Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
6489
ORDINANCE NO. 6 4 8 9 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO PLANNING; ADOPTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AND TEXT AMENDMENTS PURSUANTTO THE PROVISIONS OF RCW CNAPTER 36.70A WHEREAS, on August 18, 1986, the City Council of the City of Auburn adopted a Gomprehensive Plan by Resolution� No. 1703 which includes a Map establishing the location of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations throughout the City; and WHEREAS, on April 17, 1995, the Aubum City Council adopted Comprehensive Plan Amendments by Resolution No. 2635 to comply with the Washington State Growth Managemerit Act; and WHEREAS, on September 5, 1995, the Aubum City Council reaffirmed that actiom by its adoption of Ordinance No. 4788; and WHEREAS, the Ciry of Aubum published in the Seattle Times Newspaper an advertisement that the City was accepting comprehensive plan amendment applica4ions and established a deadline for submittal of June7, 2013; and WHEREAS, the City of Aubum received two privately-initiated map amendments (File Nos. CPA13-0001 8 CPA13-0002); and WHEREAS, the City of Aubum initiated one map amendment and six text/policy amendments (File No. CPA13-0003); and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan map and texUpolicy amendments were processed by the Planning and Development Department as proposed Year 2013 amendmeMs to the City of Aubum Comprehensive Plan; and Ordinance No. 6489 November2l, 2013 Page 1 WHEREAS, maintaining a currenY Capital Facilities Plan is required of the City in order to meet regulations of the Growth Management Act under RCW 36.70A; and WHEREAS, the environmental impacts of the proposed Year 2013 Comprehensive Plan amendments were considered in accordance with procedures of the State Environmentaf Policy Act (File No. SEP13-0028); and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments were transmitted to the Washington State Department of Commerce, Growth Management Senrices Division and other State agenciesfior 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 hearing, the Autium Planning Commission on October 22, 2013, conducted a public hearing on the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, at the public hearing the Aubum Gity Planning Commission heard and considered the public testimony and the evidence and exhibits presented to it; and WHEREAS, the Aubum City Planning Commission thereafter made recommendations to the City Council on the proposed Year 2013 Comprehensive Plan map and text amendments; and WHEREAS, on November 12, 2013, the Planning and Community Development Committee of the Auburn City Council reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendations; and WHEREAS, on November 18, 2013, the Public Works Committee of the Aubum City Council reviewedthe Planning Commission's recommendations; and WHEREAS, on November 25, 2013, the Planning and Community Development Committee of the Aubum City Council made a recommendation to the City Council; and Ordinance No. 6489 November2l, 2013 Page 2 WHEREAS, on December 2, 2013, the Aubum City Council considered the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments as recommended by the City of Auburn Planning Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The 2013 Comprehensive Plan city-initiated Map Amendment. (CPA13-0003) is adopted and approved as set forth in Exhibit "A" as attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The City Clerk shall file Exhibit "A" along with this Ordinance and keep them available for public inspection. Section 2. The 2013 Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments (CPA13-OOU3), including the amendments to the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan (Chapters 3, "Land Use"; Chapter S, "Economic Development"; and Chapter 14, "Comprehensive Plan Map"), are adopted and approved as set forth in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The City Clerk shall file Exhibit "B" along wRh this Ordinance and keep them available for public inspection. The full text of the Capital Facilities Plan of the City and the four school districYs Capital Facilities Plans are adopted with the City's Comprehensive Plan, copies of which shall be on file with the Office of the City Clerk. The City Clerk shall file them along with this Ordinance and keep them available for public inspection. Council adopts both the Planning Commission's recommendations, dated October 22, 2013, and the findings and conclusions outlined in the November 20, 2013, staff report, attached as Exhibit "C". Section 3. Application CPA13-0001, Wesley Homes Lea Hill, LLC Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, requesting a land use designation change from ------------------------- Ordinance No. 6489 November 21, 2013 Page 3 "Single Family Residential" to "Publia and Quasi-Public" for three properties identified by parcel numbers: 1721059007, 1721059109, and 1721059253 is approved as set forth in Exhibit "D° attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Council adopts both the Planning Commission's October 22, 2013 recommendations, and the findings and conclusions outlined in the November 20, 2013, staff report, both attached as Exhibit "C". Section 4. Application CPA13-0002, Fonpee, LLC and Edwin Stanberry Property Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, requesting a land use designation change from "Heavy Commercial" to "Light Industria�" for portions of two properties identified by parcel numbers: 0221049098 and 0221049077 is approved as set forth in Exhibit "E" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Council adopts both the Planning Commission's October 22, 2013 recommendations, and the findings and coriclusions outlined in the November 20, 2013, staff report, both attached as Exhibit uC��. Section 5. The 2013 Comprehensive Plan amendments modify the Comprehensive Plan adopted on August 18, 1986, by Resolution No. 1703 and adopted by Ordinance No. 4788 on September 5, 1995. Section 6. The adopted Comprehensive Plan as amended is designated as a basis for the exercise of substantive au4hority under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act by the City's responsible environmental official in accordance with RCW. 43.21 C.060. Section 7. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance or any of the Comprehensive Plan amendments adopted herein, is for any Ordinance No. 6489 November2l, 2013 Page 4 reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any Court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shail be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision, and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 8. 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 hereto as ExhibR "A", Exhibit "B", Exhibit "C", F�chibit "D" and Exhibit"E" preparing and publishing the amended Comprehensive Plan. DEC 2 2013 INTRODUCED: PASSED: APPROVED: 2 2013 _�!+ r Peter B. Lewis MAYOR ATTEST: ��� ��� Danielle E. Daskam, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Danie . Heid, City Attomey < Published: �/Lr'�a..��er�5���.-�--�%���`,�"'�"� Ordinance No. 6489 November 21, 2013 Page 5 Exhibit A Colored map which is a detail of Map No 14. 1. "Comprehensive Plan", showing the change from "High Density Residential' to "Light Commercial" for three parcels identified by Parcel Nos. 2815000020, 2815000010, and 2121059073. (Please see "Comp. Plan Map Amendments" tab in the working binder) -------------------------- Ordinance No 6489 November 21, 2013 Page 6 2013 Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment Map CPA 13-0003 - EXISTING - �_I�I TN 1J 3Y-YL W� SG W_ IA i I TI:III'RT'\l'Tl V W I w -PROPOSED W i � s. �nsn-sr-Ye—n nsr rah 2 °0 tee 240 370 400 Existing Land Use Single-Family Residential Neighborhood Commercial Light Industrial Auburn City Limits /9s - -- 11 , ���t� � - Proposed Land Use Moderate Density Residential - Light Commercial Heavy Industrial '� Parcels i'nn:edoo ornl; w��:. NaF ID A:AG Land Use Designations High Density Residential � Heavy Commercial Public and Quasi-Public Inlmmanon eho�+n a r..e+nu.J miornu..... +. Residential Conservency e<o`,,,,d d+K.poi::r...+ll:a+«•r+�+an gal.: a on Office Residential Downtown Open Space <.I,I,I n�a•I,m I�„n..II. �.�I++IIII,.�.I,•II,,,.,,,..,. Exhibit B The Auburn, Dieringer, Federal Way and Kent School District Capital Facilities Plans, City of Auburn Capital Facilities Plan, Amendments to the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan, • Chapters 3, "Land Use" • Chapter 8, "Economic Development" and • Chapter 14, "Comprehensive Plan Map" (See "Comp. Plan Policy/Text Amendments" tab in the working binder) -------------------------- Ordinance No. 6489 November 21, 2013 Page 7 Auburn School District No. 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2013 through 2019 �.:i+. r`c. ,�•:• �y: � tyF'Rw-`y, �'�n� ,.��.. /°f.f=�.+a�f•�.'�•,>'_ ��!'f Adopted by the Auburn School District Board of Directors May 28, 2013 AUBURN 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 Janice Nelson Ray Vefik Lisa Connors Carol Seng Anne Baunach Dr Dennis Kip Herren, Superintendent Table of Contents Section I Executive Summary . . Page 1 Section II Enrollment Projections Page 6 Section III Standard of Service Page 8 Section IV Inventory of Facilities Page 15 Section V Pupil Capacity Page 19 Section VI Capital Construction Plan Page 22 Section VII Impact Fees. Page 26 Section VIII Appendices Page 30 Appendix A.1 - Student Enrollment Projections Page 31 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 2013 through 2019 Section I Executive Summary Auburn School District No. 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2013 through 2019 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 2013. 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, the 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-2 should not exceed 25 students; class size for grades 3-4 should not exceed 27 students; class size for grade 5 should not exceed 30 students. When averaged over the six elementary grades, this computes to 26.5 students per classroom. Class size for grades 6-12 should not exceed 30 students, with some subject areas restricted to lesser numbers. (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 2012-13 capacity was 13,506 The actual number of individual students was 14,596 as of October 1, 2012. (See Section V for more specific information.) 2 The Capital Construction Plan shown in Section VI addresses the additions and proposed modernization to the District's existing facilities. This provided for a new high school, Auburn Mountainview, approved by the voters in February 2003 and opened in September 2005, and the addition of two new elementary schools approved by the voters in February 2005, with Lakeland Hills Elementary opening in the Fall of 2006 and Arthur Jacobsen Elementary opening in the Fall of 2007 The plan includes the construction of a new middle school and a new elementary school, as well as the acquisition of a future school site to accommodate growth. The new facilities are required to meet the projected student population increase to be generated from the large development areas within the Auburn School District. Three areas that have significant impact on the school district are the Lakeland South, the Lea Hill, and the north Auburn valley areas of the district. There are other pockets of development that impact the District as well. The City of Kent has an area of approximately 158 acres that was sold to developers in 2004 The economic downturn has slowed development in these areas, but recent new construction is beginning to pick back up The District completed a comprehensive review of all district facilities and 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 not successful 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 school 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 school board determined to rerun the bond again in November of 2012. In November 2012 the bond passed at 62% and construction for the Auburn High School Modernization and Reconstruction Project began on February 25, 2013 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. This Plan uses the student generation factors for multi-family in 2012. Due to the dramatic changes in the numbers for 2013, the District plans to carefully monitor the numbers over the next year 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; and to integrate 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 Auburn School District No.408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2013 through 2019 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Listed below is a summary level outline of the changes from the 2012 Capital Facilities Plan that are a part of the 2013 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. Increase of 1 structured learning classroom at elementary level. B Increase of 10 full-day kindergarten classrooms at elementary level. Section IV Inventory of Facilities A. Add 2 portables at Auburn Mountainview High School. B Add 2 portables at Lakeland Hills Elementary C Remove 5 portables at Auburn High School due to the Auburn High School Modernization and Reconstruction Project. Section V Pupil Capacity Reduction in student capacity with removal of 1 portable overall. 4 Auburn School District No.408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2013 through 2019 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Section VII Impact Fees CHANGES TO IMPACT FEE DATA ELEMENTS 2012 to 2013 CPF CPF DATA ELEMENTS 2012 2013 EXPLANATION Student Generation Factors Single Family Consistent with King County Ordinance 11621, Elementary 0.2610 0.2270 Student Generation Factors are calculated Mid School 0.1300 0.0850 by the school district based on district Sr High 0 1340 0.1290 records of average actual student generation Multi-Family rates for new developments constructed Elementary 0.1720 0 1720 over the last five years. Mid School 0.0700 0.0700 Sr High 0.0900 0.0960 Multi-Family data uses 2012 information. School Construction Costs Elementary $21,750,000 $25,000,000 Updated estimates for 2013 Middle School $42,500,000 $48,800,000 Updated estimates for 2013 Site Acquisition Costs Cost per acre $326,827 $308,155 Updated estimate on land costs. Area Cost Allowance eoeckh index $188.55 $188.55 Updated to projected SPI schedule (July 2012) Match % -State 58.49% 59.19% Updated to current SPI schedule. Match %- District 41.51% 40.81% Computed District Average AV Single Family $223,057 $199,919 Updated from March 2013 King County Dept of Assessments data. Multi-Family $68,902 $75,278 Updated from March 2013 King County Dept of Assessments data using weighted average. Debt Sery Tax Rate $0.98 $2.11 Current Fiscal Year GO Bond Int Rate 3.84% 3.74% Current Rate (Bond Buyers 20 Index 3-13) Section VIII Appendices Appendix A.1 - Updated enrollment projections from October 1, 2012 Appendix A.2 - Updated enrollment projections with anticipated buildout schedule from March 2013. Appendix A 3 -Student Generation Survey March 2013 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Auburn School District No 408 Capital Facilities Plan 2013 through 2019 Section II Enrollment Projections Auburn School Distnct No.408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2013 through 2019 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 6 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 March 2013 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 GRADE Actual Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected KDG 1098 1127 1158 1191 1226 1256 1285 1 1089 1150 1182 1215 1250 1280 1309 2 1083 1105 1169 1202 1237 1267 1296 3 1111 1092 1117 1182 1216 1246 1275 4 1038 1149 1133 1160 1227 1257 1286 5 1070 1059 1 1174 1159 1188 1250 1279 K- 5 6489 6682 6932 7109 7343 7557 7731 6 1041 1081 1073 1189 1176 1200 1261 7 1086 1065 1108 1101 1219 1202 1224 8 1017 1093 1075 1119 1114 1227 1208 6 -8 3144 3239 3255 3410 3509 3628 3694 9 1200 1221 1302 1287 1336 1329 1442 10 1278 1205 1230 1313 1301 1344 1336 11 1164 1266 1197 1223 1308 1290 1333 12 1321 1206 1312 1246 1275 1355 1336 9- 12 4963 4898 5041 5069 5220 5319 5447 TOTALS 14,596 14,820 15,228 15,588 16,072 16,504 16,871 GRADES K-12 Actual Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected K-5 w/K @ 112 5940 6119 6353 6513 6730 6929 7089 6-8 3144 3239 i 3255 3410 3509 3628 3694 9-12 4963 4898 5041 5069 5220 5319 5447 K-12 WK @ 112 14,047 14,256 14,649 14,992 15,459 15,876 1619 Note: The District is currently operating Full Day Kindergarten in eleven schools. This includes two state funded Full Day Kindergartens at two elementary schools. The State projects to fully implement Full-Day Kindergarten by 2018 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Auburn School District No 408 Capital Facilities Plan 2013 through 2019 Section III Standard of Service Auburn School District No.408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2013 through 2019 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 relocatab/e 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 6,489 students in grades K through 5 For Kindergarten students, 592 of the 1,098 attend 1/2 days throughout the year and 5,491 students grades 1 through 5, plus 506 kindergartners, attend on a full day basis When converted to full time equivalents, the K-5 enrollment is 6,193 The four middle schools house 3,144 students in grades 6 through 8. The District operates three comprehensive senior high schools and one alternative high school, housing 4,963 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 26.5 students per teacher Consistent with this staffing limit, room capacities are set at 26.5 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 nine classrooms to provide for 84 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 ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR The Auburn School District operates an adaptive behavior program for students with behavior disabilities at the elementary school level The program uses one classroom to provide for seven students. The housing requirements for this program exceed the SPI space allocations by one classroom. Loss of Permanent Capacity 1 room @ 26.5 each = (27) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 26.5 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss (27) 9 Aubum School District No 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2013 through 2019 STANDARD OF SERVICE 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 Fourteen standard classrooms are required to house this program The housing requirements for this program exceed the SPI space guidelines by seven standard classrooms. Continued loss of capacity is expected as growth in program is larger than the total elementary population. Loss of Permanent Capacity 7 rooms @ 26.5 each = (186) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 26.5 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss (186) NATIVE AMERICAN RESOURCE ROOM The Auburn School District operates two resource rooms to support the education of Native American students at the elementary level. Two standard classrooms are fully dedicated to serve these students. Loss of Permanent Capacity 2 rooms @ 26.5 each = (53) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 26.5 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss (53) 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 @ 26.5 each = (80) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 26.5 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss (80) EARLY CHILDHOOD SPECIAL EDUCATION The Auburn School District operates a pre-school program for young children with disabilities below age five. This program is housed at seven different elementary schools and currently uses 10 standard classrooms.The housing requirements for this program are not provided for in the SPI space guidelines. Loss of Permanent Capacity 10 rooms @ 26.5 each = (265) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 26.5 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss (265) 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 @ 26.5 each = (106) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 26.5 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss (106) 10 Auburn School District No 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2013 through 2019 STANDARD OF SERVICE MUSIC ROOMS The District elementary music programs require one acoustically modified classroom at each elementary school for music instruction. The housing requirements are not provided for In the SPI space guidelines. Loss of Permanent Capacity 14 rooms @ 26.5 each = (371) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 26.5 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss (371) ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE PROGRAM The Auburn School District operates a pullout program at the elementary school level for students learning English as a second language. This program requires fourteen standard classrooms that are not provided for in the SPI space guidelines. Loss of Permanent Capacity 14 rooms @ 26.5 each = (371) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 26.5 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss (371) 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 @ 26.5 each = (212) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 26.5 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss (212) 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 I-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 @ 26 5 each = (371) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 26.5 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss (371) FULL DAY KINDERGARTEN The Auburn School District provides Full-Day Kindergarten programs to increase academic skills for kindergarten students. This program model has been created from tuition, Title I funds and currently there are two schools receiving state funding for 2012-13 school year The district Is utilizing 26 classrooms at eleven of the fourteen elementary schools. Housing requirements exceed the OSPI space guidelines for this program by 13 classrooms. Loss of Permanent Capacity 13 rooms @ 26.5 each = (345) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 26.5 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss (345) 11 Auburn School District No.408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2013 through 2019 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 Eight classrooms are required at the middle school level to provide for approximately 316 students. The housing requirements for this program are not entirely provided for in the SPI space guidelines. ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR 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 middle schools and uses one classroom. The housing requirements for this program are provided for in the SPI space allocations. 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. Three 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) MIDDLE SCHOOL COMPUTER LABS The Auburn School District operates a minimum of one computer lab at each middle school. This program utilizes a standard classroom per middle school. 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 AS A SECOND LANGUAGE The Auburn School District operates a pullout program at the middle school level for students learning English as a second language This program requires four standard classrooms that 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) 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 12114/11 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) 12 Auburn School District No 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2013 through 2019 STANDARD OF SERVICE SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS 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 AS A SECOND LANGUAGE The Auburn School District operates a pullout program at three comprehensive high schools for students learning English as a second language. This program requires three standard classrooms that are not provided for in the SPI space guidelines Loss of Permanent Capacity 3 rooms @ 30 each = (90) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 30 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss (90) ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR SPECIAL EDUCATION The Auburn School District offers a self-contained program for students with moderate to severe behavior diabilitles. The program Is housed at one of the high schools and uses one classroom. The housing requirements for this program are not 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 PROGRAM The Auburn School District operates nine structured learning center classrooms for students with moderate to severe disabilities. 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) 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 10 classrooms to provide program to meet educational needs of the students. The SPI space guidelines provide for one of the 10 teaching stations. Loss of Permanent Capacity 9 rooms @ 30 each = (270) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 30 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss (270) 13 Auburn School District No.408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2013 through 2019 STANDARD OF SERVICE 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) STANDARD OF SERVICE COMPUTED TOTALS ELEMENTARY Loss of Permanent Capacity= (2,387) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 Total Capacity Loss (2,387) MIDDLE SCHOOL Loss of Permanent Capacity = (570) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 Total Capacity Loss (570) SENIOR HIGH Loss of Permanent Capacity= (1,300) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 Total Capacity Loss (1,300) TOTAL Loss of Permanent Capacity= (4,257) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 Total Capacity Loss (4,257) 14 Auburn School District No 408 Capital Facilities Plan 2013 through 2019 Section IV Inventory of Facilities Auburn School District No.408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2013 through 2019 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 District School Facilities IV 1 @ OSPI Rated Capacity (December 2012) Building Capacity Acres Address Elemental Schools Washington Elementary 486 540 20 E Street Northeast,Auburn WA, 98002 Terminal Park Elementary 408 6.70 1101 D Street Southeast,Auburn WA, 98002 Dick Scobee Elementary 477 1050 1031 14th Street Northeast,Auburn WA, 98002 Pioneer Elementary 441 830 2301 M Street Southeast,Auburn WA, 98002 Chinook Elementary 440 875 3502 Auburn Way South,Auburn WA, 98092 Lea Hill Elementary 450 1000 30908 124th Avenue Southeast,Auburn WA,98092 Gildo Rey Elementary 551 1000 1005 37th Street Southeast,Auburn WA,98002 Evergreen Heights Elem. 456 809 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 Ilalko Elementary 585 1200. 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 132 Street SE,Auburn WA,98092 ELEM CAPACITY 7,138 Middle Schools Cascade Middle School 829 1730 2 115 24th Street Northeast, Auburn WA, 98002 Olympic Middle School 921 17 40 1825 K Street Southeast,Auburn WA, 98002 Rainier Middle School 843 2633 30620 116th Avenue Southeast,Auburn WA,98092 Mt Baker Middle School 837 3088 620 37th Street Southeast, Auburn WA,98002 MS CAPACITY 3,430 Senior Hic In Schools West Auburn High School 233 510 401 West Main Street, Auburn WA,98001 Auburn Senior High 2,101 18 60 800 Fourth Street Northeast,Auburn WA, 98002 Auburn Riverside HS 1,387 33.00 501 Oravetz Road,Auburn WA, 98092 Auburn Mou ntainview HIS 1,443 40.00 28900 124 in Ave SE,Auburn WA,98092 SH CAPACITY 5,164 TOTAL CAPACITY 15,732 16 R]aW + ra�-,1���� .J�� � ' �L' .1^ •j ! •_.y„•y.•,n t p•rf' � ` i _ I�n, � �� is t+�� •?•x w�s.�•` r �' � '� Y .°v+a.a� a'_ a - 6 .w_ �`�., �° ,� �1��. •' �• .an: � ` Y u f'� •°q ly. ` f j`(( ` 1°°° �'%' • y �•IpK y Y y , ' :. s �J .s s�a���, ..air` " - - + ' as / 66 Kl ,. i S b ) 3a. -{ . i °.'Slcd_ ���" tL"J'.:.: - - ;�°t .i/ � �';C+. / ,- -.�i •. �n'�� .� ��'� '`-^' - ' /'^ w �' l' -t7 ■_ __ © t ,�r Ja. ,c. i 6, I a i , Z. �` v..d r 61 7 cl .�� _ __ t_ a�_ .- LaPe !• a �-,_•Y G' �a _ � ' 11 I i _�' � � y e I ,' .d 1 \xx^r �"( i,`. `_ -. i •}. �� "`y �,{• 9 _ a J._ _ __ - � `y1; ] � � ' _ _ �: �y_ _ 1 3 of TL_ �" � , �z4: [ t_ � a_� �� • � Y1 ff tS �,� "l.._i/t ,•� rjkq. ,`^.L , I.-+-�'-aa _ _ a .1 � " �; A _- - -;°'•°.1 � , 1�1�_� r�>�� I , � ' = f •� I ~ ..7. yd���l.k��{ ,� a � �`•a_Y _.i- � � `�' s� .rY�/c n�r$gpsF - lt,.._. rt. 1- '! �r it i r �ss t �t1 •a�'°„t f *(�,''��.+•h -�1'J S� ' ��Yl \ ' r a c•'( } :..a rr'" ,' I 1 ,.. I a _�{� � , .Efrs _ I .L• ry e• ! 3 �(t. .,.. _ _ a. � _ _ ��fps d.Ys�.'x�a •� �I ... J 1L _ ..dskt ..w• _ � l- ' -Ft- a�Y�aq°�_Mr _ � r 3-�' - (y Y�l-- ��\f , r lY. _•"R. , '- - _�� "rOd lT' _ f ,.�?r ,"�,4s&'.n9p Z�4na I - c..ccc _ 4. "r '' CIn , -`1'.:x;Z: ✓\ pall f .b i. �" '4 +•a`\,T°= a.n _ •, RYIY c Q .. _I CNI ivae , ( •mi '.- • ]`° 't ;��S.y¢" �`,]7: _ � /`$H• I 1 � I ; .� ri .•?Y. `•\t °F, r � ry;` �. 7- -•--- 'r`- - F --_�- --� •a � �' �Y - iy7$9.�.'�� `-r�� '•^ '-t� !A'`I +i�+ { �. .a] •�• `7 '7 i' , - i ti"r - �(1 y `� + y t l"`3-�'"r b �-,,.,� 4 a{r+' �n. ,�•- T.. Vaasa• f . f J � � .;b a � � 1 • , o� •• �!! °I.�\!f , ! fr. I..a '•�\ r _a�+l ��)){:l � I \.x+' �1£'. a 1..1�.a_ � `�» i 9 �a�i • � � R +y�'. I_� _a c _ _ • ' I � �j.� •) i f ' � K { a f Y I}f n ti } I �' �_,&-_lt✓ss_��--,_ _�1_ !- _ • ° �I 1 -F 1-� . -.l - nw 1 �_LL I !y •J � S I -� _i••' �� !\ t tl : 4• t ,i9cr II s _ p. ,1 °`...-.C✓�`�l ..xl �� ala. I �\`I� 1'1y il°r�.' \ - ��,r t i •._k,`r w o..e'jIN I r g _t. _l a______ _ , t�-a _�._ �_�.�j'• " tl ! % •� '� - 1 ye•`wa 1' •._\ / � •. r a �i um I a ;'�� ` I z'1 ��� 1� 1i � z /� 1 i; ..d "� #. `�•� ! UL �` 1 ) ., � ' 'r I] la. � li I a to ;BLACK •IA�' ;"� , r i l:+ >L-.., y •�! (�_/ _ *' =—' -- �I1 R p :T" � _ J. i _ Pbc9 D Ineij> /J� sr w p :\� ti • d�/�n'k� j. � � ruf` B � d f - c@.',i � t� � LA• L, f ��- r �.A� (���"°•a'°" _ 4.1 � � � � 1Y� i, �l ,�3� �t � T/ ) / B 1 1 _" � a_� a � J• .J A[� '` •y 1f_� !► � - _ - i 6>I1CRI1SMI s \ \� _ ___ ¢>„-`--t,j -ct�.'.�` c ]Y_ _ _�+'•ff nt V c � I ✓ k, � DI - a+ a wt_ x M..• r 4 Hl .I ., /h ds.1.. �"- Y I i7 /...:,. �� r r, � �. - -a / a sm t _. 1._ •y A(1 _ .I ,�`t �l li 4 s �Laa + 1_ sS�^ 1 1. .fJV../ � -1 t.� ^'A•^• 1 7 I IL sYK.�"\Y t h, I U �\ �{s • a� J � k n n I w +. .. .,.; . i I T V• fti"-t'i \ �-r 1 PaG}' � ".1 �1 �, J y � a � �. Lvj a" ` _- Ij '�:• • Y✓+^,I :'� _ t I ., 1 !' �` I_ .�__f / I .../ ;r'ti,� a` ]ue. r.J .._ _ .i< 7s, ... I, �.. �`v� '�)�t ':. i. t• Rlek� �^�4 it ._`A _ + ..-v - • l,-"5C.`,e" s,� - I L ] 1,r ^'. .I• L_ �y i 'Yat4.zq lk •._ r � PI 1 '• a ! -1',( !"` ��."dt t.;� `I I� � � �Y..�M.e � fne { ?j _ ' 1 , Y J t R_n ...\ �r' �; .•w y�'�i � �� - R 7 'i l�� 1 I I I yc v_a t, .. AIIMaYa• ` __ _ _ _-_ _ _ i 'dt `\ - • AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT 408 ' 1>L Y.�� I tt 7-Y .jy• I a 'i ' !n! 1. `�, 11 • I � T ` •( 1 rr"m a. 1 �1, .. 1;J 7� •r�. - -•di.. -- ' -_ � .I �..---r -�-�-s�'wten`I°fi .. / •�rra'orinrr•r�.aa •wnr W�"•"iea •r'°.`o�.v uo-� _•�. -:rt.' A I I k r— -ay18-aatil ' � � .r 1/: •f v `tit � 7� a II �n�.sr •�r•rr �....�s -�,ii.. I i y f I' � \ i.- I ���.' w .{�. �4 �. �k 1 �' e � - - _ -- 6 •w,'�"•°u.,ae� �.�wo�Y.W ate.�K. r'Ya • t] \ r � `"o..`C yx LSNCOT al]YAN ,,J •r..f LLrw ao..mm.`um 6 .".�:.`.'w rir•m �: '( S ' y`u _ ' aanaf��Yf �f��WrW labfaWm '%a' i _ a• I i r•.n �.Y sxk .L 47• .00 I •",:aa�® +m 1 w _' �_�.. ,�.4 - `Qa� \ ! YY•T•al• A Y l� Y.z@ mw•m r.u� S� �-I. .. ! I ' ? ` 31 .I I i' �/ ~�-\� s •'', ` ' •.n Ik3fAWTAY/ y, •rr�rrr �+.a®.a�. �irw..ur 'r°]•M YI � W I _�� - ^w t1 , � I] i.. . - - - i •s.r�W ••f B•w.W �mrornm f f t r POs ; .•r ...am .. .11� 1 � I I i •r�W •...+.ma,m rr.maa E E� {�m�0 /�/t ; '.rL_r i_- �{n � ] �•+{�_ � a _ •` ._ ` _ �>_ _ �' ¢ � ,e a• -•a�"'• Wr.a✓•nm � ®`. Auburn School District No.408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2013 through 2019 INVENTORY OF FACILITIES TABLE TEMPORARYIRELOCATABLE IV.2 FACILITIES INVENTORY (March 2013) Elementary Location 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 Washington 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Terminal Park 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Dick Scobee 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Pioneer 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Chinook 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Lea Hill 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Gildo Rey 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Evergreen Heights 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 Alpac 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Lake View 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Hazelwood 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ilalko 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Lakeland Hills Elementary 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 Arthur Jacobsen Elementary 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL UNITS 32 34 34 36 36 36 36 TOTAL CAPACITY 848 t, 901 901 954 954 954 954 Middle School Location 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 Cascade 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 Olympic 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 Rainier 5 5 5 7 7 8 8 Mt Baker 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 TOTAL UNITS 13 13 13 15 19 20 20 TOTAL CAPACITY 390 390 390 450 570 600 600 Sr. High School Location 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 West Auburn 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 Auburn High School 12 7 7 0 0 0 0 Auburn High School -'TAP 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Auburn Riverside 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 Auburn Mountainview 0 2 2 2 4 4 4 TOTAL UNITS 26 23 23 16 19 19 19 TOTAL CAPACITY 780 690 690 480 570 570 570 'TAP-Transition Assistance Program for 18-21 year old students with special needs. COMBINED TOTAL UNITS 71 70 70 67 74 75 75 COMBINED TOTAL CAPACITY 2,018 1,981 1,981 1,884 2,094 2,124 2,124 'Note: Reduction of portables at Auburn High School is due to the Auburn High School Modernization and Reconstruction Project. 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Auburn School District No 408 Capital Facilities Plan 2013 through 2019 Section V Pupil Capacity Auburn School District No.408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2013 through 2019 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 unfunded facilities. The combined effect of these adjustments is shown on Line B in Tables V 1 and V.2 below Table V 1 shows the Distict's capacity with relocatable units included and Table V.2 without these units. Table V 1 Capacity WITH relocatables 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 A. SPI Capacity 15,732 15,732 15,732 15,732 15,732 15,732 16,532 A.1 SPI Capacity-New Elem 550 1/ A.2 SPI Capacity- New MS 800 B Capacity Adjustments 2,226 2,289 2,289 2,469 2,409 2,289 2,289 C Net Capacity 13,506 13,443 13,443 13,263 13,323 14,243 14,793 D ASD Enrollment 14,596 14,780 15,196 15,612 16,210 16,655 17,041 3/ E ASD Surplus/Deficit (1,090) (1,337) (1,753) (2,349) (2,887) (2,412) (2,248) CAPACITY ADJUSTMENTS Include Relocatable 2,018 1,981 1,981 1,884 2,094 2,124 2,124 2/ Exclude SOS 14 4,244 4,244 4,244 4,244 4,244 4,244 4,244 Total Adjustments (2,226) (2,289) (2,289) (2,469) (2,409) (2,289) Table V.2 Capacity WITHOUT relocatables 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 A. SPI Capacity 15,732 15,732 15,732 15,732 15,732 15,732 16,532 A.1 SPI Capacity-New Elem 550 11 A.2 SPI Capacity- New MS 800 B. Capacity Adjustments 4,244 4,244 4,244 4,244 4,244 4,244 4,244 C Net Capacity 11,488 11,488 11,488 11,488 11,488 12,288 12,838 D ASD Enrollment 14,596 14,780 15,196 15,612 16,210 16,655 17,041 3/ E. ASD Surplus/Deficit (3,108) (3,292) (3,708) (4,124) (4,722) (4,367) (4,203) CAPACITY ADJUSTMENTS 2/ Exclude SOS 14 4,244 4,244) 4,244 4,244 4,244 (4,244) (4,244 Total Adjustments (4,244) (4,244) (4,244) (4,244) (4,244) (4,244) (4,244) 1/ New facilities shown in 2017-18 and 2018-19 are not funded under the current Capital Facilities Plan 2/ The Standard of Service represents 25.38%of SPI capacity When new facilities are added the Standard of Service computations are decreased to 23.35%of SPI capacity. 3/ Students beyond the capacity are accomodated in other spaces (commons,library,theater, shared teaching space) 20 Auburn School District No.408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2013 through 2019 PERMANENT FACILITIES PUPIL CAPACITY SPI Rated Capacity (March 2013) A. Elementary Schools Building 2012-1312013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 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 Glido 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#15 550 ELEM CAPACITY 7,138 7,138 7,138 7,138 7,138 7,138 7,688 B. Middle Schools Building 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 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#5 800 800 MS CAPACITY 3,430 3,430 3,430 3,430 3,430 4,230 4,230 C Senior High Schools Building 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 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 SH CAPACITY 5,164 5,164 5,164 5,164 5,164 5,164 5,164 COMBINED CAPACITY 1 15,732 1 15,732 15,732 15,732 1 15,732 16,532 17,082 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Auburn School District No 408 Capital Facilities Plan 2013 through 2019 Section VI Capital Construction Plan Aubum School District No 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2013 through 2019 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 a replacement technology levy was 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 on the ballot four times prior to passing in 2003. 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. 23 Aubum School District No 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2013 through 2019 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 school board directed the administration to begin the planning and design for Elementary#13 and Elementary#14 In the Fall of 2004,the Auburn School 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 school 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 school 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 will fund $46.4 million of needed improvement projects at 24 sites over the next seven school years. Planning for the replacement of aging schools has started with educational specifications and schematic design process beginning in 2010 for Auburn High School. A future bond issue will be necessary to fund these projects. The school district acquired a site for a future middle school in 2009 and will need to consider possibilities for a site for elementary school #15. 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%. The groundbreaking occurred in February 2013 and construction has begun. This phased project is scheduled to be completed within the next three years. 24 Auburn school District No 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2013 through 2019 CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION PLAN Within the six-year period, the District is projecting 2366 additional students mostly from new development in the Lakeland, Lea Hill, and north Auburn valley areas. This increase in student population will require the construction of a new middle school and acquiring a new elementary school site and constructing an elementary school during the six-year window Based upon the District's capacity data and enrollment projections, as well as the student generation data included in Appendix A.3, the District has determined that approximately eighty-six percent of the capacity improvements are necessary to serve the students generated from new development, with the remaining additional capacity required to address existing need. 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 and passage of bond issues and/or capital improvement levies. 2013-19 Capital Construction Plan March 2013 Projected Fund Project Timelines Project Funded Cost Source 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 All Facilities - 2006 Technology Yes $12,000,000 6 Year XX Modernization cap Levy Portables Yes $1,200,000 Impact XX XX XX XX XX XX XX Fees 1/ Property Purchase Impact New Elementary No $3,500,000 Fees XX XX XX Multiple Facility Yes $46,400,000 Capital XX XX XX XX XX Improvements Levy Bond XX XX XX 1/ Middle School#5 No $50,700,000 Impact Fee plan const open Bond XX XX XX 1/ Elementar #15 No $27,000,000 Impact Fee plan const open AHS Modernization No $110,000,000 Bond Issue XX XX XX XX 1/ Ian const const open 1/ These funds may be secured through local bond issues,sale of real property,Impact fees,and state matching funds. The District currently Is not eligible for state assistance at the elementary school level for new construction. The district Is eligible for state matching funds for modernization 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Auburn School District No 408 Capital Facilities Plan 2013 through 2019 Section VII Impact Fees Auburn School District No.408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2013 through 2019 IMPACT FEE COMPUTATION(Spring 2013) Middle School#5 within 6 year period Elementary#15 within 6 year period I. SITE COST PER RESIDENCE Formula ((Acres x Cost per AcreyFacihty Size)x Student Factor Site Cost/ Facility Student Generation Factor Cost] Cost/ Acreage Acre Capacity Single Family Multi Family Single Family Multi Family Elem(K-5) 12 $308,155 550 02270 01720 $1,52621 $1,15642 Middle Sch(6-8) 25 $0 800 00850 0.0700 $000 $0.00 Sr High(9-12) 40 $0 1500 01290 0 0960 $0.00 $0.00 $1,526.21 $1,156.42 11. 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 FU Student Generation Factor Cost] Cosy Single Family Cost Size Total Sq Ft Single Family Multi Family Single Family Mul4 Family Floor $27,000,000 550 09653 0.2270 0.7720 $10,75716 $8,15080 Mid Sch(6-8) $50,700,000 800 09653 00850 0.0700 $5,200.05 $4,282.40 Sr High(9-12) $0 1500 09653 01290 00960 $0.00 $000 $15,957.21 $12,433.20 Ill. 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] Single Family Cost Size Total Sq Ft Single Family Multi Family Single Family Multi Family Elem(K-5) $150,000 265 00347 02270 0.1720 $44.56 $33.77 Mid Sch(6-8) $150,000 30 00347 0.0850 0.0700 $1474 $7214 Sr High(9-12) $150,000 30 00347 01290 0.0960 $2237 $16 65 $81.66 $62.55 IV. STATE MATCH CREDIT PER RESIDENCE Formula. (Boeckh Index x SPI Footage x District Match x Student Factor) Boeckh SPI State Student Generation Factor Cost' Cost/ Index Footage Match Single Family Multi Famil Single Family Multi Family Elem(K-5) $188.55 90 5919% 0.2270 0.1720 $2,28004 $7,72761 Mid Sch(6-8) $18855 108 59 19% 0.0850 0.0700 $1,024.51 $84172 Sr High g-12) $000 130 5919% 0.1290 00960 $000 $000 $3,304.56 $2,571.34 27 Auburn School District No.408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2013 through 2019 V TAX CREDIT PER RESIDENCE Formula Expressed as the present value of an annuity TC=PV(interest rate,discount penod,average assd value x tax rate) Ave Resid Curr Dbt Sery Bud Byr Indx Number of Tax Credit Tax Credit Assd Value Tax Rate Ann Int Rate Years Single Family Multi Family Single Family $199,719 $2.11 3.74% 10 $3,462.66 Multi Family $75,278 $211 3.74% 10 F $1,305.14 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 PER UNIT IMPACT FEES RECAP Single Mulh SUMMARY Family Family Site Costs $1,52621 $1,156 42 Permanent Facility Contt Costs $15,95721 $12,43120 Temporary Facility Costs $81 66 $6255 State Match Credit ($3,304.56) ($2,571.34) Tax Credit ($3,462.66) ($1,30514) FEE(No Discount) $10,797.86 $9,775.69 FEE(50%Discount) $5,39893 $4,887.84 Less ASD Discount $000 ($1,50000) FacilRy Credit $000 $000 Net Fee Obligation $5,398.93 $3,387.84 28 Auburn School District No 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2013 through 2019 SINGLE FAMILY MULTI FAMILY IMPACT FEE ELEMENTS Elem Mid Sch Sr High Elem Mid Sch Sr High K-5 6-8 9-12 K-5' 6-8' 9-12' Student Factor Single Family-Auburn actual count(3113) 0 227 0 085 0 129 0.172 0 070 0 096 New Fac Capacity 550 800 1500 550 800 1500 New Facility Cost Elementary Cost Estimates Feb 2013 $27,000,000 $50,700,000 $27,000,000 $50,700,000 Middle School Cost Estimate Feb 2013 Temp Rm Capacity ASD District Standard of Service. 26.5 30 30 265 30 30 Grades K-5 @265and 6-12 @30. Temp Facility Cost Relocatables,including site work,set up,and furnishing $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 Site Acreage ASD District Standard or SPI Minimum 12 25 40 12 25 40 Site Cost/Acre See below $308,155 $308,155 $308,155 $308,155 $308,155 $308,155 Perm Sq Footage SPI Rpt#3 dated December 14,2011 1,695,317 1,695,317 1,695,317 1,695,317 1,695,317 1,695,317 Temp Sq Footage 69 portables at 832 sq.It each+TAP 3500 60,908 60,908 60,908 60,908 60,908 60,908 Total Sq Footage Sum of Permanent and Temporary above 1,756,225 1,756,225 1,756,225 1,756,225 1,756,225 1,756,225 %-Perm Facilities Permanent Sq Footage divided by Total Sq Footage 96 53% 96.53% 9653% 9653% 96.53% 96 53% %-Temp Facilities Temporary Sq Footage divided by Total Sq.Footage 347% 147%% 3 47% 347% 3.47% 347% SPI Sq Ft/Student From SPI Regulations 90 108 130 90 108 130 Boeckh Index From SPI schedule for December 2012 $18855 $188.55 $188.55 $18855 $18855 $18855 Match%-State From SPI Webpage December 2012 5919% 5919% 5919% 5919% 59.19% 5919% Match%-District Computed 40.81% 40 81% 40.81% 40.81% 40 81% 40 81% Dist Aver AV King County Department of Assessments March 2013 $199,719 $199,719 $199,719 $75,278 $75,278 $75,278 (multi family weighted average includes condos) Debt Sew Tax Rate Current Fiscal Year $2.11 $2.11 $2 11 $211 $2.11 $2.11 G.O Bond Int Rate Current Rate-(Bond Buyer 20 Index March 2013) 3 74% 3.74% 3.74% 3 74% 3.74% 374% Site Cost Pro jec ions 'student generation rates 2012 for multi-family Recent Propert Purchase Purchase Purchase Adjusted Projected Annual Sites Latest Date Pro)ected Acquisitions Acreage Year Price Cost/Acre Present Day Inflation Factor Required of Acquisition Cost/Acre Lakeland 12.00 2002 $2,701,043 $225,087 $310,687 Labrador 35.00 2008 $7,601,799 $217,194 $223,710 -Lakeland East 2700 2009 $9,092,160 $336,747 $336,747 Total 74.00 $19,395,002 $262,095 $290,381 100% Elementary 2015 $308,155 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Auburn School District No 408 Capital Facilities Plan 2013 through 2019 Section VIII Appendix Appendix A.1 - Student Enrollment Projections Appendix A.2 - CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Enrollment Projections Appendix A.3 - Student Generation Survey Appendix A.1 - Student Enrollment Projections Auburn School District #408 Student Enrollment Projections October 2012 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 I — 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 I of each year. Table 2—Historical Factors Used in Projections-page 4 This table shows the three basic factors derived from the data in Table 1 These factors have been used to the subsequent projections. The three factors are: 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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 5 previous years. From this information has been extrapolated the kindergarten pupils expected for the next 4 years. I 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 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, 3SHAA (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 1 1-13)—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 we had an increase in enrollment of 233 students after three consecutive years of declining enrollment. These increases and decreases change our historical average gain in students. Over the past 6 years the average gain is now .21%annually down from .97%, that equates to average gain of 30 students down from 136 in prior projections. 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 shows increase ranging from 847 to 850 (page 7) • Middle School level shows increase ranging from 350 to 456 (page 8) • High School level shows increases ranging from 160 to 227 (page 9) The models show these changes looking forward thirteen years • Elementary level shows increase ranging from 1498 to 1706. (page 7) • Middle School level shows increase ranging from 836 to 874. (page 8) • High School level shows increase ranging from 820 to 958 (page 9) This data does not factor new developments that are currently under construction or in the planning stages. 2 AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS -October 2012 TABLE Thirteen Year History of October 1 Enroliments(Rev 10112) 1 Actual GRADE 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 KDG 912 846 905 922 892 955 941 996 998 1032 1010 1029 1098 1 905 968 900 982 960 963 1012 995 1015 1033 1066 1068 1089 2 914 949 961 909 992 963 1002 1019 1024 998 1016 1097 1083 3 1031 966 940 996 918 1002 1031 997 1048 993 1013 996 1111 4 1071 1077 973 947 1016 939 1049 1057 1044 1073 1024 1022 1038 5 1011 1108 1062 1018 957 1065 998 1078 1069 1030 1079 1018 1070 6 998 1028 1104 1111 1020 1004 1058 1007 1096 1040 1041 1063 1041 7 979 1017 1021 1131 1124 1028 1014 1057 1034 1125 1060 1032 1086 8 1003 1004 1026 1052 1130 1137 1072 1033 1076 1031 1112 1046 1017 9 1222 1405 1441 1473 1461 1379 1372 1337 1256 1244 1221 1273 1200 10 1157 1073 1234 1249 1261 1383 1400 1368 1341 1277 1238 1170 1278 11 1067 1090 927 1010 1055 1182 1322 1352 1350 1303 1258 1233 1164 12 865 930 933 902 886 1088 1147 1263 1352 1410 1344 1316 1321 TOTALS 13135 13461 13427 13702 13672 14088 14418 14559 14703 14589 14482 14363 14596 Percent of Gain 248% (0.25)% 205% (022)% 3.04% 234% 098% 099% (0 78)% (0 73)% (0 82)% 1 62% Pupil Gain 326 (34) 275 (30) 416 330 141 144 (114) (107) (119) 233 Average%Gain for 1 st 6 years 1 57% Average%Gain for last 6 years 011% Average Pupil Gain for 1 sl 6 years. 214 Average Pupil Gain for last 6 years 30 Average% Gain for 13 years 0.89% Average Pupil Gain for 13 years 122 TABLE 1A Grade Group Combmat, ns KDG 912 846 905 922 892 955 941 996 998 1032 1010 1029 1098 K,1,2 2731 2763 2766 2813 2844 2881 2955 3010 3037 3063 3092 3194 3270 K-5 5844 5914 5741 5774 5735 5887 6033 6142 6198 6159 6208 6230 6489 K-6 6842 6942 6845 6885 6755 6891 7091 7149 7294 7199 7249 7293 7530 1 -3 2850 2883 2801 2887 2870 2928 3045 3011 3087 3024 3095 3161 3283 1 -5 4932 5068 4836 4852 4843 4932 5092 5146 5200 5127 5198 5201 5391 1 -6 5930 6096 5940 5963 5863 5936 6150 6153 6296 6167 6239 6264 6432 6-8 2980 3049 3151 3294 3274 3169 3144 3097 3206 3196 3213 3141 3144 7-8 1982 2021 2047 2163 2254 2165 2086 2090 2110 2156 2172 2078 2103 7-9 3204 3426 3488 3656 3715 3544 3458 3427 3366 3400 3393 3351 3303 9-12 4311 4498 4535 4634 4663 5032 5241 5320 5299 5234 5061 4992 4963 10-12 3089 3093 3094 3161 3202 3653 3869 3983 4043 3990 3840 3719 3763 pr112-13 Page 3 October 2012 AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS -October 2012 TABLE Factors Used in Projections Factor AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENTS 2 3 AS FUNCTION OF KING COUNTY LIVE BIRTH RATES CAL- TOTAL YEAR ADJUSTED AUBURN KINDERGARTEN Factor Average Pupil Change Between Grade ENDAR U 2/3rds 1/3rds OF LIVE I KDG ENROLLMENT AS A%OF 1 Levels YEAR BIRTHS BIRTHS BIRTHS I ENROLL BIRTHS ENROLL ADJUSTED LIVE BIRTHS 13 YEAR BASE 6 YEAR BASE 1973 13,449 8,966 4,483 79/80 13,478 618 4.585% K to 1 51.08 K to 1 4333 1974 13.493 8,995 4,498 80/81 13,524 600 4436% 1 to 1217 1 tot 800 1975 13,540 9,027 4,513 81182 13,687 588 4.296% 2 to 3 1392 2 to 3 033 1976 13,761 9,174 4,587 82/83 14,375 698 4.856% 3 to 4 27.33 3 to 4 3000 1977 14,682 9,788 4,894 83/84 14,958 666 4 452% 4 to 5 21.67 4 to 5 1250 1978 15,096 10,064 5,032 84/85 16,048 726 4 524% 5 to 6 10.00 5 to 6 267 1979 16,524 11,016 5,508 85/86 16,708 792 4.740% 6 to 7 1325 6 to 7 1483 1980 16,800 11,200 5,600 86/87 17,000 829 4 876% 7 to 8 950 7 to 8 (1.17) 1981 17,100 11,400 5,700 87/88 18,241 769 4216% 8 to 9 278 33 8 to 9 193 50 1982 18,811 12,541 6,270 88/89 18,626 817 4.386% 9 to 10 (67 67) 9 10 10 (5 17) 1983 18,533 12,355 6,178 89/90 18,827 871 4 626% 10 to 11 (75.42) 10 to 11 (22 33) 1984 18,974 12,649 6,325 90/91 19,510 858 4.398% 11 to 12 (21.42) 11 to 12 31 33 1985 19,778 13,185 6,593 91/92 19,893 909 L569% total 272.75 total 307.83 1986 19,951 13,301 6,650 92/93 21,852 920 4.210% Factor 1 is the average gain or loss of pupils as they 1987 22,803 15,202 7,601 93/94 21,624 930 4.301% move from one grade level to the next. Factor 1 uses 1988 21,034 14,023 7,011 94/95 24,062 927 3853% the past(12)OR(5)years of changes 1989 25,576 17,051 8,525 95196 26,358 954 3.619% 1990 26,749 17,833 8,916 96197 24,116 963 3.993% Factor Average Pupil Change By Grade Level 1991 22,799 15,199 7,600 97/98 20.973 978 4.663% 2 1992 20,060 13,373 6,687 98/99 21,573 854 3959% 13 YEAR BASE 6 YEAR BASE 1993 22,330 14,887 7,443 99/00 22,129 849 3 837% K 15.50 K 20.40 1994 22,029 14,686 7,343 00/01 24,013 912 3798% 1 15.33 100 1880 1995 25,005 16,670 8,335 01102 22,717 846 3724% 2 1408 200 1280 1996 21,573 14,382 7,191 02/03 21,622 905 4186% 3 667 300 2280 1997 21,646 14,431 7.215 03/04 22,023 922 4 186% 4 (2 75) 400 (3 80) 1998 22,212 14,808 7,404 04/05 22,075 892 4 041% 5 492 500 (1.60) 1999 22,007 14,671 7,336 05/06 22,327 955 4277% 6 3.58 600 6 80 2000 22,487 14,991 7,496 06107 22,014 941 4274% 7 892 700 58011 2001 21,778 14,519 7,259 07/08 21,835 996 4562% 8 117 800 (320) 2002 21,863 14,575 7,288 08/09 22,242 998 4487% Lasts 9 (1.83) 9.00 (27 40) 2003 22,431 14,954 7,477 09/10 22,726 1032 4 541% year 10 10.08 10.00 (1800) 2004 22,874 15,249 7,625 10/11 22,745 1010 4.441% Average 11 8.08 1100 (37.60) 2005 22,680 15,120 7,560 11/12 23,723 1029 4338% 4.451% 12 3800 1200 11.60 2006 24,244 16,163 8,081 12/13 24,683 1098 Actual 4.448% Factor 2 is the average change in grade level size 2007 24,902 16,601 8,301 13/14 25,094 1117 <-Prjcltl year from 01/02 OR 07/08. 2008 25,190 16,793 8,397 14115 25,101 1117 <_Pgcld year 2009 25,057 16,705 8,352 15116 24,695 1099 <-Prjctd year 2010 24,514 16,343 8,171 16117 24,591 1 1095 <_Prjctd year 2011 24,630 16,420 8,210 17/18 -number from DOH Source Center for Health Statistics,Washington State Department of Health p012-13 Page 4 October 2012 AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS-October 2012 TABLE DISTRICT PROJECTIONS 313 Based on 13 Year History ACTUAL PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROD GRADE 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18119 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 23-24 24-25 25-26 KDG 1098 1114 1129 1145 1160 1176 1191 1207 1222 1238 1253 1269 1284 1300 1 1089 1149 1165 1180 1196 1211 1227 1242 1258 1273 1289 1304 1320 1335 2 1083 1101 1161 1177 1192 1208 1223 1239 1254 1270 1285 1301 1316 1332 3 1111 1097 1115 1175 1191 1206 1222 1237 1253 1268 1284 1299 1315 1330 4 1038 1138 1124 1142 1203 1218 1234 1249 1265 1280 1296 1311 1327 1342 5 1070 1060 1160 1146 1164 1224 1240 1255 1271 1286 1302 1317 1333 1348 6 1041 1080 1070 1170 1156 1174 1234 1250 1265 1281 1296 1312 1327 1343 7 1086 1054 1093 1083 1183 1169 1187 1247 1263 1278 1294 1309 1325 1340 8 1017 1096 1064 1103 1092 1193 1179 1197 1257 1272 1288 1303 1319 1334 9 1200 1295 1374 1342 1381 1371 1471 1457 1475 1535 1551 1566 1582 1597 10 1278 1132 1228 1306 1274 1313 1303 1403 1389 1408 1468 1483 1499 1514 11 1164 1203 1057 1152 1231 1199 1238 1228 1328 1314 1332 1392 1408 1423 12 1321 1143 1181 1036 1131 1209 1178 1217 1206 1307 1293 1311 1371 1386 TOTALS 14596 14661 14920 15157 15554 15871 16126 16427 16705 17009 17229 17477 17723 17925 Percent of Gain 045% 1.77% 1.58% 262% 2.04% 160% 187% 1.69% 1.82% 129% 1.44% 141% 114% Pupil Gain 65 259 236 397 317 254 302 278 304 219 249 246 202 TABLE DISTRICT PROJECTIONS 36 Based on 6 Year History ACTUAL PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROD PROJ PROJ PROD PRO' PROJ PROJ GRADE 12/13 13/14 14115 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21122 22!23 23-24' 24-25 25-26 KDG 1098 1118 1139 1159 1180 1200 1220 1241 1261 1282 1302 1322 1343 1363 1 1089 1141 1162 1182 1203 1223 1243 1264 1284 1305 1325 1345 1366 1386 2 1083 1097 1149 1170 1190 1211 1231 1251 1272 1292 1313 1333 1353 1374 3 1111 1083 1097 1150 1170 1190 1211 1231 1252 1272 1292 1313 1333 1354 4 1038 1141 1113 1127 1180 1200 1220 1241 1261 1282 1302 1322 1343 1363 5 1070 1051 1154 1126 1140 1192 1213 1233 1253 1274 1294 1315 1335 1355 6 1041 1073 1053 1156 1129 1143 1195 1215 1236 1256 1276 1297 1317 1338 7 1086 1056 1088 1068 1171 1143 1157 1210 1230 1250 1271 1291 1312 1332 8 1017 1085 1055 1086 1067 1170 1142 1156 1209 1229 1249 1270 1290 1311 9 1200 1211 1278 1248 1280 1260 1363 1336 1350 1402 1422 1443 1463 1484 10 1278 1195 1205 1273 1243 1275 1255 1358 1331 1345 1397 1417 1438 1458 11 1164 1256 1173 1183 1251 1221 1252 1233 1336 1308 1322 1375 1395 1415 12 1321 1195 1287 1204 1214 1282 1252 1284 1264 1367 1340 1354 1406 1426 TOTALS 14596 14701 14953 15133 15416 15710 15956 16252 16538 16863 17106 17396 17694 17959 Percent of Gain 072% 1.71% 1.20% 1.87% 190% 157% 1.86% 1.76% 197% 1.44% 170% 1.71% 1.50% Pupil Gain 105 251 180 284 294 246 297 285 325 243 291 297 265 p012-13 Page 5 October 2012 AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS-October 2012 TABLE DISTRICT PROJECTIONS 3 13A Based on Birth Rates&13 Year History ACTUAL PROD PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ GRADE 12113 13114 14115 15/16 16/17 17/18 18119 19/20 20/21 21122 22/23 23-24 24-25 25-26 K 1098 1098 1117 1117 1099 1 1089 1149 1149 1168 1168 1150 2 1083 1101 1161 1161 1180 1180 1162 3 1111 1097 1115 1175 1175 1194 1194 1176 4 1038 1138 1124 1142 1203 1203 1221 1222 1204 5 1070 1060 1160 1146 1164 1224 1224 1243 1243 1225 6 1041 1080 1070 1170 1156 1174 1234 1234 1253 1253 1235 7 1086 1054 1093 1083 1183 1169 1187 1247 1247 1266 1267 1249 8 1017 1096 1064 1103 1092 1193 1179 1197 1257 1257 1276 1276 1258 9 1200 1295 1374 1342 1381 1371 1471 1457 1475 1535 1535 1554 1554 1536 10 1278 1132 1228 1306 1274 1313 1303 1403 1389 1408 1468 1468 1487 1487 11 1164 1203 1057 1152 1231 1199 1238 1228 1328 1314 1332 1392 1392 1411 12 1321 1143 1181 1036 1131 1209 1178 1217 1206 1307 1293 1311 1371 1371 TOTALS 14596 14646 14893 15102 15438 Percent of Gain 0 34% 169% 1 40% 223% Pupil Gain 50 247 209 336 TABLE DISTRICT PROJECTIONS 3 6A Based on Birth Rates&6 Year History JACTUALl PROJ I PROD I PROJ PROD I PROD I PRO, I PROJ PROD I PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ GRADE 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 23-24 24-25 25-26 KDG 1098 1098 1117 1117 1099 1 1089 1141 1141 1160 1161 1142 2 1083 1097 1149 1149 1168 1169 1150 3 1111 1083 1097 1150 1150 1169 1169 1151 4 1038 1141 1113 1127 1180 1180 1199 1199 1181 5 1070 1051 1154 1126 1140 1192 1192 1211 1211 1193 6 1041 1073 1053 1156 1129 1143 1195 1195 1214 1214 1196 7 1086 1056 1088 1068 1171 1143 1157 1210 1210 1229 1229 1211 8 1017 1065 1055 1086 1067 1170 1142 1156 1209 1209 1227 1228 1210 9 1200 1211 1278 1248 1280 1260 1363 1336 1350 1402 1402 1421 1421 1403 10 1278 1195 1205 1273 1243 1275 1255 1358 1331 1345 1397 1397 1416 1416 11 1164 1256 1173 1183 1251 1221 1252 1233 1336 1308 1322 1375 1375 1393 12 1321 1195 1287 1204 1214 1282 1252 1284 1264 1367 1340 1354 1406 1406 TOTALS 14596 14681 14910 15048 15251 Percent of Gain 0 58% 1.56% 0.93% 1.35% Pupil Gain 85 229 138 203 prj12-13 Page 6 October 2012 AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS -October 2012 3E.13 Based on 13 Year History GRADE 12/13 13114 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 23-24 24-25 25-26 1 1089 1149 1165 1180 1196 1211 1227 1242 1258 1273 1289 1304 1320 1335 2 1083 1101 1161 1177 1192 1208 1223 1239 1254 1270 1285 1301 1316 1332 3 1111 1097 1115 1175 1191 1206 1222 1237 1253 1268 1284 1299 1315 1330 4 1036 1116 1124 1142 1203 1216 1234 1249 1265 128U 1296 1311 1321 1342 5 1070 1060 1160 1146 1164 1224 1240 1255 1271 1286 1302 1317 1333 1348 6 year I,,i year K-5 TOT 6489 6659 6854 6965 7105 7243 7336 7429 7522 7615 7708 7801 7894 7987 847 1498 ercent o ain . z V47. 0 Z.0 17. 1 V470 LZ67. I z t 7. 0 0 Pupil Gain 170 195 111 140 138 93 93 93 93 93 0 0 0 0 93 93 93 TABLE K-SPROJECTIONS 3E 6 Based on 6 Year History GRADE 12/13 13/14 1 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 23-24 24-25 25-26 1 1089 1141 1162 1182 1203 1223 1243 1264 1284 1305 1325 1345 1366 1386 2 1083 1097 1149 1170 1190 1211 1231 1251 1272 1292 1313 1333 1353 1374 3 1111 1083 1097 1150 1170 1190 1211 1231 1252 1272 1292 1313 1333 1354 4 1038 1141 1113 1121 1180 1ZU0 122U 1241 1261 1282 1302 1322 1343 1383 5 1070 1051 1154 1126 1140 1192 1213 1233 1253 1274 1294 1315 1335 1355 6 year 13 year K-5 TOT 6489 6632 6814 6914 7062 7216 7339 7461 7583 7706 7828 7951 8073 8195 850 1706 ercen o am o 0 Pupil Gain 143 0 182 0 100 0 148 0 154 0 122 0 122 0 122 0 122 0 122 122 122 0 122 0 ]ABLE: K-5PHijji7CTlONS 3E 13A Based on Birth Rates& 13 Year History UAL J J P J P P J P GRADE 12113 13114 14/15 15116 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 23-24 24-25 25-26 1 1089 1149 1149 1168 1168 1150 2 1083 1101 1161 1161 1180 1180 1162 3 1111 1097 1115 1175 1175 1194 1194 1176 4 1038 1138 1124 1142 1203 1201 1221 1222 1204 5- 1070 1060 1160 1146 1164 1224 1224 1243 1243 1225 4 year 5 K- TOT 1 6489 1 6643 1 6827 1 6910 1 6989 1 1 500 ercent or ain 0 0 1 Z470 1 1070 Pupil Gain 154 183 83 79 TABLE -5P 3E 6A Based on Birth Rates&6 Year History A TUAL PROJ HKUJ PR J PROJ PR J PR J PROJ PROJ PROJ P J PROJ GRADE 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16117 17118 18/19 19!20 20/21 21/22 22/23 23-24 24-25 25-26 1 1089 1141 1141 1160 1161 1142 2 1083 1097 1149 1149 1168 1169 1150 3 1111 1083 1097 1150 1150 1169 1169 1151 4 1U38 1141 1113 1127 1180 1180 1199 1199 1181 5- 1070 1051 1154 1126 1140 1192 1192 1211 1211 1193 4 year K 5- TOT 1 6489 1 6611 1 6772 6830 6897 1 1 408 ercent or ain o Pupil Gain 122 0 161 0 58 67 0 pp12-13 Page 7 October 2012 AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS -October 2012 TABLE MIDDLE SCHOOL PROJECTIONS 3MS.13 Based on 13 Year History JACTUALl PROJ PROD PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ GRADE 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 1 9/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 23-24 24-25 25-26 6 1041 1080 1070 1170 1156 1174 1234 1250 1265 1281 1296 1312 1327 1343 7 1086 1054 1093 1083 1183 1169 1187 1247 1263 1278 1294 1309 1325 1340 8 1017 1096 1064 1103 1092 1193 1179 1197 1257 1272 1288 1303 1319 1334 6 year 13 year 6-8 TOT 1 3144 3230 3227 3356 3432 3536 3600 3694 3785 3832 3878 3925 3971 4018 456 874 Percent of Gain 273% (0.10)% 400% 226% 304% 1.81% 260% 2.47% 123% 1.21% 1.20% 118% 1.17% Pupil Gain 86 (3) 129 76 104 64 94 91 47 47 47 47 47 TABLE MIDDLE SCHOOL PROJECTIONS 31VIS.6 Based on 6 Year History ACTUAL PROJ I PROD I PROJ I PROJ PROJ PROJ PROD PROJ PROJ PROJ PROD PROJ PROJ GRADE 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 23-24 24-25 25-26 6 1041 1073 1053 1156 1129 1143 1195 1215 1236 1256 1276 1297 1317 1338 7 1086 1056 1088 1068 1171 1143 1157 1210 1230 1250 1271 1291 1312 1332 8 1017 1085 1055 1086 1067 1170 1142 1156 1209 1229 1249 1270 1290 1311 6 year 13 year 6-8 TOT 3144 3213 3195 3311 3366 3456 3494 3581 3674 3735 3797 3858 3919 3980 350 836 Percent of Gain 2.21% -.56% 360% 169% 265% 112% 248% 260% 167% 164% 1.61% 159% 156% Pupil Gain 69 (18) 115 56 89 39 87 93 61 61 61 61 61 TABLE MIDDLE SCHOOL PROJECTIONS 31VIS 13A Based on Birth Rates&13 Year History ACTUAL PROJ PROD PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROD GRADE 72/13 13/14 14/15 15/76 16117 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 23-24 24-25 25-26 6 1041 1080 1070 1170 1156 1174 1234 1234 1253 1253 1235 7 1086 1054 1093 1083 1183 1169 1187 1247 1247 1266 1267 1249 8 1017 1096 1064 1103 1092 1193 1179 1197 1257 1257 1276 1276 1258 6 year 10 year 6-8 TOT 3144 3230 3227 3356 3432 3536 3600 3678 3757 3777 3778 456 634 Percent of Gain 2.73% (010)% 400% 226% 304% 1.81% 2.17% 2.15% 0.51% 0.03% Pupil Gain 86 (3) 129 76 104 64 78 79 19 1 TABLE MIDDLE SCHOOL PROJECTIONS 3MS 6A Based on Birth Rates&6 Year History ACTUAL PROJ I PROD PROJ PROJ PROJ PROD PROJ PROJ PROJ PROD PROJ PROJ PROJ GRADE 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 79/20 20/21 21!22 22/23 23-24 24-25 25-26 6 1041 1073 1053 1156 1129 1143 1195 1195 1214 1214 1196 7 1086 1056 1088 1068 1171 1143 1157 1210 1210 1229 1229 1211 8 1017 1085 1055 1086 1067 1170 1142 1156 1209 1209 1227 1228 1210 6 year 10 year 6-8 TOT 1 3144 1 3213 1 3195 3311 3366 1 3456 3494 3561 3632 1 3651 3652 350 508 Percent of Gain 2,21% (0 56)% 3.60% 1.69% 2 65% 1 12% 1.90% 200% 053% 0.03°/ Pupil Gain 69 (18) 115 56 89 39 66 71 19 1 pg12-13 Page 8 October 2012 AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS-October 2012 TABLE SR HIGH PROJECTIONS 3SH.13 Based on 13 Year History ACTUAL PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROD GRADE 12/13 13/14 14/15 15116 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 23-24 24-25 25-26 9 1200 1295 1374 1342 1381 1371 1471 1457 1475 1535 1551 1566 1582 1597 10 1278 1132 1228 1306 1274 1313 1303 1403 1389 1408 1468 1483 1499 1514 11 1164 1203 1057 1152 1231 1199 1238 1228 1328 1314 1332 1392 1408 1423 12 1321 1143 1181 1036 1131 1209 1178 1217 1206 1307 1293 1311 1371 1386 6 year 13 year 9-12 TOT 1 4963 4773 4840 4836 5017 5093 5190 5305 5399 5563 5643 5752 5859 5921 227 958 Percent of Gain (383)% 140% (0.07)% 374% 150% 191% 221% 1.77% 3.05% 1.43% 194% 185% 1.06% Pupil Gain (190) 67 (4) 181 75 97 115 94 164 80 109 107 62 TABLE SR.HIGH PROJECTIONS 3SH 6 Based on 6 Year History ACTUAL PROJ I PROJ I PROJ I PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROD PROJ GRADE 12/13 13/14 14/15 15116 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21122 22/23 23-24 24-25 25-26 9 1200 1211 1278 1248 1280 1260 1363 1336 1350 1402 1422 1443 1463 1484 10 1278 1195 1205 1273 1243 1275 1255 1358 1331 1345 1397 1417 1438 1458 11 1164 1256 1173 1183 1251 1221 1252 1233 1336 1308 1322 1375 1395 1415 12 1321 1195 1287 1204 1214 1282 1252 1264 1264 1367 1340 1354 1406 1426 6 year 13 year 9-12 TOT 4963 4856 4943 4908 4988 5038 5123 5210 5280 5422 5481 5588 5702 5783 160 820 Percent of Gain (2.15)% 179% (0.71)% 1.63% 100% 169% 171% 134% 268% 109% 1.95% 203% 1.43% Pupil Gain (107) 87 (35) 80 50 85 87 70 142 59 107 114 82 TABLE SR HIGH PROJECTIONS 3SH.13A Based on Birth Rates&13 Year History ACTUAL PROD I PROJ PROJ PROJ PROD PROJ PROJ PROD PROD PROJ PROJ PROJ PROD GRADE 12113 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 23-24 24-25 25-26 9 1200 1295 1374 1342 1381 1371 1471 1457 1475 1535 1535 1554 1554 1536 10 1278 1132 1228 1306 1274 1313 1303 1403 1389 1408 1468 1468 1487 1487 11 1164 1203 1057 1152 1231 1199 1238 1228 1328 1314 1332 1392 1392 1411 12 1321 1143 1181 1036 1131 1209 1178 1217 1206 1307 1293 1311 1371 1371 6year 13 year 9-12 TOT 1 4963 1 4773 1 4840 4836 5017 5093 5190 5305 5399 5563 5627 5725 5804 5805 227 842 Percent of Gain (383)% 140% (007)% 374% 1.50% 1.91% 221% 1.77% 3.05% 115% 173% 139% 002% Pupil Gain (190) 67 (4) 181 75 97 115 94 164 64 97 79 1 TABLE SR.HIGH PROJECTIONS 3SH 6A Based on Birth Rates&6 Year History ACTUAL PROJ I PROD I PROJ PROJ PROJ PROD PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ GRADE 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21122 22/23 23-24 24-25 25-26 9 1200 1211 1278 1248 1280 1260 1363 1336 1350 1402 1402 1421 1421 1403 10 1278 1195 1205 1273 1243 1275 1255 1358 1331 1345 1397 1397 1416 1416 11 1164 1256 1173 1183 1251 1221 1252 1233 1336 1308 1322 1375 1375 1393 12 1321 1195 1287 1204 1214 1282 1252 1284 1264 1367 1340 1354 1406 1406 6 year 13 year 9-12 TOT 1 4963 1 4856 4943 4908 1 4988 5038 5123 5210 5280 5422 5461 5546 5617 5618 160 655 Percent of Gain (215)% 1.79% (071)% 1.63% 1.00% 1.69% 171% 1.34% 168% 0.71% 1.56% 129% 002% Pupil Gain (107) 87 (35) 80 50 85 87 70 142 39 85 72 1 prj12-13 Page 9 October 2012 AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS-October 2012 TABLE PROJECTION COMPARISONS 4 BY GRADE GROUP KINDERGARTEN 1 ACTUAL PROJ I PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROD PROJ PROJ PROJ GRADE 12/13 13/14 14115 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19120 20/21 21/22 22/23 23-24 24-25 25-26 6 year 13 year E13 1098 1114 1129 1145 1160 1176 1191 1207 1222 1238 1253 1269 1284 1300 93 202 E6 1098 1118 1139 1159 1180 1200 1220 1241 1261 1282 1302 1322 1343 1363 122 265 E 13A 1098 1098 1117 1117 1099 E 6A 1098 1098 1117 1117 1099 GIRD 1--GRID 5 ACTUAL PROD PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ GRADE 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 2324 24-25 25-26 6 year 13 year E.13 5391 5545 5725 5820 5945 6067 6145 6222 6300 6377 6455 6532 6610 6687 754 1296 E6 5391 5513 5675 5755 5882 6016 6118 6220 6322 6424 6526 6628 6730 6832 727 1441 E 13A 5391 5545 5710 5793 5890 E 6A 5391 5513 5655 5712 5798 GRD6—GRD8 ACTUAL PROD PROJ PROJ PROJ PROD PROJ PROD PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROD GRADE 12/13 13/14 14115 15/16 16/17 17118 18119 19/20 20121 21/22 22/23 23-24 1 24-25 25-26 6 year 13 year MS.13 3144 3230 3227 3356 3432 3536 3600 3694 3785 3832 3878 3925 3971 4018 456 874 MS 6 3144 3213 3195 3311 3366 3456 3494 3581 3674 3735 3797 3858 3919 3980 350 836 MS.13A 3144 3230 3227 3356 3432 3536 3600 3678 3757 3777 3778 MS.6A 3144 3213 3195 3311 3366 3456 3494 3561 3632 3651 3652 GIRD 9--GRID 12 ACTUAL PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROD PROJ PROJ PROJ GRADE 12/13 13/14 14175 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20121 21122 22/23 23-24 24-25 25-26 6 year 13 year SH 13 4963 4773 4840 4836 5017 5093 5190 5305 5399 5563 5643 5752 5859 5921 227 958 SH.6 4963 4856 4943 4908 4988 5038 5123 5210 5280 5422 5481 5588 5702 5783 160 820 SH.13A 4963 4773 4840 4836 5017 5093 5190 5305 5399 5563 5627 5725 5804 5805 227 842 SH 6A 4963 4856 4943 4908 4988 5038 5123 5210 5280 5422 5461 5546 5617 5618 160 655 DISTRICT TOTALS ACTUAL PROJ PROJ PROJ PRO' PROJ PROJ PROJ PRO' PROJ PROD PROJ PROJ PROJ GRADE 12/13 13/14 14115 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19120 20121 21/22 22/23 23-24 24-25 25-26 6 year 13 year 313 14596 14661 14920 15157 15554 15871 16126 16427 16705 17009 17229 17477 17723 17925 1530 1 3329 36 14596 14701 14953 15133 15416 15710 15956 16252 16538 16863 17106 17396 17694 17959 1360 3363 313A 14596 14646 14893 15102 15438 36A 14596 14681 14910 15048 15251 pr112-13 Page 10 October 2012 AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS -October 2012 TABLE PROJECTION COMPARISONS 5 BY GRADE GROUP Total = October 1 Actual Count AND Projected Counts Prj 113- 13 YEAR HISTORY & Using Average Kdg Increase Diff = Number Projection is under(-)or over Actual Prj 16 - 6 YEAR HISTORY & Using Average Kdg Increase % = Percent Projection is under(-)or over Actual Prj 3.13A 13 YEAR HISTORY & King Cly Birth Rates Prj 3 6A- 6 YEAR HISTORY & King Cty Birth Rates Grades 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 K-5 Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff % ACTUAL 5844 xxx xxx 5914 xxx xxx 5741 xxx xxx 5774 xxx xxx 5735 xxx xxx Pq 3E.13 5811 (33) (054)% 5827 (87) 3.15% 5723 (18) (031)% 5655 (119) (206)% 5761 26 (0.49)% Prj 3E 6 5664 (180) (0.96)% 5802 (112) 2.74% 5735 (6) (010)% 5662 (112) (1 94)% 5821 86 (034)% Prj 3E.13A 5919 75 (2.64)% 5839 (75) 1 51% 5743 2 0.03% 5605 (169) (293)% 5709 (26) (1 24)% Prj 3E.6A 5895 51 (2 93)% 5831 (83) 1.15% 5776 35 0.61% 5631 (143) (248)% 5756 21 (0.81)% Grades 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 6-8 Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff % ACTUAL 2980 xxx xxx 3049 xxx xzx 3151 xxx xxx 3294 xxx xxx 3274 xxx xxx Prj 3E 13 3023 43 (264)% 3025 (80) (2.62)% 3185 34 1.08% 3214 (80) (243)% 3295 21 (8.86)% Pd 3E.6 3009 29 (270)% 3011 (75) (2.46)% 3192 41 130% 3216 (78) (2.37)% 3311 37 (6.06)% Pr)3E 13A 3023 43 (264)% 3025 (80) (2.62)% 3185 34 1.08% 3214 (80) (243)% 3295 21 (8 88)% Prj 3E 6A 3009 29 (270)% 3011 (75) (2A6)% 3192 41 1 30% 3216 (78) (2.37)% 3311 37 (606)% Grades 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 9-12 Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff % ACTUAL 4311 xxx xxx 4498 xxx xxx 4535 xzz xxx 4634 xxx xxx 4663 xxx xxx Prj 3E.13 4369 58 2.74% 4455 (43) (0.32)% 4577 42 0.93% 4630 (4) (009)% 4783 120 5.90% Prj 3E6 4394 83 1.51% 4476 (22) (149)% 4594 59 1.30% 4639 5 011% 4769 106 369% Pg 3E 13A 4369 58 274% 4455 (43) (0.32)% 4577 42 0.93% 4630 (4) (0.09)% 4783 120 590% Prj 3E.6A 4394 83 151% 4476 (22) (149)% 4594 59 1.30°/a 4639 5 011% 4769 106 3.69% All 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Grades Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff % ACTUAL 13135 xxx xxx 13461 xxx zxx 13427 xxx xxx 13702 xxx xxx 13672 xxx xxx Prj 3E.13 13203 68 052% 13307 (154) (030)% 13485 58 097% 13499 (203) (1.48)% 13839 167 1.22% Prj 3E.6 13067 (68) (052)% 13289 (172) (0.82)% 13521 94 050% 13517 (185) (1.35)% 13901 229 1.67% Pp 3EA3A 13311 176 134% 13319 (142) (1.44)% 13505 78 0.10% 13449 (253) (1.85)% 13787 115 084 Prj 3E.6A 13298 163 124% 13318 (143) (1.89)% 13562 135 (033)% 13486 (216) (1.58)% 13836 164 1.20% prj 12-13 Page 11 October 2012 AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS-October 2012 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 8 King Cly Birth Rates Grades 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 K-5 Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff ACTUAL 5887 xxx xxx 6033 xxx xxx 6142 xxx xxx 6198 xxx xxx 6159 xxx xxx Pr]3E 13 5750 (137) (2.33)% 5871 (162) 12 69)% 6085 (57) (0.93)% 6179 (19) (031)% 6254 95 1.54% Prj 3E.6 5795 (92) (1.56)% 5921 (112) (186)% 6138 (4) (007)% 6237 39 0.63% 6294 135 2.19% Prj 3EA3A 5750 (137) (233)% 5869 (164) (2.72)% 6059 (83) (1.35)% 6129 (69) (1.11)% 6237 78 1.27% Prj 3E.6A 5784 (103) (175)% 5912 (121) (201)% 6094 (48) (0.78)% 6172 (26) (042)% 6264 105 170% Grades 2005-06 2006-07 2003-04 2008-09 2009-10 6-8 Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff ACTUAL 3169 xxx xxx 3144 xxx xxx 3097 xxx xxx 3206 xxx xxx 3196 xxx xxx Prj 3E.13 3132 (37) (117)% 3131 (13) (041)% 3107 10 032% 3179 (27) (084)% 3242 46 144% P03E6 3137 (32) (101)% 3146 2 0.06% 3116 19 061% 3195 (11) (034)% 3243 47 147% P03E.13A 3132 (37) (1.17)% 3131 (13) (041)% 3107 10 032% 3179 (27) (084)% 3242 46 1.44% PO 3E 6A 3137 (32) (1.01)% 3146 2 006% 3116 19 061% 3195 (l 1) (034)% 3243 47 1.47% Grades 2005-06 2006-07 2003-04 2008-09 2009-10 9-12 Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff % ACTUAL 5032 xxx xxx 5241 xxx xxx 5320 xxx xzx 5299 xxx xxx 5234 xxx xxx Prj 3E.13 4898 (134) (2 66)% 5085 (156) (298)% 5190 (130) (2.44)% 5129 (170) (3.21)% 5074 (160) (3.06)% PO 3E.6 4880 (152) (302)% 5086 (155) (296)% 5192 (128) (241)% 5155 (144) (272)% 5128 (106) (203)% Pq 3EA3A 4898 (134) (266)% 5085 (156) (2.98)% 5190 (130) (244)% 5129 (170) (321)% 5074 (160) (3.06)% PO 3E.6A 4880 (152) (302)% 5086 (155) (2.96)% 5192 (128) (241)% 5155 (144) (272)% 5129 (105) (2.01)% All 2005-06 2006-07 2003-04 2008-09 2009-10 Grades Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff % ACTUAL 14088 xxx xxx 14418 xxx xxx 13672 xxx xxx 14703 xxx xxx 14589 xxx xxx Pr13E 13 13780 (308) (219)% 13499 (173) (1 27)% 14382 710 5.19% 14487 (216) (1.47)% 14570 (19) (013)% Prj 3E 6 13812 (276) (1.96)% 13542 (130) (095)% 14446 774 5.66% 14587 (116) (0.79)% 14665 76 0.52% Prj 3E 13A 13780 (308) (2 19)% 13447 (225) (1 65)% 14356 684 500% 14437 (266) (1.81)% 14553 (36) (025)% Prj 3E 6A 13801 (287) (204)% 13510 (162) (118)% 14402 730 5.34% 14522 (181) (1.23)% 14636 47 032% p012-13 Page 12 October 2012 AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS-October 2012 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 Protection is under(-)or over Actual Pr)3 6 - 6 YEAR HISTORY & Using Average Kdg Increase % = Percent Protection is under(-)or over Actual Prj 3.13A 13 YEAR HISTORY & King Cty Birth Rates Prj 3 6A- 6 YEAR HISTORY & King Cry Birth Rates Grades 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Average Average Historical Data is grouped by K-5 Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff % Diff % K-5,6-8,9-12 articulation ACTUAL 6208 xxx xxx 6230 xxx zxx 6489 xxx xxz xxx xxx pattern Prj 3E 13 6282 74 119% 6275 45 072% 6372 (117) (180)% (45) (0.46)% Prj 3E.6 6323 115 1 85% 6267 37 059% 6368 (121) (1.86)% (34) (0.20)% Articulation pattern has no Prj 3E.13A 6252 44 0 71% 6266 36 0 58% 6346 (143) (220)% (52) (1.01)% numeric impact on efficacy Prj 3E.6A 6269 61 098% 6260 30 0.48% 6339 (150) (231)% (33) (073)% of projection models. Grades 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Average Average 6-8 Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff % Diff ACTUAL 3213 xxx xxx 3141 xxx xxx 3144 xxx xxx xxx xxx Prj 3E.13 3234 21 0.65% 3221 80 2.55% 3143 (1) (0.03)% (0) (105)% PO 3E 6 3236 23 0.72% 3211 70 2 23% 3132 (12) (0.38)% 3 (0 74)% Pr)3E 13A 3234 21 0.65% 3221 80 2.55% 3143 (1) (0.03)% (0) (105)% Prj 3E.6A 3236 23 072% 3211 70 2.23% 3132 (12) (038)% 3 (074)% Grades 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Average Average 9-12 Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff % Diff % ACTUAL 5061 xxx xxx 4992 xxx zxx 4963 xxx xxcc xxx xxx Prj 3E 13 4921 (140) (277)% 4901 (91) (182)°/ 4813 (150) (302)% (63) (077)% Prj 3E 6 5027 (34) (0.67)% 5017 25 050% 4906 (57) (1 15)% (37) (067)% Prj 3E.13A 4921 (140) (277)% 4901 (91) (1.82)% 4813 (150) (302)% (63) (077)% Prj 3E.6A 5027 (34) (067)% 5017 25 0.50% 4906 (57) (115)% (37) (066)% All 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Average Average Grades Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff % Diff % ACTUAL 14482 xxx xxx 14363 xxx xxx 14596 xxx xxx xxx xxx Prj 3EA3 14437 (45) (0.31)% 14397 34 024% 14328 (268) (1.84)% (27) (004)% Prj 3E6 14586 104 072% 14495 132 092% 14406 (190) (130)% 21 012% Prj 3E 13A 14407 (75) (052)% 14388 25 0.17% 14302 (294) (201)% (40) (0.29)% Prj 3E 6A 14532 50 0.35% 14488 125 087% 14377 (219) (150)% 16 (006)% prl l2-13 Page 13 October 2012 Appendix A.2 - CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Enrollment Projections Bwldout Data for Enrollment Projections-March 2013 BASE DATA-BUILDOUT SCHEDULE Student Generation Factors ASSUMPTIONS: Auburn Factors Single Multi- 1 Uses Build Out estimates received from developers. 2013 SF 2012 MF Family Family 2 Student Generation Factors are updated Auburn data for 2013 as allowed per King County Ordinance Elementary 0.2270 0.1720 3 Takes area labeled Lakeland and Kersey Projects projects across 2013-2919 Middle School 00850 00700 4 Takes area labeled Bridges and other Lea Hill area developments and projects across 2013-2019 Senior High 01290 00900 5 Includes known developments in N.Auburn and othernon-Lea Hill and non-Lakeland developments Total 04410 03320 Table Auburn Dist 1 Development 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total Lakeland/Kersey Single Family 100 125 125 125 125 150 750 Lea Hill Area Single Family 100 100 125 175 50 50 50 650 Other Single Family Units 50 75 100 100 100 75 75 575 Total Single Family Units 1 250 300 350 4-00—T 275 275 125 1975 Projected Pupils Elementary Pupils K-5 57 68 79 91 62 62 28 448 Mid School Pupils 6-8 21 26 30 34 23 23 11 168 Sr High Pupils 9-12 32 39 45 52 35 35 16 255 Total K-12 110 132 154 176 121 121 55 871 Multi Family Units 25 75 75 75 50 0 0 300 Total Multi Family Units 25 75 75 75 50 0 0 300 Projected Pupils: Elementary Pupils K-5 4 13 13 13 9 0 0 52 Mid School Pupils 6-8 2 5 5 5 4 0 0 21 Sr High Pupils 9-12 2 7 7 7 5 0 0 27 Total K-12 8 25 25 25 17 0 0 100 Total Housing Units 275 375 425 475 1 325 275 1 125 2275 Elementary Pupils K-5 61 81 92 104 71 62 28 J 500 Mid School Pupils 6-8 23 31 35 39 27 23 11 1 189 Sr High Pupils 9-12 35 45 52 58 40 35 16 282 Total K-12 119 157 1 179 201 138 121 55 971 Cumulative Projection 2013-14 2014-15 1 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 Elementary-Grades K-5 61 142 234 338 409 472 500 Mid School-Grades 6-8 23 54 89 128 155 178 189 Senior High-Grades 9-12 35 80 132 190 230 266 282 Total 119 276 455 656 794 915 971 45 Buildout Data for Enrollment Projections-March 2013 TABLE New Projects-Annual New Pupils Added &Distributed 2 by Grade Level 6 Year Percent of average GRADE Average Pupils by Grade 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 Enroll. & Level KDG 1027 7.06% 1098 8 19 32 46 56 65 69 1 1044 718% 1089 9 20 33 47 57 66 70 2 1040 714% 42.87% 1083 8 20 33 47 57 65 69 3 1026 7.05% 1111 8 19 32 46 56 65 68 4 1043 717% 1038 8 20 33 47 57 66 70 5 1057 7.27% 1070 9 20 33 48 58 67 71 6 1048 7.20% 1041 9 20 33 47 57 66 70 7 1066 7.32% 21.76% 1086 9 20 33 48 58 67 71 8 1053 7.23% 1017 9 20 33 47 57 66 70 9 1255 8.63% 1200 10 24 39 57 69 79 84 10 1279 8.79% 35.36% 1278 10 24 40 58 70 80 85 11 1277 8.78% 1164 10 24 40 58 70 80 85 12 1334 9.17% 1321 11 25 42 60 73 84 89 Totals 14549 100.00% Total 14596 1 119 1 276 1 455 1 656 794 1 915 971 TABLE 6 year Historical Data 3 Average Enrollment and Percentage Distributed by Grade Level Grade 07-08 OS-09 1 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 6 r Ave % KDG 996 998 1032 1010 1029 1098 102717 7.06% 1 995 1015 1033 1066 1068 1089 104433 7 18% 2 1019 1024 998 1016 1097 1083 1039.50 714% 3 997 1048 993 1013 996 1111 1026.33 7.05% 4 1057 1044 1073 1024 1022 1038 104300 717% 5 1078 1069 1030 1079 1018 1070 1057.33 7.27% 6 1007 1096 1040 1041 1063 1041 1048.00 7.20% 7 1057 1034 1125 1060 1032 1086 106567 7.32% 8 1033 1076 1031 1112 1046 1017 105250 723% 9 1337 1256 1244 1221 1273 1200 125517 8.63% 10 1366 1341 1277 1238 1170 1278 127867 8 79% 11 1352 1350 1303 1258 1233 1164 127667 8.78% 12 1263 1352 1410 1344 1 3 1 6 1321 1334.33 9 17% Totals 14559 14703 14589 14482 14363 14596 1454867 100 00% %of change 0.99% -078% -073% -0.82% 1.62% change+/- 144 (114) (107) (119) 233 46 Buildoul Data for Enrollment Projections-March 2013 TABLE 4 New Projects-Pupil Projection Cumulative ND 3.13 by Grade Level Updated March 2013 Uses a 'cohort survival' GRADE 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 model assuming 100%of Actual Projected Projected Projected Projected I Projected I Projected I Projected previous year new KDG 1098 1122 1148 1177 1206 1232 1256 1275 enrollees move to the next 1 1089 1158 1184 1213 1243 1268 1292 1312 grade level. 2 1083 1110 1181 1209 1239 1264 1289 1308 3 1111 1105 1135 1207 1237 1262 1286 1306 Kindergarten calculates 4 1038 1147 1144 1175 1250 1275 1299 1319 previous years number plus 5 1070 1068 1180 1179 1212 1282 1306 1326 K-5 6489 6709 6972 7160 7386 7583 7728 7845 Current generation based on 6 1041 1089 1090 1203 1203 1231 1300 1320 %of total enrollment. Other 7 1086 1063 1113 1116 1231 1227 1254 1319 factor uses 100% cohort 8 1017 1104 1084 1136 1140 1250 1245 1267 survival, based on 6 year GR 6-8 3144 3256 3287 3455 3574 3709 3799 3905 history 9 1200 1306 1398 1381 1438 1439 1550 1541 10 1278 1143 1252 1346 1332 1383 1384 1489 11 1164 1213 1081 1192 1288 1269 1318 1313 12 1321 1153 1206 1077 1191 1282 1262 1306 GR 9-12 1 4963 4815 4937 4997 5249 5373 5513 5648 Total 1 14596 14780 15196 15612 16210 16665 17041 17398 %of change 1.26% 2.82% 273% 3.83% 281% 1 2.25% 2.09% change+/- 184 416 415 599 1 455 1 376 357 TABLE 5 New Projects-Pupil Projection Cumulative ND 3.6 b Grade Level Updated March 2013 Uses a 'cohort survival' GRADE 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 model assuming 100%of Actual Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected previous year new KDG 1098 1127 1158 1191 1226 1256 1285 1309 enrollees move to the next 1 1089 1150 1182 1215 1250 1280 1309 1333 grade level. 2 1083 1105 1169 1202 1237 1267 1296 1321 3 1111 1092 1117 1182 1216 1246 1275 1300 Kindergarten calculates 4 1038 1149 1133 1160 1227 1257 1286 1310 previous years number plus 5 1070 1059 1174 1159 1188 1250 1279 1304 K-5 6489 6682 6932 7109 7343 7557 7731 7877 Current generation based on 6 1041 1081 1073 1189 1176 1200 1261 1285 %of total enrollment. Other 7 1086 1065 1108 1101 1219 1202 1224 1281 factor uses 100% cohort 8 1017 1093 1075 1119 1114 1227 1208 1226 survival, based on 6 year GR 6-8 3144 3239 3255 3410 3509 3628 36-9-4-1-3792 history 9 1200 1221 1302 1287 1336 1329 1442 1419 10 1278 1205 1230 1313 1301 1344 1336 1443 11 1164 1266 1197 1223 1308 1290 1333 1318 12 1321 1206 1312 1246 1275 1355 1336 1373 GR 9-12 4963 4898 5041 5069 5220 5319 5447 5554 Total 14596 14820 15228 15588 16072 16504 16871 1 17223 %of change 153% 1 2.76% 2.36% 1 3.11% 268% 2.23% 2.08% change+1- 224 409 359 485 431 367 352 47 Buildout Data for Enrollment Projections-March 2013 TABLE 6 New Developments-Pupil Projection Cumulative ND3.13A b Grade Level Updated March 2013 Uses a 'cohort survival' GRADE 2012-13 1 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 1 2019-20 model assuming 100%of Actual I Projected I Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected I Projected previous year new KDG 1098 1106 1136 1149 1145 enrollees move to the next 1 1089 1158 1169 1201 1215 1207 gradelevel. 2 1083 1110 1181 1194 1227 1237 1228 3 1111 1105 1135 1207 1221 1250 1259 1245 Kindergarten calculates 4 1038 1147 1144 1175 1250 1259 1287 1291 birth rate average plus 5 1070 1068 1180 1179 1212 1282 1291 1314 6489 6694 6945 7105 7271 6236 5065 3850 Current generation based on 6 1041 1089 1090 1203 1203 1231 1300 1304 % of total enrollment Other 7 1086 1063 1113 1116 1231 1227 1254 1319 factor uses 100% cohort 8 1017 1104 1084 1136 1140 1250 1245 1267 survival, based on 6 year 3144 3256 3287 3455 3574 3709 3799 3890 history 9 1200 1306 1398 1381 1438 1439 1550 1541 10 1278 1143 1252 1346 1332 1383 1384 1489 11 1164 1213 1081 1192 1288 1269 1318 1313 12 1321 1153 1206 1077 1191 1282 1262 1306 4963 4815 4937 4997 5249 5373 5513 5648 Total 14596 14764 15169 15557 16094 %ofchange 1,15% 2,74% 1 2.56% 3.46% change /- 168 1 404 1 388 538 TABLE 7 New Projects-Pupil Projection Cumulative ND 3.6A b Grade Level Updated March 2013 Uses a 'cohort survival' GRADE 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 1 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 model assuming 100%of Actual Projected Projected I Projected I Projected Projected Projected Projected previous year new KDG 1098 1106 1136 1149 1145 enrollees move to the next 1 1089 1150 1161 1193 1208 1200 grade level. 2 1083 1105 1169 1182 1215 1225 1216 3 1111 1092 1117 1182 1196 1225 1233 1219 Kindergarten calculates 4 1038 1149 1133 1160 1227 1237 1264 1268 birth rate average plus 5 1070 1059 1174 1159 1188 1250 1259 1282 6489 6662 6890 7025 7179 Current generation based on 6 1041 1081 1073 1189 1176 1200 1261 1265 %of total enrollment Other 7 1086 1065 1108 1101 1219 _ 1202 1224 1281 factor uses 100% cohort 8 1017 1093 1075 1119 1114 1227 1208 1226 survival, based on 6 year 3144 3239 3255 3410 3509 3628 3694 3772 history 9 1200 1221 1302 1287 1336 1329 1442 1419 10 1278 1205 1230 1313 1301 1344 1336 1443 11 1164 1266 1197 1223 1308 1290 1333 1318 12 1321 1206 1312 1246 1275 1355 1336 1373 4963 4898 5041 5069 5220 5319 5447 5554 Total 14596 14799 15186 15503 15908 %ofchange 1 261% 2.09% 261% change+/- 48 Appendix A.3 Student Generation Survey Auburn School District Development Growth since 1/1/07 SINGLE FAMILY March,2013 Actual Students Projected Students units/ Current O Be Student Generation Factors Development Name Parcels Occupancy Occupied Elem Middle HIS Total Elern Middle HS Total Aspen Meadows 21 21 0 8 2 7 17 0.381 0 095 0 333 0.810 Beaver Meadows 60 48 12 6 4 10 20 0.125 0.083 0.208 0.417 Brandon Meadows 55 13 42 2 0 1 3 0.154 0.000 0 077 0.231 Bridges 386 20 366 2 2 1 5 0100 0100 0.050 0.250 Carrington Pointe 24 24 0 5 2 1 8 0.208 0.083 0.042 0.333 Greenacres 16 16 0 2 0 1 3 0.1251 0.0001 0.063 0.188 Kendall Ride 106 21 85 2 0 0 2 0.095 0.000 0.000 0.095 Lakeland East: Portola 130 69 61 15 6 8 29 0 217 0.087 0 116 0 420 Lakeland: Ed eview 373 87 286 6 2 2 10 0 069 0.023 0 023 0 115 Lakeland: Pinnacle Estates 76 45 31 26 11 4 41 0 578 0.244 0.089 0 911 Lakeland The Reserve 80 80 0 24 15 15 54 0 300 0 188 0.188 0 675 Lakeland:Vista Heights 125 120 5 32 12 14 58 0.267 0.100 0.117 0 483 Monterey Park 239 113 126 7 3 3 13 0.062 0.027 0.027 0115 Pacific View-Meadows 78 78 0 23 7 15 45 0 295 0.090 0 192 0 577 Sterling Court 8 8 0 2 2 2 6 0 250 0.250 0.250 0750. Trail Run 169 169 0 36 14 21 71 0 213 0.083 0.124 0.420 Vinta a Place 25 17 8 7 0 5 12 0 412 0.000 0 294 0.706 Totals 1971 949 1022 205 82 110 397 0.227 0.085 0.129 0.441 Current Construction to be Occupied 2013 Estimated Students Based on Student Gen Factor Actual Students Projected Students Units/ Current To Be Student Generation Factors Development Name Parcels Occupancy Occupied Elem Middle HS Total Elem Middle HS Total Beaver Meadows 60 48 12 6 4 10 20 3 1 2 5 Brandon Meadows 55 13 42 2 0 1 3 10 4 5 19 Bridges 386 20 366 2 2 1 5 83 31 47 161 Kendall Ride 106 21 85 2 0 0 2 19 7 11 37 Lakeland East: Portola 130 69 61 15 6 8 29 14 5 8 27 Lakeland: Ed eview 373 87 286 6 2 2 10 65 24 37 126 Lakeland: Pinnacle Estates 76 45 31 26 11 4 41 7 3 4 14 Lakeland:Vista Heights 125 120 5 32 12 14 58 1 0 1 2 Monterey 239 113 126 7 3 3 13 29 11 16 56 Vinta e Place 25 17 8 7 0 5 12 2 1 1 4 Totals 1575 553 1022 105 40 48 193 231 87 132 451 50 4/9/2013 Auburn School District Development Growth since 1/1/07 2013 and up March,2013 Estimated Students Based on Student Gen Factor Projected Students Units/ Current To Be Student Generation Factors Development Name Parcels Occupancy Occupied Elem Middle HS Total Alicia Glenn 31 0 31 7 3 4 14 Anderson Acres 14 0 14 3 1 2 6 Backbone Ride 7 0 7 2 1 1 3 Brandon Place 78 0 78 18 7 10 34 Bridle Estates 18 0 18 4 2 2 B Cam-West 99 0 99 22 8 13 44 Estes Park 31 0 31 7 3 4 14 Har reef Kang 8 0 8 2 1 1 4 Hazel Heights 22 0 22 5 2 3 10 Hazel View 20 0 20 5 2 3 9 Lakeland East: Villas 81 0 81 18 7 10 36 Lakeland: Forest Glen At 30 0 30 7 3 4 13 Lakeland: Park Ride 256 0 256 58 22 33 113 Lawson Place 14 0 14 3 1 2 6 Megan's Meadows 9 0 9 2 1 1 4 Mountain View Estates 37 0 37 8 3 5 16 New Hoe Lutheran Plat 8 0 8 2 1 1 4 Pacific Lane 11 0 11 2 1 1 5 Ridge At Tall Timbers 104 0 104 24 9 13 46 Spencer Place 13 0 13 3 1 2 6 Sti s Plat 29 0 29 7 2 4 13 Willow Place 18 0 18 4 2 2 8 Yates Plat 161 01 16 4 1 2 7 954 1 954 Totals 2013and upl 2161 821 123 421 Grand Totals 1 4481 1691 255 871 51 Auburn School District Development Growth since 1/1/07 March,2013 MULTI FAMILY Units/ Current To Be Student Generation Factors Development Name Parcels Occupancy Occupied Elem Middle HS Total Elem Middle HS Total Butte Estates 29 29 0 8 5 5 18 0.276 0.172 0.172 0.621 Lakeland: Four Lakes Apts 234 219 15 14 4 2 20 0.064 0.018 0.009 0.091 Lakeland: Madera 70 70 0 2 0 1 3 0.029 0 000 0 014 0.043 Legend Townhomes 11 11 0 3 2 4 9 0.273 0 182 0 364 0.818 Pacific Ave Duplexes 12 12 0 5 1 1 7 0.417 0.083 0.083 0.583 Seasons at Lea Hill Village 3321 332 0 1231 421 481 213 0.370 0.127 0.145 0.642 Trail Run Townhomes 1151 1121 151 91 31 27 0.134 0.080 0.027 0.241 1207 1 7851 1881 761 98 362 0.223 1 0.095 1 0.116 1 0.434 Lakeland: Four Lakes Apts 1 2341 2191 15 1 141 41 2 22 0 3 2 2 8 Trail Run Townhomes 115 112 3 15 9 3 7 11 01 01 2 Totall 41 31 31 10 2013 and beyond Auburn Hills Apt/TH 205 0 205 46 19 24 89 "D" Street Plat 32 0 32 7 3 4 14 Sundallen Condos 48 0 48 11 5 6 21 285 285 Total 64 27 33 124 Grand Total 68 30 36 133 52 419/2013 ADBURN Nancy Backus, Mayor WASHINGTON 25 West Main Street # Aubum WA 98001 4998 * www.aubtirnwa.gov* 253-931-3000 February 4, 2014 CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED J.R. Chapman Trinity Contractors, Inc PO Box 1348 Marysville, WA 98270 RE. Award of Contract No 13-20 Project No. CP1301. 2013 Citywide Sidewalk Repair Letter of Award Dear Mr Chapman: Bids for construction of the above-referenced project were opened by the City Clerk at Auburn City Hall on Tuesday, January 21, 2014, at 11:00 am. Eleven (11) responsive bids were received and have been tabulated. Your firm submitted the lowest responsible bid. The City Council, at their meeting on February 3, 2014, approved award of the project to your firm. This letter serves as your notification of award for the subject project and is a contract specification. Please execute and return the following contract documents and other required information to the attention of Amanda DeSilver, Contracts Administration Specialist, within seven (7) calendar days after receiving this letter of award: I a) Contract, in duplicate. b) Contract Bond, in duplicate. c) Power of Attorney for your bonding company, in duplicate. d) Certificate(s) of insurance naming the City of Auburn as additional insured, in duplicate, for all required insurance coverage's. Please include the Contract Number, Project Number and Project Name on the certificate(s). e) Bond In Lieu of Retainage, in duplicate; A pre-construction meeting has been scheduled for 9-00 am on Tuesday, February 18, 2014, in Conference Room #1, located on the second floor of One East Main Street, Auburn. The City requires that the Contractor have the appropriate personnel at the pre-construction meeting. This would include, at a minimum, the project manager and the on-site superintendent. The Contractor is encouraged to include any of their staff or sub-contractor staff they feel are critical to the project. Please submit a Preliminary Progress Schedule for the first 30 working days, to me, no later than two (2) working days prior to the date of the pre-construction meeting. I 1 AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED i Trinity Contractors, Inc February 4, 2014 Page 2 of 2 I The Contractor shall submit electronically one (1) day prior to the pre-construction meeting: a) Preliminary schedule of submittals b) List of material sources Please bring the following items to the pre-construction meeting: I a) Requests to sublet work for all subcontractors and lower tier subcontractors b) Emergency call list c) A schedule of equipment and labor rates, as outlined in Section 1-09 6 (Force Account) to be utilized in the event of any Force Account activities. As noted in the contract documents, a Notice to Proceed will be issued within five (5) working days of the contract execution date, which is the date the contract has been fully executed by the City j I If you do not have a current Business License to work in the City of Auburn, an application has been included and should be returned to the Customer Service Center, One East Main Street, Auburn, as soon as possible. All subcontractors and lower tier subcontractors working on the project must also have a City of Auburn Business License. Please contact me at 253-804-5086 or Amanda DeSilver, Contracts Administration Specialist, at 253-876-1980 if you have any questions. Sin cereI I Jai Carter Street Systems Engineer Community Development & Public Works Dept. JC/ad/mh Enclosures cc: Dani Daskam, City Clerk Rick Keely, Project Inspector File 13.11 (CP1301) i I I i I I I ��HB tUl R I-N ENGAGE • EDUCATE - EMPOWER Junc 21, 2013 Jeff Tate , p k.., m. Planning and Development Director lJ I"i .'f� I :: City of Auburn IIIN 2111113 25 West Main Street Auburn, WA 98001 PLANNING I OF DEVELOPMENT Dear Mr. Tate, Enclosed you will find a copy of the Auburn School District Capital Facilities Plan for 2013 through 2019. The Plan has been prepared and adopted by the Auburn School District Board of Directors on May 28, 2013, in conformance with the Growth Management statutes of the State of Washington. Included in the Plan ere the following: • Six-Year Enrollment Projections • Auburn School District Standard of Service Li The District's overall capacity of the 6-year period ❑ An inventory of existing facilities ❑ Impact Pee Computations a District Capital Construction Plan The Auburn School District Board of Directors is requesting the plan be adopted by reference as part of the capital facilities clement of the City of Auburn's Comprehensive Plan and that the school impact fees be set in accordance with the plan for the 2014 fiscal year The Auburn School District is also requesting a change in the fees for 2014. 'file calculated fee for single-family is $5,398.93, a decrease of$112.76; and the calculated fee for multi-family is $3,387.84, an increase of$7.58. Please advise if additional information is required or needed. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely INIE chepdent usiations Copy to: Kip Herren, Superintendent, Auburn School District w/o enclosure Denise Stiffarm, K&L GATES LLP w/o enclosure Jeff Grose, Executive Director of Capital Projects w/o enclosure James P Fugate Administration Building • 916 Fourth Street NE •Auburn,WA 98002-4499•253-931-4930 Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Plan 2014®2019 Board Approved July 30, 2013 DIERINGER SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 343 1320-178'x'Avenue East Lake Tapps,Washington 98391 (253) 862-2537 BOARD OF DIRECTORS Corey Pawlak John McKenna Jim Barfoot Pete George Dennis Gronholdt Dr.Judy Neumeier-Martinson, Superintendent Dieringer Educating every child for Confidence today and Contribution tomorrow Dieringer School District No. 343 Dieringer School District 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 die 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 1,500 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. Dieringer Heights Elementary opened in the fall of 2000 and is home to students in kindergarten,fourth and fifth grade. 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 555 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 die 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. DIERINGER SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 343 Capital Facilities Plan Update, 2013 Current Facilities Inventory of Public Schools NAME CAPACITY LOCATION Lake Tapps Elementary 396 1320-17g'h Ave E., Lake Tapps Dieringer Heights Elementary 547 21727—34" St. E., Lake Tapps North Tapps Middle School 567 20029- 12a'St., E., Lake Tapps High School 0 TOTAL 1,510 L I Li R N C7 Al 2 JCKLESHO T INDIAN f LL 7 Z. j .0 p BY DIEPJNrFR SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.343 DISTRICT BOUNDARY MAP Dieringer School District Proposed Housing Potential Enrollment Increase June 2013 Proposed Housing Units: Single Family-219 x .452 generation factor=99 students K-8 grade Multi-family-324 x .242 generation factor= 78 students K-8 grade (Calculated based on Auburn SD 2008 Generation Factor) Enrollment Impact: 177 students K-8 Estimated 38.8 students a year over the period 2014-2019 Potential enrollment increase= 12% (based on 1,500 enrollment 12-13) Increase per grade level = 17.7 students (based on 10 grade bands) Approximately students per school: LTES 53;NTMS 53; DHES 71 District enrollment based on 12-13 and potential growth=1,677 students *current program capacity based on full-and half-Ume kindergarten 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 slow, 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. This growth trend has been slowed by current economic conditions, but will pick up in 2013 and beyond. There are 219 single family residents slated for construction within the next five years. The multi- Family projects will contribute an additional 324 residential units during that time. These projects, together with individual lots and general in-migration, are anticipated to generate an additional 177 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. Future anticipated growth will create the need to acquire an additional school site and construct an additional school to house the growing student enrollment. HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS Winter 2013 #1 Fairweather Cove Estates (17) Pierce Co -Noticeofapplication 1/24/01 - 28 (26) Single Family Lots (26 homes will be built on 28 lots) - 1600-2000 block of 160i St. @ the 17500-17800 block of Sumner-Tapps Hwy. -4 lots sold; 5 houses completed #2 Rainier Plateau (10) Pierce Co -Notice of application 10/13/00 - 10 Single Family Lots -End of 340' St. -Site work completed; home construction Tl3D #3 Grandview Ridge 11 and III (9) Pierce Co - Off Sumner-Tapps Hwy. across from Driftwood and Deer Island Dr. - Grandview Ridge Notice of Application 1/13/99 - 49 Single Family Lots; completed -III (9 lots)no date (no change) #4 Northlake Auburn -north of Lake Tapps Elementary -197 Single Family Lots - 197 completed #5 The Estates Pierce Co -234 single family Lots -South of road terminus from Lakeland Hills Hwy. -234 homes completed 96 Tapps Meadow (Van Der Hock) (11) Pierce Co -Notice of application 9/13/04 -11 large lots -across from Snag Island -site work complete (no change) #7 Country Creels Estates (9)Pierce Co -10 Single Family Lots-off 1514 near Edwards Road - one (1) house completed #8 Forest Canyon Estates (121) Pierce Co -121 Single Family Lots—off Forest Canyon Rd. -permit expired #9 Forest Canyon Heights (1)Pierce Co -23 Single Family Lots—off Forest Canyon Rd. - 19 homes completed; 3 under construction; #10 Terrace View Town homes Auburn -59 units; 1,2 &3 bedroom units; East Valley and Lake Tapps Pkwy. -Auburn City Limits -59 units completed #11 Carter Estates (16)Auburn -16 Single Family Lots— Lake Tapps Parkway and 179"' -16 homes (no construction scheduled) #12 Six Kilns (324) Sumner -324 Multi-family units; north of Sumner Meadows -Sumner City limits -324 units; construction permitting; construction completed by 12/2013 #13 Portofino (Lakeland 8) (25)Auburn -68 Single Family lots-north of Lake Tapps Parkway -43 homes permitted 219 Single Family Units to be built 324 Multiple Family Units to be built 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 is 23, fourth through fifth grade 26 and sixth through eighth grade 29. 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. DIERINGER SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 343 Capital Facilities Plan Update, 2013 Dieringer School District Service Standards Public School Facilities (Square Feet Per Student) Elementary School 120 Middle School 189 Junior High NA High School NA Dierineer School District Individual Capacity Projects (2014-2019) Elementary School No. 3 400 High School NA DIERINGER SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 343 PERMANENT CAPACITY PROJECTS MASTER SCHEDULE March, 2013 Name Current 6 - Year Total Capacity CapacltV Ca aci 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Lake Tapps Elementary 396 396 (LTES Replacement) Dieringer Heights Elem. 547 547 Elementary School No. 3 400 400 x North Tapps MS Incl 567 567 NTMS Additions 2009 TOTALS 1510 400 1910 DIERINGER SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 343 Capital Facilities Plan Update, June 2013 CFP Projects and Financing Plan Sources and Uses of Funds (x $1,000) Sources of Funds Existing Revenue: Reserve $890 New Revenue: Bonds, Levies, Fees, State Matching Funds, Dedications, Mitigation Payments $22,075 TOTAL SOURCES $22.965 Uses of Funds Elementary School No. 3 ($21,375) Non-Capacity Projects: School Site , Technology Upgrades, 1l •590) And Board Approved Projects TOTAL USES ($22,965) BALANCE 0 DIERINGER SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 343 FINANCE PLAN 2014-2019 June, 2013 Permanent Capacity Projects Unsecured Source of Funds Secured Source of Funds Estimated Estimated Estimated Impact Band & State Impact Cost Bond Amt. State Match Fees Interest Match Fees Elementary School No. 3 21,375,000 21,375,000 0 0 0 0 0 Total Capacity Projects 21,375,000 21,375,000 0 0 0 0 0 Non-Capacity Projects School Site Elem, No. 3 500,000 0 0 0 0 500,000 Technology Improvements 1,000,000 0 0 700,000 0 0 300,000 Board Approved Projects 90,000 0 0 0 0 90,000 Total Non-Capacity Projects 1,590,000 0 0 700,000 0 0 890,000 TOTAL PROJECTS 22,965,000 21,375,000 0 700,000 0 0 890,000 DIERINGER SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 343 Capital Facilities Plan Update, 2013 Capital Facilities Requirements to 2019 Time Period Student Student Net Resme Total Cost Population Capacity Or(Deficiency) (Cost/Student X Nei Deficiency) 2013 Actual 1500 1510 10 2014-2019 Growth 719 400 <319> Dieringer School District Cost Per Student (2013 Dollars) Elementary Middle Junior High High Schools Schools Schools Schools $22,500 $34,000 NA NA School Impact Fee Calculation 6/13 JDISTRICT Dieringer School District School Site Acquisition Cost: AcresxCast per Acre)/Facility Co aciiy)x5tudenf Generation Factor Siudenl Student Facilit_Cosf/ Facili Factor Factor Cost/ Cost/ Acreage jAcre jCopocity 5FR IMFR SFR MFR Elementary 1200 $500,000 400 0.322 -0.172 $4,B24 $2.580 Middle 0.130 0.070 TOTAL F $4,824T $2.580 School Construction Cost: Facliil Casi{Facilily Co acil x5ludent_Generailon Focforlx( ermonent/Totol S Ft) _ — Student Student Facility Facility Factor Factor Cost/ Cost/ Casi �Ca oclt SFR MFR SFR MFR Bementory No.3 $21,375,00❑ 400 L_ 0.322 0.172 $17,207 $9.191 0.130 0.070 TOTAL —� $17,207 $9,191 Temporary Facility Cost: )Facility Cos /Facility CapocilylxSiudent Generation Fcctor)x(Tem orary/Total Square Feet) Student Student Cost/ Cost/ %Temp/ IFacility jFocllily Factor Factor SFR . MFR _ Total Sq.FI Cosl j5izB SFR MFR Elementary $0 0 0.322 0.172 Middle $0 ❑ 0.130 0.070 —_� TOTAL $0 $0 State Matching Credit i i i 1 1 Boeckh Index X SPI Square Footage X Disirict Match%o X Student Factor Student Student Boeckh SPI District Foctar Factor Cost/ Cost/ Index IFootoge I Match`a SFR MFR SFR MFR Elementary Middle TOTAL $0 $0 Tax Payment Credit: SFR I MFR Average Assessed Value 2012 '$348.420 $251,113 Capitol Bond Interest Role lest) 6/12 3.50% 3.50%, Net Present Value of Average Dwellin $2,897,672 1 $2,OBB,408 10 10 Properly Tax Levy Rate 1 2013 0 $3.9457 $3.9457 Present Value of Revenue Stream $11,433 1 $8,240 Fee Sumary: Single _ Multiple Family Family Site Acquistion Costs $4,824.00 $2,580.00 Permanent Facility Cost $17,206.88 9,191.25 Temporary Facility Cost $0.00 0.00 State Match Credit $0.00 $0.00 ,Lox Pa ment Credit $11.433.34 $8,240.23 FEE $10,598 $3,537 _ FEE WITH DISCOUNT OF 50%, $5,299 FEE WITH DISCOUNT OF 50% $1,766 DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE for Dieringer School District No. 343 2013 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 2013 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 2013 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 2013 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 2013 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 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 District's 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., July 29, 2013. 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: / 1�Gf/GLI�Id�I'l Dr Judy . eu eier-Martmson �S1 perintndent 'Dieringer School District No. 343 Telephone: (253) 862-2537 Address: 1320 1781"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 178"Ave E., Lake Tapps, Washington 98391 and pursuant to WAC 680 and RCW 43.21 C.075. Date of Issue: July 15, 2013 Date Published June 5, 2013 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. A. BACKGROUND 1. 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 2013 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. 2. Name of applicant: Dieringer School District No. 343 3. 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 Neumeier-Martinson, Superintendent Telephone: (253) 862-2537 4. Date checklist prepared: June 5, 2013. 5. Agency requesting checklist: Dieringer School District No. 343 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): The 2013 Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Plan is scheduled to be adopted in July, 2013 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. 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. 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 2013 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 2013 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. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, and more than 2/3 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 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 (le., 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 NDnproject 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. 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. q) 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 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 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 G. 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 Nonprojecl 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. G. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. 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-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. 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, 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 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. G. 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 which would be addressed during project specific environmental review. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonprojecl 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 plan 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" 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. G. 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 the project- specific environmental review. G. 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. 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. C. 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. G. 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 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: Y Dr Judy J meier-Madinson, Sup rintendent i Date Submitted: June 5, 2012 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. 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 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. 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 Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Plan will not conflict with any laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. IIIIII�����M�'4 IERINGER SCHOOL DISTRICT Educating every child for Confidence today and Contribution tomorrow June 5, 2013 Kevin Snyder Director of Planning City of Auburn 25 West Main Street Auburn, WA 98001-4998 Subject: Dieringer School District- Mitigation Impact Fees Dear Mr. Snyder: The Dieringer School District has completed the Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Plan for 2014-2019. In preparing the updated Capital Facilities Plan the District once more reviewed the question of the School Impact Fee Calculation. Based on the analysis of the District's site acquisition and permanent facility costs,the Dieringer School District Board of Directors has determined that the appropriate mitigation impact fee for the permitting of a single family residence is $5,299 and$1,766 Per unit for a multiple family residence. A review of the fees collected by the City of Auburn, on behalf of other school districts within the city, serves to support the validity of the Dieringer requested fee of$5,299 and $1,766 per unit for a multiple family residence. The property values within the boundaries of the Dieringer School District are the highest in Pierce County; this causes site acquisition to be expensive and contributes to overall higher construction costs than other school districts experience. Therefore, it is most appropriate for the mitigation impact fees collected on behalf of the Dieringer School District to be adjusted to more closely approximate the fees collected for other local school districts. The Dieringer School District requests that the City of Auburn adjust the mitigation impact fees collected on behalf of the District to the $5,299 and $1,766 per unit for a multiple family residence established in the Capital Facilities Plan for 2014-2019. Please let me know if you need further information by contacting me at(253) 862-2537. Sin rely, dy e r-Martinson 1320- 1781h Avenue East• Luke Tupps,Washington 98391 •(253)862-2537-FAX(253)862-8472 Dieringer School Dish icl 9343 is an Equal Opporvunitr brsritruion 31405-18th Ave.S., Federal Way, WA Federal 98003-5433 Public Schools Phone (253)-945-2000 WWW fwyjx July 1, 2013 Jeff Dixon Principal Planner City Of Auburn 25 West Main Street Auburn WA 98001-4998 Dear Mr. Dixon, Attached is a copy of the Federal Way Public Schools' 2014 Capital Facilities Plan. The Federal Way Public Schools' Board of Education adopted this plan on June 25, 2013. The Federal Way Public Schools' Board of Education Resolution No. 2013-15 directs the Superintendent to submit the adopted Federal Way Public Schools' 2014 Capital Facilities Plan to the City of Auburn. A copy of the resolution is attached for your files. The expenditure report for the 2012 calendar year is also attached. The Federal Way Public Schools' Board of Education requests the City of Auburn to increase the 2014 impact fee to $5,363 for each single-family development and increase the impact fee to$1,924 for each multi-family development. Sincerely, 4zel�_ Robert R.Neu Superintendent c: Board of Education Sally McLean, Chief Financial Officer Tanya Nascimento, Student&Demographic Forecaster Enclosure: 3 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2014 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN , UNDER \ UNDER UNDER x eoNSmoCnoNi CONSMUMN� ° folmoLIMNI FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2014 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Adopted June 25, 2013 BOARD OF EDUCATION Tony Moore Angela Griffin Ed Barney Danny Peterson Claire Wilson SUPERINTENDENT Rob Neu Prepared by- Sally D McLean Tanya Nascimento FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2014 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS I INTRODUCTION 2 SECTION I THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Introduction 3 Inventory of Educational Facilities 4 Inventory of Non-Instructional Facilities 5 Needs Forecast - Existing Facilities 6 Needs Forecast -New Facilities 7 Six Year Finance Plan 8 SECTION 2 MAPS OF DISTRICT BOUNDARIES Introduction 9 Map - Elementary Boundaries 10 Map - Middle School Boundaries 11 Map - High School Boundaries 12 SECTION 3 SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION Introduction 13 Building Capacities 14-15 Portable Locations 16-17 Student Forecast 18-20 Capacity Summaries 21-25 King County Impact Fee Calculations 26-28 SECTION 4 SUMMARY OF CHANGES FROM THE 2013 29-31 PLAN 1 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2014 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 2014 Capital Facilities Plan as of May 2013. 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. Currently, the District plans to replace Federal Way High School and to increase capacity by approximately 200 students. Federal Way High School was built in 1938. The estimated cost to rebuild Federal Way High School is $106 million. On April 9, 2013, the District's board of directors passed a resolution in support of the construction site recommendation made by Federal Way High School staff, community members, & architects. The District continues to monitor factors that may have an impact on enrollment and capacity at our schools. One such factor is SHB 2776, reinforced by the McCleary decision,which will phase in full-day kindergarten for all students and decrease K-3 class size from 20 to 17 This is proposed to be fully funded by 2017-18. Using current enrollment, the decrease in class size would create the need for an additional 58 classes for K-3 students. This classroom need is expected to fluctuate due to changing demographics. 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. The maps included in this Plan reflect our current boundaries. 2 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2014 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. 3 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2014 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN INVENTORY OF EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (K-5) Adelaide 1635 SW 304" St Federal Way 98023 Brigadoon 3601 SW 336" St Federal Way 98023 Camelot 4041 S 298"St Auburn 98001 Enterprise 35101 5d'Ave SW Federal Way 98023 Green Gables 32607 47"Ave SW Federal Way 98023 Lake Dolloff 4200 S 308"St Auburn 98001 Lake Grove 303 SW 3081" St Federal Way 98023 Lakeland 35827 32"d 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 314" St Federal Way 98003 Nautilus (K-8) 1000 S 289"St Federal Way 98003 Olympic View 2626 SW 327"St Federal Way 98023 Panther Lake 34424 1"Ave S Federal Way 98003 Rainier View 3015 S 368" St Federal Way 98003 Sherwood Forest 34600 12'"Ave SW Federal Way 98023 Silver Lake 1310 SW 325"Pl Federal Way 98023 Star Lake 4014 S 270"St Kent 98032 Sunnycrest 24629 42"d Ave S Kent 98032 Twin Lakes 4400 SW 320" St Federal Way 98023 Valhalla 2784742 d Ave S Auburn 98001 Wildwood 2405 S 300' St Federal Way 98003 Woodmont (K-8) 26454 16i'Ave S Des Moines 98198 MIDDLE SCHOOLS (6-8) Federal Way Public Academy (6-10) 34620 9"Ave S Federal Way 98003 Illahee 36001 l"Ave S Federal Way 98003 Kilo 4400 S 308"St Auburn 98001 Lakota 1415 SW 314" St Federal Way 98023 Sacajawea 1101 S Dash Point Rd Federal Way 98003 Saghahe 33914 19`h Ave SW Federal Way 98023 Sequoyah 3450 S 360" ST Auburn 98001 Totem 26630 40d'Ave S Kent 98032 TAF Academy(6-12) 26630 40d'Ave S Kent 98032 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`h Ave S Federal Way 98003 Career Academy at Truman 3 145 5 28d'Ave S Federal Way 98003 ADDITIONAL SCHOOLS Internet Academy (K-12) 31455 28'"Ave S Federal Way 98003 Merit School (6-12) 36001 1"Ave S Federal Way 98003 Employment Transition Program (12+) 33250 21"Ave SW Federal Way 98023 4 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2014 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN CURRENT INVENTORY NON-INSTRUCTIONAL FACILITIES Developed Property Central Kitchen 1214S 332nd Federal Way 98003 Federal Way Memorial Field 1300 S 308'h St Federal Way 98003 Educational Services Center 33330 81h Ave S Federal Way 98003 Support Services Center 1211 S332 nd St Federal Way 98003 Surplussed Space Administrative Building 31405 18'h Ave S Federal Way 98003 MOT Site 1066 S 3201h St Federal Way 98003 Notes: In January 2012, the Administrative Building, Community Resource Center, and Student Support Annex were combined into the Educational Services Center Central Kitchen will be relocated to this site in during 2013 The Administration Building and MOT Site have been surplussed and are being marketed for sale. 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 335'h Streets - 10 04 Acres 73 N of SW 3201h and east of 45"' 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 14t11 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. 5 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2014 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN NEEDS FORECAST - EXISTING FACILITIES EXISTING FACILITY FUTURE NEEDS ANTICIPATED SOURCE OF FUNDS Purchase and Relocate Interim Capacity Anticipated source of funds is Portables Impact Fees. Federal Way High School Replace Existing Building, Capital levy request Increase Capacity As part of the multi-phase plan, the District intends to increase capacity for high school students with expansion at the Federal Way High School site. Increased capacity at Federal Way High, and Decatur High in later phases, supplant the need for construction of a fifth comprehensive high school. 6 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2014 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN NEEDS FORECAST - ADDITIONAL FACILITIES NEW FACILITY LOCATION ANTICIPATED SOURCE OF FUNDS No current plans for additional facilities. 7 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2014 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Six Year Finance Plan Secured Funding Sources Impact Fees(1) $49,734 Land Sale Funds(2) ($11,713,554) liond l and,(3) $6,917.271 Stale Match(4) $12.806,988 TOTAL $8,060,439 Projected Revenue Sources State Match(5) $27,200,000 Bond or Leto Funds(6) $70,000,000 Land Fund Sales(7) $10,000,000 Im pact Feces t8) S800.000 TOTAL $I o8,000,00tt Actual and Planned Expenditures IT.t.1 Secured Funding and Pmjected Revert ue SII6,060,439 NEW SCHOOLS =Estimated and Budget 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total :101.1 Cost. 2013-14 2074-IS 2111546 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2014-2020 MODERNIZATION AND EXPANSION Federal Way High School(9) ;;$I01000,000 $40,000,0110 $45,000,090 $11,010,000 $96,00g000 7$106,000,1100 SITE ACQUISITION Norman Center $585,000 $7.00.0110 $205,000 $215000 S220.000 $225,000 $235,000 $235,000 $1,535,000 - S2,120,0181 (Emplovn,ent Trsnstion program)(10) TEMPORARY FACILITIES _ -- $200,M0'ortbs(1I) $200.0Ni $200.10S200,001) $'_00100 $LOOOpl10 - S1,010,000 TtAL 1 11 1 1 g 1 S11,415,0001 S420,0001 $425,41001 $235,0001 $235,0001 $98,535,1100 : _,S109 120004 NO ITS: I. These fees are currently being held in a King County.City of Fda al Way and City of Kent impact fce account and ss dl he as adahle for use by the Mst riot for s)stent an penmen Is. 1 his,year end ha Ian cc on 12 13 1/1' 1 These funds me,,peeled to come from the vile of the current ESC and MOT sites This is year end balance on 12/31/12 3. '1 his is the 1'_/31/1'_haance of bond funds. "Phis figure includes interest earnings 4 'Phis represents the h:d.mee of Stale Alua.h Foods,fuel,sill be used to to support the rebmldme of I oderal Way Iltgh School "I'his is the balance on 12/31/1'- 5 Hus is anticipated State Match for the rebuilding of Federal Way High School Application for funds santimputed to be made in July 2013. 6 'these include$l0m of,ester appioved,but not issued and a S60n,vis-year Ievp appr.,,d m Notcmb,201'_ 7 Pm)c�ld Safe 017sr„plus properties. l'hose funds w dl be used to retire deb,incurred for the acquisition ofs replacement Educational Support Center. 8 'Ihcsc are projected(s based upon knots n residential da'clopmcnu in the Disu,ct oscr the nest s,wars This figure msunus S25,900 per month for the nest sn wars 'I his figure has he m adjusted to reflect the ctincin economy 9 Pro,rt budget has been adjusted to muuh cement project cwt estanntes 10 Norman Center ssas purchased in 2010 to house the Employment"Transition Program The S2 fin purchase has been financed through a state approved LOCAL program through 2020 11.'1'hese fees represent the cost of purchasing and installing new p,r,ahles Ric pnnable enpead,wrc in future years may replace es,sung portables that are not functional "Flies,may not increase capacity and are not included m the capacity summap 8 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2014 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN SECTION 2 - MAPS OF DISTRICT BOUNDARIES Federal Way Public Schools has twenty-one elementary schools (grades K-5), two schools with a K-8 grade configuration, seven middle school schools (grades 6-8), four high schools (grades 9-12) and three small secondary schools. The Federal Way Public Academy serves students in grades 6-10 The TAF Academy serves students in grades 6- 12 who reside in the Totem Middle School service area. The Career Academy at Truman High School serves students in grades 9-12. The following maps show the service area boundaries for each school, by school type. (Career Academy at Truman High School 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 students who are required to change schools. Boundary adjustments impact the whole district, notjust 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. 9 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2014 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Federal Way Public Schools t ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS ® MIDDLE SCHOOLS q 1 ADELAIDEELEMENTARY 36 RIV PUBLICACADEM'f 2 BRIGADOON ELEMENTARY 30 ILLAHEE MIDDLE SCHOOL 3 CAMELOT ELEMENTARY 31 KILO MIDDLE SCHOOL 4 ENTERPRISE ELEMENTARY 32 LAKOTA MIDDLE SCHOOL 5 GREEN GABLES ELEMENTARY 33 SAGHALIEMMDLE SCHOOL 6 LAKE DOLLOFFELEMENTARY 34 S.GHALIE MIDDLE SCHOOL - T LAKE GROVE ELEMENTARY 37 SFOUOYAH MIDDLE SCHOOL 3 LAKEIAND ELEMENTARY 35 TAFACAD MY SCFiUCi 9 MARK MEREDITH Hl ELEMENTARY 381 TAF ACADEMY 10 MEREDRH HILL ELEMENTARY 31 MIRROR LAKE ELEMENTARY 12 NADTILUS K-S SCHOOL HIGH SCHOOLS 10 DECATUR HIGH /3 OLYIAPICVIE'.V ELEMENTARY I� 14 PANTHERWE ELEMENTARY 17 THOMASIVAYHIO dJ 15 RAIN ER VIEW ELEMENTARY 121 THOhUS1EF FEPSON HIGH r- 111 w 25 SHERWOOD FOREST ELEMENTARY 45 TODD BEAMER HIGH 17 SILVER LAKE ELEMENTARY 190 CAREER ACADEMY 0 nUMAN _ '�i1t•� V 18 STAR LAKE ELEMENTARY 51 ETFINORMA N CENTER 19 SUNNVCRESTELEMENTARY �c I r 20 TWIN LAKESELEMENTARY ■ ADMINISTRATIVE SITES I- 21 VALHMLAELEMENTMY 22 WILDWOOD ELEMENTARY { '� +• ���' I Y� 23 WOODMONT Kb SCHOOL FV;PS PROFFRN I I{�I 5- , J v JyI + L I MIDDLE SCHOOL Af BOUNDARIES . r' C11133 GG 05 L2 q' Date:5.4.12 11 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2014 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN a Federal Way Public Schools ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 0 MIDDLE SCHOOLS 1 ADEWDE ELEMENTARY 36 FW PUBLIC ACADEMY 2 BRIGADOON ELEMENTARY 30 ILLA14E MIDDLE SCHOOL 3 CAMELOT ELEMENTARY 31 KILO MIDDLE SCHOOL 4 ENTERPRISE ELEMENTARY 32 LAKOTA MIDDLE SCHOOL 5 GREEN GABLES ELEMENTARY 33 SAMAWEAMIDDLE SCHOOL 6 LAKE DOLLOFF ELEMENTARY 34 SAGHALIE MIDDLE SCHOOL ] LAKE GROVE ELEMENTARY I - B LAKEUND ELEMENTARY 37 SEOLIOYAH MIDDLE SCHOOL 35 TOTEM MEDDLE SCHOOL 9 MARK TWAIN ELEMENTARY 381 TAf ACADEMY 10 MEREDITH HILLELEMENTARY 13 MIRROR LAKE ELEMENTARY rTd i 12 NAUTILUS K4SCXOOL HIGH SCHOOLS � � I 13 OLYMPIC VIEW ELEMENTARY AG DECATUR HIGH 1 24 PANTHER LAKE ELEMENTARY 41 FEDERAL WAY HIGH 15 RAN ER VIf.V ELEMENTARY AL THOMASIEFFERSON HIGH 16 SHERWOOD FOREST ELEMENTARY 45 TODD REAMER HIGH •61.7x' 17 SILVER LAKE ELEMENTARY 27 490 CAREER ACADEMY 0 TRUMAN ))L 51 ETPINORMAN CENTER 'N12 Y=l .V STAR LAKE ELEMENTARY A,>y i`f 19 SUNNYCREST ELEMENTARY 20 TWIN LAKES ELEMENTARY . ADMINISTRATIVE SITES 21 VALHALLA ELEMENTARY 22 WILOWDOO ELEMENTARY 23 WOODMONT K2 SCHOOL F sPROPERTY ri I,I�Iq i iilil �--r��•� _.. .. i IIII R. ELEMENTARY �I BOUNDARIES - I N M153 a6 as L IIII., Data:6 2..2 10 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2014 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Federal Way *J, Public Schools 0 ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS ■ MIDDLE SCHOOLS 1 ADELAIDE ELEMENTARY 36 FWPUBUCACAOEMY �I y 2 BRIGADOON ELEMENTARY 30 IUAHEE MIDDLE SC1400L { I 3 CAMELOT ELEMENTARY 31 KILO MIDDLE SCHOOL - A ENTERPRISE ELEMENTARY 32 LAKOTA MIDDLE SCHOOL S GREEN GABLES ELEMENTARY 33 StCAIAWEAMIODLE SCHOOL 6 LAKE DOLLOFFELEMENTARY 34 SAGHALIE MIDDLE SCHOOL T LAKE GROVE ELEMENTARY 37 SEQUOYAH MIDDLE SCHOOL — 8 LAKELAND ELEMENTARY It - 9 MARK TWAIN ELEMENTARY 35 TAF ACADEMY SCHOQL 3ffi TAF AfAOEMY I ID MEREDITH WLLELEhENTMY 11 MIRROR LAKE ELEMENTARY i HIGXSCHOOLS 12 NAUTILUS K4 SCHOOL d0 DECATUR HIGH 13 OLYMPIC VIEW ELEMENTARY 91 FEDERAL HIGHIGH 15 RANTER IM ELEMENTARY Y A71 THDMASIEFFERSON HIGH 15 SHERIFF VIEW REST ELEMENTARY 4S TODD REAMER HIGH fl + 26 SILVERL LAKE ELEMENTARY TA hENiARY 490 CAREER ACADEMY 6 TRUMAN 17 SILVER LAKE ELEMENTARY 52 ETP/NORMANCENTER 18 STAR IANE FIEMFhTARY 19 SUNNYCREST ELEMENTARY h 20 TWIN LAKESELEMEM1TARY . ADMINISTRATIVE SITES 21 VALHALLA ELEMENTARY 22 WIU3WDOD ELEMENTARY .L 23 WOODNIONTK$SCHOOL _ ...�Cl fl FVVPS PROPERTY _ EJ e I —T JIM 1 a r s, a rj T w MIDDLE ? -- ' SCHOOL ' L BOUNDARIES ' I 011113 66 69 L2 ®MkR 09o:3.4.12 11 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2014 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Federal Way Public Schools ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS ■ MIDDLE SCHOOLS 1 ADELAIDEELEMENTARY 36 FW PUBLIC ACADEMY 2 BRIGADOON ELEMENTARY 30 ILLAHEE MIDDLE SCHOOL 1 3 CAMELOTELEMENTARY 31 KILO MIDDLE SCHOOL III -1. 4 ENTERPRISEELEMENTARY 32 LAKOTA MIDDLE SCHOOL rc 5 GREEN GABLES ELEMENTARY 33 SACAIAWEA MIDDLE SCHOOL 1 ' 6 LAKE DOLLOFF ELEMENTARY 34 SAGHAIE MIDDLE SCHOOL 7 LAKE GROVE ELEMEMANY 37 SEOWVAH MIDDLE SCHOOL B uKFLAxD ELEMENTARY 37 TOTEM MIDDLE SCHOOL 9 MARK TWAIN ELEMEMARY 381 TAF ACADEMY �1jYI 4� 10 MEREDITH HLLELEMENTARY 11 MIRROR LAKE ELEMENTARY 12 NAUTILUS K-8 SCNDOL HIGH SCHOOLS 13 OLYMPICVIEW ELEMENTARY 40 DECATUR HIGH 14 PANTHER LAKE ELEMENTARY 41 FEDERAL WAY NIGH - 15 RAINIER VIES'ELEMENTARY 421 THOMASIEFFERSON HIGH ll 16 SHERWOOD FOREST ELEMENTARY 45 TODD BEAMER HIGH <i . ',f^-0 17 SILVERLAKE ELEMENTARY 490 CAREER ACADEMY 9 TRUMAN A11 Yr 18 STAR LAKE ELEMENTARY 51 ETP/NORMAN CENTER rrYl�Yl 19 SUN NYCREST ELEMENTARY ^. 20 TWIN LAKES ELEMENTARY . ADMINISTRATIVE SITES 21 VALHALLA ELEMENTARY 22 WILDWOOD ELEMENTARY 23 WOODMONT K-E SCHOOL ,i FlMDS OROtE RTV TI r 5 t4 a < IV I a HIGH 1I SCHOOL a J I - BOUNDARIES 1,/°0 ,� jll IN I 011103 D6 09 L2 hfleF Dahl 3.4.12 12 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2014 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN SECTION 3 - SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION Building Capacities - The Education Program Portable Locations Student Forecast—2014 through 2020 Capacity Summaries King County Impact Fees - Single and Multi-Family Units 13 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2014 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 2 should be 20 students. Due to current economic conditions, the target class size for K through 2 has been temporarily increased. With the legislative compliance with McCleary, we intend to decrease K though 2 class sizes to 17 by the 2017-18 school year. In grades 3-5 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. Using the OSPI square footage calculation as a base line, the District has calculated a program capacity for all schools. The following list clarifies the adjustments to the OSPI calculation. Music Rooms: Each elementary school requires a standard classroom for music instruction. All Day Kindergarten: Every elementary school operates at least one all day Kindergarten program. These all day Kindergarten programs require additional capacity because the standard classroom is available for one all day session rather than two half day sessions. The District will operate 57 sections of all day Kindergarten in 2013-14. Once the State budget has been approved,we anticipate adding additional sections of all day Kindergarten. Special Education Resource Rooms: Each elementary and 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 elementary, middle school and high school requires the use of a standard classroom for students learning English as a second language. Middle School Computer Lahs: 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. 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/ECEA P/Headstart: Our district currently offers preschool programs for both special needs & typically developing students at 8 elementary schools. We also have the ECEAP and Headstart program at 6 schools (3 elementary& 3 high schools). These programs decrease capacity at those sites. Alternative 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. 14 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2014 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN BUILDING PROGRAM CAPACITIES ELEMENTARY BUILDING MIDDLE SCHOOL BUILDING PROGRAM CAPACITY PROGRAM CAPACITY School Name leadcount School Name HeadcoWiL FTE Adelaide 371 Illahee 855 864 Brigadoon 325 Kilo 829 837 Camelot 255 Lakota 707 714 Enterprise 461 Sacajawca 659 666 Green Gables 463 Saghalie 804 812 Lake DolJotT 439 Sequa ah M9 575 Lake Grave 345 Totem 739 746 Lakeland 397 Federal Way Public Academy 209 211 Mark Twain 327 Technology Access Foundation Academy" Meredith Hill 441 Merit School** Mirror Lake 337 2013 TOTAL 5,371 5,425 Nautilus(K-8) 353 OI}nipic View 357 *Middle Schaal Average 737 745 Panther Lake 427 Rainier View 435 HIGH SCHOOL BUILDING Sherwood Forest 429 PROGRAM CAPACITY Silver Lake 419 Star Lake 345 School Name Headcount FIE Sunnycrest 408 Decatur 1249 1,336 Then Lakes 318 Federal Way 1492 1,596 Valhalla 388 Ilionias Jefferson 1349 1,443 Wildwood 312 Todd Beamer 1142 1,221 Woodmont(K-8) 352 Career Academy at Trunian 163 174 2013 TOTAL 8,704 Federal Way Public Acadeny 109 117 Employment I'mnsntion Progrun 48 51 Technology Access Foundation Academy** Elementary Average 378 Ment School** 201 . S52 5,9 *High School Average 1,308 1,399 Notes * Federal Way Public Academy,Career Academy at"human Fhgh School,and Employment'IYatsinon Program are non-boundary schools. These schools are not used in the calculated averages **I ethnology Access Foundation Academy is housed entirely in Portables on the Totem Middle School site Merit School is housed entirely in portables on die Illahee Middle School site 15 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2014 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 temporary facilities or 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 temporary housing for students until permanent facilities can be financed and constructed. 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. It is the practice and philosophy of Federal Way Public Schools that portables are not acceptable as permanent facilities. The following page provides a list of the location of the portable facilities, used for temporary educational facilities by Federal Way Public Schools. 16 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2014 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN PORTABLE LOCATIONS PORTABLESLOCATED PORTABLES LOCATED AT ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS AT HIGH SCHOOLS nsrai rno.0 naarcrio.0 �rw.a a.0 nsixi c�osu Adelaide 1 2 Decatw 9 Bn acloon 1 Federal Way 1 2 Camelot 1 Thomas.lefferson 10 Enterprise 2 1 Todd Beamer' 9 Green Gables 1 TAP Academy 8 1 Lake Dolloff 1 I TOTAL T" 3 Lake Grove 2 Lakeland Mark"I",am 3 Meredith Hill 1 2 Minor Lake 5 PORTABLES LOCATED Nautilus 1 AT SUPPORT FACILITIES Olympic View 1 1 Panther Lake MOT Rainier View 3 TIC 5 Sherwood Forest 3 1 ITOTAL 5 Silver Lake 4 Star Lake 3 1 Sumtycrest HEAD START PORTABLES AT DISTRICT SITES Twin Lakes 1 2 Valhalla fSherwood Forest i I Wildwood 4 0o mont 3 Until 1 TO AL 30 22 PORTABLESLOCATED AT MIDDLE SCHOOLS .o. nsix�rnm,w romirno.0 Illahee 3 Kilo 2 5 Lakota Sacalawea 8 Saghahe 2 2 Sequoyah 2 Totem Merit 3 "CAF Academy 8 1 25 11 17 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2014 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 100 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 first 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 Master TM software provides statistical methods including trend line, standard grade progression (cohort) and combinations of these methods. This software produces a live-year projection of school enrollment. In December 2012, the District contracted a demographer to develop projections for the Federal Way School District. The report was complete in March 2013 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 something else (e.g. population) or that enrollment will mirror some projected trend for 18 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2014 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 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 2022. This model produces a projection that is between 23,000 and 24,000 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. Current economic conditions do appear to be affecting enrollment. This is reflected in the District's projections. 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 future. 19 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2014 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Full Time Equivalent Enrollment History and Projections Simplified FTE(K Headcount= 5 P'I'E,Middle School FTE=99 Headcount,High School FTE= 935Headcount) 'total K-12 Percent Calendar Yr School Year Elemenhu2 Middle School High School FIT Change 2008 2007-08 8,912 5,167 6,637 20,716 2009 2008-09 8,965 5.155 6,456 20.476 -1.1 2010 2009-10 8,739 5.119 6,594 20,451 -0.1% 2011 2010-11 8,753 5.142 6.544 20.439 -0.1 % 2012 2011-12 5,800 5,134 6,448 20,382 -0.3% 2013 2012-13 8914 4,963 6,367 20144 -0.79'. 2014 132013-14 9,086 4,773 6,268 20,127 -0.6% 2015 P2014-15 9,236 4,818 6,258 20,312 0.9% 2016 P2015-16 9,269 4,969 6,113 20.351 0.2% 2017 112016-17 9,385 5,072 5,967 20,424 0.40, 2018 P2017-18 9,463 5,082 5,927 20,472 0.2% 2019 P2018-19 9,562 5,058 6,076 20.696 1.15, 2020 P2019-20 9,631 5,190 6,124 20.945 1.2% Elauenfary K-5 A/iddle School&8 High.School9-12 Enrollment History and Six Year Forecast 22,000 21,000 20,000 19,000 18,000 17,000 16,000 15,000 School Year OFTE 20 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2014 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Capacity Summaries All Grades, Elementary, Middle School, and High Schools The Capacity Summaries combine Building 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 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 21 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2014 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN CAPACITY SUNN4ARY-ALL GRADES Budget -- Projected -- Calendar Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 CAPACITY School Year EE 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 BUILDING PROGRAM HEADCOUNT CAPACITY 19,627_ 19,627 19,627 19,627 19,827 19,827 19,827 FTECAPACiTY, -^ 20,067 20,067. 2027676 20,067 20,267 20,267 20,267 Add or subtract changes to capacity Increase Capacity at Federal Way HS 200 Adjusted Program Headcount Capacity 19,627 19,627 19,627 19,827 19,827 19,827 19,827 Adjusted Program FTE Capacity .20,062 : 20,067 2Q 067 `20,267 20,267, 20,267 20,267 ENROLLMENT Basic FTE Enrollment 20,127 20,312 20,351 20,424 20,472 20,696 20,945 Internet Academy Enrolhmnt (AAFTE) (315) (315) (315) (315) (315) (315) (315) Basic FTE Enrollment without Internet Academy' 19,812 '19,997 20,036 20,109.'- 20,157:. 20;381 20;630 SURPLUS OR(IINHOUSED) _ PROGRAM FM CAPACITY 255 70 31 1.58 110 (114) (363) RELOCATAB LE CAPACITY Current Portable Capacity 2,300 2,300 2,300 2,300 2,250 2,250 2,250 Deduct Portable Capacity (50) Add New Portable Capacity Adjusted Portable Capacity 2,300 2,300 2;300 2,250 2,250 2,250 2,250 SURPLUS OR(IIVHOUSED) PROGRAM AND RELOCATABLE CAPACITY 2,555 2,370 2,331 2,408 2,360 2,130 'A887- 22 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2014 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN CAPACITY S UNWARY-ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS Budget -- Projected -- Calendar Year 2014 2015 1 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 CAPACITY ISchoolYeir 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 BUILDING PROGRAM HEAD COUNT CAPACITY 8,704 8,704 8,704 8,704 8,704 8,704 8,704 FTE CAPACITY 8,704 8;704 8,704 .8,704 ' 8,704 8,704 8,704,` Adjusted Program Headcount Capacity 8,704 8,704 81704 8,704 8,704 8,704 8,704 'Adjusted Pro rarrFTECa acity^ 8,704 8,704 8,704 8,704 8,704 '8,704 ` 8,704' ENROLLMENT Basic FTE Fwollment 9,086 9,236 9,269 9,385 9,463 9,562 9,631 Internet Academy (AAFTE)i (36) (t6) (3C>) (3 16) (36) (36) (36) Basic FTEEtirclhnen t;wrthou[ IntemetA'cade 9,050 '9,200' ' 9,233 9,30 '9,427- ;.9,526 '. 9,595, SURPLUS OR(UNHOUSED) _ PROGRAM CAPACITY �, - (346) '(4').6) (529) (645)' (723) 1 ,(M.) ' '(891)' RFLOCATABLECAPACFW Current Portable Capacity 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 Adjusted Portable Capacity 0 .`750' •750 . ' .750, � .750 ,4750 . '750 SURPLUS OR(UNHOUSED) PROGRAM AND RELOCATABLE "CAPACITY 404 254 221 ' " 105 =27" .t (72) NOTES: i Internet Academy students are included in projections but do not require full tire use of school facilities. Relocatable Capacity is based on the number of portables available and other administrative techniques which can be used to temporarily house students until pemnnem facilities are available.This is a calculated number only The actual numberof portables that will be used will be based on actual student population needs. The District niiy begin to pull portables fromthe uistniclional inventory Age and condition of the portables will detemtine feasibility for continued instructional use 23 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2014 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN CAPACITYSULVPvL RY-MIDDLESCHOOLS Budget -- Projected -- Calendar Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 CAPACITY School Year 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 201(}17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 BUILDING PROGRAM HEADCOUNT CAPACITY 5,371 5,371 5,371 5,371 5,371 5,371 5,371 FTE CAPACITY, 5,425 5,425 5,424 5,425. 5,425 - 5,425 5,425 Add or subtract changes to capacity Adjusted Pro rani Headcount Capacity 5,371 1 5,371 1 5,371 5,371 1 5,371 1 5,371 i 5,371 Adjusted Pro iamFTECapacity 5,425 ' 5,425 1,5,425 5,425 1 5,425 1 5,425 1 5,425 ENROLLMENT Basic FTE Ennolhnent 4,773 4.818 4,969 5,072 5,082 5,058 5,190 _ Internet Academy(AAFTE) 74) _(74) (74) (74) (74) (74) (74) Basic FTE Enrollment without Internet Academy 4,699 4,744 4,895 4,998 5,008' . 4,984 SURPLUS OR(UNHOUSED) ,PROGRANICAPACITY 726 !:681 530 427 .417.' 441 309..' RELOCATABLECAPACMT Current Portable Capacity 625 625 625 625 625 625 625 Add/Subtract portable capacity _ Adjusted Portable Ca licit _ ' . 625 625 625 625 625 625 ._ 625 SURPLUS OR(UNHOUSED) PROGRAM AND RELOCATABLE _ _ _ CAPACITY 1,351' 1,306 1,155 1,052 1,042 1,066 934' NOTES: Internet Academy students are included in projections but do not require full tune use ofschool facilities. Relocatable Capacity is based on the number ofportables available and other administrative techniques which can be used to temporarily house students until pernnnent facilities are available. This is a calculated number only The actual number of portables 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 of the portables will detemtine feasibility for continued instructional use 24 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2014 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN CAPACITY S UMI%IAR1'-HIGH SCHOOLS Budget -- Projected-- Calendar Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 CAPACITY JSchoolYear 12013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 BUILDING PROGRAM HEADCOUNT CAPACITY 5,552 5,552 5,552 5,552 5,752 5,752 5,752 FTE'CAPACITY : ' " 5,938 ' :5,938.' 5,938 5,938- 6,138' :6;138" 6'138' Add or subtract changes in capacity Add capacity to Federal Way HS P Y Y "• Adjusted Program Headcount Capacity 5,552 5,552 5,552 5,752 5,752 5,752 5,752 Adjust6d'Pro ramFTECapacity 5,938 .5,938., '.5,938.. 6,138: 6,138.' 6,138' , 16;138• ENROLLMENT Basic FTEEnroWnent 6,268 6,258 6,113 5,967 5,927 6,076 6,124 Internet Academy (AAFTE)1 (205) (205) (205) 1205) (205) (2(15) (21(15) Basi- Ed without'Internet Acadenry t "`* 6,063 6,053'" 5,908 -5,762 -. 5,722 . 5,871 5,919- SURPLUS OR(UNHOUS ED) '.PROGRAMCAPACTTY-`:--{-T�^-• (125) (I15j'. -'30 ,' 1`.376 ", 7467T267 ' .;,219�%� RELOCATABLE CAPACITY2 Current Portable Capacity 925 925 925 925 875 875 875 Add/Subtract portable capacity - Subtract portable capacity at Fcderal Way HS ';"`"' '.'•'.s:..'>,. .('' (5flj' --.---'r. *�•-- ° - :...... ...:...n.-;:-,'.�..9-`25"; 875 -.-87 --M- ' �i=---r. Adjusted Portable Capacity:- '925 925 875" " 875 ` 875" SURPLUS OR(UNHOUS ED) PROGRAM AND RELOCATABLE =CAPACITY 800 810' ' 955' 1,251 : 1,291 •1',142 1,094 NOTES: I Internet Academy students are included in prgjections but do not requuc full tune use of school facilities 2 Relocatable Capacity is based on the number ofportables available and other administrative techniques which can be used to temporarily house students until permanent facilities are available.This is a calculated number only The actual number ofportables 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 of the portables will determine feasibility for continued instructional use. ' Capacity for unhoused students will be accommodated with traveling teachers and no planning tine in sore classtoonns. 25 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2014 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Kink County, the City of Federal Wav, and the City of Kent 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 2 1 A and was substantially adopted by the City of 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. - 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 2014 Capital Facilities Plan were derived using actual generation factors from single-family units that were constructed in the last five(5)years. - IMPACT FEE CALCULATION Following the calculations for the student generation factor is a copy of the Impact Fee Calculation for single family and multi-family units based on King County Code 21A and the Growth Management Act. 9 Temporary Facility Cost is the average cost of a portable purchased within the last 5 years. Plan Year 2014 Plan Year 2013 Single Family Units $5,363 $4.014 Multi-Family Units $1,924 $1,381 Mixed-Use Residential' In anticipation of the City of Federal Way Council's changes to Ordinance No 95-249, which authorizes the collection of school impact fees. 26 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2014 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN S'I'UDEN'1'GLNERATION NEW CONSTRUCTION IN PRIOR S YEARS Single Family Student Generation Number of Numberof Number of Number of Number of Elementary Middle School High School Total Single Family Multi-Family Elementary Middle School High School Student Student Student Student DEVELOPMENT Dwellings Dwellings Students Students Students Factor Factor Factor Factor 13)Sa halie Firs 34 10 0 1 0.2941 0.0000 00294 03235 13 Lake point 22 5 0 6 02273 0.0000 0.2727 05000 (12)Ming Court 15 10 3 5 0.6667 02000 03333 1.2000 (12)Sunset Gardens 8 8 7 3 10000 0.8750 0.3750 2.2500 (11)Brighton Park" 22 11 5 4 05000 0.2273 0 1818 0.9091 (11)The Greens 1 20 11 1 5 1 5 1 0.5500 1 02500 1 02500 1 1.0500 (10)Creekside Lane 52 14 6 13 0.2692 0.1154 0 2500 0.6346 (10)Grande Vista 31 5 5 8 0.1613 0.1613 0.2581 0.5807 09 Lakota Crest 43 5 4 3 0.1163 1 0.0930 0.0698 02791 (09)Tuscany 22 9 5 3 0.4091 02273 01364 07728 Total 269 0 88 40 51 Student Generation` '0.327.1 0.1487 .`: ''..'0.1896 :::0.6654: Student Generation rate is based on totals. Multi-Family Student Generation Elementary Middle School High School Total Auburn 0.172 0.070 0. 96 0.338 Issaquah 0.140 0.044 111245 0.229 Kent 0 324 0.066 0.118 0.508 Lake Washington 0 049 0.014 0.016 0 079 Average "0.171:. 0.069 :? �-0.289: 27 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2014 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN IMPACT FEE School Site Acquisition Cost: Student Student Facility Cost/ Facility Factor Factor Cos(/ Cost/ Acreage Acre Capacity SFR MFR SFR MFR Elementary _ _ 0.3271 0.1710 SO SO Middle School 0.14ft7 00490 So So High School ...............,.._._.._..1.S.S........................1 ,.7.'.5..............................S.l............................_................_..........,.........0 0.1896 0.0690 $3,904 $1,421 TOTAL $3,904 $1,421 School Construction Cost: Student Student % Perm Fac/ Facility Facility Factor Factor Cost/ Cost/ Total Sq Ft Cost Capacity SFR MFR SFR MFR Elementary 95_82% 0 3271 0 1710 $0 SO Middle School —_�_-----96 74;0 ----�-_-�-- -- -�- _-------0.1487 -----0 0490 SO So High School 9653°,x° $13,780,000 2(10 0.1896 006901 $12,610 $4,589 TOTAL. 1 $12,610 $4,589 Temporary Facility Cost: Student Student %Temp Fac Facility Facility Factor Factor Cost/ Cost/ Total S< Ft Cost Size SFR MFR SFR MFR Elementary 4.18:6 0.3271 0.1710 Middle School 3 26:6 0 1487 0 0490 ._._._..........__..._._........._.___." _........_._.""""____....... .......__......__......._.......___._......._"..., .......____....".___"__ High School 347% O.1R96 0.0690 TOTAL $0 1 $0 State Matching Credit Calculation: Student Student Construction Cost Sq. Ft State Factor Facto( Cost/ Cost/ Allocation/Sq Ft Student Match SFR MFR SFR MFR Elementary $188.55 0.3271 0.171U So So Middle School $188 55 0.1487 0.0490 SO SO High School S188.55 130 6518:0 0.1896 00690 S3,029 $1,102 Total $3,029 $1,102 'Tax Payment Credit Calculation SFR MFR Average Assessed Value (February 2013) S208,48,0.,,...,.,,...,$80,075,,, Capital Bond Interest Rate (February 2013) 3.74% 3.74;6 Net Present Value of Average Dwelling SI_713,060 _ S6_57,968 Years Amortized 10 to _ Pioperty Tax Levy Rate ..........S I.(.1............ .........$1.61 .......... Present Value of Revenue Stream $2,758 $1,059 Single Family Multi-Family Residences Residences Mitigation Fee Summar}' Site Acquisition Cost S 3,904 S 1,421 Pemtanent Facility Cost S 12,610 S 4.589 Temporary Facility Cost S - S - StateMalchCredit S (3,029) S (1,102) Tax Payment Credit S (2.758) S (1.059) Sub-Total $ 10,726 $ 3,848 50%Local Share S 5,363 S 1,924 'alcu late) Ito ac[Fee S 5,363 S 1,924 112013 Impact Fee S 5,363 $ 1,924 28 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2014 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN SECTION 4 SUMMARY OF CHANGES FROM THE 2013 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN The 2014 Capital Facilities Plan is an updated document, based on the 2013 Capital Facilities Plan. The changes between the 2013 Plan and the 2014 Plan are listed below SECTION I -THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN SIX-YEAR FINANCE PLAN The Six Year Finance Plan has been rolled forward to reflect 2014-2020 and adjusted for anticipated Federal Way High School construction schedule. The plan is found on page 8 SECTION III - SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION CAPACITY Elementary capacity includes space for All Day Kindergarten programs at every elementary school. Changes to the Building Program Capacities calculation are found on page 15 PORTABLES The list of portables reflects the movement of portables between facilities or new portables purchased. Portable Locations can be found on page 20 STUDENT FORECAST The Student Forecast now covers 2014 through 2020 Enrollment history and projections are found on page 20 CAPACITY SUMMARY 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 22-25. IMPACT FEE CALCULATION - KING COUNTY CODE 21A The Impact Fee Calculations have changed due to changes in several factors. The adjustment made in the Impact Fee Calculation, causing a change in the Impact Fee between the 2013 Capital Facilities Plan and the 2014 Capital Facilities Plan can be found on page 30 and 31 29 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2014 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN IMPACT FEE CALCULATION CHANGES FROM 2013 TO 2014 STUDENT GENERATION FACTORS Student Generation factors are based on rates for new developments constructed over a period of not more than five years prior to the date of the fee calculation. The changes in student Generation factors between the 2013 Capital Facilities Plan and the 2014 Capital Facilities Plan are due to developments that were deleted or added based upon the age of the developments and the year placed in the survey The Student Generation worksheet is found on page 27 SCHOOL CONSTR 110I0N COSTS The anticipated cost based on 2013 estimate for replacing Federal !1'av High is $106,000,000 The replacement will add 200 additional seat.. The current capacal' of Federal ilav High is 1535. The addition of 200 scats will increase capacity by 13%. Total Cost $106,000,000 x.13 =$13,780,000 SCHOOL ACOUI.SITIONCOSTS 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 capacity by 51 students. Total Cost $2,100,000/2 =$1,050,000 Cost per Acre $1,050,000/4.85= $216,718 The District will use the above formulas created as a base for the 2014 Capital Facilities Plan The capacity of Federal Way High may vary from year to year as programs are added or changed and construction cost may increase over time. 30 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2014 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN IMPACT FEE CALCULATION CHANGES FROM 2012 TO 2013 IMPACT FEE Item From/To Comment Percent of Permanent Facilities 95 13% to 95.65% Report 93 OSPI Percent Temporary Facilities 4 87% to 4.35% Updated portable inventory Average Cost of Portable $185,012 to $185,012 Updated 5-yr rolling average of Classroom portables purchased and placed in 2012 Construction Cost Allocation $188.55 to $188.55 Change effective July 2012 State Match 63.50% to 65.18% Change effective July 2013 Average Assessed Value SFR— Per Puget Sound Educational $232,710 to $208,480 Service District (ESD 12 1) MFR— $77,926 to $80,075 Capital Bond Interest Rate 3 84% to 3.74% Market Rate Property Tax Levy Rate $1 45 to $1.61 King County Treasury Division Single Family Student Yield Updated Housing Inventory Elementary .3795 to .3271 Middle School 1747 to .1487 High School 1988 to .1896 Multi-Family Student Yield Updated County-Wide Average Elementary 1620 to .1710 Note. The last district nudii-lam/y Middle School 0470 to .0490 development, built in 2008,generates High School 0660 to .0690 a higher student yield than the cotmty- wide average. Impact Fee SFR — $4,172 to $5,363 SFR based on the updated calculation MFR— MFR based on the updated calculation $1,381 to $1,924 31 GLOBAL END Each student will graduate with the skills and academic knowledge to succeed as a responsible, contributing member of a global society. STUDENT ACHEIVEMENT Each student at every grade level will perform at or above the state or district standard in all disciplines. Each student's progress shall be measured annually by academic growth. RESPONSIBILITY Each student will take responsibility for their academic success; exhibiting positive and ethical personal behaviors; treating others with respect, courtesy, and dignity. PARENT ENGAGEMENT Each student will benefit from the relationship each school will establish with each parent, guardian or advocate. � N Federal Way Federal Way Public Schools 33330 81^Avenue S Public Schools Federal Way,Washington 98003 •�� • Schools (253) 945-2000 This document is published by the Business Services Department of the Federal Way Public Schools. May 2013 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS School District No. 210 - King County 33330 - 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003 RESOLUTION NO. 2013-15 A RESOLUTION of the Board of Education of the Federal Way School District No. 210, to provide to the City of Auburn the 2014 Capital Facilities Plan. WHEREAS, the Federal Way School District Board of Education hereby provides to the City of Auburn the District's 2014 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 2014 Capital Facilities Plan to the City of Auburn. ADOPTED this 25th day of June, 2013. Board Secretary F,zav�y Director 1h, 0 ie --it Sl� 1 1 j lo)ojli 11ji'Sifirilcil ap� _ le p 1� Hall, Fa', 1111 _ 2,013 - 2,0�14 - 20 18 2'01 19: TM ZrI KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT Aptif 2013 t I 1 a} SC g[o r , a �JJ � � SIX - YEAR CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2013 - 2014 - 2018 - 2019 April 2013 Kent School District No 415 12033 SE 256`h Street Kent, Washington 98030-6643 (253) 373-7295 KENT SCHOOL DISTR[CT BOARD of DIRECTORS Ms. Debbie Straus, President Mr Tim Clark, Vice President Ms. Agda Burchard, Legislative Representative Ms Karen DeBruler, Director Mr Russ Hanscom, Director ADMINISTRATION Dr Edward Lee Vargas Superintendent of Schools Dr. Richard A. Stedry, Chief Business Officer Ralph Fortunato, CSBS, Director of Fiscal Services Fred Long, Director of Facilities Services Gwenn Escher-Derdowski, Planning Administrator Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2013 [IJ�Cwt� �Ic S-1) I t Six Year Capita(Facilities P(an 7a6Ce of Contents Section Page Number I Executive Summary 2 11 Six-Year Enrollment Projection & History 4 III District Standard of Service 8 I V Inventory, Capacity & Maps of Existing Schools I I V Six-Year Planning & Construction Plan — Site Map 14 • I Relocatable Classrooms 17 • I I Projected Classroom Capacity 18 • I I I Finance Plan, Cost Basis and Impact Fee Schedules 23 I Y Summary of Changes to Previous Plan 30 Y Appendixes 31 Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2013 I 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.0 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 2013 for the 2012-2013 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. ' (continued) Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2013 Page 2 I Executive Summary (continued) The capacity of each school in the District is calculated based on the District standard of service and the existing inventory of permanent facilities. The District's program capacity of permanent facilities reflects program changes and the reduction of class size to meet the standard of service for Kent School District. Portables provide additional transitional capacity. Kent School District is the fourth largest 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 Board of Directors approved Full Day Kindergarten ("FDK") for all Elementary Schools in 2011-12 and FDK projections are used to forecast Kindergarten enrollment in future years. 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 V I I I 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 21013 Page 3 I I Six -Year Enrollment Projection For Capital facilities planning, growth projections are based on cohort survival and student yield from documented residential construction projected over the next six years. (see Table 2) The student generation factor is the basis for the growth projections from new developments. (see Page 5) King County live births and the District's relational percentage average were used to determine the number of kindergartners entering the system. (see Table r) 8.52% of 25,222 King County live births in 2008 is projected for 2,150 students expected in Kindergarten for October 1, 2013 This is an increase of 323 live births in King County over the previous year (See Table 2) Full Day Kindergarten ("FDK") programs at all 28 elementary schools require an adjustment to the Kindergarten forecast for projecting FDK at 1 0 FTE for capital facilities planning. P-223 Reports will continue to include FDK students at 1 0 for five schools with FDK funded by state apportionment, and all other kindergarten students will be reported at .50 FTE for state funding in 2012-13. (see Table 2a) Early Childhood Education students (also identified as "ECE", "Preschool Inclusive Education ("IE") 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 7 - 8% larger than the kindergarten population due to growth and transfers to the District from private kindergartens. Cohort survival method uses historical enrollment data to forecast the number of students projected for the following year Projections for 2014-2018 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. 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 The west Lake Sawyer area of Kent School District is in the city of Black Diamond. (Continued) Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2013 Page 4 I I Six - Year Enrollment Projection (Continued) 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 five years. Following these guidelines, the student generation rate for Kent School District is as follows: Single Family Elementary .484 Middle School .129 Senior High .249 Total .862 Multi-Family Elementary 324 Middle School 066 Senior High .118 Total 508 The student generation factor is based on a survey of 2,163 single family dwelling units and 1,478 multi-family dwelling units with no adjustment for occupancy rates. Please refer to Appendix E on Page 36 of the Capital Facilities Plan for details of the Student Generation Factor survey The actual number of students in those residential developments was determined using the District's Education Logistics (EDULOG) Transportation System which provides a count of enrolled students in identifiable new development areas. Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2013 Page 5 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No.415 OCTOBER P 223 F T E(Full Time Equivalent)ENROLLMENT HISTORY ' LB-Live Births LB in 1905 Win 111% LB in 1987 LS in 1989 L6 in 1989 Hill 1990 Lain 1001 LBin tiff[ lain mat LBm 1991 LBm 1995 LBm 1008 Lit in 1937 W..1998 Lam 1999 LBm9W0 LBm2W1 Lem 201 LB m]OY! L9 w2004 LBM 2005 LB In 2006 LB x,21107 October FTE Entailment 1 1990 1991 1 1992 1 1993 1 1994 1 1995 1 1996 1 1997 1998 1999 1 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 King County Live Girths 2 19,825 19,999 20,449 21,289 22.541 23,104 23.002 23,188 22,355 22.010 21,817 21,573 21,646 22,212 22,007 22.487 21,778 21.863 22.431 22,074 22,680 24,244 24,899 Incease/Decease 851 174 450 84D 1,252 563 -102 186 -833 -345 -193 -2a 73 566 -205 480 -709 85 568 443 -194 1,684 655 KmEerganm/Birth%2 888% 9.49% 940% 907% 847% 8.54% 844% 838% 8.27% 8.56% 825% 841% 8.06% 805% 8.33% 841% 822% 829% 8.47% 832% 8.13% 818% 8.57% Kindergarten 1-2-3 880 949 962 965 955 987 971 972 925 942 900 907 873 894 917 943 895 906 768 758 749 767 831 Stale Apportionment-funded Full Day Kindergarten' 2 1(1n2MP-223 anima in l a IE for slam npnnmonmem I...emmay K) 385 386 343 447 471 Grade 1 1,852 1,945 2,029 2,017 1,957 1,975 2,152 2,085 2,064 1,989 2,069 1936 1,922 1,651 1,954 1938 2003 1873 1820 1958 1992 1885 2013 Grade 2 1,773 1,944 1,998 2048 1,937 2,011 1,979 2,194 2,095 2,078 2,015 2.067 1,936 1,965 1,935 1981 1998 2045 1916 1%2 1939 2014 1904 Grade 3 1,824 1,866 1,950 1,972 1,965 1,959 2,025 2,058 2,208 2,111 2.098 2,040 2,055 1,975 2,020 1962 2026 2033 2081 1976 2000 1981 2078 Grade 4 1,793 1,916 1,900 1,939 1,942 2,012 1,966 2.064 2,045 2,222 2,086 2.166 2,068 2,072 2,057 2024 2015 2049 2060 2044 1954 2021 1999 Grade 5 1,702 1,865 1,911 1,907 1,899 1,924 1,988 2,023 2,108 2,037 2,251 2,109 2,149 2,057 2,102 2090 2051 2020 2044 2085 2082 1973 2041 Grade 6 1,629 1,733 1,885 1,951 1,915 1.895 1,924 2,036 2,045 2,119 2,056 2,253 2,151 2,205 2,139 2164 2101 2098 2081 2070 2130 2132 2021 Grade 7 mm.sum 1,624 1,720 1,812 1,915 1,946 1,925 1,899 1,962 2,063 2.081 2208, 2.127 2,380 2,209 2,243 2200 2205 2130 2117 2115 2092 2102 2136 Grade 8 " 1,545 1,628 1,724 1,799 1.882 1.941 1,927 1,936 1,970 2,015 2,033 2,154 2,079 2,351 2,221 2293 2254 2184 2143 2168 2151 2108 2136 Grade 9- lunar High 1,483 1.612 1,689 1.716 1,800 1,894 1,963 1,931 1,925 2,102 2,208 2,246 2,404 2,309 Grade 9-Senior High 2,705 2767 2772 2560 2573 2467 2434 2468 2452 Grade 10 1468 1,480 1,663 1,698 1,690 1,765 1,851 1.977 1,953 2,045 2,113 2,064 2,039 2,207 2,124 2173 2212 2474 2245 2213 2233 2267 2088 Grade 11 1,360 1,400 1,409 1,537 1,529 1,606 1,681 1,797 1,849 1.782 1,770 1,835 1,823 1,787 1,907 1799 1881 1882 1966 1956 1949 1882 1790 Grade 12 1,202 1,255 1,290 1,340 1,368 1,430 1,465 1,507 1,632 1,537 1,432 1,440 1,475 1,466 1,446 1475 1451 1491 1549 1619 1573 1543 1521 Total Enania ll 20,135 21,312 22,222 22,803 22,794 23,323 23,792 24,560 24,882 25,060 25,238 25,344 25,354 25,358 25,770 25,809 25,864 25,745 25,828 25,778 25.621 25,590 25,481 Yearly FTE Increase/Decease 916 1,178 909 582 -10 529 465 760 322 176 178 108 9 4 412 39 55 -119 83 -50 -157 -31 -109 Connotative lnemove, 916 2,094 3.003 3.585 3,575 4.104 4,574 5,341 5,663 5.841 6.019 6.126 6,135 6,140 6,552 6,591 6,646 6.527 6.610 6,560 6.403 6.372 6,263 1 FTE enmllmenl mounts have been roundeol to the nearest wT01e number.Most Kneargaden students we repotted at 5 FTE per State Funding rognNa even though ALL elementary whools now have Full Day Kindergarten programs 2 TNS number ndirates aclual twos in Kong County 5 years pnor to enollment year as updaled by Washington State vaosite or King County Health Dept Kent Sd1od District percentage based on edual Kindergarten enrollment 5 years later - Stam1g in 2008,some Klndegartm students are reported alt 0(same as M1eadcomi W5 schools whidl qualified for Fug Day Kindergarten(FDK)landed through Stale AppoNmment For Fuil Day IGMelgamm at ether schools,the sewed half ot01e day is NMW by Bie Etl tionai PrWmms 8 OMrWt s Levy$a Mdmts are repined at.5 FTE on the P-223 Emdlment Report col ge rmt state ruMhg 4 Enmllmmt reported to are stale on Form P-223 generates basic edumm ruMing and exdudes Eady ChiMt Educotwl('ECE"8'BY w BlM 10 2 Pmsc nod lr uslve Eduwbm)and cdlaga-mly Rumirg Stan students Odober 2012 P-223 Headcount=26 611 d Full Headcount=27,732 Full Headcount iodudes Kvlderyarten,Early Cholttood Eduwtlm 8 collego-only Running Start students at 1 0 Headcount Kent Sdiod Disonctl Six-Year Calxtal Feo4lies Plan Table 1 April M13 P.,6 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 SIX-YEAR ENROLLMENT PROJECTION Full Day Kindergarten at all Elem LB in 2007 LB In 2008 Lam 2008 LB in 2010 LB in 2011 LB Est 2012 LB Est 2013 ACTUAL P R O 1 E C T 1 0 N October 2012 2013 201471 2015 11 2016 11 2017 2018 King County Live Births 24,899 25,222 25,057 24,514 24,630 24,750 24,850 ' Increase/Decrease 655 323 -165 -543 116 120 100 Kindergarten/Birth % 2 8.57% 8.52% 862% 902% 916% 9.35% 951% 313 Kindergarten FTE @ .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 311 FD Kindergarten @ 1.0 2134 2,150 2,160 2,211 2,262 2,313 2,364 Grade 1 2017 2,173 2,185 2,238 2,290 2,343 2,396 Grade 2 1905 2,038 2,235 2,208 2,262 2,315 2,368 Grade 3 2082 1,969 2,088 2,289 2,261 2,316 2,371 Grade 4 2000 2,102 1,954 2,091 2,292 2,264 2,319 Grade 5 2044 2,023 2,104 1,972 2,110 2,313 2,285 Grade 6 2026 21099 2,065 2,152 2,017 2,158 2,365 Grade 7 2139 2,033 2,099 2,073 2,161 2,025 2,167 Grade 8 2138 2,176 2,062 2,128 2,102 2,191 2,053 Grade 9 2452 2,490 2,501 2,377 2,453 2,423 2,526 Grade 10 2088 2,081 2,179 2,211 2,101 2,168 2,142 Grade 11 1790 1,682 1,913 1,920 1,948 1,851 1,910 Grade 12 1521 1,467 1,524 1,581 1,587 1,610 1,530 Total Enrollment Projection 4 26,336 26,483 27,069 27,451 27,846 28,290 28,796 Yearly Increase/Decrease a see Notes 147 586 382 395 444 506 Yearly Increase/Decrease% 21x14 0.56% 221% 141% 144% 1.59% 179% Notes:2 13 14 with AdtusVnens for Full Day Kindergarten a rhange from FTE History to Headcount Proledions with High Sebool @ FTE due to Running Start. Total Enrollment Projection 1 26,336 1 26,483 27,069 27,451 27,846 28,290 28,796 1 Kindergarten enrollment projection for 2013 Is based on Kent SD percentage of live births In King County five years previous 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 ECE-Early Childhood Education preschoolers) 3 Kindergarten projection Is at 1.0 for Full Day Kindergarten(FDK)at all 28 Elementary schools 4 Headcount Projections for 2014-2018 from OSPI Report 1049-Determination of Projected Enrollments 5 Oct.2012 P223 FTE is 25,481 &Headcount Is 26,611 Full Headcount with ECE Preschool&Running Start students=27,732. G R O W T H P R 0 J E C T 1 0 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 2013 Page 7 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, B & 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 25 or fewer students. Class size for grades 1 - 3 is planned for an average of 25 or fewer students. Class size for grades 4 - 6 is planned for an average of 29 or fewer students. All elementary schools meet the criteria required to provide full day kindergarten programs (FDK = Full Day Kindergarten) with the second half of the day funded by state apportionment or the local levy Five schools with FDK Programs have state apportionment funding and 23 others are funded through Basic Ed and the local Educational Programs and Operations Levy. 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. (continued) Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2013 Page 6 III Current Kent School District "Standard of Service" (continued) Some identified students will also be provided educational opportunities in classrooms for special programs such as those designated as follows. English Language Learners (E L L) Education for Disadvantaged Students (Title t) — Federal Program Learning Assisted Programs (LAP) — State Program Education for Highly Capable Students Reading, Math or Science Labs Inclusive Education Services ("IES") 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 Education (ECE) (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 (ASC-DD) 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 29 or fewer students. Class size for grades 9 — 12 is planned for an average of 31 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. (continued) Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2013 Page 9 III Current Kent School District "Standard of Service" (continued) 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 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 ("I B") 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 & Kent Success program with evening classes for credit retrieval 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 April 2013 Page 10 I V Inventory and Capacity of Existing Schools Currently, the District has permanent program capacity to house 27,475 students and transitional (portable) capacity to house 1,023 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 12) The ratio between permanent capacity and portable capacity is 97% - 3%. 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 2012. Calculation of Elementary, Middle School and Senior High School capacities are set forth in Appendices A, B and C. A map of existing schools is included on Page 13. 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 which 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. Kent Success replaced the former Night Academy at Kent-Meridian High School and provides afternoon and evening classes for credit retrieval. iGrad - In partnership with Green River Community College, Kent School District has pioneered the Individualized Graduation and Degree Program or "iGrad". The iGrad Program is the first official Dropout Reengagement Program in the state made possible under the provisions of ESHB 1418. 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 via web-based instruction or get their GED and go on to achieve an AA degree or certificate through Green River Community College. iGrad is not included in this Capital Facilities Plan because it is served in leased space at the Kent Hill Plaza Shopping Center. iGrad is also reported separately to OSPI and the counts are not included in the P-223 Enrollment Reports for 2012-13. In less than a year, enrollment in the iGrad program has grown to over 400 students. Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2013 Page 11 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No.415 INVENTORY and CAPACITY of EXISTING SCHOOLS 2012-2013 Year SCHOOL opened ABR ADDRESS Program Capacl ' Carriage Crest Elementary 1990 CC 18235-140th Avenue SE, Renton 98058 452 Cedar Valley Elementary 1971 CV 26500 Timberlane Way SE, Covington 98042 380 Covington Elementary 1961 CO 17070 SE Wax Road, Covington 98042 504 Crestwood Elementary 1980 CW 25225-180th Avenue SE, Covington 98042 432 East Hill Elementary 1953 EH 9825 S 240th Street, Kent 98031 490 Emerald Park 1999 EP 11800 SE 216th Street, Kent 98031 504 Fairwood Elementary 1969 FIN 16600-148th Avenue SE, Renton 98058 408 George T Daniel Elementary 1992 DE 11310 SE 248th Street, Kent 98030 456 Glenridge Elementary 1996 GR 19405-120th Avenue SE, Renton 96058 456 Grass Lake Elementary 1971 GL 28700-191st Place SE, Kent 98042 452 Horizon Elementary 1990 HE 27641 -144th Avenue SE, Kent 98042 5D4 Jenkins Creek Elementary 1987 JC 26915-186th Avenue SE, Covington 98042 4D4 Kent Elementary 1999 KE 24700-64th Avenue South, Kent 98032 480 Lake Youngs Elementary 1965 LY 19660-142nd Avenue SE, Kent 98042 510 Martin Sortun Elementary 1987 MS 12711 SE 248th Street, Kent 98030 480 Meadow Ridge Elementary 1994 MR 27710-108th Avenue SE,Kent 98030 476 Meridian Elementary 1939 ME 25621 -140th Avenue SE, Kent 98042 524 Millennium Elementary 2000 ML 11919 SE 270th Street, Kent 98030 504 Neely-O'Brien Elementary 1990 NO 6300 South 236th Street, Kent 98032 480 Panther Lake Elementary 2009 PL 20831 -108th Avenue SE, Kent 98031 524 Park Orchard Elementary 1963 PO 11010 SE 232nd Street, Kent 98031 486 Pine Tree Elementary 1967 PT 27825-118th Avenue SE, Kent 98030 514 Ridgewood Elementary 1987 RW 18030-162nd Place SE, Renton 98058 504 Sawyer Woods Elementary 1994 SW 31135-228th Ave SE,Black Diamond 98010 504 Scenic Hill Elementary 1960 SH 26025 Woodland Way South, Kent 98030 476 Soos Creek Elementary 1971 SC 12651 SE 218th Place, Kent 98031 380 Springbrook Elementary 1969 SB 20035-100th Avenue SE, Kent 98031 418 Sunrise Elementary 1992 SR 22300-132nd Avenue SE, Kent 98042 504 Elementary TOTAL 13,206 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 Mi 22420 Military Road, Des Moines 98198 410 Kent Phoenix Academy 2007 PH 11000 SE 264th Street, Kent 98030 414 DISTRICT TOTAL 27,475 Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 3 April 2013 Page 12 N N > Elementary A Q Kent School District No. 415 C p SE Petrovitsk Ridgewood Lake Elem�terry Desire Serving residents of h Carriage Crest Elementary • • Unincorporated King County m ��•MeekerS hoot Middle School e City of Renton v Glenridge Lake n Springbrook Elementary •Youngs City of Auburn E Elementary Elemenfa > • High tSch of City of Sea Tac a . SE 208th St Lake City of Covington m S 212th Sf Panther Lgko Emerald Park Youngs T Elementary Elementary City of Maple Valley Soos Creek* City of Black Diamond j Elementary *Sunrise •Kent p Park Orchard Elementary Mountain View �r b� Elementary Academy -� � Meridian Neely O'Brien ,m�g Middle School Elementary Z�A East Hill .n SE 240th St o Elemenlary SE 240th St m B Eleme Kent •Mlll Creek • Daniel Q H a � s ry le SC hoot Elementary .a m Mattson r�0 " �Ojo Martin m L Middle Scho I m os Rd Sortun — v Crestwood o Kant-Meridian Elementary Elementary High Schoo • SE 256th St m H • • Meridian •Kentwood pipe Lake 1 Scenic Hill• m Ad Celntertion Elementary High School Cedar Vail@y o Elementary C • Elementary c Kant Phoenix Lake Jenkins U z Academy Meridian a Creek• Cedar Heights • Elements •Middle School SE 272nd St Millennium a Kent-Kan le Road Elementary g y Horizon• q`7 •Covington Meadow Ridge at Elementary Elementary `GK. Elementary Pine Tree y Grass Lake Elementary m 'rP' Elementary Q � c A�OO SE Govingion-SO wYer as Q Lake 'off Sawyer o Kentlake• Y �o Lake High School 28 Elementary Schools �6 Morton 6 Middle Schools Sawyer Woods* 4 Senior High Schools Elementary Kent Mountain View Academy (Grades 3-12) Kent Phoenix Academy (9-12) m w V Six-Year Planning and Construction Plan At the time of preparation of this Plan in spring of 2013, the following projects to increase capacity are in the planning phase in Kent School District: • Planning is in progress for construction of additional capacity for Pre-school and Kindergarten students at Kent Elementary School in 2015.The protect,which Is one of four in the country known as"Green Schoolhouse', will be largely funded and donated by Brighten A Life Foundation. The District will fund -$3M for the site preparation and does not expect to utilize impact fees to fund the project which will be built to LEED Platinum standard. (LEED= Leadership In Energy& Environmental Design) Planning is in progress for a replacement school for Covington Elementary School in 2016 or beyond. The project is pending satisfactory financial resources to fund the project. • Planning is in progress for additional classroom space for Neely-O'Brien Elementary School. This addition will add approximately 25%to building capacity and is expected to come online in Fall of 2017 • 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 15&Site map on Page 16) 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 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. 2006 voter approval of $106M bond issue for capital improvement included the construction funding for proposed Elementary School #31 (actual #29), replacement of Panther Lake Elementary, and classroom additions to high schools. Some impact fees have been utilized for those projects. In March 2013 the Board of Directors reallocated the funding for proposed Elementary #31 to capital projects for safety and security. 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 Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2013 Page 14 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No.415 Site Acquisitions and Projects Planned to Provide Additional Capacity Projected Pr0,eclad %for SCHOOL / FACILITY / SITE LOCATION Type StatUS Completion Program new Date Capacdy Growth Apprmimale Apgowmate pop ELEMENTARY Map (Numbers to identify future schools may not correlate with number of existing schools.) Elementary Kent Elementary School-Addition (F) 24700-64th Avenue S,Kent Addition Planning 2015-16 672 100% 8 Classrooms added to provide New Capacity Special LEED Platinum Donation Project-No Impact Fees Current Capadty 480(-192) Replacement 5 Replacement for Covington Elementary (U) BE 256th Street&154th Ave SE Elementary Planning 2016-17 600 16% Covington Elem- Capacity to be replaced 17070 SE Wax Road, Covington Elementary Utilized -504 Elementary Neely-O'Bnen Elementary School-Addition(U) 6300 S 236th Street,Kent 98032 Addition Planning 2017-18 600 25% Classrooms added to provide New Capacity Current Capacity 480+120 New=600 Planning MIDDLE SCHOOL&SENIOR HIGH No new projects required for Secondary Schools at this time&Secondary Schools are excluded from Impact Fee formula TEMPORARY FACILITIES Additional Capauty. Relocatables TBD-For placement as needed New Planning 2013+ 24 31 mcti 100% non a OTHER SITES ACQUIRED taneu:e Land Us Map cesigpii o Type Jurisdiction 4 Covington area North (Near Mattson MS) SE 251 &164 SE, Covington 98042 Urban Elementary City of Covington 7 Covington area South (Scarsella) BE 290&156 SE, Kent 98042 Rural Elementary King County 5 Covington area West (Halleson-Wtkstrom) 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.Parolme) 17426 SE 192 Street, Renton 98058 Urban Elementary King County 1 So.King Co.Activity Center(former Nike site) SE 167&170 SE, Renton 98058 Rural TBD' King County 12 South Central site (Plemmons-Yeh-Wms) SE 286th St&124th Ave SE,Auburn 98092 Urban TBD King County Notes: Unfunded facility needs will be reviewed in the future 'TBD-To be determined-Some sites are identified but placement,timing and/or configuration of Relocatables has not been determined s Numbers correspond to sites on Site Bank Map on Page 16.Other Map site locations are parcels identified in Table 7 on Page 26. Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 4 April 2013 Page 15 i 1 N Kent School District No. 415 � ry Fakwood N �L Q Elamentary Y/ • Site Bank 0 Sf Pevovhskv Rd ._w. Gidgewcod /� EI montary MA .°. y y K 5 ariage C,... Eenn.ntory Northwood Sc•ho ol lre+ Property Acquisitions iGI 192nd tll — • Meeker • Middle School m Glanndge Lakf Younpls eomga�ou.: Elcr�cr." •Elementary N_ Elf nor'g, T • K, le, w High SChn„I Lakeyauna= n _ • sE zoem St b $2121h St oniher La� :marad Park Elemanlo, Elomentary w • • O PonIDer Lake Sees CmGk Rfplaaemonr • - Elementary '^ •sunrise •Keel = ® Park Orchard 0 Elementary Mountain View Elementary AraclnmY � b� • n Neoly O'Rrlen � ry1 •Meridian Elemfnrnry Middle School • ?'' East ry sE 40th t SE 240th St ?, Elementary Kfnt •M:IlGre.k • y E'ee,fr am.• (diddle School Danlol• v ry o�a2 , Me Ktl n Elamnnto Morton Q Middle Scho resiwooc. 'n v High S'dun• = • Schol Elementary a lemenrarr • ';E:561h St vo w • •Mment n Admin stratla�� Flementery 1 rp okn a' "�enic Hill• o Center Wal r-�Id!r Vr 11 p Lomenrary L • • Keel PM1Oenix Lakf Mevldiar. k w Academy M'lleno u,, • .des'HBIOM U •Oamdot., rl m r Cr r •I sale ScYTo�l F 112 nd St Meadow Ridge Kart-KOnal'>v I:oad H •Etementar y Horizon• •Covington •Pine Goo Q Elementary I Elnrnenlory Elementarya[p xyr I., lurk, SE 288t 5'�eet — o� •N• n.ntav G� °7 Lesko It 104th Sheet H,h d,f• Sawyer Hlflh School D 9 Sawyer Woods Lake Elemenary • w Marton d a m m SE 036th St V I Portable Classrooms For the purpose of clarification, the term "portables" and the more descriptively accurate term, "relocatables" are occasionally used interchangeably in this Plan. The Plan also references use of portables or relocatables 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 8 C D) Based on enrollment projections, implementation of full day kindergarten programs, program capacity and the need for additional permanent capacity, the District anticipates the need to purchase or lease some 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 time 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 interrelationship between portables, emerging technologies and educational restructuring will continue to be examined. Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2013 Page 17 VII 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 fluctuations, grade level splits, etc. As shown in the Inventory and Capacity chart in Table 3 on Page 12, the program capacity is also reflected in the capacity and enrollment comparison charts. (See Tab/es 5&5 A-B-Con pages 19-22) 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. Full Time Equivalent (FTE) student enrollment for October 2012 was 25,481.09 Kindergarten students are reported at .5 although all schools provide full day kindergarten ("FDK") with alternative funding for the second half of the day. State Apportionment-funded Full Day Kindergarten programs report and project Kindergarten students at 1.00 FTE at qualifying FDK schools. The P-223 FTE Report excludes Early Childhood Education ("ECE" preschool) students and College-only Running Start students. (See Tables 5&SA-B-Conpages19-22) In October there were 761 students in 11th and 12th grade participating in the Running Start program at 10-21 different colleges and receiving credits toward both high school and college graduation. 378 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 Kent School District continues to be the fourth largest district in the state of Washington. P-223 Headcount for October 2012 was 26,611 with kindergarten students counted at 1 0 and excluding ECE and college-only Running Start students. A full headcount of all students enrolled in October 2012 totals 27,732 which includes ECE and college-only Running Start students. 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 5 A-B-C on Pages 19-22) 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 Boundary changes, limited and costly movement of relocatables, 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 2013 Page 18 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT and CAPACITY TOTAL DISTRICT SCHOOL YEAR 2012-2013 2013-2014 1 2014-2015 2015-2016 1 2016-2017 2017-2018 1 2018-2010 Actual I P R 0 J E C T E D Permanent Program Capacity ' 27,475 27,475 27,475 27,475 27,667 27,763 27,883 Changes to Permanent Capacity ' Kent Elementary Addition-Capacity Increase (F) 2 192 Replacement school with projected increase in capacity Covington Elementary Replacement (U) 3 600 To Replace current Covington Elementary capacity -504 Neely-O'Brien Elementary Addition-Capacity Increase (u) 4 120 Permanent Program Capaaty Subtotal 27,475 27,475 27,475 27,657 27,763 27,883 27,883 Interim Relocatable Capacity 5 Elementary Relowtable Capacity Requred 600 936 1176 1368 1608 2,016 2,448 Middle School Rebratable Capacity Required 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 Senior Hgh School Relocaiable Capacity Required 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 600 936 1,176 1,368 1,608 2,016 2,448 TOTAL CAPACITY ' 28,075 28,411 1 28,651 29,035 29,371 29,899 1 30,331 wrumd @.s 25,590 6Adl usted for FULL Day Kindergarten Headcount TOTAL ENROLLMENT/PROJECTION a 26,336 26,483 1 27,069 27,451 27,846 1 28,290 1 28,796 DISTRICT AVAILABLE CAPACITY 7 1,739 1,928 1,582 1,584 1,525 1,609 1,535 ' Capacity is based on standard of service for programs provided and is updated periodically to reflect program changes. 2 Kent Elementary Addition reflects 8 classroom capacity increase for Green Schoolhouse LEED Platinum project 3 Replacement school for Covington Elementary will increase capacity and will be built on a different existing urban site. 4 Addition to Neely-O'Brien Elementary will increase capacity approximately 25% 5 2012-2013 total classroom relocatable capacity is 1,023. Some additional reiocatables used for program purposes. 6 Actual October Headcount Enrollment with Projections from OSPI Report 1049-Determination of Projected Enrollments. Enrollment counts and projections have been adjusted for Full Day Kindergarten at all Elementary Schools 7 School capacity meets concurrency requirements and no impact fees are proposed for secondary schools. Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 5 April 2013 Page 19 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No.415 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT and CAPACITY ELEMENTARY - Grades K - 6 SCHOOL YEAR 2012-2013 2013-2014 1 2014-2015 2015-2016 1 2016-2017 2017-2016 1 201s-2019 Actual P R 0 J E C T E D Elementary Permanent Capacity 1 13,206 13,620 13,620 13,620 13,812 13,908 14,028 Kent Mountain View Academy 2 414 Changes to Elementary Capacity Kent Elementary Addition Capacity Increase (F)3 192 Covington Elementary Replacement (U)4 600 Will replace current Covington Elementary capacity -504 Neely-O'Brien Elementary Addition Capacity Increase (u)5 120 Subtotal 13,620 13,620 13,620 13,812 13,908 14,028 14,028 Relocatable Capacity Required ' 600 936 1176 1368 1608 2,016 2,448 TOTAL CAPACITY 1l3 14,220 14,556 14,796 15,180 15,516 16,044 16,476 wlKind @.5 13,220 Adjusted for FULL Day Kindergarten Headcount ENROLLMENT/PROJECTION 6 14,208 14,554 14,791 15,161 15,494 16,022 16,468 SURPLUS(DEFICIT) CAPACITY 12 2 5 19 22 22 8 Number of Relocatables Required 25 39 49 57 67 64 102 102 Classroom Relocatables required in 2018-19 Some additional Relocatables used for program purposes. 1 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 at the former Grandview School serving students in Grades 3- 12 The school building(formerly Kent Learning Center&Grandview Elem.)was designed as an elementary school 3 Kent Elementary Addition reflects 8 classroom capacity increase for Green Schoolhouse LEED Platinum project 4 Replacement school for Covington Elementary will increase capacity and Is planned for a different existing urban site 5 Addition to Neely-O'Brien Elementary will increase capacity approximately 25%. 6 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 ECE Preschoolers, Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 5 A April 2013 Page 20 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT and CAPACITY MIDDLE SCHOOL - Grades 7 - 8 SCHOOL YEAR 2012-2013 2013-2014 1 2014-2015 2015.2016 1 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 Actual P R O J E C T E D Middle School PermanentCapacl ' 5,148 5,148 5,148 5,148 5,148 5,148 5,148 No Changes to Middle School Capacity Mill Creek MS&Technology Academy Phase 2 of Renovation completed in 2010 (No new capacity added in renovation) Mill Creek Tech Academy serves students from all areas of Kent SO Subtotal 5,148 5,148 5,148 5,148 5,148 5,148 5,148 Relocatable Capacity Required ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL CAPACITY 'g' 5,148 5,148 5,148 5,148 5,148 5,148 5,148 ENROLLMENT/PROJECTION z 4,277 4,209 4,161 4,201 4,263 4,216 4,220 SURPLUS (DEFICIT) CAPACITY 4 871 939 987 947 885 932 928 Number of Relocatables Required 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No Classroom Relocatables required at middle schools at this time Some Relocatables used for classroom and program purposes 1 Capacity is based on standard of service for programs provided and is updated periodically to reflect program changes. 2 Actual October Headcount Enrollment with Projections from OSPI Report 1049-Determination of Projected Enrollments a Surplus capacity due to grade level reconfiguration-All 9th grade students moved to the high schools in Fall 2004, Middle School capacity meets concurrency requirements and no impact fees are collected for middle schools Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 5 B April 2013 Page 21 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT and CAPACITY SENIOR HIGH - Grades 9 - 12 SCHOOL YEAR 2012-2013 2013-2014 1 2014-2015 2015-2016 1 2016-2017 2017-2018 1 2018-2019 Actual P R O J E C T E D ISenior High Permanent Capaci ' 8,707 8,707 8,707 8,707 8,707 8,707 8,707 Includes Kent Phoenix Academy s No Changes to High School Capaci Kent-Meridian HS&Technology Academy Classroom Additions completed in 2012(F) KM Tech Academy&International Baccalaureate Program serve students from all areas of Kent SD Subtotal 8,707 8,707 8,707 8,707 8,707 8,707 8,707 Relocatable Capacity Required ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL CAPACITY ' 1 8,707 8,707 8,707 8,707 8,707 8,707 8,707 ENROLLMENT/PROJECTION 3 7,851 7,720 8,117 8,089 8,089 8,052 8,108 ISURPLUS DEFICIT CAPACITY 856 987 590 618 618 655 599 Number of Relocatables Required 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No Classroom Relocatables required at this time Some Relocatables used for classroom and program purposes. ' Capacity is based on standard of service for programs provided and is updated periodically to reflect program changes. z 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. High School capacity meets concurrency requirements and no Impact fees are collected for high schools. Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 5 C April 2013 Page 22 VIII Finance Plan The finance plan shown on Table 6 demonstrates how the Kent School District plans to finance improvements for the years 2013 - 2014 through 2018 - 2019 The financing components include secured and unsecured funding and impact fees. The plan is based on voter approval of future bond issues, collection of impact fees under the State Growth Management Act and voluntary mitigation fees paid pursuant to State Environmental Policy Act. In February 2006, voters approved a $106 million bond issue that included funds for replacement of Panther Lake Elementary School with increased capacity, as well as construction of a new Elementary School to accommodate growth. The new Panther Lake Elementary School replaced the previous Panther Lake Elementary in Fall of 2009 The bond issue also funded Phase II of the renovation for Mill Creek Middle School and renovation of Sequoia Middle School for reconfiguration as a non-traditional high school, Kent Phoenix Academy, which opened in September 2007 2006 construction funding also provided for additional classrooms at Kentlake High School and two projects at Kent-Meridian HS. The projects at Kent-Meridian provide additional capacity with several new classrooms and gymnasium space. The projects at K-M are completed and the new Main Gym added capacity for two more PE classrooms. Some impact fees were utilized for new construction that increased capacity Originally, the district designated $16 million of the 2006 bond authorization for construction of an additional elementary school, identified as Elementary#31 in previous Plans. Due to a change in circumstances, the Board of Directors reallocated the $16 Million for capital projects for safety and security The Greenhouse School LEED project is planned to provide additional capacity at Kent Elementary School for 2015-16. No Impact Fees will be used for the project. Replacement of Covington Elementary School in 2016-17 or beyond will increase capacity by approximately 16%. Some impact fees will be utilized as part of the Finance Plan. A building addition is also planned to provide approximately 25% additional classroom capacity at Neely-O'Brien Elementary School in 2017-18. The Finance Plan includes a few new relocatables 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 25-26 for a summary of the cost basis. Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2013 Page 23 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No.415 SIX-YEAR FINANCE PLAN Secured Unsecured Impact SCHOOL FACILITIES 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 TOTAL Local 8 State State or Local 3 Fees s Estimated Estimated PERMANENT FACILITIES Addition to Kent Elem-LEED Project' F $9,000,000 $9,000,000 $9,000,000 $0 Covington Elementary Replacement' U $31,640,000 $31,840,000 $26,745,000 $5,095,000 Addition to Neely-O'Brien Elementary $14,100.000 $14,100,000 $10,600,000 $3,500,000 NO Secondary School Projects at this time. TEMPORARY FACILITIES Additional Relocatables 3-4 U $277,000 $290,000 5305,000 $320.000 $504,000 $705.000 $2401,000 $2,401,000 2 relocatables 2 relocatables 2 relocatables 2 relocatables 3 relocatables 4 mlocatebles OTHER N/A Totals $277,000 $290,000 $9,305,000 $32,160,000 $14,604,000 $705,000 $57,341,000 $9,000,000 $37,345,000 $10,996,000 F = Funded U = Unfunded NOTES: ' Based on estimates of actual or future construction costs from Facilities Department.(See Page 25 for Cost Basis Summary) The District anticipates receiving some Stale Funding Construction Assistance(formerly known as"matching funds")for some projects. ' Facility needs are pending review.Some of these projects may be funded with impact fees ° Cost of Relocatables based on current cost and adjusted for inflation for future years ' Fees in this column are based on amount of fees collected to date and estimated fees on future units. Kent School District S«-Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 6 April 2013 Page 24 V I I I 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 next elementary school. Elementary School Cost Projected Cost Cost of Panther Lake Elementary $26,700,000 Replacement (Opened in Fall 2009) Projected cost - Covington Elementary $31,840,000 Replacement (Projected to open in 2016) Projected cost of Neely-O'Brien Addition $14,100,000 (Projected to open in 2017) Elementary Cost based on $31,840,000 Covington Elementary Replacement 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 27 for a list of site acquisition costs and averages. District Adjustment The impact fee calculations on pages 28 and 29 include a "District Adjustment" to reduce the fees calculated by the impact fee formulas. Based on current economic conditions, the District has adjusted the impact fees to keep the same rates as those currently in place and made no adjustment for increase in the Consumer Price Index. Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2013 Page 25 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 Site Acquisitions & Costs Average of Sites Purchased or Built on within last 15 Years Type 1, Year Open I #on Map School / Site Purchased Location Acreage Cost Avg costlacre Total Average Cost/Acre Elementary 131 Urban Panther Lake Elementary Replacement Site 2008 10200 SE 216 St,Kent 98031 9.40 $4,485,013 $477,129 5/Urban Elementary Site(Halleson&Wikstrom) 2004 15435 SE 256 St,Covington 98042 10.00 $1,093,910 $109,391 Elementary Site Subtotal 19.40 $5,578,923 $287,573 Elem site average Middle School Urban Northwood Middle School 1996 17007 SE 184 St, Renton 98058 2442 $655,138 $26,828 10/Urban Mill Creek MS(Kent JH)/McMillan St assemblage 2002 411-432 McMillan St,Kent 98032 1.23 $844,866 $686,883 12/Urban So Central Site-Unincorp KC(Plemmons,Yeh,Wms) 1999 E of 124 SE btw 286-288 PI(UKC) 39.36 $1,936,020 $49,188 Middle School Site Subtotal 65.01 $3,436,024 $52,854 Mld i,SGhl Slte Avg. Senior High 11/Urban K-M High School Addition(Kent 6&Britt Smith) 2002&2003 10002 SE 256th Street 631 $3,310,000 $524,564 Senior High Kentlake High School (KombolMorns) 1997 21401 SE 300 St,Kent 98042 4000 $537,534 $13,438 6/Urban Kentwood Sr Hi Addition (Sandhu) 1998 16807 SE 256th Street 3.83 $302,117 $78,882 Senior High Site Subtotal 50.14 $4,149,651 $82,761 Sr Hi Site Average Note.All rural sites were purchased poor to adoption of Urban Growth Area. Numbers correspond to locations on Site Bank&Acquisitions Map on Page 17 Properties purchased prior to 1996 1/Rural So King County Activity Center(Nike site)purchased prior to 1996 4/Urban Site-Covington area North (So of Mattson MS) 1984 Total Acreage&Cost Total Average Cost!Acre 3/Rural Site-Ham Lake east (Pollard) 1992 13455 $13,164,598 $97,842 7/Rural Site-South of Covington(Scarsella) 1993 8/Rural Site-SE of Lake Morton area (West property) 1993 2/Urban Site-Shady Lake(Sowers-Blame-Drahola-Paroline) 1995 91 Urban Old Kent Elementary replaced and currently leased out Kent School District Six-Year Capital Paa6hes Plan Table ? Apd12013 Page 26 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT FACTORS FOR ESTIMATED IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS Student Generation Factors -Single Family Student Generation Factors -Multi-Family Elementary (Grades K-6) 0.484 Elementary 0.324 Middle School (Grades 7 -8) 0.129 Middle School 0 066 Senior High (Grades 9- 12) 0.249 Senior High 0.118 Total 0.862 Total 0.508 Projected Increased Student Capacity OSPI -Square Footage per Student Elementary 600 Elementary 90 Middle School 0 Middle School 117 Senior High Addition 0 Senior High 130 Special Education 144 Required Site Acreage per Facility Elementary (required) 11 Average Site Cost/Acre Middle School (required) 21 Elementary $287,573 Senior High (required) 32 Middle School $0 Senior High $0 New Facility Construction Cost Elementary' $31,840,000 Temporary Facility Capacity & Cost Middle School $0 Elementary @ 24 $138,500 Senior High ' $0 Middle School @ 29 $0 See cost basis on Pg 25 Senior High @ 31 $0 Temporary Facility Square Footage State Funding Assistance Credit(f.,y stet.mm ) Elementary 70,892 District Funding Assistance Percentage 57.89% Middle School 16,376 Senior High 22,064 Total 3% 109,332 Construction Cost Allocation CCA-CosVSq, Ft. (Effective July 11-12) $188.55 Permanent Facility Square Footage Elementary (includesKMVA) 1,470,543 Middle School 660,904 District Average Assessed Value Senior High 1,110,415 Single Family Residence $228,242 Total 97% 3,241,862 Total Facilities Square Footage District Average Assessed Value Elementary 1,541,435 Multi-Family Residence $85,802 Middle School 667,829 Apartments 70%Condos 30% Senior High 1,132,479 Total 3,341,743 Bond Levy Tax Rate/$1,000 Current 1$1,000 Tax Rate(1.8607) $1.86 Developer Provided Sites I Facilities Value 0 General Obligation Bond Interest Rate Dwelling Units 0 Current Bond Interest Rate 3.74% Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2013 Page 27 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION for SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE Site Acquisition Cost per Single Family Residence Formula: ((Aces x Cost per Acre)/Facility Capacity)x Student Generation Factor Required Site Acreage I Average See Cost/Aue I Facility Capacity I Student Factor A 1 (Elementary) 11 $287,573 600 0.484 $2,551.73 A 2 (Middle School) 21 $0 1,065 0 129 $0 A3 (Senior High) 32 $C 1,000 0249 $0 0 862 A b $2,551.73 Permanent Facility Construction Cost per Single Family Residence Formula ((Facility Cost/Facility Capacity)x Student Factor)x(Permanent rota)Square Footage Ratio) Construction Cost Facility Capacrty I Student Factor Footage Ratio B 1 (Elementary) $31,840,000 600 0.484 0.97 $24,913.74 B2 (Middle School) $0 900 0.129 0.97 $0 B 3 (Senior High) $0 1,600 0 249 097 so 0 862 B a $24,913.74 Temporary Facility Cost per Single Family Residence Formula: ((Facility Cost/Facility Capacity)x Student Factor)x(Temporary/Total Square Footage Ratio)E Faahry Cost Faubty Capacity Stutlent_F.ctor Footage Ratio C1 (Elementary) $138,500 24 0484 003 $8379 C 2 (Middle School) $0 29 0 129 003 $0 C3 (Senior High) $0 31 0 249 003 $0 0 862 C $8179 State Funding Assistance Credit per Single Family Residence (formerly"Slate Match") Formula: Area Cost Allowance x SPI Square Feet per student x Funding Assistance% x Student Factor Constr Iq cost Alior hw I SPI Sq Ft /Student I Assistance% I Student Factor D 1 (Elementary) $18855 90 05789 0.484 $4,754.64 02 (Middle School) 5188 55 117 0 0 129 s0 D 3 (Senior High) $18855 130 0 0 249 $0 D A S4,75464 Tax Credit per Single Family Residence Average SF Residential Assessed Value $228,242 Current Debt Service Rate/$1,000 $1 86 Current Bond Interest Rate 3 74% Years Amortized (10Years) 10 TC a $3,489.63 Developer Provided Facility Credit Facility/Site Value Dwelling Units 0 0 FC 0 Fee Recap A = Site Acquisition per SF Residence $2,551.73 B = Permanent Facility Cost per Residence $24,91374 C = Temporary Facility Cost per Residence $83.79 Subtotal $27,549.26 D = State Match Credit per Residence $4,754.64 TC=Tax Credit per Residence $3,489.63 Subtotal - $8.24428 Total Unfunded Need $19,30498 50%Developer Fee Obligation $9,652 FC=Facility Credit(if applicable) 0 District Adjustment (See Page 26 for explanation) ($4,166) Net Fee Obligation per Residence-Single Family $5,486 Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2013 Page 28 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 Required Site Acreage I Average Site CostfAcre I Facility Capacity I Student Factor Al (Elementary) 11 $287,573 500 0324 $2,049.82 A 2 (Middle School) 21 $0 1,065 0.066 $0 A3 (Senior High) 32 $0 1,000 0.118 $0 0 508 A 4� $2,049.62 Permanent Facility Construction Cost per Multi-Family Residence Unit Formula. ((Facility Cost/Facility Capacity)x Student Factor)x(Permanent/Total Square Footage Ratio) Construction Cost Facility Capacity I Student Factor I Footage Ratio B 1 (Elementary) $31,840,000 600 0.324 0.97 $16,677.79 B 2 (Middle School) $0 900 0 066 0.97 $0 B3 (Senior High) $0 1,600 Oils 0.97 $0 0.508 B b $16,677.79 Temporary Facility Cost per Multi-Family Residence Unit Formula ((Facility Cost/Facility Capacity)x Student Factor)x(Temporary/Total Square Footage Ratio) Facility Cost Facility Capacity I Student Factor I Footage Ratio C1 (Elementary) $138,500 24 0.324 003 $56.09 C 2 (Middle School) $0 29 0 066 0.03 $0 C 3 (Senior High) $0 31 0 118 0.03 $0 0.508 C b $5609 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% I Student Factor D 1 (Elementary) $18855 90 0,5789 0 324 $3,182.86 D 2 (Middle School) S18855 117 0 0 066 $0 D 3 (Senior High) $18855 130 0 0 118 $0 D a $3,18286 Tax Credit per Multi-Family Residence Unit Average MF Residential Assessed Value $85,802 Current Debt Service Rate/$1,000 $1 86 Current Bond Interest Rate 3.74% Years Amortized (10Years) 10 TCa $1,311.84 Developer Provided Facility Credit Facility/Site Value Dwelling Units 0 0 FC b 0 Fee Recap A = Site Acquisition per Multi-Family Unit $2,04982 B = Permanent Facility Cost per MF Unit $16,677.79 C = Temporary Facility Cost per MF Unit $5609 Subtotal $18,78370 D = State Match Credit per MF Unit $3.18286 TC=Tax Credit per MF Unit $1,311 84 Subtotal $4,49470 Total Unfunded Need $14,28900 50%Developer Fee Obligation $7,347 FC=Facility Credit(if applicable) 0 District Adjustment (See Page 26 for explanation) ($3,969) Net Fee Obligation per Residential Unit-Multi-family $3,378 Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2013 Page 29 IX Summary of Changes to April 2012 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 April 2012 Plan are summarized here. Board of Directors re-allocated funds for previously proposed Elementary 31 to capital projects for safety and security Future projects include proposed replacement and expansion of Covington Elementary, and additions to Kent Elementary & Neely O'Brien. Project that increased capacity at Kent-Meridian HS was completed and removed from Finance Plan & Fee Charts, Changes to capacity continue to reflect fluctuations in class size as well as program changes. Changes in relocatables or transitional capacity reflect use, lease or purchase, sale, surplus and/or movement between facilities. The student 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. Based on current economic conditions, the District Adjustment results in no change to the current impact fees. Changes to Impact Fee Calculation Factors include: ITEM G aderrype FROM TO Comments Student Generation Factor Elem 0486 0484 Single Family (SF) MS 0130 0,129 SH 0.250 0 249 Total 0.866 0 862 - 04 Student Generation Factor Elem 0 331 0 324 Multi-Family(MF) MS 0.067 0066 SH 0124 0118 Total 0 522 0.508 - 14 State Funding Assistance Ratios rstaie MatQ') 5665% 5789% Per OSPI Website Area Cost Allowance (former Boeckh Index) $18855 $188.55 Per OSPI Website Average Assessed Valuation (AV) SF 5249,981 $228,242 Puget Sound ESD AV-Average of Condominiums&Apts MF $95,379 $85,802 Puget Sound ESD Debt Service Capital Levy Rate/$1000 $1 75 $1.86 Per King Co Assessor Report General Obligation Bond Interest Rate 384% 374% Market Rate Impact Fee-Single Family SF $5,486 $5,486 No Change to Impact Fee Impact Fee-Multi-Family MF $3,378 $3,378 No Change to Impact Fee Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2013 Page 30 X Appendixes Appendix A: Calculations of Capacities for Elementary Schools Appendix B: Calculations of Capacities for Middle Schools Appendix C: Calculations of Capacities for Senior High Schools Appendix D: Use of Relocatables Appendix E: Student Generation Factor Survey Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2013 Page 31 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No.415 STANDARD of SERVICE - PROGRAM CAPACITY - INVENTORY of RELOCATABLES - FTE and HEADCOUNT ENROLLMENT KSD Number of Std/High Cap pSE/IP °Special 2012-2013 Program CWSSMM RekxataWe 10/1/2012 101112012 F ELEMENTARY ABR Std a Hqh Cep Capacity ELL Program Program Use Use Capaary P223 FTE 3 P223 HdC Dn t D SCHOOL Classrooms .121.vara9e' CR Ca aclry Capacity° Rebcataeles RebcelaWea •IA.venoe' Enrollment Enr011ment K� e-ECE&n=Hi uy Capede PMn.0 0ECE&K@ 5or10 0ECE&K @to Carnage Crest CC 18 432 5 20 452 1 0 0 39248 424 F Cedar Valley CV/e 15 360 0 20 380 2 0 0 27050 298 F Covington CO/e 20 480 5 24 504 1 0 0 42700 463 F Crestwood CW 18 432 4 0 432 4 1 24 43938 484 F East Hill EH 20 480 5 10 490 3 3 72 47453 516 F Emerald Park EP 21 504 2 0 504 2 0 0 44900 486 F Fanwood FWIe 17 408 3 0 408 3 0 0 41566 454 F George T Daniel Elem DE 18 432 5 24 456 1 0 0 49900 499 SF Glenndge GR 19 456 4 0 456 2 0 0 447 50 479 F Grass Lake Gun 18 432 4 20 452 1 0 0 40450 425 F Horizon HE 21 504 2 0 504 3 0 0 47350 501 F Jenkins Creek JC 15 360 7 44 404 3 1 24 28800 312 F Kent Elementary KE/eh 20 480 3 0 480 2 4 96 62600 626 SF Lake Youngs LYM 21 504 7 20 510 0 0 0 42050 445 F Martin SDaUn MS 19 456 3 24 480 1 1 24 563.50 611 F Meadow Ridge MRle 17 408 6 68 476 0 4 96 546.68 548 SF Mention Elementary MErti 21 504 3 20 524 3 2 48 539.00 581 F Millennium Elementary ML 20 480 3 24 504 0 0 0 531,05 583 F Neely-O'Bnen NO 20 480 5 0 480 7 5 120 68052 744 F Panther Lake(New) PL 21 504 5 20 524 4 0 0 56470 509 F Park Orchard PO 18 432 7 54 486 2 0 0 47703 478 SF Pine Tree PTA 21 504 4 10 514 3 0 0 462.50 493 F Ridgewood RWM 21 504 1 0 504 1 2 48 519.30 558 F Sawyer W000s SW 21 504 2 0 504 0 0 0 42476 457 F Scenic Hill SH 17 408 6 68 476 4 3 72 60500 605 SF Soos Creek SC/e 15 360 4 20 380 3 0 0 31250 341 F Spnngbrook SB 17 408 4 10 418 2 0 0 49060 536 F Sunrise SR/h 21 504 2 0 504 3 0 0 51203 549 F Kent Min Vrew Academy MV 14 356 3 60 410 0 0 0 10300 103 0 Elementary TOTAL'S 544 13,076 120 560 13,616 61 26 624 13,35772 14,208 'Elementary classroom capacity is based on average of 24:20-22 in K-3&29 in Grades 4-6 Includes adjustments for Gass size reduction or special program changes 2 Kent School District Standard of Service reserves some rooms for pull-out programs.is 20 Total=16 Standard-1 Computer Lab+1 Music�1 ELL«1 Integrated Program classroom 3 All elementary schools have Full Day Kindergarten-5 FDK programs are State-funded FTE reports Kind @J.5&SF-FDK @ 1 0-P223 Headcount reports Kindergarten Q 1.0 'Elementary schools have 100%space utilization rate with rro adjustments for part-time use of classrooms Counts exclude ECE Preschoolers&space is reserved for ECE classrooms Kent School Distnct Six-Year Capital Facrities Plan APPENDIX A April 2013 Page 32 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No.415 STANDARD of SERVICE - PROGRAM CAPACITY - INVENTORY of RELOCATABLES - FTE and HEADCOUNT ENROLLMENT KSD #of Standard SEIIP sp:Ed Spec ISPeCial' 12012-2013 Program Classroom Relocated. 10/1/2012 10!12012 MIDDLE ABR Std Capaary' Eu Eu Prgm Program Program Use Use Capacity P223 FTE 3 Headcount 3 SCHOOL Clsrms at 25-29 Cis Cap .. Clsrms Capacity Capacity' Ralocelables Reiocsables at29ea Enrollment Enrollment a85%Ml".. a05%uuiv.t. e %Ma-d.0.5 uu..a Cedar Heights Middle School CH 30 740 8 84 3 71 895 2 0 0 67300 673 Mattson Middle School MA 24 592 6 76 5 119 787 4 0 0 648.40 649 Meeker Middle Schad MK 29 715 8 93 1 24 832 0 0 0 67900 679 Meridian Middle School MJ 26 641 5 56 4 95 792 8 0 0 65065 653 Mill Creek Middle School MC 33 813 5 55 2 48 916 0 2 58 87200 872 Northwood Middle School NW 33 813 2 18 4 95 926 0 0 0 671,44 673 Kent Mountain View Academy(Grades 3-12) Middle School Grade 7-8 Enrollment See Elem 77.55 78 Middle School TOTAL 175 4,314 34 382 19 452 5,148 14 2 58 4,27204 4,277 APPENDIX B KSD #of Standard SE I IP I spea Ed Spec Special' 2012-2013 Program Classroom Relocalable 10/12012 10/1/2012 SENIOR HIGH ABR Std Cap au Eu Prgm Program Program Use Use Capacity P223 FTE 3 Headcount' SCHOOL Clsrms at 25-31 Cls Capaary Clsnns Capaclry Capaary' Rebcaiables Relocatables at 31 ea. Enrollment Enrollment ®BS%ULlv.um ®05%Utdzalron @95%Mkni a85%eU� Kent-Mendian Senior High KM 56 1,476 12 157 12 271 1,904 6 3 93 1,98740 2,051 Kentlake Senior High KL 58 1,423 13 153 16 381 1,957 2 0 0 1,56760 1,606 Kentndge Senior High KR 65 1,713 13 136 18 428 2,277 0 4 124 2.02840 2,092 Kentwood Senior High KW 60 1,581 9 102 20 476 2,159 5 4 124 1,79722 1,886 Kent Mountain View Academy(Grades 3-12) Senior High Grade 9-12 Enrollment See Elem 14951 152 Kent Phoenix Academy PH Non-tradibonal High School 414 31720 335 Regional Justice Center ° RJ NIA NIA 400 4 Senior High TOTAL 239 6,193 47 548 66 1,556 8,711 13 11 341 7,85133 8,126 APPENDIX Ca Excludes Running Start& Early Childhood Ed students DISTRICT TOTAL 958 1 23,583 1 201 1 1,490 1 85 1 2,008 1 27,475 88 39 1,023 1 25,48109 1 26,611 ' Special Program capacity Includes classrooms requiring specialized use such as Special Educabon,Career&Technmal Education Programs,Computer Labs,etc Secondary school capacity Is adjusted for 85%utilization rate 9th grade moved to HS in 2004 Facility Use Study was updated for program changes in 2012-13 ' Enrollment is reported on FTE&Headcount basis P223 Headcount excludes ECE&College-only Running Start students.Full headcount including ECE&RS=27,732 Some totals may be slightly different due to rounding ° 13 Juveniles served at King County Regional Justice Center are reported separately for Institutional Funding on Form E-672 Total RJ count in October 2012 is 17 Kent School Diana Six-Year Capital Facllibes Plan Total of Appendices A B &C April 2013 Page 33 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 USE of RELOCATABLES School Year 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 Relocatable Use i No of Student No.of Sagenl No.of Student No of StWent No.of Slulem No of Student No of Sludem RebcatWbles Capecry Rebcalzbles Capacty Rebcatades Cepeory Relocalables I Capxory Rebcaabies I Capaoly Rebcatables Capacity Rebcalables Capacity Relocatables for classroom use 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 Relocatables for program use 88 fie Be e8 Be 88 e8 lie Computer labs,music,etc) Elementary Capacity Required @ 24 2 25 600 39 936 49 1,176 57 1,368 67 1,608 84 2,016 102 2,446 Middle School Capacity Required®29 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Senior High Capacity Required @ 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 #of Relocatables Utilized 4 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 Classroom Relocatable/Capacity Required 25 600 39 936 49 1,176 57 1,368 67 1,608 84 2,016 102 2,448 Plan for Allocation of Required Classroom Relocatable Facilities included in Finance Plan: Elementary 112 25 39 49 57 67 e4 102 Middle School 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Senior High 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 25 39 49 57 67 84 102 1 Use of additional relocatabies for classrooms or special programs is based on need and fluctuations of enrollment at each school. z Full Day Kindergarten at all Elementary schools will Increase the need for relocatabies at the elementary level until permanent capacity can be provided. a Grade Level Reconfiguratlon-In 2004,9th grade students moved to high schools creating sufficient permanent capacity at middle schools. 4 Although relocatables are utilized for a wide vadery of purposes,new constructlon and boundary adJustments are timed to minimize the requirement for relocatabies. Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan APPENDIX D April 2012 Page 34 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 Survey for Student Generation Factor Eduiog Elementary Total S t u d e n t s Student Generation Factor 4i Single Family Developments Area Unite Total Elam Ms HS Total Elam MS HS Sts Adler's Cove SW 92 75 50 13 12 0 815 0 543 0.141 0 130 stn Canterra PT 14 11 6 2 3 0 786 0 429 0 143 0 214 512 Creekside at Riverview NO 81 44 36 2 6 0 543 0 444 0 025 0 074 419 Eagle Crest-Park View-Southndge HE 219 203 124 27 52 0 927 0 566 0 123 0.237 lei Eastland Meadows-Kent SC 13 20 8 5 7 1 538 0 615 0 385 0 538 395 Eastpome MS 99 56 39 7 10 0.566 0 394 0 071 0 101 ass Fern Crest East-Kent SR 171 156 92 21 43 0 912 0 538 0.123 0 251 410 Highland 8 Rhododendron Estates ML 41 39 23 7 9 0 951 0.561 0 171 0 220 224 Kenllake Highlands SW 177 144 89 20 35 0814 0.503 0113 0198 431 Meridian Ridge HE 70 45 32 5 8 0643 0457 0.071 0114 m9 North Parke Meadows 8 Parke Meadows South CW 106 112 59 22 31 1 057 0 557 0208 0 292 422 Panther Meadows GR 32 32 22 3 7 1.000 0 688 0 094 0 219 5,4 Rainier Vista CW 92 43 25 8 10 0.467 0 272 0 087 0 109 vs Roses Meadow ML 37 24 12 5 7 0649 0324 0135 0189 2e Severe/The Reserve r Stonetleld/Crofton HAIS CO 351 365 172 54 139 1 040 0 490 0 154 0 396 40o Shadow Brook Ridge(FCWesu-Kent SR 128 114 69 14 31 0891 0539 0109 0242 42o Tamarack Ridge CW 134 78 41 10 27 0582 0306 0075 0201 179 The Parks-Fanwood/Renton RW 172 159 71 29 59 0924 0.413 0.169 0343 416 Trovitsky Park-Renton RW 167 140 94 20 26 0.838 0 563 0 120 0 156 41? Wood Creek-Covington CW 154 134 74 22 38 0 870 0 481 0 143 0 247 Total 2,163 1,864 1,046 279 539 0.862 0.484 0.129 0.249 eduio9 Elementary Total S t u d e n t s Student Generation Factor Multi-Family Developments Area Units Total Elem MS HS Total Elem MS HS 41a Adagio Apartments-Covington CO 200 78 45 8 25 0 390 0 225 0 040 0 125 412 Alderbrook Apartments-Kent EH 207 141 94 22 25 0681 0454 0106 0121 Ise Arterra Apartments-Kent SH 81 65 43 11 11 0 802 0 531 0.136 0 136 145 Fairwood Pond Apartments-Renton FW 194 72 47 8 17 0 371 0 242 0 041 0 088 147 Red Mtll at Fairwood-Renton CC 96 29 18 3 8 0.302 0 188 0 031 0.083 337 Riverview-The Parks-Kent NO 150 59 36 6 17 0393 0240 0040 0113 m2 Rock Creek Landing-Kent SB 211 103 72 13 10 0 488 0 341 0.062 0.085 413 Silver Springs Apartments-Kent PL 251 171 112 20 39 0 581 0 446 0 080 0-155 192 Sunrise at Benson Condos-Kent OR 1 88 33 12 7 14 0375 0 136 0 080 0 159 Total 1,478 751 479 98 174 0.508 0.324 0.066 0.118 Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan I APPENDIX E Apnl 2013 Page 35 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan CITY OF . WASHINGTON CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN (2014 - 2019) Adopted by Ordinance No. xxxx, December xx, 2013 as part of the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan City of Auburn 25 West Main Auburn, WA 98001 (253) 931-3000 www.auburnwa.gov City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan CITY OF B T T RN MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2014 - 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary 1 1. Introduction Purpose 7 Statutory Requirement for Capital Facilities Elements 7 Concurrency and Level of Service 8 Implementation 8 2. Goals and Policies 1 Capital Facilities Response to Growth 11 2. Financial Feasibility 11 3. Public Health and Environment 13 4 Consistency With Regional Planning 13 3. Capital Improvements Introduction 15 Transportation. 17 Arterial Street (102) Capital Projects 22 Local Street (103) Capital Projects 85 Street Preservation Fund (105) Capital Projects .. ..... 87 Water 93 Sanitary Sewer 123 Storm Drainage 133 Solid Waste ... 155 Parks and Recreation .... .... ... 157 General Municipal Buildings. 185 Community Improvements 195 Airport 205 Cemetery 213 Golf Course. 217 Police Department 219 Valley Regional Fire Authority 221 City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan CITY OF RN MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED City ofAubur-n 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 Purpose of CFP, statutory requirements, methodology Chapter 2. Goals and Policies Goals and Policies related to the provision of capital facilities. Chapter 3. Capital Improvements 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 (Chapter 5). 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 which are the intended framework for future funding decisions and within which future actions and decisions are intended to occur However, these timeframes are estimates, and depending on factors involved in the processing of applications and project work, and availability of funding, the timing may change from the included timeframes. The framework does not represent actual commitments by the City of Auburn which may depend on funding resources available. 1 City ofAuburn 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 2012 71,240 2013 73,235 2019 87,392 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 2014-2019 is summarized as follows: Type of Facility 2014 -2019 Transportation -Arterial (102) $ 97,691,424 Transportation - Local (103) 9,262,553 Transportation - Street (105) 11,905,000 Water 33,324,492 Sanitary Seiner 8,645,000 Storm Drainage 15,456,688 Parks & Recreation 24,895,500 General Municipal Buildings 5,361,949 Community Improvements 4,617,250 Airport 601,500 Cemetery 35,000 Total $ 211,796,356 2 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan FINANCING FOR CAPITAL FACILITIES The financing plan for the citywide capital improvements includes: Funding Source 2014 - 2019 Capital Facility Grants 75,714,354 Transportation (Includes grant funding that has not 6,840,500 Parks & Recreation been secured) 600,000 Community Improvements 676,500 Storm Drainage 451,750 Airport User Fees /Fund Balance 27,617,046 Water 8,645,000 Sewer 11,325,188 Storm Drainage 150,000 Community Improvements 438,000 General Municipal Buildings 850,000 Equipment Rental 149,750 Airport 35,000 Cemetery Arterial Street Fund 6,611,200 Transportation Local Street Fund 400,000 Transportation Arterial Street Preservation Fund 657,500 Transportation Bond Proceeds 4,629,501 Water 3,455,000 Storm Drainage 6,000,000 Parks & Recreation Municipal Parks Fund 1,310,000 Parks & Recreation Property Tax 390,000 Parks & Recreation Sales Tax 7,962,553 Transportation Utility Tax 11,400,000 Transportation Mitigation/Impact Fees 13,744,570 Transportation 217,590 Community Improvements BEET 1 - Parks & Recreation 4,073,949 General Municipal Buildings REET2 3,469,660 Community Improvements 180,000 Transportation Other Sources 2,368,800 Transportation 1,077,945 Water 10,355,000 Parks & Recreation Total $ 211,796,356 3 City ofAuburn 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 (2015-2020) are as follows: Budget Year: 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total 1 Transportation $ 68,657 $ 96,407 $ 107,007 $ 119,107 $ 145,987 $ 157,437 $ 694,602 2 Water 2,400 2,400 5,400 5,400 5,400 5,400 26,400 3 Sanitary Sewer - 4 Storm Drainage 5 Solid Waste 6 Parks and Recreation 214,000 219,000 219,000 226,000 226,000 223,000 1,327,000 7 General Municipal Buildings 8 Community Improvements 9 Airport 10 Cemetery 11 Golf Course 12 Senior Center 13 Police Department 14 Fire Department Total $ 285,057 $ 317,807 $ 331,407 $ 350,507 $ 377,387 $ 385,837 $ 2,048,001 Project summary details are located on the following pages: Transportation page 92 Water page 122 Parks& Recreation page 181 4 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 14,157 (19.3%) between 2013 and 2019, 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 2013 LOS to the projected 2019 LOS. CAPITAL FACILITY LOS UNITS 2013 LOS 2019 LOS (Projected) Cemetery Burial Plots per 1,000 Pop. 4009 4777 Community Parks JAcres per 1,000 Pop. 3161 3.32 The LOS for the following facilities will be maintained as a result of the CFP CAPITAL FACILITY LOS UNITS 2013 LOS 2019 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 Water Residential GPCPD (Note 1) 210.00 210.00 II Note 1: GPCPD = Gallons per CustomerperDay The LOS for the following facilities will be decreased as a result of the CFP, comparing the 2013 LOS to the projected 2019 LOS CAPITAL FACILITY LOS UNITS 2013 LOS 2019 LOS (Projected) Fire Protection Apparatus per 1,000 Pop 0 19 0.16 General Municipal Buildings Sq Ft.per 1,000 Pop 3,69671 3,328.15 Golf Course Acres per 1,000 Pop. 0.25 021 Linear Parks Acres per 1,000 Pop. 0.45 037 Neighborhood Parks Acres per 1,000 Pop. 074 073 Open Space Acres per 1,000 Pop. 4.61 3.87 Senior Center Sq Ft per 1,000 Pop 17204 144 18 Special Use Areas Acres per 1,000 Pop. 0 74 0.62 Level of Service (LOS) is a common measure used to determine the efficiency of 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. 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 5 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan 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 Element (2011); • City Municipal Airport Master Plan Update (2001-2020); • City Comprehensive Water Plan (2009); • City Comprehensive Transportation Plan (2012) and Six Year Transportation Improvement Program (2014-2019); • City Comprehensive Drainage Plan (2009), • City Comprehensive Sewer Plan (2009); City 2013-14 Biennial Budget and 2012 Annual Financial Report; and, • Master plan update for parks, as well as numerous other planning and financial documents. All documents are available for public inspection at the City of Auburn. 6 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION PURPOSE The Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) is a 6-year plan (2014-2019) 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. 7 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 Sewer/ 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 of 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. 8 City ofAubirrn 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. 9 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan CITY OF * A'UDURN MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED 10 City ofAuburn 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 19.26.095, 58.17 033 or 58 17 170 14.2 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 on the basis of 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. 11 City ofAuburn Draft 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, 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; 2.43 Adopt new sources of revenue; 2.44 Require developers to provide such facilities at their own expense, and/or 2.45 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 which 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 2.63 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. 2.65 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. 12 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan 2.6.6 Capital improvements that contribute to stabilizing and developing the economy of the City. 2.67 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 * Ali-BUR- -N �k MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED 14 City of Auburn 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, 2018. 3. Capital Projects and Financing Plan (Table X-2, X-2A and X-213) This is a list of capital improvements that identifies existing deficiencies, identifies facilities needed for future growth, and identifies the repairing or replacing of obsolete or worn out facilities through December 31, 2019 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 new capital projects and the forecasted impacts on the City's future operating budgets (2015— 2020) 15 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan CITY OF r BURN v, 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 216 miles of arterials, collectors, local streets and alleys. Table T-1 "Auburn Corridor Level of Service" includes the most current Level of Service (LOS) for each defined arterial roadway corridor Transit: King County Metro Transit, Sound Transit and Pierce Transit serve the Auburn area. Auburn is currently served by nine Metro bus routes, two Sound Transit bus routes, and one Pierce Transit bus route. Twenty Sound Transit "Sounder" commuter rail trains stop at Auburn each weekday at the Auburn station located at 23 A Street SW The Sounder also provides special event service to selected sporting events. Bus and rail service is supported by park and ride facilities and the Auburn Transit Center 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 standards and the methods used are up to the local jurisdictions. 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 future population growth and development. 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 transportation and land use elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan, as required by GMA. The City has four choices if it finds the standards cannot be met. • Modify the land use plan, placing tighter controls on the amount and type of development to minimize 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 accept lower 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 17 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan concurrency will be evaluated for key facilities and on a system-wide basis. By having system- wide and facility-based roadway LOS standards, the City of Auburn can define preliminary capacity needs. The City can then identify locations where standards will not be met in the future to develop appropriate improvements. At the project level, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) process will continue to guide the more specific planning and analysis efforts. Level of Service Standards LOS standards can help identify where and when transportation improvements are needed, and when development or growth will impact 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 to 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. LOS standards are a cornerstone in the development of equitable traffic impact fee systems, which require developments to pay a portion of the costs for 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 regularly updated to enable the City to construct road capacity to meet the traffic demand of development. Measuring Transportation System Performance Arterial Corridors. 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 is used to assess concurrency or if facilities are meeting the LOS standards. The City of Auburn currently uses Synchro to estimate LOS. Synchro is based on the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM2000) methodology For arterials LOS is based on average travel speeds along a defined corridor Table T-1 shows the 42 defined street corridors, LOS standards and most recent calculated LOS Table T-1 b shows the relationships between LOS, street classification, average travel speed, and free flow speed. 18 City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan TABLE T- 1 Auburn Corridor Level of Service LOS LOS ID Corridor From To Standard 2009 T Auburn Way North 15th St NE Northern City Limits C/D 2� Aubuinn'Way North, East Main St. 15thSt NE 4 E D. 3 Auburn Way South East Main St. M St SE D F/E 4 Auburn Way,South. M St SE.,,, Eastern'City,Limits,`,`_�, D C. 5 M St./Harvey Auburn Way North East Main St. E C 1 M til 6 EMSt./Harvey* East Main St Auburn Way SouW:* f"V _ D/C_•S Evergreen 7 Evergreen Way Lakeland Hills Way Kersey Way D Future �8 37th,St NE/NW West Valley Hwy I St.,N&�, D ',-,'-_B/C' ;: 9 15th St NE/NW West Valley Hwy Auburn Way North F" D 10 Auburn Ave/ 'X'�&4'.t SR18 SouthernCity D, 'I,,.B 11 Main St West Valley Hwy R St D C 12 15th St SW f West Valley,Hwy C St SW.', - 13 C St SW Ellingson SR 18 D C/E .14 West Valley Hwy Northern City/Limits. 15th Street. E -B/C 151S 277th St Frontage Rd. 108th Ave SE E E/B 16 R St./Kersey'\/Vay Auburn Way.S.• Oravetz Road_. D. 17 Lake Tapps Parkway East Valley Hwy 182nd Ave E D B .18 !'A!,.St SW/NW/"B" St'NW 4th St NWt,,.- S 277th St Future 19 8th St NE/Lea Hill Rd. Auburn Way North 132nd Ave SE E C/B 20 D St NW/Emerald Downs Dr, S 277th:St,, 16th St, NW AIB. 21 1 St NE S 277th St Harvey Rd D A/B 22 132nd Ave SE " ' „ SE 282nd St SE 312th St D B [23 124th Ave SE SE 282nd St SE 320th. St D C 24 .104th*Ave SE/SE 304th St 8th St,N&,,<>. 132nd Ave.SE P'v! _ � 25 105th PI SE/SE 320th St Lea Hill Road 124th Ave SE D B -26. Lakeland Hills,Way SE Lakei.Tapps.Parkway Oravetz Rd, ;D, -�'-�'C/D'z- 27 29th St SE/Riverwalk Dr A Street SE Auburn Way South D C 8 �Lwtq�! - '� `�' D 28 108thAve SE/1 12th Ave. SE S,277th St SE 304th .,A 29 49th St NW B St NW S 277th St D Future 4 k�j�p V 301R;Street.SE 8th St•NE 4th Street.,SE%. �BIG�r' 31 3rd St SW/Cross St C Street Auburn Way South E E 32 17th St SE'' A St SE Auburn'Way South` ; _D B/A-'�- 33 41st St SE/Ellingson Rd A St SE Western City Limits E F 34 Lakeland,Hills Way/Oravetz EaStLValley.Hwy Kersey Way E-- 4 WB%' 35 West Valley Hwy 15th Street NW Southern City Limits E C/6 'Lj� t' _, 36 Kersey Way, • ** Oravetz Road, Southern'City,Limits 37 S. 316th Street/Terrace Drive West Valley Highway Western City Limits D B 38 S. 296th Street/65th Ave,:- West Valley Highway = Western City.Limi.ts_�-,7! D*,v %113t;.: 39 51 st Ave S. S 288th Street Peasley Canyon Rd D B '40 S.*284th Street 112th Ave SE 124th•Ave SE D;,+',- B/A 41 S. 284th Street 124th Ave SE 132nd Ave SE D Future '42 R St. Bypass/Black Diamond IM Street SE. + ISR,18 . W, Future Split LOS indicates directional LOS in either the East-West or North-South direction. Otherwise,the LOS is the same in both directions. Total travel time in the eastbound direction cannot exceed 1000 seconds for this corridor to meet the LOS Standard, 19 City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan The following Tables (T-1 a, b, and c) present LOS definitions, Urban Street Corridor LOS and Roadway Capacity/Congestion LOS Standards. 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 cntical 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 Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209,Transportation Research Board,Washington, D.0 2000, page 10-5 The characteristics of the six levels of service are summarized. Figure T-1b Urban Street LOS by Class Urban Street Class 1 II III IV FFS-Ran a mi/h 55-45 45-35 35-30 35-25 Typical FFS mi/h 50 40 35 30 LOS Avera a Travel S eed mi/h A >42 >35 >30 >25 B 34-42 >28-35 >24-30 >19-25 C 27-34 >22-28 >18-24 >13-19 D 21-27 >17-22 >14-18 >9-13 E 16-21 >13-17 >10-14 >7-9 F —516 1513 5510 57 Source. 2010 Highway Capacity Manual,Special Report 209,Transportation Research Board,Washington,D C 2000,page 15-3 20 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan Level of Service Standards - The LOS standards shown in Table T-1 c 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 (2012), page 5-4 Table T- 1c Draft Roadway Capacity/Congestion LOS Standards Roadway/Intersection Maximum V/C Ratio/LOS Arterial Corridor D' Signalized Intersection D Unsignatized Intersection D *Unless otherwise specified in Chapter 2 of the City of Auburn Comprehensive Transportation Plan,2012. Relationship to Concurrence Management - 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. Concurrency (Adequate Public Facilities) In compliance with the GMA, adequate transportation system facilities must be available within six (6) years of the time of occupancy and use of new development. Capital Facilities Projects and Financing The City's transportation facilities include projects totaling $118,858,977 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$694,602 are forecasted for transportation facilities during the six years 2015 — 2020. 21 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan TABLE T-2 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN PROJECTS AND FINANCING TRANSPORTATION -ARTERIAL STREET 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total TIP# CaoaciN Projects: 1 A Street NW,Phase 1 Capital Costs 25,000 350,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 475,000 Funding Sources Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Grants - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees 25,000 350,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 475,000 Other 4 1 Street NE Corridor Capital Costs - - - - 1,000,000 - 1,000,000 Funding Sources, Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Grants - - - - 1,000,000 - 1,000,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - - Other 5 M Street Underpass Capital Costs - - - - - - - Long-Term Debt 109,550 109,070 108,590 107,550 106,520 105,490 646,770 Funding Sources Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Grants - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees 109,550 109,070 108,590 107,550 106,520 105,490 646,770 PWTF Loan - - - - - - - Other(Other Agencies) - - - 6 South 277th-Auburn Way North to Green River Bridge Capital Costs 855,960 5,581,800 - - - - 6,437,760 Funding Sources Unrestricted Street Revenue 2,700 - - - - - 2,700 Grants 853,260 4,000,000 - - - - 4,853,260 Traffic Impact Fees - 581,800 - - - - 581,800 Other(Development Funds) 1,000,000 - - - 1,000,000 8 A Street NW,Phase 2 Capital Costs - 50,000 - 3,000,000 - - 3,050,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - Grants - - - 3,000,000 - - 3,000,000 Traffic Impact Fees - 50,000 - - - - 50,000 Other 9 D Street NW,37th to 44th Capital Costs - - - 300,000 - 6,000,000 6,300,000 Funding Sources Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Grants - - - 250,000 - 5,000,000 5,250,000 Traffic Impact Fees 50,000 - 1,000,000 1,050,000 10 F Street SE,4th to AWS Capital Costs 50,000 200,000 2,250,000 - - - 2,500,000 Funding Sources. Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - Grants - 200,000 2,000,000 - - - 252002000 Traffic Impact Fees 50,000 250,000 22 City ofAteburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan TABLE T-2 (continued) 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total TIP# Capacity Proiects: 11 M Street NE,E.Main to 4th Capital Costs 50,000 275,000 1,150,000 1,475,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - Grants - 225,000 1,000,000 1,225,000 Traffic Impact Fees 50,000 50,000 150,000 - - - 250,000 14 M St SE and 12th St SE Traffic Signal Capital Costs - - - 625,000 - - 625,000 Funding Sources Unrestricted Street Revenue - Granls - 500,000 500,000 FEET 2 - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - 125,000 - - 125,000 Other - 15 6th Street NE Widening(Pike Street to R Street NE) Capital Costs - 450,000 1,000,000 - - - 1,450,000 Funding Sources Unrestricted Street Revenue Grants 360,000 800,000 1,160,000 Traffic Impact Fees 90,000 200,000 - 290,000 17 Harvey Road&8th Street NE Intersection Improvements Long-Term Debt 86,500 86,000 85,600 85,200 84,800 84,400 512,500 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - Grants PWTF - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees 86,500 86,000 85,600 85,200 84,800 84,400 512,500 18 8th Street NE and SE 104th St Intersection Improvements Capital Costs 5,000 - 5,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue 5,000 5,000' Grants REET2 - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - 20 Auburn Way South and M Street SE Intersection Improvements Capital Costs 315,957 - - - - - 315,957 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - Grants 315,957 - - - - - 315,957 Traffic Mitigation Fees - - - - - - 23 A St SE Non-Motorized and Access Improvements Capital Costs 89,029 89,029 Funding Sources. Unrestricted Street Revenue Grants 89,029 89,029 Other 23 City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan TABLE T-2 (continued) 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total TIP# Capacity Projects: 24 Academy Drive Multi-Use Trail Capital Costs - - 50,000 425,000 425,000 - 900,000 Funding Sources Unrestricted Street Revenue - - 50,000 42,500 42,500 - 135,000 Grants - - - 382,500 382,500 - 765,000 Other 33 BNSF 3rd Rail Expansion Roadway Improvements Capital Costs 25,000 - - - - - 25,000 Funding Sources Unrestricted Street Revenue 25,000 - - - - - 25,000 Grants - - - - - - - Other 39 124th Ave SE Corridor Improvements Phase 2 Capital Costs - - - 100,000 750,000 - 850,000 Funding Sources Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Grants - - - 85,000 650,000 - 735,000 Traffic Impact Fees 15,000 100,000 - 115,000 40 124th Ave SE Corridor Improvements Phase 1 Capital Costs 200,000 2,750,000 - - - - 2,950,000 Funding Sources Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants - 2,200,000 - - - - 2,200,000 Traffic Impact Fees 200,000 550,000 - - - 750,000 41 R Street Bypass Capital Costs - - - - - 408,000 408,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - 81,600 81,600 Grants - - - - - 326,400 326,400 Traffic Impact Fees - 42 SE 320th Street Corridor Improvements Capital Costs - 50,000 60,000 580,000 - - 690,000 Funding Sources Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - Grants - - 47,500 502,000 - - 549,500 Traffic Impact Fees 50,000 12,500 78,000 - 140,500 43 Auburn Way South Corridor Safety Improvements Capital Costs 2,333,108 - - - - - 2,333,108 Funding Sources Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Grants 2,083,108 - - - - - 2,083,108 Traffic Impact Fees 250,000 250,000 47 Environmental Park Roadway Improvements Study Capital Costs 10,000 - - - - - 10,000 Funding Sources Unrestricted Street Revenue 10,000 - - - - - 10,000 Grants - - - - - - Other 48 Downtown to Les Gove Non-Motorized Improvements Study Capital Costs 10,000 - - - - - 10,000 Funding Sources Unrestricted Street Revenue 10,000 - - - - - 10,000 Grants - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees 24 Citv of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan TABLE T- 2 (continued) 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total TIP# Capacity Projects: 49 S 316th Street Bicycle&Pedestrian Improvement Study Capital Costs 5,000 - - - - - 5,000 Funding Sources* Unrestricted Street Revenue 5,000 - - - - - 5,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - 51 East Valley Highway ITS Expansion Capital Costs - - 800,000 - - - 800,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - Grants - - 692,000 - - - 692,000 Traffic Impact Fees 108,000 - - 108,000 53 AWS and 12th Street BE Intersection Improvements Capital Costs 250,000 - - - - - 250,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - Grants - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees 250,000 - - - 250,000 54 Kersey Way Study Capital Costs 50,000 - - - - - 50,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees 50,000 - - - 50,000 58 Auburn Way South Corridor Improvements,Fir ST SE to Hemlock ST SE Capital Costs 430,000 - - - - - 430,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Grants - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees 200,000 - - - - - 200,000 Other(MIT) 230,000 - - - - 230,000 59 Auburn Ave NE&3rd St NE Pedestrian&Access Improvements Capital Costs 50,000 - 300,000 - - - 350,000 Funding Sources Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - Grants - - 250,000 - - - 250,000 Traffic Impact Fees 50,000 50,000 - - - 100,000 60 M Street SE Corridor(8th St SE to AWS) Capital Costs - - - 1,925,000 4,750,000 - 6,675,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - 250,000 250,000 - 500,000 Grants - - - 925,000 3,750,000 - 4,675,000 Traffic Impact Fees - 750,000 750,000 - 1,500,000 61 Auburn Way South Bypass-Riverwalk Or to SR-18 at R St SE Capital Casts - - - - - 6,000,000 6,000,000 Funding Sources Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - 1,200,000 1,200,000 Grants - - - - - 4,800,000 4,800,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - - 63 29th Street BE&R Street BE Intersectlon Improvements Capital Costs - - - 1,800,000 - - 1,800,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - Grants - - - 1,300,000 - - 1,300,000 REET2 - - - - Traffic Impact Fees 500,000 - 500,000 25 City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan TABLE T-2 (continued) 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total TIP# Capacity Prolects: 64 Lea Hill Segment 1 (R St NE to 105th Ave SE) Capital Costs - - 50,000 2,450,000 10,000,000 - 12,500,000 Funding Sources Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Grants - - 50,000 1,950,000 8,000,000 - 10,000,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - - 500,000 2,000,000 - 2,500,000 Other 65 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 66 Lea Hill Rd Segment 3(112th Ave SE to 124th Ave SE) Capital Costs - - - 4,000,000 - - 4,000,000 Funding Sources' Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Grants - - - 3,000,000 - - 3,000,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - - 1,000,000 - - 1,000,000 Other Subtotal,Capacity Projects: Capital Costs 4,950,104 9,901,870 5,879,190 15,422,750 20,641,320 21,122,890 77,918,124 TIP# Non-Capacity Prolects: 2 AWS Pedestrian Imp.-Dogwood St SE to Fir St SE Capital Costs 238,800 - - - - - 238,800 Funding Sources Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Grants - - - - - - - Other 238,800 238,800 3 Auburn Way Corridor Improvements Capital Costs - - - 818,700 - 3,000,000 3,818,700 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - 110,000 - 600,000 710,000 Grants - - - 708,700 - 2,400,000 3,108,700 Other 7 15th Street SW Reconstruction Capital Costs - - 375,000 3,000,000 - - 3,375,000 Funding Sources Unrestricted Street Revenue - - 75,000 500,000 - - 575,000 Grants - - 300,000 2,500,000 - - 2,800,000 Other 19 Auburn Way North/1st Street NE Signal Improvements Capital Costs 50,000 - 550,000 - - - 600,000 Funding Sources Unrestricted Street Revenue 50,000 - 125,000 - - - 175,000 Grants - - 425,000 - - - 425,000 Other 21 C Street NW and West Main Street Capital Costs 265,000 - - - - - 265,000 Funding Sources Unrestricted Street Revenue 265,000 - - - - - 265,000 Grants - - - - - - - Olher 26 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan TABLE T-2 (continued) 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total TIP# Non-Ca oacity Projects: 25 Citywide Guardrail Improvements Capital Costs 5,000 - - - - - 5,000 Funding Sources Unrestricted Street Revenue 5,000 - - - - - 5,000 Grants - - - - - - Other - 27 A Street SE Safety Improvements Study Capital Costs 50,000 - - - - - 50,000 Funding Sources Unrestricted Street Revenue 50,000 - - - - - 50,000 Grants - - - - - - Other - 28 Annual Bridge Structure Preservation Capital Costs 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 300,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 300,000 Grants - - - - - Other - 29 So.277th,Wetland Mitigation Capital Costs 25,000 - - - - - 25,000 Funding Sources. Unrestricted Street Revenue 25,000 - - - - - 25,000 Grants - - - - - - Other - 30 Citywide Pedestrian Accessibility&Safety Program Capital Costs 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 900,000 Funding Sources Unrestricted Street Revenue 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 900,000 Grants - - - - - - Other - 31 Citywide Arterial Bicycle&Safety Improvements Capital Costs 100,000 - 100,000 - 100,000 - 300,000 Funding Sources Unrestricted Street Revenue 100,000 - 100,000 - 100,000 - 300,000 Grants - - - - - - - Other 38 37th St NW&B St NW Railroad Crossing Safety Improvements Capital Costs 26,900 - - - - - 26,900 Funding Sources Unrestricted Street Revenue 26,900 - - - - - 26,900 Grants - - - - - - - Other 44 A Street NE Pedestrian Improvements Capital Costs - - - 150,000 - - 150,000 Funding Sources* Unrestncted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Grants - - - 150,000 - - 150,000 Other - - 27 City ofAubur•n Draft Capital Facilities Plan TABLE T-2 (continued) 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total TIP# Non-Capacity Projects: 45 Interurban Trailhead Improvements Capital Costs - - - 210,000 - - 210,000 Funding Sources Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Grants - 210,000 210,000 46 104th Ave SE&Green River Road Study Capital Costs 5,000 - - - - - 5,000 Funding Sources Unrestncted Street Revenue 5,000 - - - - - 5,000 Grants - 50 ITS Dynamic Message Signs Capital Costs - 220,000 - 220,000 - - 440,000 Funding Sources Unrestricted Street Revenue - 30,000 - 30,000 - - 60,000 Grants 190,000 190,000 - 380,000 55 W Main Street Improvements Capital Casts - - - 640,000 2,850,000 - 3,490,000 Funding Sources Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - 160,000 570,000 - 730,000 Grants - 480,000 2,280,000 - 2,760,000 56 Lea Hill Safe Routes to School Improvements Capital Costs 5,000 - - - - - 5,000 Funding Sources, Unrestricted Street Revenue 5,000 - - - - - 5,000 Grants - - - - - - Other 62 AWS Streetscape Improvements(SR 18 to M St SE) Capital Costs - - - 1,950,000 2,800,000 - 4,750,000 Funding Sources Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - 200,000 200,000 - 400,000 Grants - - - 1,750,000 2,600,000 - 4,350,000 REET 2 - - 67 Citywide Traffic Signals Safety Improvements Capital Costs 5,000 - - - - - 5,000 Funding Sources Unrestncted Street Revenue 5,000 - - - - - 5,000 Grants 68 37th St SE&A St SE Traffic Signal Safety Improvement Capital Costs 176,400 637,500 - - - - 813,900 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue 55,000 45,000 - - - - 100,000 Grants 121,400 440,000 - - - - 561,400 Other - 152,500 - - 152,500 Subtotal Non-Capacity Projects: Capital Costs 1,152,100 1,057,500 1,225,000 7,188,700 5,950,000 3,200,000 19,773,300 28 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Pla77 TABLE T-2 (continued) 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total SUMMARY: CAPITAL COSTS Capacity Projects 4,754,054 9,706,800 5,685,000 15,230,000 20,450,000 20,933,000 76,758,854 Non-Capacity Protects 1,152,100 1,057,500 1,225,000 7,188,700 5,950,000 3,200,000 19,773,300 Long-Term Debt 196,050 195,070 194,190 192,750 191,320 189,890 1,159,270 Total Costs 6,102,204 10,959,370 7,104,190 22,611,450 26,591,320 24,322,890 97,691,424 FUNDING SOURCES. Unrestricted Street Revenue 849,600 275,000 550,000 1,492,500 1,362,500 2,081,600 6,611,200 Grants 3,462,754 7,615,000 5,564,500 17,883,200 21,562,500 19,626,400 75,714,354 Traffic Impact Fees 1,321,050 1,916,870 989,690 3,235,750 3,666,320 2,614,890 13,744,570 Traffic Mitigation Fees - - - - - - - REET2 - - - - - - PWTF Loan - - - - - - Other(OtherAgencies) 468,800 1,152,500 - - - 1,621,300 Total Funding 6,102,204 10,959,370 7,104,190 22,611,450 26,591,320 24,322,890 97,691,424 Mitigation agreements,impact fees,contributions,otheragencies,otherfunds 29 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: A Street NW - Phase 1 (3rd St NW to 14th St NW) TIP # 1 Project No: c207aO Project Type: Capacity Project Manager Ingrid Gaub LOS Corridor ID# 18 Description: Construct a new multi-lane arterial from 3rd Street NW to 14th Street NW This project will improve mobility and Is tied to corridor development. It is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and completes a missing link of a north/south arterial corridor The project length Is approximately three-quarters of a mile. The City purchased right-of-way from the northern property owner If the property develops,some or a portion of those funds maybe reimbursed to the City(total cost was $251,000). Progress Summary: Pre-design was completed priorto 2007 Final design and environmental permitting were completed in 2011 Construction was completed In 2012 Wetland monitoring is required to continue until 2023. Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be$25,830 Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - - - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: (Premous Yrs) 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue 258,962 57,514 - - 316,476 Grants (Fed,State,Local) 6,432,212 96,228 - - 6,528,440 Traffic Impact Fees 866,050 25,000 25,000 350,000 916,050 Other Sources-Multicare Contribution 371,075 36,485 - - 407,560 Total Funding Sources: 7,928,299 215,227 25,000 350,000 8,168,526 Capital Expenditures: Design 1,667,209 - 10,000 50,000 1,677,209 Right of Way 1,072,268 - - - 1,072,268 Construction 5,188,822 215,227 15,000 300,000 5,419,049 Total Expenditures: 7,928,299 215,227 25,000 350,000 8,168,526 Forecasted Project Cost: Tote I 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 475,000 Other Sources-Multicars Corimb upon - - - - - Total Funding Sources: 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 475,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 100,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construcbon 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 375,000 Total Expenditures: 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 475,000 Grants/Other Sources 30 City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: I Street NE Corridor (45th St NE to S 277th St) TIP # 4 Project No: c415a0, cp1207 Project Type. Capacity Project Manager TBD LOS Corridor ID# 21 Description: The final alignment of the I Street NE Corridor is being analyzed as part of the Northeast Auburn Special Area Plan Environmental Impact Study A portion of the right-of-way acquisition and construction will be developer funded The corridor will likely be a 5-lane arterial consistent with the city's Comprehensive Plan. Progress Summary, This project is development driven. 2012 expenditures were for design and construction of culvert crossing. Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be$25,200 Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - Budget Amendments - - - - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: (Premous Yrs) 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue 11,827 - - - 11,827 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - Other Sources(Port of Seattle) - - - - OtherSouxes(Development) - - - - - Total Funding Sources: 11,827 - - - 11,827 Capital Expenditures: Design 11,827 - - - 11,827 Right of Way - - - - Construction - - - - - Total Expenditures: 11,827 - - - 11,827 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - 1,000,000 - 1,000,000 Treffic Impact Fees - - - - - Other Sources(Port of Seattle) - - - -Other Sources(Development) - - - - - Total Funding Sources: - - 1,000,000 - 1,000,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - 250,000 - 250,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - 750,000 - 750,000 Total Expenditures: - - 1,000,000 - 1,000,000 Grants I Other Sources 31 Ciry ofAubt(rn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2014-2019 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: M Street Underpass (3rd St SE to 8th St SE) TIP# 5 Project No: c201aO 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: 100%Design Drawings and right of way acquisition were completed in 2011 Construction started in early 2012 and is scheduled to be complete during 2013. Debt Service is scheduled each year through 2041 Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be$21,827 Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments _ Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: (Premous Ys) 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue 150,000 330,716 - - 480,716 Grants(Fed,State,Local) 7,818,102 1,674,779 - - 9,492,881 REET2 1,140,000 - - - 1,140,000 Tmffic Impact Fees(Construction) 4,175,844 - - - 4,175,844 Traffic Impact Fees(Debt Seance) - 38,640 109,550 109,070 148,190 Traffic Mitigation Fees 660,000 - - - 660,000 PWTFL(30 years) - 3,336,170 - - 3,336,170 Other Soumes (Other Agencies)' 2,233,070 904,127 - 3,137,197 Total Funding Sources: 16,177,016 6,284,432 109,550 109,070 22,570,998 Capital Expenditures: Design 2,688,924 - - - 2,688,924 Right of Way 3,358,443 - - - 3,358,443 Construction 10,129,649 6,245,792 - - 16,375,441 PWTFL Debt Service 38,640 109,550 109,070 148,190 Total Expenditures: 16,177,016 6,284,432 109,550 109,070 22,570,998 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unnesfncted Street Revenue - - - - - Giants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - REET2 - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees(Construction) - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees(Debt Service) 108,590 107,550 106,520 105,490 646,770 Traffic Mitigation Fees - - - - - PWTFL(30 years) - - - - - OtherSoumes (Other Agencies)' Total Funding Sources: 108,590 107,550 106,520 105,490 646,770 Capital Expenditures: Design _ _ _ _ - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - - PWTFL Debt Service 108,590 107,550 106,520 105,490 646,770 Total Expenditures: 108,590 107,550 106,520 105,490 646,770 Grants I Other Sources Other Agencies are King County Metro Sewer, Pon of Seattle, Port of Tacoma, and BNSF Railway 32 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: S 277th Street (Auburn Way North to Green River Bridge) TIP# 6 Project No: c222a0 STIP#AUB-42 Project Type: Capacity Project Manager Ryan Vondrak LOS Corridor ID#15 Description: This project includes preliminary engineering,design,right-of-way acquisition and construction of major widening on S 277th Street, including the addition of three lanes,one westbound and two eastbound, a Class 1 trail,and storm improvements The project is approximately 0.9 miles long. Progress Summary: Staff is coordinating with the City of Kent and King County to complete annexation of the roadway into the City of Auburn. Robertson Properties Group is participating in this project and is dedicating all necessary roadway frontage to the City. Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance costs for this project is estimated to be $27,250 Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - - - - Adjusted Budget - - - Activity: (PreHous Yrs) 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue 24,825 379,860 2,700 - 407,385 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - 167,440 853,260 4,000,000 1,020,700 Traffic Impact Fees - - - 581,800 - Other(DewtopmentFunds)' - - - 1,000,000 - Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: 24,825 547,300 855,960 5,581,800 1,428,085 Capital Expenditures: Design 24,825 547,300 835,960 - 1,408,085 Right of Way - - 20,000 - 20,000 Construction - - - 5,581,800 - Total Expenditures: 24,825 547,300 855,960 5,581,800 1,428,085 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - 2,700 Grants (Fed,State,Local) - - - - 4,853,260 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - 581,800 Other(Development Funds)' - - - - 1,000,000 Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: - - - - 6,437,760 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 835,960 Right of Way - - - - 20,000 Construction - - - 5,581,800 Total Expenditures: - - - - 6,437,760 Grants I Other Sources. Grant Funding is unsecure. 33 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: A Street NW, Phase 2 (W Main St to 3rd St NW) TIP# 8 Project No: cpxxxx Project Type: Capacity Project Manager TBD LOS Corridor ID# 18 Description: Construct a multi-lane arterial from W Main St to 3rd St NW This project will connect A St NW, Phase 1 to the Sound Transit Station and the Central Business District. This project could be partially or fully funded by developers.The project is approximately 0.2 miles long. Progress Summary: The parking garage constructed by the Auburn Regional Medical Center completed a portion of this project in 2009. Pre- design of A Street is anticipated to begin In 2015 Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget - Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - - - - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: (Premous Yrs) 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - REET - Tmfhc Impact Fees - - - 50,000 - Other(Demloper)' - - - - Total Funding Sources: - - - 50,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - 50,000 - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - Total Expenditures: - - - 50,000 - Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Grents(Fed,State,Local) - 3,000,000 - - 3,000,000 BEET - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - 50,000 Other(Demloper)' - - - - Total Funding Sources: - 3,000,000 - - 3,050,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 250,000 - - 300,000 Right of Way - 250,000 - - 250,000 Construction 2,500,000 - - 2,500,000 Total Expenditures: - 3,000,000 Grants I Other Sources 34 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Special Revenue Fund Project Title D Street NW (37th St NW to 44th St NW) TIP# 9 Project No: cpxxxx Project Type: Capacity Project Manager TBD LOS Corridor ID#20 Description: Construct a new four-lane arterial per the city Comprehensive Plan This project is tied to potential future development and will complete the missing link of a major north south arterial corridor between S 277th St to the north and Ellingson Road SW(41st Street SE)to the south. The new comdor will improve northfsouth mobility through the City. The D St NW project is approximately 0.42 miles in length. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be$11,450 Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: (Pre Hous Yrs) 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestncted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - REET Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - Other Total Funding Sources: - - - - - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - Total Expenditures: - - - - - Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local) - 250,000 - 5,000,000 5,250,000 REET - - - - Trafhc Impact Fees - 50,000 - 1,000,000 1,050,000 Other - Total Funding Sources: - 300,000 - 6,000,000 6,300,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 300,000 - 750,000 1,050,000 Right of Way - - - 1,750,000 1,750,000 Construction - - 3,500,000 3,500,000 Total Expenditures: - 300,000 - 6,000,000 6,300,000 Grants I Other Sources 35 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: F Street SE (4th St SE to Auburn Way S) TIP# 10 Project No cp0911 Project Type: Capacity Project Manager TBD LOS Corridor ID# N/A Description: The F St SE project Includes pavement reconstruction, installation of curbs, gutters,an 8-foot wide sidewalk on both sides, parking on one side, and a center turn-lane, as well as crash attenuation at the supports for the BNSF railroad bridge. This project improves mobility and safety along the corridor The project is approximately 0.3 miles long Progress Summary: Preliminary design and survey work was completed In 2009 Final design and construction are planned to be completed following construction of the M Street grade separation project during 2013 Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be$4,100 Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - - - - Adusted Budget - - - - Activity: (Premous Yrs) 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestncted Street Revenue - - - - Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - 200,000 - REET - - - - Traffic Impact Fees 7,620 - 50,000 - 57,620 Other - - - Total Funding Sources: 7,620 - 50,000 200,000 57,620 Capital Expenditures: Design 7,620 - 50,000 200,000 57,620 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - - Total Expenditures: 7,620 - 50,000 200,000 57,620 Forecasted Project Cost: Tots 1 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - Grants(Fed,State,Local) 2,000,000 - - - 2,200,000 REET - - Traffic Impact Fees 250,000 - - - 300,000 Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: 2,250,000 - - - 2,500,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - 250,000 Right of Way 75,000 - - - 75,000 Construction 2,175,000 - - - 2,175,000 Total Expenditures: 2,250,000 - - - 2,500,000 Grants I Other Sources 36 City ofAiiburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: M Street NE (E Main St to 4th St NE) TIP# 11 Project No: cpxxxx Project Type: Capacity Project Manager TBD LOS Corridor ID#5 Description: This project will construct a four-lane street section that includes sidewalks,gutters, landscaping and streetlights on M St NE between south of E Main St and 4th St NE. Progress Summary: Pre-design will be complete during 2014 to refine project scope,alignment, and cost. Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $1,500. Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - - - - Adjusted Budget - - - Activity, (Premous Yrs) 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local) - - - 225,000 - REET - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - 50,000 50,000 50,000 Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: - - 50,000 275,000 50,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - 50,000 75,000 50,000 Right of Way - - - 200,000 - Construction - - - - - Total Expenditures: - - 50,000 275,000 50,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestncted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants(Fed,State,Local) 1,000,000 - - - 1,225,000 REET - - Traffic Impact Fees 150,000 - - - 250,000 Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: 1,150,000 - - - 1,475,000 , Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 125,000 Right of Way - - - - 200,000 Construction 1,150,000 - - 1,150,000 Total Expenditures: 1,150,000 - - 1,475,000 Grants/Other Sources: 37 City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: M Street SE112th Street SE Traffic Signal TIP# 14 Project No: cpxxxx Project Type: Intersection Improvement, Capacity Project Manager TBD LOS Corridor ID# 11 Description: This project includes the design, nght-of-way acquisition and construction of a new traffic signal Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be$6,600. Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - - - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: (Premous Yrs) 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - REET2 - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: - - - - Capital Expenditures: Design _ Right of Way - - - - Construction - - - - - Total Expenditures: - - - - Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants(Fed,State,Local) - 500,000 - - 500,000 REET2 - - - - - Tra/!ic Impact Fees - 125,000 - - 125,000 Other - - - Total Funding Sources: - 625,000 - - 625,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 75,000 - - 75,000 Right of Way - 50,000 - - 50,000 Construction - 500,000 - - 500,000 Total Expenditures: - 625,000 - - 625,000 Grants I Other Sources 38 City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Special Revenue Fund Project Title 8th Street NE Widening (Pike St NE to R St NE) TIP# 16 Project No: cpxxxx Project Type: Capacity Project Manager TBD LOS Corridor ID# 19 Description: Widen 8th Street NE to extend the five-lane cross-section which currently e)dsts to the west of Pike St NE to R St NE by providing an additional travel lane along the south side of the roadway This is a planning level cost estimate Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - - - - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: (Premous Yrs) 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestncted Street Revenue - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local) - - - 360,000 - REET - - - - Traffio Impact Fees - - - 90,000 - Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: - - - 450,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - 200,000 - Right of Way - - - 250,000 - Construction - Total Expenditures: - - - 450,000 - Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants(Fed,State,LO a1) 800,000 - - - 1,160,000 REET - - Traffic Impact Fees 200,000 - - - 290,000 Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: 1,000,000 - - - 1,450,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 200,000 Right of Way - - - - 250,000 Construction 1,000,000 - - - 1,000,000 Total Expenditures: 1,000,000 - - - 1,450,000 Grants/Other Sources 39 City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2014-2019 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Harvey Rd NE/8th St NE Intersection Improvements TIP # 17 Project No: cp0611 Project Type Capacity Project Manager None LOS Corridor ID#5,19 Description: Add one eastbound throughinght 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 Trusf Fund Loan debt payments scheduled through 2028 Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity- (Premous Yrs) 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Giants (Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Tmffic Impact Fees(Debt Service) 262,100 86,900 86,500 86,000 435,500 Tiahic Impact Fees 204,500 - - - 204,500 PWTF 1,527,300 1,527,300 Total Funding Sources: 1,993,900 86,900 86,600 86,000 2,167,300 Capital Expenditures: Design 327,500 - - - 327,500 Right of Way 200,400 - - - 200,400 Conshuchon 1,203,900 - - - 1,203,900 Long Term Debt-PWTF 262,100 86,900 86,500 86,000 435,500 Total Expenditures: 1,993,900 86,900 86,500 86,000 2,167,300 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees(Debt Seance) 85,600 85,200 84,800 84,400 512,500 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - PWTF Total Funding Sources: 85,600 85,200 84,800 84,400 512,500 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right ofWay - - - - Construction - - - - - Long Tenn Debt-PWTF 85,600 85,200 84,800 84,400 512,500 Total Expenditures: 86,600 85,200 84,800 84,400 612,500 Grants/Other Sources: 40 Citv of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2014-2019 Special Revenue Fund Project Title 8th St NE/104th Ave SE Intersection Improvements TIP # 18 Project No cp1104 STIP#AUB-40 Project Type: Intersection Improvement, Capacity Project Manager Jacob Sweating LOS Corridor ID# 19 Description: This project includes the design, right-of-way acquisition and construction of intersection improvements Including a traffic signal with accommodation for an eastbound u-turn movement. Progress Summary: The design began in 2011 wth construction scheduled for 2013 Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be$6,600. Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - - - - Adjusted Budget - - - Activity- (PreHous Yrs) 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue 11,640 143,400 5,000 - 160,040 Grants (Fedem/) - 100,000 - - 100,000 REET2 - 119,000 - - 119,000 Traffic Impact Fees 3,040 46,960 - - 50,000 Other(Redflex) - - - - - Total Funding Sources: 14,680 409,360 5,000 - 429,040 Capital Expenditures: Design 14,680 100,000 - - 114,680 Right of Way - 30,000 - - 30,000 Construction - 279,360 5,000 - 284,360 Total Expenditures: 14,680 409,360 5,000 - 429,040 Forecasted Project Cost: Tots 1 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - 5,000 Grants (Federal) - - - - - REET2 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - Other(RedRex) - - - Total Funding Sources: - - - - 5,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - 5,000 Total Expenditures: Grants/Other Sources. 41 City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Special Revenue Fund Project Title Auburn Way South/M St SE Intersection Improvements TIP # 20 Project No. cp1024 Project Type. Capacity Project Manager Jacob Sweating LOS Corridor ID#3,4 Description: This project Is the first phase of Improvements at the Auburn Way SoutWM St SE Intersection The project will construct new westbound to northbound right-turn pockets, improved turning radius on the northeast corner, realignment of the westbound 17th St SE approach to Auburn Way South, lighting improvements, related traffic signal modifications and right- of-way acquisition. Progress Summary: Pre-design was completed in 2012 Final design and right-of-way acquisition are planned for 2013 and construction is planned for 2014 Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - - - - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: (Premous Yrs) 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue 38,200 61,186 - - 99,386 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - 134,043 315,957 - 450,000 REST - - - - Tref is Mitigation Funds - 150,000 - - 150,000 Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: 38,200 345,229 315,957 - 699,386 Capital Expenditures: Design 38,200 245,229 - - 245,229 Right of Way - 100,000 - - 100,000 Construction - - 315,957 - 315,957 Total Expenditures: 38,200 345,229 315,957 - 699,386 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestncted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - 315,957 REET - - - - - Tmfhc Mitigation Funds - - - - - Other - - Total Funding Sources: - - - - 315,957 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - 315,957 Total Expenditures: - - - - 315,957 Grants/Other Sources 42 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: A Street SE Non-Motorized and Access Improvements TIP# 23 Project No: cpxxxx Project Type: Class 1 Trail (Capacity) Project Manager Ryan Vondrak LOS Corridor ID# N/A Description: Preliminary design of improvements to A Street SE between the White River Bridge and 41 st Street SE, including a signalized pedestrian crossing and access management including consolidation of commercial driveways. Progress Summary: Remaining grant funds from the BNSF/E Valley Highway Pedestrian Underpass project(c229a0)are in the process of being reprogrammed to this project. Preliminary design work has not begun. Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be$100. Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - - - - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: (Premous Yrs) 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local) - - 89,029 - 89,029 REET - - - - Traffic Impact Fees i Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: - - 89,029 - 89,029 Capital Expenditures: Design - - 89,029 - 89,029 Right of Way - - - - - Constmction - - - - - Total Expenditures: - - 89,029 - 89,029 Forecasted Project Cost: Tota I 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - 89,029 REET - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - Other(Other Agencies)' - - - - - Total Funding Sources: - - - - 89,029 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 89,029 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - - Total Expenditures: - - - - 89,029 Grants I Other Sources Expenditures pnor to 2013 vrere for project c229a0 43 City ofAubarn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2014-2019 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Academy Drive Multi-Use Trail TIP# 24 Project No: cpxxxx Project Type: Class 1 Trail (Capacity) Project Manager TBD LOS Corridor ID# N/A Description: This project will use emsting Academy Dr right-of-way to create a multi-use trail on between the Green River Rd and Auburn Way S Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be$1,680. Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - - - - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: (Prevous Yrs) 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local) - - - - REET Traffic Impact Fees - - - -Other Sources - - - - - Total Funding Sources: - - - - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - RightofWay - - - - - Construction - - - - - Total Expenditures: - - - - - Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestncted Street Revenue 50,000 42,500 42,500 - 135,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local) - 382,500 382,500 - 765,000 REST - - - TmfBc Impact Fees - - - - - Other Souses - - - - Total Funding Sources: 50,000 425,000 425,000 - 900,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 50,000 - - - 50,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - 425,000 425,000 - 850,000 Total Expenditures: 50,000 425,000 425,000 - 900,000 Grants I Other Sources: 44 City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Special Revenue Fund Project Title BNSF 3rd Rail Expansion Roadway Improvements TIP # 33 Project No cpxxxx Project Type: Capacity Project Manager TBD LOS Corridor ID# 13, 18 Description: This project will design and construct roadway improvements associated with the construction of the 3rd rail line by BNSF Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no Impact on the operating budget for street maintenance Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - - - - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: (Premous Yrs) 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestncted Street Revenue - - 25,000 - 25,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - REET - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - Other Sources - - - - - Total Funding Sources: - - 25,000 - 25,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - 5,000 - 5,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - 20,000 - 20,000 Total Expenditures: - - 25,000 - 25,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Tots I 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - 25,000 Giants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - REET - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - Other Sources - - - Total Funding Sources: - - - - 25,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 5,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - 20,000 Total Expenditures: - - - - 25,000 Grants/Other Sources: 45 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: 124th Ave SE Corridor Improvements - Phase 2 TIP # 39 Project No: cpxxxx 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 signalized SE 320th St and 124th Ave SE Intersection. Improvements Include constructing bike lanes, sidewalks, dual southbound left-turn lanes into Green River Community College, and Intelligent Transportation System Improvements.The intersection is located at the main entrance to Green River Community College and will require additional on site Improvements to be constructed by Green River Community College. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no Impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - - - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: (Premous Yrs) 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Locaq - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: - - - - Capital Expenditures: Design - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - - Total Expenditures: - - - - Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants(Fed,State,Local) - 85,000 650,000 - 735,000 Tmffic Impact Fees - 15,000 100,000 - 115,000 Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: - 100,000 750,000 - 850,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 100,000 - - 100,000 Right of Way - - 50,000 - 50,000 Construction - - 700,000 - 700,000 Total Expenditures: - 100,000 750,000 - 850,000 Grants/Other Sources 46 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Special Revenue Fund Project Title 124th Ave SE Corridor Improvements - Phase 1 TIP # 40 Project No cpxxxx Project Type: Capacity Project Manager TBD 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-turn lanes, dual southbound througlrlanes, a northbound right-turn pocket, fTS improvements, and pedestrian safety improvements). Progress Summary: Design is planned for 2014 Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - - - - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: (Previous Yrs) 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - 2,200,000 - Trafhc Impact Fees - - 200,000 550,000 200,000 Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: - - 200,000 2,750,000 200,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - 200,000 - 200,000 Right of Way - - - 250,000 - Construction - - - 2,500,000 - Total Expenditures: - - 200,000 2,750,000 200,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - 2,200,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - 750,000 Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: - - - - 2,950,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 200,000 Right of Way - - - - 250,000 Construction - - - - 2,500,000 Total Expenditures: - - - - 2,950,000 Grants I Other Sources 47 City ofAliburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: R Street Bypass (M Street SE to SR-18) TIP# 41 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 and Auburn Black Diamond Road, paralleling the 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 artenal 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: Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: (Pre Hous Yrs) 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestncted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - REET - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - Other Sources - - - Total Funding Sources: - - - - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - Total Expenditures: - - - - - Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - 81,600 81,600 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - 326,400 326,400 REET - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - Other Sources Total Funding Sources: - - - 408,000 408,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - 408,000 408,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construcbon - - - Total Expenditures: - - - 408,000 408,000 Grants/Other Sources. 48 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: SE 320th Street Corridor Improvements TIP# 42 Project No. cpxxxx Project Type Capacity Project Manager TBD LOS Corridor ID#25 Description. This project will fund the design, nght-of-way acquisition,and construction of a three-lane roadwaywith bicycle and pedestrian facilities on SE 320th St between 124th Ave SE and the western enhance to Green River Community College. Progress Summary: Green River Community College is planning to complete the design and construction for the segment between 124th Ave SE and 122nd Ave SE in 2013. Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - - - - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: (Premous Yrs) 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - Tmffic Impact Fees - - - 50,000 - PWTFL - - - - - Other - - - Total Funding Sources: - - - 50,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - 50,000 - Right of Way - - - - ConstNCtion - - - Total Expenditures: - - - 50,000 - Forecasted Project Cost: Tote I 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Grdnts(Fed,State,Local) 47,500 502,000 - - 549,500 Traffic Impact Fees 12,500 78,000 - - 140,500 PWTFL - - - - - Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: 60,000 580,000 - - 690,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 60,000 - - - 110,000 Right of Way - 60,000 - - 60,000 Construction - 520,000 - - 520,000 Total Expenditures: 60,000 580,000 - - 690,000 Grants/Other Sources 49 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Special Revenue Fund Project Title. Auburn Way South (SR-164) Corridor Safety Improvements TIP# 43 Project No: cp1218 STIP#AUB-44 Project Type: Capacity Project Manager Jacob Sweeting LOS Corridor ID#4 Description: This project will improve access management, including u-turns,upgrade transit stops and street lighting,widen to accommodate turn-lanes and pedestrian and bicycle facilities,upgrade pavement markings, install pedestrian signals and audible pedestrian push buttons, and upgrade traffic signals to change the phasing and to improve the visibility of the signal heads. Progress Summary: Grant funding was awarded in 2012 and does not require a local match. Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - Budget Amendments - -Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: (Premous Yrs) 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue 2,684 - - - 2,684 Grants(Fed,State,Local) 2,738 247,262 2,083,108 - 2,333,108 Traffic Impact Fees - - 250,000 - 250,000 PWTFL - - - - - Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: 5,422 247,262 2,333,108 - 2,585,792 Capital Expenditures: Design 5,422 239,762 180,816 - 426,000 Right of Way - 7,500 52,500 - 60,000 Construction - - 2,099,792 - 2,099,792 Total Expenditures: 5,422 247,262 2,333,108 - 2,585,792 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - 2,083,108 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - 250,000 PWTFL - - - - - Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: - - - - 2,333,108 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 180,816 Right of Way - - - - 52,500 Construction - - - - 2,099,792 Total Expenditures: - - - - 2,333,108 Grants/Other Sources 50 City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Environmental Park Roadway Improvements Study TIP # 47 Project No: cpxxxx Project Type: Capacity Project Manager James Webb LOS Corridor ID# N/A Description: This project will study the feasibility, scope and cost of low impact roadway, bicycle and pedestrian improvements in the Environmental Park area. Included in this study scope is a connection between Clay St NW and Western St NW. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: (Preuous Yrs) 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - - 10,000 - 10,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - REET - - - - - PWTFL - - - - - Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: - - 10,000 - 10,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - 10,000 - 10,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - - Total Expenditures: - - 10,000 - 10,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unmstncted Street Revenue - - Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - REET - - - PWTFL - - - - - Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: - - - - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - 10,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - Total Expenditures: - - - - 10,000 Grants/Other Sources 51 City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Downtown to Les Gove Park Non-Motorized Improvements Study TIP # 48 Project No cpxxxx Project Type. Bike Lanes, Sidewalks and Transit Improvement Study (Capacity) Project Manager James Webb LOS Corridor ID# NIA Description: This project funds a study of the 2nd St SE and F St SE corridor between Downtown Auburn and Les Gove Park. Improvements may include pavement reconstruction,sidewalks, access ramps,signal modifications and route signage. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - - - - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: (Premous Yrs) 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - - 10,000 - 10,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - PWTFL - - - - - Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: - - 10,000 - 10,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - 10,000 - 10,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - - Total Expenditures: - - 10,000 - 10,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Tote I 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Umestncted Street Revenue - - - - 10,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Tmffic Impact Fees - - - - - PWTFL - - - - - - Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: - - - - 10,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 10,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - - Total Expenditures: - - - - 10,000 Grants I Other Sources 52 City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: S 316th St Bicycle & Pedestrian Improvement Study TIP # 49 Project No cpxxxx Project Type: Class 2 Bike Lanes t Sidewalks (Capacity) Project Manager TBD LOS Corridor ID# 37 Description: This project funds a study to add bicycle lanes and pedestrian sidewalks on S 316th St from east of Evergreen Heights Elementary School to 51 st Ave S. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - Budget Amendments - - - - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: (Premous Yrs) 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - - 5,000 - 5,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - Total Funding Sources: - - 5,000 - 5,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - 5,000 - 5,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - - Total Expenditures: - - 5,000 - 5,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Tots I 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestncted Street Revenue - - - - 5,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Traflic Impact Fees - - - - - Total Funding Sources: - - - - 5,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 5,000 Right of Way - - - - - Constmction - - - - - Total Expenditures: - - - - 5,000 Grants I Other Sources 53 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: East Valley Highway ITS Expansion TIP# 51 Project No cpxxxx Project Type: Capacity Project Manager TBD LOS Corridor ID# 10 Description: This project funds the design, coordination, permitting and construction of ITS facilities from 41st St SE to Lake Tapps Parkway. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be$5,000. Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - - - - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: (Premous Yrs) 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unmstncted Street Revenue - - - - - Gmnts(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - REET - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: - - - - - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - - Total Expenditures: - - - - - Forecasted Project Cost: Tots 1 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Gmnts(Fed,State,Local) 692,000 - - - 692,000 REET - - Tmffic Impact Fees 108,000 - - - 108,000 Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: 800,000 - - - 800,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 85,000 - - - 85,000 Right of Way - - - - - Constmction 715,000 - - - 715,000 Total Expenditures: 800,000 - - - 800,000 Grants I Other Sources: 54 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Capital Projects Fund Project Title: Auburn Way South and 12th Street SE Intersection Improvements TIP# 53 Project No: cp1114 Project Type: Capacity Project Manager Ryan Vondrak LOS Corridor ID# 3 Description. The project will design and construct multi-modal intersection improvements at the AWS/12th Street SE intersection. The Improvements will include pedestrian access, bicycle lanes, signal phasing and timing,and ITS upgrades Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - -Budget Amendments - - - - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: (Preaous Yrs) 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unmstncted Street Revenue - - - - - Gmnts(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - REET2 - 50,000 - - 50,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - 250,000 - 250,000 Other - - - Total Funding Sources: - 50,000 250,000 - 300,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 50,000 - - 50,000 Right of Way - - - - - Conshuction - - 250,000 - 250,000 Total Expenditures: - 50,000 250,000 - 300,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Tots I 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unmstdcted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - REET2 - - - - - Trafhc Impact Fees - - - - 250,000 Other - - Total Funding Sources: - - - - 250,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - 250,000 Total Expenditures: - - - - 250,000 Grants/Other Sources: 55 City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Kersey Way SE Corridor Study TIP# 54 Project No: cpxxxx Project Type Capacity Project Manager TBD LOS Corridor ID#4 Description: This project will study improvements to the Kersey Way SE corndor from the White River Bridge to the southern city limits. The study will develop the scope and costs for improvements to reduce roadway curves&dips, provide roadside hazard mitigation, street lighting and non-motorized trail construction.The project length is approximately two miles Progress Summary: Design will begin in 2014 follownng the completion of the update to the Comprehensive Plan. Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - Budget Amendments - - - - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: (Prehous Yrs) 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestncted Street Revenue - - - - Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - REET - - - - - - Tr-affic Mitigation 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: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestncted Street Revenue - - - - Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Traffic Mitigation Fees - - - - 50,000 Other(Developer)' - - - - - Total Funding Sources: - - - - 50,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 50,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - - Total Expenditures: - - - - 50,000 Grants/Other Sources 56 City of Atrbtirn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2014.2019 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Auburn Way S Corridor Improvements (Fir St SE to Hemlock St SE) TIP# 58 Project No: cp1119 STIP#AUB-38 Project Type Capacity Project Manager Jacob Sweating LOS Corridor ID#4 Description: This project will widen Auburn Way South between Fir St SE and Hemlock St SE to five lanes with curb,gutter,sidewalks, illumination and storm improvements.A new traffic signal will be constructed at Hemlock Street SE and connect to Aubum's Intelligent Transportation System. Progress Summary: Washington State Transportation Improvement Board (TIB)awarded the City grant funds in the amount of$2,426,400 on November 19, 2010 Future Impact on Operating Budget: This annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be$9,300. Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - Budget Amendments - - - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: (Previous Yrs) 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue 849 - - - 849 Grants(State) 161,286 2,265,114 - - 2,426,400 Traffic Impact Fees - 200,000 - 200,000 Other Sources(Muckleshoot) 40,323 566,278 230,000 - 836,601 Total Funding Sources: 202,458 2,831,392 430,000 - 3,463,850 Capital Expenditures: Design 202,458 189,365 - - 391,823 Right of Way - 224,150 - - 224,150 Construction - 2,417,877 430,000 - 2,847,877 Total Expenditures: 202,458 2,831,392 430,000 - 3,463,850 Forecasted Project Cost: Tota I 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unestncted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants(State) - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - 200,000 Other Sources(Muckleshoot) - - - - 230,000 Total Funding Sources: - - - 430,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - 430,000 Total Expenditures: - - Grants I Other Sources: 57 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Special Revenue Fund Project Title Auburn Ave NE & 3rd St NE Pedestrian &Access Improvements TIP # 59 Project No: cp1023 Project Type. Capacity Project Manager Robert Lee LOS Corridor ID#2 Description: This project will improve access, safety and operations for pedestrian, bicyclists and motorized vehicles at the intersections of 3rd St NE/Auburn Ave,4th St NE/Auburn Ave,and 4th St NE/Auburn Way North. Improvements include anew traffic signal at 3rd St NE to add a missing pedestrian crossing and accommodate the northbound left-turn movement, improving pedestrian facilities to meet ADA requirements, restricting uncontrolled accesses near the intersection, and modifying the traffic signal at Auburn Way North and 4th St NE to eliminate the east/west split phase operation. Progress Summary: Survey and pre-design were started in 2010-2011 Pre-design will be completed in 2014,with construction scheduled for 2016,pending grant funding. Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - - - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: (Premous Yrs) 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue 8,778 - - - 8,778 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - 50,000 - 50,000 REET2 - - - - - Other - Total Funding Sources: 8,778 - 50,000 - 58,778 Capital Expenditures: Design 8,778 - 50,000 - 58,778 Right of Way - - - - - Construction Total Expenditures: 8,778 - 50,000 - 58,778 Forecasted Project Cost: Tots I 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants(Fed,State,Local) 250,000 - - - 250,000 Traffic Impact Fees 50,000 - - - 100,000 REET2 - - - - - Other Total Funding Sources: 300,000 - - - 350,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 50,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction 300,000 - - - 300,000 Total Expenditures: 300,000 - - - 350,000 Grants/Other Sources 58 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: M Street SE Corridor (8th St SE to AWS) TIP# 60 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. 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: Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - - - - Adjusted Budget - - - Activity- (Prevous Yrs) 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Traf/ic Impact Fees - - - - - REET2 - - - - - Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: - - - - - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - - Total Expenditures: - - - - - Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - 250,000 250,000 - 500,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - 925,000 3,750,000 - 4,675,000 Traffic Impact Fees - 750,000 750,000 - 1,500,000 REET2 - - - - - Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: - 1,925,000 4,750,000 - 6,675,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 650,000 - - 650,000 Right of Way - 1,275,000 - - 1,275,000 Construction - - 4,750,000 - 4,750,000 Total Expenditures: - 1,925,000 4,750,000 - 6,675,000 Grants/Other Sources. 59 City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Auburn Way South Bypass - Riverwalk Dr to SR-18 at R St SE TIP# 61 Project No: cpxxxx Project Type: Capacity Project Manager TBD LOS Corridor ID#N/A Description: This project will construct a new roadway corridor to bypass Auburn Way South. The new roadway will extend from Riverwalk Drive to R Street SE to the north of SR-18.A new connection to a new interchange with SR-18. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - Budget Amendments - - - - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: (Premous Yrs) 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Sheet Revenue - - - - - Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - REET - - - - - Traf/ic Impact Fees - - - - - Other Sources - - - - - Total Funding Sources: - - - - - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - Total Expenditures: - - - - - Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - 1,200,000 1,200,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - 4,800,000 4,800,000 REET - - - TraHic Impact Fees - - - - - Other Sources - - - - Total Funding Sources: - - - 6,000,000 6,000,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - 6,000,000 6,000,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - - Total Expenditures: - - - 6,000,000 6,000,000 Grants I Other Sources 60 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Special Revenue Fund Project Title. 29th St SE/R St SE Intersection Improvements TIP # 63 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 This project will include creating eastbound/westbound dual left-tum lanes,auxiliary signal heads and pedestrian safety enhancements. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - - - - Adjusted Budget - - - Activity: (Premous Yrs) 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - Grants(State) - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - REET - - - - Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: - - - - - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Tots 1 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Rewnue - - - - - Grants (State) - 1,300,000 - - 1,300,000 Traffic Impact Fees - 500,000 - - 500,000 REET - - - Other - - - Total Funding Sources: - 1,800,000 - - 1,800,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 350,000 - - 350,000 Right of Way - 450,000 - - 450,000 Construction - 1,000,000 - - 1,000,000 Total Expenditures: - 1,800,000 - - 1,800,000 Grants I Other Sources' 61 City ofAubwn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Lea Hill Rd Segment 1 (R St NE to 105th PI SE) TIP# 64 Project No: cpxxxx Project Type: Capacity Project Manager TBD LOS Corridor ID# 19 Description: Widen the eAsting roadway to provide a four-lane cross section pedestrian and bicycle facilities.The project includes widening the Green River Bridge. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - Budget Amendments - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: (Premous Yrs) 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - Other Total Funding Sources: - - - - - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - Construction - - - - - Total Expenditures: - - - - - Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local) 50,000 1,950,000 8,000,000 - 10,000,000 Traffic Impact Fees - 500,000 2,000,000 - 2,500,000 Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: 50,000 2,450,000 10,000,000 - 12,500,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 50,000 1,950,000 - - 2,000,000 Right of Way - 500,000 - - 500,000 Construction - - 10,000,000 - 10,000,000 Total Expenditures: 50,000 2,450,000 10,000,000 - 12,500,000 Grants I Other Sources 62 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Special Revenue Fund Project Title Lea Hill Rd Segment 2 (105th PI SE to 112th Ave SE) TIP # 65 Project No. cpxxxx Project Type: Capacity Project Manager TBD LOS Corridor ID# 19 Description: Project includes widening the existing roadway to provide a four-lane cross-section including pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - Budget Amendments - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: (Premous Yrs) 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: - - - - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - - Total Expenditures: - - - - Forecasted Project Cost: Tots I 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants(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 I Other Sources. 63 City ofAubur-n Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Special Revenue Fund Project Title. Lea Hill Rd Segment 3 (112th Ave SE to 124th Ave SE ) TIP# 66 Project No: cpxxxx Project Type Capacity Project Manager TBD LOS Corridor ID#19 Description: Project includes widening the emsting roadway to provide a four-lane cross-section including pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - Budget Amendments - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: (Premous Yrs) 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unmstncted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - Other - - Total Funding Sources: - - - - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - Construction - - - - - Total Expenditures: - - - - Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestncted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants(Fed,State,Local) - 3,000,000 - - 3,000,000 Traffic Impact Fees - 1,000,000 - - 1,000,000 Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources - 4,000,000 - - 4,000,000 Capital Expenditures Design - 500,000 - - 500,000 Right of Way - 500,000 - - 500,000 Construction - 3,000,000 - - 3,000,000 Total Expenditures - 4,000,000 - - 4,000,000 Grants I Other Sources. 64 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Auburn Way South Pedestrian Imp. (Dogwood St SE to Fir St SE) TIP # 2 Project No cp1118 Project Type: Non-Motorized Project Manager Jacob Sweating LOS Corridor ID#4 Description: This project will construct pedestrian improvements along Auburn Way South between Dogwood Street SE and Fir Street SE that are consistent with WSDOTs SR-164 Route Development Plan.The project includes sidewalk improvements, access management,a mid-block pedestrian crossing,construction of a U-turn wedge for eastbound vehicles at Fir Street SE and street lighting. Progress Summary: Project design began in 2012 with construction expected to begin during 2013. The City has secured$100,000 in federal funding and $740,830 instate funding. Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - - - - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: (Premous Yrs) 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue 1,624 98,376 - - 100,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) 116,900 723,930 - - 840,830 Traffic Impact Fees - 115,000 - - 115,000 Other Sources(Muckleshoot) - 91,200 238,800 - 330,000 Total Funding Sources: 118,524 1,028,506 238,800 - 1,385,830 Capital Expenditures: Design 118,524 204,676 - - 323,200 Right of Way - 10,000 - - 10,000 Construction - 813,830 238,800 - 1,052,630 Total Expenditures: 118,524 1,028,506 238,800 - 1,385,830 Forecasted Project Cost: Tote I 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - Other Soumes(Muckleshoot) - - - - 238,800 Total Funding Sources: - - - - 238,800 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right ofWay - - - - - Constructron - - - - 238,800 Total Expenditures: - - - - 238,800 Grants I Other Sources. 65 City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2014-2019 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Auburn Way Corridor (4th St NE to 4th St SE) TIP# 3 Project No: c409aO 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 South between 4th Street NE and 4th Street SE. The project may include some pavement repairs. However,an overlay was completed as part of the City's Arterial Pavement Preservation Program in 2007 Although this was considered a temporary fix,the scope has been modified to account for the pavement work The project is approximately 0.5 miles long. Progress Summary: The pavement portion has been minimized due to the work completed in 2007 under the Arterial Pavement Preservation Program. Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: (Premous Yrs) 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue 78,251 - - - 78,251 Grants(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: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - 110,000 - 600,000 710,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local - 708,700 - 2,400,000 3,108,700 REET - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - Other Sources - - - - - Total Funding Sources: - 818,700 - 3,000,000 3,818,700 Capital Expenditures: Design - 618,700 - - 618,700 Right of Way - 200,000 - - 200,000 Construction - - 3,000,000 3,000,000 Total Expenditures: - 818,700 - 3,000,000 3,818,700 Grants/Other Sources. 66 Ciry ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: 15th Street SW Reconstruction TIP# 7 Project No cpxxxx Project Type: Non-Capacity Project Manager TBD LOS Corridor ID#12 Description: This project will evaluate improvements to the Union Pacific at-grade rail-crossings as well as the vertical sight distance to the Interurban Trail crossing to the west of the tracks.This project could include pavement preservation and may be accomplished through the Pavement Preservation Program. A cost estimate for planning purposes is provided below Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: (Premous Yrs) 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestncted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - REET Traffic Mitigation Funds - - - - Other Total Funding Sources: - - - - - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - RightofWay - - - - - Construction Total Expenditures: - - - - - Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestncted Street Revenue 75,000 500,000 - - 575,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) 300,000 2,500,000 - - 2,800,000 REET - - - Traffic Mitigation Funds - - - 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 67 City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Special Revenue Fund Project Title Auburn Way Northtlst Street NE Signal Improvements TIP# 19 Project No: cpxxxx Project Type: Non-Capacity Project Manager TBD LOS Corridor ID# 2 Description: This project will construct a new traffic signal with controller cabinet and battery backup along with necessary intersection improvements. Progress Summary: Design will be completed in 2014 Construction will be completed when funding is secured. Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - - - - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: (Prevous Yrs) 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - - 50,000 - 50,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Ta iffic Impact Fees - - - - - 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: Tots 1 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unmstncted Street Revenue 125,000 - - - 175,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) 425,000 - - - 425,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: 550,000 - - - 600,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 50,000 Right of Way 100,000 - - - 100,000 Construction 450,000 - - - 45D,000 Total Expenditures: 550,000 - - - 600,000 Grants I Other Sources. Grant funds are unsecure. 68 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Special Revenue Fund Project Title Main Street Signal Upgrades TIP# 21 Project No cpxxxx Project Type: Non-Capacity Project Manager TBD LOS Corridor ID#11 Description. Reconstruct the existing traffic signals at C St NW and W Main St and at E Main St and Auburn Ave/A St SE The new C St NW signal would provide protected left-turn phasing for C St, and would provide additional safety related to the railroad pre- emption The Auburn Ave/A St signal would replace one of the Citys oldest signals which has exceeded its design life. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - Budget Amendments - - - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: premous Yrs) 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - 50,000 265,000 315,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - REET - - - Traffic Mitigation Fees - 150,000 - - 150,000 Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: - 200,000 265,000 - 465,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 50,000 - 50,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction 150,000 265,000 - 415,000 Total Expenditures: - 200,000 265,000 - 465,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - 265,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - REET - - - - - Traffic Mitigation Fees - - - - Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: - - - - 265,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right ofWay - - - - Construction - - - 265,000 Total Expenditures: - - - - 265,000 Grants/Other Sources 69 City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Citywide Guardrail Improvements TIP # 25 Project No: cp0912 Project Type: Safety(Non-Capacity) Project Manager Jacob Sweating LOS Corridor ID#36 Description: The project will install guardrail along the Green River Road SE, R Street SE/Kersey Way SE,and Mountainview Drive SW corridors. Progress Summary: Grant funding for construction was awarded February 1st with no local match requirement.The project will be designed and constructed during 2013. Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - - - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: (Previous Yrs) 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - 45,000 5,000 - 50,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local) - 502,275 - - 502,275 REET - - - Tra/tic Impact Fees - - - - - Other Sources - - - - - Total Funding Sources: - 547,275 5,000 - 552,275 Capital Expenditures: Design - 50,000 - - 50,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction 497,275 5,000 - 502,275 Total Expenditures: - 547,275 5,000 - 552,275 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - 5,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - REET - - - - - Tra/lic Impact Fees - - - - - Other Sources - - - - - Total Funding Sources: - - - - 5,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right o/Way - - - - - Construction - - - - 5,000 Total Expenditures: - - - - 5,000 Grants I Other Sources 70 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: A Street SE Safety Improvements Study TIP # 27 Project No. cp1110 Project Type: Safety (Non-Capacity) 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 41 st 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 will be done to refine project scope,alignment,and cost will be complete in 2013.2014 design will complete detailed corridor plan for future improvements. Future Impact on Operating Budget: This study will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - - - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: (Previous Yrs) 2013 YE 2014 Yea r End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestncted Street Revenue 1,160 8,840 50,000 - 60,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - REET Traffic Mitigation Fees Other - - - Total Funding Sources: 1,160 8,840 50,000 - 60,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 1,160 8,840 50,000 - 60,000 Right of Way - - - - - Constmction - - - - Total Expenditures: 1,160 8,840 50,000 - 60,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Tots 1 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - 50,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - REET Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: - - - - 50,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 50,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construchon - - - - Total Expenditures: - - - - 50,000 Grants I Other Sources' 71 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Annual Bridge Structure Preservation TIP # 28 Project No Various Project Type: Non-Capacity, Preservation Project Manager James Webb LOS Corridor ID# N/A Description: This is an annual program to fund improvements to bridge structures identified by the citys annual bridge inspection program Progress Summary: Program completed load rating calculations for nine bridges in 2011 2012 project completed miscellaneous bridge repairs. Inspections of nine bridges were completed in 2012. Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - -Budget Amendments - - - - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: (Previous Yrs) 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unmstncted Street Revenue - 20,000 50,000 50,000 70,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local) - - - - - REET - - - - Tra/6c Mitigation Fees - - - - - Other - - - - Total Funding Sources: - 20,000 50,000 50,000 70,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 5,000 5,000 5,000 10,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - 15,000 45,000 45,000 60,000 Total Expenditures: - 20,000 50,000 50,000 70,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 300,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - REET Traffic Mitigation Fees - - - - - Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 300,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 30,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construchon 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 270,000 Total Expenditures: 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 300,000 Grants/Other Sources: 72 City ofAtiburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Special Revenue Fund Project Title S 277th Street - Wetland Mitigation TIP # 29 Project No. c410a0 Project Type: Non-Capacity Project Manager Matt Larson LOS Corridor ID# N/A Description: Wetland mitigation for the S 277th St grade separation project Progress Summary: This is a 10-year obligation,which began in 2004 Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - - - - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: (Premous Yrs) 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue 240,339 50,000 25,000 - 315,339 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - REET - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: 240,339 50,000 25,000 - 315,339 Capital Expenditures: Design 116,883 31,862 20,500 - 169,245 Right of Way - - - - - Construction 123,456 18,138 4,500 - 146,094 Total Expenditures: 240,339 50,000 25,000 - 315,339 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - 25,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - REET - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: - - - - 25,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 20,500 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - 4,500 Total Expenditures: - - - 25,000 Grants I Other Sources: 73 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Citywide Pedestrian Accessibility and Safety Program TIP# 30 Project No cpxxxx Project Type: Non-Capacity(Annual) Project Manager Pablo Para LOS Corridor ID# N/A Description: This is an annual program to fund pedestrian access and safety 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 budget for street maintenance. Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - Budget Amendments - - - Adjusted Budget - - - Activlty- (PreHous Yrs) 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unmstncted Street Revenue - - 150,000 150,000 150,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - REET - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: - - 150,000 150,000 150,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - 15,000 15,000 15,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction 135,000 135,000 135,000 Total Expenditures: - - 150,000 150,000 150,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Tots 1 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 900,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local) - - - - - REET Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - Other - - - - Total Funding Sources: 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 900,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 90,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction 135,000 135,000 135,000 135,000 810,000 Total Expenditures: 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 900,000 Grants I Other Sources: 74 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Citywide Arterial Bicycle & Safety Improvements TIP# 31 Project No: cpxxxx 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. Project was previously called"Citywide Roadway Safety Infrastructure Improvements" Progress Summary: 2013 project is funding improvements at the W Main SUC Street intersection as part of TIP#21,and at the 37th Street NW/B Street NW intersection as part of TIP#38. Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - - - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: (Premous Yrs) 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - - 100,000 - 100,000 Grants(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: Tots I 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue 100,000 100,000 300,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - REET - - - - Tmffic 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/Other Sources 75 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: 37th St NW & B St NW Railroad Crossing Safety Improvements TIP # 38 Project No cp1304 STIP#AUB-43 Project Type: Intersection Safety(Non-Capacity) Project Manager Jacob Sweating LOS Corridor ID# N/A Description: This project will fund the design and construction of a pre-signal at the 37th Street NW/13 Street NW intersection adjacent to the at-grade BNSF rail crossing,and to mitigate impacts from the proposed BNSF third rail project The project will include communication improvements and advanced train detection for new warning times for advanced railroad preemption at the signal. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be$5,000. Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - - - - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: (Premous Yrs) 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - 50,000 26,900 - 76,900 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - 307,550 - - 307,550 REET - - Other - - - - Total Funding Sources: - 357,550 26,900 - 384,450 Capital Expenditures: Design - 45,000 - 45,000 Right of Way - 5,000 - - 5,000 Construction 307,550 26,900 334,450 Total Expenditures: - 357,550 26,900 - 384,450 Forecasted Project Cost: Tote I 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestncted Street Revenue - - - - 26,900 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - REET - - - - Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: - - - - 26,900 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - 26,900 Total Expenditures: - - - - 26,900 Grants/Other Sources: 76 City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Special Revenue Fund Project Title A Street NE Pedestrian Improvements TIP# 44 Project No: cpxxxx Project Type: Sidewalk Improvements (Non-Capacity) Project Manager TBD LOS Corridor ID# N/A Description: This project completes a pedestrian connection between Downtown Auburn and the 8th St NE business district. This project will improve a pedestrian crossing at 3rd St NE, and construct sidewalks/access ramps along the A St NE corridor Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be$500 Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - - - - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: (Premous Yrs) 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Umestncted Street Revenue - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Locao - - - - - REET - - - PWTFL - - - - - Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: - - - - - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - ConstNChon - - - - - Total Expenditures: - - - - - Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestncted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants(Fed,State,Local) - 150,000 - - 150,000 REET - - - PWTFL - - - - - Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: 150,000 - - 150,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 15,000 - - 15,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - 135,000 - - 135,000 Total Expenditures: - 150,000 - - 150,000 Grants/Other Sources Grant funds are unsecure 77 City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Interurban Trailhead Improvements TIP # 45 Project No: cpxxxx Project Type: Class 1 Trail (Non-Capacity) Project Manager TBD LOS Corridor ID# N/A Description: This project provides enhancements to existing trailheads and construction of newtrallheads. Improvements include bike racks, kiosks, parking and access. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no Impact on the operating budget for street maintenance Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - - -Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: (Premous Yrs) 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - - Tmffic Mitigation Fees - - - - - PWTFL - - - - - Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: - - - - - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - Right of Way - - - - Construction - - - - - Total Expenditures: - - - - - Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants(Fed,State,Local) - 210,000 - - 210,000 Traffic Mitigation Fees - - - - - PWTFL - - - - - Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: - 210,000 - - 210,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 20,000 - - 20,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - 190,000 - - 190,000 Total Expenditures: - 210,000 - - 210,000 Grants/Other Sources Grant funds are unsecure 78 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: 104th Ave SE & Green River Road Study TIP# 46 Project No cp1021 Project Type Non-Capacity(Intersection Safety) Project Manager James Webb LOS Corridor ID#24 Description: This project funds a pre-design study to determine the right-of-way, environmental and construction requirements for intersection safety improvements.The project is anticipated to include sight-distance improvements, constructing turn- lanes, channelization,environmental mitigation, signage and clear zone improvements. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: (Premous Yrs) 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - - 5,000 - 5,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local) - - - - - REET - PWTFL - - - - - Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: - - 5,000 - 5,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - 5,000 - 5,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - - Total Expenditures: - - 5,000 - 5,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - 5,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local) - - - - - REET - - - - - PWTFL - - - - - Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: - - - - 5,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 5,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - - Total Expenditures: - - - - 5,000 Grants/Other Sources 79 City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Special Revenue Fund Project Title. ITS Dynamic Message Signs TIP# 50 Project No cpxxxx Project Type: Non-Capacity (ITS) Project Manager TBD 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 rrS tool for providing information to roadway users. Priority locations for sign placement are based on the Comprehensive Transportation Plans ITS map and include Auburn Way N,Auburn Way S,W Valley Highway, E Valley Highway and Lea HIII Rd. Progress Summary: The first phase of this project is scheduled to begin in 2015 or sooner if grant funding becomes available. Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project Is estimated to be$5,000. Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - Budget Amendments - - - Adjusted Budget - - - Activity: (Pre,ous Yrs) 2013 YE 2014 Year End _ Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unmstncted Street Revenue - - - 30,000 - Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - 190,000 - REET - - - - PWTFL - - - Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources- - - - 220,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - 20,000 - Right of Way - - - - Construction - - - 200,000 - Total Expenditures: - - - 220,000 - Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 20113 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - 30,000 - - 60,000 Grants(Fed,State,LO al) - 190,000 - - 380,000 REET - - - PWTFL - Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: - 220,000 - - 440,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 20,000 - - 40,000 Right of Way - - - - - Constmctlon - 200,000 - - 400,000 Total Expenditures: - 220,000 - - 440,000 Grants/Other Sources 80 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Special Revenue Fund Project Title Lea Hill Safe Routes to School Improvements TIP# 56 Project No: cp1120 STIP#AUB-39 Project Type. Non-Motorized Project Manager Kim Truong LOS Corridor ID#19 Description: This project will construct pedestrian improvements along the south-side of SE 312th St to the east of 24th Ave SE, intersection improvements at 116th Ave SE & SE 304th St, stripe bike lanes on 116th Ave SE between SE 312th St and SE 304th St and improve curb ramps adjacent to Rainier Middle School. Progress Summary, The City was awarded $398,500 in federal funding in May 2011,which consists of$75,700 for School District education/encouragement, $1,800 for Police Dept.enforcement and $321,000 for engineering, right of way,and construction Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - - - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: (Premous Yrs) 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue 777 30,000 5,000 - 35,777 Grants (Fed,State,Local) 25,638 372,862 - - 398,500 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - REET2 - - - - - Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: 26,415 402,862 5,000 - 434,277 Capital Expenditures: Design 26,415 24,362 - - 50,777 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - 378,500 5,000 - 383.500 Total Expenditures: 26,415 402,862 5,000 - 434,277 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - 5,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - REET2 - - - - - Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: - - - - 5,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - 5,000 Total Expenditures: - - - - 5,000 Grants I Other Sources' 81 City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Special Revenue Fund Project Title AW S Streetscape Improvements (SR-18 to M St SE) TIP# 62 Project No: cpxxxx Project Type: Miscellaneous Project Manager TBD LOS Corridor ID#3 Description: This project will revitalize and beautify AWS from the SR-18 interchange to the intersection with M Street SE Proposed improvements include: enhancement of crosswalks and pedestrian linkages; new and repaired sidewalks; curb and gutter, pedestrian ramps, new landscaped medians; street trees; new lighting; pedestrian benches,trash receptacles, recycling containers and other appropriate amenities A significant portion of project costs are associated with right-of-way acquisition Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - Budget Amendments - - - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: (Previous Yrs) 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - REET2 - - - - - Other - Total Funding Sources: - - - - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - Total Expenditures: - - - - Forecasted Project Cost: Tote I 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestncted Street Revenue - 200,000 200,000 - 400,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - 1,750,000 2,600,000 - 4,350,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - REET2 - - - - - Other Total Funding Sources: - 1,950,000 2,800,000 - 4,750,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 500,000 - - 500,000 Right of Way - 1,450,000 - - 1,450,000 Construction - 2,800,000 2,800,000 Total Expenditures: - 1,950,000 2,800,000 - 4,750,000 Grants I Other Sources. 82 City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Special Revenue Fund Project Title Citywide Traffic Signal Safety Improvements TIP# 67 Project No cp1222 STIP#AUB-45 Project Type. Non-Capacity Project Manager Robert Lee LOS Corridor ID#NIA Description: This project will Improve traffic signal phasing and timing, improve visibility of traffic signal heads, install countdown pedestrian signal displays,and ADA pedestrian pushbuttons. Progress Summary: Grant funding was awarded June 2012 with no local match requirement. Project will be designed and constructed in 2013. Future Impact on Operating Budget: There is no impact to the street maintenance budget. Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - -Budget Amendments - - - - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: (PreHous Yrs) 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue 1,916 55,000 5,000 - 61,916 Grants (Fed,State,Local) - 400,000 - - 400,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - REET2 - 25,000 - - 25,000 Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: 1,916 480,000 5,000 - 486,916 Capital Expenditures: Design 1,916 30,000 - - 31,916 Right of Way - - - - Construction - 450,000 5,000 - 455,000 Total Expenditures: 1,916 480,000 5,000 - 486,916 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - 5,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - REET2 - - - Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: - - - - 5,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right ofWay - - - - - conslruction - - - - 5,000 Total Expenditures: - - - - 5,000 Grants/Other Sources 83 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: 37th St SE & A St SE Traffic Signal Safety Improvement TIP# 68 Project No: cpxxxx Project Type: Intersection Improvement, Non-capacity Project Manager TBD LOS Corridor ID# 10 Description: This project consists of the design, right of way acquisition and construction of a new traffic signal at 37th St SE &A St SE. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be$500. Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - - - - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: (Premous Yrs) 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - - 55,000 45,000 55,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - 121,400 440,000 121,400 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - Other - - - 152,500 - Total Funding Sources: - - 176,400 637,500 176,400 Capital Expenditures: Design - - 110,000 - 110,000 Right of Way - - 66,400 - 66,400 Construction - - - 637,500 - Total Expenditures: - - 176,400 637,500 176,400 Forecasted Project Cost: Tote 1 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - 100,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - 561,400 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - Other - - - - 152,500 Total Funding Sources: - - - - 813,900 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 110,000 Right of Way - - - - 66,400 Construction - - - - 637,500 Total Expenditures: - - - - 813,900 Grants I Other Sources Other Funds are Fund 105 Adenal Preservation Funds 84 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan TABLE T-2A CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN PROJECTS AND FINANCING TRANSPORTATION - LOCAL STREET 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total Capacity Protects: None Non-Capacity Protects: 1 Local Street Improvement Program Capital Costs 1,844,300 1,457,243 1 470,315 1.483,519 1,496,854 1,510,322 9,262,553 Funding Sources. Fund Balance 400,000 - - - - - 400,000 Transfer In(W/S/SWM Utility) 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 900,000 Property Tax - - - - - - Sales Taxon Construction 1,294,300 1,307,243 1,320,315 1,333,519 1,346,854 1,360,322 7,962,553 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - Utility Mtgahon - - - - - - SUMMARY CAPITAL COSTS Capacity Projects - - - - - - - Non-Capacity Projects 1,844,300 1,457,243 1,470,315 1,483,519 1496,854 1,510,322 9,262,553 Total Costs 1,844,300 1,457,243 1,470,315 1,483,519 1,496,854 1,510,322 9,262,553 FUNDING SOURCES: Fund Balance 400,000 - - - - - 400,000 Transfer In(W/S/SNM1 Utility) 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 900,000 Property Tax - - - - - - - SalesTaxonConstructon 1,294,300 1,307,243 1,320,315 1,333,519 1,346,854 1,360,322 7,962,553 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - Utility Mitigation - - - - - - Total Funding 1,844,300 1,457,243 1,470,315 1,483,519 1,496,854 1,510,322 9,262,553 85 City ofAt/burn Draft Capital Facilities Plan LOCAL STREET FUND (103) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2014-2019 Special Revenue Fund Project Title Local Street Improvement Program TIP#37 Project No, Various 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. Beginning In 2013 funding sources include annual sales tax on construction Progress Summary: This program has successfully completed overlays,chip seals and complete reconstructions since 2005. The program will focus on reconstruction in 2013 and 2014 Future Impact on Operating Budget: There is no impact to the street maintenance budget Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - - - Adjusted Budget - - - Activity: (Preuous Yrs) 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Local Street Fund - 1,240,000 400,000 - 1,640,000 Transfer In - 150,000 150,000 150,000 300,000 Pmperty Tax - - - - - Sales Tax on Construction - 1,474,250 1,294,300 1,307,243 2,768,550 Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other Total Funding Sources: - 2,864,250 1,844,300 1,457,243 4,708,550 Capital Expenditures: Design - 240,800 250,000 200,000 490,800 Right of Way - - - - - Construction 2,623,450 1,594,300 1,257,243 ' 5,474,993 Total Expenditures: - 2,864,250 1,844,300 1,457,243 4,708,550 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Local Street Fund - - - - 400,000 Transfer In 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 900,000 Property Tax - - - - - Sales Tax on Construction 1,320,315 1,333,519 1,346,854 1,360,322 7,962,553 Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - - Total Funding Sources: 1,470,315 1,483,519 1,496,854 1,510,322 9,262,553 Capital Expenditures: Design 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,250,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction 1,270,315 1,283,519 1,296,854 1,310,322 8,012,553 Total Expenditures: 1,470,315 1,483,519 1,496,854 1,510,322 9,262,553 Grants I Other Sources 20152019 Sales tax is increased by 1% per year 86 City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan TABLE T-2B CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN PROJECTS AND FINANCING TRANSPORTATION — STREET PRESERVATION 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total Capacity Projects None Non-Capacity Projects: 1 West Valley Highway System Preservation Capital Costs 5,000 - - - - - 5,000 Funding Sources Fund Balance 5,000 - - - - - 5,000 Grants - - - - - - UOIityTax - - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - 2 Annual Arterial Street Preservation Capital Costs 1,800,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 10,800,000 Funding Sources Fund Balance - - - - - - U61ityTax 1,800,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 10,800,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - 3 Annual Arterial Crack Seal Program Capital Costs 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 600,000 Funding Sources Utility Tax 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 600,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - 4 Arterial Bridge Deck Rehabilitation Capital Costs 250,000 250,000 - - - - 500,000 Funding Sources Fund Balance 250,000 250,000 - - - - 500,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - Note.Financial plan utiliz as the follomng order for use of funds to finance projects grant revenues(d avadabis),utility tax re venues and fund b alance SUMMARY: CAPITAL COSTS Capacity Projects - - - - - - - Non-Capacity Projects 2,155,000 2,150,000 1,900,000 1,900,000 1,900,000 1,900,000 11,905,000 Total Costs 2,155,000 2,150,000 1,900,000 1,900,000 1,900,000 11900,000 11,905,000 FUNDING SOURCES: Fund Balance 255,000 250,000 - - - - 505,000 Utility Tax 1,900,000 1,900,000 1,900,000 1,900,000 1,900,000 1,900,000 11400,000 Grants - - - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - - Total Funding 2,155,000 2,150,000 1,900,000 1,900,000 1,900,000 1,900,000 11,905,000 87 City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET PRESERVATION FUND (105) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Special Revenue Funds Project Title: West Valley Highway System Preservation (15th St NW to 37th St NW) TIP#22 Project No: cp1225 STIP#AUB-41 Project Type: Non-Capacity, Preservation Project Manager Seth Wickstrom LOS Corridor ID# 14 Description: The West Valley Highway System Preservation project will overlay the failing portions of the street pavement between 15th Street NW and 37th Street NW This entails the installation of a leveling course, providing a 2"-3"thick asphalt concrete overlay,and includes minor surface utility adjustments. Progress Summary: FHWA STP Grant funding was secured in 2012. Future Impact on Operating Budget: There is no impact to the street maintenance budget. Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - - - - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity, (Premous Yrs) 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Artenal Preservation Fund Balance 10,000 555,000 5,000 - 570,000 Grant Funding(Fedeml, State, Local) - 560,000 - - 560,000 Utility Tax - - - - REET2 - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Total Funding Sources: 10,000 1,115,000 5,000 - 1,130,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 10,000 40,000 - - 50,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - 1,075,000 5,000 - 1,080,000 Total Expenditures: 10,000 1,115,000 5,000 - 1,130,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Tota I 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Arterial Preservation Fund Balance - - - - 5,000 Grant Funding(Federal, State, Local) - - - - - Utility Tax - - - - - REET2 - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Total Funding Sources: - - - 5,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - 5,000 Total Expenditures: - - - - 5,000 Grants I Other Sources 88 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET PRESERVATION FUND (105) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Special Revenue Funds Project Title: Arterial Street Preservation Program TIP #35 Project No: cp1302 Project Type Non-Capacity, Preservation Project Manager Jai Carter LOS Corridor ID#NIA 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: Program continues to successfully complete annual patching and overlay projects citywide Future Impact on Operating Budget: There is no impact to the street maintenance budget. Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - Budget Amendments - - - - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: (Premous Yrs) 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Arterial Preservation Fund - 196,000 - - 196,000 Property Tax - - - - - Utility Tax - 1,440,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 3,240,000 REET2 - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Total Funding Sources: - 1,636,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 3,436,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 36,000 20,000 20,000 56,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - 1,600,000 1,780,000 1,780,000 3,380,000 Total Expenditures: - 1,636,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 3,436,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Tots I 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Artenal Preservation Fund - - - -Property Tax - - - - - Utility Tax 1,800,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 10,800,000 REET2 - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Total Funding Sources: 1,800,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 10,800,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 120,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction 1,780,000 1,780,000 1,780,000 1,780,000 10,680,000 Total Expenditures: 1,800,000 158005000 1,800,000 1,800,000 10,800,000 Grants/Other Sources 89 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET PRESERVATION FUND (105) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Special Revenue Funds Project Title: Arterial Crack Seal Program TIP #36 Project No: varies Project Type: Non-Capacity, Preservation Project Manager Jai Carter LOS Corridor ID#NIA Description: Implement regular maintenance of various classified streets by sealing newly formed 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 pavement citywide. Future Impact on Operating Budget: There is no impact to the street maintenance budget. Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - - - - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: (Premous Yrs) 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Artenal Preservation Fund - - - - - Utility Tax - 60,000 100,000 100,000 160,000 REET - - - - - Bond proceeds - - - - - Total Funding Sources: 60,000 100,000 100,000 160,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 5,000 5,000 5,000 10,000 Right or Way - - - - - Construction - 55,000 95,000 95,000 150,000 Total Expenditures: - 60,000 100,000 100,000 160,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Tote 1 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Arterial Preservation Fund - - - - - Utility Tax 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 600,000 REET - - - Bond proceeds - - - - - Total Funding Sources: 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 600,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 30,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construchon 95,000 95,000 95,000 95,000 570,000 Total Expenditures: 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 600,000 Grants/Other Sources: 90 City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET PRESERVATION FUND (105) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2014-2019 Special Revenue Funds Project Title: Arterial Bridge Deck Rehabilitation TIP#57 Project No: cpxxxx Project Type Non-Capacity, Preservation Project Manager Jai Carter LOS Corridor ID# N/A Description: This program will fund the rehabilitation of bridge decks as identified by the citys annual bridge inspection program. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - - - - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: (Prevous Yrs) 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Artenat Preservation Fund - - 250,000 250,000 250,000 !Polity Tax - - - - - REET Bond proceeds - - - - Total Funding Sources: - - 250,000 250,000 250,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - 25,000 25,000 25,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - 225,000 225,000 225,000 Total Expenditures: - - 250,000 250,000 250,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Artenal Pmservation Fund - - - - 500,000 Utility Tax - - - - - REET Bond proceeds - - - - - Total Funding Sources: - - - - 500,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 50,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - 450,000 Total Expenditures: - - - - 500,000 Grants/Other Sources: 91 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan TABLE T-3 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS ON FUTURE OPERATING BUDGETS Project: 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total 1 A Street NW,Phase 1 $ 25,830 $ 25,830 $ 25,830 $ 25,830 $ 25,830 $ 25,830 $ 154,980 2 I Street NE Corridor _ - - 25,200 25,200 50,400 3 M Street Grade Separation 21,827 21,827 21,827 21,827 21,827 21,827 130,962 4 S 277th-AWN to Green River Bridge - 27,250 27,250 27,250 27,250 27,250 136,250 5 A Street NW,Phase 2 - - - - - - 6 D Street NW,37th to 4th _ - - - 11,450 11,450 7 F Street SE,40,to AWS - 4,100 4,100 4,100 4,100 16,400 8 M Street NE�E Main to 4th - 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 6,000 9 M St SE 612th St SE Traffic Signal _ _ - 6,600 6,600 6,600 19,800 10 8th Street NE Widening _ _ _ - - - - 11 Harvey 4 81h Street NE _ _ _ - _ _ 12 8th Street NE 8 SE 104th St Intersechon Imp. 6,600 6,600 6,600 6,600 6,600 6,600 39,600 13 Auburn Way S It M Street SE Imp. _ _ _ - _ _ 14 ASt.SE Non-Motorized It Access Imp. 100 100 100 100 100 100 600 15 Ace decoy Drive M ultl-USe Tra it _ _ - 1,680 1,680 3,360 16 BNSF 3rd Re/I Ew.Roa d,va y Imp. _ _ _ _ _ 17 124th Ave SE Corridor Imp,Phase 2 18 124th Ave SE Corridor Imp,Phase 1 19 RStreet BYpess - - - - - - - 20 SE3200;St Corridor Imp - - - - - - - 21 A WS Corridor Safety Improvements 22 Environmental Park Roadway Study 23 DowntownteLes Gore Non- Motorized Imp Study 24 S 318th St Bicycle 6 Pod Imp Study _ _ _ _ 25 E Valley Hwy ITS Expansion - 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 20,000 26 A WS 8 12th St SE Intersection Imp. _ _ _ _ 27 Kersey Way Study _ _ _ _ _ 28 A WS Fir St SE to Hemlock St SE 9,300 9,300 9,300 9,300 9,300 9,300 55,800 29 Auburn Ave NE d 3rd St NE Pedestrian Improvements - - - - - - - 30 M St SE Corridoq 81h St SEfo AWS 31 AWS Bypass-Riverwalk Dr.to SR 18 32 29th Street SE It R Street SE - 33 Lee Hill RD Segment 1 - - - - - - - 34 Lee Hill Rd Segment 2 35 Lea Hill Rd Segment 3 - - - - - - 36 AWS Pod.Imp.-Dogwood to Fir _ 37 Auburn Way Corridor Imp - - - - - - - 38 15th St SW Reconstruction - - 39 Auburn Way NHst St NE Signal Imp _ _ - _ 40 Main Street Signal Upgrades _ _ - - - - 41 Citywide Guardrail Improvements _ _ _ _ _ 42 A Street SE SafWylmp.Study _ _ _ _ 43 Annual Bridge Improvements _ _ _ _ _ 44 S.2770,Weiland Mitigation _ 45 Citywide Pedestrian Crossing _ - 46 Citywide Arterial Bicycle 6 Safety Imp _ _ _ 47 37th 6 B St NW Railroad Crossing Safetylmp 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 30,000 48 A St NE Pedestrian Imp _ _ - 500 500 500 1,500 49 Interurban Trailheatl Imp _ _ _ _ _ 50 104th Ave SE 6 Green River Rd Study _ _ _ _ _ 51 ITS Dynamic Message Signs _ _ 5,000 5,000 5,000 15,000 52 Lee Hill Safe Routes to School Imp _ _ _ _ 53 AWS Sfreetscape Improvements 54 Citywide Traffic Signal Safety Imp. _ _ _ 55 37th St SE e A St SE Traffic Signal - 500 500 500 500 500 2,500 56 Local Street Improvement Program (Fund 103) - - - - - - - 57 Arterial St.Preervation (Fund 105) 58 Arterial Crack Seal Prog.(Fund 105) 59 West Valley Hwy System Preservation - - - - - - - 60 Arterial Bridge Deck Rehabilitation Total $ 68,657 $ 96,407 $ 107,007 $ 119,107 $ 145,987 $ 157,437 $ 694,602 92 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 a wholesale agreement. 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 four capacity projects in the amount of $12,862,542 and eighteen non-capacity projects totaling $20,461,950 for a 6-year planning expectation total of $33,324,492. 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 $26,400 are forecasted for water supply and distribution facilities during the six years 2015 —2020 93 City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan TABLE W-1 Facilities Inventory Water Facilities CITY OF,AUBURN;WATERSYSTEM. CAPACITY FACILITY WATER RIGHT (MGD - max rate) LOCATION Water Supply., Coal Creek Springs Certificate 857 9.70<2.52>` 3401 Stuck River Rd West Hill Sprigs Claim (1973 File Date) 0.9 1900 15th StNWExt Well 1 Certificate 3560-A 3.17 1136 M St SE Well 2 G1-00277 C 3.46 1109 5th St NE Well 3A G1-23629 C 4.03 401 37th St SE Well 3B (Included Above) (Included Above) 401 37th St SE Well 4 G1-20391 C 4.03 950 251h 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, 3B, 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 Supply Total(MGD) 26.73 Available for Use 24.21 Denotes deduction of 1,750 gpm(o✓2,824 ac-ftlyr)to conply w th the provisions of the NLckleshoot-Auburn Stipulated Agreement. CAPACITY FACILITY (MGD) LOCATION SERVICE AREA Intertie Tacoma 8 Street NW 32 3240 B St NW Valley Service Area Tacoma 132nd Ave SE 32 29598 132nd Ave SE Lea Hill Service Area Intertie Total (MGD) 6.4 CAPACITY FACILITY (MG) LOCATION SERVICE AREA Storage Facilities: Valley Reservoir 1 50 2003 Auburn Way S Valley Service Area Valley Reservoir 2 3.6 32115 105th Place S Valley Service Area Academy Reservoir 8A 1.0 5002 Auburn Way S Academy Service Area Academy Reservoir 8B 15 5002 Auburn Way S Academy Service Area Lea Hill Reservoir 4A 1.0 30502 132nd Ave SE Lea Hill Service Area Lea Hill Reservoir 48 1.5 30502 132nd Ave SE Lea Hill Service Area Lakeland Hills Reservoir 5 1.0 1326 57th Or SE Lakeland Hills Svc Area Lakeland Hills Reservoir 6 1.0 5718 Francis Ct SE Lakeland Hills Svc Area Storage Total (MG) 15.6 94 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan TABLE W-1 (continued) Facilities Inventory Water Facilities 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 5002 Auburn Way S Green River 4 pumps 4,680 29621 Green River Rd SE Intertie. 7 pumps 4,830 30502 132nd Ave SE Lea Hill: 3 pumps 2,100 10406 Lea Hill Rd SE Lakeland Hills 5 pumps 3,200 1118 57th Place SE Wilderness Game Farm Pk 2 pumps 1,050 2401 Stuck River Rd Terrace View. 3 pumps 1,500 6134 Alexander Place SE CAPACITY Primary Valve FACILITY (PSI - Inlet/Outlet) LOCATION Pressure Reducing Stations. Serves Valley Pressure Zone: Howard Road CCF #1011-1 82165 Howard Rd Howard Road CCF By-Pass #1011-2 - Howard Rd (Bypass) 25th Street SE #1110-1 (Offline) - 25th St SE&K St SE Riverwalk #1111-2 90150 27th St. SE&27th Place SE Riverwalk #1111-1 109155 Riverwalk Dr SE&Howard Rd Serves Lea Hill: Lea Hill #512-1 80150 304th St SE West of 112th Ave Lea Hill #412-1 90145 SE 298th Place & 109 Ave SE Lea Hill #512-2 87145 304th St SE West of 108th Ave Lea Hill #611-1 165165 Lea Hill Rd SE Lea Hill #611-2 140165 Lea Hill Rd& 106 PI Lea Hill #611-3 145160 Lea Hill Rd& 107 PI Lea Hill #411-1 94155 104th Ave SE(South of 303rd Road) Lea Hill #411-2 86140 SE 304th P/& SE 101st Place Lea Hill#512-3 N/C 300 Block & 108th Ave SE Amber View North #711-1 150165 105th P/ SE&320th PI Amber View North #711-2 142160 106th P/ SE Near Reservoir 2 Serves Academ y: Aubum Way South #1011-3 130180 2003 Auburn Way S Auburn Way South #1114-1 130180 4500 Auburn Way S Serves Jannsen Addition: Jannsen #1216-1 72158 6100 Block &35th Way SE 95 City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan TABLE W-1 (continued) Facilities Inventory Water Facilities CAPACITY Primary Valve FACILITY (PSI - Inlet/Outlet) LOCATION Serves Lakeland Hills: Lakeland Hills#1410-2 125162 Nathan Ave & Highland Dr Lakeland Hills#1309-1 105155 Mill Pond Dr@ Oravetz Rd Lakeland Hills#1410-1 N/C 51st St. SE east of Mill Pond Loop Lakeland Hills#1409-3 84155 Mill Pond Dr&Lakeland Hills Way Lakeland Hills#1510-1 N/C Lakeland Hills Way&Evergreen Way Lakeland Hills#1409-2 120156 47th SE&Lakeland Hills Way Lakeland Hills#1310-1 130155 Mill Pond Dr& Mill Pond Loop Lakeland HMIs#1410-3 82155 Quincy Ave N of 53rd St SE Lakeland Hills#1409-1 N/C Oravetz & Lakeland Hills Way Lakeland Hills#1409-4 95170 Lakeland Hills Way&Lakeland Hills Lp Lakeland Hills#1410-4 103150 4900 Block & Mill Pond Dr Lakeland Hills#1509-1 174160 Terrace ViewLower(6170) Lakeland Hills#1509-2 160173 Terrace View Middle (5960) Lakeland Hills#1509-3 138147 Terrace View Upper(5810) Lakeland Hills#1509-4 N/C Terrace View&Alexander Place SE WC - Normally Closed CAPACITY FACILITY (GPM) LOCATION Corrosion Control Howard Road 5,550 2101 Howard Rd SE Fulmer Field 9,375 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) 190015thStNW Well 4 2,600 950 25th St SE Well 5B 600 1100 63rd St SE Well 5A 180 5401 Olive Ave SE _ BRAUNWOOD SATELLITE WATER SYSTEM; FACILITY CAPACITY LOCATION Water Supply: 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 96 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan TABLE W-2 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN PROJECTS AND FINANCING WATER DIVISION 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018- 2019 Total Capacity Projects: 1 Weill Improvements Capital Costs 2,389,859 - - - - - 2,389,869 Funding Sources: Water Fund 1,311,914 - - - - - 1,311,914 PWTF Loan 1,077,945 1,077,946 2 Fulmer Well Feld Improvements Capital Costs 1,750000 - - 1,000,000 4,000,000 - 6,750,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund 1,109,999 - - 1,000,000 4,000,000 - 6,109,999 Bond Proceeds 640,007 - 640,001 3 Cascade Water Alliance Water Purchase Capital Costs - - - 532,561 532,561 532,561 1,597,683 Funding Sources' Water Fund - - - 532,561 532,561 532,561 1,697,683 Bond Proceeds - - - - 4 Academy Pump Station#1 Pump Repalcement Capital Costs - - 925,000 1,200,000 - - 2,125,000 Funding Sources Water Fund - - 925,000 1,200,000 - - 2,126,000 Bond Proceeds - - - Subtotal Capacity Proiects: Capital Costs 4,139,869 - 926,000 2,732,561 4,632,561 632,561 12,862,542 Non-Capacity Protects: 5 Green River PS Emergency Power Capital Costs - 90,000 600,000 - - - 690,000 Funding Sources Water Fund - 90,000 600,000 - - - 690,000 Bond Proceeds - - 6 Well Power&Chlorination Capital Costs 1,091,450 - - - - - 1,091,450 Funding Sources Water Fund 172,450 - - - - - 172,450 Bond proceeds 919,000 919,000 7 Well s Upgrade Capital Costs - 400,000 1,500,000 - - - 1,900,000 Funding Sources Water Fund - 400,000 1,500,000 - - - 1,900,000 Bond proceeds - 8 Well Inspection and Redevelopment Program Capital Costs - 150,000 - 150,000 - - 300,000 Funding Sources Water Fund - 150,000 - 150,000 - - 300,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - 9 Water Repair&Replacements Capital Costs 150,000 1,500,000 200,000 1,700,000 260,000 1,900,000 5,710,000 Funding Sources Water Fund 150,000 1,500,000 200,000 1700,000 260,000 1,900,000 5,710,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - 97 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan TABLE W-2 (continued) 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total Non-Capacity Projects: 10 Lakeland Hills Reservoir 5Improvements Capital Costs 725,500 - - - - - 725,500 Funding Sources Water Fund - - - - - - - Bond Proceeds 725,500 - - - - - 725,500 11 Comprehensive Water Plan Capital Costs 330,000 - - - - - 330,000 Funding Sources Water Fund 330,000 - - - - - 330,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 12 Well? Emergency Power Capital Costs - 75,000 440,000 - - - 515,000 Funding Sources Water Fund - 75,000 440,000 - - - 515,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 13 Maintenance and Operations Expansion Capital Costs 220,000 - - - - - 220,000 Funding Sources. Water Fund 220,000 - - - - - 220,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 14 MIT Master Meters Capital Costs 80,000 400,000 400,000 - - - 880,000 Funding Sources Water Fund 80,000 400,000 400,000 - - - 880,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 15 Street Utility Improvements Capital Costs 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 3,000,000 Funding Sources. Water Fund 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 3,000,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 16 Lea Hill PRV Station Improvements Capital Costs - 50,000 400,000 - - - 450,000 Funding Sources Water Fund - 50,000 400,000 - - - 450,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 17 Water Meter&Billing System Improvements Capital Costs 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 - - 2,000,000 Funding Sources. Water Fund - 500,000 500,000 500,000 - - 1,500,000 Bond Proceeds 500,000 - - - - - 500,000 18 Utilities Feld Operations Center Capital Costs - 100,000 - - - - 100,000 Funding Sources Water Fund - 100,000 - - - - 100,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 98 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan TABLE W-2 (continued) 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total Non-Capacity Projects: 19 Valley AC Main Replace Capital Costs 1,165,000 - - - - - 1,165,000 Funding Sources. Water Fund - - - - - - - Bond Proceeds 1,165,000 - - - - - 1,165,000 20 BNSF Utility Crossing Capital Costs 680,000 - - - - - 680,000 Funding Sources Water Fund - - - - - - - Bond Proceeds 680,000 - - - - - 680,000 21 SCADA Upgrades Capital Costs 100,000 - - - - - 100,000 Funding Sources. Water Fund 100,000 - - - - - 100,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 22 West Hill Springs Improvements Capital Costs 150,000 455,000 - - - - 605,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund 150,000 455,000 - - - - 605,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - Subtotal,Non-Capacity Projects: Capital Costs 5,691,950 4,220,000 4,540,000 2,850,000 760,000 2,400,000 20,461,950 SUMMARY: CAPITAL COSTS Capacity Projects 4,139,859 - 925,000 2,732,561 4,532,561 532,561 12,862,542 Non-Capacity Projects 5,691,950 4,220,000 4,540,000 2,850,000 760,000 2,400,000 20,461,950 Total Costs 9,831,809 4,220,000 5,465,000 5,582,561 5,292,561 2,932,561 33,324,492 FUNDING SOURCES: Water Fund 4,124,363 4,220,000 5,465,000 5,582,561 5,292,561 2,932,561 27,617,046 PWiF Loan 1,077,945 - - - - - 1,077,945 Bond Proceeds 4,629,501 - - - - - 4,629,501 Total Funding 9,831,809 4,220,000 5,465,000 5,582,561 5,292,561 2,932,561 33,324,492 Capital Projects 9,831,809 4,220,000 5,465,000 5,582,561 5,292,561 2,932,561 33,324,492 99 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (430) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Well Improvements Project No: cp0915 Project Type: Capacity Project Manager Lee Description: Hydro geologic evaluation of existing well conditions,construction of transmission main to Howard Road Corrosion Control Treatment Facility for aeration,and construction of building improvements to house chlorine disinfection equipment and an emergency generator Progress Summary: Transmission main is complete. Well improvements will bid in 2013 with construction completed in 2014 Future Impact on The annual maintenance cost is estimated to be approximately$1,800. Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue 437,274 118,266 1,311,914 - 1,867,454 Unrestncted Storm Revenue - 830,005 - - 830,005 Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other(PWTF loan) 2,247,055 1,077,945 3.325.000 Total Funding Sources 437,274 3,196,326 2,389,859 - 6,022,459 Capital Expenditures: Design 417,539 250,000 - - 667,539 Right of Way - - - - - Envlronmental 920 - - - 920 Construction 18,815 2,945,326 2,389,859 5,354.000 Total Expenditures: 437,274 3,195,326 2,389,869 - 6,022,469 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestncted Water Revenue - - - - 1,311,914 Unrestricted Stomr Revenue - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other(PWTFloam - 1,077,945 Total Funding Sources: - - - - 2,389,869 Capital Expenditures: Design _ _ _ _ Right of Way - - - - - Construction 2,389,859 Total Expenditures: - - - - 2,389,869 Grants/Other Sources: 100 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (430) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Fulmer Well Field Improvements Project No: cp1107 Project Type. Capacity Project Manager Fenhaus /Vondrak Description. Evaluate Wells 2,6 and 7 and the Fulmer Field Corrosion Control Treatment Facility to assess the supply and treatment capacity of the epsbng facilities and infrastructure. The evaluation will include an assessment of individual and total well supply capacities, along wth a review of the treatment facility operating and control parameters. The evaluation will also incorporate recommendations for facility improvements. Progress Summary: Study is being conducted Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant impact. Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue 2,855 - 1,109,999 - 1,112,854 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds 96,196 1,218,803 640,001 - 1,955,000 Other Total Funding Sources: 99,051 1,218,803 1,750,000 - 3,067,854 Capital Expenditures: Design 99,051 1,218,803 - - 1,317,854 Right or Way - - - - - Construction 1,750,000 1,750,000 Total Expenditures: 99,051 1,218,803 1,750,000 - 3,067,854 Forecasted Project Cost: Tota 1 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue - 1,000,000 4,000,000 - 6,109,999 Grants(Fed.State,Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - 640,001 Other - Total Funding Sources: - 1,000,000 4,000,000 - 6,750,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 1,000,000 - - 1,000,000 Right or Way - - - - - Construction 4,000,000 5,750,000 Total Expenditures: - 1,000,000 4,000,000 - 6,750,000 Grants/Other Sources: 101 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (430) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Enterprise Funds Project Title Cascade Water Alliance Water Purchase Project No: cpXXXX Project Type: Capacity Project Manager TBD Description: Financing to purchase water from adjacent purveyors to meet projected demand based on agreements Wth Cascade Water Alliance Council approved the agreements for permanent and reserve whosale supply in September 2013. Progress Summary: Planned Future Impact on Operating Budget: None Budget: 2013 YTO Actual 2014 2013Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments Ad/usted Budget - - - - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue - - - - - Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other Total Funding Sources: - - - - - Capital Expenditures: Water Supply Charges - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Constmction Total Expenditures: - - - - - Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestncted Water Revenue - 532,561 532,561 532,561 1,597,683 Giants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other Total Funding Sources: - 532,561 532,561 532,561 1,597,683 Capital Expenditures: Water Supply Charges - 532,561 532,561 532,561 1,597,683 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - Total Expenditures: - 532,561 532,561 532,561 1,597,683 Grants/Other Sources: 102 City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (430) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2014-2019 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Academy Pump Station #1 Pump Replacement Project No cpXXXX Project Type Capacity Project Manager TBD Description: Increase the pump station capacity to meet peak demands and fire Flow requirements Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant impact. Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures - Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 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 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue 925,000 1,200,000 - - 2,125,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - Total Funding Sources: 925,000 1,200,000 - - 2,125,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 425,000 - - - 425,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construchon 500,000 1,200,000 - - 1,700,000 Total Expenditures: 925,000 1,200,000 - - 2,125,000 Grants/Other Sources. 103 City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (430) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2014-2019 Enterprise Funds Project Title Green River PS Emergency Power Project No cpXXXX Project Type. Non-Capacity Project Manager TBD Description: Construction of facility improvements to house an emergency generator and associated electrical equipment. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost is estimated to be approximately$600. Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue - - - 90,000 - Grants(Fed State,Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - - Total Funding Sources: - - - 90,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - 90,000 - Right of Way - - - - - Construction Total Expenditures: - - - 90,000 - Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue 600,000 - - 690,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - - Total Funding Sources: 600,000 - - - 690,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - 90,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction 600,000 - 600,000 Total Expenditures: 600,000 - - - 690,000 Grants/Other Sources 104 City of Aubw-n Draft Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (430) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Enterprise Funds Project rue Well 4 Power and Chlorination Project No: c512a0 Project Type Non-Capacity Project Manager Wickstrorn Description: Construct a new building at the Well 4 site to house a diesel-fueled standby generator and new hypochlorite disinfection equipment. Progress Summary: Design will be complete and project will bid in 2013 with construction completed in 2014 Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost is estimated to be approximately$600. Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - Adjusted Budget - - - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue 7,138 172,450 - 179,588 Grants (Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds 32,309 247,691 919,000 - 1,199,000 Other - Total Funding Sources: 39,447 247,691 1,091,450 - 1,378,588 Capital Expenditures: Design 39,447 210,000 - - 249,447 Right of Way - - - - - Construction 37,691 1,091,450 1,129,141 Total Expenditures: 39,447 247,691 1,091,450 - 1,378,588 Forecasted Project Cost: Tots I 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue - - - - 172,450 Grants (Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - 919,000 Other - Total Funding Sources: - - - - 1,091,450 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - 1,091,450 Total Expenditures: - - - - 1,091,450 Grants/Other Sources. 105 City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (430) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Well 5 Upgrade Project No. cp0624 Project Type: Non-Capacity Project Manager TBR Description: Construct anew well facility meeting current electrical and safety codes The project will include emergency backup power and disinfection capability Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost is estimated to be approximately$1,800 Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue - - - 400,000 - Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - - - Total Funding Sources: - - - 400,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - 400,000 400,000 Right or Way - - - - - Construchon - - - - - Total Expenditures: - - - 400,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue 1,500,000 - - 1,900,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other Total Funding Sources: 1,500,000 - - - 1,900,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - 400,000 Right of Way - - - - - Constructlon 1,500,000 1,500,000 Total Expenditures: 1,500,000 - - - 1,900,000 Grants/Other Sources 106 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (430) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2014-2019 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Well Inspection and Redevelopment Program Project No cpxxxx Project Type, Non-Capacity Project Manager TBD Description. Program for inspection and redevelopment of supply wells and springs necessary to ensure production at maximum capacity for efficient utilization. Progress Summary: Planned Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant impact. Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - Budget Amendments - - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue - - 150,000 - Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - Other Total Funding Sources: - - - 150,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design - - 20,000 - Right of Way - - - - - Construction 130,000 Total Expenditures: - - - 160,000 - Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue - 150,000 - - 300,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other Total Funding Sources: - 150,000 - - 300,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 20,000 - - 40,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction 130,000 260,000 Total Expenditures: - 150,000 - - 300,000 Grants/Other Sources 107 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (430) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Water Repair & Replacements Project No CpXXXX Project Type Non-Capacity (R&R) Project Manager Various Description: 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 2014-2015 budget will be used for the Lea Hill AC Main Replacement project. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant impact. Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestncted Water Revenue - - 150,000 1,500,000 150,000 Grants(Fed,,State,Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other Total Funding Sources: - - 150,000 1,500,000 150,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right or Way - - - - - Construction 150,000 1,500,000 150,000 Total Expenditures: - - 150,000 1,500,000 150,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Tota I 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources Unrestricted Water Revenue 200,000 1,700,000 260,000 1,900,000 5,710,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other Total Funding Sources: 200,000 1,700,000 260,000 1,900,000 5,710,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 200,000 - 260,000 - 460,000 Right or Way - - - - - Construction - 1,700,000 1,900,000 5,250,000 Total Expenditures: 200,000 1,700,000 260,000 1,900,000 5,710,000 Grants/Other Sources: 108 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (430) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Enterprise Funds ProjectTtle: Lakeland Hills Reservoir 5 Improvements Project No cp0765 Project Type: Non-Capacity Project Manager Ryan Vondrak Description: Paint the interior and exterior to preserve the life of the reservoir, add mixing equipment for improved water quality and safety improvements including seismic isolation valve and new ladder Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant Impact Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - - - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue 43,334 - - - 43,334 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - 24,500 725,500 - 750,000 Other Total Funding Sources: 43,334 24,500 725,600 - 793,334 Capital Expenditures: Design 43,334 24,500 55,500 - 123,334 Right of Way - - - - - Construction 670,000 670,000 Total Expenditures: 43,334 24,500 725,500 - 793,334 Forecasted Project Cost: Tots I 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue - - - - - Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - 725,500 Other Total Funding Sources: - - - - 725,500 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 55,500 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - 670,000 Total Expenditures: - - - - 725,500 Grants/Other Sources 109 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (430) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Comprehensive Water Plan Project No. cpXXXX Project Type: Non-Capacity Project Manager LaMothe Description: Update the Comprehensive Water Plan as required by Washington State Department of Health. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant impact. Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unmstncted Water Revenue - 3,827 330,000 333,827 Grants (Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other Total Funding Sources: - 3,827 330,000 - 333,827 Capital Expenditures: Design - 3,827 330,000 333,827 Right of Way - - - - Consbachon Total Expenditures: - 3,827 330,000 - 333,827 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestncted Water Revenue - - - - 330,000 Grants(Fed.State,Local) - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - Total Funding Sources: - - - - 330,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 330,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - Total Expenditures: - - - - 330,000 Grants/Other Sources 110 Citv of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (430) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Enterprise Funds Project Title Well 7 Emergency Power Project No cpXXXX Project Type Non-Capacity Project Manager TBD Description: Provide a generator for backup power to reliably meet demands in the Valley service area. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost is estimated to be approximately$600. Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - Budget Amendments - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue - - 75,000 - Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other Total Funding Sources: - - - 75,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - 75,000 - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - Total Expenditures: - - - 75,000 - Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Umestncted Water Revenue 440,000 - - 515,000 Grants(Fed,State.Locah - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - Total Funding Sources: 440,000 - - - 515,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - 75,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction 440,000 - 440,000 Total Expenditures: 440,000 - - - 515,000 Grants/Other Sources' jlj City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (430) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2014-2019 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Maintenance & Operations Facility Improvements Project No. cpXXXX Project Type Non-Capacity Project Manager TBD Description: Improvements to M&O facilities and operations including remodel the existing building. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant impact Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue - - 220,000 - 220,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - Total Funding Sources: - - 220,000 - 220,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - 40,000 - 40,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction 180,000 180,000 Total Expenditures: - - 220,000 - 220,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Tots I 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue - - - - 220,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other Total Funding Sources: - - - - 220,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 40,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - 180,000 Total Expenditures: - - - - 220,000 Grants/Other Sources: 112 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (430) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2014-2019 Enterprise Funds Project Title. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Master Meters Project No. cpXXXX Project Type Non-Capacity Project Manager TBD Description: Install master meters to Muckleshoot Indian Tribe properties to ease account administration. Progress Summary, Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant impact. Budget: 2013 YTO Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - - - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue - - 80,000 400,000 80,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other Total Funding Sources: - - 80,000 400,000 80,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - 80,000 - 80,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction 400,000 Total Expenditures: - - 80,000 400,000 80,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unmstncted Water Revenue 400,000 - - - 880,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other Total Funding Sources: 400,000 - - - 880,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 80,000 Right of Way - - - - - Constructlon 400,000 800,000 Total Expenditures: 400,000 - - - 880,000 Grants/Other Sources 113 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (430) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Street Utility Improvements Project No: cpXXXX Project Type: Non-Capacity Project Manager TBD Description: Water main Improvements in coordination with the Save our Streets(SOS) program and general arterial street improvements. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant impact Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - - - Adjusted Budget - - - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue - 600,000 500,000 500,000 1,100,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - Total Funding Sources: - 600,000 500,000 500,000 1,100,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 50,000 50,000 50,000 100,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - 550,000 450,000 450,000 1,000,000 Total Expenditures: - 600,000 500,000 500,000 1,100,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 3,000,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - - - - Total Funding Sources: 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 3,000,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 300,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction 450,000 450,000 450,000 450,000 2,700,000 Total Expenditures: 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 3,000,000 Grants/Other Sources 114 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (430) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Enterprise Funds Project Title Lea Hill PRV Station Improvements Project No: cpXXXX Project Type: Non-Capacity Project Manager TBD Description: Replace pressure reducing valve stations in the Lea Hill area P?ogress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant impact. Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue - - - 50,000 - Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - Other Total Funding Sources: - - - 50,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - 50,000 - Right of Way - - - - - Construction Total Expenditures: - - - 50,000 - Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue 400,000 - - - 450,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other Total Funding Sources: 400,000 - - - 450,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 50,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction 400,000 400,000 Total Expenditures: 400,000 - - - 450,000 Grants/Other Sources 115 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (430) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Water Meter & Billing System Improvements Project No cpxxxX Project Type. Non-Capacity Project Manager TBD Description: Conduct a study to determine which recent improvements in automated metering technology,generally referred to as Advanced Metering Infrastructure(AMI),would best benefit the City and construct selected improvements. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant impact Budget: 2013 YTO Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue - - - 500,000 - Grants(Fed,State,Locat) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - 500,000 - 500,000 Other Total Funding Sources: - - 500,000 500,000 500,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - 80,000 - 80,000 Right of Way - - - - ConsM,ction 420,000 500,000 420,000 Total Expenditures: - - 500,000 500,000 500,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue 500,000 500,000 - - 1,500,000 Grants(Fed,State.Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - 500,000 Other Total Funding Sources: 500,000 500,000 - - 2,000,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 80,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction 500,000 500,000 - 1,920,000 Total Expenditures: 500,000 500,000 - - 2,000,000 Grants/Other Sources 116 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (430) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Utilities Field Operations Center Project No: CPXXXX Project Type: Non-Capacity Project Manager TBD Description: Construct building for utilities field staff use and storage of field equipment Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant impact Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Un2stncted Water Revenue - - 100,000 - Grants(Fed.State,Local) - - - - - PWTFL - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - Total Funding Sources: - - - 100,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - 30,000 - Right of Way - - - - - Constwchon - 70.000 Total Expenditures: - - - 100,000 - Forecasted Project Cost: Tote I 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue - - - - 100,000 Grants(Fed.State,Local) - - - - - PWTFL - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - Total Funding Sources: - - - - 100,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 30,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construchon - - - 70,000 Total Expenditures: - - - - 100,000 Grants/Other Sources 117 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (430) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2014-2019 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Valley AC Main Replacement Project No CP1219 Project Type Non-Capacity Project Manager Truong Description: Distribution system repair and replacement project required for meeting peak demands and reducing system losses. Projects will replace AC Main in the Valley service area. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant impact Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue - - - - - Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - PWTFL - - - - - Bond Proceeds 32,238 272,762 1,165,000 1,470,000 Total Funding Sources: 32,238 272,762 1,165,000 - 1,470,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 32,238 80,000 - - 112,238 Right of Way - - - - - Construction 192,762 1,165,000 - 1,357,762 Total Expenditures: 32,238 272,762 1,165,000 - 1,470,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue - - - - - Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - PWTFL - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - 1,165,000 Total Funding Sources: - - - - 1,165,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - 1,165,000 Total Expenditures: - - - - 1,165,000 Grants/Other Sources. 118 City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (430) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2014-2019 Enterprise Funds Project Title: BNSF Utility Crossing Project No cp1308 Project Type: Non-Capacity Project Manager Jacob Sweeting Description: Water main inprovements required priorto BNSF rail expansion project Progress Summary, Design started. Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant impact. Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - Budget Amendments - - - Ad)usted Budget - - - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue - - - - Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - PWTFL - - - - - Bond Proceeds - 100,000 680,000 - 780,000 Total Funding Sources: - 100,000 680,000 - 780,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 100,000 - - 100,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - 680,000 - 680,000 Total Expenditures: - 100,000 680,000 - 780,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestncted Water Revenue - - - - - Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - PWTFL - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - 680,000 Total Funding Sources: - - - - 680,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right ofWay - - - - Construction - - - - 680,000 Total Expenditures: - - - - 680,000 Grants/Other Sources 119 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (430) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Enterprise Funds Project Title SCADA Upgrades Project No: c524a0 Project Type: Non-Capacity (Improvements) Project Manager Lee Description: Upgrade the existing Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition(SCADA)system, also known as the Telemetry system,to replace obsolete components and allow for improved control of the water utility facilities. Progress Summary: 80 percent of telemetry upgrades are complete. Physical site improvements phase is scheduled for contract bidding during the 4th quarter of 2013. Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant impact Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - Budget Amendments - - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue 711,038 426,406 100,000 - 1,237,444 Grants (Fed,State,Local) - - - - - BondPmceeds 1,744,778 - - - 1,744,778 Other - Total Funding Sources: 2,455,816 426,406 100,000 - 2,982,222 Capital Expenditures: Design 193,711 - - - 193,711 Right of Way - - - - Construction 2,262,105 425,405 100,000 2,788,511 Total Expenditures: 2,455,816 426,406 100,000 - 2,982,222 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue - - - - 100,000 Grants(Fed,State,Locap - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - Total Funding Sources: - - - - 100,000 Capital Expenditures: Design _ _ _ _ _ Right of Way - - - - - Construction 100,000 Total Expenditures: - - - - 100,000 Grants/Other Sources 120 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (430) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Enterprise Funds Project Title: West Hill Springs Improvements Protect No: cpxxxx Project Type. Non-Capacity Project Manager: TBD Description: Install Flow control valve for automatic shutdown and upgrade disinfection system. This project was identified during the Department,of Health Sanitary Survey as a health and safety concern. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant impact Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue - - 150,000 455,000 150,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - PWTFL - - - - - Bond Proceeds Total Funding Sources: - - 150,000 455,000 150,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - 150,000 - 150,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction 455.000 Total Expenditures: - - 150,000 455,000 150,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue - - - - 605,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - PWTFL - - - - - Bond Proceeds Total Funding Sources: - - - - 605,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 150.000 Right of Way - - - - - Constmction 455.000 Total Expenditures: - - - - 605,000 Grants/Other Sources: 121 City of Auburn Di-aft Capital Facilities Plan TABLE W-3 Impact on Future Operating Budgets WATER Project: 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total 1 Well l Improvements $ 1,800 $ 1,800 $ 1,800 $ 1,800 $ 1,800 $ 1,800 $ 10,800 2 Fulmer Well Field Improvements 3 Cascade Water Alliance Water Purchase 4 Academy Pump Station#1 _ _ - _ _ Replacement 5 Green River Pump Station - - 600 600 600 600 2,400 Emergency Power 6 Well 4 Power and Chlorination 600 600 600 600 600 600 3,600 7 Well 5 Upgrade - - 1,800 1,800 11800 1,800 7,200 8 Well Inspection and _ _ - Redevelopment Program 9 Water Repair 8 Replacement - - - - - - - 10 Lakeland Hills Reservoir 5 Improvements 11 Comprehensive Water Plan - - - - - - - 12 Well 7 Emergency Power - - 600 600 600 600 2,400 13 Maintenance S Operations _ _ - - _ Facility Improvements 14 MITMaster Meters - - - - - - 15 Street Utility Improvements - - - - - - - 16 Lea Hill PRVStation Improvements 17 Water Meter 8 Billing System Improvements 18 Utilities Field Operations - Center 19 Valley AC Main Replacement - - - - - - - 20 BNSF Utility Crossing - - - - - - - 21 SCADA Upgrades - - - - - - - 22 West Hill Springs Improvement - - - - - - - Total $ 2,400 $ 2,400 $ 5,400 $ 5,400 $ 5,400 $ 5,400 $ 26,400 122 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan SANITARY SEWER Current Facilities The City's sanitary sewer service area encompasses approximately 28-square miles which are primarily within the City limits, but includes a total of approximately '/3 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 219 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 must 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. Anticipated improvements include upgrades and additions to the utility's maintenance facilities and the construction of a sewer decant facility The City of Auburn's sewer system anticipates costs for six non-capacity projects totaling $8,645,000 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 2015 — 2020 123 City ofAubz{rn Draft Capital Facilities Plan TABLE S-1 Facilities Inventory Sewage Facilities CAPACITY FACILITY (MGD) LOCATION Pump Stations: 8th Street 0.26 J Street NE & 8th St. NE 22nd Street 079 22nd Street SE & Riverview Drive Area 19 047 Lake Tapps Pkwy E & West of 72nd Street SE Auburn 40 0.63 O Place NE D Street 058 D Street NE & Auburn Way N Dogwood 0.43 Dogwood Street SE 1500 & 15th Street SE Ellingson 2.20 41st St. SE & East of A Street SE F Street 086 F Street SE & 17th Street SE North Tapps 073 Lake Tapps Pkwy E & West of 176th Avenue E Peasley Ridge 036 S 320th Street & 53rd Avenue S R Street 014 R Street NE & 6th Street NE Rainier Ridge 0.29 125th Place SE & South of SE 318th Way Riverside 058 8th Street NE & 104th Avenue SE Terrace View 0.94 E Valley Hwy E & North of Terrace View Dr SE Valley Meadows 0.18 4th Street SE & V Street SE Verdana 2.88 4th Avenue S FACILITY Pipe Size LOCATION River Crossings: Inverted Syphon 8 & 12 Inch Green River & 26th Street NE 8th Street Bridge 14 Inch Green River & 8th Street NE 124 City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan TABLE S-2 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN PROJECTS AND FINANCING SANITARY SEWER DIVISION 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total Capacity Protects: None Non-Capacity Projects: 1 Sanitary Sewer Repair B Replacement Capital Costs 300,000 1,930,000 2,250,000 310,000 1,500,000 310,000 6,600,000 Funding Sources Sewer Fund 300,000 1,930,000 2,250,000 310,000 1,500,000 310,000 6,600,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - 2 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 - - - - - - - 3 Vector Decant Facility Capital Costs 270,000 - - - - - 270,000 Funding Sources. Sewer Fund 270,000 - - - - - 270,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - 4 Maintenance and Operations Facility Expansion Capital Costs 200,000 - - - - - 200,000 Funding Sources Sewer Fund 200,000 - - - - - 200,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 5 Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update Capital Costs 275,000 - - - - - 275,000 Funding Sources Sewer Fund 275,000 - - - - - 275,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - 6 Utilities Feld Operation Center Capital Costs - 100,000 - - - - 100,000 Funding Sources Sewer Fund - 100,000 - - - - 100,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - Subtotal,Non-Capacity Projects: Capital Costs 1,245,000 2,230,000 2,450,000 510,000 1,700,000 510,000 8,645,000 SUMMARY: CAPITAL COSTS Capacity Projects - - - - - - - Non-Capacity Projects 1,245,000 2,230,000 2,450,000 510,000 1,700,000 510,000 8,645,000 Total Costs 1,245,000 2,230,000 2,450,000 510,000 1,700,000 510,000 8,645,000 FUNDING SOURCES: Utility Funds (Serer) 1,245,000 2,230,000 2,450,000 510,000 1,700,000 510,000 8,645,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - Total Funding 1,245,000 2,230,000 2,450,000 510,000 1,700,000 510,000 8,645,000 125 City ofAliburn Di-aft Capital Facilities Plan SEWER FUND (431) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Enterprise Funds Project Title Sanitary Sewer Repair & ReplacemenUSystem Improvements Project No: cpXXXX 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. Additionally, system improvements which enhance the ability to maintain service are included here. Progress Summary: Anticipated projects for 2014-2019 include 1 Manhole frame and cover replacements. 2. Biennial Repair and Replacement Project Future Impact on Operating Budget: This should decrease the operating budget by correcting the problems that require operation staff s attention. Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - Budget Amendments - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: (Premous 2 Yrs) 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unmstncted Seuer Revenue 1,733,724 1,430,000 300,000 1,930,000 3,463,724 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - Total Funding Sources: 1,733,724 1,430,000 300,000 1,930,000 3,463,724 Capital Expenditures: Design 260,059 143,000 250,000 386,000 653,059 Right of Way - - - - Construction 1,473,725 1,287,000 50,000 1,544,000 2,810,725 Total Expenditures: 1,733,784 1,430,000 300,000 1,930,000 3,463,764 Forecasted Project Cost: Tots I 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestncted Seuer Revenue 2,250,000 310,000 1,500,000 310,000 6,600,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - - Total Funding Sources: 2,250,000 310,000 1,500,000 310,000 6,600,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 225,000 250,000 150,000 250,000 1,511,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction 2,025,000 60,000 1,350,000 60,000 5,089,000 Total Expenditures: 2,250,000 310,000 1,500,000 310,000 6,600,000 Grants/Other Sources 126 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan SEWER FUND (431) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Street Utility Improvements Project No: cpXXXX Project Type: Non Capacity Project Manager TBD Description: Sewer line replacement in coordination with the Save our Streets(SOS)program and Arterial improvements. Progress Summary: Ongoing Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant Impact Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - - - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: (Previous 2 Yrs) 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Sewer Revenue 148,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 548,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - Total Funding Sources: 148,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 548,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 14,800 20,000 20,000 20,000 54,800 Right of Way - - - - - Construction 133,200 180,000 180,000 180,000 493,200 Total Expenditures: 148,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 548,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestncted 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 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 Grants/Other Sources. 127 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan SEWER FUND (431) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Enterprise Funds Project Title, Vactor Decant Facility Project No: cpxxxx Project Type: Non-Capacity (Improvements) Protect Manager TBD Description: Funds allocated to construct a decant facility or expand the existing M&O decant facility for sewer vector waste. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: This protect would decrease the future operating budget by reducing the expenses associated with sending waste to a landfill Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - -Budget Amendments - - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Sever Revenue - - 270,000 - 270,000 Grants(Fed.State,Locah - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - - Total Funding Sources: - - 270,000 - 270,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - 70,000 - 70,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction 200,000 200,000 Total Expenditures: - - 270,000 - 270,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total I 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Settler Revenue - - - - 270,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: - - - - 270,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 70,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - 200,000 Total Expenditures: - - - - 270,000 Grants/Other Sources 128 Citv of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan SEWER FUND (431) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Maintenance and Operations Facility Expansion Project No. cpxxxx Project Type Non-Capacity (Improvements) Project Manager TBD Description: Funds allocated to expand the exjsting M&O building into a more functional and maintainable facility. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Sener Revenue - - 200,000 - 200,000 Grants(Fed,State.Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other Total Funding Sources: - - 200,000 - 200,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - 40,000 - 40,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction 160,000 160,000 Total Expenditures: - - 200,000 - 200,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Tota I 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Sever Revenue - - - - 200,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other Total Funding Sources: - - - - 200,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 40,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construchon 160,000 Total Expenditures: - - - - 200,000 Grants/Other Sources 129 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan SEWER FUND (431) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Enterprise Funds Project Title Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update Project No CpXXXX Project Type: Non-Capacity (Improvements) Project Manager TBD Description: Update the Comprehensive Sewer Plan to be consistent with the City's overall Comprehensive Plan update as required by the State of Washington. Progress Summary: The project's scope and budget are being prepared,with work to begin in September,2013 Future Impact on Operating Budget: None Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - - - Adjusted Budget - - - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Serer Revenue - 75,000 275,000 - 350,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other Total Funding Sources: - 75,000 275,000 - 350,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 75,000 275,000 - 350,000 Right or Way - - - - - Construction Total Expenditures: - 75,000 275,000 - 350,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Sewer Revenue - - - - 275,000 Grants(Fed,,State,local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - - Total Funding Sources: - - - - 275,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 275,000 Right or Way - - - - - Construetion - - Total Expenditures: - - - - 275,000 Grants/Other Sources: 130 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan SEWER FUND (431) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Enterprise Funds Project Title Utilities Field Operation Center Project No. cpxxxx Project Type. Non-Capacity (Improvements) Project Manager TBD Description: Construct building for utilities field staff use and storage of field equipment Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: Impacts to the operating budget will be analyzed and calculated once the timing of expenses is determined Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Sewer Revenue - - - 100,000 - Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other Total Funding Sources: - - - 100,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - 30,000 - Right of Way - - - - Constmction 70,000 Total Expenditures: - - - 100,000 - Forecasted Project Cost: Tote I 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Sewer Revenue - - - - 100,000 Grants(Fed,,State,Locah - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - Other Total Funding Sources: - - - - 100,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 30,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - 70,000 Total Expenditures: - - - - 100,000 Grants/Other Sources 131 City ofAnburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan CITY OF BAJ RN 'A.u- MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED 132 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 anticipates one capacity projects in the amount of $543,600, 15 non-capacity projects totaling $14,913,088 for a six-year planning expectation total of $15,456,688. 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 2015 — 2020 133 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan TABLE SDA Facilities Inventory Storm Drainage Facilities CAPACITY Feet of Feet of FACILITY Acres Pipeline Open Channels LOCATION Drainage Basins: A 562 36,300 1,200 See City ofAubum's AA 408 17,600 17,100 Comprehensive Drainage AAA 296 3,100 5,300 Plan, Dec. 2009 AZ 777 53,400 14,200 B 864 94,400 0 BB 15 1,700 0 BBB 73 0 0 C 836 75,900 5,600 CC 242 1,400 0 CCC 976 56,400 12,900 D 168 18,900 400 DD 231 0 0 DDD 61 4,000 0 E 692 59,400 19,400 EE 600 3,900 0 F 83 9,600 0 FF 411 3,600 900 G 137 18,800 0 GG 190 4,900 3,100 H 559 40,000 4,600 HH 392 0 0 HV 66 5,200 0 1 241 35,300 7,100 11 305 0 0 J 257 5,000 1,100 JJ 1,170 26,600 17,200 K 266 15,100 700 KK 391 0 0 L 87 12,900 600 LL 198 100 1,600 LS 1,138 48,800 0 M 553 32,400 9,900 MM 332 1,900 1,200 N 126 9,800 0 NN 588 11,100 900 NNN 175 400 0 O 176 16,900 3,600 00 1,397 28,500 8,900 P 189 7,800 3,100 PP 110 1,600 0 PPP 161 3,400 4,500 QQ 334 11,400 3,300 134 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan TABLE SD-1 (continued) Facilities Inventory Storm Drainage Facilities CAPACITY Feet of Feet of FACILITY Acres Pipeline Open Channels LOCATION R 55 7,200 0 RR 249 11,600 4,700 S 273 13,700 2,200 SS 333 20,900 2,700 T 699 78,300 1,400 TT 135 3,000 0 U 365 9,800 0 UU 453 14,200 700 V 598 19,700 10,100 W 287 30,300 2,400 WC 65 7,900 0 WW 71 1,100 500 X 40 3,600 0 YY 327 23,200 5,600 YYY 105 0 0 Z 70 9,700 0 ZZ 949 47,400 17,400 ZZZ 237 0 0 Total 22,144 1,079,100 196,100 FACILITY (GPM) LOCATION Pump Stations: White Rlvef 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 135 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan TABLE SD-2 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN PROJECTS AND FINANCING STORM DRAINAGE DIVISION 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total Capacity Projects: 1 Bypass at 2nd and G Street SE Capital Costs 90,600 453,000 - - - - 543,600 Funding Sources Stone Fund 90,600 453,000 - - - - 543,600 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - Subtotal Capacity Projects: Capital Costs 90,600 453,000 - - - - 543,600 Non-Capacity Projects: 2 Pipeline Repair/Replacements Capital Costs 200,000 1,000,000 200,000 1,000,000 200,000 1,000,000 3,600,000 Funding Sources Storm Fund 200,000 1,000,000 200,000 1,000,000 200,000 1,000,000 3,600,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 3 Auburn Way South Flooding,Phase 1 &2 Capital Costs 1,338,000 - - - - - 1,338,000 Funding Sources Storm Fund - - - - - - - Bond Proceeds 1,338,000 - - - - - 1,338,000 4 30th Street NE Area Flooding,Phase 1 Capital Costs 1,939,588 - - - - - 1,939,588 Funding Sources: Storm Fund 242,588 - - - - - 242,588 Bond Proceeds 1,697,000 - - - - - 1,697,000 5 30th Street NE Area Flooding,Phase 2 Capital Costs 75,000 595,000 - - - - 670,000 Funding Sources Storm Fund 75,000 595,000 - - - - 670,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 6 30th Street NE Area Flooding,Phase 3 Capital Costs - - - - 200,000 954,000 1,154,000 Funding Sources Storm Fund - - - - 200,000 954,000 1,154,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 7 West Main Street Pump Station Upgrade Capital Costs - - 1,135,000 - - - 1,135,000 Funding Sources Storm Fund - - 1,135,000 - - - 1,135,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 8 Street Utility Improvements Capital Costs 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,200,000 Funding Sources. Storm Fund 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,200,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 136 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan TABLE SD-2 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total Non-Capacity Projects: 9 Maintenance&Operations Expansion Capital Costs 200,000 - - - - - 200,000 Funding Sources. Storm Fund 200,000 - - - - - 200,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 10 Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan Update Capital Costs 175,000 - - - - - 175,000 Funding Sources Storm Fund 175,000 - - - - - 175,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 11 Mill Creek Wetland 5K Reach Restoration Capital Costs 825,000 351,500 - - - - 1,176,500 Funding Sources Storm Fund 500,000 - - - - - 500,000 Grants 325,000 351,500 - - - - 676,500 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 12 Eastridge Manor Outfall Replacement Capital Costs 535,000 - - - - - 535,000 Funding Sources Storm Fund 535,000 - - - - - 535,000 Grants - - - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 13 BNSF Utilities Crossing Capital Costs 420,000 - - - - - 420,000 Funding Sources. Storm Fund - - - - - - - Grants - - - - - - Bond Proceeds 420,000 - - - - - 420,000 14 Composting Facility Capital Costs - - 1,000,000 - - - 1,000,000 Funding Sources Storm Fund - - 1,000,000 - - - 1,000,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 15 Utilities Field Operations Center Capital Costs - 100,000 - - - - 100,000 Funding Sources Storm Fund - 100,000 - - - - 100,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 16 Vactor Decant Facility Capital Costs 270,000 - - - - - 270,000 Funding Sources. Storm Fund 270,000 - - - - - 270,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 137 Ciry ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan TABLE SD-2 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total Subtotal Non-Capacity Projects: Capital Costs 6,177,588 2,246,500 2,535,000 1,200,000 600,000 2,154,000 14,913,088 SUMMARY CAPITAL COSTS Capacity Projects 90,600 453,000 - - - - 543,600 Non-Capacity Projects 6,177,588 2,246,500 2,535,000 1,200,000 600,000 2,154,000 14,913,088 Total Costs 6,268,188 2,699,500 2,535,000 1,200,000 600,000 2,154,000 15,456,688 FINDING SOURCES: Storm Fund 2,488,188 2,348,000 2,535,000 1,200,000 600,000 2,154,000 11,325,188 Grants 325,000 351,500 - - - - 676,500 Bond Proceeds 3,455,000 - - - - - 3,455,000 Total Funding 6,268,188 2,699,500 2,535,000 1,200,000 600,000 2,154,000 152456,688 138 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan STORM DRAINAGE FUND (432) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Bypass at 2nd and G Street SE Project No: cpxxxx Project Type Capacity Project Manager TBD Description: This project wnll install a parallel bypass pipe to convey upstream flows around a localized low spot located at 2nd and G Street SE. The exsting line wit serve to drain the localized low spot Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant impact. Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Storm Revenue - - 90,600 453,000 90,600 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other Total Funding Sources: - - 90,600 453,000 90,600 Capital Expenditures: Design - - 90,600 453,000 90,600 Right of Way - - - - - Construction Total Expenditures: - - 90,600 453,000 90,600 Forecasted Project Cost: Tots 1 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Storm Revenue - - - - 543,600 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other Total Funding Sources: - - - - 543,600 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 543,600 Right of Way - - - - - Construcfion Total Expenditures: - - - - 543,600 Grants/Other Sources: 139 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan STORM DRAINAGE FUND (432) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Enterprise Funds Project Title. Pipeline Repair & Replacement Program Project No: cpXXXX Project Type: Non-Capacity Project Manager TBD Description: Projects identified as those requiring replacement of existing infrastructure. These projects support street repairs and other utility replacement programs, requiring coordination Progress Summary: - Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant impact Budget: 2013 YiD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Storm Revenue - 1,000,000 200,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other Total Funding Sources: - 1,000,000 200,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 150,000 24,000 150,000 174,000 Right of Way - - - - - constmction 850,000 176,000 850,000 1,026,000 Total Expenditures: - 1,000,000 200,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Tots I 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Storm Revenue 200,000 1,000,000 200,000 1,000,000 3,600,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - - Total Funding Sources: 200,000 1,000,000 200,000 1,000,000 3,600,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 24,000 120,000 24,000 120,000 462,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction 176,000 880,000 176,000 880,000 3,138,000 Total Expenditures: 200,000 1,000,000 200,000 1,000,000 3,600,000 Grants/Other Sources. 140 Citv ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan STORM DRAINAGE FUND (432) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Enterprise Funds Project Title Auburn Way South Flooding, Phase 1 & 2 Project No cp1202 Project Type: Non-Capacity Project Manager TBD Description: Construct conveyance improvement to 17th Street SE as part of Metro realignment project. Replace existing conveyance line from A Street SE to K Street SE and add an additional 7 ac-ft of storage within the existing A Street SE detention pond. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant impact. Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget - - - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Storm Revenue - - - - - Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Bond proceeds - 300,000 1,338,000 - 1,638,000 Other Total Funding Sources: - 300,000 1,338,000 - 1,638,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 300,000 - - 300,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction 1,338,000 - 1,338,000 Total Expenditures: - 300,000 1,338,000 - 1,638,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Storm Revenue - - - - Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - 1,338,000 Other Total Funding Sources: - - - - 1,338,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - 1,338,000 Total Expenditures: - - - - 1,338,000 Grants/Other Sources 141 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan STORM DRAINAGE FUND (432) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Enterprise Funds Project Title: 30th Street NE Area Flooding, Phase 1 Project No: cp1122 Project Type: Non-Capacity Project Manager TBD Description: This project would install a new storm drain from the NW corner of the airport property(MH 1107)to the existing Brannan Park storm pump station.This pipe would replace the existing 30-inch diameter pipe generally located along the 30th St NE alignment and the northerly boundary of Brannan Park by improving the conveyance system's hydraulic capacity, thereby reducing the potential for stormwater flooding into the street. • 3,820 feet of 42-in.-diameter gravity storm drain from the NW corner of airport property to the existing Brannan Park storm pump station • Removal of floatable capture baffles upstream of the Brannan Park pump station(these are not needed to protect the pumps and reduce the system's hydraulic capacity) Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant Impact. Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2016 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Storm Revenue - - 242,588 - 242,588 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - 1,000,000 1,697,000 - 2,697,000 Other Total Funding Sources: - 1,000,000 1,939,588 - 2,939,588 Capital Expenditures: Design - 323,640 - - 323,640 Right or Way - - - - - Construction 676,360 1,939,588 - 2,615,948 Total Expenditures: - 1,000,000 1,939,588 - 2,939,688 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Storm Revenue - - - - 242,588 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - 1,697,000 Other Total Funding Sources: - - - - 1,939,688 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction 1,939,588 Total Expenditures: - - - - 1,939,588 Grants/Other Sources. 142 City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan STORM DRAINAGE FUND (432) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Enterprise Funds Project Title 30th Street NE Area Flooding, Phase 2 Project No: cpXXXX Project Type: Non-Capacity Project Manager TBD Description: Locate a storm drain line to capture stormwater from the two residential developments at the west edge of the former CRISTA Ministries property Currently, stormwater flows are discharged onto a depressed area on the CRISTA Ministries property where its infiltration is limited by high groundwater levels that occur during extended periods of high flows on the Green River This phase would construct a new storm drain within I St NE southward to connect Into the upgraded 42-Inch diameter(Phase 1)storm drain near the intersection at I St. NE and 30th St. NE The 42-inch diameter line would have sufficient available capacity to convey the I St NE flows. Key components of Phase 2 include: • 1,760 feet of 15-inch diameter gravity storm drain • Catch basin and incidental grading to collect stormwater at the upstream end of system Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant impact Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2016 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Storm Revenue - - 75,000 595,000 75,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other Total Funding Sources: - - 76,000 595,000 76,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - 75,000 - 75,000 Right of Way - - - - - COnstruction 595,000 Total Expenditures: - - 76,000 595,000 76,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Storm Revenue - - - - 670,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other Total Funding Sources: - - - - 670,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 75,000 Right of Way - - - - - Constrvction 595,000 Total Expenditures: - - - - 670,000 Grants/Other Sources 143 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan STORM DRAINAGE FUND (432) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 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 Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant impact. Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Storm Revenue - - - - - Grants(Fed.State,Local) - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - Other Total Funding Sources: - - - - - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Righto/Way - - - - construction - Total Expenditures: - - - - - Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Storm Revenue - - 200,000 954,000 1,154,000 Grants(Fed,State.Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other Total Funding Sources: - - 200,000 954,000 1,164,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - 200,000 - 200,000 Right of Way - - - - - construction 954,000 954,000 Total Expenditures: - - 200,000 954,000 1,164,000 Grants/Other Sources 144 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan STORM DRAINAGE FUND (432) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Enterprise Funds Project Title: West Main Street Pump Station Upgrade Project No: cpXXXX Project Type: Non-Capacity Project Manager TBD Description: This project wll update the existing pump station by providing a redundant pump and telemetry system meeting level of service goals. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant Impact Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Ste"Revenue - - - - - Grants(Fed,State.Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other Total Funding Sources: - - - - - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right orWay - - - - - Construction - Total Expenditures: - - - - - Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestncted Storm Revenue 1,135,000 - - - 1,135,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other Total Funding Sources: 1,135,000 - - - 1,135,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 150,000 - - - 150,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction 985,000 985,000 Total Expenditures: 1,135,000 Grants/Other Sources 145 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan STORM DRAINAGE FUND (432) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Street Utility Improvements Project No: cpXXXX Project Type. Non Capacity Project Manager TBD Description: Storm drainage conveyance improvements in coordination vnth Arterial and SOS improvements Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant Impact. Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: Premous 2 years 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Storm Revenue 233,367 308,500 200,000 200,000 741,867 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other Total Funding Sources: 233,367 308,600 200,000 200,000 741,867 Capital Expenditures: Design 15,296 46,280 30,000 30,000 91,576 Right or Way - - - - Construction 218,071 262,220 170,000 170,000 650,291 Total Expenditures: 233,367 308,500 200,000 200,000 741,867 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Storm Revenue 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,200,000 Grants (Fed,State,twat) - - - - - 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 Grants/Other Sources 146 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan STORM DRAINAGE FUND (432) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Maintenance and Operations Expansion Project No cpxxxx Project Type Non-Capacity (Improvement) Project Manager TBD Description: Funds allocated to remodel the existing M&O building into a more functional and maintainable facility Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: None Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - Adjusted Budget - - - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Sto"Revenue - - 200,000 - 200,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other Total Funding Sources: - - 200,000 - 200,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction 200,000 200,000 Total Expenditures: - - 200,000 - 200,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Stomr Revenue - - - - 200,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other Total Funding Sources: - - - - 200,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - 200,000 Total Expenditures: - - - - 200,000 Grants/Other Sources. 147 City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan STORM DRAINAGE FUND (432) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan Update Project No: cpxxxx Project Type: Non-Capacity Project Manager 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 Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: None Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestncted Storm Revenue - 175,000 175,000 - 350,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other Total Funding Sources: - 175,000 175,000 - 350,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 175,000 175,000 - 350,000 Right of Way - - - - - ConsWctlon Total Expenditures: - 175,000 175,000 - 350,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Tota I 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Storm Revenue - - - - 175,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other Total Funding Sources: - - - - 175,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 175,000 Right of Way - - - - Construction - - - Total Expenditures: - - - - 175,000 Grants/Other Sources: 148 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan STORM DRAINAGE FUND (432) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Mill Creek Wetland SK Reach Restoration Project No: CP0746 Project Type: Non-Capacity Project Manager Andersen Description: MITI Creek Wetland 5K reach(W5K)is a stream restoration project to provide improved conveyance and habitat along a 1.2 mile reach of Mill Creek between West Main Street and SR 167 The project Includes a new larger stream culvert at 15th Street NW for improved hydraulic conveyance and fish passage, removal of invasive vegetation, native tree and shrub plantings,and a new maintenance trail along MITI Creek within the AEP Phase 2 planning area that will also provide passive recreation hiking opportunities along the creek.The project Is being conducted In partnership with the Army Corps of Engineers under the Corps'Ecosystem Restoration Program The City's cost share for construction is 35%, and the federal cost share is 65%.The value of City-owned lands used for the project are credited toward the City's cost share. Total federal funding forthe project(not shown below)is approximately$5.4 million based on the most recent Corps estimates of$8.5 million for total project costs Progress Summary: The City has executed a design agreement with the Army Corps of Engineers, and 35 percent of design was completed in 2012;final design is scheduled to complete in early 2014 Next steps include real estate and right of way acquisition/certification,with construction scheduled for 2014-2015 A Project Partnership(construction)agreement will need to be executed between the City and the Corps prior to real estate acquisition and construction. Future Impact on Operating Budget: After construction,the project will need to be monitored/maintained for a minimum of 10 years.The project site is largely within the AEP,and funding for monitoring/management Is proposed to be part of the AEP O&M program beginning in 2015. Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Saltines Adopted Budget - - Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget - - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2016 Budget Project Total General Fund - - - - - Unrestncted Stomr Revenue 750,000 500.000 - 1,250,000 Grants (Fed State,Local) 248,800 - 325,000 351,500 573,800 Bond Proceeds - - - Crty(Real Estate Owned) Total Funding Sources: 248,800 760,000 826,000 351,600 1,823,800 Capital Expenditures: Design 248,000 125,000 373,000 Right of Way - 250,000 100,000 - 350,000 Construction 375,000 725.000 351,500 1,100.000 Total Expenditures: 248,000 760,000 826,000 361,600 1,823,000 Forecasted Project Cost: - Toce l 2018 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: General Fund - - - - - Unnestncted Storm Revenue - - - - 500,000 Gents(Fed,State,Local) - - 676,500 Other Federal - Clty(Real Estate Owned) Total Funding Sources: - - - - 1,176,600 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Rrght of Way - - - - 100,000 Construchon 1,076,500 Total Expenditures: - - - - 1,176,600 Grants/Other Sources: Grant funding sources to date include KCD and KC Flood Control District Potential future sources for 2014-2015 include RCO, SRFB, KCD,WRIA 9 KC Flood Control District 149 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan STORM DRAINAGE FUND (432) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Eastridge Manor Clutfall Replacement Project No: CpXXXX Project Type: Non-Capacity Project Manager TBD Description: Replace the existing deteriorated outfall with new HDPE. Two existing outfalls may be combined into a single outfall. Improvements to the Golf Course conveyance system may be needed. Progress Summary: None Future Impact on Operating Budget: None Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Storm Revenue - 50,000 535,000 - 585,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - - Total Funding Sources: - 50,000 535,000 - 585,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 50,000 40,000 - 90,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction 495,000 495,000 Total Expenditures: - 50,000 535,000 - 585,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Tots I 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Storm Revenue - - - - 535,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other Total Funding Sources: - - - - 535,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 40,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construchon - - - - 495,000 Total Expenditures: - - - - 535,000 Grants/Other Sources 150 City ofAzzburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan STORM DRAINAGE FUND (432) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Enterprise Funds Project Title. BNSF Utilities Crossing Project No cp1308 Project Type: Non-Capacity (improvement) Project Manager Jacob SWeeting Description: Replace or extend as needed the existing crossing casings to accommodate the 3rd rail improvement. Progress Summary: PMP completed. Future Impact on Operating Budget: None Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Storm Revenue - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - 80,000 420,000 - 500,000 Other Total Funding Sources: - 80,000 420,000 - 500,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 80,000 - - 80,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construohon 420,000 420,000 Total Expenditures: - 80,000 420,000 - 500,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unmstncted Storm Revenue - - - - - Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - 420,000 Other Total Funding Sources: - - - - 420,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construation - - 420,000 Total Expenditures: - - - - 420,000 Grants/Other Sources* 151 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan STORM DRAINAGE FUND (432) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Composting Facility Project No: CPXXXX Project Type. Non-Capacity (Improvement) Project Manager TBD Description: Property acquisition and site improvements to construct a composting facility Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: Impacts to the operating budget will be analyzed and calculated once the timing of expenses Is determined. Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 12 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Storm Revenue - - - - - Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other Total Funding Sources: - - - - - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - RightofWay - - - - - Construction - - Total Expenditures: - - - - - Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Storm Revenue 1,000,000 - - - 1,000,000 Grants(Fed,State,Locaq - - - - - Bond Pmceeds - - - - - Other Total Funding Sources: 1,000,000 - - - 1,000,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 75,000 - - - 75,000 Right of Way 800,000 - - - 800,000 Construction 125,000 - - - 125,000 Total Expenditures: 1,000,000 - - - 1,000,000 Grants/Other Sources* 152 City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan STORM DRAINAGE FUND (432) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Enterprise Funds Project Title Utilities Field Operations Center Project No: CPXXXX Project Type Non-Capacity (Improvement) Project Manager TBD Description: Construct building for utilities field staff use and storage of field equipment Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: Impacts to the operating budget will be analyzed and calculated once the timing of expenses is determined. Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 12 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: 2013 YE 2013 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Storm Revenue - - - 100,000 - Grants(FedState,Locap - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other Total Funding Sources: - - - 100,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - 30,000 - RlghtofWay - - - - - Constmchon - 70,000 - Total Expenditures: - - - 100,000 - Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestncted Storm Revenue - - - - 100,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other Total Funding Sources: - - - - 100,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 30,000 Right or Way - - - - - Construchon - 70,000 Total Expenditures: - - - - 100,000 Grants/Other Sources 153 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan STORM DRAINAGE FUND (432) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Enterprise Funds Project Title Vactor Decant Facility Project No: cpxxx Project Type: Non-Capacity (Improvement) Project Manager TBD Description: Expansion of the existing vactor decant facility Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project would decrease the future operating budget by reducing the expenses associated with sending waste to a landfill Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - Budget Amendments - - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Storm Revenue - 270,000 - 270,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - Total Funding Sources: - - 270,000 - 270,000 Capital Expenditures: Design _ _ _ _ Right of Way - - - - Construction 270,000 270,000 Total Expenditures: - - 270,000 - 270,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestncted Storm Revenue - - - - 270,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - Total Funding Sources: - - - - 270,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right olWay - - - - - Construction - - - 270,000 Total Expenditures: - - - - 270,000 Grants/Other Sources: 154 City of Auburn Di-aft Capital Facilities Plan SOLID WASTE Current Facilities The City of Auburn no longer has recycle drop station facilities. The City now provides curbside service through a vendor who handles the disposal. 155 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan CITY OF BURN MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED 156 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan PARKS AND RECREATION Current Facilities The City of Auburn's park system consists of a total of 710 53 acres of neighborhood and community parks, special use areas, open space, and linear parks (trails). The 150-acre Auburn Municipal Golf Course is identified as a separate public facility in this report, and is not included in the Parks and Recreation inventory 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 2013 City population of 73,235. This equates to 0.74 acres per 1,000 population for neighborhood parks, 3.16 acres per 1,000 population for community parks, 0 45 acres for linear parks, 4 61 acres for open space, and 0 74 acres for special use areas. The proposed LOS provided by the City's park system represents the planned 2019 inventory of City-owned park acres divided by the 2019 projected City population of 87,392. This equates to 0.73 acres per 1,000 population for neighborhood parks, 3 32 acres per 1,000 population for community parks, 0.37 acres per 1,000 population for linear parks, 3 87 acres per 1,000 population for open space, and 0 62 acres per 1,000 population for special use areas. Capital Facilities Projects and Financing Parks and Recreation facilities include twenty capital projects at a cost of$24,895,500 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$1,312,000 are forecasted for parks and recreation facilities during the six years 2015 — 2020 157 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan TABLE PR-1 Facilities Inventory Parks and Recreation, Land CAPACITY FACILITY (Acres) LOCATION Neighborhood Parks: . Existing Inventory: 21st Street Playground 0.20 Aubumdale Park 10.00 31700 108th NE Ballard Park 0.70 37th & R Street SE Cameron Park 3.90 Lemon Tree Lane &Academy Drive Cedar Lane Park 8.30 25th & K Street SE Dorthy Bothell Park 400 5701 Lakeland Hills Way SE Dykstra Park 1 70 1533 22nd Avenue NE Forest Villa mini-park 0.20 17th & Fir Street SE Gaines Park 1 40 11th NW&W Valley Highway Indian Tom Park 040 6th & Henry Road NE Jornada Park 1 90 1440 U Court NW Kersey 3 Park #1 1 80 Kersey 3 Park #2 2.10 Lake/and Hills Park 5.00 5401 Olive Avenue SE Rotary Park 400 27th &Alpine Street SE Scootie Brown Park 1 70 8th & Henry Road NE li Shaughnessy Park 3.50 21 st& Hemlock SE Terminal Park 1 20 12th & C Street SE Trail Run Park 1 21 Village Square 1 07 31 0th St SE @ 1 20th Ave Total Neighborhood Parks 5428 Proposed Capacity Projects. Auburndale ll Park 9.34 29700 118th Street SE Total Proposed Capacity Projects 9.34 2018 Projected Inventory Total - Neighborhood Parks - 63.62 Community Parks: Existing Inventory: Brannan Park 21 70 26th & M Street N E Fenster/Green River Access 13.40 10520 Auburn/Black Diamond Road Fulmer Field 5.00 5th & K Street NE Game Farm Park 58.00 3226 V Street SE Game Farm Wilderness Park 20.00 2401 SE Stuck River Road GSA Park 6.60 C Street SW& 15th SW Isaac Evans Park 1490 29627 Green River Road NE Lea Hill Park 700 SE 316th & 124th Street SE Les Gove Park 2050 11th &Auburn Way Mill Pond 400 600 Oravetz Road Olson Canyon Farmstead 15.00 28728 Green River Road Roegner Park 21 60 601 Oravetz Road Sunset Park 15.00 1306 69th Street SE Veteran's Memorial Park 850 Park Avenue &Auburn Way N Total Community Parks 231 20 158 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan TABLE PRA (continued) Proposed Capacity Projects. Jacobson Tree Farm 2904 13009 SE 294th Street Lakeland Hills 3000 Kersey Way Total Proposed Capacity Projects 5904 2018 Projected Inventory Total - Community Parks - 290.24 Linear Parks: Existing Inventory.., Interurban Trail 2540 Lakeland Hills Trail 2.30 5401 Olive Avenue SE White River Trail 4.90 Total Linear Parks 32.60 Proposed Capacity Projects. None - Total Proposed Capacity Projects - 2018 Projected Inventory Total - Linear Parks - 32.60 Special Use Areas: Existing Inventory: Bicentennial Park 1 40 SR-18 &Auburn Way S Centennial Viewpoint Park 0.70 600 Mountain View Drive City Hall Plaza 0.90 25 W Main Clark Plaza 0.20 15th &Auburn WayN B Street Plaza 0.10 E. Main & B Street SE Plaza Park 0.15 25 W Main Mountain View Cemetery 50.00 2020 Mountain View Drive Pioneer Cemetery 0.80 8th & Auburn Way N Slaughter Memorial 0.20 3100 Auburn Way N Total Special Use Areas 5445 Proposed Capacity Projects. None - Total Proposed Capacity Projects - 2018 Projected Inventory Total - Special Use Areas - 5445 Open Space Areas: Existing Inventory., Clark Property 2500 1600 Oravetz Road Game Farm Open Space 8700 2400 SE Stuck River Road Golf Course Open Space 42.00 29639 Green River Road Green River Property 10.00 Olson Canyon Open Space 45.00 28728 Green River Road Auburn Environmental Park Open Space 120.00 Western Ave NW and Maint Street West Auburn Lake Property Open Space 900 N of S 321 st and west of W St.NW Total Open Space Areas 338.00 Proposed Capacity Projects. None Total Proposed Capacity Projects - 2019 Projected Inventory Total - Open Space Areas - 33800 159 City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan TABLE PR-2 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN PROJECTS AND FINANCING PARKS and RECREATION (Municipal Parks Construction Fund) 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total Capacity Projects: 1 Park Acquisitions/Development Capital Costs 140,000 120,000 - - - - 260,000 Funding Sources. Fund Balance 20,000 - - - - - 20,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local) - - - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - - KC Prop 2 120,000 120,000 - - - - 240,000 Subtotal,Capacity Projects: Capital Costs 140,000 120,000 - - - - 260,000 Non-Capacity Projects: 2 Isaac Evans Park Capital Costs 25,000 - 70,000 - - - 95,000 Funding Sources Fund Balance 25,000 - 50,000 - - - 75,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local) - - - - - - - Other(ParklmpactFee) - - 20,000 - - - 20,000 3 Jacobsen Tree Farm Site Plan Capital Costs - - 12,000,000 - - - 12,000,000 Funding Sources. Fund Balance - - - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local) - - 2,000,000 - - - 2,000,000 Other(Developer) - - 4,000,000 - - - 4,000,000 Bond Proceeds - - 6,000,000 - - - 6,000,000 4 Auburn Community Center Capital Costs 8,500,000 - - - - - 8,500,000 Funding Sources REET 1 - - - - - - - Other 5,500,000 5,500,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local) 31000,000 - - - - - 3,000,000 5 Veteran's Park Improvements Capital Costs 50,000 - - - - - 50,000 Funding Sources Fund Balance 50,000 - - - - - 50,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local) - - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - 6 Les Gove Improvements Capital Costs 60,000 - - - - - 60,000 Funding Sources Fund Balance 60,000 - - - - - 60,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local) - - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - 160 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan TABLE PR-2 (continued) 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total Non-Capacity Projects: 7 Rotary Park Improvements Capital Costs - - 30,000 - - - 30,000 Funding Sources Fund Balance - - 30,000 - - - 30,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local) - - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - 8 Misc.Parks Improvements Capital Costs 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 1,050,000 Funding Sources. Fund Balance - 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 250,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local) 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 450,000 Other(Park Impact Fee) 100,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 350,000 9 Cameron Park Capital Costs - 55,000 - - - - 55,000 Funding Sources Fund Balance - 25,000 - - - - 25,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local) - 30,000 - - - - 30,000 Other - - - - - - - 10 Game Farm Park Capital Costs - - - 40,000 - - 40,000 Funding Sources Fund Balance - - - 40,000 - - 40,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local) - - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - 11 Gaines Park Capital Costs - - - 30,000 - - 30,000 Funding Sources Fund Balance - - - 30,000 - - 30,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local) - - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - 12 Roegner Park Capital Costs - 50,000 - - - - 50,000 Funding Sources. Fund Balance - 50,000 - - - - 50,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local) - - - - - - - KC Prop 2 - - - - - - 13 Auburndale Park Capital Costs - 125,000 - - - - 125,000 Funding Sources. Fund Balance - 25,000 - - - - 25,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local) - - - - - - - Other - 100,000 - - - - 100,000 14 Auburndale Park II Capital Costs - 25,000 - 575,000 - - 600,000 Funding Sources Fund Balance - 25,000 - 400,000 - - 425,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local) - - - - - - - Other - - - 175,000 - - 175,000 161 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan TABLE PR-2 (continued) 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total Non-Capacity Projects: 15 Centennial Viewpoint Park Capital Costs - - - - 35,000 - 35,000 Funding Sources Fund Balance - - - - 35,000 - 35,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local) - - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - 16 BPA Trail Lea Hill Capital Costs - 75,000 175,000 125,000 - - 375,000 Funding Sources: Fund Balance - - - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local) - 75,000 75,000 75,000 - - 225,000 KC Prop 2 - - 100,000 50,000 - - 150,000 17 Lakeland Park#4 Capital Costs - - - 30,000 - - 30,000 Funding Sources Fund Balance - - - 30,000 - - 30,000 Other - - - - - - 18 Williams Pipeline Trail Capital Costs - - - - 400,000 - 400,000 Funding Sources. Fund Balance - - - - 100,000 - 100,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local) - - - - 100,000 - 100,000 Other - - - - 200,000 - 200,000 19 Fenster Levee Setback,Phase 21B Capital Costs 945,500 100,000 - - - - 1,0453500 Funding Sources Grants (Fed,State,Local) 935,500 100,000 - - - - 1,035,500 Other(Storm) 10,000 - - - - - 10,000 20 Dykstra Park Improvement Capital Costs - 65,000 - - - - 65,000 Funding Sources Fund Balance - 65,000 - - - - 65,000 Other - - - - - - - Subtotal,Non-Capacity Projects: Capital Costs 9,755,500 670,000 12,450,000 975,000 610,000 175,000 24,635,500 SUMMARY: CAPITAL COSTS Capacity Projects 140,000 120,000 - - - - 260,000 Non-Capacity Projects 9,755,500 670,000 12,450,000 975,000 610,000 175,000 24,635,500 Total Costs 9,895,500 790,000 12,450,000 975,000 610,000 175,000 24,895,500 FUNDING SOURCES: Fund Balance 155,000 240,000 130,000 550,000 185,000 50,000 1,310,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) 4,010,500 280,000 2,150,000 150,000 175,000 75,000 6,840,500 REET 1 - - - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - 6,000,000 - - - 6,000,000 KC Prop 2 120,000 120,000 100,000 50,000 - - 390,000 Other-Parks Impact 100,000 50,000 70,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 370,000 Other 5,510,000 100,000 4,000,000 175,000 200,000 - 9,985,000 Total Funding 9,895,500 790,000 12,450,000 975,000 610,000 175,000 24,895,500 162 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan MUNICIPAL PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (321) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Capital Projects Fund Project Title. Park Acquisitions/Development Project No cpxxxx Project Type. Capacity Project Manager Faber Description: Land acquisitions to occur based on demand and deficiencies including trails and corridors. Projects to potentially include the State Parks property adjacent to Game Farm Park Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: None Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2016 Budget Project Total Fund Balance - - 20.000 - 20,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - 30,000 - - 30,000 Bond P uceeds - - - - - REET - - - KC Prop 2' 70,000 120,000 120,000 190,000 Total Funding Sources: - 100,000 140,000 120,000 240,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Acquisition - 100,000 30,000 - 130,000 Construction 110,000 120,000 230,000 Total Expenditures; - 100,000 140,000 120,000 240,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Fund Balance - - - - 20,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - REET - KC Prop 2' 240,000 Total Funding Sources: - - - - 260,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Acquisition - - - - 30,000 Construction 230,000 Total Expenditures: - - - - 260,000 Grants/Other Sources KCCF-King County Conservation Futures Grant 163 City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan MUNICIPAL PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (321) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Capital Projects Fund Project Title: Isaac Evans Park Project No: cpXXXX Project Type Non-Capacity Project Manager Faber Description: Repair trail throughout park, develop reforestation plan Progress Summary: None Future Impact on Operating Budget: Increased movnng and utilities-$6,000 Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget 25,000 - - 25,000 Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Fund Balance - - 25,000 25,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - REET - - Other(Park Impact Fee)' Total Funding Sources: - - 25,000 - 25,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - 25,000 - 25,000 Total Expenditures: - - 25,000 - 25,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Fund Balance 50,000 - - - 75,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - REET - Other(Park Impact Fee)' 20,000 20,000 Total Funding Sources: 70,000 - - - 95,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction 70,000 - - - 95,000 Total Expenditures: 70,000 - - - 95,000 Grants/Other Sources 164 City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan MUNICIPAL PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (321) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Capital Projects Fund Project Tide* Jacobsen Tree Farm Site Plan Project No: cp0609 Project Type: Non-Capacity Project Manager Faber Description: Implement Master Plan for the development of this 31 acre site. Lea Hill area 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. Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Fund Balance 25,321 - - - 25,321 Grants(Fed.State,Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - REET - - Other(Development) - Total Funding Sources: 26,321 - - - 25,321 Capital Expenditures: Design _ - _ _ _ Right of Way - - - - Construction Total Expenditures: - - - - Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2016 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Fund Balance - - - - - Grants(Fed,State,Local) 2,000,000 - - 2,000,000 Bond Proceeds 6,000,000 - - 6.000,000 REET - - Other(Development) 4,000,000 4.000,000 Total Funding Sources: 12,000,000 - - - 12,000,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 1,000,000 - - 1,000,000 Right of Way - - - Construction 11,000,000 11,000,000 Total Expenditures: 12,000,000 - - - 12,000,000 Grants/Other Sources 165 City of Aubta-n Draft Capital Facilities Plan MUNICIPAL PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (321) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Capital Projects Fund Project Title Auburn Community Center Project No. cp0925 Project Type Non-Capacity Project Manager Thomas Description: Construct a new 20,100 sq.ft. Community Center facility and associated site improvements at Les Gove Park campus. The project includes 3,500 sq.ft.of administrative space of the Parks Department and numerous public meeting and activity spaces. The State has allocated$3 million of the capital budget to the City to fund the project. As of this printing the remaining funding sources for this project has riot been finalized. Progress Summary: Construction documents are complete and ready for bidding, permitting and construction. Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual operating budget fiscal Impact is estimated to be$200,000 Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - Budget Amendments - - - - Ad/usted Budget - - - - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Fund Balance - - - - - State Grant - 3,000,000 - 3,000,000 REET 1 92,046 108,536 - - 200,582 Other(Solid Waste Fees) 1,000,000 - - - 1,000,000 Other - - 5,500,000 - 5,500,000 Total Funding Sources: 1,092,046 108,536 8,500,000 - 9,700,582 Capital Expenditures: Property Acquisition - - - - - Design 900,857 108,536 500,000 - 1,509,393 Demolition 191,189 - - - 191,189 Construction - - 8,000,000 8,000,000 Total Expenditures: 1,092,046 108,536 8,500,000 - 9,700,582 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Fund Balance - - - - - State Grant - - - - 3,000,000 BEET 1 - - - - - Other(Solid Waste Fees) - - - - - Other - - - - 5,500,000 Total Funding Sources: - - - - 8,500,000 Capital Expenditures: Property Acquisition - - - - - Design - - - - 500,000 Professional Services - - - - - Construction - - - - 8,000,000 Total Expenditures: - - - - 8,500600 Grants/Other Sources Washington Stale capital budget appropriation through the Department of Commerce 166 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan MUNICIPAL PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (321) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Capital Projects Fund Project Tine. Veteran's Park Improvements Project No cp1305 Project Type: Non-Capacity Project Manager Faber Description: Replace existing concrete paths,add a climbing toy with safety surfacing,upgrade spray pool or expand playground, improve irrigation coverage,selective tree removal and turf renovation Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: None Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Fund Balance - 50,000 50,000 50,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - REET - Other Total Funding Sources: - 50,000 50,000 - 50,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 5,000 - - 5,000 Right or Way - - - - - Construction - 45,000 50,000 95,000 Total Expenditures: - 50,000 50,000 - 100,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Fund Balance - - - - 50,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - REET - - - Other - Total Funding Sources: - - - 50,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right o/Way - - - - - Construchon - 50,000 Total Expenditures: - - - - 50,000 Grants/Other Sources 167 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan MUNICIPAL PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (321) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Capital Projects Fund Project Title Les Gove Park Improvements Project No: cpXXXX Project Type: Non-Capacity Project Manager Faber Description: Design and construct pathway lighting to illuminate walking path from the proposed Community Center to the Senior Center and the Activity Center in an effort to provide a pedestrian friendly campus and encourage evening use of the park and buildings. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: $5,000 Utilities Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Fund Balance - - 60,000 - 60,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - REET Other - Total Funding Sources: - - 60,000 - 60,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - 10,000 - 10,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - 50,000 - 50,000 Total Expenditures: - - 60,000 - 60,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Fund Balance - - - - 60,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - REET - Other Total Funding Sources: - - - - 60,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 10,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction 50,000 Total Expenditures: - - - - 60,000 Grants/Other Sources' 168 City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan MUNICIPAL PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (321) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2014-2019 Capital Projects Fund Project Title. Rotary Park Improvements Project No: cp0807 Project Type: Non-Capacity Project Manager Faber Description: Based on completed Master Plan,coordinate improvements with neighborhood and Rotary Club of Auburn to add walking path Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: None Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2016 Budget Project Total Fund Ba lance 27,700 - - 27,700 Grants (Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - REET - Other 25,000 25,000 Total Funding Sources: 62,700 - - - 62,700 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction Total Expenditures: - - - - Forecasted Project Cost: Totes I 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Fund Balance 30,000 - - - 30,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Bond proceeds - - - - - REET - - Other Total Funding Sources: 30,000 - - - 30,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 5,000 - - - 5,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction 25,000 - 25,000 Total Expenditures: 30,000 - - - 30,000 Grants/Other Sources 169 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan MUNICIPAL PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (321) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2014-2019 Capital Projects Fund Project Title: Misc. Parks Improvements Project No. cpxxxx Project Type Non-Capacity Project Manager Faber Description: Minor park improvements including shelters,roofs, playgrounds, irrigation and restrooms as denoted in the Parks Master Plan Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: None Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Fund Balance 68,400 - - 50,000 68,400 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - 75,000 75,000 75,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - REET - - - - Other(Park Impact Fee)' 50,000 100,000 50,000 150,000 Total Funding Sources: 68,400 60,000 176,000 176,000 293,400 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction 68,400 50,000 175,000 175,000 293,400 Total Expenditures: 68,400 50,000 175,000 176,000 293,400 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Fund Balance 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 250,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 450,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - REET - - - - - Other(Park Impact Fee)' 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 350,000 Total Funding Sources: 176,000 175,000 176,000 176,000 1,060,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 1,050,000 Total Expenditures: 176,000 175,000 175,000 176,000 1,050,000 Grants t Other Sources 170 City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan MUNICIPAL PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (321) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Capital Projects Fund Project Title: Cameron Park Project No cpxxxx Project Type Non-Capacity Project Manager Faber Description: Add landscaping to park as a buffer for housing and at play structure, and fencing at play structure The project is identified in the adopted Parks Improvement Plan. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: None Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - Adjusted Budget - - - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Fund Balance - - - 25.000 - Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - 30,000 - Bond Proceeds - - - - REET - - - Other - - Total Funding Sources: - - - 55,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - 5,000 - Rrght of Way - - - - - Construction - 50,000 - Total Expenditures: - - - 55,000 - Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Fund Balance - - - - 25,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - 30,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - REET - Other Total Funding Sources: - - - - 55,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 5,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - 50,000 Total Expenditures: - - - - 55,000 Grants/Other Sources 171 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan MUNICIPAL PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (321) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Capital Projects Fund Project Title: Game Farm Park Improvements Project No cpXXXX Project Type. Non-Capacity Project Manager Faber Description: Improve interior lighting and pathways and provide access from the newly acquired property on southwest corner of the park Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: None Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget 170,000 170,000 - - Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Fund Balance - - - - - Grants(Fed,State,Lwal) - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - REET Other Total Funding Sources: - - - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction Total Expenditures: - - - - - Forecasted Project Cost: Tots I 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Fund Balance - 40,000 - - 40,000 Grants(Fed.State,Local - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - REET Other Total Funding Sources: - 40,000 - - 40000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Constmctlon - 40,000 - 40,000 Total Expenditures: - 40,000 - - 40,000 Grants/Other Sources. 172 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan MUNICIPAL PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (321) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Capital Projects Fund Project Title Gaines Park Project No: cpXXXX Project Type Non-Capacity Project Manager 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 Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Fund Balance - - - - Grants(Fed State,Local) - - - - - Bond Pn eeds - - - - REET - Other Total Funding Sources: - - - - - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - Total Expenditures: - - - - Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Fund Balance - 30,000 - - 30,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - REET - - Other - Total Funding Sources: - 30,000 - - 30,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 10,000 - - 10,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - 20,000 20,000 Total Expenditures: - 30,000 - - 30,000 Grants/Other Sources: 173 City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan MUNICIPAL PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (321) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Capital Projects Fund Project Title: Roegner Park Project No: cpxxxx Project Type: Non-Capacity Project Manager Faber Description: This project requires trail system maintenance, play structure replacement and riverbank stabilization Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: None Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget - - - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2016 Budget Project Total Fund Balance - - - 50,000 - Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - REET - - - Other(Prop Levy 2) Total Funding Sources: - - - 60,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - 5,000 - Right of Way - - - - - Constmchon - - 45,000 Total Expenditures: - - - 50,000 - Forecasted Project Cost: Tots I 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Fund Balance - - - - 50,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - REET - - - Other(Prop Levy 2) Total Funding Sources: - - - - 60,000 Capital Expenditures: Design _ _ _ _ Right of Way - - - - 5,000 Construction Total Expenditures: - - - - 6,000 Grants/Other Sources 174 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan MUNICIPAL PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (321) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Capital Projects Fund Project Tide Auburndale Park Project No: cpXXXX Project Type: Non-Capacity _ Project Manager Faber Description: Develop a Master Plan for the Park, Install an irrigation system, new play structure and improve signage Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: Utilities would increase by$5,000 Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2016 Budget Project Total Fund Balance - - - 25,000 - Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - REET - - - - Other(Other Agency)' 100,000 Total Funding Sources: - - - 125,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - 15,000 - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - 110,000 Total Expenditures: - - - 126,000 - Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2016 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Fund Balance - - - - 25,000 Grants(Fed,State.Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - REET - Other(Other Agency)' 100.000 Total Funding Sources: - - - - 126,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 15,000 Right or Way - - - - - Construction 110,000 Total Expenditures: - - - - 126,000 Grants/Other Sources: 175 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan MUNICIPAL PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (321) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Capital Projects Fund Project Title: Auburndale Park II Project No: cpXXXX Project Type Non-Capacity Project Manager Faber Description: Develop a Master Plan in 2015, improve the existing trail system and install slgnage and play structure. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: Increased utility costs of$2,000 Budget: 2013 YTO Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Fund Balance - - - 25,000 - Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - Bond proceeds - - - - - REET Other - Total Funding Sources: - - - 25,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - 25,000 - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - Total Expenditures: - - - 25,000 - Forecasted Project Cost: Tots I 2016 2017 2016 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Fund Ba lance - 400,000 - - 425,000 Giants(Fed,State,Local - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - REET - - - - Other - 175,000 175,000 Total Funding Sources: - 575,000 - - 600,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 75,000 - - 100,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction 500,000 500,000 Total Expenditures: - 575,000 - - 600,000 Grants/Other Sources 176 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan MUNICIPAL PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (321) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2014-2019 Capital Projects Fund Project Title: Centennial Viewpoint Park Project No: cpxxxx Project Type Non-Capacity Project Manager Faber Description: Develop a landscape plan for the park and remove antenna from building. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: None Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Vear Entl Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2016 Budget Project Total Fund Ba lance - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - REET - Other Total Funding Sources: - - - - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction Total Expenditures: - - - Forecasted Project Cost: Tots I 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Fund Balance - - 35,000 - 35,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - REET Other - Total Funding Sources: - - 36,000 - 36,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - 7,000 - 7,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - 28,000 28,000 Total Expenditures: - - 36,000 - 36,000 Grants/Other Sources 177 City of Auburn Lit-aft Capital Facilities Plan MUNICIPAL PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (321) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2014-2019 Capital Projects Fund Project Title: BPA Trail Lea Hill Project No cp0919 Project Type Non-Capacity Project Manager Faber Description: Develop a feasibility/due diligence study to determine the extent of issue with trail design and alignments along the BPA corridor on Lea Hill between 132nd Ave SE and 108th Ave SE,from Jacobson Tree Farm to the east line of the Auburn Golf Course. Construct the Trail in subsequent phases. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: None Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - Adjusted Budget - - - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Fund Balance - - - - - Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - 75,000 - Bond Proceeds - - - - - REET - Other(KC Prop 2)' Total Funding Sources: - - - 75,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - 75,000 - Right or Way - - - - - Construction - Total Expenditures: - - - 76,000 - Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Fund Balance - - - - - Giants(Fed,,State,Local) 75,000 75,000 - - 225,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - REET - Other(KCProp 2)' 100,000 50,000 150,000 Total Funding Sources: 176,000 125,000 - - 375,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 75,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construchon 175,000 125,000 - - 300,000 Total Expenditures: 176,000 125,000 - - 376,000 Grants/Other Sources 178 City ofAzrbzmn Di-aft Capital Facilities Plan MUNICIPAL PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (321) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Project Title: Fenster Levee Setback, Phase 2B Project No: CP1016 Project Type: Non-Capacity Project Manager Andersen Description: The project will design and construct approximately 800 feet of levee setback along the left bank of the Green River at the City's Fenster Nature Park property The project is intended to Improve fish habitat and provide refuge for salmonids as well as create additional flood storage capacity during penods of higher river flow during/after storm events and/or when additional volumes of water are released from Howard Hanson Dam This project will complete floodplain restoration and habitat Improvements along an approximately two mile reach of the Green River that begins at Auburn Narrows in unincorporated King County and ends at Fenster Nature Park in Auburn.The City is partnering with King County and the Veteran's Conservation Corp to construct the project,which is scheduled to be completed in 2015. Progress Summary: A preliminary design has been completed and submitted to SRFB for review and approval Upon receiving preliminary design approval from project grant funders,final design and construction of the project will be completed (scheduled for 2015). Future Impact on Operating Budget: After construction,the project will need to be monitored and maintained for a minimum of five years to ensure that the setback levee is operating properly and the restoration plantings become successfully established Post construction monitoring and maintenance of the site (estimated at$3,000)is accomplished under a separate program for restoration site monitoring that is funded In the Planning and Development Department operations budget Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Other(Storm) 800 24,200 10,000 35,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) 19,800 175,800 935,500 100,000 1,131,100 Bond Proceeds - - - - - REET Total Funding Sources: 20,600 200,000 945,500 100,000 1,166,100 Capital Expenditures: Design 19,800 200,000 25,000 - 244,800 Right of Way 800 - - - 800 Construction 920,500 100,000 920,500 Total Expenditures: 20,600 200,000 945,500 100,000 1,166,100 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources- Other(Storm) - - - - 10,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - 1,035,500 Bond Proceeds - - - - - REET Total Funding Sources: - - - - 1,045,500 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 25,000 Right of Way - - - - - construction - 1,020,500 Total Expenditures: - - - - 1,045,500 Grants/Other Sources SRFB$304,103, PSAR$100,000, KCD$200,000,WRIA 9/KCFD$300,000, SRFB$327,000 179 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan MUNICIPAL PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (321) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2014-2019 Capital Projects Fund Project Title Dykstra Park Improvement Project No: Project Type: Non-Capacity Project Manager Faber Description: Replace existing Playground,improve picnic area and concrete sidewalk Future Impact on Operating Budget: None Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Prole ct Total Fund Balance - 65,000 - Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - REET Other Total Funding Sources: - - - 65,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - 5,000 - Right of Way - - - - - Construction 60,000 Total Expenditures: - - - 65,000 - Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Fund Balance - - - - 65,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - REET Other - Total Funding Sources: - - - - 65,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 5,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction 60,000 Total Expenditures: - - - - - 65,000 Grants/Other Sources 180 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan TABLE PR-3 Impact on Future Operating Budgets PARKS & RECREATION - MUNICIPAL PARKS CONSTRUCTION Project: 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total 1 Park Acquisitions $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2 Issac Evans Park 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 36,000 3 Jacobsen Tree Farm - - - - - - - 4 Auburn Community Center 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,200,000 5 Veteran's Park Improv. - - - - - - - 6 Les Gove Park Imp. 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 30,000 7 Rotary Park Improv. - - - - - - - 8 Misc Park Improvements - - - - - - - 9 Cameron Park - - - - - - - 10 Game Farm Park - - - - - - - 11 Gaines Park - - - - - - 12 Roegner Park - - - - - - - 13 Auburndale Park - 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 25,000 14 Auburndale Park 11 - - - 2,000 2,000 2,000 6,000 15 Centennial Viewpoint Park - - - - - - 16 BPA Trail Lea Hill - - - - - - - 17 Lakeland Park#4 - - - 5,000 5,000 5,000 15,000 18 Williams Pipeline Trail - - - - - - 19 Fenster Levee Setback 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 - 15,000 20 Dykstra Park Improvement - - - - - - Total $ 214,000 $ 219,000 $ 219,000 $ 226,000 $ 226,000 $ 223,000 $ 1,327,000 181 City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan COMMUNITY CENTER Current Facilities The City of Auburn currently does not have a Community Center Level of Service (LOS) The City does not have a current LOS for a Community Center The proposed LOS of 227 76 square feet per 1,000 population is based on the projected inventory divided by the 2019 projected citywide population of 87,392. Capital Facilities Projects and Financing The proposed Community Center facility construction project is will cost approximately $8,500,000 and the project detail worksheet is presented on page 166 Impact on Future Operating Budgets As Table PR — 3 shows, operating budget impact of $1,200,000 is forecasted for the Community Center Facility during the six years 2015-2020 TABLE PR-4 Facilities Inventory Community Center CAPACITY FACILITY (Square Feet) LOCATION Existing Inventory, None Total Existing Inventory - Proposed Capacity Projects. New Community Center 20,100 Total Proposed Capacity Projects 20,100 2019 Projected Inventory Total 20,100 182 City ofAuburn 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 172.04 square feet per 1,000 population is based on the existing inventory divided by the 2013 citywide population of 73,235 The proposed LOS of 144 18 square feet per 1,000 population is based on the projected inventory divided by the 2019 projected citywide population of 87,392. Capital Facilities Projects and Financing The CFP does not include any senior center capital facilities projects during 2014-2019. Impact on Future Operating Budgets There are no operating budget impacts forecasted for the senior center facility during the six years 2015 — 2020 TABLE PR-5 Facilities Inventory Senior Center CAPACITY FACILITY (Square Feet) LOCATION Existing Inventory- Senior Center 12,600 808 9th Street SE Total Existing Inventory 12,600 Proposed Capacity Projects. None - Total Proposed Capacity Projects - 2019 Projected Inventory Total 12,600 183 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan CITY " I B RN MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED 184 City ofAubta•n Draft Capital Facilities Plan GENERAL MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS Current Facilities The current inventory of City government administration and operations facilities include 177,206 square feet for general government operations, 61,888 square feet for police services, and 31,653 square feet for fire protection, for a total of 270,747 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 3,696 71 square feet per 1,000 population is based on the existing inventory divided by the 2013 citywide population of 73,235 The proposed LOS of 3,328.15 square feet per 1,000 population is based on the projected inventory divided by the 2019 projected citywide population of 87,392. Capital Facilities Projects and Financing The City's General Municipal Building facilities include five capital projects at a cost of $1,387,319 and debt service at a cost of $3,974,630 for a total of $5,361,949 The projects include (1) $100,000 for M&O Vehicle Bay and Storage building, (2) $500,000 for Equipment Rental Vehicle Maintenance Bay (3) $250,000 for M&O Fuel Tank Replacement (4) $99,319 for HVAC Upgrades at City Hall, (5) $438,000 for City Hall Remodel, Phase 2 & 3 and $3,974,630 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 Operating budget impacts annually are not yet forecast for general municipal buildings during the six years 2015 — 2020 185 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan TABLE GM-1 Facilities Inventory General Municipal Buildings CAPACITY FACILITY (Square Feet) LOCATION Existing Inventory General Government: City Hall Annex 56,376 1 W Main Street City Hall 37,700 25 W Main Street City Maintenance & Operations Facility 25,855 1305 C Street SW Gambini Building-Leased Out 14,400 2 South Division St Municipal Court (Justice Center-Leased to King County) 12,200 340 E Main Street Activity Center 8,000 910 9th Street SE Parks & Recreation Admin. Facility 7,000 910 9th Street SE Auburn Valley Humane Society-(Leased to AVHS) 5,900 4910 A Street GSA Building 4,470 2905 C Street #815 Street Waste Handling Facility 2,750 1305 C Street SW Vacant Property 1,705 117 A Street SE Vacant Property 850 115 A Street SE Total 177,206 Police: Gun range 32,880 1600 Block 15th St NW Headquarters (Justice Center) 24,800 340 E Main Street Seized vehicle parking stalls 3,000 1101 Supennall Way Supermall Substation 1,208 C Street SW (GSA) Total 61,888 Fire: Stations: North Station#31 12,220 1101 D Street NE GSA Station #35 9,533 2815 C Street SW South Station#32 5,200 1951 R Street SE Other Facilities. North Station Maint. Facility 4,700 1101 D Street NE Total 31,653 Total Existing Inventory 270,747 Proposed Capacity Projects. Community 20,100 Total Proposed Capacity Projects 20,100 2019 Projected Inventory Total 290,847 186 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan TABLE GM-2 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN PROJECTS AND FINANCING GENERAL MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total Capacity Projects: None Non-Capacity Projects: 1 M&O Vehicle Maintenance Bay Capital Costs 100,000 - - - - - 100,000 Funding Sources Equip. Rental Fund 100,000 - - - - - 100,000 2 ERR Vehicle Bay& Storage Capital Costs 250,000 250,000 - - - - 500,000 Funding Sources. Equip. Rental Fund 250,000 250,000 - - - - 500,000 3 M&O Fuel Tank Replacement Capital Costs 250,000 - - - - - 250,000 Funding Sources Equip. Rental Fund 250,000 - - - - - 250,000 4 City Hall HVAC System Upgrade Capital Costs 99,319 - - - - - 99,319 Funding Sources. Capital Improv. Fund - - - - - - - REET 1 99,319 - - - - - 99,319 5 City Hall Remodel, Phase 2 &3 Capital Costs 438,000 - - - - - 438,000 Funding Sources. Capital Improv Fund 438,000 - - - - - 438,000 REET 1 - - - - - - - 6 City Hall Annex Long-Term Debt 662,880 662,480 661,780 662,680 662,680 662,130 3,974,630 Funding Sources Capital Improv. Fund - - - - - - - REET1 662,880 662,480 661,780 662,680 662,680 662,130 3,974,630 Subtotal, Non-Capacity Projects: Capital Costs 1,137,319 250,000 - - - - 1,387,319 SUMMARY: CAPITAL COSTS Non-Capacity Projects 1,137,319 250,000 - - - - 1,387,319 Long-Term Debt 662,880 662,480 661,780 662,680 662,680 662,130 3,974,630 Total Costs 1,800,199 912,480 661,780 662,680 662,680 662,130 5,361,949 FUNDING SOURCES: Equip. Rental Fund 600,000 250,000 - - - - 850,000 Capital Improv. Fund 438,000 - - - - - 438,000 REET1 762,199 662,480 661,780 662,680 662,680 662,130 4;073,949 Total Funding 1,800,199 912,480 661,780 662,680 662,680 662,130 5,361,949 187 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND (550) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Maintenance and Operations Vehicle Bay and Storage 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,vectors, 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 Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - Budget Amendments - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Equip Rental Revenue - 100,000 100,000 - 200,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: - 100,000 100,000 - 200,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Constructron 100,000 100,000 200,000 Total Expenditures: - 100,000 100,000 - 200,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Equip Rental Revenue - - - - 100,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Other Total Funding Sources: - - - - 100,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - 100,000 Total Expenditures: - - - - 100,000 Grants/Other Sources 188 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND (550) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Enterprise Funds ProjectTde Equipment Rental Vehicle Maintenance Bay Project No: cp1223 Project Type: Non-Capacity Project Manager Randy Bailey Description: Add 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 Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - Budget Amendments - Adjusted Budget - - - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Equip Rental Revenue - - 250,000 250,000 250,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: - - 250,000 250,000 250,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - 25,000 - 25,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - 225,000 250,000 225,000 Total Expenditures: - - 250,000 250,000 250,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Tota I 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Equip Rental Revenue - - - - 500,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Other - Total Funding Sources: - - - - 500,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 25,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - 475,000 Total Expenditures: - - - - 500,000 Grants/Other Sources 189 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan NAME OF FUND/DEPT Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Enterprise Funds Project Title: M&O Fuel Tank Replacement Project No: cpXXXX Project Type. Non-Capacity Project Manager Randy Bailey Description: Replace our three 10,000 gallon underground tanks with new above ground tanks. Our existing tanks were installed in 1989 and they are single wall fiberglass tanks. The City's current insurance carrier will not insure these tanks once they become 25 years old which will occur in 2014. The city is looking at other insurance options that may remove this age restriction. 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: None Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - -Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrostncted Equip Rental Revenue - 70,000 250,000 - 320,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: - 70,000 250,000 - 320,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 70,000 - 70,000 Right or Way - - - - - Construction - - 250,000 - 250,000 Total Expenditures: - 70,000 250,000 - 320,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Tots I 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestncted Equip Rental Revenue - - - - 250,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: - - - - 250,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - 250,000 Total Expenditures: - - - - 250,000 Grants/Other Sources 190 City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND (328) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Capital Projects Fund Project Title: City Hall HVAC System Upgrade Project No: cp0716 Project Type, Non-Capacity Project Manager Bill Thomas Description: Design and implementation of upgrades to the City Hall heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning(HVAC) system Improvements will allow for upgrades to the controls, air distribution and air handling components It will also provide a systematic, phased implementation plan that can be put in place over the next several years. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: None Budget: 2013 YTD Actual - 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Fund Balance - - - - - Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - REETI 243,893 232,100 99,319 - 575,312 To Be Determined - Total Funding Sources: 243,893 232,100 99,319 - 575,312 Capital Expenditures: Design 24,602 - - - 24,602 Right of Way - - - - - Conslruclion 219,291 232,100 99,319 550,710 Total Expenditures: 243,893 232,100 99,319 - 575,312 Forecasted Project Cost: Tots I 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Fund Ba lance - - - - - Giants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - REET l - - - - 99,319 To Be Determined - - - Total Funding Sources: - - - - 99,319 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction 99,319 Total Expenditures: - - - - 99,319 Grants/Other Sources 191 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND (328) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Capital Projects Fund Project Title: City Hall Remodel, Phase 2 & 3 Project No: cp1303 Project Type. Non-Capacity Project Manager Bill Thomas Description: The second phase of the project Includes project design and construction of City Hall interior space including the Offices of the City Clerk and City Attorney, 1st&2nd floor public lobbies;elevator; 1st floor restrooms, HVAC &emergency generator improvements;as well as exterior improvements including the sealing of building atrium, facia brick and joint repair; also included is energy shading of windows and ADA hand rails. The third phase of the project includes design and construction of City Hall interior space including the City Council Chambers,Council meeting rooms,adjacent Public Lobby areas and related HVAC upgrades. Progress Summary: The project has completed designs,will proceed to bid in 2013 and will complete construction in 2014 Future Impact on Operating Budget: Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Fund Balance - 50,000 438,000 - 488,000 Giants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - REETI - - - -To Be Determined - Total Funding Sources: - 50,000 438,000 - 488,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 50,000 50,000 - 100,000 Right of Way - - - - - Consuvchon 388,000 388,000 Total Expenditures: - 50,000 438,000 - 488,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Fund Balance - - - - 438,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - REETI - - - -To Be Determined - - Total Funding Sources: - - - - 438,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 50,000 Right of Way - - - - - Constmction - 388,000 Total Expenditures: - - - - 438,000 Grants/Other Sources 192 City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND (328) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 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: Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - - - - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: (Premous 2 Yrs) 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unmstncted Cap tmpmv - - - - - Grants - - - - REET 1 1,289,400 662,880 662,880 662,480 2,615,160 Total Funding Sources: 1,289,400 662,880 662,880 662,480 2,615,160 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Construction - - - - - Long-Term Debt Service 1,289,400 662,880 662,880 662,480 2,615,160 Total Expenditures: 1,289,400 662,880 662,880 662,480 2,615,160 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestncted Cap improve - - - - - Grants - - - - - REET 1 661,780 662,680 662,680 662,130 3,974,630 Total Funding Sources: 661,780 662,680 662,680 662,130 3,974,630 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Constmcbon - - - - - Long-Term Debt Semce 661,780 662,680 662,680 662,130 3,974,630 Total Expenditures: 661,780 662,680 662,680 662,130 3,974,630 Grants/Other Sources 193 City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan CITY OF x, B RN MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED 194 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENTS Current Facilities Community Improvements include sidewalk and traffic signal improvements, public art and City mitigation projects. 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 seven capital projects at a cost of $3,247,890 and debt service at a cost of 1,369,360 for a total of $4,617,250. Table CI-2 shows the proposed financing plan followed by individual work sheets showing the project detail. Impact on Future Operating Budgets There are no operating budget impacts forecast for community improvement projects annually during the six years 2015-2020 195 City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan TABLE CI-2 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN PROJECTS AND FINANCING COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENTS 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total Capacity Projects: 1 8th Street NES C Street NW ITS Improvements Capital Costs 5,000 - - - - - 5,000 Funding Sources: Capital Improv Fund - - - - - - - REET 2 5,000 5,000 2 Downtown Revitalization Capital Costs 1,045,300 - - - - - 1,045,300 REET 2 1,045,300 1,045,300 Subtotal Capacity Projects: Capital Costs 1,060,300 - - - - - 1,050,300 Non-Capacity Projects: 3 Citywide Sidewalk Repairs&Improvements Capital Costs 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125.000 125,000 750,000 Funding Sources' Capital Improv Fund 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 150,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local) 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 600,000 4 Traffic Signal Improvements Capital Costs 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 1,050,000 Funding Sources Capital Improv Fund - - - - - - - REET 2 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 1,050,000 5 Mohawks Plastics Site Mitigation Project Capital Costs 25,000 20,000 20,000 65,000 20,000 20,000 170,000 Funding Sources Capital Improv Fund - - - - - - - Other(Fund 124-Traffic Imp) 25,000 20,000 20,000 65,000 20,000 20,000 170,000 REET 2 6 Public Art Capital Costs 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 180,000 Funding Sources Capital Improv Fund - - - - - - - Grants - - - - - - - REET2 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 180,000 7 City Wetland Mitigation Projects Capital Costs 20,790 7,700 7,700 7,200 4,200 - 47,690 Funding Sources Capital Improv Fund - - - - - - - REET 1 - - - - - - - Other(Fund 124-Wetland Mr) 20,790 7,700 7,700 7,200 4,200 - 47,690 8 Local Revitalization Capital Costs 228,510 224,910 225,210 224,810 228,610 237,310 1,369,360 Funding Sources: Capital Improv Fund - - - - - - - REET 2 228,510 224,910 225.210 224,810 228,610 237,310 1,369,360 Subtotal,Non-Capacity Projects: Capital Costs 375,790 357,700 357,700 402,200 354,200 360,000 2,197,690 SUMMARY CAPITAL COSTS Capacity Projects 1,050,300 - - - - - 1,050,300 Non-Capacity Projects 375,790 357,700 357,700 402,200 354,200 350,000 2,197,590 Long-Term Debt 228,510 224,910 225,210 224,810 228,610 237,310 1,369,360 Total Costs 1,654,600 582,610 582,910 627,010 582,810 587,310 4,617,260 FUNDING SOURCES: Capital Improv.Fund 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 150,000 Grants 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 600,000 REET2 1,483,810 429,910 430,210 429,810 433,610 442,310 3,649,660 Other(Fund 124-Traffic imp.) 25,000 20,000 20,000 65,000 20,000 20,000 170,000 Other(Fund 124-Wetland Mid) 20,790 7,700 7,700 7,200 4,200 47,590 Total Funding 1,654,600 582,610 582,910 627,010 582,810 587,310 4,617,260 196 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND (328) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Capital Projects Fund Project Title: 8th Street NE and C Street NW ITS Improvements TIP# 52 Project No: cp1226 Project Type Capacity Project Manager TBD LOS Corridor ID# 18, 19 Description: This projectwill expand the City's rrS network to improve travel reliability, maintenance response,and emergency management capabilities. The project includes the design,coordination, permitting, and construction of the TS expansion on the 8th Street NE/Lea Hill Road corridor and at the C Street NWNV Main Street,C Street NW/3rd Street NW,and A Street NW/3rd Stet NW intersections. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - - -Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: (Premous Yrs) 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Fund Balance - - - - - Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - REET2 - 45,000 5,000 - 50,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - Other - - Total Funding Sources: - 45,000 5,000 - 50,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 10,000 - - 10,000 Right of Way - - - - - Constnlction 40,000 5,000 45,000 Total Expenditures: - 50,000 5,000 - 55,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Fund Balance - - - - - Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - REET2 - - - - 5,000 Tiafhc Impact Fees - - - - - Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: - - - - 5,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - 5,000 Total Expenditures: - - - - 5,000 Grants/Other Sources 197 City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND (328) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Capital Projects Fund Project Title: Downtown Revitalization Project No Project Type: Capacity Project Manager Description: Pursuant to Auburn City Code Section 19.04.070(A)(9),the City exempts traffic impact fees for projects within the downtown catalyst area When traffic impact fees are exempted, the amount is then paid by the jurisdiction. The City anticipates two blocks within the downtown catalyst area to be developed (or permits Issued)in 2014 Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: None Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Cap. Impmv Revenue - - - - - Grants - - - - - REET2 - 151,300 1,045,300 - 1,196,600 Other Total Funding Sources: - 151,300 1,045,300 - 1,196,600 Capital Expenditures: Impact Fees - 151,300 1,045,300 - 1,196,600 Right of Way - - - - - Construcfion Total Expenditures: - 151,300 1,045,300 - 1,196,600 Forecasted Project Cost: Tots 1 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Cap Impmv Revenue - - - - - Grants - - - - - REET 2 - - - - 1,045,300 Other Total Funding Sources: - - - - 1,045,300 Capital Expenditures: Impact Fees - - - - 1,045,300 Right of Way - - - - - Construction Total Expenditures: - - - - 1,045,300 Grants/Other Sources: 198 City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND (328) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2014-2019 Capital Projects Fund Project Title: Citywide Sidewalk Repairs & Improvements TIP#32 Project No cp1301 Project Type. Non-Capacity (Annual) Project Manager Jai Carter LOS Corridor ID# N/A Description: Project funds sidewalk improvements at multiple locations throughout the City. A sidewalk inventory was completed in 2004 Annual projects are selected based upon criteria such as:gap closure, safe walking routes to schools,completion of downtown pedestrian corridor or"linkage",connectivity to transit service,ADA requirements,and "Save our Streets" (SOS)project locations. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - - - - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: (Premous Yrs) 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Fund Balance - 260,000 25,000 25,000 285,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local) - - 100,000 100,000 100,000 REET2 - - - - - Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: - 260,000 125,000 125,000 385,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 20,000 15,000 15,000 35,000 Right of Way - - - - - Constructron - 240,000 110,000 110,000 460,000 Total Expenditures: - 260,000 125,000 125,000 385,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total I 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Fund Balance 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 150,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 600,000 REET2 - - - - - Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 750,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 90,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction 110,000 110,000 110,000 110,000 660,000 Total Expenditures: 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 750,000 Grants I Other Sources' Grant funds are not secure 199 City of Atzbzzrn Draft Capital Facilities Plan CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND (328) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Capital Projects Fund Project Title: Traffic Signal Improvements TIP #34 Project No. Various Project Type. Non-Capacity (Annual) Project Manager Scott Nutter LOS Corridor ID#N/A Description: This project includes replacing traffic signal cabinets and equipment, video detection cameras and pedestrian pushbuttons. This project will also make safety improvements to our signals including auxiliary heads and flashing yellow arrows,or capacity improvements such as right-turn overlap signals.The City uses current traffic counts and collision data to determine the intersections to improve. 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. Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - Budget Amendments - - - - Adjusted Budget - - - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Fund Balance - - - - Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - REET 2 - 175,000 175,000 175,000 350,000 Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: - 175,000 175,000 175,000 350,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 25,000 25,000 25,000 50,000 Right of Way - - - - Construction - 150,000 150,000 150,000 300,000 Total Expenditures: - 175,000 175,000 175,000 350,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Fund Balance - - - - - Giants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - REET 2 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 1,050,000 Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 1,050,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 150,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 900,000 Total Expenditures: 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 1,050,000 Grants/Other Sources 200 City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND (328) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Capital Projects Fund Project Title. Mohawks Plastics Site Mitigation Project TIP#13 Project No: cp0767 Project Type: Non-Capacity Project Manager Jeff Dixon/Matt Larson LOS Corridor ID# N/A Description: The project consists of the design, construction, maintenance and monitoring of approximately 2.2-acres of wetland creation and approximately 0 4-acres of wetland enhancement within the Goedecke South Property owned by the Sewer Utility in order to compensate for approximately 1.6-acre wetland loss on the Mohawk Plastics property(Parcel# 1321049056). The project was approved under an existing agreement approved by Resolution No.4196,June 2007 Progress Summary: The City received the DOE WQ Certification,WDFW HPA,and on May 7, 2009,the Army Corps of Engineers(Corps)404 wetland permit(NWS-2007-1913) Subsequently, bid specifications and construction plans were prepared and construction began in October 2009. Construction was completed in January 2010 and the project is currently within the 10 year monitoring period,which involves annual maintenance,monitoring and reporting. Future Impact on Operating Budget: it is anticipated that annual maintenance,monitoring and reporting on the performance of the wetland mitigation project will be required for a period of 10 years, in conformance with permit requirements. After the successful conclusion of this 10- year monitoring period,which is anticipated to be in December 2019,ongoing operation expenses should be minimal. Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Fund Balance - - - - - Giants - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees 382,304 25,000 25,000 20,000 432,304 REET2 169,186 - - 169,186 Total Funding Sources: 551,490 25,000 25,000 20,000 601,490 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction 551,490 25,000 25,000 20,000 601,490 Total Expenditures: 551,490 25,000 25,000 20,000 601,490 Forecasted Project Cost: Tots 1 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Fund Balance - - - - - Grants - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees 20,000 65,000 20,000 20,000 170,000 REET2 - - Total Funding Sources: 20,000 65,000 20,000 20,000 170,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Constmchon 20,000 65,000 20,000 20,000 170,000 Total Expenditures: 20,000 65,000 20,000 20,000 170,000 Grants/Other Sources 201 City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND (328) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Capital Projects Fund Project Title: Public Art Project No: pb-art Project Type: Project Manager Brewer Description: The City designates$30,000 annually tbward the purchase of public art,for placement at designated locations throughout the City Progress Summary: Arts Commission mill meet to assess future needs and seek approval from City Council on placement Future Impact on Operating Budget: None Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: (PreNous 2 Yrs) 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Fund Balance - - - - - Grants - - - - REE72 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 90,000 Other Total Funding Sources: 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 90,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 90,000 Total Expenditures: 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 90,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Tots I 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Fund Balance - - - - - Grants - - - - - REET2 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 ofWay - - - - - Construction 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 180,000 Total Expenditures: 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 180,000 Grants/Other Sources 202 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND (328) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Capital Projects Fund Project Title. City Wetland Mitigation Projects Project No: cp1315 Project Type Non-Capacity Project Manager Andersen Description: This project designs and constructs off-site wetland mitigation in the Auburn Environmental Park for participating development projects as approved through the City's development review process Design, construction, monitoring, and maintenance of the mitigation is funded through wetland mitigation fees collected by the City. Progress Summary: Mitiqation status of participatinq development protects. SEP04-0026 Jovita Heights Subdivision-in design, scheduled for construction 2013 SEP12-0030 Orion Industries- to design, scheduled for construction to 2013 SEP13-0016 Auburn Airport Airspace Maint.- to design, scheduled for construction in 2013 SEP04-0045 Auburn 40 Subdivision- to design, scheduled for construction to 2014 Future Impact on Operating Budget: After construction, each wetland mitigation site is monitored and maintained for a period of three to ten 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 Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - - Adjusted Budget - - - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Fund Balance - - - Gmnts(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Fund 124 Wetland Mitigation Account - 35,224 20,790 7,700 56,014 REET Total Funding Sources: - 35,224 20,790 7,700 56,014 Capital Expenditures: Design - 13,000 4,000 17,000 Right of Way - 12,090 - 12,090 Construction 22,224 4,700 7,700 34,624 Total Expenditures: - 35,224 20,790 7,700 56,014 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Fund Balance - - - - - Grants(Fed,State.Local) - - - - - Fund 124 Wetland Mitigation Account 7,700 7,200 4,200 - 47,590 REET Total Funding Sources: 7,700 7,200 4,200 - 47,590 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 4,000 Right of Way - - - - 12,090 Construction 7,700 7,200 4,200 - 31,500 Total Expenditures: 7,700 7,200 4,200 - 47,590 Grants/Other Sources 203 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND (328) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2014-2019 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. Local Revitalization financing is a credit on the State's portion of sales tax that the City will receive through 2035. Progress Summary, Future Impact on Operating Budget: Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - - - - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: (Premous 2 Yrs) 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Cap Improve - - - - Grants - - - - - REET2 299,132 224,710 228,510 224,910 752,352 Total Funding Sources: 299,132 224,710 228,510 224,910 752,352 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Construction - - - - - Long-Term Debt Service 299,132 224,710 228,510 224,910 752,352 Total Expenditures: 299,132 224,710 228,510 224,910 752,352 Forecasted Project Cost: Tots I 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Cap Improve - - - - - Grants - - - - - REET2 225,210 224,810 228,610 237,310 1,369,360 Total Funding Sources: 225,210 224,810 228,610 237,310 1,369,360 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Construction - - - - - Long-Tom Debt Service 225,210 224,810 228,610 237,310 1,369,360 Total Expenditures: 225,210 224,810 228,610 237,310 1,369,360 Grants/Other Sources 204 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 2010, there were approximately 141,000 take-offs and landings (aircraft operations) at the airport annually Table A-1 "Facilities Inventory' lists the facilities with current capacity and location. Currently the Airport is in the process of updating the Master Plan which will be completed in 2014 Level of Service (LOS) The Auburn Municipal Airport Master Plan Update 2001-2020 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 2020 the Airport Master Plan forecasts the number of operations to be 193,189—well below the capacity of the airport runway Capital Facilities Projects and Financing The City's Airport facilities include six non-capacity capital projects at a cost of $ 601,500 These projects include the Master Plan update, FAA mandated wildlife hazardous assessment project and facilities repairs and improvements. Table A-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 airport during the six years 2015 -2020. TABLE A-1 Facilities Inventory Airport CAPACITY FACILITY #of Aircraft # of Feet LOCATION Existing Inventory. Hangars 145 400 23rd Street NE Tiedow s 214 400 23rd Street NE Air Strip 3,400 400 23rd Street NE Total Existing Inventory 359 3,400 Proposed Capacity Projects. None - - Total Proposed Capacity Projects - - 2019 Projected Inventory Total 359 3,400 205 City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan TABLE A-2 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN PROJECTS AND FINANCING AIRPORT 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total Capacity Projects: None Non-Capacity Projects: 1 Airport Security Capital Costs 50,000 50,000 - - - - 100,000 Funding Sources Airport Fund 5,000 5,000 - - - - 10,000 Grant 45,000 45,000 - - - 90,000 2 Hangar Roof Repair/Replacement Capital Costs 6,000 - 6,000 - 6,000 - 18,000 Funding Sources Airport Fund 6,000 - 6,000 - 6,000 - 18,000 3 General Repair& Maint. Projects Capital Costs 140,000 - - - - - 140,000 Funding Sources. Airport Fund 103,000 - - - - - 103,000 Grants 37,000 - - - - - 37,000 4 Airport Master Plan Update Capital Costs 38,500 - - - - - 38,500 Funding Sources Airport Fund 3,500 - - - - - 3,500 Grants 35,000 - - - - - 35,000 5 Wildlife Hazardous Assessment Capital Costs 40,000 - - - - - 40,000 Funding Sources Airport Fund 2,000 - - - - - 2,000 Grants 38,000 - - - - - 38,000 6 Asphalt Rehabilitation and Seal Coat Capital Costs 265,000 - - - - - 265,000 Funding Sources Airport Fund 13,250 - - - - - 13,250 Grants 251,750 - - - - - 251,750 SUMMARY: CAPITAL COSTS Capacity Projects - - - - - - - Non-Capacity Projects 539,500 50,000 6,000 - 6,000 - 601,500 Total Costs 539,500 50,000 6,000 - 6,000 - 601,500 FUNDING SOURCES: Airport Fund 132,750 5,000 6,000 - 6,000 - 149,750 Grants (Fed,State,Local) 406,750 45,000 - - - - 451,750 Total Funding 539,500 50,000 6,000 - 6,000 - 601,500 206 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan AIRPORT FUND (435) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Enterprise Funds ProjectTtle. Airport Security Projects Project No: cp0713 Project Type: Project Manager Jamelle Garcia 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 Include replacing 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: None Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget Budget Amendments 50,000 Adjusted Budget - - 50,000 - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unmstncted Airport Revenue - - 5,000 5,000 5,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - 45,000 45,000 45,000 Other - - Total Funding Sources: - - 50,000 50,000 50,000 Capital Expenditures: Design _ _ _ _ _ Right of Way - - - - - Constmction 50,000 50,000 50,000 Total Expenditures: - - 50,000 50,000 50,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Tota I 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted AVport Revenue - - - - 10,000 Giants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - 90,000 Other - Total Funding Sources: - - - - 100,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - 100,000 Total Expenditures: - - - - 100,000 Grant j Other Sources: Federal Auation Administration 207 City ofAubw-n Draft Capital Facilities Plan AIRPORT FUND (435) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Enterprise Funds Project Title Hangar - Rows 9 & 10, Roof Repair or Replacement ' Project No: cp1025 Project Type: Non-Capacity Project Manager Jamelle Garcia Description: In 2012 Rows 9 & 10 Hangar metal roofs were repaired and seal coating was applied. Every two years the seal coat manufacturer required that an inspection and any defects be corrected. Progress Summary: The project was completed in 2012 and future project costs are for the biennial maintenance and inspection. Future Impact on Operating Budget: Biennial maintenance and inspection cost for this project Is estimated at$6,000 per year Maintenance includes cleaning, painting or sealing as recommended by the manufacturer Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget 200,000 200,000 Budget Amendments - Adjusted Budget 200,000 - - 200,000 Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Airport Revenue 88,615 - 6,000 - 94,615 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: 88,615 - 6,000 - 94,615 Capital Expenditures: Design 9,493 - - - 9,493 Right of Way - - - - - Construction 79,122 - 6,000 - 85,122 Total Expenditures: 88,615 - 6,000 - 94,615 Forecasted Project Cost: Tota I 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Airport Revenue 6,000 - 6,000 - 18,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local) - - - - - Other - - Total Funding Sources: 6,000 - 6,000 - 18,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - _ _ _ Right of Way - - - - - Construction 6,000 - 6,000 - 18,000 Total Expenditures: 6,000 - 6,000 - 18,000 Grant/Other Sources 208 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan AIRPORT FUND (435) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Enterprise Funds Project Title. Airport Projects - General Repair & Maintenance Project No. cp435a Project Type. Non-Capacity Project Manager Jamelle Garcia Description: Various airport projects will be identified and prioritized on an annual basis as grant funding Is secured. For 2014,this will Include removal of west side trees In compliance with US Army Corps of Engineers. Progress Summary: Work with US Army Corps of Engineers to find solution to west side trees so that they can be removed or topped so they will not grow up to be a hazard again Future Impact on Operating Budget: None Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Airport Revenue - 25,000 103,000 - 128,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - 37,000 - 37,000 Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: - 25,000 140,000 - 165,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Constmction - 25,000 140,000 - 165,000 Total Expenditures: - 25,000 140,000 - 165,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Airport Revenue - - - - 103,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local) - - - - 37,000 Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: - - - - 140,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - 140,000 Total Expenditures: - - - - 140,000 Grant/Other Sources Federal Aaahon Administration 209 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan AIRPORT FUND (435) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Airport Master Plan Update Project No cp1221 Project Type Non-Capacity Project Manager Bill Thomas Description: This is a mid-term Airport Master Plan Update. In 2002 a Master Plan update was completed and this is the second update to the Master Plan and Airport Layout Plan(ALP). This is a Federal Aviation Administration requirement for continued receipt of federal and state grants. Progress Summary: The consultant has been selected to begin collecting Information and prepare the scope of work and associated costs. This project will take between 18 and 24 months to complete. Future Impact on Operating Budget: Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget Budget Amendments - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Airport Revenue - 19,000 3,500 - 22,500 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - 167,500 35,000 - 202,500 Other - Total Funding Sources: - 186,500 38,500 - 225,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 186,500 38,500 - 225,000 Right of Way - - - - Construction - - - - - Total Expenditures: - 186,500 38,500 - 225,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Tots 1 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Airport Revenue - - - - 3,500 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - 35,000 Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: - - - - 38,500 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 38,500 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - Total Expenditures: - - - - 38,500 Grants/Other Sources Federal Auation Administration 210 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan AIRPORT FUND (435) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2014-2019 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Wildlife Hazardous Assessment Project No cpxxxx Project Type. Non-Capacity Project Manager Jamelle Garcia Description: Federal Aviation Administration mandated wildfire hazard assessment for high volume airports. Progress Summary: Consultant has been selected and will begin work once the contact between the City of Auburn and Mead 8 Hunt is signed. Expect a 14- 16 month process Future Impact on Operating Budget: Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget - - - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Airport Revenue - 1,500 2,000 - 3,500 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - 28,500 38,000 - 66,500 Other Total Funding Sources: - 30,000 40,000 - 70,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 30,000 40,000 - 70,000 Right of Way - - - - - Constmction - - - - Total Expenditures: - 30,000 40,000 - 70,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestncted Airport Revenue - - - - 2,000 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - 38,000 Other - Total Funding Sources: - - - - 40,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 40,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - Total Expenditures: - - - - 40,000 Grants/Other Sources' Federal Auation Administration and Washington State Department of Transportation 211 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan AIRPORT FUND (435) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2014-2019 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Asphalt Rehabilitation and Seal Coat Project No CpXXXX Project Type Non-Capacity Project Manager Jamelle Garcia Description: The scope of the project is to provide engineering design services for proposed improvements at Auburn Municipal Airport to include Crack-Sealing and Slurry Seal of Airfield. Progress Summary: None to date Future Impact on Operating Budget: This design project will be authorized for bid and will be constructed in 2014 Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget Budget Amendments 96,408 - Adjusted Budget - - 96,408 - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Yea r End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestncted Airport Revenue - 5,500 13,250 - 18,750 Grants(Fed,State,Local - 104,500 251,750 - 356,250 Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: - 110,000 265,000 - 375,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 110,000 - - 110,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - 265,000 - 265,000 Total Expenditures: - 110,000 265,000 - 375,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Airport Revenue - - - - 13,250 Grants(Fed,State,Local) - - - - 251,750 Other - - - - - Total Funding Sources: - - - - 265,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - 265,000 Total Expenditures: - - - - 265,000 Grants/Other Sources Federal Auation Administration and Washington State Department of Transportation 212 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan CEMETERY Current Facilities The City owns two cemeteries. The Mountain View Cemetery is a fully developed facility (50 acres and four buildings) that provides burial services and related merchandise for the community The Pioneer Cemetery is a historic cemetery which 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 40.09 burial plots/niches per 1,000 population is based on the existing inventory divided by the 2013 citywide population of 73,235 The proposed LOS of 47 77 burial plots/niches per 1,000 population is based on the projected inventory divided by the 2019 projected citywide population of 87,392. In addition, the cemetery will be able to offer a natural cremation garden. Capital Facilities Projects and Financing The City's Mountain View Cemetery facilities include one capital project at a cost of $35,000 for the Memory Heights development. Table C-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 forecast for the cemetery during the six years 2015-2020. TABLE C-1 Facilities Inventory Cemetery CAPACITY FACILITY #of Burial Plots/Niches LOCATION Existing Inventory: Mountain View Cemetery 2,936 2020 Mountain View Dr Pioneer Cemetery - 8th &Auburn Way No. Total Existing Inventory 2,936 Proposed Capacity Projects: New Development-Bunal Plots 475 Memory Heights New Development-Bunal Plots 764 10th Addition Total Proposed Capacity Projects 1,239 2019 Projected Inventory Total 4,175 213 City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan TABLE C-2 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN PROJECTS AND FINANCING CEMETERY 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total Non-Capacity Projects: 1 Memory Heights New Development Capital Costs - 35,000 - - - - 35,000 Funding Sources. Cemetery Fund - 35,000 35,000 Other - - SUMMARY: CAPITAL COSTS Capacity Projects - - - - Non-Capacity Projects - 35,000 - 35,000 Total Costs 35,000 - 35,000 FUNDING SOURCES: Cemetery Fund 35,000 - 35,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local) - - - - - - - Other - - - Total Funding 35,000 - 35,000 214 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan CEMETERY FUND (436) Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Enterprise Funds Project Title Memory Heights New Development Project No: cpxxxx Project Type: Non Capacity Project Manager Craig Hudson Description: New Memory Heights development 475 graves Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: Future revenue source for plot sales and cemetery merchandise, Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 2013 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - Budget Amendments - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Cemetery Revenue - - - 35,000 - Grants - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Impact Fees - Total Funding Sources: - - - 35,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - 3,000 3,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction 32,000 32,000 Total Expenditures: - - - 35,000 - Forecasted Project Cost: Tots I 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Cemetery Revenue - - - - 35,000 Grants - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Impact Fees - Total Funding Sources: - - - - 35,000 Capital Expenditures: Design _ - _ _ 3,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction 32,000 Total Expenditures: - - - - 35,000 215 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan CITY OF A T T A M - U B RN MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED 216 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan GOLF COURSE Current Facilities The City of Auburn owns and operates the 18-hole Auburn Municipal Golf Course. A PGA Class A professional is contracted to collect greens fees, operate the pro shop and snack bar, provide golf carts for rent, and offer a lesson program. Table GC-1 Facilities Inventory lists the facilities along with their current capacity and location. Level of Service (LOS) The current LOS of .25 holes per 1,000 population is based on the existing inventory divided by the 2013 citywide population of 73,235. The proposed LOS of .21 holes per 1,000 population is based on the projected inventory divided by the 2019 projected citywide population of 87,392. Capital Facilities Projects and Financing The CFP does not include any Golf Course capital facilities projects during 2014-2019 Impact on Future Operating Budgets There are no operating budget impacts forecast for new golf course facilities during the six years 2015 — 2020 TABLE GC-1 Facilities Inventory Golf Course CAPACITY FACILITY # of holes LOCATION Existing Inventory. Auburn Municipal Golf Course 18 29639 Green Riper Road Total Existing Inventory 18 Proposed Capacity Projects: None Total Proposed Capacity Projects 2019 Projected Inventory Total 18 217 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan CITY OF � Bu MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED 218 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan POLICE Current Facilities The City of Auburn Police Department provides a full range of law enforcement services to the citizens of Auburn. All Divisions of the Auburn Police Department are housed at 340 East Main Street, Suite 201 The Divisions include Patrol, Investigations, Administrative Services, Inspectional Services, and Records. Level of Service (LOS) The City of Auburn Police Department contracts with SCORE, an outside entity, for housing of all misdemeanant inmates. Capital Facilities Projects and Financing The CFP does not include any Police capital facilities projects during 2014 — 2019 Impact on Future Operating Budgets The jail services expenses are dependent on the City's contract agreement with SCORE. 219 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan CITY OF i y �t. BURN T MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED 220 City ofAuburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan FIRE PROTECTION Current Facilities The Valley Regional Fire Authority provides fire protection and rescue services to a 25-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 19 fire apparatus per 1,000 population is based on the existing inventory (14 fire apparatus) divided by the 2013 citywide population of 73,235 The proposed LOS of 0 16 fire apparatus per 1,000 is based on the 2019 planned inventory (14 fire apparatus) divided by the 2019 projected citywide population of 87,392. Capital Facilities Projects and Financing The Valley Regional Fire Authority includes one capital project at a cost of $50,000 for Fire Station Facility Relocation, Enhancements & 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 2015 - 2020. 221 City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan TABLE F-1 Facilities Inventory Valley Regional Fire Authority CAPACITY FACILITY Fire Apparatus Aid Vehicles LOCATION Existing Inventory' Stations. North Station#31 1101 'D'Street NE, Auburn First Line 1 1 Reserve 1 South Station#32 1951 'R' Street SE, Auburn First Line 1 1 Reserve 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 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 11 3 Proposed Inventory Additions: None Total Proposed Capacity Projects - - 2019 Projected Inventory Total 11 3 222 City ofAubur-n Draft Capital Facilities Plan TABLE F-2 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN PROJECTS AND FINANCING VALLEY REGIONAL FIRE AUTHORITY 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total Non-Capacity Projects: 1 Fire Station Facility Relocation, Enhancements & Improvements Capital Costs 50,000 - - - 50,000 Funding Sources Grants - Bond Proceeds - - Impact/Mitigation Fees 50,000 50,000 SUMMARY: CAPITAL COSTS Capacity Projects - - Non-Capacity Projects 50,000 50,000 Total Costs 50,000 50,000 FUNDING SOURCES: Cemetery Fund - - Grants (Fed,State,Local) - - - - - - - Bond Proceeds 50,000 50,000 Total Funding 50,000 50,000 223 City ofAuburn Dt-aft Capital Facilities Plan Valley Regional Fire Authority Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan,2014-2019 Project Title Fire Station Facility Relocation, Enhancements & Improvements Project No Cpxxxx Project Type: Project Manager Description: Continue study of other Fire station needs for VRFA Facility improvement projects are identified and prioritized annually, and subject to delay to accommodate emergency repairs. Progress Summary: Fire mitigation and Impact fees will be transferred to the Valley Regional Fire Authority to pay for design contracts for the study of fire station relocation,construction projects and facility improvements. Future Impact on Operating Budget: Budget: 2013 YTD Actual 2014 13 Budget Budget Expenditures Budget Balance Adopted Budget - Budget Amendments - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: (PreHous 2 Yrs) 2013 YE 2014 Year End Funding Sources: Prior to 2013 Estimate 2014 Budget 2015 Budget Project Total Grants - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Impact/Mingahon Fees 312,300 50,000 50,000 - 412,300 Total Funding Sources: 312,300 50,000 50,000 - 412,300 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Constructron 312,300 50,000 50,000 - 412,300 Total Expenditures: 312,300 50,000 50,000 - 412,300 Forecasted Project Cost: Tots 1 2016 2017 2018 2019 2014-2019 Funding Sources: Grants - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - impact/Mitigation Fees - - - - 50,000 Total Funding Sources: - - - - 50,000 Capital Expenditures: - Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - 50,000 Total Expenditures: - - - - 50,000 224 See Pages 8-9 throueh 8-11 for chances related to emphasis of industrial uses. CHAPTER 8 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Introduction Auburn's economic base drives and shapes the community and region. Auburn 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 which Auburn residents demand and/or require. It is clearly in the City's best interest to maintain and expand our economic base in unison with implementing all of the goals of this Comprehensive Plan. This section of the plan will help to define the City's goals and policies in this vital area. Issues & Background Historic Trends Historically, a variety of factors have shaped Auburn's economy. At the turn of the 201h 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 significant factor. As urbanization of the region expanded to include Auburn, the vitality of Downtown Auburn was impacted by new shopping malls located outside the community and by changing retail trends. At the same time, Auburn's importance as the home of large industrial and warehousing operations increased. This same period 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 located in the community. The development of the SuperMall in the 1990's 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. Page 8-1 Amended 2011 Chapter 8 During that same decade, Emerald Downs and the Muckleshoot Casino also contributed to commercial recreation facilities in Auburn and associated employment growth. Today, Auburn provides over 38,000 jobs for residents throughout the region. Auburn has a strong industrial sector that includes Boeing, the General Service Administration (GSA) and numerous warehouse and distribution facilities. Auburn Regional Medical Center and the growing medical office community 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 Community 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 character and pedestrian oriented development pattern, Downtown Auburn reflects many of the qualities being sought by other communities. Given its urban center designation, Auburn Station, and the incentives the City has in place, Downtown Auburn remains poised for continued revitalization. EMPLOYMENT GROWTH EMPLOYMENT Auburn provides over 38,000 jobs for residents throughout the region. Auburn has a diverse industrial sector that includes Boeing, the General Services Administration (GSA) and numerous warehouse and distribution facilities. Auburn Regional Medical Center and the growing medical office community also provide a significant number of jobs. The retail and service sectors continue to expand as companies locate in Auburn and as small businesses are created. Educational uses such as the Auburn School District add to the employment base. Between 1995 to 2000, the number of jobs located in Auburn increased 34% compared to an overall increase of 22% throughout the rest of King County Manufacturing jobs remain the largest category in Auburn, despite the loss of nearly 2,000 manufacturing jobs since 1990 The remaining job categories all experienced job growth. Retail jobs increased substantially along with jobs in warehousing, transportation, and communication industries. Figure 8.1 compares the type of jobs located in Auburn since 1995 Page 8-2 Amended 2011 IEconomic Development Figure 8.1 Jobs Located in Auburn 1995-2010 45.000 ----------40,0041 35.000 V, 30,000 25,001) 20,000 K 1995Jobs 15,004) 1 D200OJobs 10,000 5201OJobs 5.000 0 - M o C` xc 4j, Source: Puget Sound Regional Council;covered employment data. It is expected that Auburn's employment base will continue to grow into the future. To the year 2031, the King County Countywide Planning Policies have assigned Auburn's job base to increase by 19,350 jobs. It should be noted that this number is not a maximum, but the City's most recent assigned share of future projected growth in the County. Retail Sales Auburn's business community is keeping pace with both Auburn's population growth and its increase in more affluent households. Between 1995 and 2003, retail sales in Auburn increased 59% or roughly 8% per year. As shown in Figure 8.2, Auburn is the sixth largest retail center in Pierce and King Counties outside of Tacoma, Seattle and Bellevue. Page 8-3 Amended 2011 Chapter 8 Figure 8.2 City Retail Sales (Outside of Seattle/Tacoma/Bellevue) Yr1995 Rank'95 Yr2003 Rank'03 Kent 1,507,693,474 2 2,005,340,826 1 Tukwila 1,572,309,882 1 1,798,012,039 2 Renton 1,117,803,594 4 1,763,639,632 3 Redmond 1,345,470,014 3 1,640,192,690 4 Puyallup 788,047,838 8 1,474,074,155 5 Auburn 910,528,894 6 1,450,240,653 6 Kirkland 1,032,278,016 5 1,356,322,041 7 Woodinville 276,251,793 12 1,356,322,041 8 Federal Way 885,908,414 7 1,179,841,030 9 Issaquah 473,022,152 10 1,008,655,951 10 Source: State of Washington Department of Revenue Beginning in 1997, retail sales in Auburn began increasing at a rate faster than the rest of King County In the Year 2000, retail sales in King County fell whereas sales in Auburn remained steady. At the end of 2002, retail sales continue to remain steady and higher than the rest of King County Figure 8.3 illustrates this comparison between Auburn, King County and Washington State. Figure 8.3 Comparison of Retail Sales 60% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 50% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . . . . . 40% -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ___•-•-•_ 30% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - �� - - - - - - - - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10% -. . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i r 0% 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 tAuburn —n—King County — —Wash ington State Source: Washington State Dept of Revenue Page 8-4 Amended 2011 Economic Development STREAMLINED SALES TAX The State of Washington recently adopted streamlined sales tax (SST) legislation. Prior to SST, sales tax collection in Washington State was based on the site of origin, rather than on the site of delivery. Under the SST tax structure, sales tax is collected at the site of delivery rather than from those areas from which they were shipped. This change in tax structure will put Auburn at a disadvantage and negatively impact its tax revenue. Specifically, Auburn and similar cities have historically invested in infrastructure to support businesses engaged in warehouse and distribution activities that ship goods to other destinations. Another concern for Auburn and similar cities that have invested in infrastructure include how the debt that has already been extended for such 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 structure are adopted. Because of the State of Washington's implementation 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 City being able to continue a strong public investment program 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 comprises 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 sales tax revenue mitigation program. The eventual loss of the aforementioned sales tax revenue 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 supporting warehouse and distribution centers that are origin based in nature. Page 8-5 Amended 2011 Chapter 8 2005 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES In 2005 the City of Auburn brought together a focus group of diverse business and community interests that identified several economic development areas within the City. The focus group's effort is reflected in an Economic Development Strategies document 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 actions and strategies in the Economic Development Strategies is appropriate and reflected in various elements of the Auburn Comprehensive Plan. Since the development of the Economic Development Strategies document, additional economic development strategy areas have been identified to include the SE 312`h Street/124`h Avenue SE corridor within the recently annexed portion of Lea Hill and M Street SE between Auburn Way North and Auburn Way South. Goals and Policies ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GOALS AND POLICIES GOAL 17 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT To ensure the long-term economic health of the City and the region through a diversified economic base that supports a wide range of employment opportunities for Auburn's residents and those of the region and through the promotion of quality industrial and commercial development which matches the aspirations of the community. Objective 9.1. Promote a diversified economic base capable of withstanding changes in interest rates, inflation, tax structure and market conditions. ED-1 City promotion of new industry shall be directed at attracting business that diversifies the City's tax base, offers secure, quality employment opportunities, is sensitive to community values and promotes the development of attractive facilities. ED-2 Emerald Downs, the Muckleshoot Casino, and the SuperMall of the Great Northwest offer opportunities 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. Page 8-6 Amended 2011 Economic Development ED-4 The adoption of Streamline Sales Tax (SST) shall constitute an emergency for the purposes of amending the Comprehensive Plan outside of the normal amendment cycle in order to, among other items, implement the intent of Auburn City Council Resolution No. 3782, if needed. As a result of the implementation of mitigation payments by the State of Washington, the City has not determined an emergency exists, however, the City reserves the right to make this determination and implement all necessary policies and measures should these mitigation payments cease or other policies, actions or events occur that the City believes constitute an emergency. Objective 9.2. Produce commercial and industrial siting policies which are based on the assessment of local needs and the availability of transportation and other infrastructure required to serve it. ED-5 Development of industrial areas should be based on performance standards appropriate for the site and with appropriate flexibility within those standards to accommodate changing market conditions. ED-6 Revitalize depreciated and/or obsolete commercial and industrial sites through innovative regulations that redesign the site in accordance with modern design standards and industrial/commercial uses. ED-7 Uses which serve regional needs and purposes (such as major industrial plants) must be separated from community serving uses in order to minimize traffic and other conflicts. Objective 9.3. Develop effective land use polices and economic development strategies that provide long-term and stable employment, increase per capita income and reduce the tax burden of Auburn residents. ED-8 Auburn should continue to provide an economic base not only for the Auburn area but also for the south King County and north Pierce County region. ED-9 Implementation of economic development programs shall be consistent with the policies of this Plan. ED-10 The City should develop a formal economic development strategy as an element of the Comprehensive Plan to specifically identify the types of businesses most consistent with community aspirations and lay out a program to attract those businesses. Page 8-7 Amended 2011 Chapter 8 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 and the State. b. The City should implement its economic development strategy through a partnership with the private sector c. Identified in the 2005 Economic Development Strategies documents are six strategy areas along with two additional strategy areas. These economic development strategy areas are targeted for population and employment growth to meet the City's 20-year (2031) growth target. Sub-area plans should be developed for these strategy areas. The economic development strategy areas are as follows: • Auburn Way North Corridor • Auburn Way South Corridor • Urban Center • Auburn Environmental Park and Green Zone 15`h Street SW/C Street SW/West Valley Highway/Supermall • A Street SE Corridor • SE 312`h Street/124`h Avenue SE Corridor • M Street SE between Auburn Way North and Auburn South ED-11 Ensure that economic development strategies are reviewed regularly in order to be flexible and respond to changes in the market. ED-12 The City should work with the private sector, school districts and Green River Community College to develop programs to provide training. Consideration of special needs of economically disadvantaged citizens and neighborhoods and people with physical impairments and developmental disabilities should be included in these programs. ED-13 Support continued development of the Sound Transit Commuter Rail system, as an important means of expanding the City's and the region's economic base. ED-14 City infrastructure plans and programs should take into consideration economic development plans and programs. Page 8-8 Amended 2011 Economic Development ED-15 Implement the recommendations of the City's 2005 Economic Development Strategies brochure including the addition of the SE 312a' Street/1241h 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 to these economic development strategy areas. ED-16 Warehouse and distribution land uses are not a preferred long- term economic development and land use priority for industrial zoned areas in the City due to the loss of sales tax revenue associated with the State's implementation of streamlined sales tax legislation in 2008, no substantive contribution to an increase in per capita income for Auburn residents, no reduction in the tax burden of Auburn residents, low employment densities, lower property values and land use inefficiencies. ED-17 Increases in manufacturing and industrial land uses should be the City's preferred economic development and land use priority for industrial zoned areas of the City currently dominated by warehouse and distribution land uses. The City should promote and incentivize new manufacturin and nd light industrial uses and f6F and rewire-the gradual conversion of existing warehouse and distribution land uses to manufacturing and industrial land uses. rropeFties fro,: AYR rPheusing—and distribution uses to implenient a limited term transition plan that contains amon other things both incentives fbF conveFsien and disineentives to RRt R�RF,44i n ED-189 To support continued sales tax revenue growth opportunities in the City, those areas currently dominated by existing and warehouse land uses that abut existing commercial retail areas and could take advantage of this proximity to realize substantive value by changing to commercial retail uses should be considered for changes in comprehensive plan and zoning designations that would facilitate the conversion of these properties to commercial retail land uses. ED-2019—Regulatory and financial incentives will be identified and implemented where appropriate to provide increased opportunities and encouragement for the establishment of new or expanded manufacturing and industrial uses and jobs in the City. Page 8-9 Amended 201 I Chapter 8 Objective 9.4 Maintain an adequate supply of land to support future economic development and assure the availability of economic opportunities for future generations. ED-a-4-20 Economic development programs should be viewed as a way to shape the character of the City's future economy rather than merely respond to market trends as they occur. ED-2-221 Land suitable for large scale development in the Region Serving Area of the City should be identified and designated for economic development. a. The integrity of large, contiguously owned properties suitable for industrial use should be conserved by use of appropriate industrial subdivision standards. b. The City should identify and resolve any environmental constraints affecting such land by means of the appropriate environmental review procedures as early as 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. 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 environmental opportunities and planned infrastructure to build on and support economic development efforts. ED-2-322 Integrate the Auburn Environmental Park (AEP) into the City's economic development efforts by encouraging compatible high tech businesses to locate in its vicinity. Amend regulations to establish appropriate land uses for that area as well as develop strategies and incentives to promote the area as a "Green Zone" for economic development. ED-2423 Utilize the future extension of I Street NE as an economic development opportunity. Development of I Street NE should establish it as 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 and whose impacts can be adequately mitigated should be supported. Page 8-10 Amended 2011 Economic Development ED-21524 Use the M Street SE underpass and development of M Street SE and R Street SE bypass connection as an opportunity to create and encourage the clustering of complementary business and services in that area. Page 8-11 Amended 2011 See Pages 3-34 through 3-35 and Page 3-39 for changes related to emphasis of industrial uses. CHAPTER 3 LAND USE Introduction Land use planning enables the City of Auburn to manage its anticipated growth and development while taking into consideration the specific community vision and desires. By designating how land can be used, those considerations necessary for orderly growth including the creation of jobs, the provision of recreational opportunities, strong and stable neighborhoods and an efficient transportation system can be pursued. Auburn Today To better understand and evaluate the context for the City's future growth, it is helpful to evaluate the City's existing land use and zoning. Figure 3.1 provides an overview of the zoned acreage within the City of Auburn and the percentage that acreage represents of the City's overall land area. Land zoned for residential purposes, especially single family residential, is clearly predominant and represents about 49 percent (RC, R1, R5, R7 and R10 zones) of the City's zoned acreage. Ofcommercial and industrial zoned land, the M1 (Light Industrial) zone is most predominant, consisting of 9 percent of the zoned acreage in the city. Land zoned P1 (Public Use District) is another significant land use zone consisting of 8.5 percent of the city's zoned acreage. Page 3-1 Amended 2011 Chapter 3 Figure 3.1 City of Auburn Acreage of Land by Zoning District PERCENTAGE ZONE ACREAGE OF CITY RC(Residential Conservancy) 1,481 7.58% RI (Residential 1 du/acre) 1,405 719% R5 (Residential 5 du/acre) 4,281 21.92% R7 (Residential 7 du/acre) 2,076 10.63% RIO(Residential 10 du/acre) 244 1.25% R20(Residential 20 du/acre)) 608 3 13% RMHC (Residential Manufactured/Mobile Home Units) 455 2.33% RO(Residential Office) 95 0.49% RO-H (Residential Office Hospital) 1.0 0.005% CN (Neighborhood Commercial) 12 0.06% CI (Light Commercial) 302 1.55% C2 (Central Business District) 33 0.17% DUC(Downtown Urban Center) 135 0.69% C3 (Heavy Commercial) 1,432 7.33% BP(Business Park) 0 0.00% EP(Environmental Park) 276 141% M I (Light Industrial) 1,762 9.02% M2 (Heavy Industrial) 1,099 5.63% LF (Landing Field) 112 0.57% PI (Public Use District) 1,665 8.47% 1 (Institutional) 584 2.99% U(Unclassified) 432 2.21% PUD(Planned Unit Development) 984 504% TV (Terrace View) 59 0.30% TOTAL 19,533 100% Source: City of Auburn. Geographic Information Services(GIS) The above data includes area in the West Hill and Lea Hill annexations. The small remaining areas outside of the city limits but within the city's Potential Annexation Area (PAA) are not included. BUILDABLE LANDS - LAND SUPPLY AND DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY In 1997 the Washington State legislature adopted a Buildable Lands amendment to the Growth Management Act (GMA) (RC W 36.70A.215). The amendment requires certain Washington State counties and their cities Page 3-2 Amended 2011 Land Use to determine the amount of land suitable for urban development and to evaluate their capacity for growth based on past development history Both Pierce and King Counties are subject to the State Buildable Lands requirement. In addition, both counties use the Buildable Lands effort to assist in the allocation of population/housing unit/employment targets to individual jurisdictions within the respective counties as required by the GMA. The first buildable lands reports were based upon data through 2002; the second reports, published in 2007, are current through 2005. The Buildable Lands analysis involves the identification of vacant and redevelopable land suitable for development over the planning horizon, through 2022. Land suitability takes into consideration estimates of how critical areas, land that might be needed for public purposes (e.g. parks, storm drainage), and land needed for future streets will effect development of these vacant and redevelopable parcels. It also means adjusting the amount of vacant and redevelopable land using a market factor or discount factor to exclude land that, based on historical trends is not reasonably expected to become available for sale or lease during the planning horizon. Land Supply and Housing Unit Capacity As indicated above, both King and Pierce Counties are subject to the State's Buildable Lands legislation. An approximation of Auburn's development capacity was made through an analysis of all vacant and underutilized land within the City Vacant land is defined as any parcel with no structures. Underutilized or redevelopable land is defined as a parcel with potential for infill or redevelopment. The following summarizes the results and conclusions of these analyses by county (King and Pierce). While the objective behind each counties' Buildable Lands effort was similar, the approaches were slightly different. Detailed information regarding the Buildable Lands analysis may be found in the individual Buildable Lands reports prepared by the respective County 2007 King County Buildable Lands Analysis Figure 3.2 identifies the gross and adjusted net vacant and redevelopable land by residential land use type from the Buildable Lands analysis for King County. Adjusted net acres represent the amount of gross acres available for development after assumptions about critical areas, future right of way needs; future land for public uses and the market factor have been considered. (Note: this analysis was based upon the City limits as of December 31, 2005 and therefore does not include the recent annexations of Lea and West Hills. The 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report did Page 3-3 Amended 2011 Chapter 3 not provide specific analysis for the large Lea Hill and West Hill PAAs that in 2005, were still unincorporated). Figure 3.2 Gross and Adjusted Net Acres of Vacant and Redevelopable Land by Residential Zoning Type (King County) Gross Acres Adjusted Net Acres 1 Single Family 1,323.5 888.2 Vacant Single Family 603.7 349 Redevelo able Multi-Family/ 37 32.5 Mixed Use Vacant Multi-Family/ 145.8 107.9 Mixed Use Redevelo able TOTAL 1 2,110 1 1,377.6 (1) "Adjusted Net Acres"represents land available for development after critical areas,anticipated right-of-way and public purposes needs and a market factor have been taken into account. (2) "Other"represents mixed-use opportunities in certain zones. After deducting for constraints, future right-of-way and public purpose needs, and after applying a market factor, the Buildable Lands analysis shows that Auburn has approximately 1,377.5 adjusted net acres of vacant and redevelopable residentially zoned land during the planning period through 2022. As seen in Figure 3.2, the majority of available land for development is zoned for single-family residential purposes. Based on the residential land supply analysis and historical densities, an estimate of housing unit capacity was developed. Figure 3.3 identifies the estimated capacity (in housing units) in King County by the predominant zoning type. This estimate shows a capacity of approximately 6,525 housing units in the King County portion of the City exists to the year 2022. Page 3-J Amended 2011 Land Use Figure 3.3 Housing Unit Capacity By Residential Zoning Type (King County) Capacity (Housing Units Single Family 3,958 Multi-Family 2,002 Mixed Use 565 TOTAL 6,525 (I) Capacity figures include units in the pipeline. Employment Capacity (King County) As part of the King County Buildable Lands analysis, employment capacity was also estimated. This methodology involved a similar approach as the residential capacity analysis. The supply of both vacant and redevelopable commercial and industrial land was determined. As with residential capacity, net land supply for commercial and industrial purposes took into consideration critical areas, anticipated future right-of ways, land for public purposes and applied a market factor to land that may not be available for development during the planning period. Estimates of how much commercial and industrial square footage could be developed on property were calculated. Employment capacity was developed applying a floor area per employee ratio. Figure 3.4 identifies the gross and adjusted net vacant and redevelopable land by commercial and industrial land use from the King County Buildable Lands analysis. Again, adjusted net acres represents the amount of gross acres available for development after assumptions about critical areas constraints, future right of way needs, land for public uses and the market factor have been considered. Page 3-5 Amended 2011 Chapter 3 Figure 3.4 Gross and Adjusted Net Acres of Commercial and Industrial Land Supply (King County) Gross Acres Adjusted Net Acres 1 Commercial 164 136.1 Vacant Commercial 81.8 66 Redevelo able Industrial Vacant 499.3 327.3 Industrial 256.9 1763 Redevelo able Mixed Use 2 1.6 Vacant Mixed Use 56.4 45.5 Redevelo able TOTAL 1,060.2 753 1 "Adjusted Net Acres" represents land after critical areas, future anticipated streets, land for public purposes and market factor have been considered. Figure 3.4 indicates that approximately 1,060 gross acres of vacant and redevelopable commercial, industrial and mixed use zoned land exists, with most of this land being industrially zoned. Adjusted for constraints, future infrastructure needs and a market factor, slightly more than 750 net acres exists. Figure 3.5 below summarizes employment capacity developed as part of the Buildable Lands analysis by land use zone type. It shows that the City of Auburn has employment capacity for over 17,750 jobs, with a majority of those jobs being on industrially zoned land. Figure 3.5 Employment Capacity by Zoning Type (King County) Zone Type Employment Capacity Commercial 3,559 Industrial 12,053 Mixed Use 736 Other(1) 1,410 TOTAL 17,759 (1)"Other" includes estimates of employment associated with pipeline projects identified at the time of the Buildable Lands analysis. Pierce County Buildable Lands Analysis While the overall objective of the Pierce County Buildable Lands analysis was similar to King County's, certain elements were done differently. The Page 3-6 Amended 2011 Land Use majority of land within the city limits at the time of the buildable lands analysis (Year 2005) was part of the Lakeland Hills South Planned Unit Development (PUD). The majority of the additional residential vacant land was part of approved preliminary plats. Therefore, estimates of residential population housing units were based on planned densities established as part of the PUD approval and a related annexation agreement with the developer, and also took in account the other approved projects. Estimates of employment were based on known employment areas within the PUD Based on the Pierce County Buildable Lands analysis, it was determined that the City of Auburn's population growth to the year 2022 would be 10,500 people. This translates into the need for approximately 1,789 housing units. The Pierce County Buildable Lands analysis includes a 2022 employment target of 403 and an employment capacity of 543. This estimate was based on the likely employment generated by the commercial parcels located within Lakeland Hills South PUD and other vacant commercial lands along A St. SE. (Specifics regarding the Pierce County Buildable Lands analysis may be found in the "Pierce County Buildable Land Reports—A Monitoring and Evaluation analysis of Urban Growth and Development Capacity for Pierce County and its Cities and Towns", September 1, 2007.) Evaluation of Capacitv Against Projected Growth -Targets King County and Pierce County both have allocated housing unit and employment targets to local jurisdictions. These targets were recently updated with the revised population forecasts released by the Office of Financial Management for each county. The City of Auburn's allocation targets are presented below in Figure 3.6. Figure 3.6 City of Auburn 2006-2031 Housing Unit/Employment/Population Allocations (King and Pierce counties) Housing Units Employment Population King County 9,620 19,350 N/A Pierce County 386 206 7,950 These revised housing and employment target numbers were updated to assist jurisdictions in their comprehensive plan updates as well as coincide with the updates to the Countywide Planning Policies. An updated buildable lands report will not be completed until 2012 and at that time the Page 3-7 Amended 2011 Chapter 3 City will be able to determine its housing and employment capacity and whether land use changes are warranted. Buildable Lands Analysis Limitations It is important to note limitations to the Buildable Lands analysis. The Buildable Lands analysis is based on identifying actual densities for a five-year period and then applying these densities to available land. Whether or not the densities achieved for the discrete five-year period will be a true reflection of future densities is one consideration. As land becomes increasingly scarce and land values rise, there will be a tendency for land to be more intensely used over time with higher densities. Also, how much land could be developed is not a predictor of whether it will be developed. Ultimately the market will dictate how much land will be developed. Attempting to predict the market was beyond the scope of the Buildable Lands analysis. Issues and Background Auburn's Potential Annexation Area Auburn's Comprehensive Plan contains policies which designate types and intensities of land uses that will accomplish the City's long range goals. Since the Plan depicts a long term perspective of the City's growth, it is appropriate to also include on the Comprehensive Plan map those areas which may not currently be within the City limits, but are planned to be in the future. These areas are within the city's potential annexation area (PAA). (Map I.1). However, due to recent annexations, the amount of land remaining within the PAA is relatively small. The city provides water and sewer service to many portions of the PAA. In addition, growth in the PAA can have significant impacts on other City services. Hence, it is important for City decision makers to consider the growth in these areas as well as within the city limits when making decisions concerning capital projects such as water and sewer extensions and road projects. (For a more thorough discussion of these issues; see Chapter 13, "Development in the Unincorporated Areas and Annexation.") GOAL 5. CITY EXPANSION AND ANNEXATION To ensure the orderly development and annexation of the City's potential annexation area in a manner that ensures adequate and cost-effective provision of required urban services and facilities, reduces sprawl, implements the goals, objectives and policies of the Auburn Comprehensive Plan, and protects designated rural areas. Page 3-8 Amended 2011 Land Use Objective 5.1 To designate Auburn's potential annexation area and to include those areas on the City's Comprehensive Plan Map. Policies: LU-1 Auburn's Potential Annexation Area is shown on Map 3.1, Map 3.1 also depicts Growth Impact Areas. These Growth Impact Areas are generally adjacent cities or unincorporated County lands in which development that occurs potentially impacts the city of Auburn. LU-2 The Auburn City Council may revise the boundaries of the Potential Annexation Area in the future, in response to: a. Amendments to the King County Urban Growth Area as specified in the King County Countywide Policies; b. Discussions between Auburn and adjacent jurisdictions regarding Potential Annexation Area boundaries; c. Discussions with Pierce County concerning the designation of Potential Annexation Area boundaries; or d. Changed circumstances relating to population and employment growth and projections, urban service feasibility, or similar factors. Urban Form Planning deals with the basic geographic form of the city Auburn's existing form separates the city into two parts: a concentration of employment base on the west with sufficient existing and potential jobs to be of regional significance (region serving area), and residential and locally oriented business uses to the east (community serving area). This existing policy of a "split" form has generally been effective in avoiding gross land use conflicts between residential uses and more intensive (e.g. industrial) land uses. This Plan's policies maintain this basic split policy. However, Auburn's downtown area is also treated as a unique (both region and community-serving) part of the city's form. Another aspect of a city's form is its development intensity. Varying intensities of development require different configurations of city services and facilities and create different community impacts. The location of different intensities can also assist in establishing the city's character and identity, and can be instrumental in furthering other important goals (protection of critical areas, protection against natural hazards, etc.). Page 3-9 Amended 201 I Chapter 3 Policy established by the 1969 Comprehensive Plan assumed that the city would eventually be completely urban in character and the City's approach to developing its service delivery system was driven by this assumption. At that time no City policy or program addressed agricultural preservation. While extensive areas with rural development require expensive restructuring of the City service delivery system, strategic long-term protection of some of these areas can assist in limiting urban sprawl, maintaining diversity of living environments, and protecting important environmental resources, in particular the City's water source at Coal Creek Springs. This Plan designates a limited amount of Residential Conservancy area for this purpose, which should not significantly affect the overall cost of city services. GOAL 6. URBAN FORM To establish an orderly urban form which separates uses on the basis of their functional relationship to the community, and which reinforces the identity of the community. Objective 6.1. To physically separate region serving employment centers and other regionally oriented land uses from areas that are residential or local in character while ensuring that regional facilities strengthen the community as a whole and enhance downtown Auburn. Policies: LU-3 Areas on the valley floor which are suitable to support large scale economic development projects should be reserved, for the most part, for uses which support Auburn's role as a regional employment and commercial center (to be known as the Region Serving Area -- See Map 3.2). LU-4 Areas delineated on the Urban Form Map (Map 3.2) as the Community Serving Area should be reserved for uses which are local in character or serve local markets. LU-5 Link together regionally significant land uses such as the SuperMall, Green River Community College, Boeing, Emerald Downs, and commercial uses on Auburn Way in a manner that enhances the regional stature of Auburn while providing services, employment and tax base for the community. Linkages should be designed to enhance Downtown Auburn as the community's focal point. Objective 6.2. Maintain downtown as an area that uniquely serves both regional and community needs. Page 3-10 Amended 2011 Land Use Policies: LU-6 The downtown urban center shall be the focal point of the Auburn community. It should include a mix of uses including, but not limited to, government and civic uses, retail, residential and services that are appropriate to fill that role. LU-6A Focus growth and development in the Auburn Downtown urban center to support economic development, complement transit oriented development, direct growth pressures away from single family residential neighborhoods, and implement regional growth management strategies. Objective 6.3. To protect community identity while promoting diversity and conserving rural amenities, by designating rural areas along the city's periphery and in areas with significant environmental values. Policies: LU-7 The City shall support the County agricultural program in securing the development rights to strategically located parcels, especially along the northern city boundary and at the start of the Upper Green River Valley. LU-8 The City should limit accessible City utility systems into the Upper Green Valley, and shall limit density, thus preserving the character of the area and encouraging continued cultivation on these properties. LU-9 The City shall protect Coal Creek Springs by: 1) limiting density to less than one residential unit per four acres within the area tributary to the Coal Creek Springs Watershed and by 2) designating a Special Planning Area for the Mt. Rainier Vista site. LU-10 The City shall support low density County zoning adjacent to the city on the Enumclaw Plateau Agricultural District and will not extend City sewer and water facilities into the area if it will promote urban development. LU-11 The City shall consider the impacts of new development activities on resources (including agricultural resource lands, cultural resources, forest resource lands, and mineral resource areas (Map 9.4)), the environment and natural resources Page 3-11 Amended 2011 Chapter 3 (particularly critical areas, wildlife habitats and water quality) as part of its environmental review process. Objective 6.4 Maintain low-density "urban separators" areas which protect environmentally sensitive areas and create open space corridors within and between urban areas, consistent with the King County Countywide Planning Policies. Policy- LU-12 The City shall maintain urban separators in the Lea Hill area as designated by King County Residential Development Within most communities, a range of housing densities is allowed to provide a variety of housing opportunities. The wider the range, the greater the opportunity for individuals to find housing relative to their particular needs, affordability and preference. While the City's policy provides for a relatively wide range of residential densities, development over the past decade has been heavily concentrated toward the middle and upper levels of the range (See discussion in Chapter 4, Housing Element). As land costs have escalated in the region, however, Auburn has remained relatively affordable to the average family This Plan provides that the City should seek to restore the traditional character of the community by encouraging preservation and development of housing that is suitable to the retention and attraction of families within the community This would be best accomplished by focusing multi- family development in the urban center, protecting the residential character of existing single family neighborhoods and promoting the development of new neighborhoods of single family homes. Consequently, residential land use policies will emphasize the creation and preservation of single family neighborhoods, while still encouraging the development of other housing types for those who need or want them. GOAL 7. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT To emphasize housing development at single family densities, in order to reestablish a mix of housing types appropriate for a family oriented community, while recognizing the need and desire for both lower density and higher density housing appropriately located to meet the housing needs of all members of the community. Page 3-12 Amended 2011 Land Use Objective 7.1 To establish a system of residential densities that accommodates a range of housing choices appropriate for the city. Policies: LU-13 The City should promote the provision, preservation and maintenance of adequate housing for the city's residents by encouraging a balanced mix of housing types and values appropriate to the income levels and lifestyles of area residents. Auburn has always been willing to accept its "fair share" of low and moderate cost housing opportunities. However, this has translated into a great disparity in Puget Sound communities with cities such as Auburn receiving more of these types of housing than other comparable communities. This has had impacts in terms of the costs of meeting human service needs as well as some poorly maintained multifamily properties which have caused a variety of problems. Auburn will work to insure that housing units are equitably distributed across the region in terns of both physical location and cost. LU-14 Residential densities in areas designated "residential conservancy", which represent areas that have environmental constraints or which promote protection of City water sources, should be no greater than 1 dwelling unit per 4 acres until such time public facilities are available. Where it is found through a land use approval process to be supportive of the purpose of the "residential conservancy" designation, where it does not substantially adversely impact the surrounding residential community and demonstrates compliance to development standards specified in the zoning code, agricultural uses and limited commercial uses in support of agricultural uses may be allowed with appropriate environmental protection. LU-15 The area designated "residential conservancy' allows for a lifestyle similar to that of rural areas since the lower density established protects the critical areas such as the City's Coal Creek Springs watershed. A rural lifestyle generally includes allowance of farm animals, streets not urban in character (e.g. no sidewalks, street lights only at intersections), and limited agricultural type uses. The "residential conservancy" also allows appropriate-scale commercial activity in support of agricultural uses where it is found through a land use approval process to be supportive of the purpose of the "residential conservancy" designation, where it does not substantially adversely impact the surrounding residential community and Page 3-13 Amended 2011 Chapter 3 demonstrates compliance to development standards specified in the zoning code. LU-16 Residential densities within designated "urban separators" should be no greater than 1 dwelling unit per acre. Clustering of allowed density onto a portion of a site should be favorably considered. LU-17 Residential densities in areas designated for single family residential use should be no greater than 7 units per net acre. These areas should be served with good transit availability (1/4 mile or less to a route with at least half hour service). Accessory dwelling units should be permitted to allow increased densities. The bulk of the single family residential community should be developed at a density of between 4 and 7 dwelling units per net acre. Increased density is achievable through flexible development standards, if certain criteria are met, as established in city code. LU-18 Residential densities in areas designated for multiple family development should not exceed 20 units per net acre. Multiple family densities should generally decrease with proximity to single family areas. Multiple family densities may exceed 20 units per acre provided they are within walking distance ofl/4 mile from regional transit facilities or are targeted to populations not requiring outdoor recreation areas and having low private automobile usage (e.g. nursing homes). These targeted developments should be located in close proximity to shopping, medical and public transportation services. Increased density is achievable through flexible development standards, if certain criteria are met, as established in city code. Objective 7.2. To designate land for the development of new single family homes. Policies: LU-19 In applying the land use designations of the Comprehensive Plan, first consideration shall be given to designating an area for single family residential use. LU-20 Most of the undeveloped areas of the Community Serving Area of the city (see Map 3.2) shall be reserved for single family dwellings. The ability to buffer the area from incompatible land uses and heavily traveled arterials or highways should be considered in designating currently undeveloped areas for future single family use. Such buffering can be accomplished Page 3-14 Amended 2011 77Land Use by taking advantage of topographic variations and other natural features, requiring expanded setbacks along arterials, by orienting lots and houses away from arterials, by designating moderate density multiple family areas as transitional areas, and by other means. Objective 7.3 To promote the development of quality single family neighborhoods which relate the design and types of residential areas to important natural and manmade features. Policies: LU-21 Residential development should be related to topography, circulation, and other amenities, as guided by policies of this Plan. LU-22 Residential development should be discouraged in poorly drained areas. LU-23 The development of new neighborhoods should be governed by development standards which allow some flexibility. Flexibility should be considered to encourage compact urban development, to provide protection of critical areas and resource lands (including, but not limited to, agricultural resource lands, cultural resources, forest resource lands, mineral resource areas (Map 9.4) hillsides or wetlands), and to facilitate non-motorized transportation. Increased density is achievable through flexible development standards, if certain criteria are met, as established in city code. LU-24 The development of residential areas should recognize the importance of community and public facilities in developing a sense of neighborhood and community. LU-25 Residential development of shoreline areas shall be in accord with the City's Shoreline Management Program and should provide for the retention of public access to these areas. Special care should be taken in the design of residential areas in shoreline areas to reduce the potential conflict between residential use and public access. LU-26 Emphasis shall be placed upon the manner in which the recreational needs of the residents shall be met in the approval of any residential development. Page 3-15 Amended 2011 Chapter 3 LU-27 Any change from the residential conservancy designation shall be to a single family designation. Single family residential areas should also be used to buffer rural areas from other urban uses. LU-28 Areas abutting major arterials should be carefully planned to avoid potential conflict between the development of the arterial and single family uses. Single family uses in such areas should be platted in a manner which orients the units away from the arterial. Where such orientation is not possible, a transition area should be allowed for non-single family uses which reduce total driveway connections to the arterial. In any case, non-motorized access between residential areas and arterials should be provided. In areas with existing single family developments, substantial flexibility can be permitted for street front buffering. Objective 7.4 To establish new neighborhoods in a way that will minimize the potential for intrusion of incompatible uses. Policies: LU-29 Development design should utilize and preserve natural features, including, but not limited to, topography and stands of trees, to separate incompatible land uses and densities. LU-30 Development design should use open spaces, including parks, to separate incompatible uses. LU-31 Development codes shall be modified to allow the City to require that landscaped buffers, natural area preservation or other measures are utilized to separate new residential developments from incompatible uses and major streets. These buffers should permit access between the residential area and the major street by pedestrians and bicyclists. Multiple Family Housing The escalating gap between the costs of housing and the ability to pay rental or mortgage prices has increased the demand for multi-family units. Unfortunately, it is clear that the development of multiple family dwellings in single family areas has created an adverse reaction. The level of conflict between single family neighborhoods and multiple family dwellings must be reduced. Since much of this reaction is related to the design of these structures, design standards could substantially reduce this problem for new construction. Page 3-16 Amended 2011 Land Use Objective 7.5. To meet the need for multiple family dwellings while avoiding conflict with single family residential areas. Policies: LU-32 In considering where future higher density development should locate, priority shall be given to designated Special Planning Areas (where such use can be balanced and planned with single family areas), the Downtown and areas with high levels of transit service. LU-33 Unless required for other purposes, the need for new higher density developments shall be based on local need for such units and should not substantially exceed a fair regional share of such housing. LU-34 Multiple-family developments should be located functionally convenient to the necessary supporting facilities including utilities, arterials, parks, transit service, etc. LU-35 Design codes and guidelines are developed for multifamily housing to ensure high quality design and compatibility with surrounding development. These standards should be reviewed periodically to remain consistent with planning trends and market demands. LU-36 Multiple family dwellings shall not be permitted as a matter of right in single family residential districts, but should be permitted only where necessary to remove potential blight, to buffer single family uses from incompatible uses or activities, or to allow effective use of vacant areas. Standards for such siting should provide for design review to ensure compatibility and provide that the density of development is consistent with the density of the adjoining single family uses. LU-37 Siting of moderate density units shall be encouraged as a buffer between single family areas and more intense uses. Such buffering is appropriate along arterials where existing platting prevents effective lot layout for single family units. Also, such buffering is appropriate between single family areas and commercial and industrial uses. Where there are established single family areas, the design and siting of moderate density units shall be controlled to reduce potential conflicts and to en- sure buffering of uses. Higher density units are not to be considered such a buffer. Page 3-17 Amended 20111 Chapter 3 LU-38 Higher density developments or larger scale multiple family developments should be limited to residential areas where they can be developed as a unit with the necessary supporting facilities. Such development shall provide adequate access by developed arterials with minimal potential to generate traffic through single family areas. Extensive buffering measures shall be required where such areas adjoin single family residential areas. Care should be exercised to avoid creating barriers to pedestrian and bicycle movement. Where feasible, new multiple family development should be planned in conjunction with single family and moderate density development. Manufactured Homes Manufactured homes provide affordable housing to many Auburn residents. In many cases, they provide the opportunity of home ownership to households which cannot afford to purchase more traditional types of housing. However, poorly designed, high density manufactured home parks can raise the same issues that multiple family developments pose. Careful design and placement of manufactured housing in parks especially with appropriate landscaping, can greatly reduce problems associated with such development. This Plan's policies continue to recognize the benefits that manufactured homes can have on housing affordability. Improved codes requiring high standards for the design and siting of manufactured home parks and units on individual lots should be implemented. Objective 7.6 To continue to allow manufactured homes as an affordable form of home ownership, provided that such developments are carried out in a manner which supports rather than detracts from the quality of the community and adjacent uses. Policies: LU-39 The siting of new manufactured home parks shall be subject to the same policies applicable to high density residential development. Manufactured home park densities should not exceed 8 units per acre. New manufactured home parks shall be bordered or contained by physical features, or planned and designed as part of a larger development incorporating other housing types in a manner which limits further manufactured home park expansion into adjacent areas. Page 3-is Amended 2011 Land Usc LU-40 Manufactured homes shall be permitted on single family lots provided that they are sited and constructed in a manner which would blend with adjacent homes. Manufactured homes must be new units, meet minimum dimensional standards (double wide) and be placed on permanent foundations, consistent with State law. Moderate and High Income Housing The City wants to increase the amount of housing oriented toward those with moderate and high incomes. A jurisdiction typically encourages a type of development by providing incentives which lower the cost of producing that development type, thereby increasing its potential profitability With the limited financial resources available to municipalities it is difficult to justify financial incentives to increase the profitability of the production of market rate housing. Further, since the production of housing for moderate and higher income groups is profitable without these incentives, it is not clear that incentives will have the desired effect of increasing the number of houses produced. Potential solutions to this issue need to address the demand side of the market rather than the supply The market will provide these types of housing if there is sufficient demand for it within the city Auburn can increase the demand for housing by those with moderate and higher incomes by improving its image within the region and making itself known as a desirable place to live. A comprehensive approach to increasing the demand for moderate and high income housing is through the implementation of this comprehensive plan. By building a community with parks and open spaces,job opportunities, high environmental quality, and abundant supportive services including commuter rail, Auburn will create for itself a more desirable image within the region and therefore a wider range of income groups will choose to live in Auburn. Policy• LU-41 Development regulations should ensure that Auburn obtains its "fair share" of high end single family housing. This does not represent a decrease in Auburn's commitment to maintaining the majority of its housing stock as housing affordable to middle income households. Neighborhood Quality Auburn's existing stable residential neighborhoods form an important component of the community's character. Maintaining the vitality and stability of these neighborhoods is a key goal of this Comprehensive Plan. Page 3-19 Amended 2011 Chapter 3 GOAL 8. NEIGHBORHOOD QUALITY To maintain and protect all viable and stable residential neighborhoods. Objective 8.1 To maintain and enhance all viable and stable residential neighborhoods. Policies LU-42 Regulatory decisions in all residential neighborhoods shall result in maintenance or enhancement of the neighborhood's residential character. a. The location of uses other than those permitted outright shall only be allowed as specified in this comprehensive plan and in the zoning code. b. Approval of any non-residential land use shall occur only after a public hearing process. c. The City recognizes the important role that public facilities (such as sidewalks, neighborhood parks and elementary schools) and limited scale quasi-public uses (such as smaller churches and daycare centers) play in maintaining viable residential neighborhoods. d. Single family detached residential neighborhoods should be protected from intrusion by non-residential or large scale multi-family uses. LU-43 The City shall seek to abate existing incompatible uses in residential neighborhoods. Mineral extraction operations within mineral resource areas (Map 9 4) operating in compliance with the conditions of their permit are not incompatible uses. LU-44 Home occupations in residential neighborhoods shall be permitted only if they comply with performance standards that ensure compatibility with adjacent residential uses. LU-45 Limited agricultural uses and commercial uses (such as daycare centers) may be permitted as a principal use, but only under appropriate conditions, by means of conditional use or administrative use permits when landscaping and design features can be used to minimize impacts on surrounding uses and the site is: Page 3-20 Amended 2011 Land Use a. Along the border of residential neighborhoods; or b. In specific areas where site specific conditions may limit the use of the site for residential uses; or c. Along arterials transecting residential neighborhoods. LU-46 Development standards and regulations for residential areas should avoid unnecessary barriers to the renovation and improvement of homes in established neighborhoods built to previous standards. LU-47 The City should give special attention to improving the quality of low income neighborhoods and seek to implement programs which encourage rehabilitation of deteriorating structures and facilities in such neighborhoods. (Guidance for this policy is provided by the City's annual Block Grant Program Plan.) Objective 8.2 To provide for the orderly transition to other uses of older residential areas that are no longer viable. Policies: LU-48 The management of areas in transition from existing residences to a planned non-residential use, should balance the needs of existing residents with the need to accommodate new uses. LU-49 Greater flexibility should be provided for home occupations in transitional areas. LU-50 Whenever considering a conversion from single family to another use, the applicant's burden shall be on demonstrating the unsuitability of an area for continued single family use. Commercial Development Commercial land development provides needed services and jobs to Auburn and regional residents and visitors. Further, it is a major component of Auburn's tax base through the sales tax and property taxes it generates. There are several different types of commercial land, each providing different types of services and jobs. The discussion and policies that Page 3-21 Amended 2011 Chapter 3 follow recognize the importance of each of these types of commercial development and the important role that they play. GOAL 9. COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT To maintain and establish a variety of commercial environments which provide the full range of commercial services to the community and region in a manner which reduces conflicts between different types of commercial services and other uses. Neighborhood Commercial Small commercial centers within or adjacent to residential neighborhoods serve a useful function in providing convenient access to neighborhood residents for their "everyday" or "convenience" shopping needs. These centers can serve to reduce the number of automobile trips or at least shorten them by providing services near one's residence. For neighborhood centers to provide these benefits, attention must be paid to ensuring adequate access to these centers from the adjacent neighborhood. However, these commercial areas can also adversely affect a neighborhood by generating traffic and land use conflicts. Due largely to the extensive commercialization of Auburn Way and the north/south orientation of the developed portions of Auburn, few residential neighborhoods within the city lie more than several blocks from a commercial area. Significant outlying commercial centers have also been developed, so that the currently developed residential neighborhoods are adequately served. However, future large scale residential developments will create a need for new small-scale commercial centers. This Plan's policy toward neighborhood commercial centers balances needs for shopping convenience with the protection of residential neighborhoods, and seeks to limit the development of new inappropriate commercial strips. Objective 9 1 To provide for the convenience commercial needs of residential areas, while protecting existing and future residential neighborhoods from the disruptive effects of commercial intrusions. Policies: LU-51 Existing neighborhood oriented commercial centers should be identified and designated. Commercial uses within these centers should be limited to those having primary market areas considerably smaller than the entire community Page 3-22 Amended 2011 Land Use LU-52 Designated neighborhood commercial centers should be prevented from spreading along the arterials that serve them. LU-53 A prime consideration in permitting the expansion of existing neighborhood commercial areas shall be the ability to adequately buffer any nearby residences from disruptive impacts. LU-54 In some instances of existing neighborhood commercial centers, a transition zone of moderate density residential uses should be designated between the center and single family residential areas. LU-55 New neighborhood commercial centers should be considered under the "Special Planning Areas" concept. Such areas should be carefully designed and integrated into the overall area development plan so as to minimize traffic and land use conflicts. Commercial uses should be limited to those having primary market areas approximately the size of the special planning area. LU-56 Consideration should be given to providing adequate access to neighborhood commercial development by non-motorized modes such as walking and biking. Barriers to these modes such as walls and fences should be removed when possible and shall be avoided in new development. Mired Use Centers Commercial centers at times can through a proper mix of uses be integrated with residential components. These mix use centers serve in providing convenient services, alternative living environments, and efficient use of both land and infrastructure. Objective 9.2 To provide where appropriate mixed use of commercial and residential development designed to assure compatibility of uses inside the commercial center and adjacent residential neighborhoods Policy: LU- 57 Mixed-use developments with both commercial and residential components are encouraged in Light Commercial centers. These developments should include primarily retail stores and offices designed to provide convenient shopping and other services for nearby residents. Industrial and heavy commercial uses should be excluded. Page 3-23 Amended 20111 Chapter 3 Design features of mixed-use developments should include the integration of the retail and/or office uses and residential units within the same building or on the same parcel. Ground level spaces should be built and used predominately to accommodate retail and office uses. Off-street parking should be located behind or to the side of the buildings, or enclosed within buildings. Accessible pedestrian connections and bicycle paths must be designed to facilitate safe connections within the development, along adjacent roads adjacent and to adjacent residential developments. Design guidelines for mixed-use development have been developed. These guidelines should be reviewed and amended periodically to be consistent with current planning trends and market demands. Higlnvay Commercial While commercial uses along arterials (often called "strip commercial" development) provide important services to community residents, the proliferation of commercial uses along arterials raises several land use planning issues. On the negative side, strip commercial development creates traffic flow problems and conflict with adjacent land uses. Due to their "linear" nature, commercial strips result in a maximum area of contact between commercial uses and other land uses resulting in a high potential for land use conflicts. Poor visual character due to excessive signage and architectural styles designed to attract attention instead of promoting a sense of community is an additional concern. Pedestrian shopping is made difficult, resulting in greater generation of automobile traffic, and large fields of asphalt parking lots are needed to accommodate single purpose vehicle trips. Despite the problems associated with commercial development along arterials, many such locations are often quite unsuitable for other uses, due to the impacts associated with heavy traffic volumes. Also, many commercial uses thrive at such locations due to high visibility and accessibility. The Plan seeks to manage existing arterial commercial areas to take advantage of the accessibility they provide, while minimizing traffic and land use conflicts and improving their visual appearance through an enhanced design review process and development standards. Objective 9.3. To encourage the appropriate use of areas adjacent to heavily traveled arterials while minimizing land use and traffic conflicts by: Page 3-23 Amended 2011 Land Use 1. Managing the continued commercial development of existing commercial arterials in a manner which minimizes traffic and land use conflicts. 2. Conserving residential qualities along heavily traveled arterials which are not yet commercialized, by restricting commercial development to types which provide an appropriate buffer 3. Protecting existing, viable residential areas along lesser-traveled arterials, from commercial development. 4 Concentrate population and employment growth within the eight key economic development strategy areas within the City identified as follows: • Auburn Way North Corridor • Auburn Way South Corridor • Urban Center • Auburn Environmental Park and Green Zone • 15`h Street SW/C Street SW/West Valley Highway/Supermall • A Street SE Corridor • SE 312`h Street/124`h Avenue SE Corridor • M Street SE between Auburn Way North and Auburn Way South. Policies: LU-58 The City has identified those existing commercial arterials that are appropriate for continued commercial development and employment growth as well as a concentration of population growth. These areas are identified as the eight economic development strategy areas as identified under Objective 9.3. Sub-area plans for these strategy areas should be developed. LU-59 The City shall review its standards relating to the number, size and location of driveways to ensure consistency with goals and policies relating to arterial commercial development. LU-60 The City shall encourage the grouping of individual commercial enterprises along commercial arterials to promote the sharing of parking areas, access drives and signs. Such grouping can be encouraged through land division regulations, sign regulations and development standards. LU-61 Moderate density multiple family residential development shall be used to buffer general (heavy) commercial arterial development from single family development. Extensive Page 3-25 Amended 2011 Chapter 3 screening and landscaping shall be used to buffer general commercial uses from multiple family uses. However, the placement of walls and fences and site designs which prevent easy access by bicyclists and pedestrians should be avoided. LU-62 Arterials experiencing strong pressure for commercial development, but not yet committed to commercial uses, shall be designated for mixed use commercial and high density multi-family uses. Development regulations should encourage the development of professional office and similar uses and multiple family housing, with development and design standards carefully drawn to ensure preservation of a quality living environment in adjacent neighborhoods. LU-63 Residential arterials having good potential for long term maintenance of a quality living environment should be protected from the intrusion of commercial uses. In some instances, these may be appropriate locations for churches and other religious institutions, or moderate density multiple family uses. LU-64 Newly developed arterials shall incorporate design features, and development of adjacent land shall be managed such that creation of new commercial strips is avoided. Land division regulations shall result in single family residences being oriented away from the arterial, with access provided by a non- arterial street. LU-65 Along the Auburn Way South Corridor, employment and population growth should be limited to north of the R Street SE overpass. LU-66 The City should develop design standards and guidelines for development along arterials to improve their visual appearance. The Regional SuperMall The development of the "SuperMall of the Great Northwest" on 155 acres near the junction of SR167 and SR18 in the 1990's has led to a "destination" mall attracting consumers from long distances. During the Mall's development review, a number of issues were raised. Included in these issues were the impacts of the SuperMall on Auburn downtown and the possibility of commercial sprawl around the SuperMall that would exacerbate impacts to the downtown and traffic around the SuperMall. Page 3-26 Amended 2011 Land Use Since that time, several factors have changed. Auburn's downtown, as a designated urban center, has developed a more specific vision for the community. Also, it is not expected that the SuperMall will develop to its maximum square footage and retail commercial uses have become a more important local government revenue source. The City should continue its commitment to the SuperMall's development as a regional attraction, and take advantage of the SuperMall's presence to complement strategies related to downtown preservation and development. Objective 9.4. To capture the retail market of customers visiting the SuperMall and strengthen Auburn's role as a major retail commercial center for the region. Policies: LU-67 Support commercial development around the SuperMall that complements its role as a regional shopping center as well as future redevelopment that could include high density housing. LU-68 The City will oppose the development of a regional shopping center in the unincorporated areas in the vicinity of the city. LU-69 The City will seek ways to draw customers from the SuperMall into the downtown and other areas within the city LU-70 The City shall continue to recognize and support the development of downtown Auburn as a focal point of the Auburn community. Downtown Auburn Downtowns have historically served as the business, cultural and governmental focal points of their communities. In many communities (like Auburn) this role has been challenged by new shopping patterns focused on regional malls and commercial areas outside of the downtown. Maintaining a healthy and vital downtown Auburn continues to be important as it is recognized by residents as a focal point of the com- munity and an important element of the City's identity. In May 2001, the Auburn City Council adopted the Auburn Downtown Plan. The Auburn Downtown Plan is the City's updated strategy to continue its downtown revitalization efforts consistent with State, regional and local growth management planning concepts and strategies. The Auburn Downtown Plan, and this Plan, provides that Downtown Auburn Page 3-27 Amended 2011 Chapter 3 should remain the commercial, cultural and governmental focal point for the community. Efforts to enhance this function for Downtown Auburn are strongly supported. The Auburn Downtown Plan is based on implementing policies and strategies through partnerships and innovative techniques. The City, the downtown business community and members of the community at-large will need to work closely together to maintain and upgrade the quality of the downtown working, living and shopping environment. Part of the impetus for developing new strategies to approach downtown revitalization is the development of the Sound Transit Commuter Rail Transit Station. The Auburn Downtown Plan seeks to build on the excitement and energy resulting from public investment in the Transit Station and in other public investments such as the Third Street Grade Separation project. The Auburn Downtown Plan envisions downtown as an urban center Designation as an urban center was achieved in 2004 Auburn's urban center, • Establishes a 220 acre planning area that is the focus for downtown redevelopment. • Provides incentives for downtown development and redevelopment through policy direction that supports: -Elimination of transportation impact fees; -Elimination of stormwater improvements for redevelopment of existing sites that do not result in an increase in impervious surface; -Lower level of service for transportation facilities; and, -Reduction in the off-street parking requirements compared to other areas in the city • Encourages non-motorized pedestrian and bicycle connections and linkages to and within the urban center area. • Encourages protection of historic assets and resources from redevelopment activities. • Identifies potential catalyst projects and sites to spur development activity in the downtown and better focus redevelopment and marketing efforts. • Encourages more residential development downtown and also 24- hour type uses and nighttime activity. • Seeks to remove undesirable land uses and other blighting influences in the downtown area. • Promotes street improvements and enhancements to improve access and the visual qualities of the streetscape. Page 3-28 Amended 2011 Land Use In early 2007, the City established a new zoning district for the majority of downtown, the Downtown Urban Center (DUC) district. Unlike other zones, this district allows all types of land uses unless specifically prohibited. In addition, it regulates the intensity of development by allowed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and provides incentives for higher intensity of use. The DUC zone also features relaxed parking standards from those found in other zone districts and by reference, adopted Design Standards to ensure a high quality of development in the downtown area. GOAL 10 DOWNTOWN To encourage development and redevelopment within Downtown Auburn which reflects its unique character as the community's historic center, that is consistent with the Auburn Downtown Plan's vision for Downtown Auburn as an urban center within King County and the Puget Sound region. Objective 10.1 To preserve and enhance the role of downtown Auburn as the focal point of the Auburn community for business, governmental and cultural activities. Policies: LU-71 For the purpose of implementing the goal and policies for downtown Auburn, "downtown" shall generally be considered that area bounded on the south by Highway 18; on the east by "F" Street; on the north by Park Avenue (extended); and on the west by the Union Pacific tracks. (See Map 3.3) LU-72 Auburn's urban center/regional growth center boundaries shall be those established as the planning area for the Auburn Downtown Plan adopted May 2001 (See Map 3 4). LU-73 Implement the policies and strategies of the Auburn Downtown Plan to support development of Auburn's urban center LU-74 Encourage the attainment of urban center growth forecasts through implementation of higher intensity development_ to achieve the efficient use of land. LU-75 Downtown shall continue to be recognized as the business, governmental and cultural focal point of the community. A diversity of uses including multifamily residential should be encouraged to maintain a vibrant, active and competitive center for the City of Auburn. Page 3-29 Amended 20111 Chapter 3 LU76 The City should continue to support the development and rehabilitation of multiple family housing in the Downtown, as part of mixed use projects. LU-77 The City shall maintain an ongoing downtown planning and action program involving the downtown business community and other interested groups. This activity should be guided by this Plan and the Auburn Downtown Plan. LU-78 The City shall continue to give priority consideration to the maintenance and improvement of public facilities and services in the downtown area. Downtown Land Uses Objective 10.2 To recognize areas within the downtown that have identifiable characters and uses. LU-79 The area north of First Street North, west of Auburn Avenue, south of Fifth Street North and east of the Burlington Northern tracks should be designated and managed as a medical and professional services area. New heavy commercial and industrial uses should be prohibited and existing ones amortized. Commercial uses supporting medical and professional uses should receive priority. LU-80 To increase consistency with the Urban Center boundary, the area lying generally east of "D" Street S.E. to "F" Street S.E. and south of Main Street (not including the Main Street frontage) to SR 18 shall be designated for mixed residential and commercial uses. LU-81 The area lying generally between Auburn Way North (but not properties abutting AWN) and Auburn High School should be designated for multiple family residential uses. LU-82 Automobile oriented uses within the Downtown Urban Center shall be developed and located in accordance with the policy direction of the Auburn Downtown Plan and implementing DUC, Downtown Urban Center code requirements. LU-82.A The area lying generally south of East Main Street (not including the Main Street frontage) and east of"F" Street S.E. shall be maintained as a single family residential area. Page 3-30 Amended 2011 Land Use Downtown Urban Design Objective 10.2: To ensure that all new development and redevelopment in the downtown reflect the unique character of the area. LU-83 The City shall develop programs and ordinances to preserve and protect downtown's historic character. Development codes should be revised as needed to recognize the uniqueness of downtown through appropriate performance standards and design guidelines. A high level of visual amenity should be pursued, and no heavy outdoor uses or outdoor storage should be allowed. LU-84 The downtown area shall be comprised of a mixture of uses consistent with the area's role as the focal point of the community. These uses shall be primarily "people-oriented" as opposed to "automobile-oriented", and shall include commercial, medical, governmental, professional services, cultural and residential uses. LU-85 Regulations for the retail core of downtown should encourage retail uses, but should discourage uses which result in a high proportion of single use vehicle trips (such as fast food restaurants and drive-through windows). Downtown Transportation Objective 10.3• To emphasize pedestrian traffic and transit usage in the downtown. LU-86 Emphasis should be given to enhancing pedestrian linkages between the Hospital area, the Main Street retail core, the Performing Arts Center, the southwestern portion of Downtown, and the parking area adjacent to Safeway. An important element of this emphasis will be to reduce the pedestrian barrier effect of Auburn Avenue and Auburn Way. LU-87 The City should build upon past efforts to improve pedestrian amenities, through public improvements, sign regulations and development standards. The maintenance of public and private improvements should be given priority commensurate with downtown's role as the focal point of the community. LU-88 The City shall work with transit providers to increase the availability and effectiveness of transit in downtown and between downtown, other commercial and employment areas, residential areas, and the region at large. Page 3-31 Amended 2011 Chapter 3 LU-89 As regional transportation programs such as commuter rail are implemented, the City will strive to ensure that the downtown is a beneficiary. Downtown Parking Objective 10.4: To develop a parking program for the downtown which recognizes the area's historic pedestrian character, while providing sufficient parking for customers of all businesses, residents, and commuters. LU-90 A strong Downtown shall be encouraged through improved parking, circulation, and the grouping of business outlets and governmental services. Parking standards should be developed which recognize the unique nature of downtown parking demand. The City should work with the business community in public/private partnerships to develop a coordinated and effective approach to providing adequate parking and circulation. LU-91 A strong Downtown shall be encouraged through improved parking, circulation, and grouping of business outlets and governmental services. The development of public parking lots to serve the downtown should be guided by a Downtown Parking Plan. LU-92 The City views adequate parking in the downtown area as a critical step in implementing the downtown policies and the rehabilitation policies of this Plan. All business in the downtown area will be hindered if adequate parking is not available. However, parking needs coupled with rehabilitation needs in the downtown area require special policies: a. Some flexibility in the general parking requirements of the City may be necessary to accommodate reuse of existing buildings and to accommodate new development. Such flexibility should be directed at seeking to pool parking resources through the formation of a Downtown parking LID when such parking cannot be provided by the business or through shared parking agreements. b. Since rigid parking requirements will interfere with redevelopment of downtown, and the pattern of existing development restricts the amount of parking available, public development of parking in the downtown area is appropriate. Page 3-32 Amended 2011 Land Use c. A comprehensive study of the parking needs of downtown should be made to determine the most efficient method of meeting the unique parking demands of the area. d. Parking policy for the downtown needs to balance the impact of parking on downtown's pedestrian character, economic development and transit usage. Downtown Redevelopment Objective 10.5 To work with all interested groups on revitalizing the Downtown area. LU-93 The City of Auburn should strive to maintain active working relationships with the Auburn Downtown Association, the Chamber of Commerce and other groups whose goal is the revitalization of downtown. The City will seek to become a partner with these and other groups, where feasible, in public/private partnerships that further the goal of downtown revitalization. LU-94 The City shall continue to support legislation to improve fiscal leverage in urban rehabilitation programs. LU-95 The City shall continue to support the redevelopment efforts of the private sector in the downtown area. Industrial Development Auburn's industrial land and the development that it supports accounts for a significant percentage of the City's tax base. It also provides a large number of jobs to both city and regional residents. Good industrial land is a limited resource and should be fully utilized to maximize its potential benefits. Industrial development typically utilizes extensive amounts of land and is typically located near major transportation facilities. For these reasons, industrial activities are often quite visible. For people traveling on SR167, industrial development is the primary view they have of Auburn. The Washington State Legislature passed Substitute Senate Bill 5089 on March 22, 2007 that became effective on July 1, 2008 that changed Washington's sales tax collection system from an origin-based system for local retail sales tax to a destination-based system. Previously, Washington retailers collected local sales tax based on the jurisdiction from which a product was shipped or delivered - the "origin" of the sale. Presently, they must collect based on the destination of the shipment or delivery - the "destination" of the sale. Destination-based sales tax applies Page 3-33 Amended 2011 Chapter 3 only to businesses that ship or deliver the goods they sell to locations within Washington. Under the destination based system, if a retailer delivers or ships merchandise to a buyer in Washington State, the sales tax is collected based on the rate at the location where the buyer receives or takes possession of the merchandise. The destination based system has shifted the distribution of local sales tax around the state. As a result of this legislation, the City of Auburn has experienced a net loss in sales tax revenue totaling approximately $2 million annually due to the large presence of warehousing and distribution uses in the City While the City has been a recipient of sales tax mitigation payments from the State of Washington that has served to offset these losses, the continued availability of these payments is not certain due to current and future State budget issues. The City's land use strategies are dependent upon the City being able to continue a strong public investment program 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 comprises 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 sales tax revenue mitigation program. The eventual loss of the aforementioned sales tax revenue 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 land use plans. This is especially applicable to industrial areas supporting warehouse and distribution centers that are origin_based in nature. In November 2004, the City Council approved Resolution No. 3782 that 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 structure are adopted. Included in this resolution is direction to consider amendments to the comprehensive plan and zoning codes to reevaluate the existing industrial land use designations and patterns in the City To ensure the City's long-term ability to invest in public infrastructure and services remains viable, the City will continue to assess, evaluate and if necessary, must pursue implementation of policies that incentive the transition of current and future land uses in its industrial zones away from distribution and warehouse uses, based on future changes of the tax structure at the State level or other similar actions. The City believes that manufacturing and industrial land uses are preferential to and should be encouraged over time largely Feplae° warehouse and distribution land uses currently existing in the City and that any future warehouse and distribution uses should be ancillary to and necessary for the conduct of Page 3-34 Amended 2011 Land Use manufacturing and industrial uses. Manufacturing and industrial uses are more appropriate and beneficial through higher and better use of the land, enhanced employment densities, increased property tax revenues and potential on-site sales tax revenue generation for receipt of materials and other goods and services. In addition, the City believes that policies that promote and incentivize greater retail uses in industrial districts should be implemented to increase the City's overall base of retail uses thereby increasing the City's overall collection of sales tax revenue. GOAL 11. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT To provide for, establish and maintain a balance of industrial uses that respond to local and regional needs and enhance the city's image through optimal siting and location, taking into consideration tax policy impacts of streamlined sales tax and/or other similar legislation. Type oflndustrial Uses There is a wide variety of possible industrial uses that could be sited in Auburn. As with the mix of residential uses, the mix of industry also affects the image of the city. The regional image of the city is that of an industrial suburb with an emphasis on heavy y `ndustry This image is quite apparent as one travels along Highway 167 where there is an almost unending view of high-bay warehouse buildings. Different types of industrial areas should be separated since some types of industrial activities conflict with other industrial activities (especially those of a more desirable character). Such separation should be based primarily on performance standards. Location of Industrial Uses Before the adoption of the 1986 Comprehensive Plan, there had been little separation of various types of industrial uses. At the time, there was no well understood policy basis regarding the separation of different types of industrial uses and some areas very suitable for high quality light industrial uses were committed to heavier uses. High visibility corridors developed with a heavier industrial character and established a heavy industry image for the city The Plan provides clear distinction between different industrial uses. It also reserves areas for light industrial uses. Objective 11.1. To create a physical image for the city conducive to attracting light industry Policies: Page 335 Amended 2011 Chapter 3 LU-96 Highly visible areas which tend to establish the image of the city should not be used by heavy industrial uses. LU-97 The City shall promote high quality development of all light industrial and warehouse areas. LU-98 The City shall aggressively seek to abate all potentially blighting influences in industrial areas, especially in areas visible to regional traffic flows and in areas designated for light industrial uses. Objective 11.2. To establish performance standards appropriate for developing industrial areas. Policies: LU-99 Compatibility among land uses should be enhanced through landscaping, building orientation and setbacks, traffic control and other measures to reduce potential conflicts. LU-100 All industrial development should incorporate aesthetically pleasing building and site design. The City shall amend its codes and performance standards which govern industrial development to implement this policy. a. Procedures shall be established to ensure aesthetically pleasing building and site design in areas designated for light industrial areas. b. Appropriate landscaping and site development standards shall regulate site development in heavy industrial areas. c. Unsightly views, such as heavy machinery, service entrances, storage areas, rooftop equipment, loading docks, and parking areas should be screened from view of adjacent retail, commercial, light industrial and residential areas and from public streets. LU-101 Needed rights-of-way, on-site and off-site road improvements, and utilities should be assured before development occurs. LU-102 Individual development projects shall provide the following minimal improvements in accordance with established City standards: Page 3-36 Amended 2011 Land Use a. Full standard streets and sidewalks in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. b. Adequate off street parking for employees and patrons. c. Landscaping. d. Storm drainage. e. Water. f. Sanitary sewers. g. Controlled and developed access to existing and proposed streets. Objective 11.3. To reserve areas appropriate for industrial development. Policies: LU-103 Any significant industrial activity shall be limited to the designated Region Serving Area of the city (see Map 3.2). The City recognizes that industrial development's place varying demands on the community's quality of life and service capabilities. In addition to demonstrating a developments' consistency with Plan policies, applicable land use regulations, and environmental policies, significant industrial development shall be encouraged to provide a balance between service demands and impacts placed on the city's quality of life vs. the local benefits derived from such development. The extent to which industrial development is promoted shall also take into consideration tax policy and tax structure impacts upon the City LU-104 Residential uses in industrial areas shall be allowed in industrial areas that have been established to promote a business park environment that complements environmental features, and/or if development standards are developed to promote compatibility between residential and other non- residential land uses. LU-105 The grouping of uses which will mutually benefit each other or provide needed services will be encouraged. a. Compatible commercial uses may be permitted in designated industrial areas. b. Planned developments (such as "office parks") which provide a mixture of light industrial with supporting commercial uses are encouraged. Page 3-37 Amended 2011 Chapter 3 c. Uses which support industrial and warehouse activities should be located near those uses. LU-106 Development of designated industrial sites shall be consistent with applicable environmental standards and policies. LU-107 Land made available for industrial development, and uses allowed in industrial zones, shall take into consideration impacts of tax policy and tax structure upon the City of Auburn. Objective 11.4. To reserve and protect areas which are highly suitable for light industrial development. Policies: LU-108 Designation of light industrial areas shall have priority over heavier industrial uses. LU-109 Highly visible areas (land visible from SR167 or SR18) which tend to establish the image of the city should not be used by heavy industrial uses. Rather, efforts should be made to develop zoning districts that complement industrial development adjacent to environmental features such as the Auburn Environmental Park. Objective 11.5. To identify areas appropriate for heavy industrial uses. Policies: LU-110 Heavy industrial uses shall be separated from lighter industrial, commercial and residential areas. LU-111 The most appropriate areas for heavy industrial uses are in the central part of the Region Serving Area adjoining the rail lines. LU-112 Heavy industrial uses are appropriate in the southern portion of the Region Serving Area which is now developed in large scale industrial facilities. LU-113 Heavy industrial uses shall be strictly prohibited from the Community Serving Area of Auburn (see Map 3.2). The only exception to this general policy shall be the continued heavy industrial use of the area east of "A" Street S.E., as shown by the Comprehensive Plan Map. Page 3-38 Amended 2011 Land Use Objective 11.6. To promote and incentivize fealiFe the , .ccessAll ._....,:t:,.., Rf new high value-added manufacturing and industrial uses over existing warehouse and distribution uses to inantil4tining and industfial use Policies: LU-114 Existing warehouse and distribution uses are not preferred long term land uses in industrial zoning districts in the City. Through the development and application of incentives Sueh tises should be ifansitoone' the city shall promote more beneficial manufacturing and industrial uses_ Thr-sigh tth- development and application of incentives. LU-115 Regulatory and financial incentives will be identified and implemented where appropriate to provide increased opportunities and encouragement for the establishment of new or expanded manufacturing and industrial uses and jobs in the City. Objective 11.7. To promote and incentivize increased retail uses in industrial zoning districts. Policies: LU-116 Changes in comprehensive plan and zoning policies and standards should be implemented to create regulatory controls and incentives for the increased use of land and buildings to-for sales tax producing commercial retail uses. Redevelopment and Infill A major goal of the Growth Management Act is to reduce urban sprawl. One way to minimize sprawl is to fully develop areas already receiving urban services prior to extending these services to additional areas. A further benefit of redevelopment is that it may lead to the removal of buildings and uses that detract from an area. Redevelopment can serve as a major catalyst in the stabilization and revitalization of areas throughout the city. GOAL 12. URBAN REDEVELOPMENT To encourage redevelopment of underutilized areas to reduce sprawl and take full advantage of the City's investment in existing infrastructure. Objective: 12.1 To facilitate infill development. Page 3-39 Amended 2011 Chapter 3 Policies: LU-117 Encourage well designed infill and redevelopment projects to fully utilize previous investment in existing infrastructure in the single family residential, moderate density residential, and high density residential designated areas of the City. LU-118 Reduce the consumption of undeveloped land by facilitating the redevelopment of underutilized land and infill of vacant parcels whenever possible in the single family residential, moderate density residential, and high density residential designated areas of the City. LU-119 Explore innovative mechanisms to encourage the more efficient use of land including density bonuses and sale of air rights. LU-120 Identify areas for commercial infill development and focus street and utility systems improvements to facilitate their development. Page 3-40 Amended 2011 See Page 14-15 for changes related to emphasis of industrial uses. CHAPTER 14 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP Introduction The previous chapters presented the goals, objectives and policies intended to guide Auburn's future physical development. The Comprehensive Plan Map presented in this chapter (Map 14.1) applies those policies to the various areas of the City, by indicating the appropriate locations for various categories of land use. The Plan Map should be consulted together with the written policies of this Plan when decisions about land use and public facility development are considered. This chapter also explains the reasoning and intention behind the Plan Map's land use designations. This should be useful in developing and applying implementing tools (such as zoning provisions); for interpreting the Plan Map as it applies to specific regulatory decisions or development proposals; and in adjusting or amending the Plan Map when changing conditions or land use markets warrant. Finally, this chapter sets forth some special policies intended to deal with the unique problems or opportunities that exist in certain specific locations within Auburn. These specific policies supplement the general goals, objectives and policies of earlier chapters. Land Use Designations: Plan Map Residential Categories Residential Conservancy Purpose: To protect and preserve natural areas with significant environmental constraints or values from urban levels of development and to protect the City's water sources. Description: This category should consist primarily of low density residential uses (with densities not exceeding one unit per four acres) in Page 14-1 Amended 2012 Chapter 14 areas with environmental constraints and/or areas requiring special protection such as the City's watershed, which is a significant water resource. Examples include the Coal Creek Springs watershed area and low-lying areas along the Green River that are isolated from urban services. From a practical standpoint, this watershed area cannot be readily served by public facilities due to its physical separation from public facilities by an existing gravel mine operation that is expected to continue operation years into the future. The designation will serve to both protect environmental features and hold areas for higher density development until such time public facilities become available. The area designated "residential conservancy" allows for a lifestyle similar to that of rural areas since the lower density established protects the critical areas such as the City's Coal Creek Springs watershed. A rural lifestyle generally includes allowance of farm animals, streets not urban in character (e.g. no sidewalks, street lights), and limited agricultural type uses. Compatible Uses: Low density residential uses consistent with protecting the City's water resources and environmental constraints are appropriate. Low intensity cottage industry appropriate for rural areas may be allowed, subject to review. Various public and quasi-public uses which are consistent with a rural character may be permitted as conditional uses. Resource extractive uses can only be allowed if the basic environmental character of the area is preserved. Those areas with critical areas shall be appropriate for low density residential, with the intent to protect environmentally critical areas from impacts associated with more intensive development. These environmentally critical areas area valued as a community resource, both for conservation purposes and public enjoyment; provided that the environmentally critical areas area protected, low density single family residential use may be appropriate. Criteria for Designation: This designation should be applied to areas with either significant environmental values worthy of protection or to those areas which may pose environmental hazards if developed, such as areas tributary to public water sources. It may also be appropriate, to a limited extent, as a means of delimiting the edge of the City or to areas that are impractical to develop to urban levels until a later time period due to pre-existing development patterns and the absence of public facilities. Considerations Against Applying this Designation: Due to the costs of providing City services to these areas, this designation should be applied sparingly. It should be applied as a means of conserving significant Page 14-2 Amended 2012 Comp. Plan Map environmental resources, to achieve watershed protection and/or to areas where development served by public facilities has been made impractical due to pre-existing use patterns. Appropriate Implementation: The RC (residential conservancy) district will implement this designation. Single Family Purpose: To designate and protect areas for predominantly single family dwellings. Description: This category includes those areas reserved primarily for single family dwellings. Implementing regulations should provide for an appropriate range of lot sizes, clustered and mixed housing types as part of a planned development. Compatible Uses: Single family residences and uses that serve or support residential development, such as schools, daycare centers, churches and parks shall be considered appropriate and may be permitted on a conditional basis. Other public buildings and semi-public uses may be permitted if designed and laid out in a manner which enhances rather than detracts from the residential character of the area. In siting such uses, however, special care shall be given to ensuring adequate parking, landscaping, and traffic circulation with a minimum of conflict with residential uses. Uses which generate significant traffic (such as large churches) should only locate on developed arterials in areas zoned for institutional uses. Intrusion of industrial uses into any of these single family areas shall be prohibited. Only very limited commercial uses such as home occupations or strictly limited appropriate conditional uses can be allowed. Planned developments should be favorably considered in these designations in order to allow optimal flexibility. In providing such flexibility, the emphasis should be on small alley-loaded lot single family development, limited low density multifamily housing and a mixture of types, and design diversity should be sought. Except where conditional use permits have been previously granted, alternate structure types should not exceed more than 40 percent of the units, and alternative structures should in most cases contain no more than four dwelling units each. However, where substantial offsetting community benefits can be identified, such alternative structures may be allowed to contain more than three units each. Page 14-3 Amended 2012 Chapter 14 Criteria for Designation: Areas suitable for this designation include those areas designated in goals and policies of this Plan as single family areas. Consistent with those policies, areas within the Community Serving Area of the City suitable for this category should be reserved for these uses. This designation should also be applied to areas adjacent to lower density residential plan designations. Considerations Against Applying this Designation: This designation would not be generally appropriate (although exceptions may exist) in the following areas: 1. Areas with high volumes of through traffic. 2. Areas developed in or more appropriate under the Plan policies for another use. 3. Areas within the Region Serving Area of the City. Appropriate Implementation: Three zones may be used to implement this category- 1) R-1: Permits one dwelling unit per net acre. This zone is primarily applied to areas designated as urban separators under the King County Countywide Planning Policies where rezones from existing densities (typically one unit per acre) are not allowed for a 20 year period and/or to areas with significant environmental constraints. It may also be applied in limited instances to areas where greater densities are limited by environmental constraints. 2) R-5: Permits 4-5 dwelling units per net acre. This zone is intended to create a living environment of optimum standards for single family dwellings. Duplexes are conditionally permitted subject to meeting infill residential design standards. It is intended to be applied to the relatively undeveloped portions of the City, areas where existing development patterns are consistent with the density and upland areas where greater densities would strain the transportation system. 3) R-7: Permits5-7 dwelling units per net acre. This zone provides for relatively small lot sizes. It may be applied to the older neighborhoods of the City and reflects the typically smaller lot sizes found there. Application of this zone should be considered for areas considered appropriate for a mix of housing types, particularly in some of the Special Planning Areas as discussed below. Page 14-4 Amended 2012 Comp.Plan Map Moderate Density Purpose: To provide a transition between single family residential areas and other more intensive designations, as well as other activities which reduce the suitability of potential residential areas for single family uses (such as high traffic volumes). In so doing, this designation will offer opportunities for housing types which balance residential amenities with the need to provide economical housing choice, in a manner consistent with conserving the character of adjacent single family areas. Description: Moderate density residential areas are planned to accommodate moderate densities of varying residential dwelling types. Appropriate densities in these areas shall range from 8 to 10 units net per acre and potentially 16 units per net acre, where properties have frontage on an arterial or residential collector. Dwelling types would generally range from single family units to multiple-family dwellings, with larger structures allowed (at the same overall density) where offsetting community benefits can be identified. Structures designed to be occupied by owner-managers shall be encouraged within this designation. Compatible Uses: Public and quasi-public uses that have land use impacts similar to moderate to high density residential uses are appropriate within this category. Also, uses which require access to traffic (such as schools and churches) are appropriate for these areas. Carefully developed low intensity office, or residentially related commercial uses (such as day care centers) can be compatible if developed properly. This designation can include manufactured home parks. Criteria for Designation: Areas particularly appropriate for such designation are: 1. Areas between single family residential uses and all other uses. 2. Areas adjacent to, or close to arterials designated in the transportation element. 3. Existing manufactured home parks. 4. Areas sandwiched between higher intensity uses, but not directly served by an arterial. 5. Urban infill areas not appropriate for single family uses but also not capable of supporting higher density uses. Page 14-5 Amended 2012 Chapter 14 Considerations Against Applying this Designation: Areas to generally be avoided by moderate density residential designations include: 1. Areas surrounded by lower density uses. 2. Areas more appropriate for commercial or higher density uses due to traffic or extensively developed public facilities. 3 Areas within the Region Serving Area designated by this Plan (except as otherwise provided by the Plan). 4. Any areas not planned to be served by water and sewer systems. Appropriate Implementation: This designation can be implemented by two zones: 1) R-10: Permits 10 dwelling units per net acre. The zoning allows single family dwellings and duplexes as permitted uses. Multiple- family dwellings, some residential supporting uses, and professional offices as part of a mixed-use development may be permitted as conditional uses. 2) R-16: Permits 16 dwelling units per net acre. The zoning allows for a variety of housing types, include single family, duplexes, and multiple-family dwellings and mixed-use development. 3) R-MHC: Manufactured/Mobile Home Community permits the development of manufactured home parks on property that is at least 5 acres in size. The base density is 10 dwelling units per net acre. High Density Purpose: To provide an opportunity for the location of the most economical forms of housing in areas appropriately situated for such uses under the policies of this Plan. Description: This category shall be applied to those areas which are either now developed or are reserved for multiple family dwellings. Densities may range from 16 to 20 units per acre. Dwelling types may range from single family units to apartment complexes, and may include manufactured home parks when located adjacent to major arterial streets. Adequate on-site open space areas should be provided for all multi-family developments. Densities exceeding 20 units per acre and special Page 14-6 Amended 2012 Comp. Plan Map development standards may be authorized for senior housing projects, within the Downtown area and within 1/4 mile of regional transit service. Compatible Uses: Compatible uses are similar to those identified under the other residential categories, except higher intensities of use may be appropriate. Public uses and open spaces which tend to visually relieve the high density character of these areas should be encouraged. Criteria for Designation: In addition to areas already developed to this density, this designation should be applied only to areas which have or may be most efficiently served with high capacity and high quality public services and facilities. Of particular concern is the provision of adequate traffic circulation, and this category shall only be applied to areas with developed arterial access. Other siting concerns may include access to commercial services and open space amenities. This category may also be applied to areas which are threatened with deterioration and multiple family dwellings offer the potential for rehabilitation. Considerations Against Applying this Designation: Areas not appropriate for this zone include areas surrounded, without physical separation, by lower intensity uses. Appropriate Implementation: This designation can be implemented by two zones: 1) R-16: Permits 16 units per net acre. The zoning allows for a variety of housing types include single family, duplexes, and multiple-family dwellings and mixed-use development. 2) R-20: Permits 20 units per net acre and multiple-family residential and mixed-use development. Residential supporting uses and some professional offices are permitted as conditional uses. 3) R-MHC. Manufactured/Mobile Home Community permits the development of manufactured home parks on property that is at least 5 acres in size. The base density is 10 dwelling units per net acre. In no case should these uses be authorized for construction until all appropriate public facilities are available to full standard. Page 14-7 Amended 2012 Chapter 14 Publicly or Quasi- Publicly Owned or Public Access Categories Open Space Purpose: To ensure adequate open space amenities for present and future residents by reserving and protecting important open space resources and to identify lands useful for public purposes (RCW 36.70A.150) as well as open space corridors (RCW 36.70A.160) as required by the GMA. Description: This category shall be applied to areas which are to be managed in a largely open space character. It includes parks, watersheds, shoreline areas, significant wildlife habitats, large storm drainage ponds, utility corridors with public access and areas with significant development restrictions, such as steep slope and flood hazard areas. Compatible Uses: Appropriate uses include low intensity recreational uses, low density residential uses and associated open areas, wildlife habitat, stormwater detention, watershed and similar low intensity uses. Criteria for Designation: This designation should be applied to any site in which exists a significant developmental hazard or open space value suitable for public protection without unduly encroaching on private property rights. Appropriate Implementation: Where land in this category is owned publicly it shall be implemented by the P-1 Public Use District. Land in this category which is privately owned will generally be zoned for low density residential use. Where the open space is linear it may be appropriately managed by means other than zoning, such as public ownership or easements, particularly as development takes place on adjacent land. The Shoreline Management Program shall regulate the open spaces designated adjacent to the rivers. Subdivisions of property involving steep slope or shoreline areas shall consider these development limitations and avoid creating inappropriate or unbuildable lots. public and Quasi-Public Purpose: To designate areas of significant size needed to provide public and quasi-public services to the community. Description: This category includes those areas which are reserved for public or quasi-public uses of a developed character. It is intended to include those of a significant extent, and not those smaller public uses Page 14-8 Amended 20 12 Comp. Plan Map which are consistent with and may be included in another designation. Public uses of an industrial character, such as the General Services Administration, are included in the industrial designation. Streets, utilities and other public activities supporting other uses are not considered separate uses and are not so mapped. This designation includes large churches, private schools and similar uses of a quasi-public character. Developed parks are also designated under this category. Compatible Uses: Uses more appropriately designated under another category should not be designated under this category, irrespective of ownership Industrial and commercial uses which are affiliated with and managed by educational institutions for vocational educational purposes may be classified as a public use and permitted on a conditional basis. Criteria for Designation: Designation of these areas should be consistent with the character of adjacent uses. Appropriate Implementation: This designation will generally be implemented by three zones: 1) P-1 (Public Use) District provides for the location and development of public uses that serve the cultural, educational, recreational and public service needs of the community 2) 1 (Institutional Use) District provides for similar uses, but includes schools and typically allows a much broader list of uses. 3) LF (Landing Field) District provides for the operation and management of the Auburn Municipal Airport. The designation can also be implemented as a conditional use under various zones. Approval of these types of uses (and open space uses), not individually designated on the Plan Map, under a conditional use permit or rezone consistent with or related to adjacent zoning, shall not be considered inconsistent with the designations under this Plan. Commercial Categories Light Commercial Purpose: To create people oriented commercial areas to supply a wide range of general commercial services to area residents. Description: This category represents the prime commercial designation for small to moderate scale commercial activities. These commercial areas should be developed in a manner which is consistent with and Page 14-9 Amended 2012 Chapter 14 attracts pedestrian oriented activities. The ambiance of such areas should encourage leisure shopping and should provide amenities conducive to attracting shoppers. Compatible Uses: A wide range of consumer oriented goods and services are compatible within this designation since the emphasis would be on performance criteria which create an attractive shopping environment. However, uses which rely on direct access by vehicles or involve heavy truck traffic (other than for merchandise delivery) are not appropriate in this category Unsightly outdoor storage and similar activities should be prohibited. Permitted uses would consist of retail trade, offices, personal services, indoor eating establishments, financial institutions, governmental offices, and similar uses. Multiple family dwellings should be encouraged as part of mixed-use developments where they do not interfere with the shopping character of the area, such as within the upper stories of buildings. Since taverns can break up the continuity of people oriented areas, taverns would be permitted generally only as a conditional use. Drive in windows should only be allowed as ancillary to a permitted use, and only when carefully sited under the conditional use permit process in order to ensure that an area's pedestrian environment is not seriously affected. Criteria for Designation: This designation should include moderate sized shopping centers, and centrally located shopping areas. This designation should be preferred for commercial sites where visual and pedestrian amenities are an important concern outside of the downtown. Considerations Against Applying this Designation: Commercial areas which can not be readily separated from high traffic volumes (such as shallow lots along busy arterials) should not be included in this designation. Areas not large enough for separation from any adjacent heavier commercial or industrial area should not be designated as light commercial. Appropriate Implementation: This designation is implemented by the C-1 Light Commercial District. This district provides for a wide range of small and moderate scale commercial oriented towards the leisure shopper and pedestrian oriented activities. Doivntown Purpose: To create a vibrant people oriented downtown which serves as the business, governmental and cultural focal point of the Community that includes multifamily residential development. Page 14-10 Amended 2012 Comp. Plan Map Description: This category is intended to be applied only in Downtown Auburn. The area should be developed in a manner which is consistent with and attracts pedestrian oriented activities. The ambiance of the downtown should encourage leisure shopping, should provide services to local residents, area employees and should provide amenities conducive to attracting visitors and shoppers. Compatible Uses: A broad mix of uses is appropriate and encouraged within the Downtown. A wide range of consumer oriented goods and services are compatible within this designation since the emphasis would be on performance criteria which create an attractive pedestrian oriented shopping environment. However, uses which rely on direct access by vehicles or involve heavy truck traffic (other than for merchandise delivery) are not appropriate in this category. Unsightly outdoor storage and similar activities should be prohibited. Permitted uses would consist of retail trade, offices, personal services, indoor eating establishments, financial institutions, governmental offices, and similar uses. Multiple family dwellings should be encouraged, particularly within the upper stories of buildings which include retail and commercial uses. Since taverns can break up the continuity of people oriented areas, they should be prohibited. Drive in windows should not be permitted to maintain the area's pedestrian environment. Parking standards within the downtown should reflect the pedestrian orientation of the area, but also consider parking's impact for economic development. Criteria for Designation: This designation should apply only in Downtown Auburn. Considerations Against Applying this Designation: This designation should not be used other than for the Downtown area. Appropriate Implementation: This designation can be implemented by the following zoning districts: 1) The primary core of downtown should be implemented by the Downtown Urban Center zone, which allows for a broad range of uses with no residential density limitations. 2) Other commercial areas within the downtown may be implemented by the C-2 Central Business District. Heavy Commercial Purpose: To provide automobile oriented commercial areas to meet both the local and regional need for such services. Page 14-11 Amended 2012 Chapter 14 Description: This category is intended to accommodate uses which are oriented to automobiles either as the mode or target of providing the commercial service. The category would also accommodate a wide range of heavier commercial uses involving extensive storage or heavy vehicular movement. Compatible Uses: A wide variety of commercial services oriented to automobiles are appropriate within this category. This includes automobile sales and service, drive in restaurant or other drive in commercial business, convenience stores, etc. Since these uses are also compatible with heavier commercial uses, lumber yards, small scale warehousing, contractor yards and similar heavy commercial uses are appropriate in this designation. Criteria for Designation: This designation should only be applied to areas which are highly accessible to automobiles along major arterials. Generally this category would characterize commercial strips. This zone is appropriate for the intersections of heavily traveled arterials, even if adjacent sites are best suited for another commercial designation. Considerations Against Applying this Designation: Areas which conflict with single family residential areas or areas more suited for other uses. Whenever possible this category should be separated from all uses by extensive buffering. Appropriate Implementation: This category is implemented by the C-3 Heavy Commercial District and the C-4, Mixed Use Commercial District. Neighborhood Commercial Purpose: To provide accessible commercial services frequently needed in residential areas without creating land use conflicts between those commercial uses and the residential areas they serve. Description: Residential areas require commercial services almost on a daily basis. Such services, while necessary, can also conflict with the quality of residential areas. Consequently, commercial areas need to be reserved that are either carefully restricted (if located within residential areas) or are accessible to, but buffered from, residential areas. Compatible Uses: In restricted areas (those within neighborhoods), uses must be carefully controlled both in the kind of uses permitted and in terms of design and other performance criteria. A much less restricted type of neighborhood commercial use can be designated near intersections of a major arterial and a residential arterial. A much wider range of Page 14-12 Amended 2012 Comp. Plan Map commercial activities are appropriate in such an area, including grocery stores, convenience stores, service stations, hardware stores, small restaurants and drinking establishments. However, activities (such as outdoor storage) which can alter the character of these areas into heavier commercial areas should only be permitted on a conditional basis in order to control potential adverse impacts. Criteria for Designation: In all cases, neighborhood commercial areas should be at the intersections of major streets. In the case of restricted types, such streets may be residential arterials, while in the case of the less restricted type at least one of the streets should be a major arterial. Adequate buffering should be planned in the process of designating any new areas as neighborhood commercial. Considerations Against Applying this Designation: This designation should be avoided whenever it is not possible to adequately buffer the commercial uses from adjacent residential uses. Appropriate Implementation: This category is implemented by the C-N Neighborhood Commercial District. Office-Residential Purpose: To reserve areas to accommodate professional offices for expanding medical and business services, while providing a transition between residential uses and more intensive uses and activities. Description: This category is a restricted commercial designation reserved only for certain types of activities. As a growing medical center, areas need to be reserved to accommodate growth in this sector, which is largely expressed in the form of professional offices. This category also assures space to accommodate the rapid growth that is occurring in business services and other service oriented activities. Such uses also provide a means for an appropriate transition for areas originally developed as a residential area but now not appropriate for that type of use. Compatible Uses: To be fully effective as a transition or a buffer, resi- dential uses should be permitted on a conditional basis. Criteria for Designation: As a transition this designation can serve as an appropriate buffer between heavily traveled arterials and established single family areas. It would be particularly appropriate in areas where large traffic volumes have affected an established residential area. It can be Page 14-13 Amended 2012 Chapter 14 applied where amenity values mitigate against heavy commercial uses along major arterials. This designation should also be used to accommodate the expansion of medical services in the area around Auburn Regional Medical Center. Considerations Against Applying this Designation: This zone is intended for particular applications as described. It generally should not be applied on a large scale basis. Appropriate Implementation: This category is implemented by two zones: 1) RO - Residential Office District which is intended to primarily accommodate business and professional offices where they are compatible with residential uses. 2) RO-H Residential Office-Hospital District is to be used exclusively for the area around Auburn Regional Medical Center. Industrial Categories Light Industrial Purpose: To reserve quality industrial lands for activities that implement the City's economic development goals and policies. Description: This category is intended to accommodate a wide range of industrial and commercial uses. This designation is intended to provide a location attractive for manufacturing, processing and assembling land use activities that benefit from quality surroundings and appropriate commercial retail uses that benefit from the location, access, physical configuration, building types of these properties. It is distinguished from heavier industrial uses by means of performance criteria. All significant activities shall take place inside buildings, and the processing or storage of hazardous materials shall be strictly controlled and permitted only as an incidental part of another use. The siting and design of industrial buildings shall be of an "industrial or business park" character. Certain residential uses may be permitted, especially in industrial areas that have been established to promote a business park environment that complements environmental features, and/or if development standards are developed to promote compatibility between residential and other non- residential land uses. Compatible Uses: A wide range of industrial and heavy commercial uses may be permitted, subject to performance standards. These uses include Page 14-14 Amended 2012 Comp. Plan Map indoor manufacturing, processing and assembling of materials from previously prepared or raw materials and ancillary and necessary warehousing and distribution of finished goods associated with manufacturing and industrial uses. Certain residential uses may be permitted if development standards are established to promote compatibility between residential and other non-residential land uses. Outside storage shall be permitted only subject to performance criteria addressing its quantity and location to ensure it is compatible with adjacent uses and so that such storage would not detract from the potential use of the area for light industry In all cases such storage shall be extensively screened. In the Environmental Park District that implements the "Light Industrial" plan map designation; outdoor storage will be strictly limited to promote compatibility with adjacent environmental land uses. Uses involving substantial storage or processing of hazardous materials as well as substantial emissions should not be permitted in these areas. A wide range of commercial activities may be allowed to provide increased opportunities for sales tax revenue. The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Auburn Yard located within the Railroad Special Plan Area is considered a compatible use at its current level of usage (as of August 14, 1996). It is not bound by the policies concerning outside storage under the existing light industrial designation as it was an existing use prior to the development of this policy. Should BNSF decide to reactivate its applications to upgrade the yard to an intermodal facility, the proposal will be subject to the essential public facility siting process as defined in the Capital Facilities Element (Chapter 5). To ensure the City's long-term ability to invest in public infrastructure and services remains viable, the City will continue to assess, evaluate and if necessary pursue implementation of policies that incentivize the transition of current and future land uses in its industrial zones away from distribution and warehouse uses based on future changes on tax structure at the State level or other similar actions. The City believes that manufacturing -and industrial land uses are preferential to and should be encouraged over time large!), replae° warehouse and distribution land uses currently existing in the City and that any future warehouse and distribution uses should be ancillary to and necessary for the conduct of manufacturing and industrial uses. Manufacturing and industrial uses are more appropriate and beneficial through higher and better use of the land, enhanced employment densities, increased property tax revenues and potential on-site sales tax revenue generation for receipt of materials and other goods and services. Page 14-15 Amended 2012 Chapter 14 The establishment of regulations and incentives that create a basis for increased commercial retail uses in the City's industrial zoning districts will provide greater opportunity for the generation of sales tax revenue in the City. Increased sales tax revenue will positively impact the City's continued ability to maintain and operate a strong public investment program in infrastructure and services. Commercial retail uses will in turn be attracted to and benefit from the location, access, physical configuration and building types of industrial zoned properties. Criteria for Designation: This designation should be applied to a majority of the Region Serving Area designated under this Plan. It is particularly appropriate for industrial land within high visibility corridors. This category should separate heavy industrial areas from other uses. Considerations Against Applying this Designation: Within the Community Serving Area, this designation should only be applied to sites now developed as light industrial sites. Industrial sites along rail corridors are generally more appropriate for heavier industrial uses, unless in high visibility corridors. Appropriate Implementation: This designation is implemented by the Light Industrial (M-1), Environmental Park (EP) or Business Park (BP) zone. Heavy Industrial Purpose: To provide a place for needed heavy industrial uses in areas appropriately sited for such uses. Description: This designation allows the full range of industrial uses as well as certain commercial uses. Certain residential uses may be permitted if development standards are developed to promote compatibility between residential and other non-residential land uses. Compatible Uses: While this zone should be reserved primarily for the heavier forms of industrial activities, a wide range of industrial and commercial activities may be permitted, along with residential uses with appropriate compatibility protections. Criteria for Designation: The most appropriate area for this designation is in the central part of the Region Serving Area adjoining the rail lines. This designation is also appropriate in the southern portion of the area which is now developed in large scale industrial facilities (the Boeing and the General Services Administration facilities). Page 14-16 Amended 2012 Comp. Plan Map Considerations Against Applying this Designation: This designation can only be applied in the Community Serving Area to sites now developed in this character along A Street S.E. These areas should not abut commercial or residential areas; heavy industry should be buffered by light industrial uses. It is not an appropriate designation for highly visible areas. Appropriate Implementation: This designation is implemented by the M-2 zone. Planned Areas Special Plan Areas (.See Map 14 2) Purpose: To allow large areas within the City, under a single or a coordinated management, to be developed as a planned unit. This designation can also be used to provide flexibility when there is uncertainty regarding how an area may be most appropriately developed in the future. Description: This designation applies to specific areas identified as being appropriate for mixed, urban level development on a planned basis. It is intended that the future development of these areas will be guided by individual "elements" or "sub-area plans" of the Comprehensive Plan, to be developed and adopted at a later date. The Plan elements should be consistent with the following. Compatible Uses: Uses and intensities within Special Planning Areas shall be determined for each area through individual planning processes. Each individual planning process will result in the adoption of a Comprehensive Plan element (sub-area plan) for that particular Special Planning Area. Each Plan element shall be consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Development of the individual Plan elements shall also be based upon the following guidelines: Academy Special Planning Area: The Auburn Adventist Academy Plan was adopted by resolution No. 2254 in November 1991 and is considered to be an element of the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan applies to the area within the property owned by the Academy and allows for a diversity of uses on the site, primarily those related to the mission and objectives of the Academy. As part of the adoption of the Plan, the area was zoned under the I-Institutional Use District which permits uses such as schools, daycare, churches, nursing homes, recreation and single family uses. Page 14-17 Amended 2012 Chapter 14 Auburn North Business Area Planning Area. The Auburn North Business Area Plan was adopted by resolution No 2283 in March 1992 and is considered to be an element of the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan covers an approximately 200 acre area located directly north of the Auburn Central Business District. The Plan calls for development to be pedestrian oriented with high density residential and light commercial components. Downtown Special Planning Area. Downtown Auburn is a unique area in the City which has received significant attention in the past and there will be continued emphasis in the future. This Comprehensive Plan recognizes Downtown as the business, governmental and cultural focal point of Auburn with a renewed emphasis on providing housing in the Downtown. Development of the Downtown should be consistent with the 2001 Auburn Downtown Plan. Lakeland Hills Special Planning Area. The Lakeland Hills Plan was adopted by resolution No. 1851 in April 1988 and is considered to be an element of the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan covers the approximately 458 acres of the Lakeland Hills development which falls within the King County portion of the city. The Plan calls for a mix of residential uses including single and multi-family housing as well as supporting recreational, commercial, public and quasi-public uses. The plan calls for phasing of development in coordination with the provision of necessary urban services. Lakeland Hills South Special Planning Area. The Lakeland Hills South Plan initially covered approximately 685 acres owned by The Lakeland Company within Pierce County and contained within the City of Auburn potential annexation area (urban growth area). The Plan is intended to be consistent with the conditions of approval of the Lakeland Hills South PDD (Pierce County Hearings Examiner Case No. Z15-90/UP9-70) as amended. The City of Auburn has accepted the Lakeland Hills South PUD as an approved PUD. This acceptance is implemented in part through an annexation and utilities agreement between the City and the developer of Lakeland Hills South PUD. The Lakeland Hills South PUD is further implemented by the City's zoning code, including ACC Chapter 18.76 entitled "Planned Unit Development District—Lakeland Hills South Special Plan Area" Residential development within the PUD is primarily single family and moderate density dwellings with a wide range of lot sizes, including lots smaller than those typically allowed by the City's zoning ordinance for Page 14-18 Amended 2012 Comp. Plan Map non-PUD's. The maximum allowable number of residential units provided for originally was 3,408 based upon an overall gross density of 5 units per acre. High density multifamily units are limited to one area of the PUD to approximately 669 units. Twenty acres are to be used for light commercial development and significant area has been set aside as open space. In 2007, the developer of Lakeland Hills South PUD was granted an expansion to the Lakeland Hills South PUD to add an additional 4 acres of commercial land, raising the total area of light commercial land to 24 acres. The development includes a developed 15-acre park, an undeveloped 15-acre park, two 5-acre parks and a linear park along Lakeland Hills Way. The locations of the parks are shown on the comprehensive plan map. Changing the location of any or all of the parks does not constitute a comprehensive plan amendment provided that the total park acreage does not change and the location is agreed upon by the City. Within the Lakeland Hills South Special Plan area only, the permitted density ranges for the comprehensive plan designations are as follows: Single Family Residential: 1-6 units per acre; Moderate Density Residential: 2-14 units per acre; and High Density Residential: 12-19 units per acre. The development has occurred in phases in coordination with the provision of required urban services and in 2008, the development is nearing completion. In 2004, the developer of Lakeland Hills South PUD requested an expansion to the Lakeland Hills South PUD involving several parcels totaling approximately 77 acres — bringing the total PUD acreage to approximately 762 acres. The proposal designated these additional parcels as "Moderate Density Residential" (from "Single Family Residential") with the objective of increasing the total number of units allowed in the PUD from 3,408 to approximately 3,658. Subsequently, in 2005, it was determined and agreed that the total number of units within even the expanded boundaries of the PUD would be no greater than 3,408. Lakeview Special Planning Area. The Lakeview Special Planning Area 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 Page 14-19 Amended 2012 Chapter 14 environmental, recreational and amenity value of White Lake, as well as the historical and cultural significance 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. Rail Yard Special Planning Area. 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. Mi. Rainier Vista Special Planning Area. This 145 acre Special Planning Area 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. Page 14-20 Amended 2012 Comp. Plan Map 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 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. 3. 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 4. 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. 5 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. 6. The Mt. Rainier Vista special planning area boundary may be modified through the development of the subarea plan. 7 The Mt. Rainier Vista and Stuck River Road Special Planning Areas shall be coordinated subarea plans. Stuck River Road Special Planning Area. 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 adjacent 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 Page 14-21 Amended 2012 Chapter 14 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 (ever 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. Northeast Auburn Special Plan Area: The Northeast Aubum/Robertson Properties Special Plan area was adopted by Ordinance No. 6183 in the Spring of 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 277`h Street (52nd Street NE) and north of approximately 37`h 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 45`h 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 Page 14-22 Amended 2012 Comp. Plan Map 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 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. Criteria for Designation: Additional Special Planning Areas may only be designated through amendments of the Comprehensive Plan. Appropriate Implementation: Plan elements establishing City policy regarding the development of the Special Planning Areas shall be adopted by amendment of the Comprehensive Plan, or shall be adopted concurrent with adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. Special Planning Area elements shall be implemented in the same manner as other elements of the Comprehensive Plan; that is, under the City's zoning and subdivision ordinances, development standards and public facilities programs. Plan Map Policies In some cases the general policies established by this Plan need further articulation or clarification due to particular geographic concerns associated with specific areas. In other cases, the application of the Plan's general policies may be inappropriate for a specific area due to unique circumstances, requiring that specific "exceptions" to these general policies be established. This section identifies these specific areas and establishes either supplemental policies or exceptions to the general policy, as appropriate. Urban Separators Urban separators are areas designated for low-density uses in the King County Countywide Planning Policies. They are intended to be "permanent low-density lands which protect adjacent resource lands, Rural Areas, and environmentally sensitive areas and create open space corridors within and between Urban Areas which provide environmental, visual, recreational and wildlife benefits." There are two primary areas of urban separators within the Lea Hill portion of the City of Auburn, which the City is obligated to maintain (and not redesignate) until at least the year 2022, pursuant to the Countywide Planning Policies and an annexation agreement with King County. Urban separators are deemed to be both a regional as well as local concern and no modifications to development regulations governing their use may be made without King County review and concurrence. Therefore, the areas designated as "urban separator" on Page 14-23 Amended 2012 Chapter 14 the Comprehensive Land Use map, will be zoned for densities not to exceed one dwelling unit per acre, with lot clustering being required if a subdivision of land is proposed. Infrastructure Related Policies Pike Street Area: North of 8th N.E., east of Harvey Road, and south of 22nd N.E. Problem: This area is inadequately served by residential arterials. Further intensification of use in this area would compound this problem. Policy III.A. No increase in density or other development which would increase traffic demand in this area should be approved. 8th Street N.E. Area: 8th Street N.E. between Auburn Way and M Street. Problem: The Comprehensive Plan Map designates multiple family use as the ultimate use in accord with the Comprehensive Plan policies. While 8th Street is designated as a major arterial, it is not currently constructed to that standard and is not able to support current traffic demand adequately. The Plan designation would greatly increase traffic volumes. Water service is also not sufficient to support multiple family densities at the present time. Policy III.B. Implementation of the Plan designations should not occur until 8th Street is constructed to the adequate arterial standard and water service is upgraded. Up zones should not be granted from current zoning until these systems are upgraded or guaranteed. Auburn Way South, Auburn Black Diamond Road Area: Auburn Way South in the vicinity of the Enumclaw Plateau; Area between Auburn-Black Diamond Road and the Burlington Northern Railroad. Problem: This Plan does 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). In spite of this fact, the development intensity now planned will still need to be coordinated with the necessary infrastructure to support that growth. Particularly significant is the need to assess the ability of both Auburn Way and Auburn-Black Diamond Road to support continued increases in traffic volumes. Page 14-24 Amended 2012 Comp. Plan Map Policy III.C. The area between Auburn-Black Diamond Road and the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks is designated as Rural by the Plan Map. The primary reason for this Rural designation is the current lack of 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. Economic Development Strategy Areas In 2005 the City of Auburn brought together a focus group of diverse business and community interests that identified several economic development areas within the City. The focus group's effort is reflected in an Economic Development Strategies document that includes strategies and actions needed to affect necessary change for specific strategy areas within the city As adopted by Resolution No. 3944 in 2005, the Economic Development Strategies document identified six initial strategy areas. These economic development strategy areas are targeted for population and employment growth. The boundaries of these areas will be refined as sub-area plans of the Comprehensive Plan are developed for these strategy areas and/or as the areas are differentiated through incentive zoning. In 2010, the City Council identified two additional economic development strategy areas and solidified the idea of expanding elements of the "Urban Center" designation--greater residential population density (i.e. mixed use), clustered non-residential intensity (offices, retail, services), increased employment, and multi-modal transportation (i.e. walking, transit, and bicycling)--to these economic development strategy areas as key economic development nodes in the City. The original planning horizon for the economic development strategy areas focused on the City's 20-year (203 1) growth target. With the City Council's Economic Development Retreat in 2012 and subsequent discussions of the Planning & Development Committee and Committee of the Whole, the population and employment growth purpose of the eight economic strategy areas is further articulated. A new Page 14-25 Amended 2012 Chapter 14 economic development strategy area is added bringing the total to nine, revised to a 50-year planning horizon and modified boundaries were used to correlate the economic development strategy areas with priority business sectors as follows: (See Map No. 14.3 "Economic Development Strategy Areas") • Auburn Environmental Park and "Green Zone" (The zoning designation surrounding and supporting the Environmental Park) • Healthcare research (provision and prevention); • Ecosystem management ("Green Engineering"); • Education; • Bio-research facilities; and • "Manufacturing Village" — mixed uses consisting of manufacturing, commercial and multiple family residential • Urban Center • Healthcare research (provision and prevention); • Entertainment; , • High density housing/mixed-use commercial; and • Ecosystem management ("Green Engineering"); • Auburn Way North Corridor (Generally, paralleling the street between 15 Ih ST NE to S 277`h ST and C ST NW to 1ST NE) • Mixed-use of commercial and residential (retail emphasis); and • Entertainment • Auburn Way South Corridor (Generally, SR 18 south to Auburn WY S and Riverwalk DR SW) • Healthcare research (provision and prevention); • Ecosystem management ("Green Engineering"); • Education, • Bio-research facilities; and • Aerospace • 15th Street SW/C Street SW/West Valley Highway (Generally, SR 18 to Boundary Boulevard SW and West 11L HWY to C ST SW) o Mixed-use of commercial and residential (retail emphasis) • A Street SE Corridor (Generally, SR 18 to 41"ST SE and C ST SW to D ST SE) o Multiple family residential • SE 312`h Street/124`h Avenue SE Corridor (Generally, SE 310'h ST to SE 314'h ST and 1215!PL SE to 129''AVE SE) o Retail Services • M Street SE between Auburn Way North and Auburn South o Mixed-use of commercial and residential (retail and service emphasis) Page 14-26 Amended 2012 Comp. Plan Map • Northwest Auburn Area (Generally, behveen S. 277th ST and 30`1' ST NW and Nest of Auburn WY N Corridor to SR 167) o "Manufacturing Village" — mixed uses consisting of manufacturing, commercial and multiple family residential. Related Policies Policy III.D The City will seek to implement the Economic Development Strategy Areas through site-specific planning actions such as sub-area plans and/or by innovative land use regulations such as incentive zoning which promote greater residential population density (i.e. mixed use), clustered non-residential intensity (offices, retail, services), increased employment and multi-modal transportation (i.e. walking, transit, and bicycling)--to these economic development strategy areas as key economic development nodes in the City Policy III.E. The City will seek to encourage a compatible mixture of future land uses emphasizing the priority business sectors within the Economic Development Strategy Areas. The City will promote a long- term vision for their redevelopment that is not constrained by the current marketplace, existing nature of physical development, current level of infrastructure improvements or funding, and existing methods of land use regulation. The Economic Development Strategy Areas will be a focus for redevelopment through public infrastructure investment, private investment through such methods as public-private partnerships and by flexible land use regulations, such as performance standards or form-based codes. Policy III.F Within appropriate Economic Development Strategy Areas, the City will foster implementation of "Manufacturing Villages" "Manufacturing Villages" are a 21"-Century reinvention of historic development pattern emphasizing horizontal or vertical synergy of mixed uses and based on minimization of travel distances between living units and work places, the promotion of smaller scale, non-nuisance-type commercial or industrial uses in proximity to residences, and cultivating vibrant streetseapes. The Manufacturing Villages should build on the City's designation of an "Innovation Partnership Zone" The "Innovation Partnership Zone" (IPZ) is a unique economic development effort that partners research, workforce training, and private sector participation in close geographic proximity to promote collaboration in a research based effort that will lead to new technologies, marketable products, company formation, and job creation. Created by the State Legislature in 2007 and assigned to the State Department of Commerce, the zones are administered by the City pursuant to a comprehensive business plan. Page 14-27 Amended 2012 Chapter 14 Problems Related to Existing Uses West Auburn Area: South of West Main between the rail lines. Problem: This is an older part of town developed in a pattern of commercial uses along Main Street and residential uses south to Highway 18. This area is in the Region Serving Area as designated in this Plan. The homes in this area are typically older single family homes that have been converted to multi-family housing. Some may have historic significance. Preservation and restoration of the existing housing in this area is a priority. Policy III.1. This area should be planned for "Local Serving" multiple family uses even though it is in the "Region Serving Area". Airport Area Area: Industrially designated area east of the Airport. Problem: This area is highly suited for air related activities. Other industrial type uses are now located here. Policy III.J. The City will encourage use in this area to take advantage of its proximity to the Airport. Lea Hill Area Area. Area annexed on January 1, 2008. Problem: The City has been concerned for years that the rapid growth taking place within the Lea Hill PAA will overwhelm city streets. Through annexation the City can better manage the amount and type of growth in this area and help ensure that appropriate infrastructure to support development is provided concurrent with that development. The Auburn City Council envisions retaining the predominantly single- family character of the Lea Hill area rather than allow the trend of rapidly developing multi-family projects to continue. The City's codes will help ensure that the neighborhood character, traffic and environmentally sensitive features are protected and/or managed. Page 14-28 Amended 2012 Exhibit C Agenda bill/staff report dated November 20, 2013 -------------------------- Ordinance No 6489 November 21, 2013 Page 8 AC�ITTY�TOFR- T�TR /�• �l ice= WA`-' IN GTON AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject Ordinance No. 6489 Date: November 20, 2013 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendments—Map Amendments and Policy/Text Amendments CPA13-0001, CPA13-0002, & CPA13-0003 Department: Planning and Attachments: Budget Impact: N/A Development Ordinance No. 6489 Summary Table See also separate working binder Administrative Recommendation: The Planning and Community Development Committee to recommend approval of Ordinance No. 6489 to the City Council Background Summary 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 Comprehensive plan amendments can be initiated by the City of Auburn (city-initiated docketed items) and by private citizens (privately-initiated). This year the city is initiating one map amendment and six policy/text amendments. In addition, this year the city received two privately-initiated plan map amendment applications. This staff report and its recommendations address all of this year's amendments: • CPA13-0003, Comprehensive Plan Map (CPM) Amendment CPM#1 (city initiated) • CPA13-0003, Policy/Text (P/T) Amendments P/T# 1 through #7 (city initiated) • CPA13-0001, Comprehensive Plan Map CPM#2 (privately initiated -each separately) • CPA13-0002 Comprehensive Plan Map CPM#3 (privately initiated - each separately) 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 is limited to once a year, except in certain specific instances, and generally occurs around the end of this year Reviewed by Council&Committees: Reviewed by Departments &Divisions: ❑ Arts Commission COUNCIL COMMITTEES ❑ Building ❑ M&O ❑ Airport ❑ Finance ❑ Cemetery ❑ Mayor ❑ Hearing Examiner ❑ Municipal Services ❑ Finance ❑ Parks ❑ Human Services ® Planning&Dev ❑ Fire ® Planning ❑ Park Board ® Public Works ® Legal ❑ Police ® Planning Comm ❑ Other ® Public Works ❑ Human Resources Action: Committee Approval: ❑Yes ❑No Council Approval: ❑Yes ❑No Call for Public Hearing Referred to Until / Tabled Until Councilmember Backus Staff: Welch Meeting Date: November 25, 2013 Item Number Page 1 of 36 AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: CPA13-0001, CPA13-0002, &CPA13-0003 Date: November 20, 2013 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendments-Plan Map Amendments and Policy[Text Amendments At its October 22, 2013 public hearing the Planning Commission reviewed the following: A. Policy/Text Amendments P/T#1 —Auburn School District 2013-2019 Capital Facilities Plan P/T#2 — Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Plan 2014-2019 P/T#3 — Federal Way School District 2014 Capital Facilities Plan P/T#4 — Kent School District 2013/2014 — 2018/2019 Capital Facilities Plan P/T#5 —City of Auburn 2014-2019 Capital Facilities Plan P/T#6 - Comprehensive Plan Revise Chapter 3 — 'Land Use' o Revise pages 3-34 through 3-35 and Page 3-39 related to emphasis of industrial uses. Revise Chapter 8 — 'Economic Development' o Revise pages 8-9 through 8-11 related to emphasis of industrial uses. Revise Chapter 14 — 'Comprehensive Plan Map' o Revise page 14-15 related to emphasis of industrial uses. B. Map Amendments CPM #1 — (File # CPA13-0003) Amend Map No. 14 1 for a City-initiated change in the designation of three parcels developed with single family residences totaling 1 76 acres on the north side of Auburn WY S and east of Hemlock ST SE (Parcel # 2815000020, 2815000010 & 2121059073) from "High Density Residential" to "Light Commercial" for future rezoning. The designations are being re-evaluated In light of the surrounding development, evolving land use pattern, and City's planned widening of Auburn WY S CPM #2 — (File No. CPA13-0001) Amend Map No 14 1 requested by Wesley Homes Lea Hill , LLC to change the designation of existing developed site and two recently acquired adjacent parcels located south of SE 320th ST, between 108th and 110th AVE SE of approx. 18.65 acres (Parcel Nos. 1721059007, 1721059253 &1721059109) The Applicant seeks to change designations of their contiguous parcels from "Single Family Residential" to "Public and Quasi-Public" to facilitate subsequent rezoning to accommodate future expansion of existing elder care facility CPM #3 — (File No CPA13-0002) Amend Map No. 14 1 requested by two adjacent property owners, Fonpee LLC and E. Stanberry of property located at the NW corner of 37th ST NW and W Valley HWY of approx. 2.10 acres (Parcel Nos. 0221049077 & 0221049098). The Applicants seek to change designations of a portion of the parcels from 'Heavy Commercial ' to 'Light Industrial' to facilitate subsequent rezoning and to eliminate split designations of each parcel and to accommodate future potential development. The Planning Commission has forwarded its recommendation for approval to the City Council on all plan map and policy/text Amendments. The 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendments were reviewed by the Planning and Community Development Committee of the City Council on June 24, 2013 and November 12, 2013 and will Page 2 of 36 AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: CPA13-0001, CPA13-0002, &CPA13-0003 Date: November 20, 2013 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendments- Plan Map Amendments and Policy/Text Amendments be again be reviewed at the Committee's November 25, 2013 meeting for a recommendation to the City Council. The Public Works Committee of the City Council reviewed the amendments and the Planning Commission recommendations at their November 18, 2013 meeting. Ordinance No. 6489 is proposed for action at the December 2, 2013 City Council meeting. A. Findings 1 RCW 36 70A.130 (Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA)) provides for amendments to locally adopted GMA comprehensive plans. Except in limited circumstances provided for in State law, comprehensive plan amendments shall be considered by the city or county legislative body no more frequently than once per year 2. The City of Auburn established a June 7, 2013 deadline for the submittal of privately- initiated comprehensive plan applications (map or policy/text) Notice to the public of the filing deadline was provided on the City's website, the Seattle Times Newspaper, and sent to a compiled notification list. The City received two privately-initiated plan map amendment applications by the submittal deadline. 3. The City of Auburn received annual updates to the four 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 referenced in Chapter 5, Capital Facilities, of the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan and are processed as Policy/Text (P/T) amendments. 4 The environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) resulted in a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) issued for the City-initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendments on September 17, 2013 (City File # SEP13-0028) The comment period ended October 1, 2013 and the appeal period ended October 15, 2013 One comment was received and addressed and there were no appeals filed. 5 A Determination of Non-Significance (DNS), the environmental review decision required under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), was issued for the Wesley Homes Lea Hill LLC Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Rezone (File # SEP13-0025) on September 6, 2013. The comment period ended September 20, 2013 and the appeal period ended October 4, 2013. No comment letters were received there were no appeals filed. 6. A Determination of Non-Significance (DNS), the environmental review decision required under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), was issued for the Fonpee LLC & Stanberry Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Rezone (File # SEP13-0019) on August 26, 2013. The comment period ended September 10, 2013 and the appeal period ended September 24, 2013. No comment letters were received there were no appeals filed. 7 The Auburn School District issued a Determination of Non-Significance for the 2013 - 2019 Auburn School District Capital Facilities Plan May 7, 2013; the Dieringer School District issued a Determination of Non- Significance for the 2014 - 2019 Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Plan July 15, 2013; the Federal Way School District issued a Determination of Non-Significance for the 2014 Federal Way School District Capital Facilities Plan April 26, 2013; and the Kent School District issued a Determination of Non-Significance for the 2013/2014 through 2018/2019 Kent School District Capital Facilities Plan June 13, 2013 Page 3 of 36 AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: CPA13-0001, CPA13-0002, &CPA13-0003 Date: November 20, 2013 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendments-Plan Map Amendments and Policy/Text Amendments 8. Pursuant to RCW 36 70A.106, the proposed comprehensive plan amendments were sent to the Washington State Office of Commerce on September 17, 2013, and in turn transmitted other state agencies as required for the 60-day state review The Washington State Office of Commerce acknowledged receipt on September 17, 2013 by letter dated October 8, 2013. No comments have been received from the Washington State Department of Commerce or other state agencies as of the writing of this report. 9 Due to the nature of the city-initiated map amendments and the scope and limited number of privately initiated policy/text changes, the optional process for a public open house as provided in the city code was not conducted. 10. Public notice via publication within the official newspaper as required by ACC 14.22.100 was accomplished. The public hearing notice was published on October 10, 2013 in the Seattle Times Newspaper at least 10-days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing scheduled for October 22, 2013. 11 Public notice via mailing as required by ACC 14.22.100 for site-specific map amendments was accomplished. A public notice was sent via regular mail to property owners within 300 feet of the subject sites and the property was posted with a land use notice board that included the SEPA determination. 12. Auburn City Code Chapter 14.22 outlines the process for submittal of privately-initiated amendments and the processing of comprehensive plan amendments as follows: "Section 14.22.100 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: 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. Page 4 of 36 AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: CPA13-0001, CPA13-0002, 8 CPA13-0003 Date: November 20, 2013 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendments- Plan Map Amendments and Policylrext Amendments 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.)" 13 The annual comprehensive plan amendments were previously discussed with the Planning and Community Development Committee of the City Council on June 24, 2013 at which time the draft docket and draft schedule were reviewed. Also, a reporting of the status of Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments processing occurred at the November 12, 2013 regular meeting 14 On November 25, 2013 will review the 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendments and the recommendations of the Planning Commission. 15 On November 18, 2013 the Public Works Committee of the City Council reviewed the 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendments and the recommendations of the Planning Commission. 16. The following report identifies all of the Comprehensive Plan Map (CPM) and Policy/Text (P/T) amendments that were heard by the Planning Commission at their October 22, 2013 public hearings along with the original staff recommendation to the Planning Commission and the subsequent Planning Commission recommendation. ---------------- OCTOBER 22, 2013 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING ----------------- Comprehensive Plan Policy/Text Amendments PIT #1 Incorporate Auburn School District Capital Facilities Plan 2013 through 2019, adopted by School Board May 28, 2013 into the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan. Discussion The Auburn School District has provided the City with its annually updated Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) covering from 2013-2019 The CFP was adopted by the Auburn School District School Board on May 28, 2013 and has been subject to separate SEPA review and a Determination of Non Significance (DNS). 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 Planning Commission action is incorporation of the Auburn School District Capital Facilities Plan into the City's Comprehensive Plan. 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 $5,398.93, a decrease of$112.76 and the requested fee for multiple-family dwellings is $3,387.84, an increase of $7.58. The actual impact fee that is assessed is set by separate ordinance by the Auburn City Council. Page 5 of 36 AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: CPA13-0001, CPA13-0002, &CPA13-0003 Date: November 20, 2013 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendments-Plan Map Amendments and Policylrext Amendments Staff Recommendation Planning Commission to recommend approval to the City Council Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission recommended approval to the City Council PIT#2 Incorporate the Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Plan 2014-2019 adopted July 30, 2013 by the School Board as part of the Auburn Comprehensive Plan. Discussion The Dieringer School District has provided the City with its annually updated Capital Facilities Plan 2014 - 2019 The CFP was adopted by the Dieringer School District Board of Directors on July 30, 2013 The CFP has been subject to separate SEPA review and a DNS. 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 Planning Commission action is incorporation of the School District Capital Facilities Plan into the City's Comprehensive Plan. A review of the Dieringer 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 $5,299 00, an increase of$2,294 00 and the requested fee for multiple family dwellings is $1,766, an increase of $1,766.00 The actual impact fee assessed is set by separate ordinance by the Auburn City Council. Staff Recommendation Planning Commission to recommend approval to the City Council Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission recommended approval to the City Council PIT#3 Incorporate Federal Way School District Capital Facilities Plan 2014 adopted June 25, 2013 by the School Board into the City Comprehensive Plan. Discussion The Federal Way School District has provided the City with its annually updated Capital Facilities Plan (2014). The CFP was adopted by the Federal Way School District School Board on June 25, 2013. The CFP has been subject to separate SEPA review and a DNS 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 Planning Commission action is incorporation of the School District Capital Facilities Plan into the City's Comprehensive Plan. 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 $5,363.00, representing an increase of$1,349 00 and the requested fee for multi-family dwellings is $1,924 00, an increase of$543.00 The actual impact fee assessed is set by separate ordinance by the Auburn City Council. Staff Recommendation Planning Commission to recommend approval to the City Council Page 6 of 36 AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: CPA13-0001, CPA13-0002, 8 CPA13-0003 Date: November 20, 2013 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendments- Plan Map Amendments and PolicyfText Amendments Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission recommended approval to the City Council P/T#4 Incorporate Kent School District Capital Facilities Plan 2013-2014 to 2018-2019 adopted June 28, 2013 by the School Board into the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan. Discussion The Kent School District has provided its annually updated 2013-2014 to 2018-2019 Capital Facilities Plan. The CFP was adopted by the Kent School District School Board on June 28, 2013 and has been subject to separate SEPA review and a Determination of Non Significance (DNS). 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 Planning Commission action is incorporation of the School District Capital Facilities Plan into the City's Comprehensive Plan. A review of the Kent School District's updated Capital Facilities Plan indicates the District is not requesting a change In the fees. The Plan indicates the net fee obligation for single- family dwellings of $5,486.00, representing no change, and for multi-family dwellings a fee of $3,378 00, also representing no change. The actual impact fee that is assessed is set by separate ordinance by the Auburn City Council. Staff Recommendation Planning Commission to recommend approval to the City Council Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission recommended approval to the City Council CPM #5 Incorporate the City of Auburn's 6-year Capital Facilities Plan 2014-2019, into the City's Comprehensive Plan. Discussion A Capital Facilities Plan is one of the comprehensive plan elements required by the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) (RCW 36 70A). The GMA requires that a capital facilities plan include an inventory of existing capital facilities (showing locations and capacities), a forecast of future needs for such capital facilities, proposed locations and capacities of new or expanded capital facilities, and a minimum of a six-year plan to finance capital facilities with identified sources of funding. The proposed City of Auburn 6-year Capital Facilities Plan 2014- 2019 satisfies the GMA requirements for a capital facilities element as part of the Comprehensive Plan. Each comprehensive plan prepared under the GMA must include a capital facilities plan element. RCW 36.70A.070(3) of the GMA states the following A capital facilities plan element consisting of (a) An Inventory of existing capital facilities owned by public entities, showing the locations and capacities of the capital facilities; (b) a forecast of the future needs of such capital facilities; (c) the proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new capital facilities; Page 7 of 36 A[J$URN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: CPA13-0001, CPA13-0002, &CPA13-0003 Date: November 20, 2013 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendments- Plan Map Amendments and Policy/Text Amendments (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 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 from the Finance Department contained in the working notebook identifies the major changes in the CFP from last year The proposed City of Auburn 6-year Capital Facilities Plan 2014-2019 is incorporated by reference in the Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 5, Capital Facilities. Staff Recommendation Planning Commission to recommend approval to the City Council Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission recommended approval to the City Council CPM #6 Revise portions of three chapters of the City's Comprehensive Plan for the same purpose of revising the discussion of the emphasis of industrial uses. Discussion The requested policy/text amendments affect the following chapters and pages: • Revise Chapter 3 — 'Land Use' o Revise pages 3-34 through 3-35 and Page 3-39 related to emphasis of industrial uses. • Revise Chapter 8 — 'Economic Development' o Revise pages 8-9 through 8-11 related to emphasis of industrial uses. • Revise Chapter 14 — 'Comprehensive Plan Map' o Revise page 14-15 related to emphasis of industrial uses. In 2005 the State of Washington adopted streamlined sales tax (SST) legislation. Prior to SST legislation, sales tax collection in Washington State was based on the site of origin, rather than on the site of destination. Under the SST tax structure, sales tax is collected at the site of delivery rather than from those areas from which they were shipped. This change in tax structure puts the City of Auburn at a disadvantage and negatively impacts its tax revenue. Specifically, Auburn and similar cities have historically invested in infrastructure to support businesses engaged in warehouse and distribution activities that ship goods to other destinations. Another concern for Auburn and similar cities that have invested in infrastructure Page 8 of 36 AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: CPA13-0001, CPA13-0002, 8 CPA13-0003 Date: November 20, 2013 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendments- Plan Map Amendments and Policylrext Amendments include how the debt that has already been extended for such infrastructure will be paid and how the loss of a significant source of revenue will affect bond ratings. In November 2004 based on the then potential passage of SST, the Auburn City Council approved Resolution No 3782. 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 structure are adopted. (See the copy of Resolution #3782 contained in the back of the working notebook.) Because of the State of Washington's implementation 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 City being able to continue a strong public investment program 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 comprises 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 sales tax revenue mitigation program. The eventual loss of the aforementioned sales tax revenue 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 supporting warehouse and distribution centers that are origin-based in nature. In 2011, the City amended the City's Comprehensive Plan to identify that warehouse and distribution land uses are not a preferred long-term economic development and land use priority for industrial zoned areas In the City due to the loss of sales tax revenue associated with the State's implementation of streamlined sales tax legislation, no substantive contribution to an increase in per capita income for Auburn residents, no reduction in the tax burden of Auburn residents, low employment densities, lower property values and land use inefficiencies. These changes specified that increases in manufacturing and industrial land uses should be the City's preferred economic development and land use priority for industrial zoned areas of the City currently dominated by warehouse and distribution land uses. These changes specified that the City should revise current comprehensive policies and regulations to provide for and require the conversion of existing warehouse and distribution land uses to manufacturing and industrial land uses. To implement the policy direction of the Comprehensive Plan, the zoning regulations affecting industrial zoning districts was changed by Ordinance #6433 near the end of 2012. Among other more minor changes, the Ordinance established that any new or expansion of existing warehouse and distribution uses in the City would require the land use application process of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Since the time of these comprehensive plan and zoning changes, the City heard from a number of property owners and property management companies responsible for warehouse and distribution facilities located in the City expressing concern. The majority of concerns expressed were related to misunderstanding the effect of the changes to pre-existing warehouse and distribution uses. However, as a result of these comprehensive plan and zoning changes, the property owners, property managers and their professional organizations of warehouse and distribution uses have supported and advocated Page 9 of 36 AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: CPA13-0001, CPA13-0002, & CPA13-0003 Date: November 20, 2013 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendments- Plan Map Amendments and Policy/Text Amendments for the City with the state legislature. As a result of this support, it is appropriate to revise and "soften" the policy direction of the Comprehensive Plan to promote and encourage through incentives the transition from warehousing and distribution uses rather than require the conversion of these uses. The proposed policy and text changes are proposed for this purpose Staff Recommendation Planning Commission to recommend approval to the City Council Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission recommended approval to the City Council Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments CPM #1 CPA13-0003, Auburn WY S & Hemlock ST SE City initiated Map Amendment Amend Map No 14 1 for a City-initiated change in the designation of three parcels developed with single family residences totaling 1 76 acres on the north side of Auburn WY S and east of Hemlock ST SE (Parcel # 2815000020, 2815000010 & 2121059073) from "High Density Residential" to "Light Commercial" for future rezoning. The designations are being re-evaluated in light of the surrounding development, evolving land use pattern, and City's planned widening of Auburn WY S Page 10 of 36 AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: CPA13-0001, CPA13-0002, &CPA13-0003 Date: November 20, 2013 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendments- Plan Map Amendments and Policy/Text Amendments Discussion 1 The current Comprehensive Plan designation, zoning designation and land uses of the 3 sites and surrounding properties are as follows: �. ' �3e Y Compreh`erisiveYPlan Zoriing,Classjfication ,' EAstiftI tUse _ . D-aesigingi °vcg,ry � ion ' , tai.a. On- "High Density R5, Residential (5 Each contains a single Site Residential"" dwelling units per acre) family residence North "Single Family R5, Residential (5 single family residences & Residential" & "Public dwelling units per acre) open space as and Quasi-Public" & P1, Public Use Shaughnessy Park South "Light Commercial" with C1, Light Commercial Convenience store, single "Moderate Density with R10, Residential family residence, vacant Residential", beyond (10 dwelling units per acre), beyond Veterinary clinic, East "High Density R20, Residential (20 restaurant, & multi-tenant Residential"" & "Light dwelling units per acre) commercial center Commercial" & C1, Light Commercial Warehouse, multi-tenant commercial center West "Single Family M1, Light Industrial with Vacant & single family Residential" & R5, (5 dwelling units to residential "Neighborhood the acre) beyond Commercial" Page 11 of 36 AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: CPA13-0001, CPA13-0002, &CPA13-0003 Date: November 20, 2013 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendments-Plan Map Amendments and Policy/Text Amendments 2013 Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment Map CPA 13-0003 i -jPROPOSED 1 Ed° L- -�- lI Llngv.YLau u. wanup•nryl.p6ntln LIyX4m[va[n i X.nlneYmn Mrt.Y dr L.XYU.Y.tina. � Xn Y.+ry[YYY..Xn i n n<.n...i� i ww..ra+Y wY i` AYYntlXCw.�.m Page.12 of 36 AU$URN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: CPA13-0001, CPA13-0002, &CPA13-0003 Date: November 20, 2013 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendments- Plan Map Amendments and Policy[Text Amendments 2. This city-initiated proposal consists of changing the designation of the following three contiguous properties: 3202 Auburn WY S, Parcel # 2815000020, 0.19 acres owned by John Tippins • 3210 Auburn WY S, Parcel #2815000010, 0.51 acres owned by Coni Orvis • 3216 Auburn WY S, parcel # 2121059073, 1 06 acres owned by Khanh Train The combined area of the three subject parcels is approximately 1 76 acres. 3. All three sites border Auburn WY S, which is State Route 164 and classified by the City as a "Principal Arterial" which prescribes a five-lane road with a minimum 87 feet of right-of-way The roadway is not currently constructed to this road standard. 4 The property is located within the King County portion of the City of Auburn. It was annexed to the City in 1959 by Ordinance No 1278. 5. The properties occur at an elevation of approximately 308 feet. The properties are similar in elevation to the roadway Auburn WY S and relatively flat except near the northern boundary which slopes downhill to the north. 6. Based on historic zoning maps, the subject properties were originally zoned R2, Single Family Residential (6,000 square foot minimum lot size) and subsequently changed in 1987 to R1, Single Family Residential (8,000 square foot minimum lot size) under the old zoning code classification system. Then in 2009 the City amended its zoning code and changed the R1, Single Family Residential (8,0000 square foot minimum lot size) to R5, Residential (Five (5) dwelling units per acre), the current designation of these properties. 7 The land use designations and zoning for the subject properties have not been re-evaluated for many years and therefore have not considered the appropriateness of the land use designations based on the increased development along the roadway corridor The subject properties have been impacted by added development, intensification of commercial uses and increased traffic along the Auburn WY S corridor The corridor has been impacted by the development and expansions of the Muckleshoot Casino and Bingo Hall and the construction and operation of the White River Amphitheater. In the immediate vicinity, there has been further development on both sides of Auburn WY S Immediately to the east of the three subject properties, also on property zoned C1, Light Commercial, is a veterinary hospital and pet grooming business. East of the veterinary hospital is a drive through restaurant. And east of the drive through restaurant is a newer multi-tenant commercial center 8. Auburn WY S has experienced increases in traffic volumes. According to the City's 1997 Comprehensive Transportation Plan, the year 1996 average daily vehicle trip volumes were 29,183 on Auburn WY S in this vicinity of Hemlock ST SE. According to the city's current Comprehensive Transportation Plan, the year 2009 average daily vehicle trips are 35,986 in this same road segment; a 23% increase over a period of 13 years. 9 There are three City roadway improvement projects currently under design on the Auburn WY S corridor between the Muckleshoot Plaza Drive (Tribal Casino area) and Hemlock ST SE. Page 13 of 36 AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: CPA13-0001, CPA13-0002, & CPA13-0003 Date: November 20, 2013 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendments- Plan Map Amendments and Policyfrext Amendments • CP1218 —Auburn Way South from Muckleshoot Plaza Drive to Dogwood ST SE, construction in 2015 • CP1118—Auburn Way South from Dogwood ST SE to Fir ST SE, construction in 2014 • CP1119 —Auburn Way South from Fir ST SE to Hemlock ST SE, construction in 2014 The projects are all intended to improve vehicle and pedestrian safety while also reducing congestion. 10 Project CP1119 includes the widening of Auburn Way South at Hemlock ST SE to include two lanes in each direction and a center turn lane. Sidewalks will also be added to both sides of the road. Currently at Hemlock ST SE, Auburn WY S is one lane in each direction with a center turn lane and without sidewalks. Project CP1119 is funded by a grant from the Washington State Transportation Improvement Board (TIB), the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (MIT), and the City of Auburn. Construction on CP1119 and CP1118 is scheduled to start in early 2014 and last approximately 10 months. 11 Approximately 13 feet of additional right of way width is needed for project CP1119 on the north side of Auburn Way South, east of Hemlock ST SE. in the vicinity of the subject properties. 12. In terms of the status of the projects, the City is currently negotiating with property owners for the acquisition of right-of-way needed for project CP1119 The City is also finalizing design documents, working to obtain final design approvals from partners and stakeholders (WSDOT and MIT). The City is also coordinating with Puget Sound Energy to underground overhead power lines. Staff Recommendation Planning Commission to recommend approval to the City Council Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission recommended approval to the City Council CPM #2 —CPA13-0001, Wesley Homes Lea Hill LLC Map Amendment 1 The Comprehensive Plan map amendment application (File No. CPA13-0001) was submitted on June 6, 2013 by the submittal deadline of June 7, 2013. 2. The application was submitted by Daniel K. Balmelli, Executive Vice President, and Paul Cyr, Senior Planner, of Barghausen Consulting Engineers Inc. as agents on behalf of Kevin Anderson, President & Chief Executive Officer, Wesley Homes Lea Hill LLC, Applicant. 3 In addition to the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Application, the Applicant also submitted an environmental checklist application (File No SEP13-0025) and a rezone application (File No REZ13-0001). The Applicant also provided an application for amendment of the previous Conditional Use Permit (File No. CUP13-0002) to provide redundancy for the future skilled nursing facility in the event the comprehensive plan amendment and rezone are not successful. Page 14 of 36 AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: CPA13-0001, CPA13-0002, &CPA13-0003 Date: November 20, 2013 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendments- Plan Map Amendments and Policy/Text Amendments 4 The Comprehensive Plan map amendment application seeks to change the designation of existing developed site and two more recently acquired adjacent parcels (three (3) parcels total) located south of SE 320th ST, between 108th and 110th AVE SE and totaling approximately 18.65 acres (Parcel Nos. 1721059007, 1721059253 &1721059109) from "Single Family Residential" to "Public and Quasi-Public" to facilitate subsequent rezoning to accommodate future expansion of existing elder care facility 5 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 the ability for future redevelopment. More specifically, the comprehensive plan map amendments and rezones are requested for the purpose of facilitating the site preparation and construction of a 36-bed, skilled nursing facility as a building addition to the existing main building on the main parcel. History of Existing Development 6 The following information on the existing Wesley Homes Lea Hill Senior Living Facility" is derived primarily from the application materials. The approximately 18 38-acre campus is accessed by a north-south private street (109th Place SE) extending south from SE 320th Street leading to the site buildings. The central portion of the site contains trees, wetlands and a stream that were preserved or enhanced at the time of development. The site buildings, access, and parking areas were developed around these on-site resources. "Eby Lodge The north central portion of the site contains the main, three-story building containing approximately 128 residential apartments, dining room, and rooms for specific activities, such as theater, game room, wood shop, chapel, beauty salon, and fitness center The building also contains underground parking and a secure wing for individuals living with memory impairment. "Village Homes" —The east side and south sides of the site are bordered by a row of 22 single story homes, primarily as duplexes, that provide an independent living situation. "Brownstones"—The southwest corner of the site contains two, two-story buildings with underground parking and approximately 12 apartment homes in each building. 7 In 2004, the Applicant, Kevin Anderson of Wesley Homes, submitted 3 applications to the City, a. A rezone application (File # REZ04-0004) was submitted to change from R1, Single Family Residential (8,000 square foot minimum lot size) to R2, Single Family Residential (6,000 square foot minimum lot size) The vicinity is also subject to the Lea Hill zoning overlay whose main purpose is continuing some of the King County development standards for previously platted property within this annexed area. The rezone was needed because nursing homes/assisted living uses were not allowed in the R1 zoning district but were allowed in the R2 zoning district through a conditional use permit (CUP). The zoning designations have subsequently changed by the city b A Conditional Use permit application (File # CUP04-0004) was submitted since at the time, the land use approval required to authorize nursing homes/assisted living uses in the City's R2, Single Family Residential (6,000 square foot minimum lot size) zoning district. The Conditional Use Permit authorizes a Page 15 of 36 AUBURN * MOKE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: CPA13-0001, CPA13-0002, & CPA13-0003 Date: November 20, 2013 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendments- Plan Map Amendments and Policyrrext Amendments specific site plan and, in this case, also authorized a building height variance of six feet to increase the height of the main building to 36 feet. c. An environmental checklist application (File # SEP04-0020) was submitted for the state—required analysis of the environmental impacts and city decision on the proposed land use changes and the proposed development. 8. In response to the applications received in 2004, the City issued a Final Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (Final MDNS) (File # SEP04-0020) on August 31, 2004 The Final MDNS contained seven conditions in order to reduce or avoid environmental impacts. While not identified as part of the proposed action at the time, the environmental checklist application acknowledged that a future phase to add a skilled nursing facility as part of the project. 9 Also in response to the applications received in 2004, the City's Hearing Examiner on September 21 2004 conducted a public hearing on the on the rezone and conditional use permit (and variance). After the hearing, the Hearing Examiner recommended approval to the city Council. The City Council on November 15 2004 considered the request and adopted Ordinance No 5881 approving the rezone and Conditional Use Permit with five conditions. 10 Construction permits were applied for in 2005 and the site development was generally completed in 2006. At the time of construction, the two smaller parcels were not owned by Wesley Homes and contained single family residences. The two smaller parcels were subsequently acquired by Wesley Homes. 11 In 2009 the city amended its zoning code and changed the R1, Single Family Residential (8,0000 square foot minimum lot size) to R5, Residential (Five (5) dwelling units per acre) and changed the R2, Single Family Residential (8,0000 square foot minimum lot size) to the R7, Residential (seven (7) dwelling units per acre) zoning designation. The City also changed the set of uses allowed in the zoning districts such that the R7, Residential (Seven (7) dwelling units per acre) zoning designation does not allow nursing homes/assisted living facilities in this zoning district. By this change, the Wesley Home project was made a legally-established use that is non-conforming to the use regulations. Page 16 of 36 AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: CPA13-00O1' CPA13-0002. &CPA13-O003 Date: November 2O. 2U1J 201J Comprehensive Plan Amendments' Plan Map Amendments and P |i 12. The current Comprehensive Plan designation, zoning designation and land uses of the sites and surrounding properties are nnfollows: Vk r4 Ic- rerl cation. -1721'0'5'0253 �07,21059253..** 1:721059C 5i Residential Residential Senior/ One is "Single Family Residential" (seven (7) (Five (5) Assisted vacant; one On-site dwelling dwelling units Living contains a SF units per per acre) Facility residence "Single Family Residential" R5 Residential (Five (5) Single family residential North dwelling units per acre) "Single Family Residential" R5 Residential (Five (5) Single family residential dwelling units per acre) "Single Family Residential" R5 Residential (Five (5) Single family residential dwelling units per acre) "Single Family Residential" R5 Residential (Five (5) dwelling units per acre) Single family residential Page 17of3O AUBURN ** M0ÐAN YOU t��AG{�JED , .~ � ~ .� , Agenda Subject:CPA13-0001, CPA13-0002,&CPA13-0003 Date: November 20, 2013 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendments-Plan Map Amendments and Policy/Text Amendments 2013 Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment Map CPA 13-0001 _E7{I r S L_ L 77779 LJ F = , PROPOSED rq 1 P e..e.[u,[w. :,nM•.r.wr.b.n..wr r«r�..«—n[«..nr.� ��r,r..rrax ] .w..nr u.b •.e..nuwW ..w....wor,ua..nn um m,.r..rn n..a n,b.w.r wr.w ��._ LW WM�d i urf AmrrWWmo,l � luq[nmurtN � N4r,N W..IYM. ��` aenu,eJ[v 1 � wn.wemwi + R.nbnr i W.n br. Page 18 of 36 AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: CPA13-0001, CPA13-0002, &CPA13-0003 Date: November 20, 2013 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendments- Plan Map Amendments and Policy/Text Amendments 13 The request seeks to change the designation of the existing developed site and two more recently acquired adjacent parcels (three (3) parcels total) and totaling approximately 18.65 acres (Parcel Nos. 1721059007, 1721059253 &1721059109) from "Single Family Residential" to "Public and Quasi-Public" to facilitate subsequent rezoning to accommodate future expansion of existing assisted living facility The parcels requested for change are contiguous and generally rectangular in shape. 14 All three parcels border S 320th Street, which is classified by the city as a "Residential Collector" street which prescribes either 2 or 3 lanes and a 55-foot wide right-of-way Two blocks to the east the same roadway classification changes to a "Minor Arterial' street which prescribes a minimum 71-foot right-of-way S 320th Street along the project frontage is generally improved on the south side of the road. The existing assisted living facility is also bordered to the east by 110th Ave SE, which is classified as a "Local Residential' street which prescribes 2 lanes within a 50-foot wide right-of-way A private street of 108th Avenue SE borders to the west. 15. The property is located within the King County portion of the City of Auburn and is located within an area that was annexed to the city in the year 2000 by City ordinance No 5346 16 The 2 smaller parcels, to the north side of the assisted living facility have been zoned R1, Single Family Residential (8,000 square foot minimum lot size) from annexation in 2000 until the zoning was changed to R5 in 2009, as previously mentioned. 17 The eastern of the 2 smaller parcels (Parcel # 1721059109 — 10925 SE 320th St) contains an existing single family house. The western of the 2 smaller parcels (Parcel # 1721059253 — 10815 SE 320th St) is vacant. The previous single family house has been removed. Process and Criteria for Requested Amendment 18. The purpose of the City's Comprehensive Plan document is to provide a policy basis for the future zoning changes to ensure that the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance are consistent as required by the following city code section: "ACC 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. " 19 The City code provides certain criteria for decisions for comprehensive plan amendments as follows. "ACC 14.22.110 Decision criteria for plan amendments. A. The comprehensive plan was developed and adopted after significant study and public participation. The principles, goals, objectives and policies contained therein shall be granted substantial weight when considering a proposed amendment. Therefore, the burden of proof for justifying a proposed amendment rests with the applicant, who must demonstrate that the request complies with and/or relates to the following decision criteria. Page 19 of 36 AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: CPA13-0001, CPA13-0002, &CPA13-0003 Date: November 20, 2013 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendments- Plan Map Amendments and Policyrrext Amendments 1 The proposed change will further and be consistent with the goals and objectives of the plan and the plan will remain internally consistent; 2. Whether the capacity to provide adequate services is diminished or increased, 3. Assumptions upon which the comprehensive plan is based are found to be invalid; 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; 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." 20. The first criterion is that the change must further and be consistent with the goals and objectives of the plan and the plan will remain internally consistent. The Comprehensive Plan contains the following policy guidance that relate to this application. Chapter 14, Comprehensive Plan Map, starting at page 14-8 provides the following purpose and description of the 'Public and Quasi-Public" Comprehensive Plan designation: "Public and Quasi-Public Purpose: To designate areas of significant size needed to provide public and quasi-public services to the community Description: This category includes those areas which are reserved for public or quasi-public uses of a developed character. It is intended to include those of a significant extent, and not those smaller public uses which are consistent with and may be included in another designation. Public uses of an industrial character, such as the General Services Administration, are included in the industrial designation. Streets, utilities and other public activities supporting other uses are not considered separate uses and are not so mapped. This designation includes large churches, private schools and similar uses of a quasi- public character Developed parks are also designated under this category. Compatible Uses: Uses more appropriately designated under another category should not be designated under this category, irrespective of ownership. Industrial and commercial uses which are affiliated with and managed by educational institutions for vocational educational purposes may be classified as a public use and permitted on a conditional basis. Criteria for Designation: Designation of these areas should be consistent with the character of adjacent uses. Appropriate Implementation: This designation will generally be implemented by three zones: Page 20 of 36 AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: CPA13-0001, CPA13-0002, &CPA13-0003 Date: November 20, 2013 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendments- Plan Map Amendments and PolicyrText Amendments 1) P-1 (Public Use) District provides for the location and development of public uses that serve the cultural, educational, recreational and public service needs of the community 2) 1 (Institutional Use) District provides for similar uses, but includes schools and typically allows a much broader list of uses. 3) LF(Landing Field) District provides for the operation and management of the Auburn Municipal Airport. The designation can also be implemented as a conditional use under various zones. Approval of these types of uses (and open space uses), not individually designated on the Plan Map, under a conditional use permit or rezone consistent with or related to adjacent zoning, shall not be considered inconsistent with the designations under this Plan."(Emphasis added) The request to change the designation of the 3 parcels to "Public and Quasi-Public" is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The properties are developed with or adjacent to properties with land uses of a quasi-public character (the assisted living facility) For comparison, Chapter 14, "Comprehensive Plan Map', starting at page 14-3 provides the following purpose and description of the 'Single Family Residential' Comprehensive Plan designation: "Single Family Purpose: To designate and protect areas for predominantly single family dwellings. Description: This category includes those areas reserved primarily for single family dwellings. Implementing regulations should provide for an appropriate range of lot sizes, clustered and mixed housing types as part of a planned development. Compatible Uses: Single family residences and uses that serve or support residential development, such as schools, daycare centers, churches and parks shall be considered appropriate and may be permitted on a conditional basis. Other public buildings and semi-public uses may be permitted if designed and laid out in a manner which enhances rather than detracts from the residential character of the area. In siting such uses, however, special care shall be given to ensuring adequate parking, landscaping, and traffic circulation with a minimum of conflict with residential uses. Uses which generate significant traffic (such as large churches) should only locate on developed arterials in areas zoned for institutional uses. Intrusion of industrial uses into any of these single family areas shall be prohibited. Only very limited commercial uses such as home occupations or strictly limited appropriate conditional uses can be allowed. Planned developments should be favorably considered in these designations in order to allow optimal flexibility In providing such flexibility, the emphasis should be on small alley-loaded lot single family development, limited low density Page 21 of 36 AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: CPA13-0001, CPA13-0002, 8 CPA13-0003 Date: November 20, 2013 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendments-Plan Map Amendments and Policyrrext Amendments multifamily housing and a mixture of types, and design diversity should be sought. Except where conditional use permits have been previously granted, alternate structure types should not exceed more than 40 percent of the units, and alternative structures should in most cases contain no more than four dwelling units each. However, where substantial offsetting community benefits can be identified, such alternative structures may be allowed to contain more than three units each. Criteria for Designation: Areas suitable for this designation include those areas designated in goals and policies of this Plan as single family areas. Consistent with those policies, areas within the Community Serving Area of the City suitable for this category should be reserved for these uses. This designation should also be applied to areas adjacent to lower density residential plan designations. Considerations Against Applying this Designation: This designation would not be generally appropriate (although exceptions may exist) in the following areas: 1 Areas with high volumes of through traffic. 2. Areas developed in or more appropriate under the Plan policies for another use. 3. Areas within the Region Serving Area of the City Appropriate Implementation: Three zones may be used to implement this category, 1) R-1 Permits one dwelling unit per net acre. This zone is primarily applied to areas designated as urban separators under the King County Countywide Planning Policies where rezones from existing densities (typically one unit per acre) are not allowed for a 20 year period and/or to areas with significant environmental constraints. It may also be applied in limited instances to areas where greater densities are limited by environmental constraints. 2) R-5. Permits 4-5 dwelling units per net acre. This zone is intended to create a living environment of optimum standards for single family dwellings. Duplexes are conditionally permitted subject to meeting infill residential design standards. It is intended to be applied to the relatively undeveloped portions of the City, areas where existing development patterns are consistent with the density and upland areas where greater densities would strain the transportation system. 3) R-7 Permits 5-7 dwelling units per net acre. This zone provides for relatively small lot sizes. It may be applied to the older neighborhoods of the City and reflects the typically smaller lot sizes found there Application of this zone should be considered for areas considered appropriate for a mix of housing types, particularly in some of the Special Planning Areas as discussed below. Page 22 of 36 AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: CPA13-0001, CPA13-0002, & CPA13-0003 Date: November 20, 2013 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendments- Plan Map Amendments and Policyrrext Amendments The current designation of the 3 parcels is 'Single Family Residential' and is proposed to change to "Public and Quasi-Public' The properties are either vacant, developed with single family residence, or developed with an assisted living facility The existing character as an assisted living facility more closely matches the proposed designation. This change in designation is appropriate in proximity to the surrounding areas that are designated "Single Family Residential' The request to change, does not adversely affect the integrity of the remaining area of Single Family Residential' 21 Also, in Chapter 3, Land Use, the Comprehensive Plan document provides various policies which relate to this request. Several policies promote additional residential development in order to meet community and growth management goals. The following excerpted policies relate to this requested change to "Public and Quasi-Public "Chapter 3, Land Use GOAL 7 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT To emphasize housing development at single family densities, in order to reestablish a mix of housing types appropriate for a family oriented community, while recognizing the need and desire for both lower density and higher density housing appropriately located to meet the housing needs of all members of the community Objective 7 1 To establish a system of residential densities that accommodates a range of housing choices appropriate for the city Policies: LU-13 The City should promote the provision, preservation and maintenance of adequate housing for the city's residents by encouraging a balanced mix of housing types and values appropriate to the income levels and lifestyles of area residents. Auburn has always been willing to accept its "fair share"of low and moderate cost housing opportunities. However, this has translated into a great disparity in Puget Sound communities with cities such as Auburn receiving more of these types of housing than other comparable communities. This has had impacts in terms of the costs of meeting human service needs as well as some poorly maintained multifamily properties which have caused a variety of problems. Auburn will work to insure that housing units are equitably distributed across the region in terms of both physical location and cost." (Emphasis added) While the request seeks to change the designation of the property to "Public and Quasi-Public' when developed as an assisted living campus, Goal 7 and Policy LU-13 of the Comprehensive Plan recognizes the important role that these quasi-public facilities such as assisted living facilities contribute to residential neighborhoods. The proposal fulfils the goal of providing a range of housing styles so that residents can remain in the community as they advance in age and not have to go outside the community to find suitable housing for their life stage. Also, this change facilitates the existing assisted living facility --the neighborhood already contains this land use--it is not a new land use for the vicinity Page 23 of 36 AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: CPA13-0001, CPA13-0002, & CPA13-0003 Date: November 20, 2013 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendments- Plan Map Amendments and Policyrrext Amendments "GOAL 12. URBAN REDEVELOPMENT To encourage redevelopment of underutilized areas to reduce sprawl and take full advantage of the City's investment in existing infrastructure. Objective. 12.1 To facilitate infill development. Policies: LU-117 Encourage well designed infill and redevelopment projects to fully utilize previous investment in existing infrastructure in the single family residential, moderate density residential, and high density residential designated areas of the City "(Emphasis added) The requested change is to facilitate further development of the assisted living facility and build upon the significant existing capital investment in the site. Redevelopment of the 2 smaller sites capitalizes on the existing location that is appropriate and accessible and serves the neighborhood and community The assisted living facility is bordered by a "residential collector" street (S 320`h ST) and a "local residential" street (110'h Ave SE) 22. The second decision criterion is that the comprehensive plan amendment must not diminish or increase the ability to provide adequate services. The proposed application for a change in comprehensive plan designation and zoning has been reviewed by the Fire Agency and the City's Utilities and Traffic divisions. Based on these reviews, the change would not adversely affect the provision of services. The proposal is a non-project action; the proposed application is for a change in the comprehensive plan designation and zoning. The proposed "project action" for physical development of the assisted living facility has been addressed in the city's environmental review and final Determination of Nonslgnificance (DNS). The proposed change if approved, will not affect the ability to provide adequate services. As noted by the Applicant in the "Written Statement in Support of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment", the existing site is served by adequate public services the change is not expected to result in an increased demand that will negatively diminish services or the ability to provide services. As typical with development in the City, the infrastructure improvements needed to serve the development would be the responsibility of the future development. At the time of development, adequate services are required to be provided concurrent with the development in order for the project to be authorized. So, it is not anticipated that approval of the request negatively affects provision of services. 23. The third decision criterion is that the assumptions on which the comprehensive plan is based are found to be invalid. While the policies of the Comprehensive Plan are not invalid, a change to the mapped configuration of the land use designations of this request is logical (a change to Map No. 14 1). The 3 parcels are surrounded by areas designated: "Single Family Residential" So Page 24 of 36 AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: CPA13-0001, CPA13-0002, &CPA13-0003 Date: November 20, 2013 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendments- Plan Map Amendments and Policy/Text Amendments while the proposed change represents a change from the surrounding areas, it is of a use and scale that warrants a change to the comprehensive plan map beyond the property boundaries. While not "invalid" the change more accurately reflects the current development pattern and reduces potential conflicts and provides more logical boundaries as they are proposed to be separated by public rights-of-way 24. The fourth decision criterion is 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. Changes that have occurred since the time of adoption of the city's GMA compliant Comprehensive Plan in 1995 is that Wesley Homes has developed the assisted living facility and the city has implemented new zoning standards. Another change is that Wesley Homes has acquired the two adjacent properties abutting the existing parcel. 25. The fifth decision criterion is that the change must be determined to be consistent with the Growth Management Act (GMA)(RCW 36.70A), the Countywide Planning Policies of the relevant county and "Vision 2040: Growth and Transportation Strategy for the Puget Sound Region". 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 enhances the general goal of providing public facilities concurrently with the needs of education and residential development. 26. The sixth decision criterion, 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. (Ord. 6172 § 1, 2008.) As noted in response to other criteria above, growth and development has continued within Lea Hill area of Auburn. The development has included the development of the Wesley Homes Lea Hill Assisted living facility that was not contemplated in 1995 when the city adopted It GMA-compliant Comprehensive Plan. Another change, is the city has implemented new zoning standards that make assisted living facility uses not allowed in the R7, Residential (seven (7) dwelling units per acre) zoning designation. Another change is that Wesley Homes Lea Hill LLC has acquired the two adjacent properties abutting their existing parcel since the time of establishment of the comprehensive plan designations and Wesley Homes Lea Hill LLC seeks to make uniform the designations of all their parcels. Based on these, there have been changes which meet the criteria of Item b Page 25 of 36 AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: CPA13-0001, CPA13-0002, & CPA13-0003 Date: November 20, 2013 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendments- Plan Map Amendments and Policyrrext Amendments Staff Recommendation Planning Commission to recommend approval to the City Council Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission recommended approval to the City Council CPM #3 —CPA13-0002, Fonpee LLC and Stanberry Map Amendment 1 The applicant submitted a Comprehensive Plan map amendment application on June 7, 2013 by the submittal deadline of June 7, 2013 2. The application was submitted by Mike Cotter, President of Fonpee LLC, as owner of one property and as an agent on behalf of the other property owner, Edwin Stanberry The property owners are co-applicants. 3. In addition to the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Application, the Applicants also submitted an environmental checklist application (File No SEP13-0019) and a rezone application (File No. REZ13-0002) 4 The Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment application seeks to change the designation of two adjacent parcels located at the northwest corner of 37th ST NW and W Valley Hwy N. The northern property (3719 W Valley Hwy N (Parcel # 0221049077) is owned by Edwin Stanberry The southern property (3705 W Valley Hwy N (Parcel # 0221049098) is owned by Fonpee LLC 5 Both properties have split comprehensive plan designations; the western portion of each is "Light Industrial", the eastern part is "Heavy Commercial" The combined area of change from 'Heavy Commercial ' to 'Light Industrial' is approximately 2.10 acres. 6 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 bringing the entirety of both properties under the same land use designation to ensure the ability for future redevelopment. Fonpee LLC, operating as Omega USA Company is a "building contractor' business and has plans for further development of the southern lot to include a future office building and a future building for storage of vehicles. While this further future development Is capable of being done under the C3, Heavy Commercial (office uses and parking structures are allowed) it is complicated by being subject to different development standards. Mr Stanberry does not have specific plans for redevelopment of his property Page 26 of 36 AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: CPA13-0001, CPA13-0002, &CPA13-0003 Date: November 20, 2013 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendments- Plan Map Amendments and Policylrext Amendments 7 The current Comprehensive Plan designation, zoning designation and land uses of the sites and surrounding properties are as follows: Comprehensive Zoning Existing Land Plan Qesi nation Classification northern property southern property (3719 W Valley (3705 W Valley Hwy N (Parcel # Hwy N (Parcel # 0221049077) is 0221049098) is owned by Edwin owned by Stanberry Fon ee LLC On- West: "Light M1, Light Single family Building Site Industrial', Industrial & C3, house contractor East: "Heavy Heavy Commercial' Commercial North "Light Industrial' C3, Heavy Trucking company, construction Commercial contractor, vacant parcel South "Heavy C3, Heavy Warehouse, multi-tenant commercial Commercial' and Commercial & center & single family residences Single Family R5, (5 dwelling Residential' units per acre Multi-tenant commercial center, freight East "Heavy C3, Heavy terminal, modular home manufacturer Commercial' Commercial West Single Family M1, Light Single family residential Residential' Industrial with R5, (5 dwelling units to the acre) beyond Page 27 of 36 AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: CPA13-0001, CPA13-0002, &CPA13-0003 Date: November 20, 2013 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendments- Plan Map Amendments and Policy/Text Amendments 2013 Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment Map CPA]3-0002 E)L[STTNG 1 ED 's n4ma4FW , w,..,r.nenm, �,L L.ni FeumF , 0.rtns IW W.I[sryr.m xXymimJ6mmnnF + IW�INnuM \ Page 28 of 36 AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: CPA13-0001, CPA13-0002, &CPA13-0003 Date: November 20, 2013 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendments- Plan Map Amendments and Policy/Text Amendments Page 29 of 36 AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: CPA13-0001, CPA13-0002, &CPA13-0003 Date: November 20, 2013 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendments- Plan Map Amendments and PolicylText Amendments Process and Criteria for Requested Amendment 8. The Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment application seeks to change the designation of two adjacent parcels; the northern property (3719 W Valley Hwy N (Parcel # 0221049077)) owned by Edwin Stanberry consists of 3.29-acres The southern property (3705 W Valley Hwy N (Parcel # 0221049098)) owned by Fonpee LLC consists of 5.59 acres. 9 Due to the split designation, the portion of both properties requested for change is approximately 2.10 acres. 10 The two properties are roughly rectangular in shape with the longer axis oriented east-west and measuring approximately 1,081 feet. 11 The northern property the northern property (3719 W Valley Hwy N (Parcel # 0221049077)) owned by Edwin Stanberry contains a single family house. The southern property (3705 W Valley Hwy N (Parcel # 0221049098)) owned by Fonpee LLC site is developed with three buildings as a building contractor 12. Both sites are bordered to the east by developed W Valley Highway N. which is classified by the City as a "Principal Arterial" which prescribes a five-lane road with 87 feet of right-of- way The southern property borders 37'" St NW, which is classified as a "Residential Collector" street which prescribes either 2 or 3 lanes and a 55-foot wide right-of-way 13. The property is located within the King County portion of the City of Auburn. It was annexed to the City in 1971 by Ordinance No. 2605. 14 Based on historic zoning maps, the subject properties were zoned UNCL, Unclassified from the time of annexation up until 1987 and then were changed to the split designations of M1, Light Industrial and C3, Heavy Commercial. The zoning boundaries originally followed parcel boundaries that have since been modified or eliminated through combining lots. 15 The properties are part of the transition in grade from the western hillside to the valley floor and a north-south aligned stream borders the western boundary of both properties. 16. As indicated by the Applicants in the 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 across each site for future redevelopment. 17 The purpose of the City's Comprehensive Plan document is to provide a policy basis for the future zoning changes to ensure that the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance are consistent as required by the following city code section: "ACC 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. " 18 The City code provides certain criteria for decisions for comprehensive plan amendments as follows: Page 30 of 36 AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: CPA13-0001, CPA13-0002, &CPA13-0003 Date: November 20, 2013 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendments- Plan Map Amendments and Policyrrext Amendments "ACC 14.22.110 Decision criteria for plan amendments. A. The comprehensive plan was developed and adopted after significant study and public participation. The principles, goals, objectives and policies contained therein shall be granted substantial weight when considering a proposed amendment. Therefore, the burden of proof for justifying a proposed amendment rests with the applicant, who must demonstrate that the request complies with and/or relates to the following decision criteria: 1 The proposed change will further and be consistent with the goals and objectives of the plan and the plan will remain internally consistent; 2. Whether the capacity to provide adequate services is diminished or increased; 3. Assumptions upon which the comprehensive plan is based are found to be invalid; 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; 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." 19. The first criterion is that the change must further and be consistent with the goals and objectives of the plan and the plan will remain internally consistent. The Comprehensive Plan contains policy guidance that relate to this application. Chapter 14, Comprehensive Plan Map, starting at page 14-14 provides the following purpose and description of the 'Light Industrial' Comprehensive Plan designation: "Light Industrial Purpose: To reserve quality industrial lands for activities that implement the City's economic development goals and policies. Description: This category is intended to accommodate a wide range of industrial and commercial uses. This designation is intended to provide a location attractive for manufacturing processing and assembling land use activities that benefit from quality surroundings and appropriate commercial retail uses that benefit from the location, access, physical configuration, building types of these properties. It is distinguished from heavier industrial uses by means of performance criteria. All significant activities shall take place inside buildings, and the processing or storage of hazardous materials shall be strictly controlled and permitted only as an incidental part of another use. The siting and design of industrial buildings shall be of an "industrial or business park" character Certain residential uses may be permitted, especially in industrial areas that have been established to promote a business park environment that complements environmental features, and/or if development standards are developed to promote compatibility between residential and other non-residential land uses. Compatible Uses: A wide range of industrial and heavy commercial uses may be permitted, subject to performance standards. These uses include indoor manufacturing, processing and assembling of materials from previously prepared or raw materials and ancillary and necessary warehousing and distribution of finished goods associated with Page 31 of 36 AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject:CPA13-0001, CPA13-0002, &CPA13-0003 Date: November 20, 2013 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendments-Plan Map Amendments and Policyrfext Amendments manufacturing and industrial uses. Certain residential uses may be permitted if development standards are established to promote compatibility between residential and other non-residential land uses. Outside storage shall be permitted only subject to performance criteria addressing its quantity and location to ensure it is compatible with adjacent uses and so that such storage would not detract from the potential use of the area for light industry In all cases such storage shall be extensively screened. In the Environmental Park District that implements the "Light Industrial"plan map designation, outdoor storage will be strictly limited to promote compatibility with adjacent environmental land uses. Uses involving substantial storage or processing of hazardous materials as well as substantial emissions should not be permitted in these areas. A wide range of commercial activities may be allowed to provide increased opportunities for sales tax revenue. The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Auburn Yard located within the Railroad Special Plan Area is considered a compatible use at its current level of usage (as of August 14, 1996) It is not bound by the policies concerning outside storage under the existing light industrial designation as it was an existing use prior to the development of this policy Should BNSF decide to reactivate its applications to upgrade the yard to an intermodal facility, the proposal will be subject to the essential public facility siting process as defined in the Capital Facilities Element (Chapter 5). To ensure the City's long-term ability to invest in public infrastructure and services remains viable, the City must pursue implementation of policies that incentivize the transition of current and future land uses in its industrial zones away from distribution and warehouse uses. The City believes that manufacturing and industrial land uses should over time largely replace warehouse and distribution land uses currently existing in the City and that any future warehouse and distribution uses should be ancillary to and necessary for the conduct of manufacturing and industrial uses. Manufacturing and industrial uses are more appropriate and beneficial through higher and better use of the land, enhanced employment densities, increased property tax revenues and potential on-site sales tax revenue generation for receipt of materials and other goods and services. The establishment of regulations and incentives that create a basis for increased commercial retail uses in the City's industrial zoning districts will provide greater opportunity for the generation of sales tax revenue in the City Increased sales tax revenue will positively impact the City's continued ability to maintain and operate a strong public investment program in infrastructure and services. Commercial retail uses will in turn be attracted to and benefit from the location, access, physical configuration and building types of industrial zoned properties. Criteria for Designation: This designation should be applied to a majority of the Region Serving Area designated under this Plan. It is particularly appropriate for industrial land within high visibility corridors. This category should separate heavy industrial areas from other uses. Considerations Against Applying this Designation: Within the Community Serving Area, this designation should only be applied to sites now developed as light industrial Page 32 of 36 AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: CPA13-0001, CPA13-0002, &CPA13-0003 Date: November 20, 2013 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendments- Plan Map Amendments and Policyrrext Amendments sites. Industrial sites along rail corridors are generally more appropriate for heavier industrial uses, unless in high visibility corridors. Appropriate Implementation: This designation is implemented by the Light Industrial (M-1), Environmental Park (EP) or Business Park (BP) zone."(Emphasis added) Consistent with this discussion in the Comprehensive Plan, the properties are adjacent to other properties designated "Light Industrial" by the Comprehensive Plan (on-site and off- site) and adjacent to properties already developed with light industrial uses. The site is separated by hillside from residential uses. The site is also located in the regional-serving area. The location of the properties is ideally suited for light-industrial uses. The property can be served with high capacity and high quality public services and facilities. The southern parcel has recently completed street frontage improvements. The properties have frontage and access to West Valley Hwy N classified as a "principal arterial" in the City's Comprehensive Transportation Plan or 37`h Street NW The location provides proximity to W Valley Hwy N with access to SR 167 at S 277`h Street and to SR 18. 20 For comparison, Chapter 14, Comprehensive Plan Map, starting at page 14-11 provides the following purpose and description of the 'Heavy Commercial' Comprehensive Plan designation: "Heavy Commercial Purpose: To provide automobile oriented commercial areas to meet both the local and regional need for such services. Description: This category is intended to accommodate uses which are oriented to automobiles either as the mode or target of providing the commercial service. The category would also accommodate a wide range of heavier commercial uses involving extensive storage or heavy vehicular movement. Compatible Uses: A wide variety of commercial services oriented to automobiles are appropriate within this category This includes automobile sales and service, drive in restaurant or other drive in commercial business, convenience stores, etc. Since these uses are also compatible with heavier commercial uses, lumber yards, small scale warehousing, contractor yards and similar heavy commercial uses are appropriate in this designation. Criteria for Designation: This designation should only be applied to areas which are highly accessible to automobiles along major arterials. Generally this category would characterize commercial strips. This zone is appropriate for the intersections of heavily traveled arterials, even if adjacent sites are best suited for another commercial designation. Considerations Against Applying this Designation: Areas which conflict with single family residential areas or areas more suited for other uses. Whenever possible this category should be separated from all uses by extensive buffering. Appropriate Implementation: This category is implemented by the C-3 Heavy Commercial District and the C-4, Mixed Use Commercial District." Page 33 of 36 AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: CPA13-0001, CPA13-0002, &CPA13-0003 Date: November 20, 2013 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendments- Plan Map Amendments and Policyrrext Amendments Due to the shape of each property with the narrow frontage bordering W Valley Hwy N and longer axis east-west, the shape of the property is not readily conducive to commercial development over the entire parcel. That was likely the explanation for only the eastern portion begin designated "Heavy Commercial' The split zoning makes it difficult for a property to owner to develop the property in its entirety with a single use or enterprise. As a result, the requested change is appropriate. Also, in Chapter 3, "Land Use", the Comprehensive Plan document provides various policies which address light industrial development in order to meet community and growth management goals. The following excerpted policies starting on page 3-35 relate to this request: "GOAL 11. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT To provide for, establish and maintain a balance of industrial uses that respond to local and regional needs and enhance the city's image through optimal siting and location, taking into consideration tax policy impacts of streamlined sales tax and/or other similar legislation. Type of Industrial Uses There is a wide variety of possible industrial uses that could be sited in Auburn. As with the mix of residential uses, the mix of industry also affects the image of the city The regional image of the city is that of an industrial suburb with an emphasis on heavy industry This image is quite apparent as one travels along Highway 167 where there is an almost unending view of high-bay warehouse buildings. Different types of industrial areas should be separated since some types of industrial activities conflict with other industrial activities (especially those of a more desirable character). Such separation should be based primarily on performance standards. Location of Industrial Uses Before the adoption of the 1986 Comprehensive Plan, there had been little separation of various types of industrial uses. At the time, there was no well understood policy basis regarding the separation of different types of industrial uses and some areas very suitable for high quality light industrial uses were committed to heavier uses. High visibility corridors developed with a heavier industrial character and established a heavy industry image for the city The Plan provides clear distinction between different industrial uses. It also reserves areas for light industrial uses. Objective 113. To reserve areas appropriate for industrial development. Policies: LU-103 Any significant industrial activity shall be limited to the designated Region Serving Area of the city(see Map 3.2) The City recognizes that industrial development's place varying demands on the community's quality of life and service capabilities. In addition to demonstrating a developments'consistency with Plan policies, applicable land use regulations, and environmental policies, significant Page 34 of 36 AUBURN * MOPE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject:CPA13-0001, CPA13-0002, &CPA13-0003 Date: November 20, 2013 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendments- Plan Map Amendments and PolicyrText Amendments industrial development shall be encouraged to provide a balance between service demands and impacts placed on the city's quality of life vs. the local benefits derived from such development. The extent to which industrial development is promoted shall also take into consideration tax policy and tax structure impacts upon the City " (Emphasis added) The city's Comprehensive Plan seeks to establish and maintain a balance of industrial uses that respond to local and regional needs while enhancing the city's image through optimal siting and location of light industrial uses. The large lot size and being bordered to the north by properties that are already developed with light industrial uses, suggest the change is appropriate. The proposed change to "Light Industrial" seeks to link existing areas of the same designation. 21. The second decision criterion is that the comprehensive plan amendment must not diminish or increase the ability to provide adequate services. The proposed application for a change in comprehensive plan designation and zoning has been reviewed by Fire Agency and Utilities and Traffic divisions of the city Based in these reviews, the change would not adversely affect the provision of services. Fonpee LLC, operating as Omega USA Company is a "building contractor" business and has plans for further development of the southern lot to include a future office building and a future building for storage of vehicles. While this further future development is capable of being done under the C3, Heavy Commercial (office uses and parking structures are allowed) it is complicated by being subject to different development standards. Mr Stanberry does not have specific plans for redevelopment of his property If in the future, additional development is proposed, in accordance with City Public Works Design Standards, the City may require a traffic study if there is a likelihood that a site will general more than 30 PM peak hour trips. The proposed 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. So, it is not anticipated that approval of the request negatively affects provision of services. Utility and street frontage improvements were recently completed by Omega USA Company for the southern parcel. 22. The third decision criterion is that the assumptions on which the comprehensive plan is based are found to be invalid. While the policies of the Comprehensive Plan are not invalid, a change to the mapped configuration of the land use designations as requested is logical (a change to Map No. 14 1). The proposed change results In a more logical boundary of the "Light Industrial" designation, and coincides with two public streets. 23 The fourth decision criterion is 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. Page 35 of 36 AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject:CPA13-0001, CPA13-0002, &CPA13-0003 Date: November 20, 2013 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendments-Plan Map Amendments and Policylrext Amendments There has been a lack of change in conditions that generates the need for the change. The pattern of"Heavy Commercial'-designated parcels has not been revisited since it was originally established at the time of major zoning overhaul in 1987 The original pattern was mainly based on the location of parcel boundaries at the time that have subsequently changed. The proposed change is for a portion of two parcels that have split designations and are located adjacent to other parcels with the "Light Industrial' designation and provides more regular boundaries that reduce potential for land use conflicts. 24. The fifth decision criterion is that 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". 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 residential development. 25. The sixth decision criterion, 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. (Ord. 6172 § 1, 2008.) The same land use designation as proposed occurs on adjacent properties to the north and the property boundaries have changed and thus meets item b. Staff Recommendation Planning Commission to recommend approval to the City Council Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission recommended approval to the City Council Page 36 of 36 AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Exhibit D Colored map which is a detail of Map No 14. 1, "Comprehensive Plan", showing the change from "Single Family Residential' to "Public and Quasi-Public" for three properties identified by Parcel Nos. 1721059007, 1721059253, and 1721059109 for Wesley Homes Lea Hill, LLC. (Please see "Comp. Plan Map Amendments" tab in the working binder) -------------------------- Ordinance No 6489 November 21, 2013 Page 9 2013 Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment Map CPA 13-0001 IIXIST G I i I I i I -SF; iH Ci-'- T� PROPOSED fl IL � Existing land Use Single-Family Residential Neighborhood Commercial � Light Industrial Auburn Gry Limits I \ 7 Proposed Land Use Moderate Density Residential Light Commercial Heavy Industrial LI Parcels.. J Land Use Designations High Density Residential � Heavy Commercial Public and Quasi-PUbUC - Residential Conservency I'^"' ,.n"""I""""` "'" "'''I"I°`.""I".".„' a (111�ulv1 1Jr,.nannr T,,hr.na I,Ld Office Resldennat Downtown Open Space �1 i11 1IT IT1.11 Ir��,m„d • .�H11I -II Exhibit E Colored map which is a detail of Map No 14. 1, "Comprehensive Plan", showing a change from "Heavy Commercial' to "Light Commercial' for portions of two properties identified by Parcel Nos. 0221049077 and 0221049098 for Fonpee, LLC and Edwin Stanberry. (Please see "Comp. Plan Map Amendments" tab in the working binder). -------------------------- Ordinance No 6489 November 21. 2013 Page 10 2013 Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment Map CPA 13 -0002 EXISTING - - --__ � I I L -- z � PROPOSED ff I _ T rq Existing Land Use i High Density Residential + Downtown Auburn City Limits L ftLi rqProposed Land Use i Office Residential + Light Industrial Parcels r� Residential Conservency Neighborhood Commercial i Heavy Industrial r i" Smgle-Pamdy Residential Light Commercial Public and Quasi-Public Moderate Density Residential + Heavy Commercial + Open Space •„•�