HomeMy WebLinkAbout6440 Exhibit C
2012 – 2013 - 2017 – 2018
Kent School District No. 415 provides educational service to
Residents of Unincorporated King County
and Residents of the Cities of
Kent, Covington, Renton, Auburn
Black Diamond, Maple Valley, and SeaTac, Washington
April 2012
New Panther Lake Elementary School opened in Fall 2009
Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2012
Kent School District No. 415
12033 SE 256th Street Kent, Washington 98030-6643
(253) 373-7295
SIX - YEAR CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2012 - 2013 ~ 2017 - 2018
BOARD of DIRECTORS
Bill Boyce
Tim Clark
Karen DeBruler
Russ Hanscom
Debbie Straus
ADMINISTRATION
Dr. Edward Lee Vargas – Superintendent
Dr. Richard A. Stedry – Chief Business Officer
Dr. Linda Del Giudice – Chief Accountability Officer
Dr. Merri Rieger – Chief Student Achievement Officer Dr. Brent Jones – Chief Organizational Talent Officer Thuan Nguyen – Chief Information & Automated Operations Officer
Chris Loftis – Executive Director, Communications & School Community Partnerships
Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2012
SIX - YEAR CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2012 - 2013 ~ 2017 - 2018
April 2012
For information on the Plan, please call the Finance & Planning Department at (253) 373-7295
Capital Facilities Plan
Contributing Staff
Gwenn Escher-Derdowski
Enrollment & Planning Administrator
Ralph Fortunato, CSBS – Director of Fiscal Services
Debbi Smith, Business Services Department
Fred Long, Supervisor of Facilities & Construction Karla Wilkerson, Facilities Department
Don Walkup, Supervisor of Transportation Department
Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2012
Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan
Table of Contents
Section
Page Number
I
Executive Summary
2
I I
Six-Year Enrollment Projection & History
4
I I I
District Standard of Service
8
I V
Inventory, Capacity & Maps of Existing Schools
11
V
Six-Year Planning & Construction Plan – Site Map
14
V I
Relocatable Classrooms
17
V I I
Projected Classroom Capacity
18
V I I I
Finance Plan, Cost Basis and Impact Fee Schedules
23
I X
Summary of Changes to Previous Plan
30
X
Appendixes
31
NKe
n
t
S
c
h
o
o
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
C
a
p
i
t
a
l
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
P
l
a
n
Ap
r
i
l
2
0
1
2
P
a
g
e
1
3
Kent School District No. 415
Serving residents of
Unincorporated King County
City of Kent
City of Renton
City of Auburn
City of Sea Tac
City of Covington
City of Maple Valley
City of Black Diamond
28 Elementary Schools
6 Middle Schools
4 Senior High Schools
Kent Mountain View Academy (Grades 3-12)
Kent Phoenix Academy (9-12)
Mill CreekMiddle School
Kent-MeridianHigh School
Carriage CrestElementary
GlenridgeElementarySpringbrookElementary
Emerald ParkElementary
Soos CreekElementary SunriseElementary
Kentridge High School
Lake YoungsElementary
RidgewoodElementary
FairwoodElementary
Lake Desire
Lake Youngs
Park OrchardElementary
Panther LakeElementary
East HillElementary DanielElementary
MartinSortunElementary
Scenic HillElementary
MillenniumElementary
AdministrationCenter
Kent PhoenixAcademy
MeridianMiddle School
MeridianElementary
Lake Meridian
Meadow RidgeElementary Pine TreeElementary
HorizonElementary CovingtonElementary
JenkinsCreekElementary
Cedar ValleyElementary
CrestwoodElementary
MattsonMiddle School
KentlakeHigh School
KentwoodHigh School
Sawyer WoodsElementary
LakeSawyer
LakeMorton
Pipe Lake
Grass LakeElementary
Cedar HeightsMiddle School
KentElementary
Neely O'BrienElementary
Meeker Middle School
NorthwoodMiddle School
SE Petrovitsky Rd
SE 256th St
SE 240th StSE 240th St
K
e
n
t
-
B
l
a
c
k
D
i
a
m
o
n
d
R
d
S 212th St
SE 272nd St
Kent-Kangley Road
Highw
a
y
1
8
Highw
a
y
1
8
13
2
n
d
A
v
e
S
E
13
2
n
d
A
v
e
S
E
16
4
t
h
A
v
e
S
E
10
4
t
h
A
v
e
S
E
10
8
t
h
A
v
e
S
E
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
A
v
e
We
s
t
V
a
l
l
e
y
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
Hig
h
w
a
y
1
6
7
14
0
t
h
A
v
e
S
E
In
t
e
r
s
t
a
t
e
5
SE 208th St
K
e
nt-
D
e
s Moin
es Rd
SE C o vi ng t on-Sawyer Rd.
KentMountain ViewAcademy
1
2
4 611
12
10
9
13
5
N
3
7
8
SE 192nd St
Carriage CrestElementary
GlenridgeElementarySpringbrookElementary
Emerald ParkElementary
Soos CreekElementary SunriseElementary
Kentridge High School
Lake YoungsElementary
RidgewoodElementary
FairwoodElementary
Lake Desire
Lake Youngs
Park OrchardElementary
Panther LakeElementary
Panther LakeReplacement
East HillElementary
DanielElementary MartinSortunElementary
Scenic HillElementary
MillenniumElementary
AdministrationCenter
Kent PhoenixAcademy
MeridianMiddle School
MeridianElementary
Lake Meridian
Meadow RidgeElementary
Pine TreeElementary
HorizonElementary CovingtonElementary
JenkinsCreekElementary
Cedar ValleyElementary
CrestwoodElementary
MattsonMiddle School
KentlakeHigh School
KentwoodHigh School
Sawyer WoodsElementary
LakeSawyer
LakeMorton
Pipe Lake
Grass LakeElementary
Cedar HeightsMiddle School
KentElementary
Neely O'BrienElementary
Mill CreekMiddle School
Kent-MeridianHighSchool
KentMountain ViewAcademy
Meeker Middle School
NorthwoodMiddle School
SE Petrovitsky Rd
SE 256th St
SE 240th StSE 240th St
K
e
n
t
-
B
l
a
c
k
D
i
a
m
o
n
d
R
d
SE 288th Street
S 212th St
SE 304th Street
SE 272 nd St
Kent-Kangley Road
SE 336th St
Highw
a
y
1
8
13
2
n
d
A
v
e
S
E
13
2
n
d
A
v
e
S
E
16
4
t
h
A
v
e
S
E
10
4
t
h
A
v
e
S
E
10
8
t
h
A
v
e
S
E
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
A
v
e
We
s
t
V
a
l
l
e
y
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
Hig
h
w
a
y
1
6
7
14
0
t
h
A
v
e
S
E
In
t
e
r
s
t
a
t
e
5
SE 208th St
Kent School District No. 415
Site Bank
&
Property Acquisitions
K
e
n
t
-
D
es Moin
es Rd
S E Covington-Sawyer Rd.
Ke
n
t
S
c
h
o
o
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
C
a
p
i
t
a
l
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
P
l
a
n
Ap
r
i
l
2
0
12
P
a
g
e
1
6
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
(2013 – 2018)
Adopted by Ordinance No. 6440, December 17, 2012 as part of the City of
Auburn Comprehensive Plan
City of Auburn
25 West Main
Auburn, WA 98001
(253) 931-3000
www.auburnwa.gov
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2013 – 2018
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 1
1. Introduction
Purpose .................................................................................................................................. 7
Statutory Requirement for Capital Facilities Elements ............................................................ 7
Concurrency and Level of Service .......................................................................................... 8
Implementation ....................................................................................................................... 8
2. Goals and Policies
1. Capital Facilities Response to Growth .............................................................................. 11
2. Financial Feasibility .......................................................................................................... 11
3. Public Health and Environment ......................................................................................... 13
4. Consistency With Regional Planning ................................................................................ 13
3. Capital Improvements
Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 15
Transportation ........................................................................................................................ 17
Arterial Street (102) Capital Projects ................................................................................. 22
Local Street (103) Capital Projects ................................................................................... 79
Street Fund (105) Capital Projects .................................................................................... 81
Water...................................................................................................................................... 87
Sanitary Sewer ....................................................................................................................... 111
Storm Drainage ...................................................................................................................... 119
Solid Waste ............................................................................................................................ 135
Parks and Recreation ............................................................................................................. 137
General Municipal Buildings ................................................................................................... 169
Community Improvements ...................................................................................................... 179
Airport..................................................................................................................................... 187
Cemetery ................................................................................................................................ 193
Golf Course ............................................................................................................................ 197
Police Department .................................................................................................................. 199
Valley Regional Fire Authority ................................................................................................ 201
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A capital facilities element is one of the comprehensive plan elements required by
Washington’s Growth Management Act (GMA). Capital facilities generally have long useful
lives, significant costs and tend not to be mobile.
The GMA requires that capital facilities elements include an inventory of existing capital
facilities (showing locations and capacities), a forecast of future needs for such capital
facilities, proposed locations and capacities of new or expanded capital facilities and at
least a six-year plan to finance capital facilities with identified sources of funding. The
GMA also requires that the land use element be reassessed if probable funding falls short
of existing needs.
This document is the City’s six-year Capital Facilities Plan (CFP). The CFP, in conjunction
with other City adopted documents, satisfies the GMA requirement for a Capital Facilities
Element. It addresses one of the GMA’s basic tenets, that is, the provision of adequate
facilities to support development in accordance with locally adopted level of service
standards.
This CFP will enable the City to: (1) Make informed decisions about its investment of public
dollars, and (2) Make timely decisions about maintaining level of service in accordance with
this CFP and other adopted plans.
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN CONTENT
This CFP consists of the following:
Chapter 1. Introduction Purpose of CFP, statutory requirements,
methodology.
Chapter 2. Goals and Policies Goals and Policies related to the
provision of capital facilities.
Chapter 3. Capital Improvements Proposed capital projects, which include
the financing plan and reconciliation of
project capacity to level of service (LOS)
standards.
This CFP is a companion document to the Capital Facilities Element of the Auburn
Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 5). The Capital Facilities Element of the Auburn
Comprehensive Plan identifies the City’s planning approach and policy framework for the
provision of capital facilities. This CFP provides the background inventory, identifies
proposed projects and establishes the six-year capital facilities plan for financing capital
facilities.
The comprehensive plan contains timeframes which are the intended framework for future
funding decisions and within which future actions and decisions are intended to occur.
However, these timeframes are estimates, and depending on factors involved in the
processing of applications and project work, and availability of funding, the timing may
change from the included timeframes. The framework does not represent actual
commitments by the City of Auburn which may depend on funding resources available.
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
2
GROWTH ASSUMPTIONS
In planning for capital facilities, contemplation of future growth needs to be considered. The
CFP is based on the following City population forecast:
Year Population
2011 70,705
2012 71,240
2018 75,065
The population forecasts are based on information from the State of Washington Office of
Financial Management (OFM) as well as estimates developed by the City of Auburn
Planning and Community Development Department.
CAPITAL COSTS OF FACILITIES
Based on the analysis of capital improvements contained in this document, the cost of City-
owned and managed capital improvements for 2013-2018 is summarized as follows:
Type of Facility 2013 - 2018
Transportation - Arterial (102)100,419,278$
Transportation - Local (103)9,029,650
Transportation - Street (105)10,620,000
Water 23,089,150
Sanitary Sewer 9,740,000
Storm Drainage 13,410,100
Parks & Recreation 34,416,000
General Municipal Buildings 5,727,900
Community Improvements 2,929,970
Airport 483,000
Cemetery 55,000
Total 209,920,048$
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
3
FINANCING FOR CAPITAL FACILITIES
The financing plan for the citywide capital improvements includes:
Funding Source 2013 - 2018 Capital Facility
Grants 79,462,133 Transportation
4,001,000 Parks & Recreation
676,500 Storm Drainage
329,500 Airport
User Fees / Fund Balance 13,860,000 Water
9,740,000 Sewer
8,398,600 Storm Drainage
200,000 Community Improvements
588,000 General Municipal Buildings
1,020,000 Equipment Rental
153,500 Airport
55,000 Cemetery
Arterial Street Fund 4,380,440 Transportation
Local Street Fund 850,000 Transportation
Arterial Street Preservation Fund 1,060,000 Transportation
Bond Proceeds 5,904,150 Water
4,335,000 Storm Drainage
6,000,000 Parks & Recreation
Municipal Parks Fund 1,505,000 Parks & Recreation
Property Tax 390,000 Parks & Recreation
Sales Tax 7,279,650 Transportation
Utility Tax 9,000,000 Transportation
Mitigation/Impact Fees 11,585,800 Transportation
211,670 Community Improvements
REET 1 - Parks & Recreation
4,119,900 General Municipal Buildings
REET 2 2,518,300 Community Improvements
1,625,000 Transportation
Other Sources 4,825,905 Transportation
3,325,000 Water
22,520,000 Parks & Recreation
Total 209,920,048$
(Includes grant funding that has not
been secured)
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
4
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS ON FUTURE OPERATING BUDGETS
The forecasted impacts of new capital facilities on the City’s future operating budgets (2013-2018)
are as follows:
Budget Year:2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total
1 Transportation 68,557$ 68,557$ 100,807$ 106,907$ 111,907$ 111,907$ 568,642$
2 Water 1,800 2,400 2,400 5,400 5,400 5,400 22,800
3 Sanitary Sewer - - - - - - -
4 Storm Drainage - - - - - - -
5 Solid Waste - - - - - - -
6 Parks and Recreation 17,000 222,000 227,000 227,000 234,000 234,000 1,161,000
7 General Municipal Buildings - - - - - - -
8 Community Improvements - - - - - - -
9 Airport - - - - - - -
10 Cemetery - - - - - - -
11 Golf Course - - - - - - -
12 Senior Center - - - - - - -
13 Police Department - - - - - - -
14 Fire Department - - - - - - -
Total 87,357$ 292,957$ 330,207$ 339,307$ 351,307$ 351,307$ 1,752,442$
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
5
LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) CONSEQUENCES OF THE CFP
Based on the proposed six-year capital projects and the projected population increase of
3,825 (5.4%), the LOS for the following City-owned public facilities will change as follows:
The LOS for the following facilities will be increased as a result of the CFP, comparing the
2012 LOS to the projected 2018 LOS.
CAPITAL FACILITY LOS UNITS 2012 LOS 2018 LOS
(Projected)
Cemetery Burial Plots per 1,000 Pop.44.50 58.73
Community Parks Acres per 1,000 Pop.3.18 3.80
General Municipal Buildings Sq. Ft. per 1,000 Pop.3,502.47 3,591.53
Neighborhood Parks Acres per 1,000 Pop.0.69 0.78
The LOS for the following facilities will be maintained as a result of the CFP.
CAPITAL FACILITY LOS UNITS 2012 LOS 2018 LOS
(Projected)
Roads Volume/Capacity Ratio "D""D"
Airport % Air Operations Support 100%100%
Sanitary Sewer Residential GPCPD (Note 1)158.00 158.00
Storm Drainage N/A
Water Residential GPCPD (Note 1)210.00 210.00
Note 1: GPCPD = Gallons per Customer per Day
The LOS for the following facilities will be decreased as a result of the CFP, comparing the
2012 LOS to the projected 2018 LOS.
CAPITAL FACILITY LOS UNITS 2012 LOS 2018 LOS
(Projected)
Fire Protection Apparatus per 1,000 Pop.0.20 0.19
Golf Course Acres per 1,000 Pop.0.25 0.24
Linear Parks Acres per 1,000 Pop.0.45 0.43
Open Space Acres per 1,000 Pop.4.60 4.37
Senior Center Sq. Ft. per 1,000 Pop.176.87 167.84
Special Use Areas Acres per 1,000 Pop.0.76 0.73
Level of Service (LOS) is a common measure used to determine the efficiency of
effectiveness of services. For the City of Auburn, LOS targets serves as a means to assess
the adequacy of public facilities in meeting the needs of the population for which it serves.
For example, in the case of park space, when there is an increase in population without a
corresponding increase in park acreage, the LOS unit of measure (acres per 1,000
population.) will decline, indicating a potential need to increase the total amount of park
acreage to keep pace with population growth. On the other hand, a slight increase in
population, coupled with a large increase in facilities, will result in an increased LOS. For
example, facilities such as buildings or burial plots may be constructed or expanded to keep
pace with anticipated population growth. While this will have the effect of increasing LOS in
the short-term, in the longer-term, the LOS will gradually decline to the targeted level based
on forecasted population. The impact of population growth to the LOS for facilities will vary
depending on the type of facility and long range planning by the City.
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
6
CFP ELEMENT SOURCE DOCUMENTS
Documents used in preparing this Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) are principally the
comprehensive plans for the various public facilities included in this CFP. These individual
comprehensive plans provide detailed identification of projects and identify their (projects)
proposed funding sources.
City documents include:
• City-wide Comprehensive Land Use Plan Element (2011);
• City Municipal Airport Master Plan Update (2001-2020);
• City Comprehensive Water Plan (2009);
• City Comprehensive Transportation Plan (2011) and Six Year Transportation
Improvement Program (2013-2018);
• City Comprehensive Drainage Plan (2009);
• City Comprehensive Sewer Plan (2009);
City 2013-14 Biennial Budget and 2011 Annual Financial Report; and,
• Master plan update for parks, as well as numerous other planning and financial
documents.
All documents are available for public inspection at the City of Auburn.
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
7
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE
The Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) is a 6-year plan (2013-2018) for capital improvements that
support the City of Auburn’s current and future growth.
In this plan, funding for general government projects is identified. To maintain consistency
with individual master and utility comprehensive plans, applicable projects in the 6-year
window of those master/utility plans are included in this CFP. The CFP also identifies LOS
standards, where applicable, for each public facility.
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENTS
RCW 36.70A.070(3)(d) requires that the comprehensive plan capital facilities element
include “a six-year plan that will finance such capital facilities within projected funding
capacities and clearly identifies sources of public money for such purposes.” RCW
36.70A.070(3)(e) requires that all capital facilities have “probable funding” to pay for capital
facility needs, or else the City must “reassess the land use element.”
In addition, the capital facilities element must include the location and capacity of existing
facilities, a forecast of future needs, and their proposed locations and capacities. The State
Growth Management Act (GMA) guidelines suggest that this analysis be accomplished for
water systems, sanitary sewer systems, storm water facilities, schools, parks and recreation
facilities, police and fire protection facilities.
The GMA also seeks the selection of level of service standards for capital facilities. As a
result, public facilities in the CFP should be based on quantifiable, objective measures of
capacity such as traffic volume, capacity per mile of road and acres of park per capita. In
some instances, though, level of service may best be expressed in terms of qualitative
statements of satisfaction with a particular public facility. Factors that influence local level
of service standards include, but are not limited to, community goals, national and local
standards, and federal and state mandates.
To be effective, the CFP must be updated on a regular basis. State GMA guidelines
suggest that the CFP be updated at least every two years. In 2007, the City transitioned to
a biennial budget. With this in mind, the City will follow these guidelines and update the
CFP at least every two years, incorporating the capital facilities improvements in the City’s
biennial budget process.
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
8
CONCURRENCY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE
Concurrency
The GMA requires that jurisdictions have certain capital facilities in place or available within
a specified time frame when development occurs. This concept is called concurrency.
Under the GMA, concurrency is required for transportation facilities, and is recommended
by the State for certain other public facilities, namely potable water and sanitary sewer.
Concurrency has a direct relationship to level of service. The importance of concurrency to
capital facilities planning is that development may be denied if it reduces the level of service
for a capital facility below the locally adopted minimum.
Explanation of Level of Service
As indicated earlier, the GMA requires that level of service be established for certain
transportation facilities for the purposes of applying concurrency to development proposals.
The State GMA guidelines recommend the adoption of level of service standards for other
capital facilities to measure the provision of adequate public facilities.
Typically, measures of level of service are expressed as ratios of facility capacity to
demand (i.e., actual or potential users). Table 1-1 lists generic examples of level of service
measures for some capital facilities:
TABLE 1-1
Sample Level of Service Measurements
The need for capital facilities is largely determined by a community’s adopted LOS
standards and whether or not the community has formally designated capital facilities, other
than transportation, as necessary for development to meet the concurrency test. The CFP
itself is therefore largely influenced by the selection of the level of service standards. Level
of service standards are measures of the quality of life of the City. The standards should be
based on the City’s vision of its future and its values.
IMPLEMENTATION
Implementation of the CFP requires constant monitoring and evaluation. The CFP is
sensitive to funding and revenue availability and therefore needs to be constantly monitored
against variations in available resources. To facilitate its implementation, the CFP should
be kept current.
Type of Facility Sample Level of Service Measure
General Municipal Buildings Square feet per 1,000 population
Parks Acres per 1,000 population
Roads and Streets Ratio of actual volume to design capacity
Sewer / Water Gallons per customer per day
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
9
Update of Capital Facilities Plan
Perhaps the most desirable way to keep the CFP current is to update it regularly so the six-
year plan is a rolling CFP. Again, the State recommends that the CFP be updated at least
biennially.
The City of Auburn will seek to update the CFP at least biennially in conjunction with the
budget process. Future updates will consider:
A. Revision of population projections, including annexations;
B. Update of inventory of public facilities;
C. Update of costs of public facilities;
D. Update of public facilities requirements analysis (actual level of service
compared to adopted standards);
E. Update of revenue forecasts;
F. Revise and develop capital improvement projects for the next six fiscal
years; and,
G. Update analysis of financial capacity.
Amendments to the CFP, including amendments to level of service standards, capital
projects, and/or the financing plan sources of revenue are all actions that can keep the CFP
current and relevant to City decision-making.
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
10
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
11
CHAPTER 2
GOALS AND POLICIES
This chapter identifies goals and policies specific to the City’s provision of capital facilities.
Goal 1 Provide a variety of responses to the demands of growth on public
facilities.
Policy 1.1 Establish land use patterns that optimize the use of public facilities.
Policy 1.2 Provide additional public facility capacity when existing facilities are used to
their maximum level of efficiency (consistent with adopted standards for level
of service).
Policy 1.3 Encourage development where new public facilities can be provided in an
efficient manner.
Policy 1.4 Exempt the following from the concurrency management program:
1.4.1 Development vested by RCW 19.26.095, 58.17.033 or 58.17.170.
1.4.2 Development that creates no added impact on public facilities.
1.4.3 Expansions of existing development that were disclosed and tested
for concurrency as part of the original application.
Goal 2 Provide needed public facilities that are within the ability of the City to
fund or within the City’s authority to require others to provide.
Policy 2.1 Establish level of service standards that are achievable with the financing
plan of this Capital Facilities Plan.
Policy 2.2 Base the financing plan for public facilities on realistic estimates of current
local revenues and external revenues that are reasonably anticipated to be
received by the City.
Policy 2.3 Match revenue sources to capital projects on the basis of sound fiscal
policies.
2.3.1 The City shall continue to fund utility costs through utility enterprise
funds, based on user fees and grants. Public facilities included in
utilities are sewer, solid waste, storm drainage, and water.
2.3.2 Where feasible pursue joint venture facility construction,
construction timing, and other facility coordination measures for City
provided facilities, as well as with school districts and other
potential partners in developing public facilities.
2.3.3 The City shall continue to assist through direct participation, LIDs
and payback agreements, where appropriate and financially
feasible. Where funding is available, the City may participate in
developer initiated facility extensions or improvements, but only to
the extent that the improvements benefit the broader public interest,
and are consistent with the policies of this Capital Facilities Plan.
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
12
Policy 2.4 If the projected funding is inadequate to finance needed public facilities and
utilities based on adopted level of service standards and forecasted growth,
the City will do one or more of the following to achieve a balance between
available revenue and needed public facilities:
2.4.1 Lower the level of service standards;
2.4.2 Increase the amount of revenue from existing sources;
2.4.3 Adopt new sources of revenue;
2.4.4 Require developers to provide such facilities at their own expense;
and/or
2.4.5 Amend the Land Use Element to reduce the need for additional
public facilities.
Policy 2.5 Both existing and future development will pay for the costs of needed capital
improvements.
2.5.1 Ensure that existing development pays for capital improvements
that reduce or eliminate existing deficiencies, and pays for some or
all of the cost to replace obsolete or worn out facilities. Existing
development may also pay a portion of the cost of capital
improvements needed by future development. Existing
development’s payments may take the form of user fees, charges
for services, special assessments and taxes.
2.5.2 Ensure that future development pays a proportionate share of the
cost of new facilities which it requires. Future development may
also pay a portion of the cost to replace obsolete or worn-out
facilities. Future development’s payments may take the form of
voluntary contributions for the benefit of any public facility, impact
fees, mitigation payments, capacity fees, dedications of land,
provision of public facilities, and future payments of user’s fees,
charges for services, special assessments and taxes.
Policy 2.6 The City will determine the priority of public facility capital improvements
using the following criteria as general guidelines. Any revenue source that
cannot be used for the highest priority will be used beginning with the highest
priority for which the revenue can legally be expended.
2.6.1 Projects that eliminate hazardous conditions.
2.6.2 Refurbishment of existing facilities that contribute to achieving or
maintaining standards for adopted level of service.
2.6.3 New or expanded facilities that reduce or eliminate deficiencies in
level of service for existing demand.
2.6.4 New or expanded facilities that provide the adopted level of service
for new development and redevelopment during the next six fiscal
years.
2.6.5 Capital improvements that significantly reduce the operating cost of
providing a service or facility, or otherwise mitigate impacts of
public facilities on future operating budgets.
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
13
2.6.6 Capital improvements that contribute to stabilizing and developing
the economy of the City.
2.6.7 Project priorities may also involve additional criteria that are unique
to each type of public facility, as described in other elements of this
Comprehensive Plan.
Policy 2.7 Ensure that the ongoing operating and maintenance costs of a capital facility
are financially feasible prior to constructing the facility.
Goal 3 Protect public health, environmental quality, and neighborhood
stability and viability through the appropriate design and installation of
public facilities.
Policy 3.1 Promote conservation of energy, water and other natural resources in the
location and design of public facilities.
Policy 3.2 Require the separation of sanitary and storm sewer facilities wherever
combined sewers may be discovered.
Policy 3.3 Practice efficient and environmentally responsible maintenance and
operating procedures.
Policy 3.4 The siting, design, construction and improvement of all public buildings shall
be done in full compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Policy 3.5 Promote economic and community stability and growth through strategic
investments in public facilities and public private/partnerships.
Goal 4 Make the Capital Facilities Plan consistent with other elements of the
comprehensive plan, and - to the extent feasible - with other city,
county, regional and state adopted plans.
Policy 4.1 Ensure that the growth and development assumptions used in the Capital
Facilities Plan are consistent with similar assumptions in other elements of
the comprehensive plan.
Policy 4.2 Coordinate with non-city providers of public facilities on a joint program for
maintaining applicable level of service standards, concurrency requirements,
funding and construction of public facilities.
Goal 5 Provide public facilities that provide a sense of community that is
inclusive of diverse populations.
Policy 5.1 Contribute to community pride and foster a sense of community through
provision of public facilities that create a community gathering place for
neighbors, family and friends.
Policy 5.2 Through provision of public facilities offer a broad range of activities
promoting social interactions especially with new residents.
Policy 5.3 Provide maximum flexibility and multiple uses through design of public
facilities that are adaptable to changing interests.
Policy 5.4 Provide a community center facility that is financially feasible, affordable for
participants, and can generate revenue to offset a portion of the operating
costs.
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
14
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
15
CHAPTER 3
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
1. INTRODUCTION
This CFP includes City capital improvement projects, and the financing plan to pay for
those projects. It also contains the inventory of existing City facilities, and identifies level of
service standards, where applicable. Each type of City public facility is presented in a
separate subsection that follows a standard format. Throughout this section, tables of data
are identified with abbreviations that correspond to the type of facility: For example, Table
W-1 refers to Table 1 for Water (Supply and Distribution). Each abbreviation corresponds
to the name of the type of facility.
1. Narrative Summary
This is an overview of the data, with sections devoted to Current Facilities, Level of Service,
Capital Facilities Projects and Financing, and Impact on Future Operating Budgets.
2. Inventory of Facilities (Table X-1)
This is a list of existing capital facilities, including the name, capacity (for reference to level
of service), and location. This table also includes any proposed capital projects and the
planned inventory total as of December 31, 2018.
3. Capital Projects and Financing Plan (Table X-2, X-2A and X-2B)
This is a list of capital improvements that identifies existing deficiencies, identifies facilities
needed for future growth, and identifies the repairing or replacing of obsolete or worn out
facilities through December 31, 2018. Each list shows the proposed financing plan followed
by individual worksheets showing the project detail.
4. Impact on Future Operating Budgets (Table X-3)
This is a list of new capital projects and the forecasted impacts on the City’s future
operating budgets (2014 – 2019).
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
16
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
17
TRANSPORTATION
Current Facilities
Roadways: The City’s roadway system consists of a network of limited access freeways and
216 miles of arterials, collectors, alleys and local streets. Table T-1 “Auburn Corridor Level of
Service” includes the most current Level of Service (LOS) for each defined arterial roadway
corridor.
Transit: Metro, Sound Transit and Pierce Transit provide transit service to the Auburn area.
Auburn is currently served by nine Metro bus routes, two Metro operated Sound Transit bus
routes, one Pierce Transit operated bus route for Sound Transit and one Pierce Transit bus
route. Six park and ride facilities with a total of 1,127 parking spaces also serve Auburn.
Eighteen Sound Transit “Sounder” commuter rail trains stop at Auburn each weekday at the
Auburn station located at 23 A Street SW. The Sounder also provides special event service to
selected sporting events.
Level of Service (LOS)
Washington's Growth Management Act (GMA) requires service level standards for both arterials
and transit routes. The GMA requires that each jurisdiction's Level of Service (LOS) standards
be coordinated within the region and be supported by local ordinance, but the standards and the
methods used are up to the local jurisdictions.
Under GMA, the focus is on the performance of the whole road system, not on individual
intersections or roadways. Level of service standards are a tool to help keep the transportation
system in balance with the needs of future population growth and development.
A methodology and set of standards have been drafted for the City of Auburn Comprehensive
Plan. The standards help determine concurrency (i.e., balance) between transportation and land
use elements of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, as required by GMA. The City has four
choices if it finds the standards cannot be met.
Modify the land use plan, placing tighter controls on the amount and type of development to
minimize traffic.
Construct additional transportation facilities to support increased travel demand from new
development.
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures.
Relax the LOS standards. The City can accept lower level of service standards to
encourage further growth and minimize the need for additional transportation facilities.
The Transportation Land Use Balance will be monitored through the City's Concurrency
Management System as part of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Transportation
concurrency will be evaluated for key facilities and on a system-wide basis. By having system-
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
18
wide and facility-based roadway LOS standards, the City of Auburn can define preliminary
capacity needs.
The City and WSDOT can then begin to plan corridor studies that will define the characteristics
and location of a particular roadway improvement. At the project level, the State Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) process will continue to guide the more specific planning and analysis efforts.
Uses of Level of Service Standards
As measures of transportation system effectiveness, level of service standards can help
jurisdictions identify where and when transportation improvements are needed, and when
development or growth will affect system operation. Level of service provides a standard below
which a transportation facility or system is not considered adequate.
Level of service standards can be used to evaluate the impact of proposed developments on the
surrounding road system. They can assure that all developments are served by a safe, efficient
and cost-effective road system. They can also be used to identify problems, suggest remedial
actions, and apportion costs between public and private sources. LOS standards are a
cornerstone in the development of equitable traffic impact fee systems, which requires
developments to pay some of the costs for improvements to the transportation infrastructure.
In July 2001, the City implemented a traffic impact fee. The purpose of the fee is to mitigate
traffic impacts more equitably while making the costs of development more predictable to
developers. In 2007, the City implemented an additional transportation impact fee to address
the impacts of heavy truck usage on the City’s transportation system. Both fees are regularly
updated to enable the city to construct road capacity to meet the traffic demand of development.
Measuring Transportation System Performance
Arterial Corridor Link Level. The level of service for roadway segments or links is analyzed with
two primary purposes in mind. First, this site-specific LOS can be used, with the help of a travel
demand model, to evaluate areas of congestion within a transportation network--leading to the
development of a long-range transportation facilities plan.
Traffic forecasts from the model will be analyzed to determine where capacity improvements
should be considered. Second, arterial corridor LOS analysis is used to assess concurrency or
if facilities are meeting the LOS standards.
The City of Auburn currently uses Synchro 7™ traffic models to estimate LOS. Synchro 7 TM
incorporates Highway Capacity Manual (HCM2000) Urban Street LOS methodology. Urban
Street LOS is based on average travel speed though a defined corridor. Table T-1 shows the 42
defined street corridors, LOS standards and most recent calculated LOS. Table T-1b shows the
relationships between LOS, street classification, average travel speed, and free flow speed.
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
19
TABLE T- 1
Auburn Corridor Level of Service
ID Corridor From To
LOS
Standard
LOS
2009
1 Auburn Way North 15th St NE Northern City Limits D C/D
2 Auburn Way North East Main St. 15th St NE E D
3 Auburn Way South East Main St.M St SE D F/E
4 Auburn Way South M St SE Eastern City Limits D C
5 M St./Harvey Auburn Way North East Main St.E C
6 M St./Harvey East Main St Auburn Way South D D/C
7 Evergreen Way Lakeland Hills Way Kersey Way D Future
8 37th St NE/NW West Valley Hwy I St. NE D B/C
9 15th St NE/NW West Valley Hwy Auburn Way North F**D
10 Auburn Ave / "A" St SR 18 Southern City Limits D B
11 Main St West Valley Hwy R St D C
12 15th St SW West Valley Hwy C St SW D D
13 C St SW Ellingson SR 18 D C/E
14 West Valley Hwy Northern City Limits 15th Street NW E B/C
15 S 277th St Frontage Rd.108th Ave SE E E/B
16 R St./Kersey Way Auburn Way S.Oravetz Road D A/B
17 Lake Tapps Parkway East Valley Hwy.182nd Ave E D B
18 "A" St SW/NW/ "B" St NW 4th St NW S 277th St D Future
19 8th St NE/Lea Hill Rd.Auburn Way North 132nd Ave SE E C/B
20 D St NW/Emerald Downs Dr S 277th St 15th St. NW D A/B
21 I St NE S 277th St Harvey Rd D A/B
22 132nd Ave SE SE 282nd St SE 312th St D B
23 124th Ave SE SE 282nd St SE 320th. St D C
24 104th Ave SE/SE 304th St 8th St NE 132nd Ave SE D B/A
25 105th Pl SE/SE 320th St Lea Hill Road 124th Ave SE D B
26 Lakeland Hills Way SE Lake Tapps Parkway Oravetz Rd D C/D
27 29th St SE/Riverwalk Dr.A Street SE Auburn Way South D C
28 108th Ave SE/112th Ave. SE S 277th St SE 304th St D A
29 49th St NW B St NW S 277th St D Future
30 R Street SE 8th St NE 4th Street SE D B/C
31 3rd St SW/Cross St C Street Auburn Way South E E
32 17th St SE A St SE Auburn Way South D B/A
33 41st St SE/Ellingson Rd A St SE Western City Limits E F
34 Lakeland Hills Way/Oravetz East Valley Hwy Kersey Way E A/B
35 West Valley Hwy 15th Street NW Southern City Limits E C/B
36 Kersey Way Oravetz Road Southern City Limits D A
37 S. 316th Street/Terrace Drive West Valley Highway Western City Limits D B
38 S. 296th Street/65th Ave West Valley Highway Western City Limits D B
39 51st Ave S.S. 288th Street Peasley Canyon Rd D B
40 S. 284th Street 112th Ave SE 124th Ave SE D B/A
41 S. 284th Street 124th Ave SE 132nd Ave SE D Future
42 R St. Bypass/Black Diamond M Street SE SR 18 D Future
*
**
Corridor segments within Downtown Auburn may operate at LOS E in accordance with the Auburn Downtown Plan. All other arterial and collector
corridors must operate at LOS D or better, unless otherwise indicated in Table 2-2.
Total travel time in the eastbound direction cannot exceed 1000 seconds for this corridor to meet the LOS Standard.
Split LOS indicates directional LOS in either the East-West or North-South direction. Otherwise, the LOS is the same in both directions.
The following Tables (T-1a, b, and c) address LOS Definitions, Urban Street Corridor LOS and
Roadway Capacity/Congestion LOS Standards.
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
20
Table T-1a Definition of Arterial Level of Service (LOS)
Level of Service A - describes primarily free flow operations at average travel speeds, usually about 90 percent
of the free flow speed for the arterial class. Vehicles are completely unimpeded in their ability to maneuver
within the traffic stream. Stopped delay at signalized intersections is minimal.
Level of Service B - represents reasonably unimpeded operations at average travel speeds, usually about 70
percent of the free flow speed for the arterial class. The ability to maneuver within the traffic stream is only
slightly restricted and stopped delays are not bothersome. Drivers are not generally subjected to appreciable
tension.
Level of Service C - represents stable conditions; however, ability to maneuver and change lanes in mid block
location may be more restricted than in LOS B, and longer queues and/or adverse signal coordination may
contribute to lower average travel speeds of about 50 percent of the average free flow speed for the arterial
class. Motorists will experience tension while driving.
Level of Service D - borders on a range in which small increases in flow may cause substantial increases in
approach delay and, hence, decreases in arterial speed. This may be due to adverse signal progression,
inappropriate signal timing, high volumes, or some combination of these. Average travel speeds are about 40
percent of free flow speed.
Level of Service E - characterized by significant approach delays and average travel speeds of one-third the
free flow speed or lower. Such operations are caused by some combination of adverse progression, high signal
density, extensive queuing at critical intersections, and inappropriate signal timing.
Level of Service F - characterizes arterial flow at extremely low speeds below one-third to one-quarter of the
free flow speed. Intersection congestion is likely at critical signalized locations, with resultant high approach
delays. Adverse progression is frequently a contributor to this condition.
Source: 1985 Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. 1985, page 11-4
The characteristics of the six levels of service are summarized.
Figure T-1b Urban Street Corridor LOS
Urban Street Class I II III IV
FFS-Range(mi/h)55-45 45-35 35-30 35-25
FFS(mi/h)50 40 35 30
LOS
A >42 >35 >30 >25
B 34-42 >28-35 >24-30 >19-25
C 27-34 >22-28 >18-24 >13-19
D 21-27 >17-22 >14-18 >9-13
E 16-21 >13-17 >10-14 >7-9
F ≤16 ≤13 ≤10 ≤7
Corridor LOS
Average Travel Speed(mi/h)
There are six levels of service on a scale of A to F. LOS A represents the best operating
conditions, and LOS F the worst.
The LOS scale has been adopted by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, the
Transportation Research Board, and by most jurisdictions throughout the country. The scale is
also accepted and generally understood by the public and elected officials.
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
21
Level of Service Standards - The LOS standards shown in Table T-1c apply to the facility's
location and its functional classification. A more specific description of the level of service
methodology is provided in the City of Auburn Comprehensive Transportation Plan (2011).
Table T- 1c Draft Roadway Capacity/Congestion LOS Standards
Roadway/Intersection Maximum V/C Ratio/LOS
Arterial Corridor (Capacity)"D" for each arterial link, except for collector residential arterials
which are "C"
Signalized Intersection "D"
Unsignalized Intersection "D"
Relationship to Concurrency Management - Concurrency involves matching public facilities and
new development. The GMA extends concurrency to transportation facilities by requiring that
new development be served by adequate roads and public transportation service, and that
development is not permitted to cause these transportation facilities to operate below level of
service standards that are adopted by local governments in their comprehensive plans.
Concurrency (Adequate Public Facilities)
In compliance with the GMA, adequate transportation system facilities must be available within
six (6) years of the time of occupancy and use of new development.
Capital Facilities Projects and Financing
The City’s transportation facilities include projects totaling $120,068,928. Tables T-2, T-2A and
T-2B show the proposed financing plan followed by individual worksheets showing the project
detail.
Impact on Future Operating Budgets
As Table T-3 shows, operating budget impacts of $538,642 are forecasted for transportation
facilities during the six years 2014 – 2019.
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
22
TABLE T- 2
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN PROJECTS AND FINANCING
TRANSPORTATION – ARTERIAL STREET
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total
TIP#Capacity Projects:
1 A Street NW, Phase 1
Capital Costs 25,000 25,000 350,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 475,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - -
Grants - - - - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees 25,000 25,000 350,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 475,000
Other - - - - - - -
4 I Street NE Corridor
Capital Costs - - - - - 1,000,000 1,000,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - -
Grants - - - - - 1,000,000 1,000,000
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - -
Other - - - - - - -
5 M Street Underpass
Capital Costs 6,714,000 - - - - - 6,714,000
Long-Term Debt 38,640 109,550 109,070 108,590 108,110 107,640 581,600
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - -
Grants 3,664,485 - - - - - 3,664,485
Traffic Impact Fees 38,640 109,550 109,070 108,590 108,110 107,640 581,600
PWTF Loan 1,800,115 - - - - - 1,800,115
Other (Other Agencies)1,249,400 - - - - - 1,249,400
6 South 277th - Auburn Way North to Green River Bridge
Capital Costs 1,024,300 153,000 4,170,000 - - - 5,347,300
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue 156,600 - - - - - 156,600
Grants 867,700 153,000 3,879,300 - - - 4,900,000
Traffic Impact Fees - - 290,700 - - - 290,700
Other (Port of Seattle)- - - - - - -
8 A Street NW, Phase 2
Capital Costs - - 150,000 - 3,000,000 - 3,150,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - -
Grants - - - - 3,000,000 - 3,000,000
Traffic Impact Fees - - 150,000 - - - 150,000
Other - - - - - - -
9 D Street NW, 37th to 44th
Capital Costs - - - - - 300,000 300,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - -
Grants - - - - - 250,000 250,000
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - 50,000 50,000
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
23
TABLE T- 2 (continued)
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total
TIP#Capacity Projects:
10 F Street SE, 4th to AWS
Capital Costs - - 250,000 2,250,000 - - 2,500,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - -
Grants - - 200,000 2,000,000 - - 2,200,000
Traffic Impact Fees - - 50,000 250,000 - - 300,000
11 M Street NE, E. Main to 4th
Capital Costs - 50,000 275,000 1,150,000 - - 1,475,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - -
Grants - - 225,000 1,000,000 - - 1,225,000
Traffic Impact Fees - 50,000 50,000 150,000 - - 250,000
14 M St SE and 12th St SE Traffic Signal
Capital Costs - - - - - 625,000 625,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - -
Grants - - - - - 500,000 500,000
REET 2 - - - - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - 125,000 125,000
Other - - - - - - -
15 8th Street NE Widening (Pike Street to R Street NE)
Capital Costs - - 450,000 1,000,000 - - 1,450,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - -
Grants - - 360,000 800,000 - - 1,160,000
Traffic Impact Fees - - 90,000 200,000 - - 290,000
17 Harvey Road & 8th Street NE Intersection Improvements
Long-Term Debt 86,900 86,500 86,000 85,600 85,200 84,800 515,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - -
Grants - - - - - - -
PWTF - - - - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees 86,900 86,500 86,000 85,600 85,200 84,800 515,000
18 8th Street NE and SE 104th St Intersection Improvements
Capital Costs 233,400 - - - - - 233,400
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue 148,400 - - - - - 148,400
Grants - - - - - - -
REET2 75,000 - - - - - 75,000
Traffic Impact Fees 10,000 - - - - - 10,000
20 Auburn Way South and M Street SE Intersection Improvements
Capital Costs 150,000 450,000 - - - - 600,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - -
Grants - 450,000 - - - - 450,000
Traffic Mitigation Fees 150,000 - - - - - 150,000
23 BNSF/E. Valley Highway Pedestrian Underpass
Capital Costs - - - - 4,800,000 5,000,000 9,800,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - -
Grants - - - - 4,550,000 5,000,000 9,550,000
Other (KC & Other )- - - - 250,000 - 250,000
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
24
TABLE T- 2 (continued)
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total
TIP#Capacity Projects:
24 Academy Drive Multi-Use Trail
Capital Costs - - - 50,000 425,000 425,000 900,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - 50,000 42,500 42,500 135,000
Grants - - - - 382,500 382,500 765,000
Other - - - - - - -
39 124th Ave SE Corridor Improvements Phase 3
Capital Costs - - - 100,000 750,000 - 850,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - -
Grants - - - 85,000 650,000 - 735,000
Traffic Impact Fees - - - 15,000 100,000 - 115,000
40 124th Ave SE Corridor Improvements Phase 1
Capital Costs 50,000 150,000 1,750,000 - - - 1,950,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - -
Grants - 125,000 1,565,000 - - - 1,690,000
Traffic Impact Fees 50,000 25,000 185,000 - - - 260,000
41 124th Ave SE Corridor Improvements Phase 2
Capital Costs - 50,000 200,000 1,000,000 - - 1,250,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - -
Grants - - 150,000 865,000 - - 1,015,000
Traffic Impact Fees - 50,000 50,000 135,000 - - 235,000
42 SE 320th Street Corridor Improvements
Capital Costs - - 50,000 60,000 580,000 - 690,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - -
Grants - - - 47,500 502,000 - 549,500
Traffic Impact Fees - - 50,000 12,500 78,000 - 140,500
43 Auburn Way South & Riverwalk Intersection Improvements
Capital Costs 250,000 2,083,108 - - - - 2,333,108
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - -
Grants 250,000 2,083,108 - - - - 2,333,108
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - -
47 Environmental Park Roadway Improvements Study
Capital Costs 10,000 - - - - - 10,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue 10,000 - - - - - 10,000
Grants - - - - - - -
Other - - - - - - -
48 Downtown to Les Gove Non-Motorized Improvements Study
Capital Costs 10,000 - - - - - 10,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue 10,000 - - - - - 10,000
Grants - - - - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - -
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
25
TABLE T- 2 (continued)
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total
TIP#Capacity Projects:
49 S 316th Street Bicycle & Pedestrian Improvement Study
Capital Costs - - 5,000 - - - 5,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - 5,000 - - - 5,000
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - -
51 East Valley Highway ITS Expansion
Capital Costs - - 800,000 - - - 800,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - -
Grants - - 692,000 - - - 692,000
Traffic Impact Fees - - 108,000 - - - 108,000
54 Kersey Way Study
Capital Costs 50,000 - - - - - 50,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees 50,000 - - - - - 50,000
58 Auburn Way South Corridor Improvements, Fir ST SE to Hemlock ST SE
Capital Costs 2,331,950 - - - - - 2,331,950
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - -
Grants 1,865,560 - - - - - 1,865,560
Other (MIT)466,390 - - - - - 466,390
59 Auburn Ave NE & 3rd St NE Pedestrian & Access Improvements
Capital Costs 15,000 200,000 700,500 - - - 915,500
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue 3,000 40,000 140,100 - - - 183,100
Grants 12,000 160,000 560,400 - - - 732,400
Other - - - - - - -
60 M Street SE Corridor (8th St SE to AWS)
Capital Costs - - - 1,925,000 4,750,000 - 6,675,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - 250,000 250,000 - 500,000
Grants - - - 925,000 3,750,000 - 4,675,000
Traffic Impact Fees - - - 750,000 750,000 - 1,500,000
63 29th Street SE & R Street SE
Capital Costs - - - - - 1,800,000 1,800,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - -
Grants - - - - - 850,000 850,000
REET2 - - - - - 450,000 450,000
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - 500,000 500,000
64 Lea Hill Segment 1 (R St NE to 105th Ave SE)
Capital Costs - - - - 2,500,000 10,000,000 12,500,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - -
Grants - - - - 2,000,000 8,000,000 10,000,000
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - 500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000
Other - - - - - - -
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
26
TABLE T- 2 (continued)
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total
TIP#Capacity Projects:
65 Lea Hill Rd Segment 2 (105th Ave SE to 112th Ave SE)
Capital Costs - - - - - 12,000,000 12,000,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - -
Grants - - - - - 10,000,000 10,000,000
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - 2,000,000 2,000,000
Other - - - - - - -
66 Lea Hill Rd Segment 3 (112th Ave SE to 124th Ave SE)
Capital Costs - - - - - 4,000,000 4,000,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - -
Grants - - - - - 3,000,000 3,000,000
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - 1,000,000 1,000,000
Other - - - - - - -
Subtotal, Capacity Projects:
Capital Costs 10,989,190 3,357,158 9,345,570 7,754,190 17,023,310 35,367,440 83,836,858
TIP#Non-Capacity Projects:
2 AWS Pedestrian Imp. -Dogwood St SE to Fir St SE
Capital Costs 748,830 - - - - - 748,830
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue 43,500 - - - - - 43,500
Grants 705,330 - - - - - 705,330
Other - - - - - - -
3 Auburn Way Corridor Improvements
Capital Costs - - - - 818,700 3,000,000 3,818,700
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - 110,000 600,000 710,000
Grants - - - - 708,700 2,400,000 3,108,700
Other - - - - - - -
7 15th Street SW Reconstruction
Capital Costs - - - 375,000 3,000,000 - 3,375,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - 75,000 500,000 - 575,000
Grants - - - 300,000 2,500,000 - 2,800,000
Other - - - - - - -
19 Auburn Way North / 1st Street NE Signal Improvements
Capital Costs - 50,000 - 550,000 - - 600,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - 50,000 - 125,000 - - 175,000
Grants - - - 425,000 - - 425,000
Other - - - - - - -
21 C Street NW and West Main Street
Capital Costs 150,000 - - - - - 150,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - -
Grants - - - - - - -
Other 150,000 - - - - - 150,000
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
27
TABLE T- 2 (continued)
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total
TIP#Non-Capacity Projects:
27 41st Street SE and A Street SE Access Management Study
Capital Costs 8,840 - - - - - 8,840
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue 8,840 - - - - - 8,840
Grants - - - - - - -
Other - - - - - - -
28 Annual Bridge Improvement Project
Capital Costs 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 300,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 300,000
Grants - - - - - - -
Other - - - - - - -
29 So. 277th, Wetland Mitigation
Capital Costs 25,000 25,000 - - - - 50,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue 25,000 25,000 - - - - 50,000
Grants - - - - - - -
Other - - - - - - -
30 Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Program
Capital Costs 100,000 - 100,000 - 100,000 - 300,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue 100,000 - 100,000 - 100,000 - 300,000
Grants - - - - - - -
Other - - - - - - -
31 Citywide Bicycle & Safety Improvements
Capital Costs 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 600,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 600,000
Grants - - - - - - -
Other - - - - - - -
38 Railroad Crossing Safety Improvements
Capital Costs 307,550 - - - - - 307,550
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - -
Grants 307,550 - - - - - 307,550
Other - - - - - - -
44 A Street NE Pedestrian Improvements
Capital Costs - - - 150,000 - - 150,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - -
Grants - - - 150,000 - - 150,000
Other - - - - - - -
45 Interurban Trailhead Improvements
Capital Costs - - - 210,000 - - 210,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - -
Grants - - - 210,000 - - 210,000
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
28
TABLE T- 2 (continued)
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total
TIP#Non-Capacity Projects:
46 104th Ave SE & Green River Road Study
Capital Costs 5,000 - - - - - 5,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue 5,000 - - - - - 5,000
Grants - - - - - - -
50 ITS Dynamic Message Signs
Capital Costs - - 220,000 - 220,000 - 440,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - 30,000 - 30,000 - 60,000
Grants - - 190,000 - 190,000 - 380,000
56 Lea Hill Safe Routes to School Improvements
Capital Costs 363,500 - - - - - 363,500
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - -
Grants 363,500 - - - - - 363,500
Other - - - - - - -
62 AWS Streetscape Improvements (SR 18 to M St SE)
Capital Costs - - - 1,950,000 2,800,000 - 4,750,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - 200,000 200,000 - 400,000
Grants - - - 1,200,000 2,050,000 - 3,250,000
REET 2 - - - 550,000 550,000 - 1,100,000
67 Citywide Traffic Signals Safety Improvements
Capital Costs 405,000 - - - - - 405,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue 5,000 - - - - - 5,000
Grants 400,000 - - - - - 400,000
Subtotal, Non-Capacity Projects:
Capital Costs 2,263,720 225,000 470,000 3,385,000 7,088,700 3,150,000 16,582,420
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total
SUMMARY:
CAPITAL COSTS
Capacity Projects 10,863,650 3,161,108 9,150,500 7,560,000 16,830,000 35,175,000 82,740,258
Non-Capacity Projects 2,263,720 225,000 470,000 3,385,000 7,088,700 3,150,000 16,582,420
Long-Term Debt 125,540 196,050 195,070 194,190 193,310 192,440 1,096,600
Total Costs 13,252,910 3,582,158 9,815,570 11,139,190 24,112,010 38,517,440 100,419,278
FUNDING SOURCES:
Unrestricted Street Revenue 665,340 265,000 425,100 850,000 1,382,500 792,500 4,380,440
Grants 8,436,125 2,971,108 7,821,700 8,007,500 20,283,200 31,382,500 78,902,133
Traffic Impact Fees 250,540 346,050 1,568,770 1,731,690 1,646,310 5,892,440 11,435,800
Traffic Mitigation Fees 150,000 - - - - - 150,000
REET2 75,000 - - 550,000 550,000 450,000 1,625,000
PWTF Loan 1,800,115 - - - - - 1,800,115
Other (Other Agencies)1,875,790 - - - 250,000 - 2,125,790
Total Funding 13,252,910 3,582,158 9,815,570 11,139,190 24,112,010 38,517,440 100,419,278
* Mitigation agreements, impact fees, contributions, other agencies, other funds
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
29
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Fund
Project Title: A Street NW, Phase 1 (3rd St. NW to 14th St. NW) TIP # 1
Project No:c207a0
Project Type:Capacity
Project Manager:Ingrid Gaub LOS Corridor ID# 18
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Street Revenue 258,962 18,504 - - 277,466
Grants (Fed,State,Local)4,680,402 1,900,338 - - 6,580,740
Traffic Impact Fees 187,309 737,751 25,000 25,000 950,060
Other Sources (Developer)*209,123 198,437 - - 407,560
5,335,796 2,855,030 25,000 25,000 8,215,826
Capital Expenditures:
Design 1,667,209 - 10,000 10,000 1,677,209
Right of Way 1,072,268 - - - 1,072,268
Construction 2,596,319 2,855,030 15,000 15,000 5,466,349
5,335,796 2,855,030 25,000 25,000 8,215,826
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees 350,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 475,000
Other Sources (Developer)*- - - - -
350,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 475,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design 50,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 100,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction 300,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 375,000
350,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 475,000
Grants / Other Sources:Other Source is MultiCare Contribution
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Construct a multi-lane arterial from 3rd St. NW to 14th St. NW. This project will improve mobility and is tied to corridor
development. It is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and contributes to the completion of a north/south arterial corridor.
The project length is approximately three-quarters of a mile. The City purchased ROW from the northern property owner. If the
property develops, some or a portion of those funds may be reimbursed to the City (total cost was $251,000).
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $25,830.
Adopted Budget
Progress Summary:
Pre-design was completed prior to 2007. Final design and environmental permitting were completed in 2011. Construction was
completed in 2012 and required wetland monitoring will continue until 2023.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
30
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Fund
Project Title: I Street NE Corridor (45th St NE to S 277th St) TIP # 4
Project No:c415a0, cp1207
Project Type:Capacity
Project Manager:TBD, Kim Truong LOS Corridor ID# 21
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Street Revenue 11,827 150,000 - - 161,827
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - -
Other Sources (Port of Seattle)- - - - -
Other Sources (Development)- - - - -
11,827 150,000 - - 161,827
Capital Expenditures:
Design 11,827 25,000 - - 36,827
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - 125,000 - - 125,000
11,827 150,000 - - 161,827
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - 1,000,000 1,000,000
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - -
Other Sources (Port of Seattle)- - - - -
Other Sources (Development)- - - - -
- - - 1,000,000 1,000,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - 250,000 250,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - 750,000 750,000
- - - 1,000,000 1,000,000
Grants / Other Sources:
The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $25,200.
Adjusted Budget
Adopted Budget
Budget Amendments
The final alignment of the I Street Corridor is being analyzed as part of the Northeast Auburn Special Area Plan
Environmental Impact Study. A portion of the ROW and Construction will be developer funded. The cross section will likely
be a 5-lane arterial per the city's Comprehensive Plan.
Progress Summary:
This project is development driven. 2012 expenditures were for design and construction of culvert crossing.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
31
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Fund
Project Title: M Street Underpass (3rd St SE to 8th St SE) TIP # 5
Project No:c201a0
Project Type:Capacity
Project Manager:Ryan Vondrak LOS Corridor ID# 6
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Street Revenue - 150,000 - - 150,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)872,372 5,169,000 3,664,485 - 9,705,857
REET2 1,140,000 - - - 1,140,000
Traffic Impact Fees (Construction)3,128,260 1,228,300 - - 4,356,560
Traffic Impact Fees (Debt Service)- - 38,640 109,550 38,640
Traffic Mitigation Fees 660,000 - - - 660,000
PWTFL - 1,008,084 1,800,115 - 2,808,199
Other Sources (Other Agencies)*235,079 1,753,351 1,249,400 - 3,237,830
6,035,711 9,308,735 6,752,640 109,550 22,097,086
Capital Expenditures:
Design 2,674,716 - - - 2,674,716
Right of Way 3,358,708 - - - 3,358,708
Construction 2,287 9,308,735 6,714,000 - 16,025,022
PWTFL Debt Service - - 38,640 109,550 38,640
6,035,711 9,308,735 6,752,640 109,550 22,097,086
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - 3,664,485
REET2 - - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees (Construction)- - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees (Debt Service)109,070 108,590 108,110 107,640 581,600
Traffic Mitigation Fees - - - - -
PWTFL - - - - 1,800,115
Other Sources (Other Agencies)*- - - - 1,249,400
109,070 108,590 108,110 107,640 7,295,600
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - 6,714,000
PWTFL Debt Service 109,070 108,590 108,110 107,640 581,600
109,070 108,590 108,110 107,640 7,295,600
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Grants / Other Sources: Other Agencies are King County Metro Sewer, Port of Seattle, Port of Tacoma, and BNSF Railway
The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $21,827.
Adopted Budget
Budget Amendments
Construction of a grade separated railroad crossing of M St SE at the BNSF Stampede Pass tracks.
Progress Summary:
100% Design Drawings and right of way acquisition were completed in 2011. Construction started in early 2012 and is
schedule for completion in 2013.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
32
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Fund
Project Title: South 277th (Auburn Way North to Green River Bridge) TIP # 6
Project No:c222a0
Project Type:Capacity
Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 15
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Street Revenue 19,085 102,700 156,600 - 278,385
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - 867,700 153,000 867,700
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - -
Other (Development Funds)*- - - - -
Other - - - - -
19,085 102,700 1,024,300 153,000 1,146,085
Capital Expenditures:
Design 19,085 102,700 1,007,000 153,000 1,128,785
Right of Way - - 17,300 - 17,300
Construction - - - - -
19,085 102,700 1,024,300 153,000 1,146,085
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - 156,600
Grants (Fed,State,Local)3,879,300 - - - 4,900,000
Traffic Impact Fees 290,700 - - - 290,700
Other (Development Funds)*- - - - -
Other - - - - -
4,170,000 - - - 5,347,300
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - 1,160,000
Right of Way - - - - 17,300
Construction 4,170,000 - - - 4,170,000
4,170,000 - - - 5,347,300
Grants / Other Sources:Grant Funding is unsecure.
The annual maintenance costs for this project is estimated to be $27,250.
Adopted Budget
This project includes preliminary engineering, design, right of way acquisition and construction of major widening on S. 277th
Street, including the addition of three lanes, one westbound and two eastbound, a Class 1 trail, and storm improvements.
The project length is nine-tenths of a mile.
Progress Summary:
Staff is cooridnating with the City of Kent and King County to complete annexation of roadway into City of Auburn jurisdiction.
Robertson Properties Group is participating in this project and is dedicating all necessary roadway frontage to the City.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Funding Sources:
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
33
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Fund
Project Title: A Street NW, Phase 2 (W Main to 3rd St NW) TIP # 8
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Capacity
Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 18
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
REET - - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - -
Other (Developer)*- - - - -
- - - - -
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - -
- - - - -
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - 3,000,000 - 3,000,000
REET - - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees 150,000 - - - 150,000
Other (Developer)*- - - - -
150,000 - 3,000,000 - 3,150,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design 150,000 - 250,000 - 400,000
Right of Way - - 250,000 - 250,000
Construction - 2,500,000 - 2,500,000
150,000 - 3,000,000 - 3,150,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance.
Adopted Budget
Construct a multi-lane arterial from W Main to 3rd St NW. This project will connect A St NW, Phase 1 to the Sound Transit
Station and the Central Business District. This project may end up being funded all or in part by developers. The project
length is one fifth of a mile.
Progress Summary:
The parking garage constructed by the Auburn Regional Medical Center completed a portion of this project in 2009. Design is
anticipated to begin in 2015.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
34
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Fund
Project Title: D Street NW (37th St NW to 44th St NW) TIP # 9
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Capacity
Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 20
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
REET - - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - - - -
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - -
- - - - -
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - 250,000 250,000
REET - - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees - - - 50,000 50,000
Other - - - - -
- - - 300,000 300,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - 300,000 300,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - -
- - - 300,000 300,000
Grants / Other Sources:
The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $11,450.
Adopted Budget
Construct a four-lane arterial per the city Comprehensive Plan. It will improve north/south mobility. This project is tied to
potential future development and will complete a major north/south arterial corridor from Ellingson Road SW (41st Street SE)
to S. 277th St. The D St NW project length is approximately 0.42 miles.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
35
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Fund
Project Title: F Street SE (4th St SE to Auburn Way S) TIP # 10
Project No:cp0911
Project Type:Capacity
Project Manager:TBD
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
REET - - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees 7,620 - - - -
Other - - - - -
7,620 - - - -
Capital Expenditures:
Design 7,620 - - - 7,620
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - -
7,620 - - - 7,620
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)200,000 2,000,000 - - 2,200,000
REET - - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees 50,000 250,000 - - 300,000
Other - - - - -
250,000 2,250,000 - - 2,500,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design 250,000 - - 250,000
Right of Way - 75,000 - - 75,000
Construction - 2,175,000 - - 2,175,000
250,000 2,250,000 - - 2,500,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $4,100.
Adjusted Budget
Adopted Budget
Budget Amendments
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
The F St SE project includes pavement reconstruction, installation of curbs, gutters, an 8-foot wide sidewalk on both sides,
parking on one side, and a center turn-lane, as well as crash attenuation at the supports for the BNSF railroad bridge. This
project improves mobility and safety along the corridor. The project length is approximately 0.3 miles.
Progress Summary:
Preliminary design and survey work was completed in 2009. Final design and construction are planned to be completed
following construction of the M Street grade separation project.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Funding Sources:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
36
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Fund
Project Title: M Street NE (E Main St to 4th St NE) TIP # 11
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Capacity
Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 5
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
REET - - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees - - - 50,000 -
Other - - - - -
- - - 50,000 -
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - 50,000 -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - -
- - - 50,000 -
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)225,000 1,000,000 - - 1,225,000
REET - - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees 50,000 150,000 - - 250,000
Other - - - - -
275,000 1,150,000 - - 1,475,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design 75,000 - - - 125,000
Right of Way 200,000 - - - 200,000
Construction - 1,150,000 - 1,150,000
275,000 1,150,000 - - 1,475,000
Grants / Other Sources:
The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $1,500.
Adopted Budget
This project will construct a complete 4 lane street section on M St NE between south of E Main St and 4th St NE.
Progress Summary:
Pre-design will be done in 2014 to refine project scope, alignment, and cost.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
37
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Fund
Project Title: M St SE and 12th St SE Traffic Signal TIP # 14
Project No:CPxxxx
Project Type:Intersection Improvement, Capacity
Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 11
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
REET 2 - - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - - - -
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - -
- - - - -
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - 500,000 500,000
REET 2 - - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees - - - 125,000 125,000
Other - - - - -
- - - 625,000 625,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - 75,000 75,000
Right of Way - - - 50,000 50,000
Construction - - - 500,000 500,000
- - - 625,000 625,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
Adopted Budget
This project includes the design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction of a new traffic signal.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $6,600.
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
38
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Fund
Project Title: 8th Street NE Widening (Pike St to R St NE)TIP # 15
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Capacity
Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 19
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
REET - - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - - - -
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - -
- - - - -
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)360,000 800,000 - - 1,160,000
REET - - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees 90,000 200,000 - - 290,000
Other - - - - -
450,000 1,000,000 - - 1,450,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design 200,000 - - - 200,000
Right of Way 250,000 - - - 250,000
Construction - 1,000,000 - - 1,000,000
450,000 1,000,000 - - 1,450,000
Grants / Other Sources:
This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance.
Adopted Budget
Add eastbound lane to Southside of 8th St NE. Currently the lane exists from M St NE and drops as a right turn only lane at
the intersection of 8th St NE and Pike St. This would extend the lane to R St NE where it would then be a right turn only lane
onto R St NE southbound. This is a planning level cost estimate.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
39
MUNICIPAL PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (321)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Capital Projects Fund
Project Title: Park Acquisitions/Development
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Capacity
Project Manager:Faber
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Fund Balance - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- 350,000 120,000 - 470,000
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
REET - - -
KC Prop 2*- 120,000 120,000 120,000 240,000
- 470,000 240,000 120,000 710,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Acquisition - 470,000 120,000 120,000 590,000
Construction - - 120,000 - 120,000
- 470,000 240,000 120,000 710,000
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Fund Balance - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - 120,000
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
REET - - - - -
KC Prop 2*- - - - 240,000
- - - - 360,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Acquisition - - - - 240,000
Construction - - - - 120,000
- - - - 360,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Adopted Budget
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
None
Land acquisitions to occur based on demand and deficiencies including trails and corridors. Projects to potentially include
the State Parks property adjacent to Game Farm Park.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
40
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Fund
Project Title: 8th Street NE and SE 104th St Intersection Improvements TIP # 18
Project No:CP1104
Project Type:Intersection Improvement, Capacity
Project Manager:Robert Lee LOS Corridor ID# 19
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Street Revenue 8,600 - 148,400 - 157,000
Grants (Federal)- 100,000 - - 100,000
REET2 - - 75,000 - 75,000
Traffic Impact Fees - 40,000 10,000 - 50,000
Other (Redflex)- - - - -
8,600 140,000 233,400 - 382,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design 7,122 110,000 - - 117,122
Right of Way 1,478 30,000 - - 31,478
Construction - - 233,400 - 233,400
8,600 140,000 233,400 - 382,000
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - 148,400
Grants (Federal)- - - - -
REET2 - - - - 75,000
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - 10,000
Other (Redflex)- - - - -
- - - - 233,400
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - 233,400
- - - - 233,400
Grants / Other Sources:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $6,600.
Adopted Budget
This project includes the design, right of way acquisition and construction of intersection improvements that will consist of a
traffic signal with eastbound u-turn capacity.
Progress Summary:
The design began in 2011 with construction scheduled for 2013.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
41
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Fund
Project Title: Auburn Way South and M Street SE Intersection Imp.TIP # 20
Project No:cp1024
Project Type:Capacity
Project Manager:Kim Truong LOS Corridor ID# 3,4
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Street Revenue 19,830 80,170 - - 100,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - 450,000 -
REET - - - - -
Traffic Mitigation Funds - - 150,000 - 150,000
Other - - - - -
19,830 80,170 150,000 450,000 250,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design 19,830 80,170 50,000 - 130,170
Right of Way - - 100,000 - 100,000
Construction - - - 450,000 -
19,830 80,170 150,000 450,000 250,000
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - 450,000
REET - - - - -
Traffic Mitigation Funds - - - - 150,000
Other - - - - -
- - - - 600,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - 50,000
Right of Way - - - - 100,000
Construction - - - - 450,000
- - - - 600,000
Grants / Other Sources:
This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance.
Adopted Budget
This Project is the first phase of improvements for this intersection. Scope includes construction of a new westbound to
northbound right turn pocket, improved turning radius at corner, realignment of westbound 17th St SE's approach to Auburn
Way South, lighting improvements, related traffic signal modifications and right of way acquisition.
Progress Summary:
Pre-design was completed in 2012. Final design and right of way acquisition are planned for 2013 and construction is
planned for 2014.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
42
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Fund
Project Title: BNSF/E. Valley Highway Pedestrian Underpass TIP # 23
Project No:c229a0
Project Type:Class 1 Trail (Capacity)
Project Manager:TBD
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Street Revenue 53,900 - - - 53,900
Grants (Fed,State,Local)170,400 - - - 170,400
REET - - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees
Other - - - - -
224,300 - - - 224,300
Capital Expenditures:
Design 224,300 - - - 224,300
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - -
224,300 - - - 224,300
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- 4,550,000 5,000,000 9,550,000
REET - - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - -
Other (Other Agencies)*- - 250,000 - 250,000
- - 4,800,000 5,000,000 9,800,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - 750,000 - 750,000
Right of Way - - 50,000 - 50,000
Construction - - 4,000,000 5,000,000 9,000,000
- - 4,800,000 5,000,000 9,800,000
Grants / Other Sources:
The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $240.
Adopted Budget
Project to construct an undercrossing of the BNSF Railroad in conjunction with a pedestrian bridge to allow a safe, direct,
attractive non-motorized access between neighborhoods in the City of Pacific and schools in the City of Auburn.
Progress Summary:
The design is on hold. Funding source is most likely a federal earmark. Currently this project is on hold pending some
discussions with BNSF RR. They are in the process of planning for a third rail which would significantly impact the design.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
43
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Fund
Project Title: Academy Drive Multi-Use Trail TIP # 24
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Class 1 Trail (Capacity)
Project Manager:TBD
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
REET - - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - -
Other Sources - - - - -
- - - - -
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - -
- - - - -
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - 50,000 42,500 42,500 135,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - 382,500 382,500 765,000
REET - - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - -
Other Sources - - - - -
- 50,000 425,000 425,000 900,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - 50,000 - - 50,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - 425,000 425,000 850,000
- 50,000 425,000 425,000 900,000
Grants / Other Sources:
The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $1,680.
Adopted Budget
This project will use existing right-of-way to repair the damaged roadbed to a usable multi-use trail on Academy Dr from the
Green River Rd to Auburn Way S.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
44
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Fund
Project Title: 124th Ave SE Corridor Improvements Phase 3 TIP # 39
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Capacity
Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 23, 25
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - - - -
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - -
- - - - -
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- 85,000 650,000 - 735,000
Traffic Impact Fees - 15,000 100,000 - 115,000
Other - - - - -
- 100,000 750,000 - 850,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - 100,000 - - 100,000
Right of Way - - 50,000 - 50,000
Construction - - 700,000 - 700,000
- 100,000 750,000 - 850,000
Grants / Other Sources:
This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance.
Adopted Budget
This project will fund the design, right of way acquisition, and construction of improvements to the signalized intersection of SE 320th St
and 124th Ave SE. Improvements include constructing bike lanes, sidewalks, dual southbound left turn lanes into GRCC, and ITS. A
portion of this project is the main entrance to Green River Community College and will require additional on-site improvements by
GRCC.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
45
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Fund
Project Title: 124th Ave SE Corridor Improvements Phase 1 TIP # 40
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Capacity
Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 23
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - 125,000 -
Traffic Impact Fees - - 50,000 25,000 50,000
Other - - - - -
- - 50,000 150,000 50,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - 50,000 150,000 50,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - -
- - 50,000 150,000 50,000
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)1,565,000 - - - 1,690,000
Traffic Impact Fees 185,000 - - - 260,000
Other - - - - -
1,750,000 - - - 1,950,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - 200,000
Right of Way 250,000 - - - 250,000
Construction 1,500,000 - - - 1,500,000
1,750,000 - - - 1,950,000
Grants / Other Sources:
This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance.
Adopted Budget
This project will fund the design, right of way acquisition, and construction of a 4-lane section with bicycle and pedestrian facilities on
124th Ave SE between SE 318th St and SE 312th St.
Progress Summary:
Pre-design is planned for 2013.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
46
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Fund
Project Title: 124th Ave SE Corridor Improvements Phase 2 TIP # 41
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Capacity
Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 19, 23
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees - - - 50,000 -
Other - - - - -
- - - 50,000 -
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - 50,000 -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - -
- - - 50,000 -
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)150,000 865,000 - - 1,015,000
Traffic Impact Fees 50,000 135,000 - - 235,000
Other - - - - -
200,000 1,000,000 - - 1,250,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design 100,000 - - - 150,000
Right of Way 100,000 - - - 100,000
Construction - 1,000,000 - - 1,000,000
200,000 1,000,000 - - 1,250,000
Grants / Other Sources:
This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance.
Adopted Budget
This project will fund the design, right of way acquisition, and construction of improvements to the signalized intersection of SE 312th St
and 124th Ave SE. Improvements include adding bike lanes, dual westbound left turn lanes, dual southbound thru lanes, northbound
right turn pocket, ITS and pedestrian safety improvements.
Progress Summary:
Pre-design is scheduled for 2013.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
47
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Fund
Project Title: SE 320th Street Corridor Improvements TIP # 42
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Capacity
Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 23, 25
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - -
PWTFL - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - - - -
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - -
- - - - -
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- 47,500 502,000 - 549,500
Traffic Impact Fees 50,000 12,500 78,000 - 140,500
PWTFL - - - - -
Other - - - - -
50,000 60,000 580,000 - 690,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design 50,000 60,000 - - 110,000
Right of Way - - 60,000 - 60,000
Construction - - 520,000 - 520,000
50,000 60,000 580,000 - 690,000
Grants / Other Sources:
This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance.
Adopted Budget
This project will fund the design, right of way acquisition, and construction of a 3 lane roadway with bicycle and pedestrian facilities on
SE 320th St between 124th Ave SE and the western entrance to GRCC.
Progress Summary:
GRCC is planning to complete the design and construction for the segment between 124th Ave SE and 122nd Ave SE in
2013.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
48
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Fund
Project Title: Auburn Way South (SR-164) Corridor Safety Improvements TIP # 43
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Capacity
Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 4
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - 250,000 2,083,108 250,000
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - -
PWTFL - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - 250,000 2,083,108 250,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - 250,000 62,210 250,000
Right of Way - - - 69,585 -
Construction - - - 1,951,313 -
- - 250,000 2,083,108 250,000
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - 2,333,108
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - -
PWTFL - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - - - 2,333,108
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - 312,210
Right of Way - - - - 69,585
Construction - - - - 1,951,313
- - - - 2,333,108
Grants / Other Sources:
This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance.
Adopted Budget
This project will improve access management, provide u-turns, upgrade transit stops and street lighting, widen to accommodate turn
lanes and pedestrians and bicycles, upgrade pavement markings, install pedestrian signals and audible pedestrian push buttons, and
upgrade traffic signals to change the phasing and to improve the visibility of the signal heads.
Progress Summary:
Grant funding was awarded in 2012 and does not require a local match.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
49
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Fund
Project Title: Environmental Park Roadway Improvements Study TIP # 47
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Capacity
Project Manager:TBD
Description:
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on
Operating Budget:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
Adopted Budget - - - -
Budget Amendments - - - -
Adjusted Budget - - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - 10,000 - 10,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
REET - - - - -
PWTFL - - - - -
Other - - - - -
Total Funding Sources:- - 10,000 - 10,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - 10,000 - 10,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - -
Total Expenditures:- - 10,000 - 10,000
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
REET - - - - -
PWTFL - - - - -
Other - - - - -
Total Funding Sources:- - - - -
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - 10,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - -
Total Expenditures:- - - - 10,000
Grants / Other Sources:
This project will fund a study to determine the feasibility, scope and cost of low impact roadway, bicycle and pedestrian improvements in
the Environmental Park area. Included in this study scope is a connection between Clay St NW and Western St NW.
This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance.
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
50
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Fund
Project Title: Downtown to Les Gove Non-Motorized Improvements Study TIP # 48
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Bike Lanes, Sidewalks and Transit Improvement Study (Capacity)
Project Manager:TBD
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - 10,000 - 10,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
REET - - - - -
PWTFL - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - 10,000 - 10,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - 10,000 - 10,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - -
- - 10,000 - 10,000
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - 10,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
REET - - - - -
PWTFL - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - - - 10,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - 10,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - -
- - - - 10,000
Grants / Other Sources:
This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance.
Adopted Budget
This project provides funding to complete a study of the 2nd St SE & F St SE corridor between Les Gove Park and Downtown Auburn.
Improvements may include pavement reconstruction, sidewalks, access ramps, signal modifications and route signing.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
51
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Fund
Project Title: S 316th Street Bicycle & Pedestrian Improvement Study TIP # 49
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Class 2 Bike Lanes / Sidewalks (Capacity)
Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 37
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - -
- - - - -
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - -
- - - - -
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue 5,000 - - - 5,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - -
5,000 - - - 5,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design 5,000 - - - 5,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - -
5,000 - - - 5,000
Grants / Other Sources:
This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance.
Adopted Budget
This project provides funding for completing a study to add bicycle and pedestrian facilities on S 316th St from east of Evergreen
Heights Elementary to 51st Ave S.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
52
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Fund
Project Title: East Valley Highway ITS Expansion TIP # 51
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Capacity
Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 10
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - -
REET - - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - - - -
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - -
- - - - -
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)692,000 - - - 692,000
REET - - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees 108,000 - - - 108,000
Other - - - - -
800,000 - - - 800,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design 85,000 - - - 85,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction 715,000 - - - 715,000
800,000 - - - 800,000
Grants / Other Sources:
The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $5,000.
Adopted Budget
This project will fund the design, coordination, permitting and construction of ITS facilities from 41st St SE to Lake Tapps Parkway.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
53
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Fund
Project Title: Kersey Way Study TIP # 54
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Capacity
Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 4
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
REET - - - - -
Traffic Mitigation Fees - - 50,000 - 50,000
Other - - - - -
- - 50,000 - 50,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - 50,000 - 50,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - -
- - 50,000 - 50,000
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
- - - - -
Traffic Mitigation Fees - - - - 50,000
Other (Developer)*- - - - -
- - - - 50,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - 50,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - -
- - - - 50,000
Grants / Other Sources:
None
Adopted Budget
This project will study improvements to the Kersey Way SE corridor from the White River Bridge to the southern city limits. The
study will develop the scope and costs for horizontal/vertical geometric roadway improvements, roadside hazard mitigation, street
lighting and non-motorized trail construction. The project length is approximately two miles.
Progress Summary:
Pre design will begin in 2013.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
54
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Fund
Project Title: Auburn Way South Corridor Imp., Fir ST SE to Hemlock ST SE TIP # 58
Project No:cp1119
Project Type:Capacity
Project Manager:Leah Dunsdon LOS Corridor ID# 4
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Street Revenue 849 - - - 849
Grants (State)840 560,000 1,865,560 - 2,426,400
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - -
Other Sources(Muckleshoot)211 140,000 466,390 - 606,601
1,900 700,000 2,331,950 3,033,850
Capital Expenditures:
Design 1,900 475,000 - - 476,900
Right of Way - 225,000 - - 225,000
Construction - - 2,331,950 - 2,331,950
1,900 700,000 2,331,950 - 3,033,850
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - -
Grants (State)- - - - 1,865,560
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - -
Other Sources(Muckleshoot)- - - - 466,390
- - - - 2,331,950
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - 2,331,950
- - - - 2,331,950
Grants / Other Sources:
This annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $9,300.
Adopted Budget
This project will widen Auburn Way South between Fir St SE and Hemlock St SE to five lanes with curb, gutter, sidewalks, illumination
and storm improvements. A new traffic signal will also be constructed at Hemlock Street SE and connect to Auburn's Intelligent
Transportation System.
Progress Summary:
Washington State Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) awarded grant in the amount of $2,426,400 on November 19,
2010 to the City of Auburn.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
55
MUNICIPAL PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (321)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Capital Projects Fund
Project Title: Park Acquisitions/Development
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Capacity
Project Manager:Faber
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Fund Balance - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- 350,000 120,000 - 470,000
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
REET - - -
KC Prop 2*- 120,000 120,000 120,000 240,000
- 470,000 240,000 120,000 710,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Acquisition - 470,000 120,000 120,000 590,000
Construction - - 120,000 - 120,000
- 470,000 240,000 120,000 710,000
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Fund Balance - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - 120,000
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
REET - - - - -
KC Prop 2*- - - - 240,000
- - - - 360,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Acquisition - - - - 240,000
Construction - - - - 120,000
- - - - 360,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Adopted Budget
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
None
Land acquisitions to occur based on demand and deficiencies including trails and corridors. Projects funding to potentially
include the State Parks property adjacent to Game Farm Park.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
56
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Fund
Project Title: M Street SE Corridor (8TH St SE to AWS)TIP # 60
Project No:xxx
Project Type:Capacity
Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 5
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - -
REET2 - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - - - -
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - -
- - - - -
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - 250,000 250,000 - 500,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- 925,000 3,750,000 - 4,675,000
Traffic Impact Fees - 750,000 750,000 - 1,500,000
REET2 - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- 1,925,000 4,750,000 - 6,675,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - 650,000 - - 650,000
Right of Way - 1,275,000 - - 1,275,000
Construction - - 4,750,000 - 4,750,000
- 1,925,000 4,750,000 - 6,675,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Adopted Budget
Construct a multi-lane arterial from 8TH Street SE to AWS. This project will improve mobility and is tied to corridor development. It is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and contributes to the completion of a north/south arterial corridor.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
57
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Fund
Project Title: 29th Street SE & R Street SE TIP # 63
Project No:cpXXX
Project Type:Capacity
Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID#4
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - -
Grants (State)- - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - -
REET - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - - - -
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - -
- - - - -
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - -
Grants (State)- - - 850,000 850,000
Traffic Impact Fees - - - 500,000 500,000
REET - - - 450,000 450,000
Other - - - - -
- - - 1,800,000 1,800,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - 350,000 350,000
Right of Way - - - 450,000 450,000
Construction - - - 1,000,000 1,000,000
- - - 1,800,000 1,800,000
Grants / Other Sources:
This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance.
Adopted Budget
This project will fund the design, right of way acquisition and construction of intersection capacity and safety improvements at 29th
Street SE and R Street SE. This project will include creating eastbound/westbound dual left turn lanes, auxiliary signal heads and
pedestrian safety enhancements.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
58
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Funds
Project Title: Lea Hill Rd Segment 1 (R St NE to 105th Pl SE) TIP # 64
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Capacity
Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 23
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
-
-
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - - - -
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - -
- - - - -
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - 2,000,000 8,000,000 10,000,000
Traffic Impact Fees - - 500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000
Other - - - - -
- - 2,500,000 10,000,000 12,500,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - 2,000,000 - 2,000,000
Right of Way - - 500,000 - 500,000
Construction - - 10,000,000 10,000,000
- - 2,500,000 10,000,000 12,500,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Adopted Budget
Expand current two-lane roadway to 4-lanes, including widening of the Green River Bridge. Project includes bike lanes and
sidewalks.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
59
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Funds
Project Title: Lea Hill Rd Segment 2 (105th Pl SE to 112th Ave SE) TIP # 65
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Capacity
Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID #23
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
-
-
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - - - -
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - -
- - - - -
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - 10,000,000 10,000,000
Traffic Impact Fees - - - 2,000,000 2,000,000
Other - - - - -
- - - 12,000,000 12,000,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - 2,000,000 2,000,000
Right of Way - - - 1,500,000 1,500,000
Construction - - - 8,500,000 8,500,000
- - - 12,000,000 12,000,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Adopted Budget
Project includes widening from existing 2-lane roadway to 4-lanes with bicycle lanes and sidewalks.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
60
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Funds
Project Title: Lea Hill Rd Segment 3 (112th Ave SE to 124th Ave SE ) TIP # 66
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Capacity LOS Corridor ID #23
Project Manager:TBD
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
-
-
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - - - -
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - -
- - - - -
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - 3,000,000 3,000,000
Traffic Impact Fees - - - 1,000,000 1,000,000
Other - - - - -
- - - 4,000,000 4,000,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - 500,000 500,000
Right of Way - - - 500,000 500,000
Construction - - - 3,000,000 3,000,000
- - - 4,000,000 4,000,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Adopted Budget
Project includes widening from existing 2-lane roadway to 4-lanes with bicycle lanes and sidewalks.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
61
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Fund
Project Title: Auburn Way South Pedestrian Improvements Dogwood to Fir TIP # 2
Project No:cp1118
Project Type:Non-Motorized
Project Manager:Leah Dunsdon LOS Corridor ID# 4
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Street Revenue 1,624 54,876 43,500 - 100,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- 135,500 705,330 - 840,830
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - -
Other Sources - - - - -
1,624 190,376 748,830 - 940,830
Capital Expenditures:
Design 1,624 180,376 50,000 - 232,000
Right of Way - 10,000 - - 10,000
Construction - - 698,830 - 698,830
1,624 190,376 748,830 - 940,830
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - 43,500
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - 705,330
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - -
Other Sources - - - - -
- - - - 748,830
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - 50,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - 698,830
- - - - 748,830
Grants / Other Sources:
This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance.
Adopted Budget
This project will construct pedestrian improvements along Auburn Way South between Dogwood St SE and Fir St SE that are consistent
with WSDOT's SR-164 Route Development Plan. This project includes sidewalk improvements, access management, a mid-block
pedestrian crossing, construction of a u-turn wedge at Fir St SE and street lighting.
Progress Summary:
Project design began in 2012 with construction expected to be completed in 2013. The City was awarded $100,000 in
federal funding and $740,830 in state funding in May 2011.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
62
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Fund
Project Title: Auburn Way Corridor Imp. (4th St NE to 4th St SE) TIP # 3
Project No:c409a0
Project Type:Non-Capacity
Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 2-3
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Street Revenue 78,251 - - - 78,251
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
REET - - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - -
Other Sources - - - - -
78,251 - - - 78,251
Capital Expenditures:
Design 78,251 - - - 78,251
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - -
78,251 - - - 78,251
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - 110,000 600,000 710,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - 708,700 2,400,000 3,108,700
REET - - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - -
Other Sources - - - - -
- - 818,700 3,000,000 3,818,700
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - 618,700 - 618,700
Right of Way - - 200,000 - 200,000
Construction - - - 3,000,000 3,000,000
- - 818,700 3,000,000 3,818,700
Grants / Other Sources:
This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance.
Adopted Budget
This project is based on a pre-design study and is intended to improve pedestrian accessibility, appearance, and link the
downtown area along Auburn Way South between 4th St NE and 4th St SE. This project may include some pavement
repairs. However, an overlay was completed as part of the City's Arterial Pavement Preservation Program in 2007. Although
this was considered a temporary fix, the scope has been modified to account for the pavement work. The project length is
approximately a half mile.
Progress Summary:
The pavement portion has been minimized due to the work completed in 2007 under the Arterial Pavement Preservation
Program.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
63
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Fund
Project Title: 15th Street SW Reconstruction TIP # 7
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Non-Capacity
Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 12
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
REET - - - - -
Traffic Mitigation Funds - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - - - -
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - -
- - - - -
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - 75,000 500,000 - 575,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- 300,000 2,500,000 - 2,800,000
REET - - - - -
Traffic Mitigation Funds - - -
Other - - - - -
- 375,000 3,000,000 - 3,375,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - 375,000 - - 375,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - 3,000,000 - 3,000,000
- 375,000 3,000,000 - 3,375,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance.
Adjusted Budget
Adopted Budget
Budget Amendments
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
This project was originally scoped to include pavement preservation. The pavement preservation component could still be
combined with this project, but is also eligible for the Arterial Pavement Preservation Program. This project should look to
improve the railroad crossing grades as well as the vertical sight distance to the interurban trail to the west of the tracks. The
cost estimate listed below is planning level cost.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Funding Sources:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
64
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Fund
Project Title: Auburn Way North / 1st Street NE Signal Improvements TIP # 19
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Non-Capacity
Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 2
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - 50,000 -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - - 50,000 -
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - 50,000 -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - -
- - - 50,000 -
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - 125,000 - - 175,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- 425,000 - - 425,000
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- 550,000 - - 600,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - 50,000
Right of Way - 100,000 - - 100,000
Construction - 450,000 - - 450,000
- 550,000 - - 600,000
Grants / Other Sources:Grant funds are unsecure.
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance.
Adjusted Budget
Adopted Budget
Budget Amendments
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
This project will construct a new complete traffic signal with controller cabinet and battery backup along with necessary
intersection improvements.
Progress Summary:
Design will be completed in 2014. Construction is planned for 2016.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Funding Sources:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
65
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Fund
Project Title: C Street NW and West Main Street TIP # 21
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Non Capacity
Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 11
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - -
REET - - - - -
Traffic Mitigation Fees - - 150,000 - 150,000
Other - - - - -
- - 150,000 - 150,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - 50,000 50,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - 100,000 - 100,000
- - 150,000 - 150,000
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - -
REET - - - - -
Traffic Mitigation Fees - - - 150,000
Other - - - - -
- - - - 150,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - 50,000
Right of Way - - - -
Construction - - - 100,000
- - - - 150,000
Grants / Other Sources:
This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance.
Adopted Budget
Construct new decorative monopole type traffic signal to include protected left turn phases for C ST traffic. This would also
provide additional safety related to the railroad pre-emption. Future improvements to this intersection may include widening
for additional turn lanes.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
66
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Fund
Project Title: 41st Street SE and A Street SE Access Management Study TIP # 27
Project No:cp1110
Project Type:Safety (Non-Capacity)
Project Manager:Pablo Para LOS Corridor ID# 10,33
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Street Revenue 1,160 - 8,840 - 10,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
REET - - - - -
Traffic Mitigation Fees - - - - -
Other - - - - -
1,160 - 8,840 - 10,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design 1,160 - 8,840 - 10,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - -
1,160 - 8,840 - 10,000
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - 8,840
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
REET - - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - - - 8,840
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - 8,840
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - -
- - - - 8,840
Grants / Other Sources:
This study will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance.
Adopted Budget
Study the area from 37th St SE to the White River on A St SE including 41st St SE from D St SE to C St SE. The study
should review the safety and access needs of the traveling public and the adjacent properties.
Progress Summary:
Pre-design will be done to refine project scope, alignment, and cost.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
67
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Fund
Project Title: Annual Bridge Preservation Project TIP # 28
Project No:Various
Project Type:Non-Capacity (Annual)
Project Manager:Pablo Para
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Street Revenue - 50,000 50,000 50,000 100,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
REET - - - - -
Traffic Mitigation Fees - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- 50,000 50,000 50,000 100,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - 5,000 5,000 5,000 10,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - 45,000 45,000 45,000 90,000
- 50,000 50,000 50,000 100,000
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 300,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
REET - - - - -
Traffic Mitigation Fees - - - - -
Other - - - - -
50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 300,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 30,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 270,000
50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 300,000
Grants / Other Sources:
This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance.
Adopted Budget
This is an annual level of effort project used to fund bridge improvements as identified by the city's annual bridge inspection program.
Progress Summary:
Program completed load rating calculations for nine bridges in 2011. 2012 project completed miscellaneous bridge repairs.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
68
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Fund
Project Title: South 277th - Wetland Mitigation TIP # 29
Project No:c410a0
Project Type:Non-Capacity
Project Manager:Leah Dunsdon
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Street Revenue 212,267 57,050 25,000 25,000 294,317
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
REET - - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - -
Other - - - - -
212,267 57,050 25,000 25,000 294,317
Capital Expenditures:
Design 81,903 18,000 10,000 10,000 109,903
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction 130,364 39,050 15,000 15,000 184,414
212,267 57,050 25,000 25,000 294,317
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - 50,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
REET - - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - - - 50,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - 20,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - 30,000
- - - - 50,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance.
Adjusted Budget
Adopted Budget
Budget Amendments
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Wetland mitigation for the 277th St Grade Separation project.
Progress Summary:
This is a 10-year obligation, which began in 2004.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Funding Sources:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
69
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Fund
Project Title: Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Program TIP # 30
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Non-Capacity (Bi-Annual)
Project Manager:Pablo Para
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - 100,000 100,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
REET - - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - 100,000 - 100,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - 10,000 - 10,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - 90,000 - 90,000
- - 100,000 - 100,000
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue 100,000 - 100,000 300,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
REET - - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - -
Other - - - - -
100,000 - 100,000 - 300,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design 10,000 - 10,000 - 30,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction 90,000 - 90,000 - 270,000
100,000 - 100,000 - 300,000
Grants / Other Sources:
This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance.
Adopted Budget
This is a bi-annual level of effort project used to fund small pedestrian safety studies and improvement projects. This project
provides for pedestrian safety studies and improvements at various locations citywide. Projects are prioritized annually
based on safety issues and pedestrian demands.
Progress Summary:
Project for 2011 was preliminary design of 8th St NE and SE 104th St intersection improvements. 2012 project is access
improvements at Auburn Ave and 3rd St NE.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
70
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Fund
Project Title: Citywide Arterial Bicycle & Safety Improvements TIP # 31
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Non-Capacity (Safety)
Project Manager:Various
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - 100,000 100,000 100,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
REET - - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - 100,000 100,000 100,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - 10,000 10,000 10,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - 90,000 90,000 90,000
- - 100,000 100,000 100,000
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 600,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
REET - - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - -
Other - - - - -
100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 600,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 60,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 540,000
100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 600,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance.
Adjusted Budget
Adopted Budget
Budget Amendments
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
This is an annual level of effort project focused on funding bicycle and safety improvements on classified roadways. Projects
are prioritized annually based upon field studies. Project was previously called "Citywide Roadway Safety Infrastructure
Improvements."
Progress Summary:
Projects for 2011 included preliminary design of intersection improvements at 8th st NE and SE 104th St and pedestrian trail
improvements at 37th St SE. 2012 Project has yet to be indentified.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Funding Sources:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
71
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Fund
Project Title: 37th & B St NW Railroad Crossing Safety Improvements TIP # 38
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Intersection Safety (Non-Capacity)
Project Manager:TBD
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - 307,550 - 307,550
REET - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - 307,550 - 307,550
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - 44,000 44,000
Right of Way - - 5,000 - 5,000
Construction - - 258,550 - 258,550
- - 307,550 - 307,550
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - 307,550
REET - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - - - 307,550
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - 44,000
Right of Way - - - - 5,000
Construction - - - - 258,550
- - - - 307,550
Grants / Other Sources:
The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $5,000.
Adopted Budget
This project will fund the design, coordination, permitting and construction of improvements at the 37th St NW BNSF Railroad crossing.
Improvements include construction of a pre-signal for eastbound traffic and related signal modifications at B St NW, advanced railroad
pre-emption, and traffic monitoring cameras.
Progress Summary:
City of Auburn was selected to receive Federal Discretionary grant program funding for this project. There is no city match
requirement.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
72
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Fund
Project Title: A Street NE Pedestrian Improvements TIP # 44
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Sidewalk Improvements (Non-Capacity)
Project Manager:TBD
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
REET - - - - -
PWTFL - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - - - -
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - -
- - - - -
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- 150,000 - - 150,000
REET - - - - -
PWTFL - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- 150,000 - - 150,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - 15,000 - - 15,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - 135,000 - - 135,000
- 150,000 - - 150,000
Grants / Other Sources:Grant funds are unsecure.
The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $500.
Adopted Budget
This project completes a pedestrian connection between Downtown Auburn and the 8th St NE business district. This project will improve
a pedestrian crossing at 3rd St NE, and construct sidewalks/access ramps along the A St NE corridor.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
73
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Fund
Project Title: Interurban Trailhead Improvements TIP # 45
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Class 1 Trail (Non-Capacity)
Project Manager:TBD
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Traffic Mitigation Fees - - - - -
PWTFL - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - - - -
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - -
- - - - -
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- 210,000 - - 210,000
Traffic Mitigation Fees - - - - -
PWTFL - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- 210,000 - - 210,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - 20,000 - - 20,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - 190,000 - - 190,000
- 210,000 - - 210,000
Grants / Other Sources:Grant funds are unsecure.
This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance.
Adopted Budget
This project provides funding for enhancements to existing trailheads and construction of new trailheads. Improvements include bike
racks, kiosks, parking and access.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
74
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Fund
Project Title: 104th Ave SE & Green River Road Study TIP # 46
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Non-Capacity (Intersection Safety)
Project Manager:Seth Wickstrom LOS Corridor ID# 24
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - 5,000 - 5,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
REET - - - - -
PWTFL - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - 5,000 - 5,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - 5,000 - 5,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - -
- - 5,000 - 5,000
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - 5,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
REET - - - - -
PWTFL - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - - - 5,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - 5,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - -
- - - - 5,000
Grants / Other Sources:
This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance.
Adopted Budget
This project will fund a pre-design study to determine the right of way, environmental and construction requirements for intersection
safety improvements. This safety project scope will include sight distance improvements, constructing turn lanes, channelization,
environmental mitigation, signage and clear zone improvements.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
75
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Fund
Project Title: ITS Dynamic Message Signs TIP # 50
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Non-Capacity (ITS)
Project Manager:TBD
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
REET - - - - -
PWTFL - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - - - -
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - -
- - - - -
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue 30,000 - 30,000 - 60,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)190,000 - 190,000 - 380,000
REET - - - - -
PWTFL - - - - -
Other - - - - -
220,000 - 220,000 - 440,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design 20,000 - 20,000 - 40,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction 200,000 - 200,000 - 400,000
220,000 - 220,000 - 440,000
Grants / Other Sources:
The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $5,000.
Adopted Budget
This project will fund the design and construction of Dynamic Message signs at various locations throughout the city. Dynamic message
signs are an important tool in ITS for informing roadway users. Priority locations for sign installations are based on the Comprehensive
Transportation Plans ITS map and include Auburn Way N, Auburn Way S, W Valley Highway, E Valley Highway and Lea Hill Rd.
Progress Summary:
The first phase of this project is scheduled to begin in 2015 or sooner if grant funding becomes available.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
76
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Fund
Project Title: Lea Hill Safe Routes to School Improvements TIP # 56
Project No:cp1120
Project Type:Non-Motorized
Project Manager:Kim Truong LOS Corridor ID# 19
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Street Revenue 777 - - - 777
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- 35,000 363,500 - 398,500
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - -
REET2 - - - - -
Other - - - - -
777 35,000 363,500 - 399,277
Capital Expenditures:
Design 777 35,000 15,000 - 50,777
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - 348,500 - 348,500
777 35,000 363,500 - 399,277
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - 363,500
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - -
REET2 - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - - - 363,500
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - 15,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - 348,500
- - - - 363,500
Grants / Other Sources:
This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance.
Adopted Budget
This project will construct pedestrian improvements along the south side of SE 312th St east of the intersection with 124th Ave SE,
intersection improvements at 116th Ave SE & SE 304th St, paint bike lanes on 116th Ave SE between SE 312th St and SE 304th St and
improve curb ramps adjacent to Rainier Middle School.
Progress Summary:
The City was awarded $398,500 in federal funding in May 2011, which consists of $75,700 for School District
education/encouragement, $1,800 for Police Dept. enforcement and $321,000 for engineering, right of way, and construction.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
77
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Fund
Project Title: AWS Streetscape Improvements (SR 18 to M Street SE)TIP # 62
Project No:xxx
Project Type:Miscellaneous
Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 4
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - -
REET2 - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - - - -
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - -
- - - - -
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - 200,000 200,000 - 400,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- 1,200,000 2,050,000 - 3,250,000
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - -
REET2 - 550,000 550,000 - 1,100,000
Other - - - - -
- 1,950,000 2,800,000 - 4,750,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - 500,000 - - 500,000
Right of Way - 1,450,000 - - 1,450,000
Construction - - 2,800,000 - 2,800,000
- 1,950,000 2,800,000 - 4,750,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Adopted Budget
The purpose of this project is to revitalize and beautify Auburn Way South from the SR 18 interchange to the intersection of M Street SE.
Proposed improvements include: enhancement of crosswalks and pedestrian linkages; new and repaired sidewalks; curb and gutter;
pedestrian ramps; new landscaped medians; street trees; new lighting; pedestrian benches; trash receptacles; recycling containers and
other appropriate amenities. Significant portion of project cost is for right-of-way acquisition.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
78
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Fund
Project Title: Citywide Traffic Signals Safety Improvements TIP # 67
Project No:cpxxx
Project Type:Non-Capacity
Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# N/A
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Street Revenue - 2,500 5,000 - 7,500
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - 400,000 - 400,000
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - -
REET2 - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- 2,500 405,000 - 407,500
Capital Expenditures:
Design - 2,500 80,000 - 82,500
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - 325,000 - 325,000
- 2,500 405,000 - 407,500
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - 5,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - 400,000
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - -
REET2 - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - - - 405,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - 80,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - 325,000
- - - - 405,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Adopted Budget
This project will improve traffic signal phasing and timing, improve visibility of traffic signal heads, and install countdown pedestrian
signal displays and ADA pedestrian pushbuttons.
Progress Summary:
Grant funding was awarded June 2012 with no local match requirement. Project will be designed and constructed in 2013.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
There is no impact to the street maintenance budget.
Total Expenditures:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
79
TABLE T- 2A
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN PROJECTS AND FINANCING
TRANSPORTATION – LOCAL STREET
TABLE T - 2A
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total
Capacity Projects:
None -
Non-Capacity Projects:
1 Local Street Improvement Program
Capital Costs 2,474,250 1,444,300 1,261,000 1,272,110 1,283,330 1,294,660 9,029,650
Funding Sources:
Fund Balance 850,000 - - - - - 850,000
Transfer In (W/S/SWM Utility)150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 900,000
Property Tax - - - - - - -
Sales Tax on Construction 1,474,250 1,294,300 1,111,000 1,122,110 1,133,330 1,144,660 7,279,650
Bond Proceeds - - - - - - -
Utility Mitigation - - - - - - -
SUMMARY:
CAPITAL COSTS
Capacity Projects - - - - - - -
Non-Capacity Projects 2,474,250 1,444,300 1,261,000 1,272,110 1,283,330 1,294,660 9,029,650
Total Costs 2,474,250 1,444,300 1,261,000 1,272,110 1,283,330 1,294,660 9,029,650
FUNDING SOURCES:
Fund Balance 850,000 - - - - - 850,000
Transfer In (W/S/SWM Utility)150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 900,000
Property Tax - - - - - - -
Sales Tax on Construction 1,474,250 1,294,300 1,111,000 1,122,110 1,133,330 1,144,660 7,279,650
Bond Proceeds - - - - - - -
Utility Mitigation - - - - - - -
Total Funding 2,474,250 1,444,300 1,261,000 1,272,110 1,283,330 1,294,660 9,029,650
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN PROJECTS AND FINANCING
LOCAL STREET FUND
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
80
LOCAL STREET FUND (103)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Funds
Project Title: Local Street Improvement Program
Project No:Various TIP #37
Project Type:Non-Capacity
Project Manager:Wickstrom
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Local Street Fund - 871,110 850,000 - 1,721,110
Transfer In - 150,000 150,000 150,000 300,000
Property Tax - 2,000,000 - - 2,000,000
Sales Tax on Construction - - 1,474,250 1,294,300 1,474,250
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- 3,021,110 2,474,250 1,444,300 5,495,360
Capital Expenditures:
Design - 521,110 500,000 200,000 1,021,110
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - 2,500,000 1,974,250 1,244,300 5,718,550
- 3,021,110 2,474,250 1,444,300 5,495,360
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Local Street Fund - - - - 850,000
Transfer In 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 900,000
Property Tax - - - - -
Sales Tax on Construction 1,111,000 1,122,110 1,133,330 1,144,660 7,279,650
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
Other - - - - -
1,261,000 1,272,110 1,283,330 1,294,660 9,029,650
Capital Expenditures:
Design 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,500,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction 1,061,000 1,072,110 1,083,330 1,094,660 7,529,650
1,261,000 1,272,110 1,283,330 1,294,660 9,029,650
Grants / Other Sources:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Adopted Budget
The program will focus on the preservation of local streets (unclassified streets) within the City of Auburn. The work will include crack
sealing, asphalt patching, pre-leveling, asphalt overlays and roadway reconstruction. Beginning in 2013 funding sources include annual
sales tax on construction up to $2.5 million per year.
Progress Summary:
This program has successfully completed overlays, chip seals and complete reconstructions since 2005. The program will
focus on reconstruction in 2013 and 2014.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
None
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
81
TABLE T- 2B
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN PROJECTS AND FINANCING
TRANSPORTATION – STREET PRESERVATION
TABLE A-2
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total
Capacity Projects:
None -
Non-Capacity Projects:
1 Annual Arterial Street Preservation
Capital Costs 1,300,000 1,800,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 8,300,000
Funding Sources:
Fund Balance - 500,000 - - - - 500,000
Utility Tax 1,300,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 7,800,000
Bond Proceeds - - - - - - -
2 Annual Arterial Crack Seal Program
Capital Costs 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,200,000
Funding Sources:
Utility Tax 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,200,000
Bond Proceeds - - - - - - -
3 West Valley Highway System Preservation
Capital Costs 1,120,000 - - - - - 1,120,000
Funding Sources:
Fund Balance 560,000 - - - - - 560,000
Grants 560,000 - - - - - 560,000
Utility Tax - - - - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - - - -
Note: Financial plan utilizes the following order for use of funds to finance projects: grant revenues (if available), utility tax revenues and fund balance.
SUMMARY:
CAPITAL COSTS
Capacity Projects - - - - - - -
Non-Capacity Projects 2,620,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 10,620,000
Total Costs 2,620,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 10,620,000
FUNDING SOURCES:
Fund Balance 560,000 500,000 - - - - 1,060,000
Utility Tax 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 9,000,000
Grants 560,000 - - - - - 560,000
Bond Proceeds - - - - - - -
Total Funding 2,620,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 10,620,000
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN PROJECTS AND FINANCING
ARTERIAL STREET PRESERVATION FUND
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
82
ARTERIAL STREET PRESERVATION FUND (105)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Funds
Project Title: Arterial Street Preservation Program
Project No:cpxxxx TIP #35
Project Type:Annual, Non-Capacity
Project Manager:Seth Wickstrom
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Arterial Preservation Fund - - 500,000 -
Property Tax - - - - -
Utility Tax - 1,551,500 1,300,000 1,300,000 2,851,500
REET2 - - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
- 1,551,500 1,300,000 1,800,000 2,851,500
Capital Expenditures:
Design - 50,000 40,000 50,000 90,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - 1,501,500 1,260,000 1,750,000 2,761,500
- 1,551,500 1,300,000 1,800,000 2,851,500
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Arterial Preservation Fund - - - - 500,000
Property Tax - - - - -
Utility Tax 1,300,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 7,800,000
REET2 - - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
1,300,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 8,300,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 250,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction 1,260,000 1,260,000 1,260,000 1,260,000 8,050,000
1,300,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 8,300,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Adopted Budget
Progress Summary:
Program continues to successfully complete annual patching and overlay projects citywide.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Description: Implement regular pavement maintenance and/or rehabilitation of various classified streets citywide. These
projects may include overlays, rebuilds, spot repairs, or a combination of these. This program is funded through a 1% utility
tax that was adopted by Council in 2008.
None
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
83
ARTERIAL STREET PRESERVATION FUND (105)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Funds
Project Title: Arterial Crack Seal Program
Project No:cpxxxx TIP #36
Project Type:Annual, Non-Capacity
Project Manager:Seth Wickstrom
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Arterial Preservation Fund - - - - -
Utility Tax - 200,000 200,000 200,000 400,000
REET - - - - -
Bond proceeds - - - - -
- 200,000 200,000 200,000 400,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - 20,000 20,000 20,000 40,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - 180,000 180,000 180,000 360,000
- 200,000 200,000 200,000 400,000
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Arterial Preservation Fund - - - - -
Utility Tax 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,200,000
REET - - - - -
Bond proceeds - - - - -
200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,200,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 120,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 1,080,000
200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,200,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Adopted Budget
Implement regular maintenance of various classified streets by sealing newly formed cracks. Sealing the cracks will prolong the life of
the pavement by stopping water from draining into the subbase of the road.
Progress Summary:
Program continues to successfully extend pavement life pavement citywide.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
None
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
84
ARTERIAL STREET PRESERVATION FUND (105)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Funds
Project Title: West Valley Highway System Preservation (15th NW to 37th NW)
Project No:cpxxxx TIP #22
Project Type:Non-Capacity
Project Manager:Seth Wickstrom
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Arterial Preservation Fund Balance - - 560,000 - 560,000
Grant Funding(Federal, State, Local)- - 560,000 - 560,000
Utility Tax - - - -
REET2 - - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
- - 1,120,000 - 1,120,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - 134,000 - 134,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - 986,000 - 986,000
- - 1,120,000 - 1,120,000
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Arterial Preservation Fund Balance - - - - 560,000
Grant Funding(Federal, State, Local)- - - - 560,000
Utility Tax - - - - -
REET2 - - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
- - - - 1,120,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - 134,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - 986,000
- - - - 1,120,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Adopted Budget
Description: The West Valley Highway System Preservation project will overlay the failing portions of the street pavement
between 15th Street NW and 37th Street NW. This entails the installation of a leveling course, providing a 2”-3” thick asphalt
concrete overlay, and includes minor surface utility adjustments.
Progress Summary:
FHWA STP Grant funding was secured in 2012.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
None
Total Expenditures:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
85
TABLE T-3
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS ON FUTURE OPERATING BUDGETS
Project:2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total
1 A Street NW, Phase 1 25,830$ 25,830$ 25,830$ 25,830$ 25,830$ 25,830$ 154,980$
2 I Street NE Corridor - - - - - - -
3 M Street Grade Separation 21,827 21,827 21,827 21,827 21,827 21,827 130,962
4 S 277th-AWN to Green River Bridge - - 27,250 27,250 27,250 27,250 109,000
5 A Street NW, Phase 2 - - - - - - -
6 D Street NW, 37th to 44th - - - - - - -
7 F Street SE, 4th to AWS - - - 4,100 4,100 4,100 12,300
8 M Street NE, E. Main to 4th - - - 1,500 1,500 1,500 4,500
9 M St SE & 12th St SE Traffic Signal - - - - - - -
10 8th Street NE Widening - - - - - - -
11 Harvey & 8th Street NE - - - - - - -
12 8th Street NE & SE 104th St Intersection
Imp.6,600 6,600 6,600 6,600 6,600 6,600 39,600
13 Auburn Way S & M Street SE Imp.- - - - - - -
14 BNSF / E Valley Hwy Pedestrian
Underpass - - - - - - -
15 Academy Drive Multi-Use Trail - - - - - - -
16 124th Ave SE Corridor Imp, Phase 3 - - - - - - -
17 124th Ave SE Corridor Imp, Phase 1 - - - - - - -
18 124th Ave SE Corridor Imp, Phase 2 - - - - - - -
19 SE 320th St Corridor Imp - - - - - - -
20 Auburn Way So Corridor Safety
Improvements - - - - - - -
21 Environmental Park Roadway Study - - - - - - -
22 Downtown to Les Gove Non-Motorized
Imp Study - - - - - - -
23 S 316th St Bicycle & Ped Imp Study - - - - - - -
24 E Valley Hwy ITS Expansion - - 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 20,000
25 Kersey Way Study - - - - - - -
26 AWS Fir St SE to Hemlock St SE 9,300 9,300 9,300 9,300 9,300 9,300 55,800
27 Auburn Ave NE & 3rd St NE Pedestrian
Improvements - - - - - - -
28 M St SE Corridor, 8th St SE to AWS - - - - - - -
29 29th Street SE & R Street SE - - - - - - -
30 Lea Hill RD Segment 1 - - - - - - -
31 Lea Hill Rd Segment 2 - - - - - - -
32 Lea Hill Rd Segment 3 - - - - - - -
33 Auburn Way So Pedestrian Imp, Dogwood
to Fir - - - - - - -
34 Auburn Way Corridor Imp - - - - - - -
35 15th St SW Reconstruction - - - - - - -
36 Auburn Way N/1st St NE Signal Imp - - - - - - -
37 C Street NW & West Main Street - - - - - - -
38 41st Street SE & A St SE Access Study - - - - - - -
39 Annual Bridge Improvements - - - - - - -
40 S. 277th Wetland Mitigation - - - - - - -
41 Citywide Pedestrian Crossing - - - - - - -
42 Citywide Arterial Bicycle & Safety Imp - - - - - - -
43 37th & B St NW Railroad Crossing Safety
Imp 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 30,000
44 A St NE Pedestrian Imp - - - 500 500 500 1,500
45 Interurban Trailhead Imp - - - - - - -
46 104th Ave SE & Green River Rd Study - - - - - - -
47 ITS Dynamic Message Signs - - - - 5,000 5,000 10,000
48 Lea Hill Safe Routes to School Imp - - - - - - -
49 AWS Streetscape Improvements - - - - - - -
50 Citywide Traffic Signal Safety Imp.- - - - - - -
51 Local Street Improvement Program (Fund
103)- - - - - - -
52 Annual Arterial Street Preservation (Fund
105)- - - - - - -
53 Annual Arterial Crack Seal Program (Fund
105)- - - - - - -
54 West Valley Hwy System Preservation - - - - - - -
Total 68,557$ 68,557$ 100,807$ 106,907$ 111,907$ 111,907$ 568,642$
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
86
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
87
WATER
Current Facilities
The City of Auburn water utility provides water supply, treatment, transmission, storage,
distribution, and service connections to in-City residences and businesses. The City also
provides water to one adjacent city and one water district. The water system consists of wells,
springs and interties for source; chlorination stations and corrosion control for treatment; pump
stations, pressure reducing stations and pipelines for transmission; and steel and concrete
enclosed reservoirs for storage. Table W-1, “Facilities Inventory”, lists the facilities along with
their current capacities and approximate locations.
Level of Service (LOS)
The City’s Comprehensive Water Plan summarizes the design criteria and service polices for
the City’s water distribution system.
Capital Facilities Projects and Financing
The City of Auburn’s water system anticipates two capacity projects in the amount of
$5,945,000 and thirteen non-capacity projects totaling $17,144,150 for a 6-year planning
expectation total of $23,089,150. The financing plan is shown in Table W-2 followed by
individual worksheets showing the project details.
The capacity projects will increase water supply quantities, storage, and distribution for growth
of retail customers. The non-capacity projects will provide for pipeline improvements and
replacements, delivery pressure improvements, water quality enhancements, comprehensive
and resource management planning, pump station upgrades, telemetry system improvements,
and meter upgrades.
Impact on Future Operating Budgets
As Table W-3 shows, operating budget impacts of $22,800 are forecasted for water supply and
distribution facilities during the six years 2014 – 2019.
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
88
TABLE W-1
Facilities Inventory
Water Facilities
CAPACITY
FACILITY WATER RIGHT (MGD - max rate)LOCATION
Water Supply:
Coal Creek Springs Certificate 857 9.70<2.52>*3401 Stuck River Rd
West Hill Springs Claim (1973 File Date)0.9 1900 15th St NW Ext
Well 1 Certificate 3560-A 3.17 1136 M St SE
Well 2 G1-00277 C 3.46 1109 5th St NE
Well 3A G1-23629 C 4.03 401 37th St SE
Well 3B (Included Above)(Included Above)401 37th St SE
Well 4 G1-20391 C 4.03 950 25th St SE
Well 5 G1-23633 C 1.44 5530 James Ave SE
Well 5A (Included Above)(Included Above)5401 Olive Way SE
Well 5B (Included Above)(Included Above)West end of 62nd Ct SE
Well 6 (Supplemental to Wells 1, 2, 3A, 3B, 4)5.04 (supplemental)1109 5th St NE
Well 7 (Supplemental to Wells 1, 2, 3A, 3B, 4)5.04 (supplemental)405 E St NE
Supply Total (MGD)26.73
Available for Use 24.21
* Denotes deduction of 1,750 gpm (Qi/2,824 ac-ft/yr) to comply with the provisions of the Muckleshoot-Auburn Stipulated Agreement.
CAPACITY
FACILITY (MGD)LOCATION SERVICE AREA
Intertie
Tacoma B Street NW 3.2 3240 B St NW Valley Service Area
Tacoma 132nd Ave SE 3.2 29598 132nd Ave SE Lea Hill Service Area
Intertie Total (MGD)6.4
CAPACITY
FACILITY (MG)LOCATION SERVICE AREA
Storage Facilities:
Valley Reservoir 1 5.0 2003 Auburn Way S Valley Service Area
Valley Reservoir 2 3.6 32115 105th Place S Valley Service Area
Academy Reservoir 8A 1.0 5002 Auburn Way S Academy Service Area
Academy Reservoir 8B 1.5 5002 Auburn Way S Academy Service Area
Lea Hill Reservoir 4A 1.0 30502 132nd Ave SE Lea Hill Service Area
Lea Hill Reservoir 4B 1.5 30502 132nd Ave SE Lea Hill Service Area
Lakeland Hills Reservoir 5 1.0 1326 57th Dr SE Lakeland Hills Svc Area
Lakeland Hills Reservoir 6 1.0 5718 Francis Ct SE Lakeland Hills Svc Area
Storage Total (MG)15.6
CITY OF AUBURN WATER SYSTEM
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
89
TABLE W-1 (continued)
Facilities Inventory
Water Facilities
CAPACITY
FACILITY (GPM)LOCATION
Booster Pump Stations:
Academy 1: 2 pumps 800 2004 Auburn Way S
Academy 2: 2 pumps 1,500 2004 Auburn Way S
Academy East: 6 pumps 2,820 5002 Auburn Way S
Green River: 4 pumps 4,680 29621 Green River Rd SE
Intertie: 7 pumps 4,830 30502 132nd Ave SE
Lea Hill: 3 pumps 2,100 10406 Lea Hill Rd SE
Lakeland Hills: 6 pumps 3,200 1118 57th Place SE
Wilderness Game Farm Pk: 2 pumps 1,050 2401 Stuck River Rd
CAPACITY
Primary Valve
FACILITY (PSI - Inlet/Outlet)LOCATION
Pressure Reducing Stations:
Serves Valley Pressure Zone:
Howard Road CCF #1011-1 82/65 Howard Rd
Howard Road CCF By-Pass #1011-2 -Howard Rd (Bypass)
25th Street SE #1110-1 (Offline)-25th St SE & K St SE
Riverwalk #1111-2 90/50 27th St. SE & 27th Place SE
Riverwalk #1111-1 109/55 Riverwalk Dr SE & Howard Rd
Serves Lea Hill:
Lea Hill #512-1 80/50 304th St. SE West of 112th Ave
Lea Hill #412-1 90/45 SE 298th Place & 109 Ave SE
Lea Hill #512-2 87/45 304th St. SE West of 108th Ave
Lea Hill #611-1 165/65 Lea Hill Rd SE
Lea Hill #611-2 140/65 Lea Hill Rd & 106 Pl
Lea Hill #611-3 145/60 Lea Hill Rd & 107 Pl
Lea Hill #411-1 94/55 104th Ave SE (South of 303rd Road)
Lea Hill #411-2 86/40 SE 304th Pl & SE 101st Place
Lea Hill #512-3 N/C 300 Block & 108th Ave SE
Amber View North #711-1 150/65 105th Pl SE & 320th Pl
Amber View North #711-2 142/60 106th Pl SE Near Reservoir 2
Serves Academy:
Auburn Way South #1011-3 130/80 2003 Auburn Way S
Auburn Way South #1114-1 130/80 4500 Auburn Way S
Serves Jannsen Addition:
Jannsen #1216-1 72/58 6100 Block & 35th Way SE
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
90
TABLE W-1 (continued)
Facilities Inventory
Water Facilities
CAPACITY
Primary Valve
FACILITY (PSI - Inlet/Outlet)LOCATION
Serves Lakeland Hills:
Lakeland Hills #1410-2 125/62 Nathan Ave & Highland Dr
Lakeland Hills #1309-1 105/55 Mill Pond Dr @ Oravetz Rd
Lakeland Hills #1410-1 N/C 51st St. SE east of Mill Pond Loop
Lakeland Hills #1409-3 84/55 Mill Pond Dr & Lakeland Hills Way
Lakeland Hills #1510-1 N/C Lakeland Hills Way & Evergreen Way
Lakeland Hills #1409-2 120/56 47th SE & Lakeland Hills Way
Lakeland Hills #1310-1 130/55 Mill Pond Dr & Mill Pond Loop
Lakeland Hills #1410-3 82/55 Quincy Ave N of 53rd St SE
Lakeland Hills #1409-1 N/C Oravetz & Lakeland Hills Way
Lakeland Hills #1409-4 95/70 Lakeland Hills Way & Lakeland Hills Lp
Lakeland Hills #1410-4 103/50 4900 Block & Mill Pond Dr
Lakeland Hills #1509-1 174/60 Terrace View Lower (6170)
Lakeland Hills #1509-2 160/73 Terrace View Middle (5960)
Lakeland Hills #1509-3 138/47 Terrace View Upper (5810)
Lakeland Hills #1509-4 N/C Terrace View & Alexander Place SE
N/C - Normally Closed
CAPACITY
FACILITY (GPM)LOCATION
Corrosion Control
Howard Road 5,550 2101 Howard Rd SE
Fulmer Field 9,375 1113 5th St NE
Chlorination Stations:
Coal Creek Springs Station 5,000 (gravity feed)3401 Stuck River Rd
West Hill Springs Station 625 (gravity feed)1900 15th St NW
Well 4 2,600 950 25th St SE
Well 5B 600 1100 63rd St SE
Well 5A 180 5401 Olive Ave SE
FACILITY CAPACITY LOCATION
Water Supply:
Braunwood Satellite #1 0.03 MGD 4501 47th St SE
Storage Facilities:
Braunwood Satellite 1 0.03 MG 4501 47th St SE
Booster Pump Stations:
Braunwood: 3 Pumps 2.0 GPM 4501 47th St SE
BRAUNWOOD SATELLITE WATER SYSTEM
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
91
TABLE W-2
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN PROJECTS AND FINANCING
WATER DIVISION
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total
Capacity Projects:
1 Well 1 Improvements
Capital Costs 3,680,000 - - - - - 3,680,000
Funding Sources:
Water Fund 355,000 - - - - - 355,000
PWTF Loan 3,325,000 - - - - - 3,325,000
2 Fulmer Well Field Improvements
Capital Costs 515,000 1,750,000 - - - - 2,265,000
Funding Sources:
Water Fund - 310,000 - - - - 310,000
Bond Proceeds 515,000 1,440,000 - - - - 1,955,000
Subtotal, Capacity Projects:
Capital Costs 4,195,000 1,750,000 - - - - 5,945,000
Non-Capacity Projects:
3 Green River PS Emergency Power
Capital Costs - - 90,000 600,000 - - 690,000
Funding Sources:
Water Fund - - 90,000 600,000 - - 690,000
Bond Proceeds - - - - - - -
4 Well 4 Power & Chlorination
Capital Costs 245,000 954,150 - - - - 1,199,150
Funding Sources:
Water Fund - - - - - - -
Bond Proceeds 245,000 954,150 - - - - 1,199,150
5 Well 5 Upgrade
Capital Costs - - 400,000 1,500,000 - - 1,900,000
Funding Sources:
Water Fund - - 400,000 1,500,000 - - 1,900,000
Bond Proceeds - - - - - - -
6 Well Inspection and Redevelopment Program
Capital Costs 150,000 - 150,000 - 150,000 - 450,000
Funding Sources:
Water Fund 150,000 - 150,000 - 150,000 - 450,000
Bond Proceeds - - - - - - -
7 Water Repair & Replacements
Capital Costs 1,350,000 150,000 1,500,000 200,000 1,700,000 260,000 5,160,000
Funding Sources:
Water Fund - - 1,500,000 200,000 1,700,000 260,000 3,660,000
Bond Proceeds 1,350,000 150,000 - - - - 1,500,000
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
92
TABLE W-2 (continued)
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total
Non-Capacity Projects:
8 Lakeland Hills Reservoir 5 Improvements
Capital Costs 750,000 - - - - - 750,000
Funding Sources:
Water Fund - - - - - - -
Bond Proceeds 750,000 - - - - - 750,000
9 Comprehensive Water Plan
Capital Costs - 330,000 - - - - 330,000
Funding Sources:
Water Fund - 330,000 - - - - 330,000
Bond Proceeds - - - - - - -
10 Well 7 Emergency Power
Capital Costs - - 75,000 440,000 - - 515,000
Funding Sources:
Water Fund - - 75,000 440,000 - - 515,000
Bond Proceeds - - - - - - -
11 Maintenance and Operations Expansion
Capital Costs - 220,000 - - - - 220,000
Funding Sources:
Water Fund - 220,000 - - - - 220,000
Bond Proceeds - - - - - - -
12 MIT Master Meters
Capital Costs - 80,000 400,000 - - - 480,000
Funding Sources:
Water Fund - 80,000 400,000 - - - 480,000
Bond Proceeds - - - - - - -
13 Street Utility Improvements
Capital Costs 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 3,000,000
Funding Sources:
Water Fund 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 3,000,000
Bond Proceeds - - - - - - -
14 Lea Hill PRV Station Improvements
Capital Costs - - 50,000 400,000 - - 450,000
Funding Sources:
Water Fund - - 50,000 400,000 - - 450,000
Bond Proceeds - - - - - - -
15 Water Meter & Billing System Improvements
Capital Costs 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 - - 2,000,000
Funding Sources:
Water Fund - 500,000 500,000 500,000 - - 1,500,000
Bond Proceeds 500,000 - - - - - 500,000
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
93
TABLE W-2 (continued)
Non-Capacity Projects:
Subtotal, Non-Capacity Projects:
Capital Costs 3,495,000 2,734,150 3,665,000 4,140,000 2,350,000 760,000 17,144,150
SUMMARY:
CAPITAL COSTS
Capacity Projects 4,195,000 1,750,000 - - - - 5,945,000
Non-Capacity Projects 3,495,000 2,734,150 3,665,000 4,140,000 2,350,000 760,000 17,144,150
Total Costs 7,690,000 4,484,150 3,665,000 4,140,000 2,350,000 760,000 23,089,150
FUNDING SOURCES:
Water Fund 1,005,000 1,940,000 3,665,000 4,140,000 2,350,000 760,000 13,860,000
PWTF Loan 3,325,000 - - - - - 3,325,000
Bond Proceeds 3,360,000 2,544,150 - - - - 5,904,150
Total Funding 7,690,000 4,484,150 3,665,000 4,140,000 2,350,000 760,000 23,089,150
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
94
WATER FUND (430)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Enterprise Funds
Project Title: Well 1 Improvements
Project No:cp0915
Project Type:Capacity
Project Manager:Lee
Description:
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on
Operating Budget:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
Adopted Budget - - - -
Budget Amendments - - - -
Adjusted Budget - - - -
Activity:
2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Water Revenue 127,614 551,010 355,000 - 1,033,624
Unrestricted Storm Revenue - 831,900 - - 831,900
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
Other (PWTF loan)- - 3,325,000 - 3,325,000
Total Funding Sources:127,614 1,382,910 3,680,000 - 5,190,524
Capital Expenditures:
Design 127,614 500,000 - - 627,614
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - 882,910 3,680,000 - 4,562,910
Total Expenditures:127,614 1,382,910 3,680,000 - 5,190,524
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Water Revenue - - - - 355,000
Unrestricted Storm Revenue - - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
Other (PWTF loan)- - - - 3,325,000
Total Funding Sources:- - - - 3,680,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - 3,680,000
Total Expenditures:- - - - 3,680,000
Grants / Other Sources:
The annual maintenance cost is estimated to be approximately $1,800.
Hydro geologic evaluation of existing well conditions, construction of transmission main to Howard Road Corrosion Control Treatment
Facility for aeration, and construction of building improvements to house chlorine disinfection equipment and an emergency generator.
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
95
WATER FUND (430)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Enterprise Funds
Project Title: Fulmer Well Field Improvements
Project No:cp1107
Project Type:Capacity
Project Manager:Lamothe / Vondrak
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Water Revenue 2,855 400,000 - 310,000 402,855
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - 515,000 1,440,000 515,000
Other - - - - -
2,855 400,000 515,000 1,750,000 917,855
Capital Expenditures:
Design 2,855 400,000 515,000 - 917,855
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - 1,750,000 -
2,855 400,000 515,000 1,750,000 917,855
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Water Revenue - - - - 310,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - 1,955,000
Other - - - - -
- - - - 2,265,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - 515,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - 1,750,000
- - - - 2,265,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Adopted Budget
Conduct an evaluation of the Wells 2, 6 and 7 facilities and the Fulmer Field Corrosion Control Treatment Facility to assess the supply
and treatment capacity of the existing facilities and infrastructure. The evaluation will include an assessment of individual and total well
supply capacities, a review of the treatment facility operating and control parameters, and recommendations for facility and control
improvements based on the evaluation.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
No significant impact.
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
96
WATER FUND (430)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Enterprise Funds
Project Title: Green River PS Emergency Power
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Non-Capacity
Project Manager:TBD
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Water Revenue - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - - - -
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - -
- - - - -
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Water Revenue 90,000 600,000 - - 690,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
Other - - - - -
90,000 600,000 - - 690,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design 90,000 - - - 90,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - 600,000 - - 600,000
90,000 600,000 - - 690,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Adopted Budget
Construction of facility improvements to house an emergency generator and associated electrical equipment.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
The annual maintenance cost is estimated to be approximately $600.
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
97
WATER FUND (430)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Enterprise Funds
Project Title: Well 4 Power and Chlorination
Project No:c512a0
Project Type:Non-Capacity
Project Manager:TBD
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Water Revenue 7,138 35,000 - - 42,138
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - 245,000 954,150 245,000
Other - - - - -
7,138 35,000 245,000 954,150 287,138
Capital Expenditures:
Design 7,138 35,000 65,000 - 107,138
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - 180,000 954,150 180,000
7,138 35,000 245,000 954,150 287,138
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Water Revenue - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - 1,199,150
Other - - - - -
- - - - 1,199,150
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - 65,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - 1,134,150
- - - - 1,199,150
Grants / Other Sources:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Adopted Budget
Construct a new building at the Well 4 site to house a diesel-fueled standby generator and new hypochlorite disinfection equipment.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
The annual maintenance cost is estimated to be approximately $600.
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
98
WATER FUND (430)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Enterprise Funds
Project Title: Well 5 Upgrade
Project No:cp0624
Project Type:Non-Capacity
Project Manager:TBR
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Water Revenue - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - - - -
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - -
- - - - -
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Water Revenue 400,000 1,500,000 - - 1,900,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
Other - - - - -
400,000 1,500,000 - - 1,900,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design 400,000 - - - 400,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - 1,500,000 - - 1,500,000
400,000 1,500,000 - - 1,900,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
The annual maintenance cost is estimated to be approximately $1,800.
Adopted Budget
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Construct a new well facility meeting current electrical and safety codes. The project will include emergency backup power and
disinfection capability.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
99
WATER FUND (430)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Enterprise Funds
Project Title: Well Inspection and Redevelopment Program
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Non-Capacity
Project Manager:TBD
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Water Revenue - - 150,000 - 150,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - -
Other - - - - -
- - 150,000 - 150,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - 20,000 - 20,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - 130,000 - 130,000
- - 150,000 - 150,000
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Water Revenue 150,000 - 150,000 - 450,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
Other - - - - -
150,000 - 150,000 - 450,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design 20,000 - 20,000 - 60,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction 130,000 - 130,000 - 390,000
150,000 - 150,000 - 450,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
No significant impact.
Adopted Budget
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Program for inspection and redevelopment of supply wells and springs necessary to ensure production at maximum capacity for efficient
utilization.
Progress Summary:
Planned
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
100
WATER FUND (430)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Enterprise Funds
Project Title: Water Repair & Replacements
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Non-Capacity (R&R)
Project Manager:Various
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Water Revenue - 120,000 - - 120,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - 1,350,000 150,000 1,350,000
Other - - - - -
- 120,000 1,350,000 150,000 1,470,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - 120,000 - - 120,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - 1,350,000 150,000 1,350,000
- 120,000 1,350,000 150,000 1,470,000
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Water Revenue 1,500,000 200,000 1,700,000 260,000 3,660,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - 1,500,000
Other - - - - -
1,500,000 200,000 1,700,000 260,000 5,160,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - 200,000 - 260,000 460,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction 1,500,000 - 1,700,000 - 4,700,000
1,500,000 200,000 1,700,000 260,000 5,160,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Adopted Budget
Distribution system repair and replacement projects required for meeting peak demands and reducing system losses. Projects will be
coordinated with the Local Street Program and other utility projects. 2012-2013 budget will be used for the Valley AC Main Replacement
project.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
No significant impact.
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
101
WATER FUND (430)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Enterprise Funds
Project Title: Lakeland Hills Reservoir 5 Improvements
Project No:cp0765
Project Type:Non-Capacity
Project Manager:TBD
Description:
Progress Summary:
No significant Impact
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
Adopted Budget - - - -
Budget Amendments - - - -
Adjusted Budget - - - -
Activity:
2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Water Revenue 43,334 5,152 - - 48,486
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - 750,000 - 750,000
Other - - - - -
Total Funding Sources:43,334 5,152 750,000 - 798,486
Capital Expenditures:
Design 43,334 5,152 80,000 - 128,486
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - 670,000 - 670,000
Total Expenditures:43,334 5,152 750,000 - 798,486
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Water Revenue - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - 750,000
Other - - - - -
Total Funding Sources:- - - - 750,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - 80,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - 670,000
Total Expenditures:- - - - 750,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Paint the interior and exterior to preserve the life of the reservoir, add mixing equipment for improved water quality and safety
improvements including seismic isolation valve and new ladder.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
102
WATER FUND (430)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Enterprise Funds
Project Title: Comprehensive Water Plan
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Non-Capacity
Project Manager:Lamothe
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Water Revenue - - - 330,000 -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - - 330,000 -
Capital Expenditures:Design - - - 330,000 -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - -
- - - 330,000 -
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Water Revenue - - - - 330,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - - - 330,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - 330,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - -
- - - - 330,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Adopted Budget
Update the Comprehensive Water Plan as required by Washington State Department of Health.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
No significant impact.
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
103
WATER FUND (430)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Enterprise Funds
Project Title: Well 7 Emergency Power
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Non-Capacity
Project Manager:TBD
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Water Revenue - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - - - -
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - -
- - - - -
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Water Revenue 75,000 440,000 - - 515,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
Other - - - - -
75,000 440,000 - - 515,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design 75,000 - - - 75,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - 440,000 - - 440,000
75,000 440,000 - - 515,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
Adopted Budget
Provide a generator for backup power to reliably meet demands in the Valley service area.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
The annual maintenance cost is estimated to be approximately $600.
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
104
WATER FUND (430)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Enterprise Funds
Project Title: Maintenance & Operations Facility Improvements
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Non-Capacity
Project Manager:TBD
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Water Revenue - - - 220,000 -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - - 220,000 -
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - 40,000 -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - 180,000 -
- - - 220,000 -
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Water Revenue - - - - 220,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - - - 220,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - 40,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - 180,000
- - - - 220,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Adopted Budget
Improvements to M&O facilities and operations including remodel the existing building.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
No significant impact.
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
105
WATER FUND (430)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Enterprise Funds
Project Title: Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Master Meters
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Non-Capacity
Project Manager:TBD
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Water Revenue - - - 80,000 -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - - 80,000 -
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - 80,000 -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - -
- - - 80,000 -
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Water Revenue 400,000 - - - 480,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
Other - - - - -
400,000 - - - 480,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - 80,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction 400,000 - - - 400,000
400,000 - - - 480,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
Adopted Budget
Install master meters to Muckleshoot Indian Tribe properties to ease account administration.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
No significant impact.
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
106
WATER FUND (430)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Enterprise Funds
Project Title: Street Utility Improvements
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Non-Capacity
Project Manager:TBD
Description:
Progress Summary:
No significant impact
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
Adopted Budget - - - -
Budget Amendments - - - -
Adjusted Budget - - - -
Activity:
2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Water Revenue - 600,000 500,000 500,000 1,100,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
Other - - - - -
Total Funding Sources:- 600,000 500,000 500,000 1,100,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - 50,000 50,000 50,000 100,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - 550,000 450,000 450,000 1,000,000
Total Expenditures:- 600,000 500,000 500,000 1,100,000
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Water Revenue 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 3,000,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
Other - - - - -
Total Funding Sources:500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 3,000,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 300,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction 450,000 450,000 450,000 450,000 2,700,000
Total Expenditures:500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 3,000,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Water main improvements in coordination with the Save our Streets (SOS) program and general arterial street improvements.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
107
WATER FUND (430)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Enterprise Funds
Project Title: Lea Hill PRV Station Improvements
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Non-Capacity
Project Manager:TBD
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Water Revenue - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - - - -
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - -
- - - - -
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Water Revenue 50,000 400,000 - - 450,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
Other - - - - -
50,000 400,000 - - 450,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design 50,000 - - - 50,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - 400,000 - - 400,000
50,000 400,000 - - 450,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Adopted Budget
Replace pressure reducing valve stations in the Lea Hill area.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
No significant impact.
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
108
WATER FUND (430)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Enterprise Funds
Project Title: Water Meter & Billing System Improvements
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Non-Capacity
Project Manager:TBD
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Water Revenue - 80,000 - 500,000 80,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - 500,000 - 500,000
Other - - - - -
- 80,000 500,000 500,000 580,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - 80,000 - - 80,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - 500,000 500,000 500,000
- 80,000 500,000 500,000 580,000
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Water Revenue 500,000 500,000 - - 1,500,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - 500,000
Other - - - - -
500,000 500,000 - - 2,000,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction 500,000 500,000 - - 2,000,000
500,000 500,000 - - 2,000,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Adopted Budget
Conduct a study to determine which recent improvements in automated metering technology, generally referred to as Advanced
Metering Infrastructure (AMI), would best benefit the City and construct selected improvements.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
No significant impact.
Total Expenditures:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
109
TABLE W-3
Impact on Future Operating Budgets
WATER
Project:2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total
1 Well 1 Improvements 1,800$ 1,800$ 1,800$ 1,800$ 1,800$ 1,800$ 10,800$ 2 Fulmer Well Field Improvements - - - - - - -
3 Green River Pump Station
Emergency Power - - - 600 600 600 1,800
4 Well 4 Power and Chlorination - 600 600 600 600 600 3,000
5 Well 5 Upgrade - - - 1,800 1,800 1,800 5,400
6 Well Inspection and Redevelopment
Program - - - - - - -
7 Water Repair & Replacement - - - - - - -
8 Lakeland Hills Reservoir 5
Improvements - - - - - - -
9 Comprehensive Water Plan - - - - - - -
10 Well 7 Emergency Power - - - 600 600 600 1,800
11 Maintenance & Operations Facility
Improvements - - - - - - -
12 MIT Master Meters - - - - - - -
13 Street Utility Improvements - - - - - - -
14 Lea Hill PRV Station Improvements - - - - - - -
15 Water Meter & Billing System
Improvements - - - - - - -
Total 1,800$ 2,400$ 2,400$ 5,400$ 5,400$ 5,400$ 22,800$
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
110
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
111
SANITARY SEWER
Current Facilities
The City’s sanitary sewer service area encompasses approximately 28-square miles which are
primarily within the City limits, but includes a total of approximately ½ square mile within
Auburn’s Proposed Annexation area (PAA). The City contracts with King County for sewage
treatment and disposal. The City’s Sanitary Sewer Utility is responsible for the collection and
transmission of wastewater to the King County trunk lines.
The City’s current inventory of approximately 215 miles of sewer lines serves the City’s sewer
service area. Table S-1, Facilities Inventory, lists the sewage collection and transmission
facilities along with their capacities and locations.
Level of Service (LOS)
The Comprehensive Sewerage Plan for the Sewerage Collection System summarizes the level
of service (LOS), or design criteria, for the City’s sewage collection system. These standards
represent the average quantities of sewage that the system must accommodate, for residential,
industrial, and commercial development.
Capital Facilities Projects and Financing
Investments in the City’s sewage collection facilities include primarily non-capacity
improvements and replacement projects. Anticipated replacements include one existing pump
station, replacement of aging sewer pipes and manholes in conjunction with arterial and local
street improvements, and replacement of pipe identified through the sewer program’s condition
assessment process. Anticipated improvements include upgrades and additions to the utility’s
maintenance facilities. The City of Auburn’s sewer system anticipates costs for five non-
capacity projects totaling $9,740,000. Table S-2 shows the proposed financing plan followed by
individual worksheets showing the project detail.
Impact on Future Operating Budgets
There are no operating budget impacts forecasted for sanitary sewer facilities during the six
years 2014 – 2019.
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
112
TABLE S-1
Facilities Inventory
Sewage Facilities
CAPACITY
FACILITY (MGD)LOCATION
Pump Stations:
8th Street 0.26 J Street NE & 8th St. NE
22nd Street 0.79 22nd Street SE & Riverview Drive
Area 19 0.47 Lake Tapps Pkwy E & West of 72nd Street SE
Auburn 40 0.63 O Place NE
D Street 0.58 D Street NE & Auburn Way N
Dogwood 0.43 Dogwood Street SE 1500 & 15th Street SE
Ellingson 2.20 41st St. SE & East of A Street SE
F Street 0.86 F Street SE & 17th Street SE
North Tapps 0.73 Lake Tapps Pkwy E & West of 176th Avenue E
Peasley Ridge 0.36 S 320th Street & 53rd Avenue S
R Street 0.14 R Street NE & 6th Street NE
Rainier Ridge 0.29 125th Place SE & South of SE 318th Way
Riverside 0.58 8th Street NE & 104th Avenue SE
Terrace View 0.94 E Valley Hwy E & North of Terrace View Dr SE
Valley Meadows 0.18 4th Street SE & V Street SE
Verdana 2.88 4th Avenue S
FACILITY Pipe Size LOCATION
River Crossings:
Inverted Syphon 8 & 12 Inch Green River & 26th Street NE
8th Street Bridge 14 Inch Green River & 8th Street NE
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
113
TABLE S-2
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN PROJECTS AND FINANCING
SANITARY SEWER DIVISION
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total
Capacity Projects:
None
Non-Capacity Projects:
1 Sanitary Sewer Repair & Replacement
Capital Costs 1,430,000 300,000 1,930,000 2,250,000 310,000 1,500,000 7,720,000
Funding Sources:
Sewer Fund 1,430,000 300,000 1,930,000 2,250,000 310,000 1,500,000 7,720,000
Bond Proceeds - - - - - - -
2 Street Utility Improvements
Capital Costs 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,200,000
Funding Sources:
Sewer Fund 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,200,000
Bond Proceeds - - - - - - -
3 Vactor Decant Facility
Capital Costs - 270,000 - - - - 270,000
Funding Sources:
Sewer Fund - 270,000 - - - - 270,000
Bond Proceeds - - - - - - -
4 Maintenance and Operations Facility Expansion
Capital Costs - 200,000 - - - - 200,000
Funding Sources:
Sewer Fund - 200,000 - - - - 200,000
Bond Proceeds - - - - - - -
5 Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update
Capital Costs 75,000 275,000 - - - - 350,000
Funding Sources:
Sewer Fund 75,000 275,000 - - - - 350,000
Bond Proceeds - - - - - - -
Subtotal, Non-Capacity Projects:
Capital Costs 1,705,000 1,245,000 2,130,000 2,450,000 510,000 1,700,000 9,740,000
SUMMARY:
CAPITAL COSTS
Capacity Projects - - - - - - -
Non-Capacity Projects 1,705,000 1,245,000 2,130,000 2,450,000 510,000 1,700,000 9,740,000
Total Costs 1,705,000 1,245,000 2,130,000 2,450,000 510,000 1,700,000 9,740,000
FUNDING SOURCES:
Utility Funds (Sewer)1,705,000 1,245,000 2,130,000 2,450,000 510,000 1,700,000 9,740,000
Bond Proceeds - - - - - - -
Other - - - - - - -
Total Funding 1,705,000 1,245,000 2,130,000 2,450,000 510,000 1,700,000 9,740,000
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
114
SEWER FUND (431)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Enterprise Funds
Project Title: Sanitary Sewer Repair & Replacement/System Improvements
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:
Project Manager:Elwell
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous 2 Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Sewer Revenue 1,123,400 450,000 1,430,000 300,000 3,003,400
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
Other - - - - -
1,123,400 450,000 1,430,000 300,000 3,003,400
Capital Expenditures:
Design 158,000 100,000 143,000 250,000 401,000
Right of Way 6,000 - - - 6,000
Construction 959,400 350,000 1,287,000 50,000 2,596,400
1,123,400 450,000 1,430,000 300,000 3,003,400
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Sewer Revenue 1,930,000 2,250,000 310,000 1,500,000 7,720,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)-
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
Other - - - - -
1,930,000 2,250,000 310,000 1,500,000 7,720,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design 386,000 225,000 250,000 150,000 1,404,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction 1,544,000 2,025,000 60,000 1,350,000 6,316,000
1,930,000 2,250,000 310,000 1,500,000 7,720,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Non-Capacity (Repair and Replacement)
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
This should decrease the operating budget by correcting the problems that require operation staff's attention.
Adopted Budget
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Repair and replace broken sewer mains and other facilities. These lines will be identified through television inspection and
routine cleaning. This particular program includes proposed projects which do not have an approved Project Management
Plan, or are not associated with the SOS or other transportation improvements. Anticipated projects include bi-annual, stand-
alone, repair and replacement projects for sewer lines which are broken, misaligned, "bellied" or otherwise require an
inordinate amount of maintenance effort or present a risk of backup or trench failure.
Additionally, system improvements which enhance the ability to maintain service are included here.
Progress Summary:
Projected projects include:
1. Pump Station wet well Improvements
2. Manhole frame and cover replacements.
3. Biennial Repair and Replacement Project
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
115
SEWER FUND (431)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Enterprise Funds
Project Title: Street Utility Improvements
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:
Project Manager:TBD
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous 2 Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Sewer Revenue 80,000 85,000 200,000 200,000 365,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
Other - - - - -
80,000 85,000 200,000 200,000 365,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design 10,000 5,000 20,000 20,000 35,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction 70,000 80,000 180,000 180,000 330,000
80,000 85,000 200,000 200,000 365,000
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Sewer Revenue 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,200,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
Other - - - - -
200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,200,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 120,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 1,080,000
200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,200,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Non Capacity
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
No significant Impact
Adopted Budget
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Sewer line replacement in coordination with the Save our Streets (SOS) program and Arterial improvements.
Progress Summary:
Ongoing
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
116
SEWER FUND (431)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Enterprise Funds
Project Title: Vactor Decant Facility
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:
Project Manager:TBD
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous 2 Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Sewer Revenue - - - 270,000 -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - - 270,000 -
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - 70,000 -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - 200,000 -
- - - 270,000 -
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Sewer Revenue - - - - 270,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - - - 270,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - 70,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - 200,000
- - - - 270,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Non-Capacity (Improvements)
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
This project would decrease the future operating budget by reducing the expenses associated with sending waste to a landfill
Adopted Budget
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Funds allocated to construct a decant facility for sewer vactor waste.
Progress Summary:
Initiation Stage
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
117
SEWER FUND (431)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Enterprise Funds
Project Title: Maintenance and Operations Facility Expansion
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:
Project Manager:TBD
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous 2 Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Sewer Revenue - - - 200,000 -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - - 200,000 -
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - 40,000 -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - 160,000 -
- - - 200,000 -
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Sewer Revenue - - - - 200,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - - - 200,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - 40,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - 160,000
- - - - 200,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Non-Capacity (Improvements)
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
Adopted Budget
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Funds allocated to expand the existing M&O building into a more functional and maintainable facility.
Progress Summary:
Initiation Stage
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
118
SEWER FUND (431)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Enterprise Funds
Project Title: Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:
Project Manager:TBD
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous 2 Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Sewer Revenue - - 75,000 275,000 75,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - 75,000 275,000 75,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - 75,000 275,000 75,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - -
- - 75,000 275,000 75,000
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Sewer Revenue - - - - 350,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - - - 350,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - 350,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - -
- - - - 350,000
Grants / Other Sources:
None
Non-Capacity (Improvements)
Update the Comprehensive Sewer Plan to be consistent with the City's overall Comprehensive Plan update as required by the State of
Washington.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Adopted Budget
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
119
STORM DRAINAGE
Current Facilities
The City’s storm drainage service area encompasses the municipal boundaries of the City. For
management purposes the service area is divided into sixty drainage sub-basins. The City’s
drainage system consists of a combination of closed conveyance pipes and open ditch
conveyance facilities, with six pumping stations. Table SD-1 Facilities Inventory lists the facilities
along with their current capacities and location.
Level of Service (LOS)
The City’s Comprehensive Drainage Plan summarizes the level of service (LOS), or design
criteria, for the City’s storm drainage system. Generally, these standards represent a 25-
year/24-hour design storm capacity within the sixty drainage sub-basins.
Capital Facilities Projects and Financing
The City’s storm drainage facilities anticipates one capacity projects in the amount of
$543,600, ten non-capacity projects totaling $12,866,500 for a 6-year planning
expectation total of $13,410,100. Table SD-2 shows the proposed financing plan followed by
individual worksheets showing the project detail.
Impact on Future Operating Budgets
There are no operating budget impacts forecasted for storm drainage facilities during the six
years 2014 – 2019.
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
120
TABLE SD-1
Facilities Inventory
Storm Drainage Facilities
Feet of Feet of
FACILITY Acres Pipeline Open Channels LOCATION
Drainage
Basins:
A 562 36,300 1,200 See City of Auburn's
AA 408 17,600 17,100 Comprehensive Drainage
AAA 296 3,100 5,600 Plan, Dec. 2009
AZ 777 53,400 13,900
B 864 95,800 0
BB 15 1,700 0
BBB 73 0 0
C 836 75,500 5,600
CC 242 1,400 0
CCC 976 55,300 11,300
D 168 18,900 400
DD 231 0 0
DDD 61 4,000 0
E 692 54,600 20,100
EE 600 3,900 0
F 83 9,600 0
FF 411 3,600 900
G 137 18,800 0
GG 190 4,900 3,100
H 559 40,300 4,600
HH 392 0 0
HV 66 5,100 0
I 241 35,300 7,100
II 305 0 0
J 257 4,900 1,100
JJ 1,170 19,700 17,200
K 266 17,200 700
KK 391 0 0
L 87 12,900 600
LL 198 100 1,600
LS 1,138 45,300 0
M 553 24,600 3,900
MM 332 1,900 1,200
N 126 9,800 0
NN 588 11,100 900
NNN 175 400 0
O 176 16,900 3,600
OO 1,397 20,200 2,000
P 189 7,800 3,100
PP 110 1,500 0
PPP 161 2,500 5,100
QQ 334 11,400 3,300
CAPACITY
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
121
TABLE SD-1 (continued)
Facilities Inventory
Storm Drainage Facilities
Feet of Feet of
FACILITY Acres Pipeline Open Channels LOCATION
R 55 7,200 0
RR 249 10,200 4,800
S 273 13,600 2,200
SS 333 13,300 300
T 699 75,400 1,400
TT 135 3,100 0
U 365 10,000 0
UU 453 13,000 700
V 598 19,700 10,100
W 287 30,200 2,400
WC 65 7,900 0
WW 71 1,100 500
X 40 3,600 0
YY 327 22,700 5,700
YYY 105 0 0
Z 70 9,600 0
ZZ 949 46,500 17,400
ZZZ 237 0 0
Total 22,144 987,900 163,300
FACILITY (GPM)LOCATION
Pump Stations:
White River Pump Station 17,700 5000 block A Street SE
A Street SE Pump Station 1,380 A Street SE near SR-18 and
BNRR overpass
Auburn Way S Pump Station #3 1,000 Auburn Way S near SR-18
and BNRR overpass
Brannan Park Pump Station #4 20,200 Brannan Park
Emerald Corp. Park Pump Station 6,500 C Street NE near 42nd Street
West Main Street Pump Station 1,200 1420 West Main Street
CAPACITY
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
122
TABLE SD-2
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN PROJECTS AND FINANCING
STORM DRAINAGE DIVISION
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total
Capacity Projects:
1 Bypass at 2nd and G Street SE
Capital Costs - 90,600 453,000 - - - 543,600
Funding Sources:
Storm Fund - 90,600 453,000 - - - 543,600
Bond Proceeds - - - - - - -
Subtotal, Capacity Projects:
Capital Costs - 90,600 453,000 - - - 543,600
Non-Capacity Projects:
2 Pipeline Repair / Replacements
Capital Costs 1,000,000 200,000 1,000,000 200,000 1,000,000 200,000 3,600,000
Funding Sources:
Storm Fund 1,000,000 200,000 1,000,000 200,000 1,000,000 200,000 3,600,000
Bond Proceeds - - - - - - -
3 Auburn Way South Flooding, Phase 1 & 2
Capital Costs 1,638,000 - - - - - 1,638,000
Funding Sources:
Storm Fund - - - - - - -
Bond Proceeds 1,638,000 - - - - - 1,638,000
4 30th Street NE Area Flooding, Phase 1
Capital Costs 2,697,000 - - - - - 2,697,000
Funding Sources:
Storm Fund - - - - - - -
Bond Proceeds 2,697,000 - - - - - 2,697,000
5 30th Street NE Area Flooding, Phase 2
Capital Costs - 75,000 595,000 - - - 670,000
Funding Sources:
Storm Fund - 75,000 595,000 - - - 670,000
Bond Proceeds - - - - - - -
6 30th Street NE Area Flooding, Phase 3
Capital Costs - - - - - 200,000 200,000
Funding Sources:
Storm Fund - - - - - 200,000 200,000
Bond Proceeds - - - - - - -
7 West Main Street Pump Station Upgrade
Capital Costs - - - 1,135,000 - - 1,135,000
Funding Sources:
Storm Fund - - - 1,135,000 - - 1,135,000
Bond Proceeds - - - - - - -
8 Street Utility Improvements
Capital Costs 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,200,000
Funding Sources:
Storm Fund 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,200,000
Bond Proceeds - - - - - - -
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
123
TABLE SD-2
Non-Capacity Projects:
9 Maintenance & Operations Expansion
Capital Costs - 200,000 - - - - 200,000
Funding Sources:
Storm Fund - 200,000 - - - - 200,000
Bond Proceeds - - - - - - -
10 Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan Update
Capital Costs 175,000 175,000 - - - - 350,000
Funding Sources:
Storm Fund 175,000 175,000 - - - - 350,000
Bond Proceeds - - - - - - -
11 Mill Creek Wetland 5K Reach Restoration
Capital Costs 601,500 575,000 - - - - 1,176,500
Funding Sources:
Storm Fund 250,000 250,000 - - - - 500,000
Grants 351,500 325,000 - - - - 676,500
Bond Proceeds - - - - - - -
Subtotal, Non-Capacity Projects:
Capital Costs 6,311,500 1,425,000 1,795,000 1,535,000 1,200,000 600,000 12,866,500
SUMMARY:
CAPITAL COSTS
Capacity Projects - 90,600 453,000 - - - 543,600
Non-Capacity Projects 6,311,500 1,425,000 1,795,000 1,535,000 1,200,000 600,000 12,866,500
Total Costs 6,311,500 1,515,600 2,248,000 1,535,000 1,200,000 600,000 13,410,100
FUNDING SOURCES:
Storm Fund 1,625,000 1,190,600 2,248,000 1,535,000 1,200,000 600,000 8,398,600
Grants 351,500 325,000 - - - - 676,500
Bond Proceeds 4,335,000 - - - - - 4,335,000
Total Funding 6,311,500 1,515,600 2,248,000 1,535,000 1,200,000 600,000 13,410,100
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
124
STORM DRAINAGE FUND (432)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Enterprise Funds
Project Title: Bypass at 2nd and G Street SE
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Capacity
Project Manager:TBD
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Storm Revenue - - - 90,600 -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - - 90,600 -
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - 90,600 -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - -
- - - 90,600 -
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Storm Revenue 453,000 - - - 543,600
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
Other - - - - -
453,000 - - - 543,600
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - 90,600
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction 453,000 - - - 453,000
453,000 - - - 543,600
Grants / Other Sources:
Adopted Budget
No significant impact.
This project will install a parallel bypass pipe to convey upstream flows around a localized low spot located at 2nd and G Street SE. The
existing line will serve to drain the localized low spot.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
125
STORM DRAINAGE FUND (432)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Enterprise Funds
Project Title: Pipeline Repair & Replacement Program
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Non-Capacity
Project Manager:TBD
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Storm Revenue - 650,000 1,000,000 200,000 1,650,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- 650,000 1,000,000 200,000 1,650,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - 100,000 120,000 24,000 220,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - 550,000 880,000 176,000 1,430,000
- 650,000 1,000,000 200,000 1,650,000
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Storm Revenue 1,000,000 200,000 1,000,000 200,000 3,600,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
Other - - - - -
1,000,000 200,000 1,000,000 200,000 3,600,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design 120,000 24,000 120,000 24,000 432,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction 880,000 176,000 880,000 176,000 3,168,000
1,000,000 200,000 1,000,000 200,000 3,600,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Adopted Budget
Projects identified as those requiring replacement of existing infrastructure. These projects support street repairs and other
utility replacement programs, requiring coordination.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
No significant impact.
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
126
STORM DRAINAGE FUND (432)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Enterprise Funds
Project Title: Auburn Way South Flooding, Phase 1 & 2
Project No:cp1202
Project Type:Non-Capacity
Project Manager:TBD
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Storm Revenue - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - 1,638,000 - 1,638,000
Other - - - - -
- - 1,638,000 - 1,638,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - 196,560 - 196,560
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - 1,441,440 - 1,441,440
- - 1,638,000 - 1,638,000
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Storm Revenue - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - 1,638,000
Other - - - - -
- - - - 1,638,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - 196,560
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - 1,441,440
- - - - 1,638,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Adopted Budget
No significant impact.
Construct conveyance improvement to 17th Street SE as part of Metro realignment project. Replace existing conveyance
line from A Street SE to K Street SE and add an additional 7 ac-ft of storage within the existing A Street SE detention pond.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
127
STORM DRAINAGE FUND (432)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Enterprise Funds
Project Title: 30th Street NE Area Flooding, Phase 1
Project No:cp1122
Project Type:Non-Capacity
Project Manager:TBD
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Storm Revenue - 250,000 - - 250,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - 2,697,000 - 2,697,000
Other - - - - -
- 250,000 2,697,000 - 2,947,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - 250,000 323,640 - 573,640
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - 2,373,360 - 2,373,360
- 250,000 2,697,000 - 2,947,000
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Storm Revenue - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - 2,697,000
Other - - - - -
- - - - 2,697,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - 323,640
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - 2,373,360
- - - - 2,697,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Adopted Budget
No significant impact.
This project would install a new storm drain from the NW corner of the airport property (MH I107) to the existing Brannan
Park storm pump station. This pipe would replace the existing 30-inch diameter pipe generally located along the 30th St. NE
alignment and the northerly boundary of Brannan Park by improving the conveyance system’s hydraulic capacity, thereby
reducing the potential for stormwater flooding into the street.
• 3,820 feet of 42-in.-diameter gravity storm drain from the NW corner of airport property to the existing Brannan Park storm
pump station
• Removal of floatable capture baffles upstream of the Brannan Park pump station (these are not needed to protect the
pumps and reduce the system’s hydraulic capacity)
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
128
STORM DRAINAGE FUND (432)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Enterprise Funds
Project Title: 30th Street NE Area Flooding, Phase 2
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Non-Capacity
Project Manager:TBD
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Storm Revenue - - - 75,000 -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - - 75,000 -
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - 75,000 -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - -
- - - 75,000 -
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Storm Revenue 595,000 - - - 670,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
Other - - - - -
595,000 - - - 670,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - 75,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction 595,000 - - - 595,000
595,000 - - - 670,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Adopted Budget
Locate a storm drain line to capture stormwater from the two residential developments at the west edge for the former
CRISTA Ministries property. Currently, stormwater flows are discharged onto a depressed area on the CRISTA Ministries
property where its infiltration is limited by high groundwater levels that occur during extended periods of high flows on the
Green River. This phase would construct a new storm drain within I St. NE southward to connect into the upgraded 42-inch
diameter (Phase 1) storm drain near the intersection at I St. NE and 30th St. NE. The 42-inch diameter line would have
sufficient available capacity to convey the I St. NE flows. Key components of Phase 2 include:
• 1,760 feet of 15-inch diameter gravity storm drain
• Catch basin and incidental grading to collect stormwater at the upstream end of system
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
No significant impact.
Total Expenditures:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
129
STORM DRAINAGE FUND (432)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Enterprise Funds
Project Title: 30th Street NE Area Flooding, Phase 3
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Non-Capacity
Project Manager:TBD
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Storm Revenue - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - - - -
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - -
- - - - -
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Storm Revenue - - - 200,000 200,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - - 200,000 200,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - 200,000 200,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - -
- - - 200,000 200,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Adopted Budget
This project would reduce flooding in C St. NE by redirecting wet weather high flows southward to the 42-inch diameter
(Phase 1) storm drain in 30th St. NE. By redirecting the C St. NE drainage into the Brannan Park system, these flows would
no longer be affected by high water levels in Mill Creek. To avoid deepening the Phase 1 gravity line (and extensive retrofits
to the Brannan Park pump station), this project would include a wet weather pump station and force main connection to 30th
St. NE. The upgraded 42-inch diameter pipe in 30th St. NE would have sufficient capacity for these additional flows. Key
components of Phase 3 include:
• Wet weather pump station (estimated capacity of 4.5 to 7 cfs).
• 1,730 feet of 15-inch diameter force main
• Diversion structure in C St. NE for pump station
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
No significant impact.
Total Expenditures:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
130
STORM DRAINAGE FUND (432)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Enterprise Funds
Project Title: West Main Street Pump Station Upgrade
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Non-Capacity
Project Manager:TBD
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Storm Revenue - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - - - -
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - -
- - - - -
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Storm Revenue - 1,135,000 - - 1,135,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- 1,135,000 - - 1,135,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - 136,200 - - 136,200
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - 998,800 - - 998,800
- 1,135,000 - - 1,135,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Adopted Budget
No significant impact.
This project will update the existing pump station by providing a redundant pump and telemetry system meeting level of service goals.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
131
STORM DRAINAGE FUND (432)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Enterprise Funds
Project Title: Street Utility Improvements
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Non Capacity
Project Manager:TBD
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Storm Revenue 362,200 118,500 200,000 200,000 680,700
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
Other - - - - -
362,200 118,500 200,000 200,000 680,700
Capital Expenditures:
Design 75,000 25,000 12,000 12,000 112,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction 287,200 93,500 188,000 188,000 568,700
362,200 118,500 200,000 200,000 680,700
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Storm Revenue 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,200,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
Other - - - - -
200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,200,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 72,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction 188,000 188,000 188,000 188,000 1,128,000
200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,200,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
Adopted Budget
Storm drainage conveyance improvements in coordination with Arterial and SOS improvements.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
No significant Impact.
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
132
STORM DRAINAGE FUND (432)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Enterprise Funds
Project Title: Maintenance and Operations Expansion
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Non-Capacity (Improvement)
Project Manager:TBD
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Storm Revenue - - - 200,000 -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - - 200,000 -
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - 200,000 -
- - - 200,000 -
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Storm Revenue - - - - 200,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - - - 200,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - 200,000
- - - - 200,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Adopted Budget
Funds allocated to remodel the existing M&O building into a more functional and maintainable facility.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
None
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
133
STORM DRAINAGE FUND (432)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Enterprise Funds
Project Title: Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan Update
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Non-Capacity
Project Manager:Carlaw
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Storm Revenue - - 175,000 175,000 175,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - 175,000 175,000 175,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - 175,000 175,000 175,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - -
- - 175,000 175,000 175,000
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Storm Revenue - - - - 350,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - - - 350,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - 350,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - -
- - - - 350,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Adopted Budget
None
Update the Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan to be consistent with the City's overall Comprehensive Plan update as required by the
State of Washington.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
134
STORM DRAINAGE FUND (432)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Enterprise Funds
Project Title: Mill Creek Wetland 5K Reach Restoration
Project No:CP0746
Project Type:Non-Capacity
Project Manager:Andersen
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- -
- -
- -
Activity:
2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
General Fund - 10,000 - - 10,000
Unrestricted Storm Revenue 750,000 250,000 250,000 1,000,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)200,000 48,800 351,500 325,000 600,300
Bond Proceeds - - -
City (Real Estate Owned)-
200,000 808,800 601,500 575,000 1,610,300
Capital Expenditures:
Design 200,000 48,800 248,800
Right of Way - 760,000 250,000 - 1,010,000
Construction - - 351,500 575,000 351,500
200,000 808,800 601,500 575,000 1,610,300
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
General Fund - - - - -
Unrestricted Storm Revenue - - - - 500,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - 676,500
Other Federal -
City (Real Estate Owned)- - - - -
- - - - 1,176,500
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - 250,000
Construction - - 926,500
- - - - 1,176,500
Grants / Other Sources: Potential grant sources include RCO, SRFB, KCD, WRIA 9, KC Flood Control Dist
Total Expenditures:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
Adopted Budget
Mill Creek Wetland 5K reach (W5K) is a stream restoration project to provide improved conveyance and habitat along a 1.2 mile reach
of Mill Creek between West Main Street and SR 167. The project includes a new larger stream culvert at 15th Street NW for improved
hydraulic conveyance and fish passage, removal of invasive vegetation, native tree and shrub plantings, and a new maintenance trail
along Mill Creek within the AEP Phase 2 planning area that will also provide passive recreation hiking opportunities along the creek. The
project is being conducted in partnership with the Army Corps of Engineers under the Corps' Ecosystem Restoration Program. The
City's cost share for construction is 35%, and the federal cost share is 65%. The value of City-owned lands used for the project are
credited toward the City's cost share. Total federal funding for the project (not shown below) is $5.7 million.
Progress Summary:
The City has executed a design agreement with the Army Corps of Engineers, and the 35 percent design is scheduled to be
complete in July 2012; final design is scheduled to complete in the 3rd quarter of 2012. Next steps include real estate and
right of way acquisition/certification, with construction scheduled for 2013-2014. A Project Partnership (construction)
agreement will need to be executed between the City and the Corps prior to construction.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
After construction, the project will need to be monitored/maintained for a minimum of 10 years. The project site is largely within the AEP,
and funding for monitoring/management is proposed to be part of the AEP O&M program beginning in 2015.
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
135
SOLID WASTE
Current Facilities
The City of Auburn no longer has recycle drop stations facilities. The City now provides
curbside service through a vendor who handles the disposal.
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
136
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
137
PARKS AND RECREATION
Current Facilities
The City of Auburn’s park system consists of a total of 567.57 acres of neighborhood and
community parks, special use areas, open space, and linear parks (trails). The 150-acre
Auburn Municipal Golf Course is identified as a separate public facility in this report, and is not
included in the Parks and Recreation inventory.
Table PR – 1 “Facilities Inventory” lists all park and recreation land in the City’s park system
along with their current capacity and location.
Level of Service (LOS)
The current LOS provided by the City’s park system represents the current inventory of City-
owned park acres divided by the 2012 City population of 71,240. This equates to 0.69 acres per
1,000 population for neighborhood parks, 3.18 acres per 1,000 population for community parks,
0.45 acres for linear parks, 4.60 acres for open space, and 0.76 acres for special use areas.
The proposed LOS provided by the City’s park system represents the planned 2018 inventory of
City-owned park acres divided by the 2018 projected City population of 75,065. This equates to
0.78 acres per 1,000 population for neighborhood parks, 3.80 acres per 1,000 population for
community parks, 0.43 acres per 1,000 population for linear parks, 4.37 acres per 1,000
population for open space, and 0.73 acres per 1,000 population for special use areas.
Capital Facilities Projects and Financing
Parks and Recreation facilities include twenty-three capital projects at a cost of $34,416,000.
Table PR – 2a shows the proposed financing plan followed by individual worksheets showing
the project detail.
Impact on Future Operating Budgets
As Table PR – 3 shows, operating budget impacts of $1,161,000 are forecasted for parks and
recreation facilities during the six years 2014 – 2019.
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
138
TABLE PR-1
Facilities Inventory
Parks and Recreation, Land
CAPACITY
FACILITY (Acres)LOCATION
Neighborhood Parks:
Existing Inventory:
Auburndale Park 10.00 31700 108th NE
Ballard Park 0.70 37th & R Street SE
Cameron Park 3.90 Lemon Tree Lane & Academy Drive
Cedar Lane Park 8.30 25th & K Street SE
Dorthy Bothell Park 4.00 5701 Lakeland Hills Way SE
Dykstra Park 1.70 1533 22nd Avenue NE
Forest Villa mini-park 0.20 17th & Fir Street SE
Gaines Park 1.40 11th NW & W Valley Highway
Indian Tom Park 0.40 6th & Henry Road NE
Jornada Park 1.90 1440 U Court NW
Lakeland Hills Park 5.00 5401 Olive Avenue SE
Rotary Park 4.00 27th & Alpine Street SE
Scootie Brown Park 1.70 8th & Henry Road NE
Shaughnessy Park 3.50 21st & Hemlock SE
Terminal Park 1.20 12th & C Street SE
Village Square 1.07 310th St SE @ 120th Ave
Total Neighborhood Parks 48.97
Proposed Capacity Projects:
Auburndale II Park 9.34 29700 118th Street SE
Total Proposed Capacity Projects 9.34
2018 Projected Inventory Total
- Neighborhood Parks -58.31
Community Parks:
Existing Inventory:
Brannan Park 21.70 26th & M Street NE
Fenster/Green River Access 13.40 10520 Auburn/Black Diamond Road
Fulmer Field 5.00 5th & K Street NE
Game Farm Park 53.00 3226 V Street SE
Game Farm Wilderness Park 20.00 2401 SE Stuck River Road
GSA Park 6.60 C Street SW & 15th SW
Isaac Evans Park 14.90 29627 Green River Road NE
Lea Hill Park 7.00 SE 316th & 124th Street SE
Les Gove Park 20.50 11th & Auburn Way S
Mill Pond 4.00 600 Oravetz Road
Olson Canyon Farmstead 15.00 28728 Green River Road
Roegner Park 21.60 601 Oravetz Road
Sunset Park 15.00 1306 69th Street SE
Veteran's Memorial Park 8.50 Park Avenue & Auburn Way N
Total Community Parks 226.20
TABLE PR-1 (continued)
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
139
Proposed Capacity Projects:
Jacobson Tree Farm 29.04 13009 SE 294th Street
Lakeland Hills 30.00 Kersey Way
Total Proposed Capacity Projects 59.04
2018 Projected Inventory Total
- Community Parks -285.24
Linear Parks:
Existing Inventory:
Interurban Trail 25.40
Lakeland Hills Trail 2.30 5401 Olive Avenue SE
White River Trail 4.60
Total Linear Parks 32.30
Proposed Capacity Projects:
None -
Total Proposed Capacity Projects -
2018 Projected Inventory Total
- Linear Parks -32.30
Special Use Areas:
Existing Inventory:
Bicentennial Park 1.40 SR-18 & Auburn Way S
Centennial Viewpoint Park 0.70 600 Mountain View Drive
City Hall Plaza 0.90 25 W Main
Clark Plaza 0.20 15th & Auburn Way N
B Street Plaza 0.10 E. Main & B Street SE
Plaza Park 0.15 25 W Main
Mountain View Cemetery 50.00 2020 Mountain View Drive
Pioneer Cemetery 0.80 8th & Auburn Way N
Slaughter Memorial 0.20 3100 Auburn Way N
Total Special Use Areas 54.45
Proposed Capacity Projects:
None -
Total Proposed Capacity Projects -
2018 Projected Inventory Total
- Special Use Areas -54.45
Open Space Areas:
Existing Inventory:
Clark Property 25.00 1600 Oravetz Road
Game Farm Open Space 87.00 2400 SE Stuck River Road
Golf Course Open Space 42.00 29639 Green River Road
Olson Canyon Open Space 45.00 28728 Green River Road
Auburn Environmental Park Open Space 120.00 Western Ave NW and Maint Street
West Auburn Lake Property Open Space 9.00 N of S 321st and west of W St.NW
Total Open Space Areas 328.00
Proposed Capacity Projects:
None -
Total Proposed Capacity Projects -
2018 Projected Inventory Total
- Open Space Areas -328.00
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
140
TABLE PR-2A
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN PROJECTS AND FINANCING
PARKS and RECREATION
(Municipal Parks Construction Fund)
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total
Capacity Projects:
1 Park Acquisitions/Development
Capital Costs 240,000 120,000 - - - - 360,000
Funding Sources:
Fund Balance - - - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)120,000 - - - - - 120,000
Bond Proceeds - - - - - - -
KC Prop 2 120,000 120,000 - - - - 240,000
Subtotal, Capacity Projects:
Capital Costs 240,000 120,000 - - - - 360,000
Non-Capacity Projects:
2 Issac Evans Park
Capital Costs 25,000 - - 70,000 - - 95,000
Funding Sources:
Fund Balance 25,000 - - 50,000 - - 75,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - - -
Other (Park Impact Fee)- - - 20,000 - - 20,000
3 Jacobsen Tree Farm Site Plan
Capital Costs - - - 12,000,000 - - 12,000,000
Funding Sources:
Fund Balance - - - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - 2,000,000 - - 2,000,000
Other (Developer)- - - 4,000,000 - - 4,000,000
Bond Proceeds - - - 6,000,000 - - 6,000,000
4 Fulmer Park Improvements
Capital Costs 50,000 - - - - - 50,000
Funding Sources:
Fund Balance 50,000 - - - - - 50,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - - -
Other (Park Impact Fee)- - - - - - -
5 Auburn Community Center
Capital Costs - 17,660,000 - - - - 17,660,000
Funding Sources:
REET 1 - - - - - - -
Contributions & Donations - 17,660,000 - - - - 17,660,000
6 Veteran's Park Improvements
Capital Costs 50,000 50,000 - - - - 100,000
Funding Sources:
Fund Balance 50,000 50,000 - - - - 100,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - - -
Other - - - - - - -
7 Les Gove Improvements
Capital Costs - 60,000 - - - - 60,000
Funding Sources:
Fund Balance - 60,000 - - - - 60,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - - -
Other - - - - - - -
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
141
TABLE PR-2A (continued)
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total
Non-Capacity Projects:
8 Rotary Park Improvements
Capital Costs - - - 30,000 - - 30,000
Funding Sources:
Fund Balance - - - 30,000 - - 30,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - - -
Other - - - - - - -
9 Brannan Park Improvements
Capital Costs 40,000 - - - - - 40,000
Funding Sources:
Fund Balance 40,000 - - - - - 40,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - - -
Other - - - - - - -
10 Misc. Parks Improvements
Capital Costs 50,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 925,000
Funding Sources:
Fund Balance - 100,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 300,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 375,000
Other (Park Impact Fee)50,000 - 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 250,000
11 Cameron Park
Capital Costs - - 55,000 - - - 55,000
Funding Sources:
Fund Balance - - 25,000 - - - 25,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - 30,000 - - - 30,000
Other - - - - - - -
12 Game Farm Park
Capital Costs - - - - 40,000 - 40,000
Funding Sources:
Fund Balance - - - - 40,000 - 40,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - - -
Other - - - - - - -
13 Gaines Park
Capital Costs - - - - 30,000 - 30,000
Funding Sources:
Fund Balance - - - - 30,000 - 30,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - - -
Other - - - - - - -
14 Roegner Park
Capital Costs - - 50,000 - - - 50,000
Funding Sources:
Fund Balance - - 50,000 - - - 50,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - - -
KC Prop 2 - - - - - - -
15 Auburndale Park
Capital Costs - - 125,000 - - - 125,000
Funding Sources:
Fund Balance - - 25,000 - - - 25,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - - -
Other - - 100,000 - - - 100,000
16 Auburndale Park II
Capital Costs - 25,000 - - 575,000 - 600,000
Funding Sources:
Fund Balance - 25,000 - - 400,000 - 425,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - - -
Other - - - - 175,000 - 175,000
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
142
TABLE PR-2A (continued)
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total
Non-Capacity Projects:
17 Centennial Viewpoint Park
Capital Costs - - - - - 35,000 35,000
Funding Sources:
Fund Balance - - - - - 35,000 35,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - - -
Other - - - - - - -
18 BPA Trail Lea Hill
Capital Costs - - 75,000 175,000 125,000 - 375,000
Funding Sources:
Fund Balance - - - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - 75,000 75,000 75,000 - 225,000
KC Prop 2 - - - 100,000 50,000 - 150,000
19 Lakeland Park #4
Capital Costs 30,000 - - - 30,000 - 60,000
Funding Sources:
Fund Balance 25,000 - - - 30,000 - 55,000
Other 5,000 - - - - - 5,000
20 Williams Pipeline Trail
Capital Costs - - - - - 400,000 400,000
Funding Sources:
Fund Balance - - - - - 100,000 100,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - 100,000 100,000
Other - - - - - 200,000 200,000
21 Lea Hill Park Replacement
Capital Costs 165,000 - - - - - 165,000
Funding Sources:
Fund Balance - - - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)65,000 - - - - - 65,000
Other (GRCC Reimb)100,000 - - - - - 100,000
22 Fenster Levee Setback, Phase 2B
Capital Costs 835,000 261,000 - - - - 1,096,000
Funding Sources:
Grants (Fed,State,Local)825,000 261,000 - - - - 1,086,000
Other (Storm)10,000 - - - - - 10,000
23 Dykstra Park Improvement
Capital Costs - 65,000 - - - - 65,000
Funding Sources:
Fund Balance - 65,000 - - - - 65,000
Other - - - - - - -
Subtotal, Non-Capacity Projects:
Capital Costs 1,245,000 18,296,000 480,000 12,450,000 975,000 610,000 34,056,000
SUMMARY:
CAPITAL COSTS
Capacity Projects 240,000 120,000 - - - - 360,000
Non-Capacity Projects 1,245,000 18,296,000 480,000 12,450,000 975,000 610,000 34,056,000
Total Costs 1,485,000 18,416,000 480,000 12,450,000 975,000 610,000 34,416,000
FUNDING SOURCES:
Fund Balance 190,000 300,000 150,000 130,000 550,000 185,000 1,505,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)1,010,000 336,000 180,000 2,150,000 150,000 175,000 4,001,000
Contributions & Donations - 17,660,000 - - - - 17,660,000
REET 1 - - - - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - 6,000,000 - - 6,000,000
KC Prop 2 120,000 120,000 - 100,000 50,000 - 390,000
Other 165,000 - 150,000 4,070,000 225,000 250,000 4,860,000
Total Funding 1,485,000 18,416,000 480,000 12,450,000 975,000 610,000 34,416,000
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
143
MUNICIPAL PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (321)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Capital Projects Fund
Project Title: Park Acquisitions/Development
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Capacity
Project Manager:Faber
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Fund Balance - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- 350,000 120,000 - 470,000
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
REET - - -
KC Prop 2*- 120,000 120,000 120,000 240,000
- 470,000 240,000 120,000 710,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Acquisition - 470,000 120,000 120,000 590,000
Construction - - 120,000 - 120,000
- 470,000 240,000 120,000 710,000
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Fund Balance - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - 120,000
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
REET - - - - -
KC Prop 2*- - - - 240,000
- - - - 360,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Acquisition - - - - 240,000
Construction - - - - 120,000
- - - - 360,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Adopted Budget
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
None
Land acquisitions to occur based on demand and deficiencies including trails and corridors. Projects to potentially include
the State Parks property adjacent to Game Farm Park.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
144
MUNICIPAL PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (321)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Capital Projects Fund
Project Title: Issac Evans Park
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Non-Capacity
Project Manager:Faber
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
25,000 - - 25,000
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Fund Balance - - 25,000 - 25,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
REET - - - - -
Other (Park Impact Fee)*- - - - -
- - 25,000 - 25,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - 25,000 - 25,000
- - 25,000 - 25,000
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Fund Balance - 50,000 - - 75,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
REET - - - - -
Other (Park Impact Fee)*- 20,000 - - 20,000
- 70,000 - - 95,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - 70,000 - - 95,000
- 70,000 - - 95,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Adopted Budget
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Increased mowing and utilities- $6,000
Repair trail throughout park, develop reforestation plan.
Progress Summary:
None
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
145
MUNICIPAL PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (321)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Capital Projects Fund
Project Title: Jacobsen Tree Farm Site Plan
Project No:cp0609
Project Type:Non-Capacity
Project Manager:Faber
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Fund Balance 25,321 - - - 25,321
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
REET - - - - -
Other (Development)- - - - -
25,321 - - - 25,321
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - -
- - - - -
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Fund Balance - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)2,000,000 - - 2,000,000
Bond Proceeds 6,000,000 - - 6,000,000
REET - - - -
Other (Development)4,000,000 - - 4,000,000
- 12,000,000 - - 12,000,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - 1,000,000 - - 1,000,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - 11,000,000 - - 11,000,000
- 12,000,000 - - 12,000,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Adopted Budget
Implement Master Plan for the development of this 31 acre site. Lea Hill area is deficient in park acreage.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
No significant impact due to master plan. Future park development will result in maintenance and utility expenses
undeterminable at this time.
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
146
MUNICIPAL PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (321)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Capital Projects Fund
Project Title: Fulmer Park Improvements
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Non-Capacity
Project Manager:Faber
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Fund Balance - - 50,000 - 50,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
REET - - - - -
Other (Park Impact Fee)*- - - - -
- - 50,000 - 50,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - 5,000 - 5,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - 45,000 - 45,000
- - 50,000 - 50,000
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Fund Balance - - - - 50,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
REET - - - - -
Other (Park Impact Fee)*- - - - -
- - - 50,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - 5,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - 45,000
- - - - 50,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Adopted Budget
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Increased maintenance of approximately $5,000 annually
Develop new park amenities on land exchanged with the Water Utility.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
147
MUNICIPAL PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (321)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Capital Projects Fund
Project Title: Auburn Community Center
Project No:cp0925
Project Type:Non-Capacity
Project Manager:Faber
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Fund Balance - - - - -
To Be Determined - - - 17,660,000 -
REET 1 98,125 - - - 98,125
Other (Solid Waste Fees)1,000,000 - - - 1,000,000
Other - - - - -
1,098,125 - - 17,660,000 1,098,125
Capital Expenditures:
Property Acquisition - - - 8,000,000 -
Design 1,093,125 - - 663,000 1,093,125
Professional Services - - - 1,856,900 -
Construction 5,000 - - 7,140,100 5,000
1,098,125 - - 17,660,000 1,098,125
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Fund Balance - - - - -
To Be Determined - - - - 17,660,000
REET 1 - - - - -
Other (Solid Waste Fees)- - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - - - 17,660,000
Capital Expenditures:
Property Acquisition - - - - 8,000,000
Design - - - - 663,000
Professional Services - - - - 1,856,900
Construction - - - - 7,140,100
- - - - 17,660,000
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Grants / Other Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
Adopted Budget
Construct a new 20,100 sq. ft. Community Center facility and associated site improvements at Les Gove Park campus. The
project includes 3,500 sq. ft. of administrative space of the Parks Department and numerous public meeting and activity
spaces. As of this printing funding sources for this project has not been identified.
Progress Summary:
Construction documents are complete and ready for bidding, permitting and construction.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
The annual operating budget fiscal impact is estimated to be $200,000.
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
148
MUNICIPAL PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (321)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Capital Projects Fund
Project Title: Veteran's Park Improvements
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Non-Capacity
Project Manager:Faber
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Fund Balance - - 50,000 50,000 50,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
REET - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - 50,000 50,000 50,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - 5,000 - 5,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - 45,000 50,000 45,000
- - 50,000 50,000 50,000
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Fund Balance - - - - 100,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
REET - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - - 100,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - 5,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - 95,000
- - - - 100,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Adopted Budget
Replace existing concrete paths, add a climbing toy with safety surfacing, upgrade spray pool or expand playground, improve
irrigation coverage, selective tree removal and turf renovation.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
None
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
149
MUNICIPAL PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (321)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Capital Projects Fund
Project Title: Les Gove Park Improvements
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Non-Capacity
Project Manager:Faber
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Fund Balance - - - 60,000 -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
REET - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - - 60,000 -
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - 10,000 -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - 50,000 -
- - - 60,000 -
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Fund Balance - - - - 60,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
REET - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - - - 60,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - 10,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - 50,000
- - - - 60,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Adopted Budget
$5,000 Utilities
Interior Lighting and Site Amenities
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Expenditures:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
150
MUNICIPAL PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (321)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Capital Projects Fund
Project Title: Rotary Park Improvements
Project No:cp0807
Project Type:Non-Capacity
Project Manager:Faber
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Fund Balance 27,700 - - 27,700
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
REET - - - - -
Other 25,000 - - - 25,000
52,700 - - - 52,700
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - -
- - - - -
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Fund Balance - 30,000 - - 30,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
REET - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- 30,000 - - 30,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - 5,000 - - 5,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - 25,000 - - 25,000
- 30,000 - - 30,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Adopted Budget
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
None
Based on completed Master Plan, coordinate improvements with neighborhood and Rotary Club of Auburn to add walking
path.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
151
MUNICIPAL PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (321)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Capital Projects Fund
Project Title: Brannan Park Improvements
Project No:CPxxxx
Project Type:Non-Capacity
Project Manager:Faber
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Fund Balance - - 40,000 - 40,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
REET - - - - -
Other (Other Agency, Park Mitigation)*- - - - -
- - 40,000 - 40,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - 5,000 - 5,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - 35,000 - 35,000
- - 40,000 - 40,000
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Fund Balance - - - - 40,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
REET - - - - -
Other (Other Agency, Park Mitigation)*- - - - -
- - - - 40,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - 5,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - 35,000
- - - - 40,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Adopted Budget
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
None
Replace existing Playground Equipment and Field 4 Improvements
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
152
MUNICIPAL PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (321)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Capital Projects Fund
Project Title: Misc. Parks Improvements
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Non-Capacity
Project Manager:Faber
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Fund Balance 68,400 - - 100,000 68,400
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - 75,000 -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
REET - - - - -
Other (Park Impact Fee)*- 100,000 50,000 - 150,000
68,400 100,000 50,000 175,000 218,400
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction 68,400 100,000 50,000 175,000 218,400
68,400 100,000 50,000 175,000 218,400
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Fund Balance 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 300,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 375,000
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
REET - - - - -
Other (Park Impact Fee)*50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 250,000
175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 925,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 925,000
175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 925,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Adopted Budget
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
None
Minor park improvements including shelters, roofs, playgrounds, irrigation and restrooms as denoted in the Parks Master
Plan.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
153
MUNICIPAL PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (321)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Capital Projects Fund
Project Title: Cameron Park
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Non-Capacity
Project Manager:Faber
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Fund Balance - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
REET - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - - - -
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - -
- - - - -
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Fund Balance 25,000 - - - 25,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)30,000 - - - 30,000
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
REET - - - - -
Other - - - - -
55,000 - - - 55,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design 5,000 - - - 5,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction 50,000 - - - 50,000
55,000 - - - 55,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Adopted Budget
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
None
Add landscaping to park as a buffer for housing and at play structure, and fencing at play structure. The project is identified
in the adopted Parks Improvement Plan.
Progress Summary:
complete
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
154
MUNICIPAL PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (321)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Capital Projects Fund
Project Title: Game Farm Park Improvements
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Non-Capacity
Project Manager:Faber
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
170,000 170,000 - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Fund Balance - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
REET - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - - -
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - -
- - - - -
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Fund Balance - - 40,000 - 40,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
REET - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - 40,000 - 40,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - 40,000 - 40,000
- - 40,000 - 40,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Adopted Budget
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
None
Playground and Plaza improvements. Complete 3rd play area.
Progress Summary:
complete
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
155
MUNICIPAL PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (321)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Capital Projects Fund
Project Title: Gaines Park
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Non-Capacity
Project Manager:Faber
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Fund Balance - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
REET - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - - - -
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - -
- - - - -
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Fund Balance - - 30,000 - 30,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
REET - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - 30,000 - 30,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - 10,000 - 10,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - 20,000 - 20,000
- - 30,000 - 30,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Adopted Budget
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
None
Develop Horticulture Plan for the Park as indicated in the Parks Improvement Plan and repair boardwalk.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
156
MUNICIPAL PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (321)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Capital Projects Fund
Project Title: Roegner Park
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Non-Capacity
Project Manager:Faber
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Fund Balance - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
REET - - - - -
Other (Prop Levy 2)- - - - -
- - - - -
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - -
- - - - -
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Fund Balance 50,000 - - - 50,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
REET - - - - -
Other (Prop Levy 2)- - - - -
50,000 - - - 50,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design 5,000 - - - 5,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction 45,000 - - - 45,000
50,000 - - - 50,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Adopted Budget
Budget Amendments
This project requires trail system maintenance, play structure replacement and riverbank stabilization.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
None
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
157
MUNICIPAL PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (321)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Capital Projects Fund
Project Title: Auburndale Park
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Non-Capacity
Project Manager:Faber
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Fund Balance - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
REET - - - - -
Other (Other Agency)*- - - - -
- - - - -
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - -
- - - - -
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Fund Balance 25,000 - - - 25,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
REET - - - - -
Other (Other Agency)*100,000 - - - 100,000
125,000 - - - 125,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design 15,000 - - - 15,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction 110,000 - - - 110,000
125,000 - - - 125,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Adopted Budget
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Utilities would increase by $5,000
Develop a Master Plan for the Park, install an irrigation system, new play structure and improve signage.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
158
MUNICIPAL PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (321)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Capital Projects Fund
Project Title: Auburndale Park II
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Non-Capacity
Project Manager:Faber
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Fund Balance - - - 25,000 -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
REET - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - - 25,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - 25,000 -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - -
- - - 25,000 -
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Fund Balance - - 400,000 - 425,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
REET - - - - -
Other - - 175,000 - 175,000
- - 575,000 - 600,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - 75,000 - 100,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - 500,000 - 500,000
- - 575,000 - 600,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Adopted Budget
Description:
Develop a Master Plan in 2014; improve the existing trail system and install signage and play structure.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Increased utility costs of $2,000
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
159
MUNICIPAL PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (321)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Capital Projects Fund
Project Title: Centennial Viewpoint Park
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Non-Capacity
Project Manager:Faber
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Fund Balance - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
REET - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - - -
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - -
- - - -
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Fund Balance - - - 35,000 35,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
REET - - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - - 35,000 35,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - 7,000 7,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - 28,000 28,000
- - - 35,000 35,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Adopted Budget
Description:
Develop a landscape plan for the park and remove antenna from building.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
None
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
160
MUNICIPAL PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (321)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Capital Projects Fund
Project Title: BPA Trail Lea Hill
Project No:cp0919
Project Type:Non-Capacity
Project Manager:Faber
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Fund Balance - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
REET - - - - -
Other (KC Prop. 2)*- - - - -
- - - - -
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - -
- - - - -
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Fund Balance - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)75,000 75,000 75,000 - 225,000
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
REET - - - - -
Other (KC Prop. 2)*- 100,000 50,000 - 150,000
75,000 175,000 125,000 - 375,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design 75,000 - - - 75,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - 175,000 125,000 - 300,000
75,000 175,000 125,000 - 375,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Adopted Budget
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
None
Develop a feasibility/due diligence study to determine the extent of issue with trail design and alignments along the BPA
corridor on Lea Hill between 132nd Ave SE and 108th Ave SE, from Jacobson Tree Farm to the east line of the Auburn Golf
Course. Construct the Trail in subsequent phases.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
161
MUNICIPAL PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (321)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Capital Projects Fund
Project Title: Lakeland Park #4
Project No:cpXXXX
Project Type:Non-Capacity
Project Manager:Faber
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Fund Balance - 25,000 - 25,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
REET - - - - -
Other - - 5,000 - 5,000
- - 30,000 - 30,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - 6,000 - 6,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - 24,000 - 24,000
- - 30,000 - 30,000
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Fund Balance - - 30,000 - 55,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
REET - - - - -
Other - - - - 5,000
- - 30,000 - 60,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - 6,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - 30,000 - 54,000
- - 30,000 - 60,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Adopted Budget
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Increased maintenance costs of $5,000
Development and construction of an environmental community park. Trails, fencing, parking and visitor amenities are
included in the project.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
162
MUNICIPAL PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (321)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Capital Projects Fund
Project Title: Williams Pipeline Trail
Project No:cpXXXX
Project Type:Non-Capacity
Project Manager:Faber
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Fund Balance - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
REET - - - - -
Other - - - -
- - - - -
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - -
- - - - -
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Fund Balance - - - 100,000 100,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - 100,000 100,000
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
REET - - - - -
Other - - - 200,000 200,000
- - - 400,000 400,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - 100,000 100,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - 300,000 300,000
- - - 400,000 400,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Adopted Budget
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
None
Develop a design for a multi purpose trail over the Williams pipeline right-of-way, and construct the trail from Bridget Avenue
SE to the White River Trail in the southeast part of the City.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
163
MUNICIPAL PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (321)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Capital Projects Fund
Project Title: Lea Hill Park Replacement
Project No:cp1003
Project Type:Parks
Project Manager:Daryl Faber
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Fund Balance - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - 65,000 - 65,000
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
REET - - - - -
Other (GRCC Reimb)- 1,329,790 100,000 - 1,429,790
- 1,329,790 165,000 - 1,494,790
Capital Expenditures:
Design - 200,000 - - 200,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - 1,129,790 165,000 - 1,294,790
- 1,329,790 165,000 - 1,494,790
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Fund Balance - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - 65,000
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
REET - - - - -
Other (GRCC Reimb)- - - - 100,000
- - - - 165,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - 165,000
- - - - 165,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Adopted Budget
Increased mowing and utilities- $6,000
In coordination with the Community and Green River Community College, design and construct a new community park to meet the
needs of the Lea Hill Community. This park will replace the existing Lea Hill Park.
Progress Summary:
Under Construction
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
164
MUNICIPAL PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (321)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018
Project Title: Fenster Levee Setback, Phase 2B
Project No:CP1016
Project Type:Non-Capacity
Project Manager:Andersen
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - - - - - -
Activity:
2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Other (Storm)800 24,200 10,000 35,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)19,800 125,300 825,000 261,000 970,100
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
REET - - - - -
20,600 149,500 835,000 261,000 1,005,100
Capital Expenditures:
Design 19,800 149,500 25,000 15,000 194,300
Right of Way 800 - - - 800
Construction - - 810,000 246,000 810,000
20,600 149,500 835,000 261,000 1,005,100
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Other (Storm)- - - - 10,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - 1,086,000
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
REET - - - - -
- - - - 1,096,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - 40,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - 1,056,000
- - - - 1,096,000
Grants / Other Sources: SRFB $304,103; PSAR $100,000; KCD $200,000; WRIA 9/KCD $300,000; SRFB (pending) $327,000
Total Expenditures:
The project will design and construct approximately 800 feet of levee setback along the left bank of the Green River at the City's Fenster
Nature Park property. The project is intended to improve fish habitat and provide refuge for salmonids as well as create additional flood
storage capacity during periods of higher river flow during/after storm events and/or when additional volumes of water are released from
Howard Hanson Dam. This project will complete floodplain restoration and habitat improvements along an approximately two mile reach
of the Green River that begins at Auburn Narrows in unincorporated King County and ends at Fenster Nature Park in Auburn. The City is
partnering with King County and the Veteran's Conservation Corp to construct the project, which is scheduled to start in 2013 and be
completed in 2014.
Progress Summary:A 60% design has been completed for the project. The City has received $604,100 for the project in the form of grants from
the state Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB), the King Conservation District, and Puget Sound Acquisition and
Restoration funds. An additional $300K in grant funding has been approved for the project from the 2012 WRIA 9/KCD high
priority project funds, and a $327K request to SRFB is pending decision in 3rd quarter 2012.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:After construction, the project will need to be monitored and maintained for a minimum of five years to ensure that the setback levee is
operating properly and the restoration plantings become successfully established. A separate program for monitoring and maintaining
restoration sites has been proposed as part of the Planning Department operations budget.
Adopted Budget
Budget Amendments
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
165
MUNICIPAL PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (321)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Capital Projects Fund
Project Title: Dykstra Park Improvement
Project No:
Project Type:
Project Manager:Faber
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Fund Balance - 65,000 -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
REET
Other - - - -
- - - 65,000 -
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - 5,000 -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - 60,000 -
- - - 65,000 -
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Fund Balance - - - - 65,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
REET -
Other - - - - -
- - - - 65,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - 5,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - 60,000
- - - - 65,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Adopted Budget
Replace existing Playground, improve picnic area and concrete sidewalk
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
None
Total Expenditures:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
166
TABLE PR-3
Impact on Future Operating Budgets
PARKS and RECREATION, Including MUNICIPAL PARKS CONSTRUCTION
Project:2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total
1 Park Acquisitions -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
- 2 Issac Evans Park 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 36,000
3 Jacobsen Tree Farm - - - - - - -
- 4 Fulmer Park Improvements 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 30,000
5 Auburn Community Center - 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,000,000
6 Veteran's Park Improv.- - - - - - -
7 Les Gove Park Imp.- 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 25,000
8 Rotary Park Improv.- - - - - - -
9 Brannan Park Imp.- - - - - - -
10 Misc Park Improvements - - - - - - -
11 Cameron Park - - - - - - -
12 Game Farm Park - - - - - - -
13 Gaines Park - - - - - - -
14 Roegner Park - - - - - - -
15 Auburndale Park - - 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 20,000
16 Auburndale Park II - - - - 2,000 2,000 4,000
17 Centennial Viewpoint Park - - - - - - -
18 BPA Trail Lea Hill - - - - - - -
19 Lakeland Park #4 - - - 5,000 5,000 10,000
20 Williams Pipeline Trail - - - - - - -
21 Lea Hill Park Replacement 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 36,000
22 Fenster Levee Setback - - - - - - -
23 Dykstra Park Improvement - - - - - - -
Total 17,000$ 222,000$ 227,000$ 227,000$ 234,000$ 234,000$ 1,161,000$
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
167
COMMUNITY CENTER
Current Facilities
The City of Auburn currently does not have a Community Center.
Level of Service (LOS)
The City does not have a current LOS for a Community Center. The proposed LOS of 267.77
square feet per 1,000 population is based on the projected inventory divided by the 2018
projected citywide population of 75,065.
Capital Facilities Projects and Financing
The proposed Community Center facility construction project is a 6-year planning expectation
total of $17,660,000.
Impact on Future Operating Budgets
As Table PR – 3 shows, operating budget impact of $1,000,000 is forecasted for the Community
Center Facility during the six years 2014-2019.
TABLE PR-4
Facilities Inventory
Community Center
CAPACITY
FACILITY (Square Feet)LOCATION
Existing Inventory:
None -
Total Existing Inventory -
Proposed Capacity Projects:
New Community Center 20,100
Total Proposed Capacity Projects 20,100
2018 Projected Inventory Total 20,100
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
168
SENIOR CENTER
Current Facilities
The City of Auburn currently has one Senior Center. Table PR-5 Facilities Inventory lists the
facility along with its current capacity and location.
Level of Service (LOS)
The current LOS of 176.87 square feet per 1,000 population is based on the existing inventory
divided by the 2012 citywide population of 71,240. The proposed LOS of 167.84 square feet
per 1,000 population is based on the projected inventory divided by the 2018 projected citywide
population of 75,065.
Capital Facilities Projects and Financing
The CFP does not include any senior center capital facilities projects during 2013-2018.
Impact on Future Operating Budgets
There are no operating budget impacts forecasted for the senior center facility during the six
years 2014 – 2019.
TABLE PR-5
Facilities Inventory
Senior Center
CAPACITY
FACILITY (Square Feet)LOCATION
Existing Inventory:
Senior Center 12,600 808 9th Street SE
Total Existing Inventory 12,600
Proposed Capacity Projects:
None -
Total Proposed Capacity Projects -
2018 Projected Inventory Total 12,600
TABLE P-1
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
169
GENERAL MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS
Current Facilities
The current inventory of City government administration and operations facilities include
155,975 square feet for general government operations, 61,888 square feet for police services,
and 31,653 square feet for fire protection, for a total of 249,516 square feet. Table GM – 1
“Facilities Inventory” lists the facilities along with their current capacity and location.
Level of Service (LOS)
The current LOS of 3,502.47 square feet per 1,000 population is based on the existing inventory
divided by the 2012 citywide population of 71,240. The proposed LOS of 3,591.53 square feet
per 1,000 population is based on the projected inventory divided by the 2018 projected citywide
population of 75,065.
Capital Facilities Projects and Financing
The City’s General Municipal Building facilities include six capital projects at a cost of
$1,858,600 and debt service at a cost of $3,869,300 for a total of $5,727,900. The projects
include (1) $200,000 for M&O Vehicle Bay and Storage building, (2) $500,000 for Equipment
Rental Vehicle Maintenance Bay (3) $320,000 for M&O Fuel Tank Replacement (4) $250,600
for HVAC Upgrades at City Hall, (5) $100,000 City Hall Remodel, Phase 1, (6) $488,000 for City
Hall Remodel, Phase 2 and $3,869,300 for City Hall Annex debt service costs . Table GM – 2
shows the proposed financing plan followed by individual worksheets showing the project detail.
Impact on Future Operating Budgets
Operating budget impacts annually are not yet forecast for general municipal buildings during
the six years 2014 – 2019.
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
170
TABLE GM-1
Facilities Inventory
General Municipal Buildings
CAPACITY
FACILITY (Square Feet)LOCATION
Existing Inventory:
General Government:
City Hall 37,700 25 W Main Street
City Hall Annex 58,000 1 W Main Street
City Maintenance & Operations Facility 25,855 1305 C Street SW
Parks & Recreation Admin. Facility 7,000 910 9th Street SE
Activity Center 8,000 910 9th Street SE
Street Waste Handling Facility 2,750 1305 C Street SW
Municipal Court (Justice Center)12,200 340 E Main Street
GSA Building 4,470 2905 C Street #815
Total 155,975
Police:
Headquarters (Justice Center)24,800 340 E Main Street
Supermall substation 1,208 1101 Supermall Way
Gun range 32,880 1600 Block 15th St NW
Seized vehicle parking stalls 3,000 C Street SW (GSA)
Total 61,888
Fire:
Stations:
North Station #31 12,220 1101 D Street NE
South Station #32 5,200 1951 R Street SE
GSA Station #35 9,533 2815 C Street SW
Other Facilities:
North Station Maint. Facility 4,700 1101 D Street NE
Total 31,653
Total Existing Inventory 249,516
Proposed Capacity Projects:
Community 20,100
Total Proposed Capacity Projects 20,100
2018 Projected Inventory Total 269,616
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
171
TABLE GM-2
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN PROJECTS AND FINANCING
GENERAL MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total
Capacity Projects:
1 M & O Vehicle Maintenance Bay
Capital Costs 100,000 100,000 - - - - 200,000
Funding Sources:
Equip. Rental Fund 100,000 100,000 - - - - 200,000
2 ERR Vehicle Bay & Storage
Capital Costs 250,000 250,000 - - - - 500,000
Funding Sources:
Equip. Rental Fund 250,000 250,000 - - - - 500,000
3 M&O Fuel Tank Replacement
Capital Costs 70,000 250,000 - - - - 320,000
Funding Sources:
Equip. Rental Fund 70,000 250,000 - - - - 320,000
Subtotal, Capacity Projects:
Capital Costs 420,000 600,000 - - - - 1,020,000
Non-Capacity Projects:
4 City Hall HVAC System Upgrade
Capital Costs 250,600 - - - - - 250,600
Funding Sources:
Capital Improv. Fund - - - - - - -
REET 1 250,600 - - - - - 250,600
5 City Hall Remodel, Phase 1
Capital Costs 100,000 - - - - - 100,000
Funding Sources:
Capital Improv. Fund 100,000 - - - - - 100,000
REET 1 - - - - - - -
6 City Hall Remodel, Phase 2
Capital Costs 488,000 - - - - - 488,000
Funding Sources:
Capital Improv. Fund 488,000 - - - - - 488,000
Grants - - - - - - -
7 City Hall Annex
Long-Term Debt 645,200 645,200 644,800 644,100 645,000 645,000 3,869,300
Funding Sources:
Capital Improv. Fund - - - - - - -
Grants - - - - - - -
REET 1 645,200 645,200 644,800 644,100 645,000 645,000 3,869,300
Subtotal, Non-Capacity Projects:
Capital Costs 838,600 - - - - - 838,600
SUMMARY:
CAPITAL COSTS
Capacity Projects 420,000 600,000 - - - - 1,020,000
Non-Capacity Projects 838,600 - - - - - 838,600
Long-Term Debt 645,200 645,200 644,800 644,100 645,000 645,000 3,869,300
Total Costs 1,903,800 1,245,200 644,800 644,100 645,000 645,000 5,727,900
FUNDING SOURCES:
Equip. Rental Fund 420,000 600,000 - - - - 1,020,000
Capital Improv. Fund 588,000 - - - - - 588,000
REET 1 895,800 645,200 644,800 644,100 645,000 645,000 4,119,900
Grants - - - - - - -
Total Funding 1,903,800 1,245,200 644,800 644,100 645,000 645,000 5,727,900
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
172
EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND (550)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Enterprise Funds
Project Title: Maintenance and Operations Vehicle Bay and Storage
Project No:cp0711
Project Type:
Project Manager:
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
-
-
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous 2 Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Equip. Rental Revenue - 100,000 100,000 100,000 200,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Other - - - - -
- 100,000 100,000 100,000 200,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - 100,000 100,000 100,000 200,000
- 100,000 100,000 100,000 200,000
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Equip. Rental Revenue - - - - 200,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - - - 200,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - 200,000
- - - - 200,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Adopted Budget
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Add three insulated vehicle bays for Vactor storage to provide year-round protection. These vehicles hold large quantities of water on
board at all times enabling them to be immediately dispatched in the event of an emergency. This requires them to be protected from
freezing temperatures. Draining their large tanks each day would cause a dispatch delay while refilling, that could result in extraordinary
damage to public and private property in an emergency situation. Enclose existing bays to provide necessary weather protection for
street sweepers, sanding, and snow plow equipment . Construct storage shed to facilitate removal of portable containers, improving
space utilization and traffic flow thoughout M&O.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
None
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
173
EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND (550)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Enterprise Funds
Project Title: Equipment Rental Vehicle Maintenance Bay
Project No:cp0710
Project Type:
Project Manager:
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
-
-
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous 2 Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Equip. Rental Revenue - - 250,000 250,000 250,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - 250,000 250,000 250,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - 25,000 - 25,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - 225,000 250,000 225,000
- - 250,000 250,000 250,000
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Equip. Rental Revenue - - - - 500,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - - - 500,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - 25,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - 475,000
- - - - 500,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Adopted Budget
Add additional vehicle bay at Equipment Rental shop for heavy equipment and large vehicles to improve efficiency and remove choke
points. Adding a large vehicle bay with a large vehicle lift will enable us to perform inspections and maintenance on more than one
large vehicle at a time, this becomes extremely important during emergency operations such as snow and ice events.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
None
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
174
NAME OF FUND/DEPT Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 General Fund
Project Title: M&O Fuel Tank Replacement
Project No:
Project Type:
Project Manager:
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous 2 Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Equip. Rental Revenue - - 70,000 250,000 70,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - 70,000 250,000 70,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - 70,000 - 70,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - 250,000 -
- - 70,000 250,000 70,000
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Equip. Rental Revenue - - - - 320,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - - - 320,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - 70,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - 250,000
- - - - 320,000
Grants / Other Sources:
None
Replace our three 10,000 gallon underground tanks with new above ground tanks. Our existing tanks were installed in 1989 and they are
single wall fiberglass tanks. The City's current insurance carrier will not insure these tanks once they become 25 years old which will
occur in 2014. The city is looking at other insurance options that may remove this age restriction. It will be a benefit to the city to have
the tanks above ground in the future due to the reduced maintenance and inspection cost.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Adopted Budget
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
175
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND (328)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Capital Projects Fund
Project Title: City Hall HVAC System Upgrade
Project No:cp0716
Project Type:Non-Capacity
Project Manager:Moore
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Fund Balance - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
REET I - 246,900 250,600 - 497,500
To Be Determined - - - - -
- 246,900 250,600 - 497,500
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - 246,900 250,600 - 497,500
- 246,900 250,600 - 497,500
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Fund Balance - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
REET I - - - - 250,600
To Be Determined - - - - -
- - - - 250,600
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - 250,600
- - - - 250,600
Grants / Other Sources:
None
Adopted Budget
Design and implementation of upgrades to the City Hall heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning (HVAC) system. Improvements will
allow for upgrades to the controls, air distribution and air handling components. It will also provide a systematic, phased implementation
plan that can be put in place over the next several years.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
176
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND (328)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Capital Projects Fund
Project Title: City Hall Remodel, Phase 1
Project No:cp1009
Project Type:Non-Capacity
Project Manager:Burke
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Fund Balance 10,040 539,060 100,000 - 649,100
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
REET I - 129,000 - - 129,000
To Be Determined - - - - -
10,040 668,060 100,000 - 778,100
Capital Expenditures:
Design 10,040 23,000 - - 33,040
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - 645,060 100,000 - 745,060
10,040 668,060 100,000 - 778,100
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Fund Balance - - - - 100,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
REET I - - - - -
To Be Determined - - - - -
- - - - 100,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - 100,000
- - - - 100,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Adopted Budget
2013 expenses for the City Hall remodel Phase 1 include new workstations for the remodel of the 2nd floor of City Hall. The remodeled
space will house Human Resources, City Clerk and the City Attorney's Office inclusive of office space, reception areas and conference
rooms.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
None
Total Expenditures:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
177
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND (328)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Capital Projects Fund
Project Title: City Hall Remodel, Phase 2
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Non-Capacity
Project Manager:Burke
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Fund Balance - - 488,000 - 488,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
REET I - - - - -
To Be Determined - - - - -
- - 488,000 - 488,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - 488,000 - 488,000
- - 488,000 - 488,000
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Fund Balance - - - - 488,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
REET I - - - - -
To Be Determined - - - - -
- - - - 488,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - 488,000
- - - - 488,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
Adopted Budget
Remodel of the 1st floor of City Hall including spaces currently occupied by the Mayor's Office, Community Services, Human Resources and
the City Attorney's Office. The remodeled space will house the Mayor's Office, Council Offices and Community Services.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
None
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
178
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND (328)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Capital Projects Fund
Project Title: City Hall Annex
Project No:
Project Type:
Project Manager:
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 11 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Cap Improve - - - - -
Grants - - - -
REET 1 905,400 644,800 645,200 645,200 2,195,400
905,400 644,800 645,200 645,200 2,195,400
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Construction - - - - -
Long-Term Debt Service 905,400 644,800 645,200 645,200 2,195,400
905,400 644,800 645,200 645,200 2,195,400
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Cap Improve - - - - -
Grants - - - - -
REET 1 644,800 644,100 645,000 645,000 3,869,300
644,800 644,100 645,000 645,000 3,869,300
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Construction - - - - -
Long-Term Debt Service 644,800 644,100 645,000 645,000 3,869,300
644,800 644,100 645,000 645,000 3,869,300
Grants / Other Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
Adopted Budget
To pay debt service costs on General Obligation bonds issued for the City Hall Annex 2013-2018.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
179
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENTS
Current Facilities
Community Improvements include the Downtown Promenade, City Hall Plaza Improvements,
sidewalk and traffic signal improvements.
Level of Service (LOS)
No Level of Service for community improvement projects have been identified at this time.
Capital Facilities Projects and Financing
The City’s proposed Community Improvements include six capital projects at a cost of
$2,929,970. Table CI-2 shows the proposed financing plan followed by individual work sheets
showing the project detail.
Impact on Future Operating Budgets
There are no operating budget impacts forecast for community improvement projects annually
during the six years 2014 – 2019.
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
180
TABLE CI-2
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN PROJECTS AND FINANCING
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENTS
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total
Capacity Projects:
None -
Non-Capacity Projects:
1 Citywide Sidewalk Repairs & Improvements
Capital Costs 200,000 - - - - - 200,000
Funding Sources:
Capital Improv. Fund 200,000 - - - - - 200,000
Grants (Fed, State, Local)- - - - - - -
2 Traffic Signal Improvements
Capital Costs 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 1,050,000
Funding Sources:
Capital Improv. Fund - - - - - - -
REET 2 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 1,050,000
3 Mohawks Plastics Site Mitigation Project
Capital Costs 25,000 25,000 20,000 20,000 65,000 20,000 175,000
Funding Sources:
Capital Improv. Fund - - - - - - -
Other (Fund 124 -Traffic Imp.)25,000 25,000 20,000 20,000 65,000 20,000 175,000
REET 2 - - - - - - -
4 Public Art
Capital Costs 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 180,000
Funding Sources:
Capital Improv. Fund - - - - - - -
Grants - - - - - - -
REET 2 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 180,000
5 Jovita Heights Wetland Mitigation
Capital Costs 31,670 5,000 - - - - 36,670
Funding Sources:
Capital Improv. Fund - - - - - - -
REET 1 - - - - - - -
Other (Fund 124-Wetland Mit.)31,670 5,000 - - - - 36,670
6 Local Revitalization
Capital Costs 213,300 217,100 213,500 213,800 213,400 217,200 1,288,300
Funding Sources:
Capital Improv. Fund - - - - - - -
Grants - - - - - - -
REET 2 213,300 217,100 213,500 213,800 213,400 217,200 1,288,300
Subtotal, Non-Capacity Projects:
Capital Costs 461,670 235,000 225,000 225,000 270,000 225,000 1,641,670
SUMMARY:
CAPITAL COSTS
Capacity Projects - - - - - - -
Non-Capacity Projects 461,670 235,000 225,000 225,000 270,000 225,000 1,641,670
Long-Term Debt 213,300 217,100 213,500 213,800 213,400 217,200 1,288,300
Total Costs 674,970 452,100 438,500 438,800 483,400 442,200 2,929,970
FUNDING SOURCES:
Capital Improv. Fund 200,000 - - - - - 200,000
Grants - - - - - - -
REET 2 418,300 422,100 418,500 418,800 418,400 422,200 2,518,300
Other (Fund 124 -Traffic Imp.)25,000 25,000 20,000 20,000 65,000 20,000 175,000
Other (Fund 124-Wetland Mit.)31,670 5,000 - - - - 36,670
Total Funding 674,970 452,100 438,500 438,800 483,400 442,200 2,929,970
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
181
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND (328)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Capital Projects Fund
Project Title: Citywide Sidewalk Repairs & Improvements TIP #32
Project No:Various
Project Type:Non-Capacity (Annual)
Project Manager:Seth Wickstrom
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Fund Balance - 235,000 200,000 - 435,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
REET 2 - - - - -
To Be Determined - - - - -
- 235,000 200,000 - 435,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - 20,000 20,000 - 40,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - 215,000 180,000 - 395,000
- 235,000 200,000 - 435,000
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Fund Balance - - - - 200,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
REET 2 - - - - -
To Be Determined - - - - -
- - - - 200,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - 20,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - 180,000
- - - - 200,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
Adopted Budget
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Project will fund sidewalk improvements to a variety of locations throughout the city. A sidewalk inventory was completed in
2004. Annual projects are selected based upon criteria such as: gap closure, safe walking routes to schools, completion of
downtown pedestrian corridor or "linkage", connectivity to transit services, ADA requirements, and "Save our Streets" (SOS)
project locations.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
None
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
182
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND (328)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Capital Projects Fund
Project Title: Traffic Signal Improvements TIP #34
Project No:various
Project Type:Non-Capacity (Annual)
Project Manager:Scott Nutter
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Fund Balance - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
REET 2 - 175,000 175,000 175,000 525,000
Other - - - - -
- 175,000 175,000 175,000 525,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - 25,000 25,000 25,000 -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - 150,000 150,000 150,000 300,000
- 175,000 175,000 175,000 300,000
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Fund Balance - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
REET 2 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 1,050,000
Other - - - - -
175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 1,050,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 150,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 900,000
175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 1,050,000
Grants / Other Sources:
This project includes procuring and installing traffic signal equipment upgrades for existing signals as well as safety/capacity
improvements for existing and/or new signals. The City uses accident and traffic count data to identify intersections in need of
improvements.
Progress Summary:
Project continues to complete various intersection improvements.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
None
Adopted Budget
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
183
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND (328)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Capital Projects Fund
Project Title: Mohawks Plastics Site Mitigation Project TIP #13
Project No:cp0767
Project Type: Non-Capacity
Project Manager: Jeff Dixon/Leah Dunsdon
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Fund Balance - - - - -
Grants - - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees 470,380 34,620 25,000 25,000 530,000
REET 2 176,150 - - - 176,150
646,530 34,620 25,000 25,000 706,150
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction 646,530 34,620 25,000 25,000 706,150
646,530 34,620 25,000 25,000 706,150
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Fund Balance - - - - -
Grants - - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees 20,000 20,000 65,000 20,000 175,000
REET 2 - - - - -
20,000 20,000 65,000 20,000 175,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction 20,000 20,000 65,000 20,000 175,000
20,000 20,000 65,000 20,000 175,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
It is anticipated that annual maintenance, monitoring and reporting on the performance of the wetland mitigation project will be required
for a period of 10 years, in conformance with permit requirements. After the successful conclusion of this 10-year monitoring period,
which is anticipated to be in December 2019, ongoing operation expenses should be minimal.
Adopted Budget
The project consists of the design, construction, maintenance and monitoring of approximately 2.2-acres of wetland creation
and approximately 0.4-acres of wetland enhancement within the Goedecke South Property owned by the Sewer Utility in
order to compensate for approximately 1.6-acre wetland loss on the Mohawk Plastics property (Parcel # 1321049056). The
project was approved under an existing agreement approved by Resolution No. 4196, June 2007.
Progress Summary:
The City received the DOE WQ Certification, WDFW HPA, and on May 7, 2009, the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) 404
wetland permit (NWS-2007-1913). Subsequently, bid specifications and construction plans were prepared and construction
began in October 2009. Construction was completed in January 2010 and the project is currently within the 10-year
monitoring period, which involves annual maintenance, monitoring and reporting.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
184
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND (328)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Capital Projects Fund
Project Title: Public Art
Project No: pb-art
Project Type:
Project Manager: Brewer
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Fund Balance - - - - -
Grants - - - - -
REET 2 - 30,000 30,000 30,000 60,000
Other - - - - -
- 30,000 30,000 30,000 60,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction 30,000 30,000 30,000 60,000
- 30,000 30,000 30,000 60,000
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Fund Balance - - - - -
Grants - - - - -
REET 2 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 180,000
Other - - - - -
30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 180,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 180,000
30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 180,000
Grants / Other Sources:
None
Adopted Budget
The City designates $30,000 annually toward the purchase of public art, for placement at designated locations throughout
the City.
Progress Summary:
Arts Commission will meet to assess future needs and seek approval from City Council on placement.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Expenditures:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
185
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND (328)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Capital Projects Fund
Project Title: Jovita Heights Wetland Mitigation
Project No:CPXXXX
Project Type:Non-Capacity
Project Manager:Andersen
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Fund Balance - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Fund 124 Wetland Mitigation Account - - 31,670 5,000 31,670
REET - - - - -
- - 31,670 5,000 31,670
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - 10,000 10,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - 21,670 5,000 26,670
- - 31,670 5,000 31,670
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Fund Balance - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Fund 124 Wetland Mitigation Account - - 36,670
REET - - - - -
- - - - 36,670
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - 10,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - 26,670
- - - - 36,670
Grants / Other Sources:
Adopted Budget
This project will design and construct approximately 0.25 acres of compensatory wetland mitigation to address the wetland impacts of
the Jovita Heights (Vista Point) residential subdivision. This is a "fee in lieu" mitigation project authorized by City of Auburn Resolution
No. 4005.
Progress Summary:
This is a proposed new project. Developer fees were received by the City of Auburn for this project in 2010.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
After construction, the site will need to be monitored and maintained for (5) years. Proposed location of the site is within the AEP;
funding for monitoring is not proposed as part of this project, but rather as part of the overall AEP O&M program.
Total Expenditures:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
186
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND (328)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Capital Projects Fund
Project Title: Local Revitalization
Project No:
Project Type:
Project Manager:
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 11 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
2012 YE 2012 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Cap Improve - - - -
Grants - - - - -
REET 2 286,695 214,300 213,300 217,100 714,295
286,695 214,300 213,300 217,100 714,295
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Construction - - - - -
Long-Term Debt Service 286,695 214,300 213,300 217,100 714,295
286,695 214,300 213,300 217,100 714,295
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Cap Improve - - - - -
Grants - - - - -
REET 2 213,500 213,800 213,400 217,200 1,288,300
213,500 213,800 213,400 217,200 1,288,300
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Construction - - - - -
Long-Term Debt Service 213,500 213,800 213,400 217,200 1,288,300
213,500 213,800 213,400 217,200 1,288,300
Grants / Other Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
Adopted Budget
To pay debt service costs on General Obligation bonds issued for the Downtown Promenade Improvements. Local Revitalization
financing is a credit on the State's portion of sales tax that the City will receive over the next 25 years.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
187
AIRPORT
Current Facilities
The City of Auburn operates the Auburn Municipal Airport, providing hangar and tie-down
facilities/leasing space for aircraft-related businesses. As of 2010, there were approximately
141,000 take-offs and landings (aircraft operations) at the airport annually. Table A-1 “Facilities
Inventory” lists the facilities with current capacity and location.
Level of Service (LOS)
The Auburn Municipal Airport Master Plan Update 2001–2020 provides a maximum runway
capacity (LOS standard) of 231,000 aircraft operations annually; one take-off or landing equals
one aircraft operation. This LOS is recognized by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
The FAA requires the airport to have the capital facilities capacity (i.e., runways, taxiways,
holding areas, terminal, hangars, water/sewer system, etc.) necessary to accommodate 100%
of aircraft operations during any one year. By 2020 the Airport Master Plan forecasts the
number of operations to be 193,189 – well below the capacity of the airport runway.
Capital Facilities Projects and Financing
The City’s Airport facilities include four non-capacity capital projects at a cost of $ 483,000.
These projects are for facilities repairs and improvements. Table A-2 shows the proposed
financing plan followed by individual worksheets showing the project detail.
Impact on Future Operating Budgets
There are no operating budget impacts forecast for the airport during the six years
2014 – 2019.
TABLE A-1
Facilities Inventory
Airport
FACILITY # of Aircraft # of Feet LOCATION
Existing Inventory:
Hangars 145 400 23rd Street NE
Tiedowns 214 400 23rd Street NE
Air Strip 3,400 400 23rd Street NE
Total Existing Inventory 359 3,400
Proposed Capacity Projects:
None - -
Total Proposed Capacity Projects - -
2018 Projected Inventory Total 359 3,400
CAPACITY
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
188
TABLE A-2
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN PROJECTS AND FINANCING
AIRPORT
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total
Capacity Projects:
None -
Non-Capacity Projects:
1 Airport Security
Capital Costs 50,000 50,000 - - - - 100,000
Funding Sources:
Airport Fund 5,000 5,000 - - - - 10,000
Grant 45,000 45,000 - - - - 90,000
2 Hangar Roof Repair/Replacement
Capital Costs - 6,000 - 6,000 - 6,000 18,000
Funding Sources:
Airport Fund - 6,000 - 6,000 - 6,000 18,000
3 General Repair & Maint. Projects
Capital Costs 140,000 - - - - - 140,000
Funding Sources:
Airport Fund 103,000 - - - - - 103,000
Grants (FAA)37,000 - - - - - 37,000
4 Airport Master Plan Update
Capital Costs 75,000 150,000 - - - - 225,000
Funding Sources:
Airport Fund 7,500 15,000 - - - - 22,500
Grants (FAA)67,500 135,000 - - - - 202,500
SUMMARY:
CAPITAL COSTS
Capacity Projects - - - - - - -
Non-Capacity Projects 265,000 206,000 - 6,000 - 6,000 483,000
Total Costs 265,000 206,000 - 6,000 - 6,000 483,000
FUNDING SOURCES:
Airport Fund 115,500 26,000 - 6,000 - 6,000 153,500
Grants (Fed,State,Local)149,500 180,000 - - - - 329,500
Total Funding 265,000 206,000 - 6,000 - 6,000 483,000
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
189
AIRPORT FUND (435)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Enterprise Funds
Project Title: Airport Security Projects
Project No:cp0713
Project Type:
Project Manager:Garcia
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
-
50,000 -
- - 50,000 -
Activity:
2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Airport Revenue - - 5,000 5,000 5,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - 45,000 45,000 45,000
Other - - - - -
- - 50,000 50,000 50,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - 50,000 50,000 50,000
- - 50,000 50,000 50,000
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Airport Revenue - - - - 10,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - 90,000
Other - - - - -
- - - - 100,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - 100,000
- - - - 100,000
Grant / Other Sources:
Adopted Budget
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Increased security identified by FAA and TSA. Airport controll access gates (both vechile and personnel).
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
None
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
190
AIRPORT FUND (435)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Enterprise Funds
Project Title: Airport Projects - General Repair & Maintenance
Project No:cp435a
Project Type:
Project Manager:Garcia
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
-
-
- - - -
Activity:
2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Airport Revenue - 59,500 103,000 - 162,500
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - 37,000 - 37,000
Other - - - - -
- 59,500 140,000 - 199,500
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - 59,500 140,000 - 199,500
- 59,500 140,000 - 199,500
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Airport Revenue - - - - 103,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - 37,000
Other - - - - -
- - - - 140,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - 140,000
- - - - 140,000
Grant / Other Sources:
Adopted Budget
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Various airport projects will be identified and prioritized on an annual basis as grant funding is secured. Remove west side trees in
compliance with US Corps of Engineers.
Progress Summary:
Work with US Corps of Engineers to find solution to west side trees so that they can be removed or topped so they will not
grow up to be a hazard again.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
None
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
191
AIRPORT FUND (435)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Enterprise Funds
Project Title: Hangar - Rows 9 & 10, Roof Repair or Replacement
Project No:cp1025
Project Type:
Project Manager:Garcia
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
200,000 200,000
-
200,000 - - 200,000
Activity:
2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Airport Revenue - 200,000 - 6,000 200,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Other - - - - -
- 200,000 - 6,000 200,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - 200,000 - 6,000 200,000
- 200,000 - 6,000 200,000
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Airport Revenue - 6,000 - 6,000 18,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Other - - - - -
- 6,000 - 6,000 18,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - 6,000 - 6,000 18,000
- 6,000 - 6,000 18,000
Grant / Other Sources:
Bi-annual maintenance and inspection cost for this project is estimated at $6,000 per year. Maintenance includes cleaning, painting or
sealing as recommended by the manufacturer.
Adopted Budget
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Rows 9 & 10 Hangar metal roof repaired and/or replaced.
Progress Summary:
Out to bid in June 2012, completion scheduled for August 2012
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
192
AIRPORT FUND (435)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Enterprise Funds
Project Title: Airport Master Plan Update
Project No:cpxxx
Project Type:
Project Manager:Garcia
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
-
-
- - - -
Activity:
2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Airport Revenue - - 7,500 15,000 7,500
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - 67,500 135,000 67,500
Other - - - - -
- - 75,000 150,000 75,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - 75,000 150,000 75,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - -
- - 75,000 150,000 75,000
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Airport Revenue - - - - 22,500
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - 202,500
Other - - - - -
- - - - 225,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - 225,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - -
- - - - 225,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Adopted Budget
This is a mid-term Airport Master Plan Update. In 2002 a Master Plan update was completed and this is the second update to the
Master Plan and Airport Layout Plan (ALP). This is a FAA requirement for continuing with federal and state grants.
Progress Summary:
The consultant has been selected to begin collecting information and prepare the scope of work and associated costs. This
project will take between 18 and 24 months to complete.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Expenditures:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
193
CEMETERY
Current Facilities
The City owns two cemeteries. The Mountain View Cemetery is a fully developed facility (50
acres and four buildings) that provides burial services and related merchandise for the
community. The Pioneer Cemetery is a historic cemetery which is no longer used for burial
purposes. Table C-1 “Facilities Inventory” lists the facilities along with their current capacity and
location.
Level of Service (LOS)
The current LOS of 44.50 burial plots/niches per 1,000 population is based on the existing
inventory divided by the 2012 citywide population of 71,240. The proposed LOS of 58.73 burial
plots/niches per 1,000 population is based on the projected inventory divided by the 2018
projected citywide population of 75,065. In addition, the cemetery will be able to offer a natural
cremation garden.
Capital Facilities Projects and Financing
The City’s Mountain View Cemetery facilities include two capital projects at a cost of $55,000 for
repairs and maintenance and Memory Heights development. Table C-2 shows the proposed
financing plan followed by an individual worksheet showing the project detail.
Impact on Future Operating Budgets
There are no operating budget impacts forecast for the cemetery during the six years
2014 – 2019.
TABLE C-1
Facilities Inventory
Cemetery
CAPACITY
FACILITY # of burial plots/niches LOCATION
Existing Inventory:
Mountain View Cemetery 3,170 2020 Mountain View Dr.
Pioneer Cemetery - 8th & Auburn Way No.
Total Existing Inventory 3,170
Proposed Capacity Projects:
New Development - Burial Plots 475 Memory Heights
New Development - Burial Plots 764 10th Addition
Total Proposed Capacity Projects 1,239
2018 Projected Inventory Total 4,409
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
194
TABLE C-2
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN PROJECTS AND FINANCING
CEMETERY
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total
Non-Capacity Projects:
1 Cemetery -Facilities Repair & Maintenance
Capital Costs 10,000 10,000 - - - - 20,000
Funding Sources:
Cemetery Fund 10,000 10,000 - - - - 20,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - - -
Other - - - - - - -
2 Memory Heights New Development
Capital Costs - - 35,000 - - - 35,000
Funding Sources:
Cemetery Fund - - 35,000 - - - 35,000
Other - - - - - - -
SUMMARY:
CAPITAL COSTS
Capacity Projects - - - - - - -
Non-Capacity Projects 10,000 10,000 35,000 - - - 55,000
Total Costs 10,000 10,000 35,000 - - - 55,000
FUNDING SOURCES:
Cemetery Fund 10,000 10,000 35,000 - - - 55,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - - -
Other - - - - - - -
Total Funding 10,000 10,000 35,000 - - - 55,000
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
195
CEMETERY FUND (436)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Enterprise Funds
Project Title: Cemetery - Facilities Repair & Maintenance
Project No:cp436a
Project Type:Non Capacity
Project Manager:Craig Hudson
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
-
-
- - - -
Activity:
2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Cemetery Revenue - 10,000 10,000 10,000 20,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Other - - - - -
- 10,000 10,000 10,000 20,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - 10,000 10,000 10,000 20,000
- 10,000 10,000 10,000 20,000
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Cemetery Revenue - - - - 20,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - -
Other - - - - -
- - - - 20,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - 20,000
- - - - 20,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
(2013 - 2014) - Columbarium niche caps 10K
Adopted Budget
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
196
CEMETERY FUND (436)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Enterprise Funds
Project Title: Memory Heights New Development
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Non Capacity
Project Manager:Craig Hudson
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
-
-
- - - -
Activity:
2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Unrestricted Cemetery Revenue - - - - -
Grants - - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
Impact Fees - - - - -
- - - - -
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - -
- - - - -
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Cemetery Revenue 35,000 - - - 35,000
Grants - - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
Impact Fees - - - - -
35,000 - - - 35,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design 3,000 - - - 3,000
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction 32,000 - - - 32,000
35,000 - - - 35,000
Adopted Budget
New Memory Heights development 450 graves
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Future revenue source for plot sales and cemetery merchandise.
Total Expenditures:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
197
GOLF COURSE
Current Facilities
The City of Auburn owns and operates the 18-hole Auburn Municipal Golf Course. A PGA
Class A professional is contracted to collect greens fees, operate the pro shop and snack bar,
provide golf carts for rent, and offer a lesson program. Table GC-1 Facilities Inventory lists the
facilities along with their current capacity and location.
Level of Service (LOS)
The current LOS of .25 holes per 1,000 population is based on the existing inventory divided by
the 2012 citywide population of 71,240. The proposed LOS of .24 holes per 1,000 population is
based on the projected inventory divided by the 2018 projected citywide population of 75,065.
Capital Facilities Projects and Financing
The CFP does not include any Golf Course capital facilities projects during 2013-2018.
Impact on Future Operating Budgets
There are no operating budget impacts forecast for new golf course facilities during the six
years 2014 – 2019.
TABLE GC-1
Facilities Inventory
Golf Course
FACILITY # of holes LOCATION
Existing Inventory:
Auburn Municipal Golf Course 18 29639 Green River Road
Total Existing Inventory 18
Proposed Capacity Projects:
None -
Total Proposed Capacity Projects -
2018 Projected Inventory Total 18
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
198
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
199
POLICE
Current Facilities
The City of Auburn Police Department provides a full range of law enforcement services to the
citizens of Auburn. All Divisions of the Auburn Police Department are housed at 340 East Main
Street, Suite 201. The Divisions include Patrol, Investigations, Administrative Services,
Inspectional Services, and Records.
Level of Service (LOS)
The City of Auburn Police Department contracts with SCORE, an outside entity, for housing of
all misdemeanant inmates.
Capital Facilities Projects and Financing
The CFP does not include any Police capital facilities projects during 2013 – 2018.
Impact on Future Operating Budgets
The jail services expenses are dependent on the City’s contract agreement with SCORE.
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
200
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
201
FIRE PROTECTION
Current Facilities
The Valley Regional Fire Authority provides fire protection and rescue services to a 25-square
mile area which includes the City of Auburn, the City of Algona, the City of Pacific and King
County Fire Protection District 31. The Valley Regional Fire Authority operates out of five
stations, which are manned 24 hours per day. The North Station #31 also serves as the
department headquarters and includes a hose and training tower. Each station is assigned fire
apparatus (Engines and Aid Vehicles). Table F–1 “Facilities Inventory” lists the facilities along
with their current capacity and location.
Level of Service (LOS)
The current LOS of 0.20 fire apparatus per 1,000 population is based on the existing inventory
(14 fire apparatus) divided by the 2012 citywide population of 71,240. The proposed LOS of
0.19 fire apparatus per 1,000 is based on the 2018 planned inventory (14 fire apparatus) divided
by the 2018 projected citywide population of 75,065.
Capital Facilities Projects and Financing
The Valley Regional Fire Authority includes one capital project at a cost of $100,000 for Fire
Station Facility Relocation, Enhancements & Improvements. Table F-2 shows the proposed
financing plan followed by an individual worksheet showing the project detail.
Impact on Future Operating Budgets
There are no operating budget impacts forecasted for fire protection during the six years
2014 – 2019.
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
202
TABLE F-1
Facilities Inventory
Valley Regional Fire Authority
FACILITY Fire Apparatus Aid Vehicles LOCATION
Existing Inventory:
Stations:
North Station #31 1101 'D' Street NE, Auburn
First Line 1 1
Reserve 1 -
South Station #32 1951 'R' Street SE, Auburn
First Line 1 1
Reserve 1 -
Lakeland Station #33 500 182nd Ave E, Auburn
First Line 1 -
Reserve 1 -
Lea Hill Station #34 31290 124th Ave SE, Auburn
First Line 1 -
Reserve 1 -
GSA Station #35 2815 C St SW, Auburn
Reserve 1 1
Pacific Station #38 133 3rd Ave SE, Pacific
First Line 1 -
Reserve 1 -
Total Existing Inventory 11 3
Proposed Inventory Additions:
None - -
Total Proposed Capacity Projects - -
2018 Projected Inventory Total 11 3
CAPACITY
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
203
TABLE F-2
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN PROJECTS AND FINANCING
VALLEY REGIONAL FIRE AUTHORITY
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total
Non-Capacity Projects:
1 Fire Station Facility Relocation, Enhancements & Improvements
Capital Costs 50,000 50,000 - - - - 100,000
Funding Sources:
Grants - - - - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - - - -
Impact/Mitigation Fees 50,000 50,000 - - - - 100,000
SUMMARY:
CAPITAL COSTS
Capacity Projects - - - - - - -
Non-Capacity Projects 50,000 50,000 - - - - 100,000
Total Costs 50,000 50,000 - - - - 100,000
FUNDING SOURCES:
Cemetery Fund - - - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - - -
Bond Proceeds 50,000 50,000 - - - - 100,000
Total Funding 50,000 50,000 - - - - 100,000
City of Auburn Draft Capital Facilities Plan
204
Valley Regional Fire Authority Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018
Project Title: Fire Station Facility Relocation, Enhancements & Improvements
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:
Project Manager:
Description:
Budget: 2012 YTD Actual 2013 12 Budget
Budget Expenditures Budget Balance
-
-
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous 2 Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year End
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total
Grants - - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
Impact/Mitigation Fees - - 50,000 50,000 50,000
- - 50,000 50,000 50,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - 50,000 50,000 50,000
- - 50,000 50,000 50,000
Total
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018
Funding Sources:
Grants - - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - -
Impact/Mitigation Fees - - - - 100,000
- - - - 100,000
Capital Expenditures:-
Design - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - -
Construction - - - - 100,000
- - - - 100,000 Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Adopted Budget
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Continue study of other Fire station needs for VRFA. Facility improvement projects are identified and prioritized annually,
and subject to delay to accommodate emergency repairs.
Progress Summary:
Fire mitigation and impact fees will be transferred to the Valley Regional Fire Authority to pay for design contracts for the
study of fire station relocation, construction projects and facility improvements.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Funding Sources:
Auburn School District No. 408
CAPITAL FACILITIES
PLAN
2012 through 2018
Adopted by the Auburn School District Board of Directors
May 29, 2012
Janice Nelson
Anne Baunach
Lisa Connors
Ray Vefik
Carol Seng
City of Pacific
915 Fourth Street NE
Auburn, Washington 98002
Unincorporated King County
City of Auburn
City of Algona
City of Kent
Serving Students in:
City of Black Diamond
Dr. Dennis Kip Herren, Superintendent
BOARD of DIRECTORS
(253) 931-4900
Section I Executive Summary ……………………Page 1
Section II Enrollment Projections…………………Page 6
Section III Standard of Service……………………Page 8
Section IV Inventory of Facilities……………………Page 15
Section V Pupil Capacity……………………………Page 19
Section VI Capital Construction Plan………………Page 22
Section VII Impact Fees………………………………Page 26
Section VIII Appendices…………………………..…Page 30
Appendix A.1 - Student Enrollment Projections Page 31
Appendix A.2 - Capital Facilities Plan Projections Page 45
Appendix A.3 - Student Generation Survey Page 50
Table of Contents
Auburn School District No. 408
Capital Facilities Plan
2012 through 2018
Section I
Executive Summary
2
Auburn School District No. 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2012 through 2018
I. Executive Summary
This Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan (the “Plan”) has been prepared by the Auburn School District (the “District”) as the District’s principal planning document, in compliance with the requirements
of Washington’s Growth Management Act and the adopted ordinances of the counties and cities served by the District. This plan was prepared using data available in the spring of 2012.
This Plan is consistent with prior long-term capital facilities plans adopted by the District.
However, this Plan is not intended to be the sole plan for all of the District’s needs. The District may prepare interim and periodic long-range Capital Facilities Plans consistent with Board
Policies and actions, taking into account a longer or a shorter time period; other factors and trends in the use of facilities; and other needs of the District as may be required. However, any
such plan or plans will be consistent with this Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan.
To enable the collection of impact fees in the unincorporated areas of King County and within the City of Auburn and City of Kent; the King County Council, the City of Auburn and the City of Kent
will adopt this Plan by reference as part of each jurisdiction’s respective comprehensive plan. To enable the collection of impact fees in the Cities of Algona, Pacific and Black Diamond, these
municipalities must also adopt this Plan and adopt school impact fee ordinances.
Pursuant to the requirements of the Growth Management Act and the local ordinances, the Plan will be updated on an annual basis, and any changes in the fee schedule(s) adjusted accordingly.
The Plan establishes the District’s “standard of service” in order to ascertain the District’s current
and future capacity. While the State Superintendent of Public Instruction establishes square footage guidelines for capacity, those guidelines do not account for the local program needs of
the District. The Growth Management Act and the school impact fee ordinance authorize the District to define its standard of service based on the District’s specific needs. In general, the
District’s current standard provides that class size for grades K-2 should not exceed 25 students; class size for grades 3-4 should not exceed 27 students; class size for grade 5 should not exceed
30 students. When averaged over the six elementary grades, this computes to 26.5 students per classroom. Class size for grades 6-12 should not exceed 30 students, with some subject areas
restricted to lesser numbers. (See Section III for more specific information.) The capacity of the schools in the District is calculated based on this standard of service and the existing inventory of facilities including transitional classrooms. The District’s 2011-12 capacity
was 13,725). The actual number of individual students was 14,363 as of October 1, 2011. (See Section V for more specific information.)
The capital construction plan shown in Section VI addresses the additions and proposed modernization to the District’s existing facilities. This provided for a new high school approved by the voters in February 2003 and opened in September 2005; and the addition of two new
elementary schools approved by the voters in February 2005; with Lakeland Hills Elementary opening in the Fall of 2006 and Arthur Jacobsen Elementary opening in the Fall of 2007. The plan includes the construction of a new middle school and a new elementary school, as well as
the acquisition of future school sites to accommodate growth. The new facilities are required to meet the projected student population increase to be generated from the large development areas within the Auburn School District. Three areas that have significant impact on the school
district are the Lakeland South, the Lea Hill, and the north Auburn valley areas of the district.
3
There are other pockets of development that impact the District as well. The City of Kent has an area of approximately 158 acres that was sold to developers in 2004. The economic downturn
has slowed development in these areas, but recent new construction is beginning to pick back up.
The district completed a comprehensive review of all district facilities and in October 2008 a Steering Committee made recommendations to the board for capital improvements to existing
facilities and replacement of seven schools over the next ten years. These recommendations led to a capital improvements levy and a bond issue that was placed on the ballot in March 2009.
Both ballot measures were not successful in March. The board determined to re-run only the capital improvements levy in November 2009, which the voters approved. In the Fall of 2011 the
school board determined to move forward with the Auburn High School Modernization and Reconstruction Project and place before the voters in February of 2012. The bond issue was
supported by the community at nearly 57% approval rate, but was short of the super majority requirement of 60%. In March of 2012 the school board determined to rerun the bond again in
November of 2012.
The School Impact Fee Ordinances adopted by King County, the City of Auburn and the City of Kent provide for the assessment of impact fees to assist in meeting some of the fiscal 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 Auburn School District from single family and multi-family developments constructed in the last five years. The
method of collecting the data is with the use of GIS mapping software, data from King County and Pierce County GIS; and to integrate the mapping with student data from the district’s student data
system. This method gives the District actual student generation numbers for each grade span for identified developments. This data is contained in Appendix A.3.
Auburn School District No. 408
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2012 through 2018
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
4
Listed below is a summary level outline of the changes from the 2011 Capital
Facilities Plan that are a part of the 2012 Plan. The changes are noted by Section
for ease of reference.
Section I
Executive Summary
A. Updated to reflect new information within the Plan.
B. Summary level list of changes from previous year.
Section II
Enrollment Projections
Updated projections. See Appendices A.1 & A.2.
Section III
Standard of Service
A. Decrease of 2 structured learning classrooms at elementary level
B. Increase of 1 Nativie American resource room at elementary level
C. Increase of 2 full-day kindergarten classrooms at elementary level
D. Increase of 1 structured learning classrooms at middle level
E. Increase of 3 structured learning classrooms at high school level
F. Decrease of 1 special education resource room at high school level
Section IV
Inventory of Facilities
No change from 2011-12 to 2012-13.
Section V
Pupil Capacity
No change from 2011-12 to 2012-13.
Auburn School District No. 408
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2012 through 2018
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
5
Section VII
Impact Fees CHANGES TO IMPACT FEE DATA ELEMENTS 2011 to 2012
CPF CPF
DATA ELEMENTS 2011 2012 EXPLANATION
Student Generation Factors
Single Family Consistent with King County Ordinance 11621,
Elementary 0.3130 0.2610 Student Generation Factors are calculated
Mid School 0.1540 0.1300 by the school district based on district
Sr. High 0.1650 0.1340 records of average actual student generation
Multi-Family rates for new developments constructed
Elementary 0.1240 0.1720 over the last five years.
Mid School 0.0560 0.0700
Sr. High 0.5190 0.0900
School Construction Costs
Elementary $21,750,000 $21,750,000
Middle School $42,500,000 $42,500,000
Site Acquisition Costs
Cost per acre $290,381 $326,827 Updated estimates on land costs
Area Cost Allowance Boeckh In $183.78 $188.55 Updated to projected SPI schedule.
Match % - State 58.67%58.49%Updated to current SPI schedule.
Match % - District 41.33%41.51%Computed
District Average AV
Single Family $248,795 $223,057 Updated from March 2012 King County
Dept of Assessments data.
Multi-Family $67,821 $68,902 Updated from March 2012 King County
Dept of Assessments data using weighted
average.
Debt Serv Tax Rate $0.93 $0.98 Current Fiscal Year
GO Bond Int Rate 4.91%3.84%Current Rate (Bond Buyers 20 Index 3-12)
Section VIII
Appendices
Appendix A.1 - Updated enrollment projections from October 1, 2011
Appendix A.2 - Updated enrollment projections with anticipated buildout schedule.
Appendix A.3 - Student Generation Survey March 2012
Auburn School District No. 408
Capital Facilities Plan
2012 through 2018
Section II
Enrollment Projections
Auburn School District No. 408
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2012 through 2018
ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS
7
The Auburn School District uses a modified cohort survival model to project future enrollment for all
of the District's operations. Table II.1 is an extract from the comprehensive projection model found in
Appendix A.2 titled "CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Enrollment Projections". This Table shows the
anticipated enrollment for the next six years based on the previous 6 year history of the District under the
assumptions set forth in the comprehensive projections, Appendix A.1, and the projection for additional
students generated from new developments in the district as shown in Appendix A.2.
TABLE ASD ENROLLMENT
II.1 PROJECTIONS (March 2012)
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
GRADE Actual Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
KDG 1029 1052 1078 1105 1137 1169 1199
1 1068 1077 1104 1131 1163 1196 1226
2 1097 1086 1098 1126 1157 1190 1220
3 996 1112 1103 1117 1149 1181 1211
4 1022 1033 1152 1145 1163 1196 1226
5 1018 1042 1056 1176 1174 1193 1223
K - 5 6230 6402 6591 6800 6943 7125 7306
6 1063 1021 1049 1064 1188 1187 1204
7 1032 1081 1043 1071 1091 1217 1213
8 1046 1046 1099 1062 1095 1116 1239
6 - 8 3141 3149 3191 3197 3374 3519 3655
9 1273 1260 1265 1322 1292 1329 1350
10 1170 1278 1269 1276 1337 1309 1343
11 1233 1146 1257 1250 1262 1325 1294
12 1316 1251 1167 1281 1279 1293 1352
9 - 12 4992 4934 4958 5127 5170 5256 5339
TOTALS 14,363 14,485 14,740 15,125 15,487 15,901 16,299
GRADES K-12 Actual Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
K-5 w/K @ 1/2 5716 5876 6051 6247 6374 6541 6706
6-8 3141 3149 3191 3197 3374 3519 3655
9-12 4992 4934 4958 5127 5170 5256 5339
K-12 w/K @ 1/2 13,849 13,959 14,200 14,572 14,919 15,317 15,700
Note: The district is currently operating Full Day Kindergarten in eight schools and includes two state
funded Full Day Kindergartens at two additional elementary schools.
Auburn School District No. 408
Capital Facilities Plan
2012 through 2018
Section III
Standard of Service
Auburn School District No. 408
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2012 through 2018
STANDARD OF SERVICE
9
The School Impact Fee Ordinances adopted by King County, the City of Auburn and the City of Kent indicate
that each school district must establish a "Standard of Service" in order to ascertain the overall capacity to house
its projected student population. The Superintendent of Public Instruction establishes square footage
"capacity" guidelines for computing state funding support. The fundamental purpose of the SPI guidelines
is to provide a vehicle to equitably distribute state matching funds for school construction projects. By default
these guidelines have been used to benchmark the district's capacity to house its student population. The SPI
guidelines do not make adequate provision for local district program needs, facility configurations, emerging
educational reform, or the dynamics of each student's educational program. The Auburn School District Standard
of Service addresses those local considerations that require space in excess of the SPI guidelines. The effect
on the space requirements for both permanent and relocatable facilities is shown below for each grade articulation
pattern. Conditions that may result in potential space needs are provided for information purposes without
accompanying computations.
OVERVIEW
The Auburn School District operates fourteen elementary schools housing 6,230 students in grades
K through 5. For Kindergarten students; 687 of the 1,029 attend 1/2 days throughout the year and 5,201 students,
grades 1 through 5, plus 340 kindergartners, attend on a full day basis. When converted to full time
equivalents, the K-5 enrollment is 5,885. The four middle schools house 3,141 students in grades 6 through 8.
The District operates three comprehensive senior high schools and one alternative high school, housing 4,992
students in grades 9 through 12.
CLASS SIZE
The number of pupils per classroom determines the number of classrooms required to house the
student population. Specialists create additional space needs. Class sizes are subject to collective
bargaining. Changes to class size agreements can have significant impact on available space.
The current pupil/teacher limit across all elementary programs is an average of 26.5 students per
teacher. Consistent with this staffing limit, room capacities are set at 26.5 students per room at grades
K - 5. At grades 6 - 12 the limit is set at 30 pupils per room. The SPI space allocation for each grade
articulation level, less the computed reduction for the Auburn School District Standard of Service,
determines the District's capacity to house projected pupil populations. These reductions are shown
below by grade articulation level.
STRUCTURED LEARNING FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED SPECIAL EDUCATION
The Auburn School District operates a structured learning program for students with moderate to severe
disabilities at the elementary school level which currently uses eight classrooms to provide for 72 students.
The housing requirements for this program are provided for in the SPI space guidelines. No loss of
capacity is expected unless population with disabilities grows at a disproportionate rate compared to
total elementary population.
ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR
The Auburn School District operates an adaptive behavior program for students with behavior
disabilities at the elementary school level. The program uses one classroom to provide for seven students.
The housing requirements for this program exceed the SPI space allocations by one classroom.
Loss of Permanent Capacity 1 room @ 26.5 each =(27)
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 26.5 each =0
Total Capacity Loss (27)
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
Auburn School District No. 408
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2012 through 2018
STANDARD OF SERVICE
10
SPECIAL EDUCATION RESOURCE ROOMS
The Auburn School District operates a resource room program at the elementary level for
special education students requiring instruction to address their specific disabilities. Fourteen standard
classrooms are required to house this program. The housing requirements for this program exceed
the SPI space guidelines by seven standard classrooms. The loss of capacity is expected as growth
in program is larger than the total elementary population.
Loss of Permanent Capacity 7 rooms @ 26.5 each =(186)
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 26.5 each =0
Total Capacity Loss (186)
NATIVE AMERICAN RESOURCE ROOM
The Auburn School District operates two resource rooms to support the education of Native American
students at the elementary level. Two standard classrooms is fully dedicated to serve these students.
Loss of Permanent Capacity 2 rooms @ 26.5 each =(53)
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 26.5 each =0
Total Capacity Loss (53)
HEAD START
The Auburn School District operates a Head Start program for approximately 114 youngsters in six
sections of 1/2 day in length. The program is housed at three elementary schools and utilizes
three standard elementary classrooms and auxiliary office spaces. The housing requirements
for this program are not provided for in the SPI space guidelines.
Loss of Permanent Capacity 3 rooms @ 26.5 each =(80)
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 26.5 each =0
Total Capacity Loss (80)
EARLY CHILDHOOD SPECIAL EDUCATION
The Auburn School District operates a pre-school program for young children with disabilities below
age five. This program is housed at seven different elementary schools and currently uses 10
standard classrooms. The housing requirements for this program are not provided for in the SPI
space guidelines.
Loss of Permanent Capacity 10 rooms @ 26.5 each =(265)
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 26.5 each =0
Total Capacity Loss (265)
READING LABS
The Auburn School District operates a program for students needing remediation and additional
language arts instruction. These programs utilize non-standard classroom spaces if available in
each elementary school. Four elementary schools do not have non-standard rooms available, thus
they are housed in a standard classroom. The housing requirements for this program are not
provided for in the SPI space guidelines.
Loss of Permanent Capacity 4 rooms @ 26.5 each =(106)
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 26.5 each =0
Total Capacity Loss (106)
Auburn School District No. 408
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2012 through 2018
STANDARD OF SERVICE
11
MUSIC ROOMS
The district elementary music programs require one acoustically modified classroom at each
elementary school for music instruction. The housing requirements are not provided for
in the SPI space guidelines.
Loss of Permanent Capacity 14 rooms @ 26.5 each =(371)
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 26.5 each =0
Total Capacity Loss (371)
ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE PROGRAM
The Auburn School District operates a pullout program at the elementary school level for students
learning English as a second language. This program requires fourteen standard classrooms that are not
provided for in the SPI space guidelines.
Loss of Permanent Capacity 14 rooms @ 26.5 each =(371)
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 26.5 each =0
Total Capacity Loss (371)
SECOND GRADE TOSA PROGRAM
The Auburn School District provides a TOSA reading specialist program for seven highly impacted
elementary schools. This pullout model provides direct instruction to students who are not at grade
level and do not receive other services. This program requires eight standard classrooms that are
not provided for in the SPI space guidelines.
Loss of Permanent Capacity 8 rooms @ 26.5 each =(212)
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 26.5 each =0
Total Capacity Loss (212)
ELEMENTARY LEARNING SPECIALIST PROGRAM
The Auburn School District provides a learning specialist program to increase literacy skills for
first and second graders. This program model has been created from the I-728 funds and currently
has the specialist going into existing teacher classrooms, as well as pulling out students into
designated classrooms. The district is utilizing classrooms at all fourteen elementary schools.
Loss of Permanent Capacity 14 rooms @ 26.5 each =(371)
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 26.5 each =0
Total Capacity Loss (371)
FULL DAY KINDERGARTEN
The Auburn School District provides Full-Day Kindergarten programs to increase academic skills for
kindergarten students. This program model has been created from tuition, Title I funds and currently
there are two schools receiving state funding for 2011-12 school year. The district is utilizing 16
classrooms at eight of the fourteen elementary schools. Housing requirements exceed the OSPI space
guidelines for this program by seven classrooms.
Loss of Permanent Capacity 8 rooms @ 26.5 each =(212)
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 26.5 each =0
Total Capacity Loss (212)
Auburn School District No. 408
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2012 through 2018
STANDARD OF SERVICE
12
SPECIAL EDUCATION RESOURCE ROOMS
The Auburn School District operates a resource room program for each grade at the middle school level.
This is to accommodate special education students needing remedial instruction to address their specific
disabilities. Eight classrooms are required at the middle school level to provide for approximately 316 students.
The housing requirements for this program are not entirely provided for in the SPI space guidelines.
ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR SPECIAL EDUCATION
The Auburn School District offers a self-contained program for students with moderate to severe behavior
diabilities. The program is housed at one of the middle schools and uses one classroom. The housing
requirements for this program are provided for in the SPI space allocations.
STRUCTURED LEARNING CENTER AND DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED SPECIAL EDUCATION
The Auburn School District operates five structured learning classrooms at the middle school level for
students with moderate to severe disabilities and one developmentally disabled classroom for students with
profound disabilities. Three of the five classrooms for this program are provided for in the SPI space allocations.
Loss of Permanent Capacity 3 rooms @ 26.5 each =(80)
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 26.5 each =0
Total Capacity Loss (80)
MIDDLE SCHOOL COMPUTER LABS
The Auburn School District operates a minimum of one computer lab at each middle school. This program
utilizes a standard classroom per middle school. The housing requirements for this program
are not provided for in the SPI space guidelines.
Loss of Permanent Capacity 4 rooms @ 30 each =(120)
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 30 each =0
Total Capacity Loss (120)
ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE
The Auburn School District operates a pullout program at the middle school level for students
learning English as a second language. This program requires four standard classrooms that are not
provided for in the SPI space guidelines.
Loss of Permanent Capacity 4 rooms @ 30 each =(120)
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 30 each =0
Total Capacity Loss (120)
ROOM UTILIZATION
The Auburn School District provides a comprehensive middle school program that includes
elective options in special interest areas. Facilities to accommodate special interest activities are
not amenable to standard classroom usage. The district averages 95% utilization of all available
teaching stations. SPI Report #3 dated 12/14/11 identifies 148 teaching stations available in the
mid-level facilities. The utilization pattern results in a loss of approximately 8 teaching stations.
Loss of Permanent Capacity 8 rooms @ 30 each =(240)
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 30 each =0
Total Capacity Loss (240)
MIDDLE SCHOOLS
Auburn School District No. 408
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2012 through 2018
STANDARD OF SERVICE
13
SENIOR HIGH COMPUTER LABS
The Auburn School District operates two computer labs at each of the senior high schools. This
program utilizes two standard classrooms at comprehensive high schools and one at West Auburn.
The housing requirements for this program are not provided for in the SPI space guidelines.
Loss of Permanent Capacity 7 rooms @ 30 each =(210)
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 30 each =0
Total Capacity Loss (210)
ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE
The Auburn School District operates a pullout program at three comprehensive high schools for students
learning English as a second language. This program requires three standard classrooms that are not
provided for in the SPI space guidelines.
Loss of Permanent Capacity 3 rooms @ 30 each =(90)
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 30 each =0
Total Capacity Loss (90)
ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR SPECIAL EDUCATION
The Auburn School District offers a self-contained program for students with moderate to severe behavior
diabilities. The program is housed at one of the high schools and uses one classroom. The housing
requirements for this program are not provided for in the SPI space allocations.
Loss of Permanent Capacity 1 rooms @ 30 each =(30)
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 30 each =0
Total Capacity Loss (30)
STRUCTURED LEARNING CENTER PROGRAM
The Auburn School District operates nine structured learning center classrooms for students with
moderate to severe disabilities. This program requires five standard classrooms that are not provided
for in the SPI space guidelines.
Loss of Permanent Capacity 5 rooms @ 30 each =(150)
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 30 each =0
Total Capacity Loss (150)
SPECIAL EDUCATION RESOURCE ROOMS
The Auburn School District operates a resource room program at the senior high level for special
education students requiring instruction to address their specific learning disabilities. The current
high school program requires 10 classrooms to provide program to meet educational needs of
the students. The SPI space guidelines provide for one of the 10 teaching stations.
Loss of Permanent Capacity 9 rooms @ 30 each =(270)
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 30 each =0
Total Capacity Loss (270)
SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS
Auburn School District No. 408
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2012 through 2018
STANDARD OF SERVICE
14
PERFORMING ARTS CENTERS
Auburn High School includes 25,000 square feet used exclusively for a Performing Arts Center. The
SPI Inventory includes this space when computing unhoused student capacity. This space was
not intended for nor is it usable for classroom instruction. It was constructed to provide a
community center for the performing arts. Using SPI capacity guidelines, 25,000 square feet
computes to 208 unhoused students or 8.33 classrooms.
Loss of Permanent Capacity 8.33 rooms @ 30 each =(250)
ROOM UTILIZATION
The Auburn School District provides a comprehensive high school program that includes numerous
elective options in special interest areas. Facilities to accommodate special interest activities are
not amenable to standard classroom usage. The district averages 95% utilization of all available
teaching stations. There are 185 teaching stations available in the senior high facilities. The utilization
pattern results in a loss of approximately 10 teaching stations.
Loss of Permanent Capacity 10 rooms @ 30 each =(300)
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 30 each =0
Total Capacity Loss (300)
STANDARD OF SERVICE COMPUTED TOTALS
ELEMENTARY
Loss of Permanent Capacity =(2,253)
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0
Total Capacity Loss (2,253)
MIDDLE SCHOOL
Loss of Permanent Capacity =(560)
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0
Total Capacity Loss (560)
SENIOR HIGH
Loss of Permanent Capacity =(1,300)
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0
Total Capacity Loss (1,300)
TOTAL
Loss of Permanent Capacity =(4,112)
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0
Total Capacity Loss (4,112)
Auburn School District No. 408
Capital Facilities Plan
2012 through 2018
Section IV
Inventory of Facilities
Auburn School District No. 408
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2012 through 2018
INVENTORY OF FACILITIES
16
Table IV.1 shows the current inventory of permanent district facilities and their OSPI rated capacities.
Table IV.2 shows the number and location of each portable unit by school. The district uses relocatable
facilities to:
1. provide interim housing in school attendance areas uniquely impacted by increasing school populations that would otherwise require continual redistricting.
2. make space available for changing program requirements and offerings determined by unique student
needs, and 3. provide housing to cover district needs until permanent facilities can be financed and constructed.
Relocatable facilities are deemed to be interim, stop gap measures that often place undesirable stress on existing physical plants. Core facilities (i.e. gymnasiums, restrooms, kitchens, labs, lockers, libraries, etc.) are not of
sufficient size or quantity to handle the increased school population served by adding relocatable classrooms. District School Facilities
Building Capacity Acres Address
Elementary Schools
Washington Elementary 486 5.40 20 E Street Northeast, Auburn WA, 98002
Terminal Park Elementary 408 6.70 1101 D Street Southeast, Auburn WA, 98002
Dick Scobee Elementary 477 10.50 1031 14th Street Northeast, Auburn WA, 98002
Pioneer Elementary 441 8.30 2301 M Street Southeast, Auburn WA, 98002
Chinook Elementary 440 8.75 3502 Auburn Way South, Auburn WA, 98092
Lea Hill Elementary 450 10.00 30908 124th Avenue Southeast, Auburn WA, 98092
Gildo Rey Elementary 551 10.00 1005 37th Street Southeast, Auburn WA, 98002
Evergreen Heights Elem. 456 8.09 5602 South 316th, Auburn WA, 98001
Alpac Elementary 497 10.60 310 Milwaukee Boulevard North, Pacific WA, 98047
Lake View Elementary 559 16.40 16401 Southeast 318th Street, Auburn WA, 98092
Hazelwood Elementary 580 12.67 11815 Southeast 304th Street, Auburn WA, 98092
Ilalko Elementary 585 12.00 301 Oravetz Place Southeast, Auburn WA, 98092
Lakeland Hills Elementary 594 12.00 1020 Evergreen Way SE, Auburn WA, 98092
Arthur Jacobsen Elementary 614 10.00 29205 132nd Street SE, Auburn WA, 98092
ELEM CAPACITY 7,138
Middle Schools
Cascade Middle School 829 17.30 1015 24th Street Northeast, Auburn WA, 98002
Olympic Middle School 921 17.40 1825 K Street Southeast, Auburn WA, 98002
Rainier Middle School 843 26.33 30620 116th Avenue Southeast, Auburn WA, 98092
Mt. Baker Middle School 837 30.88 620 37th Street Southeast, Auburn WA, 98002
MS CAPACITY 3,430
Senior High Schools
West Auburn High School 233 5.10 401 West Main Street, Auburn WA, 98001
Auburn Senior High 2,101 18.60 800 Fourth Street Northeast, Auburn WA, 98002
Auburn Riverside HS 1,387 33.00 501 Oravetz Road, Auburn WA, 98092
Auburn Mountainview HS 1,443 40.00 28900 124th Ave SE, Auburn WA, 98092
SH CAPACITY 5,164
TOTAL CAPACITY 15,732
Table Permanent Facilities IV.1 @ OSPI Rated Capacity (December 2011)
k
k
k
k
k
k k
k
k
k
k
k
k k
k
k
k
kk
k
k
k
S R 1 6 7 H W Y S
S R 16 7 H WY N
122ND AV E
8TH
ST
E
24TH ST E
9TH ST E
32ND ST E
2N
D
S
T
E
EAST VALLEY HWY E
114TH AV E
112TH AV E
J
O
V
I
T
A
B
L
V
D
E
EDWARDS RD E
16TH ST E
4TH ST E
182ND AV E
18TH ST E
214TH AV E
1 7 9 T H A V E
1 6 9 T H A V E
ISLAND PKWY E
1 8 5 T H A V E
L
A
K
E
T
A
P
P
S
P
K
W
Y
E
12TH ST E
142ND AV E
VALENTINE AV SE
1
9
8
TH
AV
E
36TH ST E
1 8 6 T H A V E
148TH AV E
D I K E R D E
BUTTE AV SE
108TH AV E 110TH AV E
34TH ST E
2
6
T
H
S
T
C
T E
C O T T A G E R D E
1S
T
S
T
E
126TH AVCT E
23RD STCT E
2 1 0 T H A V E
5 T H S T E
62ND ST SE
6
7
T
H
S
T
E
119TH AV E
64TH ST SE
1 7 1 S T A V E
8TH ST E
24TH ST E
34TH ST E
12TH ST E
16TH ST E
16TH ST E
AL
P
A
C
IL
A
L
K
O
CH
I
N
O
O
K
PI
O
N
E
E
R
OL
Y
M
P
I
C
CA
S
C
A
D
E
RA
I
N
I
E
R
LE
A
H
I
L
L
MT
.
B
A
K
E
R
GI
L
D
O
R
E
Y
LA
K
E
V
I
E
W
HA
Z
E
L
W
O
O
D
WA
S
H
I
N
G
T
O
N
AU
B
U
R
N
H
I
G
H
DI
C
K
S
C
O
B
E
E
TE
R
M
I
N
A
L
P
A
R
K
LA
K
E
L
A
N
D
H
I
L
L
S
AR
T
H
U
R
J
A
C
O
B
S
E
N
AU
B
U
R
N
R
I
V
E
R
S
I
D
E
WE
S
T
A
U
B
U
R
N
H
I
G
H
EV
E
R
G
R
E
E
N
H
E
I
G
H
T
S
AU
B
U
R
N
M
O
U
N
T
A
I
N
V
I
E
W
Au
b
u
r
n
S
c
h
o
o
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
C Burton-May2012
Auburn School District No. 408
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2012 through 2018
INVENTORY OF FACILITIES
18
TABLE TEMPORARY/RELOCATABLE
IV.2 FACILITIES INVENTORY
(March 2012)
Elementary Location 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
Washington 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Terminal Park 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Dick Scobee 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Pioneer 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Chinook 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Lea Hill 5 5 2 2 2 2 2
Gildo Rey 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Evergreen Heights 0 0 2 2 2 2 2
Alpac 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Lake View 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Hazelwood 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ilalko 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Lakeland Hills Elementary 2 2 4 4 4 4 4
Arthur Jacobsen Elementary 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL UNITS 32 32 33 33 33 33 33
TOTAL CAPACITY 848 848 875 875 875 875 875
Middle School Location 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
Cascade 0 0 0 2 2 2 2
Olympic 0 0 0 2 2 2 2
Rainier 5 5 7 7 8 8 8
Mt. Baker 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
TOTAL UNITS 13 13 15 19 20 20 20
TOTAL CAPACITY 390 390 450 570 600 600 600
Sr. High School Location 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
West Auburn 0 0 0 1 1 1 1
Auburn High School 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Auburn High School - *TAP 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Auburn Riverside 13 13 13 13 13 13 13
Auburn Mountainview 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL UNITS 26 26 26 27 27 27 27
TOTAL CAPACITY 780 780 780 810 810 810 810
*TAP - Transition Assistance Program for 18-21 year old students with special needs.
COMBINED TOTAL UNITS 71 71 74 79 80 80 80
COMBINED TOTAL CAPACITY 2,018 2,018 2,105 2,255 2,285 2,285 2,285
Auburn School District No. 408
Capital Facilities Plan
2012 through 2018
Section V
Pupil Capacity
Auburn School District No. 408
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2012 through 2018
PUPIL CAPACITY
20
While the Auburn School District uses the SPI inventory of permanent facilities as the data from
which to determine space needs, the District's educational program requires more space than that
provided for under the formula. This additional square footage is converted to numbers of pupils in
Section III, Standard of Service. The District's capacity is adjusted to reflect the need for additional
space to house its programs. Changes in the capacity of the district recognize new unfunded
facilities. The combined effect of these adjustments is shown on Line B in Tables V.1 and V.2 below.
Table V.1 shows the Distict's capacity with relocatable units included and Table V.2 without these units.
Table V.1
Capacity
WITH relocatables 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
A.SPI Capacity 15,732 15,732 15,732 15,732 15,732 15,732 16,532
A.1 SPI Capacity-New Elem 550
1/A.2 SPI Capacity- New MS 800
B.Capacity Adjustments (1,954)(2,094)(2,094)(2,008)(1,858)(1,828)(1,828)
C.Net Capacity 13,778 13,638 13,638 13,725 13,875 14,705 15,255
D.ASD Enrollment 14,363 14,485 14,740 15,125 15,487 15,901 16,229
3/E.ASD Surplus/Deficit (585)(847)(1,102)(1,401)(1,613)(1,197)(975)
CAPACITY ADJUSTMENTS
Include Relocatable 2,018 2,018 2,018 2,105 2,255 2,285 2,285
2/Exclude SOS (pg 14)(3,972)(4,112)(4,112)(4,112)(4,112)(4,112)(4,112)
Total Adjustments (1,954)(2,094)(2,094)(2,008)(1,858)(1,828)(1,828)
Table V.2
Capacity
WITHOUT relocatables 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
A.SPI Capacity 15,732 15,732 15,732 15,732 15,732 15,732 16,532
A.1 SPI Capacity-New Elem 550
1/A.2 SPI Capacity- New MS 800
B.Capacity Adjustments (3,972)(4,112)(4,112)(4,112)(4,112)(4,112)(4,112)
C.Net Capacity 11,760 11,620 11,620 11,620 11,620 12,420 12,970
D.ASD Enrollment 14,363 14,485 14,740 15,125 15,487 15,901 16,229
3/E.ASD Surplus/Deficit (2,603)(2,865)(3,120)(3,505)(3,867)(3,481)(3,259)
CAPACITY ADJUSTMENTS
2/Exclude SOS (pg 14)(3,972)(4,112)(4,112)(4,112)(4,112)(4,112)(4,112)
Total Adjustments (3,972)(4,112)(4,112)(4,112)(4,112)(4,112)(4,112)
1/New facilities shown in 2016-17 and 2017-18 are not funded under the current Capital Facilities Plan.
2/The Standard of Service represents 25.38% of SPI capacity. When new facilities are added the Standard
of Service computations are decreased to 23.35% of SPI capacity.
3/Students beyond the capacity are accomodated in other spaces (commons, library, theater, shared teaching space).
Auburn School District No. 408
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2012 through 2018
PUPIL CAPACITY
21
PERMANENT FACILITIES
@ SPI Rated Capacity
(March 2012)
A.Elementary Schools
Building 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
Washington 486 486 486 486 486 486 486
Terminal Park 408 408 408 408 408 408 408
Dick Scobee 477 477 477 477 477 477 477
Pioneer 441 441 441 441 441 441 441
Chinook 440 440 440 440 440 440 440
Lea Hill 450 450 450 450 450 450 450
Gildo Rey 551 551 551 551 551 551 551
Evergreen Heights 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
Alpac 497 497 497 497 497 497 497
Lake View 559 559 559 559 559 559 559
Hazelwood 580 580 580 580 580 580 580
Ilalko 585 585 585 585 585 585 585
Lakeland Hills 594 594 594 594 594 594 594
Arthur Jacobsen 614 614 614 614 614 614 614
Elementary #15 585
ELEM CAPACITY 7,138 7,138 7,138 7,138 7,138 7,138 7,723
B.Middle Schools
Building 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
Cascade 829 829 829 829 829 829 829
Olympic 921 921 921 921 921 921 921
Rainier 843 843 843 843 843 843 843
Mt. Baker 837 837 837 837 837 837 837
Middle School #5 800 800
MS CAPACITY 3,430 3,430 3,430 3,430 3,430 4,230 4,230
C.Senior High Schools
Building 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
West Auburn 233 233 233 233 233 233 233
Auburn 2,101 2,101 2,101 2,101 2,101 2,101 2,101
Auburn Riverside 1,387 1,387 1,387 1,387 1,387 1,387 1,387
Auburn Mountainview 1,443 1,443 1,443 1,443 1,443 1,443 1,443
SH CAPACITY 5,164 5,164 5,164 5,164 5,164 5,164 5,164
COMBINED CAPACITY 15,732 15,732 15,732 15,732 15,732 16,532 17,117
Auburn School District No. 408
Capital Facilities Plan
2012 through 2018
Section VI
Capital Construction Plan
Auburn School District No. 408
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2012 through 2018
CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION PLAN
23
The formal process used by the Board to address current and future facility needs began in 1974 with the formation of a community wide citizens committee. The result of this committee's
work was published in the document titled 'Guidelines for Development.' In 1985 the Board formed a second Ad Hoc citizens committee to 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 recommendations for improvements to the District's programs and
physical facilities. The committee recommendations are published in the document titled
'Education Into The Twenty-First Century - - A Community Involved.'
The 1995 Ad Hoc committee recommended the District develop plans for the implementation,
funding, and deployment of technology throughout the District's programs. The 1996 Bond proposition provided funding to enhance the capacity of each facility to accommodate
technological applications. The 1998 Capital Levy provided funding to further deploy technology
at a level sufficient to support program requirements in every classroom and department. In 2005 a replacement technology levy was approved to continue to support technology across all
facets of the District’s teaching, learning and operations.
In addition to the technology needs of the District, the Ad Hoc committee recognized the District
must prepare for continued student enrollment growth. As stated in their report, "the District must pursue an appropriate high school site as soon as possible." The Ad Hoc recommendation included commentary that the financing should be timed to maintain consistent
rates of assessment.
A proposition was approved by the voters on April 28, 1998 that provided $8,000,000 over six
years to address some of the technology needs of the District; and $5,000,000 to provide funds to acquire school sites.
During the 1997-98 school year, a Joint District Citizen's Ad Hoc Committee was appointed by the Auburn and Dieringer School Boards to make recommendations on how best to serve the
school population from an area that includes a large development known as Lakeland South. Lakeland South at that time was immediately adjacent to the southern boundary of the Auburn School District. On June 16, 1998 the Ad Hoc Committee presented its recommendation at a
joint meeting of the Auburn and Dieringer Boards of Directors. On June 22, 1998 the Auburn School Board adopted Resolution No. 933 authorizing the process to initiate the adjustment of the boundaries of the District in accordance with the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendation. On
June 23, 1998 the Dieringer School Board adopted a companion Resolution No. 24-97-98 authorizing the process to initiate the adjustment of the boundaries in accordance with the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendation. These actions resulted in the transfer of an area from
Dieringer to Auburn containing most of the Lakeland South development and certain other undeveloped properties.
In April of 2002, the Board formed a fifth citizen's Ad Hoc committee to address the following two items and make recommendations to the board in the Fall of 2002:
a. A review of the conclusion and recommendations of 1985 and 1995 Ad Hoc Committees
related to accommodating high school enrollment growth. This included the review of possible financing plans for new facilities.
b. Develop recommendations for accommodating high school enrollment growth for the next 10 years if a new senior high school is not built.
Auburn School District No. 408
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2012 through 2018
CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION PLAN
24
This committee recommended the board place the high school on the ballot for the fifth time in
February 2003. The February election approved the new high school at 68.71% yes votes. The school opened in the Fall of 2005.
In the Fall of 2003 the school board directed the administration to begin the planning and design for Elementary #13 and Elementary #14. In the Fall of 2004, the Auburn School Board passed
Resolution No. 1054 to place two elementary schools on the ballot in February 2005. The
voters approved the ballot measure in February of 2005 at 64.72%. Lakeland Hills Elementary (Elementary #13) opened in the Fall of 2006. Arthur Jacobsen Elementary (Elementary #14) is
located in the Lea Hill area on a 10 acre site and opened in the Fall of 2007. These two
elementary schools were built to accommodate the housing growth in Lakeland Hills and Lea Hill areas of the school district.
In the 2004-05 school year, the Board convened a sixth Citizen’s Ad Hoc committee to again study and make recommendations about the future impacts in the District. One of the areas of
study was the need for New Facilities and Modernization. The committee made a number of
recommendations including school size, the need for a new middle school, and to begin a capital improvements program to modernize or replace facilities based upon criterion.
During the 2005-06 school year, a Joint District Citizen's Ad Hoc Committee was appointed by the Auburn and Kent School Boards to make recommendations on how best to serve the school
population that will come from an area that includes a number of projected developments in the north Auburn valley. On May 17, 2006 the Ad Hoc Committee presented its recommendation at
a joint meeting of the Auburn and Kent Boards of Directors. On June 14, 2006 the Kent School
Board adopted Resolution No. 1225 authorizing the process to initiate the adjustment of the boundaries of the District in accordance with the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendation. On
June 26, 2006 the Auburn School Board adopted a companion Resolution No. 1073 authorizing
the process to initiate the adjustment of the boundaries in accordance with the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendation. These actions resulted in the transfer of an area from the Kent
School District to the Auburn School District effective September 29, 2006. In October of 2008, after two years of review and study, a Steering Committee made
recommendations to the school board regarding the capital improvements program to modernize or replace facilities as recommended by the 2004-05 Citizen’s Ad Hoc Committee. These recommendations, based on specific criteria, led to the school board placing a school
improvement bond and capital improvements levy on the ballot in March 2009. Voters did not approve either measure that would have updated 24 facilities and replaced three aging schools. The board decided to place only a six-year Capital Levy on the ballot in November of 2009,
which passed at 55.17%. The levy will fund $46.4 million of needed improvement projects at 24 sites over the next seven school years. Planning for the replacement of aging schools has
started with educational specifications and schematic design process beginning in 2010. A
future bond issue will be necessary to fund these projects.
The Special Education Transition Facility opened in February of 2010. This facility is designed
for students with disabilities that are 18 to 21 years old.
The school district acquired a site for a future middle school in 2009 and will need to consider possibilities for a site for elementary school #15.
Auburn School District No. 408
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2012 through 2018
CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION PLAN
25
The District is projecting 1930 additional students within the six-year period including the
Lakeland, Lea Hill, and north Auburn valley areas. This increase in student population will require the acquisition of new middle school and new elementary school sites and construction of a middle school and elementary school during the six-year window.
Based upon the District's capacity data and enrollment projections, as well as the student
generation data included in Appendix A.3, the District has determined that approximately eighty-
six percent of the capacity improvements are necessary to serve the students generated from new development, with the remaining additional capacity required to address existing need.
The table below illustrates the current capital construction plan for the next six years. The exact timelines are wholly dependent on the rate of growth in the school age population and passage
of bond issues and/or capital improvement levies.
2012-18 Capital Construction Plan
(March 2012)
Projected Fund Project Timelines
Project Funded Cost Source 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18
All Facilities -
Technology
2006
Yes $12,000,000 6 Year XX
Modernization Cap Levy
Portables Yes $1,200,000 Impact Fees XX XX XX XX XX XX
1/ Property Purchase Impact
New Elementary No $3,500,000 Fees XX XX XX
Multiple Facility
Improvements Yes $46,400,000 Capital Levy XX XX XX XX XX XX
Bond XX XX XX
1/ Middle School #5 No $42,500,000 Impact Fee plan const open
Bond XX XX XX
1/ Elementary #15 No $21,750,000 Impact Fee plan const open
1/
AHS
Modernization No $110,000 Bond Issue XX
plan
XX
plan
XX
const
XX
const
XX
open
1/ These funds may be secured through local bond issues, sale of real property, impact fees, and state matching funds. The District currently is not eligible for state assistance at the elementary school level for new construction. The district is eligible for state matching funds for modernization.
Auburn School District No. 408
Capital Facilities Plan
2012 through 2018
Section VII
Impact Fees
Auburn School District No. 408
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2012 through 2018
27
IMPACT FEE COMPUTATION (Spring 2012)
Middle School #5 within 6 year period
Elementary #15 within 6 year period
I. SITE COST PER RESIDENCE
Formula: ((Acres x Cost per Acre)/Facility Size) x Student Factor
Site Cost/ Facility Student Generation Factor Cost/Cost/
Acreage Acre Capacity Single Family Multi Family Single Family Multi Family
Elem (K - 5)12 $308,155 550 0.2610 0.1720 $1,754.80 $1,156.42
Middle Sch (6 - 8)25 $0 800 0.1300 0.0700 $0.00 $0.00
Sr High (9 - 12)40 $0 1500 0.1340 0.0900 $0.00 $0.00
$1,754.80 $1,156.42
II. PERMANENT FACILITY CONSTRUCTION COST PER RESIDENCE
Formula: ((Facility Cost/Facility Size) x Student Factor) x (Permanent to Total Square Footage Percentage)
Facility Facility % Perm Sq Ft/Student Generation Factor Cost/Cost/
Single Family Cost Size Total Sq Ft Single Family Multi Family Single Family Multi Family
Elem (K - 5)$21,750,000 550 0.9649 0.2610 0.1720 $9,958.69 $6,562.81
Mid Sch (6 - 8)$42,500,000 800 0.9649 0.1300 0.0700 $6,663.58 $3,588.08
Sr High (9 - 12)$0 1500 0.9649 0.1340 0.0900 $0.00 $0.00
$16,622.26 $10,150.89
III. TEMPORARY FACILITY CONSTRUCTION COST PER RESIDENCE
Formula: ((Facility Cost/Facility Size) x Student Factor) x (Temporary to Total Square Footage Ratio)
Facility Facility % Temp Sq Ft/Student Generation Factor Cost/Cost/
Single Family Cost Size Total Sq Ft Single Family Multi Family Single Family Multi Family
Elem (K - 5)$130,000 26.5 0.0351 0.2610 0.1720 $44.99 $29.65
Mid Sch (6 - 8)$130,000 30 0.0351 0.1300 0.0700 $19.79 $10.66
Sr High (9 - 12)$130,000 30 0.0351 0.1340 0.0900 $20.40 $13.70
$85.18 $54.01
IV. STATE MATCH CREDIT PER RESIDENCE
Formula: (Boeckh Index x SPI Footage x District Match x Student Factor)
Boeckh SPI District Student Generation Factor Cost/Cost/
Index Footage Match Single Family Multi Family Single Family Multi Family
Elem (K - 5)$188.55 90 58.67%0.2610 0.1720 $2,598.52 $1,712.43
Mid Sch (6 - 8)$188.55 108 58.67%0.1300 0.0700 $1,553.14 $836.30
Sr High (9 - 12)$0.00 130 58.67%0.1340 0.0900 $0.00 $0.00
$4,151.65 $2,548.75
Au
b
u
r
n
S
c
h
o
o
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
N
o
.
4
0
8
CA
P
I
T
A
L
F
A
C
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
P
L
A
N
2
0
1
2
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
2
0
1
8
V.
T
A
X
C
R
E
D
I
T
P
E
R
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
Fo
r
m
u
l
a
:
E
x
p
r
e
s
s
e
d
a
s
t
h
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
v
a
l
u
e
o
f
a
n
a
n
n
u
i
t
y
TC
=
P
V
(
i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
r
a
t
e
,
d
i
s
c
o
u
n
t
p
e
r
i
o
d
,
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
a
s
s
d
v
a
l
u
e
x
t
a
x
r
a
t
e
)
Av
e
R
e
s
i
d
C
u
r
r
D
b
t
S
e
r
v
B
n
d
B
y
r
I
n
d
x
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
T
a
x
C
r
e
d
i
t
T
a
x
C
r
e
d
i
t
A
s
s
d
V
a
l
u
e
T
a
x
R
a
t
e
A
n
n
I
n
t
R
a
t
e
Y
e
a
r
s
S
i
n
g
l
e
F
a
m
i
l
y
M
u
l
t
i
F
a
m
i
l
y
Si
n
g
l
e
F
a
m
i
l
y
$
2
2
3
,
0
5
7
$
0
.
9
8
3
.
8
4
%
1
0
$1
,
7
8
7
.
2
1
Mu
l
t
i
F
a
m
i
l
y
$
6
8
,
9
0
2
$
0
.
9
8
3
.
8
4
%
1
0
$5
5
2
.
0
7
VI
.
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
E
R
P
R
O
V
I
D
E
D
F
A
C
I
L
I
T
Y
C
R
E
D
I
T
Fo
r
m
u
l
a
:
(
V
a
l
u
e
o
f
S
i
t
e
o
r
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
/
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
u
n
i
t
s
)
V
a
l
u
e
N
o
.
o
f
U
n
i
t
s
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
C
r
e
d
i
t
Si
n
g
l
e
F
a
m
i
l
y
$
0
.
0
0
1
$0
.
0
0
Mu
l
t
i
F
a
m
i
l
y
$
0
.
0
0
1
$0
.
0
0
FE
E
PE
R
U
N
I
T
I
M
P
A
C
T
F
E
E
S
RE
C
A
P
S
i
n
g
l
e
M
u
l
t
i
SU
M
M
A
R
Y
F
a
m
i
l
y
F
a
m
i
l
y
Si
t
e
C
o
s
t
s
$
1
,
7
5
4
.
8
0
$
1
,
1
5
6
.
4
2
Pe
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
C
o
n
s
t
C
o
s
t
s
$
1
6
,
6
2
2
.
2
6
$
1
0
,
1
5
0
.
8
9
Te
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
C
o
s
t
s
$
8
5
.
1
8
$
5
4
.
0
1
St
a
t
e
M
a
t
c
h
C
r
e
d
i
t
(
$
4
,
1
5
1
.
6
5
)
(
$
2
,
5
4
8
.
7
5
)
Ta
x
C
r
e
d
i
t
(
$
1
,
7
8
7
.
2
1
)
(
$
5
5
2
.
0
7
)
FE
E
(
N
o
D
i
s
c
o
u
n
t
)
$
1
2
,
5
2
3
.
3
8
$
8
,
2
6
0
.
5
1
FE
E
(
5
0
%
D
i
s
c
o
u
n
t
)
$
6
,
2
6
1
.
6
9
$
4
,
1
3
0
.
2
6
Le
s
s
A
S
D
D
i
s
c
o
u
n
t
(
$
7
5
0
.
0
0
)
(
$
7
5
0
.
0
0
)
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
y
C
r
e
d
i
t
$
0
.
0
0
$
0
.
0
0
Ne
t
F
e
e
O
b
l
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
$
5
,
5
1
1
.
6
9
$
3
,
3
8
0
.
2
6
2
8
Auburn School District No. 408
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2012 through 2018
29
SINGLE FAMILY MULTI FAMILY
IMPACT FEE ELEMENTS Elem Mid Sch Sr High Elem Mid Sch Sr High
K - 5 6 - 8 9 - 12 K - 5 6 - 8 9 - 12
Student Factor Single Family - Auburn actual count (3/12)0.261 0.130 0.134 0.172 0.070 0.090
New Fac Capacity 550 800 1500 550 800 1500
New Facility Cost Elementary Cost Estimates Feb 2008 $21,750,000 $42,500,000 $21,750,000 $42,500,000
Middle School Cost Estimate Feb 2008
Temp Rm Capacity ASD District Standard of Service.26.5 30 30 26.5 30 30
Grades K - 5 @ 26.5 and 6 - 12 @ 30.
Temp Facility Cost Relocatables, including site work, set up, and furnishing $130,000 $130,000 $130,000 $130,000 $130,000 $130,000
Site Acreage ASD District Standard or SPI Minimum 12 25 40 12 25 40
Site Cost/Acre See below $308,155 $308,155 $308,155 $308,155 $308,155 $308,155
Perm Sq Footage SPI Rpt #3 dated December 14, 2011 1,695,317 1,695,317 1,695,317 1,695,317 1,695,317 1,695,317
Temp Sq Footage 70 portables at 832 sq. ft. each + TAP 3500 61,740 61,740 61,740 61,740 61,740 61,740
Total Sq Footage Sum of Permanent and Temporary above 1,757,057 1,757,057 1,757,057 1,757,057 1,757,057 1,757,057
% - Perm Facilities Permanent Sq. Footage divided by Total Sq. Footage 96.49%96.49%96.49%96.49%96.49%96.49%
% - Temp Facilities Temporary Sq. Footage divided by Total Sq. Footage 3.51%3.51%3.51%3.51%3.51%3.51%
SPI Sq Ft/Student From SPI Regulations 90 108 130 90 108 130
Boeckh Index From SPI schedule for March 2012 $188.55 $188.55 $188.55 $188.55 $188.55 $188.55
Match % - State From SPI Webpage March 2012 58.67%58.67%58.67%58.67%58.67%58.67%
Match % - District Computed 41.33%41.33%41.33%41.33%41.33%41.33%
Dist Aver AV King County Department of Assessments March 2012 $223,057 $223,057 $223,057 $68,902 $68,902 $68,902
(multi family weighted average includes condos)
Debt Serv Tax Rate Current Fiscal Year $0.98 $0.98 $0.98 $0.98 $0.98 $0.98
G. O Bond Int Rate Current Rate - (Bond Buyer 20 Index March 2012)3.84%3.84%3.84%3.84%3.84%3.84%
Site Cost Projections
Recent Property Purchase Purchase Purchase Adjusted Projected Annual Sites Latest Date Projected
Acquisitions Acreage Year Price Cost/Acre Present Day Inflation Factor Required of Acquisition Cost/Acre
Lakeland 12.00 2002 $2,701,043 $225,087 $310,687
Labrador 35.00 2008 $7,601,799 $217,194 $223,710
Lakeland East 27.00 2009 $9,092,160 $336,747 $336,747
Total 74.00 $19,395,002 $262,095 $290,381 1.00%Elementary 2015 $308,155
Auburn School District No. 408
Capital Facilities Plan
2012 through 2018
Section VIII
Appendix
Appendix A.1 - Student Enrollment Projections
Appendix A.2 - CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Enrollment Projections
Appendix A.3 - Student Generation Survey
Appendix A.1 - Student Enrollment Projections
1
Auburn School District #408
Student Enrollment Projections
October 2011
Introduction
The projective techniques give some consideration to historical and current data as a basis for forecasting the future. In addition, the ‘projector’ must make certain assumptions about the operant
variables within the data being used. These assumptions are “judgmental” by definition. Forecasting
can be defined as the extrapolation or logical extension from history to the future, or from the known to the unknown. The attached tabular data reviews the history of student enrollment, sets out some
quantitative assumptions, and provides projections based on these numerical factors.
The projection logic does not attempt to weigh the individual sociological, psychological, economic,
and political factors that are present in any demographic analysis and projection. The logic embraces the assumptions that whatever these individual factors have been in the past are present today, and will be in the future. It further moderates the impact of singular factors by averaging data over thirteen
years and six years respectively. The results provide a trend, which reflects a long (13-year) and a short (6-year) base from which to extrapolate.
Two methods of estimating the number of kindergarten students have been used. The first uses the average increase or decrease over the past 13 and 6-year time frame and adds it to each succeeding
year. The second derives what the average percentage Auburn kindergartners have been of live births
in King County for the past 5 years and uses this to project the subsequent four years.
The degree to which the actuals deviate from the projections can only be measured after the fact.
This deviation provides a point of departure to evaluate the effectiveness of the assumptions and logic being used to calculate future projections. Monitoring deviation is critical to the viability and
credibility of the projections derived by these techniques. Tables
Table 1 – Thirteen Year History of October 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 October 1 of each year.
Table 2 – Historical Factors Used in Projections - page 4
This table shows the three basic factors derived from the data in Table 1. These factors have been
used 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.
2. Factor 2 - Average Pupil Change by Grade Level
This factor is the average change at each grade level over the 13 or 6-year period. 3. Factor 3 – Auburn School District Kindergarten Enrollment as a Function of King
County Live Births.
This factor calculates what percent each kindergarten class was of the King County live births in the 5 previous years. From this information has been extrapolated the
kindergarten pupils expected for the next 4 years.
2
Table 3 – Projection Models – pages 5-13
This set of tables utilizes the above mentioned variables and generates several projections. The models are explained briefly below.
Table 3.13 (pg 5) – shows a projection based on the 13-year average gain in kindergarten (Factor 2) and the 13-year average change between grade levels (Factor 1). The data is shown for the district as a whole.
Table 3.6 (pg 5) – shows a projection using the same scheme as Table 3.13 except it
shortens the historical to only the most recent 6 years.
Table 3.13A and 3.6A (pg 6) – uses the same factors above except Factor 3 is substituted
for Factor 2. The kindergarten rates are derived from the King County live births instead
of the average gain.
Tables 3E.13, 3E.6, 3E.13A, 3E.6A (pg 7) – breaks out the K-5 grades from the district
projection. Summary level data is provided for percentage gain and pupil gain by grade articulation.
Tables 3MS.13, 3MS.6, 3MS.13A, 3MS.6A (pg 8) – breaks out the 6-8 grades from the district projection. Summary level data is provided for percentage gain and pupil gain by
grade articulation.
Tables 3SH.13, 3SH.6, 3SH.13A, 3SH.6A (pg 9) – breaks out the 9-12 grades from the
district projection. Summary level data is provided for percentage gain and pupil gain by grade articulation.
Table 4 (pg 10) – Collects the four projection models by grade group for ease of comparison.
Table 5 (pgs 11-13) – shows how well each projection model performed when compared with actual enrollments. Data is provided in both number and percent formats for the
past 13 years. Summary This year we had the third consecutive year of decline in student enrollment of 119 students. The loss
of those students changes our historical average gain in students. Over the past 6 years the gain is now
.33% annually down from .97%; that equates to 46 students down from 136 in prior projections. Using the 13 year model, the average gain has dropped from .92% to .81% and equates to 109
students annually down from 122 students in prior year.
Using the cohort survival models, the data below is a summary of the range of variation between the
four models. This data can be used for planning for future needs of the district.
The models show changes in the next six years:
Elementary level shows increase ranging from 496 to 657. (page 7)
Middle School level shows increase ranging from 310 to 352. (page 8)
High School level shows increases ranging from 5 to 13. (page 9) The models show these changes looking forward thirteen years:
Elementary level shows increase ranging from 1287 to 1419. (page 7)
Middle School level shows increase ranging from 502 to 625. (page 8)
High School level shows increase ranging from 582 to 625. (page 9)
This data does not factor new developments that are currently under construction or in the planning
stages.
AU
B
U
R
N
S
C
H
O
O
L
D
I
S
T
R
I
C
T
S
T
U
D
E
N
T
E
NR
O
L
L
M
E
N
T
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
-
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
2
0
1
1
TA
B
L
E
T
h
i
r
t
e
e
n
Y
e
a
r
H
i
s
t
o
r
y
o
f
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
E
n
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
s
(
R
e
v
1
0
/
1
1
)
1
Actual
GR
A
D
E
9
9
-
0
0
0
0
-
0
1
0
1
-
0
2
0
2
-
0
3
0
3
-
0
4
0
4
-
05
0
5
-
0
6
0
6
-
0
7
0
7
-
0
8
08
-
0
9
0
9
-
1
0
1
0
-
1
1
11-12
KD
G
8
4
9
9
1
2
8
4
6
9
0
5
9
2
2
8
9
2
9
5
5
9
4
1
9
9
6
9
9
8
1
0
3
2
1
0
1
0
1
0
2
9
1
9
4
3
9
0
5
9
6
8
9
0
0
9
8
2
9
6
0
9
6
3
1
0
1
2
9
9
5
1
0
1
5
1
0
3
3
1
0
6
6
1
0
6
8
2
1
0
1
5
9
1
4
9
4
9
9
6
1
9
0
9
9
9
2
9
6
3
1
0
0
2
1
0
1
9
1
0
2
4
9
9
8
1
0
1
6
1
0
9
7
3
1
0
5
4
1
0
3
1
9
6
6
9
4
0
9
9
6
9
1
8
1
0
0
2
1
0
3
1
9
9
7
1
0
4
8
9
9
3
1
0
1
3
9
9
6
4
1
0
1
2
1
0
7
1
1
0
7
7
9
7
3
9
4
7
1
0
1
6
9
3
9
1
0
4
9
1
0
5
7
1
0
4
4
1
0
7
3
1
0
2
4
1
0
2
2
5
9
8
3
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
8
1
0
6
2
1
0
1
8
9
5
7
1
0
6
5
9
9
8
1
0
7
8
1
0
6
9
1
0
3
0
1
0
7
9
1
0
1
8
6
9
8
1
9
9
8
1
0
2
8
1
1
0
4
1
1
1
1
1
0
2
0
1
0
0
4
1
0
5
8
1
0
0
7
1
0
9
6
1
0
4
0
1
0
4
1
1
0
6
3
7
1
0
1
5
9
7
9
1
0
1
7
1
0
2
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
2
4
1
0
2
8
1
0
1
4
1
0
5
7
1
0
3
4
1
1
2
5
1
0
6
0
1
0
3
2
8
9
7
4
1
0
0
3
1
0
0
4
1
0
2
6
1
0
5
2
1
1
3
0
1
1
3
7
1
0
7
2
1
0
3
3
1
0
7
6
1
0
3
1
1
1
1
2
1
0
4
6
9
1
2
0
2
1
2
2
2
1
4
0
5
1
4
4
1
1
4
7
3
1
4
6
1
1
3
7
9
1
3
7
2
1
3
3
7
1
2
5
6
1
2
4
4
1
2
2
1
1
2
7
3
10
1
1
3
2
1
1
5
7
1
0
7
3
1
2
3
4
1
2
4
9
1
2
6
1
1
3
8
3
1
4
0
0
1
3
6
8
1
3
4
1
1
2
7
7
1
2
3
8
1
1
7
0
11
1
0
3
6
1
0
6
7
1
0
9
0
9
2
7
1
0
1
0
1
0
5
5
1
1
8
2
1
3
2
2
1
3
5
2
1
3
5
0
1
3
0
3
1
2
5
8
1
2
3
3
12
8
5
5
8
6
5
9
3
0
9
3
3
9
0
2
8
8
6
1
0
8
8
1
1
4
7
1
2
6
3
1
3
5
2
1
4
1
0
1
3
4
4
1
3
1
6
TO
T
A
L
S
1
3
0
5
1
1
3
1
3
5
1
3
4
6
1
1
3
4
2
7
1
3
7
0
2
1
3
6
7
2
1
4
0
8
8
1
4
4
1
8
1
4
5
5
9
1
4
7
0
3
1
4
5
8
9
1
4
4
8
2
14363
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
G
a
i
n
0
.
6
4
%
2
.
4
8
%
(
0
.
2
5
)
%
2
.
0
5
%
(
0
.
22
)
%
3
.
0
4
%
2
.
3
4
%
0
.
9
8
%
0
.
9
9
%
(0
.
7
8
)
%
(
0
.
7
3
)
%
(
0
.
8
2
)
%
Pu
p
i
l
G
a
i
n
8
4
3
2
6
(3
4
)
27
5
(3
0
)
41
6
3
3
0
1
4
1
1
4
4
(1
1
4
)
(
1
0
7
)
(
1
1
9
)
Av
e
r
a
g
e
%
G
a
i
n
f
o
r
1
s
t
6
y
e
a
r
s
.
1
.
2
9
%
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
%
G
a
i
n
f
o
r
l
a
s
t
6
y
e
a
r
s
0
.
3
3
%
Av
e
r
a
g
e
P
u
p
i
l
G
a
i
n
f
o
r
1
s
t
6
y
e
a
r
s
.
1
7
3
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
P
u
p
i
l
G
a
i
n
f
o
r
l
a
s
t
6
y
e
a
r
s
4
6
Av
e
r
a
g
e
%
G
a
i
n
f
o
r
1
3
y
e
a
r
s
.
0
.
8
1
%
Av
e
r
a
g
e
P
u
p
i
l
G
a
i
n
f
o
r
1
3
y
e
a
r
s
.
1
0
9
TA
B
L
E
1A
G
r
a
d
e
G
r
o
u
p
C
o
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
KD
G
8
4
9
9
1
2
8
4
6
9
0
5
9
2
2
8
9
2
9
5
5
9
4
1
9
9
6
9
9
8
1
0
3
2
1
0
1
0
1
0
2
9
K,
1
,
2
2
8
0
7
2
7
3
1
2
7
6
3
2
7
6
6
2
8
1
3
2
8
4
4
2
8
8
1
2
9
5
5
3
0
1
0
3
0
3
7
3
0
6
3
3
0
9
2
3
1
9
4
K
-
5
5
8
5
6
5
8
4
4
5
9
1
4
5
7
4
1
5
7
7
4
5
7
3
5
5
8
8
7
6
0
3
3
6
1
4
2
6
1
9
8
6
1
5
9
6
2
0
8
6
2
3
0
K
-
6
6
8
3
7
6
8
4
2
6
9
4
2
6
8
4
5
6
8
8
5
6
7
5
5
6
8
9
1
7
0
9
1
7
1
4
9
7
2
9
4
7
1
9
9
7
2
4
9
7
2
9
3
1
-
3
3
0
1
2
2
8
5
0
2
8
8
3
2
8
0
1
2
8
8
7
2
8
7
0
2
9
2
8
3
0
4
5
3
0
1
1
3
0
8
7
3
0
2
4
3
0
9
5
3
1
6
1
1
-
5
5
0
0
7
4
9
3
2
5
0
6
8
4
8
3
6
4
8
5
2
4
8
4
3
4
9
3
2
5
0
9
2
5
1
4
6
5
2
0
0
5
1
2
7
5
1
9
8
5
2
0
1
1
-
6
5
9
8
8
5
9
3
0
6
0
9
6
5
9
4
0
5
9
6
3
5
8
6
3
5
9
3
6
6
1
5
0
6
1
5
3
6
2
9
6
6
1
6
7
6
2
3
9
6
2
6
4
6
-
8
2
9
7
0
2
9
8
0
3
0
4
9
3
1
5
1
3
2
9
4
3
2
7
4
3
1
6
9
3
1
4
4
3
0
9
7
3
2
0
6
3
1
9
6
3
2
1
3
3
1
4
1
7
-
8
1
9
8
9
1
9
8
2
2
0
2
1
2
0
4
7
2
1
8
3
2
2
5
4
2
1
6
5
2
0
8
6
2
0
9
0
2
1
1
0
2
1
5
6
2
1
7
2
2
0
7
8
7
-
9
3
1
9
1
3
2
0
4
3
4
2
6
3
4
8
8
3
6
5
6
3
7
1
5
3
5
4
4
3
4
5
8
3
4
2
7
3
3
6
6
3
4
0
0
3
3
9
3
3
3
5
1
9
-
1
2
4
2
2
5
4
3
1
1
4
4
9
8
4
5
3
5
4
6
3
4
4
6
6
3
5
0
3
2
5
2
4
1
5
3
2
0
5
2
9
9
5
2
3
4
5
0
6
1
4
9
9
2
10
-
1
2
3
0
2
3
3
0
8
9
3
0
9
3
3
0
9
4
3
1
6
1
3
2
0
2
3
6
5
3
3
8
6
9
3
9
8
3
4
0
4
3
3
9
9
0
3
8
4
0
3
7
1
9
pr
j
1
1
-
1
2
Pa
g
e
3
October 2011
AU
B
U
R
N
S
C
H
O
O
L
D
I
S
T
R
I
C
T
S
T
U
D
E
N
T
E
NR
O
L
L
M
E
N
T
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
-
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
2
0
1
1
TA
B
L
E
F
a
c
t
o
r
s
U
s
e
d
i
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
2
F
a
c
t
o
r
A
U
B
U
R
N
S
C
H
O
O
L
D
I
S
T
R
I
C
T
K
I
N
D
E
R
G
A
R
T
E
N
E
N
R
O
L
L
M
E
N
T
S
3
A
S
F
U
N
C
T
I
O
N
O
F
K
I
N
G
C
O
U
N
T
Y
L
I
V
E
B
I
R
T
H
R
A
T
E
S
Fa
c
t
o
r
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
P
u
p
i
l
C
h
a
n
g
e
B
e
t
w
e
e
n
G
r
a
d
e
C
A
L
-
T
O
T
A
L
YE
A
R
A
D
J
U
S
T
E
D
A
U
B
U
R
N
K
I
N
D
E
R
G
A
R
T
E
N
1
L
e
v
e
l
s
E
N
D
A
R
L
I
V
E
2
/
3
r
d
s
1
/
3
r
d
s
O
F
L
I
V
E
K
D
G
E
N
R
O
L
L
M
E
N
T
A
S
A
%
O
F
13
Y
E
A
R
B
A
S
E
6
Y
E
A
R
B
A
S
E
Y
E
A
R
B
I
R
T
H
S
B
I
R
T
H
S
B
I
R
T
H
S
E
N
R
O
L
L
B
I
R
T
H
S
E
N
R
O
L
L
.
A
D
J
U
S
T
E
D
L
I
V
E
B
I
R
T
H
S
K
t
o
1
5
0
.
7
5
K
t
o
1
4
2
.
8
3
1
9
7
3
1
3
,
4
4
9
8
,
9
6
6
4
,
4
8
3
7
9
/
8
0
1
3
,
4
7
8
6
1
8
4
.
5
8
5
%
1
t
o
2
8
.
5
0
1
t
o
2
1
2
.
0
0
1
9
7
4
1
3
,
4
9
3
8
,
9
9
5
4
,
4
9
8
8
0
/
8
1
1
3
,
5
2
4
6
0
0
4
.
4
3
6
%
2
t
o
3
1
4
.
0
8
2
t
o
3
9
.
3
3
1
9
7
5
1
3
,
5
4
0
9
,
0
2
7
4
,
5
1
3
8
1
/
8
2
1
3
,
6
8
7
5
8
8
4
.
2
9
6
%
3
t
o
4
2
5
.
2
5
3
t
o
4
3
0
.
8
3
1
9
7
6
1
3
,
7
6
1
9
,
1
7
4
4
,
5
8
7
8
2
/
8
3
1
4
,
3
7
5
6
9
8
4
.
8
5
6
%
4
t
o
5
1
7
.
5
8
4
t
o
5
1
4
.
3
3
1
9
7
7
1
4
,
6
8
2
9
,
7
8
8
4
,
8
9
4
8
3
/
8
4
1
4
,
9
5
8
6
6
6
4
.
4
5
2
%
5
t
o
6
9
.
3
3
5
t
o
6
(2
.
3
3
)
19
7
8
1
5
,
0
9
6
1
0
,
0
6
4
5
,
0
3
2
8
4
/
8
5
1
6
,
0
4
8
7
2
6
4
.
5
2
4
%
6
t
o
7
1
1
.
1
7
6
t
o
7
1
2
.
6
7
1
9
7
9
1
6
,
5
2
4
1
1
,
0
1
6
5
,
5
0
8
8
5
/
8
6
1
6
,
7
0
8
7
9
2
4
.
7
4
0
%
7
t
o
8
9
.
7
5
7
t
o
8
8
.
6
7
1
9
8
0
1
6
,
8
0
0
1
1
,
2
0
0
5
,
6
0
0
8
6
/
8
7
1
7
,
0
0
0
8
2
9
4
.
8
7
6
%
8
t
o
9
2
8
6
.
1
7
8
t
o
9
2
0
7
.
0
0
1
9
8
1
1
7
,
1
0
0
1
1
,
4
0
0
5
,
7
0
0
8
7
/
8
8
1
8
,
2
4
1
7
6
9
4
.
2
1
6
%
9
t
o
1
0
(7
1
.
8
3
)
9
t
o
1
0
(2
.
5
0
)
19
8
2
1
8
,
8
1
1
1
2
,
5
4
1
6
,
2
7
0
8
8
/
8
9
1
8
,
6
2
6
8
1
7
4
.
3
8
6
%
10
t
o
1
1
(8
0
.
3
3
)
10
t
o
1
1
(3
1
.
5
0
)
19
8
3
1
8
,
5
3
3
1
2
,
3
5
5
6
,
1
7
8
8
9
/
9
0
1
8
,
8
2
7
8
7
1
4
.
6
2
6
%
11
t
o
1
2
(4
3
.
0
0
)
11
t
o
1
2
1
0
.
8
3
1
9
8
4
1
8
,
9
7
4
1
2
,
6
4
9
6
,
3
2
5
9
0
/
9
1
1
9
,
5
1
0
8
5
8
4
.
3
9
8
%
to
t
a
l
2
3
7
.
4
2
t
o
t
a
l
3
1
2
.
1
7
1
9
8
5
1
9
,
7
7
8
1
3
,
1
8
5
6
,
5
9
3
9
1
/
9
2
1
9
,
8
9
3
9
0
9
4
.
5
6
9
%
Fa
c
t
o
r
1
i
s
t
h
e
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
g
a
i
n
o
r
l
o
s
s
o
f
p
u
p
i
l
s
a
s
t
h
e
y
19
8
6
1
9
,
9
5
1
1
3
,
3
0
1
6
,
6
5
0
9
2
/
9
3
2
1
,
8
5
2
9
2
0
4
.
2
1
0
%
mo
v
e
f
r
o
m
o
n
e
g
r
a
d
e
l
e
v
e
l
t
o
t
h
e
n
e
x
t
.
F
a
c
t
o
r
1
u
s
e
s
19
8
7
2
2
,
8
0
3
1
5
,
2
0
2
7
,
6
0
1
9
3
/
9
4
2
1
,
6
2
4
9
3
0
4
.
3
0
1
%
th
e
p
a
s
t
(
1
2
)
O
R
(
5
)
y
e
a
r
s
o
f
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
.
1
9
8
8
2
1
,
0
3
4
1
4
,
0
2
3
7
,
0
1
1
9
4
/
9
5
2
4
,
0
6
2
9
2
7
3
.
8
5
3
%
19
8
9
2
5
,
5
7
6
1
7
,
0
5
1
8
,
5
2
5
9
5
/
9
6
2
6
,
3
5
8
9
5
4
3
.
6
1
9
%
Fa
c
t
o
r
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
P
u
p
i
l
C
h
a
n
g
e
B
y
G
r
a
d
e
L
e
v
e
l
19
9
0
2
6
,
7
4
9
1
7
,
8
3
3
8
,
9
1
6
9
6
/
9
7
2
4
,
1
1
6
9
6
3
3
.
9
9
3
%
2
1
9
9
1
2
2
,
7
9
9
1
5
,
1
9
9
7
,
6
0
0
9
7
/
9
8
2
0
,
9
7
3
9
7
8
4
.
6
6
3
%
13
Y
E
A
R
B
A
S
E
6
Y
E
A
R
B
A
S
E
19
9
2
2
0
,
0
6
0
1
3
,
3
7
3
6
,
6
8
7
9
8
/
9
9
2
1
,
5
7
3
8
5
4
3
.
9
5
9
%
K
1
5
.
0
0
K
1
7
.
6
0
1
9
9
3
2
2
,
3
3
0
1
4
,
8
8
7
7,
4
4
3
9
9
/
0
0
2
2
,
1
2
9
8
4
9
3
.
8
3
7
%
1
1
0
.
4
2
1
1
1
.
2
0
1
9
9
4
2
2
,
0
2
9
1
4
,
68
6
7
,
3
4
3
0
0
/
0
1
2
4
,
0
1
3
9
1
2
3
.
7
9
8
%
2
6
.
8
3
2
1
9
.
0
0
1
9
9
5
2
5
,
0
0
5
1
6
,
6
7
0
8
,
3
3
5
0
1
/
0
2
2
2
,
7
1
7
8
4
6
3
.
7
2
4
%
3
(4
.
8
3
)
3
(7
.
0
0
)
19
9
6
2
1
,
5
7
3
1
4
,
3
8
2
7
,
1
9
1
0
2
/
0
3
2
1
,
6
2
2
9
0
5
4
.
1
8
6
%
40
.
8
3
4
(5
.
4
0
)
19
9
7
2
1
,
6
4
6
1
4
,
4
3
1
7
,
2
1
5
0
3
/
0
4
2
2
,
0
2
3
9
2
2
4
.
1
8
6
%
5
2
.
9
2
5
4
.
0
0
1
9
9
8
2
2
,
2
1
2
1
4
,
8
0
8
7
,
4
0
4
0
4
/
0
5
2
2
,
0
7
5
8
9
2
4
.
0
4
1
%
6
6
.
8
3
6
1
.
0
0
1
9
9
9
2
2
,
0
0
7
1
4
,
6
7
1
7
,
3
3
6
0
5
/
0
6
2
2
,
3
2
7
9
5
5
4
.
2
7
7
%
7
1
.
4
2
7
3
.
6
0
2
0
0
0
2
2
,
4
8
7
1
4
,
9
9
1
7
,
4
9
6
0
6
/
0
7
2
2
,
0
1
4
9
4
1
4
.
2
7
4
%
86
.
0
0
8
(5
.
2
0
)
20
0
1
2
1
,
7
7
8
1
4
,
5
1
9
7
,
2
5
9
0
7
/
0
8
2
1
,
8
3
5
9
9
6
4
.
5
6
2
%
Last 5
95
.
9
2
9
(1
9
.
8
0
)
20
0
2
2
1
,
8
6
3
1
4
,
5
7
5
7
,
2
8
8
0
8
/
0
9
2
2
,
2
4
2
9
9
8
4
.
4
8
7
%
year
10
3
.
1
7
1
0
(4
6
.
0
0
)
20
0
3
2
2
,
4
3
1
1
4
,
9
5
4
7
,
4
7
7
0
9
/
1
0
2
2
,
7
2
6
1
0
3
2
4
.
5
4
1
%
Average
11
1
6
.
4
2
1
1
(1
7
.
8
0
)
20
0
4
2
2
,
8
7
4
1
5
,
2
4
9
7
,
6
2
5
1
0
/
1
1
2
2
,
7
4
5
1
0
1
0
4
.
4
4
1
%
4.474%
12
3
8
.
4
2
1
2
3
3
.
8
0
2
0
0
5
2
2
,
6
8
0
1
5
,
1
2
0
7
,
5
6
0
1
1
/
1
2
2
3
,
7
2
3
10
2
9
A
c
t
u
a
l
4.
3
3
8
%
Fa
c
t
o
r
2
i
s
t
h
e
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
i
n
g
r
a
d
e
l
e
v
e
l
s
i
z
e
20
0
6
2
4
,
2
4
4
1
6
,
1
6
3
8
,
0
8
1
1
2
/
1
3
2
4
,
6
8
3
10
1
7
<-
-
P
r
j
c
t
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
fr
o
m
9
4
/
9
5
O
R
0
1
/
0
2
.
2
0
0
7
2
4
,
9
0
2
1
6
,
6
0
1
8
,
3
0
1
1
3
/
1
4
2
5
,
0
9
4
10
6
1
<-
-
P
r
j
c
t
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
20
0
8
2
5
,
1
9
0
1
6
,
7
9
3
8
,
3
9
7
1
4
/
1
5
2
5
,
1
0
1
11
0
4
<-
-
P
r
j
c
t
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
20
0
9
2
5
,
0
5
7
1
6
,
7
0
5
8
,
3
5
2
1
5
/
1
6
2
4
,
6
9
5
11
2
3
<-
-
P
r
j
c
t
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
20
1
0
2
4
,
5
1
4
1
6
,
3
4
3
8
,
1
7
1
1
6
/
1
7
*
n
u
m
b
e
r
f
r
o
m
D
O
H
So
u
r
c
e
:
C
e
n
t
e
r
f
o
r
H
e
a
l
t
h
S
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s
,
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
S
t
a
t
e
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
H
e
a
l
t
h
pr
j
1
1
-
1
2
Pa
g
e
4
October 2011
AU
B
U
R
N
S
C
H
O
O
L
D
I
S
T
R
I
C
T
S
T
U
D
E
N
T
E
NR
O
L
L
M
E
N
T
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
-
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
2
0
1
1
Co
n
t
a
c
t
T
o
d
d
R
i
m
e
-
t
o
d
d
.
r
i
m
e
@
d
o
h
.
w
a
.
g
o
v
36
0
-
2
3
6
-
4
3
2
3
TA
B
L
E
D
I
S
T
R
I
C
T
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
3.
1
3
B
a
s
e
d
o
n
1
3
Y
e
a
r
H
i
s
t
o
r
y
AC
T
U
A
L
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
GR
A
D
E
1
1
/
1
2
1
2
/
1
3
1
3
/
1
4
1
4
/
1
5
1
5
/
1
6
1
6
/
1
7
17
/
1
8
1
8
/
1
9
1
9
/
2
0
2
0
/
2
1
2
1
/
2
2
2
2
/
2
3
2
3
-
2
4
2
4
-
2
5
KD
G
1
0
2
9
1
0
4
4
1
0
5
9
1
0
7
4
1
0
8
9
1
1
0
4
1
1
1
9
1
1
3
4
1
1
4
9
1
1
6
4
1
1
7
9
1
1
9
4
1
2
0
9
1
2
2
4
1
1
0
6
8
1
0
8
0
1
0
9
5
1
1
1
0
1
1
2
5
1
1
4
0
1
1
5
5
1
1
7
0
1
1
8
5
1
2
0
0
1
2
1
5
1
2
3
0
1
2
4
5
1
2
6
0
2
1
0
9
7
1
0
7
7
1
0
8
8
1
1
0
3
1
1
1
8
1
1
3
3
1
1
4
8
1
1
6
3
1
1
7
8
1
1
9
3
1
2
0
8
1
2
2
3
1
2
3
8
1
2
5
3
3
9
9
6
1
1
1
1
1
0
9
1
1
1
0
2
1
1
1
7
1
1
3
2
1
1
4
7
1
1
6
2
1
1
7
7
1
1
9
2
1
2
0
7
1
2
2
2
1
2
3
7
1
2
5
2
4
1
0
2
2
1
0
2
1
1
1
3
6
1
1
1
6
1
1
2
8
1
1
4
3
1
1
5
8
1
1
7
3
1
1
8
8
1
2
0
3
1
2
1
8
1
2
3
3
1
2
4
8
1
2
6
3
5
1
0
1
8
1
0
4
0
1
0
3
9
1
1
5
4
1
1
3
3
1
1
4
5
1
1
6
0
1
1
7
5
1
1
9
0
1
2
0
5
1
2
2
0
1
2
3
5
1
2
5
0
1
2
6
5
6
1
0
6
3
1
0
2
7
1
0
4
9
1
0
4
8
1
1
6
3
1
1
4
3
1
1
5
5
1
1
7
0
1
1
8
5
1
2
0
0
1
2
1
5
1
2
3
0
1
2
4
5
1
2
6
0
7
1
0
3
2
1
0
7
4
1
0
3
9
1
0
6
0
1
0
5
9
1
1
7
4
1
1
5
4
1
1
6
6
1
1
8
1
1
1
9
6
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
6
1
2
4
1
1
2
5
6
8
1
0
4
6
1
0
4
2
1
0
8
4
1
0
4
8
1
0
7
0
1
0
6
9
1
1
8
4
1
1
6
4
1
1
7
5
1
1
9
0
1
2
0
5
1
2
2
0
1
2
3
5
1
2
5
0
9
1
2
7
3
1
3
3
2
1
3
2
8
1
3
7
0
1
3
3
4
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
5
1
4
7
0
1
4
5
0
1
4
6
2
1
4
7
7
1
4
9
2
1
5
0
7
1
5
2
2
10
1
1
7
0
1
2
0
1
1
2
6
0
1
2
5
6
1
2
9
8
1
2
6
3
1
2
8
4
1
2
8
3
1
3
9
9
1
3
7
8
1
3
9
0
1
4
0
5
1
4
2
0
1
4
3
5
4
8
1
3
11
1
2
3
3
1
0
9
0
1
1
2
1
1
1
8
0
1
1
7
6
1
2
1
8
1
1
8
2
1
2
0
4
1
2
0
3
1
3
1
8
1
2
9
8
1
3
0
9
1
3
2
4
1
3
3
9
12
1
3
1
6
1
1
9
0
1
0
4
7
1
0
7
8
1
1
3
7
1
1
3
3
1
1
7
5
1
1
3
9
1
1
6
1
1
1
6
0
1
2
7
5
1
2
5
5
1
2
6
6
1
2
8
1
TO
T
A
L
S
1
4
3
6
3
1
4
3
2
8
1
4
4
3
5
1
4
7
0
0
1
4
9
4
8
1
5
1
5
3
1
5
3
7
6
1
5
5
7
3
1
5
8
2
0
1
6
0
6
1
1
6
3
1
7
1
6
4
7
3
1
6
6
6
5
1
6
8
6
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
G
a
i
n
(
0
.
2
4
)
%
0
.
7
4
%
1
.
8
3
%
1
.
6
9
%
1.
3
7
%
1
.
4
8
%
1
.
2
8
%
1
.
5
9
%
1
.
52
%
1
.
6
0
%
0
.
9
6
%
1
.
1
6
%
1
.
1
7
%
Pu
p
i
l
G
a
i
n
(3
5
)
10
6
2
6
5
2
4
9
2
0
4
2
2
4
1
9
7
2
4
7
2
4
1
2
5
6
1
5
6
1
9
2
1
9
5
TA
B
L
E
D
I
S
T
R
I
C
T
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
3.
6
B
a
s
e
d
o
n
6
Y
e
a
r
H
i
s
t
o
r
y
AC
T
U
A
L
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
GR
A
D
E
1
1
/
1
2
1
2
/
1
3
1
3
/
1
4
1
4
/
1
5
1
5
/
1
6
1
6
/
1
7
17
/
1
8
1
8
/
1
9
1
9
/
2
0
2
0
/
2
1
2
1
/
2
2
2
2
/
2
3
2
3
-
2
4
2
4
-
2
5
KD
G
1
0
2
9
1
0
4
7
1
0
6
4
1
0
8
2
1
0
9
9
1
1
1
7
1
1
3
5
1
1
5
2
1
1
7
0
1
1
8
7
1
2
0
5
1
2
2
3
1
2
4
0
1
2
5
8
1
1
0
6
8
1
0
7
2
1
0
8
9
1
1
0
7
1
1
2
5
1
1
4
2
1
1
6
0
1
1
7
7
1
1
9
5
1
2
1
3
1
2
3
0
1
2
4
8
1
2
6
5
1
2
8
3
2
1
0
9
7
1
0
8
0
1
0
8
4
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
9
1
1
3
7
1
1
5
4
1
1
7
2
1
1
8
9
1
2
0
7
1
2
2
5
1
2
4
2
1
2
6
0
1
2
7
7
3
9
9
6
1
1
0
6
1
0
8
9
1
0
9
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
8
1
1
4
6
1
1
6
4
1
1
8
1
1
1
9
9
1
2
1
6
1
2
3
4
1
2
5
2
1
2
6
9
4
1
0
2
2
1
0
2
7
1
1
3
7
1
1
2
0
1
1
2
4
1
1
4
2
1
1
5
9
1
1
7
7
1
1
9
4
1
2
1
2
1
2
3
0
1
2
4
7
1
2
6
5
1
2
8
2
5
1
0
1
8
1
0
3
6
1
0
4
1
1
1
5
2
1
1
3
5
1
1
3
8
1
1
5
6
1
1
7
4
1
1
9
1
1
2
0
9
1
2
2
6
1
2
4
4
1
2
6
2
1
2
7
9
6
1
0
6
3
1
0
1
6
1
0
3
4
1
0
3
9
1
1
4
9
1
1
3
2
1
1
3
6
1
1
5
4
1
1
7
1
1
1
8
9
1
2
0
6
1
2
2
4
1
2
4
2
1
2
5
9
7
1
0
3
2
1
0
7
6
1
0
2
8
1
0
4
7
1
0
5
2
1
1
6
2
1
1
4
5
1
1
4
9
1
1
6
6
1
1
8
4
1
2
0
1
1
2
1
9
1
2
3
7
1
2
5
4
8
1
0
4
6
1
0
4
1
1
0
8
4
1
0
3
7
1
0
5
5
1
0
6
0
1
1
7
1
1
1
5
4
1
1
5
7
1
1
7
5
1
1
9
3
1
2
1
0
1
2
2
8
1
2
4
5
9
1
2
7
3
1
2
5
3
1
2
4
8
1
2
9
1
1
2
4
4
1
2
6
2
1
2
6
7
1
3
7
8
1
3
6
1
1
3
6
4
1
3
8
2
1
4
0
0
1
4
1
7
1
4
3
5
10
1
1
7
0
1
2
7
1
1
2
5
1
1
2
4
5
1
2
8
9
1
2
4
2
1
2
6
0
1
2
6
5
1
3
7
5
1
3
5
8
1
3
6
2
1
3
7
9
1
3
9
7
1
4
1
5
11
1
2
3
3
1
1
3
9
1
2
3
9
1
2
1
9
1
2
1
4
1
2
5
7
1
2
1
0
1
2
2
8
1
2
3
3
1
3
4
4
1
3
2
7
1
3
3
0
1
3
4
8
1
3
6
6
12
1
3
1
6
1
2
4
4
1
1
4
9
1
2
5
0
1
2
3
0
1
2
2
5
1
2
6
8
1
2
2
1
1
2
3
9
1
2
4
4
1
3
5
4
1
3
3
7
1
3
4
1
1
3
5
9
TO
T
A
L
S
1
4
3
6
3
1
4
4
0
6
1
4
5
3
8
1
4
7
8
3
1
4
9
4
5
1
5
1
4
4
1
5
3
6
6
1
5
5
6
2
1
5
8
2
4
1
6
0
8
4
1
6
3
5
7
1
6
5
3
8
1
6
7
5
3
1
6
9
8
1
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
G
a
i
n
0
.
3
0
%
0
.
9
2
%
1
.
6
8
%
1
.
0
9
%
1
.
33
%
1
.
4
7
%
1
.
2
8
%
1
.
6
8
%
1
.
6
5
%
1.
7
0
%
1
.
1
0
%
1
.
3
0
%
1
.
3
7
%
Pu
p
i
l
G
a
i
n
4
3
1
3
3
2
4
5
1
6
2
1
9
9
2
2
2
1
9
6
2
6
1
2
6
0
2
7
3
1
8
0
2
1
5
2
2
9
pr
j
1
1
-
1
2
Pa
g
e
5
October 2011
AU
B
U
R
N
S
C
H
O
O
L
D
I
S
T
R
I
C
T
S
T
U
D
E
N
T
E
NR
O
L
L
M
E
N
T
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
-
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
2
0
1
1
TA
B
L
E
D
I
S
T
R
I
C
T
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
3.
1
3
A
B
a
s
e
d
o
n
B
i
r
t
h
R
a
t
e
s
&
1
3
Y
e
a
r
H
i
s
t
o
r
y
AC
T
U
A
L
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
GR
A
D
E
1
1
/
1
2
1
2
/
1
3
1
3
/
1
4
1
4
/
1
5
1
5
/
1
6
1
6
/
1
7
17
/
1
8
1
8
/
1
9
1
9
/
2
0
2
0
/
2
1
2
1
/
2
2
2
2
/
2
3
2
3
-
2
4
2
4
-
2
5
K
1
0
2
9
1
0
1
7
1
0
6
1
1
1
0
4
1
1
2
3
1
1
0
6
8
1
0
8
0
1
0
6
8
1
1
1
2
1
1
5
5
1
1
7
3
2
1
0
9
7
1
0
7
7
1
0
8
8
1
0
7
7
1
1
2
0
1
1
6
3
1
1
8
2
3
9
9
6
1
1
1
1
1
0
9
1
1
1
0
2
1
0
9
1
1
1
3
5
1
1
7
8
1
1
9
6
4
1
0
2
2
1
0
2
1
1
1
3
6
1
1
1
6
1
1
2
8
1
1
1
6
1
1
6
0
1
2
0
3
1
2
2
1
5
1
0
1
8
1
0
4
0
1
0
3
9
1
1
5
4
1
1
3
3
1
1
4
5
1
1
3
4
1
1
7
7
1
2
2
0
1
2
3
9
6
1
0
6
3
1
0
2
7
1
0
4
9
1
0
4
8
1
1
6
3
1
1
4
3
1
1
5
5
1
1
4
3
1
1
8
7
1
2
3
0
1
2
4
8
7
1
0
3
2
1
0
7
4
1
0
3
9
1
0
6
0
1
0
5
9
1
1
7
4
1
1
5
4
1
1
6
6
1
1
5
4
1
1
9
8
1
2
4
1
1
2
5
9
8
1
0
4
6
1
0
4
2
1
0
8
4
1
0
4
8
1
0
7
0
1
0
6
9
1
1
8
4
1
1
6
4
1
1
7
5
1
1
6
4
1
2
0
8
1
2
5
1
1
2
6
9
9
1
2
7
3
1
3
3
2
1
3
2
8
1
3
7
0
1
3
3
4
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
5
1
4
7
0
1
4
5
0
1
4
6
2
1
4
5
0
1
4
9
4
1
5
3
7
1
5
5
5
10
1
1
7
0
1
2
0
1
1
2
6
0
1
2
5
6
1
2
9
8
1
2
6
3
1
2
8
4
1
2
8
3
1
3
9
9
1
3
7
8
1
3
9
0
1
3
7
8
1
4
2
2
1
4
6
5
11
1
2
3
3
1
0
9
0
1
1
2
1
1
1
8
0
1
1
7
6
1
2
1
8
1
1
8
2
1
2
0
4
1
2
0
3
1
3
1
8
1
2
9
8
1
3
0
9
1
2
9
8
1
3
4
2
12
1
3
1
6
1
1
9
0
1
0
4
7
1
0
7
8
1
1
3
7
1
1
3
3
1
1
7
5
1
1
3
9
1
1
6
1
1
1
6
0
1
2
7
5
1
2
5
5
1
2
6
6
1
2
5
5
TO
T
A
L
S
1
4
3
6
3
1
4
3
0
2
1
4
4
1
1
1
4
7
0
6
1
4
9
8
8
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
G
a
i
n
(
0
.
4
3
)
%
0
.
7
6
%
2
.
0
5
%
1
.
9
2
%
Pu
p
i
l
G
a
i
n
(6
1
)
10
9
2
9
5
2
8
2
TA
B
L
E
D
I
S
T
R
I
C
T
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
3.
6
A
B
a
s
e
d
o
n
B
i
r
t
h
R
a
t
e
s
&
6
Y
e
a
r
H
i
s
t
o
r
y
AC
T
U
A
L
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
GR
A
D
E
1
1
/
1
2
1
2
/
1
3
1
3
/
1
4
1
4
/
1
5
1
5
/
1
6
1
6
/
1
7
17
/
1
8
1
8
/
1
9
1
9
/
2
0
2
0
/
2
1
2
1
/
2
2
2
2
/
2
3
2
3
-
2
4
2
4
-
2
5
KD
G
1
0
2
9
1
0
1
7
1
0
6
1
1
1
0
4
1
1
2
3
1
1
0
6
8
1
0
7
2
1
0
6
0
1
1
0
4
1
1
4
7
1
1
6
5
2
1
0
9
7
1
0
8
0
1
0
8
4
1
0
7
2
1
1
1
6
1
1
5
9
1
1
7
7
3
9
9
6
1
1
0
6
1
0
8
9
1
0
9
3
1
0
8
2
1
1
2
5
1
1
6
8
1
1
8
7
4
1
0
2
2
1
0
2
7
1
1
3
7
1
1
2
0
1
1
2
4
1
1
1
2
1
1
5
6
1
1
9
9
1
2
1
8
5
1
0
1
8
1
0
3
6
1
0
4
1
1
1
5
2
1
1
3
5
1
1
3
8
1
1
2
7
1
1
7
1
1
2
1
4
1
2
3
2
6
1
0
6
3
1
0
1
6
1
0
3
4
1
0
3
9
1
1
4
9
1
1
3
2
1
1
3
6
1
1
2
4
1
1
6
8
1
2
1
1
1
2
3
0
7
1
0
3
2
1
0
7
6
1
0
2
8
1
0
4
7
1
0
5
2
1
1
6
2
1
1
4
5
1
1
4
9
1
1
3
7
1
1
8
1
1
2
2
4
1
2
4
2
8
1
0
4
6
1
0
4
1
1
0
8
4
1
0
3
7
1
0
5
5
1
0
6
0
1
1
7
1
1
1
5
4
1
1
5
7
1
1
4
6
1
1
9
0
1
2
3
3
1
2
5
1
9
1
2
7
3
1
2
5
3
1
2
4
8
1
2
9
1
1
2
4
4
1
2
6
2
1
2
6
7
1
3
7
8
1
3
6
1
1
3
6
4
1
3
5
3
1
3
9
7
1
4
4
0
1
4
5
8
10
1
1
7
0
1
2
7
1
1
2
5
1
1
2
4
5
1
2
8
9
1
2
4
2
1
2
6
0
1
2
6
5
1
3
7
5
1
3
5
8
1
3
6
2
1
3
5
0
1
3
9
4
1
4
3
7
11
1
2
3
3
1
1
3
9
1
2
3
9
1
2
1
9
1
2
1
4
1
2
5
7
1
2
1
0
1
2
2
8
1
2
3
3
1
3
4
4
1
3
2
7
1
3
3
0
1
3
1
9
1
3
6
3
12
1
3
1
6
1
2
4
4
1
1
4
9
1
2
5
0
1
2
3
0
1
2
2
5
1
2
6
8
1
2
2
1
1
2
3
9
1
2
4
4
1
3
5
4
1
3
3
7
1
3
4
1
1
3
3
0
TO
T
A
L
S
1
4
3
6
3
1
4
3
7
7
1
4
5
0
6
1
4
7
7
3
1
4
9
5
8
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
G
a
i
n
0
.
1
0
%
0
.
9
0
%
1
.
8
4
%
1
.
2
5
%
Pu
p
i
l
G
a
i
n
1
4
1
3
0
2
6
7
1
8
5
pr
j
1
1
-
1
2
Pa
g
e
6
October 2011
AU
B
U
R
N
S
C
H
O
O
L
D
I
S
T
R
I
C
T
S
T
U
D
E
N
T
E
NR
O
L
L
M
E
N
T
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
-
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
2
0
1
1
TA
B
L
E
K
-
5
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
3E
.
1
3
B
a
s
e
d
o
n
1
3
Y
e
a
r
H
i
s
t
o
r
y
ACT
U
A
L
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
GR
A
D
E
1
1
/
1
2
1
2
/
1
3
1
3
/
1
4
1
4
/
1
5
1
5
/
1
6
1
6
/
1
7
17
/
1
8
1
8
/
1
9
1
9
/
2
0
2
0
/
2
1
2
1
/
2
2
2
2
/
2
3
2
3
-
2
4
2
4
-
2
5
KD
G
1
0
2
9
1
0
4
4
1
0
5
9
1
0
7
4
1
0
8
9
1
1
0
4
1
1
1
9
1
1
3
4
1
1
4
9
1
1
6
4
1
1
7
9
1
1
9
4
1
2
0
9
1
2
2
4
1
1
0
6
8
1
0
8
0
1
0
9
5
1
1
1
0
1
1
2
5
1
1
4
0
1
1
5
5
1
1
7
0
1
1
8
5
1
2
0
0
1
2
1
5
1
2
3
0
1
2
4
5
1
2
6
0
2
1
0
9
7
1
0
7
7
1
0
8
8
1
1
0
3
1
1
1
8
1
1
3
3
1
1
4
8
1
1
6
3
1
1
7
8
1
1
9
3
1
2
0
8
1
2
2
3
1
2
3
8
1
2
5
3
3
9
9
6
1
1
1
1
1
0
9
1
1
1
0
2
1
1
1
7
1
1
3
2
1
1
4
7
1
1
6
2
1
1
7
7
1
1
9
2
1
2
0
7
1
2
2
2
1
2
3
7
1
2
5
2
4
10
2
2
10
2
1
11
3
6
11
1
6
11
2
8
11
4
3
11
5
8
11
7
3
11
8
8
12
0
3
12
1
8
12
3
3
12
4
8
1263
5
1
0
1
8
1
0
4
0
1
0
3
9
1
1
5
4
1
1
3
3
1
1
4
5
1
1
6
0
1
1
7
5
1
1
9
0
1
2
0
5
1
2
2
0
1
2
3
5
1
2
5
0
1
2
6
5
6
y
e
a
r
1
3
y
e
a
r
K
-
5
T
O
T
6
2
3
0
6
3
7
2
6
5
0
8
6
6
5
9
6
7
1
0
6
7
9
7
6
8
8
7
6
9
7
7
7
0
6
7
7
1
5
7
7
2
4
7
7
3
3
7
7
4
2
7
7
5
1
7
6
5
7
1
2
8
7
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
G
a
i
n
2
.
2
8
%
2
.
1
3
%
2
.
3
3
%
0
.
7
7
%
1
.
29
%
1
.
3
2
%
1
.
3
1
%
1
.
2
9
%
1
.
2
7
%
1.
2
6
%
1
.
2
4
%
1
.
2
3
%
1
.
2
1
%
Pu
p
i
l
G
a
i
n
1
4
2
1
3
6
1
5
1
5
1
8
7
9
0
9
0
9
0
9
0
9
0
9
0
9
0
9
0
TA
B
L
E
K
-
5
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
3E
.
6
B
a
s
e
d
o
n
6
Y
e
a
r
H
i
s
t
o
r
y
ACT
U
A
L
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
GR
A
D
E
1
1
/
1
2
1
2
/
1
3
1
3
/
1
4
1
4
/
1
5
1
5
/
1
6
1
6
/
1
7
17
/
1
8
1
8
/
1
9
1
9
/
2
0
2
0
/
2
1
2
1
/
2
2
2
2
/
2
3
2
3
-
2
4
2
4
-
2
5
KD
G
1
0
2
9
1
0
4
7
1
0
6
4
1
0
8
2
1
0
9
9
1
1
1
7
1
1
3
5
1
1
5
2
1
1
7
0
1
1
8
7
1
2
0
5
1
2
2
3
1
2
4
0
1
2
5
8
1
1
0
6
8
1
0
7
2
1
0
8
9
1
1
0
7
1
1
2
5
1
1
4
2
1
1
6
0
1
1
7
7
1
1
9
5
1
2
1
3
1
2
3
0
1
2
4
8
1
2
6
5
1
2
8
3
2
1
0
9
7
1
0
8
0
1
0
8
4
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
9
1
1
3
7
1
1
5
4
1
1
7
2
1
1
8
9
1
2
0
7
1
2
2
5
1
2
4
2
1
2
6
0
1
2
7
7
3
9
9
6
1
1
0
6
1
0
8
9
1
0
9
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
8
1
1
4
6
1
1
6
4
1
1
8
1
1
1
9
9
1
2
1
6
1
2
3
4
1
2
5
2
1
2
6
9
4
10
2
2
10
2
7
11
3
7
11
2
0
11
2
4
11
4
2
11
5
9
11
7
7
11
9
4
12
1
2
12
3
0
12
4
7
12
6
5
1282
5
1
0
1
8
1
0
3
6
1
0
4
1
1
1
5
2
1
1
3
5
1
1
3
8
1
1
5
6
1
1
7
4
1
1
9
1
1
2
0
9
1
2
2
6
1
2
4
4
1
2
6
2
1
2
7
9
6
y
e
a
r
1
3
y
e
a
r
K
-
5
T
O
T
6
2
3
0
6
3
6
8
6
5
0
5
6
6
5
5
6
7
1
2
6
8
0
4
6
9
1
0
7
0
1
5
7
1
2
1
7
2
2
7
7
3
3
2
7
4
3
8
7
5
4
3
7
6
4
9
6
8
0
1
4
1
9
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
G
a
i
n
2
.
2
1
%
2
.
1
5
%
2
.
3
1
%
0
.
8
6
%
1
.
37
%
1
.
5
5
%
1
.
5
3
%
1
.
5
1
%
1
.
4
8
%
1.
4
6
%
1
.
4
4
%
1
.
4
2
%
1
.
4
0
%
Pu
p
i
l
G
a
i
n
1
3
8
1
3
7
1
5
0
5
7
9
2
1
0
6
1
0
6
1
0
6
1
0
6
1
0
6
1
0
6
1
0
6
1
0
6
TA
B
L
E
K
-
5
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
3E
.
1
3
A
Ba
s
e
d
o
n
B
i
r
t
h
R
a
t
e
s
&
1
3
Y
e
a
r
H
i
s
t
o
r
y
ACT
U
A
L
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
GR
A
D
E
1
1
/
1
2
1
2
/
1
3
1
3
/
1
4
1
4
/
1
5
1
5
/
1
6
1
6
/
1
7
17
/
1
8
1
8
/
1
9
1
9
/
2
0
2
0
/
2
1
2
1
/
2
2
2
2
/
2
3
2
3
-
2
4
2
4
-
2
5
K
1
0
2
9
1
0
1
7
1
0
6
1
1
1
0
4
1
1
2
3
1
1
0
6
8
1
0
8
0
1
0
6
8
1
1
1
2
1
1
5
5
1
1
7
3
2
1
0
9
7
1
0
7
7
1
0
8
8
1
0
7
7
1
1
2
0
1
1
6
3
1
1
8
2
3
9
9
6
1
1
1
1
1
0
9
1
1
1
0
2
1
0
9
1
1
1
3
5
1
1
7
8
1
1
9
6
4
10
2
2
10
2
1
11
3
6
11
1
6
11
2
8
11
1
6
11
6
0
12
0
3
12
2
1
5
1
0
1
8
1
0
4
0
1
0
3
9
1
1
5
4
1
1
3
3
1
1
4
5
1
1
3
4
1
1
7
7
1
2
2
0
1
2
3
9
4
y
e
a
r
K
-
5
T
O
T
6
2
3
0
6
3
4
6
6
4
8
3
6
6
6
5
6
7
5
0
520
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
G
a
i
n
1
.
8
6
%
2
.
1
7
%
2
.
8
0
%
1
.
2
7
%
Pu
p
i
l
G
a
i
n
1
1
6
1
3
8
1
8
2
8
5
TA
B
L
E
K
-
5
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
3E
.
6
A
Ba
s
e
d
o
n
B
i
r
t
h
R
a
t
e
s
&
6
Y
e
a
r
H
i
s
t
o
r
y
ACT
U
A
L
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
GR
A
D
E
1
1
/
1
2
1
2
/
1
3
1
3
/
1
4
1
4
/
1
5
1
5
/
1
6
1
6
/
1
7
17
/
1
8
1
8
/
1
9
1
9
/
2
0
2
0
/
2
1
2
1
/
2
2
2
2
/
2
3
2
3
-
2
4
2
4
-
2
5
KD
G
1
0
2
9
1
0
1
7
1
0
6
1
1
1
0
4
1
1
2
3
1
1
0
6
8
1
0
7
2
1
0
6
0
1
1
0
4
1
1
4
7
1
1
6
5
2
1
0
9
7
1
0
8
0
1
0
8
4
1
0
7
2
1
1
1
6
1
1
5
9
1
1
7
7
3
9
9
6
1
1
0
6
1
0
8
9
1
0
9
3
1
0
8
2
1
1
2
5
1
1
6
8
1
1
8
7
4
10
2
2
10
2
7
11
3
7
11
2
0
11
2
4
11
1
2
11
5
6
11
9
9
12
1
8
5
1
0
1
8
1
0
3
6
1
0
4
1
1
1
5
2
1
1
3
5
1
1
3
8
1
1
2
7
1
1
7
1
1
2
1
4
1
2
3
2
4 year
K
-
5
T
O
T
6
2
3
0
6
3
3
9
6
4
7
3
6
6
4
5
6
7
2
6
496
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
G
a
i
n
1
.
7
5
%
2
.
1
2
%
2
.
6
6
%
1
.
2
1
%
Pu
p
i
l
G
a
i
n
1
0
9
1
3
4
1
7
2
8
0
pr
j
1
1
-
1
2
Pa
g
e
7
October 2011
AU
B
U
R
N
S
C
H
O
O
L
D
I
S
T
R
I
C
T
S
T
U
D
E
N
T
E
NR
O
L
L
M
E
N
T
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
-
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
2
0
1
1
TA
B
L
E
M
I
D
D
L
E
S
C
H
O
O
L
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
3M
S
.
1
3
B
a
s
e
d
o
n
1
3
Y
e
a
r
H
i
s
t
o
r
y
AC
T
U
A
L
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
GR
A
D
E
1
1
/
1
2
1
2
/
1
3
1
3
/
1
4
1
4
/
1
5
1
5
/
1
6
1
6
/
1
7
17
/
1
8
1
8
/
1
9
1
9
/
2
0
2
0
/
2
1
2
1
/
2
2
2
2
/
2
3
2
3
-
2
4
2
4
-
2
5
6
1
0
6
3
1
0
2
7
1
0
4
9
1
0
4
8
1
1
6
3
1
1
4
3
1
1
5
5
1
1
7
0
1
1
8
5
1
2
0
0
1
2
1
5
1
2
3
0
1
2
4
5
1
2
6
0
7
1
0
3
2
1
0
7
4
1
0
3
9
1
0
6
0
1
0
5
9
1
1
7
4
1
1
5
4
1
1
6
6
1
1
8
1
1
1
9
6
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
6
1
2
4
1
1
2
5
6
8
1
0
4
6
1
0
4
2
1
0
8
4
1
0
4
8
1
0
7
0
1
0
6
9
1
1
8
4
1
1
6
4
1
1
7
5
1
1
9
0
1
2
0
5
1
2
2
0
1
2
3
5
1
2
5
0
6
y
e
a
r
1
3
y
e
a
r
6
-
8
T
O
T
3
1
4
1
3
1
4
3
3
1
7
1
3
1
5
7
3
2
9
2
3
3
8
6
3
4
9
3
3
4
9
9
3
5
4
1
3
5
8
6
3
6
3
1
3
6
7
6
3
7
2
1
3
7
6
6
3
5
2
6
2
5
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
G
a
i
n
0
.
0
7
%
0
.
8
9
%
(
0
.
4
7
)
%
4
.
3
1
%
2.
8
5
%
3
.
1
4
%
0
.
1
8
%
1
.
1
9
%
1
.
27
%
1
.
2
6
%
1
.
2
4
%
1
.
2
2
%
1
.
2
1
%
Pu
p
i
l
G
a
i
n
2
2
8
(1
5
)
136
9
4
1
0
6
6
4
2
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
5
TA
B
L
E
M
I
D
D
L
E
S
C
H
O
O
L
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
3M
S
.
6
B
a
s
e
d
o
n
6
Y
e
a
r
H
i
s
t
o
r
y
AC
T
U
A
L
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
GR
A
D
E
1
1
/
1
2
1
2
/
1
3
1
3
/
1
4
1
4
/
1
5
1
5
/
1
6
1
6
/
1
7
17
/
1
8
1
8
/
1
9
1
9
/
2
0
2
0
/
2
1
2
1
/
2
2
2
2
/
2
3
2
3
-
2
4
2
4
-
2
5
6
1
0
6
3
1
0
1
6
1
0
3
4
1
0
3
9
1
1
4
9
1
1
3
2
1
1
3
6
1
1
5
4
1
1
7
1
1
1
8
9
1
2
0
6
1
2
2
4
1
2
4
2
1
2
5
9
7
1
0
3
2
1
0
7
6
1
0
2
8
1
0
4
7
1
0
5
2
1
1
6
2
1
1
4
5
1
1
4
9
1
1
6
6
1
1
8
4
1
2
0
1
1
2
1
9
1
2
3
7
1
2
5
4
8
1
0
4
6
1
0
4
1
1
0
8
4
1
0
3
7
1
0
5
5
1
0
6
0
1
1
7
1
1
1
5
4
1
1
5
7
1
1
7
5
1
1
9
3
1
2
1
0
1
2
2
8
1
2
4
5
6
y
e
a
r
1
3
y
e
a
r
6
-
8
T
O
T
3
1
4
1
3
1
3
2
3
1
4
7
3
1
2
3
3
2
5
6
3
3
5
4
3
4
5
1
3
4
5
6
3
4
9
5
3
5
4
8
3
6
0
0
3
6
5
3
3
7
0
6
3
7
5
9
3
1
0
6
1
8
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
G
a
i
n
(
0
.
2
9
)
%
.
4
7
%
-
.
7
7
%
4
.
2
8
%
3
.
01
%
2
.
9
0
%
.
1
3
%
1
.
1
3
%
1
.
5
1
%
1.
4
9
%
1
.
4
7
%
1
.
4
5
%
1
.
4
2
%
Pu
p
i
l
G
a
i
n
(9
)
15
(2
4
)
134
9
8
9
7
4
3
9
5
3
5
3
5
3
5
3
5
3
TA
B
L
E
M
I
D
D
L
E
S
C
H
O
O
L
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
3M
S
.
1
3
A
B
a
s
e
d
o
n
B
i
r
t
h
R
a
t
e
s
&
1
3
Y
e
a
r
H
i
s
t
o
r
y
AC
T
U
A
L
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
GR
A
D
E
1
1
/
1
2
1
2
/
1
3
1
3
/
1
4
1
4
/
1
5
1
5
/
1
6
1
6
/
1
7
17
/
1
8
1
8
/
1
9
1
9
/
2
0
2
0
/
2
1
2
1
/
2
2
2
2
/
2
3
2
3
-
2
4
2
4
-
2
5
6
1
0
6
3
1
0
2
7
1
0
4
9
1
0
4
8
1
1
6
3
1
1
4
3
1
1
5
5
1
1
4
3
1
1
8
7
1
2
3
0
1
2
4
8
7
1
0
3
2
1
0
7
4
1
0
3
9
1
0
6
0
1
0
5
9
1
1
7
4
1
1
5
4
1
1
6
6
1
1
5
4
1
1
9
8
1
2
4
1
1
2
5
9
8
1
0
4
6
1
0
4
2
1
0
8
4
1
0
4
8
1
0
7
0
1
0
6
9
1
1
8
4
1
1
6
4
1
1
7
5
1
1
6
4
1
2
0
8
1
2
5
1
1
2
6
9
6
y
e
a
r
1
0
y
e
a
r
6
-
8
T
O
T
3
1
4
1
3
1
4
3
3
1
7
1
3
1
5
7
3
2
9
2
3
3
8
6
3
4
9
3
3
4
7
2
3
5
1
6
3
5
9
2
3
6
9
7
3
5
2
5
5
6
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
G
a
i
n
0
.
0
7
%
0
.
8
9
%
(
0
.
4
7
)
%
4
.3
1
%
2
.
8
5
%
3
.
1
4
%
(
0
.
5
8
)
%
1
.
2
7
%
2
.
1
4
%
2
.
9
3
%
Pu
p
i
l
G
a
i
n
2
2
8
(1
5
)
13
6
9
4
1
0
6
(2
0
)
44
7
5
1
0
5
TA
B
L
E
M
I
D
D
L
E
S
C
H
O
O
L
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
3M
S
.
6
A
B
a
s
e
d
o
n
B
i
r
t
h
R
a
t
e
s
&
6
Y
e
a
r
H
i
s
t
o
r
y
AC
T
U
A
L
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
GR
A
D
E
1
1
/
1
2
1
2
/
1
3
1
3
/
1
4
1
4
/
1
5
1
5
/
1
6
1
6
/
1
7
17
/
1
8
1
8
/
1
9
1
9
/
2
0
2
0
/
2
1
2
1
/
2
2
2
2
/
2
3
2
3
-
2
4
2
4
-
2
5
6
1
0
6
3
1
0
1
6
1
0
3
4
1
0
3
9
1
1
4
9
1
1
3
2
1
1
3
6
1
1
2
4
1
1
6
8
1
2
1
1
1
2
3
0
7
1
0
3
2
1
0
7
6
1
0
2
8
1
0
4
7
1
0
5
2
1
1
6
2
1
1
4
5
1
1
4
9
1
1
3
7
1
1
8
1
1
2
2
4
1
2
4
2
8
1
0
4
6
1
0
4
1
1
0
8
4
1
0
3
7
1
0
5
5
1
0
6
0
1
1
7
1
1
1
5
4
1
1
5
7
1
1
4
6
1
1
9
0
1
2
3
3
1
2
5
1
6
y
e
a
r
1
0
y
e
a
r
6
-
8
T
O
T
3
1
4
1
3
1
3
2
3
1
4
7
3
1
2
3
3
2
5
6
3
3
5
4
3
4
5
1
3
4
2
7
3
4
6
3
3
5
3
8
3
6
4
3
3
1
0
5
0
2
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
G
a
i
n
(
0
.
2
9
)
%
0
.
4
7
%
(
0
.
7
7
)
%
4
.
2
8
%
3
.
0
1
%
2
.
9
0
%
(
0
.
7
1
)
%
1
.
0
5
%
2
.
1
7
%
2
.
9
7
%
Pu
p
i
l
G
a
i
n
(9
)
15
(2
4
)
13
4
9
8
9
7
(2
5
)
36
7
5
1
0
5
pr
j
1
1
-
1
2
Pa
g
e
8
October 2011
AU
B
U
R
N
S
C
H
O
O
L
D
I
S
T
R
I
C
T
S
T
U
D
E
N
T
E
NR
O
L
L
M
E
N
T
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
-
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
2
0
1
1
TA
B
L
E
S
R
.
H
I
G
H
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
3S
H
.
1
3
B
a
s
e
d
o
n
1
3
Y
e
a
r
H
i
s
t
o
r
y
AC
T
U
A
L
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
GR
A
D
E
1
1
/
1
2
1
2
/
1
3
1
3
/
1
4
1
4
/
1
5
1
5
/
1
6
1
6
/
1
7
17
/
1
8
1
8
/
1
9
1
9
/
2
0
2
0
/
2
1
2
1
/
2
2
2
2
/
2
3
2
3
-
2
4
2
4
-
2
5
9
1
2
7
3
1
3
3
2
1
3
2
8
1
3
7
0
1
3
3
4
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
5
1
4
7
0
1
4
5
0
1
4
6
2
1
4
7
7
1
4
9
2
1
5
0
7
1
5
2
2
10
1
1
7
0
1
2
0
1
1
2
6
0
1
2
5
6
1
2
9
8
1
2
6
3
1
2
8
4
1
2
8
3
1
3
9
9
1
3
7
8
1
3
9
0
1
4
0
5
1
4
2
0
1
4
3
5
11
1
2
3
3
1
0
9
0
1
1
2
1
1
1
8
0
1
1
7
6
1
2
1
8
1
1
8
2
1
2
0
4
1
2
0
3
1
3
1
8
1
2
9
8
1
3
0
9
1
3
2
4
1
3
3
9
12
1
3
1
6
1
1
9
0
1
0
4
7
1
0
7
8
1
1
3
7
1
1
3
3
1
1
7
5
1
1
3
9
1
1
6
1
1
1
6
0
1
2
7
5
1
2
5
5
1
2
6
6
1
2
8
1
6
y
e
a
r
1
3
y
e
a
r
9-
1
2
T
O
T
4
9
9
2
4
8
1
3
4
7
5
6
4
8
8
4
4
9
4
5
4
9
6
9
4
9
9
7
5
0
9
7
5
2
1
2
5
3
1
8
5
4
3
9
5
4
6
0
5
5
1
7
5
5
7
7
5
5
8
5
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
G
a
i
n
(
3
.
5
9
)
%
(
1
.
1
9
)
%
2
.
7
0
%
1
.
2
6
%
0.
4
8
%
0
.
5
5
%
2
.
0
1
%
2
.
2
6
%
2
.
03
%
2
.
2
8
%
0
.
3
9
%
1
.
0
4
%
1
.
0
9
%
Pu
p
i
l
G
a
i
n
(1
7
9
)
(
5
7
)
12
8
6
1
2
4
2
7
1
0
0
1
1
5
1
0
6
1
2
1
2
1
5
7
6
0
TA
B
L
E
S
R
.
H
I
G
H
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
3S
H
.
6
B
a
s
e
d
o
n
6
Y
e
a
r
H
i
s
t
o
r
y
AC
T
U
A
L
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
GR
A
D
E
1
1
/
1
2
1
2
/
1
3
1
3
/
1
4
1
4
/
1
5
1
5
/
1
6
1
6
/
1
7
17
/
1
8
1
8
/
1
9
1
9
/
2
0
2
0
/
2
1
2
1
/
2
2
2
2
/
2
3
2
3
-
2
4
2
4
-
2
5
9
1
2
7
3
1
2
5
3
1
2
4
8
1
2
9
1
1
2
4
4
1
2
6
2
1
2
6
7
1
3
7
8
1
3
6
1
1
3
6
4
1
3
8
2
1
4
0
0
1
4
1
7
1
4
3
5
10
1
1
7
0
1
2
7
1
1
2
5
1
1
2
4
5
1
2
8
9
1
2
4
2
1
2
6
0
1
2
6
5
1
3
7
5
1
3
5
8
1
3
6
2
1
3
7
9
1
3
9
7
1
4
1
5
11
1
2
3
3
1
1
3
9
1
2
3
9
1
2
1
9
1
2
1
4
1
2
5
7
1
2
1
0
1
2
2
8
1
2
3
3
1
3
4
4
1
3
2
7
1
3
3
0
1
3
4
8
1
3
6
6
12
1
3
1
6
1
2
4
4
1
1
4
9
1
2
5
0
1
2
3
0
1
2
2
5
1
2
6
8
1
2
2
1
1
2
3
9
1
2
4
4
1
3
5
4
1
3
3
7
1
3
4
1
1
3
5
9
6
y
e
a
r
1
3
y
e
a
r
9-
1
2
T
O
T
4
9
9
2
4
9
0
6
4
8
8
7
5
0
0
5
4
9
7
6
4
9
8
6
5
0
0
5
5
0
9
1
5
2
0
8
5
3
1
0
5
4
2
5
5
4
4
7
5
5
0
3
5
5
7
4
1
3
5
8
2
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
G
a
i
n
(
1
.
7
3
)
%
(
0
.
3
9
)
%
2
.
4
3
%
(
0
.
5
8
)
%
0
.
1
9
%
0
.
3
9
%
1
.
7
2
%
2
.
2
9
%
1
.
96
%
2
.
1
6
%
0
.
4
1
%
1
.
0
4
%
1
.
2
8
%
Pu
p
i
l
G
a
i
n
(8
6
)
(
1
9
)
11
9
(2
9
)
9
2
0
8
6
1
1
7
1
0
2
1
1
5
2
2
5
7
7
0
TA
B
L
E
S
R
.
H
I
G
H
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
3S
H
.
1
3
A
B
a
s
e
d
o
n
B
i
r
t
h
R
a
t
e
s
&
1
3
Y
e
a
r
H
i
s
t
o
r
y
AC
T
U
A
L
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
GR
A
D
E
1
1
/
1
2
1
2
/
1
3
1
3
/
1
4
1
4
/
1
5
1
5
/
1
6
1
6
/
1
7
17
/
1
8
1
8
/
1
9
1
9
/
2
0
2
0
/
2
1
2
1
/
2
2
2
2
/
2
3
2
3
-
2
4
2
4
-
2
5
9
1
2
7
3
1
3
3
2
1
3
2
8
1
3
7
0
1
3
3
4
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
5
1
4
7
0
1
4
5
0
1
4
6
2
1
4
5
0
1
4
9
4
1
5
3
7
1
5
5
5
10
1
1
7
0
1
2
0
1
1
2
6
0
1
2
5
6
1
2
9
8
1
2
6
3
1
2
8
4
1
2
8
3
1
3
9
9
1
3
7
8
1
3
9
0
1
3
7
8
1
4
2
2
1
4
6
5
11
1
2
3
3
1
0
9
0
1
1
2
1
1
1
8
0
1
1
7
6
1
2
1
8
1
1
8
2
1
2
0
4
1
2
0
3
1
3
1
8
1
2
9
8
1
3
0
9
1
2
9
8
1
3
4
2
12
1
3
1
6
1
1
9
0
1
0
4
7
1
0
7
8
1
1
3
7
1
1
3
3
1
1
7
5
1
1
3
9
1
1
6
1
1
1
6
0
1
2
7
5
1
2
5
5
1
2
6
6
1
2
5
5
6
y
e
a
r
1
3
y
e
a
r
9-
1
2
T
O
T
4
9
9
2
4
8
1
3
4
7
5
6
4
8
8
4
4
9
4
5
4
9
6
9
4
9
9
7
5
0
9
7
5
2
1
2
5
3
1
8
5
4
1
3
5
4
3
6
5
5
2
3
5
6
1
7
5
6
2
5
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
G
a
i
n
(
3
.
5
9
)
%
(
1
.
1
9
)
%
2
.
7
0
%
1
.
2
6
%
0.
4
8
%
0
.
5
5
%
2
.
0
1
%
2
.
2
6
%
2
.
03
%
1
.
7
8
%
0
.
4
3
%
1
.
6
0
%
1
.
6
9
%
Pu
p
i
l
G
a
i
n
(1
7
9
)
(
5
7
)
12
8
6
1
2
4
2
7
1
0
0
1
1
5
1
0
6
9
5
2
3
8
7
9
4
TA
B
L
E
S
R
.
H
I
G
H
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
3S
H
.
6
A
B
a
s
e
d
o
n
B
i
r
t
h
R
a
t
e
s
&
6
Y
e
a
r
H
i
s
t
o
r
y
AC
T
U
A
L
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
GR
A
D
E
1
1
/
1
2
1
2
/
1
3
1
3
/
1
4
1
4
/
1
5
1
5
/
1
6
1
6
/
1
7
17
/
1
8
1
8
/
1
9
1
9
/
2
0
2
0
/
2
1
2
1
/
2
2
2
2
/
2
3
2
3
-
2
4
2
4
-
2
5
9
1
2
7
3
1
2
5
3
1
2
4
8
1
2
9
1
1
2
4
4
1
2
6
2
1
2
6
7
1
3
7
8
1
3
6
1
1
3
6
4
1
3
5
3
1
3
9
7
1
4
4
0
1
4
5
8
10
1
1
7
0
1
2
7
1
1
2
5
1
1
2
4
5
1
2
8
9
1
2
4
2
1
2
6
0
1
2
6
5
1
3
7
5
1
3
5
8
1
3
6
2
1
3
5
0
1
3
9
4
1
4
3
7
11
1
2
3
3
1
1
3
9
1
2
3
9
1
2
1
9
1
2
1
4
1
2
5
7
1
2
1
0
1
2
2
8
1
2
3
3
1
3
4
4
1
3
2
7
1
3
3
0
1
3
1
9
1
3
6
3
12
1
3
1
6
1
2
4
4
1
1
4
9
1
2
5
0
1
2
3
0
1
2
2
5
1
2
6
8
1
2
2
1
1
2
3
9
1
2
4
4
1
3
5
4
1
3
3
7
1
3
4
1
1
3
3
0
6
y
e
a
r
1
3
y
e
a
r
9-
1
2
T
O
T
4
9
9
2
4
9
0
6
4
8
8
7
5
0
0
5
4
9
7
6
4
9
8
6
5
0
0
5
5
0
9
1
5
2
0
8
5
3
1
0
5
3
9
5
5
4
1
5
5
4
9
4
5
5
8
7
1
3
5
9
5
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
G
a
i
n
(
1
.
7
3
)
%
(
0
.
3
9
)
%
2
.
4
3
%
(
0
.
5
8
)
%
0
.
1
9
%
0
.
3
9
%
1
.
7
2
%
2
.
2
9
%
1
.
96
%
1
.
6
1
%
0
.
3
5
%
1
.
4
6
%
1
.
7
0
%
Pu
p
i
l
G
a
i
n
(8
6
)
(
1
9
)
11
9
(2
9
)
9
2
0
8
6
1
1
7
1
0
2
8
6
1
9
7
9
9
4
pr
j
1
1
-
1
2
Pa
g
e
9
October 2011
AU
B
U
R
N
S
C
H
O
O
L
D
I
S
T
R
I
C
T
S
T
U
D
E
N
T
E
NR
O
L
L
M
E
N
T
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
-
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
2
0
1
1
TA
B
L
E
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
I
O
N
C
O
M
P
A
R
I
S
O
N
S
4
B
Y
G
R
A
D
E
G
R
O
U
P
KI
N
D
E
R
G
A
R
T
E
N
AC
T
U
A
L
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
GR
A
D
E
1
1
/
1
2
1
2
/
1
3
1
3
/
1
4
1
4
/
1
5
1
5
/
1
6
1
6
/
1
7
1
7
/
1
8
1
8
/
1
9
19
/
2
0
2
0
/
2
1
2
1
/
2
2
2
2
/
2
3
2
3
-
2
4
2
4
-
2
5
6
y
e
a
r
1
3
y
e
a
r
E.
1
3
1
0
2
9
1
0
4
4
1
0
5
9
1
0
7
4
1
0
8
9
1
1
0
4
1
1
1
9
1
1
3
4
1
1
4
9
1
1
6
4
1
1
7
9
1
1
9
4
1
2
0
9
1
2
2
4
9
0
1
9
5
E.
6
1
0
2
9
1
0
4
7
1
0
6
4
1
0
8
2
1
0
9
9
1
1
1
7
1
1
3
5
1
1
5
2
1
1
7
0
1
1
8
7
1
2
0
5
1
2
2
3
1
2
4
0
1
2
5
8
1
0
6
2
2
9
E.
1
3
A
1
0
2
9
1
0
1
7
1
0
6
1
1
1
0
4
1
1
2
3
E.
6
A
1
0
2
9
1
0
1
7
1
0
6
1
1
1
0
4
1
1
2
3
GR
D
1
-
-
G
R
D
5
AC
T
U
A
L
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
GR
A
D
E
1
1
/
1
2
1
2
/
1
3
1
3
/
1
4
1
4
/
1
5
1
5
/
1
6
1
6
/
1
7
1
7
/
1
8
1
8
/
1
9
19
/
2
0
2
0
/
2
1
2
1
/
2
2
2
2
/
2
3
2
3
-
2
4
2
4
-
2
5
6
y
e
a
r
1
3
y
e
a
r
E.
1
3
5
2
0
1
5
3
2
8
5
4
4
9
5
5
8
5
5
6
2
1
5
6
9
3
5
7
6
8
5
8
4
3
5
9
1
8
5
9
9
3
6
0
6
8
6
1
4
3
6
2
1
8
6
2
9
3
5
6
7
1
0
9
2
E.
6
5
2
0
1
5
3
2
1
5
4
4
1
5
5
7
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
8
7
5
7
7
5
5
8
6
3
5
9
5
1
6
0
3
9
6
1
2
7
6
2
1
5
6
3
0
3
6
3
9
1
5
7
4
1
1
9
0
E.
1
3
A
5
2
0
1
5
3
2
8
5
4
2
2
5
5
6
1
5
6
2
7
E.
6
A
5
2
0
1
5
3
2
1
5
4
1
2
5
5
4
1
5
6
0
3
GR
D
6
-
-
G
R
D
8
AC
T
U
A
L
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
GR
A
D
E
1
1
/
1
2
1
2
/
1
3
1
3
/
1
4
1
4
/
1
5
1
5
/
1
6
1
6
/
1
7
1
7
/
1
8
1
8
/
1
9
19
/
2
0
2
0
/
2
1
2
1
/
2
2
2
2
/
2
3
2
3
-
2
4
2
4
-
2
5
6
y
e
a
r
1
3
y
e
a
r
MS
.
1
3
3
1
4
1
3
1
4
3
3
1
7
1
3
1
5
7
3
2
9
2
3
3
8
6
3
4
9
3
3
4
9
9
3
5
4
1
3
5
8
6
3
6
3
1
3
6
7
6
3
7
2
1
3
7
6
6
3
5
2
6
2
5
MS
.
6
3
1
4
1
3
1
3
2
3
1
4
7
3
1
2
3
3
2
5
6
3
3
5
4
3
4
5
1
3
4
5
6
3
4
9
5
3
5
4
8
3
6
0
0
3
6
5
3
3
7
0
6
3
7
5
9
3
1
0
6
1
8
MS
.
1
3
A
3
1
4
1
3
1
4
3
3
1
7
1
3
1
5
7
3
2
9
2
3
3
8
6
3
4
9
3
3
4
7
2
3
5
1
6
3
5
9
2
3
6
9
7
MS
.
6
A
3
1
4
1
3
1
3
2
3
1
4
7
3
1
2
3
3
2
5
6
3
3
5
4
3
4
5
1
3
4
2
7
3
4
6
3
3
5
3
8
3
6
4
3
GR
D
9
-
-
G
R
D
1
2
AC
T
U
A
L
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
GR
A
D
E
1
1
/
1
2
1
2
/
1
3
1
3
/
1
4
1
4
/
1
5
1
5
/
1
6
1
6
/
1
7
1
7
/
1
8
1
8
/
1
9
19
/
2
0
2
0
/
2
1
2
1
/
2
2
2
2
/
2
3
2
3
-
2
4
2
4
-
2
5
6
y
e
a
r
1
3
y
e
a
r
SH
.
1
3
4
9
9
2
4
8
1
3
4
7
5
6
4
8
8
4
4
9
4
5
4
9
6
9
4
9
9
7
5
0
9
7
5
2
1
2
5
3
1
8
5
4
3
9
5
4
6
0
5
5
1
7
5
5
7
7
5
5
8
5
SH
.
6
4
9
9
2
4
9
0
6
4
8
8
7
5
0
0
5
4
9
7
6
4
9
8
6
5
0
0
5
5
0
9
1
5
2
0
8
5
3
1
0
5
4
2
5
5
4
4
7
5
5
0
3
5
5
7
4
1
3
5
8
2
SH
.
1
3
A
4
9
9
2
4
8
1
3
4
7
5
6
4
8
8
4
4
9
4
5
4
9
6
9
4
9
9
7
5
0
9
7
5
2
1
2
5
3
1
8
5
4
1
3
5
4
3
6
5
5
2
3
5
6
1
7
5
6
2
5
SH
.
6
A
4
9
9
2
4
9
0
6
4
8
8
7
5
0
0
5
4
9
7
6
4
9
8
6
5
0
0
5
5
0
9
1
5
2
0
8
5
3
1
0
5
3
9
5
5
4
1
5
5
4
9
4
5
5
8
7
1
3
5
9
5
DI
S
T
R
I
C
T
T
O
T
A
L
S
AC
T
U
A
L
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
P
R
O
J
GR
A
D
E
1
1
/
1
2
1
2
/
1
3
1
3
/
1
4
1
4
/
1
5
1
5
/
1
6
1
6
/
1
7
1
7
/
1
8
1
8
/
1
9
19
/
2
0
2
0
/
2
1
2
1
/
2
2
2
2
/
2
3
2
3
-
2
4
2
4
-
2
5
6
y
e
a
r
1
3
y
e
a
r
3.
1
3
1
4
3
6
3
1
4
3
2
8
1
4
4
3
5
1
4
7
0
0
1
4
9
4
8
1
5
1
5
3
1
5
3
7
6
1
5
5
7
3
1
5
8
2
0
1
6
0
6
1
1
6
3
1
7
1
6
4
7
3
1
6
6
6
5
1
6
8
6
0
1
0
1
3
2
4
9
7
3.
6
1
4
3
6
3
1
4
4
0
6
1
4
5
3
8
1
4
7
8
3
1
4
9
4
5
1
5
1
4
4
1
5
3
6
6
1
5
5
6
2
1
5
8
2
4
1
6
0
8
4
1
6
3
5
7
1
6
5
3
8
1
6
7
5
3
1
6
9
8
1
1
0
0
3
2
6
1
8
3.
1
3
A
1
4
3
6
3
1
4
3
0
2
1
4
4
1
1
1
4
7
0
6
1
4
9
8
8
3.
6
A
1
4
3
6
3
1
4
3
7
7
1
4
5
0
6
1
4
7
7
3
1
4
9
5
8
pr
j
1
1
-
1
2
Pa
g
e
1
0
October 2011
AU
B
U
R
N
S
C
H
O
O
L
D
I
S
T
R
I
C
T
S
T
U
D
E
N
T
E
NR
O
L
L
M
E
N
T
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
-
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
2
0
1
1
TA
B
L
E
5
To
t
a
l
=
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
A
c
t
u
a
l
C
o
u
n
t
A
N
D
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
C
o
u
n
t
s
P
r
j
3
.
1
3
-
1
3
YE
A
R
H
I
S
T
O
R
Y
&
U
s
i
n
g
A
v
e
r
ag
e
K
d
g
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
Di
f
f
=
N
u
m
b
e
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
i
s
u
n
d
e
r
(
-
)
o
r
o
v
e
r
A
c
t
u
a
l
P
r
j
3
.
6
-
6
YE
A
R
H
I
S
T
O
R
Y
&
U
s
i
n
g
A
v
e
r
ag
e
K
d
g
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
%
=
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
i
s
u
n
d
e
r
(
-
)
o
r
o
v
e
r
A
c
t
u
a
l
P
r
j
3
.
1
3
A
1
3
YE
A
R
H
I
S
T
O
R
Y
&
K
i
n
g
C
t
y
B
i
r
t
h
R
a
t
e
s
Pr
j
3
.
6
A
-
6
Y
E
A
R
H
I
S
T
O
R
Y
&
K
i
n
g
C
t
y
B
i
r
t
h
R
a
t
e
s
Gr
a
d
e
s
19
9
9
-
0
0
2
0
0
0
-
0
1
2
0
0
1
-
0
2
2
0
0
2
-
0
3
2
0
0
3
-
0
4
K
-
5
T
o
t
a
l
D
i
f
f
%
T
o
t
a
l
D
i
f
f
%
T
o
t
a
l
D
i
f
f
%
T
o
t
a
l
D
i
f
f
%
T
o
t
a
l
D
i
f
f
%
AC
T
U
A
L
5
8
5
6
x
x
x
x
x
x
5
8
4
4
x
x
x
x
x
x
5
9
1
4
x
x
x
x
x
x
5
7
4
1
x
x
x
x
x
x
5
7
7
4
x
x
x
x
x
x
Pr
j
3
E
.
1
3
5
7
7
8
(7
8
)
(1
.
3
3
)
%
5
8
1
1
(3
3
)
(0
.
5
4
)
%
5
8
2
7
(8
7
)
3.
1
5
%
5
7
2
3
(1
8
)
(0
.
3
1
)
%
5
6
5
5
(119)(2.06)%
Pr
j
3
E
.
6
5
7
3
5
(1
2
1
)
(2
.
0
7
)
%
5
6
6
4
(1
8
0
)
(0
.
9
6
)
%
5
8
0
2
(1
1
2
)
2.
7
4
%
5
7
3
5
(6
)
(0
.
1
0
)
%
5
6
6
2
(112)(1.94)%
Pr
j
3
E
.
1
3
A
5
8
1
1
(4
5
)
(0
.
7
7
)
%
5
9
1
9
7
5
(
2
.
6
4
)
%
5
8
3
9
(7
5
)
1.
5
1
%
5
7
4
3
2
0
.
0
3
%
5
6
0
5
(169)(2.93)%
Pr
j
3
E
.
6
A
5
7
8
5
(7
1
)
(1
.
2
1
)
%
5
8
9
5
5
1
(
2
.
9
3
)
%
5
8
3
1
(8
3
)
1.
1
5
%
5
7
7
6
3
5
0
.
6
1
%
5
6
3
1
(143)(2.48)%
Gr
a
d
e
s
19
9
9
-
0
0
2
0
0
0
-
0
1
2
0
0
1
-
0
2
2
0
0
2
-
0
3
2
0
0
3
-
0
4
6
-
8
T
o
t
a
l
D
i
f
f
%
T
o
t
a
l
D
i
f
f
%
T
o
t
a
l
D
i
f
f
%
T
o
t
a
l
D
i
f
f
%
T
o
t
a
l
D
i
f
f
%
AC
T
U
A
L
2
9
7
0
x
x
x
x
x
x
2
9
8
0
x
x
x
x
x
x
3
0
4
9
x
x
x
x
x
x
3
1
5
1
x
x
x
x
x
x
3
2
9
4
x
x
x
x
x
x
Pr
j
3
E
.
1
3
2
9
2
7
(4
3
)
(1
.
4
5
)
%
3
0
2
3
4
3
(
2
.
6
4
)
%
3
0
2
5
(8
0
)
(2
.
6
2
)
%
3
1
8
5
3
4
1
.
0
8
%
3
2
1
4
(80)(2.43)%
Pr
j
3
E
.
6
2
8
9
5
(7
5
)
(2
.
5
3
)
%
3
0
0
9
2
9
(
2
.
7
0
)
%
3
0
1
1
(7
5
)
(2
.
4
6
)
%
3
1
9
2
4
1
1
.
3
0
%
3
2
1
6
(78)(2.37)%
Pr
j
3
E
.
1
3
A
2
9
2
7
(4
3
)
(1
.
4
5
)
%
3
0
2
3
4
3
(
2
.
6
4
)
%
3
0
2
5
(8
0
)
(2
.
6
2
)
%
3
1
8
5
3
4
1
.
0
8
%
3
2
1
4
(80)(2.43)%
Pr
j
3
E
.
6
A
2
8
9
5
(7
5
)
(2
.
5
3
)
%
3
0
0
9
2
9
(
2
.
7
0
)
%
3
0
1
1
(7
5
)
(2
.
4
6
)
%
3
1
9
2
4
1
1
.
3
0
%
3
2
1
6
(78)(2.37)%
Gr
a
d
e
s
19
9
9
-
0
0
2
0
0
0
-
0
1
2
0
0
1
-
0
2
2
0
0
2
-
0
3
2
0
0
3
-
0
4
9
-
1
2
T
o
t
a
l
D
i
f
f
%
T
o
t
a
l
D
i
f
f
%
T
o
t
a
l
D
i
f
f
%
T
o
t
a
l
D
i
f
f
%
T
o
t
a
l
D
i
f
f
%
AC
T
U
A
L
4
2
2
5
x
x
x
x
x
x
4
3
1
1
x
x
x
x
x
x
4
4
9
8
x
x
x
x
x
x
4
5
3
5
x
x
x
x
x
x
4
6
3
4
x
x
x
x
x
x
Pr
j
3
E
.
1
3
4
3
0
1
7
6
1
.
8
0
%
4
3
6
9
5
8
2
.
7
4
%
4
4
5
5
(
4
3
)
(
0
.
3
2
)
%
4
5
7
7
4
2
0
.
9
3
%
4
6
3
0
(4)(0.09)%
Pr
j
3
E
.
6
4
3
1
3
8
8
2
.
0
8
%
4
3
9
4
8
3
1
.
5
1
%
4
4
7
6
(
2
2
)
(
1
.
4
9
)
%
4
5
9
4
5
9
1
.
3
0
%
4
6
3
9
5
0
.
1
1
%
Pr
j
3
E
.
1
3
A
4
3
0
1
7
6
1
.
8
0
%
4
3
6
9
5
8
2
.
7
4
%
4
4
5
5
(
4
3
)
(
0
.
3
2
)
%
4
5
7
7
4
2
0
.
9
3
%
4
6
3
0
(4)(0.09)%
Pr
j
3
E
.
6
A
4
3
1
3
8
8
2
.
0
8
%
4
3
9
4
8
3
1
.
5
1
%
4
4
7
6
(
2
2
)
(
1
.
4
9
)
%
4
5
9
4
5
9
1
.
3
0
%
4
6
3
9
5
0
.
1
1
%
All
1
9
9
9
-
0
0
2
0
0
0
-
0
1
2
0
0
1
-
0
2
2
0
0
2
-
0
3
2
0
0
3
-
0
4
Gr
a
d
e
s
T
o
t
a
l
D
i
f
f
%
T
o
t
a
l
D
i
f
f
%
T
o
t
a
l
D
i
f
f
%
T
o
t
a
l
D
i
f
f
%
T
o
t
a
l
D
i
f
f
%
AC
T
U
A
L
1
3
0
5
1
x
x
x
x
x
x
1
3
1
3
5
x
x
x
x
x
x
1
3
4
6
1
x
x
x
x
x
x
1
3
4
2
7
x
x
x
x
x
x
1
3
7
0
2
x
x
x
x
x
x
Pr
j
3
E
.
1
3
1
3
0
0
6
(4
5
)
(0
.
3
4
)
%
1
3
2
0
3
6
8
0
.
5
2
%
1
3
3
0
7
(1
5
4
)
(0
.
3
0
)
%
1
3
4
8
5
5
8
0
.
9
7
%
1
3
4
9
9
(203)(1.48)%
Pr
j
3
E
.
6
1
2
9
4
3
(1
0
8
)
(0
.
8
3
)
%
1
3
0
6
7
(6
8
)
(0
.
5
2
)
%
1
3
2
8
9
(1
7
2
)
(0
.
8
2
)
%
1
3
5
2
1
9
4
0
.
5
0
%
1
3
5
1
7
(185)(1.35)%
Pr
j
3
E
.
1
3
A
1
3
0
3
9
(1
2
)
(0
.
0
9
)
%
1
3
3
1
1
1
7
6
1
.
3
4
%
1
3
3
1
9
(1
4
2
)
(1
.
4
4
)
%
1
3
5
0
5
7
8
0
.
1
0
%
1
3
4
4
9
(253)(1.85)%
Pr
j
3
E
.
6
A
1
2
9
9
3
(5
8
)
(0
.
4
4
)
%
1
3
2
9
8
1
6
3
1
.
2
4
%
1
3
3
1
8
(1
4
3
)
(1
.
8
9
)
%
1
3
5
6
2
1
3
5
(
0
.
3
3
)
%
1
3
4
8
6
(216)(1.58)%
PR
O
J
E
C
T
I
O
N
C
O
M
P
A
R
I
S
O
N
S
BY
G
R
A
D
E
G
R
O
U
P
pr
j
1
1
-
1
2
Pa
g
e
1
1
October 2011
AU
B
U
R
N
S
C
H
O
O
L
D
I
S
T
R
I
C
T
S
T
U
D
E
N
T
E
NR
O
L
L
M
E
N
T
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
-
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
2
0
1
1
TA
B
L
E
5
To
t
a
l
=
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
A
c
t
u
a
l
C
o
u
n
t
A
N
D
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
C
o
u
n
t
s
P
r
j
3
.
1
3
-
1
3
YE
A
R
H
I
S
T
O
R
Y
&
U
s
i
n
g
A
v
e
r
ag
e
K
d
g
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
Di
f
f
=
N
u
m
b
e
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
i
s
u
n
d
e
r
(
-
)
o
r
o
v
e
r
A
c
t
u
a
l
P
r
j
3
.
6
-
6
YE
A
R
H
I
S
T
O
R
Y
&
U
s
i
n
g
A
v
e
r
ag
e
K
d
g
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
%
=
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
i
s
u
n
d
e
r
(
-
)
o
r
o
v
e
r
A
c
t
u
a
l
P
r
j
3
.
1
3
A
1
3
YE
A
R
H
I
S
T
O
R
Y
&
K
i
n
g
C
t
y
B
i
r
t
h
R
a
t
e
s
Pr
j
3
.
6
A
-
6
Y
E
A
R
H
I
S
T
O
R
Y
&
K
i
n
g
C
t
y
B
i
r
t
h
R
a
t
e
s
Gr
a
d
e
s
20
0
4
-
0
5
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
2
0
0
6
-
0
7
2
0
0
7
-
0
8
2
0
0
8
-
0
9
K
-
5
T
o
t
a
l
D
i
f
f
%
T
o
t
a
l
D
i
f
f
%
T
o
t
a
l
D
i
f
f
%
T
o
t
a
l
D
i
f
f
%
T
o
t
a
l
D
i
f
f
%
AC
T
U
A
L
5
7
3
5
x
x
x
x
x
x
5
8
8
7
x
x
x
x
x
x
6
0
3
3
x
x
x
x
x
x
6
1
4
2
x
x
x
x
x
x
6
1
9
8
x
x
x
x
x
x
Pr
j
3
E
.
1
3
5
7
6
1
2
6
(
0
.
4
9
)
%
5
7
5
0
(1
3
7
)
(2
.
3
3
)
%
5
8
7
1
(1
6
2
)
(2
.
6
9
)
%
6
0
8
5
(5
7
)
(0
.
9
3
)
%
6
1
7
9
(19)(0.31)%
Pr
j
3
E
.
6
5
8
2
1
8
6
(
0
.
3
4
)
%
5
7
9
5
(9
2
)
(1
.
5
6
)
%
5
9
2
1
(1
1
2
)
(1
.
8
6
)
%
6
1
3
8
(4
)
(0
.
0
7
)
%
6
2
3
7
3
9
0
.
6
3
%
Pr
j
3
E
.
1
3
A
5
7
0
9
(2
6
)
(1
.
2
4
)
%
5
7
5
0
(1
3
7
)
(2
.
3
3
)
%
5
8
6
9
(1
6
4
)
(2
.
7
2
)
%
6
0
5
9
(8
3
)
(1
.
3
5
)
%
6
1
2
9
(69)(1.11)%
Pr
j
3
E
.
6
A
5
7
5
6
2
1
(
0
.
8
1
)
%
5
7
8
4
(1
0
3
)
(1
.
7
5
)
%
5
9
1
2
(1
2
1
)
(2
.
0
1
)
%
6
0
9
4
(4
8
)
(0
.
7
8
)
%
6
1
7
2
(26)(0.42)%
Gr
a
d
e
s
20
0
4
-
0
5
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
2
0
0
3
-
0
4
2
0
0
7
-
0
8
2
0
0
8
-
0
9
6
-
8
T
o
t
a
l
D
i
f
f
%
T
o
t
a
l
D
i
f
f
%
T
o
t
a
l
D
i
f
f
%
T
o
t
a
l
D
i
f
f
%
T
o
t
a
l
D
i
f
f
%
AC
T
U
A
L
3
2
7
4
x
x
x
x
x
x
3
1
6
9
x
x
x
x
x
x
3
1
4
4
x
x
x
x
x
x
3
0
9
7
x
x
x
x
x
x
3
2
0
6
x
x
x
x
x
x
Pr
j
3
E
.
1
3
3
2
9
5
2
1
(
8
.
8
6
)
%
3
1
3
2
(3
7
)
(1
.
1
7
)
%
3
1
3
1
(1
3
)
(0
.
4
1
)
%
3
1
0
7
1
0
0
.
3
2
%
3
1
7
9
(27)(0.84)%
Pr
j
3
E
.
6
3
3
1
1
3
7
(
6
.
0
6
)
%
3
1
3
7
(3
2
)
(1
.
0
1
)
%
3
1
4
6
2
0
.
0
6
%
3
1
1
6
1
9
0
.
6
1
%
3
1
9
5
(11)(0.34)%
Pr
j
3
E
.
1
3
A
3
2
9
5
2
1
(
8
.
8
8
)
%
3
1
3
2
(3
7
)
(1
.
1
7
)
%
3
1
3
1
(1
3
)
(0
.
4
1
)
%
3
1
0
7
1
0
0
.
3
2
%
3
1
7
9
(27)(0.84)%
Pr
j
3
E
.
6
A
3
3
1
1
3
7
(
6
.
0
6
)
%
3
1
3
7
(3
2
)
(1
.
0
1
)
%
3
1
4
6
2
0
.
0
6
%
3
1
1
6
1
9
0
.
6
1
%
3
1
9
5
(11)(0.34)%
Gr
a
d
e
s
20
0
4
-
0
5
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
2
0
0
3
-
0
4
2
0
0
7
-
0
8
2
0
0
8
-
0
9
9
-
1
2
T
o
t
a
l
D
i
f
f
%
T
o
t
a
l
D
i
f
f
%
T
o
t
a
l
D
i
f
f
%
T
o
t
a
l
D
i
f
f
%
T
o
t
a
l
D
i
f
f
%
AC
T
U
A
L
4
6
6
3
x
x
x
x
x
x
5
0
3
2
x
x
x
x
x
x
5
2
4
1
x
x
x
x
x
x
5
3
2
0
x
x
x
x
x
x
5
2
9
9
x
x
x
x
x
x
Pr
j
3
E
.
1
3
4
7
8
3
1
2
0
5
.
9
0
%
4
8
9
8
(1
3
4
)
(2
.
6
6
)
%
5
0
8
5
(1
5
6
)
(2
.
9
8
)
%
5
1
9
0
(1
3
0
)
(2
.
4
4
)
%
5
1
2
9
(170)(3.21)%
Pr
j
3
E
.
6
4
7
6
9
1
0
6
3
.
6
9
%
4
8
8
0
(1
5
2
)
(3
.
0
2
)
%
5
0
8
6
(1
5
5
)
(2
.
9
6
)
%
5
1
9
2
(1
2
8
)
(2
.
4
1
)
%
5
1
5
5
(144)(2.72)%
Pr
j
3
E
.
1
3
A
4
7
8
3
1
2
0
5
.
9
0
%
4
8
9
8
(1
3
4
)
(2
.
6
6
)
%
5
0
8
5
(1
5
6
)
(2
.
9
8
)
%
5
1
9
0
(1
3
0
)
(2
.
4
4
)
%
5
1
2
9
(170)(3.21)%
Pr
j
3
E
.
6
A
4
7
6
9
1
0
6
3
.
6
9
%
4
8
8
0
(1
5
2
)
(3
.
0
2
)
%
5
0
8
6
(1
5
5
)
(2
.
9
6
)
%
5
1
9
2
(1
2
8
)
(2
.
4
1
)
%
5
1
5
5
(144)(2.72)%
All
2
0
0
4
-
0
5
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
2
0
0
3
-
0
4
2
0
0
7
-
0
8
2
0
0
8
-
0
9
Gr
a
d
e
s
T
o
t
a
l
D
i
f
f
%
T
o
t
a
l
D
i
f
f
%
T
o
t
a
l
D
i
f
f
%
T
o
t
a
l
D
i
f
f
%
T
o
t
a
l
D
i
f
f
%
AC
T
U
A
L
1
3
6
7
2
x
x
x
x
x
x
1
4
0
8
8
x
x
x
x
x
x
1
3
6
7
2
x
x
x
x
x
x
1
4
5
5
9
x
x
x
x
x
x
1
4
7
0
3
x
x
x
x
x
x
Pr
j
3
E
.
1
3
1
3
8
3
9
1
6
7
1
.
2
2
%
1
3
7
8
0
(3
0
8
)
(2
.
1
9
)
%
1
3
4
9
9
(1
7
3
)
(1
.
2
7
)
%
1
4
3
8
2
(1
7
7
)
(1
.
2
2
)
%
1
4
4
8
7
(216)(1.47)%
Pr
j
3
E
.
6
1
3
9
0
1
2
2
9
1
.
6
7
%
1
3
8
1
2
(2
7
6
)
(1
.
9
6
)
%
1
3
5
4
2
(1
3
0
)
(0
.
9
5
)
%
1
4
4
4
6
(1
1
3
)
(0
.
7
8
)
%
1
4
5
8
7
(116)(0.79)%
Pr
j
3
E
.
1
3
A
1
3
7
8
7
1
1
5
0
.
8
4
%
1
3
7
8
0
(3
0
8
)
(2
.
1
9
)
%
1
3
4
4
7
(2
2
5
)
(1
.
6
5
)
%
1
4
3
5
6
(2
0
3
)
(1
.
3
9
)
%
1
4
4
3
7
(266)(1.81)%
Pr
j
3
E
.
6
A
1
3
8
3
6
1
6
4
1
.
2
0
%
1
3
8
0
1
(2
8
7
)
(2
.
0
4
)
%
1
3
5
1
0
(1
6
2
)
(1
.
1
8
)
%
1
4
4
0
2
(1
5
7
)
(1
.
0
8
)
%
1
4
5
2
2
(181)(1.23)%
BY
G
R
A
D
E
G
R
O
U
P
(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
PR
O
J
E
C
T
I
O
N
C
O
M
P
A
R
I
S
O
N
S
pr
j
1
1
-
1
2
Pa
g
e
1
2
October 2011
AU
B
U
R
N
S
C
H
O
O
L
D
I
S
T
R
I
C
T
S
T
U
D
E
N
T
E
NR
O
L
L
M
E
N
T
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
-
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
2
0
1
1
TA
B
L
E
5
To
t
a
l
=
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
A
c
t
u
a
l
C
o
u
n
t
A
N
D
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
C
o
u
n
t
s
P
r
j
3
.
1
3
-
1
3
YE
A
R
H
I
S
T
O
R
Y
&
U
s
i
n
g
A
v
e
r
ag
e
K
d
g
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
Di
f
f
=
N
u
m
b
e
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
i
s
u
n
d
e
r
(
-
)
o
r
o
v
e
r
A
c
t
u
a
l
P
r
j
3
.
6
-
6
YE
A
R
H
I
S
T
O
R
Y
&
U
s
i
n
g
A
v
e
r
ag
e
K
d
g
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
%
=
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
i
s
u
n
d
e
r
(
-
)
o
r
o
v
e
r
A
c
t
u
a
l
P
r
j
3
.
1
3
A
1
3
YE
A
R
H
I
S
T
O
R
Y
&
K
i
n
g
C
t
y
B
i
r
t
h
R
a
t
e
s
Pr
j
3
.
6
A
-
6
Y
E
A
R
H
I
S
T
O
R
Y
&
K
i
n
g
C
t
y
B
i
r
t
h
R
a
t
e
s
Gr
a
d
e
s
20
0
9
-
1
0
2
0
1
0
-
1
1
2
0
1
1
-
1
2
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
D
a
t
a
i
s
g
r
o
u
ped by
K
-
5
T
o
t
a
l
D
i
f
f
%
T
o
t
a
l
D
i
f
f
%
T
o
t
a
l
D
i
f
f
%
D
i
f
f
%
K
-
5
,
6
-
8
,
9
-
1
2
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
AC
T
U
A
L
6
1
5
9
x
x
x
x
x
x
6
2
0
8
x
x
x
x
x
x
6
2
3
0
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
p
a
t
t
e
r
n
.
Pr
j
3
E
.
1
3
6
2
5
4
9
5
1
.
5
4
%
6
2
8
2
7
4
1
.
1
9
%
6
2
7
5
4
5
0
.
7
2
%
(4
3
)
(0
.
4
6
)
%
Pr
j
3
E
.
6
6
2
9
4
1
3
5
2
.
1
9
%
6
3
2
3
1
1
5
1
.
8
5
%
6
2
6
7
3
7
0
.
5
9
%
(3
6
)
(0
.
2
4
)
%
A
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
p
a
t
t
e
r
n
h
a
s
n
o
Pr
j
3
E
.
1
3
A
6
2
3
7
7
8
1
.
2
7
%
6
2
5
2
4
4
0
.
7
1
%
6
2
6
6
3
6
0
.
5
8
%
(4
7
)
(0
.
9
4
)
%
n
u
m
e
r
i
c
i
m
p
a
c
t
o
n
e
f
f
i
c
a
c
y
Pr
j
3
E
.
6
A
6
2
6
4
1
0
5
1
.
7
0
%
6
2
6
9
6
1
0
.
9
8
%
6
2
6
0
3
0
0
.
4
8
%
(3
1
)
(0
.
7
1
)
%
o
f
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
m
o
d
e
l
s
.
Gr
a
d
e
s
20
0
9
-
1
0
2
0
1
0
-
1
1
2
0
1
1
-
1
2
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
6
-
8
T
o
t
a
l
D
i
f
f
%
T
o
t
a
l
D
i
f
f
%
T
o
t
a
l
D
i
f
f
%
D
i
f
f
%
AC
T
U
A
L
3
1
9
6
x
x
x
x
x
x
3
2
1
3
x
x
x
x
x
x
3
1
4
1
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Pr
j
3
E
.
1
3
3
2
4
2
4
6
1
.
4
4
%
3
2
3
4
2
1
0
.
6
5
%
3
2
2
1
8
0
2
.
5
5
%
(5
)
(1
.
2
2
)
%
Pr
j
3
E
.
6
3
2
4
3
4
7
1
.
4
7
%
3
2
3
6
2
3
0
.
7
2
%
3
2
1
1
7
0
2
.
2
3
%
(4
)
(0
.
9
6
)
%
Pr
j
3
E
.
1
3
A
3
2
4
2
4
6
1
.
4
4
%
3
2
3
4
2
1
0
.
6
5
%
3
2
2
1
8
0
2
.
5
5
%
(5
)
(1
.
2
2
)
%
Pr
j
3
E
.
6
A
3
2
4
3
4
7
1
.
4
7
%
3
2
3
6
2
3
0
.
7
2
%
3
2
1
1
7
0
2
.
2
3
%
(4
)
(0
.
9
6
)
%
Gr
a
d
e
s
20
0
9
-
1
0
2
0
1
0
-
1
1
2
0
1
1
-
1
2
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
9
-
1
2
T
o
t
a
l
D
i
f
f
%
T
o
t
a
l
D
i
f
f
%
T
o
t
a
l
D
i
f
f
%
D
i
f
f
%
AC
T
U
A
L
5
2
3
4
x
x
x
x
x
x
5
0
6
1
x
x
x
x
x
x
4
9
9
2
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Pr
j
3
E
.
1
3
5
0
7
4
(1
6
0
)
(3
.
0
6
)
%
4
9
2
1
(1
4
0
)
(2
.
7
7
)
%
4
9
0
1
(9
1
)
(1
.
8
2
)
%
(4
4
)
(0
.
3
8
)
%
Pr
j
3
E
.
6
5
1
2
8
(1
0
6
)
(2
.
0
3
)
%
5
0
2
7
(3
4
)
(0
.
6
7
)
%
5
0
1
7
2
5
0
.
5
0
%
(2
1
)
(0
.
3
1
)
%
Pr
j
3
E
.
1
3
A
5
0
7
4
(1
6
0
)
(3
.
0
6
)
%
4
9
2
1
(1
4
0
)
(2
.
7
7
)
%
4
9
0
1
(9
1
)
(1
.
8
2
)
%
(4
4
)
(0
.
3
8
)
%
Pr
j
3
E
.
6
A
5
1
2
9
(1
0
5
)
(2
.
0
1
)
%
5
0
2
7
(3
4
)
(0
.
6
7
)
%
5
0
1
7
2
5
0
.
5
0
%
(2
1
)
(0
.
3
1
)
%
All
2
0
0
9
-
1
0
2
0
1
0
-
1
1
2
0
1
1
-
1
2
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
Gr
a
d
e
s
T
o
t
a
l
D
i
f
f
%
T
o
t
a
l
D
i
f
f
%
T
o
t
a
l
D
i
f
f
%
D
i
f
f
%
AC
T
U
A
L
1
4
5
8
9
x
x
x
x
x
x
1
4
4
8
2
x
x
x
x
x
x
1
4
3
6
3
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Pr
j
3
E
.
1
3
1
4
5
7
0
(1
9
)
(0
.
1
3
)
%
1
4
4
3
7
(4
5
)
(0
.
3
1
)
%
1
4
3
9
7
3
4
0
.
2
4
%
(7
8
)
(0
.
4
3
)
%
Pr
j
3
E
.
6
1
4
6
6
5
7
6
0
.
5
2
%
1
4
5
8
6
1
0
4
0
.
7
2
%
1
4
4
9
5
1
3
2
0
.
9
2
%
(4
1
)
(0
.
3
2
)
%
Pr
j
3
E
.
1
3
A
1
4
5
5
3
(3
6
)
(0
.
2
5
)
%
1
4
4
0
7
(7
5
)
(0
.
5
2
)
%
1
4
3
8
8
2
5
0
.
1
7
%
(8
7
)
(0
.
6
5
)
%
Pr
j
3
E
.
6
A
1
4
6
3
6
4
7
0
.
3
2
%
1
4
5
3
2
5
0
0
.
3
5
%
1
4
4
8
8
1
2
5
0
.
8
7
%
(4
0
)
(0
.
4
7
)
%
PR
O
J
E
C
T
I
O
N
C
O
M
P
A
R
I
S
O
N
S
BY
G
R
A
D
E
G
R
O
U
P
(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
pr
j
1
1
-
1
2
Pa
g
e
1
3
October 2011
Appendix A.2 - CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
Enrollment Projections
Bu
i
l
d
o
u
t
D
a
t
a
f
o
r
E
n
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
-
M
a
r
c
h
2
0
1
2
BA
S
E
D
A
T
A
-
B
U
I
L
D
O
U
T
S
C
H
E
D
U
L
E
St
u
d
e
n
t
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
a
c
t
o
r
s
AS
S
U
M
P
T
I
O
N
S
:
20
1
2
A
u
b
u
r
n
SingleMulti-
1
U
s
e
s
B
u
i
l
d
O
u
t
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d
f
r
o
m
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
s
.
Fa
c
t
o
r
s
FamilyFamily
2
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
a
c
t
o
r
s
a
r
e
u
p
d
a
t
e
d
A
u
b
u
r
n
d
a
t
a
f
o
r
2
0
1
2
a
s
a
l
l
o
w
e
d
p
e
r
K
i
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
0
.
2
6
1
0
0
.
1
7
2
0
3
T
a
k
e
s
a
r
e
a
l
a
b
e
l
e
d
L
a
k
e
l
a
n
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
@
5
0
%
a
n
d
d
i
v
i
d
e
s
a
c
r
o
s
s
2
0
1
2
-
1
7
Mi
d
d
l
e
S
c
h
o
o
l
0
.
1
3
0
0
0
.
0
7
0
0
4
T
a
k
e
s
a
r
e
a
l
a
b
e
l
e
d
K
e
r
s
e
y
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
@
5
0
%
d
i
v
i
d
e
s
a
c
r
o
s
s
2
0
1
2
-
2
0
1
7
Se
n
i
o
r
H
i
g
h
0
.
1
3
4
0
0
.
0
9
0
0
5
T
a
k
e
s
a
r
e
a
l
a
b
e
l
e
d
B
r
i
d
g
e
s
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
L
e
a
H
i
l
l
a
r
e
a
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
a
c
r
o
s
s
2
0
1
2
-
2
0
1
8
To
t
a
l
0
.
5
2
5
0
0
.
3
3
2
0
6
I
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
k
n
o
w
n
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
i
n
N
.
A
u
b
u
r
n
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
n
o
n
-
L
e
a
H
i
l
l
a
n
d
n
o
n
-
L
a
k
e
l
a
n
d
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
(
s
e
e
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
G
r
o
w
t
h
)
Ta
b
l
e
Aub
u
r
n
S
c
h
o
o
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
1
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
20
1
2
2
0
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
8
T
o
t
a
l
La
k
e
l
a
n
d
/
K
e
r
s
e
y
S
i
n
g
l
e
F
a
m
i
l
y
5
0
6
0
7
0
8
0
8
0
8
0
4
2
0
Le
a
H
i
l
l
A
r
e
a
S
i
n
g
l
e
F
a
m
i
l
y
5
0
8
5
1
0
0
1
7
5
2
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
1
0
Ot
h
e
r
S
i
n
g
l
e
F
a
m
i
l
y
U
n
i
t
s
3
5
4
0
5
0
6
5
6
5
5
5
4
5
3
5
5
To
t
a
l
S
i
n
g
l
e
F
a
m
i
l
y
U
n
i
t
s
1
3
5
1
8
5
2
2
0
3
2
0
3
4
5
3
3
5
2
4
5
1
7
8
5
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
P
u
p
i
l
s
:
K-
5
3
5
4
8
5
7
8
4
9
0
8
7
6
4
4
6
6
6-
8
1
8
2
4
2
9
4
2
4
5
4
4
3
2
2
3
2
9-
1
2
1
8
2
5
2
9
4
3
4
6
4
5
3
3
2
3
9
K-
1
2
7
1
9
7
1
1
6
1
6
8
1
8
1
1
7
6
1
2
9
93
7
Mu
l
t
i
F
a
m
i
l
y
U
n
i
t
s
2
5
7
5
7
5
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
3
7
5
To
t
a
l
M
u
l
t
i
F
a
m
i
l
y
U
n
i
t
s
2
5
7
5
7
5
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
3
7
5
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
P
u
p
i
l
s
:
K-5
4
1
3
1
3
1
7
1
7
0
0
4
4
6-8
2
5
5
7
7
0
0
1
1
9-
1
2
27
7
9
9
0
0
2
5
K-
1
2
8
2
5
2
5
3
3
3
3
0
0
80
To
t
a
l
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
s
1
6
0
2
6
0
2
9
5
4
2
0
4
4
5
3
3
5
2
4
5
2
1
6
0
K-
5
4
0
6
1
7
0
1
0
1
1
0
7
8
7
6
4
5
3
0
6-
8
1
9
2
9
3
4
4
9
5
2
4
4
3
2
2
5
8
9-
1
2
2
0
3
2
3
6
5
2
5
5
4
5
3
3
2
7
3
K-
1
2
7
9
1
2
2
1
4
0
2
0
1
2
1
4
1
7
6
1
2
9
10
6
2
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
20
1
1
-
1
2
2
0
1
2
-
1
3
2
0
1
3
-
1
4
2
0
1
4
-
1
5
2
0
1
5
-
1
6
2
0
1
6
-
1
7
2
0
1
7
-
1
8
40
1
0
1
1
7
1
2
7
2
3
7
9
4
6
6
5
3
0
19
4
9
8
2
1
3
1
1
8
3
2
2
6
2
5
8
20
5
2
8
8
1
4
0
1
9
5
2
4
0
2
7
3
79
2
0
1
3
4
2
5
4
3
7
5
7
9
3
3
1
0
6
2
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
P
u
p
i
l
s
Mi
d
S
c
h
o
o
l
P
u
p
i
l
s
Sr
.
H
i
g
h
P
u
p
i
l
s
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
P
u
p
i
l
s
To
t
a
l
Mi
d
S
c
h
o
o
l
P
u
p
i
l
s
Sr
.
H
i
g
h
P
u
p
i
l
s
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
P
u
p
i
l
s
Mi
d
S
c
h
o
o
l
P
u
p
i
l
s
To
t
a
l
To
t
a
l
Sr
.
H
i
g
h
P
u
p
i
l
s
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
-
G
r
a
d
e
s
K
-
5
Mi
d
S
c
h
o
o
l
-
G
r
a
d
e
s
6
-
8
Se
n
i
o
r
H
i
g
h
-
G
r
a
d
e
s
9
-
1
2
To
t
a
l
Bu
i
l
d
o
u
t
s
M
a
r
c
h
1
2
+
N
D
3
.
6
a
v
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
45
Bu
i
l
d
o
u
t
D
a
t
a
f
o
r
E
n
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
-
M
a
r
c
h
2
0
1
2
TA
B
L
E
N
e
w
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
-
A
n
n
u
a
l
N
e
w
P
u
p
i
l
s
A
d
d
e
d
&
D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
d
2
b
y
G
r
a
d
e
L
e
v
e
l
6
Y
e
a
r
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
GR
A
D
E
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
P
u
p
i
l
s
b
y
G
r
a
d
e
2
0
1
1
-
1
2
2
0
1
2
-
1
3
2
0
1
3
-
1
4
2
0
1
4
-
1
5
2
0
1
5
-
1
6
2
0
1
6
-
1
7
2
0
1
7
-
1
8
2
0
1
8
-
1
9
En
r
o
l
l
.
&
L
e
v
e
l
KD
G
1
0
0
1
6.
8
9
%
10
2
9
5
1
4
2
4
3
7
5
2
6
4
7
3
1
1
0
3
2
7.
1
0
%
10
6
8
6
1
4
2
4
3
9
5
4
6
6
7
5
2
1
0
2
6
7.
0
7
%
4
2
.
4
4
%
10
9
7
6
1
4
2
4
3
8
5
4
6
6
7
5
3
1
0
1
3
6.
9
8
%
996
6
1
4
2
4
3
8
5
3
6
5
7
4
4
1
0
4
5
7.
2
0
%
10
2
2
6
1
4
2
5
3
9
5
4
6
7
7
6
5
1
0
4
5
7.
2
0
%
10
1
8
6
1
4
2
5
3
9
5
5
6
7
7
6
6
1
0
5
1
7.
2
4
%
10
6
3
6
1
5
2
5
3
9
5
5
6
8
7
7
7
1
0
5
4
7.
2
6
%
2
1
.
8
1
%
10
3
2
6
1
5
2
5
3
9
5
5
6
8
7
7
8
1
0
6
2
7.
3
1
%
10
4
6
6
1
5
2
5
4
0
5
5
6
8
7
8
9
1
2
8
4
8.
8
4
%
12
7
3
7
1
8
3
0
4
8
6
7
8
2
9
4
10
1
2
9
9
8.
9
5
%
3
5
.
7
5
%
11
7
0
7
1
8
3
1
4
9
6
8
8
3
9
5
11
1
3
0
3
8.
9
7
%
12
3
3
7
1
8
3
1
4
9
6
8
8
4
9
5
12
1
3
0
5
8.
9
9
%
13
1
6
7
1
8
3
1
4
9
6
8
8
4
9
5
To
t
a
l
s
1
4
5
1
9
10
0
.
0
0
%
T
o
t
a
l
14
3
6
3
7
9
2
0
1
3
4
2
5
4
3
7
5
7
9
3
3
1
0
6
2
TA
B
L
E
6
y
e
a
r
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
D
a
t
a
3
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
E
n
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
d
b
y
G
r
a
d
e
L
e
v
e
l
Gr
a
d
e
06
-
0
7
0
7
-
0
8
0
8
-
0
9
0
9
-
1
0
1
0
-
1
1
1
1
-
1
2
6y
r
A
v
e
%
KD
G
9
4
1
9
9
6
9
9
8
1
0
3
2
1
0
1
0
1
0
2
9
1
0
0
1
.
0
0
6
.
8
9
%
1
1
0
1
2
9
9
5
1
0
1
5
1
0
3
3
1
0
6
6
1
0
6
8
1
0
3
1
.
5
0
7
.
1
0
%
2
1
0
0
2
1
0
1
9
1
0
2
4
9
9
8
1
0
1
6
1
0
9
7
1
0
2
6
.
0
0
7
.
0
7
%
3
1
0
3
1
9
9
7
1
0
4
8
9
9
3
1
0
1
3
9
9
6
1
0
1
3
.
0
0
6
.
9
8
%
4
1
0
4
9
1
0
5
7
1
0
4
4
1
0
7
3
1
0
2
4
1
0
2
2
1
0
4
4
.
8
3
7
.
2
0
%
5
9
9
8
1
0
7
8
1
0
6
9
1
0
3
0
1
0
7
9
1
0
1
8
1
0
4
5
.
3
3
7
.
2
0
%
6
1
0
5
8
1
0
0
7
1
0
9
6
1
0
4
0
1
0
4
1
1
0
6
3
1
0
5
0
.
8
3
7
.
2
4
%
7
1
0
1
4
1
0
5
7
1
0
3
4
1
1
2
5
1
0
6
0
1
0
3
2
1
0
5
3
.
6
7
7
.
2
6
%
8
1
0
7
2
1
0
3
3
1
0
7
6
1
0
3
1
1
1
1
2
1
0
4
6
1
0
6
1
.
6
7
7
.
3
1
%
9
1
3
7
2
1
3
3
7
1
2
5
6
1
2
4
4
1
2
2
1
1
2
7
3
1
2
8
3
.
8
3
8
.
8
4
%
10
1
4
0
0
1
3
6
8
1
3
4
1
1
2
7
7
1
2
3
8
1
1
7
0
1
2
9
9
.
0
0
8
.
9
5
%
11
1
3
2
2
1
3
5
2
1
3
5
0
1
3
0
3
1
2
5
8
1
2
3
3
1
3
0
3
.
0
0
8
.
9
7
%
12
1
1
4
7
1
2
6
3
1
3
5
2
1
4
1
0
1
3
4
4
1
3
1
6
1
3
0
5
.
3
3
8
.
9
9
%
To
t
a
l
s
1
4
4
1
8
1
4
5
5
9
1
4
7
0
3
1
4
5
8
9
1
4
4
8
2
1
4
3
6
3
1
4
5
1
9
.
0
0
1
0
0
.
0
0
%
%
o
f
c
h
a
n
g
e
0
.
9
8
%
0
.
9
9
%
-
0
.
7
8
%
-
0
.
7
3
%
-
0
.
8
2
%
ch
a
n
g
e
+
/
-
1
4
1
1
4
4
(1
1
4
)
(
1
0
7
)
(
1
1
9
)
Bu
i
l
d
o
u
t
s
M
a
r
c
h
1
2
+
N
D
3
.
6
a
v
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
46
Bu
i
l
d
o
u
t
D
a
t
a
f
o
r
E
n
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
-
M
a
r
c
h
2
0
1
2
TA
B
L
E
4
N
e
w
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
-
P
u
p
i
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
ND
3
.
1
3
b
y
G
r
a
d
e
L
e
v
e
l
U
p
d
a
t
e
d
M
a
r
c
h
2
0
1
2
Us
e
s
a
'
c
o
h
o
r
t
s
u
r
v
i
v
a
l
'
GR
A
D
E
2
0
1
1
-
1
2
2
0
1
2
-
1
3
2
0
1
3
-
1
4
2
0
1
4
-
1
5
2
0
1
5
-
1
6
2
0
1
6
-
1
7
2
0
1
7
-
1
8
2
0
1
8
-
1
9
mo
d
e
l
a
s
s
u
m
i
n
g
1
0
0
%
o
f
Ac
t
u
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
pr
e
v
i
o
u
s
y
e
a
r
n
e
w
KD
G
1
0
2
9
1
0
4
9
1
0
7
3
1
0
9
8
1
1
2
6
1
1
5
6
1
1
8
3
1
2
0
7
en
r
o
l
l
e
e
s
m
o
v
e
t
o
t
h
e
n
e
x
t
1
1
0
6
8
1
0
8
5
1
1
0
9
1
1
3
4
1
1
6
3
1
1
9
4
1
2
2
1
1
2
4
5
gr
a
d
e
l
e
v
e
l
.
2
1
0
9
7
1
0
8
2
1
1
0
2
1
1
2
7
1
1
5
7
1
1
8
7
1
2
1
4
1
2
3
8
3
9
9
6
1
1
1
7
1
1
0
5
1
1
2
6
1
1
5
5
1
1
8
5
1
2
1
2
1
2
3
6
Ki
n
d
e
r
g
a
r
t
e
n
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
s
4
1
0
2
2
1
0
2
7
1
1
5
1
1
1
4
0
1
1
6
7
1
1
9
7
1
2
2
5
1
2
4
9
pr
e
v
i
o
u
s
y
e
a
r
s
n
u
m
b
e
r
p
l
u
s
5
1
0
1
8
1
0
4
5
1
0
5
3
1
1
7
9
1
1
7
2
1
2
0
0
1
2
2
7
1
2
5
2
K-
5
6
2
3
0
6
4
0
6
6
5
9
3
6
8
0
4
6
9
4
1
7
1
1
8
7
2
8
3
7
4
2
8
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
6
1
0
6
3
1
0
3
3
1
0
6
3
1
0
7
3
1
2
0
3
1
1
9
8
1
2
2
2
1
2
4
6
%
o
f
t
o
t
a
l
e
n
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
.
O
t
h
e
r
7
1
0
3
2
1
0
8
0
1
0
5
3
1
0
8
5
1
0
9
9
1
2
2
9
1
2
2
2
1
2
4
3
fa
c
t
o
r
u
s
e
s
1
0
0
%
c
o
h
o
r
t
8
1
0
4
6
1
0
4
8
1
0
9
9
1
0
7
3
1
1
1
0
1
1
2
4
1
2
5
2
1
2
4
1
su
r
v
i
v
a
l
,
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
6
y
e
a
r
GR
6
-
8
3
1
4
1
3
1
6
1
3
2
1
5
3
2
3
1
3
4
1
1
3
5
5
1
3
6
9
6
3
7
3
0
hi
s
t
o
r
y
.
9
1
2
7
3
1
3
3
9
1
3
4
6
1
4
0
0
1
3
8
2
1
4
2
3
1
4
3
8
1
5
6
4
10
1
1
7
0
1
2
0
8
1
2
7
8
1
2
8
7
1
3
4
7
1
3
3
0
1
3
6
8
1
3
7
8
11
1
2
3
3
1
0
9
7
1
1
3
9
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
4
1
2
8
6
1
2
6
6
1
2
9
9
12
1
3
1
6
1
1
9
7
1
0
6
5
1
1
0
9
1
1
8
6
1
2
0
1
1
2
5
9
1
2
3
5
GR
9
-
1
2
4
9
9
2
4
8
4
1
4
8
2
8
5
0
0
6
5
1
3
9
5
2
4
0
5
3
3
0
5
4
7
6
To
t
a
l
1
4
3
6
3
1
4
4
0
8
1
4
6
3
6
1
5
0
4
1
1
5
4
9
1
1
5
9
1
0
1
6
3
0
9
1
6
6
3
4
%
o
f
c
h
a
n
g
e
0
.
3
1
%
1
.
5
9
%
2
.
7
7
%
2
.
9
9
%
2
.
7
0
%
2
.
5
1
%
1
.
9
9
%
ch
a
n
g
e
+
/
-
4
5
2
2
8
4
0
5
4
5
0
4
1
9
4
0
0
3
2
5
TA
B
L
E
5
N
e
w
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
-
P
u
p
i
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
ND
3
.
6
b
y
G
r
a
d
e
L
e
v
e
l
U
p
d
a
t
e
d
M
a
r
c
h
2
0
1
2
Us
e
s
a
'
c
o
h
o
r
t
s
u
r
v
i
v
a
l
'
GR
A
D
E
2
0
1
1
-
1
2
2
0
1
2
-
1
3
2
0
1
3
-
1
4
2
0
1
4
-
1
5
2
0
1
5
-
1
6
2
0
1
6
-
1
7
2
0
1
7
-
1
8
2
0
1
8
-
1
9
2
0
1
8
-
1
9
2
0
1
9
-
2
0
mo
d
e
l
a
s
s
u
m
i
n
g
1
0
0
%
o
f
Ac
t
u
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
pr
e
v
i
o
u
s
y
e
a
r
n
e
w
KD
G
1
0
2
9
1
0
5
2
1
0
7
8
1
1
0
5
1
1
3
7
1
1
6
9
1
1
9
9
1
2
2
5
1
2
3
9
1
2
5
3
en
r
o
l
l
e
e
s
m
o
v
e
t
o
t
h
e
n
e
x
t
1
1
0
6
8
1
0
7
7
1
1
0
4
1
1
3
1
1
1
6
3
1
1
9
6
1
2
2
6
1
2
5
3
1
2
6
7
1
2
8
1
gr
a
d
e
l
e
v
e
l
.
2
1
0
9
7
1
0
8
6
1
0
9
8
1
1
2
6
1
1
5
7
1
1
9
0
1
2
2
0
1
2
4
7
1
2
6
1
1
2
7
5
3
9
9
6
1
1
1
2
1
1
0
3
1
1
1
7
1
1
4
9
1
1
8
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
3
8
1
2
5
2
1
2
6
6
Ki
n
d
e
r
g
a
r
t
e
n
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
s
4
1
0
2
2
1
0
3
3
1
1
5
2
1
1
4
5
1
1
6
3
1
1
9
6
1
2
2
6
1
2
5
3
1
2
6
7
1
2
8
2
pr
e
v
i
o
u
s
y
e
a
r
s
n
u
m
b
e
r
p
l
u
s
5
1
0
1
8
1
0
4
2
1
0
5
6
1
1
7
6
1
1
7
4
1
1
9
3
1
2
2
3
1
2
5
0
1
2
6
4
1
2
7
9
K-
5
6
2
3
0
6
4
0
2
6
5
9
1
6
8
0
0
6
9
4
3
7
1
2
5
7
3
0
6
7
4
6
6
7
5
5
1
7
6
3
6
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
6
1
0
6
3
1
0
2
1
1
0
4
9
1
0
6
4
1
1
8
8
1
1
8
7
1
2
0
4
1
2
3
0
1
2
4
4
1
2
5
9
%
o
f
t
o
t
a
l
e
n
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
.
O
t
h
e
r
7
1
0
3
2
1
0
8
1
1
0
4
3
1
0
7
1
1
0
9
1
1
2
1
7
1
2
1
3
1
2
2
6
1
2
4
0
1
2
5
4
fa
c
t
o
r
u
s
e
s
1
0
0
%
c
o
h
o
r
t
8
1
0
4
6
1
0
4
6
1
0
9
9
1
0
6
2
1
0
9
5
1
1
1
6
1
2
3
9
1
2
3
1
1
2
4
5
1
2
5
9
su
r
v
i
v
a
l
,
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
6
y
e
a
r
GR
6
-
8
3
1
4
1
3
1
4
9
3
1
9
1
3
1
9
7
3
3
7
4
3
5
1
9
3
6
5
5
3
6
8
7
3
7
2
9
3
7
7
1
hi
s
t
o
r
y
.
9
1
2
7
3
1
2
6
0
1
2
6
5
1
3
2
2
1
2
9
2
1
3
2
9
1
3
5
0
1
4
7
1
1
4
8
8
1
5
0
5
10
1
1
7
0
1
2
7
8
1
2
6
9
1
2
7
6
1
3
3
7
1
3
0
9
1
3
4
3
1
3
6
0
1
3
7
5
1
3
9
1
11
1
2
3
3
1
1
4
6
1
2
5
7
1
2
5
0
1
2
6
2
1
3
2
5
1
2
9
4
1
3
2
4
1
3
3
9
1
3
5
4
12
1
3
1
6
1
2
5
1
1
1
6
7
1
2
8
1
1
2
7
9
1
2
9
3
1
3
5
2
1
3
1
6
1
3
3
1
1
3
4
6
GR
9
-
1
2
4
9
9
2
4
9
3
4
4
9
5
8
5
1
2
7
5
1
7
0
5
2
5
6
5
3
3
9
5
4
7
1
5
5
3
3
5
5
9
6
To
t
a
l
1
4
3
6
3
1
4
4
8
5
1
4
7
4
0
1
5
1
2
5
1
5
4
8
7
1
5
9
0
1
1
6
2
9
9
1
6
6
2
4
1
6
8
1
3
1
7
0
0
4
%
o
f
c
h
a
n
g
e
0
.
8
5
%
1
.
7
6
%
2
.
6
1
%
2
.
4
0
%
2
.
6
7
%
2
.
5
0
%
1
.
9
9
%
1
.
1
3
%
1
.
1
4
%
ch
a
n
g
e
+
/
-
1
2
2
2
5
5
3
8
5
3
6
3
4
1
4
3
9
8
3
2
5
1
8
9
1
9
1
Bu
i
l
d
o
u
t
s
M
a
r
c
h
1
2
+
N
D
3
.
6
a
v
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
47
Bu
i
l
d
o
u
t
D
a
t
a
f
o
r
E
n
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
-
M
a
r
c
h
2
0
1
2
TA
B
L
E
6
N
e
w
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
-
P
u
p
i
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
2.
1
1
%
1
.
1
4
%
ND
3
.
1
3
A
by
G
r
a
d
e
L
e
v
e
l
U
p
d
a
t
e
d
M
a
r
c
h
2
0
1
2
Us
e
s
a
'
c
o
h
o
r
t
s
u
r
v
i
v
a
l
'
GR
A
D
E
2
0
1
1
-
1
2
2
0
1
2
-
1
3
2
0
1
3
-
1
4
2
0
1
4
-
1
5
2
0
1
5
-
1
6
2
0
1
6
-
1
7
2
0
1
7
-
1
8
2
0
1
8
-
1
9
mo
d
e
l
a
s
s
u
m
i
n
g
1
0
0
%
o
f
Ac
t
u
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
pr
e
v
i
o
u
s
y
e
a
r
n
e
w
KD
G
1
0
2
9
1
0
2
3
1
0
7
5
1
1
2
8
1
1
6
0
en
r
o
l
l
e
e
s
m
o
v
e
t
o
t
h
e
n
e
x
t
1
1
0
6
8
1
0
8
5
1
0
8
3
1
1
3
6
1
1
9
4
1
2
2
7
gr
a
d
e
l
e
v
e
l
.
2
1
0
9
7
1
0
8
2
1
1
0
2
1
1
0
1
1
1
5
9
1
2
1
7
1
2
4
8
3
9
9
6
1
1
1
7
1
1
0
5
1
1
2
6
1
1
2
9
1
1
8
7
1
2
4
3
1
2
7
0
Ki
n
d
e
r
g
a
r
t
e
n
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
s
4
1
0
2
2
1
0
2
7
1
1
5
1
1
1
4
0
1
1
6
7
1
1
7
1
1
2
2
7
1
2
7
9
bi
r
t
h
r
a
t
e
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
p
l
u
s
5
1
0
1
8
1
0
4
5
1
0
5
3
1
1
7
9
1
1
7
2
1
2
0
0
1
2
0
1
1
2
5
4
62
3
0
6
3
7
9
6
5
6
9
6
8
1
0
6
9
8
0
6
0
0
2
4
9
1
8
3
8
0
3
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
6
1
0
6
3
1
0
3
3
1
0
6
3
1
0
7
3
1
2
0
3
1
1
9
8
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
0
%
o
f
t
o
t
a
l
e
n
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
.
O
t
h
e
r
7
1
0
3
2
1
0
8
0
1
0
5
3
1
0
8
5
1
0
9
9
1
2
2
9
1
2
2
2
1
2
4
3
fa
c
t
o
r
u
s
e
s
1
0
0
%
c
o
h
o
r
t
8
1
0
4
6
1
0
4
8
1
0
9
9
1
0
7
3
1
1
1
0
1
1
2
4
1
2
5
2
1
2
4
1
su
r
v
i
v
a
l
,
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
6
y
e
a
r
31
4
1
3
1
6
1
3
2
1
5
3
2
3
1
3
4
1
1
3
5
5
1
3
6
9
6
3
7
0
4
hi
s
t
o
r
y
.
9
1
2
7
3
1
3
3
9
1
3
4
6
1
4
0
0
1
3
8
2
1
4
2
3
1
4
3
8
1
5
6
4
10
1
1
7
0
1
2
0
8
1
2
7
8
1
2
8
7
1
3
4
7
1
3
3
0
1
3
6
8
1
3
7
8
11
1
2
3
3
1
0
9
7
1
1
3
9
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
4
1
2
8
6
1
2
6
6
1
2
9
9
12
1
3
1
6
1
1
9
7
1
0
6
5
1
1
0
9
1
1
8
6
1
2
0
1
1
2
5
9
1
2
3
5
49
9
2
4
8
4
1
4
8
2
8
5
0
0
6
5
1
3
9
5
2
4
0
5
3
3
0
5
4
7
6
To
t
a
l
1
4
3
6
3
1
4
3
8
1
1
4
6
1
2
1
5
0
4
7
1
5
5
3
1
%
o
f
c
h
a
n
g
e
0
.
1
3
%
1
.
6
0
%
2
.
9
8
%
3
.
2
1
%
ch
a
n
g
e
+
/
-
1
8
2
3
1
4
3
5
4
8
3
TA
B
L
E
7
N
e
w
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
-
P
u
p
i
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
ND
3
.
6
A
by
G
r
a
d
e
L
e
v
e
l
U
p
d
a
t
e
d
M
a
r
c
h
2
0
1
2
Us
e
s
a
'
c
o
h
o
r
t
s
u
r
v
i
v
a
l
'
GR
A
D
E
2
0
1
1
-
1
2
2
0
1
2
-
1
3
2
0
1
3
-
1
4
2
0
1
4
-
1
5
2
0
1
5
-
1
6
2
0
1
6
-
1
7
2
0
1
7
-
1
8
2
0
1
8
-
1
9
mo
d
e
l
a
s
s
u
m
i
n
g
1
0
0
%
o
f
Ac
t
u
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
pr
e
v
i
o
u
s
y
e
a
r
n
e
w
KD
G
1
0
2
9
1
0
2
3
1
0
7
5
1
1
2
8
1
1
6
0
en
r
o
l
l
e
e
s
m
o
v
e
t
o
t
h
e
n
e
x
t
1
1
0
6
8
1
0
7
7
1
0
7
5
1
1
2
8
1
1
8
6
1
2
1
9
gr
a
d
e
l
e
v
e
l
.
2
1
0
9
7
1
0
8
6
1
0
9
8
1
0
9
6
1
1
5
4
1
2
1
3
1
2
4
3
3
9
9
6
1
1
1
2
1
1
0
3
1
1
1
7
1
1
2
0
1
1
7
8
1
2
3
3
1
2
6
1
Ki
n
d
e
r
g
a
r
t
e
n
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
s
4
1
0
2
2
1
0
3
3
1
1
5
2
1
1
4
5
1
1
6
3
1
1
6
7
1
2
2
3
1
2
7
6
bi
r
t
h
r
a
t
e
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
p
l
u
s
5
1
0
1
8
1
0
4
2
1
0
5
6
1
1
7
6
1
1
7
4
1
1
9
3
1
1
9
4
1
2
4
7
62
3
0
6
3
7
2
6
5
5
8
6
7
9
0
6
9
5
6
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
6
1
0
6
3
1
0
2
1
1
0
4
9
1
0
6
4
1
1
8
8
1
1
8
7
1
2
0
4
1
2
0
1
%
o
f
t
o
t
a
l
e
n
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
.
O
t
h
e
r
7
1
0
3
2
1
0
8
1
1
0
4
3
1
0
7
1
1
0
9
1
1
2
1
7
1
2
1
3
1
2
2
6
fa
c
t
o
r
u
s
e
s
1
0
0
%
c
o
h
o
r
t
8
1
0
4
6
1
0
4
6
1
0
9
9
1
0
6
2
1
0
9
5
1
1
1
6
1
2
3
9
1
2
3
1
su
r
v
i
v
a
l
,
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
6
y
e
a
r
31
4
1
3
1
4
9
3
1
9
1
3
1
9
7
3
3
7
4
3
5
1
9
3
6
5
5
3
6
5
8
hi
s
t
o
r
y
.
9
1
2
7
3
1
2
6
0
1
2
6
5
1
3
2
2
1
2
9
2
1
3
2
9
1
3
5
0
1
4
7
1
10
1
1
7
0
1
2
7
8
1
2
6
9
1
2
7
6
1
3
3
7
1
3
0
9
1
3
4
3
1
3
6
0
11
1
2
3
3
1
1
4
6
1
2
5
7
1
2
5
0
1
2
6
2
1
3
2
5
1
2
9
4
1
3
2
4
12
1
3
1
6
1
2
5
1
1
1
6
7
1
2
8
1
1
2
7
9
1
2
9
3
1
3
5
2
1
3
1
6
49
9
2
4
9
3
4
4
9
5
8
5
1
2
7
5
1
7
0
5
2
5
6
5
3
3
9
5
4
7
1
To
t
a
l
1
4
3
6
3
1
4
4
5
6
1
4
7
0
7
1
5
1
1
5
1
5
5
0
1
%
o
f
c
h
a
n
g
e
0
.
6
5
%
1
.
7
4
%
2
.
7
7
%
2
.
5
5
%
ch
a
n
g
e
+
/
-
9
3
2
5
2
4
0
7
3
8
6
Bu
i
l
d
o
u
t
s
M
a
r
c
h
1
2
+
N
D
3
.
6
a
v
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
48
Appendix A.3 Student Generation Survey
Auburn School District
Development Growth since 1/1/06
March, 2012
50
SINGLE FAMILY
Units/Current To BeDevelopment Name Parcels Occupancy Occupied Elem Middle HS Total Elem Middle HS Total
Alder Meadows 30 30 0 8 5 7 20 0.267 0.167 0.233 0.667
Aspen Meadows 21 21 0 6 5 6 17 0.286 0.238 0.286 0.810
Auburn Place 14 14 0 9 3 3 15 0.643 0.214 0.214 1.071
Cambridge Pointe 26 26 0 11 3 5 19 0.423 0.115 0.192 0.731
Greenacres 16 16 0 2 0 1 3 0.125 0.000 0.063 0.188
Lakeland: The Reserve 80 80 0 25 11 14 50 0.313 0.138 0.175 0.625
Lakeland: Verona North 181 181 0 51 21 17 89 0.282 0.116 0.094 0.492
Marchini Meadows 83 83 0 37 17 11 65 0.446 0.205 0.133 0.783
Pacific View-Meadows 78 78 0 15 14 15 44 0.192 0.179 0.192 0.564
Riverpointe 118 118 0 33 15 18 66 0.280 0.127 0.153 0.559
Sera Monte 33 33 0 3 5 5 13 0.091 0.152 0.152 0.394
Trail Run 169 169 0 22 11 12 45 0.130 0.065 0.071 0.266
Totals 849 849 0 222 110 114 446 0.261 0.130 0.134 0.525
Current Construction to be Occupied 2012
Units/Current To BeDevelopment Name Parcels Occupancy Occupied Elem Middle HS Total Elem Middle HS Total
Beaver Meadows 60 30 30 0 7 8 15 8 4 4 16
Lakeland: East 130 24 106 2 4 5 11 28 14 14 56
Lakeland: Edgeview 373 19 354 2 1 1 4 93 46 48 186
Lakeland: Pinnacle Estates 76 33 43 17 3 4 24 11 6 6 23
Lakeland: Vista Heights 125 117 8 30 14 10 54 2 1 1 4
Monterey Park 174 14 160 2 0 0 2 42 21 21 84
Totals 938 237 701 53 29 28 110 183 91 94 368
Actual Students Projected Students
Student Generation Factors
Student Generation Factors
Actual Students Projected Students
Auburn School District
Development Growth since 1/1/06
March, 2012
51
2012 and up
Units/Current To BeDevelopment Name Parcels Occupancy Occupied Elem Middle HS Total
Alicia Glenn 31 0 31 8 4 4 16Anderson Acres 14 0 14 4 2 2 7
Backbone Ridge 7 0 7 2 1 1 4
Brandon Meadows 55 0 55 14 7 7 29
Brandon Place 78 0 78 20 10 10 41
Bridges 386 0 386 101 50 52 203
Bridle Estates 18 0 18 5 2 2 9
Cam-West 99 0 99 26 13 13 52
Carrington Pointe 24 0 24 6 3 3 13
Estes Park 31 0 31 8 4 4 16
Harpreet Kang 8 0 8 2 1 1 4
Hazel Heights 22 0 22 6 3 3 12
Hazel View 20 0 20 5 3 3 11
Kendall Ridge 106 0 106 28 14 14 56
Lakeland: Forest Glen At ..30 0 30 8 4 4 16
Lakeland: Park Ridge 256 0 256 67 33 34 134
Lawson Place 14 0 14 4 2 2 7
Megan's Meadows 9 0 9 2 1 1 5
Mountain View Estates 37 0 37 10 5 5 19
New Hope Lutheran Plat 8 0 8 2 1 1 4
Pacific Lane 11 0 11 3 1 1 6
Ridge At Tall Timbers 104 0 104 27 13 14 55
Sterling Court 8 0 8 2 1 1 4
Spencer Place 13 0 13 3 2 2 7
Stipps Plat 29 0 29 8 4 4 15
Vintage Place 25 0 25 7 3 3 13
Willow Place 18 0 18 5 2 2 9
Yates Plat 16 0 16 4 2 2 8
1477 1477 Totals 2012 and up 386 191 198 776
Grand Totals 570 282 292 1144
Student Generation Factors
Projected Students
Auburn School District
Development Growth since 1/1/06
March, 2012
52
MULTI FAMILY
Units/Current To Be
Development Name Parcels OccupancyOccupied Elem Middle HS Total Elem Middle HS Total
Butte Estates 29 29 0 7 2 2 11 0.241 0.069 0.069 0.379
Cox/Woodward TH 8 8 0 4 2 5 11 0.500 0.250 0.625 1.375
Lakeland: Carrara 170 170 0 10 1 5 16 0.059 0.006 0.029 0.094
Lakeland: Madera 70 70 0 3 0 0 3 0.043 0.000 0.000 0.043
Lakeland: Palermo Apts 362 362 0 33 15 26 74 0.091 0.041 0.072 0.204
Lakeland: Sorano 79 79 0 3 2 2 7 0.038 0.025 0.025 0.089
Legend Townhomes 11 11 0 2 1 1 4 0.182 0.091 0.091 0.364
Pacific Ave Duplexes 12 12 0 5 0 1 6 0.417 0.000 0.083 0.500
Pasa Fino II 19 19 0 1 0 0 1 0.053 0.000 0.000 0.053
Seasons at Lea Hill Village 332 332 0 111 52 53 216 0.334 0.157 0.160 0.651
1207 1092 15 188 76 98 362 0.172 0.070 0.090 0.332
Monterey Park Townhomes 65 9 56 0 0 0 0 10 4 5 19
Trail Run Townhomes 115 100 15 9 1 3 13 3 1 1 5
180 109 71 Total Under Construction 12 5 6 24
2012 and beyond
Auburn Hills Apt/TH 205 0 205 35 14 18 68
"D" Street Plat 32 0 32 6 2 3 11
Lakeland: Four Lakes Apts 234 0 234 40 16 21 78
Sundallen Condos 48 0 48 8 3 4 16
519 519 Total to be Constructed 89 36 47 172
Total to be Occupied 102 41 53 196
Student Generation Factors
Multi-Family 2012
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 1
Chapter 2.
THE STREET SYSTEM
The Auburn transportation system is
comprised of different transportation modes that move people and freight throughout the City and broader region. The system is multi-modal, accommodating cars, trucks, buses, pedestrians, and bicyclists. This is made possible by an extensive road network within
the City and throughout the region.
The roadway system provides the primary
means for transportation throughout the
Auburn area. The City is served by an extensive street network, which includes freeways, arterials, collectors, and local streets. This chapter describes that network and how well it serves the City presently and in the
future.
Under the Growth Management Act, cities and counties are required to adopt level-of-service
(LOS) standards to establish what level of
congestion a community is willing to accept and to determine when growth has consumed that available capacity. The GMA requires that land use and transportation planning be coordinated so that transportation capacity is
evaluated concurrent with development. This
chapter sets the standard for performance of the street network and discusses strategies to preserve and improve the system for future use.
2.1 Existing Street System
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION
Streets function as a network. The logic and
efficiency of the street network are dependent
upon how streets move traffic through the system. Functional classification is the process by which streets and highways are grouped into classes, or systems, according to the character
of service they provide. There are three main classes of streets in Auburn: arterials, collectors, and local streets. City street classifications are identified in Figure 2-1. All
streets have been classified using the Federal Functional Classification system guidelines.
The Auburn Engineering Design Standards, Chapter
10 - Streets, identifies design standards for each type of street, in conformance with WSDOT and AASHTO standards. The Street chapter includes street design requirements for configuration, geometrics, cross sections and other information.
Street classifications define the character of service that a road is intended to provide. The three major street classes, arterials, collectors,
and local streets, all have subclasses described below.
Downtown Auburn
View from Transit Center Parking Garage
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 2
ARTERIALS
Arterials are the highest level of City street classification. There are two types of arterials in Auburn.
Principal Arterials are designed to move traffic between locations within the region and to access the freeways. Design emphasis is
placed on providing movement of inter-city through traffic in addition to intra-city traffic.
Direct access to commercial and industrial land
uses is permitted. These streets are the highest traffic volume corridors, generally have limited land access, and are used for cross-town trips. Principal Arterial
Street Name Segment 2005 Plan Classification Current Classification
112th Avenue SE SE 304th St to SE 320th St Residential Collector Minor Arterial
124th Avenue SE SE 312th St to SE 320th St Nonresidential Collector Minor Arterial
S 320th Street 112th Ave SE to 124th Ave SE Nonresidential Collector Minor Arterial
105th Place Lea Hill Road to 112th Ave SE Nonresidential Collector Residential Collector, Type I
104th Ave SE/SE 304th
St SE 320th St to 132nd Ave SE Nonresidential Collector Minor Arterial
12th St SE (Future)M St SE to Dogwood St SE Nonresidential Collector Residential Collector, Type I/
Minor Arterial
Dogwood St SE Scenic Dr SE to Auburn Way S Residential Collector Minor Arterial
Stuck River Drive Kersey Way SE to 3600 block Local Residential Collector, Type II
29th St NE / M St NW 15th St NW to Emerald Downs Dr Local Nonresidential Collector
F St SE 4th St SE to Auburn Way S Nonresidential Collector Residential Collector, Type I
22nd Street NE O St NE to Riverview Dr NE Local Residential Collector, Type I
Riverview Dr NE 22nd Street NE to Pike St NE Local Residential Collector, Type I
55th Avenue S S 305th St to S 316th St Local Residential Collector, Type I
55th Avenue S S 336th St to S 346th St Local Residential Collector, Type I
56th Avenue S S 316th St to S 331st St Local Residential Collector, Type I
S 300th St / 64th Ave S 65th Ave S to 51st Ave S Local Residential Collector, Type I
O St SW 15th St SW to Boundary Blvd Minor Arterial Nonresidential Collector
Boundary Blvd Algona Blvd N to 15th St SW Minor Arterial Nonresidential Collector
Streets that increased in classification
Streets that decreased in classification
Table 2-1. Streets with Notable Changes Since Adoption of 2005 Roadway Functional
Classification System
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 3
These arterials are the framework street system
for the City and usually connect through to
neighboring jurisdictions. They are typically constructed to accommodate five lanes of traffic with speed limits of 35 to 45 mph. The design year average daily traffic (ADT) is greater than 15,000 vehicles per day. Principal
arterials are heavily utilized as bus routes,
carrying both local and regional services. In some cases, on-street bicycle facilities are not appropriate for Principal Arterials and bicyclists should be accommodated on a parallel Class I separated trail. Pedestrians are
accommodated on sidewalks.
Minor Arterials interconnect and augment the principal arterial system by providing access to
and from the principal arterials and freeways. They serve moderate length trips at a somewhat lower mobility than principal arterials and distribute traffic to smaller geographic areas. Minor arterials may serve secondary traffic generators such as business
centers, neighborhood shopping centers, major parks, multifamily residential areas, medical centers, larger religious institutions, and community activity centers. While minor arterials should not enter neighborhoods, they do provide access between neighborhoods.
They are typically constructed to accommodate four to five lanes of traffic with speed limits of 30 to 35 mph and a design year ADT of 10,000 to 20,000 vehicles per day. Minor arterials are frequently utilized as bus routes, have sidewalks to comfortably accommodate pedestrians and
may include Class II bicycle lanes.
COLLECTORS
Collectors are a step below arterials in the City
classification system. There are three types of collectors in Auburn.
Residential Collectors, Type I are used to
connect local streets and residential neighborhoods to community activity centers and minor and principal arterials. Residential
Collectors, Type I are typically constructed to
accommodate two travel lanes with medians
and turn pockets at intersections or two travel lanes with Class II bicycle lanes. The posted speed limit is generally 30 mph and the design year ADT is 2,500 to 10,000 vehicles per day. Residential Collectors, Type I have sidewalks
and may be utilized for some transit service,
including dial-a-ride transit and paratransit services.
Residential Collectors, Type II are routes located in areas with less intensive land uses.
They carry traffic between local and arterial streets. Residential Collectors, Type II provide access to all levels of arterials, are typically constructed to accommodate two lanes with gravel shoulders on both sides, and have a
speed limit of 30 to 40 mph. The gravel
shoulder may be reduced on one side to provide a wider shoulder on the other for equestrian access or bicycle travel. Residential Collectors, Type II do not have sidewalks and generally do not carry transit services except
for paratransit and possibly dial-a-ride-transit.
The design year ADT is 1,000 to 5,000 vehicles per day.
Non-Residential Collectors provide intra-community access by connecting non-residential areas such as industrial and commercial areas to minor and principal arterials. They may serve neighborhood traffic
Residential Collector, Type I
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 4
generators such as stores, elementary schools,
religious institutions, clubhouses, small
hospitals or clinics, areas of small multifamily developments, as well as other commercial and industrial uses. Non-Residential Collectors are typically constructed to accommodate two lanes and a center two-way left-turn lane, with
a speed limit of 30 mph and may include Class
II bicycle lanes. The design year ADT is 2,500 to 5,000 vehicles per day. Non-Residential Collectors have sidewalks and may be utilized for some transit service, including dial-a-ride transit and paratransit services.
LOCAL STREETS
Local Streets are the most common street type in the City. Local streets comprise all facilities
not part of one of the higher classification systems. Local streets primarily provide direct access to abutting land and to the higher order streets. Service to through traffic is discouraged. There are four categories of local streets.
Local Residential Streets, Type I provide access to abutting residential parcels. They
offer the lowest level of mobility among all
street classifications. The street is designed to conduct traffic between dwelling units and higher order streets. As the lowest order street in the hierarchy, the street usually carries minimal through traffic and includes short
streets, cul-de-sacs, and courts. The speed
limit is generally 25 mph and the design year ADT is 200 to 1,200 vehicles per day. Local Residential Streets, Type I have sidewalks to accommodate pedestrians and in most cases, bicyclists may travel comfortably on the
shoulder of the road (Class IV bicycle facility).
Transit service is generally limited to dial-a-ride transit and paratransit.
Local Residential Streets, Type II serve
areas with less intensive land uses by providing access to adjacent land and distributing traffic to and from the principal or minor arterials,
residential collectors, type II, and local access
streets. The travel distance is relatively short
compared to Residential Collectors, Type II. Local Residential Streets, Type II are two lane roadways with gravel shoulders and a speed limit of 25 mph. The design year ADT is 100 to 1,000 vehicles per day. Because these streets
have low traffic volumes, bicyclists can
comfortably share the travel lane with motorized vehicles. Since Local Residential Streets, Type II do not have sidewalks, pedestrians walk along the shoulder of the road. Transit service is very infrequent and
most likely limited to paratransit and possibly
dial-a-ride-transit.
Local Non-Residential Streets provide direct
access to higher order classification streets and serve primarily industrial and manufacturing land uses. They offer a lower level of mobility and accommodate heavy vehicle traffic. Typically they have two travel lanes with a speed limit of 25 mph and the design year
ADT is 400 to 1,200 vehicles per day. Local Non-Residential Streets have sidewalks to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists may travel on the shoulder of the road (Class IV bicycle facility), although bicycle travel may not be as comfortable as on Local Residential
Streets due to a greater frequency of trucks and other heavy vehicles. Transit service is generally limited to dial-a-ride transit and paratransit.
Private Streets may be appropriate for local access in very limited usage. They provide direct access to City streets and should be limited to those streets accessing properties within a planned area or properties immediately
adjacent. Private streets at minimum are built
to the same design and construction standards as a local residential street.
From a planning perspective, acknowledgment
and proper designation of functional classifications allows for the preservation of right-of-way for future transportation corri-
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 5
dors, whether the corridor provides access to
car, HOV, transit, bike, or pedestrian use.
Functional classification helps establish corridors that will provide for the future movement of people and goods, as well as emergency vehicle access, through the City. Proper designation is crucial to the planning
effort; as development occurs, accommodation
for the appropriate transportation corridors should be incorporated into development plans.
The City has reclassified several street segments since 2005, as shown in Table 2-1. Reclassification occurs over time in response to changes in the function of streets, the traffic patterns, and the character of the surrounding
land uses. In particular, some streets within both the West Hill and Lea Hill were reclassified since they were annexed from King County in 2008. Table 2-1 indicates that some streets have been reclassified to a higher classification, while others have been moved to
a lower classification.
ALLEYS AND ACCESS TRACTS
Alleys provide vehicular access to abutting
properties, generally through the rear or side of the property. Alleys can be public or private and serve several purposes including access management and the alleviation of traffic problems on city streets. Alleys should provide
through access to city streets or adequate
turnaround space if through access is not feasible. Alleys shall be constructed to allow for general-purpose and emergency access at all times.
Access Tracts, sometimes referred to as shared driveways, provide vehicular access for lots that do not abut a street or alley. They are most common in panhandle lots or rear lots
that do not have street or alley access. Access
tracts are privately owned and maintained. They must provide for sufficient vehicular movement and turnaround space, be free of
temporary and permanent obstructions, and
provide for emergency access.
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Average daily traffic counts were obtained from data collected in the spring of 2008 and 2009. Figure 2-2 shows the average daily traffic volumes on City arterials for the years
2008 and 2009, based on a seven-day week average. The highest daily volumes are found on Auburn Way South, A Street SE, Auburn Way North, Harvey Road, Lea Hill Road/SE 312th Street, M Street, Lakeland Hills Way, 51st Avenue S, and 15th Street NW.
A major contributor to the high traffic volumes on City arterials is traffic passing through the City. This pass-through traffic originates in
surrounding jurisdictions and uses City streets to access the major regional highways, such as SR 18 and SR 167. Nearly 50 percent of traffic on Auburn’s arterial and collector networks is attributable to pass-through traffic. The City is
committed to working with WSDOT to
improve the state highway system, thereby reducing the demand on the City street system.
SPEED LIMITS
The City designates speed limits as a means of alerting drivers to safe and appropriate travel speeds for a particular corridor segment. Local
roads are generally designated at 25 mph zones, with some exceptions such as near schools. The City routinely monitors corridors to ensure appropriate speed limits are in place. Legal speeds are located in City code and are clearly
signed on the roadways.
TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SIGNS
Traffic signals, signs, and pavement markings are used to direct drivers, pedestrians, and bicyclists, thereby increasing the effective use of the roadway by moving traffic more
efficiently and safely. The City uses the Manual
of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 6
as guidance for design, construction, and
placement of signs in the right of way.
FREIGHT
Auburn is an important freight hub in the Puget Sound region, and the efficient movement of freight, through and within the City, is critical to Auburn’s economic stability.
Both rail and truck freight, originating largely in the Ports of Tacoma and Seattle, pass through Auburn regularly.
The Union Pacific Railroad (UP) and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) have rail lines running through Auburn. The Union Pacific line runs north-south, to the east of the Interurban Trail. Burlington Northern Santa Fe moves freight in both the north-south
and east-west directions. BNSF has a double-track, federally designated, high-speed railroad line running north-south. The Stampede Pass line runs east-west through south Auburn, entering the north-south line just south of the
Auburn Transit Center.
In addition, the company maintains a rail yard between A Street SE and C Street SW, south of SR 18. In the future, this area may develop as a
multi-modal rail yard, prompting the need to mitigate increased truck traffic through capacity improvements. The Burlington Northern Santa Fe also has plans to increase traffic on the Stampede Pass line, the east-west rail line
running through Auburn. In anticipation of
this increase and in order to mitigate the traffic and safety impacts of current rail movements on this line, the City has programmed a grade separation project on M Street SE.
The pavement at the crossing of the Union Pacific Railroad at 15th Street SW is in very poor condition. Rehabilitation of the pavement is a high priority for the City, and a project has
been programmed to reconstruct 15th Street SW from C Street SW to the railroad tracks.
Auburn experiences considerable truck traffic.
The City has designated truck routes for
through freight movement in an effort to maximize the efficacy of and protect the roadway infrastructure. Current truck routes are shown in Figure 2-3. The City defines truck freight movement as the movement of heavy
and medium trucks. Medium trucks include
trucks with two to four axles and two-axle trucks with six tires. Heavy trucks include all articulated trucks, trucks with one to three trailers, and/or with three to nine axles. Truck routes, established by City ordinance, are
designated for roadways that incorporate
special design considerations such as street grades, continuity, turning radii, street and lane widths, pavement strength, and overhead obstruction heights.
The City expects that the majority of regional trips will take place on state highways. However, recognizing that trips through the City are sometimes necessary, Auburn has
designated a network of north-south and east-west corridors as truck routes, which are built to truck standards. In addition, the City has designated future truck routes, which will be built to truck standards whenever opportunities exist to reconstruct the roadway network,
either through public improvement projects or through agreements with private developers.
Auburn has significant industrial and
commercial development throughout the City. The City encourages local delivery trucks to use the designated truck network as much as possible, but recognizes that trips on non-truck routes will sometimes be necessary. The City is
committed to supporting local industry,
business, and residential needs and recognizes that the ability to ship and receive freight is essential to the success of many businesses. Therefore, the City will collaborate with local businesses to improve freight access, while
maintaining the roadway infrastructure, whenever possible. This may include adopting
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 7
City Code and updating the Auburn Engineering Design and Construction Standards in a manner
that favors these priorities.
SAFETY
The City places a high priority on providing a safe transportation system for travelers of all modes. Continual efforts are made to
construct and retrofit streets in a manner that
improves safety and decreases the likelihood of accidents. Pedestrian crossings and other non-motorized safety issues are discussed in the following chapters. Railroad crossings, emergency response needs and accidents
related to the street system are discussed
below.
RAILROAD CROSSINGS
At grade railroad crossings create a potentially dangerous situation for motorists, non-motorized travelers, and rail passengers. Auburn has several at grade railroad crossings. The Union Pacific line crosses city streets at
South 285th Street, 37th Street NW, 29th Street
NW, West Main Street, and 15th Street SW. The Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) tracks intersect city streets at 37th Street NW, 29th Street NW, 3rd Street NW, W Main Street, M Street SE, and the Auburn Black Diamond
Road. With more than 60 trains passing
through the City each day, the City has many at
grade crossings, each with unique safety
implications. The City coordinates with
railroad operators and the State to upgrade the crossings whenever possible. For instance, new long-gate crossing arms were recently placed at the Union Pacific crossing on W Main Street. Also, in 2002 the pedestrian
overpass at the Auburn Transit Center was
completed, adding a new measure of safety for pedestrians crossing the railroad tracks. The City is underway with design of the M Street SE grade separation project. This project will grade separate M Street SE at the BNSF
Stampede Pass tracks by lowering M Street SE
under the railroad overpass. The second phase of the project will create and a new connector road between M Street and Auburn-Black Diamond Road. Construction of the grade separation phase of the project is anticipated to
be complete by 2013.
EMERGENCY RESPONSE AND
MANAGEMENT
Providing residents with quick responses in emergency situations is a high priority for the City. The City maintains a Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan and supporting plans which identify critical facilities that
should be maintained as a first priority during catastrophic events. Critical transportation facilities, although subject to change, generally
Truck Traffic Building on S 277th Street
BNSF Freight Train at West Main Street
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 8
include Principal Arterials, bridges and major
evacuation routes within the City.
In addition, the City works to provide an adequate street network that will ensure
multiple alternate routes for emergency vehicles. Fire response vehicles are equipped with traffic signal controls that enable emergency vehicles to secure safe and rapid passage through signalized corridors. In addition, the City has mutual-aid agreements
with nearby emergency response operators to ensure adequate coverage in case of road closures or other obstacles that would otherwise prevent timely emergency response.
ACCIDENTS
The City collects and monitors accident data to identify roadway hazards, and seeks to correct hazardous locations in the City by implementing appropriate safety measures.
While the City relies primarily on its own data, accident data from other sources, including neighboring jurisdictions and the State, is utilized whenever available.
2.2 Street Standards and
Levels-of-Service
The GMA requires the City to establish service levels for the street network and to provide a means for correcting current deficiencies and
meeting future needs. Transportation
professionals use the term ‘level-of-service’ (LOS) to measure the operational performance of a transportation facility, such as a street corridor or intersection. This measure considers perception by motorists and
passengers in terms of speed, travel time,
freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions and delays, comfort, and convenience.
The City currently uses a single-mode LOS
system based upon vehicular travel. In the future, a multi-modal system which includes
transit, pedestrians, and bicyclists should be
developed and adopted.
The currently adopted LOS methodology gives letter designations from ‘A’ through ‘F’, with
LOS A representing the best operating conditions, and LOS F representing the worst. LOS can be quantified in different terms, depending on the transportation facility. Definitions for each level-of-service and the methodologies for calculating the level-of-
service for various facilities are contained in Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual.
The City most commonly uses corridor level-
of-service for accessing facilities. Generally,
this is considered the most comprehensive way to determine vehicular traffic impacts. The following descriptions provide some guidance for interpreting the meaning of each LOS letter for corridor LOS on city streets.
LOS A describes primarily free-flow
operations at average travel speeds, usually about 90 percent of the FFS (free-flow speed) for the given street class. Vehicles are completely unimpeded in their ability to maneuver within the traffic stream. Control delay at signalized intersections is
minimal. (Free-flow speed is the average speed of vehicles on a given facility, measured under low-volume conditions, when drivers tend to drive at their desired speed and are not constrained by control delay. Control delay is the total elapse time from a vehicle joining the queue until its
departure from the stopped position at the head of the queue. This includes the time required to decelerate into the queue and accelerate back to free-flow speed.)
LOS B describes reasonably unimpeded operations at average travel speeds, usually about 70 percent of the FFS for the street class. The ability to maneuver within the
traffic stream is only slightly restricted, and
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 9
control delays at signalized intersections
are not significant.
LOS C describes stable operations; however, ability to maneuver and change
lanes in midblock locations may be more restricted than at LOS B, and longer queues, adverse signal coordination, or both may contribute to lower average travel speeds of about 50 percent of the
FFS for the street class.
LOS D borders on the range in which small increases in flow (density of vehicles)
may cause substantial increases in delay and decreases in travel speed. LOS D may be due to adverse signal progression (a large percentage of vehicles arriving at the intersection on a red, rather than green light), inappropriate signal timing, high volumes
(of traffic), or a combination of these factors. Average travel speeds are about 40 percent of FFS.
LOS E is characterized by significant delays and average travel speeds of 33 percent or less or the FFS. Such operations are caused by a combination of adverse signal progression, high signal
density (closely spaced signals), high volumes, extensive delays at critical intersections, and inappropriate signal timing.
LOS F is characterized by urban street flow at extremely low speeds, typically one-third to one-fourth of the FFS. Intersection congestion is likely critical at signalized locations, with high delays, high volumes, and extensive queuing.
CITY LOS STANDARDS AND
CURRENT LOS
It is necessary to define LOS standards for transportation facilities to enforce the
concurrency requirements of the Growth Management Act. If development results in a facility's service falling below a defined LOS standard, concurrency requires the devel-
opment causing the deficiency be remedied or
the permit for that development be denied.
Auburn defines unsatisfactory LOS as: an unacceptable increase in hazard or
unacceptable decrease in safety on a roadway; an accelerated deterioration of the street pavement condition or the proposed regular use of a street not designated as a truck route for truck movements that can reasonably result in accelerated deterioration of the street
pavement; an unacceptable impact on geometric design conditions at an intersection where two truck routes meet on the City arterial and collector network; an increase in congestion which constitutes an unacceptable adverse environmental impact
under the State Environmental Policy Act; or the inability of a facility to meet the adopted LOS standard.
The City uses corridor LOS as its primary measurement of transportation system impacts. The City corridors typically used for analyzing LOS are shown in Figure 2-4, although the City may require analysis of a different segment in
order to assess the full LOS impacts. All
arterials and collectors in Auburn have designated LOS standards. The LOS standard for these corridors is primarily LOS D with the exception of some corridors that may operate as LOS E or F, with a specified maximum
travel time.
While the City uses a p.m. based LOS system, a.m. LOS impacts may be examined in
situations where unique conditions are likely to
results in an a.m. LOS deficiency.
Table 2-2 identifies Auburn’s LOS Standards,
as well as the 2009 corridor LOS. As indicated in the table, LOS was calculated for many of Auburn’s street corridors using traffic counts taken in Spring 2008 and Spring 2009.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 10
ID Corridor From To
LOS
Standard
LOS
20091Auburn Way North 15th St NE Northern City Limits D C/D2Auburn Way North East Main St. 15th St NE E D
3 Auburn Way South East Main St.M St SE D F/E
4 Auburn Way South M St SE Eastern City Limits D C
5 M St./Harvey Auburn Way North East Main St.E C6M St./Harvey East Main St Auburn Way South D D/C
7 Evergreen Way Lakeland Hills Way Kersey Way D Future
8 37th St NE/NW West Valley Hwy I St. NE D B/C
9 15th St NE/NW West Valley Hwy Auburn Way North F**D10Auburn Ave / "A" St SR 18 Southern City Limits D B
11 Main St West Valley Hwy R St D C
12 15th St SW West Valley Hwy C St SW D D
13 C St SW Ellingson SR 18 D C/E14West Valley Hwy Northern City Limits 15th Street NW E B/C
15 S 277th St Frontage Rd.108th Ave SE E E/B
16 R St./Kersey Way Auburn Way S.Oravetz Road D A/B
17 Lake Tapps Parkway East Valley Hwy.182nd Ave E D B18"A" St SW/NW/ "B" St NW 4th St NW S 277th St D Future
19 8th St NE/Lea Hill Rd.Auburn Way North 132nd Ave SE E C/B
20 D St NW/Emerald Downs Dr S 277th St 15th St. NW D A/B
21 I St NE S 277th St Harvey Rd D A/B22132nd Ave SE SE 282nd St SE 312th St D B
23 124th Ave SE SE 282nd St SE 320th. St D C
24 104th Ave SE/SE 304th St 8th St NE 132nd Ave SE D B/A
25 105th Pl SE/SE 320th St Lea Hill Road 124th Ave SE D B26Lakeland Hills Way SE Lake Tapps Parkway Oravetz Rd D C/D
27 29th St SE/Riverwalk Dr.A Street SE Auburn Way South D C
28 108th Ave SE/112th Ave. SE S 277th St SE 304th St D A
29 49th St NW B St NW S 277th St D Future30R Street SE 8th St NE 4th Street SE D B/C
31 3rd St SW/Cross St C Street Auburn Way South E E
32 17th St SE A St SE Auburn Way South D B/A
33 41st St SE/Ellingson Rd A St SE Western City Limits E F34Lakeland Hills Way/Oravetz East Valley Hwy Kersey Way E A/B
35 West Valley Hwy 15th Street NW Southern City Limits E C/B
36 Kersey Way Oravetz Road Southern City Limits D A
37 S. 316th Street/Terrace Drive West Valley Highway Western City Limits D B
38 S. 296th Street/65th Ave West Valley Highway Western City Limits D B
39 51st Ave S.S. 288th Street Peasley Canyon Rd D B
40 S. 284th Street 112th Ave SE 124th Ave SE D B/A
41 S. 284th Street 124th Ave SE 132nd Ave SE D Future
42 R St. Bypass/Black Diamond M Street SE SR 18 D Future
*
**
Table 2-2. Auburn Corridor Level of Service
Corridor segments within Downtown Auburn may operate at LOS E in accordance with the Auburn Downtown Plan. All other arterial and collector corridors must operate at LOS D or better, unless otherwise indicated in Table 2-2.
Total travel time in the eastbound direction cannot exceed 1000 seconds for this corridor to meet the LOS Standard.
Split LOS indicates directional LOS in either the East-West or North-South direction. Otherwise, the LOS is the same in both directions.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 11
STATE HIGHWAY LOS
Amendments to the GMA in 1998 added new requirements for local jurisdictions to address
state-owned transportation facilities, as well as local transportation system needs in their comprehensive plans (RCW 47.06.140). House Bill 1487, adopted by the Washington State Legislature in 1998, requires that the transportation element of local comprehensive
plans include the LOS standards for Highways of Statewide Significance (HSS). HB 1487 clarified that the concurrency requirement of the GMA does not apply to HSS or other transportation facilities and services of statewide significance. HB 1487 also requires
local jurisdictions to estimate traffic impacts to state-owned facilities resulting from land use assumptions in the Comprehensive Plan.
THE WSDOT STANDARD
WSDOT has identified an LOS standard of “D” for all urban Highways of Statewide Significance (HSS) according to the State Highway System Plan (HSP). All state highways
within the City of Auburn, including SR 18, SR
167, and SR 164 are classified as urban Highways of Statewide Significance, and therefore have an LOS standard of “D”.
Land use and the transportation system are closely linked, each influencing the development of the other. Hence, for the purpose of this plan, it is necessary to evaluate how land use patterns impact the
transportation system.
LAND USE/TRANSPORTATION RELATIONSHIP
A broad overview of Auburn’s Comprehensive Plan land use map shows industrial (light and heavy) designations in the west side of the City along both sides of West Valley Highway, strip commercial development along Auburn Way
South and a sizable commercial plan
designation near the intersection of the SR 18
and 15th Street SW interchange (Super Mall).
Downtown Auburn is roughly located east of
the Interurban Trail, north of SR 18, west of F Street SE/NE, and south of 3rd Street NW/NE and 4th Street NE. Residential development exists along the Auburn valley floor, West Hill, and Lea Hill and Lakeland Hills. A major land
use activity in Lea Hill includes the Green
River Community College located on SE 320th Street.
As with many cities in South King and Pierce counties, especially those along the SR 167 corridor, the local land use plan is characterized by a predominance of industrial land use designations. The land use element identifies “Industrial” as the City’s second most pre-
dominant zoning designation (residential being first). Consequently, the City’s land use plan establishes a development pattern that has industrial related traffic impacts upon the State Highway System. This includes the frequent movement of freight. Auburn’s industrial areas
also consist of light industrial warehouse development. This type of development typically results in a relatively low PM peak hour trip generation impact. There are a number of circumstances including potential tax policy changes, which may lead to a change
in land use designations and, as a consequence, a reduction in the prevalence of industrial uses in this area and throughout Auburn.
Another key land use feature in the land use element is a “Heavy Commercial” designation
at 15th Street SW, adjacent to SR 167 and SR
18. This commercial designation is the site of the Supermall. The Supermall attracts customers on a regional basis and impacts use of the State Highway System in this respect, even more so than the downtown or the strip
commercial development along Auburn Way.
Commercial development in downtown Auburn and along Auburn Way tends to serve more localized needs.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 12
The City’s Comprehensive Plan land use map
focuses residential development in the valley
and in the west hills, Lea Hill, and Lakeland Hills. Access to the State Highway System is generally limited in the east hill, although Highway 18 can be accessed on Lea Hill at SE 304th Street. Future impacts on the State
Highway System in the Lea Hill area will
primarily be commuter traffic due to the predominance of residential comprehensive plan designations in that area. The development of Lakeland Hills will also principally result in increased commuter traffic.
Future impacts to the State Highway System can generally be gauged by projected arterial link ADT volumes at or near state highway
ramps. This is, at best, only a general estimate since not all traffic passing through these street segments is utilizing the State Highway System. Further, traffic using the arterial segment may be originating from local jurisdictions outside of Auburn, and may therefore not result from
assumptions in Auburn’s land use plan.
Several city arterials connect directly to SR 167
and SR 18. Some examples include C Street
SW, West Valley Highway, and Auburn Way South connections with SR 18, and 15th Street NW and 15th Street SW connections with SR 167. These streets are among the most heavily used in the City, a function of their relationship
to the State Highway System. SR 164 is also in
the city limits. Year 2008 and 2009 average daily traffic (ADT) volumes along SR 164 range from a low of 23,000 near the eastern city boundary up to 37,000 along Auburn Way South near SR 18. These volumes are
forecasted to increase substantially over the
next 20 years.
The State Highway System also impacts the
City’s local street system. A “cut-through”
traffic pattern results in significant traffic volume increases on the local arterial street system. For example, many of Auburn’s PM
peak hour trips are work to home trips
originating outside of the Auburn area and
destined for residential areas outside of Auburn, including Pierce County and the Enumclaw Plateau. This traffic exits state routes and travels through Auburn to avoid congestion on the State Highway System. This is evidenced
by increases in traffic counts within the City
that clearly exceed that which might be expected through anticipated growth and development patterns outlined in the City’s land use plan. The City may implement measures that encourage local traffic
movements and discourage cut-through traffic.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 13
Figure 2-5. Population, Housing, and Job Growth
FOR CITY OF AUBURN 2000 – 2030
1 – Population and housing data for 2000 taken from US Census.
2 – Population and housing projection for 2010, 2020 and 2030 from City of Auburn
3 – Covered employment data and estimates derived from PSRSC.
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
100,000
2000 2010 2020 2030
Population Housing Units Jobs
2.3 Future Street System
METHODOLOGY FOR
EVALUATING FUTURE SYSTEM
TRAVEL FORECASTS
HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT GROWTH
Auburn has grown rapidly during the past decade, and housing and employment are
expected to continue to increase significantly by 2030, with the population reaching over 128,000 residents, as shown in Figure 2-5. Much of the housing growth will come from higher density re-development in the downtown area and the rapidly growing
Lakeland Hills and Lea Hill areas.
TRAFFIC GROWTH
The City of Auburn relies on traffic forecasts using the VISUM travel demand model, which is based upon the land use plan and assumptions found in the land use element of the Comprehensive Plan. Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) household and
employment forecasts are also used. The model is calibrated to include existing land uses and local knowledge, including large traffic generators such as the Supermall of the Great Northwest, the Emerald Downs Thoroughbred Racetrack, and the Muckleshoot Indian Casino.
Areas outside of the current city limits that are expected to significantly
impact the City
transportation system are included in the model. The model enables the City to conduct traffic forecasts for all arterial
and collector streets
based upon a number of if-then development and land use scenarios.
The more dramatic traffic increases are often caused by development outside the City, especially along the
roadways serving the
Enumclaw Plateau. Other areas of major traffic increase include A Street SE, M Street SE, and the West Valley
Highway.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 14
THREE SCENARIOS:
FUTURE STREET NETWORK
In order to address the growing traffic volumes and congestion levels on city streets by 2030, three alternative roadway improvements scenarios were examined:
Project Group A: Programmed Projects: Includes projects in the City’s
Transportation Improvement Program. and funded State highway improvements.
Project Group B: Future City Street
ProjectsImprovements included in Project Group A plus additional City street improvementsbeyond the shorter range Transportation Improvement Program. .
Project Group C: Improvements included in Project Group B plus additionalR regional Ttransportation
Pprojects on State highways or adjacent jurisdictions’ roadways that impact Auburn..
Each of these project group alternatives is
described below and shown in Figure 2-6.
Project Group A - Programmed Projects
Project Group A is the baseline group of projects and consists primarily of the projects programmed in the City’s TIP and in the State Highway Program. The projects include several
city street widening and connection projects plus the extension of HOV lanes along SR 167. See Figure 2-6 for project locations, shown in with red on the mapproject numbers.
This includes ere is one capacitya project programmed in the TIP that isis not included in the model: the crossing of the BNSF Rail yard at either 6th Street SW or 15th Street SW.
This It is discussed in more detail in the
Future System Recommendations section of this chapter and will likely be included in future model runs and updates to this plan.
Project Group B - FutureNew City Street ImprovementProjectss
Project Group B assumes completion of and builds upon the projects in Project Group A by adding more city street improvements in highly congested areas. Many of these projects were
identified as a result of public outreach efforts held in West Hill and Lea Hill after those areas were annexed into the City. Potential projects that were identified through the public outreach were evaluated against the 2030 level-of-service results of Project Group A.
Additional project were identified to remedy predicted level-of-service deficiencies identified by the City’s traffic demand model (Visum). The street improvements shown with blue project numbers in Figure 2-6 include street
widening projects or spot improvements
throughout the City. The spot improvements consist of intersection channelization and traffic signal timing projects to improve traffic flow. Another future project with significant area wide impacts is the addition of the
Auburn Bypass connecting SR 18 to Auburn
Way South. There are two potential alignments for the bypass route as indicated in the draft Bypass Feasibility Report (September 2009), a partnership between WSDOT, the City of Auburn, the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, and
other regional partners. Numerous issues were
considered as part of this study, including environmental impacts. Although a preferred alternative will be developed as part of a future environmental process, for the development of this plan, the alternative alignment modeled
had the Bypass Road connecting to Hwy 18
east of R Street and used the existing Dogwood Street alignment to connect to Hwy 18.
The twenty Future City projects projectsare
shown in blue on Figure 2-6.the map are not currently programmed in the City’s TIP.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 15
Project Group C - Regional Transportation Projects
Project Group C assumes completion of and builds upon the projects in Project Groups A
and B. This group contains projects focused on the addition of major regional roadway improvements. As shown in with green project numbers in Figure 2-6, the projects include completing the interchange of SR 18 at SR 167 (and eliminating access to/from SR 18 at West
Valley Highway), adding one general purpose lane in each direction to SR 167 from SR 18 to I-405, and extending High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes on SR 167 to SR 16, and widening of SR 164 to Academy Drive, and the addition of the Auburn Bypass connecting SR 18 to
Auburn Way South. The projects shown in green on the map are State/Regional projects and are therefore not currently programmed in the City’s TIP.
There are two potential alignments for the bypass route as indicated in the draft Bypass Feasibility Report (September 2009), a partnership between WSDOT, the City of
Auburn, the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, and
other regional partners. Numerous issues were considered as part of this study, including environmental impacts. Although a preferred alternative will be developed as part of a future environmental process, for the development of
this plan, the alternative alignment modeled
had the Bypass Road connecting to Hwy 18 east of R Street and used the existing Dogwood Street alignment to connect to Hwy 18.
Table 2-3 summarizes the street projects included in each of the three project groups, along with planning level cost estimates. Figure 2-6 a map identifies the location of each project, as well as the group it is included in.
Additional Projects – Not Identified in Project Groups A, B, or C
In addition to the projects identified in Figure
2-3, four intersections outside of the City were
identified as potential level-of-service concerns during the public outreach and modeling processes. While the following intersections have not been analyzed in detail because they are situated outside of Auburn’s jurisdiction,
they should be evaluated by the appropriate
jurisdiction and programmed for improvements as needed.
51st Avenue S & South 316th Street
S. 321st Street & 46th Place
S. 321st Street and Peasley Canyon Road
West Valley Hwy and Peasley Canyon Rd.
Also, there is an intersection project that was not modeled, but would provide a significant benefit to reliability and traffic flow associated with the am drop-off at Rainer Middle School. Currently, 116th Ave SE around Rainer Middle
School becomes very congested due to the
difficulty clearing the roadway of southbound vehicles in the a.m. 116th Avenue SE needs to be widened 3-4 feet in the southbound direction at Lea Hill Road to allow for a dedicated right turn lane. This will help relieve
congestion associated with the drop-off period
at Rainier Elementary School.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 16
Table 2-3. Future Roadway Capacity Improvement Projects and Cost Estimates
Map.
No.
Location
(corridor and segment) Description Total Cost
(2009 dollars)
Project Group A - Programmed Projects
1 S. 277th Street Install 1 new lane WB and 2 new
lanes EB (widen to 5 lanes total) and install a Class 1 trail $3,069,000 AWN to Green River Bridge
2
D Street NW
Construct 4 lane arterial $6,400,000 37th Street NW to 44th Street NW
3
I Street NE Corridor
Construct 5 lane arterial $5,782,000 40th Street NE to 52nd Street NE
4
A Street NW
Construct multi-lane arterial $14,492,000 W Main Street to 14th Street NW
5
Evergreen Way
Construct new road Developer Funded Lakeland Hills Way to Kersey Way
6 M Street Grade Separation Grade separated railroad crossing $22,400,000 E Main Street to Auburn Way S
7 R Street Bypass Construct bypass road from M
Street SE to Auburn-Black Diamond Road. $12,000,000 M Street to R Street
8 F Street SE Widen to 3 lanes and bike lanes and parking $1,200,000 4th Street SE to Auburn Way S
9 M Street NE Widen to 4 lanes $4,793,500 E Main Street to 8th Street NE
10 West Valley Highway Add center turn lane, sidewalk on
east side, bike lanes, and signal upgrades at West Main Street $5,000,000 Main Street to SR 18
11 49th Street NE Construct multi-lane arterial connection $2,000,000 Auburn Way N to M Street NE
Formatted: Number of columns: 1
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 17
Project Group A - Programmed Projects (Cont.)
12 Harvey Road Intersection capacity, including addition of one EB through and EB
to SB right turn lane
Included in Project 9 cost At 8th Street
13 Auburn Way S Add WB to NB right turn lane $750,000 At M Street SE
14 8th Street NE Add EB lane to south side of 8th Street NE $1,450,000 Pike to R Street NE
15 8th Street NE New traffic signal $650,500 at R Street NE
16 SR 167 Add HOV lane each direction $120 million (State Funded) 15th Street NW to 8th Street E
17
Stewart Road Widen to 2 lanes each direction and center turn lane in the Cities of Sumner and Pacific. Includes widening of the White River bridge.
$40,000,000 SR 167 to East Valley Highway
Subtotal For Projects in Auburn (Project Group A) $79,997,000
Subtotal for All Projects(Project Group A) $239,997,000
Formatted Table
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 18
Table 2-3. Future Roadway Capacity Improvement Projects and Cost Estimates
Map.
No.
Location
(corridor and segment) Description Total Cost
(2012 dollars)
Project Group A - Programmed Projects
1 S. 277th Street Install 1 new lane WB and 2 new lanes EB (widen to 5 lanes total) and install a Class 1 trail $7,647,300 AWN to Green River Bridge
2
D Street NW
Construct 4 lane arterial $6,000,000 37th Street NW to 44th Street NW
3
I Street NE Corridor
Construct 5 lane arterial $6,760,000 45th Street NE to 52nd Street NE
4 A Street NW Phase 1 Construct multi-lane arterial $8,600,000 3rd Street NE to 14th Street NW
5 A Street NW Phase 2 Construct multi-lane arterial $3,300,000 W. Main Street to 3rd Street NW
6 M Street Grade Separation Grade separated railroad crossing $22,500,000 3rd Street SE to 8th Street SE
7 BNSF Yard Grade Separation Construct road across BNSF yard $32,000,000 location to be determined
8 F Street SE Widen to 3 lanes and bike lanes and parking $2,500,000 4th Street SE to Auburn Way S
9 M Street NE Widen to 4 lanes $1,475,000 E Main Street to 4th Street NE
10 8th Street NE Add EB lane to south side of 8th Street NE $1,450,000 Pike to R Street NE
11 49th Street NE Construct multi-lane arterial connection $3,350,000 Auburn Way N to M Street NE
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 19
Project Group A - Programmed Projects (Cont.)
12 8th Street NE Redesign intersection, add an eastbound U-turn. $392,000 at 104th Ave SE
13 Auburn Way S Add WB to NB right turn lane $1,100,000 At M Street SE
14
124th Ave SE Corridor Phase 1 Widen to 4 lanes and bike lanes $1,950,000
SE 318th St. to SE 312th St.
15
124th Ave SE Corridor Phase
2 Intersection capacity improvements $1,250,000
124th Ave SE and SE 312th St.
16
124th Ave SE Corridor Phase
3 Intersection capacity improvements $850,000
124th Ave SE and SE 320th St.
17
SE 320th Street
Widen to 3 lanes and bike lanes $690,000 124th Ave SE to GRCC west end
18
East Valley Hwy.
Add ITS system $800,000 41st St. SE to Lake Tapps Pkwy.
19 Auburn Way South Widen to 5 lanes, signalize Hemlock St.SE $2,332,000 Fir Street to Hemlock Street
20 M Street SE Corridor Construct multi-lane corridor $6,675,000 8th Street SE to Auburn Way S.
21 29th Street SE EB/WB dual left turn lanes and pedestrian sfaety improvements $1,800,000 at R Street SE
22 Auburn Ave. Improve lane design and improve pedestrian access $915,000 at 3rd Street SE
Subtotal for Project Group A $114,336,300
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 20
Project Group B - New City Street Projects
18 51st Avenue Add signal $490,000 S 288th Street
19
51st Avenue Provide protected SB left turn phase and signal and SB left turn lane; Include bikelanes and sidewalks on all legs
$1,400,000 S 296th Street
20
S 277th Street Add WB thru lane (east leg) and 2 EB thru lanes on west leg; Relocate existing trail along 277th if needed. $4,100,000 Auburn Way N
21
108th Avenue / 112th Avenue
SE Realign / improve radius at doglegs (SE 281st St.) for safety, and realign intersecting streets to
improve site distances. Widen to 4 lanes north of 284th Street. At 286th Street, widen to allow for turn pockets. Include bikelanes and sidewalk both sides of 108th/112th.
$7,700,000
S 277th Street to S 286th Street
22
8th Street NE / Lea Hill Rd Widen to 2 lanes each direction. At 104th Ave. SE, lengthen EB right turn lane and add WB left turn lane; Dead end 102nd Ave. SE at 8th Street and connect it to 104th Ave SE via a new street segment; At 105th Ave SE, add EB right turn lane, and SB left turn lane. Include bikelanes and sidewalks both sides along 8th/Lea Hill Rd.
$18,500,000 R Street to 105th Avenue SE
23
S 312th Street Add NB right turn lane, EB right turn lane, WB left turn lane, and signal. Provide sidewalks and bikelanes on all legs.
$1,720,000 112th Avenue SE
24
112th Avenue SE Extend road to Lea Hill Road. Include sidewalks and bikelanes
both sides.
$6,500,000 SE 310th Street to Lea Hill Road
25 SE 304th Street Add signal and NB left turn lane. Include sidewalks and bikelanes both sides. $1,300,000 112th Avenue SE
Formatted Table
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 21
Project Group B - New City Street Projects (Cont.)
26
GRCC On-site Improvements If it will show in model, construct 750' 3-lane section at GRCC entrance with 2 entrance lanes, one
exit lane plus a right turn exit pocket onto 124th NB. Bike lanes and sidewalks included.
$300,000 GRCC Entrance
27
GRCC Improvements at 124th
Ave SE
Construct 500' section from SE 320th to SE 318th Way with three SB lanes and one NB lane. The southbound lanes will be two left turn into GRCC and one right turn onto SE 320th. Bike lanes and sidewalks included.
$510,000
SE 318th St to SE 320th St
28
GRCC Improvements on
124th Ave SE
Construct 2100' of a 4-lane section with two SB lanes, one two-way left turn lane, and a single northbound lane. Bike lanes and sidewalks included.
$1,520,000
SE 312th St to SE 318th St
29
GRCC Improvements on
124th Ave SE Modify signal and rechannelize intersection to accommodate dual southbound thru lanes on 124th
and dual left turn lanes from SE 312th WB to 124th SB.
$500,000
SE 312th Street
30
GRCC Improvements on SE
320th Street
Construct 1400' of 3-lane section from intersection of SE 320th and 124th to western GRCC entrance. Road will include one lane each direction and a dual center left turn lane. Bike lanes and sidewalk included.
$640,000 124th Ave SE to western GRCC entrance
31
8th Street NE / Lea Hill Rd
Expand current two-lane roadway to 4-lanes, including widening of the Green River Bridge. Include bike lanes and sidewalks.
$37,000,000 *Cost estimate
does not include AWN to M Street segment, but would include most of the costs associated with
projects 22, 23, and 25.
M Street to 124th Ave SE
32
SE 284th / SE 288th St Construct new collector linking
284th Street at 124th Ave. to 288th Street at 132nd Ave. Road will be one lane each direction with bike lanes and sidewalks.
$7,700,000 124th Ave SE to 132nd Ave SE
Formatted Table
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 22
Project Group B - New City Street Projects (Cont.)
33
A Street Loop Add one-way (EB) road with
unsignalized free right turn at A Street SE. Include sidewalks both sides of new road.
$1,700,000 A Street SW to A Street SE
34
A Street SE / C Street SW Coordinate signals at A and C Street together. At A Street, add additional WB thru lane; At C Street, restripe to allow SB left turn lane. Include sidewalks on all legs
of both intersections.
$1,500,000 Ellingson Road
35
29th Street SE Add one SB and one NB thru lane from 300' north of intersection to 300' south of intersection. Include
bikelanes and sidewalks on all legs of intersection.
$3,100,000 R Street SE
36
Riverwalk Drive Provide dual left turn lanes on EB and WB approaches; Stripe north and south legs for 2 receiving lanes. Include sidewalks on all legs, and bikelanes on Auburn Way.
$2,400,000 Auburn Way S
37
West Valley Highway Widen to 2 lanes each direction, and include sidewalks both sides; Between Main Street and SR 18, add bikelanes both sides or non-motorized trail on one side.
$16,000,000 37th St NW to north City limits, and 15th St SW to SSR 18
Subtotal (Project Group B) $114,580,000
Total (Project Groups A & B) $194,577,000
Formatted Table
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 23
Project Group B - Future City Street Projects
23
Lea Hill Rd. Segment One Widen to 2 lanes each direction including widening of the Green River Bridge. Includes bike lanes and sidewalks.
$24,700,000 R Street NE to 104th Avenue SE
24
Lea Hill Rd. Segment Two Widen to 2 lanes each direction. Includes bike lanes and sidewalks. $11,400,000 104th Avenue SE to 112th Ave SE
25
Lea Hill Rd. Segment Three Widen to 2 lanes each direction. Includes bike lanes and sidewalks. $3,575,000 112th Avenue SE to 124th Ave SE
26
S 312th Street Add NB right turn lane, EB right turn lane, WB left turn lane, and signal. Provide sidewalks and bikelanes on all legs.
$1,720,000 112th Avenue SE
27
112th Avenue SE Extend road to Lea Hill Road. Include sidewalks and bikelanes both sides. $6,500,000 SE 310th Street to Lea Hill Road
28 SE 304th Street Add signal and NB left turn lane. Include sidewalks and bikelanes both sides. $1,300,000 112th Avenue SE
29
GRCC On-site Improvements If it will show in model, construct 750' 3-lane section at GRCC entrance with 2 entrance lanes, one exit lane plus a right turn exit pocket onto 124th NB. Bike lanes and sidewalks included.
$300,000 GRCC Entrance
30
GRCC Improvements at 124th
Ave SE Construct 500' section from SE 320th to SE 318th Way with three SB lanes and one NB lane. The southbound lanes will be two left
turn into GRCC and one right turn onto SE 320th. Bike lanes and sidewalks included.
$510,000
SE 318th St to SE 320th St
31
SE 284th / SE 288th St Construct new collector linking 284th Street at 124th Ave. to 288th Street at 132nd Ave. Road will be one lane each direction with bike
lanes and sidewalks.
$7,700,000 124th Ave SE to 132nd Ave SE
Formatted Table
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 24
Project Group B - Future City Street Projects
32
A Street Loop Add one-way (EB) road with unsignalized free right turn at A Street SE. Include sidewalks both sides of new road.
$1,700,000 A Street SW to A Street SE
33
A Street SE / C Street SW Coordinate signals at A and C Street together. At A Street, add additional WB thru lane; At C Street, restripe to allow SB left turn lane. Include sidewalks on all legs of both intersections.
$1,500,000 Ellingson Road
34
West Valley Highway Widen to 2 lanes each direction, and include sidewalks both sides; Between Main Street and SR 18, add bikelanes both sides or non-motorized trail on one side.
$16,000,000 37th St NW to north City limits, and 15th St SW to SSR 18
35
Auburn Way South Bypass Construct an Auburn Way S. Bypass between Riverwalk DRr and R Street SE with new connection to SR 18 at R Street SE
$60,450,000
Riverwalk Dr to SR 18 at R St. SE
36
51st Avenue Provide protected SB left turn phase and signal and SB left turn lane; Include bikelanes and sidewalks on all legs
$1,400,000
S 296th Street
37
108th Avenue / 112th Avenue
SE
Realign / improve radius at doglegs (SE 281st St.) for safety, and realign intersecting streets to improve site distances. Widen to 4 lanes north of 284th Street. At 286th Street, widen to allow for turn pockets. Include bikelanes and sidewalk both sides of 108th/112th.
$7,700,000
S 277th Street to S 286th Street
Subtotal for Project Group B $146,455,000
Total Groups A and B $260,791,300
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 25
Project Group C - Regional Transportation Projects
38 Auburn Bypass Create a new road connecting SR 18 east of R Street to SR 164 at Dogwood Street SE. $65 M SR 18 to SR 164
39
SR 164 Widen road to two lanes each direction plus a center two-way left turn lane. Upgrade the intersection of Auburn Way South and Dogwood Street to accommodate Bypass traffic.
$61 M
SR 18 to Academy
40
SR 167 From I-405 to SR 18, add one NB and one SB general purpose lane; From SR 18 to SR 161, add one
NB HOT lane and one SB HOT lane; Add direct NB/SB HOV/HOT lane connection ramps between SR 167 & I-405; Add NB and SB auxiliary lanes between I-405 and S 180th Street; Add NB and SB auxiliary lanes between SR 516 and S 277th Street; Extend SR 167 from SR 161 to SR 509
$4.4 B
I-405 to SR 509
41
SR 18 Complete ramp from EB SR 18 to SB SR 167 and eliminate SR 18 access from West Valley Highway near Peasley Canyon.
Included in Project 40 At SR 167
Formatted Table
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 26
Project Group C - Regional Transportation Projects
38
SR 164 Widen road to two lanes each direction plus a center two-way left turn lane. Upgrade the intersection of Auburn Way South and Dogwood Street to accommodate Bypass traffic.
$61 M
Hemlock to Academy
39
SR 167 From I-405 to SR 18, add one NB and one SB general purpose lane; From SR 18 to SR 161, add one NB HOT lane and one SB HOT lane; Add direct NB/SB HOV/HOT lane connection ramps between SR 167 & I-405; Add NB and SB auxiliary lanes between I-405 and S 180th Street; Add NB and SB auxiliary lanes between SR 516 and S 277th Street; Extend SR 167 from SR 161 to SR 509
$4.4 B
I-405 to SR 509
40
SR 18 Complete ramp from EB SR 18 to SB SR 167 and eliminate SR 18 access from West Valley Highway near Peasley Canyon.
Included in Project 40 At SR 167
41 SR 167 Add HOV lane each direction $120 million (State Funded) 15th Street NW to 8th Street E
42
Stewart Road Widen to 2 lanes each direction and
center turn lane in the Cities of Sumner and Pacific. Includes widening of the White River bridge.
$40,000,000 SR 167 to East Valley Highway
43
51st Avenue
Add signal $490,000
S 288th Street
Formatted Table
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 27
FUTURE LEVEL OF SERVICE
Each of the roadway improvement project groups was evaluated with a generalized level-of-service methodology using the VISUM
software. This methodology produces an
estimate of corridor LOS based upon the p.m. peak hour speeds along each roadway segment within a corridor. This methodology is consistent with, but not as detailed as, the LOS methodology used by the City to examine
concurrency requirements. However, the
modeled results provide a good measure with which to compare the relative transportation benefits associated with each of the project groups. Table 2-4 shows the LOS side-by-side for the three project group alternatives.
Project Group A
Project Group A contains committed City roadway projects that are expected to be
implemented in the future. Some of the
projects are completely funded. The City is actively seeking funding for the other projects on the TIP and in the CFP. While these projects will have beneficial effects on traffic flow in the near future, by the year 2030 there
will be considerable traffic congestion on the
city street system, even with these improvements. Much of this congestion will be due to the growth in traffic on city streets created by new development in adjacent jurisdictions. Most of the principal and minor
arterial routes within the City will experience
moderate or high congestion levels in 2030 with Project Group A improvements only. Nine of the 42 established corridors will not meet their LOS standard by implementing Project Group A only.
Project Group B
Project Group B adds more city street
widenings and spot improvements to Project
Group A to address some of the most heavily congested roadways. These projects will improve the LOS in the Lea Hill neighborhood
(such as 8th Street / Lea Hill Road) and along
portions of 29th Street E, Riverwalk Drive, R
Street, S 277th Street, and 3rd Street SW / Cross Street., R. In most of these situations, the LOS will improve but still remain at moderate to high congestion levels.
Five of the 42 established corridors will not meet their LOS standard by implementing only Project Groups A and B.
Project Group C
Recognizing that city street improvements
alone are unlikely to solve the City’s future
traffic congestion, Project Group C considers the effects of implementing regional transportation capacity improvements on SR 167 and SR 164 in addition to Group A and B projects. Project Group C also includes the
potential bypass that would provide a direct
link in east Auburn between SR 18 and SR 164.
These regional projects would provide substantial congestion relief along key Auburn streets, such as West Valley Highway (south of SR 18), A Street SE and C Street SW (both south of SR 18), Auburn Way South and, W Main Street. More traffic would remain on the
state highways rather than city streets, while the bypass route would reduce congestion along much of Auburn Way South and M Street SE.
Despite the improvements resulting from Project Groups A, B, and C, traffic congestion in 2030 would persist on several city arterial and collector corridors. The City will closely
monitor these corridors and examine further actions that might be appropriate.
Four of the 42 established corridors will not meet their LOS standard under Alternative 3, but many of them do show some improvement.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 28
Group Groups Groups
ID Corridor From To A A & B A, B, & C1Auburn Way North 15th St NE Northern City Limits C C B/C*
2 Auburn Way North East Main St. 15th St NE C C C
3 Auburn Way South East Main St.M St SE E E D
4 Auburn Way South M St SE Eastern City Limits F F C/F5M St./Harvey Auburn Way North East Main St.D D/E D/E
6 M St./Harvey East Main St Auburn Way South D/E D/E C/E
7 Evergreen Way Lakeland Hills Way Kersey Way A A A
8 37th St NE/NW West Valley Hwy I St. NE C/D C C
9 15th St NE/NW West Valley Hwy Auburn Way North C/D C/D C/D
10 Auburn Ave / "A" St SR 18 Southern City Limits D D C
11 Main St West Valley Hwy R St C C D/C1215th St SW West Valley Hwy C St SW F/E F/E F/E
13 C St SW Ellingson SR 18 D D B/D
14 West Valley Hwy Northern City Limits 15th Street NW B/D B/D B/D
15 S 277th St Frontage Rd.108th Ave SE D C C16R St./Kersey Way Auburn Way S.Oravetz Road D/E C/D C/D
17 Lake Tapps Parkway East Valley Hwy.182nd Ave E B B B
18 "A" St SW/NW/ "B" St NW 4th St NW S 277th St B/C B/C B/C 19 8th St NE/Lea Hill Rd.Auburn Way North 132nd Ave SE F/E E/D E/D
20 D St NW/Emerald Downs Dr S 277th St 15th St. NW B B B
21 I St NE S 277th St Harvey Rd B/C B/C C
22 132nd Ave SE SE 282nd St SE 312th St B/D C C23124th Ave SE SE 282nd St SE 320th. St D C/B C/B
24 104th Ave SE/SE 304th St 8th St NE 132nd Ave SE C C C
25 105th Pl SE/SE 320th St Lea Hill Road 124th Ave SE D C C
26 Lakeland Hills Way SE Lake Tapps Parkway Oravetz Rd A A A
27 29th St SE/Riverwalk Dr.A Street SE Auburn Way South E/C D/C C
28 108th Ave SE/112th Ave. SE S 277th St SE 304th St C/F A/D A/D
29 49th St NW B St NW S 277th St D/C D/B C/B30R Street SE**8th St NE 4th Street SE B/A C/A C/A
31 3rd St SW/Cross St C Street Auburn Way South D/C C/B C/B
32 17th St SE A St SE Auburn Way South B B B
33 41st St SE/Ellingson Rd A St SE Western City Limits E/C E/C E/C
34 Lakeland Hills Way/Oravetz East Valley Hwy Kersey Way B B B
35 West Valley Hwy 15th Street NW Southern City Limits E E E/C
36 Kersey Way Oravetz Road Southern City Limits A/B A/B B37S. 316th Street/Terrace Drive West Valley Highway Western City Limits B/C B/C B
38 S. 296th Street/65th Ave West Valley Highway Western City Limits C C C
39 51st Ave S.S. 288th Street Peasley Canyon Rd D D D
40 S. 284th Street 112th Ave SE 124th Ave SE C C C41S. 284th Street 124th Ave SE 132nd Ave SE n/a C C
42 R St. Bypass/Black Diamond M Street SE SR 18 F/D F/D F/D
*
**
Table 2-4. Future Project Groups - P.M. Peak Hour LOS in 2030
Split LOS indicates directional LOS in either the East-West or North-South direction. If there is no split, the LOS is the same in both directions.
Corridor 30 assumes R Street terminates at 4th Street SE and does not connect to R Street Bypass Road.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 29
FUTURE SYSTEM
RECOMMENDATIONS
FUTURE STREET IMPROVEMENTS
The proposed future street plan consists of a
combination of city street and regional transportation improvements, described in Table 2-3 and shown in Figure 2-6. The City cannot adequately solve traffic congestion by making city street improvements alone.
Partnerships with WSDOT, King and Pierce Counties, and other agencies are essential to implementing the future street system in Auburn. The following actions are proposed:
1. Implement street projects prioritized in the City’s TIP and CFP;
2. Program and seek additional funding for street capacity projects not currently identified in the TIP and CFP; and
3. Work collaboratively with WSDOT and other partner agencies to implement roadway improvements on the regional highway network.
DOWNTOWN CIRCULATION PLAN
Auburn’s Downtown is undergoing
considerable growth and transition to a higher density, mixed use town center. Major development including expansion of the Auburn Regional Medical Center and related businesses is occurring to the north of Main
Street. Along Main Street and to the south,
commercial, residential, and office development is planned.
The transformation of downtown Auburn will include many changes to the public right-of-
way and streetscape. A Downtown Circulation Plan will be developed to accommodate the many types of travelers that will be using downtown streets including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, truck operators, and personal vehicle users. An improved pedestrian
and bicycle environment will need to be designed into the fabric of downtown Auburn.
At the same time, there are several major
north-south corridors which run through the downtown, so accommodation for high volumes of vehicular travel and the potential repercussions of modifying the existing street system will need to be considered in the development of the Downtown Circulation Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL PARK DISTRICT
In the vicinity of the Environmental Park, to the west of downtown Auburn, the City is looking at establishing low impact roads and projects that add sidewalks, trails, and
additional connectivity between Clay Street and
Western Avenue. This area will be examined in more detail for transportation improvements as the concept for the Environmental Park District is further refined.
41ST STREET SE/ELLINGSON ROAD BETWEEN A ST SE AND C ST SW
The area around 41st Street SE/Ellingson Road
between A Street SE and C Street SW continues to be a chokepoint for Auburn drivers. This plan identifies some intersection improvements at the intersections of A and 41st Streets SE and C Street SW and Ellingson
Road that will help to some degree. Still the
close spacing of these two intersections, coupled with the numerous business and residential accesses in the area warrant a more in depth study of the area. This study will likely also include the entire A Street SE and C Street
West Main Street, Downtown Auburn
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 30
SW corridors, including evaluation of the two
BNSF railyard crossing projects discussed
below. The results of the 41st Street SE/Ellingson Road study will be incorporated into a future update of this plan.
6TH STREET SE & 15TH STREET SW RAIL YARD
CROSSINGS
The City has identified two additional projects
that were not modeled in the future roadway improvement scenarios; a BNSF rail yard crossing at 6th Street SE and one at 15th Street SW, both of which would connect C Street SW and A Street SE via a grade-separated crossing.
The City anticipates only one of the two projects will be necessary to accommodate the 2030 traffic demand. There are a variety of
criteria that will enable the City to evaluate
which project is ultimately chosen as the preferred alternative, including development of the BNSF property as a multi-modal rail yard, commercial development on Auburn Way South and A Street SE, development of the
GSA property, funding feasibility,
neighborhood impacts, transportation impacts, and engineering feasibility. Since these projects were not considered in the 2030 traffic model, it is difficult to access the projects’ impacts. However, it is expected both projects would
increase east-west mobility in Auburn. The
15th Street crossing would also lead to considerable increases in traffic across the Terminal Park neighborhood.
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
MANAGEMENT
Transportation system management (TSM) techniques, which make more efficient use of the existing transportation system, can reduce the need for costly system capacity expansion projects. These techniques can also be used to
improve LOS when travel corridors approach the adopted LOS standard. TSM techniques used by the City include:
Rechannalization/restriping, adding turn lanes, adding /increasing number of through lanes;
Signal interconnect and optimization;
Turn movement restrictions;
Access Management; and
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS).
The City will continue to use these TSM techniques to maximize the efficiency of the street network. Of the various TSM strategies available, ITS is a relatively new technology
being implemented by the City as a cost
effective means of increasing system capacity. The ITS system enables the City to change traffic signals in real-time, thereby handling unusual increases in traffic or traffic obstacles such as event related traffic and accidents. For
example, ITS has proven successful in
mitigating the impact of event traffic traveling south on Auburn Way South, often during the PM peak, to the White River Amphitheatre. The City will continue to roll out ITS capabilities on corridors around the City, as
referenced in Figure 2-7 and detailed in the ITS policies found in Chapter 5.
In addition to TSM strategies, the City strives
to provide viable alternatives for travelers, to ensure freedom of choice among several transportation modes, including transit, biking and walking as alternatives to the automobile. The City will prioritize the development of pedestrian-friendly environments such as
bicycle routes and pedestrian paths as the non-motorized system expands.
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND
MANAGEMENT
Reducing congestion includes strategies to reduce demands on the transportation system. The State of Washington emphasized the importance of transportation demand management (TDM) by adopting the Commute Trip Reduction law 15 years ago. That law
requires all major employers, with over 100
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 31
employees arriving between the hours of 6:00
and 9:00 AM, to develop programs and
strategies to reduce the number of commuter automobile trips made by their employees. Transportation demand management reduces demand on the street system. While TDM and TSM employ a different suite of strategies, they
share many of the same benefits. Both increase
the efficiency of the transportation system, reduce the need for costly capacity expansions, help improve LOS, and contribute to an enhanced quality of life for those who use and benefit from the transportation system. TDM
strategies include:
ride-sharing through vanpools and carpools;
preferential parking for high-occupancy
vehicles;
car sharing programs;
transit use incentives;
parking management to discourage single
occupant vehicle (SOV) travel;
telecommuting;
alternative work schedules to compress the work week or shift the commute
outside the typical commute hours; and
urban design encouraging non-motorized travel through design features.
The City of Auburn will continue to encourage drivers of single occupancy vehicles to consider alternate modes of travel such as carpools, vanpools, transit, non-motorized travel, and
alternative work schedules.
STREET MAINTENANCE &
REHABILITATION
The City is responsible for maintaining the physical structure of the roadway system.
However, pavement maintenance is costly, and sufficient funds are generally not readily available. Recognizing this dilemma, Auburn residents approved Proposition 1, the “Save Our Streets” (SOS) Program, in November
2004. The SOS program creates a dedicated
local street fund for repair, rehabilitation, and
maintenance of local roadways.
SOS Program – Crack Seal
SOS Program - Before Pavement
SOS Program - Asphalt Overlay
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 32
The City plans to create a similar program to
establish a dedicated fund for the repair and
maintenance of arterials and collectors. The City arterial and collector systems have been subjected to significant wear for years, with few mechanisms available to the City to funds repairs. Hence, the City will be seeking the
support of residents, businesses, and state
lawmakers to establish a fund to repair these corridors. As repairs are made, the City will be attentive to corridors with substantial freight and bus traffic. These corridors will be retrofitted, whenever possible, with design and
construction features that accommodate truck
and bus travel, such as thicker pavement and wider curb radii.
NEIGHBORHOOD NEEDS
Transportation systems and facilities can have adverse impacts on neighborhoods. Impacts
include safety problems due to speeding vehicles and increasing traffic volumes, increased traffic resulting from drivers seeking alternate routes to congested arterials, and the resulting air and noise pollution. Neighborhoods throughout the City are
concerned with these traffic impacts and want to discourage traffic from using their streets for cut-through traffic.
City policies discourage through traffic in neighborhoods. The City also has a traffic calming program that addresses the pedestrian,
bicycle, and automobile traffic safety concerns that threaten neighborhoods. The traffic calming program is a community-based helps alleviate traffic safety concerns for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, and motorists. The program raises public awareness of traffic
safety issues and ways that people can help minimize traffic problems in their own neighborhoods.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL
COORDINATION
The Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.070) provides that comprehensive plans should include a discussion of intergovern-mental coordination efforts, including “an assessment of the impacts of the transportation
plan and land use assumptions on the trans-
portation systems of adjacent jurisdictions.” Auburn works closely with neighboring cities, the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, and state and regional agencies to ensure coordinated efforts are made in developing all modes of the
transportation system. Among other efforts,
the City of Auburn coordinates on both long-range planning efforts and ongoing development.
Page 14-1 Amended 20121
CHAPTER 14
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP
Introduction
The previous chapters presented the goals, objectives and policies intended
to guide Auburn's future physical development. The Comprehensive Plan Map presented in this chapter (Map 14.1) applies those policies to the
various areas of the City, by indicating the appropriate locations for
various categories of land use. The Plan Map should be consulted together with the written policies of this Plan when decisions about land use and
public facility development are considered.
This chapter also explains the reasoning and intention behind the Plan
Map's land use designations. This should be useful in developing and
applying implementing tools (such as zoning provisions); for interpreting the Plan Map as it applies to specific regulatory decisions or development
proposals; and in adjusting or amending the Plan Map when changing
conditions or land use markets warrant.
Finally, this chapter sets forth some special policies intended to deal with
the unique problems or opportunities that exist in certain specific locations within Auburn. These specific policies supplement the general goals,
objectives and policies of earlier chapters.
Land Use
Designations:
Plan Map
Residential Categories Residential Conservancy Purpose: To protect and preserve natural areas with significant environmental constraints or values from urban levels of development and
to protect the City’s water sources. Description: This category should consist primarily of low density
residential uses (with densities not exceeding one unit per four acres) in
Style Definition: Body Text 2: Font: TimesNew Roman, 12 pt, Indent: Left: 0"
Chapter 14
Page 14-2 Amended 20121
areas with environmental constraints and/or areas requiring special
protection such as the City’s watershed, which is a significant water resource. Examples include the Coal Creek Springs watershed area and
low-lying areas along the Green River that are isolated from urban
services. From a practical standpoint, this watershed area cannot be readily served by public facilities due to its physical separation from public
facilities by an existing gravel mine operation that is expected to continue
operation years into the future. The designation will serve to both protect environmental features and hold areas for higher density development until
such time public facilities become available.
The area designated “residential conservancy” allows for a lifestyle similar
to that of rural areas since the lower density established protects the
critical areas such as the City’s Coal Creek Springs watershed. A rural lifestyle generally includes allowance of farm animals, streets not urban in
character (e.g. no sidewalks, street lights), and limited agricultural type
uses.
Compatible Uses: Low density residential uses consistent with protecting
the City’s water resources and environmental constraints are appropriate.
Low intensity cottage industry appropriate for rural areas may be allowed, subject to review. Various public and quasi-public uses which are
consistent with a rural character may be permitted as conditional uses.
Resource extractive uses can only be allowed if the basic environmental character of the area is preserved.
Those areas with critical areas shall be appropriate for low density residential, with the intent to protect environmentally critical areas from
impacts associated with more intensive development. These
environmentally critical areas area valued as a community resource, both for conservation purposes and public enjoyment; provided that the
environmentally critical areas area protected, low density single family
residential use may be appropriate.
Criteria for Designation: This designation should be applied to areas
with either significant environmental values worthy of protection or to those areas which may pose environmental hazards if developed, such as areas tributary to public water sources. It may also be appropriate, to a
limited extent, as a means of delimiting the edge of the City or to areas that are impractical to develop to urban levels until a later time period due to pre-existing development patterns and the absence of public facilities.
Considerations Against Applying this Designation: Due to the costs of providing City services to these areas, this designation should be applied
sparingly. It should be applied as a means of conserving significant
Comp. Plan Map
Page 14-3 Amended 20121
environmental resources, to achieve watershed protection and/or to areas where development served by public facilities has been made impractical
due to pre-existing use patterns.
Appropriate Implementation: The RC (residential conservancy) district will implement this designation.
Single Family Purpose: To designate and protect areas for predominantly single family
dwellings.
Description: This category includes those areas reserved primarily for single family dwellings. Implementing regulations should provide for an
appropriate range of lot sizes, clustered and mixed housing types as part of
a planned development. Compatible Uses: Single family residences and uses that serve or support
residential development, such as schools, daycare centers, churches and parks shall be considered appropriate and may be permitted on a conditional basis. Other public buildings and semi-public uses may be
permitted if designed and laid out in a manner which enhances rather than detracts from the residential character of the area. In siting such uses, however, special care shall be given to ensuring adequate parking,
landscaping, and traffic circulation with a minimum of conflict with residential uses. Uses which generate significant traffic (such as large churches) should only locate on developed arterials in areas zoned for
institutional uses. Intrusion of industrial uses into any of these single family areas shall be
prohibited. Only very limited commercial uses such as home occupations or strictly limited appropriate conditional uses can be allowed.
Planned developments should be favorably considered in these designations in order to allow optimal flexibility. In providing such flexibility, the emphasis should be on small alley-loaded lot single family
development, limited low density multifamily housing and a mixture of types, and design diversity should be sought. Except where conditional use permits have been previously granted, alternate structure types should
not exceed more than 40 percent of the units, and alternative structures should in most cases contain no more than four dwelling units each. However, where substantial offsetting community benefits can be
identified, such alternative structures may be allowed to contain more than three units each.
Chapter 14
Page 14-4 Amended 20121
Criteria for Designation: Areas suitable for this designation include
those areas designated in goals and policies of this Plan as single family
areas. Consistent with those policies, areas within the Community Serving Area of the City suitable for this category should be reserved for these
uses. This designation should also be applied to areas adjacent to lower
density residential plan designations.
Considerations Against Applying this Designation: This designation
would not be generally appropriate (although exceptions may exist) in the following areas:
1. Areas with high volumes of through traffic. 2. Areas developed in or more appropriate under the Plan
policies for another use. 3. Areas within the Region Serving Area of the City.
Appropriate Implementation: Three zones may be used to implement this category:
1) R-1: Permits one dwelling unit per net acre. This zone is primarily applied to areas designated as urban separators under the King
County Countywide Planning Policies where rezones from existing
densities (typically one unit per acre) are not allowed for a 20 year period and/or to areas with significant environmental constraints. It
may also be applied in limited instances to areas where greater
densities are limited by environmental constraints.
2) R-5: Permits 4-5 dwelling units per net acre. This zone is
intended to create a living environment of optimum standards for single family dwellings. Duplexes are conditionally permitted
subject to meeting infill residential design standards. It is intended
to be applied to the relatively undeveloped portions of the City, areas where existing development patterns are consistent with the
density and upland areas where greater densities would strain the
transportation system.
3) R-7: Permits5-7 dwelling units per net acre. This zone provides
for relatively small lot sizes. It may be applied to the older neighborhoods of the City and reflects the typically smaller lot
sizes found there. Application of this zone should be considered
for areas considered appropriate for a mix of housing types, particularly in some of the Special Planning Areas as discussed
below.
Comp. Plan Map
Page 14-5 Amended 20121
Moderate Density
Purpose: To provide a transition between single family residential areas
and other more intensive designations, as well as other activities which reduce the suitability of potential residential areas for single family uses
(such as high traffic volumes). In so doing, this designation will offer
opportunities for housing types which balance residential amenities with the need to provide economical housing choice, in a manner consistent
with conserving the character of adjacent single family areas.
Description: Moderate density residential areas are planned to
accommodate moderate densities of varying residential dwelling types.
Appropriate densities in these areas shall range from 8 to 10 units net per acre and potentially 16 units per net acre, where properties have frontage
on an arterial or residential collector. Dwelling types would generally
range from single family units to multiple-family dwellings, with larger structures allowed (at the same overall density) where offsetting
community benefits can be identified. Structures designed to be occupied
by owner-managers shall be encouraged within this designation.
Compatible Uses: Public and quasi-public uses that have land use
impacts similar to moderate to high density residential uses are appropriate
within this category. Also, uses which require access to traffic (such as schools and churches) are appropriate for these areas. Carefully developed
low intensity office, or residentially related commercial uses (such as day
care centers) can be compatible if developed properly. This designation can include manufactured home parks.
Criteria for Designation: Areas particularly appropriate for such designation are:
1. Areas between single family residential uses and all other uses. 2. Areas adjacent to, or close to arterials designated in the
transportation element. 3. Existing manufactured home parks.
4. Areas sandwiched between higher intensity uses, but not directly served by an arterial.
5. Urban infill areas not appropriate for single family uses but also not capable of supporting higher density uses.
Chapter 14
Page 14-6 Amended 20121
Considerations Against Applying this Designation: Areas to generally
be avoided by moderate density residential designations include:
1. Areas surrounded by lower density uses.
2. Areas more appropriate for commercial or higher density uses due to traffic or extensively developed public facilities.
3. Areas within the Region Serving Area designated by this Plan (except as otherwise provided by the Plan).
4. Any areas not planned to be served by water and sewer systems.
Appropriate Implementation: This designation can be implemented by
two zones: 1) R-10: Permits 10 dwelling units per net acre. The zoning allows
single family dwellings and duplexes as permitted uses. Multiple-family dwellings, some residential supporting uses, and professional offices as part of a mixed-use development may be
permitted as conditional uses. 2) R-16: Permits 16 dwelling units per net acre. The zoning allows
for a variety of housing types, include single family, duplexes, and multiple-family dwellings and mixed-use development.
3) R-MHC: Manufactured/Mobile Home Community permits the development of manufactured home parks on property that is at least 5 acres in size. The base density is 10 dwelling units per net
acre. High Density
Purpose: To provide an opportunity for the location of the most economical forms of housing in areas appropriately situated for such uses
under the policies of this Plan.
Description: This category shall be applied to those areas which are either now developed or are reserved for multiple family dwellings.
Densities may range from 16 to 20 units per acre. Dwelling types may range from single family units to apartment complexes, and may include manufactured home parks when located adjacent to major arterial streets.
Adequate on-site open space areas should be provided for all multi-family developments. Densities exceeding 20 units per acre and special
Comp. Plan Map
Page 14-7 Amended 20121
development standards may be authorized for senior housing projects, within the Downtown area and within 1/4 mile of regional transit service.
Compatible Uses: Compatible uses are similar to those identified under
the other residential categories, except higher intensities of use may be appropriate. Public uses and open spaces which tend to visually relieve
the high density character of these areas should be encouraged.
Criteria for Designation: In addition to areas already developed to this
density, this designation should be applied only to areas which have or
may be most efficiently served with high capacity and high quality public services and facilities. Of particular concern is the provision of adequate
traffic circulation, and this category shall only be applied to areas with
developed arterial access. Other siting concerns may include access to commercial services and open space amenities. This category may also be
applied to areas which are threatened with deterioration and multiple
family dwellings offer the potential for rehabilitation.
Considerations Against Applying this Designation: Areas not
appropriate for this zone include areas surrounded, without physical
separation, by lower intensity uses.
Appropriate Implementation: This designation can be implemented by
two zones: 1) R-16: Permits 16 units per net acre. The zoning allows for a
variety of housing types include single family, duplexes, and multiple-family dwellings and mixed-use development.
2) R-20: Permits 20 units per net acre and multiple-family residential and mixed-use development. Residential supporting uses and some professional offices are permitted as conditional uses.
3) R-MHC: Manufactured/Mobile Home Community permits the development of manufactured home parks on property that is at
least 5 acres in size. The base density is 10 dwelling units per net acre.
In no case should these uses be authorized for construction until all appropriate public facilities are available to full standard.
Chapter 14
Page 14-8 Amended 20121
Publicly or Quasi-
Publicly Owned or Public Access Categories
Open Space Purpose: To ensure adequate open space amenities for present and future
residents by reserving and protecting important open space resources and
to identify lands useful for public purposes (RCW 36.70A.150) as well as open space corridors (RCW 36.70A.160) as required by the GMA.
Description: This category shall be applied to areas which are to be managed in a largely open space character. It includes parks, watersheds, shoreline areas, significant wildlife habitats, large storm drainage ponds,
utility corridors with public access and areas with significant development restrictions, such as steep slope and flood hazard areas.
Compatible Uses: Appropriate uses include low intensity recreational
uses, low density residential uses and associated open areas, wildlife habitat, stormwater detention, watershed and similar low intensity uses.
Criteria for Designation: This designation should be applied to any site in which exists a significant developmental hazard or open space value suitable for public protection without unduly encroaching on private
property rights. Appropriate Implementation: Where land in this category is owned
publicly it shall be implemented by the P-1 Public Use District. Land in
this category which is privately owned will generally be zoned for low density residential use. Where the open space is linear it may be
appropriately managed by means other than zoning, such as public
ownership or easements, particularly as development takes place on adjacent land. The Shoreline Management Program shall regulate the
open spaces designated adjacent to the rivers. Subdivisions of property
involving steep slope or shoreline areas shall consider these development limitations and avoid creating inappropriate or unbuildable lots.
Public and Quasi-Public Purpose: To designate areas of significant size needed to provide public
and quasi-public services to the community. Description: This category includes those areas which are reserved for
public or quasi-public uses of a developed character. It is intended to
include those of a significant extent, and not those smaller public uses
Comp. Plan Map
Page 14-9 Amended 20121
which are consistent with and may be included in another designation. Public uses of an industrial character, such as the General Services
Administration, are included in the industrial designation. Streets, utilities
and other public activities supporting other uses are not considered separate uses and are not so mapped. This designation includes large
churches, private schools and similar uses of a quasi-public character.
Developed parks are also designated under this category.
Compatible Uses: Uses more appropriately designated under another
category should not be designated under this category, irrespective of
ownership. Industrial and commercial uses which are affiliated with and managed by educational institutions for vocational educational purposes
may be classified as a public use and permitted on a conditional basis.
Criteria for Designation: Designation of these areas should be consistent
with the character of adjacent uses.
Appropriate Implementation: This designation will generally be implemented by three zones:
1) P-1 (Public Use) District provides for the location and development of public uses that serve the cultural, educational, recreational and public
service needs of the community.
2) I (Institutional Use) District provides for similar uses, but includes schools and typically allows a much broader list of uses.
3) LF (Landing Field) District provides for the operation and
management of the Auburn Municipal Airport.
The designation can also be implemented as a conditional use under
various zones. Approval of these types of uses (and open space uses), not individually designated on the Plan Map, under a conditional use permit or
rezone consistent with or related to adjacent zoning, shall not be
considered inconsistent with the designations under this Plan.
Commercial Categories
Light Commercial
Purpose: To create people oriented commercial areas to supply a wide range of general commercial services to area residents.
Description: This category represents the prime commercial designation
for small to moderate scale commercial activities. These commercial areas should be developed in a manner which is consistent with and
Chapter 14
Page 14-10 Amended 20121
attracts pedestrian oriented activities. The ambiance of such areas should
encourage leisure shopping and should provide amenities conducive to attracting shoppers.
Compatible Uses: A wide range of consumer oriented goods and services
are compatible within this designation since the emphasis would be on performance criteria which create an attractive shopping environment.
However, uses which rely on direct access by vehicles or involve heavy
truck traffic (other than for merchandise delivery) are not appropriate in this category. Unsightly outdoor storage and similar activities should be
prohibited. Permitted uses would consist of retail trade, offices, personal
services, indoor eating establishments, financial institutions, governmental offices, and similar uses. Multiple family dwellings should be encouraged
as part of mixed-use developments where they do not interfere with the
shopping character of the area, such as within the upper stories of buildings. Since taverns can break up the continuity of people oriented
areas, taverns would be permitted generally only as a conditional use.
Drive in windows should only be allowed as ancillary to a permitted use, and only when carefully sited under the conditional use permit process in
order to ensure that an area's pedestrian environment is not seriously
affected.
Criteria for Designation: This designation should include moderate
sized shopping centers, and centrally located shopping areas. This designation should be preferred for commercial sites where visual and pedestrian amenities are an important concern outside of the downtown.
Considerations Against Applying this Designation: Commercial areas which can not be readily separated from high traffic volumes (such as
shallow lots along busy arterials) should not be included in this
designation. Areas not large enough for separation from any adjacent heavier commercial or industrial area should not be designated as light
commercial.
Appropriate Implementation: This designation is implemented by the C-1 Light Commercial District. This district provides for a wide range of
small and moderate scale commercial oriented towards the leisure shopper and pedestrian oriented activities.
Downtown Purpose: To create a vibrant people oriented downtown which serves as
the business, governmental and cultural focal point of the Community that
includes multifamily residential development.
Comp. Plan Map
Page 14-11 Amended 20121
Description: This category is intended to be applied only in Downtown
Auburn. The area should be developed in a manner which is consistent with and attracts pedestrian oriented activities. The ambiance of the
downtown should encourage leisure shopping, should provide services to
local residents, area employees and should provide amenities conducive to attracting visitors and shoppers.
Compatible Uses: A broad mix of uses is appropriate and encouraged within the Downtown. A wide range of consumer oriented goods and
services are compatible within this designation since the emphasis would
be on performance criteria which create an attractive pedestrian oriented shopping environment. However, uses which rely on direct access by
vehicles or involve heavy truck traffic (other than for merchandise
delivery) are not appropriate in this category. Unsightly outdoor storage and similar activities should be prohibited. Permitted uses would consist
of retail trade, offices, personal services, indoor eating establishments,
financial institutions, governmental offices, and similar uses. Multiple family dwellings should be encouraged, particularly within the upper
stories of buildings which include retail and commercial uses. Since
taverns can break up the continuity of people oriented areas, they should be prohibited. Drive in windows should not be permitted to maintain the
area's pedestrian environment. Parking standards within the downtown
should reflect the pedestrian orientation of the area, but also consider parking's impact for economic development.
Criteria for Designation: This designation should apply only in
Downtown Auburn.
Considerations Against Applying this Designation: This designation
should not be used other than for the Downtown area. Appropriate Implementation: This designation can be implemented by
the following zoning districts:
1) The primary core of downtown should be implemented by the
Downtown Urban Center zone, which allows for a broad range of
uses with no residential density limitations. 2) Other commercial areas within the downtown may be implemented
by the C-2 Central Business District.
Heavy Commercial
Purpose: To provide automobile oriented commercial areas to meet both the local and regional need for such services.
Chapter 14
Page 14-12 Amended 20121
Description: This category is intended to accommodate uses which are
oriented to automobiles either as the mode or target of providing the commercial service. The category would also accommodate a wide range
of heavier commercial uses involving extensive storage or heavy vehicular
movement.
Compatible Uses: A wide variety of commercial services oriented to
automobiles are appropriate within this category. This includes automobile sales and service, drive in restaurant or other drive in commercial business, convenience stores, etc. Since these uses are also
compatible with heavier commercial uses, lumber yards, small scale warehousing, contractor yards and similar heavy commercial uses are appropriate in this designation.
Criteria for Designation: This designation should only be applied to areas which are highly accessible to automobiles along major arterials.
Generally this category would characterize commercial strips. This zone
is appropriate for the intersections of heavily traveled arterials, even if adjacent sites are best suited for another commercial designation.
Considerations Against Applying this Designation: Areas which conflict with single family residential areas or areas more suited for other uses. Whenever possible this category should be separated from all uses
by extensive buffering. Appropriate Implementation: This category is implemented by the C-3
Heavy Commercial District and the C-4, Mixed Use Commercial District.
Neighborhood Commercial
Purpose: To provide accessible commercial services frequently needed in
residential areas without creating land use conflicts between those commercial uses and the residential areas they serve.
Description: Residential areas require commercial services almost on a
daily basis. Such services, while necessary, can also conflict with the quality of residential areas. Consequently, commercial areas need to be
reserved that are either carefully restricted (if located within residential
areas) or are accessible to, but buffered from, residential areas.
Compatible Uses: In restricted areas (those within neighborhoods), uses
must be carefully controlled both in the kind of uses permitted and in
terms of design and other performance criteria. A much less restricted type of neighborhood commercial use can be designated near intersections
of a major arterial and a residential arterial. A much wider range of
Comp. Plan Map
Page 14-13 Amended 20121
commercial activities are appropriate in such an area, including grocery stores, convenience stores, service stations, hardware stores, small
restaurants and drinking establishments. However, activities (such as
outdoor storage) which can alter the character of these areas into heavier commercial areas should only be permitted on a conditional basis in order
to control potential adverse impacts.
Criteria for Designation: In all cases, neighborhood commercial areas should be at the intersections of major streets. In the case of restricted
types, such streets may be residential arterials, while in the case of the less
restricted type at least one of the streets should be a major arterial. Adequate buffering should be planned in the process of designating any
new areas as neighborhood commercial.
Considerations Against Applying this Designation: This designation
should be avoided whenever it is not possible to adequately buffer the
commercial uses from adjacent residential uses.
Appropriate Implementation: This category is implemented by the C-N
Neighborhood Commercial District.
Office-Residential
Purpose: To reserve areas to accommodate professional offices for expanding medical and business services, while providing a transition between residential uses and more intensive uses and activities.
Description: This category is a restricted commercial designation reserved only for certain types of activities. As a growing medical center,
areas need to be reserved to accommodate growth in this sector, which is
largely expressed in the form of professional offices. This category also assures space to accommodate the rapid growth that is occurring in
business services and other service oriented activities. Such uses also
provide a means for an appropriate transition for areas originally developed as a residential area but now not appropriate for that type of
use.
Compatible Uses: To be fully effective as a transition or a buffer, resi-dential uses should be permitted on a conditional basis.
Criteria for Designation: As a transition this designation can serve as an appropriate buffer between heavily traveled arterials and established single
family areas. It would be particularly appropriate in areas where large
traffic volumes have affected an established residential area. It can be
Chapter 14
Page 14-14 Amended 20121
applied where amenity values mitigate against heavy commercial uses
along major arterials. This designation should also be used to accommodate the expansion of medical services in the area around Auburn
Regional Medical Center.
Considerations Against Applying this Designation: This zone is intended for particular applications as described. It generally should not
be applied on a large scale basis.
Appropriate Implementation: This category is implemented by two zones:
1) RO - Residential Office District which is intended to primarily accommodate business and professional offices where they are
compatible with residential uses. 2) RO-H Residential Office-Hospital District is to be used exclusively
for the area around Auburn Regional Medical Center. Industrial Categories
Light Industrial
Purpose: To reserve quality industrial lands for activities that implement
the City's economic development goals and policies.
Description: This category is intended to accommodate a wide range of
industrial and commercial uses. This designation is intended to provide a location attractive for manufacturing, processing and assembling land use activities that benefit from quality surroundings and appropriate
commercial retail uses that benefit from the location, access, physical configuration, building types of these properties. It is distinguished from heavier industrial uses by means of performance criteria. All significant
activities shall take place inside buildings, and the processing or storage of hazardous materials shall be strictly controlled and permitted only as an incidental part of another use. The siting and design of industrial
buildings shall be of an "industrial or business park" character. Certain residential uses may be permitted, especially in industrial areas that have been established to promote a business park environment that
complements environmental features, and/or if development standards are developed to promote compatibility between residential and other non-residential land uses.
Compatible Uses: A wide range of industrial and heavy commercial uses may be permitted, subject to performance standards. These uses include
Comp. Plan Map
Page 14-15 Amended 20121
indoor manufacturing, processing and assembling of materials from previously prepared or raw materials and ancillary and necessary
warehousing and distribution of finished goods associated with
manufacturing and industrial uses. Certain residential uses may be permitted if development standards are established to promote
compatibility between residential and other non-residential land uses.
Outside storage shall be permitted only subject to performance criteria
addressing its quantity and location to ensure it is compatible with
adjacent uses and so that such storage would not detract from the potential use of the area for light industry. In all cases such storage shall be
extensively screened. In the Environmental Park District that implements
the “Light Industrial” plan map designation; outdoor storage will be strictly limited to promote compatibility with adjacent environmental land
uses. Uses involving substantial storage or processing of hazardous
materials as well as substantial emissions should not be permitted in these areas. A wide range of commercial activities may be allowed to provide
increased opportunities for sales tax revenue.
The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Auburn Yard located within the Railroad Special Plan Area is considered a compatible use at its current
level of usage (as of August 14, 1996). It is not bound by the policies
concerning outside storage under the existing light industrial designation as it was an existing use prior to the development of this policy. Should
BNSF decide to reactivate its applications to upgrade the yard to an
intermodal facility, the proposal will be subject to the essential public facility siting process as defined in the Capital Facilities Element (Chapter
5).
To ensure the City’s long-term ability to invest in public infrastructure and
services remains viable, the City must pursue implementation of policies
that incentivize the transition of current and future land uses in its industrial zones away from distribution and warehouse uses. The City
believes that manufacturing and industrial land uses should over time
largely replace warehouse and distribution land uses currently existing in the City and that any future warehouse and distribution uses should be
ancillary to and necessary for the conduct of manufacturing and industrial
uses. Manufacturing and industrial uses are more appropriate and beneficial through higher and better use of the land, enhanced employment
densities, increased property tax revenues and potential on-site sales tax
revenue generation for receipt of materials and other goods and services.
The establishment of regulations and incentives that create a basis for
increased commercial retail uses in the City’s industrial zoning districts will provide greater opportunity for the generation of sales tax revenue in
Chapter 14
Page 14-16 Amended 20121
the City. Increased sales tax revenue will positively impact the City’s
continued ability to maintain and operate a strong public investment program in infrastructure and services. Commercial retail uses will in turn
be attracted to and benefit from the location, access, physical configuration
and building types of industrial zoned properties.
Criteria for Designation: This designation should be applied to a
majority of the Region Serving Area designated under this Plan. It is
particularly appropriate for industrial land within high visibility corridors. This category should separate heavy industrial areas from other uses.
Considerations Against Applying this Designation: Within the Community Serving Area, this designation should only be applied to sites now developed as light industrial sites. Industrial sites along rail corridors
are generally more appropriate for heavier industrial uses, unless in high visibility corridors.
Appropriate Implementation: This designation is implemented by the
Light Industrial (M-1), Environmental Park (EP) or Business Park (BP) zone.
Heavy Industrial Purpose: To provide a place for needed heavy industrial uses in areas
appropriately sited for such uses. Description: This designation allows the full range of industrial uses as
well as certain commercial uses. Certain residential uses may be permitted
if development standards are developed to promote compatibility between residential and other non-residential land uses.
Compatible Uses: While this zone should be reserved primarily for the heavier forms of industrial activities, a wide range of industrial and commercial activities may be permitted, along with residential uses with
appropriate compatibility protections. Criteria for Designation: The most appropriate area for this designation
is in the central part of the Region Serving Area adjoining the rail lines.
This designation is also appropriate in the southern portion of the area which is now developed in large scale industrial facilities (the Boeing and
the General Services Administration facilities).
Considerations Against Applying this Designation: This designation can only be applied in the Community Serving Area to sites now
developed in this character along A Street S.E. These areas should not
Comp. Plan Map
Page 14-17 Amended 20121
abut commercial or residential areas; heavy industry should be buffered by light industrial uses. It is not an appropriate designation for highly visible
areas.
Appropriate Implementation: This designation is implemented by the M-2 zone.
Planned Areas
Special Plan Areas (See Map 14.2)
Purpose: To allow large areas within the City, under a single or a
coordinated management, to be developed as a planned unit. This
designation can also be used to provide flexibility when there is uncertainty regarding how an area may be most appropriately developed in
the future.
Description: This designation applies to specific areas identified as being appropriate for mixed, urban level development on a planned basis. It is
intended that the future development of these areas will be guided by
individual "elements" or “sub-area plans” of the Comprehensive Plan, to be developed and adopted at a later date. The Plan elements should be
consistent with the following.
Compatible Uses: Uses and intensities within Special Planning Areas shall be determined for each area through individual planning processes.
Each individual planning process will result in the adoption of a Comprehensive Plan element (sub-area plan) for that particular Special Planning Area. Each Plan element shall be consistent with the general
goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Development of the individual Plan elements shall also be based upon the following guidelines:
Academy Special Planning Area: The Auburn Adventist Academy Plan was adopted by resolution No. 2254 in November 1991 and is considered
to be an element of the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan applies to the area within the property owned by the Academy and allows for a diversity of uses on the site, primarily those related to the mission and objectives of the
Academy. As part of the adoption of the Plan, the area was zoned under the I-Institutional Use District which permits uses such as schools, daycare, churches, nursing homes, recreation and single family uses.
Auburn North Business Area Planning Area: The Auburn North Business Area Plan was adopted by resolution No. 2283 in March 1992 and is
considered to be an element of the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan covers
Chapter 14
Page 14-18 Amended 20121
an approximately 200 acre area located directly north of the Auburn
Central Business District. The Plan calls for development to be pedestrian oriented with high density residential and light commercial components.
Downtown Special Planning Area: Downtown Auburn is a unique area in the City which has received significant attention in the past and there will
be continued emphasis in the future. This Comprehensive Plan recognizes
Downtown as the business, governmental and cultural focal point of Auburn with a renewed emphasis on providing housing in the Downtown.
Development of the Downtown should be consistent with the 2001
Auburn Downtown Plan. Lakeland Hills Special Planning Area: The Lakeland Hills Plan was
adopted by resolution No. 1851 in April 1988 and is considered to be an element of the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan covers the approximately 458 acres of the Lakeland Hills development which falls within the King
County portion of the city. The Plan calls for a mix of residential uses including single and multi-family housing as well as supporting recreational, commercial, public and quasi-public uses. The plan calls for
phasing of development in coordination with the provision of necessary urban services.
Lakeland Hills South Special Planning Area: The Lakeland Hills South Plan initially covered approximately 685 acres owned by The Lakeland Company within Pierce County and contained within the City of Auburn
potential annexation area (urban growth area). The Plan is intended to be consistent with the conditions of approval of the Lakeland Hills South PDD (Pierce County Hearings Examiner Case No. Z15-90/UP9-70) as
amended. The City of Auburn has accepted the Lakeland Hills South PUD as an
approved PUD. This acceptance is implemented in part through an
annexation and utilities agreement between the City and the developer of Lakeland Hills South PUD. The Lakeland Hills South PUD is further
implemented by the City’s zoning code, including ACC Chapter 18.76
entitled “Planned Unit Development District–Lakeland Hills South Special Plan Area”.
Residential development within the PUD is primarily single family and moderate density dwellings with a wide range of lot sizes, including lots
smaller than those typically allowed by the City’s zoning ordinance for
non-PUD’s. The maximum allowable number of residential units provided for originally was 3,408 based upon an overall gross density of 5
units per acre. High density multifamily units are limited to one area of
the PUD to approximately 669 units. Twenty acres are to be used for light
Comp. Plan Map
Page 14-19 Amended 20121
commercial development and significant area has been set aside as open space. In 2007, the developer of Lakeland Hills South PUD was granted
an expansion to the Lakeland Hills South PUD to add an additional 4 acres
of commercial land, raising the total area of light commercial land to 24 acres. The development includes a developed 15-acre park, an
undeveloped 15-acre park, two 5-acre parks and a linear park along
Lakeland Hills Way. The locations of the parks are shown on the comprehensive plan map. Changing the location of any or all of the parks
does not constitute a comprehensive plan amendment provided that the
total park acreage does not change and the location is agreed upon by the City.
Within the Lakeland Hills South Special Plan area only, the permitted density ranges for the comprehensive plan designations are as follows:
Single Family Residential: 1-6 units per acre; Moderate Density
Residential: 2-14 units per acre; and High Density Residential: 12-19 units per acre. The development has occurred in phases in coordination with the
provision of required urban services and in 2008, the development is
nearing completion.
In 2004, the developer of Lakeland Hills South PUD requested an
expansion to the Lakeland Hills South PUD involving several parcels totaling approximately 77 acres – bringing the total PUD acreage to
approximately 762 acres. The proposal designated these additional parcels
as “Moderate Density Residential” (from “Single Family Residential”) with the objective of increasing the total number of units allowed in the
PUD from 3,408 to approximately 3,658. Subsequently, in 2005, it was
determined and agreed that the total number of units within even the expanded boundaries of the PUD would be no greater than 3,408.
Lakeview Special Planning Area: The Lakeview Special Planning Area is currently the site of two independent sand and gravel mining operations. While mining activity continues in the eastern operation, indications in
1995 are that the western operation has ceased. Activity in the western portion is now limited to a concrete batch plant and future site reclamation. Following reclamation, the area should be developed as a
primarily single family residential neighborhood of low to moderate urban density. A planned development would be particularly appropriate for this approximately 235 acre site. The permitted development density of the
site will depend heavily upon the ability of the transportation system near the site to handle the new uses. Consideration shall be given to the environmental, recreational and amenity value of White Lake, as well as
the historical and cultural significance to the Muckleshoot Tribe, in the development of the Lakeview Plan element. Permit applications have been accepted and are currently being processed by the City with respect to
Chapter 14
Page 14-20 Amended 20121
the mining activity on the eastern portion of the area. The permit process
should continue, however, any permit for continued mining in this portion of the area should be limited to 10 years to encourage completion of the
mining, and subsequent reclamation by the property owner in preparation
for development. The Lakeview Plan element should be adopted prior to the City’s acceptance or processing of any other permit applications for the
mining operation in the Lakeview Special Planning Area. The
environmental information and analysis included in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Lakeview (November 1980), shall be
considered in the development of the Lakeview Plan element. While
heavy commercial or industrial uses would not be appropriate as permanent uses of this area, conversion of the area now zoned for heavy
industry to office commercial (or similar) uses would be appropriate.
Rail Yard Special Planning Area: This approximately 150 acre Special
Planning Area is located in the south-central portion of the City and
surrounded by SR-18 to the North, Ellingson Road to the South, C Street SW to the west and A Street SE to the East. The Special Planning Area
should consider both sides of C Street and A Street. Consideration should
be given to: 1. The needs of Burlington Northern.
2. Providing pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular access across the site to connect the southeast and southwest sides of the city.
3. Providing a more visually appealing "entry corridor" into the City from the south along A and C Streets.
4. Allowing for a mix of uses including single and multifamily development and commercial and industrial uses where
appropriate. Mt. Rainier Vista Special Planning Area: This 145 acre Special Planning
Area is located south of Coal Creek Springs Watershed. Overall development of the Mt. Rainier Vista subarea plan shall be consistent with the following conditions:
1. Primary consideration in use and development of the property shall be given to protection of Coal Creek Springs' water quality.
Development types, patterns and standards determined to pose a substantial risk to the public water source shall not be allowed.
2. The maximum number of dwelling units will be determined as part of any sub-area plan process. Dwelling units shall be located
Comp. Plan Map
Page 14-21 Amended 20121
within portions of the property where development poses the least risk of contamination for Coal Creek Springs. Lands upon which
any level of development would have a high risk for contaminating
the water supply shall not be developed, but would be retained as open space. The development pattern shall provide for a logical
transition between areas designated for rural uses and those
designated for single family residential use.
3. All dwelling units shall be served by municipal water and sanitary
sewer service, and urban roads. If 53rd Street S.E. is the major access to serve the Special Planning Area, the developer will be
responsible for developing the street to urban standards, from the
property owners’ eastern property line that abuts 53rd Street, west to the intersection of 53rd and Kersey Way.
4. Percolation type storm sewer disposal systems shall not be permitted. All surface water drainage shall be conveyed consistent
with the City’s current storm drainage standards. Treatment of
stormwater shall occur prior to its discharge to any surface water body, consistent with standard public works or other requirements
in general effect at the time of development.
5. The site shall be zoned temporarily, at one unit per four acres, until
the sub-area plan is completed and the long-term urban zoning
determined.
6. The Mt. Rainier Vista special planning area boundary may be
modified through the development of the subarea plan.
7. The Mt. Rainier Vista and Stuck River Road Special Planning
Areas shall be coordinated subarea plans.
Stuck River Road Special Planning Area: A portion of the Stuck River
Road Special Planning Area is currently the site of a large sand and gravel mining operation. This area and other adjacent land comprising a total of
approximately 664 acres has been designated as a long term resource area
(mineral resource area), so development of the Special Area Plan for this area should be a low priority as mining is expected to continue on this site
for as long as 30 years. The land uses for the Stuck River Road Special
Planning Area will be determined through the subarea planning process and the City Council’s adoption of the subarea plan. Potential land uses
applied through the subarea planning process could include single-family
residential, multi-family residential, commercial, institutional, and recreational. Some light industrial uses may be appropriate for
consideration and designation through the subarea planning process if the
Chapter 14
Page 14-22 Amended 20121
uses are “industrial or business park” in character, conducted entirely
within an enclosed building, and exhibit a high degree of performance standards and are non-nuisance in nature and if appropriately limited in
extent and location. A mix of housing types ranging from single family
residential to multi-family residential is appropriate for this planning area. The subarea plan should be adopted taking into consideration the period
during which mining is expected and the intent of the ultimate
development of the area. An active permit has been processed by the City with respect to the mining activity on a portion (approximately 664 acres)
of the mineral extraction operation. The permit process should continue,
however, any permit for mining in the mineral resource area should be granted for the life of the resource, with reviews conducted periodically
(ever five years) to determine whether changes in the originally proposed
mineral extraction operation have arisen and give rise to the need for additional or revised permit conditions to address the new impacts (if any)
of any such changes. Any permit applications for additional acreage
within the mineral resource area shall be processed by the City. Development of this area should not occur until adequate public facilities
are available to support the development consistent with City concurrency
policy. The City recognizes the potential for expanding the Stuck River Road
Special Planning Area to include additional land east of Kersey Way and north of the Covington-Chehalis power line easement, and will consider a proposal by all affected property owners. If the area is expanded, the
number of non-multiple family, non-manufactured home park dwellings units may be increased proportionate to the increase in acreage. Any such proposal shall specifically apportion the types and quantities of
development to occur within each separate ownership. Northeast Auburn Special Plan Area: The Northeast Auburn/Robertson
Properties Special Plan area was adopted by Ordinance No. 6183 in the Spring of 2008. The Plan was prepared in fulfillment of the policies included in the Comprehensive Plan for the area between Auburn Way
North and the Green River, south of 277th Street (52nd Street NE) and north of approximately 37th Street NE in the City of Auburn (Map No. 14.2). The planning area was narrowed to an area covering approximately
120 acres, north of 45th Street NW and between Auburn Way North and the existing I Street NE right-of-way. The Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan focuses on proposed develop of the Auburn
Gateway project area, a 60-acre group of properties owned or under consideration for purchase by Robertson Properties Group, owners of the Valley 6 Drive-In Theater. The plan calls for a mix of office, retail, and
multifamily development under a new zoning designation (C-4, Mixed Use Commercial) for the central portion of this planning area, created to
Comp. Plan Map
Page 14-23 Amended 20121
accommodate mixed use development. The plan calls for phased development in coordination with the provision of new roads, stormwater
and other utilities, and flood management measures.
Criteria for Designation: Additional Special Planning Areas may only be designated through amendments of the Comprehensive Plan.
Appropriate Implementation: Plan elements establishing City policy regarding the development of the Special Planning Areas shall be adopted
by amendment of the Comprehensive Plan, or shall be adopted concurrent
with adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. Special Planning Area elements shall be implemented in the same manner as other elements of the
Comprehensive Plan; that is, under the City's zoning and subdivision
ordinances, development standards and public facilities programs.
Plan Map Policies
In some cases the general policies established by this Plan need further
articulation or clarification due to particular geographic concerns associated with specific areas. In other cases, the application of the Plan's
general policies may be inappropriate for a specific area due to unique
circumstances, requiring that specific "exceptions" to these general policies be established. This section identifies these specific areas and
establishes either supplemental policies or exceptions to the general
policy, as appropriate.
Urban Separators Urban separators are areas designated for low-density uses in the King
County Countywide Planning Policies. They are intended to be
“permanent low-density lands which protect adjacent resource lands, Rural Areas, and environmentally sensitive areas and create open space corridors
within and between Urban Areas which provide environmental, visual,
recreational and wildlife benefits.” There are two primary areas of urban separators within the Lea Hill portion of the City of Auburn, which the
City is obligated to maintain (and not redesignate) until at least the year
2022, pursuant to the Countywide Planning Policies and an annexation agreement with King County. Urban separators are deemed to be both a
regional as well as local concern and no modifications to development
regulations governing their use may be made without King County review and concurrence. Therefore, the areas designated as “urban separator” on
the Comprehensive Land Use map, will be zoned for densities not to
exceed one dwelling unit per acre, with lot clustering being required if a subdivision of land is proposed.
Infrastructure
Chapter 14
Page 14-24 Amended 20121
Related
Policies Pike Street
Area: North of 8th N.E., east of Harvey Road, and south of 22nd N.E.
Problem: This area is inadequately served by residential arterials. Further intensification of use in this area would compound this problem.
Policy III.A. No increase in density or other development which would increase traffic demand in this area should be approved.
8th Street N.E. Area: 8th Street N.E. between Auburn Way and M Street.
Problem: The Comprehensive Plan Map designates multiple family use
as the ultimate use in accord with the Comprehensive Plan policies. While 8th Street is designated as a major arterial, it is not currently constructed to that standard and is not able to support current traffic demand adequately.
The Plan designation would greatly increase traffic volumes. Water service is also not sufficient to support multiple family densities at the present time.
Policy III.B. Implementation of the Plan designations should not occur until 8th Street is constructed to the adequate arterial standard and water
service is upgraded. Up zones should not be granted from current zoning until these systems are upgraded or guaranteed.
Auburn Way South, Auburn Black Diamond Road Area: Auburn Way South in the vicinity of the Enumclaw Plateau; Area between Auburn-Black Diamond Road and the Burlington Northern
Railroad.
Problem: This Plan does not fully represent the intensity of uses that could ultimately be supported in these areas (in part due to the current
weakness of the City's infrastructure to support future growth). In spite of this fact, the development intensity now planned will still need to be coordinated with the necessary infrastructure to support that growth.
Particularly significant is the need to assess the ability of both Auburn Way and Auburn-Black Diamond Road to support continued increases in traffic volumes.
Policy III.C. The area between Auburn-Black Diamond Road and the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks is designated as Rural by the Plan
Map. The primary reason for this Rural designation is the current lack of urban facilities necessary to support urban development. Major
Comp. Plan Map
Page 14-25 Amended 20121
development proposals shall be carefully assessed under SEPA to ensure that the development can be supported by the available facilities. Once
property owners are able to demonstrate to the City that they can provide
urban services (municipal water and sewer service, urban roads and storm water management) necessary to support the intensity of development
proposed within the entire area, the Plan designation and zoning for this
area should be changed to an urban residential or commercial classification. The appropriate classification(s) shall be determined after a
review of the development proposal and the pertinent Comprehensive Plan
policies.
Economic Development
Strategy Areas In 2005 the City of Auburn brought together a focus group of diverse
business and community interests that identified several economic
development areas within the City. The focus group’s effort is reflected in an Economic Development Strategies document that includes strategies
and actions needed to affect necessary change for specific strategy areas
within the city. As adopted by Resolution No. 3944 Identified in the 2005, the Economic Development Strategies documents identified are six initial
strategy areas. along with two additional strategy areas. These economic
development strategy areas are targeted for population and employment growth to meet the City’s 20-year (2031) growth target. The boundaries of
these areas will be refined as sSub-area plans of the Comprehensive Plan
should be are developed for these strategy areas and/or as the areas are differentiated through incentive zoning.
In 2010, the City Council identified two additional economic development strategy areas and solidified the idea of expanding elements of the “Urban
Center” designation--greater residential population density (i.e. mixed
use), clustered non-residential intensity (offices, retail, services), increased employment, and multi-modal transportation (i.e. walking, transit, and
bicycling)--to these economic development strategy areas as key economic
development nodes in the City. The original planning horizon for the economic development strategy areas focused on the City’s 20-year (2031)
growth target.
The strategy areas are as follows:
• Auburn Way North Corridor
• Auburn Way South Corridor
• Urban Center
• Auburn Environmental Park and Green Zone
• 15th Street SW/C Street SW/West Valley Highway/Supermall
• A Street SE Corridor
Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted: No bullets or numbering, Don'tallow hanging punctuation, Don't adjust spacebetween Latin and Asian text, Don't adjustspace between Asian text and numbers, FontAlignment: Baseline, Tab stops: Not at 0.5"
Chapter 14
Page 14-26 Amended 20121
• SE 312th Street/124th Avenue SE Corridor
• M Street SE between Auburn Way North and Auburn South With the City Council’s Economic Development Retreat in 2012 and
subsequent discussions of the Planning & Development Committee and Committee of the Whole, the population and employment growth purpose of the eight economic strategy areas is further articulated. A new
economic development strategy area is added bringing the total to nine, revised to a 50-year planning horizon and modified boundaries were used to correlate the economic development strategy areas with priority
business sectors as follows: (See Map No. 14.3 “Economic Development Strategy Areas”)
• Auburn Environmental Park and “Green Zone” (the zoning
designation surrounding and supporting the Environmental Park):
o Healthcare research (provision and prevention); o Ecosystem management (“Green Engineering”);
o Education;
o Bio-research facilities; and o “Manufacturing Village” – mixed uses consisting of
manufacturing, commercial and multiple family
residential
• Urban Center o Healthcare research (provision and prevention); o Entertainment;
o High density housing /mixed-use commercial; and o Ecosystem management (“Green Engineering”);
• Auburn Way North Corridor (Generally, paralleling the street between 15th ST NE to S 277th ST and C ST NW to I ST NE) o Mixed-use of commercial and residential (retail
emphasis); and o Entertainment
• Auburn Way South Corridor (Generally, SR 18 south to Auburn WY S and Riverwalk DR SW)
o Healthcare research (provision and prevention);
o Ecosystem management (“Green Engineering”); o Education;
o Bio-research facilities; and
o Aerospace
• 15th Street SW/C Street SW/West Valley Highway (Generally, SR 18 to Boundary Boulevard SW and West VLY HWY to C ST SW) o Mixed-use of commercial and residential (retail
emphasis)
• A Street SE Corridor (Generally, SR 18 to 41st ST SE and C ST SW
to D ST SE)
Formatted: Bulleted + Level: 2 + Aligned at: 1" + Indent at: 1.25"
Formatted: Font: Italic
Formatted: Font: Italic
Formatted: Font: Italic, Superscript
Formatted: Font: Italic
Formatted: Font: Italic
Formatted: Font: Italic
Formatted: Font: Italic
Formatted: Font: Italic
Formatted: Font: Italic
Formatted: Justified
Formatted: Not Superscript/ Subscript
Formatted: Font: Italic
Formatted: Font: Italic
Formatted: Font: Italic, Superscript
Formatted: Font: Italic
Comp. Plan Map
Page 14-27 Amended 20121
o Multiple family residential
• SE 312th Street/124th Avenue SE Corridor (Generally, SE 310th ST to SE 314th ST and 121st PL SE to 129th AVE SE) o Retail Services
• M Street SE between Auburn Way North and Auburn South o Mixed-use of commercial and residential (retail and
service emphasis)
• Northwest Auburn Area (Generally, between S. 277th ST and 30th ST NW and west of Auburn WY N Corridor to SR 167) o “Manufacturing Village” – mixed uses consisting of
manufacturing, commercial and multiple family
residential Related Policies
Policy III.D. The City will seek to implement the Economic
Development Strategy Areas through site-specific planning actions such as
sub-area plans and/or by innovative land use regulations such as incentive zoning which promote greater residential population density (i.e. mixed
use), clustered non-residential intensity (offices, retail, services), increased
employment and multi-modal transportation (i.e. walking, transit, and bicycling)--to these economic development strategy areas as key economic
development nodes in the City.
Policy III.E. The City will seek to encourage a compatible mixture
of future land uses emphasizing the priority business sectors within the
Economic Development Strategy Areas. The City will promote a long-term vision for their redevelopment that is not constrained by the current
marketplace, existing nature of physical development, current level of
infrastructure improvements or funding, and existing methods of land use regulation. The Economic Development Strategy Areas will be a focus for
redevelopment through public infrastructure investment, private
investment through such methods as public-private partnerships and by flexible land use regulations, such as performance standards or form-based
codes.
Policy III.F Within appropriate Economic Development Strategy
Areas, the City will foster implementation of “Manufacturing Villages”.
“Manufacturing Villages” are a 21st-Century reinvention of historic development pattern emphasizing horizontal or vertical synergy of mixed
uses and based on minimization of travel distances between living units
and work places, the promotion of smaller scale, non-nuisance-type commercial or industrial uses in proximity to residences, and cultivating
vibrant streetscapes. The Manufacturing Villages should build on the
Formatted: Font: Italic
Formatted: Font: Italic, Superscript
Formatted: Font: Italic
Formatted: Font: Italic, Superscript
Formatted: Font: Italic
Formatted: Font: Italic, Superscript
Formatted: Font: Italic
Formatted: Font: Italic, Superscript
Formatted: Font: Italic
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.25", Don't adjustspace between Latin and Asian text
Formatted: Font: Italic
Formatted: Font: Italic
Formatted: Superscript
Formatted: Font: Italic
Formatted: Indent: Hanging: 1.5", Linespacing: At least 12 pt, No bullets ornumbering, Don't allow hanging punctuation,Don't adjust space between Latin and Asiantext, Don't adjust space between Asian text andnumbers, Font Alignment: Baseline, Tab stops:Not at 0.5"
Formatted: Superscript
Chapter 14
Page 14-28 Amended 20121
City’s designation of an “Innovation Partnership Zone”. The “Innovation
Partnership Zone” (IPZ) is a unique economic development effort that partners research, workforce training, and private sector participation in
close geographic proximity to promote collaboration in a research based
effort that will lead to new technologies, marketable products, company formation, and job creation. Created by the State Legislature in 2007 and
assigned to the State Department of Commerce, the zones are administered
by the City pursuant to a comprehensive business plan.
Problems Related
to Existing Uses West Auburn
Area: South of West Main between the rail lines.
Problem: This is an older part of town developed in a pattern of
commercial uses along Main Street and residential uses south to Highway
18. This area is in the Region Serving Area as designated in this Plan. The homes in this area are typically older single family homes that have
been converted to multi-family housing. Some may have historic
significance. Preservation and restoration of the existing housing in this area is a priority.
Policy III.IJ. This area should be planned for “Llocal Sserving” multiple family uses even though it is in the “Region Serving Area”.
Airport Area
Area: Industrially designated area east of the Airport.
Problem: This area is highly suited for air related activities. Other industrial type uses are now located here.
Policy III.J. The City will encourage use in this area to take advantage of its proximity to the Airport.
Lea Hill Area Area: Area annexed on January 1, 2008.
Problem: The City has been concerned for years that the rapid growth taking place within the Lea Hill PAA will overwhelm city streets. Through annexation the City can better manage the amount and type of growth in
this area and help ensure that appropriate infrastructure to support development is provided concurrent with that development.
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt,Font color: Auto
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt
Comp. Plan Map
Page 14-29 Amended 20121
The Auburn City Council envisions retaining the predominantly single-family character of the Lea Hill area rather than allow the trend of rapidly
developing multi-family projects to continue. The City's codes will help
ensure that the neighborhood character, traffic and environmentally sensitive features are protected and/or managed.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 5. Policies Page 5- 1
CHAPTER 5.
POLICIES
Transportation objectives and policies establish the framework for realizing the City’s vision of its transportation system. Policies provide guidance for the City, other governmental entities and private developers, enabling the
City to achieve its goal of providing adequate public infrastructure to support its needs and priorities in accordance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The policy framework presented below is a guideline, which the City will use to evaluate individual projects and
address its infrastructure needs.
The objectives and policies are organized
according to five broad headings. The first
heading, Coordination, Planning and Implementation, addresses the system comprehensively, detailing policies that pertain to the planning and implementation of the system as a whole. The subsequent four
headings list policies specific to the following
systems: Street system, Non-motorized system, Transit system, and Air transportation. The analysis of the transportation system, as well as any individual proposals, shall consider all modes of transportation and all methods of
efficiently managing the network.
5.1 Coordination, Planning
and Implementation
OBJECTIVE: COORDINATION
To be consistent with regional plans and the
plans of neighboring cities, to encourage
partnerships, and not to unreasonably
preclude an adjacent jurisdiction from
implementing its planned improvements.
POLICIES:
TR-1: Coordinate transportation operations, planning and improvements with other transportation authorities and governmental entities (cities, counties, tribes, state, federal)
to address transportation issues. These
include:
Improvement of the state highway network through strong advocacy with state officials, both elected and staff, for improvements to state highways and interchanges;
Improvements to roadways connecting Auburn to the surrounding region, including SR 167, SR 18, SR 181/West
Valley Hwy, SR 164, and S 277th Street;
Public Art on West Main Street
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 5. Policies Page 5- 2
Improved access to the Interstate 5 corridor and regional employment centers;
Transit connections to the Regional Growth Centers;
Establishing the Auburn Station as a center for multi-modal transportation connections to proposed future intercity rail service;
Strong advocacy with US congressional members to provide funding to mitigate transportation problems connected to interstate commerce; and
Proactively pursuing forums to coordinate transportation project
priorities among other governmental entities, including proposed future intercity rail service.
OBJECTIVE: LONG-RANGE
PLANNING & PROGRAMMING
To continue to plan for the future of the multi-modal transportation system through long-range planning, programmatic planning, and financial planning, in compliance with the Growth Management Act.
POLICIES:
TR-2: The Comprehensive Transportation Plan
shall be evaluated and amended annually to ensure it is technically accurate, consistent with state, regional, and other local plans, and in keeping with the City's vision of the future transportation system.
TR-3: The Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) shall be updated annually to reevaluate project priorities, develop a plan to fund capital
improvement projects, and ensure consistency between project priorities and financing plans. Project evaluation criteria shall foster economic development, maximize utilization of city financing to match transportation
grants, promote safety, integrate planning of
other projects requiring disturbance of
pavements, promote mobility, and optimize the utilization of existing infrastructure.
OBJECTIVE: SAFETY
To provide a transportation system that is safe
for all users.
POLICIES:
TR-4: Safety shall be prioritized over driving convenience.
TR-5: Use net revenues from photo enforcement operations to fund safety related projects.
TR-6: Recognize the potential effects of hazards on transportation facilities and incorporate such considerations into the planning and design of transportation projects,
where feasible.
OBJECTIVE: CONNECTIVITY
To provide a highly interconnected network of streets and trails for ease and variety of travel.
POLICIES:
TR-7: An efficient transportation system seeks to spread vehicle movements over a series of planned streets. The goal of the system is to encourage connectivity while preventing unacceptably high traffic volumes on any one street. Ample alternatives should exist to
accommodate access for emergency vehicles. For these reasons the City will continue to plan a series of collectors and arterials designed to national standards to provide efficient service to the community.
TR-8: Encourage the use of trails and other connections that provide ease of travel within and between neighborhoods, community
activity centers, and transit services.
Development patterns that block direct
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 5. Policies Page 5- 3
pedestrian access are discouraged. Ample
alternatives should exist to accommodate non-
motorized transportation on arterials, collectors, and local roads.
OBJECTIVE:
COMPLETE STREETS
Ensure Auburn’s transportation system is designed to enable comprehensive, integrated, safe access for users of all ages and abilities including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, transit riders and operators, and truck operators.
POLICIES:
TR-9: Plan for and develop a balanced transportation system, which provides safe
access and connectivity to transportation facilities for users of all ages and abilities including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, transit users and operators, and truck operators.
TR-10: Plan for, design, and construct all transportation projects, whether City led or development driven, to provide appropriate
accommodation for bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit users in a manner consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, except in situations where the establishment of such facilities would be contrary to public health and safety or the cost would be excessively
disproportionate to the need.
TR-11: Ensure the transportation system meets the requirements outlined in the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
TR-12: The Auburn Engineering Design Standards is the primary vehicle for executing the
Complete Streets Objective and should include standards for each roadway classification to guide implementation.
TR-13: Context and flexibility in balancing user needs shall be considered in the design of all projects and if necessary, a deviation from
the Auburn Engineering Design Standards may be
granted to ensure the Complete Streets
Objective and supporting policies are achieved.
OBJECTIVE:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Minimize the environmental impacts of all new
transportation projects and transportation
related improvements.
POLICIES:
TR-14: Thoroughly evaluate the impacts of all transportation projects and apply appropriate mitigation measures in conformance with
SEPA, the Critical Areas Ordinance, and other city, county, state, and federal regulations.
TR-15: Identify and consider the
environmental impacts of transportation projects at the earliest possible time to ensure planning and decisions reflect environmental values, to avoid delays later in the process, and to reduce or avoid potential problems that may adversely impact the environment and
project outcome.
TR-16: Incorporate green technology and sustainability practices into transportation
improvements whenever feasible.
Helping those with Special Needs
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 5. Policies Page 5- 4
TR-17: Support efforts to improve air quality
throughout the Auburn area and develop a
transportation system compatible with the goals of the Federal and State Clean Air Acts.
TR-18: Require air quality studies of future major development to assess impacts created by site generated traffic.
OBJECTIVE: LEVEL-OF-
SERVICE (LOS) THRESHOLD
To ensure that new development does not degrade transportation facilities to below LOS standards.
POLICIES:
TR-19: New development shall not be allowed
when the impacts of the new development on the transportation system degrades the LOS to below the adopted LOS standard, unless the impacts are mitigated condition is remedied concurrent with the development as described
in Chapter 2.
TR-20: The term "below level-of-service" shall apply to situations where traffic attributed to a
development likely results in any of the
following.
a. An unacceptable increase in hazard or an
unacceptable decrease in safety at an intersection or on a roadway segment.
b. An accelerated deterioration of the street
pavement condition or the proposed regular use of a street not designated as a truck route for truck movements that can reasonably result in accelerated deterioration of the street pavement.
c. An unacceptable impact on geometric design conditions at an intersection where two truck routes meet on the City arterial and collector
network.
d. An increase in congestion which constitutes
an unacceptable adverse environmental impact
under the State Environmental Policy Act.
e. An increase in queuing that causes blocking
of adjacent land uses or intersections
fe. A reduction in any of the three (3) four (4) LOS standards below.
1. Arterial and Collector Corridor LOS: The level-of-service standard for each arterial and collector corridor is “D”, unless otherwise
specified in Chapter 2 of this plan. The City may require a development or redevelopment developer to examine a shorter or longer corridor segment than is specified in Chapter 2, to ensure a project's total LOS impacts are evaluated.
2. Signalized/Roundabout Intersection LOS: The level-of-service standard for signalized
intersections is “D”, with the following
exceptions; for signalized intersections of two Arterial roads the level-of-service standard during the AM and PM peak periods is “E” for a maximum duration of 30 minutes and for signalized intersections of two Principle
Arterial roads the level-of-service standard
during the AM and PM peak periods is “E” for a maximum duration of 60 minutes. The City may require a development or redevelopmenter to examine individual signalized or roundabout intersections for
LOS impacts to ensure a project's total LOS impacts are evaluated.
3. Two-Way and All-Way Stop Controlled
Unsignalized Intersection LOS: The level-of-
service standard for two-way stop controlled and all-way stop controlled these intersections, measured as if they were signalized, shall be level of service is “D”. If LOS falls below the standard, analysis and mitigation may be
required in a manner commensurate with the associated impacts. This may include, among other requirements, conducting a traffic signal
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 5. Policies Page 5- 5
warrant analysis and installing or financing a
signal or roundabout.
4. Roundabout Intersection LOS: The level-of-service standard for roundabout controlled
intersections is “D”. The City may require a development or redevelopment to examine to examine roundabout intersections for LOS impacts to ensure a project’s total LOS impacts are evaluated.
TR-21: Establish a multi-modal level-of-service system in the future.
TR-22: PM level of service is the city standard.
A.M. level of service may need to be analyzed in situations where specialized conditions exist that disproportionately impact AMa.m. traffic.
OBJECTIVE: CONCURRENCY
To ensure transportation facilities do not fall
below the adopted level-of-service standard,
as required by the Growth Management Act.
POLICIES:
TR-23: Require developmentsers to construct or finance transportation improvements and/or implement strategies that mitigate the
impacts of new development concurrent with
(within 6 years of) development, as required by the Growth Management Act.
TR-24: New development that lowers a facility’s level-of-service standard below the locally adopted minimum standard shall be denied, as required by the Growth Management Act. Strategies that may allow a development to proceed include, but are not
limited to:
Reducing the scope of a project (e.g. platting fewer lots or building less square footage);
Building or financing new transportation improvements concurrent with (within 6 years of) development;
Phasing/delaying a project;
Requiring the development to incorporate Transportation Demand Management strategies; or
Lowering level-of-service standards.
TR-25: The denial of development in order to maintain concurrency may be grounds for declaring an emergency for the purpose of
amending the Comprehensive Plan outside of the annual amendment cycle.
TR-26: Evaluate city transportation facilities
annually to determine compliance with the adopted level-of-service standards and, as necessary, amend the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) to remedy identified deficiencies.
TR-27: Coordinate transportation improvements with the State, Counties, and neighboring jurisdictions to encourage through trips to occur on state facilities,
reducing stress on the city street network.
OBJECTIVE: FINANCE
To finance the transportation systems
necessary to serve new development, while
ensuring the City has the capability to finance
general transportation needs.
POLICIES:
TR-28: Require developmentsers or redevelopments to construct all transportation infrastructure systems needed to serve new developments.
TR-29: Actively pursue the formation of Local Improvement Districts (LID) to upgrade existing streets and sidewalks and construct new streets to the appropriate standard.
TR-30: Improvements that serve new developments will be constructed as a part of
Formatted: Font: (Default) Garamond, 12 pt,Highlight
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 5. Policies Page 5- 6
the development process. All costs will be
borne by the developer when the development
is served by the proposed transportation improvements. In some instances, the City may choose to participate in this construction if improvements serve more than adjacent developments.
TR-31: Revenues for street transportation improvements should primarily provide for the orderly development of the City's
transportation system in compliance with the Comprehensive Transportation Plan. The basic criterion for such funding should be the degree to which that project improves the overall transportation system and not the benefit that might accrue to individual
properties. Where it is possible to establish a direct relationship between a needed improvement and a development, the development should be expected to contribute to its construction.
TR-32: Encourage public/private partnerships for financing transportation projects that remedy existing and anticipated transportation
problems, or that foster economic growth.
TR-33: Aggressively seek and take advantage of federal, state, local, and private funding and
lending sources that help implement the City's
Comprehensive Transportation Plan.
TR-34: Maintain a traffic impact fee system
based on the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) guidelines, as modified by the City Council, as a means of enabling development to mitigate appropriately for associated traffic impacts.
TR-35: Reassess the land use element of the Comprehensive Plan if funding for transportation facilities is insufficient to maintain adopted level-of-service standards.
OBJECTIVE: QUALITY OF LIFE
To improve the quality of life for Auburn residents and businesses through design of the transportation system.
POLICIES:
TR-36: Enhance the livability of Auburn through a variety of mechanisms, including
the innovative design and construction of roadways, non-motorized facilities, and associated improvements. Apply design standards that result in attractive and functional transportation facilities.
OBJECTIVE: EDUCATION AND
ENFORCEMENT
To improve transportation safety and awareness through education and
enforcement.
POLICIES:
TR-37: Utilize education to increase awareness of existing traffic laws and safety issues, especially as they relate to pedestrians and bicyclists.
TR-38: Engage the community in transportation issues through public involvement and partnerships with organizations such as the Auburn School
District.
TR-39: Identify areas with persistent traffic violations and address these violations, in part,
through Police Department enforcement.
TR-40: Develop rider information packages that inform users of commuter, transit, rail,
trail, and air transportation opportunities.
TR-41: Emphasize enforcement of the "rules
of the road" for pedestrians, bicyclists and
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 5. Policies Page 5- 7
Moving Traffic More Effectively with
Intelligent Transportation Systems
motorists whose actions endanger others.
Conduct enforcement in a manner that
reinforces the messages found in non-motorized education & safety programs.
TR-42: Utilize photo enforcement, where appropriate, to encourage safer driving practices.
OBJECTIVE: TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEM MANAGEMENT (TSM)
To efficiently operate the existing transportation system through Transportation System Management (TSM) strategies, thereby maximizing resources and reducing the need for costly system capacity expansion projects.
POLICIES:
TR-43: Use TSM strategies to more efficiently
utilize the existing infrastructure to optimize
traffic flow and relieve congestion. Examples include:
Rechannalization/restriping, adding turn lanes, adding /increasing number of through lanes;
Signal interconnect and optimization;
Turn movement restrictions;
Access Management; and
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS).
TR-44: Support Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) implementation in coordination with Figure 2-7. Future ITS corridors will be prioritized using the following criteria.
Grants, loans, or partner funding can be leveraged to expand the ITS system on a
specific corridor(s).
There is existing infrastructure that
would make it easier and more cost
efficient to implement ITS elements.
The corridor(s) completes a logical segment or missing link in the citywide ITS network.
Significant travel-time savings can be achieved with ITS implementation.
Corridor supports other City communication and technology needs.
ITS implementation would have significant safety benefits, including reducing the need for police flaggers in intersections during events.
TR-45: ITS elements include but are not limited to:
Operational improvements such as traffic signal coordination;
Traveler information including traffic alerts and emergency notification;
Incident management; and
Traffic data collection.
TR-46: Require development to contribute its share of ITS improvements as mitigation.
TR-47: Program signal timing to encourage
specific movements and the use of travel routes that are underutilized.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 5. Policies Page 5- 8
OBJECTIVE: TRANSPORTATION
DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM)
To utilize transportation demand management strategies to lessen demand for increased street system capacity, help maintain the LOS standard, and enhance quality of life for those who use and benefit from the transportation system.
POLICIES:
TR-48: Encourage the use of high-occupancy vehicles (buses, carpool, and vanpool) through both private programs and under the direction of Metro and Pierce Transit.
TR-49: Promote reduced employee travel during the daily peak travel periods through flexible work schedules and programs to allow employees to work part-time or full-time or at
alternate work sites closer to home.
TR-50: Encourage employers to provide TDM measures in the workplace through such
programs as preferential parking for high-
occupancy vehicles, car sharing, improved access for transit vehicles, and employee incentives for using high-occupancy vehicles.
TR-51: In making funding decisions, consider transportation investments that support transportation demand management approaches by providing alternatives to single-occupant vehicles, such as transit, bikeways
and pedestrian paths.
TR-52: Recognize emerging TDM strategies such as tolling, variable-priced lanes, and car
sharing may be effective in certain situations.
TR-53: Coordinate with Metro and other jurisdictions to enhance Commute Trip
Reduction (CTR) programs for CTR employers in Auburn.
TR-54: Lead by example through
implementation of a thorough and successful Commute-Trip Reduction (CTR) Program for City employees.
OBJECTIVE: PARKING
To ensure adequate coordination of parking needs with traffic and development needs.
POLICIES:
TR-55: On-street parking should be allowed
only when consistent with the function of the street and with traffic volumes.
TR-56: New developments should provide
adequate off-street parking to meet their needs.
TR-57: Develop and maintain regulations,
which foster a balance between meeting the need for public parking and ensuring developers provide adequate parking to meet the demand generated by new development.
TR-58: In certain cases, such as in the Regional Growth Center and in areas with high pedestrian and transit use, it may be
appropriate to reduce the developer parking obligation to achieve other community benefits or employ innovative parking strategies such as the use of "park & walk" lots, where people could park their vehicles and walk to nearby destinations.
TR-59: The City shall evaluate new residential subdivisions with constrained space for
driveways, utility services, street lights, street
trees, and fire hydrants and the resultant impact on the provision of adequate on-street parking. Where appropriate, the City shall require the subdivision to provide dispersed locations of on-street parking (or street
accessible parking) to meet their needs in
addition to the zoning code required off-street parking.
OBJECTIVE: PARK-AND-RIDE
To support development of a regional park-
and ride lot system by Metro Transit, Pierce
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 5. Policies Page 5- 9
Transit, Sound Transit, and the Washington State Department of Transportation.
POLICIES:
TR-6059: Encourage park & ride lots on sites
adjacent to compatible land uses with convenient access to the Auburn Transit Station, SR 18, SR 167, and all regional transportation corridors.
TR-6160: Work proactively with Sound Transit, WSDOT, Metro Transit, and Pierce Transit to ensure the adequate supply of park & ride capacity in Auburn.
OBJECTIVE: RIGHT-OF-WAY
To retain and preserve existing right-of-way, and identify and acquire new right-of-way as needed to achieve the City's objectives.
POLICIES:
TR-621: The acquisition and preservation of
right-of-way is a key component of maintaining a viable transportation system. Methods used to acquire and preserve right-of-way include:
Requiring dedication of right-of-way as a condition of development;
Purchasing right-of-way at fair market value; and
Acquiring development rights and easements from property owners.
TR-632: Preserve and protect existing right-of-way through the issuance of permits such as ROW Use permits and franchise and public way agreements, by monitoring and responding to right-of-way encroachments
and safety impacts, and by limiting vacations
of public right-of-way.
TR-643: Vacate right-of-way only when it
clearly will not be a future need or to support economic development.
OBJECTIVE: MAINTENANCE
AND PRESERVATION
To maintain the City’s transportation system at a level that is comparable with the design standards applied to new facilities.
POLICIES:
TR-654: Establish programs and schedules for the level and frequency of roadway and non-motorized system maintenance.
TR-665: In order to help ensure the long term preservation of the city street system, the City prohibits heavy vehicles that exceed lawful load limits for state highways from traveling on city streets, unless the City permits such
travel via the issuance of a temporary haul
permit that requires appropriate mitigation.
TR-676: Establish standards of street repair
and seek to obtain sufficient financing to
attain and maintain a safe system in good condition.
TR-687: Continue to implement the “Save
Our Streets” program for maintenance and rehabilitation of local streets.
TR-698: Create an arterial streets maintenance
and rehabilitation program, including development of an implementation timeline and strategy, for arterial and collector streets in Auburn.
TR-7069: The City maintains the option of closing streets when freezing conditions are present to prevent frost damage.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 5. Policies Page 5- 10
Principal Arterial: 15th Street NW
5.2 Street System
OBJECTIVE: FUNCTIONAL
CLASSIFICATION
To provide an integrated street network of appropriate classes of streets designed to facilitate different types of traffic flows and access needs.
POLICIES:
TR-710: The city street system is made up of three classes of streets:
a. Arterials - a system of city, county, and state
streets designed to move traffic to or from major traffic and activity generators. Arterials should be adequate in number, appropriately
situated, and designed to accommodate
moderate to high traffic volumes with a
minimum of flow disruption.
b. Collectors - a system of city streets that
collect traffic and move it from the local street system to the arterial street system.
c. Local streets - a system of city streets, which
collect traffic from individual sites and
conveys the traffic to the collector and arterial systems.
TR-721: The Functional Roadway Classifications Map will serve as the adopted standard for identifying classified streets in the City of Auburn and the potential annexation areas.
TR-732: Ensure all streets classified in the Comprehensive Transportation Plan are federally classified.
TR-743: Street standards shall be developed, modified, and implemented that reflect the street classification system and function. The
design and management of the street network
shall seek to improve the appearance of existing street corridors. Streets are recognized as an important component of the public spaces within the City and should include, where appropriate, landscaping to
enhance the appearance of city street
corridors. The standards should include provisions for streetscaping.
TR-754: The classification standards adopted in the Auburn Engineering Design Standards are considered the City’s minimum standards for new streets. In cases in which the City attempts to rebuild an existing street within an established right-of-way, the City
Council reserves the authority to determine if additional right-of-way should be obtained in order to realize the improvement. Preservation of neighborhood continuity and cohesiveness will be respected.
Save Our Streets - Patching Treatment
Save Our Streets - Overlay
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 5. Policies Page 5- 11
TR-765: The standards for residential streets
may be modified in cross section to provide
better relationships between the different components of the street including, but not limited to, on-street parking, the landscape strip, and the sidewalk. Among other objectives, this may be done to balance the
need to provide adequate parking and buffer
pedestrians from traffic.
TR-776: These minimum standards do not
limit or prevent developers from providing facilities that exceed the City’s standards.
OBJECTIVE: ARTERIALS
To provide an efficient arterial street network.
POLICIES:
TR-787: The City has two classes of arterials, as follows.
a. Principal Arterials convey traffic along commercial or industrial activities, and provide access to freeways. They emphasize mobility and de-emphasize access to adjacent land uses. Principal arterial streets are typically
constructed to accommodate five lanes of
traffic.
b. Minor Arterials convey traffic onto principal
arterials from collector and local streets. They place slightly more emphasis on land access and offer a lower level of mobility than principal arterials. Minor arterial streets are typically constructed to accommodate four lanes of traffic.
TR-798: Encourage King and Pierce counties to develop and implement a similar system of arterial designations within Auburn's potential
annexation area.
TR-8079: Designate new arterials to serve developing areas concurrent with approval of
such development. Arterials shall be spaced in compliance with good transportation network
planning principles, and support the
importance of overall system circulation.
OBJECTIVE: COLLECTORS
To provide an efficient collector street network, which transitions traffic from the local street network to the arterial street system.
POLICIES:
TR-810: The City has three classes of collectors as follows:
a. Residential Collectors, Type I are used to
connect local streets and residential neighborhoods to community activity centers and minor and principal arterials.
b. Non-Residential Collectors connect non-residential areas such as industrial and commercial areas to minor and principal arterials.
c. Residential Collectors, Type II are routes that connect residential neighborhoods with less intensive land uses to activity centers, regardless of traffic volume. They are often
constructed to a lesser standard than Residential Collectors, Type I and Non-Residential Collector streets.
TR-821: Encourage King and Pierce counties
to develop and implement a similar system of collector designations within Auburn's potential annexation area.
TR-832: Designate new collectors to serve developing areas concurrent with approval of such development. Collectors shall be spaced in compliance with good transportation network planning principles, and support the
importance of overall system circulation.
OBJECTIVE: LOCAL STREETS
To provide an effective street system for local
traffic while maintaining community access.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 5. Policies Page 5- 12
POLICIES:
TR-843: The local street system is comprised of all roadway facilities not part of the higher classification system and is designed to
provide direct access between abutting land uses and the collector/arterial systems. The local street types are as follows:
a. Local Residential Streets, Type I serve primarily residential areas.
b. Local Non-Residential Streets serve
primarily industrial and manufacturing land uses.
c. Local Residential Streets, Type II provide
access to residential areas that tend to have less intensive land uses.
d. Private Streets are privately owned by the
communities they serve and are only permitted under the guidance outlined in the Private Streets Objective and supporting policies.
TR-854: Access Tracts may be permitted, as long as emergency access can be guaranteed at all times.
TR-865: The local street network shall be developed to maximize the efficiency of the transportation network in residential areas and minimize through traffic in neighborhoods.
The internal local residential street network for a subdivision should be
designed to discourage regional through traffic and non-residential traffic from penetrating the subdivision or adjacent subdivisions.
Where possible, streets shall be planned, designed and constructed to connect to future development.
When applicable, non-motorized paths shall be provided at the end of dead end streets to shorten walking distances to an
adjacent arterial or public facilities
including, but not limited to, schools and
parks.
Residential developments should be planned in a manner that minimizes the
number of local street accesses to arterials and collectors.
To promote efficient connectivity
between areas of the community, existing stub end streets shall be linked to other streets in new development whenever the opportunity arises and the resulting traffic volumes are not likely to
exceed acceptable volumes as identified in the Auburn Engineering Design Standards.
OBJECTIVE: PRIVATE STREETS
To discourage the development of private
streets and ensure, if they are permitted by
the City, they are constructed and maintained
according to City standards.
POLICIES:
TR-876: Private streets are discouraged, but may be permitted on a discretionary basis, as regulated by city code and the Auburn Engineering Design Standards.
TR-887: If a private street is permitted, it must be built to public street standards as identified in the Auburn Engineering Design Standards and
Construction Standards manuals.
TR-898: Private streets must provide for emergency vehicle access and be privately
maintained by an approved association or business. The City does not maintain private streets.
OBJECTIVE: ACCESS
MANAGEMENT
To limit and provide access to the street network in a manner which improves and maintains public safety and roadway capacity.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 5. Policies Page 5- 13
POLICIES:
TR-9089: Seek consolidation of access points to state highways, arterials, and collectors. This will benefit the highway and city street
system, reduce interference with traffic flows on arterials, and discourage through traffic on local streets. To achieve this level of access control, the City:
Adopts and supports the State’s controlled access policy on all state highway facilities;
May acquire access rights along some arterials and collectors;
Adopts design standards that identify access standards for each type of functional street classification;
Encourages consolidation of access in developing commercial and high density
residential areas through shared use of
driveways and local access streets; and
Will establish standards for access
management, develop a planning process to work with the community and implement access management solutions on arterial corridors.
TR-910: Strive to prevent negative impacts to existing businesses, without compromising safety, when implementing access management.
OBJECTIVE: THROUGH TRAFFIC
To accommodate through traffic in the City as efficiently as possible, with a minimum of disruption to neighborhoods.
POLICIES:
TR-921: Continue to coordinate with the Washington State Department of
Transportation to facilitate the movement of
traffic through the City.
TR-932: Encourage the State and Counties to
develop through routes, which minimize the
impact of through traffic on Auburn's
residential neighborhoods.
TR-943: Actively solicit action by the State and Counties to program and construct those
improvements needed to serve Auburn to the state and county arterial and freeway systems.
OBJECTIVE: TRAFFIC CALMING
To employ traffic calming techniques to
improve safety and neighborhood quality.
POLICIES:
TR-954: Implement the City’s traffic calming program to improve neighborhood safety and quality.
TR-965: The traffic calming program shall require a technical analysis of existing conditions and appropriate treatments before actions are taken to fund and implement
traffic calming measures.
TR-976: The traffic calming program shall incorporate neighborhood involvement and
seek community support.
TR-987: New construction should incorporate traffic calming measures, as appropriate.
OBJECTIVE: FREIGHT
MOVEMENTS
To facilitate the movements of freight and
goods through Auburn with minimal adverse
traffic and other environmental impacts.
POLICIES:
TR-998: The movement of freight and goods is recognized as an important component of Auburn’s transportation system.
TR-10099: The movement of freight and goods which serve largely national, state, or regional needs should take place in such a way so that the impacts on the local transportation
system are minimized. These movements should take place primarily on state highways,
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 5. Policies Page 5- 14
Interstates, or on grade-separated rail
corridors in order to minimize the local
impacts.
TR-1010: Seek public and private partners to
leverage funds for freight improvement projects and associated mitigation.
TR-1021: Continue to work with the Freight
Mobility Roundtable, FAST, FMSIB, and other local and regional groups to ensure regional needs are met, and local impacts are mitigated.
TR-1032: All through truck trips and the majority of local trips shall take place on designated truck routes, as identified on the truck route map, Figure 2-7, of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan. This policy
shall not apply to developments and uses operating under existing right-of-way use permits, traffic mitigation agreements or equivalent agreements directly related to the regulation of permitted haul routes.
TR-1043: If the City is unable to acquire funding to maintain existing truck routes to a Pavement Condition Index Standard of 70 on
a segment of roadway, that route may be
restricted or closed to truck travel.
TR-1054: Work towards designing and
constructing future truck routes, as identified
on the truck route map in Chapter 2 of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan, to sustain routine truck traffic.
TR-1065: Local truck trips that have origins and/or destinations in Auburn may have to sometimes use routes not designated as truck routes. The City may approve the use of alternate routes not currently designated as
truck routes for truck traffic, with appropriate mitigation. Approval may be made through issuance of right-of-way use permits, traffic mitigation agreements or equivalent agreements.
TR-1076: Development shall be required to
mitigate the impacts of construction generated
truck traffic on the City’s transportation system, based on the City’s LOS standard.
TR-1087: Temporary haul routes for overweight or oversized vehicles shall be permitted under circumstances acceptable to the City and with appropriate mitigation. A temporary haul permit must be obtained prior to the hauling of oversized or overweight
freight.
TR-1098: Truck traffic in residential neighborhoods shall be prohibited, except for
local deliveries within said neighborhood, unless no other possible route is available, in which case mitigation may be required.
OBJECTIVE: LATECOMER
POLICY
To enable private investors to recover a portion of improvement costs for transportation facility improvements that benefit other developments.
POLICIES:
TR-11009: The City may enter into latecomer
agreements where substantial transportation
investments are made by one party that legitimately should be reimbursed by others, such as, when the infrastructure improvement will benefit a future development. Such agreements will be at the discretion of the City
Council. Latecomer agreements do not apply
to situations in which a property owner is required to construct improvements per an existing city code provision, such as in the case of half-street and other frontage improvements.
OBJECTIVE: ROUNDABOUTS
To seek air quality, safety, and capacity benefits by promoting the use of
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 5. Policies Page 5- 15
roundabouts over traffic signals.
POLICIES:
TR-1110: Intersections controlled with roundabouts are preferred over signalized intersections whenever feasible and appropriate due to the benefits achieved with roundabouts including reduced collision rate for vehicles and pedestrians, less severe
collisions, smoother traffic flow, reduced vehicle emissions and fuel consumption, lower long-term maintenance costs, and improved aesthetics.
TR-1121: Developments required to signalize an intersection as mitigation for a project may be required to install a roundabout instead of a traffic signal. The feasibility of acquiring the
land needed for a roundabout will be
considered as a factor in this requirement.
5.3 Non-motorized System
OBJECTIVE: PLANNING THE
NON-MOTORIZED SYSTEM
To plan a coordinated, interconnected network of non-motorized transportation facilities that effectively provide access to local and regional destinations, improve overall quality of life, and support healthy community and environmental principles.
POLICIES:
TR-1132: Implement land use regulations and
encourage site design that promotes non-motorized forms of transportation.
TR-1143: Include the role of non-motorized
transportation in all transportation planning, programming, and if suitable, capital improvement projects.
TR-1154: Plan for continuous non-motorized
circulation routes within and between existing, new or redeveloping commercial, residential, and industrial developments. Transportation planning shall seek to allow pedestrians and bicyclists the ability to cross or avoid barriers
in a manner that is safe and convenient.
TR-1165: Actively seek to acquire land along corridors identified for future trail
development in the Comprehensive Transportation
Plan and Auburn Parks, Recreation, & Open Space Plan 2005 and subsequent Park plans.
TR-1176: Schedule, plan and co-sponsor events that support recreational walking and bicycling. These events should emphasize their recreational and health values and introduce people to the transportation capabilities of bicycling and walking.
TR-1187: Improve and protect the non-motorized transportation system through the
establishment of level-of-service goals for
non-motorized facilities.
Interurban Trail at W Main Street
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 5. Policies Page 5- 16
OBJECTIVE: DEVELOPING THE
NON-MOTORIZED SYSTEM
To build a safe, attractive, and inter-connected non-motorized transportation system.
POLICIES:
TR-1198: Develop and maintain the non-motorized system, including bike routes, walkways and equestrian paths, to encourage significant recreational use.
TR-12019: Develop and maintain the non-motorized system, including bike routes, sidewalks, and multi-use paths in a manner that promotes non-motorized travel as a viable
mode of transportation.
TR-1210: Develop the non-motorized system to accommodate appropriate alternative forms
of non-motorized transport, as well as
medically necessary motorized transport.
TR-1221: Appropriate street furniture, lighting,
signage, and landscaping should be installed
along non-motorized routes to increase safety and to ensure that facilities are inviting to users.
TR-1232: Clearly sign and mark major non-motorized routes to guide travelers and improve safety.
TR-1243: Non-motorized routes shall be constructed to accommodate emergency vehicle access and be amenable to law enforcement.
TR-1254: Locate and design non-motorized transportation systems so that they contribute to the safety, efficiency, enjoyment and
convenience of residential neighborhoods.
TR-1265: The development of facilities supporting non-motorized transportation
should be provided as a regular element of
new construction projects. Improvements
shall be secured through the development
review process.
TR-1276: Minimize hazards and obstructions on the non-motorized transportation system
by properly designing, constructing, managing, and maintaining designated routes in the system.
OBJECTIVE:
PEDESTRIAN TRAVEL
To enhance and encourage pedestrian travel in Auburn.
POLICIES:
TR-1287: Promote pedestrian travel within the
city and connections to adjacent communities
with emphasis placed on safety and on connectivity to priority destinations such as schools, parks, the downtown, and other pedestrian-oriented areas. Pedestrian-oriented areas are those areas with high pedestrian
traffic or potential and are identified in this
plan. These areas and streets shall encourage pedestrian travel by providing enhanced pedestrian improvements or controls on motorized traffic.
TR-1298: Focus investments on and aggressively seek funding for the high priority pedestrian corridors, identified in Figure 3-2.
TR-13029: Require developers to incorporate pedestrian facilities into new development and redevelopment in conformance with the Auburn City Code.
TR-1310: Continue to construct new and rehabilitate existing sidewalks through a sidewalk improvement program.
TR-1321: Seek ways to provide pedestrian amenities such as streetlights, trees, seating
areas, signage, and public art along all major
pedestrian travel routes.
TR-1332: Work towards buffering pedestrian
walkways from moving traffic, particularly in
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 5. Policies Page 5- 17
areas with high levels of pedestrian
movements, such as near schools and
commercial areas, and along corridors with heavy vehicular traffic.
TR-1343: Pedestrian crossings shall be developed at locations with significant pedestrian traffic and designed to match pedestrian desire lines.
TR-1354: Encourage the formation of LIDs to develop pedestrian pathways and other non-motorized amenities throughout the City. Partner with the local school districts to improve Safe Walking Routes to School.
OBJECTIVE: BICYCLE TRAVEL
To improve Auburn's bicycling network.
POLICIES:
TR-1365: Develop programs and publications, and work with local employers to encourage citywide bicycle commuting.
TR-1376: Designate, develop, and maintain high priority bicycle routes, in conformance with Figure 3-4, that create an interconnected system of bike facilities for local and regional travel, including on-street bike routes, and
multi-purpose trails.
TR-1387: During the development review
process, ensure projects are consistent with
the Non-motorized chapter of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan by requiring right-of-way dedications and other improvements as needed to develop the bicycle network.
TR-1398: Focus investments on and aggressively seek funding for the high priority future bicycle corridors, identified in Figure 3-
4 and corridors and connectors, as applicable,
specified in Figure 3-5.
TR-14039: Encourage the inclusion of
convenient and secure bicycle storage facilities in all large public and private developments.
TR-1410: Develop and implement Sharrows
and associated Share the Road signage in residential and some non-residential areas of City. To test effectiveness and overall public response, the implementation of a Sharrows program with associated Share the Road signage should be initially conducted through
a pilot program.
TR-1421: Continue installation of bike lanes in parts of City where there is existing/adequate
right-of-way.
TR-1432: Develop an Auburn specific bicycle
signage program to highlight corridors,
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 5. Policies Page 5- 18
connectors and in-city/out of city
destinations.
TR-1443: Make improvements to existing Interurban Trail – signage, pavement
conditions, vegetation maintenance, grade crossings, and upgrades to user facilities at Main Street crossing.
TR-1454: Develop a capital improvement program project with cost estimate for the design and construction of bicycle/pedestrian bridge at southern terminus of M St. west of existing Stuck River Vehicle Bridge.
TR-1465: Develop a capital improvement program project with cost estimate for the design and construction of innovative and safe pedestrian/bicycle crossing at M St./Auburn
Way South intersection.
TR-1476: Install one or more bike boxes
through a pilot program approach to test
effectiveness and public response. Focus pilot program efforts at key intersections such as the West Main Street and C Street intersection, the M Street and Auburn Way South intersection and the Ellingson Road and
A Street intersection.
TR-1487: Install bicycle/pedestrian crossing warning systems along Interurban Trail at all
crossing locations consisting of 277th Street,
37th St. NW, West Main Street and 15th Street SW.
TR-1498: Develop an official Auburn Bicycling Guide Map.
TR-15049: In coordination with the City
Council, Mayor’s Office, Auburn Area Chamber of Commerce, Auburn Tourism Board and appropriate City departments develop strategies and actions for the implementation of the bicycle oriented
economic development recommendations of
the Auburn Bicycle Task Force.
OBJECTIVE:
EQUESTRIAN TRAVEL
To improve Auburn's equestrian environment.
POLICIES:
TR-15140: Strive to incorporate equestrian facilities into the design of trail and transportation facilities, where possible and appropriate. These efforts should be concentrated south of the White River in Auburn's southeast corner and in Lea Hill, but
considered for other areas of the City.
TR-15241: Transportation projects, and other
public and private projects, in lower-density
neighborhoods should be evaluated, and where possible, planned, designed and constructed to be compatible with equestrian use.
TR-15342: Create an interconnected system of safe equestrian trails and provide adequate equestrian amenities adjacent to those trails.
5.4 Transit System
OBJECTIVE: TRANSIT
SERVICES
To encourage the continued development of
public transit systems and other alternatives
to single occupant vehicle travel, to relieve
traffic congestion, to reduce reliance on the
automobile for personal transportation needs,
to improve route coverage and scheduling,
and to ensure transit is a convenient and
reliable mode option for both local and
regional trips.
TR-15443: Partner with WSDOT, Metro
Transit, Pierce Transit, and Sound Transit to
achieve Auburn's transit and passenger rail objectives.
TR-15544: Work with local and regional
transit agencies to serve new and existing trip
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 5. Policies Page 5- 19
generators in Auburn, such as colleges,
commercial areas, and community facilities.
TR-15645: Encourage Sound Transit, Metro Transit, and Pierce Transit to expand transit to
underserved areas of Auburn.
TR-15746: Partner with WSDOT, Amtrak, and Sound Transit to establish an intercity
passenger rail stop at the Auburn Station.
TR-15847: Consider both the transit impacts and the opportunities presented by major
development proposals when reviewing development under the State Environmental Policy Act.
TR-15948: Encourage the inclusion of transit facilities in new development when appropriate.
TR-16049: Encourage bus stops to be located at well lit areas.
TR-16150: Work with transit providers and regional agencies to develop a transit system that is fully accessible to pedestrians and the physically challenged, and which integrates the access, safety, and parking requirements of bicyclists.
TR-16251: Identify areas of concentrated transit traffic and impose design and construction standards that accommodate the
unique considerations associated with bus travel, such as street geometry and pedestrian linkages.
TR-163: Work with transit providers to create new commuter – oriented transit routes and maintain existing commuter routes linked with Sounder commuter rail.
5.5 Air Transportation
OBJECTIVE:
AIR TRANSPORTATION
To provide an efficient municipal airport, serving light general aviation aircraft, as an integral part of the City’s transportation system.
POLICIES:
TR-16452: Continue to develop the Auburn
Municipal Airport in accordance with the Airport Master Plan.
TR-16553: The airport shall be managed as a
general aviation facility; the use of jet aircrafts and helicopters that create noise and land use conflicts shall be evaluated, in conformance with FAA regulations.
TR-16654: The siting of new airport facilities shall consider neighborhood impacts such as increased noise generated from the use of those facilities.
TR-16755: Use of the airport by non-conventional aircraft such as ultra lights shall be discouraged, in conformance with FAA
regulations.
TR-16856: The City’s zoning ordinance and
other appropriate regulatory measures shall
enforce the airport clear zones as regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The impact of development on air safety shall be assessed through SEPA review, and appropriate mitigation measures shall be
required by the City.
TR-16957: Minimize or eliminate the potentially adverse effects of light and glare on
the operation of the Auburn Airport.
E D G E W O O DEDGEWOOD
A L G O N AALGONA
P I E R C EPIERCECOUNTYCOUNTY
K E N TKENT
P A C I F I CPACIFIC
S U M N E RSUMNER
K I N GKINGCOUNT YCOUNTY
SUPER MA L L
S UPERM ALL
MUC KLE SHOO TMUCKLESHOOTCASINOCASINO
51ST AVE S
AUBURN
WAY S
A ST SE
K
E
R
S
E
Y
WAY
S
E
124TH AVE SE
P
E
A
S
L
E
Y
C
A
N
Y
O
N
RD
S
15TH ST SW
HARVEY
RD
NE
W MAIN ST
29TH ST SE
E MAIN ST
112TH AVE SE
15TH ST NW
I ST
NE
SE 320TH ST
LAKE
TAP
PS
P
KWY SE
B ST NW
TERR
A
CE
DR
NW
R ST SE
S 316TH ST
37TH ST NE
SE 304TH ST
RIVERWALK DR SEA ST SE
8TH ST NE
4TH ST SE
LEA HILL R D S E
41ST S T SE
SE 312TH ST
BOUNDARY BLVD SW
SE 320TH ST
37TH ST NW
ELLINGSON RD SW
L
A
K
E
L
A
N
D
H
IL
LS
WAY
S
E
15TH ST NE
321ST ST S
P EASLEY CANYON RD S
WEST VALLEY HWY N
51ST AVE S
D
ST
NE
EAST VALLEY HWY SE
C ST SW
15TH ST NW
WEST VALLEY HWY S
SUMN
E
R-TAPPS HWY
E
A
U
B
U
R
N
W
AY
N
AUBURN WAY N
A ST NE
ORAVETZ RD SE
M
ST
SE
R ST SE
112TH AVE SE
E
A
S
T
VALLEY
HW
Y
SE
EMERALD
DOWNS
DR
NW
M ST NE
112TH AVE SE
C ST NW
104TH AVE
SE
D
ST NW
C
ST
S
W
15TH ST SW
LAKE TA P PS PKWY SE
S 2
7
2
N
D
WAY
16TH ST E
9TH ST E
A U B U R N-BLACK DIAMOND RD SE
MILITARY RD S
S 288TH ST
210
T
H A
V
E E
12TH ST E
MILITARY R
D S
182ND
AVE
E
214TH AVE E
S 277TH ST
124TH AVE SE
J O VITA B L V D E
WEST VALLEY HWY NW SE 272ND ST116TH
AVE
SE
S 272ND ST
8TH ST E
24TH ST E
MILITA
RY
R
D
S
WEST
VALLEY
H
WY
SW
S E 2 74TH ST
24TH ST E
68TH AVE S
108TH AVE SE
132ND AVE SE
W
E
S
T
VALLEY
HWY
SW
L A K ELAKETAPPSTAPPS
34
34
33
28
32
30
27
24 26
23
37
25
31
35
41
40
39
38
42
43
11
18
15
10
19
22
36
21
5
16
9
12
8 6
17
14
2
20
3
4
1
13
18
18
167
167
Information shown is for general reference purposes only and does not necessarily represent exact geographic or cartographic data as mapped. The City of Auburn makes no warranty as to its accuracy.
Auburn Transportation Plan
Hydrology
Streams
Lakes and Rivers
Political Boundaries
City of Auburn
Surrounding Cities
King and Pierce Counties
Projects
Project Group A
Project Group B
Project Group C
Transportation
Arterials
Highways
Locals Printed On: 7/25/2012Map ID: 4035
Roadway Improvement AlternativesFigure 2-6
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
FEET
29
31405 - 18th Ave. S.,
Federal Way, WA
98003-5433
Phone: (253)-945-2000
www.fwps.org
June 16, 2012
Elizabeth Chamberlain, AICP Principal Planner
City Of Auburn
25 West Main Street
Auburn WA 98001-4998
Dear Ms. Chamberlain;
Enclosed is a copy of the Federal Way Public Schools’ 2013 Capital Facilities Plan. The Federal Way Public Schools’ Board of Education adopted this plan on June 12, 2012.
The Federal Way Public Schools’ Board of Education Resolution No. 2012-17 directs the
Superintendent to submit the adopted Federal Way Public Schools’ 2013 Capital
Facilities Plan to the City of Auburn. A copy of the resolution is enclosed for your files.
The expenditure report for the 2011 calendar year is also enclosed.
The Federal Way Public Schools’ Board of Education requests the City of Auburn to
keep the 2011 impact fee of $4,014 for each single-family development and increase the impact fee to $1,381 for each multi-family development.
Sincerely,
Robert R. Neu
Superintendent
c: Board of Education
Sally McLean, Chief Financial Officer
Tanya Nascimento, Student & Demographic Forecaster
Enclosure: 3
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
2013
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
BOARD OF EDUCATION
Tony Moore Angela Griffin Ed Barney
Danny Peterson
Claire Wilson
SUPERINTENDENT
Rob Neu
Prepared by: Sally D. McLean
Tanya Nascimento
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2013 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1
INTRODUCTION 2
SECTION 1 THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
Introduction 3
Inventory of Educational Facilities 4
Inventory of Non-Instructional Facilities 5
Needs Forecast - Existing Facilities 6 Needs Forecast - New Facilities 7
Six Year Finance Plan 8
SECTION 2 MAPS OF DISTRICT BOUNDARIES
Introduction 9
Map - Elementary Boundaries 10
Map - Middle School Boundaries 11
Map - High School Boundaries 12
SECTION 3 SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
Introduction 13
Building Capacities 14-15 Portable Locations 16-17 Student Forecast 18-20
Capacity Summaries 21-25
King County Impact Fee Calculations 26-28
SECTION 4 SUMMARY OF CHANGES FROM THE 2011 PLAN 29-31
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2013 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2
INTRODUCTION
In response to the requirements of the State of Washington Growth Management Act
(SHB)2929 (1990) and ESHB 1025 (1991)), and under the School Impact Fee Ordinances of King County Code 21A, City of Federal Way Ordinance No. 95-249 effective December 21, 1995 as amended, City of Kent Ordinance No.3260 effective
March 1996, and the City of Auburn Ordinance No. 5078 effective 1998, Federal Way
Public Schools has updated its 2013 Capital Facilities Plan as of May 2012.
This Plan is scheduled for adoption by King County, the City of Kent, City of Federal
Way and the City of Auburn and is incorporated in the Comprehensive Plans of each
jurisdiction by reference. This plan is also included in the Facilities Plan element of the
Comprehensive Plans of each jurisdiction. To date, the City of Des Moines has not
adopted a school impact fee ordinance. The City of Des Moines collects school impact fees as part of the SEPA process.
The Growth Management Act requires the County to designate Urban Growth areas
within which urban growth can be encouraged. The Growth Management Planning
Council adopted and recommended to the King County Council four Urban Growth Area Line Maps with designations for urban centers. A designation was made within the
Federal Way planning area, which encompasses Federal Way Public Schools boundaries.
King County will encourage and actively support the development of Urban Centers to
meet the region’s need for housing, jobs, services, culture, and recreation. This Plan’s
estimated population growth is prepared with this underlying assumption.
This Capital Facilities Plan will be used as documentation for any jurisdiction, which
requires its use to meet the needs of the Growth Management Act. This plan is not
intended to be the sole planning tool for all of the District needs. The District may
prepare interim plans consistent with Board policies or management need.
Currently, the District plans to replace Federal Way High School and to increase capacity
by approximately 200 students. Federal Way High School was built in 1938. The
estimated cost to rebuild Federal Way High School is $110 million. This includes $21
million for construction inflation and is not included in the Finance Plan or Impact Fee calculation. Final construction costs are under consideration by the Board for the
November 2012 levy election.
The District continues to monitor factors that may have an impact on enrollment and
capacity at our schools. One such factor is SHB 2776, which will phase in full-day kindergarten for all students and decrease K-3 class size from 20 to 17. This is proposed
to be fully funded by 2017-18. Using current enrollment, the decrease in class size would
create the need for an additional 58 classes for K-3 students. This classroom need is
expected to fluctuate due to changing demographics.
We will also continue to study school boundaries as new housing and fluctuating
populations impact specific schools. Some shifts in boundaries may be required in the
coming years. We currently have two areas under review for boundary changes. The
maps included in this Plan reflect our current boundaries.
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2013 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
3
SECTION 1 - THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
The State Growth Management Act requires that several pieces of information be
gathered to determine the facilities available and needed to meet the needs of a growing
community.
This section provides information about current facilities, existing facility needs, and
expected future facility requirements for Federal Way Public Schools. A Financial Plan
that shows expected funding for any new construction, portables and modernization listed
follows this.
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2013 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
4
INVENTORY OF EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (K-5)
Adelaide 1635 SW 304th St Federal Way 98023
Brigadoon 3601 SW 336th St Federal Way 98023
Camelot 4041 S 298th St Auburn 98001
Enterprise 35101 5th Ave SW Federal Way 98023
Green Gables 32607 47th Ave SW Federal Way 98023
Lake Dolloff 4200 S 308th St Auburn 98001
Lake Grove 303 SW 308th St Federal Way 98023
Lakeland 35827 32nd Ave S Auburn 98001
Mark Twain 2450 S Star Lake Rd Federal Way 98003
Meredith Hill 5830 S 300th St Auburn 98001
Mirror Lake 625 S 314th St Federal Way 98003
Nautilus (K-8) 1000 S 289th St Federal Way 98003
Olympic View 2626 SW 327th St Federal Way 98023
Panther Lake 34424 1st Ave S Federal Way 98003
Rainier View 3015 S 368th St Federal Way 98003
Sherwood Forest 34600 12th Ave SW Federal Way 98023
Silver Lake 1310 SW 325th Pl Federal Way 98023
Star Lake 4014 S 270th St Kent 98032
Sunnycrest 24629 42nd Ave S Kent 98032
Twin Lakes 4400 SW 320th St Federal Way 98023
Valhalla 27847 42nd Ave S Auburn 98001
Wildwood 2405 S 300th St Federal Way 98003
Woodmont (K-8) 26454 16th Ave S Des Moines 98198
MIDDLE SCHOOLS (6-8)
Federal Way Public Academy (6-10) 34620 9th Ave S Federal Way 98003
Illahee 36001 1st Ave S Federal Way 98003
Kilo 4400 S 308th St Auburn 98001
Lakota 1415 SW 314th St Federal Way 98023
Sacajawea 1101 S Dash Point Rd Federal Way 98003
Saghalie 33914 19th Ave SW Federal Way 98023
Sequoyah 3450 S 360th ST Auburn 98001
Totem 26630 40th Ave S Kent 98032
TAF Academy (6-12) 26630 40th Ave S Kent 98032
HIGH SCHOOLS (9-12)
Decatur 2800 SW 320th St Federal Way 98023
Federal Way 30611 16th Ave S Federal Way 98003
Thomas Jefferson 4248 S 288th St Auburn 98001
Todd Beamer 35999 16th Ave S Federal Way 98003
Career Academy at Truman 31455 28th Ave S Federal Way 98003
ADDITIONAL SCHOOLS
Internet Academy (K-12) 31455 28th Ave S Federal Way 98003
Merit School (6-12) 36001 1st Ave S Federal Way 98003
Employment Transition Program (12+) 33250 21st Ave SW Federal Way 98023
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2013 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
5
CURRENT INVENTORY NON-INSTRUCTIONAL FACILITIES Developed Property
Central Kitchen 1344 S 308th St Federal Way 98003
Federal Way Memorial Field 1300 S 308th St Federal Way 98003 Educational Services Center 33330 8th Ave S Federal Way 98003
Support Services Center 1211 S 332nd St Federal Way 98003
Surplussed Space Administrative Building 31405 18th Ave S Federal Way 98003
MOT Site 1066 S 320th St Federal Way 98003
Notes: In January 2012, the Administrative Building, Community Resource Center, and Student
Support Annex were combined into the Educational Services Center. Central Kitchen
will be relocated to this site in late 2012. The Administration Building and MOT Site
have been surplussed and will be marketed for sale.
Undeveloped Property
Site # Location
75 SW 360th Street & 3rd Avenue SW – 9.2 Acres
65 S 351st Street & 52nd Avenue S – 8.8 Acres
60 E of 10th Avenue SW - SW 334th & SW 335th Streets - 10.04 Acres
73 N of SW 320th and east of 45th PL SW – 23.45 Acres 71 S 344th Street & 46th Avenue S - 17.47 Acres 82 1st Way S and S 342nd St – Minimal acreage
96 S 308th St and 14th Ave S – .36 Acres
Notes: Not all undeveloped properties are large enough to meet school construction
requirements. Properties may be traded or sold depending on what locations are needed
to house students in the District.
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2013 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
6
NEEDS FORECAST - EXISTING FACILITIES
EXISTING FACILITY FUTURE NEEDS ANTICIPATED SOURCE OF
FUNDS
Purchase and Relocate Portables Interim Capacity Anticipated source of funds is Impact Fees.
Federal Way High School Replace Existing Building,
Increase Capacity
Capital levy request
As part of the multi-phase plan, the District intends to increase capacity for high school
students with expansion at the Federal Way High School site. Increased capacity at Federal Way High, and Decatur High in later phases, supplant the need for construction of a fifth comprehensive high school.
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2013 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
7
NEEDS FORECAST - ADDITIONAL FACILITIES
NEW FACILITY LOCATION ANTICIPATED SOURCE
OF FUNDS
No current plans for additional facilities.
FE
D
E
R
A
L
W
A
Y
P
U
B
L
I
C
S
C
H
O
O
L
S
20
1
3
C
A
P
I
T
A
L
F
A
C
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
P
L
A
N
8
Si
x
Y
e
a
r
F
i
n
a
n
c
e
P
l
a
n
Se
c
u
r
e
d
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
So
u
r
c
e
s
Im
p
a
c
t
F
e
e
s
(
1
)
(
$
8
9
,
8
8
4
)
La
n
d
S
a
l
e
F
u
n
d
s
(
2
)
(
$
1
0
,
1
5
0
,
4
7
6
)
Bo
n
d
F
u
n
d
s
(
3
)
$
8
,
3
6
4
,
9
6
8
St
a
t
e
M
a
t
c
h
(
4
)
$
1
2
,
7
3
9
,
9
4
8
TO
T
A
L
$
1
0
,
8
6
4
,
5
5
6
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
So
u
r
c
e
s
St
a
t
e
M
a
t
c
h
(
5
)
$
0
Bo
n
d
o
r
L
e
v
y
F
u
n
d
s
(
6
)
$
7
0
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
La
n
d
F
u
n
d
S
a
l
e
s
(
7
)
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
Im
p
a
c
t
F
e
e
s
(
8
)
$
8
0
0
,
0
0
0
TO
T
A
L
$
8
0
,
8
0
0
,
0
0
0
Ac
t
u
a
l
a
n
d
P
l
a
n
n
e
d
E
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
To
t
a
l
S
e
c
u
r
e
d
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
$
9
1
,
6
6
4
,
5
5
6
NE
W
S
C
H
O
O
L
S
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
a
n
d
B
u
d
g
e
t
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
8
2
0
1
9
T
o
t
a
l
T
o
t
a
l
C
o
s
t
Pr
i
o
r
Y
e
a
r
s
2
0
1
2
-
1
3
2
0
1
3
-
1
4
2
0
1
4
-
1
5
2
0
1
5
-
1
6
2
0
1
6
-
1
7
2
0
1
7
-
1
8
2
0
1
8
-
1
9
2
0
1
3
-
2
0
1
9
MO
D
E
R
N
I
Z
A
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
E
X
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
Fe
d
e
r
a
l
W
a
y
H
i
g
h
S
c
h
o
o
l
(
9
)
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
0
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
4
0
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$1
1
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$81,000,000$81,000,000
SI
T
E
A
C
Q
U
I
S
I
T
I
O
N
No
r
m
a
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
$3
8
5
,
0
0
0
$2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
0
5
,
0
0
0
$
2
1
5
,
0
0
0
$
2
2
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
2
5
,
0
0
0
$
2
3
5
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
$1,885,000
(
E
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
T
r
a
n
s
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
)
(
1
0
)
TE
M
P
O
R
A
R
Y
F
A
C
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
Po
r
t
a
b
l
e
s
(
1
1
)
$
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
8
0
0
,
0
0
0
$800,000
TO
T
A
L
$
3
8
5
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
,
4
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
0
,
4
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
4
0
,
4
0
5
,
0
0
0
$
1
1
,
4
1
5
,
0
0
0
$
2
2
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
2
5
,
0
0
0
$
2
3
5
,
0
0
0
$
8
3
,
3
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
8
3
,
6
8
5
,
0
0
0
NO
T
E
S
:
`
1.
T
h
e
s
e
f
e
e
s
a
r
e
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
b
e
i
n
g
h
e
l
d
i
n
a
K
i
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
C
i
t
y
o
f
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
W
a
y
a
n
d
C
i
t
y
o
f
K
e
n
t
i
m
p
a
c
t
f
e
e
a
c
c
o
u
n
t
,
a
n
d
w
i
l
l
b
e
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
f
o
r
u
s
e
b
y
t
h
e
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
f
o
r
s
y
s
t
e
m
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
T
h
i
s
i
s
y
e
a
r
e
n
d
b
a
l
a
n
c
e
o
n
1
2
/
3
1
/
1
1
.
2.
T
h
e
s
e
f
u
n
d
s
a
r
e
e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d
t
o
c
o
m
e
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
s
a
l
e
o
f
t
h
e
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
E
S
C
a
n
d
M
O
T
s
i
t
e
s
.
T
h
i
s
i
s
y
e
a
r
e
n
d
b
a
l
a
n
c
e
o
n
1
2
/
3
1
/
1
1
.
3.
T
h
i
s
i
s
t
h
e
1
2
/
3
1
/
1
1
b
a
l
a
n
c
e
o
f
b
o
n
d
f
u
n
d
s
.
T
h
i
s
f
i
g
u
r
e
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
s
.
4.
T
h
i
s
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
s
t
h
e
b
a
l
a
n
c
e
o
f
S
t
a
t
e
M
a
t
c
h
F
u
n
d
s
f
o
r
V
a
l
h
a
l
l
a
,
P
a
n
t
h
e
r
L
a
k
e
,
L
a
k
e
l
a
n
d
,
a
n
d
S
u
n
n
y
c
r
e
s
t
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
i
e
s
a
n
d
L
a
k
o
ta
M
i
d
d
l
e
S
c
h
o
o
l
,
w
o
r
k
o
n
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
u
p
g
r
a
d
e
s
i
s
o
c
c
u
r
r
i
n
g
.
T
h
i
s
i
s
t
h
e
b
a
l
a
n
c
e
o
n
1
2
/
3
1
/
1
1
.
5.
T
h
i
s
i
s
a
n
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
d
S
t
a
t
e
M
a
t
c
h
f
o
r
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
a
t
t
a
c
h
e
d
t
o
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
b
o
n
d
i
s
s
u
e
s
.
T
h
i
s
i
s
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
1
O
S
P
I
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
aw
a
r
d
s
.
S
t
a
t
e
M
a
t
c
h
f
u
n
d
s
a
r
e
b
e
i
n
g
u
s
e
d
f
o
r
h
i
g
h
p
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
r
e
p
a
i
r
s
,
u
p
g
r
a
d
e
s
a
n
d
s
y
s
t
e
m
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
.
T
h
e
s
e
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
H
V
A
C
,
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
r
e
n
o
t
re
l
a
t
e
d
t
o
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
.
A
l
l
r
e
m
a
i
n
i
n
g
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
a
r
e
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
d
t
o
b
e
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
b
y
S
u
m
m
e
r
2
0
1
2
6.
T
h
e
s
e
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
$
1
0
m
o
f
v
o
t
e
r
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
,
b
u
t
n
o
t
i
s
s
u
e
d
a
n
d
$
6
0
m
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
d
f
o
r
v
o
t
e
r
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
i
n
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
2
.
7.
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
s
a
l
e
o
f
s
u
r
p
l
u
s
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
.
T
h
e
s
e
f
u
n
d
s
w
i
l
l
b
e
u
s
e
d
t
o
r
e
t
i
r
e
d
e
b
t
i
n
c
u
r
r
e
d
f
o
r
t
h
e
a
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
C
e
n
t
e
r
.
8.
T
h
e
s
e
a
r
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
f
e
e
s
b
a
s
e
d
u
p
o
n
k
n
o
w
n
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
i
n
t
h
e
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
o
v
e
r
t
h
e
n
e
x
t
s
i
x
y
e
a
r
s
.
T
h
i
s
f
i
g
u
r
e
a
s
s
u
me
s
$
2
5
,
0
0
0
p
e
r
m
o
n
t
h
f
o
r
t
h
e
n
e
x
t
s
i
x
y
e
a
r
s
.
T
h
i
s
f
i
g
u
r
e
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
a
d
j
u
s
t
e
d
t
o
r
e
f
l
e
c
t
t
h
e
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
e
c
o
n
o
m
y
.
9.
P
e
n
d
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
a
n
d
v
o
t
e
r
a
u
t
h
o
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
2
.
T
h
e
$
8
1
m
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
t
h
i
s
p
l
a
n
i
s
n
e
t
o
f
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
i
n
f
l
at
i
o
n
.
10
.
N
o
r
m
a
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
w
a
s
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
d
i
n
2
0
1
0
t
o
h
o
u
s
e
t
h
e
E
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
T
h
e
$
2
.
1
m
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
f
i
n
a
n
c
e
d
t
h
r
o
u
gh
a
s
t
a
t
e
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
l
o
c
a
l
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
2
0
2
0
.
11
.
T
h
e
s
e
f
e
e
s
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
t
h
e
c
o
s
t
o
f
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
i
n
g
a
n
d
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
i
n
g
n
e
w
p
o
r
t
a
b
l
e
s
.
T
h
e
p
o
r
t
a
b
l
e
e
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
i
n
f
u
t
u
r
e
y
e
a
r
s
m
a
y
re
p
l
a
c
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
p
o
r
t
a
b
l
e
s
t
h
a
t
a
r
e
n
o
t
f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
.
T
h
e
s
e
m
a
y
n
o
t
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
a
n
d
a
r
e
n
o
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
s
u
m
m
a
r
y
.
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2013 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
9
SECTION 2 - MAPS OF DISTRICT BOUNDARIES
Federal Way Public Schools has twenty-one elementary schools (grades K-5), two
schools with a K-8 grade configuration, seven middle school schools (grades 6-8), four
high schools (grades 9-12) and three small secondary schools. The Federal Way Public Academy serves students in grades 6-10. The TAF Academy serves students in grades 6-12 who reside in the Totem Middle School service area. The Career Academy at Truman
High School serves students in grades 9-12.
The following maps show the service area boundaries for each school, by school type. (Career Academy at Truman High School and Federal Way Public Academy serve students from throughout the District). The identified boundaries are reviewed annually.
Any change in grade configuration or adoption of programs that affect school populations
may necessitate a change in school service areas.
The Growth Management Act requires that a jurisdiction evaluate if the public facility infrastructure is in place to handle new housing developments. In the case of most public
facilities, new development has its major impact on the facilities immediately adjacent to
that development. School Districts are different. If the District does not have permanent
facilities available, interim measures must be taken until new facilities can be built or until boundaries can be adjusted to match the population changes to the surrounding facilities.
Adjusting boundaries requires careful consideration by the District and is not taken
lightly. It is recognized that there is a potential impact on students who are required to change schools. Boundary adjustments impact the whole district, not just one school. We currently have 2 areas under consideration for boundary changes.
It is important to realize that a single housing development does not require the
construction of a complete school facility. School districts are required to project growth throughout the district and build or adjust boundaries based on growth throughout the
district, not just around a single development.
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2013 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
10
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2013 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
11
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2013 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
12
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2013 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
13
SECTION 3 - SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
Building Capacities - The Education Program
Portable Locations
Student Forecast – 2013 through 2019
Capacity Summaries King County Impact Fees - Single and Multi-Family Units
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2013 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
14
Building Capacities
This Capital Facilities Plan establishes the District’s “standard of service” in order to ascertain the District’s current and future capacity. The Superintendent of Public Instruction establishes square
footage guidelines for capacity, but these guidelines do not take into consideration the education
program needs. In general, the District’s current target class size provides that the average class size for a
standard classroom for grades K through 2 should be 20 students. In grades 3-5 the target is 25
students. For grades 6 to 12 the target class size is 26 students. Classrooms for students with Individualized Education Program (Special Education) needs are calculated at 12 seats per
classroom.
Using the OSPI square footage calculation as a base line, the District has calculated a program capacity for all schools. A recent Study & Survey was the basis for changes to the OSPI building report. The following list clarifies the adjustments to the OSPI calculation.
Music Rooms: Each elementary school requires a standard classroom for music instruction.
All Day Kindergarten:
Every elementary school operates at least one all day Kindergarten program. These all day Kindergarten programs require additional capacity because the standard classroom is available for
one all day session rather than two half day sessions. The District will operate 53 sections of all
day Kindergarten in 2012-13. Special Education Resource Rooms:
Each elementary and middle school requires the use of a standard classroom(s) for special
education students requiring instruction to address specific disabilities. English as a Second Language Programs: Each elementary, middle school and high school requires the use of a standard classroom for
students learning English as a second language.
Middle School Computer Labs: Each middle school has computer labs, except Totem Middle School. Wireless access has been
installed at all secondary schools. If additional classroom space is needed, these computer labs
may be converted to mobile carts. High School Career Development and Learning Center (Resource) Room: Each high school provides special education resource room and career development classrooms
for students requiring instruction to address specific disabilities.
Preschool/ECEAP/Headstart: Our district currently offers preschool programs for both special needs & typically developing
students at 8 elementary schools. We also have the ECEAP and Headstart program at 6 schools
(3 elementary & 3 high schools). These programs decrease capacity at those sites. Alternative Learning Experience:
Federal Way offers students the opportunity to participate in an Alternative Learning Experience
through our Internet Academy. These students have never been included in the capacity calculation of unhoused students.
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2013 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
15
BUILDING PROGRAM CAPACITIES
ELEMENTARY BUILDINGMIDDLE SCHOOL BUILDING
PROGRAM CAPACITYPROGRAM CAPACITY
School NameHeadcountSchool NameHeadcountFTE
Adelaide 378 Illahee 855864
Brigadoon 325 Kilo 829837
Camelot 255 Lakota 707714
Enterprise 461 Sacajawea 655662
Green Gables 477 Saghalie 804812
Lake Dolloff 439 Sequoyah 569575
Lake Grove 335 Totem 739746
Lakeland 409 Federal Way Public Academy 209211
Mark Twain 302 Technology Access Foundation Academy**
Meredith Hill 456 Merit School**
Mirror Lake 337 2011 TOTAL5,3675,421
Nautilus (K-8)370
Olympic View 357*Middle School Average737744
Panther Lake 444
Rainier View 435HIGH SCHOOL BUILDING
Sherwood Forest 429PROGRAM CAPACITY
Silver Lake 419
Star Lake 370 School NameHeadcountFTE
Sunnycrest 394 Decatur 12491,336
Twin Lakes 293 Federal Way 14921,596
Valhalla 427 Thomas Jefferson 13491,443
Wildwood 329 Todd Beamer 11421,221
Woodmont (K-8)352 Career Academy at Truman 163174
2011 TOTAL8,793 Federal Way Public Academy 109117
Employment Transition Program 4851
Technology Access Foundation Academy**
Elementary Average382 Merit School**
2011 TOTAL5,5525,938
*High School Average1,3081,399
Notes:
* Federal Way Public Academy, Career Academy at Truman High School, and Employment Transition Program
are non-boundary schools. These schools are not used in the calculated averages.
** Technology Access Foundation Academy is housed entirely in portables
on the Totem Middle School site. Merit School is housed entirely in
portables on the Illahee Middle School site.
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2013 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
16
Portable Locations
The Washington State Constitution requires the State to provide each student a basic
education. It is not an efficient use of District resources to build a school with a capacity for 500 students due to lack of space for 25 students when enrollment fluctuates throughout the year and from year to year.
Portables are used as temporary facilities or interim measures to house students when
increasing population impacts a school attendance area. Portables may also be required to house students when new or changing programs require additional capacity. They also provide temporary housing for students until permanent facilities can be financed and
constructed. When permanent facilities become available, the portable(s) is either used
for other purposes such as storage or child care programs, or moved to another school for
an interim classroom. Some portables may not be fit to move due to age or physical condition. In these cases, the District may choose to buy new portables and surplus these unfit portables. It is the practice and philosophy of Federal Way Public Schools that
portables are not acceptable as permanent facilities.
The following page provides a list of the location of the portable facilities, used for temporary educational facilities by Federal Way Public Schools.
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2013 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
17
PORTABLES LOCATEDPORTABLES LOCATEDAT ELEMENTARY SCHOOLSAT HIGH SCHOOLS
NON NON
INSTRUCTIONALINSTRUCTIONALINSTRUCTIONALINSTRUCTIONAL
Adelaide 12Decatur 9
Brigadoon 1 Federal Way 21
Camelot 1 Thomas Jefferson 10
Enterprise 21Todd Beamer 9
Green Gables 1 TAF Academy 81
Lake Dolloff 11TOTAL382
Lake Grove 11
Lakeland
Mark Twain 21
Meredith Hill 12
Mirror Lake 41PORTABLES LOCATED
Nautilus 1AT SUPPORT FACILITIESOlympic View 11
Panther LakeMOT 1
Rainier View 3 TDC 5
Sherwood Forest 31TOTAL6
Silver Lake 13
Star Lake 4
Sunnycrest HEAD START PORTABLES AT DISTRICT SITES
Twin Lakes 12
ValhallaSherwood Forest 1
Wildwood 4Woodmont3 Total 1
TOTAL3121
PORTABLES LOCATED
AT MIDDLE SCHOOLS
NON
INSTRUCTIONALINSTRUCTIONAL
Illahee 12
Kilo 7
Lakota
Sacajawea 7
Saghalie 22
Sequoyah 11
Totem
Merit 3
TAF Academy 81
296
PORTABLE LOCATIONS
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2013 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
18
Student Forecast
Student enrollment projections are a basic component of budget development.
Enrollment projections influence many of the financial estimates that go into budget
preparation. The majority of staffing requirements are derived directly from the forecasted number of students. Allocations for instructional supplies and materials are
also made on the basis of projected enrollment. Other expenditures and certain revenue
projections are directly related to enrollment projections.
Enrollment projections are completed annually in the Business Services Department. Projections must be detailed at various levels, district total, school-building totals, grade
level and program level to include vocational and special education students.
The basis of projections has been cohort survival analysis. Cohort survival is the analysis of a group that has a common statistical value (grade level) as it progresses through time.
In a stable population the cohort would be 1.00 for all grades. This analysis uses
historical information to develop averages and project the averages forward. This
method does not trace individual students; it is concerned with aggregate numbers in each
grade level. The district has used this method with varying years of history and weighted factors to study several projections. Because transfers in and out of the school system are
common, student migration is factored into the analysis as it increases or decreases
survival rates. Entry grades (kindergarten) are a unique problem in cohort analysis. The
district collects information on birth rates within the district’s census tracts, and treats
these statistics as a cohort for kindergarten enrollment in the appropriate years.
The Federal Way School District is using various statistical methods for projecting
student enrollments. The resultant forecasted enrollments are evaluated below.
The first method is a statistical cohort analysis that produces ten distinct forecasts. These
are forecast of enrollment for one year. The projections vary depending on the number of
years of historical information and how they are weighted.
A second method is a projection using an enrollment projection software package that allows the user to project independently at school or grade level and to aggregate these
projections for the district level. The Enrollment MasterTM software provides statistical
methods including trend line, standard grade progression (cohort) and combinations of
these methods. This software produces a five-year projection of school enrollment.
In December 2006, the District contracted a demographer to develop projections for the
Federal Way School District. The report was complete in January 2007. The model used
to forecast next year’s enrollment uses cohort survival rates to measure grade to grade
growth, assumes market share losses to private schools (consistent with county-wide average), assumes growth from new housing or losses due to net losses from migration. This forecast was provided as a range of three projections. The long-range forecast
provided with this report used a model with cohort survival rates and growth rates based
on projected changes in the 5-19 age group for King County. Most of the methods used
for long range enrollment reporting assume that enrollment is a constant percent of
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2013 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
19
something else (e.g. population) or that enrollment will mirror some projected trend for the school-age population over time. The report included 5 different calculations to
provide a range of possible projections for the District to the year 2017. This model
produces a projection that is between 23,000 and 24,000 when applied to the low,
medium and high range modes. This provides a reasonable range for long-range planning and is consistent with estimates from various models.
Long-range projections that establish the need for facilities are a modification of the
cohort survival method. The cohort method of analysis becomes less reliable the farther
out the projections are made. The Federal Way School District long-range projections are studied annually. The study includes information from the jurisdictional demographers as they project future housing and population in the region. The long-range
projections used by Federal Way Public Schools reflect a similar age trend in student
populations as the projections published by the Office of Financial Management for the
State of Washington. Near term projections assume some growth from new housing, which is offset by current
local economic conditions. Current economic conditions do appear to be affecting
enrollment. This is reflected in the District’s projections. The District tracks new
development from five permitting jurisdictions. Long range planning assumes a student yield from proposed new housing consistent with historical growth patterns.
Growth Management requires jurisdictions to plan for a minimum of twenty years. The
Federal Way School District is a partner in this planning with the various jurisdictions
comprising the school district geography. These projections create a vision of the school district community in the future.
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2013 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
20
Full Time Equivalent Enrollment History and Projections
Simplified FTE (K Headcount = .5 FTE; Middle School FTE=.99 Headcount; High School FTE = .935Headcount)
Total K -12 Percent
Calendar YrSchool YearElementaryMiddle School High SchoolFTE Change
20072006-079,0225,2616,75421,037
20082007-088,9125,1676,63720,716 -1.5%
20092008-098,8655,1556,45620,476 -1.2%
20102009-108,7385,1196,59420,451 -0.1%
20112010-118,7535,1426,54420,439 -0.1%
20122011-128,8005,1346,44820,382-0.3%
2013 B2012-138,9425,0896,41220,443 0.3%
2014 P2013-149,0425,0626,424 20,528 0.4%
2015 P2014-159,1255,1056,391 20,621 0.5%
2016 P2015-169,2055,1816,347 20,733 0.5%
2017 P2016-179,3105,2266,311 20,847 0.5%
2018 P2017-189,4065,2546,321 20,981 0.6%
2019 P2018-199,4925,2786,381 21,151 0.8%
Elementary K-5Middle School 6-8High School 9-12
15,000
16,000
17,000
18,000
19,000
20,000
21,000
22,000
School Year
Enrollment History and Six Year Forecast
FTE
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2013 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
21
Capacity Summaries
All Grades, Elementary, Middle School, and High Schools
The Capacity Summaries combine Building Capacity information and the Student Forecast information. The result demonstrates the requirements for new or remodeled facilities and why there is a need for the District to use temporary facilities or interim
measures.
The information is organized in spreadsheet format, with a page summarizing the entire District, and then evaluating capacity vs. number of students at elementary, middle school, and high school levels individually.
The notes at the bottom of each spreadsheet provide information about what facilities are
in place each year.
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2013 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
22
CAPACITY SUMMARY - ALL GRADES
Budget - - Projected - -
Calendar Year2013201420152016201720182019
CAPACITY School Year2012-132013-142014-152015-162016-172017-182018-19
BUILDING PROGRAM
HEADCOUNT CAPACITY19,71219,71219,71219,91219,91219,91219,912
FTE CAPACITY20,15220,15220,15220,35220,35220,35220,352
Add or subtract changes to capacity
Increase Capacity at Federal Way HS 200
Adjusted Program Headcount Capacity19,71219,71219,91219,91219,91219,91219,912
Adjusted Program FTE Capacity20,15220,15220,35220,35220,35220,35220,352
ENROLLMENT
Basic FTE Enrollment20,44320,52820,62120,73320,84720,98121,151
Internet Academy Enrollment (AAFTE)(315)(315)(315)(315)(315)(315)(315)
Basic FTE Enrollment without Internet Academy20,12820,21320,30620,41820,53220,66620,836
SURPLUS OR (UNHOUSED)
PROGRAM FTE CAPACITY24 (61)46 (66)(180)(314)(484)
RELOCATABLE CAPACITY
Current Portable Capacity2,3252,3252,3252,2752,2752,2752,275
Deduct Portable Capacity (50)
Add New Portable Capacity
Adjusted Portable Capacity2,3252,3252,2752,2752,2752,2752,275
SURPLUS OR (UNHOUSED)
PROGRAM AND RELOCATABLE
CAPACITY2,3492,2642,3212,2092,0951,9611,791
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2013 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
23
CAPACITY SUMMARY - ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
Budget - - Projected - -
Calendar Year2013201420152016201720182019
CAPACITY School Year2012-132013-142014-152015-162016-172017-182018-19
BUILDING PROGRAM
HEAD COUNT CAPACITY 8,7938,7938,7938,7938,7938,7938,793
FTE CAPACITY8,7938,7938,7938,7938,7938,7938,793
Adjusted Program Headcount Capacity8,7938,7938,7938,7938,7938,7938,793
Adjusted Program FTE Capacity8,7938,7938,7938,7938,7938,7938,793
ENROLLMENT
Basic FTE Enrollment8,9429,0429,1259,2059,3109,4069,492
Internet Academy (AAFTE)1 (36)(36)(36)(36)(36)(36)(36)
Basic FTE Enrollment without Internet Academy8,9069,0069,0899,1699,2749,3709,456
SURPLUS OR (UNHOUSED)
PROGRAM CAPACITY (113)(213)(296)(376)(481)(577)(663)
RELOCATABLE CAPACITY2
Current Portable Capacity800800800800800800800
Adjusted Portable Capacity800800800800800800800
SURPLUS OR (UNHOUSED)
PROGRAM AND RELOCATABLE
CAPACITY687587504424319223137
NOTES:
1 Internet Academy students are included in projections but do not require full time use of school facilities.
2 Relocatable Capacity is based on the number of portables available and other administrative techniques which
can be used to temporarily house students until permanent facilities are available. This is a calculated number only.
The actual number of portables that will be used will be based on actual student population needs.
The District may begin to pull portables from the instructional inventory. Age and condition of the portables
will determine feasibility for continued instructional use.
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2013 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
24
CAPACITY SUMMARY - MIDDLE SCHOOLS
Budget - - Projected - -
Calendar Year2013201420152016201720182019
CAPACITY School Year2012-132013-142014-152015-162016-172017-182018-19
BUILDING PROGRAM
HEADCOUNT CAPACITY 5,3675,3675,3675,3675,3675,3675,367
FTE CAPACITY5,4215,4215,4215,4215,4215,4215,421
Add or subtract changes in capacity
Adjusted Program Headcount Capacity5,3675,3675,3675,3675,3675,3675,367
Adjusted Program FTE Capacity5,4215,4215,4215,4215,4215,4215,421
ENROLLMENT
Basic FTE Enrollment5,0895,0625,1055,1815,2265,2545,278
Internet Academy (AAFTE)1 (74)(74)(74)(74)(74)(74)(74)
Basic FTE Enrollment without Internet Academy5,0154,9885,0315,1075,1525,1805,204
SURPLUS OR (UNHOUSED)
PROGRAM CAPACITY406433390314269241217
RELOCATABLE CAPACITY2
Current Portable Capacity575575575575575575575
Add/Subtract portable capacity
Adjusted Portable Capacity575575575575575575575
SURPLUS OR (UNHOUSED)
PROGRAM AND RELOCATABLE
CAPACITY9811,008965889844816792
NOTES:
1 Internet Academy students are included in projections but do not require full time use of school facilities.
2 Relocatable Capacity is based on the number of portables available and other administrative techniques which
can be used to temporarily house students until permanent facilities are available. This is a calculated number only.
The actual number of portables that will be used will be based on actual student population needs.
The District may begin to pull portables from the instructional inventory. Age and condition of the portables
will determine feasibility for continued instructional use.
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2013 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
25
CAPACITY SUMMARY - HIGH SCHOOLS
Budget - - Projected - -
Calendar Year2013201420152016201720182019
CAPACITY School Year2012-132013-142014-152015-162016-172017-182018-19
BUILDING PROGRAM
HEADCOUNT CAPACITY 5,5525,5525,5525,7525,7525,7525,752
FTE CAPACITY5,9385,9385,9386,1386,1386,1386,138
Add or subtract changes in capacity
Add capacity to Federal Way HS 200
Adjusted Program Headcount Capacity5,5525,5525,7525,7525,7525,7525,752
Adjusted Program FTE Capacity5,9385,9386,1386,1386,1386,1386,138
ENROLLMENT
Basic FTE Enrollment6,4126,4246,3916,3476,3116,3216,381
Internet Academy (AAFTE)1 (205)(205)(205)(205)(205)(205)(205)
Basic Ed without Internet Academy6,2076,2196,1866,1426,1066,1166,176
SURPLUS OR (UNHOUSED)
PROGRAM CAPACITY (269)(281)(48)(4)3222 (38)
RELOCATABLE CAPACITY2
Current Portable Capacity950950950900900900900
Add/Subtract portable capacity
Subtract portable capacity at Federal Way HS (50)
Adjusted Portable Capacity950950900900900900900
SURPLUS OR (UNHOUSED)
PROGRAM AND RELOCATABLE
CAPACITY3 681669852896932922862
NOTES:
1 Internet Academy students are included in projections but do not require full time use of school facilities.
2 Relocatable Capacity is based on the number of portables available and other administrative techniques which
can be used to temporarily house students until permanent facilities are available. This is a calculated number only.
The actual number of portables that will be used will be based on actual student population needs.
The District may begin to pull portables from the instructional inventory. Age and condition of the portables
will determine feasibility for continued instructional use.
3 Capacity for unhoused students will be accommodated with traveling teachers and
no planning time in some classrooms.
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2013 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
26
King County, the City of Federal Way, and the City of Kent Impact Fee Calculations
Single and Multi-Family Residences
Each jurisdiction that imposes school impact fees requires that developers pay these fees to help cover a share of the impact of new housing developments on school facilities. To determine an equitable fee throughout unincorporated King County, a formula was
established. This formula can be found in King County Code 21A and was substantially
adopted by the City of Federal Way and Kent. The formula requires the District to
establish a "Student Generation Factor" which estimates how many students will be added to a school district by each new single or multi-family unit and to gather some standard construction costs, which are unique to that district.
- STUDENT GENERATION FACTOR ANALYSIS
Federal Way Public Schools student generation factor was determined separately for single-family units and multi-family units. The factors used in the 2013 Capital Facilities
Plan were derived using actual generation factors from single-family units that were
constructed in the last five (5) years.
- IMPACT FEE CALCULATION
Following the calculations for the student generation factor is a copy of the Impact Fee
Calculation for single family and multi-family units based on King County Code 21A and
the Growth Management Act.
Temporary Facility Cost is the average cost of a portable purchased within the last 12
months.
Plan Year 2013
Plan Year 2012
Single Family Units1 $4,014 $4,014
Multi-Family Units $1,381 $1,253
Mixed-Use Residential2
1Due to economic conditions, Federal Way Public Schools is anticipating holding the
impact fee for Single Family Units at the 2011 rate of $4,014 for 2013 instead of using the calculated rate of $4,172.
2 In anticipation of the City of Federal Way Council’s changes to Ordinance No. 95-249,
which authorizes the collection of school impact fees.
FE
D
E
R
A
L
W
A
Y
P
U
B
L
I
C
S
C
H
O
O
L
S
20
1
3
C
A
P
I
T
A
L
F
A
C
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
P
L
A
N
27
ST
U
D
E
N
T
G
E
N
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
NE
W
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
I
N
P
R
I
O
R
5
Y
E
A
R
S
Si
n
g
l
e
F
a
m
i
l
y
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
M
i
d
d
l
e
S
c
h
o
o
l
H
i
g
h
S
c
h
o
o
l
T
o
t
a
l
Si
n
g
l
e
F
a
m
i
l
y
M
u
l
t
i
-
F
a
m
i
l
y
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
M
i
d
d
l
e
S
c
h
o
o
l
H
i
g
h
S
c
h
o
o
l
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
DE
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
D
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
s
D
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
s
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
F
a
c
t
o
r
F
a
c
t
o
r
F
a
c
t
o
r
F
a
c
t
o
r
(1
2
)
M
i
n
g
C
o
u
r
t
1
5
5
5
3
0
.
3
3
3
3
0
.
3
3
3
3
0
.
2
0
0
0
0
.
8
6
6
6
(1
2
)
S
u
n
s
e
t
G
a
r
d
e
n
s
1
1
9
0
1
0
.
8
1
8
2
0
.
0
0
0
0
0
.
0
9
0
9
0
.
9
0
9
1
(1
1
)
B
r
i
g
h
t
o
n
P
a
r
k
1
9
1
1
4
3
0
.
5
7
8
9
0
.
2
1
0
5
0
.
1
5
7
9
0
.
9
4
7
3
(1
1
)
T
h
e
G
r
e
e
n
2
0
1
1
7
1
0
.
5
5
0
0
0
.
3
5
0
0
0
.
0
5
0
0
0
.
9
5
0
0
(1
0
)
C
r
e
e
k
s
i
d
e
L
a
n
e
4
3
1
6
5
1
1
0
.
3
7
2
1
0
.
1
1
6
3
0
.
2
5
5
8
0
.
7
4
4
2
(1
0
)
G
r
a
n
d
e
V
i
s
t
a
2
8
6
7
9
0
.
2
1
4
3
0
.
2
5
0
0
0
.
3
2
1
4
0
.
7
8
5
7
(0
9
)
L
a
k
o
t
a
C
r
e
s
t
4
3
1
2
3
7
0
.
2
7
9
1
0
.
0
6
9
8
0
.
1
6
2
8
0
.
5
1
1
7
(0
9
)
T
u
s
c
a
n
y
2
2
7
5
3
0
.
3
1
8
2
0
.
2
2
7
3
0
.
1
3
6
4
0
.
6
8
1
9
(0
8
)
N
o
r
t
h
l
a
k
e
R
i
d
g
e
I
V
9
0
3
3
1
3
2
1
0
.
3
6
6
7
0
.
1
4
4
4
0
.
2
3
3
3
0
.
7
4
4
4
(0
8
)
C
o
l
l
i
n
g
t
r
e
e
P
a
r
k
4
1
1
6
9
7
0
.
3
9
0
2
0
.
2
1
9
5
0
.
1
7
0
7
0
.
7
8
0
4
To
t
a
l
33
2
0
1
2
6
5
8
6
6
St
u
d
e
n
t
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
*
0.
3
7
9
5
0
.
1
7
4
7
0
.
1
9
8
8
0
.
7
5
3
0
*
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
r
a
t
e
i
s
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
t
o
t
a
l
s
.
Mu
l
t
i
-
F
a
m
i
l
y
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
M
i
d
d
l
e
S
c
h
o
o
l
H
i
g
h
S
c
h
o
o
l
T
o
t
a
l
Au
b
u
r
n
0
.
1
7
2
0
.
0
7
0
0
.
0
9
0
0
.
3
3
2
Is
s
a
q
u
a
h
0
.
0
9
2
0
.
0
3
3
0
.
0
3
2
0
.
1
5
7
Ke
n
t
0
.
3
3
1
0
.
0
6
7
0
.
1
2
4
0
.
5
2
2
La
k
e
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
0
.
0
5
1
0
.
0
1
8
0
.
0
1
7
0
.
0
8
6
Av
e
r
a
g
e
0
.
1
6
2
0
.
0
4
7
0
.
0
6
6
0
.
2
7
4
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2013 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
28
IMPACT FEE
School Site Acquisition Cost:StudentStudent
FacilityCost /FacilityFactorFactorCost/Cost/
AcreageAcreCapacitySFRMFRSFRMFR
Elementary0.37950.1620$0$0
Middle School0.17470.0470$0$0
High School4.85$216,718510.19880.0660$4,093$1,359
TOTAL$4,093$1,359
School Construction Cost:StudentStudent
% Perm Fac./FacilityFacilityFactorFactorCost/Cost/
Total Sq Ft CostCapacitySFRMFRSFRMFR
Elementary95.82%0.37950.1620$0$0
Middle School94.76%0.17470.0470$0$0
High School96.53%$10,530,0002000.19880.0660$10,104$3,354
TOTAL $10,104$3,354
Temporary Facility Cost:StudentStudent
% Temp Fac.FacilityFacilityFactorFactorCost/Cost/
Total Sq Ft CostSizeSFRMFRSFRMFR
Elementary4.18%0.37950.1620
Middle School5.24%0.17470.0470
High School3.47%0.19880.0660
TOTAL$0$0
State Matching Credit Calculation:StudentStudent
Construction CostSq. Ft.StateFactorFactorCost/Cost/
Allocation/Sq FtStudentMatchSFRMFRSFRMFR
Elementary$188.550.37950.1620$0$0
Middle School$188.550.17470.0470$0$0
High School$188.5513063.50%0.19880.0660$3,094$1,027
Total$3,094$1,027
Tax Payment Credit Calculation SFRMFR
Average Assessed Value (March 2012)$232,710$77,926
Capital Bond Interest Rate (March 2012)3.84%3.84%
Net Present Value of Average Dwelling$1,902,611$637,114
Years Amortized 1010
Property Tax Levy Rate $1.45$1.45
Present Value of Revenue Stream$2,759$924
Single FamilyMulti-Family
Residences Residences
Mitigation Fee Summary
Site Acquisition Cost4,093$ 1,359$
Permanent Facility Cost10,104$ 3,354$
Temporary Facility Cost-$ -$
State Match Credit(3,094)$ (1,027)$
Tax Payment Credit(2,759)$ (924)$
Sub-Total8,343$ 2,762$
50% Local Share4,172$ 1,381$
Calculated Impact Fee 4,172$ 1,381$
2013 Impact Fee4,014$ 1,381$
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2013 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
29
SECTION 4 SUMMARY OF CHANGES FROM THE 2012 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
The 2013 Capital Facilities Plan is an updated document, based on the 2012 Capital
Facilities Plan. The changes between the 2012 Plan and the 2013 Plan are listed below. SECTION I - THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
SIX-YEAR FINANCE PLAN
The Six Year Finance Plan has been rolled forward to reflect 2013-2019 and adjusted for anticipated Federal Way High School construction schedule. The plan is found on page 8.
SECTION III - SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION CAPACITY
Elementary capacity includes space for All Day Kindergarten programs at every
elementary school. Changes to the Building Program Capacities calculation are found on
page 15. PORTABLES
The list of portables reflects the movement of portables between facilities or new
portables purchased. Portable Locations can be found on page 20.
STUDENT FORECAST The Student Forecast now covers 2013 through 2019 Enrollment history and projections
are found on page 20.
CAPACITY SUMMARY The changes in the Capacity Summary are a reflection of the changes in the capacities
and student forecast. New schools and increased capacity at current buildings are shown
as increases to capacity. Capacity Summaries are found on pages 22-25.
IMPACT FEE CALCULATION - KING COUNTY CODE 21A The Impact Fee Calculations have changed due to changes in several factors. The
adjustment made in the Impact Fee Calculation, causing a change in the Impact Fee
between the 2012 Capital Facilities Plan and the 2013 Capital Facilities Plan can be
found on page 30 and 31.
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2013 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
30
IMPACT FEE CALCULATION CHANGES FROM 2012 TO 2013
STUDENT GENERATION FACTORS Student Generation factors are based on rates for new developments constructed over a
period of not more than five years prior to the date of the fee calculation. The changes in
student Generation factors between the 2012 Capital Facilities Plan and the 2013 Capital
Facilities Plan are due to developments that were deleted or added based upon the age of the developments and the year placed in the survey. The Student Generation worksheet is found on page 27.
SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION COSTS
The anticipated cost based on 2006 estimates for replacing Federal Way High is
$81,000,000. The replacement will add 200 additional seats. The current capacity of
Federal Way High is 1538. The addition of 200 seats will increase capacity by 13%.
Total Cost $81,000,000 x .13 = $10,530,000
SCHOOL ACQUISITION COSTS
The district purchased the Norman Center to house the Employment Transition Program
and to allow for the expansion of the ECEAP program. The purchase and use of this site
increased our high school capacity by 51 students.
Total Cost $2,100,000 / 2 = $1,050,000
Cost per Acre $1,050,000 / 4.85 = $216,718
The District will use the above formulas created as a base for the 2013 Capital Facilities
Plan. The capacity of Federal Way High may vary from year to year as programs are added or changed and construction cost may increase over time.
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2013 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
31
IMPACT FEE CALCULATION CHANGES FROM 2012 TO 2013
IMPACT FEE
Item From/To Comment
Percent of Permanent Facilities
Percent Temporary Facilities
95.16% to 95.13%
4.84% to 4.87%
Report #3 OSPI
Updated portable inventory
Average Cost of Portable Classroom $199,832 to $185,012 Updated average of portables purchased and placed in 2011
Construction Cost Allocation
$180.17 to $188.55
Change effective July 2011
State Match 62.53% to 63.50%
Change effective July 2012
Average Assessed Value SFR – $257,849 to $232,710 MFR –
$74,692 to $77,926
Per Puget Sound Educational Service District (ESD 121)
Capital Bond Interest Rate 4.91% to 3.84% Market Rate
Property Tax Levy Rate $1.54 to $1.45
King County Treasury Division
Single Family Student Yield
Elementary
Middle School High School
.3315 to .3795
.1658 to .1747 .2095 to .1988
Updated Housing Inventory
Multi-Family Student Yield
Elementary
Middle School
High School
.1480 to .162
.0420 to .047
.0590 to .066
Updated County-Wide Average
Note: The last district multi-family
development, built in 2008, generates
a higher student yield than the county-
wide average.
Impact Fee SFR – $4,461 to $4,172
Proposed 2013 SFR $4,014*
MFR –
$1,253 to $1,381
For 2012 & 2013 the district has chosen to retain the 2011 SF rate.
*This reflects the calculated 2011 SF rate
MFR based on the updated calculation