HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 10-23-2013 Comp Plan Policy & Text Amendment #4 1
POLICY & TEXT AMENDMENT (PT #4)
6NCORPORATE KEN� SCHOOL DISTRICT 2013/2014 -
2018/2019 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
; ,
;
� - � � 4v� p
, � �
! i
� � � j � ?
� ( � i �
i a,
. . � � 4 �� � � � �lN � 9 � � � i x
�
. �; �1 . �. . �3.
'�� � � � � :���� � -� � ���
r -
�� � � - ���� � � ���� � - ��� �
�
TM
KENT
SCHOOL
DISTRICT
` � ApriC 2013
, � � � �� � ,
� �i �, � � ? ,, �� � I� j
� � l � i ; a � . ' -
, � � � J '� � ` � � J �
SIX - YEAR C�►PITAL FACIL-ITIES PLAN
2013 - 2014 � 2018 - 2019
April 2013
Ke�t School District No.415
12033 SE 256`h SVeet
Kent,Washington 98030-6643
(253)373-7295
�
�
KE1�T
�HOOL
D153R[C7
BOARD of DIRECTORS
Ms. Debbie Straus, President
Mr: Tim Ciark, Vice President
Ms. Agda Burcfiard, Legislative Representative
Ms. Karen DeBruler, Director
Mr. Russ Hanscom, Director
ADMINISTRATION
Dr. Eclward Lee Vargas
Superintendent of Schools
Dr. Richard A. Stedry, Chief Business Officer
Ralph Fortunato, C36S, Director of Fiscal Services
Fred Long, Director of Facilities Services ,
Gwenn Escher-Derdowski, Rianning Administrator '
�.Kent School Distrlct Slx-Year CaplfalFadlltles Plan � Apol 2013�
1 � � - i
� J 'i 4 � ', j � �
�� � � � � R J� � � � � � � �J � � �
� J J
Si,x 2'ear CapitaC�'aciCities �lan
7a6le of Contents
Section Page Number
I Executive Summary 2
I I Six-Year Enroliment Projection & History 4
� � I I I District Standard of Service 8
I V Inverrtory, 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
Kent School�DtsVict Six-Year Capifal Fadlities Plan April 2013
I Executive Summary
� !
This Six-Year Capitaf Facilities Plan (the "Plan") has been prepared.bythe Ker�t
$chool District (the "District") as the organization's capital facilities pfanning
document; in compliance with the requirements of Washington's Growtti
Management Act; King County Code K.C.C. 21A.43 and Cities of Kent,
Covingfon, Renton, Auburn, Black Diamond, Maple Valley, and SeaTac. This
annual Plan update was prepared using data available in the spring of 2013 for
the 2012 2013 school year.
This Plan is consistent with prior long-term capitaF facilities plans adopted bythe
Kerrt School District This Plan is not intended to be fhe sole planning document
for all ofithe District's needs. The District may prepare interim and periodic Long
Range Capital Facilfies Plans consisterrt with Board Policies, taking inta account
a longer or shorter time period, other factors and trends in the use of facilities,
and other needs of the District as may be required.
Prior Capital Facilities Plans of the Kent School District have been adopted by
Met�opolitan King County Council and Cities of Kent, Covington, Aubum and
Renton and included in the Capital Facilities Plan element of the C.omprehensive
Plans of each jurisdiction. This Plan has also been submitted to cities of Bladc
Diamond, Maple Valley, and SeaTac for their information arid inclusion in their
Comprehensive Plans. � a
In order for impact fees to be coltected in the unincorporated areas of Kent
SchoofDistrict, the Metropolitan King County Council'must adopt this Plan and a
fee-implementing ordinance for the Disfict. For impact fees to be collected in the
incorporated portions of the District, the cities of Kent, Covington, Renton and
Auburn musYalso adopt this Plan and their own school impact fee ordinances.
This Capital FaciliUes Plan establishes a standard of service in orderto ascertain
current and future capacity. While the State Superintendent of Public Instruction
establishes square footage guidelines for capacdy, those guidelines do not
account for local program needs in the District. The Growth Management Act,
King County and City codes and ordinances authorize the District to make
adjustrnerrts to the standard of service based on specific needs for students of
the District.
This Plan includes the standard of service as established by Kent School District.
Program capacity is based on an average capacity and updated to reflect
changes to special programs served in each building. Portables in the capacity
calculation use fhe same standard of service as the permanent facilities.
� (corrtinued)
KeM School Disvic[Snc-YearAapital Facilfties Plan Apol 2013 Page.2
� I Executive Summary c��u��ea>
The capacity of each school in the District is calculated based on the District
standard of service and the existing inventory of permanenf faciiities. The
DistricYs program capacity of permanerrt facilities reflects program changes and
the reduction of class size to meet the standard of service for Ken4 School
District. Portables provide additional transitional capaciry.
Kent School District is the fourth largest districf in the state. Enrollment is
electronically reported monthly to the Office of the Superintendent of Pu61ic
Instruction ("OSPI") on Form P-223. Alfhough funding apportionment is based on
Annual Average Full Time Equivalent (AAFTE), enrollment on October 1 is a
widely recognized "snapshot in time" that is used to repoR the DistricYs
enrollment for the year as reported to OSPI.
The Board of Directors approved Full Day Kindergarten ("FDK") for all
Elementary Schools in 2011-12 and FDK projections are used to fo�ecast
Kindergarten enrollment in future years.
The DistricYs standard of service, enrollment history and projections, and use of
transitional facilities are reviewed in detail in various sections of this Plan. The.
District plans to continue to satisfy concurrency requirements through the
.
transitional use of portables.
A financing plan is included in Section V I I I which demonstrates the DistricYs
abil'ity to implement this Plan. Pursuant to the requirements of the GrowEh
Management Act, this Plan will be updated annually wfth changes in the impact
fee schedules adjusted accordingly.
KeM School Dishict Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Aprtl 2013 Page 3
I I Six -Year Enrollment.Projection
For capital facilities planning, growth projections are based on cohort surv'roal
and student yield from documented residential construction projected over the
next six years. rs�r��� 7'he student generation factor is the basis for the growth
projections from new developments. cs�P�s�
King County Jive births and the District's relational percentage average were
used to determine the number of kindergarfiers entering the system. �s� r� ��
8.52% of 25,222 King Gounty live births in 2008'is projected for 2,150 students
expected in Kindergarte.n for October 1, 2013. This is an increase of 323 live
births in King County over the previous year. cs�rewa z�
Full Day Kindergarten ("FDK") programs at all 28 elementary schools require an
adjustment to the Kindergarten forecast for projecting FDK at 1_0 F'fE forcap'ital
facilities planning. P<223 Reports will continue to include FDK students at1.0 for
five schools with FDK funded :by state apportionment, and all other kindergarten
students will be reported at .50 FTE forstatefunding in 2012-13. cs�reebza�
Early Childhood Education students (also identified as "ECE", . °Rreschool
Inclusive Education ("IE") studerrts are forecast and reported to OSPI separately
on Form P-223H for Special Education Enrollment. Capacity is reserved to serve
students in the ECE programs at elementary schools.
The first grade population of Kent School District is traditionally 7 - 8% larger
than the kindergarten population dueto growth and transfers to the District from
private kindergartens. Cohort suniroal method uses historical enrollment data to
forecast the number of students projected for the following year. Projections for
20142018 are from OSPI Report '1049 — Determination of Projected
Enrollments.
Within practical limits, the District has kept abreast of proposed developments.
The District will continue to track new development activity to determine impact
to schools. Information on new residential developments and the completion of
these proposed developments in all jurisdictions will be considered in the
DistricYs future analysis of growth projections.
The Kent School District serves eight permitting jurisdictions: unincorporated
King County, the cities of Kent, Covington, Renton, and Aubum and smaller
portions of the cities of SeaTac; Black Diamond, ,and Maple Valley. The west
Lake Sawyer area of Kent School District is in the city ofBlack Diamond.
(conenue�
Kent School Dlatrid SIx-Year CapRal Facilitles Plan April 2073 Page 4
� ` I I Six-Year Enroliment Projection �co,m�„aa�
STUDENT GENERATION FACTOR
"Studerrt; Factor" is defined by King County code as "the number deriyed by a
school disfict to describe how many students of each grade span are expected
to be generated by a dwelling unit" 6ased on disfrict records of average actual
student generated rates for developments completed within 4he IasYfive years.
Following these guidelines, the student generation rate for Kent School District is
as follows:
Single Family Elementary .484
Middle School .129
Senior High .249
Total .862
. Multi-Family Elementary .324
Middle School .066
� ' Senior High .118
Total .508
The student generation factor is based on a survey of 2,163 single family
dwelling units and 1,478 muki-family dwelling units with no adjustrnent for
occupancy rates. Please refer to Appendix E on Page 36 of the Capital Facilities
Plan for details of the Student Generation Factor survey.
The actual number of students in those residential developments was
cJetertnined using the District's Education Logistics (EDULOG) Transportation
System which provides a count ofi enrolled students in identifiable new
, development areas.
KeM School District Six-Year CapRel FacilkiesPlan April 2013 Pege�5
KENT SCNOOL DISTRICT No.415
OCTOBER P 223 F T E(FWI Time Equivalenq ENROLCMENT HISTORY '
�Int9ee 1HN19ei LBn1W0 teNtYYt LBn1aYY LBn1YW LBn18W 181ntYY5 L81n1WE LBm1W9 lHm1i➢B L81n1WY LHmTODU LeNPWt Len2W4 Lem]OW LeMYOM LBm]OC! lBmxoOE lBmzoY'1. _
- " _ . _ _..__ _ ..-_ _"_". . .. . . . '
993 1994 1995 1988 7997 �1898� -1998 . 2000. 200'I� 2002 2003 200d� 2005�� 2008 2007 2008 2008 �2010 '2011 2012� .
t.789 72.501 :73.tW '.t3.00t 7J,i88 72,755 7P,Ot0 :2t.8t7' 2t.573 �2t.818 72,T72 72AU7 22.�87 2t.718' 2t.B89 72,A3t Yl.674 22.BB0 TA,YM 24.899
81� 1,262 563 �-102 786 -07J -3L5 -199 -2/4 79 566 -20.5 98D -708 85 588 M] .18t 1,684 855
07% 8.47% 6.54% 8.M% 8.38% �8.27% 8.58% 8.25% 8.41% 8.06% 8.05% 8.33% 8.41% 8.2296 �829% 8.47% 8.32% 8.13% 8.18% 8.5T%
B85 955 887� 871 B72 925� 847 800 907 .873 889 917 943� 8B5 BOB �BB 758 749 767 831
��.s.aMaaasr-aarswanuniorrerormm�oo�wmmw�.ienriao.rq 385 488 343 4{7 471
.017 t.967 t.975 2,152 2.085 2.OB4 1.968. 2.OBB 1.938 1.922 �1.BSt 1.95t 1978 2003 1873 1820 1958 1892 7885 �2013
,046� 1,937 2,ON 7,B7B 2,194� 2,095 2,�78 2,015 2,987 1,836 1,985 1,835 ��1881 �1HB8 � 2045 1978 1982 1839 �2014 1904
,972 1,883� 1,859 2,025 2,058 2,208 2,711 2.088 2,040 2,055 1,975 2,020 tB82 2028 2099 2081 1978 2000 1981 2078
,938 7.842 2.D12 7.888 2.D84 �2045� 2.Y22�. 2,088 2.788 2.088 2,072 �2,�57 2024 2075 � 7048 2080 2044� 1954 2021 1989
,807 1,898 1,924 1,988 2,029 2,108 2,097 2,251 2,709 2,149 2,087 2,102 2080 2051 2020 2044 2088 2087� 1973 204'I
,851 1,815 1,895 7,824 2,038 2,045 2,118 2,058 2,253 2,157 2,205 2.139 2184 210L 2088 2081 I070 2730 2732 2021
,815 1,848 7,825 1,898 1,882 2,083 2,081 2,208 2,127 2,380 2,20H 2,243 2200 2205 2130 2117 2175 2082 2102. 2136�
,799 1.BB2 .1,841 1.827 1,936 1,870 �Z.015 2,033 2,154 2.078 2,351 2.221 2283 2254 2184 2743� 2188 2151 21U8 2138
,776 1,800 t,884 1,889 1,891 1,925 2,102 2,208 2,248 2,404 2,3D9
�2,705 2787 2772 2580 2573 2487 2434 �2466 2452
,898 1,600 1,785 1,857 1,977 1,953 2,045 2,113 2,064 2,039 2,207 2J24 2175 2212 2474� 2245 2273 2293 2267 2088
.537 1,528 1,808 1,881 1,787 1,B4B 1,782 1,770 1,835 1,823 1,787 1,807 1798 188t t882 'I888 1858 7848 1882 1790
,360 1,368 1,430 1,4BS 1 507 1 832 1 537 1432 7 440 �475 1 488 1 d48 1475 1457 7491 1548 1879 - 1573 1543 1521
?,803 22,796 23,323 23,792 24,SBD 24,88Y .25,080 25,238 25,344 25,354 25,358 25,770 .25,808 2i.884 25,745 25,828 25.778 25,827 45,580 25,481
582 40 529 489 788 37I�. 778 178 106 9 1 612 39 SS -119 B3 •6U .75Z J7 -709 � , .
.585 3575 �.701 4,371 3,3N 5,889 S,B47 6,079 8.128 6.735 6.740 6,552 8,587 6.818 8.527 8,810 8.580 6,103 8,37T 8,283
wN number.Mast NM6erpeM�sWOenb oie rapmmU at.6 FTE P�Smb Fu�MtriY famula ewn tlagh ALL abmenfe�Y adwWa new have Fu�U+Y k^���Wa7�.
Am b emdlme�rt'/em ec upEateE M Wech�Mro�Smte vw0elts a Kmp Cumb Healtli DW+�Kmil School DISbIU P��6a OanO on adwl WntlaWhen enrdlnent 5'Man ktv.
1.1 A(seme m Metlmimt)et S etllmb wiIMl19���for FuA Oq'NhMeNe�(F�I()fwEeO tivouGh Stele MWNOnmmR . .
'af 1ne aey ia M1m0a0 M Ne EOumtlonal Plopems 6 0ps�etlW lwY 56 eWOenb me Mpo1mE e1.5 FTE an Me P-223 EmoAmenl RM�wTItT B��alMe Nntllnp.
esic educalbn/u�iry eiM axdu0ea Eahy ChAQwoO Etluutbn('ECE'6'B7'a BIM ro 2 PmW�ml IMwiw EAUmtlm)enE cdNpo-oMy Runnhq Stml aW7eMS. ,
t�27.732. FWI HeeticouM MrlWm qnCerpeRan,Eery CIJIMOOE FAumtlm 8 mllepaany RunMnp Slat atuOanb et 1.D Haeticw�m.
Table 1 ,00eimia aaa.e
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICTNo.415
SIX-YEAR ENROLLMENT PROJECTION
.FUII OB Kinde BAan et all EICm LB in 20W �LB In 2008 LB in Z000 LB in 4010 LB in 2011 LB Est 2012 l8 EsL.2019
� � ACTUAL P� R O J E C T I� 'O -N
' October 2012 20'13 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 ,
King CouMy,Live Births' 24,899 25,222 25,057 24,514 24,630 24,750 24,850 '
, . IncreasehDecrease 655 � 32�� -765 d43 718 120 f00�
Kfndergarten/Birth % Z 8.57% 8.52% 8.62% 9.02% 9.18% 9.35% 9.51%
z"IGndergarten FTE(� .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
_"FD Kindergarten (a� 1.0 2134 2,150 2,160 2,211 2,262 2,313 2,364
Grade t . 2017 2,173 2,185 2,238 2,290 2;343 2,396
Grade 2 1905 2,038 2,235 2,208 2,262 2,315 2,368
Grade 3 2082 1,969 2,088 2,289 2,261 2;316 2,371
Grade 4 2000 2,102 1,954 2,091 2,292 2,264 2,319
Grade 5 2044 2,023 2,104 1,972 2,110 2,313 2;285
Grade 6 2026 2,099 2,065 2,152 2,017 2,158 2,365
Grade 7 2139 2,033 2,099 2,073 2,161 2,025 2,167 \
Grade 8 2138 2,176 2,062 2,128 2,102 2.191 2,053
Grade 9 2452 2,490 2;501 2,377 2,453 2,423 2,526 .
Grade 10 2088 2,081 2,179 2,271 2,101 2,168 2,142
� j
Grede 11 1790 1,682 1,913 1,920 1,948 1,851 1,91Q
Grade 12 1521 1,46Z 1,524 1,581 1,587 1,610 1,530
Total EnrollmeM Projection` 26;336 26,483 27,069 27,451 27,846 28,290 28,7yC
YeaAy Increase/Decrease 3 �N� 1a� 586 38z 395 aaa 6p6
� Yearfy IncreaselDeaease% z i a i a 0.5696 221°h 1.41% 1.44% 1.59% 1.79%
tiomn z�a�a wim na)uso-nem rw.Pun oey anaeipenm a cnenpe rtom}ZE Hiewn u r�mewum amjealone wnn wqn srnaa�Pre aue a wmm�p Smrt.
TotalEnrollmeMProection 26,336 26,483 27,069 27,451 27,846 28,290' 28,796
� FGndergarten enrollmeM projection for 2073 is based on KeM SD pefcerrtage of live births in King Courriy five years previous.
2 IGnGergarten prajection is ralwWtetl by using the Districl's previous year perceMage of King CouMy births five yea�s eartier �
compered to acWal kindargarten enrolimeM in the previous yeac(ExdudesECE-Eady Childhood Educadon presehoolers) .
3 IGndergarten projection is at 7.0 kr Full Day Kindergarten,(FDIQ at all 28Elementary schools. '
4 Headcount Projections for 2074-2018 trom 0.SPI Report 1049-Deiermination of Projected'Enrollments
5 Od.2072 P223 FI'E is 25,481 8 Headcourrt is 26,611.Full Headcount with ECE Preschool 8 Running Stan studenta=27,732. '
G R O W T H P R O J E C T I O N S - Ad'ustments for curtent economic factors
For facilities planning purposes, this six-year enrollment projection anticipates conservative enrollment
growth from new development currently in some phase of planning or construetion in the district.
Kerrt School Distnct Six-Year Capttal Facitities Plan Table 2 ,ap�i zo�a Page 7
III Gurrent Kent School Dfstrict "Standard of Service"
In order to determine the capaciry ofi facilities in a school district, King County
Code 21A.06 references a "standard of service" that each school distriot must
esta6lish in order to ascertain its overall capacity. The standard of service
iden#ifies the program year, the class size, the number of classrooms, students,
and programs of special need, and other factors determined by the district which
would,best serve the student population.
This Plan incfudes the standard of service as established by Kent School District.
The District has ident�ed schools with significant special needs programs as
"impacY' schools and the standard of service targets a lower class size at those
facilities. Portables included in the,capaciry calculation use the same standard.of
service as the permanerrt facilities. (Sse append;x A, e&c)
The standard of service defined herein will continue to evolve in the future. Kent
School District is continuing a long-term strategic planning process combined
with review of changes to capacity and standard of service. This process will
affecYvarious aspects of the DistricYs standard of service and future changes will
be reflected in future capital facilities plans.
Gurrent Standards of Service for Elementarv Students
i� �
Class size for Kindergarten is planned for an average of 25 or fewer students.
Glass size for grades 1 - 3 is planned for an average of 25 or fewer students.
Class size for grades 4 - 6 is planned for an average of 29 or fewer students.
All elementary schools meet the criteria required to provide full day kindergarten
programs (FDK = Full Day Kindergarten) with the second half of the day funded
by state apportionment or the local levy. Five schools with FDK Programs have
state apportionment funding and 23 others are funded through Basic Ed and the
tocal Educational Programs and Operations Levy.
Some special programs require specialized classroom space and the program
capacity of some of the buitdings housing these programs is reduced. Some
students, for example; leave their regular classroom for a short period of time to
receive instruction in special programs and space must be allocated to serVe
these programs.
Some students have scheduled time in a computer Iab. Students may also be
provided music instruction and physical education in a separate classroom ar
facility.
(continued)
�
KeM Sahool District Sbc-Year CaD�I Faeilities Plan April 2073 Page 8
II I Current Kent School District"Standard of Service" (condnuad)
1
Some identified students will also be provided educational opportunities in
classrooms for specia� programs such as those designated as follows:
English Language Learners (E L L)
Education for Disadvantaged Students (Title I) — Federal Program
Learning Assisted Programs (LAP) — State Program
Education for Highly Capable_Students
Reading, Math or Science Labs
. Inclusive Education Services ("IES") for Elementary and Secondary students with
disabilities may be provided in a separate or self-contained classroom
sometimes with a capacity of 10-15 depending on the program:
Early Childhood Education (ECE) (3-4 yr. old students with disabilities)
Tiered Intervention in Inclusive Education Support Center Programs
Integrated Programs& Resource Rooms (forspecial remedial assistance)
Self-contained Inclusive Education Support Center Programs (SC)
. School Adjustment Programsfor students with behavioral disorders (SA)
Adaptive Support Cente�for Mild, Moderate & Severe Disabilities (ASGDD)
Speech & Language Therapy 8� Programs for Hearing Impaired students
Occupational & Physical Therapy Programs (OT/PT)
The 0utreach Program (TOP) for 18-21 year old secondary students
Some newer buildings have been constructed to accommodate mosY of these .
programs; some older buildings have been modified, and in some.
circumstances, these modifications reduce the classroom capacity of the
buildings. When programs change, program capacity is updated to reflect the
change in program and capacity:
Current Standards of Service for Secondarv Students
The standards of service outlined below reflect oNy those programs and
educational opportunities provided to secondary students which directly affect
the oapacity of the school buildings.
Class size for grades 7— 8 is planned for an average of 29 or fewerstudents.
Class size for grades 9 - 12 is planned for an average of 31 or fewer students.
Similar to Inclusive Education Programs listed above, many other secondary
programs require specialized classroom space which can reduce the program
capacity of the permanent school buildings.
� j (contlnued)
Kent School District Six-Year Capital Faeilkies Plan April 2013 Page 9
I I I Current Kent School District"Standard of Service" ��omr��� �'
Identified secondary students will also be provided other educational
opportunities in classrooms forprograms designated as follows:
Computer; Multi-media &Technology Labs& Programs
Technology Academy at Kent-Meridian High School & Mill Creek Middle'School
Science Programs & Labs — Bioiogy, Chemistry, Physics, Oceanography,
Astronomy, Meteorology, Marine Biology, General Science;.etc.
English Canguage Learners (E L L)
Music Programs—Band, Orchestra, Chorus, Jaa Band, etc:
Art Rrograms— Painting, Design, Drawing, Ceramics, Pottery,Photography, etc.
Theater Arts— Drama, Stage Tech, etc.
Joumalism and Yearbook Classes
Highly Capable (Honors orGifted) and Advanced Placsmerit Programs
Intemational Baccalaureate ("I B") Program
JROTC- Junior Reserve O�cers Training Corps
Career&Techinical Education Programs (CTE -Vocational Education)
Family&Consumer Science—Culinary Arts, Sewing, Careers w/Children/Educ., etc.
Child Development Preschool and Daycare Programs
Health & Human Services—Sports Medicine, Sign Language, Cosmetology,,etc.
Business Education — Word Processing, Accounting, Businesa Law & Math,
Marketing, Economics, Web Design, DECA, FBLA(Future Business Leaders). � ,
,
TechnicaL & Industry — Woodworking, Cabinet Making, Building Trddes, MeTals,
Automotide & Manufacturing Technology, Welding; Drafting, Drawing, CAD
(Computer-aided Design), Electronics, Engineeririg& Design, Aviation, ASL,'etc.
Graphic&CommercialArts, Media;Photography, Theater&Stage, Ag & Hortioulture.
Kent Phaenix Academy — Performance Leaming Center, Gateway, Virtual High
School & Kent Success program with evening classes for credit refieval
Space or Classroom Utilization
As a result of scheduling conflicts for student programs, #he need for specialized
rooms for certain programs, and the need for teachers to: have a work space
during their planning periods, it is not possible to achieve 100% utilization of
regular teaching stations at secondary schools. Based on the analysis of actuaf
utilization of classrooms; the District has determined that the standard utilization
rate is 85% for secondary schools. Program capacity at elementary schools
reflects 100%o ufilization at the elementary level.
� ;
�KeM SchoofDistrict Six-Year Capital Facifdies Plan April 2013� Page'10
' � I V Inventory and Capacity of Existing Schools
�
Currently, the District has permanent program capacity to house 27,475 students
and transitional (portable) capacity to house 1,023. This capacity is based on the
DistricYs StandaM of Service as set foRh in Section I I I. Included in this Plan is
an inventory of the DistricYs schools by type, address and curcent capacity. (See
Table 3 on Page 12)
The ratio between permanent capacity and portable capacity is 97% -3%.
The program capacity is periodically updated for changes in programs, additional
classrooms and new schools. Program capaciry has been updated in this Plan to
reflect program changes implemented in the Fall of 2012.
Calculation of Elementary, Middle School and Senior High School capacities are
set forfh in Appendices A, B and C. A map of existing schools is included on
Page 13.
For clarification, the following is a brief description of some of the non-traditional
programsfor students in Kent School District:
Kent Mountain View Academy serves Grades 3 — 12 with transition, choice and
home school assistance programs. It is located in the former Grandview School •
; in the western part of the district in Des Moines. This school was originally
designed as an elementary school and is inciuded in the elementary capacity for
this Plan.
Kent Phoenix Academy is a non-traditional high school which opened in Fall ,
20U7 in the renovated site and building that formerly served Sequoia Middle
School. Kent Phoenix Academy has four special programs including the
Performance Leaming Center, Gateway, Vrtual High School and Kent Success.
Kent Success replaced the forrner Night Aqdemy at Kent-Meridian High School
and provides aftemoon and evening classes for credit retrieval.
iGrad - In partnership with Green River Community College, Kent School District
has piqneered the Individualized Graduation and Degree Program or "iGrad".
The iGrad Program is the fifst offcial Dropout ReengagemenY Program in the
state made possible under the Provisions of ESHB 1418. iGrad offeis a second
chance to students age 16-21 who have dropped out of high school and want to
eam a high school diploma via web-based instruction orget their GED and go on
to achieve an AA degree or certificate through Green River Community College.
iGrad is not included in this Capital Facilities Plan because it is served in leased
space at the Kent Hill Plaza $Fiopping Center. iGrad is also reported separately
to OSPI and the counts are not included in the P-223 Enrollment Reports for
, , 2012-13. In less than a year, enrollment in the iGrad program has grown to over
400 students.
Kent SchoolDistriG SIx•Year Capital.Facilities Plan qpol 2013 Page N
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No.415
INVENTORY and CAPACITY of EXISTING SCHOOLS
2012-2013
Year � � �
SCHOOL opened asR ADDRESS Progrem
Ca ci '
Cartiege Crest_Elementary� 1990 CC 18235-140th AvenueSE, ReMOn�98058 452
Cedar Valley Elementary 1971 CV 26500 Timberlane Way SE, Covington 98042 380
Covington ElemeMary 1987 CO 17070 SE Wax Roed, Covington 98042 � 504
Crestwood Elemerttary 1980 CW 25225-�7 BOth Avenue SE. Covington.98042 432
East HIII�EIemeMary . 1953 EH 9825 S 240th Street, Kenf��98031 . � 490
finereld Park 1998 EP 11800 SE 216th Street, Kent 98031 504
Fairwooq Elementary . 1969 FVY 16600-148th�Avenue SE, Renton 98058 408
,George T.Daniel ElemeMary 1992 DE 11310 SE 248th SVeet„ KeM 98030 456
Glenridge Elemeertary 7996 GR t9405-�120fh Avenue SE,Renton 98058 456
Grass Lake Elemet�ry 1971 GL 287D0-191st Place SE, Kerrt 98042 452.
Honzon Elementary 1990 HE 27641 -144th Avenue SE, Kent 98042 � , 504�
JenklnaCreekElementary 1987 .JC 28915-186th�AvenueSE,�Covington 98042 �404
Kein Eleinentary � �7999 KE 247D0-64th AJenue South, Kent 98032 � �480
Lake Yourgs ElemeMary 1965 LY 19fi60-142nd Avenue SE, Kent 98042 510
Mertln Sortun Elementery, 1987 MS 12717 SE 248tfi�.Street, KeM 98030 480
MeeGOw Ritlge Elementary� 1994� MR 27710-tOBth Avenua SE;KeM 98030 - �476
AAeridianElementary 1939 ME 25621 -140th Avenue SE; Kent 98042 _ 524 �
Millennium Elementery 2000 ML 11919 SE 270th.Street, Kerrt 98030 , 504
Neely-0'B�ien ElemenWry 1990 NO 6300 South 236tlf Street,. Kerrt 98032 480
PaMherLake ElemenWry 2009 PL 20831 -108th Avenue SE, Kent 98037 b24
Park OrchardElementary 1963 PO 11010 SE 232nd Streat, Kerrt.98031 � 486 , .
Pine Tree Elementary � 1967 PT 27825-118th Avenue SE, Kent 88030 51 q ' �
� Ritlgewood Elementery 7987 RW 18030-162ntl Place SE, Rerrton 98058 504
Sawyer Woods ElemeMary 1994 SW 31135-228th Ave SE,BladcDiamond.98010 504�
Scenic Mill Elementary 1960 SH 26025 Woodland Way Sautti, Kent 98030 476
Soos Creek ElemeMary 1971 �SC 12651 SE 218M Plaea, Kerrt 98031 . 380
Springbrook Elementary 1969 SB 20035-t00th Avenua SE,. Kent 98031 , 478
Sunrise Elementary 1992 SR 22300-132nd Avenue SE, Kent 96042 504
Elementary TOTAL 73,ZD6
Cadar Heights Mitldle School 7993 CH 19640 SE 272 Street,Covington 98042 895
Mattson Middle School 1981 MA 16400 SE 251 St Street,. Covington 98042 767
Meeker Middle School 1970 MK 12600 SE 192nd Street, Renton 98058 832
Meddian Midtlle Sc�ool 1958 MM 23480-120th Avenue SE�, Kent 96031 792
Mill Creek Mitldle School 2005 MC 620 North CeMrel Avenue, Kent 98032 916
Northwood�Middle.School 1996 NW 17007 SE 1&6th Street, Rerrton 98058 9T6
Middle School TOTAL. 6,148
KaM-AAeridian High Schoo� 1951 KM 10020 SE 256th Street, Kent 98030 � 1,904
Kantlake Senior Hiph School 1997 KL 21001 SE 300th Street, Kent 98042 . 1,957
KeMridge Senior High School 1968 KR 12430 SE 2�Bth Street. Kent 98031. 2,277
KeMwood Senior High$chool 7981 KW 25800-164th Avenue SE, Cwington 98042 2,159
Senior High TOTAL . 8:Z97 .
Kent Mountain vew Acatlamy 1997 MV/LC 22420 Military RoaO, Des Moines 98198 410 ' ,I
Kerrt Phoena�Arademy 2007 PH 71000 SE 264th Street, Kent 98030 - 474
DISTRICT TOTAL 27,475
Kent Schaol.Dlstdct Sa-Year Capftal Facilities Plan Table 3 April 201& Page 12
m N W
m Fanvooa
a � Q eb�
n � Kent Sc
� �
� SE Pefiovihk RltlgewooO take cf,.
� ' Elementary �es�re J
� H Cartiape Crest � i
`�.w . � Elementary • • _ �.. Unl_n�
x c �MidtlleSehool '..
� m ��OMeeke� .
-� MICCIe S hool
m � ' 6lervltlge . Lake �.
'o Springbrook �Elementary � �Vwn '
��� � Elementary Elemeta �
.m e HIghS�Mpl " .;_� . I�.
��• ; • . �SE208th Sf ,��Iqke . �
- �€ S212fh St � pa���ke Emerald Park ' . ���.
�:_ � ��Elemenetary Ele entary � j C�'
m Soos Creek� C��.
� j � ' Elemeniary � �Sunrlse
' Elementary
° Park OrctwW
•M�o�mflyVl6w 3 `b� E����Y
Medtllan
_ _ Nee�Y O'Brien s'� O Midtlle Sehool
� Elementary � �,� Eaaf Nill a SE 240th Sf
Elemenf�Y �SE m.
�� lementary MIII Creek�.• �aniel � a y � �
��p _. . 0 10 Sehool p ElemenlarY y i MaHaon r�.
� H < Mlddla Sc� I
� ,�ASRd � ' SMo�rtmun� ^ ' f O. Cres1w
o Ken1-Meritllan ElemeMary � � � Elem tary
� Hlgh Scho � � SE 2561h St - - - —
m m � '� y • • MetlEian � •Kenfi'vood. -
= Q m AdminlshoNOn . Elementary , HI�Schooi" Cedar Valley
o ElemeM��� <' • �� � ElemeMary.
ry Kent � nix. Lake � -Jenkhn �
U a Aeatlemy MeAdlan, CYOBk� C0t
- O �Eleme •Mitl
" Mltlennlum `9 . ' . � KeM-KcngleY�cd
, . �. Eleme ��. . ng10
MEIemeM�Y� � -_ Elertrentary `O�. E lem�en3ary .
PMeTree w `t' 6rax.L
� ElemenTary i � �pemen
� e�f � SE CPYfn9r°n
� Ql
y � LCk6
;. 28 Elementary Schoois 'PO ""�
� 6 Middle Schools
"' 4 Senior High Schools
Kent Mountain V(ew Academy (Grades 3-12)
d Kent Phoenix Academy (9-12)
m
m
w
i �
V Six-Year Pianning and Construction Plan
At the time of preparation of this Plan in spnng of 2013, ihe following projects to
increase capacity are in the planning phase in Kerrt School District:
• Planning isin progress for construction of additional.capacity for Pre-school and
Kindergartenstudents at Kent Elementary School in 2015. The project,which is one of
four in the countryknown as"Green Schoolhouse°', will be largflly funded and donated by
Brighten A Life Foundation. The District will fund-$3M for the:si4e preparation and does
nat expect to utilize impact fees to fund the project which will be buiR to LEED Platinum.
standard. (CEED= Leadership in Energy&Environmental,Design)
• Planning is in progress for a replacement school for Covingbon Elementary School in 2016
or beyond.The project is pending satisfactory financial resources to fund the project.
• Planning is in progress for additional classroom space for Neely-O'Brien Elementary
School. This addition wifl add approximately 25%to build'mg capacity and is expecfed to
come online in Fall of 2017.
• Enrollment projections refleCt future need for additional capacity at the elementary school
level. Future facility and site needs are reflected in this Plan.
• Some funding for lease or purchase of additional portables may be provided by impact
fees as needed. Sftes are tiased on need for additional capacity.
As a critical component of capital facilities planning, county and city planners and
decision-makers are encouraged to consider safe walking conditions for all' students �
when reviewing applications and design plans for new roads and developments. This `
should!inGude sidewalks for pedestrian safety to and from school and bus stops as well
as bus pull-outs and tum-arounds for school buses.
Included in this Plan is an inventory of poterrtial projeds and sRes identified by the
District which are potentially acceptable site altematives in the future. �see rsb�e a on Page
15&Slte map on Page 16)
Voter approved bond issues have included funding for the purchase of sites for some of
these and future schools, and the sites acquired to date 8re included inthis Plan. Some
funding is secured for purchase ofadditional sites but some may be funded with impact
fees as needed. Not all undeveloped properties meet current school construction
requirements and some property may be traded or sold to rtieet future facility needs.
2006 voter approval of $106M bond issue for capital improvement included the
construction funding for proposed Elementary School #31 (adual #29), replacement_of
Panther Lake Elementary, and classroom additions to high schools. Some impact fees
have been utilized for those projects.
In March 2013 the Board of Directors reallocated the funding for proposed Elementary
#31 to capital projects for safety and security.
7he Board will continue annual review of standard of service and those decisions will be
reflected in the each update of the Capital Facilities Plan.
Kem School District Sa-Year CapRal Facilities Ptan April 2013� Page 14
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No.415
SRe Acqufsitions and Projeefs Planned to Provide Additlonal Capacity
� Projected Projecte0 %for
i SCHOOL / FACILITY / SITE LOCATION T e Status canpietion Propram new '
.. ' ._ -� - — � �Da[e �� ' Grovith
MPtwumete. Approqmafe.
°0e ELEMENTARY
Map. (NUmbers ro itlenfify fuNre sehools may not correlete with number of existing sehocls.j.
Elementary�
Kent Elementary School-Adtlition (F) 24700-64th Avenue S,Kem Addition �Planning 2015-16 672 100%
B Classrooms added to provide New Capacity Special LEED Platlnum Donatlon ProJect-No Impacl Fees CurreM CapaGty 480(+192)
Replacemant
6 ReplacemarH for Covington Elementary (U) SE�256th Sireet 8 154th Ave SE. Elementary Planning 2018-17 800 16%
�COVington Elem- Capacity to be replacetl 17070 SE Wax Road, Covington Elementary Udlized -504
Elementary
Naely-0'Brien Elementary School-AddNOn(U) 8300 5�236th Street,.Kent 98032 AddNion Planning 2017-18 600 25%
Classrooms added to provide New Capaeiry� Curtent Capaciry 480 t 120 New=600 Planning
MIDDLE SCHOOL&SENIOR NIGH
�No new projects required for Secondary Schools at this Yime 8 Secondary Schools a2 excluded.from Impact Fee formula.
i
TEMPORARY FACILITIES Additlonal
CepacRy
�Relocatables TBD-For placemeM as neetled New Planning 2013+ za.ai me� 100%
#on� � - � .�annuse � . landUSe
Mav OTFIER SITES- ACQUIRED ��e�e�o� Type. Jurfsifictfon
4 Covington area Nortti (Near Mattson MS) SE 251 &164 SE, Covington 98042 Urban Elementary Ctty of Covington
7 Covington area South (Scarsella) SE 290&158 SE, Kent 88042 Rural Elementary King County �
5 Covington area West (HallesornWiksfrom) SE 256&154 SE, Covington�98042 Urban ElemeMary City of Covington
3 Ham Lake area (Pollard) 16620 SE 240, Kent 98042 Rural Elementary King Couirty
8 SE of Lake Mortan area (West property) SE 332&204 SE, KeM 98042 Rurai. SewnCary King CouMy
.2 Shady Lk area(Sowers,Blaine,Drahota,Paroline) 17428 SE�192 S[reet; Renton 98058 Urban Elementary King Counry
1 So.King Co.Activity Center(fortner Nike sile) SE 187�&170 SE. Rentan 98058 Rural TBD' King Counry
12 Soulh Central ske (PlemmonsYeh-Wms) SE 288th.SlB 124M Ave SE;Aubum 98092 Urban TBD� King County
Notes:
' Unfuntled faality needs will be reviewed in the tuWre..
�TBD-To be determinetl-Some shes are ideMifietl but placement,timing andlor confguretion of Relocatables has not been tleterminetl.
j 9 Numbers cortespontl to sites on Site Bank Map on Page 76.Other Map site looations ere parcels ICentified in Table 7 on Page 26.
Kent Scbool Disfict Six-Year CapiWl Facilities Plam TdNI2 4 Apnl 2013 Page 15
m
� " � Kent Scr
A m Fa��� �
y Q Elementary
n � �
0
O Q
� SE PelrovttskV Rtl ^ /�
^ Ritlpewootl ( �
S N
� Elementary � � �
.�. m aniOge Cre � \\ '
y Q Elementaryo 0 J
x t Northwoo � �rOpE
� S MlddleSChool �g�re
� SE 192ntl St
� Meeker
n 0 MItltlI05Chool
m Glenritlge Lake Vounps
� Sp r�ngbrook Elamentory �Elemenfary
� Elementary
� O High 3chool Lake Voungs
= O SE 2081h Sf
Q
w 5212th5t. anihenLa� EmeraltlPark
y > Elementary Elementary
0
� t Paniher Leake �5 Creek
� Replacement Elamentary� in
� �Suntlse
�' Q. Elementary
KeM � Park Orchard .Q
Mountaln Vlew � ElemeMary
Acatlemy �- ,�b� � �
3 0�
NeelyO'Brien 3 �Meritllan �
W Elementary� ,T�� East HIII SE � Mitltlle School SE 7AOth St
?, Elementa
Kent � OMIIICreek
s Elemantary� ItldleSchoo• Daniel0 m
7
o�B �� Merltlian Elementa Martin t Mitldle SCho I�
v� �tl H� h SOrtun� C:restwootl
m SChool Elementary $ � � lemerrtary
� 0 SE 250th St . . �
C s
S � y AUTIn•IOHOn •EIBTe Mry �I(OniV/OOC • CBCJO!VaIIOy
< .SCenic HIII� N Center Hlp�SChOOI,� " Elementary
Q Elementary Q � - , - - � �
Kent Phoeniz Loke Meridlon Jenklns
y t Academy Mlllannlum Creek� Cetla�HeIE
U � �ElemanYO Elementary� �M��+yleSCh
'Meatlow RItlBe u� � Kent-Kan( itl �
�Elemenfary �
- �m Horizon0 q �Cwirip}on
•PlneTree Q 'Elementary �,�� Elementary � "
Elementory.p �
N � '�' Grass Lake
m � �Elementary
SE2B8 Sheet —
�, �,fA��'W�on-So
fQ
03
��6 'SE 3041h Sheet H'
�
9
N " lake .
�
� Morfon
m
�
SI
V I Portable Classrooms
Forthe purpose of clarification, the term "portables" and the more descriptively
accurate term, "relocatables" are occasionally used interchangeably in this Plan.
The Plan aiso references use of portables or relocatables as interim or
transitional capacity and facilities.
Currently, the District util'�zes portables to house students in excess of
permanent capacity and for program purposes at some school locations. (Piease
see Appendices A B C�)
Based on enrollment projections, implementation of full day kinde�garten
programs, program capacity and the need for additional permanent capacity, the
District anticipates the need to purchase or lease some additional portables
during the nezt six-year period.
During the time period covered by this Plan, the District does not anticipate that
all of the DistricYs portables will be replaced by permanent facilities. During the
useful life of some of the portables, the schoolage. population may decline in
some communities and increase in others, and these portables provide the
flexibility to accommodate the immediate needs of the community.
Portables may be used as'interim or transitional facilities:
1. To prevent overbuilding or overcrowding of permanent school
facilities.
2. To cover the gap between the time of demand for increased
capacity and completion of permanent school facilities to meet
that demand. '
3. To meet unique program requirements.
Portables currently in the District's inventory are continually evaluated resulting in
some being improved and some replaced.
The Plan projects that the District will use portables to accommodate interim
housing needs for the next six years and beyond. The use of portables, their
impacts on permanent facilities, life cycle and operational costs, and the
interrelationship befinreen portables, emerging technologies and educational
restructuring will continue to be examined.
� 1
Kem School Distric[Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Aprll 2013 Paga 17
V I I Projected Six-Year Ciassroom Capacity �
As stated in Section IV, the program capacity study is periodically updated for
changes in special programs and reflects class size fluctuations, grade level
splits, etc. As shown irtthe Inventory and Capacity chart in 'fable 3 on Page 12,
the prc�ram capac,ity is also reflected in the capacitjr and enrollment comparison
charts. �see rea�es s s s,a.e-c w��a�es,9-zz�
Enrollment is electronically reported to OSPI on Form P-223 on a monthly basis
and funding apportionment is based on Annual Average FTE (AAFTE). The first
school day of October is widely recognized as the enrollment "snapshot in time"
to �eport enrollment for the year.
Full Time Equivalent (FTE) student enrollment for October 2012 was:25,481.09.
Kindergarten students are reported at .5 although all schools provide full day
kindergarten ("FDK") with altemative funding for the second, half of the day.
State Apportionment-funded Full Day Kindergarten programs report and project
Kindergarten stucJents at 1.00 FTE at qualifying FDK schools. The P-223 FTE
Report excludes Early Childhood Education ("ECE" preschool) students and
College-only Running Start students. �saB raa�BS s a s a-e-c w,�s.re-z2�
fn October there were 761 students in 11�' and 12�' grade participating in the
Running Start program at 10-21 different colleges and receiving credits towarcl
both high sctiool and college graduation. 378 of these students attended. classes
only at the college ("callege-only") and are excluded from FTE and headcount for
capacity and enrollment comparisons. Kent School District has one ofi the
highest Running Start program participation rates in the state.
Kent School DisVict continues to be the fourth largest district in the state of
Washington. P-223 Headcount for October 2012 was 26,611 with kindergarten
students counted at 1.0 and excluding ECE and college-only Run�ing Start
students. A full headcount of all students enrolled in October2012 totals 27,732
which inGudes ECE and college-only Running Start students.
Based on the enrollment forecasts, permanent facility inventory and capacity,
current standard of service, portable capacity, and future additional classroom
space, the District plans to continue to satisfy concurrency requirements through
th@ t�8t1S1�10�3� US8 Of p01t8b�BS. (Sea Table 5 and Ta61es 5 A-&C on Peges 19-22)
This does not mean that some schools will not experience overcrowding, There
may be a need for additional portables and/or new schools to accommodate
growfh within the District. New schools may be designed to accommodate
placement of future portables. Boundary changes, limited and costly movement
of relocatables, zoning changes, market conditions, and educational
re.structuring will all play a major role in addressing overcrowding and
underutitization of facilities in different parts of the District. �
ICeM School DisVict Sa-Year Capital Facilities Plan April' 2013 Page 18
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No.415
PROJECTED ENROLLMENT and CAPACITY
a �� TOTAL DISTRICT
SCHOOL YEAR zo�2-2o�a zo��-zou 2o�a-zo�s 2ou-zo�s zo�s-2o�� zo��-zoia zo�e-zo�e
Actua� P R O J E C T E D
Peimanent_Progrem Capacity ' 27,475 27,475 27,475 27,475 27,667 27,763 27,883
Changes to Pertnanerrt Capaefty '
KeM ElementaryAddition-Capaciry Increase �F� ' 192
'Replacemerrt school with projected inveese in capacity:
Covington Elementary ReplacemeM �u� ' 600
To Replace current Covington Elementary capacity -504
Neely-O'Brien Elementary Addition-Capacity Increase �u� � �Zp
�PertnaneM Program Capaary Subwta� p7,475 27,475 27,475 27,667 27;763 27,883 27,883
Interim Relocatable Capacity 5
�ElemeMeryRelafateCleCapeGryRequirod 600 936 1176 1368 1608 2,016 �2,448
MI00b Schod RelxateDb CeP�Y ftMuiretl � � � � Q Q � � Q
Senbr FUph SMOd Robemebb CaperJly Requiratl � Q 0 0 0 Q � � Q
- 600 936 1,176 1,368 1,808 2,016 2,448
TOTAL GAPACITY ' 28,075 28,411 28,651 29,035 29,371 29,899 30,331 '
� wIKInG@d e _ _ __
� u,sao. A tl u s t e d for F U L L D a y� K i.n d e r g a r t e n Headcount
TOTAL ENROLLMENT/PROJECTION e p6,336 26,483 27,069 27,451 2Z,846 28,290 26;798
DISTRICTAVAILABLECAPACITY� �,�39 7,928 1,582 1,584 1,525 1,609 1,535
� Capacity is based on stendard of.service for programs provided'.and ia uptlated�penodically to reflect progrem changes.
�� KeM Elemenfary Addition reflects 8 classroom capacity inarease for Green Schoolhouse LEED Platinum project.
3 Replacement school Por Covington Elementary will inerease capacity and will tie built on a different exis6ng urban site.
° Addition to Neely-0�&ien Elementary will increase capacity approximately 25%.
g 2012-2073 total classroom relocatable capadty is 1,023.Some additlonal 21ocaWbles used for program puryoses. '
° Actual October HeadeouM EnrollmeM with ProjecSons from OSPI Report 1049-Detertnination of ProjectedEnrollments. ,
Enrollment counts and projections have been adjusted for Full Day Kindergarten at all Elementary Schools.
� School capaciry meets wncurrency requirements and no impact fees are proposed for secondary schools.
Kent Sehool Disttict Six-Year CaplFal Fedlltles Plen Table rJ Ap6t 2013 Page 19 ,
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No.418
PROJECTED ENROLLMENT and CAPACITY
ELEMENTARY - Grades K - 6 � �
SCNOOL.YEAR 2oi2-2oi3 2oia-2oia zo�azo�5 zo�szo�s 2o�a-2on zan-2aie 20�e-zo�s
nctuai P R O J E C T E D
Elemerrta Permanent aci ' 13,206 13,620 13,620 13,620 13,812 13,9U8 14,028
ICeM Mountain Vew Academy 2 414
Changes to Elemenqry Capacity
Kent Elemer�tary Addition Capaciiy Increase �F�3 192
Co4ington Elementary Replacement (u�' 600
Wiil rCplace dirreM Covmgton�emeMary ppaciry �-504
Neely-O'Brien Elementary Addition Capacity Increase �u>5 120
Subtota� 13,620 13,620 13,620 13,812 13,908 14,028 14,028
Relocatable Capacity Required' 600 936 1176 1366 1608 2,016 2,448
TOTAL CAPACITY '�� 14,220 14,556 14,796 15;180 15,516 16,044 96,476
wlKlna�A
+a,xao A d' u s t e d for F U L L D a K i n d e r a r t e n Headcount
ENROLLMENT/PROJECTION ° 14,208 14,554 14,791 15,161 15,494 16,022 16,468
SURPLUS DEFICIT CAPACITY 12 2 5 19 22 22 S
Number ot Relocatablea Requiretl 25 39 49 57 87 84 102
102 Ciassroom Relocetables requit6d in 2018-19. Some atlditional Reiowtables used tor Drogram purposes.
� Capacity is based on standard of service for progrems provided and is updated periodically to reflect progrem changes.
2 Kent Mourrtain Vlew Academy is a special progrem at the former Grendview School serving studenb in Gredes 3-�2.
The sehool building(firtnedy Kent Leaming Cerrter 8 Grandview Elem.)was designed as an elemenhry school.
3 Kent Elementary Addition reflects 8 classroom.capacity increase for Green Schoolhouse LEED Platinum praject.
° Replacement sehool for Covington Elemarrtary will increase ppaciry and is planned for a differeM existing urban site.
5 Addklan to Neely-0'Brien ElemeMSry will increase capacity approximately 25%.
i
e Actual October Headcount Enrollment with Projections from OSPI Report 1049-Detertnination of Projected Enrollments. "
EnrallmeM&Projeefions reflect FULL Day IGndergarten at ALL ElemenNary schools�1.0 8 exclude ECE P2schoolers.
Kent SChooi DISMd Six•Year Caplfsl FaGildes Plan T3b�8 5 A Apol 2013' Page 20
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 475
PROJECTED ENROLLMENT and CAPACITY
MIDDLE SCHOOL - Grades 7 - 8
SCHOOL YEAR 2ot2-2oi3 2073-2074 '20142075 2015-2016 2D1&2017 2017-2018 2D1&2019
Adual P R O J E. . C ... .I :E .D �
Middle School Permanent Ca aci ' 5,148 5,148 5,148 5,148 5,148 5,148 ' 5,148
No Chan es to Middle School Ca aci
Mill Creek MS&Technology Academy
�� Phase 2 of Ranovation eompleted�in 2010 � .
� � (Na new capacity addad in renovation) � ' , - � '
Mill Creek Tech Academy serves students from all areas of Kent SD . - .�
Subtotal 5,148 5,148 5;148 5,148 5,148 5,148 , 5,148
Relocatable Ca aci Required ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL CAPACITY '�'3 5,148 5,148 5,148 5,148 5,148 5;148 5,148
ENROLLMENT/PROJECTION 2 4,277 4,209 4;161 4,201 4,263 4,216 4,220
SURPLUS (DEFICIT)CAPACITY° 871 939 987 947 885 932 928
� � � Number of Relocatables Required �0 0 0 0 0 0 0
� , No Classroom Reloeatables required at middle schools a[this time.Some Relocatables used for classroom andprogram puryoses.
�.Capacity is based on standard of service forprograms provided and is updated periodically to refled program changes.
2 Adual October Headcount Enrollment with Projections from OSPI Report 1049-Detertnination of Projected Enroilments.
3 Surplus capacity due So grade level reCOnfigurati0n-All 9[h grade students moved to[he high schools in Fa112004.
° Middle School capaciry meets concurrency requirements and no impact fees are collected formiddle schools.
Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facil@ies Plan Table -5 B v,P,n zo�a Page 21
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No:415 .
PROJECTED ENROLLMENT and CAPACITY
SEOVIOR HIGH - Grades 9 - 12 � �
SCHOOL YEAR 20�2-2o�a 20��-2o�n za�a-2o�s 2oiszo�s 2ois-zo�� 2o��-zo�a 2o�a-zo�e
Aaua� P R O J' E C T E' D
Senior Hi h Permanent Ca aci ' 8;707 8,707 8,707 8,707 8;707 5,707 8,707
Includes Kent Phoenix Academy 2
No Chan esio High SGiooi Capa '
Kent-Meridian HS&Technology Academy
Classroom Addidons completed in 2012(F)
KM Tech Apdemy 8 Intemational Baaalaureate Progrem
serve students from all areas of Kent SD
Subtotal $,707 8,707 8,707 8,7D7 8,707 8,707 8,707
{ i
Relocatable Capa ' Required � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL CAPACITY � 8,707 8,707 8,707 8,707 8,707 8,707 8;707
ENROLLMENT/PROJECTION �3 7,851 7,720 8,117 8,089 8,089 8,052 - 8,108
SURPLOS DEFICIT CAPACITY 856 987 590 618 618 655 599
Number of Relocatables Requi2d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0��
�No Ciassroom Relocatables 2quired at this time.Some Relocatables used for classroom and program purposes. �
� Capadty is based onstandard of service for programs provided and is updated periodically to reflect program changes.
Z Kent Phaenix Academy opened in Fall 2007 serving grades 9- 12 with four special programs.
' Actual October Enrollment with Projections from OSPI Report1049-Detertnination of Projected EnrollmeMs: .
" High School capacity meets concurzency requirements and no impact fees are collected forhigh schools. � �
Kent SchoolDisMet Six-Year Capitat Facilities Plan Table 5 C April�2013 Page 22
V I I I Finance Plan
The finance plan shown on Table 6 demonstrates how the Kent School District plans to
finance improvements for the years 2013 - 2014 through 2018 - 2019. The financing
components include secured and'unsecured funding and impact feea 7he plan is based
on voter approval of futu2 bond issues, collection of impact fees under the State
Growth Management Act and voluntary mitigation fees paid pursuant to State
Environmental Policy Act.
In February 2006, voters approved a $106 million bond issue that included funds for
replacemerrt of Panther Lake ElemeMary School with increased capacity, as well as
construction of a new Elementary School to accommodate growth. The new Panther
Lake Elementary School replaced the previous Parrther Lake Elementary in Fall of 2009.
The bond issue also funded Phase ll of the renovation for Mili Creek Middle School and
renovation of Sequoia Middle School for reconfiguration as a non-traditional high school,
Kent Phoenix Academy, which opened in September 2007.
2006 construction funding also provided for additional classrooms at Kentlake High
Schooi and two projects at KeM-Meridian HS. The projects at Kent-Meridian provide
additional capacity with severai new classrooms and gymnasium space. The projeds at
K-M are completed and the new Main Gym added capacity for two more PE classrooms.
Some impact fees were utilized for new construction that increased capacity.
Originally, the district designated $16 million of the 2006 bond authorization for
construction of an additional elementary school, identified as Elementary#31 in previous
Plans. Due to a change in circumstances, the Board of Directors realtocated the $16
Million for capRal projects for safety and security.
The Greenhouse School LEED project is planned to provide additional capacity at Kent
Elementary School for 2015-16. No Impact Fees will be used for the project.
Replacement of Covington Elementary School in 2016-17 or beyond will increase
capacity by approximately 16°�. Some impact fees will be utilized as part of the Finance
Flan.
A building addition is also planned to provide approximately 25% additional classroom
capacity at Neely-O'Brien ElemeMary School in 2017-1 S.
The Finance Plan includes a few new relocatables to be purchased or leased to provide
additianal capacity and some may be funded from impact fees.
Enrollment projections reflect future need for additional capacity at the elementary level
and Unfunded facility needs will be reviewed in the future and reported in annual
updates of the Capital Facilities Plan. No impact fees are requested for secondary
schools in this Plan.
For the Six-Year Finance Plan, costs of future schools are based on estimates from
, Kent School Distcict Facilities Department. Please see pages 25-26 for a summary of
the cost basis.
Kent SchoolDistrict Sfx-Year CapRel Fecllkles Plan April 2013 Paga 23
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No.415
SIX-YEAR FINANCE PLAN
- Secured Unaeeured �Impaet
zo�s zoia.. _2o�s _2o�e 2oi� 2oie TOTAL � �oeaiastam sm�Zw�m' Fees s
_ ---— - - - - — -
- - - —_ _ - - Eeumecea ._ Ewm.�ea
Sa,000,00o E9�000,000 38.000,000 $0
� .$31,840,000 $31,840,000 E28Z45:000 56,095.000 '
. EtaJ00.000 Sta,100,000 510,600.000 53,500,000
3277,000 5290.00U �5305.000 5320.OW� 5504,000 E705,OOQ �32,401.000 � E2,401.000
.2 feloretables 2 reloratebks 2 rekratedn 2 reloratebka �felOCel9bbe 4 relo�leDka
szn,000 sseo.oao sa,aos.000 _saz,�so,000 E�a,soa,000 s�os,000 as�,sa+.000 Se,000.aoo sa�.�.000 aio,ses.i
�truction eosts finm Faci116es�DepartmeM.(See Pape 25 for Cost Baeis Summary)
le Fund'mg Construdion Assistance(formeriy Imoam as"matchirg funds")for sOme projede.
'these projects may be funGeA wiTh Impaq fees.
:and atljustetl for inflation for fulure years:
6 fees collected to date antl esdmateC fees on.fuh�re units.
�P�„ Table 6 r�,�i zo�a Peee za
� � `.
V I I I Finance Plan - Cost Basis Summary
; � ,
For impact fee calculations, construction costs.are based on cost of the iast
elementary school, adjusted. for inflation, , and projected cost of the nex4
elementary schooL
Elementary School Cost Projected Cost
Cost of PantherLake Elementary $26,700,000
Replacement (Opened in Fall 2009)
� Projected cost - Covington Elementary $31,840,000
Replacement (Projected to open in 2016)
Projected cost of Neely-O'Brien Addition $14,100,000
(Projected to open in 2017)
_ Elementary Cost based on $31,840,000
` `� Covington Elementary Repiacement ,
Site Acquisition Cost
The site acquisition cost is based on an average cost ofsites purchased or built
on within the last ten years. Please see Table 7 on page 27 for a list of site
acquisition costs and averages.
District Adjustment
The impact fee calculations on pages 28 and 29 include a "District Adjustment"
to reduce the fees calculated by the impact fee formulas. Based on current
economic conditions, the Districf has adjusted the impact fees to keep the same
rates as those currently in place and made no adjustment for increase in the
Consumer Price Index.
i
Kent�School Dislcict Six-Year Capital FaeilRies Plan April 2013 Page 25
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415
Site Acquisitions & Costs
Average of Si�s.Purohased or Bbilt on within last 15 Years
� Year Open F � � - � - � �
001. / SitB Purch2aed Loeatlon Acreage Cost- �Avg cosVacre. �Total Average CoaV Acre ,'
tary Replacement S�te zooe �ozoo se zis st�M sao3� 9.40 $4,485,013 $477,129 '
sson 8 Wikstrom) 200a �5a35 SE 255 St,Covington 980a2 10.00 $1,093,910 $109;391
Elememary site subrotal 19.40 $5,578,923 ` $287,573
� Elem site average.
SGh001 1996 17007 SE 1&4 St, RenWn 98D58 24.42 $655,138 . $26,828� � �
/McMillan St.assemblage 2002 411432 MeMillan St,Kent 98032 1:23 $844,886 - $686,883 � �
�rp KC(Plemmons,Yeh,VJms) 1999 E of 724 SE blw 286-288 PI(UKC) 39.36 $1,936,020 $49,188�
Middle School Site Subrotel 65:01� $3,436,024 � $52,854
. . ' . . ' . . Iditltlle Sc�l Slte Avp.
ddIt100 (Kent 6 8 Britt Smith) .2002 8 20W .100�2 SE 256th Street 6.31 $3,310,000 � $524,564
_ . .. . . _. _ . . . . . . . . .
)OI (KombolMortis) 1997 214D1.SE300St,�Kerrt98042 40.00 $537,534 $13,438
dition �sandnu� Tsee �seorsezssmsveec 3.83 $302,717 $78,887
Senior High Site Subtotal 50.14 $4,149,651 $82,761
� � � - �:Sr HI Site Averege
;d.pnor ro adoptlon of UrDan 6�owth Aiea. �
Site Bank 8 Acquisitlons Map on Pege'17.
xhased prior to 1996
Center(Nike site)purcliased pnor to 7996.
�rth (Sa of Mattson MS). 1984 Total Acreege 8 Cost Total Average Cost/Acre
onard) t992 134.55 $13,164,596 _ $97,842
i(Srarsella) 1993� � � - �
area� (Westproperty) 1993
.rs-BlaintDrahota-Paroline) 1995
lacetl and currently leased oiR.
ies Plan Table 7 aPr�i 2o�a Pape 26 .
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT
FACTORS FOR_ESTIMATED IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS
StudenYGeneration Factors-Single Family Student Generation Factors-Mu@i-Family�
� ,' Eiementary (Grades K-6) 0.484 Elementary 0:324
Middle'School (Grades 7-8) 0.129 Middle School 0.066
Senior High (Grades 9- 12) -0.249 Senior HigR 0.118
Total 0.862 Total 0.508
Projected Increased Student Capacity OSPI-Square Footage per SWdeM
Elementary 600 Elementa,ry 90
Middle School 0 Middle School 117
Senior High Addition 0 Senior High 130
Special Education 144
Required Site Acreage per Facility
Elementary (required) 11 Average Site Cost I Acre
Middle School (required) 21 Elementary $287,573
Senior High (required) 32 Middle School $0
Senior Fligh $0
New Facility Construction Cost
Elementary" $37,840,000 Temporary Facility Capacity & Cost
Middle School $0 Elementary � 24 $138,500
Senior High " $0 Middle School � 29 , $0
•sea,cose easis on Py.zs Senior High @ 31 $0
�
% TemporaryFacility Square Footage State Funding Assistance Credit cro��Y�si�ren,�p,�
Elementary Z0,692' Disuict Funding Assistance Percsntage - 57:89°/a
Middle School '16,3Z6
Senior:High 22,064
Total 3°k 109,332. Construction Cost Allocation
CCA-Cost/Sq,Ft.. (Effective July 11-12)� � $188.55
PermanentFaeility Square Footage -
Elementary (inciudes Knnvn) 1,470,543
Middle Schooi 660;904: District Average Assessed Value
Senior High 1,110,415' Single Family Residence $228,242
Total 97% 3,24f;862
Total Facilities Square Footage District Average Assessed Value
Elementary 1,541,435 Multi-Family Residence $85,802
Middle SchOOI 667,829 Apartrneros 70%Condos 30%
Senior High 1,132,479
Total 3,341,743 Bond Levy Tax Rate/$1,000
- Curtent /51,000 Tax Rate(1.8607) $1.86
Developer Provided Sites/Facilities
Value 0 General Obligation Bond Inlerest Rate
� Dwelling Units 0 Current Bontl Interest Rate 3.74%
' Kent Schooi Distrid Soc-Year Cap@al PaeilRies Plan Apol 2013 Page 27�
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT
IMPACT FEE' CALCULATION for SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
Site Acquisition Cost per Single Pamlly Residence
Fortnuls:� �((Acres x Cost per Ac2)/Faality Capacity)x Student Generation Factor
Requiretl Site Ps�eage AveraOe Stte CcatlACro Facillry Capecity - SWdeM Factor
A1 (ElemenWry) 11 $287,573 600 0.484 $2,551�.73
A 2 (Mitldle School) 21 $0 1,065 0.129 $0
A3 (SeniorHigh) 32 $0 . 1,000 0.249 . -$0
0.862
. A K+ .82,55t:73 �
Permanent Facility ConsW Won Cost per Single Famlly Resldence
Fortnula: ((Facility C�t/�Facility Capacity)x SWdeM Factor)x�(Pertnanent/'fotal Square Foota Ratio)
Construotlon Cost __ . �FaGli Capac - Sditlerrt Fecmr - Footepe Ratio
BT (Elementary) 531,840,D00 � �� �600 0.484� 0.97 � $24�,913.74
B 2 ��(Middle Schooi) - $0� 900 0.129 0:97 . $p
B 3 (Sanior High) $0 7,6D0 0.249 D.97 � �- $p
. .. � � . . 0.882 ... - B � _ .$24�.913.74
Temporary Facility Cost per Single Family Residence �
Formula: ((Facility Cost/.Feciliry Capac' )x�Student Factor)x(Tempora /Total Square Footage Ratio). �
FaU�iry Cost. __ _ Fadliry.Capaelry Sditlem Faclor Faotage RaUO �
C 7 (Elementary) $138.500 ��� 24 0,484 0.03 � �y83.79
C 2 (Middle Schoop � $0 29 0:129 � 0.03 $D
C 3� (Senior High) $0 31 0249 0.03 � $0
� � - 0.862 C �� �$8379
State Funding Asalstance Credit per Single Family Residence (formerly"State Metch")
Fortnula: Area Cost FUlowance x,-SPI Square Feat per student x Funding Assistance% x Student Factor . .
can.trumon caat n�wra�irn SPI Sq.FL!SWtlant Assisterice% . SWtlent Fa�[or
D 1 �(Elementary) $188.55 90 0.5789 0.484� - $4,754.64 j �i
D 2' (Mldtlk.5chool) $188.55 � 117 0 0.129 $0 � '
D 3 (Sanior High) � $188.55� 130 0 0249 $0
D � Sa,�sa.5a,
Tax Credk par Single Famfly Residence - -
Averege SF Residential Assessed Value $228;242� �
Current Debt Service Rate/$1,000 $7.86
Current Bond Interest Rate 374% �
Years Amortizad .(10 Years) 10 TC b $3,a89.63
Developer Provided FacilFqr�Credit Facil' I Site Value Dwelling Unifs
. 0 0 - FC� o �� , 0
Fee Recap
A�= SRe AcquisRionper SF Residance $2,55173� -
B�= Permanent Faciliry Cost per Residence $24,913J4 � �
C = Temporary Faciliry Cost per Residence $83:79
� � Subtotal $27,54926�
D = Sfata Match Credft per Residence $4,754�.64 � .
TC=Tax bredit per Residence 53,489.63 �
� . .Subtotal - $8,24428
Total Unfunded Nead $19,304�.98
50°k Developer Fee Obligation 59,652��
FC=Fedliry'Cretlit(if appllcable) . 0� .
DistridAdjustment (SeePage2eforexplanetion) � (sq,�56) �. � - !
� NetFee Obligatlon per Residence-Single Famity �$5 486.
Kent SchoofDls;iiet Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan - qpril 2073 Page 28
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT
IMPACT FEE CALCULATlON for MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENCE
� .Stte Acquisitlon Cost per Mutti-Family Residence UNt
i �
Formula: ((ACres x Cost per Acre)I Facility Cepacity)z Student Generation Factor �
� RequiretlSlteACreapa .AVerage�SiteCOSVACre FaciliyCapeGty SWtlentFaGar.
.A 1 (Elementary) 17 528Z,573 500 �0.324 $2,049.82
A�2 (MiddleSchooq 21 $0� 1,065 0.066 $0
A�3 (SeniorHgh) �32 $0 1,000 0.118 $0 .
0.508
. A � S2,oas.a2
� : Permanerrt Facility Construction Cost per Mu1ti-Famlly Residence Unk
Formula: ((Faeility Cost/Facility Capaclty)x Student Factor)x(Pertnanant/�Total SquareFOOtage.Ratio)
- ConsWCtlon Coat Facility Capacity� Stude�ri Faetar Foopge Ratio
B 1 �(Elementery) $31:840,000 600 0.324 0.97 � $16,677.79
, 6�2 (Mitldle School) $0 900 0.066 0.97 $0
B3 �(SaniorHghj $0 1,600 .0118 " 0.97 �$0 �
0.508 B {' $16.67779 .
Temporary Facflily Cost per Muld-Family Resitlence Unit �
Formula: ((Facility Cost/Facility Capaci x Sfudent Factor)x(Tem ora /Total Squflre Footage Ratio)
Facility Cost � Faciltty Capectty "SWtleM Faetor Footage Rado
C 1 �(Elemenfary) $138,500 24 0.324 D.03 $56.09
� . C 2: (Middle Schoop� $0 29 0.066 0.03 $0
C 3� (Senior High) $0 31 9.118 0.03 �$0
0.508 C K+ � �$56.09 �
� S4te Funding Assistanee Credit per Multi-Family Residence (fortnerly"State Match")
Formula: Area CostAllowance x SPI Square.Feet pecstudent x Funding Assistance°h x �Stutlent FaGOr
. � � Area Cost Allowance .SPI Sq.Ft.!Sludent EqualixaUOn b SWOent Factor
( ! D 1 �(Elementary) $188.55 90 0.5789 0.324 $3,182.86
� ° � D 2� (Middie Scho01) $168.55 717 0 0.066 $0
D 3 (Senior High) $18a.55 130 0 O.i18 �$0
... . � `� S3,t82.86 '
Tarz Credlt per MuMi-Familg Residence Unit � � � -�- �
Average MFResidential Assesseif Value $85,802 �
Curtent Debt Service Rate b$1,000 $1.86 .
Curcent Bond Interest Rate 374% �
� YeareAmortized (tOYears) 10 TC o $1,311:&4
. Dsvaloper Provided Facility Credit � Faciliry/Site Valua Dwelling Units .
0 0 FC o b
Fee Recap '
A = Site Acquisition per Multi-Family Unit $2,049.82
B = PermaneM Facility Cost per MF Unit $76,677.79
C = Temparary Pacility Cost per MF Unit $56.09
. Subtotal � $18,78370
D = State Match CredR per MF Unit $3,182.86
TC=Tax Cred'R per MF�UNt - 51,31 t.84
� Subtotal ' $4,494J0
Total�.Unfundad Need , . , -$14,289.00
50°h Developer Fee Obligation 57,347 .
� FC=Faclliry Cred'R(if applicable) 0
� � DistnG Adjustment (See Pape 28 Por ezplaneUOn) ($3,ggg)
Net Fee Obligation per ResideMial Unk-MuIN-family $3,378
Kent School District Six-Year Capital Faeilities Plan � April 2013 Page 29
IX Summary of Changes to April 2072 Capital Facilities Plan
The Capita6 Facil+ties Plan (the "Plan") is updated annually based on previous Plans in
effect since 1993. The primary:changes from 4he April 2012 Plan are summarized here.
Board of Directors re-allocated funds for previously proposed Elemenfary 31 to capital
projects for safety and security.
Future projects include proposed replacement and expansion of Govington Elementary,
and additions to Kent Elementary & Neely O'Brien. ProjecY that increased capacity at
Kent-Meridian HS was completed and removed from Finance Plan &Fee Charts.
Changes to capacity continue to reflect fluctuations in class size as well as program
changes. Changes in relocatables or transitional capacity reflect use, lease or purchase,
sale, surplus and/ormovement between facilities.
The studenf enrollment forecast is.updated annually. All Elementary schools now have
Fulf Day Kindergarten so six-year Kindergarten projections were previously modified to
meetthe requirements for Full Day Kindergarten programs at all Elementa_ry echools.
The district expects to receive some State Funding Assistance (formeriy called "state
matching funds°) for projects in this Plan and tax credit factors are updated annually.
Unfunded site and facility needswill be reviewed in the future.
Based on current economic conditions, the District Adjustment results in no change to
the currenYimpact fees.
� � ��
Changes to Irnpact Fee Calculation Factors include:
ITEM GradelType FROM TO Comriments
Student Generation Factor Elem o.ass o.aaa
SingleFamily(SF) nns o.�30 o.azs
SH 0250 0249
Total 0.866 0.862 -.04
Student Generation Factor Elem 0.331 o.sza
Multi-Family (MF) MS o.os� o.oss
� SH 0.124 �0.118
Total -0.522 0.508 -.14
State Funding Assistance Ratios��s��a ma�a,•� 56.65�0 57.B9% Per OSPI WebsRe
�fif23 COSEAlI0W2�C2(Portner Bceckh Index) $188:55 $188,55 . Pe�OSPI Webslte
Average Assessed Valuation (A� sF 5249,981 $228242 Puget Sound ESD
AV-Average of Condominiums&Apts. MF sss,s�s $85,802 Puget Sound ESD
Debt Service Capital Levy Rate/$1000 $775 $7.86 Per King Co.Assessor Report
Generaf Obligation Bond Interest Rate s.ea°io 3.74°k MarketRate
Impact Fee-Single Family se $5,486 $5,486 No Change to Impac[Fee
Impact Fee-Multi-Family nnF 83,378 $3,378 No Ctiange to ImpeG Fee
, . �Kent School�Distrid Six-Year Capital FaciliGes Plan � April 2013 : Page 30 �
I
X
Appendixes
Appendix A: Calculations of Capacities for Elementary Schools -
Appendix B: Calculations of.Capacities for Middle Schoois
i
- Appendix C: Calculations ofCapacities for Senior High Schools
Appendix D: Use of Relocatables
Append� E: Student Generation Factor Survey
� Kent Sehool Distrid Six-Year Capital Facilities Plen Apr112013 Paga 3�
KEPIT SQHOOL DISTRICT No.415
SERVICE - PROGRAM CAPACITY - INVENTORY of RELOCATABLES - FTE and HEADCOUM ENROLLMENT
NumbOr Of SltlfHlph Cap �'SE I ro '$ppelel� 2012-2013 Propram Cleseroom R�beotabN '10/1/2012 1011l2012. F
�BR smrnHqnCep Capacfly �eu Pmpram - Prop2m Uce� Use CaparJty P223FTE�9 P223HOwuM D , ,
Claserooms ats4avaope' CR � Ca . Cepadty' rt�roeavwa aairamwm n�..w�eoe' Fjnpl�ment EnrollmeM K' -
-ecean=epnryc.p.eM ' DECE6K .BOrLO OECE6K �.0 '
CC 18 432 �3 20 462 1 0 0 382.48� 424 F�
:Vle 15 380 8 20� 380 2 0 0 270.50 29B F
:Ole 20 480 .5 � 24 504 1. 0 0 427.00 483 F
:W 78 432 �4 0 A32 4 1 24 139.38 484 F
EH 20 480 5 10 4B0 3 3 72 474.53 S'18 F
EP 21 504 .2 0 504 �2 0 0 M9.00 188 F
Wle 17 408 ��3 � 0� 408 3 0 0 41S.8B 454 F
DE 18 -432 5 �24 45B 1 0 0 . 488.00 48B SF.
GR 1B 458 4 0 �5B 2 0 0 N7.50 479 F
;un 1B 432 4 .20 452 1 0 0 404.50 42S F
HE 21 504 2 0 504 3 0 0 473.6U 507 F
JC 15 380 7 44� 404 3 1 24 288.00 312 F
E/on 20 480� 3 0 �8U �2 4 BB 828.00 828 SF
_Ym 21 504 7 20 S'10 � 0 0 0 420.50 445 F
MS 18 45B 3 :7A 480 1 1 26 58560 811 F
1We 17 408 B 8B 479 � 0 4� 98 548.88 548 SF
IFJ� 21 504 3 �20 524 �3 2 48 538.00 581 � F
w7L ZO 480 3 24 504 0 0 0 531.05 583 F
NO ZO 480 5 0 480 7 5 1Z0 880.62 744 F
PL 21 504 �5 �20 E24 4 0 0 � 584.70 80B F
PO 18 �32 7 �54 {88 �2 0 0 477.OS QB SF .
•fm 21 W4 4 10 874 3 0 0 482.50 4B3 F ' �
Wrti 27 504 . 1 0 504 1 2 48 518.30 S58 F ` '
iW 21 504 2 0 504 0 0 0 424.78 457 F
SH 17 408 8 88 478 4 3 72 805.00 805 SF
.Ge 15 380 4 �20 S80 9 0 0 372.50 341 F
SB 17 408 4 10 418 2 0 0 490.80 S38 F
�.Mi 21 564 P 0 604 , �3 0 0 512.03 34B F.
�7V 14 358 3 80� 410 0 0 0 103.00 10S 0
544 19.078 120 5B0 19,8te et 28 .834 19.957J2' 14.208 '
.:iry is based on averape of 24:20-22 in K-3 8 29 in d�aCe6 4$.Inelutlea eOJuetmerrte for elass slm ieGUCUOn w speclal pmprem chanpes.
0 rn Service reserves some rooms Tor Wl4aut p�oprems.�ie.20 TMeI=16 Ste�Mard.1 CompuUr LaD•7 Mwb•1 ELL�«t IMeprete�!P�ogram tlesaroom.
a FWI Day KUMeryeiten-5 FDK p�oprams ere Sfe[e-NnCeC.FTE reporle qnd�.S 8 SF-FDK�1.0-P329 Neetlwunt reporte Klntleryerbn�7.0.
o%space u6liratlon rate wqh ro atlJuahneme tw part-tlme use of tlaserooma.Cour�mcclude ECE PresMOOlan d�spaca b rexrvetl for ECE elassmoms.
;a�� APPENDIX A aani soia Pa�e �x
I
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No.415
'ERVICE -`PROGRAM CAPACITY - INVENTORY of RELOCATABLES - FTE and HEADCOUNT ENROLLMENT
�-
. �#af Stendera BE/IP ea.a.iea �Spee Spedel� 2012-2013 Propram Clessmom RebrateWe 10/1Y2012 10/1/2072
� ( .$W � Cepedly �, ELL '
' . Prym �Propram Program Uae Uae Capadq P223 FTE' Headcowt'
J� Clums �at25-29. C�e Clsrms Ca CePedb� Rewcalawn .nepceteWea at29ea. .Enroilmerrt Enioilmem � . _
- - �Be%w�Ctlw�. �es16 utltrtlbn. . � x uWtraue O es%ultllralwn -
iol CH� 30�� 740 8 84 �3 71 896 2 0 0 673.00 673
MA 24 �592 6 76 5 719 787 4 0 0 648.40 699 �
MK 29 715 8 93 1 24 832 0 0 0 679.00 679
AA,1 26 641 5 56 < 95 792 8 0 0 650.&5 653
MC 33 813� �5 55 2 48 918 0 2 58 872.00 872
NW 33 813 2 18 4 95 926 0 0 0 6/1.44 673
demy(Grades 3-1� Mftltlla Sci�ool Gmtla 7-B EnrollmeM Sae Elem �. 77.55 78
175 4�,314 34 382 19 452 5,746 34 2 58 4,27204 4,277
APPENDIX B
#of SteiMara se�m �ca�ree Spee Speeial' 2012-2073 Pmpram Ciassroom Rewramae 70/72072 10H2O12
ABR SEtl Cemerlty eu eu. Prpm �Propiam Propwm Use Uae CepadQ� P223 FTE� NeadcouM'
.Cisrms at 25-31 Cls Clsrtns Ca CepadQl� Raroratmw ReloramOks at 31 ea. Enrollment� Enrollment
-- �Wxwllalbn �e6xWllrmon �e3%Uwtrauo6eS%Nwalbn._�-.
KM 56 1.478 12 157 12 271 1,904 8 3 93 1.987.40 2,057
XL 58 1,423 �13 � 153 18 3B1 't,957 4 0 0 1,567.60 1,606 .
�KR 65 1,773 13 136 78 42B 2,277 0 4- 124 2,028.40 2.092
KW� 80 1,58T 9 102 ?A 476 2,159 5 � A 124 1,797.22 1,886 �
jen fes 3-72) Senlor High Gratle 9-12 EnrollmeM See Elem 149.51 152
���n`Non-tredidonal Hiph School �414 31720 335
� �RJ N/A N/A 4.00 4
239 6,193 47 548 66 1,566 B,E71 13 11 �341 7,857.33 8,128 �
APPENDIX C ��d�w,�roog sr�n a
� � EaH Chiltlhootl Etl sNderhs ' '
958 ' 23,583 201 7,490 85 2,OOB .27,476� � 88 39 �1;023 25,481.09 26,611�.
�dutles classrooma requirinp epecia�ized use such ee Speeiel Eduration,Cereer B.Technieel.Educetion Pmprems,Computer Lebs,etc: .
is adjustod for 85%utllizatlon rate.9th prede movetl to HS in 2004.FaciliLy Use.Stutly was updateC for propram d�anges in 2012-13.
tE 8 HeatleouM Oesls.P223 Heatleount azUutlas ECE&CollepaoNy RunNnp SteR atutlertls.Full tieatlmunt Indutllnp ECE&RS=27,732. � ,
�r tliffeierrt tlue to muntling.
Coumy Regional:luatfce Center ara ieportetl separetaly tor Instltullonal Funtlinp an Form E-872.Total RJ wunt In October 2012 is 17.
iesPlan Total of Appendices A B �&-C nPre Zo�s Page 33
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 475
USE of RELOCATABLES
.
>IYear 2012-2�73 .2073-Z014 20742015 20152018 2018-2U17 .2017-2078_ . .ZOt&2018 � _
No.ot: SWaeril No.ol Stlqe�rt No.of StWeM No.M SWGen No.of BCtle�rt No.of SbWmt No.M SWtle�rt
pelp�9�pples � IiebmteMes 17ebc0teEka RObCateEMS Cepedq� Rebeale�Ma Cepedly Rebmtebles Cepetlly Rebateqea G7ac4y �
. 39 39 39 39 39 38 38
88 �B8 88 8B 88 88 �88
Z 25 600 39 938 � 49 1,778 57 1,388 87 1,608 84 2,0�6 7D2 2,A48
� 3 0 0 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
iz7 127 127 127 127 127 - 127
iired 25 600 78 918 68 7,1�6 57 7,368 87 1,608 84� 2.076� 702 2,�46
Classroom Relocatable FaGlities inGUded in Finance Plan:
25 19 48 57 87 84 702
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0. 0 0 0 0
�hal ZS 19 . 49 57 87 84 102 �
r classrooms orap�clal prognms Is bassd on need end fluetuetbn�of enrollment at eaeh sehool.
ieMary achoob will Incroase Ne naatl tor rebufabbs rt the elameMary lovol unUl permaneM upeeLLy ean ba p�ovMad.
2004,8th gratle studama movad to hlgh selroob ereatlng�uffleleM pe'manent cepaclry M middle uhools.
tl tor a wltle vaAeqr of purpoees,new conawcUon antl boundary aEJusLnenU are tlmed W minlmlm the requhemaM for reloceta6las. "
p�a„ APPENDIX D ap�i so�z aaoeoa
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415
Survey for StudeM Generation Factor
, Elemenfery Taai S t u d e n ,L s Studertt Generation Fador -
�i �!lopments Area Unita Totel Elem � AAS HS TMeI Elem MS HS
� SW 92 75 50 13 12 0.815 0.543 0.741 0.730 �
PT 14 11 8 2 3 0.7B6 0.429 0.143 A.214 �
NO 81 44 36 2 8 0.543 0.444 0.025 0.074
mthntlge HE 219 203 124 27 52 �0.927 0.588 0.723 0.237
SC 13 20 B 5 7 7�.538 0.815 0.385 0.538
MS 99 58 3B 7 10 O.SBB 0.394 D.D71 �0.701
SR 171 158 92 21 43 0.912 0.538 0.123 0.251
states ML 41 39 23 7 9 0.951 0.567 0.171 0.22D
SW 177 144 89 20 35 0.614 0.503 0.113 0.788
HE 70 45 32 5 �8 0.663 0.457 0.071 0.174�
keMeetlowsSouth CW . 108 N2 59 22 31 7:057 0.557 0208 0292
GR 32 32 22 3 7 7.000 0.888 0.084 0218
CVY 92 43 25 8 10 0.487 0.272 0.087 0.109
ML 37 24 12 5 7 0.849 0.324 0.135 0.189 -
�refield/Crofton.HiOs CO 351 .365 177 54 139 7.040 0.490 0.154 0.396�
6sp-Kent SR 728 114 69 14 31 0.891 0.539 0.109 0.242
� . CW �134 78 <1 t0 27 0.582 0.908 0.075 0.201
n � RW 172 159 71 29 59 0.924� 0.413 0.169 0.343.
RW 187 140 94 20 28 0.838 0.563 a.120 0.156�
CW 154 134 74 22 3B 0.870 0.481 0.143 0.2d7 .
raa� 2,163 1,864 1,046 279 539 0.862 0.484 0.129 0.249
eiememary rorei S t u d e n t s Student Generation Faetor
i
�E� .♦ ments Aroa Unib Total Elem, .MS HS Totel Elem MS HS
bn CO 200 78 45� 8 25 0.390 0.225 0.040 0.125
.ri EH 207 141 94 Y2 25 0.887 0.454 0.106 0.121
SH 81 65 43 11 11 0.802 0.537 0.736 0.136
Renbn FW 194 72 47 �8 17 0.377 0242 0.047 0.088
n CG 96 29 18 �3 8 0.302 0.788 0.031 0.063
. NO 750 59 36 6 77 0.393 0.240 O.OdO 0.113
SB 211 103 72 13 78 0.488 0.341 0.062 O.OBS
Cent PL 251 171 172 20 39 0.681 O,d46 0.080 0.755 �
KerH GR 88 33 72 7 ' 74 -0.375 0.738 �.080 0.758 _
rote� 1,478 751 479 96 174 0.508 0.324 0.066 0.116
s P�an APPENDIX E ,npri� 2ot3 Pape 35
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
for
Kent School District No. 415
2013 Capital Facilities Plan
Issued with a 14-day comment and appeal period.
Description of Proposal:
This threshald determination analyzes the environmental impacts associated withthe
foliowing actions, which are so closely related to each other that they are in effect a single
action:
1. The adoption of the Kent,School District 2013 Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan by
the Kent School District for the purposes of planning for the faciiities needs of the Distrid.
2. The amendment of the King County Comprehensive Plan to indude 4he Kent
School District 2013 Capitaf Facilities Plan as a part of the Capitaf Facilities Plan Element of the
a King County Comp2hensive Plan.
3. The amendment of the Comprehensive Plan of the GRy of Kent to include thg
Kent School DistricPs 2013 Capital Facilities Plan as paR ofthe Capital Facilities Plan Element
of the Comprehensive Plans of the City of Kent.
4. The amendment of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Covington to include
4he Kent School DistricYs 2013 Capital Fscilities Plan as paR of the Capital Facilifies Plan
Element of the Comprehensive Plans of the City of Covington.
5. The amendment ofthe Comprehensive Plan of the City of Renton to include the
Kent School DistricYs 2013 Capital Facilities Plan as part of the Capital Facilities Plan Elemerrt
_
of the Comprehensive Plans of the City of Renton.
6. The amendment of the Gomprehensive Plan of the City ofAubum to include the
Kent School DistricYs 2013 Capital FaoilRies Plan as part ofthe Capital Facilities Plan Elemerrt
of the Comprehensive'Plans of the City of Aubum.. -
7. This proposal may also involve amendmenYof Comprehensive Plans of the
. Cities of Black Diamand, Maple Valley, andlor SeaTac to incorporate the Kent School District
2013 Capital Facilities Plan into the Capital Facilities element of thatjurisdiction's
Comprehensive Plan.
i �
1
Proponent: Kent School District No. 415
Loca6on of the ProposaL•
The KentSchool District includes an area of approximately 70 square miles. The City of
Covington and portions of the aties of Kent, Renton, Aubum, Black Diamond, Maple Valley,
and SeaTac fall within the DistricYs boundaries, as do parts of unincorporated King County.
Lead Agency:
Kent School District No. 415 is the tead agency pursuant to WAC 197-11-926.
The lead agency for this proposal has determined that the proposal does not pose a
probable significant adverse impact to the environment. An environmental impact statemerrt
(EIS) is not required under RCW 4321 C.030 (2) (c). This decision was made after a review of
the comp�eted environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency: This
information isavailable to the public upon request.
This Determination ofNon-significance (DNS) is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2). The
lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date of issue. Comments miist be
submitted by 4:00 p.m:, June 27, 2013.. The responsible official will reconsider the DN8 based
on timely coinments and mayretain, modify, or, if sign�cant adverse impactsare likely,
withdraw the DNS. If the DNS is retained, it wiil be final after the expiration of the comment
deadline.
Res onsible Official:
P
D :Richard A. Stedry,
Chief Business Officer for
Kent School District No. 415
Telephone: (253) 373-7295
Address: 12033 SE 256th Street#A-600
Kent, Washington 98030-6643
Appeals of this determination are govemed by Board Policy No. 9280 which can be obtained
_ ..
from D�. Richard A..Stedry, Chief Business Officer, Kent School District No. 415,
12033 SE256th Street_#A-600, Kent, Washington 98030-6643 and pursuantto WAC 197-11=
680 and RCW 43.21C.075.
Date of Issue: June 13, 2013
Date Published: June _, 2013
i
z
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIS7
WAC 197-11-960 Environmental Checkiist.
Purpose of Checklist:
The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21 C RCW, requires all
govemmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making
decisions. An enviranmental impact statement (EIS)must be prepared forail proposals with
pro6able significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of th'is
checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your
proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the
agency decide whether an EIS is required.
Instructionsfor Applicants:
This environmental checklist asksyou to describe some basic information about your
proposal: Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental
impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring prepara4ion of an EIS. Answer 4he ques4ions
briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can.
You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge.
i" '�, In most case.s, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or
project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if'a
question does not apply to your proposai, write "do not know" or"does not apply." Complete
answers tb the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays tater.
Some questions ask about governmental regulations,such as zoning, shoreline, and
landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the
govemmental agencies can assistyou.
The checkiist questions apply to ali parts of your proposal, even if you ptan to do them
over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will
help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this
checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additionai information reasonably
related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact.
Use of checklist for nonproject proposals:
Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be
answered "does not apply". In addition, complete the Supplemental Sheet for nonproject
actions (part D).
For nonproject actions, the references in the checkiist to the words "project," "applicant,"
and "property or site" should be read as"proposai," "prepares," and "affected geographic area,"
respectively.
3
A. BACKGROUND
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: ,
The adoption of a six-year Capital Facilities Plan by the Kent School District:
The Comprehensive Plans ofKing CouMy, City of Kent, City of Covington,:City of
Renton, City of Auburn and possibly Cities of Maple Valley, Black Diamond and SeaTac
have been and/orwill be amended to include the Kent School District 2013 Capital
Facili4ies Plan in the Gapital Facilifies Plan Element ofthe Comprehensiye Plan for each
jurisdiction. A copy of the Capital Facilities Plan is available for review in the Kerrt
School DisficE Business Services DepaRment.
2. Name of applicant:
Kent School District No. 415.
3. Address and phone number of applicarrt and contact person:
Kent School District No.415
12033 SE 256th Street #A-600
Kent, WA 98030-6643
Contact Person: Dr. Richard A. Stedry, Chief Business Officer
,
Telephone: (253)373-7295
4. Date checklist prepared: April 23, 2013
5. Agency requesting checklist:
Kent School Distrid No. 415
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
The 2013 Kent School District Capital Facilities Plan is scheduled 4o be forwarded ta
King County, Cities of Kent, Covington, Renton, Au6um;Maple Valley, Black Diamond,
and SeaTac forpossible inclusion in eachJurisdiction's Comprehensive Pian. The
Capital Facilities Plan wili be updated annually. Site-specific projects haye been or will
be subjeot to project-specific environmental review.
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, orfurther actiVity related
to or connected with this proposal? if yes, explain.
The Capital FacilitiesPlan reviews proposed classroom adddions to two elementa_ry
schools and proposed construction of a new school that is intended to replace the
current Covington Elementary Schooi.
�
9
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or
� , will be prepared, directly related to this proposal.
�
The above-referenced projects will undergo environmental review at the time of formal
proposal.
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for govemmental approvals of other
proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal?
If yes, explain.
No.
10. List any govemment approvals or permits that wiil be needed for your proposal, if
known.
King Courity and Cities of Kent; Covington and Aubum will review and approve the
Capital Facilities Plan for the purposes of impact fee ordinances and will need to adopt
the Plan as an amendment to the CapRal Facilities Plan element of the Comprehensive
Plans of King County and Cities of Kent, Covington, Renton and Aubum. Cities of Maple
Valley, Black Diamond, and SeaTac may also review and approve the Plan for the
purposes of any school impact fee ordinances and may adopt the Plan asan
amendment to the Capital Facilities eiement of their Comprehensive Plans.
11.. Give a brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses
� and the size of the projed and site. There are several questions later in this checklist
� that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat
those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional
spec�c information on project description.)
This is a non-project action. This proposal involves the adoption of the Kent School
District 2013 Capital Facilities Plan for the purpose of planning the facilities needs of the
District and for inclusion inthe Capital Facilities Plan element and possible.amendment
of the Comprehensive Pians for King County, City of Covington, City of Kent, City of
Renton, City of Aubum, City of Black Diamond, City of SeaTac and City of Maple Valley.
A copy of the Capital Facilkies Plan may be viewed at the Kent School District Business
Services Department office.
12. Location of the proposal. Give su�cient information for a person to understand
the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address if any, and
section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area,
provide the range or 6oundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan,
vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit
any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps o�detailed
plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist.
The 2013 Capital Facilities Plan will affect the Kent School District. The District includes
an area of approximately 70 square miles. The City of Covington, and portions of the
Cities of Kent, Aubum, Rerrton, Black Diamond, Maple Valley, SeaTac and parts of
, unincorporated King County fall within the boundaries of the Kent School District.
5
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. Earth � �
a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes,
mountainous, other
The Kent School D'wtrict is comprised of a variety of topographicJand forms and
gradients, including all of those listed. Specific topographic characteristics will be
identified during the planning and permit process for each capitaL project.
b. What is the steepest siope on the site (approximate percent slope}?
Specific slope characteristics will be ident�ed during the planning and permit process
for each capitaF project.
c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand,
g"ravel, peat, muckj? ifyou know the Gassification of agricuftural soils, specify them
and note any prime farmland.
Specific soil types wili be identified during the planning and permit process for each
capitai project.
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstabie soils in the immediate
vicinity? Ifiso, describe.
Unstable soiis may exist within the Kent School District.. Specificsoil limitations on ! i
individuafproject sites wiil be iderrtified at the time of environmental review.
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quant'ities of any filling or grading
proposed. Indicate source of fiil.
Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will be subject to project-
specific environmerrtal review and local approval at the time of p�oposaL Proposed
grading projects, as weil as the purpose, type, quantity, and source of fill materiats
will be iderrt'rfied as appropriate to each project.
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? Ifiso, generally
describe.
It is possible thaterosion could occur as a result of construction projects curtently
proposed in tfie Capital Facilfties Plan. Individual projects and their erosion impads
will be evaluated on a sRe-specfic basis. Individual projects will be subject to
environmental review and local approval on the time of proposal.
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after
project construction (for example, asphait or buildings?)
Percentage of impervious cover will vary with each capital facilities project and will be
addressed during project-specific environmental review.
6
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or oYher impacts to the earth, if
_ � 1 any:
Erosion potential on individual project.sites will be addressed_during project-specific
environmental review. ReleVant erosion reduction and corrtrol�requirements will be
met:
2. Air
a. What types of emissions to the air would resuit from the proposal (i.e., dust;
automobiie, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project
is oompleted? If any, generally descrilie and giye approximate quantities rf known.
Various emissions, many construction-related, may resuit from individual projects.
Air-quality impacts will be evaluated during project-specific environmental review.
Please see the Suppiemental Sheet for Non-p�oject Actions.
b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your
proposai? If so, generally describe.
Off-site sources and necessary mitigation will be addressed during project-specific
environmental review.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any:
i Plans for individuai projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or wih ,be
subject to environmental review and relevant local approval processes, including
obtaining of any necessary air quality permits, at the time individual projects are
formally proposed. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Non-project Actions.
3. Water
a. Surface:
1) is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site
(including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)?
If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or
river it flows into.
There is a network of sufface water bodies within the Kent School District. The
surface water regimes and flow pattems have been or will be researched and
incorporated in the design of each individual project.
2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet)
the described waters? If yes, please describe.and attach available plans.
Some projects may require work near these described waters. Individual
projects in the Capital Facilities Pian will be subject to environmentai review and
local approval requirements at the time the project is formally proposed.
.
�
3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge:material that would be placed in or
removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site thafi
would be affectetl. Indicate the source offill material.
Information:with respect to placement or removal of fill or dredge material will be
addressed at the time of project-specific environmental review. Applicable local
regulations have been orwill be satisfied.
4) Wiii the proposai require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give
generai description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
Any surface water withdrawals or diversions have been or will be addressed
during project-specific environmental review.
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so; note location on
the site plan.
Each capital facilities project, if located in a floodpiain area, will be required to
meet applicable local regulations for flood areas.
6} Does the proposai involve any discharges of waste materials to surFace
waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge.
Specific information regarding discharges of waste materials, if any, will be
add�essed during project-specific environmental review: Piease see the
Supplemental Sheet for Non-project Actions.
b. Ground:
1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground
water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Rlan may impact ground
waterresources. Each project will be evaluated during project-specific
environmental review. Applicable local regulations have been or w'ill be satisfied.
Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Non-project Actions.
2) Describe waste material that wiil be discharged into the ground from
septic tanks or other sources, if any (for exampie: Domestic sewage; industrial,
corrtaining the following chemicals . . .; agriculturai; etc.). Descritie the general
size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be
senred (if applicable), or the number of animals orhumans tHe system(s) are
expected to serve.
Impacts of discharged waste material, if any, have been or will be addressed
during site-specific, project-level environmentai review.
,
'
e
c. Water Runoff (including storm water):
' 1) Describe the source of runoff(inciuding storm water) and method of
collection and disposal, if:any (include quantities, if known). Where will this
water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe.
Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Pian may have varyingstorm
water runoff consequences. Each project wili be subject to environmental review
and applicabie local regulations.
2) Could waste materiais enter ground or surFace waters? If so, generaily
describe.
Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will have varying
environmental impacts and wili be subject to appropriate review and local
regulations prior to constructiorr. Information regarding waste materialswill be
presented at the time of such review. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for
Non-project Actions.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water
impacts, if any:
Spec�c measures to reduce orcontrol runoff impacts have been or will be developed
on a project-specific basis in coope�afion with the appropriate jurisdiction.
�� ;
4. Plants:
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site:
_ deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other
_ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other
shrubs
_ gress
_ pasture
_ crop or grain
_ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other
_ water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoii, other
_ other types of 4egetation
There are various vegetatiye zones witfiin the Kent School District. An inventory of
species has been or wili be produced as part of project-specific environmental
review.
b. What kind and amount ofyegetation wili be removed or aitered?
impacts on vegetation will be determined at the time of project-specific environmental
review at the time the project is fortnaily proposed. Please see the Suppiemental ,
Sheet for Non-project Actions.
9
c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
Specific impacts to these species from individuaf projects have been or will be
determined at the time of project proposal and will be addressed during site-spe�c,
project-level environmental review.
d: Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, orother measures to preserve or
enhance vegetation on the site, if any:
Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan wiil be subj@ct to
environmental review and local approval at the time of project proposal.
5. Animals:
a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on ornear thesite or
are known to be on or near the site:
birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other:
mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other:
fish: tiass,salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other:
An inventory of species observed on or near sites has been or will be developed
during project-specific environmental review.
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be.on or near the site.
Specific impacts to these species from individuaf projectswilf be determined at the
time of project proposal and wiil be reviewed in cooperation with the affected
jurisdictions.
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain.
Impacts on migration routes, if any, will be addressed during site-specific, project-
level environmental review.
d.. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:
Appropriate measures to preserve or enhance wildlife haVe been or will be
determined atthe time of site-specific, project-level environmerrtal review.
lo
6. Energy and Natural Resources:
�
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar)will be used to
meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for
heating, manufacturing, etc.
The State Board of Education requires a life-cycle cast analysis of all heating,
lighting, and insulating systems prior to allowing spe�c projects to proceed. Energy
needs will be decided at the time of specific engineering and site design planning.
Please see the Supplemental Sheet forNon-project Actions.
b. Would your project affed the potential use of solar energy by adjacent
properties? If so, generaily describe:
Individual projects of this Capital Facilities Plan will be evaluated as to their impact on
the solar potential of adjacent projects during environmental review.
c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this
proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any:
� Energy conservation measures will be considered at the project-specific design
phase and environmental review.
7. Environmental Health:
�
a. Are there any environmental heaith hazards, including exposure to toxic
chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill;or hazardous waste, that could oxur as a
result of this proposal? If so, describe.
Please see the Supplemerrtal Sheet for Non-project Actions.
1) Describe speciai emergency services that might be required.
Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Non-project Actions.
2) Proposed measures to reduce or controi environmental health hazards, if
any:
Proposed projects will comply with ail current codes, standards, and rules and
regulations. Individual projects liave been or will be subject to environmental
review and local approval at tfie time of formal submittal.
b. Noise: .
1) What types of noise exist in the area uvhich may affect your project(for
example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)?
A variety of noises exist within.the Kent_School District: Specific noise sources
� have been or will be identified during project-spec�c environmental review.
ii
2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or ass_ociated with
the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic,
construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the
site.
Normal construction noises would exist on a short-term basis during school
consVuction. There could be an increase in traffiaor operations-relateii noise
which would be.addressed during project specific environmental review. Please
see the Supplemental Sheet for Non-project Actions.
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise irrmpacts, 'rf any`
Project noise impacts have been orwill be evaluated and mitigated during the
project-specific environmental review. Each project is or will'be subject to
applicable local regulations.
8. Land and Shoreline Use:
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?
There are a variety of land uses within the Kent School District, including residential,
commercial, industrial, institutional,utility, agricultural, forestry; open space;
recrea4ional, etc.
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. �
This question will be addressed during site-specific, project-level environmental
review.
c. Describe any structures on the site.
Structures located on proposed sites have been or will be identified and described
during project-specific envirorimental review when appropriate.
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
Structures to be demolished, if any, will be identified as part of the project-specific
environmental reviewprocess.
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site?
There are a variety of zoning classifications within the Kent School District. Site
specific zoning information has been or will be ideritified during project-specific
environmental review.
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of thesite?
An inventory of comprehensive plan designations has been or will be completed
during project-specific environmental review. ,
12
g. . If appiicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the
� � � site?
Any shoreline master program designations have been or will be identified during
project-specific environmental review.
h. Has any part of the site been class�ed as an "environmentaily sensitive" area?
If so, specify..
Environmentally sensitive areas, if any, will be identified during project-specific
environmental review.
i. Approximately how many people wouid reside or work in the completed project?
ThiS information has been or wiil be provided at the time of project-specific
environmental review.
j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace?
It is not anticipated that proposed projects will displace any people. Displacement of
.people, if any, wili be evaluated during project-specific environmentai review.
k. Proposed measuresto avoid orreduce displacement impacts, if any:
Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Pian will be subject,to project-
�• � specific envii�onmental review and local approval at the time the project is formally
proposed.
L Proposed measures to ensure the proposai is compatible with existing and
projected land uses and plans, if any:
Compatibility of the proposal and specific projects with existing uses and pians have
been or will be assessed as part of the comprehensive planning process and during
project-spec�c environmental review.
9. Housing:
a Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high,
middle, or low-income housing.
No housing units would be provided.
b. Approximately how many units; if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whefher
high, middle, or low-income housing.
Any impact of project proposals on existing housing has been or would be evaluated
during project-specific environmental review procedures.
13
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:
Measures to reduce or control any housing impacts have been or will be addressed
during site-specific, project-level environmentai review.
10. Aesthetics:
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed stn.icture(s), not including antennas;
what is 4he principal exterior buiiding material(s) proposed?
Aesthetic impacts have been or will be determined at the time of site-spec�c, project-
level environmentai Yeview.
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?
Aesthetic impacts Have been or will be determined at the time of site-specific, project-
level environmental review.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any:
- Appropriate measures to reduce or control aesthetic impactshaVe been or will be
determined at the 4ime of project-spec�c environmerrtal review.
17. Light arid Glare:
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it
mainly occur'?
Light orglare impacts have been or will be determined at the time ofiproject-specific
environmental review.
b. Couid light or glare from the finished projecY be a safety hazard or interfere with
views?
Light or giare impacts have been or wili be determined at the time of project-specific
environmental reView.
c: What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?
Off-site sources of light or glare have been or will be evaluated atthe time of project.
specific environmental review. "
d. Proposed measuresto reduce or control light antl glare impacts, if any:
Mitigation of light and glare impact has been or will be addressed tluring project-
specific environmental review. '
l )
19
12. Recreation:
�
a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate
vicinity?
There are a variety of formal and infortnal recreational facilities within the Kent
School District.
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so,
describe.
Recreational impacts have been or wil� be addressed during project specific
environmerital review. Projects in the Capital Facilities Plan may enhance
recreational opportunities and uses.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or coritrol impacts on recreation, inciuding
recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any:
Any adverse effects on recreation stemming from individual project proposals have
been or will be subject to mitigation during the environmentai review procedure. A
school site usually provides recreational facilities to the community in the form of
atlditional play fieids and gymnasiums..
13. Historic and Cultural Preservation:
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, orproposed for, national, state, or local
preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generaily desc�ibe.
The existence ofhistoric and cultural resources will be determined at the time of
project-specific environmental review.
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological,
scientific, or culturai importance known to be on or next tothe site.
An inventory of historical sites has been or will be conducted as part of project
specific environmental review.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any:
Appropriate measures have been or wili be proposed on a project-specific basis.
14. Transportation:
a. Identifypublic streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed
access to the existing street system. Show on site pians, if any.
lmpact on public streets and highways has been orwill be assessed during project-
� specific environmental review.
15
b. Is site curreritly served by public transit? If not, what,is the approximete distance
to the nearest transit`stop? �
The relationship between specific projects and public transit has been orwill be .
assessed during project-specific environmenfal review.
c: How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would
the project eliminate?
An inventory of parking spaces and the impacts of specific projects on parking
spaces have been or will be conducted during project-specific environmental review.
d. Will:the proposal require any new roads or streets, or impro�ements to existing
roads or streets, not inciuding driveways? If so, generally de"scribe (indicate whetfier
public or private).
The developmerrt of new schoois may require new access roads or streets. This
_
issue wrill be fully addressed during project-specific environmental review.
e. Will#he project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity ofl water, rail, or air
transportation? If so, generaliy describe.
Use of water, rail or air transportation has been or will be addressed during site-
specific,project-level enyironmental review.
f. How many vehicular Vips per day would be generated by the compieted project?
If known, indicate when,peak volumes would occuc
Each project proposal has been or will be separately evaluated as to traffic impacts.
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any:
Mitigation of impacts on transportation has been oc will be addressed during project-
specific environmental review.
15. Public Services:
a. Would the project resuit in an increased need for pubiic services (for exampie:
fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? ff s0. generaliy
describe.
The District does not anticipate that the projects identified in the Capital Facilities
Plan wiil substantiaily increase the need for other public services, Impads havebeen
or will be evaluated on a project-specific basis.
b. Proposed measures to reduce or controi direct impacts on pubiicservices, if any.
Schools are built with automatic security systems, fire alarms, smoke alarms, heat
sensors and sprinklersystems.
16
16. Utilities:
! i
a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse
service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other.
Utilities available at project sites have been or will be identified during project specifc
environmentai review.
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project; the utility providing the
service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity
which might be needed.
Utility revisions and construction needs will be identified during project-specific
environmental review.
C. SIGNATURE
The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand
that the d gency is relying on them to make its decision.
Signature: -
.Richard A.Stedry,Chief.Business Office �
Date Submitted: June 13, 2013
1
i�
D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS
ti t
(do not use this sheet for project actions)
Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction
with the list of the elements of the environment
When answering these questions, be aware ofthe extentthe proposal or the types of
activities likely to result from the proposal, wouid affect the item at a greater intensity or
af a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in
generaf terms.
1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water, emissions to air,.
production,,storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of
noise?
To the extent this Plan makes it more likely that school facilities wiil be constructed,
and/or renovated or remodeled, some of these environmental impacts will be more
likely: Additional impermeabie surtaces, such as roofs, parking lots, sidewalks,
access roads and playgrounds will increase storm water runoff, which could enter
surface or ground water. Emissions to air could resulYfrom heating systems,
emergency generators and other equipment; and from additional ca�and bus trips to ; `i
and from the school for students and faculty. Any emissions resulting from this Plan .
should not require the production, storage, or release of tozic or hazardous
substances,with the possible exception ofistorage of diesel fuel orgasoline for
emergency generating equipment. Noise may result f�om additional Vaffic and from
concentrating several hundred children at a new facility; especially before and after
school and during recesses.
To the extent this proposal allows additional residential development to occur; these
impacts would also increase somewhat, but it is not possible to quantify those
impacts at this time. The impacts would depend on the type, location and distribution
of housing, for example, whether single or multiple family and the loca4ion of the
school.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are:
Facilities implementing the Plan have been or will be evaluated at the project specific
Ievel and impacts will be mitigated accordingly. Storm waterdetention and runoff will
meetapplicable County and/or City requiremerrts and, depending on the date of
actual construction, may be subject to a National Potlutant Discharge Elimination
System Q'NPDES") permitting requirements. Discharges to air will be minimal, and
will meet any applicable requirements of the Puget Sound Air Poilution Controi
Authority. Fuel oil will be stored according to local and state requirements.
i
le
2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life?
I 'r
_ The Plan itself wiil have no impad on these elements of the environment. Depending
on the particular site, construction of facilities may require clearing sites of plants and
loss of animal habitat. To the eztent residential development is allowed, additional
area may be Geared and eliminated as habitat for animals. There are not likelyto be
any impacts on fish or marine life, although some water quality degradatiorr in
streams and rivers could occur due to increased residential development. These
impacts have been or will be addressed in more detai! during project-specific
environmental review when appropriate.
Proposed measures to protect or conserve piants, animals, fish, or marine life are:
Individual projects will be evaluated and mitigated appropriatety on a project-specific
basis, but specific mitigation proposals cannotbe identified at this time.
3. How would the proposal be likely to depiete energy or natural resources?
Any actual projects resutting from this Pian would consume heating fuel and eiectrical
energy. Increased traffic resulting from the construction of additional facilities would
consume petroleum based fuels. Reduced traffic resulting from construction of
another neighborhood school may also reduce amounts of fuel consumed, buYit is
not possible to quantify such reduction in consumption at this time. These impacts
have been or will be addressed in more detail during project-specific environmental
review when appropriate.
i
Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are:
Faciiities would be constructed in accordance with applicable energy efficiency
standards.
4. How would the proposal beJikely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or
areas designated (or eligible or under study)for governmental protection; such as
parks, wildemess, wild,and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat,
historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, orprime farmlands?
The Plan and facilities constructed pursuant to the Plan shouid have no impact on
these resources. It is not possible to predict whether other development made
possible by this Plan would affect sensitive areas.
Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are:
No specific measures are being proposed at this time. Appropriate measures have
been or wiil be proposed during project-specific review. Annual updates of this Plan
will be coordinated with King County; Cities of Kent, Covington, Renton, Aubum,
Black Diamond, SeaTac, and Maple Valley as part of the Growth Management Act
process, one of the purposes of which is to protect environmentally sensitive areas.
To the extent the School DistricYs facilities planning process is part of the overali
growth management planning process, these resources are more likely to be
protected.
19
5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whetfier.it
would allow or encourage land orshoreline uses incampatible with existing plans?
The Plan will not have any impact on land or shoreline use that is incompatible with
existing comprehensive pfans, land use codes, or shoreline managemenf plans.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are:
None are proposed at this time. Adual facilities constructed to impiement the Plan
wiU be sftecl and constructed to avoid or reduce land use impacts.
6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public
services and utilities?
This proposal shouid not create substantial new demands for transpoitation. The
projects included in the Capitaf Facilities Plan may create an increase in traffic near
new Disfict facilities but also reduce traffic by creatingthe opportunity for more
students to walk to a Goser school. The construction of the facilifies included in 4he
Capital Facilfties Plan may result in minor increases in the demand'for public services
and utilities, such as fire and police protection, and water, sewer, and electric utilities.
None of these impacts are likely to be significant. Tfie impacts on transportation and.
public services and utilities of the projects included.in.the Capital Facilities Plan will
be addressed during project-level review when appropriate.
Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are:
No measures to reduce or respond to such demands are proposed at this fime.
7. Identify, if possible,whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal
laws or requirements for the protection of the endironment.
The Kent School District Capital Facilities Plan will not conflict with any laws or
requirements for the protectian of the environment.
zo