Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 11/21/2006 eul� - ♦ , A i City of Kent CityCouncil Meeting Agenda i 1 November 21 , 2006 ' Mayor Suzette Cooke Deborah Ranniger, Council President Councilmembers Tim Clark Debbie Raplee Ron Harmon Les Thomas Bob O'Brien Elizabeth Watson KEN T WASHINGTON 1 City Clerk's Office 1 KENT CITY COUNCIL AGENDAS KENT November 21, 2006 �- WASHINGTON Council Chambers MAYOR Suzette Cooke COUNCILMEMBFRS- Deborah Ranniger, President Tim Clark Ron Harmon Bob O'Brien Debbie Raplee Les Thomas Elizabeth Watson COUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDA 5:30 p.m. Item Description Speaker Time 1. Preliminary Budget Review Bob Nachlmger 60 min tCOUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 7:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE 2. ROLL CALL 3. CHANGES TO AGENDA A. FROM COUNCIL, ADMINISTRATION, OR STAFF B. FROM THE PUBLIC — Citizens may request that an item be added to the agenda at this time. Please stand or raise your hand to be recognized by the Mayor. 4. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS A. Public Recognition B. Community Events C. Introduction of Appointees D. Public Safety Report E. Green Business of the Year Award D n F. 4j 5ti f I Cal s oct,e�-t� P��sen 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A 2007 Budget (Second Hearing) B. 2007-2012 Capital Improvement Plan (Second Hearing) and Comprehensive Plan Amendments C. 2006 Tax Levy for 2007 Budget D. Kent Comprehensive Plan and Kent City Code Chapter 12.13 Amendments, School District Capital Facilities Plans—Impact Fees (Continued) COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA CONTINUED 6. CONSENT CALENDAR A Minutes of Previous Meeting—Approve B Payment of Bills—Approve C. Kent Station Division 2 Final Plat—Approve (QUASI-JUDICIAL) D. Appointments to Kent Arts Commission—Confirm E. Appointment to Human Services Commission—Confirm F. Kent Centennial Parking Garage Seismic Project—Accept as Complete G. Modified Consent to Construct Agreement with Midway Sewer District— Authorize H� 271 st Street Speed Study Update and Traffic Calming Device Installation— Authorize 1. Kent School District Liaison Officer Agreement for 2006-2007—Authorize J. Retirement Health Savings Administrative Services Agreement—Authorize K. Rate and Fee Amendment Ordit ance and Resolution—Adopt L. LID 358 Internal Financing Ordinance — Adopt 5 21 M. Fleet Services Fuel Budget Increase—Approve ' N. Orme Rezone Decision Resolution—Adopt i to k O. Corrections Facility Medical Services Agreement Amendment—Authorize P. King County Community Organizing Program Mini-Grant—Accept Q. Kentara Final Plat—Approve (QUAS[AUDICIAL) 7. OTHER BUSINESS A. Kent 256th Rezone Ordinance (QUASI-JUDICIAL) B. Devlin Rezone Ordinance (QUASI-JUDICIAL) ; 3 7-0 k-0" C. Center for Advanced Manufacturing Puget Sound Resolution—Adopt 8. BIDS None 9. REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES, STAFF AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES 10. CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS 1 YoEXECU V SESSION AND AFTER EXECUTIVE SESSION A. Pe ing Litigation B. L r Negotiations 12. �� ADJOURNMENT NOTE: A copy of the full agenda packet is available for perusal in the City Clerk's Office and the Kent Library The Agenda Summary page and complete packet are on the City of Kent web site at www ci kent wa us An explanation of the agenda format is given on the back of this page. Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City Clerk's Office in advance at(253) 856-5725 For TDD relay service call the Washington Telecommunications Relay Service at 1-800-833-6388 r y y 4 oo V O c� rtt- a0v nEO V' � c a Cis Add9 J� 3wp >�L•0 m3 w Wa N.a O ° No�oA �rod> cm mca c �c �� yd � vv � � ovE? v.c � $ d�«'S•b-° a '",&••pp` Jv E - V r O a� � " w 3 y ft L_c c=� ar c c'° 'a c-A �,u T 2 ff:E+ Yd5EOEC. WC = .°1c Ec« � °vyw °° JCE �a O+�c•yro�TJ3—€rro �a N c $ • oo� � 0 i � u V O Wm M-0 C OmEc �2ac dE 0 • ug . m E � E � EJL -0 � on�Cno%oJS; T�EmCyJ R � °1 OCcO > u mnan"O '_^ J0 VC •�=��T`-,-�ooE..O ro a 2- ma c N3 , E °qE ^ E Y CL V c w - uo� o > o � R 2 1,-° E W E Eu EH j wpV E = c0V � o E E Eo < 1 � 0 u I -� �= E �2 `La M- E VJO, uL7 W C- -0o �scyc _ O ° UO � � o- Zro = c V W. a c 0c c Emo^6LJ L" o pax« O-8cVA � EG^' Eo-c°aiCV • rcZit �"' ° E~c'O 3 V E•� usNc roN °�e3 �' c'O 3cv �� C c4) vcy > 0w � '^ m- cnE � u ' cz m =z ,� aou' r o ° � jaF^+ g O NE '� 1p p,uv ,7 V� P:L O;nER0o= t m^ umm"' c R A �mN3A^ - c BEEP: EuE E o � c� -•c2�; � � n$ �V EoI vv 0 OEM ° o °' u a >_cs0 o �w y b W� °°"c° o moo °°' � o & a V uV ro �u« F� u V Oo aO�fS� amf aacf i L d r a 2. C ro 11�3 g 3 • r o a -a al N 0 3 V o o '^E o' co c NA -mo A u N�!+ E y V�h '° y NN G �p U i 3ti- �� �cc �4-0 ,oj c = o L7 =-CJ vc V3 aiE aT Jo 6 H yV c� .s c '000b 'Z V u - ° - LAJ L ? O D 0te c0 ° Q iU3li .a-N le ro00�2 V U £ uj d w i Lolic M � QI ° � a e A p> =a- E Q pCp N � .0 !� H U CK L LLJ >.T_. 0 'L^ a >°. dj A m cyaEv « .o '-` E f 'mad �V > Coro � ro pJ ° a AE QUT Arc v � • - `c `c-cc E .. � 3 ? w ;j roan ° � Em i � T- « OCD > L C N r0 O V Q C Y ` N N 0.0 Cc LUPc in C d CON a.v a �gg++ 3 �° 0 0L&J v� C .. y cw3'O & c c i° uw c ° o Eoo'^ ° °' 'a � Eai`n-� d �„v $ Civ E �o'ao Ta c � y`y °'� °'ga u"_ Co a c 7 Y 7L•D u - W a L O G ° N� v �Orogdaoc nuro <U > aE EEtirQroO Q �U`«v� CHANGES TO THE AGENDA Citizens wishing to address the Council will, at this time, make known the subject of interest, so all may be properly heard. A) FROM COUNCIL, ADMINISTRATION, OR STAFF B) FROM THE PUBLIC PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS A) PUBLIC RECOGNITION B) COMMUNITY EVENTS C) INTRODUCTION OF APPOINTEES D) PUBLIC SAFETY REPORT E) GREEN BUSINESS OF THE YEAR AWARD 1 Kent City Council Meeting Date November 21, 2006 Category Public Heann.gs I. SUBJECT: 2007 BUDGET (SECOND HEARING) i2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: This date has been set for the second public hearing of the 2007 Annual Budget. Public input is welcome i 3. EXHIBITS: None 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Finance Director (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? N/A Revenue? N/A Currently in the Budget? Yes No If no: Unbudgeted Expense: Fund Amount $ Unbudgeted Revenue: Fund Amount $ 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: A. Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds to close the public hearing. B. Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 5A Kent City Council Meeting Date November 21, 2006 Category Public Hearings 1. SUBJECT: 2007-2012 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (SECOND HEARING) AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: This date has been set for the second public hearing of the 2007-2012 Capital Improvement Plan and Comprehensive Plan Amendments Public input is welcome 3. EXHIBITS: Addendum to the Kent Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Statement 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Finance Director (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expendrtiue0 N/A Revenue? N/A Currently in the Budget? Yes No If no: Unbudgeted Expense: Fund Amount $ Unbudgeted Revenue: Fund Amount $ 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: A. Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds to close the public hearing. B. Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 5B COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Director PLANNING SERVICES Charlene Anderson,AICP, Manager Phone. 253-856-5454 KEN O T Fax: 253 856 6454 W45H 4GTOA Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 CITY OF KENT ADDENDUM TO THE KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Responsible Official: Kim Marousek SCOPE The City of Kent has completed environmental analysis, pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), for an update to the city's 2007-2012 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The update to the CIP was reviewed along with the city's 2007 operating budget as provided by RCW 36,70A.130. The GMA requires cities and counties to approve and maintain a six (6) year capital facilities plan which includes requirements for specific types of capital facilities, measurable levels-of-service (LOS) standards, financial feasibility, and assurance that adequate facilities are provided as population and employment growth occurs. Kent's annual budget document and six-year CIP fulfill the GMA requirement for facilities planning. In addition, these documents serve as a foundation for the city's fiscal management and eligibility for grants and loans. The CIP and annual budget, along with the Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan provide coordination among the city's many plans for capital improvements. The annual budget and six-year CIP contain broad goals and specific financial policies that guide and implement the provisions for adequate public services and facilities. The six-year CIP is a funding mechanism to implement projects and programs identified in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan contains goals and policies related to the provision and maintenance of public services and capital facilities which are necessary to support the projected growth over the next twenty (20) years. The goals and policies of the Capital Facilities Element are consistent with the Land Use, Transportation and Parks and Open Space Elements. The Comprehensive Plan EIS, draft and final, evaluated the growth potential as identified in the City's Comprehensive Plan. The adoption of the six-year CIP, concurrent with the city's annual budget, is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan EIS analysis as the types of projects and programs identified in the CIP are specifically related to the growth projections in the Comprehensive Plan and EIS. SEPA CoMPUANCE In October 1993, the City of Kent issued a Determination of Significance (DS) and Notice of Scoping for the Comprehensive Plan (ENV-93-51). After a series of public meetings, a i Comprehensive Plan EIS—Addendum Capital Improvement Program 2007-2012 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was issued on July 18, 1994 for the Draft Comprehensive Plan, issued on the same date. The DEIS was distributed to City Council and Planning Commission members, adjacent jurisdictions, affected agencies and other parties of interest. After comments on the DEIS were solicited and reviewed, a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was Issued and distributed on January 30, 1995. This Addendum to the Kent Comprehensive Plan EIS evaluates the adoption of the six- year CIP. No additional impacts are Identified since CIP implements projects and programs identified and evaluated in the City's Comprehensive Plan and Comprehensive Plan EIS. STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY Future projects associated with the CIP will be subject to and shall be consistent with the following: City of Kent Comprehensive Plan, the Kent City Code, International Fire Code, International Building Code, Public Works Standards and all other applicable laws and ordinances in effect at the time a complete project permit application Is filed. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW—BACKGROUND The City of Kent has followed the process of phased environmental review as it undertakes actions to implement the Comprehensive Plan. The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and rules established for the act, WAC 197-11, outline procedures for the use of existing environmental documents and preparing addenda to environmental decisions. Nonproject Documents — An EIS prepared for a comprehensive plan, development regulation, or other broad based policy documents are considered "non-project," or programmatic in nature (see WAC 197-11-704). These are distinguished from EISs or environmental documents prepared for specific project actions, such as a building permit or a road construction project. The purpose of a non-project EIS is to analyze proposed alternatives and to provide environmental consideration and mitigation prior to adoption of an alternative. It is also a document that discloses the process used in evaluating alternatives to decision-makers and citizens. , Phased Review — SEPA rules allow environmental review to be phased so that review coincides with meaningful points in the planning and decision making process, (WAC 197-11-060(5)). Broader environmental documents may be followed by narrower documents that incorporate general discussion by reference and concentrate solely on issues specific to that proposal. SEPA rules also clearly state that agencies shall use a variety of mechanisms, including addenda, adoption and incorporation by reference, to avoid duplication and excess paperwork. Future projects identified and associated with the implementation of the Capital Improvement Program may require individual and separate environmental review, pursuant to SEPA. Such review will occur when a specific project is identified. Prior Environmental Documents— The City of Kent issued a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Comprehensive Plan on July 18, 1994 (#ENV-93-51). The DEIS analyzed three comprehensive plan land use alternatives, and recommended mitigation measures, which were used in preparing comprehensive plan policies. The preferred land use alternative which was incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan was Page 2 of 4 Comprehensive Plan EIS—Addendum Capital Improvement Program 2007-2012 most closely related to Alternative 2 of the DEIS, (the mixed-use alternative). A Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was issued on January 30, 1995, and the Comprehensive Plan was adopted by the City Council on April 18, 1995. Scope of Addendum— As outlined in the SEPA rules, the purpose of an addendum is to provide environmental analysis with respect to the described actions. This analysis builds upon the Comprehensive Plan EIS but does not substantially change the identified impacts and analysis; therefore it is prudent to utilize the addendum process as outlined in WAC-197-11-600(4)(c). ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS All environmental elements were adequately addressed within the parameters of the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan EIS, draft and final. Further, subsequent "project" actions would require the submittal of separate environmental checklists, pursuant to SEPA, which will be analyzed for consistency with the original mitigating conditions and may require new mitigation based upon site-specific conditions. The adoption of the six-year CIP implements goals and policies identified in the City's Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the CIP implements the following: Goal CF-1 —As the City of Kent continues to grow and develop, ensure that an adequate supply and range of public services and capital facilities are available to provide satisfactory standards of public health and safety. Pollcy CF1.2 — Ensure that public services and capital facilities needs are addressed in updates to the Capital Facilities Plans and Capital Improvement Programs, and development regulations as appropriate. Goal CF-4—Ensure that appropriate funding sources are available to acquire or bond for the provisions of needed public services and facilities. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY j Kent City Code section 11.03.510 identifies plans and policies from which the City may draw substantive mitigation under the State Environmental Policy Act. This nonproject action has been evaluated in light of those substantive plans and policies as well as within the overall analysis completed for the City's Comprehensive Plan EIS. DECISION The City of Kent Comprehensive Plan EIS, draft and final, provided analysis with regard to the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan elements, goals and policies. This includes the implementation of the Capital Facilities Element and Capital Improvement Programs. The City has reviewed the 2007-2012 CIP and has found it to be consistent with the range, types and magnitude of impacts and corresponding mitigation outlined in the Comprehensive Plan EIS. The adoption of the six-year CIP does not substantially change any identified related impacts in the Comprehensive Plan EIS. Page 3 of 4 Comprehensive Plan EIS—Addendum Capital Improvement Program 2007-2012 This analysis and subsequent addendum did not identify any new significant impacts associated with the adoption of the 2007-2012 CIP. Therefore, this addendum, combined with the Comprehensive Plan EIS adequately evaluates potential adverse environmental impacts and provides appropriate mitigation for this nonproject action. Based upon this analysis, a separate threshold determination is not required. This document and corresponding environmental record may be utilized in the future in conjunction with environmental review for future projects Identified in the CIP in accordance with the guidelines provided by WAC 197-11. ro Dated: November 14, 2006 Signature: Kim Mari ek, AICP, Responsible ielal IOM Jm1%S\Permit\Plan\Env\2006\ClPaddendum2007-2012 dx Page 4 of 4 t KENT wesui.pros IADOPTION OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS Adoption Document(s): EIS Description of current proposal: The action proposed by the City consists of the adoption of an updated Capital Improvement Program concurrent with the 2007 city operating budget. The Capital Improvement Plan is an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Proponent: City of Kent Location of proposal: The proposal is a city-wide action. Title of document(s) being adopted: City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Statement Draft (July 1994) and Final (January 1995) — Prepared by the City of Kent. Description of document (or portion)being adopted: The City of Kent Comprehensive Plan EIS is being adopted in total. This document evaluated three different land use alternatives for the city. The analysis evaluated the type and range of impacts to the environment associated with each land use alternative and associated development regulations. If the document has been challenged (WAC 197-11-630), please describe: The document was not challenged. LDocument availabilitv:This document is available for review at the City of Kent Planning Services office, 220 Fourth Ave S, Kent, WA 98032 from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm. We have identified and adopted this document as being appropriate for this proposal after independent review. Along with the addendum, this document meets our environmental review needs for the current proposal and will accompany the proposal to the decision maker(s). Name of agency adopting the document: City of Kent Contact person/Responsible Official: Kim Marousek, AICP (253) 856-5436 Principal Planner I City of Kent Community Development Dept. 220 Fourth Ave South Kent, WA 98032 Date: 11.114.101; Signature:— S.\Perm, Plan\Env�2006`CIPadopt2007-2012 doc' Kent City Council Meeting Date November ."], 2006 Category Public Hearmgis 1. SUBJECT: 2006 TAX LEVY FOR 2007 BUDGET 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: This date has been set as the public hearing for the 2006 Tax LeNy for the 2007 budget. Public input is welcome. 3. EXHIBITS: None 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Finance Director (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc ) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? N/A Revenue? N/A Currently in the Budget? Yes No If no: Unbudgeted Expense: Fund Amount $ Unbudgeted Revenue: Fund Amount $ 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: IA. Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds to close the public hearing. B. Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No 5C Kent City Council Meeting Date November 21, 2006 Category Public Hearings 1. SUBJECT: KENT COMPREHENSIVE AND KENT CITY CODE CHAPTER 12 13 AMENDMENTS, SCHOOL DISTRICT CAPITAL FACILITIES PLANS — IMPACT FEES 2. SUMI\'IARY STATEMENT: This public hearing will consider amendment of the Capital Facilities element of the Kent Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the updated Capital Facilities Plans of the Kent, Federal Way and Auburn School Districts. These plans propose to also amend school impact fees outlined in Kent City Code Chapter 12 13 Kent City Code requires the School Districts to submit their updated Plans annually for Council review and consideration 3. EXHIBITS: Staff memo from Charlene Anderson dated 11/14/06 w/attachments; Kent, Federal Way and Auburn School District Capital Facilities Plans & Determinations of Nonsigmficance 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Staff (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? No Revenue? No Currently in the Budget? Yes No If no. Inbudgeted Expense: Fund Amount $ _. Unbudgeted Revenue: Fund Amount $ 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: A. Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds to close the public hearing. B. Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No 5D 1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N Satterstrom, AICP, Director PLANNING SERVICES KC Charlene Anderson,AiCP, Manager A',5 111 NGTON Phone 253-8565454 Fax 253-856-6454 Address 220 Fourth Avenue S Kent,WA 98032-5895 November 14, 2006 TO: Council President Dr. Deborah Ranniger and City Council Members FROM. Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager SUBJECT: Kent Comprehensive Plan and Kent City Code Chapter 12 13 Amendments, School District Capital Facilities Plans-Impact Fees MOTION: None at this time This issue will be decided concurrently with adoption of the 2007 Annual Budget and 2007-12 Capital Improvement Program SUMMARY: This public hearing will consider amendment of the Capital Facilities Element of the Kent Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the updated Capital Facilities Plans of the Kent, Federal Way and Auburn School Districts These plans propose to also amend school impact fees outlined in Kent City Code Chapter 12 13 Kent City Code requires the School Districts to submit their updated Plans annually for Council review and consideration The City Council holds the public hearing on the school district plans at the same time as the public hearing for the budget, i.e., November 21, 2006. The City of Kent 6-year Capital Improvement Program being considered this evening also will update the Capital Facilities Element of the Kent Comprehensive Plan BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND: One of the planning goals under the Growth Management Act (RCW 36 70A 020) is to ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development are adequate and timely to serve the development without decreasing current service levels below minimum standards The Act (RCW 36.70A 070) requires the Capital Facilities Element of the Kent Comprehensive Plan to inventory existing capital facilities, forecast future needs and provide for financing of those facilities RCW 82 02.050 authorizes cities planning under the Growth Management Act to impose impact fees on development activity as part of the financing for public facilities needed to serve new growth and development. As a result, KCC 12.13 080 and 090 provide for imposition of school impact fees on behalf of any school district which provides to the City a capital facilities plan; the plan is adopted by reference as part of the Capital Facilities Element of the Kent Comprehensive Plan. The school districts are required to submit for annual. Council review their updated capital facilities plans (KCC 12 13 060 & 070). The Kent, Federal Way and Auburn School Districts submitted their 2006/7 — 2011/12 Capital Facilities Plans and are requesting amendments of the Kent Comprehensive Plan and Kent City Code Chapter 12.13 to reflect changes to impact fees resulting from new student population generated by new single family and multifamily residential development The updated plans include an inventory of existing facilities, existing facility needs, expected future facility requirements, expected funding, and calculation of the impact fees according to the formula set forth in KCC 12 13 140 The Kent School District proposes to increase their existing school impact fees for single family units from $4,775 to $4.928 (an increase of S 153 or 3 2%) and for multifamily units from $2,940 to $3,034 (an increase of$94 or 3.2%) The Federal Way School District proposes to decrease their existing school impact fees for single family units from $3,393 to $3,018 (a decrease of S375 or 11 1%) and decrease their fees for multifamily units from S895 to $856 (a decrease of$39 or 4 4%) The Auburn School District proposes to decrease their existing school impact fees for single , family units from $5,681 36 to $5.657.05 (a decrease of$24.31 or 0 4%) and decrease their fees for multifamily units from $1,536 30 to $1,228 84 (a decrease of $307.46 or 20%) The only area in Kent where Auburn School District's impact fees are applied is the impoundment reservoir site, now called the Verdana PUD. Included with this memo are comparison tables among the three school districts as well as historical data on their school impact fees. CA\pm S TermmPlamCOMP PLAN_AMFNDMENTS�2006\CPA-2006-3_CapFacPlan_SchlDistnctsv2 064 1 5 6-2 006-3capfacihties[12106 doc Ene School District Capital Facihteis Plans & Determinations of Nonsigmficance, RCW 36 70A 020 & 070, RCW 82 02 050, KCC 12 13 060-090,KCC 12 13 140,comparison tables and historical data cc Fred N Satterstrom,AICP,CD Director Charlene Anderson, AICP,Planning Manager Project File#CPA-2006-3,'KVIA#2064156 Parties of Record 1 i r i Comprehensive Plan/Capital Facilities Element Amendment&Update to Chapter 12 13 Kent City Code 11/21/06 City Council Meeting Page 2 of 2 School District Capital Facilities Plans 2006/07 to 2011/12 Impact Fee Calculation Kent Federal Way Auburn 1 Site Cost SFR $1,055 83 $ 739 $ 69238 MFR 69675 197 145 35 Construction Cost SFR $20,518.04 $ 10,294 $20,703 20 MFR 12,055 84 2,892 4,67494 Temporary Facility Cost SFR $ 103.32 $ 46 $ 12.85 MFR 59 13 14 270 State Match Credit SFR $ 6,273.60 $ 2,815 S5,58265 MFR 3,32919 866 1,27144 Tax Credit SFR $ 3,63633 $ 2,228 $ 4,511.68 MFR 1,14561 525 1,093 88 Impact Fee SFR $ 4,928 (+ 3.2%) $ 3,018 (- 11.1%) $ 5,657.05(- 0.4%) MFR 3,034 (+ 3 2% 856 (- 4.4%) 1,228.84 (- 20.0% % financed by fees 34 5% 2.0% Impact Fees History 2000 - 2007 Kent Federal Way Auburn Kent Federal Way Auburn 1 SFR MFR 2007 $4,928 $3,018 $5,657.05 2007 $3,034 $ 856 $1,228.84 2006 $4,775 $3,393 $5,681 36 2006 $2,940 $ 895 $1,536 30 2005 4,056 2,868 5,29690 2005 1,762 905 1,831.85 2004 4,292 3,269 4,52800 2004 2,643 940 1,212.00 2003 4,147 3,865 N/A 2003 2,554 1,086 AN/A 2002 3,782 2,616 N/A 2002 2,329 896 2001 3,782 2,710 N/A 2001 2,329 830 2000 3,782 2,384 N/A 2000 2,329 786 6\Documents and Settings\rnsumrnons\Local Sethngs\Temporary Internet Fdes\OLK43\capfaci11hestab1e1 doc School District Capital Facilities Plans 2006/07 to 2011/12 Kent Federal Way Auburn Boeckh Index S 154 22 $154 22 S 154.22 State Match % 55 94% 59 97% 55 71% District Average AV SFR $263,362 $245,644 $237,281 MFR 82,971 57,873 57,530 Debt Service Tax Rate $1.74 $1 14 $2.39 Bond Interest Rate 4.39% 4 39% 4.39% Issues: Kent Middle School Reopening 2005-6 Additions to 3 high schools 2005/6 & Additions to 2 high schools 2007-9 Middle School Reconfiguration to Alternative high school 2007/8 New Elementary School 2010/11 Elementary School Replacement 2009/10 Federal Way- 2006 bond—replace high school, 1 middle school, 4 elementary schools, build maintenance facility, library conversion Auburn. New High School 2005 2 Elementary Schools 2006 and 2007 1 Middle Schoo12009 S\Pcrmtt\Plan\COMP_PLAN_AMENDMENTS\2006\CPA-2006-3_CapFacPlan_SchlDistncts\capfacihticstablc2 doc i I School District Capital Facilities Plans—2005/06 to 2010/11 General Statistics Kent Federal Way Auburn Student Generation SFR Elementary 444 3030 .3010 Middle 148 2013 .1510 Sr High .252 2013 1660 MFR Elementary 293 .0929 0611 Middle .058 0410 .0317 Sr High 094 0628 0452 FTE Enrollment 25,809 21,024 13,387 Capacity 2006-7 29,169 23,876 13,168 Class Size K- 3 = 22 K- 2 = 20 K—2 = 25 4 = 23 3 - 5 = 25 3 - 4= 27 5 - 6 = 29 6 - 7 = Block 60/day 5 = 30 7 - 9= 29 8 = Block 90,/day 6-12 = 30 10-12 -31 9-12 = 29 25 for 7th & 10" English) S\Pcrmn\Plan\COMP_PLAN_AMENDMENTS\2006\CPA-2006-3_CapFacPlan_SchlDlstrlcts\capfacdtttestable3 doe i RCW 36.70A.020: Planning Goals Page 1 of 1 RCW 36.70A.020 Planning goals. The following goals are adopted to guide the development and adoption of comprehensive plans and development regulations of those counties and cities that are required or choose to plan under RCW 36 70A 040 The following goals are not listed in order of priority and shall be used exclusively for the purpose of guiding the development of comprehensive plans and development regulations (1) Urban growth Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner (2) Reduce sprawl Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density development (3)Transportation Encourage efficient multimodal transportation systems that are based on regional priorities and coordinated with county and city comprehensive plans (4) Housing Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the population of this state, promote a variety of residential densities and housing types, and encourage preservation of existing housing stock (5) Economic development Encourage economic development throughout the state that is consistent with adopted comprehensive plans, promote economic opportunity for all citizens of this state, especially for unemployed and for disadvantaged persons, promote the retention and expansion of existing businesses and recruitment of new businesses, recognize regional differences impacting economic development opportunities, and encourage growth in areas experiencing insufficient economic growth, all within the capacities of the state's natural resources public services, and public facilities (6) Property rights Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation having been made The property rights of landowners shall be protected from arbitrary and discriminatory actions (7)Permits Applications for both state and local government permits should be processed in a timely and fair manner to ensure predictability (8) Natural resource industries Maintain and enhance natural resource-based industries, including productive timber, agricultural, and fisheries industries Encourage the conservation of productive forest lands and productive agricultural lands, and discourage incompatible uses (9)Open space and recreation Retain open space, enhance recreational opportunities,conserve fish and wildlife habitat, increase access to natural resource lands and water, and develop parks and recreation facilities (10)Environment Protect the environment and enhance the state's high quality of life, including air and water quality, and the availability of water (11)Citizen participation and coordination Encourage the involvement of citizens in the planning process and ensure coordination between communities and jurisdictions to reconcile conflicts (12) Public facilities and services Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards (13) Historic preservation Identify and encourage the preservation of lands, sites, and structures, that have historical or archaeological significance [2002c154§1,19901stexs c17§21 S%PenmOFan1COMP_PLAN_AMENDMENTS12"CPA-200&3 CapFacPlan_Sa 11)*t¢ cWaahtlea_RCW.3670A 020_PlamingCo is dm 1 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default-asox?cite=36.70A.020 11/13/2006 RCW 36.70A.070: Comprehensive plans — Mandatory elements. Page 1 of 5 RCW 36.70A.070 Comprehensive plans — Mandatory elements. 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 A comprehensive plan shall be adopted and amended with public participation as provided in RCW 36 70A 140 IEach comprehensive plan shall include a plan, scheme, or design for each of the following (1)A land use element designating the proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of land, where appropriate, for agriculture, timber production, housing, commerce, industry, recreation, open spaces, general aviation airports, public utilities, public facilities, and other land uses The land use element shall include population densities, building intensities, and estimates of future population growth The land use element shall provide for protection of the quality and quantity of ground water used for public water supplies Wherever possible, the land use element should consider utilizing urban planning approaches that promote physical activity Where applicable,the land use element shall review drainage, flooding, and storm water run-off in the area and nearby jurisdictions and provide guidance for corrective actions to mitigate or cleanse those discharges that pollute waters of the state, including Puget Sound or waters entering Puget Sound (2)A housing element ensuring the vitality and character of established residential neighborhoods that (a) Includes an inventory and analysis of existing and projected housing needs that identifies the number of housing units necessary to manage projected growth, (b) includes a statement of goals, policies, objectives, and mandatory provisions for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing, including single-family residences, (c) identifies sufficient land for housing, including, but not limited to, government-assisted housing, housing for low- income families, manufactured housing, multifamily housing, and group homes and foster care facilities, and (d) makes adequate provisions for existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community (3)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 for 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 (4)A utilities element consisting of the general location, proposed location, and capacity of all existing and proposed utilities, including, but not limited to, electrical lines, telecommunication lines, and natural gas lines (5)Rural element Counties shall include a rural element including lands that are not designated for urban growth, agriculture, forest, or mineral resources The following provisions shall apply to the rural element (a)Growth management act goals and local circumstances Because circumstances vary from county to county, in establishing patterns of rural densities and uses, a county may consider local circumstances, but shall develop a written record explaining how the rural element harmonizes the planning goals in RCW 36 70A 020 and meets the requirements of this chapter (b) Rural development The rural element shall permit rural development,forestry, and agriculture in rural areas The rural element shall provide for a variety of rural densities, uses, essential public facilities, and rural governmental services needed to serve the permitted densities and uses To achieve a variety of rural densities and uses, counties may provide for clustering, density transfer, design guidelines, conservation easements, and other innovative techniques that will accommodate appropriate rural densities and uses that are not characterized by urban growth and that are consistent with rural character (c) Measures governing rural development The rural element shall include measures that apply to rural development and protect the rural character of the area, as established by the county, by (Q Containing or otherwise controlling rural development, htti)://ar)ps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/­`default.aspx?cite=36.70A.070 11/13/06 RCW 36.70A.070: Comprehensive plans — Mandatory elements. Page 2 of 5 (n)Assuring visual compatibility of rural development with the surrounding rural area, (w) Reducing the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density development in the rural area, (iv) Protecting critical areas, as provided in RCW 36 70A 060, and surface water and ground water resources, and (v) Protecting against conflicts with the use of agricultural, forest, and mineral resource lands designated under RCW 36 70A 170 (d)Limited areas of more intensive rural development Subject to the requirements of this subsection and except as otherwise specifically provided in this subsection (5)(d),the rural element may allow for limited areas of more intensive rural development, including necessary public facilities and public services to serve the limited area as follows (i)Rural development consisting of the infill, development, or redevelopment of existing commercial, industrial, residential, or mixed-use areas,whether characterized as shoreline development,villages, hamlets, rural activity centers, or crossroads developments (A)A commercial, industrial, residential, shoreline, or mixed-use area shall be subject to the requirements of (d)(iv)of this subsection, but shall not be subject to the requirements of(c)(u)and (w)of this subsection (B)Any development or redevelopment other than an industrial area or an industrial use within a mixed-use area or an industrial area under this subsection (5)(d)(i) must be principally designed to serve the existing and projected rural population (C)Any development or redevelopment in terms of building size, scale, use, or intensity shall be consistent with the character of the existing areas Development and redevelopment may include changes in use from vacant land or a previously existing use so long as the new use conforms to the requirements of this subsection (5), (n)The intensification of development on lots containing, or new development of, small-scale recreational or tourist uses, including commercial facilities to serve those recreational or tourist uses, that rely on a rural location and setting, but that do not include new residential development A small-scale recreation or tourist use is not required to be principally designed to serve the existing and projected rural population Public services and public facilities shall be limited to those necessary to serve the recreation or tourist use and shall be provided in a manner that does not permit low-density sprawl, (ni)The intensification of development on lots containing isolated nonresidential uses or new development of isolated cottage industries and isolated small-scale businesses that are not principally designed to serve the existing and projected rural population and nonresidential uses, but do provide job opportunities for rural residents Rural counties may allow the expansion of small-scale businesses as long as those small-scale businesses conform with the rural character of the area as defined by the local government according to`RCW 36 70A 03004) Rural counties may also allow new small-scale businesses to utilize a site previously occupied by an existing business as long as the new small-scale business conforms to the rural character of the area as defined by the local government according to'RCW 36 70A 030(14) Public services and public facilities shall be limited to those necessary to serve the isolated nonresidential use and shall be provided in a manner that does not permit low-density sprawl, (iv)A county shall adopt measures to minimize and contain the existing areas or uses of more intensive rural development, as appropriate, authorized under this subsection Lands included in such existing areas or uses shall not extend beyond the logical outer boundary of the existing area or use, thereby allowing a new pattern of low- density sprawl Existing areas are those that are clearly identifiable and contained and where there is a logical boundary delineated predominately by the built environment, but that may also include undeveloped lands if limited as provided in this subsection The county shall establish the logical outer boundary of an area of more intensive rural development In establishing the logical outer boundary the county shall address (A)the need to preserve the character of existing natural neighborhoods and communities, (B)physical boundaries such as bodies of water, streets and highways, and land forms and contours, (C)the prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries, and (D) the ability to provide public facilities and public services in a manner that does not permit low-density sprawl, (v)For purposes of(d)of this subsection, an existing area or existing use is one that was in existence; (A)On July 1, 1990, in a county that was initially required to plan under all of the provisions of this chapter, http://a pos.ler.wwa_goy/RCW/defa ult.aspx?clte=36,70A.070 11/13/06 RCW 36.70A.070: Comprehensive plans— Mandatory elements. Page 3 of 5 (B)On the date the county adopted a resolution under RCW 36 70A 040(2), in a county that is planning under all of the provisions of this chapter under RCW 36 70A 040(2), or (C)On the date the office of financial management certifies the county's population as provided in RCW 36 70A 040(5), in a county that is planning under all of the provisions of this chapter pursuant to RCW 36 70,A 040(5) (e)Exception This subsection shall not be interpreted to permit in the rural area a major industrial development or a master planned resort unless otherwise specifically permitted under RCW 36 70A 360 and 36 70A 365 (6)A transportation element that implements, and is consistent with, the land use element (a)The transportation element shall include the following subelements (i)Land use assumptions used in estimating travel, (u)Estimated traffic impacts to state-owned transportation facilities resulting from land use assumptions to assist the department of transportation in monitoring the performance of state facilities, to plan improvements for the facilities, and to assess the impact of land-use decisions on state-owned transportation facilities, (m) Facilities and services needs, including (A)An inventory of air,water, and ground transportation facilities and services, including transit alignments and general aviation airport facilities, to define existing capital facilities and travel levels as a basis for future planning This inventory must include state-owned transportation facilities within the city or county's jurisdictional boundaries, (B)Level of service standards for all locally owned arterials and transit routes to serve as a gauge to judge performance of the system These standards should be regionally coordinated, (C)For state-owned transportation facilities, level of service standards for highways, as prescribed in chapters 47 06 and 47 80 RCW,to gauge the performance of the system The purposes of reflecting level of service standards for state highways in the local comprehensive plan are to monitor the performance of the system,to evaluate improvement strategies, and to facilitate coordination between the county's or city's six-year street, road, or transit program and the department of transportation's six-year investment program The concurrency requirements of(b)of this subsection do not apply to transportation facilities and services of statewide significance except for counties consisting of islands whose only connection to the mainland are state highways or ferry routes In these island counties, state highways and ferry route capacity must be a factor in meeting the concurrency requirements in (b)of this subsection, (D)Specific actions and requirements for bringing into compliance locally owned transportation facilities or services that are below an established level of service standard, (E)Forecasts of traffic for at least ten years based on the adopted land use plan to provide information on the location,timing, and capacity needs of future growth, (F) Identification of state and local system needs to meet current and future demands Identified needs on state- owned transportation facilities must be consistent with the statewide multimodal transportation plan required under chapter 47 06 RCW, (iv)Finance, including (A)An analysis of funding capability to judge needs against probable funding resources, (B)A multiyear financing plan based on the needs identified in the comprehensive plan, the appropriate parts of which shall serve as the basis for the six-year street, road, or transit program required by RCW 35 77 010 for cities, RCW 36 81 121 for counties, and RCW 35 58 2795 for public transportation systems The multiyear financing plan should be coordinated with the six-year improvement program developed by the department of transportation as required by"RCW 47 05 030, (C) If probable funding falls short of meeting identified needs, a discussion of how additional funding will be raised, or how land use assumptions will be reassessed to ensure that level of service standards will be met, htto://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/defauIt.aspx?cite=36.70A.070 11/13/06 1 RCW 36.70A.070: Comprehensive plans — Mandatory elements. Page 4 of 5 (v) Intergovernmental coordination efforts, including an assessment of the impacts of the transportation plan and land use assumptions on the transportation systems of adjacent jurisdictions, (vi) Demand-management strategies, (vu) Pedestrian and bicycle component to include collaborative efforts to identify and designate planned improvements for pedestrian and bicycle facilities and corridors that address and encourage enhanced community ' access and promote healthy lifestyles (b)After adoption of the comprehensive plan by jurisdictions required to plan or who choose to plan under RCW 36 70A 040, local jurisdictions must adopt and enforce ordinances which prohibit development approval if the development causes the level of service on a locally owned transportation facility to decline below the standards adopted in the transportation element of the comprehensive plan, unless transportation improvements or strategies to accommodate the impacts of development are made concurrent with the development These strategies may include increased public transportation service, ride sharing programs, demand management, and other transportation systems management strategies For the purposes of this subsection (6)"concurrent with the development"shall mean that improvements or strategies are in place at the time of development, or that a financial commitment is in place to complete the improvements or strategies within six years (c)The transportation element described in this subsection (6), and the six-year plans required by RCW 35 77 010 for cities, RCW 36 81 121 for counties, RCW 35 58 2795 for public transportation systems, and *`RCW 47 05 030 for the state, must be consistent (7)An economic development element establishing local goals, policies, objectives, and provisions for economic growth and vitality and a high quality of life The element shall include (a)A summary of the local economy such as population, employment, payroll, sectors, businesses, sales, and other information as appropriate, (b)a summary of the strengths and weaknesses of the local economy defined as the commercial and industrial sectors and supporting factors such as land use, transportation, utilities, education, work force, housing, and natural/cultural resources, and (c)an identification of policies, programs, and projects to foster economic growth and development and to address future needs A city that has chosen to be a residential community is exempt from the economic development element requirement of this subsection (8)A park and recreation element that implements, and is consistent with, the capital facilities plan element as it relates to park and recreation facilities The element shall include (a) Estimates of park and recreation demand for at least a ten-year period, (b)an evaluation of facilities and service needs, and (c)an evaluation of intergovernmental coordination opportunities to provide regional approaches for meeting park and recreational demand (9) It is the intent that new or amended elements required after January 1,2002, be adopted concurrent with the scheduled update provided in RCW 36 70A 130 Requirements to incorporate any such new or amended elements shall be null and void until funds sufficient to cover applicable local government costs are appropriated and distributed by the state at least two years before local government must update comprehensive plans as required in RCW 36 70A 130 [2005 c 360§2,(2005 c 477§1 expired August 31,2005),2004 c 196§1,2003 c 152§1 Prior 2002 c 212§2,2002 c 154§2, 1998 c 171 §2, 1997 c 429§7,1996 c 239§1,prior 1995 c 400§3, 1995 c 377§1, 1990 1st ex s c 17§7 j Notes. Reviser's note: '(1) RCW 36 70A 030 was amended by 2005 c 423 §2, changing subsection (14)to subsection (15) "(2) RCW 47 05 030 was amended by 2005 c 319§9, changing the six-year improvement program to a ten-year improvement program Expiration date--2005 c 477§1:"Section 1 of this act expires August 31,2005"[2005 c 477§ 3] Effective date--2005 c 477: "This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect immediately[May 13, 2005] " [2005 c 477§ 2] Findings--Intent--2005 c 360: "The legislature finds that regular physical activity is essential to maintaining http://ai)ps.leci.wa,gov/"RCW/default.aspx?cite=36.70A.070 11/13/06 RCW 36.70A.070: Comprehensive plans — Mandatory elements. Page 5 of 5 good health and reducing the rates of chronic disease The legislature further finds that providing opportunities for walking, biking, horseback riding, and other regular forms of exercise is best accomplished through collaboration between the private sector and local, state, and institutional policymakers This collaboration can build communities where people find it easy and safe to be physically active It is the Intent of the legislature to promote policy and planning efforts that increase access to Inexpensive or free opportunities for regular exercise in all communities around the state" [2005 c 360§ 1 ] Prospective application—1997 c 429§§ 1-21: See note following RCW 36 70A 3201 Severability-- 1997 c 429: See note following RCW 36 70A 3201 Construction --Application --1995 c 400: "A comprehensive plan adopted or amended before May 16, 1995, shall be considered to be in compliance with RCW 36 7OA 070 or 36 70A 110, as in effect before their amendment by this act, if the comprehensive plan is in compliance with RCW 36 70A 070 and 36 70A 110 as amended by this act This section shall not be construed to alter the relationship between a county-wide planning policy and comprehensive plans as specified under RCW 36 7OA 210 As to any appeal relating to compliance with RCW 36 70A 070 or 36 70A 110 pending before a growth management hearings board on May 16, 1995, the board may take up to an additional ninety days to resolve such appeal By mutual agreement of all parties to the appeal,this additional ninety-day period may be extended " [1995 c 400§4] Effective date--1995 c 400 See note following RCW 36 70A 040 S\Permit\Plan\COM PPLAN AM ENDMENTS0006rCPA 2006-3 CapFacPlan Sch*i4ri is capfaahhes_RCWd6 70A 070_CompreMnsKePhno4 MatriEMmen t Ooc http a/a/ pps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx'�cite=36 70A 070 11/13/06 RCW 82.02.050: Impact fees — Intent — Limitations Page 1 of 1 RCW 82.02.050 Impact fees — Intent — Limitations. (1) It Is the Intent of the legislature (a)To ensure that adequate facilities are available to serve new growth and development, (b)To promote orderly growth and development by establishing standards by which counties, cities, and towns may require, by ordinance, that new growth and development pay a proportionate share of the cost of new facilities needed to serve new growth and development, and (c)To ensure that Impact fees are Imposed through established procedures and criteria so that specific developments do not pay arbitrary fees or duplicative fees for the same Impact (2)Counties, cities, and towns that are required or choose to plan under RCW 36 70A 040 are authorized to Impose Impact fees on development activity as part of the financing for public facilities, provided that the financing for system Improvements to serve new development must provide for a balance between Impact fees and other sources of public funds and cannot rely solely on Impact fees (3)The Impact fees (a) Shall only be Imposed for system improvements that are reasonably related to the new development, (b)Shall not exceed a proportionate share of the costs of system Improvements that are reasonably related to the new development, and (c)Shall be used for system Improvements that will reasonably benefit the new development (4)Impact fees may be collected and spent only for the public facilities defined In RCW 82 02 090 which are addressed by a capital facilities plan element of a comprehensive land use plan adopted pursuant to the provisions of RCW 36 70A 070 or the provisions for comprehensive plan adoption contained In chapter 36 70, 35 63, or 35A 63 RCW After the date a county, city, or town Is required to adopt Its development regulations under chapter 36 70A I RCW, continued authorization to collect and expend Impact fees shall be contingent on the county, city, or town adopting or revising a comprehensive plan In compliance with RCW 36 70A 07C, and on the capital facilities plan Identifying (a) Deficiencies In public facilities serving existing development and the means by which existing deficiencies will be ellmmatau within a reasonable period of time, (b)Additional demands placed on existing public facilities by new development;and (c)Additional public facility improvements required to serve new development If the capital facilities plan of the county, city, or town is complete other than for the inclusion of those elements which are the responsibility of a special district,the county,city, or town may impose impact fees to address those public facility needs for which the county, city, or town Is responsible [1994 c 257§24,1993 sp s c 6§6,1990 1st ex s c 17§431 Notes: Severability--1994 c 257• See note following RCW 36 70A 270 Effective date-- 1993 sp s.c 6: See note following RCW 36 70A 040 Severability--Part,section headings not law--1990 1st ex.s.c 17: See RCW 36 70A 900 and 36 70A 901 SEPA RCW 43 21 C 065 S\Permit\Plan\COMP_PLAN_AMENDMENTS\2006\CPA-2006-3_CapFacPlan_SchlDistrlcts\capfaalihes_RCW-82 02 050_Inpactreesintentumrtawns cbc http://"ap12s.leg.wa.goy/RCW/default.aspx?cite=82.02.050 11/13/2006 City code Chapter 12.13 School Impact Fees — City of Kent, Washington Page 1 of 3 12 13 060 Submission of district capital facilities plan and data. A On an annual basis, the district shall submit the following materials to the city council L1. The district's capital facilities plan (as defined in KCC 12 13 010 herein) and adopted by the school board; j2. The district's enrollment projections over the next six (6) years, its current enrollment and the district's enrollment projections and actual enrollment from the previous year; 3 The district's standard of service; 4. The district's overall capacity over the next six (6) years, which shall take into account the available capacity from school facilities planned by the district but not yet built and be a function of the district's standard of service as measured by the number of students which can be housed in district facilities; 5 An inventory of the district's existing facilities. B. To the extent that the district's standard of service identifies a deficiency in its existing facilities, the district's capital facilities plan must identify the sources of funding other than impact fees, for building or acquiring the necessary facilities to serve the existing student population in order to eliminate the deficiencies within a reasonable period of time C. Facilities to meet future demand shall be designed to meet the adopted standard of service. If sufficient funding is not projected to be available to fully fund a capital facilities ' plan which meets the adopted standard of service, the district's capital facilities plan should document the reason for the funding gap, and identify all sources of funding that the district plans to use to meet the adopted standard of service D The district shall also submit an annual report to the city council showing the capital ' improvements which were serviced in whole or in part by the impact fees. E. In its development of the financing plan component of the capital facilities plan, the district shall plan on a six (6) year horizon and shall demonstrate its best efforts by taking the following steps- htti)://www.ci.kent.wa.us/citycode/kentl2l3 asp#12.13.060 11/13/2006 City code Chapter 12.13 School Impact Fees — City of Kent, Washington Page 2 of 3 1. Establish a six (6) year financing plan, and propose the necessary bond issues and levies required by and consistent with that plan and as-approved by the school board consistent with RCW 28A 53 020, 84 52 052 and 84 52 056 as amended, and 2. Apply to the state for funding, and comply with the state requirements for eligibility to the best of the district's ability (Ord No 3260, § 1, 12-19-95) 12.13.070 Annual council review. On at least an annual basis, the city council shall review the information submitted by the district pursuant to KCC 12 13 060(A) herein. The review shall occur in conjunction with any update of the capital facilities plan element of the city's comprehensive plan. (Ord. No 3260, § 1, 12-19-95) 12 13.080 Impact fee program elements. A. Impact fees will be assessed on every new dwelling unit in the district for which a fee , schedule has been established. B Impact fees will be imposed on a district by district basis, on behalf of any school district ' which provides to the city, a capital facilities plan, the district's standards of service for the various grade spans, estimates of the cost of providing needed facilities and other capital improvements, and the data from the district called for by the formula in KCC 12 13 140 Any impact fee imposed shall be reasonably related to the impact caused by the ' development, and shall not exceed a proportionate share of the cost of system improvements that are reasonably related to the development. The impact fee formula ' shall account in the fee calculation for future revenue the district will receive from the development The ordinance adopting the fee schedule shall specify under what circumstances the fee may be adjusted in the interests of fairness C. The impact fee shall be based on the capital facilities plan developed by the district and ' approved by the school board, and adopted by reference by the city as part of the capital facilities element of the comprehensive plan for the purpose of establishing the fee program (Ord No 3260, § 1, 12-19-95) 12.13 090 Fee calculations. http://www.ci.kent.wa.us/citycode/kentl213.asp#12.13.060 11/13/2006 City code Chapter 12.13 School Impact Fees — City of Kent, Washington Page 3 of 3 1 A The fee shall be calculated based on the formula set out in KCC 12 13 140 ' B Separate fees shall be calculated for single-family and multifamily types of dwelling units, and separate student generation rates must be determined by the district for each type of dwelling unit For the purpose of this chapter, mobile homes shall be treated as single-family dwellings and duplexes shall be treated as multifamily dwellings ' C The fee shall be calculated on a district-wide basis using the appropriate factors and ' data to be supplied by the district, as indicated in KCC 12 13 140 The fee calculations shall also be made on a district-wide basis to assure maximum utilization of all school facilities in the district used currently or within the last two (2) years for instructional purposes ' D. The formula in KCC 12 13 140 provides a credit for the anticipated tax contributions that would be made by the developments based on historical levels of voter support for bond issues in the district. ' E. The formula also provides for a credit for school facilities or sites actually provided by a developer which the district finds acceptable ' F The city may also impose an application fee to cover the reasonable costs of administration of the impact fee program. (Ord. No 3260, § 1, 12-19-95) ' S�PefmlgPlanICOMP_PLAN_AMENDMENM2006�CPA-2006-3_CapiacMan_SchliNStdMkCaplacllMes_KC'r—Uapferl2 13 060-070-080-09015<hMlfmpacffees doc http://www.ci.kent.wa.us/citycode/­­kentl2l3.asi)#12 13,060 11/13/2006 City code Chapter 12.13 School Impact Fees — City of Kent, Washington Page 1 of 3 12.13 140 Formula for determining school impact fees. ' A. School impact fees shall be determined as follows: ' IF• A = Student factor for dwelling unit type and grade span x site cost per student for sites for facilities in that grade span = Full cost fee for site acquisition cost B = Student factor for dwelling unit type and grade span x school construction cost per student for facilities in that grade span x ratio of district's square footage of permanent facilities to total square footage of facilities = Full cost fee for school construction C = Student factor for dwelling unit type and grade span x relocatable facilities cost per ' student for facilities in that grade span x ratio of district's square footage of relocatable facilities to total square footage of facilities = Full cost fee for relocatable facilities ' D = Student factor for dwelling unit type and grade span "Boeckh Index" x SPI square ft per student factor x state match % = State match credit, and Al, 131, C1, D1 = A, B, C, D for elementary grade spans A2, B2, C2, D2 = A, B, C, D, for middle/junior high grade spans A3, B3, C3, D3 = A, B, C, D for high school grade spans TC = Tax payment credit = The net present value of the average assessed value in the district for unit type x current school district capital property tax levy rate, using a ten (10) year discount period and current interest rate (based on the bond buyer twenty (20) bond general obligation bond index) FC = Facilities credit = the per-dwelling-unit value of any site or facilities provided directly ' by the development Then the unfunded need = UN = Al + . . . + C3 (D1-D2-D3) - TC And the developer fee obligation = F = U/N2 ' And the net fee obligation = NF = F - FC B. Notes to formula. http://www.ci.kent.wa.us/citycode/kentl2l3.asr)#12.13.140 11/13/2006 City code Chapter 12.13 School Impact Fees— City of Kent, Washington Page 2 of 3 ' 1. Student factors are to be provided by the district based on district records of average actual student generation rates for new developments constructed over a period of not , more than five (5) years prior to the date of the fee calculation; if such Information Is not available in the district, data from adjacent districts, districts with similar ' demographics, or countywide averages must be used Student factors must be separately determined for single-family and multifamily dwelling units, and for grade , spans 2 The "Boeckh Index" is a construction trade Index of construction costs for various ' kinds of buildings; It Is adjusted annually 3. The district is to provide Its own site and facilities standards and projected costs to be used In the formula, consistent with the requirements of this chapter 4 The formula can be applied by using the following table: Table for Calculating School Impact Fee Obligations for Residential Dwelling Units , (to be separately calculated for single-family and multifamily units) Al= Elementary school site cost per student x the student factor = ' A2= Middle/3umor high site cost per student x the student factor = A3= High school site cost per student x the student factor = ' A=1.I'llAl +A2 + A3 — B1= Elementarywchool construction cost per student x the student factor = B2= Middle/junior h1­1igh construction cost per student x the student factor = ' 63= High school construction cost per student x the student factor B= square footage of permanent facilities = ' (Bl + B2 + 63)x total square footage of facilities C1= Elementary school relocatable facility cost per student x the student factor = ' 1111 C2= Middle/)unior high relocatable facility cost per student x the student factor C3= High school relocatable facility cost per student x the student factor _ C= square footage of permanent facilities = (Cl + C2 +C3)x total square footage of facilities N ' D1= Boeckh index x SPI square footage per student for elementary school x state match %x student factor = D2= Boeckh index x SPI square footage per student for middle/Aunior high school x state match %x student factor = htti)://www.ci.kent.wa us/citycode/kent1213.asp#12.13.140 11/13/2006 ' City code Chapter 12.13 School Impact Fees — City of Kent, Washington Page 3 of 3 D3= Boeckh index x SPI square footage per student for high school x state match%x student factor = D= DI + D2 + D3 = TC= average assessed value for the dwelling current school district capital unit type in the school district property tax levy rate FC= Value of site of facilities provided directly by the development ' number of dwelling units in development Total unfunded need = A+ B+C- D = A''1 1 "" E,:,sw..- +B +C -D Subtotal Total unfunded need UN =divided by 2 = Developer fee obligation Less FC(if applicable) Net fee obligation ' (Ord. No 3260, § 1, 12-19-95) S FermtlPtan[CCMwP MAMENDMENTS'120061mA-2006-3 CupFacNan_SCIWOI c51[.aofdtl/K'G[KCLOW&ri2lll4QSdup9npatl7ilM&C 1 ' http://www.ci.kent.wa.us/citycode/kentl2l3.asr)#12.13.140 11/13/2006 ' DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE for Kent School District No. 415 2006 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 Kent School District 2006 Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan by the Kent School District for the purposes of planning for the facilities needs of the District 2. The amendment of the King County Comprehensive Plan to include the Kent School District 2006 Capital Facilities Plan as a part of the Capital Facilities Plan Element of the King County Comprehensive Plan. 3. The amendment of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Kent to include the Kent School District's 2006 Capital Facilities Plan as part of the Capital Facilities Plan Element of the Comprehensive Plans of the City of Kent. 4. The amendment of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Covington to include ' the Kent School District's 2006 Capital Facilities Plan as part of the Capital Facilities Plan Element of the Comprehensive Plans of the City of Covington. 5. The amendment of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Auburn to include the Kent School District's 2006 Capital Facilities Plan as part of the Capital Facilities Plan Element of the Comprehensive Plans of the City of Auburn. 6. This proposal may also involve amendment of Comprehensive Plans of the Cities of Maple Valley, Black Diamond, SeaTac and/or Renton to incorporate the Kent School District 2006 Capital Facilities Plan into the Capital Facilities element of that jurisdiction's Comprehensive Plan. Proponent. Kent School District Location of the Proposal: The Kent School District includes an area of approximately 73 square miles. The City of Covington and portions of the cities of Kent, Auburn, Black Diamond, Maple Valley, Renton, and SeaTac fall within the District's boundaries, as do parts of unincorporated King County Lead Agency: Kent School District No. 415 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., June 2, 2006. 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: v ! �I • , Fre Hi h AssistanrSuperintendent or Business Services Kent School District No. 415 Telephone: (253) 373-7295 ' Address: 12033 SE 256th Street #A-600 Kent, Washington 98030-6643 Appeals of this determination are governed by Board Policy No. 9280 which can be obtained from Fred High, Assistant Superintendent for Business Services, Kent School District No. 415, , 12033 SE 256th Street#A-600, Kent, Washington 98030-6643 and pursuant to WAC 197-11- 680 and RCW 43.21C.075. Date of Issue: May 19, 2006 ' Date Published: May 22, 2006 i ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAC 197-11-960 Environmental Checklist. Purpose of Checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43 21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making ' decisions An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know"or "does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this ' checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply" In addition, complete the Supplemental Sheet for nonproject actions (part D). For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project,""applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "prepares,"and "affected geographic area," respectively. i 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 Auburn and possibly Cities of Maple Valley, Renton, SeaTac and Black Diamond have been and/or will be amended to include the Kent School District 2006 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 Finance & Planning Department. 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 # A-600 ' Kent, WA 98030-6643 Contact Person: Fred H. High, Assistant Superintendent for Business Services Telephone: (253) 373-7295 4. Date checklist prepared: May 2, 2006 5. Agency requesting checklist: Kent School District No. 415 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): The 2006 Kent School District Capital Facilities Plan is scheduled to be adopted in June, 2006 and forwarded to King County, Cities of Kent, Covington, Auburn, Maple Valley, Black Diamond, Renton, 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. The Capital Facilities Plan reviews additions to existing high schools, renovations at Mill Creek and Sequoia Middle Schools and proposes construction of a new elementary school and replacement of Panther Lake Elementary School 2 , 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. King County and Cities of Kent, Covington and Auburn 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 1 Plans of King County and Cities of Kent, Covington and Auburn. Cities of Maple Valley, Black Diamond, SeaTac and Renton may also review and approve the Plan for the purposes of any school impact fee ordinances and may adopt the Plan as an amendment to the Capital Facilities element of their Comprehensive Plans. 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 Kent School District 2006 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 King County, City of Covington, City of Kent, City of Auburn, City of SeaTac, City of Renton and City of Black Diamond A copy of the Capital Facilities Plan may be viewed at the District's Finance Department 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 2006 Capital Facilities Plan will affect the Kent School District The District includes an area of approximately 73 square miles The City of Covington, and portions of the ' Cities of Kent, Auburn, Black Diamond, Maple Valley, Renton, and SeaTac and parts of unincorporated King County fall within the District's boundaries. 3 B ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one)- Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other The Kent School District is comprised of a variety of topographic land forms and gradients, including all of those listed. Specific topographic characteristics will be identified during the planning and permit process for each capital project. b. What is the steepest 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, day, 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 sods may exist within the Kent School District. Specific soil limitations on individual project sites will be identified at the time of environmental review. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will be subject to project- specific environmental review and local approval at the time of proposal Proposed , grading projects, as well as the purpose, type, quantity, and source of fill materials will be identified as appropriate to each project. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally , describe It is possible that erosion could occur as a result of construction projects currently proposed in the Capital Facilities Plan. Individual projects and their erosion impacts will be evaluated on a site-specific basis. Individual projects will be subject to environmental review and local approval on the time of proposal. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings?) Percentage of impervious cover will vary with each capital facilities project and will be addressed during project-specific environmental review. ' 4 ' ' h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Erosion potential on individual project sites will be addressed during project-specific environmental review. Relevant erosion reduction and control requirements will be met. 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal(Le , dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Various emissions, many construction-related, may result from individual projects. Air-quality impacts will be evaluated during project-specific environmental review Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. L b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Off-site sources and necessary mitigation will be addressed during project-specific environmental review. ' c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Plans for individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be subject to environmental review and relevant local approval processes, including obtaining of any necessary air quality permits, at the time individual projects are formally proposed. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. L3. 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)? I 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 Kent School District. The surface water regimes and flow patterns have been or will be researched and incorporated in the design of each individual project. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Some projects may require work near these described waters. Individual projects in the Capital Facilities Plan will be subject to environmental review and local approval requirements at the time the protect is formally proposed. s 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. ' Information with respect to placement or removal of fill or dredge material will be addressed at the time of project-specific environmental review. Applicable local regulations have been or will be satisfied. 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 addressed during project-specific environmental review. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. Each capital facilities project, if located in a floodplain area, will be required to meet applicable local regulations for flood areas. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. Specific information regarding discharges of waste materials, if any, will be addressed during project-specific environmental review. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may impact ground water resources. Each project will be evaluated during project-specific environmental review. Applicable local regulations have been or will be satisfied. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, ' containing the following chemicals . . .; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s)are , expected to serve. Impacts of discharged waste material, if any, have been or will be addressed , during site-specific, project-level environmental review. 6 t c. Water Runoff(including storm water): t 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known) Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may have varying storm water runoff consequences Each project will be subject to environmental review and applicable local regulations 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will have varying environmental impacts and will be subject to appropriate review and local regulations prior to construction. Information regarding waste materials will be presented at the time of such review. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Specific measures to reduce or control runoff impacts have been or will be developed on a project-specific basis in cooperation with the appropriate jurisdiction. 4. Plants: a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other _ shrubs grass pasture _ crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage,other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other — other types of vegetation There are various vegetative zones within the Kent School District. An inventory of species has been or will be produced as part of project-specific environmental review. b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Impacts on vegetation will be determined at the time of project-specific environmental ' review at the time the project is formally proposed. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 7 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 will be determined at the time of project proposal and will be addressed during site-specific, project-level environmental review d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will be subject to environmental review and local approval at the time of project proposal. 5. Animals: a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or i are known to be on or near the site. birds- hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: fish. bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: An inventory of species observed on or near sites has been or will be developed , during project-specific environmental review b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Specific impacts to these species from individual projects will be determined at the , time of project proposal and will be reviewed in cooperation with the affected jurisdictions. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. , Impacts on migration routes, if any, will be addressed during site-specific, project- level environmental review. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Appropriate measures to preserve or enhance wildlife have been or will be determined at the time of site-specific, project-level environmental review. 8 ' 6. Energy and Natural Resources: a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar)will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. The State Board of Education requires a life-cycle cost analysis of all heating, lighting, and insulating systems prior to allowing specific projects to proceed. Energy needs will be decided at the time of specific engineering and site design planning Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties If so, generally describe: Individual projects of this Capital Facilities Plan will be evaluated as to their impact on the solar potential of adjacent projects during environmental review. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: ' Energy conservation measures will be considered at the project-specific design phase and environmental review. ' 7. Environmental Health: a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Proposed projects will comply with all current codes, standards, and rules and regulations. Individual projects have been or will be subject to environmental review and local approval at the time of formal submittal. tb. Noise: L 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? A variety of noises exist within the Kent School District Specific noise sources have been or will be identified during project-specific environmental review. 9 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example. traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the , site. Normal construction noises would exist on a short-term basis during school construction. There could be an increase in traffic or operations-related noise which would be addressed during project specific environmental review Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Project noise impacts have been or will be evaluated and mitigated during the j project-specific environmental review. Each project is or will be subject to applicable local regulations. 8. Land and Shoreline Use: a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? There are a variety of land uses within the Kent School District, including residential, , commercial, industrial, institutional, utility, agricultural, forestry, open space, recreational, etc. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. This question will be addressed during site-specific, project-level environmental review. c. Describe any structures on the site. Structures located on proposed sites have been or will be identified and described during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Structures to be demolished, if any, will be identified as part of the project-specific ' environmental review process. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? , There are a variety of zoning classifications within the Kent School District. Site specific zoning information has been or will be identified during project-specific environmental review. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? , An inventory of comprehensive plan designations has been or will be completed during project-specific environmental review. 10 ' g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Any shoreline master program designations have been or will be identified during project-specific environmental review h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Environmentally sensitive areas, if any,will be identified during project-specific environmental review i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? This information has been or will be provided at the time of project-specific environmental review. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? It is not anticipated that proposed projects will displace any people Displacement of people, if any, will be evaluated during project-specific environmental review k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will be subject to project- specific environmental review and local approval at the time the project is formally proposed. I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Compatibility of the proposal and specific projects with existing uses and plans have been or will be assessed as part of the comprehensive planning process and during project-specific environmental review. 9. Housing: a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. No housing units would be provided. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Any impact of project proposals on existing housing have been or would be evaluated during project-specific environmental review procedures. ' 11 c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Measures to reduce or control any housing impacts have been or will be addressed during site-specific, project-level environmental review 10. Aesthetics: i a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; , what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? Aesthetic impacts have been or will be determined at the time of site-specific, project- level environmental review. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Aesthetic impacts have been or will be determined at the time of site-specific, project- level environmental review. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Appropriate measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts have been or will determined at the time of project-specific environmental review. 11. Light and Glare: a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Light or glare impacts have been or will be determined at the time of project-specific environmental review. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Light or glare impacts have been or will be determined at the time of project-specific , environmental review. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Off-site sources of light or glare have been or will be evaluated at the time of project specific environmental review. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Mitigation of light and glare impacts has been or will be addressed during project- specific environmental review. 12 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 Kent School District. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. Recreational impacts have been or will be addressed during project specific environmental review Projects in the Capital Facilities Plan may enhance recreational opportunities and uses. Ic. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: jAny adverse effects on recreation stemming from individual project proposals have been or will be subject to mitigation during the environmental review procedure A school site usually provides recreational facilities to the community in the form of additional play fields and gymnasiums. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation: a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. The existence of historic and cultural resources will be determined at the time of project-specific environmental review. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. An inventory of historical sites has been or will be conducted as part of project specific environmental review. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: IAppropriate measures have been or will be proposed on a project-specific basis. ' 14. Transportation: a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. ■ Impact on public streets and highways has been or will be assessed during project- specific environmental review. ' 13 b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? The relationship between specific projects and public transit has been or will be assessed during project-specific environmental review. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? An inventory of parking spaces and the impacts of specific projects on parking spaces has been or will be conducted during project-specific environmental review. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing j roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). The development of new schools may require new access roads or streets. This issue will be fully addressed during project-specific environmental review. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of)water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. Use of water, rail or air transportation has been or will be addressed during site- specific, project-level environmental review. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. Each project proposal has been or will be separately evaluated as to traffic impacts. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Mitigation of impacts on transportation has been or will be addressed during project- specific environmental review. 15. Public Services: a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. The District does not anticipate that the projects identified in the Capital Facilities ' Plan will substantially increase the need for other public services. Impacts have been or will be evaluated on a project-specific basis. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Schools are built with automatic security systems, fire alarms, smoke alarms, heat sensors and sprinkler systems. 14 , 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: l Fre istant Supennte e t fa Business services Date Submitted: May 19, 2006 t 15 D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS ' (do not use this sheet for project actions) i Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction ' with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? To the extent this Plan makes it more likely that school facilities will be constructed, and/or renovated or remodeled, some of these environmental impacts will be more likely Additional impermeable surfaces, such as roofs, parking lots, sidewalks, access roads and playgrounds will increase storm water runoff, which could enter surface or ground water. Emissions to air could result from heating systems, emergency generators and other equipment, and from additional car and bus trips to and from the school for students and faculty. Any emissions resulting from this Plan should not require the production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances, with the possible exception of storage of diesel fuel or gasoline for emergency generating equipment. Noise may result from additional traffic and from concentrating several hundred children at a new facility, especially before and after school and during recesses. To the extent this proposal allows additional residential development to occur, these impacts would also increase somewhat, but it is not possible to quantify those impacts at this time. The impacts would depend on the type, location and distribution of housing, for example, whether single or multiple family and the location of the school. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: Facilities implementing the Plan have been or will be evaluated at the project specific level and impacts will be mitigated accordingly. Storm water detention and runoff will meet applicable County and/or City requirements and, depending on the date of actual construction, may be subject to a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permitting requirements. Discharges to air will be minimal, and will meet any applicable requirements of the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Authority. Fuel oil will be stored according to local and state requirements. 16 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? The Plan itself will have no impact on these elements of the environment. Depending on the particular site, construction of facilities may require clearing sites of plants and loss of animal habitat. To the extent residential development is allowed, additional area may be cleared and eliminated as habitat for animals. There are not likely to be any impacts on fish or manne life, although some water quality degradation in streams and rivers could occur due to increased residential development. These impacts have been or will be addressed in more detail during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: Individual projects will be evaluated and mitigated appropriately on a project-specific basis, but specific mitigation proposals cannot be identified at this time 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Any actual projects resulting from this Plan would consume heating fuel and electrical energy. Increased traffic resulting from the construction of additional facilities would consume petroleum based fuels. Reduced traffic resulting from construction of another neighborhood school may also reduce amounts of fuel consumed, but it is not possible to quantify such reduction in consumption at this time. These impacts have been or will be addressed in more detail during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: Facilities would be constructed in accordance with applicable energy efficiency standards. 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study)for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? The Plan and facilities constructed pursuant to the Plan should have no impact on these resources. It is not possible to predict whether other development made possible by this Plan would affect sensitive areas Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: No specific measures are being proposed at this time. Appropriate measures have been or will be proposed during project-specific review. Annual updates of this Plan will be coordinated with King County, Cities of Kent, Covington, Auburn, SeaTac, Renton and Black Diamond as part of the Growth Management Act process, one of the purposes of which is to protect environmentally sensitive areas. To the extent the School District's facilities planning process is part of the overall growth management planning process, these resources are more likely to be protected f 17 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans The Plan will not have any impact on land or shoreline use that is incompatible with existing comprehensive plans, land use codes, or shoreline management plans. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: None are proposed at this time Actual facilities constructed to implement the Plan will be sited and constructed to avoid or reduce land use impacts. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? This proposal should not create substantial new demands for transportation. The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may create an increase in traffic near new District facilities but also reduce traffic by creating the opportunity for more students to walk to a closer school. The construction of the facilities included in the Capital Facilities Plan may result in minor increases in the demand for public services and utilities, such as fire and police protection, and water, sewer, and electric utilities. None of these impacts are likely to be significant. The impacts on transportation and public services and utilities of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will be addressed during project-level review when appropriate. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: No measures to reduce or respond to such demands are proposed at this time. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment The Kent School District Capital Facilities Plan will not conflict with any laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. 18 t TM KENT June 29, 2006 SCHOOL DISTRICT City of Kent Planning Services Department Fred Satterstrom, AICP, Director of Community Development 220 4th Avenue South Kent, WA 98032-5895 Re: Capital Facilities Plan Dear Mr. S erstrom: Enclosed is the Final 2006 update of the Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan jadopted by the Kent School District Board of Directors on June 28, 2006. Several changes were made to the Draft CFP, so it is important that you discard all copies of the previous draft sent to you in May and replace them with this Final version If you have any questions, please call me at (253) 373-7293. Sincerely, Gwenn Escher-Derdowski Forecast & Planning Administrator GE-D:ds Enclosure c: Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager, Planning Services Gloria Gould-Wessen, AICP, GIS Coordinator/Planner Bill Osborne, Planning Services Department Grace T. Yuan & Denise Stiffarm, Counsel for King County School Coalition tsiness Services 12033 SE 256th Street Suite A-600 Kent,Washington 98030-6643 Ph 253-373-7295 �ax 253-373-7018 111111i fielilTIES 2006 — 2007 - 2011 - 2012 A SeNOOL OISTRICT No, Emeraw Park Elementary Sue Emerald Park Elementary School Emerald Park Elementary -- Serving Unincorporated King County Residents And Residents of the Cities of Kent, Covington, Auburn, BCackDiamond, Maple valley, Renton, and Sea7ac, Washington A[P ri12006 Kent schoolIstrict 12033 SE 256" Street Kent,Washington 98030-6M (253) 373-7295 SIX - YEAR CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2006 - 2007 -- 2011 - 2012 CENT SCHOOL ©1STRfCT BOARD of DIRECTORS Bill Boyce Sandra Collins Scott Floyd Lisa Holliday Mike Jensen ADMINISTRATION Barbara Grohe, Ph.D. — Superintendent Fred H. High —Assistant Superintendent for Business Services Mark Haddock, Ph.D.—Assistant Superintendent for Learning & School Improvement Margaret A. Whitney—Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources Janis Bechtel— Executive Director, Kentlake & Kentwood Strand Merri Rieger— Executive Director, Kent-Meridian & Kentridge Strand Donald Hall — Executive Director of Information Technology John Knutson— Executive Director of Finance 1 Koft ScWd DisMct Six-Year Cagtal FecNltles Plan AM 2W6 Kent school IOwlsir C1 A A KENT SCHOOL U1STRtCT j SIX - YEAR CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2006 - 2007 -- 2011 - 2012 April 2006 For information on the Plan, please call the Finance & Planning Department at (253) 373-7295 Capital Facilities Plan Contributing Staff Gwenn Escher-Derdowski Forecast& Planning Administrator Fred Long, Supervisor of Facilities&Construction i Karla Wilkerson &Lynell Mooney, Facilities Department Don Walkup, Supervisor of Transportation Department Kathy Foslord, Purchasing Department Cover Design by Debbi Smith Maps by Jana Tucker Kent School District Slx-Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2006 j 1 e choo I nt S 10 strict SiX year Capital Facilities Plan Table of Contents Section Page Number I Executive Summary 2 I I Six-Year Enrollment Projection & History 4 III District Standard of Service 8 I V Inventory, Capacity & Maps of Existing Schools 11 V Six-Year Planning and Construction Plan 14 V I Relocatable Classrooms 17 V I I Projected Classroom Capacity 18 V I I I Finance Plan, Cost Basis and Impact Fee Schedules 23 I X Summary of Changes to Previous Plan 30 X Appendixes 31 Kent School Mbict Six-Year CepW Famlihes Plan Apni 2W6 I Executive Summary This Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan (the "Plan") has been prepared by the Kent School District (the "District") as the organization's 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, Auburn, Maple Valley and Black Diamond. This annual plan update was prepared using data available in the spring of 2006 for the 2005-2006 school year. This Plan is consistent with prior long-term capital facilities plans adopted by the Kent School District. This Plan is not intended to be the sole planning document for all of the District's needs The District may prepare interim and periodic Long Range Capital Facilities Plans consistent with Board Policies, taking into account a longer or shorter time period, other factors and trends in the use of facilities, and other needs of the District as may be required. Prior Capital Facilities Plans of the Kent School District have been adopted by Metropolitan King County Council and Cities of Kent, Covington and Auburn and included in the Capital Facilities Plan element of the Comprehensive Plans of each jurisdiction. The first ordinance implementing impact fees for the unincorporated areas was effective September 15, 1993. In order for impact fees to be collected in the unincorporated areas of Kent School District, the Metropolitan King County Council must adopt this Plan and a fee-implementing ordinance for the District. For impact fees to be collected in the incorporated portions of the District, the cities of Kent, Covington and Auburn must also adopt this Plan and their own school Impact fee ordinances. This Plan has also been submitted to cities of Maple Valley, Black Diamond, SeaTac, and Renton. This Capital Facilities Plan establishes a "standard of service" in order to t ascertain current and future capacity. While the State Superintendent of Public Instruction establishes square footage guidelines for capacity, those guidelines do not account for the local program needs in the District. The Growth Management Act, King County and City codes and ordinances authorize the District to make adjustments to the standard of service based on specific needs 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. Relocatables in the capacity calculation use the same standard of service as the permanent facilities. (continued) Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2006 Page 2 I Executive Summary (continued) The capacity of each school in the District is calculated based on the District I standard of service and the existing Inventory, which includes some relocatable classrooms The District's program capacity of permanent facilities reflects program changes and the reduction of class size to meet the requirements of Student Achievement Initiative 728 Relocatables provide additional transitional capacity until permanent facilities are completed Kent School District is the fourth largest district in the state Enrollment is reported monthly to the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) on Form P223. Enrollment on October 1 is considered to be the enrollment for the year. P223 Headcount for October 1, 2005 was 26,970 P223 FTE (Full Time Equivalent) enrollment was 25,809.38. (FTE reports Kindergarten at 5 and excludes Early Childhood Education [ECE] and college-only Running Start students ) The actual number of individual students per the October 2004, full head count was 27,573 (Full Headcount reports all students at 1.0 including Kindergarten, ECE and college-only Running Start students ) The District's standard of service, enrollment history and projections, and use of transitional facilities are reviewed in detail in various sections of this Plan. Our 1 plan is to continue to satisfy concurrency requirements through the transitional use of relocatables A financing plan is included in Section V I I I which demonstrates the District's ability to implement this Plan. Pursuant to the requirements of the Growth Management Act, this Plan will be updated annually with changes in the fee schedules adjusted accordingly. Kent School District Sit-Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2006 Page 3 i I I Six - Year Enrollment Projection For capital facilities planning, growth protections are based on cohort survival i and student yield from documented residential construction projected over the next six years (See Table 2) The student generation factor, as defined on the next page, is the basis for the growth projections from new developments King County births and the District's relational percentage average were used to determine the number of kindergartners entering the system. (See Table 1) 8.41% of 21,778 King County live births in 2001 is forecast for 1,832 students (916 FTE @ .5) expected in Kindergarten for October 1, 2006 Together with proportional growth from new construction, 8.41% of King County births is equivalent to the number of students projected to enter kindergarten in the district for the next six- year period (see rable 2) Early Childhood Education students (sometimes identified as "Preschool Special Education [SE] or handicapped students ) and non-disabled peer models are forecast and reported separately. Capacity is reserved to serve that program at seven elementary schools. Full day kindergarten programs are provided at most elementary schools with alternative funding for the second half of the day . The first grade population is traditionally 7 - 8% larger than the kindergarten population due to growth and transfers to the District from private kindergartens. Cohort survival method uses historical enrollment data to forecast the number of students projected for the following year. Near term projections assume some growth from new developments to be offset by current local economic conditions. With notable exceptions, the expectation is that enrollment increases will occur District-wide in the long term. District projections are based on historical growth patterns combined with continuing development of projects in the pipeline dependent on markettgrowth conditions. The District will continue to track new development activity to determine impact to schools and monitor conditions to reflect adjustments in this assumption. The six-year enrollment projection anticipates moderate enrollment growth from new development currently in some phase of planning or construction in the district. Information on new residential developments and the completion of these 1 proposed developments in all jurisdictions may be considered in the District's future analysis of growth projections. Within practical limits, the District has kept abreast of proposed developments. The Kent School District serves seven permitting jurisdictions- unincorporated King County, the cities of Kent, Covington, and Auburn and small portions of the cities of SeaTac, Renton & Maple Valley. The west Lake Sawyer area of Kent School District is in the city limits of Black Diamond. (Continued) Kent School District Six-Year Capital Fac4lities Plan April 2006 Page 4 I I Six -Year Enrollment Projection (continued) STUDENT GENERATION FACTOR 'Student Factor' is defined by King County code as "the number derived by a school district to describe how many students of each grade span are expected to be generated by a dwelling unit" based on district records of average actual student generated rates for developments completed within the last five years. The Student Factor has been updated to reflect the secondary grade level reconfiguration. Following these guidelines, the student generation factor for Kent School District is as follows- Single Family Elementary .444 Middle School .148 Senior High .252 - Total .844 ' Multi-Family Elementary .293 Middle School .058 Senior High .094 Total .445 The student generation factor is based on a survey of 3,746 single family dwelling units and 1,283 multi-family dwelling units with no adjustment for occupancy rates. Please refer to Appendix E on Pages 35-36 of the Capital Facilities Plan for details of the Student Generation Factor survey. The actual number of students in those residential developments was determined using the District's Education Logistics (EDULOG) Transportation System. Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Apnl 2006 Page 5 w N 0 < G) 0 G) 6) 0 0 G) M Q C) 0 Q _x I 0 In c CD7C 2 N D @ @@ w w Ol d N Ol N 01 N a 2 O o N w m c 3 n n n n. a n. n a n a a C L Q (D n o ^' m c' m A m m m m CO m rn re m m 3 g S Q 5� m a N p fD OD V T Cn A w N ! Cl n Z T r $ SSF 3 m m m i r 8 w 8 = N ! J ! ! ! J ! OD J r c v O ! J (� J J ! J m m D O O ! N f J a A A N N O (DD N v COn CD OD OD 0 OD S B N w u�i a O CWj� N WO m co N A CO N W A W N O a O 001 Ln T O < x OL CD ! m Q Ap A 0) CD V V (1D CO 9 Cyp CD A v m �N U O O NOD O w O(nf () O> A ACn O p Of owi n a n w N C!p J-ILpQl�� ! ! ! J ! ! CtJDD N ,��,; p -� m W N O COD W COO A N W O m CND '- O A co N O p 0 V _ O m D O (,� N w m 3 m w `� U w `VD -4 o N n m 90 N co CW O V co CD CD Cnco C z OD Ot�JD J J 1 ! (�Jp {!p jJp l ! N m m w 00 (D O g ° W a tD CA N W - N ag N A m w J m � z QN CV r N Cn p O W ! ! ! ! J ! N N J co O N W � 3 N y O. Cy N W A Opp V (CCPpp Cp CD O CD O Cfl O f0 OD O� J _ W Q (Cj g W O Of CA A j N COn A N CO ! 0 V � w � (r � ZI S 6 Q 3 a 14 O N r m © p W J pJ� ! CJp ! J J J CpJp� N ! N co ' w �� W O CT N OD w W N m A m O1 N CD N aQ N N S m Q V D m $ m m Z to OM V' C�� p� (per (Jn J ! J J J (N� N N N (Npp N OD W w G b S a_ Oo CA O CVVO V W w N QI W OOD A COn N p. co Co CD 0 CD �7 O m N R DC W y ! J ! ! ! N N N N N N N O O N J m Z Q 3 pO�l ! g Q01 co < 6 w N N N co w (Nn O W Cn W 01 m N A N �. w N i X S WWA (.i c ag y fryp r N1 QO j 3 Cpnp p� J J pN N N N N N N N N Cp Go m O ry8 Cn 4 a OVp Oj w OVD A O J W IV ! OV jODO N O ! O cwc w c G1 c Cn U ! J N N N N N N N N N N N m X j w O V N A V s N O N O N O O O O �D OD O jiD 0o W N O W OOD w m w W O to CO a til w G ''$ _ J r y w O N ! J N N N N N OD N N N N ! N [o a N O ! O W A (A N ! J Pi J J O O [p p A. O ? 3 t W � A Cn N U W A 01 W v CDo g � w N w m A NW -+ O 0) 0 V U W G Cp O� N + J N N N N N N N N ! ! OD LI) (A w O Ilk O V O VCD Afn W CO w O w OD m NN J = N m CFL � W ! J N ((N�,,tt N N N OD D V g A a N T O O O O W V O CO w (O 00 w O n 01 O 5 y O O O CD V V w w Cn V N U Cn N D O CCC0000 w Cw p J ! ! V W a 0 O 3 N V A O N O j w (a O -4 N W ! W AQ N G Oa V A to W CO N V O (n OJ m J N W w A V V N N ! O O CO fD to A N w CO OD V CO V Of CO O M [p N (D W W O O CD CA O W V W O A O A N W ao v c KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No.415 SIX-YEAR F.T.E. ENROLLMENT PROJECTION ACTUAL P R O J E C T I O N October 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 King County Live Births ' 22,487 21,778 21,863 22,431 22,874 23,100 23,200 ' Increase/Decrease 480 -709 85 568 443 226 100 Kindergarten / Birth % 2 8 41% 8 41% 8 60% 8 60% 8 59% 8 60% 8 59% 213 Kindergarten FTE @ .5 943 916 940 964 983 993 997 Grade 1 1,938 2,003 1,961 2,012 2,063 2,103 2,124 Grade 2 1,981 1,975 2,056 2,013 2,065 2,117 2,157 Grade 3 1,962 2,019 2,028 2,110 2,066 2,119 2,172 Grade 4 2,024 1,976 2,048 2,057 2,139 2,095 2,148 Grade 5 2,090 2,066 2,033 2,106 2,115 2,198 2,154 Grade 6 2,164 2,162 2,151 2,117 2,192 2,201 2,287 Grade 7 2,200 2,226 2,250 2,238 2,203 2,281 2,290 Grade 8 2,293 2,249 2,300 2,325 2,312 2,276 2,356 Grade 9 2,767 2,857 2,827 2,887 2,917 2,901 2,856 Grade 10 2,173 2,173 2,268 2,240 2,286 2,310 2,297 Grade 11 1,799 1,841 1,866 1,942 1,917 1,956 1,977 Grade 12 1,475 1,391 1,448 1,463 1,521 1,502 1,532 Total FTE Enrollment 25,809 25,854 26,176 26,474 26,779 27,052 27,347 NOW 21314 Yearly Increase 39 45 322 298 305 273 295 Yearly Increase% 0.15% 0 17% 1.25% 1.14% 1.15% 1 02% 1 09% Cumulative Increase 39 84 406 704 1,009 1,282 1,577 Full Time E uivalent FTE 25,809 25,854 26,176 1 26,474 26,779 1 27,052 1 27,347 ' Kindergarten projection based on King County actual Irve birth percentage and proportional growth from new construction. 2 Kindergarten FTE enroilment projection at 5 is calculated by using the Distnd s percentage of King County live births 5 years earlier compared to actual kindergarten enrollment in the previous year (Excludes ECE-Early Childhood Educabon) 3 Kindergarten projection is at 5 FTE although most schools provide Full Day Kindergarten with altemative funding 4 Oct 2005 P223 FTE is 25,809&Headcount is 26,970 Full student count with ECE Preschool&Running Start=27,573 G R O W T H P R 0 J E C T 1 0 N S - Ad'ustments for current economic factors For facilities planning purposes, this six-year enrollment protection anticipates moderate enrollment growth from new development currently in some phase of planning or construction in the district Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 2 April 2006 Page 7 II I Current Kent School District "Standard of Service" In order to determine the capacity of the District's facilities, King County Code 21A.06 refers to a "standard of service" that each school 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, in the District's judgment, 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. Relocatables included in the capacity calculation use the same standard of service as the permanent facilities. (See Appendix A, 8 & c) The standard of service defined herein may continue to change in the future. Kent School District is continuing a long-term strategic planning process combined with review of changes to capacity and standard of service adjustments to meet the requirements of Student Achievement Initiative 728. This process will affect various aspects of the District's "standard of service" and future changes will be reflected in future capital facilities plans. Because the funding for Initiative 728 is incremental, implementation of the Initiative is also incremental and may result in annual changes to school capacity. Current Standards of Service for Elementary Students Class size for grades K - 3 should not exceed an average of 22 students. Class size for grade 4 should not exceed an average of 23 students. Class size for grades 5 - 6 should not exceed an average of 29 students. Program capacity for regular education elementary classrooms is calculated at an average of 24 students per classroom because of fluctuations between primary and intermediate grade levels (i.e. third/fourth or fourth/fifth grade split classes, etc ) Most elementary schools provide full day kindergarten programs (FDK or KAI — Full Day Kindergarten or Kindergarten Academic Intervention) with the second half of the day funded by grants or tuition. Students have scheduled time in a computer lab. Students may also be provided music instruction and physical education in a separate classroom or facility. Special Education for students with disabilities may be provided in a self- contained classroom with a capacity of 10-15 depending on the program. (continued) Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2006 Page 8 III Current Kent School District "Standard of Service" (continued) Identified students will also be provided other educational opportunities in classrooms for programs such as those designated as follows tEnglish Language Learners (E L L) Self-contained Special Education Support Center Programs (SC) Integrated Programs & Resource Rooms (for special remedial assistance) Early Childhood Education (ECE) (34 yr. old students with disabilities) School Adjustment (sA) Program for severely behavior-disordered students Speech & Language Therapy & Programs for Hearing Impaired students Adaptive Support Center for Mild, Moderate & Severe Disabilities (ASC-DD) Occupational & Physical Therapy Programs (OT/PT) Developmental Kindergarten (Magnet K Programs) Kindergarten Academic Intervention Program (KAI-Full Day Kindergarten) Education for Disadvantaged Students (Title I) Learning Assisted Programs (LAP) District Remediation Programs Education for Highly Capable Students (formerly"Gifted" Program) Some of the above special programs require specialized classroom space, as well as music and physical education classrooms, computer labs, etc ; thus, the permanent capacity of some of the buildings housing these programs is reduced. Some students, for example, leave their regular classroom for a short period of time to receive instruction in these special programs and "pull-out" space must be allocated to serve these programs. Some newer buildings have been constructed to accommodate most of these programs; some older buildings have been modified, and in some circumstances, these modifications reduce the classroom capacity of the buildings. When programs change, program capacity fluctuates and is updated annually to reflect the change in program and capacity. Current Standards of Service for Secondary Students The standards of service outlined below reflect only those programs and educational opportunities provided to secondary students which directly affect the capacity of the school buildings. Reductions have been made in 7th and 10th grade English classes for Initiative 728. These standards are subject to change pending annual updates based on staff and public review for changes funded by Student Achievement Initiative 728 Class size for grades 7 - 9 should not exceed an average of 29 students. Class size for 7th & 10th grade English class should not exceed an average of 25 students. Class size for grades 10 - 12 should not exceed an average of 31 students. Special Education for students with disabilities may be provided in a self- contained classroom with a capacity of 10-15 depending on the program. (cont,d) Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2006 Page 9 g III Current Kent School District "Standard of Service" (continued) Identified students will also be provided other education opportunities in classrooms for programs designated as follows Computer, Multi-media &Technology Labs and Programs English Language Learners (E L L) Science Programs & Labs — Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Oceanography, Astronomy, Meteorology, Marine Biology, General Science, etc. Integrated Programs & Resource Rooms (for special remedial assistance) Basic Skills Programs Preschool and Daycare Programs Music Programs— Band, Orchestra, Chorus, Jazz Band, etc Art Programs — Painting, Design, Drawing, Ceramics, Pottery, Photography, etc Theater Arts—Drama, Stage Tech, etc Journalism and Yearbook Classes Highly Capable (Honors or Gifted) and Advanced Placement Programs International Baccalaureate Program Traffic Safety Education JROTC - Junior Reserve Officers Training Corps Variety of Career& Technical Education Programs (CTE-Vocational Education) Family& Consumer Science—Cooking, Sewing, Child Development, etc. Health Sciences, Sports Medicine, etc Business Education — Keyboarding, Accounting, Business Law, DECA, Sales & Marketing, etc Material Sciences — Woods and Cabinet Making, Metals, Welding, Electronics, Auto Shop, Manufacturing Technology, Machine Shop, CAD, (Computer-aided Design) Drafting & Drawing, etc Culinary Arts, Graphic & Commercial Arts, Engineering, etc. Many of these programs and others require specialized classroom space which can reduce the permanent capacity of the school buildings. In addition, an alternative home school assistance, choice and transition program is provided for students in grades 1 - 12 at Kent Mountain View Academy. Space or Classroom Utilization As a result of scheduling conflicts for student programs, the need for specialized rooms for certain programs, and the need for teachers to have a work space during their planning periods, it is not possible to achieve 100% utilization of regular teaching stations at secondary schools. Based on the analysis of actual utilization of classrooms, the District has determined that the standard utilization rate is 85% for secondary schools. Program capacity at elementary schools reflects 100% utilization at the elementary level with adjustments for pull-out programs served in relocatables. In the future, the District will continue close analysis of actual utilization. Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2006 Page 10 I V Inventory and Capacity of Existing Schools Currently, the District has permanent program capacity to house 27,824 students and transitional (relocatable) capacity to house 1,345. This capacity is based on the District's Standard of Service as set forth in Section I 11. Included in this Plan is an inventory of the Distncfs schools by type, address and current capacity. (See Table 3 on Page 12) The program capacity is periodically updated for changes in programs, additional classrooms and new schools. Program capacity has been updated in this Plan to reflect program changes. It has also been updated to estimate new capacity for building additions at the high schools. It includes preliminary capacity for Mill Creek Middle School which re-opened in the fall of 2005. Program capacity also reflects adjustments for the Student Achievement Initiative 728 reduction in class size The class size reduction received voter approval in the Educational Programs and Operations Levy as well as through funding for Student Achievement Initiative 728. The District will conduct annual public review and update class size recommendations in accordance with the requirements and incremental funding of Student Achievement Initiative 728. Kent Mountain View Academy (formerly Kent Leaming Center and Grandview Elementary) serves grades 1 through 12 with transition, choice and home school assistance programs. It is located in the former Grandview School in the western part of the District in the city of SeaTac. This school was originally designed as an elementary school and is included in the elementary capacity for this Plan. Calculation of Elementary, Junior High and Senior High School capacities are set forth in Appendices A, B and C. A map of existing schools is included on Page 13. Kent School District Six-Year Capital Faahties Plan April 2006 Page 11 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No.415 INVENTORY and CAPACITY of EXISTING SCHOOLS 2005-2006 Year SCHOOL Opened ABR ADDRESS Program Ca ac Carnage Crest Elementary 1990 CC 18235-140th Avenue SE, Renton 98058 490 Cedar Valley Elementary 1971 CV 26500 Timbedane Way SE, Covington 98042 428 Covington Elementary 1961 CO 17070 SE Wax Road, Covington 98042 478 ` Crestwood Elementary 1980 CW 25225-IMh Avenue SE, Covington 98042 480 t Daniel Elementary 1992 DE 11310 SE 248th Street, Kent 98031 480 East Hill Elementary 1953 EH 9825 S 240th Street Kent 98031 490 Emerald Park 1999 EP 11800 SE 2161h Street, Kent 98031 504 Fairwood_Elementary 1969 FW 16600-148th Avenue SE, Renton 98058 420 Glenridge Elementary 1996 GR 19405-120th Avenue SE,Renton 98058 456 Grass Lake Elementary 1971 GL 28700-191st Place SE, Kent 98042 490 Horizon Elementary 1990 HE 27641 -144th Avenue SE, Kent 98042 480 Jenkins Creek Elementary 1987 JC 26915-186th Avenue SE, Covington 98042 428 Kent Elementary 1999 KE 24700-64th Avenue South, Kent 98032 466 Lake Youngs Elementary 1965 LY 19660-142nd Avenue SE, Kent 98042 562 Martin Sortun Elementary 1987 MS 12711 SE 248th Street, Kent 98031 468 Meadow Ridge Elementary _1994 MR 27710-1_08th Avenue SE,Kent 98031 466 Mendian Elementary 1939 ME 25621 -140th Avenue SE, Kent 98042 538 Millennium Elementary 2000 ML 11919 SE 270th Street, Kent 98031 492 Neely-O'Bnen Elementary 1990 NO 6300 South 236th Street, Kent 98032 442 Panther Lake Elementary __1938 PL 20831_-108th Avenue SE, Kent 98031_______ 384 Park Orchard Elementary 1963 PO 11010 SE 232nd Street, Kent 98031 498 Pine Tree Elementary 1967 PT 27825- 118th Avenue SE, Kent 98031 540 Ridgewood Elementary 1987 RW 18030-162nd Place SE, Renton 98058 504 _Sawyer Woods Elementary 1994 SW 31135-228th Avenue SE,Kent 98042 _ 504 Scenic Hill Elementary 1960 SH 26025 Woodland Way South, Kent 98031 464 Soos Creek Elementary 1971 SC 12651 SE 218th Place, Kent 98031 418 Spnngbrook Elementary 1969 SB 20035-100th Avenue SE, Kent 98031 440 Sunrise Elementary 1992 SR 22300-132nd Avenue SE, Kent 98042 504 Elementary TOTAL 13,314 Cedar Heights Middle School 1993 CH 19640 SE 272 Street,Covington 98042 929 Mattson Middle School 1981 MA 16400 SE 251st Street, Covington 98042 775 Meeker Middle School _ 1970 __ MK 12600 SE 192nd Street, Renton 98058 _ 841_ - Mendian Middle School 1958 MJ 23480-120th Avenue SE, Kent 98031 910 Mill Creek MS(former Kent Jr Hi)2 2005 r 1952 MC 620 North Central Avenue, Kent 98032 768 Northwood Middle School 1996 NW 17007 SE 184th Street, Renton 98058 935 Sequoia Middle School 1966 SJ 11000 SE 264th Street, Kent 98031 832 Middle School TOTAL 5,990 Kent-Mendian Senior High School 1951 KM 10020 SE 256th Street, Kent 98031 1,803 Kentlake Senior High School 1997 KL 21401 SE 300th Street,Kent 98042 1.812 Kentndge Senior High School 1968 KR 12430 SE 208th Street, Kent 98031 2,302 Kentwood Senor High School 1981 KW 25800-164th Avenue SE, Covington 98042 2,187 Senior High TOTAL 8.104 I Kent Mountain View Academy 3 1965 LC 22420 Military Road, Des Moines 98198 416 DISTRICT TOTAL 27,824 'Changes to capacity reflect program changes and new building additions at high schools 2 Kent Junior High was closed for 2004-05 for remodel and re-purpose It re-opened in 2005 as Mill Creek Middle School Kent Mountain View Academy serves grades 1-12 The school was formerly known as Kent Leaming Center&Grandview Elementary Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 3 April 2006 Page 12 � LO O § � UO � F o § � 2 / � 2 -2 �> 0 $ � � o — ■ 0 D & 2 % 2 � � ) (2 13 y 2 % o o o f ± \ 0 O § o o _ $ ƒ U d © d , ® ® U — _ S ! !; / ) cn 13 \ 21 ! k e � 8 02 0 !� Cat \ c e & , q � W , \ ) . «V_t ee � \ & d }�e ®` ° @ / | 2 \ ! �/ 2 @ »__. u 2 2 & e ■ 0 \ !! -__e 7 @ a_ e « 5 e� &,2,0 e & ff ! E a » @ ; cz_ -r ■ E| , !; f f f 7 ,\ fa! ek dk �; d 000 » d v ' # ' - � ' / / / / @ - E # ; __, et, �a m/ t e IE =e / -__. 5 \ / / . | a # 7 ® & 0 ( 2 E E e3 $ f m CN _n� \ �� 2 _„A , :e :$ k O � f / z §| � ` �— , @ ■_�oOl Obbids r_c&PIM.A_m. April 2006 Page 2 V Six-Year Planning and Construction Plan At the time of preparation of this Plan in spring of 2006, the following projects are completed or in the planning phase in the District, • Additions to three high schools have added capacity for students from new development and 9"' Grade students moving to the high schools Voters recently approved funding for further classroom capacity to be added at Kentlake and Kent-Meridian High Schools • Reconfiguration to 7`"and 811'grades provides additional capacity at middle schools The Board has approved renovation and re-configuration of Sequoia Middle School to serve as an Alternative High School in 2007-08 • Kent Junior High was temporarily closed for one year in 2004-05 for re-purpose and remodel In 2005, the school was renamed and opened in September 2005 as Mill Creek Middle School (#7a)with a new 7"'Grade Technology Academy program The voters have recently approved funding for Phase It of the renovation of Mill Creek MS • In February 2006, voters approved construction funding for replacement of Panther Lake Elementary School and a future new Elementary School to accommodate new growth • Enrollment projections reflect future need for additional capacity at the elementary and high school level Future facility and site needs are reflected in this Plan • Sites for potential future schools and facilities are listed in Table 4 and shown on the site map on page 16 • Some funding is secured for purchase of additional portables and some funding may be provided by impact fees as needed Sites are based on need for additional capacity 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, as well as pull- outs and turn-arounds for school buses. Included in this Plan is an inventory of potential projects and sites identified by the District which are potentially acceptable site alternatives in the future. (see Tabm 4) Voter approved bond issues for $105AM in 1990 and $130M in 1994 included funding for the purchase of eleven sites for some of these and future schools, and the sites acquired to date are included in this Plan. Some funding is secured for purchase of additional sites but some may be funded with impact fees as needed. Not all undeveloped properties meet current school construction requirements and some property may be traded or sold to meet future facility needs. 2006 voter approval of $106M bond issue for capital improvement included the construction funding for a new elementary school, replacement of Panther Lake Elementary, and classroom additions to high schools. Some impact fees will also be applied to those projects. Student Achievement Initiative 728 funds are being utilized to reduce class size and provide extended learning opportunities Based on community input at public hearings, the Board will continue annual review of standard of service and those decisions will be reflected in the each update of the Capital Facilities Plan. Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2006 Page 14 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 Site Acquisitions and Projects Planned to Provide Additional Capacity Projected I Projected %for SCHOOL / FACILITY / SITE LOCATION Type Status Completion Program new Date Capacity Growth Approxmile I Approximate �—ELEMENTARY (Numbers assigned to future schools may not correlate with number of existing schools) Replacement for Panther Lake Elementary(F) To be rebuilt on current site Replacement Planning 2009 Soo 25% Elements #31 2 Elementary (Funded) To be determined New Planning 2010 500 100% Elementary Site (Unfunded)t To be determined 2 Site Planning 2007 500 100% MIDDLE SCHOOL Sequoia Middle School Renovation&Reconfiguration Renovation Planning 2007 -832 to Alternative High School SENIOR HIGH Classroom additions at three High Schools Kent-Meridian Additions Utilized 2004-06 386 75% for growth&reconfiguration (Funded) Kentridge Additions Utilized 2004-06 1.000 75% Kentwood Additions Utilized 2004-06 am 75% Sequoia Middle School Alternative High School (Funded) 11000 SE 264th Street,Kent Renovation Planning 2007-08 500 75% 1 Classroom additions at two high schools (F) Kentlake&Kent-Meridian Additions Planning 2007/2008 -200 75% Additional TEMPORARY FACILITIES Capacity Relocatables For placement as needed New Planning 2006+ 24-31 eadi 100% SUPPORT FACILITIES Bus Facility (Unfunded) Near Kent-Meridian High School New Planning TBD 2 N/A #on Map 3 OTHER SITES ACQUIRED Land Use Type Jurlsdicion 4 Covington area North (Near Mattson MS) SE 251 &164 SE, Covington 98042 Elementary City of Covington 7 Covington area South (Scarsella) SE 290&156 SE, Kent 98042 Elementary King County 5 Covington area West (Halleson-Wikstrom) 15435 SE 256 Street Covington 98042 TBD 2 City of Covington 3 Ham Lake area (Pollard) 16820 SE 240, Kent 98042 Elementary King County 8 SE of Lake Morton area (West property) SE 332&204 SE, Kent 98042 Secondary King County 2 Shady Lake area (Sowers,etc) 17426 SE 192 Street, Renton 98058 Elementary King County 1 So King Co Activity Center(Nike site) SE 167&170 SE, Renton 98058 TBD 2 King County 12 South Central site (Plemmons-Yeh-Wms) SE 286th Street&124th Ave SE,Kent TBD' King County Notes, ' Unfunded facility needs will be reviewed in the future 2 TBD-To be determined-Some sites are acquired but placement, timing and/or configuration have not been determined 3 Numbers correspond to sites on Map on Page 16 Other site locations are parcels identified in Table 7 on Page 26 Kent Sdwd District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 4 April 2006 Page 15 � O am MONEW ,! 0 d m . ® a _ Oz t( O 2 / CO ) ] ! 2; } _� , k \ ® ' 0 U � CcLD rci U ' 9 � } j ® . e ! a__. yam, «0 \ -9AV L40V 1 ■ ! ; a 1 e: 0 «__� . g __o ! . . -E Ow !} Rita \ & 0001 ! � 20 e\ G; } f ! � "Tog I e , 20m __. e!; \ , 00! q y p �__. $ /® _ ub 0 22 ®-so 02 } T } $ zm < 1 Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities m. April 2006 Page 16 $ V I Relocatable Classrooms For the purpose of clarification, the term "portables" and the more descriptively accurate term, "relocatables" are used Interchangeably in this Plan. The Plan also references use of portables or relocatables as Interim or transitional capacity/facilities Currently, the District utilizes 132 total relocatables to house students in excess of permanent capacity, for program purposes at school locations, and six for other purposes. (see Appendices A a c o) Based on enrollment projections, program capacity and funded permanent facilities, the District anticipates the need to purchase some additional relocatables during the next six-year penod. The continually escalating cost of moving relocatables will increasingly limit the choice between building new relocatables on site and relocating older ones. During the time period covered by this Plan, the District does not anticipate that all of the District's relocatables will be replaced by permanent facilities. During the useful life of some of the relocatables, the school-age population may decline in some communities and increase in others, and these relocatables provide the flexibility to accommodate the immediate needs of the community. Portables, or relocatables, may be used as interim or transitional facilities: 1. To prevent overbuilding or overcrowding of permanent school facilities. 2. To cover the gap between the time of demand for increased capacity and completion of permanent school facilities to meet that demand. 3. To meet unique program requirements. Relocatables currently in use will be evaluated resulting in some being improved and some replaced. Quality concerns will be among those addressed by the next Community Facilities Planning Committee for review of capital facilities needs for the next bond issue. The Plan projects that the District will use relocatables to accommodate interim housing needs for the next six years and beyond. The use of relocatables, their impacts on permanent facilities, life cycle and operational costs, and the interrelationship between relocatables, emerging technologies and educational restructuring will continue to be be examined. Kent School Distnct Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Apnl 2006 Page 17 V I I Projected Six-Year Classroom Capacity As stated in Section I V, the program capacity study is periodically updated for changes in special programs and reflects class size fluctuations in Grades K - 4. As shown in the Inventory and Capacity chart in Table 3 on Page 12, the program capacity is also reflected in the capacity and enrollment comparison charts. (See Tables 5 B 5 A-B-C on pages 19-22) Enrollment is reported to OSPI on Form P-223 on a monthly basis and funding apportionment is based on Annual Average FTE (AAFTE). The first school day of October is recognized as the "enrollment count date" for the year Full Time Equivalent (FTE) student enrollment for October 1, 2005 was 1 25,809.38 which represents an increase of 39 FTE over the previous October. Kindergarten students are counted at .5 and P223 FTE excludes Early Childhood Education students (ECE - preschool special education) and College-only Running Start students. (See Tables 5 a 5 A-B-C on pages 19-22) On October 1, there were 586 students in 11a' and 12'' grade participating in the Running Start program at 9 different colleges and receiving credits toward both high school and college graduation. 315 of these students attended classes only at the college ("college-only") and are thus excluded from the FTE and ' headcount for capacity and enrollment comparisons. Kent School District continues to be the fourth largest district in the state of i Washington. P223 Headcount for October 1, 2005 was 26,970 with kindergarten students counted at 1.0 and excluding ECE and college-only Running Start students. A full headcount of all students enrolled on October 1, 2005 totals 27,573 which includes ECE and college-only Running Start students. This reflects an increase of 233 actual students compared to October 1, 2004. Based on the enrollment forecasts, current inventory and capacity, current standard of service, relocatable capacity, and future planned additional classroom space, the District anticipates having sufficient capacity to house students over the next six years. (See Table 5 and Tables 5 A-B-C on Pages 19-22) This does not mean that some schools will not experience overcrowding. There may be significant need for additional portables and/or new schools to accommodate growth within the District and class size reduction mandated under Student Achievement Initiative 728. Some schools, by design, may be opened with relocatables on site. Boundary changes, limited movement of relocatables, zoning changes, market conditions, and educational restructuring will all play a major role in addressing overcrowding and underutilization of facilities in different parts of the District. Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2006 Page 18 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT and CAPACITY TOTAL DISTRICT SCHOOL YEAR 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007.2008 2008-2009 1 2009-2010 2010-2011 1 2011-2012 Actual P R O J E C T E D Permanent Program Capacity' 24,767 27,824 27,824 27,278 27,328 27,828 28,328 Chan es to Permanent Capacity Classrooms added at 3 high schools(F) Kent-Mendian-Kentndge-Kentwood Estimated Program Capacity 2,282 Classroom additions at Kentlake&Kent-Mendlan(F) 150 50 4 Sequoia Middle School will be renovated and reconfigured as Alternative High School in 2007-08 Change to Middle School Capacity -832 High School Program Capacity added 500 S Mill Creek Middle School-Kent Junior High re-opened as Mill Creek Middle School&Technology Academy Wa in Fall 2005 Estimated Program Capacity 775 Replacement with increased capacity for Panther Lake Elementary(Funded) -364 500 Elementary k 31 (Funded) 500 Permanent Program Capacity Subtotal 27,824 27,824 27,278 27,328 27,828 28,328 28,328 interim Relocatable Capacity Elementary Relocatable Capacity Required 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 Mkldle Scrod Relocatable Capacity Ragtered 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Senior High Relocatable Capacity Required 124 186 0 0 0 0 0 Total Relocatable Capacity Required'3 s 124 186 0 24 0 0 0 TOTAL CAPACITY ' 27,901 1 28,010 1 27,278 1 27,352 1 27,828 1 28,328 28,328 TOTAL FTE ENROLLMENT/PROJECTION 2 25,809 25,854 26,176 26,474 26,779 27,052 27,347 DISTMCT AVAILABLE CAPAcm 2,139 2,156 1,102 878 1,049 1,276 981 ' Capacity is based on standard of service for program capacity and updated periodically to reflect program charges. 2 FTE=Full Time Equivalent Enrollment (i a 1/2 day Kindergarten student=.5). 3 In Fall 2004.9th grade moved to the high schools which provided increased capacity at Middle School level 4 Sequoia Middle School will be renovated and reconfigured as an Alternative High School in 2007-08. 5 Mill Creek Middle School re-opened in Fall 2005 with a Technology Academy serving 7th grade students from other service areas a 2005-2006 total classroom relocatable capacity is 1,345 Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 5 April 2008 Page 19 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT and CAPACITY SENIOR HIGH - Grades 9 - 12 i SCHOOL YEAR 2005-2006 2006-2007 1 2007-2008 1 2008-2009 1 2009-2010 2010-2011 1 2011-2012 Actual P R O J E C T E D Senior High Permanent Capacity 5,822 8,104 8,104 8,754 8.804 8,804 8,804 Chan es to High School Ca aci Classrooms added at three high schools(Funded) Kent-Mendian-Kentridge- Kentwood Estimated program capacity 2,282 Alternative High School added through reconfiguration of Sequoia Middle School for 2007-08(F) Estimated program capacity 500 Classroom additions at Kentlake High School(F) 150 Classroom additions at Kent Meridian High School(F) 50 Subtotal 8,104 8,104 B,754 8,804 8,804 8,804 8,804 Relocatable Capacity Required t 124 186 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL CAPACITY t 8,228 8,290 8,754 8,804 8,804 8,804 8,804 FTE ENROLLMENT/PROJECTION 2 8,214 8,262 8,409 8,532 8,641 8,669 8,662 SURPLUS DEFICIT CAPACITY 14 28 345 272 163 135 142 Number of Relocatables Required 4 6 0 0 0 0 0 Some Relocatables used for classroom and program purposes Capacity is based on standard of service for program capacity and updated periodically to reflect program changes. 2 FTE =Approximate Full Time Equivalent Enrollment,excluding College-only Running Start students 3 Grade level reconfiguration-All 9th grade students moved to the high schools in Fall 2004. ° Sequoia Middle School will be renovated and reconfigured as an Alternative High School in 2007-08 Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 5 A April 2006 Page 20 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT and CAPACITY MIDDLE SCHOOL - Grades 7 - 8 SCHOOL YEAR 2005-2006 2006-2007 1 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 1 2011-2012 Actual P R O J E C T E 0 Middle School Permanent Capacity' 5,215 5,990 5,990 5,158 5,158 5,158 5,158 Changes to Middle School Capacity 4 Mill Creek Middle School-Kent Junior High re-opened as Mill Creek Middle School Va in Fall 2005 Program capacity added 775 5 Sequoia Middle School will be reconfigured as an Alternative High School in 2007-08 Program capacity offlme-moved to high school -832 Subtotal 5,990 5,990 5,158 5,158 5,158 5,158 5,158 Relocatable Capacity Required ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL CAPACITY ' " 5,990 5,990 5,158 5,158 5,158 5,158 5,158 t FTE ENROLLMENT/PROJECTION 2 4,493 4,475 4,550 4,563 4,515 4,557 4,646 SURPLUS DEFICIT CAPACITY 1,497 1,515 608 595 643 601 512 No Classroom Relocatables required at this time Some Relocatabies used for classroom and program purposes oses P t Capacity is based on standard of service for program capacity and updated periodically to reflect program changes 2 FTE=Approximate Full Time Equivalent Enrollment/Protection 3 Grade level reconfiguration-All 9th grade students moved to the high schools in Fall 2004. 4 Mill Creek Middle School 8 Technology Academy-Kent Junior High was renovated and re-opened in Fall 2005 with a Technology Academy serving 7th grade students from all service areas. 5 Sequoia Middle School will be renovated and reconfigured as an AltemaUve High School in 2007-08 and middle school boundaries will be reconfigured for six middle schools district-wide Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 5 B April 2006 Page 21 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT and CAPACITY ELEMENTARY - Grades K - 6 SCHOOL YEAR 2005.2006 2006-2007 1 2007-2008 2008-2009 1 2009-2010 2010-2011 1 2011-2012 Actual P R O J E C T E D Elementary Permanent Capacity' 1 13,314 13,730 13,730 13,366 13.366 13,866 14,366 Kent Mountain View Academy 2 416 Chan es to Elementary Capacity Replacement with increased capacity for Panther Lake Elementary (Funded►` -364 500 Elementary#31 (Funded)5 500 Subtotal 13,730 13,730 13,366 13,366 13,866 14,366 14,366 Relocatable Capacity Required ' 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 TOTAL CAPACITY 2 13,730 13,730 13,366 13,390 13,866 14,366 14,366 FTE ENROLLMENT/PROJECTION 3 13,102 13,117 13,217 13,379 13,623 13,826 14,039 SURPLUS DEFICIT CAPACITY 628 613 149 11 243 540 327 Number of Relocatables Required 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 One Classroom Relocatable required in 2008-09.Some Relocatatdes used for classroom and program purposes. l I Capacity is based on standard of service for program capacity and is updated periodically to reflect program changes. 2 Kent Mountain View Academy is a special program at the former Grandview School serving students in Grades 1 -12, The school building(formerly Kent Learning Center&Grandview Elem)was designed as an elementary school s FTE =Approximate Full Time Equivalent Enrollment or Projection (Kindergarten @ 5&excluding ECE) Kindergarten projection is at.5 FTE although most schools provide Full Day Kindergarten with altemative funding. ` Panther Lake Elementary will dose for two years and be rebuilt on the existing site with increased capacity. 5 Site selection for Elementary#31 is pending review of location and capacity needs. Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 5 C April 2006 Page 22 V I I I Finance Plan The finance plan shown on Table 6 demonstrates how the Kent School District plans to finance improvements for the years 2006 - 2007 through 2011 - 2012. The financing components include secured and unsecured funding and impact fees. The plan is based on voter approval of future bond issues, collection of impact fees under the State Growth Management Act and voluntary mitigation fees paid pursuant to State Environmental Policy Act. Kent Elementary #27a, which opened in January 1999 as a replacement for the original Kent Elementary School, was the last elementary school for which the District received state matching funds under the current state funding formula Millennium Elementary #30 which opened in the fall of 2000 was the last elementary school constructed in the District. Voters approved a $69.5 million bond issue for Capital Construction and Improvements in February 2002. This partially funded building additions at three high schools which coincided with moving 9th grade students to the senior high in September 2004. The District received state matching funds and has utilized impact fees for the senior high school additions. In February 2006, voters approved a $106 million bond issue for replacement of Panther Lake Elementary School with increased capacity to be rebuilt on its current site, construction of a new elementary school to accommodate growth, Phase II renovation for Mill Creek Middle School, and renovation of Sequoia Middle School to be reconfigured as an Aftemative High School in 2007-08. Construction funding approval will also provide some additional classrooms to be constructed at the high school level. Some impact fees will be utilized for all new construction. Enrollment projections reflect future need for additional capacity at the elementary and high school level and unfunded facility needs will be reviewed in the future. Some funding is secured for additional portables and some will be funded from impact fees. For the Six-Year Finance Plan, costs of future schools are based on estimates from Kent School District Facilities Department. Please see pages 25-26 for a summary of the cost basis. Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Apnl 2006 Page 23 t T 0 T Q) T ? N w v 01 7 y D a m cFTr In Jj -n ; 3 A a cx U J S 7 C. pl T ' x = C1 0— A mG c `Z O y O O z 1 rn ;D w z m O O z m 9 y C 0! D m $ A w m m IT � D W a IP /A M T 3 .J. ¢ J_ T n J N O �I a n N R A m y a m C m r v = _ 1 [R a rn 7 N J a a 2C3 =i m co a O . cn 3 C C T C T T T T T a g g f N g m 8 W COL C o0 N o J o 3 ro g o a �I o 0 s rD CL 3 N CA CD 3 i Np 52 0 d ar0. 25 c T q co a � o m g m W J z oa aR 9 y fA N � j N C 0 N Cr O a r r � 2 m 3 u m to O> � o n 3 3 O 4.9 O O pqp V N N W W o S D 0 a o S o d 8 S g a o o Sto � 3 N to N yy V (11 p O N ((n W OI T W 4Wi SO ppO ppO O pO pO � N O O O O O O o O V I I I Finance Plan - Cost Basis Summary For impact fee calculations, construction costs are based on cost of the last elementary school, with inflation factor, and projected cost of the next elementary school. Elementary School Cost Projected Cost Millennium Elementary #30-o en 2000 $12,182,768 Current cost of Elementary#31 $15,550,000 Projected cost of Elementary#31 in 2010 $18,000,000 Construction cost of the additions to high schools: Senior High School Additions Projected Cost Total Addition to Kent-Meridian $11,300,000 Addition to Kentlake $6,000,000 Addition to Kentrid a $16,650,000 Addition to Kentwood $14,850,000 Construction cost of additions to $48,800,000 4 High Schools Site Acquisition Cost ' The site acquisition cost is based on an average cost of sites purchased or built on within the last ten years. Please see Table 7 on page 26 for a list of site acquisition costs and averages. District Adjustment for 2006 The impact fee calculations on pages 28 and 29 include a "District Adjustment" which is equal to the amount of increase that the impact fee formulas drive out for this year and adjusted for increase in the Consumer Price Index. The reasons for this adjustment include: 1)the district's long-term commitment to keep impact fee increases as minimal as possible, and 2) our community's overwhelming support of Initiative 695. Kent Sdvd District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Apnl 2W6 Page 25 x (D 0 m a ° = C �i C mm (n c m Doi Doi D p No v_, m y 3 a v_� x z W m A x m m m m 0 '-' to ? 0 - 0 co = 3 CD m C1 N N 7 my1 rtt c a 3 < i° m C) o D01c to F N 3 m n m m e m m a m < g = 3 = (n a m 3 -u 3 fD 3 m $ 3 8 D Co 3 p7 X rn Z m o a„+ ro m o 3. 3 to $ 3 n x 3 m N cn o ^m O 2 m YI D O �' N fD CD fD i! ] O m = o m o o n a = 3. 3 y o m m � 3 0 � � m o m � x O n � � � m � `• _ 0 7 — m Cl) c m °: m Cn m o w n 0 CD 3 a > > > aCD m rn m C m C < ma m 0• 3 3 m 3 D g _ N N Z m _y m �n �c 8 t�'yo �tpp op �'o rip �c ,w Z m If ca Q 8 ( A y c g y y m m a ni In N rn to ro C_ -� m m m m y m m m m o IN(S� yN� W N m n a r cr W g O p ; m A N O CA Cn < M W ov_ ;o N C j W Of w O O U CC) A N fn N O J C O W O O C.) W V N A O J fT CD to 0) 'G W 91 O O w O to O w N w O A O W (n n 69 m J OD m OD W W W tR y 40 CD OD Of V Cn O 01 A n 4 C) N J O w w W A O O W O CD N O -J V N V O Cn (11 O CA O co W O CD CO A a �_ Ja + O O O O 'Co N 6) N O V (C,.0� rl) AOAO NOOn V m w T A 40 CA {p (Qp1 < O �V N A OD N W C(D O0D A N 8 1 co co W A OD a) a) N OD O W O C W OD A M V OD Oo N N O CA mn a N 07 W OD O A fOD COn N m 4w s OM H A o 1 ; m ir 6 g n = n 3 69 3 �'' to m Ce a 0 N ' w _ IV m OD 0 $ n Ln co 0) CD a 1D O s w m n Ira N m i CT KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT FACTORS FOR ESTIMATED IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS Student Generation Factors-Single Family Student Generation Factors -Multi-Family Elementary (Grades K-6) 0 444 Elementary 0 293 Middle School (Grades 7 -8) 0 148 Middle School 0 058 Senior High (Grades 9 - 12) 0 252 Senior High 0 094 Total 0 844 Total 0 445 Projected Student Capacity OSPI -Square Footage per Student Elementary 500 Elementary 90 Middle School 1,065 Middle School 117 Senior High 1,000 Senior High 130 Special Education 144 Required Site Acreage per Facility Elementary (required) 11 Average Site Cost/Acre Middle School (required) 21 Elementary $108,091 Senior High (required) 32 Middle School $52,563 Senior High $93,955 New Facility Construction Cost Elementary' $18,000,000 Temporary Facility Capacity & Cost Middle School $0 Elementary @ 24 $97,000 Senior High ` $48,800,000 Middle School @ 29 $0 See cost basis on Pg 25 Senior High @ 31 $97,000 Temporary Facility Square Footage State Match Credit Elementary 71,652 Current State Match Percentage 55 94% Middle School 27,000 Senior High 20,272 Total 4% 118,924 Area Cost Allowance-Cost/Sq. Ft. Current Area Cost Allowance $154 22 Permanent Facility Square Footage Elementary 1,475,936 Middle School 651,273 District Average Assessed Value Senior High 1,007,522 Single Family Residence $263,362 Total 96% 3,134,731 Total Facilities Square Footage District Average Assessed Value Elementary 1,547,588 Multi-Family Residence $82,971 Middle School 678,273 Senior High 1,027,794 Total 3,253,655 Capital Levy Tax Rate/$1,000 Current /$1,000 Tax Rate $1 74 Developer Provided Sites I Facilities Value 0 General Obligation Bond Interest Rate Dwelling Units 0 Current Bond Interest Rate 4 39% 1 Kent School District Sic-Year Capital Facilities Plan Apn12006 Page 27 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 I Average Site CostfAcre I Facility Capacity Student Factor A 1 (Elementary) 11 $108,091 500 0 444 $1,055 83 A 2 (Middle School) 21 $0 1,065 0 148 $0 A 3 (Senior High) 32 $0 1,000 0 252 $0 0 844 A—> $1,05583 Permanent Facility Construction Cost per Single Family Residence Formula ((Facility Cast/Facility Capacity)x Student Factor)x(Permanent/Total Square Footage Ratio) Construction Cost Facility Capacity Student Factor Footage Rats B 1 (Elementary) $18,000,000 500 0.444 096 $15,344 64 B 2 (Middle School) $0 . 1,065 0.148 096 $0 B 3 (Senior High) $48,800,000 2.282 0 252 0.96 $5,173 40 0 8" B—> $20,518 04 Temporary Facility Cost per Single Family Residence Formula ((Facility Cost/Facility Capacity)x Student Factor)x(Tempos /Total Square Footage Ratio) Faality Cost Facility Capacity Student Factor Footage Ratio C 1 (Elementary) $97,000 24 0.444 0.04 $71 78 C 2 (Middle School) $0 29 0.148 0.04 $0 C 3 (Senior High) $97,000 31 0,252 0.04 $31 54 0.844 C—> $103 32 State Match Credit per Single Family Residence Formula, Area Cost Allowance x SPI Square Feet per student x District Match% x Student Factor Area Cost Allowance SPI Sq Ft I Student I District Match% Student Factor D 1 (Elementary) $154 22 90 05594 0 444 $3,447 38 D 2 (Middle School) $154.22 117 0 0 148 $0 D 3 (Senior High) $154 22 130 0.5594 0 252 $2,826 23 D—> $6,273 60 Tax Credk per Single Family Residence Average SF Residential Assessed Value $263,362 Current Capital Levy Rate/$1.000 $1 74 Current Bond Interest Rate 4 39% Years Amortized (10 Years) 10 TC—> $3.636 33 Developer Provided Facility Credit Facility/Site Value Dwelling Units 0 0 FC—> 0 Fee Recap A = Site Acquisition per SF Residence $1,055 83 B = Permanent Facility Cost per Residence $20,51 BA4 C = Temporary Facility Cost per Residence $103 32 Subtotal $21,677 19 D = State Match Credit per Residence $6,273 60 TC=Tax Credit per Residence $3,636 33 Subtotal - $9,909.94 Total Unfunded Need $11,767 26 50%Developer Fee Obligation $5,884 FC=Facility Credit(if applicable) 0 District Adjustment (See Page 25 for explanation) ($956 Net Fee Obligation per Single Family Residence $4,928 i Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2006 Page 28 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION for MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENCE Site Acquisition Cost per Multi-Family Residence Unit Formula, ((Acres x Cost per Acre)I Facility Capacity)x Student Generation Factor Required Site Acreage I Average Site Cost/Acre I Facility Capacity Student Factor A 1 (Elementary) 11 $108,091 500 0 293 $696 75 A 2 (Middle School) 21 $0 1,065 0 058 $D A 3 (Senior High) 32 $0 1,000 0 094 $0 0 445 A—> $696 75 Permanent Facility Construction Cost per Multi-Family Residence Unit Formula ((Facility Cost I Facility Capacity)x Student Factor)x(Permanent/Total Square Footage Ratio) Construction Cost Facility Capacity Student Factor Footage Ratio B 1 (Elementary) $18,000,000 500 0 293 096 $10,126 08 B 2 (Middle School) $0 1,065 0 058 096 $0 B 3 (Senior High) $48,800,000 2,282 0 094 096 $1,929 76 0 445 B—> $12,055 84 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) $97,000 24 0 293 0.04 $47.37 C 2 (Middle School) $0 29 0 058 0.04 $0 C 3 (Senior High) $97,000 31 0.094 0.04 $11 77 0 445 C—> E59 13 State Match Credit per Multi-Family Residence Unit Formula Area Cost Allowance x SPI Square Feet per student x District Match% x Student Factor Area Cost Allowance SPI Sq Ft /Student I District Match% Student Factor D 1 (Elementary) $154 22 90 05594 0 293 $2,274 96 D 2 (Middle School) $154 22 117 0 0 058 $0 D 3 (Senior High) $154.22 130 05594 0094 $1,054 23 0—> $3,329 19 Tax Credit per Multi-Family Residence Unit Average MF Residential Assessed Value $82,971 Current Capital Levy Rate!$1,000 $1.74 Current Bond Interest Rate 4 39% Years Amortized (10 Years) 10 TC—> $1,145.61 Developer Provided Facility Credit Facility/Site Value Dwelling Units 0 0 FC 0 Fee Recap A = Site Acquisition per Mulb-Family Unit $696 75 B = Permanent Facility Cost per MF Unit $12.055 84 C = Temporary Facility Cost per MF Unit $59 13 Subtotal $12,811.73 D = State Match Credit per MF Unit $3,329 19 TC=Tax Credit per MF Unit $1,145.61 Subtotal $4,474 80 Total Unfunded Need $8,336.93 50%Developer Fee Obligation $4,168 FC=Facility Credit(if applicable) 0 District Adjustment (See Page 25 for explanation) ($1,134) Net Fee Obligation per Mulb-Family Residence Unit $3,034 Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Apr112006 Page 29 IX Summary of Changes to April 2005 Capital Facilities Plan The Capital Facilities Plan (the "Plan") is updated annually based on previous Plans in effect since 1993 The primary changes from the April 2005 Plan are summarized here Voters approved funding for replacement and expansion of Panther Lake Elementary School, a future new elementary and classroom additions at high schools to accommodate new growth, renovation of Sequoia Middle School to be reconfigured as an Alternative High School and Phase II of the renovation at Mill Creek Middle School Changes to capacity continue to reflect fluctuations in class size as well as program changes Reduction in class size for Student Achievement Initiative 728 is reflected in this update Changes in portables or transitional capacity reflect purchase, sale, surplus and/or movement of portables between facilities. Student enrollment forecast is updated annually. At this time, enrollment projections continue to reflect need for future additional capacity at elementary and high school level. The district expects to receive state matching funds for projects in this Plan and tax credit factors are updated annually Unfunded facility needs will be reviewed in the future The biennial student generation factor survey was updated to reflect changes and grade level reconfiguration Changes reflected no adjustment for occupancy Survey data is included as Appendix E Changes to Impact Fee Calculation Factors include- ITEM Grade/Type FROM TO Comments Student Generation Factor Elem 0482 0444 Revised Single Family(SF) Ms 0161 0148 Revised SH 0 284 0 252 Revised Total 0 927 0 844 Student Generation Factor Elem 0 293 0 293 Revised but no change Multi-Family(MF) MS 0 069 0 058 Revised SH 0 114 0 094 Revised Total 0 476 0.445 State Match Credit 54 29% 55 94% Per OSPI (+1 65%) Area Cost Allowance(Boeckh Index) $129 81 $154 22 Per OSPI Average Assessed Valuation (AV) SF $242,558 $263,362 Per Puget Sound ESD AV-Average of Condominiums&Apts MF $76,682 $82,971 Per Puget Sound ESD Debt Service Capital Levy Rate/$1000 $1 84 $1 74 Per King County Assessment General Obligation Bond Interest Rate 4 57% 4 39% Market Rate Impact Fee-Single Family SF $4,775 $4,928 Change to fee-$153 Impact Fee-Multi-Family MF $2,940 $3.034 Change to fee-$94 Kent School Distnct Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2006 Page 30 X Appendixes Appendix A: Calculations of Capacities for Elementary Schools Appendix B: Calculations of Capacities for Middle Schools Appendix C: Calculations of Capacities for Senior High Schools Appendix D: Use of Relocatables Appendix E: Student Generation Factor Survey Kent School District Six-Year Capital Faulties Plan Apr112006 Page 31 0 3 ' x 'Co m z v v z 0; i i i r x G) m m m 0 0 0 O x m ac m c o m m m m m m_ m � m m_ 3 m 01 x ° mw22 m a dl = m x i6 m 9 EL c 3 m m ° n = m C, z ¢ Z v a D on w a a Q n m n S f 3 3 O O ; 3 z W 3 O m '0 S m 0 < COY �+ rn SL z C> m m d r m W S A O a A A O m WT N N 9 S 0 N W m O O W m A D m O m N N W W N N N N N + N m W yCa Zy a a S m $ o `d' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o N o o w o o $ +o ja X < _ m ; C 3 m o0 z 0 3 < ° Ir D G7 0 7C tom K o li n1Di a m �N m j -4 3 m m nNi y b p V o Wa 7 S O W N w W O + 41 N A A O W + + + N N N + N A N N + N + N + p a 8 m 3 m qs w O O O O + O + O O W a O N N O W + + O O O O W O O O O O W r m 572 m 8 0 3 7 0 CL a m m m A N m O O O N O O O O O ' �+ m O Qs O OAi O O OAW V O U +O Y O+ N W W m W N AW i b. CPt�o V v pA� O 0 GWD T w Q z p O A V N V p� 3 C J + w S U N tOi� A S W W+ O tUJ {Oil N O {AI1 O m O m O W > N S O O O ? m a Z D O 3 m = w E 3 co Z � o 9 m N x a > y m m m QZ m 2 3 0 m j 4 c = $ } 0 y n f a d $ x D v 1 Q o $ Ncio x 6 mn LX n Gz m GD' >m m3 5 K 3 a 'X 0w m n �q m m 0. 4 E _ > D Q $ 9^ a c < < 2 ^ m x 7C x D G> fA f7 D m n a0 a A r ; o. c. (� 7C D S fll m0 0 ' m m A. g o N 7. W N m m Y+' o cwi� I T yj C N (D J WN m m m(�� pm� V m V m N Q ODm A W V W V W W m W N = ul ' ra �a w m v $ a 9 W so yy ma r � A m Q m WN G aC� m 75 w 0 N W M m T. m Om N m '� 0 2 A p ym, z D 3 b a ; > waw O "4 w *0 2p0 O1 vr CD JI m Z a w m O w Z a m m a A m m g ? 3 ? 3 go_ � x Z '0 _ x r D l7 a N pm N N � J Op CDp� a yn V IOC gym. fw7� (J11 g A w m N -1 u 4 a T R m 6 ,n b 3 a A n n 1 m spm m $ W a 0 a Y � H o 8 g a N n a .m+ m O m O0 1 � _ w w a a 4 0 0 o a o o $ Q m g 7 N N d K m N j m N A m N J N O O C Omi O N m Q 3 m N m A O O m m O m = m r m rr b N w o 41 IWV ppp (V� p 8� � ? w O� V� m mm m (m� t0 a O` z ,N, p Q } W O O (Nl+ O L L C O '� O O m Of A m ON 3 ^ dui m �y � CN l�L Vi w m N W W It cn 70 0 2 7 e rn 2 ® # | a 2 0 man ( g ; I I m \_ E o J 2 � % \ r 4 ( E E n : { m § E § i f E \ \ 3 \ ] \ a a & CL 0 E � E © ( p 3 a « n ! CD ƒ $ a 7 \ CD CD � k , \ f g o _ \ ) ƒ & r | 3 E @ \ f co 2 § ƒ ! ] } M CL { o o f i o § \ ( A aL | } m c o o § Sr \ j m E 5 z \ f ƒ 2 2 0 0 { 7 ~ 0 \ z ` 0 ); o _ _ o _ % } § 2 r CD } k o 0 0 7 } 4 co k12 _ o ( } o o o _ 0 d CD \ (_ « � 0 / � � $ k _ o _ o o _ & ! J F A CD @ 0 D D D m D g D m '� in $ a w m a g S S S u N n a a 0 0 o T m c �^ 0 m m m o 0 m x c m o m 3 0 3 0 C $ p y m 3 v 7 n ? 0 ^ Q N O a, o 0 0 n x fD g m m m d � (7 9 n $,5 ELa = O x a = m o a n m 'R m 0 a 1D cn `° Do `° m 3 °° m c m X (// Ol fA W N fn O T O m m (D N{ a N R 0 m N 6 m lFD CI a a QO 0 { 111 m w << -4 z c 3 G ® n fC EL N H m A g p NCD — Oi 3 n w C fD L� 3 m u < C fQ fD O 0 O m m 3 0 m ` w n 7 m G) m rO m � m rL =V Dl ;W N _ v Z J n n n m m n r mD0m m 'm O m m 0 0 O x c O z Em fA 7 0O mUP W O m 003 m @ ri 0 W v w tAD N W W N w OOD O w W (Nd O W + CD O A V O O T m + + � z m o n tD V O1 0 OI A A D1 N V N (� A m N 01 N V tVJ m OAi Ol OVD V IS C � O N W f0 J 0 O) cli A O f0 W W a V• 3 Q C A N + + + O O CA" fA W Of Df + (D A + Vt A W tD N (adp + + V + V Ol En A y T A N t3ti A W N AA N CD A N CO + N W A W Ca ((�� N (A A + + (A W V• N V A CD O O A N W A O O O N W W V A O O N W w O C O O O O O + + + N O O O + + O O O + O O O + + •� O ... (Wa co O/ ppp� DW1 N -� -+ W W 0 V O W+ �p V N V to O w (Vli N W w Of O m U O b O w /0 + 10 O C o (D A 0 0 0 0 W 0 0 0 0 + o 0 0 0{� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (n A O M V O A W v A 0 A W V 01 W N QD O N W v ONl c* ut A O 3 G) A V C� V W 0 W pD O 01 W N W J O Gf (D 7 N D p) v r, 0 o o o 0 o o o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 o o o 0 0 0 N J O + N pp N p V1 A O O OD N O OD 1p O N O V O A O A V• W N N ((�� 0l N 0q� N O W fD W {O N (A (7t W W p 10 W W O N N O {0 fD Dl W A Ut O1 O O m O O O O O O O O 0 0 O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O o W N N cn N N N A N WJ W N f71 00 N 01 f0 Of N <O W W 1D cn W O V Oo O Co W OD D+ + + O C U1 � § ® _ \` 2 7 & CL } $ ƒ_ T @ © � \ 9 { � / \ '0 ` - 0 ° J $ m - o ) ( E } E10 G k # 2 tp 100 « � f @ m 3 @9 S § Cl) ICL 2 3 @ 0 m ' § v 4 G , _ � F � � m § - \ G ■ z w o 3 c coq • o mj3w © § j , ° � a IC8 t m § cc" o , o E cn C) pa w / $° f 96 s ODw § 3 - § 0 | > @ } o 0 0 o 0 o 0 A } lu" w -4 � DETERNItINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Issued with a 14 Day comment and appeals 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 Federal Way Public Schools' 2007 Six Year Capital Facilities Plan by the Federal Way Public Schools for the purposes of planning for the facilities needs of the District. 2. The amendment of the King County Comprehensive Plan by King County to include the Federal Way Public Schools' 2007 Capital Facilities Plan as part of the Capital Facilities Plan Element of the King County Comprehensive Plan. 3. The amendment of the Comprehensive Plans of the City of Federal Way, City of Kent and the City of Auburn to include the Federal Way Public Schools' 2007 Capital Facilities Plan as part of the Capital Facilities Plan Element of the City of Federal Way's, City of Kent's and the City of Auburn's Comprehensive Plan. This proposal may also involve the amendment of the Comprehensive Plans of the City of Des Moines to incorporate the Federal Way Public Schools' 2007 Capital Facilities Plan into the Capital Facilities Element of the City of Des Moines' Comprehensive Plan. Proponent: Federal Way Public Schools I Location of the Proposal: The Federal Way Public Schools District includes an area of approximately 35 square miles. The cities of Federal Way, Kent, Des Moines andAubum fall within the District's boundaries, as do parts of unincorporated King County. Lead Agency: Federal Way Public Schools is the lead agency pursuant to WAC 197-11-926. The lead agency for this proposal has determined that the proposal does not have a probable significant adverse environmental impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement(EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.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 5:00 p.m., June 8, 2006. 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: Ms. Gen Walker Enrollment and Demographic Analyst Federal Way Public Schools Telephone: (253) 945-2071 Address: 31405 18th Avenue South Federal Way WA 98003 You may appeal this determination in writing by 5:00 p in., June 8, 2006 to Geri Walker, Federal Way Public Schools, 31405 18th Avenue South, Federal Way, WA 98003. Date of Issue: May 18, 2006 Date Published: May 18, 2006 2 r r ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAC 197-11-960 Environmental Checklist. Purpose of Checklist: ' The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. 1 ' ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 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," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. 2 ' L ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND ' 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: ' The adoption of a Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan by the Federal Way School District No. 210 for the purposes of planning for the District's facilities needs. The King County, City of Federal Way, and the City of Kent and City of Auburn's Comprehensive Plan will be amended to include the District's 2007 Capital Facilities Plan in the Capital Facilities Plan Element. This project may also involve the amendment of the Comprehensive Plans of the city of Des Moines to incorporate the ' District's 2007 Capital Facilities Plan. A copy of the District's Plan is available for review in the District's offices. ' 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 31405 18th Avenue South Federal Way WA 98003 (253) 945-2000 Contact Person: Ms. Gen Walker Enrollment and Boundary Analyst Telephone: (253) 945-2071 ' 4. Date checklist prepared: May 18, 2006 5. Agency requesting checklist: Federal Way School District No. 210 ' 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): The Federal Way School District's 2007 Capital Facilities Plan is scheduled to be adopted by the District in June 2006 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 each jurisdiction's Comprehensive Plan It will also be forwarded to the city of Des Moines for possible inclusion in ' This jurisdiction's Comprehensive Plans. 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. ' 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 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 plans to implement over the next six years. These include purchase and siting of temporary facilities and increasing high school capacity. ' 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. 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. Land use approvals are pending for placing new portable buildings at Todd Beamer High School, 35999 16'h Ave S, Federal Way,WA 98003. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. The District anticipates that King County, the City of Federal Way, the City of Kent and the city of Auburn will adopt this Capital Facilities Plan into their Comprehensive Plan The citiy of Des Moines may also adopt this Capital Facilities Plan into the Capital Facilities Elements of their Comprehensive Plans (when issued). 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 pr,)posal. 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 School District's 2007 Capital Facilities Plan for the purpose of planning the District's facilities needs. The District's Capital Facilities Plan will be incorporated into King County's, the City Federal Way's, the City of Kent's and the Cityof Auburn's Comprehensive Plans. It may also be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plans of the city of Des Moines. The projects included in the , Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be subject to project-specific environmental review. A copy of the Capital Facilities Plan may be viewed at the District's offices. i 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 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 can be viewed at the District's offices. 1 1 ' 5 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 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 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 prime farmland ' 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. 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, and approximate quantities of any filling or 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. ' 1 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ' 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 Relevant erosion reduction and control requirements will be met ' 2. Air ' a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. ' Various emissions, many construction-related, may result from 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 emssions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. ' An, 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 1 7 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 3. Water a. Surface: ' 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type ' and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. There is a network of 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. , 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. 8 , ` ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ' 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• 1) Will groundwater be withdrawn, or 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 storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water ' flow into other waters? If so, describe. Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may have 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. 9 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 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. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water 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 or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree. alder, maple, aspen, other ' evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, 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? , 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 or 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. ' 10 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plans, 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. ' 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: 1 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 or 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 dunng 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: Appropriate measures to preserve or enhance wildlife have been or will be determined during project-specific environmental review when appropnate. 11 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 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 appropn ate. 7. Environmental Health: a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill,or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. , 2) 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. 12 ' ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ' 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)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. iThe District does not anticipate that the projects will create long-term increases in traffic- related or operations-related noise levels. 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. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? There are a variety of land uses within the Federal Way School District, including residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, utility, open space, recreational, etc. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. ' The project sites covered under the Capital Facilities Plan have not been used recently for agriculture. 1 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. 13 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST , d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? The remodeling and renovation projects 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? 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 an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, ' specify. Any environmentally sensitive areas located on the sites of the projects included in the Plan 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 23,300 by the year 2011. The District employs approximately 3,100 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. , 14 , ' ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 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. 1. 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. 9. Housing: a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, ' or low-income housing. No housing units would be provided 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 matenal(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. I15 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 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 , deternned 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? ' 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 appropnate. 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. 16 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 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 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. 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 1 on or next to the sites has been or will be addressed in more detail during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. An inventory of h!stoncal sites at or near the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan has been or will be developed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: 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, 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. L17 � e ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST b. Is site currently served by public transit? 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 parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project 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 roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, 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 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? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. 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. 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, 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. 18 �= ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 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 1 environmental review when appropriate. 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: C r/L�� 06C,9u/� Date Submitted: May 18, 2006 19 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise9 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 nutigate 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 lifer , 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. 20 ' ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 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: 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 21 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 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. i 1 r 22 31405 18th Ave So. • Federal Way Federal Way,WA Public Schools i 98003-5433 • • Every Sardent,a Fader Tel 253 945 2000 www(Wps org i RECEIVED JUL 0 3 2006 June 29, 2006 CITY OF KENT '31ANNING SERVICES Charlene Anderson City of Kent 220 South 4th Avenue Kent WA 98032 Dear Charlene, Enclosed is one copy of the Federal Way School District 2007 Capital Facilities Plan. The Federal Way Public Schools Board of Education adopted this plan on June 131h. ' Please let me know if you have any questions about the changes in the CFP for Federal Way Schools. My direct line is (253) 945-2071 or email at gwalkerC fwsd wednet edu. I look forward to working with you again this year as we present this plan to Kent City Council. Sincerely, J"" Gen Walker Enrollment and Demographic Analyst i i 1 1 1 t t t 1 Federal Way Public Schools t i __200-7 - _ ------------ - p Ca ital Facilities Plan t I I J r_ 1 1 rYll[IM ` Lu _-�' ♦NM\� .-rl ram_ 1 1 101•111 Y i f � � 3 1 t Buttaingfor the Future t t FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2007 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2007 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN BOARD OF EDUCATION Ed Barney Evelyn Castellar David Larson Charles Hoff Thomas Madden SUPERINTENDENT Thomas R. Murphy 1 Z 1 1 1 t 1 � i FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2007 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ii INTRODUCTION tii-iv SECTION 1 THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Introduction 1 Inventory of Educational Facilities 2 Inventory of Non-Instructional Facilities 3 Needs Forecast - Existing Facilities 4 Needs Forecast -New Facilities 5 Six Year Finance Plan 6 SECTION 2 MAPS OF DISTRICT BOUNDARIES Introduction 7 Map - Elementary Boundaries 8 Map - Middle school Boundaries 9 Map - Senior High Boundaries 10 SECTION 3 SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION Introduction 11 Building Capacities 12-13 Portable Locations 14-15 Student Forecast 16-18 Capacity Summaries 19-23 King County Impact Fee Calculations 24-26 SECTION 4 SUMMARY OF CHANGES FROM THE 2006 PLAN 27-29 i FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2007 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN INTRODUCTION In response to the requirements of the State of Washington Growth Management Act (SHB 2929 (1990) and ESHB 1025 (1991)), and under the School Impact Fee Ordinances I of King County Code 21A, City of Federal Way Ordinance No. 95-249 effective December 21, 1995 as amended, City of Kent Ordinance No. 3260 effective March 1996, and the City of Auburn Ordinance No. 5078 effective 1998, Federal Way Public Schools Lhas updated its 2006 Capital Facilities Plan as of May 2006. This Plan is scheduled for adoption by King County, the City of Kent, City of Federal Way and the City of Auburn and is incorporated in the Comprehensive Plans of each jurisdiction by reference. This plan is also included in the Facilities Plan element of the Comprehensive Plans of each jurisdiction. To date, the City of Des Moines has not adopted a school impact fee ordinance. The Growth Management Act requires the County to designate Urban Growth areas within which urban growth can be encouraged. The Growth Management Planning Council adopted and recommended to the King County Council four Urban Growth Area line Maps with designations for urban centers. A designation was made within the Federal Way planning area, which encompasses Federal Way Public Schools boundaries. King County will encourage and actively support the development of Urban Centers to meet the region's need for housing, jobs, services, culture and recreation. This Plan's estimated population growth is prepared with this underlying assumption. This Capital Facilities Plan will be used as documentation for any jurisdiction, which i 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. As the projects from the 1999 bond were finalized, the District presented a 20-year plan for the renovation and construction of Federal Way Schools and support buildings. Phase 1, a$245 million bond was presented to the voters in February 2006. This received a 54% yes vote, unfortunately not enough to pass The School Board is studying options for , placing the bond proposal on the September or November of 2006 ballots If approved, the bond would replace four elementary schools, Lakeland, Panther Lake, Sunnycrest and Valhalla and one middle school Lakota. Federal Way High School would be replaced and capacity increased by approximately 800 students. Federal Way High School was built to 1938. It has been added onto at least 10 times and currently has an almost maze-like layout. The cost to rebuild is $81 rrnllion. The reconstruction would increase the capacity of the high school by 800 students, or by about 33%. Part of this cost is included in the Capital Facilities Plan impact fee calculation. The non-instructional projects included in the 20- year plan will consolidate support services operations at a single location. The , current Transportation and Maintenance facility cannot continue to meet the District needs in the future. Nutrition services and other administrative functions will also relocate to this centralized location. Because of continued construction inflation, estimated construction costs will be re-calculated prior to the next bond election. iii t FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2007 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN The proposed bond package includes shared instructional and community facilities. The current stadium would be moved to align with the City of Federal Way Celebration Park sports fields and future Community Center. A performance auditorium is planned for a comer of the Federal Way High School campus. This is a facility that would serve the District schools as well as the community. An environmental instruction and retreat center is proposed for property adjoining Sequoyah Middle School. In September 2006, the District will open a pilot program at Elahee middle school to allow 5`h grade students to attend. This first program will have fifty 5''grade students receiving instruction on the Illahee Middle School campus. As smaller class sizes roll forward into the secondary levels, we anticipate a slight decline at middle school between 2007 and 2010. Sequoyah Middle School opened in September 2005. With the opening of Sequoyah Middle School the average enrollment at all middle schools is between 650 and 800 students. Another initiative that impacts capacity at the secondary schools is the Puget Sound Early College. Highline Community College is offering this program to I I' and 12'grade students at the Federal Way campus. The program allows promising 11"' and 12`s grade students the opportunity to complete their high school diploma and the Associate of Arts college degree in their final two years of high school The District is also considering offering one to four schools with a Kindergarten through 8`►'grade instructional configuration. These schools could be offered at existing sites, with appropriate facility changes. Other options for opening these schools are new construction or purchase and remodel of existing buildings. The district has a cooperative agreement with Head Start for facility use to serve income eligible Pre-Kindergarten students A new Headstart facility on the Harry Truman High School campus opened in January 2005. This facility centralizes Headstart services in the Federal Way community. Headstart was housed at three of the elementary schools in the Federal Way District. Currently the only decentralized program is in a portable facility at Sherwood Forest Elementary. The District is facing unique challenges with declining enrollment at some levels and anticipated reductions in State funding for education. Elementary populations have declined the past two years and projections show moderate growth at this level. Because of declining enrollment and continuing budget challenges, the concept of closing an elementary school in the near future has resurfaced. A committee will be meeting during the 2006107 school year to study elementary populations and boundaries. A recommendation from this committee could include consolidating elementary populations in to fewer facilities. Many filters considering educational requirements and fiscal responsibility will be used to develop a recommendation to the Board. iv FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2007 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN SECTION 1 -THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN The State Growth Management Act requires that several pieces of information be gathered to determine the facilities available and needed to meet the needs of a growing community. This section provides information about current facilities, existing facility needs, and expected future facility requirements for Federal Way Public Schools. A Financial Plan which shows expected funding for any new construction, portables and modernization listed follows this. E 1 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2007 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN INVENTORY OF EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS Adelaide 1635 SW 304th Street Federal Way 98023 Brigadoon 3601 SW 336th Street Federal Way 98023 Camelot 4041 S 298th Street Auburn 98001 Enterprise 35101 5th Avenue SW Federal Way 98023 Green Gables 32607 47th Avenue SW Federal Way 98023 Lake Dolloff 4200 S 308th Street Auburn 98001 Lake Grove 303 SW 308th Street Federal Way 98023 Lakeland 35675 32nd Avenue S Auburn 98001 Mark Twain 2450 S Star Lake Road Federal Way 98003 Meredith Hill 5830 S 300th Street Auburn 98001 Mirror Lake 625 S 314th Street Federal Way 98003 Nautilus 1000 S 289th Street Federal Way 98003 Olympic View 2626 SW 327th Street Federal Way 98023 Panther Lake 34424 1st Avenue S Federal Way 98003 Rainier View 3015 S 368th Street Federal Way 98003 Sherwood Forest 34600 12th Avenue SW Federal Way 98023 Silver Lake 1310 SW 325th Place Federal Way 98023 Star Lake 4014 S 270th Street Kent 98032 Sunnycrest 24629 42nd Avenue S Kent 98032 Twin Lakes 4400 SW 320th Street Federal Way 98023 Valhalla 27847 42nd Avenue S Auburn 98001 Wildwood 2405 S 300th Street Federal Way 98003 Woodmont 2645416th Avenue S. Des Moines 98198 MIDDLE SCHOOLS Federal Way Public Academy 34620 9`h Avenue S Federal Way 98003 Illahee 36001 1st Avenue S Federal Way 98003 Kilo 4400 S 308th Street Auburn 98001 Lakota 1415 SW 314th Street Federal Way 98023 Sacajawea 1101 S Dash Point Road Federal Way 98003 Saghalie 33914 19th Avenue SW Federal Way 98023 Sequoyah 3450 S 361P ST Auburn 98001 Totem 26630 4&Ave S Kent 98032 SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Decatur 2800 SW 320th Street Federal Way 98023 Federal Way 30611 16th Avenue S Federal Way 98003 Thomas Jefferson 4248 S 288th Street Auburn 98001 Todd Beamer 35999 16th Ave S Federal Way 98003 Harry S Truman 31455 28th Ave S Federal Way 98003 ALTERNATIVE SCHOOLS Merit School 36001 ls`Ave S Federal Way 98003 LEASED SPACES Internet Academy 32020 1st Ave S Federal Way 98003 2 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2007 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN CURRENT INVENTORY NON-INSTRUCTIONAL FACILITIES , Developed Property Administrative Building 31405 18th Avenue S Federal Way 98003 MOT Site 1066 S 320th Street Federal Way 98003 Central Kitchen 1344 S 308th Street Federal Way 98003 Federal Way Memorial Field 1300 S 308th Street Federal Way 98003 Leased Space Community Resource Center 1813 S Commons Federal Way 98003 Available Office Space 30819 140'Ave S 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 loth Avenue SW - SW 334th &SW 335th Streets - 10.04 Acres 73 N of SW 320''and east of 45d'PL SW— 23.45 Acres 71 S 344th Street & 46th Avenue S - 17.47 Acres 82 1" Way S and S 342nd St—Minimal acreage 74 3737 S 360' St -47.13 Acres (Part of this site is being used for Sequoyah Middle School) 96 S 308d'St and 14d'Ave S — .36 Acres 81 S 332"d St and 9`s Ave S —20 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. l3 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2007 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN NEEDS FORECAST- EXISTING FACILITIES EXISTING FACILITY FUTURE NEEDS ANTICIPATED SOURCE OF FUNDS Purchase and Relocate Interim Capacity Anticipated source of funds is Portables Impact Fees. Elementary Schools: Replace Existing Building Future Bond Sales Lakeland, Panther Lake, Sunn crest and Valhalla Lakota Middle School Replace Existing Building Future Bond Sales Federal Way High School Replace Existing Building, Future Bond Sales Increase Ca acit The District is also planning the replacement of some non-instructional facilities. The District has purchased 20 acres for construction of consolidated facilities for support services functions Transportation, Nutrition Services, Maintenance and other non-instructional functions will be housed at this centralized location. As part of the 20-year plan, the District intends to increase capacity for high school students with expansion at the Decatur High School site. Increased capacity at Federal Way High in Phase 1 and at Decatur High in Phase 2 supplant the need for construction of a fifth comprehensive high school. 4 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2007 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN NEEDS FORECAST - NEW FACILITIES NEW FACILITY LOCATION ANTICIPATED SOURCE OF FUNDS No current plans for new facilities. L � L � Z � 5 N Yt r r1 Q H H n + N 8 b Vi H N (r99 N" N" VN^ N o0 H pVp1 K H K H H H y Otltltl H y Q W M � ti C � N � u q o0 00 YN yy H H e H H A a v, aob h v `c �pp N HHH � O � etd a❑� ° O $ �G 1� b p x `W^ " � & $ ^^ q � 1�1 a 0 E tu �2gS ° C gg FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2007 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN SECTION 2- MAPS OF DISTRICT BOUNDARIES Federal Way Public Schools (the District) has twenty-three elementary schools (grades K-5), seven middle school schools (grades 6-8), five senior high schools (grades 09-12) and one school serving students in grades 6 -10 for the 2005/06 school year. The Internet Academy serves grades K-12. In January 2005 the Board of Education adopted new secondary boundaries beginning with 2005/06 school year. The following maps show the service area boundaries for each school, by school type. (Harry S. Truman High School, Merit School, Internet Academy and Federal Way Public Academy serve students from throughout the District). The identified boundaries are reviewed annually. Any change in grade configuration or adoption of programs that affect school populations may necessitate a change in school service areas. The Growth Management Act requires that a jurisdiction evaluate if the public facility infrastructure is in place to handle new housing developments. In the case of most public facilities, new development has its major impact on the facilities immediately adjacent to that development. School Districts are different. If the District does not have permanent facilities available, interim measures must be taken until new facilities can be built or until boundanes can be adjusted to match the population changes to the surrounding facilities. Adjusting boundaries requires careful consideration by the District and is not taken lightly. It is recognized that there is a potential impact on students who are required to change schools. Boundary adjustments impact the whole district, not just one school. 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. 7 1 i � Federal Way Public Schools M 3A re••r� 555 p w 1 ?. Meredith NO H-6 SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS ��� wa 14 Ps mar Lake E .� ali { 4 I Lino Oft B 1 L3 .� . Parks IEVOR"6': i �•. c '� � 'n1.g'��ia IFi�n F 0 rIssue rcw LU ME WaiU MON. LA I ••'' y . raw G id a ��,� 2112 u inn ��s Federal Way Public Schools ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS IMDDL&SCHOOLS . . .n•� 4 Enterprise 7 Lake Grove D4 34 Federal Way Public Academy E-S F-4 IN 9 Mark Twain �.�to Moredfid,Hill 44 ��SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS �11 gr�� 1 r • I LA 16 Sherwood Forest D.8 at Federal Way E-5 it 49 Ham S Truman FA 20 Twin Lek" 84 51 a mossian ly" r parks pop �4 - I If � �' � b� Public-CSZ Federal Way ■ •• ELL%=MTAJtY SCHOOLS MIDDLE SCHOOLS 9 Mom Twain F4 10 Meredith Hill H-S SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS � 6m s � a . ;� 111 Mirror Lake E4 12 Nautilus E-I Code 13 Olympic View C-7 Will � !! AIR 20 Twin Lak" 0-4 21 Valhalla 0-4 4, Y R. � � -•� �•.. Y8?'iJ sE� 1 "tea I. tin Parkil Ej RJR /fir r ■ �� F 'I' :n 0 Ffl ��' -. Canal ` wrom _ 91LA�11 r '3k �a�iS �i Pas, PAIR TWA Wat 400 RE [[ Ai .� 4 iu :. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2007 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN SECTION 3 - SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION Building Capacities -The Education Program Portable Locations Student Forecast - 2007 through 2013 Capacity Summaries King County Impact Fees - Single and Multi Family Units � 1 1 � ' 11 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2007 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Building Capacities This Capital Facilities Plan establishes the District's "standard of service" in order to ascertain the District's current and future capacity. The Superintendent of Public Instruction establishes square footage guidelines for capacity, but these guidelines do not take into consideration the education program needs The District has identified a Building Program Capacity for each of the schools in the District This Full Time Equivalent (FTE) capacity is based on: • The number of classrooms available in each school • Any special requirements at each school In general, the District's current target class size provides that the average class size for a standard classoom for grades K through 2 should be 20 students. For grades 3-5 the target is 25 students. In sixth and seventh grade the students are scheduled with block instruction and see only two teachers for core curriculum. Teachers at this level see 60 students per day. At eighth grade, the teachers will see 90 students per day. For grades 9-12 the target class size is 26 students. In the 2005/06 school year, all of the 23 elementary schools offer at least one all day Kindergarten. This program does have capacity impacts, as the classroom is only available for one session of Kindergarten for the full day. 12 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2007 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN BUILDING PROGRAM CAPACITIES ELEMENTARY BUILDING MIDDLE SCHOOL BUILDING PROGRAM CAPACITY PROGRAM CAPACITY School Name Headcount FTE School Name Headcount FTE Adelaide 444 424 Illahee 7" 807 Bn adoon 460 440 Kilo 799 807 Camelot 342 322 ILakota 750 758 Enterprise 404 384 Saca awea 774 782 Green Gables 432 412 Sa halie 694 701 Lake Dolloff 4" 470 Sequoyah 700 707 Lake Grove 3" 379 Totem 735 742 Lakeland 425 405 Federal Way Public Academy 212 214 Mark Twain 440 444 2006 TOTAL 5,463 5,518 Meredith Hill 437 417 Mirror Lake e School Avemge Nautilus 450 430 Olympic View 3" 379 SENIOR HIGH BUILDING Panther Lake 432 412 PROGRAM CAPACITY Rainier View 425 Sherwood Forest 489 469 School Name Headcount FTE Silver Lake 502 482 Decatur 1269 1,343 Star Lake 474 454 Federal Way 1456 1,541 Sunn crest 424 404 Thomas Jefferson 1435 1,519 Twin Lakes 450 430 Todd Beamer 1331 1,409 WWoodmont alhalla 477 457 Truman High School 200 200 ildwood 445 425 Federal WayPublic Academy133 133 375 355 2006 TOTAL 5,824 6,145 120%TOTAL i , 1 en►or IEgh Average 1,373 fElementary Average 1 435 1 416 1 ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL BUILDING PROGRAM CAPACITY School Name Headcount FTE Merit School 16 16 Notes: 12006 TOTAL 16 16 *Federal Way Public Academy capacity is not used in calculated average. *Truman High School capacity is not used in calculated average. 13 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2007 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Portable Locations The Washington State Constitution requires the State to provide each student a basic education. It is not an efficient use of District resources to build a school with a capacity for 500 students due to lack of space for 25 students when enrollment fluctuates throughout the year and from year to year. Portables are used as temporary facilities or interim measures to house students until permanent facilities can be built or boundary adjustments can be made. When permanent facilities become available, the portable(s) is either used for other purposes such as storage or child care programs, or moved to another school for an interim classroom. Some portables may not be fit to move due to age or physical condition. In these cases, the District may choose to buy new portables and surplus these unfit portables. It is the practice and philosophy of Federal Way Public Schools that portables are not acceptable as permanent facilities. The following page provides a list of the location of the portable facilities, used for temporary educational facilities by Federal Way Public Schools. 14 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2007 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN PORTABLE LOCATIONS PORTABLES LOCATED PORTABLES LOCATED AT ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS AT SENIOR HIGHS NON NON INSTRUCMNAL INSTRUCTIONAL INSMUCTIONAL INSTRUCTIONAL Adelaide 3 Decatur 9 Bn adoon 1 Federal Way 3 Camelot 1 Thomas Jefferson 7 Enterporise 2 Todd Beamer 8 Green Gables 1 Lake Dolloff 2 ITOTAL 27 Lake Grove 2 Lakeland 2 Mark Twain 3 Meredith Hill 3 Mirror Lake 4 PORTABLES LOCATED Nautilus 1 AT SUPPORT FACILITIES O ympic View Panther Lake 3 IMOT 1 Rainier View 3 JTDC 3 Sherwood Forest 4 ITOTAL 4 Silver Lake 4 Star Lake 2 2 Sunn crest 1 1 HEAD START PORTABLES AT DISTRICT SITES Twin Lakes 2 1 Valhalla 1 1 [Sherwood Forest 1 Wildwood 4Woodmont ta 1 TOTAL PORTABLES LOCATED AT MIDDLE SCHOOLS NON Ri6TRUCnONAL RVSItIN.'fiONAL Illahee 5 Kilo 7 Lakota 3 Saca'awea 4 Sa halie 4 Totem 5 Merit 2 30 15 r � FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2007 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Student Forecast Student enrollment projections are a basic component of budget development. Enrollment projections influence many of the financial estimates that go into budget preparation. The majority of staffing requirements are derived directly from the forecasted number of students. Allocations for instructional supplies and materials are also made on the basis of projected enrollment. Other expenditures and certain revenue projections are directly related to enrollment projections. Enrollment projections are completed annually in the Business Services Department. Projections must be detailed at various levels, district total, school-building totals, grade level and program level to include vocational and special education students. The basis of projections has been cohort survival analysis. Cohort survival is the analysis of a group that has a common statistical value (grade level) as it progresses through time. In a stable population the cohort would be 1.00 for all grades. This analysis uses historical information to develop averages and project the averages forward. This method does not trace individual students; it is concerned with aggregate numbers in each grade level. The district has used this method with varying years of history and weighted factors to study several projections Because transfers in and out of the school system are common, student migration is factored into the analysis as it increases or decreases survival rates. Entry grades (kindergarten) are a unique problem in cohort analysis. The district collects information on birth rates within the district's census tracts, and treats these statistics as a cohort for kindergarten enrollment in the appropriate years. The Federal Way School District is using various statistical methods for projecting student enrollments. The resultant forecasted enrollments are evaluated below. The first method is a statistical cohort analysis that produces ten distinct forecasts. These are forecast of enrollment for one year. The projections vary depending on the number of years of historical information and how they are weighted. A second method is a projection using an enrollment projection software package that allows the user to project independently at school or grade level and to aggregate these projections for the district level. The Enrollment Masters" software provides statistical methods including trend line, standard grade progression (cohort) and combinations of these methods. This software produces a five-year projection of school enrollment. In November of 2001, the District contracted a demographer to develop projections for the Federal Way School District. The report was complete in January 2002. The model used to forecast next year's enrollment uses cohort survival rates to measure grade to grade growth, 16 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2007 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN assumes market share losses to private schools (consistent with county-wide average), assumes growth from new housing or losses due to net losses from migration. This forecast was provided as a range of three projections. The long-range forecast provided with this report used a model with cohort survival rates and growth rates based on projected changes in the 5-19 age group for King County. Most of the methods used for long range enrollment reporting assume that enrollment is a constant percent of something else (e.g. population)or that enrollment will mirror some projected trend for 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 2015. This model produces a projection that is between 24,000 and 26,000 when applied to the low, medium and high range modes. This provides a reasonable range for long-range planning and is consistent with estimates from various models. The District will contract with an independent demographer to update these projections after the October 12006 enrollment counts. 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 four pernutting 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. 1 17 1 I � FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2007 CAPITAL FACILITES PLAN Full Time Equivalent Enrollment History and Projections Simplified FTE(K Headcount= 5 FTE,Middle School FTE=99 Headcount, Senior High FTE= 945Headcount) Total K-12 Percent Calendar Yr School Year Elementary Middle School Senior High FTE Change 2001 2000-01 H,640 5,305 4,338 21,283 2002 2001-02 11,498 5,337 4,467 21,302 0.1% 2003 2002-03 11,202 5,454 4,437 21,093 -1.0% 2004 " 2003-04 9,127 5,524 6,408 21,059 -0.2% 2005 2004-05 9,164 5,473 6,515 21,152 0.4% 2006 2005-06 9,105 5,309 6,770 21,194 0.2% 2007 B2006-07 8,937 5,082 7,005 21,024 -a8% 2001 P2007-08 9,134 4,959 7,051 21,150 0.6% 2009 P2008-09 9,289 4,915 6,988 21,192 0.2% 2010 P2009-10 9,386 4,949 6,925 21,260 0.3% 2011 P2010.11 9,501 5,038 6,742 21,282 0.1% 2012 P2011-12 9,589 5,121 6,672 21,382 0.5% 2013 P2012-13 9,614 5,222 6,714 21,550 *New Coafiguratio Elementary K-S Middle School 6-8 Higk School 9-12 Enrollment History and Six Year Forecast 22,000 0 8% 21,000 0.6% 0 4% 20,000 0 2% W 19,000 0 0% a w -0 2% u s c 0 18,000 -0 4% x 3 17,000 r -0 6% 16,000 15.000 b� ba ba bs > ow $ i a School Year OFTE -+-Percent of Change 18 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2007 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1 Capacity Summaries All Grades, Elementary, Middle School, and Senior High Schools The Capacity Summaries combine Building Capacity information and the Student Forecast information. The result demonstrates the requirements for new or remodeled facilities and why there is a need for the District to use temporary facilities or interim measures. The information is organized in spreadsheet format, with a page summarizing the entire District, and then evaluating capacity vs. number of students at elementary, muddle school, and senior high levels individually. The notes at the bottom of each spreadsheet provide information about what facilities are in place each year. 1 i 1 i iS FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS CAPITAL FACILiTES PLAN CAPACITY SUMMARY-ALL GRADES Budget - Projected-- Calendar Year 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2012 CAPACITY School Year 2006/07 20076/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 BUILDING PROGRAM HEADCOUNT CAPACITY 21,301 21,275 21,249 21,223 21,197 21,197 21,997 FTE CAPACITY 21,241 21,215 21,189 21,163 21,137 21,137 21,937 Add or subtract changes to capacity Special Education Changes (26) (26) (26) (26) Increase Capacity at Federal Way High S00 Adjusted Program Headcount Capacity 21,275 21,249 21,223 21,197 21,197 21,997 21,997 Adjusted Program FTE Capacity 21,215 21,189 21,163 21,137 21,137 21,93, 21,937 ENROLLMENT Basic FTE Enrollment 21,024 21,150 21,192 21,260 21,282 21,382 21,550 Internet Academy Enrollment(AAFTE) 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 Basic FTE Enrollment without Internet Academy 20,736 20,862 20,904 20,972 20,994 21,094 21,262 SURPLUS OR(UNHOUSED) PROGRAM FTE CAPACITY 479 327 259 165 143 843 675 RELOCATABLE CAPACITY Current Portable Capacity 2,575 2,725 2,725 2,725 2,725 2,725 2,462 Add/Subtract Portable Capacity Add New Portable Capacity Deduct Portable Capacity Adjusted Portable Capacity 2,725 2,725 2,725 2,725 2,725 2,725 2,462 SURPLUS OR(UNHOUSED) PROGRAM AND RELOCATABLE CAPACITY 3,204 3,052 2,984 11 2,890 2^8 3,569 3,137 20 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS CAPITAL FACILITES PLAN CAPACITY SUMMARY-ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS Budget -- Projected- Calendar - Calendar Year 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2012 CAPACITY School Year 2006/07 20076/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 201 l/12 2012/13 BUILDING PROGRAM HEAD COUNT CAPACITY 10,014 9,988 9,962 9,936 9,910 9,910 9,910 FTE CAPACITY 9,578 9,552 9,526 9,500 9,474 9,474 9,474 1. Special Education Changes (U) (26) (26) (26) Adjusted Program Headcount Capacity 9,988 9,962 9,936 9,910 9,910 9,910 9,910 Adjusted Program FTE Capacity 9,552 9,526 9,500 9,474 9,474 9,474 9,474 ' ENROLLMENT Basic FTE Enrollment 8,937 9,134 9,289 9,386 9,502 9,589 9,614 2 Internet Academy(AAFTE) 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 Basic FTE Enrollment without Internet Academy 8,905 9,102 9,257 9,354 9,470 9,557 9,582 SURPLUS OR(UNHOUSED) PROGRAM CAPACITY 647 424 243 120 4 (83) (108) RELOCATABLE CAPACITY 3. Current Portable Capacity 1,350 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 Add/Subtract portable capacity Adjusted Portable Capacity 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 SURPLUS OR(UNHOUSED) PROGRAM AND RELOCATABLE CAPACITY 1,947 1,724 1,543 1,420 1 1,304 1,217 1,192 NOTES: 1. Add Special Education and ECEAP Programs This reduces Basic Education capacity in the school years indicated. 2. Internet Academy students are included in projections but do not require full time use of school facilities. 3. Relocatable Capacity is based on the number of portables available and other administrative techniques which can be used to temporanly house students until permanent facilities are available.This is a calculated number only. The actual number of portables that will be used will be based on actual student population needs. The Dtstnct may begin to pull portables from the instructional inventory. Age and condition of the portables will determine feasibility for continued instructional use. 21 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS CAPITAL FACILITES PLAN CAPACITY SUMMARY-MIDDLE SCHOOLS Budget - Projected-- Calendar Year 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2012 CAPACITY School Year 2006/07 20076/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 BUILDING PROGRAM HEADCOUNT CAPACITY 5,463 5,518 5,518 5,518 5,518 5,518 5,518 FTE CAPACITY 5,518 5,518 5,518 5,518 5,518 5,518 5,518 Adjusted Program Headcount Capacity 5,518 5,518 5,518 5,518 5,518 5,518 5,518 Adjusted Program FTE Capacity 75,518 5,518 5,518 5,518 5,518 5,518 5,518 ENROLLMENT Basic FTE Enrollment 5,082 4,959 4,915 4,949 5,038 5,121 5,222 1. Internet Academy (AAFTE) 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Basic FTE Enrollment without Internet Academy 4,990 4,867 4,823 4,857 4,946 5,029 5,130 SURPLUS OR(UNHOUSED) PROGRAM CAPACITY 528 651 695 661 572 489 398 RELOCATABLE CAPACITY 2.. Current Portable Capacity 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 Add/Subtract portable capacity Add new portable capacity Adjusted Portable Capacity 7S0 750 750 750 750 750 750 SURPLUS OR(UNHOUSED) PROGRAM AND RELOCATABLE 3. CAPACITY 1,278 1,401 1,445 1,411 1,322 1,239 1,138 NOTES: 1 Internet Academy students are included in projections but do not require full time use of school facilities. 2. Relocatable Capacity is based on the number of portables available and other administrative techniques which can be used to temporarily house students until permanent facilities are available This is a calculated number only. The actual number of portables that will be used will be based on actual student population needs The District may begin to pull portables from the instructional inventory. Age and condition of the portables will determine feasibility for continued instructional use. 3. Capacity for unhoused students will be accommodated with traveling teachers and no planning time in some classrooms. 22 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS CAPITAL FACILITES PLAN CAPACITY SUMMARY-SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Budget -- Projected- Calendar Year 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2012 CAPACITY School Year 2006/07 20076/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 BUILDING PROGRAM HEADCOUNT CAPACITY 5,824 5,824 5,824 5,824 5,824 5,824 6,624 FTE CAPACITY 6,145 6,145 6,145 6,145 6,145 6,145 6,945 Add or subtract changes in capacity Increase Capacity at Federal Way High School Soo Adjusted Program Headcount Capacity 5,824 5,824 5,824 J 5,824 5,824 6,624 6,624 Adjusted Program FTE Capacity 6,145 6,145 6,145 6,145 6,145 6,945 6,945 ENROLLMENT Basic FTE Enrollment 7,005 7,057 6,988 6,925 6,742 6,672 6,714 1. Internet Academy(AAFTE) 164 164 164 164 164 164 164 Basic Ed without Internet Academy 6,841 6,893 61824 6,761 6,578 6,508 6,550 SURPLUS OR(UNHOUSED) PROGRAM CAPACITY 1 (1,017) 1 (1,069) 1 (11000) (937) 1 (754) 1 116 1 74 RELOCATABLE CAPACITY 2. Current Portable Capacity 475 675 675 675 675 675 675 3. Add new portable capacity 200 Adjusted Portable Capacity 675 675 675 675 675 675 675 SURPLUS OR(UNHOUSED) PROGRAM AND RELOCATABLE 4. CAPACITY (342) (394) (325) (262) (79) 791 749 NOTES: 1, Internet Academy students are included in projections but do not require full time use of school facilities. 2. Relocatable Capacity is based on the number of portables available and other administrative techniques which can be used to temporarily house students until permanent facilities are available.This is a calculated number only. The actual number of portables that will be used will be based on actual student population needs The District may begin to pull portables from the instructional inventory. Age and condition of the portables will determine feasibility for continued instructional use. 3. Add Portable Capacity 4. Capacity for unhoused students will be accommodated with traveling teachers and no planning time in some classrooms. Puget Sound Early College will house approximately 60 of the unhoused students. 23 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2007 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN King County, the City of Federal Way,and the City of Kent Impact Fee Calculations Single and Multi-Family Residences Each jurisdiction that imposes school impact fees requires that developers pay these fees to help cover a share of the impact of new housing developments on school facilities. To determine an equitable fee throughout unincorporated King County, a formula was established. This formula can be found in King County Code 21A and was substantially adopted by the City of Federal Way and Kent. The formula requires the District to establish a "Student Generation Factor" which estimates how many students will be added to a school district by each new single or multi-fanuly unit and to gather some standard construction costs, which are unique to that district. - STUDENT GENERATION FACTOR ANALYSIS Federal Way Public Schools student generation factor was determined separately for single- family units and multi-family units. The factors used in the 2007 Capital Facilities Plan were derived using actual generation factors from single-fairuly units that were constructed in the last five (5) years. - IMPACT FEE CALCULATION Following the calculations for the student generation factor is a copy of the Impact Fee Calculation for single family and mule-family units based on King County Code 21A and the Growth Management Act. ➢ Temporary Facility Cost is the average cost of a portable purchased within the last 12 months. ➢ Site Acquisition Costs is the per acre cost of the last school site purchased (site 45); this is a negotiated purchase price. Plan Year 2007 Plan Year 2006 Single Family Units $39018. $3,393. Multi-Family Units $856. $895. 24 _ C O O W r NN .- W M r pppp ��yy - 4 a O r 7 r N M W M g n ~ W IL 000OO •- O - O p O3LLo 0 Q t t _ I!, = C k O M .0 4O N O 'D N a '* � «CD N N N N M 000000OOo0 ing O O 8 $ t c� O If)r, g CO OD n �c°�p�pi � v � °� � C � a0on 6�1� a Q N N N O O — N r " 0 0 6IL0000000000 p 4 1L OO p N1� w m vOi O 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 N � Q 0 , � LL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o q 4. o o C a � s r tea, .a E ; N07rM r W N Err fh c Y E CM GO M r r N WLO V r N ? ' ' o E o N - ' C VJ rFi1 C CQQ W O r O r 0 0 o O 0 m O M Cl) O Z CO �- r N N W M N 7 Z 1 C� N �f1 U 7 3 o E a Q E a im 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i co a G Z � � Z � E " Sym E " lL 1 AO O O E o NIn n r v N l'o W r- r W E —a Z Z � y e m a a m w ar y o W m 0C0Cr ¢ cct aYF- WYpp m ° w p m Q m C �! J mm O JJJJ� m c N = a u�J m f/J 3 ro m t o c c v 0010 XC5 coix3 a 8 N R M M N N •" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 m FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2007 CAPTIAL FACH.ITIES PLAN IMPACT FEE School Site Acquisition Cast: Student Student Facility Cost/ Facility Factor Factor Cost/ Cost/ Acreage Acre Capacity SFR MFR SFR MFR Elementary ....000. $0 417 0.3.291. 0 1121 $0 $0 Middle School 21 80 $87,747 921 0.1843 0 0423 $383 $88 Sr High 1.20 $173,833 133 02268 00698 $356 $109 TOTAL $739 $197 School Construction Cost: Student Student %Perm Facd Facility Facility Factor Factor Cost/ Cost/ Total Sq Ft Cost Capacity SFR MFR SFR MFR Elementary , .9611%a SO 417 0 3291 01121 $0 $0 8,3 Middle School 96.08°k $152,956 421 01843 00423 $3,529 $810 Sr High w_.96.08% $28,968,637 933 ._ 0 22681 0 0698 $6,766 $2,082 TOTAL $10,294 $2,892 Temporary Facility Cost: Student Student %Temp Fac Facility Facility Factor Factor Cost/ Cost/ Total Sq Ft Cost Size SFR MFR SFR MFR Elementary 3 9296 $0 25 0 3291 0 1121 $0 $0 Middle School 3 92% $0 25 0.1843 0 0423 $0 $0 Sr Htgh 3 92% $128,106 25 02268 00698 $46 $14 TOTAL $46 $14 State Matching Credit Calculation: Student Student Boeck Cost/ Sq.Ft. State Factor Factor Cost/ Cost/ Sq Ft Student Match SFR MFR SFR MFR Elementary $154 22 90 0 00% 0.3291 01121 $0 $(t Middle School $154 22 117 009%j 0.1843 0 0423 $0 $0 New Sr High $154 22 130 619o%j 022681 00698 $2,8 t5 $866 Total $2,815 $866 Tax Payment Credit Calculation SFR MFR Average Assessed Value (April 2006) $245,644 $57,873 Capital Bond Interest Rate(April 2006) 4 39% 4 34% W Net Present Value of Average Dwelling $1,954,267. $460.420 Years Amortized 10 _ 10 Property Tax Levy Rate $1.14 _ $1 14 Present Value of Revenue Stream $2,228 $S25 Single Family Multi-Family Residences Residences Mitigation Fee Summary Site Acquisition Cost $ 739 $ 197 Permanent Facility Cost $ 10,294 $ 2,892 Temporary Facility Cost $ 46 $ 14 State Match Credit $ (2,815) S (866) Tax Payment Credit $ (2,228) $ (525) Sub-Total $ 6,036 $ 1,712 50%Local Share $ 3,018 $ 856 Im act Fee $ 3,018 $ 856 26 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2007 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN SECTION 4 ' SUMMARY OF CHANGES FROM THE 2006 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN The 207 Capital Facilities Plan is an updated document, based on the 2006 Capital Facilities Plan. The changes between the 2006 Plan and the 2007 Plan are listed below. LSECTION I -THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN SIX-YEAR FINANCE PLAN The Six Year Finance Plan has been rolled forward to reflect 2007/2013 SECTION III- SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION CAPACITY Elementary school capacity reflects program changes for the 2006/07 school year. Elementary capacity includes space for All Day Kindergarten programs at every elementary school. Building Program Capacities are found on page 13. PORTABLES The list of portables reflects the movement of portables between facilities or new portables purchased. Portable Locations can be found on page 15. STUDENT FORECAST The Student Forecast now covers 2007through 2013. Enrollment history and projections are found on page 18. CAPACITY SUMMARY The changes in the Capacity Summary are a reflection of the changes in the capacities and ' student forecast. New schools and increased capacity at current buildings are shown as increases to capacity. Capacity Summaries are found on pages 20-23. IMPACT FEE CALCULATION- KING COUNTY CODE 21A The Impact Fee Calculations have changed due to changes in several factors. The adjustment made in the Impact Fee Calculation, causing a change in the Impact Fee between the 2006 Capital Facilities Plan and the 2007 Capital Facilities Plan can be found on page 29. 27 r � FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2007 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN IMPACT FEE CALCULATION CHANGES FROM 2005 TO 2006 STUDENT GENERATION FACTORS Student Generation factors are based on rates for new developments constructed over a period of not more than five years prior to the date of the fee calculation. The changes in student Generation factors between the 2006 Capital Facilities Plan and the 2007Capital Facilities Plan are due to developments that were deleted or added based upon the age of the developments and the year placed in the survey. The Student Generation worksheet is found on page 25. SITE ACQUISITION COSTS The negotiated purchase price for the Todd Beamer High School site was $80,000 per acre. This is the base line cost for acreage for Sequoyah Middle School. The assessed valuation for the Federal Way Public Academy land was $521,000 at the time of purchase. The calculated cost per acre in the impact fee calculation is a weighted calculation using the $80,000 per acre baseline cost and the assessed valuation at the time of purchase for the Federal Way Public Academy. Federal Way Public Academy is a 3-acre site. The grade span for this facility is grades 6-10. Middle school accounts for 60% of the cost; senior high is 40%. Sequoyah: 20 x $80,000 = $1,600,000 FWPA $ 312,900 (60 % of$521,500, 1.8 acres of 3 acre parcel) Total Cost $1,912,900 Cost/Acreage $1,912,900/21.8 = $87,747 cost per acre Senior High FWPA $ 208,600 (40% of$521,500, 1.2 acres of 3 acre parcel) Cost/Acreage $ 208,600/1.2 = $173,833 cost per acre SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION COSTS The cost for Federal Way Public Academy(exclusive of land)is$4,921,594. The Federal Way Public Academy costs are split 60% to middle school and 40% to senior high in the impact fee calculation. Middle school construction costs =60% of $4,921,594 $ 2,952,956 FWPA $15,400,000 Sequoyah Total Cost $18,352,956 The total cost for replacing Federal Way High School is projected to be $81m. The capacity of the school would increase from approximately 1500 to 2400 students. The Impact Fee calculation used one-third,$27m as the basis for capacity increases at high school. High school construction costs =40% of $4,921,594 $ 1,9682,637 FWPA $27 000 000 Federal Way High Total Cost $289968,637 28 ' FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2007 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN IMPACT FEE CALCULATION CHANGES FROM 2006 TO 2007 IMPACT FEE ' Item From/To Comment Percent of Permanent Facilities 96.60 to 96.08% Report#3 OSPI Percent Temporary Facilities 3.40 to 3.92% Updated portable inventory Average Cost of Portable $82,151 to$128,106 Updated average of portables Classroom purchased and placed in 2005 1 Boeck Cost/Sq. Ft $129.81 to $154.22 Change per OSPI ' State Match 59.97 % (No Change) ' Average Assessed Value SFR— Per Puget Sound Educational $224,943 to$245,644 Service District (ESD 121) MFR— $53,384 to$57,873 Capital Bond Interest Rate 4.57% to 4.39% Market Rate Property Tax Levy Rate $1.04 to $1.14 King County Treasury Division 1 = Single Family Student Yield Updated Housing Inventory ' Elementary .3138 to.3030 Middle School .1632 to .2013 High School .1695 to.2013 Multi-Family Student Yield Updated Housing Inventory Elementary .119 to .0929 Middle School .042 to .0410 High School .053 to .0628 1 � 1 1 ' 29 1 1 Mission Federal Way Public Schools is obligated to educate all students in academic knowledge, skills, abilities and responsible behavior to be successful, contributing members of a free society Vision All students proficient in reading and math All students will meet or exceed standards in reading and math on all WASL tests. Federal Way Public Schools 31405 1 e Avenue S Federal Way, Washington 98003-5433 (253) 945-2000 This document is published by the Business Services Department of the Federal Way Public Schools June 2006. Federal Way Public Schools Every Student, a Reader i DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Issued with a 14-day comment and appeals 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 course of action: 1. The adoption of the Auburn School District's 2006-2011 Capital Facilities Plan by the Auburn School District No. 408 for the purposes of planning for the facilities needs of the District; and 2. The amendment of the Comprehensive Plans of King County and Pierce County and the cities of Auburn and Kent to include the Auburn School District's 2006-2011 Capital Facilities Plan as part of the Capital Facilities Element of each jurisdiction's Comprehensive Plan The cities of Algona and Pacific may also amend their Comprehensive Plans to include the Auburn School District's Capital Facilities Plan as part of the Capital Facilities Element of each jurisdiction's Comprehensive Plan. Proponent: Auburn School District No. 408 Location of the Proposal: The Auburn School District includes an area of approximately 57 square miles. The Cities of Auburn, Algona, Kent, and Pacific and parts of unincorporated King and Pierce Counties fall within the District's boundaries. Lead Agency: Auburn School District No. 408 The lead agency for this proposal has determined that the proposal does not have a probable significant adverse environmental impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43 21C.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., April 24, 2006. 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 Newman Associate Superintendent,Business and Operations Auburn School District No. 408 Telephone: (253) 931-4930 Address: Auburn School District 915 4`h Street N.E. Auburn, WA 98002 You may appeal this determination in writing by 4:00 p.m., April 24, 2006, to Linda Cowan, Superintendent, Auburn School District No. 408, 915 41h Street N.E., Auburn, WA 98002. Date of Issue: April 10, 2006 Date Published: April 10, 2006 I l ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAC 197-11-960 Environmental Checklist. Purpose of Checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact f 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 non- project actions (part D). R For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: The adoption of the Auburn School District's 2006 Capital Facilities Plan ("Capital Facilities Plan") for the purposes of planning for the District's facilities needs. The cities of Auburn and Kent and the King County and Pierce County Comprehensive Plans will be amended to include the Auburn School District 2006 Capital Facilities Plan in the Capital Facilities Element of each jurisdiction's Comprehensive Plan. The Cities of Algona and Pacific Comprehensive Plans may be amended to include the Auburn School District 2006 Capital Facilities Plan in the Capital Facilities Element of each jurisdiction's Comprehensive Plan. A copy of the District's Capital Facilities Plan is available for review in the District's offices. 2. Name of applicant: Auburn School District No. 408. 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: ' Auburn School District No. 408 915 4' St.N.E. Auburn, WA 98002 Contact Person: Mike Newman, Assistant Superintendent,Business/Operations Telephone: (253)931-4900 4. Date checklist prepared, April 4, 2006 2 5. Agency requesting checklist: Auburn School District No. 408. 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable). The Capital Facilities Plan is scheduled to be adopted by the District on April 24, 2006. After adoption, the District will forward the Capital Facilities Plan to the cities of Auburn, Algona, Kent, and Pacific, and to King County and Pierce County for inclusion in each jurisdiction's Comprehensive Plan. The Capital Facilities Plan will be updated annually. Site-specific projects will be subject to project-level 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 plans to implement over the next six years. The District plans to construct a new middle school and two new elementary schools over the next six years to meet projected student population increases. The District may also add portable facilities at existing school sites. The District will also conduct technology modernization projects at facilities throughout the District. 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 have undergone or will undergo additional environmental review, when appropriate, as they are developed. l 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. None known. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. The cities of Auburn and Kent will review and adopt the Capital Facilities Plan for the purposes of updating the cities' school impact fees and incorporating the updated Plan as a part of the Capital Facilities Elements of both the Auburn and Kent Comprehensive Plans. King County and Pierce County will review the Plan for the purposes of implementing the Counties' impact fee ordinance and incorporating the 3 Plan as a part of the Capital Facilities Element of both the King and Pierce County Comprehensive Plans. 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 nonproject action. This proposal involves the adoption of the Auburn School District's 2006 Capital Facilities Plan for the purpose of planning the District's facilities needs. This proposal also involves the amendment of the cities of Auburn and Kent Comprehensive Plans and the King and Pierce Counties' Comprehensive Plans to include the Auburn School District 2006 Capital Facilities Plan as a part of each jurisdiction's Capital Facilities Element of their Comprehensive Plans. 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 2006 Capital Facilities Plan will affect the Auburn School District. The District includes an area of approximately 57 square miles. The Cities of Auburn, Algona, Kent, and Pacific, and parts of unincorporated King County and 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, other The Auburn School District is comprised of a variety of topographic landforms 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. 4 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 prime farmland. 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. 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, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. 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. 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. 1 5 1 g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings?) 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: 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 a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Various emissions, many construction-related, may result from 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 environ.-nental 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 proposals 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- level 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-level environmental review and relevant local approval processes when appropriate. The District has been or will be required to comply with all 6 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 a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. There is a network of 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. 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. 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. 7 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-level 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, 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. 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: 1) Will groundwater be withdrawn, or 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-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. 8 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 storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff(including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may have 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. 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. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water 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-level environmental review when appropriate. 9 4. Plants: a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree. alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree- fir, cedar, pine, other _ shrubs grass pasture crop or grain wet sod plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, mdfoil, other other types of vegetation 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? Some of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may require the removal or t 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 or 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-level environmental review when appropriate. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plans, 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-level environmental review when appropriate. Each project is or will be subject to applicable local landscaping requirements. 10 1 5. Animals: a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: fish: bass, salmon, trout, 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- level environmental review when appropriate. b. List any threatened or 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-level 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-level environmental review when appropriate. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Appropriate measures to preserve or enhance wildlife have been or will be determined during project-level 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 11 t 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-level 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-level 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 special emergency services that might be required. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. ' 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan comply or will comply with all current codes, standards, Hiles, and regulations. Individual projects have been or will be subject to project-level environmental review and local approval at the time they are developed, when appropriate. 12 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 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)? Indicate 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 short-term bases 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, this project may create 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 potential increases is expected to be significant. 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-level environmental review when appropriate. Each project is or will be subject to applicable local ' regulations. 8. Land and Shoreline Use: a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? There are a variety of land uses within the Auburn School District, including residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, utility, open space, recreational, etc. 1 13 b Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe The known sites for the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have not been ' used recently for agriculture. , c. Describe any structures on the site. , The 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? , The 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? 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. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? ' 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. 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-level environmental review when appropriate. ' 14 ' h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" ' area? If so, specify. Any environmentally sensitive 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? The Auburn School District currently serves approximately 13,611 full-time ' equivalent ("FTE") students. Enrollment is expected to increase to approximately 15,023 FTE students by the 2011-2012 school year. 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-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: 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. I. 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-level environmental review when appropriate. 9. Housing: a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate ' whether high, middle, or low-income housing. ' No housing units would be provided in connection with the completion of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan. 15 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-level 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-level 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-level 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-level 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- ' level basis when appropriate. 16 ' 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-level environmental review, when appropriate. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? 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? 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: ' Proposed measures to mitigate light and glaze impacts have been or will be addressed during project-level 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 Auburn 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-level environmental review when appropriate. 17 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: 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: 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. There are no known places or objects listed on, or proposed for, such registers for the ' project sites 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 detail during , project-level environmental review when appropriate. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. An inventory of historical sites at or near the sites of the projects included in the ' Capital Facilities Plan has been or will be developed during project-level environmental review when appropriate. ' c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: ' Appropriate measures will be proposed on a project-level basis when appropriate. 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. 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. ' 18 ' b. Is site currently served by public transit? 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-level environmental review when appropriate. ' c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? 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 roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, 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-level environmental review when appropriate. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air ' transportation? If so, generally describe. Use of water, rail, or air transportation has been or will be addressed during project- level environmental review when appropriate. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. 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. 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-level environmental ' review when appropriate. ' 19 15. Public Services: a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for ' example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe ' The District does not anticipate that the projects identified in the Capital Facilities Plan will significantly increase the need for public services. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, ' if any New school facilities have been or will be built with automatic security systems, fire e 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 known sites of the projects included 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-level 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- level environmental review when appropriate. , 20 1 C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge I understand that t e lead agency is relying on them to make its decision Signature: Date Submitted: 21 D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS ' (do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. , When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater , intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; ' emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? To the extent the Capital Facilities Plan makes it more likely that school facilities, including new high school, middle school and elementary school capacity, will be , constructed, some of these environmental impacts will 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 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. I 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. 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 22 , will be addressed in more detail during project-level environmental review when 1 appropriate. The projects included in the Plan are not likely to generate significant impacts on fish or marine life. 1 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? 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: No specific measures are being proposed at this time. Appropriate measures would be proposed during project-specific review. Annual updates of this Plan will be ' coordinated with the Cities of Auburn, Algona, Kent, and Pacific, and King and Pierce Counties as part of the Growth Management Act process, one of the purposes of which is to protect environmentally sensitive areas. To the extent the School District's facilities planning process is part of the overall Growth Management planning process, these resources are more likely to be protected. ' 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, 1 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 ' 23 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: , 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 construction projects included 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. j 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. 24 , AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT AVENUE TO EXCELLENCE June 20, 2006 Charlene Anderson R C City of Kent E 1 V E D 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, WA 98032-5895 JU 2 1 70Qg crty PLAijHI/yG$ARV CAS Dear Ms. Anderson, Enclosed you will find two (2) copies of the Auburn School District Capital Facilities Plan for 2006 through 2012. The Plan has been prepared and adopted by the Auburn School District Board of Directors on April 24, 2006, in conformance with the Growth Management statutes of the State of Washington. Included in the Plan are the following: ❑ Six-Year Enrollment Projections ❑ Auburn School District Standard of Service ❑ The District's overall capacity of the 6-year period ❑ An inventory of existing facilities ❑ Impact Fee Computations ❑ District Capital Construction Plan The Auburn School District Board of Directors is requesting the plan be adopted by reference as part of the capital facilities element of the City of Kent's Comprehensive Plan. Please advise if additional information is required or needed. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerel ael Ne sociat p nntendent usiness an Operations -- Copy to: Linda Cowan, Superintendent, Auburn School District w/o enclosure Grace Yuan, Preston Gates& Ellis w/o enclosure Jeff Grose, Executive Director of Capital Projects w/o enclosure 915 Fourth Street NE;Auburn,WA 98002-4452 (253)9314930 t� 1 AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN RECEIVED 2006 through 2012 JUN 2 1 2006 CITY OF KENT PLANNING SERVICES •4+w n^p4 •S• Auburn Mountainwew High School tLakeland Hills Elementary School Adopted by the Auburn School District Board of Directors April 24, 2006 AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 408 ' 915 Fourth Street NE Auburn, Washington 98002 , (253) 931-4900 Serving Students in* Unincorporated King County Unincorporated Pierce County City of Auburn City of Algona City of Kent City of Pacific BOARD of DIRECTORS Ray Vefik Carol Helgerson , Craig Schumaker Therald Leonard Janice Nelson , Linda S Cowan, Superintendent , AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT , "Avenue to Excellence" i Table of Contents ' Section I Executive Summary Pagel Section II Enrollment Protections .. ... .. .. Page 6 Section III Standard of Service .......... ... Page 8 Section IV Inventory of Facilities ........... .. . Page 15 Section V Pupil Capacity..... ... . .......... .... . Page 18 Section VI Capital Construction Plan... ..... .... .Page 20 tSection VI Impact Fees.................................. Page 23 Section VIII Appendices .................................. Page 27 Appendix A 1 -Student Enrollment Projections Page 28 1 Appendix A 2 -Capital Facilities Plan Projections Page 42 Appendix A 3-Student Generation Survey Page 45 1 Auburn School District No 408 1 Capital Facilities Plan 2006 through 2012 ! 1 Section I ' Executive Summary 1 ! 1 1 ! Auburn School District No. 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2006 through 2012 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 2006 ' 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 1 needs The District may prepare interim and periodic Long Range Capital Facilities Plans consistent with Board Policies and actions, taking into account a longer or a shorter time period, other factors and trends in the use of facilities; and other needs of the District as may be required. However, any such plan or plans will be consistent with this Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan To enable the collection of impact fees in the unincorporated areas of King County and within the City of Auburn and City of Kent, the King County Council,the City of Auburn and the City of Kent will adopt this Plan by reference as part of each jurisdiction's respective comprehensive plan. To enable the collection of impact fees in the Cities of Algona and Pacific, these municipalities must also adopt this Plan and adopt school impact fee ordinances. Pursuant to the requirements of the Growth Management Act,the Plan will be updated on an annual basis, and any changes in the fee schedule(s) adjusted accordingly. The Plan establishes the District's"standard of service" in order to ascertain the District's current and future capacity. While the State Superintendent of Public Instruction establishes square footage guidelines for capacity, those guidelines do not account for the local program needs of the District. The Growth Management Act and the school impact fee ordinance authorize the District to define its standard of service based on the District's specific needs. In general, the District's current standard provides that class size for grades K-2 should not exceed 25 students; class size for grades 3-4 should not exceed 27 students; class size for grade 5 should not exceed 30 students. ' When averaged over the six elementary grades, this computes to 26.5 students per classroom. Class size for grades 6-12 should not exceed 30 students, with some subject areas restricted to lesser numbers (See Section III for more specific information.) The capacity of the schools in the District is calculated based on this standard of service and the existing inventory of facilities including transitional classrooms. The District's 1 2 2005-06 capacity was 12,976 whereas Full Time Equivalent ("FTE")enrollment for this same period was 13,386.64 The actual number of individual students was 14,088 as of , October 1,2005. (See Section V for more specific information.) The capital construction plan shown in Section VI addresses the additions to the District's existing facilities This provided for anew high school approved by the voters in February 2003 and opened in September 2005 and the addition of two new elementary schools approved by the voters in February 2005 Also, the acquisition of a new middle school site and construction of a new middle school is needed to accommodate growth. The new facilities are required to meet the projected student population increase to be generated from the large development areas within the Auburn School District. Two areas that have significant impact on the school district are the Lakeland South and the Lea Hill areas of the distract There are other pockets of development that impact the District as well. The Pierce County area includes most of the Lakeland South development and some adjacent undeveloped properties. The City of Kent has an area of approximately 158 acres that was sold to developers in 2004. The School Impact Fee Ordinances adopted by King County, the City of Auburn and the City of Kent provide for the assessment of impact fees to assist in meeting some of the fiscal impact incurred by a District experiencing growth and development Section VII sets forth the proposed school impact fees for single family and multi-family dwelling units. The student generation factors have been generated using the students who actually attend school in the Auburn School District from single family and multi-family , developments constructed in the last five years. The method of collecting the data is with the use of GIS mapping software, data from King County and Pierce County GIS, and to integrate the mapping with student data from the District data system. This method gives the District actual student generation numbers for each grade span for identified developments. This data is contained in Appendix A.3. 3 Auburn School District No 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2006 through 2012 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN CHANGES FROM 2005 TO 2006 Listed below is a summary level outline of the changes from the 2005 Capital Facilities Plan that are a part of the 2006 Plan The changes are noted by Section for ease of reference Section Executive Summary A Updated to reflect new information within the Plan 1 B Summary level list of changes from previous year Section II Enrollment Projections Updated projections See Appendices A 1 &A 2 Section III Standard of Service A Increase in English as a Second Language program required 1 additional classroom at the elementary level B Increase of 1 learning specialist classroom at elementary level C Increase of 1 early childhood classroom at elementary level D Increase of 1 structured learning classroom at elementary level Section IV Inventory of Facilities A Updated to include Lakeland Hills Elementary School in inventory, opening 2006 B Updated to reflect new OSPI square footage space allocations Section V Pupil Capacity A Updated to include Lakeland Hills Elementary School in inventory, opening 2006 1 B Updated to reflect new OSPI square footage space allocations r i 4 Auburn School District No 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2006 through 2012 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY , Section VII Impact Fees CHANGES TO IMPACT FEE DATA ELEMENTS 2005 to 2006 CPF CPF , DATA ELEMENTS 2005 2006 EXPLANATION Student Generation Factors Single Family Consistent with King County Ordinance 11621, Elementary 03216 03010 Student Generation Factors are calculated Mid School 01584 01510 by the school district based on district Sr High 01632 01660 records of average actual student generation Multi-Family rates for new developments constructed Elementary 00687 00611 over the last five years Mid School 00462 00317 Sr High 00486 00452 School Construction Costs Elementary $15,600,000 $16,900,000 Updated project estimated costs Facility Capacity Elementary 650 550 Change to 2005 Citizen Ad Hoc Recommendation Boeckh Index $129 81 $154 22 Updated to projected SPI schedule (G Beck) Match% -State 55 86% 55 71% Updated to current SPI schedule Match %-District 44 14% 44 29% Computed District Average AV Single Family $218,805 $237,281 Updated from March 2006 King County Dept of Assessments data Multi-Family $55,264 $57,530 Updated from March 2006 King County Dept of Assessments data using weighted average Debt Sery Tax Rate $2 49 $2.39 Current Fiscal Year GO Bond Int Rate 4 63% 4.39% Current Rate(Bond Buyers 20 Index 3-06) Section Vill , Appendices Appendix A 1 - Updated enrollment projections from October 1, 2005 Appendix A 2- Updates enrollment projections with anticipated buildout schedule Appendix A 3-Student Generation Survey 5 Auburn School District No 408 Capital Facilities Plan 2006 through 2012 Section II 1 Enrollment Projections 1 1 1 1 1 1 Aubum School Distnct No 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2006 through 2012 ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS The Auburn School District uses a modified cohort survival model to project future enrollment for all of the Districts operations Table II 1 is an extract from the comprehensive projection model found in Appendix A 2 titled "CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Enrollment Projections" This Table shows the anticipated enrollment for the next six years based on the previous 13 year history of the District under the assumptions set forth in the comprehensive projections, Appendix A 1, and the projection for additional students generated from the Lakeland South and Lea Hill areas as shown in Appendix A 2 TABLE ASD ENROLLMENT ' 11.1 PROJECTIONS Oct 2005 ACTUAL PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ GRADE 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 KDG 955 966 984 1005 1030 1055 1072 1 963 1017 1037 1058 1085 1110 1129 2 963 979 1041 1063 1090 1115 1134 3 1002 986 1011 1076 1104 1130 1149 4 939 1017 1010 1038 1109 1136 1156 5 1 1065 959 1047 1043 1077 1148 1168 , K-5 5887 5924 6130 6284 6495 6695 6807 6 1004 1086 989 1080 1082 1115 1178 7 1028 1032 1123 1030 1126 1127 1152 8 1137 1042 1056 1150 1062 1157 1150 6-8 3169 3160 3168 3259 3269 3398 3479 9 1379 1425 1346 1369 1477 1397 1489 10 1383 1310 1366 1286 1313 1415 1321 11 1182 1301 1236 1291 1213 1234 1324 12 1088 1092 1218 1 1153 1211 1129 1139 9 - 12 5032 5128 5165 5099 5214 5174 5273 TOTALS 14088 14212 14463 14642 14978 15268 15559 Z GRADES K-12 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 K-5 w/K @ 1/2 5410 5441 5638 5781 5980 6168 6271 , 6-8 3169 3160 3168 3259 3269 3398 3479 9-12 5032 5128 5165 5099 5214 5174 5273 K-12 w/K @ 112 13611 13730 13971 14140 14463 14740 16023 7 Auburn School District No 408 Capital Facilities Plan 2006 through 2012 Section III Standard of Service j 1 ' 1 Auburn School District No 408 ' CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2006 through 2012 STANDARD OF SERVICE The School Impact Fee Ordinances adopted by King County, Pierce County, the City of Auburn and the City of Kent indicate that each school district must establish a "Standard of Service"in order to ascertain the overall capacity to house its projected student population The Supenntendent of Public Instruction establishes square footage "capacity"guidelines for computing state funding support The fundamental purpose of the SPI guidelines is to provide a vehicle to equitably distribute state matching funds for school construction projects By default these guidelines have been used to benchmark the district's capacity to house its student population The SPI guidelines do not make adequate provision for local district program needs, facility configurations, emerging educational reform, or the dynamics of each student's educational program The Aubum School Distnct Standard of Service addresses those local considerations that require space in excess of the SPI guidelines The effect on the space requirements for both permanent and relocatable facilities is shown below for each grade articulation pattern Conditions that may result in potential space needs are provided for information purposes without accompanying computations OVERVIEW I The Auburn School District operates twelve elementary schools housing 5,887 students In grades K through 5 The 905 of the 955 Kindergarten students attend 1/2 days throughout the year Grades 1 through 5, plus 25 kindergartners, attend on a full day basis When converted to a full time equivalence the K-5 enrollment Is 5,435 Four middle schools house 3,169 students In grades 6 through 8 The District operates three comprehensive senior high schools and one alternative high school housing 5,032 students in grades 9 through 12 The District opened the fourth high school in the fall of 2005 CLASS SIZE The number of pupils per classroom determines the number of classrooms required to house the student population Class sizes are subject to collective bargaining Changes to class size agreements can have significant Impact on available space The current pupillteacher limit across all elementary programs Is an average of 26 5 students per teacher Consistent with this staffing limit, room capacities are set at 26 5 students per room at grades K-5 At grades 6- 12 the limit Is set at 30 pupils per room The SPI space allocation for each grade articulation level, less the computed reduction for the Auburn School District Standard of Service, determines the District's capacity to house projected pupil populations These reductions are shown below by grade articulation level ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS STRUCTURED LEARNING AND BEHAVIOR AND DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED SPECIAL EDUCATION The Auburn School District operates a structured learning program for students with moderate disabilities at the elementary school level which currently uses nine classrooms to provide for 80 students The housing requirements for this program are provided for In the SPI space guidelines No loss of capacity Is expected unless population with disabilities grows at a disproportionate rate compared to total elementary population 9 Auburn School District No 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2006 through 2012 STANDARD OF SERVICE SPECIAL EDUCATION RESOURCE ROOMS The Auburn School District operates a resource room program at the elementary level for special education students requiring instruction to address their specific disabilities Fifteen standard classrooms are required to house this program The housing requirements for this program exceed the SPI space guidelines by ten standard classrooms The loss of capacity is expected as growth in program is larger than the total elementary population Loss of Permanent Capacity 11 rooms @ 26 5 each= (292) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 26 5 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss (292) NATIVE AMERICAN RESOURCE ROOM The Auburn School District operates one resource room to support the education of Native American students at the elementary level One standard classroom is fully dedicated to serve these students Loss of Permanent Capacity 1 roam @ 26 5 each = (27) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 26 5 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss (27) HEAD START The Auburn School District operates a Head Start program for approximately 118 youngsters in six sections of 112 day in length The program is housed at Evergreen Heights Elementary School and utilizes three standard elementary classrooms and auxiliary office space The housing requirements for this program are not provided for in the SPI space guidelines Loss of Permanent Capacity 3 rooms @ 26 5 each = (80) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 26 5 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss (8D) EARLY CHILDHOOD SPECIAL EDUCATION The Auburn School District operates a pre-school program for young children with disabilities below age five This program is housed at nine different elementary schools and currently uses nine standard classrooms The housing requirements for this program are not provided for in the SPI space guidelines Loss of Permanent Capacity 9 rooms @ 26 5 each= (239) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 26 5 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss (239) 10 Auburn School District No 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2006through 2012 STANDARD OF SERVICE READING LABS The Auburn School District operates a program for students needing remediation and additional language arts Instruction These programs utilize non-standard classroom spaces if available in each elementary school Four elementary schools do not have non-standard rooms available, thus they are housed in a standard classroom The housing requirements for this program are not provided for in the SPI space guidelines Loss of Permanent Capacity 4 rooms @ 26 5 each = (106) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 26 5 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss (106) MUSIC ROOMS The district elementary music programs require one acoustically modified classroom at each elementary school for music Instruction The housing requirements are not provided for in the SPI space guidelines Loss of Permanent Capacity 13 rooms @ 26 5 each= (345) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 26 5 each= 0 Total Capacity Loss (345) ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE PROGRAM The Auburn School District operates a pullout program at the elementary school level for students learning English as a second language This program requires twelve standard classrooms that are not provided for in the SPI space guidelines Loss of Permanent Capacity 13 rooms @ 26 5 each = (345) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 26 5 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss (345) SECOND GRADE TOSA PROGRAM The Auburn School District provides a TOSA reading specialist program for nine 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 nine standard classrooms that are not provided for in the SPI space guidelines Loss of Permanent Capacity 9 rooms @ 26 5 each= (239) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 26 5 each= 0 Total Capacity Loss (239) ELEMENTARY LEARNING SPECIALIST PROGRAM The Auburn School District provides a learning specialist program to increase literacy skills for first and second graders This program model has been created from the 1-728 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 twelve elementary schools Loss of Permanent Capacity 13 rooms @ 26 5 each = (345) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 26 5 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss (345) 11 , Aubum School District No 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2006 through 2012 STANDARD OF SERVICE MIDDLE SCHOOLS STRUCTURED LEARNING CENTER AND DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED SPECIAL EDUCATION The Auburn School District operates two structured learning classrooms at the middle school level for students with moderate disabilities One developmentally disabled classroom for students with profound disabilities The housing requirements for this program are provided in the SPI space allocations ACCESS SPECIAL EDUCATION I The Auburn School District provides a transition program for students with behavioral disorders The program is housed at one of the middle schools and uses one classroom The housing requirements for this program are provided In the SPI space allocations 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 Three classrooms per school (twelve total)are required to provide for approximately 300 students The housing requirements for this program are not entirely provided for in the SPI space guidelines MIDDLE SCHOOL COMPUTER LABS The Auburn School District operates a minimum of one computer lab at each middle school This program utilizes a standard classroom per middle school The housing requirements for this program are not provided for In the SPI space guidelines Loss of Permanent Capacity 4 rooms @ 30 each = (120) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 30 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss (120) ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE The Auburn School District operates a pullout program at the middle school level for students learning English as a second language This program requires four standard classrooms that are not provided for in the SPI space guidelines Loss of Permanent Capacity 4 rooms @ 30 each = (120) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 30 each= 0 Total Capacity Loss (120) IROOM UTIUZATION 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 I not amenable to standard classroom usage The district averages 95% utilization of all available teaching stations SPI Report#3 dated 11/03/05 identifies 151 teaching stations available in the mid-level facilities The utilization pattern results in a loss of approximately 8 teaching stations Loss of Permanent Capacity 8 rooms @ 30 each = (240) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 30 each= 0 Total Capacity Loss (240) 12 Auburn School Distnct No 408 , CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2006 through 2012 STANDARD OF SERVICE SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SENIOR HIGH COMPUTER LABS The Auburn School District operates two computer labs at each of the senior high schools This program utilizes two standard classrooms at comprehensive high schools and one at West Auburn The housing requirements for this program are not provided for in the SPI space guidelines Loss of Permanent Capacity 7 rooms @ 30 each = (210) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 30 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss (210) ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE The Auburn School District operates a pullout program at bath comprehensive high schools for students learning English as a second language This program requires five standard classrooms that are not provided for in the SPI space guidelines Loss of Permanent Capacity 5 rooms @ 30 each = (150) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 30 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss (150) STRUCTURED LEARNING CENTER PROGRAM The Auburn School District operates three structured learning center classrooms for 40 students with moderate to severe disabilities The housing requirements for this program are provided in the SPI space guidelines 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 senior high school program requires sixteen classrooms to provide for approximately 420 students ' The SPI space guidelines provide for one of the sixteen teaching stations Loss of Permanent Capacity 15 rooms @ 30 each = (450) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 30 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss (450) PERFORMING ARTS CENTERS t Auburn High School includes 25,000 square feet used exclusively for a Performing Arts Center The SPI Inventory includes this space when computing unhoused student capacity This space was not intended for nor is it usable for classroom instruction It was constructed to provide a community center for the performing arts Using SPI capacity guidelines, 25,000 square feet computes to 208 unhoused students or 8 33 classrooms Loss of Permanent Capacity 8 33 rooms @ 30 each = (250) j 13 Auburn School District No 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2006 through 2012 STANDARD OF SERVICE 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 SPI Report#3 dated 11/03/05 Identifies 148 teaching stations available in the senior high facilities The utilization pattern results In a loss of approximately 15 teaching stations Loss of Permanent Capacity 15 rooms @ 30 each = (450) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 30 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss (450) STANDARD OF SERVICE COMPUTED TOTALS ELEMENTARY Loss of Permanent Capacity = (2,014) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 Total Capacity Loss (2,014) MIDDLE SCHOOL Loss of Permanent Capacity = (480) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 Total Capacity Loss (480) SENIOR HIGH Loss of Permanent Capacity = (1,510) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 Total Capacity Loss (1,510) TOTAL Loss of Permanent Capacity= (4,004) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 Total Capacity Loss (4,004) 14 Auburn School District No 408 Capital Facilities Plan 2006 through 2012 T Section IV Inventory of Facilities 1 1 t Auburn School District No 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2006 through 2012 INVENTORY OF FACILITIES Table IV I shows the current inventory of permanent distnct facilities and their OPSI rated capacities. Table IV 2 shows the number and location of each portable unit by school The district uses relocatable facilities to- t provide interim housing in school attendance areas uniquely impacted by increasing school populations that would otherwise require continual redistnctmg. ' 2. make space available for changing program requirements and offerings determined by unique student needs,and 3. provide housing to cover district needs until permanent facilities can be financed and constructed. Relocatable facilities are deemed to be intenm, stop gap measures that often place undesirable stress on existing physical plants. Core facilities(Le gymnasiums,restrooms,kitchens, labs, lockers, libraries, etc)are not of sufficient size or quantity to handle the increased school population served by adding relocatable classrooms. Table Permanent Facilities District School Facilities IV 1 Q OSPI Rate Capacity (November 2005) Building Capacity Acres Address Elementary Schools Washington Elementary 492 540 20 E Street Northeast,Auburn WA 98002 Terminal Park Elementary 401 670 1101 D Street Southeast Auburn WA,98002 Dick Scobee Elementary 550 1050 1031 14th Street Northeast Aubum WA 98002 Pioneer Elementary 415 930 2301 M Street Southeast Auburn WA,99002 Chinook Elementary 485 875 3502 Auburn Way South Auburn WA,98092 Lea Hill Elementary 459 1000 30908 124th Avenue Southeast,Aubum WA,98092 Gildo Rey Elementary 531 1000 1005 37th Street Southeast Aubum WA 98002 Evergreen Heights Elem 456 809 5602 South 316th Auburn WA 98001 AI ac Elementary 494 1060 310 Milwaukee Boulevard North,Pacific WA 98047 Lake View Elementary 595 1640 16401 Southeast 318th Street Aubum WA 98092 Hazelwood Elementary 578 1267 11815 Southeast 304th Street,Aubum WA,98092 Ilalko Elementary 585 1200 301 Oravetz Place Southeast Auburn WA 98092 Lakeland Hills Elementary 585 1200 1020 Evergreen Way SE,Aubum WA,98092 ELEM CAPACITY 6,626 Middle Schools Cascade Middle School 836 17 30 1 1015 24th Street Northeast Aubum WA 98002 Olympic Middle School 898 17 40 1825 K Street Southeast,Aubum WA,98002 Rainier Middle School 849 26 33 30620 1 l6th Avenue Southeast,Auburn WA 98092 Mt Baker Middle School 845 30 88 620 37th Street Southeast, Aubum WA,98002 MS CAPACITY 3,428 Senior High Schools West Auburn High School 231 5 10 401 West Main Street Auburn WA 98001 Auburn Senior High 2,237 18.60 800 Fourth Street Northeast Auburn WA 98002 Aubum Riverside HS 1388 33.00 501 Oravetz Road Auburn WA,98092 Auburn Moumtamview HS 1,431 40.00 28900 124 Ave SE,Auburn,WA 98092 SH CAPACITY 5,287 TOTAL CAPACITY 15,341 16 Auburn School District No 406 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2006 through 2012 INVENTORY OF FACILITIES i TABLE I TEMPORARYIRELOCATABLE IV.2 FACILITIES INVENTORY March 2008 Elements Location 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2010-11 Washington 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Terminal Park 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Dick Scobee 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Pioneer 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Chinook 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Lea Hill 5 5 5 2 2 2 2 Gildo Rey 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Evergreen Heights 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 Alpac 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Lake View 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Hazelwood 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ilalko 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 Lakeland Hills Elementary 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL UNITS 33 33 33 30 30 30 30 TOTAL CAPACITY 875 875 875 795 795 795 795 Middle School Location 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2010-11 Cascade 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 Olympic 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 Rainier 5 5 5 8 8 8 8 Mt Baker 4 4 6 8 6 6 6 TOTAL UNITS 9 9 13 18 18 18 18 TOTAL CAPACITY 270 1 270 390 540 1 540 1 540 1 540 Sr High School Location 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2009-10 2009-10 West Auburn 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 Auburn 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Auburn Riverside 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Auburn Mountainview 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL UNITS 22 22 23 23 23 23 23 TOTAL CAPACITY 660 1 660 690 690 1 690 1 690 690 COMBINED TOTAL UNITS 64 64 69 71 71 Tt 71 COMBINED TOTAL CAPACITY 11805 1,805 1,955 2,025 2,025 2,025 2,025 17 Aubum School District No 408 Capital Facilities Plan 2006 through 2012 Section V Pupil Capacity Auburn School District No 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2006 through 2012 PUPIL CAPACITY While the Auburn School District uses the SPI inventory of permanent facilities as the data from which to determine space needs, the District's educational program requires more space than that provided for under the formula This additional square footage is converted to numbers of pupils in Section III, Standard of Service The District's capacity is adjusted to reflect the need for additional space to house Its programs Changes in the capacity of the district recognize new unfunded facilities The combined effect of these adjustments is shown on Line B in Tables V 1 and V 2 below Table V 1 shows the Distict's capacity with relocatable units included and Table V 2 without these units Table V.1 Capacity WITH relocatables 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 A SPI Capacity 14,817 14,817 15,367 15,917 15,917 16,667 16,667 A 1 SPI Capacity-New Elem 550 550 1/ A.2 SPI Capacity-New MS 750 B Capacity Adjustments 2,093 2,199 2,170 2,099 2,099 2,099 2,099 C Net Capacity 12,724 13,168 13,747 13,818 14,568 14,568 14,568 D ASD Enrollment 14,088 14,212 14,463 14,642 14,978 15,268 15,559 3/ E. ASD Surplus/Deflcit (1,364) (1,045) (716) (824) (410) (700) (991) CAPACITY ADJUSTMENTS Include Relocatable 1,805 1,805 1,955 2,025 2,025 2,025 2,025 2/ Exclude SOS 12 3,898 4,004 4,124 4,124 4,124 4,124 4,124 Total Adjustments (2,093) (2,199) (2,170) (2,099) (2,099) (2,099) (2,099) Table V.2 Capacity WITHOUT relocatables 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 A SPI Capacity 14,817 14,817 15,367 15,917 15,917 16,667 16,667 A 1 SPI Capacity-New Elem 550 550 1/ A 2 SPI Capacity- New MS 750 B Capacity Adjustments 3,898 4,004 4,124 4,124 4,124 4,124 4,124 C Net Capacity 10,919 11,363 11,793 11,793 12,543 12,543 12,543 D ASD Enrollment 14,088 14,212 14,463 14,642 14,978 15,268 15,559 E. ASD Surplus/Deficit (3,169) (2,849) (2,670) (2,849) (2,435) (2,725) (3,016) CAPACITY ADJUSTMENTS 2/ Ecolude SOS 12 3,898 4,004 4,124 4,124 4,124 4,124 4,124 l Adjustments (3,898) (4,004) (4,124) (4,124) (4,124) (4,124) (4,124) 1/ New facilities shown in 2009-10 are not funded under the current Capital Facilities Plan Z/ The Standard of Service represents 24 69%of SPI capacity Men new fatalities are added the Standard of Service computations are decreased to 20 26%of SPI capacity 31 Students beyond the capacity are acoornodated in non-classroom spaces(commons,library,theater) 19 Auburn School District No 408 Capital Facilities Plan Zoos through 2012 Section A Capital Construction Plan , t Auburn School District No 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2006 through 2012 CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION PLAN The formal process used by the Board to address current and future facility needs began in 1974 with the formation of a community wide citizens committee The result of this committee's work was published in the document titled'Guidelines for Development' In 1985 the Board formed a second Ad Hoc citizens committee to pick up from the work of the first and address the needs of the District for subsequent years. The work of this committee was published in the document titled 'Directions for the Nineties ' In 1995 the Board commissioned a third Ad Hoc citizens committee to make recommendations for improvements to the District's programs and physical facilities The committee recommendations are published in the document titled 'Education Into The Twenty-First Century--A Community Involved' The 1995 Ad Hoc committee recommended the District develop plans for the implementation,funding,and deployment of technology throughout the District's programs. The 1996 Bond proposition provided funding to enhance the capacity of each facility to accommodate technological applications The 1998 Capital Levy provided funding to further deploy technology at a level sufficient to support program requirements in every classroom and department. In 2005 a replacement technology levy was approved to continue to support technology across all facets of the Distnct's teaching, learning and operations. In addition to the technology needs of the District the Ad Hoc committee recognized the District must prepare for continued student enrollment growth. As stated in their report, "the District must pursue an appropriate high school site as soon as possible." The Ad Hoc recommendation included commentary that the financing should be timed to maintain consistent rates of assessment. A proposition was approved by the voters on Apn128, 1998 that is providing$8,000,000 over six years to address some of the technology needs of the District;and$5,000,000 to provide funds to acquire school sites. During the 1997-98 school year a Joint District Citizen's Ad Hoc Committee was appointed by the Auburn and Diermger School Boards to make recommendations on how best to serve the school population that will come from an area that includes a large development known as Lakeland South Lakeland South is immediately adjacent to the southem boundary of the Auburn School District On June 16, 1998 the Ad Hoc Committee presented its recommendation at a joint meeting of the Auburn and Diermger Boards of Directors. On June 22, 1998 the Auburn School Board adopted Resolution No.933 authorizing the process to initiate the adjustment of the boundaries of the District in accordance with the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendation. On June 23, 1998 the Diermger School Board adopted a companion Resolution No 24-97-98 authorizing the process to initiate the adjustment of the boundaries in accordance with the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendation. These actions resulted in the transfer of an area from Dieringer to Auburn containing most of the Lakeland South development and certain other undeveloped properties. Development in this area is progressing at an aggressive rate In April of2002,the Board formed a fifth citizen's Ad Hoc committee to address the following two items and make recommendations to the board in the Fall of 2002. a A review of the conclusion and recommendations of 1985 and 1995 Ad Hoc Committees related to accommodating high school enrollment growth. This includes the review of possible financing plans for new facilities. b. Develop recommendations for accommodating high school enrollment growth for the next 10 years if a new senior high school is not built This committee recommended the board place the high school on the ballot for the fifth time in February 2003. i The February election approved the new high school at 68.71%yes votes. The school opened in the Fall of 2005. In the Fall of 2003 the school board directed the administration to begin the planning and design for Elementary#13 and Elementary#14. In the Fall of 2004,the Auburn School Board passed resolution#1054 to place on the ballot in February 2005 two elementary schools. The voters approved the ballot measure in February of 2005 at 64 72%. Elementary#13 is under construction in the Lakeland area on a 12 acre site and 21 Auburn School District No 406 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2006 through 2012 CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION PLAN is scheduled to open in the Fall of 2006.Elementary#14 is currently in bid process and construction is scheduled to begin in Spring of 2006 and to open in the Fall of 2007, The school will be constructed on a 10 acre site the district owns in the Lea Hill area. In the 2004-05 school year,the Board convened a sixth Citizen's Ad Hoc committee to again study, and make recommendations about the future Impacts in the District One of the areas of study was the need for New Facilities and Modernization The committee made a number of recommendations including school size,the need for a new middle school,and to begm a capital improvements program to modernize or replace facilities based upon criterion The committee also recommended that the District have Middle School 45 on-line by Fal I of 2009. The District is projecting 1470 additional students within the six year period including the Lakeland and Lea Hill areas This increase in student population will require the construction of two new elementary schools, and the acquisition of a new middle school site and construction of a middle school during the six year window. iBased upon the District's capacity data and enrollment projections,as well as the student generation data included in Appendix A 3,the District has determined that approximately eighty-one percent of the capacity improvements are necessary to serve the students generated from new development, with the remaining additional capacity required to address existing need. The table below illustrates the current capital construction plan for the next six years. The exact timelines are wholly dependent on the rate of growth in the school age population. 2005-12 Capital Construction Plan March 2006 Funded Projected Fund Project Timelines Project as of Cost Source Mar-06 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 All Facilities- 2006 Technology Yes $12,000,000 6 Year XX XX XX XX XX XX Modernization Cap Levy Impact Portables Yes $700,000 Fees XX XX XX XX 1/ Property Purchase Bond New Middle School Yes $5,000,000 Impact XX XX Fees Bond 1/ Elementary#13 Yes $16,900,000 Impact XX XX Fees const open Bond 1/ Elementary#14 Yes $18,600,000 Impact XX XX XX Fees plan I const open 1/ Middle School#5 No $30,000,000 XX XX XX XX Ian const const open Bond 1/ New Sr High Yes $58,500,000 Impact XX Fees open II These funds may be secured through local bond issues,sale of real property,impact ,,as,and state matching funds The District currently is not eligible for state assistance at the elementary school level 22 i Aubum School District No. 408 Capital Facilities Plan 2006 through 2012 Section VII Impact Fees j i 2, T eeFF .p I () pco 0 0O 0 Z.,U N b p 8n_ � M O 0 0LL M TUO0. LLna pN aOO - O N O Uwwww w u0> }N` www f ww � _T 2` E m E E E o N o e� N LL 8 M 8 0 LL l7 co n N LL $ $ 0 LL n w q�d U W a) N U d Off co cOV g U p ^ o }' U m M v c0 c w N c w N c w M C » w w K cn c T > > E n N y^ E r N E N N E N N t�p0 ,O 19 �p 0 0 0 0 0 0 w 0 0 0 LL O o 0 j 0 0 0 C O j O O O O V = 0 0 0 L� w L m LL C d C X C Q O cy O O 07 LO T T ig m E o 9 E d E m E C m 0 0 ID LL 4 O p E pp 0 l9 O O^ pp O p �Gp W. J N f+01 10 t0 y U� N t01 LL'1 fD C� d h t0 C� L Q� N OD V a m C 01 O O O j c CV+0 O O j C 0 0 0 � m 0 O O C_ _ _ _ Z j �A (c J (A J (A J N c N N U N N L N i°- a H J O LL LL 8 Q LL O ° a L � �bgg V c � c�jooao w Z,4? a LL � = A 8R n y J g oLL �.v'�'im � 2 ca o � p W & m opbo o � � � v�i � a tS r E r J Fae in a Q O d X a u V N $ J tS 4 2 CX N ~ LL N p p 0 ~ LL m N m O W c0 V m 0 a09 v N 0 m W N m 0 O N CO N 0 y OOi O g N U LL LL Z S m 0 O ; g = a � y � En Opp by ul Lo _ pp o I+ (] £ N 3. m r O C O Z' b L N N N T N O) { Z, ... 8 _ L' .tQ�q@.g O W YUyVy N NN Np N a m Z' m cD a U N < O m U O N V W N U O C X O c 1 1 3 x 5 § c Q m Q LL M U. w y m w w w y aci t £ $ tg a V w Vol w U W Wd 3 � � am m � a Z, taffy LL W v # , W R N Q pNy �u � � A T m � a m jF V m � �O a v q N ~ m U c rn ° °' 2v LL �a LL c c �v co m IT: a a �_ a_ _ € N m € VJaax € Q, _LL W f fn LL W f LL W fn N W W (A r @ @ @ @ � \ m BLL LD M $ Qom & r ) � � m $ p $E0 ! e ; 2 \ M Go \ I ° \� §m _- a k / \ \ @ k of § ) H ' � \ a a ~ \ § 2 x CO } _ L x I � § »_ IK FE co ! ) $ m m \ § {RCN } & 0x k k , - - _ 2 a 7 2 w ) @ LD tea - f I , , k / ) § ) } < � � / \ § ` ® » a ) f ■ , ) 2 »f . _ � I � ' $ ; \ § _ ask k f 6 ® / > § . / 2 _ k ° ) § « / LL ` k � ( ! ) � Efff § 2 § ! f A I © lEEa ; m 7 § $ Qz � me � @ @ � _ _� � 1 4i 8 O O n ON1 t 11 m�p 0 N f07 O/ oe _ "• O co a vi N O R M V) � N n N 0) B O O OD m !p N cop O O i0 w Y w w H w w J O N M a (D O um 0 8 n ON+ a -1co 0) mN M rn2e Ua IL o O p m p O N t0 N N tOpl O �O 1` N r N N y (D eJ O O W t0 N f0 O O T N Q N O d U w j 7 � LO w S y v] (p N O O N f�!` Oi 01 O N c ch ��/ 0�1 O Epp O pp y O W Y a �O O� N coO t0 fOD O O O < N 7 m Q N w ao w w m w J O I4+ O Ch o N O co t. o� ° a m U_ m e y Ot}_ 'O Sj mG Q a �N„� Op 01 O O �A N N " m N & fn O N N O O N w Y N w y O O Of �O t7 c U mZ Uo? noo O �n " a'- c � °° � mN 'ew N rn3e vLL a8° O N O O m O N L 0 0 O N < N w 7 A �' O z . _2 M w a c W J o m o p pp o N r o 8 Q L+ E O O O N O m N w aQ U O N N 4-4 m N L LL N O ul O m O N co N 0 M O n N {+1 0! J w w w w W � U) tD W ..� M Oi N O e- V t, m 0 01 1� N M y N E J o m w w m ,� <000 � ,� � wa aU � F � a ' a Q co co rn rn d rn o � o v g L iv N a w w w N m ymtni m a ~ La ' nmxwto m 0 c of C 10 O z O N c u c N Q rnC a 40 - W -W Cn Z m m m m Nm LL v 9 -� Nw — o c 0) m m 3 m m ' j o m Z O 01 VW V t0 0 _0 $ ma V _ ? 3 $ .o oa, Cc 0 >w 3m � >, 0 H V 8 m co m �1 U) y V y m _ f0 0 0 N N O 00 lL N L .� N Y UI # n d m d a a � po E a' O O mp oic 01 O m 08 0: p m NNN n Ua m m y in NNm � 4 U m 0) a y�' 0 m aEi e e P o E m > p u) Q 0) w f ¢ (� OC vl fn <O fn a F- LL U. LL U x U U a m m m m m N 4� O m a - 0) m d_' m m e �0 ` �$U m y. m w o o K 4 0 4 y o o c �j 2 U wQ g � Oum. LL in aU0 < F y a_ H a g E �m 9 m m K U. u o 0rnLL E E LL � a° � m Z c U ` $ _' � °' Q JF- CDLLLL n m QU n � D U) � � a � � m � Q a m d v m mIV m aEi o a m m a a 0 frizz r- H rnm IF- ro o cnco ff o $' O H Is Auburn School District No 408 , Capital Facilities Plan 2006 through 2012 Section VIII Appendix Appendix A.1 - Student Enrollment Projections Appendix A 2 - CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Enrollment Projections Appendix A 3 -Student Generation Survey Appendix A.1 - Student Enrollment Projections I FOR BACKGROUND INFORMATION PURPOSES Auburn School District 4408 Student Enrollment Projections October 2005 Introduction The projective techniques give some consideration to historical and current data as a basis for forecasting the future. In addition, the `projector' must make certain assumptions about the operant variables within the data being used. These assumptions are "judgmental" by definition. Forecasting can be defined as the extrapolation or logical extension from history to the future, or from the known to the unknown. The attached tabular data reviews the history of student enrollment, sets out some quantitative assumptions, and provides projections based on these numerical factors. The projection logic does not attempt to weigh the individual sociological,psychological, economic, and political factors that are present in any demographic analysis and projection. The logic embraces the assumptions that whatever these individual factors have been in the j past are present today, and will be in the future. It further moderates the impact of singular factors by averaging data over thirteen years and six years respectively. The results provide a trend,which reflects a long(13-year) and a short(6-year)base from which to extrapolate Two methods of estimating the number of kindergarten students have been used The first uses the average increase or decrease over the past 13 and 6-year time frame and adds it to each succeeding year. The second derives what the average percentage Auburn kindergartners have been of the live births in King County for the past 5 years and uses ' this to project the subsequent four years. The degree to which the actuals deviate from the projections can only be measured after the fact. This deviation provides a point of departure to evaluate the effectiveness of the assumptions and logic being used to calculate future projections. Monitoring deviation is critical to the viability and credibility of the projections derived by these techniques. Tables Table I — Thirteen Year History of October 1 Enrollments—page 31 The data shown in this table is the baseline information used to project future enrollment. This data shows the past record of enrollment in the district on October 1 of each year. Table 2—Historical Factors Used in Projections-page 32 , This table shows the three basic factors derived from the data in Table 1. These factors have been used in the subsequent projections. The three factors are: 1. Factor 1 —Average Pupil Change Between Grade Levels This factor is sometimes referred to as the"holding power" or"cohort survival." It is a measure of the number of pupils gained or lost as they move from one grade level to the next. 29 2. Factor 2 - Average Pupil Change by Grade Level This factor is the average change at each grade level over the 13 or 6-year period. 3. Factor 3—Auburn School District Kindergarten Enrollment as a Function of King County Live Births. This factor calculates what percent each kindergarten class was of the King County live births in the 5 previous years. From this information has been extrapolated the kindergarten pupils expected for the next 4 years. Table 3—Protection Models—pages 3341 This set of tables utilizes the above mentioned variables and generates several projections. The models are explained briefly below. a Table 3.13 (pg 33)—shows a projection based on the 13-year average gain in kindergarten (Factor 2)and the 13-year average change between grade levels (Factor 1). The data is shown for the district as a whole. o Table 3.6(pg 33)—shows a projection using the same scheme as Table 3.13 except it shortens the historical to only the most recent 6 years. u Table 3.l3A and 3.6A (pg 34)—uses the same factors above except Factor 3 is substituted for Factor 2. The kindergarten rates are derived from the King County live births instead of the average gain a Tables 3E.13, 3E.6, 3E.13A, 3E.6A(pg 35)—breaks out the K-5 grades from the district projection. Summary level data is provided for percentage gain and pupil gain by grade articulation. a Tables 3MS.13, 3MS.6, 3MS.13A, 3MS 6A (pg 36)—breaks out the 6-8 grades from the district projection. Summary level data is provided for percentage gain and pupil gain by grade articulation. a Tables 3SH.13, 3SH.6, 3SH 13A, 3SH 6A (pg 37)—breaks out the 9-12 grades from the district projection. Summary level data is provided for percentage gain and pupil gain by grade articulation. o Table 4(pg 38)—Collects the four projection models by grade group for ease of comparison. o Table 5 (pgs 3941)—shows how well each projection model performed when compared with actual enrollments. Data is provided in both number and percent formats for the past 13 years i 30 N Q O 0 Y w W n m m W N c0 f m m p l0 tb W r Or r O r O O N r m m m W W W iA O m r M N N m N O NM N 0) N <0 m T i0 O! O/ O N O t0 i0 N M N Q t00 ^ N �(Npp O OD aaaN000 Ln coo N v h M N M p N O to N A N ���tb0ppp� O M �(DD m W (mV �^(1 w NtN0 N th O t7 w NW Ol C� W O O O N tD GAD c+� N M (7 O n a0 Of N o V 00 m N Y N M N M V Cl) a O gyp, ae a' CD N y l0 V N <0 ((pppppp W m m c0 �"� W 000025 O � v � ' nN 0) 00a OO V a a W O r r r r r r � N VVV r N N fD N A ND fO M N t0 7 Q Q CWp CL ry N N o m N U9 Cl O O N Q r W a � a2/ wgoo p� � � %l r' $ � � mrn rn m rn � c%� o Lu O s� N N N N N tD a o t� m 1pp�pp N N m O 0) r N l0 9M c0 Owl O O O Omi Om1 M N O' m M m0 N N N ID a M N M M Q O M Z CL O� aa t0 pW N o N i4- W P V) tD O m V m W W ul ONi N S aN0 N M h m O Obi N r n W N m V m Of O �j O Nl r m m 1� o W W m m 0 N O OD W D> W W W W N _ p� m N N t0 LU m y t0 N m W 2e B Q Q l0 h v/ mm W r 0 f0 N W , F- G Goo m N �} N r rO NO r f�D N m O m O Ol $ m f 0 O N W W W 01 OI W 47 m N N N1 b �' W t0 N m M Y N N M ? N V C g �_Cg $ ~ � �irnrnrn �i a, M aid DD M0N � M8C7 � m � � wagon � co � m (� IL W r N l} S N N m N V N N N t7 N o CaRJ a' _ rn �irnnW `gW' D�iaNi �im � `Sia�o � cv � n Qm �m' � � $ � (��pp' � � Dgi m N N m N Q N N N (0 N 0 y r M N mp m rn No � o E � mp N UmIN o a r W M W ONE m W M N m Of $ m m m N O N m to t�p A (m�pp n oD a00 M cm0 �4g � N U N N m N R iD N N f0 N a �0 Obi T Ol T W ONi m Ori (Op (p N fD fW0 �n d m m A ID 2) t0D m n N (CN W t0 Of n m N Ly W N h t� N a N N N t0 N � C � W nJ7 J N N m t0 N m m m W °o � � pad HYYYY tD ran W o a Q < �Z V)Z mmm 2oJ m m mm N 0 Ol O N > > > > U Ul y W t0 (O tO v v v v v o v v o v o v v v e v M ro cn a m m M e0 �t V O Y Q Q Q Q o m z o' a a a a p K Q W Q a v v v v Z, G 0 m an d c N Z Er m O T fm O tmV ONi N f00 r A O N N �(p� OrD tT Q� N tD O N ONI to ff! N l9 W y m m �O �O CD m m�t1 m 0 m n n m r 0 m m 0 rn rn m rn Oi m Nm Of m m m Ok m aD g a n y 1- p r Z W W O Q Q,' U N W 2 v m "N (0 r "N m A i0 V O O N N m u'f N tp in r n N N N n N (O v o V) (V v h m V m m V (O fO (0 m O n O N <O m Cn mmm (8 n < m (LJ O n m O O (0 O m N A m C JLr m r v ("i t0 (0 t0 O v m m n m m m m m < C m a 0 N V N N N N N N N r 0 N N N N N N N Z C QQ_p J t F U OQ�Qu. 00CCCmmmw m m m mmm m mm0) go00 o o00 - m W Z W O � (nmAmrno NcOOutmrmw M( o 99 � - NM It OD o � } Z n n n n r m m m m m m m m m m rn rn N rn rn rn rn rn rn rn o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o s , _ U f0 p� m 10 f0 m M n C N m O O O m (0 M O < 10 m O A f0 l0 (0 N ..yy (p ((pp W m A a y0 N O A A m m m m M po O O A A N m m O N O m y O m < p t�i m 0 a is. t+t ~ m (0 Y (0 O a (0 (0 m O N co n N .- mM m m 0 (0 m m m ? (0 < N V (0 O N N V m U) Z4J m m m LL6 Y ? v Y V . ' '6 N tD t0 m m m r' r' OD m r tp 1� A m r- W Q p m D = uI A (O A V m tap m 0 0 �{ � a Oa}} M O O N (0 M N � � aD mN M O A m O1 r n ro J m O m wo O O N O (0 t0 (O < C0 N O O m t0 m m m t7 v m m m (0 (0 m N t0 (0 O Of m m m m m O .- N N (V c0 m V t` n u) t0 v (O Y (0 `y p Q a m < < - < < « < < < < < < « — N N Z J U mmm m m (0 O N m V 0 0 < t0 Y m m p m m m 0 0 m m M m N r r m t0 N U f+f W Q W S m N t0 m V m m m N 0 t0 r r (0 O c t n y m t0 0N O r C O m r m f- 1 1- a N a n Y n (O O (0 m < m (0 m n m m 0 (0 r r M O O b <O N O 1w A m < m U J X O m (D m M M M m Y N m m r m m m m m (% (O m fV O N N 'r; N N N N N O Z F- m N < < < < < < < < < < .- < N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O W G~�N O mJ Q QQ wO �y � nrnnOyM p Q a W An 90) 9m.- 0e- m< 8N N Om m m m m m m COD) m mm m COO) m m O pN O U Z OO N O IL W - - - N F H O J o 0 0 0 0 0 pp o 0 0 0 0 (D o 0 0 0 ppCC) 0 0 O y N m 0) N N N 6 P m ? O O h m mo 0 m m O m0 N c0 o m Oo O m O m < m 0 (0 N N (0 m O N N CO r- m (0 m 0 < m <O UI (0 d m < < N N N < < m O ? m N < N < N t0 N Y N W Of m U C9 Q H o fp i m 2 ¢ o a LL C °' < N c0 Y (0 m A m m 0 O y 0cl } S g g 0 0 0 0 0 0 o N d >. m m pp� a < o c m (p c C O I L N e _Q m 0 c U y U 0 m N m L" O. O N N (0 N O m N GO N 1. p v m m (0 m m m N f0 NI m t0 m A N m 0 � mmAno (mm m o rp > @ ocoN (nNmm <n omome > $ p y OD m L m O W N tIIjQ U 50 m _ N O N < m W m N W < } < N t0 A m m Q O 8 0 y n S N W Y N to (0 m A m m < N 0 F LL Q 0 0 0 V (0 0 m Il } O E < Y < N (0 m m n m m <O < IL £ ILL �+ r N O O 0 Or° � �nM � � O °' mmtn � � � rnp O , � o 0 0 0 0 o o M o a < n ^ o - - - N o - O O N n rn aa o m n v m rn n N m °p a -+ n o o M a m N m rn m m n n v e R ' o 0 0 N V N N m 7 m N O p N O V C O m coA N m N N a A N A M O m N N f(pp n A m m Of m N g o d N S M N (� m GD N n 0 v O d ' v O) O) O �f1 N M m ` m N Of O O O O O M ' O O O .- N M O N O O N N O N fp ( 0 0 M(p O N M O m N o N N C7 m A 0 N Ol N 0 O m � C) p 0 0 0 S N M 0 aND N 0 y 0 0 0 0 0 N M N m O g W d p d - - r - - - O <_ M m 0 0 m m p A O aO ((pp M m O 3E a O N N a Q N A A O N 0 S N m O N n n m S '- Mco c� a rn o 0 0 0 o S o o M N rn oo .� d N � i�pp ip N p T m o O t0 i0 m Of O N N m t0 N O n m O� J (V O O O O O O O M N O < O a .- o a z Z 0 Y m O m A 0 A n O) N N e N A A O M OI M v n m N �p n W O m N M M a N M N N n 0 m m M M O M 41 a ' S O_ O O O_ _O O O O M N O O O S o O_ O , O O Y N N_ O_ p 0 v ui A N A m M N M a O m N 'E O W N M Y N N A M M m m m * i O N N tyi M N N N OD M M N r O m v N n CA 0 O In N co � ov � o � oo � oo � � oa �i � M .Q U 000 � o � W _� N_ `' � M as c o g_ o _ _ o o_ _� _N `r � coico O M m W ' p� m N A O m m Ol N N O m O 0 O Q N Sj M 8 O O O N O a0 c%i N O O M M Y N A m r- N n N N N m , Q x m �j O O O p S O t- O M ^ ^ ' M A Q' S O O 0 0 0 �j ! V N N w p 0 V tll Z S ` N m N O M O QNi O i7 O Q Q' anoo oo °� aoom - � vo n 0 anm000S � m000 � r� o � � om o m � tp a O n O 0 A O C r N N W 0) OMD N W O A f Op N N (NV CAO N 'Md N O O O N tt Q' f0 O O O O O p N N O O d' O O O O C� N ' f < , a — p > a o M J (op mm (D C D J C C M - p O MfO0l M M M - p IPT ' 7 Q9 0p - � � ' - 2 -a p r � - � ' a W 4 (31 a Q Y N M V N 0 A m O) 0 � ^ � 0. � � � OQ � N M Y N f0 A m d7 � � � F Rc Y O 0 a m m m m n o m M N ems- O a d m � vroi V N d n a O O NI -+ _r m N mN m 0 � m M m c� o f m 3 N m o o 0 CD N o a a a 0 it _ o m m m n n � O m O O O N O O O f t0 '1 � O O a a H '0 N �n N th Y7 O �D m O 0 U d' O O O O O - - - O 0. Y 00— OO OO W a -- a � O w ILf m m m O m m M m F a � c4i � a, 00 � � � a o3 � `c� M °.° o uj _' M co n m - m_ mmnnmm (p Wn0m �i It O N In N m 0 — tO N J O � o o 0 o in o X - 0 0 0 0 - o a o , O a a Z pp{y� 8 ([�([ppppp W O m m n m 0 0 0 M N 0 m ^ 8 m O O 0 0 f N N 0 f- a mmmm - CL .- LU Z O m m gg n N N umi �i �i `� O Onf allo 8 O1 O O y a m dim o00 ' IL m n mm t0 M O a m f N �n m �^ _^ ' m O O f t0 O o ^ e O ��pp C0 p O Cfp r O ((pp of 00 l0 f m f O m O O m u� m N 0 al M m m O N f m0 O O N ol .- m �^N Q mO fNm NNo'cc: cD O O 0NN m O a 0 ff0 D U y y � m v� rnNrN o mm Mn N �nr mo YO .- Im mNOMom �n - O O � N � o inMmr0oo, j m m mm 0 m m 0 CD c7 N � � o 10 m a o m m o m o � m o o � mo o ^ f o g m •6 4 � v Q � �m' � rnrno � 000 � rv � o < o `D � � rnrno ' � og � c� g � IL a o � C J C C J C C O �p N m m ! m R ' m cc m �p N in m m m f0 Co m m N N mN ' n m m O O 4 j o m ���pp t itpp O m ((pp O N ^ r mmm °D O O Vp T m Omi O O O O Y `p — U 0 Oml m U� 0 0 0 0 O 0 _ b Q c a Q c a W 9L'P w y On Q `r Y -- N /0fmm � mm � � � Qa Q O � � NtOfbmnmm � � Qa H i° O 00 H Y 0 o a m m p ppt") rn r m0 m m 0 0 0 00 N N s m -N I V m ry m m a0 m l`1 V m N m mO-N NJD m m o0000 ,� O N m mom r orovmN n `N '0 0'O m O O N ry m t� --- - N !a (D V m (p O CO N m.pp N m N m O O O N 00 p0 4?1 00 ,Nn N N O U pp p 0 0 0 m W O N N m N O W y 00 O! ,p O O V O tom0MN V mm O n V m 3T CDg a 00�cvio m 000�� M oom' �d Z W 1Do m o n M mo mm 6P I `f mmn J ,a o on Q c,. �ood c� "' WW o00 oNog O z _ LU Z pp pp I.- N O O O O�_ m N 00000 N W co W Omi N O 00 uj n N V m m N m n W N m m m m m N m 3 0000� `p 9o`800 � o m n$ o Go co N � � � ^ of �im� mmm � Oy O N N m m g np N W 0�000 Oni p �Omf Orl�p_ co 0 Of Omf-O <�1 O O mmNOlO O t+lM V V N W _O NmNptp+I p O Omp V N O r co 00000 m m OVi W O m Oj N aD 000 O O - O O U N Z om �,n �.,�m o mo mm mn 132 o N �ecom mo mm�mr Q_' no 0 o W rn o ro o�m g 0 no M-M rn M ro m o o �mc Q =�pp mpr mO O �hN N O mOn pmO �O�_pp amNN }+ O �mm�m r O W Omi O omm$m r p �mm m L_ c m tp L Lo mcog�� U' Y mmgM� �� mo mm0M8 �� om p �i�.-m.- o a , o gym.- o Q p �' `8i� m� o= a' a' a' o d m o a 1 o Q W W �NfOOm W s �N01 V 1l1 Q W �N M V b W .- Nm V N m co Cl) Cl) 0 a 0m000cvm 0m � `°� °° `o � Om Orn d o G. •- rn r N d a m O � tOp' � mvrn O � mrn � o � m O `` O � v w n O O O N m w N d M p Q. t7 d Q 0 0 0 =� r mmrn to d wOO N D On °ppf 0� O � Orn O IL o a m a -- 0 t5 ' O � rno Nrnm nmo O � 0 am - - > am Md s d _ o O m a N O m aD N Oi O M V �'1 m O -- N N O m a ti ,U a oo om av = N avo00 v a `g rno v O d 0 V � nmX 0 � 0 3' v Imm � rno� orn " ��pp p Z c�i ` � �nm 0 nrn co ao O a ((pp ' me0 cv F a 0 0 0 N N W M ^ O �p d' 0 0 0 0 .- Z M d .- N d lvl O d M O W 0 to Q V)i 0 - " N ac �o t� oiN ag N �' aon � N a - - - - l+l O W 0 � vniMNaa�or O � �... X �- O O O m �y X « 00 N M ix 0 Z G a W O M N 0 N N r o O ^Oa .- O rnBowNvoa � �O ooNo bNo oma � o SN rnN ro Noa r°X0000awi wo .n d a Q� oom 3e -� o0 ao 7 2e � o 0 (p O N O rnm � J v O K o o o m ip O rn m o O n $ o M m 0 rn m o rn ao0a' � � N '� aoomtON aoomr, 0 Vcri O N N 9 Z mo r N O m rn { I �n n N j Morn a —OR orn o `o rn � MMorno na Y o oo �irn �" ,. m a o V �? n O 2 ar0 m R ^ N ao 0 0 m np @ m J C C C J C C Q rn a no r m m m co m m n rn m Q r rn Q m a m n rn m CD O O`o 0 rO- o � o � � H �noo � H .noo � 8 a Q c a 4 c Q c O d w O a w a w w O `m w m pw ~ ¢ pwp ~ a w O d m a m m a M m n m a Q a m n m a Q m n m a M ¢ CD O m o M 0 as m N m Of r O p w w w A O - (A Y m Y m Q O N N N O fD D O O N O w A N 0 Gp a v o a . n o � w min 00 -+ m �nfn m m R � O rw � rN O �nwmvtvrn O o N � Nm � O ao o � v ow wiz: N - oSio � � � �nmN - a � mcv � oAo � a' t: vm � oQ h a Q a n a Q o a o 0 0 0 - 9 0 CL Ip a' - Q m N 0 0 0 O ti O � tDAiDA 2R '' opppprnoNpX 0ww �Dr a 0mm (D coo) O �D A m M S N p� O " m GD r Go fD N N O W r m f'1 Q O j ? ctD`I t` O O N m m N •- O w w N a' h - Z 0 W O w o ue M Dl w N a O - N m N r sGp Gp O ^ N O a r V a' O m O r p pt a' a �_ " m Q m N O r o tSi � `v �_ M �D N w a QN a � � �"DN a •- .- � QN a .- - - NNE a � Q DI N tD Q O v w m w 4� 'e '� v rn N b v O ' w m m O - o N �D °D A �r O r w w ui O o N u� OD r Gp�n O r w w �n x M m N - M O t'7 N a' Q Q m N S w m tD a' th Q m O O) �D N F a v a -- - - -t a � uj _" � NA � mrn ;e worn , * mmNA wMade v� orn � o J Oc� aoiNo � n oo Oc� v� rNi 011m `D O � ovwoM � c� v cNi � � oma Q a - N r Orn - m Niw GNom O -- mQo 0 -1wvo I.- a N O K rQ � N Z a - - O�`Rp ffppp ernG m LU y Oa' -O rnuN) aSfGoocow `� O QQm Oa O �nQ N Oa' O N il+loO') A �� DO oQ mtgf ww N Q a � a N a v M a ONLn o O me o QN I 0 - Mt O O CD f o of 00 LLS N er- N N a O a rnr 0 w n o m O O ° ^ °e rn NO O O N n N N m O O N r N 4J N O K m N w N a ap Q " rn rn Q K aD m N ' m N a aD Q ' N rn O v V M GD r N n N w CD N �D r rn m °D r N A N w e m w N off A rn m Z O O O m O O m N n - O Q m Gp A �D m m N Er O m m N O V a p Q c9 O O O a v Q GG�G�t 0 n N rn m v) e r m of GD D) o v) 2E -� r N m dQ rn Of w 4 ' ILN O O , - d GO'D a Oi GO^v o o um-� �p to C J �p C C J K Q O rn m N w N N ¢ d (D m N w N to 0 �Z$t Q O Of m N N Q O rn m N N O! 7 GwO w p p o TT cn $ U O n n O 0 m U o m m CO w o w D n W U o m m w o o n Vow � u� nCL Q c a Q c a Q `c d Q c a H Q F F w w p m w m w O - w w O m w m o O m = O o r N F a m 2 D, o N F- a m O o N a m rn o N H a aGn a � a = 4a a � I H m U' M t- 0 a 'p -' "ir O � cmfr O � vc"i Q K m m 8 m m K co m mC6 o v`ni v K m � vmi a - a a O. a 0 m m m O O N N O a' n p, O (L M e n v vNi v in 0 0 04 mO O ' a `° m N� vwvo � m a 0 �ama a.. c+ Q � m � mncn -� mommN 0 m -gym in v O � g O of O cnu> nv O 0 (� vm 0 - NN to a u> 0. v Lo a gi a O 0 — N `f f' O •- `* � O � mg O � Nmv W CL (L a � m f0+1m CL vhv �A a � 7N r Oz a.O v v '� n v m N m � V p �n a m ^ o 0 F ma ° o CL a � mgmm a vvvv a "' va Z W � crm 0 � � rn .- IM � TNm o O Cli J a' a Oa m � m O a EL a _Nmv n CL oc m Z N n N ,n > N ` .,a- -� N m ,A 0 N n W O '- °° oo O � mcn,� O � cg a0, � � i m � � O z a d w m a M m n m a a v v a a n W O _� O m ! Y1 m m e- m .- N w � � � < a � a � m � a a a a a F- -i O O N N V O �p m ,p 4J > O N N F' O t7 m N N O 0 7 N N O �n Y V O r A n O $ an, tuff t+l Z m m m N m o m rn o o m m o m 0 m N ao �i mm ao �n �nvh aoMa1 � � aov �n van a � "� � � a, m m o m p O �O 0 o O � Omom Oon OomNnomO m w m m O a mC0 W o m m m m x mm N m 0 a a0M M a O v v v v a rn o U p oO m m N aommv �n aoM nm �n7 rm OO a m � m Omv N n noO ao m O o � � rnrn O (op `� umi `� vmi OQm O (Qpmrop� m 0 oo� '� oo ((( IK a m m m a O Y a a ? a O c7 oI M M d O h b N a O V Q v 7L ( Z a `S a N N N N Q m m m m Q N N N N J Q m m m m v7 �T N elf � n') CI M t'� m O m m m m N 7 M M (") Hl Q = O O O O W m m m m H m m m m F- w H 0 0 0 0 r H N V y � Uo OUovvav pUo � ioMn ppou� v� �n �n OU Q p Q p Q O Q Q W W w I O w w Q I O Q U O mvp � � nQ O � � canQ O � mmcao 0 ' Fa- Z C7 m m a' Ur m m U. m U) U) U) m 2 2 2 2 (� m m U) (1) V) U) 0 cn ri cn cn o a � � � W � � � � � � � � � � o # m �w00 00 co xx m � ❑ � � tmvD � N O) ❑ X �v � � O) ❑ � 1� V � O W ❑ � � � � N co m m m !"f lD N N m m l� (O N O 01 O� p m F m m co m F M N N N p N iV N N N 0 N ' N ` N r 0 Nl 0 xx N N O Qt O �O m N M a O M I tR ee $ M f") 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C r r r r (Ip� fix( ' O C T ❑ X m M n m ❑ % Q N ? ❑ X N O N O W ❑ X ? N m p rn FFm ppr O ¢ ¢ V m VMf Cl CO'1 R (Qp�y/� M Off _ m {pW� n O h _ < O Of OS F C Ol O)U n !� r n Y p p m m N f'V N N N N N N N V y C C 0) �O m 1D m W m O N N N N N O O W = j Y Y F �- Is °d a6 `a atl O 0 O ^e m O M N N N N N Q m m N o aMp m M aC _ _ V) O O M M O O p 0 r O r 0 O O N r LU J .� } } } ❑ v of N N ❑ m m O a Y Lh a, O M N N O o r m r M m 0 7 N e0 N m m O M Ol M M N N m Z ¢ m n r O r O m 6 m O t0 o t0 6 r �l1 Ol M W r ¢ (p (p m m m W a0 a1 m u) frOV �O m u'1 m m 0 0 m O N N N N N F N N N N F N N N N N M M M M r Z 0. d IL a W �5 o aE X ae e >o a � � 8R � � a o v e H 2e Nm 3e � o � v a ' rnomoM � � rMi N R g o m r r r O r p 0 f C r r O: V N d O N r a ❑ Y M v ❑ R n ❑ m m G o 0 Q o a Dzo` ro m N � � M0 o mMr Z fmm ID 12WC%l OD v ornv01 Of cm¢ a N C a j r ^ r WWW O Z O N N a `e e o ae oe ee ee +S e e o 2e U o o e mom Mr� i� n vo � o � Ao � MCMD � Q � y � oror oOOo vMVM m � r � a CL Q � g' X�x5 c� N �M'� � MaMrn �t �x( nrn om O E L+ 0) ❑ X M 'r r rn O R N .r,.N Ol ❑ Of 10 O) m orn 6 % W O T z' a n ■ u � `D o `r° .A00 'S rnmrn � m T3 'T m � NT (Vo v N m o O N chi M M O 0 F m t0 /p f0 F N N N N N F N N N N F t0 M f¢O j M m M 0� M 0 M M F=- MM HMMMMH � M w O c C U c cU¢ a a a a -� ¢ aaa a " ¢ a a a ¢ a` a` a` a` a aaaae a ;ease laea �� e �. aaaa �[ �. .� o n V N r a m V m V e " ONO a cM+f O 0000 omom nun �n ��� x}� momo 4 � 0m0m 4m xaocv0m 00 ❑ '�. m o0 0 X M fm+I M oa 0 o ❑ ' N - v N N N N 00 m n m m m m O N O G t0 M FcmD (mD (mO tm0 0 n M ccM m M m O �m l A CD O p N N H a ^a ee x% a s o a a s a s a a v v v M ae X m V ee X O .- a v a M N C O v v K1 V Y1 V' C O - y �+ O H Ydm LmNCy �y Y No op �mp . N NNO a —0 4 x 4 4 rn p ❑ m ❑ ❑ N@ o N o Z N N N m N 1111�ppppp O m a U U V tD m am n N h N n NWN 0MD O IT ty0 (MO m r W V m tm0 tD Q f�1 ��'1 11Nf M t�/ p N M p t7 MN' M C W :3jYY r r- r r � 0 Ir > > a � `ee e o a 0o 0o a � � � a �� '� a � � � N a # LO aNv N M Z V1 G N U W = _ = S J } } > � S O R A M g 0 R --S g 0 R m i� m o �p �p N r. .... N b N � Z Q N m Y O N OR moo v tV V N t�+I O as O Omi O n m m N O N !MV N N 'gyp N M N W m � Q m m (D O M m 40 M M F M M M M M M 0) M M F- M M M M Z � cc C` W a a a a 7 e a a a a?a a a ae a s a a a F r N .� N m N m XxX Na—) m ,p xx n O O M N a m ' m y a % M < M Y s X m iO - M M N N y N O O 0 0 0 0 O > j O O pQ O _ F Q T N O 0 Z$ O elf O i0 p� �C_ 1� m n m �S N�j NOD y m ❑ Q n ✓v n m 0 Q n °�C m ❑ o o m ❑ Q m m m y m Ol m m o' 'o ,1 2 ^ 0 m to 0) mM N � m mm 00 mm a o o M m r m m m M M 0 a o o n o o M Oi Q m n 1+ n n m O O O O N N O O m ❑ .r m m g m m M M M M M M 49 M m M M N M 2 W ¢ v °� F F j7Z�5 0 _• 0 CCJ ae;ea s o a o a aO aa a a oZ z UO O p mOf a n a m Mm a Go ca Q a a v m v m v v m � n Z cow o�no�o m 't o o 9' u g E 0 N n ❑ m r,'`o C mm L ❑ m OZCL rn +- mon �itinnn mt�+ gng _ v o �n rn m B o m m m o o m o m m m m m F M N N N F .- W Q � m ' Q - QD Q � mr' � W W W W = W W W W W W W W co Q U cc ' U cc O U c C• U a ^ � ¢ aaa` a � ¢ a` a. aa ¢ aa` c. a < aa` a` a o a DT N C N L y N N N m O N � ❑ c E q ci Q U r E c `3 D p 2Y n 6 'c `D N m � � ro ro E a � LD c 0 0 O Dl m m YY � ro rn aaaa 41 , ease om ease N La a ZS O N N O F N a N ((pD a �S y 0I M 0 2R tO OfD r L 61 N V t0 N O O a0 M Q Of CDN CD N a N N N , a�U U Qmrn N � n � o0004 o Q <Z m v O rn tt-jC Y O L. 0 t rn co O oVVNN m DI N i ❑ ❑ 0 ❑W Y o V rn V ❑ � ¢ ¢ v v ¢ ¢ C ro � } � } �5 �?aaa aaaa ease a?aaa G. ODOQ a Qumi mr voim avNi $ � rn a � m � rn a # NrnD' o H T j (n y in 00 W LLl xx ^ tm+l �O � ��(( m a0 m �O 4- fix( i0[I ONi u0i �O xX O N O 0 ` 15 m O N N p T N N mr v Z ' _ O) tmp N Y (Np V tN0 m N t'0 O O F� tr0 n 0 uJ m !p m �O �A �n m co �n �p m 40 m (D (0 0) l9 O M cif TI M OpYY m M M Fp F r o1 rn m Z ^ c c 12 W a` a` a a F a aaaye xao ao eases x�( ease a V N N N O 00 v 0 v 0 N O _ 0 �-. 4 a° a " uoi v`Di 4 " v �5 m n rn o00 O O j N N N N O 0 O D. o CD M 4i m gD o oa rn rn n v �n r� = m ¢ v o (D $ mm c MM o $ M M F � " " as o a` aa? aEa" ease seas Z U o n c� M— x rn a CD a x M V N O N O a V v m Y t m a L o y Q � � a g �5ioio v ri Y � o n t ornom 4 t S �io N n ) U gE � $ ❑ � � �� $ ❑ ���� $ � N � � ooRrmvrn O W N O Z N N N N a _ �O N 0O �O 03 O! toM M " O DOi r O J y� W W W � W W W W 'r �D W W W W W W W co co W W � c0 n '' o U cccc U cccc � 6 a a a ac. �` ¢ a a a a *' ¢ a a a a ¢ a a a a Appendix A.2 - CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Enrollment Projections i N in O f- i� Co f0 N O O O r ' L� O O OO m O O O O 0 c' Er m ' O un r O N O r tp V LL 0 0 0 0 LL C ppppco A O co00f 00f (D V M O O r N Q N A _ H N !� 7 7 "� n CD a w i m ; rgs a C7 _� x ��pp NN N_ a�p 0 0 p � O m N O O O O O O O M O N r r v ffVV Cf r N - co R V r N N LL W fA F N O r , �p m o acoo n c°g ,� $ c 000 0000 M 0 off $ O C ^ N O m N O pp N E C O pp r 4 co � � r co N 0 0 0 O O O O N M O r O in N O co m N C � N O u � i U Q ) OOO QQ N r (� pp O 1-- L, e� N Co 9 O r CC p OJ Q N f0 CD r- It) ^ M N r O r (0 1'9 M m $ lh CD V N N r lry r Cl) r (p r N i N N g n m C E 0 3 C N O O CO r r r ^ Cp I� O (7 ^ CD y N In Q i- O i� b �O. yyQ�� O m w O O N O N m 0 r N cr f� V 1A r N QD r CD r m U3 (O r •� E O N r r r a r N r r N M N r r to 10 Lj $ $ y $ eb N W Ov � N_ O., Cm 0 00M ' N O " � 1roM to m 8o inLn �0 LO CD A cli NrN tnr 0N 0rQ u Lo 0 E � 14 e '° o A pp (y m N N O LO [+f M N O O O 0 0 0 O N M lM C O M M in 04 � � Z . N 1 m = a ,ob ar 0 7 CM r aQ r eN- CV Y � � x Y � C6 Y00 W > > E G u m �, c m m c m 0 0 e o y x w 0 H � -� � � 0 m � � m m g � � L � C O > 4 E o m 5 m C70 Qa m � � � a a LB o at tm xl t L " L oMuz Am o � � � � � � a � O a F c� C1 p a Y Y Y m i y :) :9 a j � m a � C.) A s m M r _ O O M n N M n in M CO r.- N N E Cl) M .M- n LO en n rO r r r r r N N ' r O v `7 n O v 0003 to W M � O O O O T r r r r M O W r r r r r r O r N ' r r d cnrnrnr mm� n mrnIV nrnmw m m coOl m41 W � Ol W N O N O N o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 = o o c a o 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 � n n m W rn M rn M o rn M n W o a, M � m00o4MMvn WvLnW <ornrnrMM0r- WNon W o M O m mmnnnr- rnrnmn (o � mrotorrrrrnO0 r- tofmo 0 N N C O W Cl) M O O M M , pp n M n , O M _ m M M O W m CO O m CDr O CO U Q M M e� W n n W W M (�pp W N W S �pn W m 'o M "' c0 tp tD In O p V V V ? V V v O f0 �n v � Q 01 9 Obi Oni O O Co O O N O um] O r r e r Cl) a N m �- x W (] 'T W N u'1 V m I M M N m m o E n Cl) V V' W O n n n I+ L0pp N n 'Q O J M M o O N M f` m m m 0 v m OO N N N N N " N N N r7 M N N 0) O m rS o c M ! L y W � N � r p n C7 o n o m ovorrm r" m m m W Of Of W Ol T Of m N ON) fO(�p QNi W �2 N N M m f0 r0 n e o N O Q W 01 41 Q1 QI O Q O Pm1 R Q N r r me V 9 N N 9n a0 n M M N m N N Q) I� W r N M Of O N Q LL) O O(1$ tTd ppp �p ap �y T 00r pppWppp Q cn� �j QQ r r M �n n UO Q o O O O r r r r O O O OJ O r r 0 v C'J O 0 0 N N N .- r Cc CL 3 N N V n o W O R 8 , sOf M (Np N N n M N v N r) 00) O1 O� O) rn O ` O O h rn OMi p r r r r r @ N r C G e e psmp e o e e --9 o e pip 8� A C (mp OQI ap} O r m Q m W OI 1"7 fco 03 M0 f0 CD n 0D N O Ins, 00 O 16 0i O1 O O O O V O Oj R M ' ! 01 7 tO W t0 A 1� n A n ti Of n m O o G r N I as i c J tl _p � W G m 0 b m m QQ n pp O m n m t0 W = r N u'� y r '- W O) M N n n W � 2) N a m Q 0 �t n O M Q �n LL7 O) N �n %n r O r M n 6� n O N f0 r W C9 W rn rn O) O O O O O W p y� 0 0 O) 0 0 0 0 0 0 ! r m N Z a Q 0D Q O U J 0 (� a J V 0 m O N Y r Y N M st Ln Co n m O) .r- .N- p a Cl) Tv r N C j (0 M v O (O n m O� trS 5 0 O v m I 1 1 1 M r (p r m r 00 m m N O r o (") 0 0 (O m M OD m tCi m N M c. m M r � 0 W m (O m O O (p 1- O N N n � `" � M m m O M 'e N Y 0 0 r r r � C O N N m N N p, �-- , cj aN- c N (N- N v N T 7 r r r r r r r N M N d N n (V y (- M to M O N N LO (M r M CO " 3 (O �-- (O m M M m m V 0 f, 1, m a N < (O f0 f, V V m r r a0 N r m N CO Q� M f, r n (0 r r r r r r r d' M M r cor r r r N N ^ r m M T N nQ� N n r 3 Cl LO O 40 r (h O r r m O m It 3Q r M t� r m m Co O M m f� 'o C m O r N M O N ko m O N N m N O (� m M Q CO m (O (0 (N C7 N M V O r r T r r r r M N r m O r r r r r r r r '^ O a r r r r r r r r r r r O O r r r r r r r r r r r r r N O N N d N p Cl)a 0 a 0 N (O N M (O m r �O M f� e � N m 0 0 f� I� N 0I 0 1 49 N (' r N (O m O O O rn m mO 0 0 0 r r 0 O r o 4 M N N O r r r r r O (D N N V O p O O d N N N C a ( 1 m Y(�7 N totpp M �O ao 1� I- in M o0 0 m O N tl' m (opp uj 1� M (7 I� r r O `y000000 nN `� (° m m (Ci (rN° � Cli t- � dcD v (N7 cn+lO rn Cb O O r M N r 00 N QO p r r r r r r r r r r r r O O r r r r r r r r r r r r p` N 2 N d a+ C m U pp pp 0p m 'O CO �{ m E p � � M 8 0 0 3 2 N A C% (D de N •' �j ~e� m N n M N �O (m(pp m O 00 o V O r 0 N N O O O O O O O V M r r p O O r r r r r r r r r O O m Na Na w � U 4 O � m � O LO M rs� N O O N (C? V N (n M r r M h LO M m O O m .� � C* CD oC) C, V' mM0 Om0 p m (M Cl03 Omi oO^i 000 0N � Or i m (p O Q r r r r r r r p O r r r r r r N d N 0- r T I 7 O p _ (p (p pp (� co 0p N ; tO ((ep� �QV cp py 0i 010! `-' ( O `.. NM O ('' dDO .�c� �rn� '. O1 � t11 `-' M O ONM tiCD OG OD m m E O r M r c O O r M M r O c O r r r r r r r r r r r r r _ m V N o 0 Q W c W m � rNMv (O (O ISM O) � � r ❑p Qr NMQ iO (O 1-- m OA � ar-- � p f Y N a` d ry) C N C L p m 8 m mm (D0 > � m ? o °ful mm m0 > IS d�3y � oE (oo .0 �En c c6 k ru tf r �V0140 "DM0 � a� nV o o c CZ r m c _oE m E o � � s � M o o cm mca ag o cwza , � cn tm LU mr� mL > zm0 mo N � � m0Wmp > Obmoo U a ° O m C c N N a 2 e o N f 0 0 9I J m a ' M N (O M M O OD Q> N O r M O N (D N O m M M O A n U r r M O (D h O N N r IT Q LO CO LO N Q OD M N O r r �-- r r r IT Q CN (V N r r r r N N �O Q N N O r r r r r r r 0 r r r r r r r r r r N d' N C14QQ a r y 0> op) W O r Q Q OD I Q N m (> (-- n M r O O O r r r Q M M r r r r N (D (n ce) r r 0 r r r r r O r r r O d N a N ems' ' r 1, f-- M M W r Of 0> co V r (D CO CO M W O C> (O M m f�- 0 O T C O T (O w O N N r f- 8 8 O O w (o OI M LO r M p 0 0 0 CDr r M Q N r p O r LO Q N r O N a N a O �c CDN ttpp 1 yN NODQOr nN (! f� OOO ��pp N � tSNM Nur"> (O � (MV Mcco O co I C OO M (� p> M O O O r 0 O r 0 Q M N N 0> N p> O 0 0 0 r r r 0 (O N a p O r r r r r r r r r O O r r r M Q O n N a N a C O 0> N M �O O I- f� (p O M O O o O M pp O (O f� M M i� cq e_ U O 0> m 0 Il- M Q 1l- N V O m 0 i0 (O Fj O gj r 0> (O h r (O aD N i� M p 0 0 0 0 O O r M N N r I� r 0 0 r Q M N O Q p O 0 0 O coO Q W a) r r r r r r r r r N a N a CO a r r 00 co O Q O O Ol M N M co o Q t' O 0> w Q M (D M w r- M a° � O O 04 aa ti m U u> N (O r N f� C N CO C> O O m O~ 0> 0) M � N r m np 0) 0 0 0 O O O 7 r r a N _ O O p 0 r r r r r r O O r r r r r C N d r N a •- r r i V S I.- n GO . ON OO Q rMM rM 10M CO OO GrD p N m _ MNOO N � O M in > rO0Or O M M O V (D O r0 0 0 LD N I coQ 2 r r rr O Q Q r rrrrr N a Na Nr _ z _ �(�OOO �MD Mp Np Of 10 apap aD f� cMDN Epp c m A W �A �Mp �Mp Npm �p� OD r� O> MQNp -50 C7 OOaM- �MM °r° O v mE 01010 � O O � � M r0 m O r r r r r r r r m E r r r r r r r 0 o w c w d car N MQ (O mr Co CD c)o O �p rN MQ (O ton aD O> 1 � .N- o CL } a C x p CD 2 ♦ k p N ' m O C IL YO C v � — > 0o m H NO > > � o y vl (D0 > co V) > op N W (p fO a. J O w'S 7 (0 s m n 5 CL— C 7 r 5 p_ -0 c 7 (�1 C CD CO N B U O> O E C a h m ~ _U C> O E 3 cm o E m o (�° m 2 t ; o E A o m mot d is 0 �, E m (D > c a> C.) Z r > >, E ro aci > c $ co > C O N A U q q > O W o C m < V W �1 m p>�N, Of YV O t Of y0 O O J r W m y c o o J (d W m p C�C O `y L° c MO Or v H Z y O 0 C W Ctf O O O Z gi N O �\ C L O O O N i a E Qm o> Y � vo ►- E O. ro e, Ya 0 � m 0 3 m Appendix A.3 Student Generation Survey ' Auburn School District Development Growth since 111101 ' March, 2006 SINGLE FAMILY CIRO Currento tie Development Name Parcels Occupancy Occupied Elem Middle HS Total Ashley Avenue 12 12 0 0 1 1 2 ' Bent Tree 20 20 0 17 6 10 33 Berkshire Crest 31 31 0 10 5 9 24 Berkshire Glen 95 95 0 49 29 27 105 Berkshire Glen Phase 2 98 98 01 451 17 18 80 Bifrost Gate 52 52 0 241 18 12 54 Canterberry Crossing 20 20 0 P23 2 3 15 Carrington Meadows 56 56 0 11 10 44 Count Green 22 22 0 10 1 35 C stal Court 13 13 0 5 3 18 C stal Meadows 27 27 0 8 3 27 Dawson Hills 6 5 1 2 1 6 Dennison Park 11 11 0 5 4 5 14 Dome Lane 16 16 0 2 2 4 8 Jornada 94 94 0 21 8 14 43 The Junction 49 49 0 18 8 18 44 Kelli Meadows 8 8 0 0 0 21 2 ' Kendall Heights 31 31 0 18 5 101 33 Kingsley Meadows 56 51 5 121 11 81 31 Lakeland Ashton 54 54 0P226 8 8 41 Lakeland, Ashton Phase 2 102 102 0 19 25 72 ' Lakeland East olnte 80 80 0 10 12 39 Lakeland East rote Div 2 66 66 0 5 12 28 Lakeland. Evergreen 49 49 0 8 7 37 Lakeland Evergreen, Div 2/3 102 102 0 8 11 45 Lakeland Montlano 104 104 0 18 5 6 29 Lakeland Tuscany 76 76 0 25 12 11 48 ' Lakeland- Verona South 400 387 13 53 31 34 118 Lakeland Verona North 181 75 106 14 6 8 28 Lakeland View Ridgle South 74 74 0 16 12 14 42 LeeAnn Meadows 23 23 0 3 2 5 10 McDonnel Estates 6 6 0 1 2 21 5 Peasley Ride 54 54 0 11 8 15 34 River Park Estates 18 18 0 4 1 4 9 Royal Hills Division 1 49 49 0 9 6 8 23 Royal Hills Division 2 33 33 0 7 3 4 14 Soos Creek Vista 10 10 0 1 1 1 3 ' Summerfield Estates 40 40 0 9 6 4 19 Swansons Flat 21 21 0 15 3 1 19 Valley View Estates 8 8 0 3 2 0 5 Vintage Hills Division 6 61 61 01 1 21 11 12 44 Vintage Hills Division 7 20 20 0 6 3 1 10 Vlstara 2 38 33 5 81 1 1 10 ' Washington National Div 1 42 32 5 21 7 1 10 Willow Park The Ridge-Ph 2 47 47 0 42 21 22 85 24751 135 7041 353 388 1445 ' Student Generation Factors 1 03011 0 1511 0 1661 0.6175 ' 46 Auburn School District ' Development Growth since U1101 March,2006 ' Developments to be completed rior page Additional Students 1 411 201 2 Alder Meadows 30 1 29 9 5 5 19 ' Aspen Meadows 21 1 20 6 3 3 13 Hazel Park 15 5 10 5 2 2 9 ' Lakeland Vista Heights 125 4 121 36 19 21 77 River ointe 118 4 114 36 18 20 73 Marchini Meadows 83 18 65 25 13 14 51 2006 118 59 65 742 ' � Auburn Place 14 0 14 4 2 2 9 Carrington Pointe 24 0 24 7 4 4 15 ' Lakeland Pinnacle Estates 76 0 76 23 11 13 47 River Rim 12 0 12 4 2 2 7 Sera Monte 33 0 33 10 5 5 20 , 9 1 48 24 26 98 2007 and u Alicia Glenn 31 0 31 9 5 5 19 ' Anderson Acres 14 0 14 4 2 2 9 Backbone Ride 7 0 7 2 1 1 4 Beaver Meadows 60 0 60 18 9 10 37 ' Brandon Meadows 55 0 55 17 8 9 34 Brandon Place 78 0 78 231 12 131 48 Cambridge Pointe 26 0 26 81 4 4 16 Dal it Dhaliwal Plat 8 0 8 21 1 1 5 Estes Park 31 0 31 9 5 5 19 Hansen Development 31 0 31 9 5 5 19 Har reet Kang al 0 8 2 1 1 5 Hazel View 20 0 20 6 3 31 12 Kendall Ride 109 0 109 33 16 18 67 , Kent Impound Area 386 0 386 116 58 64 238 Kersey 3 Project 373 0 373 1121 56 62 230 Lawson Place 14 0 14 41 2 2 9 ' Little Fields 8 0 8 21 1 1 5 Mystery Heights 6 0 6 21 1 1 4 New Hope Lutheran Plat 8 0 8 21 1 1 5 , Pacific Meadows 44 0 44 131 7 7 27 Plemmons Development 8 0 81 2 1 1 5 Vintage Place 25 0 25 8 4 4 15 ' Willow Place 181 0 18 5 3 3 11 13681 1368 412 206 227 845 -Emm 1l ai—e iff = Tc4at Totals-I , 61$ 310 341 IlM 49 0 co v v c0 cols Lo co OhOONm V O to v M M (O M r N LO LLj LO co V r M O r- Or rr0 �- Nr v F" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LO I- ItdM N r M LO_ � 0000000 tn � M rOr O O O O O O O O O n d O O Ln (O L[7 OD O (D (D 0QMNNONr, N 'aLO0V MMrrvv C)'a (V 00000000 MrN rOr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O co C', cr) tL) � M E LAONMr, 0co M d M 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 r N N C) w O O O O O o o o o >1 LO N G co 0) N v O m N r V 0 O C) CDm a- LL = NCO LOvNU') mU') CD ONO 000 E cn w a1 N U � V V OMMVNrr- V N rr- O OOO Oo d (oLOV) It rOM � [O � 0r0 000 0 N W Z U o v a to e`s U E ' OD CL �o O000 qe � rn LCC0 LnM0 w c� > 0 Q o c c � (D co (D r 00 vw Or O 000 3c- r. (O CA � C11 r• r00 C•DMN � V ' v O (MDO � NO � v � 000 r0- (OD � Mr. °� co O r M IL o 3 �_ c F-p c p 3vY � E r Fp- o° Q -0 rn c o 0) c o 3 ro o c J R cn 0 0 0 U E p L E 0 0 C Z3 � C " a. M mac - E a+ p m C y m a` L`0 . 'a 0 Q C v m p O) - O) C m m 0 '0 0 mULL_ 2 � tn mQ ami 00- � Q c p.g v v a v v > c 0 "'o v � a� cLi U c c c c c 3 c c c aL f' m m m m m o Li 0 m m m c > Y Y .m, Y Y m m O Y Y Y O N p � UJJJ _5 0- > N JJJ N - LL ; ' CONSENT CALENDAR 6. Citv Council Action• Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds to approve Consent Oalendar Items A through Q Discussion Action 6A. Approval of Minutes Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of November 7, 2006. 6B. Approval of Bills. Approval of payment of the bills received through October 31 and paid on October 31 after auditing by the Operations Committee on November 7, 2006. Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount 10/31/06 Wire transfers 2611-2627 $21214,741 40 10/31/06 Prepays & Regular 600551-601168 2,766,651 30 Use Tax Payable 1,27654 $4,982,669 24 ' Approval of checks issued for payroll for October 1, 2006 through October 15 and paid on October 20, 2006: Date Check Numbers Amount 10/20/06 Checks 293780-294062 $ 217,326.72 10/20/06 Advices 203443-204136 1,281,546 41 tTotal Regular Payroll $11498,873.13 Interim Check 10/19/06 Voids 288401,2885781289246 ($185 25) Checks 294063-294065 18525 Total Interim $ 000 (Continued on next page) Interim Check 10/25/06 Voids 293918 ($97.61) Checks 294066 9761 Total Interim $ 000 Approval of checks issued for payroll for October 16 through October 31 and paid on November 3, 2006 Date Check Numbers Amount 11/3/06 Checks 294067-294338 $ 232,468 24 11/3/06 Advices 204137-204826 1,313.72197 Total Regular Payroll $1,546,190.21 Council Agenda Item No 6 A-B • Kent City Council Meeting ICENT November 7, 2006 _ WASHINGTON The regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at 7:00 p m by Mayor Cooke. Council members present Clark, Harmon, O'Brien, Ranmger, Raplee, Thomas and Watson. (CFN-198) CHANGES TO AGENDA A. From Council, Administration, or Staff. (CFN-198) Public Communications Items G and H were added, and Consent Calendar Item U, Diversity Advisory Board Ordinance, was removed from the agenda by staff. B. From the Public. (CFN-198) Continued Communications Items A, B and C were added at the request of audience members. The City Attorney pointed out that no further action will be taken on the Cedar Pointe Rezone (Continued Communications Item A). PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS A. Public Recognition 1 Colonel Joe Jackson Bridge. (CFN-198) Mayor Cooke commended Councilmember Harmon for his efforts on the dedication ceremony for the Colonel Joe Jackson Bridge. B Community Events Kent Event Center. (CFN-1305) Mayor Cooke announced open houses regarding the Event Center at 6.30 p.m on November 29 and at 10 00 a.m on December 2, 2006, at the Kent Memorial Park building Harmon noted that there will be a special Council workshop on November 28 from 5 30 to 7 30 p.m on the Transportation Master Plan The Mayor noted that City Hall will be closed on Thursday, November 23 and Friday, November 24 for the Thanksgiving holiday. C. Hospitalitv House Women's Shelter Comments. (CFN-456) No one from the Hospitality House Women's Shelter was in attendance at the meeting. D. Government Finance Officers Association Distinguished Budget Presentation Award. (CFN-155) Finance Director Nachlinger explained the criteria for receiving this award and noted that this is the 161h time the City has received it E. Introduction of Appointee. (CFN-997) Mayor Cooke introduced Scott Gibbons, her appointee to the Bicycle Advisory Board F. March of Dimes Prematurity Awareness Day. (CFN-155) The Mayor read a proclamation declaring November 14, 2006, as Prematurity Awareness Day in the City of Kent. She presented the proclamation to a representative from the March of Dimes G. West Nile Virus Update. (CFN-198) Fire Captain Kyle Ohashi gave a briefing on the West Nile Virus and how to avoid it. 1 Kent City Council Minutes November 712006 ' H. Flood State Report. (CFN-198) Public Works Director Blanchard updated the Council on the status of flooding in the area and efforts being made by the Public Works Department CONSENT CALENDAR RANNIGER MOVED to approve Consent Calendar Items A through T, noting that Item U has ' been removed from the agenda. Clark seconded and the motion carried A Minutes of Previous Meeting. (CFN-198) The minutes of the regular Council meeting of October 17, 2006, were approved. B. Approval of Bills. (CFN-104) Payment of the bills received through August 15 and paid on August 15 after auditing by the Operations Committee on October 17, 2006 were approved Approval of checks issued for vouchers: , Date Check Numbers Amount 8/15/06 Wire Transfers 2530-2544 $1,430,887 44 8/15/06 Prepays & Regular 597439-599017 4,795,011.93 Use Tax Payable 82949 $6,226,728.86 Payment of the bills received through August 31 and paid on August 31 after auditing by the Operations Committee on October 17, 2006 were approved. Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount 8/31/06 Wire Transfers 2545-2561 $1,228,530.30 8/31/06 Prepays & Regular •598018-298888 4,511,898 26 Use Tax Payable 6,965.27 $5,747,393.83 Payment of the bills received through September 15 and paid on September 15 after auditing by the Operations Committee on October 17, 2006 were approved Approval of checks issued for vouchers- Date Check Numbers Amount , 9/15/06 Wire Transfers 2562-2581 $1,559,692.62 9/15/06 Prepays & Regular 598889-599346 1,717,756.37 Use Tax Payable 1,910.80 $3,279,359.79 2 ' Kent City Council Minutes November 7, 2006 Payment of the bills received through September 30 and paid on September 29 after auditing by the Operations Committee on October 17, 2006 were approved Approval of checks issued for vouchers. Date Check Numbers Amount 9/29/06 Wire Transfers 2582-2596 $1,252,561 17 9/29/06 Prepays & Regular 599347-599990 3,646,570 22 Use Tax Payable 86943 $4,900,000 82 Payment of the bills received through October 15 and paid on October 13 after auditing by the Operations Committee on October 17, 2006 were approved. Approval of checks issued for vouchers- Date Check Numbers Amount 10/13/06 Wire Transfers 2597-2610 $1,394,031.22 10/13/06 Prepays & Regular 599991-600550 1,621,301.26 Use Tax Payable 1,583.25 $3,016,915 73 Approval of checks issued for payroll for July 16 through July 31 and paid on August 4, 2006 Date Check Numbers Amount 8/4/06 Checks 292253-292576 $ 276,960.31 8/4,/06 Advices 199981-200676 1,286,790.17 Total Regular Payroll $1,563,750.48 Approval of checks issued for payroll for August 1 through August 15 and paid on August 18, 2006 Date Check Numbers Amount 8/18/06 Checks 292577-292888 $ 251,833 59 8/18/06 Advices 200677-201370 1,268,238 36 Total Regular Payroll $1,520,071 95 Approval of checks issued for payroll for August 16 through August 31 and paid on September 5, 2006 1 Date - Check Numbers Amount 9/5806 Checks 292889-293193 $ 274,984.81 9/5/06 Advices 201371-202060 1,267,301.27 Total Regular Payroll $1,542,286 08 3 Kent CityCouncil Minutes ' November 7, 2006 Approval of checks issued for payroll for September 1 through September 15 and paid on September 20, 2006 Date Check Numbers Amount 9/6/06 Interim Check 293194 $ 1,14135 9/20/06 Checks 293195-293488 241,686 46 9/20/06 Advices 202061-202749 1,280,08132 Total Regular Payroll $1,521,767.78 Approval of checks issued for payroll for September 16 through September 30 and paid on October 5, 2006 Date Check Numbers Amount 10/51/06 Checks 293489-293778 $ 217,326 72 10/5/06 Advices 202750-203442 1,281,546 41 Total Regular Payroll $1,498,873.13 10/4/06 Interim Check 293779 $225 04 C. 2007 Washington State Arts Commission Organizational Support Grant. (CFN-118) The $6,000 grant from the Washington State Arts Commission was accepted, the expenditure of funds in the Kent Arts Commission budget was authorized, and the Mayor to was authorized sign all necessary documents. The Kent Arts Commission will use the funding to support the presentation of arts and cultural activities at the 2007 Cornucopia Days. D. 2007 Community Development Block Grant Action Plan and Funding Allocations. (CFN-493) The 2007 Community Development Block Grant Action Plan, including funding allocations and contingency plans, was approved and the Mayor was authorized to execute the appropriate certifications and agreements. E. 2006 Third Quarter Fee-In-Lieu Funds. (CFN-118) $32,475 for fee-m-lieu funds from MacFarlane Homes, LLC, and Crescent Construction was accepted and the expenditure of funds in the East Hill Skate Park and Garrison Creek Park budgets was authorized. F Robinson & Noble Water Contract. (CFN-110) The Mayor was authorized to sign the Source Water Availability & Hydrologic Analysis agreement between the City of Kent and Robinson-Noble Saltbush, Inc. in the amount of S207,193 for the City's groundwater hydrologic source analysis project. G Extension of Interlocal Agreement for Watershed Resource Inventory Area 8. , (CFN-1038) The Mayor was authorized to sign an Interlocal Agreement for the Watershed Basins within Water Resource Inventory Area 8. ' H. Extension of Interlocal Agreement for Watershed Resource Inventory Area 9. (CFN-1038) The Mayor was authorized to sign an Interlocal Agreement for Watershed Basins within Water Resource Inventory Area 9 4 ' Kent City Council Minutes November 7, 2006 1. Washington Central Improvement Company Knob Hill Addition Alley Vacation. (CFN-102) Resolution No 1735 scheduling a public hearing for December 12, 2006, on an application to vacate the south 120 feet of the alley in Block 3, Washington Central Improvement Company Knob Hill Addition was adopted. J. 138th Place SE Street Vacation. (CFN-102) Resolution No. 1736 scheduling a public hearing for December 12, 2006, on an application to vacate a portion of 138th Place Southeast was ' adopted K. Street Sweeping Contract Change Order. (CFN-136) The Mayor was authorized to sign Change Order 95 with McDonough & Sons, Inc for a one-year contract extension and a 2% increase in the monthly lump sum for the street sweeping contract, upon the concurrence of the language therein by the City Attorney and the Public Works Director L. 2007 Budget and Capital Improvement Plan. (CFN-186&775) November 21, 2006, was set for the second public hearing on the 2007 Budget and 2007-20 t2 Capital Improvement Plan The Capital Improvement Plan is also incorporated as an amendment to the Capital Facilities Element of the Kent Comprehensive Plan I M. 2006 Tax Levy for 2007 Budget. (CFN-104) November 21, 2006, was set as the public hearing date for the 2006 Tax Levy for the 2007 budget N Kent Comprehensive Plan and Kent Citv Code Chapter 12.13, School Districts Capital Facilities Plans and 2007-2012 Capital Improvement Plan. (CFN-775&961&1000) November 21, 2006, was set as the date for a public hearing to consider amendment of the Capital Facilities Element of the Kent Comprehensive Plan and amendment of Chapter 12.13 of the Kent City Code to incorporate the updated Capital Facilities Plans of the Auburn, Kent, and Federal Way School Districts, and changes to adopted school impact fees. O Cedar Pointe Rezone Decision Resolution. (CFN-121) Prior to adoption of the Consent Calendar, the City Attorney explained that he received documents from one of the proponents of this rezone seeking reconsideration of Council's decision on this matter He noted that copies for the Council were provided but that he instructed the City Clerk not to distribute them, since the record has been established and the decision has been made. He emphasized that the Kent City Code does not provide for a reconsideration process upon a motion made by an opponent or proponent of the rezone application, and explained that the only method to reconsider would be by a motion to rescind and amend the prior motion. Under the motion to approve Consent Calendar items, Resolution No 1737 affirming the vote taken on October 17, 2006, which denied the rezone application for properties located at 25213, 25401 and 25231 136°' Avenue Southeast from Single-Family Residential, 4.5 units per acre, to Single-Family Residential, 6 units per acre, was adopted P. Rust Rezone Decision Resolution. (CFN-121) Resolution No 1738 affirming the vote taken on October 17, 2006, which denied the rezone application for property located at 12722 SE 256`h Street from Single-Family Residential, 4.5 units per acre, to Single-Family Residential, 6 units per acre, was adopted. ' 5 Kent CityCouncil Minutes November 71 2006 Q. Smith Street Improvements. (CFN-1038) The Smith Street Improvements project was accepted as complete and release of retainage to R.W Scott Construction upon receipt of standard releases from the state and release of any liens was authorized R. Muth Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendment Ordinance. (CFN-377&131) Ordinance No. 3818 relating to the Muth Comprehensive Plan Amendment, CPA-2006-2, which amends the comprehensive plan land use designations from Agricultural Resource Land to a land use designation of Urban Separator (US), and changes the zoning map from a zoning designation , of Agricultural, 1 unit per 10 acres, to a zoning designation of Single Family Residential, 1 unit per acre, (CPZ-2006-1) for the property located at 21320—42nd Avenue South, was adopted. S Kent Bicycle Advisory Board Appointment. (CFN-997) The Mayor's appointment of Scott Gibbons to serve as a member of the Kent Bicycle Advisory Board was confirmed. T. Valley Cities Wireless Interlocal & Consulting Services Agreement. (CFN-818) The Mayor was authorized to execute the Wireless Department of Justice ! COPS More Grant Interlocal Agreement and the Consulting Services Agreement with CBG Communication, Inc. The agreement establishes a cooperative effort between the cities of Algona, Auburn, Fife, Kent, Pacific,Puyallup, Renton, Sumner, and Tukwila to use approximately $98,723 to grant funds to support planning and implementation of wireless systems (including fiber transports) and support interoperability between jurisdictions particularly as related to public safety OTHER BUSINESS A. Orme Rezone Ordinance. (CFN-121) The proposed ordinance relates to land use and zoning, specifically the rezoning of two existing tax lots and a portion of a third, totaling 5.67 acres of property from Single-Family Residential, 4.5 units per acre, to Single-Family Residential, 6 units per acre The property is located at 25410 142"d Avenue Southeast, in Kent, Washington. The Kent Hearing Examiner held a Public Hearing on September 27, 2006, and issued Findings, Conclusions, and a recommendation for approval on October 9, 2006. The City Attorney outlined the quasi-judicial process to be used, noted that a complete copy of the record has been available in the City Council Office, and explained the history of the matter. Upon a question from the City Attorney regarding ex-parte contacts, Councilmember Thomas recused himself since one of the persons involved is a former employer. There were no objections from the audience Matt Gilbert of the Community Development Department gave a report on the rezone. He noted for Harmon that no citizens attended the hearing which was held at 1.30 p in on October 27"", and that a petition signed by property owners who oppose the rezone because of connectivity issues had been received. Clark noted significant traffic problems at the intersection of SE 2561" and 132 Avenue SE during rush hour. HARMON MOVED to reject the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the Hearing ' Examiner on the Orme Rezone. Clark seconded. Harmon said the rezone would not be com- patible with development in the vicinity, that it would burden the transportation system, and that it would adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens Raplee and Ranniger agreed. O'Brien opined that the area should be 6 units per acre. The motion to reject the Findings, 6 , Kent City Council Minutes November 71 2006 Conclusions and Recommendation of the Hearing Examiner then carried 5-1, with Thomas abstaining and O'Brien opposed. B Kent Event Center. (CFN-1305) The City Attorney explained that under state law, cities with a population greater than 70,000 can award public contracts to a general contractor/ construction manager for large projects such as the construction of the proposed Kent Event Center. The City intends to use this process and will select a contractor through formal advertisement and competitive bids, subject to the City Council's final determination as to whether or not to construct this project This process provides a substantial public and fiscal benefit by allowing the City to negotiate a maximum allowable construction cost State law requires that the City hold a public hearing so that the public can submit written and oral comments on the City's preliminary determination to proceed with the general contractor/construction manager process. CLARK MOVED to adopt Resolution No. 1739 which sets a public hearing on December 4, r 2006, at 5 00 p in before the Public Works Committee on the City's proposed use of the general contractor/construction manager procedure for the City's Event Center project, and to direct the City Clerk to publish notice of the public hearing at least 20 days before the public hearing Raplee seconded and the motion carried. BIDS A. LID 360-S. 2271h Place Sanitary Sewers. (CFN-1301) The bid opening(rebid)for this project was held on September 12, 2006, with seven bids received. The low bid was submitted by DPK, Inc , in the amount of$220,504.96 The Engineer's estimate was $183,014 61. RAPLEE MOVED to award the bid on LID 360- S 2271h Place Sanitary Sewers, to DPK, Inc , in the 1 amount of 5220,504.96. Clark seconded and the motion carried REPORTS Mayor's Report. Mayor Cooke thanked all who were involved with the Service Club Ball Fields dedication. Parks and Human Services Committee. Ranniger noted that the next meeting will be held at 5.00 p.m. on November 16th. Planning and Economic Development Committee. Harmon noted that the next meeting will be held on November-20'h at 4 00 p.m. ' Public Safetv Committee. Harmon noted that the next meeting will be held on November 141h at 500pm Public Works Committee. Raplee noted that the next meeting will be held at 5:00 p.m. on November 20". Administration. Hodgson stated that property acquisition will not be discussed during the executive session,but that there is one item of pending litigation. He noted that the session will take approximately 10 minutes and that no action afterward is anticipated. 7 Kent City Council Minutes November 7, 2006 CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS ADDED ITEM A Cedar Pointe Rezone. The Mayor noted that Randy Goodwin, who requested that this item be added to the agenda, has left the meeting ADDED ITEM B , Speed Bumps. Jerry Johnson, 11316 SE 271s1, asked for action on the neighborhood's request for speed bumps on SE 2715`and 1141h Avenue SE Council member Raplee said this issue was addressed at the Public Works Committee meeting yesterday and that the speed bumps will be installed when the weather improves. ADDED ITEM C S. 224ih Street Corridor. Gene Bremner, 10502 SE 2161h St., urged the Council not to proceed with plans for the 2241h Street Corridor He said the EIS is flawed, the cost is too high, and the road will create problems Daniel Parks, 21647 98`h Avenue South, also spoke in opposition to the corridor, citing EIS issues, notification issues, safety issues, and environmental impacts Clark noted that the City has been pressured by citizens to relieve traffic problems, which this corridor would do EXECUTIVE SESSION The meeting recessed to Executive Session at 8 27 p.m. and reconvened at 8.33 p.m. ADJOURNMENT At 8 33 p.m., WATSON MOVED to adjourn. Thomas seconded and the motion carried. Brenda Jacober, CMC City Clerk 8 Kent City Council Meeting Date November 21 , 2006 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: KENT STATION DIVISION 2 FINAL PLAT— APPROVE (QUASI-JUDICIAL) 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Approve the Final Plat Mylar for Kent Station, Phase II, and authorize the Mayor to sign the Mylar Tarragon proposes to subdivide approximately 8.34 acres into 9 lots within a Planned Unit Development. Phase lI represents the final phase of this subdivision. The property is generally bounded by James Street on the north, First Avenue South on the east, Fourth Avenue South on the west, and Smith Street on the south. 3. EXHIBITS: Map, memo with conditions, and the Administrative Review Decision 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Community Development & Public Works Dept Staff (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? No Revenue? No Currently in the Budget? Yes No If no: Unbudgeted Expense: Fund Amount $ Unbudgeted Revenue. Fund Amount $ 61 CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION- ACTION- Council Agenda Item No. 6C COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N Satterstrom, AICP, Director • PLANNING SERVICES KEN T Charlene Anderson,AICP, Manager '""5"'"GTG" Phone 253-856-5454 Fax 253-856-6454 Address 220 Fourth Avenue S Kent, WA 98032-5895 DATE: November 14, 2006 TO: MAYOR SUZETTE COOKE, COUNCIL PRESIDENT DEBORAH RANNIGER AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CHARLENE ANDERSON, AICP, PLANNING MANAGER THROUGH: MAYOR SUZETTE COOKE SUBJECT: KENT STATION, PHASE II FINAL PLAT (#FSU-2002-9B/KIVA #2061043) MOTION: Approve the final plat mylar for Kent Station, Phase II and authorize the Mayor to sign the mylar SUMMARY: Terragon, L.L.0 , requests final plat approval for Phase II of an original 20 lot subdivision within a Planned Unit Development The 9 lots in Phase 11 represent 8.34 acres and is the final phase of this subdivision. The property is generally bounded by James Street on the north, First Avenue South on the east, Fourth Avenue South on the west, and Smith Street on the south. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND: On January 30, 2003, the Hearing Examiner issued Findings, Conclusions and a Decision granting approval of a preliminary plat, with 8 conditions. The applicant has complied with the conditions required prior to recording 1 S\Permit\Plan\longplats\2004\2061043-FSU-2002-9Bcc DOC Enclosure Conditions of approval—Hearing Examiner Administrative Review Decision KENT STATION #SU-2002-9 KIVA #RPP3-2023555 On January 30, 2003, the Kent Hearing Examiner approved the Kent Station preliminary plat with the following conditions. 1 The developer shall receive City approval for engineering drawings from the Department of Public Works, and shall then either construct or bond for the following as appropriate for each phase of development a) A gravity sewer system to serve all lots proposed for building construction b) A water system meeting domestic and fire flow requirements for all lots. c) The private stormwater system. At a minimum, all utilities shall be stubbed to the edge of the purchased property to serve future development parcels 2. All engineering plans shall meet the minimum requirements of the City of Kent I Construction Standards (in effect as of November 13, 2002 and consistent with the vesting of Development Standards as outlined in the Development Agreement between the Developer and the City) applicable City of Kent Development Assistance Brochures and the 2002 City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual 3. A schematic grading plan for the entire subdivision shall be submitted A detailed grading plan shall be submitted for each phase of development. The detailed grading plan shall be in conformance with Uniform Building Code, City of Kent Construction Standards (in effect as of November 13, 2002) and City of Kent Development Assistance Brochure #1-3, Excavation and Grading Permits and Grading Plans These plans will include provisions for utilities, roadways, stormwater treatment facilities, and a building footpad for each lot. 4. The developer shall construct the final sidewalks along the Grand Are in conjunction with each approved building permit that abuts the right-of-way The sidewalks shall be a minimum of thirteen feet in width (comprised of 9 feet of walkway and 4 feet of amenities), and shall meet City of Kent Construction Standards (in effect as of November 13, 2002 and consistent with the vesting of Development Standards as outlined in the Development Agreement between the Developer and the City) Further, the sidewalks shall generally be consistent with the sidewalk pattern as identified in the Commuter Rail Station Area Study and the Kent Downtown Gateways project The final sidewalk design shall be Kent Station #SU-2002-9 Conditions of Approval jointly approved by the Kent Planning Services Division and Public Works Department 5. In order to create a continuous pedestrian walkway through the protect site, given that future phases will be constructed over time, the developer shall construct a paved temporary walkway along both sides of the Grand Arc connecting Smith Street to 41h Avenue South. This continuous walkway shall be constructed prior to or in conjunction with the first Certificate of Occupancy for Phase I and shall be constructed along those areas not subject to Condition #4 (above) I 6. During site development and budding construction, the developer shall implement all applicable construction-related measures to reduce air quality impacts as outlined in item 2(C) of the PAO mitigation document. 7. The developer shall convey all private and public easements necessary for the t construction and maintenance of the required improvements for this development. 8. All appropriate SEPA mitigation measures, as outlined in the PAO and Exhibit A (SEPA Mitigation Document) attached to the PAO shall apply to the Subdivision S 1Permit\Plan\PUD\2002\2043981-2002-9conditions of approval doc Page 2 of 2 wJAME: ir. ' 1 mx 77.rrmw - — NnOYst� ± LOT 2 1 + 2%Ml !F i l W t L I * � 1 y OT i X ZX*A W _ LOT I i wT I 7&1w m• of w SECO"A. - «,NArs�r wr r M7lSY r �,�o��'° fi ItIII' � '�'r � r 3`� f� wt 3 R- as lurs�v Mr � �.�L !- i L wT• ' ! I � i E t nM9t w w LOT xtts• ` Ml • A LIT I 1 LOT w l QN tI A LOT T ��3 X I I xw sr l Asa nAj"AY WAY '- � R a ! s.(a _ ss�• me � 1 � _ — K U� w I 7rlM• � am _ ' ^ L 3V st: -� 7V LOT • �9 ~ 7Zt Sw D�w. M v) 1 CUARU PUGET :t:l b-W3m'3r { . *"4C, A[I;IOOML Sot" TIIMEIf L — g�a''a `y, � ! nRMMawe or Ah sr>tucrulec ! �- icmmrooporr I e`Y.eµ'yzg Qt' 10 1 T l —JI J&I ---- f•• ` !• ram: �- ,� � .�. � � ��� �= � t�t�• •r elucl _�^ � � i w da111m sr. wruww "aa A ow"ITM wt..� �� Kent Station/Phase II KNA#2061043 FSU-2002-96 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N Satterstrom, Director PLANNING SERVICES Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager KENT W n 5 H i N G r O u Phone 253-856-5454 Fax 253-856-6454 Address 220 Fourth Avenue S Kent, WA 98032-5895 ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW DECISION KENT STATION PRELIMINARY PLAT (#SU-2002-9/KIVA#2023555) MINOR PLAT ALTERATION (#PTA-2006-1/KIVA#2060175) APPLICANT: Ms. Kristen Jensen Tarragon 1000 Second Avenue Suite 3200 I Seattle, WA 98104 REQUEST: The applicant proposes an alteration to the previously approved Kent Station Subdivision #SU- 2002-9 to reconfigure the approved lots and divide the plat into two divisions. PLANNER: Matt Gilbert I. FINDINGS OF FACT: A. Kent Station is located in Downtown Kent at the southeast corner of 4th Avenue and James Street. The site is zoned DCE, Downtown Commercial Enterprise and designated UC, Urban Center on the Kent Comprehensive Plan map. B. The Kent Station preliminary plat #SU-2002-9 was approved by the City of Kent Hearing Examiner on January 30, 2003. The original proposal was for the subdivision of 18.2 acres into 20 lots and was approved concurrently with a Planned Unit Development proposal for the site that includes a mix of commercial and residential uses. Kent Station (#SU-2002-9) has not yet been recorded with the King County Assessor's office. C. City of Kent Lot-Line Adjustment #LL-2004-16 (KIVA#2041685, recording #2040625900004) was approved in June of 2004. This adjustment reconfigured the boundaries of the existing parcels for the purpose of facilitating the applicant's purchase of the land from the City of Kent. The lots, as adjusted, are in conformance with applicable codes and do not affect approval of the preliminary plat or PUD. The lot configuration established through LL# 2004-16, is the current configuration of record. Administrative Review Decision Kent Station Minor Plat Alteration #PTA-2006-1 KIVA #RPPI-2060175 D. On November 10, 2004, the City approved a minor plat alteration which reconfigured the originally approved lot lines, and divided the plat into three phases This phasing was intended to facilitate the applicant's plans to purchase portions of the total Kent Station property from the City of Kent. As with the original approved Preliminary Plat Map, the approved alteration map indicates 20 lots. E. The proposed alteration seeks to reconfigure each of the approved twenty lots to conform with proposed new configuration of buildings at the site. The applicant further seeks to reduce the number of identified phases from three to two. This arrangement will allow the applicant to complete the purchase of the Kent Station site. This proposal is consistent with KCC 12.04.620, which addresses subdivision in phases. The current proposal also seeks to include in the plat 100 square feet of vacated right-of-way along the west side of 1" Avenue North. On November 18, 2005 the Kent City Council passed ordinance 3765, which approved this vacation, and transferred ownership to Tarragon. Through this proposal, the vacated area will become part of lot 2. This proposal will also eliminate lot 5 of #LL 2004-16 from the preliminary plat. This lot is currently developed with building 1 of the Kent Station Development. Building 1 is partially owned by Green River Community College and due to condominium restrictions cannot be included in the plat. All proposed changes are detailed on a map submitted to the city on January 11, 2006. The proposal is in conformance with applicable zoning standards. F. No changes to the public street configuration or plat boundaries (with the exception of lot 2) are proposed with this alteration. Due to traffic safety concerns, several of the proposed lots will not be granted direct access to an abutting public right of way. Appropriate cross access easements have been recorded to ensure that all lots have appropriate access to a public roadway. G. Pursuant to Kent City Code Section 12 04.735 (C), if a plat alteration is requested to a subdivision prior to final plat approval, a minor alteration may be approved with consent of the Planning Manager and the Public Works Director. The Public Works Director has consented to this minor plat alteration. H. Infrastructure is available to serve the site as proposed. Requirements for infrastructure improvements were established for the property through preliminary plat and PUD approval (SU-2002-9/PUD-2002-1) and SEPA review (#ENV-2001-6). These required improvements to the local road, water, sanitary sewer and stormwater systems, as well as other required infrastructure improvements, are adequate to mitigate the impacts of the proposed plat as previously approved, and as proposed to be altered. While all utilities will need Page 2of3 Administrative Review Decision Kent Station Minor Plat Alteration #PTA-2006-1 KIVA #RPP1-2060175 to be extended to serve each lot, the applicant must also ensure that each lot has appropriate legal access to these utilities. I. All conditions of approval from the preliminary plat and PUD approval (SU-2002- 9/PUD-2002-1), SEPA review (ENV-2001-6), and the first plat alteration (PTA 2004-2) remain valid. The SEPA Responsible Official determined that no additional SEPA review was required for this minor plat alteration. II. CONCLUSIONS A. As this proposal does not seek to increase the number of lots or change conditions of approval, it is considered a minor alteration and subject to the provisions of Kent City Code Section 12.04.735(C). The application has been reviewed by City staff accordingly. B. As proposed, the reconfiguration and establishment of two divisions is in the interest of the public and is consistent with the policies and standards of the City of Kent. C. The proposal is consistent with the type of land use allowed in the DCE zoning district. As stated in the Findings, adequate infrastructure is available to serve the plat as previously conditioned, and the proposal complies with the applicable City of Kent development standards. III. DECISION Based on the above Findings and Conclusions, City staff APPROVES the KENT STATION MINOR PLAT ALTERATION with conditions. The following conditions will need to be addressed in conjunction with final plat submittal. 1. The final plat drawing shall accurately reflect the approved alteration and shall be filed with the King County Auditor. 2. All conditions of approval of Kent Station (SU-2002-9/PUD-2002-1, ENV-2001-6 and PTA 2004-2) remain valid and relevant to the Kent Station development. Approved this 3" day of February 2006. I Charlene Anderson, AICP Planning Manager MG ch:\S:\Permit\Plan\PLATALTERATIONS\2006\2060175-2006-1 doc Page 3 of 3 Kent City Council Meeting Date November 21. 2006 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: APPOINTMENTS TO KENT ARTS COMMISSION— CONFIRM 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Confirm the Mayor's appointments of Greg Worthing and Sheila (Shell) Newberry-Cantrall to the Kent Arts Commission Mr Worthing is a long-time Kent resident and was employed as an arts teacher in the Kent School District before his retirement He served on the Arts Commission in the past but now has more time to devote as a volunteer While working as a teacher, he also managed the Kent Performing Arts Center, and he plans to use that experience to work with the Kent School District as a liaison for student art projects Mr Worthing will replace Judy Lee, who resigned, and his new appointment will continue until 10/31/2007 Ms Sheila (Shell) Newberry-Cantrall is a Kent resident who moved to Kent from Sacramento, California While living there, she served as a director on a board for troubled teens and working with teens on an art project that was applied to plexi-glassed plywood and placed at construction sites Ms. Newberry-Cantrall is employed at Newberry Realty, and thought not an artist, is a dedicated arts collector She is looking forward to working with the Commission. She will replace Cass Brother-ton, who is moving out of the area and resigned, and her new term will continue until 10/31/2007 3. EXHIBITS: Memorandum 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Mayor Cooke (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc ) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? No Revenue? No Currently in the Budget? Yes No If no• Unbudgeted Expense: Fund Amount $ Unbudgeted Revenue: Fund Amount $ 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6D O KENT WASHINOTON MEMORANDUM 1 To: Dr. Deborah Ranniger, City Council President City Council Members From Mayor Suzette Cooked Date November 14, 2006 Subject: Appointments to Kent Arts Commission I seek your approval for two appointments to the Kent Arts Commission. They are Greg Worthing and Sheila(Shell)Newberry-Cantrall. Mr. Worthing is a long-time Kent resident and was employed as an arts teacher in the Kent School District before his retirement. He served as an Arts Commissioner in the past but now has more time to devote as a volunteer. While working as a teacher, he also managed the Kent Performing Arts Center, and he plans to use that experience to work with the Kent School District as a liaison for student art projects. Mr: Worthing will replace Judy Lee, who resigned, and his new appointment will continue until 10/31/2007. Ms. Sheila(Shell)Newberry-Cantrall is a Kent resident who moved to Kent from Sacramento, California. While living there, she served as a Director on a Board for troubled teens fund development and worked with teens on an art project that was applied to plexi-glassed plywood and placed at construction sites. Ms.Newberry-Cantrall is employed at Newberry Realty,and though not an artist,is a dedicated arts collector. She is looking forward to working with the Commission. She will replace Cass Brotherton,who is moving out of the area and resigned,and her new term will continue until 10/31/07. I submit this for your confirmation. jb Kent City Council Meeting Date November 21, 2006 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT TO HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION— CONFIRM 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Confirm the Mayor's appointment of Mr John Botten to serve as a member of the Kent Human Services Commission Mr. Botten is Executive Director of The Children's Therapy Center and Dynamic Family Services where he has served in that capacity for 7 1,� years He is a member of the Executive Alliance of Social Service Agencies and is active in the Kent Chamber of Commerce and Kent Downtown Partnership. Mr Botten will replace Marilyn LaCelle, who resigned. He will serve as the non- voting Agency Representative on the Commission His term will become effective upon confirmation and will continue until 1/]/2008 3. EXHIBITS: Memorandum 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Mayor Cooke (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? No Revenue? No Currently ip the Budget? Yes No If no: Unbudgeted Expense: Fund Amount $ Unbudgeted Revenue: Fund Amount $ 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds I DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6E OFFICE OF THE MAYOR Suzette Cooke, Mayor Phone 253-856-5700 Fax 253-856-6700 Address 220 Fourth Avenue S 14 Kent,WA 98032-5895 KE WASHINOTON TO: Deborah Ranniger, Council President City Council Members ' / FROM: Suzette Cooke, .Mayor _ayorG�� DATE- November 14,2006 RE: Appointment to Kent Human Services Commission I seek your approval of my appointment of Mr. John Botten to serve as a member of the Kent Human Services Commission. Mr. Borten is Executive Director of The Children's Therapy Center and Dynamic Family Services where he has served in that capacity for 7 '/2 years He is a member of the Executive Alliance of Social Service Agencies, is active in the Kent Chamber of Commerce and Kent Downtown Partnership. Mr. Botten will replace Marilyn LaCelle, who resigned. He will serve as the non-voting Agency Representative on the Commission. His term will become effective upon confirmation and will continue until l/l/2008. I submit this for your confirmation. jb Kent City Council Meeting Date November 21, 2006 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: KENT CENTENNIAL PARKING GARAGE SEISMIC PROJECT— ACCEPT AS COMPLETE 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept the Kent Centennial Parking Garage Seismic Project as complete. Construction services for the Kent Centennial Parking Garage Seismic Project were provided by Summit Central Construction, Inc The project was inspected and approved by the project manager on October 15, 2006. 3 EXHIBITS: Letter of acceptance 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Staff (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc ) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? N/A Revenue? N/A Currently in the Budget? Yes No If no: Unbudgeted Expense Fund Amount $ Unbudgeted Revenue: Fund Amount $ 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No 6F October 23, 2006 Wayne Gilthvedt, President Summit Central Construction, Inc. 44110 196`t' Ave SE Enumclaw, Wa. 98022 RE: Kent Centennial Parking Garage Seismic Dear Wayne• I made a final inspection of the Kent Centennial Parking Garage Seismic and found that the project is completed to my satisfaction This letter serves as final acceptance of the public works project effective as of October 15, 2006. The one-year warranty period will remain in effect through October 15, 2007 Please make sure that all necessary State documents have been completed and filed If you have any questions, please call me at (2530 856-5081). Sincerely, Charles Lindsey(Charlie)-- Superintendent of Facilities Management C: Jeff Watling, Director Parks Recreation & Community Services Pam Baum, Project Accountant Darrell Staaleson, Project Engineer CL/rg Kent City Council Meeting Date November 21, 2006 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: MODIFIED CONSENT TO CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT WITH MIDWAY SEWER DISTRICT — AUTHORIZE 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorize the Mayor to sign the Amended Utility Easement Agreement between the City of Kent and the Midway Sewer District in a form approved by the City Attorney. Construction of the Pacific Highway South HOV Improvements necessitated the acquislthon of additional right-of-way for installation of underground power vaults Some of the additional right-of-way is subject to existing sanitary sewer line easements owned by the Midway Sewer District, which include restrictions on placing structures within the easement area. In order to install the underground power vaults, an Amended Utility Easement Agreement was prepared for signature by both parties, amending the easement restrictions and establishing appropriate protections and conditions for access to the District's sanitary sewer lines. 3. EXHIBITS: Copy of the Amended Utility Easement Agreement with Midway Sewer District 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? None Revenue? None Currently in the Budget? Yes No If no: Unbudgeted Expense: Fund Amount $ Unbudgeted Revenue: Fund Amount $ 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: 1 ACTION: Council Agenda Item No 6G PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 1400 Larry R. Blanchard, Public Works Director • KENT Phone: 253-856-5500 WASHINGTON Fax: 253-856-6500 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5395 Date: November 6, 2006 To: Chair Debbie Raplee and Public Works Committee Members PW Committee Meeting Date: November 6, 2006 From: Tim LaPorte, Design Engineering Manager Through: Larry Blanchard, Public Works Director Subject: Modified Consent to Construct Agreement with Midway Sewer District ITEM 3 Motion: ■ Required ❑ Not Required ❑ For Information Only Recommend the Council authorize the Mayor to sign the Modified Consent to Construct Agreement between the City of Kent and the Midway Sewer District upon concurrence of the language therein by the City Attorney and the Public Works Director. Will document be required? ❑ Ordinance ❑ Resolution ❑ Agreement ❑ Contract ❑ Policy ❑ SOPS ■ Other Governing Policies Procedures Rules & Regulations: Background/History: Construction of the Pacific Highway South HOV Improvements necessitated the acquisition of additional right of way for the underground installation of underground power vaults. some of the additional right-of-way is subject to existing sanitary sewer line easements owned by the Midway Sewer District, which include restrictions on placing structures within the easement area. In order to install the underground power vaults, an Amended Utility Easement Agreement was prepared, for signature by both parties, amending the easement restrictions and establishing appropriate protections and conditions for access to the District's sanitary sewer lines. Summary: The Public Works Department requests approval by the Council to authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement. Recommendations: Recommend Council authorize the Mayor to sign the Modified Consent to Construct Agreement between the City of Kent and the Midway Sewer District, upon concurrence of the language therein by the City Attorney and Public Works Director, P IPuhll 1131I.S'PIPAComnuu�lAcn urP¢,gc dec AFTER RECORDING, RETURN TO: _ Property Management City of Kent 220 4th Avenue South 1 Kent, WA 98032 Reference Numbers of Related Documents: King County Recording Nos. 8710160427; 8709290995; 8708130553; 8005010707; 8904130651; 8805101218; 8904280824; 7607150682; 7904031033; 7312140326 Grantor: City of Kent Grantee: Midway Sewer District Abbreviated Legal Descriptions: PTN of S 'h of NE 1/4 of NE 1/4 of Section 21; PTN of Lots 9 & 10, Block 18, Interurban Heights 41h Section, Plat Vol. 17, pg. 86, Section 21; PTN of Parcel B, Kent LLA LL-99-15; PTN of NE corner of W 1h of NE 1/4 of Section 21; PTN of Lots 14, 15 & 20, Block 20, Interurban Heights P Section, Plat Vol. 17, pg. 87, PTN of Lot 1, Kent Short Plat SP- 92-15; PTN of NW 1/4 of SE 1/4 of Section 21, PTN of Lot 2, Kent Short Plat SPC 75-14; PTN of Lot 2, Kent Short Plat SP2000-20; PTN of NW Y4 of NE 1/4 of Section 28; all located in T22N, R4E, W.M., King County. Additional Legal Descriptions on pages Exhibits A-3 of Document. Assessor's Tax Parcel ID Nos. 212204-9046; 212204-9106, 212204-9006; 360180-0101; 360180-0115; 212204-9015; 212204-9052; 212204-9044; 212204-9193; 282204-9088 Project Name: Pacific Highway/SR99 RW No. 96-3005.1 AMENDED UTILITY EASEMENT THIS INSTRUMENT is by and between the City of Kent, a Washington municipal corporation, ( Kent'] and the Midway Sewer District, ("Midway). RECITALS AMENDED EASEMENT MIDWAY Pacific Higliway`SR99 RW No.96-3005.1 -Page I of 1 1. Midway is the Grantee of various perpetual rights-of-way or easements for sewer mains on various parcels of real property in King County, Washington, all of which include a restriction that the Grantor shall not erect buildings or structures on the easement area, which restriction is binding on successors. 2. Kent has acquired small portions of certain parcels of real property in relation to its Pacific Highway/SR99 HOV Lanes Improvements Project ("Project"), which are subject to Midway's easements for sewer mains and therefore, Kent, as the Successor Grantor, is subject to the easement restrictions on erecting structures in the easement area. 3. Midway and Kent desire to amend the relevant easements to the extent they apply to Kent's properties for the Project to remove the restriction on erecting structures in the easement areas and allow Kent or its designees to construct structures in the easement area under certain conditions. In consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. Amended Easements. Kent has acquired small portions of certain parcels of real property, the legal descriptions of which are attached and incorporated as Exhibits A-], and which are subject to the following Midway Sewer District easements: King County Recording Nos 8710160427; 8709290995; 8708130553; 8005010707; 8904130651; 8805101218; 8904280824; 7607150682; 7904031033; 7312140326 ("Easements', respectively. 2. Consent to Construct. Midway agrees to amend the Easements described above to the extent they apply to Kent's properties described above ("Amended Easement Areas' to remove the restriction on constructing structures within the Amended Easement Areas. Midway will permit Kent or its designees to construct structures within the Amended Easement Areas provided that Kent agrees to the conditions contained herein. 3. Scope of Kent's Obligations. Kent's obligations under this Amended Easement will extend to all structures constructed by Kent or its designees within the Amended Easement Areas. 4. Construction Plan Review. Prior to constructing any structure in the Amended Easement Areas, Kent will submit construction plans to Midway. Midway will have thirty (30) days to review and comment on the plans, unless extended by mutual agreement by the parties. 5. Construction of Structures. Kent, or its designees, will be responsible for the construction and maintenance of all structures constructed in the Amended Easement Areas whether constructed by Kent or third parties. The construction, operation and maintenance of the structures may not damage or interfere with Midway's sewer lines and appurtenances. 6. Removal of Structures. If Midway reasonably determines that the total or partial removal of a structure is required in order to install, maintain, improve, repair, reconstruct or replace sewer lines and appurtenances within the Amended Easement Areas, it will notify Kent in writing and Kent, or its designees, will, in a timely manner and at Kent's sole expense, remove the structure or a portion thereof. In the event of an emergency requiring immediate action to protect public health and safety, AMENDED EASEMENT MIDWAY Pacific Highway(SR99 RW No 96-3005 1 -Page 2 of 3 1 Midway's operations or property, Midway may remove all or a portion of a structure. As soon .as practicable after the removal, Midway will provide written notice to Kent that it removed a structure and include an invoice for the costs. Kent will promptly reimburse Midway for all reasonable removal costs incurred by Midway. 7. Hold Harmless. Kent will indemnify and hold Midway harmless for any expenses, liabilities or costs of correction that Midway may incur as a result of any damage to, or interference with, its facilities caused by Kent or its designees in exercising Kent's rights and obligations under this Agreement. This Amended Easement shall be a covenant running with the land forever and shall be binding on the parties'successors, heirs, and assigns. DATED this day of 200_. CITY OF KENT MIDWAY SEWER DISTRICT By: Commissioner By: Commissioner By: Commissioner APPROVED AS TO FORM: Kent Law Department (Notary Acknowledgment on Next Page) r AMENDED EASEMENT MIDWAY Pacific 11i0way/SR99 RW No 96-3005.1 -Page 3 of STATE OF WASHINGTON ) COUNTY OF KING ) On this _ day of , 200_, before me a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, personally appeared and to me known to be the and of , a corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged it to be the free and voluntary act of said corporation, for the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument, and on oath stated that they were authorized to execute said instrument. -Notary Seal fY/hest Appear l Pahm 77res Bar- IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and year first above written NOTARY PLJBL[C,in and for the State of Washington Residing at My dppomtment expires r �t AMENDED EASEMENT MIDWAY Pacific Highway/SR99 RW No.96-3005 1 -Page 4 of 3 EXAIBIT"A" RIGHT OF WAY LEGAL DESCRI PTION THE WESTERLY 12 00 OF THE SOUTH 2O.00 FEET (AS MEASURED ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE) OF THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W M, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING EAST OF THE EASTERLY MARGIN OF PACIFIC HIGHWAY SOUTH (FORMERLY STATE ROAD No 1) 100 00 FEET IN WIDTH CONTAINING 240 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS EXHIBIT "B" RIGHT OF WAY LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE WESTERLY 12.00 FEET OF THE SOUTH 2O.00 FEET (AS MEASURED ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE) OF THAT PORTION OF LOTS 9 AND 10, BLOCK 18, INTERURBAN HEIGHTS FOURTH SECTION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 17 OF PLATS, PAGE 86, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING EASTERLY OF THE EASTERLY MARGIN OF PACIFIC HIGHWAY SOUTH (FORMERLY STATE ROAD No.l) 100.00 FEET IN WIDTH, AND NORTH OF THE WESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WAS14INGTON CONTAINING 240 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. EXHIBIT "C" RIGHT OF WAY LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE WESTERLY 12.00 FEET OF NORTH 2O.00 FEET OF THE SOUTH 66.74 FEET (AS MEASURED ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE) OF PARCEL "B", CITY OF KENT LOT LINE ADIUSTMENT NUMBER LL-97-15, RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 9709181235, IN KING COUNTY, WASH INGTON CONTAINING 240 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS 1 EXHIBIT "D" RIGHT OF WAN' LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE WESTERLY 18.00 FEET OF THE NORTH 15.00 FEET (AS MEASURED ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE) OF THAT PORTION OF VACATED YUKON AVENUE, INTERURBAN HEIGHTS THIRD SECTION, RECORDED IN VOLUME 17 OF PLATS, PAGE 87, IN KING COUNTY WASHINGTON, LYING EASTERLY OF THE EASTERLY MARGIN OF PACIFICC HIGHWAY SOUTH(FORMERLY STATE ROAD No. 1), 100.00 FEET IN WIDTH, AND SOUTH OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE. COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE WEST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W M. 1N KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; THENCE SOUTH 01007'17" WEST, ALONG THE EAST LINE THEREOF, A DISTANCE OF 2224 58 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 88042'30" WEST A DISTANCE OF 124.59 FEET TO SAID EASTERLY MARGIN AND THE TERMINUS OF SAID DESCRIBED LINE. CONTAINING 270 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. EXHIBIT"E" RIGHT OF WAY LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE WESTERLY 12.00 FEET OF THE NORTH 2O.00 FEET OF THE SOUTH 37 01 FEET (AS MEASURED ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE) OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL; THAT PORTION OF LOT 20, BLOCK 20, INTERURBAN HEIGHTS THIRD SECTION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 17 OF PLATS, PAGE 87, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING EASTERLYOF THE EASTERLY MARGIN OF PACIFIC HIGHWAY SOUTH (FORMERLY STATE ROAD No 1) 100.00 FEET IN WIDTH, TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF SOUTH 248TH STREET ADJOINING, VACATED BY CITY OF KENT ORDINANCE No. 1024. �i AND THAT PORTION OF LOTS 14 AND 15, BLOCK 20, INTERURBAN HEIGHTS THIRD SECTION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 17 OF PLATS, PAGE 87, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS. COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTHLINE OF LOT 12, SAID BLOCK 20, WITH THE EASTERLY MARGIN OF PACIFIC HIGHWAY SOUTH (FORMERLY STATE ROAD No. 1) 100.00 FEET IN WIDTH; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG A CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 5780.00 FEET AND ALONG SAID EASTERLY MARGIN, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 76.50 FEET TO TILE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE AND EASTERLY MARGIN, AND ARC DISTANCE OF 23,20 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY, RADIAL TO SAID EASTERLY MARGIN, A DISTANCE OF 14.00 FEET THENCE NORTHEASTERLY, CONCENTRIC WITH SAID EASTERLY MARGIN TO A POINT WHICH IS RADIAL FROM THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY, RADIAL TO SAID EASTERLY MARGIN, A DISTANCE OF 14.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. ALL CONTAINING 565 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. i EXHIBIT "F" R[GUT OF WAY LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE WESTERLY 12 00 FEET OF THE NORTH 2O.00 FEET OF THE SOUTH 48 00 FEET (AS MEASURED ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE) OF LOT 1, CITY OF KENT SHORT PLAT NUMBER SP-92-15, RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 9303300767, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON CONTAINING 240 SQUARE FEET,MORE OR LESS i EXHIBIT "(. ' RIGHT OF WAY LEGAL DESCIZIPTION rTHE WESTERLY 10.00 FEET OF THE SOUTH 10 00 FEET (AS MEASURED ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE) OF THAT PORTION OF THE NORTH 125.00 1 FEET OF THE SOUTH 625 00 FEET OF NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W M. IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING EASTERLY OF THE EASTERLY MARGIN OF PACIFIC HIGHWAY SOUTH (FORMERLY STATE ROAD No 1) 100.00 FEET IN WIDTH. CONTAfNING 100 SQUARE FEETMORE OR LESS �y i EXHIBIT "H" RIGHT OF WAY LECAL DESCRIPTION THE WESTERLY 15.00 FEET OF THE SOUTH 25 00 FEET (AS MEASURED ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE) OF LOT 2, CITY OF KENT SHORT PLAT NUMBER SPC 75-14, RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 7512030325, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON CONTAINING 375 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS EXHIBIT "I" RIGHT Oli WAY LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE WESTERLY 16 00 FEET OF THE NORTH 2O.00 FEET (AS MEASURED ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF LOT 2, CITY OF KENT SHORT PLAT NUMBER SP2000-20, RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 200 1081 590000 1, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. CONTAINING 320 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS EXHIBIT "J" RIGHT OF WAY LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE WESTERLY 12 00 FEET OF THE SOUTH 2O.00 FEET OF THE NORTH 106.99 FEET (AS MEASURED ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE) OF THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W M. IN iiING COUTNY, 'YVASHINGTON, LYING EASTERLY OF THE EASTERLY MARGIN OF PACIFIC HIGHWAY SOUTH, (FORMERLY STATE ROAD NO 1) 100.00 FEET IN WIDTH, AND LYING SOUTH OF THE NORTH 325 00 FEET OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER. CONTAINING 240 SQUARE FEET MORE OR LESS i Kent City Council Meeting Date November 21, 2006 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: 271 ST STREET SPEED STUDY UPDATE AND TRAFFIC CALMING DEVICE INSTALLATION— AUTHORIZE 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Rescission of the Public Works Committee's motion of August 21", 2006 regarding installation of temporary speed humps on SE 271" street and authorization to install four (4) speed humps of an appropriate design that would allow for potential removal if after a trial period a majority of the residents on 271" Street request them to be removed. L 3. EXHIBITS: Public Works Memorandum 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? Yes Revenue? None Currently in the Budget? Yes X No If no: Unbudgeted Expense: Fund Amount $ Unbudgeted Revenue: Fund Amount $ 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No 6H PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 400 Larry R. Blanchard, Public Works Director • KEN T Phone: 253-856-5500 WASHINGTON Fax: 253-856-6500 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 Date: November 1, 2006 To: Chair Debbie Raplee and Public Works Committee Members PW Committee Meeting Date: November 06,2006 From: Larry Blanchard, Public Works Director Subject: 271 Street SE Neighborhood Traffic Control Program RE: Installation of Temporary Speed Humps ITEM 5 Motion: ■ Required ❑ Not Required ❑ For Information Only Public Works Committee rescinds its motion of August 21st, 2006 regarding installation of temporary speed humps on SE 271st Street and request Public Works install 4 speed humps of an appropriate design that would allow for potential removal if after a trial period a majority of the residents on 271't Street request them to be removed. Will document be required? ❑ Ordinance ❑ Resolution ❑ Agreement ❑ Contract ❑ Policy ❑ SOP's ■ Other Governing Policies Procedures Rules & Regulations: Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) Neighborhood Traffic Control Program, Resolution 1546 Background/History: At the August 215t, 2006 Public Works Committee (PWC) meeting, the Committee directed staff to conduct a speed study for seven (7) consecutive days and to install temporary speed humps on 271st Street SE. Summary: The traffic studies (minimum seven (7) day duration) have been completed on 271st Street SE and a summary report has been forwarded to the Committee members. However, while investigating the use of temporary speed humps finding a suitable product for temporary installation became quite difficult. There are very few products currently offered. Most of the brands we investigated required numerous mounting bolts, in some cases as many as 360 per installation, and were very expensive. Four speed humps would cost over $26,000 not including installation. U IPWCommmwL4cwnPagedoe 1 Public Works staff estimates the cost of materials and labor to install four permanent speed humps would be approximately $7,000. Therefore the permanent speed humps are easier to install and less costly. It would be possible to remove the permanent speed humps and restore the roadway pavement, should that be the determination following a trial period. Even with the cost of restoration ($2,000) the permanent speed hump is the least cost option to installing temporary speed humps. Public Works staff determined preliminary locations for installation of speed humps and sent letters to all the residences that must access SE 2715t Street soliciting input as to potential installation of speed humps. Only one response was returned to Public Works, indicating opposition to speed humps anywhere along SE 2715t Street. Recommendations: The Public Works Department recommends that instead of staff installing temporary speed humps on 2715C Street SE that the Committee authorize the installation of permanent asphalt-concrete speed , humps @ the locations agreed to by the residents of this neighborhood. U IPWComm rtmL4 fmnfte dot 'Z c C O_ O +' Ln U 0 C LO c i a� OL O M d- O O 'O U) co 00 o� O (3� OR N N N N N Ln E 00 O v U O M I.f) I.D (") %.D M .-J d N � X U cn co O 00 o Cr �.O M T M M M M CN N OM N N o n L (n (.n a-r m a) a N LLJ E T- Ln LnCON � .- Ii ,--f M� O •--i �--i oll 00 M 00 Cj M N M N .� M 1-4U) N JJ Q) Q� Cl rl 70 a 0) (D V' d" O CD M O M Y rl�l C U') rV M M d" 1-� tD o0 I'f o6 R J (V 7 M M M M N N CV M [V 0 O o v W -0 Ln !n v i �j E O CY O l� Ill Ln M O O v O N N N N M � M(14 1 Z, m n E d- 00 (U � 1-4 O 0 4� d �� ro v N 5 O CD O C C C o (J CL O r� M Ln M kD i O lD k 5 N N O �p O (E O O O O N O � N O O O O E Ln In N N t�6 .- (B .a N O O w In N D O O U.1 E 01 01 1-4 0)L L L J-�I L r((''�� Qd O O O O '/ O tD tD -1D lD O Lr� t\ M y:: "o iD w 0 0 0 0 iD N [V O m O` O m iD 4.0 N fV v O O �� m ((a N N N N Ml l� . 1-1 r-+ 0 Ln In � 00 00 ON O o 1 0 # Apn}s, r4l M -1-1 I Iui .D co rn Kent City Council Meeting Date November 21, 2006 Category Consent Calendar ' 1. SUBJECT: KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT LIAISON OFFICER AGREEMENT FOR 2006-2007 — AUTI IORIZE 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorize the Mayor to sign a renewal agreement with the Kent School District for the full-time services of one police officer to act as the School Liaison Officer. The Kent School District agrces to reimburse the Kent Police Department the full salary and benefits of the School Liaison Officer upon submission of a monthly invoice. The agreement shall be effective September 1, 2006 through August 31, 2007. 3. EXHIBITS: Kent School District School Liaison officer agreement 2006-2007 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety Committee 10/10/06 (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc ) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expendrture9 N/A Revenue? N/A Currently in the Budget? Yes X No If no. ' Unbudgeted Expense- Fund Amount $ Unbudgeted Revenue: Fund Amount $ 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 61 AGREEMENT 2006 - 2007 THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the City of Kent, by and through the Kent Police Department, hereinafter referred to as the "Department", and the Kent School District. ' hereinafter referred to as the "District". WHEREAS, the School Liaison Officer is employed by the City of Kent Police Department as a law ' enforcement officer, holding the rank of Officer therein and WHEREAS, the District desires to improve school security and provide a safe, secure environment for its students and staff, and WHEREAS, the District desires to contract with the City of Kent for the full-time services of one police officer to act as the School Liaison Officer. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual promises set forth herein, the parties hereto mutually agree as follows: 1. TERM iThe Agreement shall be effective on September 1, 2006 through August 31, 2007, subject to any prior termination as provided herein and unless extended by written agreement of parties hereto. 2. DUTIES OF THE DEPARTMENT The Department shall provide the full-time services of a police officer to the District for the purpose of assisting with the training, organization and direction of school security. Such services shall include, but not be limited to: a. Assist in the development and implementation of ongoing training programs to produce highly trained career-oriented school security personnel. ' b. Assist in the establishment of a communication network among school security personnel. c. Develop a daily routine that ensures high visibility to Kent School District staff, students and community ' d. Assist in the development of a standardized operational procedures manual for school security personnel. ' e. Support the District Security Administrator in his/her role as a liaison with city and county law enforcement officers. f. Prepare daily reports. g. Assist in the establishment of emergency operation procedures for buildings. ' h. Help establish and maintain security procedures focused on prevention of problems in schools and the community. i. Help foster an attitude, which promotes a safe school environment. ' j. Conduct investigations on behalf of the school district. ' t k. Help diffuse conflicts ' 1. Contact truant children and their parents. in. Transport students with behavioral or health problems to their homes or other designated ' locations n. On occasion, have the ability to work flexible hours. o. Other duties as mutually agreed upon by the Kent School District and police agency. The Kent Police Department shall provide the use of radio, and uniform to the School Liaison Officer to perform the duties of the School Liaison Officer. The Kent School District shall provide the use of a pager and cellular phone to the School Liaison Officer. 3. CONSIDERATION ' In consideration of those services provided under this Agreement, the District shall reimburse to the Department its full payment of salary for the School Liaison Officer, including all benefits and all ' increases to said salary or benefits during the period of service to the District herein. The District shall pay said reimbursement amount upon submission by the Department of a monthly invoice 4. WORK SCHEDULE ' The School Liaison Officer shall be on duty as the School Liaison Officer from 7:00am (0700 hrs) to 5 OOpm (1700 hrs) Tuesday through Friday during the term of this Agreement, subject to paragraph 2(n), or hours and days agreed upon by the District, Department, the bargaining unit for the Kent Police Officers, and the officer providing the services. 5. OVERTIME Costs associated with overtime shall be paid by the District, except the costs associated with overtime for Friday training at the Kent Police Department or any other Department functions not ' relating to School District Business will be paid by the Department 6. BACKUP ' The Kent officer will respond to and backup the Kent School District Security Personnel as needed. The Kent Officer may respond to and backup other City of Kent Police Officers when necessary. 7. AGREEMENTS OUTSIDE OF THIS AGREEMENT , This Agreement contains the complete agreement between the parties and shall, as of the effective date hereof, supersede all agreements, either written or oral, between the parties. The parties agree ' that neither of them has made any representation with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement or any representations, including the executing and delivery hereof, except such representations as are specifically set forth herein, and each of the parties hereto acknowledge that it has relied on its ' own judgement in entering into this Agreement. 8. MODIFICATION ' No waiver or modification of this Agreement or any covenants, conditions, or limitations herein contained shall be valid unless in writing and duly executed by the parties to be charged therewith; and no evidence of any waiver of modification shall be offered or received in evidence of any , proceeding or litigation between the parties hereto arising out of or affecting this Agreement, or the rights or obligations of the parties hereunder, unless such waiver or modification is in writing duly executed as aforesaid; and the parties further agree that the provisions of this section may not be ' waived except as herein set forth. 2 ' 9. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT This Agreement may be terminated without cause at any time by mutual agreement of the parties hereto,or by either party after sixty(60) days following the other parly's receipt of a written intent to terminate ' Each party shall have the right to cancel and immediately terminate this agreement without prior notice upon breach of the Agreement by the other party. ' In the event of termination under this section.the Department will be entitled to receive, to the date of such termination on a pro rate basis, the compensation as set forth in section 3, above. ' 10. EMPLOYMENT OBLIGATIONS OF PARTIES The Department agrees to pay to the School Liaison Officer the full salary and benefits, including all increases to said salary and benefits, accruing to him as an employee of the Department during the period of his services herein Additionally, the Department agrees to extend to the Officer, all rights, privileges, and benefits attendant to and resulting from his employment by the Department, including any and all promotional opportunities otherwise available to him. The Department further agrees that upon completion and conclusion of the Officer's service herein, and in the absence of any promotion or upgrading in classification which has occurred during the duration of the Agreement, he/she will be returned and be reinstated to the Department at the same or equal commissioned rank ' or position which he held on the beginning date of this Agreement The District agrees to provide input during the evaluation period and documentation as necessary with regards to the Officer's perfornance during the Officer's period of service herein and as required by the Department. Issues relating to evaluation of performance or changes to the school liaison program shall be coordinated through the Officer's supervisor The School Liaison Officer's performance records are completed and maintained at the Kent Police Department The District agrees to permit the Officer to attend and testify at court proceedings pursuant to subpoena. If the Officer must appear in court pursuant to subpoena on matters unrelated to his services under this ' contract, the District shall not be obligated to pay for such court time. 11. TRAINING ' The District agrees to permit the School Liaison Officer to attend regular training sessions at the Department The District shall provide training to the School Liaison Officer on school in service days. District employees may be permitted to use Department training facilities under the direct ' supervision of the School Liaison Officer and the training staff at the Department training center. 12. INDEMNIFICATION ' To the extent permitted by law, the School District shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its officer, agents and employees, or any of them, from any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss. costs, expenses and damages of any nature whatsoever, arising out of any act or omission of the School District, its officers, agents, and employees or any of them relating to or arising out of the performance of the Agreement, however, the School District shall not defend, ' indemnify or hold the City harmless from any claims, actions or suits for injury, damage or loss of any kind caused by either intentional act(s) or the negligence of the City, its officers, agents and employees or any of them. In any action which the School District defends the City, the School District shall have the right to select counsel; however, the City may associate additional counsel at ' the City's own expense. If final judgment be rendered against the City and the School District and ' 3 their respective officer, agents and employees, or any of them, the School District shall satisfy the , same. however, in the event that the final judgment contains any award for injury, damage or loss of any kind caused by the intentional act(s) or the sole negligence of the city, its officers, agents and employees or any of them, the City shall pay that portion of the judgment. In executing this Agreement, the city does not assume liability or responsibility for, or in any way release the School District from any liability or responsibility which arises in whole or in part from the existence or effect of School District polices, rules or regulations If any cause, claim, suit, action, or administrative proceedings is commenced in which the enforceability and/or validity of any such School District policy, rule or regulation is at issue, the School District shall defend the same at its sole expense and if judgment is entered or damages are awarded against the School District, the City or both, the School District shall satisfy the same, including all chargeable costs and attorney's fees. , The City shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the School District and its officers, directors, agents and employees, or any of them from any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses and damages of any nature whatsoever, out of any act or omission of the City, its officers, ' agents and employees, or any of them in the performance of this Agreement; however, the City shall not defend, indemnify or hold the School District harmless from any claims, actions or suits for injury, damage or loss of any kind caused by either intentional act(s) or the sole negligence of the ' School District, its officers, directors, agents and employees or any of them In any action which the City defends the School District, the City shall have the right to select counsel; however, the School District may associate additional counsel at the School District's own expense. If final judgment contains any award for injury or loss of any kind caused by the intentional act(s) or the sole negligence of the School District, its officers, directors, agents and employees or any of them, the School District shall pay that portion of the judgment. , 13. MEDICAL/HEALTH AND WORKER' COMPENSATION BENEFITS In the event of any injury to, or the illness or death of, the School Liaison Officer while acting in performance of this Agreement, the Department agrees to extend to the School Liaison Officer medical/health and workers' compensation benefits and other compensation, to the same extent and in the same manner as in such injury, illness. or death had occurred during work assignment in and ' for the Department The District shall have no obligation to provide the School Liaison officer with any workers compensation or other benefits 14. VENUE STIPULATION ' This Agreement shall be construed as having been made and delivered with the State of Washington, and the laws of the State of Washington shall be applicable to its construction and enforcement Any ' action at law, suit in equity, or judicial proceeding for the enforcement of this Agreement or any provision hereto shall be instituted in King County, Washington. ' 15. ASSIGNMENT Each party to this Agreement stipulates that the Agreement is one for personal services and accordingly neither party hereto may assign, sublet, or transfer any interest in this Agreement. ' 16. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS The parties hereto agree to comply in carrying out the terms of this Agreement with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, and regulations, including but not necessarily limited to, the laws pertaining to civil rights and laws pertaining to the District and the Department 4 , t ' 17. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION The parties shall each appoint representatives to review contract performance and resolve problems which cannot be dealt with by the City's liaison officer and the School District Security Administrator Each party shall notify the other in writing of its designated representatives. The contract administrators will meet as needed, but at least annually, with either party authorized to call additional meetings with ten (10) days written notice to the other. 18. NOTICES All notices given herein shall be in writing and shall be sent by registered mail to the parties at their recognized business addresses. ' 19. HEADINGS The article headings contained in this Agreement are inserted solely as a matter of convenience and for reference and in no way do they define, limit, or describe the scope or intent of the provisions of this agreement. ' 7/26/06 ' 1tp IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have affixed their signature on the dates below. KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT CITY OF KENT Barbara Grohe, Superintendent Suzette Cooke, Mayor 1 Date Date 5 Kent City Council Meeting Date November 21, 2006 Category Consent Calendar ' 1. SUBJECT: RETIREMENT HEALTH SAVINGS ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES AGREEMENT — AUTHORIZE ' 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Operations Committee, authorize the Mayor to sign the ICMA-RC Retirement Health Savings Plan Administrative Services Agreement and Declaration of Trust. The Retirement Health Savings (RHS) is ICMA Retirement Corporation's employer sponsored health benefit savings vehicle that allows employees to accumulate assets to pay for medical expenses for themselves and their dependents during retirement. The RHS plan will be implemented January 1, 2007 to comply with the Teamster Union collective bargaining agreement. 3. EXHIBITS: ICMA-RC Administrative Agreement and Declaration of Trust 4 RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? None Revenue? _ Currently in the Budget9 Yes X No If no: Unbudgeted Expense: Fund Amount $ Unbudgeted Revenue- Fund Amount $ ' 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda ' Item No 6J ' EMPLOYEE SERVICES Sue Viseth, Director • Phone 253-856-5270 'diiiiK E N T Fax 253-856-6270 Address 220 Fourth Avenue S ' WASHINGTON Kent, WA 98032-5895 ' November 1, 2007 TO: Operations Committee FROM: Becky Fowler, Benefits Manager THRU: Sue Viseth, Employee Services Director ' SUBJECT: Retirement Health Savings Accounts MOTION: I move to recommend that the Retirement Health Savings Administrative Services Agreement and Declaration of Trust with ICMA-RC be placed on the City Council consent calendar for the November 21, 2006 meeting, authorizing the Mayor to sign the documents, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney. ' SUMMARY: The VantageCare Retirement Health Savings (RHS) Plan is the ICMA Retirement Corporations employer sponsored health benefit savings vehicle that allows employees to accumulate assets to pay for medical expenses for themselves and their dependents during retirement. BUDGET IMPACT: $ None BACKGROUND: The Retirement Health Savings (RHS) Plan is being implemented January 1, 2006, to comply with the Teamster Union collective bargaining agreement. During the last negotiation period with the union, the City agreed to contribute twenty dollars per month for each member. The Retirement Health Savings (RHS) Plan is a vehicle allowing the members to set aside assets now for medical expenses during retirement. ' Kent Council Operations Committee 1 ICMA-RC November 7, 2006 Retirement Health Savings Plan i t ' ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES AGREEMENT Type: VantageCare RHS Account Number: 801659 Plan 4 801659 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES AGREEMENT , This Agreement,made as of the 1 to day of 20 O to (herein referred to as the "Inception Date"),between The International City Management Association Retirement Corporation ("ICMA-RC"), a nonprofit corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware; and the City of Kent ("Employer") a local governmental instrumentality organized and existing under the laws of the State of Washington with an office at 220 4`h Avenue South, Kent, , Washington 98032 RECITALS Employer acts as a public plan sponsor for a retiree health plan with responsibility to obtain investment alternatives and services for employees participating in that plan; Employer desires to make the VantageCare Retirement Health Savings Plan("RHS Plan'or"Plan") provided by ICMA-RC available to its employees, ICMA-RC makes available the Vantagepoint Funds, a no-load, diversified mutual fund, for investment of public employer plan assets, including RHS Plan assets, ICMA-RC provides a complete offering of services to public employers for the operation of , employee retirement and retiree health savings plans including,but not limited to,communications concerning investment alternatives, account maintenance, account record-keeping, investment and tax reporting, form processing, benefit disbursement and asset management. , AGREEMENTS 1. Acceptance of RHS Plan , Employer agrees to make the RHS Plan provided by ICMA-RC available to its employees. The details of the RHS Plan shall be as mutually agreed between the Employer and ICMA-RC, and in general shall be as set forth in the RHS Plan matenals developed by ICMA-RC and provided to Employer. The RHS Plan materials are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this Agreement, except that Employer and ICMA-RC may from time to time mutually agree in writing to terms that vary from the RES Plan materials. RHS plan materials shall include the VantageCare RHS Employer Manual, available electronically through the EZ Link System upon plan adoption. The functions to be performed by ICMA-RC and its agents include: , (a) allocation in accordance with participant direction of individual accounts to investment funds ("Funds") made available to Plan participants; , (b) maintenance of individual accounts for participants reflecting amounts contributed, - 2 - Plan# 801659 income, gain, or loss credited, and amounts disbursed as benefits; (c) provision of periodic reports to the Employer and participants of the status of Plan investments and individual accounts; (d) communication to participants of information regarding their rights and elections under the Plan; (e) disbursement of benefits as agent for the Employer in accordance with terms of the Plan;and (f) performance of tax withholding and reporting in conjunction with the Employer for each RHS account. ' 2. Employer Duty to Furnish Information Employer agrees to furnish to ICMA-RC on a timely basis such information as is necessary for ICMA-RC to cant'out its responsibilities with respect to the Plan, including information needed to allocate individual participant accounts to Funds, and information as to the employment status of participants, and participant ages, addresses, beneficiaries and other identifying information ' (including tax identification numbers). ICMA-RC shall be entitled to rely upon the accuracy of any information that is furnished to it by a responsible official of the Employer or any information relating to an individual participant, dependent, or beneficiary that is furnished by such participant, dependent, or beneficiary, and ICMA-RC shall not be responsible for any error ansing from its reliance on such information. ICMA-RC will provide account information in reports,statements or accountings. r3. Certain Representations and Warranties ' ICMA-RC represents and warrants to Employer that: (a) ICMA-RC is a non-profit corporation with full power and authority to enter into this Agreement and to perform its obligations under this Agreement. ' (b) ICMA-RC is an investment adviser registered as such with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended. ICMA-RC Services, LLC (a wholly owned subsidiary of ICMA-RC) is registered as a broker-dealer with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and is a member in good standing of the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. Employer represents and warrants to ICMA-RC that: (c) Employer is organized in the form and manner recited in the opening paragraph of this Agreement with full power and authority to enter into and perform its obligations under this Agreement and to act for the Plan and participants in the manner contemplated in this - 3 - Plan# 801659 Agreement. Execution, delivery, and performance of this Agreement will not conflict with , any law,rule,regulation or contract by which the Employer is bound or to which it is a party. , (d) Information required to be retained by the Employer shall be set forth in the RHS plan materials developed by ICMA-RC and provided to the Employer. , (e) Employer is responsible for determining that there are no state or local laws that would prohibit it from establishing ICMA-RC's VantageCare RHS program. Employer is also , responsible for determining that the investments selected for the RHS plan fall within state/local requirements. (f) Employer acknowledges that the RHS plan may be treated as a "health plan" for Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act ("HIPAA") purposes and therefore may be , subject to HIPAA privacy rules If it is determined that the RHS plan is considered a"health plan", an employer sponsoring RHS would be responsible for complying with the HIPAA privacy and security rules regarding protected health information of RHS plan participants. ICMA-RC has procedures in place to safeguard the protected health information of RHS plan participants , 4. Participation in Certain Proceedings The Employer hereby authorizes ICMA-RC to act as agent, to appear on its behalf, and to join the ' Employer as a necessary party in all legat proceedings involving the garnishment of benefits or the transfer of benefits pursuant to a medical child support order. Unless Employer notifies ICMA-RC , otherwise, Employer authorizes ICMA-RC to determine whether disbursement of benefits to a former spouse, spouse or child pursuant to a medical child support order is appropriate. 5. Compensation and Payment (a) Absent an explicit agreement to the contrary between ICMA-RC and Employer,participant fees and expenses shall be payable from RHS assets,in accordance with the requirements of the RHS Plan as set forth below , (1) Employer with ICMA-RC §401 and §457 retirement plan average participant account balances of$25,000 or more: , A$30 annual account fee will be charged to each Accountholder's account upon attainment of Benefit Eligibility by the Accountholder. Benefit Eligibility shall be transmitted electronically to ICMA-RC by Employer through the EZ Link System. Benefit Eligibility shall mean the quarter in which the Accountholder becomes eligible to use of the account for reimbursement of medical expenses under the terms of the Employer's RHS Plan. The account fee will be charged against the account on a quarterly basis - 4 - i Plan 4 801659 In addition to the annual account fee, an annual asset fee of 0.30% (30 basis points) will be charged on a quarterly basis, based on the balance in the account on the last day of the previous quarter (ii) Employer with ICMA-RC §401 and §457 retirement plan average participant account balances of less than $25,000, or Employer who does not currently have a retirement plan with ICMA-RC: A $30 annual account fee will be charged to each Accountholder's account upon L attainment of Benefit Eligibility by the Accountholder Benefit Eligibihty shall be transmitted electronically to ICMA-RC by Employer through the EZ Link System. Benefit Eligibility shall mean the quarter in which the Accountholder becomes eligible to use of the account for reimbursement of medical expenses under the terms of the Employers RI-IS Plan. The account fee will be charged against the account on a quarterly basis. ' In addition to the annual account fee,an annual asset fee of 0.40% (40 basis points) will be charged on a quarterly basis,based on the balance in the account on the last day of the previous quarter. When the average participant account balance of the Employer's §401 and §457 retirement plans with ICMA-RC totals$25,000 or more(based on the balances in the Employer's retirement plans on the last day of the previous quarter), the pricing detailed in paragraph 8.a. shall apply beginning in the subsequent quarter (iii) Account administration fees are subject to change with appropriate prior notification. (b) Compensation for Advisory and other Services to the Vantagepoint Funds. Employer acknowledges that certain wholly-owned subsidiaries of ICMA-RC receive compensation for advisory and other services furnished to the Vantagepoint Funds The fees referred to in this subsection are disclosed in the Vantagepoint Funds Prospectus. 6. Cu_ stody ' Employer understands that amounts contributed to the RHS plan are to be remitted directly to Vantagepoint Transfer Agents in accordance with instructions provided to Employer in the RES plan materials and are not to be remitted to the 1CMA Retirement Trust or ICMA-RC. In the event that any check or wire transfer is incorrectly labeled or transferred,ICMA-RC will return it to Employer with proper instructions L - 5 - Plan# 801659 ' 7. Responsibility (a) ICMA-RC shall not be responsible for any acts or omissions of any person other than ICMA- ' RC in connection with the administration or operation of the Plan. (b) The Employer understands that, as a general matter, the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") may decline to rule on certain design features or provisions that the Employer may request to have added to the RHS plan materials. The Employer agrees to hold ICMA-RC harmless in connection with the addition and administration of any RHS plan feature or provision requested by the Employer for which the IRS will not provide express interpretive guidance. 8. Term This Agreement shall be in effect for an initial term beginning on the Inception Date and ending 5 , years after the Inception Date This Agreement will be renewed automatically for each succeeding year unless written notice of termination is provided by either party to the other no less than 60 days before the end of such Agreement year. 9. Amendments and Adjustments , (a) This Agreement may not be amended except by wntten instrument signed by the parties. (b) The parties agree that an adjustment to compensation or administrative and operational , services under this Agreement may only be implemented by ICMA-RC through a proposal to the Employer via correspondence or the Employer Bulletin. The Employer will be given at least 60 days to review the proposal before the effective date of the adjustment. Such adjustment shall become effective unless,within the 60 day period before the effective date, the Employer notifies ICMA-RC in wntmg that it does not accept such adjustment,in which event the parties will negotiate with respect to the adjustment. (c) No failure to exercise and no delay in exercising any right, remedy, power or privilege , hereunder shall operate as a waiver of such right, remedy, power or privilege. 10. Notices All notices required to be delivered under Section 9 of this Agreement shall be delivered personally , or by registered or certified mail,postage prepaid,return receipt requested,to(i)Legal Department, ICMA Retirement Corporation,777 North Capitol Street,N.E.,Suite 600,Washington,D.C,20002- 4240, (n) Employer at the office set forth in the first paragraph hereof, or to any other address , designated by the party to receive the same by written notice similarly given. 11. Complete Agreement This Agreement shall constitute the sole agreement between ICMA-RC and Employer relating to the - 6 - tPlan # 801659 object of this Agreement and correctly sets forth the complete rights, duties and obligations of each party to the other as of its date. Any prior agreements, promises, negotiations or representations, verbal or otherwise,not expressly set forth in this Agreement are of no force and effect. 12. Governing Law This agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington applicable to contracts made in that junsd3etion without reference to its conflicts of laws 1 provisions. In Witness Whereof,the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the Inception Date first above written. CITY OF KENT Name of Employer y b ISignature/Date Name and Title (Please Print) l INTERNATIONAL CITY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION RETIREMENT CORPORATION :by Paul Gallagher Corporate Secretary I 1 t 7 - r DECLARATION OF TRUST OF THE flF Kar t-r INTEGRAL PART TRUST NAME OF EMPLOYER 3 DECLARATION OF TRUST OF THE C (N oi= Ktt-r' NAME OF EMPLOYER INTEGRAL PART TRUST Declaration of Trust made as of the I L day of 47 py1i2)E,2 , 20 9_�o, by and between the C I T`/ O F KP1"1'T a Name of Employer State Type of Entity (hereinafter referred to as the "Employer") and CITY aF KZPAr' or its designee (hereinafter Name of Trustee referred to as the "Trustee"). RECITALS WHEREAS, the Employer is a political subdivision of the State of UDA-b" I Na,7:o L— exempt from federal income tax under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and state �� 1 WHEREAS,the Employer provides for the security and welfare of its eligible employees (here- inafter referred to as "Participants"),their Spouses, Dependents and Beneficiaries by the maintenance of one or more post-retirement welfare benefit plans, programs or arrangements which provide for life, sickness, medical, disability, severance and other similar benefits through insurance and self-funded reimbursement plans (collectively the "Plan"); and WHEREAS, it is an essential function and integral part of the exempt activities of the Employer to assist Participants, their Spouses, Dependents and Beneficiaries by making contributions to and accu- mulating assets in the trust, a segregated fund, for post-retirement welfare benefits under the Plan; and WHEREAS, the authority to conduct the general operation and administration of the Plan is vested in the Employer or its designee,who has the authority and shall be subject to the duties with respect to the trust specified in this Declaration of Trust; and WHEREAS,the Employer wishes to establish this trust to hold assets and income of the Plan for the exclusive benefit of Plan Participants, their Spouses, Dependents and Beneficiaries; NOW,THEREFORE, the parties hereto do hereby establish this trust, by executing the Declara- tion of Trust of the C ►TY oNa {{MKT' Integral Part Trust (hereinafter referred to me of mployer as the "Trust'), and agree that the following constitute the Declaration of Trust (hereinafter referred to as the "Declaration"): 4 ARTICLE I ' Definitions ' 1.1 Definitions. For the purposes of this Declaration, the following terms shall have the respective meanings set forth below unless otherwise expressly provided. (a) "Account" means the individual recordkeeping account maintained under the Plan to record the interest of a Participant in the Plan in accordance with Section 7.4. (b) "Administrator" means the Employer or the entity designated by the Employer to carry out admin- istrative services as are necessary to implement the Plan. (c) "Beneficiary" means the Spouse and Dependents, or the person or persons designated by the Participant pursuant to the terms of the Plan,who will receive any benefits payable hereunder in the event of the Participant's death. A Beneficiary may also designate a beneficiary(ies)to receive any benefits payable hereunder in the event of the preceding Beneficiary's death, until the satisfac- tion of all liabilities under the Plan to provide benefits. In the case where there is no designated Beneficiary, any amount of contributions, plus accrued earnings thereon, remaining in the Account must, under the terms of the Plan, be returned to the Trust. (d) "Code" means the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended from time to time. (e) "Dependent"means an individual who is a person described in Code Section 152(a). (f) "Investment Fund" means any separate investment option or vehicle selected by the Employer in which all or a portion of the Trust assets may be separately invested as herein provided The Trustee shall not be required to select any Investment Fund. (g) "Nonforfeitable Interest" means the interest of the Participant or the Participant's Spouse, Depend- ent or Beneficiary (whichever is applicable) in the percentage of Participant's Employer's contribu- tion which has vested pursuant to the vesting schedule specified in the Employer's Plan. A Partici- pant shall, at all times, have a one hundred percent (100%) Nonforfeitable Interest in the Partici- pant's own contributions. (h) "Spouse" means the Participant's lawful spouse as determined under the laws of the state in which the Participant has his primary place of residence. (i) 'Trust' means the trust established by this Declaration. (j) "Trustee" means the Employer or the person or persons appointed by the Employer to serve in that capacity. 5 ARTICLE II Establishment of Trust 2.1 The Trust is hereby established as of the date set forth above for the exclusive benefit of Partici- pants, their Spouses, Dependents and Beneficiaries. ARTICLE III Construction 3.1 This Trust and its validity, construction and effect shall be governed by the laws of the State of 1 lt7 R St4 L qLr TO r'l rx�el 32 Pronouns and other similar words used herein in the masculine gender shall be read as the feminine gender where appropriate, and the singular form of words shall be read as the plural where appropriate. 3.3 If any provision of this Trust shall be held illegal or invalid for any reason, such determination shall not affect the remaining provisions, and such provisions shall be construed to effectuate the purpose of this Trust. ARTICLE IV Benefits ' 4.1 Benefits. This Trust may provide benefits to the Participant, the Participant's Spouse, Dependents and Beneficiary(ies) pursuant to the terms of the Plan 4.2 Form of Benefits. This Trust may provide benefits by cash payment. This Trust may reimburse the Participant, his Spouse, Dependents or Beneficiary(ies) for insurance premiums or other payments ex- pended for permissible benefits described under the Plan. This trust may reimburse the Employer, or the Administrator for insurance premiums. ARTICLE V General Duties 5.1 It shall be the duty of the Trustee to hold title to assets held in respect of the Plan in the Trustee's name as directed by the Employer or its designees in writing. The Trustee shall not be under any duty to com- pute the amount of contributions to be paid by the Employer or to take any steps to collect such amounts as may be due to be held in trust under the Plan. The Trustee shall not be responsible for the custody, investment, safekeeping or disposition of any assets comprising the Trust, to the extent such functions are performed by the Employer or the Administrator, or both. 5.2 It shall be the duty of the Employer, subject to the provisions of the Plan, to pay over to the Adminis- trator or other person designated hereunder from time to time the Employer's contributions and Partici- pants' contributions under the Plan and to inform the Trustee in writing as to the identity and value of the assets titled in the Trustee's name hereunder and to keep accurate books and records with respect to the Participants of the Plan. 6 ARTICLE VI Investments 6.1 The Employer may appoint one or more investment managers to manage and control all or part of the assets of the Trust and the Employer shall notify the Trustee in writing of any such appointment. ' 6.2 The Trustee shall not have any discretion or authority with regard to the investment of the Trust and shall act solely as a directed Trustee of the assets of which it holds title To the extent directed by the Employer (or Participants, their Spouses and Dependents, or Beneficiaries to the extent provided herein) the Trustee is authorized and empowered with the following powers, rights and duties, each of which the Trustee shall exercise in a nondiscretionary manner: (a1 To cause stocks, bonds, securities, or other investments to be registered in its name as Trustee or in the name of a nominee, or to take and keep the same unregistered; (b) To employ such agents and legal counsel as it deems advisable or proper in connection with its duties and to pay such agents and legal counsel a reasonable fee. The Trustee shall not be liable for the acts of such agents and counsel or for the acts done in good faith and in reliance upon the advice of such agents and legal counsel, provided it has used reasonable care in selecting such agents and legal counsel; (c) To exercise where applicable and appropriate any rights of ownership in any contracts of i insurance in which any part of the Trust may be invested and to pay the premiums thereon; and (d) At the direction of the Employer (or Participants, their Spouses, their Dependents,their Benefi- ciaries, or the investment manager, as the case may be)to sell, write options on, convey or transfer, invest and reinvest any part thereof in each and every kind of property, whether real, ' personal or mixed, tangible or intangible, whether income or non-income producing and wherever situated, including but not limited to, time deposits (including time deposits in the Trustee or its affiliates, or any successor thereto, if the deposits bear a reasonable rate of interest), shares of common and preferred stock, mortgages, bonds, leases, notes, debentures, equipment or collateral trust certificates, rights,warrants, convertible or exchangeable securi- ties and other corporate, individual or government securities or obligations, annuity, retire- ment or other insurance contracts, mutual funds (including funds for which the Trustee or its affiliates serve as investment advisor, custodian or in a similar or related capacity),or in units of any other common, collective or commingled trust fund. 6.3 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, the assets of the Plan shall be held by the Trustee as title holder only. Persons holding custody or possession of assets titled to the Trust shall include the Employer, the Administrator,the investment manager, and any agents and subagents, but notthe Trustee. The Trustee shall not be responsible or liable for any loss or expense which may arise from or result from compliance with any direction from the Employer,the Administrator, the investment manager,or such agents to take title to any assets nor shall the Trustee be responsible or liable for any loss or expense which may result from the Trustee's refusal or failure to comply with any direction to hold title,except if the same shall involve or result from the Trustee's negligence or intentional misconduct. The Trustee may refuse to comply with any direction from the Employer, the Administrator, the investment manager, or such agents in the event that the Trustee, in its sole and absolute discretion, deems such direction illegal 6.4 The Employer hereby indemnifies and holds the Trustee harmless from any and all actions, claims, demands, liabilities, losses, damages or reasonable expenses of whatsoever kind and nature in connection with or arising out of 0) any action taken or omitted in good faith by the Trustee in accordance with the directions of the Employer or its agents and subagents hereunder, or (ii) any disbursements of any part of the Trust made by the Trustee in accordance with the directions of the Employer, or (m) any action taken by or omitted in good faith by the Trustee with respect to an investment managed by an investment manager in accordance with any direction of the investment manager or any inaction with respect to any 7 , tsuch investment in the absence of directions from the investment manager Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, the Employer shall have no responsibility to the Trustee under the foregoing indemni- fication if the Trustee fails negligently, intentionally or recklessly to perform any of the duties undertaken by it under the provisions of this Trust. 6.5 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, the Employer or, if so designated by the Employer, the Administrator and the investment manager or another agent of the Employer, will be responsible for valuing all assets so acquired for all purposes of the Trust and of holding, investing, trading and disposing of the same. The Employer will indemnify and hold the Trustee harmless against any and all claims, actions, demands, liabilities, losses, damages, or expenses of whatsoever kind and nature, which arise from or are related to any use of such valuation by the Trustee or holding,trading, or disposition of such assets. j6.6 The Trustee shall and hereby does indemnify and hold harmless the Employer from any and all ac- tions, claims, demands, liabilities, losses, damages and reasonable expenses of whatsoever kind and nature in connection with or ansing out of (a) the Trustee's failure to follow the directions of the Employer, the Administrator,the investment manager, or agents thereof, except as permitted by the last sentence of Section 6 3 above, (b) any disbursements made without the direction of the Employer,the Administrator, the investment manager or agents thereof; and (c) the Trustee's negligence, willful misconduct, or reck- lessness with respect to the Trustee's duties under this Declaration. ARTICLE VII Contributions 7.1 Employer Contributions. The Employer shall contribute to the Trust such amounts as specified in the Plan or by resolution. 7.2 Participant Contributions. If specified in the Plan, each Participant may make voluntary after-tax contributions. Under no circumstances shall Participant Contributions exceed an insubstantial amount. These contributions shall be collected by the Employer and remitted to the Trust for deposit at such time or times as required under the terms of the Plan 7.3 Accrued Leave. Contributions up to an amount equal to the value of accrued sick leave, vacation leave, or other type of accrued leave, as permitted under the Plan. The Employer's Plan must provide a formula for determining the value of the Participant's contribution of accrued leave . The Employer's Plan must contain a forfeiture provision that will prevent Participants from receiving the accrued leave in cash in lieu of a contribution to the Trust. 7.4 Accounts. Employer contributions, Participant contributions, and contributions of accrued leave , all investment income and realized and unrealized gains and losses, and forfeitures allocable thereto will be deposited into an Account in the name of the Participant for the exclusive benefit of the Participant, his Spouse, Dependents and Beneficiaries. The assets in each Participant's Account may be invested in Investment Funds as directed by the Participant (or, after the Participant's death, by the Spouse, 1 Dependents or Beneficiaries) from among the Investment Funds selected by the Employer. 7.5 Receipt of Contributions. The Employer or, if so designated by the Employer, the Administrator or investment manager or another agent of the Employer, shall receive all contributions paid or delivered to it hereunder and shall hold, invest, reinvest and administer such contributions pursuant to this Declara- tion, without distinction between principal and income The Trustee shall not be responsible for the calculation or collection of any contribution under the Plan, but shall hold title to property received in respect of the Plan in the Trustee's name as directed by the Employer or its designee pursuant to this Declaration. � 8 7.6 No amount in any Account maintained under this Trust shall be subject to transfer, assignment, or alienation, whether voluntary or involuntary, in favor of any creditor,transferee, or assignee of the Em- ployer, the Trustee, any Participant, his Spouse, Dependent, or Beneficiaries. 7.7 Upon the satisfaction of all liabilities under the Plan to provide such benefits, any amount of Employer contributions, plus accrued earnings thereon, remaining in such separate Accounts must, under the terms of the Plan, be returned to the Employer ARTICLE VIII t Other Plans If the Employer hereafter adopts one or more other plans providing life, sickness, accident, medical, disability, severance, or other benefits and designates the Trust hereby created as part of such other plan, the Employer or, if so designated by the Employer,the Administrator or an investment manager or an- other agent of the Employer shall, subject to the terms of this Declaration, accept and hold hereunder contributions to such other plans. In that event (a)the Employer or, if so designated by the Employer, the Administrator or an investment manager or another agent of the Employer, may commingle for invest- ment purposes the contributions received under such other plan or plans with the contributions previously received by the Trust, but the books and records of the Employer or, if so designated by the Employer, the Administrator or an investment manager or another agent of the Employer, shall at all times show the portion of the Trust Fund allocable to each plan; (b)the term "Plan" as used herein shall be deemed to refer separately to each other plan; and (c) the term "Employer" as used herein shall be deemed to refer to the person or group of persons which have been designated by the terms of such other plans as having the authority to control and manage the operation and administration of such other plan. ARTICLE IX Disbursements and Expenses 9.1 The Employer or its designee shall make such payments from the Trust at such time to such persons and in such amounts as shall be authorized by the provisions of the Plan provided, however, that no , payment shall be made, either during the existence of or upon the discontinuance of the Plan (subject to Section 7 7), which would cause any part of the Trust to be used for or diverted to purposes other than the exclusive benefit of the Participants, their Spouses and Dependents, and Beneficiaries pursuant to the provisions of the Plan. 9.2 All payments of benefits under the Plan shall be made exclusively from the assets of the Accounts of the Participants to whom or to whose Spouse, Dependents, or Beneficiaries such payments are to be made, and no person shall be entitled to look to any other source for such payments 9.3 The Employer, Trustee and Administrator may be reimbursed for expenses reasonably incurred by them in the administration of the Trust. All such expenses, including, without limitation, reasonable fees of accountants and legal counsel to the extent not otherwise reimbursed, shall constitute a charge against and shall be paid from the Trust upon the direction of the Employer ARTICLE X Accounting 10.1 The Trustee shall not be required to keep accounts of the investments, receipts, disbursements, and other transactions of the Trust, except as necessary to perform its title-holding function hereunder. All accounts, books, and records relating thereto shall be maintained by the Employer or its designee 9 10 2 As promptly as possible following the close of each year,the Trustee shall file with the Employer a written account setting forth assets titled to the Trust as reported to the Trustee by the Employer or its designee. ARTICLE XI Miscellaneous Provisions 11.1 Neither the Trustee nor any affiliate thereof shall be required to give any bond or to qualify before, be appointed by, or account to any court of law in the exercise of its powers hereunder. 11.2 No person transferring title or receiving a transfer of title from the Trustee shall be obligated to look to the propriety of the acts of the Trustee in connection therewith. 11.3 The Employer may engage the Trustee as its agent in the performance of any duties required of the Employer under the Plan, but such agency shall not be deemed to increase the responsibility or liability of the Trustee under this Declaration. 11.4 The Employer shall have the right at all reasonable times during the term of this Declaration and for three (3) years after the termination of this Declaration to examine, audit, inspect, review, extract informa- tion from, and copy all books, records, accounts, and other documents of the Trustee relating to this Declaration and the Trustees' performance hereunder. ARTICLE XII Amendment and Termination 12.1 The Employer reserves the right to alter, amend, or (subject to Section 9.1)terminate this Declaration at any time for any reason without the consent of the Trustee or any other person, provided that no amendment affecting the rights, duties, or responsibilities of the Trustee shall be adopted without the execution of the Trustee to the amendment. Any such amendment shall become effective as of the date provided in the amendment, if requiring the Trustee's execution, or on delivery of the amendment to the Trustee, if the Trustee's execution is not required. 12.2 Upon termination of this Declaration and upon the satisfaction of all liabilities under the Plan to provide such benefits, any amount of Employer contributions, plus accrued earnings thereon, remaining in such separate Accounts must, under the terms of the Plan, be returned to the Employer. ARTICLE XI11 Successor Trustees 13.1 The Employer reserves the right to discharge the Trustee for any or no reason, at any time by giving ninety (90) days' advance written notice. 13.2 The Trustee reserves the right to resign at any time by giving ninety (90) days' advance written notice to the Employer. 13.3 In the event of discharge or resignation of the Trustee, the Employer may appoint a successor Trus- tee who shall succeed to all rights, duties, and responsibilities of the former Trustee under this Declara- tion, and the terminated Trustee shall be deemed discharged of all duties under this Declaration and responsibilities for the Trust. 10 ARTICLE XIV Limited Effect of Plan and Trust Neither the establishment of the Plan and the Trust or any modification thereof, the creation of any fund or account, nor the payment of any benefits, shall be construed as giving to any person covered under the Plan or other person any legal or equitable right against the Trustee,the Administrator, the Employer or any officer or employee thereof, except as may otherwise be expressly provided in the Plan or in this Declaration. ARTICLE XV Protective Clause Neither the Administrator,the Employer, nor the Trustee shall be responsible for the validity of any con- t tract of insurance or other arrangement maintained in connection with the Plan, or for the failure on the part of the insurer or provider to make payments provided by such contract, or for the action of any per- son which may delay payment or render a contract void or unenforceable in whole or in part. I 1 t t IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Employer and the Trustee have executed this Declaration by their respective duly authorized officers, as of the date first heremabove mentioned EMPLOYER: By: Title: TRUSTEES: By: Title: By: Title: By: Title: 12 Kent City Council Meeting Date November 21, 2006 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: RATE AND FEE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION— ADOPT 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adopt Ordinance No amending various fees established by Council in the Kent City Code, and adopt Resolution No which would enact a modest increase in business licenses, planning and land use applications and various building permits and inspections beginning January 1, 2007 The budget proposed by the Mayor includes several program changes that are contingent on increasing revenues The proposed resolution would enact a modest increase in business licenses, planning and land use applications, and various building permits and inspections beginning January 1, 2007 Business license fees have not been updated since 1992 and the resolution establishes a single flat rate of$100 for new or renewal licenses The planning and building permit fees and charges have not been updated since 2004 and would be increased by about 7 7% These increases would provide about$185,000 in business license revenue and $400,000 in planning and inspection revenues and are factored into the 2007 budget Although not included in this resolution, other planned fee increases include recreation fees such as course fees at Kent Commons and rental of Park facilities which are expected to generate an additional $100,000 Proposed for adoption along with the resolution is an ordinance which amends various fees established by council in the Kent City Code The effect of the ordinance would be to more closely align the revenues received for specific services with the costs associated with the provision of those services. i ' 3. EXHIBITS: Memo from Finance Director, ordinance and resolution 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc ) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? _ Revenue? Currently in the Budget? Yes X No If no: Unbudgeted Expense: Fund Amount $ Unbudgeted Revenue: Fund Amount $ I6. CiTY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No 6K i FINANCE R J Nachlinger, Director • Phone 253-856-5260 Fax 253-856-6255 K E N T W A s H i H o r c � Address 220 Fourth Avenue S Kent,WA 98032-5895 November 7, 2006 TO: Kent City Council Operations Committee FROM: R. J. Nachlinger, Finance Director SUBJECT: Resolution and ordinance to increase various fees MOTION: Recommend council adopt the proposed resolution and ordinance which amend various fees and rates beginning January 1, 2007. SUMMARY: During the 2007 budget, various rates and fees charged our citizens and businesses were reviewed in connection with City policy that states we will "review fees and charges on a periodic basis and will modify charges to reasonably keep pace with the increasing costs of service." The budget proposed by the Mayor includes several program changes that are contingent on increasing revenues. The proposed resolution would enact a modest increase in business licenses, planning and land use applications and various building permits and inspections. Business license fees have not been updated since 1992, and the resolution establishes a single flat rate of $100 for new or renewal general business licenses. The planning and building permit fees and charges have not been updated since 2004, and the resolution essentially increases the charges by about 7.7%, consistent with the rate of inflation from the last increase to the end of 2006. These increases would provide about $185,000 in business license revenue and $400,000 in planning and inspection revenues, and are already factored into the 2007 budget. Although not included in this resolution, other planned fee increases include recreation fees such as course fees at Kent Commons and rental of Park facilities. These are expected to generate an additional $100,000 for $685,000 in total. Proposed for adoption along with the resolution is an ordinance which amends various fees established by council in the Kent City Code. The proposed ordinance would enact a modest increase in street permit or inspection fees, preventable fire alarm fees, and various water and storm drainage rates and charges The effect of the ordinance would be to more closely align the revenues received for specific services with the costs associated with the provision of those services. BUDGET IMPACT: Revenues are already included in the 2007 preliminary budget. If the resolution and ordinance are not approved, the 2007 budget would need to be reduced, or other funding approved instead. C 1Documents and Settings%rcameron%Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKFD\Feelncrease-MotionSheetl doc f I ORDINANCE NO. f AN ORDINANCE of the city council of the city of Kent, Washington, which relates to the 2007 fiscal year budget and amends various fees and rates established by the Kent City Code concerning street permit and inspection fees, water and storm drainage rates, and preventable fire alarm fees, which fee amendments shall be assessed and collected beginning in the 2007 fiscal year budget. RECITALS A. In order to more accurately compensate the city for a portion of the actual costs incurred when conducting or issuing street permit or inspection fees, water and storm drainage rates, and preventable fire alarm fees, it is appropriate to adjust some of those fees upward in light of the increased cost of labor and of the materials and equipment necessary to conduct, record, document, and maintain those permits, inspections, fees, and associated records. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: ORDINANCE SECTION 1. — Street and Curb Cut Permit and Inspection Fees. Section 6.06.050 of the Kent City Code relating to street and curb cuts and entitled "Permit and inspection fees and permit renewal," is amended as follows: 1 Amend Street Permit and Inspection Fees, Water and Storm Drainage Rates, And Preventable Fire Alarm Fees Sec. 6.06.050. Permit and inspection fees and permit renewal. ' A. The basic fee for a permit to cut a street, curb, sidewalk, or any portion of city right-of-way, whether or not improved, shall be three hundred dollars ($300), and beginning January 1, 2007, this basic fee shall increase to four hundred fifty dollars ($450). This basic fee shall apply to all utility work within the public right-of-way that involves cutting the public right-of-way. Utility work shall include, but not be limited to, work performed in association with gas, telephone, electric power, cable TV, water, stormwater, and sewer, and underground facilities. B. An additional time charge will be made where total review and inspection time exceeds six (6) hours. Such extra charge will be invoiced to the applicant separately at the rate of fifty dollars ($50) per hour, which is less than the average actual hourly cost for city staff employed to process these permits. Beginning January 1, 2007, this extra charge shall increase to a rate of seventy- five dollars ($75) per hour. C. Wherever work for which a permit is required by this chapter is commenced or performed prior to obtaining such permit, the basic permit fee shall be doubled, but the payment for such double fee shall not relieve any person from full compliance with all of the requirements of this chapter in the execution of the work, nor from any other penalties which may be provided for in this chapter, including criminal penalties. SECTION 2 - Street Use Permit and Inspection Fees. Section 6.07.170 of the Kent City Code relating to street use permits and entitled "Permit and inspection fees," is amended as follows: Sec. 6.07.170. Permit and inspection fees. A. The basic fee for a street use permit shall be as follows: 1. KCC 6.07.040. Construction and property development, including utility work not requiring cuts: two hundred dollars ($200). 2 Amend Street Permit and Inspection Fees, Water and Storm Drainage Rates, And Preventable Fire Alarm Fees 2. KCC 6.07.060. Street vendors: one hundred dollars ($100) per year• beginning January 1 2007 two hundred dollars ($200) per year. Permits are issued annually. 3. KCC 6.07.070. Sidewalk cafes: one hundred dollars ($100) per year,• beginning January 1, 2007, two hundred dollars ($200) per year. Permits are issued annually. 4. KCC 6.07.090. Street closures: fifty dollars ($50); beginning January 1. 2007, two hundred dollars ($200). 5. KCC 6.07.100 Master use permit: one hundred dollars ($100)1 beginning January 1, 2007, two hundred dollars ( 200). B. Where total inspection time exceeds two (2) hours, an extra charge shall be invoiced to the applicant at an hourly rate to be established annually by the director. Beginning January 1. 2007, this extra charge shall increase to an hourly rate of seventy-five dollars ($75) per hour SECTION 3. - Water Rates for Service Within the City - Monthly Demand Charge. That portion of Kent City Code section 7.02 300, entitled "Water rates within the city," which pertains to the monthly demand charge assessed to customers inside the city limits is amended as follows: Sec. 7.02.300. Water rates within the city. A. Water rates. The following staggered rates apply during the time periods listed below. Within each time period, the lower rate applies per one hundred (100) cubic feet of water used for up to or equal to seven hundred (700) cubic feet, and the higher rate applies per one hundred (100) cubic feet of water used in excess of seven hundred (700) cubic feet: 3 Amend Street Permit and Inspection Fees, Water and Storm Drainage Rates, And Preventable Fire Alarm Fees i Effective Date October 1 - April 30 May 1 - September 30 < 700 ft3 > 700 ft3 < 700 ft3 > 700 ft3 12/31/1999 $1.24 $1.69 $1.64 $2.09 01/01/2003 $1.30 $1.77 $1.72 $2.19 O1/01/2004 $1.37 $1.86 $1.81 $2.30 O1/01/2005 $1.44 $1.95 $1.90 $2.42 All rates are also subject to a monthly demand charge for service and meter, which is as follows: Meter size Charge Through Charge Effective (inches) December 31, 2006 January 1, 2007 5/8 x 3/4 $2.20 $3.76 1 $2.45 $4.19 1 1/2 _ ...,.., $3.30 $ 64 — 2 , $4.00 $684 — _. 3 $13.95 23 85 -� 4 „ $16.80 2$ 8 72 6 �,$28.10 4�_ _ $„ $37.59� $64.25 10 � M , $49.46 m t_ 84.53 B. Lifeline customers. The city council will establish eligibility criteria for lifeline customers. For lifeline-qualified water service customers, the following rates apply for water use per one hundred (100) cubic feet: Effective Date January 1 - December 31 12/31/1999 ro_ �$0.45 O1/01/2003� $0.47 4 Amend Street Permit and Inspection Fees, Water and Storm Drainage Rates, And Preventable Fire Alarm Fees 01/01/2004 $0.49 01/01/2005 $0.51 All lifeline rates are also subject to the monthly demand charge for service and meter as set forth in subsection (A) of this section. C. Rate adjustment. 1. Subject to the right of access and inspection by a representative of the city, water service customers of the city may apply for a one-time rate adjustment for any single billing period under the following circumstances: a. An accidental water leak has been discovered on the subject property; or b. A water line failure has occurred on the subject property; or C. An unexplained, abnormal water meter reading has occurred on the subject property even though subsequent city inspection of the water meter indicates that the meter is functioning properly. This rate adjustment shall not exceed fifty (50) percent of the difference between the total amount of the billing period sought for adjustment minus the customer's average water usage. For the purposes of this subsection, the "average water usage" shall be computed by determining the total volume of water consumed, under normal use conditions, during the preceding twelve (12) months and dividing that total volume by the number of times the city would typically read the customer's water meter in a twelve (12) month period. 2. This rate adjustment is permitted on a one-time basis only and can only be applied to one (1) billing period. To be eligible for this rate adjustment, the affected water system must be owned by or subject to the exclusive control of the customer and be located between the city's water meter and owner's residence or structure. The bill sought for adjustment must exceed two (2) times the customer's highest usage in any single billing period during the twelve (12) months prior to the billing period sought for adjustment. 5 Amend Street Permit and Inspection Fees, Water and Storm Drainage Rates, And Preventable Fire Alarm Fees 3. Following a request for rate adjustment provided under this subsection, the city's finance director, or his/her designee, shall review the request and determine whether or not to adjust the customer's monthly billing. In order to make a proper determination, city staff shall be entitled to access, inspect and approve the customer's water system repair prior to granting a rate adjustment. 4. If approved, the city shall make this rate adjustment by issuing a credit to the customer's account after verification of leakage or water system failure, inspection of water meter and water system, where applicable, and verification of corrective repairs All repairs shall occur within thirty (30) days of application to the city. 5. The owner may request reconsideration of the decision of the finance director, or his/her designee, by the city council through the city council's operation committee. j SECTION 4. - Water Rates for Service Outside the City. That portion of Kent City Code section 7.02.310, entitled 'Water rates outside city," which pertains to the monthly demand charge assessed to customers outside the city limits is amended as follows: Sec. 7.02.310 Water rates outside city. i A. Water rates. The following staggered rates apply during the time periods listed below. Within each time period, the lower rate applies per one hundred (100) cubic feet of water used for up to or equal to seven hundred (700) cubic feet, and the higher rate applies per one hundred (100) cubic feet of water used in excess of seven hundred (700) cubic feet: Effective Date October 1 - April 30 May 1 - September 30 < 700 ft3 > 700 ft3 < 700 ft3 > 700 ft3 I� 12/31/1999 $1.64 $2.09 $2.00 $2.46 j 01/01/2003 $1.72 $2.19 $2.10 $2.58 6 Amend Street Permit and Inspection Fees, Water and Storm Drainage Rates, And Preventable Fire Alarm Fees ' 01/01/2004 $1.81 $2.30 $2.21 $2.71 01/01/2005 � $1.90 $2.42 � $2.32 $2.85 All rates are subject to a monthly demand charge for service and meter which is as follows. Meter size Charge Through Charge Effective (inches) December 31, 2006 January 1, 2007 z5/8 x 3/4_m� $2.20 1 $2.45 $4.19 11/2,...:�_ .�...._� ,..$3.30,,.,_,.,,.,.en.� $5— .64 3 $13 95 2$ 3.85 8 W - $37.59 64.25 10 $49.46 $84.53 B. Lifeline customers. The city council will establish eligibility criteria for lifeline customers. For lifeline-qualified water service customers, the following rates apply for water use per one hundred (100) cubic feet: Effective Date January 1 - December 31 12/31/1999 $0.48 01/01/2003 $0.50 01/01/2004 $0.53 01/01/2005 $0.56 All lifeline rates are also subject to the monthly demand charge for service and meter as set forth in subsection (A) of this section. 7 Amend Street Permit and Inspection Fees, Water and Storm Drainage Rates, And Preventable Fire Alarm Fees C. Rate adjustment. 1. Subject to the right of access and inspection by a representative of the city, water service customers of the city may apply for a one-time rate adjustment for any single billing period under the following circumstances. a. An accidental water leak has been discovered on the subject property; or b. A water line failure has occurred on the subject property; or C. An unexplained, abnormal water meter reading has occurred on the subject property even though subsequent city inspection of the water meter indicates that the meter is functioning properly. This rate adjustment shall not exceed fifty (50) percent of the difference between the total amount of the billing period sought for adjustment minus the customer's average water usage. For the purposes of this subsection, the "average water usage" shall be computed by determining the total volume of water consumed, under normal use conditions, during the preceding twelve (12) months and dividing that total volume by the number of times the city would typically read the customer's water meter in a twelve (12) month period. 2. This rate adjustment is permitted on a one-time basis only and can only be applied to one (1) billing period. To be eligible for this rate adjustment, the affected water system must be owned by or subject to the exclusive control of the customer and be located between the city's water meter and owner's residence or structure. The bill sought for adjustment must exceed two (2) times the customer's highest usage in any single billing period during the twelve (12) months prior to the billing period sought for adjustment. 3. Following a request for rate adjustment provided under this subsection, the city's finance director, or his/her designee, shall review the request and determine whether or not to adjust the customer's monthly billing. In order to make a proper determination, city staff shall be entitled to access, 8 Amend Street Permit and Inspection Fees, Water and Storm Drainage Rates, And Preventable Fire Alarm Fees inspect and approve the customer's water system repair prior to granting a rate adjustment. 4. If approved, the city shall make this rate adjustment by issuing a credit to the customer's account after verification of leakage or water system failure, inspection of water meter and water system, where applicable, and verification of corrective repairs. All repairs shall occur within thirty (30) days of application to the city. 5. The owner may request reconsideration of the decision of the finance director, or his/her designee, by the city council through the city council's operation committee. SECTION 5. - Storm and Surface Water Utility Charges. Section 7 05 090 of the Kent City Code relating to the aty's storm and surface water utility and entitled "System of charges," is amended as follows: Sec. 7.05.090. System of charges. A. There is hereby imposed a system of charges on each parcel of real property within the city served by or to which is available for service the storm and surface water utility established by this chapter. The charges are found to be reasonable and necessary to fund administration, planning, design, construction, operation, maintenance, repair, improvement, and replacement of all existing and future storm and surface water facilities, including the accumulation of reserves and the retirement of any associated debt. B. The following charges are hereby established for all parcels of real property in the city: 1. Residential parcels. Effeetive january 1, 1998, the single fa" residential rate shall be twe deliars and fOFty feHF cents ($2.44) per menth fe eaEh YaFeel having e" (1) s dent - I dwellifig .I the basin speeifi­c f t,,eet (B)(4) of this seEtion. Effective December 31, 1999, the single-family residential rate shall be two dollars and forty-seven cents ($2 47) per month for 9 Amend Street Permit and Inspection Fees, Water and Storm Drainage Rates, And Preventable Fire Alarm Fees each parcel having one (1) residential dwelling plus the basin-specific charge of subsection (B)L5 4W of this section. Effective January 1, 2007, the single-family residential rate shall be two dollars and fifty-seven cents ($2 57) per month for each parcel having one (1) residential dwelling plus the basin-specific charge of subsection (B)(5) of this section 2. Agricultural and undeveloped parcels. Agricultural parcels shall be charged the monthly residential parcel rate. Undeveloped parcels shall not be charged. 3. Other parcels. a. The charge for all other parcels except residential parcels, agricultural parcels and undeveloped parcels shall be based upon: (1) The total amount of impervious surface as expressed in equivalent service units (an equivalent service unit has been determined to be two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet of impervious surface or any fraction thereof); and (2) The percentage of impervious surface area on each parcel. b. The charge for all such parcels shall be computed: (1) By multiplying the total number of ESUs on each by the appropriate parcel impervious multiplier; and (2) Multiplying the results by the sum of the single-family residential rate and the appropriate basin-specific charge. C. Impervious multipliers are hereby established: 10 Amend Street Permit and Inspection Fees, Water and Storm Drainage Rates, And Preventable Fire Alarm Fees (1) Percentage of impervious area per parcel Impervious (impervious surface/total surface x 100) multiplier 1 to 40 1 61 to 80 1.4 .�s:_ - 81 to 100 1.6s. (2) Impervious multipliers correlate the hydraulic impact of a parcel to its percentage of impervious surface per parcel. The multiplier for the average single-family residence is established as one (1). The multiplier linearly increases as the percentage of impervious area increases. The final category has a multiplier of one and six-tenths (1.6) which reflects the hydraulic impact on the drainage system compared to that impact of the average single- family residence. 4. Road systems. The impervious surface area for city roads shall be assessed thirty (30) percent of the charge established in subsection (13)(3) of this section for impervious service areas. 5. Basin-specific charges. The city shall have all lawful powers and authorities to fix, alter, regulate and control charges within specific basins and subbasins. The purpose of the power and authority granted in this section is to provide for charging parcels of one (1) basin or subbasin for improvements, studies or extraordinary maintenance which specifically and solely benefit the property owners thereof. The basin-specific charges are as follows: jCharge in dollars per ESU per month "`^ate Effective Date Effective Date Basin g u ,��o ., � December 31, 1999 January i, 2007 Westside O &-B9 0.10 0.10 K, L, M, D, E, F, 9:13 0.14 0.15 11 Amend Street Permit and Inspection Fees, Water and Storm Drainage Rates, And Preventable Fire Alarm Fees Eastside Mill Creek Upper (G), 4.11 4.27 Lower (A) 4 4.86 5.05 Valley Det. (Q) 4 4.86 5.05 Garrison Creek Lower (B) 2-42 2.04 2.12 Upper (3 & I) 8 1.87 1.94 Direct (C) 2-.4-2 2.14 2.23 Soos Creek (H) 9-89 4.18 4 35 I The boundaries of the described basins are generally indicated on Attachment A to Ordinance No. 3461 which is on file with the city clerk. The boundaries of the basins and subbasins are generally defined and on file in the city clerk's office. The detailed definitions thereof are reflected on maps filed in the engineering division of the public works department, which are available to the public for review and/or copying during normal business hours. 6. Water quality charges. a. The city hereby authorizes and declares its intent to establish, within two (2) years of the adoption of this chapter, a water quality charge which may be added to any or all of the above rates. The purposes of such a charge will be to finance monitoring, testing, treatment and control of pollutant discharges into the storm and surface water system, including the exercise of all lawful enforcement powers of the city. A plan for developing such charges, and a schedule and budget for this project, shall be submitted to the city council for review and approval within ninety (90) days of adoption of this chapter. A system of water pollution charges for storm and surface water run-off from all parcels of real property in the city shall be developed within two (2) years. 12 Amend Street Permit and Inspection Fees, Water and Storm Drainage Rates, And Preventable Fire Alarm fees b. Such charges should be based upon appropriate indices of pollutant discharges which approximate each parcel's contribution to the problem of water quality within storm and surface water facilities including all receiving waters. 7. Undeveloped parcels shall be subject to all charges established under this section upon development of a parcel. Development shall be determined by the date of issuance of a building permit or any other permit for development purposes or as otherwise established by the director of public works. SECTION 6. - Fees for Recreational Vehicle Park Applications. Section 12.06.070(C) of the Kent City Code regarding recreational vehicle parks, and entitled "Application procedures," is amended as follows: Sec. 12.06.070. Application procedures. C. The preliminary development plan of the proposed recreational vehicle park together with an application For a combining district shall be submitted to the planning department. Application forms for a combining district are available in the planning department office. The preliminary development plan and application for a combining district must be submitted to the planning department at least twenty-five (25) days prior to the date the developer intends to be heard before the hearing examiner. A fee of one-thousand six hundred and sixteen dollars f+" delIaFs-($58$1,616) shall be paid at the time of application. Within two (2) days of receipt of the application the planning department shall set a time and date for a preliminary plan meeting between the developer and the responsible departments. The comments resulting from the preliminary plan meeting, as well as any written comments received by the planning department, shall be considered in preparing the staff recommendation to be presented to the hearing examiner. 13 Amend Street Permit and Inspection Fees, Water and Storm Drainage Rates, And Preventable Fire Alarm Fees SECTION 7. - Fees for Preventable Fire Alarms. Section 13.03.070 of the Kent City Code regarding preventable activation of fire protection systems and entitled "Penalties - Fees - Notice of correction," is amended as follows- Sec. 13.03.070. Penalties - Fees - Notice of correction. A Fees. Each calendar year, which shall run January 1st through December 31st, the city shall charge and collect fees for preventable activations that require response by fire department personnel. The fees assessed shall be charged to and collected from the owner or manager of the premises. The fees shall be assessed as follows: 1. Preventable nuisance alarms: a. First violation: No penalty. b. Second violation: No penalty. C. Third violation: seventy-five dollars ($75), beginning January 1, 2007, eighty-one dollars LJ811. d. Fourth violation: one hundred dollars ($100);_ beginning January 1, 2007, one hundred eight dollars ($108). e. Fifth violation: one hundred twenty-five dollars ($125); beginning January 1, 2007, one hundred thirty-five dollars ($135). 2. Preventable malfunction alarms: a. First violation: No penalty. b. Second violation: fifty dollars ($50); beginning January 1, 2007, fifty-four dollars ($54). C. Third violation: seventy-five dollars ($75)1 beginning January 1, 2007, eighty-one dollars_ 81 . d. Fourth violation: one hundred dollars ($100)1 beginnina January 1, 2007, one hundred eight dollars ($108). 14 Amend Street Permit and Inspection Fees, Water and Storm Drainage Rates, And Preventable Fire Alarm Fees r e. Fifth violation: one hundred fifty dollars ($150)1 beginning January 1, 2007, one hundred sixty- two dollars ($162). 3. Excessive activations. Each preventable activation in excess of five (5) during any one (1) year shall be assessed a fee of two hundred fifty dollars ($250). Beginning January 1, 2007, this fee shall increase to two hundred sixty-nine dollars ($269). 4. Fire department personnel wait time. In addition to the fees set forth in subsection (A) of this section, in the event the owner, manager, or other notified person fails to respond to the premises within thirty (30) minutes of notification, the owner or manager shall be assessed a fee equal to the hourly wage paid to fire department personnel for the time L spent waiting in excess of thirty (30) minutes, calculated to the nearest quarter hour; provided, that in the event the fire department is required to hire an off-duty fire department employee to work as a result of the fire department's response, the owner or manager shall be assessed the cost to the city of hiring the off-duty firefighter. B. Preventable malfunction - Notice of correction. In addition to the fee assessment set forth in subsection (A) of this section, the owner or manager of the premises shall within fifteen (15) working days after receipt of written notice to do so, prepare a written report to the fire chief, on a form provided by the city, setting forth the cause of an alarm's malfunction, the corrective action taken by the owner or occupier, whether and when such fire protection system has been inspected by authorized service personnel, and such other information as the fire chief may reasonably require to determine the cause of the malfunction, any mitigating circumstances, and the corrective action necessary. SECTION S. - Severability. If any one or more section, subsections, or sentences of this ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. 15 Amend Street Permit and Inspection Fees, Water and Storm Drainage Rates, And Preventable Fire Alarm Fees SECTION 9. - Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its passage as provided by law However, the fees amended by this ordinance shall not be assessed and collected until January 1, 2007, which begins the 2007 fiscal year budget. SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA 3ACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED: day of 2006. APPROVED: day of , 2006. PUBLISHED: day of , 2006 I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. passed by the city council of the city of Kent, Washington, and approved by the mayor of the city of Kent as hereon indicated. (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK P\ClYil\adFnanc Weetrc 4M-MP6S"eMate�l.eF 16 Amend Street Permit and Inspection Fees, Water and Storm Drainage Rates, And Preventable Fire Alarm Fees RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the city council of the city of Kent, Washington, relating to the 2007 fiscal year budget and amending various fees established by past resolutions concerning business licenses, planning and land use applications, and permits and inspections conducted under the provisions of the International Building, Residential, Mechanical, and Fire Codes and the Uniform Plumbing Code, which amendments shall be assessed and collected beginning in the 2007 fiscal year budget. ' RECITALS A. The Kent City Council has established a number of fees by resolution rather than by ordinance so that the fees may be ad3usted by council without amending the text of the Kent City Code. However, many of these fees have not been reviewed or updated by council in several years. For example, business license fees have not been updated since Resolution No. 1311 was adopted in 1992. Also, the city's schedule of fees applicable to permits, certificates, and inspections issued or conducted under the International Building Code, the International Residential Code, the International Mechanical Code, the Uniform Plumbing Code, and the International Fire Code have not been reviewed or I! updated since their adoption in 2004, and as with the schedule for permit, certificate, and inspection fees, the city's land use application fees were last updated in 2004. B. It is appropriate to amend these various fee schedules to more accurately reflect the true cost incurred by the city in providing services to the 1 Amend Business License, Planning and Land Use, and Permit and Inspection Fees public. Accordingly, in order to amend these fees, it is necessary to amend portions of Resolution Nos. 1311, 1676, 1687, and 1686, and adopt this replacement resolution which establishes new fee schedules concerning general business licenses, planning and land use applications, and permits and inspections. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: RESOLUTION SECTION 1, - Resolution No. 1311 - Business License Fees Amended. Beginning January 1, 2007, the business license fees adopted by Section 1 of Resolution No. 1311, adopted on April 7, 1992, are amended as follows: A. General Business Licenses: $75.88 I00.00 I B. General Business License Renewals: $5&88 100 00 , C. Home Occupation Business License $25.00 and Renewals The $100.00 business license appeal fee established by Resolution No. 1311 shall remain unchanged. SECTION 2, - Resolution No. 1676 - Building, Mechanical, and Plumbing Permit Fees Amended. Section 1(A)(2) of Resolution No. 1676, adopted on May 4, 2004, is amended as follows: A. International Building Code and International Residential Code - Building permit and plan review fees. Pursuant to Section 14.01.090 of the Kent City Code, the fees to be assessed for building permits and related inspections under the International Building Code or the International Residential Code shall be as set forth in Exhibit "A," which is attached and incorporated into this ordinance, with the following modifications: 2 Amend Business License, Planning and Land Use, and Permit and Inspection Fees 2. Basic plan review fees. The basic plan review fee, after and in addition to the payment of the initial standard plan review fee set forth in subsection (1) above, shall be a fee of sixty-four dollars ($64.00), and beginning January 1 2007 shall be a fee of sixty-nine dollars ($69 00), for each permit issued upon a certified basic plan. Additional plan review fees shall also be assessed at a rate of eighty-six dollars ($86.00) per hour, and beginning January 1, 2007 shall be assessed at a rate of ninety-three dollars ($93.00) per hour, or a portion thereof for additional plan review required for changes, additions, or revisions to plans. SECTION 3. - Resolution No. 1676 - Building, Mechanical, and Plumbing Permit Fees Amended - Exhibits Superseded. Beginning January 1, 2007, the attached and revised Exhibits A, B, and C shall supersede in their entirety Exhibits A, B, and C attached to Resolution No. 1676. SECTION 4. - Resolution No. 1687 - Fire Permit Fees Amended - Exhibit Superseded. Beginning January 1, 2007, the attached and revised Exhibit D shall ' supersede in its entirety Exhibit D attached to Resolution No. 1687 which previously superseded Exhibit D to Resolution No. 1676. rSECTION 5. - Resolution No. 1686 - Planning and Land Use Application Fee Schedule and Fee Schedule Notes Amended - Exhibit Superseded. Beginning January 1, 2007, the attached and revised Exhibit E shall supersede in its entirety Exhibit A to Resolution No. 1686. SECTION 6. - Savings. Resolution Nos. 1311, 1676, 1687, and 1686, and the fees established by those resolutions and their applicable exhibits, which are amended by this resolution, shall remain in full force and effect until the date the new fees are assessed and collected in accordance with this resolution. 3 Amend Business License, Planning and Land Use, and Permit and Inspection Fees i SECTION 7. - Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution is declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this resolution. SECTION 8. - Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect and be in force immediately upon its passage. However, the new fee schedules adopted by this resolution shall not take effect nor shall they be assessed and collected until January 1, 2007, which begins the 2007 fiscal year budget. PASSED at a regular open public meeting by the city council of the city of Kent, Washington, this day of , 2006. CONCURRED in by the mayor of the city of Kent this day of 2006. SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY 4 Amend Business License, Planning and Land Use, and Permit and Inspection Fees I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. passed by the city council of the city of Kent, Washington, the day of 2006. BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK �• P Civil\ResaW00n\FMJn[reax200)0.esdubon%uaExMUib Cban E¢ 5 Amend Business License, Planning and Land Use, and Permit and Inspection Fees Exhibit "A" City of Kent Building Permit Fees Total valuation determined by budding official Permit Fee Assessed $1 00 to $500 00 $25 30 $501 00 to $2,000 00 $25 30 for the first $500 00, plus $3 30 for each additional $100 00, or fraction thereof, to and including $2,000 00 $2,001 00 to $25,000 00 $74 80 for the first$2,000 00, plus $15 10 for each additional $1,000 00, or fraction thereof, to and including $25,000 00 $25,001 00 to $50,000 00 $422 10 for the first $25,000 00, plus $10 90 for each additional $1,000 00, or fraction thereof, to and including $50,000 00 $50,001 00 to$100,000 00 $694 60 for the first $50,000 00, plus $7 55 for each additional $1,000 00, or fraction thereof, to and including $100,000 00 $100,001 00 to $500,000 00 $1,072 10 for the first $100,000 00, plus $6 05 for each additional $1,000 00, or fraction thereof, to and including $500,000 00 $500,001 00 to $1,000,000 00 $3,492 10 for the first$500,000 00, plus $5 10 for each additional $1,000 00, or fraction thereof, to and including $1,000,000 00 $1,000,001 00 and up $6,042 10 for the first$1,000,000 00, plus $3 40 for each additional $1,000 00, or fraction thereof Other Inspections and Fees For inspections outside of normal business hours (minimum charge—two hours) $93 00 per hour Reinspection fees assessed when work for which an inspection is requested is not complete, when required corrections have not been made, when work is not accessible, or when the permit or approved plans are not made readily available $93 00 per hour Additional plan review required by changes, deferred submittals, additions, or revisions to plans ..... ... $93 00 per hour Investigation fee when work is commenced prior to obtaining required Building, mechanical, or plumbing permit 100% of permit fee Appeal filing fee $215 00 Exhibit "B" City of Kent Mechanical Permit Fees Permit Issuance Fees 1. For the issuance of each mechanical permit . ...... . ..... . .. . . .. $29 00 2 For issuing each supplemental permit for which the original permit has not expired, been canceled, or finalized $9 00 Unit Fee Schedule 1. For each forced-air or gravity-type furnace or boiler, including ducts and vents attached, up to and including 100,000 Btu/h (29 3 kW) $18 00 2. For each forced-air or gravity-type furnace or boiler, including ducts and vents attached, over 100,000 Btuth (29 3 kW) .$23 00 3 For each floor furnace, suspended heater, recessed wall heater or floor-mounted heater, including vent $18 00 4 For each appliance vent not included in an appliance permit $9 00 5 For repair of, alteration of, or addition to each heating appliance, refrigeration unit, cooling unit, absorption unit, or each heating, cooling, absorption, or evaporative cooling system, including controls, regulated by the mechanical code or residential code $17 00 6. For each boiler or compressor • to and including 3 horsepower(10 6 kW), or each absorption system to and including 100,000 Btu/h (29 3 kW) $18 00 • over 3 horsepower(10 6 kW)to and including 15 horsepower (52 7 kW), or each absorption system over 100,000 Btu/h (29 3 kW) to an including 500,000 Btu/h (146 6 kW) $33 00 ■ over 15 horsepower(52 7 kW) to and including 30 horsepower (105 5 kW), or each absorption system over 500,000 Btu/h (293 1 kW) to and including 1,000,000 (293 1 kW) $46 00 • over 30 horsepower(105 5 kW)to and including 50 horsepower (176 kW), or each absorption system over 1,000,000 Btu/h (293 1 kW)to and including 1,750,000 (512 9 kW) ... . .. $69 00 • over 50 horsepower(176 kW) or each absorption system over 1,750,000 Btu/h (512 9 kW) . $115 00 7 For each air-handling unit to and including 10,000 cubic feet per minute (cfm) (4,719 Us), including ducts attached thereto, which is not a portion of factory assembled appliance or unit for which a permit is required. .. .............$1300 • over 10,000 cfm (4,719 Us) .... ......... $23 00 8 For each evaporative cooler other than portable type $13 00 9 For each ventilation fan connected to a single duct $9 00 10 For each ventilation system which is not a portion of any heating or air-conditioning system authorized by a permit $13 00 11 For each hood served by mechanical exhaust, including the ducts for such hood .... . . ... . ........... ... . ... . $13 00 12 For each domestic-type incinerator. . . ... .. ..... . ... . . . ... . . . .. ... . .$23.00 13 For each commercial or industrial-type incinerator. .. $18 00 (CONT.) Exhibit "B" City of Kent Mechanical Permit Fees Unit Fee Schedule (cont ) 14 For each mechanical appliance or piece of equipment regulated by the mechanical code or the residential code, not classed in other appliance categories, or for which no other fee is listed in this table .$13 00 15 For each fuel gas or fuel oil piping system of one to five outlets $7 00 16 For each additional piping system outlet, per outlet $2 00 Other Inspections and Fees For inspections outside of normal business hours (minimum charge—two hours) $93 00 per hour Reinspection fees assessed when work for which an inspection is requested is not complete, when required corrections have not been made, when work is not accessible, or when the permit or approved plans are not made readily available . . .. .. . . . . $93 00 per hour Additional plan review required by changes, deferred submittals, additions, or revisions to plans $93 00 per hour Investigation fee when work is commenced prior to obtaining required building, mechanical, or plumbing permit 100%of permit fee Appeal filing fee $215 00 Exhibit "C" City of Kent Plumbing Permit Fees Permit Issuance Fees 1 For the issuance of each plumbing permit $25 00 2 For issuing each supplemental permit for which the original permit has not expired, been canceled or finalized $13 00 Unit Fee Schedule 1. For each plumbing fixture on one trap or a set of fixtures on one trap, including water, drainage piping and backflow protection therefore $9 00 2 For each building sewer and each trailer park or mobile home park sewer $18 00 3 Rainwater systems-per drain (inside building) $9 00 4. For each water heater and/or vent $9 00 5 For each industrial waste pretreatment interceptor including its trap and vent, except kitchen-type grease interceptors functioning as fixture traps $9 00 6 For each installation, alteration or repair of water piping and/or water treating equipment, each $9 00 7 For each repair or alteration of drainage or vent piping, each fixture $9 00 8 For each lawn sprinkler system on any one meter including backflow protection devices therefore $9 00 9. For atmospheric-type vacuum breakers not included in item 8 1 to 5 vacuum breakers $7 00 over 5 vacuum breakers, each $2 00 10 For each backflow protective device other than atmospheric-type vacuum breakers 2 inch (51 mm) diameter or smaller $9 00 over 2 inch (51 mm)diameter $18 00 11. For each graywater or reclaimed water system $50 00 12 For each medical gas piping system for a specific gas 1 to 5 inlets/outlets $62 00 over 5 inlets/outlets, each $7 00 Other Inspections and Fees For inspections outside of normal business hours (minimum charge—two hours) $93 00 per hour Reinspection fees assessed when work for which an inspection is requested is not complete, when required corrections have not been made, when work is not accessible, or when the permit or approved plans are not made readily available $93 00 per hour Additional plan review required by changes, deferred submittals, additions, or revisions to plans $93 00 per hour Investigation fee when work is commenced prior to obtaining required building, mechanical, or plumbing permit . . . . . . 100% of permit fee Appeal filing fee $215 00 Exhibit "D" City of Kent Fire Permit Fees Permit Issuance Fees: Fee Issuance of each annual permit under the fire code $62 00 , Issuance of each annual fire protection system permit, per building $81 00 Issuance of a residential home hearing fuel tank removal permit, per application $81 00 Issuance of a fireworks permit for a fireworks stand, per application $100 00* Issuance of a fireworks permit for a fireworks display, per application $100 00* *rate fixed by state regulations Development Plan Review and Permit Fees: Fee Fire Prevention Permits- Plan Review Fee 65% of permit fee Per building permit fee valuation table, Permit Fee Exhibit A of Resolution No Review of Building Permits- Single-Family Plan Review 15% of the permit fee ($54 minimum fee) Commercial Plan Review 20% of the permit fee ($54 minimum fee) Review of Land Use Applications- Boundary Line Adjustment $61 00 Binding Site Plan $100 00 Short Subdivision $100 00 Other Site Plan Reviews $49 00 Preliminary Plat $331 00 Residential Variances $39 00 Other Project Approvals $59 00 SEPA Checklist $71 00 SEPA Checklist as Part of a Protect $36 00 Requiring Hearing Examiner Approval $106 00 Other Inspections and Fees: Fee Each hydrant flow request(minimum two hour charge) $93 00 per hour Initial fire and life safety inspection for new business, per application $54 00 Inspections outside of normal business hours (minimum two hour charge) $93 00 per hour Reinspection fees assessed when work for which an inspection is requested is not complete, when required corrections have not been made, when work is not accessible, or when the permit or approved plans are not made readily available $93 00 per hour Appeal filing fee $215 00 Penalty Fees: Fee Failing to mark or maintain the marking of a designated fire lane $162 00 Exhibit "E" City of Kent Planning and Land Use Fees Permit Application Type Fee Notes Accessory Dwelling Unit $54 (1) Appeal of Administrative Interpretation I Decision $215 Appeal of SEPA Determination $215 Appeal of Short Plat $215 Binding Site Plan $539 Binding Site Plan Modification $323 /$431 (2) Code Text Amendment $539/ $1,616 (12) (13) Combining Districts $1,616 (12) Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment $1,616 (12) Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment $1,616 (12) Conditional Use $2,154 (15) Downtown Design Review $215/$539 (3)(16) Lot Line Adjustment $323 (4) Lot Line Elimination $108 (5) Mixed Use Design Review $539 (16) Multi-Family Design Review $539 + $11/unit (16) Multi-Family Dwelling Tax Exemption -Conditional Application $150 +$25/unit (18) Multi-Family Dwelling Tax Exemption - Final Application $150 (19) Multi-Family Tax Exemption Appeal - Conditional, Final, Extension $100 Multi-Family Tax Exemption Extension of Conditional Certificate $100 Tentative Planned Unit Development Plan $269 Planned Unit Development Plan $2,693 + $50/unit Planned Unit Development Plan Modification $269/$808 (6) Plat Modification/Alteration Minor '/4 of plat fee Minor/Major Major '/2 of plat fee (17) Pre-Application Conference $269 Public Notice Board $108 (7) SEPA Checklist $269/$754 (8) SEPA Modification $81 /$269 (9) SEPA Exempt Determination $215 SEPA Environmental Impact Statement $2,154 +deposit (10) Shoreline Conditional Use $1,292 (15) Shoreline Exempt Determination $215 Shoreline Substantial Development $1,077 Shoreline Variance $808 (15) Short Plat(2-4 lots) $808 Short Plat (5-9 lots) -Tentative Plat $269 Short Plat (5-9 lots) - Preliminary Plat $2,154 + $54/lot I� L (CONT.) Exhibit "E" City of Kent Planning and Land Use Fees Permit Application Type Fee Notes Short Plat (5-9 lots)- Final Plat $1,616 + $22/lot Sign Permit $162 Special Home Occupation Permit $323 (15) Subdivision -Tentative Plat $269 Subdivision - Preliminary Plat $3,770 + $54/lot Subdivision - Final Plat $2,154 + $22/lot Temporary Use $108/$269/$162 (11) Temporary Sign $81 Variance -Administrative $323 Variance - Single Family Dwelling $323 (15) Variance - Sign & Other than Single Family Dwelling $2,154 (15) WTF Administrative Permit $323 WTF Conditional Use $2,154 Zone Map Amendment(Rezone) $2,154 (12) (14a-14e) Zoning Permit/Site Plan Review $27/$54/value (16) Zoning Determination/ Compliance Letter $54 CITY OF KENT PLANNING AND LAND USE FEE SCHEDULE NOTES (Effective October 21, 2004) (1) $54 fee is applicable for an attached accessory dwelling unit, an interior accessory dwelling unit or for a detached accessory dwelling unit in a single-family residential zone The fee includes the cost of the Planning Services Office recording of the accessory dwelling unit covenant documents with King County An accessory living quarters in a commercial or industrial zone is subject to the applicable construction value-based fee (2) Any changes to an approved, but unrecorded Binding Site Plan are subject to the $323 fee for a modification to a Binding Site Plan Any changes to a recorded Binding Site Plan are subject to the $431 fee for a modification to a Binding Site Plan (3) The $215 fee is applicable to minor alterations and improvements The $539 fee is applicable to all new buildings, redevelopment, and major alterations and improvements (4) Fee includes the cost of the Planning Services Office recording of the lot line revision documents ' with King County (5) The $108 fee is applicable to the elimination of lot lines between two or more parcels in the same ownership The fee includes the cost of the Planning Services Office recording of the lot line revision documents with King County All other types of lot line adjustments, except for a lot line elimination, are subject to the lot line adjustment fee schedule (6) Any minor change to an approved Planned Unit Development Plan is subject to the $269 fee for a modification Any major change to an approved Planned Unit Development Plan is subject to the $808 fee for a modification ! (7) The Planning Manager has the authority to change this fee as needed to cover City expenditures ! (8) The $269 fee is applicable only to SEPA review of construction of one single family dwelling on an individual parcel All other SEPA checklist applications are subject to the $754 fee (9) The $81 fee is applicable only to modifications to a SEPA determination for one single family dwelling on an individual parcel All other modifications to a SEPA determination are subject to the $269 fee (10) $2,154 fee plus a deposit, equal to the estimated cost of contract services necessary to complete the EIS process, must be submitted to the city ! (11) Temporary Use Permits 0-30 days ............... ... $108 31-90 days .. ........ $269 Extensions beyond 90 days .... $162 ! (12) Application requires public hearings If multiple permit applications which require the same hearing procedure are submitted at the same time, the applicant will be charged the full fee for the permit ! application with the highest fee and 50% of the established fee for each of the other permits eligible for a consolidated review and hearing ! (13) The $539 fee is applicable to amendments to Single Family Residential zones only. Amendments to all other zoning districts or sections of the zoning code are subject to the $1,616 fee ' (14) a) The $27 fee is applicable for Minor Single Family Dwelling Construction on an existing dwelling such as a deck, minor addition of less than 25% of existing floor area, interior remodel or accessory building of 500 square feet or less on the same lot as the existing dwelling ' b) The $54 fee is applicable for Major Single Family Dwelling Construction on an existing dwelling such as major adaition of more than 25% of existing floor area or an accessory building of more than 500 square feet on the same lot as the existing dwelling c) All new single family dwelling construction in a residential zone is subject to the following fee schedule ! Development Services Construction Value. $0 - $74,999$50 .............................. $54 $75,000 - $124,999 ....... ........ . $108 ! $125,000 - $224,999 ...... .... ...$215 Over $225,000 .. ... ... ..$323 d) All new buildings, tenant Improvements, an accessory living quarters in a commercial or ! industrial zone and other construction and development activity, other than single family dwelling construction, is subject to the following fee schedule Development Services Construction Value: $0 - $99,999............................... .. $359 $100,000 - $249,999 ...................... $718 $250,000 - $499,999 $1,077 $500,000 - $999,999 $1,436 $1,000,000 - $4,999,999 $2,154 1 $5,000,000 - $10,000,000 ... $2,872 Over $10,000,000 $3,590 e) The zoning permit fee for those development projects for which no building permit is required 1 but which requires site plan review and a zoning permit, shall be based on the value of the proposed development to be undertaken The value of the proposed construction/ development shall be determined based on professional estimates by a licensed engineer, architect, landscape designer or contractor These estimates may include but are not limited to, grade and fill of the site, paving, placement of utilities, lighting, landscaping, and other site ' improvements The combined total of the cost estimates for all development on the site shall be the established value basis for the zoning permit fee [as listed in 14c or 14d categories above as appropriate] (15) Application requires a public hearing before the Hearings Examiner If multiple permit applications which require a HE decision are submitted at the same time, the applicant will be charged the full fee for the permit application with the highest fee and 50% of the established fee for each of the other permits eligible for a consolidated review and hearing (16) Application fees may be reduced by 75% if the application is for a mixed-use building Fee reduction , applies to site plan review/zoning permit, mixed use design review, multi-family design review and downtown design review Fee waivers do not apply to SEPA, short plat, subdivision or other permit requests associated with the development of a site, nor does fee reduction apply to mixed use , development where the commercial and residential uses are not located within the same building (17) Plat alteration fees are determined after review whether the changes requested are minor or major ' A minor change is done administrative and the fee is 0 27 the cost of the original preliminary plat fee A major change requires a public hearing or meeting and the fee is 0 54 the cost of the original preliminary plat fee A public notice board is required for a major alteration ' (18) The maximum fee shall be $539 (19) These funds are distributed to the King County Assessor's Office by the City. ' r ' Kent City Council Meeting Date November 21, 2006 rCategory Consent Calendar r 1. SUBJECT: LTD 358 INTERNAL FINANCING ORDINANCE —ADOPT r 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adopt Ordinance No. providing for the internal financing of LID 358 and amending the budget. ' City Financial Policies provide for "interfund borrowing where such borrowing is cost effective for both the borrowing and lending fund, and the funds will not be needed by r the loaning fund during the term of the loan." A common usage of this provision is in the internal financing of relatively small LID bonds. In this case, the Water Fund will earn 4.5% per year on the principal of$468,892 for ten years. 1 ' 3. EXHIBITS: Ordinance and Memo from Finance Director 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) r5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure' _ Revenue? _ Currently in the Budget? Yes No NO BUDGET IMPACT If no: ' Unbudgeted Expense: Fund Amount $ Unbudgeted Revenue. Fund Amount $ r6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds 1 1 r DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda ' Item No 6L FINANCE R J Nachlinger, Director . Phone 253-856-5260 Fax 253-856-6255 K E N T W AS i I w G T o H Address 220 Fourth Avenue S ' Kent, WA 98032-5895 November 7, 2006 ' TO: Kent City Council Operations Committee FROM: R. J. Nachlrnger, Finance Director SUBJECT: Internal Financing Ordinance for LID 358 ' MOTION: I move to recommend Council approve the ordinance providing for the internal financing of LID 358 and amending the budget as appropriate. ' SUMMARY: City Financial Policies provide for "interfund borrowing where such borrowing is cost effective for both the borrowing and lending fund, and the funds will not be needed by the loaning fund during the term of the loan." A common usage of this provision is in the internal financing of relatively small LID bonds. Internal financing provides the benefit of lower financing costs to our property owners assessed for the improvements, and a fair rate of return for our loaning fund with negligible risk. In this case, the Water Fund will earn 4.5% per year on the principal of $468,892, for 10 years. ' BUDGET IMPACT: No budgetary impact; there is no increase in expenditures associated with this internal financing. i 1 1 1 ORDINANCE NO. iAN ORDINANCE of the city of Kent, Washington, relating to Local Improvement District No 358, fixing the 1 amount, form, date, interest rate, and maturity of Local Improvement District No 358 Installment Note, providing for the purchase of such note by the city from funds on ' deposit in the Water Fund; and fixing the interest rate on Local Improvement District No. 358 assessment installments 1 RECITALS A. Pursuant to RCW 35.45.150, the city council of the city of Kent, 1 Washington, has determined to issue its Local Improvement District No 358 Installment Note in the aggregate principal amount of $468,892 and finds it is in the best interest of the city that such note be purchased by the city from funds ' on deposit in the Water Fund of the city and available for investment NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: iORDINANCE 1 SECTION 1. - Authorization and Description of Note. The total amount of the assessment roll in Local Improvement District No 358 in the city of Kent, Washington, created under Ordinance No. 3731, passed February 15, ' 2005, was $572,598. The 30-day period for making cash payments of assessments without interest in the District expired on April 13, 2005, and the total amount of assessments paid in cash was $103,706, leaving a balance of assessments unpaid on the assessment roll in the sum of $468,892 The Local ' Improvement District No. 358 Installment Note (the "Note") shall, therefore, be issued pursuant to RCW 35.45.150 as a single installment note in the total i1 LID 358 - Financing Ordinance 1 i principal sum of $468,892. The Note shall be dated November 1, 2006; shall i mature on November 1, 2015, shall be in fully registered form; and shall be i numbered R06-01 The Note shall bear interest at the rate of 4 50% per annum (computed on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months), , payable annually beginning November 1, 2007. SECTION 2. - Appointment of Note Registrar, Registration and i Transfer of Note The Finance Director of the city is appointed Note Registrar for the Note The Note shall be issued to the city's Water Fund (the i "Registered Owner") only in registered form as to both principal and interest and shall be recorded on books or records maintained by the Note Registrar i (the "Note Register"). The Note Register shall contain the name and mailing address of the Registered Owner The Note may not be assigned or , transferred by the Registered Owner. When the Note has been paid in full, both principal and interest, it shall be surrendered by the Registered Owner to , the Note Registrar, who shall cancel the Note. The Note Registrar shall keep, or cause to be kept, at his/her office , sufficient books for the registration of the Note. The Note Registrar is authorized, on behalf of the city, to authenticate and deliver the Note in , accordance with the provisions of the Note and this ordinance, to serve as the city's paying agent for the Note and to carry out all of the Note Registrar's powers and duties under this ordinance and city Ordinance No. 2418 ' establishing a system of registration for the city's bonds and obligations The Note Registrar shall be responsible for the representations contained in the , Note Registrar's Certificate of Authentication on the Note. SECTION 3. - Payment of Note Both Principal of and interest on the Note shall be payable solely out of the Local Improvement Fund, District No i 358 (the "Note Fund"), and from the Local Improvement Guaranty Fund of the city, and shall be payable in lawful money of the United States of America. , Interest on the Note and any prepaid principal thereon, shall be paid by check, draft, or interfund transfer on the interest payment date to the Registered , Owner at the address appearing on the Note Register. The final installment of principal and interest on the Note at maturity or prior repayment is payable at 2 LID 358 - Financing Ordinance the office of the Note Registrar in Kent, Washington, upon presentation and surrender of the Note. SECTION 4. - Prepayment Provisions. The city reserves the right to prepay principal of the Note prior to its stated maturity on any interest payment date, at par plus accrued interest to the date fixed for prepayment, whenever there shall be sufficient money in the Note Fund to prepay the principal of the Note over and above the amount required for the payment of the interest then due on the Note. No notice of prepayment to the Registered Owner is required. Interest on the principal of the Note so ' prepaid shall cease to accrue on the date of such prepayment. ' SECTION 5. - Failure to Redeem Note. If the Note is not redeemed when properly presented at its maturity date, the city shall be obligated to pay interest on the Note at the same rate provided therein from and after its maturity date until the Note, both principal and interest, is paid in full or until sufficient money for its payment in full is on deposit in the Note Fund and the Note has been called for payment by giving notice of that call to the Registered 1 Owner. SECTION 6. - Form and Execution of Note. The Note shall be printed, lithographed, or typed on good bond paper in a form consistent with the provisions of this ordinance and state law, shall be signed by the mayor and the city clerk, either or both of whose signatures may be manual or in facsimile, and the seal of the city or a facsimile reproduction thereof shall be impressed or printed thereon. Only the Note bearing a Certificate of Authentication in the following form, manually signed by the Note Registrar, shall be valid or obligatory for any purpose or entitled to the benefits of this ordinance. ' 3 LID 358 - Financing Ordinance CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION This Note is the fully registered city of Kent, Washington, Local ' Improvement District No 358 Installment Note described in the Note Ordinance. Finance Director ' Note Registrar The authorized signing of the Certificate of Authentication shall be , conclusive evidence that the Note so authenticated has been duly executed, authenticated, and delivered and is entitled to the benefits of this ordinance. SECTION 7. - Purchase and Sale of Note. The city will purchase the Note from funds available for investment on deposit in the Water Fund of the city at a price of par plus accrued interest from the date of the Note to the date of its transfer to the city. The proper city officials are authorized and directed to do everything necessary for the prompt delivery of the Note and for the proper application and use of the proceeds of the sale thereof ' SECTION 8. - Fixing Interest Rate on Assessments. The interest rate on the installments and delinquent payments of the special assessments in Local ' Improvement District No. 358 is fixed at a rate of 4.50% per annum. SECTION 9. - Effective Date of Ordinance. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) dates from and after its passage and publication as , required by law. SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR ' ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK , 4 LID 358 - Financing Ordinance ' APPROVED AS TO FORM: FOSTER PEPPER PLLC Special Counsel and Bond Counsel ' PASSED: day of 2006 APPROVED: day of 2006 PUBLISHED: day of 12006 I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. passed by the city council of the city of Kent, Washington, and approved by the mayor of the city of Kent as hereon indicated. (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK P�2...%OM,nm NU0351 MI Flnalgsse .nMoK 00C ' 5 LID 358 - Financing Ordinance No. R06-01 $468,892.00 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA STATE OF WASHINGTON CITY OF KENT tLOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO 358 INSTALLMENT NOTE Interest Rate: 4.50% Maturity Date- November 1, 2015 Registered Owner CITY OF KENT WATER FUND Principal Amount: FOUR HUNDRED SIXTY-EIGHT THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED NINETY-TWO DOLLARS ($468,892 00) N B. The laws of the State of Washington under which this Note is issued contain the following section (RCW 35.45 070) Neither the holder nor owner of any bond, interest coupon, or warrant issued against a local improvement fund shall have any claim therefore against the city or town by which it is issued, except for payment from the special assessments made for the improvement for which the bond or warrant was issued and except also for payment from the local improvement guaranty fund of the city or town as to bonds issued after the creation of a local improvement guaranty fund of that city or town. The city or town shall not be liable to the holder or owner of any bond, interest coupon, or warrant for any loss to the local improvement guaranty fund occurring in the lawful operation thereof A copy of the foregoing part of this section shall be plainly written, printed or engraved on each bond. The CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON (the "City"), a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, promises to pay to the Registered Owner identified above, on the Maturity Date identified above, the Principal Amount identified above and to pay interest (computed on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months) thereon from the date of this Note or from the most recent interest payment date to which interest has been paid at the Interest Rate per annum identified above, payable annually beginning November 1, 2006, to the maturity or earlier prepayment of this Note If this Note is not redeemed when properly presented at its maturity date, then interest shall continue to accrue at the Interest Rate identified above until this Note, both principal and interest, is paid in full or until sufficient money for its payment in full has been deposited in Local Improvement Fund, District No 358 (the "Note Fund"), and this Note has been called for payment. This Note, designated the Local Improvement District No 358 Installment Note, is issued by the City in fully registered form pursuant to and in full compliance with the Constitution and laws of the State of Washington and ordinances of the City, including Ordinance No (the "Note Ordinance") This Note is issued for the purpose of providing the funds necessary to pay the costs of constructing the improvements within Local Improvement District No. 358 of the City as ordered to be carried out by Ordinance No 3731 of the City. The City has reserved the right to prepay principal of this Note prior to its stated , maturity date on any interest payment date, at par plus accrued interest to the date fixed for prepayment, whenever there is sufficient money in the Note Fund to prepay the principal of the Note over and above the amount required for the payment of the interest then due on the unpaid Note No notice of prepayment to the Registered Owner is required. Interest on the principal of this Note so prepaid shall cease to accrue on the date of such prepayment. Both principal of and interest on this Note are payable in lawful money of the United States of America Interest on this Note, and any prepaid principal thereon, shall be paid by check, draft or interfund transfer on the interest payment date to the Registered Owner at the address appearing on the registration books of the City (the "Note Register") maintained by the Finance Director of the City (the "Note Registrar"). The final installment of principal and interest on the Note at maturity or prior repayment is payable at the office of the Note Registrar in Kent, Washington, upon presentation and surrender of the Note The funds deposited in the Note Fund and the Local Improvement Guaranty Fund of the City have been and are pledged irrevocably to the payment of principal of and interest on this Note This Note is not a general obligation of the City. This Note shall not be valid or become obligatory for any purpose until the Certificate of Authentication hereon has been signed by the Note Registrar. The principal of and interest on this Note shall be paid only to the Registered Owner and to no other person or entity, and this Note may not be assigned or transferred The City and the Note Registrar may deem and treat the Registered Owner of this Note as its absolute owner for the purpose of receiving payment of principal and interest and for all other purposes, and neither the City nor the Note Registrar shall be affected by any notice to the contrary. As used herein, Registered Owner means the person or entity named as Registered Owner of this Note on the first page hereof and on the Note Register. It is certified, recited and declared that all acts, conditions and things required to be done precedent to and in the levying of any assessments and the issuance of this Note have been done properly, have happened and have been performed in regular and due form, as required by law, and that this Note has not been issued in an amount in excess of the cost of the improvements in Local Improvement District No 358. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City has caused this Note to be executed on behalf of the City by its Mayor and City Clerk, and the seal of the City to be impressed hereon, this day of 2006. CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON By- Mayor 1 By Crty Clerk Date of Authentication: CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION This Note is fully registered City of Kent, Washington, Local Improvement District No. 358 Installment Note described in the Note Ordinance i By- Finance Director, Note Registrar 1 1 1 t Kent City Council Meeting Date November 21, 2006 Category Consent Calendar ' 1. SUBJECT: FLEET SERVICES FUEL BUDGET INCREASE— APPROVE 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Approval to increase the Fleet Services budget for fuel by $102,400 due to increase in fuel prices. Since the revenue is delayed, this expenditure would come out of available fund balance in the Fleet Services fund this year. 3. EXHIBITS: Memo from Finance Director 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? _ Revenue? _ Currently in the Budget? Yes No NO REVENUE IMPACT If no Unbudgeted Expense: Fund Amount $ Unbudgeted Revenue: Fund Amount $ 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda ' Item No 6M FINANCE R.J. Nachlinger, Director Phone 253-856-5260 Fax 253-856-6255 K E N T W A S H H G T O H Address 220 Fourth Avenue S Kent,WA 98032-5895 DATE: November 1 , 2006 TO: Kent City Council Operations Committee jFROM: R. J Nachlinger, Finance Director SUBJECT: Budget Change to Increase Fuel Budget for Fleet Services MOTION: Recommend Council approve a budget adjustment increasing Fleet Services budget for fuel by $102,400. iSUMMARY: Over the last couple of years fuel prices have increased dramatically This followed a period from 1999 — 2001 that saw our costs rising and falling When the current run up in prices began, we increased the budget in 2002 We held it at that level expecting fuel prices to stabilize, and maybe even decline a little as they did in 2001 . However 2004 eventually showed another up tick, and it increased even more in 2005 It is becoming apparent that higher prices are probably here to stay for the foreseeable future The fuels cost index has increased from 100 00 in 2000 to a projected 180 595 for 2006 (per State Office of the Forecast Council Economic and Revenue Forecast ,June 2006), an 80 6% increase This budget change would bring the budget for fuels to $358,400, which is 65 4% more than was spent in 2000. Under our current system, the increased cost will be passed through to using departments in their rates next year Since the revenue is delayed, this expenditure would come out of available fund balance in the Fleet Services fund this year. ' Fuel cost trend: FY 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006` Budget 156,000 160,680 190,000 224,522 224,522 224,522 250,000 256,000 Actual 190,826 216,641 173,442 234,574 234,836 272,311 378,592 330,761 *2006 actual is through September 30 BUDGETIMPACT Increase expenditures in Fleet Services fund by $102,400, and reduce budgeted ending Ifund balance Increased costs are to be billed out to using departments in 2007 P\PUB\Budget Changes\2006 BC\Fleet Fuel Budget Change doe Kent City Council Meeting Date November 21, 2006 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: ORME REZONE DECISION RESOLUTION— ADOPT 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adopt Resolution No. affirming the vote taken on November 7, 2006, which dented the rezone application for real property Located at 25410 142"d Avenue Southeast in Kent, Washington, seeking a change from the current zoning of Single-Family Residential 4.5 units per acre to Single-Family Residential 6 units per acre The motion authorizing this resolution passed by a vote of five council members in favor, with councilmember O'Brien opposed and Councilmember Thomas abstaining, and the record on this resolution should reflect the same. 3. EXHIBITS: Resolution 4. RECOMMENDED BY: City Council (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 1 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure" No Revenue? No Currently in the Budget? Yes No If no: ' i Unbudgeted Expense: Fund Amount $ Unbudgeted Revenue: Fund Amount $ 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6N i RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, denying the rezone application for property located at 25410 142nd Avenue Southeast from SR-4 5 (Single-Family Residential, 4.5 units per acre) to SR-6 (Single-Family Residential, 6 units per acre). (Orme Rezone, #RZ-2006-6) RECITALS ' A. An application was filed on April 20, 2006, to rezone approximately 5.67 acres of property located at 25410 142nd Avenue Southeast in Kent, Washington, from the current zoning of SR-4.5 (Single-Family Residential, 4.5 units per acre) to SR-6 (Single-Family Residential, 6 units per acre). (Orme Rezone, #RZ-2006-6). B. A public hearing on the rezone was held before the hearing examiner on September 27, 2006. On October 9, 2006, the hearing examiner issued findings and conclusions and recommended approval of the rezone. C. Having reviewed the record before it on the matter, the Kent City ' Council denied the Orme Rezone on November 7, 2006 The Council found that the evidence presented in the record showed that the proposed SR-6 zoning was incompatible with development in the vicinity, and would burden the transportation system in the vicinity with significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: t 1 Orme Rezone - Denial RESOLUTION SECTION I. - Incorporation of Recitals. The preceding recitals are incorporated herein. ' SECTION 2. - Rezone. The Kent City Council denies the Orme rezone , application because the proposed rezone does not satisfy all the criteria established in Kent City Code (KCC) 15.09.050(C). A. Council disagrees with the hearing examiner's conclusion that the proposed rezone and subsequent development of the site would be compatible with development in the vicinity. KCC 15.09 050(C)(2). The real property immediately surrounding the subject site is developed at a gross density of 4.5 units per acre or below. For instance, the Heather Glen plat to the north of the Orme site is built at a gross density of 3.1 units per acre. Similarly, the Tahoma Vista plat in the vicinity will be built at a gross density of 3.9 units per acre. The increase in density caused by a rezone from SR-4.5 to SR-6 would not be compatible with development in the vicinity. B. Council disagrees with the hearing examiner's conclusion that the proposed rezone will not unduly burden the transportation system in the vicinity of the property with significant adverse impacts which cannot be mitigated. KCC 15.09.050(C)(3). As discussed at the public hearing, the intersection at Southeast 2561h Street and 132"d Avenue Southeast currently experiences significant traffic delays at peak traffic hours. The area is characterized by streets with narrow traffic lanes, narrow or no shoulders, and substandard pedestrian facilities. A , rezone resulting in higher density development will exacerbate these problems. SECTION 3. - Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, ' sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution is declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this resolution. SECTION 4. - Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect and be in force immediately upon its passage. 2 Orme Rezone - Denial PASSED at a regular open public meeting by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, this day of , 2006. CONCURRED in by the Mayor of the City of Kent this day of 2006. SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR IATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, the day of 2006. 1 BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK ' P\Civil\Resolution\Orme-RezoneDenial doc 1 t 3 Orme Rezone - Denial Kent City Council Meeting Date November 21, 2006 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: CORRECTIONS FACILITY MEDICAL SERVICES AGREEMENT AMENDMENT—AUTHORIZE 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization for the Mayor to sign the amendment with Occupational Health Services to provide certain required medical services to the inmates of the City of Kent Corrections Facility The amendment includes the exten- sion of the Agreement from January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2007, with the option to extend the agreement for two additional one-year periods. Staffing levels and hourly rates are amended and budgeted in the 2007 proposed budget. The Amendment Zn has been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney 1 3. EXHIBITS: First Amendment to Corrections Facility Medical Services agreement 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety Committee 11/14/06 (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? N/A Revenue? N/A Currently in the Budget? Yes X No If no. Unbudgeted Expense: Fund Amount $ Unbudgeted Revenue: Fund Amount $ 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No 60 r r FIRST AMENDMENT TO CORRECTIONS FACILITY MEDICAL SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO CORRECTIONS FACILITY MEDICAL SERVICES AGREEMENT is made between the CITY OF KENT, a Washington municipal corporation ("City"), and PUBLIC HOSPITAL DISTRICT NO. 1 OF KING COUNTY (dba Valley Medical Center Occupational Health Services,) a non-profit municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of jWashington ("Vendor"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, City and Vendor entered into an agreement for medical services for the City of Kent Corrections Facility, dated July 29, 2004, ("Vendor"); and WHEREAS, City and Vendor express their mutual intent and desire to amend the Contract in order to extend the Agreement beyond the original term, clarify certain obligations and to revise the level of service and compensation provisions of the Agreement. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual intent, desire and promises of the parties and other good and valuable consideration, City and Vendor agree as follows: 1. Section II, Time for Performance, is amended to extend the Agreement for an additional one (1)-year period from January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2007 with the option to extend the agreement for two (2) additional one (1)-year periods, at City's sole discretion, by giving at least 60 days written notice priorto the expiration of the preceding term. 2. Section III, Level of Service and Compensation, Subsection A, Staff - Level of Service and Hourly Rates is amended to delete that section in its entirety and replace with the following: "A. Staff - Level of Service and Hourly Rates. Staffing levels and hourly rates are set forth below. The staffing levels may be altered at the request of the City with thirty (30) days advance written notice to the Vendor and expressed in a written addendum signed by both parties. The City and Vendor may mutually agree to minor revisions to the days and hours worked as long as the total hours per week does not change. The Vendor shall provide the following level of service for staff on the days indicated and at the hourly rates indicated: ANNUAL HOURS POSITION 2080 Licensed Practical Nurse ("LPN") @ $31.48/hr 40 Hours per week Work performed Mon-Fri, 7:00 am-3:30 pm Total monthly cost: $5,456.53 Total annual cost: $65,478.40 FIRST AMENDMENT TO CORRECTIONS FACILITY MEDICAL SERVICES AGREEMENT- 1 s ANNUAL HOURS POSITION 3120 Registered Nurses ("RNs") @ $53 39/hr 60 Hours per week Work performed Mon-Fri, 12:30 pm-9:00 pm and Sat-Sun, 10:00 am-8:30 pm Total monthly cost: $13,881.40 Total annual cost: $166,576.80 416 Physician's Assistant ("PA") @ $68.92/hr 8 Hours per week Work performed in shifts totaling 8 hours per week at Vendor's discretion Total monthly cost: $2,389.23 Total annual cost: $28,670.72 The total annual expense for Vendor staff at the above level of service and at the above hourly rates will be $260,725.92. On or around July 1 of each year, Vendor may increase the hourly rates for the LPNs, RNs and PAS under this Agreement if and to the extent it generally increases the hourly rates for all its LPNs, RNs or PAS pursuant to an applicable labor contract or generally applicable pay policy. Vendor will provide City with at least thirty (30) days' advance written notice of such increase and make any such contract or policy available for review by City, upon request. Any such increase will be expressed in a written amendment to this Agreement executed by both parties." 3. Section VI, Program Support Services, Subsection A, Quarterly Meetings and Report, is amended to add the following at the end of that section; "12. National Commission on Correctional Health Care ("NCCHC") standards and compliance review." 4. Section VI, Program Support Services, Subsection H, Accreditation, is amended to delete that section in its entirety and replace it with the following: "Certificate of Accreditation. The City desires to have its correctional ' facility medical services receive a Certificate of Accreditation by the National Commission on Correctional Health Care and has been working with Vendor to that effect. Vendor will make best efforts to cooperate with the City and to facilitate the initial accreditation of the City's correctional facility medical services and once issued, to maintain it. This includes due diligence in performing those services and tasks that are ' required to receive and maintain the Certificate of Accreditation in accordance with the most current version of NCCHC's Standards for Health Services, as amended from time to time. Vendor will keep the City apprised of any issues relating to or effecting the Certificate of Accreditation review process or maintaining the Certificate of Accreditation, once issued, in a timely manner. In the event the City does not receive its initial or renewal Certificate of Accreditation due to acts or omissions of the Vendor or its staff, Vendor will reinitiate the Certificate of Accreditation review process and pay all reasonable fees associated with reinitiating the process." FIRST AMENDMENT TO CORRECTIONS FACILITY MEDICAL SERVICES AGREEMENT-2 5. Section VI, Program Support Services, Subsection J, Inmate Co-Pay, is amended to delete that section in its entirety and replace it with the following: "The City has established a system for the collection of an Inmate co-pay, but at this time, that system is not operational. Vendor will cooperate with the City to implement the co-pay system in the event the City makes it operational." 6. Except as specifically amended, all remaining provisions of the Agreement will remain In full force and effect. 7. The effective date of this First Amendment is January 1, 2007. IN WITNESS, the parties have executed this First Amendment to the Corrections Facility Medical Services Agreement on the last date written below. CITY OF KENT By: Print Name: Suzette Cooke Title: Mayor Date: PUBLIC HOSPITAL DISTRICT NO. 1, dba Valley Medical Center Occupational Health Services By: Print N me: Paul Larson Title: Adminis ra or Date: /ofy�D 4 Approved as to Form: Tom Brubaker, City Attorney P:\Civil\Files\OpenFiles\0446\lail Medical OHS First Amendment revl doc FIRST AMENDMENT TO CORRECTIONS FACILITY MEDICAL SERVICES AGREEMENT-3 Kent City Council Meeting Date November 21, 2006 Category Consent Calendar L' SUBJECT: KING COUNTY COMMUNITY ORGANIZING PROGRAM MINI- GRANT — ACCEPT 2 SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept the King County Community Organizing Program Mini-Grant Funds will be used to support registration and follow-up projects for five community teams that attend the Kent Game of Life Youth Conference A small portion will also help fund a team building activity for the Youth Board. i i 3. EXHIBITS: Award letter dated 10/13/06 from King County Community Organizing Program 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety Committee 11/14/06 (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? N/A Revenue? N/A Currently in the Budget? Yes No X If no• Unbudgeted Expense: Fund N00406 53706 Amount $1,500.00 Unbudgeted Revenue. Fund N00406.53706 Amount $1,500.00 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION. ACTION: Council Agenda Item No 6P I POLICE DEPARTMENT Steve Strachan, Chief of Police • Phone 253-856-5888 Fax 253-856-6802 K E N T W A S H I N 0 T O N Address 220 Fourth Avenue S Kent, WA 98032-5895 DATE: November 14, 2006 TO: Public Safety Committee SUBJECT: King County Community Organizing Program mint-grant MOTION: I move to recommend that Council accept the King County Community Organizing Program mini-grant in the amount of S 1,500 00 and place this on the Consent Calendar of the November 21, 2006 Council Meeting. SUMMARY: Funds will be used to support registration and follow-up projects for 5 community teams that attend the Kent Game of Life Youth Conference A small portion will also help fund a team building activity for the Youth Board EXHIBITS: Letter dated 10/13/06 from King County Community Organizing Program BUDGET IMPACT- None. City of Kent Public Safety Committee King County Community Organizing Program mini-grant October 20,2005 King County Department of Community and Human Services Community Services Division Community Organizing Program 821 Second Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98104-1598 (206) 296-5250 (Fax 206) 205-6565 TTY Relay 711 October 13, 2006 Kent Police Youth Board and Game of Life Youth Wellness Conference Stacy Judd 220 4`h Ave S. Kent, WA 98032 Dear Ms Judd We are pleased to announce our acceptance of your request for a Mini-Grant in the amount of$1500.00 We see that you plan to support Youth Driven Activities, which will provide education and awareness that will support youth, families and the community We understand that you will document outcomes of this program by administering a survey of participants As per the Risk & Protective Factors your group is targeting, Opportunities for Pro Social Youth Development, Increase Perception of Harmful Effects of Substance Abuse and/or Violence and Increase Community Attachment to Reduce Substance Abuse and/or Violence please find required survey questions attached The results of one or more of these questions must be submitted in order to be reimbursed. We hope your program is a success' Please submit one invoice (see attached) with all receipts to us within one month of the activity's completion You may expect payment within four to six weeks of your submittal Also enclosed are evaluation and W-9 forms for your project We ask that you fill these out and submit it with your invoices and your outcome results Please feel free to contact your Community Organizer, Cheryl Hanson, if you have any questions at (206) 296-5250 Good luck with your project. We look forward to hearing how it goes' Stncerely� � iJ'� Laura Edwards, Program Coordinator King County Community Organizing Program LEE/nb cc: Cheryl Hanson, King County Community Organizer Kent City Council Meeting Date November 21. 2006 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: KENTARA FINAL PLAT—APPROVE (QUASI-JUDICIAL) 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Approve the Final Plat Mylar for Kentara and authorize the Mayor to sign the Mylar. Schneider Homes proposes to subdivide approximately 11 67 acres into 41 single-family residential lots The property is located at the southwest corner of 104"' Avenue SE and SE 272"' St 3. EXHIBITS: Map and memo with conditions 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Community Development and Public Works Dept. Staff (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure" No Revenue? No Currently in the Budget? Yes No If no• Unbudgeted Expense: Fund Amount S Unbudgeted Revenue: Fund Amount $ 6 CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION. ACTION: Council Agenda Item No 6Q KENTARA #SU-2002-7 On June 23, 2004, the City of Kent Hearing Examiner approved the Kentara preliminary plat with the following conditions: A. PRIOR TO RECORDING THIS SUBDIVISION: 1. The Applicant shall pay all Charges in Lieu of Assessments and/or Latecomer Fees, if any, prior to scheduling the Pre-Construction Conference and/or prior to recording this plat, whichever comes first. 2. The Applicant shall provide Public Works with a digital plat map prepared with a CAD program. The digital information can be formatted in either *.DWG (AutoCad) or *.DXF (Drawing Exchange File), but must be based upon State Plane coordinates: an assumed coordinate system is not permitted. The State Plane Coordinates shall be on the NAD 83/91 datum and relate to at least two City of Kent reference points within one half mile of the subdivision. In addition, the project shall be tied into at least two City of Kent NAD 88 vertical benchmarks and two additional permanent benchmarks shall be established within the project. The elevations of these benchmarks will be reported at the time as-built drawings are submitted along with field notes sufficient to verify their accuracy. 3. The Applicant shall submit and receive City approval of engineering drawings from the Department of Public Works, and shall then either construct or bond for the following: r a. A gravity sartary sewer system to serve all lots. The City sanitary sewer system shall be extended from the existing City sanitary sewer system within SE 272nd Street and shall be deep enough to serve off-site properties within the same service area including properties to the north of SE 272nd Street along 104t' Avenue SE; in addition, the sanitary sewer system shall be extended across the entire subdivision as needed to serve adjacent properties within the same service area. The septic system serving the existing home(s) within the proposed plat - if any - shall be abandoned in accordance with King County Health Department Regulations. b. A water system meeting domestic and fire flow requirements for all lots. The City water system shall be extended as determined necessary by the Public Works Department and shall be sized to serve all off-site properties within the same service area; in addition, the water system shall be Kentara #SU-2002-7 Conditions of Approval extended through the entire subdivision to connect with the system installed within the Autumn Glen Subdivision. The Fire Department requests that the existing 12-inch water main in SE 272"d Street be looped to 108"' Avenue SE. This may not be necessary if fire flows are adequate as determined by the Fire Department and Public Works. The Applicant shall provide fire flow test results for the nearest existing hydrant on which to base fire flow calculations for the proposed subdivision. If flows are deemed sufficient, the Public Works Director, at his discretion, may waive the looping requirement with the approval of the Fire Department. Existing wells — if any - shall be abandoned in accordance with the requirements of the Department of Ecology. C. A stormwater system. The Engineering Plans shall meet the minimum requirements of the City of Kent Construction Standards and 2002 City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual (KSWDM). Initial guidance for the Engineering Plans is given below (See Chapter 2 of KSWDM for detailed submittal requirements): (1) The Engineering Plans shall include at a minimum: Site improvement plans which include all plans, details, notes and specifications necessary to construct road, drainage, and other related improvements. The engineering plans shall include a technical information report (TIR) which contains all the technical information and analysis to develop the site improvement plans. (2) An erosion and sedimentation control (ESC) plan shall be included in the engineering plans. The ESC shall meet the requirements of the City of Kent Construction Standards, and the 2002 City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual. These plans must reflect the Detailed Grading Plan discussed below, and Planning Services approved Detailed Tree Plan (3) The retention/detention and release standard that will be met by the subdivision is Level Two. The water quality menu that will be met by the subdivision is the Resource Stream Protection Menu. (4) The site improvement plans and technical information report shall contain drainage calculations and a drawing of the retention/detention pond tract at an appropriate engineering. The site improvement plans will also show that all required stormwater management facilities will be outside of delineated wetlands and Page 2 of 9 Kentara #SU-2002-7 Conditions of Approval their buffers, as well as outside of creeks and rivers and their buffers. (5) A downstream analysis shall be submitted for this development and it will include an analysis for capacity, erosion potential, and water quality. Refer to the requirements of Technical Information Reports in Section 3: "Offsite Analysis", of the 2002 City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual for the specific information required for downstream analyses. (6) As development occurs within this subdivision, roof downspouts for each roofed structure (house, garage, carport, etc.) shall be directed to Roof Downspout Controls per Chapter 5.1 of the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual. t (7) If determined necessary by the Public Works Department, the Applicant shall provide public drainage easements meeting the requirements of the City of Kent Construction Standards for the specified downstream reach where adequate public drainage easements do not currently exist. (8) The Applicant shall submit Landscape Plans for within and surrounding the retention / detention facility to Planning Services and to the Department of Public Works for concurrent review and approval prior to, or in conjunction with, the approval of the Engineering Plans. These Landscape Plans shall meet the minimum requirements of the City of Kent Construction Standards, and the stormwater management landscaping requirements contained within the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual. Landscape Plans are required to show adjacent Street Trees so that the City arborist can assess potential adverse stress upon all types of vegetation. Landscape Plans are to be used to show required Street Trees along SE 272nd Street. (9). The Applicant shall execute Declaration of Stormwater Facility Maintenance Covenants for the private portions of the drainage system prepared by the Property Management Section of the Department of Public Works. See Reference 8-F, Declaration of Stormwater Facility Maintenance Covenant, to the 2002 City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual for information on what is contained within this document. d. A Detailed Grading Plan for the entire subdivision meeting the requirements of the Uniform Building Code, the City of Kent Construction Page 3 of 9 Kentara #SU-2002-7 Conditions of Approval Standards, and City of Kent Development Assistance Brochure #1-3, Excavation and Grading Permits & Grading Plans. Initial guidance for these plans is given below: (1) These plans shall include provisions for utilities, roadways, retention / detention ponds, stormwater treatment facilities, and a building footpad for each lot. (2) These plans shall be designed to eliminate the need for processing several individual Grading Permits upon application for Building Permits. (3) In conjunction with the intersection improvement plans required below, these plans will clearly indicate that the necessary Entering Sight Distance requirements are met for the intersection of SE 272nd Street and 1081h Avenue SE, AND for the intersection of 104"' Avenue SE and SE 272nd Street. A profile shall be provided along the sight distance triangles to indicate that vertical obstructions are not obscuring the minimum Entering Sight Distance required by the 2001 AASHTO"Green Book." e. Interim Street Improvement Plans for SE 272nd Street east of 1041h Avenue SE along the entire property frontage thereon. These Street Improvement Plans shall meet the requirements of the City of Kent Construction Standards, and City of Kent Development Assistance Brochures #6-2, Private and Public Street Improvements, and # 6-8, Street Improvement Plans, for a street designated as a Residential Collector Street Augmented by Bike Lanes by the City of Kent Master Plan of Roadways between 104'h Avenue SE and 108d' Avenue SE. Initial guidance for the necessary interim street improvements is given below: (1) Combined vertical concrete curbs & gutters, a 5-foot wide planter strip, and a 5-foot cement concrete sidewalk on the south side of the street. (2) A minimum of 22-feet of asphalt pavement as measured from the centerline of the right-of-way to the face of curb on the south side of the street, plus at least 12-feet of asphalt pavement as measured from the centerline of the right-of-way to the edge of the traveled lane on the north side of the street. (3) A City-approved shoulder on the north side of the street. (4) A City-approved street lighting system. Page 4 of 9 Kentara #SU-2002-7 Conditions of Approval (5) Public stormwater conveyance, detention and treatment facilities as applicable. (6) 20-foot radius curb returns at the intersections of all public streets. (7) Street Trees installed within the 5-foot wide planting strips constructed between the back of curb and the front of the cement concrete sidewalk. These Street Trees will be located as approved by the Public Works Department, and the species shall be selected from the Approved Street Tree List contained within City of Kent Development Assistance Brochure #14, Clty of Kent Street Trees f. Street Improvement Plans for the new public Residential Streets within the subdivision. The Street Improvement Plans for these streets shall be designed in conformance with the requirements for Residential Streets as required by City of Kent Construction Standards, and City of Kent Development Assistance Brochures #6-2, Private and Public Street Improvements and City of Kent Development Assistance Brochure # 6-8, Street Improvement Plans for a street 28-feet wide, with the exception of SE 272"d Street extending westerly of 104t' Avenue SE which shall be constructed to a 20 foot wide partial street improvement as defined below. Initial guidance for these street improvements is given below: (1) Combined vertical curbs & gutters, 5-foot wide planting strips constructed between the backs of curb and the fronts of the sidewalk and 5-foot wide cement concrete sidewalks on both sides of the street, except the extension of SE 272"d Street shall be constructed with the above improvements on only the south side of the street. (2) A minimum of 28-feet of asphalt pavement, measured from face of vertical curb to face of vertical curb, except the extension of SE 272°d Street which shall be constructed with a minimum 20 feet of asphalt pavement as measured from the face of the south curb line. (3) A street lighting system designed to the City's standards, constructed and maintained by the IntoLight Division of Puget Sound Energy; all electrical and maintenance bills shall be paid for by a Home Owner's Association. Page 5 of 9 Kentara #SU-2002-7 Conditions of Approval (4) A public stormwater drainage system, including provisions for collection, conveyance, detention, and treatment facilities. (5) Curb return radii of 20-feet at the intersection of the subdivision streets and all other public Streets, and a 45-foot radius to the face of curb for the cul-de-sacs; and a 45-foot radius to the edge of pavement for any temporary cul-de-sacs, where applicable, or other temporary turnaround acceptable to the Public Works Department and the Fire Department. (6) Street Trees installed within the 5-foot wide planting strips. These Street Trees will be located as approved by the Public Works Department, and the species shall be selected from the Approved Street Tree List contained within City of Kent Development Assistance Brochure #14, Gty of Kent Street Trees (7) SE 273ro Street shall be aligned to match the alignment of the same street in the Autumn Glen Subdivision at their match line at the east property line of this subdivision. g. Street Improvement Plans for new Private Residential Streets with cul-de- sacs or approved turnarounds or at their terminus. The Street Improvement Plans shall be designed in conformance with the requirements for a Private Residential Street as required by Cry of Kent Construction Standards, and City of Kent Development Assistance Brochure #6-2, Private and PublIC Street Improvements and City of Kent Development Assistance Brochure # 6-8, Street Improvement Plans for a street at least 20-feet wide. Initial guidance for these street improvements is given below: (1) A minimum of 20-feet of asphalt concrete pavement for private streets serving four lots or less, and an additional 5-foot paved walkway along one side for private streets serving more than four lots. (2) An approved cul-de-sac, or turnaround at its terminus, unless otherwise determined by the City Fire Marshal. (3) A private stormwater drainage system, including provisions for collection, conveyance, detention, and treatment facilities where applicable. (4) Unless additional asphalt concrete pavement width is provided for parking, all minimum width private streets serving more than two Page 6 of 9 Kentara #SU-2002-7 Conditions of Approval lots shall have pavement markings and traffic signs installed which clearly designate these private streets as Fire Lanes, where no parking will be permitted. h. Pedestrian Walkway Improvement Plans for a 6-foot wide vertically separated asphalt walkway from the east end of the 5-foot wide sidewalk constructed along the south side of SE 272nd Street to the sidewalks serving Meadow Ridge Elementary School, or if approved by the Public Works Department, payment of a fee in lieu of construction. A fee in lieu of construction in the amount of $1500 per gross acre of property will only be considered if the Kent School District provides bus service to the subject property. i. Interim Street Improvement Plans for the intersection of 104'h Avenue SE and SE 272nd Street These Street Improvement Plans shall provide for adequate entering intersection sight distance as specified by the 2001 version of the AASHTO "Green Book." j. Street Lighting Plans for all public streets meeting the requirements of the City of Kent Construction Standards, and City of Kent Development Assistance Brochure #6-1, Street Lighting Requirements The Street Lighting Plans for this development will conform with the approved Street Lighting Plans for Autumn Glen, for both the internal street system and along SE 272nd Street. 4. The Applicant shall create a Homeowner's Association for this subdivision to ensure that the property owners within tnis subdivision are advised of their requirement to pay for the provided street lighting system. Those sections of the required document written to govern that association as they relate to any IntoLight Division of Puget Sound Energy street lighting systems, shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works, prior to the recording these documents. 5. The pubic ingress and egress and utility easement along the south side of subdivision shall include language on the face of the plat, approved by Public Works, prohibiting the construction thereon of fences, structures, concrete pads, decks, and landscaping other than grass. 6. The face of the final plat shall clearly identify all private streets and which lots have an undivided interest in the tracts or easements defining each streets. The face of the final plat will also specify that the maintenance of this private street is the sole responsibility of the property owners who are served by that private street. Page 7 of 9 Kentara #SU-2002-7 Conditions of Approval 7. Direct vehicular access to and from Lots 38-41 onto SE 272nd Street is prohibited, and the face of the final plat will carry the following restriction: DIRECT VEHICULAR ACCESS TO AND FROM LOTS 38, 39, 40 AND 41 ONTO SE 272ND STREET ARE PROHIBITED. VEHICULAR ACCESS AND DRIVEWAY LOCATIONS FOR THOSE LOTS ARE RESTRICTED TO THAT PRIVATE STREET SHOWN IN TRACT A ON THE FACE OF THE RECORDED PLAT. 8. The Applicant shall deed all public rights-of-way, and otherwise convey all private >� and public easements necessary for the construction and maintenance of the required improvements for this subdivision development. 9. The Applicant shall submit and receive approval of a Detailed Tree Plan, meeting the requirements of the Kent Zoning Code, and City of Kent Development Assistance Brochure #3, Detailed Tree Plans, prior to the issuance of any Construction Permits for the subdivision. Grading Plans cannot be approved by the Department of Public Works without an approved Detailed Tree Plan. j Detailed Tree Plans are not to be confused with required Street Tree Plans, which have an entirely different purpose. 10. The Applicant shall permanently protect Hazardous Area Slopes as defined by Section 15.08.224 of the Kent City Code by creating a separate Sensitive Area Tract (SAT) and deeding the tract in fee simple to the City, OR by granting a Sensitive Area Easement (SAE) to the City for the entire sensitive area and ten foot buffer via documents prepared by the Property Management Section of the Department of Public Works. This SAT or SAE shall be consistent with the lines for the top of or bottom of bank setback lines, and the top and bottom of Hazard Area Slopes shown on an approved topographic map prepared, stamped, and signed by a licensed land surveyor. Hazard Area Slopes shall include areas proposed to be graded during construction of this subdivision which will have slopes in excess of forty percent. 11. Prior to release of any construction bonds, and prior to the approval of any Building Permits within the subject subdivision, the Department of Public Works must receive and approve As-Built Drawings meeting the requirements of the City of Kent Construction Standards, and City of Kent Development Assistance Brochure #E-1, As-Build Drawings, for: Streets; Street Lighting System; Water; Sewer; Stormwater Drainage Facilities; and all off-site improvements where the locations and/or elevations are deemed critical by the Department of Public Works. 12. The Applicant shall construct mailbox clusters per the standards and at locations approved by the Public Works Department and the Kent Postmaster. Page 8 of 9 Kentara #SU-2002-7 Conditions of Approval 13. APPROVAL OF THIS SUBDIVISION IS CONTINGENT UPON APPROVAL OF THE APPLICANT'S RELATED REQUEST FOR REZONE IN RZ-2003-1, KIVA 2030262. B. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT ON ANY LOT IN THIS SUBDIVISION, THE APPLICANT SHALL: 1. Record the Plat. 2. Pay the Environmental Mitigation Fee for that lot. 3. Construct all of the improvements required above. 4. Submit and receive City approval for As-Built Drawings meeting the requirements of City of Kent Development Assistance Brochure #E-1, As-Build Drawings, for street improvements, stormwater management system, street lighting system, and other off-site improvements where determined necessary by the City. Page 9 of 9 D C � gj ;o lP V a t N a Wu r W �D tt i '•i 3r Jf 10121 . In a 4 �+� i = � d • w xnn jW _jjLW Ix04 x'°`Y x1°" X" - - r x g lets x jr /AV►R fS x 1t � It4 16' eaor m xxnm < Ln m D � z X Uri N N 14 O N F+ W �D t 1047H AW SE I 1001H AW SE 1101Fi A� � Kent City Council Meeting Date November 21, 2006 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: KENT 256TH REZONE ORDINANCE (QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDING) 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Council is considering adoption of an ordinance regarding the proposed rezoning of approximately 1 28 acres of real property from Single Family Residential, 4 5 units per acre, to Single Family Residential, 6 units per acre. The property is located at 13403 Southeast 256"' Street The Kent Hearing Examiner held a public hearing on October 4, 2006, and on October 25, 2006, issued Findings, Conclusions, and a Recommendation for approval t3. EXHIBITS: Ordinance; Hearing Examiner Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation; Staff report with map; and Mitigated Determination of Nonstgnt6cance 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing, Examiner (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure? No Revenue? No Currently in the Budget? Yes No If no• Unbudgeted Expense: Fund Amount S Unbudgeted Revenue: Fund Amount S 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: tCouncilmember L�dalna4 moves, Counctlmember seconds to accept/reject/rn4&fy4enrm l the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the Hearing Examiner on the Kent 256th Rezone.a4d4o-���. DISCUSSION: 0 ACTION: 6 n � Council Agenda Item No 7A 1 1 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, relating to land use and zoning, specifically the rezoning of approximately 1 28 acres of property located at 24123 94th Avenue South from SR- 4.5 (Single-Family Residential, 4 5 units per acre) to SR- 6(Single-Family Residential, 6units per acre). (Kent 2561h RZ-2006-4). RECITALS A. An application was filed on February 23, 2006, to rezone approximately 1.28 acres of property located at 13403 Southeast 256`h Street from SR-4.5 (Single-Family Residential, 4.5 units per acre) to SR-6 (Single-Family Residential, 6 units per acre). (Kent 256th Rezone, #RZ-2006-5). B. The City's SEPA responsible official issued a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) (#ENV-2006-15) for the proposed rezone on August j18, 2006. C. A public hearing on the rezone was held before the hearing examiner on October 4, 2006. On October 25, 2006, the hearing examiner issued findings and conclusions that the Kent 256th Rezone is consistent with the city's Comprehensive Plan; that the proposed rezone and subsequent development activity would be compatible with the development in the vicinity; that the proposed rezone will not unduly burden the transportation system in the vicinity of the property with significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated; that circumstances have changed since the establishment of the current zoning district to warrant the proposed rezone; and that the proposed rezone will not adversely affect the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Kent. 1 Kent 256th Rezone D. Based on these findings and conclusions, the hearing examiner recommended approval of the Kent 256th Rezone. E. On November 21, 2006, the City Council determined that the hearing examiner's findings and conclusions are consistent with sections 15.09.050(A)(3) and 15.09.050(C) of the Kent City Code, accepted the findings of the hearing examiner, and adopted the hearing examiner's recommendation for approval of the Kent 256th Rezone from SR-4.5 to SR-6. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS. ORDINANCE SECTION 1. - Rezone. The property located at 13403 Southeast 256th Street in Kent, Washington consisting of approximately 1.28 acres depicted in Exhibit "A" (marked "Vicinity Map"), attached and incorporated by this reference, and legally described in Exhibit "B", attached and incorporated by this reference, is rezoned from SR-4.5 (Single-Family Residential, 4.5 units per acre) to SR-6 (Single-Family Residential, 6 units per acre). The City of Kent zoning map shall be amended to reflect the rezone granted above. SECTION 2. - Severabrhty. If any one or more sections, sub-sections, or sentences of this ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance and the same , shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 3. - Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) days from and after its publication as provided by law. SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR 2 Kent 256th Rezone ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED: day of November, 2006. APPROVED: day of November, 2006. PUBLISHED: day of November, 2006. I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated. (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK P\evil\Ordinance\Rezone-Kent 256th do 3 Kent 256th Rezone LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF KENT Theodore P. Hunter KENTHearing Examiner WASHINGTON FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION FILE NO: Kent 256th Rezone 3 #RZ-2006-4 KIVA #RPP4-2061044 APPLICANT: Terry Wilson 945 N. Central #104 Kent, WA 98032 REQUEST: Rezone 1.28 acres of property from SR-4.5, Single Family Residential to SR-6, Single Family Residential LOCATION: 13403 Southeast 256th Street `L APPLICATION FILED: February 23, 2006 MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE ISSUED: August 18, 2006 HEARING DATE: October 4, 2006 RECOMMENDATION ISSUED: October 25, 2006 RECOMMENDATION: APPROVED STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Chris Hankins, Planning Services TESTIMONY: Chris Hankins, City Planner Terry Wilson, Applicant EXHIBITS I Staff file, including the following attachments: A. Staff Report for Hearing Examiner Hearing of October 4, 2006 B. Zoning Map Amendment Rezone Application, received February 23, 2006 C. Correspondence, Citizen letter received September 26, 2006 D. Department Routing Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent Kent 25e Rezone #RZ-1006-4 KIVA #RPP4-1061044 Page 1 of 8 E. Public Notice documents, including affidavits of notice, publication notice, mailing list, and vicinity map F. Notice of Completeness; Notice of Application G. Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance, dated August 18, 2006, and Environmental Checklist, received February 23, 2006 The Hearing Examiner enters the following Findings and Conclusions based upon the testimony and exhibits admitted at the open record hearing: FINDINGS 1. Terry Wilson (Applicant) requested a zoning map amendment to rezone approximately 1.28 acres of property from SR-4.5, Single Family Residential to SR-6, Single Family Residential.' The parcel is located at 13403 Southeast 2561h Street Z A single family residence and a detached garage are currently on the property. The rezone application was deemed complete on June 14, 2006. The Applicant has also submitted an application to short subdivide the property into seven single-family residential lots.3 Exhibit 1, Attachment A, Staff Report, pages 1, 2; Exhibit 1, Attachment F, Notice of Completeness. 2. The subject property was annexed to the City of Kent on July 1, 1997, as part of the 891 acre Meridian Valley annexation. Ordinance No. 3344. The property was zoned SR-4.5 at the time of annexation. Exhibit 1, Attachment A, Staff Report, page 2. 3. The site is zoned SR-4.5 Single Family Residential. The purpose of the single-family residential district "is to stabilize and preserve single-family residential neighborhoods, as designated in the comprehensive plan. It is further the purpose to provide a range of densities and minimum lot sizes in order to promote diversity and recognize a variety of residential environments." KCC 15.03.010. Under SR-4.5 zoning, the maximum density is 4.53 dwelling units/acre with a minimum lot area of 7,600 square feet Under SR-6 zoning, the maximum density is 6.05 dwelling units/acre with a minimum lot area of The Notice of Application references approximately 1.27 acres, the Applicant's application references 1.29 acres and the City Staff Report references 1 28 acres. Exhibit 1, Attachment A;Exhibit 1, Attachment B; Exhibit 1, Attachment F. z The property is identified by King County Tax Parcel number #2722059218. A legal description is provided as part of the application. Exhibit 1, Attachment A, Staff Report, page 1;Exhibit 1, Attachment B. 3 On February 23, 2006, the Applicant submitted a rezone (non-project) and associated short plat (project-specific) application The Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance was prepared for both applications The Hearing Examiner's recommendation addresses only the rezone application. Exhibit', Attachment A, Staff Report, page 2. Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent Kent 256`h Rezone #RZ-2006-4 KIVA #RPP4-2061044 ' Page 2 of 8 5,700 square feet. KCC15,04.170. The property is designated SF-6, Single Family six units per acre, under the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. Exhibit 1, ' Attachment A, Staff Report, page 2; Exhibit 1, Attachment F, Notice of Application. 4. The surrounding properties are predominately SR-4.5, Single Family Residential. To the east, within 300 feet are two parcels recently rezoned from SR-4.5 to SR-6.4 To the east, north, and south, land uses are generally medium density single family residences on platted and unplatted lots Directly to the west are the Springwood Condominiums consisting of approximately 44 units on 6.61 acres. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 2. Kent 2004 Comprehensive Plan, Zoning District May, Figure 4.2, page 4-7. L 5. The City of Kent Comprehensive Plan contains the following goals and policies that are relevant to the rezone application: Overall Land Use Goal: Encourage a future growth and development pattern which implements the community's vision, protects environmentally sensitive areas, and enhances the quality of life of all of Kent's residents. Goal LU-9: Provide adequate land and densities to accommodate the adopted 20 year housing target of 4,284 new dwelling units within the existing city limits, and through an interlocal agreement with King County, adopt the housing target of 619 new dwelling units within Kent's Potential Annexation Area Policy LU-9.1: Where appropriate, establish urban residential densities of at least four (4) units per net developable acre in order to adequately support urban densities Policy LU-9.4: Locate housing opportunities with a variety of densities within close proximity to employment, shopping, transit, and where possible, near human and community services. Goal LU-10: Provide opportunities for a variety of housing types, options, and densities throughout the City and the Potential Annexation Area to meet the housing needs of the region's changing demographics. Overall Housing Goal: Meet the current and future need for housing in the Kent area. Ensure opportunities and an appropriate living environment for Kent citizens. 4 See Canary Hill Rezone, #RZ 2005-8. Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent Kent 256t1' Rezone #RZ-2006-4 KIVA #RPP4-2061044 Page 3 of 8 Goal H-2: Promote the organization and enhancement of neighborhoods, and provide the opportunity for comfortable and well maintained housing for all citizens. Policy H-2.2: Support housing with appropriate amenities for individuals, families and children. Goal H-5: Increase housing opportunities through a diversity of housing types and the innovative use of residential and commercial land. Policy H-5.1: Expand the range of affordable housing choices available to meet the needs of both Kent residents and residents projected in growth estimates. Policy H-5.2: Provide a sufficient amount of land zoned for current and projected residential needs including, but not limited to, assisted housing, housing for low income households, single family housing, and small lot sizes Policy H-5.3: Promote diversity of housing types affordable to a range of income levels and cultural/ethnic diversity. Goal H-7: Encourage flexibility and innovative site and building design for a variety of housing developments to expand home ownership. Policy H-7.5: Revise zoning and development standards to provide options that increase the supply of affordable home ownership opportunities, such as small lot sizes, zero lot lines, manufactured housing, townhouses, condominiums, clustering, cottage and attached single family housing. Goal TR-1: Coordinate land use and transportation planning to meet the needs of the City and the requirements of the Growth Management Act. Policy TR-1.2: Coordinate new commercial and residential development in Kent with transportation projects to assure that transportation facility capacity is sufficient to accommodate the new development, or a financial commitment is in place to meet the adopted standard within six years, before allowing it to proceed. Policy TR-1.5: Ensure consistency between land use and transportation plans so that land use and adjacent transportation facilities are compatible. Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent Kent256h Rezone #RZ-2006-4 KIVA #RPP4-2061044 Page 4 of 8 The proposed rezone supports the land use goals and policies in that the property is located near existing urban services and infrastructure, limiting urban sprawl and allowing for increased pedestrian use. The development of single family subdivisions on less developed land would allow the accommodation of projected population growth without resorting to multifamily residential development. Exhibit, Attachment A, Staff ' Report, pages 4 - 7. Kent 2004 Comprehensive Plan (as revised May 2006). 6. Circumstances have changed since the City annexed the property and adopted the present SR-4 5 zoning designation on July 1, 1997. There are several developments, both proposed and approved, in the vicinity of the property. With the new development, the area can be generally characterized as medium density single family development. Since annexation, road improvements have increased traffic capacity in the East Hill portion of the City. The City has improved the 272nd/277th Street Corridor, providing improved roadway connectivity and freeway access. Southeast 2561h Street and 132nd Avenue Southeast has been improved. The property is designated SF-6 under the City's Comprehensive Plan, a designation in place since the annexation and reaffirmed in the 2004 Comprehensive Plan update. The Growth Management Act requires that cities adopt development regulations which implement and are consistent with their comprehensive plans. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 9. RCW 36.70A.040 (4)(d). 7. The proposed rezone, in and of itself, would not add traffic to the local to the local street system. According to the Applicant's environmental check, the proposed short plat would generate 24 peak hour trips between 7-9 am and 4-6 pm. The traffic impact of future development of the subject property would be mitigated through a Traffic Impact Study and payment of traffic mitigation fees. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 8; Exhibit 1, Attachment G, Environmental Checklist, page 11. 8. The City of Kent acted as lead agency for review of environmental impacts caused by the proposal. The Applicant submitted an application for rezone of the subject site on February 23, 2006, along with an environmental checklist Concurrent with the rezone application, the Applicant also submitted a short plat application on February 23, 2006. ' The City considered both the rezone and plat applications, along with the environmental checklist, as part of a unified project for the purpose of SEPA environmental review.' No known sensitive areas are on the site. The site has water service from King County Water District #111 and sanitary sewer service from Soos Creek Water & Sewer District. The City issued a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) with no conditions included for the rezone on August 18, 2006. The MDNS was not appealed. Exhibit 1, ' Attachment A, Staff Report, page 2 and 3, Exhibit 1, Attachment 5; Exhibit 1, Attachment G, Environmental Checklist, MDNS. Testimony of Chris Hankins. s The Washington Supreme Court endorsed this combined threshold review process when it found impacts of a specific development proposal can be a useful yardstick to measure rezone impacts. See CItzens Alliance v. Auburn, 126 Wn.2d. 356, 365(1995). Combined threshold review is consistent with KCC 12 01.030(D), is a more efficient use of City, applicant and public resources; and promotes SEPA policies See 126 Wn.2d at 366 ("The SEPA rules underscore tlexibdlty and gauge the level of detail according to the proposal at issue'). Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent Kent25e Rezone #RZ-2006-4 KIVA #RPP4-2061044 Page 5 of 8 9. Notice of the open record hearing was posted on the property, mailed to properties within 300 feet of the site, and published in the King County Journal in accordance with City ordinances. Exhibit1, Attachment A, Staff Report, page 4. AttachmentE. 10. Chris Hankins, City Planner, testified that under the SEPA process the MDNS conditions only related to the short plat application. The Applicant, Terry Wilson, testified in support of the rezone There was no additional testimony from the public at the hearing regarding the rezone application. The City received a letter from Jean Tuntland on September 26, 2006, raising concerns about additional parcel rezones to high density, concerns about traffic on 256th Street Southeast; lack of play areas for children in these new developments; and safety for children walking to school. These concerns are more appropriately addressed in the short plat application. That decision is separate from this recommendation. Exhibit 1, Attachment C. Testimony of Chns Hankins. Testimony of Terry Wilson. CONCLUSIONS Jurisdiction The Hearing Examiner has Jurisdiction to hold an open record hearing on this quasi-Judicial rezone and to issue a written recommendation for final action to the Council, pursuant to RCW 35A.63.170 and Chapters 2.32 and 15.09 of the Kent City Code. Criteria for Review Section 15.09.050(C) of the Kent Zoning Code sets forth the standards and criteria the Hearing Examiner must use to evaluate a request for a rezone. A request for a rezone shall only be granted if: a. The proposed rezone is consistent with the comprehensive plan; b. The proposed rezone and subsequent development of the site would be , compatible with development in the vicinity; C. The proposed rezone will not unduly burden the transportation system in the ' vicinity of the property with significant adverse impacts which cannot be mitigated; d. Circumstances have changed substantially since the establishment of the current ' zoning district to warrant the proposed rezone; e. The proposed rezone will not adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the city. Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent Kent 2566 Rezone #RZ-2006-4 K-TVA #RPP4-2061044 Page 6 of 8 ' Conclusions Based on Findings 1. The proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property as SF-6 which would allow development of up to 6 dwelling units/acre. The additional density allowed by the ' rezone would support the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Findings 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. ' 2. The proposed rezone and subsequent development of the site would be compatible with development in the vicinity. The properties to the north, south and east are generally medium density single family residential uses on a mixture of ' platted and unplatted lots. Two parcels to the east were recently rezoned to SR-6. To the west of the site, the Springwood Condominiums include approximately 44 units on 6.61 acres. Future development of the subject property would help accommodate population growth and would be compatible with existing and planned development in the vicinity. Findings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8. 3. The proposed rezone would not unduly burden the transportation system in the vicinity of the property with significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated. The rezone itself would not generate any traffic. The traffic impact of future ' development of the subject property would be mitigated through a Traffic Impact Study and payment of traffic mitigation fees. Findings I and 7. ' 4. Circumstances have changed substantially since the establishment of the current zoning district. In considering a rezone, the Applicant has the burden of proof in demonstrating that conditions have substantially changed since the original zoning and that the rezone bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare. Parkndge v. Seattle, 89 Wn.2d 454 (1978). A variety of factors may be utilized to satisfy a change in circumstances including changes in public ' opinion, local land use patterns, and changes on the property itself. Bjarnson V. Kitsap County, 78 Win. App. 840, 846 (1995). The proposed rezone is supported by changes in surrounding development, in particular the surrounding roadway improvements, and would comply with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation which was reaffirmed with the 2004 Comprehensive Plan. Findings 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6. ' S. The proposed rezone would not adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Kent. No adverse impacts from a rezone were identified during the environmental review process. Other than testimony by the City planner and the Applicant, there was no public comment on the rezone application at the public hearing. Concerns raised in written public comments would be addressed as part of the short plat application. Findings 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, and 10. ' Frndrngs, Conclusions and Recommendation Nearing Examiner for the City of Kent Kent 25e Rezone ' #RZ-2006-4 KIVA #RPP4-2061044 Page 7 of 8 RECOMMENDATION , Based upon the preceding Findings and Conclusions, the Hearing Examiner recommends that the application for a rezone of King County Tax Parcel number 2722059218 from SR-4.5 to SR-6 be APPROVED. DATED this 25 day of October 2006. , THEODORE PAUL HUNTER ' Hearing Examiner ch•S•\Permit\Plan\rezone\2006\2061044-2006-4findings doc , t Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation , Heanng Examiner for the City of Kent Kent 256t'Rezone #RZ-2006-4 KIVA #RPP4-2061044 , Page 8 of 8 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N Satterstrom, Director PLANNING SERVICES Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager K E N T Phone 253 856 5454 W A Hi NGTGN Fax 253-856-6454 Address 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent,WA 98032-5895 ' KENT PLANNING SERVICES (206) 856-5454 ' STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING EXAMINER MEETING OF OCTOBER 4, 2006 ' FILE NO: Kent 2561h Rezone #RZ-2006-4 KIVA#RPP4-2061044 APPLICANT: Terry Wilson 945 N. Central #104 Kent, WA 98032 RE UEST: A request to rezone 1.28 acres of property from SR-4.5, Single Family Residential to SR-6, Single Family Residential ' STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Chris Hankins, Planner STAFF RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL GENERAL INFORMATION A. Description of the Proposal The applicant proposes to rezone 1.28 acres from the current zoning of SR-4.5, Single Family Residential to SR-6, Single Family Residential. B. Location The subject property is located at 13403 SE 256th Street, and is identified by King County Tax Parcel number #2722059218. Staff Report ' Kent 256th Rezone #RZ-2006-4 KIVA #2061044 , C. Size of Property The property consists of one 1.28 acre parcel. ' D. Zoning , The site is zoned SR-4.5 Single Family Residential. Properties surrounding the site are predominately SR-4.5 Single Family Residential Within approximately ' 300 feet to the east across SE 256th Street, there are two parcels zoned SR-6 Single Family Residential. These parcels were recently rezoned from SR 4.5 to SR-6 (ref. Canary Hill Rezone #RZ 2005-8). , E. Land Use The property is developed with a single family residence and a detached garage. The City of Kent Comprehensive Plan designates the property as SF-6, Single Family six units per acre. ' Existing development in the vicinity of the site is generally medium density single family residential uses to the north, south, and east of the site on a mixture of platted and unplatted lots. Directly west of the site is the developed Springwood Condominiums which consists of approximately 44 units on 6.61 acres. F. History ' This rezone and associated short plat application were submitted on February 23, ' 2006 for the City's consideration. The applications were determined complete for continued processing on June 14, 2006. The subject property was annexed to the City of Kent on July 1, 1997 as part of the 891 acre Meridian Valley annexation (Ordinance No. 3344). The zoning designation of SR-4.5 was established upon annexation. ' A tentative subdivision meeting was held on January 18, 2006 where City staff and the applicant discussed this rezone and the short plat associated with this ' proposal. II. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS , A. Environmental Assessment The applicant's SEPA application requested both non-project (rezone) and project-specific (short subdivision) analysis. A Mitigated Determination of Non- significance (ENV-2006-15) for the proposal was issued on August 18, 2006. No , conditions for the rezone request were established. The MDNS conditions Page 2 of 9 ' ' Staff Report Kent 256th Rezone #RZ-2006-4 KIVA #2061044 related to traffic and pedestrian impacts associated with the proposed short plat. The project specific proposal is dependent upon the outcome of this rezone application. ' B. Significant Physical Features Topography, Wetlands and Vegetation The site is generally flat with a gentle slope towards the west of the site. The vegetation on site consists of evergreen trees, fruit trees, shrubs, and grass. ' There are no known sensitive areas on the site. C. Significant Social Features 1. Street System The site has frontage along 135th Avenue SE and SE 256th Street. Upon future development of the property, road and street frontage improvements to meet City of Kent roadway standards will be required as conditions of approval. These improvements include but are not limited to curb, gutter, sidewalks, planting strips, street lighting, paving, necessary street improvements/dedications, and public stormwater conveyance. This rezone will have no impacts on the transportation system at this time. However, upon development of the subject property, this proposed rezone would potentially result in the creation of two additional PM Peak Hour Trips upon the City's street system than would be generated under the existing zoning designation based on the maximum densities allowed. 2. Water System The site receives water service from King County Water District #111. 3. Sanitary Sewer System The site receives sanitary sewer service from Soos Creek Water & Sewer District. 4. Stormwater System ' Stormwater systems will need to be addressed with any subsequent development. The developer will be required to complete a drainage analysis and develop and submit drainage plans prepared in accordance ' with the 2002 City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual and the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual ' Page 3 of 9 Staff Report Kent 2561" Rezone #RZ-2006-4 KIVA #2061044 D. CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS , The proposed rezone is consistent with the goals and policies of the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan. , III. CONSULTED DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES The following departments and agencies were advised of this application: Police Department Economic Develop. Manager ' Director of Public Works Fire Chief Parks & Recreation Director City Clerk City Attorney Kent School District ' U.S. Post Master WA Dept. of Ecology K. C. Wastewater Treatment King Co. Environmental Health Puget Sound Energy King Co. Transit Division Qwest King Co. Wastewater Treatment Div. Soos Creek Water & Sewer Water District #111 WA Dept of Transportation , In addition to the above, all persons owning property which lies within 300 feet of the site were notified of the application and of the public hearing. A Notice of Application ' was posted on the site and published in the King County Journal on June 28, 2006. No written comments were received regarding this application. , IV. PLANNING SERVICES REVIEW A. Comprehensive Plan In 2004 the Kent City Council adopted an update to the Kent Comprehensive Plan which represented revisions to demographics, housing and employment forecasts, and relevant goals and policies affected by the referenced inclusion of pertinent local and regional policy documents. As with the 1995 plan, the 2004 ' update was prepared under the provision of the Washington State Growth Management Act. The comprehensive plan, through its goals and policies, presents a clear expression of the City's vision of growth for citizens, the , development community, and other public agencies. The plan is used by the Mayor, City Council, Land Use and Planning Board, Hearing Examiner, and the city departments to guide decisions on amendments to the City's zoning code ' and other developed regulations, which must be consistent with the plan, as well as guide decision making about the funding and location of the capital improvement projects. Page 4 of 9 ' Staff Report Kent 2561h Rezone ' #RZ-2006-4 KIVA #2061044 LAND USE ELEMENT The Land Use Element of the plan contains a Land Use Plan Map, which designates the type and intensity of land uses throughout the city, as well as in ' the entire potential annexation area The Land Use Plan Map designates the subject property as SF-6, Single Family Residential which allows six units per acre. The land use element also contains goals and policies relating to the ' location, density, and design of future development in the City and in the Potential Annexation Area. Overall Goal: Encourage a future growth and development pattern which implements the community's vision, protects environmentally sensitive areas, and enhances the quality of life of all of Kent's residents. 1 Goal LU-9: Provide adequate land and densities to accommodate the adopted 20 year housing target of 4,284 new dwelling units within the existing city limits, 1 and through an interlocal agreement with King County, adopt the housing target of 619 new dwelling units within Kent's Potential Annexation Area. Policy LU-9.1: Where appropriate, establish urban residential densities of at least four (4) units per net developable acre in order to adequately support urban densities. ' Policy LU-9.4: Locate housing opportunities with a variety of densities within close proximity to employment, shopping, transit, and where possible, near ' human and community services. Goal LU-10: Provide opportunities for a variety of housing types, options, and densities throughout the City and the Potential Annexation Area to meet the housing needs of the region's changing demographics. Policy LU-10.4: Allow single family housing on a variety of lot sizes. Locate smaller lot sizes within close proximity to the Urban Center or Activity Centers wherever possible. Planning Services Comment: The goals and policies of the land use element support the proposed rezone. The proposed location is located near existing urban services and infrastructure. The City supports the development of close-in vacant or underdeveloped properties which limits further urban sprawl on the edges of the planning area. In addition, infill development provides a more efficient means of providing services and enhancing pedestrian mobility. Also, one of the objectives of the comprehensive ' plan is to provide a wide variety of housing types and opportunities to accommodate projected population growth without converting single family lands ' Page 5 of 9 Staff Report , Kent 256th Rezone #RZ-2006-4 KIVA #2061044 , to multifamily residential. Development of single family subdivisions on underdeveloped, single family zoned land is consistent with this objective. , Growth Management Hearings Board decisions have determined that lands within urban growth areas should be divided at a minimum of four dwelling units per , net acre to ensure efficient provision of urban services. The zoning district SR-6 allows 6.05 dwelling units per acre and a minimum lot size of 5,700 square feet. HOUSING ELEMENT Goal: Meet the current and future need for housing in the Kent area. Ensure ' opportunities and an appropriate living environment for Kent citizens. Goal H-2: Promote the organization an enhancement of neighborhoods, and ' provide the opportunity for comfortable and well maintained housing for all citizens. Policy H-2.2: Support housing with appropriate amenities for individuals, families and children. Goal H-5: Increase housing opportunities through a diversity of housing types ' and the innovative use of residential and commercial land. Policy H-5.1: Expand the range of affordable housing choice available to meet , the needs of both current Kent residents and residents projected in growth estimates. Policy H-5.2: Provide a sufficient amount of land zoned for current and projected residential needs including, but not limited to, assisted housing, housing for low income households, single family housing, and small lot sizes. Policy H-5.3: Promote diversity of housing types affordable to a range of income ' levels and cultural/ethnic diversity. Goal H-7: Encourage flexibility and innovative site and budding design for a ' variety of housing developments to expand home ownership. Policy H-7.5: Revise zoning and development standards to provide options that increase the supply of affordable home ownership opportunities, such as small lot sizes, zero lot lines, manufactured housing, townhouses, condominiums, clustering, cottage and attached single family housing. ' Page 6 of 9 , Staff Report Kent 256th Rezone #RZ-2006-4 KIVA #2061044 Planning Services Comment The proposed rezone is supported by relevant goals and policies of the housing element. Appropriate services, including, but not limited to, fire, police, medical ' services, neighborhood shopping and child care are easily accessible to neighborhood residents upon development of the subject property. The proposed rezone increases the amount of land zoned for current and projected residential needs including single family housing and smaller lot sizes. TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Goal TR-1: Coordinate land use and transportation planning to meet the needs of the City and the requirements of the Growth Management Act. ' Policy TR-1.2: Coordinate new commercial and residential development in Kent with transportation projects to assure that transportation facility capacity is 1 sufficient to accommodate the new development, or a financial commitment is in place to meet the adopted standard within six years, before allowing it to proceed. Policy TR-1.5: Ensure consistency between land use and transportation plans so that land use and adjacent transportation facilities are compatible. Planning Services Comment: The Growth Management Act requires consistency between land use and transportation planning As noted, the Land Use Plan identifies the area of the rezone as SF 6 Single Family Residential. The City's Public Works Department will identify specific improvements which will be necessary along property frontage to serve future development of the property and accommodate the higher density permitted under this rezone. B. Standards and Criteria for Granting a Request for Rezone The following standards and criteria (Kent Zoning Code, Section 15.09.050) are used by the Hearing Examiner and City Council to evaluate a request for a rezone. Such an amendment shall only be granted if the City Council determines that the request is consistent with these standards and criteria. 1. The proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Services Comment The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan Map designates the subject property as SF 6, Single Family Residential which allows up to six units per acre. A rezone of Page 7 of 9 Staff Report Kent 256`h Rezone #RZ-2006-4 KIVA #2061044 , the site from SR-4.5 Single Family Residential to SR-6 Single Family Residential will allow residential development up to six units per acre, which is also allowed under the Comprehensive Plan. As previously mentioned, the proposed rezone is also consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. , 2. The proposed rezone and subsequent development of the site would be compatible with development in the vicinity. Planning Services Comment The proposed rezone and subsequent development of the site will be compatible and integrate well with the existing development in the vicinity. Development in the immediate vicinity is a mix of platted subdivisions and single family homes on ' large parcels with further development potential zoned SR-4.5 and SR-6, Single Family Residential. If this rezone is approved, the proposed short plat will create residential lots at a net density of approximately 5.4 units per acre. This density , of residential development is sufficient to support existing local urban services 3. The proposed rezone will not unduly burden the transportation , system in the vicinity of the property with significant adverse impacts which cannot be mitigated. Planning Services Comment , A rezone of this property to SR-6, Single Family Residential will not generate , additional trips onto the existing transportation system. Although minimal, future development of a short plat on this property will add trips to the local street system. Upon future development of the site, road and street frontage improvements to meet the City of Kent roadway standards will be required as conditions of approval. These improvements include but are not limited to curb, gutter, sidewalks, planting strips, street lighting, paving, necessary street ' improvements, and public stormwater conveyance. The applicant will be required to participate in other City transportation improvement projects by providing an environmental mitigation fee for the impacts created by future development. 4. Circumstances have changed substantially since the , establishment of the current zoning district to warrant the proposed rezone. Page 8 of 9 ' Staff Report Kent256" Rezone #RZ-2006-4 KIVA #2061044 ■ Planning Services Comment The subject parcel was annexed to the City of Kent on July 1, 1997 as part of the 891 acre Meridian Valley annexation (Ord. 3344) and is developed with a single ' family residence. In 2004 the City of Kent updated Its Comprehensive Plan which designates this area as SF-6 Single Family Residential. Along with the Land Use Plan Map and Policies, the plan also contains a target for the number of new households the City must accommodate for the 20-year time horizon of the plan. The GMA also states the City's development regulations must implement, and be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. This proposal, which seeks to establish higher density single family development with smaller lot sizes is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Upon annexation in 1997, zoning for the area was established at SR-4.5 which was consistent with existing land use patterns and represented what was actually built at that time. Since that time significant improvements to roadway infrastructure serving this area were completed. These improvements include SE ' 256th Street between 132nd Avenue SE and 1161h Avenue SE, 132nd Avenue SE from approximately SE 2515t Street to SE 2401h Street, and the SE 272/277th Street Corridor. S. The proposed rezone will not adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Kent. iPlanning Services Comment .. The proposed rezone is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Subsequent development on the site will be required to meet applicable codes and regulations, including mitigation of anticipated environmental impacts. Therefore, the rezone proposal will not adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Kent. V. CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION Upon review of the merits of this request and the Code criteria for granting a rezone, ' the City staff recommends APPROVAL without conditions of the Kent 256th Rezone. KENT PLANNING SERVICES October 4, 2006 CH:ch:S•\Permit\Plan\rezone\2006\2061044-2006-4report doc Page 9 of 9 i f —c SITE I W s_ 3' _ I44 , 1 � - - � - tta ! i LI LAX i IE APPLICATION NAME: KENT 256TH REQUEST: REZONE #RZ-2006-4 , VICINITY MAP 1114147 KENT WASNINGTON CITY OF KENT MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE 1 Environmental Checklist No #ENV-2006-15 Project KENT 256m PLAT/ #RPSA-2061042 REZONE ' Description The applicant proposes to rezone approximately 1.27 acres from SR-4.5 to SR-6 Single Family Residential The proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation of the property as SF-6, Single Family 6 units per acre. If this request for rezone is approved, the applicant also proposes to short subdivide the property into ' seven (7) single-family residential lots and one storm drainage tract. There are no known sensitive areas on the site An existing residence is located on the property and is proposed to be retained on Lot 7. Location The site is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of SE 256th Street and 135th Ave SE The site is identified by King County Parcel #2722059218. Applicant Aleanna Kondelts Cramer Northwest Inc 945 N Central Ave #104 Kent WA 98032 Lead Agency CITY OF KENT The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a 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. There is no comment period for this DNS. X This MDNS is issued under 197-11-340(2). The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 28 days from the date of this decision; this includes a 14-day comment period followed by a 14-day appeal period as provided by WAC 197 11680. Comments must be submitted by September 1, 2006 Responsible Official Kim Marousek, AICP Position/Title SEPA OFFICIAL Address 220 S Fourth Avenue, Kent, WA 98032 Telephone: (253)856-5454 Dated August 18, 2006 Signature APPEAL PROCESS: AN APPEAL OF A DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS) MUST BE MADE TO THE KENT HEARING EXAMINER WITHIN FOURTEEN (14)FOLLOWING THE END OF THE COMMENT PERIOD PER KENT CITY CODE 11 03.520. I Mitigated DNS Kent 256`h Short Plat/Rezone #ENV-2006-15 #2061042 CONDITIONS/MITIGATING MEASURES: 1. The Owner/Subdivider shall provide the City's Traffic Engineer with a Traffic Impact Study(TIS)to identify the existing and future level-of-service (LOS)for the adjacent intersections and the existing and future V / C ratios for the adjacent City street network with the first submittal for any Construction Permits. The TIS shall specifically identify all intersections currently at or below City standards, or estimated to be at or below City standards due to the increased traffic volumes reasonably expected from the development, and all adjacent streets at or above the V / C ratios , established for that Mobility Management Zone. The TIS shall then identify what improvements are necessary to provide a LOS better than or equal to City standards for all intersections to completely mitigate the existing or development impacts thereon. The TIS shall also identify what improvements are necessary to completely mitigate the adjacent streets which do not meet the V / C requirements of the City of Kent's Concurrency Management Ordinance, Chapter 12.11 of the Kent City Code. Upon agreement by the City with the findings of the study and mitigation measures outlined in the study; implementation and/or construction of said mitigation measures shall be the conditional requirements for the issuance of the respective development Construction Permits. , OR In lieu of submitting the TIS required above and then providing the mitigation measures identified in the approved study, the Owner / Subdivider may instead pay an Environmental Mitigation Fee to participate in, and pay a fair share of the construction costs of the City's South 272"d Street/ South 277th Street Corridor Project.The minimum benefit to the Owner/Subdivider is estimated at$27,768 (1986 dollars to be adjusted for rezones, and for inflation based upon the Consumer Price Index, United States City Average for all Urban Consumers, or the substituted index as prepared by the United States Department of Labor) based upon 26 new PM Peak Hour Trips (at the rate of $1068 per Peak Hour Trip) and the capacity of the South 272"d Street/ South 277th Street Corridor. a. The final benefit value will be determined based upon the total number of lots approved upon the final plat(minus one for the existing home which will be removed)multiplied times $1068 (in 1986 dollars and adjusted for rezones and for inflation as described above ) b. The Owner of each lot shall pay their incremental financial obligation of$1028 44 (in 1986 dollars and adjusted for rezones and for inflation as described above)in full prior to issuance of a Building Permit for that lot. C. The payment of said Environmental Mitigation Fee and the traffic related conditions given within this document, will serve to mitigate traffic impacts to the above mentioned intersections and road system by committing funding for the South 277th Street / South 272"d Street Corridor which is providing additional capacity for traffic volumes within the area of the above mentioned development. 2. The Applicant shall submit and receive approval of Pedestrian Walkway Improvement Plans from the Department of Public Works. The Applicant shall then construct those improvements. These plans shall provide for a 6-foot wide vertically separated asphalt walkway conforming to Standard Detail 6- 60, or a 5-foot wide horizontally separated cement concrete sidewalk, from the end of the 5-foot wide sidewalk to the sidewalk/asphalt walkway system serving George Daniel Elementary School.At the sole discretion of the Department of Public Works, the Owner / Subdivider may instead pay a regional sidewalk improvement mitigation fee in the amount of $1500 per gross acre to the School Pedestrian Walkways Fund (fund #R20036). jm:S:\Permit\Plan\Env\2006\2062010mdns doc 2 of 3 Mitigated DNS Kent 256th Short Plat/Rezone 1 #ENV-2006-15 #2061042 CERTIFICATE OF POSTING I, Kim Marousek, Responsible Official under the Washington Administrative Code(WAC)Chapter 197-11-788 and 910, and Kent City Code Chapter 1103 410 do hereby declare that the Determination of Nonsignificance,as described in this public notice, was duly posted on by a member of Kent Planning Services, on or near the site described therein Kim Marousek,AICP.Responsible Official i t t 1 1 3of3 1 Kent City Council Meeting Date November 21, 2006 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: DEVLIN REZONE ORDINANCE (QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDING) 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Council is considering adoption of an ordinance regarding the proposed rezoning Family Residential, 4 5 units per of approximately .46 acres of property from Single r acre, to Single Family Residential, 8 units per acre. The property is located at 24123 94`h Avenue South in Kent, Washington The Kent Hearing Examiner held a Public Hearing on October 18, 2006, and on November 1, 2006, issued Findings, Conclusions, and a Recommendation for approval. 3. EXHIBITS: Ordinance; Hearing Examiner Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation, Staff report with map, and Determmation of Nonsigmficance 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT ' Expenditure`? No Revenue? No Currently in the Budget? Yes No If no. Unbudgeted Expense: Fund Amount $ Unbudgeted Revenue: Fund Amount $ 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember f/1f-5&) seconds to accept/rejeGUa4od�f= _y �P� the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the Hearing Examiner on the Devlin Rezone and to adopt Ordinance No 3 S'2--0. DISCUSSION: ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 7B ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, relating to land use and zoning, specifically the rezoning of approximately .46 acres of s property located at 24123 94th Avenue South from SR- 4.5 (Single-Family Residential, 4.5 units per acre) to SR- 8 (Single-Family Residential, 8 units per acre). (Devlin Rezone, #RZ-2006-5). RECITALS IA. An application was filed on March 30, 2006, to rezone approximately .46 acres of property located at 24123 94th Avenue South from SR-4.5 (Single- Family Residential, 4.5 units per acre) to SR-8 (Single-Family Residential, 8 units per acre). (Devlin Rezone, #RZ-2006-5). IB. The City's SEPA responsible official issued a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) (#ENV-2006-25) for the proposed rezone on June 16, 2006. C. A public hearing on the rezone was held before the hearing examiner on October 18, 2006. On November 1, 2006, the hearing examiner issued findings and conclusions that the Devlin Rezone is consistent with the city's Comprehensive Plan; that the proposed rezone and subsequent development activity would be compatible with the development in the vicinity; that the proposed rezone will not unduly burden the transportation system in the vicinity of the property with significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated; that circumstances have changed since the establishment of the current zoning district to warrant the proposed rezone; and that the proposed rezone will not adversely affect the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Kent. 1 Devlin Rezone D. Based on these findings and conclusions, the hearing examiner recommended approval of the Devlin Rezone. , E. On November 21, 2006, the City Council determined that the hearing examiner's findings and conclusions are consistent with sections 15 09.050(A)(3) t and 15 09 050(C) of the Kent City Code, accepted the findings of the hearing examiner, and adopted the hearing examiner's recommendation for approval of the Devlin Rezone from SR-4.5 to SR-8. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: , ORDINANCE ' SECTION 1. - Rezone. The property located at 24123 94th Avenue South, in Kent, Washington consisting of approximately .46 acres depicted in Exhibit "A" j (marked "Vicinity Map"), attached and incorporated by this reference, and legally described in Exhibit "B", attached and incorporated by this reference, is rezoned from SR-4.5 (Single-Family Residential, 4.5 units per acre) to SR-8 (Single-Family Residential, 8 units per acre). The City of Kent zoning map shall be amended to reflect the rezone granted above. SECTION 2. - Severability. If any one or more sections, sub-sections, or t sentences of this ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 3. - Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) days from and after its publication as provided by law. SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR 2 Devlin Rezone 1 ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED: day of November, 2006. APPROVED: day of November, 2006. PUBLISHED: day of November, 2006. I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated. (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK P\Gvd\Ordinance\Rezone-Devlin doc i 1 3 Devlin Rezone LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF KENT Theodore P. Hunter KEN T Hearing Examiner WASHINGTON FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION FILE NO: DEVLIN REZONE #RZ-2006-5 KIVA #RPP4-2061680 APPLICANT: Mark & Kimberly Devlin 24123 94th Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 REQUEST: A request to rezone 0.46 acres of property from SR-4.5, Single Family Residential, to SR-8, Single Family Residential. LOCATION: 24123 94`h Avenue South, Kent, Washington. APPLICATION FILED: March 30, 2006 DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE ISSUED: June 16, 2006 jMEETING DATE: October 18, 2006 RECOMMENDATION ISSUED: November 1, 2006 RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL TESTIMONY: Lydia Moorehead, City Planning Services Jernlynn Hadley, Attorney, Represented the Applicants at the Open Record Hearing EXHIBITS: 1. Staff report dated July 12, 2006 with the following attachments: A. Rezone Application received by the City March 30, 2006 B. Letter from Kathy Meckle to City of Kent Planning Services, received by the City July 11, 2006 C. City Department Routing Slips Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation Heanng Examiner for the Oty of Kent Devlin Rezone #RZ-2006-5, KIUA #RPP4-2061680 Page i of 9 D. Public Notice Documents: Notice of Public Hearing, Affidavit of Notice, Mailing List E. Notice of Application, Affidavit of Notice, Mailing , List, Notice of Completeness F. Determination of Nonsignificance, issued June 16, 2006, and Environmental Checklist, received by the City on March 30, 2006 G. Devlin Short Plat Map dated March 8, 2006 2. Letter to David Malik from Lydia Moorehead dated October 3, 2006 3. Letter to Lydia Moorehead from David Malik dated October 18, 2006 , 4. Survey Map dated March 8, 2006, showing area in dispute 5. Quit Claim Deed The Hearing Examiner enters the following Findings and Conclusions based upon the testimony and exhibits admitted at the open record hearing: FINDINGS 1. Mark & Kimberly Devlin (the Applicants) request a zoning map amendment to rezone 0.46 acres of land from SR-4.5, Single Family Residential to SR-8, Single Family Residential. The subject property, located at 24123 941h Avenue South, Kent, Washington, is identified by King County Tax Parcel number 1922059192. The parcel has frontage along 94th Avenue S, which lies directly to the east of the parcel. Exhibit 1, Attachment A; Exhibit 1, Attachment G. 2. The City of Kent (City) deemed the rezone application complete on April 21, 2006, and on April 28 sent notice of the application to the owner, parties of record, and all owners of property within 200 feet of the subject property. On July 7, 2006, the City provided public notice of the associated public hearing, by posting on the subject property, publishing notice in the King CountyJournai, and mailing notice to all owners of property within 300 feet of the subject property. Exhibit 1, Attachment D; Exhibit 1, Attachment E. 3. If the Applicants' rezone application were granted, the Applicants would subdivide the 0.46 acre lot into three lots. To pursue subdivision, the Applicants submitted a Type 1 findings, Conclusions and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the Gty of Kent Dev/in Rezone #RZ-2006-5, KIVA #RPP4-2061680 Page 2 of 9 Short Plat application to the City on Match 29, 2006.1 Lot 1, closest to 94"' Avenue S, would contain an existing house, approximately 1,500 square feet. New single-family homes, approximately 2,200 square feet each, would be constructed on Lots 2 and 3. Exhibit 1, Attachment F, 4. Kathy Meckle notified the City that there was an outstanding property ownership issue. Ms Meckle owns property north of the Devlin property, at 24115 94th Avenue S, Kent, Washington. In her letter to the City, Ms. Meckle disputed that ownership of an area extending up to 6.6 feet north from the existing fence on the Devlin property was part of Tax Parcel number 1922059192, the Devlin parcel. Exhibit 1, Attachment B, Exhibit 4; Testimony of Ms. Moorehead, 5. The open record hearing on the rezone application was continued twice -- to October 18, 2006 --- to allow for resolution of the property ownership issue raised by Ms. Meckle. Testimony of Ms. Moorehead 6. At the October 18 hearing, Ms. Moorehead of the Planning Department testified that the I property ownership question raised by Ms. Meckle had been resolved. David Malik now owns the property at 24115 94th Avenue S, Kent, Washington, formerly owned by Ms. Meckle. Ms. Moorehead testified that the parties agreed the existing fence would become the new property line dividing the Devlin property from the property formerly owned by Ms. Meckle. Jerry Lynn Hadley, Attorney for the Applicants, stated that she would record a Quitclaim Deed on October 18, 2006 to Mr. Malik from the Applicants that transfers ownership of the disputed area to Mr. Malik. Exhibit 2; Exhibit 3,- Exhibit 5; Testimony of Ms. Moorehead, Testimony of Ms. Hadley. 7. The City sent notice of the complete rezone application to the following City departments: Engineering, Building Services, Fire Prevention, and Crime Prevention/Police. The Crime Prevention/Police Department commented that future development enabled by approval of the proposed rezone should include clear signage to direct emergency services to developed properties. Exhibit 1, Attachment C 8. The City analyzed the environmental impact of the proposed rezone, as required by the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The City determined that the proposal would not have a probable, significant, adverse impact on the environment, and issued a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) on June 16, 2006. Exhibit 1, Attachment Pursuant to Kent Municipal Code (KCC) 12.04.115, an application for a Type I short subdivision consists of the following five steps. 1) Preparation of the preliminary plat of the proposed short subdivision, 2) Submission of the preliminary short subdivision application to the short subdivision committee for a public meeting and decision; 3) Installation or bonding of improvements according to the approved preliminary plat requirements and satisfaction of all plat conditions, 4) Submission of the final plat to the planning department for review and signature by the chair of the short subdivision committee, and 5) Recordation of the approved final plat in the office of the King County department of records and elections. KCC IZ 04,115. Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the Oty of Kent Devlin Rezone #RZ-2006-5, KIVA #RPP4-2061680 Page 3 of 9 1 1 i 9. The subject property was annexed to the City of Kent on April 21, 1987 by City Ordinance No. 2721. The subject property is currently part of the City SR-4.5 Single Family Residential zoning district. This district permits a maximum density of 4.53 dwelling units/acre The SR-8 Single Family Residential Zoning District permits a maximum density of 8.71 dwelling units/acre. Kent Municipal Code (KMC) 15.04,170; Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 2. 10. If approved, the proposed rezone to SR-8, Single Family Residential, would permit four detached dwelling units on the subject property. The parcel's current SR-4 5 zoning district classification would permit two detached dwelling units on the subject property.2 KMC 15.04.170; Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 2. 11. The Kent City Council updated the City Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan) in 2004. The 2004 Comprehensive Plan's Land Use Element contains a Land Use Plan , Map, which designates the subject property as SF-8, Single Family Residential. The SF-8 designation permits up to eight dwelling units per acre. The 2004 Comprehensive Plan also contains a target number of new households the City must accommodate over the Comprehensive Plan's 20-year time horizon. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 4 and 8. 12. The 2004 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element, Housing Element, and Transportation Element contain goals and policies relating to future development in the City, including development that would be enabled by approval of the proposed rezone. The goals and policies relevant to this rezone application include: a. Land Use Element Overall Goal: Encourage a future growth and development pattern which implements the community's vision, protects environmentally sensitive areas, and enhances the quality of life of all of Kent's residents. Goal LU-9: Provide adequate land and densities to accommodate the adopted 20 year housing target of 4,284 new dwelling units within the existing city limits, and through an interlocal agreement with King County, adopt the housing target of 619 new dwelling units within Kent's Potential Annexation Area. Policy LU-9.1: Where appropriate, establish urban residential densities of at least four (4) units per net developable acre in order to adequately support urban densities. 2 The density calculation for the SR-4.5 zone is as follows: (0.46 acres) * (4.53 dwelling units/acre) _ 2.08 dwelling units The density calculation for the SR-8 zone is as follows: (0.46 acres) * (8.71 dwelling units/acre) = 4 00 dwelling units. Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent Devlin Rezone #RZ-2006-5, KIVA #RPP4-2061680 Page 4 of 9 Policy LU-9.4: Locate housing opportunities with a variety of densities within close proximity to employment, shopping, transit, and where possible, near human and community services. Goal LU-10: Provide opportunities for a variety of housing types, options, and densities throughout the City and the Potential Annexation Area to meet the housing needs of the region's changing demographics. Policy LU-10 4: Allow single family housing on a variety of lot sizes. Locate smaller lot sizes within close proximity to the Urban Center or Activity Centers wherever possible. b. Housing Element Overall Goal: Meet the current and future need for housing in the Kent area. Ensure opportunities and an appropriate living environment for Kent citizens. IGoal H-2: Promote the organization an enhancement of neighborhoods, and provide the opportunity for comfortable and well maintained housing for all citizens. Policy H-2 2• Support housing with appropriate amenities for individuals, families and children. Goal H-5: Increase housing opportunities through a diversity of housing 1 types and the innovative use of residential and commercial land. Policy H-5.1: Expand the range of affordable housing choice available to meet the needs of both current Kent residents and residents projected in growth estimates. Policy H-5.2: Provide a sufficient amount of land zoned for current and projected residential needs including, but not limited to, assisted housing, housing for low income households, single family housing, and small lot sizes. Policy H-5.3: Promote diversity of housing types affordable to a range of income levels and cultural/ethnic diversity. Goal H-7: Encourage flexibility and innovative site and building design for a variety of housing developments to expand home ownership. Policy H-7.5: Revise zoning and development standards to provide options that increase the supply of affordable home ownership Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the Gty of Kent Devlin Rezone #RZ-2006-5, KIVA #RPP4-2061680 Page 5 of 9 opportunities, such as small lot sizes, zero lot lines, manufactured housing, townhouses, condominiums, clustering, cottage and attached single family housing. C. Transportation Element Goal TR-1: Coordinate land use and transportation planning to meet the needs of the City and the requirements of the Growth Management Act. ' Policy TR-1.2: Coordinate new commercial and residential development in Kent with transportation projects to assure that transportation facility capacity is sufficient to accommodate the new development, or a financial commitment is in place to meet the adopted standard within six years, before allowing it to proceed. , Policy TR-1.5. Ensure consistency between land use and transportation plans so that land use and adjacent transportation facilities are compatible. 13. Properties to the north and south of the subject property are zoned SR-4.5, Single Family Residential. Property to the east, across the 94th Avenue S. right-of-way, is zoned SR-6, Single Family Residential. Property to the west is zoned MR-D, Duplex Multifamily. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 2. 14. The area surrounding the subject property consists of single-family residential development. Property to the south includes the Westview-Malik subdivision, consisting of 19 residential lots. Single family development along 941h Avenue S. consists of medium density development on platted and un-platted lots. Higher density single family development occurs north and east of the subject property. Two churches and apartment/condominium complexes are !coated near the subject property. Improvements to roadway infrastructure have been completed in the immediate vicinity of the subject property, including a new signal at 94th Avenue S. and Canyon Drive, street improvements in the S 272nd/277th Street Corridor to the south of the subject property, and new sidewalks and bike lands along the south side of Canyon Drive, south of the subject property. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 2, 8, and 9, Exhibit 1, Attachment F. 15. The subject property is mostly flat, slopes slightly to the west, and contains some areas of 5% grade. During construction of the planned new homes, the Applicants would comply with the King County Manual TSEC Best Management Practices to control erosion. The Applicants would fully landscape the planned new lots after the homes are constructed, keeping as many mature trees as possible. After construction, the Applicants would ensure stormwater runoff generated by development is managed by infiltration trench, in accord with the King County Water Management Manual and Best Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent Devlin Rezone #RZ-2006-5, KIVA #RPP4-2061680 Page 6 of 9 Management Practices. The new lots would be served by City of Kent sewer and water service. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 3, Exhibit 1, Attachment F. 16. Vehicles would access the planned new homes within the proposed short plat via a proposed access road that would be constructed within the Westview-Malik subdivision to the south of the subject property. Exhibit 1, Attachment F. 17. City staff is reviewing the Applicants' short plat application concurrently with this rezone application. City staff notes that short plat conditions of approval will include road and street frontage improvements to meet City roadway standards These improvements will include, but are not limited to, curb, gutter sidewalks, planting strips, street lighting, paving, necessary street improvements, and public stormwater conveyance. The City Public Works Department will ensure that these improvements accommodate the higher development density that would be permitted by the proposed rezone, in step with Growth Management Act requirements for consistency between land use and transportation planning. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 3 and 7. 18. Public transit would serve the planned new homes within the proposed short plat. Exhibit 1, Attachment F. 19. City staff indicated that the proposed rezone would not, by itself, generate additional trips into the transportation system serving the subject property. But the associated short plat, if approved, will generate additional trips into the transportation system. Approval of the short plat will be conditioned on the Applicants' payment of a mitigation fee for transportation system impacts created by future development associated with short plat approval. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 8. tCONCLUSIONS Junsdiction The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to hold an open record hearing on quasi-judicial actions, including this rezone, and to issue a written recommendation for final action to the City Council, pursuant to RCW 35A.63.170 and Kent City Code Chapters 2.32, 12.01 and 15.09. Criteria for Review Section 15.09.050(C) of the Kent Zoning Code sets forth the standards and criteria the Hearing Examiner must use to evaluate a request for a rezone. A request for a rezone shall only be granted if: 1. The proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; 2. The proposed rezone and subsequent development of the site would be compatible with development in the vicinity; Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation Hearng Examiner for the Oty of Kent Devlin Rezone #RZ-2006-5, KIVA #RPP4-2061680 Page 7 of 9 3. The proposed rezone will not unduly burden the transportation system in the vicinity of the property with significant adverse impacts which cannot be mitigated; 4. Circumstances have changed substantially since the establishment of the current zoning district to warrant the proposed rezone; and 5. The proposed rezone will not adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Kent Conclusions based on Findings 1. The proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Approval of the proposed rezone to SR-8 would allow greater development density within the parcel than is permitted under the parcel's current SR-4.5 zoning district classification. Thus, the proposed rezone would be consistent with the greater development density allowed by the SF-8 Comprehensive Plan designation of the subject property. Approval of the proposed rezone will allow an urban residential density on the subject property of at least four units per developable acre, consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy LU-9.1. Consistent with Comprehensive Plan's Land Use Element and Housing Element, approval of the proposed rezone will enable development of residential housing opportunities for City residents, served by public transit, improved roadways, and City water and sewer. The higher density development would occur in a manner consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's Transportation Element, if conditions of approval were attached to any land use development application for the subject property. Findings 1, 9 - 12, 14, 16— 19. 2. The proposed rezone and subsequent development of the site is compatible with surrounding development. Approval of the proposed rezone will enable subdivision of the subject property into three lots, each of which would contain a detached, residential single-family home. Such single-family residential development on individual lots is compatible with the single-family residential development that surrounds the subject property. Findings 1, 9, 10, 13, 14. 3. The proposed rezone would not unduly burden the transportation system in the vicinity with significant unmitigated adverse impacts. City staff determined that the proposed rezone would not have a probable, significant, adverse impact on the environment, including the transportation system near the proposed rezone. Approval of the proposed rezone will not, by itself, generate additional trips into the transportation system surrounding the subject property. However, development enabled by approval of the proposed rezone and associated short plat will generate additional trips into the transportation system. Approval of any future development will be conditioned on area road and street improvements consistent with density and payment of a transportation impact mitigation fee. These conditions will mitigate any Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent Devlin Rezone #RZ-2006-5, KIVA #RPP4-2061680 Page 8 of 9 adverse Impacts that might otherwise be associated with development of the subject property. F,ndings 1, 7, 8, 17, and 19. 4. Circumstances have changed substantially since the establishment of the current zoning district. Since 1987 (when the property subject to the proposed rezone was annexed to the City and the current SR-4.5 zoning district classification was established for the property), the City has updated its Comprehensive Plan, designating the subject property SF-8 and including a new household development target Street, pedestrian, and bicycle lane improvements supporting increased density have been completed in the area surrounding the property subject to the proposed rezone. Findings 1, 9 - 11, and 14. 5. The proposed rezone would not adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Kent. The dispute over ownership of I the property subject to the proposed rezone has been resolved and a Quit Claim Deed transferring ownership of the disputed property has been recorded, providing notice to future parties of the dispute resolution. The City provided adequate public notice of the rezone application and associated public hearing. The proposed rezone will not have a probable, significant, adverse impact on the environment. Approval of the proposed rezone will make additional single-family residential homes available to City residents. Future development enabled by approval of the proposed rezone will comply with King County Manual TSEC Best Management Practices to control erosion, and with the King County Water Management Manual and Best Management Practices to control stormwater runoff. Future development enabled by approval of the proposed rezone will include preservation of mature trees on the subject property. Future development enabled by the proposed rezone will be conditioned on payment of a transportation system impact mitigation fee, and on road and street improvements that support development density and meet City roadway standards. Findings 1, Z, 4 - 6, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 17, and 19. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the preceding Findings and Conclusions, the Hearing Examiner recommends that the application for a rezone of King County Tax Parcel Number 1922059192 from SR-4.5 to SR-8 be APPROVED. Dated this Is' day of November 2006 THEODORE PAUL HUNTER Hearing Examiner & s\Permit\Plan\rezone\loll,lo,16110-1006-5find,ngs doc Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City of Kent Devlin Rezone #RZ-2006-5, KIVA #RPP4-2061680 Page 9 of 9 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N Satterstrom, Director PLANNING SERVICES • Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager KENT Phone 253-856-5454 W s N i c*o N Fax 253-856-6454 Address 220 Fourth Avenue S Kent, WA 98032-5895 KENT PLANNING SERVICES i (206) 856-5454 STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING EXAMINER MEETING OF JULY 19, 2006 FILE NO: Devlin Rezone #RZ-2006-5 KIVA# 2061680 APPLICANT: Mark & Kimberly Devlin 24123 941h Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 REQUEST: A request to rezone a .46 acre site from SR-4.5, Single Family Residential to SR-8, Single Family Residential. STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Lydia Moorehead, Planner STAFF RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL I. GENERAL INFORMATION 1 A. Description of the Prowsal The applicant proposes to rezone .46 acres from the current zoning of SR-4.5, Single Family Residential to SR-8, Single Family Residential B. Location The subject property consists of one parcel located at 24123 941h Avenue South. The property is identified by King County Tax Parcel number 1922059192. C. Size of Propertv The property consists of one .46 acre parcel. Staff Report Devlin Rezone #RZ-2006-5 KIVA #202061680 D. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan The site is currently zoned SR-4.5, Single Family Residential. Zoning immediately adjacent to the site includes SR-4.5 to the north and south, SR-6 to the east and MR-D, Duplex Multifamily to the west The City of Kent Comprehensive Plan designates the site, together with the properties to the north, south and east, SF-8, Single Family eight dwelling units per acre. Utilizing the gross acreage only, the proposed SR-8 zoning designation would allow for the development of four detached dwelling units, as opposed to two dwelling units under the existing SR-4.5 designation. The applicant has submitted a three lot short subdivision which has been reviewed by Staff concurrently with the proposed rezone and will be reviewed by the City of Kent Short Subdivision Committee. E. Land Use The property is developed with a single family home and a detached shed. Surrounding development is predominately single family residential with two churches and a few apartment/condo complexes located within the vicinity. Existing single family development in the area along 94`h Avenue South is generally characterized by medium density development on platted and unplatted lots. Higher density single family development occurs in the area north and east of the site. F. History The property was annexed to the City of Kent on April 21, 1987 under Ordinance No. 2721. II. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS A. Environmental Assessment A Determination of Nonsignificance (ENV-2006-25) for the rezone proposal was issued on June 16, 2006. No conditions for this rezone request were proposed. The SEPA appeal period expires on July 14, 2006. Page 2 of 9 Staff Report Devlin Rezone #RZ-2006-5 KIVA #202061680 B. Significant Physical Features Topography. Wetlands and Vegetation The site slopes gently toward the west and vegetation on site consists of fir, pine, maple and cedar trees, shrubs, and grass. There are no sensitive areas on the site. C. Significant Social Features 1. Street System The site has frontage along 94" Avenue South. As a result of the associated short plat conditions, future development will include road and street frontage improvements to meet City of Kent roadway standards. These improvements include but are not limited to curb, gutter sidewalks, planting strips, street lighting, paving, necessary street improvements, and public stormwater conveyance. 2. Water System The site receives water service from the City of Kent. 3. Sanitary Sewer System The site receives sanitary sewer service from the City of Kent. -- 4. Stormwater System Stormwater systems have been addressed through the associated short plat application and will be reviewed when development permit applications are submitted. The developer will be required to complete a drainage analysis and develop and submit drainage plans prepared in accordance with the 2002 City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual and the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual. D. CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS The proposed rezone is consistent with the goals and policies of the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan. Page 3 of 9 Staff Report Devlin Rezone #RZ-2006-5 KIVA #202061680 III. CONSULTED DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES The following departments and agencies were advised of this application: Police Department Economic Development Public Works Fire Prevention Parks & Recreation City Clerk City Attorney Kent School District WA Dept. of Ecology Qwest K. C. Wastewater Treatment King County Transit Division King Co. Environmental Health Puget Sound Energy U.S. Post Office In addition to the above, all persons owning property which lies within 300 feet of the site were notified of the public hearing. A Notice of Application was posted on the site and published in the King County Journal on April 28, 2006. No comments regarding the rezone request were received. IV. PLANNING SERVICES REVIEW A, Comprehensive Plan In 2004 the Kent City Council adopted an update to the Kent Comprehensive , Plan which represented revisions to demographics, housing and employment forecasts, and relevant goals and policies affected by the referenced inclusion of pertinent local and regional policy documents. As with the 1995 plan, the 2004 update was prepared under the provision of the Washington State Growth Management Act. The comprehensive plan, through its goals and policies, presents a clear expression of the City's vision of growth for citizens, the development community, and other public agencies. The plan is used by the Mayor, City Council, Land Use and Planning Board, Hearing Examiner, and the city departments to guide decisions on amendments to the City's zoning code and other developed regulations, which must be consistent with the plan, as well as guide decision making about the funding and location of the capital improvement projects. LAND USE ELEMENT The Land Use Element of the plan contains a Land Use Plan Map, which designates the type and intensity of land uses throughout the city, as well as in the entire potential annexation area. The Land Use Plan Map designates the subject property as SF-8, Single Family Residential which allows eight units per acre. The land use element also contains goals and policies relating to the location, density, and design of future development in the City and in the Potential Annexation Area. Page 4 of 9 Staff Report Devlin Rezone #RZ-2006-5 KIVA #202061680 Overall Goal: Encourage a future growth and development pattern which implements the community's vision, protects environmentally sensitive areas, and enhances the quality of life of all of Kent's residents. Goal LU-9: Provide adequate land and densities to accommodate the adopted 20 year housing target of 4,284 new dwelling units within the existing city limits, and through an interlocal agreement with King County, adopt the housing target of 619 new dwelling units within Kent's Potential Annexation Area. I Policy LU-9.1: Where appropriate, establish urban residential densities of at least four (4) units per net developable acre in order to adequately support urban densities. Policy LU-9.4: Locate housing opportunities with a variety of densities within close proximity to employment, shopping, transit, and where possible, near human and community services. Goal LU-10: Provide opportunities for a variety of housing types, options, and densities throughout the City and the Potential Annexation Area to meet the housing needs of the region's changing demographics. Policy LU-10.4: Allow single family housing on a variety of lot sizes. Locate smaller lot sizes within close proximity to the Urban Center or Activity Centers wherever possible. Planning Services Comment:-- The goals and policies of the land use element support the proposed rezone The proposed location is near existing urban services and infrastructure The City supports the development of close-in vacant or underdeveloped properties which limits further urban sprawl on the edges of the planning area. In addition, infill development provides a more efficient means of providing services and enhancing pedestrian mobility. Also, one of the objectives of the comprehensive plan is to provide a wide variety of housing types and opportunities to accommodate projected population growth without converting single family lands to multifamily residential. Development of single family subdivisions on underdeveloped, single family zoned land is consistent with this objective Growth Management Hearings Board decisions have determined that lands within urban growth areas should be divided at a minimum of four dwelling units per net acre to ensure efficient provision of urban services. The zoning district SR-8 allows 8.71 dwelling units per acre and a minimum lot size of 4,000 square feet. Page 5 of 9 Staff Report Devlin Rezone #RZ-2006-5 KIVA #202061680 HOUSING ELEMENT Goal: Meet the current and future need for housing in the Kent area. Ensure opportunities and an appropriate living environment for Kent citizens. Goal H-2: Promote the organization an enhancement of neighborhoods, and provide the opportunity for comfortable and well maintained housing for all citizens. Policy H-2.2: Support housing with appropriate amenities for individuals, families and children. Goal H-5: Increase housing opportunities through a diversity of housing types and the innovative use of residential and commercial land. Policy H-5.1: Expand the range of affordable housing choice available to meet the needs of both current Kent residents and residents projected in growth estimates. Policy H-5.2: Provide a sufficient amount of land zoned for current and projected residential needs including, but not limited to, assisted housing, housing for low income households, single family housing, and small lot sizes. Policy H-5.3: Promote diversity of housing types affordable to a range of income i levels and cultural/ethnic diversity. Goal H-7: Encourage flexibility and innovative site and budding design for a variety of housing developments to expand home ownership. Policy H-7.5: Revise zoning and development standards to provide options that increase the supply of affordable home ownership opportunities, such as small lot sizes, zero lot lines, manufactured housing, townhouses, condominiums, clustering, cottage and attached single family housing. Planning Services Comment The proposed rezone is supported by relevant goals and policies of the housing element. Appropriate services, including, but not limited to, fire, police, medical services, neighborhood shopping and child care are easily accessible to neighborhood residents upon development of the subject property. The proposed rezone increases the amount of land zoned for current and projected residential needs including single family housing and smaller lot sizes. Page 6 of 9 Staff Report Devlin Rezone #RZ-2006-5 KIVA #202061680 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Goal TR-1: Coordinate land use and transportation planning to meet the needs of the City and the requirements of the Growth Management Act. Policy TR-1.2: Coordinate new commercial and residential development in Kent with transportation projects to assure that transportation facility capacity is sufficient to accommodate the new development, or a financial commitment is in place to meet the adopted standard within six years, before allowing it to proceed. Policy TR-1.5: Ensure consistency between land use and transportation plans so that land use and adjacent transportation facilities are compatible. Planning Services Comment: The Growth Management Act requires consistency between land use and transportation planning. As noted, the Land Use Plan identifies the area of the rezone as SF-8 Single Family Residential. When developed in the future, a new development will include interconnected roadways and pedestrian facilities. The City's Public Works Department will identify specific improvements which will be necessary along the 94th Avenue South Street property frontage to serve future development of the property and accommodate the higher density permitted under this rezone. B. Standards and Criteria for Granting a Reauest for Rezone The following standards and criteria (Kent Zoning Code, Section 15.09.050) are used by the Hearing Examiner and City Council to evaluate a request for a rezone. Such an amendment shall only be granted if the City Council determines that the request is consistent with these standards and criteria. 1. The proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Services Comment The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designates the subject property as SF-8, Single Family Residential which allows up to eight units per acre. A rezone of the site from SR-4.5 Single Family Residential to SR-8 Single Family Residential will allow residential development up to eight units per acre, which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. As previously mentioned, the proposed rezone is also consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Page 7 of 9 Staff Report Devlin Rezone #RZ-2006-5 KIVA #202061680 2. The proposed rezone and subsequent development of the site would be compatible with development in the vicinity. Planning Services Comment The proposed rezone and subsequent development of the site would be compatible with the existing development in the vicinity. The subject property is surrounded to the north by single family homes on large lots which may have development potential. Properties to the south are part of the proposed Westview Malik subdivision and rezone. Subsequent development of the site will include single family, detached residential homes constructed on individual lots. 3. The proposed rezone will not unduly burden the transportation system in the vicinity of the property with significant adverse impacts which cannot be mitigated. Planning Services Comment A rezone of this property to SR-8, Single Family Residential, will not generate additional trips onto the existing transportation system. However, the associated short plat will add trips to the local street system. The short plat will be conditioned to include site, road and street frontage improvements to meet the City of Kent roadway standards. These improvements include but are not limited to curb, gutter, sidewalks, planting strips, street lighting, paving, necessary street improvements, and public stormwater conveyance. The applicant will be required to participate in other City transportation improvement projects by providing a mitigation fee for the impacts created by future development. 4. Circumstances have changed substantially since the establishment of the current zoning district to warrant the proposed rezone. Planning Services Comment The subject site was annexed to the City of Kent on April 21, 1987 and is developed with a single family home and a detached shed. The designation of the site as SF-8 in the City Comprehensive Plan dates back to the 1995 Comprehensive Plan Update. In 2004, the Kent City Council adopted an update to the Kent Comprehensive Plan which designates this area as SF-8, Single Family Residential. Along with the Land Use Plan Map and Policies, the plan also contains a target for the number of new households the City must accommodate for the 20-year time horizon of the plan. The GMA also states that the City's development regulations must implement, and be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Higher density Page 8 of 9 Staff Report Devlin Rezone #RZ-2006-5 KIVA #202061680 single family development with smaller lot sizes while recognizing significant environmental features is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Significant improvements to roadway infrastructure in the immediate area have been completed, which include a new signal at the intersection of 94th Avenue South and Canyon Drive and the addition of sidewalks and bike lanes along the south side of Canyon Drive In addition, the South 272nd/2771h Street Corridor located to the south of the site has been significantly completed. This corridor provides roadway connectivity from the East Hill area of Kent to the valley floor and provides direct freeway access for residents coming off the Kent East Hill. S. The proposed rezone will not adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Kent. PlannincrServices Comment The proposed rezone is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Subsequent development on the site will be required to meet applicable codes and regulations, including mitigation of anticipated environmental impacts. Therefore, the rezone proposal will not adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Kent. V. CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION Upon review of the merits of this request and the Code criteria for granting a rezone, the City staff recommends APPROVAL without conditions of the Devlin rezone. KENT PLANNING SERVICES July 12, 2006 LM•ch•5•\Permit\Plan\rezone\2006\2061680-2006-5report doc Page 9 of 9 t ICI Ln cao N Y N UJ ...:.- � I00 1 i -PLnV Yutwn�— I i .. aCQnl KENT CITY OF KENT W A b IINOTON DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Environmental Checklist No. #ENV-2006-25 Project: Devlin Rezone IKIVA #RPSA-2061679 Description: The applicant is requesting a Zoning Map Amendment (Rezone) for a .46-acre site. The site is currently zoned SR-4.5 Single Family Residential. The applicant has proposed a rezone to SR-8 Single Family Residential. The City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designates the property as SF-8, Single Family 8 Units/Acre. The applicant has also submitted a three lot short plat application for the site. Location: The subject property is located at 24123 94" Avenue South and is identified by King County tax parcel number 1922059192. Applicant: Colin Thorpe 12226 SE 178T" STREET Renton, WA 98058 Lead Agency City of Kent The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a 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 Determination of Nonsignificance is specifically conditioned on compliance with the conditions and mitigating measures described below. This information is available to the public on request. There is no comment period for this DNS. X This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2). The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 28 days from the date of this decision; this includes a 14-day comment period followed by a 14-day appeal period as provided by WAC 197 11680. Comments must be submitted by June 23, 2006. Responsible Official Kim Marousek, AICP Position/Title Principal Planner Address 220 S. Fourth Avenue, Kent, WA 98032 Telephone: (253) 856-5454 Dated June 9, 2006 Signature APPEAL PROCESS' AN APPEAL OF A DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS) MUST BE MADE TO THE KENT HEARING EXAMINER WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS FOLLOWING THE END OF THE COMMENT PERIOD PER KENT CITY CODE 1103 520. CONDITIONS: NONE CH S\Permit\Plan\Env\2006\2061679-2006-25dns doc Determination of Nonsignfcance Devlin Rezone #ENV-2006-251#2061679 CERTIFICATE OF POSTING I, Kim Marousek, Responsible Official under the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) Chapter 197-11-788 and 910, and Kent City Code Chapter 11.03 410 do hereby declare that the Determination of Nonsignificance, as described in this public notice, was duly posted on by a member of Kent Planning Services, on or near the site described therein. Kim Marousek, AICP, Responsible Official l� Page 2 of 2 Kent City Council Meeting Date November 21. 2006 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: CENTER FOR ADVANCED MANUFACTURING PUGET SOUND RESOLUTION— ADOPT 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: The proposed resolution directs the City of Kent and the Kent Chamber oCCommerce to follow the recommendations of the Center for Advanced Manufacturing Feasibility Study and Business Plan and move forward with the establishment of initial operations and market roll-out of the Center for Advanced Manufacturing Puget Sound ("CAMPS"), including the recruitment of its first Board of Directors and Executive Director. The existing pool of grant dollars and the balance of the City's existing pledge of$50,000 is available to assist in the funding of the start up of CAMPS. 3. EXHIBITS: Resolution 4. RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditure" Revenue? _ Currently in the Budget? Yes No If no. Unbudgeted Expense: Fund Amount $ Unbudgeted Revenue: Fund Amount $ 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember U01 moves, Councilmember seconds to adopt Resolution No. LjL directing the City of Kent and Kent Chamber of Commerce to move forward establishing Initial Operations & Market Roll-Out for the Center for Advanced Manufacturing Puget Sound. DISCUSSION: Jnn ACTION: Council Agenda IItem No 7C RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the city council of the city of Kent, Washington, relating to a proposed Center for Advanced Manufacturing. RECITALS A. The Kent City Council passed Resolution 1656 on October 7, 2003, adopting the City's 2003-2008 Economic Development Strategic Plan. The Plan was developed over an 18 month process, which included input from numerous community stakeholders, including the Kent Chamber of Commerce and area business leaders. B. The Economic Development Strategic Plan calls for the creation of a Center for Advanced Manufacturing ("CAM") as a priority action strategy. Over 67,000 people are employed in manufacturing in South King County alone. Kent area manufacturers see the need for such a center as essential to compete in the global marketplace. Historically many small and medium sized Kent area manufacturers have not had the resources to invest directly in innovation and research and development. C. The manufacturers identified three potential focuses of the CAM: 1) technology transfer, or developing new product ideas and delivering them to the marketplace; 2) a clearinghouse to locate best practices information and dissemination of national research; and 3) training, curriculum, and course resources to develop skilled workers, with a focus on quality efficiency practices. D. The city and the Kent Chamber received more than $650,000 in grant resources from the Federal Economic Development Administration, the State of Washington, the city of Kent, the Port of Seattle, and the manufacturers and 1 Center for Advanced Manufacturing- Establish Initial Operations&Market Roll-Out other businesses. On October 4, 2005, the Kent City Council approved a sub- grantee agreement with the Kent Chamber of Commerce to manage the CAM project, stating that the use of the Kent Chamber's capabilities, knowledge, and services as a sub-recipient of the EDA Grant, State of Washington grant, and city funds would be the best means of managing this project. E. In August 2005, the Kent Chamber of Commerce created a CAM Advisory Group to guide the CAM process in writing a Request for Proposal, selecting a consultant, and recommending future steps. The Advisory Council is made up of manufacturers, the funders of the project, and community stakeholders. F. In September 2005, the Kent Chamber of Commerce issued a Request for Proposal to evaluate the feasibility of creating a Kent-based CAM and to determine which existing manufacturing subsector(s) or core competency(s) or emerging opportunity(s) offer the greatest potential for growth and innovation over 10 to 15 years. G. In November 2005, the Kent Chamber of Commerce hired the consultant team of Hebert Research (of Bellevue, Washington), SRI International, and Georgia Institute of Technology to complete the feasibility analysis. H. In April 2006, the consultant team completed the feasibility analysis for the project, including nearly 700 local manufacturing firms in a combination of focus groups, direct telephone surveys, and one-on-one interviews. The survey provided statistically valid and conclusive evidence that out of the 3,000 manufacturers in the Puget Sound area, a high proportion, over 850, is expected to have strong demand for the CAM and its services. I. The consultant team recommended that the Kent Chamber and the city of Kent move forward with the proposal to create a CAM and conduct Phase II work on a detailed business plan for the CAM. The feasibility study found that sufficient demand was demonstrated for the CAM across the Puget Sound Region in the focus groups and survey. The study also concluded that there is a gap 2 Center for Advanced Manufacturing- Establish Initial Operations&Market Roll-Out between the manufacturing services currently being provided in the marketplace and the interests and demands of manufacturers, particularly in the "value added" areas of innovation and supply chain linkages, and in efforts to promote local networking and collaborative learning. The study recommended that the CAM could fill this gap with a range of new services that are not provided by other institutions (e.g , the Washington Manufacturing Services and the Washington Technology Center). The study recommended that the CAM should have a broad manufacturing industry base, while concentrating in aerospace, IT, and life science and health product manufacturing. Finally, the study recommended that while demand and access for the CAM is and would be regional, that the CAM be located in Kent, I In April 2006, the city council passed Resolution No. 1719 which directed the city and the Kent Chamber of Commerce to follow the recommendation of the Center for Advanced Manufacturing Feasibility Study and move forward with the proposal to create a CAM and conduct Phase II work on a detailed business plan for the CAM using the existing pool of grant dollars. K. In April 2006, the Kent Chamber of Commerce hired the Baldwin Resource Group to develop a business plan for the CAM, which was completed in August 2006. L. Based on the results of the feasibility analysis, the business plan recommends a name change to reflect the expanded geographic scope (Center for Advanced Manufacturing Puget Sound ("CAMPS")), and a financing plan based primarily on revenue from paid programs and services directly related to its primary mission and supplemented by grant funding. These offerings would include: 1. Interest-specific CEO Councils -- senior management networking programs that will build demand and awareness of important opportunities for innovation, regional business development, and supply chain relationships. 3 Center for Advanced Manufacturing- Establish Initial Operations&Market Roll-Out 2. Business development - efforts to help match buyers and suppliers - local networking and business matchmaking designed to help companies meet requirements and contract with large Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) and their major suppliers. 3. Innovation services - hosting events and making connections with commerce ready licensing opportunities to stimulate the development and adoption of emerging technologies and practices. 4. Best practices in manufacturing, new product development and logistics - brokered professional consulting services offer through a network of independent experts carefully selected by CAMPS. There are a number of for- profit and not-for-profit consultant organizations in Puget Sound that can be represented as their broker to facilitate this offering. 5. Information clearinghouse - on line knowledge base of best i practices, technologies, relevant industry research, hiring and retention strategies, regulations etc. This data base will be customized to the needs of local manufacturers. M. The business plan recommends management of the CAMPS be led by an Executive Director with prior involvement in manufacturing, leadership skills to move she organization through the start-up phase, presentation skills necessary to promote the CAMPS throughout the region, and collaboration skills to develop and nurture strategic partnerships. The plan calls for the formal search for the Director to begin upon obtaining the firm financial commitments needed to attract the best talent available to the program. N. Based on the business plan, the Kent Chamber of Commerce recommends a first year budget of $600,000 to fund the startup of CAMPS, including the formation of a Board of Directors, hiring of the Executive Director, hiring of a research assistant, development of a successful member marketing and recruitment campaign, and provision of an initial range of services. 4 Center for Advanced Manufacturing- Establish Initial Operations&Market Roll-Out NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: RESOLUTION SECTION 1. - Recommendation. The city council directs the city of Kent and the Kent Chamber of Commerce to follow the recommendations of the Center for Advanced Manufacturing Feasibility Study and Business Plan and move forward with the establishment of initial operations and market roll-out of the Center for Advanced Manufacturing Puget Sound ("CAMPS"), including the recruitment of its first Board of Directors and Executive Director. The existing pool of grant dollars and the balance of the aty's existing pledge of $50,000 is available to assist in the funding of the start up of CAMPS. SECTION 2. - Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution is declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this resolution. SECTION 3. - Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this resolution is ratified and affirmed. SECTION 4. - Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect and be in force immediately upon its passage. PASSED at a regular open public meeting by the city council of the city of Kent, Washington, this day of , 2006. CONCURRED in by the mayor of the city of Kent this day of 2006. SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR 5 Center for Advanced Manufacturing- Establish Initial Operations&Market Roll-Out ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. passed by the city council of the city of Kent, Washington, the day of , 2006. BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK n WWilI sdubon\Cena AdvmeUManWa'.Lxlrg<a dnmmbalOp da 6 Center for Advanced Manufacturing- Establish Initial Operations&Market Roll-Out REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES AND STAFF A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT B. MAYOR 11AU� C. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE D. PARKS AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE E. PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE F. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEES n` EG PUBLIC WORKS L— S H. ADMINISTRATION_ YN-Q� --7 3t) REPORTS FROM SPECIAL COMMITTEE, �, C� -P KENT ' WASHINOTON OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES ' OCTOBER 17, 2006 Committee Members Present: Tim Clark, Chair, Debbie Raplee, and Elizabeth Watson (in place for Deborah Ranniger) The meeting was called to order by Tim Clark, Chair at 4:05 p.m. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES DATED AUGUST 15, 2006 Debbie Raplee moved to approve the minutes of the August 15, 2006, Operation LCommittee meeting. Elizabeth Watson seconded the motion, which passed 3-0. 2. APPROVAL OF VOUCHERS DATED AUGUST 15, 2006, AUGUST 31, 2006, SEPTEMBER 15, 2006, SEPTEMBER 30, 2006, AND OCTOBER 13, 2006 Finance Director Robert Nachlinger presented the vouchers for August 15, 2006, August 31, 2005, September 15, 2006, September 30, 2006, and October 13, 2006, for approval. Debbie Raplee moved to approve the vouchers dated August 15, 2006, August 31, 2006, September 15, 2006, September 30, 2006, and October 13, 2006. Elizabeth Watson seconded the motion, which passed 3-0. 3. STREET CONFORMITY TASK FORCE ' Operations Committee Chair Tim Clark spoke regarding his desire to create a Street Conformity Task Force. Chief Administrative Officer John Hodgson and Public Works Director Larry Blanchard discussed creating a plan into the Public Works 2007 Work Plan to work with Police, Fire, Chamber, etc. to evaluate and consider the number of inconsistencies of street names within the Valley Floor and work to provide a proposal to resolve those street name inconsistencies This agenda item for was informational and discussion purposes only and no action was taken. ' The meeting was adjourned at 4:24 p.m. Renee Cameron Operations Committee Secretary ' 1 ' Parks and Human Services Committee Meeting Minutes ' October 19, 2006 Council members present: Debbie Raplee, Bob O'Brien, Elizabeth Watson attended the meeting in Deborah Ranniger's absence The Kent City Council Parks and Human Services Committee meeting was called to order by Debbie Raplee at 5:12 p m. Added Items: ' 1. Meeting_Minutes of September 21, 2006 - Accept Bob O'Brien moved to accept the meeting minutes of September 21, 2006. Elizabeth ' Watson seconded and the motion carried 3-0. 2. 2007 Washington State Arts Commission Organization Support Grant - Accept and ' Amend Budget Cultural staff applies every two years for the Washington State Arts Commission (WSAC) Organizational Support Grant. This year the Kent Arts Commission was awarded a general operating support grant in the amount of $6,000.00. The Kent Arts Commission will use the funding to support the presentation of arts and cultural activities at the 2007 Cornucopia Days, specifically the main stage, the children's stage, the fine arts show and ' the fine crafts booths. Elizabeth Watson moved to recommend accepting the $6,000.00 grant from the Washington State Arts Commission for 2007 Cornucopia Days and amending the Kent Arts Commission's budget accordingly. Bob O'Brien seconded and the motion carried 3-0. 3. 2007 Community Development Block Grant Action Plan and Funding Allocations - Authorize ' Each year the proposed 2007 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)Action Plan for the City of Kent requires Council approval. The $800,000.00 is an estimate based on the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 2005 budget. This may increase or t decrease due to changes in the appropriation by Congress. Because the amount of money Kent may receive could increase or decrease depending upon the final federal appropriations bill passed by Congress, the recommended funding includes a ' contingency plan, which covers any decrease. The 2007 Action Plan is required by HUD and identifies the strategies and goals the City will focus on in 2007. ' A description of each program is included in the Action Plan for your review. As in past years, a major portion of the CDBG funds is recommended to support the City's Home Repair Program which continues to serve many low-income, disabled and senior ' homeowners in Kent by providing needed repairs. The program also guarantees that some of Kent's low/moderate-income housing stock is maintained and preserved. Housing and Human Services Manager Katherin Johnson explained that CDBG funding has been available for 30 years and started out as the Revenue Sharing Program. This program has allowed Kent to complete many impressive projects in Kent, such as ' remodeling the Kent Commons building, four Kiwanis Tot Lots, many public services through the Home Repair Program and many remodels of non-profit buildings. Elizabeth ' Watson thanked fellow Human Services Board members for their diligence and use of personal time to make decisions for funding proposed programs. Bob O'Brien moved to recommend approving the proposed 2007 Community Development Block Grant Action Plan, including funding allocations and contingency plans, and authorizing the Mayor to execute the appropriate certifications and agreements. Elizabeth Watson seconded and the motion carried 3-0. 4. 2006 Third Quarter Fee-in-Lieu Funds - Accept and Amend Budget Between July and September 2006, the City of Kent received a total of$32,475.00 from two developers who voluntarily paid fees, in lieu of dedicating park land to mitigate the development of single family homes in two subdivision. MacFarlane Homes LLC paid $18,900.00 for Falkner Short Plat development and Crescent Construction paid $13,575 for Scarsella Short Plat. ' Ordinance 2975 requires developers to dedicate park and open space land in proximity to new construction sites or to pay "fee-m-heu" funds. The fee is based on assessed land values. Elizabeth Watson moved to recommend accepting $32,475.00 in fee-in-lieu ' funds from MacFarlane Homes LLC and Crescent Construction, and authorizing the expenditure of funds in the East Hill Skate Park and Garrison Creek Park budgets. Bob O'Brien seconded and the motion carried 3-0. ' 5. What's Happening This Month - Informational Date From To Event ' 10/28 8:30 a.m. 12:00 p.m. Make-A-Difference Day, Three-Friends Fishing Hole 10/28 10:00 a.m. 3:00 p.m. Human Services "Your Family's Money" Senior Center ' 10/28 3:00 p.m. 6:00 p.m. Kid's Halloween Party, Kent Commons, Pre - 5th 11/3 10:00 a.m. 6:00 p.m. Holiday Craft Fair, Senior Center 11/4 9:00 a.m. 4:00 p.m. Holiday Craft Fair, Senior Center ' 11/4 9:00 a.m. 1:00 P.M. Service Club Ballfields Dedication 11/8 6:30 p.m. close Public Meeting for 132nd Ave. Neighborhood - ' Conceptual Design, Meridian Elementary The meeting adjourned at 5:45 p.m. , Respectfully submitted by, Teri Petrole, ' Parks and Human Services Committee Secretary 1 ' PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES OCTOBER 16, 2006 Committee Members: Chair Ron Harmon, Tim Clark, Elizabeth Watson. The meeting was called to order by Chair Harmon at 4:00 p.m. Approval of Minutes: ' Clark MOVED and Watson SECONDED a MOTION to APPROVE the minutes of August 21, 2006. Motion PASSED 3-0. ' Muth Amendment Principal Planner Kim Marousek recapped the history of the Muth Amendment. She stated that an application was filed in 2004 to amend the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map ' designations on the Muth property from AG-R Agricultural Resource Land/A-10 Agricultural 1 unit/10 acres to US (Urban Separator)/SR-1 Single Family Residential 1 unit/acre. ' Ms. Marousek stated that the property consists of two tax parcels totaling 15.35 acres and is located at the southeast corner of S 212th Street and 42"d Avenue S (21320 — 42"d Avenue South) to allow for development of a regional stormwater retention facility along with the wetland and stream restoration plans that the City has, to include relocating a creek that runs ' along 42"d, using this property to bring it through. Ms. Marousek stated that the applications were considered in a public hearing before the Land Use and Planning Board on September 25, 2006. The LUPB recommended approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan and Zoning map amendments of US/SR-1. Ms. Marousek stated that Kent City Council passed an emergency resolution on May 2, 2006 authorizing staff to process this proposed revision to the Comprehensive Plan outside the annual amendment process. Richard Rawlings, Polygon NW Company, 11624 SE Sth Street, Bellevue, WA stated that there is an existing signal at 42"d and there is a new arterial to be constructed between ' 2121h and 216th east of the existing signal and east of the Muth property with the signal to be located on 212th. He stated that any scenario with the two intersections will not impact the Muth property. Clark MOVED and Watson SECONDED a MOTION to APPROVE the recommendations of the Land Use and Planning Board with regard to the Muth Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map tAmendments. Motion PASSED 3-0. Code Enforcement Update ' Community Development Director Fred Satterstrom and Budding Official, Bob Hutchinson (who supervises and oversees the Code Enforcement Program), gave a presentation on Kent's Code Enforcement Program. Mr. Satterstrom stated that code enforcement was carried out on a part time basis prior to the hiring of its first full time code enforcement officer in 1994 with a second officer hired in June 2006. ' Mr. Hutchinson stated that the scope of the code enforcement program is generally a civil process and is comprised of three main areas: 1) budding, housing, dangerous buildings, plumbing and mechanical codes. 2) Zoning Code provisions such as home occupations and ' inoperable vehicles. 3) public nuisances that would include accumulations of garbage and litter, noise control, and junk vehicles. PEDC Meeting 10/16/06 Page 1 of 3 2, Mr. Hutchinson described the objectives and parameters of the program. He explained how the ' city receives complaints, described the City's automated logging system, described the code violation notification process and attempts to obtain compliance, and described how the Hearing Examiner process works and how he has the authority to levy penalty fines. Mr. Hutchinson stated that upon completion of the Hearing Examiner process, if compliance is not achieved, the violation is referred to the City Attorney's office to commence action for the ' collection of penalties. He stated that this may involve seeking a court order to allow the city to proceed to abate the violation if it is something that is a serious hazard to the community. Mr. Hutchinson stated that with a staff of two code enforcement officers along with the part- time assistance of other city staff to complete the information processing, we are closing a little over 50 cases per month, with typically 100 active cases open at any one time. He stated that ' up to 99% of the cases are closed without having to take them to the Hearing Examiner. Member Watson stated that since the City passed an ordinance excluding commercial trucks in , residential neighborhoods she has received emails from citizens inquiring about the effectiveness. She requested an update of code enforcement activities in that regard Mr. Hutchinson stated that the ordinance went into effect October 9, 2006 and primarily clarified ' provisions already existing in the zoning code. He stated that it is too early to evaluate the effectiveness of the recently enacted ordinance. Mr. Hutchinson affirmed that the city has received increased reports of violation of this ' ordinance due to the publicity this issue garnered and staff will accommodate those reports along with the other 100 or so active cases being addressed. He stated that staff feels that once trucks are moved off of residential sites, those sites will be in compliance, but that those ' sites will need to be monitored sporadically for some time to make sure that the land use remains in compliance. Mr. Hutchinson stated that the strategy employed by staff to ensure compliance is simply to be tenacious and follow through on these issues. He stated that we are aware of the high visibility of this particular issue in the community and this is something that staff will pay particular , attention to over the next several months. Chair Harmon asked Mr. Hutchinson to bring an update to the Planning and Economic ' Development Committee in February 2007. Hearing Examiner Process Update ' Planning Manager Charlene Anderson described the tentative schedule of Hearing Examiner meetings for specific types of projects such as preliminary plat applications, Planned Unit Developments (PUD's) or rezones. The Hearing Examiner's schedule shows which projects are , on hold or pending with issues to be resolved before they can be taken to hearing. Ms. Anderson stated that she calculated the number of plats and acres involved for projects ' currently on the Hearing Examiner's list = 557 new lots, consisting of 133 acres with a gross density of 4.2 dwelling units per acre. Ms. Anderson stated that she completed some calculations from the 2003, 2004 and 2005 , Buildable Lands Reports, finding that the City approved 139 lots city-wide, with a gross density of 3.75 lots per acre in 2003, 208 lots with a gross density of 3 55 lots per acre in 2004, and 256 lots with a gross density of 3.09 in 2005, indicating a decrease in gross density over those PEDC-Minutes ' October 16, 2006 Page 2 of 3 3 years. Ms. Anderson stated that she suspects that the decrease in gross density relates to storm drainage requirements and sensitive areas Ms. Anderson stated that city-wide nd densities have also decreased; citing 6.37 lots per acre for 2003, 6.49 lots per acre for 2004, and 6.19 lots per acre in 2005. ' Ms. Anderson stated that her calculations for net lots per acre in the SR-4.5 zoning district indicated 5.63 net lots per acre in 2003, 1.3 net lots per acre in 2004, and 5.03 net lots per acre in 2005. She stated that her calculations for gross lots per acre in the SR-4 5 zoning district indicated 4 3 lots in 2003, 1.3 lots in 2004, and 4.5 lots in 2005. ' Ms. Anderson stated that in the SR-6 zoning district the achieved gross lots per acre have similarly decreased from 4.69 lots per acre in 2003 to 3.82 lots per acre in 2005. The lots achieved per net acre have increased from 6.98 in 2003 to 7.58 in 2005. ' Ms. Anderson stated that the City provides the Office of Financial Management with yearly population estimates. She stated that the statistics are obtained through single family housing ' permits issued and completed, citing 253 actual completed single family houses in 2006. In response to Harmon, Ms. Anderson stated that our housing target is just over 4,000 and we are at about 73% of goal. Ms. Anderson spoke about growth targets and capacity, stating the City plans for build-out per its comprehensive plan but participates regionally to ascertain whether the regional plans provide for capacity to meet regional targets without expanding growth into rural areas. 2006 Annual Docket Update Ms. Anderson stated that the Land Use and Planning Board will hold a public hearing on Monday, October 23rd and will bring their recommendation before this Committee in November. Ms. Anderson presented 7 docket proposals of which two are carried over from last year. ' Ms. Anderson stated that one of the new docket items will look at single family zoning land use consistency for areas zoned 4.5 with a Comprehensive Plan Designation of SF-6, affecting 4165 parcels on over 1800 acres. Anderson stated that there will be a public outreach effort ' involving several community meetings and she believes this will go before the City Council by March or April 2007 with Harmon questioning if this could be incorporated with the neighborhood program study. Ms Anderson stated that staff considered this and discarded the ' idea, as the development standards options were unfolding and being seen as separate and distinct issues. ' Adjournment Chair Harmon adjourned the meeting at 4:55 p.m. ' Pamela Mottram ' Admin Secretary, Planning Services S 1P WNPlm\Vlar"ng Comnit0ee120061MimitesU01606PEDCmm doc ' PEDC-Minutes October 16, 2006 Page 3 of 3 i Z KENT CITY OF KENT ' PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES October 10,2006 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Bob O'Brien,Les Thomas, and Ron Harmon, Chair • The meeting was called to order by Chair Ron Harmon at 5 00 PM. • Les Thomas's absence was excused Elizabeth Watson was unable to attend in his place but gave Chair Harmon her concurrence on the agenda's action items • Chair Harmon called for additions and Chief Schneider asked to add one informational item ' 1. Approval of Minutes Bob O'Brien moved to approve the minutes of the September 12, 2006 meeting. ' The motion was seconded by Ron Harmon and passed 3-0,with E. Watson's concurrence. 2. Purchase of one Fire Engineer Pump Training Simulator—AUTHORIZE Fite Chief Jim Schneider explained how the pump training equipment would be utilized Bob O'Brien moved to recommend Council authorize the Mayor to sign a contract (after review and approval by the City Attorney) with Fire Department Training Systems for the purchase of a Fire Engineer Pump Training Simulator. The motion was seconded by Ron Harmon and passed 3-0,with E. Watson's concurrence. 3. Use of Lock Boxes and Emergency Medical Information Sheet(EMIS)—INFO ONLY Chief Schneider and Captain Kyle Ohaski reviewed the use of lock boxes and the EMIS Committee members thanked them for the information 4. Kent School District Liaison Officer Agreement for 2006-2007-AUTHORIZE Police Chief Steve Strachan explained the purpose of the agreement Bob O'Brien moved to recommend that Council authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement between the Kent School District and the City of Kent to provide a school liaison officer from September 1, 2006 through August 31, 2007, pending review and approval by the City Attorney. The motion was seconded by Ron Harmon and passed 3-0,with E. Watson's concurrence. 5. Kent Police Strategic Plan Update—INFO ONLY Chief Strachan stated the Department has formed an ad-hoc committee to work on updating the Department's Strategic Plan and Mission Statement 6. Kent Police Patrol Emphasis Update—INFO ONLY 1 Chief Strachan reviewed the continuing emphasis on graffiti removal throughout the City and recent prostitution stings on Pacific Highway South Chief Strachan also notified the Committee that recently retired Kent Police Sergeant Les Wong passed away on October 6, 2006 r Addition to the Agenda: 7. "Anatomy of a Kent Fire Department Response to a Residential Structure Fire"—INFO ONLY Chief Jim Schneider distributed booklets to the Committee members and stated the Department is developing a DVD which will be available next spring on the Fire Department's websitc The meeting adjourned at 5:50 PM. Jo Thompson Public Safety Committee Secretary , t 1 Public Safety Committee Minutes 2. ' October 10,2006 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MINUTES ' October 16, 2006 ' COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Committee Chair Debbie Raplee and Committee Member Ron Harmon and Tim Clark were present. The meeting was called to order at 5:04 p m. ' ITEM 1- Approval of Minutes Dated September 18, 2006 Committee Member Harmon moved to approve the minutes of September 18, 2006 The motion was seconded by Clark and passed 3-0. ITEM 2 - Robinson & Noble/Water-Contract Brad Lake, Water Superintendent stated that as part of WAC 246-290-100, and 246-290-135, Group A Community Water Systems are required to complete a water source analysis and reliability study (every 6 years) as part of the water system comprehensive plan. The next City of Kent Water System Plan is due in 2008, and will complete a study of Kent's Aquifers that began back in 1993. Clark recommends Council authorize the Mayor to sign Source Water Availability and Hydrologic Analysis agreement between the city of Kent and Robinson-Noble & Saltbush, Inc. for an amount not to exceed Two Hundred Seven Thousand, One Hundred Ninety Three Dollars ($207,193.00). The motion was seconded by Harmon and passed 3-0. ITEM 3 — Interlocal Agreement for Water Resource Inventory Area 8 (WRIA 8) Mike Mactutis, Environmental Engineering Manager, gave a brief overview of (WRIA) and the benefits of being a partner. The City of Kent entered an Interlocal Agreement (ILA) for participation in WRIA 8 in 2001. The agreement remained in effect for an initial term of five (5) years and was extended for one year. The City of Kent wishes to enter a new ILA through December 21, 2015. ' Harmon moved to recommend City Council authorization for the Mayor to sign an Interlocal agreement (ILA) for the Watershed Basins within Water Resource Inventory ' Area 8 (WRIA) 8. The motion was seconded by Clark and passed 3-0. ITEM 4 - Water Resource Inventory Area 9 Interlocal Agreement Mike Mactutis, Environmental Engineering Manager, gave a brief overview of (WRIA) 9. He further summarized that the City of Kent entered an Interlocal Agreement (ILA) for participation in (WRIA) 9 on December 18, 2000. The agreement remained in effect for an initial term of five (5) years ' and was extended for one year through 2006. The City of Kent wishes to enter a new ILA through December 31, 2015. I Clark moved to recommend to City Council authorization for the Mayor to sign an Interlocal Agreement (ILA) for the Green River, Duwamish River, and Central Puget Sound Watersheds within the geographic planning area of Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA 9) (which includes portions of Water Resource Inventory Areas 8, 10 and ' 15. The motion was seconded by Harmon and passed 3-0. 1 ITEM 5 —Vacation of Alley in Block 3 of Washington Central Improvement Company Knob Hill Addition to Kent: Gary Gill, City Engineer summarized that a small alley off of Scenic Hill is being requested to be vacated and are asking that a public hearing be set. ' Page 1 of 3 P\Public\AdmmSuppottlPWCommi ee Mmmm doc i PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MINUTES October 16, 2006 ' Harmon moved to recommend Council adoption of a resolution setting a public hearing date for the alley vacation located of the south 120 feet of the alley in Block 3, Washing ton Central Improvement Company Knob Hill Addition to Kent. The motion was seconded , by Clark and passed 3-0. ITEM 6 —Street Vacation, 138th Place SE , Gary Gill, City Engineer summarized that Pinnacle at Meridian LLC., a developer, is seeking vacation of a stub portion of 138"' PI SE in conjunction with a short plat application. Clark moved to recommend Council adoption of a resolution setting a public hearing date for the Street vacation of a portion of 138th Place SE. The motion was seconded by Harmon and passed 3-0. ITEM 7 — Street Sweeping — Change Order , Bill Thomas, Street Superintendent gave a brief background history, he stated that due to added fuel costs and disposal fees the cost of doing business is rising. The 2% increase to the monthly lump sum, will have no Unbudgeted Fiscal Impact to the budget, as the funding, $173,260.38 will ' come from the 2007 operating budget. A brief discussion ensued regarding fuel charges and the idea of going out to bid. Thomas believes that it would be more cost effective to do the change order. Raplee asked if the fluctuating fuel charges could be looked at separately. Blanchard will look into doing that in next year's contract. ' Harmon moved to recommend authorizing the Mayor to sign the Change Order No. 5 with McDonough & Sons, Inc. for a 2% increase in the monthly lump sum for the street ' sweeping contract, upon the concurrence of the language therein by the City Attorney and the Public Works Director. The motion was seconded by Clark and passed 3-0. Item 8 - Information Only/Update 282nd Street South Ridge Neighborhood Meeting Larry Blanchard, Public Works Director reminded committee members that the 282nd Street, South , Ridge Neighborhood meeting will take place on Wednesday, October 25, 2006 at 6:00 p m. at Horizon Elementary School in the Multipurpose Room 27641 144th Ave SE, Kent WA 98042. Parking will be discussed. We will be taking input from the meeting and bringing it back to the , Public Works Committee at a later date. No Motion Required/Information Only Item 9 - information Only/How Well is Public Works Performing/Customer Input/Storm & Sewer Infrastructure ' Larry Blanchard, Public Works Director, gave an informational PowerPoint presentation on "How Well is Public Works Performing/Customer Input." He went over quality performance and what that looks like. He said the goal of Public Works Operations is to respond in some way to customers within 24 hours. He asked that committee members contact Cheryl, Larry or Margaret at x5500 if they have further questions to add to the survey. P\P.LkOAdmmS.ppo %PWCo.dtc6%m dm , Page 2 of 3 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MINUTES ' October 16r 2006 Item 9 Continued - Information Only/How Well is Public Works Performing/Customer ' Input/Vegetation Scott Schroeder, Vegetation Management Field Supervisor, gave a brief PowerPoint presentation on "How Well is Public Works Performing/Customer Input " He went over quality performance and ' what that looks Schroeder reiterated what Blanchard said regarding turnaround time for complaints being 24hrs. He went over how many millions of miles of vegetation they are responsible for, how many employees are responsible for maintenance of vegetation and went over 1 a list of projects they are working on. He asked committee members to contact Cheryl, Larry or Margaret at x5500 if they have further questions to add to the survey. Raplee said that she has gotten a lot of great compliments on the downtown planters. ITEM 10 — Information Only/Responsibility in Decision Making Larry Blanchard, Public Works Director, stated that all decisions made by the Public Works Committee, City Council, and Administration of these decisions are mandated through some Federal, State, County, or Local Code. Staff will continue to work on a Table that identifies these codes and when issues need to be presented to the Public Works Committee and the City Council. This update will provide the most recent information through 2007. He will come back sometime ' early next year with the completed table No Motion Required/Information Only ' ADDED ITEM - UPDATES: Rock Creek Bridge, establishing weight limits. A consultant was hired to provide the final weight limit for the road; we expect to hear back from them within the next 30 days. Once we receive the road weight limit report the final recommendation will be brought back to the Public Works Committee for review and recommendation to the City Council Staff will continue to work with the gravel companies on this matter. 114`h/2715r Speed Study/Speed Humps — The speed studies have been conducted. Due to the high cost of installing temporary speed humps, Blanchard said it would be more cost effective to install ' permanent humps and take them out if need be Notice will be sent out to all residents as to where they will be installed before hand. The exact locations have not been finalized to date. Public Comment: Mel Roberts, member of the Kent Bicycle Advisory Board (personal comment). He had questions about the proposed trail at Grandview Park. Noting that sections of the trail has a grade too steep for cyclists. Gary Gill, City Engineer said that the Polygon Northwest Company did the best they I could given the extreme grades of the hillside. It was also noted that the trail is not an exclusive bicycle facility and was not designed to accommodate bicycles only. The SEPA conditions for the Kentview PUD required the developer to provide a pedestrian and bicycle connection/path between ' Grandview Park and the Green River. Staff will look at this area to see if there is room to lessen the grade. Adjourned: ' The meeting was adjourned at 6:20 p.m. Next Meeting Scheduled for: 1 Monday, November 6, 2006, 5:00 p.m. Chery iseth, 1 Administrative Assistant III ' P\PubhclAdoon$upwaTWCommiUte\Mmuis doe Page 3 of 3 CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS I A. I EXECUTIVE S SION ACTION AFTER EXECUTIVE SESSION f G�V V I