Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
6894 (2)
ORDINANCE NO. 6894 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO PLANNING; ADOPTING 2022 ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AND TEXT AMENDMENTS PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF RCW CHAPTER 36.70A AND ADOPTING THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLANS OF AUBURN AND VARIOUS SCHOOL DISTRICTS WHEREAS, since 1986 the City of Auburn has maintained a Comprehensive Plan, periodically updated and reaffirmed by the City Council, that includes a Map establishing the location of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations throughout the City; and WHEREAS, on December 14, 2015, the Auburn City Council adopted an updated Comprehensive Plan by Ordinance No. 6584; and WHEREAS, RCW 36.70A requires cities to take legislative action to periodically review and revise their comprehensive plans and development regulations to ensure continued compliance with state planning requirements; and WHEREAS, in compliance with this periodic review mandate, the City of Auburn initiated one map amendment and six policy/text amendments (File Nos. CPA22-0001, CPA22-0002); and WHEREAS, to maintain consistency between the city's zoning map and its Comprehensive Plan, both map amendments have an associated rezone (zoning map amendment); and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan text/policy amendments and map amendments were processed by the Community Development Department as proposed periodic(Year 2022)annual amendments to the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan; and Ordinance No. 6894 December 12, 2022 Page 1 WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act, RCW 36.70A, requires the City to maintain a current Capital Facilities Plan and each school district to maintain a current capital facilities plans which becomes part of Auburn's Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the environmental impacts of the proposed Year 2022 Comprehensive Plan amendments and rezones were considered in accordance with procedures of the State Environmental Policy Act File No. SEP22-0018 (city-initiated amendments) and were determined to have no environmental significance; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments were transmitted to the Washington State Department of Commerce, Growth Management Services Division, and other State agencies for the 60-day review period in accordance with RCW 36.70A.106; and WHEREAS, after proper notice published in the City's official newspaper at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearings, the Auburn Planning Commission on October 18, 2022 conducted public hearings on the proposed amendments, heard and considered public testimony, viewed the evidence and exhibits presented to it, and made recommendations to the City Council on the proposed Year 2022 annual Comprehensive Plan map and text amendments; and WHEREAS, on December 12, 2022, the Auburn City Council reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendations. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The 2022 annual Comprehensive Plan city-initiated Text Amendments CPA22-0001, CPA22-0002), as set forth in Exhibit "B," are approved. The full text of Auburn's Capital Facilities Plan and the four school district's Capital Facilities Plans are Ordinance No. 6894 December 12, 2022 Page 2 adopted, copies of which shall be on file with the Office of the City Clerk. Also, the Findings and Conclusions outlined in the November 29, 2022 staff report to City Council, as set forth in Exhibit "A", are adopted. Section 2. The 2022 Comprehensive Plan city-initiated Map Amendments CPA22-0001) are approved, as set forth in Exhibit "B," and the findings and conclusions contained in the November 29, 2022 staff report to City Council, as set forth in Exhibit"A", are adopted. Section 3. The adopted Comprehensive Plan as amended is designated as a basis for the exercise of substantive authority under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act by the City's responsible environmental official in accordance with RCW. 43.21 C.060. Section 4. The Mayor is hereby authorized to implement such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directions of this legislation to include incorporating into one document the adopted Comprehensive Plan map and text amendments, attached as Exhibit A and Exhibit B, when preparing and publishing the amended Comprehensive Plan. Section 8. The provisions of this ordinance are declared to be separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section or portion of this ordinance, or the invalidity of the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this ordinance, or the validity of its application to other persons or circumstances. Ordinance No. 6894 December 12, 2022 Page 3 Section 9. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force five days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. INTRODUCED: DEC 1 9 2022 PASSED: DEC 1 9 2022 APPROVED: DEC 1 9 2022 CITY OF AUBURN XI\ _ ,:y.6 • • Nancy Back , MAYOR ATTEST: Shawn Campbell, MMC, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Kendra Comeau, City Attorney Published: (,eV(1Y 22 12D22i lin 1\f\C Sea 1s Ordinance No. 6894 December 12, 2022 Page 4 Staff Member: Tate Ordinance No. 6894 – Exhibit A Date: November 29, 2022 Page 1 of 8 Agenda Subject/Title: Ordinance No. 6894, CPA22-0001, CPA22-0002, 2022 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments – City-Initiated Plan Policy/Text & Map Amendments Background Summary: The City of Auburn adopted amendments to its Comprehensive Plan in 1995 in response to the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) requirements, as amended. Since then, the Auburn Comprehensive Plan has been amended annually. At the end of 2015, the City adopted a substantially updated Comprehensive Plan in compliance with state-required periodic updates. Annual Comprehensive plan amendments can be initiated by the City of Auburn (city-initiated) and by private parties (private-initiated). This year the city is initiating: • Six policy/text amendments • One map amendment This staff report and recommendation addresses the City-initiated amendments and specifically: • Policy/Text (P/T) Amendments P/T # 1 through # 6, and; • Map (CPM) Amendment CPM # 1. In terms of process, the Comprehensive Plan amendments are initially reviewed during a public hearing process before the City of Auburn Planning Commission, who then provides a recommendation to the City Council for final action. City Council consideration and action on the amendments generally occurs but is not required prior to the end of the year. A. Findings 1. RCW 36.70A.130 (Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA)) provides for amendments to locally adopted GMA comprehensive plans. Except in limited circumstances as provided for in State law and City Code, comprehensive plan amendments shall be considered by the city legislative body no more frequently than once per year. 2. The City of Auburn established a June 3, 2022 deadline for the submittal of private initiated comprehensive plan applications (map or policy/text). Notice to the public of the application submittal deadline was provided on the City’s website. The City did not receive any private initiated map or policy/text amendments by the submittal deadline. 3. The City of Auburn received annual updates to the four (4) school district Capital Facilities Plans whose districts occur within the City of Auburn. These Capital Facilities Plans, as well as the City’s Capital Facilities Plan are proposed to be incorporated by reference in the current Capital Facilities Element (Volume 3), of the 2015 Auburn Comprehensive Plan and are processed as Policy/Text (P/T) amendments. 4. The environmental review decision under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) for the school district capital facilities plans were prepared separately by each school district acting as their own lead agency, as allowed by State law (State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)). 5. The environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) for the remaining city-initiated amendments, the City Capital Facilities Plan, and the remaining Staff Member: Tate Ordinance No. 6894 – Exhibit A Date: November 29, 2022 Page 2 of 8 policy/text and map amendments resulted in a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) issued for the City-initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendments on September 22, 2022 (City File # SEP22-0018). The comment period ended at 5:00 p.m. October 11, 2022 and the appeal period ended at 5:00 p.m. October 26, 2022. A copy of the DNS and environmental checklist application is provided in the working binder behind the “Environmental Review” tab. 6. Auburn City Code (ACC) Chapter 14.22 outlines the process for submittal of privately- initiated amendments and the general processing of comprehensive plan amendments as follows: “Section 14.22.100 A. The planning commission shall hold at least one public hearing on all proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan. Notice of such public hearing shall be given pursuant to Chapter 1.27 ACC and, at a minimum, include the following: 1. For site-specific plan map amendments: a. Notice shall be published once in the official newspaper of the city not less than 10 calendar days prior to the date of public hearing. b. Notice shall be mailed by first class mail to all property owners of record within a radius of 300 feet of the proposed map amendment request, not less than 10 calendar days prior to the public hearing. 2. For area-wide plan map amendments: a. Notice shall be published once in the official newspaper of the city not less than 10 calendar days prior to the date of public hearing; b. Notice shall be mailed by first class mail to all property owners of record within the area subject to the proposed amendment; c. Notice shall be posted in at least two conspicuous locations in the area subject to the proposed amendment not less than 10 calendar days prior to the date of the public hearing. B. Notwithstanding the above, the director may expand the minimum noticing provisions noted above as deemed necessary. C. Planning Commission Recommendation. The planning commission shall conduct a public hearing on all potential comprehensive plan amendments and shall make and forward a recommendation on each to the city council. The planning commission shall adopt written findings and make a recommendation consistent with those findings to the city council. D. The city council, if it elects to amend the comprehensive plan, shall adopt written findings and adopt said amendments by ordinance. E. State Review. All comprehensive plan amendments considered by the planning commission shall be forwarded for state agency review consistent with RCW 36.70A.106. F. Any appeal of an amendment to the comprehensive plan shall be made in accordance with Chapter 36.70A RCW. (Ord. 6172 § 1, 2008.)” 7. As provided in the City code, the Comprehensive Plan amendments are initially reviewed during a public hearing process before the City of Auburn Planning Commission, who then provides a recommendation to the City Council for final action which generally occurs, but is not required to, prior to the end of the year. 8. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, the proposed comprehensive plan amendments outlined in Staff Member: Tate Ordinance No. 6894 – Exhibit A Date: November 29, 2022 Page 3 of 8 this agenda bill were sent to the Washington State Department of Commerce and other state agencies for the required state review. The Washington State Department of Commerce acknowledged receipt on September 22, 2022, by Submittal ID: # 2022-S-4362. No comments have been received from the Washington State Department of Commerce or other state agencies as of the writing of this report. A copy of the transmittal and acknowledgement is provided in the working binder behind the “General Information & Correspondence” tab. 9. Due to the nature of policy/text changes, and the minimal amount of private-initiated map amendments, the optional process for holding a public open house as provided for in the city code, was not conducted. 10. The notice of Determination of Non-Significance was published on September 29, 2022, and notice Public Hearing was published on October 28, 2022 in the Seattle Times Newspaper and on the city website which is at least 10 days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing on November 8, 2022. A copy of the Determination of Non-Significance request to publish is provided in the working binder behind the “General Information & Correspondence” tab. Since, there are no city initiated site-specific map changes, only city- wide map changes, the site-specific noticing by mailing by first class mail to all property owners of record within a radius of 300 feet was not conducted. 11. The following report identifies Comprehensive Plan Policy/Text (P/T) and Map (CPM) amendments scheduled for the City Council Study Session on December 12, 2022. Comprehensive Plan Policy/Text Amendments (File Nos. CPA22-0001, CPA22-0002 City initiated). P/T #1 Incorporate the Auburn School District Capital Facilities Plan 2022 through 2028 into the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan. The CFP is provided in the working binder behind the “Comp. Plan Policy/Text Amendments” tab. Discussion The Auburn School District has provided the City with its annually updated Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) covering from 2022-2028. The CFP was prepared by the District staff and adopted by the Auburn School District School Board of Directors on June 27, 2022 and has been subject to separate SEPA review and a Determination of Non- Significance (DNS) prepared by the District. Information contained in the School District CFP serves as the basis for the City’s collection of school impact fees on behalf of the school district. The Planning Commission action is to incorporate the Auburn School District Capital Facilities Plan into the City’s Comprehensive Plan by reference. The CFP includes the following: • six–year enrollment projections • Auburn school district level of service standards • An inventory of existing facilities • The district’s overall capacity of the 6-year period • District capital construction Plan • Impact fee calculations Staff Member: Tate Ordinance No. 6894 – Exhibit A Date: November 29, 2022 Page 4 of 8 A review of the Auburn School District’s updated Capital Facilities Plan indicates the District is requesting a decrease in the fee obligations. The net fee obligation for single-family dwellings is proposed to be $7,962.61, an increase of $4,310.42 and the requested fee for multiple-family dwellings is $9,912.82, an increase of $974.59. The district provided only impact fees for single family and multi-family dwellings. The actual impact fees are established by ordinance through subsequent City Council action. Recommendation Planning Commission to recommend approval of the Auburn School District Capital Facilities Plan 2022 through 2028 to the City Council. P/T#2 Incorporate the Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Plan 2022-2027 into the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan. The CFP is provided in the working binder behind the “Comp. Plan Policy/Text Amendments” tab. Discussion The Dieringer School District has provided the City with its annually updated Capital Facilities Plan 2022 - 2027. The CFP was adopted by the Dieringer School District Board of Directors on September 26, 2022. The CFP has been subject to separate SEPA review and a DNS prepared by the District. Information contained in the School District CFP serves as the basis for the City’s collection of school impact fees on behalf of the school district. The Planning Commission action is to incorporate the School District Capital Facilities Plan into the City’s Comprehensive Plan by reference. The CFP includes the following: • Overview • An inventory of existing facilities • Six–year enrollment projections • Standard of service • Capacity projects • Finance plan • Impact fee calculations A review of the Dieringer School District’s updated Capital Facilities Plan indicates the District has calculated an increase in fees compared to those currently adopted. The net fee obligation for single-family dwellings is $6,167.00, an increase of $1,991.00; and the fee for multiple family dwellings is $2,060.00, an increase of $1,271.00. The actual impact fees are established by ordinance through subsequent City Council action. Recommendation Planning Commission to recommend approval of the Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Plan 2022-2037 to the City Council. P/T #3 Incorporate Federal Way Public Schools’ 2023 Capital Facilities Plan into the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan. The CFP is provided in the working binder behind the “Comp. Plan Staff Member: Tate Ordinance No. 6894 – Exhibit A Date: November 29, 2022 Page 5 of 8 Policy/Text Amendments” tab. Discussion Federal Way Public Schools has provided the City with its annually updated Capital Facilities Plan 2023. The CFP was adopted by the Federal Way Public Schools School Board May 24, 2022. The CFP has been subject to separate SEPA review and a DNS prepared by the District. Information contained in the School District CFP serves as the basis for the City’s collection of school impact fees on behalf of the school district. The Planning Commission action is to incorporate the School District Capital Facilities Plan into the City’s Comprehensive Plan by reference. The CFP includes the following: • Introduction • Inventory of educational facilities & non-instructional facilities • Needs forecast, existing & new facilities • Six–year finance plan • Maps of district boundaries • Building capacities & portable locations • Student forecast • Capacity summaries • Impact fee calculations A review of Federal Way Public Schools’ updated Capital Facilities Plan indicates the District is not requesting to collect impact fees in 2023 due to declining school enrollment. King County Code 21A provides a formula for developing impact fees and incorporates a variable for “School Generation Factor,” and as noted by the District in Capital Faculties Plan, student growth is not anticipated in 2023. Recommendation Planning Commission to recommend approval of Federal Way Public School district’s 2023 Capital Facilities Plan to the City Council. P/T #4 Incorporate the Kent School District Capital Facilities Plan 2021-2022 to 2027-2028 into the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan. The CFP is provided in the working binder behind the “Comp. Plan Policy/Text Amendments” tab. Discussion The Kent School District has provided its annually updated 2021-2022 to 2027-2028 Capital Facilities Plan. The CFP was adopted by the Kent School District School Board in June 2022 and has been subject to separate SEPA review and a DNS prepared by the District. Information contained in the School District CFP serves as the basis for the City’s collection of school impact fees on behalf of the school district. The Planning Commission action is to incorporate the School District Capital Facilities Plan into the City’s Comprehensive Plan by reference. The CFP includes the following: • Executive Summary • Six-year enrollment projection & history Staff Member: Tate Ordinance No. 6894 – Exhibit A Date: November 29, 2022 Page 6 of 8 • District standard of service • Inventory, capacity & maps of existing schools • Six-year planning & construction plan • Portable classrooms • Projected classroom capacity • Finance Plan, cost basis and impact fee schedules • Summary of changes to previous plan A review of the Kent School District’s updated Capital Facilities Plan indicates the District is requesting a change in the fee obligations. The net fee obligation for single-family dwellings is proposed to be $0 from $5,818.09, and the requested fee for multi-family dwellings is proposed to be $0 from $2,457.53. The District notes in the Capital Facilities Plan impact fees are not proposed in 2023 due to reduced enrollment and changes to capacity that represent fluctuations in class size ratios and program changes Recommendation Planning Commission to recommend approval of the Kent School District Capital Facilities Plan 2021-2022 to 2027-2028 to the City Council. P/T #5 Incorporate the City of Auburn’s 6-year Capital Facilities Plan 2023-2028, into the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The CFP is provided in the working binder behind the “Comp. Plan Policy/Text Amendments” tab. Discussion A Capital Facilities Plan is one of the comprehensive plan elements required by the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) (RCW 36.70A). The GMA requires that a capital facilities plan include an inventory of existing capital facilities (showing locations and capacities), a forecast of future needs for such capital facilities, proposed locations and capacities of new or expanded capital facilities, and a minimum of a six-year plan to finance capital facilities with identified sources of funding. The proposed City of Auburn 6-year Capital Facilities Plan 2022-2027 satisfies the GMA requirements for a capital facilities element as part of the Comprehensive Plan. Each comprehensive plan prepared under the GMA must include a capital facilities plan element. More specifically, RCW 36.70A.070(3) of the GMA requires the following: “A capital facilities plan element consisting of: (a) An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by public entities, showing the locations and capacities of the capital facilities; (b) a forecast of the future needs of such capital facilities; (c) the proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new capital facilities; (d) at least a six-year plan that will finance such capital facilities within projected funding capacities and clearly identifies sources of public money for such purposes; and (e) a requirement to reassess the land use element if probable funding falls short of meeting existing needs and to ensure that the land use element, capital facilities plan element, and financing plan within the capital facilities Staff Member: Tate Ordinance No. 6894 – Exhibit A Date: November 29, 2022 Page 7 of 8 plan element are coordinated and consistent. Park and recreation facilities shall be included in the capital facilities plan element.” A capital facility is defined as a structure, street or utility system improvement, or other long- lasting major asset, including land. Capital facilities are provided for public purposes. Capital facilities include, but are not limited to, the following: streets, roads, highways, sidewalks, street and road lighting systems, traffic signals, domestic water systems, storm and sanitary sewer systems, parks and recreation facilities, and police and fire protection facilities. These capital facilities include necessary ancillary and support facilities. The City of Auburn 6-year Capital Facilities Plan 2023-2028 is proposed to be incorporated by reference in the Comprehensive Plan, Capital Facilities Element (Volume No. 3). Recommendation Planning Commission to recommend approval of the City of Auburn’s 6-year Capital Facilities Plan 2023-2028 to the City Council. P/T #6 Amend text reference of Volume 1, Land Use Element of Comprehensive Plan. The changes are shown in strike through and underline in the working binder behind the “Comp. Plan Policy/Text Amendments” tab. Key Changes/Points: Staff is proposing to reinstate the P-1, Public Use zone into Auburn’s Comprehensive Plan and further differentiate the P-1 zone from the I, Institutional zone. The P-1 zone was removed from Auburn’s Comprehensive Plan (in 2015 under Ordinance (Ord.) Number (No.) 6584) in an effort to reorganize and consolidate the implementing zoning districts for the Institutional Land Use Designation. However, the P-1 zone was never removed from Title 18– the Zoning Code of the Auburn City Code (ACC), nor the Auburn Zoning Map. Rather than combining the P-1 and I zone into one zone as originally intended, it is now sought to reinstate the P-1 zone and provide more definition in the differences between the two zones. The land use designation “Institutional” is also proposed to be renamed “Public/Quasi-Public” and will continue to have the following implementing zoning designations: Institutional, Public Use, and Landing Field. This name change will require amending the Comprehensive Land Use Map and text within the Comprehensive Plan. Zoning amendments that implement the comprehensive land use map designations changes are also being presented as part P/T#6. • Text changes to the Land Use Element and Zoning Code are needed. Recommendation Planning Commission to recommend approval of text reference amendments to Volume 1, Land Use Element of Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. Staff Member: Tate Ordinance No. 6894 – Exhibit A Date: November 29, 2022 Page 8 of 8 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments (File No. CPA21-0001, City initiated map changes) CPM #1 This proposed amendment updates the Comprehensive Land Use Map and related zoning map. This is consistent and in conjunction with P/T #6. The changes are shown in the working binder behind the “Comp. Plan Map Amendments” tab. Discussion (This is the same topic as text amendment P/T #6 but is repeated as a map amendment since it requires revision to both the text and map of the comprehensive plan document. See discussion and analysis under text amendment P/T #6.) Recommendation Planning Commission recommend approval of map amendments to the Comprehensive Land Use Map and Zoning Map. Additionally, updates to reflect the most current data as identified in a staff memorandum included within the working binder behind the “Comp Plan Policy/Text Amendments” tab associated with P/T #6. -------------------------- Ordinance No. 6894 December 12, 2022 Exhibit B Annual Comprehensive Plan Policy/Text (P/T) Amendments (CPA22-0001, CPA22-0002 – City Initiated) P/T #1 – Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Update for Auburn School District P/T #2 – Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Update for Dieringer School District P/T #3 – Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Update for Federal Way School District P/T #4 – Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Update for Kent School District P/T #5 – City of Auburn Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Update P/T #6 – Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: Land Use Element, Update + Related Zoning Amendments (See “Comp. Plan Policy/Text Amendments” tab in the working binder and EXHIBIT B in packet) Annual Comprehensive Plan Map (CPM) Amendments (CPA22-0001 – City Initiated) CPM #1 – Land Use Element, Volume 1. Comprehensive Land Use Map. (See “Comp. Plan Map Amendments” tab in the working binder and EXHIBIT B in packet) Revised 10-29-2022 Page 1 Overview of Contents 2022 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments Working Binder 2022 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Schedule, dated 9-7-2022 2022 Comprehensive Plan Docket (spreadsheet listing) Tab: Staff Reports/Presentations: a. Staff report of City-initiated Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments (File No. CPA22-0001) b. Memorandum for Planning Commission meeting 9-7-22 describing overview of Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments dated 9-7-22 c. Staff presentation to Planning Commission on 9-7-22 providing overview of Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments Tab: Environmental Review: a) Notice of Application and Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) (File No. SEP22-0018) b) (SEPA) Completed Environmental Checklist Application (File No. SEP22-0018) c) Notice of Public Hearing (NOH) (File No. SEP22-0018) Tab: General Info. & Correspondence a. Agency Correspondence i. Washington State Dept. of Commerce acknowledgement of receipt of 2022 City-initiated Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments to WA State Dept. of Commerce for review (File No. CPA22-0001, CPA22-0002). b. General Notice of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application Deadline Revised 10-29-2022 Page 2 i. Affidavit of Publication - Seattle Times Newspaper Ad for application deadline Tab: Comp Plan Policy/Text Amendments P/T #1 POLICY/TEXT AMENDMENT AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT CAPITAL FACILITES PLAN i. Cover letter describing impact fee rates ii. Auburn School District Capital Facilities Plan 2022 thru 2028 iii. Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) iv. (SEPA) Environmental Checklist Application P/T #2 POLICY/TEXT AMENDMENT DIERINGER SCHOOL DISTRICT CAPITAL FACILITES PLAN i.Cover letter describing impact fee rates ii.Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Plan 2022-2027 iii.Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) iv.(SEPA) Environmental Checklist Application P/T #3 POLICY/TEXT AMENDMENT FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS CAPITAL FACILITES PLAN i.Federal Way Public Schools Capital Facilities Plan 2023 ii.Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) iii.(SEPA) Environmental Checklist Application P/T #4 POLICY/TEXT AMENDMENT KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT CAPITAL FACILITES PLAN i. Kent School District Capital Facilities Plan 2021/2022 through 2027/2028 ii. Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) iii. (SEPA) Environmental Checklist Application P/T #5 POLICY/TEXT AMENDMENT INCORPORATE THE CITY’S CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2023- 2028 INTO THE CITY’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN i. Capital Facilities Plan 2023-2028 Memorandum ii. Draft Capital Facilities Plan 2023-2028 P/T #6, CITY INITIATED POLICY/TEXT AMENDMENTS (Excerpt of Comprehensive Plan with strike through and underlines for deletions and additions.) P/T #6 (CPA22-0001) Volume 1: Land Use Element. Staff is proposing to reinstate the P- 1, Public Use zone into Auburn’s Comprehensive Plan and further Revised 10-29-2022 Page 3 differentiate the P-1 zone from the I, Institutional zone. The P-1 zone was removed from Auburn’s Comprehensive Plan (in 2015 under Ordinance (Ord.) Number (No.) 6584) in an effort to reorganize and consolidate the implementing zoning districts for the Institutional Land Use Designation. However, the P-1 zone was never removed from Title 18– the Zoning Code of the Auburn City Code (ACC), nor the Auburn Zoning Map. Rather than combining the P-1 and I zone into one zone as originally intended, it is now sought to reinstate the P-1 zone and provide more definition in the differences between the two zones. The land use designation “Institutional” is also proposed to be renamed “Public/Quasi-Public” and will continue to have the following implementing zoning designations: Institutional, Public Use, and Landing Field. This name change will require amending the Comprehensive Land Use Map and text within the Comprehensive Plan. Zoning amendments that implement the comprehensive land use map designations changes are also being presented as part P/T#6. • Text changes to the Land Use Element and Zoning Code are needed. Tab: Comp. Plan Map Amendments CPM#1 (CPA22-001) Volume 1: Land Use Element. This proposed amendment updates the Comprehensive Land Use Map and related zoning map. This is consistent and in conjunction with P/T #6. City of Auburn 2022 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Proposed Schedule Page 1 of 1 Revised 10/18/2022 9-7-22 9-21-22 10-4-22 10-18-22 11-8-22 11-22-22 11-29-22 12-5-22 12-19-22 Planning Commission (PC) Regular Meeting Planning Commission Extra Meeting Planning Commission Regular Meeting Planning Commission Extra Meeting Planning Commission Regular Meeting Planning Commission Extra Meeting City Council Study Session City Council Regular Meeting City Council Regular Meeting City-initiated Text Amendments CPA22-0002 • School district CFP’s P/T #1-4 • City Capital Facilities Plan P/T #5 CPA22-0001 City Text Amendments • P/T #6 City-initiated Map Amendments CPA22-0001 • Land Use Map CPM #1 Introduction to 2022 Comp Plan Amendment docket N/A CANCELLED Briefing on 2022 Comp Plan amendments Conduct Public Hearing #1 Suggested agenda order: School District Amendments (SD staff, if present) City staff briefing on City Capital Facilities Plan City Staff briefing on Land use As Needed Discussion of PC recommendation. Council Action Council Action, if needed Item Page(s)Area to be changed Change Reason Pros Cons Comments P/T # 1 Auburn School District Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Volume 3: Capital Facilities Element (District document is incorporated by reference on Page CF-2). N/A Incorporate updated information Reflect new projects and remove projects that have been completed as well as updated information related to development activity and projection of student levels. None The Auburn School District Board of Directors adopted the CFP on June 27, 2022. P/T # 2 Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Plan Volume 3: Capital Facilities Element (District document is incorporated by reference on Page CF-2). N/A Incorporate updated information Reflect new projects and remove projects that have been completed as well as updated information related to development activity and projection of student levels. None P/T # 3 Federal Way School District Capital Facilities Plan Volume 3: Capital Facilities Element (District document is incorporated by reference on Page CF-2). N/A Incorporate updated information Reflect new projects and remove projects that have been completed as well as updated information related to development and projection of student levels. None The Federal Way Public School's Board of Education published the CFP on May 24, 2022. P/T # 4 Kent School District Capital Facilities Plan Volume 3: Capital Facilities Element (District document is incorporated by reference on Page CF-2). N/A Incorporate updated information Reflect new projects and remove projects that have been completed as well as updated information related to development activity and projection of student levels. None The Kent School Board published the CFP in June 2022. P/T # 5 COA Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Volume 3: Capital Facilities Element (City document is incorporated by reference on Page CF-2). N/A Incorporate updated information Add new projects to the CFP and remove projects that have been completed to remain current. None Finance Dept. originates the CFP document with information from all other City Depts. P/T #6 TBD Volume 1: Land Use Element and Appendix • Revise Land Use Element to replace the "Insitutional" Land Use Designation with "Public/Quasi-Public" Land Use Designation and reinstate the "P-1 Public Use" Zoning District. Create consistency between Land Use Plan & Map and Zoning maps Allows for enahanced detail and description of standards and purpose of uses within Public/Quasi- Public land use and P-1 zoning designations. None Staff recommended alternation to Element and zoning. 2022 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANNUAL AMENDMENTS DOCKET CITY INITIATED TEXT AMENDMENTS CPA22-0001, CPA22-0002 9/23/2022 1 CPM #Page Area to be changed Potential change Reason Pros Cons Comments Corresponding Zoning Map Change CPM #1 Map Numbers To Be Determined Volume 1: Land Use Element and Appendix Update Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to include :Public/Quasi Public" Land Use designation. Consistency with Policy-Text amendments. Consistency with Policy-Text amendments.None Staff recommended alternation to Element and zoning. Yes. Public Use land use designation will be implemented by "P-1, Public Use" zoning designation and updated in ACC and related maps. CITY INITIATED MAP AMENDMENTS CPA22-0001 24 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION Agenda Subject/Title: CPA22-0001, CPA22-0002, 2022 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments – Specifically, City Initiated Plan Policy/Text & Map Amendments Date: September 17, 2022 Department: Community Development Budget Impact: Current Budget: $0 Proposed Revision: $0 Revised Budget: $0 Administrative Recommendation: Planning Commission to conduct public hearing and recommend to City Council approval of the 2022 City-Initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendments (Policy/Text & Map Amendments). Background Summary: The City of Auburn adopted amendments to its Comprehensive Plan in 1995 in response to the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) requirements, as amended. Since then the Auburn Comprehensive Plan has been amended annually. At the end of 2015, the City adopted a substantially updated Comprehensive Plan in compliance with state-required periodic updates. Annual Comprehensive plan amendments can be initiated by the City of Auburn (city-initiated) and by private parties (private-initiated). This year the city is initiating: • Six policy/text amendments • One map amendment This staff report and recommendation addresses the City initiated amendments and specifically: • Policy/Text (P/T) Amendments P/T # 1 through # 6, and; • Map (CPM) Amendment CPM # 1. In terms of process, the Comprehensive plan amendments are initially reviewed during a public hearing process before the City of Auburn Planning Commission, who then provides a recommendation to the City Council for final action. City Council consideration and action on the amendments generally occurs but is not required prior to the end of the year. A. Findings 1. RCW 36.70A.130 (Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA)) provides for amendments to locally adopted GMA comprehensive plans. Except in limited circumstances as provided for in State law and City Code, comprehensive plan amendments shall be considered by the city legislative body no more frequently than once per year. Staff Member: Steiner Date: September 17, 2022 Page 2 of 9 2. The City of Auburn established a June 3, 2022 deadline for the submittal of private initiated comprehensive plan applications (map or policy/text). Notice to the public of the application submittal deadline was provided on the City’s website. The City did not receive any private initiated map or policy/text amendments by the submittal deadline. 3. The City of Auburn received annual updates to the four (4) school district Capital Facilities Plans whose districts occur within the City of Auburn. These Capital Facilities Plans, as well as the City’s Capital Facilities Plan are proposed to be incorporated by reference in the current Capital Facilities Element (Volume 3), of the 2015 Auburn Comprehensive Plan and are processed as Policy/Text (P/T) amendments. 4. The environmental review decision under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) for the school district capital facilities plans were prepared separately by each school district acting as their own lead agency, as allowed by State law (State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)). 5. The environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) for the remaining city initiated amendments, the City Capital Facilities Plan, and the remaining policy/text and map amendments resulted in a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) issued for the City-initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendments on September 29, 2022 (City File # SEP22-0018). The comment period will end at 5:00 p.m. October 14, 2022 and the appeal period will end at 5:00 p.m. October 29, 2022. A copy of the DNS and environmental checklist application is provided in the working binder behind the “Environmental Review” tab. 6. Auburn City Code (ACC) Chapter 14.22 outlines the process for submittal of privately- initiated amendments and the general processing of comprehensive plan amendments as follows: “Section 14.22.100 A. The planning commission shall hold at least one public hearing on all proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan. Notice of such public hearing shall be given pursuant to Chapter 1.27 ACC and, at a minimum, include the following: 1. For site-specific plan map amendments: a. Notice shall be published once in the official newspaper of the city not less than 10 calendar days prior to the date of public hearing; b. Notice shall be mailed by first class mail to all property owners of record within a radius of 300 feet of the proposed map amendment request, not less than 10 calendar days prior to the public hearing; 2. For area-wide plan map amendments: a. Notice shall be published once in the official newspaper of the city not less than 10 calendar days prior to the date of public hearing; b. Notice shall be mailed by first class mail to all property owners of record within the area subject to the proposed amendment; c. Notice shall be posted in at least two conspicuous locations in the area subject to the proposed amendment not less than 10 calendar days prior to the date of the public hearing. B. Notwithstanding the above, the director may expand the minimum noticing provisions noted above as deemed necessary. Staff Member: Steiner Date: September 17, 2022 Page 3 of 9 C. Planning Commission Recommendation. The planning commission shall conduct a public hearing on all potential comprehensive plan amendments and shall make and forward a recommendation on each to the city council. The planning commission shall adopt written findings and make a recommendation consistent with those findings to the city council. D. The city council, if it elects to amend the comprehensive plan, shall adopt written findings and adopt said amendments by ordinance. E. State Review. All comprehensive plan amendments considered by the planning commission shall be forwarded for state agency review consistent with RCW 36.70A.106. F. Any appeal of an amendment to the comprehensive plan shall be made in accordance with Chapter 36.70A RCW. (Ord. 6172 § 1, 2008.)” 7. As provided in the City code, the Comprehensive Plan amendments are initially reviewed during a public hearing process before the City of Auburn Planning Commission, who then provides a recommendation to the City Council for final action which generally occurs, but is not required to, prior to the end of the year. 8. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, the proposed comprehensive plan amendments outlined in this agenda bill were sent to the Washington State Department of Commerce and other state agencies for the required state review. The Washington State Department of Commerce acknowledged receipt on September 27, 2022, by Submittal ID: # 2022-S-4362. No comments have been received from the Washington State Department of Commerce or other state agencies as of the writing of this report. A copy of the transmittal and acknowledgement is provided in the working binder behind the “General Information & Correspondence” tab. 9. Due to the nature of policy/text changes, and the minimal amount of private-initiated map amendments, the optional process for holding a public open house as provided for in the city code, was not conducted. 10. The notice of Determination of Non-Significance was published on September 29, 2022, and notice Public Hearing is to be published on October 25, 2022 in the Seattle Times Newspaper and on the city website which is at least 10 days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing scheduled for October 18, 2022. A copy of the Determination of Non-Significance request to publish is provided in the working binder behind the “General Information & Correspondence” tab. Since, there are no city initiated site-specific map changes, only city-wide map changes, the site-specific noticing by mailing by first class mail to all property owners of record within a radius of 300 feet was not conducted. 11. The following report identifies Comprehensive Plan Policy/Text (P/T) and Map (CPM) amendments scheduled for the Planning Commission’s November 8, 2022 public hearing with a staff recommendation. Staff Member: Steiner Date: September 17, 2022 Page 4 of 9 Comprehensive Plan Policy/Text Amendments (File No. CPA22-0001, CPA22-0002, City initiated) P/T #1 Incorporate the Auburn School District Capital Facilities Plan 2022 through 2028 into the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan. The CFP is provided in the working binder behind the “Comp. Plan Policy/Text Amendments” tab. Discussion The Auburn School District has provided the City with its annually updated Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) covering from 2022-2028. The CFP was prepared by the District staff and adopted by the Auburn School District School Board of Directors on June 27, 2022 and has been subject to separate SEPA review and a Determination of Non- Significance (DNS) prepared by the District. Information contained in the School District CFP serves as the basis for the City’s collection of school impact fees on behalf of the school district. The Planning Commission action is to incorporate the Auburn School District Capital Facilities Plan into the City’s Comprehensive Plan by reference. The CFP includes the following: • Six–year enrollment projections • Auburn school district level of service standards • An inventory of existing facilities • The district’s overall capacity of the 6-year period • District capital construction Plan • Impact fee calculations A review of the Auburn School District’s updated Capital Facilities Plan indicates the District is requesting a decrease in the fee obligations. The net fee obligation for single-family dwellings is proposed to be $7,962.61, an increase of $4,310.42 and the requested fee for multiple-family dwellings is $9,912.82, an increase of $974.59. The actual impact fees are established by ordinance through subsequent City Council action. Recommendation Planning Commission to recommend approval of the Auburn School District Capital Facilities Plan 2022 through 2028 to the City Council. P/T#2 Incorporate the Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Plan 2022-2027 into the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan. The CFP is provided in the working binder behind the “Comp. Plan Policy/Text Amendments” tab. Discussion The Dieringer School District has provided the City with its annually updated Capital Facilities Plan 2022 - 2037. The CFP was adopted by the Dieringer School District Board of Directors on September 26, 2022. The CFP has been subject to separate SEPA review and a DNS prepared by the District. Information contained in the School Staff Member: Steiner Date: September 17, 2022 Page 5 of 9 District CFP serves as the basis for the City’s collection of school impact fees on behalf of the school district. The Planning Commission action is to incorporate the School District Capital Facilities Plan into the City’s Comprehensive Plan by reference. The CFP includes the following: • Overview • An inventory of existing facilities • Six–year enrollment projections • Standard of service • Capacity projects • Finance plan • Impact fee calculations A review of the Dieringer School District’s updated Capital Facilities Plan indicates the District has calculated an increase in fees compared to those currently adopted. The net fee obligation for single-family dwellings is $6,167, a decrease of $80; and the fee for multiple family dwellings is $2,060, an increase of $157. The actual impact fees are established by ordinance through subsequent City Council action. Recommendation Planning Commission to recommend approval of the Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Plan 2022-2037 to the City Council. P/T #3 Incorporate the Federal Way School District 2023 Capital Facilities Plan into the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan. The CFP is provided in the working binder behind the “Comp. Plan Policy/Text Amendments” tab. Discussion The Federal Way School District has provided the City with its annually updated Capital Facilities Plan 2023. The CFP was adopted by the Federal Way School District School Board May 24, 2022. The CFP has been subject to separate SEPA review and a DNS prepared by the District. Information contained in the School District CFP serves as the basis for the City’s collection of school impact fees on behalf of the school district. The Planning Commission action is to incorporate the School District Capital Facilities Plan into the City’s Comprehensive Plan by reference. The CFP includes the following: • Introduction • Inventory of educational facilities & non-instructional facilities • Needs forecast, existing & new facilities • Six–year finance plan • Maps of district boundaries • Building capacities & portable locations • Student forecast • Capacity summaries • Student forecasts Staff Member: Steiner Date: September 17, 2022 Page 6 of 9 • Impact fee calculations A review of the Federal Way School District’s updated Capital Facilities Plan indicates the District is not requesting to collect impact fees in 2023 due to declining school enrollment. King County Code 21A provides a formula for developing impact fees and incorporates a variable for “School Generation Factor,” and as noted by the District in Capital Faculties Plan, student growth is not anticipated in 2023. Recommendation Planning Commission to recommend approval of the Federal Way School District’s 2023 Capital Facilities Plan to the City Council. P/T #4 Incorporate the Kent School District Capital Facilities Plan 2021-2022 to 2027-2028 into the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan. The CFP is provided in the working binder behind the “Comp. Plan Policy/Text Amendments” tab. Discussion The Kent School District has provided its annually updated 2021-2022 to 2027-2028 Capital Facilities Plan. The CFP was adopted by the Kent School District School Board in June 2022 and has been subject to separate SEPA review and a DNS prepared by the District. Information contained in the School District CFP serves as the basis for the City’s collection of school impact fees on behalf of the school district. The Planning Commission action is to incorporate the School District Capital Facilities Plan into the City’s Comprehensive Plan by reference. The CFP includes the following: • Executive Summary • Six-year enrollment projection & history • District standard of service • Inventory, capacity & maps of existing schools • Six-year planning & construction plan • Portable classrooms • Projected classroom capacity • Finance Plan, cost basis and impact fee schedules • Summary of changes to previous plan A review of the Kent School District’s updated Capital Facilities Plan indicates the District is requesting a change in the fee obligations. The net fee obligation for single-family dwellings is proposed to be $0 from $5,818.06, and the requested fee for multi-family dwellings is proposed to be $0 from $2,457.53. The District notes in the Capital Facilities Plan impact fees are not proposed in 2023 due to reduced enrollment and changes to capacity that represent fluctuations in class size ratios and program changes. Recommendation Planning Commission to recommend approval of the Kent School District Capital Staff Member: Steiner Date: September 17, 2022 Page 7 of 9 Facilities Plan 2021-2022 to 2027-2028 to the City Council. P/T #5 Incorporate the City of Auburn’s 6-year Capital Facilities Plan 2023-2028, into the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The CFP is provided in the working binder behind the “Comp. Plan Policy/Text Amendments” tab. Discussion A Capital Facilities Plan is one of the comprehensive plan elements required by the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) (RCW 36.70A). The GMA requires that a capital facilities plan include an inventory of existing capital facilities (showing locations and capacities), a forecast of future needs for such capital facilities, proposed locations and capacities of new or expanded capital facilities, and a minimum of a six-year plan to finance capital facilities with identified sources of funding. The proposed City of Auburn 6-year Capital Facilities Plan 2022-2027 satisfies the GMA requirements for a capital facilities element as part of the Comprehensive Plan. Each comprehensive plan prepared under the GMA must include a capital facilities plan element. More specifically, RCW 36.70A.070(3) of the GMA requires the following: “A capital facilities plan element consisting of: (a) An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by public entities, showing the locations and capacities of the capital facilities; (b) a forecast of the future needs of such capital facilities; (c) the proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new capital facilities; (d) at least a six-year plan that will finance such capital facilities within projected funding capacities and clearly identifies sources of public money for such purposes; and (e) a requirement to reassess the land use element if probable funding falls short of meeting existing needs and to ensure that the land use element, capital facilities plan element, and financing plan within the capital facilities plan element are coordinated and consistent. Park and recreation facilities shall be included in the capital facilities plan element.” A capital facility is defined as a structure, street or utility system improvement, or other long- lasting major asset, including land. Capital facilities are provided for public purposes. Capital facilities include, but are not limited to, the following: streets, roads, highways, sidewalks, street and road lighting systems, traffic signals, domestic water systems, storm and sanitary sewer systems, parks and recreation facilities, and police and fire protection facilities. These capital facilities include necessary ancillary and support facilities. The City of Auburn 6-year Capital Facilities Plan 2023-2028 is proposed to be incorporated by reference in the Comprehensive Plan, Capital Facilities Element (Volume No. 3). Recommendation Planning Commission to recommend approval of the City of Auburn’s 6-year Capital Facilities Plan 2023-2028 to the City Council. Staff Member: Steiner Date: September 17, 2022 Page 8 of 9 P/T #6 Amend text reference of Volume 1, Land Use Element of Comprehensive Plan. The changes are shown in strike through and underline in the working binder behind the “Comp. Plan Policy/Text Amendments” tab. A supporting memorandum that describes the proposal is also included in the binder. Key Changes/Points: • Staff is proposing to reinstate the P-1, Public Use zone into Auburn’s Comprehensive Plan and further differentiate the P-1 zone from the I, Institutional zone. The P-1 zone was removed from Auburn’s Comprehensive Plan (in 2015 under Ordinance (Ord.) Number (No.) 6584) in an effort to reorganize and consolidate the implementing zoning districts for the Institutional Land Use Designation. However, the P-1 zone was never removed from Title 18– the Zoning Code of the Auburn City Code (ACC), nor the Auburn Zoning Map. Rather than combining the P-1 and I zone into one zone as originally intended, it is now sought to reinstate the P-1 zone and provide more definition in the differences between the two zones. The land use designation “Institutional” is also proposed to be renamed “Public/Quasi-Public” and will continue to have the following implementing zoning designations: Institutional, Public Use, and Landing Field. This name change will require amending the Comprehensive Land Use Map and text within the Comprehensive Plan. Zoning amendments that implement the comprehensive land use map designations changes are also being presented as part P/T#6. o Text changes to the Land Use Element and Zoning Code are needed. Recommendation Planning Commission to recommend approval of text reference amendments to Volume 1, Land Use Element of Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments (File No. CPA22-0001, City initiated map changes) CPM #1 This proposed amendment updates the Comprehensive Land Use Map and related zoning map. This is consistent and in conjunction with P/T #6. The changes are shown in the working binder behind the “Comp. Plan Map Amendments” tab. Discussion (This is the same topic as text amendment P/T #6 but is repeated as a map amendment since it requires revision to both the text and map of the comprehensive plan document. See discussion and analysis under text amendment P/T #6.) Recommendation Planning Commission to recommend approval of map amendments to the Comprehensive Land Use Map and Zoning map. Additionally, updates to reflect the most current data as Staff Member: Steiner Date: September 17, 2022 Page 9 of 9 identified in a staff memorandum included within the working binder behind the “Comp Plan Policy/Text Amendments” tab associated with P/T #6. MEMORANDUM TO: Judi Roland, Chair, Planning Commission Phillip Stephens, Vice-Chair, Planning Commission Planning Commission Members FROM: Josh Steiner, Senior Planner, Comm. Development Dept. Jeff Dixon, Planning Services Manager, Comm. Development Dept. DATE: August 23, 2022 RE: Discussion Topic: Introductory discussion of Docket of 2022 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments BACKGROUND: Annually the City amends its Comprehensive Plan (“Comp. Plan”). These are the “annual amendments” that the City considers routinely each year as distinguished from the periodic “major update” of the Comp Plan as required by the Growth Management Act (GMA) that was last adopted at the end of year 2015. Side note: While the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.130) originally required the next periodic update be completed by the year 2023, the state legislature passed ESHB 2342 in 2020 that extends the timeframe for updates until 2024. Pushing this timetable aligns comprehensive plan update to coordinate with regional initiatives that are required to be considered in comprehensive plans and that are scheduled to be completed in 2024, for example, Puget Sound Regional Council’s Vision 2050. There are two types of amendments: A. Map; and B. Text. In addition, there are two sources for these annual amendments: 1. City-initiated amendments which are typically items that Staff, Planning Commission, or the City Council have identified as items or issues that should be addressed in the next Comp Plan Amendment cycle; and, 2. Private-initiated amendments, which are in response to applications that are submitted. For the 2022 Comp Plan Amendment cycle, no private amendment applications were submitted. Page 2 of 2 DISCUSSION At the September 7, 2022 Planning Commission meeting, staff would like to introduce and briefly discuss: 1. The docket of annual comprehensive plan amendments which is proposed to consist of the following: City Initiated Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments (CPA22-0001, CPA22-0002) (each capital facilities plan is incorporated by reference) • P/T #1 – Auburn School District Capital Facilities Plan • P/T #2 – Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Plan • P/T #3 – Federal Way School District Capital Facilities Plan • P/T #4 – Kent School District Capital Facilities Plan • P/T #5 – City of Auburn (COA) Capital Facilities Plan • P/T #6 – Volume 1, Land Use Element (Chapter). The City is proposing to revise the “Institutional” Land Use Designation section of the Land Use Element. This revision will include renaming the “Institutional” Land Use Designation to “Public/Quasi-Public” Land Use Designation as well as reinstating the “P-1, Public Use Zoning District”. The P-1 zoning district was removed from the Comprehensive Plan during the 2015 Comprehensive Plan update, but remains in effect on the City’s Zoning Map. The intent is to once again make it a zoning district that implements the “Public/Quasi-Public” Land Use Designation. Supporting descriptions and policies are proposed to be updated in the Land Use Element. All public schools within the City, not currently zoned P-1 will be rezoned to this zoning district as part of the same action. City-Initiated Map Amendments (CPA22-0001): • CPM #1 – Volume 1: Land Use Element. Update the map to reflect new “P-1, Public Use zoning district and change the map designation (rezone) applicable to the public school sites and/or other areas as Public areas/uses as necessary for consistency. SUMMARY: Staff to is to provide an introductory overview of the subjects under consideration for amendments this year. Additional information and more detailed analysis will be presented to the Planning Commission at future meetings. AUBURN VALUES SERVICE ENVIRONMENT ECONOMY CHARACTER SUSTAINABILITY WELLNESS CELEBRATION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2022 ANNUAL AMENDMENTS PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 2022 JOSH STEINER, AICP Department of Community Development Planning Building Development Engineering Permit Center Sustainability Community Services ●Code Enforcement SERVICE ENVIRONMENT ECONOMY CHARACTER SUSTAINABILITY WELLNESS CELEBRATIONSERVICE ENVIRONMENT ECONOMY CHARACTER SUSTAINABILITY WELLNESS CELEBRATION 2022 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANNUAL AMENDMENTS Annually the City amends its Comprehensive Plan. These routine amendments are distinguished from the “periodic update” completed on 8-year cycles. There are two sources: “city –initiated amendments”in response to items that are “docketed” (text or map). “private–initiated amendments” in response to applications that are submitted (text or map). Private-initiated Comprehensive Plan amendment applications (text or map) were publicly advertised in advance and accepted until Friday, June 3, 2022, this year. SERVICE ENVIRONMENT ECONOMY CHARACTER SUSTAINABILITY WELLNESS CELEBRATION The 2022 Comprehensive Plan amendment docket currently includes a total of 7 proposed amendments. Five updates are annually provided capital facilities plan updates for the city & school districts located within the City. Two updates to elements (chapters) of the comprehensive plan including issues relating to Land Use. One text amendment, one map amendment PROPOSED 2022 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT DOCKET SERVICE ENVIRONMENT ECONOMY CHARACTER SUSTAINABILITY WELLNESS CELEBRATION P/T #1 –Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Update for Auburn School District P/T #2 –Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Update for Dieringer School District P/T #3 –Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Update for Federal Way School District P/T #4 –Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Update for Kent School District P/T #5 –City of Auburn Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Update P/T #6 –Land Use Element Update CITY INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENTS SERVICE ENVIRONMENT ECONOMY CHARACTER SUSTAINABILITY WELLNESS CELEBRATION P/T #1 –Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Update for Auburn School District (District boundary map) CITY INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENTS SERVICE ENVIRONMENT ECONOMY CHARACTER SUSTAINABILITY WELLNESS CELEBRATION P/T #2 –Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Update for Dieringer School District (District boundary map) CITY INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENTS SERVICE ENVIRONMENT ECONOMY CHARACTER SUSTAINABILITY WELLNESS CELEBRATION P/T #3 –Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Update for Federal Way School District (District boundary map) CITY INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENTS SERVICE ENVIRONMENT ECONOMY CHARACTER SUSTAINABILITY WELLNESS CELEBRATION P/T #4 –Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Update for Kent School District (District boundary map) CITY INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENTS SERVICE ENVIRONMENT ECONOMY CHARACTER SUSTAINABILITY WELLNESS CELEBRATION P/T #5 –City of Auburn Capital Facilities Plan Update CITY INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENTS SERVICE ENVIRONMENT ECONOMY CHARACTER SUSTAINABILITY WELLNESS CELEBRATION P/T #6 –Comprehensive Plan Volume 1, Land Use Element, Update Revise Land Use Element to replace the “Institutional” Land Use Designation with “Public/Quasi-Public” Land Use Designation and reinstate the “P-1, Public Use Zoning District”. Create consistency between Land Use and Zoning maps P -1 Zoning Designation was removed in 2015 Comprehensive Plan but remains in effect on the Zoning Map Includes a simultaneous zoning map change to Public school sites to be rezoned as “P-1, Public Use zoning districts”. CITY INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENTS SERVICE ENVIRONMENT ECONOMY CHARACTER SUSTAINABILITY WELLNESS CELEBRATION CPM #1 –Update Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to include “Public/Quasi- Public” Land Use designation. Replaces “Institutional” Land Use designation. Revise school sites as necessary to include them in Public Use land use designation. CITY-INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENTS SERVICE ENVIRONMENT ECONOMY CHARACTER SUSTAINABILITY WELLNESS CELEBRATION City staff is reviewing the docket of items for consistency with intent and goals stated within the city’s Comprehensive Plan and conducting the state required environmental review process (SEPA). Staff will provide additional information, including copies of the written materials, to the Planning Commission identifying the results of analysis and a staff report (staff recommendation) at future meetings. Generally, this is done by the “notebooks” prepared & distributed. Staff will schedule future briefings for the Planning Commission and public hearings in order that the Commission may make recommendations on all proposed amendments to City Council. NEXT STEPS SERVICE ENVIRONMENT ECONOMY CHARACTER SUSTAINABILITY WELLNESS CELEBRATION 2022 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANNUAL AMENDMENTS SERVICE ENVIRONMENT ECONOMY CHARACTER SUSTAINABILITY WELLNESS CELEBRATIONSERVICE ENVIRONMENT ECONOMY CHARACTER SUSTAINABILITY WELLNESS CELEBRATION 2022 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANNUAL AMENDMENTS Any questions? Planning and Development Department Page 1 of 20 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST APPLICATION Note: This environmental checklist does not address all proposed year 2022 comprehensive plan amendments. Other year 2022 amendments (school district CFP text amendments) are undergoing, have undergone, or will undergo separate environmental review. The timing of these other amendments may be dependent on processing timing. 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: City of Auburn’s 2022 Comprehensive Plan Map and Policy/Text Amendments 2. Name of Applicant: City of Auburn, Washington 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Applicant: Department of Community Development City of Auburn 25 West Main Street Auburn, WA 98001 Josh Steiner, Senior Planner jsteiner@auburnwa.gov 253-804-5064 4. Date checklist prepared: September 14, 2022 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Auburn 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): A Planning Commission public hearing on the proposed amendments covered by this checklist is tentatively scheduled for (but no earlier than) November 8, 2022. City Council consideration of the proposed amendments is planned for December. City Council action on plan amendments typically occurs prior to the end of the calendar year, but is not required to occur. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. There are no additions anticipated as part of this 2022 Annual Comprehensive Plan process. Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Page 2 of 20 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Auburn School District. Determination of Non-Significance – 2022-2028 Capital Facilities Plan. June 7, 2022. Dieringer School District Determination of Non-Significance - Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Plan 2022. September 26, 2022. Federal Way School District. Determination of Non-Significance – 2023 Capital Facilities Plan. May 27, 2022. Kent School District. Determination of Non-Significance – 2022 Capital Facilities Plan. June 3, 2022. In addition to environmental information related to this year’s annual comprehensive plan amendments (2022), other environmental information includes information related to historical decisions related to the City’s Comprehensive Plan. These decisions include: City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance – 2021 Comprehensive Plan Annual Amendments, City-initiated, (SEP21-0023) Issued September 16, 2021. City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance – 2020 Comprehensive Plan Annual Amendments, City-initiated, (SEP20-0018) Issued September 25, 2020. City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance – 2019 Comprehensive Plan Annual Amendments, City-initiated, (SEP19-0028) Issued September 23, 2019. City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance – 2018 Comprehensive Plan Annual Amendments, City-initiated, (SEP18-0010) Issued September 19, 2018. City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance – 2017 Comprehensive Plan Annual Amendments, City-initiated, (SEP17-0014) Issued September 19, 2017. City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance – 2016 Comprehensive Plan Annual Amendments, City-initiated, (SEP16-0010) Issued September 28, 2016. City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance – Major update in compliance with the periodic update required under the Growth Management Act (GMA) and in response to community visioning programs and community changes. 2015 Comprehensive Plan, (SEP15-0031) Issued November 2, 2015. City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance – 2014 Comprehensive Plan Annual Amendments, City-initiated, (SEP14-0011) Issued September 16, 2014. City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance – 2013 Comprehensive Plan Annual Amendments, City-initiated, (SEP13-0028) Issued September 17, 2013. City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance – 2012 Comprehensive Plan Annual Amendments, City-initiated, (SEP12-0023) Issued September 10, 2012. Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Page 3 of 20 City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance – 2011 Comprehensive Plan Annual Amendments, City-initiated, (SEP11-0021) Issued October 18, 2011. City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance – 2010 Comprehensive Plan Annual Amendments, City-initiated, Group 1, (SEP10-0019) 2010 City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance – 2010 Comprehensive Plan Amendments, City-initiated, Group 2, (SEP10-0028) 2010 City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance – 2010 Comprehensive Plan Annual Amendments, Privately-initiated, Group 2, (SEP10-0013) 2010 City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance – 2009 Amendments to the Auburn Zoning Code and Land Division Ordinance. 2009 Puget Sound Regional Council - Final Environmental Impact Statement - Vision 2040: Growth Strategy for the Central Puget Sound Region. March 2008. City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance – 2008 Comprehensive Plan amendments. August 2008. City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance—2007 Comprehensive Plan amendments. August 2007. City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance – 2006 Comprehensive Plan amendments. August 2006. City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance – 2005 Comprehensive Plan amendments. September 2005. City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance - 2004 Comprehensive Plan amendments. September 2004. City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance - 2003 Comprehensive Plan amendments. October 2003. City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance - 2002 Comprehensive Plan amendments. October 2002. City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance - 2001 Comprehensive Plan amendments. October 2001. City of Auburn - Auburn Downtown Plan/Final EIS. April 2001. City of Auburn - Addendum to the Final Determination of Non-Significance - 1996 Comprehensive Plan Amendments. November 1996. City of Auburn - Addendum to the Final Determination of Non-Significance - Comprehensive Plan Amendments to Comply with the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board Decision. October 1996. Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Page 4 of 20 City of Auburn - Addendum to the Final Determination of Non-Significance - 1995 Comprehensive Plan Amendments. November 1995. City of Auburn - Final Determination of Non-Significance - Comprehensive Plan Amendments to Comply with the Washington State Growth Management Act. October 1994. City of Auburn - Final Environmental Impact Statement - City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan: Staff Draft and Recommendations. May 1986. City of Auburn. - Final Determination of Non-Significance - Downtown Design Study. April 1990. City of Auburn - Final Determination of Non-Significance - Comprehensive Plan Amendments on City Expansion and Urban Growth. July 1991. City of Auburn - Final Environmental Impact Statement: Auburn North CBD Analysis. November 1991. City of Auburn -Final Determination of Non-Significance - Comprehensive Plan Amendments on Sensitive and Critical Lands. January 1992. King County Parks, Planning and Resources Department - Final Environmental Impact Statement: Soos Creek Community Plan Update. December 1991. King County Parks, Planning and Resources Department - Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Countywide Planning Policies Proposed Amendments. May 1994. King County Parks, Planning and Resources Department - Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: King County Comprehensive Plan. July 1994. Pierce County, Department of Planning and Land Services - Proposed Lakeland Hills South Mining and Reclamation Plan and Planned Community Development: Final Environmental Impact Statement. July 21, 1992. Pierce County, Department of Planning and Land Services - Comprehensive Plan for Pierce County, Washington: Final EIS. September 20, 1993. Pierce County, Department of Planning and Land Services - Final Supplemental EIS for the Comprehensive Plan for Pierce County, Washington. June 1994. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. No. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Page 5 of 20 The City of Auburn Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the proposed 2021 comprehensive plan map and policy/text amendments addressed in this environmental checklist and others and will forward a recommendation to the Auburn City Council. The City Council may or may not hold a public hearing prior to taking action adopting, adopting in part, or not adopting the amendments. Although the proposed action is not an approval or permit, the proposed amendments are also subject to the 60-day State Agency review process pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106. 11. Give a brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You need not repeat those answers on this page. The City of Auburn annually amends its Comprehensive Plan in accordance with state law. In summary, the 2021 City of Auburn Annual Comprehensive Plan and Map amendments addressed by this environmental checklist include policy/text amendments (denoted by P/T) and plan map amendments (denoted by CPM). These amendments are described as follows: Comprehensive Plan Amendments (policy/text) A. Policy/Text Amendments (File No. CPA22-0001, CPA22-0002) (seven changes) P/T #1 – Auburn School District 2021-2027 Capital Facilities Plan. (Separate Environmental Review) P/T #2 – Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Plan 2021. (Separate Environmental Review) P/T #3 – Federal Way School District 2022 Capital Facilities Plan. (Separate Environmental Review) P/T #4 – Kent School District 2020/2021 – 2026/2027 Capital Facilities Plan (Separate Environmental Review) P/T #5 – City of Auburn 2022-2027 Capital Facilities Plan P/T #6 - Volume 1, Land Use Element. Staff is proposing to reinstate the P-1, Public Use zone into Auburn’s Comprehensive Plan and further differentiate the P-1 zone from the I, Institutional zone. The P-1 zone was removed from Auburn’s Comprehensive Plan (in 2015 under Ordinance (Ord.) Number (No.) 6584) in an effort to reorganize and consolidate the implementing zoning districts for the Institutional Land Use Designation. However, the P-1 zone was never removed from Title 18– the Zoning Code of the Auburn City Code (ACC), nor the Auburn Zoning Map. Rather than combining the P-1 and I zone into one zone as originally intended, it is now sought to reinstate the P-1 zone and provide more definition in the differences between the two zones. The land use designation “Institutional” is also proposed to be renamed “Public/Quasi-Public” and will continue to have the following implementing zoning designations: Institutional, Public Use, and Landing Field. This name change will require amending the Comprehensive Land Use Map and text within the Comprehensive Plan. Zoning amendments that implement the comprehensive land use map designations changes are also being presented as part P/T#6. • Text changes to the Land Use Element and Zoning Code are needed. Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Page 6 of 20 Comprehensive Plan Amendments (Map changes) B. City-Initiated Map Amendments (File No. CPA22-0001) (One Change) CPM #1 - Volume 1, Land Use Element. This proposed amendment updates the Comprehensive Land Use Map and related zoning map. This is consistent and in conjunction with P/T #6. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan covers the area within the municipal boundaries of the City of Auburn, but also identifies properties in the City’s Potential Annexation Area (PAA). Both the Growth Management Act and the King and Pierce County Countywide Planning Policies, emphasize the need for consistent planning between cities and the County within each city’s urban growth area. The City’s municipal boundaries and its remaining potential annexation areas are shown within the City’s Comprehensive Plan. For the specific map locations of individual changes, see the locations specified under Item 11.B, above. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS: 1. Earth: A. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other. The City of Auburn and its Potential Annexation Area (PAA) are characterized by a relatively flat central valley floor bordered by steep hillsides and upland plateaus to the west, east and southeast. B. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? The slopes vary in areas of the city and the PAA, but in some location, slopes associated with the valley walls reach nearly 100%. C. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. The valley floor is made up primarily of soils of the Oridia, Renton, Snohomish, and Briscott series. These soils are generally poorly drained and formed in the alluvium (river sediments) associated with the White and Green Rivers. These are considered good agricultural soils, though in many areas, are not well-drained. There is no designated farmland within the City of Auburn. The hillsides and plateaus are made up of primarily Alderwood associated soils and a small amount of Everett associated soils (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1973). Alderwood soils are Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Page 7 of 20 moderately well drained gravelly sandy loams 20-40 inches deep. Beneath these soils is glacial till with low permeability. Roots penetrate easily to the hardpan layer. Runoff potential is slow to medium. Erosion and slippage hazard is moderate; ranging to severe on steeper slope phases The Everett series consists of somewhat excessively drained soils that are underlain by very gravelly sand. These soils formed in very gravelly glacial outwash deposits under conifers. They are found on terraces and terrace fronts and are gently undulating to moderately steep. D. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Many factors affect slope stability including soil type, parent material, slope and drainage. These factors can be further affected by human intervention such as slope alteration, and vegetation removal. The City has identified categories of geologic hazard areas and inventoried these areas. Maps of the erosion, seismic, and landslide hazard areas are provided as maps that are part of the critical areas ordinance inventory E. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Not applicable. The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments are non-project actions, no site alteration, construction, or earthwork is proposed. F. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Not applicable. This is a non-project action. G. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Not applicable. The action does not involve site specific development proposals. H. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion or other impacts to the earth. This is a non-project action; no site specific erosion control measures are proposed. However, the existing comprehensive plan includes numerous policies to reduce or control erosion through the use of best management practices, landscaping requirements, limitations on alteration of steep slopes and other critical areas protections. Impacts to earth/soil resources will be identified and, if necessary, mitigated during the development review process as specific development proposals are made that might be associated with these plan amendments. These potential impacts would be avoided by implementing best management practices and complying with 2014 WA State Dept. of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington with City of Auburn Supplement. 2. Air: A. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, and industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if know. Not applicable. This is a non-project action. Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Page 8 of 20 B. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odors that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Not applicable. This is a non-project action. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Not applicable. This is a non-project action. 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. The major bodies of water within Auburn are the Green River, the White (Stuck) River, Bowman Creek, Cobble Creek, Mill Creek, Lea Hill Creek, Olson Creek and White Lake. The City has conducted an inventory of wetlands and streams within the city limits. These are shown on City’s critical area inventory maps. Shorelines of the State are reflected in Auburn’s Shorelines Master Program adopted in May 2020 under Ordinance No. 6733 and the shoreline environment designations are shown within the Shoreline Management Program. 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. Not applicable. This is a non-project action. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. Not applicable. This is non-project action. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Not applicable. This is non-project action. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. Several areas within Auburn lie within the 100-year floodplain of the Green or White Rivers and Mill Creek and Mullen Slough. Floodplain as well as flood hazard areas as defined by the City are shown on the city critical area maps and floodplain maps. The Riparian Habitat Zone, as a FEMA special flood hazard area is shown on the city’s inventory and addressed in the city’s regulations. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Page 9 of 20 Not applicable. This is non-project action. 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. Not applicable. This is non-project action. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: domestic sewage; industrial, containing any toxic chemicals; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) is (are) expected to serve. Not applicable. This is non-project action. C. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Not applicable. This is non-project action. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Not applicable. This is non-project action. D. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Not applicable. This is non-project action. 4. Plants: A. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other. X evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other. X shrubs. X grass. X pasture. X crop or grain. X wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other. X water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other. X other types of vegetation. X B. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Page 10 of 20 Not applicable. This is a non-project action. However, in general urban development results in the removal or alteration of many types of vegetation. C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site: None known at this time. D. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Not applicable. This is a non-project action. 5. Animals: A. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: geese, ducks, crows, etc. Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: urban animals such as cats, dogs, rabbits, raccoons, rodents, squirrels, opossums, etc. are also present in the city. B. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. There are nesting/breeding sites of great blue herons and green backed herons within Auburn as shown on critical area inventory maps. Wildlife The Environmental Impact Statement for the NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special area plan and addendum indicate the bald eagle was delisted as ‘threatened’ in 2008 and is now a federal ‘species of concern’. There are several species that potentially occur within King County including: gray wolf (federally and state endangered), grizzly bear (federally threatened and state endangered), Canada lynx (federally and state threatened), marbled murrelet (federally and state threatened), and northern spotted owl (federally threatened and state endangered) (USFWS 2007). Due to their limited range and specific habitat requirements, the gray wolf, grizzly bear, Canada lynx, marbled murrelet, and northern spotted owl would not be expected to occur within the urban areas of King County. The 2004 EIS also identified several federal species of concern that may occur in King County. The list was updated in 2007 to include: tailed frog, Larch Mountain salamander, and northern sea otter (USFWS, 2007). The project area does not contain suitable habitat to support these species at this time. The 2004 EIS did not include the Oregon spotted frog or yellow-billed cuckoo, which are federal candidate species. Though given the current range and distribution of the species and the degraded conditions of on-site wetlands and stream, the likelihood of Oregon spotted frog occurring within the city is very low. Yellow-billed cuckoos breed in large blocks of riparian habitats (particularly woodlands containing cottonwoods and willows) (Erhlich et al., 1988). This species may now be extirpated from Washington (66 Federal Register 210). There have been documented sightings of yellow- billed cuckoo in King County and the Green River riparian corridor may provide some limited foraging and breeding habitat; however, areas of Auburn are devoid of mature dense cottonwood stands of significant size to support the species and their presence is not anticipated. Fish Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Page 11 of 20 The 2004 EIS identified the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia Coho salmon as a candidate species; however, their current federal status has been down-graded to a species of concern. Other listing changes that have occurred since that time includes the 2007 listing of the Puget Sound Distinct Population Segment (DPS) steelhead as threatened under the ESA (72 Federal Register 91), and the 2005 listing of designated critical habitat for the Puget Sound Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) Chinook salmon and Coastal-Puget Sound DPS bull trout in the Green River (70 Federal Register 170; 70 Federal Register 185). Since the 2004 EIS, a Biological Opinion was issued by NMFS that determined the effects of certain elements of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) throughout Puget Sound is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the following species listed under the ESA: Puget Sound Chinook salmon, Puget Sound steelhead, Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon, and Southern Resident killer whales. The Biological Opinion also determined that NFIP is likely to adversely modify the following ESA designated critical habitats: Puget Sound Chinook salmon, Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon, and Southern Resident killer whale critical habitats. The biological opinion provides a reasonable and prudent alternative which can be implemented to avoid jeopardy and adverse modification of critical habitat. In response to the Biological Opinion, FEMA developed a model ordinance for NFIP participating communities, which includes the City of Auburn. The City of Auburn incorporated substantive terms of the model ordinance into their interim floodplain regulations (Ordinance No. 6295). By letter dated September 21, 2011 FEMA acknowledged that the city’s ordinance complies with their model ordinance and as a result, the interim ordinance becomes permanent. The Biological Opinion originally established a 2010 timeline for compliance for all NFIP participating communities within the Puget Sound Basin (NMFS, 2008). C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Auburn is a portion of the Pacific Flyway for migratory birds. D. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Not applicable. This is a non-project action. 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. Not applicable. This is a non-project action. B. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. Not applicable. This is a non-project action. 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: Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Page 12 of 20 Not applicable. This is a non-project action. 7. Environmental Health: A. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. Not applicable. This is a non-project action. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required: Not applicable. This is a non-project action. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Not applicable. This is a non-project action. B. Noise: 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Not applicable. This is a non-project action. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Not applicable. This is a non-project action. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impact, if any: Not applicable. This is a non-project action. 8. Land and Shoreline Use: A. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The City and Potential Annexation Area (PAA) contain a variety of land uses including residential, industrial, institutional, commercial, open space, and public land uses. B. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe: Much of Green and White River Valleys and the City of Auburn were used for agriculture at some time in the past. Over the last several decades, rapid growth in the area resulted in much of the agricultural land converting to urban uses. No land within the city is formally designated as Agricultural Land, though some parcels continue in agricultural use. C. Describe any structures on the site: Structures within the city and PAA range from small single family detached homes to large industrial manufacturing and warehousing facilities. Properties subject to the plan map amendments range in use, Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Page 13 of 20 as examples, from vacant land, schools, residential, commercial to those that appear as primarily wetlands. D. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Not applicable. This is a non-project action. E. What is the current zoning classification of the site? City zoning districts include: RC (Residential Conservancy); R-1 (1 du/acre) R-5 (5 du/acre); R-7 (7 du/acre); R-10 (10 du/acre); R-16 (16 du/acre); R-20 (20 du/acre); R-MHC (Manufactured/Mobile Home Community); RT (Residential Transition); CN (Neighborhood Commercial) C1; (Light Commercial); C2 (Central Business District); DUC (Downtown Urban Center Zone); C3 (Heavy Commercial); C4, Mixed Use Commercial, M1 (Light Industrial); M2 (Heavy Industrial); LF (Airport Landing Field); UNC (Unclassified Use); I (Institutional Use); P- 1, Public Use; Lakeland Hills South PUD; and TV (Terrace View Zoning District). F. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? A Comprehensive Plan map of the City is contained in the City’s Comprehensive Plan and includes various different plan designations similar to, and implemented by the zoning categories. G. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Portions of the City along the Green and White Rivers fall under the Shoreline Master Program. A map of the shoreline designations for those areas is contained in the shoreline management program. Shorelines of the State are reflected in Auburn’s Shorelines Management Program adopted in May 2020. H. Has any part of the site been classified as an “environmentally sensitive” area? If so, specify: Not applicable. This is a non-project action. However, areas of the city do contain environmentally sensitive or critical areas and the regulation and protection of environmentally sensitive areas are addressed through the city’s critical areas ordinance (ACC 16.10). I. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Not applicable. This is a non-project action and no specific development is proposed. J. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None, specifically. This proposal is a non-project action. K. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None, specifically. This proposal is a non-project action. L. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Page 14 of 20 This proposal is to amend the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan as described in response to the environmental checklist application question A.11 above. The evaluation by staff and the public hearing and review process that occurs as part of the comprehensive plan amendment process will be used to help evaluate whether a particular proposal is consistent with existing plans. Also, the proposed amendments are circulated to State agencies for a State Agency review process in accordance with RCW 36.70A.106, 9. Housing: A. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. Not applicable. This proposal is a non-project action. B. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None. This proposal is a non-project action. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None specifically, as this is a non-project action. 10. Aesthetics: A. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? Not applicable. This proposal is a non-project action. B. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Not applicable. This proposal is a non-project action. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Not applicable. This proposal is a non-project action. 11. Light and Glare: A. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Not applicable. This proposal is a non-project action. B. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Not applicable. This proposal is a non-project action. C. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Page 15 of 20 Not applicable. This proposal is a non-project action. D. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Not applicable. This proposal is a non-project action. 12. Recreation: A. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? The City of Auburn provides a full range of parks and recreational facilities. The City’s 2015 Parks, Art, Recreation and Open Space Plan shows the location of these facilities. B. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. Not applicable. This proposal is a non-project action. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: Not applicable. This proposal is a non-project action. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation: A. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe: Not applicable. This proposal is a non-project action. However, as a matter of information, in Auburn, the Blomeen House located at 324 B Street NE is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The Carnegie Library Building at 306 Auburn Avenue (currently Auburn Dance and Music Center) and the Auburn Post Office (formerly the Seattle-King County Health Department) at 20 Auburn Avenue NE are listed local and county landmarks. The Olson Farm, located at 28728 Green River Road South, was designated as King County Landmark in 2000 and the Masonic Temple Building at the southeast corner of Auburn Way South and East Main Street was designated as a King County Historical Landmark in 2002. The Pioneer Cemetery at Auburn Way North & 9th ST NE was designated as a City of Auburn Landmark in 2016. B. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. Several historic Indian campsites have been identified along the Green and White Rivers in the Auburn Thoroughbred Racetrack EIS and in preliminary work for the Army Corps of Engineers’ Special Area Management Plan (SAMP). C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Not applicable. This proposal is a non-project action. 14. Transportation: A. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Page 16 of 20 The Comprehensive Transportation Plan (The transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan) shows the City’s current and future classified street system. B. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Figure 4-1 of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan (Transportation element) shows the location of public transit routes within the City. A commuter rail station exists along the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad right-of-way just south of West Main Street and east of C Street SW. C. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? Not applicable. This proposal is a non-project action. D. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private): Not applicable. This proposal is a non-project action. E. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe: There is no water transportation in the Auburn area other than for recreational uses. The area is particularly well served by rail. At this time, local freight service is available. Burlington Northern Santa Fe and Union Pacific both operate freight railroad lines within Auburn. Auburn is also a commuter rail station site for the Sounder commuter rail line between Tacoma, Seattle and Everett. Service began September 18, 2000. Amtrak trains pass through Auburn but do not stop in the city. The Auburn Airport is a general purpose airport located north of 15th and D Streets NE. F. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. Not applicable. This proposal is a non-project action. G. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Not applicable. This proposal is a non-project action. 15. Public Services: A. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe: Not applicable. This is a non-project action. B. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impact on public services, if any: The Comprehensive Plan contains policies that seek to maintain a sufficient level of service for public services as development occurs. Also, Auburn reviews under SEPA, the impacts of significant development on these public services. Mitigation measures are required to reduce significant adverse impacts. Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Page 17 of 20 Also, several Policy/Text amendments as part of this checklist include the capital facilities plan’s for the four school districts within Auburn city limits and PAA. Those school districts are Auburn, and Dieringer, Federal Way, and Kent. 16. Utilities: A. Circle utilities currently available at the site: Electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other – Cable TV. All of the above utilities are available within the City of Auburn. The City provides water, sewer and storm facilities. There are also private water and sewer utility districts and private utility providers with service area boundaries within the city. 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: This is a non-project action. However, the Comprehensive Plan includes a private and a public utilities element (as required by the Growth Management Act), which describes the utilities that serve the Auburn area and includes policies for their provision. Also, the city actively engages in planning for public facilities. The Comprehensive Water Plan, Comprehensive Sewer Plan and Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan were adopted by the City in 2015. A new six-year Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) was adopted in 2017 (2018-2023) and plan amendments this year will include an update consisting of the City of Auburn 2022-2027. The City seeks to update the CFP a minimum of every two years, and more commonly, yearly. These plans ensure that utility impacts are adequately monitored and evaluated on a project level and city-wide basis. C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. OWNER/AGENT SIGNATURE: ______________ Josh Steiner, Senior Planner DATE PREPARED: September 14, 2022_ Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Page 18 of 20 D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (Do not use this sheet for project actions.) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent of the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal that would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Taken as a whole, there should be a minimal change in discharges to water, emissions to air, production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances or the production of noise. The proposed amendments themselves will not create a change in intensity of discharge to water, emissions to air, production, storage or release of toxic or hazardous substances or the production of noise from those levels expected under the existing plan. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: The City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan contains provisions to reduce increases or emissions caused by new development. Emphasis in the Comprehensive Plan on reducing the reliance on the automobile for transportation should reduce the amount of emissions to the air. Policies in the Plan also provide guidance in the review of development proposals to encourage use and retention of native vegetation. This supports wildlife habitat areas, particularly near streams, as the policies assist the City in addressing adverse impacts to water quality and wildlife habitat from runoff since native plantings can retain and treat runoff and may require less pesticide use. The proposed amendments set the framework where properties and uses would in the future be in compliance with expansion, site redevelopment or new development. City policy and code regulates such impacts through the storm drainage requirements and critical area regulations as applicable. An environmental review of all non-exempt (from SEPA) development will be conducted to evaluate and mitigate impacts related to discharges, emissions, and the release of toxic substances. Evaluation of the subsequent site-specific proposals will be based on the policies of the Comprehensive Plan, development regulations and appropriate mitigation will take place on a case by case basis. City development standards including but not limited to the critical areas ordinance, shoreline master program regulations, Stormwater Management Manual, Floodplain permit regulations, and the Public Works Design and Construction Manual, also provide additional protection for these types of impacts. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? This proposal will amend the Auburn Comprehensive Plan. The plan recognizes the Shoreline Master Program that was adopted in May 2020 which governs development within the Shoreline Management Area, reducing the impacts from new development on plants, animals. The changes will not change any policy which would have a direct effect on flora, fauna, or marine life. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Page 19 of 20 Generally, the adopted Auburn Comprehensive Plan and critical areas ordinance seek to protect and conserve plants, animals, fish, and marine life. An environmental review under SEPA of all non- exempt development is conducted to measure impacts. Evaluation based on the policies of the Auburn Comprehensive Plan and appropriate mitigation will take place on a case-by-case basis. Policies within the Plan also provide guidance in the review of development proposals to encourage native vegetation be used and/or retained. This should support wildlife habitat areas, particularly near streams as the policies assist the city in addressing adverse runoff impacts to water quality and wildlife habitat since native plantings may require less pesticide use. City development standards including but not limited to the critical areas ordinance and the shoreline master program regulations also provide additional protection for these types of impacts. The proposed map amendments are bringing the land use designations more in line with actual property uses. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Future development will use natural gas, petroleum and electricity and could result in increased automobile uses. However, there does not appear to be any significant adverse increases in the use of energy of natural resources resulting from the amendments being proposed to the existing comprehensive plan over what might occur under existing plan designations. In fact, it is possible that use of energy or natural resources could decrease depending on the land use. The city’s amendment for alternative powered vehicles and for preparation of a greenhouse gas inventory establishes a baseline for future energy conservation measures. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: None specifically, as this is a non-project action. However, Comprehensive Plan policies encourage energy conservation in public buildings, street lighting, and recycling, it places an emphasis on providing for alternative methods of travel to the automobile such as transit, walking, and biking. An environmental review under SEPA of all significant development will be conducted to measure the project impacts. 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? This proposal will amend the Comprehensive Plan. Taken as a whole, the increase in impacts from the proposed comprehensive plan amendments on environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated for government protection should be minor, if at all. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: The Comprehensive Plan and, in particular, the critical areas ordinance, seek to protect environmentally sensitive areas (wetlands, streams, geologically hazard areas, floodplain, wildlife habitat, and aquifer recharge areas) and to reduce the impacts of development on them. The Auburn Comprehensive Plan provides for the implementation of innovative land management techniques to protect these resources. An environmental review under SEPA for all non-exempt development will be conducted to evaluate impacts. Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Page 20 of 20 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? Amendments can only be approved if it can be assured that future development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and its policies and related regulations. Those proposals that are not consistent with the comprehensive plan policies or other existing plans will not be approved. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: The comprehensive plan, critical areas ordinance, and other development regulations, such as the zoning ordinance and shoreline master program, seek to protect these land and shoreline resources and to reduce the effects of development on them. An environmental review under SEPA of all development that is non-exempt will also be conducted to evaluate a proposal’s land use and environmental impacts. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? This proposal will amend portions of the Auburn Comprehensive Plan for Capital Facilities Elements. The existing plan assumes a growth target of approximately 6,000 households and a job capacity of 1,200 jobs in the King County portion of the city to the year 2022 (based on city limits as of 2003) and to approximately 8,000 people in the Pierce County portion of the city (based on 2002 city limits in Pierce County). The proposal will not result in an increase in demands on transportation and public services. Rather, the six-year CFP responds to growth by identifying the public facilities and improvement needed to address future growth. The growth projections mentioned above would occur with or without these amendments. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: As stated above, no measurable increase in demands to these subject areas will result from the proposed map amendments. However, the Auburn Comprehensive Plan presently incorporates an adoption of the City of Auburn 2021-2026 Capital Facilities Plan, which seeks to maintain a sufficient level of service for public services as development occurs. The City of Auburn Six-Year CFP will be updated as part of the 2021 Comprehensive Plan process to balance public facility needs against projected growth. An environmental review under SEPA for non-exempt development proposals identified in the CFP will be conducted to measure and evaluate impacts. The city actively engages in planning for public facilities. The Comprehensive Water Plan, Comprehensive Sewer Plan and Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan were adopted by the city in 2015. An update to the Comprehensive Transportation Plan was adopted in 2015. These specific plans help ensure that infrastructure impacts are adequately monitored and evaluated on a project level and city-wide basis. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The proposal does not appear to present any conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements. NOTICE OF APPLICATION (NOA) and DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) 2022 Annual Comprehensive Plan Text & Map Amendments and related zoning map amendments SEP22-0018 / CPA22-0001, CPA22-0002 The City of Auburn is issuing a Notice of Application (NOA) and Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) for the following described proposal. The applications and listed studies may be reviewed at the Community Development & Public Works Department at One E Main St., 2nd Floor, Customer Service Center, Auburn, WA 98001. Proposal and Location: Adopt amendments to the City’s Comprehensive Plan consisting of the following Text (P/T) and Map (CPM) Amendments and amendments to zoning map (rezone) to implement: Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments P/T #5 – City of Auburn 2023-2028 Capital Facilities Plan P/T #6 – Volume 1, Land Use Element. Staff is proposing to reinstate the P-1, Public Use zone into Auburn’s Comprehensive Plan and further differentiate the P-1 zone from the I, Institutional zone. Amending the Land Use Element of Auburn’s Comprehensive Plan to relist the P-1 zone as an implementing zoning district will be necessary. The land use designation “Institutional” is proposed to be renamed “Public/Quasi-Public” and will continue to have the following implementing zoning designations: Institutional, Public Use, and Landing Field. • Text changes to the Land Use Element are needed and are found throughout the chapter. Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments CPM #1 - Volume 1: Land Use Element: Comprehensive Land Use Map to be updated to reflect “Institutional” use renamed as “Public/Quasi-Public,” consistent with proposed revisions described in P/T #6. Notice of Application: September 29, 2022 Application Complete: September 22, 2022 Permit Application: September 14, 2022 File Nos. SEP22-0018 CPA22-0001, CPA22-0002 Applicant: Josh Steiner, Senior Planner Community Dev. & Public Works City of Auburn 25 W Main ST Auburn, WA 98001 Studies/Plans Submitted With Application: • None Other Permits, Plans, and Approvals Needed: • None Statement of Consistency and List of Applicable Development Regulations: This proposal is subject to and shall be consistent with the Auburn City Code, Comprehensive Plan, and Public Works Design and Construction Standards. Lead Agency: City of Auburn Page 2 of 2 NOTICE OF APPLICATION and DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE SEP18-0010 / CPA18-0002 (Continued) The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. Public Comment Period: This may be your only opportunity to comment on the environmental impact of the proposal. All persons may comment on this application. This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11- 340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 15 days from the date issued below. Comments must be in writing and submitted by 5:00 pm on October 14, 2022 to the mailing address of 25 W Main ST, Auburn, WA, 98001 or emailed to the contact below. Any person wishing to become a party of record, shall include in their comments that they wish to receive notice of and participate in any hearings, if relevant, and request a copy of decisions once made. Any person aggrieved of the City's determination may file an appeal with the Auburn City Clerk at 25 West Main Street, Auburn, WA 98001- 4998 within 14 days of the close of the comment period, or by 5:00 p.m. on October 28, 2022. For questions regarding this project, please contact Josh Steiner, Senior Planner, at jsteiner@auburnwa.gov or 253-804-5064. Public Hearing: A public hearing is required and is scheduled for November 8th, 2022 at 7 PM. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Jeff Tate POSITION/TITLE: Director, Dept. of Community Dev. ADDRESS: 25 West Main Street Auburn, Washington 98001 253-931-3090 DATE ISSUED: SIGNATURE: Note: This determination does not constitute approval of the proposal. Approval of the proposal can only be made by the legislative or administrative body vested with that authority. The proposal is required to meet all applicable regulations. September 22, 2022 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING (NOH) 2022 Annual Comprehensive Plan Text & Map Amendments and related zoning map amendments SEP22-0018 / CPA22-0001, CPA22-0002 The City of Auburn is issuing a Notice of Public Hearing (NOH) for the following described project. The permit applications and listed studies may be reviewed at the Auburn Department of Community Development at One E Main St., 2nd Floor, Customer Service Center, Auburn, WA 98001. Proposal and Location: Adopt amendments to the City’s Comprehensive Plan consisting of the following Text (P/T) and Map (CPM) Amendments and amendments to zoning map (rezone) to implement: Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments P/T #5 – City of Auburn 2023-2028 Capital Facilities Plan P/T #6 – Volume 1, Land Use Element. Staff is proposing to reinstate the P-1, Public Use zone into Auburn’s Comprehensive Plan and further differentiate the P-1 zone from the I, Institutional zone. Amending the Land Use Element of Auburn’s Comprehensive Plan to relist the P-1 zone as an implementing zoning district will be necessary. The land use designation “Institutional” is proposed to be renamed “Public/Quasi-Public” and will continue to have the following implementing zoning designations: Institutional, Public Use, and Landing Field. • Text changes to the Land Use Element are needed and are found throughout the chapter. Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments CPM #1 - Volume 1: Land Use Element: Comprehensive Land Use Map to be updated to reflect “Institutional” use renamed as “Public/Quasi-Public,” consistent with proposed revisions described in P/T #6. Notice of Application: September 27, 2022 Application Complete: September 22, 2022 Permit Application: September 14, 2022 File Nos. SEP22-0018 CPA22-0001, CPA22-0002 Applicant: Josh Steiner, Senior Planner Community Dev. & Public Works City of Auburn 25 W Main ST Auburn, WA 98001 Studies/Plans Submitted With Application: • None Other Permits, Plans, and Approvals Needed: • None Statement of Consistency and List of Applicable Development Regulations: This proposal is subject to and shall be consistent with the Auburn City Code, Comprehensive Plan, and Public Works Design and Construction Standards. Lead Agency: City of Auburn The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING SEP22-0018 / CPA22-0001, CPA22-0002 (Continued) Page 2 of 2 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. Public Hearing: A public hearing is required for this proposal. The public hearing has been scheduled for November 8, 2022 at 7:00 PM. The public hearing will be held in-person in the City Council Chambers, 25 W Main St., Auburn, WA, 98001 and telephonically. To attend the meeting virtually please enter the meeting ID into the ZOOM app or call into the meeting at the phone number listed below. Join Zoom Meeting https://us06web.zoom.us/j/83632590447 Meeting ID: 836 3259 0447 Phone: 253-215-8782 - US (Tacoma) Any interested person is invited to appear and express comments or opinions on the proposed project. Written comments may be emailed to the contact person below, mailed attention to the contact person below to 25 W Main St., Auburn WA, 98001, or submitted at the public hearing. For citizens with speech, sight or hearing disabilities wishing to review documents pertaining to this hearing, should contact the City of Auburn within 10 calendar days prior to the meeting, as to the type of service or equipment needed. Each request will be considered individually according to the type of request, the availability of resources, and the financial ability of the City to provide the requested services or equipment. For questions regarding this project, please contact Josh Steiner, Senior Planner, at jsteiner@auburnwa.gov or 253-804-5064. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Jeff Tate POSITION/TITLE: Director, Dept. of Community Dev. ADDRESS: 25 West Main Street Auburn, Washington 98001 253-931-3090 DATE ISSUED: SIGNATURE: ON FILE Note: This determination does not constitute approval of the proposal. Approval of the proposal can only be made by the legislative or administrative body vested with that authority. The proposal is required to meet all applicable regulations. OCTOBER 28, 2022 THANK YOU We have received your amendment submission. Please allow 1-3 business days for review. Please keep the Submittal ID as your receipt and for any future questions. We will also send an email receipt to all contacts listed in the submittal. Submittal ID: 2022-S-4362 Submittal Date Time: 09/27/2022 Submittal Information Jurisdiction City of Auburn Submittal Type 60-day Notice of Intent to Adopt Amendment Amendment Type Comprehensive Plan Amendment Amendment Information Brief Description Proposed comprehensive plan amendment for the annual comprehensive plan update. o Yes, this is a part of the 8-year periodic update schedule, required under RCW 36.70A.130. Anticipated/Proposed Date of Adoption 12/05/2022 Attachments Attachment Type File Name Upload Date Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Draft 11 - FINAL_ASD - 2022 CFP_FINAL 06.27.2022.pdf 09/27/2022 01:06 PM Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Draft 15 - FINAL_ DSD Capital Facilities Plan.pdf 09/27/2022 01:06 PM Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Draft 21 - FINAL_KSD - 2023 KSD Capital Facilites Plan.pdf 09/27/2022 01:06 PM Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Draft 26 - FINAL_2023- 2028 Draft Capital Facilities Plan.pdf 09/27/2022 01:07 PM Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Draft 18 - FINAL_FWPS - 2023 FWPS Capital Facilities Plan - DRAFT.pdf 09/27/2022 01:07 PM Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Draft 27 - FINAL_PT6 Exhibit A - CPA Text Amendment.pdf 09/27/2022 01:08 PM Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Draft 30 - FINAL_CPM1 Exhibit D - CPA Proposed Comp Land Use Map.pdf 09/27/2022 01:08 PM Contact Information Prefix Mr. First Name Josh Last Name Steiner Title Senior Planner Work (253) 804-5064 Cell Email jsteiner@auburnwa.gov o Yes, I would like to be contacted for Technical Assistance. Certification n I certify that I am authorized to submit this Amendment for the Jurisdiction identified in this Submittal and all information provided is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Full Name Joshua Steiner Email jsteiner7@auburnwa.gov July 11, 2022 Mr. Jeff Dixon City of Auburn 25 W. Main Street Auburn, WA 98001 Re: Single and Multi-Family Residence Impact Fee Increases Auburn School District Capital Facilities Plan for 2022 to 2028 Dear Mr. Dixon, The Auburn School District Board of Directors has approved the 2022-2028 Capital Facilities Plan which includes documentation and calculation of Impact Fees. This year ’s Impact Fees are calculated using the following formula and amounts: Single Family Multi-Family Site Costs $3,398.39 $4,425.81 Permanent Facility Const. Costs $23,251.96 $21,500.10 Temporary Facility Costs $326.88 $378.53 State Match Credit ($2,484.27) ($2,297.11) Tax Credit ($8,567.73) ($4,181.68) Fee without Discount $ 15,925.22 $19,825.65 50% Discount ($7,962.61) ($9,912.82) Fee with Discount $7,962.61 $9,912.82 Auburn School District respectfully requests that the Single-Family Residence Impact Fee be increased to $7,962.61, and that the Multi-Family Residence Impact Fee be increased to $9,912.82. Our Single Family Impact Fees for the past few years have been: 2023 (proposed) $7,962.61 2022 $3,652.19 2021 $6,456.31 2020 $6,905.31 James P. Fugate Administration Building • 915 Fourth Street NE • Auburn, WA 98002-4499 • 253-931-4900 Single and Multi-Family Residence Impact Fee Increases Auburn School District Capital Facilities Plan for 2022 to 2028 Page 2 Our Multi-Family Impact Fees for the past few years have been: 2023 (proposed) $9,912.82 2022 $8,938.23 2021 $6,325.80 to $16,325.80 2020 $4,667.45 to $14,667.45 Your consideration and approval of our request will be appreciated. Sincerely, Bob Kenworthy Asst. Director, Capital Projects Cc: C. Blansfield James P. Fugate Administration Building • 915 Fourth Street NE • Auburn, WA 98002-4499 • 253-931-4900 Auburn School District No. 408 Capit al Facilities Pl an 2022 t hrough 2028 Adopted by the Auburn School District Board of Directors June 27, 2022 915 Fourth Street SE Auburn, Washington 98002 (253) 931-4900 Serving Students in: City of Auburn City of Algona City of Kent City of Pacific City of Black Diamond Unincorporated King County Board of Directors Tracy Arnold Arlista Holman Sheilia McLaughlin Laura Theimer Dr. Alan Spicciati, Superintendent Capital Facilities Plan \ TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I Executive Summary Page 3 SECTION II Enrollment Projections and Student Generation Factors Page 8 SECTION III Standard of Service Page 18 SECTION IV Inventory of Facilities Page 25 SECTION V Pupil Capacity Page 29 SECTION VI Capital Construction Plan Page 3 3 SECTION VII Impact Fees Page 3 5 Auburn School District No. 408 2 Capital Facilities Plan \ SECTION I – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This six-year Capital Facilities Plan (the “Plan”) has been prepared by the Auburn School District (the “District”) as the District’s principal planning document, in compliance with the requirements of Washington’s Growth Management Act and the adopted ordinances of the counties and cities served by the District. This Plan was prepared using data available in the spring of 2022. This Plan is consistent with prior long-term capital facilities plans adopted by the District. However, this Plan is not intended to be the sole plan for all of the District’s needs. The District may prepare interim and periodic long-range Capital Facilities Plans consistent with Board Policies and actions, taking into account a longer or a shorter time period; other factors and trends in the use of facilities; and other needs of the District as may be required. However, any such plan or plans will be consistent with this six-year Capital Facilities Plan. To enable the collection of impact fees in the unincorporated areas of King County and within the Cities of Auburn, Black Diamond and Kent; the King County Council, the City of Auburn, the City of Black Diamond, and the City of Kent will adopt this Plan by reference as part of each jurisdiction’s respective comprehensive plan. To enable the collection of impact fees in the Cities of Algona and Pacific, these municipalities must also adopt this Plan and adopt school impact fee ordinances. Pursuant to the requirements of the Growth Management Act and the local ordinances, this Plan will be updated on an annual basis, and any changes in the fee schedule(s) adjusted accordingly. The Plan establishes the District’s “standard of service” in order to ascertain the District’s current and future capacity. While the State Superintendent of Public Instruction establishes square footage guidelines for capacity, those guidelines do not account for the local program needs of the District. The Growth Management Act and the school impact fee ordinance authorize the District to define its standard of service based on the District’s specific needs. Auburn School District No. 408 3 Capital Facilities Plan \ In general, the District’s current standard provides that class size for grades K-3 should not exceed 17 students and class size for grades 4-5 should not exceed 27 students. When averaged over the six elementary school grades, this computes to 20.33 students per classroom. Class size for grade 6 should not exceed 27 students and class size for grades 7 and 8 should not exceed 28.53 students. When averaged over the three middle school grades, this computes to 28.02 students per classroom. Class size for 9-12 should not exceed 28.74 students, with some subject areas restricted to lesser numbers. Decisions by current legislative actions may create the need for additional classrooms. (See Section III for more specific information.) The capacity of the schools in the District is calculated based on this standard of service and the existing inventory of facilities including transitional classr ooms. The District’s 2021-22 capacity was 17,082 . The actual number of individual students was 16,880 as of October 1, 2021. (See Section V for more specific information.) The Capital Construction Plan shown in Section VI addresses the additions and proposed modernization to the District’s existing facilities. The plan includes the ongoing replacement of five elementary schools and one middle school, construction of two new elementary schools and one new middle school, and acquisition of future school sites to accommodate growth. The new facilities are required to meet the projected elementary school class size reductions mandated by the State of Washington and student population increases generated by the large development areas within the Auburn School District. Three areas that have significant impact on the school district are the Lakeland South, Lea Hill, and the north valley areas of the district. There are also other development pockets that impact the District. In the spring of 2016, the Board determined to move forward with the replacement of six schools and the construction of two new elementary schools. The project was placed before the voters in November 2016 and the bond passed at 62.83%. The first of the projects, the replacement of Olympic Middle School, started construction in May 2018 and opened in Fall 2019. The district’s new elementary, Bowman Creek Elementary, started construction in May 2019 and opened in August 2020. Construction for replacement of Dick Auburn School District No. 408 4 Capital Facilities Plan \ Scobee Elementary School started in June 2019 and the school opened in August 2020. Construction of Willow Crest Elementary School and construction of the replacement Pioneer Elementary School started May 2020 and both opened in August 2021. For the 2021-22 school year, Willow Crest Elementary served as the temporary home for Lea Hill Elementary School which started the replacement construction process in May 2021 and will open in August 2022. Construction for replacement of Chinook Elementary School started in May 2021 and will open in August 2022 as well. Construction for replacement of Terminal Park Elementary School will begin in May 2022 and is scheduled to open in August 2023. The School Impact Fee Ordinances adopted by King County, the City of Auburn, City of Black Diamond and City of Kent provide for the assessment of impact fees to assist in meeting some of the fiscal impacts incurred by a district experiencing growth and development. Section VII sets forth the proposed school impact fees for single family and multi-family dwelling units. The student generation factors have been developed using the students who actually attend school in the Auburn School District from single family and multi-family developments constructed in the last five years. The method of collecting the data is with the use of GIS mapping software, data from King County and Pierce County GIS, data from Davis Demographics and integration of the mapping with student data from the District’s student data system. This method gives the District actual student generation numbers for each grade span for identified developments. Auburn School District No. 408 5 Capital Facilities Plan \ Listed below is a summary level outline of the changes from the 2021 Capital Facilities Plan that are a part of the 2022 Plan. The changes are noted by Section for ease of reference. SECTION I Executive Summary A. Updated to reflect new information within the Plan. B. Summary level list of changes from previous year. SECTION II Enrollment Projections and Student Generation Factors A. Updated projections. See Section II & Appendices A.1. SECTION III Standard of Service A. Updated to reflect the current number of classrooms allocated to non-standard classroom uses. SECTION IV Inventory of Facilities A. Add 2 portables at Auburn High School B. Add 2 portables at Auburn Mountainview High School C. Add 2 portables at Auburn Riverside High School D. Add 1 portable at Washington Elementary School E. Remove 7 portables from Terminal Park Elementary School Section V Pupil Capacity A. The 7 portables to be relocated in July 2022 are needed to accommodate enrollment increases. Auburn School District No. 408 6 Capital Facilities Plan \ Impact Fees CHANGES TO IMPACT FEE DATA ELEMENTS 2021 TO 2022 DATA ELEMENTS CFP 2021 CFP 2022 EXPLANATION Student Generation Factors Single Family Elementary Middle School High School Multi-Family Elementary Middle School High School 0.2500 0.1310 0.1520 0.4330 0.1850 0.1750 0.3010 0.1460 0.1550 0.3920 0.1350 0.1530 Consistent with King County Ordinance 11621, Student Generation Factors are calculated by the school district based on district records of average actual student generation rates for new developments constructed over the last five years. School Construction Costs Middle School $112,000,000 $134,320,000 From new school construction cost estimates in April 2022. Site Acquisition Costs Cost per Acre $444,771 $489,248 Updated estimate based on 10% annual inflation. Area Cost Allowance Boeckh Index $238.22 $246.83 Updated to current OSPI schedule. (May 2022) Match % - State 62.87% 63.83% Updated to current OSPI schedule (May 2022) Match % - District 37.13% 36.17% Computed District Average AV Single Family Multi-Family $402,640 $197,141 $458,409 $223,737 Updated from March 2022 King County Dept. of Assessments data. Updated from March 2022 King County Dept. of Assessments data using average AV for apartments and condominiums. Debt Serv Tax Rate $2.21 $2.13 Current Fiscal Year GO Bond Int Rate 2.44% 2.45% Current Rate (Bond Buyers 20 Index 3-14) Auburn School District No. 408 7 Capital Facilities Plan \ SECTION II – ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS AND STUDENT GENERATION FACTORS Student Enrollment Projections Projection techniques give consideration to historical and current data as a basis for forecasting the future. In addition, certain assumptions must be made about the variables in the data being used. Forecasting can be defined as the extrapolation or logical extension from history to the future or from the known to the unknown. The projection logic does not attempt to weigh the individual sociological, psychological, economic, and political factors that are present in any demographic analysis and projection. An example of this is with the COVID-19 pandemic. The logic embraces the assumptions that whatever these individual factors have been in the past are present today and will be in the future. It further moderates the impact of singular factors by averaging data over time. The basis of enrollment projections in the Auburn School District has been cohort survival analysis. Cohort survival is the analysis of a group of students in a grade level as it progresses through time. This analysis uses historical information to develop averages and project the averages forward. If all students in one grade level progress to the next, the cohort number would be 1.00. If fewer students from the group progress the number will be less than 1. The district has used this method with varying years of history (3 years, 6 years, 10 years and 13 years) as well as weighted factors to study several projections. The degree to which the actuals deviate from the projections can only be measured after the fact. This deviation provides a point of departure to evaluate the effectiveness of the assumptions and logic being used to calculate future projections. Monitoring deviation is critical to the viability and creditably of the projections derived by these techniques. Auburn School District No. 408 8 Capital Facilities Plan \ Overview of 2022-23 Enrollment Projections Table 1 shows historical enrollment for the October 1 count in the Auburn School District over the past 20 years. The data shows overall average growth over the recent 10 years is 1.59%. It is important to note this average includes a 4.22% decrease in October 2020 enrollment due to the COVID pandemic. TABLE 1 Historical Enrollment: October 1 Actuals, K-12 (No RS/OD/GA) Source: OSPI 1251H GRADE 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 KDG 905 921 892 955 940 995 998 1032 1010 1029 1098 1170 1232 1198 1237 1261 1271 1291 1038 1227 1 900 982 960 963 1012 995 1014 1033 1066 1068 1089 1188 1219 1279 1210 1276 1290 1314 1236 1185 2 961 909 992 963 1001 1019 1024 998 1016 1097 1083 1124 1196 1289 1300 1251 1311 1295 1243 1249 3 940 996 918 1002 1031 997 1048 993 1013 996 1111 1125 1136 1232 1317 1328 1275 1320 1243 1264 4 973 947 1016 939 1049 1057 1045 1073 1024 1022 1038 1123 1156 1170 1237 1328 1378 1316 1257 1255 5 1062 1018 956 1065 998 1077 1070 1030 1079 1017 1070 1075 1122 1172 1199 1269 1345 1361 1294 1251 6 1104 1111 1020 1004 1061 1008 1096 1040 1041 1063 1041 1076 1059 1116 1152 1207 1275 1337 1306 1233 7 1021 1131 1124 1028 1014 1057 1034 1125 1060 1032 1086 1072 1091 1099 1132 1194 1232 1295 1319 1304 8 1026 1052 1130 1137 1069 1033 1076 1031 1112 1046 1018 1116 1088 1136 1108 1183 1213 1236 1264 1312 8 1432 1464 1459 1379 1372 1337 1257 1245 1221 1273 1200 1159 1275 1229 1261 1257 1372 1399 1351 1386 10 1233 1246 1260 1383 1400 1367 1341 1277 1238 1168 1278 1229 1169 1316 1248 1300 1313 1410 1376 1388 11 902 991 1019 1153 1294 1305 1304 1269 1212 1177 1116 1187 1169 1111 1248 1188 1198 1218 1174 1299 12 888 841 833 989 1068 1176 1259 1319 1251 1220 1231 1186 1218 1175 1104 1266 1126 1113 1090 1248 TOTALS 13,347 13,609 13,579 13,960 14,309 14,423 14,566 14,465 14,343 14,208 14,459 14,830 15,130 15,522 15,753 16,308 16,599 16,905 16,191 16,601 Student Gain/Loss -30 381 349 114 143 -101 -122 -135 251 371 300 392 231 555 291 306 -714 412 Percent Gain/Loss -0.22% 2.81% 2.50% 0.80% 0.99% -0.69% -0.84% -0.94% 1.77% 2.57% 2.02% 2.59% 1.49% 3.52% 1.78% 1.84% -4.22% 2.54% Average Student Gain/Loss for 10 years 240 Average Percent Gain/Loss for Recent 10 years 1.59% Auburn School District No. 408 9 Capital Facilities Plan \ While still in the pandemic, it was important to consider the impact the pandemic will have on future projections. Using the Cohort Survival method, the decrease in enrollment of 4.22% in October 2020 will skew enrollment projections for 2021 and beyond. Some of the assumptions made in calculating projections for the 2022-23 school year are: 1. Kindergarten enrollment will continue to be at pre-pandemic levels. a. ASD Kindergarten enrollment is almost 5% of births in King County. However, in 2017, King County live births were at the lowest number since 2005 at 25,487 which would project an October 2022 kindergarten class of approximately 1,215 students. 2. The number of students generated from housing growth in the district will slow. a. Currently there are no large multi-family housing active within the district boundaries. b. Although there is a long list of single-family developments, only 22 are scheduled to be occupied in the near future. Calculations were made to create cohort scenarios based upon the following survival ratios: 3-year average, 3-year weighted average, 6-year average, 6-year median, and the 10-year average. Two of the scenarios (3-year weighted average and 3-year average) were not considered because of the impact October 2020 had on the calculation. The decision was made to use the 6-year average scenario which is found in Table 2 below. Although the Auburn School District tracks single- and multi-family housing developments, the District currently does not have estimated dates of completion and occupancy. Therefore, the projections shown below do not include the student generation numbers calculated in the next section. Auburn School District No. 408 10 Capital Facilities Plan \ Student Generation Factors Planned residential development data is collected to determine the number of new residential units that may be built in the near future. The projected units will have the appropriate Student Generation Factor applied to determine the number of new students that planned residential development might yield. This data was obtained through discussions with the major developers within the District boundaries, the City of Algona, Auburn, Kent, Pacific, King County, and District officials. The student population by residence includes all Auburn School District No. 408 11 Capital Facilities Plan \ approved and tentative tract maps in addition to any planned or proposed development that possibly will occur within the project timeframe. The planned residential development information and phasing estimates are a snapshot of the District as of this time. The information may change and is updated annually. Closely related to the planned residential development units are Student Generation Factors. When applied to planned residential development units, the Student Generation Factors determine how many additional students will be generated from new construction within the District. Two sets of data are used to calculate Student Generation Factors: current student enrollment and current housing data. This information associates each student with a housing unit. Two general housing categories are analyzed: Single Family and Multi-Family. Data showing the number of students generated from previous single- and multi-family developments generates the Student Generation Factor to be applied to future developments. The tables on the next two pages show the information for both single-and multi-family developments. The components include: ● “Development Name” is a list of developments in various stages of occupancy. ● “Year of Full Occupancy” is important because fully-occupied developments stay on the list for five years contributing to the Student Generation Factor. Once the five years is up, the development is removed from the list. ● Also included for each development listed is the number of units, the amount of current units occupancy and the remaining units to be occupied. ● “Feeder Pattern” shows the elementary school associated with each development. ● “Actual Students” is the data of actual students generated from the units already occupied. ● “Student Generation Factors” is the calculation of actual students divided by the number of occupied units. ● “Single Family--2022 and beyond” lists the developments that are in process, but have not yet started to occupy units. Auburn School District No. 408 12 Capital Facilities Plan \ ● The units for these developments are multiplied by the Student Generation Factor for each to determine the “Estimated Students Based on Student Generation Factors” The table at the bottom of the page shows an estimated timeline of when the unoccupied units are scheduled to be occupied. Table 3 shows the single- and multiple-family units to be occupied, the estimated number of students generated and a timeline by year of when those students would potentially be enrolled. The bottom table reflects a cumulative number over a period of 7 school years. SINGLE DEVELOPMENT MULTI FAMILY DEVELOPMENT Table 3 BUILDOUT SCHEDULE Auburn School District No. 408 13 Auburn School District Development Growth Including the Previous 5 Years May 2022 (Based on Current Year Enrollment) SINGLE FAMILY Development Name Year of Full Occupancy Units/ Parcels Current Occupancy To Be Occupied Feeder Elementary Actual Students Student Generation Factors Elem Middle HS Total Elem Middle HS Total Alicia Glenn 2016 28 28 0 Arthur Jacobsen 11 11 8 30 0.393 0.393 0.286 1.071 Anthem (formerly Megan's Meadows)2018 13 13 0 Ilalko 7 4 0 11 0.538 0.308 0.000 0.846 Bridges 2021 380 380 0 Aurthur Jacobsen 105 43 48 196 0.276 0.113 0.126 0.516 Canyon Creek 2018 151 151 0 Evergreen Hts. 32 16 15 63 0.212 0.106 0.099 0.417 Dulcinea 2018 6 6 0 Lea Hill 1 2 1 4 0.167 0.333 0.167 0.667 Hastings 2020 10 10 0 Evergreen Hts. 5 0 0 5 0.500 0.000 0.000 0.500 Hazel View 2018 22 22 0 Lea Hill 10 2 5 17 0.455 0.091 0.227 0.773 Forest Glen at Lakland 2021 30 30 0 Gildo Rey 8 5 3 16 0.267 0.167 0.100 0.533 Lakeland Hills Estates 2017 66 66 0 Bowman Creek 20 19 11 50 0.303 0.288 0.167 0.758 Lakeland: Pinnacle Estates 2018 99 99 0 Bowman Creek 49 22 21 92 0.495 0.222 0.212 0.929 Lozier Ranch 18 7 11 Chinook 1 0 0 1 0.143 0.000 0.000 0.143 Monterey Park 2016 238 238 0 Evergreen Hts. 60 23 27 110 0.252 0.097 0.113 0.462 Mountain View 2018 55 55 0 Evergreen Hts. 9 3 8 20 0.164 0.055 0.145 0.364 Omnia Palisades Plate 16 14 2 Alpac 3 1 4 8 0.214 0.071 0.286 0.571 River Rock 14 5 9 Aurthur Jacobsen 4 0 0 4 0.800 0.000 0.000 0.800 Seremounte 2019 30 30 0 Aurthur Jacobsen 23 11 17 51 0.767 0.367 0.567 1.700 Sonata Hills 2017 69 69 0 Lea Hill 21 8 17 46 0.304 0.116 0.246 0.667 Spencer Place 2017 13 13 0 Hazelwood 7 10 7 24 0.538 0.769 0.538 1.846 Vasiliy 2021 8 8 0 Terminal Park 0 3 0 3 0.000 0.375 0.000 0.375 Willow Place 2021 11 11 0 Lea Hill 2 0 3 5 0.182 0.000 0.273 0.455 Totals 1277 1255 22 378 183 195 756 0.301 0.146 0.155 0.602 Auburn School District No. 408 14 Auburn School District Development Growth Including the Previous 5 Years May 2022 (Based on Current Year Enrollment) SINGLE FAMILY-- 2022 and beyond Estimated Students Based on Development Name Units/ Parcels Current Occupancy To Be Occupied Student Generation Factors Elem Middle HS Total Ashton Park 20-Lot Prelim Plat 20 0 20 6 3 3 12 Carbon Trails 44 0 44 13 6 7 27 Greenvale*17 0 17 5 2 3 10 Knudson 17-Lot Prelim Plat 17 0 17 5 2 3 10 River Glen 12-Lot Plat 12 0 12 4 2 2 7 Robbins Prelim Plat 31-Lot SFR Lots 31 0 31 9 5 5 19 Summit at Kendall Ridge Plat 17 0 17 5 2 3 10 The Alicias 56-Lot Plat 56 0 56 17 8 9 34 Current Partially Occupied Developments 1277 1255 22 7 3 3 13 1491 236 Totals 71 34 37 142 * currently under construction Auburn School District No. 408 15 Auburn School District Development Growth Including the Previous 5 Years May 2022 (Based on Current Year Enrollment) MULTI FAMILY Development Name Year of Full Occupancy Units/ Parcels Current Occupancy To Be Occupied Feeder Elementary Actual Students Student Generation Factors Elem Middle HS Total Elem Middle HS Total Promenade Apts 2018 294 294 0 Lea Hill 172 86 98 356 0.585 0.293 0.333 1.211 The Villas at Auburn 2018 295 295 0 Washington 53 10 21 84 0.180 0.034 0.071 0.285 Copper Gate Apartments 2021 500 500 0 Evergreen Hts. 288 79 81 448 0.576 0.158 0.162 0.896 The Verge Auburn 2022 226 226 0 Terminal Park 3 2 1 6 0.013 0.009 0.004 0.027 Totals 1315 1315 0 516 177 201 894 0.392)0.135)0.153)0.680) 2022 and beyond Units/ Parcels Current Occupancy To Be Occupied Estimated Students Based on Student Generation Factors Lexi 1 190 0 190 75 26 29 129 Current Partially Occupied Developments 1315 1315 0 0 0 0 0 1505 190 75 26 29 129 Auburn School District No. 408 16 BASE DATA - BUILDOUT SCHEDULE STUDENT GENERATION FACTORS ASSUMPTIONS:2022 Single Family Multi-Family 1. Build out estimates are received from developers.Elementary 0.301 0.392 2. Some development data received from Davis Demographics.Middle 0.146 0.135 3. Dates of potential occupancy are unavailable so student projections by year could not be calculated.High 0.155 0.153 Total 0.602 0.680 TABLE 3: Units to be Occupied Single Family Units 236 Multi-Family Units 190 Projected Students Projected Students Elementary (K-5)71 Elementary (K-5)74 Middle (6-8)34 Middle (6-8)26 High (9-12)37 High (9-12)29 Total K-12 142 Total K-12 129 __________________________________________________________________________________________________ Capital Facilities Plan _________________________________________________ Auburn School District No. 408 17 Capital Facilities Plan \ SECTION III - STANDARD OF SERVICE The School Impact Fee Ordinances adopted by King County, the City of Auburn, City of Black Diamond and the City of Kent indicate that each school district must establish a “Standard of Service” in order to ascertain the overall capacity to house its projected student population. The Superintendent of Public Instruction establishes square footage “capacity” guidelines for computing state funding support. The fundamental purpose of the OSPI guidelines is to provide a vehicle to equitably distribute state matching funds for school construction projects. By default these guidelines have been used to benchmark the district’s capacity to house its student population. The OSPI guidelines do not make adequate provision for local district program needs, facility configurations, emerging educational reform, or the dynamics of each student’s educational program. The Auburn School District Standard of Service addresses those local considerations that require space in excess of the OSPI guidelines. The effect on the space requirements for both permanent and relocatable facilities is shown below for each grade articulation pattern. Conditions that may result in potential space needs are provided for information purposes without accompanying computations. OVERVIEW As reflected in enrollment numbers for the 2021-22 school year, the Auburn School District operates 15 elementary schools housing 7,431 students in grades K through 5. The four middle schools house 3,849 students in grades 6 through 8. The District operates three comprehensive senior high schools and one alternate high school, housing 5,595 students in grades 9 through 12. (Source: October 1, 2021 Enrollment) CLASS SIZE The number of pupils per classroom determines the number of classrooms required to house the student population. Specialists create additional space Auburn School District No. 408 18 Capital Facilities Plan \ needs. Class sizes are subject to collective bargaining agreements. Changes to class size agreements can have significant impact on available space. The current pupil/teacher limit across all elementary programs is an average of 20.33 students per teacher. Consistent with this staffing limit, room capacities are set at 20.33 students per room at grades K - 5. At grades 6 - 8 the limit is set at 28.02 students per room. At grades 9 - 12 the limit is set at 28.74 students per room. The OSPI space allocation for each grade articulation level, less the computed reduction for the Auburn School District Standard of Service, determines the District’s capacity to house projected pupil populations. These reductions are shown in the following documents by grade articulation level. ELEMENTARY SCHOOL STANDARD OF SERVICE MIDDLE SCHOOL STANDARD OF SERVICE HIGH SCHOOL STANDARD OF SERVICE STANDARD OF SERVICE COMPUTED TOTALS Auburn School District No. 408 19 ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS STRUCTURED LEARNING FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED SPECIAL EDUCATION The Auburn School District operates a structured learning program for students with moderate to severe disabilities at the elementary school level which currently uses 15 classrooms to provide for 135 students. The housing requirements for this program are provided for in the OSPI space guidelines. No loss of capacity is expected unless population with disabilities grows at a disproportionate rate compared to total elementary population. PATHWAYS SPECIAL EDUCATION The Auburn School District operates an adaptive behavior program for students with behavior disabilities at the elementary school level. The program uses three classrooms to provide for 24 students. The housing requirements for this program exceed the OSPI space allocations. (Three classrooms @ 20.33 - 8 = 12.33) Loss of Permanent Capacity 3 rooms @ 12.33 each =(37) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 12.33 each =(0) Total Capacity Loss =(37) SPECIAL EDUCATION RESOURCE ROOMS The Auburn School District operates a resource room program at the elementary level for special education students requiring instruction to address their specific disabilities. Twenty standard classrooms are required to house this program. The housing requirements for this program are provided for in the OSPI space guidelines at Lakeland Hills, Dick Scobee, and Bowman Creek Elementary Schools. Continued loss of capacity is expected as growth in program is larger than the total elementary population. Loss of Permanent Capacity 17 (20-3) rooms @ 20.33 each =(346) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 20.33 each =(0) Total Capacity Loss =(346) STUDENT TEACHER ENRICHMENT PROGRAM (STEP) The Auburn School District operates an elementary program for highly capable and high achieving students at Grade 4 and Grade 5. This program is housed in three classrooms at Terminal Park Elementary School. Loss of Permanent Capacity 3 rooms @ 20.33 each =(61) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @20.33 each =0 Total Capacity Loss =(61) EARLY CHILDHOOD SPECIAL EDUCATION The Auburn School District operates a pre-school program for young children below age five with disabilities. This program is housed at eleven different elementary schools and currently uses 13 standard classrooms. The housing requirements for this program are not provided for in the OSPI space guidelines. Loss of Permanent Capacity 13 rooms @ 20.33 each =(264) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 20.33 each =(0) Total Capacity Loss =(264) READING LABS The Auburn School District operates a program for students needing remediation and additional language arts instruction. These programs utilize non-standard classroom spaces if available in each elementary school. Five elementary schools do not have non-standard rooms available, thus they are housed in a standard classroom. The housing requirements for this program are not provided for in the OSPI space guidelines. Loss of Permanent Capacity 5 rooms @ 20.33 each =(102) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 20.33 each =(0) Total Capacity Loss =(102) MUSIC ROOMS The Auburn School District elementary music programs require one acoustically-modified classroom at each school for music instruction. The housing requirements are not provided for in the OSPI space guidelines. Loss of Permanent Capacity 15 rooms @ 20.33 each =(305) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 20.33 each =(0) Total Capacity Loss =(305) ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS PROGRAM The Auburn School District operates pullout programs at the elementary school level for students learning English as a second language. This program requires 30 standard classrooms that are not provided for in the OSPI space guidelines. Loss of Permanent Capacity 30 rooms @ 20.33 each =(610) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 20.33 each =(0) Total Capacity Loss =(610) SECOND GRADE TOSA PROGRAM The Auburn School District provides a TOSA reading specialist program for eight highly-impacted elementary schools. This pullout model provides direct instruction to students who are not at grade level and do not receive other services. This program requires eight standard classrooms that are not provided for in the OSPI space guidelines. Loss of Permanent Capacity 8 rooms @ 20.33 each =(163) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 20.33 each =(0) Total Capacity Loss =(163) ELEMENTARY LEARNING SPECIALIST PROGRAM The Auburn School District provides a learning specialist program to increase literacy skills for first and second graders. This program model was originally created from the I-728 funds and currently has the specialist going into existing teacher classrooms, as well as pulling out students into designated classrooms. The district is utilizing classrooms at all fifteen elementary schools. Loss of Permanent Capacity 15 rooms @ 20.33 each =(305) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 20.33 each =(0) Total Capacity Loss =(305) EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM The Auburn School District operates an ECEAP program for 236 pre-school aged children in twelve sections of half-day length and one full-day program. The program is housed at seven elementary schools and utilizes seven standard elementary classrooms and one additional classroom space and seven auxiliary office spaces. The housing requirements for this program are not provided for in the OSPI space guidelines. Loss of Permanent Capacity 7 rooms @ 20.33 each =(142) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 20.33 each =(0) Total Capacity Loss =(142) MIDDLE SCHOOLS SPECIAL EDUCATION RESOURCE ROOMS The Auburn School District operates a resource room program for each grade at the middle school level. This is to accommodate special education students needing remedial instruction to address their specific disabilities. Eleven classrooms are required at the middle school level to provide for approximately 330 students. The housing requirements for this program are not entirely provided for in the OSPI space guidelines. PATHWAYS SPECIAL EDUCATION The Auburn School District offers a self-contained program for students with moderate to severe behavior disabilities. The program is housed at one of the middle schools and uses two classrooms. One of the two classrooms for this program are provided for in the OSPI space allocations. Loss of Permanent Capacity 1 rooms @ 28.02 each =(28) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 28.02 each =(0) Total Capacity Loss (28) STRUCTURED LEARNING CENTER AND DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED SPECIAL EDUCATION The Auburn School District operates seven structured learning classrooms at the middle school level for students with moderate to severe disabilities. Two of the seven classrooms for this program are provided for in the OSPI space allocations. Loss of Permanent Capacity 5 rooms @ 28.02 each =(140) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 28.02 each =(0) Total Capacity Loss (140) ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS PROGRAM The Auburn School District operates a pullout program at the middle school level for English Language Learner students. This program requires eleven standard classrooms that are not provide for in the OSPI space guidelines. Loss of Permanent Capacity 11 rooms @ 28.02 each =(308) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 28.02 each =(0) Total Capacity Loss (308) ROOM UTILIZATION The Auburn School District provides a comprehensive middle school program that includes elective options in special interest areas. Facilities to accommodate special interest activities are not amenable to standard classroom usage. The district averages 95% utilization of all available teaching stations. OSPI Report #3 dated 12/14/11 identifies 148 teaching stations available in the mid-level facilities. The utilization pattern results in a loss of approximately 8 teaching stations. Loss of Permanent Capacity 8 rooms @ 28.02 each =(224) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 28.02 each =(0) Total Capacity Loss (224) HIGH SCHOOLS NATIVE AMERICAN RESOURCE ROOM The Auburn School District operates one resource room to support the education of Native American students at the high school level. One standard classroom is fully dedicated to serve these students. Loss of Permanent Capacity 1 room @ 28.74 each =(29) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 28.74 each =(0) Total Capacity Loss (29) ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS PROGRAM The Auburn School District operates a pullout program at three comprehensive high schools for English Language Learner students. This program requires fourteen standard classrooms that are not provided for in the OSPI space guidelines. Loss of Permanent Capacity 14 rooms @ 28.74 each =(402) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 28.74 each =(0) Total Capacity Loss (402) PATHWAYS SPECIAL EDUCATION The Auburn School District offers a self-contained program for students with moderate to severe behavior diabilities. The program is housed at one of the high schools and uses two classrooms. The housing requirements for this program are not provided for in the OSPI space allocations. Loss of Permanent Capacity 2 rooms @ 28.74 each =(57) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 28.74 each =(0) Total Capacity Loss (57) STRUCTURED LEARNING CENTER PROGRAM The Auburn School District operates twelve structured learning center classrooms for students with moderate to severe disabilities. This program is housed at three high schools requiring standard classrooms that are not provided for in the OSPI space guidelines. Loss of Permanent Capacity 12 rooms @ 28.74 each =(345) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 28.74 each =(0) Total Capacity Loss (345) SPECIAL EDUCATION RESOURCE ROOMS The Auburn School District operates a resource room program at the senior high level for special education students requiring instruction to address their specific learning disabilities. The current high school program requires 15 classrooms to provide program to meet educational needs of the students. The OSPI space guidelines provide for one of the 15 teaching stations. Loss of Permanent Capacity 14 rooms @ 28.74 each =(402) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 28.74 each =(0) Total Capacity Loss (402) PERFORMING ARTS CENTERS Auburn High School includes 25,000 square feet used exclusively for a Performing Arts Center. The OSPI Inventory includes this space when computing unhoused student capacity. This space was not intended for, nor is it usable for, classroom instruction. It was constructed to provide a community center for the performing arts. Using OSPI capacity guidelines, 25,000 square feet computes to 208 unhoused students or 7.25 classrooms. Loss of Permanent Capacity 7.25 rooms @ 28.74 each =(208) ROOM UTILIZATION The Auburn School District provides a comprehensive high school program that includes numerous elective options in special interest areas. Facilities to accommodate special interest activities are not amenable to standard classroom usage. The district averages 95% utilization of all available teaching stations. There are 185 teaching stations available in the senior high facilities. The utilization pattern results in a loss of approximately 10 teaching stations. Loss of Permanent Capacity 10 rooms @ 28.74 each =(287) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 28.74 each =(0) Total Capacity Loss (287) STANDARD OF SERVICE COMPUTED TOTALS ELEMENTARY Loss of Permanent Capacity (2,334) Loss of Temporary Capacity (0) Total Capacity Loss (2,334) MIDDLE SCHOOL Loss of Permanent Capacity (701) Loss of Temporary Capacity (0) Total Capacity Loss (701) SENIOR HIGH Loss of Permanent Capacity (1,732) Loss of Temporary Capacity (0) Total Capacity Loss (1,732) TOTAL Loss of Permanent Capacity (4,766) Loss of Temporary Capacity (0) Total Capacity Loss (4,766) Capital Facilities Plan \ SECTION IV - INVENTORY OF FACILITIES Table IV.1 shows the current inventory of permanent district facilities and their OSPI rated capacities. Table IV.2 shows the number and location of each portable by school. The district uses relocatable facilities to: 1. provide interim housing in school attendance areas uniquely impacted by increasing school populations that would otherwise require continual redistricting, 2. make space available for changing program requirements and offerings determined by unique students needs, and 3. provide housing to cover district needs until permanent facilities can be financed and constructed. Relocatable facilities are deemed to be interim, stop gap measures that often place undesirable stress on existing physical plants. Core facilities (i.e. gymnasiums, restrooms, kitchens, labs, lockers, libraries, etc.) are not of sufficient size or quantity to handle the increased school population served by adding relocatable classrooms. TABLE IV.1 PERMANENT DISTRICT SCHOOL FACILITIES TABLE IV.2 PORTABLE FACILITIES INVENTORY DISTRICT SCHOOL FACILITIES MAP Auburn School District No. 408 25 Capital Facilities Plan District School Facilities Building Capacity Acres Address Elementary Schools Alpac Elementary 505 10.68 310 Milwaukee Boulevard North, Pacific WA, 98047 Arthur Jacobsen Elementary 614 10.02 29205 132 nd Street SE, Auburn WA, 98092 Bowman Creek Elementary 812 22.03 5701 Kersey Way SE, Auburn, WA 98092 Chinook Elementary 461 13.09 3502 Auburn Way South, Auburn WA, 98092 Dick Scobee Elementary 819 9.13 1031 14th Street Northeast, Auburn WA, 98002 Evergreen Heights Elem. 463 10.10 5602 South 316th, Auburn WA, 98001 Gildo Rey Elementary 566 10.05 1005 37th Street Southeast, Auburn WA, 98002 Hazelwood Elementary 594 13.08 11815 Southeast 304th Street, Auburn WA, 98092 Ilalko Elementary 592 14.23 301 Oravetz Place Southeast, Auburn WA, 98092 Lake View Elementary 581 16.44 16401 Southeast 318th Street, Auburn WA, 98092 Lakeland Hills Elementary 594 12.00 1020 Evergreen Way SE, Auburn WA, 98092 Lea Hill Elementary 450 20.24 30908 124th Avenue Southeast, Auburn WA, 98092 Pioneer Elementary 837 11.13 2301 M Street Southeast, Auburn WA, 98002 Terminal Park Elementary 415 6.09 1101 D Street Southeast, Auburn WA, 98002 Washington Elementary 494 5.33 20 E Street Northeast, Auburn WA, 98002 ELEMENTARY CAPACITY 8,797 Middle Schools Cascade Middle School 837 16.94 1015 24th Street Northeast, Auburn WA, 98002 Mt. Baker Middle School 837 30.00 620 37th Street Southeast, Auburn WA, 98002 Olympic Middle School 974 17.45 839 21 st Street SE, Auburn WA, 98002 Rainier Middle School 843 25.54 30620 116th Avenue Southeast, Auburn WA, 98092 MIDDLE SCHOOL CAPACITY 3,491 Senior High Schools Auburn HS 2,127 23.74 711 East Main Street, Auburn WA, 98002 Auburn Mountainview HS 1,443 39.42 28900 124 th Ave SE, Auburn WA, 98092 Auburn Riverside HS 1,387 35.32 501 Oravetz Road, Auburn WA, 98092 West Auburn HS 233 5.26 401 West Main Street, Auburn WA, 98001 HIGH SCHOOL CAPACITY 5,190 TOTAL CAPACITY 17,478 Auburn School District No. 408 26 INVENTORY OF FACILITIES TABLE TEMPORARY/RELOCATABLE IV.2 FACILITIES INVENTORY (June 2022) Elementary Location 2022-2023 2023-2024 2024-2025 2025-2026 2026-2027 2027-2028 2028-2029 Alpac (8) (8) (8) (8) (8) (8) (8) Arthur Jacobsen (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) Bowman Creek (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) Chinook (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) Dick Scobee (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) Evergreen Heights (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) Gildo Rey (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) Hazelwood (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Ilalko (7) (7) (7) (7) (7) (7) (7) Lake View (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Lakeland Hills (7) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) Lea Hill (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) Pioneer (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) Terminal Park (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) Washington (8) (8) (8) (8) (8) (8) (8) Willow Crest (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) TOTAL UNITS (45) (43) (43) (43) (43) (43) (43) TOTAL CAPACITY (915) (874) (874) (874) (874) (874) (874) Middle School Location 2022-2023 2023-2024 2024-2025 2025-2026 2026-2027 2027-2028 2028-2029 Cascade (4)(4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) Mt. Baker (12) (12) (12) (12) (12) (12) (12) Olympic (8) (8) (8) (8) (8) (8) (8) Rainier (11) (11) (11) (11) (11) (11) (11) TOTAL UNITS (35) (35) (35) (35) (35) (35) (35) TOTAL CAPACITY (981) (981) (981) (981) (981) (981) (981) Sr. High School Location 2022-2023 2023-2024 2024-2025 2025-2026 2026-2027 2027-2028 2028-2029 Auburn High School (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) Auburn High School - *TAP (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) Auburn Mountainview (8) (8) (8) (8) (8) (8) (8) Auburn Riverside (17) (17) (17) (17) (17) (17) (17) West Auburn (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) TOTAL UNITS (30) (30) (30) (30) (30) (30) (30) TOTAL CAPACITY (862) (862) (862) (862) (862) (862) (862) *TAP - Transition Assistance Program for 18-21 year old students with special needs. COMBINED TOTAL UNITS (110) (108) (108) (108) (108) (108) (108) COMBINED TOTAL CAPACITY (2,758) (2,717) (2,717) (2,717) (2,717) (2,717) (2,717) __________________________________________________________________________________________________ Capital Facilities Plan _________________________________________________ Auburn School District No. 408 27 nmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmknmAdministration BuildingAlpac ESArthur Jacobsen ESAuburn HSAuburn Mountainview HSAuburn Riverside HSBowman Creek ESChinook ESDick Scobee ESWillow Crest ESEvergreen Heights ESGildo Rey ESCascade MSIlalko ESLake View ESLakeland Hills ESLea Hill ESMt Baker MSOlympic MSPioneer ESRainier MSTerminal Park ESWashington ESWest Auburn HSS T AT E R O U T E 1 6 7AUBURN WAY NAUBURN WAY SA U B U R N -E N U M C LA W R D S E SR 167SR 167SR 18SR 18Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID,IGN, and the GIS User CommunityAUrban Growth BoundarySSEnmnmnmnmHazelwood ES Capital Facilities Plan \ SECTION V - PUPIL CAPACITY While the Auburn School District uses the OSPI inventory of permanent facilities as the data from which to determine space needs, the District’s educational program requires more space than that provided for under the formula. This additional square footage is converted to numbers of pupils in Section III, Standard of Service. The District’s capacity is adjusted to reflect the need for additional space to house its programs. Changes in the capacity of the district recognize new funded facilities. The combined effect of these adjustments is shown on Line B in Tables V.1 and V.2. Table V.1 shows the District’s capacity with relocatable units included and Table V.2 without these units. TABLE V.1 CAPACITY WITH RELOCATABLES TABLE V.2 CAPACITY WITHOUT RELOCATABLES PERMANENT FACILITIES @ SPI RATED CAPACITY Auburn School District No. 408 29 Table V.1 Capacity WITH relocatables 21-22 22-23 23-24 24-25 25-26 26-27 27-28 28-29 A. SPI Capacity (17,478) (17,478) (18,517) (18,752) (18,752) (18,752) (18,752) (19,552) A.1 SPI Capacity-New Elem (650) A.2 SPI Capacity-Replacements (389) (235) A.3 SPI Capacity-New MS 800 B. Capacity Adjustments (2,059) (2,008) (2,042) (2,042) (2,042) (2,042) (2,042) (2,042) C. Net Capacity (15,419) (16,509) (16,710) (16,710) (16,710)16,710. 17,510. 17,510. D. ASD Enrollment 16,880 17,115 17,239 17,341 17,439 17,451 17,458 17,516 3/E. ASD Surplus/Deficit (1,461) (606) (529) (631) (729) (741) 52 (6) CAPACITY ADJUSTMENTS Include Relocatable (2,707) (2,758) (2,724) (2,724) (2,724) (2,724) (2,724) (2,724) 2/Exclude SOS (pg 17)(4,766) (4,766) (4,766) (4,766) (4,766) (4,766) (4,766) (4,766) Total Adjustments (2,059) (2,008) (2,042) (2,042) (2,042) (2,042) (2,042) (2,042) ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Capital Facilities Plan _________________________________________________ Auburn School District No. 408 30 Table V.2 Capacity WITHOUT relocatables 21-22 22-23 23-24 24-25 25-26 26-27 27-28 28-29 A. SPI Capacity (17,478) (17,478) (18,517) (18,752) (18,752) (18,752) (18,752) (19,552) A.1 SPI Capacity-New Elem (650) A.2 SPI Capacity-Replacements (389)(235) A.3 SPI Capacity-New MS 800 B. Capacity Adjustments (4,766) (4,766) (4,766) (4,766) (4,766) (4,766) (4,766) (4,766) C. Net Capacity (12,712) (13,751) (13,986) (13,986) (13,986) (13,986) (14,786) (14,786) D. ASD Enrollment (16,880) (17,115) (17,239) (17,341) (17,439)17,451 17,458 17,516 3/E. ASD Surplus/Deficit (4,168) (3,364) (3,253) (3,355) (3,453) (3,465) (2,672) (2,730) CAPACITY ADJUSTMENTS 2/Exclude SOS (pg 17)(4,766) (4,766) (4,766) (4,766) (4,766) (4,766) (4,766) (4,766) Total Adjustments (4,766) (4,766) (4,766) (4,766) (4,766) (4,766) (4,766) (4,766) 1/New facilities shown in 2019-20 through 2023-24 are funded by the 2016 School Bond Issue. 2/The Standard of Service represents 27.26% of OSPI capacity. When new facilities are added the Standard of Service computations are decreased to 25.42% of SPI capacity. 3/Students beyond the capacity are accommodated in other spaces (commons, library, theater, shared teaching space). __________________________________________________________________________________________________ Capital Facilities Plan _________________________________________________ Auburn School District No. 408 31 PERMANENT FACILITIES @ SPI Rated Capacity (March 2022) A. Elementary Schools Building 21-22 22-23 23-24 24-25 25-26 26-27 27-28 28-29 Washington (494) (494)(494)(494)(494)(494)(494)(494) Terminal Park (415) (415)(650)(650)(650)(650)(650)(650) Dick Scobee (819) (819)(819)(819)(819)(819)(819)(819) Pioneer (837) (837)(837)(837)(837)(837)(837)(837) Chinook (461) (650)(650)(650)(650)(650)(650)(650) Lea Hill (450) (650)(650)(650)(650)(650)(650)(650) Gildo Rey (566) (566)(566)(566)(566)(566)(566)(566) Evergreen Heights (463) (463)(463)(463)(463)(463)(463)(463) Alpac (505) (505)(505)(505)(505)(505)(505)(505) Lake View (581) (581)(581)(581)(581)(581)(581)(581) Hazelwood (594) (594)(594)(594)(594)(594)(594)(594) Ilalko (592) (592)(592)(592)(592)(592)(592)(592) Lakeland Hills (594) (594)(594)(594)(594)(594)(594)(594) Arthur Jacobsen (614) (614)(614)(614)(614)(614)(614)(614) Bowman Creek (812) (812)(812)(812)(812)(812)(812)(812) Willow Crest --(650)(650)(650)(650)(650)(650)(650) ELEMENTARY CAPACITY (8,797) (9,836)(10,071) (10,071) (10,071) (10,071) (10,071) (10,071) B. Middle Schools Building 21-22 22-23 23-24 24-25 25-26 26-27 27-28 28-29 Cascade 837 837 837 837 837 837 837 837 Olympic 974 974 974 974 974 974 974 974 Rainier 843 843 843 843 843 843 843 843 Mt. Baker 837 837 837 837 837 837 837 837 Middle School #5 ------------(800)(800) MIDDLE SCHOOL CAPACITY (3,491) (3,491)(3,491)(3,491)(3,491)(3,491)(4,291)(4,291) C. Senior High Schools Building 21-22 22-23 23-24 24-25 25-26 26-27 27-28 28-29 West Auburn (233) (233)(233)(233)(233)(233)(233)(233) Auburn (2,127) (2,127)(2,127)(2,127)(2,127)(2,127)(2,127)(2,127) Auburn Riverside (1,387) (1,387)(1,387)(1,387)(1,387)(1,387)(1,387)(1,387) Auburn Mountainview (1,443) (1,443)(1,443)(1,443)(1,443)(1,443)(1,443)(1,443) HIGH SCHOOL CAPACITY (5,190) (5,190)(5,190)(5,190)(5,190)(5,190)(5,190)(5,190) COMBINED CAPACITY (17,478) (18,517) (18,752) (18,752) (18,752) (18,752) (19,552) (19,552) __________________________________________________________________________________________________ Capital Facilities Plan _________________________________________________ Auburn School District No. 408 32 Capital Facilities Plan \ SECTION VI - CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION PLAN The formal process used by the Auburn School Board to address current and future facility needs began almost 50 years ago in 1974. The process includes a formation of a community-wide citizen’s committee and throughout the years, these Ad Hoc Committees have conducted work and made recommendations for improvements to the District’s programs and facilities. In October of 2008, after two years of review and study, a Steering Committee made recommendations to the Board regarding the capital improvements program to modernize or replace facilities as recommended by the 2004-05 Citizen’s Ad Hoc Committee. These recommendations, based on specific criteria, led to the Board placing a school improvement bond and capital improvements levy on the ballot in March 2009. Voters did not approve either measure that would have updated 24 facilities and replaced three aging schools. The Board decided to place only a six-year Capital Levy on the ballot in November of 2009, which passed at 55.17%. The levy funded $46.4 million of needed improvement projects at 24 sites over the following seven school years. Planning for the replacement of aging schools was started with educational specifications and schematic design process for the replacement of Auburn High School. The District acquired a site for a future high school in 2008 and a second site for a future middle school in 2009. The District also continued efforts to acquire property around Auburn High School. The Special Education Transitional Assistance Program (TAP) opened in February of 2010. This facility is designed for students with disabilities that are 18 to 21 years old. In the November 2012 election, the community supported the $110 million bond issue for the Auburn High School Modernization and Reconstruction Project at 62%. Construction began in February 2013. The entire new building was occupied by Auburn High School students and staff in the fall of 2015, with site improvements being completed during the 2015-16 school year. In January 2015, a citizen’s ad hoc committee was convened by direction of the Board to address growth and facilities. The major recommendations were to construct two new elementary schools in the next four years and to acquire 3 new elementary school sites as soon as possible. Auburn School District No. 408 33 Capital Facilities Plan \ In the November 2016 election, the community supported the $456 million bond issue for the replacement of six schools and the construction of two new elementary schools at 62.83%. Construction for the replacement of Olympic Middle School began in May 2018 and was completed in Fall 2019. Construction for Bowman Creek Elementary School began in May 2019 and was completed in Fall 2020. Construction for the replacement of Dick Scobee Elementary School began in June 2019 and was completed in Fall 2020. Construction for Willow Crest Elementary School and replacement of Pioneer Elementary School began in May 2020 and was completed in Fall 2021. Construction for replacement of Chinook and Lea HIll Elementary Schools began in June 2021 and will be completed in Fall of 2022. Construction for replacement of Terminal Park Elementary School will begin in June 2022 and will be completed in Fall of 2023. We anticipate running a Capital Bond Measure in 2026. Funds will be used to construct a new middle school on property currently owned by the District, and may include funds to replace one or more existing schools. The table below illustrates the current capital construction plan for the next six years. The exact timelines are wholly dependent on the rate of growth in the school age population. 2022-28 Capital Construction Plan (May 2022) Projected Fund Project Timelines Project Funded Cost Source 21-22 22-23 23-24 24-25 25-26 26-27 27-28 Technology Modernization 2020 Yes $35,000,000 6 Year XX XX XX XX XX XX Cap. Levy 1 / Portable Relocation Yes $1,400,000 Impact Fees XX XX 1/ Property Purchase - 1 New Elementary Yes $7,500,000 Bond Impact Fee XX 2/ Middle School #5 Yes $112,000,000 Bond Impact Fee XX plan XX plan XX const XX const XX open 1/ Replacement of five Elementary Schools Yes $242,500,000 Bond XX const XX const XX open 1 / These funds may be secured through a combination of the 2016 Bond Issue, sale of real property, impact fees, and state matching funds. 2 / These funds may be secured through a combination of a bond issue, impact fees, and state matching funds. Auburn School District No. 408 34 Capital Facilities Plan \ SECTION VII - IMPACT FEES IMPACT FEE COMPUTATION (SPRING 2022) TABLES I - IV TABLES V - VI IMPACT FEE ELEMENTS Auburn School District No. 408 35 IMPACT FEE COMPUTATION (Spring 2022) I. SITE COST PER RESIDENCE Formula: ((Acres x Cost per Acre)/Facility Size) x Student Factor Site Cost/ Facility Student Generation Factor Cost/Cost/ Acreage Acre Capacity Single Family Multi Family Single Family Multi Family Elem Sch (K - 5) 15 $489,248)650 0.3010 0.3920 $3,398.39)$4,425.81) Middle Sch (6 - 8) 25 $0)800 0.1460 0.1350 $0.00)$0.00) Sr High (9 - 12) 40 $0)1500 0.1550 0.1530 $0.00)$0.00) $3,398.39)$4,425.81) II. PERMANENT FACILITY CONSTRUCTION COST PER RESIDENCE Formula: ((Facility Cost/Facility Size) x Student Factor) x (Permanent to Total Square Footage Percentage) Facility Facility % Perm Sq Ft/ Student Generation Factor Cost/Cost/ Single Family Cost Size Total Sq Ft Single Family Multi Family Single Family Multi Family Elem (K - 5)$0)650 0.9485 0.3010 0.3920 $0.00 $0.00 Mid Sch (6 - 8) $134,320,000)800 0.9485 0.1460 0.1350 $23,251.96 $21,500.10 Sr High (9 - 12) $0)1500 0.9485 0.1550 0.1530 $0.00)$0.00) $23,251.96)$21,500.10) III. TEMPORARY FACILITY CONSTRUCTION COST PER RESIDENCE Formula: ((Facility Cost/Facility Size) x Student Factor) x (Temporary to Total Square Footage Ratio) Facility Facility % Temp Sq Ft/ Student Generation Factor Cost/Cost/ Single Family Cost Size Total Sq Ft Single Family Multi Family Single Family Multi Family Elem (K - 5) $250,000)20.33 0.0515 0.3010 0.3920 $190.47)$248.06) Mid Sch (6 - 8) $250,000)28.02 0.0515 0.1460 0.1350 $67.03)$61.98) Sr High (9 - 12) $250,000)28.74 0.0515 0.1550 0.1530 $69.38)$68.49) $326.88)$378.53) IV. STATE MATCH CREDIT PER RESIDENCE Formula: (Boeckh Index x SPI Footage x District Match x Student Factor) Boeckh SPI State Student Generation Factor Cost/Cost/ Index Footage Match Single Family Multi Family Single Family Multi Family Elem (K - 5)$0.00)90 63.83% 0.3010 0.3920 $0.00)$0.00) Mid Sch (6 - 8) $246.83)108 63.83% 0.1460 0.1350 $2,484.27)$2,297.10) Sr High (9 - 12) $0.00)130 63.83% 0.1550 0.1530 $0.00)$0.00) $2,484.27)$2,297.11) _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ Capital Facilities Plan _________________________________________________ Auburn School District No. 408 36 IMPACT FEE COMPUTATION (Spring 2022) V. TAX CREDIT PER RESIDENCE Formula: Expressed as the present value of an annuity TC = PV(interest rate,discount period,average assd value x tax rate) Ave Resid Curr Dbt Serv Bnd Byr Indx Number of Tax Credit Tax Credit Assd Value Tax Rate Ann Int Rate Years Single Family Multi Family Single Family $458,409)$2.13)2.45%10 $8,567.73) Multi Family $223,737)$2.13)2.45%10 $4,181.68) VI. DEVELOPER PROVIDED FACILITY CREDIT Formula: (Value of Site or Facility/Number of dwelling units) Value No. of Units Facility Credit Single Family $0.00)1 $0.00) Multi Family $0.00)1 $0.00) FEE PER UNIT IMPACT FEES RECAP Single Multiple SUMMARY Family Family Site Costs $3,398.39)$4,425.81) Permanent Facility Const Costs $23,251.96)$21,500.10) Temporary Facility Costs $326.88)$378.53) State Match Credit ($2,484.27)($2,297.11) Tax Credit ($8,567.73)($4,181.68) FEE (No Discount)$15,925.22)$19,825.65) FEE (50% Discount)$7,962.61)$9,912.82) Less ASD Discount $0.00)$0.00) Facility Credit $0.00)$0.00) Net Fee Obligation $7,962.61)$9,912.82) _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ Capital Facilities Plan _________________________________________________ Auburn School District No. 408 37 SINGLE FAMILY MULTI FAMILY IMPACT FEE ELEMENTS Elem Mid Sch Sr High Elem Mid Sch Sr High K - 5 6 - 8 9 - 12 K - 5 6 - 8 9 - 12 Student Factor Single Family - Auburn actual count April 2022 0.301 0.146 0.155 0.392 0.135 0.153 New Fac Capacity 650 800 1500 650 800 1500 New Facility Cost Middle School Cost Estimate May 2022 $134,320,000)$134,320,000) Temp Rm Capacity ASD District Standard of Service.20.33 28.02 28.74 20.33 28.02 28.74 Grades K - 5 @ 20.33, 6 - 8 @ 28.02, & 9 - 12 @ 28.74. Temp Facility Cost Relocatables, including site work, set up, and furnishing.$250,000)$250,000)$250,000)$250,000)$250,000)$250,000) Site Acreage ASD District Standard or SPI Minimum 12 25 40 12 25 40 Site Cost/Acre See below $489,248 $489,248 $489,248 $489,248 $489,248 $489,248 Perm Sq Footage 16 Elementary, 4 Middle, and 4 High Schools 1,835,123 1,835,123 1,835,123 1,835,123 1,835,123 1,835,123 Temp Sq Footage 24 x 864 SF + 85 x 896 SF + TAP 2661 99,557 99,557 99,557 99,557 99,557 99,557 Total Sq Footage Sum of Permanent and Temporary above 1,934,680 1,934,680 1,934,680 1,934,680 1,934,680 1,934,680 % - Perm Facilities Permanent Sq. Footage divided by Total Sq. Footage 94.85%94.85%94.85%94.85%94.85%94.85% % - Temp Facilities Temporary Sq. Footage divided by Total Sq. Footage 5.15%5.15%5.15%5.15%5.15%5.15% SPI Sq Ft/Student From OSPI Regulations (WAC 392-343-035)90 108 130 90 108 130 Boeckh Index From OSPI in May 2022 $246.83)$246.83)$246.83)$246.83)$246.83)$246.83) Match % - State From OSPI May 2022 63.83%63.83%63.83%63.83%63.83%63.83% Match % - District Computed 36.17%36.17%36.17%36.17%36.17%36.17% Dist Aver AV King County Department of Assessments March 2022 $458,409)$458,409)$458,409)$223,737)$223,737)$223,737) Debt Serv Tax Rate Current Fiscal Year $2.13)$2.13)$2.13)$2.13)$2.13)$2.13) G. O Bond Int Rate Current Rate - (Bond Buyer 20 Index Feb. 2022 avg)2.45%2.45%2.45%2.45%2.45%2.45% e Site Cost Projections Recent Property Purchase Purchase Purchase Adjusted Projected Annual Sites Latest Date Projected Acquisitions Acreage Year Price Cost/Acre Present Day Inflation Factor Required of Acquisition Cost/Acre Elem. #16 Parcel 1 1.26 2019 $480,000 $382,166 $485,541 10.00%Elementary 2023 $538,173 Elem. #16 Parcel 2 8.19 2019 $2,959,561 $361,363 $459,111 2019 Annual 2020 Annual 2021 Annual 2022 Annual Elem. #16 Parcel 3 0.80 2018 $460,000 $575,000 $803,591 Inflation Factor Inflation Factor Inflation Factor Inflation Factor Total 10.25 $3,899,561 $380,593)$489,248 10.00%5%10.00%10.00% _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ Capital Facilities Plan _________________________________________________ Auburn School District No. 408 38 Honorable Nancy Backus Mayor City of Auburn 25 W Main Street Auburn, WA 98001 Dear Mayor Backus: Enclosed are the Determination of Non-Significance ("DNS") and the Environmental Checklist for the adoption of the Auburn School District 2022 Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan. The comment period on the DNS expires at 4:30 p.m. on June 24, 2022. Sincerely, �'v\L_�� Bob Kenworthy Assistant Director, Capital Projects Enclosures James P. Fugate Administration Building • 915 Fourth Street NE • Auburn, WA 98002-4499 • 253-931-4900 June 7, 2022 SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 1 of 22 SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of checklist: Governmental agencies use this checklist to help determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant. This information is also helpful to determine if available avoidance, minimization or compensatory mitigation measures will address the probable significant impacts or if an environmental impact statement will be prepared to further analyze the proposal. Instructions for applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Please answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. You may need to consult with an agency specialist or private consultant for some questions. You may use “not applicable” or "does not apply" only when you can explain why it does not apply and not when the answer is unknown. You may also attach or incorporate by reference additional studies reports. Complete and accurate answers to these questions often avoid delays with the SEPA process as well as later in the decision- making process. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Instructions for Lead Agencies: Please adjust the format of this template as needed. Additional information may be necessary to evaluate the existing environment, all interrelated aspects of the proposal and an analysis of adverse impacts. The checklist is considered the first but not necessarily the only source of information needed to make an adequate threshold determination. Once a threshold determination is made, the lead agency is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of the checklist and other supporting documents. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: [help] For nonproject proposals (such as ordinances, regulations, plans and programs), complete the applicable parts of sections A and B plus the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). Please completely answer all questions that apply and note that the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proponent," and "affected geographic area," respectively. The lead agency may exclude (for non-projects) questions in Part B - Environmental Elements –that do not contribute meaningfully to the analysis of the proposal. A. Background [help] 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: [help] This is a non-project planning proposal for the 2022 Auburn School District Capital Facilities Plan. The Auburn School District prepares an annual Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) in accordance with the Washington State Growth Management Act for the purposes of planning for the District's facilities needs. The CFP covers a six-year planning period and its purpose is to provide jurisdictions that it serves with a snapshot of projected student enrollment and school SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 2 of 22 capacities over a six-year planning period. The CFP also includes planning for projects needed to address school capacity deficits and provides a basis for school impact fee eligibility. Once the Board of Directors considers and adopts the CFP, it is submitted to the jurisdictions served by the District for their respective consideration. King County may incorporate the District's Capital Facilities Plan into its Comprehensive Plan. The cities of Algona, Auburn, Black Diamond, Kent, and Pacific may also incorporate the District's Capital Facilities Plan into their respective Comprehensive Plans. A copy of the District's draft Capital Facilities Plan is available for review in the District's offices. 2. Name of applicant: [help] Auburn School District No. 408. 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: [help] 915 4th Street NE Auburn, WA 98002 Bob Kenworthy, Assistant Director, Capital Projects (253) 931-4826 4. Date checklist prepared: [help] June 3, 2022 5. Agency requesting checklist: [help] Auburn School District No. 408 is acting as the lead agency for environmental review and SEPA compliance for this proposal. 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): [help] The Capital Facilities Plan is scheduled to be adopted by the District’s Board of Directors on or about June 27, 2022. After adoption, the District will forward the Capital Facilities Plan to King County and the cities of Algona, Auburn, Black Diamond, Kent, and Pacific for inclusion in each jurisdiction’s Comprehensive Plan. The District will continue to update the Capital Facilities Plan annually. The projects identified in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be subject to project-level environmental review at the appropriate time during project proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. [help] This is a nonproject action. However, the Capital Facilities Plan identifies the capital improvement projects that the District plans to implement over the next six years. The District plans to complete construction of the replacement of two new elementary schools and open the schools in the fall of 2022, start the replacement of a third elementary school in June 2022, with completion in fall of 2023, and commence planning, subject to funding approval, of a new SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 3 of 22 middle school to be constructed by the end of the six year planning period. Additional projects may include replacing one or more existing schools. The District may also add or relocate portable facilities All planned projects have been or will be subject to project-level environmental review at the appropriate time during project proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. [help] This proposal is a nonproject planning document. The projects identified in the Capital Facilities Plan have undergone or will undergo additional environmental review, when appropriate, as they are developed. For projects in progress, applicable environmental information is available from the District upon request and includes: Chinook Elementary Replacement: Determination of Nonsignificance issued 11/23/2020 Lea Hill Elementary Replacement: Determination of Nonsignificance issued 11/30/2020 Terminal Park Elementary Replacement: Determination of Nonsignificance issued 11/24/2021 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. [help] This is a nonproject action and addresses the entirety of the Auburn School District. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. [help] As a nonproject planning document, the CFP itself does not require permitting. King County will review the Capital Facilities Plan for the purposes of updating the County’s school impact fee ordinance and incorporating the CFP by reference as a part of the Capital Facilities Element of the King County Comprehensive Plan. The cities of Algona, Auburn, Black Diamond, Kent, and Pacific may also review and take action to adopt the Capital Facilities Plan reference as a part of the Capital Facilities Element of each jurisdiction’s Comprehensive plan and update their respective school impact fee ordinances. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) [help] This is a nonproject action. This proposal involves the adoption of the Auburn School District's 2022 Capital Facilities Plan for the purpose of planning the District's facilities needs. The SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 4 of 22 District anticipates King County and the cities of Algona, Auburn, Black Diamond, Kent, and Pacific will adopt the Capital Facilities Plan as part of the Capital Facilities Element of each jurisdiction’s Comprehensive Plan. The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be subject to project-level environmental review when appropriate. A copy of the Capital Facilities Plan may be viewed at the District's offices. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. [help] The Capital Facilities Plan will affect the Auburn School District. The District includes an area of approximately 62 square miles. A portion of King County is served by the District. The cities of Algona, Auburn, Black Diamond, Kent, and Pacific are also served by the District. A detailed map of the District's boundaries can be viewed at the District's offices. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS [help] 1. Earth [help] a. General description of the site: [help] (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other _____________ This is a nonproject action. Generally, the Auburn School District is comprised of a variety of topographic land forms and gradients. Specific topographic characteristics of the sites at which the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan are located have been or will be identified during project-level environmental review when appropriate. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? [help] This is a nonproject action. Specific slope characteristics at the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified during project-level environmental review. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any agricultural land of long-term commercial significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of these soils. [help] This is a nonproject action. Specific soil types found at the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified during project-level environmental review when appropriate. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. [help] SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 5 of 22 This is a nonproject action. It is possible that unstable soils may exist within the Auburn School District. Specific soil limitations on individual project sites have been or will be identified at the time of project-level environmental review when appropriate. e. Describe the purpose, type, total area, and approximate quantities and total affected area of any filling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. [help] This is a nonproject action. Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be subject, when appropriate, to project-level environmental review and local approval at the time of proposal. Proposed grading projects, as well as the purpose, type, quantity, and source of any fill materials to be used have been or will be identified at that time. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. [help] This is a nonproject action. It is possible that erosion could occur as a result of the construction projects currently proposed in the Capital Facilities Plan. The erosion impacts of the individual projects have been or will be evaluated on a site-specific basis at the time of project-level environmental review when appropriate. Individual projects have been or will be subject to local approval processes. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? [help] This is a nonproject action. The construction projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have required or will require the construction of impervious surfaces. The extent of any impervious cover constructed will vary with each project included in the Capital Facilities Plan. This issue has been or will be addressed during project-level environmental review when appropriate. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: [help] This is a nonproject action. The erosion potential of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan and appropriate control measures have been or will be addressed during project-level environmental review when appropriate. Relevant erosion reduction and control requirements have been or will be met 2. Air [help] a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal during construction, operation, and maintenance when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. [help] This is a nonproject action. Various emissions, many construction-related, may result from the individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan. The air-quality impacts of each project have been or will be evaluated during project-level environmental review when appropriate. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 6 of 22 b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. [help] This is a nonproject action. Any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect the individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project-level environmental review when appropriate. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: [help] This is a nonproject action. The individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be subject to project-level environmental review and relevant local approval processes when appropriate. The District has been or will be required to comply with all applicable air regulations and air permit requirements. Proposed measures specific to the individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project-level environmental review when appropriate. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 3. Water [help] a. Surface Water: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. [help] This is a nonproject action. There is a network of surface water bodies within the Auburn School District. The surface water bodies that are in the immediate vicinity of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified during project-level environmental review when appropriate. When necessary, the surface water regimes and flow patterns have been or will be researched and incorporated into the designs of the individual projects. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. [help] This is a nonproject action. The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may require work near the surface waters located within the Auburn School District. Applicable local approval requirements have been or will be satisfied 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. [help] This is a nonproject action. Information with respect to the placement or removal of fill and dredge material as a component of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan has been or will be provided during project-level environmental review when appropriate. Applicable local regulations have been or will be satisfied. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 7 of 22 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. [help] This is a nonproject action. Any surface water withdrawals or diversions required in connection with the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project-level environmental review when appropriate. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. [help] This is a nonproject action. Each project included in the Capital Facilities Plan, if located in a floodplain area, has been or will be required to meet applicable local regulations for flood areas. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. [help] This is a nonproject action. Specific information regarding the discharge of waste materials that may be required as a result of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan has been or will be provided during project-level environmental review when appropriate. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. b. Ground Water: 1) Will groundwater be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? If so, give a general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn from the well. Will water be discharged to groundwater? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. [help] This is a nonproject action. Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may impact groundwater resources. The impact of the individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan on groundwater resources has been or will be addressed during project-level environmental review when appropriate. Each project has been or will be subject to applicable local regulations. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals. . . ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. [help] This is a nonproject action. The discharges of waste material that may take place in connection with the projects included in the Plan have been or will be addressed during project-level environmental review. c. Water runoff (including stormwater): SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 8 of 22 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. [help] This is a nonproject action. Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may have stormwater runoff consequences. Specific information regarding the stormwater impacts of each project has been or will be provided during project-level environmental review when appropriate. Each project has been or will be subject to applicable local stormwater regulations. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. [help] This is a nonproject action. The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may result in the discharge of waste materials into ground or surface waters. The specific impacts of each project on ground and surface waters have been or will be identified during project-level environmental review when appropriate. Each project has been or will be subject to all applicable regulations regarding the discharge of waste materials into ground and surface waters. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 3) Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so, describe. [help] This is a nonproject action. Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns. The impact of the individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan on drainage patterns has been or will be addressed during project-level environmental review when appropriate. Each project has been or will be subject to applicable local regulations. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water, and drainage pattern impacts, if any: [help] This is a nonproject action. Specific measures to reduce or control runoff impacts associated with the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project-level environmental review when appropriate. 4. Plants [help] a. Check the types of vegetation found on the site: [help] ____deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other ____evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other ____shrubs ____grass ____pasture ____crop or grain ____ Orchards, vineyards or other permanent crops. ____ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 9 of 22 ____water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other ____other types of vegetation This is a nonproject action. A variety of vegetative zones are located within the Auburn School District. Inventories of the vegetation located on the sites of the projects proposed in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be developed during project-level environmental review when appropriate. b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? [help] This is a nonproject action. Some of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may require the removal or alteration of vegetation. The specific impacts on vegetation of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified during project- level environmental review when appropriate. c. List threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. [help] This is a nonproject action. The specific impacts to these species from the individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be determined during project-level environmental review when appropriate. Investigation will include use of the Washington State Department of Fisheries and Wildlife’s Priority Habitats and Species database. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: [help] This is a nonproject action. Measures to preserve or enhance vegetation at the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified during project-level environmental review when appropriate. Each project is or will be subject to applicable local landscaping requirements. e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site. [help] This is a nonproject action. Inventories of noxious weeks and invasive species located on or near sites of the projects proposed in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project-level environmental review when appropriate. 5. Animals [help] a. List any birds and other animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site. [help] Examples include: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other ________ This is a nonproject action. An inventory of species that have been observed on or near the sites SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 10 of 22 of the projects proposed in the Capital Facilities Plan has been or will be developed during project-level environmental review when appropriate. Investigation will include use of the Washington State Department of Fisheries and Wildlife’s Priority Habitats and Species database. b. List any threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. [help] This is a nonproject action. Inventories of threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be developed during project-level environmental review when appropriate. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. [help] This is a nonproject action. The impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan on migration routes have been or will be addressed during project-level environmental review when appropriate. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: [help] This is a nonproject action. Appropriate measures to preserve or enhance wildlife have been or will be determined during project-level environmental review when appropriate. e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site. [help] This is a nonproject action. Inventories of invasive animal species located on or near sites of the projects proposed in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project- level environmental review when appropriate. 6. Energy and Natural Resources [help] 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. [help] This is a nonproject action. The Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction regulations require completion of a life-cycle cost analysis of all heating, lighting, and insulation systems before it will permit specific school projects to proceed. The energy needs of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be determined at the time of specific engineering and site design planning when appropriate. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. [help] This is a nonproject action. The impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan on the solar potential of adjacent projects have been or will be addressed during project-level environmental review when appropriate. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 11 of 22 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: [help] This is a nonproject action. Energy conservation measures proposed in connection with the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be considered during project-level environmental review when appropriate. 7. Environmental Health [help] a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. [help] This is a nonproject action. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 1) Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses. [help] This is a nonproject action. Known or possible contamination on sites intended for any projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified and described during project-level environmental review when appropriate. 2) Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity. [help] This is a nonproject action. Hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect the project development and design on sites intended for any projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified and described during project- level environmental review when appropriate. 3) Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced during the project's development or construction, or at any time during the operating life of the project. [help] This is a nonproject action. Toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced during the development, construction, or operation of any projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified and described during project-level environmental review when appropriate. 4) Describe special emergency services that might be required. [help] This is a nonproject action. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 5) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: [help] This is a nonproject action. The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan comply or will comply with all current codes, standards, rules, and regulations. Individual projects have been or will be subject to project-level environmental review and local approval at the time they are SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 12 of 22 developed, when appropriate. b. Noise [help] 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? [help] This is a nonproject action. A variety of noises from traffic, construction, residential, commercial, and industrial areas exists within the Auburn School District. The specific noise sources that may affect the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified during project-level environmental review when appropriate. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indi- cate what hours noise would come from the site. [help] This is a nonproject action. The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may create normal construction noises that will exist on a short-term basis only. The construction projects could increase traffic around the construction sites on a short-term basis. Because the construction of additional school capacity will increase the capacity of the District’s school facilities, there may be a slight increase in traffic-related or operations-related noise on a long-term basis. Similarly, the placement of portables at school sites will increase the capacity of school facilities and may create a slight increase in traffic-related or operations- related noise. Neither of these increases is expected to be significant. The specific noise sources and levels that may result from the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified during project-level environmental review when appropriate. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: [help] This is a nonproject action. The projected noise impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be evaluated and mitigated during project-level environmental review when appropriate. Each project is or will be subject to applicable local regulations. 8. Land and Shoreline Use [help] a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Will the proposal affect current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe. [help] This is a nonproject action. There are a variety of land uses in the Auburn School District, including residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, utility, open space, recreational, etc. Impacts of projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan on land uses on nearby or adjacent properties have been or will be identified and described during project-level environmental review when appropriate. b. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If so, describe. How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will be converted to other uses as a result of the proposal, if any? If resource lands have not been designated, how many acres in farmland or forest land tax status will be converted to nonfarm or nonforest use? [help] SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 13 of 22 This is a nonproject action. Identification of the use of sites intended for any projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan as working farmlands or working forest land has been or will be identified and described during project-level environmental review when appropriate. 1) Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides, tilling, and harvesting? If so, how: [help] This is a nonproject action. Any projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be analyzed during project-level environmental review when appropriate to determine if the proposal will affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest lands. c. Describe any structures on the site. [help] This is a nonproject action. Any structures located on the sites for the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified and described during project-level environmental review when appropriate. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? [help] This is a nonproject action. Any structures that will be demolished as a result of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan, if any, have been or will be identified during project- level environmental review when appropriate. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? [help] This is a nonproject action. The sites that are covered under the Capital Facilities Plan have a variety of zoning classifications under the applicable zoning codes. Site-specific zoning information has been or will be identified during project-level environmental review when appropriate. All sites anticipated for school construction are zoned for such use. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? [help] This is a nonproject action. Inventories of the comprehensive plan designations for the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be completed during project-level environmental review when appropriate. All sites anticipated for school construction are designated for such use. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? [help] This is a nonproject action. Shoreline master program designations of the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified during project-level environmental review when appropriate. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 14 of 22 h. Has any part of the site been classified as a critical area by the city or county? If so, specify. [help] This is a nonproject action. Any critical areas located on the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified during project-level environmental review. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? [help] The Auburn School District currently serves approximately 16,880 students. Enrollment is expected to increase to approximately 17,458 students by the 2027-2028 school year. The District employs approximately 1,700 people. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? [help] This is a nonproject action. Any displacement of people caused by the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan has been or will be evaluated during project-level environmental review when appropriate. However, it is not anticipated that the Capital Facilities Plan, or any of the projects contained therein, will displace any people. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: [help] This is a nonproject action. Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be subject to project-level environmental review and local approval when appropriate. Proposed mitigating measures have been or will be developed at that time, when necessary. L. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: [help] This is a nonproject action. The compatibility of the specific projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan with existing uses and plans has been or will be assessed as part of the comprehensive planning process and during project-level environmental review when appropriate. m. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts to agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial significance, if any: [help] This is a nonproject action. The compatibility of the specific projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan with nearby agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial significance has been or will be identified and described during project-level environmental review when appropriate. 9. Housing [help] a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, mid- dle, or low-income housing. [help] This is a nonproject action. No housing units would be provided in connection with the completion of SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 15 of 22 the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. [help] This is a nonproject action. The impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan on existing housing have been or will be evaluated during project-level environmental review when appropriate. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: [help] This is a nonproject action. Measures to reduce or control any housing impacts caused by the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project-level environmental review when appropriate. 10. Aesthetics [help] a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? [help] This is a nonproject action. The aesthetic impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project-level environmental review when appropriate. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? [help] This is a nonproject action. The aesthetic impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project-level environmental review when appropriate. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: [help] This is a nonproject action. Appropriate measures to reduce or control the aesthetic impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be determined on a project-level basis when appropriate. 11. Light and Glare [help] a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? [help] This is a nonproject action. The light or glare impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project-level environmental review, when appropriate. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? [help] SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 16 of 22 This is a nonproject action. The light or glare impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project-level environmental review when appropriate. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? [help] This is a nonproject action. Off-site sources of light or glare that may affect the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be evaluated during project-level environmental review when appropriate. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: [help] This is a nonproject action. Proposed measures to mitigate light and glare impacts have been or will be addressed during project-level environmental review when appropriate. 12. Recreation [help] a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? [help] This is a nonproject action. There are a variety of formal and informal recreational facilities within the Auburn School District. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. [help] This is a nonproject action. The recreational impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project-level environmental review when appropriate. The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan, including proposed new school facilities, may enhance recreational opportunities and uses. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: [help] This is a nonproject action. Adverse recreational effects of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be subject to mitigation during project-level environmental review when appropriate. School facilities usually provide recreational facilities to the community in the form of play fields and gymnasiums. 13. Historic and cultural preservation [help] a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are over 45 years old listed in or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers ? If so, specifically describe. [help] This is a nonproject action. Any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are over 45 years old listed in or proposed eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers on or near sites intended for any projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified and described during project-level environmental review when appropriate. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 17 of 22 b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources. [help] This is a nonproject action. Any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation, or material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance, on or near sites intended for any projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified and described during project-level environmental review when appropriate. Research will be conducted using the Washington State Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation’s Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data (WISAARD) resource. c. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the department of archeology and historic preservation, archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS data, etc. [help] This is a nonproject action. Research will be conducted using the Washington State Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation’s Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data (WISAARD) resource. Appropriate and relevant methods utilized at sites intended for any projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified and described during project-level environmental review when appropriate. d. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may be required. [help] This is a nonproject action. Any needed relevant measures proposed to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to resources, including necessary plans and permits, for any projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified and described during project-level environmental review when appropriate. 14. Transportation [help] a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. [help] This is a nonproject action. The impact on public streets and highways of the individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project-level environmental review when appropriate. b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so, generally describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? [help] This is a nonproject action. The relationship between the specific projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan and public transit has been or will be addressed during project-level environmental review when appropriate. Public school buses do serve school facilities. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 18 of 22 c. How many additional parking spaces would the completed project or non-project proposal have? How many would the project or proposal eliminate? [help] This is a nonproject action. Inventories of parking spaces located at the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan and the impacts of specific projects on parking availability have been or will be conducted during project-level environmental review when appropriate. d. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian, bicycle or state transportation facilities, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). [help] This is a nonproject action. The need for new streets or roads, or improvements to existing streets and roads has been or will be addressed during project-level environmental review when appropriate. e. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. [help] This is a nonproject action. Use of water, rail, or air transportation has been or will be addressed during project-level environmental review when appropriate. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project or proposal? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the volume would be trucks (such as commercial and nonpassenger vehicles). What data or transportation models were used to make these estimates? [help] This is a nonproject action. The traffic impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project-level environmental review when appropriate. g. Will the proposal interfere with, affect or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products on roads or streets in the area? If so, generally describe. [help] This is a nonproject action. The potential impact of any project proposed in the Capital Facilities Plan on the movement of agricultural or forest products on roads and streets has been or will be addressed during project-level environmental review when appropriate. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: [help] This is a nonproject action. The mitigation of traffic impacts associated with the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan has been or will be addressed during project-level environmental review when appropriate. 15. Public Services [help] a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. [help] SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 20 of 22 D. supplemental sheet for nonproject actions [help] (IT IS NOT NECESSARY to use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; pro- duction, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? To the extent the Capital Facilities Plan makes it more likely that school facilities will be constructed, some of these environmental impacts may be more likely. Additional impermeable surfaces, such as roofs, access roads, and sidewalks could increase stormwater runoff, which could enter surface or ground waters. Heating systems, emergency generators, and other school equipment that is installed pursuant to the Capital Facilities Plan could result in air emissions. The projects identified in the Capital Facilities Plan should not require the production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances, with the possible exception of the storage of diesel fuel or gasoline for emergency generating equipment. The District does not anticipate a significant increase in the production of noise from its facilities, with the possible exception of noise production due to short-term construction activities or the presences of additional students on a site. Construction impacts related to noise and air would be short term and are not anticipated to be significant. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: The CFP is a nonproject planning document. Proposed measures to mitigate any such increases described above have been or will be addressed during project-level environmental review when appropriate. Stormwater detention and runoff will meet applicable County and/or City requirements and may be subject to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permitting requirements. Noise limits will be consistent with local and or state regulations. Discharges to air will meet applicable air pollution control requirements. Fuel oil will be stored in accordance with local and state requirements. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? The Capital Facilities Plan itself will have no impact on these elements of the environment. The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may require clearing plants off of the project sites and a loss to animal habitat. These impacts have been or will be addressed in more detail during project-level environmental review when SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 21 of 22 appropriate. The projects included in the Plan are not likely to generate significant impacts on fish or marine life. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: Specific measures to protect and conserve plants, animals, and fish cannot be identified at this time. Specific mitigation proposals will be identified, however, during project- level environmental review when appropriate. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? While the CFP is a nonproject planning document, the construction of the projects identified in the Capital Facilities Plan will require the consumption of energy. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will be constructed in accordance with applicable energy efficiency standards and requirements. 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? The Capital Facilities Plan and individual projects contained therein should have no impact on these resources. Specific review will be conducted, however, during project- level environmental review when the scope of each project is defined. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: No specific measures are being proposed at this time. Appropriate measures have been or will be proposed during project-level environmental review when appropriate. Updates of this Plan will be coordinated with King County and the cities of Algona, Auburn, Black Diamond, Kent, and Pacific as part of the Growth Management Act process, one of the purposes of which is to protect critical areas. To the extent the District's facilities planning process is part of the overall growth management planning process, these resources are more likely to be protected. Future projects would comply with permitting regulations regarding environmentally sensitive areas. 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? The Capital Facilities Plan will not have any impact on land or shoreline use that is incompatible with existing comprehensive plans, land use codes, or shoreline management plans. The District does not anticipate that the Capital Facilities Plan or the projects contained therein will affect land and shoreline uses in the area served by the District in any manner not currently permitted or designated for the intended use. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 22 of 22 No measures to avoid or reduce land use impacts resulting from the Capital Facilities Plan or the projects contained therein are proposed at this time. As necessary when a scope for a specific project identified in the CFP is defined, the District will identify any appropriate measures. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? While the CFP is a nonproject planning document, the school construction projects identified in the Capital Facilities Plan may create temporary increases in the District's need for public services and utilities. The new school facilities will increase the District's demands on transportation and utilities. These increases are not expected to be significant. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: No measures to reduce or respond to such demands are proposed at this time. As necessary when a scope for a specific project identified in the CFP is defined, the District will identify any appropriate measures. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. As a nonproject planning document, the Capital Facilities Plan will not conflict with any laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. Ongoing or proposed projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have or will comply with all applicable environmental laws and regulations. The Washington Growth Management Act (the GMA) outlines 13 broad goals, including protecting the environment and adequate provision of necessary public facilities and services. Schools are among these necessary facilities and services. The Capital Facilities Plan satisfies the requirements of RCW 36.70A.070, and to identify additional school facilities necessary to meet the educational needs of the growing student populations anticipated in the District. IERINGER SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 343 Ed u c at in g e v e ry c hi l d f o r C on f id e n c e t od a y a nd C o nt ri bu t io n t om orro w June 1, 2022 Jeff Tate Director of Planning City of Auburn 25 West Main Street Auburn, WA 98001-4998 Subject: Dieringer School District – Mitigation Impact Fees Dear Mr. Tate: The Dieringer School District has completed the Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Plan for 2020-2021 to 2029-2030. In preparing the updated Capital Facilities Plan the District once more reviewed the question of the School Impact Fee Calculation. Based on the analysis of the District’s site acquisition and permanent facility costs, the Dieringer School District Board of Directors has determined that the appropriate mitigation impact fee for the permitting of a single family residence is $6,167 and $2,060 per unit for a multiple family residence. A review of the fees collected by the City of Auburn, on behalf of other school districts within the city, serves to support the validity of the Dieringer requested fee of $6,167 and $2,060 per unit for a multiple family residence. The property values within the boundaries of the Dieringer School District are the highest in Pierce County; this causes site acquisition to be expensive and contributes to overall higher construction costs than other school districts experience. Therefore, it is most appropriate for the mitigation impact fees collected on behalf of the Dieringer School District to be adjusted to more closely approximate the fees collected for other local school districts. The Dieringer School District requests that the City of Auburn adjust the mitigation impact fees collected on behalf of the District to the $6,167 and $2,060 per unit for a multiple family residence established in the Capital Facilities Plan for 2020-2021 to 2029-2030. Please let me know if you need further information by contacting me at (253) 862-2537. Sincerely, Michael Farmer Superintendent 1320 – 178th Avenue East * Lake Tapps, Washington 98391 * (253 )862-2537 * FAX (253) 862-8472 Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Plan 2022-2027 DRAFT Board Approval scheduled on September 26, 2022 DIERINGER SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 343 1320-178th A venue East Lake Tapps, Washington 98391 (253)862-2537 BOARD OF DIRECTORS Megan Bearor Mike Skagen Greg Johnson Scott Reisnouer Chelsea Steiner Michael Farmer, Superintendent DieringerEducating every child forConfidence today andContribution tomorrow Dieringer School District No. 343 d An Overview Established in 1890, Dieringer School District consolidated with Lake Tapps School District in 1936. The District's three schools, Lake Tapps Elementary School, Dieringer Heights Elementary School and North Tapps Middle School, provide K through 8th grade education, and serve as hubs for community activities as well. Dieringer School District #343 is located in unincorporated Pierce County, bounded on the east by the White River, on the west by the Stuck River, on the north by the city of Auburn, and on the south by the cities of Bonney Lake and Sumner. The District surrounds the northern two-thirds of Lake Tapps and covers approximately 5.5 square miles. The current student enrollment is approximately 1,405 students in grades kindergarten through eight. Students in grades first through third are housed at Lake Tapps Elementary, constructed in 2005 as a replacement project. Construction was complete on an addition in the September 2017. Dieringer Heights Elementary opened in the fall of 2000 and is home to students in kindergarten, fourth and fifth grade. Dieringer Heights Elementary also houses two inclusion preschool classrooms. Originally constructed in 1992 and added on to in 1998 and 2009, North Tapps Middle School houses students in grades sixth-eighth. The district supports an additional 560 high school students who may select to attend any public high school. The majority chose to attend Auburn Riverside, Sumner and Bonney Lake High Schools. The district has a long standing history of providing high quality education for all our students. Our goal is for our students to gain the skills that will allow them to become successful, confident, contributing members of society. Dieringer is composed of students who come to school well prepared and eager to learn. Parents are concerned with student success and provide outstanding support for their children and the Dieringer School District. The PTA and many volunteers contribute countless hours and resources to our schools and students. The community supports the schools through the passage of funding issues to support bus acquisition, student access to current technology and the construction of school facilities. Impact fees, including interest, are held in reserve until used to meet District identified needs for site acquisition, additional facilities and improvements an/or technology capital expenditures. DIERINGER SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 343 Capital Facilities Plan Update, 2022 Current Facilities Inventory of Public Schools NAME CAPACITY LOCATION Lake Tapps Elementary 357 1320-178th Ave E., Lake Tapps Dieringer Heights Elementary 508 21727 -34 th St. E., Lake Tapps North Tapps Middle School 536 20029-12th St., E., Lake Tapps High School 0 TOTAL 1,401 r.1ZH luz:ff11'q?=rW?ll?an?'Wilzaz1-lZRI)11.J:"l.,l:ll $1!l?11lr-?01%(r'if!1aa!Ifflii il?i ll101lIiIi l=k991iil zelili li t'-j.'6/'? ' .'il."J4,Ill-Al'fml mci:Ia0W##'7'?ntoB@ Dieringer School District Proposed HousingPotential Enrollment InereaseJune 2020Proposed Housing Units:*Single Family- 224 x .381 generation factor = 85.3 students K-8Enrollment Impact:85.3 students K-8Estimated 17.1 students a year over the period 2021-2026Potential emollment increase = 5.6o/o (based on 1,523 enrollment 4/20)Increase per grade level = 9.5 students (based on 9 grade bands)Approximately students per school: 28.4* *District enrollment based on 4/ 19 and potential growth =1,608.3 / 1654.3District program capacity = 1,401 students*Generation factor based on an average of 2019 Sumner .429 and Auburn .333* *Numbers at'e without and with preschool students, respectively Enrollment ProjectionsThe Dieringer School District is located in an area that continues to experience gromh.This growth can be noted by reviewing the following indicators: enrollment trend data,proposed housing development, and the mitigation impact fees received for newconstruction.The District continues to experience steady growth in student enrollment. This hasslightly exceeded the Pierce County and Puget Sound Educational Service District(PSESD) enrollment growth over the same period. A review of proposed constructionwithin the borders of the Dieringer School District indicates that the growth trend can beexpected to continue over the next four years and beyond. The growth this year has beenhigher than anticipated. There are 224 single family residents slated for constructionwithin the next five years. These projects, together with individual lots and general in-migration, are anticipated to generate an additional 85.3 students in kindergarten througheighth grade.To partially address this growth, the District passed a 2006 bond issue to construct anadditional five classrooms at Dieringer Heights Elementary. Those classrooms werecompleted and occupied in 2009. The bond issue also provided for the addition of anauxiliary gym, health and fitness classroom, and four science rooms at North TappsMiddle School. Those projects were completed in 2009 and the new instructional spacesare in use. At Lake Tapps Elementary School the constmction of 3 new classrooms wascompleted in September 2017. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT/POTENTIAL ENROLLMENT INCREASE#1 Fairweather Cove Estates (18)28 lots total8 lots sold (Lived in) (1 on 2 lots combined)18 active lot listings2 active construction2011 permit for PSE replacing 3 power poles1600-2000 block of 16th st. @ the 17500-17800 block of Sumner-Tapps Hwy.#2 Rainier Plateau (10)10 lots totalPermit approvedBehind DHESNo active buildingEnd of 34'h St.#3 Tapps Meadows (6)lOLots4 completedAcross from Snag Island#4 Country Creek Estates (1)9 out 10 lots builtRemaining lot filed for Plat Alteration 2007Off 15th near Edwards Road#5 Forest Canyon Estates (124)l year extension approved (Applied 3/2018)Owner Kenneth Atkinson124 lots; Behind Al Lago/off Forest Canyon Rd.#6 The Ridge at Lake Tapps (45)No active permits45 Single Family Lots -32XX Sumner Tapps Hwy. E./next to al Lago#7 Maryanski Plat (4)Short Plat (4 or less. Usually 6-month completion time)- 4 Single Family Lots; 40"l St. E and 230"l Ave E- No active buildingToward Wildview Ridge#8 Franklin Northlake (16)-Active site; pre-build-16 Single Family Lots-off Lake Tapps PkwySingle Family Units to be built: 224 Standard of ServiceThe Dieringer School District houses children in elementary schools serving studentspreschool through fifth grade and a middle school that houses grades six through eighth.High school students, grades nine through twelve, attend adjacent high schools, primarilyin the Auburn and Sumner School Districts.Dieringer School District follows a traditional school calendar beginning in earlySeptember and completing in mid June. The daily school schedules begin between 7:49and 8:45 a.m. and end between 2:17 and 3:15 p.m.The Dieringer School District standard of service is based on class size and programdecisions adopted by the Dieringer School District Board of Directors. Based on thelegislative funding regarding class size, the targeted number of students per classroomkindergarten through third grade 17, fourth through fifth and sixth grade 27 and seventhrough eighth grade 28. These class sizes have an impact on facilities and the permanentcapacity of each school reflects these class sizes.In the District, rooms designated and assigned for special use are not counted as capacityclassrooms. At the elementary level students are provided music instruction and physicaleducation in non-capacity classrooms. Special education and intervention programs areprovided as pullout programs and do not provide capacity. At the middle school level,instruction is organized around a six period day; classrooms are calculated as providing5/6 capacity to accommodate teacher planning time in the instuctional space. DIERINGER SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 343 Capital Facilities Plan Update, 2022 Dieringer School District Service Standards Public School Facilities (Square Feet Per Student) Elementary School 139 Middle School 148 Junior High NA High School NA Dieringer School District Individual Capacity Projects (2022-2027) Elementary School #3 Middle School Classroom Addition 400 112 Name Lake Tapps Elementary Dieringer Heights Elem. Elementary #3 North Tapps MS TOTALS DIERINGER SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 343 Current Capacity 357 508 536 1401 PERMANENT CAPACITY PROJECTS MASTER SCHEDULE June,2022 6 -Year Total Capacity Capacity 2022 2023 357 508 400 400 536 433 1834 2024 400 2025 2026 2027 112 112 DIERINGER SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 343 Capital Facilities Plan Update, June 2022 CFP Projects and Financing Plan Sources and Uses of Funds Sources of Funds Existing Revenue: Reserve New Revenue: (x $1,000) Bonds, Levies, Fees, State Matching Funds, Dedications, Mitigation Payments TOTAL SOURCES Uses of Funds Elementary #3 Non-Capacity Projects: School Site, Tech nology Upgrades, And Board Approved Projects TOTAL USES BALANCE $3,250,000 $37,057,761 $40,307,761 ($31,408,391) (5,735,000) ($40,307,761) NTMS Classroom Addition 0 ($3,164,370) Permanent Capacity Projects School Site Elem. No. 3 Total Capacity Projects Non-Capacity Projects School Site Elem. No. 3 Technology Improvements Total Non-Capacity Projects TOT AL PROJECTS DIERINGER SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 343 Estimated Cost 25,275,000 25,275,000 5,263,356 5,735,558 10,998,914 36,273,914 FINANCE PLAN 2022-2027 June 2020 Unsecured Source of Funds Estimated Amt Levy, Bond 25,034,901 25,034,901 4,511,935 3,528,892 8,040,827 33,075,728 Estimated Unrestricted 4,000 4,000 0 10,000 10,000 14,000 Secured Source of Funds Impact Levy, Bond & Unrestr Fees Amount Amount 9,000 0 0 9,000 0 0 0 0 751,421 0 2,196,666 0 0 2,196,666 751,421 9,000 2,196,666 751,421 Impact Fees 227,099 227,099 0 0 0 227,099 Time Period 2020 Actual 2021-2026 Growth Elementary Schools $57,639 DIERINGER SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 343 Capital Facilities Plan Update, 2022 Capital Facilities Requirements to 2027 Student Population 1523.0 85.3 Student Capacity 1401 433 Net Reserve Or (Deficiency) (122) 347.7 Dieringer School District Cost Per Student Middle Schools $64,467 (2020 Dollars) Junior High Schools NA High Schools NA School Impact Fee Calculation 6/22 DISTRICT Dieringer School District School Site Acquisition Cost: (AcresxCost per Acre /Facility Capacity)x Student Generation Factor Student Student Facility Cost/ Facility Factor Factor Cost/ Cost/ Acreage Acre Capacity SFR MFR SFR MFR Elementary #3 12 $504,405 400 0.322 0.172 $4,483 $2,395 Middle 0.13 0.07 TOTAL $4,483 $2,395 School Construction Cost: ( Facility Cost/Facility Capacity)xStudent Generation Factor)x(permanent/Total Sq Ft) Facility Cost Facility Capacity Student Student Factor Factor Cost/ Cost/ SFR MFR SFR MFR Elementary #3 $25,355,531 400 0.322 0.172 $20,411 $10,903 0.13 0.07 NTMS Classroom Addition $3,164,370 112 0.322 0.172 0.13 0.07 $3,673 $1,978 TOTAL $24,084 $12,881 Temporary Facility Cost: ( Facility Cost/Facility Capacity)xStudent Generation Factor)x(Temporary/Total Square Feet) Student Student Cost/Cost/ %Temp/ Facility Facility Factor Factor SFR MFR Total Sq.F Cost Size SFR MFR Elementary 0 0.322 0.172 Middle 0 0.13 0.07 TOTAL $0 $0 State Matching Credit: Boeckh Index X SPI Square Footage X District Match % X Student Factor Student Student Boeckh SPI District Factor Factor Cost/cost/ Index Footage Match % SFR MFR SFR MFR Elementary Middle TOTAL $0 $0 Tax Payment Credit:SFR MFR Average Assessed Value 2021 $772,074 $535,959 Capital Bond Interest Rate (est 5/20 0.40%0.40% Net Present Value of Average Dwelling $7,550,883 $5,241,679 10 10 Property Tax Levy Rate 2021 $2.15 $2.15 Present Value of Revenue Stream $16,234 $11,270 Fee Sumary:Single Multiple Family Family Site Acquistion Costs $4,483.00 $2,395.00 Permanent Facility $24,084.00 $12,881.00 Temporary Facility Cost $0.00 $0.00 State Match Credit $0.00 $0.00 Tax Payment Credit ($16,234.00)($11,270.00) FEE $12,333 $4,119 FEE WITH DISCOUNT OF 50%$6,167 FEE WITH DISCOUNT OF 50%$2,060 DRAFT - DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE for Dieringer School District No. 343 2022 Capital Facilities Plan Issued with a 14-day comment and appeal period Description of Proposal: This threshold determination analyzes the environmental impacts associated with the following actions, which are so closely related to each other that they are in effect a single action: 1.The adoption of the Dieringer School District Amended 2022 Ten-Year Capital Facilities Plan by the Dieringer School District for the purposes of planning for the facilities needs of the District. 2.The amendment of the Pierce County Comprehensive Plan to include the Dieringer School District Amended 2022 Capital Facilities Plan as a part of the Capital Facilities Plan Element of the Pierce County Comprehensive Plan. 3. The amendment of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Auburn to include the Dieringer School District's Amended 2022 Capital Facilities Plan as part of the Capital Facilities Plan Element of the Comprehensive Plans of the City of Auburn. 4. The amendment of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Sumner to include the Dieringer School District's Amended 2022 Capital Facilities Plan as part of the Capital Facilities Plan Element of the Comprehensive Plans of the City of Sumner. Proponent: Dieringer School District No. 343 Location of the Proposal: The Dieringer School District includes an area of approximately 5.5 square miles. Portions of the cities of Auburn and Sumner fall within the District's boundaries, as do parts of unincorporated Pierce County. Lead Agency: Dieringer School District No. 343 is the lead agency pursuant to WAC 197-11-926. The lead agency for this proposal has determined that the proposal does not pose a probable significant adverse impact to the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21 C.030 (2) (c). This decision was made after a review of the completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public upon request. This Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2). The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date of issue. Comments must be submitted by 4:00 p.m., September 26, 2022. The responsible official will reconsider the DNS based on timely comments and may retain, modify, or, if significant adverse impacts are likely, withdraw the DNS. If the DNS is retained, it will be final after the expiration of the comment deadline. Responsible Official: Michael Farmer Superintendent Dieringer School District No. 343 Telephone: (253) 862-2537 Address: 1320 178th Ave E. Lake Tapps, Washington 98391 Appeals of this determination are governed by Board Policy No. 6890 which can be obtained from Michael Farmer, Superintendent, Dieringer School District No. 343, 1320 178th Ave E., Lake Tapps, Washington 98391 and pursuant to WAC 680 and RCW 43.21 C.075. Date of Issue: Date Published September 19, 2022 September 26, 2022 ENVIRONMENTAL CHFCKI ISTWAC 197-11-960 Environmental Checklist.Purpose of Checklist:The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21 C RCW, requires allgovernmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before makingdecisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals withprobable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklistis to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and toreduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whetheran EIS is required.Instructions for Applicants:This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about yourproposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impactsof your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, withthe 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. Inmost cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project planswithout the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not applyto your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply." Complete answers to the questions nowmay avoid unnecessary delays later.Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, andlandmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmentalagencies can assist you.The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over aperiod of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describeyour proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may askyou to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining ifthere may be significant adverse impact.Use of checklist for nonproject proposals:Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered"does not apply." In addition, complete the Supplemental Sheet for nonproject actions (part D).For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and"property or site" should be read as "proposal," "prepares," and "affected geographic area,"respectively. A.BACKGROUND 1.Name of proposed project, if applicable The adoption of a ten-year Capital Facilities Plan by the Dieringer School District. The Comprehensive Plans of Pierce County, City of Auburn and City of Sumner have been and/or will be amended to include the Dieringer School District 2022 Capital Facilities Plan in the Capital Facilities Plan Element of each jurisdiction's Comprehensive Plan. A copy of the District's Plan is available for review in the District Office. 2.Name of applicant: Dieringer School District No. 343 3.Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Dieringer School District No. 343 1320 178th Ave E. Lake Tapps, WA 98391 Contact Person: Michael Farmer, Superintendent Telephone: (253) 862-2537 4.Date checklist prepared: June 1, 2022. 5.Agency requesting checklist: Dieringer School District No. 343 6.Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): The 2022 Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Plan was adopted in August 16, 2021 and forwarded to Pierce County, Cities of Auburn and Sumner for possible inclusion in each jurisdiction's Comprehensive Plan. The Capital Facilities Plan will be updated annually. Site-specific projects have been or will be subject to project-specific environmental review. 7.Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. The Capital Facilities Plan reviews the purchase of additional property and the construction of a new elementary school. 8.List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. The above-referenced projects will undergo environmental review at the time of formal proposal. 9.Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. No. 10.List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Pierce County and Cities of Auburn and Sumner will review and approve the Capital Facilities Plan for the purposes of impact fee ordinances and will need to adopt the Plan as an amendment to the Capital Facilities Plan element of the Comprehensive Plans of Pierce County and Cities of Auburn and Sumner. 11.Give a brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) This is a non-project action. This proposal involves the adoption of the Dieringer School District 2021 Capital Facilities Plan for the purpose of planning the facilities needs of the District and for inclusion in the Capital Facilities Plan element and possible amendment of the Comprehensive Plans for Pierce County, City of Auburn and City of Sumner. A copy of the Capital Facilities Plan may be viewed at the Dieringer School District Office. 12.Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The 2021 Capital Facilities Plan will affect the Dieringer School District. The District includes an area of approximately 5.5 square miles. Portions of the City of Auburn and the City of Sumner, and parts of unincorporated Pierce County, fall within the District's boundaries. B.ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1.Earth a.General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, and more than 2/3 of Lake Tapps. The Dieringer School District is comprised of a variety of topographic land forms and gradients, including all of those listed. Specific topographic characteristics will identified during the planning and permit process for each capital project. b.What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Specific slope characteristics will be identified during the planning and permit process for each capital project. c.What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland.· Specific soil types will be identified during the planning and permit process for each capital project. d.Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Unstable soils may exist within the Dieringer School District. Specific soil limi tations on individual project sites will be identified at the time of environmental review. e.Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will be subject to project specific environmental review and local approval at the time of proposal. Proposed grading projects, as well as the purpose, type, quantity, and source of fill materials will be identified as appropriate to each project. f.Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. It is possible that erosion could occur as a result of construction projects currently proposed in the Capital Facilities Plan. Individual projects and their erosion impacts will be evaluated on a site-specific basis. Individual projects will be subject to environmental review and local approval at the time of proposal. g.About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings?) Percentage of impervious cover with vary with each capital facilities project and will be addressed during project-specific environmental review.h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, ifany:Erosion potential on individual project sites will be addressed during project-specificenvironmental review. Relevant erosion reduction and control requirements will bemet.2.Aira. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (ie., dust,automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the projectis completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known.Various emissions, many construction-related, may result from individual projects.Air-quality impacts will be evaluated during project-specific environmental review.Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions.b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal?If so, generally describe.Off-site sources and necessary mitigation will be addressed during project-specificenvironmental review.c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any:Plans for individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or willbe subject to environmental review and relevant local approval processes, includingobtaining of any necessary air quality permits, at the time individual projects areformally proposed. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions.3.Watera. Surface:1) Isthereanysurfacewaterbodyonorintheimmediatevicinityofthesite (including year-round and seasonal streams, Iakes, ponds, wetlands)? Ifyes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream orriver it flows into.There is a network of surface water bodies within the Dieringer SchoolDistrict. The surface water regimes and flow patterns have been or will beresearched and incorporated in the design of each individual project2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach availableplans.Some projects may require work near these described waters. Individualprojects in the Capital Facilities Plan will be subject to environmental reviewand Iocal approval requirements at the time the project is formally proposed. 3) Estimatetheamountoffillanddredgematerialthatbeplacedinorremoved from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site thatwould be affected. Indicate the source of fill material.Information with respect to placement or removal of fill or dredge materialwill be addressed at the time of project-specific environmental review.Applicable Iocal regulations have been or will be satisfied.4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions?Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.Any surface water withdrawals or diversions have been or will be addressedduring project-specific environmental review.5) Doestheproposalliewithinal00-yearfloodplain?lfso,notelocationon the site plan.Each capital facilities project, if located in a floodplain area, will be required tomeet applicable local regulations for flood areas.6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials tosurface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume ofdischarge.Specific information regarding discharges of waste materials, if any, will beaddressed during project-specific environmental review. Please see theSupplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions.b.Ground:1) Willgroundwaterbewithdrawn,orwillwaterbedischargedtogroundwater? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities ifknown.Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may impact groundwater resources. Each project will be evaluated during project-specificenvironmental review. Applicable Iocal regulations have been or will besatisfied. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions.2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground fromseptic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage?industrial, containing the following chemicals. .; agricultural; etc.). Describethe general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number ofhouses to served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans thesystem(s) are expected to serve.Impacts of discharged waste material, if any, have been or will be addressedduring site-specific, project-level environmental review. C.Water Runoff (including storm water):1) Describethesourceofrunoff(includingstormlvater)andmethodofcollection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will thiswater flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe.Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may have varyingstorm water runoff consequences. Each project will be subject toenvironmental review and applicable Iocal regulations.2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so,generally describe.Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will have varyingenvironmental impacts and will be subject to appropriate review and localregulations prior to construction. Information regarding waste materials willbe presented at the time of such review. Please see the Supplemental Sheetfor Nonproject Actions.d. Proposedmeasurestoreduceorcontrolsurface,ground,andrunoffwaterimpacts, if any:Specific measures to reduce or control runoff impacts have been or will be developedon a project-specific basis in cooperation with the appropriate jurisdiction.4.Plants:a.Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site:deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other.? evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, othershrubs? grasspasturecrop or grainwet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage. Otherother water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, otherother types of vegetationThere are various vegetative zones within the Dieringer School District. An inventoryof species has been or will be produced as part of project-specific environmentalrevievv.b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?Impacts on vegetation will be determined at the time of project-specific environmentalreview at the time the project is formally proposed. Please see the SupplementalSheet for Nonproject Actions.C.List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Specific impacts to these species from individual projects has been or be determinedat the time of project proposal and will be addressed during site-specific, project-levelenvironmental review.d. Proposed Iandscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve orenhance vegetation on the site, if any:Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will be subject toenvironmental review and local approval at the time of project proposal.s.Animals:a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site orare known to be on or near the site:birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other:mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other:fish: bass, salmon, trout, perch, crappies, tiger muskies other:An inventory of species observed on or near sites has been or will be developedduring project-specific environmental review.b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.Specific impacts to these species from individual projects will be determined at thetime of project proposal and will be reviewed in cooperation with the affectedjurisdictions.C.Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain.Impacts on migration routes, if any, will addressed during site-specific, project-levelenvironmental review.d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:Appropriate measures to preserve or enhance wildlife have been or will bedetermined at the time of site-specific, project-level environmental review.6.Energy and Natural Resources:a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will bemeet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used forheating, manufacturing, etc.The State Board of Education requires a Iife-cycle cost analysis of all heating, Iighting, and insulating systems prior to allowing specific projects to proceed. Energyneeds will be decided at the time of specific engineering and site design planning.Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions.b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacentproperties? If so, generally describe:Individual projects of this Capital Facilities Plan will be evaluated as to their impacton the solar potential of adjacent projects during environmental review.C.What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of thisproposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any:Energy conservation measures will be considered at the project-specific designphase and environmental review.7.Environmental Healtha.Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxicchemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste that could occur as aresult of this proposal? If so, describe.Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions.1) Describespecialemergencyservicesthatmightrequired.Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions.2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental healthhazards, if any:Proposed projects will comply with all current codes, standards, and rulesand regulations. Individual projects have been or will be subject toenvironmental review and local approval at the time of formal submittal.Noise:1) Whattypesofnoiseexistintheareawhichmayaffectyourproject(for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)?A variety of noises exist within the Dieringer School District. Specific noisesources have been or will be identified during project-specific environmentalreview.2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associatedwith the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic,construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come fromthe site.Normal construction noises would exist on a short-term basis during schoolconstruction. There could be an increase in traffic or operations-related noiseb. which would be addressed during project specific environmental review.Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions.3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any:Project noise impacts have been or will be evaluated and mitigated duringthe project-specific environmental review. Each project is or will be subject toapplicable Iocal regulations.8.Land and Shoreline Use:a. Whatisthecurrentuseofthesiteandadjacentproperties?There are a variety of Iand uses within the Dieringer School District, includingresidential, commercial, industrial, institutional, utility, agricultural, forestry, openspace, recreational, etc.b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe.This question will be addressed during site-specific, project-Ievel environmentalreview.c. Describe any structures on the site.Structures Iocated on proposed sites have been or will be identified and describedduring project-specific environmental review when appropriate.d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?Structures to be demolished, if any, will be identified as part of the project-specificenvironmental review process.e. What is the current zoning classification of the site?There are a variety of zoning classifications within the Dieringer School District. Sitespecific zoning information has been or will be identified during project-specificenvironmental review.f.What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?An inventory of comprehensive plan designations has been or will be completedduring project-specific environmental reviewg. lfapplicable,whatisthecurrentshorelinemasterprogramdesignationofthesite?Any shoreline master program designations have been or will be identified duringproject-specific environmental review.h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify.Environmentally sensitive areas, if any, will be identified during project-specificenvironmental revievv.I.Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completedproject?This information has been or will be provided at the time of project-specificenvironmental review.j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace?It is not anticipated that proposed projects will displace any people. Displacement ofpeople, if any, will be evaluated during project-specific environmental review.k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any:Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will be subject to projectspecific environmental review and Iocal approval at the time the project is formallyproposed.1.Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing andprojected land uses and plans, if any:Compatibility of the proposal and specific projects with existing uses and plans havebeen or will be assessed as part of the comprehensive planning process and duringproject-specific environmental review.9.Housinga. Approximately how many units would be provided if any? Indicate whetherhigh, middle, or Iow-income housing.No housing units would be provided.b. Approximatelyhowmanyunits,ifany,wouldbeeliminated?lndicatewhetherhigh, middle, or Iow-income housing.Any impact of project proposals on existing housing have been or would beevaluated during project-specific environmental review procedures.c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:Measures to reduce or control any housing impacts have been or will be addressedduring site-specific, project-Ievel environmental review. 10. Aesthetics:a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not includingantennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed?Aesthetic impacts have been or will be determined at the time of site-specific,project-Ievel environmental review.b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?Aesthetic impacts have been or will be determined at the time of site-specific,project-Ievel environmental review.c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any:Appropriate measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts have been or will bedetermined at the time of project-specific environmental review.11 . Light and Glare:a. What type of Iight or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day wouldit mainly occur?Light or glare impacts have been or will be determined at the time of project-specificenvironmental review.b. Could Iight or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interferewith views?Light or glare impacts have been or will be determined at the time of the project-specific environmental review.c. What existing off-site sources of Iight or glare may affect your proposal?Off-site sources of Iight or glare have been or will be evaluated at the time of projectspecific environmental review.d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any:Mitigation of Iight and glare impacts have been or will be addressed during projectspecific environmental review.12.Recreation:a.What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediatevicinity?There are a variety of formal and informal recreational facilities within the DieringerSchool District. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so,describe.Recreational impacts have been or will be addressed during project specificenvironmental review. Projects in the Capital Facilities Plan may enhancerecreational opportunities and uses.c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, includingrecreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any:Any adverse effects on recreation stemming from individual project proposals havebeen or will be subject to mitigation during the environmental review procedure. Aschool site usually provides recreational facilities to the community in the form ofadditional play fields and gymnasiums.13. HistoricandCulturalPreservation:a. Are there any places or objects Iisted on, or proposed for, national, state, orlocal preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generallydescribe.The existence of historic and cultural resources will be determined at the time ofproject-specific environmental review.b. Generally describe any Iandmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological,scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site.An inventory of historical sites has been or will be conducted as part of projectspecific environmental review.C.Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any:Appropriate measures have been or will be proposed on a project-specific basis.14.Transportation:a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site and describe proposedaccess to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any.Impact on public streets and highways has been or will be assessed during projectspecific environmental review.b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximatedistance to the nearest transit stop?The relationship between specific projects and public transit has been or will beassessed during project-specific environmental review. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How manywould the project eliminate?An inventory of parking spaces and the impacts of specific projects on parkingspaces has been or will be conducted during project-specific environmental review.d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements toexisting roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicatewhether public or private).The development of new schools may require new access roads or streets. Thisissue will be fully addressed during project-specific environmental review.e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or airtransportation? If so, generally describe.Use of water, rail or air transportation has been or will be addressed during sitespecific, project-Ievel environmental review.f.How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completedproject? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur.Each project proposal has been or will be separately evaluated as to traffic impacts.g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any:Mitigation of impacts on transportation has been or will be addressed during projectspecific environmental review.15.Public Services:a.Would the project result in an increased need for public services (forexample: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so,generally describe.The District does not anticipate that the projects identified in the Capital FacilitiesPlan will substantially increase the need for other public services. Impacts have beenor will be evaluated on a project-specific basis.b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, ifany.Schools are built with automatic security systems, fire alarms, smoke alarms, heatsensors and sprinkler systems.16.Utilities a.Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. Utilities available at project sites have been or will be identified during project specific environmental review. b.Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Utility revisions and construction needs will be identified during project-specific environmental review. C.Signature The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature , ;;� Michael Farmer Date Submitted: June 1, 2022 D.SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS(do not use this sheet for project actions)Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction withthe Iist of the elements of the environment.When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal or the types ofactivities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at afaster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms.1.How would the proposal be Iikely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air;production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production ofnoise?To the extent this Plan makes it more likely that school facilities will be constructed,and/or renovated or remodeled, some of these environmental impacts will be moreIikely. Additional impermeable surfaces, such as roofs, parking Iots, sidewalks,access roads and playgrounds will increase storm water runoff, which could entersurface or ground water. Emissions to air could result from heating systems,emergency generators and other equipment, and from additional car and bus trips toand from the school for students and faculty. Any emissions resulting from this Planshould not require the production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardoussubstances, with the possible exception of storage of diesel fuel or gasoline foremergency generating equipment. Noise may result from additional traffic and fromconcentrating several hundred children at a new facility, especially before and afferschool and during recesses.To the extent this proposal allows additional residential development to occur, theseimpacts would also increase somewhat, but it is not possible to quantify thoseimpacts at this time. The impacts would depend on the type, Iocation and distributionof housing, for example, whether single or multiple family and the location of theschool.Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are:Facilities implementing the Plan have been or will be evaluated at the project specificlevel and impacts will be mitigated accordingly. Storm water detention and runoff willmeet applicable County and/or City requirements and, depending on the date ofactual construction, may be subject to a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permitting requirements. Discharges to air will be minimal, andwill meet any applicable requirements of the Puget Sound Air Pollution ControlAuthority. Fuel oil will be stored according to local and state requirements.2.How would the proposal be Iikely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life?The Plan itself will have no impact on these elements of the environment. Dependingon the particular site, construction of facilities may require clearing sites of plants andloss of animal habitat. To the extent residential development is allowed, additionalarea may be cleared and eliminated as habitat for animals. There are not likely to beany impacts on fish or marine life, although some water quality degradation instreams and rivers could occur due to increased residential development. Theseimpacts have been or will be addressed in more detail during project-specificenvironmental review when appropriate.Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are:Individual projects will be evaluated and mitigated appropriately on a project-specificbasis, but specific mitigation proposals cannot be identified at this time.3.How would the proposal be Iikely to deplete energy or natural resources?Any actual projects resulting from this Plan would consume heating fuel andelectrical energy. Increased traffic resulting from the construction of additionalfacilities would consume petroleum based fuels. Reduced traffic resulting fromconstruction of another neighborhood school may also reduce amounts of fuelconsumed, but it is not possible to quantify such reduction in consumption at thistime. These impacts have been or will be addressed in more detail during project-specific environmental review when appropriate.Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are:Facilities would be constructed in accordance with applicable energy efficiencystandards.4.How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas orareas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such asparks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat,historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands?The Plan and facilities constructed pursuant to the Plan should have no impact onthese resources. It is not possible to predict whether other development madepossible 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 havebeen or will be proposed during project-specific review. Annual updates of this Plan will be coordinated with Pierce County, City of Auburn and City of Sumner as part ofthe Growth Management Act process, one of the purposes of which is to protectenvironmentally sensitive areas. To the extent the School District's facilities planningprocess is part of the overall growth management planning process, these resourcesare more Iikely to be protected.s. How would the proposal be Iikely to affect land and shoreline use, including whetherit would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans?The Plan will not have any impact on Iand or shoreline use that is incompatibleexisting comprehensive plans, Iand use codes, or shoreline management plans.Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are:None are proposed at this time. Actual facilities constructed to implement the Planwill be sited and constructed to avoid or reduce land use impacts.6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or publicservices and utilities?This proposal should not create substantial new demands for transportation. Theprojects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may create an increase in traffic nearnew District facilities but also reduce traffic by creating the opportunity for morestudents to walk to a closer school. The construction of the facilities included in theCapital Facilities Plan may result in minor increases in the demand for publicservices and utilities, such as fire and police protection, and water, sewer, andelectric utilities. None of these impacts are Iikely to be significant. The impacts ontransportation and public services and utilities of the projects included in the CapitalFacilities Plan will be addressed during project-Ievel review when appropriate.Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are:No measures to reduce or respond to such demands are proposed at this time.7.Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federallaws or requirements for the protection of the environment.The Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Plan will not conflict with any laws orrequirements for the protection of the environment. CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2023 Star Lake Elementary/ Evergreen Middle School Olympic View K-8 School Lake Grove Elementary Mirror Lake Elementary Wildwood Elementary Thomas Jefferson High School Memorial Field Renovation Draft FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2023 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN May 24, 2022 BOARD OF EDUCATION Hiroshi Eto, President Trudy Davis, Vice President and WIAA Representative Luckisha Phillips, Legislative Representative Dr. Jennifer Jones Quentin Morris SUPERINTENDENT Dr. Dani Pfeiffer Prepared by: Jeri Carlson, Chief Finance & Operations Officer, Interim Sally McLean, Facilitator Jennifer Thomas, Student & Demographic Forecaster FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2023 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION 2-3 SECTION 1 THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Introduction 4 Inventory of Educational Facilities 5 Inventory of Non-Instructional Facilities 6 Needs Forecast - Existing Facilities 7 Needs Forecast - New Facilities 8 Six Year Finance Plan 9 SECTION 2 MAPS Introduction 10 Map – City and County Jurisdictions 11 SECTION 3 SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION Introduction 12 Building Capacities 13-15 Portable Locations 16-17 Student Forecast 18-20 SECTION 4 KING COUNTY, CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, AND CITY OF KENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS Introduction 21 Capacity Summaries 22-26 Impact Fee Calculations 27 Six Year Finance Plan 28-29 Student Generation Rates 30 Impact Fee Changes from 2022 to 2023 31 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2023 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2 INTRODUCTION In response to the requirements of the State of Washington Growth Management Act (SHB) 2929 (1990) and ESHB 1025 (1991)), and under the School Impact Fee Ordinances of King County Code 21A, City of Federal Way Ordinance No. 95-249 effective December 21, 1995 as amended, City of Kent Ordinance No.4278 effective June 2018, revised December 2021, and the City of Auburn Ordinance No. 5078 effective 1998, Federal Way Public Schools has updated its Capital Facilities Plan as of May 2022. This plan is scheduled to be submitted for consideration to each of the jurisdictions located with the Federal Way Public Schools’ service area: King County, the City of Kent, City of Federal Way and the City of Auburn and is incorporated in the Comprehensive Plans of each jurisdiction by reference. This plan is requested to be included in the Facilities Plan element of the Comprehensive Plans of each jurisdiction. To date, the City of Des Moines has not adopted a school impact fee ordinance. The City of Des Moines collects school impact fees as part of the SEPA process. Discussions with the City of Milton to adopt an ordinance for school impact fees for parcels located within the Federal Way School District’s service area is in process. The Growth Management Act requires the County to designate Urban Growth areas within which urban growth can be encouraged. The Growth Management Planning Council adopted and recommended to the King County Council for Urban Growth Area Line Maps with designations for urban centers. A designation was made within the Federal Way planning area, which encompasses Federal Way Public Schools boundaries. King County will encourage and actively support the development of Urban Centers to meet the region’s need for housing, jobs, services, culture, and recreation. This Plan’s estimated population growth is prepared with this underlying assumption. This Capital Facilities Plan will be used as documentation for any jurisdiction, which requires its use to meet the needs of the Growth Management Act. This plan is not intended to be the sole planning tool for all of the District needs. The District may prepare interim plans consistent with Board policies or management need. During the 2016-17 school year the District formed a 100 member Facilities Planning Committee consisting of parents, community members and staff. The Committee was tasked with developing a recommendation to the Superintendent regarding Phase 2 of the District’s plan for school construction, remodeling, and/or modernization for voter consideration in November 2017. The voters passed this $450M bond authorization with a 62% YES vote reflecting a commitment to invest in the modernization of our infrastructure. Through the committee’s work a determination was made to rebuild Thomas Jefferson High School, Illahee Middle School, Evergreen Middle School, Lake Grove Elementary, Mirror Lake Elementary, Olympic View Elementary, Star Lake Elementary, and Wildwood Elementary. In addition to the school projects, the committee included a plan to modernize Memorial Stadium, which currently supports athletic activities for all schools. The rebuilding of the schools will create additional capacity for students at the elementary and high school levels. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2023 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 3 INTRODUCTION, continued The District continues to monitor factors that may have an impact on enrollment and capacity at our schools, including new single-family and multi-family residential developments and any impacts due to the COVID-19 stay home order. In accordance with the McCleary decision, the State has provided funding to reduce K-3 class size to 17 and 4-12 class size to 25. Beginning in 2019-20 the legislature expects compliance with this funding adding pressure to the need for elementary capacity. In response to this need the district has acquired a commercial building to renovate into classrooms to provide permanent additional capacity. As a result of the combination of recently added new capacity in the District and lower enrollment due to COVID-19 (and associated lower enrollment projections), the 2023 Capital Facilities Plan reflects no unhoused scholars by the end of the six year planning period. As such, this year’s CFP does not include a school impact fee request. However, it is important to note that the Fall 2022 kindergarten registrations at the time of this writing is on track to be the highest it has ever been. The District plans to closely monitor enrollment and associated needs and reserves the right to amend the 2023 CFP and impact fee calculation as appropriate. House Bill 1356 prompted school districts across the state, including Federal Way Public Schools, to reflect and consider the appropriateness of their school mascots. We recognized the importance of partnership in this process and were fortunate to engage with local tribal leaders to help us determine what changes needed to happen in our district for schools with names and mascots connected to Native American identities as a result, several of our schools now have new mascots: • Illahee Middle School Royals • Sacajawea Middle School Nighthawks • Woodmont K–8 Snow Leopards • Evergreen Middle School Grizzlies In June 2021, the decision was made to rename Totem Middle School, and we began the process of identifying the new name of the school. In November 2021, that process concluded when the FWPS Board of Directors approved the scholar-recommended name Evergreen Middle School. This process incorporated the voices of scholars, teachers, community members, and local tribal leaders. We are proud to move forward with this new name to help undo the disrespectful use and cultural appropriation of Native American identity in our community. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2023 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 4 SECTION 1 - THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN The State Growth Management Act requires that several pieces of information be gathered to determine the facilities available and needed to meet the needs of a growing community. This section provides information about current facilities, existing facility needs, and expected future facility requirements for Federal Way Public Schools. A Financial Plan that shows expected funding for any new construction, portables and modernization listed follows this. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2023 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 5 INVENTORY OF EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (K-5) Adelaide 1635 SW 304th St Federal Way 98023 Brigadoon 3601 SW 336th St Federal Way 98023 Camelot 4041 S 298th St Auburn 98001 Enterprise 35101 5th Ave SW Federal Way 98023 Green Gables 32607 47th Ave SW Federal Way 98023 Lake Dolloff 4200 S 308th St Auburn 98001 Lake Grove 303 SW 308th St Federal Way 98023 Lakeland 35827 32nd Ave S Auburn 98001 Mark Twain 2450 S Star Lake Rd Federal Way 98003 Meredith Hill 5830 S 300th St Auburn 98001 Mirror Lake 625 S 314th St Federal Way 98003 Nautilus (K-8) 1000 S 289th St Federal Way 98003 Olympic View 2626 SW 327th St Federal Way 98023 Panther Lake 34424 1st Ave S Federal Way 98003 Rainier View 3015 S 368th St Federal Way 98003 Sherwood Forest 34600 12th Ave SW Federal Way 98023 Silver Lake 1310 SW 325th Pl Federal Way 98023 Star Lake 4014 S 270th St Kent 98032 Sunnycrest 24629 42nd Ave S Kent 98032 Twin Lakes 4400 SW 320th St Federal Way 98023 Valhalla 27847 42nd Ave S Auburn 98001 Wildwood 2405 S 300th St Federal Way 98003 Woodmont (K-8) 26454 16th Ave S Des Moines 98198 MIDDLE SCHOOLS (6-8) Federal Way Public Academy (6-10) 34620 9th Ave S Federal Way 98003 Illahee 36001 1st Ave S Federal Way 98003 Kilo 4400 S 308th St Auburn 98001 Lakota 1415 SW 314th St Federal Way 98023 Sacajawea 1101 S Dash Point Rd Federal Way 98003 Sequoyah 3450 S 360th ST Auburn 98001 Evergreen 26630 40th Ave S Kent 98032 TAF @ Saghalie (6-12) 33914 19th Ave SW Federal Way 98023 HIGH SCHOOLS (9-12) Decatur 2800 SW 320th St Federal Way 98023 Federal Way 30611 16th Ave S Federal Way 98003 Thomas Jefferson 4248 S 288th St Auburn 98001 Todd Beamer 35999 16th Ave S Federal Way 98003 Career Academy at Truman 31455 28th Ave S Federal Way 98003 ADDITIONAL SCHOOLS Internet Academy (K-12) 31455 28th Ave S Federal Way 98003 Employment Transition Program (12+) 33250 21st Ave SW Federal Way 98023 Federal Way Open Doors 31455 28th Ave S Federal Way 98003 Former DeVry Property (K-5) 3600 S 344th Way, Federal Way 98001 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2023 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 6 CURRENT INVENTORY NON-INSTRUCTIONAL FACILITIES Developed Property Central Kitchen 1214 S 332nd Federal Way 98003 Federal Way Memorial Field 1300 S 308th St Federal Way 98003 Educational Services Center 33330 8th Ave S Federal Way 98003 Support Services Center 1211 S 332nd St Federal Way 98003 Leased Property Early Learning Center at Uptown Square 1066 S 320th St Federal Way 98003 Undeveloped Property Site # Location 75 SW 360th Street & 3rd Avenue SW – 9.2 Acres 65 S 351st Street & 52nd Avenue S – 8.8 Acres 60 E of 10th Avenue SW - SW 334th & SW 335th Streets - 10.04 Acres 73 N of SW 320th and east of 45th PL SW – 23.45 Acres 71 S 344th Street & 46th Avenue S - 17.47 Acres 82 1st Way S and S 342nd St – Minimal acreage 96 S 308th St and 14th Ave S – .36 Acres Notes: Not all undeveloped properties are large enough to meet school construction requirements. Properties may be traded or sold depending on what locations are needed to house students in the District. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2023 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 7 NEEDS FORECAST - EXISTING FACILITIES PHASE EXISTING FACILITY FUTURE NEEDS ANTICIPATED SOURCE OF FUNDS As needed Purchase and Relocate Portables Interim Capacity Anticipated source of funds is Impact Fees. II Thomas Jefferson High School Replace Existing Building, Increase Capacity Voter Approved Capital bond II Illahee Middle School Replace Existing Building Voter Approved Capital bond II Evergreen Middle School Replace Existing Building Voter Approved Capital bond II Lake Grove Elementary Replace Existing Building, Increase Capacity Voter Approved Capital bond II Mark Twain Elementary Replace Existing Building, Increase Capacity TBD, pending SCAP funding II Mirror Lake Elementary Replace Existing Building, Increase Capacity Voter Approved Capital bond II Olympic View K-8 School Replace Existing Building, Increase Capacity Voter Approved Capital bond II Star Lake Elementary Replace Existing Building, Increase Capacity Voter Approved Capital bond II Wildwood Elementary Replace Existing Building, Increase Capacity Voter Approved Capital bond II Memorial Stadium Replace Existing Facility Voter Approved Capital bond II DeVry Property Temp Swing School Increase Capacity SCAP and K-3 Class size reduction funding III Decatur High School Replace Existing Building, Increase Capacity TBD III Kilo Middle School Replace Existing Building TBD III Sacajawea Middle School Replace Existing Building TBD III Adelaide Elementary Replace Existing Building, Increase Capacity TBD III Brigadoon Elementary Replace Existing Building, Increase Capacity TBD III Camelot Elementary Replace Existing Building, Increase Capacity TBD III Lake Dolloff Elementary Replace Existing Building, Increase Capacity TBD III Nautilus K-8 School Replace Existing Building, Increase Capacity TBD III Twin Lakes Elementary Replace Existing Building, Increase Capacity TBD III Woodmont K-8 School Replace Existing Building, Increase Capacity TBD As part of the multi-phase modernization and replacement plan, the District intends to increase capacity for elementary and high school students with expansion at the Thomas Jefferson, Lake Grove, Mirror Lake, Olympic View, Star Lake, and Wildwood sites. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2023 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 8 NEEDS FORECAST - ADDITIONAL FACILITIES NEW FACILITY LOCATION ANTICIPATED SOURCE OF FUNDS No current plans for additional facilities. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2023 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 9 Six Year Finance Plan See Finance 2023 excel worksheet FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2023 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 10 SECTION 2 - MAPS Federal Way Public Schools has twenty-one elementary schools (grades K-5), two schools with a K-8 grade configuration, six middle school schools (grades 6-8), four high schools (grades 9-12) and four small secondary schools. The Federal Way Public Academy serves students in grades 6-10. The programs at Open Doors and Career Academy at Truman High School serves students in grades 9-12. In addition to these programs, TAF@Saghalie serves students in grades 6-12 who reside within the service area and the Employment and Transition Program (ETP) at the Norman Center serves 18–21-year-old scholars. The Growth Management Act requires that a jurisdiction evaluate if the public facility infrastructure is in place to handle new housing developments. In the case of most public facilities, new development has its major impact on the facilities immediately adjacent to that development. School districts are different. If the district does not have permanent facilities available, interim measures must be taken until new facilities can be built or until boundaries can be adjusted to match the population changes to the surrounding facilities. It is important to realize that a single housing development does not require the construction of a complete school facility. School districts are required to project growth throughout the district and build or adjust boundaries based on growth throughout the district, not just around a single development. Adjusting boundaries requires careful consideration by the district and is not taken lightly. It is recognized that there is a potential impact on students who are required to change schools. Boundary adjustments impact the whole district, not just one school. The final map included represents the city and county boundaries which overlap with the district’s service areas. • City of Algona • City of Auburn • City of Des Moines • City of Federal Way • City of Kent • City of Milton • Unincorporated King County FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2023 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 11 MAP – CITY AND COUNTY JURISDICTIONS FWPS boundaries is 100% Urban Growth Area FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2023 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 12 SECTION 3 - SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION Building Capacities - The Education Program Portable Locations Student Forecast – 2023 through 2029 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2023 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 13 BUILDING CAPACITIES This Capital Facilities Plan establishes the District’s “standard of service” in order to ascertain the District’s current and future capacity. The Superintendent of Public Instruction establishes square footage guidelines for capacity, but these guidelines do not take into consideration the education program needs. In general, the District’s current target class size provides that the average class size for a standard classroom for grades K through 3 should be 17 students to comply with current legislation. In grades 4-5 the target is 25 students. For grades 6 to 12 the target class size is 26 students. Classrooms for students with Individualized Education Program (Special Education) needs are calculated at 12 seats per classroom. Historically, the District has used the OSPI square footage calculation as a baseline for capacity calculation and made adjustments for specific program needs. The District will continue to use this calculation for determining capacity at our middle and high schools. However, for elementary school capacity will be calculated based on the number of classroom spaces and the number of students assigned to each classroom. Class Size Guidelines FWPS Historical “Standard of Service” HB2661/SHB2776 Enacted Law Square Footage Guideline Kindergarten 18.9 17 25-28 Grades 1-2 18.9 17 25-28 Grade 3 18.9 17 28 Grades 4-5 25 25 28 For the purposes of determining student capacity at individual schools, the following list clarifies adjustments to classroom spaces and the OSPI calculation. Special Education Resource Rooms: Each middle school requires the use of a standard classroom(s) for special education students requiring instruction to address specific disabilities. English as a Second Language Programs: Each middle school and high school requires the use of a standard classroom for students learning English as a second language. Middle School Computer Labs: Each middle school has computer labs, except Evergreen Middle School. Wireless access has been installed at all secondary schools. If additional classroom space is needed, these computer labs may be converted to mobile carts. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2023 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 14 BUILDING CAPACITIES, continued High School Career Development and Learning Center (Resource) Room: Each high school provides special education resource room and career development classrooms for students requiring instruction to address specific disabilities. Preschool/ECEAP: Our district currently offers preschool programs for both special needs & typically developing students at 9 elementary schools. We also have the ECEAP program at 10 sites (6 elementary schools, 3 high schools, and 1 commercial sites). These programs decrease capacity at those schools. Alternative Learning Experience: Federal Way offers students the opportunity to participate in an Alternative Learning Experience through our Internet Academy. These students have never been included in the capacity calculation of unhoused students. Due to COVID 19 implementing school closures the District has had a sharp increase in IA enrollment. 1418 Youth Reengagement: Federal Way offers students the opportunity to participate in 1418 Youth Reengagement Open Doors program. These students are housed at the Truman campus but are not currently included in the capacity calculation of unhoused students. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2023 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 15 BUILDING CAPACITIES, continued ELEMENTARY BUILDING MIDDLE SCHOOL BUILDING PROGRAM CAPACITY PROGRAM CAPACITY School Name Headcount 1 Preschool School Name Headcount Adelaide 353 30 Illahee 855 Brigadoon 299 30 Kilo 779 Camelot 277 30 Lakota 786 Enterprise 345 15 Sacajawea 694 Green Gables 401 Sequoyah 585 Lake Dolloff 400 Totem 795 3 Lake Grove 600 TAF @ Saghalie 598 Lakeland 371 Federal Way Public Academy 183 Mark Twain 430 TOTAL 5,275 Meredith Hill 375 30 3 Mirror Lake 600 *Middle School Average 727 Nautilus (K-8)466 Olympic View 353 HIGH SCHOOL BUILDING Panther Lake 347 PROGRAM CAPACITY Rainier View 405 30 Sherwood Forest 390 6 School Name Headcount Silver Lake 400 Decatur 1243 Star Lake 337 Federal Way 1684 Sunnycrest 405 Thomas Jefferson 1224 Twin Lakes 341 30 Todd Beamer 1085 Valhalla 406 TAF @ Saghalie 155 3 Wildwood 600 30 Career Academy at Truman 159 Woodmont (K-8)357 Federal Way Public Academy 116 TOTAL 9,258 231 Employment Transition Program 48 TOTAL 5,714 Elementary Average 403 2 High School Average 1,309 Notes: 1 Preschool enrollment reduces capacity for K-5 students. 15 preschool students in one classroom. 2 Federal Way Public Academy, Career Academy at Truman High School, and Employment Transition Program 3 Lake Grove and Wildwood are scheduled to open January 2021; Mirror Lake is scheduled to open September 2021 and TAF @ Saghalie for the high school school grade span (9-12) are non-boundary schools. These schools are not used in the calculated averages. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2023 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 16 PORTABLE LOCATIONS The Washington State Constitution requires the State to provide each student a basic education. It is not an efficient use of District resources to build a school with a capacity for 500 students due to lack of space for 25 students when enrollment fluctuates throughout the year and from year to year. Portables are used as interim measures to house students when increasing population impacts a school attendance area. Portables may also be required to house students when new or changing programs require additional capacity. They also provide housing for students until permanent facilities can be financed and constructed. When permanent facilities become available, the portable(s) is either used for other purposes such as storage or child care programs, or moved to another school for an interim classroom. Some portables may not be fit to move due to age or physical condition. In these cases, the District may choose to buy new portables and surplus these unfit portables. With the launch of construction of new schools, a number of portables will be relocated, decommissioned, or sold. These numbers are not available at this time. Since 2018, the District has reduced the number of instructional portables by 33 classrooms. The following page provides a list of the location of the portable facilities, used for educational facilities by Federal Way Public Schools. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2023 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 17 PORTABLE LOCATIONS, continued FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2023 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 18 STUDENT FORECAST Student enrollment projections are a basic component of budget development. Enrollment projections influence many of the financial estimates that go into budget preparation. The majority of staffing requirements are derived directly from the forecasted number of students. Allocations for instructional supplies and materials are also made on the basis of projected enrollment. Other expenditures and certain revenue projections are directly related to enrollment projections. Enrollment projections are completed annually in the Business Services Department. Projections must be detailed at various levels, district total, school-building totals, grade level and program level to include vocational and special education students. The basis of projections has been cohort survival analysis. Cohort survival is the analysis of a group that has a common statistical value (grade level) as it progresses through time. In a stable population the cohort would be 1.00 for all grades. This analysis uses historical information to develop averages and project the averages forward. This method does not trace individual students; it is concerned with aggregate numbers in each grade level. The district has used this method with varying years of history and weighted factors to study several projections. Because transfers in and out of the school system are common, student migration is factored into the analysis as it increases or decreases survival rates. Entry grades (kindergarten) are a unique problem in cohort analysis. The district collects information on birth rates within the district’s census tracts and treats these statistics as a cohort for kindergarten enrollment in the appropriate years. The Federal Way School District is using various statistical methods for projecting student enrollments. The resultant forecasted enrollments are evaluated below. In January 2022, the District contracted a demographer to develop projections for the Federal Way School District. The model used to forecast next year’s enrollment uses cohort survival rates to measure grade to grade growth, assumes market share losses to private schools (consistent with county-wide average), assumes growth from new housing or losses due to net losses from migration. This forecast was provided as a range of three projections. The long-range forecast provided with this report used a model with cohort survival rates and growth rates based on projected changes in the 5-19 age group for King County. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2023 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 19 STUDENT FORECAST, continued Most of the methods used for long range enrollment reporting assume that enrollment is a constant percent of something else (e.g. population) or that enrollment will mirror some projected trend for the school-age population over time. The report included 5 different calculations to provide a range of possible projections for the District to the year 2029. This model produces a projection that is between 20,000 and 19,500 when applied to the low, medium, and high range modes. This provides a reasonable range for long-range planning and is consistent with estimates from various models. Long-range projections that establish the need for facilities are a modification of the cohort survival method. The cohort method of analysis becomes less reliable the farther out the projections are made. The Federal Way School District long-range projections are studied annually. The study includes information from the jurisdictional demographers as they project future housing and population in the region. The long-range projections used by Federal Way Public Schools reflect a similar age trend in student populations as the projections published by the Office of Financial Management for the State of Washington. Near term projections assume some growth from new housing, which is offset by current local economic conditions. The District tracks new development from five permitting jurisdictions. Long range planning assumes a student yield from proposed new housing consistent with historical growth patterns. Growth Management requires jurisdictions to plan for a minimum of twenty years. The Federal Way School District is a partner in this planning with the various jurisdictions comprising the school district geography. These projections create a vision of the school district community in the future. As a result of COVID-19, the District has experienced a significant increase in Internet Academy scholars: IA Headcount Elementary School Middle School High School Total Nov-19 12 59 205 276 Nov-20 159 147 250 556 Nov-21 349 227 342 918 Temp Increase 337 168 137 642 The District’s six year enrollment projections show an overall decline in enrollment, and a decline at each grade level. The COVID-19 pandemic affected enrollment in recent years, as well as increased enrollment in the Internet Academy. The District plans to monitor actual enrollment growth in the 2022-23 school year to assess the validity of the projections, particularly post-pandemic. Any changes will be reflected in future updates to this CFP. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2023 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 20 STUDENT FORECAST, continued FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2023 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 21 SECTION 4 – KING COUNTY, CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, AND CITY OF KENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS Capacity Summaries Site & Construction Costs Allocations Student Generation Rates Impact Fee Calculations Reference to Impact Fee Calculations FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2023 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 22 CAPACITY SUMMARIES All Grades, Elementary, Middle School, and High Schools The Capacity Summaries combine Building Capacity information, Portable Capacity information and the Student Forecast information. The result demonstrates the requirements for new or remodeled facilities and why there is a need for the District to use temporary facilities or interim measures. The District has recently adjusted its capacity calculation method for Elementary schools to better show capacity needed to comply with the K-3 Class Size Reduction. This adjustment is also shown in the portable capacity calculation. In order to allow for flexibility in portable usage the District will use an average class size calculation of 21 for each Elementary portable and an average class size of 25 for each Middle and High School portable. The information is organized with a page summarizing the entire District, and then evaluating capacity vs. number of students at elementary, middle school, and high school levels individually. The notes at the bottom of each spreadsheet provide information about what facilities are in place each year. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2023 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 23 CAPACITY SUMMARIES, Continued Capacity Summary – All Grades FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2023 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 24 CAPACITY SUMMARIES, Continued Capacity Summary – Elementary Schools FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2023 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 25 CAPACITY SUMMARIES, Continued Capacity Summary – Middle Schools FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2023 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 26 CAPACITY SUMMARIES, Continued Capacity Summary – High Schools FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2023 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 27 IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS Single and Multi-Family Residences Each jurisdiction that imposes school impact fees requires that developers pay these fees to help cover a share of the impact of new housing developments on school facilities. To determine an equitable fee throughout unincorporated King County, a formula was established. This formula can be found in King County Code 21A and was substantially adopted by the City of Auburn, Federal Way and Kent. The formula requires the District to establish a "Student Generation Factor" which estimates how many students will be added to a school district by each new single or multi-family unit and to gather some standard construction costs, which are unique to that district. Impact Fee Calculation When applicable, the CFP includes variables for the calculation of the Impact Fee for single family and multi-family units based on King County Code 21A and the Growth Management Act. As noted above, due to declining enrollment, the CFP does not include an impact fee calculation or recommendation. Future updates to the CFP may include impact fees. Plan Year 2022 Plan Year 2023 Single Family Units $3,243 $0 Multi-Family Units $16,003 $0 Mixed-Use Residential 1 $8,001 $0 Impact Fee Calculation - King County Code 21A 1 In accordance with the City of Federal Way Ordinance No. 95-249. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2023 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 28 SIX YEAR FINANCE PLAN SCHOOL ACQUISITION COST The district purchased the former Devry Technical School building to house displaced scholars during school construction then will provide permanent capacity for Early Childhood Education programs. SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION COST With voter approval of the $450,000,000 bond package, design work is underway for six of the approved projects. Anticipated construction budgets (based on the Guaranteed Maximum Price or GMP) have been updated to reflect the final construction contracts, plus amendments. In addition, a credit for the cost of new construction is incorporated to recognize the K-3 Class Size Reduction Grant obtained by Federal Way Public Schools. The following table outlines the facility cost included in the impact fee calculation: Elementary Schools Lake Grove Mirror Lake Star Lake Wildwood Elementary TOTAL Permanent Capacity 353 404 387 472 1616 New Capacity 600 600 525 600 2325 Increased Capacity as % 43.9% GMP $31.475,730 $33,007,391 $30,163,111 $32,609,529 $127,255,761 Proportionate Share $ 55,865,279 K-3 Class Size Credit ($ 11,598,151) Net Proportionate Share $ 44,267,128 Two additional projects are within this horizon, but not yet included – Olympic View K-8 and Mark Twain Elementary. These costs will be incorporated into future Capital Facilities Plans. Current Middle School capacity calculations do not reflect unhoused students, so no costs associated with Illahee Middle School or Evergreen Middle School are included. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2023 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 29 Consistent with the capacity calculations described earlier, the District uses the OSPI square footage calculation for determining capacity at our secondary schools. Based on this methodology, the following construction costs for Thomas Jefferson High School are allocated as the proportionate share: Square Footage Capacity at approx. 131 sq. ft. Current: 179,119 1378 Planned: 210,000 1600 Increased Capacity 237 Increase as % 16.11% GMP $94,176,828 Proportionate Share $15,171,887 The District will use the above formulas created as a base for future Capital Facilities Plans during the life of the current bond authorization. The capacity of these schools may vary from year to year as programs are added or changed and construction cost may increase over time. FACILITIES CAPACITY Permanent Facility Capacity: Changes to the Building Program Capacities calculation are found on page 15. Capacity Summaries: The changes in the Capacity Summary are a reflection of the changes in the capacities and student forecast. New schools and increased capacity at current buildings are shown as increases to capacity. Capacity Summaries are found on pages 22-26. Student Generation Factor Analysis: Federal Way Public Schools student generation factor was determined separately for single-family units and multi-family units. The factors used in the 2023 Capital Facilities Plan were derived using actual generation factors from single-family units and multi-family units that were constructed in the District in the last five (5) years and can be found on the next page Temporary Facility Cost: The list of portables reflects the movement of portables between facilities or new portables purchased. Portable Locations can be found on pages 16 and 17. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2023 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 30 STUDENT GENERATION RATES New Construction in Prior 5 Years FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2023 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 31 IMPACT FEE CALCULATION CHANGES FROM 2022 TO 2023 SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 1 of 19 SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of checklist: Governmental agencies use this checklist to help determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant. This information is also helpful to determine if available avoidance, minimization or compensatory mitigation measures will address the probable significant impacts or if an environmental impact statement will be prepared to further analyze the proposal. Instructions for applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Please answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. You may need to consult with an agency specialist or private consultant for some questions. You may use “not applicable” or "does not apply" only when you can explain why it does not apply and not when the answer is unknown. You may also attach or incorporate by reference additional studies reports. Complete and accurate answers to these questions often avoid delays with the SEPA process as well as later in the decision- making process. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Instructions for Lead Agencies: Please adjust the format of this template as needed. Additional information may be necessary to evaluate the existing environment, all interrelated aspects of the proposal and an analysis of adverse impacts. The checklist is considered the first but not necessarily the only source of information needed to make an adequate threshold determination. Once a threshold determination is made, the lead agency is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of the checklist and other supporting documents. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: For nonproject proposals (such as ordinances, regulations, plans and programs), complete the applicable parts of sections A and B plus the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). Please completely answer all questions that apply and note that the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proponent," and "affected geographic area," respectively. The lead agency may exclude (for non-projects) questions in Part B - Environmental Elements –that do not contribute meaningfully to the analysis of the proposal. A. Background 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: The adoption of a Federal Way Public Schools’ 2023 Capital Facilities Plan by the Federal Way Public Schools No. 210 for the purposes of planning for the District's facilities needs. The King County, City of Federal Way, City of Kent and the City of Auburn’s Comprehensive Plan will be requested to include the District's 2023 Capital Facilities Plan in the Capital Facilities Plan Element. This project may also SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 2 of 19 request the City of Des Moines to incorporate the District’s 2023 Capital Facilities Plan into their Comprehensive Plans. 2. Name of applicant: Federal Way School District No. 210. 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Federal Way School District No. 210 33330 8th Avenue South Federal Way WA 98003 (253) 945-2000 Contact Person: Ms. Jennifer Thomas Student and Demographic Forecaster, Business Services Telephone: (253) 945-2071 Email: jthomas@fwps.org 4. Date checklist prepared: May 24, 2022 5. Agency requesting checklist: Federal Way School District No. 210. 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): The Federal Way Public Schools’ 2023 Capital Facilities Plan is scheduled to be adopted by the District in June 2022. The Capital Facilities Plan will be forwarded to King County, the City of Federal Way, City of Kent, and the City of Auburn for inclusion in the City's Comprehensive Plan. It will also be forwarded to the City of Des Moines and Muckleshoot Indian Tribe for consideration. The District will continue to update the Capital Facilities Plan annually. The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be subject to project-specific environmental review. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. The Capital Facilities Plan sets forth the capital improvement projects that the District is currently implementing. This includes finishing construction on Federal Way High School and planning for several new voter-approved, Bond-funded projects. Additionally the plan covers the purchase and siting of temporary facilities at various locations. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will undergo additional environmental review, when appropriate, as they are developed. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 3 of 19 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. This is a nonproject action. See Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. The District will request that the following jurisdictions consider adopting the Federal Way Public Schools’ 2023 Captial Facilities Plan as part of their respective Comprehensive Plan: • King County, • City of Federal Way, • City of Kent, • City of Auburn, • City of Des Moines, • City of Milton. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) This is a non-project action. This proposal involves the adoption of the Federal Way Public Schools’ 2023 Capital Facilities Plan for the purpose of planning the District’s facilities needs. The projects included in the Captial Facilities Plan have been or will be subject to project- specific environmental reviews. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The Capital Facilities Plan will affect the Federal Way School District. The District includes an area of approximately 35 square miles. The City of Federal Way, parts of the cities of Kent, Des Moines and Auburn, parts of unincorporated King County, fall within the District's boundaries. A detailed map of the District's boundaries may be viewed at the District's main office. B. Environmental Elements 1. Earth a. General description of the site: (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other _____________ The Federal Way School District is comprised of a variety of topographic land forms and gradients. Specific topographic characteristics of the sites at which the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan are located have been or will be identified during project-level environmental review when SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 4 of 19 appropriate. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Specific slope characteristics at the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified during project-level environmental review. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any agricultural land of long-term commercial significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of these soils. Specific soil types found at the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified during project-level environmental review when appropriate. Project-level environmental review for any projects identified in the Capital Facilities Plan will include identification of any agricultural soils and associated impacts. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Unstable soils may exist within the Federal Way School District. Specific soil limitations on individual project sites have been or will be identified at the time of project-level environmental review when appropriate. e. Describe the purpose, type, total area, and approximate quantities and total affected area of any filling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be subject, when appropriate, to project-specific environmental review and local approval at the time of proposal. Proposed grading projects, as well as the purpose, type, quantity, and source of any fill materials to be used have been or will be identified at that time. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. It is possible that erosion could occur as a result of the construction projects currently proposed in the Capital Facilities Plan. The erosion impacts of the individual projects have been or will be evaluated on a site-specific basis at the time of project-specific environmental review when appropriate. Individual projects have been or will be subject to local approval processes. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? The proposed renovation projects will require the construction of impervious surfaces. The extent of any impervious cover constructed will vary with each capital facilities project included in the Capital Facilities Plan. This issue has been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: The erosion potential of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan and appropriate control measures have been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 5 of 19 Relevant erosion reduction and control requirements will be met. 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal during construction, operation, and maintenance when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Various emissions, many construction-related, may result from the individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan. The air-quality impacts of each project have been or will be evaluated during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect the individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: The individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be subject to project- specific environmental review when appropriate and relevant local approval processes. The District will be required to comply with all applicable air regulations and air permit requirements. Proposed measures specific to the individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 3. Water a. Surface Water: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. There is a network of surface water bodies within the Federal Way School District. The surface water bodies that are in the immediate vicinity of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. When necessary, the surface water regimes and flow patterns have been or will be researched and incorporated into the designs of the individual projects. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may require work near the surface waters located within the Federal Way School District. Applicable local approval requirements have been or will be satisfied. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 6 of 19 Information with respect to the placement or removal of fill and dredge material as a component of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan has been or will be provided during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. Applicable local regulations have been or will be satisfied. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Any surface water withdrawals or diversions required in connection with the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. Each project included in the Capital Facilities Plan, if located in a floodplain area, will be required to meet applicable local regulations for flood areas. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. Specific information regarding the discharge of waste materials that may be required as a result of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan has been or will be provided during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions b. Ground Water: 1) Will groundwater be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? If so, give a general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn from the well. Will water be discharged to groundwater? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may impact groundwater resources. The impact of the individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan on groundwater resources has been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. Each project is or will be subject to applicable local regulations. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals. . . ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. The discharges of waste material that may take place in connection with the projects included in the Plan have been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review. c. Water runoff (including stormwater): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 7 of 19 Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may have storm water runoff consequences. Specific information regarding the storm water impacts of each project has been or will be provided during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. Each project is or will be subject to applicable local storm water regulations. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may result in the discharge of waste materials into ground or surface waters. The specific impacts of each project on ground and surface waters have been or will be identified during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. Each project is or will be subject to all applicable regulations regarding the discharge of waste materials into ground and surface waters. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 3) Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so, describe. Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site. Specific information regarding the drainage pattern impacts of each project has been or will be provided during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. Each project is or will be subject to applicable local drainange pattern regulations. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water, and drainage pattern impacts, if any: Specific measures to reduce or control runoff impacts associated with the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. 4. Plants a. Check the types of vegetation found on the site: ____deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other ____evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other ____shrubs ____grass ____pasture ____crop or grain ____ Orchards, vineyards or other permanent crops. ____ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other ____water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other ____other types of vegetation A variety of vegetative zones are located within the Federal Way School District. Inventories of the vegetation located on the sites of the projects proposed in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be developed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 8 of 19 Some of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may require the removal or alteration of vegetation. The specific impacts on vegetation of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. c. List threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. The specific impacts to these species from the individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be determined during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Measures to preserve or enhance vegetation at the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. Each project is or will be subject to applicable local landscaping requirements. e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site. A variety of vegetative zones are located within the Federal Way School District. Inventories of the noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the sites of the projects proposed in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be developed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. 5. Animals a. List any birds and other animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site. Examples include: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other ________ An inventory of species that have been observed on or near the sites of the projects proposed in the Capital Facilities Plan has been or will be developed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. b. List any threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. Inventories of threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be developed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. The impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan on migration routes have been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 9 of 19 Appropriate measures to preserve or enhance wildlife have been or will be determined during project- specific environmental review when appropriate. e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site. Inventories of any invasive animal species known to be on or near the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be developed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. The State Board of Education requires the completion of a life cycle cost analysis of all heating, lighting, and insulation systems before it will permit specific school projects to proceed. The energy needs of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be determined at the time of specific engineering and site design planning when appropriate. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. The impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan on the solar potential of adjacent projects have been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Energy conservation measures proposed in connection with the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be considered during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 1) Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses. The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan that may have any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses have been or will be identified during project- specific environmental review when appropriate. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 2) Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 10 of 19 The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan that may contain existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development and design have been or will be identified during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 3) Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced during the project's development or construction, or at any time during the operating life of the project. Toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used or produced during the project’s development or construction, or at any time during the operating life of the project have been or will be identified during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 4) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 5) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will comply with all current codes, standards, rules, and regulations. Individual projects have been or will be subject to project-specific environmental review and local approval at the time they are developed when appropriate. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? A variety of noises from traffic, construction, residential, commercial and industrial areas exists within the Federal Way School District. The specific noise sources that may affect the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indi- cate what hours noise would come from the site. The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may create normal construction noises that will exist on a short-term basis only. The construction projects could increase traffic around the construction sites on a short-term basis. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: The projected noise impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be evaluated and mitigated during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. Each project is or will be subject to applicable local regulations. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 11 of 19 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Will the proposal affect current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe. There are a variety of land uses within the Federal Way School District, including residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, utility, open space, recreational, etc. Impacts on projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan on land uses on nearby or adjacent properties have been or will be identified and described during project-level environmental review when appropriate. b. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If so, describe. How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will be converted to other uses as a result of the proposal, if any? If resource lands have not been designated, how many acres in farmland or forest land tax status will be converted to nonfarm or nonforest use? The project sites covered under the Capital Facilities Plan have not been used recently as working farmlands or working forest lands. 1) Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides, tilling, and harvesting? If so, how: Any areas located on the sites of the projects included in the Plan that may affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal business operations have been or will be identified and described during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. c. Describe any structures on the site. The structures located on the proposed sites for the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified and described during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? The remodeling and renovation projects in the Capital Facilities Plan will require the demolishment of school structures. The structures that will be demolished as a result of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The sites that are covered under the Capital Facilities Plan have a variety of zoning classifications under the applicable zoning codes. Site-specific zoning information has been or will be identified during project- specific environmental review when appropriate. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 12 of 19 Inventories of the comprehensive plan designations for the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be completed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Shoreline master program designations of the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. h. Has any part of the site been classified as a critical area by the city or county? If so, specify. Any areas located on the sites of the projects included in the Plan that have been classified as a critical area by the city or county have been or will be identified during project-specific environmental review. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? The Federal Way School District currently serves approximately 22,400 students. The student population is expected to increase to 23,800 by the year 2023. This projection has been adjusted to reflect the current economic conditions. The District employs approximately 3,200 people. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? Any displacement of people caused by the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan has been or will be evaluated during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. However, it is not anticipated that the Capital Facilities Plan, or any of the projects contained therein, will displace any people. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will be subject to project-specific environmental review and local approval when appropriate. Proposed mitigating measures will be proposed at that time, if necessary. L. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The compatibility of the specific projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan with existing uses and plans has been or will be assessed as part of the comprehensive planning process and during project- specific environmental review when appropriate. m. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts to agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial significance, if any: The compatibility of the specific projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan with nearby agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial significance have been or will be assessed as part of the comprehensive planning process and during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 13 of 19 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, mid- dle, or low-income housing. No housing units would be provided in connection with the completion of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. It is not anticipated that the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will eliminate any housing units. The impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan on existing housing have been or will be evaluated during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Measures to reduce or control any housing impacts caused by the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? The aesthetic impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? The aesthetic impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Appropriate measures to reduce or control the aesthetic impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be determined on a project-specific basis when appropriate 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? The light or glare impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 14 of 19 The light or glare impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Off-site sources of light or glare that may affect the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be evaluated during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Proposed measures to mitigate light and glare impacts have been or will be addressed during project- specific environmental review when appropriate. 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? There are a variety of formal and informal recreational facilities within the Federal Way School District. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. The recreational impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan, including proposed renovated school and support facilities, may enhance recreational opportunities and uses. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: Adverse recreational effects of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be subject to mitigation during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. A school site usually provides recreational facilities to the community in the form of play fields and gymnasiums. 13. Historic and cultural preservation a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are over 45 years old listed in or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers ? If so, specifically describe. There are no known places or objects listed on, or proposed for such registers on the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan. The existence of historic and cultural resources on or next to the sites has been or will be addressed in more detail during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources. An inventory of historical sites at or near the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 15 of 19 has been or will be developed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. c. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the department of archeology and historic preservation, archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS data, etc. Methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be developed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. d. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may be required. Appropriate measures have been or will be proposed on a project-specific basis when appropriate. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The impact on public streets and highways of the individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan has been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so, generally describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? The relationship between the specific projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan and public transit has been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. c. How many additional parking spaces would the completed project or non-project proposal have? How many would the project or proposal eliminate? An inventory of parking spaces located at the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan and the impacts of specific projects on parking availability has been or will be conducted during project- specific environmental review when appropriate. d. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian, bicycle or state transportation facilities, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). The need for new streets or roads, or improvements to existing streets and roads has been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. e. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. Use of water, rail, or air transportation has been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project or proposal? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the volume would SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 16 of 19 be trucks (such as commercial and nonpassenger vehicles). What data or transportation models were used to make these estimates? The traffic impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. g. Will the proposal interfere with, affect or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products on roads or streets in the area? If so, generally describe. Projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan that may interfere with, affect or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products on roads or streets in the area has been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: The mitigation of traffic impacts associated with the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan has been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. The District does not anticipate that the projects identified in the Capital Facilities Plan will substantially increase the need for other public services. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Remodeled/renovated school or facilities will be built with automatic security systems, fire alarms, smoke alarms, heat sensors, and sprinkler systems. 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other ___________ Electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, and sanitary sewer utilities are available at the sites of the projects proposed in the Capital Facilities Plan. The types of utilities available at specific project sites have been or will be addressed in more detail during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Utility revisions and construction needs have been or will be identified during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 17 of 19 C. Signature The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: . Name of signee: Jennifer Thomas . Position and Agency/Organization: Student and Demographic Forecaster . Date Submitted: 24 May 2022 D. Supplemental sheet for nonproject actions (IT IS NOT NECESSARY to use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; pro- duction, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? To the extent the Capital Facilities Plan makes it more likely that school facilities will be constructed and/or renovated and remodeled, some of these environmental impacts will be more likely. Additional impermeable surfaces, such as roofs, parking lots, sidewalks, access roads, and playgrounds could increase storm water runoff, which could enter surface or ground waters. Heating systems, emergency generators, and other school equipment that is installed pursuant to the Capital Facilities Plan could result in air emissions. The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan should not require the production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances, with the possible exception of the storage of diesel fuel or gasoline for emergency generating equipment. The District does not anticipate a significant increase in the production of noise from its facilities, although the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will increase the District's student capacities. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: Proposed measures to mitigate any such increases described above have been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. Storm water detention and runoff will meet applicable County and/or City requirements and may be subject to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permitting requirements. Discharges to air will meet applicable air pollution control requirements. Fuel oil will be stored in accordance with local and state requirements. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 18 of 19 The Capital Facilities Plan itself will have no impact on these elements of the environment. These impacts have been or will be addressed in more detail during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. The projects included in the Plan are not likely to generate severe impacts on fish or marine life. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: Specific measures to protect and conserve plants, animals, and fish cannot be identified at this time. Specific mitigation proposals have been or will be identified, however, during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? The construction of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will require the consumption of energy. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will be constructed in accordance with applicable energy efficiency standards. 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? The Capital Facilities Plan and individual projects contained therein should have no impact on these resources. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: Appropriate measures have been or will be proposed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. Updates of this Plan will be coordinated with King County and the cities of Federal Way, Kent, Des Moines, and Auburn as part of the Growth Management Act process, one of the purposes of which is to protect environmentally sensitive areas. To the extent the District's facilities planning process is part of the overall growth management planning process, these resources are more likely to be protected. 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? The Capital Facilities Plan will not have any impact on land or shoreline use that is incompatible with existing comprehensive plans, land use codes, or shoreline management plans. The District does not anticipate that the Capital Facilities Plan or the projects contained therein will directly affect land and shoreline uses in the area served by the District. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 19 of 19 No measures to avoid or reduce land use impacts resulting from the Capital Facilities Plan or the projects contained therein are proposed at this time. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may create temporary increases in the District's need for public services and utilities. Upon the completion of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan, however, the District does not anticipate that its need for public services and utilities will increase substantially beyond existing levels. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: No measures to reduce or respond to such demands are proposed at this time. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The Capital Facilities Plan will not conflict with any laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan 2021-2022 through 2027-2028 June 2022 Kent School District No. 415 12033 SE 256th Street Kent, Washington 98030-6643 (253) 373-7526 BOARD of DIRECTORS Ms. Leslie Hamada, President Mr. Joe Bento, Vice President Mr. Awale Farah, Legislative Representative Ms. Michele Bettinger, Director Mr. Tim Clark, Director ADMINISTRATION Israel Vela Superintendent of Schools Dr. Wade Barringer, Senior Executive Director Strategic Initiatives & Operations Dave Bussard, Executive Director Operations & Facilities Sara Dumlao, Interim Assistant Director of Procurement Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Table of Contents I - Executive Summary ................................................................................................... 1 II - Six - Year Enrollment Projection ............................................................................... 3 III - Current Kent School District “Standard of Service" ................................................. 7 Current Standards of Service for Elementary Students .................................................. 7 Current District Standards of Service for Secondary Students ....................................... 8 IV - Inventory and Capacity of Existing Schools ............................................................. 9 V - Six-Year Planning and Construction Plan ................................................................ 14 VI - Portable Classrooms ............................................................................................. 19 VII - Projected Six-Year Classroom Capacity ................................................................ 20 VIII - Finance Plan ....................................................................................................... 26 IX - Summary of Changes to June 2021 Capital Facilities Plan ...................................... 36 X - Appendices ............................................................................................................ 37 I - Executive Summary This Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan has been prepared by the Kent School District as the organization's capital facilities planning document, in compliance with the requirements of Washington's Growth Management Act, King County Code K.C.C. 21A.43 and Cities of Kent, Covington, Renton, Auburn, Black Diamond, Maple Valley, and SeaTac. This annual Plan update was prepared using data available in the spring of 2022 for the 2022-2023 school year. This annual update of the Plan reflects no new major capital projects, a zero-dollar impact fee rate due to declining enrollment and new capacity study. This Plan is consistent with prior long-term capital facilities plans adopted by the Kent School District. This Plan is not intended to be the sole planning document for all the district's needs. The district may prepare interim and periodic Long-Range Capital Facilities Plans consistent with Board Policies, considering a longer or shorter period, other factors and trends in the use of facilities, and other needs of the district as may be required. Prior Capital Facilities Plans of the Kent School District have been adopted by Metropolitan King County Council and Cities of Kent, Covington, Auburn, and Renton and included in the Capital Facilities Plan element of the Comprehensive Plans of each jurisdiction. This Plan has also been submitted to the cities of Black Diamond, Maple Valley, and SeaTac for their information and inclusion in their Comprehensive Plans. In order for impact fees to be collected in the unincorporated areas of Kent School District, the Metropolitan King County Council must adopt this Plan and a fee- implementing ordinance for the District. For impact fees to be collected in the incorporated portions of the District, the cities of Kent, Covington, Renton and Auburn must also adopt this Plan and their own school impact fee ordinances. This Capital Facilities Plan establishes a standard of service in order to ascertain current and future capacity. While the State Superintendent of Public Instruction establishes square footage guidelines for capacity, those guidelines do not account for local program needs in the District. The Growth Management Act, King County and City codes and ordinances authorize the District to make adjustments to the standard of service based on specific needs for students of the District. This Plan includes the standard of service as established by Kent School District. Program capacity is based on an average capacity and updated to reflect changes to special programs served in each building. Portables in the capacity calculation use the same standard of service as the permanent facilities. The capacity of each school in the District is calculated based on the District’s standard of service and the existing inventory of permanent facilities. The District's program capacity of permanent facilities reflects program changes and the state’s mandated reduction of class size to meet the standard of service for Kent School District. Portables provide additional interim capacity. Kent School District is the fifth largest (FTE basis) district in the state. Enrollment is electronically reported monthly to the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (“OSPI”) on Form P-223. Although funding apportionment is based on Annual Average Full Time Equivalent (AAFTE), enrollment on October 1 is a widely recognized “snapshot in time” that is used to report the District’s enrollment for the year as reported to OSPI. The District's standard of service, enrollment history and projections, and use of interim facilities are reviewed in detail in various sections of this Plan. The District plans to continue to satisfy concurrency requirements through the interim use of portables. This Plan currently represents projects in process funded primarily by the Kent School District’s 2016 Bond, as well as the 2018 Capital Construction Levy. Additional information about these projects can be found on the district’s capital projects homepage (link). Additionally, project updates sent to our community of stakeholders can be accessed on the KSD website (link). Based on revised student generation rates, and district enrollment projects, the district has updated the proposed student impact fee rate for the coming year. For a short overview, see Section IX (Summary of Changes to the June 2021 Capital Facilities Plan). II - Six - Year Enrollment Projection For capital facilities planning, enrollment growth projections are based on cohort survival and student yield from documented residential construction projected over the next six years (See Table 2). For this Plan, the district relied substantially on the results from Dr. Les Kendrick’s study of long-range enrollment forecasts for the Kent School District in the Winter of 2021. King County live births and the District's relational percentage average were used to determine the number of kindergartners entering the system (See Table 1). 8.26% of 25,273 King County live births in 2017 is projected for 2,087 students expected in Kindergarten for October 1, 2022. This is a decrease of 738 live births in King County over the previous year (See Table 2). Early Childhood Education students (also identified as “ECE”), “Early Childhood Special Education (“ECSE”) students are forecast and reported to OSPI separately on Form P-223H for Special Education Enrollment. Capacity is reserved to serve students in the ECE programs at elementary schools. In addition to live birth data, enrollment projections for October 1, 2022 going forward rely upon the results of the enrollment study by Dr. Kendrick, utilizing the “medium growth” methodology. Within practical limits, the District has kept abreast of proposed developments. The District will continue to track new development activity to determine impact to schools. Information on new residential developments and the completion of these proposed developments in all jurisdictions will be considered in the District's future analysis of growth projections. The Kent School District serves eight permitting jurisdictions: unincorporated King County, the cities of Kent, Covington, Renton, and Auburn and smaller portions of the cities of SeaTac, Black Diamond, and Maple Valley. 3 STUDENT GENERATION FACTOR "Student Factor" is defined by King County code as "the number derived by a school district to describe how many students of each grade span are expected to be generated by a dwelling unit" based on district records of average actual student generated rates for developments completed within the last ten years. Following these guidelines, the student generation rate for Kent School District is as follows: Single Family Elementary .270 Middle School .105 Senior High .075 Total .450 Multi-Family Elementary .082 Middle School .035 Senior High .029 Total .146 The student generation factor is based on 2,967 SFD (Single Family Detached) units built between 2012 and 2022. There are 801 K-6 students geocoded to those homes. Therefore, the SFD student yield for students in grades K thru 6 is 0.270, translating to 0.27 student for every new SFD unit built or 27 students for every 100. Apartments and Condos were calculated independently, then combined for the Multi-Family attached student yields. In preparing the 2021-2022 to 2026-2027 Capital Facilities Plan the District contracted with Davis Demographics, a noted expert in demographic studies for school districts, to analyze and prepare the student generation factor. EDC included both “garden” and “urban style” apartments in the calculation for multi-family residences. Within the district’s borders there are several income-based and multi-family housing projects coming on-line in 2022/2023. Once developed with occupancy occurring the District does recognize that the student generation for multi-family housing may impact future Capital Facilities Plan updates. 4 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 OCTOBER REPORT 1251H (HEADCOUNT) ENROLLMENT HISTORY LB = Live Births LB in 2008 LB in 2009 LB in 2010 LB in 2011 LB in 2012 LB in 2013 LB in 2014 LB in 2015 LB in 2016 October HC Enrollment 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 King County Live Births 1 25,222 25,057 24,514 24,630 25,032 24,910 25,348 25,487 26,011 Increase / Decrease 323 -165 -543 116 402 280 316 139 524 Kindergarten / Birth % 1 8.40% 8.34% 8.34% 8.17% 8.14% 7.98% 7.93% 6.68% 7.06% Kindergarten 2,119 2,090 2,045 2,013 2,037 1,989 2,010 1,703 1,836 Grade 1 2,186 2,127 2,131 2,067 2,056 2,061 2,036 1,882 1,768 Grade 2 2,055 2,190 2,163 2,163 2,077 2,008 2,091 1,980 1,817 Grade 3 1,922 2,070 2,176 2,195 2,143 2,043 1,995 2,001 1,938 Grade 4 2,087 1,956 2,089 2,195 2,218 2,118 2,038 1,912 1,924 Grade 5 2,008 2,116 1,958 2,103 2,189 2,169 2,120 1,937 1,872 Grade 6 2,079 2,023 2,058 1,952 2,120 2,184 2,164 2,024 1,894 Grade 7 Middle School 2,046 2,104 1,974 2,021 1,922 2,044 2,166 2,010 1,925 Grade 8 " " 2,121 2,091 2,100 2,021 2,043 1,882 2,073 2,086 1,937 Grade 9 Senior High 2,483 2,428 2,093 2,105 2,006 2,004 1,888 2,006 2,042 Grade 10 " " 2,046 2,151 2,165 2,099 2,080 1,946 2,035 1,813 1,959 Grade 11 " " 1,873 1,802 1,818 1,865 1,823 1,732 1,663 1,744 1,583 Grade 12 " " 1,539 1,576 1,742 1,730 1,810 1,654 1,634 1,484 1,655 Total Enrollment 2 26,564 26,724 26,512 26,529 26,524 25,834 25,913 24,582 24,150 Yearly Headcount Increase / Decrease -48 160 -212 17 -5 -690 79 -1,331 -432 Cumulative Increase -267 -107 -319 -302 -307 -997 -918 -2,249 -2,681 For 2022 CFP - Headcount Enrollment History 1 This number indicates actual births in King County 5 years prior to enrollment year as updated by Washington State Department of Health, Center for Health Statistics. Kent School District percentage based on actual Kindergarten enrollment 5 years later. 2 Enrollment reported to OSPI on Form P-223 generates basic education funding and excludes Early Childhood Special Education ("ECSE" & "B2" or Birth to 2 Preschool Inclusive Education) and excludes College-only Running Start students. Change to Full Day Kindergarten for all schools Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 1 May 2022 5 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 SIX - YEAR ENROLLMENT PROJECTION Full Day Kindergarten at all Elem LB in 2016 LB in 2017 LB in 2018 LB in 2019 LB in 2020 Est LB in 2021 Est. LB in 2022 ACTUAL ENROLLMENT October 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 King County Live Births 26,011 25,273 24,337 24,090 24,031 24,344 24,669 Increase / Decrease 524 -738 -936 -247 -59 313 325 Kindergarten / Birth % 7.06% 8.26% 8.19% 8.22% 8.23% 8.13% 8.13% FD Kindergarten 1,836 2,087 1,993 1,979 1,978 1,980 2,006 Grade 1 1,768 2,096 2,143 2,041 2,027 2,024 2,026 Grade 2 1,817 2,079 2,103 2,146 2,044 2,028 2,025 Grade 3 1,938 2,008 2,088 2,107 2,150 2,046 2,030 Grade 4 1,924 2,003 2,020 2,096 2,115 2,156 2,052 Grade 5 1,872 2,033 2,000 2,013 2,089 2,106 2,146 Grade 6 1,894 1,964 2,060 2,021 2,035 2,109 2,126 Grade 7 Middle School 1,925 2,007 1,976 2,068 2,029 2,041 2,115 Grade 8 " "1,937 2,072 2,032 1,997 2,090 2,049 2,060 Grade 9 Senior High 2,042 2,274 2,263 2,216 2,178 2,276 2,232 Grade 10 " "1,959 2,138 2,116 2,102 2,058 2,021 2,112 Grade 11 " "1,583 1,669 1,859 1,836 1,824 1,784 1,751 Grade 12 " "1,655 1,320 1,465 1,628 1,608 1,596 1,561 Total Enrollment Projection 24,150 25,750 26,118 26,250 26,225 26,216 26,242 Yearly Increase/Decrease -432 1,600 368 132 -25 -9 26 Yearly Increase/Decrease %-1.76% 6.63% 1.43% 0.51% -0.10% -0.03% 0.10% Total Enrollment Projection*24,150 25,750 26,118 26,250 26,225 26,216 26,242 Live births for King County are estimates for year 2021 & 2022 *Does not include iGrad, RS Projection Source: Les Kendrick Demographic Study 2021 ("Medium Growth Model") 2021 - 2027 Enrollment Projections PROJECTED ENROLLMENT Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 2 May 2022 6 III - Current Kent School District “Standard of Service" In order to determine the capacity of facilities in a school district, King County Code 21A.06.1225 references a "standard of service" that each school district must establish in order to ascertain its overall capacity. The standard of service identifies the program year, the class size, the number of classrooms, students and programs of special need, and other factors determined by the district which would best serve the student population. This Plan includes the standard of service as established by Kent School District. The District has identified schools with significant special needs programs as “impact” schools and the standard of service targets a lower-class size at those facilities. Portables included in the capacity calculation use the same standard of service as the permanent facilities. The standard of service defined herein will continue to evolve in the future. Kent School District is continuing a long-term strategic planning process combined with review of changes to capacity and standard of service. This process will affect various aspects of the District's standard of service and future changes will be reflected in future capital facilities plans. Current Standards of Service for Elementary Students • Class size ratio for grades K - 3 is planned for an average of 23 students per class, not to exceed 26. • Class size ratio for grades 4 - 6 is planned for an average of 27 students per class, not to exceed 29. Some special programs require specialized classroom space and the program capacity of some of the buildings housing these programs is reduced. Some students, for example, leave their regular classroom for a short period of time to receive instruction in special programs and space must be allocated to serve these programs. Students may also be provided music instruction and physical education in a separate classroom or facility. Some identified students will also be provided educational opportunities in classrooms for special programs such as those designated as follows: English Learners (EL) Education for Disadvantaged Students (Title I) – Federal Program Learning Assisted Programs (LAP) – State Program Highly Capable Students – State Program Reading, math or science Labs Dual Language Programs in four elementary schools and one middle school Inclusive Education Service for Elementary and Secondary students with disabilities may be provided in a separate or self-contained classroom sometimes with a capacity of 10-15 students, depending on the program. 7 Current District Standards of Service for Secondary Students The standards of service outlined below reflect only those programs and educational opportunities provided to secondary students which directly affect the capacity of the school buildings per the negotiated collective bargaining agreement with KEA. • The average class size ratio for grades 7–8 is 30 students per class and 143 students per day, with a maximum daily class load/enrollment of 150 based on five class periods per day. • The average class size ratio for grades 9-12 is 32 students per class and 153 students per day, with a maximum daily class load/enrollment of 160 based on five class periods per day. Like Inclusive Education Programs listed above, many other secondary programs require specialized classroom space which can reduce the functional capacity of the permanent school buildings, such as technology labs, performing arts activities, a variety of career and technical education programs, and other specialized programs. Space or Classroom Utilization As a result of scheduling conflicts for student programs, the need for specialized rooms for certain programs, and the need for teachers to have a workspace during their planning periods, it is not possible to achieve 100% utilization of regular teaching stations at secondary schools. Based on the analysis of actual utilization of classrooms, the Kent School District has determined that the standard utilization rate is 95% for secondary schools. Functional capacity at elementary schools reflects 100% utilization at the elementary level. 8 IV - Inventory and Capacity of Existing Schools Currently, the District has permanent functional capacity to house 39,946 students and interim (portable) capacity to house 4,360. This capacity is based on the District's Standard of Service as set forth in Section III. Included in this Plan is an inventory of the District's schools by type, address and current capacity (See Table 3). The ratio between permanent capacity and portable capacity is 89.1%-10.9%. The functional capacity is periodically updated for changes in the programs, additional classrooms, and new schools. Functional capacity has been updated in this Plan to reflect program changes implemented in the Fall of 2021. Calculation of Elementary, Middle School and Senior High School capacities are set forth in Appendices A, B, and C. Maps of existing schools are included. For clarification, the following is a brief description of some of the non-traditional programs for students in Kent School District: The 2021-2022 school year began with our newly branded Academy Program within the district, housed at our new Kent Laboratory Academy. The project was approved by the Kent Board of Directors in 2019 by utilizing funding from the 2016 Bond Project “20 Classrooms”. The new facility has 24 classrooms and will now be utilized for many types of Academy related programs. The previous facility of this program (Kent Phoenix Academy Campus) will have the voter approved 2018 Levy Projects completed and has added to our current capacity for our District at the secondary level in the future. iGrad - Kent School District has developed the Individualized Graduation and Degree Program or “iGrad”. iGrad is an Open Door (Drop-out Reengagement) School that offers a second plus chance to students aged 16-21 who have dropped out of high school or are at risk of not earning a high school diploma by age 21. iGrad is not included in this Capital Facilities Plan, because it is served as a leased space at the Kent Hill Plaza Shopping Center. Over the past three years, enrollment in the iGrad program has averaged over 300 students. 9 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 INVENTORY and CAPACITY of EXISTING SCHOOLS 2021 - 2022 SCHOOL Year Opened ABR ADDRESS Functional Capacity Carriage Crest Elementary 1990 CC 18235 - 140th Avenue SE, Renton 98058 626 Cedar Valley Elementary 1971 CV 26500 Timberlane Way SE, Covington 98042 568 Covington Elementary 2018 CO 25811 156th Avenue SE, Covington 98042 744 Crestwood Elementary 1980 CW 25225 - 180th Avenue SE, Covington 98042 629 East Hill Elementary 1953 EH 9825 S 240th Street, Kent 98031 779 Emerald Park 1999 EP 11800 SE 216th Street, Kent 98031 653 Fairwood Elementary 1969 FW 16600 - 148th Avenue SE, Renton 98058 528 George T. Daniel Elementary 1992 DE 11310 SE 248th Street, Kent 98030 640 Glenridge Elementary 1996 GR 19405 - 120th Avenue SE, Renton 98058 591 Grass Lake Elementary 1971 GL 28700 - 191st Place SE, Kent 98042 595 Horizon Elementary 1990 HE 27641 - 144th Avenue SE, Kent 98042 634 Jenkins Creek Elementary 1987 JC 26915 - 186th Avenue SE, Covington 98042 668 Kent Elementary 1999 KE 24700 - 64th Avenue South, Kent 98032 760 Lake Youngs Elementary 1965 LY 19660 - 142nd Avenue SE, Kent 98042 725 Martin Sortun Elementary 1987 MS 12711 SE 248th Street, Kent 98030 768 Meadow Ridge Elementary 1994 MR 27710 - 108th Avenue SE, Kent 98030 706 Meridian Elementary 1939 ME 25621 - 140th Avenue SE, Kent 98042 820 Millennium Elementary 2000 ML 11919 SE 270th Street, Kent 98030 688 Neely-O'Brien Elementary 1990 NO 6300 South 236th Street, Kent 98032 864 Panther Lake Elementary 2009 PL 12022 SE 216th Street, Kent, 98031 813 Park Orchard Elementary 1963 PO 11010 SE 232nd Street, Kent 98031 728 Pine Tree Elementary 1967 PT 27825 - 118th Avenue SE, Kent 98030 732 Ridgewood Elementary 1987 RW 18030 - 162nd Place SE, Renton 98058 661 River Ridge Elementary 2021 RR 00000 - 22420 Military Rd S SeaTac, WA 886 Sawyer Woods Elementary 1994 SW 31135 - 228th Ave SE, Black Diamond 98010 549 Scenic Hill Elementary 1960 SH 26025 Woodland Way South, Kent 98030 837 Soos Creek Elementary 1971 SC 12651 SE 218th Place, Kent 98031 591 Springbrook Elementary 1969 SB 20035 - 100th Avenue SE, Kent 98031 730 Sunrise Elementary 1992 SR 22300 - 132nd Avenue SE, Kent 98042 719 Elementary TOTAL 20,232 Cedar Heights Middle School 1993 CH 19640 SE 272 Street, Covington 98042 1,170 Mattson Middle School 1981 MA 16400 SE 251st Street, Covington 98042 1,020 Meeker Middle School 1970 MK 12600 SE 192nd Street, Renton 98058 1170 Meridian Middle School 1958 MM 23480 - 120th Avenue SE, Kent 98031 1,110 Mill Creek Middle School 2005 MC 620 North Central Avenue, Kent 98032 1,200 Northwood Middle School 1996 NW 17007 SE 184th Street, Renton 98058 1,140 Kent Phoenix Acedamy 1966 KPA 11000 SE 264th Street, Kent 98030 1,140 Middle School TOTAL 7,950 Kent-Meridian High School 1951 KM 10020 SE 256th Street, Kent 98030 2,595 Kentlake Senior High School 1997 KL 21401 SE 300th Street, Kent 98042 2,714 Kentridge Senior High School 1968 KR 12430 SE 208th Street, Kent 98031 2,996 Kentwood Senior High School 1981 KW 25800 - 164th Avenue SE, Covington 98042 2,917 Senior High TOTAL 11,222 Kent Laboratory Academy 2021 KLA 00000 - 208th St Kent, WA 98030 542 DISTRICT TOTAL 39,946 Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 3 May 202210 King County, WA State Parks GIS, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA, Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA Carriage Crest ES Cedar Valley ES Covington ES Crestwood ES East Hill ES Emerald Park ES Fairwood ES Daniel ES Glenridge ES Grass Lake ES Horizon ES Jenkins Creek ES Kent ES Lake Youngs ES Martin Sortun ES Meadow Ridge ES Meridian ES Millennium ES Neely O Brien ES Panther Lake ES Park Orchard ES Pine Tree ES Ridgewood ES Sawyer Woods ES Scenic Hill ES Soos Creek ES Springbrook ES Sunrise ES The Outreach Program Regional Justice River Ridge ES ¯ 0 1 20.5 Miles Elementary School Boundaries 11 King County, WA State Parks GIS, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA, Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMACedar Heights MS Mattson MS Meeker MS Meridian MS Mill Creek MS Northwood MS ¯ 0 1 20.5 Miles Middle School Boundaries 12 King County, WA State Parks GIS, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA, Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA Kentlake HS Kent Meridian HS Kentridge HS Kentwood HS ¯ 0 1 20.5 Miles High School Boundaries 13 V - Six-Year Planning and Construction Plan In November 2016, the voters of the Kent School District approved a bond measure for $252 million. This new bonding authority provided for the replacement for Covington Elementary school, which opened in August of 2018. The new River Ridge Elementary school and our new Kent Laboratory Academy opened August 2021. As a critical component of capital facilities planning, county and city planners and decision- makers are encouraged to consider safe walking conditions for all students when reviewing applications and design plans for new roads and developments. This should include sidewalks for pedestrian safety to and from school and bus stops as well as bus pull-outs and turn- arounds. Included in this Plan is an inventory of potential projects and sites identified by the District which are potentially acceptable site alternatives in the future (See Table 4 & Sitemap). Voter approved bond issues have included funding for the purchase of sites for some of these and future schools, and the sites acquired to date are included in this Plan. Some funding is secured for purchase of additional sites, but some may be funded with impact fees as needed. Not all undeveloped properties meet current school construction requirements, and some property may be traded or sold to meet future facility needs. The Board will continue an annual review of standards of service and those decisions will be reflected in each update of the Capital Facilities Plan. Our District is in the initial stages of a future Capital Measure which is aligned to Strategic Plan and continues to make a priority to revitalize, rejuvenate and rebuild our aging schools as well as begin a process to remove interim classroom portables and find room or create permanent structures to reduce and eventually eliminate the more than 172 portable classrooms in our district. We will continue to determine capacity versus enrollment as well as programs to ensure this goal to reduce and or eliminate all portables in our district is obtained in the next several years. As a part of the planning process, the District has been tracking a few major development projects which have affected enrollment and will continue to increase students' forecasts. On Meeker Street in Kent we have seen several major apartment complexes, ETHOS and Midtown 64 Apartments. These continue to have an impact on enrollment as they fill up their newly built facilities. Alexian Gateway Project is located on the corner of Military Road and Veterans Drive in Kent and will start occupancy in school year 2023-2024, with 283 planned units. In Covington, we are tracking a multi-family house development which has been approved and construction has begun. The 1700-unit Lakepointe Urban Community will fall within our enrollment boundary and proposed completion of Phase 4 is shown to be 2027. 14 Construction in the Kent School District boundaries have been steadily rising over the last three years and planned communities are now being recognized through the planning teams in multiple city and county jurisdictions we serve. 15 ccccccccccccc cc cccccccccccccccccc c c c c c c c c c c c cVETERANS DRIVEO L D M IL IT A R Y R O A D S O U T HAMENITY SPACETRASH ENCLOSURESTRASH ENCLOSURESTRASH ENCLOSURESTRASH ENCLOSURESTRASH ENCLOSURES2101220123012401210422042304240421052205230524052108220823082408210922092309240921122212231224122113221323132413211622162316241621022202230224022103220323032403------220623062406------220723072407------221023102410------221123112411------221423142414------221523152415MAINTENANCE SHEDM0011. UNIT NUMBERS READ TOP TO BOTTOM (FLOOR 1-4) AS INDICATED ON THE UNIT STACK ONE BEDROOM UNITSTWO BEDROOM UNITSTHREE BEDROOM UNITSLEGEND31023202330234023101320133013401310332033303340331043204330434043106320633063406310532053305340531073207330734073108320833083408311032103310341031093209330934093112321233123412311432143314341431113211331134113101320133013401TYPE A UNITS31153215331534153116321633163416------32173317341731183218331834183119321933193419------322033203420------32213321342131223222332234223123322333233423------3224332434241105120513051405NO UNIT - GARAGE ONLY-----*******BUILDING SIGNAGE------120413041404------12011301------------------1302------------120313031403110612061306140611071207130714071110121013101410110812081308140811091209130914091112121213121412111512151315141511161216131614161117121713171417------121813181418------121513151415------12141314141411111211131114111120122013201420112112211321142111241224132414241125122513251425112812281328142811291229132914291132123213321432113312331333143311361236133614361137123713371437------121913191419------122213221422------122313231423------122613261426------122713271427------123013301430------123113311431------123413341434------1235133514351138123813381438APARTMENT PROJECTS WITH MULTIPLE BUILDINGS SHALL HAVE MONUMENT SIGNS -------SHOWING THE STREET ADDRESSES OF EACH BUILDING AT EACH VEHICLE ENTRANCE TO THE SITE. EACH ETHICAL ENTRANCE SHALL ALSO HAVE AN ILLUMINATED SITE PLAN AND / OR DIRECTLY SIGNS. THE SIGNS SHALL SHOW THE LOCATION OF THE SIGN (THE VIEWER'S CURRENT LOCATION) AND ALL BUILDING ADDRESSES. DWELLING NUMBERS SHALL BE INCLUDED. THE MONUMENT SIGNS SHALL HAVE A CONTRASTING BACKGROUND COLOR.ALL SITE SIGNAGE TO BE PER OWNERS SPECIFICATION AND DESIGN AND UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT. * INDICATE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF ILLUMINATED BUILDING ADDRESS SIGNAGE. SIGNAGE FOR BUILDINGS MUST INCLUDE THE ENTIRE BUILDING ADDRESS AND STREET NAME. THE BUILDING ADDRESS SHALL BE NO LESS THAN SIX (6) INCHES IN HEIGHT. THE BUILDING SIGN SHALL HAVE A CONTRASTING BACKGROUND COLOR.542 1st AVE. SOUTH, FLOOR 4SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104© 2019 KATERRA ARCHITECTURE LLC© 2019 KATERRA ARCHITECTURE II LLC© 2019 KATERRA ARCHITECTURE III PLLC© 2019 KATERRA ARCHITECTURE IV LLCALL DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS, PLANS, IDEAS, ARRANGEMENTS AND DESIGNS REPRESENTED OR REFERRED TO ARE THE PROPERTY OF AND ARE OWNED BY KATERRA INC. WHETHER THE PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE IS EXECUTED OR NOT. THEY WERE CREATED, EVOLVED, DEVELOPED AND PRODUCED FOR THE SOLE USE ON AND IN CONNECTION WITH THIS PROJECT AND NONE OF THE ABOVE MAY BE DISCLOSED OR GIVEN TO OR USED BY ANY PERSON, FIRM OR CORPORATION FOR ANY USE OR PURPOSE WHATSOEVER INCLUDING ANY OTHER PROJECT, EXCEPT UPON WRITTEN PERMISSION AND DIRECTION OF KATERRA INC. OwnerConsultantBLDG. 1BLDG. 2BLDG. 3Key plan RevisionsMarkDateDescriptionN10/30/2020UNITNUMBERING/ADDRESSINGSHEET(1,2,3)G.00.014ALEXANGATEWAYAPARTMENTS23000 MILITARY RD S,KENT, WA 98032RMRM075-1800112/13/19IFC SETDrawn ByProject ManagerJob NumberDate Of OriginalProfessional SealSCALE: 3/64" = 1'-0"1UNIT NUMBERING PLANNORTH0 06/12/2019 PERMIT SET2 01/09/2020 REV.3 ITCDUPDATES6 05/22/2020 PC1 CORRECTIONS16 Phase 1BPhase 2Phase 3SE 260th St189th Ave SE 188th Ave SE191st Pl SE SE 259th Pl193r d P l S E 196 t h A v e S E SE 259th StSE 260th St19 9 t h A v e S E SE Timberlane Blvd198th Pl SESE 256th StSR 18 204th Ave SE2 0 1 s t A v e S E SE 258th St203rd Ave SE SE 258th PlPhase 4Phase 1APhasing LegendPhasing MapLakepointe Urban VillagePhasing MapLakepointe Urban Village200400400'0100SCALE: 1" = NNOTE:THE LOCATION OF DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDINGS ROADWAYS ANDTRAILS, IS APPROXIMATE AND DOES NOT VEST TO THIER SPECIFICLOCATION. THE LOCATION OF ALL DEVELOPMENT WILL BE BASEDON EXISTING CONDITIONS AT THE TIME OF APPLICATION AND THETERMS OF THE PLANNED ACTION, THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT,AND APPLICABLE LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL LAWS.January 30, 2017Phase 1B - Approximate Years 2019-2024Phase 2 - Approximate Years 2020-2025Phase 3 - Approximate Years 2023-2028Establishment of final grade, construction of Covington Connector toSoutheast boundary, construction of first phase of commercialdevelopment.Establishment of final lake perimeter, construction of 191st Place SEextension and associated R-12 residential development, construction ofsecond phase of commercial development on peninsula.Construction of third phase of commercial development.Preliminary Plat approval in third quarter 2021. Construction and FinalPlat Recording 2022.Phase 1A - Maple Hills Division 5Phase 4 - Approximate Years 2020-2027Completion of gravel pit reclamation, construction of MR andR-12 residential developmentUpdated September 15, 2021119108817 191st Pl SE Jenkins CreekSE 260th St189th Ave SE 188th Ave SE191st Pl SE SE 259th Pl19 3 r d P l S E 19 6 t h A v e S E SE 259th StSE 260th St19 9 t h A v e S E SE Timberlane Blvd198th Pl SESE 256th StSR 18 204th Ave SE2 0 1 s t A v e S E SE 258th St203rd Ave SE SE 258th PlBRCMU PARKS24,956 SF0.57 ACRCMU PARKS97,621 SF2.24 ACMR PARKS110,686 SF2.54 ACR-12 PARKS14,185 SF0.33 ACR-12 PARKS12,500 SF0.29 ACMR PARKS128,425 SF2.95 ACR-12 PARKS32,553 SF0.75 ACR-6 PARKS14,112 SF0.32 ACR-12 PARKS7,254 SF0.17 ACR-6 OPEN SPACE1,880,037 SF43.16 ACR-12 OPEN SPACE572,210 SF13.14 ACR-12 OPEN SPACE4,549 SF0.10 ACR-12 OPEN SPACE34,788 SF0.80 ACRCMU OPENSPACE86,894 SF1.99 ACR-6 PARKS9,908 SF0.23 ACMR PARKS12,799 SF0.29 ACMR OPEN SPACE22,507 SF0.52 ACR-12 OPEN SPACE5,687 SF0.13 ACR-6 OPEN SPACE139,837 SF3.21 ACR-6 OPEN SPACE57,182 SF1.31 ACPC o v i n g t o n C o n n e c t o r Master Development PlanLakepointe Urban VillageMaster Development PlanLakepointe Urban VillageJanuary 30, 2017WetlandWetland BufferUndisturbed Open SpacePublicly Accessible Parks and PlazasMedium Density Residential (R-6)Central Pond FeatureCovington Highlands TrailTrails / Offsite Trail ConnectionsStop LightProposed Park and Ride FacilityTransit StopProposed Truck and Bus Return RoutePublic StreetsHigh Density Residential (R-12)Mixed Residential (MR)Mixed Use / Commercial (RCMU)LegendBBike RouteCENTRAL POND FEATUREGateway ElementSteep Slope and Buffer200400400'0100SCALE: 1" = NProposed Trail ParkingFocal Point / Public Gathering SpotLandscape AreasJenkins CreekPPedestrian / Wildlife UndercrossingNOTE:THE LOCATION OF DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDINGS ROADWAYS ANDTRAILS, IS APPROXIMATE AND DOES NOT VEST TO THIER SPECIFICLOCATION. THE LOCATION OF ALL DEVELOPMENT WILL BE BASEDON EXISTING CONDITIONS AT THE TIME OF APPLICATION AND THETERMS OF THE PLANNED ACTION, THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT,AND APPLICABLE LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL LAWS.Mix of Multi-Family and Commercial isEncouraged within Peninsula AreaUpdated September 15, 2021Disturbed (Graded) Open SpaceSPECIAL PAVEMENTPARKS TABLERCMUMRR-12R-6ZONE SQ FOOTAGE ACREAGE122,577 SF251,910 SF66,492 SF24,020 SF2.81 AC5.78 AC1.53 AC0.55 ACTOTAL464,999 SF 10.67 ACPOND TABLERCMUMRR-12R-6ZONE SQ FOOTAGE ACREAGE366,128 SF106,040 SF334,094 SF0 SF8.41 AC2.43 AC7.67 AC0.00 ACTOTAL806,262 SF 18.51 ACOPEN SPACE TABLERCMUMRR-12R-6ZONE SQ FOOTAGE ACREAGE86,984 SF22,507 SF617,234 SF2,077,056 SF1.99 AC0.52 AC14.17 AC47.68 ACTOTAL2,803,691 SF 64.36 ACCOMBINED OPEN SPACE TABLERCMUMRR-12R-6ZONEPARKS2.81 AC5.78 AC1.53 AC0.55 ACTOTAL10.67 AC91.25 AC34.00 AC35.34 AC53.51 AC214.10 ACOPEN SPACE* POND8.41 AC2.43 AC7.67 AC0.00 AC18.51 AC*OPEN SPACE INCLUDES CRITICAL AREAS, BUFFERS, AND OTHER GREEN SPACES13.21 AC8.73 AC23.37 AC48.23 AC93.55 ACNET ACRES**78.03 AC25.27 AC11.98 AC5.27 AC120.55 AC1.99 AC0.52 AC14.17 AC47.68 AC64.36 ACGROSSACREAGETOTALAMENITIESWILDLIFE /PEDESTRIANUNDER-CROSSING**NET ACRES EQUALS GROSS ACREAGE MINUS TOTAL AMENITIESFUTURE CONNECTIONBEYOND PROPERTY BYOTHERS3646125718 VI - Portable Classrooms The Plan references use of portables as interim capacity for facilities. Currently, the District utilizes portables to house students more than functional capacity and for program purposes at some school locations (Please see Appendices A, B, C). Based on enrollment projections, implementation of full day kindergarten programs, lower state mandated class sizes, functional capacity, and no need for additional interim capacity, the District anticipates no need to purchase or lease additional portables during the next six- year period to ensure capacity requirement (Noted in section V. Six Yr. Planning Construction). During the time period covered by this Plan, the District does not anticipate that all of the District’s portables will be replaced by permanent facilities. During the useful life of some of the portables, the school-age population may decline in some communities and increase in others, and these portables provide the flexibility to accommodate the immediate needs of the community. Portables may be used as interim facilities: 1. To prevent overbuilding or overcrowding of permanent school facilities. 2. To cover the gap between the times of demand for increased capacity and completion of permanent school facilities to meet that demand. 3. To meet unique program requirements. Portables currently in the District’s inventory are continually evaluated resulting in some being improved and some replaced or when possible, be removed due to life expectancy. The Districts goal is to reduce and or eliminate all portables so we may provide an equitable learning environment for all. The Plan projects that the District will use portables to accommodate interim housing needs for the next six years and beyond. The use of portables, their impacts on permanent facilities, life cycle and operational costs, and the interrelationship between portables, emerging technologies, and educational restructuring will continue to be examined. 19 VII - Projected Six-Year Classroom Capacity As stated in Section IV, the functional capacity study is periodically updated for changes in special programs and reflects class size requirements, class size fluctuations etc. As shown in the Inventory and Capacity chart in Table 3, the functional capacity is also reflected in the capacity and enrollment comparison charts (See Tables 5 & 5 a-b-c). Enrollment is electronically reported to OSPI on Form P-223 on a monthly basis and funding apportionment is based on Annual Average FTE (AAFTE). The first school day of October is widely recognized as the enrollment “snapshot in time” to report enrollment for the year. Kent School District continues to be the fifth largest district (both FTE and headcount basis) in the state of Washington. The P-223 Headcount for October 2021 was 24,150 with kindergarten students counted at 1.0 and excluding ECSE and college-only Running Start students. In October 2021, there were an additional 1,397 students in 11th and 12th grade participating in the Running Start program at different colleges and receiving credits toward both high school and college graduation. Of these students, 517 attended classes only at the college (“college- only”) and are excluded from FTE and headcount for capacity and enrollment comparisons. Kent School District has one of the highest Running Start program participation rates in the state. Based on the enrollment forecasts, permanent facility inventory and capacity, current standard of service, portable capacity, and future additional classroom space, the District plans to continue to satisfy required capacity through the interim use of portables (See Table 5 and Tables 5 a-b-c). While the district currently shows available capacity to address projected need on a purely statistical basis, there are variety of extenuating factors that need to be considered. First, the district is currently undertaking a study to understand how much of our existing physical space capacity is occupied by program needs, present and future. Our current capacity estimate is an accurate depiction of total available space; however, we are aware that it potentially overstates our ability to accommodate actual classroom growth. Our analysis of this program use will not be complete until the completion of this year’s plan, but we expect actual available classroom space to be significantly less. Secondly, the Kent School District currently makes significant use of portables, which we do not consider as part of our permanent standard of service. We have included portable space in our capacity figures, but long-term we do not consider that a permanent space solution. Thirdly, Kent is unusual in that is incorporates neighborhoods intersecting with at least 6 municipalities, including Kent, Auburn, Black Diamond, Maple Valley, Renton, and SeaTac. The district covers 73 square miles and includes over 40 schools. Within this large geographic area, we expect to have pockets of localized capacity need that are not necessarily reflected in the aggregate figures. As one example, the 20 Lakepointe Urban Village development in Covington may require new classroom capacity even as space may exist in schools on the far other end of the district’s boundaries. Finally, COVID- 19 has created significant enrollment loss in our community which we believe is temporary; a status shared by most of our neighboring districts. The district is not discontinuing its plans to accommodate for the return of those students, and future normal growth on top of that. 21 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT and CAPACITY TOTAL DISTRICT SCHOOL YEAR 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 Actual Permanent Functional Capacity 1 35,586 35,586 35,586 35,586 35,586 35,586 35,586 Changes to Permanent Capacity 1 Capacity Increase (F) Additional Permanent Classrooms 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Permanent Program Capacity Subtotal 35,586 35,586 35,586 35,586 35,586 35,586 35,586 Interim Portable Capacity Elementary Portable Capacity Required 3,405 3,405 3,405 3,405 3,405 3,405 3,405 Middle School Portable Capacity Required 315 315 315 315 315 315 315 Senior High School Portable Capacity Required 640 640 640 640 640 640 640 Interim Portable Capacity Total 4,360 4,360 4,360 4,360 4,360 4,360 4,360 TOTAL CAPACITY 1 39,946 39,946 39,946 39,946 39,946 39,946 39,946 TOTAL ENROLLMENT/ PROJECTION 2 24,150 25,750 26,118 26,250 26,225 26,216 26,242 DISTRICT AVAILABLE CAPACITY 15,796 14,196 13,828 13,696 13,721 13,730 13,704 1 Capacity is based on standard of service for programs provided and is updated periodically to reflect program changes. 2 Projection Source: Les Kendrick Demographic Study, 2021 ("Medium Growth Model") P R O J E C T E D Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 5 May 2022 22 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT and CAPACITY ELEMENTARY - Grades K - 6 SCHOOL YEAR 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 Actual Elementary Permanent Capacity 1 16,827 16,827 16,827 16,827 16,827 16,827 16,827 Additional Permanent Classrooms 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subtotal 16,827 16,827 16,827 16,827 16,827 16,827 16,827 Interim Portable Capacity 3,405 3,405 3,405 3,405 3,405 3,405 3,405 TOTAL CAPACITY 1 / 2 20,232 20,232 20,232 20,232 20,232 20,232 20,232 ENROLLMENT / PROJECTION 3 13,049 14,270 14,407 14,403 14,438 14,449 14,411 SURPLUS (DEFICIT) CAPACITY 7,183 5,962 5,825 5,829 5,794 5,783 5,821 1 Capacity is based on standard of service for programs provided and is updated periodically to reflect program changes. 2 Additional classrooms will be placed at schools with the greatest need for aleve overcrowding 3 Projection Source: Les Kendrick Demographic Study, 2021 ("Medium Growth Model") Enrollment & Projections reflect FULL Day Kindergarten at ALL Elementary schools @ 1.0 & exclude ECSE Preschoolers. P R O J E C T E D Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 5 A May 2022 23 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT and CAPACITY MIDDLE SCHOOL - Grades 7 - 8 SCHOOL YEAR 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-2028 Actual Middle School Permanent Capacity 1 7,635 7,635 7,635 7,635 7,635 7,635 7,635 Changes to Middle School Capacity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subtotal 7,635 7,635 7,635 7,635 7,635 7,635 7,635 Portable Interim Capacity 1 TOTAL CAPACITY 1 & 3 7,635 7,635 7,635 7,635 7,635 7,635 7,635 ENROLLMENT / PROJECTION 2 3,862 4,079 4,008 4,065 4,119 4,090 4,175 SURPLUS (DEFICIT) CAPACITY 3,773 3,556 3,627 3,570 3,516 3,545 3,460 No Classroom Portables required at middle schools at this time. Some Portables used for classroom and program purposes. 1 Capacity is based on standard of service for programs provided and is updated periodically to reflect program changes. 2 Projection Source: Les Kendrick Demographic Study, 2021 ("Medium Growth Model") 3 Surplus capacity due to grade level reconfiguration - All 9th grade students moved to the high schools in Fall 2004. P R O J E C T E D Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 5 B May 2022 24 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT and CAPACITY SENIOR HIGH - Grades 9 - 12 SCHOOL YEAR 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-2026 2026-27 2027-28 Actual Senior High Permanent Capacity 1 10,582 10,582 10,582 10,582 10,582 10,582 10,582 Changes to High School Capacity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subtotal 10,582 10,582 10,582 10,582 10,582 10,582 10,582 Portables Interim Capacity 1 TOTAL CAPACITY 1 10,582 10,582 10,582 10,582 10,582 10,582 10,582 ENROLLMENT / PROJECTION 3 7,239 7,401 7,703 7,782 7,668 7,677 7,656 SURPLUS (DEFICIT) CAPACITY 3,343 3,181 2,879 2,800 2,914 2,905 2,926 No Classroom Portables required at this time. Some Portables used for classroom and program purposes. 1 Capacity is based on standard of service for programs provided and is updated periodically to reflect program changes. 3 Projection Source: Les Kendrick Demographic Study, 2021 ("Medium Growth Model") P R O J E C T E D Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 5 C May 2022 25 VIII - Finance Plan The finance plan shown on Table 6 demonstrates how the Kent School District plans to finance improvements for the years 2021-2022 through 2027-2028. The financing components include secured and unsecured funding and impact fees. The plan is based on future bond issues, state school construction assistance, collection of impact fees under the State Growth Management Act and voluntary mitigation fees paid pursuant to State Environmental Policy Act. In November 2016, the District held a special election to approve the authorization of $252,000,000 in bonding authority. The projects described below are part of this authorization. The first series of bonds ($80 million) were issued in February 2017, which funded the Covington Elementary Replacement School, as well as other infrastructure projects. Impact fees were used at both River Ridge Elementary School and Kent Laboratory Academy projects due to escalation in construction pricing across the Pacific Northwest. According to RCW 82.02.090, the definition of an impact fee is ". . . a payment of money imposed upon development as a condition of development approval to pay for public facilities needed to serve new growth and development, and that is reasonably related to the new development that creates additional demand and need for public facilities, that is a proportionate share of the cost of the public facilities, and that is used for facilities that reasonably benefit the new development. `Impact fee' does not include a reasonable permit or application fee." Mitigation or impact fees can be calculated on the basis of "unhoused student need" or "the maintenance of a district's level of service" as related to new residential development. A mitigation/impact fee may be imposed based upon a determination of insufficient existing permanent and/or interim portable school space or to pay for permanent and/or newly acquired interim portable school space previously constructed as a result of growth in the district. A district's School Board must first approve the application of the mitigation or impact fees and, in turn, approval must then be granted by the other general government jurisdictions having responsibility within the district, counties, cities and towns. (Kent, Covington, Renton, Auburn, Black Diamond, Maple Valley, and SeaTac) Though the current enrollment projections increase for both elementary and secondary schools are relatively flat, the ongoing need to provide permanent instructional facilities to house students is a driving need as the shifts in our family populations continue, due to ongoing development. Previously collected Impact fees may be used to support and address the challenges related to the number of interim instructional facilities currently in use, the replacement of some of these aged facilities, the maintenance of the district's level of services, and the potential expansions to existing facilities in future years. The Kent School District 2021-2022 CFP update includes continued execution of the 2016 Capital Bond Projects and anticipation of the data collection and review of our Facility Assessment Reports within the coming months. With the opening of our River Ridge Elementary School and the Kent Laboratory Academy, we are advancing opportunities to add capacity for our programs and student- based needs. The District Facilities and Capital Planning Teams have been preparing to complete an initial plan (Spring 2022) as we move the next steps of creating a Capital Bond Planning Task Force (CBPTF) – which will include District personnel, design professionals, teaching staff, student voice as well as community members to being well collaborated discussions to this platform. Our initial plan has revealed priorities including school replacement due to age, and the need for added permanent facilities to (1) reduce and eliminate our need for portables and (2) accommodate future growth as housing in the Kent region continues to expand. Once the CBPTF has it will be brought before the District’s Board of Directors for comments, discussion, and approval. A Capital Bond Measure would follow soon after approval. Future updates to this Capital Facilities Plan will include details of any adopted planning. For the Six-Year Finance Plan, costs of future schools are based on estimates from Kent School District Capital Planning Team. Please see pages 13-14 for a summary of the cost basis. Cost Basis Summary For impact fee calculations, construction estimated costs are based on the last elementary school built in Kent, adjusted for inflation, and projected cost future elementary school, as well as average pricing of nearby school districts recently built new middle and new high school projects. Project Projected Cost New Elementary School $68,000,000 New Middle School $155,000,000 New High School $220,000,000 Site Acquisition Cost The site acquisition cost is based on an average cost of sites purchased or built on within the last ten years. Please see Table 7 for a list of site acquisition costs and averages. District Adjustment The impact fee calculations on Appendix B & C result in a zero-dollar impact fee total for this year but may be adjusted if needed per RCW 36.70A.130(2)(b) provision. KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 SIX-YEAR FINANCE PLAN Secured Unsecured Impact SCHOOL FACILITIES *2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 TOTAL Local & State State 2 or Local 3 Fees 5 Estimated Estimated PERMANENT FACILITIES No School Projects at this time.$0 TEMPORARY FACILITIES Additional portables 3 - 4 $0 OTHER N / A Totals $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 * F = Funded U = Unfunded NOTES: 2 The District anticipates receiving some State Funding Construction Assistance for some projects. 3 Facility needs are pending review. Some of these projects may be funded with impact fees. 4 Cost of portables based on current cost and adjusted for inflation for future years. 5 Fees in this column are based on amount of fees collected to date and estimated fees on future units. Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 6 May 2022 29 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 Site Acquisitions & Costs Average of Sites Purchased, Sold or Built on within last 10 Years Type & # on Map School / Site Year Open / Purchased Sold Location Acreage Cost/Price Avg cost-price/acre Total Average Cost / Acre Elementary 12 / Urban Property Sale-29.7 acres of Plemons-Yeh site 2016 SSE 124th Ave and 284th ST SE 29.70 $947,536 $31,904 7 / Rural Property Sale - Scarsella site 2015 2900 Kent Black Diamond RD SE 13.25 $330,000 $24,906 3 / Rural Property Sale - Old Covington Parcel A, #362206-9081 2019 17070 SE Wax Rd, Covington 8.00 $3,869,697 $483,712 3 / Rural Property Sale - Old Covington Parcel , #362206-9081 2021 17070 SE Wax Rd, Covington 8.00 $4,230,082 $528,760 6 / Rural Property purchased for new elementary 2019 5 lots purchased Military Road South SeaTac WA 10.00 $1,770,355 $177,036 Elementary Site Subtotal 68.95 $11,147,670 $161,678 Elem site average Middle School No Acquisitions for Middle School 0.00 $0 Middle School Site Subtotal 0.00 $0 $0 Middle Schl Site Avg. Senior High No Acquisitions for Senior Highs 0.00 $0 $0 Senior High Site Subtotal 0.00 $0 $0 Sr Hi Site Average Note: All rural sites were purchased prior to adoption of Urban Growth Area. Numbers correspond to locations on Site Bank & Acquisitions Map on Page 17. Properties purchased prior to 2010 1 / Urban Site - Covington area North (So of Mattson MS)1984 2 / Rural Site - Ham Lake east (Pollard)1992 4 / Urban Site - Shady Lake (Sowers-Blaine-Drahota-Paroline)1995 68.95 $11,147,670 5 / Rural Site - SE of Lake Morton area (West property)1993 10 / Urban Site - Yeh-Williams (W of 132 Ave SE at SE 288)1999 12 / Urban Site - SE 256th Covington (Halleson)2000 12a / Urban Site - 156th Ave. SE Covington (Wikstrom)2004 Total Acreage & Cost Total Average Cost / Acre $161,678 Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 7 May 2022 30 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT FACTORS FOR ESTIMATED IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS Student Generation Factors - Single Family Student Generation Factors - Multi-Family Elementary (Grades K - 6)0.270 Elementary 0.082 Middle School (Grades 7 - 8)0.105 Middle School 0.035 Senior High (Grades 9 - 12) 0.075 Senior High 0.029 Total 0.450 Total 0.146 Projected Increased Student Capacity OSPI - Square Footage per Student, see side cha Elementary 0 Elementary 115 Middle School 850 Middle School 148 Senior High (Academy)0 Senior High 173 Special Education ?? Required Site Acreage per Facility Elementary (required)12 Average Site Cost / Acre Middle School (required)25 Elementary $161,678 Senior High (required)40 Middle School $0 Senior High $0 New Facility Construction Cost Elementary $68,000,000 Temporary Facility Capacity & Cost Middle School $155,000,000 Elementary @ 24 $315,000 Senior High $220,000,000 Middle School @ 29 $315,000 Senior High @ 31 $315,000 Temporary Facility Square Footage State Funding Assistance Credit Elementary 123,702 District Funding Assistance Percentage 51.86% Middle School 10,256 Senior High 21,296 Total 4.4% 155,254 Construction Cost Allocation CCA - Cost/Sq, Ft. $246.83 Permanent Facility Square Footage Elementary 1,567,594 Middle School 760,483 District Average Assessed Value Senior High/Other 1,077,315 Single Family Residence $574,784 Total 95.6%3,405,392 Total Facilities Square Footage District Average Assessed Value Elementary 1,691,296 Multi-Family Residence $360,790 Middle School 770,739 Senior High/Other 1,098,611 Total 3,560,646 Bond Levy Tax Rate/$1,000 $0.93 Current Rate / 1,000 Tax Rate 0.0009 Developer Provided Sites / Facilities Value 0 General Obligation Bond Interest Rate Dwelling Units 0 Current Bond Interest Rate 2.45% CPI Inflation Factor 4.70% Per OSPI Website Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan (APPENDIX A)May 2022 31 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION for SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE Site Acquisition Cost per Single Family Residence Formula: ((Acres x Cost per Acre) / Facility Capacity) x Student Generation Factor Required Site Acreage Average Site Cost/Acre Facility Capacity Student Factor A 1 (Elementary)12 $161,678 0 0.270 A 2 (Middle School)25 $0 850 0.105 $0.00 A 3 (Senior High)40 $0 0 0.075 Total 77 $161,678 850 0.450A $0.00 Permanent Facility Construction Cost per Single Family Residence Formula: ((Facility Cost / Facility Capacity) x Student Factor) x (Permanent/Total Square Footage Ratio) Construction Cost Facility Capacity Student Factor Footage Ratio B 1 (Elementary)$68,000,000 0 0.270 0.903 B 2 (Middle School)$155,000,000 850 0.105 0.984 $18,840.71 B 3 (Senior High)$220,000,000 0 0.075 0.998 Total $443,000,000 850 0.450 B $18,840.71 Temporary Facility Cost per Single Family Residence (Portables) Formula: ((Facility Cost / Facility Capacity) x Student Factor) x (Temporary / Total Square Footage Ratio) Facility Cost Facility Capacity Student Factor Footage Ratio C 1 (Elementary)$315,000 24 0.270 0.097 $343.74 C 2 (Middle School)$315,000 29 0.105 0.016 $18.25 C 3 (Senior High)$315,000 31 0.075 0.020 $15.24 Total $945,000 84 0.450 C $377.23 State Funding Assistance Credit per Single Family Residence (formerly "State Match") Formula: Area Cost Allowance x SPI Square Feet per student x Funding Assistance % x Student Factor Construction Cost Allocation SPI Sq. Ft. / Student Assistance %Student Factor D 1 (Elementary)$246.83 115 0.5186 0.270 $3,974.59 D 2 (Middle School)$246.83 148 0.5186 0.105 $1,989.21 D 3 (Senior High)$246.83 173 0.5186 0.075 $1,660.88 D $7,624.68 Tax Credit per Single Family Residence Average SF Residential Assessed Value (AAV)$574,784 Net Present Value (per EQ) (NPV)8.77 Current Debt Service Rate / 1,000 ( r )0.09%TC $4,675.64 (Below used to calculate NPV) Current Bond Interest Rate 2.45% Years Amortized (10 Years)- Used in NPV Calculation 10 Developer Provided Facility Credit Facility / Site Value Dwelling Units 0 0 FC 0 Fee Recap ** A = Site Acquisition per SF Residence $0.00 B = Permanent Facility Cost per Residence $18,840.71 C = Temporary Facility Cost per Residence $377.23 Subtotal $19,217.94 D = State Match Credit per Residence $7,624.68 TC = Tax Credit per Residence $4,675.64 Subtotal $12,300.32 Total Unfunded Need $6,917.62 50% Developer Fee Obligation $3,459 FC = Facility Credit (if applicable)$0 District Adjustment ($3,459) Net Fee Obligation per Residence - Single Family $0.00 Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan (APPENDIX B)Revised_June 2022 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION for MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENCE Site Acquisition Cost per Multi-Family Residence Unit Formula: ((Acres x Cost per Acre) / Facility Capacity) x Student Generation Factor Required Site Acreage Average Site Cost/Acre Facility Capacity Student Factor A 1 (Elementary)12 $161,678 0 0.082 A 2 (Middle School)25 $0 850 0.035 $0.00 A 3 (Senior High)40 $0 0 0.029 Total 77 $161,678 850 0.146A $0.00 Permanent Facility Construction Cost per Multi-Family Residence Unit Formula: ((Facility Cost / Facility Capacity) x Student Factor) x (Permanent / Total Square Footage Ratio) Construction Cost Facility Capacity Student Factor Footage Ratio B 1 (Elementary)$68,000,000 0 0.082 0.903 B 2 (Middle School)$155,000,000 850 0.035 0.984 $6,280.24 B 3 (Senior High)$220,000,000 0 0.029 0.998 Total $443,000,000 850 0.146 B $6,280.24 Temporary Facility Cost per Multi-Family Residence Unit Formula: ((Facility Cost / Facility Capacity) x Student Factor) x (Temporary / Total Square Footage Ratio) Facility Cost Facility Capacity Student Factor Footage Ratio C 1 (Elementary)$315,000 24 0.082 0.097 $104.40 C 2 (Middle School)$315,000 29 0.035 0.016 $6.08 C 3 (Senior High)$315,000 31 0.029 0.020 $5.89 Total $945,000 84 0.146 C $116.37 State Funding Assistance Credit per Multi-Family Residence (formerly "State Match") Formula: Area Cost Allowance x SPI Square Feet per student x Funding Assistance % x Student Factor Area Cost Allowance SPI Sq. Ft. / Student Equalization %Student Factor D 1 (Elementary)$246.83 115 0.5186 0.082 $1,207.10 D 2 (Middle School)$246.83 148 0.5186 0.035 $663.07 D 3 (Senior High)$246.83 173 0.5186 0.029 $642.21 D $2,512.37 Tax Credit per Multi Family Residence Average MF Residential Assessed Value (AAV)$360,790 Net Present Value (per EQ) (NPV)8.77 Current Debt Service Rate / 1,000 ( r )0.09%TC $2,934.88 (Below used to calculate NPV) Current Bond Interest Rate 2.45% Years Amortized (10 Years)- Used in NPV Calculation 10 Developer Provided Facility Credit Facility / Site Value Dwelling Units 0 0 FC 0 Fee Recap ** A = Site Acquisition per Multi-Family Unit $0.00 B = Permanent Facility Cost per MF Unit $6,280.24 C = Temporary Facility Cost per MF Unit $116.37 Subtotal $6,396.61 D = State Match Credit per MF Unit $2,512.37 TC = Tax Credit per MF Unit $2,934.88 Subtotal $5,447.26 Total Unfunded Need $949.35 50% Developer Fee Obligation $475 FC = Facility Credit (if applicable)0 District Adjustment ($475) Net Fee Obligation per Residential Unit - Multi-family $0.00 Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan (APPENDIX C)Revised_June 2022 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 Site Acquisitions and Projects Planned to Provide Additional Capacity Projected Projected % for SCHOOL / FACILITY / SITE LOCATION Type Status Completion Program new Date Capacity Growth Approximate Approximate # on Map ELEMENTARY MIDDLE SCHOOL & SENIOR HIGH TEMPORARY FACILITIES Additional Capacity Portables 1 # on Map 2 OTHER SITES ACQUIRED Land Use Designation Type 12 256th - Covington (Halleson)25435 SE 256th, Covington 98042 Rural To be sold 12a 156th - Covington (Wikstrom)25847 156th Ave. SE, Covington 98042 Rural To be sold Notes: 1 TBD - To be determined - Some sites are identified but placement, timing and/or configuration of portables has not been determined. 2 Numbers correspond to sites on Site Bank Map on Page 19. Other Map site locations are parcels identified in Table 7 on Page 29. King County King County Land Use Jurisdiction Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 4 May 2022 34 © copyright KROLL MAP COMPANY, INC. This map has been modified by KSD 05/22 Sawyer Woods Elementary Jenkins Creek Elementary Fairwood Elementary Ridgewood Elementary Northwood Middle School Lake Youngs Elementary Glenridge Elementary Kentridge High School Springbrook Elementary Soos Creek Elementary Sunrise Elementary Meridian Middle School Kentwood High School Park Orchard Elementary Martin Sortun Elementary Daniel Elementary East Hill Elementary Mill Creek Middle School Kent Elementary Kent-Meridian High School Scenic Hill Elementary Kent School District Administration Center Meadow Ridge Elementary Pine Tree Elementary Horizon Elementary Covington Elementary Cedar Heights Middle School Cedar Valley Elementary Crestwood Elementary Mattson Middle School Kentlake High School Neely O’Brien Elementary Carriage Crest Elementary MeridianElementary Meeker Middle School Grass Lake Elementary Emerald Park Elementary Millennium Elementary iGrad Kent Valley Early Learning Center The Outreach Program (TOP) Panther Lake Elementary River Ridge Elementary Kent Laboratory Academy 4 5 1 2 10 12 12a KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT SITE ACQUISITIONS 35 IX - Summary of Changes to June 2021 Capital Facilities Plan The Capital Facilities Plan (the "Plan") is updated annually based on previous Plans in effect since 1993. The primary changes from the June 2021 Plan are summarized here. Changes to capacity continue to reflect fluctuations in class size ratio as well as program changes. Changes in portables or transitional capacity reflect use, lease or purchase, sale, surplus and/or movement between facilities. The district worked with contractor Davis Demographics, LLC to update student generation factors. The updated rates are included in the body of the Plan. The student headcount enrollment forecast is updated annually. All Elementary schools now have Full Day Kindergarten so six-year Kindergarten projections were previously modified to meet the requirements for Full Day Kindergarten programs at all elementary schools. The district expects to receive some State Funding Assistance (formerly called “state matching funds”) for projects in this Plan and tax credit factors are updated annually. Unfunded site and facility needs will be reviewed in the future. The impact fees for 2022 calendar year will result in a zero-dollar impact fee for both Single- Family and Multi-Family due to reduced enrollment and the new capacity study completed in 2021. ITEM Grade/ Type FROM TO Increase/ Decrease Comments Student Generation Factor Elem 0.277 0.270 -0.007 Single Family (SF)MS 0.071 0.105 0.034 SH 0.086 0.075 -0.011 Total 0.434 0.450 0.016 Increase Student Generation Factor Elem 0.258 0.082 -0.176 Multi-Family (MF)MS 0.058 0.035 -0.023 SH 0.100 0.029 -0.071 Total 0.416 0.146 -0.270 Decrease State Funding Assistance Ratios (“State Match”) 53.79%52.49%-1.30%Per OSPI Website Area Cost Allowance $242.26 $246.83 4.570 Per OSPI Website Link Average Assessed Valuation (AV)SF $268,271 $574,784 306,513 Per King County AV - Average of Condominiums & Apts.MF $226,726 $360,790 134,064 Per King County Debt Service Capital Levy Rate / $1000 $1.41 $0.93 ($0.48)Per King Co. Assessor Report General Obligation Bond Interest Rate 2.44%2.45%0.01%Bond Buyers 20 year GO Index Impact Fee - Single Family SF $5,818.06 $0.00 ($5,818.06) Removed due to Capacity/Enrollment Factors Impact Fee - Multi-Family MF $2,457.53 $0.00 ($2,457.53) Removed due to Capacity/Enrollment Factors X - Appendices Changes to Impact Fee Calculation Factors Include: 2 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 of King County, City of Kent, City of Covington, City of Renton, City of Auburn and possibly Cities of Maple Valley, Black Diamond and SeaTac have been and/or will be amended to include the Kent School District 2022 Capital Facilities Plan in the Capital Facilities Plan Element of the Comprehensive Plan for each jurisdiction. A copy of the Capital Facilities Plan is available for review in the Kent School District Capital Planning team. 2. Name of applicant: Kent School District No. 415. 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Kent School District No. 415 12033 SE 256th Street Bldg. B Kent, WA 98030-6643 Contact Person: Mr. Dave Bussard, Executive Director Telephone: (253) 373-7526 4. Date checklist prepared: April 4, 2022 5. Agency requesting checklist: Kent School District No. 415 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): The 2022 Kent School District Capital Facilities Plan is scheduled to be forwarded to King County, Cities of Kent, Covington, Renton, Auburn, Maple Valley, Black Diamond, and SeaTac for possible inclusion in each jurisdiction's Comprehensive Plan. The Capital Facilities Plan will be updated annually. Site-specific projects have been or will be subject to project-specific environmental review. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. None at this time Page 1 of 4 Memorandum To: Planning and Community Development From: Finance Department, Capital Projects Date: September 16, 2022 Re: DRAFT 6-Year Capital Facilities Plan (2023-2028) Attached is the copy of our 2023-2028 Draft Capital Facilities Plan (CFP), the capital facilities element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. For questions or additional information on the preparation of this document, please contact Consuelo Rogel at (253) 804-5023 or crogel@auburnwa.gov. Questions regarding specific projects contained in the document should be directed to the department managing the project(s). A capital facilities plan is one of the comprehensive plan elements required by Washington’s Growth Management Act (GMA). The GMA requires that a capital facilities plan include an inventory of existing capital facilities (showing locations and capacities), a forecast of future needs for such capital facilities, proposed locations, and capacities of new or expanded capital facilities, and a minimum of a six-year plan to finance capital facilities with identified sources of funding. The attached CFP satisfies the GMA requirement for a Capital Facilities Element as part of the Comprehensive Plan. The following projects have been added, removed, or revised from the previous year’s CFP (2022-2027) due to the creation of new projects, completion of projects or changes in project titles and/or priorities: Transportation Projects (see TIP for further details) Additions • 10th Street NE Non-Motorized Improvements page 34 • Regional Growth Center Pedestrian Improvements page 55 • Lea Hill Road/104th Avenue SE Roundabout page 32 • 37th Street SE Safe Routes to Schools page 56 • 2022 Arterial Pedestrian and Bike Safety Project page 57 • High Friction Surface Treatment page 58 • D St SE & 23rd St SE Storm Improvements page 61 • 2023 Local Street Preservation page 62 • C Street SW Preservation (GSA Signal to Ellingson Road SE) page 69 • 2023 Arterial Preservation Project page 71 Page 2 of 4 Transportation Projects Deletions • Stewart Road -Lake Tapps Pkwy Corridor Project to be completed in 2022 • A Street NW - Phase 1 (3rd St NW to 14th St NW) Project to be completed in 2022 • Downtown Transit Center Access Imp. Project funded and constructed by KC • M Street SE Sidewalk Improvements Project to be completed in 2022 • 2021 Local Street Preservation Project Project to be completed in 2022 • Lea Hill Bridge Deck Preservation Project to be completed in 2022 • 3rd Street SW Bridges Deck Preservation Project to be completed in 2022 Water, Sewer, Storm Utilities Projects Additions • 104th Avenue SE PRV Replacement Water page 91 • 112th Pl SE Water Main Replacement Water page 92 • Braunwood Building Roof Replace Water page 95 • Fulmer CCTF Replace On-Site Chlorine Generation System Water page 101 • Fulmer Treatment Facility VFD Replacements Water page 102 • Intertie Booster Pump Station Generator Pigtail Water page 105 • On-Site Chlorine Generation Systems at Wells 1 and 4 Water page 110 • Rehabilitate & Clean Wells 2 and 6 Water page 112 • Reservoir Capital Improvements Water page 114 • Well 4 Electrical Improvements Water page 122 • West Hill Springs Transmission Main Replacement Water page 125 • South 316th Sidewalk Improvement Storm page 162 • Storm Pipeline Extension Program Storm page 163 Water, Sewer, Storm Utilities Projects Deletions • 2021 Local Street Preservation Project complete in 2022 • Auburn Way Pavement Patching Project complete in 2022 • Lea Hill AC Main Replacement Project complete in 2022 • D Street SE Storm Improvements Project combined with cp2125 (D St SE & 23rd St SE Storm Imp. • Pump Station Electrical Improvements Project complete in 2022 • Sewer Vactor Decant Facility Project removed from CFP Page 3 of 4 Water, Sewer, Storm Utilities Projects Deletions (continued) • 2021 Sewer Repair and Replacement Project complete in 2022 • 2021 Storm Renewal & Replacement Project Project complete in 2022 • 37th St. NW Storm Improvement Project complete in 2022 • Arterial and Pedestrian Bike Safety Project complete in 2022 • Auburn Way North and 1st St NE Signal Replacement Project complete in 2022 • Lead Service Line Replacement -Storm Project complete in 2022 Parks, Arts & Recreation Projects Additions • Dykstra Footbridge page 185 • Neighborhood Parks Improvement page 187 Parks, Arts & Recreation Projects Deletions • Auburndale Park I Project complete in 2022 • Cameron Park Project moved to future years -beyond 2028 • Community Ctr Parking Lot Improvements Project complete in 2022 General Municipal Buildings / Community Improvements Additions • Facility Master Plan Phases 2, 3 and 4 page 195 • Justice Center Renovation page 198 • Golf Course Driving Range page 206 • Downtown Decorative LED Conversion page 210 • 2022 Sidewalk & ADA Improvement Project page 213 • 2023 City Safety Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements page 214 • 2022 Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program Focus Area page 217 • 2023 City Safety Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements page 214 • Downtown Infrastructure Improvements page 218 Page 4 of 4 Community Improvements / General Municipal Buildings Deletions • 2022 Sidewalk & ADA Imp. Project to be completed in 2022 • City Street Light LED Retrofit Project to be completed in 2022 • Downtown Plaza Park Project to be completed in 2022 • City Street Light LED Retrofit Project to be completed in 2022 • M&O Facility Improvements-Phase 1 Project phase completed in 2022 • City Downtown Public Parking Lot Reconfiguration Title changed to Downtown Infrastructure Improvements (p.218) • City Wetland Mitigation Projects Included as part of cp1821 project in Arterial Street Fund 102 (page 49) Airport Additions • Security Fencing page 234 Cemetery Additions • Cemetery Development -10th addition page 239 • Forest Walk -Phase 3 page 240 Cemetery Deletions • Mausoleum Building Project move to future years Beyond 2028 September 2022 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Judi Roland, Chair, Planning Commission Phillip Stephens, Vice-Chair, Planning Commission Planning Commission Members FROM: Nicole Benert, Planner Department of Community Development DATE: September 16, 2022 RE: Amend the City’s Comprehensive Plan & Zoning Code (Title 18) – related to the Public and Institutional Land Use Designations of the Land Use Element & “P-1” and “I” Zoning Districts (CPA22-0001 & City File Nos. ZOA22-0003) I. BACKGROUND Staff is proposing to reinstate the P-1, Public Use zone into Auburn’s Comprehensive Plan and further differentiate the P-1 zone from the I, Institutional zone. The P-1 zone was removed from Auburn’s Comprehensive Plan (in 2015 under Ordinance (Ord.) Number (No.) 6584) in an effort to reorganize and consolidate the implementing zoning districts for the Institutional Land Use Designation. However, the P-1 zone was never removed from Title 18– the Zoning Code of the Auburn City Code (ACC), nor the Auburn Zoning Map. Rather than combining the P-1 and I zone into one zone as originally intended, it is now sought to reinstate the P-1 zone and provide more definition in the differences between the two zones. This will entail amending Chapter 18.35 ACC, “Special Purpose Zones”, as well as rezoning public schools (K-12) within Auburn city limits to the P-1 zone. Additionally, amending the Land Use Element of Auburn’s Comprehensive Plan to relist the P-1 zone as an implementing zoning district will be necessary. The land use designation “Institutional” is also proposed to be renamed “Public/Quasi- Public” and will continue to have the following implementing zoning designations: Institutional, Public Use, and Landing Field. This name change will require amending the Comprehensive Land Use Map and text within the Comprehensive Plan. Auburn Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment – Land Use Element Auburn’s Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2015 by Ordinance No. 6584. In this update, the Public Use District or P-1 zone was removed as an implementing zoning designation for the Institutional land use designation. It was removed in an effort to consolidate the implementing zoning districts for the Institutional Land Use Designation. Per Auburn’s 2015 Comprehensive Plan, the description of the Institutional land use designation is: “This category includes those areas that are reserved for public or institutional uses. These public uses include public schools and institutional uses such as large churches and schools. It is also intended to include those of a significant impact, and not those smaller public uses that are consistent with and may be included in another designation. For example, public uses of an industrial character are included in the industrial designation, and small-scale religious institutions of a residential character are included in the residential designation.” ZOA22-0003 & CPA22-0001 September 2022 2 The intent of this land use designation remains with the proposed text amendments. Since the P-1 zone was never removed from Title 18 and there are P-1 zoned parcels within Auburn currently, there is an opportunity to reinstate the zoning district and make minor revisions in the land use policies and designation criteria to support three different zoning districts. The Institutional land use designation was previously named Public/Quasi-Public to represent the unique public and private uses and services that can fall within this designation. Changing the name back to Public/Quasi-Public better describes the private and public relationship of the designation. Auburn Comprehensive Land Use Map Amendment All public schools (K-12) are currently designated as Institutional. The Comprehensive Land Use Map will only reflect the change in the name of the land use designation to Public/Quasi-Public. Zoning Map Amendment A majority of the public schools (K-12) are currently zoned P-1. There are fifteen public schools (K-12) in Auburn city limits that are zoned P-1, five that are zoned I, and one school is zoned R-5, Residential Five Dwelling Units per Acre. The one school that is zoned R-5 has a land use designation of Institutional, so the Comprehensive Land Use Map amendment will only need to reflect the name change of the land use designation. In total, six public schools will be corrected to be zoned to the P-1 zone. Zoning Code Text Amendment – Chapter 18.35 ACC The Public Use District or P-1 zone was adopted in 1953 under Ordinance No. 1041. This ordinance has been repealed, though a P-1, Public Use District zone has remained through multiple Zoning Ordinance repeals. The Institutional or I zone was adopted in 1987 by Ordinance No. 4229. This ordinance repealed the previous Zoning Ordinance and created a new codified Zoning Ordinance, in which new zoning districts, including the I zone, were added to the title. Chapter 18.35 ACC, Special Purpose Zones was adopted in 2012 under Ordinance No. 6434, which includes the development standards and land uses allowed within the P-1 and I zone, among three other zoning districts as well. Per ACC 18.35.020(C) the purpose of the P-1 zone is to “provide for the appropriate location and development of public uses that serve the cultural, educational, recreational, and public service needs of the community.” The intent of the P-1 zone is to encompass public uses that are generally smaller in scale, and feature a single on-site use (e.g., a public elementary school). This zone allows flexibility with regard to the zoning development standards for public schools (K-12). For this reason, it is proposed to amend the Table 18.35.030 ACC to no longer permit public schools (K-12) in the Institutional zone. Per ACC 18.35.020(D) the purposed of the I zone is to “provide an area wherein educational, governmental, theological, recreational, cultural and other public and quasi-public uses may be allowed to develop. It is further intended these areas be significant in scope which will allow a combination of uses which may not be permitted outright within other zones. This district is not intended to include those smaller or singular public uses which are consistent with and permitted in other zones.” The intent of the I zone is to provide for wider variety of public and quasi-public land uses such as larger education, governmental and cultural uses, that may take place in a more campus like setting. For example, Green River College, Auburn Adventist Academy, churches/religious institutions, and for-profit private schools are zoned Institutional. ZOA22-0003 & CPA22-0001 September 2022 3 Though the P-1 zone was removed as an implementing zoning designation for the “Institutional” land use designation (to be renamed Public/Quasi-Public) in the last Comprehensive Plan update, it still functions well as a zoning district. The P-1 zone was never removed from Title 18, it is still listed within ACC 18.02.070 as an established zone within Auburn and has established land uses and development standards pursuant to Chapter 18.35 ACC. To further distinguish the P-1 and I zone, minor code amendments are proposed in Chapter 18.35 ACC. II. STAFF PROPOSED UPDATES The Comprehensive Plan text amendment is shown by strikeout/underline and is attached to this memo as Exhibit A. The Comprehensive Land Use Map text amendment is shown by map and is attached to this memo as Exhibit D. The Zoning Text amendment is shown by strikeout/underline and is attached to this memo as Exhibit B. Lastly, the Zoning Map amendment is shown by map and is attached to this memo as Exhibit E. A letter of support from the Auburn School District for proposed comprehensive plan and zoning amendments is attached as Exhibit C. III. EXHIBIT(S) A – P/T#6 - Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Land Use Element Proposed Text Changes B – P/T#6 - Zoning Ordinance Amendment – Proposed Text Changes C – P/T#6 - Auburn School District Letter of Support for Proposed Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Amendments D – CPM#1 – Proposed Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map E – CPM#1 - Zoning Map Amendments, Public Schools (K-12) to be zoned P-1 IV. GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS 1) Comprehensive Plan: Auburn's Comprehensive Plan is the leading policy document that guides the City's evolution and growth over a 20-year period. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the desired type, configuration, and intensity of land uses throughout the city, as well as the character and capacity of public facilities and services like streets and utilities. Its policies address critical topics such as housing, the environment, transportation, public safety, and economic development. The Comprehensive Plan also serves as the basis for the City's adoption of special purpose plans for the city such as transportation or utilities plans, and serves as the basis for development standards and regulations such as City zoning and critical area regulations.i The comprehensive plan of a county or city that is required or chooses to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 shall consist of a map or maps, and descriptive text covering objectives, principles, and standards used to develop the comprehensive plan. The plan shall be an internally consistent document and all elements shall be consistent with the future land use map.ii 2) Comprehensive Zoning Map: The zones set out in ACC 18.02.070 are established as the designations, locations, and boundaries thereof as set forth and indicated on the zoning map.iii 3) Land use designation: All land within the City of Auburn is assigned a land use designation, which builds off the past Comprehensive Plan Map, the existing land use City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan pattern, previously approved subarea plans, topography, natural features, and targeted goals for shifting the character of specified areas. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map shows the location and boundaries for each designation. This map should be consulted together with the written policies of this Plan when decisions about zoning designations, land use activities, and development of public infrastructure are considered.iv ZOA22-0003 & CPA22-0001 September 2022 4 4) Public use: means a use operated exclusively by a public body, such use having the purpose of serving the public health, safety, or general welfare, and including uses such as public schools, parks, playgrounds, and administrative and service facilities.v 5) Quasi-public use: means a use operated by a private nonprofit educational, religious, recreational, charitable, or medical institution having the purpose primarily of serving the general public, and including uses such as churches, private schools and universities, community, youth and senior citizen recreational facilities, private hospitals, and the like. viii 6) Use: means an activity or purpose for which land or premises or a building thereon is designed, arranged, intended, or for which it is occupied or maintained, let or leased.vi 7) Zone: means an area accurately defined as to boundaries and location on an official map to which a uniform set of regulations applies controlling the types and intensities of land uses, as set forth in this title.vii 8) Zoning: A police power measure, enacted primarily by units of local government, in which the community is divided into districts or zones within which permitted and special uses are established, as are regulations governing lot size, building bulk, placement, and other development standards. Requirements vary from district to district, but they must be uniform within districts. A zoning ordinance consists of two parts – the text and a map.viii i City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan website, https://www.auburnwa.gov/ ii Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 36.70A.070 iii ACC 18.02.070 iv City of Auburn Land Use Element (Ordinance No. 6746) v ACC 18.04.760 vi ACC 18.04.900 viii ACC 18.04.770 vii ACC 18.04.960 viii WSDOT January 2011 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN (2023 – 2028) Adopted by Ordinance No. xxxx, December x, 2022 as part of the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan City of Auburn 25 West Main Auburn, WA 98001 (253) 931-3000 www.auburnwa.gov City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2023 – 2028 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 1 1. Introduction Purpose .................................................................................................................................. 7 Statutory Requirement for Capital Facilities Elements ............................................................. 7 Concurrency and Level of Service........................................................................................... 8 Implementation ....................................................................................................................... 8 2. Goals and Policies 1. Capital Facilities Response to Growth ............................................................................... 11 2. Financial Feasibility ........................................................................................................... 11 3. Public Health and Environment ......................................................................................... 13 4. Consistency with Regional Planning .................................................................................. 13 3. Capital Improvements Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 15 Transportation ......................................................................................................................... 17 Arterial Street (102) Capital Projects ................................................................................. 22 Local Street (103) Capital Projects .................................................................................... 59 Street Preservation Fund (105) Capital Projects ............................................................... 63 Water ...................................................................................................................................... 73 Sanitary Sewer........................................................................................................................ 127 Storm Drainage ....................................................................................................................... 145 Parks, Arts and Recreation ..................................................................................................... 169 General Municipal Buildings .................................................................................................... 191 Community Improvements ...................................................................................................... 201 Airport ..................................................................................................................................... 221 Cemetery ................................................................................................................................ 237 Valley Regional Fire Authority ................................................................................................. 241 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A capital facilities element is one of the comprehensive plan elements required by Washington’s Growth Management Act (GMA). Capital facilities generally have long useful lives, significant costs and tend not to be mobile. The GMA requires that capital facilities elements include an inventory of existing capital facilities showing locations and capacities, a forecast of future needs for such capital facilities, proposed locations and capacities of new or expanded capital facilities and at least a six-year plan to finance capital facilities with identified sources of funding. The GMA also requires that the land use element be reassessed if probable funding falls short of existing needs. This document is the City’s six-year Capital Facilities Plan (CFP). The CFP, in conjunction with other City adopted documents, satisfies the GMA requirement for a Capital Facilities Element. It addresses one of the GMA’s basic tenets: to provide adequate facilities to support development in accordance with locally adopted level of service standards. This CFP will enable the City to: (1) make informed decisions about its investment of public dollars, and (2) make timely decisions about maintaining level of service in accordance with this CFP and other adopted plans. CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN CONTENT This CFP consists of the following: Chapter 1. Introduction Purpose of CFP, statutory requirements, methodology. Chapter 2. Goals and Policies Goals and policies related to the provision of capital facilities. Chapter 3. Capital Improvements Proposed capital projects, which include the financing plan and reconciliation of project capacity to level of service (LOS) standards. This CFP is a companion document to the Capital Facilities Element of the Auburn Comprehensive Plan. The Capital Facilities Element of the Auburn Comprehensive Plan identifies the City’s planning approach and policy framework for the provision of capital facilities. This CFP provides the background inventory, identifies proposed projects and establishes the six-year capital facilities plan for financing capital facilities. The comprehensive plan contains timeframes that are the intended framework for future funding decisions and within which future actions and decisions are intended to occur. However, these timeframes are estimates; depending on factors involved in the processing of applications and project work, and the availability of funding, the timing may change from the included timeframes. The framework does not represent actual commitments by the City of Auburn that may depend on funding resources available. 1 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan GROWTH ASSUMPTIONS In planning for capital facilities, contemplation of future growth needs to be considered. The CFP is based on the following City population forecast: Year Population 2022 88,750 2023 89,904 2028 94,489 The population forecasts are based on information from the State of Washington Office of Financial Management (OFM) as well as estimates developed by the City of Auburn Planning and Community Development Department. CAPITAL COSTS OF FACILITIES Based on the analysis of capital improvements contained in this document, the cost of City- owned and managed capital improvements for 2023-2028 is summarized as follows: Type of Facility 2023 - 2028 Transportation - Arterial (102)57,734,096$ Transportation - Local (103)11,785,000 Transportation - Street (105)25,359,000 Water 64,573,569 Sanitary Sewer 16,918,500 Storm Drainage 24,033,394 Parks, Arts & Recreation 15,301,300 General Municipal Buildings 47,203,860 Community Improvements 15,448,856 Airport 11,168,955 Cemetery 355,000 Total 289,881,530$ 2 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan FINANCING FOR CAPITAL FACILITIES The financing plan for the citywide capital improvements includes: Funding Source 2023 - 2028 Capital Facility Grants 25,110,458 Transportation 3,600,000 Parks, Arts & Recreation 528,000 General Municipal Buildings 2,560,000 Community Improvements 400,000 Storm Drainage 1,148,781 Water 8,036,110 Airport User Fees / Fund Balance 61,724,788 Water 18,218,500 Sewer 24,933,394 Storm Drainage 355,000 Cemetery 20,000 Equipment Rental 37,510 Facilities 2,797,845 Airport Arterial Street Fund 4,444,646 Transportation Local Street Preservation Fund 10,800,000 Transportation Arterial Street Preservation Fund 3,911,628 Transportation ARPA 3,736,866 Community Improvements 475,000 Parks, Arts & Recreation 85,000 Transportation -Local Street Local Revitalization Fund 245,000 Community Improvements Bond Proceeds 33,580,000 General Municipal Buildings DWSRF Loan 3,000,000 Water Municipal Parks Fund 450,000 Parks, Arts & Recreation Property Tax 1,318,500 Parks, Arts & Recreation Utility & Sales Tax 15,459,644 Transportation Mitigation/Impact Fees 26,093,764 Transportation 4,202,800 Parks, Arts & Recreation 500,000 General Municipal Buildings 1,189,490 Community Improvements REET 1 9,538,350 General Municipal Buildings 1,400,000 Community Improvements REET 2 5,092,500 Community Improvements 180,000 Parks, Arts & Recreation 1,250,000 Transportation - Arterial Streets Other Sources 1,782,500 Transportation - Arterial Streets 5,040,456 Transp. - Arterial St. Preservation 1,225,000 Community Improvements 335,000 Airport 5,075,000 Parks, Arts & Recreation Total 289,881,530$ (Includes grant funding that has not been secured) 3 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan SUMMARY OF IMPACTS ON FUTURE OPERATING BUDGETS The forecasted impacts of new capital facilities on the City’s future operating budgets (2024- 2029) are as follows: Budget Year:2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Total 1 Transportation 8,500$ 9,500$ 15,500$ 16,500$ 20,500$ 22,500$ 93,000$ 2 Water - - - - - - - 3 Sanitary Sewer - - - - - - - 4 Storm Drainage - - - - - - - 5 Parks, Arts and Recreation 10,000 10,000 10,000 17,000 17,000 17,000 81,000 6 General Municipal Buildings - 95,000 95,000 95,000 95,000 95,000 475,000 7 Community Improvements 12,500 (187,500) (187,500) (177,500) (177,500) (177,500) (895,000) 8 Airport 2,000 2,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 20,000 9 Cemetery - - - - - - - Total 33,000$ (71,000)$ (63,000)$ (45,000)$ (41,000)$ (39,000)$ (226,000)$ Project summary details are located on the following pages: Transportation page 72 Parks & Recreation page 188 General Municipal Buildings page 200 Community Improvements page 220 Airport page 235 4 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) CONSEQUENCES OF THE CFP Based on the proposed six-year capital projects and the projected population increase of 4,585 (5.1%) between 2023 and 2028, the LOS for the following City-owned public facilities will change as follows: The LOS for the following facilities will be increased as a result of the CFP, comparing the 2023 LOS to the projected 2028 LOS. CAPITAL FACILITY LOS UNITS 2023 LOS 2028 LOS (Projected) Cemetery Burial Plots per 1,000 Pop.29.00 56.00 Community Parks Acres per 1,000 Pop.2.62 2.95 Linear Parks Acres per 1,000 Pop.0.18 0.21 Neighborhood Parks Acres per 1,000 Pop.0.72 0.78 The LOS for the following facilities will be maintained as a result of the CFP. CAPITAL FACILITY LOS UNITS 2023 LOS 2028 LOS (Projected) Roads Volume/Capacity Ratio "D" "D" Airport % Air Operations Support 100% 100% Sanitary Sewer Residential GPCPD (Note 1)171.00 171.00 Storm Drainage N/A Water Residential GPCPD (Note 1)230.00 230.00 Note 1: GPCPD = Gallons per Customer per Day The LOS for the following facilities will be decreased as a result of the CFP, comparing the 2023 LOS to the projected 2028 LOS. CAPITAL FACILITY LOS UNITS 2023 LOS 2028 LOS (Projected) General Municipal Buildings Sq. Ft. per 1,000 Pop.3,290.44 3,173.11 Open Space Acres per 1,000 Pop.4.25 4.10 Senior Center Sq. Ft. per 1,000 Pop.135.70 129.12 Special Use Areas Acres per 1,000 Pop.2.83 2.69 Level of Service (LOS) is a common measure used to determine the efficiency or effectiveness of services. For the City of Auburn, LOS targets serves as a means to assess the adequacy of public facilities in meeting the needs of the population for which it serves. 5 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan For example, in the case of park space, when there is an increase in population without a corresponding increase in park acreage, the LOS unit of measure (acres per 1,000 population) will decline, indicating a potential need to increase the total amount of park acreage to keep pace with population growth. On the other hand, a slight increase in population, coupled with a large increase in facilities, will result in an increased LOS. For example, facilities such as buildings or burial plots may be constructed or expanded to keep pace with anticipated population growth. While this will have the effect of increasing LOS in the short-term, in the longer-term, the LOS will gradually decline to the targeted level based on forecasted population. The impact of population growth to the LOS for facilities will vary depending on the type of facility and long range planning by the City. CFP ELEMENT SOURCE DOCUMENTS Documents used in preparing this Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) are principally the comprehensive plans for the various public facilities included in this CFP. These individual comprehensive plans provide detailed identification of projects and identify their (projects) proposed funding sources. City documents include: • City-wide Comprehensive Land Use Plan (2015) • City Municipal Airport Master Plan Update (2012-2032) • City Comprehensive Water Plan (2015) • City Comprehensive Transportation Plan (2015) and Six Year Transportation Improvement Program (2023-2028) • City Comprehensive Drainage Plan (2015) • City Comprehensive Sewer Plan (2015) • City 2023-24 Biennial Budget and 2020 Annual Financial Report; and, • City Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan Update (2015), as well as numerous other planning and financial documents. All documents are available for public inspection at the City of Auburn. 6 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION PURPOSE The Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) is a 6-year plan (2023-2028) for capital improvements that support the City of Auburn’s current and future growth. In this plan, funding for general government projects is identified. To maintain consistency with individual master and utility comprehensive plans, applicable projects in the 6-year window of those master/utility plans are included in this CFP. The CFP also identifies LOS standards, where applicable, for each public facility. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENTS RCW 36.70A.070(3)(d) requires that the comprehensive plan capital facilities element include “a six-year plan that will finance such capital facilities within projected funding capacities and clearly identifies sources of public money for such purposes.” RCW 36.70A.070(3)(e) requires that all capital facilities have “probable funding” to pay for capital facility needs, or else the City must “reassess the land use element.” In addition, the capital facilities element must include the location and capacity of existing facilities, a forecast of future needs, and their proposed locations and capacities. The State Growth Management Act (GMA) guidelines suggest that this analysis be accomplished for water systems, sanitary sewer systems, storm water facilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, police and fire protection facilities. The GMA also seeks the selection of level of service standards for capital facilities. As a result, public facilities in the CFP should be based on quantifiable, objective measures of capacity such as traffic volume, capacity per mile of road and acres of park per capita. In some instances, though, level of service may best be expressed in terms of qualitative statements of satisfaction with a particular public facility. Factors that influence local level of service standards include, but are not limited to, community goals, national and local standards, and Federal and State mandates. To be effective, the CFP must be updated on a regular basis. State GMA guidelines suggest that the CFP be updated at least every two years. With this in mind, the City will follow these guidelines and update the CFP at least every two years, incorporating the capital facilities improvements in the City’s biennial budget process. 7 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan CONCURRENCY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE Concurrency The GMA requires that jurisdictions have certain capital facilities in place or available within a specified time frame when development occurs. This concept is called concurrency. Under the GMA, concurrency is required for transportation facilities and is recommended by the State for certain other public facilities, namely potable water and sanitary sewer. Concurrency has a direct relationship to level of service. The importance of concurrency to capital facilities planning is that development may be denied if it reduces the level of service for a capital facility below the locally adopted minimum. The level of service is unique for each type of facility and is presented in the subsequent sections. Explanation of Level of Service As indicated earlier, the GMA requires that level of service be established for certain transportation facilities for the purposes of applying concurrency to development proposals. The State GMA guidelines recommend the adoption of level of service standards for other capital facilities to measure the provision of adequate public facilities. Typically, measures of level of service are expressed as ratios of facility capacity to demand (i.e., actual or potential users). Table 1-1 lists generic examples of level of service measures for some capital facilities: TABLE 1-1 Sample Level of Service Measurements The need for capital facilities is largely determined by a community’s adopted LOS standards and whether or not the community has formally designated capital facilities, other than transportation, as necessary for development to meet the concurrency test. The CFP itself is therefore largely influenced by the selection of the level of service standards. Level of service standards are measures of the quality of life in the City. The standards should be based on the City’s vision of its future and its values. IMPLEMENTATION Implementation of the CFP requires constant monitoring and evaluation. The CFP is sensitive to funding and revenue availability and therefore needs to be constantly monitored against variations in available resources. To facilitate its implementation, the CFP should be kept current. Type of Facility Sample Level of Service Measure General Municipal Buildings Square feet per 1,000 population Parks Acres per 1,000 population Roads and Streets Ratio of actual volume to design capacity Sewer / Water Gallons per customer per day 8 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan Update of Capital Facilities Plan Perhaps the most desirable way to keep the CFP current is to update it regularly so the six-year plan is a rolling CFP. Again, the State recommends that the CFP be updated at least biennially. The City of Auburn will seek to update the CFP at least biennially in conjunction with the budget process. Future updates will consider: A. Revision of population projections, including annexations; B. Update of inventory of public facilities; C. Update of costs of public facilities; D. Update of public facilities requirements analysis (actual level of service compared to adopted standards); E. Update of revenue forecasts; F. Revise and develop capital improvement projects for the next six fiscal years; and, G. Update analysis of financial capacity. Amendments to the CFP, including amendments to level of service standards, capital projects, and/or the financing plan sources of revenue are all actions that can keep the CFP current and relevant to City decision-making. 9 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan 10 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan CHAPTER 2 GOALS AND POLICIES This chapter identifies goals and policies specific to the City’s provision of capital facilities. Goal 1 Provide a variety of responses to the demands of growth on public facilities. Policy 1.1 Establish land use patterns that optimize the use of public facilities. Policy 1.2 Provide additional public facility capacity when existing facilities are used to their maximum level of efficiency (consistent with adopted standards for level of service). Policy 1.3 Encourage development where new public facilities can be provided in an efficient manner. Policy 1.4 Exempt the following from the concurrency management program: 1.4.1 Development vested by RCW 19.27.095, 58.17.033 or 58.17.170. 1.4.2 Development that creates no added impact on public facilities. 1.4.3 Expansions of existing development that were disclosed and tested for concurrency as part of the original application. Goal 2 Provide needed public facilities that are within the ability of the City to fund or within the City’s authority to require others to provide. Policy 2.1 Establish level of service standards that are achievable with the financing plan of this Capital Facilities Plan. Policy 2.2 Base the financing plan for public facilities on realistic estimates of current local revenues and external revenues that are reasonably anticipated to be received by the City. Policy 2.3 Match revenue sources to capital projects based on sound fiscal policies. 2.3.1 The City shall continue to fund utility costs through utility enterprise funds, based on user fees and grants. Public facilities included in utilities are sewer, solid waste, storm drainage, and water. 2.3.2 Where feasible pursue joint venture facility construction, construction timing, and other facility coordination measures for City provided facilities, as well as with school districts and other potential partners in developing public facilities. 2.3.3 The City shall continue to assist through direct participation, LIDs and payback agreements, where appropriate and financially feasible. Where funding is available, the City may participate in developer initiated facility extensions or improvements, but only to the extent that the improvements benefit the broader public interest, and are consistent with the policies of this Capital Facilities Plan. 11 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan Policy 2.4 If the projected funding is inadequate to finance needed public facilities and utilities based on adopted level of service standards and forecasted growth, the City will do one or more of the following to achieve a balance between available revenue and needed public facilities: 2.4.1 Lower the level of service standards; 2.4.2 Increase the amount of revenue from existing sources; 2.4.3 Adopt new sources of revenue; 2.4.4 Require developers to provide such facilities at their own expense; and/or 2.4.5 Amend the Land Use Element to reduce the need for additional public facilities. Policy 2.5 Both existing and future development will pay for the costs of needed capital improvements. 2.5.1 Ensure that existing development pays for capital improvements that reduce or eliminate existing deficiencies, and pays for some or all of the cost to replace obsolete or worn out facilities. Existing development may also pay a portion of the cost of capital improvements needed by future development. Existing development’s payments may take the form of user fees, charges for services, special assessments and taxes. 2.5.2 Ensure that future development pays a proportionate share of the cost of new facilities that it requires. Future development may also pay a portion of the cost to replace obsolete or worn-out facilities. Future development’s payments may take the form of voluntary contributions for the benefit of any public facility, impact fees, mitigation payments, capacity fees, dedications of land, provision of public facilities, and future payments of user’s fees, charges for services, special assessments and taxes. Policy 2.6 The City will determine the priority of public facility capital improvements using the following criteria as general guidelines. Any revenue source that cannot be used for the highest priority will be used beginning with the highest priority for which the revenue can legally be expended. 2.6.1 Projects that eliminate hazardous conditions. 2.6.2 Refurbishment of existing facilities that contribute to achieving or maintaining standards for adopted level of service. 2.6.3 New or expanded facilities that reduce or eliminate deficiencies in level of service for existing demand. 2.6.4 New or expanded facilities that provide the adopted level of service for new development and redevelopment during the next six fiscal years. 2.6.5 Capital improvements that significantly reduce the operating cost of providing a service or facility, or otherwise mitigate impacts of public facilities on future operating budgets. 12 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan 2.6.6 Capital improvements that contribute to stabilizing and developing the economy of the City. 2.6.7 Project priorities may also involve additional criteria that are unique to each type of public facility, as described in other elements of this Comprehensive Plan. Policy 2.7 Ensure that the ongoing operating and maintenance costs of a capital facility are financially feasible prior to constructing the facility. Goal 3 Protect public health, environmental quality, and neighborhood stability and viability through the appropriate design and installation of public facilities. Policy 3.1 Promote conservation of energy, water and other natural resources in the location and design of public facilities. Policy 3.2 Require the separation of sanitary and storm sewer facilities wherever combined sewers may be discovered. Policy 3.3 Practice efficient and environmentally responsible maintenance and operating procedures. Policy 3.4 The siting, design, construction and improvement of all public buildings shall be done in full compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Policy 3.5 Promote economic and community stability and growth through strategic investments in public facilities and public private/partnerships. Goal 4 Make the Capital Facilities Plan consistent with other elements of the comprehensive plan, and - to the extent feasible - with other city, county, regional and state adopted plans. Policy 4.1 Ensure that the growth and development assumptions used in the Capital Facilities Plan are consistent with similar assumptions in other elements of the comprehensive plan. Policy 4.2 Coordinate with non-city providers of public facilities on a joint program for maintaining applicable level of service standards, concurrency requirements, funding and construction of public facilities. Goal 5 Provide public facilities that provide a sense of community that is inclusive of diverse populations. Policy 5.1 Contribute to community pride and foster a sense of community through provision of public facilities that create a community-gathering place for neighbors, family and friends. Policy 5.2 Through provision of public facilities, offer a broad range of activities promoting social interactions especially with new residents. Policy 5.3 Provide maximum flexibility and multiple uses through design of public facilities that are adaptable to changing interests. Policy 5.4 Provide a community center facility that is financially feasible, affordable for participants, and can generate revenue to offset a portion of the operating costs. 13 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan 14 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan CHAPTER 3 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 1. INTRODUCTION This CFP includes City capital improvement projects and the financing plan to pay for those projects. It also contains the inventory of existing City facilities, and identifies level of service standards, where applicable. Each type of City public facility is presented in a separate subsection that follows a standard format. Throughout this section, tables of data are identified with abbreviations that correspond to the type of facility. For example, Table W-1 refers to Table 1 for Water (Supply and Distribution). Each abbreviation corresponds to the name of the type of facility. 1. Narrative Summary This is an overview of the data, with sections devoted to Current Facilities, Level of Service, Capital Facilities Projects and Financing, and Impact on Future Operating Budgets. 2. Inventory of Facilities (Table X-1) This is a list of existing capital facilities, including the name, capacity (for reference to level of service), and location. This table also includes any proposed capital projects and the planned inventory total through December 31, 2028. 3. Capital Projects and Financing Plan (Table X-2, X-2A and X-2B) This list of capital improvements identifies existing deficiencies, identifies facilities needed for future growth, and identifies the need to repair or replace obsolete or worn out facilities through December 31, 2028. Each list shows the proposed financing plan followed by individual worksheets showing the project detail. 4. Impact on Future Operating Budgets (Table X-3) This is a list of capital projects and the forecasted impacts on the City’s future operating budgets (2024 – 2029). 15 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan 16 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan TRANSPORTATION Current Facilities Roadways: The City’s street system consists of a network of approximately 248 miles of arterials, collectors, local streets and alleys. Existing non-motorized facilities include a mix of trails, sidewalks, and both dedicated and shared bicycle facilities. Signals and ITS: The City’s transportation system also includes 95 traffic signals, a Traffic Control Center employing Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), which centrally directs the signals, 84 CCTV cameras, and various traffic beacons all communicating on a network of copper wire and fiber optic cable. The City also has three roundabouts. Transit: King County Metro Transit, Sound Transit and Pierce Transit serve the Auburn area. Auburn is currently served by six Metro, two Sound Transit, and one Pierce Transit bus route. In addition, Sound Transit “Sounder” commuter trains provide peak hour and midday service at the Auburn Station. The Sounder also provides special event service to selected sporting events. Park and ride facilities and the Auburn Station support bus and rail service. Level of Service (LOS) Washington's Growth Management Act (GMA) requires Level of Service (LOS) standards for both arterials and transit routes. The GMA requires that each jurisdiction's LOS standards be coordinated within the region and be supported by local ordinance, but the actual standards and the methods used are determined by each local jurisdiction. Under GMA, the focus is on the performance of the whole road system, not on individual intersections or roadways. LOS standards are a tool to help keep the transportation system in balance with the needs of forecast population growth and development. Table T-1a summarizes the LOS definitions. 17 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan Table T-1a Definition of Urban Street Level of Service (LOS) LOS A - describes primarily free flow operations at average travel speeds, usually about 90 percent of the free flow speed for the given street class. Vehicles are completely unimpeded in their ability to maneuver within the traffic stream. Control delay at signalized intersections is minimal. LOS B - describes reasonably unimpeded operations at average travel speeds, usually about 70 percent of the free flow speed for the street class. The ability to maneuver within the traffic stream is only slightly restricted, and stopped delays are not bot hersome. LOS C - describes stable conditions; however, ability to maneuver and change lanes in midblock locations may be more restricted than in LOS B, and longer queues, adverse signal coordination, or both may contribute to lower average travel s peeds of about 50 percent of the free flow speed for the street class. LOS D - borders on a range in which small increases in flow may cause substantial increases in delay and decreases in travel speed. LOS D may be due to adverse signal progression, inappropriate signal timing, high volumes, or some combination of t hese factors. Average travel speeds are about 40 percent of free flow speed. LOS E - is characterized by significant delays and average travel speeds of 33 percent or less of the free flow speed. Such operations are caused by a combination of adverse progression, high signal density, high volumes, extensive delays at critical intersections, and inappropriate signal timing. LOS F - is characterized by urban street flow at extremely low speeds, typically one-third to one-fourth of the free flow speed. Intersection congestion is likely at critical signalized locations, with high delays, high volumes and extensive queuing. Source: 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. 2010, page 10-5 A methodology and set of standards have been drafted for the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan. The standards help determine concurrency (i.e., balance) between the transportation and land use elements of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, as required by the GMA. The City has four choices if it is determined that standards cannot be met. • Modify the land use plan, placing tighter controls on the amount and type of development to reduce traffic. • Construct additional transportation facilities to support increased travel demand from new development. • Implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures to increase use of non- single occupant vehicle travel modes. • Relax the LOS standards; the City can lower its level of service standards to encourage further growth and minimize the need for additional transportation facilities. The transportation/land-use balance will be monitored through the City's Concurrency Management System as part of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Transportation concurrency will be evaluated for key facilities and on a system-wide basis. The City can then identify locations where standards are not anticipated to be met in the future and identify appropriate improvements. At the project level, the SEPA process will continue to guide the more specific planning and analysis efforts. 18 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan Level of Service Standards LOS standards can help identify where and when transportation improvements are needed, and when development or growth will affect system operations. LOS provides a standard below which a transportation facility or system is not considered adequate. LOS standards can also be used to evaluate the impact of proposed developments on the surrounding street system. They can assure that all developments are served by a safe, efficient and cost-effective street system. They can also be used to disclose impacts, identify remedial actions, and apportion costs between public and private sources. The LOS standards shown in Table T-1b apply to the facility’s location and its functional classification. A more detailed description of the level of service methodology is provided in the City of Auburn Comprehensive Transportation Plan (2021), Chapter 5, Policy LOS-02. Table T- 1b Draft Roadway Capacity/Congestion LOS Standards Roadway/Intersection Maximum V/C Ratio/LOS Arterial Corridor D* Signalized Intersection D Unsignalized Intersection D *Unless otherwise specified in Chapter 2 of the City of Auburn Comprehensive Transportation Plan, 2020 LOS standards are also the basis of an equitable traffic impact fee system, which require developments to pay a portion of the costs for capacity improvements to the transportation infrastructure. In 2001, the City implemented a traffic impact fee program. The purpose of the fee is to mitigate traffic impacts more equitably while making the costs of development more predictable to developers. In 2007, the City implemented an additional transportation impact fee to address the impacts of heavy truck usage on the City’s transportation system. Both fees are updated annually based on current funding needs. Measuring Transportation System Performance The level of service for street segments or links is analyzed with two primary purposes in mind. First, this site-specific LOS can be used, with the help of a travel demand model, to evaluate areas of congestion within a transportation network, leading to the development of a long-range transportation facilities plan. Second, arterial corridor LOS analysis can be used to assess concurrency or if facilities are meeting the LOS standards. The City of Auburn currently uses Highway Capacity Manual methodologies to calculate levels of service. For arterials LOS are based on average travel speeds along a defined corridor. 19 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan Table T-1c shows the 25 defined street corridors, LOS standards and most recent calculated LOS. TABLE T- 1c Auburn Corridor Level of Service – Existing 2014 Weekday PM Peak Hour LOS ID Corridor From To Standard*NB/EB SB/WB 1 Auburn Way N 15th St NE S 277th St E C C 2 Auburn Way N E Main St 15th St NE E D D 3 Auburn Way S E Main St M St SE F C D 4 Auburn Way S M St SE Academy Dr SE D B C 5 M St / Harvey Auburn Way N E Main St E D D 6 M St / Harvey E Main St Auburn Way S E D C 7 37th St NE / NW W Valley Hwy Auburn Way N E C C 8 15th St NE / NW W Valley Hwy Auburn Way N F**D D 9 Auburn Ave / A St 6th St SE E Valley Access Rd D B C 10 Main St West Valley Hwy R St D D D 11 15th St SW West Valley Hwy C St SW E D D 12 C St SW Ellingson Rd SR - 18 D B C 13 West Valley Hwy 37th St NE 15th St NE E B C 14 S 277th St Frontage Rd L St NE E C C 15 R St SE / Kersey Way Howard Rd Lake Tapps Pkwy D B B 16 Lake Tapps Pkwy East Valley Hwy Kersey Way SE D C C 17 A St NW / B St NW 3rd St NW S 277th St D C B 18 8th St NE / Lea Hill Rd Harvey Rd 124th Ave SE E C B 19 SE 312th St / 132nd Ave SE 124th Ave SE SR - 18 D B B 20 105th Pl SE / SE 320th St Lea Hill Rd 124th Ave SE D A C 21 Lakeland Hills Way SE Lake Tapps Pkwy A St SE E D C 22 29th St SE / Riverwalk Dr A St SE Auburn Way S D D C 23 3rd St SW / Cross St C St Auburn Way S F F E 24 41st St SE / Ellingson Rd A St SE C St SE F F F 25 West Valley Hwy 15th St NW 15th St SW E D E * **Total travel time in the eastbound direction cannot exceed 1,000 seconds for this corridor to meet the LOS Standards Corridor segments within Downtown Auburn may operate at LOS E in accordance with the Auburn Downtown Plan. All other arterial and collector corridors must operate at LOS D or better, unless otherwise indicated. 2014 LOS 20 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan Concurrency (Adequate Public Facilities) Concurrency involves matching public facilities and new development. The GMA extends concurrency to transportation facilities by requiring that new development be served by adequate roads and public transportation service, and that development is not permitted to cause these transportation facilities to operate below level of service standards that are adopted by local governments in their comprehensive plans. In compliance with the GMA, adequate transportation system facilities must be available within six years of the time of occupancy and use of new development. Capital Facilities Projects and Financing The City’s transportation facilities include projects totaling $94,878,096. Tables T-2, T-2A and T-2B show the proposed financing plan followed by individual worksheets showing the project detail. Impact on Future Operating Budgets As Table T-3 shows, operating budget impacts of $93,000 are forecasted for transportation facilities during the six years 2024 – 2029. 21 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan TABLE T-2 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Total Page Capacity Projects: 26 Harvey Road & 8th Street NE Intersection Improvements Long-Term Debt 82,794 82,392 81,990 81,589 81,187 80,785 490,737 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Grants - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees 82,794 82,392 81,990 81,589 81,187 80,785 490,737 27 Lea Hill Road/112th Ave SE Roundabout Capital Costs - - - - 350,000 420,000 770,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Grants - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - 350,000 420,000 770,000 28 29th Street SE & R Street SE Intersection Improvements Capital Costs 250,000 4,000,000 - - - - 4,250,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Arterial St. Preservation Fund 105 - 375,000 - - - - 375,000 Other - 125,000 - - - - 125,000 Traffic Impact Fees 250,000 3,500,000 - - - - 3,750,000 29 Lea Hill ITS Expansion Capital Costs - 100,000 500,000 - - - 600,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - REET2 - 50,000 250,000 - - - 300,000 Traffic Impact Fees - 50,000 250,000 - - - 300,000 30 R Street SE & 21st Street SE Intersection Safety Improvements Capital Costs 185,000 115,000 1,367,451 - - - 1,667,451 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Grants - - 1,167,451 - - - 1,167,451 Traffic Impact Fees 185,000 115,000 200,000 - - - 500,000 31 Auburn Way S/6th Street SE Intersection Improvements Capital Costs 414,000 21,000 1,569,000 - - - 2,004,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Grants - - 1,357,000 - - - 1,357,000 Traffic Impact Fees 414,000 21,000 212,000 - - - 647,000 32 Lea Hill Road/104th Avenue SE Roundabout Capital Costs - - 560,000 2,515,000 - - 3,075,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Grants - - 476,000 2,138,000 - - 2,614,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - 84,000 377,000 - - 461,000 33 SE 304th St/132nd Ave SE Roundabout Capital Costs 250,000 50,000 1,200,000 - - - 1,500,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Grants - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees 250,000 50,000 1,200,000 - - - 1,500,000 34 10th Street NW/A Street NW Intersection Improvements Capital Costs 1,015,000 - - - - - 1,015,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees 1,015,000 - - - - - 1,015,000 35 Evergreen Heights Elementary Sidewalks Capital Costs 71,500 1,050,500 - - - - 1,122,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue 15,000 210,500 - - - - 225,500 Grants 56,500 840,000 - - - - 896,500 REET2 - - - - - - - CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN PROJECTS AND FINANCING TRANSPORTATION 22 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan TABLE T-2 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN PROJECTS AND FINANCING TRANSPORTATION 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Total Page Capacity Projects: 36 Riverwalk Drive SE Non-Motorized Improvements Capital Costs 1,303,646 - - - - - 1,303,646 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue 166,146 - - - - - 166,146 Grants 455,000 - - - - - 455,000 Arterial St. Preservation Fund 105 350,000 - - - - - 350,000 Other 332,500 - - - - - 332,500 37 Stewart Road - Sumner (Lake Tapps Parkway Corridor) Capital Costs - 150,000 - - - - 150,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Grants - - - - - - - Traffic Mitigation Fees - 150,000 - - - - 150,000 38 M Street Underpass (3rd St SE to 8th St SE) Long-Term Debt 122,550 122,258 121,965 121,673 121,380 121,088 730,914 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Grants - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees 122,550 122,258 121,965 121,673 121,380 121,088 730,914 39 A Street Loop Capital Costs 1,195,000 - - - - - 1,195,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Grants 1,125,000 - - - - - 1,125,000 Traffic Impact Fees 70,000 - - - - - 70,000 Other - - - - - - - 40 A Street NW, Phase 2 (W Main St to 3rd St NW) Capital Costs - 350,000 2,650,000 - - - 3,000,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - 150,000 - - - - 150,000 Grants - 200,000 1,325,000 - - - 1,525,000 Other - - 1,325,000 - - - 1,325,000 41 Auburn Way S Improvements (Hemlock St SE to Poplar St SE) Capital Costs 400,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 - - - 7,400,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - 200,000 - - - - 200,000 Traffic Impact Fees 400,000 1,738,150 1,453,615 - - - 3,591,765 Grants - 2,061,850 1,546,385 - - - 3,608,235 ARPA - - - - - - - 42 M Street NE (E Main St to 4th St NE) Capital Costs 250,000 2,900,000 - - - - 3,150,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue 175,000 500,000 - - - - 675,000 Arterial St. Preservation Fund 105 - 1,500,000 - - - - 1,500,000 REET2 - 400,000 - - - - 400,000 Traffic Impact Fees 75,000 500,000 - - - - 575,000 Other - - - - - - - 43 49th Street NE (Auburn Way N to D St NE) Capital Costs - - 61,000 74,000 892,000 - 1,027,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - 61,000 74,000 892,000 - 1,027,000 Grants - - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - 44 46th Place S Realignment Capital Costs - - 250,000 250,000 750,000 - 1,250,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Grants - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - 250,000 250,000 750,000 - 1,250,000 23 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan TABLE T-2 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN PROJECTS AND FINANCING TRANSPORTATION 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Total Page Capacity Projects: 45 124th Ave SE Widening (SE 312th St to SE 318th St) Capital Costs - - - 400,000 1,100,000 2,500,000 4,000,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Grants - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - 400,000 1,100,000 2,500,000 4,000,000 46 Regional Growth Center Access Improvements Capital Costs 2,685,000 - - - - - 2,685,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Grants 1,300,000 - - - - - 1,300,000 Traffic Impact Fees 1,385,000 - - - - - 1,385,000 47 East Valley Highway Widening Capital Costs - - 1,400,000 500,000 7,400,000 - 9,300,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Grants - - 1,050,000 - 4,500,000 - 5,550,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - 350,000 500,000 2,900,000 - 3,750,000 48 Garden Avenue Realignment Capital Costs 704,348 - - - - - 704,348 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Grants - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees 704,348 - - - - - 704,348 49 S 272nd/277th St Corridor Capacity & Non-Motorized Trail Improvements Capital Costs 148,000 75,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 303,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees 75,000 75,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 230,000 Wetland Mitigation Fee 73,000 - - - - - 73,000 Subtotal, Capacity Projects: Capital Costs 9,076,838 13,016,150 12,781,406 3,962,262 10,714,567 3,141,873 52,693,096 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Total Non-Capacity Projects: 50 Auburn Way N/1st Street NE Signal Replacement Capital Costs 50,000 - - - - - 50,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue 25,000 - - - - - 25,000 Arterial St. Preservation Fund 105 25,000 - - - - - 25,000 51 ITS Dynamic Message Signs Capital Costs - - - 35,000 225,000 - 260,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - 35,000 225,000 - 260,000 Grants - - - - - - - 52 Auburn Avenue/E Main Street Signal Replacement Capital Costs - - - 200,000 900,000 - 1,100,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - 100,000 450,000 - 550,000 REET2 - - - 100,000 450,000 - 550,000 24 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan TABLE T-2 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN PROJECTS AND FINANCING TRANSPORTATION 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Total Non-Capacity Projects: 53 Non-Motorized Safety Program Capital Costs 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 900,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 900,000 Other - - - - - - - 54 10th Street NE Non-Motorized Improvements Capital Costs 187,000 5,000 1,359,000 - - - 1,551,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue 134,000 5,000 132,000 - - - 271,000 Grants - - 839,000 - - - 839,000 Arterial St. Preservation Fund 105 53,000 - 388,000 - - - 441,000 55 Regional Growth Center Pedestrian Improvements Capital Costs - - 100,000 525,000 - - 625,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - 20,000 105,000 - - 125,000 Grants - - 80,000 420,000 - - 500,000 Other - - - - - - - 56 37th Street SE Safe Routes to Schools Capital Costs 86,500 448,500 - - - - 535,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Grants 86,500 448,500 - - - - 535,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - - 57 2022 Arterial Pedestrian and Bike Safety Project Capital Costs 10,000 - - - - - 10,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue 10,000 - - - - - 10,000 Grants - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - - 58 High Friction Surface Treatment Capital Costs 10,000 - - - - - 10,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue 10,000 - - - - - 10,000 Grants - - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - Subtotal, Non-Capacity Projects: Capital Costs 493,500 603,500 1,609,000 910,000 1,275,000 150,000 5,041,000 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Total SUMMARY: CAPITAL COSTS Capacity Projects 8,871,494 12,811,500 12,577,451 3,759,000 10,512,000 2,940,000 51,471,445 Non-Capacity Projects 493,500 603,500 1,609,000 910,000 1,275,000 150,000 5,041,000 Long-Term Debt 205,344 204,650 203,955 203,262 202,567 201,873 1,221,651 Total Costs 9,570,338 13,619,650 14,390,406 4,872,262 11,989,567 3,291,873 57,734,096 FUNDING SOURCES: Unrestricted Street Revenue 685,146 1,065,500 363,000 464,000 1,717,000 150,000 4,444,646 Grants 3,023,000 3,550,350 7,840,836 2,558,000 4,500,000 - 21,472,186 Traffic Impact Fees 5,028,692 6,403,800 4,223,570 1,750,262 5,322,567 3,141,873 25,870,764 Traffic Mitigation Fees - 150,000 - - - - 150,000 Arterial St. Preservation Fund 105 428,000 1,875,000 388,000 - - - 2,691,000 REET2 - 450,000 250,000 100,000 450,000 - 1,250,000 Wetland Mitigation Fee 73,000 - - - - - 73,000 Other 332,500 125,000 1,325,000 - - - 1,782,500 Total Funding 9,570,338 13,619,650 14,390,406 4,872,262 11,989,567 3,291,873 57,734,096 25 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Harvey Rd NE/8th St NE Intersection Improvements TIP# I-5 Project No:cp0611 Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:None LOS Corridor ID# 5, 19 Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants- Secured (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - Traffic Impact Fees (Debt Service)1,028,776 83,196 82,794 82,392 1,194,766 Traffic Impact Fees 204,500 204,500 PWTF 1,527,300 1,527,300 2,760,576 83,196 82,794 82,392 2,926,566 Capital Expenditures: Design 327,500 - - - 327,500 Right of Way 200,400 - - - 200,400 Construction 1,203,900 - - - 1,203,900 Long Term Debt - PWTF 1,028,776 83,196 82,794 82,392 1,194,766 2,760,576 83,196 82,794 82,392 2,926,566 Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants- Secured (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - Traffic Impact Fees (Debt Service)81,990 81,589 81,187 80,785 490,737 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - PWTF - - - - - 81,990 81,589 81,187 80,785 490,737 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - - Long Term Debt - PWTF 81,990 81,589 81,187 80,785 490,737 81,990 81,589 81,187 80,785 490,737 Grants / Other Sources: Total Expenditures: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Description: The project constructed one eastbound through/right turn-lane on 8th St NE to the west of Harvey Rd and modified traffic signals and traffic channelization to accommodate the new lane. The additional lane reduced traffic delays and queuing at the intersection of Harvey Rd and 8th St NE in all directions. This project also reconstructed M St NE from 4th St NE to 8th St NE, a segment of roadway approximately 0.3 miles long with a four-lane cross-section. The reconstruction addressed the existing poor pavement condition and completed sidewalk gaps. . Progress Summary: Project was completed in 2010. Ongoing budget is for Public Works Trust Fund Loan debt payments scheduled through 2028. Future Impact on Operating Budget: N/A Total Funding Sources: Total Funding Sources: 26 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: R St SE/ 29th St SE Intersection Improvements TIP# I-8 Project No:cp2116 Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:Matt Larson LOS Corridor ID# 16, 27 Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants- Unsecured - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees 15,274 1,234,726 250,000 3,500,000 1,500,000 Street Preservation Fund 105 - 100,000 - 375,000 100,000 Other (Icon)- - - 125,000 - 15,274 1,334,726 250,000 4,000,000 1,600,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 15,274 1,084,726 - - - Right of Way - 250,000 250,000 4,000,000 500,000 Construction - - - - - 15,274 1,334,726 250,000 4,000,000 1,600,000 Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants- Unsecured - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - 3,750,000 Street Preservation Fund 105 - - - - 375,000 Other (Icon)- - - - 125,000 - - - - 4,250,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - 4,250,000 Construction - - - - - - - - - 4,250,000 Grants / Other Sources: Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: Description: The project will construct a second southbound through lane between 22nd Street SE and 33rd Street SE and a new signal at the 29th Street SE intersection. The improvements are needed to address the existing LOS deficiency at this intersection during the weekday PM peak hour. The project will also preserve the pavement and rechannelize R Street SE between 33rd Street SE and the White River Bridge. Progress Summary: The R Street Corridor study was completed during 2020. This project is based on the study recommendations. Future Impact on Operating Budget: The additional annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $500. Replacing the traffic signal will reduce on- going maintenance costs to replace parts and equipment that have reached the end of their service life. 27 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Lea Hill Road/112th Ave SE Roundabout TIP# I-6 Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Capacity, Safety Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 19 Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants- Unsecured - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - - - - - - - Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants- Unsecured - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - 350,000 420,000 770,000 Other - - - - - - - 350,000 420,000 770,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - 350,000 - 350,000 Right of Way - - - 420,000 420,000 Construction - - - - - - - 350,000 420,000 770,000 Grants / Other Sources: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Description: The project will construct a single-lane roundabout at the 112th Avenue SE intersection with Lea Hill Road. The intersection is currently stop-controlled on the 112th Avenue SE approach. The project will also implement turn restrictions at the Lea Hill Road intersection with 105th Place SE, and remove the existing span wire traffic signal. The project will improve traffic operations, safety and non-motorized access. Progress Summary: The Lea Hill Road Corridor study was completed during 2020. This project is based on the study recommendations. Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $1,000. 28 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Lea Hill ITS Expansion TIP# I-9 Project No:asbd42 Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 16 Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants- Unsecured - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - 50,000 - REET2 - - - 50,000 - Other - - - - - - - - 100,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - 100,000 - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - - - - - 100,000 - Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants- Unsecured - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees 250,000 - - - 300,000 REET2 250,000 - - - 300,000 Other - - - - - 500,000 - - - 600,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 100,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction 500,000 - - - 500,000 500,000 - - - 600,000 Grants / Other Sources: Total Expenditures: Description: This project will extend new City of Auburn fiber east along SE 304th St from 124th Ave SE to 132nd Ave SE and connect to the signal with SE 304th St. This will support communication to School zone beacons on both SE 304th SE and 132nd Ave SE, one traffic signal, one battery backup, and ITS cameras. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $ 500. Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: 29 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: R Street SE & 21st Street SE Intersection Safety Improvements TIP# I-10 Project No:CP1918 Project Type:Capacity, Safety Project Manager:James Webb LOS Corridor ID# 16 Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants- Unsecured - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees 74,348 - 185,000 115,000 259,348 REET2 - - - - - Other - - - - - 74,348 - 185,000 115,000 259,348 Capital Expenditures: Predesign & Design 74,348 - 185,000 - 259,348 Right of Way - - - 115,000 - Construction - - - - - 74,348 - 185,000 115,000 259,348 Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants- Unsecured 1,167,451 - - - 1,167,451 Traffic Impact Fees 200,000 - - - 500,000 REET2 - - - - - Other - - - - - 1,367,451 - - - 1,667,451 Capital Expenditures: Predesign & Design - - - - 185,000 Right of Way - - - - 115,000 Construction 1,367,451 - - - 1,367,451 1,367,451 - - - 1,667,451 Grants / Other Sources: Total Expenditures: Description: The project will construct a single lane roundabout in place of the existing east/west stop-control on 21st Street SE. The project is needed to address an existing LOS deficiency, and will improve safety at the intersection. Progress Summary: This improvement was recommended in the R Street Corridor study which was completed during 2020. City submitted application for WSDOT City Safety Grant in Spring 2022. Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $1,000. Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: 30 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Auburn Way S/6th Street SE Intersection Improvements TIP# I-11 Project No:asbd43 Project Type:Capacity, Safety Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 3 Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants- Unsecured - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - 414,000 21,000 414,000 Other - - - - - - - 414,000 21,000 414,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - 414,000 - 414,000 Right of Way - - - 21,000 - Construction - - - - - - - 414,000 21,000 414,000 Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants- Unsecured 1,357,000 - - - 1,357,000 Traffic Impact Fees 212,000 - - - 647,000 Other - - - - - 1,569,000 - - - 2,004,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 414,000 Right of Way - - - - 21,000 Construction 1,569,000 - - - 1,569,000 1,569,000 - - - 2,004,000 Grants / Other Sources: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Description: The project will construct a dedicated southbound right-turn lane on SR 164 (Auburn Way S) at the intersection with 6th Street SE. This will allow the rechannelization of the westbound SR 18 off-ramp to allow dual left-turns and better accommodate the high number of vehicles making the southbound right-turn from SR 164 to 6th Street SE to access the A Street SE corridor. The project will also modify two existing State signals to accommodate the re-channelization and additional lane, revise street lighting and ITS infrastructure as needed, replace the existing sidewalk where SR 164 is being widened, and include additional channelization changes as appropriate. The project will address an existing level of service deficiency at the intersection, reduce queues on the off-ramp, improve access from SR 18 and SR 164 to A Street SE, and improve the efficiency of the SR 18/SR 164 interchange. Progress Summary: City submitted application for Federal grant in Spring 2022 through PSRC King County Countywide program. Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $500. 31 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Lea Hill Road/104th Avenue SE Roundabout TIP # I-12 Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Capacity, Safety Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - Grants- Unsecured (Fed,State,Local)- Traffic Impact Fees - Other Sources -Multicare Contribution - - - - - - Capital Expenditures: Design - Right of Way - Construction - - - - - - Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - Grants- Unsecured (Fed,State,Local)476,000 2,138,000 2,614,000 Traffic Impact Fees 84,000 377,000 461,000 Other Sources -Multicare Contribution - 560,000 2,515,000 - - 3,075,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 560,000 560,000 Right of Way - Construction 2,515,000 2,515,000 560,000 2,515,000 - - 3,075,000 Grants / Other Sources: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Description: The project will construct a roundabout at the Lea Hill Road intersection with 104th Avenue SE. The roundabout will replace the existing span-wire signal. The project is needed to improve traffic operations and safety at the intersection. Progress Summary: The Lea Hill Road Corridor study was completed during 2020. This project is based on the study recommendations. City submitted application for Federal grant in Spring 2022 through PSRC King County Countywide program. Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $1,000. 32 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: SE 304th St/132nd Ave SE Roundabout TIP# I-13 Project No:asbd44 Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 23, 25 Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants- Unsecured - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - 250,000 50,000 250,000 Other - - - - - - - 250,000 50,000 250,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - 250,000 - 250,000 Right of Way - - - 50,000 - Construction - - - - - - - 250,000 50,000 250,000 Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants- Unsecured - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees 1,200,000 - - - 1,500,000 Other - - - - - 1,200,000 - - - 1,500,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 250,000 Right of Way - - - - 50,000 Construction 1,200,000 - - - 1,200,000 1,200,000 - - - 1,500,000 Grants / Other Sources: Description: The project will construct a single-lane roundabout at the SE 304th Street intersection with 132nd Avenue SE on Lea Hill. The roundabout will replace the existing stop-controlled on the SE 304th Street approach. The project is needed to address a level of service deficiency at the intersection. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $1,000. Total Expenditures: Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: 33 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: 10th Street NW/A Street NW Intersection Improvements TIP# I-15 Project No:cp2207 Project Type:Capacity, Safety Project Manager:Jeff Bender LOS Corridor ID# N/A Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants- Unsecured - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - 250,000 1,015,000 - 1,265,000 REET2 - - - - - Other - - - - - - 250,000 1,015,000 - 1,265,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 250,000 - - 250,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - 1,015,000 - 1,015,000 - 250,000 1,015,000 - 1,265,000 Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants- Unsecured - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - 1,015,000 REET2 - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - 1,015,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - 1,015,000 - - - - 1,015,000 Grants / Other Sources: Total Expenditures: Description: The project will construct a new traffic signal in place of the existing stop-control on the 10th Street NW approach. The project is needed to address a level of service deficiency at the intersection. The project will also evaluate intersection control, channelization, and pedestrian crossing improvements along 10th Street NW to the east of the intersection. Progress Summary: The design phase of the project started during Spring 2022. Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $1,000. Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: 34 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Evergreen Heights Elementary Sidewalks TIP# N-8 Project No:cp2221 Project Type:Capacity, Non-Motorized Project Manager:Jacob Sweeting LOS Corridor ID# 37 Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - - 15,000 210,500 15,000 State Grants- Unsecured - - 56,500 840,000 56,500 Traffic Mitigation Fees - - - - - Other (Auburn Sch. Dist.)- - - - - REET 2 - - - - - - - 71,500 1,050,500 71,500 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - 71,500 1,050,500 71,500 - - 71,500 1,050,500 71,500 Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - 225,500 State Grants- Unsecured - - - - 896,500 Traffic Mitigation Fees - - - - - Other (Auburn Sch. Dist.)- - - - - REET 2 - - - - - - - - - 1,122,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - 1,122,000 - - - - 1,122,000 Grants / Other Sources: Auburn School District partnership includes direct financial contribution and ROW dedication. Description: The project will construct a new sidewalk along the north side of S 316th Street between the end of the existing sidewalk at 56th Avenue S and 51st Avenue S to the west (approximately 1,250 feet). The project will also construct curb and gutter, storm improvements, and street lighting. The storm utility is contributing a portion of the storm costs which are shown in the storm CFP. Progress Summary: City submitted application for grant in Spring 2022 through WSDOT Safe Routes to Schools program. Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Total Expenditures: Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: 35 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Riverwalk Drive SE Non-Motorized Improvements TIP# N-9 Project No:cp2121 Project Type:Capacity, Non-Motorized Project Manager:Jeff Bender LOS Corridor ID# 27 Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue 2,622 163,732 166,146 - 332,500 Secured Grant 15,160 164,840 455,000 - 635,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - Arterial Preservation Fund (105)- 50,000 350,000 - 400,000 Other (MIT)- - 332,500 - 332,500 17,782 378,572 1,303,646 - 1,700,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 17,782 378,572 - - 396,354 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - 1,303,646 - 1,303,646 17,782 378,572 1,303,646 - 1,700,000 Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - 166,146 Secured Grant - - - - 455,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - Arterial Preservation Fund (105)- - - - 350,000 Other (MIT)- - - - 332,500 - - - - 1,303,646 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - 1,303,646 - - - - 1,303,646 Grants / Other Sources: Total Expenditures: Description: The project will construct sidewalks, street lighting, and related storm improvements along the east side of Riverwalk Drive SE between Auburn Way S and Howard Road SE. This project will close a gap in the sidewalk system completing a non- motorized connection between the R Street SE and Auburn Way S. The project will also install a RRFB at the intersection with Howard Road. The project is proposed to be in partnership with the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. Progress Summary: Grant funding from WSDOT was awarded in 2021. The design phase is underway, with construction of the improvements scheduled to be completed during 2023. The project is funded in partnership with the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $2,000. Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: 36 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Stewart Road - Sumner (Lake Tapps Parkway Corridor)TIP# R-2 Project No:asbd45 Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:City of Sumner LOS Corridor ID# N/A Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants- Secured (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - REET2 - - - - - Traffic Mitigation Fees - - - 150,000 - - - - 150,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - 150,000 - - - - 150,000 - Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants- Secured (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - REET2 - - - - - Traffic Mitigation Fees - - - - 150,000 - - - - 150,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - 150,000 - - - - 150,000 Grants / Other Sources: Total Expenditures: Description: This is a City of Sumner project to widen the Stewart Road (Lake Tapps Parkway) Corridor. The project will replace the existing bridge over the White River with a new wider one. Completion of this corridor widening is expected to significantly relieve traffic congestion in Auburn along the A St SE and C St SW corridors. Progress Summary: City of Sumner has initiated preliminary road design and is seeking grant funding to complete the project. Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: 37 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: M Street Underpass (3rd St SE to 8th St SE) TIP# R-3 Project No:c201a0 Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:Ryan Vondrak LOS Corridor ID# 6 Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - Grants- Secured (Fed,State,Local)9,731,904 - - - 9,731,904 REET2 1,140,000 - - - 1,140,000 Traffic Impact Fees (Construction)4,309,782 - - - 4,309,782 Traffic Impact Fees (Debt Service)1,013,991 122,843 122,550 122,258 1,259,384 Traffic Mitigation Fees 660,000 - - - 660,000 PWTFL (30 years)3,284,857 - - - 3,284,857 Other Sources (Other Agencies)*3,090,514 - - - 3,090,514 23,231,048 122,843 122,550 122,258 23,476,441 Capital Expenditures: Design 2,688,924 - - - 2,688,924 Right of Way 3,358,443 - - - 3,358,443 Construction 16,021,908 - - - 16,021,908 PWTFL Debt Service 1,013,991 122,843 122,550 122,258 1,259,384 23,083,266 122,843 122,550 122,258 23,328,659 Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants- Secured (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - REET2 - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees (Construction)- - - - - Traffic Impact Fees (Debt Service)121,965 121,673 121,380 121,088 730,914 Traffic Mitigation Fees - - - - - PWTFL (30 years)- - - - - Other Sources (Other Agencies)*- - - - - 121,965 121,673 121,380 121,088 730,914 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - - PWTFL Debt Service 121,965 121,673 121,380 121,088 730,914 121,965 121,673 121,380 121,088 730,914 Description: Construction of a grade separated railroad crossing of M Street SE at the BNSF Stampede Pass tracks. Progress Summary: Construction was completed in 2014. The project is now in Public Works Trust Fund Loan (PWTFL) debt repayment through 2041. Future Impact on Operating Budget: N/A Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Forecasted Project Cost: Grants / Other Sources: Other Agencies are King County Metro Sewer, Port of Seattle, Port of Tacoma, and BNSF Railway 38 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: A Street Loop TIP# R-4 Project No:CP2117 Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:Matt Larson LOS Corridor ID# N/A Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Secured Federal Grant - - 1,125,000 - 1,125,000 Traffic Impact Fees 33,095 366,905 70,000 - 470,000 Other (Sound Transit)- 340,000 - - 340,000 33,095 706,905 1,195,000 - 1,935,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 33,095 266,905 - - 300,000 Right of Way - 100,000 70,000 - 170,000 Construction - 340,000 1,125,000 - 1,465,000 33,095 706,905 1,195,000 - 1,935,000 Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Secured Federal Grant - - - - 1,125,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - 70,000 Other (Sound Transit)- - - - - - - - 1,195,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - 70,000 Construction - - - - 1,125,000 - - - - 1,195,000 Grants / Other Sources:Interlocal funding from Sound Transit Description: The project will construct a new one-way (eastbound) roadway connection between A Street SW/S Division Street and A Street SE. The new intersection with A Street SE will allow an unsignalized right-turn movement onto southbound A Street SE, providing an alternative to the intersection of 3rd Street SE and A Street SE, which does not meet adopted LOS standards. The roadway will be constructed as a complete street to accommodate non-motorized road users. Progress Summary: Sound Transit has agreed to provide $340,000 towards the construction phase as mitigation for the second parking garage. Federal funding for the construction phase was awarded in 2021. Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $1,000. Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: 39 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: A Street NW, Phase 2 (W Main St to 3rd St NW) TIP# R-5 Project No:asbd41 Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 18 Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - Unsecured Local Grant - - - 200,000 - Traffic Impact Fees - - - 150,000 - REET2 - - - - - Other (Developer)- - - - - - - - 350,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - 250,000 - Right of Way - - - 100,000 - Construction - - - - - - - 350,000 - Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Unsecured Local Grant 1,325,000 - - - 1,525,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - 150,000 REET2 - - - - - Other (Developer)1,325,000 - - 1,325,000 2,650,000 - - - 3,000,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 250,000 Right of Way - - - - 100,000 Construction 2,650,000 - - - 2,650,000 2,650,000 - - - 3,000,000 Grants / Other Sources: Total Expenditures: Description: The project will widen A Street NW to create a three-lane roadway section between W Main St and 3rd St NW. This project will improve the connection between the A St NW Extension, (Phase 1) and Auburn Station and Central Business District. This project could be partially or fully funded by development and/or Sound Transit's parking garage/access improvements. The project is approximately 0.2 miles long. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $500. Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: 40 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Auburn Way S Improvements (Hemlock St SE to Poplar St SE)TIP# R-6 Project No:cp1622 Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:Jeff Bender LOS Corridor ID# 4 Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - 200,000 - Grants- Secured (Federal)276,971 1,020,529 - 2,061,850 1,297,500 Traffic Impact Fees 55,577 1,654,514 400,000 1,738,150 2,110,091 ARPA - 150,000 - - 150,000 REET2 - - - - - Other - - - - - 332,548 2,825,043 400,000 4,000,000 3,557,591 Capital Expenditures: Design 332,548 2,025,043 - - 2,357,591 Right of Way - 800,000 400,000 - 1,200,000 Construction - - - 4,000,000 - 332,548 2,825,043 400,000 4,000,000 3,557,591 Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - 200,000 Grants- Secured (Federal)1,546,385 - - - 3,608,235 Traffic Impact Fees 1,453,615 - - - 3,591,765 ARPA - - - - - REET2 - - - - - Other - - - - 3,000,000 - - - 7,400,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - 400,000 Construction 3,000,000 - - - 7,000,000 3,000,000 - - - 7,400,000 Grants / Other Sources: Total Expenditures: Description: The project will widen Auburn Way S between Hemlock St SE and Poplar St SE to accommodate two general purpose lanes in each direction, turn lanes, access management where feasible, U-turns, curb, gutter, sidewalk, illumination, transit stop improvements, a new traffic signal in the vicinity of Chinook Elementary School, Intelligent Transportation Systems, streetscape and storm improvements. The project length is approximately 0.4 miles. The project is needed to address traffic operations issues along the corridor. Progress Summary: Project scope was revised to omit portions of the original project scope that are being built by the Auburn School District's (ASD) Chinook Elementary replacement project. ASD's project will construct a roundabout at the school driveway on Auburn Way S instead of the traffic signal on Auburn Way S that was originally proposed as part of the City's project. $1,297,500 of federal grant funding for the design phase was awarded in 2019. 2021 Funding includes 2020 carry forward. If the cost of design phase is less than anticipated, a portion of the design phase grant will be utilized for construction. $3,605,807 of federal grant funding was awarded in 2022 for the construction phase. Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $2,500. Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: 41 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: M Street NE (E Main St to 4th St NE) TIP# R-7 Project No:cp2210 Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 5 Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - 120,000 175,000 500,000 295,000 Arterial Street Fund (105)- 185,000 - 1,500,000 185,000 REET 2 - - - 400,000 - Traffic Impact Fees - 70,000 75,000 500,000 145,000 Other - - - - - - 375,000 250,000 2,900,000 625,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 375,000 200,000 - 575,000 Right of Way - - 50,000 - 50,000 Construction - - - 2,900,000 - - 375,000 250,000 2,900,000 625,000 Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - 675,000 Arterial Street Fund (105)- - - - 1,500,000 REET 2 - - - 400,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - 575,000 Other - - - - - - - - - 3,150,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 200,000 Right of Way - - - - 50,000 Construction - - - 2,900,000 - - - - 3,150,000 Grants / Other Sources: Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: Description: This project will construct a complete four/five-lane street section on M St NE from south of E Main St to 4th St NE, and reconstruct the signal at E Main St. The project is needed to improve traffic operations along the M Street NE corridor, and replace the existing pavement which is in poor condition. Progress Summary: The design phase of the project was started during Spring 2022. Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $500. 42 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: 49th Street NE (Auburn Way N to D St NE)TIP # R-8 Project No:cp2211 Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# N/A Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants- Secured (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - Other Sources - Developer - - - - - - - - - - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - - - - - - - Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue 61,000 74,000 892,000 - 1,027,000 Grants- Secured (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - Other Sources - Developer - - - - - 61,000 74,000 892,000 - 1,027,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 61,000 - - - 61,000 Right of Way - 74,000 - - 74,000 Construction - - 892,000 - 892,000 61,000 74,000 892,000 - 1,027,000 Grants / Other Sources: Description: This project will construct the build-out of 49th Street NE between Auburn Way N and D Street NE. Progress Summary: Preliminary design for the project was prepared by the developer of the adjacent Copper Gate Project. The developer contribution of $674,600.49 was collected by the City and credited to the 102 fund. The developer funds will be suplemented by the City and the prelimiary design finalized by the City during 2022. Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $500. Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: 43 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: 46th Place S Realignment TIP# R-9 Project No:cpxxx Project Type:Capacity, Safety Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# N/A Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants- Unsecured - - - - - REET 2 - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - Other Sources - - - - - - - - - - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - - - - - - - Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants- Unsecured - - REET 2 - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees 250,000 250,000 750,000 - 1,250,000 Other Sources - - - - - 250,000 250,000 750,000 - 1,250,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 250,000 - - 250,000 Right of Way - 250,000 - - 250,000 Construction - - 750,000 - 750,000 250,000 250,000 750,000 - 1,250,000 Grants / Other Sources: Description: The project will realign 46th Place S to the south of S 321st Street. The realignment will move the 46th Place S intersection with S 321st Street approximately 350 feet to the east of the current location. This will create two T-intersections (44th Avenue S and 46th Place S) in place of the existing four-leg intersection. The existing 46th Place S will be dead-ended to the south of S 321st Street. The project will improve safety and traffic operations at the intersections. Progress Summary: A portion of the right-of-way for the realigned roadway was dedicated as part of an adjacent development project. Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $1,000. Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: 44 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: 124th Ave SE Widening (SE 312th St to SE 318th St)TIP# R-11 Project No:asbd01 Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 23 Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants- Unsecured Federal - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - - - - - - - Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants- Unsecured Federal - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - 400,000 1,100,000 2,500,000 4,000,000 Other - - - - - - 400,000 1,100,000 2,500,000 4,000,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 400,000 - - 400,000 Right of Way - - 1,100,000 - 1,100,000 Construction - - - 2,500,000 2,500,000 - 400,000 1,100,000 2,500,000 4,000,000 Grants / Other Sources: Description: This project will widen 124th Avenue SE to create a four-lane section with bicycle and pedestrian facilities SE 318th St and SE 312th St. The project will also construct improvements at the SE 312th St/124th Ave SE intersection (including adding bike lanes, dual westbound left-turn lanes, dual southbound through-lanes, a northbound right-turn pocket, ITS improvements, and pedestrian safety improvements). The project is needed to improve traffic operations along the corridor and to accommodate all travel modes. Progress Summary: Phase 1 improvements between SE 318th and SE 316th were completed by GRC in 2012. Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $1,000. Total Expenditures: Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: 45 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Regional Growth Center Access Improvements TIP# R-16 Project No:CP2110 Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:Seth Wickstrom LOS Corridor ID# N/A Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants- Secured 64,682 260,318 1,300,000 - 1,625,000 Traffic Impact Fees 16,170 168,830 1,385,000 - 1,570,000 REET2 - - - - - Other - - - - - 80,852 429,148 2,685,000 - 3,195,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 80,852 329,148 - - 410,000 Right of Way - 100,000 - 100,000 Construction - - 2,685,000 - 2,685,000 80,852 429,148 2,685,000 - 3,195,000 Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants- Secured - - - 1,300,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - - 1,385,000 REET2 - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - 2,685,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - 2,685,000 - - - - 2,685,000 Grants / Other Sources: Total Expenditures: Description: The project will construct a northbound left-turn lane and a northbound/southbound crosswalk at the 3rd Street NE/Auburn Avenue intersection, and realign the 4th Street NE/Auburn Way N intersection to eliminate the split phase signal operation improving circulation and access. The project will improve traffic operations, safety, and circulation for both vehicles and non- motorized users. Progress Summary: Grant funding for the design and construction phases was awarded from Sound Transit in 2019. The design phase of the project has been initiated, and is currently underway. Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $500. Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: 46 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: East Valley Highway Widening TIP # R-26 Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Unsecured Grant - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - - - - - - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - - - - - - - Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Unsecured Grant 1,050,000 - 4,500,000 - 5,550,000 Traffic Impact Fees 350,000 500,000 2,900,000 - 3,750,000 1,400,000 500,000 7,400,000 - 9,300,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 1,400,000 - - - 1,400,000 Right of Way - 500,000 - - 500,000 Construction - - 7,400,000 - 7,400,000 1,400,000 500,000 7,400,000 - 9,300,000 Grants / Other Sources: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Description: This project will widen E Valley Highway between Lakeland Hills Way and Terrace View Drive SE, approximately 0.6 miles. The roadway will have a four/five lane cross section with a trail connection along the east side. Other project elements include storm improvement, illumination and ITS. The project will provide congestion relief along the corridor and provide access for non-motorized users. Progress Summary: The City is Grant funding for the design phase of the project is is being applied for in 2022. Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $2,500. 47 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Garden Avenue Realignment TIP # R-27 Project No:cp2022 Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:Kim Truong LOS Corridor ID# 19 Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants- Secured (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - Traffic Impact Fees 85,652 160,000 704,348 - 950,000 85,652 160,000 704,348 - 950,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 85,652 85,000 - - 170,652 Right of Way - 75,000 - - 75,000 Construction - - 704,348 - 704,348 85,652 160,000 704,348 - 950,000 Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants- Secured (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - 704,348 - - - - 704,348 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - 704,348 - - - - 704,348 Grants / Other Sources: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Description: The project will construct a new east/west connection between Garden Avenue and 104th Avenue SE, and will cul-de-sac Garden Avenue to the north of 8th Street NE. This will improve traffic operations and safety along 8th Street NE. Progress Summary: The previous project title (Lea Hill Rd Segment 1A) was updated based on recommendations from the Lea Hill Corridor Study in 2020. In 2016, a parcel at the intersection of Garden Avenue and 320th/8th Street was purchased for the project. In 2016, right-of-way was dedicated for a portion of the new east/west roadway as part of an adjacent development project. During 2022 the design phase and ROW acquisition are anticipated to be completed. Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $1,000. 48 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: S 272nd/277th St Corridor Capacity & Non-Motorized Trail Improvements TIP# S-2 Project No:cp1821 Project Type:Capacity, Environmental Monitoring Project Manager:Tim Carlaw LOS Corridor ID# 15 Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants- Secured Federal - - - - - Grants- Secured State - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees 17,213 20,000 75,000 75,000 112,213 Wetland Mitigation fee (124)- - 73,000 - 73,000 Other - - - - - 17,213 20,000 148,000 75,000 185,213 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Environmental 17,213 20,000 148,000 75,000 185,213 Construction - - - - - 17,213 20,000 148,000 75,000 185,213 Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants- Secured State - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 230,000 Wetland Mitigation fee (124)- - - - 73,000 Other - - - - - 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 303,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Environmental 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 303,000 Construction - - - - - 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 303,000 Grants / Other Sources: Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: Description: This project will complete the environmental monitoring requirements related to the S 277th St corridor widening project between Auburn Way North and l St NE. Progress Summary: The 10 year monitoring period began in 2018 after final completion and continue through 2028. Future Impact on Operating Budget: N/A 49 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Auburn Way N/1st Street NE Signal Replacement TIP# I-1 Project No:CP1927 Project Type:Non-Capacity Project Manager:Matt Larson LOS Corridor ID# N/A Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue 491,377 654,780 25,000 - 1,171,157 Arterial Preservation Fund (105)24,980 225,020 25,000 - 275,000 Grants- Unsecured (Fed & State)- - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - Other Sources - - - - - 516,357 879,800 50,000 - 1,446,157 Capital Expenditures: Design 164,256 - - - 164,256 Right of Way - - - - - Construction 352,101 879,800 50,000 - 1,281,901 516,357 879,800 50,000 - 1,446,157 Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - 25,000 Arterial Preservation Fund (105)- - - - 25,000 Grants- Unsecured (Fed & State)- - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - Other Sources - - - - - - - - - 50,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - 50,000 - - - - 50,000 Grants / Other Sources: Total Expenditures: Description: The project will replace the existing traffic signal at the Auburn Way N/1st Street NE signal. The signal was constructed in 1968 and is approaching the end of its service life. The project scope also includes the construction of ADA improvements, curb-bulbs, and storm improvements. Progress Summary: Construction is currently underway and is anticipated to be completed during Summer 2022. Future Impact on Operating Budget: Replacing the traffic signal will reduce on-going maintenance costs to replace parts and equipment that have reached the end of their service life. Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: 50 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: ITS Dynamic Message Signs TIP# I-3 Project No:asbd16, cp1701, cp1912 Project Type:Non-Capacity (ITS) Project Manager:Seth Wickstrom LOS Corridor ID# N/A Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue 395,381 - - 395,381 Grants- Unsecured Federal - - - - - REET 97,500 - - - 97,500 PWTFL - - - - - Other (MIT)- - - - - 492,881 - - - 492,881 Capital Expenditures: Design 135,924 - - - 135,924 Right of Way - - - - - Construction 359,457 - - - 359,457 495,381 - - - 495,381 Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - 35,000 225,000 - 260,000 Grants- Unsecured Federal - - - - - REET - - - - - PWTFL - - - - - Other (MIT)- - - - - - 35,000 225,000 - 260,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 35,000 - - 35,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - 225,000 - 225,000 - 35,000 225,000 - 260,000 Grants / Other Sources: Description: The program constructs Dynamic Message Signs at various locations throughout the City. Dynamic message signs are an important tool for communicating with roadway users in real time. Priority locations for sign placement are based on the Comprehensive Transportation Plans ITS map and include S. 277th, Auburn Way N, Auburn Way S, W Valley Highway, E Valley Highway, Lake Tapps Parkway, 15th St NW, and Lea Hill Rd. Progress Summary: Signs have been installed on Auburn Way S, S 277th Street, Lake Tapps Parkway and 15th Street NW. Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance and operational costs for this project is estimated to be $3,000. Total Expenditures: Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: 51 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Auburn Avenue/E Main Street Signal Replacement TIP# I-7 Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Non-Capacity Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# N/A Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants- Unsecured (Fed & State)- - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - REET 2 - - - - - - - - - - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - - - - - - - Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - 100,000 450,000 - 550,000 Grants- Unsecured (Fed & State)- - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - REET 2 - 100,000 450,000 - 550,000 - 200,000 900,000 - 1,100,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 200,000 - 200,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - 900,000 - 900,000 - 200,000 900,000 - 1,100,000 Grants / Other Sources: Total Expenditures: Description: This program will replace the existing traffic signal at the Auburn Avenue/E Main Street signal, which was constructed in 1968. The project scope also includes the construction of ADA improvements. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: Replacing the traffic signal will reduce on-going maintenance costs to replace parts and equipment that have reached the end of their service life. Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: 52 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Non-Motorized Safety Program TIP# N-1 Project No:asbd08, cp1804, cp1902, cp2106 Project Type:Non-Capacity (Annual) Project Manager:James Webb LOS Corridor ID# N/A Activity: Previous 2 Years 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue 124,054 150,000 150,000 150,000 424,054 Grants- Secured (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - REET - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - Other 179,596 - - - 179,596 303,650 150,000 150,000 150,000 603,650 Capital Expenditures: Design 114,840 30,000 30,000 30,000 174,840 Right of Way - - Construction 231,734 120,000 120,000 120,000 471,734 346,574 150,000 150,000 150,000 646,574 Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 900,000 Grants- Secured (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - REET - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - Other - - - - - 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 900,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 180,000 Right of Way - Construction 120,000 120,000 120,000 120,000 720,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 900,000 Grants / Other Sources: Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: Description: The program will construct non-motorized safety improvement projects at locations throughout the City. Projects are prioritized based on pedestrian and bicycle demands, existing deficiencies, field studies and community requests. Common improvements installed by this program include, but are not limited to, RRFBs, signage, striping, raised crosswalk, bicycle lanes, etc. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. 53 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: 10th Street NE Non-Motorized Improvements TIP # N-3 Project No:asbd39 Project Type:Non-Capacity Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# N/A Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - - 134,000 5,000 134,000 Grants- Unsecured (Federal)- - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - Arterial Street Preservation Fund (105)- - 53,000 53,000 - - 187,000 5,000 187,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - 187,000 - 187,000 Right of Way - - - 5,000 - Construction - - - - - - - 187,000 5,000 187,000 Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue 132,000 - - - 271,000 Grants- Unsecured (Federal)839,000 - - - 839,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - Arterial Street Preservation Fund (105)388,000 - - - 441,000 1,359,000 - - - 1,551,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 187,000 Right of Way - - - - 5,000 Construction 1,359,000 - - - 1,359,000 1,359,000 - - - 1,551,000 Grants / Other Sources: Description: The project will implement a suite of non-motorized improvements along 10th Street NE between B Street NW and Auburn Way N. The proposed improvements include rechannelization the roadway to convert the existing four-lane cross section to a three lanes section with bike lanes and a center two-way left-turn lane, changes to the existing intersection control at the intersection with A Street NE, and the installation of a new north/south crosswalk to the east of the A Street NE intersection. The new crosswalk is proposed to be enhanced with a median island and a Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB). The existing signal at D Street NE will require modification to match the new roadway cross section. The pavement is also proposed to be replaced to support the rechannelization of the roadway and addition of on-street bicycle facilities. Local preservation funds are proposed to be utilized to fund the majority of the cost of the pavement replacement, beyond the needs identified above, and are not included in the grant request. Progress Summary: City submitted application for Federal grant in Spring 2022 through PSRC King County Countywide program. Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: 54 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Regional Growth Center Pedestrian Improvements TIP # N-5 Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Non-Capacity Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# N/A Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants- Unsecured (Federal)- - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - Other Sources - Contribution - - - - - - - - - - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - - - - - - - Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue 20,000 105,000 - - 125,000 Grants- Unsecured (Federal)80,000 420,000 - - 500,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - Other Sources - Contribution - - - - - 100,000 525,000 - - 625,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 100,000 - - - 100,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - 525,000 - - 525,000 100,000 525,000 - - 625,000 Grants / Other Sources: Description: The project will implement non-motorized improvements at the 1st Street NE/NW/N Division Street intersections in downtown Auburn. The proposed improvements will create a raised intersection to reduce slow speeds, and encourage motorists to yield to pedestrians using the crosswalks; add curb bulbs where they are not currently provided to reduce crossing distances and improve pedestrian visibility; construct new ADA complaint ramps; and both pedestrian level and street lighting improvements. Progress Summary: City submitted application for Federal grant in Spring 2022 through PSRC King County Countywide program. Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: 55 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: 37th Street SE Safe Routes to Schools TIP # N-12 Project No:asbd40 Project Type:Non-Capacity, Non-Motorized Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants- Unsecured (State)- - 86,500 448,500 86,500 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - - 86,500 448,500 86,500 Capital Expenditures: Design - - 86,500 - 86,500 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - 448,500 - - - 86,500 448,500 86,500 Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants- Unsecured (State)- - - - 535,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - - - - 535,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 86,500 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - 448,500 - - - - 535,000 Grants / Other Sources: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Description: The project will complete a gap in the existing non-motorized system along 37th Street SE between M Street SE and the 37th Street trail which connects to R Street SE. Existing sidewalks are provided along M Street SE to the north of 37th Street SE, and along 37th Street SE to the west of M Street SE. Sidewalks existing along both sides of the R Street SE corridor, and are proposed to be upgraded with the R Street SE/29th Street SE improvement project. A new pedestrian crossing at the trail connection to R Street SE is also proposed. The new crossing will be enhanced with an RRFB. This project will install curb and gutter, storm improvements, street light upgrades, and a 7.5 foot sidewalk along the north side of 37th Street SE. New ADA ramps will be provided at side street intersections, aprons will be added at driveway approaches, and existing utility poles will be relocated or removed as needed. Progress Summary: City submitted application for grant in Spring 2022 through WSDOT Safe Routes to Schools program. Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. 56 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: 2022 Arterial Pedestrian and Bike Safety Project TIP # N-13 Project No:CP2119 Project Type:Non-Capacity, Non-Motorized Project Manager:Aleksey Koshman LOS Corridor ID# Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue 35,689 294,311 10,000 340,000 Grants- Secured (WTSC)- 75,000 - - 75,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - Other - - - - - 35,689 369,311 10,000 - 415,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 35,689 - - - 35,689 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - 369,311 10,000 - 379,311 35,689 369,311 10,000 - 415,000 Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - 10,000 Grants- Secured (WTSC)- - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - 10,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - 10,000 - - - - 10,000 Grants / Other Sources: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Description: This project was developed as part of the Non-Motorized Safety Program (TIP N-1), and will replace curb ramps on 15th Street NE adjacent to the King County Park and Ride facilities, remove curb returns and install sidewalk on A Street SE between 21st Street SE and 29th Street SE (near Oldcastle Precast), replace overhead flashers on enhanced crossing of East Main Street near Washington Elementary with a rapid rectangular flashing beacon (RRFB) system, install a new RRFB system near Gildo Rey Elementary across 37th Street SE Progress Summary: Project construction is underway in 2022. Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. 57 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: High Friction Surface Treatment TIP # R-10 Project No:CP2112 Project Type:Non-Capacity, Safety Project Manager:Aleksey Koshman LOS Corridor ID# Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Street Revenue 707 - 10,000 - 10,707 Grants- Secured (Fed,State,Local)12,818 781,382 - - 794,200 Other Sources -Multicare Contribution - - - - - 13,525 781,382 10,000 - 804,907 Capital Expenditures: Design 13,525 46,475 - - 60,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - 734,907 10,000 - 744,907 13,525 781,382 10,000 - 804,907 Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - 10,000 Grants- Secured (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - Other Sources -Multicare Contribution - - - - - - - - - 10,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - 10,000 - - - - 10,000 Grants / Other Sources: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Description: The project will install a high friction surface treatment (HFST) at six different curved roadway segments throughout the City. The HFST involves the application of fine/rough aggregate to the pavement using a polymer binder to increase pavement friction. The higher pavement friction helps motorists maintain better control in both dry and wet driving conditions, reducing the potential for a crash. Progress Summary: Grant funding was awarded by WSDOT in 2020 project under construction in 2022. Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. 58 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan TABLE T - 2A 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Total Capacity Projects: None - Page Non-Capacity Projects: 60 Local Street Improvement Program Capital Costs 450,000 1,600,000 1,950,000 1,950,000 1,950,000 1,950,000 9,850,000 Funding Sources: Fund Balance 300,000 1,450,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 8,950,000 Transfer In (Utilities) 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 900,000 Other ARPA - - - - - - - Other REET 1 - - - - - - - Other REET 2 - - - - - - - 61 D Street SE and 23rd Street SE Storm Improvements Capital Costs 85,000 350,000 - - - - 435,000 Funding Sources: Fund Balance - 350,000 - - - - 350,000 Transfer In (Utilities) - - - - - - - Other ARPA 85,000 - - - - - 85,000 62 2023 Local Street Preservation Project Capital Costs 1,500,000 - - - - - 1,500,000 Funding Sources: Fund Balance 1,500,000 - - - - - 1,500,000 Transfer In (Utilities) - - - - - - - Other REET 1 - - - - - - - Other REET 2 - - - - - - - SUMMARY: CAPITAL COSTS Capacity Projects - - - - - - - Non-Capacity Projects 2,035,000 1,950,000 1,950,000 1,950,000 1,950,000 1,950,000 11,785,000 Total Costs 2,035,000 1,950,000 1,950,000 1,950,000 1,950,000 1,950,000 11,785,000 FUNDING SOURCES: Fund Balance 1,800,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 10,800,000 Transfer In (Utilities) 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 900,000 Other ARPA 85,000 - - - - - 85,000 Other REET 1 - - - - - - - Other REET 2 - - - - - - - Total Funding 2,035,000 1,950,000 1,950,000 1,950,000 1,950,000 1,950,000 11,785,000 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN PROJECTS AND FINANCING LOCAL STREET FUND 59 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan LOCAL STREET FUND (103)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Local Street Improvement Program TIP# P-2 Project No:sobd02, cp1614, cp1725, cp1726, cp1922, cp1925, cp2019 Project Type:Non-Capacity, Preservation Project Manager:James Webb LOS Corridor ID# N/A Activity: (Previous 2Yrs.)2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Local Street Fund - - 300,000 1,450,000 300,000 Transfer In (Utilities)300,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 600,000 Sales Tax on Construction - - - - - Other ARPA - 501,866 - - 501,866 REET 1 - - - - - REET 2 2,339,650 - - - 2,339,650 2,639,650 651,866 450,000 1,600,000 3,741,516 Capital Expenditures: Design 374,425 150,000 450,000 400,000 974,425 Right of Way - - - - - Construction 2,265,225 551,866 - 1,200,000 2,817,091 2,639,650 701,866 450,000 1,600,000 3,791,516 Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Local Street Fund 1,800,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 8,950,000 Transfer In (Utilities)150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 900,000 Sales Tax on Construction - - - - - Other ARPA - - - - - REET 1 - - - - - REET 2 - - - - - 1,950,000 1,950,000 1,950,000 1,950,000 9,850,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 2,450,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction 1,550,000 1,550,000 1,550,000 1,550,000 7,400,000 1,950,000 1,950,000 1,950,000 1,950,000 9,850,000 Grants / Other Sources: Description: The program preserves local (unclassified) streets. Individual projects may include crack sealing, asphalt patching, pre- leveling, asphalt overlays and roadway reconstruction. The program also funds the biennial collection of pavement condition ratings. Beginning in 2019 REET funding was dedicated by council to this program. Beyond 2022, funding for this program is shown as other because a dedicated funding source has not yet been identified, and the use of REET to fund the program is not sustainable long term. Program funds reflect remaining budget after allocations to specific local street preservation projects, which are included as separate projects in this TIP. Progress Summary: This program has successfully completed overlays, chip seals and complete reconstructions since 2005. The program will focus on completing reconstruction needs in addition to regular maintenance treatments. The 2022 funds have been transfered into the Lead Service Line replacement project to cover the cost of additional reconstruction/rehabilitation included with the scope of that project. Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project is anticipated to reduce the operating budget for street maintenance. Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Forecasted Project Cost: 60 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan LOCAL STREET FUND (103)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Special Revenue Funds Project Title: D Street SE and 23rd Street SE Storm Improvements Project No:CP2125 Project Type:Preservation Project Manager:Jai Carter Description: Activity: (Previous Yrs)2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Local Street Fund - - - 350,000 - Transfer In - - - - - Sales Tax on Construction - - - - - Other ARPA - 50,000 85,000 - 135,000 - 50,000 85,000 350,000 135,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 50,000 - - 50,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - 85,000 350,000 85,000 - 50,000 85,000 350,000 135,000 Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Local Street Fund - - - - 350,000 Transfer In - - - - - Sales Tax on Construction - - - - - Other ARPA - - - - 85,000 - - - - 435,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - 435,000 - - - - 435,000 Grants / Other Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: The project will replace additional pavement on D Street SE and 23rd Street SE and is part of the scope of a larger storm project. The project will replace the remaining portions of pavement not required to be restored as part of the utility replacement. The project will reconstruct D Street SE between 21st Street SE and 23rd Street SE and between 25th Street SE and 27th Street SE. The project will also use ARPA funding to install curb, gutter and sidewalk along the east side of K Street SE to the south of 21st Street SE. This will complete a gap between 21st Street SE and existing sidewalk completed as part of the replacement of Pioneer Elementary School. Progress Summary: The design phase of the project has begun and will be completed during 2023, with construction programmed for 2024. Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project is anticipated to reduce the operating budget for street maintenance. Total Funding Sources: 61 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan LOCAL STREET FUND (103)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: 2023 Local Street Preservation Project TIP# P-16 Project No:CP2101 Project Type:Non-Capacity, Preservation Project Manager:Kim Truong LOS Corridor ID# N/A Activity: (Previous 2Yrs.)2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Local Street Fund 9,669 22,000 1,500,000 - 1,531,669 Transfer In (Utilities)- - - - - Sales Tax on Construction - - - - - REET 1 - - - - - REET 2 - 538,000 - - 538,000 9,669 560,000 1,500,000 - 2,069,669 Capital Expenditures: Design 9,669 560,000 - - 569,669 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - 1,500,000 - 1,500,000 9,669 560,000 1,500,000 - 2,069,669 Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Local Street Fund - - - - 1,500,000 Transfer In (Utilities)- - - - - Sales Tax on Construction - - - - - REET 1 - - - - - REET 2 - - - - - - - - - 1,500,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - 1,500,000 - - - - 1,500,000 Grants / Other Sources: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Description: This project includes the preservation of: Olympic Street SE between 33rd Street SE & 37th Street SE, 13th Street between A Street SE and B Street SE, 14th Street SE between A Street SE and B Street SE, and 17th Street SE to the west of Dogwood Street SE. The project will grind and overlay the pavement, with localized full depth pavement patching as necessary. ADA ramps will be upgraded, and sidewalk/curb & gutter will be replaced where damaged. Utility needs for the project are limited to minor storm upgrades, no water or sewer improvements have been identified. Progress Summary: Project design underway in 2022 Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project is anticipated to reduce the operating budget for street maintenance. Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: 62 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan TABLE T-2B 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Total Capacity Projects: None - Page Non-Capacity Projects: 64 Arterial Street Preservation Program Capital Costs 250,000 1,465,644 2,674,000 3,120,000 4,900,000 4,850,000 17,259,644 Funding Sources: Fund Balance - - - - - - - Tranportation Benefit Dist.- - - - 900,000 900,000 1,800,000 Utility & Sales Tax 250,000 1,465,644 2,674,000 3,120,000 4,000,000 3,950,000 15,459,644 65 2nd Street SE Preservation Capital Costs 10,000 - - - - - 10,000 Funding Sources: Fund Balance 10,000 - - - - - 10,000 Grants - - - - - - - Other Transportation Fees - - - - - - - 66 Lake Tapps Pkwy/Sumner-Tapps Hwy E Preservation Capital Costs 150,000 1,284,356 - - - - 1,434,356 Funding Sources: Fund Balance 150,000 534,356 - - - - 684,356 Grants - 750,000 - - - - 750,000 67 C Street SW Preservation (GSA Signal to Ellingson Road SE) Capital Costs - 198,000 28,000 1,730,000 - - 1,956,000 Funding Sources: Fund Balance - 198,000 - - - - 198,000 Tranportation Benefit Dist.- - 28,000 865,000 - - 893,000 Grants - - - 865,000 - - 865,000 68 A St SE Preservation (37th Street SE to Lakeland Hills Way) Capital Costs 197,000 27,000 1,810,000 - - - 2,034,000 Funding Sources: Fund Balance 183,000 27,000 - - - - 210,000 Grants - - 905,000 - - - 905,000 Tranportation Benefit Dist.- - 854,000 - - - 854,000 Other Contributions 14,000 - 51,000 - - - 65,000 69 C Street SW Preservation (W Main St to GSA Signal) Capital Costs 2,236,544 - - - - - 2,236,544 Funding Sources: Fund Balance 68,272 - - - - - 68,272 Grants 1,118,272 - - - - - 1,118,272 Tranportation Benefit Dist.1,050,000 - - - - - 1,050,000 70 4th Street SE Preservation (Auburn Way S to L Street SE) Capital Costs 50,000 - - - - - 50,000 Funding Sources: Fund Balance 50,000 - - - - - 50,000 Grants - - - - - - - Other Fund 103 - - - - - - - 71 2023 Arterial Preservation Project Capital Costs 378,456 - - - - - 378,456 Funding Sources: Fund Balance - - - - - - - Tranportation Benefit Dist.378,456 - - - - - 378,456 Note: Financial plan utilizes the following order for use of funds to finance projects: grant revenues (if available), utility tax revenues and fund balance. 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Total SUMMARY: CAPITAL COSTS Capacity Projects - - - - - - - Non-Capacity Projects 3,272,000 2,975,000 4,512,000 4,850,000 4,900,000 4,850,000 25,359,000 Total Costs 3,272,000 2,975,000 4,512,000 4,850,000 4,900,000 4,850,000 25,359,000 FUNDING SOURCES: Fund Balance 461,272 759,356 - - - - 1,220,628 Utility & Sales Tax 250,000 1,465,644 2,674,000 3,120,000 4,000,000 3,950,000 15,459,644 Grants 1,118,272 750,000 905,000 865,000 - - 3,638,272 Tranportation Benefit Dist.1,428,456 - 882,000 865,000 900,000 900,000 4,975,456 Other Contributions 14,000 - 51,000 - - - 65,000 Other Transportation Fees - - - - - - - Other Fund 103 - - - - - - - REET 2 -Streets - - - - - - - Total Funding 3,272,000 2,975,000 4,512,000 4,850,000 4,900,000 4,850,000 25,359,000 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN PROJECTS AND FINANCING ARTERIAL STREET PRESERVATION FUND 63 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET PRESERVATION FUND (105)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Special Revenue Funds Project Title: Arterial Street Preservation Program TIP# P-1 Project No:Varies annually, spbd01, cp1803, cp1829, cp1926 Project Type:Non-Capacity, Preservation Project Manager:James Webb LOS Corridor ID# N/A Activity: (Previous 2 Years)2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Arterial Preservation Fund 121,213 540,000 - - 661,213 City Utility Tax & Sales Tax - 250,000 1,465,644 250,000 REET2 -Streets 813,020 - - - 813,020 Other -Development Fees 16,346 - - - 16,346 Grants -Federal - - - - 950,580 540,000 250,000 1,465,644 1,740,580 Capital Expenditures: Design 74,129 81,000 250,000 275,000 405,129 Right of Way - - - - Construction 876,451 459,000 - 1,190,644 1,335,451 950,580 540,000 250,000 1,465,644 1,740,580 Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Arterial Preservation Fund - - - - - City Utility Tax & Sales Tax 2,674,000 3,120,000 4,000,000 3,950,000 15,459,644 Transportation Benefit District - - 900,000 900,000 1,800,000 Grants -Federal - - - - - 2,674,000 3,120,000 4,900,000 4,850,000 17,259,644 Capital Expenditures: Design 300,000 325,000 350,000 375,000 1,875,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction 2,374,000 2,795,000 4,550,000 4,475,000 15,384,644 2,674,000 3,120,000 4,900,000 4,850,000 17,259,644 Grants / Other Sources: Description: The program preserves classified streets throughout the City. Individual projects may include a combination of crack seal, overlays, rebuilds, and spot repairs. The program also funds the biennial collection of pavement condition ratings. This program is currently funded through a 1% utility tax that was adopted by City Council in 2008. Program funds reflect remaining budget after allocations to specific arterial street preservation projects, which are included as separate projects in this TIP. Program Funding is proposed to be modified in 2023 to be from a 1.5% City Utiltiy tax and Transportation Benefit District funds. Progress Summary: During 2021, the Auburn Way N preservation projects and 15th Street NW reconstruction will be completed; the Lea Hill Road and 3rd Street SW bridge decks will be preserved; the reconstruction of 2nd Street SE will begin; 4th Street SE reconstruction is being designed; and arterial patching and crack seal projects are proposed. Future Impact on Operating Budget: This program is anticipated to reduce the operating budget for street maintenance. Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: 64 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET PRESERVATION FUND (105)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Special Revenue Funds Project Title: 2nd Street SE Preservation TIP# P-3 Project No:CP2003 Project Type:Non-Capacity, Preservation Project Manager:Jai Carter Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Arterial Preservation Fund 89,090 319,126 10,000 - 418,216 Secured State Grant 64,245 373,917 - - 438,162 Utility Tax - - - - - Other (Franchise Utilities)- 225,000 - - 225,000 153,335 918,043 10,000 - 1,081,378 Capital Expenditures: Design 153,335 - - - 153,335 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - 918,043 10,000 - 928,043 153,335 918,043 10,000 - 1,081,378 Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Arterial Preservation Fund - - - - 10,000 Secured State Grant - - - - - Utility Tax - - - - - Other (Franchise Utilities)- - - - - - - - - 10,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - 10,000 - - - - 10,000 Grants / Other Sources: Total Expenditures: Description: This project was developed as part of the Arterial Preservation Program (P-1) and will reconstruct 2nd Street SE between A Street SE and Auburn Way S. The reconstruction will utilize full depth reclamation techniques. The project will also address fixed objects located within the clear zone, remove barriers to ADA access, and install new LED street lighting. Progress Summary: Grant funding for this project was awarded by TIB in 2019. Construction underway in 2022. $10k shown in 2023 is a placeholder for potential carryforward of 2022 budget for construction completion and closeout. Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project is anticipated to reduce the operating budget for street maintenance. 65 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET PRESERVATION FUND (105)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Special Revenue Funds Project Title: Lake Tapps Pkwy/Sumner-Tapps Hwy E Preservation TIP# P-6 Project No:spbd08 Project Type:Non-Capacity, Preservation Project Manager:TBD Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Arterial Preservation Fund - 25,000 150,000 534,356 175,000 Secured Federal Grant - - - 750,000 - Utility Tax - - - - - Bond proceeds - - - - - - 25,000 150,000 1,284,356 175,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 25,000 125,000 - 150,000 Right of Way - - 25,000 - 25,000 Construction - - - 1,284,356 - - 25,000 150,000 1,284,356 175,000 Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Arterial Preservation Fund - - - 684,356 Secured Federal Grant - - - 750,000 Utility Tax - - - - - Bond proceeds - - - - - - - - - 1,434,356 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - 125,000 Right of Way - - - 25,000 Construction - - - 1,284,356 - - - - 1,434,356 Grants / Other Sources: Total Expenditures: Description: The project will grind and overlay the Lake Tapps Parkway/Sumner-Tapps Highway E corridor from the intersection of Lake Tapps Parkway with Lakeland Hills Way to the intersection of Sumner-Tapps Highway E with 16th Street E (the Auburn City limit). Portions of the corridor include a center two-way left-turn lane which does not require preservation and would be omitted from the grind and overlay. The project scope also includes upgrades to ADA curb ramps and pedestrian push buttons, and replacement of vehicle detection at signalized intersections. Progress Summary: Grant funding for the project was awarded in 2020. Design is programmed to begin during the second half of 2022. Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project is anticipated to reduce the operating budget for street maintenance. Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: 66 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET PRESERVATION FUND (105)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: C Street SW Preservation (W Main St to GSA Signal)TIP# P-11 Project No:cp2123 Project Type:Non-Capacity, Preservation Project Manager:Kim Truong LOS Corridor ID# 13 Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Arterial Preservation Fund 4,228 120,772 68,272 - 193,272 Secured Federal Grant - - 1,118,272 - 1,118,272 Transportation Benefit District - - 1,050,000 - 1,050,000 Bond proceeds - - - - - 4,228 120,772 2,236,544 - 2,361,544 Capital Expenditures: Design 4,228 95,772 - - 100,000 Right of Way - 25,000 - 25,000 Construction - - 2,236,544 - 2,236,544 4,228 120,772 2,236,544 - 2,361,544 Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Arterial Preservation Fund - - - 68,272 Secured Federal Grant - - - 1,118,272 Transportation Benefit District - - - 1,050,000 Bond proceeds - - - - - - - - - 2,236,544 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - 2,236,544 - - - - 2,236,544 Grants / Other Sources: Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: Description: The project will grind and overlay C Street SW from W Main Street to the GSA signal (approximately 2,000 feet to the south of 15th Street SW). The project also includes ADA upgrades to curb ramps and pedestrian push buttons, and replacement of vehicle detection loops. Progress Summary: Grant funding for the construction phase of this project was awarded in 2020. Design underway in 2022. Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project is anticipated to reduce the operating budget for street maintenance. 67 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET PRESERVATION FUND (105)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: A St SE Preservation (37th Street SE to Lakeland Hills Way)TIP# P-10 Project No:spbd09 Project Type:Non-Capacity, Preservation Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 10 Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Arterial Preservation Fund - - 183,000 27,000 183,000 Unsecured Federal Grants - - - - - Transportation Benefit District - - - - - Other-Contributions - - 14,000 - 14,000 - - 197,000 27,000 197,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - 197,000 - 197,000 Right of Way - - - 27,000 - Construction - - - - - - - 197,000 27,000 197,000 Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Arterial Preservation Fund - - - - 210,000 Unsecured Federal Grants 905,000 - - - 905,000 Transportation Benefit District 854,000 - - - 854,000 Other-Contributions 51,000 - - - 65,000 1,810,000 - - - 2,034,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 197,000 Right of Way - - - - 27,000 Construction 1,810,000 - - - 1,810,000 1,810,000 - - - 2,034,000 Grants / Other Sources: City of Pacific Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: Description: The project will grind and overlay A Street SE from 37th Street SE to the intersection with Lakeland Hills Way (the southern paving limit is to the north of the Lakeland Hills intersection which is included in the regional application for East Valley Highway widening). The project limits include a portion of A Street SE which is located in the City of Pacific. Auburn and Pacific are partnering on the project to include this segment as part of the project. The project also includes ADA upgrades to curb ramps, pedestrian push buttons, and replacement of vehicle detection at signalized intersections. Progress Summary: Grant funding for the construction phase of this project was submitted in 2022. Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project is anticipated to reduce the operating budget for street maintenance. 68 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET PRESERVATION FUND (105)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Special Revenue Funds Project Title: C Street SW Preservation (GSA Signal to Ellingson Road SE)TIP# P-7 Project No:TBD Project Type:Non-Capacity, Preservation Project Manager:TBD Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Arterial Preservation Fund - - - 198,000 - Unsecured Grant - - - - - Utility Tax - - - - - Transportation Benefit District - - - - - - - - 198,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - 198,000 - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - - - - - 198,000 - Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Arterial Preservation Fund - - - - 198,000 Unsecured Grant - 865,000 - - 865,000 Utility Tax - - - - - Transportation Benefit District 28,000 865,000 - - 893,000 28,000 1,730,000 - - 1,956,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - 198,000 Right of Way 28,000 - - - 28,000 Construction - 1,730,000 - - 1,730,000 28,000 1,730,000 - - 1,956,000 Grants / Other Sources: Total Expenditures: Description: The project will grind and overlay C Street SW from the GSA signal (approximately 2,000 feet to the south of 15th Street SW) to Ellingson Road SE. The project also includes ADA upgrades to curb ramps and pedestrian push buttons, and replacement vehicle detection. Progress Summary: Grant funding for the construction phase of this project was submitted in 2022. If awarded, the design phase would begin in 2024. Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project is anticipated to reduce the operating budget for street maintenance. Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: 69 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET PRESERVATION FUND (105)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Special Revenue Funds Project Title: 4th Street SE Preservation (Auburn Way S to L Street SE)TIP# P-14 Project No:CP2102 Project Type:Preservation Project Manager:Jeff Bender Description: Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Arterial Preservation Fund 109,990 1,105,010 50,000 - 1,265,000 Secured State Grant 133,748 1,554,087 - - 1,687,835 Other Fund 103 - 32,000 - - 32,000 Other - - - - - 243,738 2,691,097 50,000 - 2,984,835 Capital Expenditures: Design 243,738 95,245 - - 338,983 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - 2,595,852 50,000 - 2,645,852 243,738 2,691,097 50,000 - 2,984,835 Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Arterial Preservation Fund - - - - 50,000 Secured State Grant - - - - - Other Fund 103 - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - 50,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - 50,000 - - - - 50,000 Grants / Other Sources: This project will replace pavement and utilities on 4th Street SE from Auburn Way South to L Street SE. A pavement grind and overlay is planned between Auburn Way South and D Street SE. Full depth pavement reclamation is planned from D Street SE to L Street SE. The project will also include replacement of City utilities, removal of sidewalk obstructions, replacement of sidewalk and curb ramps as needed to address ADA requirements, and other improvements. Progress Summary: Grant funding for the project was awarded by TIB in 2020. Project construction is underway in 2022. $50k shown in 2023 is a placeholder for potential carryforward of 2022 budget for construction completion and closeout. Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project is anticipated to reduce the operating budget for street maintenance. Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: 70 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan ARTERIAL STREET PRESERVATION FUND (105)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: 2023 Arterial Preservation Project TIP# P-15 Project No:spbd11 Project Type:Non-Capacity, Preservation Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 13 Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Arterial Preservation Fund - 50,000 - - 50,000 Secured Federal Grant - - - - - Transportation Benefit District - - 378,456 - 378,456 Bond proceeds - - - - - - 50,000 378,456 - 428,456 Capital Expenditures: Design - 50,000 56,768 - 106,768 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - 321,688 - 321,688 - 50,000 378,456 - 428,456 Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Arterial Preservation Fund - - - - - Secured Federal Grant - - - - - Transportation Benefit District - - - - 378,456 Bond proceeds - - - - - - - - - 378,456 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 56,768 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - 321,688 - - - - 378,456 Grants / Other Sources: Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: Description: This project was developed as part of the Arterial Preservation Program (P-1), and will implement crack sealing on various classified streets throughout the City. Sealing cracks will prolong the life of the pavement by preventing water intrusion into the pavement structure. Progress Summary: Design underway in 2022. Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project is anticipated to reduce the operating budget for street maintenance. 71 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan TABLE T-3 Impact on Future Operating Budgets Transportation Project:2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Total 1 Lea Hill Road/112th Ave SE Roundabout -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,000$ 1,000$ 2 R St SE & 29th St SE Intersection Imp.- 500 500 500 500 500 2,500 3 Lea Hill ITS Expansion - - 500 500 500 500 2,000 4 R St SE & 21st St SE Int. Safety Imp.- - 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 4,000 5 Auburn Way S & 6th Street SE - - 500 500 500 500 2,000 6 Lea Hill Road/104th Avenue SE Roundabout - - - 1,000 1,000 1,000 3,000 7 SE 304th Street/132nd Avenue SE Roundabout - - 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 4,000 8 10th St NW & A St NW Intersection Imp.1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 6,000 9 Riverwalk Dr SE Non-Motorized Imp.2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 12,000 10 A Street Loop 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 6,000 11 A Street NW, Phase 2 (W Main St to 3rd St NW)- - 500 500 500 500 2,000 12 AWS Imp. -Hemlock St SE to Poplar St SE - - 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 10,000 13 M Street NE, E. Main to 4th - 500 500 500 500 500 2,500 14 49th Street NE (AWN to D St NE)- - - - 500 500 1,000 15 46th Place S Realignment - - - - 1,000 1,000 2,000 16 124th Ave SE Widening (SE 312th St to SE 318th St)- - - - - 1,000 1,000 17 Regional Growth Center Access Imp.500 500 500 500 500 500 3,000 18 East Valley Highway Widening - - - - 2,500 2,500 5,000 19 Garden Garden Avenue Re-Alignment 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 6,000 20 ITS Dynamic Message Signs 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 18,000 Total 8,500$ 9,500$ 15,500$ 16,500$ 20,500$ 22,500$ 93,000$ 72 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan WATER Current Facilities The City of Auburn water utility provides water supply, treatment, transmission, storage, distribution, and service connections to in-City residences and businesses. The City also provides water to the City of Algona under a wholesale agreement. The water system consists of wells, springs and interties for source; chlorination stations and corrosion control for treatment; pump stations, pressure reducing stations and pipelines for transmission; and steel and concrete enclosed reservoirs for storage. Table W-1, “Facilities Inventory”, lists the facilities along with their current capacities and approximate locations. Level of Service (LOS) The City’s Comprehensive Water Plan summarizes the design criteria and service polices for the City’s water distribution system. Capital Facilities Projects and Financing The City of Auburn’s water system anticipates eight capacity projects in the amount of $21,545,819 and thirty-seven non-capacity projects totaling $43,0027,750 for a 6-year planning expectation total of $64,573,569. The financing plan is shown in Table W-2 followed by individual worksheets showing the project details. The capacity projects will increase water supply quantities, storage, and distribution for growth of retail customers. The non-capacity projects will provide for pipeline improvements and replacements, delivery pressure improvements, water quality enhancements, comprehensive and resource management planning, pump station upgrades, telemetry system improvements, and meter upgrades. Impact on Future Operating Budgets There are no operating budget impacts forecasted for the water facilities during the six years 2024-2029. 73 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan TABLE W-1 Facilities Inventory Water Facilities CAPACITY FACILITY WATER RIGHT (MGD - max rate)LOCAT ION Water Supply: Coal Creek Springs Certificate 857 9.70<2.52>*3401 Stuck River Rd Well 1 Certificate 3560-A 3.17 1106 M St SE Well 2 G1-00277 C 3.46 1109 5th St NE Well 3A G1-23629 C 4.03 401 37th St SE Well 3B (Included Above)(Included Above) 401 37th St SE Well 4 G1-20391 C 4.03 950 25th St SE Well 5 G1-23633 C 1.44 5530 James Ave SE Well 5B G1-25518C 0.24 1100 63rd St SE Well 5A (Included Above)(Included Above) 5401 Olive Ave SE Well 6 (Supplemental to Wells 1, 2, 3A, 3B, 4)5.04 (supplemental)1109 5th St NE Well 7 (Supplemental to Wells 1, 2, 3A, 3B, 4)5.04 (supplemental)405 E St NE West Hill Springs Claim (1973 File Date)0.9 1900 15th St NW Ext Supply Total (MGD)26.97 Available for Use 24.45 * Denotes deduction of 1,750 gpm (Qi/2,824 ac-ft/yr) to comply with the provisions of the Muckleshoot-Auburn Stipulated Agreement. CAPACITY FACILITY (MGD)LOCATION SERVICE AREA Intertie Tacoma B Street NW 3.2 3240 B St NW Valley Service Area Tacoma 132nd Ave SE 3.2 29598 132nd Ave SE Lea Hill Service Area Intertie Total (MGD)6.4 CAPACITY FACILITY (MG)LOCATION SERVICE AREA Storage Facilities: Academy Reservoir 8A 1.2 5031 Auburn Way S Academy Service Area Academy Reservoir 8B 1.5 5031 Auburn Way S Academy Service Area Lakeland Hills Reservoir 5 1.0 1326 57th Dr SE Lakeland Hills Svc Area Lakeland Hills Reservoir 6 1.0 5718 Francis Ct SE Lakeland Hills Svc Area Lea Hill Reservoir 4A 1.0 30502 132nd Ave SE Lea Hill Service Area Lea Hill Reservoir 4B 1.5 30502 132nd Ave SE Lea Hill Service Area Valley Reservoir 1 5.0 2003 Auburn Way S Valley Service Area Valley Reservoir 2 3.6 32115 105th Place S Valley Service Area Storage Total (MG)15.8 CITY OF AUBURN WATER SYSTEM 74 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan TABLE W-1 (continued) Facilities Inventory Water Facilities CAPACITY FACILITY (GPM)LOCATION Booster Pump Stations: Academy 1: 2 pumps 800 2004 Auburn Way S Academy 2: 2 pumps 1,500 2004 Auburn Way S Academy East: 6 pumps 2,820 5031 Auburn Way S Green River: 4 pumps 4,680 29621 Green River Rd SE Intertie: 7 pumps 4,830 30502 132nd Ave SE Lakeland Hills: 5 pumps 3,200 1118 57th Place SE Lea Hill: 3 pumps 2,100 10406 Lea Hill Rd SE Terrace View: 3 pumps 1,500 6134 Alexander Place SE Wilderness Game Farm Pk: 2 pumps 1,050 2401 Stuck River Rd FACILITY LOCATION Pressure Reducing Stations: Serves Valley Pressure Zone: 25th Street SE #1110-10 25th St SE & K St SE B Street Intertie 3300 B St NW Green River Pump Station 29621 Green River Rd SE Howard Road CCF #1011-10 Howard Rd Howard Road CCF By-Pass #1011-20 Howard Rd (Bypass) Lea Hill Pump Station 10406 Lea Hill Rd SE Riverwalk # 1111-10 Riverwalk Dr SE & Howard Rd Riverwalk # 1111-20 2204 27th St. SE Serves Lea Hill: 132nd Avenue Intertie 132nd Ave SE & 295th St Amber View North #711-10 105th Pl SE & 320th Pl Amber View South #711-20 106th Pl SE Near Reservoir 2 Carriage Square Upper #611-30 Lea Hill Rd & 107 Pl Cobble Creek Lower #411-20 SE 304th Pl & SE 101st Place Cobble Creek Upper #411-10 104th Ave SE (South of 303rd Road) Lea Hill #412-10 SE 298th Place & 109 Ave SE Lea Hill #412-30 300 Block & 108th Ave SE Lea Hill #511-10 304th St. SE and 108th Ave SE Lea Hill #512-10 304th St. SE and 110th Pl SE Serves Academy: Academy Pump Station 2004 Auburn Way S Auburn Way South #1011-30 2003 Auburn Way S Auburn Way South #1114-10 4500 Auburn Way S Lemon Tree 5031 Auburn Way S 75 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan TABLE W-1 (continued) Facilities Inventory Water Facilities FACILITY LOCATION Serves Lakeland Hills: Lakeland Hills #1309-10 Mill Pond Dr @ Oravetz Rd Lakeland Hills #1310-10 Mill Pond Dr & Mill Pond Loop Lakeland Hills #1310-20 Kennedy Ave SE River Rock Lakeland Hills #1409-10 Oravetz & Lakeland Hills Way Lakeland Hills #1409-20 47th SE & Lakeland Hills Way Lakeland Hills #1409-30 Lakeland Hills Way & 51st St SE Lakeland Hills #1409-40 Mill Pond Dr & Lakeland Hills Way Lakeland Hills #1410-10 5018 Mill Pond Dr Lakeland Hills #1410-20 51st St. SE east of Mill Pond Loop Lakeland Hills #1410-30 Nathan Ave & Highland Dr Lakeland Hills #1410-40 5203 Quincy Ave SE Lakeland Hills #1411-10 Bennett Ave & 56th Ave SE Lakeland Hills #1411-20 5310 Bennett Ave SE Lakeland Hills #1411-30 5100 Kersey Way Lakeland Hills #1411-40 2305 54th St SE Lakeland Hills #1411-50 5253 Wesley Ave SE Lakeland Hills #1411-60 5233 Victoria Avenue Lakeland Hills #1412-10 5539 Franklin Ave SE Lakeland Hills #1412-20 Kersey Way SE School Lakeland Hills #1509-10 Terrace View Lower (6170) Lakeland Hills #1509-20 Terrace View Middle (5960) Lakeland Hills #1509-30 Terrace View Upper (5810) Lakeland Hills #1509-40 Terrace View & Alexander Place SE Lakeland Hills #1510-10 Lakeland Hills Way & Evergreen Way CAPACITY FACILITY (GPM)LOCATION Corrosion Control: Howard Road 5,550 2101 Howard Rd SE Fulmer Field 9,375 1113 5th St NE Chlorination Stations: Coal Creek Springs Station 5,000 (gravity feed) 3401 Stuck River Rd West Hill Springs Station 625 (gravity feed) 1900 15th St NW Well 1 2,200 1106 M St SE Well 4 2,600 950 25th St SE Well 5A 180 5401 Olive Ave SE FACILITY CAPACITY LOCATION Water Supply: Braunwood Satellite 1 20 GPM 4501 47th St SE Storage Facilities: Braunwood Satellite 1 33,000 Gallons 4501 47th St SE Booster Pump Stations: Braunwood: 3 Pumps 2.0 GPM 4501 47th St SE BRAUNWOOD SATELLITE WATER SYSTEM 76 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan TABLE W-2 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Total Page Capacity Projects: 82 Academy Pump Station #1 Pump Replacement Capital Costs 10,000 - - - - - 10,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund 10,000 - - - - - 10,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 83 Algona Well 1 Decommissioning Capital Costs 50,000 - - - - - 50,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund 50,000 - - - - - 50,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 84 Annual Distribution System Improvements Program Capital Costs - - 325,000 1,100,000 350,000 1,170,000 2,945,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund - - 325,000 1,100,000 350,000 1,170,000 2,945,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 85 Cascade Water Alliance Water Purchase Capital Costs 934,810 934,810 934,810 934,810 934,810 934,810 5,608,860 Funding Sources: Water Fund 934,810 934,810 934,810 934,810 934,810 934,810 5,608,860 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 86 Coal Creek Springs Rehabilitation Capital Costs 450,000 - - 1,125,509 2,873,424 888,026 5,336,959 Funding Sources: Water Fund 450,000 - - 1,125,509 2,873,424 888,026 5,336,959 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 87 Howard Road CCTF Expansion Capital Costs - - - 350,000 1,100,000 - 1,450,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund - - - 350,000 1,100,000 - 1,450,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 88 Valley Service Area Reservoir No. 3 Capital Costs - - - 700,000 510,000 2,220,000 3,430,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund - - - 700,000 510,000 2,220,000 3,430,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 89 Well 5/5A Upgrades Capital Costs - - 950,000 115,000 1,650,000 - 2,715,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund - - 950,000 115,000 1,650,000 - 2,715,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - Subtotal, Capacity Projects: Capital Costs 1,444,810 934,810 2,209,810 4,325,319 7,418,234 5,212,836 21,545,819 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN PROJECTS AND FINANCING WATER DIVISION 77 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Total Page Non-Capacity Projects: 90 104th Park Development (104th to 102nd Water Main Loop) Capital Costs 250,000 - - - - - 250,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund 250,000 - - - - - 250,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 91 104th Avenue SE PRV Replacement Capital Costs 75,000 350,000 - - - - 425,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund 75,000 350,000 - - - - 425,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 92 112th Pl SE Water Main Replacement Capital Costs - 155,000 1,845,000 - - - 2,000,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund - 155,000 1,845,000 - - - 2,000,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 93 4th Street SE Preservation Capital Costs 20,000 - - - - - 20,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund 20,000 - - - - - 20,000 Grant - - - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 94 Auburn Way South - Hemlock Street SE to Poplar Street SE Capital Costs 2,176,000 256,000 - - - - 2,432,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund 2,176,000 256,000 - - - - 2,432,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 95 Braunwood Building Roof Replace Capital Costs 40,000 - - - - - 40,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund 40,000 - - - - - 40,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 96 C St SW Preservation Capital Costs 900,000 - - - - - 900,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund 900,000 - - - - - 900,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 97 Coal Creek Springs Transmission Main Replacement Capital Costs 3,000,000 - - - - - 3,000,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund - - - - - - - Grant - - - - - - - DWSRF Loan 3,000,000 - - - - - 3,000,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 98 Comprehensive Water Plan Capital Costs 251,000 20,000 - - - - 271,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund 251,000 20,000 - - - - 271,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 99 D St SE and 23rd Street SE Storm Improvements Capital Costs 1,540,000 - - - - - 1,540,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund 1,540,000 - - - - - 1,540,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 78 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Total Page Non-Capacity Projects: 100 Deduct Meter Replacement Program, Phases 1 through 3 Capital Costs 10,000 - - - - - 10,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund 10,000 - - - - - 10,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 101 Fulmer CCTF Replace On-Site Chlorine Generation System (OSEC) Capital Costs - - 100,000 400,000 - - 500,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund - - 100,000 400,000 - - 500,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 102 Fulmer Treatment Facility VFD Replacements Capital Costs 175,000 - - - - - 175,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund 175,000 - - - - - 175,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 103 Game Farm Park Pump Station/Distribution System Improvements Capital Costs - - - 100,000 350,000 - 450,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund - - - 100,000 350,000 - 450,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 104 Garden Avenue Realignment Capital Costs 450,000 - - - - - 450,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund 450,000 - - - - - 450,000 Grant - - - - - - - 105 Intertie Booster Pump Station Generator Pigtail Capital Costs 75,000 - - - - - 75,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund 75,000 - - - - - 75,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 106 Intertie Booster Pump Station Improvements Capital Costs - - - 250,000 2,000,000 - 2,250,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund - - - 250,000 2,000,000 - 2,250,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 107 Lea Hill Pump Station Replacement Capital Costs - - - - 565,000 5,800,000 6,365,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund - - - - 565,000 5,800,000 6,365,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 108 Lead Service Line Replacement Capital Costs 10,000 - - - - - 10,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund 10,000 - - - - - 10,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - DWSRF Loan - - - - - - - 109 M Street NE Widening Capital Costs 25,000 - 500,000 - - - 525,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund 25,000 - 500,000 - - - 525,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 79 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Total Page Non-Capacity Projects: 110 On-Site Chlorine Generation Systems (OSEC) at Wells 1 and 4 Capital Costs - 275,000 - - - - 275,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund - 275,000 - - - - 275,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 111 R Street SE Improvements Capital Costs 60,000 1,000,000 - - - - 1,060,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund 60,000 1,000,000 - - - - 1,060,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 112 Rehabilitate & Clean Wells 2 and 6 Capital Costs - - 250,000 - - - 250,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund - - 250,000 - - - 250,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 113 Reservoir 2 Valves Capital Costs 760,000 - - - - - 760,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund 760,000 - - - - - 760,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 114 Reservoir Capital Improvements Capital Costs - - - - 470,000 - 470,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund - - - - 470,000 - 470,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 115 Reservoir Painting Capital Costs - - 250,000 1,500,000 - - 1,750,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund - - 250,000 1,500,000 - - 1,750,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 116 Reservoir Repair and Replacements Capital Costs 64,000 66,000 68,000 70,000 72,000 74,000 414,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund 64,000 66,000 68,000 70,000 72,000 74,000 414,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 117 Reservoirs 4 and 8 Seismic Rehabilitation Capital Costs 1,255,750 - - - - - 1,255,750 Funding Sources: Water Fund 106,969 - - - - - 106,969 Grant 1,148,781 - - - - - 1,148,781 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 118 Street Utility Improvements Capital Costs - 1,300,000 1,350,000 1,380,000 1,425,000 1,475,000 6,930,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund - 1,300,000 1,350,000 1,380,000 1,425,000 1,475,000 6,930,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 119 Water Repair & Replacements Capital Costs - 325,000 1,100,000 345,000 1,200,000 370,000 3,340,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund - 325,000 1,100,000 345,000 1,200,000 370,000 3,340,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 80 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Total Page Non-Capacity Projects: 120 Water Resources Protection Program (Wellhead Protection) Capital Costs 30,000 30,000 35,000 35,000 40,000 40,000 210,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund 30,000 30,000 35,000 35,000 40,000 40,000 210,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 121 Water Trench Patches Program Capital Costs 160,000 165,000 170,000 175,000 180,000 185,000 1,035,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund 160,000 165,000 170,000 175,000 180,000 185,000 1,035,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 122 Well 4 Electrical Improvements Capital Costs - 200,000 850,000 - - - 1,050,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund - 200,000 850,000 - - - 1,050,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 123 Well 4 Facility Improvements Capital Costs 20,000 - - - - - 20,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund 20,000 - - - - - 20,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 124 Well Inspection and Redevelopment Program Capital Costs - - 200,000 - - 220,000 420,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund - - 200,000 - - 220,000 420,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 125 West Hill Springs Transmission Main Replacement Capital Costs 250,000 850,000 - - - - 1,100,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund 250,000 850,000 - - - - 1,100,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 126 West Hill Springs Water Quality Improvements Capital Costs - 250,000 750,000 - - - 1,000,000 Funding Sources: Water Fund - 250,000 750,000 - - - 1,000,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Total Subtotal, Non-Capacity Projects: Capital Costs 11,596,750 5,242,000 7,468,000 4,255,000 6,302,000 8,164,000 43,027,750 SUMMARY: 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Total CAPITAL COSTS Capacity Projects 1,444,810 934,810 2,209,810 4,325,319 7,418,234 5,212,836 21,545,819 Non-Capacity Projects 11,596,750 5,242,000 7,468,000 4,255,000 6,302,000 8,164,000 43,027,750 Total Costs 13,041,560 6,176,810 9,677,810 8,580,319 13,720,234 13,376,836 64,573,569 FUNDING SOURCES: Water Fund 8,892,779 6,176,810 9,677,810 8,580,319 13,720,234 13,376,836 60,424,788 DWSRF Loan 3,000,000 - - - - - 3,000,000 Grant 1,148,781 - - - - - 1,148,781 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - Total Funding 13,041,560 6,176,810 9,677,810 8,580,319 13,720,234 13,376,836 64,573,569 81 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (460)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Academy Pump Station #1 Pump Replacement Project No:CP1916 Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:Jeff Bender Description: Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue 609,490 10,000 - 619,490 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - Bond Proceeds 2,381,709 1,361,270 - - 3,742,979 Other - - - - - 2,381,709 1,970,760 10,000 - 4,362,469 Capital Expenditures: Design 665,849 - - - 665,849 Right of Way - - - - - Construction 1,715,860 1,970,760 10,000 - 3,696,620 2,381,709 1,970,760 10,000 - 4,362,469 Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue - - - - 10,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - 10,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - 10,000 - - - - 10,000 Grants / Other Sources: The pump station is reaching the end of its useful life. The project will construct a new pump station with 4 pumps to meet peak demands and fire flow requirements. Pump station #1 will be removed and pump station #2 will be used for storage after the pumps are removed. Preliminary design found it to be more cost effective to build a new pump station and decommission both existing pump stations. The backup power generator will be replaced. Comprehensive Plan project PS-07. Progress Summary: Construction anticipated to be substantially completed in 2022. Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant impact Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: 82 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (460)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Algona Well 1 Decommissioning Project No:wabd08 Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:TBD Description: Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue - - 50,000 - 50,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - - - - - - - 50,000 - 50,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - 50,000 - 50,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - - - - 50,000 - 50,000 Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue - - - - 50,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - 50,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 50,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - - - - - - 50,000 Grants / Other Sources: Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: The Algona well has been temporarily abandoned and all related facilities removed. This project will have the well properly decommissioned by a State of Washington-licensed well driller, once the water rights have been transferred to an alternate source. Comprehensive Plan project S-14. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant impact 83 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (460)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Annual Distribution System Improvements Program Project No:wabd09 Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:TBD Description: Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - - - - - - - Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue 325,000 1,100,000 350,000 1,170,000 2,945,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - - - - - 325,000 1,100,000 350,000 1,170,000 2,945,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 325,000 - 350,000 - 675,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - 1,100,000 - 1,170,000 2,270,000 325,000 1,100,000 350,000 1,170,000 2,945,000 Grants / Other Sources: Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: Program to fund capacity-related improvements to the water distribution system to address low pressures during peak hour demand and fire flows. Comprehensive Plan project D-02. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant impact 84 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (460)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Cascade Water Alliance Water Purchase Project No:CP1914 Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:Susan Fenhaus Description: Activity: (Previous 2 Years)2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue 1,187,391 934,810 934,810 934,810 3,057,011 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - - - - - 1,187,391 934,810 934,810 934,810 3,057,011 Capital Expenditures: Water Supply Purchase 1,187,391 934,810 934,810 934,810 3,057,011 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - - 1,187,391 934,810 934,810 934,810 3,057,011 Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue 934,810 934,810 934,810 934,810 5,608,860 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - - - - - 934,810 934,810 934,810 934,810 5,608,860 Capital Expenditures: Water Supply Purchase 934,810 934,810 934,810 934,810 5,608,860 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - - 934,810 934,810 934,810 934,810 5,608,860 Grants / Other Sources: Financing of System Development Charges for the right to purchase water from Tacoma Public Utilities through the Second Supply Pipeline to meet future projected demand, based on agreements with Cascade Water Alliance. Council approved the agreements for permanent and reserve wholesale supply in September 2013. A new agreement with Tacoma was executed in 2014. Budget reflects purchase of permanent supply - payments of $934,810 will continue from 2023 through 2029. Reserve supply will not be purchased and is not included. Comprehensive Plan project S-04. Progress Summary: Ongoing payments through 2029 Future Impact on Operating Budget: None Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Forecasted Project Cost: 85 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (460)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Coal Creek Springs Rehabilitation Project No:CP2209 Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:TBD Description: Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue - 50,000 450,000 - 500,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - PWTFL - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - - 50,000 450,000 - 500,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 50,000 450,000 - 500,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - - - 50,000 450,000 - 500,000 Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue - 1,125,509 2,873,424 888,026 5,336,959 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - PWTFL - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - - 1,125,509 2,873,424 888,026 5,336,959 Capital Expenditures: Design - 500,000 - - 950,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - 625,509 2,873,424 888,026 4,386,959 - 1,125,509 2,873,424 888,026 5,336,959 Grants / Other Sources: Rehabilitation of the Coal Creek Springs middle collector will improve capacity of the springs resulting in greater utilization of the water right. Comprehensive Plan project S-09. Progress Summary: Hired hydrogeologist in 2022 to review previous testing done at the springs and determine specific improvements needed to utilize the full water right. Phase 2 of the study will begin in 2022 and be completed in 2023. Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant impact Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: 86 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (460)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Howard Road CCTF Expansion Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:TBD Description: Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - - - - - - Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue - 350,000 1,100,000 - 1,450,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - - - - - - 350,000 1,100,000 - 1,450,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 350,000 - - 350,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - 1,100,000 - 1,100,000 - 350,000 1,100,000 - 1,450,000 Grants / Other Sources: With the completion of the Coal Creek Springs Rehabilitation, the Howard Road Corrosion Control Treatment Facility will exceed its current capacity. This project will add one aeration tower and one blower pump to match the existing towers and blowers. Comprehensive Plan project S-18. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant impact Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: 87 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (460)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Valley Service Area Reservoir No. 3 Project No:wabd26 Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:TBD Description: Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue - 50,000 - - 50,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - - - - - - 50,000 - - 50,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 50,000 - - 50,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - - 50,000 - - 50,000 Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue - 700,000 510,000 2,220,000 3,430,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - - - - - - 700,000 510,000 2,220,000 3,430,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - 510,000 - 510,000 Property Acquisition - 700,000 - - 700,000 Construction - - 2,220,000 2,220,000 - 700,000 510,000 2,220,000 3,430,000 Grants / Other Sources: A new 1 million gallon storage facility is needed to meet future storage requirements in the Valley Service Area. Comprehensive Plan project R-04. Progress Summary: Reservoir siting study will be conducted in 2022, with property acquisition in 2026. Design of the project will be completed in 2028, with construction in 2028-2029. Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant Impact Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: 88 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (460)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Well 5/5A Upgrades Project No:cpxxx Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:TBD Description: Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - - - - - - - Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue 950,000 115,000 1,650,000 - 2,715,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - - - - - 950,000 115,000 1,650,000 - 2,715,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 115,000 - - 115,000 Right of Way 950,000 - - - 950,000 Construction - - 1,650,000 - 1,650,000 950,000 115,000 1,650,000 - 2,715,000 Grants / Other Sources: This project was identified in the 2016 Facilities Evaluation Study. Well 5 is in need of a new building, backup generator, chlorination, pump, and hydrologic investigation to evaluate the well's production. Due to the small size of the existing site, the acquisition of an adjacent parcel may be required. The Facilities Evaluation Study also identified the need for a new pump and motor in Well 5A. Comprehensive Plan project S-06. Progress Summary: The hydrologic study and property acquisition are anticipated to begin in 2025. Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant Impact Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: 89 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (460)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Enterprise Funds Project Title: 104th Park Development (104th to 102nd Water Main Loop) Project No:cp1619 Project Type:Non-Capacity Project Manager:TBD Description: Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue - 50,000 250,000 - 300,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - - - - - - 50,000 250,000 - 300,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 50,000 - - 50,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - 250,000 - 250,000 - 50,000 250,000 - 300,000 Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue - - - - 250,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - 250,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - 250,000 - - - - 250,000 Grants / Other Sources: Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: This project will construct a water main between 102nd Avenue SE and 104 Avenue SE as part of a Parks Department project that is developing a new City park. The new water main will eliminate convert the existing dead-end system to a looped system, as recommended by the Comprehensive Plan. Progress Summary: Project design underway in 2021. Construction is anticipated to begin in 2023. Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant impact 90 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (460)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Enterprise Funds Project Title: 104th Avenue SE PRV Replacement Project No:wabd33 Project Type: Project Manager:TBD Description: Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue - - 75,000 350,000 75,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - - - - - - - 75,000 350,000 75,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - 75,000 - 75,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - 350,000 - - - 75,000 350,000 75,000 Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue - - - - 425,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - 425,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 75,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - 350,000 - - - - 425,000 Grants / Other Sources: Total Expenditures: Non-capacity Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: The PRV station located at 104th Ave SE south of SE 302nd St (aka, cobble Creek Upper) is in a manhole that is difficult to access for repairs. The galvanized piping is corroded and may have a small leak. The station will be replaced with a new vault, valves and piping near the existing location. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant Impact 91 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (460)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Enterprise Funds Project Title: 112th Pl SE Water Main Replacement Project No:wabd30 Project Type: Project Manager:TBD Description: Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue - - - 155,000 - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - 155,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - 155,000 - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - - - - - 155,000 - Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue 1,845,000 - - - 2,000,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - - - - - 1,845,000 - - - 2,000,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 155,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction 1,845,000 - - - 1,845,000 1,845,000 - - - 2,000,000 Grants / Other Sources: Total Expenditures: Non-capacity Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: The 6" cast iron main along 112th Pl SE experienced three breaks within 30 days in December 2021 and January 2022. The project will replace approximately 2,715 LF of 4" and 6" cast iron with 8" ductile iron. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant Impact 92 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (460)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Enterprise Funds Project Title: 4th Street SE Preservation Project No:CP2102 Project Type:Non-Capacity Project Manager:Jeff Bender Description: Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue 87,648 1,032,352 20,000 - 1,140,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - Bond Proceeds - 200,000 - - 200,000 Other - - - - - 87,648 1,232,352 20,000 - 1,340,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 87,648 - - - 87,648 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - 1,232,352 20,000 - 1,252,352 87,648 1,232,352 20,000 - 1,340,000 Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue - - - - 20,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - 20,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - 20,000 - - - - 20,000 Grants / Other Sources: Along with the street reconstruction and other utility improvements, replace approximately 1,700 LF of 6" cast iron pipe between F St SE and L St Se with 8" ductile iron pipe. Replace approximately 630LF of 8" cast iron pipe between D St SE and F St SE with 8" ductile iron pipe. Progress Summary: Construction underway in 2022. Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant Impact Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: 93 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (460)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Auburn Way South - Hemlock Street SE to Poplar Street SE Project No:CP1622 Project Type:Non-Capacity Project Manager:Jeff Bender Description: Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue - 66,000 2,176,000 256,000 2,242,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - - - - - - 66,000 2,176,000 256,000 2,242,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 66,000 - 66,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - 2,176,000 256,000 2,176,000 - 66,000 2,176,000 256,000 2,242,000 Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue - - - - 2,432,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - 2,432,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - Construction - - - - 2,432,000 - - - - 2,432,000 Grants / Other Sources: Water main improvements constructed in conjunction with Auburn Way South street improvements. Project will replace approximately 2,300 feet of 10" cast iron line with 12" ductile Iron water main. Comprehensive Plan project D-06. Progress Summary: Design began in 2020 in conjunction with Auburn School District's Chinook Elementary School Replacement project. The school project completed some of the improvements in 2021-2022. Construction of the remaining improvements are anticipated to be completed in 2024. Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant Impact Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: 94 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (460)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Braunwood Building Roof Replace Project No:wabd34 Project Type: Project Manager:TBD Description: Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue - - 40,000 - 40,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - - - - - - - 40,000 - 40,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - 10,000 - 10,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - 30,000 - 30,000 - - 40,000 - 40,000 Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue - - - - 40,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - 40,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 10,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - 30,000 - - - - 40,000 Grants / Other Sources: No significant Impact Non-capacity The roof on the Braunwood building is the original constructed in 1997. The asphalt shingles will be replaced with a metal roof for longer life. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: 95 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (460)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Enterprise Funds Project Title: C St SW Preservation Project No:CP2123 Project Type: Project Manager:TBD Description: Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue - 455,000 900,000 - 1,355,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - - - - - - 455,000 900,000 - 1,355,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 75,000 - - 75,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - 380,000 900,000 - 1,280,000 - 455,000 900,000 - 1,355,000 Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue - - - - 900,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - 900,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - 900,000 - - - - 900,000 Grants / Other Sources: Total Expenditures: Non-capacity Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: Along with the street reconstruction and other utility improvements, replace approximately 300 LF of 8" cast ion pipe with 12" ductile iron pipe and replace 560 LF of 16" cast iron pipe with 16" ductile iron pipe, along with valves fire hydrants and services. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant Impact 96 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (460)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Coal Creek Springs Transmission Main Replacement Project No:CP1603 Project Type:Non-Capacity Project Manager:Seth Wickstrom Description: Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue 480,292 113,228 - - 593,520 Parks Grants (State)- - - - - DWSRF Loan 234,666 765,334 3,000,000 - 4,000,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - 714,958 878,562 3,000,000 - 4,593,520 Capital Expenditures: Design 714,958 265,334 - - 980,292 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - 613,228 3,000,000 - 3,613,228 714,958 878,562 3,000,000 - 4,593,520 Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue - - - - - Parks Grants (State)- - - - - DWSRF Loan - - - - 3,000,000 Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - - - 3,000,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - 3,000,000 - - - - 3,000,000 Grants / Other Sources: Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: The facilities evaluation study conducted in 2013-2014 found a suspected leak on the 24" steel transmission main crossing the White River. This project plans to provide for full replacement of the transmission main suspended from a pedestrian bridge to be constructed across the White River. Parks Department will participate in the project by providing funding from grants for the trail connections to the bridge. This option eliminates the deep blow-off and allows more flexibility for expansion. A future project would rehabilitate the existing transmission main for redundancy. Comprehensive Plan project D-11. Progress Summary: Permitting and final design will be completed in 2022 with construction completed in 2023. Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant impact 97 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (460)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Comprehensive Water Plan Project No:CP2134 Project Type:Non-Capacity Project Manager:Susan Fenhaus Description: Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue - 385,000 251,000 20,000 636,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - - - - - - 385,000 251,000 20,000 636,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 385,000 251,000 20,000 636,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - - - 385,000 251,000 20,000 636,000 Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue - - - - 271,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - 271,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 271,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - - - - - - 271,000 Grants / Other Sources: Update the Comprehensive Water Plan as required by Washington Department of Health (DOH) by May 2022. DOH changed WAC to require a 10-year planning period which is an increase from the 6-year period. Current plan (2015) was approved before the code change, but was written to include the 10-year period in anticipation of the revised code. In August 2021, submitted update letter to DOH requesting extension of approved plan. The letter included a report of the demand forecast compared to actual demand, and report of the capital improvement plan. If the extension is approved, next complete plan will be due in 2025. However, the water plan will need to be updated in conjunction with the City's Comprehensive Plan due in 2024. Progress Summary: Request for current plan extension was submitted and approved in 2021. Complete update began in 2022. Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant impact Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: 98 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (460)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Enterprise Funds Project Title: D St SE and 23rd Street SE Storm Improvements Project No:CP2125 Project Type: Project Manager:Jai Carter Description: Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue - 140,000 1,540,000 - 1,680,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - - - - - - 140,000 1,540,000 - 1,680,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 140,000 - - 140,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - 1,540,000 - 1,540,000 - 140,000 1,540,000 - 1,680,000 Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue - - - - 1,540,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - 1,540,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - 1,540,000 - - - - 1,540,000 Grants / Other Sources: Total Expenditures: Non-capacity Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: Along with the storm drainage and other facility improvements, replace approximately 2,765 LF of 6" and 8" cast iron pipe with 8" ductile iron pipe, replace 380 LF of 12" cast iron pipe with ductile iron pipe, and install 335 LF of 8" ductile iron pipe, along with valves, fire hydrants, and service. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant Impact 99 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (460)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Deduct Meter Replacement Program, Phases 1 through 3 Project No:CP1917, CP2001, CP2115 Project Type:Non-Capacity Project Manager:Jeff Bender Description: Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue 23,975 234,179 10,000 - 268,154 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - Bond Proceeds 741,457 634,543 - - 1,376,000 Other - - - - - 765,432 868,722 10,000 - 1,644,154 Capital Expenditures: Design 60,729 - - 60,729 Right of Way - - - - - Construction 704,703 868,722 10,000 - 1,583,425 765,432 868,722 10,000 - 1,644,154 Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue - - - - 10,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - 10,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - 10,000 - - - - 10,000 Grants / Other Sources: Approximately 200 non-single family irrigation meters within the water system are connected to the customer's supply line on the customer side of the domestic meter, instead of being directly connected to the water main. Since sewer charges for non-single family customers are based on the domestic water meter reading and irrigation water does not use the sewer system, customers ask to have the irrigation use deducted from their overall domestic use for sewer billing purposes. Thus, irrigation meters installed after the domestic meter are referred to as "deduct meters". To improve the billing process, increase staff efficiencies and eliminate manual calculations in the billing process this project will re-install the irrigation meters to directly connect to the main. Deduct meters will be converted to irrigation meters to more equitably bill water usage. Progress Summary: Construction was planned and budgeted to be completed in 4 years. Recent bids indicate the original cost estimate was low. The budget was increased in 2021 and 2022, and the project will be completed in 3 years (2020-2022). Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant impact Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: 100 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (460)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Fulmer CCTF Replace On-Site Chlorine Generation System (OSEC) Project No:CPxxxx Project Type: Project Manager:TBD Description: Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - - - - - - - Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue 100,000 400,000 - - 500,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - - - - - 100,000 400,000 - - 500,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 100,000 - - 100,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - 400,000 - - 400,000 100,000 400,000 - - 500,000 Grants / Other Sources: Total Expenditures: Non-capacity Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: The existing liquid chlorine (sodium hypochlorite) generating equipment was installed in 2002. The generation cell was replaced in 2012. The equipment is approaching the end of it's useful life and repair parts are difficult to obtain. Analysis performed in 2018 comparing chlorine alternatives indicated that on-site generation has the lowest overall cost. This project will replace the entire generation system. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant Impact 101 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (460)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Fulmer Treatment Facility VFD Replacements Project No:wabd32 Project Type: Project Manager:TBD Description: Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue - - 175,000 - 175,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - - - - - - - 175,000 - 175,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - 15,000 - 15,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - 160,000 - 160,000 - - 175,000 - 175,000 Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue - - - - 175,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - 175,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 15,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - 160,000 - - - - 175,000 Grants / Other Sources: Total Expenditures: Non-capacity Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: The variable frequency drive (VFD) for pumps 1 and 2 at Fulmer Corrosion Control Treatment Facility (CCTF) were installed in 2002. They are at the end of their useful life and require replacement as repair parts are no longer available. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant Impact 102 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (460)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Game Farm Park Pump Station/Distribution System Improvements Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Non-Capacity Project Manager:TBD Description: Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - - - - - - - Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue - 100,000 350,000 - 450,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - - - - - - 100,000 350,000 - 450,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 100,000 - - 100,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - 350,000 - 350,000 - 100,000 350,000 - 450,000 Grants / Other Sources: Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: The pumps at Game Farm Wilderness Park are in need of replacement, and the building needs repairs. This project was identified in the 2015 Comprehensive Plan as occurring in the short to mid term, or by 2025. Installation of new water main crossing the White River to eliminate the pump station was identified as being completed by 2035. The Coal Creek Springs Transmission Main project will add a pipe crossing the White River to be used for installation of a water main for Game Farm Wilderness Park. Completion of the river crossing will enable the water main project to be completed sooner and eliminate the need for pump station improvements. This project will install new main within the Game Farm Park from the existing 8" near the amphitheater to the river crossing, and from the river crossing to the existing pump station in the Wilderness area. The project will also decommission the existing pump station. Comprehensive Plan project D16. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant Impact 103 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (460)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Garden Avenue Realignment Project No:CP2022 Project Type:Non-Capacity Project Manager:Kim Truong Description: Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue 75,723 81,677 450,000 - 607,400 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - - - - - 75,723 81,677 450,000 - 607,400 Capital Expenditures: Design 75,723 81,677 - - 157,400 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - 450,000 - 450,000 75,723 81,677 450,000 - 607,400 Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue - - - - 450,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - 450,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - 450,000 - - - - 450,000 Grants / Other Sources: This project will construct water improvements as part of the Garden Avenue Realignment transportation project. The improvements include installation of 1,000 feet of 12" transmission main from the 20" existing main in 8th St NE along Garden Avenue to the location of a future new booster pump station site on property to be purchased on 102nd Ave SE, and then back to 8th St NE. Progress Summary: Acquired property for future pump station in 2020. Demolition of buildings on pump station projerty was completed in 2021. Design of water main started in 2021. Construction is anticipated to begin in late 2022 or early 2023. Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant impact Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: 104 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (460)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Intertie Booster Pump Station Generator Pigtail Project No:wabd36 Project Type: Project Manager:TBD Description: Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue - - 75,000 - 75,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - - - - - - - 75,000 - 75,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - 10,000 - 10,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - 65,000 - 65,000 - - 75,000 - 75,000 Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue - - - - 75,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - 75,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 10,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - 65,000 - - - - 75,000 Grants / Other Sources: No significant Impact Non-capacity The Intertie Booster Pump Station does not have emergency power.The boosted zone is relatively small, and without power to operate the pumps, water can still be provided to the zone but at a very low pressure. The new elementary school, completed in 2021, receives domestic water supplied from the boosted zone. This system needs a means of backup power. This project will install a pigtail connection and manual transfer switch to use with an existing City-owned portable generator. A separate project to complete other improvements at the pump station is anticipated to begin in 2026. A permanent backup power source will be included with those improvements. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: 105 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (460)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Intertie Booster Pump Station Improvements Project No:wabd05 Project Type:Non-Capacity Project Manager:TBD Description: Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - PWTFL - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - - - - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - - - - - - - Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue - 250,000 2,000,000 - 2,250,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - PWTFL - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - - 250,000 2,000,000 - 2,250,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 250,000 - 250,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - 2,000,000 - 2,000,000 - 250,000 2,000,000 - 2,250,000 Grants / Other Sources: Project will provide additional piping and modify the existing Intertie/ Lea Hill Booster pump station building to utilize the existing Intertie pumps for the Boosted zone. The project will also add pressure reducing valves and control valves at Lea Hill reservoirs, and system valves to provide efficient operation of the 132nd Ave Tacoma Intertie. Comprehensive Plan projects D-06, and PS-04. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant impact Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: 106 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (460)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Lea Hill Pump Station Replacement Project No:wabd18 Project Type:Non-Capacity Project Manager:TBD Description: Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - - - - - - - Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue - - 565,000 5,800,000 6,365,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - - - - - - - 565,000 5,800,000 6,365,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 565,000 - 565,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - 5,800,000 5,800,000 - - 565,000 5,800,000 6,365,000 Grants / Other Sources: Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: Lea Hill pump station will be reconstructed to provide redundant pumped supply to the Lea Hill area. If the Green River Pump Station is out of service for maintenance, a redundant pump station would avoid the need to purchase more expensive regional surface water through the 132nd Intertie. The pump station needs to be relocated from its current location on the shoulder of Lea Hill Road at the base of a steep hill for safety and reliability considerations. The project will also construct approximately 900 feet of 12" transmission main along Lea Hill Rd from Garden Avenue to the existing pump station site. Comprehensive Plan project PS-10. Progress Summary: Property acquisition was completed in 2020 under Garden Ave Realignment project. Design is anticipated to begin in 2024 with construction of the pump station beginning in 2025. The piping and street construction will begin in 2026. Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant Impact 107 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (460)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Lead Service Line Replacement Project No:CP1922 Project Type:Non-Capacity Project Manager:Jai Carter Description: Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue 88,384 469,148 10,000 - 567,532 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - Bond Proceeds 1,409,991 840,009 - - 2,250,000 DWSRF 86,095 2,913,905 - 3,000,000 1,584,470 4,223,062 10,000 - 5,817,532 Capital Expenditures: Design 871,073 - - - 871,073 Right of Way - - - - - Construction 713,397 4,223,062 10,000 - 4,946,459 1,584,470 4,223,062 10,000 - 5,817,532 Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue - - - - 10,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - DWSRF - - - - - - - - - 10,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - 10,000 - - - - 10,000 Grants / Other Sources: Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: The City has approximately 1,000 service lines with a lead goose-neck connection at the main. State and Federal agencies are planning a 15 year period for utilities to remove all lead service lines. This project will remove lead service lines and construct associated roadway restoration throughout the City. Any additional lead service lines that are not removed and replaced with this project will be replaced as part of future rehabilitation and replacement projects. Progress Summary: City received a Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) loan for replacement of the lead service lines. Design completed. Construction began in 2021. Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant Impact 108 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (460)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Enterprise Funds Project Title: M Street NE Widening Project No:CP2210 Project Type:Non-Capacity Project Manager:Kim Truong Description: Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue - 12,000 25,000 - 37,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - - - - - - 12,000 25,000 - 37,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 12,000 25,000 - 37,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - - - 12,000 25,000 - 37,000 Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue 500,000 - - - 525,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - - - - - 500,000 - - - 525,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 25,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction 500,000 - - - 500,000 500,000 - - - 525,000 Grants / Other Sources: Water main improvements constructed in conjunction with streets project: M ST NE widening (E Main to 4th St NE). Work includes replacing 26 services, connecting to existing 12" ductile main, and abandoning 6" cast main in place. Comprehensive Plan project D-06. Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: Progress Summary: Design started in 2022 with contruction anticipated to be complete in 2024. Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant Impact 109 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (460)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Enterprise Funds Project Title: On-Site Chlorine Generation Systems (OSEC) at Wells 1 and 4 Project No:wabd35 Project Type: Project Manager:TBD Description: Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue - - - 275,000 - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - 275,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - 25,000 - Right of Way - - - 250,000 - Construction - - - - - - - - 275,000 - Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue - - - - 275,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - 275,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 25,000 Right of Way - - - - 250,000 Construction - - - - - - - - - 275,000 Grants / Other Sources: No significant Impact Non-capacity The existing liquid chlorine (sodium hypochlorite) used at Wells 1 and 4 degrades during low winter demand periods when the volume used is much lower and product turnover is decreased. This results in more chemical used to achieve the same chlorine dose, which is not cost effective. On-site generation at both wells would enable operations to produce the volume of chlorine needed, resulting in less waste. The systems would be sized to meet peak summer demands while providing flexability during winter months. Overall installation and operations costs will be further evaluated with the comprehensive water system plan update in 2022-2023. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: 110 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (460)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Enterprise Funds Project Title: R Street SE Improvements Project No:CP2116 Project Type: Project Manager:Matt Larson Description: Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue - 70,000 60,000 1,000,000 130,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - - - - - - 70,000 60,000 1,000,000 130,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 70,000 60,000 - 130,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - 1,000,000 - - 70,000 60,000 1,000,000 130,000 Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue - - - 1,060,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - 1,060,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 60,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - 1,000,000 - - - - 1,060,000 Grants / Other Sources: Total Expenditures: Non-capacity Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: Along with the street reconstruction and other utility improvements, replace approximately 2,830 LF of 8" cast iron pipe with 12" ductile iron pipe, along with valves, fire hydrants, and services. Progress Summary: Design is underway with construction expected in 2024. Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant Impact 111 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (460)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Rehabilitate & Clean Wells 2 and 6 Project No:cpxxxx Project Type: Project Manager:TBD Description: Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - - - - - - - Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue 250,000 - - - 250,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - - - - - 250,000 - - - 250,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction 250,000 - - - 250,000 250,000 - - - 250,000 Grants / Other Sources: No significant Impact Non-capacity Rehabilitation work completed in 2013-2014 indicated it would be beneficial to clean and rehab both wells on a regular basis. Cleaning was last completed in 2020. This program would establish a 5-year cycle. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: 112 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (460)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Reservoir 2 Valves Project No:wabd29 Project Type:Non-Capacity Project Manager:Jai Carter Description: Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue - 240,000 760,000 - 1,000,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - - - - - - 240,000 760,000 - 1,000,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 240,000 - - 240,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - 760,000 - 760,000 - 240,000 760,000 - 1,000,000 Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue - - - - 760,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - 760,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - 760,000 - - - - 760,000 Grants / Other Sources: Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: This project will replace the existing 20" supply valve with a seismic control valve, and replace the 12" drain valve at Reservoir 2. Both valves will be installed in a vault. This project was identified as a maintenance issue due to limited access to the valves. The addition of a seismic control will improve the resiliency of the distribution system. Progress Summary: Grant application for hazard mitigation submitted. Design will begin in 2022 with construction anticipated to begin in 2023. Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant impact 113 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (460)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Reservoir Capital Improvements Project No:cpxxxx Project Type: Project Manager:TBD Description: Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - - - - - - - Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue - - 470,000 - 470,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - - - - - - - 470,000 - 470,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - 50,000 - 50,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - 420,000 - 420,000 - - 470,000 - 470,000 Grants / Other Sources: No significant Impact Non-capacity The Facility Evaluation Study in 2013 identified improvements to reservoirs based on the condition and remaining useful life of the assets. Improvements were identified for Reservoir 1, Reservoir 4A and 4B, and Reservoir 8A. Comprehensive Plan Project R-07 Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: 114 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (460)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Reservoir Painting Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Non-Capacity Project Manager:TBD Description: Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - PWTFL - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - - - - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - - - - - - - Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue 250,000 1,500,000 - - 1,750,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - PWTFL - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - 250,000 1,500,000 - - 1,750,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 250,000 - - 250,000 Right of Way - - - - Construction - 1,500,000 - 1,500,000 250,000 1,500,000 - - 1,750,000 Grants / Other Sources: Maintenance of reservoirs requires periodic painting to protect the steel and increase the useful life of the reservoir. Comprehensive Plan project R-05. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant impact Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: 115 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (460)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Reservoir Repair and Replacements Project No:wabd12 Project Type:Non-Capacity Project Manager:TBD Description: Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue - 62,000 64,000 66,000 126,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - - - - - - 62,000 64,000 66,000 126,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - 62,000 64,000 66,000 126,000 - 62,000 64,000 66,000 126,000 Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue 68,000 70,000 72,000 74,000 414,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Other - - - - - 68,000 70,000 72,000 74,000 414,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction 68,000 70,000 72,000 74,000 414,000 68,000 70,000 72,000 74,000 414,000 Grants / Other Sources: Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: General reservoir maintenance and minor improvements. Comprehensive Plan project R-03. Progress Summary: In 2018, project costs were escalated at 3% per year from 2015 to year of construction. Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant impact 116 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan WATER FUND (460)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Reservoirs 4 and 8 Seismic Rehabilitation Project No:CP2219 (previously wabd16) Project Type:Non-Capacity Project Manager:TBD Description: Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Water Revenue - 100,000 106,969 - 206,969 Grants -Secured Indirect Federal - 300,000 1,148,781 - 1,448,781 PWTFL - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - - 400,000 1,255,750 - 1,655,750 Capital Expenditures: Design - 400,000 - 400,000 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - 1,255,750 - 1,255,750 - 400,000 1,255,750 - 1,655,750 Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Water Revenue - - - - 106,969 Grants -Secured Indirect Federal - - - - 1,148,781 PWTFL - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - - - 1,255,750 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - 1,255,750 - - - - 1,255,750 Grants / Other Sources: Install seismic control valves on outlet piping of Reservoirs 4A, 4B, 8A, and 8B. Comprehensive Plan project R-06. Progress Summary: FEMA grant awarded in 2022. The year end estimate for 2022 assumes carryforward of 2021 funds of approximately $85,200 and additional funds pending approval Budget Amendment 6 for 21/22 budget. Future Impact on Operating Budget: No significant impact Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: 117 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan 236 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan CEMETERY Current Facilities The City owns two cemeteries. The Mountain View Cemetery is a fully developed facility (60 acres and five buildings) that provides burial services and related merchandise for the community. The Pioneer Cemetery is a historic cemetery that is no longer used for burial purposes. Table C-1 “Facilities Inventory” lists the facilities along with their current capacity and location. Level of Service (LOS) The current LOS of 32 burial plots/niches and cremation in ground plots per 1,000 population is based on the existing inventory divided by the estimated 2023 citywide population of 89,904. The proposed LOS of 30 burial and plots/niches and cremation in ground plots per 1,000 population is based on the projected inventory divided by the 2028-projected citywide population of 94,489. Capital Facilities Projects and Financing The City’s Mountain View Cemetery facilities includes two capital projects costing $355,000 to develop existing property. Table C-2 shows the proposed financing plan followed by the worksheet showing the project detail. Impact on Future Operating Budgets There are no operating expense budget impacts forecast for the cemetery during the six years 2024 – 2029. TABLE C-1 Facilities Inventory Cemetery CAPACITY FACILITY # of Plots/Niches LOCATION Existing Inventory: Mountain View Cemetery 2,624 2020 Mountain View Dr. Pioneer Cemetery - 8th & Auburn Way No. Total Existing Inventory 2,624 Proposed Capacity Projects: New Development - Cremation Sites 1,500 New Development - Burial Plots 1,200 Total Proposed Capacity Projects 2,700 2028 Projected Inventory Total 5,324 237 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan TABLE C-2 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Total Page Capacity Projects: 239 Cemetery Development -10th addition Capital Costs 150,000 - - - - - 150,000 Funding Sources: Cemetery Fund 150,000 - - - - - 150,000 Cemetery Endowed Care - - - - - - - 240 Forest Walk -Phase 3 Capital Costs 205,000 - - - - - 205,000 Funding Sources: Cemetery Fund 205,000 - - - - - 205,000 Cemetery Endowed Care - - - - - - - SUMMARY: CAPITAL COSTS Capacity Projects 355,000 - - - - - 355,000 Non-Capacity Projects - - - - - - - Total Costs 355,000 - - - - - 355,000 FUNDING SOURCES: Cemetery Fund 355,000 - - - - - 355,000 Cemetery Endowed Care - - - - - - - Total Funding 355,000 - - - - - 355,000 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN PROJECTS AND FINANCING CEMETERY FUND 238 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan CEMETERY FUND (466)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Cemetery Development -10th addition Project No:cmbd03 Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:Craig Hudson Description: Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Cemetery Revenue - 45,700 150,000 - 195,700 Grants - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Cemetery Endowed Care - - - - - - 45,700 150,000 - 195,700 Capital Expenditures: Design - 45,700 - - 45,700 Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - 150,000 - 150,000 - 45,700 150,000 - 195,700 Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Cemetery Revenue - - - - 150,000 Grants - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Cemetery Endowed Care - - - - - - - - - 150,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - 150,000 - - - - 150,000 Develop 1 acre of existing property to add 1,200 new grave sites to the cemetery. Progress Summary: Landscape design to begin in 2022 with land development anticipated to be completed in 2023. Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will create additional revenues for the cemetery. Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: 239 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan CEMETERY FUND (466)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Enterprise Funds Project Title: Forest Walk -Phase 3 Project No:cmbd04 Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:Craig Hudson Description: Activity: 2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Unrestricted Cemetery Revenue - - 205,000 - 205,000 Grants - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Cemetery Endowed Care - - - - - - - 205,000 - 205,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - 205,000 - 205,000 - - 205,000 - 205,000 Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Cemetery Revenue - - - - 205,000 Grants - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - Cemetery Endowed Care - - - - - - - - - 205,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Construction - - - - 205,000 - - - - 205,000 Develop existing cemetery property to add approximately 1,500 new cremation sites. Progress Summary: Landscape design to begin in 2022 with land development anticipated to be completed in 2023. Future Impact on Operating Budget: This new development will create future revenue through sales with no significant impact on operating budget. Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: 240 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan FIRE PROTECTION Current Facilities The Valley Regional Fire Authority provides fire protection and rescue services to a 40-square mile area which includes the City of Auburn, the City of Algona, the City of Pacific and King County Fire Protection District 31. The Valley Regional Fire Authority operates out of five stations, which are manned 24 hours per day. The North Station #31 also serves as the department headquarters and includes a hose and training tower. Each station is assigned fire apparatus (Engines and Aid Vehicles). Table F–1 “Facilities Inventory” lists the facilities along with their current capacity and location. Level of Service (LOS) The current LOS of 0.20 fire apparatus per 1,000 population is based on the existing inventory (18 fire apparatus) divided by the 2023 citywide population estimate of 89,904. The proposed LOS of 0.20 fire apparatus per 1,000 is based on the 2028-planned inventory (19 fire apparatus) divided by the 2028-projected citywide population of 94,489. Capital Facilities Projects and Financing The Valley Regional Fire Authority includes one capital project at a cost of $450,000 for fire apparatus enhancements and improvements. Table F-2 shows the proposed financing plan followed by an individual worksheet showing the project detail. Impact on Future Operating Budgets There are no operating budget impacts forecasted for fire protection during the six years 2024 – 2029. 241 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan TABLE F-1 Facilities Inventory Valley Regional Fire Authority FACILITY Fire Apparatus Aid Vehicles LOCATION Existing Inventory: Stations: North Station #31 1101 'D' Street NE, Auburn First Line 2 1 Reserve 1 1 South Station #32 1951 'R' Street SE, Auburn First Line 1 1 Reserve 1 1 Lakeland Station #33 500 182nd Ave E, Auburn First Line 1 - Reserve 1 - Lea Hill Station #34 31290 124th Ave SE, Auburn First Line 1 - Brush Truck 1 - Reserve 1 - GSA Station #35 2815 C St SW, Auburn Reserve 1 1 Pacific Station #38 133 3rd Ave SE, Pacific First Line 1 - Reserve 1 - Total Existing Inventory 13 5 Proposed Inventory Additions: First Line 1 - Total Proposed Capacity Projects 1 - 2028 Projected Inventory Total 14 5 CAPACITY 242 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan TABLE F-2 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Total Capacity Projects: Fire Station Facility Relocation, Enhancements & Improvements Capital Costs 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 450,000 Funding Sources: Grants - - - - - - - Other Proceeds (VRFA)- - - - - - - Impact/Mitigation Fees 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 450,000 SUMMARY: CAPITAL COSTS Capacity Projects - - - - - - - Non-Capacity Projects 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 450,000 Total Costs 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 450,000 FUNDING SOURCES: Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - - - Impact/Mitigation Fees 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 450,000 Total Funding 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 450,000 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN PROJECTS AND FINANCING Valley Regional Fire Authority 243 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan Valley Regional Fire Authority Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2023-2028 Project Title: Fire Station Facility Relocation, Enhancements & Improvements Project No:N/A Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:Mark Horaski Description: Activity: (Previous 2 Yrs.)2022 YE 2023 Year End Funding Sources:Prior to 2022 Estimate 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Project Total Grants - - - - - Other Proceeds (VRFA)- 750,000 - - 750,000 Impact/Mitigation Fees 550,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 700,000 550,000 825,000 75,000 75,000 1,450,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Aerial Apparatus Acquisition 550,000 825,000 75,000 75,000 1,450,000 550,000 825,000 75,000 75,000 1,450,000 Total 2025 2026 2027 2028 2023-2028 Funding Sources: Grants - - - - - Other Proceeds (VRFA)- - - - - Impact/Mitigation Fees 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 450,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 450,000 Capital Expenditures:- Design - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - Aerial Apparatus Acquisition 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 450,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 450,000 Facility Improvement projects are identified and prioritized annually and are subject to delay to accommodate emergency repairs. The Valley Regional Fire Authority includes one project for apparatus enhancements and improvements. Progress Summary: Fire mitigation and impact fees will be transferred to the Valley Regional Fire Authority to pay for apparatus enhancements and improvements. Future Impact on Operating Budget: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Forecasted Project Cost: None 244 City of Auburn DRAFT Capital Facilities Plan Public And Institutional Land Use Designations Character sketch Public and institutional uses will occur in both low- and high-density environments. For passive uses, land and views will be protected; limited access to these areas will be typical. For more active uses, usability and accessibility will be key features and new development will be subject to standards reflecting programmed space and interconnectivity. These spaces will be varied in type, providing service to areas large and small, urban and more rural in character. Sustainable solutions and innovations that are responsive to the native ecology will be typical of public and institutional uses. Values Character: Community facilities and programs bring people together and connect residents and visitors to our natural resources. Wellness: Multiple recreation options, and nearby trails, parks, activities, and events will be readily accessible to the entire community. Service: Land use policy supports the provision of community, health and human services to all residents. Economy: Residents and visitors seek Auburn as a residence or destination because of its natural resources, community events, and community pride. Celebration: We utilize our open spaces and public facilities to promote who we are, our diversity, and our community pride. Environment: Residents and visitors will enjoy open spaces and environmentally sensitive areas, while encouraging the appreciation of their im- portance and beauty. Impacts of new development on natural resources are considerate of their sensitivity and importance. Sustainability: Public and private funds are used to make investments in land preservation, resto- ration and protection. Public investments in land and facilities are considered for their perpetual or generational value versus short-term motivations. General Policies LU-89 The primary purpose of this designation is to address public needs while taking ad- vantage of synergies with the adjacent areas where they are sited. LU-90 Innovative strategies to integrate the uses and sites into the areas where they are sited is encouraged. These strategies should maximize use of the site while minimizing fiscal impacts and impacts to ad- jacent areas. LU-91 Increase visibility of resources through public information campaigns. LU-92 Appropriate uses include low intensity recreational uses, passive use open areas, protected environmental habitat, stormwater detention facilities, and simi- lar low-intensity uses. LU-93 Promote the use of energy and water conservation measures Open Space Designation Description This category shall be applied to areas that are owned by a public entity and managed in a largely undeveloped character. It includes parks, watersheds, shoreline areas, significant wildlife habitats, storm drainage ponds, utility corridors with public access, and areas with significant development restrictions. Designation Criteria 1. Passive parks or undeveloped Parks Department property; 2. Any site containing a significant developmental hazard; or 3. Any site containing open space value suitable for public protection without unduly encroaching on private property rights. Implementing Zoning Designations Open Space Policies LU-94 Active parks that provide sports field, activity and community centers, cemetery’s cemeteries, and public buildings should not be designated as open space. LU-95 Open space lands are primarily designated to provide wildlife and aquatic habitat, flood detention, vegetation and soil preservation, and view shed protection. Land designated as open space may be used for public access to trails, interpretive centers, education opportunities, and other uses and facilities that support the purpose of their designation. LU-96 Increase distribution of open space and increase access to open space amenities throughout Auburn. LU-97 Enhance restoration, preservation and protection of natural resources and critical areas. LU-98 Seek out opportunities to develop recreation and education opportunities on public lands or through public–private partnerships. LU-99 Increase visibility of resources through public information campaigns. Continue to work with regional partners to develop and maintain trail systems that connect Auburn with regional destinations. LU-100 Build on partnerships with school districts to expand public use of school facilities for recreation and exercise, and to improve public access to facilities for this purpose, as appropriate. Institutional Public/Quasi-Public designation Description This category includes those areas that are served for public or institutional quasi-public uses. It is intended to include those of a significant extent, and not those smaller public uses that are consistent with and may be included in another designation. These public uses include public schools and institutional uses such as large churches and schools., developed parks, and uses of a quasi-public character such as large churches and private schools. It is also intended to include those of a significant impact, and not those smaller public uses that are consistent with and may be included in another designation. For example, p Public uses of an industrial character are included in the industrial designation, and small- scale religious institutions of a residential character are included in the residential designation. Street, utilities, and other separate uses are not so mapped. Designation Criteria 1. Previously developed institutional uses; or 2. Located along major arterial streets; 3. Properties that are buffered from the single-family designation by landscaping, environmental features, or the Residential Transition designation and buffered from all other Residential designations; and 4. 2. Meets the development parameters of the Institutional Public/Quasi-Public designation. 5. 3. Properties identified in the Airport Master Plan as Landing Field. Implementing Zoning Designations Institutional Public Use Landing Field Policies LU-101 A responsible management entity and the purpose for the institutional public/quasi-public designation should be identified for each property interest within this designation. Management policies and plans are ap- propriate for all lands in this designation. LU-102 Appropriate uses for this designation include facilities that serve the needs of the larger community such as public schools, active parks, city operated municipal facilities, large churches, and fire stations. LU-103 This designation permits a wide array of uses that tend to be located in the midst of other dissimilar uses. For this reason, special emphasis should be directed at the following must be considered of new requests for this designation: a. The appropriateness of new requests for this designation and the impacts that it the designation may have on the surrounding community. b. Site-specific conditions that should be attached to the granting of new requests for this designation that are designed to mitigate impacts on the surrounding community. c. Site-specific conditions that should be attached to development proposals that are designed to mitigate impacts on the surrounding community. LU-104 Coordination with other public or institutional entities is essential in the implementation of the institutional this land use designation. LU-105 Industrial and commercial uses that are affiliated with and managed by educational institutions for vocational educational purposes may be classified as an institutional use and permitted on a conditional basis. LU-106 For the Landing Field (LF) zone, an Airport Master Plan (AMP) should be developed that establishes the vision, policies, and implementation strategies that govern uses, management principles, and future planning efforts. The AMP shall be incorporated by reference in the Auburn Comprehensive Plan as an appendix. LU-107 Auburn Municipal Airport is included in the federal airport system - the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). Participation in the NPIAS is limited to public use airports that meet specific FAA criteria. NPIAS airports are eligible for federal funding of improvements through FAA programs. To maintain eligibility for funding through FAA programs, the Airport Master Plan should be periodically updated as conditions change. LU-108 Uses, activities, and operations within the LF Airport Landing Field District must be coordinated and consistent with the Airport Master Plan. LU-109 Future expansions of the LF Airport Landing Field District, for the purpose of airport uses, activities, and operations, should be coordinated and consistent with the Airport Master Plan. LU-110 While the industrially designated area east of the Airport is highly suited for airport related activities, other industrial type uses are now located here. Therefore, the City will encourage use in this area to take advantage of its proximity to the Airport. LU-111 New commercial land uses in proximity to the airport should be air-related and/ or complementary to the airport. LU-112 To protect the viability of the Auburn Municipal Airport the City shall create an airport overlay that is consistent with FAA regulations and WSDOT guidance. LU-113 The City’s zoning ordinance and other appropriate regulatory measures shall enforce the airport overlay and the FAR Part 77 surfaces. LU-114 The airport overlay shall protect the operations of the Auburn Municipal Airport by establishing controls on incompatible land uses and development. LU-115 The airport overlay should be implemented to manage land uses and development around the airport to ensure compatibility into the future and prevent incompatible future uses. The regulations applied to properties surrounding the airport should encourage land uses that are related to, and benefit from, proximity to the airport but not restrict- ed exclusively to only these. LU-116 The impact of development on air safety shall be assessed through the City zoning ordinance, FAA regulations, SEPA review, input from the Auburn Municipal Airport, and relevant technical guidance. Appropriate mitigation measures shall be required by the City. LU-117 Uses in proximity to the airport that may create potential operational (e.g. height or noise) conflicts shall be reviewed for their consistency to airport operations and conformance with the FAA regulations. LU-118 The airport should be protected from nonconforming uses and structures that pose a safety concern to airport operations. LU-119 The City shall determine whether non- conforming uses and structures affect airport operations and require their minimization or elimination, at cost to owner, based on individualized study of proposals, City regulations, input from the Auburn Municipal Airport, and relevant technical guidance. ZOA22-0003 Page 1 of 9 Chapter 18.35 SPECIAL PURPOSE ZONES Sections: 18.35.010 Purpose. 18.35.020 Intent of special purpose zones. 18.35.030 Uses. 18.35.040 Development standards. 18.35.050 Additional development standards for both the RO and RO-H zones. 18.35.010 Purpose. This chapter lists the land uses that may be allowed within the residential office, residential office-hospital, institutional, and public use zones established by ACC 18.02.070 (Establishment of zones), determines the type of land use approval required for each use, and provides basic standards for site layout and building size. (Ord. 6434 § 1, 2012.) 18.35.020 Intent of special purpose zones. A. General. This section describes the intent for each of the city’s special purpose zones. These intent statements may be used to guide the interpretation of the regulations associated with each zone. B. RO and RO-H Residential Office and Residential Office-Hospital Zone. The RO and RO-H are intended primarily to accommodate small-scale business and professional offices, medical and dental clinics, and banks and similar financial institutions at locations where they are compatible with residential uses. Some retail and personal services may be permitted if supplemental to the other uses allowed in the zone. This zone is intended for those areas that are in transition from residential to commercial uses along arterials or near the hospital. Conversion of residential uses to commercial uses is geared towards encouraging adaptive re-use of existing single-family structures that continue to appear in accord with the single-family residential character. The RO-H designation is to be used exclusively for the hospital area, located in the vicinity of 2nd Street NE and Auburn Avenue, and is intended to be used for medical and related uses and those uses compatible with the medical community. C. P-1 Public Use Zone. The P-1 zone is intended to provide for the appropriate location and development of public uses that serve the cultural, educational, recreational, and public service needs of the community. D. I Institutional Zone. The I zone is intended to provide an area wherein educational, governmental, theological, recreational, cultural and other a broader list of public and quasi-public uses may be allowed to develop. It is further intended these areas be significant in scope which will allow feature a larger ZOA22-0003 Page 2 of 9 campus-like setting that includes a combination of uses and activities which may not be permitted outright within other zones. This district is not intended to include those smaller or singular public uses which are consistent with and permitted in other zones. E. OS Open Space Zone. The OS zone is intended to provide for land uses that tend to be managed in a largely undeveloped character, including passive parks, watersheds, natural and urban conservancy shoreline areas, significant wildlife habitats, large stormwater detention ponds or floodplain ponds, utility corridors with public access, and areas with significant development restrictions. Park lands included in the open space zone tend to be predominately passive in character and with relatively fewer developed facilities than parks included in the institutional zone. Private sites containing critical areas or shorelines may be included. (Ord. 6677 § 2, 2018; Ord. 6434 § 1, 2012.) 18.35.030 Uses. A. General Permit Requirements. Table 18.35.030 identifies the uses of land allowed in each special purpose zone and the planning permit required to establish each use. B. Requirements for Certain Specific Land Uses. Where the last column in Table 18.35.030 (“Standards for Specific Land Uses”) includes a section number, the referenced section determines other requirements and standards applicable to the use regardless of whether it is permitted outright or requires an administrative or conditional use permit. Table 18.35.030. Permitted, Administrative, Conditional and Prohibited Uses by Zone Permitted, Administrative, Conditional and Prohibited Uses by Zone P – Permitted C – Conditional A – Administrative X – Prohibited LAND USE Zoning Designations Standards for Specific Land Uses RO RO-H P-1 I OS MARIJUANA RELATED BUSINESSES Marijuana processor X X X X X Marijuana producer X X X X X Marijuana researcher X X X X X Marijuana retailer X X X X X Marijuana transporter business X X X X X ZOA22-0003 Page 3 of 9 Permitted, Administrative, Conditional and Prohibited Uses by Zone P – Permitted C – Conditional A – Administrative X – Prohibited LAND USE Zoning Designations Standards for Specific Land Uses RO RO-H P-1 I OS PUBLIC Animal shelter, public X X P X X Government facilities, this excludes offices and related uses that are permitted outright A A P P C Municipal parks and playgrounds P P P P P RECREATION, EDUCATION AND PUBLIC ASSEMBLY Campgrounds X X X P P Recreational vehicle parks, private X X X P X Cemetery, public X X P A X Cemetery, private X X X A X College, university, public X X A A X Commercial recreation facility – Indoor X X X P X Commercial recreation facility – Outdoor X X X A C ACC 18.57.025(A) Conference/convention facility X X X A X Library, museum X X P P A Meeting facility, public or private A A P P A Private school – specialized education/training (for profit) P P X P X ZOA22-0003 Page 4 of 9 Permitted, Administrative, Conditional and Prohibited Uses by Zone P – Permitted C – Conditional A – Administrative X – Prohibited LAND USE Zoning Designations Standards for Specific Land Uses RO RO-H P-1 I OS Public schools (K-12) and related facilities X X P PX X Religious institutions, lot size less than one acre A P X P X Religious institutions, lot size more than one acre C A X P X Studio – Art, dance, martial arts, music, etc. P X X X X RESIDENTIAL Duplex P1 X X A X Home occupation P P X P P Chapter 18.60 ACC Live/work, work/live unit A P X A X Marijuana cooperative X X X X X Multiple-family dwellings, stand-alone P2 A3 X A X One detached single- family dwelling P X X X P5 Nursing home, assisted living facility A A X P X Senior housing A A X A X RETAIL Restaurant, cafe, coffee shop, excluding drive-through facilities A A P A X SERVICES ZOA22-0003 Page 5 of 9 Permitted, Administrative, Conditional and Prohibited Uses by Zone P – Permitted C – Conditional A – Administrative X – Prohibited LAND USE Zoning Designations Standards for Specific Land Uses RO RO-H P-1 I OS Banking and related financial institutions, excluding drive- through facilities4 P P X X X Daycare, including mini daycare, daycare center, preschools or nursery schools A P X P A Home-based daycare P P X P P Medical services – Clinic or urgent care4 P P X X X Mortuary, funeral home, crematorium X P X X X Professional offices P P X A A Personal service shops P P X X X Pharmacies X P X X X TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATIONS AND INFRASTRUCTURE Utility facilities, substations, utility transmission or distribution line X X X X A See ACC 18.02.040(E) Wireless communications facility (WCF) (See ACC 18.04.912(W)) * * * * * *See ACC 18.31.100 for use regulations and zoning development standards. Eligible facilities request (EFR) (Wireless communications P P P P P ZOA22-0003 Page 6 of 9 Permitted, Administrative, Conditional and Prohibited Uses by Zone P – Permitted C – Conditional A – Administrative X – Prohibited LAND USE Zoning Designations Standards for Specific Land Uses RO RO-H P-1 I OS facility) (See ACC 18.04.912(H)) Small wireless facilities (ACC 18.04.912(Q)) P P P P P Emergency wireless communications facility (EWCF) X X X P X See ACC 18.04.912 and 18.31.100 OTHER USES THAT ARE NOT LISTED Other uses may be permitted by the planning director or designee if the use is determined to be consistent with the intent of the zone and is of the same general character of the uses permitted P P P P P Notes: 1 Duplexes, 3,600 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit is required. 2 Multifamily dwellings; provided, that 2,400 square feet of lot area is provided for each dwelling unit. 3 Multifamily dwellings; provided 1,200 square feet of lot area is provided for each dwelling unit. 4 Permitted within a public college or university as an amenity or service provided to students: A stand- alone bank or medical services/clinic is not permitted. 5 One single-family detached dwelling unit per existing legal lot. No residential subdivisions permitted in the open space zone. (Ord. 6799 § 9 (Exh. I), 2020; Ord. 6716 § 1 (Exh. A), 2019; Ord. 6677 § 3, 2018; Ord. 6642 § 11, 2017; Ord. 6434 § 1, 2012.) ZOA22-0003 Page 7 of 9 18.35.040 Development standards. Hereafter, no use shall be conducted and no building, structure and appurtenance shall be erected, relocated, remodeled, reconstructed, altered or enlarged unless in compliance with the requirements in Table 18.35.040 (RO, RO-H, P-1, I Zone Development Standards) and in compliance with the provisions of this title, and then only after securing all permits and approvals required hereby. These standards may be modified through either an administrative variance or variance, subject to the procedures of Chapter 18.70 ACC. Table 18.35.040. RO, RO-H, P-1, I, OS Zone Development Standards Development Feature Requirement by Zones RO Residential Office RO-H Residential Office- Hospital P-1 Public Use I Institutional OS Open Space Minimum lot area 7,200 sf None None 6,000 sf None Minimum lot width, depth 50 ft, 80 ft None None 60 ft, 80 ft None Maximum lot coverage 55 percent (1) None None 35 percent 5 percent Maximum impervious area NA NA NA NA 20 percent (7) Setbacks Minimum setbacks required for primary structures. See ACC 18.31.070 for exceptions to these requirements. Front 20 ft (2) 10 ft 20 ft 20 ft 20 ft Side – Interior 5 ft None 5 ft (4) 5 ft 5 ft Side – Corner 10 ft 10 ft 10 ft 10 ft 10 ft Rear 25 ft (3) None 25 ft 25 ft 25 ft Accessory structure(s) See note (5) below NA NA See note (5) below Height limit Maximum allowable height of structures. See ACC 18.31.030 (Height limitations – Exceptions) for height limit exceptions. Maximum height 35 ft 65 ft 45 ft 45 ft (6) 35 ft Fences and hedges See Chapter 18.31 ACC Landscaping See Chapter 18.50 ACC ZOA22-0003 Page 8 of 9 Development Feature Requirement by Zones RO Residential Office RO-H Residential Office- Hospital P-1 Public Use I Institutional OS Open Space Parking See Chapter 18.52 ACC Signs See Chapter 18.56 ACC Lighting See Chapter 18.55 ACC Nonconforming structures, land and uses See Chapter 18.54 ACC Notes: 1 New single-family residential or conversions of single-family residences to commercial uses with additions greater than a total or cumulative area of 200 square feet on the property since the adoption of Ordinance No. 6231, then the maximum lot coverage is 35 percent. 2 New single-family residential or conversions of single-family residences to commercial uses with additions of 200 square feet or less, then the front yard setback is 10 feet. 3 New single-family residential or conversions of single-family residences to commercial uses with additions of 200 square feet or less, then the rear yard setback is 15 feet. 4 A 25-foot setback is required when adjacent to a residential zone. 5 Accessory structures shall meet all the required setbacks of the zone with the exception that the rear yard setback may be reduced to five feet; provided, that any structure with a vehicle entrance from a street (public or private) or public alley shall be set back a minimum of 20 feet. 6 Maximum building height for residential dwellings: 30 feet. Accessory buildings to residential dwellings: 16 feet. 7 Maximum impervious area includes all hard surfaces per ACC 13.48.010(J). (Ord. 6677 § 4, 2018; Ord. 6434 § 1, 2012.) 18.35.050 Additional development standards for both the RO and RO-H zones. A. All uses shall be conducted entirely within an enclosed structure, except noncommercial municipal automobile parking facilities in the RO-H zone. B. There shall be no outside storage of materials allowed. ZOA22-0003 Page 9 of 9 C. Refuse cans, containers or dumpsters shall be screened from the view of adjoining properties. D. No on-site hazardous substance processing and handling, or hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities, shall be permitted, unless clearly incidental and secondary to a permitted use. On-site hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities shall be subject to the state siting criteria (Chapter 70.105 RCW). E. Any new construction, including additions and alterations, within the RO district shall utilize similar bulk, scale, and architectural and landscape elements of the existing site structure or those of the neighborhood in which the property is located. A site plan and building elevation plans shall be prepared by the applicant which address compliance with the requirements as outlined in this subsection. The plans shall be approved by the planning director or designee prior to the issuance of any building permits. The planning director and the public works director or designees may deviate from the development standards under ACC 18.35.040 up to 10 percent, for example, reduce rear yard setback by one and one- half feet, to address unusual circumstances for conversions of single-family residential uses to nonresidential uses. (Ord. 6434 § 1, 2012.) The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6849, passed February 22, 2022. Disclaimer: The city clerk’s office has the official version of the Auburn City Code. Users should contact the city clerk’s office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above. Note: This site does not support Internet Explorer. To view this site, Code Publishing Company recommends using one of the following browsers: Google Chrome, Firefox, or Safari. City Website: www.auburnwa.gov Code Publishing Company 1 Alexandria Teague From:Grose, Jeff <jgrose@auburn.wednet.edu> Sent:Tuesday, September 13, 2022 2:05 PM To:Alexandria Teague Cc:Planning-1; Blansfield, Cindi; Jay Henson; Tara Sawyer; Jeff Tate Subject:RE: City of Auburn 2022 annual Comprehensive Plan amendment - P-1, Public Use Zone and associated changes CAUTION: The following message originated from outside the City of Auburn. Be careful opening links and attachments Hi Alexandria, Thank you for this information. We have no objections to the proposed modifications. I apologize for not being able to respond before your September 5 deadline. Please let me know what we can do to assist your amendment process. Jeffrey L. Grose Executive Director of Capital Projects Auburn School District No. 408 915 4th St. NE Auburn WA 98002 (253) 931-4826 jgrose@auburn.wednet.edu From: Alexandria Teague <ateague@auburnwa.gov> Sent: Monday, August 29, 2022 1:37 PM To: Grose, Jeff <jgrose@auburn.wednet.edu> Cc: Planning-1 <Planning@auburnwa.gov> Subject: City of Auburn 2022 annual Comprehensive Plan amendment - P-1, Public Use Zone and associated changes Good afternoon Jeff, City staff wants to give you advance notice that we are in the early stages of our annual Comprehensive Plan amendments. As part of this work, we are proposing to reinstate the “P-1, Public Use” zoning district as an implementing zoning district back into the Comprehensive Plan, specifically the Land Use Element (Chapter). It was previously removed as part of a past comprehensive plan amendment years ago when the city staff were pursuing a different direction. The comprehensive plan contains the policy-level, long-term land use designations and map that is then implemented by the separate but related zoning map, zoning districts, and zoning development regulations. The P-1 zoning district was never removed from the Zoning Code, and staff does not see a need to do so, considering that the zone still has a functional purpose. About half of the district’s school sites are zoned “P-1, Public Use” and have been for many years and is not proposed to change. 2 As part of this work, staff proposes both text and map amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. For the text changes, the “Institutional” Land Use Designation of the Land Use Element will be re-named to “Public & Quasi-Public” to reflect that this land use designation is implemented by the P-1, Public Use Zone, I, Institutional Zone, and the LF, Airport Landing Field District. The various uses allowed within these zoning districts are generally of a public serving and quasi- public serving nature. Prior to the 2015 Growth Management Act related update to the Comprehensive Plan, the now titled “Institutional” Land Use Designation was called the “Public and Quasi-Public” Land Use Designation, essentially, we are giving it back its former name. Also, any policies that need to be revised to reflect all of the zoning district that implement the “Public & Quasi-Public” will be completed. For the map changes, a comprehensive map amendment will be completed to change the mapped land use designation of all parcels currently designated “Institutional” to “Public & Quasi-Public”. This would change the name of the comprehensive plan map designation of the District’s school sites. Please understand that this change does not change any zoning development standards applicable to the school sites. Concurrently with this work, Staff is considering corresponding zoning for consistency. We are considering changing the zoning districts of the schools currently zoned “I, Institutional” to “P-1, Public Use”, as well as changing the Ilalko Elementary School which is zoned “R-5, Residential 5 dwelling units per acre” to the “P-1 Public use” zoning district. It appears that half of the schools are zoned “P-1, Public Use” and the other half are zoned “I, Institutional”. Staff understands that this mix of zoning was as a result of staffs’ removal of the P-1 zone from the Comprehensive Plan. However, it appears that based on the intent statements of the P-1 and Institutional zoning districts, the P-1 is a more appropriate zone for public schools (K-12) and related facilities. A zoning map amendment will be completed to change the zoning district from Institutional (and one school zoned R-5) to P-1. Let’s discuss if this is a concern to you. The proposed zoning change to the site of Ilalko Elementary School which is zoned “R-5, Residential 5 dwelling units per acre” to the “P-1 Public use” zoning district would make the site’s zoning consistent with the allowed uses in the zoning district. This would correct the current work-around of having to secure temporary use permits for the addition of portable classrooms at this site. Lastly, staff is considering removing public schools (K-12) and related facilities as an allowed use in the “I, Institutional” zone. They will, however, be an allowed use in the “P-1, Public Use” zone. This would not make any of the schools a nonconforming use, since we are also simultaneously changing the zoning district of the schools zoned “I, Institutional” to “P-1, Public Use”. Before we proceed with these changes, we would welcome initial comments/reaction to our proposal. Please provide your initial comments/reaction by Sept 5th. Please feel free to contact me to discuss. Thank you, Alexandria If inquiring about a specific site, please include the parcel number or address, or if inquiring about a specific project, please include the City project number in your email. Planning or Land Use Questions? Book an online meeting with staff. Check out our FAQ! Alexandria D. Teague, AICP, Senior Planner Department of Community Development City of Auburn | www.auburnwa.gov 253.931.3003 | ateague@auburnwa.gov 3 Mailing Address: 25 W Main Street, Auburn, WA 98001 Permit Center Address: 1 E Main Street, Auburn, WA 98002 (Click Here for Map) Customer Service Survey | https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/XNSL95J Application Forms | http://www.auburnwa.gov/services/resource_library/forms.htm Zoning Maps | http://www.auburnwa.gov/services/resource_library/maps.htm The information contained in this electronic communication is personal, privileged and/or confidential information intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity(ies) to which it has been addressed. If you read this communication and are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication, other than delivery to the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail. Thank you. LAKELAND HILL SOUTH LAKELAND HILLS ACADEMY DOWNTOWN NORTHEAST AUBURN AUBURN NORTH BUSINESS AREA TS18 TS18 TS167 TS167 MUCKLESHOOT CASINO AUBURN WAY S 15TH ST SW LA E MAIN ST 21ST ST SE 29TH ST SE SE 312TH ST SE 320TH ST8TH ST NE SE 284TH ST 37TH ST NW 2ND ST SE 17TH ST SE 12TH ST SE 37TH ST SE S 296TH ST 4TH ST NE 4T H ST S E 37TH ST NE S 316TH ST 00TH 44TH ST NW SE 316TH ST N W S 33 SLE C N BOUNDARY BLVD SW S S 30 0TH S T 41ST ST SE S 288TH ST O T -T T D SE E 6TH ST SE 30TH ST NW 3RD ST NW 3 16TH ST NW 1ST ST NW 1ST ST NE T H ST E 30TH ST NE SE 320TH ST Adopted Areas Downtown Urban Center Heavy Commercial Heavy Industrial Public/Quasi-Public Light Commercial Light Industrial Moderate Density Residential Multiple-Family Neighborhood Commercial Neighborhood Commercial Overlay Open Space Residential Conservancy Residential Transition Overlay Single Family Auburn City Limits Potential Annexation Areas Water Features Lea Hill Overlay (Ordinance: 5346 & 6121) West Hill Overlay (Ordinance: 6122) Urban Separators Overlay ¬Map ID: 6208 Printed On: 9/14/2022 Proposed Name Change of Institutional Land Use Designation to Public/Quasi-Public 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 FEET Willow Crest Elementary School 13002 SE 304th St Current Zoning Proposed Zoning Auburn High School (1) 711 E Main St & Washington Elementary School (2) 20 E St NE Current Zoning Proposed Zoning (1) (1) (1) (1) (2) (2) Terminal Park Elementary School 1101 D St SE Current Zoning Proposed Zoning Bowman Creek Elementary School 5701 Kersey Way SE Current Zoning Proposed Zoning Ilalko Elementary School 301 Oravtez Pl SE Current Zoning Proposed Zoning