HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem VIII-A-2AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
A,qenda Subject
Ordinance No. 5807
Depadment: Planning
Attachments:
~o. 5807
Date:
December 8, 20,'.1
Budget Impact:
Administrative Recommendation:
City Council to introduce and adopt Ordinance No. 5807.
Backqround Summary:
On November 17, 2003 the City Council held a public hearing on this Year's annual Comprehensive Plan
amendments. Ordinance No. 5807 adopts those year 2003 Comprehensive Plan Map (CPM) and
Policy/Text (P/T) amendments consistent with the City Council direction provided at the November 17,
2003 public hearing.
L1215-1
03.4.3
Reviewed by Council & Committees:
[] Arts Commission COUNCIL COMMITTEES:
[] Airport [] Finance
[] Hearing Examiner [] Municipal Sen/.
[] Human Services [] Planning & CD
[] Park Board []PublicWorks
[] Planning Comm. [] Other
Reviewed by Departments & Divisions:
[] Building [] M&O
[] Cemetery [] Mayor
[] Finance [] Parks
[] Fire [] Planning
[] Legal [] Porice
[] Public Works [] Human Resources
Action:
Cornmittee Approval: []Yes []No
Council Approval: []Yes F-INo
Referred to Until
Tabled Until
Councilmember: Borden
Meeting Date: December 15, 2003
Call for Public Hearing
/ /
/ /
/ /
Staff: Krauss
Item Number: VIII.A.2
AUBURN · MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED
ORDINANCE NO. 5807
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
AUBURN, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN MAP AND TEXT AMENDMENTS PURSUANT TO RCW
CHAPTERS 36.70A AND 35A.63
WHEREAS, the City of Auburn on August 18, 1986 adopted a Comprehensive
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 City of Auburn adopted Comprehensive Plan
' Amendments by Resolution No. 2635 to comply with the Washington State Growth
Management Act; and
WHEREAS, the City of Auburn on September 5, 1995 reaffirmed that action by
Ordinance No. 4788; and
WHEREAS, Comprehensive Plan map and text amendments were processed by
the Planning and Community Development Department as proposed Year 2003
amendments to the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the environmental impacts of the Year 2003 Comprehensive Plan
amendments were considered in accordance with procedures of the State
Environmental Policy Act with no appeals having been filed; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments were transmitted to the Washington
State Office of Community Development and other State agencies for the 60 day review
period in accordance with RCW 36.70A. 106; and
WHEREAS, after proper notice published in the City's official newspaper at least
ten (10) days prior to the date of hearing, the Auburn Planning Commission on October
Ordinance No. 5807
December04,2003
Page 1
'7, 2003 conducted a public hearing On the proposed amendments and continued said
hearing to October 14, 2003; and
WHEREAS, at the public hearing the Auburn City Planning Commission heard
public testimony and took evidence and exhibits into consideration; and
WHEREAS, thereafter the Auburn City Planning Commission made
recommendations to the City Council on the proposed Year 2003 Comprehensive Plan
map and text amendments; and
WHEREAS, on October 27, 2003 the Planning and Community Development
Committee of the Auburn City Council reviewed the Planning Commission's
recommendations; and
WHEREAS, on November 17, 2003 the Auburn City Council held a duly noticed
public hearing and 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 t. The 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendments are herewith adopted
and approved and it is herewith directed that they be filed along with this Ordinance
with the Auburn City Clerk and be available for public inspection.
Section 2. The 2003 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 3. The Comprehensive Plan and amendments are herewith designated
as a basis for the exercise of substantive authority under the Washington State
Ordinance No. 5807
December 04, 2003
Page 2
Environmental Policy Act by the City's responsible environmental official in accordance
with RCW. 43.21C.060.
Section 4. If any section, subsection~ sentence, clause, phrase or portion of
this Ordinance or any of the Comprehensive Plan amendments adopted herein, is for
any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any Court of competent jurisdiction, such
portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision, and such
holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Section S. 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 Exhibit "A" and preparing and publishing the
amended Comprehensive Plan.
Section 6. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force five days from and
after its passage, approval, and publication as provided by law.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
APPROVED:
P~erB. Lewis
MAYOR
Ordinance No. 5807
December 04, 2003
Page 3
ATTEST:
Danielle E. Daskam,
City Clerk
Daniel B. Heid,
City Attomey
Ordinance No. 5807
December 04, 2003
Page 4
................... T i -- ]]]~r'T ' '
Exhibit "A"
CPM #1
To amend the Comprehensive Plan Map
from ."High Density Residential" to "Heavy
C ' I! .
ommerc~al for the east port~on of property
located in the 4300 block (east side) of
Auburn Way North (west cfi Street NE
right-of-way).
(STR 31-22-05)
Applicant: Children's Home Society of
Washington
PROPOSED
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP
TO HEAVY (
SCAL~: i" = 40o'
CPM # 1
~ PROPOSED CHANGE &REA
'""CITY I.~rrs
AMENDMENT
CPM #2
To amend the Comprehensive Plan Map
from. "Public/Quasi-Public" to "Light
Industria. l" for pro,~erties located on the
south s~de of 49"' Street NW, west of
Auburn Way North
(STR 36-22-04)
Applicant: Thomas Academy
PROPOSED
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN MAP
AMENDMENT
#2
SCALE: 1' = 400'
CPM // 2
PW~ PROPOSED CHANGE AREA
z'~'CITY LIMITS
CPM#5
Amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Map from "Light Industrial" to "Heavy
Commercial" for properties generally
located between the Union Pacific and
Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad
tracks, just north of 15th Street NW.
(STR 12-21-04)
Applicant/Owner: La Terra 'Limited
Partnership
PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMF, NT
SCALID: 1' -- 400'
CPM # 5
t:71 PROPOSEI) CHANGE AREA
~CITY lIMITS
...........
CPM#8
To amend the Comprehensive Plan map
from "Single Family Residential" to
"Moderate Density Residential" for
properties within three planning areas
(areas 7, 8 and 9) of the Lakeland Hills
South PUD.
A. Area 7
B. Area 8
C. Area 9
(STR 05-20-05)
Applicant: Apex Engineering
Owner: Investco Financial Corporation
PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN MAP AMENDMENT
SCALE: 1" ~ 400'
CPM # 8a
F2~ pROPOSED CHANGE AREA
...... 1 I[ T
PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT
AV£
PL
#8B
SCALE: 1" : 400'
SINGLE
CPM # 8 b c~
PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMF, NT
#8C
TO BODE
CPM # 8 c
SCALE: 1' = 400' Ir21PROPOS3gD CI~3i'GI~ ARKA
..... CITY LIMITS
CPM#9
Amend the Auburn Comprehensive
Sewer Plan to include several
parcels in the City's sewer service
area.
(STR 05-20-05)
Applicant/Owner: Dieringer School District
PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
MAP
AMENDMENT
//
#9
SCALE: 1" = 300'
CPM # 9
CPM #11
To amend the Comprehensive Plan map
by designating a variety of city-owned
Properties from various plan map
designations (noted) to "Public & Quasi-
Public".
1 la Cemetery "Single Family Residential"
11b- Parks and Recreation b. West Beverly Park, "Single Family Residential"
11h
c. Gaines Park, "Single Family Residential
d. Tot lot @ 17th/Fir Street SE, "Single Family Residential"
e. Clark property, "Single Family Residential"
f. Riverwalk Park, "Single Family Residential"
g. Ballard Park, "Single Family Residential"
h. Rotary Park, "Single Family Residential"
11 i- Storm Utility i. West Beverly Storm Pond, "Heavy Commercial"
111
j. Auburn 400 Storm Pond, "Light Industrial"
~ k. Riverwalk pond, "Single Family Residential
I. City Storm Pond in County, "Totem Area", "Undesignated"
11n- Water Utility n. Well site, "Office Residential"
11p
o. Reservoir, "Single Family Residential"
p. Reservoir, uSingle Family Residential"
11q- Mitigation sites q. UBenaroya" wetland/creek mitigation site, ~Light Industrial"
11t
r. "Gertrude Jones", wetland sites
s. ~Thormod", mitigation sites
t. "Dipietro/Campbell", wetland site
1 lu Municipal Purpose u. Proposed Fire Station, "Heavy Commercial"
PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMF, NT
F
SINGLE FAMILY EES[D~NT'JAL
TO PUBLIC & (~{~S{ PUI~./C
CANYON
t SCAL~: 1" = 400'
CPM
# ii (a)
PROPOSED CI4ANGE
z-~cI'rY ~
PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
TO PUBLIC & QUASI PUBLIC
#1lb
PLAN. MAP
AMENDMENT
15TH ~T N~
FAMILY
SCALE: 1" = 400'
CPM
11 (b, c)
PROPOSED CHANGE AREA
[.~cated k~: Sl~ 11-21-04
PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT
SCALE: 1" : 300'
CPM
// 11 (d)
PROPOSED CHANGE AREA
z~'~CITY LIglTS
PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT
SCALE: 1" = 500'
CPM // 11 (e)
[~ pROPOSED CHANG
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT \
PROPOSED
SCALE: 1' = 400'
GAME FARM
PARK
cpu // ~ (f)
PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMF, NT
t SCALI~: 1" = 500'
CPM // 11 (g)
P~] PROPOSgD CHANGIg ~
PROPOSED
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT
PUBLIC
#1
SCALE: 1" = 400'
CPM
# 11 (h)
F21 PROPOSED CHANGE AREA
PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT
SC.iii: 1" = 400'
CPM
15TH
ST NW /
#il(i)
~ PROPOSED CHANGE AREA
tn: ~ 11-21..04
#11
PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT
kIGHT INDUSI'RIAL TO
SCALE: 1" : 400'
CPM # 11 (j)
~ PI~OPOSED CHANCE AREA
~'~TY LIMITS
PROPOSED
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
#11k
GAME FARM
SCALE: 1" = 400' F-J] PROPOS~D CHANG]~ AP~
zz~¢ITY LI~
MAP AMENDMENT
(k) ~
PROPOSED
SCAL~: 1" = 400'
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP
AMENDMENT
CPM
// 11 (L)
PROPOSED CHANC, E AREA
Located In: NW 30-21~5
PROPOSED
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
#11n
OFFICE RF. SID~NTI~ TO
17TH
~ (n)
LES GO V E
PARK
SCALE: 1' = 400'
MAP AMENDMENT
CPM
PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT
SCALE: 1" : 400'
SINGLE
TO PUBLIC
#11o
CPM
# ~ (o)
PROPO~EB C~L~WGE A~
..... CITY LB~ITS
In: SW 31-22-G5
PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT
SCALE: 1" = 400'
CPM
# l~ (p)
PROPOSED CHANGE AREA
PROPOSED
COMPREHENSIVE
PLANMAP AMENDMENT
PUBLIC
#1lq
37~h S~T
LIGHT IND~$i~,(~,L TO/~
SCALE: 1" = 400'
CPM
// 11 (q)
PROPOSED CHANGE AREA
Loca~d In: NW 01-21-04
PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT
CHANGE FROM OPEN SPACE TO
PUBLIC- QUASI PUBLIC
11r
FROM LIGHT INDO$~ ~dAL
TO PUBLIC-
#1]
WAIN
CPM #
BCALE: 1~ -- 4-00'
F~] PROPOSED Cl;.~qQE
PROPOSED
COMPREHENSIVE PLAI~
35TH ST N~
MAP AMENDMENT
~llu~ ~tI~~
8LIC & ~ IASI PtISI.B
CPM # 11 (u)
~ PROPOSED CHANGE AREA
SCALE: 1" = 400'
CPM#12
To amend the Potential Annexation
Area (PAA) boundary to reflect the
annexation/de-annexation with the City
of Pacific.
(STR 31-21-05)
PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT
LAKELAND
t SCAI~: 1' = 400'
cPM // ~2
PPi PROPOSED CH,~q91~
z~¢ITY LIMITS
P/T #1
Incorporate Auburn School ~District
Updated 2003 to 2009 Capital Facili!ies
Plan as part of Auburn Comprehensive
Plan.
(Adopted by the Auburn School District Board
of Directors May 12, 2003)
AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 408
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2003 through 2009
'~Avenue to. Excellence'
Serving Students in:
Unincorporated King County
Unincoq~orated Pierce County
City of Auburn
City of Algona
City of Pacific
Adopted by the Auburn School Distdct Board of Directors
May 12, 2003
AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 408
915 Fourth Street NE
Auburn, Washington 98002
(253) 931-4900
BOARD of DIRECTORS
Craig Schumaker
Therald Leonard
Ray Vefik
Carol Helgerson
Janice Nelson
Linda. S. Cowan, Superintendent
"Avenue to Excellence~,
Table of Contents
Section I
Executive Summary .............................. Page '1
Section II
Enrollment Projections ........................... Page 4
Section Ill
standard of Service ............................... Page 6
Section IV
Section V
Inventory of Facilities ............................. Page 13
Pupil Capacity ...................................... Page 16
Section VI
Section VII
Capital Construction Plan ....................... Page 18
Impact Fe~ ......................................... Page 21
section VIII
Appendices .......................................... Page 25
Appendix A.1 - Student Enrollment Projections
Appendix A.2 - Capital Facilities Plan Projections
Appendix A.3 - Student Generation Survey
Auburn School District No, 408
Capital Facilities Plan
2003 through 2009
Section I
Executive Summary
Auburn School Distdct No. 408
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2003 through 2009
I. Executive Summary
This Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan (the "Plan") has been prepared by the Auburn
School Distdct (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 2003.
This Plan is consistent with pdor 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 intedm and pedodic Long Range Capital Facilities Plans consistent
with Board Policies and actions, taking into account a longer or a shortar time pednd,
other factors and trends in the use of facilities, and other needs of the Distdct as may be
required. However, any such plan or plans will be consistent with this Six-Year Capital
Facilities Plan~
To enable impact fees to be collected in the unincorporated areas of King County and
Pierce County and within the City of Auburn; the King county Council, and the City of
Auburn will adopt this Plan by reference as part of its comprehensive plan, and the
Pierce County Council may adopt this plan by reference as part of the Pierce county
Comprehensive Plan: To enable impact fees to be collected in Cities of Algona and
Pacific, these municipalities must also adopt this Plan and adopt school impact fee
ordinances.
Pursuant to the requirements of the Growth Management Act, 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 Managlement Act and
the school impact fee ordinance authorize the District to define its standard of semice
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 comput,~s 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
information3.)
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 DisMct's
2002-03 capacit~ was 13,360 whereas Full Time Equivalent ('FTE') enrollment for this
2
same period was 12,703.61. The actual number of individual students was 13,427 as of
October 1, 2002. (See Section V for more specific information.)
The capital construction plan shown in Section VI addresses the modemization of and
additions to the District's existing facilities currently underway, provides for a new high
school approved by the voters in February 2003, a new elementary scl'tool, and the
acquisition of a new middle school site. The new facilities are required to meet the
projected student population increase to be generated from the large development area
within Pierce County at the southern border of the Aubum School Dist~tct as well as all
other areas of the District. The Pierce County area includes most of the Lakeland South
development and some adjacent undeveloped properties.
The School Impact Fee Ordinances adopted by King County, Pierce ~unty, 'and the
City of Auburn provide for the assessment of impact fees to assist in meeting some of
the fiscal impact 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 generated using the students who
actually attend school in the Aubum School District from single family and multi-family
developments constructed in the last five years. The method of colleci~Jng the data is
with the use the GIS mapping software, data from King County and Pierce County GIS,
and to integrate the mapping with student data from the District data system. This
method gives the District actual student generation numbers for each grade span for
identirmcl developments. This data is contained in Appendix A.3.
Aubum Sc~:~l Dislflct No. 408
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN CHANGES FROM 2002 TO 2003
Listed below is a summanj level outline of the changes from the 2001-02 Capital
Facilities Plan that are a pad of the 2003 Plan. The changes are noted by Se(fion
for ease of reference.
Section I
Executive Summary
Updated to mfle~t new information within the Plan.
Summary level list of changes from previous year.
Section II
Enrollment Projections
Updated projesfions. See Appendices A. 1 & A.2.
' Section III
Standard of Service
A. Increase in English es a Second Language program required 2 additional
ciassrooms at the elementary level*and I at the senior high level.
B. Increase of 3'Special Education Rooms at the high school level.
C. Increase of I early childhood special education classroom.
D. Class size reduction funds (I-728) has created an increase of I additional
required teaching ciaesroom at the elementary level
E. Increase of I TOSA reading epedaliat classroom for high impacted schoo;l.
Section IV
Inventory of Facilities
Updated to retied addition of 3 relocatable units at Aubum Riverside HS.
Section V
Pupil Capacity
Updated to retied addition of 3 relocatable units at Aubum Riverside High School.
section vi
Capital Construction Plan
A. One year delay in the Elementary ~'13 project due to reduced enrollment
projectious at the elementary level.
B. Middle School site purchased moved up a year with pesaage of bend.
C. Updates cost estimate based on current data for Senior High project.
D. Updates cost estimate based on current data for Elementary project.
E. Planning for Middle School #5 and Elementary ~4 move into the 6 year v,~indow.
4/2912003
3.1
Auburn $cho~ Dis~'i~t No. ~8
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2003 through 2009
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Section VII
Impact Fees CHANGES TO IMPACT FEE DA TA ELEMENTS 2002 to 2003
CPF CPF
DATA ELEMENTS 2002 2003 EXPLANATION
Student Geh~r&~;on Factors
Single Family Con, sistent with King County Ordinance 11621,
Elernenta~y 0.2913 0.3269 Student Generation FaOtom am calculated
Mid School 0.1398 0.1621 by the school district bayard on district
Sr. High 0.1703 0.1860 records of average actual student generation
Multi-Family rates for new devatopm~ts oonatructed
Elementary 0.1487 0.0901 over the last five years.
Mid School 0.0642 0.0221
Sr. High 0.0580 0.0510
New Facility Cost
Sr. High $57,000,000 $58,500,000 I Sr. High Co~ Estimate, as of Nov 2002,
is computed from complsted construction
documents as submitted to DDES.
Elementary $15,000,00~ $15,600,000 2 Elementary cost asflmate from architects
recent project expedencu and OSPI facility
records.
Sits Cnat/Acm $138,123 $146,72g Updated fmm final cost for recent purchases
escalated to anticipated 2004 purchase date.
Boeckh Index $110.32 $114.88 Updated to projected SPI schedule.(G. Beck)
'Match %. State 54.02% 55.88% Updated to current SPI schedule.
Match %- District 45.98% 44.12% Computed
District Average AV
Single Family $174,311 $105,86; Updated from March 2003 King County
Dept of Assessments data.
Multi-Family $48,949 $51,51~ Updated from March 2003 King County
Dept of Assassme.nts date using weighted
average.
Debt Sew Tax Rate $2.24 $2.0g Current Fiscal Year
GO Bond Iht Rate 5.19% 4.74% Current Rate (Bond Buyem 20 Index 4-03) -
Section VIII
Appendices
· Appendix A.1 * Updates Non-Lakeland enrollment projections
Appendix A.2 - Updates Lakeland enrollment projections.
Appendix A.3 - Student Generation Sun/ey
4/29/2003 3.2
Auburn School Distdct No. 408
Capital Facilities Plan
2003 through 2009
Section II
Enrollment Projections
Aubu~ Scho~ Di=t~ct No. ,40B
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS
The Aubum School Dietdct uses a modified cohort survival model to project future enrollment for alt
of the District's operations. Table I1.1 is an extmst.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 13 year history of the r)istrict under the
assumptions set forth in the comprehensive projections, Appendix A. 1. and the projection for additional
students generated from the Lakeland South ama as shown in Appendix A.2.
TABLE ASD ENROLLMENT
I1.1 PROJECTIONS (Oct 2002)
ACTUAL PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ
GRADE 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-200~ 20062007 2007-2008 2008-2009
KDG 905 937 955 975 990 1005 1019
I 900 983 1001 1020 1036 1050 1064
2 961 931 1005 1024 1039 1054 1068
3 940 995 958 1033 1049 1063 1077
4 973 958 1011 976 1 047 1061 1075
5 1062 998 977 1031 991 1061 1075
K - 5 5741 5802 5907 6059 6152 6293 6377
6 1104 1087 1018 998 1048 1008 1077
7 1021 1154 1130 1063 1039 1087 1047
8 1026 1042 1166 1143 1071 104~6 1095
6 - 8 3151 3283 3314 3204 3158 31411 3218
9 1441 1261 1273 1398 1371 12.c~7 1272
10 1234 1418 1232 1246 1367 133;7 1264
11 927 1202 1381 1196 1205 132:5 1296
12 933 542 1107 1288 1099 11(~7 1227
9- 12 4535 4722 4993 5128 5042 5067 5958
TOTALS 13427 13807 14214 14391 14382 14501 14654
GRADES K-12 00101 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 ~65(()6 06/07
K-5 w/K ~ 1/2 5289 5333 5430 5572 5657 5791 5868
6-8 3151 3283 3314 3204 3158 3141 3218
9-12 4535 4722 4993 5128 5042 5067 5058
K-12 w/K ~} 112 12975 13339 13737 13904 13857 1:3~, 99 14144
5
Aubum School District No. 408
Capital Facilities Plan
2003 through 2009
Section III
Standard of Service
Aubum Schcxfl Dislzict No. 408
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
~ through ~
STANDARD OF SERVICE
The School Impact Fee Ordinances adopted by King County and the City of Auburn
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 stale 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 guidal/nes
have been used to benchmark the dis~ct's capacity to house its student population. The SPI
guidelines do not make adequate provision for local disffict program needs, facility configurations,
emerging educational reform, or the dynamics of each student's educaSonal program. The Auburn
School Disk,ct Stahdard of Service addresses those local considerations that require space in
excess of the SPI guidelines. The effect on the space requirements for both permanent and
relocatable fscilkies is shown below for each grade articulation pattern. Conditions that may
result in potential space needs ere provided for information purposes without accompanj~ng
computations.
OVERVIEW
The Auburn School District operates twelve elementary schools housing 5,741 students in grades
K through 5. The 905 Kindergarten students attend 1/2 days throughout the year. Grades 1
through 5 attend on a full day basis. When converted to a full time equivalence the K - 5
enrollment is 5,289. Four middle schools house 3,151 students in grades 6 through 8. The District
operates two comprehensive senior high schools and one alternative high school housingl 4,535
students in grades 9 through
CLASS SIZE
The number of pupils per classroom determines the number, of ciassrooms required to house the
student population. Class sizes are subject to collective bargaining. Changes to class size
agreements can have significant impact on available space.
The current pupil/teac, her limit somas all elementary programs is an average of 26.5 students per
teacher. Consistent with this staffing limit, mom capacities are set at 26.5 students per mom at grades
K - 5. At grades 6 ~ 12 the limit is set at 30 pupils per room. The SPI space allocaUon for each grade
articulation level,/es~ the computed reduction for the Auburn School D~rict Standard of Service,
dstermines the District's capacity to house projected pupil pepulafione. These reductions are show~
below by grade articulation level.
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
STRUCTURED LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENTALLy DF-LA YED SPECIAL EDUCATION
The Auburn School District operates a structured isaming program for handicapped studer~s at the
elementary school level which currently uses nine classrooms to provide for 70 students. ~r~e
housing requirements for this program are provided for in the SPI space guidelines. No loss of
capacity is expected unless handicapped population grows at a disproportionate rate compared to
total elementary population.
412g/2003
?
Aub~n $ct~o~ DiMriot No. 408
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2OO3 through ~
STANDARD OF 8ERI.qCE
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. Thirtsen standard
classrooms am required to house this program. The housing requirements for this pmglram exceed
the SPI space guidelines by six standard classrOOms. The loss of capacity is expected as growth '
in program is larger than the total elementary population.
Lose of Permanent Capacity 6 rooms (~ 26.5 each =
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 moms {~ 26.5 each =
Total Capacity Loss
(159)
0
(159)
NATIVE AMERICAN RESOURCE ROOM
The Auburn School District operates one resource mom to support the education of Native American
students at the elementary level. One standard classroom is fully dedicated to ssl~e these students.
Loss of Permanent Capacity I room @ 26.5 each = (27)
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 moms (~ 26.5 each = 0
HEAD START Total Capacity Loss (27)
The Auburn School District operates a Head Start program for approximately 108 youngsters in six
sections of 1/2 day in length. The program is housed at Evergreen Heights Elementmy School and
utilizes three standard elementary classrooms and auxiliary office space. The housing
requirements for this program are not provided for in the SPI space guidelines.
Loss of Permanent Capacity 3 rooms @ 26.5 each =
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 moms ~ 26.5 each =
Total Capacity Lose
(80)
0
(8O)
EARL Y CHILDHOOD SPECIAL EDUCATION
The Auburn School District operates a pre-school program for handicapped youngstem below
age five. This program is housed at eight different elementary schools and cunently uses eight
standard claesrooms. The housing requirements for this program are not provided for in I~e SPI
space guidelines.
Loss of Permanent Capacity 8 rooms ~ 26.5 each =
Lose of Temporary Capadly 0 moms ~ 26.5 each =
Total Capacity Loss
(212)
0
(212)
4/29/2003
8
~u~Jm $¢h~1 ~ist~t N~, 408
C~PITAL FACILITIES PL,~
~ ~lrough ~
STANDARD OF SER~CE
READING LABS
The Aubum School Distdct operates a program for students needing remediation and ndditional
language arts instruction. These programs utilize non-standard classroom spaces if awailable 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.
Loes of Permanent Capacity 4 rooms ~ 26.5 each = (106)
Loss of Temporary Capacib/0 rooms ~ 26.5 each = 0
Total Capacity Loss ~ (106)
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 12 rooms @ 26.5 each =
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 moms ~ 26.5 each =
Total Capacity Loss
(318)
0
(318)
ENGU~SH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE PROGRAM
The Auburn Sohool Diatdat operates a pullout program at the elementary school level folr students
learning English as a second language. This program requires eleven standard classrooms that ara not
provided for in the SPI space guidelines.
Loss of Permanent Capacity 11 rooms @ 26.5 each =
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 moms ~ 26.5 each =
Total Capacity Loes
(292)
0
(292)
SECOND GRADE TOSA PROGRAM
The Aubum School District provides a TOSA reading specialist program for eight highly impacted
elementary schools. This pullout model pmvidas direct i~.struction to students who are net at grade
level and do not re~ive other services. This program requires eight standard claesmo~ that'am
not provided for in the SPI space guidelines.
Loss of Permanent Capacity 8 moms @ 26.5 each = (212)
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 moms ~ 26.5.each = 0
Total Capacity Loss (212)
ELEMENTARY LEARNING SPECIALIST PROGRAM
The Aubum School District provides a learning specialist program to increase literacy skillls for
first and second gredem. This program model has been ~reated from the 1-728 funds and currently
has the specialist going into existing teacher classrooms, es well as pulling out students ir~o
designated classrooms, The district is utilizing classrooms at eight of the twleve aternen~lry schools.
Loss of Permanent Capacity 8 rooms ~ 26.5 each = (212)
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms ~ 26.5 each = 0
Total Capacily Loss (212)
4/~.9/2003
Auburn ~ Dis~ct N~. ~8
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
STANDARD OF SERVICE
MIDDLE SCHOOLS
STRUCTURED LEARNING SPECIAL EDUCATION
The Auburn School District operates two structured learning programs at the middle school level for
students w~th profound disabilities. The housing requirements for this program are provided in the SPI
space allocations.
ACCESS SPECIAL EDUCATION
The Aubum School District provided a transition program for students v~th behavioral di..orders. The
program is housed at one of the middle schools and uses one classroom. The housing n~uirements
for this program are provided in the SPI space allocations.
SPECIAL EDUCA ]"ION RESOURCE ROOMS
The Auburn School District operates a resource room program for each grade at the middle s~hool level.
This is to accommodate special education students needing remedial instruction to eddmes their specific
disabilities. Three classrooms per school (twelve total) are required to provide for approximately 250
students. The housing requirements for this program am not entirely provided for in the SPI space
guidelines.
MIDDLE SCHOOL COMPUTER LABS
The Auburn School District operates a minumum of one nomputer 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)
Lose of Temporary Capa~:ity 0 rooms (~ 30 each = 0
Total Capacity Loss (120)
ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE '
The Aubum School District operates a pullout program at the middle school level for students
learning English as a second language. This program requires four standmd classrooms that are not
provided for in the SPI space guidelines.
Loss of Permanent Capacity 4 moms ~ 30 each = (120)
Lose 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 aocommodate spe~al interest activities am
not amenable to standard classroom usage. The district averages 95% utilization of all available
teaching stations. SPI Report g3 dated 10/23/01 identifies 158 teaching stations available in rite
mid-level facilities. The utilization pattern results in a loss of approximately 8 teaching stations.
Loss of Permanent Capacity 8 rooms ~ 30 each = (240) ·
Los~ of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 30 each = 0
Total Capacity Loss (240)
412912003 10
Aulx~n $chod District No. 408
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
3003 through
STANDARD OF SER~/tCE
SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS
SENIOR HIGH COMPUTER LABS
The ^ubum School District operates two computer labs at each of the senior high schools. This
program utilizes t~m standard classrooms at comprehensive high schools and one at West Auburn.
The housing requirements for this program am not provided for in the SPI space guidelines.
Loss of Permanent Capacity 5 rooms (~ 30 each =
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 moms ~} 30 each =
Total Capacity Loss
(150)
0
(150)
ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE
The Aubum School District operates a pullout program at both comprehensive high schools for students
leaming English as a second language. This program requires four standard ~assroom.~ that am not
provided for in the SPI space guidelines.
Loss of Permanent Capacity 4 moms ~ 30 each =
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 moms ~ 30 each =
Total Capacity Loss
(120)
0
(120)
STRUCTURED LEARNING PROGRAM
The Aubum School District operates three structured learning dessrooms for 33 students with
profound disabilities. The housiag requirements for this program am provided in the SPI space
guidelines.
SPECIAL EDUCATION RESOURCE ROOMS
The Auburn Sclxml District operates a resource room program st the senior high level for special
education students requiring instruction to address their specific learning disabilities. The current senior
high school program requires fifteen ctassrcoms to provide for approximately 400 students.
The SPI space guidelines provide for one of the thirteen teaching stations.
Loss of Permanent ~ 14 moms @ 30 each =
Loss of Temporary Capadly 0 rooms @ 30 each =
Total Capacity Loss
(420)
0
(420)
PERFORMING ARTS CENTERS
Auburn High School includes 25,000 square feet used exclusively for a Performing Arts C~enter. The
SPI Inventory includes this space when computing unhoused student capacity. This space was
not intended for nor is it usable for classroom instru~ion. It was constructed to provide a
COmmunity conter for the pen~orming arts. Using SPI Capacity guidelines, 25,000 square fl~et
computes to 208 unhoused students or 8.33 classrooms.
Loss of Permanent Capacity 8.33 moms @ 30 each =
(250)
4129/2003
11
Auburn ~h~l Dislmt No. 408
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
STrAnD O~ SERVIC~
ROOM UTILIZATION
The Auburn School District provides a comprehensive high school program that includes numerous
elective option8 in special interest areas. Faci)ities to accommodate special interest activities are
not amenable to standard classroom usage. The district averages 90% utilization of all available
teaching stations. SPI Report #3 dated 10123/01 identifies 150 teaching stations available in the
senior high facilities. The utilization pattern results in a loss of approximately 15 teaching stations.
Loss of Permanent Capacity 15 moms ~ 30 each = (450)
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 moms ~ 30 each = 0
Total Capacity Loss (450)
STANDARD OF SERVICE COMPUTED TOTALS
ELEMENTARY
Loss of Permanent Capacity = (1,617)
Loss of T~mporanj Capacity 0
· Total Capacity Loss (1,617)
MIDDLE SCHOOL
Loss of Permanent Capacity = (480)
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0
Total Capacity Loss (480)
SENIOR HIGH
Loss of Permanent Capacity = '
(1,390)
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0
Total Capaoity Loss (1,390)
TOTAL
Loss of Permanent Capacity = (3,486)
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0
Total Capacity Lo~ ' (3,486)
412~/2003
12
Auburn School Distdct No. 408
Capital Facilities Plan
2003 through 2009
Section IV
Inventory of Facilities
Au~ Sd~x~ Disbict No. 408
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
INVENTORY OF FACILJ'nES
Table IV.1 shows the current inventory of permanent district facilities and their SPI rated capacities.
Table IV.2 shows the number and location of each relocatable unit by school. The disi:rict uses relocatable
fadlities 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 our needs until permanent facilities can be financed and constructed.
Relocatable facilities am deemed to be interim, stop gap measures that often place undesirable
stress on the existing physical plants. Corn facilities, (i.e. gymnasiums, re~a~oms, kitchens, labs,
lockers, libraries, etc.) are not of sufficient size or quantity to handle the increased sclx~ol population
sewed by adding relocatable classrooms.
TABLE J PERMANENT FACIUTIES
IV.1 ~ SPI Rated Capacity
(Januar~ 2002)
~ RH!!d!r~ 2001-,02
W~';,~[un 553
Terminal Park 441
Bo
Co
Dick Sc. obee
Pioneer
Chinook
Lea Hill
Gildo Ray
Ever Heights
~pac
.aka V'mw
Hazetwood
618
449
552
498
500
512
554
685
639
Ilalko
Middle Schools
Building
Dlympic
~Jtsrnative JH
:[ainier
ML Baker
MS CAPACITY
2001-02
897
060
902
003
3,702
250
2,447
1.so 3
4,200
2002..03 2003-04
553 553
441 441
618 618
449 449
552 552
498 498
596 596
512 512
554 554
685 685
639 639
648 648
6,745 6,745
2002-03 2003-04
897 897
960 960
902 902
903 903
3,702 3,702
2002-03 2003-04
250 250
2,447 2,447
1,503 1,503
4,200 4,200
14,647 t4,647
2004-05
553
441
618
449
552
498
596
512
554
685
639
648
6,745
897
960
902
903
3.702
2004-05
25O
2,447
4,200
14,647
2005-~B
553
441
618
449
552
498
596
512
554
685
639
6,745
2006-07 2007-08
553 553
441 441
618 618
449 449
552 552
498 498
596 596
512 512
554 554
685 685
639 639
6,745 6,745
~-- ~- 2-~'~"~-
2006-07
897 897 897
960 960
4O 4O
.902 902
903 903
3,702 . 3,702
960
4O
9O2
9O3
2005-06
250
2,447
1,503
4,20~0,
14,647
2so 125o I
2,447 I 2, 7 I
14,647 ~
Auburn Sc, t,zx~i District No. 408
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2003 throullh 2009
INVL~NTORY OF FACILITIES
TABLE TEMPORARY/RELOCATABLE
IV.2 FACIUTIES INVENTORY
(March 200~
Elementary Location 2002-03 20~3-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
~/ashington 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Terminal Perk 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
[:)ick Scobes 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
~ionaer 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
3hinook 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
_es Hill 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Gildo Ray 6 6 8 8 10 10 10
Ever Heights 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Alpac 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Lake View 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Hezetwood 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ilelko 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
TOTAL UNITS 28 28 30 30 32 32 32
TOTAL CAPACITY 742 742 795 795 848 848 848
Middle School Location 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 20064)7 2007-08 2008-09
Cascade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Olympic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Rainier 5 5 5 7 '7 7 7
ML Baker 2 2 4 6 7 7 7
TOTAL UNITS 7 7 9 13 14 14 14
TOTAL CAPACITY 210 210 270 390 420 420 420
Sr. High School Location 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2005-09
West Auburn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Auburn 12 12 15 15 12 8 8
~,ubur n Riverside 12 15 18 18 12 8 8
TOTAL UNITS 24 27 33 33 24 16 16'
TOTAL CAPACITY 720 810 990 990 720 480 480
COMBINED TOTAL CAPACITY 1,672 1,762 2,055 , 2,t75 ¶,988 1,748 1,748
4/29/2003 15
Auburn School District No. 408
Capital Facilities Plan'
2003 through 2009
Section V
Pupil Capacity
4/29f2003
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2003 thrO~lh
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 I~)r additionaJ
space to house its programs. Changes in the capacity of the district recognize new un~nded
facilities and the elimination of the facility that formerly housed the Alternative Jr. High. The
combined effect of these adjustments is shown on LineB in Tables ¥.1 and ¥.2 below. Table ¥.1
shows .the Distict's capacity with relocatable units included and Table V.2 without these units.
Table V.1
Capacity
WITH relocatabtss 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2¢X)6-07 2007-08 2008-09
A. SPI Capac,*~y 14,647 14,647 14,647 14,647 16,147 16,797 16,797
^.1 I SPI Capacity-New Elam 650
A.2 SPI Capacity-New Sr. Hig~ 1,500
B. Capacity Adjustments (1,85~ (1,764 (1,471 (1,222 (1,510) (1,7501
C. Net Capacity 12,793 12,883 13,176 14,925 15,287; 15,047 15,047
D. ~,SD Enrollment 13,427 13,807 14,214 14,391 14,352 14,501 14,654
E. ASD Surplus/Deficit (634) (925) (t,039) 533' 935 546 393
CAPACITY ADJUSTMENTS
Exclude Alt JH (40) (40) (40) (40] (40) (40) (40)
Include Relocatable 1,672 1,762 2,055 2,175 1,988 1,748 1,748
Exclude SOS (pg 12) (3,486) (3,486) (3,486) (3,357 (3,458 (3,45~ (3,458)
Total Adju~L, (f, 854) (t, 764) (1,471) (f,222) (f, SfO) (f,750) (t, 750)
I
Table V.2
Capacity
WITHOUT relocatables 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 ;!007-08 2008-09
A. SPI Capacity 14,647 14,647 14,647 14,647 16,147 16,797 16,797
A. 1 SP Capacity-NewElem 650
A.2SPI Capacity-New Sr. High 1,500
B. Capacity Adjustments (3,526 (3,526 (3,526 (3,397 (3,498 (3,498) (3,498)
C. Net Capacity 11,121 11,121 11,121 12,750 13,299 13,299 13,299
D. ASD Enrollment 13,427 13,807 14~214 14,391 14,352 14,501 14,654
E. ASD Surplus/Deficit (2,306) (2,687) (3,OM) (1, M2) (1;053) (t, 202) (1,355)
CAPACITY ADJUSTMENTS
Exdnde ~t JH (40) (401 (401 (40: (40) (40) (40)
Exdude SOS (pg 12) (3,466) (3,4~) (3.4~6', (3.357: (3,4.~ (3,468) (3,45a)
Total Adju~;,~,,;~ (3,526) (3,526) (3,526) (9,397) (3,498) (3,498) (3,498)
1/New facilities shown in 2006-07 are not ~nded under the carmnt Capital Facilities Plan.
_2/The Standard of Service represents 24% of SPI capacity. When new facilities are added the Standard
of Service computations am decreased to 21% of SPI capac/ty.
3/Students beyond the capacity am accomodated in non-classroom spaces (commons, library, theater)
as well as rented space which violates the Disthct's standard of service.
4/29/2OO3
17
Auburn School District No. 408
Capital Facilities Plan
2003 through 2009
Section VI
CaPital Construction Plan
Auburn Scho~ District No. 408
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
The formal pmcaes used by the Board to address current and future facility needs began in 1974 with
the formation of a communib/wide ~izens committee. The result of this Commiffee's work was published
in the document titled 'Guidelines for Development .' In 1985 the Board formed a second Ad Hoc citizens
committee to pick up from 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 recommendat,ions for improvements
to the District's programs and physical facilities. The committee recommendations are published in the
document titled Education Into The Twenty. Fir~ Century- - A Community Involved.'
The 1995 Ad Hoc committee recommended the Distrint 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 dopallment.
In addition to the technology needs of the District the Ad Hoc committee recognized the District must prepare
for continued s~ndent enrollment growth. Ae ~ated in their report, "the District muet pursue an appropriate
high school site as soon as possible." The Ad Hoc recommendation included commantary that the financing
should be timed to maintain consistent rates of assessment.
A proposition was' approved by the voters on April 28, 1998 that is providing $8,000,000 over six
years to address some of the technology needs of the Disflict, and $5,000,000 to provide funds to ac, quire
school sites.
Dudng the 1997-98 school year a Joint Distdct Citizen's Ad Hoc Committee was appointed by the Aubum and
Diednger School Board8 to make recommendations on how best to seive the school population that will come
from an area that includes a large development known es Lakeland South. Lakeland South is immediately
adjacent to the southern boundary of the Auburn School District. On June 16, 1998 l~e Ad Hoc Committee
presented its recommendation at a joint meeting of the Auburn and Dierioger Boards of Directors. On
June 22, 1998 the Auburn School Board adopted Resolution No. 933 authorizing the pmcees to initiate the
adjuatment of the boundahes of the Diatdct in accordance with the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendation. On
June 23, 1998 the Diednger school Board adopted a companion Resolution No. 24-§,7-98 autbodzJng the
pmcaes to initiate the adjustment of the boundalies in accordance with the Ad Hoc ~3mmittea'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. Development in this
area is progressing at an aggressive rate.
The Distdct is projecting an additional 1227 students within the six year period including the Lakeland area.
This increase requires the construction of a new high school, a new elementary,s(~3c,I, and the ac~quisition
of a new middle school site during the six year window. A new middle school and an additional elementary
school are anticipated just beyond the six year time frame for this plan. ' -
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 I-h~c Committees related to
accommodating high echool enrollment growth. This includes the review of possible financing plans
for new facilities.
b. Develop recommendations for accommodating high school enrollment grov~l for the next 10 years
if a new senior high school is not built.
19
Auburn ~ District No. 40B
GAPlTAL FAGILrrlES pL~
CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION Pt. AN
This committee recommended the hoard 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 is schedule to open
in the Fall of 2005.
The table below illustrates the current capital constructiqn plan for the next six yearn. The exact
timelines are wholly dependent on the rate of growth in the school age population.
2001-08 Capital Construction Plan
(March 2003)
Funded Pmjec;ted Fund Project Timelines
Project as of Cost Sourca
Mar-03 02-03 i 03-04 04-05 05-06:: 06-07 07-08 08-09
All Facilities Yes $37,268,354 1~36 XX
Modernization Bonds
Ail Facilities - 1998
Technology Yes $8,000,000 6 Year XX XX XX
Vlodemization Cap Levy
Impact
Portables Yes $700,000 Fees XX XX XX XX
Property Purchase Surplus i
New Elementary Yes $2,800,000 Pmpe~ty XX
School Sale
Pmperty Purchase
New Middle No $5,000,000 XX
School
Elementary #13 No $f5,600,000 XX XX )(X
plan cop. st open
Elementary ~PI4 No $f6,875,000 XX
plan
Middle School #5 No $30,000,000 XX
plan
Bond
New Sr. High Yes $58,500,000 Impact XX XX XX XX
Fees plan const const · open
. 1/These funds may ho secured through local hond issues, sale of real pmporty, impact fees, and state
matching fonds.
The District currently is not eligible for state assistance at the elementary school level.
Auburn School District No. 408
Capital Facilities Plan
2003 through 2009
Section VII
Impact Fees
z
Auburn School District No. 408
Capital Facilities Plan
2003 through 2009
Section VIII
Appendix ^.1 o Student Fnrollment Projections
Appendix ^.2 - C^PII^I_ F^¢II_ITIES PLAN £nrollment Projections
Appendix ^.3 - Student Generation Survey
Appendix A.1 - Student Enrollment Projections
Auburn School District 408
Student Enrollment Projections
October 2002
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 ~arollment~ sets out some quantitative
assumptions, and provides projections based on these numerical factors.
The projection logic does not attempt to weigh the individual soeiologicul, 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 bo in the future. It further moderates the
impact of singular factors by averaging data over thirteen years and six yea]rs
respectively. The results la'ovide a trend, which reflects a long (13 year) and a short (6
year) base from which to exh'apolate.
Two methods of estimating the number ofldndergarten students have been used. The
first uses the average increase 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 the 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 m{mured after
the fact. This deviation provides a point of departure to evaluate the effectiveness of the
assumptions and logic being used to calculate future projections. Monitoring deviation is
critical to the viability and credibility of the projections derived by these teChniques.
Tables
Table 1 - Thirteen Year History of October 1 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 Oetobel I of each year.
Table 2 - Historical Factors Used in Pmjeaions - page 4
This table shows the three basic factors derived from the data in Table 1. Tkese factors
have been used in 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.
Factor 2 - Average Pupil Change by Grade Level
This factor is the average change at each grade level over the 13 or 6-year
period.
Factor 3 - Auburn School District Kindergarten Enrollmen~ 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 yem~s.
Table 3 - This set of tables, found on pages 5 through 13 utilizes the above mentioned
variables and generates several projectious.
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 bctween~ grade levels
(Factor 1). The data is shown for the disUict as a whole.
n 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 fi.om
the district projection. Summary level data is provided for percentage gain
and pupil gain by grade articulation.
n Tables 3M.13, 3M.6, 3M. 13A, 3M.6A (pg 8) - breaks out the 6-8 grades from
the district projection. Summary level data is provided for percontage gain
and pupil gain by grade articulation.
ra Tables 3SH.13, 3SH.6, 3SH.13A, 3SH.6A (pg 9) - breaks out the 9-12 grades
from thc dis~ict projection. Summa~ level data is provided for percentage
gain and pupil gain by grade articulation.
ra Table 4 (pg 10) - Collects the fora:projection models by grade g~x)up for ease
of comparison.
c~ Table 5 (pgs 11-13) - shows how well each projection model performed when
compared with actual enrollments. Data is provided in both number and
percent formats for the past 13 years.
2
0
Appendix A.2 - CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
Enrollment Projections
00000
Appendix A.3 Student Generation Survey
4/29/~003
P/T #2
Incorporate Kent School District
Updated 2003-04 to 2008-2009 Capital
Facilities Plan as part of Auburn
Comprehensive Plan.
Adopted by the Kent School District Board of
Directors June 25, 2003.
FACILITIES
2003-2004 - 2008-2009
F4nea'ald ~'ark Eletaeata~
Serving ~nincorpomtecf l(ing County
amf
lout, Covington, .~u6um, ~4apfe gla£~ey, $fac~ ~iamomf,, ~e. nton, SeaWac,
~/asftinttton
.~pril'2003
J[llllt sc pp! ,eistrJcf
Kent, Washingto~ 98030-6643 * (253) 373.7295
SIX'YEAR CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2003-2004 2008-2009
April 2003
BOARD of DIRECTORS
Bill Boyce
Sandra Collins
Scott Floyd
Mike Jensen
Linda Petersen
ADMINISTRATION
Barbara Grohe, Ph.D. - Superintendent
Daniel L. Moberiy - Assistant Superintendent - Business Services
Fred H. High - Executive Director of Finance
Mark Haddock, Ph.D. - Assistant Superintendent for Learning & School Improvement
Margaret A. Whitney - Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources & SDecial Services
Carla Jackson - Executive Director, Kent-Meridian Strand
Joseph McBrayer, Ph.D. - Executive Director, Kentlake Strand
Merri Rieger - Executive Director, Kentridge Strand
Janis McBrayer- Executive Director, Kentwood Strand
Gary Piano - Executive Director of Instructional Services
Valerie Lynch, Ed.D. - Executive Director of Special Services
Donald Hall - Executive Director of Information Technology
Ken. t School Dis~ct Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan
April 2003
J[ilJlt School OisldL
Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan
2003-2004 - 2008-2009
April 2003
For information on the Plan, please call the
Finance & Planning Department at (253) 373-7295.
Capital Facilities Plan
Contributing Staff ~
Gwenn Escher-Derdowski, Forecast & Planning Administrator
Don Walkup & Helen ShindelI-Butler, Transportation Department
Larry Price, Director of Facilities & Construction
Karla Wilkerson, Facilities Department
Cover Design by Debbi Smith
Maps by Jana Tucker
Kent School Dislrict Six-Year Capital Facilll~es Plan
2OO3
Section
I
II
III
IV
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
J[Ogt School ois cI
Capita£ q=aciFities
~'aS[e of Contents
Executive Summary
Six-Year Enrollment Projection
Current District "Standard of Service"
Inventory and Capacity of Existing Schools
Six-Year Planning and Construction Plan
Relocatable Classrooms
Projected Classroom Capacity
Finance Plan, Cost Basis and Impact Fee Schedules
Summary of Changes to Previous p an
Appendixes
Kent Schoel District Six-Year capital Facil/~s Plan
Page Number
2
4
8
11
14
17
18
23
3O
31
Page 1
'] ..... 3'--- T
Executive Summary
'[his Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan (the "Plan") has been prepared by the Kent
School District (the "District") as the organization's facilities planning document,
in compliance with the requirements of Washington's Growth Management Act,
King County Code K.C.C. 21A.43 and Cities of Kent, Covington, A{Jburn and
Black Diamond. This annual plan update was prepared using data available in
the spring of 2003 for the 2002-2003 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 clocument
for all of the District's needs. The District may prepare intedm and pedodic Long
Range Capital Facilities Plans consistent with Board Policies, taking into account
a longer or shorter time pedod, other factors and trends in the use of facilities,
and other needs of the District as may be required.
Pdor Capital Facilities Plans of the Kent School Distdct have been adopted by
Metropolitan King County Council and Cities of Kent, Covington and Auburn and
included in the Capital Facilities Plan element of the Comprehensive Plans of
each jurisdiction. The first ordinance implementing impact fees for the
unincorporated areas was effective September 15, 1993.
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 collectod in the
incorporated portions of the District, the cities of Kent, Covington and Auburn
must also adopt this Plan and their own school impact fee ordinances. This Plan
has also been submitted to cities of Maple Valley, Black Diamond, Sea'l'ac, and
Renton.
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 the local program needs in the District. The Growth
Management ACt, King County and City codes and ordinances authorize the
Distdct to make adjustments to the standard of service based on s'pecific needs
of the District.
This Plan includes the standard of service as established by Kent School District.
The Distdct has identified schools with significant special needs programs as
"impact" schools and the standard of service targets a lower class size at those
facilities. Relocatables in the capacity calculation use the same standard of
service as the permanent facilities.
Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan
(continued)
April 2003 · Page 2
Executive Summary
The capacity of each school in the' District is calculated based on the District
standard of service and the existing inventory, which includes some relocatable
classrooms. The Disthct's 2002-2003 program capacity of permanent facilities is
24,552 which reflects program changes and the reduction of class size to meet
the requirements of Student Achievement Initiative 728. Relocatables provide
additional transitional capacity until permanent facilities are completed.
Kent School Distdct is the fourth largest distdct in the state. Enmllment is
reported monthly to the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI)
on Form P223. Enrollment on October I is considered to be the enrollment for
the year. P223 Headcount for October 1, 2002 was 26,378. P223 FTE (Full
Time Equivalent) enrollment was 25,353.74. (F-rE reports Kindergarten at .5 and
excludes Early Childhood Education [ECE] and college-only Running Start students.)
The actual number of individual students per the October 2002, full head count
was 26,717. (Full Headcount reports all students at 1.0 including Kindergarten, ECE
and college-only Running Start students.)
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. Our
plan is to continue to satisfy concurrency requirements through the transitional
use of relocatables.
A financing plan is included in Section V ! ! ! 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 fee
schedules adjusted accordingly.
Kent Scho~ District Six-Year Capital Facililies Plan
· April 2003 · Page 3
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, as defined on the next
page, is the basis for the growth projections from new developments.
King County births and the District's relational percentage average were used to
determine the number of kindergartners entedng the system. (See rab/e 1) 8.06%
of 21,846 King County live births in 1998 is forecast for 1,790 student.,; expected
in Kindergarten for October 1, 2003. Together with proportional growth from new
construction, 8.06% of King County births is equivalent to the number of students
projected to enter kindergarten in the district for the next six-year pedod. (s, ~ 2)
Early Childhood Education students (sometimes identified by others as
"Preschool Special Education [SE] or handicapped students") are calculated and
reported separately on a .5 FTE basis.
The first grade population 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.
Near term projections assume some growth from new developments to be offset
by current local economic COnditions. With a few notable exceptions, the
expectation is that enrollment increases will occur District-wide in the long term.
District projections are based on historical growth patterns combined with
continuing development of projects in the pipeline dependent on market and
growth conditions.
The District will continue to track new development activity to determine impact
to schools and monitor conditions to reflect adjustments in this assumption. The
six-year enrollment projection anticipates moderate enrollment growth from new
development currently in some phase of planning or construction in the district.
InformatiOn on new residential developments and the completion of these
proposed developments in all jurisdictions may be considered in' the I~)istrict's
future analysis of growth projections.
Within practical limits, the District has kept abreast of proposed developments.
The Kent School District serves seven permitting jurisdictions: unincorporated
King County, the cities of Kent, Covington, and Auburn and a small portion of the
city of Maple Valley. The west Lake Sawyer area has been annexed to 'the City
of Black Diamond and Kent Mountain View Academy is located in the small
portion of the City of SeaTac served by Kent School District.
Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan
April 20~3
(Continued)
Page 4
] ] Six - Year Enrollment Projection'
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 distdct records of average actual
student generated rates for developments COmpleted within {he last five years.
FolloWing these guidelines, the student generation factor for Kent School District
is as follows:
Single Family
Elementary .466
Junior High .227
Senior High .200
Total
.893
Multi-Family
Elementary .281
Junior High .105
Senior High .068
Total
The student generation factor is based on a survey of 4,485 single family
dwelling units and 2,701 multi-family dwelling units with no adjustment for
occupancy. Please refer to Appendix E on Pages 35-36 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. In 4,485 single family dwelling units there were 2,088 elementary
students, 1,017 junior high students, and 898 senior high students' for a total of
4,003 students~ In 2,701 multi-family dwelling units, there were 759 elementary
students, 284 junior high students, and 183 senior high students, for a total of
1,226 students.
Kent School Disbict Six.year Capital Facillt/es Plan
April 2003
Page 5
oz
· ~, lll
King County Live Births '
Increase / Decrease
Kindergarten / Birth % 2
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415
SIX- YEAR F.T.E.* ENROLLMENT PROJECTION
21,646 22,212 22,007 22.487 21.778 21.870 21.950
73 566 -205 480 -709 92 80
8.06% 8.06% 8.o6% 8,o6% 8.os% 8.06% 8.06%
2
EadY Cl~10~l~od Ed~Cat,~3 ~ .5 68 70 78 87 97 108 120
2/, Kindergarten FTE @ .5 873 895 913 932 923 931 939
Grade 1 1,922 1,824 1,893 1,931 1,989 1,975 1,996
Grade 2 1,936 1,917 1,839 1,908 1.964 2,027 2,017
Grade 3 2,055 1,947 1.949 1,871 1,959 2,020 2,087
Grade 4 2,068 2,064 1,983 1,985 1,925 2,019 2,084
Grade 5 2,149 2,042 2,092 2,011 2,032 1.977 2,075
Grade 6 2.151 2,191 2,097 2,147 2,084- 2.110 2,059
Grade 7 2.380 2,272 2.315 2,232 2,290 2.229 2.261
Grade 8 2.079 2,317 2.246 2,304 2~_27 2.290 2.234
Grade 9 5 2.404 2,320
Grade 9 s
2,607 2,544 2.614 2.533 2,608
Grade 10 2,039 2,163 2.122 2.401 2,349 2,417 2,348
Grade 11 1.823 1,820 1.959 1,940 2.197 2,155 2,220
Grade 12 1,475 1,496 1,542 1,677 1,666 1,888 1,857
Total FTE Enrollment
25,422 25,338 25,635 25,970 26,316 26,679 26,905
Yearly Increase 21 -84 297 335 346 363 226
Yeady Increase % 0.08% -0.33% 1.17% 1.31% 1.33% 1.38% 0.85%
Cumulative Increase 21 -63 234 559 915 1,278 1,504
pe ge and proportional growth fro~t ~ew construc~313
2 Kindeq~a~ten FTE e~rollment projection at .5 is calculated by using the Ois~ct's percentage of King County livel~irth$
K 5 years eadler C~mpamd to actoal kindergartea enrollment in the previous year. (includes ECE O .5 - Early Childhood Ed)
Indergarten pmjec/ion is at .5 FTE although many schools have Full Day Kindergarten at 1.0 FTE with alternative funding.
~ct. 2002 P223 Headcount is 26,378. Full student headcount incJudiflg 136 Preschool & 377 Runr~ing Stad = 26,7t7.
rede level reconf~uration. In 2004.9th grade moves to the senior; high schools.
* For facilities planning purposes, this six-year enroilment projection anticipates moderate enrollment
growth fi.om'new development currently in some phase of planning or construction in lhe districL
Kent Scflool Disb'Jct ~ix-Year Capital FacJliUe$ plan Table 2
ApdJ 2003
Page 7
! ! ! Current Kent School District "Standard of Service"
In order to determine the capacity of the District's facilities, King County Code
21A.06 refers to a "standard of service" that each school distdct 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, in the
District's judgment, best serve the student populat on.
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. Relocatables included in the capacity calculation use the same
standard of service as the permanent facilities. (See AppendixA, B & C)
The standard of service defined herein may continue to change 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
adjustments to meet the requirements of Student Achievement Initiative 728.
This process will affect various aspects of the District's "standard of service" and
future changes will be reflected in future capital facilities plans. Because the
funding for Initiative 728 is incremental, implementation of the Initiative is also
incremental and may result in annual changes to school capacity.
Current Standards of Service for Elementary Studenl~
Class size for grades K - 3 should not exceed an average of 20 students.
Class size for grade 4 at impact schools should not exceed an average of 20
students.
Class size for grade 4 at non-impact schools should not exceed an average of 23
students.
Class size for grades 5 - 6 should not exceed an average of 29 students·
Program capacity for regular education classrooms is calculated at an average of
23 students per classroom because there are five grade levels at K - 4 and
fluctuations between pdmary and intermediate grade levels (i.e.. third/fourth
grade split classes, etc.). Many elementary schools now provide full day
kindergarten programs with the second half of the day funded by grants or
tuition.
Students have scheduled time in a computer lab. Students may also be provided
music instruction and physical education in a separate classroom or facility.
Special Education for students with disabilities may be provided in a self-
contained classroom with a capacity of 10-15 depending on the program.
(continued)
Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan
April 2003
Page 8
Current Kent School District "Standard of Service" (continued)
Identified students will also be provided other educational opportunities in
classrooms for programs designated as follows:
English Language Leamers (E L L)
Self-contained Special Education Programs
Integrated Programs & Resource Rooms (for special remedial assistance)
Education for Disadvantaged Students (Title D
Gifted Education
· District Remediation Programs
Learning Assisted Programs (LAP)
School Adjustment Programs for severely behavior-disordered students
Hearing Impaired
Mild, Moderate and Severe Developmental Disabilities
Developmental Kindergarten
Early Childhood Education (ECE) (3-4 yr. old students with disabilities)
Some of the above special programs require specialized classroom space, as
well as music and physical education classrooms, computer labs, etc.; thus, the
permanent 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 these special programs and space must be
allocated to serve these programs. Some newer buildings have been
constructed to accommodate most of these programs; some older buildings have
been modified, and in some cimumstances, these modifications reduce the
classroom capacity of the buildings. When programs change, program capacity
fluctuates and is updated annually to reflect the change in 'program and capacity.
_C. urrent 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. Reductions have been made in 7~h and 10th
grade English classes for Initiative 728. These standards are subject to change
pending annual updates based on staff and public review for changes funded by
Student Achievement Initiative 728.
Class size for grades 7 - 9 should not exceed an average of 29 stude .
CI · .~ ., . _ nts
ass size for 7 & 10 grade English class should not exceed an average of 25
students.
Class size for grades 10 - 12 should not exceed an average of 31 students.
Special Education for students with disabilities may be provided in a self-
contained classroom with a capacity of 10-15 depending on the program.
(continued)
Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Ap~l 2003 Page 9
I ! ! Current Kent School District "Standard of Service" (con,hued)
Identified students will also be provided other education opportunities
classrooms for programs designated as follows:
Computer Labs
English Language Leamers (E L L)
Integrated Programs & Resource Rooms (for special remedial assistance)
Preschool and Daycare P~ograms
Honors (Gifted) and Advanced Placement Programs
Basic Skills Programs
Traffic Safety Education
JROTC - Junior Reserve Officers Training Corps
Vadety of Career and Technical Education Programs (Vocational Education)
i.e. Home & Family Life (Cooking, Sewing, Child Development, etc.)
Business Education (Keyboarding, Accounting, Business Law,
Sales & Marketing, etc.) Woods, Metals, Welding, Electronics,
Manufacturing Technology, Auto Shop, Commercial Foods,
Commercial Art, Drafting & Drawing, Electronics, Careers, etc.
Many of these programs and others require specialized classroom space which
can reduce the permanent capacity of the school buildings. In addition, an
alternative home school assistance, choice and transition program is provided for
students in grades K - 12 at Kent Mountain View Academy. ·
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 pedods, it is not possible to achieve 100% utilization of
regular teaching stations. 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 has been
adjusted from 95% utilization in the past to reflect 100% utilization at the
elementary level. In the future, the Distdct will continue close ana. lysis of actual
utilization.
in
· Kent Scho~ District Six-Year Capital FacilitJes Plan
April 2003 Page '10
Inventory and Capacity of Existing Schools
Currently, the Distdct has permanent program capacity to house 24,552 students
and transitional (relocatable) capacity to house 2,051. This capacity is based on
the District's Standard of Service as set forth in Section ! ! 1. 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 program capacity is periodically updated for changes in programs and the
addition of new schools. It also reflects the Student Achievement Initiative 728
reduction in class size from 22:1 to 20:1 in grades K - 3 and Grade 4 reductions
of 20:1 at impact schools or 23:1 for non-impact schools. The class size
reduction received voter approval in the Educational Programs and Operations
Levy as well as through funding from Student Achievement Initiative 728. The
District will conduct annual public review and update class size
recommendations in accordance with the requirements and incremental funding
of Student Achievement Initiative 728.
Kent Mountain View Academy (formerly Kent Leaming Center) sen/es grades
Kindergarten through 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 the city of SeaTac. This school was designed and is currently
configured as an elementary school.
Calculation of Elementary, Junior High and Senior High School capacities are set
forth in Appendices A, B and C. A map of eXisting schools is included on Page
13.
Kent School Dis~ct Slx-Year Capital Fadlities Plan
April 2003 Page 11
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No, 415
INVENTORY and CAPACITY of EXISTING SCHOOLS
SCHOOL
, ¥ , , · , ................................. ~:~:~:J 002-2003[~J
Caniage Crest Elementa~ 1990 CC 18235 - 140~ Avenue SE, Renton 98058 470
CedarValtsyE~ementap/ 1971 CV 265~OTimbedaneWaySE, Covington 98042 401
CovingtonElementa~ 1991 CO 17070 SE Wax Road, Covington 98042 482
Cedar Heights Junior High
Kent Junior High
Ma8so~l Junky High
Meeker Junior High
Meridian Junio~ High
1993 CH 19640 SE 272 Street, Covi~ton 98042
1952 KJ 620 North Cenfral Avenue. Kenl 98032
tg81 MA 16400 SE 2515t Street. Cov~ 98042
~1970 MK 12600 SE 192nd Street, Renton 98058
815
890
1958 MJ 23480-120th Avenue SE, Kent 98031
747
Se~x~a Juni~- High
./u~ High TOTAL
Kenlfake Senior High School
Ken~dge Senio~ High
DISTRICT TOTAL
830
5,631
1 995 LC 22420 Mili~ar/Road. D~s Moines 98198
416
24,552
· * Kent ~ Disbict S!x-Year Capital Facilil~s Plan
Table 3
Aoril 2003 Page 12
· Kent School Ol~ict Six-Year Capital F~d/Itk~ Plan
April 2003 Pa~e 13
......... TTIlIFT
¥ Six.Year planning and Construction Plan
At the time of preparation of this Plan in spring of 2003, the following projects are
completed or in the planning phase in the District:
Construction funding for additions to three high schools received voter approval. The
Boa, rd au_lh~o~rized, g~de I .evel reconfiguration to move 9a grade students to high schools
ano serve / ano u gra(~e students at middle schools. New classroom additions will add
capacity for 2,213 students when 9t' Grade moves to the high schools. Construction is
expected to be complete by Fall of 2004.
· Reconfiguration will provide additional capacity at middle schools. Implementation is
expected for 2004.
The Board approved a temporary closure to remodel Kent Junior High. In 2004-05,
students from KJH will attend other middle schools when 9~ grade students have moved
to the high schools. Kent Junior will re-open as a middle school with additional programs
in 2005.
A site was purchased at 15435 SE'256~h Street in Covington, and remains a part of the
site bank for future schools. Other potential future sites and facilities are listed in Table 4
and shown on the site map on page 17.
· The Board authorized purchase of a site for Junior High ~ east of 124th Avenue SE at SE
286th Street. That site was determined not to be feasible and the property is for sale.
· Some funding is secured for purchase of additional portables and some funding may be
provided by impact fees as needed. The sites have not been determined.
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, pull-outs and
tum-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 Ts~e 4)
The voter approved bond issue for $105.4 million in 1990 and $130 million in 1994
included funding for the purchase of eleven 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.
2002 voter approval of $69.5 million bond issue for capital improvement included the
construction funding for additions to three high schools which are scheduled to be
completed in 2004. Student Achievement Initiative 728 funds are being utilized to reduce
class size and provide extended learning opportunities. Based on community input, the
Board will continue annual review of standard of service and those decisions will be
reflected in the each update of the Capital Facilities Plan.
Kent Schoel Disbict Six-Year Capital Fadlities Plan
April 2003 Page 14
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415
Site Acquisitions and Projects Planned to Provide Additional Capacity
i ELEMENTARY
Etemenlary # 31 (Unfunded) ~
Grade Level Recenfigumflon will Move 9~ grade to High School
provide additional capacity at Junior High scho<~
SENIOR HIGH
(Numbers assigned to future schools may not cormlote with number of exisb~g =cho~$
TO be determined 2 New Planning 2008 500 75%
Program Planning 2004
Classroom addi0ens al
3 high schools and move
9lb Grade to high school
I TEMPORARY FACILITIES
Retocatables
SUPPORT FACILITIES
Bus Factiity (Unfunded) '~
Map a OTHER SITES ACQUIRED
I
Kent-Meridian Addianns Planning 2004 316 100%
Kentrldge Additions Planning 2004 1.001 100%
Kentwoed Additinns Planning 2004 896 100%
Covington area (Near Mattson JH)
Covington area (Ssarsella)
Covinglon area West (Halleson)
Ham Lake area (Pollan:l)
SE or' Lake Morton area {West)
Shady Lake area (Sow.s, etc.)
So. King Co. Actlvity Center (Nike site)
I
Near Kent-Meridian High School
New
New
SE251 & 164SE, ~vington 98042
SE2~0& 156SE, Kent 98042
15435 SE 256 Sb'eet, Covington 98042
16820 SE 240, Kent 98042
SE 332 & 204 SE, Kent 98042
17426 SE 192 Sl~eet, Renton 98058
SE 167 & 170 SE, Renton 98058
12 Former Jr Hi #8 ~ (Plemmons-Yeh-Wrns) SE 286~h Slreet & 124th Ave. SE, Kent
Site was determined to be -unbuildable# for a junior high and properly ia now for sail.
No{es:
s Unfunded facility needs will be reviewed h toe future.
Kent Sc.~4 Disbtct Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan
Planning 2003 + 23-31 ~ 100%
Planning T~D2 NIA
~ TypeI Land Use
Jurisdiction
Eilmentery City of Covington
Elementary King County
TBD z City of Covington
Elementary King County
Jup!or High King County
Elementery King County
TBD = King C~unty
~ TBD - To be determined - Some sites are acquired but placement, timing and/or configuration have not been determined.
3N .
· umbers correspond to srien on Map on Page 16. Other site locations are parcels identified in Table 7 on Page 26.
Table 4
April 2003 Page 15
.............. I lllli
o.
Kent School District Six.Year Capital Fac#lfles l;~an
April 2003 Page t $
Relocatable Classrooms
For the purpose of clarification, the term "portables" and the more descriptively
accurate term, "relocatables" are used interchangeably in this Plan. The Plan
also references use of portables or relocatables as interim or transitional
capacity/facilities.
Currently, the District utilizes 158 total relocatables to house students in excess
of permanent capacity, for program purposes at school locations, and six for
other purposes. (see Appendices A B C D)
Based on enrollment projections, program capacity and funded permanent
facilities, the District anticipates the need to purchase some additional
relocatables during the next six-year period.
Dudng the time periOd covered by this Plan, the District does not anticipate that
all of the District's relocatables will be replaced by permanent facilities. During
the useful life of some of the relocatables, the school-age population may decline
in some communities and increase in others, and these relocatables provide the
flexibility to accommodate the immediate needs of the community.
Portables, or relocatables, 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, or relocatables, cun'ently in use will be evaluated resulting in some
being improved and some replaced. Quality concerns will be among those
addressed by the next Citizens' Facilities Planning Committee in review of capital
facilities needs for the next bond issue.
The Plan projects that the Distdct will use relocatables to accommodate'interim
housing needs for the next six years and beyond. The use of relocatables, their
impacts on permanent facilities, life cycle and operational costs, and the
interrelationship between relocatables, emerging technologies and educational
restructuring will continue to be be examined.
Kent School Disblct Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan
Ap~f 2003 Page 17
vii
Projected Six-Year Classroom Capacity
As stated in Section I ¥, the program capacity study is periodically updated for
changes in special programs and reflects class size reduction in Grades K - 4.
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 Tables 5 & S A-B-C on pages19 . 22)
Enrollment is 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 set by OSPI as the enrollment count date for the year.
Full Time Equivalent (FTE) student enrollment for October 1, 2002 was
25,353.74 with kindergarten students counted at .5 and excluding Early
Childhood Education students (ECE - preschool special education) and College-
.only Running Start students. (se~ Tables $ & 5 A~-C on pages 19- 22)
Kent School District continues to be the fourth largest distdct in the state of
Washington. P223 Headcount for October 1, 2002 was 26,378 with kindergarten
students counted at 1.0 and excluding ECE and college-only Running Start
students. A headcount of all students enrolled on October 1, 2002 totals 26,717
which includes ECE and college-only Running Start students.
Based on the enrollment forecasts, current inventory and capacity, Current
standard of service, relocatable capacity, and future planned classroom space,
the Distdct anticipates having sufficient capacity to house students over the next
six years. (See Tab~ 5 and Tables S A.B-C on Page$19 . 22)
This does not mean that some schools will not experience overcrowding. There
may be significant need for additional portables and/or new schools to
accommodate growth within the Distdct and class size reduction mandated
under Student Achievement Initiative 728. Some schools, by design, may be
opened with relocatables on site. Boundary changes, limited movement of
relocatables, zoning changes, market conditions, and educational restructuring
will all play a major role in addressing overcrowding and underufilization of
facilities in different parts of the District.
Kent School Dist~ct Six-Year CapitaJ Facilities Plan
April 2003 .Page 18
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415
PROJECTED ENROLLMENT and CAPACITY
TOTAL DISTRICT
JNew Permanent Construction
3 Grade level reconfiguration. 9ih grade moves to high schools in 2004
Additions to Senior High schools .
2,213
Elemenfary # 31 (Unfunded) 5
5O0
P~-~anent Program Capacity Subtotal 24~,~52 24,552 26,765 26,765 26,765 26,765
~: I,!nterim Relocatable Capacity I
27,265
E~.e,,a,y R.~oc~taU. ~ Requi.,d 299 23 0 0 46 230 0
Ju.~ High Retoca~b~e Capac~y R~a~ 899 928 0 0 0 0 0
S~H~h R~e ~ 0 0 403 ~ . ~ 1,178 1,209
..... ~ ~ ~3 ~ 1,038 1,408 1,209
TOT~ C~ACI~ ~ 25,7~ 25,503 27,168 27,509 27,803 28,173 28 474
ENR~ME~/PROJ~
Capac~ is ~s~ on standa~ of se~i~ ~r program ~ and u~ated Pe~di~lly to mfl~t program ~a~es.
~E = Full ~me Equi~lent Enrollment (ie. ECE Presch~l Handi~p~ & 1~ day Kinde~aden student = .5).
In 2~. ~h grade ~11 move to ~e high ~ls and result in inmea~ ~pa~ at Middle School level.
2002-2003 to~l classroom relo~table ~paci~ is 2,051.
Un~nded facil~ ne~s are pending review.
.Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan
Table
April 2003 Page 19
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415
PROJECTED ENROLLMENT and CAPACITY
SENIOR HIGH
ISenior High permanent Program Capacit~ I
INew Permanent Senio~ High Ceestrucaon1
5,631 ' 5,631 5,631 7,844 7,844 7,844 7,844
3 Grade lever reccmfigura[~3n. 9th grade moves to high schools in 2004
Classrooms added at throe high schools
2,213
5,631
I~elocatable Capacity RequiredTM I
~ o
T~OTAL CAPACITY ' ~
~LLMENT / PROJECTION ~
5,631 7,844 7,844 7,844 7,844 7',844
0 403 744 992 1,178 1,209
5,631 8,247 8,588 8,836 9,022 9,053
5,479 8,230 8,562 8,826 8,993 9,033
152 17 26
10 29 20
Number of Relocatables Required
0 O 13 24
32 38 39
Capacity is based on standard of service for program capacity and updated periodically to reflect program changes.
FTE = Approximate Full Time Equivalent Enrollment, excluding full time Running Start students.
Approximately 220 Junior High Students are served all or part of the day at high schools.
Grade leve! reconfiguration - 9th grade will move to the high schools in 2004.
Kent Scho~ District Six*Year Capitol Facilities Plan
Table 5 A
April 2003 Page 20
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415
PROJECTED ENROLLMENT and CAPACITY
JUNIOR HIGH
5,168 5,984 5,984 5,984
I Junior High Permanent Program Capacity ~ 5,984 5,984 5,984
JNew Capacity from Grade Reconfiguration J
3 Grade level recon~guraflea - 9ih grade moves t~ high schools in 2004
4K · . .
ent Jumor H~gh closed for remodel ~n 2004-05 - Middle Schoo/re-.opens in 2005
-816 816
Sublotal 5,984 5,984 5,168 5,984 5,984 5,984 5,984
IRelocatable Capacib/Required' I
~ .. 899 928 0 0 0 0 0
[ TOTAL CAPACITY '&3 J 6,883 6,912 5,168 5.984 5,984 5,984 5,984 I
FTEENROLLMENT/PROJECTiON 2 L6;883
6,909~ 4,561 4,536 4,517 4,519
~(DEFICIT) CAPACITY ~ 3
607 1,448 1,467 1,465 1,489 ]
Number of Relocatables Required 31 32
0 0 0 ' 0 0
Capacity is based on standard of service for program capacity and updated periodically to reflect program changes.
FTE = Approximate Full Time Equivalent Enrollment / Projection
Approximately 220 9th grade students are cun'entiy served at high schools.
Grade level reconfigumtion - 9th grade will move to the high schools in 2004.
Kent Junior High closed for remodel in 2004-05 - Kent Middle School re-opens in Fall 2005
- Kent School Dts~ct Six-Year Capital F~cili~es Plan
Table 5 B ,,kora 2oo3 Page
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415
PROJECTED ENROLLMENT and CAPACITY
ELEMENTARY
IElementa~ Permanent Program C~pac~ty I 12,521
Kent Mc~Jntain View Academy ~ 416
INew Permanent Elementa~ Construction I
12,937 12,937 12,937 12,937 12,937 12,937
Elementary # 31 (Unfunded) 4
500
12,937 12,937 12,937 12,937 12,937 13,437
Subtotal 12,937
~' IRel°catableCapacityRequired2 I 299
[ FTEENROLLMENT/PROJECTION3 J 13,222
23 0 0
46 230 0
12,960 12,937 12,937 12,983 13,167 13,437 J
12,950 12,844 12,872 12,973 13,167 13,377
SURPLUS (DEFICIT~ CAPACITY
14 10 93 65 10 0 60 J
Number of Relocatables Required
t3 1 0 0 2
10 0
Kent Mountain View Academy is a special program at Grandview School serving students in Grades K - 12.
The school (formerly Kent Learning Center & Grandview Elem.) was designed and utilized as an elementary school.
Capacity is based on stendard of service for program capacity and is updated periodically to reflect program changes.
FTE = Approximate Full Time Equivalent Enrollment or Projection (ECE & Kindergarten @ .5)
Facility needs are pending review.
· Kent School Distric~ Six-Year Capital FaciliUes Plan
Table 5 C
April 2003 Page 22
· / V I I I Finance Plan
The finance plan shown on Table 6 demonstrates how the Kent School District
plans to finance improvements for the years 2003 - 2004 through 2008 - 2009.
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.
Kent Elementary #27a, which opened in January 1999 as a replacement for the
odginal Kent Elementary School, was the last school for which the Distdct
received state matching funds under the current state funding formula. The
District anticipates receiving state matching funds for the senior high school
additions.
Millennium Elementary #30 which opened in the fall of 2000 was the last
elementary school that has received funding approval from voters. Voters
approved a $69.5 million bond issue for Capital Construction and Improvements
in February 2002. This will fund building additions at three high schools which will
coincide with moving 9~h grade to the senior high in 2004. Some funding is
secured for additional portables and some will be funded from impact fees.
Unfunded facility needs will be reviewed in the future.
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 FadliUes Plan
Alxll 2003 Page 23
¥ ! ! ! Finance Plan - Cost Basis Summary
For impact fee calculations, construction costs are based on cost of the last
elementary school, with 5% inflation factor, and the projected construction cost
of the additions to three high schools.
Elementary School Cost Projected Cost
Millennium Elementary (#30-open 2000) $12,182,768
Current cost of Elementary #31 $14,103,076 =
Projected cost of Elementary #31 in 2008 $18,000,000
Senior High Schools Projected Cost Total
Addition to Kent-Meridian $4,800,000
Addition to Kentddge $10,400,000
Addition to Kentwood $9,600,000
Projected construction cost of $24,800,000
additions to 3 High Schools
The site acquisition cost is based on an average cost of sites purcl~ased or built
on within the last ten years. Please see Table 7 on page 26 for a list of site
acquisition costs and averages.
The impact fee calculations on pages 28 and 29 include a "District Adjustment"
which is equal to the amount of increase that the impact fee formulas drive out
for this year and adjusted for increase in the Consumer Price Index. The reasons
for this adjustment include: 1 ) the district's long-term commitment to keep impact
fee increases as minimal as possible, and 2) our community's overwhelming
support of Initiative 695.
Kent Sct~3ol Dis~c~ Six-Year Capilal Facilities Plan
April 2003 Page 25
8
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT
FACTORS FOR ESTIMATED IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS
Student Generation Factors. Single Family
Elementary 0.466
Junior High 0.227
Senior High 0.200
Total 0.893
Projected Student Capacity
Elementary 500
Junior High 1,065
Senior High 2,213
Required Site Acreage per Facility
Elementary (required)
Junior High (required)
Senior High (required)
11
21
27
$18,000,000
$0
$24,800,000
New Facility Construction Cost
Elementary
Junior High
Senior High
* See calculations o~ Pg. 25
~, Temporary Facility Square Footage
Elementary
Junior High
· Senior High
Total 4%
86,956
26,280
21,736
134,972
Permanent Facility Square Footage
Elementary 1,455,606
Junior High
. 753,079
Senior High 800,882
Total 96% 3,009,567
Student Generation Factors - Multi-Family
Elementary 0.281
Junior High 0.105
Senior High 0.068
Total 0.454
SPI Square Footage per Student
Elementary 80
Junior High 113.33
Senior High 120
Average Site Cost / Acre
Elementary $81,558
Junior High $0
Senior High $82,761
Temporary Facility Capacity & Cost
Elementary @ 23
Junior High @ 29
Senior High @ 31
$91,181.
$91,181
$91,181
54.29%
State Match Credit
Current State Match Percentage
for Senior High Additions
Area Cost Allowance - Cost/Sq. FL
Current Area Cost Allowance
$125.32
District Average Assessed Value
Single Family Res dence
$222,591
Total Facilities Square Footage
Elementary 1,542,562
Junior High 779,359
Senior High 822,618
TOtal
3,144,539
Developer Provided Sites I Facilities
velue g
Dwelling Units 0
District Average Assessed Value
Multi-Family Residence
Capital Levy Tax Rate/S1,000
Current / $1,000 Tax Rate
General Obligation Bond Interest Rate
Current Bond Interest Rate.
$65,437
$2.10
4.69%
Kent School Disb'ict Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan
April 2003 Page 27
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT
IMPACT FEE CALCULATION for SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
Site Acquisition Cost per Single Family Residence
Formula: ((Acres x Cost Per Ac~e') / Facitity Capacity) x Student Gecem6on Factor
I Requim~SituN:mage I AverageSiteCo~Ac~el Faci~Capac~tyI
A I (Elementary) 11 ' $81,558 500
A2 (Junior High) 21 $0 1,065
A3 (Senior High) 27 $82,761 2,213
Permanent Facility Construction Cost per Single Family Residence
Fomlula:' ((FactlJly C°st / Facillly Capacity) x Stodent Factor) x (PermanenVTolal Square FooG~ Ratio)
B 1 (Elementary) $18,000,000 500 0.466 0.96 $16,104.96
B 2 (Junto(H[gh) $0 1,065 0,227 0.96 $0
B3 (Sonio~ High) $24,800,000 2,213 0.20q 0.96 $2,151,65
0,893 $ -'--> $18,256.61
Temporary Facility Cost per Single Family Residence
Formula: ((Facility C°s.t / FacititY Capecit~ x Student Facto;) x (Temporary / Total Square Footege Ratio)
C 1 (Elementary) $91,18i 23 0.466 0.04 $73.90
C2 (Junior High) $91,181 29 0.227 0.04 $28.55
C3 (Senior High) $91,181 31 0.200 0.04 $23.53
0.893 C --> $125.98
State Match Credit per Single Family Residence
Formula: Area Cost Atiowaflce x SPI Square Feet per student x District Match % x Student Facto~
D 1 (Elementary) $126.32 80 0.5429 0.466 $2,536.39
D2 (Junio~ High) $125.32 113.33 0 0.227 $0
D3 (Sentor High) $125.32 120 0.5429 0.200 $1,632.87
D --> $4,169.26
Student Factor
0.4~ $636.13
0.227 $0
0~200 $201.95
0,893
A --> :$1,038.09
Tax Credit per Single Family Residence
Average SF Residen~al Assessed Value
Current Capital Levy Rate / $1,000
Current Bond Interest Rate
Years Amor~zed (10 Yearn)
Developer Provided Facility Credit
Fee Recap
A = Site Acquisition per SF Residence
B = Permanent Fadlily Cost per Residence
C = Temporar/Facility Cost per Residence
Subtotal
D = State Match Credit per Residence*
TC = Tax Credit per Residence
Subtotal
$222,591
$2.10
4.69%
10 TC --> $3,662.48
u.iis J
FC ~> 0
$1,038.08
$18,256.61
$125.98
$19,420.67
$4,169,26
$3,662.48
Total Unfunded Need
50% Developer Fee Obligation
FC = Facility Credit (if a~q)JJc~lble)
District Adjustment (See Page 25 for expianalion)
Net Fee Obligation per Single Family Residence
Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan '
$7,831.74
$11,588.93
$5,794.46
0
($1,502.46)
April 2003 Page 28
IF ......
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT
IMPACT FEE CALCULATION for MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENCE
Site Acquisition Cost per Muiti-Famlly Residence Unit
Formula: ((Aczes x Cost per Acre) / Facility Capacity) x Student Generation FaCtOr
A 1 (Elementary) 11 $81,558 500
A2 (Junior High) 21 $8 1,065
A3 (Senior High) 27 $82,761 2,213
0.281 S504.19
0.105
A ~> $572.85
Permanent Facility Construction Cost per Multi-Family Residence Unit
Formula: ((Faci~ilyC~st~Facililycapacily)x~tudentFac~r)x(Permanent~T~ta~SquareF~;~Ra~)
B I (Elementary) $18,000,000 500 0.281 0.96 $9,711.36
B 2 (Juni0rHigh) $0 1,065 0.105 0.96 $0
83 (Senio~ High) $24,800,000 2,213 0.(~ 0.96 $731.56
0.454 B ~> $10,442.92
Temporary Facility Cost per Multi-Family Residence Unit ~
Formula: ~(Faci~ilycost~Faci~ityCapacity)xStudentFact~r)x(remp~rary~T~ta~SquareF~n~Rali~)
C 1 (Elementary) $91,181 23 0.281 0.04 $44.56
C2 (Junior High) $91,181 29 0.105 0.04 $13.2t
C3 (Senio~ High) $91,181 31 0.068 0.04 $8.00
0.454 C ----> $65.77
State Match Credit per Multi-Family Residence Unit
Formula: Area Cost Mowance x SPI Square Feet perstudent x Disrict Match % x Student Facet
[" AmaCost~c,..r.~ I SPISq. FL/Stude~ I District Match % I ""-~["'~.Fact~ I
D I (Elementary) $125.32 80 0.5429 0.281 $1,529.45
D2 (Junior High) $125.32 113.33 0 0.105 $0
133 (Senior High) $125.32 120 0.5419 0.068 $554.15
D ~> $2,083.61
Tax Credit per Multi-Family Residence Unit
Average MF Residential A~sessed Value
Current Capital Levy Rata / $1,000
Current Bond Interest Rate
Yeers .~ (10 Yeers)
Developer Provided Facility Credit
Fee Recap
A = Sita Acquisiliee pe~ Mul6-Family Unit
B = Permanent Facility Cost per MF Unit
C = Temporary Fac~ity Co~t per MF Unit
Subtotal
D = Stata Match Credit per MF Unit
TC = Tax Credit per MF Unit
Subtotal
$65,437
$2:10
4.69%
10 TC --> $1,076.69
Facility I Sita Value I Dwelling Units I
0 0 FC --> 0
$572.85
$10,442.92
$85]7
$11,081.54
$2,083.61
$1,076.69
$3,160.30
Total Unfunded Need $7,921.24
' 50% Developer Fee Obligation $3,960.62
: FC = Facility Credit (if applicalde) 0
Disbict Adjustment (see Page 25 f~ explanation) ($1,317.62)
Net Fee Obligefien per Mul~-FamSy Residence Unit ~ $2,643.00
Kent School Dis~tCt Six Year Capital Fac~ties Plan
April 2OO3
Page 29
IX Summary of Changes to April 2002 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 Apd12002 Plan are summarized here.
Property for Junior High #8 was determined not feasible and is still for sale. Voters
approved funding for additions at three high schools to accommodate new growth,
moving 9~ grade to senior highs, which will provide additional capacity for grade 7-8 at
junior high schools in 2004. Kent Junior High will close for remodeling in 2004-05 and
re-open as a middle school in 2005-06.
Changes to capacity continue to reflect reduction in class size for grades K - 4 as well
as program changes. Reduction in class size for Student Achievement Initiative 728 is
reflected in this update. Changes in portables or transitional .capacity reflect purchase,
sale, surplus and/or movement of portables between facilities
Student enrollment forecast is updated annually.
Permanent facility costs are based on schools built most recently with adjustment for 5%
inflation rate. The district expects to receive state matching funds for projects in this
Plan and tax credit factors are updated annually. Unfunded facility needs will be
reviewed in the future. Impact fee calculations include a "District Adjustment" which is
equal to the amount of increase from impact fee formulas and adjusted for increase in
the Consumer Price Index. See page 25 for further explanation.
The biennial student generation factor survey was updated to reflect changes. Changes
reflected no adjustment for occupancy. SUrvey data is included as Appendix E.
Changes to Impact Fee Calculation Factors include:
ITEM
Student Generation Factor
Single Family (SF)
Student Generation Factor
Multi-Family (MF)
0.463 0.454
State Match Credit 54.19% 54.29%
Area Cost Allowance (Beockh Index) $t10.32 $125.32
~,verage Assessed Valuation (AV) SF $205,665 $222,591
~,V - Average of Condominiums & Apts. MF $65,868 $65,43?
:)ebt Service Capital Levy Rate / $1000 $2.10 S2.10
General Obligation Bond Interest Rate 8.19% 4.69%
Impact Fee - Single Family SF $4J47 $4,292
Impact Fee - Multi-Family MF $2,554 $2,643
I Grade/TypeIFROM I TO I Comments
Elem 0.5O4 0.466
Jr 0.211 0,227 Updated in 2002 Plan
Sr 0.183 0,200
Total 0.898 0.893
Elam 0.273 0.281
Jr 0.114 0.105 'Updated in 2002 Plan
Sr 0,076 0.068
Total
1~ change since 1999 Plan
Par SPI
Per Puget Sound ESD
Per Pugel Sound ESD
Per King Count~ Assessor
Man, et Rate
Change to fee
Change to fee
Kent Schoo~ District Six:Year Capital Facilil~es Plan
~dl2~3 P~e30
'X
Appendixes
Appendix A: Calculations of Capacities for Elementary Schools
Appendix B: Calculations of Capacities for Junior High Schools
Appendix C: Calculations of Capacities for Senior High Schools
Appendix D: Use of Relocatables
Appendix E: Student Generation Factor Survey
Kent Scflool District Six*Year Capital F;dlities Plan
April 2003 Page 31
0 n~
0 ~-
~. 0
Z
iii
PFF#3
Dieringer School District Updated
Capital Facility Plan information.
A ITACHMENT #2
F or the purposes of the 2003 amendments to the Capital Facilities Element of the Pierce County
Comprehensive Plan, we would like each school district to use the format as outlined in the tables
below.
Table IX PS 1
Complete-this table as in Pierce County's 2002. Capital Facilities Plan, listing each elementary, each
intermediate/middle/junior high, and each high school (see attachment #1).
Table IX-PS-1. Current Facilities Inventory
Public Schools
The inventory of current Public School capital facilities includes the following:
Capacity
Name (Number of Students) Location
Dieringer School District
Lake Tapps Elementary 500 1320-178* Ave. E., Sumner
Dieringer Heights Elementary 475 21727-34* St. E., Sumner
No~h Tapps Middle School 510 20029-12a' St. E., Sumner
High School
0
TOTAL
1485 I
D~ieringer School District 2003 Capital Facilities Pla,
(--~ Table IX-P S.2.
You do not need to provide any information regarding this table from attachment #1.
Table IX-PS-2A.
Complete this table by indicating the level of service in square feet per student, which has been
established at each level (elementary, intermediate/middle/junior high, high school) for your
school district.
Table/X-PS.2A. School Dis~ict Service Standards
Public School Facilities
(Square Feet per Student)
Elementary Middle Junior High Senior High
District Name Schools Schools Schools Schools
Dieringer 88.4 116.6 NA NA
ATTACIqMENT IX-PS-2-1
Complete this table as in Pierce County's.2003 Capital Facilities Plan. List proposed
individual capacity projects for 2003 -2008.
ATTACHMENT IX-PS-2-1
Public- School Facilities
INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY PROJECTS
Name
Diefinger School District
Elementary
Intermediate/Middle/Jr. High .......
Senior High
Capacity
0
0
NA
Table IX-PS-3.
Please provide the information for one time period, 2002-2007.
Table IX-PS-3: CFP Projects and Financing Plan
Sources and Uses of Funds
{x$1,00o)
Public School Facilities
Sources/Uses. ~003-2008
Sources of Funds
'Existing Revenue:
Bond Proceeds, Reserve $474
New Revenue:
Bonds, Levies, Fees, State Matching
Funds, Dedications, Mitigation Payments $12,275
Total Sources $12,749
Uses of Funds
Capacity Projects: -o-
Subtotal 4)-
Non-Capacity Projects: $12,749
Subtotal $12,749
s~_nee Total Cost~ $12,749
Surplus or {Deficit) -0-
3
Table IX-PS-5.
The "total Cost" in the following table shows the total cost of capacity projects needed to meet the level of
service standards for school facilities. To calculate "Total Cost," you can use the following formula:
Total Cost
Net Deficiency (fi.om "Net Reserve or Deficiency" column)
x
School District Cost per Student (from Table IX-PS-SA.)
Because "School Disffiet Cost Per Student" (from Table IX-PS-SA.) differs among the
elementary, intermediate/middle/junior high, and high schools, separate calculations need to be
made for each, and then added together to obtain the "Total Cost" figure.
fftbe "Net Reserve or Deficiency" column shows a new reserve, the "Total Cost" column
will be zero.
Table IX-PS-5. Capital Facility Requirements, to 2008
Public School Facilities
(See Table IX-PS-5A for individual rates at each level.)
Time Period Student Student Net Reserve Total Cost
Population/ Capacity or (Cost/Student
Student Demand (Deficiency) x
Net Deficiency)
2003 Actual 1,128 1,485 357
2003-2008 Growth 1,252 1,485 232
Non-Capacity Costs 12,749*
Total Cost as of
2008 12,749'
*The dislrict will replace Lake Tepps Elementary with a new facility in 2005.
Table IX-PS-5A.
Complete this table as in Pierce County's 2003 Capital Facilities Plan. If possible, use 2003 dollars.
If you are using dollars from a different year, indicate the year.
Table IX-PS-5A. School District Cost Per Student
Public School Facilities
(2003 Dollars)
District Name Elementary Middle Junior High Senior High
Schools Schools Schools Schools
Dietinger 23,200 25,668
5
P/Tfl.4
Chapter 9 - Environment Element
Amendments to:
a) Provide greater clarity and
focus on the value and role of
native plantings and
vegetation;
b) Support enhancement of Mill
Creek wetlands; and,
c) Support Iow impact
development techniques.
NOTE: Excerpts only. Only sections of this Chapter amended
are included.
CHAPTER 9
THE ENVIRONMENT
Introduction
One of the key attractions of Auburn and the Puget Sound Region has
always been the abundant natural resources found throughout the area.
The Green River Valley was once a major supplier of agricultural goods
for the region and farming remains in some parts of the valley. Thick
forests, wetlands, and wildlife habitats are found throughout the area.
As the area develops, many of these features, which serve to make the
area attractive in the first place, are being lost. The strong emphasis
placed on the designation and protection of resource lands and critical
areas in the Growth Management Act, the Countywide Policies and this
plan reflect the important role that these areas play in maintaining the
health, safety and welfare of the area's citizens.
Issues
Environmental
Constraints
and Land Use
The City's overall environmental policy should describe the kinds of
environmental information and factors that are important to the
community. This information can be used to decide if, where and how
certain kinds of development and other activities should be allowed.
City policy should recognize the natural constraints placed on
development by such factors as unstable slopes, flooding and wetlands.
A critical environmental concern is the proper management of gravel
extraction. This is an industry which has been active in Auburn for
many years and which remains a viable industry. The City should
establish clear policies to guide the retention of valued aspects of the
City's environment, such as protection of the City's open space and
significant wildlife habitats. The policy should seek to ensure ample
[ P~e9-1 $
Objective 18.2.
Environment
be severely impacted or destroyed by the uncontrolled release of
contaminated storm waters. Prior to utilizing natural systems
for storm drainage purposes, the City shall carefully consider
the potential for adverse impacts through the environmental
review process. Important natural systems shall not be used
for storm drainage storage or conveyance, unless it can be
demonstrated that adverse impacts can be adequately mitigated
to a less than significant level
EN-17
The City recognizes that stormwater treatment facilities do not
function efficiently unless maintained. The City shall strive to
ensure that public and private stormwater collection, detention
and treatment systems are properly maintained and functioning
as designed.
EN17A
Encourage the use of low impact develo.nmen~ teehniaues in
public and private dewla~nment prooosals in order ~_o
miniml,e impervious surfae_~s and improve water qp~Ji~.
To continue to enhance and maintain the quality of air resources in the
City and Region.
Policies:
EN-18
The City shall seek to secure and maintain such levels of air
quality as will protect human health, prevent injury to plant and
animal life, prevent injury to property, foster the comfort and
convenience of area inhabitants, and facilitate the enjoyment of
the natural attractions of the area.
EN-19
The City will continue to support and rely on the various State,
Federal and local programs to continue to protect and enhance
ak quality.
EN-20
The City shall encourage the retention of vegetation and
encourage landscaping in order to provide filtering of suspended
particulates.
EN-21
The City shall support an increased role for public
transportation as a means to reduce locally generated air
emissions.
EN-22
The City shall consider the impacts of new development on air
quality as a part of its environmental review process and require
any appropriate mitigating measures.
[ P~e9-5 }
Objective 18.3.
To continue to enhance and maintain the quality of land, wildlife and
vegetative resources in the City and region.
Policies:
EN-23
The City shall seek to protect any unique, rare or endangered
species of plants and animals found within the City by
preventing the indiscriminate and unnecessary removal of trees
and groundcover; by promoting the design and development of
landscaped areas which provide food and cover for wildlife; and
by protecting and enhancing the quality of aquatic habitat.
EN-24
The City shall consider the impacts of new development on the
quality of land, known or suspected fish and wildlife habitats
(Map 9.2) and vegetative resources as a part of its
environmental review process and require any appropriate
mitigating measures. Such mitigation may involve the retention
of significant habitats and the use of native landscape
vegetation.
EN-25
The preferred method of crossing a watercourse that has habitat
suitable for anadromous fish use or that has the potential to be
rehabilitated for fish use in the furore is a bridge. The use of
culverts shall be discouraged as a crossing method for such
watercourses. Culvert systems may be considered if streambeds
similar to natural channels can be provided, no loss of
anadromous fish habitat will occur or the cost of a bridge is
prohibitive as reasonable method of mitigation.
EN-26
The City shall work in collaboration with other agencies, the
development community and other affected or interested parties
to protect identified wildlife corridors and encourage the
clustering of significant or adjacent resources to maintain
connectivity of these systems.
Objective 18.4.
To continue to enhance and maintain the quality of important wetland
resources in the City and region.
EN-27
The City recognizes the important biological and hydrological
roles that wetlands play in providing plant and animal habitat,
protecting water quality, reducing the need for man-made flood
and storm drainage systems, maintaining water quality, and in
providing recreational, open space, educational and cultural
I P~e94 ]
Environment
opportunities. The City will consider these roles and functions
in all new development, and will also pursue opportunities to
enhance the existing w~fland system when these multiple
benefits can be achieved.
EN-28
The City recognizes that wetlands provide varying degrees of
biological and hydrological functions and values to the
community depending on the size, complexity and location of
the individual system, and that the overall degree of functions
and values should be considered when reviewing proposals
which impact wetlands. In a similar manner, the levels of
protection afforded to a wetland shall be consistent with its
existing function and values. The City shall continue to
promote policies and practices of enhancing the wetlands that
are hydraulically connected to the river systems to improve fish
resources and aquatic habitat.
EN-29
The City shall consider the impacts of new development on the
quality of wetland resources as part of its environmental review
process and shall require appropriate mitigation and monitoring
measures of important wetland areas. Such mitigation may
involve conservation, enhancement or restoration or
replacement of important wetlands, and provisions for
appropriate buffering. The goal of the mitigation should be no
net loss of wetland functions and values. A permanent deed
restriction shall be placed on any wetlands created or enhanced
to ensure that they are preserved in perpetuity.
EN-30
Wetlands which are associated with a river or stream, or
provide significant plant and animal habitat opportunities arc
recognized by the City as the most important wetland systems,
and shall receive the highest degree of protection and mitigation
through conservation, enhancement or relocation measures.
Wetlands which are limited in size, are isolated from major
hydrological systems or provide limited hydrological or plant
and animal habitat opportunities may be considered by the City
for developmem and displacement in conjunction with
appropriate mitigation.
EN-31
Speculative filling of wetlands shall only be permitted if in
compliance with the Special Area Management Plan for Mill
Creek, when it is adopted.
EN-32 It is the City's intent to pursue development of an area-wide
wetlands management program for the entire. City to establish a
P~e9-7
Chapter 9
systems approach to wetlands management. The City shall
work with adjacent communities to adopt and implement the
Special Area Management Plan (SA/VIP) for the Mill Creek
Basin, a draft version of which has been developed with the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The purpose of the SAMP is
to establish uniform wetland definitions and methodology
throughout the planning area, to develop a regional consensus
and predictability by identifying important wetlands which must
be conserved and less hnportant wetlands which may be
developed. The SAMP is intended to ensure a balance of the
City's commitment between environmental and economic
development interests. The City shall strive to streamline the
permitting process for development in the areas covered by the
SAMP.
Map 9.3: General Location of Wetlands
Map Note: This map provides an illustration of wetlands located within
Auburn. Prepared on an area-wide basis, the inventory map provides a
general delineation of known wetlands based on the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers definition and the 1989 Federal Manual For Identifying and
Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands field methodology. It is important to
note that this map is only a wetland inventory and not a wetland plan.
Over time wetlands develop, expand and contract in conjunction with
changing climatic, natural and artificial conditions.
The map does not imply that a parcel covered by a wetland designation
is fully occupied by wetlands. It is an indicator, however, that an in
depth wetland delineation is required. Therefore, future site specific
wetland studies conducted by the property owner will identify the precise
location, delineation and functional characteristics of known wetland
areas, and additional wetland areas, not previously inventoried. The
Auburn Planning Department has wetland reports that can provide
information regarding soils, hydrology, vegetation and wildlife for these
wetlands.
Objective 18.5.
To recognize the aesthetic, environmental and use benefits of vegetation
and to promote its retention and propagation. Consideration shall be
~iven to oromoting the use of native
Policies:
Page 9-8 I
[ En~ironm~.t [
EN-33
The City recooniz~s the hnport~nt benefits of native
vegetation includin~ its role in at~tin~ native wildlife,
preserving the natural hvdrolo~v, and maintainin.o the
natural character of the Pacific NorthWest reaion. Native
vegetation can also reduce the use of pesticides (thereby
reducin~ the amolmt of contarnlnant~ that may enter nearby
water systems) and reduce watering, required of non-native
species (thereby nromoting conservation) The City shall
encourage the use of native vegetation as an integral part of
public and private development plato through strategies that
include, but are not limih~d to, the following:
Encoura_oine_ the use of native plant~q in sweet
landscapes and in public facilitieS.
0
Providing re'eater clarity in develooment re~dntions in
how native plants can be used in private development
orouosalso
o Pursuing oooortunities to educate the public about the
benefits of native plantq.
EN-33A Development re~datlons .ghall emphn~i~ the use of native
plant materials that complemem the na0~ral character of the
Pacific Northwest and which are adaptable, to the climatic
hydrological characteristics of the region. Re~datlons
should provide specificity as to native plant types in order to
facilitate their USe.
EN-34 The City shall discourage the unnecessary disturbance of natural
vegetation in new development.
EN-35 The City shall encourage the use of water conserving plants in
landscaping for both public and private projects.
EN-36 The City shall update and amend its landscaping ordinances to
ensure that sufficient landscaping is a required component of all
development. Emphasis should be placed on higher quality and
quantity of landscaping.
EN-37
The City shall strengthen the tree protection ordinance targeted
at protecting large stands of frees and significant trees within
the City.
[ Page 9-9
P/T#5
Chapter 7- Transportation Element
Update Figure 7.3 with updated Six-
Year TIP
P/T#6
Update to Six. Year Capital
Facilities Plan
T7 ...... TF ...... TTllI~'-T
Addendum to 2003- 2008 Capital Facilities Plan
Updated Project Lists for Period 2004 - 2009
citY of Auburn
2,5 West Main
Auburn, WA 98001
(253) 931-3000
www.ci.auburn.wa.us
City of Auburn Addendum to 2003 - 2008 Capital Facilities Plan
Updated Project List for Period 2004 - 2009
CAPITAL COSTS OF FACILITIES
'Airport 2.271 1,871 400
Cemetery 490 490
Community Center 5,000 3,300 1,700
Communit7 Improvement 8,715 10,903 (2,188
Fire Projection 300 1,610 (1,310
General Municipal Buildings 18,200 30,700 (12,500)
Golf Course 3r405 3,575 (170)
Parks and Recreation 7,610 8,200 (590)
Sewer 13,078 8,430 4~648 ~
S[u.. Dra~.~l~ 5,647 6,250 (602
Transportation 237,836 111,635 126,201
Water 6,887 5,398 1,489
TOTAL 369,439 '192,362 117,077
City of Auburn Addendum to 2003 - 2008 Capital Facilities Plan
Updated Projoct List for Period 2004 -200~
FINANCING FOR CAPITAL FAClLITIE,~
Operating Revenue 259 ~ --
219 4'-~' Nrport
160 .
Endo~ Cam Interest 330 33~ ~ ~em~
General Fund 315 300 15 Commun~lmpmvement
300 1,610 (1,310) Fire Pmte~ion
- 200 200 - General and Muni~pal Buildings
~~Fund 1,170 890 280 Pa~s afld R~reation
3,200 5,60~ ~ Commun~vement
Comme~al R~il Fund 2~ -- 200 Commun~ Improvement
General Gow,,,,,,ent Revenues 5,0~ 5,~0 General and Muni~pal Buildings
User F~s 630 800 (17e GoR Coume
R~I Es~te ~se T~ 1,975 2,595 (62e Pa~s and Recma~on
C~ Revenue 8,538 14,897 (6,359
Ufil~ Revenue 6,0~ 6,621 (599 ~r
5,792 5,148 ~ Water
5,~7 6,250 (603) ~o~ Drainage
~ng ~un~ Open S~ Bond 27 40 (13} Tmns~m~on
S~[~; 39~765 45~663
~ew Reven~
F~ Grant 1,9~ 1 ~5~ 360
~te Grant ~ 56 -
~er Grants 800 800 Pa~s and R~crea~on
KC You~ S~¢= Grant 50 50 - Pa~s and Recreation
Commun~ Dew;~r,~ent Bilk Grant 150 (150 Pa~s and R~maflon
~ng Coun~ Conse~on F~ms 600 600 Pa~s and R~reafion
~e Grant (lAC) 600 600 Pa~s and Re~eation
Salmon Re~ve~ Fund 240 240 - Pa~s and R~mafion
~te An'~ ~nds 3~ 300 - Pa~s and R~mafion
~ Histo~ Pmsewat~n Grant 4~ 400 ~ Pa~s a~ Recma~n
Develo~r -- 1,20~ 2,10~ (900) Pa~s and Recreation
~ 3,440 7 900 ~ ~fion
M" afion MIT LID o~era en~es, etc. 47,6~ 10 435 37,251 ~tion
1 395 ~ 90 ~tion
PH~te Donation 200 125 ~ 7~ Pa~s and R~maflon
~eH~n~on Post 78 75 150 ~ Pa~s and Recm~on
Voted GO Bonds ~ 5,00~ 3,30~ 1,700 'Communi~ Canter
5,0~ 5,000 ~mmuni~ Improvement
7,000 30,500 (23,500 General Municipal Buildings
~ 2,775 2,775 - G~Coume
Ce~tes of Pa~p~n 6,~ 6,000 Gemini and Mu~
Grants ~ 77,058 9~,692 Tmn~tion
M~h~t Td~ 5,~ 1,809 ~ ~r
Public Wo~s Trust Fund Loan 915 250 ~5 Water
1,992 1,992 ~'~r
C~ ~ ~ona 180 180 Water
S~b~; 269,674 146~699 t22~97S
TOTAL 309,439 192,362 117,077
2
City of Auburn Addendum to 2003 - 2008 Capital Facilities Plan
Updated Project Lisf for Period 2004 ~ 2009
000)
COSTS/REVENUES
1. Phase I Planning of 23 acre site
Cost
Rev - FM Grant
Rev - Operating Revenue
75.0 75.0
67.5 67.5
7.5 7.5
Subtotal
~lon-Capaclty Projects:
2. Property Acquisition - Park
and Ride
Cost
Rev - FM Grant
Rev - Operating Revenue
150.0
135.0
15.0
0.0 76.0 75.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 t50.0
Parallel Taxiways Slun7 Seal
Cost
Rev - State Grant
Rev - Operating Revenue
100.0 700.0
90.0 630.0
10.0 70.0
4. Runway Rehabilitation
Estimated Project Cost: 900.0
Cost 900.0
Rev - FAA Grant 810.0
Rev - Operating Revenue 90.0
Transient & Northern Based Aircraft Apron Slurry Seal
Cost 77.5
Rev - FAA Grant 69.7
Rev - State Grant 3.9
Rev - Operating Revenue 3,9
6. Airport West Access S!gnlng & Parking Impmvementa
Cost 130.0
Rev - FAA Grant 117.0
Rev - Operating Revenue 13,0
7. Airport Security Fencing (Park and Ride)
Cost
Rev - FM Grant
Rev - Operating Revenue
50.0
45.0
5.0
8. North Taxllane Fog Seal
Cost
Rev - State Grant
Rev - Operating Revenue
95.0
47.5
47.5
2.6
1.3
1.3
800.0
720.0J
80.0J
95.0
47.5
47.5
900.(
810J
90.(
77J
69.7
3.9
3.9
130.0
117.C
13.(~
50.l
45.(
5.0
2.6
1.3
1.3
3
City of Auburn Addendum to 2003 - 2008 Capital Facilities Plan
Updated Project List for Period 2004 - 2009
9, South Apron Sluny Seal
Cost
Rev - FAA Grant
Rev - State Grant
Rev - Operating Revenue
Subtotal
.~OSTS:
Capacity Projects
Non-Capacity Projects
Total Cesta
900.0 77.5
65.8 65.
59.2 59.2
3.3 3.3
3.3 3.3
280.0 863.4 0.0 0.0 2,120.9
SUMMARY: COSTS AND REVENUES
0.0 75.0 75,0 0.0
900.0 77.5 280.0 863.4
900.0 162.5 385.0 863.4
0.0 0.0 150.0
0.0 0.0 2,120.9
0.0 0.0 2,270.9
EXISTING REVENUES:
Rev - Operating Revenue 90.0 11.4 35.5 122.1 0.0 0.0 259.0
Subtotal 90,0 11.4 35.5 122.1 0.0 0.0 259.0
Subtotal
NL=W REVENUES: Rev - FAA Grant
Rev - State Grant
Total Revenues
810.0 137.2 319.5 689.2 0.0 0.0 1,955.9
0.0 3.9 0.0 52.1 0.0 0.0 56.0
810.0 141.1 319.5 741.3 0.0 0.0 2,011.9
900.0 152.5 355.0 863.4
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
BALANCE
0.0 0.0 2,270.9
o.o o.o o.ol
City of Auburn
Addendum to 2003 - 2008 Capital Facilities Plan
Updated Project Ust for Period 2004 - 2009
C-"- r"~-C-qy PmJee~
'1. New M,.usotaum (ph 1 & 2)
Cost
Rev- End~wed Care Int.
Rev - Operating Revenue
2. Section '10 (phase t)
Cost
Rev - Endowed Care Int.
Section 6A Construction
Cost
Rev - Endowed Cam Int.
Rev - Operating Revenue
Subtotal
;OSTS:
Capacity Projects
Total Costa
EXISTING REVENUES:
Rev - Endowed Care Int.
Rev - Operating Revenue
Subtotal
Total Revenues
BALANCE
140.0 150.0
140.0 40.0
110.0
100.0
100.0
0.0 240.0
100.0
50.0
50.0
250.0
0.0
SUMMARY: COSTS AND REVENUES
0.0
0.0
0.0 240.0 250.0 0.0 0.0 490.
0.0 240.0 250.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 490.~
0.0 240.0 90.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 240.0' 250.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 240.0 250.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
290.0
180.0
110.0
1001
100.0
100.0
50.0
50.0
490.1
330.0
160.0
0.0 490.0
0.0 490.0
0.0 0.0
City of Aubum
Addendum to 2003 - 2008 Capital Facilities Plan
Updated Project List for Period 2004 - 2009
Projects:
t. Convert end Expand Existing YMCA to a Community Building (+35,000 sq ft)
Cost 5,000.0
Rev - G.O. Bonds
COSTS:
Capacity Projects
Total Costs
EXISTING REVENUES:
NEW REVENUES:
Rev - G.O. Bonds
Total Revenues
BALANCE
5,000.0
SUMMARY: COSTS AND REVENUES
0.0 5,000.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 $,000.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
5,000. C
5,000.0
Subtotal
0.0 5,000.0
0.0 5,000.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 5,000.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 5,000.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 5,000.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 5,000.0
0.0 5,000:0
0.0 5,000.0
0.0 0.0
6
Ci~ of Auburn Addendum to 2003 - 2008 Capital Facilities Plan
Updated Project List for Period 2004 - 2009
Downtown Publlc/Prlvats Redevelopment: purchase
property;construct new Buildlngs;renovats existing buildings
Cost 700.0 500.0 500.0 500.0
Rev - Capi[al Projects Fund 700.0 500.0 500.0 500.0
Gateway Projec~ (one major project every 2-3 yearn; minor
gatsway/beautiflcation projects each year)
Cost 30.0 85.0 15.0
Rev - General Fund 30.0 85.0 15.0
500.0 500.0 3,200.0
500.0 500.0 3,200.0
Second Downtown Parking Garage
Cost 5,000.0
Rev - G.O. Bonds 5,000.0
4. Transit Station Retail Space Tenant Improvements
Cost 200.0
Rev - Commercial Retail Fund 200.0
SUMMARY: COSTS AND REVENUES
~OSTS:
Capacity Projects
Non-Capacity Projects 930.0 5,585.0 515.0 585.0
Total Costs 930.0 5,585.0 515.0 585.0
EXISTING REVENUES:
Rev - General Fund
Rev - Capital Projects Fund
Rev - Commercial Retail Fund
Subtotal
85.0 15.0 85.0
85.0 15.0 85.0
NL=W REVENUES:
Rev - G,O. Bonds
Subtotal
315.0
315.0
5,000.0
5,000.0
TotalRevenues
200.0
200.0
BALANCE
515.0 585,0 8,715.0
510.0 585.0 8,715.0
30.0 85.0 15.0 85.0 15.0 85.0 315.0
700.0 500.0 500.0 500.0 500.0 500.0 3,200.0
200.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 200.0
930.0 585.0 515.0 585.0 515.0 585.0 3,715.0
0.0 5,000.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5,000.0
0.0 5,000.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5,000.0
930.0 6,586.0 516.0 586.0 515.0 585.0 8,715.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
7
City of Auburn Addendum to 2003 - 2008 Capital Facilities Plan
Updated Project List for Poriod 2004 - 200?
Non-Capac~
1. Apparatus Replacement: Englnos = 20 year and Aid Vehicle = 15 year replacemen
Costs 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0
Rev - General Fund Transfer 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0
SUMMARY: cosTs AND REVENUES
COSTS:
Capacity Projects
Non-Capacity Projects
Total Costa
300.(
300.(
EXISTING REVENUES:
Rev - General Fund Transfer
Total Revenues
BALANCE
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 300.0
50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 300.0
50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 300.0
50.0 50.0 50.0 SO.O 50.0 50.0 300.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0
8
City of Auburn Addendum to 2003 - 2008 Capital Facilities Plan
Updated Project Lisl for Period 2004 - 20g9
Capacity Projects:
1. New Public Safety Building (+XXXXXX sq fi)
Cost 11,000.0
Rev ~ Certificates of
Participation
Rev - Gen~ml Gov't Rev
6,000.0
5,000.0
Non-Capacity ProjeCts:
2. Fire Station Replacement/Relocation
Cost - Land 1,000.0
Cost - Construction 3,000.0
Rev - G.O. Bonds 4,000.0
11,000.0
6,000.0
5,000.0
3. City Hall: Plaza Restoretlon
Cost 200.0
Rev - General Fund 200.0
SUMMARY: COSTS AND REVENUES
1,000.0
3,000.0 6,000.0
3,000.0 7,000.0
COSTS:
Capacity Projects 0.0 11,000.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Non-Capacity Projects 200.0 4,000.0 0.0 3,000.0 0.0
Total Coats 200.0 t6,000.0 0.0 3,000.0 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
EXISTING REVENUES:
Rev - General Fund 200.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Rev - General Gov't Rev 0.0 5,000.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Subtotal 200.0 5,000.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
NL=W REVENUES:
Rev - G.O Bonds 0.0 4,000.0 0.0 3,000.0 O.0 0.0
Rev - Certificates of
Participation 0.0 6,000.0 0.0 0_0 0.0 0.0
Subtotal 0.0 10,000.0 0.0 3,000.0 0.0 0.0
Total Revenues 200.0 15,000.0 0.0 3,000.0 0.0
0.0
0.0
BALANCE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
200J
200J
11,000.(
7~200.0
18,200.0
200.0
5,000.0
5,200.0
7,000.0
6,000.0
13,000.0
18,200.0
0.0
City of Auburn Addendum 1o 2(]03 - 2008 Capital Facilities Plan
Updated Project List for Period 2004 - :20(~
CFP PROdi~:,'~ ARD I;INANGIflG PLAN
20~; 2005 20D6 .2007 20(~ 2000 TOTAL
Non-Capacity Projects
1. Construct New Clubhouse & Parking
Cost 2,775.0 2,775.0
Rev - G.O. Bond 2,775.0 2,775.0
Rebuild N~. 13,14, and 11 Fairway & Green
Cost 165.0 215.0
Rev - Greens Fe~s 165.0 215.0
380.0
380.0
3. Irrigate No. 3,4,5 Fairway
Cost 150.0 150.0
Rev - Greens Fees 150.0 150.0
4. Miscellaneous Improvements
Cost 50.0 50.0 100.0
Rev - Greens Fees 50.0 50.0 100.0
COSTS:
Non-Capacit~ Projects
Total Costs
EXISTING REVENUES:
Rev - Greens Fees
Subtotal
~IE'W REVENUES:
Rev - G.O. Bond
Subtotal
Total Revenues
BALANCE
SUMMARY: COSTS AND REVENUES
165.0 2,990.0 150.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 3,405.0
165.0 215.0 150.0 50.0 50.0 0,0 630,0
165.0 215.0 150.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 630.0
0.0 2,775.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2,775.0
0.0 2,775.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2,775.0
165.0 2,990.0 150.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 3,405.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
10
.......... lllJl '
City of Auburn Addendum to 2003 - 2008 Capital Facilities Plan
Updated Project List for Pe~Jod 2004 - 2009
0apaclty Projects:
Community Parks
1.
Lakeland Hills Community Park (8 acres)
Develop passive parks, playtoy, Irrigation, etc.
Cost 250.0
Rev - Developer · 200.0
Rev -Reet 50.0
2. Lakeland Hills (40 acres)
Develop open space, restrooms, active apace, playtoy, trails, and picnic shelter
Cost
Rev- Reet
Rev - Developer
Rev - Other Grants
250.0
200.0
50.0
2,000.0 2,000.0
200.0 200.0
1,000.0 1,000.0
800.0 800.0
Subtotal 0.0 250.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2,000.0 2,250.0
250.0
125.0
125.0
Non-Capacity Projects:
Neighborhood Parks
3. Cedar Lanes Park Development
Landscape development, trail work, tables, picnic area, and playtoy.
Cost 150.0
Rev - REET 75.0
Rev - Private Funds 75.0
Community Parks
4. Otson Canyon Farm
Implement master plan - Building and Grounds.
Cost 300.0 250.0
Rev - Grant - Wa St Historic Preservation 150.0 125.0
Rev - Private,Donation
Rev. General Fund 150.0 125.0
5. Les Gove Park Improvement
Irrigation, playground, drinking fountains, and ballfleld enhancements.
Cost 250.0
Rev - General Fund 200.0
Rev - King Co. Youth Sports Grant 50.0
250.0
125.0
125.0
6. Veteran's Park Redevelopment
Community Building Replacement
Cost
Rev - General Fund
Rev - Amedcan Legion Post 78
175.0
100.0
75.0
150.0
75.0
75.0
1,050.0
400.0
125.0
525.0
250.0
200.0
50.0
175.0
100.0
75.0
11
City of Auburn Addendum to 2003 - 2008 Capital Facilities Plan
Updated Project List for Pedod 2004 - 2009
7. F~&ter Farm Site Plsn,'Ph~ 1 Dev~;o~,,~ant
Coordinate with King Co snd State on development with natural habitat area.
Cost 25.0 600.0
Rev - General Fund 25.0 60.0
Rev - State Salmon Recovery Fund 240.0
Rev - State Aquatic Lands Enhancement 300.0
8. Jacobsen Tree Farm Site Plan
Coordinate with ASD on Master Site Plan for 29 acm site.
Cost 30.0
Rev - General Fund 30.0
9. Interurban Trail
Trail enhancements
Cost 50.0
Rev - General Fund 50.0
10. Fulmer Park Addition
Develop additional acre received from water utility.'
Cost
Rev - REET
150.0
150.0
tl. Misc. Improvements
Major park Improvements including athletic fields, shelters, roofs, playgrounds, and restrooms.
Cost 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Rev - REET 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
12. Park Acqulsflons
Acquisitions to occur based on demand and deficiencies Including corridom and trails.
Cost 600.0 200.0 600.0 200.0 600.0
Rev - REET 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0
Rev - State Grant (lAC) 200.0 200.0 ' 200.0
Rev - KCCF 200.0 200.0 200.0
Special Use Areas
13. Public Art
Cost 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0
Rev - General Fund 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0
625,0
85.0
240.0
300.0
30.0
30.0
50.0
50.0
150.0
150.0
500.0
500.0
2,200.0
1,000.0
600.0
600.(~
180.0
180.0
Subtotal t80.0 1,710.0 1~180.0 980.0 580.0 730.0 5,360.0
12
City of Auburn Addendum to 2003 - 2008 Capital Facilities Plan
Updated Project List for Period 2004 - 2009
COSTS: ,
Capacity Projects
Community Parks
0.0 250.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2,000.0 2,250.0
Subtotal 0.0 250.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2,000.0 2,250.0
~lon-Capaclty Projects
Neighborhood Parks
Community Pan~s
Special Use Areas
Subtotal
TotslCosts
EXISTING REVENUES: Rev - General Fund
Rev - Real Estate Excise Tax
Subtotal
NEW REVENUES:
Rev - King Co. Youth Sports Grant
Rev - Developer
Rev - KCCF
Rev - State Grant (lAC)
Rev - State Salmon Recovery Fund
Rev - State Aquatic Lands
Rev - Wa St Historic Preservation Grt
Rev - Pdvate Donation
Rev - American Legion Post 78
Rev - Other Grants
Subtotal
Total Revenues
BALANCE
150.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 150.0
0.0 1,680.0 1,150.0 950.0 550.0 700.0 5,030.0
30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 180.0
180.0 1,710.0 1,180.0 980.0 580.0 730.0 5,360.0
180.0 1,960.0 1,t80.0 980.0 $80.0 2,730.0 7,610.0
30.0 585.0 215.0 155.0 155.0 30.0 1,170.0
75.0 500.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 500.0 1,975.0
105.0 1,085.0 515.0 455.0 455.0 530.0 3,145.0
0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.O 0.0 50.0
0.0 200.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,000.0 1,200.0
0.0 200.0 0.0 200.0 0.0 200.0 500.0
0.0 200.0 0.0 200.0' 0.0 200.0 600.0
0.0 0.0 240.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 240.0
0.0 0.0 300.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 300.0
0.0 150.0 125.0 125.0 0.0 0.0 400.0
75.0 O.0 0.0 0.0 125.0 0.0 200.0
0.0 75.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 800.0 800.0
75.0 875.0 665.0 525.0 125.0 2,200.0 4,465.0
180.0 t,960.0 t,180.0 980.0 580.0 2,730.0 7,610.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
13
City of Auburn Addendum to 2003 - 2(X)8 Capital Facilities Plan
Updaled Project List for Pedod 2004 - 2009
Capacity Projects (Expansions)
I Aubum Way South Sanitary Sewer Replacement I Upgrade - C9056 - Section B,C,D,E,A
The construction of this project is considered 40% Repair and 60% Expansion
Expansion - Increases the service ability of the AWS sewer line
Cost 525.0 1,966.7 730.2 1,567.2 456.7
Rev - City 25.0 6.9 963.8 70.3
Rev - PVVTF 500.0 1,142.0
Rev - MIT 824.7 723.3 603.4 386.4
2 Auburn Way South Sanitary Sewer Replacement I Upgrade - Design 100%
The construction of this project is considered 40% Repair and 60% Expansion
Expansion - Increases the service ability of the AWS sewer line
Cost 850.0
Rev - City 241.4
Rev - MIT 608.6
5,245.8
1,066.1
1,642.0
2,537.8
850.0
241.4
608.6
Subtotal 1,375.0 1,966.7 730.2 1,567.2 456.7 6,095.8
;on-Capacity Projects:
3 Auburn Way South Sanitary Sewer Replacement I Upgrade - C9056 - Section B,C,D,E,A
The construction of this project is considered 40% Repair and 60% Expansion
Repair Replacement - increasing the useful life of the facilities
Cost 350.0 1,311.1 486.8 1,044.8 304.5 3,497.2
Rev - City 279.1 260.9 642.6 46.9 1,229.5
Rev - PW-I'F 350.0 350.0
Rev - MIT 1,032.0 225.9 402.2 257.6 1,917.7
4 2003 - 2004 Renewal and Replacement of Damaged and Broken Sewer Lines -
Renewal and Replacement
Cost 1,275.0 25.0 1,300.0
Rev - City 1,275.0 25.0 1,300.0
5 2005 Renewal and Replacement of Damaged and Broken Sewer Lines
Renewal and Replacement
Cost 75.0 150.0
Rev - City 75.0 150.0
225.0
225.0
1,375.0
1,375.0
150.0 175.0
150.0 175.0
6 2007 Renewal and Replacement of Damaged and Broken 8ewer Lines
Renewal and Replacement
Cost 125.0 1,250.0
Rev - City 125.0 1,250.0
7 2009 Renewal and Replacement of Damaged and Broken Sewer Lines
Renewal and Replacement
Cost
Rev - City 25.0
25.0
14
City of Auburn Addendum to 2003 - 2008 Capital Facilities Plan
Updated Project Ust for Pedod 2004 - 2009
8 2011 Renewal and Rep-'ac~,~en~ of D=,~ged and Broken Sewer Lines
Renewal and Replacoment
Cost
Rev - City
Sewer Comprehensive Plan Update - M8711
Improvement - Update the existing sanitary sewer comprehensive plan,
Cost 60.0
Rev - City 60.0
0.0
25.0
25.0
10
F Street and Rainier Ridge & Rainier Shadows PS Investigation and Modifications
Backflow prevention devices and redundant float alarms.
Cost 20.0 100.0
Rev - City 20.0 100.0
11
85.0
85.0
12
120.0
120.0
Siphon Flow Diversion
Divert Flows away from the Cobble Creek Community and the river siphon located next to the golf
55.0
55.0
150.0
150.0
course.
Cost 65.0
Rev - City 55,0
Goedecke Half Street Improvement
Support the West Valley improvements fronting Goedecke South.
Cost 150.0
Rev - City 150.0
Subtotal 1,925.0 1,586.1 611.8 2,354.8 354.5 150.0 6,982.2
SUMMARY: COSTS AND REVENUES
:OSTS:
Capacity Projects 1,375.0 1,966.7 730.2 1,567.2 456.7 0.0 6,095.8
Non-Capacity Projects 1,925.0 1,586.1 611.8 2,354.8 354.5 150.0 6,982.2
Total Costs 3,300.0 3,552.8 1,342.0 3,922.0 811.2 150.0 13,078.0
EXISTING REVENUES:
Rev - City 1,841.4 554.1 392.8 2,916.4 167.2 150.0 6,021.~
Subtotal 1,841.4 554.1 392.8 2,916.4 167.2 150.0 6,021.9
~EW REVENUES:
Rev - MIT 608.6 1,856.7 949.2 1,005.6 644.0 0.0 5,064.1
Rev - PWTF 850.0 1,142.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,992.0
Subtotal 1,458.6 2,998.7 949.2 1,005.6 644.0 0.0 7,056.1
Total Revenues 3,300.0 3,552.8 1,342.0 3,922.0 811.2 t$0.0 t3,078.0
BALANCE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0I
15
City of Auburn Addendum to 2003 - 2008 Capital Facilities Plan
Updated Project List for Period 2004 - 2009
Capacity Projects:
t Developer Participation
Cost effective utility participation in future undesignated developer projects
Cost 50.0 50.0 50.0
Rev - City 50.0 50.0 50.0
Subtotal 50.0 50.0 50.0
STORM
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 TOT,~
50.0 50.0 50.0 300.0
50.0 50.0 50.0 300.0
50.0 50.0 50.0 300.0
Yon-Capacity Projects:
2 Pipelines & Surface Conveyance
BC-23
Improvement - Upgrade existing conveyance system along KSt. SE from 19th to 21st St. SE
Cost 30.0
Rev - City 30.0
30.0
30.0
BC-14
Improvement - Upgrade existing trunk system from along R St. SE from 21st to 25th St SE
Cost 1,300.0
Rev - City 1,300.0
BC-22
Improvement - Construct overflow infiltration facility at Pioneer Elementary School
Cost 20.0 1,456.0
Rev - City 20.0 1,456.0
1,300.0
1,300.0
1,476.0
1,476.0
E-2
Improvement - Increase capacity of existing drainage ditch along H St. NW extended from 6th St. to 15th St. NW
Cost 20.0 479.0 499.(
Rev - City 20.0 479.0 499.0
BC-24
Improvement - Construct overflow infiltration facility at Terminal Park Elementary School
Cost 50.0 952.0 1,002.0
Rev - City 50.0 952.0 1,002.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 625.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 625.0
3 Retention, Detention, Water Quality
Local Capital Improvement Projects - Pond Improvements
Cost 125.0 100.0
Rev - City 125.0 100.0
20.0
20.0
145.0 145.0
145.0 145.0
Mill Creek Enhancement
Improvement - Storm Drainage Utility Participation
Cost 20.0
Rev - City 20.0
P-2
Improvement - Construct Clay St. Water Quality Facility
Cost
Rev - Ci~
16
City of Auburn Addendum to 2003 - 2008 Capital Facilities Plan
Updated Project List for Period 2004 - 2009
4 Comp. Plan Revision, Regulatory
Comprehensive Drainage Plan Update
Cost
Rev - City
Subtotal
250.0 250.0
250.0 250.0
1,565.0 2,035.0 1,197.0 100.0 350.0 100.0 5,347.0
COSTS:
Capacity Projects'
Non-Capacity Projects
Total Costs
SUMMARY: COSTS AND REVENUES
;xisting Revenues
Rev-City
50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 300.0
1,565.0 2,035.0 1,197.0 100.0 350.0 1000 5,347.0
1,6t5.0 2,085.0 1,247.0 150.0 400.0 150.0 5,647.0
TotalRevenue
1,615.0 2,085.0 1,247.0 150.0 400.0 150.0 5,647.0
1,615.0 2,085.0 1,247.0 150.0 400.0 150.0 5,647.0
BALANCE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
17
City of ^uburn ^ddendum to 2003 - 2(X)8 Capital Facilities Plan '
Updated Project List for Pedod 2004 - 2000 '
CAPACITY PROJECTS:
1.3rd Street SE/'Cross Street SE - S. Division to Aubum Way South
Estimated Project Cost: t,746.0
Cost 1.720.0
Rev -City 326.0
Rev - Grant 1,183.0
Rev - Impact Fees 211.0
2. S 277th -AWN to Green River Bridge
Estimated Project Cost: 2,770.0
Cost 5.0
Rev -City 5.0
Rev - Grant
: 2007:2008
1,720.(~
326.C
1,183.0
211.0
325.0 300.0 630.0
65.0 60.0 130.0
260.0 240.0 500.0
3. A' Street NW - Phase 1
Estimated Project Cost: 7,676.0
Cost 10.0 100.0 923.0 921.0 2,000.0 3,418.0 7,372.{:
Rev - City 10.0 75.0 75.0 200.0 342.0 702.(;
Rev - Grant 738.0 736.0 1,600.0 2,734.0 5,808.(;
Rev - Impact Fees 100.0 50.0 50.0 200.(~
Rev - Other 60.0 60.0 200.0 342.0 662.(~
4. "M' Street SE - BNSF grade separation
Estimated Project Cost: 24,651.0
Cost 5.0
Rev - City
Rev - Grant
Rev - Impact Fees 5.0
Rev - Other
295.0 5,000.0 7,929.0 13,229.0
21.0 560.0 215.0 796.0
240.0 4,200.0 7,363.0 11,803.0
34.0 100.0 139.0
240,0 251.0 491.0
5. 41st Street SE and A Street SE
Estimated Project Cost: 334.0
Cost 202.0
Rev - City 172.0
Rev - Impact Fees
Rev - Other 30.0
100.0
20.0
80.0
202.0
172.(;
30.(~
150.0 500.0 900.0 1,550.0
16.0 60.0 76.0
120.0 400.0 720.0 1,240.0
14.0 100.0 120.0 234.0
6. 'C' Street NW - West Main to 3rd NW
Estimated Project Cost: 1,650.0
Cost
Rev - City
Rev - Grant
Rev - Impact Fees
7. ' F' Street SE - 4th Street SE to Aubum Way South
Estimated Project Cost: 1,500.0
Cost 50.0
Rev - City
Rev - Grant
Rev - Impact Fees 50.0
1,350.0
84.0
1,080.0
186.0
1,500.0
104.0
1,160.(;
236.(;
T8
City of Auburn
Addendum to 2003 - 2008 Capital Facilities Plan'
Updated Project List for Period 2004 - 2009
8. 8th S~,-~ NE and Auburn Way North
Estimated Project Cost: 350.0
Cost 350.0
Rev ~ City 336.0
Rev - Other 14.0
9. ' I' Street NE - 32nd Street NE to 33rd Street NE
Estimated Project Cost: 300.0
Cost 240.0
Rev - Developer. 240.0
t0. C St SW EIIngson Road to 15th St SW
Estimated Project Cost: 4,000.0
Cost 4,000.0
Rev - Grant 2,000.0
Rev - Developer 2,000.0
15th Street SW Reconstruction
Estimated Project Cost: 2,400
Cost 1,000.0
Rev - City 30.0
Rev - Grant 970.0
1,390.0
1,390.0
12 ' I' Street NE - 40th Street NE to 52nd Street NE
Estimated Project Cost: 5,300.0
Cost
Rev - City
Rev - Developer
Rev - Impact Fees
Rev - Other
45.0 495.0 800.0
45.0
400.0 800.0
95.0
4,000.0
4,000.0
13 Auburn Way S 6th Street SE to M Street SE (Phass t, 2 and 3) State Project
Estimated Project Cost: 1,787.0
Cost 1,409.0
Rev- City 864.0
Rev - Grant 545.0
14 'M' St NE - E Main to 8th NE/Harvey Rd
Estimated Project Cost: 1,600.0
Cost
Rev - City
Rev - Grant
Rev - Impact Fees
350.
336.,
14.~
240.1
240.(
4,000.(
2,000.0
2,ooo. O
2,390.0
30.(~
2,360,0
5,340.0
45.0
1,200.0
95.0
4,000.0
1,409.0
864.0
545.0
200.0 500.0 930.0 1,630.0
40.0 30.0 70.0
160.0 400.0 720.0 1,280.0
100.0 180.0 280.~
15 'A' Street NW - Phase 2
Estimated Project Cost: 2,516.0
Cost
Rev ~ City 382.0
Rev - Grant 76.0
306.0
16 SR 18 · bound/6th St. SE to Auburn Way South including grade separation at BNSF yard
Estimated Project Cost: 30,000.0
Cost
Rev - Other 4,000.0
4,000.0
382.(
76.(
306.0
4,000.0
4,000.0
City of Auburn Addendum to 2003 - 2008 Capital Facilities Plan
Updated Project List for Period 2004 - 2009
17 D Street NW - 37th NW to 44th NW
Estimated Project Cost: 2,170,0
Cost
Rev - City 170.0 170.a
34.0 34.0
Rev - Grant 136.0 136.(
18 A Street Loop
Estimated Project Cost: 465.0
Cost 405.0 405.
Rev - City 122.5 122
Rev - Grant 282.5 282.5
t9 8Rt64 Bypass
Estimated Project Cost: 22,330.0
Cost 2,600.0 1,000.0 750.0 1,500.0 2,300.0 8,150.d
Rev - City 0.0
Rev - Other 520.0 200.0 150.0 300.0 460.0 1,630.0
Rev - Grant 2,080.0 800.0 600.0 1,200.0 1,840.0 6,520.0
20 Cltywide ITS Project
Estimated Project Cost: 2,055.0
Cost 300.0
Rev - Grant
Rev - Other 300.0
1,700.0 2,000.0
1,700.0 1,700.C
300.(~
21 AWS (SRt64) Dogwood St SE to MIT Amp.
Estimated Project Cost: 35,070.0
Cost 1,750.0
Rev - Grant 1,400.0
Rev - Other 350.0
3,000.0 3,000.0 9,320.0 10,000.0 27,070.0
2,400.0 2,400.0 7,456.0 8,000.0 21,656.0
600.0 600.0 1,864.0 2,000.0 5,414.0
22 SR 167 Widening - SR 406 to Pierce Ct Line, State Project, RTID Project
Estimated Project Cost: 1,300,000.0
Cost 30,000.0 30,000.0 30,000.0 50,000.0 140,000.(~
Rev - City o.a
Rev- Grant 24,000.0 24,000.0 24,000.0 40,000.0 112,000.0
Rev- Other 6,000.0 6,000.0 6,000.0 10,000.0 28,000.0
10.0
10.0
23 3rd Street Grade Separation
Estimated Project Cost: 34,772.0
Cost
Rev - Grant
24 South 277th Grade Separation
Estimated Project Cost: 13,688.0
Cost
Rev - City
40.0
40.0
Subtotal 4,151.0 t_~,_~85,0 37~213.0 4P,666.0 49~315.0 80~159.0
10.0
10.0
40.0
40.0
223,789.0
City of Auburn Addendum to 2003 - 2008 Capital Facilities Plan
Updated Project List for Period 2004 - 2009
NON-CAPAClTY PROJECT$:
25 Lea Hill Slide $1opell05th Street Repair
Estimated Project Cost: t75.0
Cost 120.0
Rev - City 120.0
26 S277th - AWN to Frontage Rd. Wetland Mitigation
Estimated Project Cost: 55.0
Cost 25.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0
Rev - City 25.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
27 West Valley Highway.Oessley Canyon Rd. to lSth Street $W connects two State mutes
Estimated Project Cost: 1,605.0
Cost 529.0
Rev - City
Rev - Grant 385.0
Rev - Other 144.0
28 Downtown Lighting Pregmm
Estimated Project Cost: 160.0
Cost
Rev - City
10.0
10.0
29 B St. NW Wetland Mitigation
Estimated Project Cost: 6.0
Cost
Rev - City
4.0
4.0
30 Kersey Way - Oravetz Rd. Signal
Estimated Project Cost: 202.0
Cost
Rev - City
Rev - Grant
174.0
14.0
160.0
3t Crossing Gate UPRR and West Main Street
Estimated Project Cost: 250.0
Cost 245.0
Rev - Grant 245.0
32 Transportation Plan Update
Estimated Project Cost: 169.0
Cost
Rev - City
32.0
32.0
33 'M' Street SE - 37th SE to 29th SE (Class II bike lane cost is $180,000)
Estimated Project Cost: 1,880.0
Cost 10.0
Rev - City 10.0
Rev - Grant
Rev - Other
120.~
120J
6.0 55.(
6.0 55.0
529.£
0.{~
385.0I
144.0J
10.0
10.(
4.C
4.C
174.0
14.0
160.0
245.0
245.0
32.1
32J
200.0 500.0 710.(
10.(
0.0
200.0 500.0 700.0
21
City of Auburn Addendum to 2003 - 2008 Capital Facilities Plan
U_~.pdated Project List for Period 2(X)4 - 2009
34 BNSF/East Valley Hwy Pedestrian Undercrosslng
Estimated Project Cost: 3,640.0
Cost 140.0 150.0
Rev - City 0.0 30.0
Rev- Grant 113.0 120.0
Rev - King Co. Open Space Bd 27.0
300.0 3,000.0 3,590.0
60.0 600.0 690.0
240.0 2,400.0 2,873.C
27.~
35 A Street SE Pedestrian Improvement
Estimated Project Cost: 138.0
Cost
Rev - City
Rev - Grant
138.0
28.0
110.0
36 Cltywide Sidewalk Improvement Projects
Estimated Project Cost: 2,000.0
Cost 100.0 350.0
Rev - City 100.0 70.0
Rev - Other 280.0
138.(
28.(
110.0
37 Pavement Preservation Arterial
Estimated Project Cost: 2,900.0
Cost
Rev - City
350.0 350.0 350.0 350.0 1,850.0
70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 450.0
280.0 280.0 280.0 280.0 1,400J
400.0 500.0 500.0
4000 500.0 500.0
250.0 250.0 250.0 2,150.~
250.0 250.0 250.0 2,150.0
38 Cltywlde Pedestrian Crossing Program
Estimated Project Cost: 150.0
Cost 50.0
Rev - City 50.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 150.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 150.0
39 Street Asset Management Program
Estimated Project Cost: 150.0
Cost 50.0
Rev - City 50.0
200.0
200.0
50.0
50.0
40 Citywlde Roadway Safety Infmstuctum Improvements
Estimated Project Cost: 1,406.0
Cost 200.0 200.0
Rev - City 200.0 200.0
41 Right of Way Acquisition/Grant Administration
Estimated Project Cost: 300.0
Cost 50.0
Rev - City 50.0
Non-Motorized PmJecte
42 Auburn Black Diamond Rd (Class t or 2) - 1st SE to ECL
Estimated Project Cost: 75.0
Cost 75.0
Rev - City 75.0
50.0
50,0
600.1
600.1
100.(
100.0
75.0
75.0
22
Cit~ of Auburn
Addendum to 2003 - 2008 Capital Facilities Plan
Updated Project Ust for PeMod 2004 - 2009
43 White River Trail head (Class t) Roegner Park to East Valley Hwy
Estimated Project Cost: 360.0 j
Cost 360.0
360.0
Rev - City 72.0 72.0
Rev - Grant 288.0 288.0
44 37th St. SE/R St. SE Connector (Class 1) - from Pike to R SL SE
Estimated Project Cost: 128.0
Cost
Rev - City
Rev - Grant
Rev - Other
25.0 100.0 125.0
0.0
20.0 80.0 100.0
5.0 20.0 25.0
45
Green River Trail, Phase t (Class I Trail) - Design work, from Green River Access to Brannan Park
Estimated Project Cost: 620.0
Cost 125.0 495.0 620.{~
Rev - City 0.0
Rev - Grant 100.0 395.0 495.0
Rev - Other 25.0 100.0 125.0
46 West Main St. PedJBIke Improvements (Class 2) - Interurban Troll to Transit Center
Estimated Project Cost: 1,720.0
Cost 26.0 84.0 190.0 1,420.0
Rev - City 4.0
Rev - Grant 22.0 63.0 150.0 1,130.0
Rev - Other 21.0 40.0 290.0
1,720.0
4.0
1,365.0
351.0
47 Green River Trail Phase 2 (Class 1) Brannan Park to 2nd St. SE
Estimated Project Cost: 730.0
Cost.
Rev - City
Rev - Grant
Rev - Other
150.0
120.0
30.0
150.0
0.(~
120.(~
30.a
48 Green River Troll Phase 3 (Class 1) 2nd St. SE to SR 18
Estimated Project Cost: 725.0
Cost
Rev - City
Rev- Grant
Rev - Other
150.0
120.0
30.0
150.0
0.0
120.0
30.0
49
Kersey Way Trail
Estimated Project Cost: 75.0
Cost
Rev - Other
75.0
75.0
75.0
75.0
23
City of Auburn Addendum to 2003 - 2008 Capital Facilities Plan
Updated Project Ust for Period 2004 - 2009
80 C St SW (3rd St SWto 15th St SW
Estim;ted Project Cost: 78.0
Cost
Rev - Other
5t A St SE along BNSF
Estimated Project Cost: 190.0
Cost
Rev - Other
.Subtotal
75.0 75.0
75.0 75.0
190.0 190.0
190.0 190.~
t,931.0 1,979.0 1,754.0 5,436.0
SUMMARY: COSTS AND REVENUES
COSTS:
Capacity Projects 4,151.0
Non-Capacity Projects 1,931.0
Total Costs 6,082.0
1,421.0 1,$26.0 t4,047.1
12,285.0 37,213.0 40,666.0 49,315.0 80,159.0 223,789.0
1,979.0 1,754.0 5~436.0 1,421.0 1,526.0 14,047.0
14,254.0 38,967.0 46,102.0 50,736.0 81,685.0 237,836.0
EXISTING REVENUES:
Rev-City 2,579.5 1,413.0 1,029.0 1,182.0
Rev - KC Open Space Bond 27.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Subtotal 2,606.5 1,413.0 1,029.0 1,182.0
NBN REVENUES:
Rev - Developer 0.0 2,540.0 800.0 0~0
Rev-Other* 474.0 1,185.0 7,180.0 11,670.0
Rev- Grants 2,785.5 8,781.0 29,908.0 32,966.0
Rev - Impact Fees 216.0 245.0 50.0 284.0
Subtotal 3,475.5
* Mitigation agreements, Other agencies
Total Revenue 6,082.0
BALANCE 0.0
1,205.0 1,129.0 8,537.5
0.0 0.0 27.0
1,205.0 1,129.0 8,564.5
0.0 0.0 3,440.0
9,264.0 17,913.0 47,686.0
40,067.0 62,243.0 176,750.5
200.0 400.0 1,395.0
12,851.0 37,938.0 44,920.0 49,531.0 80,556.0 229,271.5
14,264.0 38,967.0 46,102.0 50,736.0 81,685.0 237,836.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
24
City of Auburn Addendum to 2003 - 2008 Capital Facilities Plan
Updated Project List for Period 2004 - 200?
CFP'~PR~E~'~'~i~D:rFINANCI NG p~
(All~Pmjeets Are Ttmes $1,000)
WATER
2004 2005 ,2006 2007 2008
Ca~¢i;y Projects:
Well 5B (S-1t4)
Expansion - Construct a new well house facility to allow recluncy in the Lakeland Hills area,
as described in the 2000 Water Comp Plan DRAFT 0NS-115)
Cost 100.0 500.0
Rev'-City 100.0 500.0
2 Second Supply PIl~ellne Emergency Inter'de (WS-119)
2009 TOTAL
600.0
600.0
Expansion - Construct two new emergency inter'de stations. Design is expected in 2005 and construction in 2006.
Cost 100.0 100.0
Rev - City 100.0 100.0
3 Pipeline Expansions(City Projects Concurrent with Road Projects)
Expansion - Cities contribution in Capital Expansions Projects proposed with Developers.
DS-116-809 Cross Street Pipeline Const~uction
Cost 136.0
Rev - City 136.0
t36.0
136.0
DS-642-1010,1110 R Street SE Parallel Pipeline Construction
Cost 56.0 287.0
Rev - City 56.0 287.0
343.0
343.0
DS-632-709 Auburn Way North Pipeline Construction
Cost 27.0 131.0
Rev - City 27.0 131.0
158.0
158.0
4 New Storage Reservoir (Lakeland Hills Area)
Expansion - Construction of a new total capacity of 2.65 million gallon reservoir in the Lakeland Hills area (SR-201.
1509).
This project is planned with SR-107
Cost 180.0 180.0
Rev - Algona 180.0 180.0
Sub-Total 336.0 527.0 367.0 287.0 0.0 0.0 1,517.0
Von-Capaclty Projects:
Pipeline Replacement Program
Improvement - Identity areas in the city where pipeline projects are require to improve the overall water system
grid.
Cost 500.0 500.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,000.0
Rev-City 500.0 500.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 1,000.0
25
City of Auburn Addendum to 2003 - 2008 Capital Facilities Plan
Updated Project List for Period 2004 ~ 2009
6 Wellhead Protection Program
Improvement - Identify potential hazards to high quality water supply from the City wells as required by DOH
and the SDWA, es described in chapter 7 of the 2000 Water Comp Plan DRAFT 0NQ-107)
Cost 0.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 150.0'
Rev - City 0.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 150.0
7 Control System Reprogramming SCADA Upgrades
Improvements - Reprogram the existing control system to utilize equalizing storage capabilities of system.
Cost 50.0 50.0
Rev; City 50.0 50.0
8 Rseervolr Protective Coating(Lse Hill, Academy & Lakeland Hills)
Renewal/Replacement - Repaint Reservoirs, described in 2000 Comp Plan Draft as 8R-102 through 8R-105
Cost 15.0 0.0 0.0 15.0
Rev-PWTF 15.0 0.0 15.0
9 Pipe#ne Improvemente(Franchlse Requirements, Loop Closures, Concurrent with Road Projects)
Improvements - Water Distribution Improvement/Replacement Projects, described in 2000 Comp Plan DRAFT as
DS-~q~ & PR-##.
DS-643-1010 M Street SE Pipeline Replacement
Cost 39.4 328.6 368.0
Rev - City 39.4 328.6 368.0
DS-644-1109,1110 25th Street SE Parallel Pipeline Construction
Cost 46.0 382.0
Rev - City 46.0 382.0
DS-664-1010 R Street SE Pipeline Replacement
Cost 153.0 0.0
Rev - City 153.0 0.0
DS-665-1009,1010 22nd Street SE Pipeline Replacement
Cost 51.1 348.9
Rev - City 51.1 348.9
DS-63t.709 E Street NE Pipeline Replacement
428.0
428.0
153.0
153.0
400.0
400.0
Cost 5.0 22.5 27.5
Rev - City 5.0 22.5 27.5
10 Annual Pipeline Replacements (PR-201)
Replacements - Replacement of unforeseen existing pipelines which are experiencing excessive leakage or are
undersized.
Cost 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 400.0
Rev - City 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 400.0
11 Pipeline Replacements Projects
Renewal/Replacement and Water Distribution Improvement Projects, described in 2000 Comp Plan DRAFT as
PR-lilt and DS-f/~.
PR-108-3f1 Hydrant 1155 Relocation
Cost 10.0 0.0 10.0
Rev - Cit7 10.0 0.0 10.0
26
City of Auburn Addendum to 2003 - 2008 Capital Facilities Plan
Updated Project List for Period 2004 - 2009
t2 L-__k_e!and Hills Service Ares Rezone (PZ-t03)
Improvement - Rezoning the Lakeland Hills Service Ama, as described in 2000 Comp Plan DRAFT.
Cost 670.0 0.0
Rev - City 670.0 0.0
13 Academy Service Ama Rezone (PZ-101)
Improvement - Rezoning the Academy Service Area, as described in 2000 Comp Plan DRAFT.
Cost 126.0
Rev - City 126.0
670.0
670.0
126.0
126.0
14 Comprehens*lve Planning
Update the Water CDmp Plan in 2006 as required by Washington DOH, described in 2000 Comp Plan DRAFT as
OP-102.
and OP-104
Cost 50.0 100.0 150.0
Rev - City 50.0 100.0 150.0
t5 Water Supply Spring and Well Improvements
Improvement - Increase supply and redundancy, described in 2000 Comp Plan DRAFT.
$-112 and S-113
Cost 0.0 20.0
Rev - City 0.0 20.0
20.0
20.0
16 Lea Hill Booster Pump Station Upgrade
Improvement - Upgrade with New Lea Hill Booster Pump Station for increased demand to the service area and
increased supply redundancy, described in 2000 Comp Plan DRAFT as PB-107.
supply redundancy, described in2000 Comp Plan DRAFT as BP-lO7.
Cost 100.0 1,000.0 0.0 1,100.0
Rev - City 100.0 100.0 0.0 200.0
Rev - PWTF 900.0 900.0
17 Lea Hill Service Area Rezone (PZ-102)
Improvement - Rezoning the Lea Hill Sevice Area, as described in 2000 Comp Plan DRAFT.
Cost 102.0
Rev - City 102.0
18 Coal Creek Springs Hatches
Improvement - Upgrade existing vaults and valves.
Cost 75.0
Rev-City 75.0
102.0
102.0
75.0
75.0
50.0
50.0
75.0
75.0
5,369.5
19 Vulnerebllity Assessment Improvements
Improvement - Based on Vulnerability Study.
Cost 50.0
Rev-City 50.0
20 Well 5 System Improvements
Improvement - Provide a pump saver and possible manual transfer switch.
Cost 75.0
Rev-City 75.0
Subtotal 1~460.5 1~729.5 755.0 1~324.5 100.0 0.0
27
City of Auburn Addendum to 2003 - 2008 Cap tal Facilities Plan
Updated Project List for Period 2004 - 2009
COSTS:
Capacity Projects
Non-Capacity Projects
Total Costa
Costs and Revenues
336.0 527.0 367.0 287.0 0.0
1,460.5 1,729.5 755.0 1,324.5 100.0
1,796.6 . 2,256.6 1,122.0 1,611.5 100.0
0.0 1,517.0
0.0 5,369.5
0.0 6,886.5
-~XISTING REVENUES:
Rev-City 1,781.5 2,256.5 942.0 711.5 100.0 0.0 5,791.5
Rev - Algona 0.0 0.0 180.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 180.0
Public Works Trust Fund 15.0 0.0 0.0 900.0 0.0 0.0 915.0
Total Revenue 1,796.5 2,256.5 1,122.0 1,611.5 100.0 0.0 6,886.8
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
BALANCE
28