for the purpose of changing the land use designation of the property to ensure a consistent designation with Pioneer Elementary School, which abuts the site directly to the east. Pioneer Elementary is proposed to be demolished and rebuilt in the future. 10. The public hearing notice was published on October 24, 2018 in the Seattle Times at least 10 days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing scheduled for November 7, 2018. Public notice was also mailed to property owners of record within 300 feet, posting on-site and on the city's webpage. Page 31 of 45 AUBURN* MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Comprehensive Plan Zoning Classification Existing Land Use Designation On- Single -Family Residential R-7 Residential Seven Single -Family Site Dwelling Units per Acre Dwellings North "Institutional" P1, Public Use Elementary School Play Field South "Institutional" P1, Pubic Use Elementary School Play Field East "Institutional" P1, Public Use Elementary School West "Single -Family R-7 Residential, Seven Single -Family Residential" Dwelling Units per Acre Residential 6. The parcels border to the west by developed K ST SE, which is classified by the City as a "Local Non -Residential" street, which prescribes a two-lane road with 50 feet of right-of-way. The adjacent street is not currently fully developed to the "Local Non -Residential" street standards, as there is no sidewalk or vertical curb abutting the property. 7. The property is located within the King County portion of the City of Auburn. It was annexed to the City in 1958 by Ordinance No. 1239. 8. Based on historic zoning maps, the subject properties were zoned "R-2, Residential — Single Family", at the time of annexation up until 2009 when it was part of an area wide rezone to "R-7 Residential Zone — Seven Dwelling Units per Acre". 9. As indicated by the Applicant's narrative submitted with the application, the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and related rezoning have been requested for the purpose of changing the land use designation of the property to ensure a consistent designation with Pioneer Elementary School, which abuts the site directly to the east. Pioneer Elementary is proposed to be demolished and rebuilt in the future. 10. The public hearing notice was published on October 24, 2018 in the Seattle Times at least 10 days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing scheduled for November 7, 2018. Public notice was also mailed to property owners of record within 300 feet, posting on-site and on the city's webpage. Page 31 of 45 AUBURN* MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: Ord #6698, CPA18-0001 & REZ18-0002, CPA18- Date: December 11, 2018 0002, CPA18-0003 & REZ18-0003, and CPA18-0004 & REZ18-0004, - 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments — Map Amendments & Policv/Text Amendments & Assoc. Rezones COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RELATED — CONCLUSIONS: The City Code provides certain criteria for decisions on amending the Comprehensive Plan under ACC 18.14.22.110. These criteria are listed below in bold, followed by a Staff Analysis in italics. 1. Criterion #1 — ACC 14.22.110(A)(1) The change must further and be consistent with the goals and objectives of the plan and the plan will remain internally consistent. Staff analysis: The subject two properties are adjacent to the existing Pioneer Elementary School. The parcels are needed in order to expand the area in which Pioneer Elementary is located and allow for its reconstruction in the future. The site is served by public infrastructure, including a "Local Non -Residential" street to the west and, should it be combined with the existing Pioneer Elementary site, a minor arterial street is located to the east. The proposal to change the mapped land use designation of the site from "Single - Family" to "Institutional" is supported by numerous Comprehensive Plan policies within both the Land Use Element and the Capital Facilities Element. The City's Comprehensive Plan contains the following objectives and policy guidance, as it relates to this application: Volume 1 — Land Use Element "Public and Institutional Land Use Designations" "Character Sketch" "Public and institutional uses will occur in both low and high-density environments. For passive uses, land and views will be protected; limited access to these areas will be typical. For more active uses, usability and accessibility will be key features and new development will be subject to standards reflecting programmed space and interconnectivity. These spaces will be varied in type, providing service to areas large and small, urban and more rural in character. Sustainable solutions and innovations that are responsive to the native ecology will be typical of public and institutional uses." "General Policies" A general policy appropriate to this request is: "Policy LU -89. The primary purpose of this designation is to address public needs while taking advantage of synergies with the adjacent areas where they are sited." "Institutional Designation" "Description" "This category includes those areas that are reserved for public or institutional uses. These public uses include public schools and institutional uses such as large churches and schools. It is also intended to include those of a significant impact, and not those smaller public uses that are consistent with and may be included in another designation. For example, public uses of an industrial character are included in the industrial designation, and small-scale religious institutions of a residential character are included in the residential designation" "Designation Criteria 1. Previously developed institutional uses; or 2. Located along major arterial streets,- Page treets; Page 32 of 45 AUBURN *MOPE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: Ord #6698, CPA18-0001 & REZ18-0002, CPA18- Date: December 11, 2018 0002, CPA18-0003 & REZ18-0003, and CPA18-0004 & REZ18-0004, - 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments — Map Amendments & Policy/Text Amendments & Assoc. Rezones 3. Properties that are buffered from the single-family designation by landscaping, environmental features, or the Residential Transition designation and buffered from all other Residential designations; and 4. Meets the development parameters of the Institutional designation. 5. Properties identified in the Airport Master Plan as Landing Field." An Institutional -related policy appropriate to this request is: "Policy LU -102 Appropriate uses for this designation include facilities that serve the needs of the larger community such as public schools, active parks, city operated municipal facilities, large churches, and fire stations." The Capital Facilities Element also contains objectives and policies relevant to the request, as follows: Volume 3 — Capital Facilities Element "Planning Approach" "The Capital Facilities planning approach is to manage growth in a manner that enhances rather than detracts from community quality and values by actively coordinating land use type and intensity with City facility and service development and provision." "Objectives and Policies" "Objective 1.1. Ensure that new development does not outpace the City's ability to provide and maintain adequate public facilities and services, by allowing new development to occur only when and where adequate facilities exist or will be provided, and by encouraging development types and locations that can support the public services they require." "Policy CF -3. Development shall be allowed only when and where such development can be adequately served by public services (police and fire) without reducing the level of service elsewhere." "Objective 1.2. To ensure that new developments are supported by an adequate level of public services through an effective system of public facilities." "Policy CF -10. Public facilities shall be provided in accord with the guidance of the Capital Facilities Plan or, as may be appropriate a system plan for each type of facility designed to serve at an adequate level of service the locations and intensities of uses specified in this Comprehensive Plan." "Objective 1.8. To site public and institutional buildings in accord with their service function and the needs of the members of the public served by the facility." "Policy CF -63. Public and institutional facilities that attract a large number of visitors City Hall, museums, libraries, educational facilities, permit and license offices, health and similar facilities, etc.) should be sited in areas that are accessible (within % mile) by transit. " Page 33 of 45 AUBURN* MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: Ord #6698, CPA18-0001 & REZ18-0002, CPA18- Date: December 11, 2018 0002, CPA18-0003 & REZ18-0003, and CPA18-0004 & REZ18-0004, - 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Map Amendments & Policv/Text Amendments & Assoc. Rezones The proposal to change the land use designation on the site to institutional will not be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan, as it allows for a public facility to meet the needs of the community, adequate public facilities will be provided concurrent with the development to serve the future redevelopment of the site, and will be served by public transit. 2. Criterion #2 -ACC 14.22.110(A)(2) The comprehensive plan amendment must not diminish or increase the ability to provide adequate services. Staff analysis: The applications for a change in Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning have been reviewed by Valley Regional Fire Agency and the City Utilities and Traffic divisions. Based on these reviews, the changes would not adversely affect the provision of services. The proposed Comprehensive Plan map change by itself, if approved will not affect the ability to provide adequate services. As typical with development in the city, the infrastructure improvements needed to support the development would be the responsibility of the future development. At the time of development, adequate services would be required to be provided concurrent with the development in order for the project to be authorized. Therefore, it is not anticipated that approval of the request negatively affects provision of services. Utility and street frontage improvements would be required to support the development While the site is currently developed with single-family residences, it will eventually include a portion of the future Pioneer Elementary School. The existing Pioneer Elementary School is located directly to the east and currently served by adequate City services. Existing services either exists or can be provided to support the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the site's map designation from "Single -Family Residential" to "Institutional" 3. Criterion #3 -ACC 14.22.110(A)(3) The assumptions on which the comprehensive plan is based are found to be invalid. Staff analysis: While the policies of the Comprehensive Plan are not invalid, the map designation of Pioneer Elementary directly to the east is `Institutional" Auburn School District acquired the two subject parcels in 2010 and 2012 with the intent of including them in the Pioneer Elementary School campus. As such, the requested change is logical, in that it will expand the existing "Institutional" designation that makes up the Pioneer Elementary School campus and is surrounded on three sides. 4. Criterion #4- ACC 14.22.110(A)(4) That there has been a change or lack of change in conditions or circumstances has occurred since the adoption of the latest amendment to the comprehensive plan that dictates the need for a proposed amendment. Staff analysis: There has been a change in conditions that generates the need for the map change. Auburn School District acquired both of the subject parcels after the development of Pioneer Elementary, which was constructed in 1959. According to the Applicant, Pioneer Elementary will be redeveloped in the future to serve 650 students and have the ability to accommodate 150 students more through future phases. Based on the need for the Elementary School replacement and the increase in residential development and corresponding increase in student population throughout the surrounding area since the original 1959 construction date of the school, it is apparent that conditions have changed which would warrant the Comprehensive Plan amendment to "Institutional" Page 34 of 45 AUBURN* MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: Ord #6698, CPA18-0001 & REZ18-0002, CPA18- Date: December 11, 2018 0002, CPA18-0003 & REZ18-0003, and CPA18-0004 & REZ18-0004, - 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments — Map Amendments & Policv/Text Amendments & Assoc. Rezones 5. Criterion #5 — ACC 14.22.110(A)(5) The change must be determined to be consistent with the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the Countywide Planning Policies of the relevant county and "Vision 2040: Growth and Transportation Strategy for the Puget Sound Region". Staff analysis: The change if approved would continue to be consistent with the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the Countywide Planning Policies of King County and "Vision 2040: Growth and Transportation Strategy for the Puget Sound Region" The proposal is consistent because it provides land suitable for institutional development, which will directly provide services (educational) to the immediate community within an urban area. 6. Criterion #6 — ACC 14.22.110(A)(6) As applies only to changes of the mapped land use designation of a specific property, the applicant must demonstrate one of the following: a. The current land use designation was clearly made in error or due to an oversight; b. The proposed land use designation is adjacent to property having a similar or compatible designation, or other conditions are present to ensure compatibility with surrounding properties; c. There has been a change in conditions since the current land use designation came into effect. Staff analysis: The same land use designation as proposed occurs on the adjacent Pioneer Elementary School site to the east, and thus, meets Item b, matching an adjacent property in designation. REZONE RELATED — CONCLUSIONS: The Applicant has requested a rezone from "R-7, Residential' to "P-1, Public Use". Per ACC 18.68.030(B)(1)(b) if the rezone request also requires changes to the Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council. Chapter 18.68 ACC contains the intent and process for zoning code amendments; in this case, a site-specific zoning map amendment has been requested. Auburn City Code does not contain any specific rezone criteria for City Staff to review; however, Case Law offers some rezone criteria ("A Little Bit Pregnant: The Multi -Personalities of Site Specific Rezones - Or - A Cheat Sheet for Everything You Need to Know about Site -Specific Rezones", by Phil Olbrechts on mrsc.org, April 1, 2013) as follows: "...require that the proponents of a rezone must establish that conditions have substantially changed since the original adoption and that the rezone must bear a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals or welfare. If a rezone implements the comprehensive plan, a showing that a change of circumstances has occurred is not required." With the change in City procedures by Ordinance No. 6655 to allow concurrent recommendations by the Planning Commission on both the Comprehensive plan and zoning map changes, the recommendations on each should be consistent and therefore does not need to show a change in circumstances has occurred. The requested rezone bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals and welfare. Adequate public facilities such as water, sewer, and electricity, are capable of being provided for the parcels upon future development and would therefore not be detrimental to public health. The rezone itself is not anticipated to allow any uses or acts that would pose any detrimental Page 35 of 45 AUBURN* MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: Ord #6698, CPA18-0001 & REZ18-0002, CPA18- Date: December 11, 2018 0002, CPA18-0003 & REZ18-0003, and CPA18-0004 & REZ18-0004, - 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments — Map Amendments & Policy/Text Amendments & Assoc. Rezones effects on the morals or welfare of the public. No impacts to public safety outside of normal development are anticipated. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Planning Commission recommended approval of the Auburn School District No. 408 (CPA18- 0003) request for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to change the map designation of two parcels, Parcel Nos. 192105-9282 and 192105-9190 from "Single -Family" to "Institutional" and to rezone both parcels from "R-7, Residential Zone - Seven Dwelling Units per Acre" to "P-1, Public Use" zoning district. EXHIBIT LIST (CPA18-0003 & REZ18-0003) (For Exhibits, please refer to the 5th section (blue divider page) behind the "Comp Plan Map Amendments tab in the working binder) Exhibit 1 Staff Report CPA18-0003 & REZ18-0003 Exhibit 2 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment - Proposed Change Exhibit 3 Zoning Map Amendment - Proposed Change Exhibit 4 Completed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone Application forms and materials including Applicant's Narrative Statement Exhibit 5 Completed SEPA Environmental Checklist Application SEP18-0012 Exhibit 6 Combined Notice of Application and Determination of Non -Significance SEP18-0012 Exhibit 7 Dept. of Commerce 60 -Day Acknowledgement Letter Exhibit 8 Notice of Public Hearing Exhibit 9 Affidavits of Publication, Mailing, and Posting CPM #6 Private -Initiated Map Amendment (File #CPA18-0004) and Rezone (File #REZ18-0004) Auburn School District (Kersey Way SE) (Please refer to the 6th section (blue divider page) behind the "Comp Plan Map Amendments -tab in the working binder for the exhibits referenced for the Auburn School District application materials) FINDINGS OF FACT: The Applicant, Camie Anderson of Shockey Planning Group, representing Jeff Grose, Exec. Director of Capital Projects Auburn School District, submitted applications for a Comprehensive Plan map amendment (File No. CPA18-0004) and a related rezone (File No. REZ18-0004). More specifically, the applications request a change in the designation of four parcels, totaling approximately 22.08 acres from the current designation of "Residential Conservancy" to "Institutional" and to subsequently rezone the site from "RC, Residential Conservancy" to "I, Institutional Zone". 2. The "Site" is comprised of four parcels located on the west side of Kersey WY SE (between 53rd ST SE and 57th ST SE), addressed as 2901, 2925, & 3001 57th ST SE and identified as King County parcel numbers. 3. As indicated by the Applicant's narrative statement submitted with the application, the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and related rezoning have been requested in order to allow for the construction of a future elementary school on the site to serve student population growth. Page 36 of 45 AUBURN *MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: Ord #6698, CPA18-0001 & REZ18-0002, CPA18- Date: December 11, 2018 0002, CPA18-0003 & REZ18-0003, and CPA18-0004 & REZ18-0004, - 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments — Map Amendments & Policv/Text Amendments & Assoc. Rezones Page 37 of 45 AUBURN* MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: Ord #6698, CPA18-0001 & REZ18-0002, CPA18- Date: December 11, 2018 0002, CPA18-0003 & REZ18-0003, and CPA18-0004 & REZ18-0004, - 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments — Map Amendments & Policv/Text Amendments & Assoc. Rezones CRAI8-0004 Land Use REZ18-0004 Zonmz 93— +---+— 4. In addition to the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Application and rezone application (File No. REZ18-0004), the Applicant also submitted an environmental checklist application (File No. SEP18-0013). A Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) the environmental review decision required under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), for the proposal was issued by the City, under File No. SEP18-0013 on August 14, 2018. The comment period ended August 29, 2018 and the appeal period ended September 12, 2018. 5. Three comment letters from the surrounding neighborhood were received by the City in response to the combined public Notice of Application and DNS. Specifically, the comments presented concerns regarding traffic, pedestrian safety for children walking to the school, and site configuration issues that could arise with parents dropping off and picking up children at the school. Copies of these comments have been included as Exhibit 7. 6. The city provided written responses to the three public comments received. Staff noted that the Applicant will be required to construct a sidewalk along Kersey Way SE, the future elementary school is planned by the District to only have its students dropped off via school bus or private vehicle, that specific project related impacts will be reviewed more thoroughly when the school district begins design of the school, that the assumption of the traffic analysis are based on review of historic traffic count data in the area, and that specific mitigation will be required when the school submits a specific site plan for review to the City. The staff response letter is marked as Exhibit 8. Page 38 of 45 AUBURN* MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: Ord #6698, CPA18-0001 & REZ18-0002, CPA18- Date: December 11, 2018 0002, CPA18-0003 & REZ18-0003, and CPA18-0004 & REZ18-0004, - 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments — Map Amendments & Policv/Text Amendments & Assoc. Rezones 7. The applicant provided a Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by PH Consulting LLC, dated September 25, 2017, noting the potential traffic impacts that could arise should the site be developed as a K-5 elementary school with a capacity of up to 800 students, with a build year of 2021. While limited in scope, the findings from the Traffic Impact Analysis confirmed that development of an elementary school for up to 800 students on the property will not result in any nearby intersections to not meet City of Auburn Level of Service (LOS) standards. A more detailed Traffic Impact Analysis will be prepared once the specific design of the school is determined, at which point, specific mitigation (if any) will be determined. The applicant's Traffic Impact Analysis is marked as Exhibit 10. 8. The Applicant submitted a Comprehensive Plan map amendment application on June 6, 2018, before the year 2018 application submittal deadline for comprehensive plan amendments (June 8, 2018). 9. It should be noted that at the time of application submittal, two of the four parcels subject to the map amendment and rezone were not owned by the District and owned by different parties. Since that time, one additional property has been acquired by the District. Currently, it is the City's understanding that Auburn School District has either obtained ownership of the last remaining parcel (parcel number 322105-9016) or will have ownership of it in the near future. The application for the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Rezone has been signed by all property owners associated with the request. 10. The current Comprehensive Plan designation, zoning classification and current land uses of the sites and surrounding properties are as follows: Page 39 of 45 AUBURN *MOPE THAN YOU IMAGINED Comprehensive Plan Zoning Classification Existing Land Designation Use On -Site Residential Conservancy RC Residential Conservancy Single-family dwellings and vacant North Residential Conservancy RC Residential Conservancy Vacant / Single - Family Residential South Single -Family in Pierce MSF — Moderate Density Single- Single -Family County (within Auburn's Family Zone (Unincorporated Residential Potential Annexation Area) Pierce County) East Residential Conservancy RC Residential Conservancy Single -Family Residential West Single -Family Residential PUD Planned Unit Development Single -Family Residential Page 39 of 45 AUBURN *MOPE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: Ord #6698, CPA18-0001 & REZ18-0002, CPA18- Date: December 11, 2018 0002, CPA18-0003 & REZ18-0003, and CPA18-0004 & REZ18-0004, - 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments — Map Amendments & Policv/Text Amendments & Assoc. Rezones 11. Parcel #322105-9058, addressed as 2901 57th St SE, contains a single-family residence. Parcel #322105-9057 is vacant. Parcel #322105-9056, addressed as 2925 57th St SE, contains a single-family residence. Parcel #322105-9016, addressed as 3001 57th St SE, contains a single-family residence. 12. All four parcels are served by 57th St SE, a private road (driveway) connecting directly to west side of Kersey WY SE. Kersey WY SE is classified as a "Minor Arterial". Kersey WY SE is not currently fully developed to the "Minor Arterial" street standards, as there is not sidewalk or vertical curb abutting the property. 13. The property is located within the King County portion of the City of Auburn. It was annexed to the City in 1968 by Ordinance No. 2271. 14. Based on historic zoning maps, the subject properties previously were zoned "RR, Rural Residential" until 2009 when it was part of an area wide rezone to "RC Residential Conservancy". 15. The public hearing notice was published on October 24, 2018 in the Seattle Times at least 10 - days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing scheduled for November 7, 2018. Public notice was also mailed to property owners of record within 300 feet, posting on-site and on the city's webpage. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RELATED CONCLUSIONS The City Code provides certain criteria for decisions on amending the Comprehensive Plan under ACC 18.14.22.110. These criteria are listed below in bold, followed by a Staff Analysis. 1. Criterion #1 — ACC 14.22.110(A)(1) That the change must further and be consistent with the goals and objectives of the plan and the plan will remain internally consistent. Staff Analysis: As identified by the Applicant, the purpose for the Comprehensive Plan map amendment is to allow for the subject four parcels to be developed with an elementary school. The applicant's justification for the request notes that state-wide minimum class size mandates has put a greater need for Auburn School District to increase its elementary capacity in this area. Further, the area has experienced an increase in residential development, with more housing anticipated for the area in the future. The site is served by public infrastructure, including a "minor arterial" street immediately to the east. The proposal to change the mapped land use designation of the site from "Residential Conservancy" to "Institutional" is supported by numerous Comprehensive Plan policies within both the Land Use Element and the Capital Facilities Element, as follows: The City's Comprehensive Plan contains the following objectives and policy guidance, as it relates to this application: Volume 1 — Land Use Element "Public and Institutional Land Use Designations" "Character Sketch" "Public and institutional uses will occur in both low and high-density environments. For passive uses, land and views will be protected, limited access to these areas will be typical. For more active uses, usability and accessibility will be key features and new Page 40 of 45 AUBURN* MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: Ord #6698, CPA18-0001 & REZ18-0002, CPA18- Date: December 11, 2018 0002, CPA18-0003 & REZ18-0003, and CPA18-0004 & REZ18-0004, - 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments — Map Amendments & Policv/Text Amendments & Assoc. Rezones development will be subject to standards reflecting programmed space and interconnectivity. These spaces will be varied in type, providing service to areas large and small, urban and more rural in character. Sustainable solutions and innovations that are responsive to the native ecology will be typical of public and institutional uses." "General Policies" A general policy appropriate to this request is: "Policy LU -89. The primary purpose of this designation is to address public needs while taking advantage of synergies with the adjacent areas where they are sited. " "Institutional Designation" "Description" "This category includes those areas that are reserved for public or institutional uses. These public uses include public schools and institutional uses such as large churches and schools. It is also intended to include those of a significant impact, and not those smaller public uses that are consistent with and may be included in another designation. For example, public uses of an industrial character are included in the industrial designation, and small-scale religious institutions of a residential character are included in the residential designation" "Designation Criteria 1. Previously developed institutional uses; or 2. Located along major arterial streets; 3. Properties that are buffered from the single-family designation by landscaping, environmental features, or the Residential Transition designation and buffered from all other Residential designations; and 4. Meets the development parameters of the Institutional designation. 5. Properties identified in the Airport Master Plan as Landing Field." Institutional -related policies appropriate to this request are: "Policy LU -102 Appropriate uses for this designation include facilities that serve the needs of the larger community such as public schools, active parks, city operated municipal facilities, large churches, and fire stations." "Policy LU -103 This designation permits a wide array of uses that tend to be located in the midst of other dissimilar uses. For this reason, special emphasis should be directed at the following: a. The appropriateness of new requests for this designation and the impacts that it may have on the surrounding community. b. Site-specific conditions that should be attached to the granting of new requests for this designation that are designed to mitigate impacts on the surrounding community. c. Site-specific conditions that should be attached to development proposals that are designed to mitigate impacts on the surrounding community." The Capital Facilities Element also contains objectives and policies relevant to the request, as follows: Volume 3 — Capital Facilities Element "Planning Approach" Page 41 of 45 AUBURN *MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: Ord #6698, CPA18-0001 & REZ18-0002, CPA18- Date: December 11, 2018 0002, CPA18-0003 & REZ18-0003, and CPA18-0004 & REZ18-0004, - 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments — Map Amendments & Policv/Text Amendments & Assoc. Rezones "The Capital Facilities planning approach is to manage growth in a manner that enhances rather than detracts from community quality and values by actively coordinating land use type and intensity with City facility and service development and provision." "Objectives and Policies" "Objective 1.1. Ensure that new development does not outpace the City's ability to provide and maintain adequate public facilities and services, by allowing new development to occur only when and where adequate facilities exist or will be provided, and by encouraging development types and locations that can support the public services they require." "Policy CF -3. Development shall be allowed only when and where such development can be adequately served by public services (police and fire) without reducing the level of service elsewhere." "Objective 1.2. To ensure that new developments are supported by an adequate level of public services through an effective system of public facilities." "Policy CF -10. Public facilities shall be provided in accord with the guidance of the Capital Facilities Plan or, as may be appropriate a system plan for each type of facility designed to serve at an adequate level of service the locations and intensities of uses specified in this Comprehensive Plan." "Objective 1.8. To site public and institutional buildings in accord with their service function and the needs of the members of the public served by the facility." The proposal to change the land use designation on the site to `Institutional" will not be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan, as it will allow for a public facility to meet the needs of the community and adequate public facilities will be provided concurrent with the development to serve the future land use of the site. Also, the intent of the I Institutional Zone is: "... to provide an area wherein educational, governmental, theological, recreational, cultural and other public and quasi -public uses may be allowed to develop. It is further intended these areas be significant in scope which will allow a combination of uses which may not be permitted outright within other zones. This district is not intended to include those smaller or singular public uses which are consistent with and permitted in other zones. " The I, Institutional Zone is an implementing zoning district of the "Institutional" Comprehensive Plan land use designation. 2. Criterion #2 - ACC 14.22.110(A)(2) The comprehensive plan amendment must not diminish or increase the ability to provide adequate services. Staff Analysis: The applications for changes in comprehensive plan designation and zoning have been reviewed by Valley Regional Fire Agency and the City Utilities and Traffic divisions. Based on these reviews, the changes would not adversely affect the provision of services. The proposed Comprehensive Plan map change by itself, if approved will not affect the ability to Page 42 of 45 AUBURN* MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: Ord #6698, CPA18-0001 & REZ18-0002, CPA18- Date: December 11, 2018 0002, CPA18-0003 & REZ18-0003, and CPA18-0004 & REZ18-0004, - 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments — Map Amendments & PolicyiText Amendments & Assoc. Rezones provide adequate services. As typical with development in the City, the infrastructure improvements needed to support the development would be the responsibility of the future development. At the time of development, adequate services would be required to be provided concurrent with the development in order for the project to be authorized. As such, it is not anticipated that approval of the request will negatively affect the provision of services. Utility and street frontage improvements, and possibly off-site improvements, would be required to support the development While three of the four parcels that make up the site are developed with single-family residences, it is the District's plan to remove these and eventually redevelop the site with an elementary school and associated site improvements. Existing services either exists or can be provided to support the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the site's map designation from "Residential Conservancy" to "Institutional" 3. Criterion #3—ACC 14.22.110(A)(3) The assumptions on which the comprehensive plan is based are found to be invalid. Staff Analysis: While the policies of the Comprehensive Plan are not invalid, the current map designation of the site as "Residential Conservancy" would not be consistent with a future rezone to the `7, Institutional" zoning needed to allow for an elementary school to be built on the site. Auburn School District acquired or is in the process of acquiring the parcels that make up the site with the intent of developing them with a new elementary school. 4. Criterion #4—ACC 14.22.110(A)(4) There has been a change or lack of change in conditions or circumstances has occurred since the adoption of the latest amendment to the comprehensive plan that dictates the need for a proposed amendment. Staff Analysis: There has been a change in conditions that generates the need for the map change. According to the Applicant, Auburn School District has been searching for a viable site in this general area to construct an elementary school for several years with difficulty. Based on the need for an elementary school to serve the increase in new housing surrounding the area and to maintain class size requirements, it is apparent that conditions have changed which would warrant the Comprehensive Plan amendment to "Institutional" 5. Criterion #5 — ACC 14.22.110(A)(5) The change must be determined to be consistent with the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the Countywide Planning Policies of the relevant county and "Vision 2040: Growth and Transportation Strategy for the Puget Sound Region". Staff Analysis: The change if approved would continue to be consistent with the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the Countywide Planning Policies of King County and "Vision 2040: Growth and Transportation Strategy for the Puget Sound Region" The proposal is consistent because it provides land suitable for institutional development which will directly provide services (educational) to the immediate community within an urban area. 6. Criterion #6 —ACC 14.22.110(A)(6) As applies only to changes of the mapped land use designation of a specific property, the applicant must demonstrate one of the following: a. The current land use designation was clearly made in error or due to an oversight; b. The proposed land use designation is adjacent to property having a similar or compatible designation, or other conditions are present to ensure compatibility with surrounding properties; Page 43 of 45 AUBURN* MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: Ord #6698, CPA18-0001 & REZ18-0002, CPA18- Date: December 11, 2018 0002, CPA18-0003 & REZ18-0003, and CPA18-0004 & REZ18-0004, - 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Map Amendments & Policv/Text Amendments & Assoc. Rezones c. There has been a change in conditions since the current land use designation came into effect. Staff Analysis: According to the Applicant, Auburn School District has been searching and investigating property in this area for several years. No error or oversight in the Comprehensive Plan designation exists because when the last Comprehensive Plan was updated, the subject parcels were not identified as a school site by the School District and the designation had been in place for many years. The change is the school district Further, if approved the designation will be compatible with the adjacent "Single Family Residential" to the west and south since the intensity of an elementary school is commonly located proximate to single family residential neighborhoods. Further, the site contains steeply sloping topography along its norther and eastern boundaries and a large wetland along its westerly boundary, all acting as buffers from nearby single-family development. Such conditions directly tied to Comprehensive Plan Policy LU -103. Elementary schools are most often located in single-family neighborhoods, as they serve a smaller immediate area than schools for upper grades. Also, if approved, the designation would be compatible with the "Residential Conservancy" designation located to the east, since this is separated by the minor arterial street of Kersey WY SE and steep transitions in ground surface elevation. In fact, these four parcels are an "island" of "Residential Conservancy" designation located on the west side of Kersey WY SE. The change would eliminate this "island" As such, the proposal meets items b and c. REZONE RELATED — CONCLUSIONS: The Applicant has requested a rezone from "RC, Residential Conservancy" to "I, Institutional'. Per ACC 18.68.030(B)(1)(b) if the rezone request also requires changes to the Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council. Chapter 18.68 ACC contains the intent and process for zoning code amendments, in this case a site-specific zoning map amendment has been requested. Auburn City Code does not contain any specific rezone criteria for City Staff to review; however, Case Law offers some rezone criteria ("A Little Bit Pregnant: The Multi -Personalities of Site Specific Rezones - Or - A Cheat Sheet for Everything You Need to Know about Site -Specific Rezones", by Phil Olbrechts on mrsc.org, April 1, 2013) as follows: "...require that the proponents of a rezone must establish that conditions have substantially changed since the original adoption and that the rezone must bear a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals or welfare. If a rezone implements the comprehensive plan, a showing that a change of circumstances has occurred is not required." With the change in City procedures by Ordinance No. 6655 to allow concurrent recommendations by the Planning Commission on both the Comprehensive plan and zoning map changes, the recommendations on each should be consistent and therefore does not need to show a change in circumstances has occurred. The requested rezone bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals and welfare. Adequate public facilities such as water, sewer, and electricity, are capable of being provided for the parcels upon future development and would therefore not be detrimental to public health. The rezone itself is not anticipated to allow any uses or acts that would pose any detrimental effects on the morals or welfare of the public. No impacts to public safety outside of normal development are anticipated. Page 44 of 45 AUBURN *MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: Ord #6698, CPA18-0001 & REZ18-0002, CPA18- Date: December 11, 2018 0002, CPA18-0003 & REZ18-0003, and CPA18-0004 & REZ18-0004, - 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments — Map Amendments & Policv/Text Amendments & Assoc. Rezones PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Planning Commission recommended approval of the Auburn School District No. 408 (CPA18-0004) request for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to change the map designation of four parcels, Parcel Nos. 3221059058, 3221059057, 3221059056, & 3221059016 from "Residential Conservancy" to "Institutional" and to rezone the four parcels from "RC, Residential Conservancy" to "I Institutional" zoning district. EXHIBIT LIST: (CPA18-0004 & REZ18-0004) (For Exhibits please refer to the 6th section (blue divider page) behind the "Comp Plan Map Amendments " tab in the working binder) Exhibit 1 Staff Report (CPA18-0004 & REZ18-0004) Exhibit 2 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment - Proposed Change Exhibit 3 Zoning Map Amendment - Proposed Change Exhibit 4 Completed Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application Form Exhibit 5 Completed Rezone Application Form Exhibit 6 Applicant's Narrative Statement Exhibit 7 Public Comments Received Exhibit 8 City Response to Public Comments Exhibit 9 SEPA Environmental Checklist Exhibit 10 Traffic Impact Analysis, PH Consulting, LLC, September 25, 2017 Exhibit 11 Combined Notice of Application and Determination of Non -Significance SEP18-0013 Exhibit 12 Dept. of Commerce 60 -Day Acknowledgement Letter Exhibit 13 Notice of Public Hearing Exhibit 14 Affidavits of Publication, Mailing, and Posting Page 45 of 45 AUBURN* MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Exhibit "C" Colored Map as an excerpt of the City's Comprehensive Plan Map showing a change from "Single Family Residential" to "Institutional" for two parcels totaling approximately 0.9 acres, identified by parcel numbers: 192105-9190 & 192105-9282 for the Auburn School District Pioneer Elementary School Site (CPA 18- 0003) Colored Map as an excerpt of the City's Zoning Map showing a change from "R-7, Residential 7 dwelling units per acre" to T-1, Public Use" for two parcels totaling approximately 0.9 acres, identified by parcel numbers: 192105-9190 & 192105-9282 for the Auburn School District Pioneer Elementary School Site (REZ18- 0003) (Please see "Comp. Plan Map Amendments CPA 18-0003" tab in the working binder). Ordinance No. 6698 December 3, 2018 Page 9 • CPA 18-0003 Land Use I EXISTING �� 11 .111 0 21ST ST S8 IIII NI 111111 i! 1 I!I P�,� Parcels a LIGHTCOMMERCIAL DOWNTOWN URBAN CENTER LIGHT INDUSTRIAL HEAVY COMMERCIAL MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL HEAVY INDUSTRIAL MULTIPLE -FAMILY INSTITUTIONAL _ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL FI -1 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL OVERLAY Existing Land Use iOPEN SPACE U Proposed Land Use RESIDENTIAL CONSERVANCY 1111111 II WWllllll!!!!11 RESIDENTIAL TRANSITION OVERLAY SINGLE FAMILY a b0 160 240 320 400 1-LL1 N/� hintedOn 08120 13, \tap lD nUSt1 SI Inlointauon shown is for general reference purpu1c, only and does nun nacessanle represent enact geographic or citrhrgraphic dela as mapped. l'he Cay of Auhum makes no warranty w to ns accuracy • REZ 18-0003 Zoning EXISTING 21ST ST St.: 21ST S'ISP. 22ND til SI: I I Parcels 1 Institutional Use District I�+�J C1 L.M Commercial Ohan. Lakeland Hills South PUD iC2 Central Businees Distnct LF Airport Landing Field District C3 Heavy Commercial District M1 Ught Industrial District - .-ed Use Commerdal + k12 Heavy Industrial District CN Neighborhood Shopping District Open Space DUC Downtown Urban Center i 11 Public Use Dis n. 25111 .11 Sl R10 Residential 10 DU/Acre R20 Residential 20 DU/Acre Residential Conservancy UNC Unclaselfied Use District ,_/ Existing Zoning InProposed Zoning 24 111 S1' SL iG r ��l Printed On. 0/20,13 w "�+E Map ID. 6057 5 Informatial shown is for general reference Imrposes nnly and does not necessanly represent eva" geographic or cartographic data as mapped- The City of Auhum makes no s arrancy as to its aecura�y. PUD Planned Unit Development i RMHC Residential Manufactured--. Home Units R1 Resdenhal 1 DU/Acre i RO Residential Office District R5 Residential 5 DU/Acre i RO-H Residential Office District (Hospital) §T R) Residential 7 DU/Acre TV Terrace Yew R10 Residential 10 DU/Acre R20 Residential 20 DU/Acre Residential Conservancy UNC Unclaselfied Use District ,_/ Existing Zoning InProposed Zoning 24 111 S1' SL iG r ��l Printed On. 0/20,13 w "�+E Map ID. 6057 5 Informatial shown is for general reference Imrposes nnly and does not necessanly represent eva" geographic or cartographic data as mapped- The City of Auhum makes no s arrancy as to its aecura�y. • 1 1 (EXISTING CPA 18-0004 Land Use Parcels DOWNTOWN URBAN CENTER HEAVY COMMERCIAL HEAVY INDUSTRIAL INSTITUTIONAL aLIGHT COMMERCIAL Er -1 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL OVERLAY rq/ Existing Land Use iOPEN SPACE U Proposed Land Use RESIDENTIAL CONSERVANCY InRESIDENTIAL TRANSITION OVERLAY SINGLE FAMILY 0 80 160 240 320 400 FEET y/nN\y/' Mined On 0813111 ; w = " , N1ap ID 605S " s Information shown is 11ot genefal reference purposes only and does not necessarily rePcvsem crut geographic or em togwphic data as mapped The City of Auhum makes ao warranty as to its accuravh-. LIGHT INDUSTRIAL MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE -FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL Er -1 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL OVERLAY rq/ Existing Land Use iOPEN SPACE U Proposed Land Use RESIDENTIAL CONSERVANCY InRESIDENTIAL TRANSITION OVERLAY SINGLE FAMILY 0 80 160 240 320 400 FEET y/nN\y/' Mined On 0813111 ; w = " , N1ap ID 605S " s Information shown is 11ot genefal reference purposes only and does not necessarily rePcvsem crut geographic or em togwphic data as mapped The City of Auhum makes ao warranty as to its accuravh-. C: Proposed Historic Preservation Inventory Map 8.1 Y, ID HISTORIC SITE NAME STATUS PARCEL 1 AUBURN PIONEER CEMETERY KING COUNTY REGISTER OF LANDMARKS 0721059020 2 AUBURN POST OFFICE WASHINGTON HERITAGE REGISTER AND NATIONAL REGISTER 0483000090 3 AUBURN PUBLIC LIBRARY WASHINGTON HERITAGE REGISTER AND NATIONAL REGISTER 1735800115 4 BLOMEW OSCAR HOUSE WASHINGTON HMTAGE REGISTER AND NATIONAL REGISTER 5405100005 5 ICM SOL.ONIOM MASONIC LODGE NO 60 HALL LOCAL LANDMARK 7331400475 6 MARY OLSON PARK WASHINGTON HERITAGE REGIS NATIONAL REGISTER, WASHINGTON HERITAGE BARN REGISTER 3222059032 7 IMARYOLSONPARK WASHINGTON HERITAGE REGISTER, NATIONAL REGISTFP, WASHINGTON HERITAGE BARN REGISTER 3222059032 8 IMARYOLSONPARK WASHINGTON HERITAGE REGISTEK NATIONAL REGISTER WAST IINGTON 14= -AGE BARN REGISTER 3222059032 ,AUBURN BURN WASHINGTON It shown is for general reference purposes only arid does not necessarily represent exact , o,ograpluc or cartographic data as mapped. The City of Auburn makes no warranly as to its accuracy. Historical Landmark & Registry Inventory (Map 8.1) ,, ded On: 10/25/18 1 INCH = 3,100 FEET Map ID: 3337 M rIdentified Locations —7p t. Auburn City Limits p s Potential Annexation Areas Current Land Use Designations =I= // ALGO NA 7 iNGSON RD SW PACIFIC I RD EDGEWOOD SUMNER seatsr�>r n ,r •a �L .tet w F � a iff RI! Pr _ _Jr�_ ur 0 KING COUNTY - DOWNTOWN URBAN CENTER LIGHT INDUSTRIAL - HEAVY COMMERCIAL MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL HEAVY INDUSTRIAL MULTIPLE -FAMILY - INSTITUTIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL LIGHT COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL OVERLAY OPEN SPACE PIERCE 121Hy1F COUNTY LAKE TA PPS RESIDENTIAL CONSERVANCY RESIDENTIAL TRANSITION OVERLAY SINGLE FAMILY 11 Printed On: 10/22/2018 Nap ID: 6069 Information shown is for general reference purposes only and doesnot necessarily represent exact geographic or cartographic data as mapped. The City of Auburn makes no warranty as to its accuracy. REZ 15-0004 Zoning \ I I I I I I I I I 53RD ST S5 Parcels I Institutional Use District iC1 LgM Commercial District Lakeland Hills South PUO C2 Central Business District i , _#_ LF Airport Landing Field District C3 Heavy Commercial District M1 Light Industrial District PUD Planned Unit Development - Mixed Use Commercial M2 Heavy Industrial District R1 Residential 1 DU/Acre CN Neighborhood Shopping District Open Space DIC 11-1 vm Urban Center i P1 Pubic Use District PUD Planned Unit Development i RMHC Residential Manufactured/Mobile Home Units R1 Residential 1 DU/Acre i RO Residential Office District R5 Residential 5 DU/Acre + ROM Residential Office District (Hospital) R7 Residential 7 DU/Acre i NTertace View iR10 Residential 10 DU/Acre R20 Residential 20 DU/Acre Residential Conservancy UNC Unclassified Use District Existing Zoning InProPged Zoning 0 80 160 240 320 400 FEET N I'rimUd Oil W'_4I 1 w E \Iap1U eU5�1 5 Information shown is for ganeral reference purposes only :arid dues nol necessanly represent —.t geugraphic ur clnoplaphlc dila ns mapped. The CITY of Auburn makas no warranty as ht its accuracy. Proposed Amendment to Special Planning Area Map 1.5 with Corrected Impression Corridors and Hwy 167 Removed P:0"I VMA) rF PIERCE COUNTY mpression Corridors :UMNER Impression Corridors WEE Special Planning Areas S (Map 1.5) 0 % % % 1 t i i i iMi Printed Date: 10/25/2018 Map ID: 6070 Information shown is for general reference purposes only and does not necessarily represent exact geographic or cartographic data as mapped. The City of Auburn makes no warranty as to its accuracy. Arc4ed Historic Preser�*ion Inventory Map 10.1 1.a, IE In 1 .1 IIIruu I.T. IX -4 IT IT 41 I M (167 D— ID Historic Site Name Status Parcel 1 Auburn Investment Co. Building/J.C. Penney Company Store Determined eligible by SHPO 1821059051 2 —T I. 7 0489000090 3 Auburn Public Library Washington Heritage Register and National Register 1735800115 4 Oscar House Washington Heritage Register and National Register 5405100005 5 -Blomeen, King Solomon Masonic Lodge No. 60 Hall Designated Local Landmark 7331400475 6 Mary Olson Farm Washington Heritage Register, Washington Heritage Barn Register, and National Register 0521059006 7 Mary Olson Farm Washington Heritage Register, Washington Heritage Barn Register, and National Register IT 8 Mary Olson Farm Washington Heritage Register, Washington Heritage Barn Register, and National Register_ 3222059032 j IT 67 IT IIE Na,FE .T a, m na, —T. 11 lift IT IT I. IT IE -T. II.T. IT 111— IT T=16 18 4 IT 31—T. 2 IT K o I 1.a, IE In 1 .1 IIIruu I.T. IX -4 IT IT 41 I M (167 D— ID Historic Site Name Status Parcel 1 Auburn Investment Co. Building/J.C. Penney Company Store Determined eligible by SHPO 1821059051 2 Auburn Post Office Washington Heritage Register and National Register 0489000090 3 Auburn Public Library Washington Heritage Register and National Register 1735800115 4 Oscar House Washington Heritage Register and National Register 5405100005 5 -Blomeen, King Solomon Masonic Lodge No. 60 Hall Designated Local Landmark 7331400475 6 Mary Olson Farm Washington Heritage Register, Washington Heritage Barn Register, and National Register 0521059006 7 Mary Olson Farm Washington Heritage Register, Washington Heritage Barn Register, and National Register 3222059031 8 Mary Olson Farm Washington Heritage Register, Washington Heritage Barn Register, and National Register_ 3222059032 j A CITY OF J" — WASHINGTON MAP 10.1 HISTORIC RESOURCE INVENTORY y� Identified Locations Auburn City Limits INFORMATION SHOWN 15 FOR GENERAL REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY AND DOES NOT I INCH = 3,400 FEET NECESSARILY REPRESENTEXACT GEOGRAPHIC OR CARTOGRAPHIC DATAAS MAPPED. THE CITY OF PAA AUBURN MAKES NO WARRANT Y AS TO ITS ACCURACY PRINTED ON: 12/02/2009 MAP ID# 3337 0 Proposed Land Use Change s KENT %1H ST 1I , dit II �� ��• r 1 I � 7 _ N 167 i I a j I �incTH ST J S 315TrS-, II , JIM 13 I _ 6T e � 18 K I N G COUNTY 'fid i:• ,� ��1 Cm:_35)!»� ALGONA ii S ll vll i, �.1 :.:NGSON RD SW 167 e7� PACIFIC�� ifn v a G IL / PIERCE EDGEWOOD SUMNERCOUNTY KE ' = DOWNTOWN URBAN CENTER ® MULTIPLE -FAMILY - HEAVY COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL - HEAVY INDUSTRIAL NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL OVERLAY - INSTITUTIONAL OPEN SPACE LIGHT COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL CONSERVANCY LIGHT INDUSTRIAL SINGLE FAMILY MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAKE TA PPS Printed On: 10/10/2018 Map ID: 6067 Information shown is for general reference purposes onlyand does not necessarily represent exact geographic or cartographic data as mapped. The City of Auburn makes no warranty as to its accuracy. Exhibit "D" Colored Map as an excerpt of the City's Comprehensive Plan Map showing a change from "Residential Conservancy" to "Institutional" for four parcels totaling approximately 22.08 acres, identified by parcel numbers: 322105-9016, 322105--9056, 322105-9057, & 322105-9058 for the Auburn School District Kersey Way SE Site (CPA 18-0005) Colored Map as an excerpt of the City's Zoning Map showing a change from "RC, Residential Conservancy" to "l, Institutional" "R- 7, Residential 7 dwelling units per acre" to T-1, Public Use" for four parcels totaling approximately 22.08 acres, identified by parcel numbers: 322105-9016, 322105--9056, 322105-9057, & 322105-9058 for the Auburn School District Kersey Way SE Site (REZ 18-0004) (Please see "Comp. Plan Map Amendments CPA 18-0004" tab in the working binder). Ordinance No. 6698 December 3, 2018 Page 10 Exhibit "C" Colored Map a\anfxcerpt of the City's Comprehensive Plan Map showing a ch om "Single Family Residential" to "Institutional" fparcels totaling approximately 0.9 acres, identified by paumbers: 192105-9190 & 192105-9282 for the Auburn School Distr t Pioneer Elementary School Site (CPA 18- 0003) Colored Map as an excerof the City's Zoning Map showing a change from "R-7, Residential 7 dwelling units per acre" to T-1, Public Use" for two parcels totaling approximately 0.9 acres, identified by parcel numbers: 1.92105-9190 & 192105-9282 for the Auburn School District Pioneer Elementary School Site (REZ18- 0003) (Please see "Comp. Plan Map Amendments CPA 18-0003" tab in the working binder). -------------------------- Ordinance No. 6698 December 3, 2018 Page 9 Exhibit "E" CPM #1 - Change the Comprehensive Plan Map, "Designated Areas, Map # 1.3" to remove "Environmental Park" Designated Area, since the area was rezoned in 2017 to M-1, Light Industrial and thus is not distinguished from other areas. CPM #2 - Add back the Historic Resource Inventory Map from former Chapter 10, Historic Preservation Chapter, from the pre -2015 Comprehensive Plan as a re -numbered Map 8.1. CPM #3 - Amend Comprehensive Plan Map to remove the mapped designation of 'Residential Transition Overlay". (See "Comp. Plan Map Amendments" tab in the working binder) Ordinance No. 6698 December 3, 2018 Page 11 POLICY/TEXT AMENDMENT (P/T) #1 INCORPORATE AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT #408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2018- 2024 Table of Contents Section I Executive Summary ....................... Page 1 Section I I Enrollment Projections ..................... Page 6 Section III Standard of Service ........................ Page 8 Section IV Inventory of Facilities ...................... Page 16 Section V Pupil Capacity ................................ Page 20 Section VI Capital Construction Plan ................. Page 23 Section VII Impact Fees .................................. Page 27 Section VIII Appendices ................................... Page 31 Appendix A.1 - Student Enrollment Projections Page 32 Appendix A.2 - Capital Facilities Plan Projections Page 45 Appendix A.3 - Student Generation Survey Page 50 Auburn School District No. 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2018 through 2024 Adopted by the Auburn School District Board of Directors June 11, 2018 PNVSUR *114 �-qqk SCHOOL DISTRICT ENGAGE • EDUCATE • EMPOWER pB U R ju � SCHOOL DISTRICT ENGAGE • EDUCATE • EMPOWER 915 Fourth Street NE Auburn, Washington 98002 (253) 931-4900 Serving Students in: Unincorporated King County City of Auburn City of Algona City of Kent City of Pacific City of Black Diamond BOARD of DIRECTORS Anne Baunach Laurie Bishop Robyn Mulenga Ryan Van Quill Ray Vefik Dr. Alan Spicciati, Superintendent Auburn School District No. 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2018 through 2024 I. Executive Summary This six-year Capital Facilities Plan (the "Plan") has been prepared by the Auburn School District (the "District") as the District's principal planning document, in compliance with the requirements of Washington's Growth Management Act and the adopted ordinances of the counties and cities served by the District. This Plan was prepared using data available in the spring of 2018. This Plan is consistent with prior long-term capital facilities plans adopted by the District. However, this Plan is not intended to be the sole plan for all of the District's needs. The District may prepare interim and periodic long-range Capital Facilities Plans consistent with Board Policies and actions, taking into account a longer or a shorter time period; other factors and trends in the use of facilities; and other needs of the District as may be required. However, any such plan or plans will be consistent with this six-year Capital Facilities Plan. To enable the collection of impact fees in the unincorporated areas of King County and within the City of Auburn and City of Kent; the King County Council, the City of Auburn and the City of Kent will adopt this Plan by reference as part of each jurisdiction's respective comprehensive plan. To enable the collection of impact fees in the Cities of Algona, Pacific, and Black Diamond, these municipalities must also adopt this Plan and adopt school impact fee ordinances. Pursuant to the requirements of the Growth Management Act and the local ordinances, this Plan will be updated on an annual basis, and any changes in the fee schedule(s) adjusted accordingly. The Plan establishes the District's "standard of service" in order to ascertain the District's current and future capacity. While the State Superintendent of Public Instruction establishes square footage guidelines for capacity, those guidelines do not account for the local program needs of the District. The Growth Management Act and the school impact fee ordinance authorize the District to define its standard of service based on the District's specific needs. In general, the District's current standard provides that class size for grades K-3 should not exceed 17 students and class size for grades 4-5 should not exceed 25 students. When averaged over the six elementary grades, this computes to 19.67 students per classroom. Class size for grades 6-12 should not exceed 30 students, with some subject areas restricted to lesser numbers. Decisions by current legislative actions may create the need for additional classrooms. (See Section III for more specific information.) The capacity of the schools in the District is calculated based on this standard of service and the existing inventory of facilities including transitional classrooms. The District's 2017-18 capacity was 14,717. The actual number of individual students was 16,525 as of October 1, 2017. (See Section V for more specific information.) The Capital Construction Plan shown in Section VI addresses the additions and proposed modernization to the District's existing facilities. The plan includes the replacement of five elementary schools and one middle school, construction of two new elementary schools, and acquisition of future school sites to accommodate growth. The new facilities are required to meet the projected elementary school class size reductions mandated by the State of Washington and student population increases generated by the large development areas within the Auburn School District. Three areas that have significant impact on the school district are the Lakeland South, Lea Hill, and the Auburn west hill and valley areas of the district. There are other pockets of development that impact the District as well. The District completed a comprehensive review of all district facilities in October 2008. A Steering Committee made recommendations to the Board for capital improvements to existing facilities and replacement of seven schools over the next ten years. These recommendations led to a capital improvements levy and a bond issue that was placed on the ballot in March 2009. Both ballot measures were unsuccessful in March. The Board determined to rerun only the capital improvements levy in November 2009, which the voters approved. In the fall of 2011, the Board determined to move forward with the Auburn High School Modernization and Reconstruction Project and placed the project before the voters in February of 2012. The bond issue was supported by the community at nearly 57% approval rate, but was short of the super majority requirement of 60%. In March of 2012, the Board determined to rerun the bond in November of 2012. In November 2012, the bond passed at 62%. The project was completed during the summer of 2016. In the spring of 2016, the Board determined to move forward with the replacement of six schools and the construction of two new elementary schools. The project was placed before the voters in November 2016 and the bond passed at 62.83%. The first of the projects, the replacement of Olympic Middle School, started construction in May 2018. The School Impact Fee Ordinances adopted by King County, the City of Auburn and the City of Kent provide for the assessment of impact fees to assist in meeting some of the fiscal impacts incurred by a district experiencing growth and development. Section VII sets forth the proposed school impact fees for single family and multi -family dwelling units. The student generation factors have been developed using the students who actually attend school in the Auburn School District from single family and multi -family developments constructed in the last five years. There have been dramatic changes in the student generation factors for single and multi -family in the past five years. The District plans to carefully monitor the numbers over the next several years to determine if this is a trend or an anomaly. The method of collecting the data is with the use of GIS mapping software, data from King County and Pierce County GIS, data from Davis Demographics and integration of the mapping with student data from the District's student data system. This method gives the District actual student generation numbers for each grade span for identified developments. This data is contained in Appendix A.3. 3 Aubum School District No. 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2018 through 2024 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Listed below is a summary level outline of the changes from the 2017 Capital Facilities Plan that are a part of the 2018 Plan. The changes are noted by Section for ease of reference. Section I Executive Summary A. Updated to reflect new information within the Plan. B. Summary level list of changes from previous year. Section II Enrollment Projections Updated projections. See Appendices A.1 & A.2. Section III Standard of Service A. Reduction of maximum K-3 class size from between 18.23 and 24 students to 17 students at elementary schools. B. Reduction of maximum fourth grade class size from 26 students to 25 students. C. Reduction of maximum 5th grade class size from 29 students to 25 students. Section IV Inventory of Facilities A. Add 2 portables at Alpac Elementary School. B. Add 3 portables at Lea Hill Elementary School. C. Add 1 portable at Terminal Park Elementary School. D. Add 1 portable at Washington Elementary School. E. Remove 1 portable from Pioneer Elementary School. Section V Pupil Capacity The six portables to be placed and the one portable to be relocated in August 2018 are needed to accommodate enrollment increases. 4 Auburn School District No. 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2018 through 2024 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Impact Fees CHANGES TO IMPACT FEE DATA ELEMENTS 2017 to 2018 DATA ELEMENTS CPF 2017 CPF 2018 EXPLANATION Student Generation Factors Single Family Consistent with King County Ordinance 11621, Elementary 0.1930 0.2340 Student Generation Factors are calculated Middle School 0.0770 0.0970 by the school district based on district Sr. High 0.0730 0.1230 records of average actual student generation Multi -Family rates for new developments constructed Elementary 0.1030 0.2190 over the last five years. Middle School 0.0310 0.1070 Sr. High 0.0440 0.1060 School Construction Costs Elementary $48,500,000 $60,200,000 From new school construction cost estimate in April 2018. Site Acquisition Costs Cost per acre $434,136 $344,240 Updated estimate based on 2.5% annual inflatior Area Cost Allowance Boeckh Index $213.23 $225.97 Updated to projected SPI schedule. (July 2018) Match % - State 63.29% 64.99% Updated to current SPI schedule (May 2017) Match % - District 36.71% 35.01% Computed District Average AV Single Family $292,035 $373,974 Updated from March 2018 King County Dept of Assessments data. Multi -Family $127,147 $139,135 Updated from March 2018 King County Dept of Assessments data using average AV for apartments and condominiums. Debt Sery Tax Rate $2.65 $2.41 Current Fiscal Year GO Bond Int Rate 3.95% 3.27% Current Rate (Bond Buyers 20 Index 3-14) Section VIII Appendices Appendix A.1 - Updated enrollment projections from October 1, 2017 Appendix A.2 - Updated enrollment projections with anticipated buildout schedule from April 2018 Appendix A.3 - Student Generation Survey April 2018 Exhibit 7" Annual Comprehensive Plan Map (CPM) Amendments (CPA 18-0002 — City Initiated PIT #1 — Incorporate Auburn School District Capital Facilities Plan PIT #2 — Incorporate Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Plan PIT #3 — Incorporate Federal Way School District Capital Facilities Plan PIT #4 — Incorporate Kent School District Capital Facilities Plan PIT #5 — Incorporate City of Auburn Capital Facilities Plan PIT #6 - Modify text at the end of Volume 1, "Land Use Element" to clarify and distinguish between the various subcategories of "Special Planning Areas" that are already described in the Plan. Bring back some missing explanation from previous pre -2015 Comprehensive Plan to aid in describing the purpose and actions associated with each subcategory. The changes are shown in strike through and underline. Also, change Map No. 1.3 to correspond. See the related Map amendment CPM #1. PIT #7 - Amend text of Volume 6, Economic Development Element of Comprehensive Plan and the Comprehensive Plan's "Core Plan" (headline chapter) and specifically the Economic Development Vision Statement discussion to reflect preparation of the City of Auburn Ten - Year Economic Development Strategic Plan (TEDSP). Also, amend and the Appendices to include the document as one of the background documents to the Plan. The changes are shown in strike through and underline. PIT #8 - Amend text and policies of Comprehensive Plan to add back the contents of the former Chapter 10, "Historical Preservation" from pre - 2015 Comprehensive Plan as a new Chapter 8, with some minor revisions. Also, add a corresponding section to the "Core Plan" to maintain formatting, add a map of designated landmarks, as before and amend the Appendices to reflect the map addition. See related Map amendment CPM #2. The text changes are shown in strike through & underline. PIT #9 - Modify text of Volume 1, "Land Use Element" of the Comprehensive Plan to remove the mapped designation of "Residential Transition Overlay" from the Comprehensive Plan Map. The text requires modification to eliminate references to the map location. See related Map amendment CPM #3. (See "Comp. Plan Policy/Text Amendments" tab in the working binder) Ordinance No. 6698 December 3, 2018 Page 12 Exhibit "E" CPM #1 - Change" e Comprehensive Plan ap, "Designated Areas, Map # 1.3" to remove "Environme al Park" Designated Area, since the area was rezoned in 2617 to M-1, Light Industrial and thus is not distinguish ed`from other areas. CPM #2 - Add back the HistoqqResource Inventory Map from former Chapter 10, His P enervation Chapter, from the pre -2015 Comprehensive Plan as a re -numbered Map 8.1. CPM #3 - Amend Comprehensive Plan Map to remove the mapped designation of 'Residential Transition Overlay". (See "Comp. Plan Map Amendments" tab in the working binder) i -------------------------- Ordinance No. 6698 December 3, 2018 Page 11 KING COUNTY i� S 316TH ST ppq W 321ST ST 5 FEDERALWAY v i 3 15TH ST SW O �I BOUNDARY BLVD SW EDGEWOOD isti g Special Planning Areas Map 1.5 16 HST NIy ST NW 15TH ST W H ST NW I W S9 N/ i p p0 10THSTNE 10TH ST NW F 5TH ;4 T;2 3;4 Mi Printed Date: 3/16/2017 2 3Rp TNW Map ID: The information shown and/or distributed purposes only s fornotngeneral necessarily and does not necessarily represent exact geographic or cartographic data. makes warranties as to its accuracy. 3R STN Q J EMAIN ST s sw R0333r3E 6TH ST SE 6T ST SE i H ST SE 37 29TH ST SE K E-NGSON R W 1ST ST SE 9� P� W OP Gree River HWY1 64 4s c ?ti i'Ifv I iH!i!. s 0 t COVINGTON m ression Corridors N W+E ;4 T;2 3;4 Mi Printed Date: 3/16/2017 Impression Corridors Special Planning (Map Areas 1 . �) S The City ofAubum Map ID: The information shown and/or distributed purposes only s fornotngeneral necessarily and does not necessarily represent exact geographic or cartographic data. makes warranties as to its accuracy. Designated Areas ® Designated Areas Proposed Special Planning Areas (Map 1.3) N 0 %. '/2 % 1 1 W�E Printed Date: 10/1/2018 S Map ID: 6061 The information shown and/or distributed is for general reference purposes only and does not necessarily represent exact geographic or cartographic data. The City of Auburn makes warranties as to its accuracy. Aubum School District No. 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2018 through 2024 ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS The Auburn School District uses a modified cohort survival model to project future enrollment for all of the District's operations. Table 11.1 is an extract from the comprehensive projection model found in Appendix A.2 titled "CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Enrollment Projections". This Table shows the anticipated enrollment for the next six years based on the previous six year history of the District under the assumptions set forth in the comprehensive projections, Appendix A.1, and the projection for additional students generated from new developments in the district as shown in Appendix A.2. TABLE ASD ENROLLMENT 11.1 PROJECTIONS April 2018 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-2024 GRADE Actual Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected KDG 1261 1294 1326 1359 1391 1424 1457 1 1276 1320 1353 1386 1418 1451 1483 2 1252 1314 1359 1391 1424 1456 1489 3 1328 1284 1346 1391 1423 1456 1488 4 1329 1355 1311 1373 1418 1450 1483 5 1269 1361 1387 1343 1406 1450 1483 K -5 7715 7928 8082 8243 8480 8687 8883 6 1207 1268 1360 1386 1342 1405 1449 7 1194 1240 1301 1394 1420 1376 1438 8 1183 1221 1268 1329 1421 1447 1403 6-8 3584 3729 3929 4109 4183 4228 4290 9 1258 1357 1395 1442 1503 1595 1621 10 1300 1287 1386 1424 1470 1531 1624 11 1249 1288 1274 1374 1412 1458 1519 12 1419 1347 1386 1372 1472 1510 1556 9-12 5226 52795441 5612 5857 6094 6320 TOTALS 16,525 16,936 17,452 17,964 18,520 19,009 19,493 GRADES K-12 Actual Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected K-5 7715 7928 8082 8243 8480 8687 8883 6-8 3584 3729 3929 4109 4183 4228 4290 9-12 5226 5279 5441 5612 5857 6094 6320 K-121 16,525 1 16,936 1 17,452 1 17,964 1 18,520 19,009 1 19,493 rI • 0 Aubum School District No. 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2018 through 2024 STANDARD OF SERVICE The School Impact Fee Ordinances adopted by King County, the City of Auburn and the City of Kent indicate that each school district must establish a "Standard of Service" in order to ascertain the overall capacity to house its projected student population. The Superintendent of Public Instruction establishes square footage "capacity" guidelines for computing state funding support. The fundamental purpose of the SPI guidelines is to provide a vehicle to equitably distribute state matching funds for school construction projects. By default these guidelines have been used to benchmark the district's capacity to house its student population. The SPI guidelines do not make adequate provision for local district program needs, facility configurations, emerging educational reform, or the dynamics of each student's educational program. The Auburn School District Standard of Service addresses those local considerations that require space in excess of the SPI guidelines. The effect on the space requirements for both permanent and relocatable facilities is shown below for each grade articulation pattern. Conditions that may result in potential space needs are provided for information purposes without accompanying computations. OVERVIEW The Auburn School District operates fourteen elementary schools housing 7,715 students in grades K through 5. The four middle schools house 3,884 students in grades 6 through 8. The District operates three comprehensive senior high schools and one alternative high school, housing 5,226 students in grades 9 through 12. CLASS SIZE The number of pupils per classroom determines the number of classrooms required to house the student population. Specialists create additional space needs. Class sizes are subject to collective bargaining agreements. Changes to class size agreements can have significant impact on available space. The current pupil/teacher limit across all elementary programs is an average of 19.67 students per teacher. Consistent with this staffing limit, room capacities are set at 19.67 students per room at grades K - 5. At grades 6 - 12 the limit is set at 30 pupils per room. The SPI space allocation for each grade articulation level, less the computed reduction for the Auburn School District Standard of Service, determines the District's capacity to house projected pupil populations. These reductions are shown below by grade articulation level. ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS STRUCTURED LEARNING FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED SPECIAL EDUCATION The Auburn School District operates a structured learning program for students with moderate to severe disabilities at the elementary school level which currently uses 14 classrooms to provide for 115 students. The housing requirements for this program are provided for in the SPI space guidelines. No loss of capacity is expected unless population with disabilities grows at a disproportionate rate compared to total elementary population. PATHWAYS SPECIAL EDUCATION The Auburn School District operates an adaptive behavior program for students with behavior disabilities at the elementary school level. The program uses two classrooms to provide for 22 students. The housing requirements for this program exceed the SPI space allocations. (Two classrooms @ 19.67 - 11 = 8.67) Loss of Permanent Capacity 2 rooms @ 8.67 each = (17) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 8.67 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss = (17) M Aubum School District No. 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2018 through 2024 STANDARD OF SERVICE is SPECIAL EDUCATION RESOURCE ROOMS The Auburn School District operates a resource room program at the elementary level for special education students requiring instruction to address their specific disabilities. Sixteen standard classrooms are required to house this program. The housing requirements for this program exceed the SPI space guidelines. Continued loss of capacity is expected as growth in program is larger than the total elementary population. Loss of Permanent Capacity 8 (16-8) rooms @ 19.67 each = (157) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 19.67 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss = (157) NATIVE AMERICAN RESOURCE ROOM The Auburn School District operates one resource room to support the education of Native American students at the elementary level. One standard classroom is fully dedicated to serve these students. Loss of Permanent Capacity 1 room @ 19.67 each = (20) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 19.67 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss = (20) HEAD START The Auburn School District operates a Head Start program for approximately 114 pre-school aged children in six sections of 1/2 day in length. The program is housed at three elementary schools and utilizes three standard elementary classrooms and auxiliary office spaces. The housing requirements for this program are not provided for in the SPI space guidelines. • Loss of Permanent Capacity 3 rooms @ 19.67 each = (59) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 19.67 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss = (59) is EARLY CHILDHOOD SPECIAL EDUCATION The Auburn School District operates a pre-school program for young children below age five with disabilities. This program is housed at eight different elementary schools and currently uses 12 standard classrooms. The housing requirements for this program are not provided for in the SPI space guidelines. Loss of Permanent Capacity 12 rooms @ 19.67 each = (236) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 19.67 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss = (236) READING LABS The Auburn School District operates a program for students needing remediation and additional language arts instruction. These programs utilize non-standard classroom spaces if available in each elementary school. Four elementary schools do not have non-standard rooms available, thus they are housed in a standard classroom. The housing requirements for this program are not provided for in the SPI space guidelines. Loss of Permanent Capacity 4 rooms @ 19.67 each = (79) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 19.67 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss = (79) 10 Auburn School District No. 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2018 through 2024 STANDARD OF SERVICE MUSIC ROOMS The Auburn School District elementary music programs require one acoustically modified classroom at each school for music instruction. The housing requirements are not provided for in the SPI space guidelines. Loss of Permanent Capacity 14 rooms @ 19.67 each = (275) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 19.67 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss = (275) ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS PROGRAM The Auburn School District operates pullout programs at the elementary school level for students learning English as a second language. This program requires 21 standard classrooms that are not provided for in the SPI space guidelines. Loss of Permanent Capacity 21 rooms @ 19.67 each = (413) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 19.67 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss = (413) SECOND GRADE TOSA PROGRAM The Auburn School District provides a TOSA reading specialist program for eight highly impacted elementary schools. This pullout model provides direct instruction to students who are not at grade level and do not receive other services. This program requires eight standard classrooms that are not provided for in the SPI space guidelines. Loss of Permanent Capacity 8 rooms @ 19.67 each = (157) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 19.67 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss = (157) ELEMENTARY LEARNING SPECIALIST PROGRAM The Auburn School District provides a learning specialist program to increase literacy skills for first and second graders. This program model was originally created from the 1-728 funds and currently has the specialist going into existing teacher classrooms, as well as pulling out students into designated classrooms. The district is utilizing classrooms at all fourteen elementary schools. Loss of Permanent Capacity 14 rooms @ 19.67 each = (275) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 19.67 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss = (275) EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM The Auburn School District operates an ECEAP program for 132 pre-school aged children in six sections of half-day length and one full-day program. The program is housed at one elementary school and two off-site locations and utilizes one standard elementary classroom and three additional classroom spaces and auxiliary office spaces. The housing requirements for this program are not provided for in the SPI space guidelines. Loss of Permanent Capacity 4 rooms @ 19.67 each = (79) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 19.67 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss = (79) 11 Aubum School District No. 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2018 through 2024 STANDARD OF SERVICE • MIDDLE SCHOOLS SPECIAL EDUCATION RESOURCE ROOMS The Auburn School District operates a resource room program for each grade at the middle school level. This is to accommodate special education students needing remedial instruction to address their specific disabilities. Eleven classrooms are required at the middle school level to provide for approximately 282 students. The housing requirements for this program are not entirely provided for in the SPI space guidelines. PATHWAYS SPECIAL EDUCATION The Auburn School District offers a self-contained program for students with moderate to severe behavior disabilities. The program is housed at one of the middle schools and uses two classrooms. One of the two classrooms for this program are provided for in the SPI space allocations. Loss of Permanent Capacity 1 rooms @ 30 each = (30) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 30 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss (30) STRUCTURED LEARNING CENTER AND DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED SPECIAL EDUCATION The Auburn School District operates five structured learning classrooms at the middle school level for students with moderate to severe disabilities and one developmentally disabled classroom for students with profound disabilities. Two of the five classrooms for this program are provided for in the SPI space allocations. Loss of Permanent Capacity 3 rooms @ 30 each = (90) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 30 each = 0 • Total Capacity Loss (90) NATIVE AMERICAN RESOURCE ROOM The Auburn School District operates one resource room to support the education of Native American students at the middle school level. One standard classroom is fully dedicated to serve these students. Loss of Permanent Capacity 1 room @ 30 each = (30) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 30 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss (30) MIDDLE SCHOOL COMPUTER LABS The Auburn School District operates a minimum of one computer lab at each of the four middle schools. This program utilizes a standard classroom. The housing requirements for this program are not provided for in the SPI space guidelines. Loss of Permanent Capacity 4 rooms @ 30 each = (120) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 30 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss (120) ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS PROGRAM The Auburn School District operates a pullout program at the middle school level for English Language Learner students. This program requires seven standard classrooms that are not provide for in the SPI space guidelines. Loss of Permanent Capacity 7 rooms @ 30 each = (210) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 30 each = 0 is Total Capacity Loss (210) 12 Aubum School District No. 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2018 through 2024 STANDARD OF SERVICE ROOM UTILIZATION The Auburn School District provides a comprehensive middle school program that includes elective options in special interest areas. Facilities to accommodate special interest activities are not amenable to standard classroom usage. The district averages 95% utilization of all available teaching stations. SPI Report #3 dated 12/14/11 identifies 148 teaching stations available in the mid-level facilities. The utilization pattern results in a loss of approximately 8 teaching stations. Loss of Permanent Capacity 8 rooms @ 30 each = (240) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 30 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss (240) SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS NATIVE AMERICAN RESOURCE ROOM The Auburn School District operates one resource room to support the education of Native American students at the high school level. One standard classroom is fully dedicated to serve these students. Loss of Permanent Capacity 1 room @ 30 each = (30) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 30 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss (30) SENIOR HIGH COMPUTER LABS The Auburn School District operates two computer labs at each of the senior high schools. This program utilizes two standard classrooms at comprehensive high schools and one at West Auburn. The housing requirements for this program are not provided for in the SPI space guidelines. Loss of Permanent Capacity 7 rooms @ 30 each = (210) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 30 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss (210) ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS PROGRAM The Auburn School District operates a pullout program at three comprehensive high schools for English Language Learner students. This program requires five standard classrooms that are not provided for in the SPI space guidelines. Loss of Permanent Capacity 5 rooms @ 30 each = (150) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 30 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss (150) PATHWAYS SPECIAL EDUCATION The Auburn School District offers a self-contained program for students with moderate to severe behavior diabilities. The program is housed at one of the high schools and uses two classrooms. The housing requirements for this program are not provided for in the SPI space allocations. Loss of Permanent Capacity 2 rooms @ 30 each = (60) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 30 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss (60) 13 Auburn School District No. 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2018 through 2024 STANDARD OF SERVICE • STRUCTURED LEARNING CENTER PROGRAM The Auburn School District operates nine structured learning center classrooms for students with moderate to severe disabilities. This program is housed at two high schools requiring eight standard classrooms that are not provided for in the SPI space guidelines. Loss of Permanent Capacity 8 rooms @ 30 each = (240) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 30 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss (240) SPECIAL EDUCATION RESOURCE ROOMS The Auburn School District operates a resource room program at the senior high level for special education students requiring instruction to address their specific learning disabilities. The current high school program requires 14 classrooms to provide program to meet educational needs of the students. The SPI space guidelines provide for one of the 14 teaching stations. Loss of Permanent Capacity 13 rooms @ 30 each = (390) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 30 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss (390) PERFORMING ARTS CENTERS Auburn High School includes 25,000 square feet used exclusively for a Performing Arts Center. The SPI Inventory includes this space when computing unhoused student capacity. This space was not intended for, nor is it usable for, classroom instruction. It was constructed to provide a community center for the performing arts. Using SPI capacity guidelines, 25,000 square feet • computes to 208 unhoused students or 8.33 classrooms. Loss of Permanent Capacity 8.33 rooms @ 30 each = (250) • ROOM UTILIZATION The Auburn School District provides a comprehensive high school program that includes numerous elective options in special interest areas. Facilities to accommodate special interest activities are not amenable to standard classroom usage. The district averages 95% utilization of all available teaching stations. There are 185 teaching stations available in the senior high facilities. The utilization pattern results in a loss of approximately 10 teaching stations. Loss of Permanent Capacity 10 rooms @ 30 each = (300) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 30 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss (300) 14 Aubum School District No. 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2018 through 2024 STANDARD OF SERVICE STANDARD OF SERVICE COMPUTED TOTALS ELEMENTARY Loss of Permanent Capacity (1,768) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 Total Capacity Loss (1,768) MIDDLE SCHOOL Loss of Permanent Capacity (720) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 Total Capacity Loss (720) SENIOR HIGH Loss of Permanent Capacity (1,630) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 Total Capacity Loss (1,630) TOTAL Loss of Permanent Capacity (4,118) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 Total Capacity Loss (4,118) 15 Auburn School District No. 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2018 through 2024 INVENTORY OF FACILITIES Table IV.1 shows the current inventory of permanent district facilities and their OSPI rated capacities. Table IV.2 shows the number and location of each portable unit by school. The district uses relocatable facilities to: 1. provide interim housing in school attendance areas uniquely impacted by increasing school populations that would otherwise require continual redistricting, 2. make space available for changing program requirements and offerings determined by unique student needs, and 3. provide housing to cover district needs until permanent facilities can be financed and constructed. Relocatable facilities are deemed to be interim, stop gap measures that often place undesirable stress on existing physical plants. Core facilities (i.e. gymnasiums, restrooms, kitchens, labs, lockers, libraries, etc.) are not of sufficient size or quantity to handle the increased school population served by adding relocatable classrooms. Table Permanent Facilities IV.1 @ OSPI Rated Capacity (March 2018) District School Facilities Building Capacity Acres Address Elementa Schools Washington Elementary 486 5.40 20 E Street Northeast, Auburn WA, 98002 Terminal Park Elementary 408 6.70 1101 D Street Southeast, Auburn WA, 98002 Dick Scobee Elementary 477 10.50 1031 14th Street Northeast, Auburn WA, 98002 Pioneer Elementary 441 8.30 2301 M Street Southeast, Auburn WA, 98002 Chinook Elementary 440 8.75 3502 Auburn Way South, Auburn WA, 98092 Lea Hill Elementary 450 10.00 30908 124th Avenue Southeast, Auburn WA, 98092 Gildo Rey Elementary 551 10.00 1005 37th Street Southeast, Auburn WA, 98002 Evergreen Heights Elem. 456 8.09 5602 South 316th, Auburn WA, 98001 AI ac Elementary 497 10.60 310 Milwaukee Boulevard North, Pacific WA, 98047 Lake View Elementary 559 16.40 16401 Southeast 318th Street, Auburn WA, 98092 Hazelwood Elementary 580 12.67 11815 Southeast 304th Street, Auburn WA, 98092 llalko Elementary 585 12.00 301 Oravetz Place Southeast, Auburn WA, 98092 Lakeland Hills Elementary 594 12.00 1020 Evergreen Way SE, Auburn WA, 98092 Arthur Jacobsen Elementary 614 10.00 29205 132nd Street SE, Auburn WA, 98092 ELEMENTARY CAPACITY 7,138 Middle Schools Cascade Middle School 829 17.30 1015 24th Street Northeast, Auburn WA, 98002 Olympic Middle School 921 17.40 1825 K Street Southeast, Auburn WA, 98002 Rainier Middle School 843 26.33 30620 116th Avenue Southeast, Auburn WA, 98092 Mt. Baker Middle School 837 30.88 620 37th Street Southeast, Auburn WA, 98002 MIDDLE SCHOOL CAPACITY 3,430 Senior HiE h Schools West Auburn HS 233 5.10 401 West Main Street, Auburn WA, 98001 Auburn HS 2,100 20.50 711 East Main Street, Auburn WA, 98002 Auburn Riverside HS 1,387 33.00 501 Oravetz Road, Auburn WA, 98092 Auburn Mountainview HS 1,443 40.00 28900 1241h Ave SE, Auburn WA, 98092 HIGH SCHOOL CAPACITY 5,164 TOTAL CAPACITY 15,732 WA Auburn School District No. 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2018 through 2024 INVENTORY OF FACILITIES TABLE TEMPORARYIRELOCATABLE 2019-20 IV.2 FACILITIES INVENTORY 2022-2023 2023-2024 (June 2018) Cascade Elementary Location 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-2023 2023-2024 2024-2025 Washington 6 6 6 6 7 8 8 Terminal Park 7 7 7 7 7 0 0 Dick Scobee 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pioneer 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 Chinook 6 6 6 0 0 0 0 Lea Hill 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 Gildo Rey 7 7 8 8 8 9 9 Evergreen Heights 4 4 6 6 6 6 6 Alpac 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 Lake View 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 Hazelwood 2 3 4 4 5 6 6 Ilalko 6 7 7 7 8 9 9 Lakeland Hills Elementary 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 Arthur Jacobsen Elementary 4 5 6 6 6 6 6 TOTAL UNITS 81 77 77 72 66 64 64 TOTAL CAPACITY 1,593 1,515 1,515 1,416 1,298 1,259 1,259 Middle School Location 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-2023 2023-2024 2024-2025 Cascade 0 0 0 2 4 5 5 Olympic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rainier 5 7 7 8 9 10 10 Mt. Baker 9 10 10 10 11 11 11 TOTAL UNITS 14 17 17 20 24 26 26 TOTAL CAPACITY 420 510 510 600 720 780 780 Sr. High School Location 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-2023 2023-2024 2024-2025 West Auburn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Auburn High School 0 0 0 1 2 2 2 Auburn High School - `TAP 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Auburn Riverside 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 Auburn Mountainview 4 5 5 6 7 7 7 TOTAL UNITS 18 19 19 21 23 23 23 TOTAL CAPACITY 540 570 570 630 690 690 690 *TAP - Transition Assistance Program for 18-21 year old students with special needs. COMBINED TOTAL UNITS 113 113 113 113 113 113113 COMBINED TOTAL CAPACITY 2,553 21595 2,595 2,646 2,708 2,729 2,729 W 3/ 2/ 3/ 2/ Auburn School District No. 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2018 through 2024 PUPIL CAPACITY While the Auburn School District uses the SPI inventory of permanent facilities as the data from which to determine space needs, the District's educational program requires more space than that provided for under the formula. This additional square footage is converted to numbers of pupils in Section III, Standard of Service. The District's capacity is adjusted to reflect the need for additional space to house its programs. Changes in the capacity of the district recognize new funded facilities. The combined effect of these adjustments is shown on Line B in Tables VA and V.2 below. Table VA shows the Distict's capacity with relocatable units included and Table V.2 without these units. Table V.1 Capacity 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-2025 WITH relocatables A. SPI Capacity 15,732 15,732 15,732 16,382 17,032 17,032 17,032 A.1 SPI Capacity -New Elem 650 650 B. Capacity Adjustments 1,565) 1,523 (1,523) (1,472 1,410 1,389 1,389 C. Net Capacity 14,167 14,209 14,859 15,560 15,622 15,643 15,643 D. ASD Enrollment 16,937 17,453 17,963 18,520 19,009 19,493 19,963 E. ASD Surplus/Deficit (2,770) (3,244) (3,104) (2,960) (3,387) (3,850) (4,320) CAPACITY ADJUSTMENTS Include Relocatable 2,553 2,595 2,595 2,646 2,708 2,729 2,729 Total Adjustments Exclude SOS 14 (4,118) 4,118 4,118) 4,118) (4,118)1 (4,118) 4,118) Total Adjustments (1,565) (1,523) (1,523) (1,472) (1,410) (1,389) (1,389) Table V.2 Capacity 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-2025 WITHOUT relocatables A. SPI Capacity 15,732 15,732 15,732 16,382 17,032 17,032 17,032 A.1 SPI Capacity -New Elem 650 650 B. Capacity Adjustments 4,118 4,118 4,118 4,118 4,118 4,118 4,118 C. Net Capacity 11,614 11,614 12,264 12,914 12,914 12,914 12,914 D. ASD Enrollment 16,937 17,453 17,963 18,520 19,009 19,493 19,963 E. ASD Surplus/Deficit (5,323) (5,839) (5,699) (5,606) (6,095) (6,579) (7,049) CAPACITY ADJUSTMENTS Exclude SOS 14 4,118 4,118 4,118 4,118 4,118 4,118 4,118 Total Adjustments (4,118) (4,118) (4,118) (4,118) (4,118) (4,118) (4,118) 1/ New facilities shown in 2019-20 through 2023-24 are funded by the 2016 School Bond Issue. 2/ The Standard of Service represents 26.18% of SPI capacity. When new facilities are added the Standard of Service computations are decreased to 24.18% of SPI capacity. 3/ Students beyond the capacity are accommodated in other spaces (commons, library, theater, shared teaching space). 21 Auburn School District No. 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2018 through 2024 PERMANENT FACILITIES PUPIL CAPACITY • @ SPI Rated Capacity (March 2018) A. Elementary Schools Building 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 Washington 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 Terminal Park 408 408 408 408 408 408 408 Dick Scobee 477 477 477 477 477 477 477 Pioneer 441 441 441 441 441 441 441 Chinook 440 440 440 440 440 440 440 Lea Hill 450 450 450 450 450 450 450 Gildo Rey 551 551 551 551 551 551 551 Evergreen Heights 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 Alpac 497 497 497 497 497 497 497 Lake View 559 559 559 559 559 559 559 Hazelwood 580 580 580 580 580 580 580 Ilalko 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 Lakeland Hills 594 594 594 594 594 594 594 Arthur Jacobsen 614 614 614 614 614 614 614 Elementary #15 650 650 650 650 650 Elementary #16 650 650 650 650 ELEMENTARY CAPACITY 7,138 7,138 7,788 8,438 8,438 8,438 8,438 B. Middle Schools Building 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 Cascade 829 829 829 829 829 829 829 Olympic 921 921 921 921 921 921 921 Rainier 843 843 843 843 843 843 843 Mt. Baker 837 837 837 837 837 837 837 MIDDLE SCHOOL CAPACITY1 3,430 1 3,430 1 3,430 1 3,430 1 3,430 1 3,430 1 3,430 C. Senior Hiqh Schools Building 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 West Auburn 233 233 233 233 233 233 233 Auburn 2,101 2,101 2,101 2,101 2,101 2,101 2,101 Auburn Riverside 1,387 1,387 1,387 1,387 1,387 1,387 1,387 Auburn Mountainview 1,443 1,443 1,443 1,443 1,443 1,443 1,443 HIGH SCHOOL CAPACITY 1 5,164 1 5,164 1 5,164 1 5,164 1 5,164 5,164 i 5,164 COMBINED CAPACITY 1 15,732 1 15,732 1 16,382 1 17,032 1 17,032 1 17,032 1 17,032 22 Aubum School District No. 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2018 through 2024 • CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION PLAN The formal process used by the Board to address current and future facility needs began in 1974 with the formation of a community wide citizens committee. The result of this committee's work was published in the document titled 'Guidelines for Development.' In 1985 the Board formed a second Ad Hoc citizens committee to further the work of the first and address the needs of the District for subsequent years. The work of this committee was published in the document titled 'Directions for the Nineties.' In 1995 the Board commissioned a third Ad Hoc citizens committee to make recommendations for improvements to the District's programs and physical facilities. The committee recommendations are published in the document titled 'Education Into The Twenty -First Century - - A Community Involved.' The 1995 Ad Hoc committee recommended the District develop plans for the implementation, funding, and deployment of technology throughout the District's programs. The 1996 Bond proposition provided funding to enhance the capacity of each facility to accommodate technological applications. The 1998 Capital Levy provided funding to further deploy technology at a level sufficient to support program requirements in every classroom and department. In 2005 and 2014, replacement technology levies were approved to continue to support technology across all facets of the District's teaching, learning and operations. In addition to the technology needs of the District, the Ad Hoc committee recognized the District must prepare for continued student enrollment growth. As stated in their report, "the District must pursue an appropriate high school site as soon as possible." The Ad Hoc recommendation included commentary that the financing should be timed to maintain consistent rates of tax assessments. A proposition was approved by the voters on April 28, 1998 that provided $8,000,000 over six years • to address some of the technology needs of the District; and $5,000,000 to provide funds to acquire school sites. During the 1997-98 school year, a Joint District Citizen's Ad Hoc Committee was appointed by the Auburn and Dieringer School Boards to make recommendations on how best to serve the school population from an area that includes a large development known as Lakeland South. Lakeland South at that time was immediately adjacent to the southern boundary of the Auburn School District. On June 16, 1998, the Ad Hoc Committee presented its recommendation at a joint meeting of the Auburn and Dieringer Boards of Directors. On June 22, 1998, the Auburn School Board adopted Resolution No. 933 authorizing the process to initiate the adjustment of the boundaries of the District in accordance with the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendation. On June 23, 1998, the Dieringer School Board adopted a companion Resolution No. 24-97-98 authorizing the process to initiate the adjustment of the boundaries in accordance with the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendation. These actions resulted in the transfer of an area from Dieringer to Auburn containing most of the Lakeland South development and certain other undeveloped properties. Property for the third comprehensive high school was acquired in 1999. The Board placed the proposition to construction a new high school on the ballot four times. Each election was extremely close to passing. After the fourth failure a community meeting was held and from that meeting the Board determined need for further community study. In April of 2002, the Board formed a fifth citizen's Ad Hoc committee to address the following two items and make recommendations to the Board in the Fall of 2002: a. A review of the conclusion and recommendations of 1985 and 1995 Ad Hoc Committees related to accommodating high school enrollment growth. This included the review of possible financing plans for new facilities. b. Develop recommendations for accommodating high school enrollment growth for the next 10 • years if a new senior high school is not built. 24 Auburn School District No. 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2018 through 2024 CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION PLAN This committee recommended the Board place the high school on the ballot for the fifth time in February 2003. The February election approved the new high school at 68.71 % yes votes. The school opened in the fall of 2005. In the fall of 2003, the Board directed the administration to begin the planning and design for Elementary #13 and Elementary #14. In the fall of 2004, the Board passed Resolution No. 1054 to place two elementary schools on the ballot in February 2005. The voters approved the ballot measure in February of 2005 at 64.72%. Lakeland Hills Elementary (Elementary #13) opened in the fall of 2006. Arthur Jacobsen Elementary (Elementary #14) is located in the Lea Hill area and opened in the fall of 2007. These two elementary schools were built to accommodate the housing growth in Lakeland Hills and Lea Hill areas of the school district. In the 2004-05 school year, the Board convened a sixth Citizen's Ad Hoc committee to again study and make recommendations about the future impacts in the District. One of the areas of study was the need for New Facilities and Modernization. The committee made a number of recommendations including school size, the need for a new middle school, and to begin a capital improvements program to modernize or replace facilities based upon criterion. During the 2005-06 school year, a Joint District Citizen's Ad Hoc Committee was appointed by the Auburn and Kent School Boards to make recommendations on how best to serve the school population that will come from an area that includes a number of projected developments in the north Auburn valley. On May 17, 2006, the Ad Hoc Committee presented its recommendation at a joint meeting of the Auburn and Kent Boards of Directors. On June 14, 2006, the Kent School Board adopted Resolution No. 1225 authorizing the process to initiate the adjustment of the boundaries of the District in accordance with the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendation. On June 26, 2006, the Auburn School Board adopted a companion Resolution No. 1073 authorizing the process to initiate the adjustment of the boundaries in accordance with the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendation. These actions resulted in the transfer of an area from the Kent School District to the Auburn School District effective September 29, 2006. In October of 2008, after two years of review and study, a Steering Committee made recommendations to the Board regarding the capital improvements program to modernize or replace facilities as recommended by the 2004-05 Citizen's Ad Hoc Committee. These recommendations, based on specific criteria, led to the Board placing a school improvement bond and capital improvements levy on the ballot in March 2009. Voters did not approve either measure that would have updated 24 facilities and replaced three aging schools. The Board decided to place only a six- year Capital Levy on the ballot in November of 2009, which passed at 55.17%. The levy funded $46.4 million of needed improvement projects at 24 sites over the following seven school years. Planning for the replacement of aging schools was started with educational specifications and schematic design process for the replacement of Auburn High School. The District acquired a site for a future high school in 2008 and a second site for a future middle school in 2009. The District also continued efforts to acquire property around Auburn High School. The Special Education Transition Facility opened in February of 2010. This facility is designed for students with disabilities that are 18 to 21 years old. In the November 2012 election, the community supported the $110 million bond issue for the Auburn High School Modernization and Reconstruction Project at 62%. Construction began in February 2013. The entire new building was occupied by Auburn High School students and staff in the fall of 2015, with site improvements being completed during the 2015-16 school year. 25 • • 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ • Auburn School District No. 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2018 through 2024 CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION PLAN In January 2015, a citizen's ad hoc committee was convened by direction of the Board to address growth and facilities. The major recommendations were to construct two new elementary schools in the next four years and to acquire 3 new elementary school sites as soon as possible. In the November 2016 election, the community supported the $456 million bond issue for the replacement of six schools and the construction of two new elementary schools at 62.83%. Construction for the replacement of Olympic Middle School began in May 2018. Within the six-year period, the District is projecting 3,710 additional students. This increase in student population along with anticipated class -size reductions, will require the construction of two new elementary schools and acquiring three new elementary school sites during the six-year window. In addition to new and replacement school construction, this District needs to address several major construction projects to accommodate enrollment growth and continued District use. These projects include replacement of or improvements to the roof at Auburn Memorial Stadium, boiler replacement at Auburn Mountainview High School, and energy management system replacement at Auburn Riverside High School that are funded by Capital Levy dollars. The table below illustrates the current capital construction plan for the next six years. The exact timelines are wholly dependent on the rate of growth in the school age population. 2018-24 Capital Construction Plan AMay 2018 Projected Fund Project Timelines Project Funded Cost Source 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23 23-24 24-25 All Facilities - 2013 Technology Yes $22,000,000 6 Year XX XX Modernization Cap. Levy Portables Yes $2,500,000 Impact XX XX XX XX Fees Property Purchase - Yes $14,900,000 Bond XX XX XX XX XX XX 3 New Elementanes Impact Fee Multiple Facility Yes $46,400,000 Capital XX XX Levy —improvements Elementary #15 Yes $48,500,000 Bond XX XX XX Impact Fee plan const open Elementary #16 Yes $48,500,000 Bond XX XX XX Impact Fee plan const open Replacement of five XX XX XX XX XX XX Elementary Schools Yes $242,500,000 Bond plan const const const const open Replacement of one Yes $78,000,000 Bond XX XX Middle School const open 1/ These funds may be secured through a combination of the 2016 Bond Issue, sale of real property, impact fees, and state matching funds. The District currently is eligible for state matching funds for new construction at the elementary school level and for modernization at the elementary and middle school levels. 26 Auburn School District No. 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2018 through 2024 IMPACT FEE COMPUTATION (Spring 2018) Elementary #15 within 2 year period Elementary #16 within 3 year period 1. SITE COST PER RESIDENCE Formula: ((Acres x Cost per Acre)/Facility Size) x Student Factor Site Cost/ Facility Student Generation Factor Cost/ Cost/ Acreage Ar.rP. Cnnarity SinnlP Family Multi Family Ri-I. Family Mnlfi Family 1 $1,487.12 1 $1,391.79 1 II. PERMANENT FACILITY CONSTRUCTION COST PER RESIDENCE Formula: ((Facility Cost/Facility Size) x Student Factor) x (Permanent to Total Square Footage Percentage) Facility Facility % Perm Sq Ft/ Student Generation Factor Cost/ Cost/ Sinale Family Cnst Si7P. I Tntal Rn Ft I Rinnlo Family KAulti Family 52innlo Fami6, I RA,.Iti r-il., Elem (K - 5) Elem (K - 5) 12 $344,240 650 0.2340 0.2190 $1,487.12 $1,391.79 $0 800 Middle Sch (6 - 8) 25 $0 800 0.0970 0.1070 $0.00 $0.00 0.9422 0.1230 Sr High (9 - 12) 40 $0 1500 0.1230 0.1060 $0.00 $0.00 1 $1,487.12 1 $1,391.79 1 II. PERMANENT FACILITY CONSTRUCTION COST PER RESIDENCE Formula: ((Facility Cost/Facility Size) x Student Factor) x (Permanent to Total Square Footage Percentage) Facility Facility % Perm Sq Ft/ Student Generation Factor Cost/ Cost/ Sinale Family Cnst Si7P. I Tntal Rn Ft I Rinnlo Family KAulti Family 52innlo Fami6, I RA,.Iti r-il., Elem (K - 5) $60,200,000 650 0.9422 0.2340 0.2190 $20,420.40 $19,111.40 Mid Sch (6 - 8) $0 800 0.9422 0.0970 0.1070 $0.00 $0.00 Sr High (9 - 12) $0 1500 0.9422 0.1230 0.1060 $0.00 $0.00 1 $20,420.40 1 $19,111.40 1 /it. TEMPORARY FACILITY CONSTRUCTION COST PER RESIDENCE Formula: ((Facility Cost/Facility Size) x Student Factor) x (Temporary to Total Square Footage Ratio) Facility Facility % Temp Sq FU Student Generation Factor Cost/ Cost/ Sinale Family Cnct Si7P Tntal Sn Ft Cinnlo Famih, nA,dh Family Cinnlo Elem (K - 5) $180,000 19.67 0.0578 0.2340 0.2190 $123.67 $115.74 Mid Sch (6 - 8) $180,000 30 0.0578 0.0970 1 0.1070 $33.61 $37.08 Sr High (9 - 12) $180,000 30 0.0578 0.1230 0.1060 $42.62 $36.73 IV. STATE MATCH CREDIT PER RESIDENCE Formula: (Boeckh Index x SPI Footage x District Match x Student Fa Boeckh SPI State Index I Fnotane Matrh 1 $199.89 1 $189.55 1 Student Generation FactorI am Cost/ I Cost/ Mniti Sinnle Family Family RinnlP Fily Midti Family Elem (K - 5) $225.97 90 64.99% 0.2340 0.2190 $3,092.83 $2,894.57 Mid Sch (6 - 8) $0.00 108 64.99% 0.0970 0.1070 $0.00 $0.00 Sr High (9 - 12) $0.00 130 64.99% 0.1230 0.1060 $0.00 $0.00 1 $3,092.83 1 $2,894.58 1 28 Auburn School District No. 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2018 through 2024 V. TAX CREDIT PER RESIDENCE Formula: Expressed as the present value of an annuity TC = PV(interest rate,discount period,average assd value x tax rate) VI. DEVELOPER PROVIDED FACILITY CREDIT Formula: (Value of Site or Facility/Number of dwelling units) Value No. of Units Facility Credit Single Family $0.00 1 $0.00 Multi Family $0.00 1 $0.00 FEE RECAP SUMMARY Site Costs Permanent Facility Const Costs Temporary Facility Costs State Match Credit Tax Credit FEE (No Discount) FEE (50% Discount) Less ASD Discount Facility Credit Net Fee Obligation PER UNIT IMPACT FEES Ave Resid Curr Dbt Sery Bnd Byr Indx Number of Tax Credit Tax Credit Assd Value Tax Rate Ann Int Rate Years Single Family Multi Family $199.89 Single Family $373,974 $2.41 3.27% 10 $7,583.22 ($2,821.30) Multi Family $139,135 $2.41 3.27% 10 $2,821.30 VI. DEVELOPER PROVIDED FACILITY CREDIT Formula: (Value of Site or Facility/Number of dwelling units) Value No. of Units Facility Credit Single Family $0.00 1 $0.00 Multi Family $0.00 1 $0.00 FEE RECAP SUMMARY Site Costs Permanent Facility Const Costs Temporary Facility Costs State Match Credit Tax Credit FEE (No Discount) FEE (50% Discount) Less ASD Discount Facility Credit Net Fee Obligation PER UNIT IMPACT FEES Jingle Multi amily Family $1,487.12 $1,391.79 $20,420.40 $19,111.40 $199.89 $189.55 ($3,092.83) ($2,894.58) ($7,583.22) ($2,821.30) $11,431.36 $14,976.86 $5,715.68 $7,488.43 $0.00 715.68 ($3,000.00) 43 1 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 STANDARD of SERVICE - PROGRAM CAPACITY - INVENTORY of PORTABLES - FTE and HEADCOUNT ENROLLMENT KSD MIDDLE ABR SCHOOL # of BSY Standard SE l IP Special Ed Spec Special' 2016-17 Program Classroom Relocatable 10/1!2016 10/1/2016 Std capacity' ELL 740 Prgm Program Program Use Use Capacity P223 FTE' Headcount' Clsrms at 25-29 U'I' Cls Capacity Clsrms Capacity Capacity 2 Portables Portables at 29 ea. Enrollment Enrollment KSD w SENIOR HIGH ABR rn SCHOOL # of Standard SE I IP (� e I ization Spec ® 85% Utilization @ 85% Ulilo:etio C 85% Utilization Program Classroom Relocatable 1011/2015 10/1/2015 Cedar Heights Middle School CH 30 740 8 84 3 71 895 2 0 0 662.60 663 Mattson Middle School MA 24 592 6 76 5 119 787 4 0 0 632.42 633 Meeker Middle School MK 29 715 8 93 1 24 832 0 0 0 609.00 609 Meridian Middle School MJ 26 641 5 56 4 95 792 4 1 29 597.00 597 Mill Creek Middle School MC 33 813 5 55 2 48 916 0 2 58 825.40 826 Northwood Middle School NW 33 813 2 18 4 95 926 0 0 0 648.80 649 Kent Mountain View Academy (Grades 3 - 12) Middle School Grade 7 - 8 Enrollment See Elem 65.00 65 Middle School TOTAL 175 4,314 34 382 19 452 5,148 10 3 87 1 4,040.22 4,04; APPENDIX B KSD w SENIOR HIGH ABR rn SCHOOL # of Standard SE I IP Special Ed Spec Special' 2016-17 Program Classroom Relocatable 1011/2015 10/1/2015 Std Capacity ELL ELL Prgm Program Program Use Use Capacity P223 FTE' Headcount' Clsrms at 25-31 Cis Capacity Clsrms Capacity Capacity 2 Portables Portables at 31 ea. Enrollment Enrollment 85% Utilization @ 65% Utilization @ 85% Uillizallo @ 85% Utilization Kent -Meridian Senior High KM 56 1,476 12 157 12 271 1,904 1 10 310 1,907.60 1,998 Kentlake Senior High KL 58 1,423 13 153 16 381 1,957 0 0 0 1,343.45 1,400 Kentridge Senior High KR 65 1,713 13 136 18 428 2,277 1 2 62 2,006.00 2,076 Kentwood Senior High KW 60 1,581 9 102 20 476 2,159 2 6 186 1,862.61 1,962 Kent Mountain View Academy (Grades 3 - 12) Senior High Grade 9 - 12 Enrollment See Elem 86.86 90 Kent Phoenix Academy PH 414 414 264.40 273 Regional Justice Center ° RJ N/A N/A 0.00 0 Senior High TOTAL 239 6,607 47 548 66 1,556 8,711 4 18 558 7,470.92 7,799 APPENDIX C Excludes Running Start & Early Childhood Ed students DISTRICT TOTAL 972 1 23,605 1 201 1 1,490 1 85 1 2,008 1 27,103 84 81 2,085 26,187.10 1 26,529.00 1 Special Program capacity includes classrooms requiring specialized use such as Special Education, Career & Technical Education Programs, Computer Labs, etc. 7 Secondary school capacity is adjusted for 85% utilization rate. Facility Use Study was updated for program changes in 2015-16 ' Enrollment is reported on FTE & Headcount basis. P223 Headcount excludes ECSE & College -only Running Start students. Full headcount including ECE & RS = 28,090. Some totals may be slightly different due to rounding. 12 Juveniles served at King County Regional Justice Center are reported separately for Institutional Funding on Form E-672. Kent Snhocl District Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan Total of Appendices A B & C April 2018 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 STANDARD of SERVICE - PROGRAM CAPACITY - INVENTORY of PORTABLES - FTE and HEADCOUNT ENROLLMENT KSD ELEMENTARYABR SCHOOL _J Number of Std/High Cap 2SE/IP 2Special 2016-17 Program Classroom Relocatable 10/1/2016 10/112016 HI Std or High Cap Capacity Cedar Valley Program Program Use Use Capacity P223 FTE 3 P223 Hdcount POV s Classrooms at 22.69 average' CR Capacity Capacity 2 Portables Portables at 24 average' Enrollment Enrollment 478 Carriage Crest CC 18 409 5 20 429 0 0 0 469.03 470 N Cedar Valley CV 15 340 6 20 360 2 1 24 283.00 283 Y Covington CO 20 454 5 24 478 2 1 24 546.00 546 N Crestwood CW 18 409 4 0 409 3 2 48 481.25 483 N 4 3 72 East Hill EH 20 454 5 10 464 552.00 552 Y Emerald Park EP 21 477 2 0 477 2 1 24 486.00 486 Y Fairwood FW 17 386 3 0 386 2 1 24 363.00 363 N George T. Daniel Elem DE 18 409 5 24 433 3 2 48 508.00 508 1' 1 1 24 Glenridge GR 19 431 4 0 431 458.96 459 Y Grass Lake GL 18 409 4 20 429 2 0 0 407.00 407 N Horizon HE 21 477 2 0 477 1 1 24 466.00 466 N Jenkins Creek JC 15 340 7 44 384 3 2 48 417.28 421 N 4 2 48 Kent Elementary KE 20 454 3 0 454 609.80 610 Y Kent Valley Early Learn. CTR KV 14 318 0 0 318 0 0 0 207.00 207 Y Lake Youngs LY 21 477 7 20 497 2 0 0 491.25 492 N w Martin Sortun cn MS 19 431 3 24 455 3 4 96 687.00 687 Y Meadow Ride MR 17 386 6 68 454 4 2 48 506.00 508 Y 4 3 72 Meridian Elementary ME 21 477 3 20 497 645.00 645 N Millennium Elementary ML 20 454 3 24 478 2 1 24 599.00 699 Y Neely -O'Brien NO 20 454 5 0 454 4 6 144 653.00 653 Y Panther Lake PL 21 477 5 20 497 4 5 120 675.00 675 Y 3 2 48 Park Orchard PO 18 409 7 54 463 529.25 530 Y Pine Tree PT 21 477 4 10 467 1 3 72 421.00 421 Y Ridgewood RW 21 477 1 0 477 1 2 48 492.03 493 N Sawyer Woods SW 21 477 2 0 477 0 0 0 459.00 459 N Scenic Hill SH 17 386 6 68 454 5 7 168 606.03 607 Y Soos Creek Sc 15 340 4 20 360 2 2 48 363.03 364 Y Springbrook SB 17 386 4 10 396 3 4 96 644.00 544 Y Sunrise SR 21 477 2 0 477 3 2 48 625.05 626 N Kent Mtn. View Academy MV 14 336 3 60 396 0 0 0 124.00 124 N Elementary TOTAL to 558 12,684 120 560 13,244 70 60 1,440 14,675.96 14,688 t Elementary classroom capacity is based on average of 22.69: 17 in K-3 & 25 in Grades 4-6. Includes adjustments for class size reduction or special program changes. 2 Kent School District Standard of Service reserves some rooms for pull -Out programs. le. 20 Total = 16 Standard + 1 Computer Lab + 1 Music +1 Integrated Program classroom. 3 All elementary schools have Full Day Kindergarten 4 Elementary schools have 100% space utilization rate with no adjustments for part-time use of classrooms. Counts exclude ECSE Preschoolers & space is reserved for ECE classrooms. 5 Elementary Schools in bold type are classified as High Poverty and class size in grades K-3 is 17:1 Kent School District Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan APPENDIX A April 2018 Changes to Impact Fee Calculation Factors include: ITEM Grade/Type FROM TO Comments Student Generation Factor Elem 0.257 0.398 Single Family (SF) MS 0.070 0.096 SH 0.138 0.185 Total 0.465 0.679 0.214 Increase Student Generation Factor Elem 0.111 0.117 Multi -Family (MF) MS 0.022 0.028 SH 0.039 0.029 Total 0.172 0.174 0.002 Increase State Funding Assistance Ratios ("State Match") 56.96% 56.96% Per OSPI Website Area Cost Allowance $213.23 $225.97 Per OSPI Website Average Assessed Valuation (AV) SF $307,784 $366.437 Puget Sound ESD AV - Average of Condominiums & Apts. MF $123,109 $143,332 Puget Sound ESD Debt Service Capital Levy Rate / $1000 $1.398 $1.0269 Per King Co. Assessor Report General Obligation Bond Interest Rate 3.27% 3.95% Bond Buyers 20 year GO Index Impact Fee - Single Family SF $5,235 $5,397 Increase of $162 or 3.1% Impact Fee - Multi -Family MF $2,210 $2,279 Increase of $69 or 3.1 % Kent School District Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2018 34 IX Summary of Changes to June 2018 Capital Facilities Plan The Capital Facilities Plan (the "Plan") is updated annually based on previous Plans in effect since 1993. The primary changes from the May 2018 Plan are summarized here. Changes to capacity continue to reflect fluctuations in class size as well as program changes. Changes in portables or transitional capacity reflect use, lease or purchase, sale, surplus and/or movement between facilities. The student headcount enrollment forecast is updated annually. All Elementary schools now have Full Day Kindergarten so six-year Kindergarten projections were previously modified to meet the requirements for Full Day Kindergarten programs at all elementary schools. The district expects to receive some State Funding Assistance (formerly called "state matching funds") for projects in this Plan and tax credit factors are updated annually. Unfunded site and facility needs will be reviewed in the future. The impact fees for 2018 will increase by the percentage increase of the consumer price index for the Seattle metropolitan area in. For 2017, the increase was 3.1%. For single-family residences, the fee will increase by $162 to $5,397. The impact fee for multi -family units will increase by $69 to $2,279. Kent School District Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2018 33 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION for MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENCE Site Acquisition Cost per Multi -Family Residence Unit Formula: ((Acres x Cost per Acre) / Facility Capacity) x Student Generation Factor $224.65 $0 $0 $224.65 Permanent Facility Construction Cost per Multi -Family Residence Unit Required Site Acreage I Average Site Cost/Acre I Facility Capacity I Student Factor A 1 (Elementary) 11 $109,967 630 0.117 A 2 (Middle School) 21 $0 1,065 0.028 A 3 (Senior High) 32 $0 1,000 0.029 0.998 $0 0.174 0.174 $7,727.19 Area Cost Allowance I SPI Sq. Ft. / Student I Equalization % Student Factor A $224.65 $0 $0 $224.65 Permanent Facility Construction Cost per Multi -Family Residence Unit Student Factor I Footage Ratio I $7,727.19 Formula: ((Facility Cost/ Facility Capacity) x Student Factor) x (Permanent /Total Square Footage Ratio) 0.117 Construction Cost Facility Capacity I Student Factor I Footage Ratio 0.028 B 1 (Elementary) $46,077,470 630 0.117 0.903 $7,727.19 B 2 (Middle School) $0 1,065 0.028 0.984 $0 B 3 (Senior High) $0 1,600 0.029 0.998 $0 0.174 B c' $7,727.19 Temporary Facility Cost per Multi -Family Residence Unit Formula: ((Facility Cost / Facility Capacity) x Student Factor) x (Temporary/ Total Square Footage Ratio) Facility Cost I Facility Capacity I Student Factor I Footage Ratio I $7,727.19 C 1 (Elementary) $125,000 24 0.117 0.097 $59.11 C 2 (Middle School) $0 29 0.028 0.016 $0 C 3 (Senior High) $0 31 0.029 0.02 $0 0.174 C $59.11 State Funding Assistance Credit per Multi -Family Residence (formerly "State Match") Formula: Area Cost Allowance x SPI Square Feet per student x Funding Assistance % x Student Factor Area Cost Allowance I SPI Sq. Ft. / Student I Equalization % Student Factor D 1 (Elementary) $225.97 90 0.5696 0.117 $1,355.34 D 2 (Middle School) $225.97 117 0 0.022 $0 D 3 (Senior High) $225.97 130 0 0.039 $0 D $1,355.34 Tax Credit per Multi -Family Residence Unit Average MF Residential Assessed Value $143,332 Current Debt Service Rate / $1,000 $1.03 Current Bond Interest Rate 3.95% Years Amortized (10 Years) 10 TC b $1,156.85 Developer Provided Facility Credit Facility / Site Value Dwelling Units 0 0 FC 0 Fee Recap A = Site Acquisition per Multi -Family Unit $224.65 B = Permanent Facility Cost per MF Unit $7,727.19 C = Temporary Facility Cost per MF Unit $59.11 Subtotal $8,010.95 D = State Match Credit per MF Unit $1,355.34 TC = Tax Credit per MF Unit $1,156.85 Subtotal $2.512.19 Total Unfunded Need $5,498.76 50% Developer Fee Obligation $2,749 FC = Facility Credit (if applicable) 0 District Adjustment (see page 28 for explanation) ($412) Net Fee Obligation per Residential Unit - Multi -family $2,279 Kent School District Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2018 32 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION for SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE Site Acquisition Cost per Single Family Residence Formula: ((Acres x Cost per Acre) / Facility Capacity) x Student Generation Factor Required Site Acreage I Average Site Cost/Acre Facility Capacity I Student Factor A 1 (Elementary) 11 $109,967 630 0.398 $764.19 A 2 (Middle School) 21 $0 1,065 0.070 $0 A 3 (Senior High) 32 $0 1,000 0.138 $0 0.606 A $764.19 Permanent Facility Construction Cost per Single Family Residence Formula: ((Facility Cost / Facility Capacity) x Student Factor) x (Permanent/Total Square Footage Ratio) Temporary Facility Cost per Single Family Residence Formula: ((Facility Cost/ Facility Capacity) x Student Factor) x (Temporary /Total Square Footage Ratio) $26,285.66 $0 �n 826,285.65 Construction Cost I Facility Capacity I Student Factor I Footage Ratio B 1 (Elementary) $46,077,470 630 0.398 0.903 B 2 (Middle School) $0 900 0.096 0.984 B 3 (Senior High) $0 1,600 0.185 0.998 $0 C 3 (Senior High) 0.679 B Temporary Facility Cost per Single Family Residence Formula: ((Facility Cost/ Facility Capacity) x Student Factor) x (Temporary /Total Square Footage Ratio) $26,285.66 $0 �n 826,285.65 Tax Credit per Single Family Residence Average SF Residential Assessed Value $366,437 Current Debt Service Rate / $1,000 $1.03 Current Bond Interest Rate 3.95% Years Amortized (10 Years) 10 TC b $2,220.95 Developer Provided Facility Credit Facility / Site Value I Dwelling Units 0 0 FC 0 Fee Recap A = Site Acquisition per SF Residence B = Permanent Facility Cost per Residence C = Temporary Facility Cost per Residence Subtotal D = State Match Credit per Residence TC = Tax Credit per Residence Subtotal $764.19 $26,285.66 $201.07 $27,250.92 $4,610.48 $2,220.95 $6,831.44 Total Unfunded Need $20,419.48 50% Developer Fee Obligation $10,210 FC = Facility Credit (if applicable) 0 District Adjustment (see page 28 for explanation) (4,813) Net Fee Obligation per Residence - Single Family $5,397 Kent School District Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2018 31 Facility Cost I Facility Capacity I Student Factor I Footage Ratio I C 1 (Elementary) $125,000 24 0.398 0.097 $201.07 C 2 (Middle School) $0 29 0.070 0.016 $0 C 3 (Senior High) $0 31 0.138 0.02 $0 0.606 C $201.07 State Funding Assistance Credit per Single Family Residence (formerly "State Match") Formula: Area Cost Allowance x SPI Square Feet per student x Funding Assistance % x Student Factor Construction Cost Allocation I SPI Sq. Ft./ Student I Assistance % Student Factor D 1 (Elementary) $225.97 90 0.5696 0.398 $4,610.48 D 2 (Middle School) $225.97 117 0 0.096 $0 D 3 (Senior High) $225.97 130 0 0.185 $0 D b $4,610.48 Tax Credit per Single Family Residence Average SF Residential Assessed Value $366,437 Current Debt Service Rate / $1,000 $1.03 Current Bond Interest Rate 3.95% Years Amortized (10 Years) 10 TC b $2,220.95 Developer Provided Facility Credit Facility / Site Value I Dwelling Units 0 0 FC 0 Fee Recap A = Site Acquisition per SF Residence B = Permanent Facility Cost per Residence C = Temporary Facility Cost per Residence Subtotal D = State Match Credit per Residence TC = Tax Credit per Residence Subtotal $764.19 $26,285.66 $201.07 $27,250.92 $4,610.48 $2,220.95 $6,831.44 Total Unfunded Need $20,419.48 50% Developer Fee Obligation $10,210 FC = Facility Credit (if applicable) 0 District Adjustment (see page 28 for explanation) (4,813) Net Fee Obligation per Residence - Single Family $5,397 Kent School District Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2018 31 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT FACTORS FOR ESTIMATED IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS Student Generation Factors - Single Family Elementary (Grades K - 6) 0.398 Middle School (Grades 7 - 8) 0.096 Senior High (Grades 9 - 12) 0.185 Total 0.679 Projected Increased Student Capacity Elementary 2,516 Middle School 0 Senior High Addition 0 Required Site Acreage per Facility Elementary (required) 11 Middle School (required) 21 Senior High (required) 32 New Facility Construction Cost Elementary ` $46,077,470 Middle School $0 Senior High ` $0 ' See cost basis on Pg. 26 Temporary Facility Square Footage Elementary 142,980 Middle School 10,736 Senior High 22,192 Total 5.1% 175,908 Permanent Facility Square Footage Elementary (Includes KMVA) 1,470,543 Middle School 660,904 Senior High 1,110,415 Total 94.9% 3,241,862 Total Facilities Square Footage Elementary 1,613,523 Middle School 671,640 Senior High 1,132,607 Total 3,417,770 Developer Provided Sites / Facilities Value 0 Dwelling Units 0 Kent School District Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan 30 Student Generation Factors - Multi -Family Elementary 0.117 Middle School 0.028 Senior High 0.029 Total 0.174 OSPI - Square Footage per Student Elementary 90 Middle School 117 Senior High 130 Special Education 144 Average Site Cost / Acre Elementary $109,967 Middle School $686,883 Senior High $524,564 Temporary Facility Capacity & Cost Elementary @ 24 $125,000 Middle School @ 29 $0 Senior High @ 31 $0 State Funding Assistance Credit District Funding Assistance Percentage 56.96% Construction Cost Allocation CCA - Cost/Sq, Ft. (Effective July 2016) $213.23 District Average Assessed Value Single Family Residence $328,047 District Average Assessed Value Multi -Family Residence $143,332 Bond Levy Tax Rate/$1,000 Current / $1,000 Tax Rate $1.03 General Obligation Bond Interest Rate Current Bond Interest Rate 3.95% CPI Inflation Factor 2.60% April 2018 N KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 Site Acquisitions & Costs Average of Sites Purchased, Sold or Built on within last 15 Years Type & # on Map School / Site Purchased Sold Location Acreage I Cost/Price Avg cost-price/acre Total Average Cost /Acre_ Elementary 69.89 $11,011,325 $157,552 8 / Rural Site - SE of Lake Morton area (West property) 1993 13 / Urban Panther Lake Elementary Replacement Site 2008 10200 SE 216 St, Kent 98031 9.40 $4,485,013 $477,129 12 / Urban Property Sale -29.7 acres of Plemons-Yeh site 2016 SSE 124th Ave and 284th ST SE 29.70 $947,536 $31,904 5 / Urban Elementary Site (Halleson & Wikstrom) 2004 15435 SE 256 St, Covington 98042 10.00 $1,093,910 $109,391 7 / Rural Property Sale - Scarsella site 2015 2900 Kent Black Diamond RD SE 13.25 $330,000 $24,906 Elementary Site Subtotal 62.35 $6,856,459 $109,967 Elem site average Middle School 10 / Urban Mill Creek MS (Kent JH) / McMillan St. assemblage 2002 411-432 McMillan St., Kent 98032 1.23 $844,866 Middle School Site Subtotal 1.23 $844,866 Senior High 11 / Urban K -M High School Addition (Kent 6 & Britt Smith) 2002 & 2003 10002 SE 256th Street 6.31 $3,310,000 Senior High Site Subtotal 6.31 $3,310,000 Note: All rural sites were purchased prior to adoption of Urban Growth Area. Numbers correspond to locations on Site Bank & Acquisitions Map on Page 17. Properties purchased prior to 2000 $686,883 $686,883 Middle Schl Site Avg. $524,564 $524,564 Sr Hi Site Average 4 / Urban Site - Covington area North (So of Mattson MS) 1984 Total Acreage & Cost Total Average Cost / Acre 31 Rural Site - Ham Lake east (Pollard) 1992 69.89 $11,011,325 $157,552 8 / Rural Site - SE of Lake Morton area (West property) 1993 2 / Urban Site - Shady Lake (Sowers-Blaine-Drahota-Paroline) 1995 12 / Urban Site - Yeh-Williams (W of 132 Ave SE at SE 288) 1999 Kent School District Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 7 April 2018 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 SIX-YEAR FINANCE PLAN Secured Unsecured Impact I SCHOOL FACILITIES 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 TOTAL Local & Stale State 2 or Locals Fees 5 Estimated Estimated PERMANENT FACILITIES F $46,077,470 $46,077,470 $37,777,470 $8,300,000 Covington Elementary Replacement New Elementary School -Kent Valley F $46,000,000 $46,000,000 $46,000,000 $1,840,000 Elementary Site Acquisition (10 acres) $1,100,000 $1,100,000 $1,056,000 $44,000 20 Additional Permanemt Classrooms F $4,207,250 $4,207,250 $4,207,250 $4,207,250 $16,829,000 $15,146,100 $605,000 NO Secondary School Projects at this time. U $1,125,000 $393,750 $1,518,750 $1,518,750 TEMPORARY FACILITIES Additional portables 3"4 9 portables 3 portables OTHER N/A Totals $51,409,720 $5,701,000 $50,207,250 $4,207,250 $0 $111,525,220 $53,979,570 $46,000,000 $12,307,750 ' F = Funded U = Unfunded NOTES: Based on estimates of actual or future construction costs from Facilities Department. (See Page 26 for Cost Basis Summary) 2 The District anticipates receiving some State Funding Construction Assistance for some projects. 3 Facility needs are pending review. Some of these projects may be funded with impact fees. 4 Cost of portables based on current cost and adjusted for inflation for future years. 5 Fees in this column are based on amount of fees collected to date and estimated fees on future units. April 2018 Kent School District Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 6 VIII Finance Plan - Cost Basis Summary For impact fee calculations, construction costs are based on cost of the last elementary school, adjusted for inflation, and projected cost of the future elementary schools and additional classrooms. Elementary School Cost Projected Cost Cost of Panther Lake Elementary Replacement (Opened in Fall 2009) $26,700,000 Projected cost - Covington Elementary Replacement (Projected to open in 2018) $46,077,470 Projected cost of New Elementary School Kent Valley (Projected to open in 2020) $46,000,000 20 Additional permanent Classrooms $16,829,000 Site Acquisition Cost The site acquisition cost is based on an average cost of sites purchased or built on within the last ten years. Please see Table 7 on page 29 for a list of site acquisition costs and averages. District Adjustment The impact fee calculations on pages 31 and 32 include a "District Adjustment" which is equal to the amount of increase that the impact fee formulas total for this year and adjusted for the increase in the Consumer Price Index (2.6%) for the Seattle metropolitan area. Kent School District Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2018 27 VIII Finance Plan The finance plan shown on Table 6 demonstrates how the Kent School District plans to finance improvements for the years 2017-2018 through 2022-2023. The financing components include secured and unsecured funding and impact fees. The plan is based on future bond issues, state school construction assistance, collection of impact fees under the State Growth Management Act and voluntary mitigation fees paid pursuant to State Environmental Policy Act. The plan calls for the replacement of Covington Elementary in 2018-19 which will increase the capacity of the current school by approximately 20%. Some impact fees will be utilized as part of the finance plan. The plan also includes an additional elementary school in the Kent Valley and the siting will be determined at a later date. The district does have two sites where the school could be placed and a decision has not been made. This new school will increase the capacity at the elementary level by 600 students. Some impact fees are scheduled to be part of the overall finance plan. To address overcrowding at our elementary schools, the plan also includes twenty additional permanent classrooms at the schools of the greatest need. A decision as to the placing of these classrooms has not been made. These classrooms will be at the schools with the most overcrowding. Some impact fees are scheduled to be part of the overall finance plan. In November 2016, the District held a special election to approve the authorization of $252,000,000 in bonding authority. The projects described above are part of this authorization. The first series of bonds ($80 million) were issued in February 2017, which will fund the replacement of Covington Elementary as well as other infrastructure projects. The Finance Plan includes new portables to be purchased or leased to provide additional capacity and some may be funded from impact fees. Enrollment projections reflect future need for additional capacity at the elementary level and unfunded facility needs will be reviewed in the future and reported in annual updates of the Capital Facilities Plan. No impact fees are requested for secondary schools in this Plan. For the Six -Year Finance Plan, costs of future schools are based on estimates from Kent School District Facilities Department. Please see pages 27-28 for a summary of the cost basis. Kent School District Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2018 26 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT and CAPACITY SENIOR HIGH - Grades 9 -12 Senior High Permanent Capacity' 8,711 8,711 8,711 8,711 8,711 8,711 Includes Kent Phoenix Academy 2 No Changes to High School Capacity Subtotal ti,11 1 ts, / "I "I t5, / 1 "I ts, f 1 1 ts, ! "I 1 ?5,1 "1 "1 Portables Capacity Required 1 0 0 0 0 0 SCHOOL YEAR 2017-18 1 2018-19 1 2019-20 1 2020-21 1 2021-22 1 2022-23 Actual P R O J E C T 8,711 Senior High Permanent Capacity' 8,711 8,711 8,711 8,711 8,711 8,711 Includes Kent Phoenix Academy 2 No Changes to High School Capacity Subtotal ti,11 1 ts, / "I "I t5, / 1 "I ts, f 1 1 ts, ! "I 1 ?5,1 "1 "1 Portables Capacity Required 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL CAPACITY ' 8,711 8,711 8,711 8,711 8,711 8,711 ENROLLMENT/ PROJECTION 3 1 7,536 7,416 7,259 7,448 7,672 7,878 SURPLUS (DEFICIT) CAPACITY 1 1,175 1,295 1,452 1,263 1,039 833 Number of Portables Required 0 0 0 0 0 0 No Classroom Portables required at this time. Some Portables used for classroom and program purposes. 1 Capacity is based on standard of service for programs provided and is updated periodically to reflect program ct 2 Kent Phoenix Academy opened in Fall 2007 serving grades 9 - 12 with four special programs. 3 Actual October Enrollment with Projections from OSPI Report 1049 - Determination of Projected Enrollments. Kent School District Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 5 C April 2018 25 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT and CAPACITY MIDDLE SCHOOL - Grades 7 - S Middle School Permanent Capacity5,148 5,148 5,148 5,148 5,148 5,148 No Changes to Middle School Capacity Subtotal 5,148 5,148 5,148 5,148 5,148 5,148 Portable Capacity Required' 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL CAPACITY ' 13 5,148 5,148 5,148 5,148 5,148 5,148 ENROLLMENT/ PROJECTION z 3,986 4,068 4,335 4,463 4,476 4,397 SURPLUS (DEFICIT) CAPACITY 1,162 1,080 813 685 672 751 Number of Portables Required 0 0 0 0 0 0 No Classroom Portables required at middle schools at this time. Some Portables used for classroom and program purposes. ' Capacity is based on standard of service for programs provided and is updated periodically to reflect program cF 2 Actual October Headcount Enrollment with Projections from OSPI Report 1049 - Determination of Projected Enr 3 Surplus capacity due to grade level reconfiguration - All 9th grade students moved to the high schools in F Kent School District Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 5 B April 2018 24 SCHOOL YEAR 2017-18 2018-19 1 2019-20 1 2020-21 1 2021-22 2022-23 Actual P R O J E C T Middle School Permanent Capacity5,148 5,148 5,148 5,148 5,148 5,148 No Changes to Middle School Capacity Subtotal 5,148 5,148 5,148 5,148 5,148 5,148 Portable Capacity Required' 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL CAPACITY ' 13 5,148 5,148 5,148 5,148 5,148 5,148 ENROLLMENT/ PROJECTION z 3,986 4,068 4,335 4,463 4,476 4,397 SURPLUS (DEFICIT) CAPACITY 1,162 1,080 813 685 672 751 Number of Portables Required 0 0 0 0 0 0 No Classroom Portables required at middle schools at this time. Some Portables used for classroom and program purposes. ' Capacity is based on standard of service for programs provided and is updated periodically to reflect program cF 2 Actual October Headcount Enrollment with Projections from OSPI Report 1049 - Determination of Projected Enr 3 Surplus capacity due to grade level reconfiguration - All 9th grade students moved to the high schools in F Kent School District Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 5 B April 2018 24 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT and CAPACITY ELEMENTARY - Grades K - 6 Elementary Permanent Capacity' 13,244 13,244 13,244 13,516 13,636 14,356 14,476 Changes to Elementary Capacity Covington Elementary Replacement (U) 3 630 Will replace current Covington Elementary capacity -478 New Elementary School in Kent Valley Me Additional Permanent ClassroomS4 120 120 120 120 120 Subtotal 13,244 13,244 13,516 13,636 14,356 14,476 14,596 Portable Capacity Required' 1656 1728 1440 1248 456 336 336 TOTAL CAPACITY 112 14,900 14,972 14,956 14,884 14,812 14,812 1 14,932 Adiusted for FULL Dav Kindergarten Headcount ENROLLMENT/ PROJECTION 51 14,910 14,968 14,915 14,838 14,763 14,757 1 14,757 SURPLUS (DEFICIT) CAPACITY -10 4 41 46 49 55 SCHOOL YEAR 2017-18 1 2018-19 1 2019-20 1 2020-21 1 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 Actual P R O J E C T E D 69 72 60 52 19 14 14 Elementary Permanent Capacity' 13,244 13,244 13,244 13,516 13,636 14,356 14,476 Changes to Elementary Capacity Covington Elementary Replacement (U) 3 630 Will replace current Covington Elementary capacity -478 New Elementary School in Kent Valley Me Additional Permanent ClassroomS4 120 120 120 120 120 Subtotal 13,244 13,244 13,516 13,636 14,356 14,476 14,596 Portable Capacity Required' 1656 1728 1440 1248 456 336 336 TOTAL CAPACITY 112 14,900 14,972 14,956 14,884 14,812 14,812 1 14,932 Adiusted for FULL Dav Kindergarten Headcount ENROLLMENT/ PROJECTION 51 14,910 14,968 14,915 14,838 14,763 14,757 1 14,757 SURPLUS (DEFICIT) CAPACITY -10 4 41 46 49 55 175 Number of Portables Required 69 72 60 52 19 14 14 ' Capacity is based on standard of service for programs provided and is updated periodically to reflect program changes. 2 Kent Mountain View Academy is a special program serving students in Grades 3 - 12. The school building (formerly Kent Learning Center & Grandview Elem.) was designed as an elementary school. 3 Replacement school for Covington Elementary will increase capacity and is planned for a different existing urban site. 4 Additional classrooms will be placed at schools with the greatest need for aleve overcrowding 5 Actual October Headcount Enrollment with Projections from OSPI Report 1049 -Determination of Projected Enrollments. Enrollment & Projections reflect FULL Day Kindergarten at ALL Elementary schools @ 1.0 & exclude ECSE Preschoolers. Kent School District Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 5 A April 2018 23 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT and CAPACITY TOTAL DISTRICT Changes to Permanent Capacity Capacity Increase (F) Replacement school with projected increase in capacity: Covington Elementary Replacement (u) 2 630 To Replace current Covington Elementary capacity -478 New Elementary School in Kent Valley3 Additional Permanent Classrooms 600 120 120 120 120 Permanent Program Capacity Subtotal 27,103 27,103 27,375 27,223 28,043 27,563 Interim Portable Capacity 4 SCHOOL YEAR 2017-18 2018-19 1 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 Actual P R O J E C T E D 0 0 0 0 0 Senior High School Portable Capacity Required 7 0 Permanent Program Capacity 27,103 27,103 27,103 27,103 27,323 27,443 Changes to Permanent Capacity Capacity Increase (F) Replacement school with projected increase in capacity: Covington Elementary Replacement (u) 2 630 To Replace current Covington Elementary capacity -478 New Elementary School in Kent Valley3 Additional Permanent Classrooms 600 120 120 120 120 Permanent Program Capacity Subtotal 27,103 27,103 27,375 27,223 28,043 27,563 Interim Portable Capacity 4 Elementary Portable Capacity Required 1,656 1,728 1,440 1,248 456 336 Middle School Portable Capacity Required 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 Senior High School Portable Capacity Required 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,656 1,728 1,440 1,248 456 336 TOTAL CAPACITY t 28,759 1 28,831 28,815 1 28,471 28,499 1 27,899 TOTAL ENROLLMENT/ PROJECTION 5 26,523 1 26,965 1 26,452 1 26,509 1 26,749 1 26,911 DISTRICT AVAILABLE CAPACITY a 2,236 1 1,866 1 2,363 1 1,962 1 1,750 1 988 t Capacity is based on standard of service for programs provided and is updated periodically to reflect program changes. 2 Replacement school for Covington Elementary will increase capacity and will be built on a different existing urban site. 3 New Elementary School on site in Kent Valley to be determined. 4 2016-17 total classroom portable capacity is 1440. Some additional relocatable used for program purposes. 5 Actual October Headcount Enrollment with Projections from OSPI Report 1049 - Determination of Projected Enrollments. 6 School capacity meets concurrency requirements and no impact fees are proposed for secondary schools Kent School District Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 5 22 April 2018 interrelationship between portables, emerging technologies and educational restructuring will continue to be examined. V I I Projected Six -Year Classroom Capacity As stated in Section IV, the program capacity study is periodically updated for changes in special programs and reflects class size requirements, class size fluctuations etc. As shown in the Inventory and Capacity chart in Table 3 on Page 13, the program capacity is also reflected in the capacity and enrollment comparison charts. (See Tables 5 & 5 A -B -C on pages 22-25). Enrollment is electronically reported to OSPI on Form P-223 on a monthly basis and funding apportionment is based on Annual Average FTE (AAFTE). The first school day of October is widely recognized as the enrollment "snapshot in time" to report enrollment for the year. Kent School District continues to be the fifth largest district (both FTE and headcount basis) in the state of Washington. Kent School District continues to be the fifth largest district (both fte and headcount basis) in the state of Washington. P-223 Headcount for October 2017 was 26,523 with kindergarten students counted at 1.0 and excluding ECSE and college -only Running Start students. A full headcount of all students enrolled in October 2017 totals 28,192, which include ECSE and college -only Running Start students. In October 2017, there were 1,118 students in 11th and 12th grade participating in the Running Start program at different colleges and receiving credits toward both high school and college graduation. Five hundred ninety-three of these students attended classes only at the college ("college -only") and are excluded from FTE and headcount for capacity and enrollment comparisons. Kent School District has one of the highest Running Start program participation rates in the state. Based on the enrollment forecasts, permanent facility inventory and capacity, current standard of service, portable capacity, and future additional classroom space, the District plans to continue to satisfy concurrency requirements through the transitional use of portables. (See Table 5 and Tables 5A -B -C on Pages 22-25). This does not mean that some schools will not experience overcrowding. There may be a need for additional portables and/or new schools to accommodate growth within the District. New schools may be designed to accommodate placement of future portables. School attendance area changes, limited and costly movement of portables, zoning changes, market conditions, and educational restructuring will all play a major role in addressing overcrowding and underutilization of facilities in different parts of the District. Kent School District Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2018 21 this Plan. Some funding is secured for purchase of additional sites but some may be funded with impact fees as needed. Not all undeveloped properties meet current school construction requirements and some property may be traded or sold to meet future facility needs. The Board of Directors has started the process to sell surplus property in the spring of 2015. The Board will continue annual review of standard of service and those decisions will be reflected in the each update of the Capital Facilities Plan. V I Portable Classrooms The Plan references use of portable as interim or transitional capacity and facilities. Currently, the District utilizes portables to house students in excess of permanent capacity and for program purposes at some school locations. (Please see Appendices A, B, C Based on enrollment projections, implementation of full day kindergarten programs, lower state mandated class size, program capacity and the need for additional permanent capacity, the District anticipates the need to purchase or lease additional portables during the next six-year period. During the time period covered by this Plan, the District does not anticipate that all of the District's portables will be replaced by permanent facilities. During the useful life of some of the portables, the school-age population may decline in some communities and increase in others, and these portables provide the flexibility to accommodate the immediate needs of the community. Portables may be used as interim or transitional facilities: 1. To prevent overbuilding or overcrowding of permanent school facilities. 2. To cover the gap between the times of demand for increased capacity and completion of permanent school facilities to meet that demand. 3. To meet unique program requirements. Portables currently in the District's inventory are continually evaluated resulting in some being improved and some replaced. The Plan projects that the District will use portables to accommodate interim housing needs for the next six years and beyond. The use of portables, their impacts on permanent facilities, life cycle and operational costs, and the Kent School District Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2018 20 iGont octrooi mstict 5be Year capimml Facitltes Flan iRl KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 Site Acquisitions and Projects Planned to Provide Additional Capacity SCHOOL / FACILITY / SITE LOCATION Type I Status #on I ELEMENTARY Map Projected Projected % for Completion Program new Date Capacity Growth Approximate Replacement Construction 5 Replacement for Covington Elementary SE 256th Street & 154th Ave SE Elementary in Progress Fall 2018 630 24% Covington Elem - Capacity to be replaced 9/18 17070 SE Wax Road, Covington Elementary Utilized -478 New Elementary School 20 Additional Permanent Classrooms MIDDLE SCHOOL & SENIOR HIGH Elementary Kent Valley Addition Planning 2020-2021 600 100% Elementary Various schools where needed Addition Planning 2019-2022 480 100% No new projects required for Secondary Schools at this time & Secondary Schools are excluded from Impact Fee formula. TEMPORARY FACILITIES Additional Capacity PortablesTBD - For placement as needed New Planning 2018+ 24-31 each 100% # on 2 OTHER SITES ACQUIRED Land Use I Land Use Map Designation Type Jurisdiction 4 Covington area North (Near Mattson MS) SE 251 & 164 SE, Covington 98042 Urban Elementary City of Covington 5 Covington area West (Halleson-Wikstrom) SE 256 & 154 SE, Covington 98042 Urban Elementary City of Covington 3 Ham Lake area (Pollard) 16820 SE 240, Kent 98042 Rural Elementary King County 8 SE of Lake Morton area (West property) SE 332 & 204 SE, Kent 98042 Rural Secondary King County 2 Shady Lk area (Sowers, Blaine, Drahota, Paroline) 17426 SE 192 Street, Renton 98058 Urban Elementary King County 12 South Central site (Yeh-Wms) SE 286th St & 124th Ave SE, Auburn 98092 Urban TBD King County Notes: ' TBD - To be determined - Some sites are identified but placement, timing and/or configuration of portables has not been determined. 2 Numbers correspond to sites on Site Bank Map on Page 19. Other Map site locations are parcels identified in Table 7 on Page 29. Kent School District Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 4 April 2018 18 V Six -Year Planning and Construction Plan In November 2017, the voters of the Kent School District approved a bond measure for $252 million. This new bonding authority will provide for a replacement for Covington Elementary school (with increased capacity due to growth), a new elementary school in the Kent Valley (site to be determined), twenty additional classrooms throughout the district as well as other infrastructure projects. At the time of preparation of this Plan in spring of 2017, the following projects to increase capacity either are in the planning phase or will start in spring 2017. • Planning is complete for a replacement school for Covington Elementary School in first quarter of 2019. The project will start in spring of 2017 with planned completion in fall 2018.The project is funded with a combination of bond funds (bonds issued in February 2017), state assistance and impact fees. • Planning is in progress for an additional elementary school in the Kent Valley in 2020 or beyond. The project will be funded with bonds funds and impact fees. • Planning is in progress to add an additional 20 classrooms to elementary schools. The locations will be determined by need. The project will be funded with bonds funds and impact fees. • Enrollment projections reflect future need for additional capacity at the elementary school level. Future facility and site needs are reflected in this Plan. • Some funding for lease or purchase of additional portables may be provided by impact fees as needed. Sites are based on need for additional capacity. As a critical component of capital facilities planning, county and city planners and decision -makers are encouraged to consider safe walking conditions for all students when reviewing applications and design plans for new roads and developments. This should include sidewalks for pedestrian safety to and from school and bus stops as well as bus pull-outs and turn-arounds for school buses. Included in this Plan is an inventory of potential projects and sites identified by the District which are potentially acceptable site alternatives in the future. (See Table 4 on Page 18 & Site map on Page 19). Voter approved bond issues have included funding for the purchase of sites for some of these and future schools, and the sites acquired to date are included in Kent School District Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan 17 April 2018 KENTIMERIDIAM HS Gurrent: 2116 Fill 207.0: 2127.0 Fdll 2023: 2181.2 t ��f Ri REHTRIDGE IIS Current: 2106 Fall ^020:.1910.7 1:611 2023:.1935.9 KENTWOOD I -IS Current: IOGO Fall 2020: 11304.7 Fa112023: 1773A 0 1 2 Miles KEIT T CAKE HS GurrcnI: 161.1 Fal 1202(): 16`0.3 F. -Ill 2073:.17C -u,3 br y r o i IIYU',,, , , A NORTHWOOD IJS CUrmnit: 536 Fall 2020: 526.9 Fall 2023: 602.3 MEEKER ras C t: G o 7 rill 2020. slo.0 MILL CREEK IAS Fall 2023: 61 0,0 Curr,nt: 7,19 Fall 2020: 979.9 Fall 2023: CO2.3 MATTSON rJS FAII 2020: 590,0 Fall 2023"52U' MERIDIAN WS C5riinl: 539 Fill ?020:'50-1.6 Fill 2023: 625.0 CEDAR HEIGHTS MS Gurumt: 611 Fall 2020: 657.3 Fall 2023! G95.2 Schools CEDAR HEIGHTS MS MATTSON MS MEEKER MS MERIDIAN MS MILL CREEK MS 0 1 2 NORT14WOOD MS Miles r .4 lr 'I Sdwola CARRIAGE CREST ES EMERALD PARK FS KENT ES NEELY 0 BRIEN Es CEDAR VALLEY ES FAIRWOOD ES LAKEYOUNGS ES PANTHER LAKE ES COVINGTON ES GLENRIDOE ES MARTIN SORTUN ES PARK ORCHARD ES CRESTWOOD ES GRASS LAKE ES MEADOW RIDGE ES PINE TREE ES DANIEL ES HORIZON ES MERIDIAN ES RIDGEWOOD ES EAST HILL ES JENKINS CREEK ES MILLENNIUM ES SAWYERWOOOSES Haar . . . . . . . . . . SCENIC HILL ES SODS CREEK ES SPRINGGROOK ES SUNRISE ES 'I Sdwola CARRIAGE CREST ES EMERALD PARK FS KENT ES NEELY 0 BRIEN Es CEDAR VALLEY ES FAIRWOOD ES LAKEYOUNGS ES PANTHER LAKE ES COVINGTON ES GLENRIDOE ES MARTIN SORTUN ES PARK ORCHARD ES CRESTWOOD ES GRASS LAKE ES MEADOW RIDGE ES PINE TREE ES DANIEL ES HORIZON ES MERIDIAN ES RIDGEWOOD ES EAST HILL ES JENKINS CREEK ES MILLENNIUM ES SAWYERWOOOSES SCENIC HILL ES SODS CREEK ES SPRINGGROOK ES SUNRISE ES KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 INVENTORY and CAPACITY of EXISTING SCHOOLS 2017-18 SCHOOL Year ABR ADDRESS Program Opened Capacity Carriage Crest Elementary 1990 CC 18235 - 140th Avenue SE, Renton 98058 428 Cedar Valley Elementary 1971 CV 26500 Timberlane Way SE, Covington 98042 360 Covington Elementary 1961 CO 17070 SE Wax Road, Covington 98042 478 Crestwood Elementary 1980 CW 25225 - 180th Avenue SE, Covington 98042 408 East Hill Elementary 1953 EH 9825 S 240th Street, Kent 98031 464 Emerald Park 1999 EP 11800 SE 216th Street, Kent 98031 477 Fairwood Elementary 1969 FW 16600 -148th Avenue SE, Renton 98058 386 George T. Daniel Elementary 1992 DE 11310 SE 248th Street, Kent 98030 432 Glenridge Elementary 1996 GR 19405 - 120th Avenue SE, Renton 98058 431 Grass Lake Elementary 1971 GL 28700 - 191st Place SE, Kent 98042 428 Horizon Elementary 1990 HE 27641 - 144th Avenue SE, Kent 98042 477 Jenkins Creek Elementary 1987 JC 26915 - 186th Avenue SE, Covington 98042 384 Kent Elementary 1999 KE 24700 - 64th Avenue South, Kent 98032 454 Kent Valley Early Leaming Center 2014 KV 317 —4th Ave S, Kent, WA 98032 318 Lake Youngs Elementary 1965 LY 19660 - 142nd Avenue SE, Kent 98042 497 Martin Sortun Elementary 1987 MS 12711 SE 248th Street, Kent 98030 455 Meadow Ridge Elementary 1994 MR 27710 - 108th Avenue SE, Kent 98030 454 Meridian Elementary 1939 ME 25621 -140th Avenue SE, Kent 98042 497 Millennium Elementary 2000 ML 11919 SE 270th Street, Kent 98030 478 Neely -O'Brien Elementary 1990 NO 6300 South 236th Street, Kent 98032 454 Panther Lake Elementary 2009 PL 20831 - 108th Avenue SE, Kent 98031 497 Park Orchard Elementary 1963 PO 11010 SE 232nd Street, Kent 98031 463 Pine Tree Elementary 1967 PT 27825 - 118th Avenue SE, Kent 98030 487 Ridgewood Elementary 1987 RW 18030 - 162nd Place SE, Renton 98058 477 Sawyer Woods Elementary 1994 SW 31135 - 228th Ave SE, Black Diamond 98010 477 Scenic Hill Elementary 1960 SH 26025 Woodland Way South, Kent 98030 454 Soos Creek Elementary 1971 SC 12651 SE 218th Place, Kent 98031 360 Springbrook Elementary 1969 SB 20035 - 100th Avenue SE, Kent 98031 396 Sunrise Elementary 1992 SR 22300 - 132nd Avenue SE, Kent 98042 477 Elementary TOTAL 12,848 Cedar Heights Middle School 1993 CH 19640 SE 272 Street, Covington 98042 895 Mattson Middle School 1981 MA 16400 SE 251st Street, Covington 98042 787 Meeker Middle School 1970 MK 12600 SE 192nd Street, Renton 98058 832 Meridian Middle School 1958 MM 23480 - 120th Avenue SE, Kent 98031 792 Mill Creek Middle School 2005 MC 620 North Central Avenue, Kent 98032 916 Northwood Middle School 1996 NW 17007 SE 184th Street, Renton 98058 926 Middle School TOTAL 5,148 Kent -Meridian High School 1951 KM 10020 SE 256th Street, Kent 98030 1,904 Kentlake Senior High School 1997 KL 21401 SE 300th Street, Kent 98042 1,957 Kentridge Senior High School 1968 KR 12430 SE 208th Street, Kent 98031 2,277 Kentwood Senior High School 1981 KW 25800 - 164th Avenue SE, Covington 98042 2,159 Senior High TOTAL 8,297 Kent Mountain View Academy 1997 MV/LC 22420 Military Road, Des Moines 98198 396 Kent Phoenix Academy 2007 PH 11000 SE 264th Street, Kent 98030 414 DISTRICT TOTAL 27,103 Kent School District Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan Tabiq 3 April 2018 I V Inventory and Capacity of Existing Schools Currently, the District has permanent program capacity to house 27,103 students and transitional (portable) capacity to house 2,085. This capacity is based on the District's Standard of Service as set forth in Section I 11. Included in this Plan is an inventory of the District's schools by type, address and current capacity. (See Table 3 on Page 13). The ratio between permanent capacity and portable capacity is 94.9%-5.1 %. The program capacity is periodically updated for changes in programs, additional classrooms and new schools. Program capacity has been updated in this Plan to reflect program changes implemented in the Fall of 2015. For the 2015-2016 school year and beyond the state has a mandated lower class size in 14 elementary schools that are classified as high poverty. The new class size in grades K-1, 2 and 3 will be 17 students for every teacher. Compliance with this new state class size requirement has been delayed to the 2019-20 school year. Calculation of Elementary, Middle School and Senior High School capacities are set forth in Appendices A, B and C. Maps of existing schools are included on Pages 14-16. For clarification, the following is a brief description of some of the non-traditional programs for students in Kent School District: Kent Mountain View Academy serves Grades 3 — 12 with transition, choice and home school assistance programs. It is located in the former Grandview School in the western part of the district in Des Moines. This school was originally designed as an elementary school and is included in the elementary capacity for this Plan. Kent Phoenix Academy is a non-traditional high school opened in fall 2007 in the renovated site and building that formerly served Sequoia Middle School. Kent Phoenix Academy has four special programs including the Performance Learning Center, Gateway, Virtual High School and Kent Success. iGrad - In partnership with Green River College, Kent School District has pioneered the Individualized Graduation and Degree Program or "iGrad". iGrad offers a second chance to students age 16-21 who have dropped out of high school and want to earn a high school diploma. iGrad is not included in this Capital Facilities Plan because it is served in leased space at the Kent Hill Plaza Shopping Center. Over the past three years, enrollment in the iGrad program has averaged over 300 students. Kent School District Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2018 12 Science Programs & Labs — Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Oceanography, Astronomy, Meteorology, Marine Biology, General Science, etc. English Language Learners (E L L) Music Programs — Band, Orchestra, Chorus, Jazz Band, etc. Art Programs — Painting, Design, Drawing, Ceramics, Pottery, Photography, etc. Theater Arts — Drama, Stage Tech, etc. Journalism and Yearbook Classes Highly Capable (Honors or Gifted) and Advanced Placement Programs International Baccalaureate ("IB") Program JROTC - Junior Reserve Officers Training Corps Career & Technical Education Programs (CTE - Vocational Education) Family & Consumer Science — Culinary Arts, Sewing, Careers w/Children/Educ., etc. Child Development Preschool and Daycare Programs Health & Human Services — Sports Medicine, Sign Language, Cosmetology, etc. Business Education — Word Processing, Accounting, Business Law & Math, Marketing, Economics, Web Design, DECA, FBLA (Future Business Leaders). Technical & Industry — Woodworking, Cabinet Making, Building Trades, Metals, Automotive & Manufacturing Technology, Welding, Drafting, Drawing, CAD (Computer-aided Design), Electronics, Engineering & Design, Aviation, ASL, etc. Graphic & Commercial Arts, Media, Photography, Theater & Stage, Ag & Horticulture. Kent Phoenix Academy- Performance Learning Center, Gateway, Virtual High School and Kent Success programs Space or Classroom Utilization As a result of scheduling conflicts for student programs, the need for specialized rooms for certain programs, and the need for teachers to have a work space during their planning periods, it is not possible to achieve 100% utilization of regular teaching stations at secondary schools. Based on the analysis of actual utilization of classrooms, the District has determined that the standard utilization rate is 85% for secondary schools. Program capacity at elementary schools reflects 100% utilization at the elementary level. Kent School District Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan im April 2018 English Language Learners (E L L) Education for Disadvantaged Students (Title I) — Federal Program Learning Assisted Programs (LAP) — State Program Highly Capable Students -State Program Reading, Math or Science Labs Dual Language Programs in 4 elementary schools Inclusive Education Service for Elementary and Secondary students with disabilities may be provided in a separate or self-contained classroom sometimes with a capacity of 10-15 depending on the program: Early Childhood Special Education (ECSE) -3-4 yr. old students with disabilities Tiered Intervention in Inclusive Education Support Center Programs Integrated Programs & Resource Rooms (for special remedial assistance) Self-contained Inclusive Education Support Center Programs (SC) School Adjustment Programs for students with behavioral disorders (SA) Adaptive Support Center for Mild, Moderate & Severe Disabilities (ASCDD) Speech & Language Therapy & Programs for Hearing Impaired students Occupational & Physical Therapy Programs (OT/PT) The Outreach Program (TOP) for 18-21 year old secondary students Some newer buildings have been constructed to accommodate most of these programs; some older buildings have been modified, and in some circumstances, these modifications reduce the classroom capacity of the buildings. When programs change, program capacity is updated to reflect the change in program and capacity. Current Standards of Service for Secondary Students The standards of service outlined below reflect only those programs and educational opportunities provided to secondary students which directly affect the capacity of the school buildings. Class size for grades 7 — 8 is planned for an average of 28.6 or fewer students. Class size for grades 9 —12 is planned for an average of 30.6 or fewer students. Similar to Inclusive Education Programs listed above, many other secondary programs require specialized classroom space which can reduce the program capacity of the permanent school buildings. Identified secondary students will also be provided other educational opportunities in classrooms for programs designated as follows: Computer, Multi -Media & Technology Labs & Programs Technology Academy at Kent -Meridian High School & Mill Creek Middle School Kent School District Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2018 10 III Current Kent School District "Standard of Service" In order to determine the capacity of facilities in a school district, King County Code 21A.06 references a "standard of service" that each school district must establish in order to ascertain its overall capacity. The standard of service identifies the program year, the class size, the number of classrooms, students and programs of special need, and other factors determined by the district which would best serve the student population. This Plan includes the standard of service as established by Kent School District. The District has identified schools with significant special needs programs as "impact" schools and the standard of service targets a lower class size at those facilities. Portables included in the capacity calculation use the same standard of service as the permanent facilities. (See Appendix A, 8 & C) The standard of service defined herein will continue to evolve in the future. Kent School District is continuing a long-term strategic planning process combined with review of changes to capacity and standard of service. This process will affect various aspects of the District's standard of service and future changes will be reflected in future capital facilities plans. Current Standards of Service for Elementary Students Class size for Kindergarten is planned for an average of 23 or fewer students. Class size for grades 1 - 3 is planned for an average of 23 or fewer students. Class size for grades 4 - 6 is planned for an average of 27 or fewer students. Class size for Kindergarten and grades 1, 2 and 3 for schools that qualify for high poverty funding (14 elementary schools for 2017-18) is planned for an average of 17 or fewer students. The state legislature has provided a one year delay in compliance with the requirement to have class sizes of 17 or smaller for grades K- 3. Some special programs require specialized classroom space and the program capacity of some of the buildings housing these programs is reduced. Some students, for example, leave their regular classroom for a short period of time to receive instruction in special programs and space must be allocated to serve these programs. Some students have scheduled time in a computer lab. Students may also be provided music instruction and physical education in a separate classroom or facility. Some identified students will also be provided educational opportunities in classrooms for special programs such as those designated as follows: Kent School District Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2018 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 SIX -YEAR ENROLLMENT PROJECTION ull Day Kindergarten at all Elem LB in 2012 LB in 2013 LB in 2014 LB in 2015 LB Est. 2016 LB Est. 2017 LB Est. 2018 ACTUAL P R O J E C T 1 O N October 2017 1 2018 1 2020 11 2021 11 2022 11 2023 King County Live Births' 25,032 24,910 25,348 25,487 26,011 26,011 26,011 1 Increase / Decrease 402 -122 438 139 524 0 0 Kindergarten / Birth % 2 8.14% 8.17% 8.07% 8.01% 7.84% 7.82% 7.80% FD Kindergarten @ 1.0 2037 2,036 2,046 2,042 2,038 2,034 2,030 Grade 1 2056 2,065 2,081 2,077 2,073 2,069 2,065 Grade 2 2077 2,084 2,068 2,107 2,103 2,098 2,094 Grade 3 2143 2,093 2,116 2,092 2,131 2,127 2,122 Grade 4 2218 2,173 2,208 2,135 2,111 2,150 2,146 Grade 5 2189 2,228 2,230 2,223 2,150 2,126 2,165 Grade 6 2119 2,191 2,219 2,239 2,232 2,159 2,135 Grade 7 1922 2,120 2,104 2,210 2,230 2,223 2,151 Grade 8 2043 1,945 1,964 2,125 2,233 2,253 2,246 Grade 9 2006 2,134 2,236 2,150 2,326 2,445 2,467 Grade 10 2080 2,097 1,966 1,985 1,909 2,065 2,171 Grade 11 1823 1,929 1,620 1,704 1,720 1,655 1,790 Grade 12 1810 1,870 1,594 1,420 1,493 1,507 1,450 Total Enrollment Projection 3 26,523 26,965 26,452 26,509 26,749 26,911 27,032 Yearly Increase/Decrease 3 -6 442 -513 57 240 162 121 Yearly Increase/Decrease % 1.67% -1.90% 0.22% 0.91% 0.61% 0.45% Total Enrollment Projection I 26,523 26,965 26,452 26,509 26,749 26,911 27,032 1 Kindergarten enrollment projection for 2018 is based on Kent SD percentage of live births in King County five years previous. Live births for King County are estimates for years 2022-2023. 2 Kindergarten projection is calculated by using the District's previous year percentage of King County births five years earlier compared to actual kindergarten enrollment in the previous year. (Excludes ECSE - Early Childhood Special Education preschoolers 3 Headcount Projections for 2019 - 2023 from OSPI Report 1049 - Determination of Projected Enrollments 4 Oct. 2017 P223 Headcount is 26,523 & FTE 26,113.47. Full Headcount with ECE Preschool & Running Start students = 28,192 G R O W T H P R O J E C T I O N S - Adjustments for current economic factors For facilities planning purposes, this six-year enrollment projection anticipates conservative enrollment growth from new development currently in some phase of planning or construction in the district. Kent School District Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 2 April 2018 8 J KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 OCTOBER REPORT 1251 H (HEADCOUNT) ENROLLMENT HISTORY LB = Live Births LB in 2003 LB In 2004 LB in 2005 LB In 2006 LB in 2007 LB in 2008 LB In 2009 LB In 2010 LB in 2011 LB in 2012 October HC Enrollment 2008 1 2009 1 2010 1 2011 1 2012 1 2013 2014 2015 1 2016 1 2017 King County Live Births 1 22,431 22,874 22,680 24,244 24,899 25,222 25,057 24,514 24,630 25,032 Increase / Decrease 219 443 -194 1,564 655 323 -165 -543 116 402 Kindergarten / Birth % 1 8.47% 8.33% 8.13% 8.18% 8.57% 8.40% 8.34% 8.34% 6.17% 8.14% Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Middle School Grade 8 " " Grade 9 - Senior High Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12 Tutal Enrollment Z Yearly Headcount 1901 1905 1845 1983 2134 2119 2090 2045 2,013 2,037 1923 1961 1996 1888 2017 2186 2127 2131 2,067 2,056 1918 1966 1942 2016 1905 2055 2190 2163 2,163 2,077 2087 1977 2002 1983 2082 1922 2070 2176 2,195 2,143 2066 2052 1956 2024 2000 2087 1956 2089 2,195 2,218 2050 2091 2086 1974 2044 2008 2116 1958 2,103 2,189 2082 2075 2135 2135 2026 2079 2023 2058 1,952 2,119 2122 2117 2095 2105 2139 2046 2104 1974 2,021 1,922 2148 2173 2153 2111 2139 2121 2091 2100 2,021 2,043 2579 2472 2440 2471 2455 2483 2428 2093 2,105 2,006 2248 2217 2238 2272 2092 2046 2151 2165 2,099 2,080 2059 2046 2048 1995 1933 1873 1802 1818 1,865 1,823 1648 1712 1694 1658 1646 1539 1576 1742 1,730 1,810 26,831 26,764 26,630 26,615 26,612 26,564 26,724 26,512 26,529 26,523 Increase/ Decrease 0 -67 -134 -15 -3 -48 160 -212 17 -6 Cumulative Increase 0 -67 -201 -216 -219 -267 -107 -319 -302 -308 Change to cull Day Kindergarten /or all schools 1 This number indicates actual births in King County 5 years prior to enrollment year as updated by Washington State Department of Health, Center for Health Statistics. Kent School District percentage based on actual Kindergarten enrollment 5 years later. 2 Enrollment reported to OSPI on Form P-223 generates basic education funding and excludes Early Childhood Special Education ("ECSE" & "B2" or Birth to 2 Preschool Inclusive Education) and excludes College -only Running Start students. Kent School District Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 1 April 2018 Garden style apartments will have very little studio apartments and will have more three bedroom apartments then the urban style and in theory generate more students enrolled in school. These apartments will also have lawns, club houses, swimming pools and places for children to play. The District felt that it is important to include both styles of apartments for the student generation factor. Though it is anticipated that few students will come from the urban style, they are now part of the mix in Kent and thus should be included in mix of multi -family housing units. Within the district's boarders there are several low-income and multi -family housing projects coming on-line during 2017-2018. Once developed and occupancy occurring the District does recognize that the student generation for multi -family housing will likely increase for future Capital Facilities Plan updates. Kent School District Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2018 STUDENT GENERATION FACTOR "Student Factor" is defined by King County code as "the number derived by a school district to describe how many students of each grade span are expected to be generated by a dwelling unit" based on district records of average actual student generated rates for developments completed within the last ten years. Following these guidelines, the student generation rate for Kent School District is as follows: Single Family Elementary .398 Middle School .096 Senior High .185 Total .679 Multi -Family Elementary .117 Middle School .028 Senior High .029 Total .174 The student generation factor is based on a survey of 2,757 single-family dwelling units and 1,831 multi -family dwelling units with no adjustment for occupancy rates. Please refer to Appendix D on Page 37 of the Capital Facilities Plan for details of the Student Generation Factor survey. In preparing the 2017-2018 to 2022-2023 Capital Facilities Plan the District contracted with Davis Demographics and Planning (DDP) of Riverside California, a noted expert in demographic studies for school districts, to analyze and prepare the student generation factor. DDP used a larger sample of single family residences than the district did in previous plans and included both "garden" and "urban style" apartments in the calculation for multi -family residences. Urban style apartments typically have four stories, a central lobby and entrance, elevator access to all floors and have a central corridor with apartments on each side. These apartments have little or no surface street parking, with parking located beneath the building; retail may or may not be included with the building. If there is retail it will generally be located on the first floor. These apartments seldom have swimming pools and do not have playgrounds for children. Kent School District Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2018 I I Six - Year Enrollment Projection For capital facilities planning, enrollment growth projections are based on cohort survival and student yield from documented residential construction projected over the next six years. (See Table 2, page 8 anamap page 37). The student generation factor is the basis for the growth projections from new developments. (See Page S) King County live births and the District's relational percentage average were used to determine the number of kindergartners entering the system. (See Table 1, page 7) 8.19% of 25,032 King County live births in 2012 is projected for 2,050 students expected in Kindergarten for October 1, 2017. This is an increase of 402 live births in King County over the previous year. (See Table 2, page 8) Early Childhood Education students (also identified as "ECE"), "Early Childhood Special Education ("ECSE") students are forecast and reported to OSPI separately on Form P -223H for Special Education Enrollment. Capacity is reserved to serve students in the ECE programs at elementary schools. The first grade population of Kent School District is traditionally 1-3% larger than the kindergarten population due to growth and transfers to the District. Cohort survival method uses historical enrollment data to forecast the number of students projected for the following year. Projections for October 1, 2017-2022 are from OSPI Report 1049 — Determination of Projected Enrollments. Within practical limits, the District has kept abreast of proposed developments. The District will continue to track new development activity to determine impact to schools. Information on new residential developments and the completion of these proposed developments in all jurisdictions will be considered in the District's future analysis of growth projections. (seemappage37) The Kent School District serves eight permitting jurisdictions: unincorporated King County, the cities of Kent, Covington, Renton, and Auburn and smaller portions of the cities of SeaTac, Black Diamond, and Maple Valley Kent School District Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2018 The capacity of each school in the District is calculated based on the District's standard of service and the existing inventory of permanent facilities. The District's program capacity of permanent facilities reflects program changes and the state's mandated reduction of class size to meet the standard of service for Kent School District. Portables provide additional transitional capacity. Kent School District is the fifth largest (fte basis) district in the state. Enrollment is electronically reported monthly to the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction ("OSPI") on Form P-223. Although funding apportionment is based on Annual Average Full Time Equivalent (AAFTE), enrollment on October 1 is a widely recognized "snapshot in time" that is used to report the District's enrollment for the year as reported to OSPI. The District received authorization from the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction to temporarily re -open the former Kent Elementary School at 317 Fourth Ave South in Kent. This facility will be used to house the kindergarten and early child education classes for both Kent and Neely -O'Brien Elementary Schools to alleviate overcrowding at those schools. This building re -opened in fall 2014 as the Kent Valley Early Learning Center. The District's standard of service, enrollment history and projections, and use of transitional facilities are reviewed in detail in various sections of this Plan. The District plans to continue to satisfy concurrency requirements through the transitional use of portables. A financing plan is included in Section VIII which demonstrates the District's ability to implement this Plan. Pursuant to the requirements of the Growth Management Act, this Plan will be updated annually with changes in the impact fee schedules adjusted accordingly. Kent School District Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2018 Executive Summary This Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan (the "Plan") has been prepared by the Kent School District (the "District") as the organization's capital facilities planning document, in compliance with the requirements of Washington's Growth Management Act, King County Code K.C.C. 21A.43 and Cities of Kent, Covington, Renton, Auburn, Black Diamond, Maple Valley, and SeaTac. This annual Plan update was prepared using data available in the spring of 2018 for the 2018-2019 school year. This Plan is consistent with prior long-term capital facilities plans adopted by the Kent School District. This Plan is not intended to be the sole planning document for all of the District's needs. The District may prepare interim and periodic Long Range Capital Facilities Plans consistent with Board Policies, taking into account a longer or shorter time period, other factors and trends in the use of facilities, and other needs of the District as may be required. Prior Capital Facilities Plans of the Kent School District have been adopted by Metropolitan King County Council and Cities of Kent, Covington, Auburn and Renton and included in the Capital Facilities Plan element of the Comprehensive Plans of each jurisdiction. This Plan has also been submitted to cities of Black Diamond, Maple Valley, and SeaTac for their information and inclusion in their Comprehensive Plans. In order for impact fees to be collected in the unincorporated areas of Kent School District, the Metropolitan King County Council must adopt this Plan and a fee - implementing ordinance for the District. For impact fees to be collected in the incorporated portions of the District, the cities of Kent, Covington, Renton and Auburn must also adopt this Plan and their own school impact fee ordinances. This Capital Facilities Plan establishes a standard of service in order to ascertain current and future capacity. While the State Superintendent of Public Instruction establishes square footage guidelines for capacity, those guidelines do not account for local program needs in the District. The Growth Management Act, King County and City codes and ordinances authorize the District to make adjustments to the standard of service based on specific needs for students of the District. This Plan includes the standard of service as established by Kent School District. Program capacity is based on an average capacity and updated to reflect changes to special programs served in each building. Portables in the capacity calculation use the same standard of service as the permanent facilities. Kent School District Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2018 Ke,R1 School District Sid Tear CapitarTacirities PCan 2a6Ce of Contents Section Page Number I Executive Summary 2 11 Six -Year Enrollment Projection & History 4 I I I District Standard of Service 9 I V Inventory, Capacity & Maps of Existing Schools 12 V Six -Year Planning & Construction Plan — Site Map 17 V I Portable Classrooms 20 V I I Projected Classroom Capacity 21 V I I I Finance Plan, Cost Basis and Impact Fee Schedules 26 I X Summary of Changes to Previous Plan 33 X Appendixes 35 Kent School District Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2018 1 Kent School District SIX - YEAR CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2018-2019 - 2023-2024 May 2018 Kent School District No. 415 12033 SE 256th Street Kent, Washington 98030-6643 (253) 373-7295 i XENTi St_ H 0 0 DIS RICT� BOARD of DIRECTORS Ms. Maya Vengadasalam, President Ms. Deborah Straus, Vice President Mr. Ross Hardy, Legislative Representative Ms. Karen DeBruler, Director Ms. Denise Daniels, Director ADMINISTRATION Dr. Calvin J. Watts Superintendent of Schools Mr. Benjamin Rarick, Executive Director of Fiscal Services Mr. Fred Long, Executive Director of Facilities Services Kent School District Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2018 Kent School District Capital Facilities plan 2018-2019 - 2023-2024 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT Apri12018 POLICY/TEXT AMENDMENT (P/T) #4 INCORPORATE KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT #415 2018/2019 - 2023/2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN No measures to avoid or reduce land use impacts resulting from the Capital Facilities Plan or the projects contained therein are proposed at this time. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may create temporary increases in the District's need for public services and utilities. Upon the completion of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan, however, the District does not anticipate that its need for public services and utilities will increase substantially beyond existing levels. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: No measures to reduce or respond to such demands are proposed at this time. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The Capital Facilities Plan will not conflict with any laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197.11-960) July 2016 Page 19 of 19 The Capital Facilities Plan itself will have no impact on these elements of the environment. These impacts have been or will be addressed in more detail during project -specific environmental review when appropriate. The projects included in the Plan are not likely to generate severe impacts on fish or marine life. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: Specific measures to protect and conserve plants, animals, and fish cannot be identified at this time. Specific mitigation proposals have been or will be identified, however, during project -specific environmental review when appropriate. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? The construction of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will require the consumption of energy. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will be constructed in accordance with applicable energy efficiency standards. 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? The Capital Facilities Plan and individual projects contained therein should have no impact on these resources, Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: Appropriate measures have been or will be proposed during project -specific environmental review when appropriate. Updates of this Plan will be coordinated with King County and the cities of Federal Way, Kent, Des Moines, and Auburn as part of the Growth Management Act process, one of the purposes of which is to protect environmentally sensitive areas. To the extent the District's facilities planning process is part of the overall growth management planning process, these resources are more likely to be protected. 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? The Capital Facilities Plan will not have any impact on land or shoreline use that is incompatible with existing comprehensive plans, land use codes, or shoreline management plans. The District does not anticipate that the Capital Facilities Plan or the projects contained therein will directly affect land and shoreline uses in the area served by the District. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 18 of 19 C. Signature The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Name of signee: Jennifer Woiciechowski Position and Agency/Organization: Student and Demographic Forecaster Date Submitted: 6June2018 D. Supplemental sheet for nonproject actions (IT IS NOT NECESSARY to use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; pro- duction, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? To the extent the Capital Facilities Plan makes it more likely that school facilities will be constructed and/or renovated and remodeled, some of these environmental impacts will be more likely. Additional impermeable surfaces, such as roofs, parking lots, sidewalks, access roads, and playgrounds could increase storm water runoff, which could enter surface or ground waters. Heating systems, emergency generators, and other school equipment that is installed pursuant to the Capital Facilities Plan could result in air emissions. The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan should not require the production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances, with the possible exception of the storage of diesel fuel or gasoline for emergency generating equipment. The District does not anticipate a significant increase in the production of noise from its facilities, although the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will increase the District's student capacities. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: Proposed measures to mitigate any such increases described above have been or will be addressed during project -specific environmental review when appropriate. Storm water detention and runoff will meet applicable County and/or City requirements and may be subject to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permitting requirements. Discharges to air will meet applicable air pollution control requirements. Fuel oil will be stored in accordance with local and state requirements. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 17 of 19 be trucks (such as commercial and nonpassenger vehicles). What data or transportation models were used to make these estimates? The traffic impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project -specific environmental review when appropriate. g. Will the proposal interfere with, affect or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products on roads or streets in the area? If so, generally describe. Projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan that may interfere with, affect or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products on roads or streets in the area has been or will be addressed during project -specific environmental review when appropriate. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: The mitigation of traffic impacts associated with the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan has been or will be addressed during project -specific environmental review when appropriate. 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. The District does not anticipate that the projects identified in the Capital Facilities Plan will substantially increase the need for other public services. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Remodeled/renovated school or facilities will be built with automatic security systems, fire alarms, smoke alarms, heat sensors, and sprinkler systems. 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other Electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, and sanitary sewer utilities are available at the sites of the projects proposed in the Capital Facilities Plan. The types of utilities available at specific project sites have been or will be addressed in more detail during project -specific environmental review when appropriate. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Utility revisions and construction needs have been or will be identified during project -specific environmental review when appropriate. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197.11-960) July 2016 Page 16 of 19 has been or will be developed during project -specific environmental review when appropriate. c. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the department of archeology and historic preservation, archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS data, etc. Methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be developed during project -specific environmental review when appropriate. d. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may be required. Appropriate measures have been or will be proposed on a project -specific basis when appropriate. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The impact on public streets and highways of the individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan has been or will be addressed during project -specific environmental review when appropriate. b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so, generally describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? The relationship between the specific projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan and public transit has been or will be addressed during project -specific environmental review when appropriate. c. How many additional parking spaces would the completed project or non -project proposal have? How many would the project or proposal eliminate? An inventory of parking spaces located at the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan and the impacts of specific projects on parking availability has been or will be conducted during project - specific environmental review when appropriate. d. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian, bicycle or state transportation facilities, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). The need for new streets or roads, or improvements to existing streets and roads has been or will be addressed during project -specific environmental review when appropriate. e. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. Use of water, rail, or air transportation has been or will be addressed during project -specific environmental review when appropriate. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project or proposal? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the volume would SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197.11-960) July 2016 Page 15 of 19 The light or glare impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project -specific environmental review when appropriate c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Off-site sources of light or glare that may affect the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be evaluated during project -specific environmental review when appropriate. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Proposed measures to mitigate light and glare impacts have been or will be addressed during project - specific environmental review when appropriate. 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? There are a variety of formal and informal recreational facilities within the Federal Way School District. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. The recreational impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project -specific environmental review when appropriate. The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan, including proposed renovated school and support facilities, may enhance recreational opportunities and uses. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: Adverse recreational effects of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be subject to mitigation during project -specific environmental review when appropriate. A school site usually provides recreational facilities to the community in the form of play fields and gymnasiums. 13. Historic and cultural preservation a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are over 45 years old listed in or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers ? If so, specifically describe. There are no known places or objects listed on, or proposed for such registers on the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan. The existence of historic and cultural resources on or next to the sites has been or will be addressed in more detail during project -specific environmental review when appropriate. b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources. An inventory of historical sites at or near the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 14 of 19 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, mid- dle, or low-income housing. No housing units would be provided in connection with the completion of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. It is not anticipated that the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will eliminate any housing units. The impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan on existing housing have been or will be evaluated during project -specific environmental review when appropriate. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Measures to reduce or control any housing impacts caused by the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project -specific environmental review when appropriate. 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? The aesthetic impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project -specific environmental review when appropriate. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? The aesthetic impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project -specific environmental review when appropriate. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Appropriate measures to reduce or control the aesthetic impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be determined on a project -specific basis when appropriate 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? The light or glare impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project -specific environmental review. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 13 of 19 Inventories of the comprehensive plan designations for the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be completed during project -specific environmental review when appropriate. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Shoreline master program designations of the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified during project -specific environmental review when appropriate. h. Has any part of the site been classified as a critical area by the city or county? If so, specify. Any areas located on the sites of the projects included in the Plan that have been classified as a critical area by the city or county have been or will be identified during project -specific environmental review. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? The Federal Way School District currently serves approximately 22,400 students. The student population is expected to increase to 23,800 by the year 2023. This projection has been adjusted to reflect the current economic conditions. The District employs approximately 3,200 people. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? Any displacement of people caused by the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan has been or will be evaluated during project -specific environmental review when appropriate. However, it is not anticipated that the Capital Facilities Plan, or any of the projects contained therein, will displace any people. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts., if any: Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will be subject to project -specific environmental review and local approval when appropriate. Proposed mitigating measures will be proposed at that time, if necessary. L. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The compatibility of the specific projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan with existing uses and plans has been or will be assessed as part of the comprehensive planning process and during project - specific environmental review when appropriate. m. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts to agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial significance, if any: The compatibility of the specific projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan with nearby agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial significance have been or will be assessed as part of the comprehensive planning process and during project -specific environmental review when appropriate. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197.11-960) July 2016 Page 12 of 19 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Will the proposal affect current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe. There are a variety of land uses within the Federal Way School District, including residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, utility, open space, recreational, etc. Impacts on projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan on land uses on nearby or adjacent properties have been or will be identified and described during project -level environmental review when appropriate. b. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If so, describe. How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will be converted to other uses as a result of the proposal, if any? If resource lands have not been designated, how many acres in farmland or forest land tax status will be converted to nonfarm or nonforest use? The project sites covered under the Capital Facilities Plan have not been used recently as working farmlands or working forest lands. 1) Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides, tilling, and harvesting? If so, how: Any areas located on the sites of the projects included in the Plan that may affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal business operations have been or will be identified and described during project -specific environmental review when appropriate. c. Describe any structures on the site. The structures located on the proposed sites for the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified and described during project -specific environmental review when appropriate. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? The remodeling and renovation projects in the Capital Facilities Plan will require the demolishment of school structures. The structures that will be demolished as a result of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified during project -specific environmental review when appropriate. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The sites that are covered under the Capital Facilities Plan have a variety of zoning classifications under the applicable zoning codes. Site-specific zoning information has been or will be identified during project - specific environmental review when appropriate. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 11 of 19 The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan that may contain existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development and design have been or will be identified during project -specific environmental review when appropriate, Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 3) Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced during the project's development or construction, or at any time during the operating life of the project. Toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used or produced during the project's development or construction, or at any time during the operating life of the project have been or will be identified during project -specific environmental review when appropriate. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 4) Describe special emergency services that might be required, Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 5) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any, The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will comply with all current codes, standards, rules, and regulations. Individual projects have been or will be subject to project -specific environmental review and local approval at the time they are developed when appropriate. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? A variety of noises from traffic, construction, residential, commercial and industrial areas exists within the Federal Way School District. The specific noise sources that may affect the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified during project -specific environmental review when appropriate. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indi- cate what hours noise would come from the site. The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may create normal construction noises that will exist on a short-term basis only. The construction projects could increase traffic around the construction sites on a short-term basis. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: The projected noise impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be evaluated and mitigated during project -specific environmental review when appropriate. Each project is or will be subject to applicable local regulations. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 10 of 19 specific environmental review when appropriate. e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site. Inventories of any invasive animal species known to be on or near the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be developed during project -specific environmental review when appropriate. 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. The State Board of Education requires the completion of a life cycle cost analysis of all heating, lighting, and insulation systems before it will permit specific school projects to proceed. The energy needs of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be determined at the time of specific engineering and site design planning when appropriate. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. The impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan on the solar potential of adjacent projects have been or will be addressed during project -specific environmental review when appropriate. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Energy conservation measures proposed in connection with the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be considered during project -specific environmental review when appropriate, 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 1) Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses. The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan that may have any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses have been or will be identified during project - specific environmental review when appropriate. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 2) Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 9 of 19 Some of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may require the removal or alteration of vegetation. The specific impacts on vegetation of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified during project -specific environmental review when appropriate. c. List threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. The specific impacts to these species from the individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be determined during project -specific environmental review when appropriate. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Measures to preserve or enhance vegetation at the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified during project -specific environmental review when appropriate. Each project is or will be subject to applicable local landscaping requirements. e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site. A variety of vegetative zones are located within the Federal Way School District. Inventories of the noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the sites of the projects proposed in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be developed during project -specific environmental review when appropriate. 5. Animals a. List any birds and other animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site. Examples include: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other An inventory of species that have been observed on or near the sites of the projects proposed in the Capital Facilities Plan has been or will be developed during project -specific environmental review when appropriate. b. List any threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. Inventories of threatened or endangered species'known to be on or near the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be developed during project -specific environmental review when appropriate. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. The impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan on migration routes have been or will be addressed during project -specific environmental review when appropriate. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Appropriate measures to preserve or enhance wildlife have been or will be determined during project- SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11.960) July 2016 Page 8 of 19 Specific information regarding the storm water impacts of each project has been or will be provided during project -specific environmental review when appropriate. Each project is or will be subject to applicable local storm water regulations. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may result in the discharge of waste materials into ground or surface waters. The specific impacts of each project on ground and surface waters have been or will be identified during project -specific environmental review when appropriate. Each project is or will be subject to all applicable regulations regarding the discharge of waste materials into ground and surface waters. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 3) Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so, describe. Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site. Specific information regarding the drainage pattern impacts of each project has been or will be provided during project -specific environmental review when appropriate. Each project is or will be subject to applicable local drainange pattern regulations. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water, and drainage pattern impacts, if any: Specific measures to reduce or control runoff impacts associated with the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project -specific environmental review when appropriate. 4. Plants a. Check the types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs morass pasture crop or grain Orchards, vineyards or other permanent crops. wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation A variety of vegetative zones are located within the Federal Way School District. Inventories of the vegetation located on the sites of the projects proposed in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be developed during project -specific environmental review when appropriate. b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197.11.960) July 2016 Page 7 of 19 the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan has been or will be provided during project -specific environmental review when appropriate. Applicable local regulations have been or will be satisfied. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Any surface water withdrawals or diversions required in connection with the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project -specific environmental review when appropriate. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan, Each project included in the Capital Facilities Plan, if located in a floodplain area, will be required to meet applicable local regulations for flood areas. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. Specific information regarding the discharge of waste materials that may be required as a result of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan has been or will be provided during project -specific environmental review when appropriate. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions b. Ground Water: 1) Will groundwater be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? If so, give a general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn from the well. Will water be discharged to groundwater? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may impact groundwater resources. The impact of the individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan on groundwater resources has been or will be addressed during project -specific environmental review when appropriate. Each project is or will be subject to applicable local regulations. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals... ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. The discharges of waste material that may take place in connection with the projects included in the Plan have been or will be addressed during project -specific environmental review. c. Water runoff (including stormwater): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may have storm water runoff consequences. SEPA Environmental checktlst (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 6 of 19 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal during construction, operation, and maintenance when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Various emissions, many construction -related, may result from the individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan. The air-quality impacts of each project have been or will be evaluated during project -specific environmental review when appropriate. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect the individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project -specific environmental review when appropriate. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: The individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be subject to project - specific environmental review when appropriate and relevant local approval processes. The District will be required to comply with all applicable air regulations and air permit requirements. Proposed measures specific to the individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project -specific environmental review when appropriate. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 3. Water a. Surface Water: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. There is a network of surface water bodies within the Federal Way School District. The surface water bodies that are in the immediate vicinity of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified during project -specific environmental review when appropriate. When necessary, the surface water regimes and flow patterns have been or will be researched and incorporated into the designs of the individual projects, 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may require work near the surface waters located within the Federal Way School District. Applicable local approval requirements have been or will be satisfied. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. Information with respect to the placement or removal of fill and dredge material as a component of SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 5 of 19 b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Specific slope characteristics at the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified during project -level environmental review. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any agricultural land of long-term commercial significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of these soils. Specific soil types found at the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified during project -level environmental review when appropriate. Project -level environmental review for any projects identified in the Capital Facilities Plan will include identification of any agricultural soils and associated impacts. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Unstable soils may exist within the Federal Way School District. Specific soil limitations on individual project sites have been or will be identified at the time of project -level environmental review when appropriate. e. Describe the purpose, type, total area, and approximate quantities and total affected area of any filling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be subject, when appropriate, to project -specific environmental review and local approval at the time of proposal. Proposed grading projects, as well as the purpose, type, quantity, and source of any fill materials to be used have been or will be identified at that time. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. It is possible that erosion could occur as a result of the construction projects currently proposed in the Capital Facilities Plan. The erosion impacts of the individual projects have been or will be evaluated on a site-specific basis at the time of project -specific environmental review when appropriate. Individual projects have been or will be subject to local approval processes. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? The proposed renovation projects will require the construction of impervious surfaces. The extent of any impervious cover constructed will vary with each capital facilities project included in the Capital Facilities Plan. This issue has been or will be addressed during project -specific environmental review when appropriate. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: The erosion potential of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan and appropriate control measures have been or will be addressed during project -specific environmental review when appropriate. Relevant erosion reduction and control requirements will be met. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 4 of 19 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. This is a nonproject action. See Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. The District will request that the following jurisdictions consider adopting the Federal Way Public Schools' 2019 Captial Facilities Plan as part of their respective Comprehensive Plan: • King County, • City of Federal Way, • City of Kent, • City of Auburn, • City of Des Moines. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) This is a non -project action. This proposal involves the adoption of the Federal Way Public Schools' 2019 Capital Facilities Plan for the purpose of planning the District's facilities needs. The projects included in the Captial Facilities Plan have been or will be subject to project - specific environmental reviews. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The Capital Facilities Plan will affect the Federal Way School District. The District includes an area of approximately 35 square miles. The City of Federal Way, parts of the cities of Kent, Des Moines and Auburn, parts of unincorporated King County, fall within the District's boundaries. A detailed map of the District's boundaries may be viewed at the District's main office. B. Environmental Elements Earth a. General description of the site: (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other The Federal Way School District is comprised of a variety of topographic land forms and gradients. Specific topographic characteristics of the sites at which the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan are located have been or will be identified during project -level environmental review when appropriate. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Pago 3 of 19 the District's 2019 Capital Facilities Plan in the Capital Facilities Plan Element. This project may also request the City of Des Moines to incorporate the District's 2019 Capital Facilities Plan into their Comprehensive Plans. 2. Name of applicant: Federal Way School District No. 210. 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Federal Way School District No. 210 33330 8th Avenue South Federal Way WA 98003 (253) 945-2000 Contact Person: Ms. Jennifer Wojciechowski Enrollment and Demographics Telephone: (253) 945-2071 4. Date checklist prepared: June 1, 2018 5. Agency requesting checklist: Federal Way School District No. 210. 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): The Federal Way Public Schools' 2019 Capital Facilities Plan is scheduled to be adopted by the District in July 2018. The Capital Facilities Plan will be forwarded to King County, the City of Federal Way, City of Kent, and the City of Auburn for inclusion in the City's Comprehensive Plan. It will also be forwarded to the City of Des Moines for possible inclusion in this jurisdiction's Comprehensive Plans. The District will continue to update the Capital Facilities Plan annually. The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be subject to project -specific environmental review. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. The Capital Facilities Plan sets forth the capital improvement projects that the District is currently implementing. This includes finishing construction on Federal Way High School and planning for several new voter -approved, Bond -funded projects. Additionally the plan covers the purchase and siting of temporary facilities at various locations. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will undergo additional environmental review, when appropriate, as they are developed. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 2 of 19 SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of checklist: Governmental agencies use this checklist to help determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant. This information is also helpful to determine if available avoidance, minimization or compensatory mitigation measures will address the probable significant impacts or if an environmental impact statement will be prepared to further analyze the proposal. Instructions for applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Please answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. You may need to consult with an agency specialist or private consultant for some questions. You may use "not applicable" or "does not apply" only when you can explain why it does not apply and not when the answer is unknown. You may also attach or incorporate by reference additional studies reports. Complete and accurate answers to these questions often avoid delays with the SEPA process as well as later in the decision- making process. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Instructions for Lead Agencies: Please adjust the format of this template as needed. Additional information may be necessary to evaluate the existing environment, all interrelated aspects of the proposal and an analysis of adverse impacts. The checklist is considered the first but not necessarily the only source of information needed to make an adequate threshold determination. Once a threshold determination is made, the lead agency is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of the checklist and other supporting documents. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: For nonproject proposals (such as ordinances, regulations, plans and programs), complete the applicable parts of sections A and B plus the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). Please completely answer all questions that apply and note that the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proponent," and "affected geographic area," respectively. The lead agency may exclude (for non -projects) questions in Part B - Environmental Elements —that do not contribute meaningfully to the analysis of the proposal. A. Background 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: The adoption of a Federal Way Public Schools' 2019 Capital Facilities Plan by the Federal Way Public Schools No. 210 for the purposes of planning for the District's facilities needs. The King County, City of Federal Way, City of Kent and the City of Auburn's Comprehensive Plan will be requested to include SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197.11-960) July 2016 Page 1 Of 19 WAC 197-11-970 Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS). DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal This threshold determination analyzes the environmental impacts associated with the following actions, which are so closely related to each other that they are in effect a single action: 1. The adoption of the Federal Way Public Schools' 2019 Capital Facilities Plan by the Federal Way Public Schools for the purposes of planning for the facilities needs of the District. 2. The amendment of the King County Comprehensive Plan by King County to include the Federal Way Public Schools' 2019 Capital Facilities Plan as part of the Capital Facilities Plan Element of the King County Comprehensive Plan. 3. The amendment of the Comprehensive Plans of the City of Federal Way, City of Kent and the City of Auburn to include the Federal Way Public Schools' 2019 Capital Facilities Plan as part of the Capital Facilities Plan Element of the City of Federal Way's, City of Kent's, and the City of Auburn's Comprehensive Plan. Proponent: Federal Way Public Schools Location of proposal, including street address, if any: The Federal Way Public Schools District includes an area of approximately 35 square miles. Areas of the cities of Federal Way, Kent, Des Moines and Auburn fall within the District's boundaries, as do parts of unincorporated King County. Lead agency Federal Way Public Schools is the lead agency pursuant to WAC 197-11-926. The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030 (2)(c). This decision was made after review c completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public, on request. This Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2). The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date of issue. Comments must be submitted by 4:30 p.m., June 22, 2018. The responsible official will reconsider the DNS based on timely comments and may retain, modify, or, if significant adverse impacts are likely, withdraw the DNS. If the DNS is retained, it will be final after the expiration of the comment deadline. Responsible Official: Telephone: Address: Date. June 6, 2018 Ms. Sally McLean Chief Finance and Operations Officer Federal Way Public Schools (253)945-2042 33330 8th Avenue South Federal Way WA 98003 Signature You may appeal this determination in writing by 4:30 p.m., June 22, 2018, to Sally McLean, Federal Way Public Schools, 33330 8th Avenue South, Federal Way, WA 98003. Date of Issue: June 6, 2018 Date Published: June 8, 2018 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS Business Services June 6, 2018 Jeff Dixon, Planning Service Manager City of Auburn Community Development Services 25 W Main Auburn WA 98001 Dear Mr. Dixon, Enclosed you will find a copy of the Environmental Checklist and the accompanying Determination of Non - Significance for the Federal Way School District's 2019 Capital Facilities Plan. The 14 -day comment period to submit written comments or to appeal the decision begins on June 8, 2018 and will continue through 4:30 PM, June 22, 2018. Please let me know if you have any questions or need any additional information. Sincerely, Jennifer Wojciechowski Student and Demographic Forecaster Business Services Federal Way Public Schools 33330 81h Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003 (253)945-2071 phone (253)941-0442 fax iwoiciec@fwps.org Each Scholar: A Voice. A Dream. A BRIGHT Future. 33330 8`h Avenue South, Federal Way, WA 98003 1 p.253.945.2043 I f.253.941.04421 www.fwps.org FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS Each Scholar A voice. A dream. A BRIGHT Future. October 12, 2018 Jeff Dixon Principal Planner City of Auburn 25 West Main Street Auburn, WA 98001-4998 Dear Mr. Dixon, Department of the SUPERINTENDENT The Federal Way Public Schools' Board of Education adopted our 2019 Capital Facilities Plan on July 24, 2018. The Federal Way Public Schools' Board of Education requests the City of Auburn to increase the 2018 impact fee to $7,221 for each single-family development and decrease the impact fee to $19,454 for each multi -family development unit. Please note the plan, resolution, and expenditure report were previously sent August 7, 2018. Si6er , Dr. Tammy C pbell, Su rintendent Cc: Board of Education Sally McLean, Chief Finance and Operations Officer Jennifer Wojciechowski, Student and Demographic Forecaster Federal Way Public Schools Each Scholar: A voice. A dream. A BRIGHT Future. 33330 8th Avenue South, Federal Way, WA 98003 1 p.253.945.XXXX I f.253.945.XXXXI www.fwps.org CAPITAL PROJECTS IMPACT FEES CITY OF AUBURN (255) COLLECTED & EXPENDED As of December 31, 2017 Ending Balance** 1 0.00 COLLECTED Expended Month Collected Net Int. Earn. Total Amount Project Exp. Type Beg Bal - - 5,798.00 1an-17 5,798.00 Feb -17 2,899.00 2,899.00 Mar -17 17,664.00 17,664.00 Apr -17 3,198.00 3,198.00 May -17 28,782.00 28,782.00 Jun -17 11,596.00 11,596.00 Jul -17 25,285.00 25,285.00 Aug -17 36,777.00 36,777.00 Sep -17 - 1,260.93 Olympic View and Rainier View Portables Oct -17 6,396.00 6,396.00 Nov -17 - Dec -17 15,990.00 15,990.00 153,124.07 Mirror Lake, Rainier View, Sunnycrest Portables Totals 154,385.00 - 154,385.00 154,385.00 Ending Balance** 1 0.00 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 210 33330 8TH AVENUE SOUTH FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON 98003 RESOLUTION NO. 2018-10 A RESOLUTION of the Board of Directors of the Federal Way School District No. 210, to provide to the City of Auburn the 2019 Capital Facilities Plan. WHEREAS, the Federal Way School District Board of Directors hereby provides to the City of Auburn the District's 2019 Capital Facilities Plan, documenting present and future school facility requirements of the District, and WHEREAS, the Plan contains all elements required by the Growth Management Act and City of Auburn Ordinance No. 5078, which addresses concurrency, allows each school district to establish their own standards of service, and provides for future school impact fees. NOW THEREFORE be it resolved that the Superintendent be authorized and directed to submit the adopted 2019 Capital Facilities Plan to the City of Auburn. ADOPTED BY the Board of Directors of the Federal Way School District No. 201, King County, Washington, in a regular meeting thereof held on the 24th day of July 2018. BOARD OF EDUCATION FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.210 Director FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS Business Services August 7, 2018 Jeff Dixon Principal Planner City Of Auburn 25 West Main Street Auburn WA 98001-4998 Dear Mr. Dixon, l� z Attached is a copy of the Federal Way Public Schools' 2019 Capital Facilities Plan. The Federal Way Public Schools' Board of Education adopted this plan on July 24, 2018. The Federal Way Public Schools' Board of Education Resolution No. 2018-10 directs the Superintendent to submit the adopted Federal Way Public Schools' 2019 Capital Facilities Plan to the City of Auburn. A copy of the resolution is attached for your files. The expenditure report for the 2017 calendar year is also attached. Please let me know if you have any questions about the changes in the CFP for Federal Way Public Schools. You may contact Jennifer Wojciechowski at (253)945-2071 or by email at iwoiciecC@fwps.org. Sincerely, Sally McLean Chief Financial and Operations Officer CC: Dr. Tammy Campbell Mike Benzien Jennifer Wojciechowski Attachments: 3 Each Scholar: A Voice. A Dream. A BRIGHT Future. 33330 8`h Avenue South, Federal Way, WA 98003 1 p.253.945.2043 I f.253.941.04421 www.fwps.org Each Scholar: A Voice. A Dream. A BRIGHT Future. In an environment of high expectations, high support, and no excuses, the staff of Federal Way Public Schools will continually learn, lead, utilize data, and collaborate to ensure our scholars have a voice, a dream, and a bright future. THE EARLY YEARS: av BUILDING THE FOUNDATION i+e� wera xesu�.Mi enr. 4retloga^m reaett w kam niF. tlm soaal' rma�ie+xi ai3!s a'ut'.r.B prose each r4amt ro'�!e:a vcr'e q;ab hri Li", (EW xd A',xha:N:;S tj 6--"_ of Id gretle. ACTIVE LEARNERS: ENGAGED, Are(�D EMPOWERED ( ` CRITICAL THINKERS E.cy Auku uSn:u ruYOC - of theire ecru xd be fd* "V7W m be -,—q a Omi a-4 CONTENT -AREA COMPETENCE: MASTERY OF ALL SUBJECTS Naryorf .::corn va :rrrree MK-ppa ty Ixf:::c� atdwp meet a wcxd s;a�dad: z! pNiana�¢�aA t.'xv..bN: to "A Cl ad 9r.& WHOLE CHILD: THRIVING, CONFIDENT, RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUALS �rponrd aid arptt<c ;: dw.i�p tK �nP sit >r� c. ntV. n !.e po55ve. R"=c.�-rte • 1 PEER51STENCE v T TO GRADUATION: VV HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION THROUGH SUCCESSFUL TRANSITIONS —W -'t 0.e 5.-hmhg r7+n, q: zw•r. ^an Iwfr. :: xtwos>rrst:.fn m%tge. ween. x.tl. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS Each Scholar: A voice. A dream. A BRIGHT future. This document is published by the Business Services Department of the Federal Way Public Schools. May 2018 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2019 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN IMPACT FEE CALCULATION CHANGES FROM 2018 TO 2019 Item From/To Comment Percent ofPennanent Facilities 95.86% to 95.11% Report #3 OSPI Percent Temporary Facilities 4.14% to 4.89% Updated portable inventory Average Cost of Portable $172,993 to $189,188 Updated 5 -yr rolling average of Classrooms .2369 to .2701 portables purchased and placed .3228 to .2808 by 2016. Construction Cost Allocation $213.23 to $225.97 Change effective July 2017 State Match 65.59% to 65.15% Change effective July 2017 Average Assessed Value Per Puget Sound Educational SFR- $294,328 to $327,803 Service District (ESD 12 1) MFR- $109,489 to $119,431 Capital Bond Interest Rate 3.95% to 3.85% Market Rate Property Tax Levy Rate $1.31 to $1.20 Student Generation Factors Single -Family Elementary .2200 to .2244 Middle School .1202 to .1073 High School .1429 to .1390 Multi-Fannily Elementaiy .5970 to .5865 Middle School .2369 to .2701 High School .3228 to .2808 Impact Fee SFR- $6,842 to $7,221 MFR - $20,086 to $19,454 City of Kent SFR- $6,842 to $7,221 MFR - $20,086 to $8,386 35 Kung County Treasury Division Updated Housing Inventory Note: Student generation factors for are single family units are based on new developments constructed within the District over the last five (5) years prior to the date of the fee calculation. Student generation factors for are multi- family units are based on new developments constructed within the District over the last five (5) years prior to the date ofthe fee calculation. SFR based on the updated calculation MFR based on the updated calculation SFR based on the updated calculation MFR maximum per City of Kent Ordinance No. 4278 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2019 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN STUDENT GENERATION RATES New Construction in Prior 5 Years Single Family Student Generation Multi -Family Student Generation - Citi of Federal Way Numberof Numberof Numberof Numberof Elementary Middle School High SchoolTotal Total Single Family Elementary Middle School High School Student Student Student Student DEVELOPMENT Dwellings Students Students Students Factor Facfior Factor Factor (17) Eagle Manor 12 3 1 0 0.2000 00667 0.0000 0.2667 (17) Lakehaven Estates 13 1 1 3 0.0667 0.0667 0.2000 0.3334 (17) Hibbford Glen 15 10 2 1 0.6667 0.1333 0.0667 0.8667 (17) Vista Pointe 105 16 2 7 0.1524 0.0190 0.0667 0.2381 (16) Jefferson Place 11 5 1 1 0.4545 0.0909 0.0909 0.6363 (16) Star lake East 30 3 4 5 0.1000 0.1333 0.1667 0.4000 (15) Swan Song 29 7 2 3 0.2414 0.0690 0.1034 0.4138 (15) Wynstone East 114 30 21 26 0.2632 0.1842 0.2281 0.6755 (14) North Lake Rim 37 4 4 4 0.1081 0.1081 0.1081 0.3243 (14) Wynstone 44 13 6 7 02955 0.1364 0.1591 0.5910 Total 410 92 44 57 Student Generation* 02244 0.1073 0.1390 OA707 Multi -Family Student Generation - Citi of Federal Way ' Student Generation rate is based on totals. 34 Numberof Numberof Numberof Numberof Elementary Middle School High School Total Multi Family Elementary Middle School High School Student Student Student Student DEVELOPMENT Dwellings Students Students Students Factor Factor Factor Factor T1 7) Uptown Square 308 145 65 57 0.4708 0.2110 0.1851 0.8669 (17) Kitts Comer 216 165 60 60 0.7639 0.2778 0.2778 1.3194 (16) Kandda Townhomes 27 4 2 2 0.1481 0.0741 0.0741 02963 (15) Park 16 293 181 101 118 0.6177 0.3447 0.4027 1.3652 Total 844 495 228 237 Student Generation O.5866 1 0.2701 0.2808 1 1.1374 ' Student Generation rate is based on totals. 34 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2019 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN REFERENCES TO IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS, continued Square Footage Capacity at 130 sq. ft. Current: 179,119 1378 Planned: 210,000 1615 Increased Capacity 237 Increase as % 17.24% MACC $102,443,200 Proportionate Share $ 17,661,713 The District will use the above formulas created as a base for future Capital Facilities Plans during the life of the current bond authorization. The capacity of these schools may vary from year to year as programs are added or changed and construction cost may increase over time. FACILITIES CAPACITY Permanent Facility Capacity: Changes to the Building Program Capacities calculation are found on page 17. Capacity Summaries: The changes in the Capacity Summary are a reflection of the changes in the capacities and student forecast. New schools and increased capacity at current buildings are shown as increases to capacity. Capacity Summaries are found on pages 25-28. Student Generation Factor Analysis: Federal Way Public Schools student generation factor was determined separately for single-family units and multi -family units. The factors used in the 2019 Capital Facilities Plan were derived using actual generation factors from single-family units and multi -family units that were constructed in the District in the last five (5) years and can be found on the next page Temporary Facility Cost: The list of portables reflects the movement of portables between facilities or new portables purchased. Portable Locations can be found on pages 18 and 19. 33 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2019 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN REFERENCES TO IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS SCHOOL ACOUISITION COST The district purchased the Norman Center to house the Employment Transition Program and to allow for the expansion of the ECEAP program. The purchase and use of this site increased our high school permanent capacity by 51 students. Total Cost $2,100,000 / 2 = $1,050,000 Cost per Acre $1,050,000 /4.85 = $216,718 SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION COST With voter approval of the $450,000,000 bond package, design work is underway for six of the approved projects. Anticipated construction budgets (based on the Maximum Allowable Construction Cost or MACC) have been updated to reflect the current construction market, and capacity has been fine-tuned. In addition, a credit for the cost of new construction is incorporated to recognize the K-3 Class Size Reduction Grant obtained by Federal Way Public Schools. It is estimated this $23 million grant will be reimbursed in six equal payments — a portion for each of the six schools serving K-3 students. The following table outlines the facility cost included in the impact fee calculation: Elementary Elementary Schools Lake Grove Mirror Lake Star Lake Wildwood TOTAL Permanent 353 404 387 472 1616 Capacity New Capacity 600 600 600 600 2400 Increased 48.5% Capacity as % MACC $27,174,250 $27,174,250 $29,854,450 $27,174,250 $111,377,200 Proportionate $ 54,034,483 Share K-3 Class Size ($ 15,333,333) Credit Net Proportionate $ 38,701,150 Share Two additional projects are within this horizon, but not yet included — Olympic View K-8 and Mark Twain Elementary. These costs will be incorporated into future Capital Facilities Plans, Current Middle School capacity calculations do not reflect unhoused students, so no costs associated with Illahee Middle School or Totem Middle School are included. Consistent with the capacity calculations described earlier, the District uses the OSPI square footage calculation for determining capacity at our secondary schools. Based on this methodology, the following construction costs for Thomas Jefferson High School are allocated as the proportionate share: 32 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2019 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS, continued Impact Fee Calculations School Site Acquisition Cost: Student Student Facility Cost/ Facility Factor Factor Cosd Cost/ Acreage Acre Capacity SPR MFR SFR MFR Elementary Midd le Schoo I. High School .......................................................................... $38,701,150784 $17 661,713 237 02244 0........5865 ............ 0.2701 $0 $0 $0 $0 4.85 $216,718 51 0.1390 0.2808 $2,862 $5,781 TOTAL $2 862 $5,781 School Construction Cost: Student Student %Penn Fac./ Facility Facility Factor Factor Cost/ Cost/ Total Sq Ft Cost Capacity SFR MPR SFR MFR Elementary Middle 5ehool High School 93.72% 95.41 % o.......................................................................... 96.79 /u $38,701,150784 $17 661,713 237 0.2244 0.1073 0.1390 0.5865 0.2701 0.2808 $10,382 $27,134 $0 $0 $ 10,026 $20,254 TOTAL $20,408 $47,388 Temporary facility Cost: Student Student %Temp Fac. Facility Facility Factor Factor Total Sq Ft Cost Capacity SPR MPR Elementary Middle School High School Cost/ Cost/ CFR MFR 6.28% 4.59% 3.21% S tate $189,188 _-.._. 126 .................. 0.2244 ._._.... _.._............__..... 0.1073 ................ 0.1390 0.5865 701 0.2701 0.2808 $21 $55 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL $21 $55- 55 State Matching Credit Calculation: Student Student Construction Cost Sq. Ft. State Factor Factor Cost/ Cost/ Allocat on,/Sq Ft Student Match SPR MFR SFR MFR Elementary Middle School High School 1225.97 $225.97 $225.97 90 �... 130 65.15 /0 65.15% 0.2244 _ .... 0. (073 0.1390 0.5865 _........_.._._5 0.2701 0.2808 $2,973 $7,771 $0 $0 $2,660 $5,374 Total S5,633 $13,145 Tax Payment Credit Calculation Average Assessed Value (March 2018) Capital Bond Interest Rate (March 2018) Net Present Value of Average Dwelling Yeats Amortized Property Tax Levy Rate Present Value of Revenue Stream Mitigation ree Summary Site Acquisition Cost Permanent Facility Cost Temporary Facility Cost State Match Credit Tax Payment Credit Sub -Total 50% Local Share CFR MFR 321.803 $ 119,431 3.85% Residences $2,678,741$975,966 _................. _3.85% ...... 10 10 $1.20 $1.20 $3,214 $1,171 Single Fantily Multi -Family Mixed -Use Residences Residences Residentialr $ 2,862 $ 5,781 $ 5,781 $ 20,408 $ 47,388 $ 47,388 $ 21 $ 55 $ 55 $ (5,633) $ (13,145) $ (13,145) $ (3,214) $ (1,171) $ (1,171) $ 14,443 $ 38,908 $ 38,908 $ 7,221 $ 19,454 $ 19,454 Calculated Impact Fee $ 7,221 $ 19,454 $ 9,727 City of Kent Impact Feel $ 7,221 $ __1386 rin accordance with the City of Federal Way Ordinance No, 95-249 21n accordance with the City of Kent Ordinance No. 4278 31 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2019 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS Single and Multi -Family Residences Each jurisdiction that imposes school impact fees requires that developers pay these fees to help cover a share of the impact of new housing developments on school facilities. To determine an equitable fee throughout unincorporated King County, a formula was established. This formula can be found in King County Code 21A and was substantially adopted by the City of Auburn, Federal Way and Kent. The formula requires the District to establish a "Student Generation Factor" which estimates how many students will be added to a school district by each new single or multi -family unit and to gather some standard construction costs, which are unique to that district. Impact Fee Calculation On page 30, the 2018 variables for the calculation of the Impact Fee for single family and multi -family units based on King County Code 21A and the Growth Management Act, generate the results below: Plan Year 2018 Plan Year 2019 Single Family Units $6,842 $7,221 Multi -Family Units $20,086 $19,454 Mixed -Use Residential' $10,043 $9,727 Impact Fee Calculation- King County Code 2 1 A The Impact Fees have changed as a result of changes in several factors. The updates made to the variables in the Impact Fee calculation, generate a change in the Impact Fee between the 2018 Capital Facilities Plan and the 2019 Capital Facilities Plan. A summary of these changes can be found on page 32 and a year over year comparison of formula variables can be found on page 33. In accordance with the City of Federal Way Ordinance No. 95-249. 30 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2019 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN CAPACITY SUMMARIES, Continued Capacity Summary — High Schools CAPACITY 6,378 (146) 0.13_ Budget -- Projected -- Calendar Year 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 201-4 School Year 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 BUILDING PROGRAM HEADCOUNT CAPACITY FTE CAPACITY 5,714 0,1 1 1 5,714 1 6,111 5,714 6.1 11 5.714 1 1 1 5.714 6.1 1 1 5.951 6,'(4 5,951 h. 7�6-I AddiSubtract capacity Thomas Jet}erson High Schooh237 .................. ..... .................. Adjusted Program Headcount Capacity 5,714 5,714 5,714 5.714 5.951 5,951 5.951 Adjusted Pro gramlTECa Capacity 6.111 6,111 6,111 6,111 b.364 6;364 6,364 ENROLLMENT Basic Headcount Enrollment Internet Academy' Basic Ed withnur Internet Academy 6,378 (146) 0.13_ 1 6,424 (146) G.�7S 6,493 (146) 6,347 6,654 (146) 6.5(18 6,786 (146) 6.(,tu 6,867 (146) (i,7� I 6,886 (146) 6.7111 Adjusted PonableCa aciv, SURPLUS OR(UNHOUSED) I'ROGR.�ANIC.�PA(IT1' (121) (1)71 _��y i_.9-1 !'_-bl (_.-1 RELOCATAB LE CAPACITYZ Current Portable Capacity Add/Subtract portable capacity n;ri 650 6 Adjusted PonableCa aciv, 650 ,50 1 ;;50 5i vn 650 o5o SURPLUS OR (UNHOUS ED) PROGRAM AND RELOCAT.ABLE CAPAcn-N` X29 483 414 +'-1 293 '1 NOTES: 1. Internet Academy students are included in projections but do not require Cull time use ofschool facilities. 2 Relocatable Capacity is based on the numberof portables available and other administrative techniques which can be used to temporarily house students until permanent facilities are available. This is a calculated numberonly. The actual numberorportables that will be used will be based on actual student population needs. The District may begin to pull portables from the instructional inventory. Age and condition ofthe portables will determine feasibility forcontinued instructional use. 3. Capacity for unhoused students will be acconanodated with traveling teachers and no planning time in some classroom~. 4 Current project timelines estimate the completion of Thomas Jefferson HS opening in the call ol'2022. 29 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2019 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN CAPACITY SUMMARIES, Continued Capacity Summary — Middle Schools CAPACITY' 5.247 Budget -- Pm'ected-- CalendarYear 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 3024 School Year 3018-19 2019-20 2020-21 3021-22 2032-23 2023-24 3034-25 BUILDING PROGRA M H'EADCOUNTCAPACITY FTE CAPACITY 5.275 5,339 5,275 5,329 ',5,329 5,275 5,275 ;'1110 5.275 5.339 5.27 5 5.30 5.275 5,329 Add. Subtract capacity Add capacity at: Totem' 350 350 350 Ir Adjusted Pmar.un Headcount Capacity 5,375 5,275 5.375 5.375 5.275 5.2_75 5.'7i Adjusted Program FTE Ca acity 5.3_29 5.329 ' 5.339 5.329 5.339 5,339 5,329 ENROLLMENT Basic Headcount Enrolhrent 5.247 5.470 5,462 5.357 5.259 5,353 5.285 Internet Academy' (47) (47) (47) (47) (47) 1 (47) (47) Basic Enrollment without Internet Academy 5,200 5,423 5,415 5,310 5'13 5,2_(16 5,238 SURPLUS OR(UNHOUSED) 129 1 (94) 1 (86) 1 19 1 117 1 123 1 91 RELOCATABLE CAPAcrW Current Portable Capacity 450 450 45tt 450 450 350 35(� Add Subtract portable capacity 1 Totem Middle School 579 356 364 469 (100) 473 441 Adjusted Portable Capacity 450 450 450 41 0 350 350 350 SURPLUS OR (UNHOUSED) PROGRAM AND RELOCATABLE 1 CAPACITY 579 356 364 469 467 473 441 NOTES:. I Totem Middle School currently has a capacity for 800 students and is being designed to accotrnnodate a comparable student population. 2 Internet Academy students are included in projections but do not require full time use ofschool facilities. 3 Relocatable Capacity is based on the numberof portables available and other administrative techniques which can be used to temporarily house students until pennanent facilities are available. This is a calculated number only. The actual numberofportables that will be used will be based on actual student population needs. The District may begin to pull portables from the instructional inventory. Age and condition ofthe portables will determine feasibility for continued instructional use. W FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2019.CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN CAPACITY SUMMARIES, Continued Capacity Summary — Elementary Schools FNRnt.1.11l1NNi ' Basic Headcount Enrollment 92 Butleet -- Projected -- Calendar Year 2018 2019 2020 2031 2022 2023 2024 �0,336 (15) School Year 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22) 20'2-23 2023-24 2024-25 C4PACnl' BUILDING PROGRAM 10,781 Meredith Hill 42 HEAD COUNTCAPACIIY 8,445 8.445 8,445 8,445 9.016 9..229 9129 FFECAPACITY 8,445 8.445 8,445 8,445 9,016 9.229 9229 Add%Subtract capacity total M inur Lake Add capacity at': W ildwood Lake Gvvl 1�=5 7 1,197 1,197 819 M in -or Lake 819 819 819 19b Star Lake :243 W ildwood 128 Adjusted Proar ni lleadcount Capacity 8.445 8.445 8.-)-15 2016 9.229 9,229 9229 Adjusted Program FTE Capacity 8,445 ; 8,445 8,445 9:016 9.229 9.229 9,229 FNRnt.1.11l1NNi ' Basic Headcount Enrollment 92 10,291 10.288 819 10,4.14 10,593 1(.796 Internet Acadenry }leadcounr 15) ��'().'277 (15) (15) �0,336 (15) (15) (15)15) Basic Headcount Enrollment without Internet Acadernv 10,276 1(1,273 0,321 10,429 10,578 10,781 TRPLUS US ED) SLPROGRO IC CAPACITY I Y 1 (1,832) I (1,831) I (1,828) 1 (1,30-5 (1.200)`1 (1.349) 111.5;211 R0,0CATABLE CAPAC(11" Current Portable Capacity 1,071 1,197 1.197 819 819 811) NICs Add/Subtract portable capacity PROGR,LM AIND RMOCATABLE Add portable capacity at: CAPACITY (635) Lake Dolloff i2 (486) (381) (530) (733) Meredith Hill 42 Sunnycrest 42 Subtract portable capacity at: Lake Gro ve {$�) M inur Lake Star Lake W ildwood 1�=5 AdjustcdPortable Capacity 1,197 1,197 819 819 819 819 819 SURPLUS Oil (UN IIOUSED) PROGR,LM AIND RMOCATABLE CAPACITY (635) (634) (1,009) (486) (381) (530) (733) NOTES: I Capacity increases are projected based on a design to acconinodate 600 students —as design is completed these rnay be adjusted in future iterations of this plan. Increased capacity is currently stated as the difference between current calculated capacity and the projected design. 2 Internet Academy students are included in projections but do not require full tirne use ofschool facilities. 3 Relocatable Capacity is based on the numberofportables available and otheradininistrative techniques which can be used to temporarily house students until penrnnent facilities are available. This is a calculated nurnber only. The actual number ofportables that will be used will be based on actual student population needs. The District rruy begin to pull portables 6-omthe instructional inventory. Age and condition ofthe portables willdetemnne feasibility for continued instructional use. 27 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2019 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN CAPACITY SUMMARIES, Continued Capacity Summary - All Grades CAPACITY 21,917 Budget -- Projected -- Calendar Year 2018 2019 2020 2031 20- 2033 2024 School Year 3018-19 2019-20 2020-2I 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 3024-25 BUILDING PROGRAM HEA DCOUNT CAPACITY FTECAPACITY 19,434 19,885.1 19,434 19,845 19,434 .19,885 19,434 19,885 20,005 120,456 20,455 20,922 20,455 20,922 Add Capacity 1.919 1.919 1,919 Adjusted Program Headcount Capacity 19,434 19,434 19,434 20.005 20,455 20,455 20,455 Adjusted Program]FTECapaciiy 19,885 19,885 19,885 20.456 20.906 20.922 20,922 E'' ROLLNIENT Basic Headcount Ettrollment 21,917 11 185 22-243]?.347 1,919 22489 12 713 2-2967 Internet Acadcmv Headcount Enrollment) (209) (20,4) (204) 1 (208) (208) (208) (208) Basic FTE Enrollment without hilernet Academy - '_1,709 21.9717 22.035211,9 236' „ 181 22,505 22,759 ISURPLUS OR PROGRAM FTCA PACITY I (1,824) I (2,092) I (2,150) (1,683) 1(1,375) 1 (1.„83) I (1,837) I RELOCATABLECAPACMY Current Portable Capacity 2.171 2.297 2,297 1,919 1.919 1.919 1,919 Add New Portable Capacity 1'L_ 1 Subtract Portable Capacity 473 205 (378) 236' 544 336 82 Adjusted Portable 'Capacity 2,297 '' 2,297 1.919 1.919 1.919 1.919 1,919 SURPLUS OR (UNHOUS ED) PROGRAM AND RELOCATABLE 1 CAPACITY 473 205 (231) 236' 544 336 82 NOTES: 1 Internet Academy students are included in projections but do not require full time use of school facilities. 26 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2019 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN CAPACITY SUMMARIES All Grades, Elementary, Middle School, and High Schools The Capacity Summaries combine Building Capacity information, Portable Capacity information and the Student Forecast information. The result demonstrates the requirements for new or remodeled facilities and why there is a need for the District to use temporary facilities or interim measures. The District has recently adjusted its capacity calculation method for Elementary schools to better show capacity needed to comply with the K-3 Class Size Reduction. This adjustment is also shown in the portable capacity calculation. In order to allow for flexibility in portable usage the District will use an average class size calculation of 21 for each Elementary portable and an average class size of 25 for each Middle and High School portable. The information is organized in spreadsheet format, with a page summarizing the entire District, and then evaluating capacity vs. number of students at elementary, middle school, and high school levels individually. The notes at the bottom of each spreadsheet provide information about what facilities are in place each year. 25 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2019 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN SECTION 4 — KING COUNTY, CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, AND CITY OF KENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS Capacity Summaries Site & Construction Costs Allocations Student Generation Rates Impact Fee Calculations Reference to Impact Fee Calculations 24 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2019 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN STUDENT FORECAST, continued Headcount En olhnent History and. Projections (Excludes Full -Time Running Start) Calendar Yr School Year Elementary Middle School High School Total 6-12 HC Percent Chan "t 2013 20122-13 9.731 5.014 6,817 21.563 2014 2013-14 10.142 3.845 6.831 31.808 1.1% 2015 2014-15 9.998 4.931 6.825 21.754 -0.1% 2016 2015-16 10,306 5.094 6.695 21.995 L/% 3017 2016-17 10.424 5.033 6.476 21,933 -0.3% 2018 2017-18 10.418 5.159 6.338 21.91.5 -0.1% 2019 81018-19 10.291 5,247 6.378 21,917 0.0% 2020 P2019-10 10.291 5.470 6.414 22.185 1.2% 2021 P2020-11 10.288 5,462 6.493 21,2.13 0.3% 2022 P2021-22 10,336 5,357 6,654 22,347 0.5% 2023 P2022-13 10,444 51259 6.786 22,489 0.6% 2024 P2023-14 10,593 5.153 6.867 21.713 1.0% 2035 P2024-15 10,'96 51285 6,886 22,967 1.1% ElemenlaryK-5 .Middle School 6-8 High Schaal 9-11 24.000 Enrollment History and Six Year Forecast 23,000 22,000-- 21,000 20,0D0 19.000- 18,000 17,000 16,000 15,000 CP ,� ;p_ School Ye ar •Hc 23 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2019 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN STUDENT FORECAST, continued something else (e.g. population) or that enrollment will mirror some projected trend for the school-age population over time. The report included 5 different calculations to provide a range of possible projections for the District to the year 2025. This model produces a projection that is between 21,500 and 25,000 when applied to the low, medium and high range modes. This provides a reasonable range for long-range planning and is consistent with estimates from various models. Long-range projections that establish the need for facilities are a modification of the cohort survival method. The cohort method of analysis becomes less reliable the farther out the projections are made. The Federal Way School District long-range projections are studied annually. The study includes information from the jurisdictional demographers as they project future housing and population in the region. The long-range projections used by Federal Way Public Schools reflect a similar age trend in student populations as the projections published by the Office of Financial Management for the State of Washington. Near term projections assume some growth from new housing, which is offset by current local economic conditions. The District tracks new development from five permitting jurisdictions. Long range planning assumes a student yield from proposed new housing consistent with historical growth patterns. Growth Management requires jurisdictions to plan for a minimum of twenty years. The Federal Way School District is a partner in this planning with the various jurisdictions comprising the school district geography. These projections create a vision of the school district community in the fixture. 22 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2019 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN STUDENT FORECAST Student enrollment projections are a basic component of budget development. Enrollment projections influence many of the financial estimates that go into budget preparation. The majority of staffing requirements are derived directly from the forecasted number of students. Allocations for instructional supplies and materials are also made on the basis of projected enrollment. Other expenditures and certain revenue projections are directly related to enrollment projections. Enrollment projections are completed annually in the Business Services Department. Projections must be detailed at various levels, district total, school -building totals, grade level and program level to include vocational and special education students. The basis of projections has been cohort survival analysis. Cohort survival is the analysis of a group that has a common statistical value (grade level) as it progresses through time. In a stable population the cohort would be 1.00 for all grades. This analysis uses historical information to develop averages and project the averages forward. This method does not trace individual students; it is concerned with aggregate numbers in each grade level. The district has used this method with varying years of history and weighted factors to study several projections. Because transfers in and out of the school system are common, student migration is factored into the analysis as it increases or decreases survival rates. Entry grades (kindergarten) are a unique problem in cohort analysis. The district collects information on birth rates within the district's census tracts, and treats these statistics as a cohort for kindergarten enrollment in the appropriate years. The Federal Way School District is using various statistical methods for projecting student enrollments. The resultant forecasted enrollments are evaluated below. The fust method is a statistical cohort analysis that produces ten distinct forecasts. These are forecast of enrollment for one year. The projections vary depending on the number of years of historical information and how they are weighted. A second method is a projection using an enrollment projection software package that allows the user to project independently at school or grade level and to aggregate these projections for the district level. The Enrollment MasterTM software provides statistical methods including trend line, standard grade progression (cohort) and combinations of these methods. This software produces a five-year projection of school enrollment. In February 2018, the District contracted a demographer to develop projections for the Federal Way School District. The report was complete in March 2018. The model used to forecast next year's enrollment uses cohort survival rates to measure grade to grade growth, assumes market share losses to private schools (consistent with county -wide average), assumes growth from new housing or losses due to net losses from migration. This forecast was provided as a range of three projections. The long-range forecast provided with this report used a model with cohort survival rates and growth rates based on projected changes in the 5-19 age group for King County. Most of the methods used for long range enrollment reporting assume that enrollment is a constant percent of 21 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2019 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN PORTABLE LOCATIONS, Continued PORTABLES LOCATED PORTABLES LOCATED AT FI .FMFNTARV SCHnnIS AT HIGH SCEIOOLS PORTABLES LOCATED AT MIDDI T. SCI -1001 -1; INSTRUCTIONAL NON INSTRUCTIONAL' Adelaide 1 2 Bri adoon I Sacajawea Camelot I 2 Gntei rise 3 TAP Sa lialie Green Gables TOTAL 18 7 Lake Dolloff 2 Lake Grove 2 Lakeland Marl(Twain 3 Meredith Hill 3 MirTorLake 10 2 Nautilus 5 Olympic View 2 Panther Lake 4 Rainier View 5 Sherwood Forest 4 Silver Lake 4 Star Lake 3 1 Sunn crest 6 Twin Lakes 3 Valhalla 4 W ildwood 4 Woodmont 3 TOTAL 67 12 PORTABLES LOCATED AT MIDDI T. SCI -1001 -1; 20 NON INSTRUCTIONAL INSTRUCTIONAL [Malice 2 1 Kilo 1 6 Lakota 10 Sacajawea 5 Se uo ah 2 To tem 4 TAP Sa lialie 4 TOTAL 18 7 20 PORTABLES LOCATLD AT SUPPORT FACILITIES MOT TDC 9 Fonner TA FA 11 TOTAL 20 DISTRICT PORTABLES IN USE FOR ECEAP AND/OR HEADSTART Sherwood Forest 1 2 Totem 2 Total 4 NON INSTRUCTIONAL INSTRUCTIONAL Decatur 8 1 Federal Way Thomas Jefferson 10 Todd Beamer 8 TOTAL 26 l PORTABLES LOCATLD AT SUPPORT FACILITIES MOT TDC 9 Fonner TA FA 11 TOTAL 20 DISTRICT PORTABLES IN USE FOR ECEAP AND/OR HEADSTART Sherwood Forest 1 2 Totem 2 Total 4 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2019 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN PORTABLE LOCATIONS The Washington State Constitution requires the State to provide each student a basic education. It is not an efficient use of District resources to build a school with a capacity for 500 students due to lack of space for 25 students when enrollment fluctuates throughout the year and from year to year. Portables are used as interim measures to house students when increasing population impacts a school attendance area. Portables may also be required to house students when new or changing programs require additional capacity. They also provide housing for students until permanent facilities can be financed and constricted. When permanent facilities become available, the portable(s) is either used for other purposes such as storage or child care programs, or moved to another school for an interim classroom. Some portables may not be fit to move due to age or physical condition. In these cases, the District may choose to buy new portables and surplus these unfit portables. The following page provides a list of the location of the portable facilities, used for educational facilities by Federal Way Public Schools. 19 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2019 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN BUILDING CAPACITIES, continued ELEMINTARY BUILDING PROGRAM CAPACITY School Name Headcount Adelaide 353 Bri +adoon 299 Camelot 277 Enterprise 345 G1-een Gables 401 Lake Dolloff 400 Lake Glove 353 Lakeland 371 M ark Twa in 430 Meredith Hill 375 Minor Lake 262 Nautilus K-8 466 Olympic View 353 Panther Lake 347 Rainier View 405 Sherwood Forest 390 Silver lake 400 Star La Ice 337 Sunn crest 405 Twin Lakes 341 Valhalla 406 W ildwood 372 Woodmont K-8 357 TOTAL 8,445 Elementary Average 367 No tes: MIDDLESCHOOL BUILDING PROGRAM CAPACfPY School Name Headcount FTE Illahee 855 864 Kilo 779 787 Lalcota 786 794 Saca'awea 694 701 Se uo ah 585 591 Totem 795 803 TAF n, Sa ghulie 598 604 Federal Way Public Academy 183 185 TOTAL 5 275 -5,329 *MI(k9e School Awrn e r 727 1 735 HIGH S Cl 100 L B UILDiNG PROGRAM CAPACITY School Name Headcount FTE Decatur 1243 1.329 Federal Way 1684 1,801 Thomas Jefferson 1224 1,309 Todd Beamer 1085 1,160 TAF a Sa ghalic 155 166 Career Academ at Truman 159 170 Federal Way Public Academy 116 124 Employment Transition Program 48 51 TOTAL 5 714 6,111 *High School Awragc r 1,309 1,400 * Federal Way Public Acadenry, Career Academy at Tnnnan High School, and Employment Transition Program and TAF @ Saghalie for the high school school grade span (9-12) are non -boundary schools. These schools are not used in the calculated averages. m FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2019 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN BUILDING CAPACITIES, continued High School Career Development and Learning Center (Resource) Room: Each high school provides special education resource room and career development classrooms for students requiring instruction to address specific disabilities. Preschool/ECEAP/Headstart: Our district currently offers preschool programs for both special needs & typically developing students at 10 elementary schools. We also have ECEAP and Headstart program at 10 sites (4 elementary, 1 middle, 3 high schools, and 2 off-site locations). These programs decrease capacity at those schools. The District has recently opened a leased space and relocated several programs to this location and to the recently vacated TAFA portables. This has also allowed us to expand the number of ECEAP programs offered. AIternative Learning Experience: Federal Way offers students the opportunity to participate in an Alternative Learning Experience through our Internet Academy. These students have never been included in the capacity calculation of unhoused students. 17 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2019 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN BUILDING CAPACITIES This Capital Facilities Plan establishes the District's "standard of service" in order to ascertain the District's current and future capacity. The Superintendent of Public Instruction establishes square footage guidelines for capacity, but these guidelines do not take into consideration the education program needs. In general, the District's current target class size provides that the average class size for a standard classroom for grades K through 3 should be 17 students to comply with current legislation, however compliance is currently suspended so we are using current average class sizes. In grades 4-5 the target is 25 students. For grades 6 to 12 the target class size is 26 students. Classrooms for students with Individualized Education Program (Special Education) needs are calculated at 12 seats per classroom. Historically, the District has used the OSPI square footage calculation as a baseline for capacity calculation and made adjustments for specific program needs. The District will continue to use this calculation for determining capacity at our middle and high schools. However, with the implementation of smaller K-3 class sizes which requires a significant reduction in K-3 class sizes, elementary capacity, in this Plan, will be calculated based on the number of classroom spaces, the number of students assigned to each classroom and the extent of support facilities available for students, staff, parents, and the community. Class Size Guidelines FWPS Historical HB2661/SHB2776 "Standard of Service" Enacted Law Square Footage Guideline Kindergarten 18.9 17 25-28 Grades 1-2 18.9 17 25-28 Grade 3 18.9 17 28 Grades 4-5 25 25 28 For the purposes of determining student capacity at individual schools, the following list clarifies adjustments to classroom spaces and the OSPI calculation. Special Education Resource Rooms: Each middle school requires the use of a standard classroom(s) for special education students requiring instruction to address specific disabilities. English as a Second Language Programs: Each middle school and high school requires the use of a standard classroom for students learning English as a second language. Middle School Computer Labs: Each middle school has computer labs, except Totem Middle School. Wireless access has been installed at all secondary schools. If additional classroom space is needed, these computer labs may be converted to mobile carts. W-1 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2019 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN SECTION 3 - SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION Building Capacities - The Education Program Portable Locations Student Forecast — 2019 through 2025 15 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2019 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN MAP - CITY AND COUNTY JURISDICTIONS 14 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2019 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN NIAP - HIGH SCHOOL BOUNDARIES FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 5 ■ ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS . MIDDLE SCHOOLS 1 ADELAIDE ELEMENTARY 36 fWPUBUCACADEMY 2 BRIGADOONCLEMCNTARY 30 ILLAHEE MIDDLE SCHOOL�- 3 CAMELOT ELEMENTARY 4 ENTERPRISE ELEMENTARY 31 KILO MIDDLE SCHOOL S GREEN GABLES ELEMENTARY 32 LAKOTA MIDDLE SCHOOL 6 LAKE DOLLOFF ELEMENTARY 33 SACAJAWEA MIDDLE SCHOOL 7 LAKE GROVE ELEMENTARY 37 SEQUOYAH MIDDLE SCHOOL ti ` 8 LAKELAND ELEMENTARY 35 TOTEM MIDDLE SCHOOL. J°�. t ""^,,,,, •{z. ,_ I ! �'�'•"� 9 MARK TWAIN ELEMENTARY 38 TAF @SAGHALIE .. _'F• ;��'�; 10 MEREDITH HILL ELEMENTARY 11 MIRROR LAKE ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS * •^ : `� .-� - 12 NAUTILUS K$ SCHOOL Y ;,,• 13 OLYMPIC VIEW ELEMENTARY 40 DECATUR NIGH ' 14 PANTHER LAKE ELEMENTARY 41 FEDERAL WAY IIIGII 3! L �! ti 15 RAINIER VIEW ELEMENTARY 421 THOMAS JEFFERSON HIGH" `D:"sem _ r -• {•�, 16 SHERWOOD FOREST ELEMENTARY 45 TODD BEAMER HIGH 17SILVER LAKE ELEMENTARY 490 CAREER ACADEMY @ TRUMAN 1R STAR LAKE ELEMENTARY 51 ETP/NORMAN CENTER - = �• `• r•i •'� . , ...,..,. ° •i t 19 SUNNYCREST ELEMENTARY �, �. t= 20 TWIN LAKES ELEMENTARY ® ADMINISTRATIVE SITES �'� t; .,ti_..y " j " i ' —• w, c '^t _ - 21 VALHALLA ELEMENTARY 22 WILDWOOD ELEMENTARY ..V..c::: * ' i • T ,+:; E tLf:.� r — } —�� • L 23 WOODMONT K-8 SCI IOOl m �= �. a .- 1 •; FWPS PROPERTY CM 4 r t J .� ➢ •� _.;,,r.....y 6 f•. 1_.,<. yy ISI -- i ` r t .t �„� ...— it � I i ` r3 "' ....• HIGH SCHOOL BOUNDARIESj. ('~a9 S ,lrlf N 07.10 .3 0.6 0.9 1.2 ®hues Date: 9.2.16 13 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2019 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN MAP - MIDDLE SCHOOL BOUNDARIES FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 3 ADELAIDE ELEMENTARY 2 BRIGADOON ELEMENTARY 3 CAMELOT ELEMENTARY 4 ENTERPRISE ELEMENTARY 5 GREEN GABLES ELEMENTARY 6 LAKE DOLLOFF ELEMENTARY 7 LAKE GROVE ELEMENTARY 8 LAKELAND ELEMENTARY 9 MARK TWAIN ELEMENTARY 10 MEREDITH HILL ELEMENTARY 11 MIRRORLAKE ELEMENTARY 12 NAUTILUS K 8 SCHOOL 13 OLYMPIC VIEW ELEMENTARY 14 PANTHER LAKE ELEMENTARY 15 RAINIER VIEW ELEMENTARY 16 SHERWOOD FOREST ELEMENTARY 17 SILVER LAKE ELEMENTARY 18 STAR LAKE ELEMENTARY 19 SUNNYCRE5TELEMENTARY 20 TWIN LAKES ELEMENTARY 21 VALHALLA ELEMENTARY 22 WILDWOOD ELEMENTARY 23 WOODMONT K 8 SCHOOL E FWPS PROPERTY MIDDLE SCHOOLS fW PUBUC ACADEMY ILLAHEE MIDDLE SCHOOL KILO MIDDLE SCHOOL LAKOTA MIDDLE SCHOOL SACAJAWEA MIDDLE SCHOOL SERUOYAH MIDDLE SCHOOL TOTEM MIDDLE SCHOOL TAF �c 1i SAGHALIE HIGIISCHOOLS 40 DECATUR HIGH 41 FEDERAL WAY HIGH 421 THOMAS JEFFCRSON HIGH 45 TODD SEAMIER HIGH 490 CAREER ACADEMY @ TRUMAN 51 ETP/NORMAN CENTER ® ADMINISTRATIVE SITES MIDDLE SCHOOL BOUNDARIES N 00.10.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 ®Mlles Date: 7.1.17 12 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2019 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN MAP - ELEMENTARY BOUNDARIES FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS r ■ ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS . MIDDLE SCHOOLS 1 ADELAIDE ELEMENTARY 36 FW PUBLIC ACADEMY _ 2 BRIGADOON ELEMENTARY 30 ILLAHEE MI DDLE SCHOOL {`{ 3 CAMELOT ELEMENTARY �' ;j" 4 ENTERPRISE ELEMENTARY 31 KILO MIDDLE SCHOOL N 5 GREEN GABLES ELEMENTARY 32 LAKOTA MIDDLE SCHOOL 'w 6 LAKE DOLLOFF ELEMENTARY 33 SACAJAWEA MIDDLE SCHOOL 7 LAKE GROVE ELEMENTARY 37 SEQUOYAH MIDDLE SCHOOL 8 LAKELANDELEMfNTARY 35 TOTEM MIDDLE SCHOOL I 9 MARK TWAIN ELEMENTARY 38 TAF @ SAGHALIE 10 MEREDITH IIILL ELEMENTARY 11 MIRROR LAKE ELEMENTARY �,� 12 NAUTILUS K-8 SCHOOL heat? HIGH SCHOOLS 13 OLYMPICVIEW ELEMENTARY 40 DECATUR HIGH 1 ,',,,,. ^i•�">• t I _ 1 41 FEDERAL WAY HIGH PANTHER LAKE ELEMENTARY 421 THOMAS JEFFERSON HIGH - - i •,�+`1 155 RAINIER VIEW ELEMENTARY 45 TODD BEAMER HIGH 16 SHERWOOD FOREST ELEMENTARY 490 CAREER ACADEMY @ TRUMAN 17 SILVER LAKE ELEMENTARY 51 ETP/NORMAN CENTER 18 STAR LAKE ELEMENTARY _ __ t� ,T�..::5� ;• c,:. f 19 SUNNYCREST ELEMENTARY ` ,,,_, 20 TWIN LAKES ELEMENTARY ■ ADMINISTRATIVE SITES z y e ,; " ; -- •' ; 21 VALHALLA ELEMENTARY 22 WILDW00D ELEMENTARY 23 WOODMONT K-8 SCHOOL •' i _ / �•i ■ FWPS PROPERTY in N t +•� Tf �{.....r i.. . t t E^•' is t , �^' jw � __ _I; t t f:+-.� ... 1 �' f l •.w ELEMENTARY i ; ;__ BOUNDARIES Hy,= t 7 N 00.16.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 ®Mlles Date: 7.1.17 11 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2019 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN SECTION 2 - MAPS Federal Way Public Schools has twenty-one elementary schools (grades K-5), two schools with a K-8 grade configuration, six middle school schools (grades 6-8), four high schools (grades 9-12) and two small secondary schools. The Federal Way Public Academy serves students in grades 6-10. The programs at Career Academy at Truman High School serves students in grades 9-12. In addition to these programs, TAF@Saghalie serves students in grades 6-12 who reside within the service area. The following maps show the service area boundaries for each school, by school type. (Career Academy at Truman High School, Open Doors and Federal Way Public Academy serve students from throughout the District). The identified boundaries are reviewed annually. Any change in grade configuration or adoption of programs that affect school populations may necessitate a change in school service areas. The Growth Management Act requires that a jurisdiction evaluate if the public facility infrastructure is in place to handle new housing developments. In the case of most public facilities, new development has its major impact on the facilities immediately adjacent to that development. School Districts are different. If the District does not have permanent facilities available, interim measures must be taken until new facilities can be built or until boundaries can be adjusted to match the population changes to the surrounding facilities. Adjusting boundaries requires careful consideration by the District and is not taken lightly. It is recognized that there is a potential impact on stridents who are required to change schools. Boundary adjustments impact the whole district, not just one school. It is important to realize that a single housing development does not require the construction of a complete school facility. School districts are required to project growth throughout the district and build or adjust boundaries based on growth throughout the district, not just around a single development. The final map included represents the city and county boundaries which overlap with the district's service areas. • City of Algona • City of Auburn • City of Des Moines • City of Federal Way • City of Kent • City of Milton • Unincorporated King County 10 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2019 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 6 -YEAR FINANCE PLAN Secured Funding Stakes I -p= Fees (1) 3 I=d Salef..& _ W,5XkW3) Bondo L—vF..&M SS 892 School Constnaction?s«sty Pm(SG 4) $7,457,085 TOTAL S '660939 Projected Revenue Soones SHaool Caostmctioa asass,,,,,. Pmamm5 s 3'.3 (a.. SimRedast- T53000 Bond Fonds r LaadFu dSales s0 Fees m sL,fi00000 TMAL SW7300,000 Actual and Planned Expenditures T-1/ Secsaed Foadmg sad P-jeu.d Ramo. 5609960 939 MwSCHOOLS [a.10M 1. T3exfxes am a: e�fvbrixw� t:eH in aKag County. Ciry orF.dFxal Nag, CiAj w �uhao; and City ofKmt mmpa�3 fc aomnot, affiw'R Ue s rlable fetes by theDiseic: sss yY.em impmcmr`ets T]..yeceod balsas- m Li127. 2 Tisk isyvread belmce oats 1117.' - 3. This m the 17I3U17 tntaaro of hind rinds sad1 L+ry fords. This rhe in ]ssys irttcat rnaingc. the lnhmrs am ieFd f c th.eompL[im orFWHS. A. This tcptataEs t)e balmo` o: SCa3 utrirh . it b. sed fo to o�pi-.:e th. reLmTimS o: Fe�rd Way k'e Sciml Tui. is tbebahaoe on 12/31/17. 5. This is anticipated SCP3 faa the f tmep,, e.ts.Ah d ed by the int— in 2017. 6. Thbi.asa—d R.3 Class—s&wt-Vont. 7.lnlvaemb�2017,the DL-tddpuud.S450yrboad mama Only the c a .ddedaoithiaaeasse cv ity am indmLd in snhn.l impar i_- cilmhtiou. Sapp— S. Tbs se am projectd sgeofsn:pls pfopftta 9. Tb— ata pmjectad few basedyin aawgoa dnal d..Io t: m the Du- hitt, S25,000 pc month—the—t 6v.sa. 10. Pl je* bod£ets I--, oa mreA—testimates as m";�201 S. 1 L Nocmaa Ceaxc ass p:aeFvsed x2010 totmnse t+�Employmeat 7saasition PeoVam. � r 1 U pwch_e bas bete rmaaad thmueh a side appcmed LOC:i. progam fhcoach 2020. 127hese frs r..pxesmtthe cost of pnxrhuing sad mstalfmg sem porabL•;.The p—bla cq—deestates y� mag iepb,—es cmc pobbLm tint acesot fi=-ho=L Th—may not ia---- cep yand an aot;ad.&d is the cp"--y n FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2019 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN NEEDS FORECAST - ADDITIONAL FACILITIES NEW FACILITY LOCATION ANTICIPATED SOURCE OF FUNDS No current plans for additional facilities. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2019 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN NEEDS FORECAST - EXISTING FACILITIES PHASE EXISTING FACILITY FUTURE NEEDS ANTICIPATED SOURCE OF FUNDS On- Purchase and Relocate Interim Capacity Anticipated source of funds is going Portables Impact Fees. II Thomas Jefferson High Replace Existing Building, Voter Approved Capital bond School Increase Capacity II Illahee Middle School Replace Existing Building Voter Approved Capital bond II Totem Middle School Replace Existing Building Voter Approved Capital bond II Lake Grove Elementary Replace Existing Building, Voter Approved Capital bond Increase Capacity II Mark Twain Elementary Replace Existing Building, TBD, pending SCAP funding Increase Capacity II Mirror Lake Elementary Replace Existing Building, Voter Approved Capital bond Increase Capacity II Olympic View K-8 School Replace Existing Building, Voter Approved Capital bond Increase Capacity II Star Lake Elementary Replace Existing Building, Voter Approved Capital bond Increase Capacity II Wildwood Elementary Replace Existing Building, Voter Approved Capital bond Increase Capacity II Memorial Stadium Replace Existing Facility Voter Approved Capital bond BI Decatur High School Replace Existing Building, TBD Increase Capacity III Kilo Middle School Replace Existing Building TBD III Sacajawea Middle School Replace Existing Building TBD III Adelaide Elementary Replace Existing Building, TBD Increase Capacity III Brigadoon Elementary Replace Existing Building, TBD Increase Capacity III Camelot Elementary Replace Existing Building, TBD Increase Capacity III Lake Dolloff Elementary Replace Existing Building, TBD Increase Capacity III Nautilus K-8 School Replace Existing Building, TBD Increase Capacity III Twin Lakes Elementary Replace Existing Building, TBD Increase Capacity IB Woodmont K-8 School Replace Existing Building, TBD Increase Capacity As part of the multi -phase plan, the District intends to increase capacity for elementary and high school students with expansion at the Thomas Jefferson, Lake Grove, Mirror Lake, Olympic View, Star Lake, and Wildwood sites. Increased capacity at the five elementary schools listed and additional elementary schools in later phases, supplant the need for construction of a twenty-fourth elementary school. Only projects in Phase II with plans to increase capacity are included in the impact fee calculation for this plan. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2019 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN CURRENT INVENTORY NON -INSTRUCTIONAL I+ACILITIES Developed Property Central Kitchen 1214S332 n1 Federal Way 98003 Federal Way Memorial Field 1300 S 308" St Federal Way 98003 Educational Services Center 33330 8th Ave S Federal Way 98003 Support Services Center 1211 S332 n1 St Federal Way 98003 Leased Property Early Learning Center at Uptown 1066 S 320" St Federal Way 98003 Square Undeveloped Property Site Location 75 SW 360th Street & 3rd Avenue SW — 9.2 Acres 65 S 351st Street & 52nd Avenue S — 8.8 Acres 60 E of 10th Avenue SW - SW 334th & SW 335th Streets - 10.04 Acres 73 N of SW 320 and east of 45th PL SW — 23.45 Acres 71 S 344th Street & 46th Avenue S - 17.47 Acres 82 1" Way S and S 342"d St — Minimal acreage 96 S 308th St and 14th Ave S —.36 Acres Notes: Not all undeveloped properties are large enough to meet school construction requirements. Properties may be traded or sold depending on what locations are needed to house students in the District. 0 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2019 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN INVENTORY OF EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (K-5) Adelaide 1635 SW 304`h St Federal Way 98023 Brigadoon 3601 SW 336"' St Federal Way 98023 Camelot 4041 S 29811 St Auburn 98001 Enterprise 351015"' Ave SW Federal Way 98023 Green Gables 32607 4711 Ave SW Federal Way 98023 Lake Dolloff 4200 S 30811' St Auburn 98001 Lake Grove 303 SW 308" St Federal Way 98023 Lakeland 35827 32' Ave S Auburn 98001 Mark Twain 2450 S Star Lake Rd Federal Way 98003 Meredith Hill 5830 S 300"' St Auburn 98001 Mirror Lake 625 S 31411' St Federal Way 98003 Nautilus (K-8) 1000 S 289"' St Federal Way 98003 Olympic View 2626 SW 32711' St Federal Way 98023 Panther Lake 34424 1" Ave S Federal Way 98003 Rainier View 3015 S 368"i St Federal Way 98003 Sherwood Forest 34600 12"i Ave SW Federal Way 98023 Silver Lake 1310 SW 325"' Pl Federal Way 98023 Star Lake 4014 S 2701' St Kent 98032 Sunnycrest 24629 42"d Ave S Kent 98032 Twin Lakes 4400 SW 3201' St Federal Way 98023 Valhalla 27847 42°" Ave S Auburn 98001 Wildwood 2405 S 300"' St Federal Way 98003 Woodmont (K-8) 26454 16"' Ave S Des Moines 98198 MIDDLE SCHOOLS (6-8) Federal Way Public Acaderny (6-10) 34620 9"i Ave S Federal Way 98003 Illahee 36001 1" Ave S Federal Way 98003 Kilo 4400 S 3081" St Auburn 98001 Lakota 1415 SW 314"' St Federal Way 98023 Sacajawea 1101 S Dash Point Rd Federal Way 98003 Sequoyah 3450 S 360"' ST Auburn 98001 Totem 26630 40" Ave S Kent 98032 TAF @ Saghalie (6-12) 33914 19" Ave SW Federal Way 98023 HIGH SCHOOLS (9-12) Decatur 2800 SW 320" St Federal Way 98023 Federal Way 30611 16"' Ave S Federal Way 98003 Thomas Jefferson 4248 S 288"' St Auburn 98001 Todd Beamer 35999 16"' Ave S Federal Way 98003 Career Academy at Truman 31455 28"i Ave S Federal Way 98003 ADDITIONAL SCHOOLS Internet Academy (K-12) 31455 28"' Ave S Federal Way 98003 Employment Transition Program (12+) 33250 2151 Ave SW Federal Way 98023 Federal Way Open Doors 31455 28"' Ave S Federal Way 98003 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2019 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN SECTION 1 - THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN The State Growth Management Act requires that several pieces of information be gathered to determine the facilities available and needed to meet the needs of a growing community. This section provides information about current facilities, existing facility needs, and expected future facility requirements for Federal Way Public Schools. A Financial Plan that shows expected funding for any new construction, portables and modernization listed follows this. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2019 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN INTRODUCTION, continued As we are in the planning stages for the newly approved bond projects, we are entering the final phase of the $106 million project replacing Federal Way High School. The new facility will increased capacity by approximately 200 students and is expected to be completed by winter 2018. The costs of this additional capacity is excluded from the 2019 school impact fee calculations. The District continues to monitor factors that may have an impact on enrollment and capacity at our schools. In accordance with the McCleary decision, the State has provided funding to reduce K-3 class size to 17 and 4-12 class size to 25. Initiative Measure No. 1351 would further reduce these class sizes in schools where more than 50% of students were eligible for free and reduced -price meals in the prior year. Under this measure, class sizes in those schools would be reduced to 15 in grades K-3, 22 in grade 4, and 23 in grades 5-12. The additional class size reductions required by Initiative 1351 would increase our classroom need from 60 to 120 at our Elementary & K-8 schools and add a need for an additional 26 classrooms at our Secondary schools. We will also continue to study school boundaries as new housing and fluctuating populations impact specific schools. Some shifts in boundaries may be required in the coming years. At this time with more than 1,000 unhoused elementary students, boundary adjustments cannot resolve the need for additional capacity. The maps included in this Plan reflect the boundaries for the 2018-19 school year. 3 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2019 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN INTRODUCTION In response to the requirements of the State of Washington Growth Management Act (SHB) 2929 (1990) and ESHB 1025 (1991)), and under the School Impact Fee Ordinances of King County Code 21A, City of Federal Way Ordinance No. 95-249 effective December 21, 1995 as amended, City of Kent Ordinance No.3260 effective March 1996, and the City of Auburn Ordinance No. 5078 effective 1998, Federal Way Public Schools has updated its 2019 Capital Facilities Plan as of May 2018. This Plan is scheduled for adoption by King County, the City of Kent, City of Federal Way and the City of Auburn and is incorporated in the Comprehensive Plans of each jurisdiction by reference. This plan is also included in the Facilities Plan element of the Comprehensive Plans of each jurisdiction. To date, the City of Des Moines has not adopted a school impact fee ordinance. The City of Des Moines collects school impact fees as part of the SEPA process. The Growth Management Act requires the County to designate Urban Growth areas within which urban growth can be encouraged. The Growth Management Planning Council adopted and recommended to the King County Council four Urban Growth Area Line Maps with designations for urban centers. A designation was made within the Federal Way planning area, which encompasses Federal Way Public Schools boundaries. King County will encourage and actively support the development of Urban Centers to meet the region's need for housing, jobs, services, culture, and recreation. This Plan's estimated population growth is prepared with this underlying assumption. This Capital Facilities Plan will be used as documentation for any jurisdiction, which requires its use to meet the needs of the Growth Management Act. This plan is not intended to be the sole planning tool for all of the District needs. The District may prepare interim plans consistent with Board policies or management need. During the 2016-17 school year the District formed a 100 member Facilities Planning Committee consisting of parents, community members and staff. The Committee was tasked with developing a recommendation to the Superintendent regarding Phase 2 of the District's plan for school construction, remodeling, and/or modernization for voter consideration in November 2017. The voters passed this $450M bond authorization with a 62% YES vote reflecting a commitment to invest in the modernization of our infrastructure. Through the committee's work a determination was made to rebuild Thomas Jefferson High School, Illahee Middle School, Totem Middle School, Lake Grove Elementary, Mirror Lake Elementary, Olympic View Elementary, Star Lake Elementary, and Wildwood Elementary. In addition to the school projects, the committee included a plan to modernize Memorial Stadium, which currently supports athletic activities for all schools. The rebuilding of the aforementioned schools will create additional capacity for students at the elementary and high school levels. The expanded capacity supplants the need for additional elementary schools. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2019 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION 2-3 SECTION 1 THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Introduction 4 Inventory of Educational Facilities 5 Inventory of Non -Instructional Facilities 6 Needs Forecast - Existing Facilities 7 Needs Forecast - New Facilities 8 Six Year Finance Plan 9 SECTION 2 MAPS Introduction 10 Map - Elementary Boundaries 11 Map - Middle School Boundaries 12 Map - High School Boundaries 13 Map — City and County Jurisdictions 14 SECTION 3 SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION Introduction 15 Building Capacities 16-18 Portable Locations 19-20 Student Forecast 21-23 SECTION 4 KING COUNTY, CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, AND CITY OF KENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS Introduction 24 Capacity Summaries 25-29 Impact Fee Calculations 30-31 Reference to Impact Fee Calculations 32-33 Student Generation Rates 34 Impact Fee Changes from 2018 to 2019 35 1 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2019 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN May 29, 2018 BOARD OF EDUCATION Hiroshi Eto Carol Gregory Geoffery McAnalloy Mildred 0116e Claire Wilson SUPERINTENDENT Dr. Tammy Campbell Prepared by:. Sally D. McLean, Chief Finance & Operations Officer Jennifer Wojciechowski, Student & Demographic Forecaster FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS Each Scholar: A voice. A dream. A BRIGHT future. Mirror Lake Elementary School I01 L _ r Wildwood Elementary School Mirror Lake Elementary School CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2019 I01 L _ r CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2019 POLICY/TEXT AMENDMENT (P/T) #3 INCORPORATE FEDERAL WY PUBLIC SCHOOLS #210, 2019 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN process is part of the overall growth management planning process, these resources are more likely to be protected. 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? The Plan will not have any impact on land or shoreline use that is incompatible existing comprehensive plans, land use codes, or shoreline management plans. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: None are proposed at this time. Actual facilities constructed to implement the Plan will be sited and constructed to avoid or reduce land use impacts. 6. Now would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? This proposal should not create substantial new demands for transportation. The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may create an increase in traffic near new District facilities but also reduce traffic by creating the opportunity for more students to walk to a closer school. The construction of the facilities included in the Capital Facilities Plan may result in minor increases in the demand for public services and utilities, such as fire and police protection, and water, sewer, and electric utilities. None of these impacts are likely to be significant. The impacts on transportation and public services and utilities of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will be addressed during project -level review when appropriate. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: No measures to reduce or respond to such demands are proposed at this time. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Pian will not conflict with any laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? The Plan itself will have no impact on these elements of the environment. Depending on the particular site, construction of facilities may require clearing sites of plants and loss of animal habitat. To the extent residential development is allowed, additional area may be cleared and eliminated as habitat for animals. There are not likely to be any impacts on fish or marine life, although some water quality degradation in streams and rivers could occur due to increased residential development. These impacts have been or will be addressed in more detail during project -specific environmental review when appropriate. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: Individual projects will be evaluated and mitigated appropriately on a project -specific basis, but specific mitigation proposals cannot be identified at this time. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Any actual projects resulting from this Plan would consume heating fuel and electrical energy. Increased traffic resulting from the construction of additional facilities would consume petroleum based fuels. Reduced traffic resulting from construction of another neighborhood school may also reduce amounts of fuel consumed, but it is not possible to quantify such reduction in consumption at this time. These impacts have been or will be addressed in more detail during project - specific environmental review when appropriate. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: Facilities would be constructed in accordance with applicable energy efficiency standards. 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? The Plan and facilities constructed pursuant to the Plan should have no impact on these resources. It is not possible to predict whether other development made possible by this Plan would affect sensitive areas. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: No specific measures are being proposed at this time. Appropriate measures have been or will be proposed during project -specific review. Annual updates of this Plan will be coordinated with Pierce County, City of Auburn and City of Sumner as part of the Growth Management Act process, one of the purposes of which is to protect environmentally sensitive areas. To the extent the School District's facilities planning D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? To the extent this Plan makes it more likely that school facilities will be constructed, and/or renovated or remodeled, some of these environmental impacts will be more likely. Additional impermeable surfaces, such as roofs, parking lots, sidewalks, access roads and playgrounds will increase storm water runoff, which could enter surface or ground water. Emissions to air could result from heating systems, emergency generators and other equipment, and from additional car and bus trips to and from the school for students and faculty. Any emissions resulting from this Plan should not require the production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances, with the possible exception of storage of diesel fuel or gasoline for emergency generating equipment. Noise may result from additional traffic and from concentrating several hundred children at a new facility, especially before and after school and during recesses. To the extent this proposal allows additional residential development to occur, these impacts would also increase somewhat, but it is not possible to quantify those impacts at this time. The impacts would depend on the type, location and distribution of housing, for example, whether single or multiple family and the location of the school. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: Facilities implementing the Plan have been or will be evaluated at the project specific level and impacts will be mitigated accordingly. Storm water detention and runoff will meet applicable County and/or City requirements and, depending on the date of actual construction, may be subject to a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permitting requirements. Discharges to air will be minimal, and will meet any applicable requirements of the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Authority. Fuel oil will be stored according to local and state requirements. a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. Utilities available at project sites have been or will be identified during project specific environmental review. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Utility revisions and construction needs will be identified during project -specific environmental review. C. Signature The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: #*!!�! Dr. Jud eumeier-Martinson, Superintendent Date Submitted: May 25, 2018 C. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? An inventory of parking spaces and the impacts of specific projects on parking spaces has been or will be conducted during project -specific environmental review. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). The development of new schools may require new access roads or streets. This issue will be fully addressed during project -specific environmental review. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. Use of water, rail or air transportation has been or will be addressed during site specific, project -level environmental review. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. Each project proposal has been or will be separately evaluated as to traffic impacts. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Mitigation of impacts on transportation has been or will be addressed during project specific environmental review. 15. Public Services: a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. The District does not anticipate that the projects identified in the Capital Facilities Plan will substantially increase the need for other public services. impacts have been or will be evaluated on a project -specific basis. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Schools are built with automatic security systems, fire alarms, smoke alarms, heat sensors and sprinkler systems. 16. Utilities b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. Recreational impacts have been or will be addressed during project specific environmental review. Projects in the Capital Facilities Plan may enhance recreational opportunities and uses. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: Any adverse effects on recreation stemming from individual project proposals have been or will be subject to mitigation during the environmental review procedure. A school site usually provides recreational facilities to the community in the form of additional play fields and gymnasiums. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation: a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. The existence of historic and cultural resources will be determined at the time of project -specific environmental review. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. An inventory of historical sites has been or will be conducted as part of project specific environmental review. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Appropriate measures have been or will be proposed on a project -specific basis. 14. Transportation: a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Impact on public streets and highways has been or will be assessed during project specific environmental review. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? The relationship between specific projects and public transit has been or will be assessed during project -specific environmental review. 10. Aesthetics: a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? Aesthetic impacts have been or will be determined at the time of site-specific, project -level environmental review. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Aesthetic impacts have been or will be determined at the time of site-specific, project -level environmental review. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Appropriate measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts have been or will be determined at the time of project -specific environmental review. 11. Light and Glare: a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Light or glare impacts have been or will be determined at the time of project -specific environmental review. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Light or glare impacts have been or will be determined at the time of the project - specific environmental review. C. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Off-site sources of light or glare have been or will be evaluated at the time of project specific environmental review. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Mitigation of light and glare impacts have been or will be addressed during project specific environmental review. 12. Recreation: a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? There are a variety of formal and informal recreational facilities within the Dieringer School District. area? If so, specify. Environmentally sensitive areas, if any, will be identified during project -specific environmental review. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? This information has been or will be provided at the time of project -specific environmental review. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? It is not anticipated that proposed projects will displace any people. Displacement of people, if any, will be evaluated during project -specific environmental review. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will be subject to project specific environmental review and local approval at the time the project is formally proposed. I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Compatibility of the proposal and specific projects with existing uses and plans have been or will be assessed as part of the comprehensive planning process and during project -specific environmental review. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. No housing units would be provided_ b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Any impact of project proposals on existing housing have been or would be evaluated during project -specific environmental review procedures. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Measures to reduce or control any housing impacts have been or will be addressed during site-specific, project -level environmental review. which would be addressed during project specific environmental review. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 3} Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Project noise impacts have been or will be evaluated and mitigated during the project -specific environmental review. Each project is or will be subject to applicable local regulations. 8. Land and Shoreline Use: a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? There are a variety of land uses within the Dieringer School District, including residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, utility, agricultural, forestry, open space, recreational, etc. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. This question will be addressed during site-specific, project -level environmental review. C. Describe any structures on the site. Structures located on proposed sites have been or will be identified and described during project -specific environmental review when appropriate. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Structures to be demolished, if any, will be identified as part of the project -specific environmental review process. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? There are a variety of zoning classifications within the Dieringer School District. Site specific zoning information has been or will be identified during project -specific environmental review. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? An inventory of comprehensive pian designations has been or will be completed during project -specific environmental review. g. if applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Any shoreline master program designations have been or will be identified during project -specific environmental review. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" lighting, and insulating systems prior to allowing speck projects to proceed. Energy needs will be decided at the time of specific engineering and site design planning. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe: Individual projects of this Capital Facilities Plan will be evaluated as to their impact on the solar potential of adjacent projects during environmental review. C. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Energy conservation measures will be considered at the project -specific design phase and environmental review. 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 1) Describe special emergency services that might required. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Proposed projects will comply with all current codes, standards, and rules and regulations. Individual projects have been or will be subject to environmental review and local approval at the time of formal submittal. b. Noise: 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? A variety of noises exist within the Dieringer School District. Specific noise sources have been or will be identified during project -specific environmental review. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Normal construction noises would exist on a short-term basis during school construction. There could be an increase in traffic or operations -related noise Specific impacts to these species from individual projects has been or be determined at the time of project proposal and will be addressed during site-specific, project -level environmental review. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will be subject to environmental review and local approval at the time of project proposal. 5. Animals: a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: fish: bass, salmon, trout, perch, crappies, tiger muskies other: An inventory of species observed on or near sites has been or will be developed during project -specific environmental review, b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Specific impacts to these species from individual projects will be determined at the time of project proposal and will be reviewed in cooperation with the affected jurisdictions. C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Impacts on migration routes, if any, will addressed during site-specific, project -levet environmental review. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Appropriate measures to preserve or enhance wildlife have been or will be determined at the time of site-specific, project -level environmental review. 6. Energy and Natural Resources: a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. The State Board of Education requires a life -cycle cost analysis of all heating, C. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm \eater) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may have varying storm water runoff consequences. Each project will be subject to environmental review and applicable local regulations. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will have varying environmental impacts and will be subject to appropriate review and local regulations prior to construction. Information regarding waste materials will be presented at the time of such review. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Specific measures to reduce or control runoff impacts have been or will be developed on a project -specific basis in cooperation with the appropriate jurisdiction. 4. Plants: a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage. Other other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation There are various vegetative zones within the Dieringer School District. An inventory of species has been or will be produced as part of project -specific environmental review. b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Impacts on vegetation will be determined at the time of project -specific environmental review at the time the project is formally proposed. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. Information with respect to placement or removal of fill or dredge material will be addressed at the time of project -specific environmental review. Applicable local regulations have been or will be satisfied. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Any surface water withdrawals or diversions have been or will be addressed during project -specific environmental review. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. Each capital facilities project, if located in a floodplain area, will be required to meet applicable local regulations for flood areas. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. Specific information regarding discharges of waste materials, if any, will be addressed during project -specific environmental review. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Pian may impact ground water resources. Each project will be evaluated during project -specific environmental review, Applicable local regulations have been or will be satisfied. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals..; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. Impacts of discharged waste material, if any, have been or will be addressed during site-specific, project -level environmental review. be addressed during project -specific environmental review. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Erosion potential on individual project sites will be addressed during project -specific environmental review. Relevant erosion reduction and control requirements will be met. a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (ie., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Various emissions, many construction -related, may result from individual projects. Air-quality impacts will be evaluated during project -specific environmental review. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions_ b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Off-site sources and necessary mitigation will be addressed during project -specific environmental review. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Plans for individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be subject to environmental review and relevant local approval processes, including obtaining of any necessary air quality permits, at the time individual projects are formally proposed. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 3. Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. There is a network of surface water bodies within the Dieringer School District. The surface water regimes and flow patterns have been or will be researched and incorporated in the design of each individual project. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Some projects may require work near these described waters. Individual projects in the Capital Facilities Plan will be subject to environmental review and local approval requirements at the time the project is formally proposed. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Fiat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, and more than 213 of Lake Tapps. The Dieringer School District is comprised of a variety of topographic land forms and gradients, including all of those listed. Specific topographic characteristics will identified during the planning and permit process for each capital project. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Specific slope characteristics will be identified during the planning and permit process for each capital project. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Specific soil types will be identified during the planning and permit process for each capital project. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Unstable soils may exist within the Dieringer School District. Specific soil limitations on individual project sites will be identified at the time of environmental review. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will be subject to project specific environmental review and local approval at the time of proposal. Proposed grading projects, as well as the purpose, type, quantity, and source of fill materials will be identified as appropriate to each project. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. It is possible that erosion could occur as a result of construction projects currently proposed in the Capital Facilities Plan. Individual projects and their erosion impacts will be evaluated on a site-specific basis. Individual projects will be subject to environmental review and local approval at the time of proposal. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings?) Percentage of impervious cover with vary with each capital facilities project and will 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. The above -referenced projects will undergo environmental review at the time of formai proposal. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. IM 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Pierce County and Cities of Auburn and Sumner will review and approve the Capital Facilities Plan for the purposes of impact fee ordinances and will need to adopt the Plan as an amendment to the Capital Facilities Plan element of the Comprehensive Plans of Pierce County and Cities of Auburn and Sumner. 11. Give a brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description_) This is a non -project action. This proposal involves the adoption of the Dieringer School District 2018 Capital Facilities Plan for the purpose of planning the facilities needs of the District and for inclusion in the Capital Facilities Plan element and possible amendment of the Comprehensive Plans for Pierce County, City of Auburn and City of Sumner. A copy of the Capital Facilities Plan may be viewed at the Dieringer School District Office. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The 2018 Capital Facilities Plan will affect the Dieringer School District. The District includes an area of approximately 5.5 square miles. Portions of the City of Auburn and the City of Sumner, and parts of unincorporated Pierce County, fall within the District's boundaries. A. BACKGROUND Name of proposed project, if applicable The adoption of a six-year Capital Facilities Plan by the Dieringer School District. The Comprehensive Plans of Pierce County, City of Auburn and City of Sumner have been and/or will be amended to include the Dieringer School District 2017 Capital Facilities Plan in the Capital Facilities Plan Element of each jurisdiction's Comprehensive Plan. A copy of the District's Plan is available for review in the District Office. Name of applicant: Dieringer School District No. 343 Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Dieringer School District No. 343 1320 1781h Ave E. Lake Tapps, WA 98391 Contact Person: Dr. Judy Neu meier-Martinson, Superintendent Telephone: (253) 862-2537 4. Date checklist prepared: May 25, 2018. 5, Agency requesting checklist: Dieringer School District No. 343 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): The 2018 Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Pian is scheduled to be adopted in June 18, 2018 and forwarded to Pierce County, Cities of Auburn and Sumner for possible inclusion in each jurisdiction's Comprehensive Plan. The Capital Facilities Plan will be updated annually. Site-specific projects have been or will be subject to project -specific environmental review. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. The Capital Facilities Plan reviews the purchase of additional property and the construction of a new elementary school. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAC 197-11-960 Environmental Checklist. Purpose of Checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21 C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." In addition, complete the Supplemental Sheet for nonproject actions (part D). For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and property or site" should be read as "proposal," "prepares," and "affected geographic area," respectively. Location of the Proposal: The Dieringer School District includes an area of approximately 5.5 square miles. Portions of the cities of Auburn and Sumner fall within the Districts boundaries, as do parts of unincorporated Pierce County. Lead Agency: Dieringer School District No. 343 is the lead agency pursuant to WAC 197-11-926. The lead agency for this proposal has determined that the proposal does not pose a probable significant adverse impact to the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21 C.030 (2) (c). This decision was made after a review of the completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public upon request. This Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2). The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date of issue. Comments must be submitted by 4:00 p.m., June 18, 2018. The responsible official will reconsider the DNS based on timely comments and may retain, modify, or, if significant adverse impacts are likely, withdraw the DNS. If the DNS is retained, it will be final after the expiration of the comment deadline. Responsible Official: I/Juffy Ireumeier-marnson Superintendent Dieringer School District No. 343 Telephone: (253) 862-2537 Address: 1320 178th Ave E. Lake Tapps, Washington 98391 Appeals of this determination are governed by Board Policy No. 6890 which can be obtained from Dr. Judy Neumeier-Martinson, Superintendent, Dieringer School District No. 343, 1320 178th Ave E., Lake Tapps, Washington 98391 and pursuant to WAC 680 and RCW 43.21 C.075. Date of Issue: June 4, 2018 Date Published June 11, 2018 DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE for Dieringer School District No. 343 2018 Capital Facilities Plan Issued with a 14 -day comment and appeal period Description of Proposal: This threshold determination analyzes the environmental impacts associated with the following actions, which are so closely related to each other that they are in effect a single action: 1. The adoption of the Dieringer School District Amended 2018 Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan by the Dieringer School District for the purposes of planning for the facilities needs of the District. 2. The amendment of the Pierce County Comprehensive Plan to include the Dieringer School District Amended 2018 Capital Facilities Plan as a part of the Capital Facilities Plan Element of the Pierce County Comprehensive Plan. 3. The amendment of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Auburn to include the Dieringer School District's Amended 2018 Capital Facilities Plan as part of the Capital Facilities Plan Element of the Comprehensive Plans of the City of Auburn. 4. The amendment of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Sumner to include the Dieringer School District's Amended 2018 Capital Facilities Plan as part of the Capital Facilities Plan Element of the Comprehensive Plans of the City of Sumner. Proponent: Dieringer School District No. 343 SchoCalculation 4/98 olImpact Fee :[ke�liiget:5cfoF:E1is#rich::: -- -.. iDISTRICT .. _ _ _ Y_— _------j � r r—.— .. � _- _•�--------•-•_•_--_.; --- - _- _ School Site AcQuisfian Goat: I a �(AcresxCostper Acre)/Fcility Capacity)xStudent Generation Factor _.__ 'Student ~ Student - , -----_ -,Facility Faci'lity_ !Cost/ - !Factor- ;Factor Cost/ ►uy Cost/ l- -MFR - ;Acreage ,Acre CapacitySFR ;MFR I I..........Ctr SFR_ �______--_ .. £arty Childhood Ctr::'::':; i.Q;DE3`.....$158:4 0::: <:;`:::43.9.:::::::::::(; 2 ::=::::::=:{7 3 __.•..•.....•....• _... $3,358 $1.796 ...................•......•.....•.•...•..•.........•.•.•..... ........-- Middle ::: 'Q: T3E3::: ' :'::: '( 47.Q: - ----- _- ----- _. :.........: ................ ::.......... ..............::.TOTAL':.... _ ---- $3,358T $1,795 School Construction Cost ((Facility (( __ityCost/Facility y_CapacEty)xStudent Generation Factor)x(permanent/Total Sq Ft�____ -- ; Student-... Student__-_- _ ...:::::.:.::: :>:Faeafrfj+::.:.:::. Facility Factor I Factor_ Cost/ Cost/ _ - - i Cost Capaci SFR __.__ - __._-'..____ __ MFR - _ -SFR --- _--MFR___ Early Childhood Ctr I $25,275,000 ! 439 0.322 0.172 $18,539; $9.903 _ _ _ - _ _ - _..--- - ............. 0.130 - ';TOTAL - $18,5391 $9,903 Temporary Facility Cost: I ? (Facility CostlFacilit Capaeity)xStudent Generation Factor)x(TempSrary/Total Square Feet) !,Student_ ^-Student Cost/ j Cost_/ - „Facility, Facility Factor!Factor SFR { MFR -_%Temp/ Sq.FtCost (Size SFR.MFR i _ --- -]Total Elementary $� 0_.322; 0.172_' Middle ;-::::`:5:.:>> --- -0.1301 0.070; :TOTAL $0 $0 State Matching Credit Boeckh Index X SPI Square Footage X District Match % X Student Factor _ — —�- t 1---• ;Student -Stud ----..._ .._..__.._.__. + .----------_-_. ;Boeckh :SPI I_Di - --_---_Factor_-____{Factor ----C ; _ t -------- ostJ_ Cost/ _ _ _-----------_-..._._.r..._.__.._._..-;Foots a -_--;Match 3G SFR _ _-------!MFR — j .__._ . Index ! g.................... SFR __..__.....__ MFR ........... ...... --- ---- - -• Elementary Middle Tax ?ayment Credit i _-- _ -- _ _ _ _ _ SFR ! MFR Average Assessed Value 2017 _-- _ -�_.__.____�._._ _. __. _ _._--•------..---:: :: ........... 4 ::::':.3F5 Capital Bond Interest Rate (est) 4/18--.......... -' .:.>:_.:<.:?.:;g5% Net Present Value of Avera Dwellin _-----._. -.- - ga $4.,292,200 $2.997,083 ..•.......:•-...:.,•.'•ii..... ?.:...i:-:..'.'.'.... . Property Tax Levy Rate 2018 _ _ _ (Present Value of Revenue Stream _ $15,464 $10,798 - Fee Sumary,_` ----_- �- - ----- Single ? Multiple _.�--------- -- -`-------- r S Famii Family _ _ _ _ _. $3 358.34 i $1,796.13 f iSite Acquistion Costs E-------�. 8.8.8.3, Permanent Facility Cost_-_ $18,538.84 ! $9,902.73 _--.--18.11-- _ __.. -_ - _ ?Temporary Facility Cost ' $0.00 $0.00 i ` .._...... _ 'State Match Credit ; 0.� I 0.00 $�__._.__.-_._...____.__ 8..8.18. _ _ --_ 1 Tax Payment Credit -5,464.37)1($10,798.19); y - - - _($ ._...._ _- �FEE -.8.8.8..8._._-.. ._-__._......_..--------�--._____._..__-'--8.8.8.8..._..._ _......__ • -1111-' �..___---•---?.._--1111-- FEE WITH DISCOUNT OF 50%$3.216 l , :.FEE WITH DISCOUNT OF 50% j $450 DIERINGER SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 343 Capital Facilities Plan Update, 2018 Capital Facilities Requirements to 2024 Time Period Student Student Net Reserve Population Capacity Or (Deficiency) 2018 Actual 1306 1413 (93) 2019-2024 Gromh 102.6 439 336.4 Dieringer School District Cost Per Student (2018 Dollars) Elementary Middle Junior High Hi,h Schools Schools Schools Schools $57,639 $64,467 NA NA Permanent Capacity Projects DIERINGER SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 343 FINANCE PLAN 2019-2024 APRIL 2018 Unsecured Source of Funds Secured Source of Funds Estimated Estimated Amt Estimated Impact Levy, Bond & Unrestr Impact Cost Lew, Bond Unrestricted Fees Amount Amount Fees 0 0 Board Approved Projects Elementary School No. 3 25,275,000 25,089,738 0 8,915 0 0 176,347 LTES Remodel 198,000 0 0 0 0 0 198,000 Total Capacity Projects 25,473,000 25,089,738 0 8,915 0 0 374,347 Non -Capacity Projects School Site Elem. No. 3 740,000 0 133 0 0 739,867 0 Technology Improvements 2,304,352 215,057 0 0 2,089,295 0 0 Board Approved Projects 235,858 0 0 0 0 0 235,858 Total Non -Capacity Projects 3,280,210 215,057 133 0 2,089,295 739,867 235,858 TOTAL PROJECTS 28,753,210 25,304,795 133 8,915 2,089,295 739,867 610,205 DIERINGER SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 343 Capital Facilities Plan Update, April 2018 CFP Projects and Financing Plan Sources and Uses of Funds (x $1,000) Sources of Funds Existing Revenue: Reserve $3,439 New Revenue: Bonds, Levies, Fees, State Matching Funds, Dedications, Mitigation Payments $25,314 TOTAL SOURCES $28,753 Uses of Funds Early Learning Center ($25,275) LTES Remodel (198) Non -Capacity Projects: School Site, Technology Upgrades, (3,280) And Board Approved Projects TOTAL USES $28,753 BALANCE 0 DIERINGER SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 343 PERMANENT CAPACITY PROJECTS MASTER SCHEDULE April, 2018 Name Current 6 -Year Total Capacity Capacity Capacity 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 * Lake Tapps Elementary 357 357 (Incl 3 classroom remodel) " Dieringer Heights Elem. 520 520 Early Learning Center 439 439 439 North Tapps MS 536 536 TOTALS 1413 439 1852 "Capacity changes due to K-3 class size reduction and the formation of inclusion preschool classrooms DIERINGER SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 343 Capital Facilities Plan Update, 2018 Dieringer School District Service Standards Public School Facilities (Square Feet Per Student) Elementary School 137 Middle School 148 Junior High NA High School NA Dierinaer School District Individual Capacitv Proiects (2019-2024) Early Learning Center 439 High School NA Standard of Service The Dieringer School District houses children in elementary schools serving students kindergarten through fifth grade and a middle school that houses grades six through eighth. High school students, grades nine through. twelve, attend adjacent high schools, primarily in the Auburn and Sumner School Districts. Dieringer School District follows a traditional school calendar beginning in early September and completing in mid June. The daily school schedules begin between 7:49 and 8:45 a.m. and end between 2:17 and 3:15 p.m. The Dieringer School District standard of service is based on class size and program decisions adopted by the Dieringer School District Board of Directors. Based on the district philosophy regarding class size, the targeted number of students per classroom kindergarten through third grade 17, fourth through fifth and sixth grade 27 and seven through eighth grade 28. These class sizes have an impact on facilities and the permanent capacity of each school reflects these class sizes. In the District, rooms designated and assigned for special use are not counted as capacity classrooms. At the elementary level students are provided music instruction, physical education and art instruction in separate, non -capacity classrooms. Computer labs are provided at each school as non -capacity spaces. Special education and remedial programs are provided as pullout programs and do not provide capacity. At the middle school level, instruction is organized around a six period day; classrooms are calculated as providing 5/6 capacity to accommodate teacher planning time in the instructional space. HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS/POTENTIAL ENROLLMENT INCREASE #1 Fairweather Cove Estates (19) Pierce Co/8 houses completed - Notice of application 1/24/01 - 27 Single Family Lots - 1600-2000 block of 16th St. @ the 17500-17800 block of Sumner-Tapps Hwy. #2 Rainier Plateau (10) Pierce Co/ Site work completed; home construction TBD - Notice of application 10/13/00 - 10 Single Family Lots - End of 34th St. #3 Grandview Ridge 11 and III Pierce Co/ III (1) - Off Sumner-Tapps Hwy. across from Driftwood and Deer Island Dr. - Grandview Ridge Notice of Application 1/13/99 - 60 Single Family Lots #4 Tapps Meadow (Van Der Hoek) (10) Pierce Co -One house completed -11 large lots; Across from Snag Island 95 Country Creek Estates (1) Pierce Col 9 houses completed -10 Single Family Lots; off 15th near Edwards Road #6 Forest Canyon Estates (121) Pierce Co/ Permit expired -121 Single Family Lots; off Forest Canyon Rd. 47 The Ridge at Lake Tapps (45) Pierce County -Preliminary plat process -45 Single Family Lots -32XX Sumner Tapps Hwy. E. #8 Maryanski Plat (4) Pierce County -Preliminary plat process -4 Single Family Lots; 40th St. E and 2301h Ave E 99 Franklin (16) Northlake (Auburn) -Proposed plat -16 Single Family Lots -off Lake Tapps Pkwy 227 Single Family Units to be built Enrollment Projections The Dieringer School District is located in an area that continues to experience growth. This growth can be noted by reviewing the following indicators: enrollment trend data, proposed housing development, and the mitigation impact fees received for new construction. The District continues to experience steady growth in student enrollment. This has slightly exceeded the Pierce County and Puget Sound Educational Service District (PSESD) enrollment growth over the same period. A review of proposed construction within the borders of the Dieringer School District indicates that the growth trend can be expected to continue over the next four years and beyond. The growth this year has been higher than anticipated. There are 227 single family residents slated for construction within the next five years. These projects, together with individual lots and general in - migration, are anticipated to generate an additional 102.6 students in kindergarten through eighth grade. Information from Pierce county Planning & Land Services indicates that there is space and zoning for approximately 1,200 additional housing lots in the western portion of the district. This creates a potential for 542 additional students, kindergarten through eighth grade that are not included in the above numbers. To partially address this growth, the District passed a 2006 bond issue to construct an additional five classrooms at Dieringer Heights Elementary. Those classrooms were completed and occupied in 2009. The bond issue also provided for the addition of an auxiliary gym, health and fitness classroom, and four science rooms at North Tapps Middle School. Those projects were completed in 2009 and the new instructional spaces are in use. At Lake Tapps Elementary School the construction of 3 new classrooms was completed in September 2017. Dieringer School District Proposed Housing Potential Enrollment Increase April 2018 Proposed Housing Units: Single Family- 227 x .452 generation factor = 102.6 students K-8 Enrollment Impact: 102.6 students K-8 Estimated 20.5 students a year over the period 2019-2024 Potential enrollment increase = 7% (based on 1,466 enrollment 2/18) Increase per grade level = 11.4 students (based on 9 grade bands) Approximately students per school: 34.2 District enrollment based on 3/18 and potential growth =1,568.6 students District program capacity = 1,413 students I '�eu n .'. f. { ! 1� �'�, I rte.....--_— � � WIeYY � dm�.'.nf,-p%m.wn ,. ,..min n•�p'• I / 0 � :s.r --� �y� ) ,. itia •'Ttr s• ° . �'...... I nrr' � � _ t � ' } I j Kik' �' Q� oRm rn �+p, + � � eir l ' •i . S3,?r�.r�i_ . [I`ta,-' /arkt� - d ,ear i,'l. -er . t � '�i ) t a t• x�''� rte. �p 't� }6 : , , �.t t } { j { � .., � �. 1 . L f � ��t�' V�'?��/F .. � ��%`•+ •1" IE -• `�'1� - - - t.•i��,r '� .3 - - - ' - - — - 2 - - ',�.. x r 1 - - % � ' I� +Sd.•. a. rc� { r.� 1 T. rbTtp F R a l �', Wuw mw : MUCKLESHOOT yG l INDIAN1.1. or }k j � ��r�.. I li01! � :' •,. j } ,`�( k'r a 'f ... �•!• � .U3t� �- — — ..nr. anu...nn.a _. _._ "_ . _ 11 ,,�f sih � . M1• L p_ r.._..t . rt P �� f 1.•1113;/ '!�. _ %° T � LA..T.►0• l;orle e � i �^ o {I1fIi ! , 1 _ 1 :I •... i'1 '` r` �— •. Vert ''�, � 4 I j 19 �I •- Lttrt_.t_. yk? T.. nl r U '• , Le1rt 7qpj ia°Ild"ad RESERVATION 1 24 #6 )-� "g• #43 ` y apps 10 3/ #7 Jl• j , •mer eritlwwd + dA it c t I 7 ° O.iel i t c F - � .Nrr I a 1{ r I } a l 39 IL S U M N RI �. �n ` �.. �.., µ4.,,�a�� � n � s �,» ' .�nR.1`y�I . � _ '' '' 16 3 I - #8 18 a Imo rr, 57 E 148 t i. • I �iapps b 44. • I rr i DIERINGE'sR SCHOOL DISTRICT f W 348 . ` F , \ '`�1' _ -__ 1., _ o _ _ + • o �u a DISTRICT BOUNDARY MAP tMi?ftd �iu'�efl ¢ I I : °1 tf .� .• y4. leYadd i ; Q it flil t.l TC°rr.WAeat/) LYuT W. WA80�0 _ lii I 11'' ++FF 1 (tse)"21n) QN)ct}I{000 3 Y'r 444 1 i r1' I' s iup" Q I ' OMAnpY 21WWMftln r84.a? NOT T.rple,VL7tl�mr '; _ r 1( I • R ~`4 `4 t17tr NOrtltg 700x/17111 OLE .` i , ♦w .••.!_ _ _ 2, __ _ �w� WT.OMWA Lr. nr.,. WA .t .. ..20.1 .. -.:� __,. 21 , 2 ..F.� o�. �il as7l sxe+en 8001 t8xane '� -- •.. . ^ r V fele in statute mils Sv Mt ;� t "'•Q' 1 ® K4 M.p CbmPM • 3.wry m.M.grw f IL DIERINGER SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 343 Capital Facilities Plan Update, 2018 Current Facilities Inventory of Public Schools NAME CAPACITY LOCATION *Lake Tapps Elementary 357 1320-178"' Ave E., Lake Tapps *Dieringer Heights Elementary 520 21727 — 34`x' St. E., Lake Tapps North Tapps Middle School 536 20029- 12"' St., E,, Lake Tapps High School 0 TOTAL 1,413 `Lower class size has reduced the capacity in K-3 "d grade Dieringer School District No. 343 An Overview Established in 1890, Dieringer School District consolidated with Lake Tapps School District in 1936. The District's three schools, Lake Tapps Elementary School, Dieringer Heights Elementary School and North Tapps Middle School, provide K through 8th grade education, and serve as hubs for community activities as well. Dieringer School District #343 is located in unincorporated Pierce County, bounded on the east by the White River, on the west by the Stuck River, on the north by the city of Auburn, and on the south by the cities of Bonney Lake and Sumner. The District surrounds the northern two-thirds of Lake Tapps and covers approximately 5.5 square miles. The current student enrollment is approximately 1,466 students in grades kindergarten through eight. Students in grades first through third are housed at Lake Tapps Elementary, constructed in 2005 as a replacement project. Construction was complete on an addition in the September 2017. Dieringer Heights Elementary opened in the fall of 2000 and is home to students in kindergarten, fburth and fifth grade. Dieringer Heights Elementary also houses two inclusion preschool classrooms. Originally constructed in 1992 and added on to in 1998 and 2009, North Tapps Middle School houses students in grades sixth -eighth. The district supports an additional 560 high school students who may select to attend any public high school. The majority chose to attend Auburn Riverside, Sumner and Bonney Lake High Schools. The district has a long standing history of providing high quality education for all our students. Our goal is for our students to gain the skills that will allow them to become successful, confident, contributing members of society. Dieringer is composed of students who come to school well prepared and eager to learn. Parents are concerned with student success and provide outstanding support for their children and the Dieringer School District. The PTA and many volunteers contribute countless hours and resources to our schools and students. The community supports the schools through the passage of funding issues to support bus acquisition, student access to current technology and the construction of school facilities. Impact fees, including interest, are held in reserve until used to meet District identified needs for site acquisition, additional facilities and improvements and/or technology capital expenditures. !Jieringer Educating every child for Confidence today and Contribution tomorrow DIERINGER SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 343 1320 -178th Avenue East Lake Tapps, Washington 98391 (253) 862-2537 BOARD OF DIRECTORS Hilary McCabe Greg Garrison Greg Johnson Scott Reisnouer Chelsea Steiner Dr. Judy Neumeier-Martinson, Superintendent Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Plan 2019-2024 Board Approved Mune 18, 2018 POLICY/TEXT AMENDMENT (P/T) #2 INCORPORATE DIERINGER SCHOOL DISTRICT #343 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2019-2024 No measures to avoid or reduce land use impacts resulting from the Capital Facilities Plan or the 14 projects contained therein are proposed at this time. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? The construction projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may create temporary increases in the District's need for public services and utilities. The new school facilities will increase the District's demands on transportation and utilities. These increases are not expected to be significant. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: No measures to reduce or respond to such demands are proposed at this time. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The Capital Facilities Plan will not conflict with any laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The Washington Growth Management Act (the GMA) outlines 13 broad goals, including adequate provision of necessary public facilities and services. Schools are among these necessary facilities and services. The Capital Facilities Plan satisfies the requirements of RCW 36.70A.070, and to identify additional school facilities necessary to meet the educational needs of the growing student populations anticipated in the District. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 21 of 21 Proposed measures to protect or consefve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: Specific measures to protect and conserve plants, animals, and fish cannot be identified at this time. Specific mitigation proposals will be identified, however, during project - level environmental review when appropriate. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? The construction of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will require the consumption of energy. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will be constructed in accordance with applicable energy efficiency standards. 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? The Capital Facilities Plan and individual projects contained therein should have no impact on these resources. Specific review will be conducted, however, during project - level environmental review. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: No specific measures are being proposed at this time. Appropriate measures have been or will be proposed during project -level environmental review when appropriate. Updates of this Plan will be coordinated with King County and the cities of Algona, Auburn, Black Diamond, Kent, and Pacific as part of the Growth Management Act process, one of the purposes of which is to protect critical areas. To the extent the District's facilities planning process is part of the overall growth management planning process, these resources are more likely to be protected. Future projects would comply with permitting regulations regarding environmentally sensitive areas. 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? The Capital Facilities Plan will not have any impact on land or shoreline use that is incompatible with existing comprehensive plans, land use codes, or shoreline management plans. The District does not anticipate that the Capital Facilities Plan or the projects contained therein will affect land and shoreline uses in the area served by the District in any manner not currently permitted or designated for the intended use. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 20 of 21 D. supplemental sheet for nonproject actionshf elpl (IT IS NOT NECESSARY to use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; pro- duction, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? To the extent the Capital Facilities Plan makes it more likely that school facilities will be constructed, some of these environmental impacts may be more likely. Additional impermeable surfaces, such as roofs, access roads, and sidewalks could increase stormwater runoff, which could enter surface or ground waters. Heating systems, emergency generators, and other school equipment that is installed pursuant to the Capital Facilities Plan could result in air emissions. The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan should not require the production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances, with the possible exception of the storage of diesel fuel or gasoline for emergency generating equipment. The District does not anticipate a significant increase in the production of noise from its facilities, with the possible exception of noise production due to short-term construction activities or the presences of additional students on a site. Construction impacts related to noise and air would be short term and are not anticipated to be significant. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: Proposed measures to mitigate any such increases described above have been or will be addressed during project -level environmental review when appropriate. Stormwater detention and runoff will meet applicable County and/or City requirements and may be subject to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permitting requirements. Discharges to air will meet applicable air pollution control requirements. Fuel oil will be stored in accordance with local and state requirements. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? The Capital Facilities Plan itself will have no impact on these elements of the environment. The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may require clearing plants off of the project sites and a loss to animal habitat. These impacts have been or will be addressed in more detail during project -level environmental review when appropriate. The projects included in the Plan are not likely to generate significant impacts on fish or marine life. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 19 of 21 with the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan has been or will be addressed during project - level environmental review when appropriate. 16. Utilitieshf elpl a. Circle utilities currently available at the site:hf elpl electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other Electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, and sewer are or can be made available at the known sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan. The types of utilities available at specific project sites have been or will be addressed in more detail during project -level environmental review when appropriate. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed.hf elpl Utility revisions and construction needs have been or will be identified during project -level environmental review when appropriate. C. Signature lLel The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. lead agency is relying on th\em� to make its decision. Signature: %�� Name of signee Bob Kenworthy - I understand that the Position and Agency/Organization Assistant Director of Capital Projects Date Submitted: 5/25/2018 SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 18 of 21 Inventories of parking spaces located at the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan and the impacts of specific projects on parking availability have been or will be conducted during project -level environmental review when appropriate. d. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian, bicycle or state transportation facilities, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private).h( glpl The need for new streets or roads, or improvements to existing streets and roads has been or will be addressed during project -level environmental review when appropriate. e. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe.hf elpl Use of water, rail, or air transportation has been or will be addressed during project -level environmental review when appropriate. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project or proposal? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the volume would be trucks (such as commercial and nonpassenger vehicles). What data or transportation models were used to make these estimates?hf elpl The traffic impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project -level environmental review when appropriate. g. Will the proposal interfere with, affect or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products on roads or streets in the area? If so, generally describe. 1hel The potential impact of any project proposed in the Capital Facilities Plan on the movement of agricultural or forest products on roads and streets has been or will be addressed during project -level environmental review when appropriate. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any:hf p[ The mitigation of traffic impacts associated with the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan has been or will be addressed during project -level environmental review when appropriate. 15. Public Serviceshf gio a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe.hI elpl The District does not anticipate that the projects identified in the Capital Facilities Plan will significantly increase the need for public services. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any.hf e New school facilities have been or will be built with automatic security systems, fire alarms, smoke alarms, heat sensors, and sprinkler systems. The mitigation of impacts to public services associated SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 17 of 21 b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources.hf elpl Any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation, or material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance, on or near sites intended for any projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified and described during project -level environmental review when appropriate. c. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the department of archeology and historic preservation, archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS data, etc. [Le 1pl Any relevant methods utilized at sites intended for any projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified and described during project -level environmental review when appropriate. d. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may be required.hf elpl Any needed relevant measures proposed to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to resources, including necessary plans and permits, for any projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified and described during project -level environmental review when appropriate. 14. TransportationhLe a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any.hf elpl The impact on public streets and highways of the individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project -level environmental review when appropriate. b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so, generally describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop?hf elpl The relationship between the specific projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan and public transit has been or will be addressed during project -level environmental review when appropriate. c. How many additional parking spaces would the completed project or non -project proposal have? How many would the project or proposal eliminate?hf elpl SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 16 of 21 The light or glare impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project -level environmental review when appropriate. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?hf elpl Off-site sources of light or glare that may affect the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be evaluated during project -level environmental review when appropriate. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any:hf p.! Proposed measures to mitigate light and glare impacts have been or will be addressed during project -level environmental review when appropriate. 12. Recreationhf e a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity?hf elpl There are a variety of formal and informal recreational facilities within the Auburn School District. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe.hf elpl The recreational impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project -level environmental review when appropriate. The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan, including proposed new school facilities, may enhance recreational opportunities and uses. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any:hf elpl Adverse recreational effects of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be subject to mitigation during project -level environmental review when appropriate. School facilities usually provide recreational facilities to the community in the form of play fields and gymnasiums. 13. Historic and cultural preservationhf elpl a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are over 45 years old listed in or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers ? If so, specifically describe.hf elpl Any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are over 45 years old listed in or proposed eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers on or near sites intended for any projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified and described during project -level environmental review when appropriate. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 15 of 21 a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, mid- dle, or low-income housing. hel No housing units would be provided in connection with the completion of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing.hf elpl It is not anticipated that the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will eliminate any housing units. The impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan on existing housing have been or will be evaluated during project -level environmental review when appropriate. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:hf elpl Measures to reduce or control any housing impacts caused by the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project -level environmental review when appropriate. 10. Aestheticshf elpl a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? hel The aesthetic impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project -level environmental review when appropriate. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?hf elj The aesthetic impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project -level environmental review when appropriate. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any:hf elpl Appropriate measures to reduce or control the aesthetic impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be determined on a project -level basis when appropriate. 11. Light and Glarehf elpl a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur?h( e The light or glare impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project -level environmental review, when appropriate. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views?hf g.! SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 14 of 21 g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site?hf jp Shoreline master program designations of the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified during project -level environmental review when appropriate. h. Has any part of the site been classified as a critical area by the city or county? If so, specify. hel Any critical areas located on the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified during project -level environmental review. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? hel The Auburn School District currently serves approximately 16,525 students. Enrollment is expected to increase to approximately 19,493 students by the 2023-2024 school year. The District employs approximately 1,678 people. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace?hI elpl Any displacement of people caused by the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan has been or will be evaluated during project -level environmental review when appropriate. However, it is not anticipated that the Capital Facilities Plan, or any of the projects contained therein, will displace any people. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any:h( elpl Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be subject to project -level environmental review and local approval when appropriate. Proposed mitigating measures have been or will be developed at that time, when necessary. L. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: hel The compatibility of the specific projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan with existing uses and plans has been or will be assessed as part of the comprehensive planning process and during project -level environmental review when appropriate. m. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts to agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial significance, if any:hf elpl The compatibility of the specific projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan with nearby agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial significance has been or will be identified and described during project -level environmental review when appropriate. 9. Housinghl elpl SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 13 of 21 There are a variety of land uses in the Auburn School District, including residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, utility, open space, recreational, etc. Impacts of projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan on land uses on nearby or adjacent properties have been or will be identified and described during project -level environmental review when appropriate. b. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If so, describe. How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will be converted to other uses as a result of the proposal, if any? If resource lands have not been designated, how many acres in farmland or forest land tax status will be converted to nonfarm or nonforest use?hf elpl Identification of the use of sites intended for any projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan as working farmlands or working forest land has been or will be identified and described during project -level environmental review when appropriate. 1) Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides, tilling, and harvesting? If so, how:hf elpl Any projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be analyzed during project -level environmental review when appropriate to determine if the proposal will affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest lands. c. Describe any structures on the site.hf elpl Any structures located on the sites for the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified and described during project -level environmental review when appropriate. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?hf elpl Any structures that will be demolished as a result of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan, if any, have been or will be identified during project -level environmental review when appropriate. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? 1tpjp1 The sites that are covered under the Capital Facilities Plan have a variety of zoning classifications under the applicable zoning codes. Site-specific zoning information has been or will be identified during project -level environmental review when appropriate. All sites anticipated for school construction are zoned for such use. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?hf elpl Inventories of the comprehensive plan designations for the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be completed during project -level environmental review when appropriate. All sites anticipated for school construction are designated for such use. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 12 of 21 Toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced during the development, construction, or operation of any projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified and described during project -level environmental review when appropriate. 4) Describe special emergency services that might be required.hf e Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 5) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any:h( elpl The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan comply or will comply with all current codes, standards, rules, and regulations. Individual projects have been or will be subject to project - level environmental review and local approval at the time they are developed, when appropriate. b. Noisehl elpl 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)?hf elpl A variety of noises from traffic, construction, residential, commercial, and industrial areas exists within the Auburn School District. The specific noise sources that may affect the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified during project -level environmental review when appropriate. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indi- cate what hours noise would come from the site.hf elpl The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may create normal construction noises that will exist on a short-term basis only. The construction projects could increase traffic around the construction sites on a short-term basis. Because the construction of additional school capacity will increase the capacity of the District's school facilities, there may be a slight increase in traffic -related or operations -related noise on a long-term basis. Similarly, the placement of portables at school sites will increase the capacity of school facilities and may create a slight increase in traffic -related or operations -related noise. Neither of these increases is expected to be significant. The specific noise sources and levels that may result from the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified during project -level environmental review when appropriate. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any:hf elpl The projected noise impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be evaluated and mitigated during project -level environmental review when appropriate. Each project is or will be subject to applicable local regulations. 8. Land and Shoreline Usehf elpl a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Will the proposal affect current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe.hf elpl SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 11 of 21 The State Board of Education requires the completion of a life -cycle cost analysis of all heating, lighting, and insulation systems before it will permit specific school projects to proceed. The energy needs of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be determined at the time of specific engineering and site design planning when appropriate. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. hel The impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan on the solar potential of adjacent projects have been or will be addressed during project -level environmental review when appropriate. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any:hf glpl Energy conservation measures proposed in connection with the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be considered during project -level environmental review when appropriate. 7. Environmental Healthhl elpl a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe.hf elpl Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 1) Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses. hf elgl Known or possible contamination on sites intended for any projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified and described during project -level environmental review when appropriate. 2) Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity.hf elpl Hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect the project development and design on sites intended for any projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified and described during project -level environmental review when appropriate. 3) Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced during the project's development or construction, or at any time during the operating life of the project.hf elo SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 10 of 21 e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site.hf gj Inventories of noxious weeks and invasive species located on or near sites of the projects proposed in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project -level environmental review when appropriate. 5. Animalshf elpl a. List any birds and other animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site.hf e Examples include: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other An inventory of species that have been observed on or near the sites of the projects proposed in the Capital Facilities Plan has been or will be developed during project - level environmental review when appropriate. b. List any threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site.hf e Inventories of threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be developed during project -level environmental review when appropriate. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain.hf elpl The impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan on migration routes have been or will be addressed during project -level environmental review when appropriate. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:hf elpl Appropriate measures to preserve or enhance wildlife have been or will be determined during project -level environmental review when appropriate. e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site.hf gj Inventories of invasive animal species located on or near sites of the projects proposed in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project -level environmental review when appropriate. 6. Energy and Natural Resourceshf elpl a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc.hf elpl SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 9 of 21 pattern impacts, if any:hf elpl Specific measures to reduce or control runoff impacts associated with the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project -level environmental review when appropriate. 4. Plantshf e a. Check the types of vegetation found on the site:hl elpl deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs grass pasture crop or grain Orchards, vineyards or other permanent crops. wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation A variety of vegetative zones are located within the Auburn School District. Inventories of the vegetation located on the sites of the projects proposed in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be developed during project -level environmental review when appropriate. b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?hf elpl Some of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may require the removal or alteration of vegetation. The specific impacts on vegetation of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified during project -level environmental review when appropriate. c. List threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site.hf elpl The specific impacts to these species from the individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be determined during project -level environmental review when appropriate. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any:hf e Measures to preserve or enhance vegetation at the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified during project -level environmental review when appropriate. Each project is or will be subject to applicable local landscaping requirements. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 8 of 21 withdrawn from the well. Will water be discharged to groundwater? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.hf e Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may impact groundwater resources. The impact of the individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan on groundwater resources has been or will be addressed during project -level environmental review when appropriate. Each project has been or will be subject to applicable local regulations. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals... ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve.hj g The discharges of waste material that may take place in connection with the projects included in the Plan have been or will be addressed during project -level environmental review. c. Water runoff (including stormwater): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe.hf gM Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may have stormwater runoff consequences. Specific information regarding the stormwater impacts of each project has been or will be provided during project -level environmental review when appropriate. Each project has been or will be subject to applicable local stormwater regulations. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. hel The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may result in the discharge of waste materials into ground or surface waters. The specific impacts of each project on ground and surface waters have been or will be identified during project -level environmental review when appropriate. Each project has been or will be subject to all applicable regulations regarding the discharge of waste materials into ground and surface waters. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 3) Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so, describe.hf p.! Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns. The impact of the individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan on drainage patterns has been or will be addressed during project -level environmental review when appropriate. Each project has been or will be subject to applicable local regulations. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water, and drainage SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 7 of 21 There is a network of surface water bodies within the Auburn School District. The surface water bodies that are in the immediate vicinity of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified during project -level environmental review when appropriate. When necessary, the surface water regimes and flow patterns have been or will be researched and incorporated into the designs of the individual projects. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. hel The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may require work near the surface waters located within the Auburn School District. Applicable local approval requirements have been or will be satisfied 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material.hf elpl Information with respect to the placement or removal of fill and dredge material as a component of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan has been or will be provided during project -level environmental review when appropriate. Applicable local regulations have been or will be satisfied. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.hf elpl Any surface water withdrawals or diversions required in connection with the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project - level environmental review when appropriate. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. hel Each project included in the Capital Facilities Plan, if located in a floodplain area, has been or will be required to meet applicable local regulations for flood areas. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge.hl elpl Specific information regarding the discharge of waste materials that may be required as a result of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan has been or will be provided during project -level environmental review when appropriate. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. b. Ground Water: 1) Will groundwater be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? If so, give a general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 6 of 21 g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)?hf elpl The construction projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have required or will require the construction of impervious surfaces. The extent of any impervious cover constructed will vary with each project included in the Capital Facilities Plan. This issue has been or will be addressed during project -level environmental review when appropriate. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any:hf elpl The erosion potential of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan and appropriate control measures have been or will be addressed during project -level environmental review when appropriate. Relevant erosion reduction and control requirements have been or will be met 2. Airhf elpl a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal during construction, operation, and maintenance when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. hel Various emissions, many construction -related, may result from the individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan. The air-quality impacts of each project have been or will be evaluated during project -level environmental review when appropriate. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe.hf elpl Any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect the individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project -level environmental review when appropriate. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any:h� elpl The individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be subject to project - level environmental review and relevant local approval processes when appropriate. The District has been or will be required to comply with all applicable air regulations and air permit requirements. Proposed measures specific to the individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project -level environmental review when appropriate. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 3. Waterhf elpl a. Surface Water: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into.hf elpl SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 5 of 21 1. Earth hel a. General description of the site:hf e (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other The Auburn School District is comprised of a variety of topographic land forms and gradients. Specific topographic characteristics of the sites at which the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan are located have been or will be identified during project -level environmental review when appropriate. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)?hf elgl Specific slope characteristics at the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified during project -level environmental review. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any agricultural land of long-term commercial significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of these soils.hf elgl Specific soil types found at the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified during project -level environmental review when appropriate. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe.hf elpl Unstable soils may exist within the Auburn School District. Specific soil limitations on individual project sites have been or will be identified at the time of project -level environmental review when appropriate. e. Describe the purpose, type, total area, and approximate quantities and total affected area of any filling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill.h( e Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be subject, when appropriate, to project -level environmental review and local approval at the time of proposal. Proposed grading projects, as well as the purpose, type, quantity, and source of any fill materials to be used have been or will be identified at that time. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. hf eM It is possible that erosion could occur as a result of the construction projects currently proposed in the Capital Facilities Plan. The erosion impacts of the individual projects have been or will be evaluated on a site-specific basis at the time of project -level environmental review when appropriate. Individual projects have been or will be subject to local approval processes. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 4 of 21 The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have undergone or will undergo additional environmental review, when appropriate, as they are developed. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain.hf fl!o None known. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. hf eM King County will review the Capital Facilities Plan for the purposes of updating the County's school impact fee ordinance and incorporating the CFP by reference as a part of the Capital Facilities Element of the King County Comprehensive Plan. The cities of Algona, Auburn, Black Diamond, Kent, and Pacific may also review and take action to adopt the Capital Facilities Plan reference as a part of the Capital Facilities Element of each jurisdiction's Comprehensive plan and update their respective school impact fee ordinances. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.)hf gj This is a nonproject action. This proposal involves the adoption of the Auburn School District's 2018 Capital Facilities Plan for the purpose of planning the District's facilities needs. The District anticipates King County and the cities of Algona, Auburn, Black Diamond, Kent, and Pacific will adopt the Capital Facilities Plan as part of the Capital Facilities Element of each jurisdiction's Comprehensive Plan. The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be subject to project -level environmental review when appropriate. A copy of the Capital Facilities Plan may be viewed at the District's offices. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist.hf elpl The Capital Facilities Plan will affect the Auburn School District. The District includes an area of approximately 62 square miles. A portion of King County is served by the District. The cities of Algona, Auburn, Black Diamond, Kent, and Pacific are also served by the District. A detailed map of the District's boundaries can be viewed at the District's offices. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTShf el SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 3 of 21 Facilities Plan is available for review in the District's offices. 2. Name of applicant: hel Auburn School District No. 408. 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:hf elpl 9154 th Street NE Auburn, WA 98002 Bob Kenworthy, Assistant Director, Capital Projects (253) 931-4826 4. Date checklist prepared:hf glpl May 25, 2018 5. Agency requesting checklist:hI elpl Auburn School District No. 408 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):hf elpl The Capital Facilities Plan is scheduled to be adopted by the District's Board of Directors on or about June 11, 2018. After adoption, the District will forward the Capital Facilities Plan to King County and the cities of Algona, Auburn, Black Diamond, Kent, and Pacific for inclusion in each jurisdiction's Comprehensive Plan. The District will continue to update the Capital Facilities Plan annually. The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be subject to project -level environmental review when appropriate. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain.hf elpl The Capital Facilities Plan identifies the capital improvement projects that the District plans to implement over the next six years. The District plans to replace five elementary schools and one middle school, construct two new elementary schools, and acquire future school sites within the six-year planning period. The District will also add portable facilities at various school locations throughout the District. In addition, the District plans improvement including the replacement of or improvements to the roof at Auburn Memorial Stadium, boiler replacement at Auburn Mountainview High School, and replacement of the energy management system at Auburn Riverside High School. All planned projects have been or will be subject to project -level environmental review when appropriate. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal.hf elpl SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 2 of 21 SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of checklist: Governmental agencies use this checklist to help determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant. This information is also helpful to determine if available avoidance, minimization or compensatory mitigation measures will address the probable significant impacts or if an environmental impact statement will be prepared to further analyze the proposal. Instructions for applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Please answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. You may need to consult with an agency specialist or private consultant for some questions. You may use "not applicable" or "does not apply" only when you can explain why it does not apply and not when the answer is unknown. You may also attach or incorporate by reference additional studies reports. Complete and accurate answers to these questions often avoid delays with the SEPA process as well as later in the decision- making process. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Instructions for Lead Agencies: Please adjust the format of this template as needed. Additional information may be necessary to evaluate the existing environment, all interrelated aspects of the proposal and an analysis of adverse impacts. The checklist is considered the first but not necessarily the only source of information needed to make an adequate threshold determination. Once a threshold determination is made, the lead agency is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of the checklist and other supporting documents. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals:hf elpl For nonproject proposals (such as ordinances, regulations, plans and programs), complete the applicable parts of sections A and B plus the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). Please completely answer all questions that apply and note that the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proponent," and "affected geographic area," respectively. The lead agency may exclude (for non -projects) questions in Part B - Environmental Elements —that do not contribute meaningfully to the analysis of the proposal. A. Backgroundh( elpl 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable:hf pM The adoption of the Auburn School District's 2018 Capital Facilities Plan ("Capital Facilities Plan") for the purposes of planning for the District's facilities needs. King County will incorporate the District's Capital Facilities Plan into its Comprehensive Plan. The cities of Algona, Auburn, Black Diamond, Kent, and Pacific may also incorporate the District's Capital Facilities Plan into their respective Comprehensive Plans. A copy of the District's draft Capital SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 1 of 21 NOTICE OF DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE The Auburn School District No. 408 has issued a determination of nonsignificance (DNS) under the State Environmental Policy Act Rules (Chapter 197-11 WAC) for the following nonproject action: Adoption of the Auburn School District's 2018-2024 Capital Facilities Plan ("Capital Facilities Plan") for the purposes of planning for the District's facilities needs. King County and the cities of Auburn and Kent may incorporate the District's Capital Facilities Plan into each jurisdiction's respective Comprehensive Plan. The cities of Algona, Pacific, and Black Diamond may also incorporate the District's Capital Facilities Plan into each jurisdiction's respective Comprehensive Plans. After review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the agency, the Auburn School District has determined this proposal will not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. Copies of the DNS are available at no charge from the Auburn School District No. 408, 915 4th Street NE, Auburn, WA 98002. The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date of issue. Comments may be submitted by 4:30 p.m., June 11, 2018, to: Bob Kenworthy, Assistant Director, Capital Projects, Auburn School District No. 408, 915 4th Street NE, Auburn, WA 98002. P►u6URN SCHOOL DISTRICT ENGAGE - EDUCATE - EMPOWER May 25, 2018 SEPA Register Environmental Coordination Section Department of Ecology P.O. Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 sepaunit&ecy.wa.gov To whom it may concern: On behalf of the Auburn School District No. 408, enclosed please find for your review and for inclusion in the SEPA Register a Determination of Nonsignificance and a SEPA Checklist issued by the Auburn School District for the following nonproject action: Adoption of the Auburn School District 2018 Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan by the Auburn School District and amendment of the Comprehensive Plans of King County and the cities of Auburn and Kent to incorporate the Auburn School District's 2018 Capital Facilities Plan into the Capital Facilities Element of each jurisdiction's Comprehensive Plans. The cities of Algona, Black Diamond, and Pacific may also amend their respective Comprehensive Plans to incorporate the Auburn School District's 2018 Capital Facilities Plan into the Capital Facilities Element of each jurisdiction's Comprehensive Plan. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Sincerely, Bob Kenworthy Assistant Director, Capital Projects Enclosures James P. Fugate Administration Building - 915 Fourth Street NE - Auburn, WA 98002-4499 - 253-931-4900 Single and Multiple Family Residence Impact Fee Increase Auburn School District Capital Facilities Plan for 2018 to 2024 Page 2 Our Single Family Impact Fees for the past few years have been: 2012 $5,511.69 2013 $5,398.93 2014 $4,137.21 2015 $5,330.88 2016 $5,469.37 2017 $3,321.86 2018 (proposed) $5,715.68 The 2015, 2016, and 2017 Multiple Family Impact Fees have been significantly lower than the typical Multiple Family Impact Fee due to unusually low student generation factors. The average Multiple Family Impact Fee for 2012, 2013, and 2014 was approximately $3,925.00. This year's Multiple Family Impact Fee equals the average 2012 to 2014 Multiple Family Impact Fee with a 15% increase associated with increasing construction costs and a significant increase in the student generation rate. Our Multiple Family Impact Fees for the past few years have been: 2012 $3,380.26 2013 $4,887.84 2014 $3,518.17 2015 $2,625.01 2016 $1,639.70 2017 $2,081.29 2018 (proposed) $4,488.43 Your consideration and approval of our request will be appreciated. Sincerely, Bob Kenworthy Asst. Director, Capital Projects Cc: C. Blansfield James P. Fugate Administration Building • 915 Fourth Street NE • Auburn, WA 98002-4499 • 253-931-4900 pVBURIV �SCH07ISTRICT ENGAGE - EDUCATE - EMPOWER October 3, 2018 Mr. Jeff Dixon City of Auburn 25 W. Main Street Auburn, WA 98001 Re: Single and Multiple Family Residence Impact Fee Increase Auburn School District Capital Facilities Plan for 2018 to 2024 Dear Mr. Dixon, Auburn School District respectfully requests that the Single Family Residence Impact fee be increased from $3,321.86 to $5,715.68 and that the Multiple Family Residence Impact Fee be increased from $2,081.29 to $4,488.43. This year's Impact Fees are calculated using the following formula and amounts: Last year's Single Family Impact Fee decreased by 39% from the 2016 Single Family Impact Fee. This year's Single Family Impact Fee equals the 2016 Single Family Impact Fee with a 4.5% increase associated with increasing construction costs. James P. Fugate Administration Building - 915 Fourth Street NE - Auburn, WA 98002-4499 - 253-931-4900 Single Family Multi -Family Site Costs $1,487.12 $1,391.79 Permanent Facility Const. Costs $20,420.40 $19,111.40 Temporary Facility Costs $199.89 $189.55 State Match Credit ($3,092.83) ($2,894.58) Tax Credit ($7,583.22) ($2,821.30) Fee without Discount $11,431.36 $14,976.86 50% Discount ($5,715.68) ($7,488.43) Less ASD Discount ($0.00) ($3,000.00) Net Fee Obligation $5,715.68 $4,488.43 Last year's Single Family Impact Fee decreased by 39% from the 2016 Single Family Impact Fee. This year's Single Family Impact Fee equals the 2016 Single Family Impact Fee with a 4.5% increase associated with increasing construction costs. James P. Fugate Administration Building - 915 Fourth Street NE - Auburn, WA 98002-4499 - 253-931-4900 Auburn 5 of District Development Growth since 1/1/13 April 2018 (Based on November 1, 2017 Enrollment) MULTI FAMILY 2018 and beyond Sundallen Condos Units/ Current I To Be Parcels Occupancy I Occupied 48 0 48 * Current May 2018 Enrollment used for these two complexes. 53 Feeder Elementary Ilalko Lea Hill Evergreen Hts. Washington Actual Students Year of Full Units/ Current To Be Development Name 11 16 42 75 29 Occupancy Parcels Occupancy Occupied Lakeland: Four Lakes Apts 2014 234 234 0 Promenade Apts 139 68 1 0.106 274 (formerly Auburn Hills) 294 211 109 Trail Run Townhomes 2014 115 115 0 The Villas at Auburn * 295 74 206 Totals 938 634 315 2018 and beyond Sundallen Condos Units/ Current I To Be Parcels Occupancy I Occupied 48 0 48 * Current May 2018 Enrollment used for these two complexes. 53 Feeder Elementary Ilalko Lea Hill Evergreen Hts. Washington Actual Students Elem Middle HS Total 15 11 16 42 75 29 23 127 15 5 6 26 34 23 22 1671 79 139 68 1 0.106 274 Total Student Generation Factors Elem Middle HS Total 0.064 0.047 0.068 0.179 0.355 0.137 0.109 0.602 0.130 0.043 0.052 0.226 0.680 0.4601 0.4401 1.580 0.219 1 0.107 1 0.106 1 0.432 Estimated Students Based on Student Generation Factors 11 5 5 21 11 5 51 21 Auburn School District Development Growth since 1/1/13 April 2018 (Based on November 1, 2017 Enrollment) SINGLE FAMILY-- 2018 and beyond Development Name Units/ Parcels Current Occupancy To Be Occupied Anderson Acres 14 0 14 Backbone Ride 7 0 7 Bridle Estates 18 0 18 Hastings 10 * 10 0 10 Hazel Heights 22 0 22 Hazel View 20 0 20 Lakeland: Forest Glen At .. 30 0 30 Lakeland: Park Ride 256 0 256 Lakeland: River Rock* 14 0 14 Pacific Lane 11 0 11 Ridge At Tall Timbers 104 0 104 Willow Place* 18 0 18 Yates Plat* 16 0 16 Auburn Gateway 500 0 500 Dulcinea 6 0 6 Richardson BLA/Plat 6 0 6 Vasiliy 8 0 8 Wes ort Capital 306 0 306 1 1366 1 1 1366 1 * currently under construction Totals Estimated Students Based on Student Generation Factors Elem Middle HS Total 3 1 2 6 2 1 1 3 4 2 2 8 2 1 1 5 5 2 3 10 5 2 2 9 7 3 4 14 60 25 32 116 3 1 2 6 3 1 1 5 24 10 13 47 4 2 2 8 4 2 2 7 117 48 62 227 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 4 72 30 38 139 320 132 168 620 SINGLE FAMILY Auburn 1. iI District Development Growth since 1/1/13 April 2018 (Based on November 1, 2017 Enrollment) Development Name Year of Full Occupancy Units/ Parcels Current Occupancy To Be Occupied Alicia Glenn 2016 28 28 0 Anthem former) Megan's Meadows 2018 13 9 0 Bridges 111 386 291 95 Canyon Creek 23 154 152 2 Kendall Ride 2015 104 104 0 Lakeland East: Portola 2015 130 130 0 Lakeland: Ed eview 2015 368 368 0 Lakeland Hills Estates 2017 66 66 0 Lakeland: Pinnacle Estates 21 99 76 23 Lakeland: Villas at... 2015 81 81 0 Monterey Park 2016 235 235 0 Mountain View 2018 55 55 0 Sonata Hills 2017 71 71 0 Spencer Place 210 13 5 8 Sterling Court 2013 8 8 0 Vintage Place 2014 261 26 0 Totals 18371 1705 128 51 Feeder Elementary Arthur Jacobsen Ilalko Lea Hill Evergreen Hts. Arthur Jacobsen Ilalko Gildo Re Gildo Re Lakeland Hills Ilalko Evergreen Hts. Ever reen Hts. Lea Hill Arthur Jacobsen Hazelwood Lea Hill Actual Students Elem Middle HS Total 9 3 9 21 6 1 1 8 57 2331 0.3471 111 25 3 8 36 23 11 13 47 45 21 33 99 63 29 28 120 18 8 14 40 49 18 18 85 26 8 7 41 42 21 32 95 9 2 3 14 9 5 5 19 8 6 0 14 2 2 2 6 8 4 6 18 399 165 210 774 Student Generation Factors Elem Middle HS Total 0.321 0.107 0.321 0.750 0.667 0.111 0.111 0.889 0.3661 0.268 0.3471 0.981 0.164 0.020 0.053 0.237 0.221 0.106 0.125 0.452 0.346 0.162 0.254 0.762 0.171 0.079 0.076 0.326 0.273 0.121 0.212 0.606 0.645 0.237 0.237 1.118 0.321 0.099 0.086 0.506 0.179 0.089 0.136 0.404 0.164 0.036 0.055 0.255 0.127 0.070 0.070 0.268 1.600 1.200 0.000 2.800 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.750 0.308 0.154 0.231 0.692 0.234 0.097 0.123 0.454 Appendix A.3 Student Generation Survey Buildout Data for Enrol Projections -April 2018 TABLE 6 New Developments - Pupil Projection Cumulative ND3.13A by Grade Level Updated April 2018 Uses a 'cohort survival' GRADE 2017-18 2018-19 model assuming 100% of Actual Actual Pro'ectec KDG 1261 1234 previous year new enrollees move to the next 1 1276 1320 grade level. 2 1252 1311 1329 3 1328 1283 Kindergarten calculates 4 1329 1367 birth rate average plus 5 1269 1362 7715 7876 8 1183 Current generation based on 6 1207 1279 % of total enrollment. Other 7 1194 1239 factor uses 100% cohort 8 1183 1222 survival, based on 6 year 12 3584 3739 history. 9 1258 1372 1425 10 1300 1282 1293 11 1249 1292 1456 12 1419 1309 5226 5254 4376 4449 4526 Total 16525 16869 % of change 2.08% change +/- 344 TABLE 7 New Projects - Pupil Projection Cumulative ND 3.6A 1 by Grade Level Updated April 2018 Uses a 'cohort survival' GRADE 2017-18 model assuming 100% of 1350 Actual KDG 1261 previous year new enrollees move to the next 1 1276 grade level. 2 1252 8056 3 1328 Kindergarten calculates 4 1329 birth rate average plus 5 1269 7715 1428 3955 Current generation based on 6 1207 % of total enrollment. Other 7 1194 factor uses 100% cohort 8 1183 survival, based on 6 year 1424 3584 history. 9 1258 17381 10 1300 3.03% 11 1249 512 12 1419 5226 1252 1326 Total 16525 1425 2019-20 1 2020-21 1 2021-22 1 2022-23 1 2024-25 1 2025-26 1261 1285 1312 1296 1319 1340 1357 1329 1350 1344 1386 1356 1324 1381 1420 1401 1355 1408 7982 8056 8186 1373 1410 1360 1313 1404 1438 1268 1339 1428 3955 4154 4225 1414 1459 1527 1399 1437 1480 1276 1389 1424 1355 1337 1446 5444 5622 5878 17381 17831 18289 3.03% 2.59% 2.57% 512 450 458 1365 1368 1391 1285 1374 1390 1412 1387 1403 1419 1445 1410 1427 6938 5594 4258 1411 1446 1410 1385 1435 1470 1459 1405 1454 4256 4286 4334 1615 1645 1591 1546 1631 1660 1463 1528 1612 1480 1517 1582 6104 6321 6445 2018-19 1 2019-20 1 2020-21 1 2021-22 1 2022-23 1 2024-25 1 2025-26 1234 1261 1285 1312 1333 1309 1333 1353 1379 1327 1387 1358 1380 1397 1421 1297 1374 1430 1399 1418 1433 1456 1367 1338 1411 1464 1431 1447 1463 1373 1413 1381 1451 1501 1466 1482 7930 8081 8199 8359 1280 1385 1422 1386 1454 1502 1466 1252 1326 1430 1464 1425 1491 1539 1233 1293 1365 1465 1496 1456 1521 3764 4005 4218 4314 4376 4449 4526 1370 1423 1482 1551 1650 1680 1640 1300 1415 1465 1520 1587 1684 1714 1301 1302 1414 1460 1512 1578 1673 1361 1416 1415 1523 1568 1618 1683 5331 5556 5776 6055 6317 6560 6710 17025 17642 18192 18728 3.03% 3.62% 3.12% 2.94% change +/- 500 617 49 Buildout Data for Enrollment Projections -April 2018 TABLE 4 1 New Projects - Pupil Projection Cumulative ND 3.13 by rradP 1 PVPI I lnrinfarl Anril 9n1A Uses a 'cohort survival' GRADE 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 1 2021-22 2022-23 2024-25 1 2025-26 model assuming 100% of KDG Actual Projected Projected Projected I Projected Projected Projected I Projected KDG 1261 1299 1339 1377 1410 1442 1471 1501 previous year new enrollees move to the next 1 1276 1320 1361 1397 1432 1463 1493 1522 grade level. 2 1252 1311 1357 1394 1428 1460 1489 1518 11 3 1328 1283 1344 1386 1421 1452 1482 1510 Kindergarten calculates 4 1329 1367 1324 1381 1420 1451 1481 1510 previous years number plus 5 1269 1362 1401 1355 1408 1445 1475 1504 9658 K-5 7715 7941 8125 8291 8519 8713 8892 9065 Current generation based on 6 1207 1279 1373 1410 1360 1411 1446 1474 % of total enrollment. Other 7 1194 1239 1313 1404 1438 1385 1435 1470 factor uses 100% cohort 8 1183 1222 1268 1339 1428 1459 1405 1454 survival, based on 6 year GR 6-8 3584 3739 3955 4154 4225 4256 4286 4398 history. 9 1258 1372 1414 1459 1527 1615 1645 1591 1578 10 1300 1282 1399 1437 1480 1546 1631 1660 1683 11 1249 13 28 40 48 54 59 62 6786 12 1419 1293 1278 1392 1427 1467 1531 1616 21225 GR 9-12 1 5226 3959 4119 4328 4483 4682 4866 4929 572 Total 16525 15639 16199 16772 17227 17650 18044 18392 % of change -5.36% 3.58% 3.54% 2,71% 2.46% 2.24% 1.93% -886 560 573 455 423 394 347 change +/- I MQL_ i rdw rrojecls - r-upu r-rojecuon Gumulauve ND 3.6 by Grade Level Updated April 2018 Uses a 'cohort survival' GRADE 2017-18 model assuming 100% of Actual previous year new KDG 1261 enrollees move to the next 1 1276 grade level. 2 1252 1353 3 1328 Kindergarten calculates 4 1329 previous years number plus 5 1269 1381 K-5 7715 Current generation based on 6 1207 % of total enrollment. Other 7 1194 factor uses 100% cohort 8 1183 survival, based on 6 year GR 6-8 3584 history. 9 1258 1374 10 1300 1510 11 1249 1600 12 1419 1338 GR 9-12 5226 1502 Total 16525 % of change chance +/- 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2024-25 2025-26 2022-23]_M3-24 projected Protected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projectec 1306 1353 1398 1438 1477 1514 1550 1568 1585 1333 1381 1425 1466 1505 1541 1578 1595 1614 1327 1387 1430 1472 1510 1547 1583 1601 1620 1297 1374 1430 1471 1510 1546 1582 1600 1619 1367 1338 1411 1464 1502 1539 1576 1594 1612 1373 1413 1381 1451 1501 1538 1574 1591 1609 8002 8245 8476 8762 9005 9226 9443 9550 9658 1280 1385 1422 1386 1454 1502 1538 1556 1573 1252 1326 1430 1464 1425 1491 1539 1556 1574 1233 1293 1365 1465 1496 1456 1521 1539 1556 3764 4005 4218 4314 4376 4449 4598 4650 4703 1370 1423 1482 1551 1650 1680 1640 1658 1677 1300 1415 1465 1520 1587 1684 1714 1733 1753 1301 1302 1414 1460 1512 1578 1673 1692 1711 1361 1416 1415 1523 1568 1618 1683 1702 1722 5331 5556 5776 6055 6317 6560 6710 6786 6863 17097 17806 18469 19131 19697 20235 20751 20986 21225 3.46% 4.14% 3.73% 3.58% 2.96% 2.73% 2.55% 1.14% 1.14% 572 70r 663 662 566 538 515 236 23P Buildout Data for Enrol Projections -April 2018 TABLE New Projects - Annual New Pupils Added & Distributed Grade Level Grade 12-13 13-14 2 by Grade Level 16-17 17-18 6 r Ave % 1098 1170 1232 1198 6 Year Percent of average 1199.33 7.74% __KDG 1 1089 1188 1219 1279 1210 1276 GRADE Average Pupils by Grade 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2024-25 2025-26 3 Enroll. & Level 1136 1232 1317 1328 1208.17 7.80% 4 1038 1123 KDG 1199 7.74% 1261 12 27 39 47 53 57 61 1 1210 7.81% 1276 13 28 39 48 54 58 62 2 1207 7.79% 46.15% 1252 13 28 39 48 54 58 61 3 1208 7.80% 1328 13 28 39 48 54 58 61 4 1176 7.59% 1329 12 27 38 46 52 56 60 5 1151 7.43% 1269 12 26 38 45 51 55 59 6 1109 7.15% 1207 12 25 36 44 49 53 56 7 1112 7.18% 21.48% 1194 12 25 36 44 49 53 57 8 1108 7.15% 1183 12 25 36 44 49 53 56 9 1230 7.94% 1258 13 28 40 48 55 59 63 10 1257 8.1101/. 32.37% 1300 13 29 41 50 56 60 64 11 1225 7.90% 1249 13 28 40 48 54 59 62 12 1304 8.41% 1419 14 30 43 51 58 62 66 Totals 15496 100.00% Total 16525 161 354 505 1 611 688 742 788 TABLE 3 6 year Historical Data Average Enrollment and Percenta a Distributed by Grade Level Grade 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 6 r Ave % 1098 1170 1232 1198 1237 1261 1199.33 7.74% __KDG 1 1089 1188 1219 1279 1210 1276 1210.17 7.81% 2 1083 1124 1196 1289 1300 1252 1207.33 7.79% 3 1111 1125 1136 1232 1317 1328 1208.17 7.80% 4 1038 1123 1156 1170 1237 1329 1175.50 7.59% 5 1070 1075 1122 1172 1199 1269 1151.17 7.43% 6 1041 1076 1059 1116 1152 1207 1108.50 7.15% 7 1086 1072 1091 1099 1132 1194 1112.33 7.18% 8 1017 1116 1088 1136 1108 1183 1108.00 7.15% 9 1200 1159 1275 1229 1261 1258 1230.33 7.94% 10 1278 1229 1169 131_6 1248 1300 1256.67 8.11% 11 1164 1240 1167 1318 1249 1224.83 7.90% 12 1321 1274 _1211 1323 1260 1226 1419 1303.83 8.41% Totals 1 14596 14971 15277 15663 15945 16525 15496.171 100.00% % of change 2.57% 2.04% 2.53% 1.80% 3.64% change +/- 375 306 386 282 580 47 Buildout Data for Enrollment Projections -April 2018 BASE DATA - BUILDOUT SCHEDULE ASSUMPTIONS: 1 Uses Build Out estimates received from developers. 2 Student Generation Factors are updated Auburn data for 2018 as allowed per King County Ordinance 3 Takes area labeled Lakeland and Kersey Projects projects across 2018-2024 4 Takes area labeled Bridges and other Lea Hill area developments and projects across 2018-2024 5 Includes known developments in N. Auburn and other non -Lea Hill and non -Lakeland developments Student Generation Factors Auburn Factors Table 1 Auburn S.D. Development 2018 1 2019 1 2020 1 2021 1 2022 1 2023 Lakeland/Kersey Single Family 50 150 100 23 0 Lea Hill Area Single Family 75 60 30 22 0 Other Single Family Units 40 100 170 180 170 0 0 120 Total Single Family Unitsl 165 310 1 300 225 170 120 Projected Pupils: 0.1060 Elementary Pupils K-5 39 73 70 53 40 28 0.4320 Mid School Pupils 6-8 16 30 29 22 16 12 1 1 Sr. High Pupils 9-12 20 38 37 28 21 15 Total Total K-12 75 141 136 102 77 54 0 157 505 611 688 742 788 Student Generation Factors Auburn Factors Single Multi - 2018 SF 2018 MF Family Family Elementary 0.2340 0.2190 Middle School 0.0970 0.1070 Senior High 0.1230 0.1060 Total 0.4540 0.4320 2024 Total 323 0 187 100 880 100 1 1390 23 325 10 135 12 1_71 45 631 Multi Family Units 200 120 35 8 0 0 0 363 Total Multi Family Unitsl 200 1 120 35 8 0 0 0 363 riUJcUieu rutins. 28 23 405 Mid School Pupils 6-8 37 43 33 23 16 12 10 _ 174 Sr. High Pupils 9-12 41 51 41 29 21 15 12 209 Total K-12 161 193 151 106 77 Elementary Pupils K-5 44 26 8 2 0 0 0 79 Mid School Pupils 6-8 21 13 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 39 Sr. High Pupils 9-12 21 13 4 0 0 38 Total K-12 86 52 15 3 0 0 0 157 505 611 688 742 788 Total Housing Units 365 430 335 233 170 120 100 1753 Elementary Pupils K-5 82 99 78 54 40 28 23 405 Mid School Pupils 6-8 37 43 33 23 16 12 10 _ 174 Sr. High Pupils 9-12 41 51 41 29 21 15 12 209 Total K-12 161 193 151 106 77 54 45 788 Cumulative Projection 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 Elementary - Grades K -5 82 181 259 313 353 381 405 Mid School - Grades 6 - 8 37 80 113 136 152 164 174 Senior High - Grades 9 - 12 41 92 133 161 182 197 209 Total 161 354 505 611 688 742 788 Appendix A.2 - CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Enrollment Projections AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS - October 2017 TABLE I PROJECTION COMPARISONS 5 BY GRADE GROUP (Continued) Total = October 1 Actual Count AND Projected Counts Diff = Number Projection is under(-) or over Actual % = Percent Projection is under(-) or over Actual Prj 3.13 - 13 YEAR HISTORY & Using Average Kdg Increase Prj 3.6 - 6 YEAR HISTORY & Using Average Kdg Increase Prj 3.13A 13 YEAR HISTORY & King Cty Birth Rates Prj 3.6A - 6 YEAR HISTORY & King Cty Birth Rates Grades Total 2013-14 % Total 2014-15 % Total 2015-16 % Average Average K-5 Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff % Diff % ACTUAL 7340 xxx xxx 7500 xxx xxx 7715 xxx xxx xxx xxx Prj 3E.13 7052 (448) (5.97) % 7329 (386) -5.00% 15531 (255) (3.76)% 6659 (681) (9,28)% Prj 3E.6 6632 (708) (9.65)% 7046 (454) (6.05)% 7317 (398) -5.16% Prj 3.13A (232) (3.37)% Prj 3E.13A 6643 (697) (9.50)% 6979 (521) (6.95)% 7194 (521) -6.75% Prj 3.6A (292) (4.32)% Prj 3E.6A 6611 (729) (9.93)% 6966 (534) (7.12)% 7169 (546) -7.08% (278) (4.05)0/ Grades 6 - 8 Total 2013-14 Diff % Total 2014.15 Diff % Total 2015-16 Diff % Average Diff Average o/ ACTUAL Prj 3MS.13 Prj 31VIS.6 Prj3MS.13A Prj3MS.6A 3351 xxx xxx 3392 xxx xxx 3584 3307 3287 xxx (277) (297) xxx -7.73% -8.29% xxx (38) (38) (38) xxx (0.81)% (0.80)% (0.81)/0 0 (0.80)% 3230 (121) (3.61)% 3256 (136) (4.01)% 3213 (138) (4.12)% 3246 (146) (4.30)% 3230 (121) (3.61)% 1 3256 (136) (4.01)% 3307 (277) -7.73%(38) 3213 (138) (4.12)% 3246 (146) (4.30)% 1 3287 (297) -8.29% Grades 9-12 Total 2013-14 Diff % Total 2014-15 Diff % Total 2015-16 Diff % Average Diff Average % ACTUAL Prj 3SH.13 Prj3SH.6 Prj 3SH.13A Prj 3SH.6A 4972 4773 xxx (199) xxx (4.00)% 5053 4874 xxx (179) xxx (3.54)% 5226 4896 xxx (330) xxx -6.31% xxx (202) (153) (202) (153) xxx (3.90)% (2.92)% (3.90)% (2.92)% 4856 (116) (2.33)% 4956 (97) (1.92)% 4959 (267) -5.11% 4773 (199) (4.00)% 4874 (179) (3.54)% 4896 (330) -6.31% 4856 (116) (2.33)% 1 4956 (97) (1.92)% 1 4959 (267) -5.11% All 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Average Average Grades Total Diff o/ Total Diff % Total Diff % Diff % ACTUAL 15,663 xxx xxx 15,945 xxx xxx 16525 xxx xxx xxx xxx Prj 3.13 14,662 (1,001) (6.39)% 15,182 (763) (4.79)% 15531 (994) -6.02%(456) (3.39)/0 0 Prj 3.6 14,701 (962) (6.14)% (388) (2.93)% 15,248 (697) (4.37)% 15563 (962) -5.82% Prj 3.13A 14,646 (1,017) (6.49)% 15,109 (836) (5.24)% 15396 (1129) -6.83% (493) (3.63)% Prj 3.6A 14,680 (983) (6.28)% 15,168 (777) (4.87)% 15415 (1110) -6.72% (431) (3.21)% Historical Data is grouped by K - 5, 6-8, 9-12 articulation pattern. Articulation pattern has no numeric impact on efficacy of projection models. 13 AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT )LLMENT PROJECTIONS - October 2017 TABLE PROJECTION COMPARISONS 5 BY GRADE GROUP (Continued) Total = October 1 Actual Count AND Projected Counts Prj 3.13 - 13 YEAR HISTORY & Using Average Kdg Increase Diff = Number Projection is under(-) or over Actual Prj 3.6 - 6 YEAR HISTORY & Using Average Kdg Increase % = Percent Projection is under(-) or over Actual Prj 3.13A 13 YEAR HISTORY & King Cty Birth Rates Prj 3.6A - 6 YEAR HISTORY & King Cty Birth Rates Grades K-5 Total 2008-09 Diff % Total 2009-10 Diff % Total 2010-11 Diff % Total 2011-12 Diff % Total 2012-13 Diff % ACTUAL 6208 xxx xxx 6230 xxx xxx 6489 xxx xxx 6805 xxx xxx 7061 xxx xxx Prj 3E.13 6179 (29) (0.47)% 6254 24 0.39% 6282 (207) (3.19)% 6275 (530) (7.79)% 6372 (689) (9.76)% Prj 3E.6 6237 29 0.47% 6294 64 1.03% 6323 (166) (2.56)% 6267 (538) (7.91)% 6368 (693) (9.81) % Prj 3E.13A 6129 (79) (1.27)% 6237 7 0.11% 6252 (237) (3.65)% 6266 (539) (7.92)% 6346 (715) (10.13)% Prj 3E.6A 6172 (36) (0.58)% 6264 34 0.55% 6269 (220) (3.39)% 6260 (545) (8.01)% 1 6339 (722) (10.23)% Grades 6 - 8 Total 2008-09 Diff % Total 2009-10 Diff % Total 2010-11 Diff % Total 2011-12 Diff % Total 2012-13 Diff % ACTUAL 3213 xxx xxx 3141 xxx xxx 3144 xxx xxx 3264 xxx xxx 3238 xxx xxx Prj 31VIS.13 3179 (34) (1.06)% 3242 101 3.22% 3234 90 2.86% 3221 (43) (1.32)% 3143 (95) (2.93)% Prj 31VIS.6 3195 (18) (0.56)% 3243 102 3.25% 3236 92 2.93% 3211 (53) (1.62)% 3132 (106) (3.27)% Prj 31VIS.13A 3179 (34) (1.06)% 3242 101 3.22% 3234 90 2.86% 3221 (43) (1.32)% 3143 (95) (2.93)% Prj31VIS.6A 3195 (18) (0.56)% 3243 102 3.25% 3236 92 2.93% 3211 (53) (1.62)% 3132 (106) (3.27)% Grades 9-12 Total 2008-09 Diff % Total 2009-10 Diff % Total 2010-11 Diff % Total 2011-12 Diff % Total 2012-13 Diff % ACTUAL 5061 xxx xxx 4992 xxx xxx 4963 xxx xxx 4902 xxx xxx 4978 xxx xxx Prj3SH.13 5129 68 1.34% 5074 82 1.64% 4921 (42) (0.85)% 4901 (1) (0.02)% 4813 (165) (3.31)% Prj 3SH.6 5155 94 1.86% 5128 136 2.72% 5027 64 1.29% 5017 115 2.35% 4906 (72) (1.45)% Prj3SH.13A 5129 68 1.34% 5074 82 1.64% 4921 (42) (0.85)% 4901 (1) (0.02)% 4813 (165) (3.31)% Prj 3SH.6A 1 5155 94 1.86% 1 5129 137 2.74% 1 5027 64 1.29% 1 5017 115 2.35% 1 4906 (72) (1.45)% All Grades Total 2008-09 Diff % Total 2009-10 Diff % Total 2010-11 Diff % Total 2011-12 Diff % Total 2012-13 Diff % ACTUAL 14,482 xxx xxx 13,672 xxx xxx 14,596 xxx xxx 14,971 xxx xxx 15,277 xxx xxx Prj 3.13 13,499 (173) (6.79)% 14,570 898 6.57% 14,437 (159) (1.09)% 14,397 (574) (3.83)% 14,328 (949) (6.21)% Prj 3.6 13,542 (130) (6.49)% 14,665 993 7.26% 14,586 (10) (0.07)% 14,495 (476) (3.18)% 14,406 (871) (5.70)% Prj 3.13A 13,447 (225) (7.15)% 14,553 881 6.44% 14,407 (189) (1.29)% 14,388 (583) (3.89)% 14,302 (975) (6.38)% Prj 3.6A 13,510 (162) (6.71)% 14,636 964 7.05% 14,532 (64) (0.44)% 1 14,488 (483) (3.23)% 1 14,377 (900) (5.89)% prj17-18 Page 12 AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS - October 2017 TABLE PROJECTION COMPARISONS 5 BY GRADE GROUP Total = October 1 Actual Count AND Projected Counts Diff = Number Projection is under(-) or over Actual = Percent Projection is under(-) or over Actual Prj 3.13 - 13 YEAR HISTORY & Using Average Kdg Increase Prj 3.6 - 6 YEAR HISTORY & Using Average Kdg Increase Prj 3.13A 13 YEAR HISTORY & King Cty Birth Rates Prj 3.6A - 6 YEAR HISTORY & King Cty Birth Rates Grades K-5 Total 2003-04 Diff % Total 2004-05 Diff % Total 2005-06 Diff % Total 2006-07 Diff % Total 2007-08 Diff % ACTUAL 5774 xxx xxx 5735 xxx xxx 5887 xxx xxx 6033 xxx xxx 6159 xxx xxx Prj 3E.13 5655 (119) (2.06)% 5761 26 0.45% 5750 (137) (2.33)% 5871 (162) (2.69)% 6085 (74) (1.20)% Prj 3E.6 5662 (112) (1.94)% 5821 86 1.50% 5795 (92) (1.56)%" 5921 (112) (1.86)% 6138 (21) (0.34)% Prj3E.13A 5605 (169) (2.93)%" 5709 (26) (0.45)% 5750 (137) (2.33)% 5869 (164) (2.72)% 6059 (100) (1.62)% Pr'3E.6A 5631 (143) (2.48)% 1 5756 21 0.37% 1 5784 (103) (1.75)% 1 5912 (121) (2.01)% 1 6094 (65) (1.06)% Grades 6 - 8 Total 2003-04 Diff % Total 2004-05 Diff % Total 2005-06 Diff % Total 2006-07 Diff % Total 2007-08 Diff % ACTUAL 3169 xxx xxx 3144 xxx xxx 3097 xxx xxx 3206 xxx xxx 3196 xxx xxx Prj 31VIS.13 3185 (80) 0.50% 3214 70 2.23% 3295 198 6.39% 3131 (75) (2.34)% 3107 (89) (2.78)% Prj 31VIS.6 3192 (75) 0.73% 3216 72 2.29% 3311 214 6.91% 3146 60 ( ) " (1.87)/" 3116 (80) " (2.50)/" Prj 31VIS.13A 3185 (80) 0.50% 3214 70 2.23% 3295 198 6.39% 3131 (75) (2.34)% 3107 (89) (2.78)% Pr'31VIS.6A 3192 (75) 0.73% 1 3216 72 2.29% 1 3311 214 6.91% 1 3146 (60) (1.87)% 1 3116 (80) 2.50)% Grades 9-12 Total 2003-04 Diff % Total 2004-05 Diff % % Total 2005-06 Diff % Total 2006-07 Diff % Total 2007-08 Diff % ACTUAL 5032 xxx xxx 5241 xxx xxx 5320 xxx xxx 5299 xxx xxx 5234 xxx xxx Prj 3SH.13 4577 (455) (9.04)% 4630 (611) (11.66)% (476) 4783 (537) (10.09)% 5085 (214) (4.04)% 5190 (44) (0.84)% Prj 3SH.6 4594 (438) (8.70)% 4639 (602) (11.49)% (3.00)%" 4769 (551) (10.36)% 5086 (213) (4.02)% 5192 (42) (0.80)% Prj 3SH.13A 4577 (455) (9.04)% 4630 (611) (11.66)% 14,085 4783 (537) (10.09)% 5085 (214) (4.04)% 5190 (44) (0.84)% Prj3SH.6A 1 4594 (438) (8.70)% 1 4639 (602) (11.49)% (394) 1 4769 (551) (10.36)% 5086 (213) (4.02)%" 1 5192 (42) (0.80)% All Grades Total 2003-04 Diff % Total 2004-05 Diff % Total 2005-06 Diff % Total 2006-07 Diff % Total 2007-08 Diff % ACTUAL 13,975 xxx xxx_ 14,120 xxx xxx 14,304 xxx xxx 14,538 xxx xxx 14,589 xxx xxx Prj 3.13 13,417 (558) (3.99)% 13,605 (515) (3.65)%" 13,828 (476) (3.33)% 14,087 (451) (3.10)% 14,382 (207) (1.42)% Prj 3.6 13,448 (527) (3.77)%" 13,676 (444) (3.14)%" 13,875 (429) (3.00)%" 14,153 (385) (2.65)% 14,446 (143) (0.98)% Prj 3.13A 13,367 (608) (4.35)% 13,553 (567) (4.02)% 13,828 (476) (3.33)% 14,085 (453) (3.12)% 14,356 (233) (1.60)% Prj 3.6A 13,417 (558) (3.99)% 1 13,611 (509) (3.60)% 1 13,864 (440) (3.08)% 1 14,144 (394) (2.71)% 1 14,402 (187) (1.28)% 11 AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT 1LLMENT PROJECTIONS - October 2017 TABLE PROJECTION COMPARISONS 2025-26 4 BY GRADE GROUP 2028-29 2029-30 ACTUAL PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ KNDG 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 1 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 E.13 1261 1287 1312 1338 1363 1389 E.6 1261 1294 1326 1359 1391 1424 E.13A 1261 1222 1234 1246 1265 E.6A 1261 1222 1234 1246 1265 7134 7262 7389 7517 7644 7772 7899 8027 7426 7589 7752 7915 8078 8241 8404 8567 GRADES1-5 ACTUAL PROJPROJ 542 PROJ PROJ PROJ 4539 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 E.13 6454 6579 6650 6720 6873 7007 E.6 6454 6635 6756 6884 7089 7263 E.13A 6454 6579 6585 6577 6639 E.6A 6454 6635 6685 6720 6812 4153 GRADES 6-8 ACTUAL PROJ 1 PROJ I PROJ PROJ 1 PROJ 4357 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 MS.13 3584 3704 3879 4045 4094 4107 MS.6 3584 3730 3929 4109 4183 4227 MS.13A 3584 3704 3879 4045 4094 4107 MS.6A 3584 3730 3929 4109 4183 4227 6284 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 6 year 153 196 13 year 332 424 1414 1440 1465 1491 1516 1542 1567 1593 1457 1489 1522 1554 1587 1620 1652 1685 1 2024-25 1 2025-26 1 PROJ 2023-24 PROJ 2024-25 PROJ 2025-26 PROJ 2026-27 PROJ 2027-28 PROJ 2028-29 PROJ 2029-30 PROJ 2030-31 4229 6 year 680 972 13 year 1573 2113 7134 7262 7389 7517 7644 7772 7899 8027 7426 7589 7752 7915 8078 8241 8404 8567 PROJ PROJ PROD PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ 2024-25 PROJ 2025-26 2023-24 1 2024-25 1 2025-26 1 2026-27 1 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 I 2030-31 6 year 13 year 4126 4229 4311 4388 4464 4541 4617 4694 542 1110 4290 4429 4539 4637 4734 4832 4930 5028 706 1444 4126 4164 4169 4153 4197 6592 6681 6776 542 7090 4290 4357 4375 4360 4403 5202 5329 5458 706 5881 6081 6190 6284 6329 6308 6359 6375 6379 855 GRADES 9-12 I ACTUAL 2017-18 PROJ 2018-19 PROJ 2019-20 PROJ 2020-21 PROJ 2021-22 PROJ 2022-23 PROJ 2023-24 PROJ 2024-25 PROJ 2025-26 PROJ 2026-27 PROJ 1 2027-28 PROJ 2028-29 PROJ 1 2029-30 PROJ 1 2030-31 2029-30 1 6 year 13 year HS.13 5226 5202 5329 5458 5680 5881 6081 6190 6284 6329 6373 6501 6609 6711 855 1485 HS.6 5226 5279 5441 5612 5857 6094 6320 6456 6592 6681 6776 6948 7090 7221 1094 1995 HS.13A 5226 5202 5329 5458 5680 5881 6081 6190 6284 6329 6308 6359 6375 6379 855 1153 HS.6A 5226 5279 5441 5612 5857 6094 6320 6456 6592 6681 6704 6784 6813 6818 1094 1592 PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ DISTRICT TOTALS PROJ ACTUAL PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ K-12 2029-30 1 6 year 1 18,755 19,120 19,449 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 3.13 16,525 16,772 17,169 17,561 18,010 18,383 3.6 16,525 16,937 17,453 17,963 18,520 19,009 3.13A 16,525 16,708 17,027 17,327 17,678 3.6A 16.525 16.865 17.289 17,687 18,117 PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 1 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 6 year 13 year 18,755 19,120 19,449 19,723 19,997 20,355 20,692 21,024 1 2230 4499 19,493 19,963 20,405 20,787 21,176 21,641 22,077 22,501 2968 5976 prj17-18 Page 10 AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS - October 2017 TABLE I HIGH SCHOOL PROJECTIONS 3HS.13 I Based on 13 Year History GRADE ACTUAL PROJ PROD PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021.22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 9 1258 1359 1386 1419 1479 1560 1586 1528 1574 1605 1630 1656 1681 1707 10 1300 1269 1370 1396 1430 1490 1571 1596 1538 1584 1616 1641 1667 1692 11 1249 1279 1248 1349 1376 1409 1469 1550 1576 1518 1564 1595 1620 1646 12 1419 1295 1325 1294 1395 1422 1455 1516 1596 1622 1564 1610 1641 1666 9-12 TOT 5226 5257-F-5329 5329 5458 5680 5881 6081 6190 6284 6329 6373 6501 6609 6711 Percent of Gain (0.46)% 2.43% 2.43% 4.06% 3.54% 3.40% 1.79% 1.52% 0.71% 0.70% 2.01% 1.66% 1.54% Student Gain (24) 127 130 221 201 200 109 94 45 45 128 108 102 TABLE HIGH SCHOOL PROJECTIONS PROJ PROJ PROJ 3HS.6 Based on 6 Year History PROJ SR. HIGH PROJECTIONS 2023-24 2024-25 GRADE ACTUAL PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ 1621 2017-18 2018-1912019-20 1684 2020-21 2021.22 2022-23 9 1258 1357 1395 1442 1503 1595 10 1300 1287 1386 1424 1470 1531 11 1249 1288 1274 1374 1412 1458 12 1419 1347 1386 1372 1472 1510 9-12 TOT 5226 5279 5441 5612 5857 6094 6320 Percent of Gain 1.01% 3.08% 3.13% 4.36% 4.06% 709-0--1 Student Gain 53 163 170 245 238 TABLE HIGH SCHOOL PROJECTIONS 1.42% 2.54% 2.05% 3HS_13A Raced nn Rirth Rntec A V3 Venr Wict- 226 135 6 year 13 year 855 1485 PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ SR. HIGH PROJECTIONS 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 1 2030-31 2018-19 1621 1577 1639 1684 1716 1749 1782 1814 2027-28 1624 1650 1606 1668 1712 1745 1778 1810 1479 1519 1611 1638 1594 1656 1700 1733 1765 1609 1556 1617 1709 1736 1692 1754 1798 1831 6 year 13 year 6320 6456 6592 6681 6776 6948 709-0--1 7221 1094 1995 3.71% 2.14% 2.12% 1.35% 1.42% 2.54% 2.05% 1.84% 1555 226 135 137 89 95 172 142 130 1455 GRADE ACTUAL PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJPROJ SR. HIGH PROJECTIONS PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 9 1258 1359 1386 1419 1479 1560 1586 1528 1574 1605 1566 1578 1590 1609 10 1300 1269 1370 1396 1430 1490 1571 1596 1538 1584 1616 1576 1589 1600 11 1249 1279 1248 1349 1376 1409 1469 1550 1576 1518 1564 1595 1555 1568 12 1419 1295 1325 1294 1395 1422 1455 1516 1596 1622 1564 1610 1641 1602 9-12 TOT 5226 5202 5329 5458 5680 5881 6081 6190 6284 6329 6308 6359 6375 6379 Percent of Gain (0.46)% 2.43% 2.43% 4.06% 3.54% 3.40% 1.79% 1.52% 0.71% (0.32)% 0.80% 0.25% 0.07% Student Gain (24) 127 130 221 201 200 109 94 45 (20) 50 16 4 PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ TABLE SR. HIGH PROJECTIONS 3SH.6A Based on Birth Rates & 6 Year History 12027--28 I GRADE ACTUAL PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ 1645 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 9 1258 1357 1395 1442 1503 1595 10 1300 1287 1386 1424 1470 1531 11 1249 1288 1274 1374 1412 1458 12 1419 1347 1386 1372 1472 1510 9-12 TOT 5226 5279 5441 5612 5857 6094 0.43% Percent of Gain 1.01% 3.08% 3.13% 4.36% 4.06% 80 Student Gain 53 163 170 245 238 PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ 2023--24 I 2024-25 12025--26 12026-27 12027--28 I 2028-29 I 2029-30 I 2030-31 1621 1577 1639 1684 1645 1657 1669 1688 1624 1650 1606 1668 1712 1673 1686 1697 1519 1611 1638 1594 1656 1700 1661 1673 1556 1617 1709 1736 1692 1754 1798 1759 6320 6456 6592 6681 6704 6784 6813 6818 3.71% 2.14% 2.12% 1.35% 0.35% 1.19% 0.43% 0.06% 226 135 137 89 23 80 29 4 6 year I 13 year 855 1153 year i3 year 1094 1592 P 3 �9 AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT )LLMENT PROJECTIONS - October 2017 TABLE MIDDLE SCHOOL PROJECTIONS PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ 3MS.13 Based on 13 Year History GRADE ACTUAL PROJ PROJPROJ ACTUAL PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJPROJ 2020-21 PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ GRADE 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 6 1207 1268 1360 1386 1342 1405 1449 1482 1514 1547 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 6 1207 1267 1348 1374 1316 1362 1393 1418 1444 1469 1495 1520 1546 1571 7 1194 1227 1288 1368 1394 1336 1382 1413 1439 1464 1490 1515 1541 1566 8 1183 1210 1243 1303 1384 1410 1352 1398 1429 1454 1480 1505 1531 1556 6 year 13 year 6-8 TOT 1 3584 3704 3879 4045 4094 4107 4126 4229 4311 4388 4464 4541 1 4617 4694 542 1110 74 Percent of Gain 3.36% 4.70% 4.30% 1.19% 0.33% 0.46% 2.49% 1.94% 1.77% 1.74% 1.71% 1.68% 1.66% 43 Student Gain 120 174 167 48 14 19 103 82 77 77 77 77 77 TABLE I MIDDLE SCHOOL PROJECTIONS 3MS.6 Based on 6 Year History TABLE I MIDDLE SCHOOL PROJECTIONS 3MS.13A Based on Birth Rates & 13 Year History ACTUAL PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ GRADE ACTUAL PROJ PROJPROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 6 1207 1268 1360 1386 1342 1405 1449 1482 1514 1547 1579 1612 1645 1677 7 1194 1240 1301 1394 1420 1376 1438 1482 1515 1548 1580 1613 1645 1678 8 1183 1221 1268 1329 1421 1447 1403 1465 1510 1542 1575 1607 1640 1673 6-8 TOT 3584 3730 3929 4109 4183 4227 4290 4429 4539 1 4637 4734 4832 1 4930 5028 0.92% Percent of Gain 4.06% 5.35% 4.57% 1.81% 1.06% 1.48% 3.24% 2.47% 2.15% 2.11% 2.07% 2.02% 1.98% (15) Student Gain 146 200 179 74 44 63 139 110 98 98 98 98 98 TABLE I MIDDLE SCHOOL PROJECTIONS 3MS.13A Based on Birth Rates & 13 Year History 6 year 13 year 706 1444 6 year 10 year 542 613 TABLE ACTUAL PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ GRADE ACTUAL PROJ PROJPROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ 2017.18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 6 1207 1267 1348 1374 1316 1362 1393 1354 1366 1378 1397 2024-25 7 1194 1227 1288 1368 1394 1336 1382 1413 1374 1386 1398 1417 8 1183 1210 1243 1303 1384 1410 1352 1398 1429 1390 1402 1414 1433 6-8 TOT 3584 3704 1 3879 4045 4094 4107 4126 4164 1 4169 4153 4197 1465 1510 Percent of Gain 3.36% 4.70% 4.30% 1.19% 0.33% 0.46% 0.92% 0.10% (0.36)% 1.04% 4357 4375 Student Gain 120 174 167 48 14 19 38 4 (15) 43 1.57% 6 year 13 year 706 1444 6 year 10 year 542 613 TABLE MIDDLE SCHOOL PROJECTIONS 3MS.6A Based on Birth Rates & 6 Year History ACTUAL PROJ PROJPROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ GRADE 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 6 1207 1268 1360 1386 1342 1405 1449 1410 1422 1434 1453 7 1194 1240 1301 1394 1420 1376 1438 1482 1443 1456 1467 1487 8 1183 1221 1268 1329 1421 1447 1403 1465 1510 1470 1483 1494 1514 6 year 10 year 6-8 TOT 3584 3730 3929 4109 4183 4227 4290 4357 4375 4360 4403 706 819 Percent of Gain 4.06% 5.35% 4.57% 1.81% 1.06% 1.48% 1.57% 0.40% (0.35)% 0.99% Student Gain 146 200 179 74 44 63 67 18 (15) 43 prj17-18 Page 8 AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS - October 2017 TABLE 3E.13 K-5 PROJECTIONS - Based on 13 Year History GRADE ACTUAL PROJ PROD PROJ PROJ PROJ 2017-18 2018-19 _ 2019-20 _ 2020-21 _ 2021-22 KDG 1261 1287 1312 1338 1363 1 1276 1307 1333 1358 1384 2 1252 1298 1329 1355 1380 3 1328 1270 1316 1347 1373 4 1329 1355 1297 1343 1374 5 1269 1350 1375 1317 1363 K - 5 TOT 7715 7866 7962 _ 8057 _ 8236 Percent of Gain 1.96% 1.22% 1.20% 2.22% Student Gain 151 96 96 179 TABLE 3E.6 K-5 PROJECTIONS - Based on 6 Year History GRADE ACTUAL PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ 1516 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 _ 2020-21 2021.22 _ KDG 1261 1294 1326 1359 1391 1 1276 1320 1353 1386 1418 2 1252 1314 1359 1391 1424 3 1328 1284 1346 1391 1423 4 1329 1355 1311 1373 1418 5 1269 1361 1387 1343 1406 K - 5 TOT 7715 7929 8083 8243 _ 8480 Percent of Gain 2.77% 1.94% 1.98% 2.88% Student Gain 214 154 160 237 TABLE 3E.13A K-5 PROJECTIONS - Based on Birth Rates and 13 Year GRADE ACTUAL PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ 1424 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22_ K 1261 1222 1234 1246 1265 1 1276 1307 1268 1280 1292 2 1252 1298 1329 1290 1302 3 1328 1270 1316 1347 1308 4 1329 1355 1297 1343 1374 5 1269 1350 1375 1317 1363 K - 5 TOT 7715 7801 7819 _ 7823 _ 7904 Percent of Gain 1.12% 0.23% 0.05% 1.04% Student Gain 86 18 4 81 TABLE 3E.6A K-5 PROJECTIONS - Based on Birth Rates and 6 Year Hi GRADE ACTUAL PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ 1471 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 _ 2020-21 _ 2021-22 _ KDG 1261 1222 1234 1246 1265 1 1276 1320 1281 1294 1305 2 1252 1314 1359 1319 1332 3 1328 1284 1346 1391 1351 4 1329 1355 1311 1373 1418 5 1269 1361 1387 1343 1406 K - 5 TOT 7715 7857 7919 7966 8077 Percent of Gain 1.84% 0.79% 0.60% 1.39% Student Gain 142 62 47 111 PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ 2022-23 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 1457 1389 1414 1440 1465 1491 1516 1542 1567 1593 1516 1409 1435 1460 1486 1511 1537 1562 1588 1613 1554 1406 1431 1457 1482 1508 1533 1559 1584 1610 1586 1398 1424 1449 1475 1500 1526 1551 1577 1602 1613 1399 1425 1450 1476 1501 1527 1552 1578 1603 1646 1394 1420 1445 1471 1496 1522 1547 1573 1598 6 year 13 year 8395 8548 8701 8854 9007 9160 9313 9466 9619 833 1904 1.93% 1.82% 1.79% 1.76% 1.73% 1.70% 1.67% 1.64% 1.62% )ry 159 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ J PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ 2022-23 I 2023-24 I 2024-25 2025-26 12026-27 1202 -28 I 2028-29 12029-30 I 2030-31 1424 1457 1489 1522 1554 1587 1620 1652 1685 1451 1483 1516 1549 1581 1614 1646 1679 1712 1456 1489 1522 1554 1587 1619 1652 1685 1717 1456 1488 1521 1554 1586 1619 1651 1684 1717 1450 1483 1516 1548 1581 1613 1646 1679 1711 1450 1483 1515 1548 1580 1613 1646 1678 1711 8687 8883 9079 9274 9470 9665 9861 10057 10252 2.45% 2.25% 2.20% 2.15% 2.11% 2.07% 2.02% 1.98% 1.94% 207 196 196 196 196 196 196 196 196 PROJ PROJ J PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ 2022-23 I 2023-24 I 2024-25 12025-26 12026-27 1202 -28 I 2028-29 I 2029-30 I 2030-31 1311 1314 1333 1320 1332 1351 1335 1347 1359 1378 1394 1355 1368 1379 1399 )ry PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJPROJ PROJ 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 1325 1343 1363 1364 1375 1395 1379 1391 1403 1422 1450 1411 1423 1435 1454 i year 13 year 1168 2537 year 189 4 year 362 P 8 '7 AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT )LLMENT PROJECTIONS - October 2017 TABLE DISTRICT PROJECTIONS 3.13A Based on Birth Rates & 13 Year History prj17-18 Page 6 ACTUAL PROJ PROJ I PROJ I PROJ I PROJ I PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ GRADE 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 1 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030.31 K 1261 1222 1234 1246 1265 1 1276 1307 1268 1280 1292 1311 2 1252 1298 1329 1290 1302 1314 1333 3 1328 1270 1316 1347 1308 1320 1332 1351 4 1329 1355 1297 1343 1374 1335 1347 1359 1378 5 1269 1350 1375 1317 1363 1394 1355 1368 1379 1399 6 1207 1267 1348 1374 1316 1362 1393 1354 1366 1378 1397 7 1194 1227 1288 1368 1394 1336 1382 1413 1374 1386 1398 1417 8 1183 1210 1243 1303 1384 1410 1352 1398 1429 1390 1402 1414 1433 9 1258 1359 1386 1419 1479 1560 1586 1528 1574 1605 1566 1578 1590 1609 10 1300 1269 1370 1396 1430 1490 1571 1596 1538 1584 1616 1576 1589 1600 11 1249 1279 1248 1349 1376 1409 1469 1550 1576 1518 1564 1595 1555 1568 12 1419 1295 1325 1294 1395 1422 1455 1516 1596 1622 1564 1610 1641 1602 TOTALS 16,525 16,708 17,027 17,327 17,678 Percent of Gain 1.11% 1.91% 1.76% 2.03% Student Gain 183 319 300 351 TABLE DISTRICT PROJECTIONS 3.6A Based on Birth Rates & 6 Year History ACTUAL PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ GRADE 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 KD G 1261 1222 1234 1246 1265 1 1276 1320 1281 1294 1305 1325 2 1252 1314 1359 1319 1332 1343 1363 3 1328 1284 1346 1391 1351 1364 1375 1395 4 1329 1355 1311 1373 1418 1379 1391 1403 1422 5 1269 1361 1387 1343 1406 1450 1411 1423 1435 1454 6 1207 1268 1360 1386 1342 1405 1449 1410 1422 1434 1453 7 1194 1240 1301 1394 1420 1376 1438 1482 1443 1456 1467 1487 8 1183 1221 1268 1329 1421 1447 1403 1465 1510 1470 1483 1494 1514 9 1258 1357 1395 1442 1503 1595 1621 1577 1639 1684 1645 1657 1669 1688 10 1300 1287 1386 1424 1470 1531 1624 1650 1606 1668 1712 1673 1686 1697 11 1249 1288 1274 1374 1412 1458 1519 1611 1638 1594 1656 1700 1661 1673 12 1419 1347 1386 1372 1472 1510 1556 1617 1709 1736 1692 1754 1798 1759 TOTALS 16,525 16,865 17,289 17,687 18,117 Percent of Gain 2.06% 2.52% 2.30% 2.43% Student Gain 340 424 397 430 prj17-18 Page 6 AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS - October 2017 TABLE DISTRICT PROJECTIONS PROJ PROJ 3.13 Based on 13 Year History PROJ 1 PROJ GRADE ACTUAL PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ 2020-21 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 KD G 1261 1287 1312 1338 1363 1 1276 1307 1333 1358 1384 2 1252 1298 1329 1355 1380 3 1328 1270 1316 1347 1373 4 1329 1355 1297 1343 1374 5 1269 1350 1375 1317 1363 6 1207 1267 1348 1374 1316 7 1194 1227 1288 1368 1394 8 1183 1210 1243 1303 1384 9 1258 1359 1386 1419 1479 10 1300 1269 1370 1396 1430 11 1249 1279 1248 1349 1376 12 1419 1295 1325 1294 1395 TOTALS 16,525 16,772 17,169 17,561 18,010 2.92% Percent of Gain 1.50% 2.36% 2.28% 2.56% 510 Student Gain 247 397 392 449 TABLE 3.6 DISTRICT PROJECTIONS Based on 6 Year History PROJ PROJ GRADE ACTUAL PROJ 1 PROJ PROJ 1 PROJ 1 2023--24 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 KDG 1261 1294 1326 1359 1391 1 1276 1320 1353 1386 1418 2 1252 1314 1359 1391 1424 3 1328 1284 1346 1391 1423 4 1329 1355 1311 1373 1418 5 1269 1361 1387 1343 1406 6 1207 1268 1360 1386 1342 7 1194 1240 1301 1394 1420 8 1183 1221 1268 1329 1421 9 1258 1357 1395 1442 1503 10 1300 1287 1386 1424 1470 11 1249 1288 1274 1374 1412 12 1419 1347 1386 1372 1472 TOTALS 16,525 16,937 17,453 17,963 18,520 1586 Percent of Gain 2.49% 3.05% 2.92% 3.10% 1681 Student Gain 412 516 510 556 PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJI PROJ PROJ 2022--23 I 2023--24 I 2024-25 12025-26 12026-27 12026-27 12027--28 I 2028-29 I 2029-30 I 2030-31 1389 1414 1440 1465 1491 1516 1542 1567 1593 1409 1435 1460 1486 1511 1537 1562 1588 1613 1406 1431 1457 1482 1508 1533 1559 1584 1610 1398 1424 1449 1475 1500 1526 1551 1577 1602 1399 1425 1450 1476 1501 1527 1552 1578 1603 1394 1420 1445 1471 1496 1522 1547 1573 1598 1362 1393 1418 1444 1469 1495 1520 1546 1571 1336 1382 1413 1439 1464 1490 1515 1541 1566 1410 1352 1398 1429 1454 1480 1505 1531 1556 1560 1586 1528 1574 1605 1630 1656 1681 1707 1490 1571 1596 1538 1584 1616 1641 1667 1692 1409 1469 1550 1576 1518 1564 1595 1620 1646 1422 1455 1516 1596 1622 1564 1610 1641 1666 18,383 18,755T 19,120 19,449 19,723 19,997 20,355 20,692 21,024 2.07% 2.02% 1.94% 1.72% 1.41% 1.39% 1.79% 1.66% 1.60% 373 372 364 329 274 274 358 337 332 PROJ PROJ J PROJ PROJI PROJ PROJ PROJ 2022--23 I 2023--24 I 2024-25 12025 26 12026-27 12027--28 I 2028-29 I 2029-30 I 2030-31 1424 1457 1489 1522 1554 1587 1620 1652 1685 1451 1483 1516 1549 1581 1614 1646 1679 1712 1456 1489 1522 1554 1587 1619 1652 1685 1717 1456 1488 1521 1554 1586 1619 1651 1684 1717 1450 1483 1516 1548 1581 1613 1646 1679 1711 1450 1483 1515 1548 1580 1613 1646 1678 1711 1405 1449 1482 1514 1547 1579 1612 1645 1677 1376 1438 1482 1515 1548 1580 1613 1645 1678 1447 1403 1465 1510 1542 1575 1607 1640 1673 1595 1621 1577 1639 1684 1716 1749 1782 1814 1531 1624 1650 1606 1668 1712 1745 1778 1810 1458 1519 1611 1638 1594 1656 1700 1733 1765 1510 1556 1617 1709 1736 1692 1754 1798 1831 19,009 19,493 19,963 20,405 20,787 21,176 21,641 22,077--r-22,501 2.64% 2.55% 2.41% 2.21% 1.87% 1.87% 2.20% 2.01% 1.92% 490 484 470 442 382 389 465 436 424 p 3 7)5 AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT 1LLMENT PROJECTIONS - October 2017 TABLE 2 Factors Used in Projections Factor Average Student Change Between 1 Grade Levels Factor 1 is the average gain or loss of students as they move from one grade level to the next. Factor 1 uses the past 12 or 6 years of changes. 13 YEAR BASE 6 YEAR K_ 1 - 3 - 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 6 YEAR BASE K to 1 46.17 K to 1 59.40 1 to 2 21.92 1 to 2 38.20 2 to 3 18.00 2 to 3 32.00 3 to 4 26.75 3 to 4 27.20 4 to 5 20.58 4 to 5 32.20 5 to 6 (1.58) 5 to 6 (1.00) 6 to 7 20.25 6 to 7 33.40 7 to 8 15.67 7 to 8 27.20 8 to 9 176.08 8 to 9 174.20 9 to 10 10.67 9 to 10 28.60 10 to 11 (20.83) 10 to 11 (12.20) 11 to 12 46.25 11 to 12 98.00 total 379.92 total 537.20 Factor Average Student Change By 2 Grade Level Factor 2 is the average change in grade level size. 13 YEAR BASE 6 YEAR K_ 1 - 3 - 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 BASE K 25.50 32.60 1 26.08 37.40 2 _ 3 __ _ 4 5 24.082 33.80 27.17 43.40 32.50 58.20 17.00 39.80 6 16.92 33.20 7 - 8 13.83 21.60 3.83 33.20 9 (10.08) 11.60 10 (6.92) 4.40 11 12 5.58 17.00 27.58 19.60 Factor 3 AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENTS AS A FUNCTION OF KING COUNTY BIRTH RATES TOTAL ADJ AUBURN KINDERGARTEN CALENDAR LIVE 2/3 RD I 1/3RD YEAR OF LIVE KDG ENROLLMENT AS A % OF YEAR BIRTHS BIRTHS BIRTHS ENROLL 1985-86 BIRTHS 16,708 ENROLL 792 ADJUSTED LIVE BIRTHS 4.740% 1979 16,524 11,016 5,508 1980 16,800 11,200 5,600 1986-87 17,955 829 4.617% 1981 17,100 11,400 5,700 1987-88 18,241 769 4.216% 1982 18,811 12,541 6,270 1988-89 18,626 817 4.386% 1983 18,533 12,355 6,178 1989-90 18,827 871 4.626% 1984 18,974 12,649 6,325 1990-91 19,510 858 4.398% 1985 19,778 13,185 6,593 1991-92 19,893 909 4.569% 1986 19,951 13,301 6,650 1992-93 21,852 920 4.210% 1987 22,803 15,202 7,601 1993-94 21,624 930 4.301% 1988 21,034 14,023 7,011 1994-95 24,062 927 3.853% 1989 25,576 17,051 8,525 1995-96 26,358 954 3.619% 1990 26,749 17,833 8,916 1996-97 24,116 963 3.993% 1991 22,799 15,199 7,600 1997-98 20,973 978 4.663% 1992 20,060 13,373 6,687 1998-99 21,573 854 3.959% 1993 22,330 14,887 7,443 1999-00 22,129 849 3.837% 1994 22,029 14,686 7,343 2000-01 24,013 912 3.798% 1995 25,005 16,670 8,335 2001-02 22,717 846 3.724% 1996 21,573 14,382 7,191 2002-03 21,622 905 4.186% 1997 21,646 14,431 7,215 2003-04 22,023 922 4.186% 1998 22,212 14,808 7,404 2004-05 22,075 892 4.041% 1999 22,007 14,671 7,336 2005-06 22,327 955 4.277% 2000 22,487 14,991 7,496 2006-07 22,014 941 4.274% 2001 21,778 14,519 7,259 2007-08 21,835 996 4.562% 2002 21,863 14,575 7,288 2008-09 22,242 998 4.487% 2003 22,431 14,954 7,477 2009-10 22,726 1032 4.541% 2004 22,874 15,249 7,625 2010-11 22,745 1010 4.441% 2005 22,680 15,120 7,560 2011-12 23,723 1029 4.338% 2006 24,244 16,163 8,081 2012-13 24,683 1098 4.448% 2007 24,902 16,601 8,301 2013-14 25,094 1162 4.631% Last 5 2008 25,190 16,793 8,397 2014-15 25,101 1232 4.908% year 2009 25,057 16,705 8,352 2015-16 24,695 1198 4.851% Average 2010 24,514 16,343 8,171 2016-17 24,591 1237 5.030% 4.897% 2011 24,630 16,420 8,210 2017-18 24,898 1261 Actual 5.065% 2012 25,032 16,688 8,344 2018-19 24,951 1222 <--Prjctd 2013 24,910 16,607 8,303 2019-20 25,202 1234 <-Prjctd 2014 25,348 16,899 8,449 2020-21 25,441 1246 <-Prjctd 2015 25,487 16,991 8,496 2021-22 25,836 1265 <--Prjctd 2016 26,011 17,341 8,670 2022-23 'number from DOH Source: Center for Health Statistics, Washington State Department of Health prj17-18 Page 4 AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS - October 2017 TABLE 1 Thirteen Year History of October 1 Enrollments GRADE 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 GRADE KDG 955 941 996 998 1032 1010 1029 1098 1170 1232 1198 1237 1261 KDG 1 963 1012 995 1015 1033 1066 1068 1089 1188 1219 1279 1210 1276 1 2 963 1002 1019 1024 998 1016 1097 1083 1124 1196 1289 1300 1252 2 3 1002 1031 997 1048 993 1013 996 1111 1125 1136 1232 1317 1328 3 4 939 1049 1057 1044 1073 1024 1022 1038 1123 1156 1170 1237 1329 4 5 1065 998 1078 1069 1030 1079 1018 1070 1075 1122 1172 1199 1269 5 6 1004 1058 1007 1096 1040 1041 1063 1041 1076 1059 1116 1152 1207 6 7 1028 1014 1057 1034 1125 1060 1032 1086 1072 1091 1099 1132 1194 7 8 1137 1072 1033 1076 1031 1112 1046 1017 1116 1088 1136 1108 1183 8 9 1379 1372 1337 1256 1244 1221 1273 1200 1159 1275 1229 1261 1258 9 10 1383 1400 1368 1341 1277 1238 1170 1278 1229 1169 1316 1248 1300 10 11 1182 1322 1352 1350 1303 1258 1233 1164 1240 1211 1167 1318 1249 11 12 1088 1147 1 1263 1352 1410 1 1344 1 1316 1 1321 1 1274 1 1323 1 1260 1 1226 1 1419 1 12 U I ALJ 1 -14,=5 14,41 t5 I 14,559 1 14, /UJ I 14,5tf9 1 14,482 14, 5961 14,971 115,2171 15,663 1 15,945 1 16,525 Percent of Gain 2.34% 0.98% 0.99% (0.78)% (0.73)% (0.82)% 1.62% 2.57% 2.04% 2.53% 1.80% 3.64% Student Gain 330 141 144 114 107 119 233 375 306 386 282 580 3010 Average % Gain for 1st 6 years. 0.33% Average % Gain for last 6 years 2.37% 3270 3482 Average Student Gain for 1st 6 years. 46 Average Student Gain for last 6 years 360 K-5 5887 Average % Gain for 13 years. 1.35% 6159 6208 6230 Average Student Gain for 13 vears. 203 7340 7500 TABLE 1A Grade Group Combinations 1 17-18 KDG 955 941 996 998 1032 1010 1029 1098 1170 1232 1198 1237 1261 K,1,2 2881 2955 3010 3037 3063 3092 3194 3270 3482 3647 3766 3747 3789 K-5 5887 6033 6142 6198 6159 6208 6230 6489 6805 7061 7340 7500 7715 K-6 6891 7091 7149 7294 7199 7249 7293 7530 7881 8120 8456 8652 8922 1-3 2928 3045 3011 3087 3024 3095 3161 3283 3437 3551 3800 3827 3856 1-5 4932 5092 5146 5200 5127 5198 5201 5391 5635 5829 6142 6263 6454 1-6 5936 6150 6153 6296 6167 6239 6264 6432 6711 6888 7258 7415 7661 6-8 3169 3144 3097 3206 3196 3213 3141 3144 3264 3238 3351 3392 3584 7-8 2165 2086 2090 2110 2156 2172 2078 2103 2188 2179 2235 2240 2377 7-9 3544 3458 3427 3366 3400 3393 3351 3303 3347 3454 3464 3501 3635 9-12 5032 5241 5320 5299 5234 5061 4992 4963 4902 4978 4972 5053 5226 10-12 3653 3869 3983 4043 3990 3840 3719 3763 3743 3703 3743 3792 3968 p 3 �3 Table 3 — Projection Models — pages 5-13 This set of tables utilizes the above mentioned variables and generates several projections. The models are explained briefly below. ❑ Table 3.13 (pg 5) — shows a projection based on the 13 -year average gain in kindergarten (Factor 2) and the 13 -year average change between grade levels (Factor 1). The data is shown for the district as a whole. ❑ Table 3.6 (pg 5) — shows a projection using the same scheme as Table 3.13 except it shortens the historical data to only the most recent 6 years. ❑ Table 3.13A and 3.6A (pg 6) — uses the same factors above except Factor 3 is substituted for Factor 2. The kindergarten rates are derived from the King County live births instead of the average gain. ❑ Tables 3E.13, 3E.6, 3E. 13A, 3E.6A (pg 7) — breaks out the K-5 grades from the district projection. Summary level data is provided for percentage gain and pupil gain by grade articulation. ❑ Tables 3MS.13, 3MS.6, 3MS.13A, 3MS.6A (pg 8) — breaks out the 6-8 grades from the district projection. Summary level data is provided for percentage gain and pupil gain by grade articulation. ❑ Tables 3SH.13, 3SH.6, 3SH.13A, 3SH.6A (pg 9) — breaks out the 9-12 grades from the district projection. Summary level data is provided for percentage gain and pupil gain by grade articulation. ❑ Table 4 (pg 10) — Collects the four projection models by grade group for ease of comparison. ❑ Table 5 (pgs 11-13) — shows how well each projection model performed when compared with actual enrollments. Data is provided in both number and percent formats for the past 13 years. Summary This year is the sixth consecutive year of an increase in enrollment after three consecutive years of declining enrollment. The increase of 580 students changes our historical average gain/loss in students. Over the past 6 years the average gain is now 2.37% annually, which equates to an average annual gain of 360 students. Using the cohort survival models, the data below is a summary of the range of variation between the four models. This data can be used for planning for future needs of the district. The models show changes in the next six years: ■ Elementary level show increases ranging from 833 to 1,168. (page 7) ■ Middle School level show increases ranging from 542 to 706. (page 8) ■ High School level show increases ranging from 855 to 1,094. (page 9) The models show these changes looking forward thirteen years: ■ Elementary level show increases ranging from 1,904 to 2,537. (page 7) ■ Middle School level show increases ranging from 1,110 to 1,444. (page 8) ■ High School level show increases ranging from 1,485 to 1,995. (page 9) This data does not factor new developments that are currently under construction or in the planning stages. Auburn School District #408 Student Enrollment Projections October 2017 Introduction The projective techniques give some consideration to historical and current data as a basis for forecasting the future. In addition, the `projector' must make certain assumptions about the operant variables within the data being used. These assumptions are "judgmental" by definition. Forecasting can be defined as the extrapolation or logical extension from history to the future, or from the known to the unknown. The attached tabular data reviews the history of student enrollment, sets out some quantitative assumptions, and provides projections based on these numerical factors. The projection logic does not attempt to weigh the individual sociological, psychological, economic, and political factors that are present in any demographic analysis and projection. The logic embraces the assumptions that whatever these individual factors have been in the past are present today, and will be in the future. It further moderates the impact of singular factors by averaging data over thirteen years and six years respectively. The results provide a trend, which reflects a long (13 -year) and a short (6 -year) base from which to extrapolate. Two methods of estimating the number of kindergarten students have been used. The first uses the average increase or decrease over the past 13 and 6 -year time frame and adds it to each succeeding year. The second derives what the average percentage Auburn kindergartners have been of live births in King County for the past 5 years and uses this to project the subsequent four years. The degree to which the actuals deviate from the projections can only be measured after the fact. This deviation provides a point of departure to evaluate the effectiveness of the assumptions and logic being used to calculate future projections. Monitoring deviation is critical to the viability and credibility of the projections derived by these techniques. Tables Table 1— Thirteen Year History of October I Enrollments — page 3 The data shown in this table is the baseline information used to project future enrollment. This data shows the past record of enrollment in the district on October 1 of each year. Table 2 — Historical Factors Used in Proiections - page 4 This table shows the three basic factors derived from the data in Table 1. These factors have been used in the subsequent projections. The three factors are: • Factor 1— Average Pupil Change Between Grade Levels This factor is sometimes referred to as the "holding power" or "cohort survival." It is a measure of the number of pupils gained or lost as they move from one grade level to the next. • Factor 2 — Average Pupil Change by Grade Level This factor is the average change at each grade level over the 13 or 6 -year period. • Factor 3 — Auburn School District Kindergarten Enrollment as a Function of King County Live Births. This factor calculates what percent each kindergarten class was of the King County live births in the five previous years. From this information has been extrapolated the kindergarten pupils expected for the next four years. Appendix A.1 - Student Enrollment Projections Auburn School District No. 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2018 through 2024 IMPACT FEE ELEMENTS SINGLE FAMILY MULTI FAMILY Elem Mid Sch Sr High Elem Mid Sch Sr High Projected Cost/Acre K-5 6-8 9-12 K-5 6-8 9-12 Student Factor Single Family - Auburn actual count April 2017 0.234 0.097 0.123 0.219 0.107 0.106 New Fac Capacity 1 $19,395,002 650 800 1500 650 800 1500 New Facility Cost Elementary Cost Estimates April 2017 $60,200,000 $60,200,000 Temp Rm Capacity ASD District Standard of Service. 19.67 30 30 19.67 30 30 Grades K - 5 @ 19.67 and 6-12@30. Temp Facility Cost Relocatables, including site work, set up, and furnishing $180,000 $180,000 $180,000 $180,000 $180,000 $180,000 Site Acreage ASD District Standard or SPI Minimum 12 25 40 12 25 40 Site Cost/Acre See below $344,240 $344,240 $344,240 $344,240 $344,240 $344,240 Perm Sq Footage 14 Elementary, 4 Middle, and 4 High Schools 1,695,317 1,695,317 1,695,317 1,695,317 1,695,317 1,695,317 Temp Sq Footage 113 portables at 896 sq. ft. each + TAP 2661 103,909 103,909 103,909 103,909 103,909 103,909 Total Sq Footage Sum of Permanent and Temporary above 1,799,226 1,799,226 1,799,226 1,799,226 1,799,226 1,799,226 - Perm Facilities Permanent Sq. Footage divided by Total Sq. Footage 94.22% 94.22% 94.22% 94.22% 94.22% 94.22% - Temp Facilities Temporary Sq. Footage divided by Total Sq. Footage 5.78% 5.78% 5.78% 5.78% 5.78% 5.78% SPI Sq Ft/Student From SPI Regulations 90 108 130 90 108 130 Boeckh Index From SPI projection for July 2018 $225.97 $225.97 $225.97 $225.97 $225.97 $225.97 Match % - State From OSPI May 2018 64.99% 64.99% 64.99% 64.99% 64.99% 64.99% Match % - District Computed 35.01% 35.01% 35.01% 35.01% 35.01% 35.01% Dist Aver AV King County Department of Assessments March 2015 $292,035 $292,035 $292,035 $127,147 $127,147 $127,147 Debt Sery Tax Rate Current Fiscal Year $2.41 $2.41 $2.41 $2.41 $2.41 $2.41 G. O Bond Int Rate Current Rate - (Bond Buyer 20 Index March 2017) 3.27% 3.27% 3.27% 3.27% 3.27% 3.27% Site Cost Proiections Recent Property Acquisitions Acreage Purchase Year Purchase Price Purchase Cost/Acre Adjusted Present Day Projected Annual Inflation Factor Sites Required Latest Date of Acquisition Projected Cost/Acre Lakeland Labrador Lakeland East 12.00 35.00 27.00 2002 2008 2009 $2,701,043 $7,601,799 $9,092,160 $225,087 $217,194 $336,747 $334,143 $278,027 $420,550 2.50% Elementary Elementary Elementary 2018 2018 2022 $344,240 $344,240 $379,977 2.50% 2.50% Total 74.00 1 1 $19,395,002 1 $262,095 1 $344,240 30 • • Kent School District Fall 2016/17 Demographic Report s ,.:ntn sr Renton Riverton Helghts Jy.__H�'+ • - tYq-573•ll sib Tukwila ?" v = s Maplewood Elliott 0 _. - ` McMickon frit Van Hoights - _ c •i+ Cedar ;, — Wountain Oriirla Iski• Ra Cedar Grove �t y s 7dAth St Se'atac -_ s:.611,SI r Il Lt27n 5; — O'Brien _ SE 2nsr!• a. 'tet SE 22::h S: S 226ti: St C.77 T `n sE 232no St Maple Valle 7d. p�yll�� t�Id aY '- a'Wilderness V• _ •, _ SF. Z^Ut h. •St _ Village i r Kent I_ sis Meridian r �� Heights - 't SE 25611, it Eh _ • 516' -— _ Star Lake Covington q 9 Cherokee SE 272ar. 9r a 3,2?•i t h,S I n The s � = •• UU Meredith 3•CrhrS; �I t'; s •r. Christopher - SE ie•,It. St Lea Hilt SE 312th St c 10�.. Aubti?n�!r 5, l 15Ih St SW cm n u 4N ,r f n S _16e SE G.n. Apartment 4 Multi family attached 1 Single family detached 0 1 2 3 District April t9, ?017 - 37 Borrydalo SR, Green River 4 7 Miles Bay Park a' e: $F.,YAOnr St Ah KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT Fiscal Services 12033 SE 256th Street Suite A-600 Kent, Washington 98030-6503 Ph: 253-373-7295 Fax: 253-373-7018 June 28, 2018 Jeff Dixon Planning Services Manager Department of Community Development & Public Works City of Auburn 25 West Main Street Auburn, WA 98001-4998 Dear Mr. Dixon: 11 J q M �Pco, nY ?018 MUN�DaL�V �D f� It is my pleasure to provide you the Kent School District's 2018 Capital Facilities Plan. The Plan was adopted by the Board at its June 27th meeting. There are no new major capital projects included in this year's plan. The plan represents annual updates for enrollment and other demographic factors from the prior year. The impact fee proposal represents an adjustment for inflation based on the Seattle Consumer Price Index for Calendar Year 2017 of 3.1%. The fees for single family residences are recommended to be $5,397 and for multi -family are recommended to be $2,279. The Plan has undergone a review by the King County School Technical Review Committee on June 12, 2018. Additionally, the required SEPA documents and public notices have been filed with the 14 -day comment period in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act. The 2018 Capital Facilities Plan can be accessed at: https://www.kent.kl2.wa.us/Page/114 Although we are attempting to responsibly manage our carbon footprint, we are happy to send a written copy of the plan upon specific request. I hope you will not hesitate to ask questions about the updates to this annual plan. I can be reached at 253-373-7297. Since ely, •v L Ben Rarick Executive Director, Budget & Finance DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE For Kent School District No. 415 2018 Capital Facilities Plan Issued with a 14 -day comment and appeal period. Description of Proposal: This threshold determination analyzes the environmental impacts associated with the following actions, which are so closely related to each other that they are in effect a single action: 1. The adoption of the Kent School District 2018 Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan by the Kent School District for the purposes of planning for the facilities needs of the District. 2. The amendment of the King County Comprehensive Plan to include the Kent School District 2018 Capital Facilities Plan as a part of the Capital Facilities Plan Element of the King County Comprehensive Plan. 3. The amendment of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Kent to include the Kent School District's 2018 Capital Facilities Plan as part of the Capital Facilities Plan Element of the Comprehensive Plans of the City of Kent. 4. The amendment of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Covington to include the Kent School District's 2018 Capital Facilities Plan as part of the Capital Facilities Plan Element of the Comprehensive Plans of the City of Covington. 5. The amendment of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Renton to include the Kent School District's 2018 Capital Facilities Plan as part of the Capital Facilities Plan Element of the Comprehensive Plans of the City of Renton. 6. The amendment of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Auburn to include the Kent School District's 2018 Capital Facilities Plan as part of the Capital Facilities Plan Element of the Comprehensive Plans of the City of Auburn. 7. This proposal may also involve amendment of Comprehensive Plans of the Cities of Black Diamond, Maple Valley, and/or SeaTac to incorporate the Kent School District 2018 Capital Facilities Plan into the Capital Facilities element of that jurisdiction's Comprehensive Plan. Proponent: Kent School District No. 415 Location of the Proposal: The Kent School District includes an area of approximately 70 square miles. The City of Covington and portions of the cities of Kent, Renton, Auburn, Black Diamond, Maple Valley, and SeaTac fall within the District's boundaries, as do parts of unincorporated King County. Lead Agency: Kent School District No. 415 is the lead agency pursuant to WAC 197-11-926. The lead agency for this proposal has determined that the proposal does not pose a probable significant adverse impact to the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21 C.030 (2) (c). This decision was made after a review of the completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public upon request. This Determination of Non -significance (DNS) is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2). The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date of issue. Comments must be submitted by 4:00 p.m., June 20, 2018. The responsible official will reconsider the DNS based on timely comments and may retain, modify, or, if significant adverse impacts are likely, withdraw the DNS. If the DNS is retained, it will be final after the expiration of the comment deadline. Responsible Official: Mr. Ben Rarick Executive Director for Kent School District No. 415 Telephone: (253) 373-7295 Address: 12033 SE 256th Street #A-600 Kent, Washington 98030-6643 Appeals of this determination are governed by Board Policy No. 6890, which can be obtained from Mr. Ben Rarick, Executive Director, Kent School District No. 415, 12033 SE 256th Street #A-600, Kent, Washington 98030-6643 and pursuant to WAC 197-11-680 and RCW 43.21C.075. Date of Issue: June 1, 2018 Date Published: June 8, 2018 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST UPDATED 2018 WAC 197-11-960 Environmental Checklist. Purpose of Checklist: Governmental agencies use this checklist to help determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant. This information is also helpful to determine if available avoidance, minimization or compensatory mitigation measures will address the probable significant impacts or if an environmental impact statement will be prepared to further analyze the proposal Instructions for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Please answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. You may need to consult with an agency specialist or private consultant for some questions. You may use "not applicable" or "does not apply" only when you can explain why it does not apply and not when the answer is unknown. You may also attach or incorporate by reference additional studies reports. Complete and accurate answers to these questions often avoid delays with the SEPA process as well as later in the decision-making process. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Instructions for Lead Agencies: Please adjust the format of this template as needed. Additional information may be necessary to evaluate the existing environment, all interrelated aspects of the proposal and an analysis of adverse impacts. The checklist is considered the first but not necessarily the only source of information needed to make an adequate threshold determination. Once a threshold determination is made, the lead agency is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of the checklist and other supporting documents Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: For nonproject proposals (such as ordinances, regulations, plans and programs), complete the applicable parts of sections A and B plus the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). Please completely answer all questions that apply and note that the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proponent," and "affected geographic area," respectively. The lead agency may exclude (for non -projects) questions in Part B - Environmental Elements —that do not contribute meaningfully to the analysis of the proposal A. BACKGROUND Name of proposed project, if applicable: The adoption of a six-year Capital Facilities Plan by the Kent School District. The Comprehensive Plans of King County, City of Kent, City of Covington, City of Renton, City of Auburn and possibly Cities of Maple Valley, Black Diamond and SeaTac have been and/or will be amended to include the Kent School District 2015 Capital Facilities Plan in the Capital Facilities Plan Element of the Comprehensive Plan for each jurisdiction. A copy of the Capital Facilities Plan is available for review in the Kent School District Business Services Department. 2. Name of applicant: Kent School District No. 415. 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Kent School District No. 415 12033 SE 256th Street # A-600 Kent, WA 98030-6643 Contact Person: Mr. Ben Rarick, Executive Director Telephone: (253) 373-7295 4. Date checklist prepared: June 1, 2018 5. Agency requesting checklist: Kent School District No. 415 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): The 2016 Kent School District Capital Facilities Plan is scheduled to be forwarded to King County, Cities of Kent, Covington, Renton, Auburn, Maple Valley, Black Diamond, and SeaTac for possible inclusion in each jurisdiction's Comprehensive Plan. The Capital Facilities Plan will be updated annually. Site-specific projects have been or will be subject to project -specific environmental review. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. The Capital Facilities Plan reviews proposed replacement of Covington Elementary school which will increase capacity for that school, an additional elementary in the Kent Valley (site to be determined) and an additional twenty permanent classrooms at elementary schools where needed. The expanded use of portables is planned to alleviate overcrowding at elementary schools. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. The above -referenced projects will undergo environmental review at the time of formal proposal. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. No. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. King County and Cities of Kent, Covington, Auburn and Renton will review and approve the Capital Facilities Plan for the purposes of impact fee ordinances and will need to adopt the Plan as an amendment to the Capital Facilities Plan element of the Comprehensive Plans of King County and Cities of Kent, Covington, Renton and Auburn. Cities of Maple Valley, Black Diamond, and SeaTac may also review and approve the Plan for the purposes of any school impact fee ordinances and may adopt the Plan as an amendment to the Capital Facilities element of their Comprehensive Plans. 11. Give a brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) This is a non -project action. This proposal involves the adoption of the Kent School District 2018 Capital Facilities Plan for the purpose of planning the facilities needs of the District and for inclusion in the Capital Facilities Plan element and possible amendment of the Comprehensive Plans for King County, City of Covington, City of Kent, City of Renton, City of Auburn, City of Black Diamond, City of SeaTac and City of Maple Valley. A copy of the Capital Facilities Plan may be viewed at the Kent School District Business Services Department office. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The 2018 Capital Facilities Plan will affect the Kent School District. The District includes an area of approximately 70 square miles. The City of Covington, and portions of the Cities of Kent, Auburn, Renton, Black Diamond, Maple Valley, SeaTac and parts of unincorporated King County fall within the boundaries of the Kent School District. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other The Kent School District is comprised of a variety of topographic land forms and gradients, including all of those listed. Specific topographic characteristics will be identified during the planning and permit process for each capital project. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Specific slope characteristics will be identified during the planning and permit process for each capital project. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Specific soil types will be identified during the planning and permit process for each capital project. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Unstable soils may exist within the Kent School District. Specific soil limitations on individual project sites will be identified at the time of environmental review. e. Describe the purpose, type, total area and approximate quantities and total affected area of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will be subject to project - specific environmental review and local approval at the time of proposal. Proposed grading projects, as well as the purpose, type, quantity, and source of fill materials will be identified as appropriate to each project. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. It is possible that erosion could occur as a result of construction projects currently proposed in the Capital Facilities Plan. Individual projects and their erosion impacts will be evaluated on a site-specific basis. Individual projects will be subject to environmental review and local approval on the time of proposal. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings?) Percentage of impervious cover will vary with each capital facilities project and will be addressed during project -specific environmental review. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Erosion potential on individual project sites will be addressed during project -specific environmental review. Relevant erosion reduction and control requirements will be met. 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal during construction operation and maintenance when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Various emissions, many construction -related, may result from individual projects. Air-quality impacts will be evaluated during project -specific environmental review. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Non -project Actions. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Off-site sources and necessary mitigation will be addressed during project -specific environmental review. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Plans for individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be subject to environmental review and relevant local approval processes, including obtaining of any necessary air quality permits, at the time individual projects are formally proposed. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Non -project Actions. 3. Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. There is a network of surface water bodies within the Kent School District. The surface water regimes and flow patterns have been or will be researched and incorporated in the design of each individual project. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Some projects may require work near these described waters. Individual projects in the Capital Facilities Plan will be subject to environmental review and local approval requirements at the time the project is formally proposed. 3)Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. Information with respect to placement or removal of fill or dredge material will be addressed at the time of project -specific environmental review. Applicable local regulations have been or will be satisfied. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Any surface water withdrawals or diversions have been or will be addressed during project -specific environmental review. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. Each capital facilities project, if located in a floodplain area, will be required to meet applicable local regulations for flood areas. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. Specific information regarding discharges of waste materials, if any, will be addressed during project -specific environmental review. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Non -project Actions. b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, from a well for drinking water or other purposes? If so, give general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn from the well. Will water be discharged to groundwater? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may impact ground water resources. Each project will be evaluated during project -specific environmental review. Applicable local regulations have been or will be satisfied. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Non -project Actions. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals ...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. H Impacts of discharged waste material, if any, have been or will be addressed during site-specific, project -level environmental review. c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may have varying storm water runoff consequences. Each project will be subject to environmental review and applicable local regulations. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will have varying environmental impacts and will be subject to appropriate review and local regulations prior to construction. Information regarding waste materials will be presented at the time of such review. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Non -project Actions. 3) Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so, describe. Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may have varying drainage pattern consequences. Each project will be subject to environmental review and applicable local regulations d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Specific measures to reduce or control runoff impacts have been or will be developed on a project -specific basis in cooperation with the appropriate jurisdiction. Plants: a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation There are various vegetative zones within the Kent School District. An inventory of species has been or will be produced as part of project -specific environmental review. b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Impacts on vegetation will be determined at the time of project -specific environmental review at the time the project is formally proposed. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Non -project Actions. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Specific impacts to these species from individual projects have been or will be determined at the time of project proposal and will be addressed during site-specific, project -level environmental review. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will be subject to environmental review and local approval at the time of project proposal. e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site. Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will be subject to Environmental review and local approval at the time of project proposal. 5. Animals: a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: An inventory of species observed on or near sites has been or will be developed during project -specific environmental review. b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Specific impacts to these species from individual projects will be determined at the time of project proposal and will be reviewed in cooperation with the affected jurisdictions. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Impacts on migration routes, if any, will be addressed during site-specific, project - level environmental review. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Appropriate measures to preserve or enhance wildlife have been or will be determined at the time of site-specific, project -level environmental review. e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site. An inventory of invasive animal species observed on or near sites has been or will be developed during project -specific environmental review 6. Energy and Natural Resources: a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. The State Board of Education requires a life -cycle cost analysis of all heating, lighting, and insulating systems prior to allowing specific projects to proceed. Energy needs will be decided at the time of specific engineering and site design planning. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Non -project Actions. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe: Individual projects of this Capital Facilities Plan will be evaluated as to their impact on the solar potential of adjacent projects during environmental review. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Energy conservation measures will be considered at the project -specific design phase and environmental review. 7. Environmental Health: 10 a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Non -project Actions. 1) Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Non -project Actions. 2) Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines located within the project area in the vicinity Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Non -project Actions. 3) Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced during the project's development or construction, or at any time during the operating life of the project. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Non -project Actions. 4) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Non -project Actions. 5) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Proposed projects will comply with all current codes, standards, and rules and regulations. Individual projects have been or will be subject to environmental review and local approval at the time of formal submittal. b. Noise: 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? A variety of noises exist within the Kent School District. Specific noise sources have been or will be identified during project -specific environmental review. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Normal construction noises would exist on a short-term basis during school construction. There could be an increase in traffic or operations -related noise 11 which would be addressed during project specific environmental review. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Non -project Actions. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Project noise impacts have been or will be evaluated and mitigated during the project -specific environmental review. Each project is or will be subject to applicable local regulations. 8. Land and Shoreline Use: a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? There are a variety of land uses within the Kent School District, including residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, utility, agricultural, forestry, open space, recreational, etc. b. Has the site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If so describe. How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will be converted to other uses as a result of the proposal, if any? If resource lands have not been designated, how many acres in farmland or forest land tax status will be converted to nonfarm or nonforest use? 1) Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides, tilling, and harvesting? If so, how: This question will be addressed during site-specific, project -level environmental review. c. Describe any structures on the site. Structures located on proposed sites have been or will be identified and described during project -specific environmental review when appropriate. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Structures to be demolished, if any, will be identified as part of the project -specific environmental review process. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? There are a variety of zoning classifications within the Kent School District. Site specific zoning information has been or will be identified during project -specific environmental review. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? An inventory of comprehensive plan designations has been or will be completed during project -specific environmental review. 12 g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Any shoreline master program designations have been or will be identified during project -specific environmental review. h. Has any part of the site been classified as a critical area by city or county? If so, specify. Environmentally sensitive areas, if any, will be identified during project -specific environmental review. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? This information has been or will be provided at the time of project -specific environmental review. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? It is not anticipated that proposed projects will displace any people. Displacement of people, if any, will be evaluated during project -specific environmental review. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will be subject to project - specific environmental review and local approval at the time the project is formally proposed. I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Compatibility of the proposal and specific projects with existing uses and plans have been or will be assessed as part of the comprehensive planning process and during project -specific environmental review. m. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with nearby agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial significance, if any: Compatibility of the proposal and specific projects with existing uses and plans have been or will be assessed as part of the comprehensive planning process and during project -specific environmental review. 9. Housing: a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. No housing units would be provided. 13 b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Any impact of project proposals on existing housing has been or would be evaluated during project -specific environmental review procedures. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Measures to reduce or control any housing impacts have been or will be addressed during site-specific, project -level environmental review. 10. Aesthetics: a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? Aesthetic impacts have been or will be determined at the time of site-specific, project - level environmental review. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Aesthetic impacts have been or will be determined at the time of site-specific, project - level environmental review. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Appropriate measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts have been or will be determined at the time of project -specific environmental review. 11. Light and Glare: a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Light or glare impacts have been or will be determined at the time of project -specific environmental review. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Light or glare impacts have been or will be determined at the time of project -specific environmental review. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Off-site sources of light or glare have been or will be evaluated at the time of project specific environmental review. 14 d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Mitigation of light and glare impact has been or will be addressed during project - specific environmental review. 12. Recreation: a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? There are a variety of formal and informal recreational facilities within the Kent School District. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. Recreational impacts have been or will be addressed during project specific environmental review. Projects in the Capital Facilities Plan may enhance recreational opportunities and uses. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: Any adverse effects on recreation stemming from individual project proposals have been or will be subject to mitigation during the environmental review procedure. A school site usually provides recreational facilities to the community in the form of additional play fields and gymnasiums. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation: a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are over 45 years old listed in or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers located on or near the site? If so, describe. The existence of historic and cultural resources will be determined at the time of project -specific environmental review. b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources. An inventory of historical sites has been or will be conducted as part of project specific environmental review. c. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with 15 tribes and the department of archeology and historic preservation, archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS data, etc. Appropriate measures have been or will be proposed on a project -specific basis. d. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may be required. Appropriate measures have been or will be proposed on a project -specific basis. 14. Transportation: a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Impact on public streets and highways has been or will be assessed during project - specific environmental review. b. Is site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? The relationship between specific projects and public transit has been or will be assessed during project -specific environmental review. c. How many additional parking spaces would the completed project or non -project proposal have? How many would the project or proposal eliminate? An inventory of parking spaces and the impacts of specific projects on parking spaces have been or will be conducted during project -specific environmental review. d. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian, bicycle or state transportation facilities not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). The development of new schools may require new access roads or streets. This issue will be fully addressed during project -specific environmental review. e. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. Use of water, rail or air transportation has been or will be addressed during site- specific, project -level environmental review. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of volume would be trucks (such as commercial and nonpassenger vehicles). What data or transportation models were used to make these estimates? Each project proposal has been or will be separately evaluated as to traffic impacts 16 g. Will the proposal interfere with, affect or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products on roads or streets in the area? If so, generally describe. Each project proposal has been or will be separately evaluated as to traffic impacts. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Mitigation of impacts on transportation has been or will be addressed during project - specific environmental review. 15. Public Services: a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. The District does not anticipate that the projects identified in the Capital Facilities Plan will substantially increase the need for other public services. Impacts have been or will be evaluated on a project -specific basis. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Schools are built with automatic security systems, fire alarms, smoke alarms, heat sensors and sprinkler systems. 16. Utilities: a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. Utilities available at project sites have been or will be identified during project specific environmental review. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Utility revisions and construction needs will be identified during project -specific environmental review. 17 C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Mr. Ben Rarick Executive Director of Budget & Finance Date Submitted: June 1, 2018 D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? To the extent this Plan makes it more likely that school facilities will be constructed, and/or renovated or remodeled, some of these environmental impacts will be more likely. Additional impermeable surfaces, such as roofs, parking lots, sidewalks, access roads and playgrounds will increase storm water runoff, which could enter surface or ground water. Emissions to air could result from heating systems, emergency generators and other equipment, and from additional car and bus trips to and from the school for students and faculty. Any emissions resulting from this Plan should not require the production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances, with the possible exception of storage of diesel fuel or gasoline for emergency generating equipment. Noise may result from additional traffic and from concentrating several hundred children at a new facility, especially before and after school and during recesses. To the extent this proposal allows additional residential development to occur, these impacts would also increase somewhat, but it is not possible to quantify those impacts at this time. The impacts would depend on the type, location and distribution of housing, for example, whether single or multiple family and the location of the school. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: Facilities implementing the Plan have been or will be evaluated at the project specific level and impacts will be mitigated accordingly. Storm water detention and runoff will meet applicable County and/or City requirements and, depending on the date of actual construction, may be subject to a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permitting requirements. Discharges to air will be minimal, and will meet any applicable requirements of the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Authority. Fuel oil will be stored according to local and state requirements. 19 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? The Plan itself will have no impact on these elements of the environment. Depending on the particular site, construction of facilities may require clearing sites of plants and loss of animal habitat. To the extent residential development is allowed, additional area may be cleared and eliminated as habitat for animals. There are not likely to be any impacts on fish or marine life, although some water quality degradation in streams and rivers could occur due to increased residential development. These impacts have been or will be addressed in more detail during project -specific environmental review when appropriate. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: Individual projects will be evaluated and mitigated appropriately on a project -specific basis, but specific mitigation proposals cannot be identified at this time. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Any actual projects resulting from this Plan would consume heating fuel and electrical energy. Increased traffic resulting from the construction of additional facilities would consume petroleum based fuels. Reduced traffic resulting from construction of another neighborhood school may also reduce amounts of fuel consumed, but it is not possible to quantify such reduction in consumption at this time. These impacts have been or will be addressed in more detail during project -specific environmental review when appropriate. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: Facilities would be constructed in accordance with applicable energy efficiency standards. 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? The Plan and facilities constructed pursuant to the Plan should have no impact on these resources. It is not possible to predict whether other development made possible by this Plan would affect sensitive areas. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: No specific measures are being proposed at this time. Appropriate measures have been or will be proposed during project -specific review. Annual updates of this Plan will be coordinated with King County, Cities of Kent, Covington, Renton, Auburn, Black Diamond, SeaTac, and Maple Valley as part of the Growth Management Act process, one of the purposes of which is to protect environmentally sensitive areas. To the extent the School District's facilities planning process is part of the overall growth management planning process, these resources are more likely to be protected. 20 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? The Plan will not have any impact on land or shoreline use that is incompatible with existing comprehensive plans, land use codes, or shoreline management plans. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: None are proposed at this time. Actual facilities constructed to implement the Plan will be sited and constructed to avoid or reduce land use impacts. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? This proposal should not create substantial new demands for transportation. The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may create an increase in traffic near new District facilities but also reduce traffic by creating the opportunity for more students to walk to a closer school. The construction of the facilities included in the Capital Facilities Plan may result in minor increases in the demand for public services and utilities, such as fire and police protection, and water, sewer, and electric utilities. None of these impacts are likely to be significant. The impacts on transportation and public services and utilities of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will be addressed during project -level review when appropriate. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: No measures to reduce or respond to such demands are proposed at this time. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The Kent School District Capital Facilities Plan will not conflict with any laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. 21 POLICY/TEXT AMENDMENT (P/T #5) INCORPORATE CITY OF AUBURN CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2019-2024 CITY OF * * *JkUBURN WASHINGTON To: Planning and Community Development From: Finance Department, Capital Projects Date: September 28, 2018 Re: DRAFT 6 -Year Capital Facilities Plan (2019-2024) Memorandum Attached is the copy of our 2019-2024 Draft Capital Facilities Plan (CFP), the capital facilities element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. For questions or additional information on the preparation of this document, please contact Consuelo Rogel at (253) 804-5023 or crogel(a-)auburnwa.gov. Questions regarding specific projects contained in the document should be directed to the department managing the project(s). A capital facilities plan is one of the comprehensive plan elements required by Washington's Growth Management Act (GMA). The GMA requires that a capital facilities plan include an inventory of existing capital facilities (showing locations and capacities), a forecast of future needs for such capital facilities, proposed locations and capacities of new or expanded capital facilities, and a minimum of a six-year plan to finance capital facilities with identified sources of funding. The attached CFP satisfies the GMA requirement for a Capital Facilities Element as part of the Comprehensive Plan. The following projects have been added, removed or revised from the previous year's CFP (2018-2023) due to the creation of new projects, completion of projects or changes in project titles and/or priorities: Transportation Projects (see TIP for further details) Page 1 of 3 Additions • SE 3201' Street and 116th Avenue SE Roundabout (page 30) • Auburn Way S and 6th Street SE (page 34) • Lea Hill Safe Routes to Schools (page 42) • Signal Replacement Program (page 63) • Auburn Way S (SR -164) Poplar Curve Safety Improvements (page 69) • A St SE Preservation (page 81) • C St SW Preservation (page 82) • Lakeland Hill Way Preservation (page 83) AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Transportation Projects Deletions • 81h Street NE Widening (Pike St NE to R St NE) • Academy Drive Multi -Use Trail • AWS & 1211 St SE Intersection Improvements • A St Traffic Signal Improvements • A St SE Signal Safety & Traffic Operations • AWN & 1st St SE Signal Improvements • Main Street Signal Upgrades • A St SE & 371 St SE Intersection Improvements • 1511 St NE /NW Preservation Project scope added to TIP# R-20 Lea Hill Rd Segment 1 (page 54) Planned start date moved after 2024 Project completed in 2018 Scope included in TIP# 1-1 Signal Replacement Program (page 63) Project will be complete in 2018 Scope included in TIP# 1-1 (page 63) Project will be complete in 2018 Project will be complete in 2018 Planned for completion in 2018 Water, Sewer, Storm Utilities Projects Additions • Evaluation of Lea Hill Pump Station (Water, page 115) (Project title and scope change from previous "Decommission of Lea Hill Pump Station" project) • West Hill Springs Water Quality Improvements (Water, page 127) • 2019 Sewer Repair & Replacement (Sewer, page 145) • West Main Street Pump Station Upgrade (Storm, page 169) • 2019 Local Street Reconstruction (Storm, page 170) Water, Sewer, Storm Utilities Projects Deletions • Fulmer Well Field Improvements (Water) • Lea Hill PRV Stations Improvements (Water) • Water Meter & Billing System Improvements (Water) • Utilities Field Operations Center (Water, Sewer, Storm) • West Hill Springs Improvements (Water) • Auburn Way South —Muckleshoot Plaza to Dogwood (Water) • 2211d St NE & I St NE Intersection (Water) • B Street NW Reconstruction (Sewer) • Siphon Assessment (Sewer) • Pump Station Telemetry Improvements (Sewer) • Eastridge Manor Outfall Replacement (Storm) Page 2 of 3 Project will be complete in 2018 Project will be complete in 2018 Project will be complete in 2018 Project cancelled Project completed in 2018 Project completed in 2018 Project completed in 2018 Project completed in 2018 Project will be complete in 2018 Project completed in 2018 Project was determined infeasible and was cancelled. AUBURN- MORE THAN YOU 1N-1AGINED Page 3 of 3 Parks, Arts & Recreation Projects Deletions • Rotary Park Improvements • Lakeland Hills Playground Replacement • Game Farm Drainage Improvements • 10t' Green & Surrounds Rebuild • Les Gove Campus Security Cameras Project completed in 2018 Project completed in 2018 Project will be complete in 2018 Project completed in 2018 Project completed in 2018 General Municipal Buildings / Community Improvements Additions • M&O, Police and City Hall Facility Master Plan (page 202) (Project title and scope change from "M&O Master Planning" to include Police & City Hall Master Plan) • City Facilities Maintenance Project (page 208) • City Street Lighting LED Retrofit (page 223) • Central Parking Garage Improvement (page 224) • City Owned Parking Lot Improvements (page 226) • Arts and Culture Center Alleyway (page 227) Community Improvements / General Municipal Buildings Deletions • City Hall Exterior Structural Repairs Deleted due to project prioritization • Citywide Bridge Railing Replacement Deleted due to project prioritization • Main Street Urban Design Improvements & Implementation Project start date moved after 2024 Airport Additions • Hangar Replacement Program (page 243) • West Side Preliminary Environmental Permitting (page 244) Cemetery Additions • Mausoleum Building (page 249) AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan CITY OF AUBURN WASHINGTON CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN (2019 - 2024) Adopted by Ordinance No. xxxx, December xx, 2018 as part of the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan City of Auburn 25 West Main Auburn, WA 98001 (253) 931-3000 www.auburnwa.gov 0 City ofA uburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan CITY OF I I 11 - 8im * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2019-2024 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ........................................................................................... 1. Introduction Purpose.......................................................................................................... Statutory Requirement for Capital Facilities Elements ................................... Concurrency and Level of Service................................................................. Implementation............................................................................................... 2. Goals and Policies 1 Capital Facilities Response to Growth ..................... 7 ..................... 7 ..................... 8 ..................... 8 .............................................................. 2. Financial Feasibility.......................................................................................... 3. Public Health and Environment........................................................................ 4. Consistency with Regional Planning................................................................ 3. Capital Improvements Introduction................................................................................................. Transportation............................................................................................. Arterial Street (102) Capital Projects ..................................................... Local Street (103) Capital Projects....................................................... Street Preservation Fund (105) Capital Projects ................................... Water........................................................................................................... SanitarySewer............................................................................................ StormDrainage........................................................................................... Parks, Arts and Recreation......................................................................... General Municipal Buildings........................................................................ Community Improvements.......................................................................... Airport.......................................................................................................... Cemetery..................................................................................................... Valley Regional Fire Authority..................................................................... .........................15 .........................17 ......................... 22 ......................... 72 ......................... 74 ......................... 85 .........................129 .........................147 .........................171 .........................197 ......................... 211 ......................... 231 ......................... 247 ......................... 251 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan CITY OF * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A capital facilities element is one of the comprehensive plan elements required by Washington's Growth Management Act (GMA). Capital facilities generally have long useful lives, significant costs and tend not to be mobile. The GMA requires that capital facilities elements include an inventory of existing capital facilities showing locations and capacities, a forecast of future needs for such capital facilities, proposed locations and capacities of new or expanded capital facilities and at least a six-year plan to finance capital facilities with identified sources of funding. The GMA also requires that the land use element be reassessed if probable funding falls short of existing needs. This document is the City's six-year Capital Facilities Plan (CFP). The CFP, in conjunction with other City adopted documents, satisfies the GMA requirement for a Capital Facilities Element. It addresses one of the GMA's basic tenets: to provide adequate facilities to support development in accordance with locally adopted level of service standards. This CFP will enable the City to: (1) make informed decisions about its investment of public dollars, and (2) make timely decisions about maintaining level of service in accordance with this CFP and other adopted plans. CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN CONTENT This CFP consists of the following: Chapter 1. Introduction Chapter 2. Goals and Policies Chapter 3. Capital Improvements Purpose of CFP, statutory requirements, methodology. Goals and policies related to the provision of capital facilities. Proposed capital projects, which include the financing plan and reconciliation of project capacity to level of service (LOS) standards. This CFP is a companion document to the Capital Facilities Element of the Auburn Comprehensive Plan. The Capital Facilities Element of the Auburn Comprehensive Plan identifies the City's planning approach and policy framework for the provision of capital facilities. This CFP provides the background inventory, identifies proposed projects and establishes the six-year capital facilities plan for financing capital facilities. The comprehensive plan contains timeframes that are the intended framework for future funding decisions and within which future actions and decisions are intended to occur. However, these timeframes are estimates; depending on factors involved in the processing of applications and project work, and the availability of funding, the timing may change from the included timeframes. The framework does not represent actual commitments by the City of Auburn that may depend on funding resources available. City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan GROWTH ASSUMPTIONS In planning for capital facilities, contemplation of future growth needs to be considered. The CFP is based on the following City population forecast: Year Population 2018 80,615 2019 81,905 2024 88,670 The population forecasts are based on information from the State of Washington Office of Financial Management (OFM) as well as estimates developed by the City of Auburn Planning and Community Development Department. CAPITAL COSTS OF FACILITIES Based on the analysis of capital improvements contained in this document, the cost of City - owned and managed capital improvements for 2019- 2024 is summarized as follows: Type of Facility 2019-2024 Transportation -Arterial (102) $ 107,387,866 Transportation - Local (103) 11, 050, 000 Transportation - Street (105) 20, 661, 580 Water 47, 210, 911 Sanitary Sewer 13, 677, 000 Storm Drainage 19,130,800 Parks, Arts & Recreation 14, 668, 500 General Municipal Buildings 7,839,600 Community Improvements 10,868,700 Airport 14, 057, 700 Cemetery 738,000 Tota I $ 267, 290, 657 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan FINANCING FOR CAPITAL FACILITIES The financing plan for the citywide capital improvements includes: Funding Source 2019-2024 Capital Facility Grants 85,880,360 Transportation (Includes grant funding that has not 2,730,000 Parks, Arts & Recreation been secured) 975,000 General Municipal Buildings 1,470,300 Community Improvements 750,000 Water 400,000 Storm Drainage 5,908,500 Airport User Fees / Fund Balance 39, 038, 877 Water 14,244,667 Sewer 19,298,467 Storm Drainage 705,000 Cemetery 285,000 Equipment Rental 2,049,200 Airport Arterial Street Fund 4,255,550 Transportation Local Street Fund 650,000 Transportation Arterial Street Preservation Fund 6,031,820 Transportation Local Revitalization Fund 384,500 Community Improvements Bond Proceeds 2,750,000 Airport 7,178, 300 Water DWSRF Loan 811,400 Water Municipal Parks Fund 325,000 Parks, Arts & Recreation Property Tax 953,500 Parks, Arts & Recreation Utility Tax 6,325,000 Transportation Mitigation/Impact Fees 21,556,716 Transportation 5,905,000 Parks, Arts & Recreation 1,000,000 General Municipal Buildings 530,000 Community Improvements REST 1 4,734,400 General Municipal Buildings 103,600 Community Improvements REST 2 7,130,300 Community Improvements 180,000 Parks, Arts & Recreation 3,500,000 Transportation - Local Streets Other Sources 4,000,000 Transportation - Arterial Streets 6,000,000 Transportation - Local Streets 1,250,000 Community Improvements 42,200 General Municipal Buildings 3,350,000 Airport 33,000 Cemetery 4,575,000 Parks, Arts & Recreation Total $ 267, 290, 657 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan SUMMARY OF IMPACTS ON FUTURE OPERATING BUDGETS The forecasted impacts of new capital facilities on the City's future operating budgets (2020-2025) are as follows: Budget Year: 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Total 195 General Municipal Buildings page 210 Community Improvements page 229 Airport 1 Transportation $ - $ 5,000 $ 11,600 $ 29,600 $ 55,600 $ 165,500 $ 267,300 2 Water 600 600 600 600 1,200 1,200 4,800 3 Sanitary Sewer - - - - - - - 4 Storm Drainage - - - - - - - 5 Parks, Arts and Recreation 15,000 20,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 27,000 128,000 6 General Municipal Buildings 95,000 95,000 95,000 95,000 95,000 95,000 570,000 7 Community Improvements (127,500) (127,500) (127,500) (117,500) (117,500) (117,500) (735,000) 8 Airport 2,000 2,000 2,000 4,000 4,000 6,000 20,000 9 Cemetery Total $ (14,900) $ (4,900) $ 3,700 $ 33,700 $ 60,300 $ 177,200 $ 255,100 1 Project summary details are located on the following pages Transportation page 84 Water page 128 Parks & Recreation page 195 General Municipal Buildings page 210 Community Improvements page 229 Airport page 245 Il City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) CONSEQUENCES OF THE CFP Based on the proposed six-year capital projects and the projected population increase of 8,055 (10%) between 2019 and 2024, the LOS for the following City -owned public facilities will change as follows: The LOS for the following facilities will be increased as a result of the CFP, comparing the 2019 LOS to the projected 2024 LOS. CAPITAL FACILITY LOS UNITS 2019 LOS 2024 LOS Projected Community Parks Acres per 1,000 Pop. 2.87 3.15 Linear Parks Acres per 1,000 Pop. 0.20 0.23 Neighborhood Parks Acres per 1,000 Pop. 0.71 0.77 The LOS for the following facilities will be maintained as a result of the CFP. CAPITAL FACILITY LOS UNITS 2019 LOS 2024 LOS (Projected) Roads Volume/Capacity Ratio D" D" Airport % Air Operations Support 100% 100% Sanitary Sewer Residential GPCPD (Note 1) 171.00 171.00 Storm Drainage N/A 4.72 4.54 Water Residential GPCPD (Note 1) 230.00 1 230.00 Note 1: GPCPD = Gallons per Customer per Day Acres per 1,000 Pop. 3.11 The LOS for the following facilities will be decreased as a result of the CFP, comparing the 2019 LOS to the projected 2024 LOS. CAPITAL FACILITY LOS UNITS 2019 LOS 2024 LOS (Projected) Cemetery Burial Plots per 1,000 Pop. 37.00 35.00 Fire Protection Apparatus per 1,000 Pop. 0.21 0.20 General Municipal Buildings Sq. Ft. per 1.000 Pop. 3,726.07 3,486.91 Open Space Acres per 1,000 Pop. 4.72 4.54 Senior Center Sq. Ft. per 1,000 Pop. 148.95137.59 Special Use Areas Acres per 1,000 Pop. 3.11 2.87 Level of Service (LOS) is a common measure used to determine the efficiency or effectiveness of services. For the City of Auburn, LOS targets serves as a means to assess the adequacy of public facilities in meeting the needs of the population for which it serves. City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan For example, in the case of park space, when there is an increase in population without a corresponding increase in park acreage, the LOS unit of measure (acres per 1,000 population) will decline, indicating a potential need to increase the total amount of park acreage to keep pace with population growth. On the other hand, a slight increase in population, coupled with a large increase in facilities, will result in an increased LOS. For example, facilities such as buildings or burial plots may be constructed or expanded to keep pace with anticipated population growth. While this will have the effect of increasing LOS in the short-term, in the longer-term, the LOS will gradually decline to the targeted level based on forecasted population. The impact of population growth to the LOS for facilities will vary depending on the type of facility and long range planning by the City. CFP ELEMENT SOURCE DOCUMENTS Documents used in preparing this Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) are principally the comprehensive plans for the various public facilities included in this CFP. These individual comprehensive plans provide detailed identification of projects and identify their (projects) proposed funding sources. City documents include: • City-wide Comprehensive Land Use Plan (2015) • City Municipal Airport Master Plan Update (2012-2032) • City Comprehensive Water Plan (2015) • City Comprehensive Transportation Plan (2015) and Six Year Transportation Improvement Program (2019-2024) • City Comprehensive Drainage Plan (2015) • City Comprehensive Sewer Plan (2015) • City 2019-20 Biennial Budget and 2017 Annual Financial Report; and, • City Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan Update (2015), as well as numerous other planning and financial documents. All documents are available for public inspection at the City of Auburn. Con City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION PURPOSE The Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) is a 6 -year plan (2019-2024) for capital improvements that support the City of Auburn's current and future growth. In this plan, funding for general government projects is identified. To maintain consistency with individual master and utility comprehensive plans, applicable projects in the 6 -year window of those master/utility plans are included in this CFP. The CFP also identifies LOS standards, where applicable, for each public facility. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENTS RCW 36.70A.070(3)(d) requires that the comprehensive plan capital facilities element include "a six-year plan that will finance such capital facilities within projected funding capacities and clearly identifies sources of public money for such purposes." RCW 36.70A.070(3)(e) requires that all capital facilities have "probable funding" to pay for capital facility needs, or else the City must "reassess the land use element." In addition, the capital facilities element must include the location and capacity of existing facilities, a forecast of future needs, and their proposed locations and capacities. The State Growth Management Act (GMA) guidelines suggest that this analysis be accomplished for water systems, sanitary sewer systems, storm water facilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, police and fire protection facilities. The GMA also seeks the selection of level of service standards for capital facilities. As a result, public facilities in the CFP should be based on quantifiable, objective measures of capacity such as traffic volume, capacity per mile of road and acres of park per capita. In some instances, though, level of service may best be expressed in terms of qualitative statements of satisfaction with a particular public facility. Factors that influence local level of service standards include, but are not limited to, community goals, national and local standards, and Federal and State mandates. To be effective, the CFP must be updated on a regular basis. State GMA guidelines suggest that the CFP be updated at least every two years. In 2007, the City transitioned to a biennial budget. With this in mind, the City will follow these guidelines and update the CFP at least every two years, incorporating the capital facilities improvements in the City's biennial budget process. City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan CONCURRENCY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE Concurrency The GMA requires that jurisdictions have certain capital facilities in place or available within a specified time frame when development occurs. This concept is called concurrency. Under the GMA, concurrency is required for transportation facilities and is recommended by the State for certain other public facilities, namely potable water and sanitary sewer. Concurrency has a direct relationship to level of service. The importance of concurrency to capital facilities planning is that development may be denied if it reduces the level of service for a capital facility below the locally adopted minimum. The level of service is unique for each type of facility and is presented in the subsequent sections. Explanation of Level of Service As indicated earlier, the GMA requires that level of service be established for certain transportation facilities for the purposes of applying concurrency to development proposals. The State GMA guidelines recommend the adoption of level of service standards for other capital facilities to measure the provision of adequate public facilities. Typically, measures of level of service are expressed as ratios of facility capacity to demand (i.e., actual or potential users). Table 1-1 lists generic examples of level of service measures for some capital facilities: TABLE 1-1 Sample Level of Service Measurements Type of Facility Sample Level of Service Measure General Municipal Buildings Square feet per 1,000 population Parks Acres per 1,000 population Roads and Streets Ratio of actual volume to design capacity Sever/ Water Gallons per customer per day The need for capital facilities is largely determined by a community's adopted LOS standards and whether or not the community has formally designated capital facilities, other than transportation, as necessary for development to meet the concurrency test. The CFP itself is therefore largely influenced by the selection of the level of service standards. Level of service standards are measures of the quality of life in the City. The standards should be based on the City's vision of its future and its values. IMPLEMENTATION Implementation of the CFP requires constant monitoring and evaluation. The CFP is sensitive to funding and revenue availability and therefore needs to be constantly monitored against variations in available resources. To facilitate its implementation, the CFP should be kept current. N. City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan Update of Capital Facilities Plan Perhaps the most desirable way to keep the CFP current is to update it regularly so the six- year plan is a rolling CFP. Again, the State recommends that the CFP be updated at least biennially. The City of Auburn will seek to update the CFP at least biennially in conjunction with the budget process. Future updates will consider: A. Revision of population projections, including annexations; B. Update of inventory of public facilities; C. Update of costs of public facilities; D. Update of public facilities requirements analysis (actual level of service compared to adopted standards); E. Update of revenue forecasts; F. Revise and develop capital improvement projects for the next six fiscal years; and, G. Update analysis of financial capacity. Amendments to the CFP, including amendments to level of service standards, capital projects, and/or the financing plan sources of revenue are all actions that can keep the CFP current and relevant to City decision-making. 01 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan CITY OF * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED 10 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan CHAPTER 2 GOALS AND POLICIES This chapter identifies goals and policies specific to the City's provision of capital facilities. Goal 1 Provide a variety of responses to the demands of growth on public facilities. Policy 1.1 Establish land use patterns that optimize the use of public facilities. Policy 1.2 Provide additional public facility capacity when existing facilities are used to their maximum level of efficiency (consistent with adopted standards for level of service). Policy 1.3 Encourage development where new public facilities can be provided in an efficient manner. Policy 1.4 Exempt the following from the concurrency management program: 1.4.1 Development vested by RCW 19.27.095, 58.17.033 or 58.17.170. 1.4.2 Development that creates no added impact on public facilities. 1.4.3 Expansions of existing development that were disclosed and tested for concurrency as part of the original application. Goal 2 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 2.1 Establish level of service standards that are achievable with the financing plan of this Capital Facilities Plan. Policy 2.2 Base the financing plan for public facilities on realistic estimates of current local revenues and external revenues that are reasonably anticipated to be received by the City. Policy 2.3 Match revenue sources to capital projects based on sound fiscal policies. 2.3.1 The City shall continue to fund utility costs through utility enterprise funds, based on user fees and grants. Public facilities included in utilities are sewer, solid waste, storm drainage, and water. 2.3.2 Where feasible pursue joint venture facility construction, construction timing, and other facility coordination measures for City provided facilities, as well as with school districts and other potential partners in developing public facilities. 2.3.3 The City shall continue to assist through direct participation, LIDs and payback agreements, where appropriate and financially feasible. Where funding is available, the City may participate in developer initiated facility extensions or improvements, but only to the extent that the improvements benefit the broader public interest, and are consistent with the policies of this Capital Facilities Plan. Policy 2.4 If the projected funding is inadequate to finance needed public facilities and utilities based on adopted level of service standards and forecasted growth, 11 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan the City will do one or more of the following to achieve a balance between available revenue and needed public facilities: 2.4.1 Lower the level of service standards; 2.4.2 Increase the amount of revenue from existing sources; 2.4.3 Adopt new sources of revenue; 2.4.4 Require developers to provide such facilities at their own expense; and/or 2.4.5 Amend the Land Use Element to reduce the need for additional public facilities. Policy 2.5 Both existing and future development will pay for the costs of needed capital improvements. 2.5.1 Ensure that existing development pays for capital improvements that reduce or eliminate existing deficiencies, and pays for some or all of the cost to replace obsolete or worn out facilities. Existing development may also pay a portion of the cost of capital improvements needed by future development. Existing development's payments may take the form of user fees, charges for services, special assessments and taxes. 2.5.2 Ensure that future development pays a proportionate share of the cost of new facilities that it requires. Future development may also pay a portion of the cost to replace obsolete or worn-out facilities. Future development's payments may take the form of voluntary contributions for the benefit of any public facility, impact fees, mitigation payments, capacity fees, dedications of land, provision of public facilities, and future payments of user's fees, charges for services, special assessments and taxes. Policy 2.6 The City will determine the priority of public facility capital improvements using the following criteria as general guidelines. Any revenue source that cannot be used for the highest priority will be used beginning with the highest priority for which the revenue can legally be expended. 2.6.1 Projects that eliminate hazardous conditions. 2.6.2 Refurbishment of existing facilities that contribute to achieving or maintaining standards for adopted level of service. 2.6.3 New or expanded facilities that reduce or eliminate deficiencies in level of service for existing demand. 2.6.4 New or expanded facilities that provide the adopted level of service for new development and redevelopment during the next six fiscal years. 2.6.5 Capital improvements that significantly reduce the operating cost of providing a service or facility, or otherwise mitigate impacts of public facilities on future operating budgets. 2.6.6 Capital improvements that contribute to stabilizing and developing 12 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan the economy of the City. 2.6.7 Project priorities may also involve additional criteria that are unique to each type of public facility, as described in other elements of this Comprehensive Plan. Policy 2.7 Ensure that the ongoing operating and maintenance costs of a capital facility are financially feasible prior to constructing the facility. Goal 3 Protect public health, environmental quality, and neighborhood stability and viability through the appropriate design and installation of public facilities. Policy 3.1 Promote conservation of energy, water and other natural resources in the location and design of public facilities. Policy 3.2 Require the separation of sanitary and storm sewer facilities wherever combined sewers may be discovered. Policy 3.3 Practice efficient and environmentally responsible maintenance and operating procedures. Policy 3.4 The siting, design, construction and improvement of all public buildings shall be done in full compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Policy 3.5 Promote economic and community stability and growth through strategic investments in public facilities and public private/partnerships. Goal 4 Make the Capital Facilities Plan consistent with other elements of the comprehensive plan, and - to the extent feasible - with other city, county, regional and state adopted plans. Policy 4.1 Ensure that the growth and development assumptions used in the Capital Facilities Plan are consistent with similar assumptions in other elements of the comprehensive plan. Policy 4.2 Coordinate with non -city providers of public facilities on a joint program for maintaining applicable level of service standards, concurrency requirements, funding and construction of public facilities. Goal 5 Provide public facilities that provide a sense of community that is inclusive of diverse populations. Policy 5.1 Contribute to community pride and foster a sense of community through provision of public facilities that create a community -gathering place for neighbors, family and friends. Policy 5.2 Through provision of public facilities, offer a broad range of activities promoting social interactions especially with new residents. Policy 5.3 Provide maximum flexibility and multiple uses through design of public facilities that are adaptable to changing interests. Policy 5.4 Provide a community center facility that is financially feasible, affordable for participants, and can generate revenue to offset a portion of the operating costs. 13 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan CITY OF * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED 14 City ofAziburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan CHAPTER 3 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 1. INTRODUCTION This CFP includes City capital improvement projects and the financing plan to pay for those projects. It also contains the inventory of existing City facilities, and identifies level of service standards, where applicable. Each type of City public facility is presented in a separate subsection that follows a standard format. Throughout this section, tables of data are identified with abbreviations that correspond to the type of facility. For example, Table W-1 refers to Table 1 for Water (Supply and Distribution). Each abbreviation corresponds to the name of the type of facility. 1. Narrative Summary This is an overview of the data, with sections devoted to Current Facilities, Level of Service, Capital Facilities Projects and Financing, and Impact on Future Operating Budgets. 2. Inventory of Facilities (Table X-1) This is a list of existing capital facilities, including the name, capacity (for reference to level of service), and location. This table also includes any proposed capital projects and the planned inventory total through December 31, 2024. 3. Capital Proiects and Financinq Plan (Table X-2, X -2A and X-213) This list of capital improvements identifies existing deficiencies, identifies facilities needed for future growth, and identifies the need to repair or replace obsolete or worn out facilities through December 31, 2024. Each list shows the proposed financing plan followed by individual worksheets showing the project detail. 4. Impact on Future Operating Budgets (Table X-3) This is a list of capital projects and the forecasted impacts on the City's future operating budgets (2020 — 2025). 15 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan CITY OF * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED 16 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan TRANSPORTATION Current Facilities Roadways: The City's street system consists of a network of approximately 216 miles of arterials, collectors, local streets and alleys. Existing non -motorized facilities include a mix of trails, sidewalks, and both dedicated and shared bicycle facilities. Signals and ITS: The City's transportation system also includes ninety-five traffic signals, a Traffic Control Center employing Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), which centrally directs the signals, more than fifty CCTV cameras, and various traffic beacons all communicating on a network of copper wire and fiber optic cable. The City also has two roundabouts. Transit: King County Metro Transit, Sound Transit and Pierce Transit serve the Auburn area. Auburn is currently served by eight Metro, two Sound Transit, and one Pierce Transit bus route. In addition, Sound Transit "Sounder" commuter trains provide peak hour and midday service at the Auburn Station. The Sounder also provides special event service to selected sporting events. Park and ride facilities and the Auburn Station support bus and rail service. Level of Service (LOS) Washington's Growth Management Act (GMA) requires Level of Service (LOS) standards for both arterials and transit routes. The GMA requires that each jurisdiction's LOS standards be coordinated within the region and be supported by local ordinance, but the actual standards and the methods used are determined by each local jurisdiction. Under GMA, the focus is on the performance of the whole road system, not on individual intersections or roadways. LOS standards are a tool to help keep the transportation system in balance with the needs of forecast population growth and development. Table T-1 a summarizes the LOS definitions. 17 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan Table T -1a Definition of Urban Street Level of Service (LOS) LOS A - describes primarily free flow operations at average travel speeds, usually about 90 percent of the free flow speed for the given street class. Vehicles are completely unimpeded in their ability to maneuver within the traffic stream. Control delay at signalized intersections is minimal. LOS B - describes reasonably unimpeded operations at average travel speeds, usually about 70 percent of the free flow speed for the street class. The ability to maneuver within the traffic stream is only slightly restricted, and stopped delays are not bothersome. LOS C - describes stable conditions; however, ability to maneuver and change lanes in midblock locations may be more restricted than in LOS B, and longer queues, adverse signal coordination, or both may contribute to lower average travel speeds of about 50 percent of the free flow speed for the street class. LOS D - borders on a range in which small increases in flow may cause substantial increases in delay and decreases in travel speed. LOS D may be due to adverse signal progression, inappropriate signal timing, high volumes, or some combination of these factors. Average travel speeds are about 40 percent of free flow speed. LOS E - is characterized by significant delays and average travel speeds of 33 percent or less of the free flow speed. Such operations are caused by a combination of adverse progression, high signal density, high volumes, extensive delays at critical intersections, and inappropriate signal timing. LOS F - is characterized by urban street flow at extremely low speeds, typically one-third to one-fourth of the free flow speed. Intersection congestion is likely at critical signalized locations, with high delays, high volumes and extensive queuing. Source: 2010 Highw ay Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. 2010, page 10-5 A methodology and set of standards have been drafted for the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan. The standards help determine concurrency (i.e., balance) between the transportation and land use elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan, as required by the GMA. The City has four choices if it is determined that standards cannot be met. • Modify the land use plan, placing tighter controls on the amount and type of development to reduce traffic. • Construct additional transportation facilities to support increased travel demand from new development. • Implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures to increase use of non - single occupant vehicle travel modes. • Relax the LOS standards; the City can lower its level of service standards to encourage further growth and minimize the need for additional transportation facilities. The transportation/land-use balance will be monitored through the City's Concurrency Management System as part of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Transportation concurrency will be evaluated for key facilities and on a system -wide basis. The City can then identify locations where standards are not anticipated to be met in the future and identify appropriate improvements. At the project level, the SEPA process will continue to guide the more specific planning and analysis efforts. I: City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan Level of Service Standards LOS standards can help identify where and when transportation improvements are needed, and when development or growth will affect system operations. LOS provides a standard below which a transportation facility or system is not considered adequate. LOS standards can also be used to evaluate the impact of proposed developments on the surrounding street system. They can assure that all developments are served by a safe, efficient and cost-effective street system. They can also be used to disclose impacts, identify remedial actions, and apportion costs between public and private sources. The LOS standards shown in Table T-1 b apply to the facility's location and its functional classification. A more detailed description of the level of service methodology is provided in the City of Auburn Comprehensive Transportation Plan (2015), page 5-4. Table T- lb Draft Roadway Capacity/Congestion LOS Standards Roadway/Intersection Maximum V/C Ratio/LOS Arterial Corridor D* Signalized Intersection D Unsignalized Intersection D '`Unless otherw ise specified in Chapter 2 of the City of Auburn Comprehensive Transportation Plan, 2015 LOS standards are also the basis of an equitable traffic impact fee system, which require developments to pay a portion of the costs for capacity improvements to the transportation infrastructure. In 2001, the City implemented a traffic impact fee program. The purpose of the fee is to mitigate traffic impacts more equitably while making the costs of development more predictable to developers. In 2007, the City implemented an additional transportation impact fee to address the impacts of heavy truck usage on the City's transportation system. Both fees are updated annually so that the fees are consistent with current project costs. Measuring Transportation System Performance The level of service for street segments or links is analyzed with two primary purposes in mind. First, this site-specific LOS can be used, with the help of a travel demand model, to evaluate areas of congestion within a transportation network, leading to the development of a long-range transportation facilities plan. Second, arterial corridor LOS analysis can be used to assess concurrency or if facilities are meeting the LOS standards. The City of Auburn currently uses Highway Capacity Manual methodologies to calculate levels of service. For arterials LOS are based on average travel speeds along a defined corridor. 19 • • City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan Table T-1 c shows the 25 defined street corridors, LOS standards and most recent calculated LOS. TABLE T- 1c Auburn Corridor Level of Service — Existing 2014 Weekday PM Peak Hour ID Corridor LOS Standard* 2014 LOS 1 Auburn Way N 15th St NE S 277th St E C C 2 Auburn Way N E Main St 15th St NE E D D 3 Auburn Way S E Main St M St SE F C D 4 Auburn Way S M St SE Academy Dr SE D B C 5 M St 1 Harvey Auburn Way N E Main St E D D 6 M St 1 Harvey E Main St Auburn Way S E D C 7 37th St NE 1 NW W Valley Hwy Auburn Way N E C C 8 15th St NE / NW W Valley Hwy Auburn Way N F** D D 9 Auburn Ave 1 A St 6th St SE E Valley Access Rd D B C 10 Main St West Valley Hwy R St D D D 11 15th St SW West Valley Hwy C St SW E D D 12 C St SW Ellingson Rd SR -18 D B C 13 West Valley Hwy 37th St NE 15th St NE E B C 14 S 277th St Frontage Rd L St NE E C C 15 R St SE / Kersey Way Howard Rd Lake Tapps Pkwy D B B 16 Lake Tapps Pkwy East Valley Hwy Kersey Way SE D C C 17 A St NW 1 B St NW 3rd St NW S 277th St D C B 18 8th St NE / Lea Hill Rd Harvey Rd 124th Ave SE E C B 19 SE 312th St 1132nd Ave SE 124th Ave SE SR -18 D B B 20 105th PI SE / SE 320th St Lea Hill Rd 124th Ave SE D A C 21 Lakeland Hills Way SE Lake Tapps Pkwy A St SE E D C 22 29th St SE 1 Riverwalk Dr A St SE Auburn Way S D D C 23 3rd St SW 1 Cross St C St Auburn Way S F F E 24 41st St SE / Ellingson Rd A St SE C St SE F F F 25 West Valley Hwy 15th St NW 15th St SW E D E * Corridor segments within Downtown Auburn may operate at LOS E in accordance with the Auburn Downtown Plan. All other arterial and collector corridors must operate at LOS D or better, unless otherwise indicated. ** Total travel time in the eastbound direction cannot exceed 1,000 seconds for this corridor to meet the LOS Standards 20 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan Concurrency (Adequate Public Facilities) Concurrency involves matching public facilities and new development. The GMA extends concurrency to transportation facilities by requiring that new development be served by adequate roads and public transportation service, and that development is not permitted to cause these transportation facilities to operate below level of service standards that are adopted by local governments in their comprehensive plans. In compliance with the GMA, adequate transportation system facilities must be available within six years of the time of occupancy and use of new development. Capital Facilities Projects and Financing The City's transportation facilities include projects totaling $139,099,446. Tables T-2, T -2A and T-213 show the proposed financing plan followed by individual worksheets showing the project detail. Impact on Future Operating Budgets As Table T-3 shows, operating budget impacts of $267,300 are forecasted for transportation facilities during the six years 2020 — 2025. 21 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan • TABLE T- 2 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN PROJECTS AND FINANCING TRANSPORTATION - ARTERIAL STREET 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Page Capacity Projects: 28 Harvey Road & 8th Street NE Intersection Improvements 30 Long -Term Debt 84,500 84,100 83,598 83,196 82,794 82,392 500,580 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - _ Grants 1,725,000 PWTF - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees 84,500 84,100 83,598 83,196 82,794 82,392 500,580 29 Lake Tapps Parkway ITS Expansion - Capital Costs 105,000 900,000 - - - - 1,005,000 Funding Sources: 1,370,000 Unrestricted Street Revenue - - _ Grants (Secured) 82,950 711,000 793,950 Traffic Impact Fees 22,050 189,000 211,050 ox 30 SE 320th Street/116th Avenue SE Roundabout Capital Costs 325,000 30,000 1,370,000 1,725,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue 35,000 5,000 - 40,000 Grants (Unsecured) 290,000 25,000 1,370,000 1,685,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - 31 29th Street SE & R Street SE Intersection Improvements Capital Costs 450,000 1,000,000 1,450,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - _ Grants (Unsecured) 360,000 800,000 1,160,000 Traffic Impact Fees 90,000 200,000 290,000 • 32 M Street SE & 29th Street SE Intersection Safety Improvements Capital Costs 50,000 600,000 650,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - _ Grants (Unsecured) - 500,000 500,000 Traffic Impact Fees 50,000 100,000 150,000 33 R Street SE & 21st Street SE Intersection Safety Improvements Capital Costs 75,000 800,000 875,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - _ Grants (Unsecured) - 700,000 700,000 Traffic Impact Fees 75,000 100,000 - 175,000 34 Auburn Way S and 6th Street SE Capital Costs - 100,000 100,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - Grants (Unsecured) 80,000 80,000 800,000 960,000 Traffic Impact Fees 20,000 20,000 200,000 240,000 35 C Street SW & 15th Street SW Intersection Improvements Capital Costs 200,000 1,000,000 - 1,200,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - _ Grants (Unsecured) - 800,000 800,000 Traffic Impact Fees 200,000 200,000 400,000 36 124th Ave SE Corridor & 320th Intersection Improvements Capital Costs 350,000 1,600,000 1,950,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue 175,000 150,000 325,000 Grants (Unsecured) - 1,200,000 1,200,000 Other (GRC) 175,000 250,000 - 425,000 37 124th Avenue SE & SE 284th Street Intersection Safety Improvements Capital Costs - 100,000 600,000 700,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - _ _ Grants (Unsecured) - 450,000 450,000 Traffic Impact Fees 100,000 150,000 250,000 • ox 44 A Street Loop Capital Costs 350,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Re\.eenue - Traffic Impact Fees 70,000 Grants 280,000 Other (Other Agencies) - City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan - - - 1,700,000 - 340,000 1,360, 000 - 45 Auburn Way S Improvements (Hemlock St SE to Poplar St SE) TABLE T- 2 (continued) Capital Costs 1,500,000 1,500,000 7,250,000 7,250,000 17,500,000 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Page Capacity Projects: Grants (Unsecured) 1,297,500 1,297,500 5,800,000 5,800,000 14,195,000 Traffic Impact Fees 38 F Street SE, 4th to AWS 3,305,000 Other (MIT) - - - - 46 M Street NE, E. Main to 4th Capital Costs 3,264,000 Capital Costs 50,000 350,000 3,264,000 1,650,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - Unrestricted Street Re,,enue 500,000 - - - 500,000 350,000 Other 2,100, 000 2,100, 000 Traffic Impact Fees 664,000 - - 664,000 39 Evergreen Heights Safe Routes to School Improvements Capital Costs - 410,000 2,270,000 2,680,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Re\enue - - G rants 350,000 1,870,000 2,220, 000 Traffic Impact Fees 60,000 400,000 460,000 Other (Private De\elopment) - - - 40 Riverwalk Drive SE Non -Motorized Improvements Capital Costs 250,000 1,500,000 1,750,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Re,.enue 125,000 125,000 250,000 Grants (Unsecured) - 1,250,000 1,250,000 Other (MIT) 125,000 125,000 - 250,000 41 BNSF & A St SE Pedestrian Crossing Improvements Capital Costs - 650,000 4,900,000 5,550,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - Grants 400,000 3,500,000 3,900,000 Traffic Impact Fees 250,000 1,400,000 1,650,000 Other - - - - - - 42 Lea Hill Safe Routes to Schools Capital Costs 20,000 1,420,000 387,000 1,827,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue 3,000 213,000 58,050 274,050 Grants (Unsecured) 17,000 1,207,000 328,950 1,552,950 Traffic Impact Fees - - - Other 43 M Street Underpass Capital Costs - - - - - - Long -Tenn Debt 123,800 123,500 123,135 122,843 122,550 122,258 738,086 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Reeenue - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees 123,800 123,500 123,135 122,843 122,550 122,258 738,086 PWTF Loan - - - - - - - Other (Other Agencies) 44 A Street Loop Capital Costs 350,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Re\.eenue - Traffic Impact Fees 70,000 Grants 280,000 Other (Other Agencies) - 1,350,000 - 270,000 1,080,000 - - - - 1,700,000 - 340,000 1,360, 000 - 45 Auburn Way S Improvements (Hemlock St SE to Poplar St SE) Capital Costs 1,500,000 1,500,000 7,250,000 7,250,000 17,500,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Reeenue - - - - - Grants (Unsecured) 1,297,500 1,297,500 5,800,000 5,800,000 14,195,000 Traffic Impact Fees 202,500 202,500 1,450,000 1,450,000 3,305,000 Other (MIT) - - - - 46 M Street NE, E. Main to 4th Capital Costs 50,000 350,000 1,250,000 1,650,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - Grants - - - - Traffic Impact Fees 50,000 350,000 1,250,000 1,650,000 23 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan • TABLE T- 2 (continued) 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Page Capacity Projects: 47 46th Place S Realignment Capital Costs 825,000 825,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - Grants 575,000 575,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - 250,000 250,000 48 124th Ave SE Corridor Improvements Phase 2 Capital Costs 400,000 1,100,000 2,500,000 4,000,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - Grants 300,000 880,000 2,000,000 3,180,000 Traffic Impact Fees 100,000 220,000 500,000 820,000 49 R Street Bypass Capital Costs - - 650,000 650,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - Traffic Impact Fees 150,000 150,000 Other - - 500,000 500,000 50 SE 320th Street Corridor Improvements Phase 1 Capital Costs 425,000 695,000 2,500,000 - 3,620,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - Grants 340,000 556,000 2,000,000 2,896,000 Traffic Impact Fees 85,000 139,000 500,000 - 724,000 51 West Valley Highway Improvements (15th St NW to W Main St) Capital Costs 25,000 Funding Sources: 100,000 - 600,000 3,000,000 3,725,000 • Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants - - 480,000 2,400,000 2,880,000 Traffic Impact Fees 25,000 100,000 - 120,000 600,000 845,000 52 Auburn Regional Growth Center Access Improvements Capital Costs 400,000 100,000 1,500,000 - 2,000,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - Grants 320,000 80,000 1,200,000 1,600,000 Traffic Impact Fees 80,000 20,000 300,000 400,000 53 M Street SE Corridor (8th St SE to AWS) Capital Costs 2,050,000 5,250,000 7,300,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - Grants 975,000 4,200,000 5,175,000 Traffic Impact Fees 750,000 750,000 1,500,000 Other (Development) 325,000 300,000 625,000 54 Lea Hill Segment 1 (R St NE to 105th PI SE) Capital Costs 2,900,000 5,500,000 5,500,000 13,900,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - Grants 2,310,000 4,400,000 4,400,000 11,110,000 Traffic Impact Fees 590,000 1,100,000 1,100,000 2,790,000 Other - - - - 55 Lea Hill Rd Segment 2 (105th Ave SE to 112th Ave SE) Capital Costs 3,500,000 8,500,000 12,000,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - _ Grants 2,900,000 7,100,000 10,000,000 Traffic Impact Fees 600,000 1,400,000 2,000,000 Other - - • 24 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan TABLE T- 2 (continued) 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Page Capacity Projects: Unrestricted Street Revenue 56 Lea Hill Rd Segment 3 (112th Ave SE to 124th Ave SE) 66,000 Traffic Impact Fees - Capital Costs Traffic Mitigation Fees - 1,000,000 1,000,000 Funding Sources: Capital Costs Unrestricted Street Revenue 25,000 25,000 25,000 100,000 - - Grants Unrestricted Street Revenue 750,000 750,000 Traffic Impact Fees Grants - 250,000 250,000 Other 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 - 60 A Street SE & Lakeland Hills Way 57 West Valley Highway Improvements (SR -18 to 15th St SW) Safety & Capacity Imp. Capital Costs 50,000 Capital Costs 400,000 2,000,000 2,400,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - Grants 320,000 1,600,000 - 1,920,000 Traffic Impact Fees 80,000 400,000 61 Kersey Way Study 480,000 Other - - 20,000 58 Stewart Road (Lake Tapps Parkway Corridor) Capital Costs 100,000 100,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue 66,000 66,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - Traffic Mitigation Fees - - 34,000 - 34,000 59 A Street NW, Phase 1 Capital Costs 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 100,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 100,000 60 A Street SE & Lakeland Hills Way SE Intersection Safety & Capacity Imp. Capital Costs 50,000 - 50,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - Grants - - Traffic Impact Fees 50,000 50,000 61 Kersey Way Study Capital Costs 20,000 20,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - Trafic Mitigation Fees 20,000 20,000 62 A Street SE Safety Improvements Study Capital Costs 55,000 55,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue 55,000 55,000 Grants - - Other - - - - - - - Subtotal, Capacity Projects: Capital Costs 1,008,300 2,932,600 10,327,733 12,786,039 31,425,344 41,179,650 99,659,666 25 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan TABLE T- 2 (continued) Subtotal, Non -Capacity Projects: Capital Costs 295,000 583,200 295,000 715,000 2,795,000 3,045,000 7,728,200 26 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Page Non -Capacity Projects: 63 Signal Replacement Program Capital Costs 75,000 525,000 75,000 675,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Re\enue 75,000 525,000 75,000 675,000 Other - - - - - . 64 ITS Dynamic Message Signs Capital Costs 20,000 125,000 20,000 125,000 290,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Re\enue 20,000 125,000 20,000 125,000 290,000 Grants - - - - - - - 65 Citywide Pedestrian Accessibility & Safety Program Capital Costs 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 600,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Re\,enue 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 600,000 Other - - - - - . 66 Citywide Arterial Bicycle & Safety Improvements Capital Costs 100,000 100,000 100,000 300,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Reyanue 100,000 100,000 100,000 300,000 Other - - - - 67 Downtown Transit Center Access Improvements Capital Costs 125,000 125,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Rewnue 25,000 25,000 Other (Sound Transit) 100,000 - - - 100,000 68 Auburn Way NIS (4th St NE to 4th St SE) Capital Costs - 50,000 600,000 200,000 850,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Reeenue 50,000 300,000 100,000 450,000 Grants (Unsecured) - 300,000 100,000 400,000 Other - - 69 Auburn Way S (SR -164) Poplar Curve Safety Improvements Capital Costs 55,000 213,200 268,200 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Re\enue 5,500 - 5,500 Grants (Unsecured) 49,500 213,200 262,700 Other - - - 70 AWS Streetscape Improvements (SR 18 to M St SE) Capital Costs 1,850,000 2,650,000 4,500,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Reeenue 200,000 200,000 400,000 Grants 1,650,000 2,450,000 4,100,000 71 S 272nd/277th St Corridor Capacity & Non -Motorized Trail Improvements Capital Costs 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 120,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Re\enue - - - - - - . Traffic Impact Fees 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 120,000 Other - - - - - _ Subtotal, Non -Capacity Projects: Capital Costs 295,000 583,200 295,000 715,000 2,795,000 3,045,000 7,728,200 26 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan TABLE T- 2 (continued) SUMMARY: CAPITAL COSTS Capacity Projects Non -Capacity Projects Long -Term Debt Total Costs FUNDING SOURCES: Unrestricted Street Revenue Grants Traffic Impact Fees Traffic Mitigation Fees Other (Other Agencies) Total Funding 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total 800,000 2,725,000 10,121, 000 12, 580, 000 31, 220, 000 40, 975, 000 98, 421, 000 295,000 583,200 295,000 715,000 2,795,000 3,045,000 7,728,200 208,300 207,600 206,733 206,039 205,344 204.650 1,238.666 1,303,300 3,515,800 10,622,733 13,501,039 34,220,344 44,224,650 107,387,866 318,500 468,000 899,050 995,000 1,100,000 475,000 4,255,550 439,450 2,436,200 5,416,450 8,573,500 26,185,000 34,525,000 77,575,600 525,350 511,600 2,173,233 3,632,539 6,235,344 8,424,650 21,502,716 20,000 - 34,000 - - - 54,000 - 100,000 2,100, 000 300,000 700,000 800,000 4,000,000 1,303,300 3,515,800 10,622,733 13,501,039 34,220,344 44,224,650 107,387,866 27 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Harvey Rd NE/8th St NE Intersection Improvements TIP# 1-5 Project No: cp0611 Project Type: Capacity Project Manager: None LOS Corridor ID# 5, 19 Description: Add one eastbound through/right turn -lane on 8th St NE to the west of Harvey Rd. Modify traffic signals and traffic channelization to accommodate the new lane. The additional lane will reduce traffic delays and queuing at the intersection of Harvey Rd and 8th St NE in all directions. This project will reconstruct M St NE from 4th St NE to 8th St NE, a segment of roadway approximately 0.3 miles long with a four -lane cross-section. The reconstruction will address the existing poor pavement condition and fill in any gaps in the sidewalk network. Progress Summary: Project was completed in 2010. Ongoing budget is for Public Works Trust Fund Loan debt payments scheduled through 2028. Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no additional impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - Grants- Secured (Fed, State, Local) - - - _ _ Traffic Impact Fees (Debt Service) 691,974 84,805 84,500 84,100 861,279 Traffic Impact Fees 204,500 204,500 PWTF 1,527,300 1,527,300 Total Funding Sources: 2,423,774 84,805 84,500 84,100 2,593,079 Capital Expenditures: Design 327,500 - - - 327,500 Right of Way 200,400 200,400 Construction 1,203,900 - - - 1,203,900 Long Term Debt - PWTF 691,974 84,805 84,500 84,100 861.279 Total Expenditures: 2,423,774 84,805 84,500 84,100 2,593,079 Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue Grants- Secured (Fed, State, Local) - - - - _ Traffic Impact Fees (Debt Service) 83,598 83,196 82,794 82,392 500,580 Traffic Impact Fees - - - _ _ PWTF Total Funding Sources: 83,598 83,196 82,794 82,392 500,580 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - _ _ Right of Way Construction - - - _ _ Long Term Debt - PWTF 83,598 83,196 82,794 82,392 500,580 Total Expenditures: 83,598 83,196 82,794 82,392 500,580 Grants / Other Sources: 1 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Lake Tapps Parkway ITS Expansion TIP# 1-6 Project No: cp1618 Project Type: Capacity Project Manager: Kevin Thompson LOS Corridor ID# 17 Description: The project funds the design, coordination, permitting, and construction of new Intelligent Transportation System (fTS) infrastructure along Lake Tapps Parkway from Lakeland Hills Way to East Valley Highway, and along East Valley Highway to Lakeland Hills Way. The proposed rTS infrastructure includes conduit, fiber, VMS signage, cameras, network communication upgrades, and weather stations along the route. Progress Summary: Federal Grant application was submitted to PSRC in May 2014. Project was awarded design and construction funds in 2016; the awarded amount will not be released to the City until 2019. Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $5,000. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - Grants- Secured Federal 82,950 711,000 82,950 Grants- Unsecured Federal - - - - TrafficlmpactFees 4,051 22,050 189,000 26,101 Other - - - - Total Funding Sources: 4,051 - 105,000 900,000 109,051 Capital Expenditures: Design 4,051 105,000 - 109,051 Right of Way - - - - Construction - - 900,000 - Total Expenditures: 4,051 - 105,000 900,000 109,051 Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - Grants- Secured Federal 793,950 Grants- Unsecured Federal - Traffic Impact Fees 211,050 Other - Total Funding Sources: - - - - 1,005,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 105,000 Right of Way - Construction 900,000 Total Expenditures: - - 1,005,000 Grants / Other Sources: 29 • is 0 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: SE 320th Street/116th Avenue SE Roundabout TIP# 1-7 Project No: asbd29 Project Type: Capacity, Safety Project Manager: TBD LOS Corridor ID# 25 Description: This project will fund the design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction of a modem roundabout at the SE 320th Street intersection with 116th Avenue SE. The intersection currently has stop control on the 116th Avenue SE approaches. Progress Summary: Grant funding was applied for in 2018. If awarded, the design phase would begin in 2019, with construction anticipated to be completed in 2021. Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $1,000. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - 35,000 5,000 35,000 Grants- Unsecured (Federal) 290,000 25,000 290,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - _ Other _ - Total Funding Sources: 325,000 30,000 325,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 325,000 - 325,000 Right of Way - 30,000 - Construction _ _ Total Expenditures: 325,000 30,000 325,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestrictod Street Revenue - 40,000 Grants- Unsecured (Federal) 1,370,000 1,685,000 Traffic Impact Fees - _ Other _ Total Funding Sources: 1,370,000 - 1,725,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 325,000 Right of Way - 30,000 Construction 1,370,000 1,370,000 Total Expenditures: 1,370,000 - 1,725,000 Grants / Other Sources: 30 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: 29th St SE/R St SE Intersection Improvements TIP# 1-8 Project No: cpxxxx Project Type: Capacity Project Manager: TBD LOS Corridor ID# 16, 27 Description: This project funds the design, right-of-way acquisition and construction of intersection capacity and safety improvements at the 29th St SE/R St SE intersection. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $500. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - Grants- Unsecured (Fed, State, Local) Traffic Impact Fees REST Other Total Funding Sources: - Capital Expenditures: Design Right of Way Construction Total Expenditures: - Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - Grants- Unsecured(Fed, State, Local) 360,000 800,000 1,160,000 Traffic Impact Fees 90,000 200,000 290,000 BEET - - - - Other - - - - Total Funding Sources: 450,000 1,000,000 - 1,450,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 450,000 - - 450,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - 1,000,000 - 1,000,000 Total Expenditures: 450,000 1,000,000 - - 1,450,000 Grants / Other Sources: 31 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: M Street SE & 29th Street SE Intersection Safety Improvements TIP# 1-9 Project No: asbd21 Project Type: Capacity, Safety Project Manager: TBD LOS Corridor ID# 27 Description: This project includes the design and construction of a new traffic signal. Progress Summary: M St SE & 29th St SE is currently an all -way stop controlled intersection, experiences significant congestion in the peak traffic hours, and has a documented high collision history. Preliminary design is scheduled to be initiated in 2019. Construction will be completed when project is fully funded. Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $5,000. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - Grants- Unsecured (Fed, State, Local) - _ Traffic Impact Fees 50,000 50,000 REET2 - _ Other - _ Total Funding Sources: 50,000 50,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 50,000 50,000 Right of Way - _ Construction - _ Total Expenditures: - 50,000 50,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - _ Grants- Unsecured (Fed,State,Local) 500,000 500,000 Traffic Impact Fees 100,000 150,000 REET2 - - _ Other - - - Total Funding Sources: - 600,000 - 650,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - 50,000 Right of Way - - _ Construction - 600,000 600,000 Total Expenditures: - 600,000 - - 650,000 Grants / Other Sources: • 32 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: R Street SE & 21st Street SE Intersection Safety Improvements TIP# 1-10 Project No: asbd22 Project Type: Capacity, Safety Project Manager. TBD LOS Corridor ID# 16 Description: This project includes the design and construction of intersection safety improvements. Progress Summary: R St SE & 21 st St SE is currently a two-way stop controlled intersection, experiences significant congestion in the peak traffic hours, and has a documented high collision history. Analysis to determine appropriate intersection control and preliminary design are anticipated to be completed in 2019. Construction will be completed when the project is fully funded. Interim improvements were constructed in 2017 to improve the pedestrian crossing in partnership with the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $5,000. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - - Grants- Unsecured (Fed, State, Local) - - Traffic Impact Fees 75,000 75,000 REET2 - - Other - Total Funding Sources: 75,000 75,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 75,000 75,000 Right of Way - - Construction - Total Expenditures: 75,000 - 75,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - Grants- Unsecured (Fed, State, Local) 700,000 700,000 Traffic Impact Fees 100,000 175,000 REET2 - - - - Other - - - - Total Funding Sources: - 800,000 - - 875,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - 75,000 Right of Way - - - Construction - 800,000 - 800,000 Total Expenditures: - 800,000 - - 875,000 Grants / Other Sources: 33 • City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Auburn Way S and 6th Street SE Project No: cpxxx Project Type: Capacity, Safety Project Manager. TBD TIP# 1-11 LOS Corridor ID# 3 Description: This project will fund the design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction of a new southbound right -tum pocket on Auburn Way at the intersection with 6th Street SE/SR-18 EB ramps. Progress Summary: The project phases will be completed when grant funding is secured. Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $2,500. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - Grants- Unsecured (Fed, State, Local) Traffic Impact Fees Other Total Funding Sources: Capital Expenditures: Design Right of Way Construction Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - _ _ Grants- Unsecured (Fed, State, Local) 80,000 80,000 800,000 960,000 Traffic Impact Fees 20,000 20,000 200,000 240,000 Other Total Funding Sources: 100,000 100,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 100,000 - - 100,000 Right of Way - 100,000 - 100,000 Construction - - 1,000,000 1,000,000 Total Expenditures: 100,000 100,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 Grants / Other Sources: 34 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: C Street SW & 15th Street SW Intersection Improvements TIP# 1-12 Project No: cpxxxx Project Type: Capacity Project Manager: TBD LOS Corridor ID# 12,13 Description: This project will construct a southbound right -tum pocket, re-channelize the intersection to provide two southbound through lanes, and replace the wdsting span wire traffic signal with a new traffic signal. Progress Summary: Design is planned to begin in 2022. Construction will be scheduled once full funding is secured. Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $2,500. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - Grants- Unsecured (Fed, State, Local) Traffic Impact Fees REET2 Other Total Funding Sources: - Capital Expenditures: Design Right of Way Construction Total Expenditures: - - Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - Grants- Unsecured(Fed, State, Local) - 800,000 800,000 Traffic Impact Fees 200,000 200,000 400,000 REET2 - - - Other - - - - Total Funding Sources: 200,000 1,000,000 - 1,200,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 200,000 - 200,000 Right of Way - - - Construction - 1,000,000 ,00, 000 1'0 -' Total Expenditures: 200,000 11000,000 - 1,200,000 Grants / Other Sources: 35 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: 124th Ave SE Corridor & 320th Intersection Improvements TIP# 1-13 Project No: as1bd04 Project Type: Capacity Project Manager: TBD LOS Corridor ID# 23, 25 Description: This project will fund the design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction of improvements to the intersection of SE 320th St and 124th Ave SE. The intersection is located at the main entrance to Green River College and will require additional on- site improvements to be constructed. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $2,500. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - Grants- Unsecured (Fed, State, Local) REET2 _ Other (GRC) Total Funding Sources: Capital Expenditures: Design Right of Way Construction Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue 175,000 150,000 325,000 Grants- Unsecured (Fed, State, Local) - 1,200,000 1,200,000 REET 2 - - _ Other (GRC) 175,000 250,000 425,000 Total Funding Sources: 350,000 1,600,000 - 1,950,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 350,000 - 350,000 Right of Way - 100,000 - 100,000 Construction - - 1,500,000 1,500 ' ,500, 000 Total Expenditures: - 350,000 1,600,000 1,950,000 Grants / Other Sources: • 36 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: 124th Avenue SE & SE 284th Street Intersection Safety Improvements TIP# 1-14 Project No: cpxxxx Project Type: Capacity, Safety Project Manager: TBD LOS Corridor ID# N/A Description: This project will complete the design phase, purchase ROW, and construct safety and capacity improvements at this intersection. The improvements will include a left -tum lane for northbound vehicles on 124th Avenue SE. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $2,000. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - Grants- Unsecured (Fed, State, Local) Traffic Impact Fees REET2 Other - - Total Funding Sources: - - Capital Expenditures: Design - - Right of Way - - - Construction - - Total Expenditures: - - - Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019.2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - Grants- Unsecured(Fed, State, Local) - 450,000 450,000 Traffic Impact Fees 100,000 150,000 250,000 REET2 - - - Other - - - Total Funding Sources: - 100,000 600,000 700,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 100,000 - 100,000 Right of Way - 50,000 50,000 Construction - 550,000 550,000 Total Expenditures: 100,000 600,000 700,000 Grants / Other Sources: 37 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: F Street SE Non -Motorized Improvements (Downtown to Les Gove) TIP# N-5 Project No: cp1416 Project Type: Capacity, Non -Motorized Project Manager: Seth Wickstrom LOS Corridor ID# N/A Description: The F St SE project includes pavement rehabilitation, installation of curbs, gutters, bike lanes, sidewalks, ADA improvements, utility undergrounding, LED street lighting, new two way center left tum -lane, crash attenuation at the supports for the BNSF railroad bridge, wayfinding signage and a "Bicycle Boulevard" designation of roadway connections between Auburn City Hall and the Les Gove Park Campus. This project improves mobility and safety along the corridor and will complete a gap in the non -motorized network between Auburn's Downtown and the Les Gove Community Campus. The major infrastructure improvements are approximately 0.3 miles long and the "Bicycle Boulevard" improvements are just over a mile long. Progress Summary: Preliminary design and survey work was completed in 2009. Federal Grant was secured in 2014 for design and ROW phases. Design phase was initiated in 2015. Construction is pending based on the abilityto secure grantfunding. Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance costforthis project is estimated to be $4,100. Activity: 2018 YE 2017 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - 40,000 40,000 Grants- Secured Federal 331,990 188,000 519,990 Grants -Unsecured Federal - - - Traffic Impact Fees 55,789 74,200 129,989 Other - - - Total Funding Sources: 387,779 302,200 689,979 Capital Expenditures: Design 387,779 252,200 639,979 Right of Way - 50,000 50,000 Construction - - - Total Expenditures: 387,779 302,200 689,979 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue 500,000 500,000 Grants- Unsecured (Fed) - - Grants -Unsecured Federal - - Traffic Impact Fees 664,000 - 664,000 Other 2,100,000 2,100,000 Total Funding Sources: 3,264,000 - 3,264,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - Right of Way - - Construction 3,264,000 3,264,000 Total Expenditures: 3,264,000 - - - 3,264,000 Grants I Other Sources: W City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Evergreen Heights Safe Routes to School Improvements, Phase 1 S 2 TIP# N-8 Project No: asbd14, cp1810 Project Type: Capacity, Non -Motorized Project Manager. TBD LOS Corridor ID# 37 Description: Phase 1 of the project includes the vertical realignment of S 316th Street along the school frontage to address a sight - distance problems associated with the school driveways and at the intersection with 56th Avenue S. This improvement is being constructed by the school district as part of their half street improvements associated with on-site improvements to the school. Phase 2 of the project will realign the 56th Avenue S approach to S 316th Street to the east to remove the offset between the street approach and school driveway, and a roundabout will be constructed at the S 316th Street/56th Avenue S intersection replacing the e)dsting all -way stop -control. Other project elements include street lighting and required storm water system improvements. Progress Summary: A partnership with the Auburn School District was created for the Phase 1 improvements, and are scheduled to be constructed during 2018. Phase 2 will be dependent on the ability to secure grant funding. Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - 24,500 24,500 Grants- Unsecured State - - A4tigation Fees 100,000 - 100,000 Other (Auburn Sch. Dist.) 122,500 122,500 Traffic Impact - - - Total Funding Sources: 247,000 247,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - Right of Way - - Construction 247,000 247,000 Total Expenditures: 247,000 247,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - Grants- Unsecured State 350,000 1,870,000 2,220,000 Alligation Fees - - - Other (Auburn Sch. Dist.) - - - Traffic Impact 60,000 400,000 460,000 Total Funding Sources: - 410,000 2,270,000 2,680,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 200,000 - 200,000 Right of Way 210,000 - 210,000 Construction 2,270,000 2,270, 000 Total Expenditures: 410,000 2,270,000 - 2,680,000 Grants I Other Sources: Auburn School District partnership includes direct financial contribution and ROW dedication. 39 • City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Riverwalk Drive SE Non -Motorized Improvements TIP# N-9 Project No: asbd26 Project Type: Capacity, Non -Motorized Project Manager: TBD LOS Corridor ID# 27 Description: This project is planned as a partnership between the City of Auburn and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe to improve pedestrian safety by constructing sidewalks, street lighting, and related storm improvements on Riverwalk Drive SE between Auburn Way S and Howard Road SE. This project will close a major gap in the sidewalk system and ties into the proposed improvements on Auburn Way South. Progress Summary: Design is anticipated to begin in 2022. Construction will be completed when funds are available. Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $10,000. Previous Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - Grants- Unsecured (Fed, State, Local) Traffic Impact Fees REET2 Other (MIT) Total Funding Sources: - Capital Expenditures: Design Right of Way Construction Total Expenditures: - - Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - 125,000 125,000 250,000 Grants- Unsecured(Fed, State, Local) - - 1,250,000 1,250,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - - REET2 - - - - Other (MIT) - 125,000 125,000 250,000 Total Funding Sources: - 250,000 1,500,000 1,750,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 250,000 - 250,000 Right of Way - - - - Construction - - 1,500,000 1,500 ' ,500, 000 Total Expenditures: - 250,000 1,500,000 - 1,750,000 Grants / Other Sources: 40 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: BNSF & A St SE Pedestrian Crossing Improvements TIP# N-10 Project No: cpxxx Project Type: Capacity, Safety, Non -Motorized Project Manager: TBD LOS Corridor ID# 10 Description: This project will fund the permitting, design, and construction of a new pedestrian underpass of the BNSF Railway mainline tracks south of 41st St SE and a new signalized pedestrian crossing of A St SE. This project is needed to improve pedestrian walking routes and safety. Progress Summary: Consultant feasibility analysis was completed to refine project scope, alignment, and identify design issues. Future project phases will be completed when grant funding is secured. Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $5,500. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - Grants- Unsecured (Fed, State, Local) Traffic Impact Fees Other Total Funding Sources: Capital Expenditures: Design Right of Way Construction Total Expenditures: - Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - Grants- Unsecured(Fed, State, Local) 400,000 3,500,000 3,900,000 Traffic Impact Fees 250,000 1,400,000 1,650,000 Other - - - Total Funding Sources: - - 650,000 4,900,000 5,550,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 650,000 - 650,000 Right of Way - - - Construction - 4,900,000 4,900,000 Total Expenditures: 650,000 4,900,000 5,550,000 Grants / Other Sources: 41 • City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Lea Hill Safe Routes to Schools Project No: asbd31 Project Type: Capacity, Non -Motorized Project Manager: TBD TIP# N-11 LOS Corridor ID# N/A Description: The project will design and construct non -motorized improvements along SE 304th St from Hazelwood Elementary School extending east to 124th Ave SE and continuing south along 124th Ave SE to Lea Hill Elementary School. The project will complete multiple gaps in the existing non -motorized network. The elements of work include construction of approximately 2,400 linear feet of sidewalk to match adjacent widths. The project will also construct curb and gutter, ADA compliant curb ramps, driveways aprons and retaining walls associated with the new sidewalks. Utility poles will need to be relocated to accommodate the proposed sidewalk alignment in some locations. Where sidewalks are installed the bike network will be extended in most locations along the project to include the connection to and from the existing bicycle improvements constructed as part of the SE 304th St/124th Ave SE roundabout. Additional lighting is proposed for pedestrian safety and will be incorporated onto existing/relocated utility poles. Ancillarywork, including but not limited to, property restoration, grading, storm upgrades, school zone beacon relocation, channelization, fencing, landscaping and mailbox relocation will be addressed with the project. Progress Summary: Grant funding application was submitted in 2018. If secured the design phase will be started in 2019 and construction completed during 2021. Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - 3,000 213,000 3,000 Grants- Unsecured Federal 17,000 1,207,000 17,000 Traffic Impact Fees - _ _ Other Total Funding Sources: 20,000 1,420,000 20,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 20,000 70,000 20,000 Right of Way - - - _ - Construction 1,350,000 Total Expenditures: - 20,000 1,420,000 20,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue 58,050 274,050 Grants- Unsecured Federal 328,950 1,552,950 Traffic Impact Fees - - _ Other Total Funding Sources: 387,000 - 1,827,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 90,000 Right of Way - - Construction 387,000 1,737,000 Total Expenditures: 387,000 - 1,827,000 Grants / Other Sources: 42 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: M Street Underpass (3rd St SE to 8th St SE) TIP# R-3 Project No: c201a0 Project Type: Capacity Project Manager: Ryan Vondrak LOS Corridor ID# 6 Description: Construction of a grade separated railroad crossing of M Street SE at the BNSF Stampede Pass tracks. Progress Summary: Construction was completed in 2014. Debt Service is scheduled each year through 2041. Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no additional impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - Grants- Secured (Fed, State, Local) 9,696,313 9,696,313 REET2 1,140, 001 1,140, 001 Traffic Impact Fees (Construction) 4,162, 000 - - - 4,162, 000 Traffic Impact Fees (Debt Service) 519,695 124,013 123,800 123,500 767,508 Traffic Mitigation Fees 660,000 - - - 660,000 PWTFL (30 years) 3,284,857 3,2a4,857 Other Sources (Other Agencies)' 3,126,104 - - - 3,126,104 Total Funding Sources: 22,588,970 124,013 123,800 123,500 22,836,783 Capital Expenditures: Design 2,688,924 - - - 2,688,924 Right of Way 3,358,443 3,358,443 Construction 16, 021, 908 - - - 16, 021, 908 PWTFL Debt Service 519,695 124,013 123,800 123,500 767,508 Total Expenditures: 22,588,970 124,013 123,800 123,500 22,836,783 Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue Grants- Secured (Fed, State, Local) REET2 Traffic Impact Fees (Construction) - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees (Debt Service) 123,135 122,843 122,550 122,258 738,086 Traffic Mitigation Fees - - - - - PWTFL (30 years) Other Sources (Other Agencies)' - - - - - Total Funding Sources: 123,135 122,843 122,550 122,258 738,086 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way Construction - - - - - PWTFL Debt Service 123,135 122,843 122,550 122,258 738,086 Total Expenditures: 123,135 122,843 122,550 122,258 738,086 Grants / Other Sources: Other Agencies are King County Metro Sewer, Port of Seattle, Port of Tacoma, and BNSF Railway 43 • City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: A Street Loop TIP# R-4 Project No: asbd32 Project Type: Capacity Project Manager: TBD LOS Corridor ID# N/A Description: The project will design and construct a new one-way (eastbound) roadway connection between A Street SW and A Street SE. The new intersection with A Street SE will allow an unsignalized right -tum movement onto southbound A Street SE, providing an alternative to the intersection of 2nd/3rd Street SE and A Street SE. The roadway will be constructed as a complete street to accommodate non -motorized road users. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost forthis project is estimated to be $1,500. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - - Interlocal Grant 280,000 Traffic Impact Fees 70,000 Other - Total Funding Sources: 350,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design 350,000 350,000 Right of Way - _ Construction - Total Expenditures: - 350,000 - Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - _ Interlocal Grant 1,080,000 - - 1,360,000 Traffic Impact Fees 270,000 340,000 Other - - Total Funding Sources: 1,350,000 - - - 1,700,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 350,000 Right of Way - - Construct ion 1,350,000 - - 1, 350, 000 Total Expenditures: 1,350,000 - 1,700,000 Grants I Other Sources: Interlocal funding from Sound Transit M City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Auburn Way S Improvements (Hemlock St SE to Poplar St SE) TIP# R-6 Project No: cp1622 Project Type: Capacity Project Manager: TBD LOS Corridor ID# 4 Description: Widen Auburn Way S between Hemlock St SE and Poplar St SE to accommodate two general purpose lanes in each direction, turn lanes, access management medians, U-turns, curb, gutter, sidewalk, illumination, transit stop improvements, new traffic signals, Intelligent Transportation Systems, streetscape and storm improvements. The project length is approximately 0.4 miles. Progress Summary: This project is proposed to be a partnership between the City of Auburn and the MIT. Pre -design effort will produce a project construction cost estimate. Major grant funding is expected to come from future state and federal competitions. This project will extend corridor improvements along Auburn Way S completed under previous projects. Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $25,000. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - - Grants- Unsecured (Fed, State, Local) - - - - Traffic Impact Fees 7,590 7,590 REET2 - - Other - - Total Funding Sources: 7,590 - 7,590 Capital Expenditures: Design 7,590 - 7,590 Right of Way - - - Construction - - Total Expenditures: 7,590 - - 7,590 Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants- Unsecured (Fed, State, Local) 1,297, 500 1,297, 500 5,800,000 5,800,000 14,195, 000 Traffic Impact Fees 202,500 202,500 1,450,000 1,450,000 3,305,000 REET2 - - - - - Other - - - - Total Funding Sources: 1,500,000 1,500,000 7,250,000 7,250,000 17,500,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 1,500,000 - - - 1,500,000 Right of Way - 1,500,000 - - 1,500,000 Construction - - 7,250,000 7,250,000 14, 500, 000 Total Expenditures: 1,500,000 1,500,000 7,250,000 7,250,000 17,500,000 Grants / Other Sources: 45 • City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: M Street NE (E Main St to 4th St NE) TIP# R-7 Project No: asbd12 Project Type: Capacity Project Manager: TBD LOS Corridor ID# 5 Description: This project will construct a four -lane street section on M St NE between south of E Main St and 4th St NE. Progress Summary: Pre -design will be completed during 2019 to refine project scope, alignment, and cost. Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $5,000. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - Grants- Unsecured (Fed, State, Local) - REET - - - Traffic Impact Fees - 50,000 50,000 Other - - - Total Funding Sources: - - 50,000 50,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 50,000 50,000 Right of Way - - Construction - - Total Expenditures: - 50,000 50,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue Grants- Unsecured (Fed, State, Local) REST - - - Traffic Impact Fees 350,000 1,250,000 1,650,000 Other - - _ Total Funding Sources: 350,000 1,250,000 1,650,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 350,000 - 400,000 Right of Way - 100,000 100,000 Construction - 1,150, 000 - 1,150, 000 Total Expenditures: 350,000 1,250,000 1,650,000 Grants / Other Sources: we City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: 46th Place S Realignment TIP# R-9 Project No: cpxxx Project Type: Capacity, Safety Project Manager. TBD LOS Corridor ID# N/A Description: The project will realign 46th Place S to the south of S 321 st Street. The realignment will move the 46th Place S intersection with S 321st Street approiomately 350 feet to the east of the current location. This will create two T -intersections (44th Avenue S and 46th Place S) in place of the existing four -leg intersection. The existing 46th Place S will be dead -ended to the south of S 321 st Street. The project will improve safety and traffic operations at the intersections. Progress Summary: A portion of the right-of-way for the realigned roadway was dedicated as part of an adjacent development project Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance costforthis project is estimated to be $5,000. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - Grants- Unsecured (Fed, State, Local) REET2 Traffic Impact Fees - - Other Sources - - Total Funding Sources: - - - Capital Expenditures: Design Right of Way Construction Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - Grants- Unsecured (Fed, State, Local) - 575,000 575,000 REST 2 - - Traffic Impact Fees 250,000 250,000 Other Sources - - Total Funding Sources: - 825,000 825,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - 125,000 125,000 Right of Way - 25,000 25,000 Construction 675,000 675,000 Total Expenditures: - 825,000 825,000 Grants / Other Sources: 47 • • is City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: 124th Ave SE Corridor Improvements (SE 312th to SE 318th) Project No: asbd01 Project Type: Capacity Project Manager: TBD TIP# R-11 LOS Corridor ID# 23 Description: This project will fund the design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction of a four -lane section with bicycle and pedestrian facilities on 124th Ave SE between SE 318th St and SE 312th St, and improvements to the signalized intersection of SE 312th St and 124th Ave SE (including adding bike lanes, dual westbound left -tum lanes, dual southbound through lanes, a northbound right -tum pocket, ITS improvements, and pedestrian safety improvements). Progress Summary: Phase 1 improvements between SE 318th and SE 316th were completed by GRC in 2012. Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $5,000. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - Grants- Unsecured Federal Traffic Impact Fees Other Total Funding Sources: Capital Expenditures: Design Right of Way Construction Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - _ Grants- Unsecured Federal 300,000 880,000 2,000,000 3,180,000 Traffic Impact Fees 100,000 220,000 500,000 820,000 Other - - - - Total Funding Sources: 400,000 1,100,000 2,500,000 4,000,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 400,000 - - 400,000 Right of Way - 1,100,000 - 1,100,000 Construction - - 2,500,000 21500,000 Total Expenditures: 400,000 1,100,000 2,500,000 4,000,000 Grants / Other Sources: City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: R Street Bypass (M Street SE to SR -18) TIP# R-12 Project No: cpxxxx Project Type: Capacity Project Manager: TBD LOS Corridor ID# N/A Description: This project will complete the design and construction of the Bypass Rd, an arterial connection between M Street SE and Auburn Black Diamond Road, paralleling the Stampede Pass rail line. The project will provide an arterial connection from the newly constructed M Street Underpass to the Auburn Black Diamond Road interchange with SR -18 to keep both vehicular and freight traffic out of residential neighborhoods along R Street SE north of the Stampede Pass line. The arterial connection may also provide opportunities for partnering with the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe as they redevelop the Miles Pit area and as more definitive plans are developed for a potential new WSDOT interchange on SR -18 in the vicinity of the project. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $7,500. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - Grants- Secured (Fed, State, Local) REST Traffic Impact Fees Other Sources (Development) Total Funding Sources: Capital Expenditures: Design - Right of Way Construction - - Total Expenditures: - - - Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - Grants- Secured (Fed, State, Local) - REET - - Traffic Impact Fees 150,000 150,000 Other Sources (Development) - 500,000 500,000 Total Funding Sources: - 650,000 650,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 650,000 650,000 Right of Way - - Construction - - Total Expenditures: - - 650,000 650,000 Grants I Other Sources: M, City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: SE 320th Street Corridor Improvements (116th Ave SE to 122nd Ave SE) TIP # R-13 Project No: asbd19 Project Type: Capacity, Safety Project Manager: TBD LOS Corridor ID# 25 Description: SE 320th St is a primary route serving Green River Community College and adjacent neighborhoods. There are very high volumes of pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit utilizing the corridor. This project will fund the design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction of non -motorized roadway and safety improvements including bicycle lanes, sidewalks, and street lighting between 122nd Ave SE and 116th Ave SE. Project length is approximately .45 miles. Progress Summary: GRC completed the design and construction for the segment between 124th Ave SE and 122nd Ave SE in 2013. The project schedule is dependent on the availability of grant funding. Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $5,000. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue _ Grants- Unsecured Federal - Traffic Impact Fees PWTFL Other Total Funding Sources: _ Capital Expenditures: Design Right of Way Construction Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - _ Grants- Unsecured Federal 340,000 556,000 2,000,000 - 2,896,000 Traffic Impact Fees 85,000 139,000 500,000 - 724,000 PWTFL - - - _ Other _ Total Funding Sources: 425,000 695,000 2,500,000 - 3,620,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 425,000 - - 425,000 Right of Way - 695,000 - 695,000 Construction - 2,500,000 2,500 ' ,500, 000 Total Expenditures: 425,000 695,000 2,500,000 3,620,000 Grants / Other Sources: 50 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: West Valley Highway Improvements (15th Street NW to W Main Street) TIP# R-14 Project No: asbd13 Project Type: Capacity Project Manager. TBD LOS Corridor IN 35 Description: This project scope includes pavement rehabilitation and re-channelization, roadway widening, bicycle lanes, pedestrian facilities, roadway lighting, required storm system improvements, and Intelligent Transportation System improvements. Progress Summary: Survey, base mapping and pre -design are planned to be completed in 2019 to complete preliminary plans and refine project cost -estimate. Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $5,000. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - Grants- Unsecured (Fed, State, Local) - - Traffic Impact Fees 25,000 25,000 Total Funding Sources: - 25,000 25,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 25,000 25,000 Right of Way - - - Construction - - - Total Expenditures: - 25,000 - 25,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - Grants- Unsecured (Fed, State, Local) - 480,000 2,400,000 2,880,000 Traffic Impact Fees 100,000 120,000 600,000 845,000 Total Funding Sources: 100,000 - 600,000 3,000,000 3,725,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 100,000 600,000 - 725,000 Right of Way - - - - Construction - - 3,000,000 3,000,000 Total Expenditures: 100,000 - 600,000 3,000,000 3,725,000 Grants / Other Sources: 51 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Auburn Regional Growth Center Access Improvements TIP# R-16 Project No: asbd24 Project Type: Capacity Project Manager: TBD LOS Corridor ID# N/A Description: The project would improve the 3rd Street NEAth Street NE intersections with Auburn Avenue and Auburn Way N. The goals of the project are to improve traffic operations and safety and circulation for both vehicles and non -motorized users. The project will add a northbound left -tum movement and a northbound/southbound crosswalk at the 3rd Street NE intersection with Auburn Avenue, and realign the intersection of 4th St NE with Auburn Way N to eliminate the split phase operation signal improving circulation and access. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - Grants- Unsecured Federal Traffic Impact Fees REET2 Other Total Funding Sources: - Capital Expenditures: Design - Right of Way - Construction Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - _ Grants- Unsecured Federal 320,000 80,000 1,200,000 1,600,000 Traffic Impact Fees 80,000 20,000 300,000 400,000 REET2 - - - _ Other Total Funding Sources: 400,000 100,000 1,500,000 - 2,000,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 400,000 - - 400,000 Right of Way - 100,000 - 100,000 Construction - - 1,500,000 1,500,000 Total Expenditures: 400,000 100,000 1,500,000 - 2,000,000 Grants / Other Sources: City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: M Street SE Corridor (8th St SE to AWS) TIP# R-17 Project No: cpxxxx Project Type: Capacity Project Manager: TBD LOS Corridor ID# 6 Description: Widen M Street SE into a multi -lane arterial between 8th St SE and AWS, including the construction of a new traffic signal at the intersection with 12th Street SE. This project will improve mobility and is tied to corridor development. It is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and contributes to the completion of a north/south arterial corridor. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance costforthis project is estimated to be $15,000. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - Grants- Unsecured (Fed, State, Local) Traffic Impact Fees - - REET2 - Other(Development) - - Total Funding Sources: - - Capital Expenditures: Design - Right of Way - - Construction - Total Expenditures: - - Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - Grants- Unsecured(Fed, State, Local) 975,000 4,200,000 5,175,000 Traffic Impact Fees 750,000 750,000 1,500,000 REET2 - Other(Development) 325,000 300,000 625,000 Total Funding Sources: - 2,050,000 5,250,000 7,300,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 725,000 - 725,000 Right of Way 1,325,000 - 1,325,000 Construction - 5,250,000 51250,000 Total Expenditures: 2,050,000 5,250,000 7,300,000 Grants / Other Sources: 53 • L • City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Lea Hill Rd Segment 1 (R St NE to 105th PI SE) TIP# R-20 Project No: cp1806 Project Type: Capacity Project Manager: Kim Truong LOS Corridor ID# 19 Description: Widen the existing roadway to provide a four/five-lane cross section with intersection improvements and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Progress Summary: Two parcels along the future roadway alignment were purchased by the City in 2014, and a third in 2016. Corridor pre - design started in 2018. Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance costforthis project is estimated to be $18,300 Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue Grants- Unsecured (Fed, State, Local) - - _ Traffic Impact Fees 430,000 200,000 630,000 Other - - _ Total Funding Sources: 430,000 200,000 630,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 200,000 200,000 Right of Way 430,000 - 430,000 Construction - - Total Expenditures: 430,000 200,000 - 630,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - _ _ Grants- Unsecured(Fed, State, Local) 2,310,000 4,400,000 4,400,000 11,110,000 Traffic Impact Fees 590,000 1,100,000 1,100,000 2,790,000 Other - - _ _ Total Funding Sources: 2,900,000 5,500,000 5,500,000 13,900,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 2,150,000 - - 2,150,000 Right of Way 750,000 - - 750,000 Construction - 5,500,000 5,500,000 11, 000, 000 Total Expenditures: 2,900,000 5,500,000 5,500,000 13,900,000 Grants / Other Sources: 54 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Lea Hill Rd Segment 2 (105th PI SE to 112th Ave SE) TIP# R-21 Project No: cpxxxx Project Type: Capacity Project Manager: TBD LOS Corridor ID# 19 Description: Project includes widening the e)asting roadway to provide a four -lane cross-section including pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $24,100. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - Grants- Unsecured (Fed, State, Local) Traffic Impact Fees Other Total Funding Sources: - Capital Expenditures: Design Right of Way Construction Total Expenditures: - Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - Grants- Unsecured (Fed, State, Local) 2,900,000 7,100,000 10,000,000 Traffic Impact Fees 600,000 1,400,000 2,000,000 Other - - - Total Funding Sources: 3,500,000 8,500,000 12,000,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 2,000,000 - 2,000,000 Right of Way 1,500,000 - 1,500,000 Construction - 8,500,000 8,500,000 Total Expenditures: - 3,500,000 8,500,000 12,000,000 Grants / Other Sources: 55 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Lea Hill Rd Segment 3 (112th Ave SE to 124th Ave SE) TIP# R-22 Project No: cpxxxx Project Type: Capacity Project Manager. TBD LOS Corridor ID# 19 Description: Project includes widening the e)astirig roadway to provide a four -lane cross-section including pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $20,300. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - - Grants- Unsecured (Fed, State, Local) - Traffic Impact Fees Other Total Funding Sources: _ Capital Expenditures: Design Right of Way Construction Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - _ Grants- Unsecured(Fed, State, Local) - 750,000 750,000 Traffic Impact Fees - 250,000 250,000 Other _ _ Total Funding Sources: - 1,000,000 1,000,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 500,000 500,000 Right of Way - 500,000 500,000 Construction _ _ Total Expenditures: - 1,000,000 1,000,000 Grants / Other Sources: 0 Mi- City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: West Valley Highway Improvements (SR -18 to 15th Street SW) TIP# R-23 Project No: asbd20 Project Type: Capacity Project Manager: TBD LOS Corridor ID# 35 Description: This project scope includes pedestrian and bicycle facility improvements, improved roadway lighting, required storm system improvements, intersection signal replacement at 15th St SW, and Intelligent Transportation System Improvements. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: This annual maintenance costforthis project is estimated to be $2,500. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - Grants- Unsecured (Fed, State, Local) Traffic Impact Fees REET2 Other - Total Funding Sources: - - Capital Expenditures: Design Right of Way Construction - Total Expenditures: - - - - Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019.2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - Grants- Unsecured (Fed, State, Local) 320,000 1,600,000 1,920,000 Traffic Impact Fees 80,000 400,000 480,000 REET2 - - - Other - - - Total Funding Sources: 400,000 2,000,000 - 2,400,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 400,000 - 400,000 Right of Way - - - Construction - 2,000,000 2,000,000 Total Expenditures: 400,000 2,000,000 - 2,400,000 Grants / Other Sources: 57 • City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Stewart Road (Lake Tapps Parkway Corridor) TIP# R-24 Project No: asbd25 Project Type: Capacity Project Manager: City of Pacific LOS Corridor ID# N/A Description: This is a City of Pacific project to widen the Stewart Road (Lake Tapps Parkway) Corridor. This is the final segment of widening in the City of Pacific which will tie in with the City of Sumner's planned final widening segment and new bridge over the White River. Completion of this corridor widening is expected to significantly relieve traffic congestion in Auburn along the A St SE and C St SE corridors. Progress Summary: Cityof Pacific has initiated preliminaryroad design and is applying for grant funding to complete the project. Future Impact on Operating Budget: There is no future impact to Auburn's operating budgets. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - Grants- Secured (Fed, State, Local) Traffic Impact Fees REET2 Traffic Mitigation Fees Total Funding Sources: - Capital Expenditures: Design Right of Way Construction Total Expenditures: - Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue 66,000 - 66,000 Grants- Secured (Fed, State, Local) - - Traffic Impact Fees REET2 - - Traffic Mitigation Fees 34,000 34,000 Total Funding Sources: 100,000 - - 100,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - Right of Way - - Construction 100,000 100000 Total Expenditures: 100,000 - - - 100,000 Grants / Other Sources: W City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: A Street NW - Phase 1 (3rd St NW to 14th St NW) TIP# S-1 Project No: c207aO Project Type: Capacity, Environmental Monitoring Project Manager: Tim Carlaw LOS Corridor ID# 18 Description: Constructed a new mufti -lane arterial from 3rd Street NW to 14th Street NW completing a missing link along the corridor. This project improves mobility and was tied to corridor development. The project length was approbmatelythree-quarters of a mile. The City purchased ROW from the northern property owner. If the property develops any access to A St NW, some or a portion of those funds may be reimbursed to the City (total cost was $251,000). Progress Summary: Pre -design was completed prior to 2007. Final design and environmental permitting were completed in 2011 and construction was completed in 2013. Major plantings are scheduled in 2015 as part of the wetland monitoring that is required to continue until 2023. Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no additional impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue 64,999 64,999 Grants- Secured (Fed, State, Local) 6,562,702 - - - 6,562,702 Traffic Impact Fees 1,246,496 72,500 25,000 25,000 1,343,996 Other Sources -Multicare Contribution 383,381 - 383,381 Total Funding Sources: 8,257,578 72,500 25,000 25,000 8,355,078 Capital Expenditures: Design 1,591,160 - 10,000 10,000 1,601,160 Right of Way 821,341 - - 821,341 Construction 4,896,826 - - - 4,896,826 Environmental 948,251 72,500 15,000 15,000 1,035,751 Total Expenditures: 8,257,578 72,500 25,000 25,000 8,355,078 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - Grants- Secured(Fed, State, Local) - - - Traffic Impact Fees 25,000 25,000 - 100,000 Other Sources -Multicare Contribution - - - Total Funding Sources: 25,000 25,000 - - 100,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 10,000 10,000 40,000 Right of Way - - - Construction - - - Environmental 15,000 15,000 60,000 Total Expenditures: 25,000 25,000 100,000 59 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: A Street SE & Lakeland Hills Way SE Intersection Safety & Capacity Imp. TIP# S-3 Project No: asbd15 Project Type: Capacity, Safety Project Manager: TBD LOS Corridor ID# 10, 34 Description: This project will study traffic operations, safety, and prepare a preliminary design for intersection improvements. Progress Summary: Analysis, preliminary design, and construction cost estimate will be initiated in 2019. Future phases will be programmed as funding becomes available. Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - Grants- Secured (Fed, State, Local) - - Traffic Impact Fees 50,000 50,000 REET2 - - Other - - Total Funding Sources: 50,000 50,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 50,000 50,000 Right of Way - - Construction - - Total Expenditures: 50,000 50,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue Grants- Secured (Fed, State, Local) - Traffic Impact Fees 50,000 REET2 - Other - - Total Funding Sources: - - 50,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 50,000 Right of Way - - Construction - - Total Expenditures: - - 50,000 Grants / Other Sources: City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Kersey Way SE Corridor Study Project No: asbd11 Project Type: Capacity Project Manager: TBD TIP# S-4 LOS Corridor ID# 36 Description: This project will study improvements to the Kersey Way SE corridor from the White River Bridge to the southern city limits. The study will develop the scope and costs for horizontal /vertical geometric roadway improvements, roadside hazard mitigation, street lighting and non -motorized trail construction. The project length is approximately two miles. Progress Summary: Design study will begin in 2019. Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - Grants- Unsecured (Fed, State, Local) - REET - - - Traffic Impact Fees - 20,000 20,000 Other - - - Total Funding Sources: 20,000 20,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 20,000 20,000 Right of Way - - Construction Total Expenditures: 20,000 20,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - Grants- Unsecured (Fed, State, Local) REST - - Traffic Impact Fees - 20,000 Other (Developer)' - - - Total Funding Sources: - - - 20,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 20,000 Right of Way - - Construction - - Total Expenditures: - - - 20,000 Grants / Other Sources: 03 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: A Street SE Safety Improvements Study TIP# S-5 Project No: cp1110 Project Type: Capacity, Safety will Project Manager: James Webb LOS Corridor ID# 10, 33 Description: Study the A Street SE corridor between 6th Street SE and Lakeland Hills Way SE including 41st St SE from D St SE to C St SE. The study will review the safety and access needs of the traveling public and the adjacent properties. Progress Summary: In-house pre -design was completed to refine project scope, alignment, and identify design issues. 2019 design will complete conceptual corridor plan for future improvements. Future Impact on Operating Budget: This studywill have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue 1,230 55,000 56,230 Grants- Secured (Fed, State, Local) - - - _ REST Traffic Mitigation Fees Other - - _ Total Funding Sources: 1,230 55,000 56,230 Capital Expenditures: Design 1,230 55,000 56,230 Right of Way - - _ Construction - - - Total Expenditures: 1,230 55,000 - 56,230 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - 55,000 Grants- Secured (Fed, State, Local) - _ REST - Traffic Impact Fees - - Other - - _ Total Funding Sources: - - - 55,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - 55,000 Right of Way - - _ _ Construction - - _ Total Expenditures: - - 55,000 Grants / Other Sources: 0 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Signal Replacement Program TIP# 1-1 Project No: cpxxxx Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager: TBD LOS Corridor ID# N/A Description: This program will replace e)asting traffic signals as they reach the end of their serviceable life span. Replacement signals will match the Citys current design standards, meet ADA accessibility requirements, and include battery backup power supplies. The signal anticipated to be replaced in 2022 is the Auburn Way N/1 st Street NE signal which was constructed in 1968. The signal anticipated to be replaced in 2024 is the E Main Street/Aubum Avenue signal which was also constructed in 1968. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no additional impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - Grants- Unsecured (Fed & State) Traffic Impact Fees Other Sources - Total Funding Sources: - - - Capital Expenditures: Design Right of Way Construction Total Expenditures: - Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue 75,000 525,000 75,000 675,000 Grants- Unsecured (Fed & State) - - - - Traffic Impact Fees Other Sources - - - - - Total Funding Sources: 75,000 525,000 - 75,000 675,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 75,000 - 75,000 150,000 Right of Way - - - - Construction - 525,000 - 525,000 Total Expenditures: 75,000 525,000 75,000 675,000 Grants I Other Sources: 63 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: ITS Dynamic Message Signs Project No: asbdl6, cpl701 Project Type: Non-Capacity(ITS) Project Manager: Luis Barba TIP# 1-3 LOS Corridor ID# N/A Description: This project funds the design and construction of Dynamic Message Signs at various locations throughout the City. Dynamic message signs are an important Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) tool for providing information to roadway users. Priority locations for sign placement are based on the Comprehensive Transportation Plan ITS map and include Auburn Way N, Auburn Way S, W Valley Highway, E Valley Highway and Lea Hill Road. Progress Summary: The first two signs (Auburn Way S and S 277th Street) have been completed. Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance and operational costs for this project is estimated to be $6,000. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue 77,998 17,180 20,000 125,000 115,178 Grants- Unsecured Federal - - - - - REET 100,000 100,000 PWTFL - _ Other (M17) - - _ Total Funding Sources: 177,998 17,180 20,000 125,000 215,178 Capital Expenditures: Design 72,633 - 20,000 - 92,633 Right of Way - - - _ _ Construction 105,365 17,180 125,000 122,545 Total Expenditures: 177,998 17,180 20,000 125,000 215,178 Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue 20,000 125,000 290,000 Grants- Unsecured Federal - - _ REST PWTFL - Other (MIT) - - _ Total Funding Sources: 20,000 125,000 290,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 20,000 - 40,000 Right of Way - _ _ Construction - 125,000 250,000 Total Expenditures: - 20,000 125,000 290,000 Grants / Other Sources: •� City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Citywide Pedestrian Accessibility and Safety Program TIP# N-1 Project No: asbd08, cp1615, cp1712, cp1816 Project Type: Non -Capacity (Annual) Project Manager: Scott Nutter LOS Corridor ID# NIA Description: This is an annual program to fund small pedestrian improvement projects at locations throughout the City. Projects are prioritized annually based on pedestrian demands, existing deficiencies, and citizen requests. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budgetfor street maintenance. Activity: Previous 2 Years 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue 98,371 100,000 100,000 100,000 298,371 Grants- Secured (Fed, State, Local) - - - - - REET Traffic Impact Fees Other - - - Total Funding Sources: 98,371 100,000 100,000 100,000 298,371 Capital Expenditures: Design 25,547 10,000 10,000 10,000 45,547 Right of Way - - Construction 72,824 90,000 90,000 90,000 252,824 Total Expenditures: 98,371 100,000 100,000 100,000 298,371 Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 600,000 Grants- Secured (Fed, State, Local) - - - - - REET Traffic Impact Fees Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 600,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 60,000 Right of Way - Construction 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 540,000 Total Expenditures: 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 600,000 Grants I Other Sources: 65 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Special Revenue Fund ProjectTitie: Citywide Arterial Bicycle & Safety Improvements TIP# N-3 Project No: as1bd07 Project Type: Non -Capacity (Safety) Project Manager: Various LOS Corridor ID# N/A Description: This is a bi-annual program to fund bicycle and safety improvements on classified roadways. Projects are prioritized annually based upon field studies and community feedback. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - 100,000 100,000 Grants- Secured (Fed, State, Local) - _ REET Traffic Impact Fees Other - _ Total Funding Sources: 100,000 100,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 10,000 10,000 Right of Way - _ Construction 90,000 90,000 Total Expenditures: 100,000 - 100,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue 100,000 100,000 300,000 Grants- Secured (Fed, State, Local) - - _ _ REET Traffic Impact Fees Other - - _ Total Funding Sources: 100,000 100,000 300,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 10,000 - 10,000 30,000 Right of Way - - _ Construction 90,000 90,000 - 270,000 Total Expenditures: 100,000 - 100,000 - 300,000 Grants I Other Sources: City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Downtown Transit Center Access Improvements TIP# N-6 Project No: asbd28 Project Type: Non -Capacity, Transit Project Manager: TBD LOS Corridor ID# N/A Description: This project will modify channelization and curb radii to improve turning radii for transit vehicles at the northeast comer of A St SW & 2nd St SW. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be minimal. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - 25,000 Grants- Unsecured (Fed, State, Local) - Traffic Impact Fees REET2 - - Other (Sound Transit) 100,000 - Total Funding Sources: 125,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design 15,000 - Right of Way - - Construction 110,000 - Total Expenditures: - 125,000 - Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue 25,000 Grants- Unsecured (Fed, State, Local) - Traffic Impact Fees - REET2 - Other (Sound Transit) 100,000 Total Funding Sources: - - 125,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 15,000 Right of Way - - Construction 110,000 Total Expenditures: - 125,000 Grants / Other Sources: 67 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Auburn Way NIS (4th St NE to 4th St SE) TIP# R-1 Project No: c409a0, cpxxxx would construct curb -bulbs at intersections adjacent to on -street parking, a new northbound left -tum at 3rd Street NE, and Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager: TBD LOS Corridor ID# 2, 3 Description: This project is based on a pre -design study to improve pedestrian accessibility, appearance, and link the downtown area along Auburn Way S between 4th Street NE and 4th Street SE. The project is approximately 0.5 miles long. The project would construct curb -bulbs at intersections adjacent to on -street parking, a new northbound left -tum at 3rd Street NE, and improvements to the signal and channelization at E Main Street. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue 78,251 78,251 Grants- Unsecured (Fed, State, Local) - _ REET Traffic Impact Fees Other Sources Total Funding Sources: 78,251 78,251 Capital Expenditures: Design 78,251 - 78,251 Right of Way - - _ Construction - _ Total Expenditures: 78,251 - 78,251 Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue 50,000 300,000 100,000 450,000 Grants- Unsecured (Fed, State, Local) - - 300,000 100,000 400,000 REET - - _ _ Traffic Impact Fees - - Other Sources - - _ Total Funding Sources: - 50,000 600,000 200,000 850,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 50,000 600,000 - 650,000 Right of Way - - - 200,000 200,000 Construction - - _ _ Total Expenditures: - 50,000 600,000 200,000 850,000 Grants / Other Sources: City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Auburn Way S (SR -164) Poplar Curve Safety Improvements TIP# R-15 Project No: asbd33 Project Type: Non -Capacity, Safety Project Manager: TBD LOS Corridor ID# 4 Description: This project will complete design and construct safety improvements at the curve along Auburn Way S in the vicinity of the intersection with Poplar Street. The improvements would include, illumination, electronic curve ahead warning signage, a high -friction surface treatment for the pavement, guardrail and driveway improvements. Progress Summary: Grant funding application was submitted in 2018. If secured the design phase will be started in 2019 and construction completed during 2021. Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - 5,500 - 5,500 Grants- Unsecured(Fed, State, Local) 49,500 213,200 49,500 Traffic Impact Fees - - - Other - - - Total Funding Sources: 55,000 213,200 55,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 55,000 - 55,000 Right of Way - - - Construction 213,200 - Total Expenditures: 55,000 213,200 55,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue 5,500 Grants- Unsecured (Fed, State, Local) 262,700 Traffic Impact Fees - Other - Total Funding Sources: - - 268,200 Capital Expenditures: Design - 55,000 Right of Way - - Construction - 213,200 Total Expenditures: - - - 268,200 Grants / Other Sources: • • is City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: AWS Streetscape Improvements (SR -18 to M St SE) TIP# R-19 Project No: cpxxxx Project Type: Non -Capacity, Miscellaneous Project Manager: TBD LOS Corridor ID# 3 Description: This project will revitalize and beautify Auburn Way S from the SR -18 interchange to the intersection with M Street SE. Proposed improvements include: improved pedestrian linkages; new and repaired sidewalks; curb and gutter; new landscaped medians; undergrounding existing aerial utilities, new street lighting; trash receptacles; recycling containers and other appropriate amenities. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance costforthis project is estimated to be $2,500. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - Grants- Unsecured (Fed, State, Local) Traffic Impact Fees REET2 Other Total Funding Sources: Capital Expenditures: Design Right of Way Construction Total Expenditures: - - - Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue 200,000 200,000 400,000 Grants- Unsecured (Fed, State, Local) 1,650,000 2,450,000 4,100,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - _ REET2 Other - Total Funding Sources: 1,850,000 2,650,000 4,500,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 400,000 - 400,000 Right of Way 1,450,000 - 1,450,000 Construction 2,650,000 2,650,000 Total Expenditures: - 1,850,000 2,650,000 4,500,000 Grants / Other Sources: T City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: S 272nd/277th St Corridor Capacity & Non -Motorized Trail Improvements TIP# S-2 Project No: cp1821 Project Type: Non -Capacity, Environmental Monitoring Project Manager: Tim Carlaw LOS Corridor ID# 15 Description: This project will complete the environmental monitoring requirements related to the S 277th St corridor widening project between Auburn Way North and I St NE. Progress Summary: 10 year monitoring period is expected to begin in 2018 afterfinal completion and continue through 2028. Future Impact on Operating Budget: There is no impact on future operating budgets. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - Grants- Secured Federal - - Grants- Secured State - - - - Traffic Impact Fees 20,000 20,000 20,000 40,000 Other (Development Funds)' - - - - Other - - Total Funding Sources: 20,000 20,000 20,000 40,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - Right of Way - - - - Environmental 20,000 20,000 20,000 40,000 Construction Total Expenditures: 20,000 20,000 20,000 40,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue Grants- Secured State - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 120,000 Other (Development Funds)` - - - - - Other Total Funding Sources: 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 120,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Environmental 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 120,000 Construction - - - - Total Expenditures: 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 120,000 71 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan TABLE T- 2A CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN PROJECTS AND FINANCING TRANSPORTATION — LOCAL STREET 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Capacity Projects: None Page # Non -Capacity Projects: 73 Local Street Improvement Program Capital Costs 2,550,000 1,900,000 1,650,000 1,650,000 1,650,000 1,650,000 11,050,000 Funding Sources: Fund Balance 650,000 - - - - - 650,000 Transfer In (W/S/SWM Utility) 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 900,000 To Be Determined - 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 6,000,000 Other REET2 1,750,000 1,750,000 - - - - 3,500,000 SUMMARY: CAPITAL COSTS Capacity Projects - - - - - - - Non -Capacity Projects 2,550,000 1,900,000 1,650,000 1,650,000 1,650,000 1,650,000 11,050,000 Total Costs 2,550,000 1,900,000 1,650,000 1,650,000 1,650,000 1,650,000 11,050,000 FUNDING SOURCES: Fund Balance 650,000 - - - - - 650,000 Transfer In (W/S/SWM Utility) 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 900,000 To Be Determined - - 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 6,000,000 Other REET2 1,750,000 1,750,000 - 3,500,000 Total Funding 2,550,000 1,900,000 1,650,000 1,650,000 1,650,000 1,650,000 11,050,000 is 72 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan LOCAL STREET FUND (103) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Local Street Improvement Program TIP# P-2 Project No: sobd02, cp1313, cp1414, cp1515, cp1614, cp1717, cp1725 Project Type: Non -Capacity, Preservation Project Manager: Jai Carter LOS Corridor ID# N/A Description: The program preserves local (unclassified) streets. The work includes crack sealing, asphalt patching, pre -leveling, asphalt overlays and roadway reconstruction. From 2013 through 2018 this program was funded by sales tax on construction; beginning in 2019, funding will be from Real Estate Excise Tax (REET). Progress Summary: This program has successfully completed overlays, chip seals and complete reconstructions since 2005. The program will focus on completing reconstruction needs in addition to regular maintenance treatments. Future Impact on Operating Budget: There is no impact to the street maintenance budget Activity: (Premous 2Yrs.) 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Local Street Fund - 1,108,115 650,000 - 1,758,115 Transfer in (Utilities) 300,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 600,000 Sales Tax on Construction 3,804,900 2,100,000 - - 5,904,900 To Be Determined - - - - - Other REST 2 - - 1,750,000 1,750,000 1,750,000 Total Funding Sources: 4,104,900 3,358,115 2,550,000 1,900,000 10,013,015 Capital Expenditures: Design 515,356 398,815 525,000 500,000 1,439,171 Right of Way - - - - Construction 3,589,544 2,959,300 2,025,000 1,400,000 8,573,844 Total Expenditures: 4,104,900 3,358,115 2,550,000 1,900,000 10,013,015 Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Local Street Fund - - - - 650,000 Transfer In(Utilities) 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 900,000 Sales Tax on Construction - - - - - To Be Determined 1,500, 000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 6,000,000 Other REST 2 - - - - 3,500,000 Total Funding Sources: 1,650,000 1,650,000 1,650,000 1,650,000 11,050,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 425,000 400,000 425,000 400,000 2,675,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction 1,225,000 1,250,000 1,225,000 1,250,000 8,375,000 Total Expenditures: 1,650,000 1,650,000 1,650,000 1,650,000 11,050,000 Grants / Other Sources: 73 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan . TABLE T- 2B CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN PROJECTS AND FINANCING TRANSPORTATION - STREET PRESERVATION 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Caoacity Projects: 375,000 3,000,000 3,375,000 Funding Sources: None Capacity Projects Fund Balance - 75,000 500,000 575,000 Page # Non -Capacity Protects: _ Grants - - - 300,000 2,500,000 - 2,800,000 3,817,840 4,460,500 75 Arterial Street Preservation Program 4,200,000 1,650,000 20,661,580 78 Auburn Way N Preservation Phase 2 (8th St NE to 22nd St NE) 3,817,840 Capital Costs 1,000,000 200,000 1,000,000 1,475,000 1,100,000 1,550,000 6,325,000 Funding Sources: Funding Sources: Fund Balance Fund Balance - - - - - - UtilityTax 1,000,000 200,000 1,000,000 1,475,000 1,100,000 1,550,000 6,325,000 76 Annual Arterial Crack Seal Program 79 Auburn Way N Preservation Phase 3 (4th St SE to 8th St NE) 1,753,640 2,069,500 1,088,000 2,500,000 - Capital Costs 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 600,000 Funding Sources: Total Funding Fund Balance 111,220 863,920 - - - - 975,140 Fund Balance 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 600,000 Utility Tax - - - - - _ - 77 15th Street SW Reconstruction Capital Costs 375,000 3,000,000 3,375,000 Funding Sources: Capacity Projects Fund Balance - 75,000 500,000 575,000 - _ Grants - - - 300,000 2,500,000 - 2,800,000 3,817,840 4,460,500 U til ity Tax 4,200,000 1,650,000 20,661,580 78 Auburn Way N Preservation Phase 2 (8th St NE to 22nd St NE) 3,817,840 4,460,500 3,526,000 4,200,000 1,650,000 Capital Costs 120,000 1,508,000 - - - - 1,628,000 Funding Sources: Fund Balance Fund Balance 120,000 618,280 - - - - 738,280 600,000 100,000 Grants 889,720 Utility Tax 889,720 200,000 1,000,000 1,475,000 1,100,000 1,550,000 6,325,000 79 Auburn Way N Preservation Phase 3 (4th St SE to 8th St NE) 1,753,640 2,069,500 1,088,000 2,500,000 - Capital Costs 222,440 1,727,840 - - - - 1,950,280 Funding Sources: Total Funding Fund Balance 111,220 863,920 - - - - 975,140 4,200,000 1,650,000 Grants 111,220 863,920 975,140 80 A St SE Preservation (E Main St to 17th St SE) Capital Costs 1,564,800 - - - - 1,564,800 Funding Sources: Fund Balance 782,400 - - - - - 782,400 Grants 782,400 782,400 81 A St SE Preservation (37th Street SE to KingtPierce County Line) Capital Costs 135,000 1,576,000 1,711,000 Funding Sources: Fund Balance - - 67,500 788,000 - - 855,500 Grants 67,500 788,000 855,500 82 C Street SW Preservation (W Main St to GSA Signal) Capital Costs - 182,000 2,125,500 - - - 2,307,500 Funding Sources: Fund Balance 182,000 871,500 1,053,500 Utility Tax - - - - _ _ - Grants 1,254,000 1,254,000 83 Lakeland Hill Way Preservation (57th Drive SEto Lake Tapps Pkwy) Capital Costs 100,000 1,100,000 1,200,000 Funding Sources: Fund Balance - 100,000 352,000 - - - 452,000 Grants 748,000 748,000 Note: Financial plan utilizes the following order for use offunds to finance projects: grantrevenues (ifavailable), utility tax revenues and fund balance. SUMMARY: CAPITAL COSTS Capacity Projects - - - - _ - Non -Capacity Projects 3,007,240 3,817,840 4,460,500 3,526,000 4,200,000 1,650,000 20,661,580 Total Costs 3,007,240 3,817,840 4,460,500 3,526,000 4,200,000 1,650,000 20,661,580 FUNDING SOURCES: Fund Balance 1,113,620 1,864,200 1,391,000 963,000 600,000 100,000 6,031,820 Utility Tax 1,000,000 200,000 1,000,000 1,475,000 1,100,000 1,550,000 6,325,000 Grants 893,620 1,753,640 2,069,500 1,088,000 2,500,000 - 8,304,760 REET 2 Total Funding 3,007,240 3,817,840 4,460,500 3,526,000 4,200,000 1,650,000 20,661,580 74 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET PRESERVATION FUND (105) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Special Revenue Funds Project Title: Arterial Street Preservation Program TIP# P-1 Project No: Varies annually, sp1bd01 Project Type: Non -Capacity, Preservation Project Manager: Jai Carter LOS Corridor ID# N/A Description: Implement regular pavement maintenance and/or rehabilitation of various classified streets citywide. These projects may include a combination of overlays, rebuilds, and spot repairs. This program is funded through a 1 % utility tax that was adopted by City Council during 2008. Progress Summary: The 2017 construction cycle included the completion of the B Street NW reconstruction and provided matching funds for the Federally funded preservation projects on Auburn Way N and Lake Tapps Parkway. 2018 construction includes matching funds for the Federallyfunded preservation of S 277th Street and 15th Street NE/NW preservation, and for arterial patching and overlay. Future Impact on Operating Budget: There is no impactto the street maintenance budget. Activity: (Previous 2 Years) 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Arterial Preservation Fund - - - - - Utility Tax 3,692,575 500,000 1,000,000 200,000 5,392,575 REET2 - 1,212,400 - - 1,212,400 Grants -Federal 1,593,275 - - - 1,593,275 Total Funding Sources: 5,285,850 1,712,400 1,000,000 200,000 8,198,250 Capital Expenditures: Design 532,072 61,500 50,000 20,000 643,572 Right of Way - - - - Construction 4,753,778 1,650,900 950,000 180,000 7,354,678 Total Expenditures: 5,285,850 1,712,400 1,000,000 200,000 7,998,250 Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Arterial Preservation Fund - - - - - Utility Tax 1,000,000 1,475,000 1,100,000 1,550,000 6,325,000 REET2 - - - - - Grants -Federal - - - - - Total Funding Sources: 1,000,000 1,475,000 1,100,000 1,550,000 6,325,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 50,000 60,000 50,000 60,000 290,000 Right of Way - Construction 950,000 1,415,000 1,050,000 1,490,000 6,035,000 Total Expenditures: 1,000,000 1,475,000 1,100,000 1,550,000 6,325,000 Grants / Other Sources: 75 • • City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET PRESERVATION FUND (105) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Special Revenue Funds Project Title: Annual Arterial Crack Seal Program TIP# P-3 Project No: spbd03, cp1811 Project Type: Non -Capacity, Preservation Project Manager: Jai Carter LOS Corridor ID# N/A Description: Implement regular maintenance of various classified streets by sealing newlyformed cracks. Sealing the cracks will prolong the life of the pavement by stopping water from draining into the sub -base of the road. Progress Summary: Program continues to successfully extend pavement life citywide. Future Impact on Operating Budget: There is no impact to the street maintenance budget. Activity: (Previous 2 Years) 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Arterial Preservation Fund - 100,000 100,000 100,000 200,000 Utility Tax 100,000 - - 100,000 REST - _ Bond proceeds - - - - Total Funding Sources: - 200,000 100,000 100,000 300,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 15,000 10,000 10,000 25,000 Right of Way - - - - _ Construction 185,000 90,000 90,000 275,000 Total Expenditures: - 200,000 100,000 100,000 300,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Arterial Preservation Fund 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 600,000 Utility Tax - - - - _ REST Bond proceeds - - - - _ Total Funding Sources: 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 600,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 60,000 Right of Way - - - _ - Construction 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 540,000 Total Expenditures: 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 600,000 Grants / Other Sources: 76 City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET PRESERVATION FUND (105) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Special Revenue Funds Project Title: 15th Street SW Reconstruction TIP# P-6 Project No: cpxxxx Project Type: Non -Capacity, Preservation Project Manager: TBD LOS Corridor ID# 12 Description: This project will evaluate improvements to the Union Pack at grade rail crossings as well as the vertical sight distance to the Interurban Trail crossing to the west of the tracks. This project was originally scoped to include pavement preservation. The pavement preservation component could still be combined with this project, but is also eligible for the Arterial Preservation program. A planning level cost estimate is provided. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Arterial Preservation Fund - Unsecured Grant Utility Tax Other Total Funding Sources: Capital Expenditures: Design Right of Way - Construction Total Expenditures: - Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Arterial Preservation Fund 75,000 500,000 575,000 Unsecured Grant 300,000 2,500,000 2,800,000 Utility Tax - - - Other - Total Funding Sources: - 375,000 3,000,000 - 3,375,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 375,000 - 375,000 Right of Way - - - Construction - 3,000,000 3,000,000 Total Expenditures: - 375,000 3,000,000 3,375,000 Grants / Other Sources: 77 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET PRESERVATION FUND (105) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Auburn Way N Preservation Phase 2 (8th St NE to 22nd St NE) TIP# P-7 Project No: spbd04 Project Type: Non -Capacity, Preservation Project Manager: TBD LOS Corridor ID# 1/2 Description: This project will grind and overlay Auburn Way N from 8th Street NE to 22nd Street NE, remove unused driveways, and upgrade all curb ramps and pedestrian signals to meet ADA requirements. Progress Summary: Federal Grant funding was applied for in 2016. Future Impact on Operating Budget: There is no impact to the street maintenance budget. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Arterial Preservation Fund - 120,000 618,280 120,000 Secured Federal Grants - 889,720 - Utilfty Tax - - Bond proceeds - - - Total Funding Sources: 120,000 1,508,000 120,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 120,000 - 120,000 Right of Way - _ _ Construction - 1,508,000 Total Expenditures: - - 120,000 1,508,000 120,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Arterial Preservation Fund - 738,280 Secured Federal Grants - - 889, 720 Utility Tax - _ _ Bond proceeds - _ Total Funding Sources: - - 1,628,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 120,000 Right of Way - _ Construction - - ,508,000 1,508,000 Total Expenditures: - - 1,628,000 Grants / Other Sources: 78 City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET PRESERVATION FUND (105) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Auburn Way N Preservation Phase 3 (4th St SE to 8th St NE) TIP# P-8 Project No: spbd05 Project Type: Non -Capacity, Preservation Project Manager: TBD LOS Corridor ID# 2 Description: This project will grind and overlayAuburn Way N from approximately 8th Street NE to appro)amately 4th St SE, remove unused driveways, and upgrade all curb ramps and pedestrian signals to meet ADA requirements. Progress Summary: Federal Grant funding was applied for in 2016. Future Impact on Operating Budget: There is no impact to the street maintenance budget. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Arterial Preservation Fund - 111,220 863,920 111,220 Secured Federal Grants 111,220 863,920 111,220 Utility Tax - - - Bond proceeds - - Total Funding Sources: 222,440 1,727,840 222,440 Capital Expenditures: Design 222,440 - 222,440 Right of Way - - Construction - 1,727,840 Total Expenditures: 222,440 1,727,840 222,440 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Arterial Preservation Fund - - 975,140 Secured Federal Grants - - 975,140 Utility Tax - - - Bond proceeds - Total Funding Sources: - - 1,950,280 Capital Expenditures: Design - 222,440 Right of Way - - Construction - - 11727,840 Total Expenditures: - - - 1,950,280 Grants / Other Sources: 79 • • City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET PRESERVATION FUND (105) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: A St SE Preservation (E Main St to 17th St SE) Project No: cp1819 Project Type: Non -Capacity, Preservation Project Manager: Kim Truong TIP# P-9 LOS Corridor ID# 10 Description: This project will grind and overlay A St SE between E Main St and 17th St SE, remove unused driveways, and upgrade all curb ramps and pedestrian signals to meet ADA requirements. Progress Summary: Federal Grant funding was awarded in 2018. Future Impact on Operating Budget: There is no impact to the street maintenance budget. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Arterial Preservation Fund - 99,400 782,400 881,800 Secured Federal Grants 99,400 782,400 881,800 Utility Tax - - _ Bond proceeds - - _ Total Funding Sources: 198,800 1,564,800 1,763,600 Capital Expenditures: Design 198,800 - 198,800 Right of Way - - _ Construction - 1,564,800 1,564,800 Total Expenditures: 198,800 1,564,800 1,763,600 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Arterial Preservation Fund - 782,400 Secured Federal Grants - - 782,400 Utility Tax - _ Bond proceeds - Total Funding Sources: - - - - 1,564,800 Capital Expenditures: Design - _ Right of Way - _ Construction - 1,564,8001 Total Expenditures: - - 1,564,800 Grants / Other Sources: :1 City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET PRESERVATION FUND (105) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: A St SE Preservation (37th Street SE to King/Pierce County Line) TIP# P-10 Project No: cpxxxx Project Type: Non -Capacity, Preservation Project Manager: TBD LOS Corridor ID# 10 Description: The project will grind and overlay A Street SE from 37th Street SE to the Auburn/Pacific CityLimit and from the Pacific/Auburn City Limit to the King /Pierce County Line (appro)amately 1,800 feet to the south of Lakeland Hills Way). The project also includes ADA upgrades to curb ramps and replacement of vehicle detection loops. Progress Summary: An application for grant funding for this project was submitted in 2018. If awarded, design would occur in 2021 and construction in 2022. Future Impact on Operating Budget: There is no impact to the street maintenance budget. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Arterial Preservation Fund - Unsecured Federal Grants Utility Tax Bond proceeds Total Funding Sources: - - - Capital Expenditures: Design Right of Way - Construction - Total Expenditures: - Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Arterial Preservation Fund 67,500 788,000 - - 855,500 Unsecured Federal Grants 67,500 788,000 - 855,500 Utility Tax - - - Bond proceeds - - - - Total Funding Sources: 135,000 1,576,000 1,711,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 135,000 - - 135,000 Right of Way - - - - Construction - 1,576,000 - 1,576,000 Total Expenditures: 135,000 1,576,000 - - 1,711,000 Grants / Other Sources: 81 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET PRESERVATION FUND (105) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: C Street SW Preservation (W Main St to GSA Signal) TIP# P-11 Project No: spbd06 Project Type: Non -Capacity, Preservation Project Manager: TBD LOS Corridor ID# 13 Description: The project will grind and overlay C Street SW from W Main Street to the GSA signal (approximately 2,000 feet to the south of 15th Street SW). The project also includes ADA upgrades to curb ramps and pedestrian push buttons, and replacement of vehicle detection loops. Progress Summary: An application for grant funding for this project was submitted in 2018. If awarded, design would occur in 2020 and construction in 2021. Future Impact on Operating Budget: There is no impact to the street maintenance budget. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Arterial Preservation Fund - 182,000 Unsecured Federal Grants - utility Tax Bond proceeds - Total Funding Sources: - 182,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 182,000 Right of Way - Construction - Total Expenditures: - 182,000 - Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Arterial Preservation Fund 871,500 1,053,500 Unsecured Federal Grants 1,254,000 1,254,000 Utility Tax - - Bond proceeds - - Total Funding Sources: 2,125,500 2,307,500 Capital Expenditures: Design - 182,000 Right of Way - - Construction 2,125, 500 - 2,125, 500 Total Expenditures: 2,125,500 - - 2,307,500 Grants / Other Sources: RM City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET PRESERVATION FUND (105) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Lakeland Hill Way Preservation (57th Drive SE to Lake Tapps Pkwy) TIP# P-12 Project No: spbd07 Project Type: Non -Capacity, Preservation Project Manager: TBD LOS Corridor ID# 26 Description: The projectwill grind, patch, and overlay Lakeland Hills Wayfrom 57th Drive SE to Lake Tapps Pkwy. The project also includes ADA upgrades to curb ramps and replacement of vehicle detection loops. Progress Summary: An application for grant funding for this project was submitted in 2018. If awarded, design would occur in 2020 and construction in 2021. Future Impact on Operating Budget: There is no impact to the street maintenance budget. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Artenal Preservation Fund - 100,000 Unsecured Federal Grants - Utility Tax Bond proceeds - Total Funding Sources: 100,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 100,000 Right of Way - Construction - Total Expenditures: - - 100,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Arterial Preservation Fund 352,000 452,000 Unsecured Federal Grants 748,000 748,000 Utility Tax - - - Bond proceeds - - - Total Funding Sources: 1,100,000 1,200,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - 100,000 Right of Way - - Construction 1,100, 000 - 1,100, 000 Total Expenditures: 1,100,000 - - - 1,200,000 Grants / Other Sources: 83 TABLE T-3 City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan SUMMARY OF IMPACTS ON FUTURE OPERATING BUDGETS .E Project: 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Total 1 LakeTappsPkwyITS Eapansion $ $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 25,000 2 SE 320th 8116thAveSERoundabout - 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 4,000 3 29th St SE 8 R St SE Intersection Imp. - 500 500 500 1,500 4 M St SE 8 29th St SE Int. Safety Imp. 5,000 5,000 5,000 15,000 5 R St SE B 21st St SE Int. Safety Imp. 5,000 5,000 5,000 15,000 6 Auburn Way S & 6th Street SE _ - 2,500 2,500 7 C St SW 8 15th St SW Int. Imp. 2,500 2,500 5,000 8 124th Ave SE Corridor 8 320th Imp. 2,500 2,500 5,000 9 125th Ave SE 8 SE 284th St Intersection imp. _ _ - 2,000 2,000 10 F Street SE, Downtown to Les Gove 4,100 4,100 4,100 4,100 16,400 11 Riverwa lk Dr SE Non -M otorized Imp. _ - 10,000 10,000 20,000 12 BNSF 8 A St SE Pedestrian Crossing Imp. _ _ - 5,500 5,500 13 AStreet Loop 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 6,000 14 AWS Imp. •Hemlock St SE to Poplar St SE _ _ - 25,000 25,000 15 M Street NE, E. Main to 4th 5,000 5,000 5,000 15,000 16 46th Place S. Realignment - - 5,000 5,000 17 124th Ave SE Corridor Imp. -Phase 2 _ 5,000 5,000 18 SE 320th St Corridor Improvements 5,000 5,000 10,000 19 W Valley Hwy Imp. (15th St NW to W Main) - 5,000 5,000 20 M St SE Corridor, 8th St SE to A WS 15,000 15,000 21 Lea Hill Rd Segment 1 18,300 18,300 22 Lea Hill Rd Segment 2 - - 24,100 24,100 23 W Valley Hwy Imp. (SR -18 to 15th St SW) 2,500 2,500 2,500 7,500 24 ITS Dynamic Message Signs - 6,000 6,000 12,000 25 A WS Streetscape Improvements _ _ - - 2,500 2,500 Total $ $ 5,000 $ 11,600 $ 29,600 $ 55,600 $ 165,500 $ 267,300 .E City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan WATER Current Facilities The City of Auburn water utility provides water supply, treatment, transmission, storage, distribution, and service connections to in -City residences and businesses. The City also provides water to the City of Algona and Water District #111 under wholesale agreements. The water system consists of wells, springs and interties for source; chlorination stations and corrosion control for treatment; pump stations, pressure reducing stations and pipelines for transmission; and steel and concrete enclosed reservoirs for storage. Table W-1, "Facilities Inventory", lists the facilities along with their current capacities and approximate locations. Level of Service (LOS) The City's Comprehensive Water Plan summarizes the design criteria and service polices for the City's water distribution system. Capital Facilities Projects and Financing The City of Auburn's water system anticipates seven capacity projects in the amount of $18,223,611 and twenty-eight non -capacity projects totaling $28,987,300 for a 6 -year planning expectation total of $47,210,911. The financing plan is shown in Table W-2 followed by individual worksheets showing the project details. The capacity projects will increase water supply quantities, storage, and distribution for growth of retail customers. The non -capacity projects will provide for pipeline improvements and replacements, delivery pressure improvements, water quality enhancements, comprehensive and resource management planning, pump station upgrades, telemetry system improvements, and meter upgrades. Impact on Future Operating Budgets As Table W-3 shows, operating budget impacts of $4,800 are forecasted for water supply and distribution facilities during the six years 2020 — 2025. • • TABLE W-1 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan Facilities Inventory Water Facilities CITY OF AUBURN WATER SYSTEM CAPACITY FACILITY WATER RIGHT (MGD - max rate) LOCATION Coal Creek Springs Certificate 857 9.70<2.52>* 3401 Stuck River Rd Well 1 Certificate 3560-A 3.17 1136 MStSE Well 2 G1-00277 C 3.46 1109 5th St NE Well 3A G1-23629 C 4.03 401 37th StSE Well 3B (Included Above) (Included Above) 40137th St SE Well 4 G1-20391 C 4.03 950 25th St SE Well 5 G1-23633 C 1.44 5530 James Ave SE Well 5A (Included Above) (Included Above) 5401 Olive Way SE Well 5B (Included Above) (Included Above) West end of 62ndCtSE Well 6 (Supplemental to Wells 1, 2, 3A, 38, 4) 5.04 (supplemental) 1109 5th St NE Well 7 (Supplemental to Wells 1, 2, 3A, 38, 4) 5.04 (supplemental) 405 E St NE West Hill Springs Claim (1973 File Date) 0.9 1900 15th St NW Ext Supply Total (MGD) 15.8 26.73 Available for Use 24.21 * Denotes deduction of 1,750 gpm (Qi/2,824 ac-ft/yr) to comply w ith the provisions of the Muckleshoot-Auburn Stipulated Agreement. CAPACITY I FACI LITY LOCATION SERVICE AREA Tacoma B Street NW Tacoma 132nd Ave SE Intertie Total (MGD) 3.2 3.2 6.4 3240 8 St NW 29598 132nd Ave SE Valley Service Area Lea Hill Service Area CAPACITY FACILITY MG LOCATION SERVICE AREA Storage Facilities: Academy Reservoir 8A 1.2 5031 Aub urn Way S Academy Service Area Academy Reservoir 8B 1.5 5031 Aub urn Way S Academy Service Area Lakeland Hills Reservoir 5 1.0 1326 57th Dr SE Lakeland Hills Svc Area Lakeland Hills Reservoir 6 1.0 5718 Francis Ct SE Lakeland Hills Svc Area Lea Hill Reservoir 4A 1.0 30502 132nd Ave SE Lea Hill Service Area Lea Hill Reservoir 4B 1.5 30502 132nd Ave SE Lea Hill Service Area Valley Reservoir 1 5.0 2003 Aub urn Way S Valley Service Area Valley Reservoir 2 3.6 32115 105th Place S Valley Service Area Storage Total (MG) 15.8 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan TABLE W-1 (continued) Facilities Inventory Water Facilities M CAPACITY FACILITY (GPM) LOCATION Booster Pump Stations: Academy 1: 2 pumps 800 2004 Auburn Way S Academy 2: 2 pumps 1,500 2004 Auburn Way S Academy East: 6 pumps 2,820 5031 Auburn Way S Green Rivera 4 pumps 4,680 29621 Green River Rd SE lntertie: 7 pumps 4,836 30502 132nd Ave SE Lakeland Hills: 5 pumps 3,200 1118 57th Place SE Lea Hill: 3 pumps 2,100 10406 Lea Hill Rd SE Terrace View. 3 pumps 1,500 6134 Alexander Place SE Wilderness Game Farm Pk: 2 pumps 1,050 2401 Stuck River Rd CAPACITY Primary Valve FACILITY PSI - InletlOutlet LOCATION Pressure Reducing Stations: Serves Valley Pressure Zone: 25th Street SE #1110-10 NIC 25th St SE & K St SE B Street lntertie 88/55 3300 B St NW Green River Pump Station NIC 29621 Green River Rd SE Howard Road CCF #1011-10 82/65 Howard Rd Howard Road CCF By -Pass #1011-20 - Howard Rd (Bypass) Lea Hill Pump Station NIC 10406 Lea Hill Rd SE Riverwalk # 1111-10 115/80 Riverwalk Dr SE & Howard Rd Rivennalk # 1111-20 90/50 2204 27th St. SE Serves Lea Hill: 132nd Avenue lntertie 150/70 132nd Ave SE & 295th St Amber View North #711-10 150/65 105th P/ SE & 320th PI Amber View South #711-20 142160 106th P/ SE Near Reservoir 2 Carriage Square Upper #611-30 145/50 Lea Hill Rd & 107 PI Cobble Creek Lower #411-20 86/40 SE 304th Pl & SE 101st Place Cobble Creek Upper #411-10 94/55 104th Ave SE (South of 303rd Road) Lea Hill #412-10 84/45 SE 298th Place & 109 Ave SE Lea Hill #412-30 NIC 300 Block & 108th Ave SE Lea Hill #511-10 87/45 304th St. SE and 108th Ave SE Lea Hill #512-10 80/60 304th St. SE and 110th P/ SE Serves Academy: Academy Pump Station NIC 2004 Auburn Way S Auburn Way South #1011-30 130/80 2003 Auburn Way S Auburn Way South #1114-10 88/55 4500 Auburn Way S Lemon Tree - 5031 Auburn Way M • City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan TABLE W-1 (continued) Facilities Inventory Water Facilities CAPACITY FACILITY CAPACITY LOCATION Primary Valve FACILITY PSI - Inlet/Outlet LOCATION Serves Lakeland Hills Braunwood Satellite 1 0.03 MG 4501 47th St SE Lakeland Hills #1309-10 120/55 Mill Pond Dr @ Oravetz Rd Lakeland Hills #1310-10 130/55 Mill Pond Dr & Mill Pond Loop Lakeland Hills #1310-20 108/36 Kennedy Ave SE Lakeland Hills #1409-10 NIC Oravetz & Lake/and Hills Way Lakeland Hills #1409-20 120/56 47th SE & Lakeland Hills Way Lakeland Hills #1409-30 95/70 Lakeland Hills Way & 51 st St SE Lakeland Hills #1409-40 84/55 A411 Pond Dr & Lakeland Hills Way Lakeland Hills #1410-10 103/50 5018 Null Pond Dr Lakeland Hills #1410-20 NIC 51 st St. SE east of A4ll Pond Loop Lakeland Hills #1410-30 125/70 Nathan Ave & Highland Dr Lakeland Hills #1410-40 82/55 5203 Quincy Ave SE Lakeland Hills #1411-10 80/42 BennettAve & 56th Ave SE Lakeland Hills #1411-20 82/55 5310 BennettAve SE Lakeland Hills #1411-30 155/73 5100 Kersey Way Lakeland Hills #1411-40 82/52 2305 54th St SE Lakeland Hills #1411-50 85/44 5253 Wesley Ave SE Lakeland Hills #1412-10 82/55 5539 Franklin Ave SE Lakeland Hills #1509-10 174/60 Terrace View Lower (6170) Lakeland Hills #1509-20 160/73 Terrace ViewMdd/e (5960) Lakeland Hills #1509-30 138/47 Terrace View Upper (5810) Lakeland Hills #1509-40 230/90 Terrace View & Alexander Place SE Lakeland Hills #1510-10 NIC Lake/and Hills Way & Evergreen Way NIC - Normally Closed CAPACITY FACILITY (GPM) LOCATION Corrosion Control: Howard Road 5,550 2101 Howard Rd SE Fulmer Field 91375 1113 5th St NE Chlorination Stations: Coal Creek Springs Station 5,000 (gravity feed) 3401 Stuck River Rd West Hill Springs Station 625 (gravity feed) 1900 15th St NW Well 1 2,200 1136 M St SE Well 4 2,600 950 25th St SE Well 5A 180 5401 Olive Ave SE Well 5B 600 1100 63rd St SE BRAUNWOOD SATELLITE WATER SYSTEM FACILITY CAPACITY LOCATION Water Supoly: Braunwood Satellite 1 0.03 MGD 4501 47th St SE Storage Facilities: Braunwood Satellite 1 0.03 MG 4501 47th St SE Booster Pump Stations: Braunwood: 3 Pumps 2.0 GPM 4501 47th St SE TABLE W-2 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN PROJECTS AND FINANCING WATER DIVISION 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Page Capacity Projects: 93 Cascade Water Alliance Water Purchase Capital Costs 252,586 934,805 934,805 934,805 934,805 934,805 4,926,611 Funding Sources: Water Fund 252,586 934,805 934,805 934,805 934,805 934,805 4,926,611 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 94 Academy Pump Station #1 Pump Replacement Subtotal. Capacity Projects: Capital Costs 652,586 1,934,805 1,519,805 5,478,805 5,453,805 3,183,805 18,223,611 Page Non -Capacity Projects: 100 Green River PS Emergency Power Capital Costs 1,035,000 - - - - - 1,035,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund 135,000 - - - 135,000 Bond Proceeds 900,000 - - - 900,000 M Capital Costs - - 285,000 2,196,000 2,481,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund - 296,000 - 296,000 Bond Proceeds 285,000 1,900,000 - - 2,185,000 95 Coal Creek Springs Rehabilitation Capital Costs 50,000 - 1,000,000 2,553,000 789,000 4,392,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund 50,000 - - 1,000,000 2,553,000 789,000 4,392,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 96 Algona Well 1 Decommissioning Capital Costs 50,000 50,000 - 100,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund 50,000 - - - 50,000 - 100,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 97 Annual Distribution System Improvements Program Capital Costs 300,000 1,000,000 300,000 1,000,000 300,000 1,000,000 3,900,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund 300,000 1,000,000 300,000 1,000,000 300,000 1,000,000 3,900,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 98 Howard Road CCTF Expansion Capital Costs - - 310,000 977,000 - 1,287,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund - - - 310,000 977,000 - 1,287,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 99 Valley Service Area Reservoir No. 3 Capital Costs - 38,000 639,000 460,000 1,137,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund - 38,000 639,000 460,000 1,137,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - Subtotal. Capacity Projects: Capital Costs 652,586 1,934,805 1,519,805 5,478,805 5,453,805 3,183,805 18,223,611 Page Non -Capacity Projects: 100 Green River PS Emergency Power Capital Costs 1,035,000 - - - - - 1,035,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund 135,000 - - - 135,000 Bond Proceeds 900,000 - - - 900,000 M 109 Reservoir Repair and Replacements Capital Costs 50,000 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan - 880,000 Funding Sources: TABLE W-2 (continued) Water Fund 50,000 50,000 50,000 164,000 566,000 - 880,000 Bond Proceeds - 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Capital Costs 57,000 Non -Capacity Proiects: 116,000 Funding Sources: 101 Well Inspection and Redevelopment Program - 116,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - _ Capital Costs 150,000 - - 185,000 - - 335,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund 150,000 - - 185,000 - - 335,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 102 Water Repair & Replacements Capital Costs - 300,000 1,000,000 300,000 1,000,000 300,000 2,900,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund - 300,000 1,000,000 300,000 1,000,000 300,000 2,900,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - _ 103 Street Utility Improvements Capital Costs 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 6,000,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund 200,000 200,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 4,400,000 Bond Proceeds 800,000 800,000 - - - - 1,600,000 104 Reservoir Seismic Rehabilitation Capital Costs 86,000 - 241,000 - 262,000 - 589,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund 86,000 - 241,000 - 262,000 - 589,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 105 Lea Hili - 132nd Ave Distribution System Modifications Capital Costs - - 1219000 496,000 - - 617,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund - - 121,000 496,000 - 617,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - _ - 106 Reservoir Painting Capital Costs - - 1,507,000 - - 1,507,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund - - 1,507,000 - - - 1,507,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - _ - 107 Coal Creek Springs Transmission Main Replacement Capital Costs 2,096,500 - 90,000 410,000 - - 2,596,500 Funding Sources: Water Fund 1,285,100 - 90,000 410,000 - - 1,7859100 DWSRF Loan 811,400 - - - - - 811,400 Bond Proceeds - - - - 108 F Street SE Non -Motorized Improvements Capital Costs - 82,000 302,000 - - - 384,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund - 82,000 302,000 - - 384,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - 109 Reservoir Repair and Replacements Capital Costs 50,000 50,000 50,000 164,000 566,000 - 880,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund 50,000 50,000 50,000 164,000 566,000 - 880,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - 110 Pipeline Asset Management Study Capital Costs 57,000 59,000 - - - 116,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund 57,000 59,000 - - - - 116,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - _ ZE 118 Lea Hill AC Main Replacement City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan Capital Costs - 235,000 3,013,000 - TABLE W-2 (continued) 3,248,000 Funding Sources: 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Page Non -Capacity Projects: 119 Lea Hill Rd Segment 2 (105th PI SE to 112th Ave SE) 111 Auburn Regional Growth Center Access Improvements 137,000 Funding Sources: Capital Costs - 59,000 519,000 - - 578,000 - - Funding Sources: 120 Lea Hill Rd Segment 3 (112th Ave SE to 124th Ave SE) Capital Costs - - - Water Fund - 59,000 519,000 - - 578,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 112 M Street NE Widening Capital Costs - - - 37,000 156,000 - 193,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund - - - 37,000 156,000 - 193,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 113 Auburn Way South -Hemlock Street SE to Poplar Street SE Capital Costs - - 66,000 256,000 2,176,000 - 2,498,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund - 66,000 256,000 2,176,000 - 2,498,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - 114 Lea Hill Rd Segment 1 (R St NE to 105th PI SE) Capital Costs - - - 91,000 683,000 - 774,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund - - 91,000 683,000 - 774,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 115 Evaluation of Lea Hill Pump Station Capital Costs 98,000 - - - - 98,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund - 98,000 - - - - 98,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 116 Deduct Meter Replacement Program Capital Costs 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 - 1,000,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 - - 1,000,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 117 Comprehensive Water Plan Capital Costs - - 91,000 31,000 - 263,000 385,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund - - 91,000 31,000 - 263,000 385,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 118 Lea Hill AC Main Replacement Capital Costs - 235,000 3,013,000 - - 3,248,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund - 754,700 - - 754,700 Bond Proceeds - 235,000 2,258,300 - - - 2,493,300 119 Lea Hill Rd Segment 2 (105th PI SE to 112th Ave SE) Capital Costs - - - - - 137,000 137,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund - - - - 137,000 137,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 120 Lea Hill Rd Segment 3 (112th Ave SE to 124th Ave SE) Capital Costs - - - - 166,000 166,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund - - - - 166,000 166,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - 91 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan TABLE W-2 (continued) 92 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Page Non -Capacity Projects: 121 Reservoir 1 Seismic Control Valve Capital Costs 10,000 - - 10,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund 10,000 - - - - - 10,000 Grants - - - - - - - 122 Lead Service Line Replacement Capital Costs 150,000 150,000 180,000 185,000 190,000 195,000 1,050,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 300,000 Grants 100,000 100,000 130,000 135,000 140,000 145,000 750,000 123 Well 4 Pump Improvements Capital Costs - 47,000 225,000 - - - 272,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund - 47,000 225,000 - - - 272,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - _ 124 Water Resources Protection Program (Wellhead Protection) Capital Costs 25,300 26,100 26,800 27,700 28,500 29,400 163,800 Funding Sources: Water Fund 25,300 26,100 26,800 27,700 28,500 29,400 163,800 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - _ 125 Game Farm Park Pump Station/Distribution System Improvements Capital Costs - - - 62,000 293,000 - 355,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund - - 62,000 293,000 - 355,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - _ 126 Meter Vault Replacement Capital Costs 1,000,000 - - - - - 1,000,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund 1,000,000 - - - - - 1,000,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - _ 127 West Hill Springs Water Quality Improvements Capital Costs - - - - - 100,000 100,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund - - - - 100,000 100,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - Subtotal, Non -Capacity Projects: Capital Costs 5,909,800 2,297,100 8,221,800 4,013,700 6,354,500 2,190,400 28,987,300 SUMMARY: 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total CAPITAL COSTS Capacity Projects 652,586 1,934,805 1,519,805 5,478,805 5,453,805 3,183,805 18,223,611 Non -Capacity Projects 5,909,800 2,297,100 8,221,800 4,013,700 6,354,500 2,190,400 28,987,300 Total Costs 6,562,386 4,231,905 9,741,605 9,492,505 11,808,305 5,374,205 47,210,911 FUNDING SOURCES: Water Fund 3,950,986 3,096,905 7,068,305 7,457,505 11,668,305 5,229,205 38,471,211 DWSRF Loan 811,400 - - - - - 811,400 Grants 100,000 100,000 130,000 135,000 140,000 145,000 750,000 Bond Proceeds 1,700,000 1,035,000 2,543,300 1,900,000 - - 7,178,300 • Total Funding 6,562,386 4,231,905 9,741,605 9,492,505 11,808,305 5,374,205 47,210,911 92 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (460) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Cascade Water Alliance Water Purchase Project No: wabd06 Project Type: Capacity Project Manager: n/a Description: Financing to purchase water from adjacent purveyors to meet projected demand based on agreements with Cascade Water Alliance. Council approved the agreements for permanent and reserve wholesale supply in September 2013. A new agreement with Tacoma was executed in 2014. Budget reflects purchase of permanent supply- payments of $934,805 will continue from 2020 through 2029. Reserve supply will not be purchased and is not included. 2015 Comprehensive Water Plan CIP ID S-04 Progress Summary: Ongoing payments through 2029 Future Impact on Operating Budget: None Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue 252,586 252,586 252,586 934,805 757,758 Grants (Fed, State, Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds Other Total Funding Sources: 252,686 252,586 252,586 934,805 757,758 Capital Expenditures: Water Supply Purchase 252,586 252,586 252,586 934,805 757,758 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - - Total Expenditures: 252,586 252,586 252,586 934,805 757,758 Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue 934,805 934,805 934,805 934,805 4,926,611 Grants (Fed, State, Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds Other - - - Total Funding Sources: 934,805 934,805 934,805 934,805 4,926,611 Capital Expenditures: Water Supply Purchase 934,805 934,805 934,805 934,805 4,926,611 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - - Total Expenditures: 934,805 934,805 934,805 934,805 4,926,611 93 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (460) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Academy Pump Station #1 Pump Replacement Project No: wabd15 Project Type: Capacity Project Manager: TBD Description: The pump station is reaching the end of its useful life. The project will also increase the pump station capacity to meet peak demands and fire flow requirements, and provide backup power generation. 2015 Comprehensive Plan CIP ID PS -07 5/2018 - Cost of project escalated an average of 3% per year from 2015 Comp Plan to year of construction. Progress Summary: Planned Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant impact. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue - _ Grants (Fed, State, Local) Bond Proceeds Other Total Funding Sources: Capital Expenditures: Design Right of Way Construction Total Expenditures: - Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue 296,000 296,000 Grants (Fed, State, Local) - - _ Bond Proceeds 285,000 1,900,000 2,185, 000 Other - Total Funding Sources: 285,000 2,196,000 - 2,481,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 285,000 - 285,000 Right of Way - - _ _ Construction 2,196,000 2,196,000 Total Expenditures: 285,000 2,196,000 2,481,000 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (460) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Coal Creek Springs Rehabilitation Project No: wabd07 Project Type: Capacity Project Manager. TBD Description: Rehabilitation of the Coal Creek Springs middle collector will improve capacity of the springs resulting in greater utilization of the water right. 2015 Comprehensive Plan CIP ID S-09 5/2018 - Cost of project escalated an average of 3% per year from 2015 Comp Plan to year of construction. Progress Summary: Planned Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant impact. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue - 50,000 50,000 Grants (Fed, State, Local) - - PWTFL Bond Proceeds - - Total Funding Sources: 50,000 50,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 50,000 50,000 Right of Way - - Construction - - Total Expenditures: 50,000 - 50,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue 1,000,000 2,553,000 789,000 4,392,000 Grants (Fed, State, Local) - - - - PWTFL - Bond Proceeds - - Total Funding Sources: 1,000,000 2,553,000 789,000 4,392,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - 50,000 Right of Way - - - - Construction 1,000,000 2,553,000 789,000 4,342,000 Total Expenditures: 1,000,000 2,553,000 789,000 4,392,000 95 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (460) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Algona Well 1 Decommissioning Project No: wabd08 Project Type: Capacity Project Manager: TBD Description: The Algona well has been temporarily abandoned and all related facilities removed. This project will have the well properly decommissioned by a State of Washington -licensed well driller, once the water rights have been transferred to an alternate source. 2015 Comprehensive Plan CIP ID S-14 Progress Summary: Planned Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant impact. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue - 50,000 50,000 Grants (Fed, State, Local) - - Bond Proceeds Other - Total Funding Sources: 50,000 50,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 50,000 50,000 Right of Way - _ Construction - _ - Total Expenditures: 50,000 - 50,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue - 50,000 100,000 Grants (Fed, State, Local) - _ Bond Proceeds - Other _ Total Funding Sources: 50,000 100,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 50,000 100,000 Right of Way - _ Construction - _ Total Expenditures: - 50,000 100,000 0, City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (460) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Annual Distribution System Improvements Program Project No: wabd09 Project Type: Capacity Project Manager: TBD Description: Program to fund capacity -related improvements to the water distribution system to address low pressures during peak hour demand and fire flows. Design is expected to be completed in one year, followed by construction of those improvements in the subsequent year. 2015 Comprehensive Plan CIP ID D-02 Progress Summary: Planned Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant impact. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue - 1,000,000 300,000 1,000,000 1,300,000 Grants (Fed, State, Local) - - - - Bond Proceeds - Other - - - Total Funding Sources: 1,000,000 300,000 1,000,000 1,300,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 300,000 - 300,000 Right of Way - - - - Construction 1,000,000 - 1,000,000 1,000,000 Total Expenditures: - 1,000,000 300,000 1,000,000 1,300,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue 300,000 1,000,000 300,000 1,000,000 3,900,000 Grants (Fed, State, Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: 300,000 1,000,000 300,000 1,000,000 3,900,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 300,000 - 300,000 - 900,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - 1,000,000 - 1,000,000 3,000,000 Total Expenditures: 300,000 1,000,000 300,000 1,000,000 3,900,000 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (460) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Howard Road CCTF Expansion Project No: cpxxxx Project Type: Capacity Project Manager: TBD Description: With the completion of the Coal Creek Springs Improvements, the Howard Road Corrosion Control Treatment Facility will exceed its current capacity. This project will add one aeration tower and one blower pump to match the existing towers and blowers. 2015 Comprehensive Plan CIP ID S-18 5/2018 - Cost of project escalated an average of 3% per year from 2015 Comp Plan to year of construction. Progress Summary: Planning, design in conjunction with Coal Creek Springs improvements, construction complete just before CCS improvements Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost is estimated to be approximately $600. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue - Grants (Fed, State, Local) Bond Proceeds Other Total Funding Sources: Capital Expenditures: Design Right of Way Construction Total Expenditures: _ Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue 310,000 977,000 1,287,000 Grants (Fed, State, Local) - - _ Bond Proceeds Other Total Funding Sources: - 310,000 977,000 1,287,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 310,000 - 310,000 Right of Way - - - _ Construction - - 977,000 - 977,000 Total Expenditures: - 310,000 977,000 - 1,287,000 •• City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (460) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Valley Service Area Reservoir No. 3 Project No: cpXXXX Project Type: Capacity Project Manager: TBD Description: A new 1 million gallon storage facility is needed to meet future storage requirements in the Valley Service Area. 2015 Comprehensive Plan CIP ID R-04 5/2018 - Cost of project escalated an average of 3% per year from 2015 Comp Plan to year of construction. Progress Summary: Reservoir siting study will be conducted in 2022, with property acquisition in 2023. Design of the project will be completed in 2024, with construction in 2025-2026. Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant Impact Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue - - Grants (Fed, State, Local) Bond Proceeds Other Total Funding Sources: - - Capital Expenditures: Design Right of Way Construction Total Expenditures: - Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue 38,000 639,000 460,000 1,137,000 Grants (Fed, State, Local) - - - - Bond Proceeds Other Total Funding Sources: 38,000 639,000 460,000 1,137,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 38,000 639,000 460,000 1,137,000 Right of Way - - - - Construction Total Expenditures: 38,000 639,000 460,000 1,137,000 91 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (460) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Green River Pump Station Emergency Power Project No: cp1802 Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager. TBD Description: Construction of facility improvements to house an emergency generator and associated electrical equipment. 2015 Comprehensive Plan CIP ID PS -03 5/2018 - Cost of project escalated an average of 3% per year from 2015 Comp Plan to year of construction. Progress Summary: Design will be completed in 2018 with construction completed in 2019. Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost is estimated to be approximately $600. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue - 190,000 135,000 325,000 Grants (Fed, State, Local) - - _ _ Bond Proceeds 900,000 900,000 Other - - _ Total Funding Sources: 190,000 1,035,000 1,225,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 190,000 130,000 320,000 Right of Way - - _ Construction 905.000 905.000 Total Expenditures: 190,000 1,035,000 - 1,225,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue - 135,000 Grants (Fed, State, Local) _ Bond Proceeds 900,000 Other - Total Funding Sources: - - 1,035,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 130,000 Right of Way - _ Construction 905,000 Total Expenditures: - - 1,035,000 100 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (460) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Well Inspection and Redevelopment Program Project No: wabd11 Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager: TBD Description: Program for inspection and redevelopment of supply wells and springs necessaryto ensure production at maximum capacity for efficient utilization. 2015 Comprehensive Plan CIP ID S-07 Progress Summary: Planned Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant impact. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue - 150,000 150,000 Grants (Fed, State, Local) - - Bond Proceeds Other - Total Funding Sources: - 150,000 - 150,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - Right of Way - - Construction 150,000 150,000 Total Expenditures: - 150,000 150,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue 185,000 - 335,000 Grants (Fed, State, Local) - - Bond Proceeds - - Other - - Total Funding Sources: 185,000 335,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - Right of Way - - Construction 185,000 335,000 Total Expenditures: - 185,000 - 335,000 101 • City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (460) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Water Repair & Replacements Project No: wabd02 Project Type: Non -Capacity (R&R) Project Manager: Various Description: Program to fund distribution system repair and replacement projects required for meeting peak demands and reducing system losses. Projects will be coordinated with the Local Street Program and other utility projects. 2015 Comprehensive Plan CIP ID D-09 Progress Summary: Planned Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant impact. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue - 300,000 300,000 600,000 Grants (Fed, State, Local) - _ _ Bond Proceeds Other - Total Funding Sources: - 300,000 300,000 600,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 300,000 300,000 600,000 Right of Way - _ _ Construction Total Expenditures: - 300,000 300,000 300,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue 1,000,000 300,000 1,000,000 300,000 2,900,000 Grants (Fed, State, Local) - - - _ _ Bond Proceeds Other _ Total Funding Sources: 1,000,000 300,000 1,000,000 300,000 2,900,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 300,000 - 300,000 900,000 Right of Way - - - _ _ Construction 1,000,000 - 1,000,000 2,000,000 Total Expenditures: 1,000,000 300,000 1,000,000 300,000 2,900,000 102 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (460) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Street Utility Improvements Project No: wabd01 Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager. TBD Description: Water main improvements in coordination with the Local Street Preservation Program and general arterial street improvements. 2015 Comprehensive Plan CIP ID D-06 Progress Summary: Planned Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant impact Activity: (Previous 2 Years) 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue 1,212,589 500,000 200,000 200,000 1,912,589 Grants (Fed, State, Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - 800,000 800,000 800,000 Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: 1,212,589 500,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 2,712,589 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction 1,212,589 500,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 2,712,589 Total Expenditures: 1,212,589 500,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 2,712,589 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 4,400,000 Grants (Fed, State, Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - 1,600,000 Other - Total Funding Sources: 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 6,000,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 6,000,000 Total Expenditures: 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 6,000,000 103 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (460) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Reservoir Seismic Rehabilitation Project No: wabd16 Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager: TBD Description: Install seismic control valves on outlet piping of Reservoirs 2, 4A, 413, 8A, and 8B. This project will include a study (2019) to identify work to be completed at each site, and to further define project costs at each site. A grant was received for Reservoir 1 and a separate project was established, removing $25,000 from these costs. Costs for the remaining reservoirs will be updated based on the Reservoir 1 project. 2015 Comprehensive Plan CIP ID R-06 5/2018 - Cost of project escalated an average of 3% per year from 2015 Comp Plan to year of construction. Progress Summary: Planned Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant impact Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue - 86,000 86,000 Grants -Unsecured Federal - _ PWTFL Bond Proceeds - _ Total Funding Sources: 86,000 86,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 86,000 - 86,000 Right of Way - _ Construction Total Expenditures: - 86,000 86,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue 241,000 262,000 589,000 Grants -Unsecured Federal - - _ PWTFL Bond Proceeds - - _ Total Funding Sources: 241,000 262,000 - 589,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 61,000 65,000 212,000 Right of Way - - _ Construction 180,000 197,000 377,000 Total Expenditures: 241,000 - 262,000 - 589,000 104 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (460) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Lea Hill - 132nd Ave Distribution System Modifications Project No: wabd05 Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager: TBD Description: Project will add pressure reducing valves and control valves at Lea Hill reservoirs and pump stations, and system valves to provide efficient operation of the 132nd Ave Tacoma Intertie. Project will also include additional piping within Intertie/Lea Hill Booster pump station building to utilize existing Intertie pumps for Boosted zone. 2015 Comprehensive Water Plan CIP ID D-06, and PS -04. 5/2018 - Cost of project escalated an average of 3% per year from 2015 Comp Plan to year of construction. Progress Summary: Planned Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant impact Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue - Grants (Fed, State, Local) PWTFL Bond Proceeds Total Funding Sources: - Capital Expenditures: Design Right of Way - - Construction - - Total Expenditures: - Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue 121,000 496,000 617,000 Grants (Fed, State, Local) - - - PWTFL Bond Proceeds - - - Total Funding Sources: 121,000 496,000 617,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 121,000 - 121,000 Right of Way - - - Construction - 496,000 496,000 Total Expenditures: 121,000 496,000 617,000 105 • • :7 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (460) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Reservoir Painting Project No: cpXXXX Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager: TBD Description: Maintenance of reservoirs requires periodic painting to protect the steel and increase the useful life of the reservoir. 2015 Comprehensive Plan CIP ID R-05 5/2018 - Cost of project escalated an average of 3% per year from 2015 Comp Plan to year of construction. Progress Summary: Planned Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant impact Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue - Grants (Fed, State, Local) - PWTFL Bond Proceeds Total Funding Sources: Capital Expenditures: Design Right of Way Construction Total Expenditures: _ Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue 1,507,000 1,507,000 Grants (Fed, State, Local) - _ PWTFL Bond Proceeds - _ Total Funding Sources: 1,507,000 - - 1,507,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 180,000 180,000 Right of Way - _ Construction 1,327,000 1,327,000 Total Expenditures: 1,507,000 - - 1,507,000 Ili City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (460) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Coal Creek Springs Transmission Main Replacement Project No: cp1603 Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager: Wickstrom Description: The facilities evaluation study conducted in 2013-2014 found a suspected leak on the 24" steel transmission main crossing the White River. The approximate location was determined, but further investigation is required to assess the degree and magnitude of the potential leak. This project will provide for full replacement of the river crossing via a utility bridge. This option eliminates the deep blow -off and allows more flexibility for expansion. A future project would rehabilitate the existing crossing for redundancy. 2015 Comprehensive Plan CIP ID D-11 Progress Summary: Design is anticipated to be completed in 2018 with construction completed in 2019. Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant impact Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue 64,921 1,285,100 1,350,021 Grants (Fed, State, Local) - - - - DWSRF Loan 78,590 450,010 811,400 1,340,000 Bond Proceeds - - Total Funding Sources: 143,511 450,010 2,096,500 - 2,690,021 Capital Expenditures: Design 143,511 450,010 - 593,521 Right of Way - - - - Construction - 2,096,500 2,096,500 Total Expenditures: 143,511 450,010 2,096,500 - 2,690,021 Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue 90,000 410,000 - 1,785,100 Grants (Fed, State, Local) - - - DWSRF Loan - 811,400 Bond Proceeds - - Total Funding Sources: 90,000 410,000 2,596,500 Capital Expenditures: Design 90,000 - - 90,000 Right of Way - - - Construction - 410,000 - 2,506,500 Total Expenditures: 90,000 410,000 - - 2,596,500 107 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (460) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: F Street SE Non -Motorized Improvements Project No: cp1416 Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager: Wickstrom Description: Water main improvements constructed in conjunction with F Street SE street improvements. 2015 Comprehensive Water Plan CIP ID D-06 5/2018 - Cost of project escalated an average of 3% per year from 2015 Comp Plan to year of construction. Progress Summary: Design will be completed in 2020 with construction completed in 2021 Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant impact Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue 10,880 19,120 82,000 30,000 Grants (Fed, State, Local) - - - _ PWTFL Bond Proceeds - - _ Total Funding Sources: 10,880 19,120 82,000 30,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 10,880 19,120 82,000 30,000 Right of Way - - - _ Construction Total Expenditures: 10,880 19,120 82,000 30,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue 302,000 384,000 Grants (Fed, State, Local) - _ PWTFL - Bond Proceeds _ Total Funding Sources: 302,000 - 384,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 82,000 Right of Way - _ Construction 302,000 302,000 Total Expenditures: 302,000 - - 384,000 108 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (460) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Reservoir Repair and Replacements Project No: wabd12 Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager. TBD Description: General reservoir maintenance and minor improvements. 2015 Comprehensive Plan CIP ID R-03 5/2018 - Cost of project escalated an average of 3% per year from 2015 Comp Plan to year of construction. Progress Summary: Planned Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant impact. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue - 100,000 50,000 50,000 150,000 Grants (Fed, State, Local) - - - - Bond Proceeds Other Total Funding Sources: - 100,000 50,000 50,000 150,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - Right of Way - - - - Construction 100,000 50,000 50,000 150,000 Total Expenditures: 100,000 50,000 50,000 150,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue 50,000 164,000 566,000 880,000 Grants (Fed, State, Local) - - - - Bond Proceeds - Other - - - - Total Funding Sources: 50,000 164,000 566,000 - 880,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 164,000 - 164,000 Right of Way - - - - Construction 50,000 566,000 716,000 Total Expenditures: 50,000 164,000 566,000 - 880,000 109 • City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (460) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Pipeline Asset Management Study Project No: wabd17 Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager: TBD Description: Pipeline asset management studywill identifythe remaining useful life of water mains in the system, prioritize pipe replacements, and develop replacement costs to phase in the replacements. 2015 Comprehensive Plan CIP ID D-10 5/2018 - Cost of project escalated an average of 3% per year from 2015 Comp Plan to year of construction. Progress Summary: Planned Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant impact. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue - 57,000 59,000 57,000 Grants (Fed, State, Local) - _ _ Bond Proceeds Other - - _ Total Funding Sources: 57,000 59,000 57,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 57,000 59,000 57,000 Right of Way - - _ Construction _ Total Expenditures: 57,000 59,000 57,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue 116,000 Grants (Fed, State, Local) _ Bond Proceeds _ Other _ Total Funding Sources: - 116,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 116,000 Right of Way - _ Construction - _ Total Expenditures: - - - 116,000 110 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (460) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Auburn Regional Growth Center Access Improvements Project No: wabd14 Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager: TBD Description: Water main improvements constructed in conjunction with Urban Center Access improvements to address water system needs on A Street NW. 2015 Comprehensive Water Plan CIP ID D-06 5/2018 - Cost of project escalated an average of 3% per year from 2015 Comp Plan to year of construction. Progress Summary: Design will be completed in 2021 with construction completed in 2022. Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant Impact Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue - Grants (Fed, State, Local) Bond Proceeds Other Total Funding Sources: - Capital Expenditures: Design Right of Way Construction Total Expenditures: - - - Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue 59,000 519,000 - 578,000 Grants (Fed, State, Local) - - - Bond Proceeds Other Total Funding Sources: 59,000 519,000 578,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 59,000 - 59,000 Right of Way - - - Construction - 519,000 519,000 Total Expenditures: 59,000 519,000 - 578,000 111 • City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (460) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: M Street NE Widening Project No: wabd13 Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager: TBD Description: Water main improvements constructed in conjunction with M ST NE widening (E Main to 4th St NE). 2015 Comprehensive Water Plan CIP ID D-06 5/2018 - Cost of project escalated an average of 3% per year from 2015 Comp Plan to year of construction. Progress Summary: Design will be completed in 2021 with construction completed in 2022. Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant Impact Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue - Grants (Fed, State, Local) _ Bond Proceeds Other Total Funding Sources: Capital Expenditures: Design Right of Way Construction Total Expenditures: _ Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue 37,000 156,000 193,000 Grants (Fed, State, Local) - - _ Bond Proceeds Other _ Total Funding Sources: - 37,000 156,000 193,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 37,000 - 37,000 Right of Way - - _ Construction 156,000 156,000 Total Expenditures: 37,000 156,000 193,000 112 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (460) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Auburn Way South - Hemlock Street SE to Poplar Street SE Project No: cpxxxx Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager: TBD Description: Water main improvements constructed in conjunction with Auburn Way South street improvements. 2015 Comprehensive Water Plan CIP ID D-06 5/2018 - Cost of project escalated an average of 3% per year from 2015 Comp Plan to year of construction. Progress Summary: Planned Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant Impact Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue - Grants (Fed, State, Local) Bond Proceeds Other Total Funding Sources: Capital Expenditures: Design Right of Way Construction Total Expenditures: - Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue 66,000 256,000 2,176,000 2,498,000 Grants (Fed, State, Local) - - - - Bond Proceeds Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: 66,000 256,000 2,176,000 - 2,498,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 66,000 - - 66,000 Right of Way - 256,000 - - 256,000 Construction - 2,176,000 2,176,000 Total Expenditures: 66,000 256,000 2,176,000 2,498,000 113 • City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (460) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Lea Hill Rd Segment 1 (R St NE to 105th PI SE) Project No: cpxxxx Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager. TBD Description: Water main improvements constructed in conjunction with Lea Hill Road corridor improvements, Segment 1 (R St NE to 105th PI SE), TIP #64. 2015 Comprehensive Water Plan CIP ID D-06 5/2018 - Cost of project escalated an average of 3% per year from 2015 Comp Plan to year of construction. Progress Summary: Planned Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant Impact Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue - Grants (Fed, State, Local) Bond Proceeds Other Total Funding Sources: _ Capital Expenditures: Design Right of Way Construction Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Tota I 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue 91,000 683,000 774,000 Grants (Fed, State, Local) - _ _ Bond Proceeds _ Other - Total Funding Sources: - 91,000 683,000 774,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 91,000 - 91,000 Right of Way - - _ Construction - 683,000 683,000 Total Expenditures: 91,000 683,000 - 774,000 114 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (460) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Evaluation of Lea Hill Pump Station Project No: wabd18 Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager: TBD Description: Lea Hill pump station will be evaluated to determine if it should be decommissioned or reconstructed to provide redundant pumped supply to the Lea Hill area. If the Green River Pump Station is out of service for maintenance, a redundant pump station would avoid the need to purchase more expensive regional surface water through the 132nd Intertie. 2015 Comprehensive Water Plan CIP ID PS -10 5/2018 - Cost of project escalated an average of 3% per year from 2015 Comp Plan to year of construction. Progress Summary: Design and Construction will be complete in 2020 Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant Impact Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue - 98,000 Grants (Fed, State, Local) - Bond Proceeds Other - Total Funding Sources: - 98,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design 18,000 Right of Way - Construction 80,000 Total Expenditures: 98,000 - Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue 98,000 Grants (Fed, State, Local) - - Bond Proceeds - - - Other - Total Funding Sources: - - 98,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 18,000 Right of Way - Construction 80, 000 Total Expenditures: - - 98,000 115 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (460) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Deduct Meter Replacement Program Project No: wabd19 Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager. TBD Description: Approximately 200 non -single family irrigation meters within the water system are connected to the customer's supply line on the customer side of the domestic meter, instead of being directly connected to the water main. Since sewer charges for non -single family customers are based on the domestic water meter reading and irrigation water does not use the sewer system, customers ask to have the irrigation use deducted from their overall domestic use for sewer billing purposes. Thus, irrigation meters installed after the domestic meter are referred to as "deduct meters". To improve the billing process, increase staff efficiencies and eliminate manual calculations in the billing process this project will re -install the irrigation meters to directly connect to the main. Deduct meters will be converted to irrigation meters to more equitably bill water usage. Progress Summary: Planned Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant impact. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue - 250,000 250,000 250,000 Grants (Fed, State, Local) - _ _ Bond Proceeds _ Other Total Funding Sources: 250,000 250,000 250,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - _ Right of Way - _ - Construction 250,000 250,000 250,000 Total Expenditures: - - 250,000 250,000 250,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue 250,000 250,000 1,000,000 Grants (Fed, State, Local) - - _ Bond Proceeds Other - _ Total Funding Sources: 250,000 250,000 - 1,000,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - Right of Way - - - _ Construction 250,000 250,000 1,000,000 Total Expenditures: 250,000 250,000 1,000,000 116 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (460) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Comprehensive Water Plan Project No: cpxxxx Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager: Fenhaus Description: Update the Comprehensive Water Plan as required by Washington Department of Health by May 2022. Progress Summary: Planned Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant impact. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue - Grants (Fed, State, Local) Bond Proceeds - Other Total Funding Sources: Capital Expenditures: Design Right of Way Construction - Total Expenditures: - Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources Unrestricted Water Revenue 91,000 31,000 263,000 385,000 Grants (Fed, State, Local) - - - - Bond Proceeds Other - - - - Total Funding Sources: 91,000 31,000 - 263,000 385,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 91,000 31,000 - 263,000 385,000 Right of Way - - - - Construction - - - - - Total Expenditures: 91,000 31,000 - 263,000 385,000 117 • City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (460) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Lea Hill AC Main Replacement Project No: wabd20 Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager: TBD Description: Distribution system repair and replacement project required for meeting peak demands and reducing system losses. Project will replace asbestos cement (AC) water main in the Lea Hill service area. 5/2018 - Cost of project escalated an average of 3% per year from 2015 Comp Plan to year of construction. Progress Summary: Planned. Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant Impact Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue Grants (Fed, State, Local) - - _ Bond Proceeds 235,000 Other - Total Funding Sources: - - 235,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 235,000 Right of Way - Construction Total Expenditures: - 235,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue 754,700 754,700 Grants (Fed, State, Local) - _ Bond Proceeds 2,258,300 2,493, 300 Other _ Total Funding Sources: 3,013,000 - 3,248,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 235,000 Right of Way - _ Construction 3,013,000 3,013,000 Total Expenditures: 3,013,000 - - 3,248,000 118 City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (460) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Lea Hill Rd Segment (105th PI SE to 112th Ave SE) Project No: cpxxxx Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager: TBD Description: Water main improvements constructed in conjunction with Lea Hill Road corridor improvements, Segment 2 (105th PI SE to 112th Ave SE), TIP # R-21. 2015 Comprehensive Water Plan CIP ID D-06 512018 - Cost of project escalated an average of 3% per year from 2015 Comp Plan to year of construction. Progress Summary: Planned Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant Impact Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue - Grants (Fed, State, Local) Bond Proceeds Other Total Funding Sources: - - - Capital Expenditures: Design Right of Way Construction Total Expenditures: - - - Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue 137,000 137,000 Grants (Fed, State, Local) - - Bond Proceeds - - Other - - - Total Funding Sources: - - 137,000 137,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 137,000 137,000 Right of Way - - Construction - - Total Expenditures: - 137,000 137,000 119 • City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (460) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Lea Hill Rd Segment 3 (112th Ave SE to 124th Ave SE ) Project No: cpxxxx Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager: TBD Description: Water main improvements constructed in conjunction with Lea Hill Road corridor improvements, Segment 1 (112th Ave SE to 124th Ave SE), TIP # R-22. 2015 Comprehensive Water Plan CIP ID D-06 5/2018 - Cost of project escalated an average of 3% per year from 2015 Comp Plan to year of construction. Progress Summary: Planned Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant Impact Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue - Grants (Fed, State, Local) Bond Proceeds - Other Total Funding Sources: Capital Expenditures: Design - Right of Way Construction Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue 166,000 166,000 Grants (Fed, State, Local) - - Bond Proceeds - Other - - - Total Funding Sources: 166,000 166,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 166,000 166,000 Right of Way - - Construction Total Expenditures: 166,000 166,000 120 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (460) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Reservoir 1 Seismic Control Valve Project No: cp1709 Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager. Thompson Description: This project will install a seismic control valve at the City's largest reservoir, Reservoir 1, to prevent water from escaping from the reservoir in case of an earthquake. 2015 comprehensive Plan CIP ID R-06 Progress Summary: Design will be completed in 2017, and construction will be completed in 2019. Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant Impact Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue 3,200 321,800 10,000 335,000 Grants (Fed, State, Local) 22,400 152,600 - 175,000 Bond Proceeds - - - Other Total Funding Sources: 25,600 474,400 10,000 510,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 25,600 - - 25,600 Right of Way - - - - Construction 474,400 10,000 - 484,400 Total Expenditures: 25,600 474,400 10,000 510,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue 10,000 Grants (Fed, State, Local) - Bond Proceeds - - - Other Total Funding Sources: - - - 10,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - Right of Way - Construction - 10,000 Total Expenditures: - - - 10,000 121 is City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (460) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Lead Service Line Replacement Project No: wabd21 Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager: TBD Description: The City has approximately 1,000 service lines with a lead goose -neck connection at the main. State and Federal agencies are planning a 15 year period for utilities to remove all lead service lines. Progress Summary: Planned Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant Impact Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue - 50,000 50,000 50,000 Grants (Fed, State, Local) 100,000 100,000 100,000 Bond Proceeds - - - Other - Total Funding Sources: 150,000 150,000 150,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - Right of Way - - - Construction 150,000 150,000 150,000 Total Expenditures: 150,000 150,000 150,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 300,000 Grants (Fed, State, Local) 130,000 135,000 140,000 145,000 750,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - Total Funding Sources: 180,000 185,000 190,000 195,000 1,050,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction 180,000 185,000 190,000 195,000 1,050,000 Total Expenditures: 180,000 185,000 190,000 195,000 1,050,000 122 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (460) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Well 4 Pump Improvements Project No: wabd22 Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager: TBD Description: This project was identified in the Facilities Evaluation Study, and will include an electrical retrofit and replacement of aging pump check valve. 2015 Comprehensive Plan CIP ID S-22 5/2018 - Cost of project escalated an average of 3% per year from 2015 Comp Plan to year of construction. Progress Summary: Design is planned for 2020 with construction in 2021. Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant Impact Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue - 47,000 - Grants (Fed; State, Local) - Bond Proceeds - - Other - - Total Funding Sources: - - 47,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design 47,000 Right of Way - Construction - Total Expenditures: - 47,000 - Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue 225,000 272,000 Grants (Fed, State, Local) - - Bond Proceeds Other - - Total Funding Sources: 225,000 - - - 272,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 47,000 Right of Way - - Construction 225,000 - 225,000 Total Expenditures: 225,000 - 272,000 123 • • .7 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (460) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Water Resources Protection Program (Wellhead Protection) Project No: wabd23 Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager: TBD Description: Annual funding for implementing strategies identified in the Wellhead Protection Plan. Although some tasks will be performed as part of the water operations budget, other tasks will require consultants with expertise in review and investigation of contaminant sites and other environmental databases, development of spill response plans, and leaking underground storage tanks. 2015 comprehensive Plan CIP ID S-08 5/2018 - Cost of project escalated at approximately 3% per year Progress Summary: Planned Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant Impact Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue - 25,300 26,100 25,300 Grants (Fed, State, Local) - - - Bond Proceeds Other - - - Total Funding Sources: 25,300 26,100 25,300 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - Right of Way - - _ Construction 25,300 26,100 25,300 Total Expenditures: - 25,300 26,100 25,300 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019.2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue 26,800 27,700 28,500 29,400 163,800 Grants (Fed, State, Local) - - - _ - Bond Proceeds Other - - Total Funding Sources: 26,800 27,700 28,500 29,400 163,800 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - _ _ Construction 26,800 27,700 28,500 29,400 163,800 Total Expenditures: 26,800 27,700 28,500 29,400 163,800 124 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (460) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Game Farm Park Pump Station/Distribution System Improvements Project No: cpxxxx Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager: TBD Description: The pumps at Game Farm Wilderness Park are in need of replacement, and the building need repairs. This project was identified in the 2015 Comprehensive Plan as occurring in the short to mid term, or by 2025. Installation of new water main crossing the White River to eliminate the pump station was identified as being completed by 2035. The Coal Creek Springs Transmission Main project will add a pipe crossing the White River to be used for installation of a water main for Game Farm Wilderness Park. Completion of the river crossing will enable the water main project to be completed sooner and eliminate the need for pump station improvements. This project will install new main within the Game Farm Park from the existing 8" near the amphitheater to the river crossing, and from the river crossing to the existing pump station in the Wilderness area. The project will also decommission the existing pump station. 2015 Comprehensive Plan CIP ID PS -09, D16 5/2018 - Cost of project escalated an average of 3% per year from 2015 Comp Plan to year of construction. Progress Summary: Planned Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant Impact Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue - Grants (Fed, State, Local) - Bond Proceeds - Other - Total Funding Sources: - - - - - Capital Expenditures: Design Right of Way Construction Total Expenditures: - Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue 62,000 293,000 355,000 Grants (Fed, State, Local) - - - - Bond Proceeds Other Total Funding Sources: 62,000 293,000 355,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 62,000 - 62,000 Right of Way - - - Construction 293,000 293,000 Total Expenditures: 62,000 293,000 355,000 125 CJ City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (460) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Meter Vault Replacement Project No: cp1807 Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager: TBD Description: Large meter vaults at Washington Elementary School, Cascade Middle School (2 vaults), Forest Ridge Townhomes, Green River Estates, and Neely Station have lids that are unsafe and vaults that are in need of repair. Project will replace the vaults and upgrade piping as needed. Project was not identified in 2015 Comprehensive Water Plan Progress Summary: Design and construction is anticipated to be complete in 2019. Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant Impact Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue - 100,000 1,000,000 1,100, 000 Grants (Fed, State, Local) - - _ Bond Proceeds Other - - Total Funding Sources: 100,000 1,000,000 1,100,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 100,000 - 100,000 Right of Way - - _ Construction 1,000,000 1,000,000 Total Expenditures: 100,000 1,000,000 1,100,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue 1,000,000 Grants (Fed, State, Local) _ Bond Proceeds Other _ Total Funding Sources: 1,000,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - Right of Way _ Construction 1,000,000 Total Expenditures: - 1,000,000 126 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (460) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: West Hill Springs Water Quality Improvements Project No: cpxxx Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager: TBD Description: The aging chlorination building at West Hill Springs will be replaced and a new liquid chlorination system will be installed. 2015 Comprehensive Plan CIP ID S-12 5/2018 - Cost of project escalated an average of 3% per year from 2015 Comp Plan to year of construction. Progress Summary: Design is anticipated to begin in 2024, with construction in 2025. Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant Impact Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue - Grants (Fed, State, Local) Bond Proceeds Other Total Funding Sources: - - - Capital Expenditures: Design Right of Way Construction Total Expenditures: - - Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue 100,000 100,000 Grants (Fed, State, Local) - - Bond Proceeds Other - - Total Funding Sources: - - 100,000 100,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 100,000 100,000 Right of Way - - Construction - - - Total Expenditures: - 100,000 100,000 127 TABLE W-3 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan Impact on Future Operating Budgets WATER Project: 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Total 1 Howard Road Corrosion Control Treatment Facility $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 600 $ 600 $ 1,200 EVansion 2 Green River Pump Station 600 600 600 600 600 600 3,600 Emergency Power Total $ 600 $ 600 $ 600 $ 600 $ 1,200 $ 1,200 $ 4,800 128 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan SANITARY SEWER Current Facilities The City's sanitary sewer service area encompasses approximately 28 -square miles that are primarily within the City limits, but includes a total of approximately '/2 square mile within Auburn's Proposed Annexation area (PAA). The City contracts with King County for sewage treatment and disposal. The City's Sanitary Sewer Utility is responsible for the collection and transmission of wastewater to the King County trunk lines. The City's current inventory of approximately 200 miles of sewer lines serves the City's sewer service area. Table S-1, Facilities Inventory, lists the sewage collection and transmission facilities along with their capacities and locations. Level of Service (LOS) The Comprehensive Sewerage Plan for the Sewerage Collection System summarizes the level of service (LOS), or design criteria, for the City's sewage collection system. These standards represent the average quantities of sewage that the system is designated to accommodate for residential, industrial, and commercial development. Capital Facilities Projects and Financing Investments in the City's sewage collection facilities include primarily non -capacity improvements and replacement projects. Anticipated replacements include replacement of aging sewer pipes and manholes in conjunction with arterial and local street improvements, and replacement of pipe identified through the sewer program's condition assessment process. The City will also undertake significant system assessment efforts including inspections and evaluations of siphons, pump stations, large diameter pipe, and specific areas of the City that shows high levels of inflow and infiltration. The City of Auburn's sewer system anticipates costs for thirteen non -capacity projects totaling $13,677,000. Table S-2 shows the proposed financing plan followed by individual worksheets showing the project detail. Impact on Future Operating Budgets There are no operating budget impacts forecasted for sanitary sewer facilities during the six years 2020 — 2025. 129 • TABLE S-1 City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan Facilities Inventory Sewage Facilities FACILITY CAPACITY (MGD) LOCATION Pump Stations: 8th Street 0.26 900 8th Street NE 22nd Street 0.79 1950 22nd Street NE Area 19 0.47 800 71 st Street S E Auburn 40 0.63 4159 O Place NE Dogwood 0.43 1423 Dogwood Street SE Ellingson 2.20 100 41 st Street S E F Street 0.86 1700 F Street SE North Tapps 0.73 2610 Lake Tapps Pkwy SE Peasley Ridge 0.36 5225 South 320th Street Promenade 0.25 12900 SE 312th Street R Street 0.14 600 R Street NE Rainier Ridge 0.29 31809 125th Place SE Riverside 0.58 13900 104th Avenue SE Terrace View 0.94 104 60th Street SE Valley Meadows 0.18 2022 4th Street SE Verdana 2.88 11807 SE 296th Place (Kent, WA) FACILITY Pipe Size LOCATION River Crossing Inverted Syphon 8 & 12 Inch Green River & 26th Street NE 8th Street Bridge 14 Inch Green River & 8th Street NE 130 138 Pump Station Electrical Improvements Capital Costs 455,000 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan 455,000 Funding Sources: TABLE S-2 455,000 Bond Proceeds - CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN PROJECTS AND FINANCING 139 Large Diameter Pipe Assessment SANITARY SEWER DIVISION 455,000 Funding Sources: 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Page Non -Capacity Projects: - 140 Inflow and Infiltration Study 133 Sanitary Sewer Repair & Replacement Program 158,000 163,000 167,000 172,000 814,000 Funding Sources: Capital Costs 300,000 1,500,000 300,000 1,500,000 300,000 3,900,000 Bond Proceeds - Funding Sources: - 141 Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update Sewer Fund 300,000 1,500,000 300,000 1,500,000 300,000 3,900,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 134 Street Utility Improvements - Capital Costs 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,200,000 Funding Sources: Sewer Fund 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,200,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 135 Vactor Decant Facility Capital Costs 180,000 180,000 Funding Sources: Sewer Fund 180,000 180,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - 136 Manhole Ring and Cover Replacement Capital Costs 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 400,000 Funding Sources: Sewer Fund 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 400,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - 137 Sewer Pump Station Replace menUlmprovement Program Capital Costs - 255,000 525,000 780,000 Funding Sources: Sewer Fund 255,000 525,000 780,000 Bond Proceeds - - - 138 Pump Station Electrical Improvements Capital Costs 455,000 455,000 Funding Sources: Sewer Fund 455,000 455,000 Bond Proceeds - - 139 Large Diameter Pipe Assessment Capital Costs 455,000 455,000 Funding Sources: Sewer Fund 455,000 - - 455,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - 140 Inflow and Infiltration Study Capital Costs 154,000 158,000 163,000 167,000 172,000 814,000 Funding Sources: Sewer Fund 154,000 158,000 163,000 167,000 172,000 - 814,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - 141 Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update Capital Costs 410,000 410,000 Funding Sources: Sewer Fund 410,000 410,000 Bond Proceeds - - 131 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan • TABLE S-2 Subtotal, Non -Capacity Projects: 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Page Non -Capacity Projects: . Capital Costs 2,844,000 1,213,000 142 FStreet SE Non -Motorized Improvements 2,263,000 1,025,000 13,677,000 SUMMARY: Capital Costs - - 106,000 106,000 Funding Sources: CAPITAL COSTS Sewer Fund - - 106,000 - 106,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - 143 M Street NE Widening - - Non -Capacity Projects 2,844,000 Capital Costs - - - 6,000 56,000 62,000 1,025,000 Funding Sources: Total Costs 2,844,000 1,213,000 2,679,000 Sewer Fund - - - 6,000 56,000 62,000 FUNDING SOURCES: Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 144 22nd Street Pump Station Replacement Utility Funds (Sewer) 2,844,000 1,213,000 Capital Costs - 65,000 450,000 2,900,000 - 3,415,000 13,677,000 Funding Sources: - - - - Sewer Fund 65,000 450,000 2,900,000 - 3,415,000 - Bond Proceeds - - - - 145 2019 Sewer Repair and Replacement Total Funding 2,844,000 1,213,000 2,679,000 Capital Costs 1,500,000 - - - 1,500,000 Funding Sources: Sewer Fund 1,500,000 - 1,500,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - Subtotal, Non -Capacity Projects: . Capital Costs 2,844,000 1,213,000 2,679,000 3,653,000 2,263,000 1,025,000 13,677,000 SUMMARY: CAPITAL COSTS Capacity Projects - - - - - - - Non -Capacity Projects 2,844,000 1,213,000 2,679,000 3,653,000 2,263,000 1,025,000 13,677,000 Total Costs 2,844,000 1,213,000 2,679,000 3,653,000 2,263,000 1,025,000 13,677,000 FUNDING SOURCES: Utility Funds (Sewer) 2,844,000 1,213,000 2,679,000 3,653,000 2,263,000 1,025,000 13,677,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - Total Funding 2,844,000 1,213,000 2,679,000 3,653,000 2,263,000 1,025,000 13,677,000 • 132 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan SEWER FUND (461) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Sanitary Sewer Repair & Replacement/System Improvements Program Project No: sebd01 Project Type: Non -Capacity (Repair and Replacement) Project Manager: Elwell Description: Repair and replace broken sewer mains and other facilities. These lines will be identified through television inspection and routine cleaning. This particular program includes proposed projects which do not have an approved Project Management Plan, or are not associated with the SOS or other transportation improvements. Anticipated projects include bi-annual, stand-alone, repair and replacement projects for sewer lines which are broken, misaligned, "bellied" or otherwise require an inordinate amount of maintenance effort or present a risk of backup or trench failure, and facilities which generate consistent odor complaints. Additionally, system improvements which enhance the ability to maintain service are included here. Comp Plan ID #1. Progress Summary: 21 Sites were identified 2017. Funds from this program were transferred to CP1805, the 2019 Sewer Repair and Replacement project. Funds from 2020 and 2021 may be needed to complete those repairs. Design of future R&R projects will begin in 2020, with construction of those projects in 2021, and this two-year cycle of design followed by construction will continue in subsequent years. Future Impact on Operating Budget: This should slightly decrease the operating budget by correcting the problems that require operation staffs attention. Activity: (Previous 2 Yrs.) 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Sewer Revenue 300,000 Grants (Fed, State, Local) - - Bond Proceeds Other Total Funding Sources: 300,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 250,000 Right of Way 20,000 Construction 30,000 Total Expenditures: 300,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Sewer Revenue 1,500,000 300,000 1,500,000 300,000 3,900,000 Grants (Fed, State, Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: 1,500,000 300,000 1,500,000 300,000 3,900,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 150,000 250,000 150,000 250,000 1,050,000 Right of Way - 20,000 - 20,000 60,000 Construction 1,350,000 30,000 1,350,000 30,000 2,790,000 Total Expenditures: 1,500,000 300,000 1,500,000 300,000 3,900,000 133 • City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan SEWER FUND (461) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Street Utility Improvements Project No: sebd02 Project Type: Non Capacity (Repair and Replacement) Project Manager: TBD Description: Sewer line replacement in coordination with the Local Street Preservation Program and Arterial Preservation Program improvements. Comp Plan ID #2. Progress Summary: Ongoing Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant Impact Activity: (Previous 2 Yrs.) 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Sewer Revenue 233,680 200,000 200,000 200,000 633,680 Grants (Fed, State, Local) - - _ _ Bond Proceeds Other - _ _ _ Total Funding Sources: 233,680 200,000 200,000 200,000 633,680 Capital Expenditures: Design 33,680 30,000 30,000 30,000 93,680 Right of Way - - - Construction 200,000 170,000 170,000 170,000 540,000 Total Expenditures: 233,680 200,000 200,000 200,000 633,680 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Sewer Revenue 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,200,000 Grants (Fed, State, Local) - - - _ _ Bond Proceeds Other _ Total Funding Sources: 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,200,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 180,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000 1,020,000 Total Expenditures: 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,200,000 134 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan SEWER FUND (461) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Sewer Vactor Decant Facility Project No: sebd03 Project Type: Non -Capacity (Improvements) Project Manager: TBD Description: Currently the City hauls vactored sewage waste to the County landfill on a biweekly basis. The sewage sludge is considerably wet, thus Utility funds are paying for the disposal of water. This project consists of a study/analysis to assess the City's vactor disposal method and identify a cost-effective alternative to the status quo. Possible recommendations may include maintaining current operations, constructing a gravity decant facility, incorporating special equipment into the vactor truck to increase decanting ability, purchasing specialized dewatering machinery, or collaborating with neighboring utilities for the shared use of facilities and equipment. Comp Plan ID #3 5/2018 - Cost of project escalated approximately 3% per year from 2014 Comp Plan to year of completion. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project could decrease the future operating budget by reducing the expenses associated with hauling saturated waste to the County landfill. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Sewer Revenue - Grants (Fed, State, Local) Bond Proceeds Other Total Funding Sources: Capital Expenditures: Design Right of Way/Property Acquisition Construction Total Expenditures: - - Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Sewer Revenue 180,000 - - 180,000 Grants (Fed, State, Local) - - Bond Proceeds Other - - Total Funding Sources: 180,000 - 180,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 180,000 - 180,000 Right of Way/Property Acquisition - - - Construction Total Expenditures: 180,000 - - - 180,000 135 • City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan SEWER FUND (461) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds ProjectTitie: Manhole Ring and Cover Replacement Project No: sebd04 Project Type: Non -Capacity (Repair and Replacement) Project Manager: TBD Description: As manholes and roads age and their condition deteriorates, access covers and the rings in which they sit can become loose and/or misoriented, and can become a road hazard requiring maintenance staff attention and increasing the City's liability. This annual project will replace approximately 50 sewer manhole rings and covers to maintain access to the sewer system and to decrease the likelihood of the manholes becoming road hazards. Some of these replacements maybe in conjunction with other City capital projects. Comp Plan ID #7. Progress Summary: Ongoing Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project could decrease the future operating budget by reducing the need for staff to respond to loose manholes or lids. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Seiner Revenue - 80,000 80,000 80,000 Grants (Fed, State, Local) - - - Bond Proceeds Other - - - Total Funding Sources: 80,000 80,000 80,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 8,000 8,000 8,000 Right of Way/Property Acquisition - - - Construction 72,000 72,000 72,000 Total Expenditures: - 80,000 80,000 80,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Seiner Revenue 80,000 80,000 80,000 400,000 Grants (Fed, State, Local) - - - - Bond Proceeds Other - Total Funding Sources: 80,000 80,000 80,000 - 400,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 8,000 8,000 8,000 40,000 Right of Way/Property Acquisition - - - - Construction 72,000 72.000 72,000 360,000 Total Expenditures: 80,000 80,000 80,000 - 400,000 136 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan SEWER FUND (461) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Sewer Pump Station Replacement/Improvement Program Project No: sebd05 Project Type: Non -Capacity (Repair and Replacement/Improvements) Project Manager: TBD Description: The Sewer Utility's infrastructure currently consists of 15 public sewer pump stations that range in age from 5 to 50 years old. As those stations age, and utility operations change, considerations such as station condition, component condition, capacity, reliability, and safety consistently suggest that stations be upgraded, rehabilitated, and replaced. This program fund will continue to acknowledge and plan for those needs over the course of the next six years. Comp Plan ID #4. 5/2018 - Cost of project escalated approximately 3% per year from 2017 to years of construction. Progress Summary: Following the results of the systematic pump station evaluation study, the 2017-2022 funds for this program were divided into the Pump Station Electrical Improvements project (for common improvements at many stations) and the Pump Station Replacement project (for 22nd Street). As future considerations of reliability, capacity, and condition are evaluated, and specific projects are developed, these funds will be designated for those projects. Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will not have a significant effect on operating budget. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Sever Revenue - Grants (Fed, State, Local) - Bond Proceeds Other Total Funding Sources: - - - - - Capital Expenditures: Design Right of Way/Property Acquisition Construction - Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Sever Revenue 255,000 525,000 780,000 Grants (Fed, State, Local) - - - Bond Proceeds Other - Total Funding Sources: 255,000 525,000 780,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 255,000 525,000 780,000 Right of Way/Property Acquisition - - - construction - - - Total Expenditures: 255,000 525,000 780,000 137 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan SEWER FUND (461) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2018-2023 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Pump Station Electrical Improvements Project No: cp1812 Project Type: Non -capacity Project Manager: Luis Barba Description: The Pump Station Condition Assessment (2016) identified a number of improvements to be made to the electrical systems at the City's sewer pump stations. The additions and modifications are intended to increase employee safety as well as operational efficiency. They include adding dry well control panel disconnects, bringing intrinsically safe wiring up to code, organizing, labelling, and dressing out control panel boxes at 5 stations (8th Street, Valley Meadows, Rainier Ridge, Riverside, and Peasley Ridge), adding dry well HMI computer screens, creating uniform as -built wiring diagrams for each station, as well as several other modifications identified for specific stations. 5/2018 - Cost of project were escalated approximately 3% per year from 2017 to the year of completion. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will not have a significant effect on operating budget. Funding for this project was derived from the Sewer Pump Station Replacement/Improvement program (sebd05). Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2017 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Sevier Revenue - 141,000 455,000 596,000 Grants (Fed, State, Local) - - _ Bond Proceeds Other - - _ Total Funding Sources: 141,000 455,000 596,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 50,000 65,000 115,000 Right of Way - - _ Construction 91,000 390.000 481,000 Total Expenditures: 141,000 455,000 596,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Sevler Revenue 455,000 Grants (Fed, State, Local) _ Bond Proceeds Other _ Total Funding Sources: 455,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 65,000 Right of Way _ Construction 390,000 Total Expenditures: 455,000 138 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan SEWER FUND (461) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Large Diameter Pipe Assessment Project No: sebd07 Project Type: Non -Capacity (Improvement) Project Manager: TBD Description: City staff is not equipped to efficiently clean and inspect sewer pipes with a diameter larger than 18 inches. This project would clean and internally inspect all pipe owned by the City that is larger than 18 inches in diameter. This is approximately 39,300 feet, ranging in diameter from 20 inches up to 36 inches. Comp Plan ID #8. 5/2018 - Cost of project escalated approximately 3% per year from 2014 Comp Plan to year of completion. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will not have a significant effect on operating budget. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Sewer Revenue - 455,000 455,000 Grants (Fed, State, Local) - - Bond Proceeds - Other Total Funding Sources: - 455,000 455,000 Capital Expenditures: Planning/Design 455,000 455,000 Right of Way/Property Acquisition - - Construction Total Expenditures: 455,000 455,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Sewer Revenue 455,000 Grants (Fed, State, Local) - Bond Proceeds - Other - Total Funding Sources: - 455,000 Capital Expenditures: Planning/Design 455,000 Right of Way/Property Acquisition - Construction - - Total Expenditures: - 455,000 139 C� City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan SEWER FUND (461) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Inflow and Infiltration Study Project No: sebd11 Project Type: Non -Capacity (Improvement) Project Manager: TBD Description: This project would assess portions of the City Sewer Service Area for infiltrationfinflow (VI) values, since excessive localized VI can also be an indicator of poor sewer main and side sewer condition and could contribute to capacity issues in the future. This project would monitor flow in the collection system over 5 years. This data will then be used to help identify repair and replacement needs and for modeling purposes and VI assessment in future updates to the Comprehensive Sewer Plan. Comp Plan ID #9. 5/2018 - Cost of project escalated approximately 3% per year from 2014 Comp Plan to year of completion. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will not have a significant effect on operating budget. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Seiner Revenue - 154,000 158,000 154,000 Grants (Fed, State, Local) - - _ Bond Proceeds _ Other _ _ _ Total Funding Sources: - 154,000 158,000 154,000 Capital Expenditures: Design/Analysis 154,000 158,000 154,000 Right of Way/Property Acquisition - _ _ Construction - - _ Total Expenditures: 154,000 158,000 154,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Sewer Revenue 163,000 167,000 172,000 814,000 Grants (Fed, State, Local) - - - _ Bond Proceeds Other - - - Total Funding Sources: 163,000 167,000 172,000 814,000 Capital Expenditures: Design/Analysis 163,000 167,000 172,000 814,000 Right of Way/Property Acquisition - - - _ Construction - - - _ Total Expenditures: 163,000 167,000 172,000 814,000 140 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan SEWER FUND (461) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update Project No: sebd12 Project Type: Non -Capacity (Repair and Replace ment/Improvement) Project Manager: TBD Description: Prepare an update to the City's Sewer Comprehensive Plan to include an update to the hydraulic model and an update to the Capital Improvement Plan. Comp Plan ID #10. 5/2018 - Cost of project escalated approximately 3% per year from 2014 Comp Plan to year of completion. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will not have a significant effect on operating budget. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Sewer Revenue - 410,000 Grants (Fed, State, Local) - Bond Proceeds Other Total Funding Sources: 410,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 410,000 Right of Way/Property Acquisition - Construction Total Expenditures: - 410,000 - Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Sewer Revenue 410,000 Grants (Fed, State, Local) - Bond Proceeds Other - Total Funding Sources: - 410,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 410,000 Right of Way/Property Acquisition - Construction - Total Expenditures: - - - 410,000 141 U • • City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan SEWER FUND (461) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: F Street SE Non -Motorized Improvements Project No: cp1416 Project Type: Non -Capacity (Repair and Replacement) Project Manager: Seth Wickstrom Description: Replace approximately 420 LF of 15"-18" diameter clay pipe as partof the F Street SE Non -Motorized Improvements project. Constructing this project in association with a road improvement project saves money and avoids damage to the new roadway that could occur if the pipe was not replaced and experienced a failure or blockage. 5/2018 - Cost of project escalated approximately 3% per year from 2014 Comp Plan to year of completion. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project saves money and avoids damage to the new roadway that could occur if the pipe was not replaced and experienced a failure of blockage. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Seller Revenue 5,238 18,770 24,008 Grants (Fed, State, Local) - - _ Bond Proceeds Other - - - Total Funding Sources: 5,238 18,770 24,008 Capital Expenditures: Design 5,238 18,770 24,008 Right of Way/Property Acquisition _ Construction _ Total Expenditures: 5,238 18,770 24,008 Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Sewer Revenue 106,000 - 106,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local) - _ Bond Proceeds Other - _ Total Funding Sources: 106,000 106,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 10,600 10,600 Right of Way/Property Acquisition - _ Construction 95,400 95,400 Total Expenditures: 106,000 - 106,000 142 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan SEWER FUND (461) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: M Street NE Widening Project No: sebd08 Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager: TBD Description: Sewer line replacements in conjunction with street improvements. 5/2018 - Cost of project escalated approximately 3% per year from 2014 Comp Plan to year of completion. Progress Summary: Design will be completed in 2018 with construction completed in 2019. Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant Impact Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Sewer Revenue - Grants (Fed, State, Local) Bond Proceeds - - Other Total Funding Sources: - Capital Expenditures: Design Right of Way - - Construction Total Expenditures: - Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Sewer Revenue 6,000 56,000 62,000 Grants (Fed, State, Local) - - - Bond Proceeds - - Other - Total Funding Sources: 6,000 56,000 62,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 6,000 6,000 12,000 Right of Way - - - Construction - 50,000 50,000 Total Expenditures: - 6,000 56,000 - 62,000 143 • • • City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan SEWER FUND (461) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: 22nd Street Pump Station Replacement Project No: sebdl3 Project Type: Non -capacity Project Manager: TBD Description: The 22nd Street Pump Station was constructed in 1967. The dry well has shown some signs of corrosion, and the mechanical systems are reaching the end of their useful life. The initial phase of this project will examine the alternatives of rehabilitating the station, replacing major components, or replacing the entire station. The proposed funding assumes a complete replacement, and will be adjusted pending the alternatives analysis. 5/2018 - Cost of project escalated approximately 3% per year from 2017 to the years of construction. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will not have a significant effect on operating budget. Funding for this project was derived from the Sewer Pump Station Replacement/improvement program (sebd05). Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Sewer Revenue - 65,000 Grants (Fed, State, Local) _ Bond Proceeds Other - Total Funding Sources: 65,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 65,000 Right of Way - - - - _ Construction _ Total Expenditures: 65,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Sevier Revenue 450,000 2,900,000 3,415,000 Grants (Fed, State, Local) - - _ Bond Proceeds Other - - Total Funding Sources: 450,000 2,900,000 3,415,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 450,000 230,000 745,000 Right of Way - - - Construction - 2,670,000 2,670,000 Total Expenditures: 450,000 2,900,000 3,415,000 144 City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan SEWER FUND (461) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: 2019 Sewer Repair and Replacement Project No: cp1805 Project Type: Non -Capacity (Repair and Replacement) Project Manager. Kevin Thompson Description: Repair and/or replace existing aging sewer lines at 21 different sites throughout the City. Progress Summary: The project will be designed in 2018 for construction of the repairs/replacements of a portion of the sites in 2019. Completion of the design of the remaining sites will occur in 2020, and construction of those repairs/replacements is planned for 2021 Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project should slightly decrease the operating budget by correcting the problems that require operation staffs attention. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted SewarRevenue - 300,000 1,500,000 1,800,000 Grants (Fed, State, Local) - - - Bond Proceeds Other Total Funding Sources: - 300,000 1,500,000 1,800,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 300,000 150,000 450,000 Right of Way - - - - Construction 1,350,000 1,350,000 Total Expenditures: 300,000 1,500,000 - 1,800,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Sewer Revenue - 1,500,000 Grants (Fed, State, Local) - - Bond Proceeds Other - - Total Funding Sources: - - 1,500,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 150,000 Right of Way - Construction 1,350,000 Total Expenditures: - - - - 1,500,000 145 • City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan CITY OF 1 Siim * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED 146 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan STORM DRAINAGE Current Facilities The City's storm drainage service area encompasses the municipal boundaries of the City. For management purposes, the service area is divided into 60 drainage sub -basins. The City's drainage system consists of a combination of closed conveyance pipes and open ditch conveyance facilities, with six pumping stations. Table SD -1 Facilities Inventory lists the facilities along with their current capacities and location. Level of Service (LOS) The City's Comprehensive Drainage Plan summarizes the level of service (LOS), or design criteria, for the City's storm drainage system. Generally, these standards represent a 25- year/24-hour design storm capacity within the 60 drainage sub -basins. Capital Facilities Projects and Financing The City's storm drainage facilities anticipate one capacity project in the amount of $10,000 and seventeen non -capacity projects totaling $19,120,800 for a six-year planning expectation total of $19,130,800. Table SD -2 shows the proposed financing plan followed by individual worksheets showing the project detail. Impact on Future Operating Budgets There are no operating budget impacts forecasted for storm drainage facilities during the six years 2020 — 2025. 147 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan TABLE SD-2 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN PROJECTS AND FINANCING STORM DRAINAGE DIVISION 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Page Capacity Projects: 153 37th St. NW Storm Improvement Capital Costs 10,000 - - - - - 10,000 Funding Sources: Storm Fund 10,000 10,000 Bond Proceeds - - Subtotal, Capacity Proiects: Capital Costs 10,000 - - - - - 10,000 Non-Capacity Proiects: 154 Pipeline Repair & Replacement Program Capital Costs 1,000,000 100,000 1,000,000 100,000 1,000,000 100,000 3,300,000 Funding Sources: Storm Fund 1,000,000 100,000 1,000,000 100,000 1,000,000 100,000 3,300,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 155 30th Street NE Area Flooding, Phase 3 Capital Costs 626,000 2,146,000 2,772,000 Funding Sources: Storm Fund 626,000 2,146,000 2,772,000 Bond Proceeds - - _ 156 Street Utility Improvements Capital Costs 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 600,000 Funding Sources: Storm Fund 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 600,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - _ - 157 Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan Update Capital Costs 351,000 351,000 Funding Sources: Storm Fund 351,000 351,000 Bond Proceeds - 158 Vegetation Sorting Facility Capital Costs 966,000 966,000 Funding Sources: Storm Fund 966,000 966,000 Bond Proceeds - 159 Hillside Drainage Assessment Capital Costs 158,000 176,000 - - 334,000 Funding Sources: Storm Fund 158,000 176,000 - 334,000 Bond Proceeds - - _ 150 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan TABLE SD -2 (continued) 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Page Non -Capacity Projects: 160 North Airport Area Improvements Capital Costs - - 62,000 214,000 Funding Sources: Storm Fund 62,000 214,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - Total 276,000 276,000 161 D St. SE Storm Improvement Capital Costs 508,000 1,742,000 2,250,000 Funding Sources: Storm Fund 508,000 1,742,000 - 2,250,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - 162 S. 330th St. & 46th PI. S. Storm Improvement Capital Costs 85,000 294,000 - 379,000 Funding Sources: Storm Fund 85,000 294,000 - - 379,000 Bond Proceeds - - - 163 Academy Drive, SE 312th St. SE, & D St. SE Storm Improvements Capital Costs 10,000 - - 10,000 Funding Sources: Storm Fund 10,000 - 10,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - 164 23rd Street SE Storm Improvement Capital Costs 171,000 587,000 758,000 Funding Sources: Storm Fund 171,000 587,000 - 758,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - 165 Riverwalk Drive SE Non -Motorized Improvements Capital Costs 62,900 62,900 454,000 579,800 Funding Sources: Storm Fund 62,900 62,900 454,000 579,800 Bond Proceeds - - - - - 166 S. 314th St. & 54th Ave S. Storm Improvement Ph.1 Capital Costs 102,000 416,000 518,000 Funding Sources: Storm Fund 102,000 416,000 518,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - 167 S. 314th St. & 54th Ave S. Storm Improvement Ph. 2 Capital Costs 115,000 281,000 396,000 Funding Sources: Storm Fund 115,000 281,000 396,000 Bond Proceeds - - - 168 Auburn Way South 2nd -Main Street Storm Improvements Capital Costs 750,000 750,000 Funding Sources: Storm Fund 750,000 750,000 Bond Proceeds - - - 151 TABLE SD -1 City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan Facilities Inventory Storm Drainage Facilities FACILITY Acres CAPACITY Feet of Feet of Pipeline Open Channels LOCATION Drainage Basins: A 562 39,127 1,426 See City of Auburn's AA 409 14,853 3,000 Comprehensive Drainage AAA 296 1,610 5,187 Plan, Dec. 2015 AZ 779 65,097 21,711 B 864 109,435 0 BB 15 1,658 0 BBB 73 0 0 C 836 93,879 5,337 CC 242 2,595 0 CCC 986 67,146 19,778 D 168 20,740 177 DD 231 0 0 DDD 63 3,416 0 E 691 60,420 9,550 EE 563 3,332 0 F 83 9,173 0 FF 411 3,459 896 G 134 21,044 0 GG 188 5,887 3,153 H 567 41,042 614 HH 392 0 0 HV 66 5,331 0 1 241 28,343 4,171 11 305 0 0 J 255 4,836 1,571 JJ 1,185 35,397 1,098 K 268 14,511 2,563 KK 391 0 0 L 87 13,203 3,916 LL 198 0 2,586 LS 1,138 72,484 12,517 M 547 34,866 8,523 MM 332 1,775 184 N 128 10,537 0 NN 588 10,815 1,120 NNN 175 2,337 705 O 176 19,639 1,609 00 1,397 40,971 17,854 P 189 7,704 1,368 PP 110 1,247 0 PPP 161 3,958 2,612 QQ 334 12,774 4,317 148 City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan TABLE SD -1 (continued) Facilities Inventory Storm Drainage Facilities FACILITY Acres CAPACITY Feet of Feet of Pipeline Open Channels LOCATION R 55 7,167 0 RR 249 11,783 673 S 275 15,895 1,663 SS 333 19,910 2,140 T 698 94,320 4,026 TT 137 1,891 1,254 U 365 10,673 0 UU 456 21,105 3,430 V 662 36,534 7,182 W 289 36,127 5,041 WC 101 10,011 0 WW 71 851 1,708 X 40 3,418 0 YY 326 16,652 7,318 YYY 105 84 0 Z 70 9,485 0 ZZ 935 52,042 21,589 ZIZ 237 0 0 Tota 1 22,228 1,232,589 193,567 FACILITY (GPM) LOCATION Pump Stations: White R\er Pump Station 17,700 5000 block A Street SE A Street SE Pump Station 1,380 A Street SE near SR -18 and BNRR overpass Auburn Way S Pump Station #3 1,000 Auburn Way S near SR -18 and BNRR overpass Brannan Park Pump Station #4 20,200 Brannan Park Emerald Corp. Park Pump Station 6,500 C Street NE near 42nd Street West Main Street Pump Station 1,200 1420 West Main Street 149 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan TABLE SD -2 (continued) 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Page Non -Capacity Projects: 169 West Main Street Pump Station Upgrade Capital Costs 850,000 2,914,000 3,764,000 Funding Sources: 2021 Storm Fund - 450,000 2,914,000 3,364,000 King Co. Opportunity Fund 400,000 - 400,000 170 2019 Local Street Reconstruction Capital Costs 1,117,000 - 1,117,000 Funding Sources: Storm Fund 1,117,000 1,117,000 Bond Proceeds - - Subtotal, Non -Capacity Projects: Capital Costs 3,135,000 2,011,900 2,551,900 3,410,000 5,385,000 2,627,000 19,120,800 152 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total SUMMARY: CAPITAL COSTS Capacity Projects 10,000 - - - - - 10,000 Non -Capacity Projects 3,135,000 2,011,900 2,551,900 3,410,000 5,385,000 2,627,000 19,120,800 Total Costs 3,145,000 2,011,900 2,551,900 3,410,000 5,385,000 2,627,000 19,130,800 FUNDING SOURCES: Storm Fund 3,145,000 2,011,900 2,551,900 3,010,000 5,385,000 2,627,000 18,730,800 King Co. Opportunity Fund - - - 400,000 - - 400,000 Bond Proceeds - - _ Total Funding 3,145,000 2,011,900 2,551,900 3,410,000 5,385,000 2,627,000 19,130,800 152 City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan STORM DRAINAGE FUND (462) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: 37th St. NW Storm Improvement Project No: cp1724 Project Type: Capacity Project Manager. Luis Barba Description: This project will increase existing pipes to provide additional capacity to alleviate current periodic flooding conditions in vicinity of 'T St. NW. This will also provide relief to the flooding experienced on the Interurban Bike Trail. 2015 Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan Project No. 2 Progress Summary: Temporarywork to evaluate the capacityfor addressing the re -occurring flooding has been completed and will be observed for the next year. A project scope will be developed from this information. Future Impact on Operating Budget: None Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Storm Revenue 916 80,100 10,000 91,016 Grants- Secured (Fed, State, Local) - - - - Bond Proceeds - - King County Opportunity Grant - 210,000 - 210,000 Total Funding Sources: 916 290,100 10,000 - 301,016 Capital Expenditures: Design 916 81,100 - 82,016 Right of Way - - - - Construction - 209,000 10,000 219,000 Total Expenditures: 916 290,100 10,000 301,016 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Storm Revenue - 10,000 Grants- Secured (Fed, State, Local) - Bond Proceeds King County Opportunity Grant - Total Funding Sources: - - 10,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - Right of Way - Construction 10,000 Total Expenditures: - 10,000 153 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan STORM DRAINAGE FUND (462) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Pipeline Repair & Replacement Program Project No: sdbd03 Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager: TBD Description: This program provides funding for projects involving replacement of existing infrastructure. These projects support street repairs and other utility replacement programs, requiring coordination. Typically, design for R&R projects is completed in one year, followed by construction the following year. 2015 Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan Project No. 1 Progress Summary: Previous 2 years expenses were allocated to the following projects: In 2016, $100K was allocated to cp1522 -30th St NE Area Flooding Phase 1 B project. In 2017, $100,466 was allocated to Eastridge Manor Drainage Improvements project (cp1316) and $85,000 was allocated to 30th St NE Area Flooding Phase 1 B (cp1522). Future Impact on Operating Budget: Repair and replacement of aging infrastructure should reduce operating costs. Activity: (Previous 2 Years) 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Storm Revenue 285,466 100,000 1,000,000 100,000 1,385,466 Grants- Secured (Fed, State, Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds Other - _ Total Funding Sources: 285,466 100,000 1,000,000 100,000 1,385,466 Capital Expenditures: Design - 100,000 1,000,000 100,000 1,100,000 Right of Way - - - _ - Construction 285,466 - 285,466 Total Expenditures: 285,466 100,000 1,000,000 100,000 1,385,466 Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Storm Revenue 1,000,000 100,000 1,000,000 100,000 3,300,000 Grants- Secured (Fed, State, Local) - - - _ _ Bond Proceeds - Other Total Funding Sources: 1,000,000 100,000 1,000,000 100,000 3,300,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 100,000 - 100,000 1,300,000 Right of Way - - - _ - Construction 1,000,000 - 1,000,000 - 2,000,000 Total Expenditures: 1,000,000 100,000 1,000,000 100,000 3,300,000 154 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan STORM DRAINAGE FUND (462) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: 30th Street NE Area Flooding, Phase 3 Project No: cpxxxx Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager. TBD Description: This project would reduce flooding in C St. NE by redirecting wet weather high flows southward to the 42 -inch diameter (Phase 1) storm drain in 30th St. NE. By redirecting the C St. NE drainage into the Brannan Park system, these flows would no longer be affected by high water levels in Mill Creek. To avoid deepening the Phase 1 gravity line (and extensive retrofits to the Brannan Park pump station), this project would include a wet weather pump station and force main connection to 30th St. NE. The upgraded 42 -inch diameter pipe in 30th St. NE would have sufficient capacity for these additional flows. Key components of Phase 3 include: Wet weather pump station (estimated capacity of 4.5 to 7 cfs), 1,730 feet of 15 -inch diameter force main; Diversion structure in C St. NE for pump station. 2015 Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan Project No. 4B. 5/2018 - Cost of project escalated an average of 3% per year from 2015 Comp Plan to year of construction. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant impact. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Storm Revenue - Grants- Secured (Fed, State, Local) Bond Proceeds Other - Total Funding Sources: - Capital Expenditures: Design Right of Way Construction Total Expenditures: - Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Storm Revenue 626,000 2,146,000 2,772,000 Grants- Secured (Fed, State, Local) - - - Bond Proceeds - - Other - - - Total Funding Sources: 626,000 2,146,000 2,772,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 626,000 - 626,000 Right of Way - - - Construction 2,146,000 2,146,000 Total Expenditures: - 626,000 2,146,000 2,772,000 155 • • • City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan STORM DRAINAGE FUND (462) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Street Utility Improvements Project No: sdbd04 Project Type: Non Capacity Project Manager: TBD Description: Storm drainage conveyance improvements in coordination with Arterial Preservation and Local Street Preservation improvements. 2015 Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan Project No. 12 Progress Summary: Prior years expenses of $13,251 were allocated to cp1507 -AWN Preservation project in 2016 and $100,000 was allocated to cp1614 -2017 Local Street Reconstruction & Preservation. Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant Impact. Activity: Previous 2 years 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Storm Revenue 113,251 100,000 100,000 100,000 313,251 Grants- Secured (Fed, State, Local) - - - - _ Bond Proceeds Other - - _ _ _ Total Funding Sources: 113,251 100,000 100,000 100,000 313,251 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - _ _ Construction 113,251 100,000 100,000 100,000 313,251 Total Expenditures: 113,251 100,000 100,000 100,000 313,251 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Storm Revenue 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 600,000 Grants- Secured (Fed, State, Local) - - - _ _ Bond Proceeds Other _ - Total Funding Sources: 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 600,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - -- _ Construction 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 600, 000 Total Expenditures: 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 600,000 156 City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan STORM DRAINAGE FUND (462) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan Update Project No: sdbd16 Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager: Tim Carlaw Description: Update the Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan to be consistent with the City's overall Comprehensive Plan update as required by the State of Washington. 2015 Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan Project No. 9. 5/2018 - Cost of project escalated an average of 3% per year from 2015 Comp Plan to year of construction. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: None Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Storm Revenue - 351,000 Grants- Secured (Fed, State, Local) - Bond Proceeds Other Total Funding Sources: 351,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 351,000 - Right of Way - Construction - Total Expenditures: 351,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Storm Revenue 351,000 Grants- Secured (Fed, State, Local) - Bond Proceeds Other Total Funding Sources: - - 351,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 351,000 Right of Way - Construction - - Total Expenditures: - - - 351,000 157 • City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan STORM DRAINAGE FUND (462) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Vegetation Sorting Facility Project No: sdbd12 Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager: TBD Description: Evaluation to determine benefits and costs of acquiring property to use as a vegetation sorting facility prior to disposal or reuse of materials from storm drainage maintenance activities (e.g., pond and ditch cleaning). In addition, evaluate potential for use by other City departments and by neighboring jurisdictions as a regional facility. If evaluation shows a reasonable benefit/cost ratio, budget includes property acquisition and site improvements to construct the vegetation sorting facility. Cost includes bin barriers and sorting equipmentto facilitate materials handling and separation. 2015 Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan Project No. 10. 5/2018 -Cost of project escalated an average of 3% per year from 2015 Comp Plan to year of construction. Progress Summary: None Future Impact on Operating Budget: Overall operating costs should decrease as a result of improved efficiencyfrom the sorting facility. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Storm Revenue - 966,000 Grants- Secured (Fed, State, Local) _ Bond Proceeds - - Other Total Funding Sources: - - 966,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - 128,000 Right of Way - - 750,000 Construction/Equipment - 88,000 Total Expenditures: - 966,000 - Forecasted Project Cost: Tota I 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Storm Revenue 966,000 Grants- Secured (Fed, State, Local) _ Bond Proceeds - Other Total Funding Sources: - - - - 966,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - 128,000 Right of Way - - - - 750,000 Construction/Equipment - 88, 000 Total Expenditures: - - 966,000 158 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan STORM DRAINAGE FUND (462) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Hillside Drainage Assessment Project No: sdbd07 Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager: TBD Description: The existing drainage system includes pipes that discharge over hillsides. While inventory, mapping and initial inspections are currently being completed by City staff, additional detailed inspections may be required by consultants to provide geotechnical and/or slope stability analysis or specialized pipe inspections to fully define deficiencies. 2015 Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan Project No. 3. 5/2018 - Cost of project escalated an average of 3% per year from 2015 Comp Plan to year of construction. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: None Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Storm Revenue - 158,000 176,000 158,000 Grants- Secured (Fed, State, Local) - - - Bond Proceeds Other - - - Total Funding Sources: 158,000 176,000 158,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - Right of Way - - - Construction 158,000 176,000 158,000 Total Expenditures: 158,000 176,000 158,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Storm Revenue - 334,000 Grants- Secured (Fed, State, Local) - Bond Proceeds - Other Total Funding Sources: - 334,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - Right of Way - Construction 334,000 Total Expenditures: 334,000 159 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan STORM DRAINAGE FUND (462) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2018-2023 Enterprise Funds Project Title: North Airport Area Improvements Project No: sdbd10 Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager: TBD Description: This project would provide storage depth in Pond 1 and replace the existing inlet pipe at a lower invert to the pond, and install a backflow preventer at the outlet. The project also includes the installation of a second backflow preventer at the overflow to 30th St. NE to protect the hanger area. 2015 Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan Project No. 6. 5/2018 - Cost of project escalated an average of 3% per year from 2015 Comp Plan to year of construction. Progress Summary: None Future Impact on Operating Budget: None Activity: 2017 YE 2018 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2017 Estimate 2018 Budget 2019 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Storm Revenue - Grants- Secured (Fed, State, Local) Bond Proceeds - Other Total Funding Sources: _ Capital Expenditures: Design Right of Way _ Construction Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2020 2021 2022 2023 2018-2023 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Storm Revenue 62,000 214,000 276,000 Grants- Secured(Fed, State, Local) - _ - Bond Proceeds - Other Total Funding Sources: - 62,000 214,000 - 276,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 62,000 - 62,000 Right of Way - - _ Construction - 214,000 214,000 Total Expenditures: - 62,000 214,000 276,000 160 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan STORM DRAINAGE FUND (462) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: D St. SE Storm Improvement Project No: cpxxx Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager. TBD Description: This project would replace the existing line along D St. SE from 21st St. SE to 27th St. SE. The project will eliminate an existing injection well near 25th & D St. SE. 2015 Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan Project No. 7. 5/2018 - Cost of project escalated an average of 3% per year from 2015 Comp Plan to year of construction. Progress Summary: None Future Impact on Operating Budget: None Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Storm Revenue - - Grants- Secured (Fed, State, Local) Bond Proceeds Other Total Funding Sources: Capital Expenditures: Design - Right of Way Construction Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Storm Revenue 508,000 1,742,000 - 2,250,000 Grants- Secured (Fed, State, Local) - - - Bond Proceeds Other - - - Total Funding Sources: 508,000 1,742,000 - 2,250,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 508,000 - 508,000 Right of Way - - - Construction - 1,742,000 1,742,000 Total Expenditures: 508,000 1,742,000 - 2,250,000 161 • City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan STORM DRAINAGE FUND (462) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: S. 330th St. & 46th PI. S. Storm Improvement Project No: sdbdl3 Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager: TBD Description: Improve existing drainage conditions for the West Hill annexation areas. This project includes improvements near 330th St. and 46th Pl. S. where public storm drainage currently discharges within a large open ditch. The improvement will re-route the drainage within the right-of-way to the existing outfall. 2015 Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan Project No. 5A. 5/2018 - Cost of project escalated an average of 3% per year from 2015 Comp Plan to year of construction. Progress Summary: None Future Impact on Operating Budget: None Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Storm Revenue - 85,000 Grants -Secured (Fed, State, Local) _ Bond Proceeds Other _ Total Funding Sources: - 85,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design 85,000 Right of Way - - - _ _ Construction Total Expenditures: 85,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Storm Revenue 294,000 379,000 Grants -Secured (Fed, State, Local) - _ Bond Proceeds Other - Total Funding Sources: 294,000 - 379,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 85,000 Right of Way - - Construction 294,000 294,000 Total Expenditures: 294,000 379,000 162 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan STORM DRAINAGE FUND (462) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Academy Drive, SE 312th St. SE, & D St. SE Storm Improvements Project No: cp1312 Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager: Seth Wickstrom Description: Project replaces existing storm system infrastructure. Funding is from the 2015-2016 Pipeline Repair and Replacement Program. Project includes pipeline replacement in Academy Drive, a new pipeline within 312th St. SE to provide a "missing link", and the extension of a pipeline to the Velvet Square storm pond to allow the pond to be abandoned. Progress Summary: Project in construction with completion early in 2019. Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant impact. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Storm Revenue 80,592 640,000 10,000 730,592 Grants- Secured (Fed, State, Local) - - - - Bond Proceeds Other Total Funding Sources: 80,592 640,000 10,000 730,592 Capital Expenditures: Design 78,170 - - 78,170 Right of Way - - - - Construction 2,422 640,000 10,000 652,422 Total Expenditures: 80,592 640,000 10,000 730,592 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Storm Revenue 10,000 Grants- Secured (Fed, State, Local) - Bond Proceeds Other - Total Funding Sources: 10,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - Right of Way - Construction 10,000 Total Expenditures: 10,000 163 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan STORM DRAINAGE FUND (462) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: 23rd Street SE Storm Improvement Project No: sdbd17 Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager. TBD Description: This project will improve existing drainage conditions in vicinity of 23rd St. SE & K St. SE. The project includes installation of a new 15 -inch line along K St. SE from 23rd St. SE to 21st St. SE to alleviate flooding associated with the pedestrian entrance to Terminal Park Elementary School. Installation of new 12 -18 -inch line along 23rd St. SE from F St. SE to K St. SE. 2015 Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan Project No. 8 (Phase 1+2). 5/2018 - Cost of project escalated an average of 3% per year from 2015 Comp Plan to year of construction. Progress Summary: None Future Impact on Operating Budget: None Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Storm Revenue - 171,000 Grants- Secured (Fed, State, Local) _ Bond Proceeds Other _ Total Funding Sources: 171,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 171,000 Right of Way - Construction _ Total Expenditures: 171,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Storm Revenue 587,000 758,000 Grants- Secured (Fed, State, Local) - _ Bond Proceeds Other Total Funding Sources: 587,000 - - 758,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 171,000 Right of Way - _ Construction 587,000 587,000 Total Expenditures: 587,000 - 758,000 164 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan STORM DRAINAGE FUND (462) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Riverwalk Drive SE Non -Motorized Improvements Project No: sdbd14 Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager: TBD Description: As part of a non -motorized improvement project along Riverwalk Drive SE between Howard Road and Auburn Way South, construct large diameter storm piping to replace existing ditch, and expand Riverwalk ponds to accommodate increased capacity. Progress Summary: None Future Impact on Operating Budget: Maintenance costs should decrease as a result of the project. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Storm Revenue - 62,900 Grants- Secured (Fed, State, Local) - Bond Proceeds Other Total Funding Sources: 62,900 - Capital Expenditures: Design 62,900 Right of Way - - Construction - Total Expenditures: - - 62,900 - Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Storm Revenue 62,900 454,000 - 579,800 Grants- Secured (Fed, State, Local) - - - Bond Proceeds - - Other - - Total Funding Sources: 62,900 454,000 - 579,800 Capital Expenditures: Design 62,900 - 125,800 Right of Way - - - - Construction - 454,000 - 454,000 Total Expenditures: 62,900 454,000 - - 579,800 165 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan STORM DRAINAGE FUND (462) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: S. 314th St. & 54th Ave S. Storm Improvement Ph. 1 Project No: cpxxx Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager: TBD Description: Improve existing drainage conditions for the West Hill annexation areas. The project includes improvements near S 314th St. and 54th Ave S to redirect flows and implement LID techniques. 2015 Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan Project No. 5B Phase 1. 5/2018 - Cost of project escalated an average of 3% per year from 2015 Comp Plan to year of construction. Progress Summary: None Future Impact on Operating Budget: None Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Storm Revenue - Grants- Secured (Fed, State, Local) Bond Proceeds Other Total Funding Sources: Capital Expenditures: Design Right of Way Construction Total Expenditures: _ Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Storm Revenue 102,000 416,000 518,000 Grants- Secured (Fed, State, Local) - _ _ _ Bond Proceeds _ Other - Total Funding Sources: - 102,000 416,000 518,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 102,000 - 102,000 Right of Way - - _ _ Construction - 416,000 416,000 Total Expenditures: 102,000 416,000 518,000 166 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan STORM DRAINAGE FUND (462) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: S. 314th St. & 54th Ave S. Storm Improvement Ph. 2 Project No: cpxxx Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager. TBD Description: Improve existing drainage conditions for the West Hill annexation areas. The project includes improvements near S 314th St. and 54th Ave S to route the remaining public storm drainage through a new easement and pipe to the downstream system. 2015 Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan Project No. 513 Phase 2. 5/2018 - Cost of project escalated an average of 3% per year from 2015 Comp Plan to year of construction. Progress Summary: None Future Impact on Operating Budget: None Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Storm Revenue - - - Grants- Secured (Fed, State, Local) - Bond Proceeds - Other Total Funding Sources: - - - Capital Expenditures: Design Right of Way Construction Total Expenditures: - Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Storm Revenue 115,000 281,000 396,000 Grants- Secured (Fed, State, Local) - - - Bond Proceeds - Other Total Funding Sources: - 115,000 281,000 396,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 89,000 - 89,000 Right of Way 26,000 - 26,000 Construction - 281,000 281,000 Total Expenditures: 115,000 281,000 396,000 167 • City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan STORM DRAINAGE FUND (462) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Auburn Way South 2nd - Main Street Storm Improvements Project No: sdbd15 Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager: TBD Description: Improve existing drainage conditions for the SR -18 & BNRR undercrossing. The project includes replacing approximately 30 feet of adverse slope 30 inch pipe with new 36 inch pipe, and extend the existing 12 inch force main from the AWS storm pump station approximately 420 feet to the north. The project also includes a device to ensure the pump station does not recycle flow during periods of heavy rainfall. Progress Summary: None Future Impact on Operating Budget: None Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Storm Revenue - 125,000 750,000 875,000 Grants- Secured (Fed, State, Local) - - _ Bond Proceeds Other - - _ Total Funding Sources: 125,000 750,000 875,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 125,000 - - 125,000 Right of Way - - _ Construction - 750,000 750,000 Total Expenditures: - 125,000 750,000 - 875,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Storm Revenue 750,000 Grants- Secured (Fed, State, Local) _ Bond Proceeds Other - Total Funding Sources: - - - 750,000 Capital Expenditures: Design _ _ Right of Way _ Construction - 750,000 Total Expenditures: - 750,000 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan STORM DRAINAGE FUND (462) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: West Main Street Pump Station Upgrade Project No: cpxxx Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager. TBD Description: This project will upgrade the existing pump station by providing a redundant pump to meet level of service goals, including new force main and outlet. 5/2018 - Cost of project escalated an average of 3% per year from 2015 Comp Plan to year of construction. Progress Summary: None Future Impact on Operating Budget: None Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Storm Revenue - Grants- Secured (Fed, State, Local) Bond Proceeds Other Total Funding Sources: - - - Capital Expenditures: Design Right of Way Construction Total Expenditures: - Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Storm Revenue 450,000 2,914,000 3,364,000 Grants- Secured (Fed, State, Local) - - - - Bond Proceeds - - King County Opportunity Fund 400,000 - 400,000 Total Funding Sources: 850,000 2,914,000 3,764,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 850,000 - 850,000 Right of Way - - - Construction - 2,914,000 2,914,000 Total Expenditures: - 850,000 2,914,000 3,764,000 169 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan STORM DRAINAGE FUND (462) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: 2019 Local Street Reconstruction Project No: CP1726 Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager. TBD Description: Storm drainage conveyance improvements for 28th St. SE and M St. SE needed to support the local street project. The new drainage improvements will allow for the elimination of a drywell system that does not meet storm requirements. Progress Summary: None Future Impact on Operating Budget: None Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Storm Revenue - 35,000 1,117, 000 1,152, 000 Grants- Secured (Fed, State, Local) - _ _ Bond Proceeds Other _ Total Funding Sources: - 35,000 1,117,000 1,152,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 35,000 17,000 52,000 Right of Way - _ Construction 1,100.000 1,100, 000 Total Expenditures: 35,000 1,117,000 - 1,152,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Storm Revenue - 1,117,000 Grants- Secured (Fed, State, Local) _ Bond Proceeds Other Total Funding Sources: - - 1,117,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 17, 000 Right of Way - _ Construction - - 1,100,000 Total Expenditures: - - - 1,117,000 170 City of Auburn Di -aft Capital Facilities Plan PARKS, ARTS AND RECREATION Current Facilities The City of Auburn's park system consists of a total of 951.50 acres of neighborhood and community parks, special use areas, open space and linear parks (trails). Table PR — 1 "Facilities Inventory" lists all park and recreation land in the City's park system along with their current capacity and location. Level of Service (LOS) The current LOS provided by the City's park system represents the existing inventory of City - owned park acres divided by the 2019 projected City population of 81,905. This equates to 0.71 acres per 1,000 population for neighborhood parks, 2.87 acres per 1,000 population for community parks, 0.20 acres for linear parks, 4.72 acres for open space, and 3.11 acres for special use areas. The proposed LOS provided by the City's park system represents the planned 2024 inventory of City -owned park acres divided by the 2024 projected City population of 88,670. This equates to 0.77 acres per 1,000 population for neighborhood parks, 3.15 acres per 1,000 population for community parks, 0.23 acres per 1,000 population for linear parks, 4.54 acres per 1,000 population for open space, and 2.87 acres per 1,000 population for special use areas. Capital Facilities Projects and Financing Parks and Recreation facilities include eighteen capital projects at a cost of $14,668,500. Table PR — 2 shows the proposed financing plan followed by individual worksheets showing the project detail. Impact on Future Operating Budgets As Table PR — 3 shows, operating budget impacts of $128,000 are forecasted for parks and recreation facilities during the six years 2020 — 2025. 171 TABLE PR -1 City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan Facilities Inventory Parks, Arts and Recreation, Land 172 CAPACITY FACILITY Acres LOCATION Neighborhood Parks: Existing Inventory: 21st Street Playground 0.17 405 21st St. SE Auburndale Park 9.74 31802 108th Ave. SE Ballard Park 0.68 1612 37th Way SE Cameron Park 3.85 3727 Lemon Tree Lane Cedar Lane Park 8.36 1002 25th St. SE Dor-thy Bothell Park 4.35 1087 Evergreen Way SE Dykstra Park 1.67 1487 22nd St. NE Forest Villa mini park 0.21 1647 Fir St. SE Gaines Park 1.33 1008 Pike St. NW Indian Tom Park 0.42 1316 6th St. NE Jornada Park 1.89 1433 U Ct. NW Kersey 3 Park A 2.73 5480 Charlotte Ave. SE Kersey 3 Park B 0.79 5530 Udall Ave. SE Lakeland Hills Park 5.06 1401 Evergreen Way SE Lea Hill Courts 1.18 32121 105th PI. SE Riverpoint Park 2.95 1450 32nd St. NE Riversands Park 1.76 5014 Pike St NE Rotary Park 3.89 2635 Alpine St. NE Scootie Brown Park 1.68 1403 Henry Rd. NE Shaughnessy Park 3.46 3302 21st St. SE Terminal Park 1.22 1292 C St. SE Village Square 1.10 12111 SE 310th St. Total Neighborhood Parks 58.49 Proposed Capacity Projects: Auburndale // Park 9.35 29700 118th Street SE Total Proposed Capacity Projects 9.35 2024 Projected Inventory Total -Neighborhood Parks - 67.84 Community Parks: Existing Inventory: Brannan Park 21.68 1019 28th St. NE Fulmer Field 5.04 1101 5th St. NE Game Farm Park 57.20 3030 R St. SE Game Farm Wilderness Park 48.50 2407 Stuck River Dr. SE GSA Park 5.31 413 15th St. SW Isaac Evans Park 19.87 29627 Green River Road NE Lea Hill Park 5.26 31693 124th Ave. SE Les Gove Park 26.07 910 9th St. SE Mil/ Pond 4.20 4582 Mill Pond Dr, SE Roegner Park 19.22 601 Oravetz Road Sunset Park 15.15 1420 69th St SE Veteran's Memorial Park 7.67 405 E St. NE Tota/ Community Parks 235.17 Proposed Capacity Projects: 104th Avenue SE 14.73 31495 104th Ave. SE Jacobson Tree Farm 29.30 29387 132nd Ave SE Total Proposed Capacity Projects 44.03 2024 Projected Inventory Total - Community Parks - 279.20 172 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan TABLE PR -1 (continued) Linear Parks: Interurban Trail 9.14 804 West Main St. Lake Tapps Parkv�ey Trail 2.36 1420 69th St SE Lakeland Hills Trail 1.66 1087 Evergreen Way SE Reddington Levee Trail 2.50 1019 28th St NE White River Trail 0.93 601 Oravetz St. NE Total Linear Parks 16.59 1420 Auburn Way N. Green River Trail 0.83 277th to Reddington Levee Trail Jacobsen Tree Farm to Green River Trail 2.75 White River Trail Extension 0.05 Total Proposed Capacity Projects 3.63 2024 Projected Inventory Total - Linear Parks- 20.22 Special Use Areas: Auburn Environmental Park 16.84 413 Western Ave NW B Street Plaza 0.10 148 East Main St. Bicentennial Park 1.07 502 Auburn Way S. Centennial Viewpoint Park 0.70 402 Mountain View Dr. City Hall Plaza 1.10 25 West Main St. Clark Plaza 0.25 1420 Auburn Way N. Community Garden A 1.04 1030 8th St. NE Fenster/Green River Access 12.58 10502 Auburn Black Diamond Road Golf Course 139.71 29630 Green River Road SE Mountain View Cemetery 60.00 2020 Mountain View Dr. Olson Canyon Farmstead 20.00 28728 Green River Road Pioneer Cemetery 0.76 802 Auburn Way N, Plaza Park 0.19 2 West Main St. Slaughter Memorial 0.02 2988 Auburn Way N. Total Special Use Areas 254.36 None - Total Proposed Capacity Projects - 2024 Projected Inventory Total - Soecial Use Areas - 254.36 Open Space Areas: Auburn Environmental Park Open Space 190.91 413 Western Ave. NW Clark Property 26.68 TBD Game Farm Open Space 26.00 3030 R St. SE Golf Course Open Space 40.98 29630 Green River Road SE Lakeland Hills Nature Area 46.07 500 182nd Ave. S Olson Canyon Open Space 47.00 28728 Green River Road West Auburn Lake 9.25 32054 58th Ave. S Total Open Space Areas 386.89 Mary Olson Farm -Watts Property 16.00 Total Proposed Capacity Projects 16.00 2024 Projected Inventory Total - Open Space Areas - 402.89 173 TABLE PR -2 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN PROJECTS AND FINANCING PARKS, ARTS and RECREATION (Municipal Parks Construction Fund) 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Page Capacity Projects: Capital Costs 25,000 - 25,000 Funding Sources: 177 Park Acquisitions/Development Grants (Fed,State,Local) - - - Park Impact Fees - - - - - _ 183 Auburndale Park Capital Costs 30,000 30,000 50,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 485,000 Fund Balance - - Funding Sources: KC Prop 2 - - - _ Park Impact Fees - 100,000 - - - 100,000 • Fund Balance - - - - - - _ Grants (Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - - KC Prop 2 30,000 30,000 50,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 485,000 178 Jacobsen Tree Farm Site Plan Capital Costs - - 5,333,500 - 5,000,000 - 10,333,500 Funding Sources: Fund Balance - - - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local) - - 1,000,000 - 1,000,000 - 2,000,000 KC Prop 2 - - 333,500 - - - 333,500 Other (TBD) - - 2,000,000 - 2,000,000 - 4,000,000 Park Impact Fees - - 2,000,000 - 2,000,000 - 4,000,000 179 Brannan Park Synthetic Infield Capital Costs 60,000 - - - - 60,000 Funding Sources: KC Prop 2 - - - _ - Grants (Fed,State,Local) Other - - Park Impact Fees 60,000 - - - 60,000 180 Mary Olson Farm -Watts Property Acquisition Capital Costs 250,000 - - 250,000 Funding Sources: Fund Balance - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local) 125,000 - - 125,000 Park Impact Fees 125,000 - - 125,000 181 Game Farm Park Improvements Capital Costs 1,200,000 - - - 1,200,000 Funding Sources: Park Mitigation Fees 300,000 - - - - 300,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local) 300,000 - - - - 300,000 Park Impact Fees 600,000 - - - 600,000 182 Les Gove Park Improvements Capital Costs 25,000 - 25,000 Funding Sources: Fund Balance 25,000 - - 25,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local) - - - Park Impact Fees - - - - - _ 183 Auburndale Park Capital Costs - 100,000 - - 100,000 Funding Sources: Fund Balance - - KC Prop 2 - - - _ Park Impact Fees - 100,000 - - - 100,000 • 174 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan TABLE PR -2 (continued) 187 Lakeland Hills Nature Area 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Page Capacity Projects: Capital Costs 184 Auburndale Park II 100,000 200,000 Capital Costs 575,000 - 575,000 Funding Sources: Fund Balance - Fund Balance - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local) - - - Other - 575,000 575,000 185 Sunset Park Improvements 25,000 75,000 Capital Costs 200,000 - 200,000 188 West Hill Lake Property Development Funding Sources: Fund Balance - - - Park Impact Fees 200,000 200,000 20,000 Other (Contributions) - - - 186 BPA Trait on Lea Hill Fund Balance - Capital Costs 150,000 150,000 - Funding Sources: Park Impact Fees 20,000 - - Fund Balance - - 20,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local) 150,000 150,000 KC Prop 2 - - 187 Lakeland Hills Nature Area Capital Costs 25,000 75,000 100,000 200,000 Funding Sources: Fund Balance - - - - - Park Mitigation Fees - - - - Park Impact Fees - - 25,000 75,000 100,000 200,000 188 West Hill Lake Property Development Capital Costs 20,000 - - - 20,000 Funding Sources: Fund Balance - - - Park Impact Fees 20,000 - - - - - 20,000 189 Miscellaneous Parks Improvements Capital Costs 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 600,000 Funding Sources: Fund Balance 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 300,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local) - - - - - - - REET 2 - - - - - - - Park Impact Fees 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 300,000 Subtotal, Capacity Projects: Capital Costs 1,885,000 380,000 6,083,500 225,000 5,300,000 325,000 14,198,500 Page Non -Capacity Projects: 190 Cameron Park Capital Costs 55,000 - - - - - 55,000 Funding Sources: Fund Balance - - Grants (Fed,State,Local) 55,000 - 55,000 nrtie. - - - - - - - 191 Gaines Park Capital Costs 35,000 35,000 Funding Sources: Fund Balance - - Grants (Fed,State,Local) - - KC Prop 2 35,000 - 35,000 175 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan TABLE PR -2 (continued) 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Page Non -Capacity Projects: 6,083,500 225,000 5,300,000 192 Fulmer Park Playground Replacement 120,000 80,000 180,000 30,000 Capital Costs 30,000 150,000 150,000 460,000 Funding Sources: 255,000 5,330,000 355,000 14,668,500 Fund Balance 50,000 - - - 50,000 Grants (Private) 325,000 50,000 - 50,000 1,000,000 KC Prop 2 - 100,000 - - 100,000 193 Lea Hill Mini Soccer Feld Turf Replacement 50,000 - - - Capital Costs 50,000 - - - 50,000 125,000 Funding Sources: 125,000 953,500 1,055,000 150,000 Fund Balance - - - 5,605,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local) 50,000 - - 50,000 - Other - - - - - - - 194 Fairway Drainage Improvement 30,000 30,000 180,000 - Capital Costs 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 180,000 - Funding Sources: 2,005,000 460,000 6,263,500 255,000 Fund Balance - - - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local) - - - - - - - REET 2 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 180,000 Subtotal, Non -Capacity Projects: Capital Costs 120,000 80,000 180,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 470,000 SUMMARY: CAPITAL COSTS Capacity Projects Non -Capacity Projects Total Costs FUNDING SOURCES: Fund Balance Grants (Fed, State, Local) Grants -Private KC Prop 2 Parks Impact Parks Mitigation REET2 Other Total Funding 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total 1,885,000 380,000 6,083,500 225,000 5,300,000 325,000 14,198,500 120,000 80,000 180,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 470,000 2,005,000 460,000 6,263,500 255,000 5,330,000 355,000 14,668,500 75,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 325,000 480,000 200,000 1,000,000 - 1,000,000 - 2,680,000 - - 50,000 - - - 50,000 65,000 30,000 483,500 125,000 125,000 125,000 953,500 1,055,000 150,000 2,075,000 50,000 2,125,000 150,000 5,605,000 300,000 - - - - - 300,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 180,000 - - 2,575,000 - 2,000,000 - 4,575,000 2,005,000 460,000 6,263,500 255,000 5,330,000 355,000 14,668,500 176 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan MUNICIPAL PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (321) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Capital Projects Fund Project Title: Park Acquisitions/Development Project No: gpbd04 Project Type: Capacity Project Manager: Daryl Faber Description: Land acquisitions to occur based on demand and deficiencies including parks, open space, trails and corridors. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: None Activity: (Precious 2 Yrs.) 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Fund 321 -Unrestricted Fund Balance - Grants- Secured (Fed, State, Local) - Bond Proceeds General Fund Transfer In - - - - KC Prop 2 21,400 30,000 30,000 51,400 Total Funding Sources: 21,400 30,000 30,000 51,400 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - Acquisition 21,400 30,000 30,000 51,400 Construction Total Expenditures: 21,400 30,000 30,000 51,400 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Fund 321 -Unrestricted Fund Balance - - - Grants- Secured (Fed, State, Local) Bond Proceeds General Fund Transfer to - - - - - KC Prop 2 50,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 485,000 Total Funding Sources: 50,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 485,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Acquisition 50,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 485,000 Construction Total Expenditures: 50,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 485,000 177 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan MUNICIPAL PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (321) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Capital Projects Fund Project Title: Jacobsen Tree Farm Site Plan Project No: cp0609 Project Type: Capacity Project Manager: Daryl Faber Description: Develop the 29.3 acre site into a Community Park. A Master Plan for the park was completed in 2009 and will serve as a roadmap for development of the site. The newly annexed Lea Hill area of the City is deficient in park acreage. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant impact due to master plan. Future park development will result in maintenance and utility expenses undeterminable at this time. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Fund 321 -Unrestricted Fund Balance 25,321 25,321 Grants- Unsecured State - - King County Prop 2 Park Impact Fees Other (TBD) - - Total Funding Sources: 25,321 25,321 Capital Expenditures: Design 25,321 - 25,321 Right of Way - - Construction Total Expenditures: 25,321 25,321 Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Fund 321 -Unrestricted Fund Balance - - - Grants- Unsecured State 1,000,000 1,000,000 2,000,000 King County Prop 2 333,500 - 333,500 Park Impact Fees 2,000,000 2,000,000 4,000,000 Other (TBD) 2,000,000 2,000,000 - 4,000,000 Total Funding Sources: 5,333,500 5,000,000 10,333,500 Capital Expenditures: Design 500.000 500,000 1,000,000 Right of Way - - - Construction 4,833,500 4,500,000 9,333,500 Total Expenditures: 5,333,500 - 5,000,000 10,333,500 178 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan MUNICIPAL PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (321) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Capital Projects Fund Project Title: Brannan Park Synthetic Infield Project No: cp1817 Project Type: Capacity Project Manager. Jamie Kelly Description: Upgrade the existing dirt infield to synthetic turf to increase playability during inclement weather. The Parks Department submitted an application for a Youth Sports Facilities Grant (YAF) from the State Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO) in May 2016 for the synthetic infield. In addition, a King County Youth Athletic Facilities Grant application was submitted to cover City matching funds for the YAF grant. Additional improvements to the park include replacing the degraded concrete curbing around the perimeter of the parking lot. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: None Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Fund 321 -Unrestricted Fund Balance - 48,100 48,100 Interlocal Grant (KCYSFG) 75,000 75,000 Grants- Unsecured (State RCC) 218,100 218,100 Other- Donations 20,000 - 20,000 Park Impact fees 75,000 60.000 135,000 Total Funding Sources: 436,200 60,000 496,200 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - Right of Way - - - Construction 436,200 60,000 496,200 Total Expenditures: 436,200 60,000 496,200 Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Fund 321 -Unrestricted Fund Balance Interlocal Grant (KCYSFG) Grants- Unsecured (State RCO) Other- Donations - Park Impact fees 60,000 Total Funding Sources: - 60,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - Right of Way - Construction 60,000 Total Expenditures: - 60,000 179 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan MUNICIPAL PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (321) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Capital Projects Fund Project Title: Les Gove Park Improvements Project No: cp1605 Project Type: Capacity Project Manager: Daryl Faber Description: Based on the completed Les Gove Master Plan, design and implement recommendations that will increase user safety, encourage public use and community connectivity. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: $5,000 Utilities Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Fund 321 -Unrestricted Fund Balance - 323,900 25,000 348,900 Grants- Secured (KCCF) 370,560 - - 370,560 Other Fund 328 - _ Other -Park Impact Fee - - _ KC Prop 2 - 330,000 - 330,000 Total Funding Sources: 370,560 653,900 25,000 1,049,460 Capital Expenditures: Design 13,586 - - 13,586 Right of Way - - - _ Construction 356,974 653,900 25,000 1,035,874 Total Expenditures: 370,560 653,900 25,000 - 1,049,460 Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Fund 321 -Unrestricted Fund Balance 25,000 Grants- Secured (KCCF) _ Other Fund 328 _ Other -Park Impact Fee KC Prop 2 - Total Funding Sources: - - - 25,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - _ Right of Way - - _ _ Construction - - 25,000 Total Expenditures: - - - 25,000 182 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan MUNICIPAL PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (321) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Capital Projects Fund Project Title: Auburndale Park Project No: gpbd01 Project Type: Capacity Project Manager: Daryl Faber Description: Develop a Master Plan for the Park, install an irrigation system, new play structure and improve signage. Create an entrance to the park from the east via 110th Ave SE to allow access from the adjacent neighborhoods. Construct new section of trail in the western portion of the park. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: Utilities would increase by $5,000 Progress Summary: Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Fund 321 -Unrestricted Fund Balance - - Grants -Secured (Fed, State, Local) Bond Proceeds - - Other (Park Impact Fee) 100,000 Other (KC Prop 2) - Total Funding Sources: Capital Expenditures: Design 5,000 - Right of Way - Construction 95,000 Total Expenditures: 100,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Fund 321 -Unrestricted Fund Balance Grants- Secured (Fed, State, Local) Bond Proceeds - Other (Park Impact Fee) - - 100,000 Other (KC Prop 2) - Total Funding Sources: - - - 100,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 5,000 Right of Way - Construction 95,000 Total Expenditures: 100,000 183 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan MUNICIPAL PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (321) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Capital Projects Fund Project Title: Mary Olson Farm - Watts Property Acquisition Project No: gpbd13 Project Type: Capacity Project Manager: Daryl Faber/Jamie Kelly Description: Acquire approximately 16 acres in the southern portion of tax parcel number 3222059118, which is located east of the Mary Olson Farm property. The purpose of the acquisition is to create interpretive and educational opportunities in a plateau area that has historical significance within the steep forested ravine. The area was once a gathering place for Native Americans preparing to embark on fishing expeditions. The City was recently awarded a King County Conservation Futures grant to acquire the property. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: None Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Municipal Parks Construction Fund - Grants- Secured (Fed, State, Local) - - Grants- Secured (KCCF) 125,000 125,000 Bond Proceeds - Park Impact Fees 125,000 125,000 Other (KC Prop 2) Total Funding Sources: 250,000 250,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - Acquisition 250,000 250,000 Construction Total Expenditures: 250,000 250,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Municipal Parks Construction Fund - Grants- Secured (Fed, State, Local) 125,000 Bond Proceeds - Park Impact Fees 125,000 Other (KC Prop 2) Total Funding Sources: 250,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - Acquisition 250,000 Construction Total Expenditures: 250,000 I:1 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan MUNICIPAL PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (321) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Capital Projects Fund Project Title: Game Farm Park Improvements Project No: gpbd08, cp1720 Project Type: Capacity Project Manager: Daryl Faber Description: Improve interior lighting and pathways and provide access from the newly acquired property on southwest comer of the park. Replace synthetic turf on two full sized soccer fields. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: None Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Fund 321 -Unrestricted Fund Balance - - - Grants- Unsecured State 200,000 - Grants- Unsecured Local - 100,000 - 100,000 REET 20,000 - - 20,000 Other (Park Mitigation Fee) - 300,000 - 300,000 Other (Park Impact Fee) 20,000 600,000 - 620,000 Total Funding Sources: 40,000 1,200,000 - 1,040,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 40,000 - 40,000 Right of Way - - - Construction 40.000 1,160, 000 1,200,000 Total Expenditures: 40,000 1,200,000 1,240,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Fund 321 -Unrestricted Fund Balance - Grants- Unsecured State - 200,000 Grants- Unsecured Local 100,000 REET - - Other (Park Mitigation Fee) 300,000 Other (Park Impact Fee) 600,000 Total Funding Sources: - 1,200,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 40,000 Right of Way - - Construction 1,160, 000 Total Expenditures: - - 1,200,000 181 City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan MUNICIPAL PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (321) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Capital Projects Fund Project Title: BPA Trail on Lea Hill Project No: gpbd23 Project Type: Capacity Project Manager: Daryl Faber Description: Develop a feasibility study related to constructability of a pedestrian trail linking the Jacobsen Tree Farm site to the west end of Lea Hill. This trail would follow the alignment of the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) transmission lines from 132nd to 108th Avenue SE. Construction would be in phases based on constructability. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: None Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Fund 321 -Unrestricted Fund Balance - - _ Grants- Unsecured (State RCO) 150,000 150,000 Bond Proceeds - _ REST Other (KC Prop. 2)" - Total Funding Sources: 150,000 150,000 Capital Expenditures: Predesign 25,000 - Design 125,000 - Construction Total Expenditures: - 150,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Fund 321 -Unrestricted Fund Balance _ Grants- Unsecured (State RCC) 150,000 Bond Proceeds _ REET Other (KC Prop. 2)" _ _ Total Funding Sources: - - - - 150,000 Capital Expenditures: Predesign - 25,000 Design - 125,000 Construction _ Total Expenditures: - 150,000 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan MUNICIPAL PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (321) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Capital Projects Fund Project Title: Lakeland Hills Nature Area Project No: gpbd11 Project Type: Capacity Project Manager: Daryl Faber Description: Complete Master Plan to include the development and construction of an environmental community park. Trails, fencing, parking and visitor amenities are included in the project. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: Increased maintenance costs of $5,000 Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Fund 321 -Unrestricted Fund Balance - - Grants- Secured (Fed, State, Local) Bond Proceeds Park Impact Fees Park Mitigation Fees Total Funding Sources: Capital Expenditures: Design - Right of Way Construction Total Expenditures: - - Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Fund 321 -Unrestricted Fund Balance - Grants- Secured (Fed, State, Local) - Bond Proceeds - - - - Park Impact Fees 25,000 75,000 100,000 200,000 Park Mitigation Fees - - - - - Total Funding Sources: 25,000 - 75,000 100,000 200,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 25,000 - - 25,000 Right of Way - - - - Construction - 75,000 100,000 175,000 Total Expenditures: 25,000 75,000 100,000 200,000 187 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan MUNICIPAL PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (321) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Capital Projects Fund Project Title: Auburndale Park II Project No: gpbd05 Project Type: Capacity Project Manager: Daryl Faber Description: Develop a Master Plan, improve the wasting trail system and install signage and play structure. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: Increased utility costs of $2,000 Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Fund 321 -Unrestricted Fund Balance - Grants- Secured (Fed, State, Local) Bond Proceeds REST Other TBD Total Funding Sources: - Capital Expenditures: Design Right of Way Construction Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Fund 321 -Unrestricted Fund Balance - Grants- Secured (Fed, State, Local) Bond Proceeds REST - _ Other TBD 575,000 575,000 Total Funding Sources: 575,000 575,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 75,000 75,000 Right of Way - _ Construction 500,000 - 500,000 Total Expenditures: 575,000 - 575,000 •" City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan MUNICIPAL PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (321) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Capital Projects Fund Project Title: Sunset Park Improvements Project No: gpbd06 Project Type: Capacity Project Manager: Daryl Faber Description: Expand playground area to include spray park and additional play activities. Coordinate improvements with service club and Lakeland Hills Homeowners Association. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: Increase in Utilities of $10,000 per year Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Fund 321 -Unrestricted Fund Balance - Grants- Secured (Fed, State, Local) Bond Proceeds - - Park Impact Fees 200,000 200,000 Other -Contributions & Donations Total Funding Sources: - 200,000 - 200,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 15,000 15,000 Right of Way - - Construction 185,000 185,000 Total Expenditures: - 200,000 200,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Fund 321 -Unrestricted Fund Balance Grants- Secured (Fed, State, Local) Bond Proceeds - - Park Impact Fees - - 200,000 Other -Contributions & Donations Total Funding Sources: - - 200,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 15,000 Right of Way - - Construction 185,000 Total Expenditures: - - - 200,000 185 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan MUNICIPAL PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (321) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Capital Projects Fund Project Title: West Hill Lake Property Development Project No: Cp1801 Project Type: Capacity Project Manager: Faber Description: Install and construct park improvements identified in the 2013 Master Plan for the park. Park improvements include trail development, installation of picnic tables and benches, parking improvements, and invasive species removal. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: Increased maintenance costs of $5,000 Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Municipal Parks Construction Fund - Grants- Secured (Fed, State, Local) Bond Proceeds REST - - _ Other -Park Impact Fees 80,000 20,000 100,000 Total Funding Sources: - 80,000 20,000 100,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - _ Right of Way - - - _ Construction 80,000 20,000 100,000 Total Expenditures: - 80,000 20,000 - 100,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Municipal Parks Construction Fund _ Grants- Secured (Fed, State, Local) Bond Proceeds REST - _ Other -Park Impact Fees 20,000 Total Funding Sources: - 20,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - Right of Way _ Construction - 20,000 Total Expenditures: - 20,000 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan MUNICIPAL PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (321) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Capital Projects Fund Project Title: Miscellaneous Parks Improvements Project No: gpbd03 Project Type: Capacity/Non-Capacity Project Manager: Daryl Faber Description: Minor park improvements including shelters, roofs, playgrounds, irrigation and restrooms. Progress Summary: Project funding includes the Brannan Park Kompan Soccer Field improvements in 2017 and Les Gove Park turf improvements in 2016 Future Impact on Operating Budget: None Activity: (Pre\Aous 2 Yrs.) 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Fund 321 -Unrestricted Fund Balance 51,085 50,000 50,000 50,000 151,085 Grants- Unsecured State - - - - - Local Grant 75,000 75,000 REST 2 - - - - - Other (Park Impact Fee) 70,661 50,000 50,000 50,000 170,661 Total Funding Sources: 196,746 100,000 100,000 100,000 396,746 Capital Expenditures: Professional Services - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction 196,746 100,000 100,000 100,000 396,746 Total Expenditures: 196,746 100,000 100,000 100,000 396,746 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Fund 321 -Unrestricted Fund Balance 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 300,000 Grants- Unsecured State - - - - - Local Grant REET2 - - - - - Other (Park Impact Fee)' 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 300,000 Total Funding Sources: 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 600,000 Capital Expenditures: Professional Services - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 600,000 Total Expenditures: 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 600,000 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan MUNICIPAL PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (321) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Capital Projects Fund Project Title: Cameron Park Project No: gpbd24 Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager: Daryl Faber Description: This project will improve the pedestrian trail and add landscape and fencing to serve as buffer to the neighborhood and play structure. This project is identified in the Parks Improvement Plan. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: None Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Fund 321 -Unrestricted Fund Balance - - _ Grants- Unsecured Local 55,000 55,000 Bond Proceeds - _ REST Other Total Funding Sources: 55,000 - 55,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 5,000 5,000 Right of Way - - Construction 50,000 50,000 Total Expenditures: 55,000 55,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Fund 321 -Unrestricted Fund Balance _ Grants- Unsecured Local - 55,000 Bond Proceeds - REET Other Total Funding Sources: - 55,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 5,000 Right of Way _ Construction 50,000 Total Expenditures: 55,000 190 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan MUNICIPAL PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (321) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Capital Projects Fund Project Title: Gaines Park Project No: gpbd09 Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager: Daryl Faber Description: Develop Horticulture Plan for the Park as indicated in the Parks Improvement Plan and repair boardwalk. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: None Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Fund 321 -Unrestricted Fund Balance - Grants- Secured (Fed, State, Local) Bond Proceeds - - KC Prop 2 35,000 35,000 Other - Total Funding Sources: 35,000 35,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 10,000 10,000 Right of Way - - Construction 25,000 25,000 Total Expenditures: - 35,000 35,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Fund 321 -Unrestricted Fund Balance - Grants- Secured (Fed, State, Local) Bond Proceeds - KC Prop 2 35,000 Other - Total Funding Sources: - 35,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - 10,000 Right of Way - Construction 25,000 Total Expenditures: - - - 35,000 191 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan MUNICIPAL PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (321) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Capital Projects Fund Project Title: Fulmer Park Playground Replacement Project No: gpbd25 Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager: Jamie Kelly Description: Replace aging playground. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: None Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Municipal Parks Construction Fund - Grants- Kaboom Bond Proceeds REET KC Prop 2 Total Funding Sources: Capital Expenditures: Design Right of Way Construction Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Municipal Parks Construction Fund - _ Grants- Kaboom 50,000 50,000 Bond Proceeds - _ REET - KC Prop 2 100,000 100,000 Total Funding Sources: 150,000 150,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 7,500 7,500 Right of Way - - _ Construction 142,500 142,500 Total Expenditures: 150,000 150,000 192 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan MUNICIPAL PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (321) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Capital Projects Fund Project Title: Lea Hill Mini Soccer Field Turf Replacement Project No: gpbd26 Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager: Daryl Faber Description: Replace synthetic turf in the Kompan mini soccer field. Based on heavy use of this facility surface replacement is expected to be needed at approximate 5 year intervals. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: None Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Municipal Parks Construction Fund - - Grants- Unsecured (Interfocal KCYSFG) 50,000 REET - Other - Total Funding Sources: - - 50,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design 2,500 Right of Way - Construction 47,500 Total Expenditures: - 50,000 - Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Municipal Parks Construction Fund - Grants- Unsecured (Interlocal KCYSFG) 50,000 REET - Other - Total Funding Sources: - 50,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - 2,500 Right of Way - - - Construction 47,500 Total Expenditures: 50,000 193 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan MUNICIPAL PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (321) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Capital Projects Fund Project Title: Fairway Drainage Improvement Project No: gpbd19 Project Type: Non -capacity Project Manager: Daryl Faber Description: Apply top dressing sand to the first five fairways in order to firm up these landing areas so that the holes are playable year round. Sand will be applied with a three yard topdressing machine. Sand will be applied bi/weekly at a tenth of an inch of sand throughout the fairways. Fairways will start to show improvements once four inches of sand are applied. Future Impact on Operating Budget: None Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Municipal Parks Construction Fund - Grants- Secured (Fed, State, Local) Bond Proceeds - - - _ REST 30,000 30,000 30,000 60,000 Other - - Total Funding Sources: 30,000 30,000 30,000 60,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - Right of Way - - - _ Construction 30,000 30,000 30,000 60,000 Total Expenditures: 30,000 30,000 30,000 60,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Municipal Parks Construction Fund - Grants- Secured (Fed, State, Local) Bond Proceeds- - - _ _ BEET 30, 000 30,000 30,000 30,000 180,000 Other - Total Funding Sources: 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 180,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - _ _ - Construction 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 180,000 Total Expenditures: 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 180,000 194 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan TABLE PR -3 Impact on Future Operating Budgets PARKS, ARTS & RECREATION - MUNICIPAL PARKS CONSTRUCTION 195 Project: 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Total 1 Les Gove Park Imp. $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 30,000 2 Auburndale Park - 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 25,000 3 Auburndale Park II - - 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 5,000 4 Sunset Park 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 60,000 5 Lakeland Hills Nature Area - - - - - 5,000 5,000 Total $ 15,000 $ 20,000 $ 22,000 $ 22,000 $ 22,000 $ 27,000 $ 128,000 195 • City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan SENIOR CENTER Current Facilities The City of Auburn currently has one Senior Center. Table PR -5 Facilities Inventory lists the facility along with its current capacity and location. Level of Service (LOS) The current LOS of 148.95 square feet per 1,000 population is based on the existing inventory divided by the 2019 citywide population of 81,905. The proposed LOS of 137.59 square feet per 1,000 population is based on the projected inventory divided by the 2024 -projected citywide population of 88,670. Capital Facilities Projects and Financing The CFP does not include any senior center capital facilities projects during 2019-2024. Impact on Future Operating Budgets There are no operating budget impacts forecasted for the senior center facility during the six years 2020 — 2025. TABLE PR -5 Facilities Inventory FACILITY Existing Inventory: Senior Center Total Existing Inventory Proposed Capacity Projects: None Total Proposed Capacity Projects 2024 Projected Inventory Total Senior Center 196 CAPACITY uare Feet) LOCATION 12,200 808 9th Street SE 12,200 12,200 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan GENERAL MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS Current Facilities The current inventory of City government administration and operations facilities include 204,858 square feet for general government operations, 61,680 square feet for police services, and 38,646 square feet for fire protection, for a total of 305,184 square feet. Table GM — 1 "Facilities Inventory" lists the facilities along with their current capacity and location. Level of Service (LOS) The current LOS of 3,726.07 square feet per 1,000 population is based on the existing inventory divided by the 2019 citywide population of 81,905. The proposed LOS of 3,486.91 square feet per 1,000 population is based on the projected inventory divided by the 2024 -projected citywide population of 88,670. Capital Facilities Projects and Financing The City's General Municipal Building facilities include eight capital projects at a cost of $3,895,200 and debt service at a cost of $3,944,400 for a total of $7,839,600. The major projects include (1) $2,017,200 for the Auburn Arts & Culture Center Renovation, (2) $448,000 for Equipment Rental Vehicle Maintenance Bay (3) $320,000 for M&O Fuel Tank (4) $350,000 for City Hall Roof Replacement and $3,944,400 for City Hall Annex debt service costs. Table GM — 2 shows the proposed financing plan followed by individual worksheets showing the project detail. Impact on Future Operating Budgets As Table GM -3 shows, operating budget impacts of $570,000 are forecasted for General Municipal buildings facilities during the six years 2020 - 2025. 197 TABLE GM -1 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan Facilities Inventory General Municipal Buildings CAPACITY FACILITY (Square Feet) LOCATION Existing Inventory: City Hall 61,721 25 W Main Street City Hall Annex 45,034 1 W Main Street City Maintenance & Operations Facility 17,940 1305 C Street SW Community Center 13,973 910 9th Street SE Municipal Court (Justice Center -Leased to King County) 12,200 340 E Main Street Activity Center 10,074 910 9th Street SE R Street Building 9,766 2840 Riverwalk Drive Auburn Arts & Culture Center 8,744 100 Auburn Avenue Youth Center 7,132 910 9th Street SE Aubum Valley Humane Society -(Leased to AVHS) 5,900 4910 A Street GSA Building 5,580 2905 C Street SW #815 Les Gove Storage Building 4,044 910 9th Street SE Street Waste Handling Facility 2,750 1305 C Street SW Total 204,858 Gun range Headquarters (Justice Center) Seized vehicle parking stalls GSA Building Total Stations: GSA Station #35 North Station #31 South Station #32 Other Facilities: North Station Maint. Facility Total Total Existing Inventory Capacity Projects: ce & Operations New Maintenance Bay Total Proposed Capacity Projects 2024 Projected Inventory Total • 32,880 1600 Block 15th St NW 24,800 340 E Main Street 3,000 2905 C Street SW 1,000 2905 C Street SW #815 61,680 16,526 2905 C Street SW 12,220 1101 D Street NE 5,200 1951 R Street SE 4,700 1101 D Street NE 38,646 305,184 4,000 4,000 9,184 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan TABLE GM -2 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN PROJECTS AND FINANCING GENERAL MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Page Capacity Projects: 201 Auburn Arts & Culture Center Renovation 180,000 180,000 Capital Costs 1,517,200 500,000 2,017,200 Funding Sources: 50,000 50,000 Fund Balance - - - Grants 975,000 975,000 Other (Cumulative Reserve F122) 42,200 - 42,200 Other Park Impact Fees 500,000 500,000 1,000,000 202 Maintenance & Operations, Police and City Hall Facility Master Plan 448,000 Capital Costs 125,000 125,000 - 250,000 Funding Sources: 117,500 117,500 Fund Balance - - - REET 1 125,000 125,000 250,000 Subtotal, Capacity Projects: Capital Costs 1,642,200 125,000 500,000 Non -Capacity Projects: 203 M & O Vehicle Storage Bay Improvements 2,267,200 Capital Costs 180,000 180,000 Funding Sources: 320,000 320,000 Equipment Rental Fund 50,000 50,000 Operating Transfer -Water 43,334 43,334 Operating Transfer -Sewer 43,333 43,333 Operating Transfer -Storm 43,333 43,333 204 Equipment Rental Vehicle Maintenance Bay 80,000 80,000 Capital Costs 448,000 448,000 Funding Sources: 140,000 140,000 Equipment Rental Fund 117,500 117,500 Operating Transfer -Water 110,166 110,166 Operating Transfer -Sewer 110,167 110,167 Ooeratina Transfer -Storm 110,167 110,167 205 M&O Fuel Tank Replacement Capital Costs 320,000 320,000 Funding Sources: Equipment Rental Fund 80,000 80,000 Operating Transfer -Water 80,000 80,000 Operating Transfer -Sewer 80,000 80,000 Operating Transfer -Storm 80,000 80,000 206 M&O Lunchroom Expansion Capital Costs 140,000 140,000 Funding Sources: Equipment Rental Fund 37,500 37,500 Operating Transfer -Water 34,166 34,166 Operating Transfer -Sewer 34,167 34,167 Operatinq Transfer -Storm 34,167 34,167 199 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan TABLE GM -2 (continued) 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Page Non -Capacity Projects: 207 City Hall Roof Replacement Capital Costs 350,000 350,000 Funding Sources: REET 1 - 350,000 350,000 208 City Facilities Maintenance Projects Capital Costs 40,000 150,000 190,000 Funding Sources: REET 1 40,000 150,000 - - - 190,000 209 CityHall Annex Long -Term Debt 657,950 658,700 656,600 657,950 656,350 656,850 3,944,400 Funding Sources: REET 1 657,950 658,700 656,600 657,950 656,350 656,850 3,944,400 Subtotal, Non -Capacity Projects: Capital Costs 1,128,000 500,000 1,628,000 SUMMARY: CAPITAL COSTS Capacity Projects Non -Capacity Projects Long -Term Debt Total Costs FUNDING SOURCES: Equipment Rental Fund Operating Transfer -Water Operating Transfer -Sewer Operating Transfer -Storm Grants Cumulative Reserve Fund 122 Park Impact Fees REET1 Total Funding 1,642,200 125,000 500,000 2,267,200 1,128,000 500,000 - - - - 1,628,000 657,950 658,700 656,600 657,950 656,350 656,850 3,944,400 3,428,150 1,283,700 1,156,600 657,950 656,350 656,850 7,839,600 285,000 285,000 267,666 267,666 267,667 267,667 267,667 267,667 975,000 975,000 42,200 - 42,200 500,000 - 500,000 - - - 1,000,000 822,950 1,283,700 656,600 657,950 656,350 656,850 4,734,400 3,428,150 1,283,700 1,156,600 657,950 656,350 656,850 7,839,600 200 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND (328) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Capital Projects Fund Project Title: Auburn Arts & Culture Center Renovation Project No: cp1612 Project Type: Capacity Project Manager: Daryl Faber Description: Renovation to the property and building located at 20 Auburn Avenue (100 Auburn Avenue) Building for the creation of an Arts & Culture Center in downtown Auburn. The renovation of this building will allow increased access to the arts for all of Auburn residents and visitors. Having a dedicated Art Center alongside the Auburn Avenue Theater performing arts series has the potential to transform Auburn into an arts tourism destination within the South Puget Sound. This project is a high priority for the City of Auburn and the purchase of this important building was completed in 2016. Progress Summary: The City has secured $325,000 in local grant funding. The historic window restoration is expected to be completed by 2018. As a landmark building, exterior renovations must maintain the historic character of the building. Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual operating budget fiscal impact is estimated to be $95,000. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Fund Balance - - - Grants- Unsecured (State) - 500,000 500,000 Grants- Secured (Local) 20,012 129,988 175,000 325,000 Grants - Local Unsecured - 300,000 300,000 Other -(Cumulative Reserve) - 42,200 42,200 REST - - Other (Paris Impact Fee) 500,000 500,000 Total Funding Sources: 20,012 129,988 1,517,200 1,667,200 Capital Expenditures: Design 9,903 - 200,000 - 209,903 Right of Way - - - - - Construction 10,109 129,988 1,317,200 1,457.297 Total Expenditures: 20,012 129,988 1,517,200 - 1,667,200 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Fund Balance - Grants- Unsecured (State) 500,000 Grants- Secured (Local) 175,000 Grants - Local Unsecured 300,000 Other -(Cumulative Reserve) 42,200 REST - - - Other (Park Impact Fee) 500,000 1,000,000 Total Funding Sources: 500,000 - 2,017,200 Capital Expenditures: Design - 200,000 Right of Way - - Construction 500,000 1,817,200 Total Expenditures: 500,000 - 2,017,200 201 is City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND (328) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Capital Projects Fund Project Title: Maintenance & Operations, Police and City Hall Facility Master Plan Project No: gcbd14 Project Type: Capacity Project Manager: TBD Description: Planning effort for future Maintenance & Operations, Police and City Hall needs including land usage and building needs for the next 20 years. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: None, but could generate future projects or improvements based on outcome. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Fund Balance - Grants - Secured (Fed, State, Local) - _ _ REST 1 125,000 125,000 125,000 Total Funding Sources: 125,000 125,000 125,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 125,000 125,000 125,000 Construction - _ _ Long -Term Debt Service Total Expenditures: - 125,000 125,000 125,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Fund Balance Grants - REET 1 250,000 Total Funding Sources: 250,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 250,000 Construction - _ Long -Term Debt Service - Total Expenditures: - 250,000 202 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND (560) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: M&O Vehicle Storage Bay Improvements Project No: cp0711 Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager: Randy Bailey Description: Enclose the 8 existing bays to provide necessary weather protection for street sweepers, vactors, sanding, and snow plow equipment. Construct storage shed to facilitate removal of portable containers, improving space utilization and traffic flow throughout M&O. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: None Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Equip. Rental Revenue - - 50,000 50,000 REET1 - - Other (Water, Sewer, Storm) 20,000 130,000 150,000 Total Funding Sources: 20,000 180,000 200,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 20,000 20,000 Right of Way - - - - Construction 180,000 180,000 Total Expenditures: 20,000 180,000 200,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Equip. Rental Revenue 50,000 REET1 - Other (Water, Sewer, Storm) - - 130,000 Total Funding Sources: - - 180,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - Right of Way - Construction 180,000 Total Expenditures: - - - 180,000 203 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND (560) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Equipment Rental Vehicle Maintenance Bay Project No: cp1223 Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager: Randy Bailey Description: Build additional vehicle bay at Equipment Rental shop for heavy equipment and large vehicles to improve efficiency and remove choke points. Adding a large vehicle bay with a large vehicle lift will enable us to perform inspections and maintenance on more than one large vehicle at a time, this becomes extremely important during emergency operations such as snow and ice events. The City currently has 2.5 maintenance bays, this project will add one more maintenance bay for a total of 3.5 bays. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: None Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Equip. Rental Revenue - 117,500 117,500 REET 1 - - _ Other (Water, Sevtier, Storm) 22,000 330,500 352,500 Total Funding Sources: 22,000 448,000 470,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 22,000 - 22,000 Right of Way - - _ Construction 448,000 448,000 Total Expenditures: 22,000 448,000 470,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Equip. Rental Revenue 117,500 REET 1 _ Other (Water, Sevier, Storm) 330,500 Total Funding Sources: 448,000 Capital Expenditures: Design _ Right of Way _ Construction 448, 000 Total Expenditures: 448,000 204 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND (560) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: M&O Fuel Tank Replacement Project No: erbd01 Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager: Randy Bailey Description: Replace three 10,000 gallon underground tanks with new above ground tanks. The existing tanks were installed in 1989 and are single wall fiberglass tanks. It will be a benefit to the City to have the tanks above ground in the future due to the reduced maintenance and inspection cost. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project should reduce the operating budget due to lower maintenance and inspection costs. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Equip. Rental Revenue - 80,000 80,000 REST 1 - - Other (Water, Sewer, Storm) 240,000 240,000 Total Funding Sources: 320,000 320,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 25,000 25,000 Right of Way - - Construction 295,000 295,000 Total Expenditures: 320,000 320,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Equip. Rental Revenue 80,000 REST 1 - Other (Water, Sewer, Storm) 240,000 Total Funding Sources: - - - 320,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 25,000 Right of Way - Construction - 295,000 Total Expenditures: - - 320,000 205 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND (328) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Capital Projects Fund Project Title: City Facilities Maintenance Projects Project No: gcbd12 Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager: TBD Description: This project will provide REET funding to replace the Arts & Cultural Center roof, the Justice Center roof and siding at the Herr Building. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Fund Balance - Grants - - _ REST 1 40,000 150,000 40,000 Total Funding Sources: 40,000 150,000 40,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - Construction 40,000 150,000 40,000 Long -Term Debt Service - - _ Total Expenditures: 40,000 150,000 40,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Fund Balance - Grants _ REST 1 - 190,000 Total Funding Sources: - - - 190,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - Construction - - 190,000 Long -Term Debt Service _ Total Expenditures: - - 190,000 WOE., City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND (328) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Capital Projects Fund Project Title: City Hall Annex Project No: Project Type: Project Manager: Description: To pay scheduled debt service costs on 2010 General Obligation bonds issued for the City Hall Annex. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: N/A Activity: (Previous 2 Yrs.) 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Fund Balance - Grants - Secured (Fed, State, Local) - - - - - REET 1 1,316,130 645,039 657,950 658,700 2,619,119 Total Funding Sources: 1,316,130 645,039 657,950 658,700 2,619,119 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Construction - - - - - Long -Term Debt Service 1,316,130 645,039 657,950 658,700 2,619,119 Total Expenditures: 1,316,130 645,039 657,950 658,700 2,619,119 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Fund Balance Grants - Secured (Fed, State, Local) - - - - - REET 1 656,600 657,950 656,350 656,850 3,944,400 Total Funding Sources: 656,600 657,950 656,350 656,850 3,944,400 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Construction - - - - - Long -Term Debt Service 656,600 657,950 656,350 656,850 3,944,400 Total Expenditures: 656,600 657,950 656,350 656,850 3,944,400 209 • City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND (560) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: M&O Lunchroom Expansion Project No: erbd02 Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager: Randy Bailey Description: Expansion of the current lunchroom by redesigning the area to accommodate All -Staff meetings, provide for a training facility, lunch room and also serve as the Department Operations Center (DOC) during an emergency event. In addition, the design will include sliding doors which will allow the area to serve two purposes at once, for example, one half of the room being used as a DOC and the other half open to employees to use as a lunch/break room. Progress Summary: This projectwill be designed in 2018 and built in 2019 Future Impact on Operating Budget: None Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Equip. Rental Revenue - - 37,500 37,500 REET1 - - Other (Water, Sewer, Storm) 10,000 102,500 112,500 Total Funding Sources: 10,000 140,000 150,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 10,000 - 10,000 Right of Way - - - Construction 140,000 140,000 Total Expenditures: 10,000 140,000 150,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Equip. Rental Revenue 37,500 REET1 - Other (Water, Sewer, Storm) 102,500 Total Funding Sources: 140,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - Right of Way - Construction 140,000 Total Expenditures: 140,000 206 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND (328) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Capital Projects Fund Project Title: City Hall Roof Replacement Project No: gcbd11 Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager: TBD Description: This project will replace the existing roof at City Hall. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Fund Balance - Grants - Secured (Fed, State, Local) - REET 1 350,000 Total Funding Sources: 350,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - Construction 350,000 - Long -Term Debt Service - Total Expenditures: - - 350,000 - Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Fund Balance Grants - REET 1 350,000 Total Funding Sources: 350,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - Construction 350,000 Long -Term Debt Service - Total Expenditures: - 350,000 207 TABLE GM -3 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan Impact on Future Operating Budgets GENERAL MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS Project: 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Total 1 Downtown Auburn Arts Center $ 95,000 $ 95,000 $ 95,000 $ 95,000 $ 95,000 $ 95,000 $ 570,000 Tota 1 $ 95,000 $ 95,000 $ 95,000 $ 95,000 $ 95,000 $ 95,000 $ 570,000 210 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENTS Current Facilities Community Improvements include sidewalk and traffic signal improvements, neighborhood traffic calming program, Main Street urban design improvements, public art and phase two of the Auburn Environmental Park Boardwalk project. Level of Service (LOS) No Level of Service for community improvement projects have been identified at this time. Capital Facilities Projects and Financing The City's proposed Community Improvements include fourteen capital projects at a cost of $9,526,100 and debt service at a cost of 1,342,600 for a total of $10,868,700. Table CI -2 shows the proposed financing plan followed by individual work sheets showing the project detail. Impact on Future Operating Budgets As Table CI -3 shows, because of the City Street light LED retrofit program the operating budget will save approximately $735,000 for community improvement facilities during the six years 2020-2025. 211 • TABLE CI -2 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN PROJECTS AND FINANCING COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENTS 2019 2020 2021 Page Capacity Projects: 214 Auburn Way South (SR -164) - Southside Sidewalk Improvements Capital Costs 95,000 618,000 Funding Sources: Capital lmproeementFund - - Grants 80,000 525,300 REET 2 15.000 92.700 2022 2023 2024 Tota I 713,000 605,300 107,700 215 104th Ave. Park Development Capital Costs 1,065,000 1,065,000 Funding Sources: Capital lmprowmentFund - Grants 565,000 565,000 Other Park Impact Fees 500,000 500,000 Subtotal, Capacity Projects: Capital Costs 1,065,000 95,000 618,000 1,778,000 Non -Capacity Proiects: 216 Citywide ADA & Sidewalk Improvements Capital Costs 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,200,000 Funding Sources: Capital Improvement Fund . REET2 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,200,000 217 Annual Traffic Signal Replacement & Improvements Capital Costs 175,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,175,000 Funding Sources: Capital Improvement Fund - - - - - - REET2 175,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,175,000 218 Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program Capital Costs 50,000 50,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 700,000 Funding Sources: Capital Improvement Fund - - - - - - REET2 50,000 50,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 700,000 219 Public Art Capital Costs 60,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 180,000 Funding Sources: Capital Improvement Fund - - - - - REET 2 - 60,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 180,000 220 City Wetland Mitigation Projects Capital Costs 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 30,000 Funding Sources: Capital Improvement Fund - - - - - - Other (Fund 124 -Wetland Mit) 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 30,000 221 Auburn Environmental Park Boardwalk -Phase 2 Capital Costs - 75,000 800,000 - - 875,000 Funding Sources: CapitallmprovementFund - - REET2 75,000 - 75,000 Other -To Be Determined - 800,000 800,000 212 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan TABLE CI -2 (continued) 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Page Non -Capacity Proiects: 222 Citywide Street Lighting Improvements 618,000 - - - 1,778,000 3,568,100 565,000 Capital Costs 50,000 50,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 500,000 223,600 Funding Sources: 219,800 1,342,600 4,864,900 880,600 1,602,900 1,708,600 906,900 904,800 Capital Improvement Fund - - - - - - 384,500 450,000 REET 2 50,000 50,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 500,000 223 City Street Lighting LED Retrofit 1,470,300 103,600 - - - - Capital Costs 2,500,000 - - - - - 2,500,000 7,130,300 Funding Sources: - - 800,000 - - 800,000 500,000 - Grants 300,000 - - 500,000 5,000 - 300,000 5,000 Contributions 350,000 30,000 4,864,900 880,600 1,602,900 - 350,000 904,800 REET2 1,850,000 - 1,850,000 224 Central Parking Garage Improvement Capital Costs 103,600 - 103,600 Funding Sources: Capital Improvement Fund - - - REET 1 103,600 - 103,600 225 City Downtown Public Parking Lot Reconfiguration Capital Costs 234,500 234,500 Funding Sources: Local Revitalization Fund 234,500 234,500 Other -To Be Determined - - 226 City Owned Parking improvements Capital Costs 50,000 50,000 Funding Sources: Local Revitalization Fund 50,000 50,000 Other - To Be Determined - 227 Arts and Culture Center Alleyway Capital Costs 200,000 200,000 Funding Sources: Local Revitalization Fund 100,000 100,000 Other - Contributions 100,000 - - - - - 100,000 228 Local Revitalization Long Term Debt 231,800 220,600 224,900 223,600 221,900 219,800 1,342,600 Funding Sources: REET2 231,800 220,600 224,900 223,600 221,900 219,800 1,342,600 Subtotal, Non -Capacity Proiects: Capital Costs 3,568,100 565,000 760,000 1,485,000 685,000 685,000 7,748,100 SUMMARY: CAPITAL COSTS Capacity Projects Non -Capacity Projects Long -Term Debt Total Costs FUNDING SOURCES: Capital Improvement Fund 328 Local Revitalization Fund 330 Contributions Grants REET1 REET2 Other Jo Be Determined Other (Fund 124 -Parks Impact) Other (Fund 124 -Wetland Mit) Total Funding 1,065,000 95,000 618,000 - - - 1,778,000 3,568,100 565,000 760,000 1,485,000 685,000 685,000 7,748,100 231,800 220,600 224,900 223,600 221,900 219,800 1,342,600 4,864,900 880,600 1,602,900 1,708,600 906,900 904,800 10,868,700 384,500 384,500 450,000 - - 450,000 865,000 80,000 525,300 1,470,300 103,600 - - - - - 103,600 2,556,800 795,600 1,072,600 903,600 901,900 899,800 7,130,300 - - - 800,000 - - 800,000 500,000 - - - - - 500,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 30,000 4,864,900 880,600 1,602,900 1,708,600 906,900 904,800 10,868,700 213 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND (328) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Capital Projects Fund Project Title: Auburn Way South (SR -164) - Southside Sidewalk Improvements TIP# N-7 Project No: gcbd10 Project Type: Capacity, Non -motorized, Safety Project Manager. TBD Description: The project will construct missing sidewalk along the south side of Auburn Way S. The existing sidewalk currently ends at the intersection with Howard Road and restarts to the west of the intersection with Muckleshoot Plaza. The sidewalk gap extends for approximately 1,700 feet. Progress Summary: Grant funding for the project was applied for during 2018. Future Impact on Operating Budget: There is no impact to the street maintenance budget. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Fund Balance - - Grants - Unsecured State 80,000 - REET 2 15,000 Other (Fund 102) - Total Funding Sources: 95,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 95,000 Right of Way - Construction - Total Expenditures: - 95,000 - Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Fund Balance - _ Grants - Unsecured State 525,300 - 605,300 BEET 2 92,700 - 107,700 Other (Fund 102) - _ Total Funding Sources: 618,000 - - - 713,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 95,000 Right of Way - - _ Construction 618,000 - 618,000 Total Expenditures: 618,000 - - - 713,000 214 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND (328) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Capital Projects Fund Project Title: 104th Ave. Park Development Project No: cp1619 Project Type: Capacity Project Manager: Jamie Kelly Description: Complete Master Plan and construct park improvements identified in the Master Plan. Anticipated improvements include parking, trails, restroom, and playground. Work associated with permit approvals is also included in the budget. Progress Summary: Staff is in the process of finalizing the Master Plan for future park development and have submitted grant applications for two separate grant programs to the Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office. If awarded, funding would be available in June 2019 and construction is anticipated in late Summer or early Fall 2019. Other efforts for the property include working with King County and non-profit groups to control invasive species and replace with native plantings. Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual impact on the operating budget is estimated to be $10,000 for temporary wages and $2,500 for supplies. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Cap Improve - - - Grants - Unsecured State - 565,000 565,000 REET2 2,424 - - 2,424 Other -Park Impact Fees 10,036 22,000 500,000 532,036 Total Funding Sources: 12,460 22,000 1,065,000 1,099,460 Capital Expenditures: Design 12,460 22,000 75,000 - 109,460 Construction - - 990,000 - 990,000 Long -Term Debt Service - - - - Total Expenditures: 12,460 22,000 1,065,000 1,099,460 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Cap Improve - Grants - Unsecured State 565,000 REET2 - Other -Park Impact Fees 500,000 Total Funding Sources: - 1,065,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 75,000 Construction - 990,000 Long -Term Debt Service - - Total Expenditures: - - 1,065,000 215 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND (328) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Capital Projects Fund Project Title: Citywide ADA & Sidewalk Improvements TIP# N-2 Project No: cp1710, cp1815, gcbd01 Project Type: Non -Capacity (Annual) Project Manager: Aleksey Koshman LOS Corridor ID# N/A Description: This project funds citywide accessibility improvements to the public right-of-way sidewalk system including adding/upgrading curb ramps, removing barriers to access and completing gaps. Improvements are programmed annually based on the criteria adopted in the City's Public Right -of -Way Accessibility Transition Plan. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Activity: (Previous 2 Yrs.) 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Fund Balance - Grants -Unsecured State - - - - - REET 2 106,267 162,200 200,000 200,000 468,467 Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: 106,267 162,200 200,000 200,000 468,467 Capital Expenditures: Design - 20,000 20,000 20,000 40,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction 106,267 142,200 180,000 180,000 428,467 Total Expenditures: 106,267 162,200 200,000 200,000 468,467 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Fund Balance Grants -Unsecured State - - - - - REET 2 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,200,000 Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,200,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 120,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 1,080,000 Total Expenditures: 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,200,000 216 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND (328) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Capital Projects Fund Project Title: Annual Traffic Signal Replacement & Improvements TIP# 1-1 Project No: cp1521, cp1608, cp1703, cp1813, gcbd07 Project Type: Non -Capacity (Annual) Project Manager: Scott Nutter LOS Corridor ID# N/A Description: This project funds end of life capital replacement for traffic signal and Intelligent Transportation System equipment including cabinets, video detection cameras, field network devices, traffic cameras, battery backup components, and other related equipment. This project also funds minor safety improvements, operations improvements, and Accessible Pedestrian Signal Improvements based on the criteria adopted in the City's Public Right -of -Way Accessibility Transition Plan. Progress Summary: The project is ongoing and continues to successfully complete annual traffic signal improvement projects citywide. Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Activity: (Previous 2 Yrs.) 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Fund Balance - - Grants - Unsecured (Fed, State, Local) - - - - - REET 2 316,913 175,000 175,000 200,000 666,913 Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: 316,913 175,000 175,000 200,000 666,913 Capital Expenditures: Design 19,074 25,000 25,000 25,000 69,074 Right of Way - - - - - Construction 297,839 150,000 150,000 175,000 597,839 Total Expenditures: 316,913 175,000 175,000 200,000 666,913 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Fund Balance - Grants - Unsecured (Fed, State, Local) - - - - - REET 2 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,175, 000 Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,175,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 150,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 1,025, 000 Total Expenditures: 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,175,000 217 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND (328) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Capital Projects Fund Project Title: Neighborhood Traffic Safety Program Project No: cp1713, cp1814, gcbd06 Project Type: Non -Capacity (Annual) Project Manager. Joe Welsh TIP# R-10 Description: This project will implement neighborhood traffic calming strategies including street lighting, speed cushions, signage, speed radar signs, mini roundabouts, chicanes, traffic circles, and other approved traffic calming devices. Projects will be selected annually based on neighborhood meetings, public surveys, and engineering studies. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Activity: (Previous 2 Yrs.) 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Fund Balance - Grants - Unsecured (Fed, State, Local) - - - _ _ REST 2 112,475 150,000 50,000 50,000 312,475 Other - - - - _ Total Funding Sources: 112,475 150,000 50,000 50,000 312,475 Capital Expenditures: Design - 15,000 5,000 5,000 20,000 Right of Way - - - - _ Construction 112,475 135,000 45,000 45,000 292,475 Total Expenditures: 112,475 150,000 50,000 50,000 312,475 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Fund Balance Grants - Unsecured (Fed, State, Local) - - - _ _ REST 2 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 700,000 Other - - _ _ _ Total Funding Sources: 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 700,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 70,000 Right of Way - - - _ _ Construction 135,000 135,000 135,000 135,000 630,000 Total Expenditures: 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 700,000 218 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND (328) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Capital Projects Fund Project Title: Public Art Project No: gcbd05, cpl818 Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager: Julie Krueger Description: The City designates $30,000 annually toward the purchase of public art, for placement at designated locations throughout the City. Progress Summary: Arts Commission will meet to assess future needs and seek approval from City Council on placement. Future Impact on Operating Budget: None Activity: (Previous 2 Years) 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Fund Balance - 48,000 48,000 Grants - Secured (Fed, State, Local) - - - REET 2 115,000 60,000 115,000 Other - - Total Funding Sources: 163,000 - 60,000 163,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - Right of Way - - - Construction 163,000 60,000 163,000 Total Expenditures: 163,000 60,000 163,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Fund Balance Grants - Secured (Fed, State, Local) - - - - - REET 2 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 180,000 Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 180,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 180,000 Total Expenditures: 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 180,000 219 • City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND (328) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Capital Projects Fund Project Title: City Wetland Mitigation Projects Project No: cp1315 Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager: Jeff Tate Description: This project designs and constructs off-site wetland mitigation in the Auburn Environmental Park for participating development projects as approved through the Citys development review process. Design, construction, monitoring, and maintenance of the mitigation is funded through wetland mitigation fees collected by the City. Progress Summary: Replacement plantings for Auburn Airporttree removal conducted in 2013. Design and construction of mitigation for other development sites deferred to 2018. Years 2019-2021 scheduled for site monitoring only. Future Impact on Operating Budget: After construction, each wetland mitigation site will be monitored and maintained for a period of three to five years, depending on the specific requirements for the project. Funding for future year monitoring and maintenance is included in the development fees collected by the City, and is budgeted as part of the Capital Facilities Plan. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Fund Balance - Grants - Secured (Fed, State, Local) - - - - - Fund 124 Wetland Mitigation Account 6,969 31,600 5,000 5,000 43,569 REET - - Total Funding Sources: 6,969 31,600 5,000 5,000 43,569 Capital Expenditures: Design - 10,000 - - 10,000 Monitoring 1,868 - 5,000 5,000 6,868 Construction 5,101 21,600 26.701 Total Expenditures: 6,969 31,600 5,000 5,000 43,569 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Fund Balance - Grants - Secured (Fed, State, Local) - - - - - Fund 124 Wetland Mitigation Account 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 30,000 REET - Total Funding Sources: 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 30,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Monitoring 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 30,000 Construction - - - - - Total Expenditures: 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 30,000 220 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND (328) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Capital Projects Fund Project Title: Auburn Environmental Park Boardwalk - Phase 2 Project No: cp1611 Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager: Jeff Tate Description: The Auburn Environmental Park (AEP) provides vegetated natural open space within an urbanized area. The AEP provides opportunities for local economic development, water quality improvement, storm water detention, flood control, fish and wildlife enhancement, visual resources, public education, and passive recreation, including walking trails and bird viewing amenities. In 2012, the City completed the construction of approximately 1,200 lineal feet of the first phase (Phase 1) of an elevated boardwalk trail in the Auburn Environmental Park (AEP). This trail extended from West Main Street through existing wetlands in the AEP terminating at the base of the Bird Viewing Tower constructed in 2009. As part of the construction of the elevated boardwalk, the City also installed interpretative signage, bench seating, limited new vehicle parking on Western Avenue and over two acres of wetland species of trees, plants and shrubs. Phase 2 of the elevated boardwalk trail would construct a combination of up to approximately 2,000 lineal feet of surface trail and elevated boardwalk trail from the current terminus at the Bird Viewing Tower to a connection with the Interurban Trail. The Phase 2 project will further previous and current Councils' visions of the AEP providing passive recreation and environmental education opportunities for all Auburn citizens. Progress Summary: Design for this project is scheduled to start in fall of 2021. Future Impact on Operating Budget: Construction of the Phase 2 project is anticipated to incur approximately $10,000 in annual operating costs to the City's operating budget. Operating costs are addressed in the Environmental Services portion of the Community Development and Public Works Department operating budget. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Fund Balance - Grants - Unsecured State Grants - Local Unsecured REET2 Other -TBD Total Funding Sources: Capital Expenditures: Design Right of Way - Construction Total Expenditures: - Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Fund Balance Grants - Unsecured State Grants - Local Unsecured - - REET 2 75,000 - 75,000 Other -TBD 800,000 800,000 Total Funding Sources: 75,000 800,000 875,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 75,000 - 75,000 Right of Way - - - Construction - 800,000 800,000 Total Expenditures: 75,000 800,000 - 875,000 221 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND (328) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Capital Projects Fund Project Title: Citywide Street Lighting Improvements TIP# 1-4 Project No: cp1711, gcbd09 Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager: Scott Nutter Description: This project will fund street lighting improvements in neighborhoods without existing infrastructure and include retrofitting existing lights to LED Standards as appropriate. Projects will be selected from prioritized list developed with neighborhood input. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project is anticipated to have minimal impact on the Operating Budget Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Fund Balance - Grants - Secured (Fed, State, Local) - - - - REET 2 7,319 50,000 50,000 57,319 Total Funding Sources: 7,319 50,000 50,000 57,319 Capital Expenditures: Design - 10,000 10,000 10,000 Construction - - - - Long -Term Debt Service 7,319 40,000 40,000 47,319 Total Expenditures: 7,319 50,000 50,000 57,319 Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Fund Balance Grants - - - - - REET 2 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 500,000 Total Funding Sources: 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 500,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 100,000 Construction - - - - - Long -Term Debt Service 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 400,000 Total Expenditures: 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 500,000 222 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND (328) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Capital Projects Fund Project Title: City Street Light LED Retrofit Project No: gcbd11 Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager: Scott Nutter Description: This project will fund an LED retrofit program for all existing City owned (non LED) street lights. New Light fixtures and retrofits will replace our aging light fixtures with 10 year warrantied fixtures with long life LEDs and will improve lighting uniformity and visibility and is in accordance with the City's current design standards for new street lighting. The scope also includes street light control options for remote management of the City owned street lights. The project will utilize an approved energy service company (ESCO) management team. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: Annual savings in power usage is anticipated to be $130,000 per year. Additional maintenance savings will be realized in the reduction of materials for light replacement and is estimated to be $20,000 per year. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Fund Balance - - - Grants - Unsecured State 300,000 300,000 Contrib utions 350,000 350,000 REST 2 1,850,000 1,850,000 Total Funding Sources: 2,500,000 2,500,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - Construction 2,500,000 2,500,000 Long -Term Debt Service - - Total Expenditures: 2,500,000 2,500,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Fund Balance - Grants - Unsecured State 300,000 Contributions 350,000 REET 2 1,850,000 Total Funding Sources: - - 2,500,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - Construction - 2,500,000 Long -Term Debt Service - Total Expenditures: - 2,500,000 223 • r� u • City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND (328) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Capital Projects Fund Project Title: Central Parking Garage Improvement Project No: gcbd13 Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager: TBD Description: This project will improve the central parking garage by painting an elastic coating that will minimize cracks forming in the walls. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Fund Balance - Grants - Secured (Fed, State, Local) - _ REST 1 103,600 - 103,600 Total Funding Sources: 103,600 - 103,600 Capital Expenditures: Design - - Construction 103,600 103,600 Long -Term Debt Service - - Total Expenditures: - 103,600 103,600 Forecasted Project Cost: Tota I 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Fund Balance Grants _ REET 1 103,600 Total Funding Sources: - - 103,600 Capital Expenditures: Design - Construction 103,600 Long -Term Debt Service _ Total Expenditures: - - 103,600 224 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan LOCAL REVITALIZATION FUND (330) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Capital Projects Fund Project Title: City Downtown Public Parking Lot Reconfiguration Project No: cp1616 Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager: Ingrid Gaub Description: Reconfigure the City owned public parking lot between Safeway and Main Street to address pedestrian and vehicular circulation; remove existing landscaping to allow more flexibility in the parking lot redesign; explore whether more parking stalls can be added to the lot to aid in providing additional customer parking within Downtown Auburn; and resurface the parking lot. Progress Summary: Begin design in 2016. Monies to improve the parking lot adjacent to Safeway and the B Street Plaza were used to create safety and aesthetic improvements to the plaza. New catenary lighting and planters were added to the plaza as a short- to medium-term improvement. The lighting increases safety and the planters were added to delineate walking paths and create visual interest. Completion of design and construction is delayed until the Heritage Building is addressed. Future Impact on Operating Budget: None anticipated as the City already maintains the parking lot. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Local Revitalization Fund 330 17,329 234,500 251,829 Grants- Secured (Fed, State, Local) - - - REET Other -Contributions - - Total Funding Sources: 17,329 234,500 251,829 Capital Expenditures: Design - - Right of Way - - - Construction 17,329 234,500 251,829 Total Expenditures: 17,329 234,500 251,829 Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Local Revitalization Fund 330 234,500 Grants- Secured (Fed, State, Local) - REET Other -Contributions - Total Funding Sources: 234,500 Capital Expenditures: Design - Right of Way - Construction 234,500 Total Expenditures: 234,500 225 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan LOCAL REVITALIZATION FUND (330) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Capital Projects Fund Project Title: City Owned Parking Lot Improvements Project No: Irbd04 Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager: Josh Arndt Description: The City owns and operates six improved, surface -level asphalt parking lots located downtown. The parking lots are used for a variety of permit, free 3 -hour and employee parking. Maintenance on these lots has been performed primarily only on an emergency basis. As a result the condition of the lots show signs of deterioration and disrepair. This project will fund needed improvements for City owned parking lots within the downtown area. Progress Summary: Planning phase. Future Impact on Operating Budget: None anticipated as the City already maintains the parking lot. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Local Revitalization Fund 330 - 50,000 50,000 Grants- Secured (Fed, State, Local) - - REET Other -Contributions - _ Total Funding Sources: - 50,000 50,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - Right of Way - - - Construction 50,000 50,000 Total Expenditures: - 50,000 50,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Local Revitalization Fund 330 50,000 Grants- Secured (Fed, State, Local) _ REST Other -Contributions Total Funding Sources: - - 50,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - Right of Way - _ Construction 50,000 Total Expenditures: - 50,000 226 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan LOCAL REVITALIZATION FUND (330) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Capital Projects Fund Project Title: Arts and Culture Center Alleyway Project No: lrbd03 Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager: Daryl Faber Description: Construct improvements based on the Auburn Alleyway Project Master Plan prepared through the Livable Cities Year project with the University of Washington. Proposed improvements are associated with turning the alley between the Auburn Ave. Theater and the Arts and Culture Center into a plaza area. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: None Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Local Revitalization Fund 330 - 100,000 100,000 Grants- Unsecured - - REET - - Other -Contributions 100,000 100,000 Total Funding Sources: 200,000 200,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 20,000 20,000 Right of Way - - - Construction 180,000 180,000 Total Expenditures: 200,000 200,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Local Revitalization Fund 330 100,000 Grants- Unsecured - REET - Other -Contributions - 100,000 Total Funding Sources: - - 200,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 20,000 Right of Way - Construction 180,000 Total Expenditures: - - 200,000 227 1�1 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND (328) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Capital Projects Fund Project Title: Local Revitalization Project No: Project Type: Project Manager: Description: To pay debt service costs on 2010 General Obligation bonds issued for the Downtown Promenade improvements. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: N/A Activity: (Previous 2 Yrs.) 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Fund Balance - Grants - Secured (Fed, State, Local) - - - - _ REST 2 454,221 226,109 231,800 220,600 912,130 Total Funding Sources: 454,221 226,109 231,800 220,600 912,130 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Construction - - - - _ Long -Term Debt Service 454,221 226,109 231,800 220,600 912,130 Total Expenditures: 454,221 226,109 231,800 220,600 912,130 Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Fund Balance Grants - - - - _ REST 2 224,900 223,600 221,900 219,800 1,342,600 Total Funding Sources: 224,900 223,600 221,900 219,800 1,342,600 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Construction - - - _ _ Long -Term Debt Service 224,900 223,600 221,900 219,800 1,342,600 Total Expenditures: 224,900 223,600 221,900 219,800 1,342,600 228 TABLE CI -3 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan Impact on Future Operating Budgets COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENTS Project: 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Total 1 104th Ave. Park Development $ 12,500 $ 12,500 $ 12,500 $ 12,500 $ 12,500 $ 12,500 $ 75,000 2 AEP Boardwalk -Phase 2 - - - 10,000 10,000 10,000 30,000 3 City Street Light LED Retrofit (140,000) (140,000) (140,000) (140,000) (140,000) (140,000) (840,000) Total $(127,500) $(127,500) $(127,500) $(117,500) $(117,500) $(117,500) $(735,000) 229 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan CITY OF * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED 230 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan AIRPORT Current Facilities The City of Auburn operates the Auburn Municipal Airport, providing hangar and tie -down facilities/leasing space for aircraft -related businesses. As of 2017, there were approximately 142,000 take -offs and landings (aircraft operations) at the airport annually. Table A-1 "Facilities Inventory" lists the facilities with current capacity and location. The Airport Master Plan was completed in May 2015 for the period 2012 through 2032. Level of Service (LOS) The Auburn Municipal Airport Master Plan provides a maximum runway capacity (LOS standard) of 231,000 aircraft operations annually; one take -off or landing equals one aircraft operation. This LOS is recognized by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The FAA requires the airport to have the capital facilities capacity (i.e., runways, taxiways, holding areas, terminal, hangars, water/sewer system, etc.) necessary to accommodate 100% of aircraft operations during any one year. By 2022, the Airport Master Plan forecasts the number of operations to be 198,623 — well below the capacity of the airport runway. Capital Facilities Projects and Financing The City's Airport facilities include eleven non -capacity projects totaling $14,057,700. These include the runway enhancements project, Jet A fueling facility, automated weather observation system, hangar replacement program and land acquisition for future approaches. Table A-2 shows the proposed financing plan followed by individual worksheets showing the project detail. Impact on Future Operating Budgets As Table A-3 shows, operating budget impacts of $20,000 are forecasted for Airport facilities during the six years 2020 — 2025. TABLE A-1 Facilities Inventory Airport FACILITY CAPACITY # of Aircraft # of Feet LOCATION Existing Inventory. Hangars (Public) 145 2301 E Street NE Hangars (Private) 103 2301 E Street NE Tiedowns 153 2301 E Street NE Air Strip 3,400 2301 E Street NE Total Existing Inventory 401 3,400 Proposed Capacity Projects: 2020 Land Acquisition 30 2301 E Street NE 2018 Run"y Extension - 441 2301 E Street NE Total Proposed Capacity Projects 30 441 2024 Projected Inventory Total 431 3,841 231 TABLE A-2 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN PROJECTS AND FINANCING AIRPORT 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Capacity Projects: None - Page Non -Capacity Projects: 234 Runway Enhancements Capital Costs 1,833,400 - - - - 1,833,400 Funding Sources: Airport Fund 91,700 - - - 91,700 Grants 1,741,700 - - - 1,741,700 235 Jet A Fueling Facility Capital Costs - 50,000 350,000 - - 400,000 Funding Sources: Airport Fund 50,000 - - - - 50,000 Other - - 350,000 350,000 Grants - - - - - - 236 Annual Repair and Maintenance of Airport Facilities Capital Costs 100,000 100,000 100,000 250,000 500,000 100,000 1,150,000 Funding Sources: Airport Fund 100,000 100,000 100,000 250,000 500,000 100,000 1,150,000 Grants - - - - - - - 237 Automated Weather Observation System Capital Costs - - - - 166,700 166,700 Funding Sources: Airport Fund - - - - - 8,400 8,400 Grants - - - - 158,300 158,300 238 Airport Security Camera & Gate Access Upgrades Capital Costs 70,000 - - - - 70,000 Funding Sources: Airport Fund 70,000 - - - 70,000 Grant - - - - - 239 Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) for Runway Capital Costs - - 168,000 - 168,000 Funding Sources: Airport Fund - - - 168,000 168,000 Grants - - - - - 240 Land Acquisition for Future Approaches Capital Costs - - - 3,666,700 - 3,666,700 Funding Sources: Airport Fund - - 183,400 183,400 Grants - - - 3,483,300 - 3,483,300 241 Runway Safety Area Improvements Capital Costs - 500,000 - - 500,000 Funding Sources: Airport Fund - 25,000 - - 25,000 Grants - 475,000 - 475,000 242 West Side Fencing Capital Costs - 52,900 - - 52,900 Funding Sources: Airport Fund - 2,700 - - - 2,700 Grants - 50,200 - - - - 50,200 • 232 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan TABLE A-2 (continued) SUMMARY: CAPITAL COSTS Capacity Projects 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Non -Capacity Projects: - - 243 Hangar Replacement Program - Non -Capacity Projects Capital Costs 50,000 50,000 2,750,000 75,000 75,000 3,000,000 6,000,000 Funding Sources: 575,000 3,266,700 Airport Fund 50,000 50,000 - 75,000 75,000 - 250,000 Bond Proceeds - - 2,750,000 - - - 2,750,000 Other Agencies - - 3,000,000 3,000,000 244 West Side Preliminary Environmental Permitting Capital Costs 50,000 - - - - - 50,000 Funding Sources: Airport Fund 50,000 - - 50,000 Grants - - - - - SUMMARY: CAPITAL COSTS Capacity Projects - - - - - - - Non -Capacity Projects 2,103,400 752,900 3,200,000 4,159,700 575,000 3,266,700 14,057,700 Total Costs 2,103,400 752,900 3,200,000 4,159,700 575,000 3,266,700 14,057,700 FUNDING SOURCES: Airport Fund 361,700 227,700 100,000 676,400 575,000 108,400 2,049,200 Other Agencies - - 350,000 - - 3,000,000 3,350,000 Bond Proceeds - - 2,750,000 - - - 2,750,000 Grants (Fed, State, Local) 1,741,700 525,200 - 3,483,300 - 158,300 5,908,500 Total Funding 2,103,400 752,900 3,200,000 4,159,700 575,000 3,266,700 14,057,700 233 • City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan AIRPORT FUND (465) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Runway Enhancements Project No: cp1516 Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager: Seth Wickstrom Description: Enhance Runway 16/34 per Airport Layout Plan & Master Plan Update for increased safety and utilization. This also includes the As -built AGIS Survey that is required following the runway construction. Progress Summary: Environmental Assessment is complete. Design planned for Federal FY2017 and construction is anticipated to begin in Federal FY2018. Budget has been adjusted to account for the anticipated funding plan identified by FAA for Design and Construction of the project per their letter of April 17, 2017. Future Impact on Operating Budget: Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Airport Revenue 13,285 19,300 91,700 124,285 Federal - Non -Primary Entitlement 13,992 286,000 150,000 449,992 Federal Grant -Secured 215,027 - - 215,027 Federal Grant -Unsecured - 1,500,000 1,500,000 State Grant -Secured 12,161 - - 12,161 State Grant -Unsecured - 16,700 91,700 108,400 Total Funding Sources: 254,465 322,000 1,833,400 2,409,865 Capital Expenditures: Design 15,547 322,000 - 337,547 Environmental Assessment 238,918 - - 238,918 Construction 1,833,400 1,833,400 Total Expenditures: 254,465 322,000 1,833,400 - 2,409,865 Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Airport Revenue 91,700 Federal - Non -Primary Entitlement 150,000 Federal Grant -Unsecured 1,500,000 State Grant -Unsecured - 91,700 Total Funding Sources: 1,833,400 Capital Expenditures: Design - Environmental Assessment Construction 1,833,400 Total Expenditures: - 1,833,400 Grants / Other Sources: Federal Aviation Administration and Washington State Department of Transportation 234 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan AIRPORT FUND (465) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Jet A Fueling Facility Project No: apbd04 Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager: Ingrid Gaub Description: Construct any necessary site improvements to accommodate a temporary 2,000 gallon fueling truck for Jet Afuel on site in 2018. Design and Construct a permanent 12,000 gallon Fuel Tank for Jet A service at Airport in 2020 and 2021 after the runway extension is complete and demand for Jet A fuel is established. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: On-going operational costs will be minimal as the estimated $5,000/month expenses will be offset by fuel sale revenues. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Airport Revenue - 50,000 Other -Unsecured - State Grant -Unsecured - Total Funding Sources: - 50,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 50,000 Right of Way - Construction - Total Expenditures: 50,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Airport Revenue - - 50,000 Other -Unsecured 350,000 350,000 State Grant -Unsecured - - Total Funding Sources: 350,000 - - - 400,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - 50,000 Right of Way - - - Construction 350,000 - 350,000 Total Expenditures: 350,000 - - - 400,000 235 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan AIRPORT FUND (465) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Annual Repair and Maintenance of Airport Facilities Project No: apbd05 Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager: Ingrid Gaub Description: Due to the current conditions of the Facilities at the Airport, this program provides for necessary maintenance and repair work such as slab sealing, roof replacement, hangar beam replacement, painting, electrical repairs, etc. for buildings identified in the 2018 Facility Condition Assessment as being in "Fair" to "Good" condition. Repair and maintenance of these facilities will help prolong the service life of these buildings. Progress Summary: Program began in 2017. In 2018, a Facilities Condition Assessment was completed. Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will decrease the need for more costly repairs and maintenance on older buildings. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Airport Revenue - 20,000 100,000 100,000 120,000 Grants (Fed, State, Local) - - _ _ Other - _ _ - Total Funding Sources: 20,000 100,000 100,000 120,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 20,000 20,000 20,000 Right of Way _ _ _ _ Construction 20,000 80,000 80,000 1 00, 000 Total Expenditures: 20,000 100,000 100,000 120,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Airport Revenue 100,000 250,000 500,000 100,000 1,150,000 Grants (Fed, State, Local) - - _ _ - Other - - _ Total Funding Sources: 100,000 250,000 500,000 100,000 1,150,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 20,000 50,000 100,000 20,000 230,000 Right of Way - - - _ - Construction 80,000 200,000 400,000 80,000 920,000 Total Expenditures: 100,000 250,000 500,000 100,000 1,150,000 236 City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan AIRPORT FUND (465) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Automated Weather Observation System Project No: cpxxxx Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager: Ingrid Gaub Description: Install weather reporting equipment for instrument approach. Progress Summary: This project is dependent on grant funding which has been delayed in order to complete the Runway Enhancement project per FAA requirements. Future Impact on Operating Budget: $2,000 annually for on-going maintenance and repair Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Airport Revenue - - Federal - Non -Primary Entitlements State Grant -Unsecured Total Funding Sources: - Capital Expenditures: Design Right of Way Construction Total Expenditures: - - Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Airport Revenue - 8,400 8,400 Federal - Non -Primary Entitlements - 150,000 150,000 State Grant -Unsecured 8,300 8,300 Total Funding Sources: - - 166,700 166,700 Capital Expenditures: Design 111,100 111,100 Right of Way - - Construction 55,600 55,600 Total Expenditures: - 166,700 166,700 Grants / Other Sources: Federal Aviation Administration and Washington State Department of Transportation 237 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan AIRPORT FUND (465) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Airport Security Camera & Gate Access Upgrades Project No: apbd07 Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager: Ingrid Gaub Description: Increased security identified by the Federal Aviation Administration and the Transportation Security Administration for Airport control access gates (both vehicle and personnel). This project will install security cameras and replace the obsolete gate operator access control units. The proposed system will include cards and keypad operation with both inbound and outbound tracking of the authorized tenant/guest. Personnel gates will also have the same system. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: Estimated to be $2,000 annually to conduct maintenance and repair activities as needed. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Airport Revenue - 70,000 70,000 Federal Grant -Unsecured - _ State Grant -Unsecured - _ Total Funding Sources: 70,000 70,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 10,500 - 10,500 Right of Way - _ Construction 59,500 59,500 Total Expenditures: 70,000 70,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Airport Revenue 70,000 Federal Grant -Unsecured _ State Grant -Unsecured _ Total Funding Sources: - - 70,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 10,500 Right of Way - Construction 59,500 Total Expenditures: - 70,000 238 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan AIRPORT FUND (465) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAP[) for Runway Project No: cpXXXX Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager: Ingrid Gaub Description: Install Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) for Runway to replace aging Visual Approach Slope Indicator (VASI) system. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: $2,000 annually for on-going maintenance and repair Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Airport Revenue - Federal Grant -Unsecured State Grant -Unsecured Total Funding Sources: Capital Expenditures: Design Right of Way Construction Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Airport Revenue 168,000 168,000 Federal - Non -Primary Entitlement - - Federal Grant -Unsecured - State Grant -Unsecured - Total Funding Sources: 168,000 - 168,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 33,600 33,600 Right of Way - - Construction 134,400 134,400 Total Expenditures: - 168,000 168,000 239 • City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan AIRPORT FUND (465) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Land Acquisition for Future Approaches Project No: ms1811, cpxxxx Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager: Seth Wickstrom Description: Acquire a portion of land at the current Park and Ride for addressing the Runway Safety Area (RSA) and acquire the remainder of the Park and Ride for addressing the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ). Progress Summary: Per discussions with FAA, the acquisition for the RSA was moved from 2021 to 2018 and the acquisition for the RPZ area was added to 2021. Budget has been adjusted to account for the anticipated funding plan identified by FAA for Design and Construction of the project per their letter of April 17, 2017. Future Impact on Operating Budget: None Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Airport Revenue - 27,800 27,800 Federal - Non -Primary Entitlement - - _ Federal Grant -Unsecured - 500,000 500,000 State Grant -Unsecured - 27,800 27,800 Total Funding Sources: - 555,600 - - 555,600 Capital Expenditures: Design - _ Acquisition 555,600 555,600 Construction - _ _ Total Expenditures: 555,600 555,600 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Airport Revenue - 183,400 - 183,400 Federal - Non -Primary Entitlement - 300,000 - 300,000 Federal Grant -Unsecured - 3,000,000 - 3,000,000 State Grant -Unsecured - 183,300 - 183,300 Total Funding Sources: - 3,666,700 - - 3,666,700 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - Acquisition - 3,666,700 3,666,700 Construction _ Total Expenditures: - 3,666,700 - 3,666,700 Grants / Other Sources: Federal Aviation Administration and Washington State Department of Transportation 240 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan AIRPORT FUND (465) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Runway Safety Area Improvements Project No: apbd08 Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager. Ingrid Gaub Description: This project will complete necessary improvements to the property purchased from the Park and Ride to be in compliance with the FAA requirements for the Runway Safety Area. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: None Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2017 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Airport Revenue - 25,000 - Federal - Non -Primary Entitlement 150,000 Federal Grant -Unsecured - 300,000 - State Grant -Unsecured 25,000 - Total Funding Sources: - 500,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design 125,000 Right of Way - - Construction 375,000 Total Expenditures: - 500,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Ai,port Revenue 25,000 Federal - Non -Primary Entitlement 150,000 Federal Grant -Unsecured 300,000 State Grant -Unsecured - 25,000 Total Funding Sources: - - - 500,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 125,000 Right of Way - - Construction 375,000 Total Expenditures: - - - 500,000 Grants / Other Sources: 241 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan AIRPORT FUND (465) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: West Side Fencing Project No: apbd09 Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager: Ingrid Gaub Description: Install fence on west side of property to complete perimeter security fencing and help control wildlife on the airport. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Airport Revenue - 2,700 Federal Grant -Unsecured 47,600 State Grant -Unsecured 2,600 Total Funding Sources: - 52,900 Capital Expenditures: Design 5,300 Right of Way _ Construction 47,600 Total Expenditures: 52,900 Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Airport Revenue 2,700 Federal Grant -Unsecured - 47,600 State Grant -Unsecured 2,600 Total Funding Sources: - - 52,900 Capital Expenditures: Design - 5,300 Right of Way - _ Construction - 47, 600 Total Expenditures: - - 52,900 242 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan AIRPORT FUND (465) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Hangar Replacement Program Project No: apbd10 Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager: Ingrid Gaub Description: Due to the current conditions of the hangar facilities at the Airport, this program will replace hangar facilities as they reach the end of their service fife. A Facility Condition Assessment was completed in 2018 which determined several hangar buildings were nearing the end of their service life. For planning purposes, it is assumed that the hangar replacements may occur over up to 3 separate design and construction phases. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will decrease the need for more costly repairs and maintenance on older buildings. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Airport Revenue - - 50,000 50,000 50,000 Bond Revenue - - - Grants (Fed, State, Local) Other (Public/Private Partnership) - - Total Funding Sources: 50,000 50,000 50,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 50,000 50,000 50,000 Right of Way - - - Construction - Total Expenditures: 50,000 50,000 50,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Airport Revenue 75,000 75,000 250,000 Bond Revenue 2,750,000 - 2,750,000 Grants (Fed, State, Local) - - - - Other (Public/Private Partnership) - - - 3,000,000 3,000,000 Total Funding Sources: 2,750,000 75,000 75,000 3,000,000 6,000,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 75,000 75,000 250,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction 2,750,000 3,000,000 5,750,000 Total Expenditures: 2,750,000 75,000 75,000 3,000,000 6,000,000 243 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan AIRPORT FUND (465) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: West Side Preliminary Environmental Permitting Project No: apbd11 Project Type: Non -Capacity Project Manager: Ingrid Gaub Description: This project will conduct an analysis of the expected environmental permitting requirements associated with the potential development of the undeveloped areas along the west side of the airport. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: None. Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Airport Revenue - 50,000 50,000 Grants (Fed, State. Local) - _ Other - _ Total Funding Sources: 50,000 50,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 50,000 50,000 Right of Way - - _ Construction _ _ Total Expenditures: - 50,000 50,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Airport Revenue 50,000 Grants (Fed, State, Local) _ Other - Total Funding Sources: - 50,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 50,000 Right of Way - - Construction - Total Expenditures: - - 50,000 244 TABLE A-3 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan Impact on Future Operating Budgets AIRPORT Project: 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Total 1 Automated Weather Observation System $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,000 $ 2,000 2 Airport Security Camera & Gate Access Upgrades 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 12,000 3 Precision Approach Path indicator (PA P0 for Runway - - - 2,000 2,000 2,000 6,000 Total $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 4,000 $ 4,000 $ 6,000 $ 20,000 245 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan CITY OF * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED 246 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan CEMETERY Current Facilities The City owns two cemeteries. The Mountain View Cemetery is a fully developed facility (60 acres and five buildings) that provides burial services and related merchandise for the community. The Pioneer Cemetery is a historic cemetery that is no longer used for burial purposes. Table C-1 "Facilities Inventory" lists the facilities along with their current capacity and location. Level of Service (LOS) The current LOS of 37 burial plots/niches and cremation in ground plots per 1,000 population is based on the existing inventory divided by the estimated 2019 citywide population of 81,905. The proposed LOS of 35 burial and plots/niches and cremation in ground plots per 1,000 population is based on the projected inventory divided by the 2024 -projected citywide population of 88,670. Capital Facilities Projects and Financing The City's Mountain View Cemetery facilities include two capital projects at cost of $738,000 to build a new mausoleum and to improve the cemetery roads. Table C-2 shows the proposed financing plan followed by individual worksheets showing the project detail. Impact on Future Operating Budgets There are no operating budget impacts forecast for the cemetery during the six years 2020— 2025. TABLE C-1 Facilities Inventory Cemetery FACILITY Existing Inventory: Mountain View Cemetery Pioneer Cemetery Total Existing Inventory Proposed Capacity Projects: New Development - Burial Plots Total Proposed Capacity Projects 2024 Projected Inventory Total 247 CAPACITY # of PlotslNiches 3,043 3,043 96 96 3,139 LOCATION 2020 Mountain View Dr. 8th & Auburn Way No. TABLE C-2 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN PROJECTS AND FINANCING CEMETERY 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Page Capacity Projects: 249 Mausoleum Building Capital Costs 25,000 25,000 - 355,000 - - 405,000 Funding Sources: Cemetery Fund 25,000 25,000 - 355,000 - - 405,000 Cemetery Endowed Care - - - - - - Non Capacity Projects: 250 Cemetery Road Improvements Capital Costs 333,000 - - - - - 333,000 Funding Sources: Cemetery Fund 300,000 - - - - - 300,000 Cemetery Endowed Care 33,000 - - - - - 33,000 SUMMARY: CAPITAL COSTS Capacity Projects 25,000 25,000 - 355,000 - - 405,000 Non -Capacity Projects 333,000 - - - - - 333,000 Total Costs 358,000 25,000 - 355,000 - - 738,000 FUNDING SOURCES: Cemetery Fund 325,000 25,000 - 355,000 - - 705,000 Cemetery Endowed Care 33,000 - - - - - 33,000 Total Funding 358,000 25,000 - 355,000 - - 738,000 City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan CEMETERY FUND (466) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Mausoleum Building Project No: cmbd02 Project Type: Capacity Project Manager: Craig Hudson Description: This project will design and construct a 96 crypt mausoleum for above ground internment option. The public has expressed desire to have this option available as the current mausoleum is at capacity. Progress Summary: Project design is planned to be completed in 2020 and construction to begin in 2022. Future Impact on Operating Budget: Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Cemetery Revenue - 25,000 25,000 25,000 Bond Proceeds - - - Cemetery Endowed Care - - - Total Funding Sources: 25,000 25,000 25,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 25,000 25,000 25,000 Right of Way - - - Construction - - - Total Expenditures: 25,000 25,000 25,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Cemetery Revenue 355,000 405,000 Bond Proceeds - - Cemetery Endowed Care - - - - - Total Funding Sources: - 355,000 - - 405,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - 50,000 Right of Way - - - Construction 355,000 355,000 Total Expenditures: 355,000 - 405,000 249 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan CEMETERY FUND (466) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Cemetery Road Improvements Project No: cmbd01 Project Type: Non Capacity Project Manager: Craig Hudson Description: Repair and overlay cemetery roads that are in poor condition. Progress Summary: Anticipated that this work will be completed in 2019. Future Impact on Operating Budget: None Activity: 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Cemetery Revenue - 300,000 300,000 Grants - - Bond Proceeds - - - Other/Endowed Care 30,000 33,000 63,000 Total Funding Sources: 30,000 333,000 363,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - _ Right of Way - - - Construction 30,000 333,000 363,000 Total Expenditures: 30,000 333,000 363,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Cemetery Revenue 300,000 Grants _ Bond Proceeds _ OtherlEndowed Care 33,000 Total Funding Sources: 333,000 Capital Expenditures: Design _ Right of Way _ Construction 333,000 Total Expenditures: 333,000 250 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan FIRE PROTECTION Current Facilities The Valley Regional Fire Authority provides fire protection and rescue services to a 40 -square mile area which includes the City of Auburn, the City of Algona, the City of Pacific and King County Fire Protection District 31. The Valley Regional Fire Authority operates out of five stations, which are manned 24 hours per day. The North Station #31 also serves as the department headquarters and includes a hose and training tower. Each station is assigned fire apparatus (Engines and Aid Vehicles). Table F-1 "Facilities Inventory" lists the facilities along with their current capacity and location. Level of Service (LOS) The current LOS of 0.21 fire apparatus per 1,000 population is based on the existing inventory (17 fire apparatus) divided by the 2019 citywide population estimate of 81,905. The proposed LOS of 0.20 fire apparatus per 1,000 is based on the 2024 -planned inventory (18 fire apparatus) divided by the 2024 -projected citywide population of 88,670. Capital Facilities Projects and Financing The Valley Regional Fire Authority includes one capital project at a cost of $450,000 for fire apparatus enhancements and improvements. Table F-2 shows the proposed financing plan followed by an individual worksheet showing the project detail. Impact on Future Operating Budgets There are no operating budget impacts forecasted for fire protection during the six years 2020— 2025. 251 • TABLE F-1 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan Facilities Inventory Valley Regional Fire Authority FACILITY CAPACITY Fire Apparatus Aid Vehicles LOCATION Existing Inventory- nventory:Stations:North Stations.- NorthStation #31 1101 'D' Street NE, Auburn First Line 2 1 Reserve - 1 South Station #32 1951 'R' Street SE, Auburn First Line 1 1 Reserve 1 1 Lakeland Station #33 500 182nd Ave E, Auburn First Line 1 - Reserve 1 - Lea Hill Station #34 31290 124th Ave SE, Auburn First Line 1 - Brush Truck 1 - Reserve 1 - GSA Station #35 2815 C St SW, Auburn Reserve 1 1 Pacific Station #38 133 3rd Ave SE, Pacific First Line 1 - Reserve 1 - Total Existing Inventory 12 5 Proposed Inventory Additions: First Line 1 - Total Proposed Capacity Projects 1 - 2021 Projected Inventory Total 13 5 252 TABLE F-2 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN PROJECTS AND FINANCING VALLEY REGIONAL FIRE AUTHORITY 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Capacity Projects: 1 Fre Station Facility Relocation, Enhancements & Improvements Capital Costs 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 450,000 Funding Sources: Grants - - - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - Impact/Mitigation Fees 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 450,000 SUMMARY: CAPITAL COSTS Capacity Projects - - - - - - - Non -Capacity Projects 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 450,000 Total Costs 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 450,000 FUNDING SOURCES: Grants (Fed, State, Local) - - - - - - - Impact/Mitigation Fees 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 450,000 Total Funding 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 450,000 253 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan Valley Regional Fire Authority Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2019-2024 ProjectTltle: Fire Station Facility Relocation, Enhancements $ Improvements Project No: cpxxxx Project Type: Capacity Project Manager: Mark Horaski Description: Facility Improvement projects are identified and prioritized annually and are subject to delay to accommodate emergency repairs. The Valley Regional Fire Authority includes one project for apparatus enhancements and improvements. Progress Summary: Fire mitigation and impact fees will be transferred to the Valley Regional Fire Authority to pay for apparatus enhancements and improvements. Future Impact on Operating Budget: None Activity: (Previous 2 Yrs.) 2018 YE 2019 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2018 Estimate 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Project Total Grants - Bond Proceeds - - - _ _ Impact/litigation Fees 800,000 50,000 75,000 75,000 925,000 Total Funding Sources: 800,000 50,000 75,000 75,000 925,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - _ _ Construction 800,000 50,000 75,000 75,000 925,000 Total Expenditures: 800,000 50,000 75,000 75,000 925,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024 Funding Sources: Grants Bond Proceeds - - - _ Impact/Mtigation Fees 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 450,000 Total Funding Sources: 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 450,000 Capital Expenditures: _ Design - - - - Right of Way - - - _ _ Construction 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 450,000 Total Expenditures: 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 450,000 254 POLICY/TEXT (P/T) AMENDMENTS CITY INITIATED (CPA18-0002) LIST OF DOCKETED ITEMS: P/T #6 — Amend Volume 1, "Land Use Element" to clarify and distinguish between the various subcategories of "Special Planning Areas". P/T #7 - Amend Volume 6, Economic Development Element of Comprehensive Plan, "Core Plan" and the Appendix. P/T #8 - Amend by adding updated Volume 8, "Historical Preservation" from pre -2015 Comprehensive Plan and amend the "Core Plan" and the Appendix. P/T #9 - Amend Volume 1, "Land Use Element" of the Comprehensive Plan to remove the mapped designation of "Residential Transition Overlay" from the Comprehensive Plan Map and clarify purpose. POLICY/TEXT (P/T) AMENDMENTS (CPAs$ -000z) P/T #6 — Amend Volume 1, "Land Use Element" to clarify and distinguish between the various subcategories of "Special Planning Areas". Proposed Amendment to the Special Planning Areas Designation Section of the Land Use Element REVISION LEGEND Revisions in shown in Attachment A follow the guidelines below: • Insertions are shown in green, underlined text - Additions to inserted text is shown in greeny underlined, bold text_ • Deletions are shown in red, strikethrough tom. • Moves from are shown in blue, strikethroLgh t • Moves to are shown in blue, underlined text. Special Planning Area Designation Description "Special Planning Areas" aFeconsist of Districts, subareas, Impression Corridors, and Gateways within Auburn that warrant additional emphasis in planning, investments, and policy development. Each may be recognized separately within the Comprehensive Plan, as an Element of the Comprehensive Plan, or as an subarea plan (discussed below). There are a variety of reasons for designating and distinguishing a special planning area, and once designated, a variety of potential outcomes. Reasons for designating a special planning area include: • Areas of high visibility and traffic. These areas create an impression or image of Auburn. It is therefore particularly important to ensure that they are attractive and well maintained. Examples include Auburn Way South and associated major highway on- and off -ramps. • Land use activities that warrant joint planning between the City and owner/operator. In addition to developing approaches and strategies for the EeFe land use activity, there may be additional emphasis on ensuring compatibility with surrounding land uses. Examples include, Green River College, the Auburn Municipal Airport, and Emerald Downs Thoroughbred Horse Racetrack. • Neighborhoods in which a resident and merchant live and conduct daily business and leisure. Neighborhoods may also be distinguished by physical setting, physical separations, and similarity over an area. Examples include downtown, Lea Hill, and Lakeland. • Areas with a focused desire to create greater physical and economic cohesiveness. These may be large planned developments or clusters. Examples include the Auburn North Business Area and Mt. Rainier Vista. • Areas with an existing built environment or an existing regulatory framework that does not, in itself, meet the expectations of the seven values that underscore the Comprehensive Plan. Examples include the need for multimodal connections between West Hill and Lea Hill to north and downtown Auburn. Designation Criteria 1. Districts: rThe geographic limit of districts and areas that make up -t ie this category of Special Planning Areas extends beyond an alignment with any particular street, trail, river, stream, or other linear corridor. Districts may contain other smaller Special Planning Areas, such as subareas. Additionally, districts are generally consistent with the geography of one of the eight "neighborhoods", identified in the 2014 City of Auburn Community Vision Report. Generally speaking, districts are identified for the purpose of creating identity. This means that the land use designations and overarching policies and implementing regulations are not going to change from one district to the next. Instead, Districts are important for event planning, establishing park and open space level -of -service standards, and promoting community identity. , The eight "neighborhoods" are identified for comprehensive planning purposes only, as neither the City nor its neighborhoods have elected to officially designate the boundaries of City neighborhoods. Districts (see Map 1.2) • West Hill North Auburn • Lea Hill • Downtown • South Auburn • Plateau • Lakeland • Southeast Auburn 2. Subareas: Subareas are smaller in geography than a district. Though relatively large, multiple subareas may be located within a single district. Subareas allow for the refinement and recognition of existing unique characteristics within a district. Subareas are intended to anticipate, support, and guide long-term growth and redevelopment through planned development and a unique vision for how that area should look and function in the future. It can also be used to provide flexibility when there is uncertainty regarding how an area may be most appropriately developed in the future. p4a.-R- y-tweTwenty-eight (28) subareas currently exist, (iRcl ding the RiRe eceRemic devel9pMeRt StFategy aFeas d;sc-ussed 13e4e �. These subareas are categorized into five different types of subareas: -as • Identified Areas,-_-, • Designated Areas-'Adepted AFeas7 o Economic Development Strategy Areas (a _Designated Areas" sub-category)La.R4 c Areas of Concern (another =Designated Areas= sub -category); and • Adopted Areas. n, h ., C_ t„ r ei iR (+h Fee) staRes eF by a sjRfrtle tF .. Uses, intensities, and infrastructure development determined for each subarea or planned area through individual planning processes. Connectivity throughout the planned area, and connections to multimodal transportation opportunities outside of the planned area are also emphasized through the individual planning process. The result of each individual planning process is the adoption of Comprehensive Plan element or subarea plan for the particular subarea by City Council. Each Plan element must be consistent with the general goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, and osnce adopted, subarea plans are intended to guide the future development of each respectively adopted subarea. .. ..rvzfw WM .. M2 pi cr.mlz. M IMI 0,11111111111 MN "111011' "M -------------------11MI-11-11 - - - 11101,111110,11! .• 1. 1101111116,111111 0111 11=1 1111111 -- -- - - -- - ----- �1,1,1 . . ,4hiR the /fir support qrwAh. S4baf as 2a. Identified Areas: Identified areas, ,a e4e- mare identified as a subarea within the Comprehensive Plan, but have not been established on the Comprehensive Plan Map. Therefore, the specific and detailed boundaries of an identified subarea have not been defined. Identification of a subarea within the Comprehensive Plan occurs by official action of the City Council. Identified Areas, • Auburn Golf Course • GSA/Boeing • Green River College • Mary Olsen Farm • Les Gove Campus • Emerald Downs • Auburn High School ;,. sM 1 , Designated Areas (see T�« �- rte3, 2b. Designated Areas: Designated Areas have been designated on the Comprehensive Plan Ma which defines the specific and detailed boundaries of the area. Designation of an area on the Comprehensive Plan Map occurs by official action of the Auburn City Council. It is intended that future development of these areas will be guided by individual Plan element or subarea plan of the Comprehensive Plan. Updated @Rd future The future Ssubarea Rplans will either supplement existing goals, policies, and implement strategies, or replace existing Comprehensive Plan designations and policies for the area within the specific and detailed boundary. Designated Areas (see Map 1.3), n. burn Cn„i n4 -,I Park • Auburn Municipal Airport • BNSF Rail Yard • ^ SE • Stuck River Road N A St SE • SE 312 X44; e -Ave • Lakeview • Mt. Rainier 2b(1). Desienated Areas - Areas of Concern: Areas of Concern are a specific type (or subcategory) of designated area. Areas of Concern are established because they represent an area that features a lack in the infrastructure and services (e.g. municipal water and sewer service, urban roads, traffic demand, and storm water management) necessary to support increase in density or other development. These areas require a close assessment of and an emphasis on infrastructure development and planning to support further development. While this Plan may not fully represent the intensity of uses that could ultimately be supported in these areas (in part due to the current weakness of the City's infrastructure to support future growth). Development intensification within the Area of Concern needs to be coordinated with the necessary infrastructure and services to support growth. Designated Areas — Areas of Concern (see Map 1.3 • AWS/Auburn Black Diamond Rd. • Pike Street NE • 8th Street NE 2b(2). Designated Areas - Economic Development Strategv Areas: The Economic Development Strategy Areas are a specific type (or subcategory) of designated area. In 2005, City Council adopted six Economic Development Strategy Areas under Resolution No. 3944. These areas, initially identified by a focus group of diverse business and community interests, are targeted for population and employment growth within the planning horizon of the City's 20 -year growth target (2031).e .,,ja;.;,,.,.,i , a, wpl ,.... eRt StF@tei, , owe.;a,,...,r,„,d 4; 2040-4q By 2012, the City Council added- three additional a4ethie-r-economic development strategy areas, , bringing the total to nine (9) strategy areas. During the Citv's 2015 update of the Comprehensive Plan the list of economic development strate areas to reflect current conditions and status of these areas. As such, two of the original six economic development strategy areas was removed from the list. The Urban Center, one of the original six development strategy areas, was removed as it is no longer a designated area. The Urban Center, also known as "Downtown Auburn" or the "Downtown Urban Center" is an adopted area (since 2001) and features its own subarea plan. The Auburn Environmental Park (AEP)/Green Zone has also been removed as an economic development strategy area. The AEP/Green Zone economic development strategy area was previously zoned EP, Environmental Park Zone. The intent of this zone was to encourage economic development in the form of medical, biotech and "green" technologies including energy conservation, engineering, water quality and similar uses. Through Ordinance No. 6660 City Council rezoned the AEP/Green Zone from EP, Environmental Park Zone to M-1, Light Industrial, hereby effectively removing the need to designate the AEP/Green Zone as an specific economic development strategy area. The current economic development strategy areas are included below. The boundaries of the economic development strategy areas are incorporated as designated subareas -"Designated Areas— Special Planning Areas" map of the Land Use Element. ^',^S 9f the (;^^ PFeheRsWL D1,^ Designated Areas — Economic Development Strategy Areas (see Map 1.3) • A St SE (corridor) • Auburn Way South (AWS) Corridor • Auburn Way North (AWN) Corridor • M St SE (between AWN and AWS) • SE 312`h/124`h Ave • NW Manufacturing Village Adopted 15`h St SW/West Valley Hwy N Adopted A*eas (see Map 1r�7 2c. Adopted Areas: Adopted Areas include an Adopted Subarea Plan incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan that establishes the purpose of its designation, goals and policies, and implementation strategies. Adoption of a subarea plan occurs by official action of the City Council. As an adopted document of the Comprehensive Plan, the subarea Plans are subiect to a review, and if necessary, revision to address changes in conditions, issues, or even characteristics of the planned areas. The review and revision a subarea Plan will also include the review and, if necessary, a revision of zoning regulations and architectural design standards. Adopted Areas (see Map 1.4) • Downtown (Ordinance No. 5549) • Auburn Adventist Academy (Resolution No. 2254) • Auburn North Business Area (Resolution No. 2283) • Lakeland Hills (Resolution No. 1851) • Lakeland Hills South (County H.E. Case Z15/ UP70) • Northeast Auburn (Ordinance No. 6183) Pike Wee. PIC err ay South CGFF*dG+ 3. Impression Corridors: Impression corridors are aligned with a particular street, trail, river, stream, or specific linear corridor. Some corridors may be part of a subarea, in which case the Impression Corridor policies are additive to i#e_a csubarea izplan. Impression corridors enhance the areas in which residents, businesses, visitors move throughout the City. The benefit of an impression corridor is two—fold: residents know that the City is invested in the aesthetic of main thoroughfares and businesses can build off of the design and aesthetic provided by the impression corridor. Improvements or modification to impression corridors consist of aesthetic signage, landscaping, and monument features, and the rehabilitation or removal of existing buildings and property. Impression Corridor boundaries and policies are formally designated by adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. Priority is given to the impression corridors that are a part of a subarea. Priority impression corridors are the thoroughfares in which residents, businesses, visitors move throughout a specific subarea. The orioritv impression corridors are italicized below. Impression Corridors (see Map 1.5) • Auburn Way North • Auburn Way South • Auburn Black Diamond Road • A Street SE/Auburn Avenue • C Street SW • Division Street • M Street/Harvey Road • Main Street • 8th Street NE • 15th Street SW • West Valley Highway • 15th Street NW/NE • 132nd Ave StFeet • SE 320th Street • SE 312th Street • SE 304th Street PA StFeet/u. Read • R Street • Lake Tapps Pkwy SE West Valley Highway • Green River Road • 37th Street NW • S 277th Street • Interurban Trail • Green River • White River • Mill Creek 4. Gateways: Gateways are specific places, intersections, or blocks within the City. These essential locations are established because they constitute the first impression into of Auburn. Gateways are intended to create a "welcome" into distinct areas of the City or into the City itself. They are therefore highly important to plan, construct, maintain, and enhance their appearance and function. Gateway locations and policies are formally designated by adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. Priority is given to those gateways that are along an priority impression corridor. Prioritv eateways function as a entrance to an impression corridor. The priority ateways are italicized below. Gateways (see Map 1.6) • Auburn Way North and Auburn Avenue (where the roads converge • East Main Street and M Street NE/SE (at the intersection) • Auburn Way South_b-�rtand 4th Street SES • Auburn Way S and 6th Street SE • West Main Street between C Street NW and 8 Street NW • All roads with an entry into the city • Hwy 167 Off Ramps 8 • SR 18 Off Ramps Implementing Designations Planned Unit Development PUD Master Plans Policies District Policies. LU -123 Through regulation, capital investment, and community planning, identify, pro- mote and market district identity. Subarea Policies. LU -124 Each subarea will contain a description of its purpose, boundary, and- its own vision, goals, policies and strategies. Designated Areas Policies. LU -125 BNSF Rail Yard - This approximately 150 acre Special Planning Area is located in the south-central portion of the City and surrounded by SR -18 to the North, Ellingson Road to the South, C Street SW to the west and A Street SE to the East. The Special Planning Area should consider both sides of C Street and A Street. Consideration should be given to: 1. The needs of Burlington Northern. 2. Providing pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular access across the site to connect the southeast and southwest sides of the city. 3. Providing a more visually appealing "entry corridor" into the City from the south along A and C Streets. 4. Allowing for a mix of uses including single and multifamily development and commercial and industrial uses where appropriate. LU -126 Stuck River Road - A portion of the Stuck River Road Special Planning Area is currently the site of a large sand and gravel mining operation. This area and other adiacent land comprising a total of approximately 664 acres has been designated as a long term resource area (mineral resource area), so development of the Special Area Plan for this area should be a low priority as mining is expected to continue on this site for as long as 30 years. The land uses for the Stuck River Road Special Planning Area will be determined through the subarea planning process and the City Council's adoption of the subarea plan. Potential land uses applied through the subarea planning process could include single-family residential, multi -family residential, commercial, institutional, and recreational. Some light industrial uses may be appropriate for consideration and designation through the subarea planning process if the uses are "industrial or business park" in character, conducted entirely within an enclosed building, and exhibit a high degree of performance standards and are non -nuisance in nature and if appropriately limited in extent and location. A mix of housing types ranging from single family residential to multi -family residential is appropriate for this planning area. The subarea plan should be adopted taking into consideration the period during which mining is expected and the intent of the ultimate development of the area. An active permit has been processed by the City with respect to the mining activity on a portion (approximately 664 acres) of the mineral extraction operation The permit process should continue, however, any permit for mining in the mineral resource area should be granted for the life of the resource, with reviews conducted periodically (every five years) to determine whether changes in the originally proposed mineral extraction operation have arisen and give rise to the need for additional or revised permit conditions to address the new impacts (if any) of any such changes. Any permit applications for additional acreage within the mineral resource area shall be processed by the City. Development of this area should not occur until adequate public facilities are available to support the development consistent with City concurrency policy. The City recognizes the potential for expanding the Stuck River Road Special Planning Area to include additional land east of Kersey Way and north of the Covington -Chehalis power line easement and will consider a proposal by all affected property owners. If the area is expanded, the number of non -multiple family, non -manufactured home park dwellings units may be increased proportionate to the increase in acreage. Any such proposal shall specifically apportion the types and quantities of development to occur within each separate ownership. LU -127 Lakeview -The Lakeview subarea is currently the site of two independent sand and gravel mining operations. While mining activity continues in the eastern operation, indications in 1995 are that the western operation has ceased. Activity in the western portion is now limited to a concrete batch plant and future site reclamation. Following reclamation, the area should be developed as a primarily single family residential neighborhood of low to moderate urban density. A planned development would be particularly appropriate for this approximately 235 acre site. The permitted development density of the site will depend heavily upon the ability of the transportation system near the site to handle the new uses. Consideration shall be given to the environmental, recreational and amenity value of White Lake, the historical and cultural significance as well as tribal ownership and jurisdiction of to -the Muckleshoot Tribe in the development of the Lakeview Plan element. Permit applications have been accepted and are currently being processed by the City with respect to the mining activity on the eastern portion of the area. The permit process should continue however, any permit for continued mining in this portion of the area should be limited to 10 years to encourage completion of the mining, and subsequent reclamation by the property owner in preparation for development. The Lakeview Plan element should be adopted prior to the City's acceptance or processing of any other permit applications for the mining operation in the Lakeview Special Planning Area. The environmental information and analysis included in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Lakeview (November 1980), shall be considered in the development of the Lakeview Plan element. While heavy commercial or industrial uses would not be appropriate as permanent uses of this area, conversion of the area now zoned for heavy industry to office commercial (or similar) uses would be appropriate. LU -128 Mt. Rainier Vista - This 145 acre subarea is located south of Coal Creek Springs Watershed. Overall development of the Mt. Rainier Vista subarea plan shall be consistent with the following conditions: 1. Primary consideration in use and development of the property shall be given to protection of Coal Creek Springs' water quality. Development types, patterns and standards determined to pose a substantial risk to the public water source shall not be allowed. 2. The maximum number of dwelling units will be determined as part of any sub -area plan process. Dwelling units shall be located within portions of the property where development poses the least risk of contamination for Coal Creek Springs. Lands upon which any level of development would have a high risk for 10 contaminating the water supply shall not be developed, but would be retained as open space. The development pattern shall provide for a logical transition between areas designated for rural uses and those designated for single family residential use. All dwelling units shall be served by municipal water and sanitary sewer service, and urban roads. If 53rd Street S.E. is the major access to serve the Special Planning Area, the developer will be responsible for developing the street to urban standards, from the property owners' eastern property line that abuts 53rd Street, west to the intersection of 53rd and Kersey Way. 3. Percolation type storm sewer disposal systems shall not be permitted. All surface water drainage shall be conveyed consistent with the City's current storm drainage standards. Treatment of stormwater shall occur prior to its discharge to any surface water body, consistent with standard public works or other requirements in general effect at the time of development. 4. The site shall be zoned temporarily, at one unit per four acres, until the sub -area plan is completed and the long-term urban zoning determined. 5. The Mt. Rainier Vista special planning area boundary may be modified through the development of the subarea plan. 6. The Mt. Rainier Vista and Stuck River Road Special Planning Areas shall be coordinated subarea plans. LU -129 Auburn Municipal Airport Area - The area east of Auburn's Municipal Airport is an features industrial land use designations. While industrial type uses are now located here, the area is highly suited for air related activities. The City will encourage use in this area to take advantage of its proximity to the Airport and control adverse effects to airport operations. Designated Areas - Areas of Concern Policies. LU -4-59130 —AWS/Auburn Black Diamond Rd — The area between Auburn -Black Diamond Road and the Burlington Northern Railroad currently lacks urban facilities necessary to support urban development. Major development proposals shall be carefully assessed under SEPA to ensure that the development can be supported by the available facilities. Once property owners are able to demonstrate to the City that they can provide urban services (municipal water and sewer service, urban roads and storm water management) necessary to support the intensity of development proposed within the entire area, the Plan designation and zoning for this area should be changed to an urban residential or commercial classification. The appropriate classification(s) shall be determined after a review of the development proposal and the pertinent Comprehensive Plan policies. LU -4-54131 — Pike Street NE — The area located north of 8th NE, east of Harvey Road, and south of 22nd NE is inadequately served by residential arterials. No increase in density or other development which would increase traffic demand in this area should be approved. LU -132 8th Street NE —The areas paralleling 8th Street NE located between Auburn Way and M Street are designated for multiple family residential while 8th Street NE is designated as a minor arterial. However, the road is not currently constructed to this standard and is not able to support current traffic demand adequately. The Plan designation would greatly increase traffic volumes. Implementation of the Plan designations should not occur until 8th Street NE is constructed to the adequate arterial standard and water service is upgraded. Up zones should not be granted from current zoning until these stems are upgraded or guaranteed. Designated Areas - Economic Development Strategy Areas Policies. 11 LU -133 — The Citv should adopt a formal subarea plan for each of the seven economic development strate areas (listed below) as an element of the Comprehensive Plan. Each economic development strategy area subarea plan should identify the uses, intensities, and infrastructure development necessary to support the types of business and activities that are most consistent with community aspirations. Each subarea plan should address and include policies regarding the expected level of housing density (or residential growth targets) and employment growth targets. • Auburn Way South Corridor • Auburn Way North Corridor • NW Auburn Manufacturing Village • 15th St. SW/C St. SW/West Valley Hwy. N • A St. SE • SE 312th St. /124th Ave SE • M St. SE between Auburn Wav N and Auburn Wav S Adopted Areas PlaR Policies. LU -13425 Adoption or revision of a subarea plan will be treated as a comprehensive plan amendment and will comply with the Growth Management Act, Countywide planning policies, Vision 2040, and the Core Comprehensive Plan. LU -126 Auburn Adventist Academy - Adopted under Resolution No. 2254 on November 14, 1991. The Auburn Adventist Academy is primarily a secondary school operated by the Washington Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists. Since the school is sited on a larger complex that formerly housed a mill, the Academy has also sought to include industrial uses that support the mission of the school. The industrial uses provide employment opportunities, learning experiences, and vocational education for students of the Academy. The re -use of existing buildings and redevelopment of buildings lost to a fire in 1989 are the focal points of the industrial development. In addition to institution- al and industrial uses, the Academy is also interested in agricultural uses for commercial and vocational purposes and currently operates a landing strip for aviation training. The plan focuses on providing predictability to planning, zoning, subdivision, and development decisions made by the City. LU -135-2-7 Auburn North Business Area - Adopted under Resolution No. 2283 on March 2, 1992. The Auburn North Business Area Special Planning Area Plan was the result of a comprehensive planning study due to increased development pressure north of the Central Business District. Since the Central Business District, which contains Downtown, the core of Auburn, is adjacent to these areas, future development in this area is crucial. A comprehensive and cohesive direction was also needed based on increased development proposals and rezone requests. In addition to development concerns, many of the considerable undeveloped parcels contain wetlands. All of these factors made development controls beyond zoning and development regulations advisable. LU -1368 Lakeland Hills - Adopted under Resolution No. 1851 on April 18, 1988. Lakeland Hills area lies between the Stuck River and the southern City limits of Auburn in the most southwestern part of the City. The area consists of planned residential and commercial subdivisions, and is 12 predominately residential in nature, offering a range of housing types, including single family and multi -family dwellings. The Lakeland Hills Plan was intended to provide long-term predictability to both the City and potential developers. As a planned community, development and design must be consistent with the policy guidance of the Lakeland Hills Plan. LU -1372-9 Lakeland Hills South -Approved under Pierce County Hearing Examiner Case Z15/UP70.Lakeland Hills South lies south of the Lakeland Hills special plan area and is the most southwestern part of the City. The area is predominately residential, allowing for a range of housing types, with commercial uses, including Lakeland Town Center, in the center. Nonresidential uses, including civic, religious, and municipal services are allowed throughout the area through an Administrative Use Permit. Unlike Lakeland Hills, Lakeland Hills South was accepted into Auburn was a Planned Unit Development (PUD). The Lakeland Hills PUD, originally the Lakeland Hills South Planned Development District (PDD), was approved under Pierce County Hearing Examiner Case no Z15-UP70 in 1990. Lakeland Hills South PUD is intended to provide enhanced flexibility to develop a site through innovative and alternative development standards. As a PUD, specific development and design standards are prescribed. LU -1388 Auburn Downtown Plan (Urban Center) - Adopted under Ordinance No. 5549 on May 21, 2001. Downtown Auburn is the business, governmental, and cultural hub of Auburn, its physical and cultural heart. Many stores, restaurants, service providers, and small offices are well -represented throughout this district. Downtown hosts many community events and activities, such as the weekly Auburn International Farmers Market in the summer, Soundbites! Concert Series (in the City Hall Plaza) and the Veterans Day Parade. Downtown features public art that includes temporary installations such as Pianos on Parade and a permanent outdoor Downtown Sculpture Gallery with rotating pieces. This dynamism is possible because the district is a collection of uses that co- exist in close proximity to one another. Due to the value, importance, and complexity of this district, The Auburn Downtown Plan identified four general needs to be addressed by the plan: • Update of the existing plan in order to continue Downtown revitalization • Concern over the reopening of Stampede Pass • Multiple large projects proposed for Downtown • Scarce private investment In conjunction with project -based items, a regulatory element that emerged from the goals of the Auburn Downtown Plan was the Downtown Urban Center (DUC) zoning district, which was established in 2007. While the DUC zoning district is intended specifically to address the needs of downtown, though the implementation of policies identified by the Downtown Auburn Plan , many challenges related to public and private investment, development, and strategic planning have yet to be addressed as downtown has evolved. LU -139 Northeast Auburn Special Plan Area —Adopted under Ordinance No. 6183 on June 5, 2008. The Plan was prepared in fulfillment of the policies included in the Comprehensive Plan for the area between Auburn Way North and the Green River, south of 277th Street (52nd Street NE) and north of approximately 37th Street NE in the City of Auburn (Map No. 14.2). The planning area was narrowed to an area covering approximately 120 acres, north of 45th Street NW and between Auburn Way North and the existing I Street NE right-of-way. The Northeast Auburn/ Robertson Properties Special Area Plan focuses on proposed develop of the Auburn Gateway project area, a 60 -acre group of properties owned or under consideration for purchase by Robertson Properties Group, owners of the Valley 6 Drive -In Theater. The plan calls for a mix of office, retail, and multifamily development 13 under a new zoning designation (C-4, Mixed Use Commercial) for the central portion of this planning area, created to accommodate mixed use development. The plan calls for phased development in coordination with the provision of new roads, stormwater and other utilities, and flood management measures. Impression Corridor Policies. LU -1403-2 Create specific plans for each identified corridor, outlining development policies and regulations, necessary capital improvements, and implementation strategies. In the absence of any specific corridor plans, this section contains general policies that are to be applied within designated impression corridors. LU -14133 Coordinate corridor planning, design, construction, and maintenance with other agencies, such as BNSF, the Muckleshoot Indian Reservation, and the Washington State Department of Transportation. Where one agency may more effectively manage the corridor, management or ownership consolidation is appropriate. LU -14234 Promote the elimination or renovation of existing derelict or unmaintained structures, signs, fences, and properties along impression corridors through regulatory or enforcement mechanisms LU -1433-5 Work with private and public property owners to educate, create incentives, and enforce regulations that are intended to improve the overall appearance of identified corridors. LU -14436 Emphasize the design, orientation, construction materials, landscaping, and site layout for development proposals of new and existing buildings along impression corridors. New construction and the renovation of existing buildings create important opportunities for enhancing the appearance of impression corridors. LU -1453-7 Establish regulations that ensure coordinated, attractive commercial signage is of an appropriate size and quantity. Signage regulations along these corridors may be different than those in other areas. LU -14638 Take advantage of opportunities to pro- vide informational signs, wayfindingg signs, and traffic control signs that are attractive, useful, and integrated into a larger citywide signage plan or policy. LU -14739 Outdoor storage of materials, inventory, and other goods and off-street surface parking should be located at the rear of the property. If outdoor storage cannot be located in the rear of the property, then it should be screened from view from adjacent rights-of-way. LU -1488 Design, construct, and enhance impression corridors to accommodate multimodal uses. LU -1494 Design and construct vehicular access points in a manner that consolidates access points serving multiple uses. LU -1504-2 Signage, landscaping, and monument features should be used to establish prominent access points. LU -15143 Discourage aerial utilities. LU -15244 Invest in impression corridors by acquiring rights-of-way, constructing and widening sidewalks, installing landscaping, building center medians, constructing parklets, providing street furniture, and constructing other improvements. Gateway Policies. 14 te r=Feate a "weleeme" mpte- dlistinr-t A-Feas ef the Gity eF *Rte the C ty itself. They aFe theFefeFe highly peliriies @Fe f„ -,II., de ate.d by a dept;,, of the Ge ehe ol-, LU -15345 Prioritize by rank all gateways and develop potential opportunities and designs for each location. LU -1544 Develop land use regulations that incorporate gateway priorities and concepts into private development proposals that are located at identified gateways. LU -15547- Coordinate with the Washington State Department of Transportation to under- stand options and implement actions at gateway location. Many of the gate- way locations are within the WSDOT right-of-way. LU -15648 Develop design layouts for gateway locations. Designs will identify key areas that greet residents and visitors as they enter the City or downtown center, opportunities for signage and monument features, and landscaping. LU -15749 Maintain established gateways. ,A.., of G.,.,, prR Polo s. These can be suppeFted by the available —Ac-dit that they eaR ,;.d., uFbaRsePAEes /..,� F:RaRagemeRt) ReeessaFy to s eFt the Plan .desigRat; e., aR d g fl,. this Si The late classifieat;.. I ...d the eFtiRe.,t Ge., pFeheRsi. 1- 11 15-1 Pgke Street AIC — The area lecatnod a.d.,gHately e.d by s;.d.,ptial arte.;al 6W 152 8th S;Feet NE jesigRate.d f,.F multiple f-,mily . si dental + E „tl., G StF UG+,,.d t., +h;1- Sta.,.dArE r+;l 8th ftFeet SIC st FuEte.d to t 15 POLICY/TEXT (P/T) AMENDMENTS (CPA1$-0002) P/T ##7 - Amend Volume 6, Economic Development Element of Comprehensive Plan, "Core Plan" and the Appendix. �x:. .. . .. � .»� . w � � % ���\y� d � f� < ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS Vision.................................................................ED-1 Conditions and Trends....................................ED-1 Introduction.....................................................ED-3 Values..............................................................ED-3 Planning Approach (Goal 17) ........................ED -4 \V/(0)LUME o_ , ��� ��� l tf7 Cis - - C VISION Auburn is a community that has with -a robust and diverse economy where businesses seek to locate, the -t -people desire to visit, and t+ ier-e residents enjoy a range of commercial offerings. Businesses thatlocatein Auburnfinditeasytoenterthemarketplace,encounteridealconditionsfortheirlong-term success, and become rooted and involved in the community. Visitors continue to return to Auburn because of its high- quality natural resources, parks, public spaces, and commercial attractions. Residentschoose tolivein Auburn because ofthe diverse, family wage employment opportunities, and access to entertainment, restaurant, retail, and services. Conditions and trends Historical Trends: Historically, a variety offactors have shaped Auburn's economy. At the turn of the 20th century, the City offered services to support agriculture and the railroads. Downtown offered a full range of services and retail opportunities. In later years, automotive sales became a signif- icant factor. As urbanization of the region expanded to in- clude Auburn, the vitality of downtown Auburn was impacted by new shopping malls that were located outside the community, and by changes in retail trends. At the same time, Auburn saw increased importance as a home to large indus- trial and warehousing operations. This same pe- riod saw the growth of retail along commercial "strips" such as Auburn Way and 15th Street NW. Large retailers such as Fred Meyer, and many major supermarket chains, chose to locate in the community. The development of the SuperMall of the Great Northwest (now called The Outlet Collection) in the 1990s led to Auburn becoming a major player in the regional retail market. Auburn shoppers no longer needed to leave the City to visit retail malls for many of their purchases. During that same decade, Emerald Downs and the Muckleshoot Casino also contributed to commercial recreation facilities in Auburn and their associated employ- ment growth. Today, Auburn provides approximately 41,000 jobs for residents throughout the region. Auburn has a strong industrial sector that includes Boeing, the General Service Administration, and numerous warehouse and distribution facilities. Multicare and a growing medical office commu- nity also provide a significant number of jobs. The retail and service sectors are expanding as small businesses are created. Educational uses such as the Auburn School District and Green River College also add to the area's employment base. While development has continued throughout the City, downtown Auburn remains the heart and soul of the community. With its historical char- acter and pedestrian -oriented development pattern, downtown Auburn reflects many of the qualities that other communities are seeking to achieve. Given its urban center designation, Auburn Station , and the incentives the City has in place, downtown Auburn remains poised forcon- tinued revitalization. Employment Growth: Between 1995 to 2013, the number of jobs located in Auburn increased by 46%. While historically manufacturing jobs were the largest category, the 2010 Census indicated that service jobs were the most dominant, fol- lowed by manufacturing. The remaining job cat- egories all experienced job growth. The number of retail jobs increased substantially, as did jobs in warehousing, transportation, and communication industries. §D-1 ON City of Auburn Comprehensive plAn It is expected that Auburn's employment base will continue to grow in the future. The King and Pierce County Countywide planning policies pro- ject that Auburn's job base will increase by just over 20,000 jobs through 2031. It should be noted that this number is not a maximum, but rather the City's most recent assigned share of future pro- jected growth lie County. Retail Sales: Auburn's business community is keeping pace with both Auburn's population growth and its increasing number of affluent households. Between 2005 and 2008, retail sales in Auburn increased by roughly 7% or8% peryear. Following implementation of streamlined sales tax in 2008 and the global economic decline, sales tax revenues dropped by 16.5% in 2009. Since 2009, revenues have increased by 34%. Streamlined Sales Tax: The state of Washington adopted "streamlined sales tax"S( ST) legislation in 2008. Prior to streamlined sales tax, sales tax col- lection in Washington State was based on site of origin rather than site of delivery. Under the SST tax structure, sales tax is collected at the site of delivery rather than at the location from which items are shipped. This change in tax structure has put Auburn at a disadvantage and negatively impacts its tax revenue. Specifically, Auburn and similar cities have histor- ically invested in infrastructure to supportbusi- nesses engaged in warehouse anddistribution activities that ship goods to other destinations. Another concern for Auburn and similar cities that have invested in infrastructure include how the debtthathas already been extended forsuch infrastructure will be paid and how the loss of a significant source of revenue will affect bond ratings. Based on the potential passage of SST, the Auburn City Council approved Resolution No. 3782 in November 2004. Resolution No. 3782 outlines an approach and actions the City will take related to land use planning, zoning and other matters in the event a streamlined sales tax proposal or other similar proposals that change the tax struc- ture are adopted. Because of the state of Washington's implementa- tion of sales tax mitigation payments to cities such as Auburn, the impact resulting from streamlined sales tax has been somewhat lessened. However, the continued availability of these payments is not certain due in part to the State's current and anticipated fiscal challenges. In addition, the amount of payments does not equal the total loss in revenue to the City. The City's economic development strategies are dependent upon the Citybeing able tocontinuea strong publicinvest- mentprogram in infrastructure and services. The City's ability to continue this public investment is contingent upon maintaining solvent public revenue streams, particularly sales tax. Sales tax is the largest source of monies to the City's General Fund, approximately 30 percent in 2010. The City anticipates that current and long-term fiscal challenges facing the state of Washington will likely results in the dissolution of the current salestaxrevenue mitigation program. Theeven- tual loss of the aforementioned salestaxrevenue will directly and adversely affect the City's ability to adequately fund the capital infrastructure and services necessary to support the realization of the City's economic development strategies. This is especially applicable to industrial areas sup- porting warehouse and distribution centers that are origin based in nature. In 2005 the City of Auburn brought together a focus group of diverse business and community interests that identified several economic devel- opment areas within the City. The focus group's effort is reflected in an Economic Development Strategies derwmept (brochure) that includes strategies and actions needed to affect necessary change for specific strategy areas within the city. Implementation of these strategies is intended to enable the City to achieve the City's economic development potential. Implementation of ac- tions and strategies in the Economic Development Strategies is appropriate and reflected in various elements of the Auburn Comprehensive Plan. Since the development of the previous 2005 Economic Development Strategies brochuredesUPReat, additional "economic development strategy areas" have been identifies' to include the SE 312th Street/124th Avenue SE corridor within the FeG8Rtly annexed portion of Lea Hill and M Street SE between Auburn Way ED -2 North and Auburn Way South. economic development element These "economic development strategy areas" are identified a subcategory of the Special Planning Areas described in ime 1, Land Use Element. eD-3 IntroduCtion In October of 2015 the City of Auburn initiated the process for developing a Ten -Year Economic Development Sstrategic PplanTE( DSP) to guide the City's economic development activities over the next 10 years (to the year 2025). The Pplan was completed in November of 2016 and w+44 outlines a key set of strategies and actions within four focus areas that build upon the City's current asset base and assist the City in overcom- ing challenges. The plan w+44 -sets forth strategies to a4se--facilitate the growth and expansion of existing industry and business sectors as well as promote tapgeted redevelopment in target investment areasserriders. Finally, the TEDSP w+41—addresses both the needs and the impediments of existing business while defin- ing strategy approaches for attracting and cultivating new businesses. The first phase of the TEDSP nrejest development involved a consulting team of technical experts conducting w4l#w4a com- prehensive communitywide stakeholder input process and included detailed community anal- yses that 411 ^"^;Ar the tearrar--to understand Auburn's strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. In the next phase of the project, the team wMidentifiedy and refined the City's most promising economic development opportunities by conducting a market capacity study, percep- tion study, and target industry analysis. In the last phase of the project, the team wgidentifiedy spe- cific Beats- strategies; and actions to capitalize on the City's 4& -opportunities. The TEDSPf+aat—t_{a� will—includes an implementation matrix that identifies assigRrs responsibility and prioritizes timing into short-, mid-, and long-term timeframes. eLitliRes tdMiRg, ^^d estimates se Jts- The TEDSP ,Gjes+r-aims tebetteF PGGitiGR recognizes the City of Auburn as a great places to live, learn, work, and play. The Pplan wi4 balances the needs of existing businesses with the need to expand and diversify the City's employment base. The recommended strategies and actions will increase employment in the City ED -3 economic deVelopment element as well as its commercial tax base. The TEDSPPIafl Will be was completed and approve by Resolution No. 5256 of the Auburn City Council c November 21, 2016 by-A4qast-- The Economi Development Element of the City's Comprehensiv Plan is w+ll-ht- -amended to in- corporate the finding: specific goals, strat- egies, and actions of the Te 4 -8 -wear Economic Development Strategic Pla roII^lAlm ^^ QbA r^, I^^ I ^^^r^valas a suDolementar report incorporated in the Appendix. Auburn's econodnic base drives and shapes the'tVommunityr"anc�"�'egion. XuBuAn -idents and the surrounding region efit from the jobs and ser- vices Auburn's economic base offers. Through the payment of sales, property and other taxes, the City of Auburn can fund and provide services and public facilities that Auburn residents demand and/or require. It is clearly in the City's best interest to main- tain and expand our economic base in uni- son with implementing all of the goals of this Comprehensive Plan. This section of the Comprehensive Pplan will help to define the City's goals and policies inthis vital area. Values Character: Our cultural diversity has been lever- aged to bind our community, expand our market, and celebrate cultural traditions. Wellness: We are a safe community with walkable commercial districts where there perception and reality are that crime u-.Ivity is low and pub- lic safety staffing meets or exceeds the communi- ty's expectations. Service: Our economic development strategies focus on both, supporting the existing business commu- nity; as well as as a Fe&u , recruitment of new businesses to expand and diversify the City's quality of place. is .,,.,,.,,,ul because b6lSiResses des0 o to Ir. ate heFe Economy: We are able to measure and achieve defined targets for manufacturing, service, and retail jobs and revenues. Celebration: We actively promote our local busi- nesses and have been successful at making our residents more aware of what is available local- ly as well as attracting visitors from beyond our City. Environment: Our economy is growing and ~- sifying because of our efforts to sct our riv- ers, streams, wetlands, and other environmental resources. Sustainability: Residents are staying in Auburn to work and shop, and we are widely considered a regional dining, shopping, and entertainment destination. 'ON 1• I• planning approaCh To ensure the long-term economic health of the City and the region through a diversified eco- nomic base that supports a wide range of em- ployment opportunities forAuburn's residents and those of the region, and through the promotion of quality industrial and commercial development that matches the aspirations of the community. objectives and 14P0,IIcles Objective 9.1. Promote a diversified econom- is base capable of withstanding changes in in- terest rates, inflation, tax structure and market conditions. Policies ED -1 City promotion of new industry shall be directed at attracting business that di- versifies the City's tax base, offers secure, quality employment opportunities, is sen- sitive to community values, and promotes the development of attractive facilities. ED -2 Emerald Downs, the Muckleshoot Casino, and the Outlet Collection offer oppor- tunities for economic diversification that should be optimized by the City. ED -3 The importance of downtown Auburn as a unique retail environment and subregional center of commerce should be considered in the City's economic plan. Objective 9.2. Produce commercial and industrial siting policies that are based on the assessment of local needs and the availability of transporta- tion and other infrastructure required to serve it. Policies ED -4 Development of industrial areas should be based on performance standards ap- propriate for their sites, with appropriate flexibility within those standards to ac- commodate changing market conditions. ED -5 Revitalize depreciated and/or obsolete commercial and industrial sites through innovative regulations that redesign such sites in accordance with modern design economic deVelopment element standards and industrial/commercial uses. ED -6 Land ukases that serve regional needs and pur- poses (such as major industrial plants) must be separated from community-serv- ing uses in order to minimize traffic and other conflicts. Objective 9.3. Develop and implement effective land use polices and economic development strategies that pro- vide long-term and stable employment, increase per capita income, and reduce the tax burden of Auburn residents. Policies ED -7 Auburn should continue to provide an eco- nomic base not only for the Auburn area but also for the South King County and North Pierce County regions. ED -8 Implementation of economic development programs shall be consistent with the_pol- icies of the Comprehensive Plan.this p4aR. ED -9 The City has developed a Ten -Year Economic Development Strategic Plan (TEDSP) and sheuld- develep a feFml'' es^^�is deveiGPR;eatstr�tegT incorporated as a supplementary report in Appendix fl eleMeRt of the Comprehensive Plan. The TEDSP that specifically identifies the types of businesses that are most consistent with community aspira- tions, and sets forth � 9-ut a program to attract those businesses. a. The City should work cooperatively with other governmental agencies in its economic development efforts, including the Muckleshoot Tribe, King County, Pierce County, the Port of Seattle, and the Sstate of Washington. b. The City should implement its economic development strategy through partnerships with private sector organizations. c. Identified in the 2005 Economic Development Strategies brochure dOGYmeRts are six strategy areas and two additional strategy areas. These econo is de to ment strategy areas Ci!arget incre se �inhepopuplation and employment growth to that meet the City's 20 -year (2031) growth target. Subarea plans -M should be developed for these strategy areas. The economic development strategy areas are as follows: • Auburn Way North Corridor • Auburn Way Southcorridor • Urban Center • Auburn Environmental Park and Green Zone • 15th Street SW/C Street SW/West Valley Highway/SuperMall • A Street SE corridor • SE 312th Street/124th Avenue SE corridor • M Street SE between Auburn Way North and Auburn South ED -10 Ensure that the economic development strat- egies and actions as set forth in the Ten -Year Economic Development Strategy Plan are periodically reviewed at regular intervalsfeg440y in order to be flexible and respond to changes in the market. ED -11 The City should support economic development activity through workforce development programs to provide training and employment with vvit the private sector, school districts, and Green River College to G18Velep PFegFaR=16 +^ PFe11id a—tFaiRiRg. Consideration of the special needs of economically disadvantaged residents and neighborhoods, and people with physical impairments and develop- mental disabilities, should be included in these programs. ED -12 Engage with agencies that support multimodal transportation infrastructure including Puget Sound Regional Council, Sound Transit, King Co. Metro and Pierce Transit. The City should continue to advocate for funding to support transportation improvements Sus�t seet+Ryed—develepMeRt ef the-Seli►d Trot—Gemmuter Ra systewa as an important means of expanding the City's and the region's economic base. 60- economic deVelopment element ED -13 City infrastructure plans and programs should consider economic development plans and programs. ED -14 Implement the recommendations of the City's 2005 Economic Development Strategies brochure, including the addi- tion of the SE 312th Street/124th Avenue SE corridor, and M Street SE between Auburn Way North and Auburn Way South. The City's 20 -year housing and employment growth shall be concentrated in these economic development strategy areas. ED -15 W ehous and distribution land uset`are not p eferec� Toro' g-Ferm s economic development and land use priorities for industrially zoned areas of the City, due to: the loss of sales tax revenue associ- ated with the State's implementation of streamlined sales tax legislation in 2008; no substantive contribution to an increase in per capita income for Auburn resi-dents; no reduction in the tax burden of Auburn residents; low employment densi- ties, lower property values; and land use inefficiencies. ED -16 Increasing the utilization of land for man-ufacturing and industrial land usesshould be the City's preferred economic develop- ment and land use priority for industrially zoned areas of the City that are currently dominated by warehouse and distribution land uses. The City should promote and create incentives for new manufacturing and light industrial uses, and for thegrad- ual conversion of existing warehouse and distribution land uses to manufacturing and sales tax generating dial land uses. ED -17 To support continued sales tax revenue growth opportunities in the City, those areas currently dominated by existing warehouse land uses that abut existing commercial retail areas, and that could take advantage of this proximity to real- ize substantive value by changing to com- mercial retail uses, should be considered for changes in the Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations that would facil- itate the conversion of these properties to commercial retail use. ED -18 Regulatory and financial incentives will be identified and implemented where appro- priate to provide increased opportunities and encourage the establishment of new or expanded manufacturing -m and industri- al uses and jobs in the City. Objective 9.4. Maintain an adequate supply of land to support future economic development and to assure the availability of economic oppor- tunities for future generations. Policies ED -20 Economic development programs should be viewed as a way to shape the char- acter of the City's future economy, rather than merely a way to respond to market trends as they occur. ED -21 Land suitable for large-scale develop- ment in the areas j, Rg apea of the City that contain regional -serving uses should be identified and designated for economic development. a. The integrity of large contiguously owned properties suitable for in- dustrial use should be conserved by the use of appropriate industrial subdivision standards. b. The City should identify and assist in resolutionve of any environmental constraints affecting such land by means of appropriate environmental review procedures as early as technically feasible. c. The need to support such land with the necessary infrastructure should be considered in the development of the City's public facility plans. economic deVelopment element d. Innovative and flexible development regulations should be utilized to enable the development of environmentally constrained sites while protecting those characteristics. Objective 9.5. Utilize the City's unique environ- mental opportunities and planned infrastructure to build on and support economic development efforts. Policies ED -22 Integrate the Auburn Environmental Park into the City's economic development strategies of fer4s by encouraging compatible sustainable 4k testi businesses to locate in its vicinity. ED -23 Utilize the future extension of I Street NE as an economic development opportu- nity. Development of I Street NE should establish it as a stand-alone corridor and not a "back side" to Auburn Way North. Conditional use permit applications for commercial uses and nursing homes along this corridor, whose impacts can be ade- quately mitigated, should be supported. ED -24 Use the M Street SE underpass and the de- velopment of the M Street SE and R Street SE bypass connection as opportunities to create and encourage the clustering of complementary businesses and services in that area. City of Auburn Comprehensive piAn 37 mcraw, � rpqp ., ISZ7, 7 J CL LU r� City of Auburn Comprehensive plAn ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Goals Character: Our cultural diversity has been lever- aged to bind our community, expand our market, and celebrate cultural traditions. Wellness: We are a safe community with walkable commercial districts, where both the perception and the reality are that crime activity is low and public safety staffing meets or exceeds commu- nity expectations. Service: Our economic development strategies focus on supporting the existing business commu- nity, and on recruitment of new businesses that diversify tax base and revitalize target areas. Recruitment is facilitated bV as air resrHitmeRt is n}imi.m.al because—businesses desire to locate here. Economy: We are able to measure and achieve defined targets for manufacturing, service, and retail jobs and revenues. Celebration: We actively promote our local busi- nesses and have been successful at making our residents more aware of what is available locally as well as attracting visitors from beyond our City. Environment: Our economy is growing and diver- sifying because of our efforts to protect our riv- ers, streams, wetlands, and other environmental resources. Sustainability: Residents are staying in Auburn to work and shop, and we are widely considered to be a regional dining, shopping, and entertain- ment destination. C4-18 [Description Auburn's economic base drives and shapes the community and region. Auburn's residents and the surrounding region benefit from the jobs and services Auburn's economic base offers. Through the payment of sales, property, and other taxes, the City of Auburn can fund and provide services and public facilities that Auburn residents require. It is in the City's best interest to maintain and ex- pand our economic base in unison with imple- menting all of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. This section of the plan will help to define the City's goals and policies in this vital area. Policies 1. Attract high -wage employment opportunities and sales tax generating businesses to diversifythe City's economic base and generate positive secondary benefits for the community. 2. Assistbusiness organizations in developing and implementing new or improved product development opportunities to increase sales tax revenue collections. 3. Dedicate resources to pursue an expanded economic development program for the City. 4. Develop a stronger and unified City branding strategy along with a- more positive perception and sense of community. 5. Create an economic development toolbox comprising programs and incentives to reduce financial, regulatory, and operational constraints forexisting ornew business growth and expansion. 6. Prioritize the installation of key infrastructure at a few "target investment areas" id8d e"R"'^YMeRt areas to facilitate developmentofthese economic centers. economic Development action Plan lead Policy EIEmEntS Partners ShortTerm (2016-2018) Adopt and implement a City 10 -year Economic MaCity Council, CDPW*, Mayor's Office Development Strategic Plan Finance Moderate Term(2019-2025) In2021, update Economic Development Policy City Council, Planning Element. Mayor's Office Commission, City Attorney, CDPW In 2022, update city zoning regulations to be City Council, Planning consistent with update to Economic Development Mayor's Office Commission, City Attorney, Element CDPW long Term (2026-2035) City Council, Planning In2028, update Economic Development Element. Mayor's Office Commission, City Attorney, CDPW In 2029, update city zoning regulations to be City Council, Planning consistent with update to Economic Development Mayor's Office Commission, City Attorney, Policy Element CDPW * CDPW = Community Development and Public Works. PARKS, (RECREATION & OPEN SPACE Environment: Parks, open spaces, and natural Goals areas are designated, designed, and maintained in a manner that respects the environment and Character: A mix of small urban parks, natural natural setting. areas, sports complexes, and community build- ingsoffersafull rangeof recreational services. Sustainability: Park development and mainte- nancehasan identified long-term funding source Wellness: Parks are well advertised, maintained, that ensures that the system grows and improves. and are safe locations during all hours. Service: Parks and park programming are acces- the Dw sc riptli..m Parks, arts, open space, and recreation facilities n O sibletoallsegments ofpopulation. are an essential amenity to maintain a highqual- Economy: Our parks and natural spaces are a ity of life in the community. As the population of m major reason cited by businesses and residents Auburn grows, the demand for parks, recreation- for choosing to locate here and choosing to stay. al programs, arts and culture, and open space will continue to increase. To maintain Auburn's r Celebration: A mix of large and small parks is quality of life, the supply of parks and programs being used for local, neighborhood, citywide, and must keep pace with the demand associated with regional events. a growing population. z C4-19 �. � 3 } J �' AF '` � �. 3 a :;'F � i �. _. �►1� __ ��� - _- -�. ��. -�: _ _ - :'.'fin _ ' i �_ rY- _._ �i y �. �� y. CITY OF AUBURN ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS CITY Or AUBURN WASHINGTON PROJECT STEERING COMMITTEE: Mayor Nancy Backus Dana Hinman Kevin Snyder Doug Lein Bob Lee Shelley Coleman Ingrid Gaub Jeff Tate John Holman Paul Hougan Daryl Faber PROJECT MANAGEMENT TEAM: Dana Hinman, Director of Administration Douglas Lein, Economic Development Manager Tiffany Dickman, Project Coordinator H E A R T L A N D HEARTLAND is a Seattle -based real estate advisory and investment firm with over 30 years of experience designing, analyzing, and implementing strategies to manage risk and optimize value in all aspects of both the built and natural environment. Our five business lines include public -sector advisory, private -sector advisory, capital markets, brokerage services and investment. CONSULTING TEAM: Matt Hoffman, Senior Project Manager, Integrated Analytics Lanzi Li, Associate Project Manager CONTACT: 1301 1 st Ave #200 Seattle, WA 98101 PH: 206.682.2500 www.heartlandllc.com -npstrategies �STIN - SW-rU @ TIP STRATEGIES, INC. is a privately held economic development consulting firm with offices in Austin and Seattle. TIP is committed to providing quality solutions for public and private -sector clients. Established in 1995, the firm's primary focus is economic development strategic planning. CONSULTING TEAM: Jeff Marcell, Senior Partner Caroline Alexander, Project Manager CONTACT: 2905 San Gabriel Street, Suite 550 Austin, Texas 78705 PH: 512.343.91 13 www.tipstrategies.com (DRTheRetallCoacK RETAIL COACH is a premier national retail recruitment and development consulting firm, founded by C. Kelly Cofer, President and Chief Executive Officer. Since 2000, The Retail Coach has provided the research, relationships and strategies to achieve retail recruitment and development results that have helped more than 350 communities throughout the US become better, stronger places to live and work through an expanded sales tax base. CONSULTING TEAM: C. Kelly Cofer, CCIM, President/CEO Aaron Farmer, Senior Vice President CONTACT: 86 Clark Boulevard Tupelo, MS 38804 PH: 662.844.2155 www.theretailcoach.net The Ten -Year Economic Development Strategic Plan was adopted by the Auburn City Council in Resolution No. 5256 on November 21, 2016. Auburn City Council: Largo Wales, Claude DaCorsi, Bill Pelozo, Yolanda Trout -Manuel, John Holman, Rich Wagner, Bob Baggett ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY PAGE I I CITY OF AUBURN RESOLUTION NO. 5 2 5 6 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, APPROVING THE CITY OF AUBURN TEN-YEAR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN WHEREAS, in the fall of 2015, the City of Auburn embarked on a process to develop an Economic Development Strategic Plan; and WHEREAS, it was intended that this plan could provide a guideline for the City's economic development activities over the next decade; and WHEREAS, to assist in this endeavor, the City hired a team that included TIP Strategies, Heartland, and the Retail Coach. Building on the recent Imagine Auburn Comprehensive Plan, the consulting team developed this strategic plan with the input of more than 200 stakeholders and based on findings from a detailed analysis of demographic, economic, and market data; and WHEREAS, the goals and strategies were also informed by the consulting team's knowledge of trends and best practices that shape economic development outcomes and programs across the nation. The result is a set of goals, strategies, and actions that will propel the City of Auburn forward towards its vision for 2025; and WHEREAS, the City's development and adoption of this strategic plan is timely. Auburn is in the path of growth and has already attracted high-profile investments in multi -family housing (Trek Apartments and Merrill Gardens), manufacturing (Orion Industries). and community services (Junior Achievement); and PAGE I III CITY OF AUBURN WHEREAS, these successful investments highlight Auburn's competitive advantages, its central location, historic downtown, regional transportation linkages, and access to labor; and WHEREAS, the spillover growth from Seattle is just beginning in Auburn. With large tracts of land coming into to play, such as the 129 -acre General Services Administration (GSA) Complex and the 70 -acre Valley Drive -In, and the momentum that has already built up around Auburn, the City is wise to contemplate how it wants to grow so it can be better positioned to guide its future; and WHEREAS, Auburn can and should harness Seattle's success to shape its own economic development future as a vibrant, connected City with a strong and diverse employment base; and WHEREAS, the City of Auburn should also build opportunity from within by encouraging companies to start, stay, and grow in the City. All of this work must be accomplished without losing sight of its purpose: to benefit the citizens of Auburn and provide employment opportunities for the children that grow up there; and WHEREAS, this work will take discipline and direction, leadership and collaboration, and patience and perseverance across the City and multiple partners. The City of Auburn's Ten -Year Economic Development Strategic Plan provides the foundation and lays out the framework to coordinate the City's transformation into a unique and thriving hub in the Seattle - Tacoma region. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES as follows: PAGE I IV CITY OF AUBURN Section 1. That the Economic Development Plan, a copy of which is attached hereto, marked as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference, is adopted as the City of Auburn Ten -Year Economic Development Strategic Plan. Section 2. That the Mayor is authorized to implement such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directives of this legislation. Section 3. That this Resolution shall take effect and be in full force upon passage and signatures hereon. Dated and Signed this day of , 2016. CITY OF AUBURN NANCY BACKUS, MAYOR ATTEST: Danielle E. Daskam, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Daniel B. Heid, City Attorney PAGE I V CITY OF AUBURN CONTENTS Executive Summary ................................................................................................ StrategicPlan....................................................................................................... Introduction...................................................................................................... Vision & Guiding Principles................................................................................ FocusArea 1. Delivery ....................................................................................... Focus Area 2. Product........................................................................................ FocusArea 3. Place.......................................................................................... FocusArea 4. Messaging................................................................................... Implementation and Organization....................................................................... Conclusion....................................................................................................... ................................. 1 ................................. 5 ................................. 7 ............................... 13 ............................... 15 ............................... 21 ............................... 27 ............................... 32 ............................... 36 ............................... 52 PAGE I VI CITY OF AUBURN 10 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In the fall of 2015, the City of Auburn embarked on a process to develop an economic development strategic plan. This plan will provide a guide for the City's economic development activities and investment over the next decade. To assist in this endeavor, the City hired a team that included TIP Strategies, Heartland, and the Retail Coach. Building on the recent Imagine Auburn Comprehensive Plan, the consulting team developed this strategic plan with the input of more than 200 stakeholders and based on findings from a detailed analysis of demographic, economic, and market data. The goals and strategies were also informed by the consulting team's knowledge of trends and best practices that shape economic development outcomes and programs across the nation. The result is a set of goals, strategies, and actions that will propel the City of Auburn forward towards its vision for 2025. The City's development and adoption of this strategic plan is timely. Auburn is in the path of growth and has already attracted high-profile investments in multi -family housing (Trek Apartments and Merrill Gardens), manufacturing (Orion Industries), and community services (Junior Achievement). These successful investments highlight Auburn's competitive advantages—its central location, historic downtown, regional transportation linkages, and access to labor. But the spillover growth from Seattle is just beginning in Auburn. With large tracts of land likely to be redeveloped, such as the 129 -acre General Services Administration (GSA) Complex and the 70 - acre Valley Drive -In, and the momentum that has already built up around Auburn, the City is wise to contemplate how it wants to grow so it can be better positioned to guide its future. Auburn can and should harness Seattle's success to shape its own economic development future as a vibrant, connected City with a strong and diverse employment base. It should also build opportunity from within by encouraging companies to start, stay, and grow in the City. All of this work must be accomplished without losing sight of its purpose: to benefit the citizens of Auburn and provide employment opportunities for the children that grow up there. This work will take discipline and direction, leadership and collaboration, and patience and perseverance across the City and multiple partners. The City of Auburn's Ten -Year Economic Development Strategic Plan provides the foundation and lays out the framework to coordinate the City's growth as a unique and thriving hub in the Seattle -Tacoma region. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE I I CITY OF AUBURN STRATEGIC PLAN SUMMARY: FOCUS AREAS & STRATEGIES The strategic plan is structured around four focus areas that have the potential to set the stage for Auburn's success through a more robust, proactive, and focused economic development program. The four areas were derived from key findings from an analysis of the City's Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats. The SWOT analysis summarizes the input of more than 200 stakeholders and augmented by the results of the various analyses carried out by the consulting team that were components of the planning process. The strategies that support each of the four areas will help address Auburn's primary weaknesses and position it to capitalize on its principal opportunities. These focus areas and their supporting strategies are summarized below. Detailed actions for each of the strategies are provided on pages 4 through 36 of the Strategic Plan. 1. DELIVERY 4—� 2. PRODUCT A comprehensive service delivery An inventory of sites, a business system that actively identifies and • j ( climate, and a physical environment advances economic development that foster business growth and opportunities in Auburn ensure a resilient employment base 1.1 Value -Added Services. Clearly define the services that the City of Auburn provides to businesses both directly and through partnerships 1.2 Local Business Visitation. Formalize a business visitation program in partnership with the Chamber of Commerce to track trends among Auburn employers and identify any businesses in need of assistance 1.3 Business Recruitment. Recruit new businesses, including retail, to Auburn to provide better economic opportunities and enhance Auburn's quality of place 1.4 Catalyst Projects. Identify and advance catalyst projects that will facilitate Auburn's evolution 2.1 Labor Market Information. Design and maintain information resources that demonstrate Auburn's strength in terms of its access to skilled labor 2.2 Deal -Ready Sites. Ensure a supply of deal - ready sites to accommodate new business investment in Auburn 2.3 Economic Development Toolbox. Create a robust toolbox to influence economic development outcomes 2.4 Continuous Process Improvement. Evaluate and continue to improve the City's land use and building permit process and performance 2.5 Zoning Modification. Reevaluate zoning districts and modify certain aspects of the code 1.5 Strategic Relationships. Foster relationships with key entities that support economic activity 2.6 in the City Cost Comparison. Annually compare Auburn's development/impact fees, tax rates, and rebate programs to peers ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE 1 2 CITY OF AUBURN 3. PLACE 4. MESSAGING 0 Attractivegateways, impression _ A coordinated marketing and corridors, and destinations that branding campaign that elevates define the character of Auburn Auburn's reputation among internal and external audiences 3.1 Strategic Investment. Create a target investment program to guide infrastructure investments that enhance Auburn's economic development opportunities 3.2 Regional Transportation. Maintain and enhance regional transportation connections to ensure ease of travel to, from, and within Auburn 3.3 Downtown Revitalization. Continue to invest in downtown revitalization 3.4 Auburn Way South Revitalization. Designate Auburn Way South as an additional Targeted Investment Area 3.5 Destination Connections. Create stronger connections between Auburn's primary tourism assets and develop new assets to attract more visitors to Auburn 3.6 Regional Tourism. Strengthen regional tourism connections 4.1 Brand Enhancement. Develop a stronger brand for Auburn and reinforce this with unified messaging across organizations 4.2 Internal Image. Build a more positive perception and a greater sense of community among Auburn residents through a strong partnership with the Auburn Reporter and other local media outlets 4.3 Social Media. Continue to strengthen the City's social media strategy to improve Auburn's internal and external perceptions 4.4 Public Relations. launch a formal public relations campaign to change the region's perception of Auburn 4.5 Real Estate Market Reports. Develop a system for effective communication to the marketplace that educates businesses, developers, and brokers on opportunities available in the City 4.6 Strategic Outreach. Reach out to decision makers in the target industries to encourage them to consider expanding or relocating in Auburn The City of Auburn's Ten -Year Economic Development Strategic Plan is an ambitious plan that will require specialized staff and additional resources to implement. The transition to a more robust and proactive economic development program necessitates additional capacity in deal making; economic and market research; prospecting and prospect management; real estate finance; as well as marketing and outreach. Most municipally run economic development departments or offices that undertake this type of comprehensive economic development program are staffed by three to four specialists. Over the next three years, the City of Auburn must build up its economic development capacity, both in terms of staff and operating budget, in order to execute on these recommended strategies. The ideal staffing pattern would be an experienced economic developer supported by three economic development specialists (business development, marketing, and redevelopment) in addition to the tourism coordinator and real estate analyst. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE 1 3 CITY OF AUBURN Successful implementation will require not only additional resources but also an evaluation system that will demonstrate progress and provide feedback to the City about which strategies are working and which must be strengthened. Below is dashboard of outcome measures that should be tracked over the course of implementation. A more comprehensive list of metrics and measurement tools can be found on page 51. Property Tax Base Commercial Tax Base The tax base has grown steadily The share of the commercial tax since 2013. base fell from its 2013 peak. Non-exempt Taxable Value % Commercial 100,000 (per Capita) (Industrial, Retail, Office) — 75,000 i 50,000 i 25,000 0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Source: King County Tax Assessor Source: King County Tax Assessor Industrial Market _ The vacancy rate rose slightlywith recent negative net absorption. r Net Absorption —Vacancy 600,000 -- 3.0% 400,000 2.0% 200,000 0 1.0% -200,000 0.0% V h O OO O O O C4 C14 C14 CN C14 Source. Co$tor Employment The number of jobs in the City has continued to grow. Total Employment 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Source: 6%AS1 Retail Sales Retail sales tax receipts per capita have climbed steadily. ,....wl,�_ - Sales Tax Receipts 400 (per Capita) 300 200 100 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Source: City of Auburn Office Market New Space Delivery The vacancy rate dropped with positive � Over the last Iwo yeas, lide new square net absorption. � footage has been delioered. r_ Net Absorption —Vacancy C 100,000 15.0% 200,000 75,000 150,000 50,000 10.0% 25,000 100,000 0 5.0% 50,000 -25,000 -50,000 - 0.0% O O O O CN CN C4 CN Source: CoStor Source: CoStor Unemployment The region's unemployment rate is much lower than in 2012. Wages The region's wages are climbing gradually. Median Hourly Wages ($1 40 30 20 10 0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 SourcesEMS1 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE 1 4 Unemployment Rate (%) —Auburn —Washington —US 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 �— — 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Source: Bureau oftabor Statistics Wages The region's wages are climbing gradually. Median Hourly Wages ($1 40 30 20 10 0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 SourcesEMS1 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE 1 4 CITY OF AUBURN INTRODUCTION The City of Auburn (the City) benefits from a number of advantages including a rich cultural and economic history and a hard-working, civic -minded community. Auburn takes pride in its unique history while looking to the future. The annual Veterans Day Parade is an example of the value placed on family, community, and country by the City. From its origins as a farming community that capitalized on its access to rail, the City has transformed into a center for industry. The City's manufacturing sector expanded and includes one of Boeing Commercial Airplanes' most essential fabrication sites and the largest airplane parts plant in the world. The community's commitment to quality of place is demonstrated by the Auburn Environmental Park (a 200 -acre passive open space and educational facility located one mile west of downtown) and the attention to detail given to civic spaces in recent downtown redevelopment projects. Nothing could be more emblematic of the community's focus on its future than Junior Achievement's World Learning Center in Auburn, which holds the successful BizTown and Finance Park programs that serve children around western Washington. The Innovation Partnership Zone further illustrates Auburn's forward -thinking approach and demonstrates its focus on economic success through partnerships. Even with all of its successes, the City understands that the only path to a sustainable, healthy economy is through good jobs and a diversified economic base. Leaders have seen firsthand what happens when a single concentration of businesses in one industry is too large. The region boasts one of the country's largest clusters of distribution centers, of which the City has historically held a major concentration. These facilities were attracted to the area due to exceptional highway access and close proximity to two deep -water ports and an international airport. Despite low employment per building area, relatively low wage jobs, and the strain they place on city transportation infrastructure, these centers benefited the City because of the large amount of sales tax revenue they generated. However, in 2008, changes made by the Washington State legislature impacted these revenues. These changes redefined how the point-of-sale location was determined, moving it away from the distribution point. As a result, the City found itself facing all of the challenges of the industry without the associated tax revenue. The City is at a pivotal time in its history. Over the last several years, remarkable development has taken place. New buildings have emerged and more are planned in and around the authentic downtown, like the recently completed 126 -unit Trek Apartments, the 129 -unit Merrill Gardens at Auburn that is currently under construction, and the 592 -unit multifamily and senior housing development called the Reserve. New businesses are building and expanding in the community, such as Orion Industries' 100,000 square foot manufacturing facility that employs 265 people. Momentum has been built through hard work from elected leaders, City staff, and visionary business leaders and investors. With growth from Seattle spilling southward, the City will no doubt continue to see its own growth accelerate over the next ten years. With the opportunity to shape its own future in mind, the City of Auburn embarked on a process to develop a ten-year economic development strategic plan to formalize its economic development program and transform it into a proactive, entrepreneurial effort. This plan will provide a guide for the City's economic development activities and investment over the next decade. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE 1 7 CITY OF AUBURN APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY To assist in the development of the strategic plan, the City hired a team that included TIP Strategies, Heartland, and the Retail Coach. The scope of work was comprehensive and ambitious and took place over the course of eleven months. The pieces of the scope are described below: ■ Deep dives into the economic context and Auburn's real estate market fundamentals: This task required an in-depth analysis of Auburn's position in the region versus its peer communities from the standpoint of demographics, schools, housing, job growth, tax rates and fees, and industrial and office markets (rents, stock, age, and development). The findings from this task painted a clear picture of Auburn's strengths and weaknesses within the region. ■ A regulatory review: A review of the regulatory environment (both policy and process) provided insights into any constraints to development in Auburn. ■ A market capacity study: Heartland estimated the square footage of office and industrial space needed to meet the demand from project job growth and compared this figure to the amount of square footage the remaining developable land could support. This comparison provides a tool to evaluate whether or not Auburn can support future job growth. ■ An analysis of retail opportunities: The Retail Coach defined Auburn's retail trade areas and analyzed the demographics and psychographics of these areas to identify potential retailers that would be a good fit for Auburn. They assisted the City in creating and distributing customized marketing materials to these target retailers and worked with the City to identify potential sites for interested retailers. Their deliverables provide tools for the Economic Development Division and community partners to use when recruiting retail. These tools include demographic profiles for the retail trade areas, an interactive mapping application, and general instructions on how to use the information to target retailers. ■ A perception survey: A survey to regional commercial real estate brokers documented the perceptions they hold about Auburn. • An assessment of Auburn's competitive positioning: This task assessed Auburn's relative positioning based on the top ten factors that are important to corporate site selection and location. • Target industry analysis and profiles: TIP analyzed industry clusters and segments to identify industry niches to target for business recruitment. Once the categories of industries and specific niches were identified, detailed profiles were created as a tool for the Economic Development Division as they develop industry knowledge and position Auburn for success in targeted business recruitment. • A review of key marketing materials: The City's online presence is the most important tool for the Economic Development Division to support its outreach activities. TIP evaluated the existing economic development webpage and made recommendations to improve its effectiveness. • Organizational recommendations: TIP evaluated the City's capacity to implement the strategic plan and made recommendations for resources needed from an operational standpoint. The resulting deliverables are included as supporting documentation and analysis. In addition, the team conducted extensive public input, reaching more than 200 employers, community and regional leaders, residents, and other stakeholders. The key findings from both of these exercises are summarized in the next section. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE 1 8 CITY OF AUBURN KEY FINDINGS The key findings below provide the City, the Economic Development Division, and its economic development partners information about Auburn's competitive positioning—from both a business attraction and a development standpoint. It also identifies major constraints or barriers to economic development as well as key opportunities. Demographics. The City of Auburn has been growing rapidly, adding almost 18,000 new residents over the last ten years. According to Esri, a leading data provider, the population of Auburn is expected to reach almost 85,000 residents by 2020. With a median age of 33.5 years old, Auburn's population is relatively young and the senior (age 65+) is smaller than many of its peers in the region. However, Auburn's population has lower educational attainment levels than many of its regional peers and has lower median household incomes. Workforce. More than 37,000 residents are part of Auburn's labor force. However, Auburn -based employers draw labor from a large area that extends across densely populated areas of the Seattle -Tacoma region. In fact, more than 35,000 workers commute into Auburn each day for work while more than 25,000 workers leave Auburn for jobs outside of the city limits. Auburn's position within the region and its access to labor is one of its greatest strengths from a business attraction standpoint. Within a 45 -minute drive time, there are an estimated 1.5 million workers. Economy. Auburn has a diverse economic base with notably strong manufacturing and retail sectors. Auburn's employment base grew by more than 6,500 jobs (14 percent) between 2010 and 2015 and is projected to add another 6,400 over the next ten years. Though Auburn's manufacturing sector remains strong, the sector's outlook is largely dependent upon Boeing specifically and the aerospace industry more generally. Tax Base. Sales tax and property tax revenues account for more than two-thirds of the City's sources of funds. This structure highlights the importance of a robust retail sector and a healthy commercial tax base. Motor vehicle sales are a vital part of the City's retail tax revenue. Industrial uses, aerospace -related being one of the largest, are the most prominent segments of the commercial tax base. The City's dependence on motor vehicle sales and aerospace could leave the City's revenue at -risk in light of current trends in these two industries. Quality of Place. Auburn is fortunate to have a strong and improving school district and Green River College to provide educational opportunities and workforce training. Relatively low and declining crime rates and a wide array of recreational and entertainment amenities support a high quality of life. Downtown Auburn is one of the City's most unique and distinguishing features. Although conditions in the downtown have improved greatly over the last few years, much opportunity remains. The state of Auburn Way South, as one of the main perception corridors in the City, is an area with great potential and in need of significant enhancement. The issue of homelessness remains a problem both in Auburn and in the greater region. Real Estate Market & Product. Auburn is a regional industrial center with a large stock of space 20 to 30 years old. Auburn's industrial rents are the third highest in the South Sound subregion and its vacancy rate is one of the lowest. Its office market is relatively small and most of the square footage was built before 1990, but its vacancy rate is one of the lowest and its rents are about average for its peer group. Auburn's low vacancy rates and lack of available buildings are its major constraints to job growth and economic diversification. Regulatory Environment. Auburn's regulatory environment was found to be comparable to its peer communities. Permitted uses are generally flexible. Height is prescriptive and massing is flexible for most zoning ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE 1 9 CITY OF AUBURN categories. Parking requirements are comparable to peers. The development process is relatively predictable and responsive. Auburn's fee structure makes it "average" in terms of the cost of doing business. Market Capacity. Auburn's developable lands that are zoned for industrial and office uses are adequate to support Auburn's projected job growth over the next ten years. Opportunities for growth include the redevelopment of Valley 6 and the GSA Property as well as further development in Downtown Auburn and around the airport. The conversion of warehouse space to manufacturing represents another opportunity for strengthening and diversifying the tax base. Retail Market. Auburn's primary retail trade area, which is the draw area for the "everyday shopper," has a population of 169,377 with median household incomes of more than $70,000. Auburn's retail trade area, which is the draw area for its destination retailers such as those at the Outlet Collection, has a population of 525,778 with median household incomes of about $68,000. The most significant areas of retail leakage were food and beverage stores, foodservice and drinking places, building material and garden equipment stores, and general merchandise stores. Site Selection Competitiveness. Auburn is fortunate to be in a region that is known for being a magnet for world-class talent and companies. This regional strength can put Auburn on the list in the competition for business recruitment. Within the Seattle -Tacoma region, Auburn stands out for its central location, access to labor, and quality of life. The City's willingness and creativity in offering business assistance is another strength. The lack of available buildings and sites is Auburn's primary constraint. Broker & Developer Perception. Among the more than 50 brokers who participated in an online survey, their perception of Auburn is more negative than their perception of regional peers. Respondents' perception of Auburn's business climate is more negative than other South Sound peers. In addition, respondents ranked the likelihood of clients considering Auburn for projects as lower than its peers. Among developers interviewed, there was more awareness of opportunities to invest in Auburn and the developers held a more favorable perception of Auburn's business climate. Promoting a more positive perception of Auburn and making sure brokers and developers in the region are aware of Auburn's value proposition is a significant opportunity. Target Industry Analysis. Auburn's greatest opportunities for business expansion and attraction are still related to manufacturing and warehousing. Within these sectors, there are opportunities to expand and diversify into new or growing areas. In manufacturing, Auburn has a robust supply chain that supports the aerospace sector. These specializations and capabilities can support a wide range of innovative manufacturers. Auburn has the elements to become a regional hub for innovative "makers", but must work to build its reputation in this regard. Auburn is the heart of the regional distribution network. While warehousing uses are the dominant use currently, there is an opportunity for Auburn to deliberately grow its base of employers that support transportation and warehousing such as third -party logistics providers, wholesale trade agents and brokers, and transportation arrangement. The City's desire to increase its base of office -using businesses will require a degree of "market-making" as Auburn has a very small existing office market. The Sounder Station and the associated Transit -Oriented Development as well as the future redevelopment of the Valley 6 Drive -In are Auburn's key office opportunities. Finally, targeting retailers and restaurants will continue to be an opportunity for Auburn and an important component of diversifying and growing Auburn's tax base. Retail recruitment will also play a vital role in the revitalization of Downtown and Auburn Way South and in enhancing Auburn's quality of place, in general. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE 1 10 CITY OF AUBURN Marketing Tools. Websites are the single most important marketing and outreach tool in economic development. The City of Auburn's primary online presence for economic development is through www.cuburnwo.gov. The Economic Development Division is under the "Doing Business" section and reflects the consistent look and feel of the City's website. While most all of the useful elements of an economic development website are there in www.auburnwa.gov/doing business/economic development.htm, it is difficult to find certain key information or requires many clicks to find it. Reorganizing and optimizing the City's economic development online presence will improve the effectiveness of Auburn's economic development marketing and outreach efforts. Organizational Capacity. The City of Auburn's Economic Development Division is a division of the Administration Department and is staffed by an economic development manager with a part-time contractor. Recently, a real estate analyst was transferred from Facilities to the Economic Development Division and a part-time tourism coordinator has been hired to support tourism promotion. This lean division is supported by many contributions of other departments, most directly by the Community Development and Public Works Department and the Finance Department. Under this current organizational structure, the City does not have excess capacity to implement a strategic plan or staff a proactive, entrepreneurial economic development initiative. Many peer cities both inside and outside of the region staff their departments with three to four economic development professionals or specialists and additional administrative support as needed. THE RESPONSE The City's decision to develop and adopt a ten-year economic development strategic plan speaks to its acknowledgement that shaping Auburn's future requires a formalized economic development program. Such programs have systematic processes for generating leads, managing prospects and projects, and providing a clear set of value-added services. Leads are generated through marketing and outreach efforts, and relationship management is an essential building block of a high-quality lead generation network. Leads are converted to prospects and projects through effective sales, and the depth of knowledge from the findings of this body of work informs and enhances the economic development team's ability to articulate Auburn's value proposition. In addition, forward-looking economic development programs build in mechanisms for identifying transformative projects that, if realized, would attract additional private investment to the City. Finally, the most successful programs recognize that strong partnerships greatly increase the impact and reach of their programs. All of these aspects of economic development programs are grouped into the strategic plan's first focus area: Delivery. Sales and marketing of any kind requires a clearly defined "product." In economic development, the "product" is the real estate as well as the assets, amenities, business climate, and other factors that influence the attractiveness of the real estate. Auburn's greatest strength is its access to a large labor pool. The City can make sure that its workforce strengths are documented and packaged well as a means of product enhancement. One of Auburn's primary constraints is the lack of available buildings and sites that are "deal -ready." This constraint is notable because businesses cannot expand or locate where there are no appropriate sites. Generating leads is futile if there is not suitable real estate. Auburn's business and regulatory climate is not a constraint, but there are a few changes and enhancements that could make it even better. Auburn can directly influence its supply of available sites and buildings and can ensure that its business climate is competitive and supportive of responsible business growth. Strategies related to product enhancement and development are grouped into the plan's second focus area: Product. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE 1 11 CITY OF AUBURN Quality of place is important to both business and talent retention and attraction. A community's assets and amenities are central to its quality of place and define the community's character. A programmatic process for defining target areas and making strategic investments can have a transformative impact on a community's quality of place. Downtown Auburn and Auburn Way South are the two areas that stakeholders prioritized for investment. Better connecting these and other assets can be a way of building critical mass that can propel Auburn to the tipping point. Strategies pertaining to enhancing Auburn's quality of place are grouped into the third focus area: Place. A clear barrier to Auburn's success that came across through stakeholder input is the perception that internal and external audiences hold of the City. This perception can be influenced through branding, consistent messaging, as well as social media and public relations campaigns. More targeted outreach is needed to change perceptions and build awareness of Auburn among the regional real estate community and companies in the target sectors. Strategies to change this perception and reach target audiences are grouped in the fourth focus area: Messaging. These four focus areas define the structure of the plan. Each area was chosen for its potential contribution to moving Auburn forward towards its vision for the future. Each area also directly addresses an existing barrier to economic development and positions Auburn for future success. 1. Delivery: A comprehensive service delivery system that actively identifies and advances economic development opportunities in Auburn 4� 2. Product: An inventory of sites, a business climate, and a physical environment that foster l� business growth and ensure a resilient employment base p 3. Place: Attractive gateways, impression corridors, and destinations that define the character of Auburn ' 4. Messaging: A coordinated marketing and branding campaign that elevates Auburn's reputation among internal and external audiences THE REPORT On the following pages, we define discuss Auburn's economic development vision. Then, we present each focus area with the strategies, actions, projects, and partnerships that support it. After discussing the recommended strategies, we propose responsible parties and a timeline for implementation as well as an organizational structure and resource plan for the City to expand its capacity dedicated to economic development. The detailed findings and deliverables associated with each task in the scope of work are contained in a separate report of supporting documentation and analysis. Within this section of appendices are additional implementation tools to support the economic development team, such as strategic considerations in the target industry profiles and retail market analysis. There is also additional information that can and should inform how the economic development team positions Auburn in its marketing and outreach activities. The wealth of information contained in these pages should be a valuable resource to the implementation team. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE 1 12 CITY OF AUBURN VISION & GUIDING PRINCIPLES A clear vision and guiding principles provide an overarching direction for strategic plans. In 2015, Auburn set out a vision for itself in the Comprehensive Plan. This vision was established through the Imagine Auburn visioning exercise and developed in the context of the Washington State Growth Management Act, King and Pierce County Planning Policies, and the Puget Sound Regional Council's VISION 2040. The vision that emerged was: "In 2035, Auburn is a city of connected and cherished places, from a vibrant downtown to quiet open spaces and everything in between, where a community of healthy, diverse, and engaged people live, work, visit, and thrive." Along with this statement, the Comprehensive Plan set out a series of values that encapsulated the vision and formed an evaluation and decision-making framework for future city policies, regulations, initiatives, and investments. Each of these values is defined in detail in the Comprehensive Plan, which provides a very useful reference point for this economic development strategic plan. The value and vision from the Comprehensive Plan provides a clear guide for economic development activities over the next ten years and beyond. Auburn's seven value statements are: 1. Character. Developing and preserving attractive and interesting places where people want to be. 2. Wellness. Promoting community -wide health and safety wellness. 3. Service. Providing transparent government service. 4. Economy. Encouraging a diverse and thriving marketplace for consumers and businesses. 5. Celebration. Celebrating our diverse cultures, heritage, and community. 6. Environment. Stewarding our environment. 7. Sustainability. Creating a sustainable future for our community. In addition to these value statements, the "Economy" value statement and description is further fleshed out with the articulation of a vision statement in the economic development element of the Comprehensive Plan. This vision statement is: "Auburn is a community that has a robust and diverse economy where businesses seek to locate, people desire to visit, and residents enjoy a range of commercial offerings. Businesses that locate in Auburn find it easy to enter the marketplace, encounter ideal conditions for their long-term success, and become rooted and involved in the community. Visitors continue to return to Auburn because of its high-quality natural resources, parks, public spaces, and commercial attractions. Residents choose to live in Auburn because of the diverse, family wage employment opportunities and access to entertainment, restaurant, retail and services." The vision above paints a picture of a vibrant commercial, employment, entertainment, and recreation center that has a regional draw. It is a magnet for businesses, talent, and visitors due to its high quality of place, diverse employment opportunities, and various entertainment and recreation options. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE 1 13 CITY OF AUBURN It is with this vision and values in mind that the strategic planning process of Auburn's ten-year economic development plan was defined. The process was driven by the understanding that achieving Auburn's vision will take a deliberate, sustained, and strategic approach to economic development. This planning effort builds off the Imagine Auburn initiative by adopting a simplified economic development vision and guiding principles that are consistent with the overarching vision laid out in the Comprehensive Plan, but narrower in scope and specific to this planning effort. This statement and principles will guide the economic development strategy and will help the City articulate its competitive advantages and its intentions. The framework that encompasses the City's economic development approach is presented below. Auburn is the City that Works 1. A vibrant, connected, healthy community for residents to live, visitors to enjoy, and businesses to thrive 2. A robust, diverse employment base that provides good economic opportunities for residents and supports high-quality city services 3. A strong educational system that prepares residents with skills that Auburn -based employers seek This simplified economic development vision is an acknowledgement of Auburn's heritage as an agricultural and manufacturing center and to the strong work ethic of its residents. It also speaks to the City's willingness to partner with the private sector to achieve its vision. The guiding principles define the City's goals for its community, employment base, and educational system. The goal for the community is to be vibrant, connected, and healthy, in terms of both its residents and its physical environment. The employment base is to be diverse, resilient, and sustainable, supporting both current and future residents of Auburn. The educational system is aligned with employers' needs, with a strong workforce development component and a K-12 system that prepares students with 21 5} Century skills. This vision and these guiding principles form the foundation of Auburn's Ten -Year Economic Development Strategic Plan. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE 1 14 CITY OF AUBURN FOCUS AREA 1. DELIVERY A comprehensive service delivery system that actively identifies and advances economic development opportunities in Auburn Auburn is fortunate to be in the path of growth, and, in the past years, the City has successfully set the stage for increased investment. As a result, the interest in and momentum around Auburn have been increasing and continue to build. In 2014, Auburn's population was almost 76,000. By 2020, Esri, a leading demographic data provider, estimates that Auburn's population will be nearly 85,000. With the cost of housing continuing to climb throughout the Seattle region, Auburn and its South Sound peers will likely see population growth accelerate even more than these conservative projections predict. Currently, the City is a net importer of labor with more workers commuting to Auburn for jobs each day than leaving. As new residents move into the community, Auburn's economic development activities will influence whether there are job opportunities for these new residents in Auburn or whether they will commute outside the city limits for work. PRIORITY PROJECTS O New & Improved Website (1.1) © Structure for Identifying and Realizing Catalyst Projects ( 1 A) FIGURE 1. CITY OF AUBURN, WA ANNUAL ESTIMATES JULY 1 OF EACH YEAR 90 80 - 84.6 0 50 Z 40 030 ~ 20 [toil 0 h 'o N M a, O O 0000000000300000 O O O N O O O OO O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N According to EMSI, a leading economic and labor Source: The Washington State Office of Financial Management, market data provider, the City is projected to add Forecasting and Research Division. Projections via Esri. over 6,400 jobs over the next 10 years. This number is also likely conservative. The actual number and composition of jobs could change dramatically with a targeted, entrepreneurial economic development program. The City's current economic development resources and structure allow the City to be responsive to opportunities that come its way. It has a proven track record of dedication and creativity that has yielded impressive results to date. However, the current program does not provide the capacity needed for the City to be proactive in seeking out the opportunities that it wants. To transform Auburn's economic development delivery system to be both responsive and proactive, the City will need to augment its program with additional resources and stronger partnerships. This will position the City to better support the attraction, formation, retention, and expansion of businesses that form the economic backbone of the community and provide more and better economic opportunities for Auburn residents. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE 1 15 CITY OF AUBURN 1.1. Value -Added Services. Clearly define the services that the City of Auburn provides to businesses both directly and through partnerships. The list below lays out the value-added services that the City and its partners can or do provide existing businesses and businesses looking to relocate to Auburn. The City's economic development webpage should be organized around these areas. (See Appendix G for more recommendations on the website) Value -Added Service Area Supporting Actions RELOCATION ASSISTANCE: Utilize the IPZ Taskforce as TEAM AUBURN to help Activities include: site selection, sell Auburn to prospects. Organize regular meetings development services, incentives of these team members to keep them informed of the prospect pipeline, meetings with prospects, and potential recruitment trips. Educate the team members on Auburn's value proposition and the associated messaging to present a unified voice to prospects. 1.1.2. Continue to assist prospects in finding suitable sites, navigating the development process in Auburn, and securing available incentives from local and state sources SMALL BUSINESS ASSISTANCE: 1.1.3. Launch and manage a business incubator Activities include: incubator 1,1.4. Continue to organize weekly 3No Networking at management, 3No Networking, Auburn -based businesses workshops and technical assistance, access to capital 1.1.5. Continue to partner with the Small Business Assistance Center at Green River College on technical assistance and workshops for small businesses 1.1.6. Establish partnerships with area SBA lenders, community development financial institutions, and other nonprofit microlenders to provide better access to capital for businesses that do not qualify for bank financing 1.1.7. Assemble a list of revolving loan funds and other financing resources that are available to Auburn - based businesses (a good start can be found here: http://www.oria.wa.gov/?pageid=737) ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE 1 16 CITY OF AUBURN Value -Added Service Area Supporting Actions WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT: I.I.S. Continue to partner with Green River College and Activities include: custom training, talent WorkSource to provide customized training pipeline partnerships 1,1,9. Strengthen the partnership between Auburn Public Schools, Green River College, and Auburn's business community by organizing industry sector partnerships that explore workforce demand, critical occupations, and available curricula INFORMATION RESOURCES AND 1.1.10.Maintain a catalog of information and resources PUBLICATIONS: relevant to economic development on the City's Activities include: demographic and webpage economic data, real estate market 1.1.11. Employ data such as Costar, the King County information, retail trade area data, Assessor database, and City -managed development supplier database, investment tracking datasets to establish systems that regularly opportunities collect and visualize market trends, including new development, asking rents, vacancy rates, absorption, sales activity, and sales and leasing activity.Update and review this data at least quarterly and distribute the findings to stakeholders as part of the effort to espouse "Why Auburn" to the regional real estate community 1.1.12. Update retail trade area data on an annual basis and make this accessible to stakeholders and partners electronically 1.1.13. Provide profiles on the City's target investment areas (See Strategy 3. 1). These should include a map, basic information, public investment projects, as well as resources and tools available for private projects 1.2. Local Business Visitation. Formalize a business visitation program in partnership with the Chamber of Commerce to track trends among Auburn employers and identify any businesses in need of assistance 1.2.1. Establish a visitation protocol, a list of information to be collected during each visit, and set a goal how many businesses each year. Visiting four to eight businesses each month is a reasonable goal that would allow the City to reach a critical mass of employers. 1.2.2. Create a database of Auburn -based employers with the City's business license database, paying particular attention to the inclusion of employers in key economic drivers (business & professional services, manufacturing, healthcare, distribution) ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE 1 17 CITY OF AUBURN 1.2.3. Using Costar or other sources, identify employers who have leases that will be expiring in the next two or three years to be prioritized for visitations 1.2.4. Maintain detailed notes on visits in the economic development project database to document the relationship over time 1.2.5. Compile information collected from visits to track trends among employers and distribute these findings to stakeholders, such as local and regional economic development partners, the mayor, the city council, and city department heads, in an annual report and presentation 1.3. Business Recruitment. Recruit new businesses, including retail, to Auburn to provide better economic opportunities and enhance Auburn's quality of place 1.3.1. Strengthen relationships with brokers, developers, and industry associations in the metro area and create an education outreach program targeted to these groups to ensure that Auburn stays top of mind for business relocation. NAIOP (Commercial Real Estate Development Association), International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC), and Urban Land Institute (ULI) are important organizations in which to be actively involved. In addition, industry associations, such as the Pacific Northwest Aerospace Alliance, the Aerospace Futures Alliance and the Center for Advanced Manufacturing Puget Sound, are also good vehicles for cultivating strong relationships. 1.3.2. Cultivate strong partnerships with the Economic Development Council of Seattle & King County, the Economic RETAIL RECRUITMENT Retail recruitment will be on important part of Auburn's business attraction activities. An expanded and more robust retail sector not only generates sales tax for the City but also augments the City's quality of place by providing additional amenities. Thus, retail recruitment reinforces the City's efforts to diversify the tax base, attract new employers and residents, as well as revitalize target areas such as downtown and Auburn Way South. As part of this strategic planning process, the Retail Coach (TRC) defined Auburn's primary retail trade area and retail trade area. For each area, TRC summarized key demographic characteristics, examined the retail opportunities, and established the major psychographic profiles. These analyses are provided both online and in Appendix C. TRC then identified target retailers, created custom retailer feasibility packages for each retailer, and sent these packages to the real estate departments of each of the retailers. Any leads that came about from this outreach were referred to the City's Economic Development Office. In addition, TRC created retail market profiles that the City and its partners can use to reach out to additional retailers. Finally, TRC made recommendations on how the City can best approach retail recruitment: 1 . Continue to focus on the recruitment of developers, as they tend to drive much of the retail development in Washington. 2. Attend ICSC RECON every year as well as ICSC regional events taking place in Washington, Oregon, and California throughout the year. 3. Sell Auburn to retailers and developers as a Primary Trade Area population of 169,377 and not as a community population. For those larger and destination retailers, use the Retail Trade Area population of 525,778. 4. Continue to use the Cell Phone Shopper Analysis as a tool to combat retailers' perceptions of store spacing issues. 5. Build awareness of Auburn among national retailers by advertising in publications such as the Dallas Business Journal, New York Business Journal, Shopping Centers Today, etc. 6. Maintain awareness of retail incentives being offered by other communities in the region and consider using similar incentives sparingly in cases that would significantly expand the retail trade area or generate a great deal of new tax revenue. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE 1 18 CITY OF AUBURN Development Board for Tacoma -Pierce County, the Washington State Department of Commerce, the Port of Seattle, the Northwest Seaport Alliance, the Greater Seattle Trade Development Alliance, and Challenge Seattle to identify co -marketing opportunities and joint trade missions in order to strengthen Auburn's lead generation network 1.3.3. Join the coalition of local governments and organizations that represent the communities of the greater South Sound region (from Des Moines south to Olympia). This effort is in the process of being formed and will be centered on growing the South Sound economy and addressing unique economic challenges and opportunities 1.3.4. During business visitations (see Strategy 1.2), ensure that Auburn -based businesses are aware of the value-added services that the City provides and have information on the different economic development initiatives. This group of business leaders can serve as an indirect salesforce (e.g. they can generate leads among their peers) if they are saying positive things about Auburn's business climate and economic development opportunities 1.3.5. Cultivate relationships among promising young companies across the metro who are currently involved in incubator or accelerator programs. Market Auburn as an inviting "landing pad" where they can grow in a supportive environment that is well -located, accessible, and affordable 1.3.6. Actively prospect among companies in target industries (See Appendix F) 1.4. Catalyst Projects. Identify and advance catalyst projects that will facilitate Auburn's evolution 1.4.1. Work with city council and department heads to identify and prioritize potential catalyst projects, ensuring that the projects also align with all department activities. The Livable City Year provides an opportunity to vet projects in 2016-17 and can be a starting point for this project list 1.4.2. Hold quarterly work sessions with this group to learn from guest speakers about what other communities are doing and to brainstorm what Auburn could do. Guests could include staff from other cities, urban planners, or economic developers that could share their experiences with the group 1.4.3. From the project list generated in the quarterly sessions, prioritize projects based on feasibility, expense, time frame, impact, and alignment with Auburn's focus areas 1.4.4. For the two or three top ranked projects, attain formal approval from department heads and the city council to move them forward 1.4.5. Create project teams for each approved project of three to five individuals responsible for implementation 1.4.6. Maintain a tool that tracks progress on project implementation, and report progress and outcomes at the quarterly meetings 1.4.7. Build awareness of these projects and report the successful implementatation of any projects through the public relations campaign (See Strategy 4.4) ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE 1 19 CITY OF AUBURN 1.5. Strategic Relationships. Foster relationships with key entities that support economic activity in the City. These include: 1.5.1. Puget Sound Energy: Energy availability and cost to deliver are common questions from businesses looking to locate in an area. The City should be able to connect prospective businesses with the appropriate PSE staffer to have questions quickly addressed. The City should be aware of planned improvements to the system 1.5.2. Muckleshoot Tribe: The Tribe is a major property owner in the City and has shared its economic development goals. The City should work together with the Tribe to ensure that planning activities with overlapping interests are cooperatively discussed and considered 1.5.3. Port of Seattle: As part of the Port's Century Agenda, it is seeking to help add 100,000 jobs in the next 100 years. To do this, it has stated an interest in assisting cities with unlocking industrial property and positioning it for redevelopment. Land around the airport and in northwest Auburn that is challenged with wetlands may be opportunity areas 1.5.4. King County: Work with the County on improving the stormwater function in the area west of SR 167 1.5.5. Army Corps of Engineers: Establishing a working relationship with the ACE regarding wetland delineation and mitigation strategies is important for proactively assisting developers seeking to improve land with wetlands. The early involvement of the ACE should improve permitting efficiency 1.5.6. Transportation: Engage with agencies that support multimodal transportation infrastructure including PSRC, Sound Transit, King County Metro, and Pierce Transit. The City should continue to advocate for funding to support transportation improvements ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE 1 20 CITY OF AUBURN FOCUS AREA 2. PRODUCT 112t An inventory of sites, a business climate, and a physical environment that foster l business growth and ensure a resilient employment base Economic development takes place in a competitive environment. This competition often starts on a global scale and continues down to specific sites as companies filter out possibilities based on their operational needs. Area Development's 2015 Survey of Corporate Executives ranked respondents' top site selection criteria. The top ten criteria are presented in Figure 2. Auburn's primary strength, and the strength of the South Sound region, is its access to skilled labor. In the 145 zip codes that are within about a 45 -minute drive of Auburn, there are 1.5 million workers. Over 800,000 of these workers fall into the "middle skills" segment of workers. In fact, Auburn has very good access to hard -to -find skillsets such as customer service representatives, truck drivers, registered nurses, maintenance and repair workers, and various types of technicians that support manufacturing operations. Auburn's primary constraint is the availability of sites and buildings with vacancy. This constraint is important because a community's inventory of sites and buildings determines whether or not it can enter into the competition for business investment. The majority of the other site selection factors distinguish regions across the country from one another. In that regard, Auburn is fortunate to be located in a region that is a magnet for talent and investment, which provides it with an advantage over communities of similar size in less competitive regions. Within the Seattle -Tacoma Metro area, the competition to attract businesses is stiff, and communities must differentiate themselves to standout from their peers. At this level, local incentives, business climate, available amenities, reputation, and relationships often play a large role in determining where a project lands. With a concentrated effort to make enhancements in each of these areas, Auburn can significantly improve its competitive positioning among its regional peers. PRIORITY PROJECTS O Labor Profile (2.1) 0 Deal -Ready Site Inventory (2.2) FIGURE 2. TOP SITE SELECTION FACTORS FIRST QUARTER 2016 FACTOR AUBURN RATING 40 1. Availability of skilled labor 2. Highway accessibility 3. Quality of life 4. Occupancy or construction costs (Seattle MSA) 5. Available buildings Q 6. Labor costs (Seattle MSA) Q 7. Corporate tax rate O 8. Proximity to major markets 0 9. State and local incentives 10. Energy availability and costs O Scale: • = Excellent; = Poor Source: Area Development's Survey of Corporate Executives, TIP Strategies Research. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE 1 21 CITY OF AUBURN 2.1. Labor Market Information. Design and maintain information resources that demonstrate Auburn's strength in terms of its access to skilled labor 2.1.1. Maintain up-to-date labor market information on Auburn and its laborshed and make this information available on the economic development website as well as in a report format. This information can be obtained through paid data sources such as EMSI or from free sources such as the Employment Security Department, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the Census Bureau's On the Map application 2.1.2. For target industries, create profiles that highlight the availability of relevant occupations as well as training programs and other workforce development resources SITE PACKAGING 2.2. Deal -Ready Sites. Ensure a supply of deal - ready sites to accommodate new business investment in Auburn 2.2.1. Maintain an inventory of Auburn's most important parcels and sites — those with high -impact development or redevelopment potential or that are located in strategic areas. 2.2.2. Among the eight sub -areas identified in the Comprehensive Plan, focus on the airport area, Emerald Downs, the GSA Property, and Northwest Auburn as key planning areas with high commercial development potential. Appendix F details industries that would be a good fit for Auburn and how Auburn and these planning areas should be positioned to attract these industries 2.2.3. Work with relevant land owners or brokers to package these sites with highly informative information packets (electronic) (see Site Packaging to the right) and actively promote these sites to prospective businesses and regional brokers 2.2.4. Encourage the land owner and broker to list the site on the City's inventory of buildings and sites In the past five years, there has been a proliferation of site certification programs across the US. To be certified, landowners collect vital information and conduct some of the preliminary studies necessary for site development. While the mechanics of these programs vary widely from place to place, the primary value of the certification programs is the depth of information available on these key sites. An inventory of sites with this kind of information available can provide a community an edge over competition. Below is a list of the information that should be collected on key sites, to the extent that it is available: ■ Ownership status ■ Description of parcel(s), including current uses, zoning, special zones, and current assessment information ■ Boundary survey ■ Phase I environment audit/assessment ■ Geo -technical studies ■ Topographical analysis and maps ■ Aerial photography ■ Engineered site development plans • Detailed analysis of site development cost ■ Complete information on pricing ■ Utility services, including types of services and name of providers ■ Industrial power quality ■ Transportation access ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE 1 22 CITY OF AUBURN 2.2.5. Meet with institutional investors and owners of underperforming properties to make the case for additional investment to increase their yields 2.2.6. Facilitate the conversion of industrial buildings that are currently used for warehousing and distribution to manufacturing or other sales tax generating uses by identifying and tracking conversion opportunities based on: ■ Physical building characteristics; ■ Current ownership (proactive outreach to understand motivations and offer support); ■ Current tenancy; ■ Anticipated utility undergrounding requirements; and ■ Whether land area can support a manufacturing parking ratio FIGURE 3. INDUSTRIAL AND OFFICE DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY AREAS Valley 6 Redevelopment Emerald Downs Extension Area Aerospace Hub Downtown Auburn Potential Annexation Area * Potential Rezone Area ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE 1 23 CITY OF AUBURN 2.2.7. Work with land owners to facilitate conversion opportunities, redevelopment of high -potential parcels, or the assembly of multiple parcels by addressing barriers where possible and connect them with local developers and real estate investors who seek these kinds of opportunities 2.2.8. Maintain a database, as part of the economic development project database, of all known businesses seeking additional space in the region to make connections with property owners in Auburn as space becomes available 2.2.9. Work with the ACE and King County to identify and implement strategies that may unlock wetland/storm water impaired areas of the City where appropriate. 2.2.10. Evaluate the feasibility of annexing some or all of the areas adjacent to the City that are in unincorporated King County as a means of improving Auburn's commercial land base. Two of the three areas highlighted in Figure 3 are located within the urban growth area (UGA), and one is located outside the UGA. 2.3. Economic Development Toolbox. Create a robust toolbox to influence economic development outcomes 2.3.1. Catalog all tools available. The Municipal Research and Services Center (MRSC) has a good database: http://mrsc.org Home/Explore-Topics/Economic-Development/Financing-Economic- Development/Funding-Sources-for-Economic-Development-Financial.aspx. For each tool, summarize how it works and how can be used 2.3.2. Consider and evaluate the feasibility of the following programs: ■ As part of the pending 2017/2018 DUC code updates, the permitting of taller buildings that could provide structured parking in the building podium and improve the likelihood of project feasibility ■ A property tax abatement program similar to the Multifamily Tax Exemption for properties looking to convert existing warehouses to manufacturing uses. This would need to be piloted with approval from the State Legislature ■ A Landscape Conservation and local Infrastructure Program (LCLIP), which allows the City to access County property tax revenues to support needed infrastructure improvements ■ Public Development Authorities (PDA) for areas such as the airport that may leverage revenue bonds. ■ New Market Tax Credits (NMTC) for commercial projects (nmtccoalition.org) ■ Community Economic Revitalization Board (CERB) grants for transportation projects 2.3.3. Collect examples of communities who use these tools in an innovative way to support projects that advance their economic development goals and share these with relevant City stakeholders 2.3.4. Ensure that city council and City staff are well-informed of the type and use of financing tools available to municipalities ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE 1 24 CITY OF AUBURN 2.3.5. Establish a policy that sets out the City's GUIDELINES FOR EFFECTIVE AND goals for the use of these various tools as RESPONSIBLE INCENTIVE USE well as a process and framework for . Incentives should be aligned with the city's economic evaluating projects development goals. 2.3.6. Adopt the guideline for effective and ■ Upfront data and analysis can reduce risk and responsible incentives use (See guidelines improve outcomes. listed in call-oulj • Due diligence that includes background research on applicants and business case analysis for 2.3.7. Adopt a comprehensive fiscal and projects seeking major discretionary incentives economic impact tool to measure the help communities make good decisions. return on investment for projects being . Evaluating project attributes relative to economic evaluated. Impact Datasource or development goals and quantifying fiscal and InformAnalytics are two examples economic impacts of proposed investments 2.3.8. Create content for the City's website and enable economic development organizations to determine whether projects can generate net for brochures that allows owners and benefits for the community, developers to understand the tools and • Good analysis can help explain and build programs that may be available for their support for decisions. project and how it relates to their pro forma Define performance requirements and monitor 2.3.9. Develop a clear flowchart that establishes compliance with performance agreements to assess the process that owners and developers whether project milestones were reached. will need to follow to obtain assistance in ■ Be prepared to report on who is receiving order to set realistic expectations incentives, how much is being spent, and the results of that spending. 2.4. Continuous Process Improvement. Evaluate ■ Establish policies to protect the community in the and continue to improve the City's land use and case of non-performance. building permit process and performance. Projects ■ Regularly (every three to five years) evaluate the city's that require key decisions from multiple departments portfolio of incentives to understand which programs have reportedly been slowed by an inefficient are most helpful in achieving economic development decision making process. To address this: goals. 2.4.1. Continue to employ the permitting Source: www.smartincentives.org. performance tracking system to understand performance. This should track the progress of a permit and allow the applicant to know in real time which department(s) are reviewing the permit and when a decision is to be made. 2.4.2. Develop a regular report based on information from the tracking system that allows the development community and city staff to understand how efficiently permits are being processed. 2.4.3. Create a map -based report with supporting tables that tracks all major commercial developments in the City including new construction and major renovations. This should be updated quarterly and be made available to the public. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE 1 25 CITY OF AUBURN 2.4.4. Consider reviewing the fee structure associated with permit reviews. Currently the fee covers three review iterations. A stepped fee structure that increases with each review would create an incentive for the applicants to thoroughly incorporate code requirements prior to plan submittal. 2.4.5. Establish precedents log that may be used for future staff to reference how certain situations that share similar conditions were addressed previously. This would create a mechanism to retain institutional knowledge and serve as reference for staff to provide developers and their design team with a clearer idea as to how react to its proposal.. This should track the progress of a permit and allow the applicant to know in real time which department(s) are reviewing the permit and when a decision is to be made. 2.5. Zoning Modification. Reevaluate zoning districts and modify certain aspects of the code 2.5.1. Expand the Downtown Urban Center (DUC) zoning district to include the logical adjacent areas. To enact this change, cooperation with the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) will be necessary. 2.5.2. Consider zoning modifications related to height and parking discussed in Appendix B to improve project feasibility 2.5.3. Add flexibility to the industrial land use code to allow for more yard storage and permitted uses such as building contractors in districts that are currently more restrictive. Such added flexibility could better support desirable business activity without undermining the intent of the original restriction. See Appendix B for more information 2.5.4. Consider an overlay on the Landing Field (LF) zone and adjacent commercial properties to permit airside supportive land uses around the airport 2.6. Cost Comparison. Annually compare Auburn's development/impact fees, tax rates, and rebate programs to peers 2.6.1. Conduct research on regional peers to identify any rate changes or fee changes and record in a business climate database, which can be created with information from this strategic plan 2.6.2. Document any significant changes and distribute a summary report to relevant department heads 2.6.3. Work collectively to resolve any issues revealed by this research exercise 2.6.4. Publicize the areas where Auburn stands out among its peer group to the regional real estate community ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE 1 26 CITY OF AUBURN O FOCUS AREA 3. PLACE Attractive gateways, impression corridors, and destinations that define the character of Auburn Auburn's Comprehensive Plan designated special planning areas—districts, sub -areas, impression corridors, PRIORITY PROJECTS and gateways—because they warrant additional O Downtown Revitalization (3.3) emphasis in planning, investments, and policy © Target Investment Program (3.1) development. Prioritizing the underperforming special planning areas for additional investment and coordinating these investments with other economic development activities can hasten the transformation of these areas into community assets. Together, these areas define rich character areas in Auburn and play a large role in shaping people's perceptions of the City. Auburn is also fortunate to have an array of destinations that draw visitors to Auburn from across the region, including an authentic downtown and a number of different recreational amenities. The map in Figure 4 lists the various assets and amenities. These regional amenities enhance the quality of life of Auburn residents and attract visitors to Auburn. However, many of these special planning areas and amenities lack connectivity, both socially and physically. Working to connect these different areas and amenities and adding to the inventory of destinations could greatly enhance Auburn's reputation in the regional tourism and real estate markets. FIGURE 4. AUBURN ASSET/CONTEXT MAP TO SEATAC AIRPORT/ SEATTLE 1. DRIVE TIMES FROM AUBURN To SeaTac Airport 20 MIN To Downtown Seattle 30 MIN To Downtown Bellevue 30 MIN To Downtown Tacoma 17 MIN Source: Heartland Research IERCE COUNTY�- Auburn Municipal Airport Auburn Station 9W EDUCATION 1 Green River Aviation Technology Program 2 Green River College 0 RECREATION 3 Les Gove Park 4 Muckleshoot Casino S Auburn Game Farm Park 6 The Outlet Collection 7 Emerald Downs 8 Auburn Golf Course 9 Soos Creek Botanical Garden • MAJOR EMPLOYERS 10 MultiCare Auburn Medical Center 11 Boeing Auburn Complex ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE 1 27 CITY OF AUBURN 3.1. Strategic Investment. Create a target investment program to guide strategic infrastructure investments that enhance Auburn's economic development opportunities. 3.1.1. Create a cross -departmental forum for identifying and prioritizing areas for targeted infrastructure investment 3.1.2. Evaluate market -challenged areas for their potential to attract private investment through targeted public investment projects and designate two or three areas as "Target Investment Areas" based on the criteria below: ■ Does this (or could this) area function as a vital gateway, impression corridor, or destination for Auburn? ■ Are there sites in the area with high redevelopment potential? ■ Are there barriers to redevelopment that can be addressed by infrastructure investments? Would investment in the area yield net benefits to Auburn (cost -benefit analysis)? 3.1.3. Align the City's resources, both planning and programmatic, around the Target Investment Areas to ensure they reinforce capital investments 3.1.4. Tailor a suite of services and/or incentives that is available to support private sector projects in the Target Investment Areas in order to overcome real or perceived market gaps 3.1.5. Package the information and actively market the areas to potential investors and other stakeholders (See Strategy 2.2.1) SPOKANE'S TARGET INVESTMENT PROGRAM Adopted in 2011 and further refined in 2013, the Spokane Targeted Investment Program seeks to align public investments in economic development, neighborhood planning, community development, and capital improvements with private investments. The goal of this program is to increase the impact of the City's investments, resulting in more opportunities for business growth and better residential living environments. The strategy is designed around four pillars: Revitalization Planning: Implementing the City's Comprehensive Plan, identifying neighborhood opportunity areas, and aligning different implementation tools; Targeted Area Development: Creating tailored investment strategies, integrating plans and projects from different City departments, utilizing local nonprofit support, and creating market-driven economic opportunities; Financial Incentive Planning: Compiling a comprehensive list of available incentives, aligning growth strategies, stressing the "Window of Opportunity" to investors, and creating sustainable and dedicated Funding sources for target areas; and, Economic Development Assistance: Packaging incentives and project portfolios for interested applicants, marketing and outreach activities, and responding to project and stakeholder needs. The program was initially piloted on two target areas. In 2015, it was expanded to six target areas. To staff the program, there is one incentives expert and a designated expert for each of the target areas. Each area has a separate webpage with news and announcements, project descriptions and maps, and a detailed prospectus. In addition to its own resources, the City has successfully secured a number of grants to help address some of the challenges in the targeted areas, including Brownfield planning and redevelopment, transportation, and other technical assistance. Through various outreach activities, Spokane's city staff has promoted awareness of the program and the special incentives available. As a result, there has been an uptick in pre -development applications in certain target areas and increased transactions and building rehabilitation in others. In one of the areas, the business association has requested the creation of a Business Improvement District to support the city's efforts in their area. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE 1 28 CITY OF AUBURN 3.2. Regional Transportation. Maintain and enhance regional transportation connections to ensure ease of travel to, from, and within Auburn 3.2.1. Prioritize improvements on and around Auburn Way North and Auburn Way South and a better connection from SR -167 connection to downtown 3.2.2. Continue to partner with Sound Transit to secure adequate parking around the Sounder station as well as convenient service and better multi -modal connectivity to downtown and other Auburn destinations 3.2.3. Continue to improve the Auburn Municipal Airport by conducting a needs assessment of businesses located in Auburn and in the immediate region to understand whether they could use an enhanced airport for business purposes and what improvements would be needed 3.3. Downtown Revitalization. Continue to invest in downtown revitalization DOWNTOWN AUBURN REVITALIZATION 3.3.1. Optimize regional multimodal downtown connectivity both to and from the City to ease travel times and improve the downtown experience 3.3.2. Re-evaluate the Business Improvement Area to look at how ratepayers are assessed, who is being assessed, and how the funds can best be used. This is a valuable tool for downtown revitalization but it is currently being underutilized 3.3.3. Develop an investment brochure (electronic and print) for downtown that features a map of the Downtown Urban Center; key data and statistics; overview of public investment; available incentives; photographs that highlight new investment and potential investments; and a map with available parcels Downtown Auburn is one of the City's greatest assets as few suburban cities have an authentic, historic downtown. Over the past six years, the City has invested millions of dollars in projects to set the stage for increased growth downtown. As a result, a number of large scale projects have been completed or are underway, including the Trek Apartments, Merrill Gardens, and the expansion of Multicore. The core of Main Street, however, remains an underperforming diamond in the rough. To address this challenge, revitalization efforts should focus on the section of Main Street from Division Street to E Street SE. This corridor should have a carefully curated tenant mix that is anchored by deliberately spaced businesses. These anchor tenants should generate foot traffic for the other storefronts in between them. Together, the tenant mix of Main Street Auburn should create a unique retail and entertainment destination that supports surrounding employers and housing developments and draws people downtown. While events can help raise awareness of downtown's businesses, it will have more impact at this stage of downtown revitalization to work directly with building owners and brokers to target specific businesses in order to enhance the area's tenant mix. 3.3.4. Publicize a comprehensive list of incentives available to support projects in the Downtown Urban Center both in the brochure and on the City's website. These include the following benefits: Downtown -Specific ■ Multi -Family Tax Exemptions ■ Storefront Improvement Program ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE 1 29 CITY OF AUBURN ■ Downtown Zoning and Design Standards ■ A Comprehensive Environmental Impact Review ■ Excess Stormwater Capacity Ci -Wide ■ Deferred Impact Fee and System Development Charges • Construction Sales Tax Exemption ■ Small Business Assistance Program ■ New Market Tax Credits (for qualifying Census tracts) ■ No Business and Operations Tax 3.3.5. Continue to partner with the Auburn Downtown Association to support existing small businesses downtown and to recruit targeted retailers and tenants downtown 3.3.6. Continue to actively seek investors and developers for downtown projects 3.3.7. Approach successful restauranteurs and local retailers both in Auburn and the Greater Seattle region to ask if they would be interested in expanding downtown 3.4. Auburn Way South Revitalization. Designate Auburn Way South as an additional Targeted Investment Area 3.4.1. Complete the Auburn Way South Corridor Plan 3.4.2. Develop an investment brochure (electronic and print) for Auburn Way South to highlight the opportunities that are identified in the corridor plan. Include a map; renderings of potential projects; key data and statistics; and an overview of public investment and available programs 3.4.3. Strengthen the City's partnership with the Muckleshoot tribe around the revitalization of this corridor 3.5. Destination Connections. Create stronger connections between Auburn's primary tourism THE PEARL'S FOOD ENTREPRENEUR KIOSK In San Antonio, Texas, the historic Pearl Brewery has been revitalized to create a vibrant entertainment district. Anchored by the Culinary Institute of America, the Pearl features a number of innovative dining concepts. One of these is the kiosk pictured above. During the weekly farmers' market at the Pearl, a featured chef takes over the kiosk and tests a menu on the farmers' market patrons. Customers order at the counter and enjoy their meal at the adjacent outdoor seating area. The kiosk provides food entrepreneurs with space to innovate as well as a built-in customer base. This opportunity to test and sharpen restaurant concepts in the kiosk has bolstered the burgeoning "foodie" culture that is one of the defining features of the Pearl. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE 1 30 • CITY OF AUBURN assets and develop new assets to attract more visitors to Auburn 3.5.1. Develop and market packages that include visits to three or four tourism destinations to offer to both residents of and visitors to the metro area (e.g. Golf & Gamble, Shop & Slots, Music & More) 3.5.2. Coordinate a brewery and distillery tour. Green River Cyclery has regular tours to breweries and would have good insights into how this would work 3.5.3. Consider creating a food entrepreneur kiosk downtown where a guest chef can serve a featured menu. This could be a way of fostering the growth of unique restaurants in Auburn and could address the need for a sit-down restaurant for business lunches 3.5.4. Explore the feasibility of a hop-on/hop-off tour or shuttle that runs between the Outlet Collection, the golf course, downtown, the casino, White River Amphitheater, and Emerald Downs to facilitate visitors' movement from one place to another 3.6. Regional Tourism. Strengthen regional tourism connections 3.6.1. Evaluate the potential benefits of establishing a Tourism Promotion Area that includes neighboring communities 3.6.2. Establish a regional partnership of communities to jointly promote the South Sound as a tourism destination ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE 1 31 CITY OF AUBURN FOCUS AREA 4. MESSAGING A coordinated marketing and branding campaign that elevates Auburn's reputation among internal and external audiences Auburn has a strong heritage and history that define a unique character and foster community pride. While PRIORITY PROJECTS Auburn faces challenges, its citizens see great O Brand Enhancement (4.1) opportunity. The word cloud below is how Auburn's © Target Industry Outreach (4.6) residents perceive Auburn today. Bisected Disinteresting Revitalized Quaint Possible Welcome Blue eollarTransitionBedroom Home Innovative Potential ( Under achieving Manufacturing Community Stagnant Divercp Multicultural Business friendly UnsafG Need for visitor activit 01dOver looked Y Stale Quiet ic rowin Young Grow HodgepodgeAccessible Central ■ Small 9 Inspiring 0 p p o rt u n i t Expanding Changing Smail town 1 1 Poor Anonymous Hometown Old fashionedHomeless Center Improving Awesome Family oriented Sweet spot between cities Unorganized Auburn is in the midst of an exciting transformation. There are numerous positive changes going on right now in the City, and residents recognize this momentum and the potential for improvement. The word cloud below is how Auburn residents describe Auburn in ten years. Appealing Fa:- , , - . _ tecca 'TT ru4edDiversincationCorrlrl unity Gree^ti„aco ntor:n E ;ohterTranspor.ation hub Economic opportunity Upscale Livable DynamiCEnergi`ed Connection betxeen are-, Vibrant do%vntoinn ProgressiveThrivirg\�aIka bleBusinessfriendh r Industry• center lean %lultgenerational Strong Creative r,,,; Great restaurants eCst■nat'1onEike frendl. AffordableVib ■creational Friendly J ob gromEntertainiFun= Better im=r Modern an Liver �;,gn1 High techsafeDiverse .,h;ce R harart Stable Character 'Growing rrosperDistinct Exciting g ublic transportation Renewed Place for every oneFar-hil YA.Plcidable housing Affluent Downtown center S u sta i rya b l e Enriched Innovation leader - Prosper Upgrade Innovation & entrepreneurs %lore pa.sir,q P-llUpgrade image ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE 1 32 CITY OF AUBURN Though positive words dominate these word clouds, a number of negative perceptions are held both by Auburn residents, by the larger region, and by the regional real estate community. These perceptions are largely influenced by media reports on crime in Auburn and by under -performing impression corridors and gateways that lead to Auburn's tourism destinations. These negative perceptions undermine Auburn's potential. There is also a large number of residents in the greater Seattle area that have no knowledge of Auburn and hold a neutral perception. Auburn must work to change these neutral and negative perceptions to positive ones. In doing so, the City should also build awareness of Auburn as a destination — for recreation, living, and business investment. Currently, the organizations that define the City of Auburn's brand identity, both internally and in the Seattle region, are not unified. The City of Auburn's tagline is "more than you imagined." This tagline is also shared by the Auburn Tourism Board. The Auburn Downtown Association and Chamber of Commerce, however, each have unique logos and brands that are distinct from the City's. On social media, the Auburn Police Department, the City of Auburn, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Innovation Partnership Zone have active presences that are also distinct. A more unified, collective voice and identity that spans all of these entities could be more effective in changing the internal and external perceptions of Auburn. 4.1. Brand Enhancement. Develop a stronger brand for Auburn and reinforce this with unified messaging across organizations 4.1.1. Adopt a new tagline. "More than you imagined" implies that people already hold a negative perception of Auburn 4.1.2. Coordinate a consistent marketing theme and campaign that applies across the City, economic development, the Chamber of Commerce, the Auburn Downtown Association, and the Auburn Tourism Board 4.1.3. Regularly (quarterly or annually) create talking points for community leaders and partner organizations that highlight positive developments in Auburn, success stories, and why it is a desirable place to visit, live, work, and invest 4.1.4. Invest in a wayfinding and placemaking strategy to reinforce this brand across Auburn 4.2. Internal Image. Build a more positive perception and a greater sense of community among Auburn residents through a strong partnership with the Auburn Reporter and other local media outlets including public radio, community websites, and social media outlets 4.2.1. Profile positive developments in Auburn that feature City investments, new businesses, and other economic development successes in order to build awareness of the City's positive momentum 4.2.2. Publish interviews of Auburn residents that highlight the things they like to do in Auburn and good memories of Auburn in order to strengthen the community's pride and cohesion 4.3. Social Media. Continue to strengthen the City's social media strategy to improve Auburn's internal and external perceptions 4.3.1. Develop a more consistent and strategic economic development voice across social media platforms, in particular Linkedln and Twitter in order to develop a greater awareness of economic development activities in Auburn ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE 1 33 CITY OF AUBURN 4.3.2. Leverage 3No Networking to distribute more positive stories about Auburn and Auburn's business culture 4.3.3. Connect with Auburn's key influencers through social media and push out positive content through this network. Content can be about economic development successes, business climate, and other aspects of the City's transformation KEY INFLUENCERS DEFINED The term "key influencers" is often part of social media strategy. These individuals are active online and are followed by a target audience. Connecting with these individuals allows a campaign to reach these audiences and push content to them. Social media analytics tools, such as FollowerWonk and Klout, can be used to identify key influencers. 4.3.4. Launch a hashtag campaign (#ThislsAuburn or #AuburnWorks or #AuthenticAuburn) related to Auburn's brand that helps promote positive perceptions 4.4. Public Relations. Launch a formal public relations campaign to change the region's perception of Auburn 4.4.1. Focus on earned media as a strategy to educate the region about Auburn's positive attributes. Earned media refers to publicity gained through promotional efforts other than advertising, as opposed to paid media, which refers to publicity gained through advertising. 4.4.2. Build awareness of Auburn as a destination for visitors, for residents, and for business investment by making these audiences aware of community assets, the housing market, transportation linkages, and investment opportunities 4.4.3. Create a buzz about Auburn, particularly in the Seattle -Tacoma metro area by publicizing stories in local and regional news outlets that demonstrate what a great location Auburn is. These stories could feature the City's success stories and relocations (be sure to highlight specifics about Auburn's assets that enable its companies to succeed). They should also highlight growth in Auburn, including the investment downtown and companies who have invested in Auburn AUBURN'S TOP 10 ASSETS The City has a distinct value proposition and competitive positioning that it must articulate when "selling" itself to brokers, site selectors, and prospects. 1. ACCESS TO SKILLED LABOR to support industrial activities 2. CENTRAL LOCATION between ports, transportation assets, and anchor cities (Seattle and Tacoma 3. An AUTHENTIC AND HISTORIC DOWNTOWN with a Sounder Station 4. BROAD AND DEEP SUPPLY CHAIN to support manufacturing S. RECREATION AND ENTERNTAINMENT AMENTITIES — parks, casino, race track, golf course, shopping 6. GREEN RIVER COLLEGE is a partner is workforce training 7. UP AND BNSF rail lines and BNSF is expanding 8. A strong and stable INDUSTRIAL MARKET 9. A DIVERSE COMMUNITY with a strong sense of pride 10. A city government that is A WILLING PARTNER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE 1 34 • CITY OF AUBURN 4.4.4. Generate press releases and blog posts that promote opportunities to visit, live, invest, and work in Auburn 4.5. Real Estate Market Reports. Develop a system for effective communication to the marketplace that educates businesses, developers, and brokers on opportunities available in the City 4.5.1. Transition the internal market tracking system used to evaluate market benchmarks to publish a regular report that can be distributed to the business, brokerage, and development community 4.5.2. Conduct regular forums with commercial brokers to discuss Auburn perceptions, opportunities, and regional activity 4.6. Strategic Outreach. Reach out to decision makers in the target industries to encourage them to consider expanding or relocating in Auburn 4.6.1. Leverage Auburn's community of business leaders and executives to reach peers in their networks by cultivating stronger relationships and keeping them well-informed of Auburn's strengths and resources available for economic development 4.6.2. As part of TEAM AUBURN, have a core team of executives who are willing to meet with prospects and help sell Auburn 4.6.3. Attend key trade shows in target industries and use these events as opportunities to gather industry intelligence and make person-to-person connections. Leave behind compelling marketing collateral with industry players 4.6.4. Join regional economic development trade missions in collaboration with regional and state economic development organizations whenever possible 4.6.5. Take advantage of Seattle's position as a global destination for conferences. Follow the regional conference schedule and look for opportunities to meet with prospects while they attend conferences in the region 4.6.6. When traveling, schedule appointments with any local executives in target industry sectors that are in the area ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE 1 35 CITY OF AUBURN IMPLEMENTATION AND ORGANIZATION The Auburn Ten -Year Economic Development Strategic Plan is ambitious. It will require a transition of the current economic development infrastructure to a cohesive department with additional capacity and expertise. This will allow the City of Auburn to have one of the most robust and entrepreneurial economic development programs in the region. The City's investment in economic development will yield a return that will strengthen the City's tax base, create economic opportunities, and transform the City to a vibrant and connected hub in the Seattle -Tacoma metro area. STAFFING The recommendations below are based on the consulting team's knowledge of organizational best practices and a review of peer city budgets and staffing. Economic Development Manager ED Admin Support Business Development Marketing Redevelopment Tourism Real Estate Analysis IMPLEMENTATION TEAM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SPECIALISTS Recommended Staffing Structure. The structure above would provide the capacity to implement the strategic plan. The Manager, who leads the team, is an experienced economic developer that has led teams successfully in complex transactions, innovative program management, and effective communications with stakeholders. The Business Development position has expertise in prospect management, deal making, business visitation, and economic development analysis and research. A Marketing position carries out all outreach and marketing activities. The Redevelopment position has expertise in real estate development and real estate finance. An administrative assistant supports the team. In addition, the tourism coordinator position that is funded by the LTAC, and the real estate analyst, transferred from facilities, are now part of the team. This provides the opportunity of greater integration of these functions with economic development. This staffing structure would provide the City with the capacity to conduct ongoing research to support business recruitment and retention/expansion activities and to consistently produce and deliver content to support a marketing and outreach strategy. Both of these functions enable economic development programs to identify prospective companies and establish/maintain relationships with these potential prospects. This structure also provides the department with the capacity to build a much stronger referral network that consists of local business ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE 1 36 CITY OF AUBURN leaders and regional real estate brokers and developers. The outcome of this increased capacity should be more and higher -quality prospects and projects, which should accelerate investment and job creation in Auburn. The Redevelopment expertise provides economic development programs with an enhanced ability to identify redevelopment opportunities, structure deals, and complete projects. An in-depth knowledge of financing tools available in the State of Washington and at the Federal Government should enable Auburn to access capital to support redevelopment opportunities. The additional staffing will cost about $436,000 annually once the Economic Development Division is fully staffed in 2019. Operating Budget. Funding the additional functions of the ED Division's programs will require an additional $78,000. This includes a $60,000 marketing and outreach budget that can be used for public relations, marketing materials (including web design), social media, trade show travel and attendance, and limited advertising. An additional $18,000 for data services, memberships, and market and economic research would cover a subscription to Hoovers.com, on-going consulting services, and memberships to NAIOP and ICSC. Budget Summary. The additional staffing requirements and operating budget will likely require up to a total of $514,000 annually by 2019. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE 1 37 CITY OF AUBURN IMPLEMENTATION Because of its ten-year scope, this strategic plan has a long list of strategies and actions. Implementing these will take time and can only be done as resources and capacity are added. To implement this plan, the City should first focus on reorganizing itself to be consistent with the strategic direction of the plan. Adding a staff person dedicated to business development will enable the deployment of the program foundations, which should directly correlate with increasing investment into the City. The marketing position will enable the City to implement Focus Area 4 more fully. Redevelopment expertise will allow the City to advance further in the implementation of Focus Areas 2 and 3. Strategy 1.1. Clearly define the services that the City of Auburn can provide to businesses both directly and through partnerships. 1.1.1. Organize regular meetings of the IPZ taskforce as TEAM AUBURN to keep them informed of the prospect pipeline, meetings with prospects, and potential recruitment trips 1 .1.2. Continue to assist prospects in finding suitable sites, navigating the development process in Auburn, and securing available incentives from local and state sources 1.1.3. Launch and manage a business incubator 1.1.4. Continue to organize weekly 3No Networking at Auburn -based businesses 1.1.5. Continue to partner with the Small Business Assistance Center at Green River College on technical assistance and workshops for small businesses 1.1.6. Establish partnerships with area SBA lenders, community development financial institutions, and other nonprofit microlenders to provide better access to capital for businesses that do not qualify for bank financing Manager & Business Development Manager & Business Development 173 Manager & Business Development / SBDC Manager & Marketing / SBDC Manager & Marketing / Chamber ADA Business Development / SBDC W N ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE 1 38 CITY OF AUBURN 1.1.7. Assemble a list of revolving loan funds and other financing resources Business Development / ■ that are available to Auburn -based businesses SBDC 1 .1.8. Continue to partner with Green River College and WorkSource to provide customized training 1.1.9. Strengthen the partnership between Auburn Public Schools, Green River College, and Auburn's business community by organizing industry sector partnerships that explore workforce demand, critical occupations, and available curricula 1.1.10. Maintain a catalog of information and resources relevant to economic development on the City's webpage 1.1.1 1. Track and report market trends at least quarterly and distribute the findings to stakeholders as part of the effort to espouse "Why Auburn" to the regional real estate community 1.1.12. Update and distribute retail trade area data annually 1 .1.13. Provide profiles on the City's target investment areas Manager ■ Manager / WorkSource Workforce Development Council Business Development ■ Business Development Business Development Business Development N El Strategy 1.2. Formalize a business visitation program to track trends among Auburn employers and identify any businesses in need of assistance 1.2.1. Establish a visitation protocol, a list of information to be collected during Business Development / each visit, and set a goal how many businesses each year. Chamber 1 .2.2. Create a database of Auburn -based employers with the City's business Business Development license database 1.2.3. Using CoStar or other sources, identify employers who have leases that Business Development will be expiring in the next two or three years to be prioritized for visitations 1 .2.4. Maintain detailed notes on visits in the economic development project Business Development / database to document the relationship over time Chamber 1.2.5. Compile information collected from visits to track trends among Business Development / employers and distribute these findings to stakeholders in an annual report and Chamber presentation ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE 1 39 CITY OF AUBURN Strategy 1.3. Recruit new businesses, including retail, to Auburn to provide better economic opportunities and enhance Auburn's quality of place 1.3.1. Strengthen relationships with brokers, developers, and industry associations in the metro area and create an education outreach program targeted to these groups 1.3.2. Cultivate strong partnerships with regional organizations to identify co- marketing opportunities and joint trade missions 1.3.3. Join the coalition of local governments and organizations that represent the communities of the greater South Sound region 1.3.4. During business visitations, ensure that Auburn -based businesses are aware of the great services that the City provides and have information on the different initiatives 1.3.5. Cultivate relationships among promising young companies across the metro 1.3.6. Actively prospect among companies in target industries Manager Manager Manager Business Development Business Development Business Development Strategy 1.4. Identify and advance catalyst projects that will facilitate Auburn's evolution 1.4.1. Work with city council and department heads to identify and prioritize potential catalyst projects 1.4.2. Hold quarterly meetings with this group to learn from guest speakers about what other communities are doing and to brainstorm what Auburn could do 1.4.3. From the project list generated in the quarterly sessions, prioritize projects based on feasibility, expense, time frame, impact, and alignment with Auburn's opportunity areas 1.4.4. For the two or three top ranked projects, create a project team of three to five individuals responsible for implementation 1 .4.5. Maintain a tool that tracks progress on project implementation, and report progress and outcomes at the quarterly meetings Manager Manager Manager / Department Heads Manager / Department Heads Admin ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE 1 40 CITY OF AUBURN Strategy 1.5. Foster relationships with key entities that support economic activity in the City 1.5.1. Initiate and cultivate relationships. Manager OPPORTUNITY 2"mouL. Strategy 2.1. Design and maintain information resources that demonstrate Auburn's strength in terms of its access to skilled labor 2.1.1. Maintain up-to-date labor market information on Auburn and its Business Development / laborshed and make this information available on the economic development WorkSource website as well as in a report format 2.1.2. For target industries, create profiles that highlight the availability of Business Development / relevant occupations as well as training programs and other workforce WorkSource development resources Strategy 2.2. Ensure a supply of deal -ready sites to accommodate new business investment in Auburn 2.2.1. Maintain an inventory of Auburn's most important parcels and sites — those with high -impact development or redevelopment potential or that are located in strategic areas. 2.2.2. Among the eight sub -areas identified in the Comprehensive Plan, focus on the airport area, Emerald Downs, the GSA Property, and Northwest Auburn as key planning areas with high commercial development potential 2.2.3. Work with relevant land owners or brokers to package these sites with highly informative information packets (electronic) and actively promote these sites to prospective businesses and regional brokers 2.2.4. Encourage the land owner and broker to list the site on the City's inventory of buildings and sites 2.2.5. Meet with institutional investors and owners of underperforming properties to make the case for additional investment to increase their yields Real Estate & Redevelopment Real Estate & Redevelopment / Community Development & Public Works Real Estate & Redevelopment Real Estate & Redevelopment Manager & Redevelopment E ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE 1 41 CITY OF AUBURN 2.2.6. Facilitate the conversion of industrial buildings that are currently used for Redevelopment warehousing and distribution to manufacturing or other sales tax generating uses 2.2.7. Work with land owners to facilitate conversion opportunities, Redevelopment redevelopment of high -potential parcels, or the assembly of multiple parcels by addressing barriers where possible and connect them with local developers and real estate investors who seek these kinds of opportunities 2.2.8. Maintain a database as part of the CRM of all known businesses Business Development seeking additional space in the region to make connections with property owners in Auburn as space becomes available 2.2.9. Evaluate the feasibility of annexing the areas adjacent to the City that Manager are in unincorporated King County as a means of improving Auburn's commercial land base Strategy 2.3. Create a robust toolbox to influence economic development outcomes 2.3.1. Catalog all tools available in the state Business Development / Finance 2.3.2. Consider and evaluate the feasibility of the additional programs Manager / Finance 2.3.3. Collect examples of communities who use these tools in an innovative Business Development / way to support projects that advance their economic development goals and Finance share these with relevant City stakeholders 2.3.4. Ensure that city council and City staff are well-informed of the type and Manager / use of financing tools available to municipalities Finance 2.3.5. Establish a policy that sets out the City's goals for the use of these Manager / various tools as well as a process and framework for evaluating projects City Council, Finance 2.3.6. Adopt the guideline for effective and responsible incentives use Manager / City Council, Finance 0 C ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE 1 42 CITY OF AUBURN 2.3.7. Adopt a comprehensive fiscal and economic impact tool to measure the Manager / ■ return on investment for projects being evaluated Finance 2.3.8. Create content for the City's website and for brochures that allows Business Development / owners and developers to understand the tools and programs that may be Finance available for their project and how it relates to their pro forma 2.3.9. Develop a clear flowchart that establishes the process that owners and Business Development / developers will need to follow to obtain assistance in order to set realistic Finance expectations Strategy 2.4. Evaluate and continue to improve the City's land use and building permit process and performance. 2.4.1. Continue to employ the permitting performance tracking system to Business Development / understand performance Community Development & 0 Public Works 2.4.2. Develop a regular report based on information from the tracking system Business Development / that allows the development community and city staff to understand how Community Development & E efficiently permits are being processed Public Works 2.4.3. Create a map -based report with supporting tables that tracks all major Business Development / commercial developments in the City including new construction and major Community Development & E renovations Public Works 2.4.4. Consider reviewing the fee structure associated with permit reviews Manager / Community Development & 0 Public Works 2.4.5. Establish precedents log that may be used for future staff to reference Business Development / how certain situations that share similar conditions were addressed previously Community Development & 0 Public Works ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE 1 43 CITY OF AUBURN Strategy 2.5. Re-evaluate zoning districts and modify certain aspects of the code 2.5.1. Expand the Downtown Urban Center (DUC) zoning district to include the logical adjacent areas 2.5.2. Consider zoning modifications related to height and parking to improve project feasibility 2.5.3. Add flexibility to the industrial land use code to allow for more yard storage and permitting uses such as building contractors in districts that are currently more restrictive 2.5.4. Consider an overlay on the Landing Field (LF) zone and adjacent commercial properties to permit airside supportive land uses around the airport Manager / Community Development & Public Works Manager / Community Development & Public Works Manager / Community Development & Public Works Manager / Community Development & Public Works Strategy 2.6. Annually compare Auburn's development/impact fees, tax rates, and rebate programs to peers 2.6.1. Conduct research on regional peers to identify any rate changes or fee Business Development / changes and record in a business climate database, which can be created with Finance, Community information from this strategic plan Development & Public Works 2.6.2. Document any significant changes and distribute a summary report to Business Development / relevant department heads Finance, Community Development & Public Works 2.6.3. Work collectively to resolve any issues revealed by this research Business Development / exercise Finance, Community Development & Public Works U 3 C 0 0 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE 1 44 CITY OF AUBURN 2.6.4. Publicize the areas where Auburn stands out among its peer group to Business Development & ■ the regional real estate community Marketing Strategy 3.1. Create a target investment program to guide strategic infrastructure investments that enhance Auburn's economic development opportunities 3. 1.1 . Create a cross -departmental forum for identifying and prioritizing areas Manager / for targeted infrastructure investment Mayor's Office 3.1.2. Evaluate market -challenged areas for their potential to attract private Redevelopment investment through targeted public investment projects and designate two or three areas as "Target Investment Areas' 3.1.3. Align the City's resources, both planning and programmatic, around the Manager / Target Investment Areas to ensure they reinforce capital investments Department Heads 3.1.4. Tailor a suite of services and/or incentives that is available to support Manager & Redevelopment private sector projects in the Target Investment Areas in order to overcome real or perceived market gaps 3.1.5. Package the information and actively market the areas to potential Redevelopment & Marketing investors and other stakeholders Strategy 3.2. Maintain and enhance regional transportation connections to ensure ease of travel to and from Auburn 3.2.1. Prioritize improvements on and around Auburn Way North and Auburn Manager / Way South and a better connection from SR -167 connection to downtown Community Development & Public Works 3.2.2. Continue to partner with Sound Transit to secure adequate parking Manager / around the Sounder station as well as convenient service and better multi -modal Community Development & I connectivity to downtown and other Auburn destinations Public Works [-V. 0 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE 1 45 CITY OF AUBURN 3.2.3. Continue to improve the Auburn Municipal Airport by conducting a Business Development / needs assessment of businesses located in Auburn and in the immediate region Auburn Municipal Airport to understand whether they could use an enhanced airport for business purposes and what improvements would be needed Strategy 3.3. Continue to invest in downtown revitalization 3.3.1. Optimize regional multimodal downtown connectivity both to and from the City to ease travel times and improve the downtown experience 3.3.2. Re-evaluate the Business Improvement Area to look at how ratepayers are assessed, who is being assessed, and how the funds can best be used 3.3.3. Develop an investment brochure (electronic and print) for downtown that features a map of the Downtown Urban Center; key data and statistics; overview of public investment; available incentives; photographs that highlight new investment and potential investments; and a map with available parcels 3.3.4. Publicize a comprehensive list of incentives available to support projects in the Downtown Urban Center both in the brochure and on the City's website 3.3.5. Continue to support existing small businesses downtown and to recruit targeted retailers and tenants downtown 3.3.6. Continue to actively seek investors and developers for downtown projects Manager / Community Development & Public Works Business Development / Finance ADA Marketing / ADA Marketing / ADA Business Development / SBDC ADA Manager, Redevelopment / ADA 3.3.7. Approach successful restauranteurs and local retailers both in Auburn Redevelopment / and the Greater Seattle region to ask if they would be interested in expanding ADA downtown 0 0 171 0 N 0 E 0 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE 1 46 CITY OF AUBURN Strategy 3.4. Designate Auburn Way South as an additional Targeted Investment Area 3.4. 1. Complete the Auburn Way South Corridor Plan Redevelopment / Community Development & Public Works 3.4.2. Develop an investment brochure (electronic and print) for Auburn Way Marketing / South to highlight the opportunities that are identified in the corridor plan Community Development & Public Works 3.4.3. Strengthen the City's partnership with the Muckleshoot tribe around the Manager / revitalization of this corridor Mayor's Office Strategy 3.5. Create stronger connections between Auburn's primary tourism assets and develop new assets to attract more visitors to Auburn 3.5.1. Develop and market packages that include visits to three or four tourism Tourism destinations to offer to both residents of and visitors to the metro area (e.g. Golf & Gamble, Shop & Slots, Music & More) 3.5.2. Coordinate a brewery and distillery tour. Green River Cyclery has Tourism regular tours to breweries and would have good insights into how this would work 3.5.3. Consider creating a food entrepreneur kiosk downtown where a guest Tourism chef can serve a featured menu 3.5.4. Explore the feasibility of a hop-on/hop-off tour or shuttle that runs Tourism between the Outlet Collection, the golf course, downtown, the casino, White River Amphitheater, and Emerald Downs to facilitate visitors' movement from one place to another ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE 1 47 CITY OF AUBURN Strategy 3.6. Strengthen regional tourism connections 3.6.1. Evaluate the potential benefits of establishing a Tourism Promotion Area Manager, Tourism that includes neighboring communities 3.6.2. Establish a regional partnership of communities to jointly promote the Manager, Tourism South Sound as a tourism destination Strategy 4.1. Develop a stronger brand for Auburn and reinforce this with unified messaging across organizations 4.1.1. Adopt a new tagline. Manager / Mayor, City Council, Department Heads 4.1.2. Coordinate a consistent marketing theme and campaign that applies Marketing across the City, economic development, the Chamber of Commerce, the Auburn Downtown Association, and the Auburn Tourism Board 4.1.3. Regularly (quarterly or annually) create talking points for community Marketing leaders and partner organizations that highlight positive developments in Auburn and why it is a desirable place to visit, live, and invest 4.1.4. Invest in a wayfinding and placemaking strategy to reinforce this brand Manager, Marketing / across Auburn Community Development & Public Works u Strategy 4.2. Build a more positive perception and a greater sense of community among Auburn residents through a strong partnership with the Auburn Reporter and other local media outlets 4.2.1. Profile positive developments in Auburn that feature City investments, Marketing new businesses, and other economic development successes in order to build awareness of the City's positive momentum 4.2.2. Publish interviews of Auburn residents that highlight the things they like Marketing to do in Auburn and good memories of Auburn ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE 1 48 CITY OF AUBURN Strategy 4.3. Continue to strengthen the City's social media strategy to improve Auburn's internal and external perceptions 4.3. 1. Develop a more consistent and strategic economic development voice across social media platforms, in particular Linkedln and Twitter in order to develop a greater awareness of economic development activities in Auburn 4.3.2. Leverage 3No Networking to distribute more positive stories about Auburn and Auburn's business culture 4.3.3. Connect with Auburn's key influencers through social media and push out positive content through this network Marketing Marketing ® ■ Marketing 4.3.4. Launch a hashtag campaign related to Auburn's brand that helps Marketing promote positive perceptions Strategy 4.4. Launch a formal public relations campaign to change the region's perception of Auburn 4.4.1. Focus on earned media as a strategy to educate the region about Marketing Auburn's positive attributes 4.4.2. Build awareness of Auburn as a destination for visitors, for residents, Marketing and for business investment by making audiences aware of community assets, the housing market, transportation linkages, and investment opportunities 4.4.3. Create a buzz about Auburn, particularly in the Seattle -Tacoma metro Marketing area by publicizing stories in local and regional news outlets that demonstrate what a great location Auburn is. 4.4.4. Generate press releases and blog posts that promote opportunities to Marketing visit, live, invest, and work in Auburn Strategy 4.5. Develop a system for effective communication to the marketplace that educates businesses, developers, and brokers on opportunities available in the City 4.5.1. Transition the internal market tracking system used to evaluate market Business Development, Real benchmarks to publish a regular report that can be distributed to the business, Estate, Marketing brokerage, and development community 4.5.2. Conduct regular forums with commercial brokers to discuss Auburn Business Development, Real perceptions, opportunities, and regional activity Estate, Marketing ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE 1 49 CITY OF AUBURN Strategy 4.6. Reach out to decision makers in the target industries to encourage them to consider expanding or relocating in Auburn 4.6.1. Leverage Auburn's community of business leaders and executives to Manager reach peers in their networks by cultivating stronger relationships and keeping them well-informed of Auburn's strengths and resources available for economic development 4.6.2. As part of TEAM AUBURN, have a core team of executives who are Business Development willing to meet with prospects and help sell Auburn 4.6.3. Attend key trade shows in target industries and use these events as Manager, Business opportunities to gather industry intelligence and make person-to-person Development connections 4.6.4. Join regional economic development trade missions in collaboration with regional and state economic development organizations whenever possible 4.6.5. Take advantage of Seattle's position as a global destination for conferences 4.6.6. When traveling, schedule appointments with any local executives in target industry sectors that are in the area Manager, Business Development / N Mayor's Office Business Development Business Development ■ ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE 1 50 POLICY/TEXT (P/T) AMENDMENTS (CPA18-0002) P/T #8 - Amend by adding updated Volume 8, "Historical Preservation" from pre -2015 Comprehensive Plan and amend the "Core Plan" and the Appendix. CITY OF AUBURN PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AND MEASUREMENT To understand the impact of the City's economic development efforts and to track success, it is important to monitor a set of key performance indicators. Below is a set of indicators that are tied to three topics directly related to the strategies contained in this plan: 1) tax base,- 2) real estate market; and 3) economic opportunity. Property Tax Base The tax base has grown steadily since 2013. Non-exempt Taxable Value 100,000 -_ (per Capita) 75,000 50,000 25,000 0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Source: ung County Tax Assessor Industrial Market The vacancy rate rose slightlywith recent negative net absorption. Net Absorption Vacancy 600,000 3.0% 400,000 2.0% 200,000 0 W-STITITI-81 WGIA N 2 � N 2 O O O O O N N N N N Source: CoStar Employment The number of jobs in the City has continued to grow. Total Employment 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 Commercial Tax Base The share of the commercial tax base fell from its 2013 peak. % Commercial (Industrial, Retail, Office) 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Source: King County Tax Assessor Office Market The vacancy rate dropped with positive netabsorption. Net Absorption Vacancy 100,000 15.0% 75,000 50,000 10.0% 25,000 0 5.0% -25,000 -50,000 0.0% N M V h O O O O N N N N Source: CoStar Unemployment The region's unemployment rate is much lower than in 2012 - Unemployment Rate M _Aubum —Washington ! US 8.0 6.0 — 4.0 2.0 0.0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Source: EMSI Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Retail Sales Retail sales tax receipts per capita have climbed steadily. Sales Tax Receipts (per Capita) 400 300 200 100 : 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 a Source: City of Auburn New Space Delivery Over the last two years, little new square footage has been delivered. Office z Industrial 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 16W O O O O O N N N N N Source: CoStor Wages The region's wages are climbing gradually. Median Hourly Wages 40 30 20 10 0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Source: EMSI ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE 1 51 CITY OF AUBURN In addition to these key performance indicators, the City should monitor output measures related to these topic areas and other strategies. Suggested measures include: ■ Jobs created and average wages- only projects that the ED Division managed ■ Private investment overall and by target area ■ Square feet of distribution conversions ■ Return on investment (ROI) on any incentives (fiscal & economic impact) ■ Industrial and office lease rates ■ Broker activity ■ Restaurants and retailers — new and closed ■ Employment by sector ■ Wages by sector ■ Earned media ■ Web traffic It will also be useful to track some of these metrics for peer cities and the metro area to provide context for Auburn's performance. Being able to drill down further to get behind the key performance indicators will allow the City to evaluate strategy implementation and make tweaks to the strategic plan as necessary. This feedback loop is how the strategic plan transforms into a living document that will maintain relevancy over the ten-year period. The Economic Development Office should be responsible for maintaining updating these metrics on an on-going basis with the assistance from the consulting team, as needed. CONCLUSION The City of Auburn should be commended for their recognition of the importance of economic development strategic planning at this juncture in Auburn's history and in the context of a booming regional economy. With the plan in place, the City will be positioned to transition its economic development program to a more robust and comprehensive program that will allow it to influence its own economic development future. The implementation and monitoring of the plan will be the next phase. This work will take discipline and direction, leadership and collaboration, and patience and perseverance across the City and with multiple partners. The City of Auburn's Ten - Year Economic Development Strategic Plan provides the foundation and lays out the framework to coordinate the City's continued evolution into a unique and thriving hub in the Seattle -Tacoma region. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE 1 52 GW WAP vVOLUME 8 - HISTORIC PRESERVATION Conditions and Trends Unlike many cities within the Puget Sound Region, Auburn has a long and established history. Auburn has been a vibrant and freestanding community for over 100 years. As a result, Auburn developed its own downtown as the focus of business and community life. The downtown in particular, and the community as a whole, were linked to the railroads, which were the major mode of transportation throughout the region for decades. In the past several decades, the region has experienced significant population growth. Due to the nature of this growth, the differences between one community and another have blurred and communities are becoming more and more alike. If Auburn is to retain its identity as a unique community, it must seek to emphasize its differences and celebrate them. Auburn's history is a part of its identity that is unique to Auburn. Through the recognition and preservation of its past, Auburn can ensure its uniqueness and strengthen its identity as it moves into the future. The City recognizes the importance of maintaining this connection with its past by including policies which address the enhancement and maintenance of historic resources within this Comprehensive Plan. This importance is also recognized by both the State and the County by the inclusion of historic preservation as one of the goals of the Growth Management Act (GMAT and in the King County Countywide policies. GGAL 29 MIST-C)RIG PRESERVATION Planning Approach To maintain, preserve and enhance the City's historic, cultural and archaeological resources to provide a sense of local identity and history to the visitors and residents of the community. Obiectives and Policies Objective -2-91.1. To enhance and maintain the quality of historical resources in the region. Policies: HP -1. The City shall encourage the protection, preservation, recovery and rehabilitation of significant archaeological resources and historic sites. City staff should be adequately trained to recognize significant resources or should have ready access to professionals who do. HP -2. The City should develep a W iste.;^ o.^ -r^. ,atien Pi -;;R +„ :a^^+;f , +^ + C:+„ WSWFOG develo a Historic Preservation Plan to identify and protect City historic resources. The historic site and building inventory should be updated c-emp;eted-as part of this plan, and made readily accessible to the public. The City should a4e{3t-amend existing historic preservation codes and incentives as needed to implement the Historic Preservation Plan. HP -3. The City shall consider the impacts of new development on historical resources as a part of its environmental review process and require any appropriate mitigating measures. A mitigation fund should be established and maintained for receiving contributions when historic resources are demolished. The fund should be used to further preservation activities within the City. HP -4. The City should assist appropriate efforts to rehabilitate sites and buildings with unique or significant historic characteristics. HP -5. Future development in the Downtown area should be sensitive to the character of surrounding buildings and the historical context of the area. Modifications of existing buildings shall consider the eFa#e 4 appropriate treatment or restoration of historic architectural features. HP -6. The White River Valley Historical Museum is recognized as the primary repository of historic artifacts which relate to the City's historic and cultural heritage. HP -7. The City recognizes that the region's history began before the arrival of settlers to the area and should accord the same levels of promotion and protection to Native American sites and artifacts as to those of the more recent past. HP -8. The City should work with the White River Valley Historical Museum and other interested organizations and agencies to educate the public about the area's cultural and historic heritage through the promotion of walking tours, festivals, online resources, and other means. HP -9. Development projects proposing modifications to or demolitions of historic buildings or resources shall mitigate such impacts.W;,erirna1-Aarchival quality historical documentation shall be required when a building, on an inventory of historic places, cannot be preserved or cannot have significant architectural/historical features retained. Buildings eligible for landmark status shall require the most detailed level of archival documentation and/or measured drawings. !�* 2�f i POLICYELEMENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction and Background ........................C4-1 LandUse...........................................................C4-1 Map 9.2: Districts, Special Planning Areas.......................C4-4 Housing............................................................ C4-7 Capital Facilities ........................................... C4-10 Private Utilities...............................................C4-12 Transportation .............................................. C4-14 Economic Development ............................... C4-16 Parks, Recreation & Open Space.................C4-17 Historic Preservation...............................C4-20 NUK41MMEL�AN INTRODuc-nON AND BACKGROUND Policy elements in the Comprehensive Plan pro- vide a finer level of detail for different subject areas. Policy elements are an extension of the Core Plan and are designed to implement the broad goals, policies, and actions contained herein. Furthermore, the policy elements reflect the vision and values enumerated in the Core Plan. Specific policy elements are the following: land Use Housing Capital Facilities Private Utilities Transportation economic Development Parks, recreation & open Space Historic Preservation In this section, each policy element is identified and described. The Core Plan provides the foundation upon which each policy element is built. Broad goals that relate to each value, and general policies and actions that will guide us to our vision of Auburn in 2035, are also included. LAND USE Goals 1. Character. Buildings and developments are planned and constructed using innovative architectural and site layout techniques that emphasize social interaction and safety. 2. Wellness: Residential, commercial, and recreational areas of the City are joined by a system of trails and paths to lessen reliance upon the use of vehicles. 3. Service: Residents are aware of the City's vision, have access to policies and information, and feel that they have a voice in the outcome of future land use proposals. 4. Economy: A robust mix of uses and options makes living, working, and shopping in Auburn desirable. 5. Celebration: Neighborhoods and districts have been identified and are distinguishable through the use of signs, marketing materials, and subarea plans. 6. Environment: Our rivers, streams, wetlands, habitats, and other natural resources are identified, preserved, and protected for future generations. 7. Sustainability: Land use activities and developments incorporate low -impact development, energy efficient buildings, crime prevention through environmental design and other sustainable development practices. Desoription The Land Use Element is the focal element of the Core Plan, and is supported by all other elements of the Plan. It illustrates where the community should or should not develop, the anticipated scale and intensity of development, and how various land uses relate to each other. The Land Use Element lays the foundation for what the com- munity will look like, how it will change and grow, and where different types of land activities will be established. Auburn's overall existing land use pattern is checkered, somewhat random, and disconnected. Much of this is due to the manner in which Auburn expanded over the last 20 years. The annexation of Lakeland Hills absorbed a community with wide landscaped thoroughfares, contemporary architecture, and a more affluent demographic. The West Hill and Lea Hill annexations brought relatively rural lands with a wide mix of residential densities and rural levels of infrastructure, whose residents feel a stronger attachment to the commercial centers located outside of Auburn. To the southeast, Auburn transitions into a community with an entirely different character. The area along Auburn Way South passes back and forth C4-1 City of Auburn Comprehensive plan HISTORIC PRESERVATION Goals Character: Auburn enhances its uniqueness by emphasizing its history through the recognition and preservation of its past. Wellness: Through the recognition of and maintaining a connection with its past, Auburn strengthens its identity as it moves into the future. Service: We protect, preserve, recover, and rehabilitate significant archaeological resources and historic sites commensurate with the importance of the resource. Economy: The City builds on the advantages of the City's unique historical and cultural resources to promote local investment. Celebration: Auburn is distinguished by preservation, recognition, and celebration of its local identity and history to visitors and residents. Environment: Our care for and protection of rivers, streams, wetlands, hillsides and other environmental resources provides an ongoing connection with our natural history and its relationship to the built environment Sustainability: The city's historic and cultural resources are valued and treated in a manner which contributes to the vibrancy of the community. Sustainability is promoted as the adaptive re -use of existing structures as opposed to new construction. Description Historic preservation is the recognition and valuing of past built environment in an effort to tie a place's history to its population and culture. It is also an essential component to preen building in that it reuses structures that are already present as opposed to new construction. Additionally historic preservation can help a city become more competitive because historic unique buildings give areas more prominence and interest when compared to the homogeneous pattern of same age development. Historic community buildings neighborhoods, and landscapes embody the intentions, assumptions, and lives of those who built or lived or worked in them. They have stories to tell about what the community was and how it became what it is and that help us understand who we are. Preserving those stories can be an important part of building a healthy community. This section of the Plan will help to define the City's goals and policies in maintaining and celebrating community history by maintaining the buildings and other elements of the community that are linked to it. Policies 1. The City shall encourage the protection, preservation, recovery and rehabilitation of significant archaeological resources and historic sites. City staff should be adequately trained to recognize significant resources or should have ready access to professionals who do. 2. The City should develop a Historic Preservation Plan to identify and protect City historic resources. The historic site and building inventory should be updated as part of this plan, and made readily accessible to the public. The City should amend existing historic preservation codes and incentives as needed to implement the C4-20 Historic Preservation Plan. PolicyElements 3. The City shall consider the impacts of new development on historical resources as a part OT its environmental review process and require any appropriate mitigating measures. A mitigation fund should be established and maintained for receiving contributions when historic resources are demolished. The fund should be used to further preservation activities within the City. 4. The City should assist appropriate efforts to rehabilitate sites and buildings with unique or significant historic characteristics. 5. Future development in the Downtown area should be sensitive to the character of surrounding buildings and the historical context of the area. Modifications of existing buildings shall consider the appropriate treatment or restoration of historic architectural features. 6. The White River Valley Historical Museum is recognized as the primary repository of historic artifacts which relate to the Citv's historic and cultural heritage. 7. The City recognizes that the region's history began before the arrival of settlers to the area and should accord the same levels of promotion and protection to Native American sites and artifacts as to those of the more recent past. 8. The City should work with the White River Valley Historical Museum and other interested organizations and agencies to educate the public about the area's cultural and historic heritage through the promotion of walking tours. festivals. online resources. and other means. 9. Development projects proposing modifications to or demolitions of historic buildings or resources shall mitigate such impacts. #istef+sa Archival quality historical documentation shall be required when a building, on an inventory of historic places, cannot be preserved or cannot have significant architectural/historical features retained. Buildings eligible for landmark status shall require the most detailed level of archival documentation and/or measured drawings. Historic Preservation Action Plan lead Partners Develop a Historic Preservation Plan including an update to historic site & building inventory. Amend existing historic preservation codes & incentives to implement the Historic Preservation Plan. Moderate Term (2019-2025) CDPW - Community Development CDPW-Community Development C4-21 City Council, Planning Commission, Mayor's Office, City Attorney, CDPW City Council, Planninq Commission, Mayor's Office, City Attorney, CDPW 'y1N 0 NII he Comprehensive Plan land use map provides a broad overview of the City's land use designations and the distribution of land uses throughout the City. For size considerations, the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map is not included here, but interested parties may access a PDF of the full map at the City website: www.auburnwa.gov/compplan A GIS version of the map with built-in GIS viewer may also be accessed on the City website: GIS map showing parcels, zoning. land use, water features, and parks (https:Hgoo.gI/lSjTjS) A fully detailed version of the map can also be viewed at the City's planning departmentdu ring regular business hours. Maps included in the Core Plan (Sections 1 -4)1 -a444 -Volume 1 — Land Use Element, and Volume 8 — Historic Preservation Element are the: Comprehensive Land Use Map (no. 1.1); Districts Map (no. 1.2); Designated Areas Map (no. 1.3); Adopted Areas Map (no. 1.4); 5. Impression Corridors Map (no. 1.5); and 6. Gateways Map (no. 1.6) ✓J. Historical Landmark and Registry ReInventory (no. 8.1) SUPPLEMENTARY DEPORTS Owing to their extensive volume, the appendices to the City's Comprehensive Plan are not printed here but can be accessed in PDF form from the City's website: www.au bu rnwa. gov/ com pplan Appendix A - Auburn Community Vision Report Appendix B -Auburn Housing Needs and Characteristics Assessment Appendix C -Auburn Housing Element Checklist Appendix D - Auburn Health Impact Assessment Appendix E - Auburn Public Participation Plan Appendix F.1- King County Buildable Lands Analysis Appendix F.2 - Pierce County Buildable LandsAnalysis Appendix G - Auburn Airport MasterPlan Appendix H - Auburn Community Profile Appendix I -Auburn Greenhouse Gas Inventory Appendix J - Parks, Arts & Recreation Open Space Plan Appendix K — City of Auburn Ten -Year Economic Development Strategic Plan too POLICY/TEXT (P/T) AMENDMENTS (CPA18-0002) P/T #9 - Amend Volume 1, "Land Use Element" of the Comprehensive Plan to remove the mapped designation of "Residential Transition Overlay" from the Comprehensive Plan Map and clarify purpose. T-FaRsitieR (DveF! y DesigRatiaR I - .,.d I IrL Transition Designation Description emphasis betty^^^ +,.,^ ,jiff^•^n+'-,,,a use deSigRatieRs. The Transition Designation ViRg establishes policies and guidance aFe ORteRded to provide a basis for future development of zoning and other regulatory tools to manage and reduce impacts from proximity of boundaries between sharper differences of intensity in land uses and is meant to apply city-wideensur2 that s^^^^+h ^d betty^^„ diff^ „ laird uses +h. gh„ .+ the -Qty. Designation Criteria The Designation should apply to aAreas ShOWR ^^ the GeFnpr^heRsive °',^ land use Fnap that are located between single-family and multifamily land use designations; between multifamily and nonresidential land use designations; and between single-family and nonresidential land use designations. Implementing Designations T-FaRSi+i^^ n„^.lo„ All „ d^SigRat-i,.^S The Designation and implementing zoning and other regulatory tools shall generally aDDly to the more intense land use designation. Policies LU -116 Between single-family and multifamily land use designations: a. Where a multifamily use is proposed to be located adjacent to a single-family zone, the multifamily use will bear the burden of providing an adequate transition of land use. Mitigating measures that control light, noise, and dust should be incorporated into multifamily development proposals. b. Provide non motorized access through the site in order to connect the adjacent land uses. c. Housing size, type, and orientation shall be utilized as a means of providing harmonious transition of the built environment. d. Provide a mix of townhomes, duplexes, cottage housing and small-scale multifamily housing. LU -117 Between multifamily and non-residential a. Where a non-residential use is proposed to be located adjacent to a multifamily zone, the non-residential use will bear the burden of providing an adequate transition of land use. Mitigating measures that control light, noise, and dust should be incorporated into nonresidential development proposals. b. Provide non -motorized access through the site in order to connect the adjacent land uses. c. Provide a mix of townhomes, duplexes, cottage housing and small-scale multifamily housing. LU -118 Between single-family and non-residential: a. Where a non-residential use is proposed to be located adjacent to a single-family zone, the non-residential use will bear the burden of providing an adequate transition of land use. Mitigating measure that control light, noise, and dust should be incorporated into nonresidential development proposals. b. Provide non -motorized access through the T"'^'`°'i^"' Q„.,e -,,, site in order to connect the adjacent land uses.