Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
City Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 11/15/2011
CITY OF KENT City Council Meeting Agenda November 15, 2011 Mayor Suzette Cooke ��� Jamie Perry,Council President ( Iv 'p k C®uncilmembers Elizabeth Albertson b Ron Harmon Dennis Higgins Deborah Ranniger Debbie Raplee Les-1homas crry CLERK KENT CITY COUNCIL AGENDAS November 15, 2011 KENT Council Chambers WA H I N �N MAYOR: Suzette Cooke COUNCILMEMBERS: Jamie Perry, President Elizabeth Albertson Ron Harmon Dennis Higgins Deborah Ranniger Debbie Raplee Les Thomas ********************************************************************** COUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDA 5:30 p.m. Item Description Speaker Time 1. Intergovernmental Issues Michelle Wilmot 10 minutes 2. Animal Control Update Jeff Watling & John Hodgson 30 minutes ********************************************************************** COUNCIL 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. Green Kent Award D. Kent Parks Foundation Donation 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 2012 Annual Budget (second hearing) B. 2012-2017 Capital Improvement Plan (second hearing) and Comprehensive Plan Amendments C. Kent Comprehensive Plan and Amendments to Kent City Code Chapter 12.13 re School Impact Fees D. 2011 Tax Levy for 2012 Budget 6. PUBLIC COMMENT 7. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of Previous Meeting and Workshop — Approve B. Payment of Bills — Approve (Continued) COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA CONTINUED C. Pawnbrokers Ordinance — Adopt D. Bulletproof Vest Partnership Award — Authorize E. Bureau of Justice Assistance Grant — Authorize F. Washington Traffic Safety Commission Grant for DUI and Seat Belt Enforcement — Authorize G. Washington Traffic Safety Commission Grant for Traffic Safety Patrols — Authorize H. Public Safety Testing Agreement — Authorize I. Pace Engineer/640 Pressure Zone Analysis Agreement — Authorize J. Systems Interface/Guiberson Corrosion Control Agreement — Authorize K. King Conservation District Grant/Downey Farmstead Restoration Design — Authorize L. Boeing Levee Project, Amendment No. 2/Tetra Tech, CLOMR Review — Authorize M. Boeing Levee Project, Amendment/GEI, Peer Review — Authorize N. SR 516 & 231" Way Levee, Amendment/GEI, FEMA Accreditation Support — Authorize 0. SR 516 & 231" Way Levee, Amendment/NHC, CLOMR Review — Authorize P. SR 516 & 231" Way Levee, Amendment/Tetra Tech, FEMA Accreditation and Peer Review — Authorize Q. Briscoe/Desimone Levee, Amendment/Geo Engineers, Analysis & Certification — Authorize R. Briscoe/Desimone Levee, Amendment/NHC, CLOMR Review — Authorize S. Briscoe/Desimone Levee, Amendment/GEI, CLOMR Peer Review — Authorize T. Horseshoe Bend Levee, Contract/NHC, CLOMR Review — Authorize U. Horseshoe Bend Levee, Contract/Tetra Tech, CLOMR Review & Stability Analysis — Authorize V. Horseshoe Bend Levee, Contract GeoEngineers Additional Geotechnical Analysis — Authorize W. Lower/Lowest Russell Road Levee, Amendment/NHC, CLOMR Review Response — Authorize X. Lower/Lowest Russell Road Levee, Amendment/Tetra Tech, FEMA Accreditation & Peer Review — Authorize Y. Hawley Road Levee, Contract/NHC, CLOMR Review — Authorize Z. Hawley Road Levee, Contract Amendment Tetra Tech FEMA Accreditation Peer Review — Authorize AA. Hawley Road Levee, Contract GeoEngineers Additional Geotechnical Analysis — Authorize BB. Kent SODO Neighborhood Council Resolution — Adopt CC. Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program — Set Public Hearing Date 8. OTHER BUSINESS A. Municipal Court Judge Confirmation 9. BIDS (Continued) COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA CONTINUED 10. REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES, STAFF AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES 11. EXECUTIVE SESSION AND ACTION AFTER EXECUTIVE SESSION 12. ADJOURNMENT NOTE: A copy of the full agenda packet is available for perusal in the City Clerk's Office and the Kent Regional Library. The Agenda Summary page and complete packet are on the City of Kent web site at www.KentWa.gov. 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. a � cE c d e >f c c''oo� t OU v CD N y C y t'J Y M N N W U S J C C N= y p m N v, e.N-, e� m `dm ms�� q enm po « vv `m•_ vE v+U LodEvi vD U` i O� - m �S cD— pa Ca GG�pTU .T U yU O O m c O O E cs oS a av Eu i mnT� «-� n RNos m °u L-o z vU"; E ¢� • ,'=��a c >. T� ouo m� uoa � `o no � L'Lv, Jm � v a b= vi s •� °p o.mc vE ' 2y OTD v m > V � o'oGo3y= « m J 00: :' v m y m'3._ v•� n-m °'� � E � m v-o- nn c n • v p u c v�a�F am E c0 ao ° °v � '" E� c J Y O E c yvuEJ cE� EN ;g'co � Ec J Y M 7 pp O t p l7 0 p J G O N O C O L +N._ c _ a« a TU m n D m'c c U E v o N D ro UA v� v o r c'CCw o J E v Z N `v S aT. fC C C O m Y 0< C > O 6 U O v v m o EuJ °am" s-O 4- E v'u-ps YEm mEU F. a? v C � oU Oy2 �-"uYE E ovdQ w. , 3o;F smm .. mov od. a maa m u w c E o o i U s o E o m �U °Y r ' uN.cUcdo uv�,� o3v._ vV >: O � UE m um 00 r'.�, EOO KrJro o N u O v E vN EY ., mE E �r'a �s Ems,._ �n `m��n � Em EV oN 4ta vL ��wwy V mto 9� Eo ° v om ,� v mr ? yUriO o.c� m 2 y ions 0 Ocm-v = m ; � oEL m3� s�oo� Eu sir., `Q Una c `vom oU m c `1 T �� m JOo Dim ro E `gym a ucm-cK �a2 v9 3Yvo ~ � vp=t5 'Edo OLD � �V ;� EF �m E"cv �u+ 0'cc o .gym • � E- m E... ° E�:='Q 3m V EEC > c-o� �', E � 3 a .-a ywFso�c u «mc vv -mo°1 � � Uvr EsyvamE `emu' ... c� m 'o rtQr m'c� b �9 3Ero na O yE"m uN -E _ 3 E oc Eay emYN c�2N `np y m� F m o a_ is 1 ou L:� M u �sS v D m c d Z c o E E °: Eu E `o� 'c v D �_v .L (GS-4Oj W S O E pY N W O O 04 O 0Y O O O QS d N v IC6 p v N CJ 3 p -U'Y._ .n V c-)U m �� ._ mr U v L E •�' > N W s Z j � E Q m C p • EE �`v s N y o 3 Uoa z� o E u ,�-, ® � Y w E O om o V O m u m uc UOJ M ° < E LLI YV -or V3 mom U c m p c F Ol O E m y O O U>�E �N YY C]W� V U 6L. w : d 'i, G N x 3 3 3 v T W A �d� O c O o m m cJ pD yE p_U a me cv u� o m c v o > 3n c 'm E- • Tim m '6 Ev - JE E mN>.cm -o bbb� EM 3 3 O T N j O cOm U b0— m C • Uvv E o u o Ro o motive "' nw c„ v�v�' w i El O Q C= d N P O N O O smE_ 3 S3E v_ 0 c E my pvv oox�- � D D v G_C O TS m N E v W M N i0U� 0 ay m Ecdo'.p-- „>, 3 `� � wvoY o w °TUU.M3> a v._ v v in °iOmvi ¢s �nu QU"> aE � EwSQmO � �U'�.�� L COUNCIL WORKSHOP 1) Intergovernmental Issues 2) Animal Control Update 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) Green Kent Award D) Kent Parks Foundation Donation w," Agenda Item: Public Hearing — 5A TO: City Council DATE: November 15, 2011 SUBJECT: 2012 Annual Budget (second hearing) MOTION: To close the public hearing. SUMMARY: This date has been set for the second public hearing on the 2012 Annual Budget. Public input is welcome. EXHIBITS: None RECOMMENDED BY: Finance Director BUDGET IMPACTS: N/A KENT Agenda Item: Public Hearings — 513 TO: City Council DATE: November 15, 2011 SUBJECT: 2012-2017 Capital Improvement Plan (second hearing) and Comprehensive Plan Amendments MOTION: To close the public hearing. SUMMARY: This date has been set for the second public hearing on the 2012- 2017 Capital Improvement Plan and Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Public input is welcome. EXHIBITS: 2012-2017 Capital Improvement Plan Report, Addendum to the Kent Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Statement and Adoption of existing Environmental documents RECOMMENDED BY: Finance Director BUDGET IMPACTS: N/A 2012 Capital Improvement Program �- KENT W A S H I N G T O N FINANCE October 3, 2011 2012 - 2017 Capital Improvement Program Amounts in 000's 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total Sources of Funds Capital Improvement Fund 835 2,952 15,452 2,734 2,110 1,612 25,695 Utility Funds 11,450 11,500 14,100 14,700 14,900 15,200 81,850 Facilities Fund 260 600 490 890 315 265 2,820 Street Revenue 155 50 150 250 350 450 1,405 Grants 235 685 2,990 1,605 1,655 455 7,625 Revenue Bonds 14,050 0 0 0 0 0 14,050 Other Sources 21,221 38,105 30,948 22,875 23,269 21,570 157,988 Total Sources of Funds 48,206 53,892 64,130 43,054 42,599 39,552 291,433 Projects General Government 3,277 1,098 2,803 1,761 1,560 790 11,289 Public Safety 0 1,250 13,500 200 25 175 15,150 Transportation 7,640 13,550 16,750 13,300 12,000 12,000 75,240 Parks, Rec, and Comm Service: 4,577 4,664 6,897 9,363 11,054 8,627 45,182 Utilities 32,712 33,330 24,180 18,430 17,960 17,960 144,572 Total Projects 48,206 53,892 64,130 43,054 42,599 39,552 291,433 Sources of Funds Projects 2 50% 8% 1%0 9% wd,�, mmouuu�IIIIVII�I�u@����������U����I �IIIUI�S% 4% 26% Capital Improvement Fund in General Government Utility Funds IIIIII Public Safety IN Facilities Fund Transportation IIIIII Street Revenue IIIIIIII Parks, Rec,and Comm Services Grants Utilities Illlllf1 Revenue Bonds 'JJJJJ.:;Other Sources 2 General Government 2012 - 2017 Capital Improvement Program Amounts in Thousands 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total Sources of Funds CIP Revenues 260 145 145 75 25 25 675 Facilities Revenues (Internal) 260 600 490 890 315 265 2,820 King County Grant 55 55 Source To Be Determined 2,702 353 2,168 796 1,220 500 7,739 Total Sources of Funds 3,277 1,098 2,803 1,761 1,560 790 11,289 Projects Funded Facilities Centennial Center Upgrades 45 45 50 140 City Hall Entry Replacement 0 Corrections Portable Back-up Power Conn. 0 Emergency Facility Repairs (Lifecycle) 50 100 100 100 100 100 550 Facilities Card Access 75 75 150 Floor Covering Replacements (Lifecycle) 150 250 200 50 650 HVAC Lifecycle Replacements (Lifecycle) 75 150 50 50 75 50 450 Kent Pool Improvements 25 25 25 25 25 25 150 Kitchen Equipment (Lifecycle) 25 25 25 25 25 125 Parks Maintenance Renovation 35 35 Roof Repairs (Lifecycle) 75 450 25 550 Sealcoat Parking Lots (Lifecycle) 35 100 65 65 65 65 395 Security Camera Software Upgrade 40 40 Senior Center Upgrades 0 Technology Hardware Lifecycle Replacements 260 233 853 318 204 250 2,118 Software Business System Replacements 0 120 1,315 478 1,016 250 3,179 Telephone System Replacement 930 930 IT Data Center/ Service Desk 177 177 Chambers Video / Audio Replacement 395 395 Permit/CSDC Project 1,200 1,200 Other General Government Trails Planning (CPPW) 55 55 Total Projects Funded 3,277 1,098 2,803 1,761 1,560 790 11,289 3 Public Safety 2012 - 2017 Capital Improvement Program Amounts in Thousands 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total Sources of Funds CIP Revenues 1,250 13,500 200 25 175 15,150 Total Sources of Funds 0 1,250 13,500 200 25 175 15,150 Projects Funded Police Services CKCF Renovation 500 5,500 6,000 Crime Scene Van Replcmnt/Equip Upgrd 75 75 Ergonomic Work Stations 25 25 25 25 100 Pursuit Intervention Technique Equip 25 25 Robotic Laser Scanning Total Station 50 50 Police /Fire Training Center Citywide Driving Simulator 150 150 Expansion Police/Fire Training Center 750 7,890 8,640 Training Center Classroom Upgrades 25 25 Other Public Safety Annex Furniture Upgrades 25 25 Work Crew Van/Trailer Equipment 60 60 Total Projects Funded 0 1,250 13,500 200 25 175 15,150 a Transportation 2012 - 2017 Capital Improvement Program Amounts in Thousands 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total Sources of Funds Street Revenues 155 50 150 250 350 450 1,405 Sources To Be Determined 7,485 13,500 16,600 13,050 11,650 11,550 73,835 Total Sources of Funds 7,640 13,550 16,750 13,300 12,000 12,000 75,240 Projects Funded Arterials 72nd Avenue 50 50 500 800 1,400 S 224th Street Improvements 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 8,000 S 228th Grade Separation 100 1,000 2,000 3,100 S 212th Bridge Repair 1,000 1,000 Southeast 256th Street 750 750 1,500 Other Transportation Battery Backup 120 110 230 Railroad Quiet Zone 1,000 1,250 750 3,000 Repair/Replace Transit Control Equip 120 390 500 500 1,510 Sidewalk Replacement 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 12,000 Traffic Interconnect & Performance Opt 175 175 Asphalt Overlays 3,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 43,000 Paint Striping 100 100 Sign Replacement 70 70 Transit Service 155 155 Total Projects Funded 7,640 13,550 16,750 13,300 12,000 12,000 75,240 5 Parks, Recreation & Community Services 2012 - 2017 Capital Improvement Program Amounts in Thousands 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total Sources of Funds CIP REET2 Revenues 315 1,207 1,657 1,309 1,910 762 7,160 CIP Revenues 260 350 150 1,150 150 650 2,710 Washington State Grant 500 2,300 1,500 1,650 450 6,400 King County Grant 175 180 185 50 590 Other Grant 5 5 505 55 5 5 580 Donations / Contributions 10 10 10 10 10 10 60 Source To Be Determined 3,812 2,412 2,090 5,289 7,329 6,750 27,682 Total Sources of Funds 4,577 4,664 6,897 9,363 11,054 8,627 45,182 Projects Funded Sports Fields Valley Floor Athletic Complex Dev 1,000 1,000 Wilson Playfields Renovation 1,600 1,600 Community Parks Adopt-A-Park Volunteer Program 5 41 41 42 42 43 214 Clark Lake Development 50 1,000 1,050 Community Sports Fields 3,200 200 4,000 7,400 Eagle Creek Park Development 100 900 1,000 East Hill Park Land Acquistion 200 500 700 International Parks Acquistion 50 50 Kent City Gateways 50 50 50 50 50 250 Kent Memoril Park Renovation 200 1,500 1,700 Kent Parks Foundation 25 25 25 25 25 125 Lake Meridian Park Dock Replacement 150 1,150 1,000 2,300 Life Cycle - Trails 9 9 9 9 9 9 54 Mill Creek/Greenway Plan & Renovation 500 550 550 1,600 Russell Road Parking Lot 200 200 Russell Road Renovation 3,800 3,800 Urban Forestry Program/Green Kent 20 20 20 20 21 21 122 Valley Floor Athletic Complex Acquistion 500 500 Van Doren's Park Improvements 150 530 680 West Fenwick Park Renovation 100 600 700 Wilson Playfields Acquistion 500 500 s Parks, Recreation & Community Services 2012 - 2017 Capital Improvement Program Amounts in Thousands 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total Neighborhood Parks 132nd Street Park Development 100 1,700 300 2,100 Clark Lake Land Acquisition 500 1,000 1,500 Community Parks Reinvestment Program 100 100 100 100 100 500 Garrison Creek Renovation 431 431 Green Tree Park Renovation 130 130 Huse Property Development 50 100 1,000 600 1,750 Kiwanis Tot Lot #3 Renovation 100 100 Meridian Glen Renovation 175 175 North Meridian Park Renovation 603 603 Panther Lake PAA Park Acquistion 500 500 1,000 Park Orchard Park Renovation 175 175 Scenic Hill Park Renovation 170 170 Seven Oaks Park Renovation 103 103 Springwood Park Improvements 100 450 550 Tudor Square 181 181 West Hill Park Development 100 1,820 1,920 Lifecycle Renovations Event Center Lifecycle 300 300 300 300 300 300 1,800 Life Cycle Park System 260 250 250 250 250 250 1,510 Planning-Architecture & Engineering Architect/Engineering 10 10 10 10 10 50 Lake Fenwick Park Renovation 1,200 1,200 Master Plans 25 25 25 25 25 125 Park and Open Space Plan 25 25 Regional Trails - Levy Program 175 180 185 540 Other Parks, Recreation &Comm Eagle Scout Volunteer Program 5 26 26 27 27 28 139 Grant Matching Funds/Land Acq. 75 75 75 75 75 375 Old Fishing Hole Renovation 42 42 Replacement, Renovation at Misc. Parks 2,443 2,443 Total Projects Funded 4,577 4,664 6,897 9,363 11,054 8,627 45,182 7 Utilities 2012 - 2017 Capital Improvement Program Amounts in Thousands 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total Sources of Funds Water Revenues 3,000 3,800 3,800 4,100 4,200 4,200 23,100 Sewer Revenues 1,250 1,900 2,000 2,100 2,100 2,200 11,550 Drainage Revenues 7,200 5,800 8,300 8,500 8,600 8,800 47,200 Revenue Bonds 14,050 14,050 Source To Be Determined 7,212 21,830 10,080 3,730 3,060 2,760 48,672 Total Sources of Funds 32,712 33,330 24,180 18,430 17,960 17,960 144,572 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total Projects Funded Stormwater Management NPDES 265 270 380 380 400 400 2,095 Green River Levee Repair 3,000 3,000 Storm Pipe/Culvert Maintenance 1,500 1,000 400 400 400 400 4,100 South 228"' Drainage Bypass 2,000 1,200 3,200 Mill Creek/James Street Pump Station 2,500 2,500 Mill Creek @ James Flood Protection 235 2,800 1,900 4,935 Upper Russell Raod Levee 1,000 1,000 2,000 Lower Russell Road Levee 1,000 1,000 2,000 Citywide Pond Maintenance 1,000 500 400 400 400 400 3,100 Drainage Portion of Street Improve 1,000 1,150 1,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 9,150 Upper Mill Creek Dam Improvements 2,500 600 3,100 Lower Garrison Creek Bridge 500 1,000 1,000 2,500 Miscellaneous Storm Replacement 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 9,000 Boeing Levee 200 200 Briscoe/Desimone Levee 1,000 1,200 720 2,920 Kent Airport Levee 300 300 600 South 212th Levee 300 300 Riverview Park Channel 100 100 Downey Farmstead Side Channel 120 300 420 Mill Creek Auburn Back Channel 80 200 280 Senior Center Conveyance 200 800 1,000 Smith to James Stream Restoration 200 1,000 1,200 761h Ave Stream Improvements 200 800 3,000 1,500 5,500 GRNA Improvements 600 1,500 1,200 3,300 Creek Conveyance Restoration 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 Big Soos Creek Bridge Replacement 500 2,000 2,500 Sanitary Sewer Miscellaneous Sewer Replacements 4,500 4,000 4,000 3,500 3,000 3,000 22,000 a Utilities 2012 - 2017 Capital Improvement Program Amounts in Thousands 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total Water Supply& Distribution Water Conservation Plan 25 30 30 30 30 30 175 Rock Creek Mitigation Projects 185 300 300 300 300 300 1,685 Landsburg Mine 250 250 100 100 100 100 900 Guiberson Reservoir Replacement 3,500 2,250 2,250 8,000 Pump Station #4 Generator 125 125 East Hill Pressure Zone 3,000 7,000 2,500 12,500 Blue Boy Reservoir Fall Protection 15 15 Pump Station #5 Valve 12 12 Spoils Disposal Equipment 200 200 Derbyshire Water Main 500 500 1,000 228eh Road Restoration 750 750 2561h Water Main Improvements 500 500 Seismic Study Upgrades 150 150 Clark Springs Transmission Main 500 500 Land Acquisition 2,000 2,000 2,500 2,500 2,500 11,500 Miscellaneous Water Replacements 500 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 10,500 Hydrant Replacement 30 30 60 Total Projects Funded 32,712 33,330 24,180 18,430 17,960 17,960 144,572 s ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director PLANNING SERVICES Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Planning Director 40r,�,/ ��® Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager KE®�i T Phone: 253-856-5454 WA5H1NOTON Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S Kent, WA 98032-5895 CITY OF KENT ADDENDUM TO THE KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Responsible Official: Charlene Anderson SCOPE The City of Kent has completed environmental analysis, pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), for an amendment of the Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan to include the City's 2012-2017 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). This amendment to the Capital Facilities Element is occurring concurrently with the adoption of the City's 2012 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 concurrently with the city's annual budget is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan EIS - Addendum Capital Improvement Program 2012-2017 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 COMPLIANCE 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 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 the 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 Page 2 of 4 Comprehensive Plan EIS - Addendum Capital Improvement Program 2012-2017 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 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, safety, and quality of life. Policy 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 provision of needed public services and facilities. Page 3 of 4 Comprehensive Plan EIS - Addendum Capital Improvement Program 2012-2017 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY 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 2012-2017 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. This analysis and subsequent addendum did not identify any new significant impacts associated with the adoption of the 2012-2017 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,. n . Dated: November 4, 2011 Signature: &�,A) Charlene Anderson, AICP, Responsible Official CA:jm\\S:\Permit\Plan\Env\2011\ClPaddendum2012-2017.doc Page 4 of 4 KENT ADOPTION 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 2012 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 documents) 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. Document availability: This document is available for review at the City of Kent Planning Services office, 400 West Gowe, 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: Charlene Anderson, AICP (253) 856-5431 Planning Manager City of Kent Community Development Dept. 220 Fourth Ave South Kent, WA 98 32 Date: November 4, 2011 Signaturelu&1 c_ S:\Permit\Plan\Env\2011\CIPadopt2012-2017.doc KENT Agenda Item: Public Hearings — 5C TO: City Council DATE: November 15, 2011 SUBJECT: Kent Comprehensive Plan and Amendments to Kent City Code Chapter 12.13 re School Impact Fees MOTION: To close the public hearing. 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 submit their updated plans annually for Council review and consideration. EXHIBITS: Staff memo from Charlene Anderson dated 11/8/11 w/attachments; Kent, Federal Way, and Auburn School Districts' Capital Facilities Plans & Determinations of Nonsignificance and Environmental Checklists RECOMMENDED BY: Staff BUDGET IMPACTS: N/A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Director PLANNING SERVICES *,T, Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager WASH N,TON Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 November 8, 2011 To: Mayor Suzette Cooke, Council President Jamie Perry 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 2012 Annual Budget and 2012-17 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 15, 2011. 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 2011/12 — 2016/17 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 maintain their existing school impact fees for single family units of $5,486 and for multifamily units of $3,378. The Federal Way School District proposes to maintain their existing school impact fees for single family units of $4,014 and decrease their fees for multifamily units from $2,172 to $1,253 (a decrease of $919 or 42.3%). The Auburn School District proposes to increase their existing school impact fees for single family units from $5,266.33 to $5,557.30 (an increase of $290.97 or 5.5%) and increase their fees for multifamily units from $1,518.22 to $2,305.22 (an increase of $787 or 51.8%). The only area in Kent where Auburn School District's impact fees are applied is the Verdana or Bridges PUD on the former impoundment reservoir site. Included with this memo are comparison tables among the three school districts as well as historical data on the school impact fees. CA\pm S:\Permit\Plan\COMP_PL4N_AMENDMENTS\2011\CPA-2011-1_Sch DistsCFPc\City_Council\CPA-2011-1_capfacilities111511.doc Enc School Districts'Capital Facilities Plans Determinations of Nonsignificance EnvironmenU Checklists RCW 36J0A.020&070,RCW 82.02.050 KCC 12.13.060-090,KCC 12.13.140 Comparison Tables and Historical Dato cc: Ben Wolters,Economic&Community Development Director Fred N.Sattershom,AICP,Planning Director Charlene Anderson,AICP,Planning Manager Project File Parties of Record Kent Comprehensive Plan and Kent City Code Chapter 12.13 Amendments, School District Capital Facilities Plans-Impact Fees 11/15/11 City Council Meeting Page 2 of 2 bee[ DII 2011 - 2012 - 2016 - 2017 P, wz/, New Panther Lake Elementary School opened in Fall 2009 Kent SchoofDistrictjWo. 415prou4des educationafserc4ce to Residents of VnincoToratedYing County and Residents of the Cities of Kent, Cou4ngton,,4ufiurn, Renton BfackcDiamond, -%fapfe `Gaffey, andSeaTac, `Washington Aplif 2011 DIDKent School District No. 415 12033 SE 256 1h Street Kent, Washington 98030-6643 (253) 373-7295 SIX - YEAR CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2011 - 2012 2016 - 2017 KENT BOARD of DIRECTORS Bill Boyce Jim Berrios Tim Clark Karen DeBruler Debbie Straus ADMINISTRATION Dr. Edward Lee Vargas — Superintendent Dr. Richard A. Stedry — Chief Business Officer Dr. Linda Del Giudice — Chief Accountability Officer Dr. Merri Rieger— Chief Student Achievement Officer Dr. Brent Jones — Chief Talent Officer Thuan Nguyen — Chief Information & Automated Operations Officer Chris Loftis — Executive Director, Communications & School Community Partnerships Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2011 KENT ��U�y ~ �������� �~����U�~��U �����~UUU�~ ���� ��U ���� ��nvv n �.x`^nvv�x`^nnn ��u~ n ����nu~nnn�~�� n �.x`^nm 2011 ~ 2012 °^ 2016 ~ 2017 April 2011 For information OD the Plan, please call the FiD@DC8 & Planning [}8p@[t[O8[t at (753) 373-77Q5 Capital Facilities Plan Contributing Staff Gmenn ESCh8F[l8n1OVVSW Enrollment& Planning Administrator Ralph Fodunato' CSBS— Interim Director for Fiscal Services Debbi Smith, Business Services Department Fred Long, Supervisor of Facilities&Construction Karla Wilkerson, Facilities Department Don Walkup, Supervisor of Transportation Department Maps by Jana Tucker, |T Graphic Designer DIDSi,�Tear Capital Facilities Plan Tafife of Contents Section Page Number I Executive Summary 2 11 Six-Year Enrollment Projection & History 4 III District Standard of Service 9 1 V Inventory, Capacity & Maps of Existing Schools 12 V Six-Year Planning and Construction Plan 15 V I Relocatable Classrooms 18 Vil Projected Classroom Capacity 19 Vill Finance Plan, Cost Basis and Impact Fee Schedules 24 IX Summary of Changes to Previous Plan 31 X Appendixes 32 Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2011 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, Renton, Black Diamond, Maple Valley, and SeaTac. This annual Plan update was prepared using data available in the spring of 2011 for the 2010-2011 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, Auburn and Renton 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 of Kent School District 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, Auburn and Renton must also adopt this Plan and their own school impact fee ordinances. This Plan has also been submitted to cities of Black Diamond, Maple Valley, and SeaTac. This Capital Facilities Plan establishes a standard of service in order to ascertain current and future capacity. While the State Superintendent of Public Instruction establishes square footage guidelines for capacity, those guidelines do not account for local program needs in the District. The Growth Management Act, King County and City codes and ordinances authorize the District to make adjustments to the standard of service based on specific needs for students of the District. This Plan includes the standard of service as established by Kent School District. Program capacity is based on an average capacity and updated to reflect changes to special programs served in each building. 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 2011 Page 2 I Executive Summary (continued) The capacity of each school in the District is calculated based on the District standard of service and the existing inventory of permanent facilities. The District's program capacity of permanent facilities reflects program changes and the reduction of class size to meet the standard of service for Kent School District. Relocatables provide additional transitional capacity until permanent facilities are completed. Kent School District is the fourth largest district in the state. Enrollment is electronically reported monthly to the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) on Form P-223. Although funding apportionment is based on Annual Average Full Time Equivalent (AAFTE), Enrollment on October 1 is a widely recognized "snapshot in time" that is used to report the District's enrollment for the year as reported to OSPI — the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. P-223 FTE reports Kindergarten at .5 for all elementary schools except those five schools with Full Day Kindergarten funded by State Apportionment. P-223 Reports include all students in Grades K — 12 and excludes Early Childhood Education [ECE] students and college-only Running Start students. The Board of Directors has approved Full Day Kindergarten for all Elementary Schools for 2011-12 and those projections are continued in future years. 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. The District plans 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 Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2011 Page 3 I I Six - Year Enrollment Projection For capital facilities planning, growth projections are based on cohort survival and student yield from documented residential construction projected over the next six years. (See Table 2) The student generation factor, as defined on the next page, is the basis for the growth projections from new developments. King County live births and the District's relational percentage average were used to determine the number of kindergartners entering the system. (See Table 1) 8.134% of 24,244 King County live births in 2006 is projected for 1,972 students expected in Kindergarten for October 1, 2011. This is a significant increase of 1,564 live births in King County over the previous year. Together with proportional growth from new construction, 8.134% 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 Table 2) Full Day Kindergarten ("FDK") programs at all 28 elementary schools require an adjustment to the Kindergarten forecast for projecting FDK at 1.0 FTE for capital facilities planning. P-223 Reports will continue to include FDK students at 1.0 for five schools with FDK funded by state apportionment, and all other kindergarten students will continue to be reported at .50 FTE. (SeeTabie2A) Early Childhood Education students (also identified as "ECE", "Preschool Special Education [SE] or handicapped students") are forecast and reported separately. Capacity is reserved to serve the ECE programs at seven elementary schools. 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 market/growth conditions. The District will continue to track new development activity to determine impact to schools and monitor conditions to reflect adjustments in this assumption. The six-year enrollment projection anticipates moderate enrollment growth from new development currently in some phase of planning or construction in the district. Information on new residential developments and the completion of these proposed developments in all jurisdictions may be considered in the District's future analysis of growth projections. (Continued) Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2011 Page 4 I I Six -Year Enrollment Projection (Continued) 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, Auburn and Renton and smaller portions of the cities of SeaTac, Black Diamond, and Maple Valley. The west Lake Sawyer area of Kent School District is in the city of Black Diamond. 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. Following these guidelines, the student generation rate for Kent School District is as follows: Single Family Elementary .486 Middle School .130 Senior High .250 Total .866 Multi-Family Elementary .331 Middle School .067 Senior High .124 Total .522 The student generation factor is based on a survey of 2,023 single family dwelling units and 1,527 multi-family dwelling units with no adjustment for occupancy rates. Please refer to Appendix E on Page 36 of the Capital Facilities Plan for details of the Student Generation Factor survey. The actual number of students in those residential developments was determined using the District's Education Logistics (EDULOG) Transportation System which provides an accurate count of enrolled students in identifiable new development areas. Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2011 Page 5 N O41 o M c0 N O Q N O O W r M N N06 m ON N m Q r M N N N N N N N N W O 0 m m a d N N b N N r y o O M N M tOy O N O Q �Op Q N p� r v y Y M m p� N ry m N N pj N N N N N N N N N rn E N n p Q m Q o m �n r rn r � m o+ N O m O m o o N N r ^ Q (y N Y a o a m N N Q m N N N N N N N N m d F y D y } C O N COO? O? O f p O O m Ol O O N N M M N r Q Q P ry O. ti F ^ C O O F- p N y � m Si N m o N t0 N OJ m O O) Q m M N Q y LL O E N r M O ^ a N h U O ? O mQ Ilim p O LO J J « c m a m g qc M m c Y y a y O) O O N N O W Q N a D N q �p m m y Z W N N N N N IO Lu J CI p OJ m o c Q N N h N N M O h M m N N M wm `ry r Q C c m N N O O N O O O m m m W [O m D ry LL W `ry = FG m N pj N N N N N N N O O W Cl) N p�j ro N p0 N U. f0 m N <D N M m M M r m O M m V m O 75 4,1 L m v c m - m M r o 0 0 0 o m rn m rn r w "' � N U m m U F 1 W� l➢ N OJ m b N N N N N N W W W Y Y LL m m v v Gi m d m o m m m m ro r W m [Q m m N N r• M ry (D M m m com m w m tp In M r E q H a m N r• N ry Q r C] O m m M Q N N E U m m CD CDrn m r ti M M N o m N pj m N N N — — — e- — — e- — — ^ Ol m OJ O O h N Q m M m O N W i. D N m O. Q M O tD N m cl O t0 N W (O O m N m o N_ O v N R O O Q Q m m O m m m m W W F (O f0 Q N m N m N — — — — — — — — — — N M � m m OJ e- 7 P O c O LL N U m m pj m W m - N r W r r - - J m c p O N OU y� -O Q1. U Ocl a C @ @ 10 @ ro @ (6 Y it Y y 6 U' 6 U` C7 0 U�` U' 0 C7 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No.415 SIX-YEAR F T E ENROLLMENT PROJECTION State-funded FDK at 20 Schools L8 in 2004 LB in 2005 LB in 2006 LB in 2007 LB in 2008 LB Est.2009 LB Est.2010 ACTUAL I P R O J E C T 1 O N October 2010 1 2011 1 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 King County Live Births 22,680 24,244 24,899 25,222 25,057 25,100 25,200 ' Increase/Decrease -194 1,564 655 323 -165 43 100 Kindergarten / Birth % 2 8.13% 8.13% 8.13% 8.13% 8,13% 8.13% 8.13% 2" Kindergarten FTE @ .5 749 0 0 0 0 0 0 2" FD Kindergarten @ 1.0 343 1,972 2,024 2,050 2,038 2,042 2,050 Grade 1 1992 1,912 2,075 2,129 2,156 2,144 2,148 Grade 2 1939 1,973 1,903 2,064 2,118 2,144 2,133 Grade 3 2000 1,977 2,020 1,949 2,113 2,168 2,195 Grade 4 1954 1,979 1,965 2,008 1,938 2,100 2,154 Grade 5 2082 1,990 2,027 2,012 2,056 1,985 2,150 Grade 6 2130 2,126 2,054 2,092 2,076 2,122 2,049 Grade 7 2092 2,153 2,159 2,087 2,125 2,109 2,155 Grade 8 2151 2,127 2,200 2,206 2,132 2,171 2,155 Grade 9 2434 2,414 2,399 2,481 2,487 2,404 2,448 Grade 10 2233 2,202 2,195 2,181 2,255 2,261 2,186 Grade 11 1949 1,967 1,950 1,944 1,931 1,997 2,002 Grade 12 1573 1,567 1,591 1,578 1,573 1,563 1,616 Total FTE Enrollment 25,621 26,359 26,562 26,781 26,998 27,210 27,441 Noted 21314 Yearly Increase/Decrease 3 -157 738 203 219 217 212 231 Yearly Increase/Decrease% -0.61% 2.88% 0.77% 0.82% 0.81% 0.79% 0.85% Cumulative Increase -157 581 784 1,003 1,220 1,432 1,663 Full Time Equivalent FTE 25,621 1 26,359 26,562 26,781 1 26,998 1 27,210 1 27,441 1 Kindergarten enrollment projection is based on Kent SD percentage of live births in King County five years previous. 2 Kindergarten FTE projection is calculated by using the District's previous year percentage of King County births five years earlier compared to actual kindergarten enrollment in the previous year.(Excludes ECE-Early Childhood Education) 3 Kindergarten projection is at 1.0 for Full Day Kindergarten(FDK)at all 28 Elementary schools. 2010 FDK funded at 5 schools by state apportionment and second 1/2 of day funded by Federal&State Categorical Grants and Tuition. 4 Oct.2010 P223 FTE is 25,621 &Headcount is 26,630.Full Headcount with ECE Preschool&Running Start students=27,349. G R O W T H P R O J E C T I O N S - Adjustments for current economic factors For facilities planning purposes, this six-year enrollment projection anticipates conservative enrollment growth from new development currently in some phase of planning or construction in the district. Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 2 April 2011 Page 7 W m m m _ m a ❑ C F N O O N ^ M M M W M ' m W W ^ l0 r YI ^ N V] l0 N n T mr 6 __ LL M M M V V' M M W CI A n V r V fO Y 1` m Cl N W N V M N M A O � N Y q O < N (O (p (p W (O O [9 (p W N m r O N ! O N O N W V A 3 y ^ T T N ❑ a - 0 9 O I c ry N LL N m � LL S ry O � n 0 ^ g w o y0. Y '� a LL N O LL oa C ?. tMl M M W H ❑ q O W N O ~ O On LL ❑ ui O� Z O o L q C LU C LL c a1 � n O Z N C O N W w y O Y q p T c N W w N O o LL LLo r � w r � w M !a9 O ^ ¢ c a w F- = UI c E a LL Z S o v a o g Y O m n n A m M b W 0 a c W U to o N n I? m = Yw Y N < Q E m a o � b p p b [u N@ b ^w F c uJ D) W ul N O �O A O O N YJ h O O A W A N C N h W N O O r O N O M J O O p O N p O V] P Q P V h O O ul O O N N p N Y N �m N V P b Y] ry" L ❑ O' - m W N a U P �j LL � g R L O r p m Z O O q N N . N n< Q N E N U N c _ q O O n E N c a O ^t' ^ a m E m c=i r d W za az mQ tw co N N E W w a Of w `m 3 Z w '9 m N2, E ^ m E v 2'N� E E E 9 c w y cm m 2 r m rn m N w E y v N E c E w y W w w m m E w w w E v N U z m ? W E g q Q w E m c v E g c y o m w a w w w m Z. o c o S LLJ Y W N g W ❑ W Y N N W J N W W Y N W O p N E O Y t O g w a a r m g w U E o c w E m` w ¢�L m j o o 9 o m rn w m o c 3 ? J m 2 w O A a w N c W Y a � s O F u U w n w 1' ry t7 LLJ `m d >o m m E m@ `° `w d J m u `m �' omi cm a o c `c w iv of e u U U U U w W LL O C7 0 2 -� Y `L z d 4 d R Ul 0 to N w O O o 0 z z z z O O O L U V) N Y 111 Current Kent School District "Standard of Service" In order to determine the capacity of facilities in a school district, King County Code 21A.06 references a "standard of service" that each school district must establish in order to ascertain its overall capacity. The standard of service identifies the program year, the class size, the number of classrooms, students and programs of special need, and other factors determined by the district which would best serve the student population. This Plan includes the standard of service as established by Kent School District. The District has identified schools with significant special needs programs as "impact" schools and the standard of service targets a lower class size at those facilities. Relocatables included in the capacity calculation use the same standard of service as the permanent facilities. (see appendix A, B & C) The standard of service defined herein may continue to change in the future. Kent School District is continuing a long-term strategic planning process combined with review of changes to capacity and standard of service. This process will affect various aspects of the District's standard of service and future changes will be reflected in future capital facilities plans. Current Standards of Service for Elementary Students Class size for Kindergarten is planned for an average of 24 or fewer students. Class size for grades 1 - 4 is planned for an average of 25 or fewer students. Class size for grades 5 - 6 is planned for an average of 29 or fewer students. Program capacity for general 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.). In 2010, most elementary schools meet the criteria required to provide full day kindergarten programs (FDK = Full Day Kindergarten) with the second half of the day funded by state apportionment, Federal & State Categorical Grants or tuition. For 2011, five FDK Programs have state funding and the others will be funded through Basic Ed and Educational Programs and Operations Levy. 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 2011 Page 9 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: English Language Learners (E L L) Inclusive Services / Tiered Intervention in SE Support Center Programs Early Childhood Education (ECE) (3-4 yr. old students with disabilities) Developmental Kindergarten in SC Programs Integrated Programs & Resource Rooms (for special remedial assistance) Self-contained Special Education Support Center Programs (SC) Adaptive Support Center for Mild, Moderate & Severe Disabilities (ASC-DD) Speech & Language Therapy & Programs for Hearing Impaired students Occupational & Physical Therapy Programs (OT/PT) Education for Disadvantaged Students (Title I) — Federal Program Learning Assisted Programs (LAP) — State Program 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 is updated 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. Class size for grades 7 - 12 is planned for an average of 30 or fewer students. Special Education for students with disabilities may be provided in a self- contained classroom with a capacity of 10-15 depending on the program. (continued) Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2011 Page 10 I I I Current Kent School District "Standard of Service" (continued) Identified secondary students will also be provided other educational opportunities in classrooms for programs designated as follows: Computer, Multi-media &Technology Labs & Programs— (Nova Net-Advanced Academics) Technology Academy programs at Kent-Meridian High School & Mill Creek Middle School Science Programs & Labs — Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Oceanography, Astronomy, Meteorology, Marine Biology, General Science, etc. English Language Learners (E L L) Integrated Programs & Resource Rooms (for special remedial assistance) Basic Skills Programs Transition Outreach Program (TOP) for 18-21 year old Special Education students Child Development 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 ("I B") Program Kent Phoenix Academy—Performance Learning Center, Gateway, Virtual High School & Kent Success program with evening classes designed for credit retrieval Traffic Safety Education JROTC -Junior Reserve Officers Training Corps Variety of Career& Technical Education Programs (CTE-Vocational Education) Family & Consumer Science—Culinary Arts, Sewing, Careers w/Children/Educ., etc. Health & Human Services—Sports Medicine, Sign Language, Cosmetology, etc. Business Education —Word Processing, Accounting, Business Law& Math, DECA, FBLA(Future Business Leaders), Sales & Marketing, Economics, Web Design Technical & Industry — Woodworking, Cabinet Making, Building Trades, Metals, Automotive & Manufacturing Technology, Welding, Machine Shop, Drafting, Drawing, CAD (Computer-aided Design), Electronics, Engineering & Design, Aviation, ASL, etc. Graphic& Commercial Arts, Media, Photography, Theater& Stage, Ag & Horticulture Many of these programs and others require specialized classroom space which can reduce the permanent capacity of the school buildings. In addition, alternative home school assistance, choice and transition programs are provided for students in grades 3 - 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. Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2011 Page 11 I V Inventory and Capacity of Existing Schools Currently, the District has permanent program capacity to house 27,741 students and transitional (relocatable) capacity to house 1,389. 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 District's schools by type, address and current capacity. (See Table 3 on Page 13) The ratio between permanent capacity and transitional capacity is 97% - 3%. 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 and new capacity for the new Panther Lake Elementary School and building additions at the high schools. Kent Mountain View Academy (formerly Kent Learning Center and Grandview Elementary) serves Grades 3 — 12 with transition, choice and home school assistance programs. It is located in the former Grandview School in the western part of the District in the city of SeaTac. This school was originally designed as an elementary school and is included in the elementary capacity for this Plan. Kent Phoenix Academy is a non-traditional high school which opened in Fall 2007 in the renovated site and building that formerly served Sequoia Middle School. Kent Phoenix Academy has four special programs including the Performance Learning Center, Gateway, Virtual High School and Kent Success. Kent Success replaced the former Night Academy at Kent-Meridian High School and provides afternoon and evening classes for credit retrieval. Calculation of Elementary, Middle School and Senior High School capacities are set forth in Appendices A, B and C. A map of existing schools is included on Page 14. Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2011 Page 12 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No.415 INVENTORY and CAPACITY of EXISTING SCHOOLS 2010-2011 Year SCHOOL Opened ABR ADDRESS Program Capacity 1 Carriage Crest Elementary 1990 CC 18235-140th Avenue SE, Renton 98058 452 Cedar Valley Elementary 1971 CV 26500 Timberlane Way SE, Covington 98042 456 Covington Elementary 1961 CO 17070 SE Wax Road, Covington 98042 504 Crestwood Elementary 1980 CW 25225-180th Avenue SE, Covington 98042 456 East Hill Elementary 1953 EH 9825 S 240th Street, Kent 98031 476 Emerald Park 1999 EP 11800 SE 216th Street, Kent 98031 504 Fairwood Elementary 1969 FW 16600-148th Avenue SE, Renton 98058 408 George T. Daniel Elementary 1992 DE 11310 SE 248th Street, Kent 98030 456 Glenridge Elementary 1996 GR 19405-120th Avenue SE,Renton 98058 456 Grass Lake Elementary 1971 GL 28700-191 at Place SE, Kent 98042 452 Horizon Elementary 1990 HE 27641 -144th Avenue SE, Kent 98042 504 Jenkins Creek Elementary 1987 JC 26915-186th Avenue SE, Covington 98042 404 Kent Elementary 1999/1938 KE 24700-64th Avenue South, Kent 98032 476 Lake Youngs Elementary 1965 LY 19660-142nd Avenue SE, Kent 98042 510 Martin Sortun Elementary 1987 MS 12711 SE 248th Street, Kent 98030 480 Meadow Ridge Elementary 1994 MR 27710-108th Avenue SE, Kent 98030 476 Meridian Elementary 1939 ME 25621-140th Avenue SE, Kent 98042 524 Millennium Elementary 2000 ML 11919 SE 270th Street, Kent 98030 504 Neely-O'Bden Elementary 1990/1955 NO 6300 South 236th Street, Kent 98032 452 Panther Lake Elementary 2009/1938 PL 20831 -108th Avenue SE, Kent 98031 552 Park Orchard Elementary 1963 PO 11010 SE 232nd Street, Kent 98031 486 Pine Tree Elementary 1967 PT 27825-118th Avenue SE, Kent 98030 528 Ridgewood Elementary 1987 RW 18030-162nd Place SE, Renton 98058 504 Sawyer Woods Elementary 1994 SW 31135-228th Ave SE, Black Diamond 98010 504 Scenic Hill Elementary 1960 SH 26025 Woodland Way South, Kent 98030 476 Soos Creek Elementary 1971 SC 12651 SE 218th Place, Kent 98031 408 Springbrook Elementary 1969 SB 20035-100th Avenue SE, Kent 98031 452 Sunrise Elementary 1992 SR 22300-132nd Avenue SE, Kent 98042 504 Elementary TOTAL 13,364 Cedar Heights Middle School 1993 CH 19640 SE 272 Street,Covington 98042 923 Mattson Middle School 1981 MA 16400 SE 251st Street, Covington 98042 793 Meeker Middle School 1970 MK 12600 SE 192nd Street, Renton 98058 890 Meridian Middle School 1958 MM 23480-120th Avenue SE, Kent 98031 790 Mill Creek MS&Technology Academy 2 2005/1952 MC 620 North Central Avenue, Kent 98032 828 Northwood Middle School 1996 NW 17007 SE 184th Street, Renton 98058 972 Middle School TOTAL 5,196 Kent-Meridian HS&Tech Academy 1951 KM 10020 SE 256th Street, Kent 98030 1,851 Kentlake Senior High School 1997 KL 21401 SE 300th Street, Kent 98042 2,157 Kentridge Senior High School 1968 KR 12430 SE 208th Street, Kent 98031 2,270 Kentwood Senior High School 1981 KW 25800-164th Avenue SE, Covington 98042 2,137 Senior High TOTAL 83415 Kent Mountain View Academy 3 1997/1965 MV/LC 22420 Military Road, Des Moines 98198 416 Kent Phoenix Academy 4 2007/1966 PH 11000 SE 264th Street, Kent 98030 350 DISTRICT TOTAL 27,741 Changes to capacity reflect program changes and new building additions at high schools. 2 Mill Creek Middle School and Technology Academy replaced renovated Kent Junior High in 2005. s Kent Mountain View Academy serves grades 3-12.The school was formerly known as Kent Learning Center&Grandview Elementary. 4 Kent Phoenix Academy is a non-traditional high school which opened in Fall 2007 in the former Sequoia MS building. Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 3 April 2011 Page 13 LO c Z O O C N 0 yo _ U _ o sN V � �`co � DMjp • y Y Y 7 N n o en 0 Q y O a w 0 30 0 UOV N •0 v� 0 � 0 "o a Y� �E 0 C , O � m s mr m °r ov U V V � � 0 �rz a 9c c xx N N U U V �Ss r U� 0 "oE en @ DO jv • v O • >°y 0 oC of c y a .E aw Y Y — U`w U car C o0 v �° o 0 'oo C6C Y DC i o yr vc o oz E of 0.1 00 0 Oat w Uw v Co our •L- ' ww 0� Y01 • ('tea 0—a:C o-° N ��• OR d`oc of E• Z 3s anV 4&49 I. K w p �! ®\�0 a'!1 G' 00 Ca 02 L� °0 E 0 c E ,� vC o'ov �' '� a`tE r ry Ct • 0 C� t • Cat N w 00 C N 3s anV Loot, �• N �E 0 ca N E u Z' Y.—ao •w t 3s anV PUZ£t t0} mri 3s anV PUZ£t N 0 v:g vo C"Oi r C Er of � vu • `°v r • P F cc 00 N• Y '0 0 C C 0 0� Cat N C uw 006 a`tm or 0 v �� a0 ot0 •Eo' c vo atE 3 N S .0 Y._ 6Q C 0_ CN '> •Cv x 'aC Uv `O Z' • 'cE �Nw 'EU o�,•�w •des 0 0 ° a0E o"� "ov uc row v iv at O o�'. 5w v0 tones 00 8 • < Co m - - U w 00 3s BAV 4F8ot ww Ya`Ow• •Y< •3C Cn OO Cn Y •yr OE i-C � C UO 00 _�.0 3s anV 4A�Dtw C o g E C N w 0 Y U V L •r N Q Nw iw 020 NN OC wVv �ot ccE w C/5 YFC 00 Y • Y N !De anV ImAuaO T� z AnM46tb AellDAdsaM C C• .2 Y 0 w v OC E a ca T v E ri N of 00 CV zw 9 a6ngsre�n' Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2011 Page 14 V Six-Year Planning and Construction Plan At the time of preparation of this Plan in spring of 2011, the following projects are completed or in the planning phase in Kent School District: • Three new classrooms were added when the Auxiliary Gym project was recently completed for Kent-Meridian High School. Construction is in progress for the Main Gym project that will also provide additional classroom capacity at Kent-Meridian in 2011-12. • In February 2006, voters approved construction funding for replacement of Panther Lake Elementary School. A new site was acquired nearby and the"New" Panther Lake Elementary opened in Fall 2009 with a 28% increase in capacity. The district has received authorization from OSPI for"Old" Panther Lake Elementary School to be held in reserve for utilization in the event of flooding in the Kent Valley. • Planning is on hold for a replacement school for Covington Elementary School. The project is pending satisfactory financial resources to fund the project. • In February 2006, voters also approved construction funding for a future Elementary School identified as Elementary#31 (actual#29) to accommodate new growth. • Enrollment projections reflect future need for additional capacity at the elementary school level. Future facility and site needs are reflected in this Plan. • Some funding for purchase of additional portables may be provided by impact fees as needed. Sites are based on need for additional capacity. As a critical component of capital facilities planning, county and city planners and decision-makers are encouraged to consider safe walking conditions for all students when reviewing applications and design plans for new roads and developments. This should include sidewalks for pedestrian safety as well as bus 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 Table 4 on Page 16 & Site map on Page 17) Voter approved bond issues have included funding for the purchase of sites for some of these and future schools, and the sites acquired to date are included in this Plan. Some funding is secured for purchase of additional sites but some may be funded with impact fees as needed. Not all undeveloped properties meet current school construction requirements and some property may be traded or sold to meet future facility needs. 2006 voter approval of $106M bond issue for capital improvement included the construction funding for new Elementary School #31 (actual #29), replacement of Panther Lake Elementary, and classroom additions to high schools. Some impact fees have been or will be applied to those projects. 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 2011 Page 15 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No.416 Site Acquisitions and Projects Planned to Provide Additional Capacity Projected Projected %for SCHOOL / FACILITY / SITE LOCATION Type I Status loompietion Program new Date Capacity I Growth Approximate Approximate ton Map ELEMENTARY (Numbers assigned to future schools may not correlate with number of existing schools.) Replacement 5 Replacement for Covington Elementary (U) SE 2561h Street&154th Ave SE Elementary Planning 2014-15 600 16% Covington Elem- Capacity to be replaced 17070 SE Wax Road, Covington Elementary Planning 2014-15 -504 New Elementary#31 (Actual#29) (F) Location TBD-To be determined 2 Elementary Planning 2015-16 600 100% Site for Elementary#31 (Unfunded)1 To be determined 2 Site Planning 2014-15 100% MIDDLE SCHOOL No Projects required at this time SENIOR HIGH Classroom In Kent-Meridian HS-Classroom Additions (F) 10020 BE 256th Street, Kent Additions Progress 2011-12 53 100% Additional TEMPORARY FACILITIES Capacity Relocatables For placement as needed New Planning 2011 + 24-31 each 100% #on Land use Land Use Map s OTHER SITES ACQUIRED Designer., Type Jurisdiction 4 Covington area North (Near Mattson MS) SE 251 &164 SE, Covington 98042 Urban Elementary City of Covington 7 Covington area South (Scarsella) SE 290&156 SE, Kent 98042 Rural Elementary King County 5 Covington area West (Halleson-Wikstrom) SE 256&154 SE, Covington 98042 Urban Elementary City of Covington 3 Ham Lake area (Pollard) 16820 SE 240, Kent 98042 Rural Elementary King County 8 SE of Lake Morton area (West property) SE 332&204 SE, Kent 98042 Rural Secondary King County 2 Shady Lk area(Sowers, Blaine,Drahota,Paroline) 17426 SE 192 Street, Renton 98058 Urban Elementary King County 1 So.King Co.Activity Center(former Nike site) SE 167&170 SE, Renton 98058 Rural TBD 2 King County 12 South Central site (Plemmons-Yeh-Wms) SE 2861h St&124th Ave SE,Auburn 98092 Urban TBD 2 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. a Numbers correspond to sites on Site Bank Map on Page 17.Other Map site locations are parcels identified in Table 7 on Page 27. Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 4 April 2011 Page 16 LO O Z 0 : b Cr m U 0 ®0 CO \ m _to 0 TU O § 2 { ( \ 02 0, �_ OE _® ` ) 0 ) i J - \ - ) \ Im042 E , \V9. :f )0® { _ \t ){ \ �\ 0 z *_ a - y \ :) \. - : f0 - � © - 0 : \{ /) (� / _ ,y y E - ® / 2 ® « r ° \- , 'i ` ®\ \ _ w/-5- , _m. /. - TO- t gR® �z w. Z -f cc Kent School District Six-Year Capital FacilitiesPlan April m, me! 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 and facilities. Currently, the District utilizes relocatables to house students in excess of permanent capacity, for program purposes at some school locations, and some for other purposes. (see Appendices A e C D) Based on enrollment projections, implementation of full day kindergarten programs, program capacity and the need for additional permanent capacity, the District anticipates the need to purchase some additional relocatables during the next six-year period. 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 the District's inventory are continually evaluated resulting in some being improved and some replaced. Quality concerns will be among those addressed by 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 examined. Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2011 Page 18 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, grade level splits, etc. As shown in the Inventory and Capacity chart in Table 3 on Page 13, the program capacity is also reflected in the capacity and enrollment comparison charts. (See Tables 5&5 A-B-C on pages 20-23) Enrollment is electronically reported to OSPI on Form P-223 on a monthly basis and funding apportionment is based on Annual Average FTE (AAFTE). The first school day of October is widely recognized as the enrollment "snapshot in time" to report enrollment for the year. Full Time Equivalent (FTE) student enrollment for October 2010 was 25,621.48. Kindergarten students are reported at .5 although many schools provide full day kindergarten ("FDK") with alternative funding for the second half of the day. State Apportionment-funded Full Day Kindergarten programs will report and project some Kindergarten students at 1.00 FTE at qualifying FDK schools. The P-223 FTE Report excludes Early Childhood Education ("ECE" preschool) students and College-only Running Start students. (see Tables 5&SA-B-Conpages20-23) In October there were 681 students in 11" and 12th grade participating in the Running Start program at 10-20 different colleges and receiving credits toward both high school and college graduation. 329 of these students attended classes only at the college ('college-only") and are excluded from FTE and headcount for capacity and enrollment comparisons. Kent School District has the highest Running Start program enrollment in the state. Kent School District continues to be the fourth largest district in the state of Washington. P-223 Headcount for October 2010 was 26,630 with kindergarten students counted at 1.0 and excluding ECE and college-only Running Start students. A full headcount of all students enrolled in October 2010 totals 27,349 which includes ECE and college-only Running Start students. Based on the enrollment forecasts, permanent facility 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 SA-B-Con Pages 20-23) This does not mean that some schools will not experience overcrowding. There may be a need for additional relocatables and/or new schools to accommodate growth within the District. New schools may be designed to accommodate placement of future relocatables. Boundary changes, limited and costly 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 2011 Page 19 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT and CAPACITY TOTAL DISTRICT SCHOOL YEAR 2010-2011 2011-2012 1 2012-20 33 2013-2014 1 2014-2015 2015-2016 1 2016-e017 Actual P R O 1 E C T E D Permanent Program Capacity ' 27,741 27,741 27,794 27,794 27,794 27,890 28,490 Changes to Permanent Capacity ' Kent-Meridian HS -2011-12 Additions(F) 2 53 2 Classrooms added at KM Replacement school with projected increase in capacity: Covington Elementary3 (Unfunded) 600 To Replace current Covington Elementary capacity -504 New Elementary#31 (actual#29) (Funded) 600 Permanent Program Capacity Subtotal 27,741 27,794 27,794 27,794 27,890 28,490 28,490 Interim Relocatable Capacity Elementary Relocatable Capacity Required 0 168 312 528 624 240 408 Middle School Relocatable Capacity Required 4/7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Senior High Relocatable Capacity Required 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Relocatable Capacity Required'16 0 168 312 528 624 240 408 TOTAL CAPACITY ' 27,741 27,962 28,106 28,322 28,514 28,730 28,898 TOTAL FTE ENROLLMENT/PROJECTION 5 25,621 26,359 26,562 26,781 26,998 27,210 27,441 DISTRICT AVAILABLE CAPACITY 1 2,120 1,603 1,544 1,541 1,516 1,520 1,457 ' Capacity is based on standard of service for programs provided and is updated periodically to reflect program changes. 2 Classroom additions are under construction at Kent-Meridian HS and expected to be available for 2011-12 school year. 3 Replacement school for Covington Elementary will increase capacity and will be built on a different existing site. ° In Fall 2004, 9th grade moved to the high schools which increased capacity available at Middle School 7th-8th grade levels. 5 FTE = Full Time Equivalent EnrollmenUProjections (i.e. 1/2 day Kindergarten student=.5&Full Day Kindergarten student=1.0 FTE). 6 2010-2011 total classroom relocalable capacity is 1,389. 7 School capacity meets concurrency requirements and no impact fees are proposed for middle schools. Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 5 April 2011 Page 20 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT and CAPACITY SENIOR HIGH - Grades 9 - 12 SCHOOL YEAR 2010-2011 2011-2012 1 2012-2013 2013-2014 1 2014-2015 2015-2016 1 2016-2017 Actual P R 0 J E C T E D Senior High Permanent Capacity ' 8,765 8,765 8,818 8,818 8,818 8,818 8,818 Includes Kent Phoenix Academy 2 Chan es to High School Ca acit Kent-Meridian HS -2011-12 Additions (F) 2 Classrooms added (@ 85r utilization) 53 Subtotal 8,765 8,818 8,818 8,818 8,818 8,818 8,818 Relocatable Capacity Required ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL CAPACITY ' 8,765 8,818 8,818 8,818 8,818 8,818 8,818 FTE ENROLLMENT/PROJECTION 3 8,189 8,150 8,135 8,184 8,246 8,225 8,252 SURPLUS (DEFICIT) CAPACITY 576 668 683 634 572 593 566 Number of Relocatables Required 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No Classroom Relocatables required at this time.Some Relocatables used for classroom and program purposes. ' Capacity is based on standard of service for programs provided and is updated periodically to reflect program changes. 2 Kent Phoenix Academy opened in Fall 2007 serving grades 9- 12 with four special programs. 3 FTE =Approximate Full Time Equivalent Enrollment or projections, excluding College-only Running Start students. Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 5 A April 2011 Page 21 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT and CAPACITY MIDDLE SCHOOL - Grades 7 - 8 SCHOOL YEAR 2010-2011 2011-2012 1 2012-2013 2013-2014 1 2014-2015 2015-2016 1 2016-e017 Actual P R O 1 E C T E D Middle School Permanent Capacity ' 5,196 5,196 5,196 5,196 5,196 5,196 5,196 Chan es to Middle School Ca acit 4 Mill Creek MS&Technology Academy are open during Phase 2 of Renovation (No new capacity added in renovation) Subtotal 5,196 5,196 5,196 5,196 5,196 5,196 5,196 Relocatable Capacity Required ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL CAPACITY 183 5,196 5,196 5,196 5,196 5,196 5,196 5,196 FTE ENROLLMENT/PROJECTION 2 4,243 4,280 4,359 4,293 4,257 4,280 4,310 SURPLUS (DEFICIT) CAPACITY' 953 916 837 903 939 916 886 Number of Relocatables Required 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No Classroom Relocatables required at middle schools at this time.Some Relocatables used for classroom and program purposes. ' Capacity is based on standard of service for programs provided and is updated periodically to reflect program changes. 2 FTE =Approximate Full Time Equivalent Enrollment or Projections 3 Surplus capacity due to grade level reconfiguration -All 9th grade students moved to the high schools in Fall 2004. 4 Middle School capacity meets concurrency requirements and no impact fees are collected for middle schools. Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 5 B April 2011 Page 22 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT and CAPACITY ELEMENTARY - Grades K - 6 SCHOOL YEAR 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 1 2014-2015 2015-2016 1 2016-2017 Actual P R O J E C T E D lElementary Permanent Capacity ' 13,364 13,780 13,780 13,780 13,780 13,876 14,476 Kent Mountain View Academy 2 416 Chan es to Elementa Ca acit Replacement school with projected increase in capacity: Covington Elemental ry4 (Unfunded) 600 Will replace current Covington Elementary capacity -504 New Elementary#31 (Funded) 5 600 Subtotal 13,780 13,780 13,780 13,780 13,876 14,476 14,476 Relocatable Capacity Required ' 0 168 312 528 624 240 408 TOTAL CAPACITY 2 13,780 13,948 14,092 14,308 14,500 14,716 14,884 FTE ENROLLMENT/PROJECTION a 13,189 13,929 14,068 14,304 14,495 14,705 14,879 SURPLUS (DEFICIT CAPACITY 591 19 24 4 5 11 5 Number of Relocatables Required 0 7 13 22 26 10 17 26 Classroom Relocatables required in 2014-15. Some additional Relocatables used for program purposes. ' Capacity is based on standard of service for programs provided 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 3- 12, The school building (formerly Kent Learning Center&Grandview Elem.)was designed as an elementary school. a FTE=Approximate Full Time Equivalent Enrollment or Projections(Kindergarten @ 1.0&excluding ECE) ALL Elementary Schools will have FULL Day Kindergarten starting in 2011-12. In Fall 2011,Kindergarten projection changes to 1.0 FTE for Full Day Kindergarten programs at ALL 28 Elementary Schools. 4 Replacement school for Covington Elementary will increase capacity and is planned for a different existing site. 5 Site selection and construction timing for Elementary#31 is pending review of location and capacity needs. Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 5 C April 2011 Page 23 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 2011 - 2012 through 2016 - 2017. 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. In February 2002, voters approved a $69.5 million bond issue for capital construction and improvements. The bond issue partially funded building additions at three high schools which coincided with moving 9th grade students from junior high to senior high schools in September 2004. The District received some State Funding Assistance (formerly known as "state matching funds") and has utilized impact fees for the senior high additions. In February 2006, voters approved a $106 million bond issue that included funds for replacement of Panther Lake Elementary School with increased capacity, as well as construction of new Elementary School #31 (actual #29) to accommodate growth. The new Panther Lake Elementary School replaced the previous Panther Lake Elementary in Fall of 2009. The bond issue also funded Phase II of the renovation for Mill Creek Middle School and renovation of Sequoia Middle School for reconfiguration as a non-traditional high school, Kent Phoenix Academy, which opened in September 2007. 2006 construction funding approval also provided for additional classrooms at Kentlake High School and two projects at Kent-Meridian High School. The projects at Kent- Meridian High School provide additional capacity with several new classrooms and gymnasium space. The first project at K-M was completed and the second is currently under construction. Some impact fees have been or will be utilized only for the new construction that will increase capacity. The district has designated $16 million of the 2006 bond authorization for construction of an additional elementary school ("Elementary #31"), currently scheduled for completion in the fall of 2015, dependent on enrollment levels. Although the school is identified as "Elementary School #31" it will actually be the 291h elementary school in the district. The Finance Plan includes a few new relocatables to provide additional capacity and some may be funded from impact fees. Enrollment projections reflect future need for additional capacity at the elementary level and unfunded facility needs will be reviewed in the future and reported in annual updates of the Capital Facilities Plan. For the Six-Year Finance Plan, costs of future schools are based on estimates from Kent School District Facilities Department. Please see pages 26-27 for a summary of the cost basis. Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2011 Page 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 o v o o O a U � E m E o a o a O O O @ " a rOD o m J d N O Y1 {Oj m V V t0 Co C d W N fA M y O N d O O O = p O O O U � O N U UO N A J O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 J O O O O O O F O O O O (O (p t9 M M NW n M Ifl bi O O N N Vi O 6 1A _ y R S zg o o E CL N N U W U MN m w 1p ZQ p a N N o c F (O OI ui d Y a y F � O m 00 � m O O II N O V D d U1 U O Ul V N O C N @ N N U C @ O N O N 0 m Q O LL Z o @ M K m H O D JO W m o c m Q K O Z F- w u o 0 @ o c E m O d o c c v> (n W N y Y g @ a a v E II w @ L @ o y C U 2 .' E y LL 0 Y Z U W W 2 V I I I Finance Plan - Cost Basis Summary For impact fee calculations, construction costs are based on cost of the last elementary school, adjusted for inflation, and projected cost of the next elementary school. Elementary School Cost Projected Cost Millennium Elementary #30 Opened in 2000 $12,182,768 Cost of Panther Lake Elementary Replacement (Opened in Fall 2009) $26,700,000 Projected cost - Covington Elementary Replacement (Projected to open in 2014) $31,840,000 Projected cost of Elementary#31 in 2015 $33,400,000 Average cost of Covington Elementary Replacement & Elementary #31 $32,620,000 Construction cost of high school addition: Senior High School Additions Projected Cost Total Kent-Meridian HS — 2011-12 Addition #2 $1,500,000 Classroom Additions only Construction cost of new HS capacity $1,500,000 Site Acquisition Cost The site acquisition cost is based on an average cost of sites purchased or built on within the last ten years. Please see Table 7 on page 27 for a list of site acquisition costs and averages. District Adjustment The impact fee calculations on pages 29 and 30 include a "District Adjustment" to reduce the fees calculated by the impact fee formulas. Based on current economic conditions, the District has adjusted the impact fees to keep the same rates as those currently in place and made no adjustment for increase in the Consumer Price Index. Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2011 Page 26 r � N U p� a U _ Q N ry _N 9 i M m O a0 M W N N Q m .N- M GNO � 1� a) (D w m 7 O IN O N ffY r, j fA !N EH d3 Q M O M 00 O N N N O M N O G6 Q6 O O O (N C4 O w N 0 N M OD N s v (O tp O I� N O o (A ePr fA fA W N � � •. Q � N G O V' N Qi N 6 O MLO r (p a W m m o _ o S m m U n Z 5 F H •7 Y U aci y m in Y N 2 f/) G to p J in v in m v « N « aci G7 o w Q a o N a J y N N U W f2 N C] N Gf W W W N W W W F O •(.� L N 'O O O V W V � Z y fn O � o ry rn o rn N rn m Q � Q1 m m m m rn d a 0 N a A N m w LE ¢ N N O v LL m Y V1 (A O O J t0 O J J E d o m rn_ 0 OoJE w (A c m K a w Z in Y Y Y in G m Co in in o m o. m m o r m m rn c{p m c d m c c c w e6 m m o c a a o 9 { {k W w 0 C N Y KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT FACTORS FOR ESTIMATED IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS Student Generation Factors -Single Family Student Generation Factors -Multi-Family x Elementary (Grades K-6) 0.486 Elementary 0,331 x Middle School (Grades 7 - 8) 0.130 Middle School 0,067 x Senior High (Grades 9 - 12) 0.250 Senior High 0.124 x Total 0.866 Total 0.522 Projected Increased Student Capacity OSPI -Square Footage per Student x Elementary 600 Elementary 90 x Middle School 900 Middle School 117 x Senior High Addition 53 Senior High 130 Special Education 144 Required Site Acreage per Facility x Elementary (required) 11 Average Site Cost/Acre x Middle School (required) 21 Elementary $287,573 x Senior High (required) 32 Middle School $0 Senior High $0 New Facility Construction Cost x Elementary* $32,620,000 Temporary Facility Capacity & Cost x Middle School $0 Elementary @ 24 $127,500 x Senior High * $1,500,000 Middle School @ 29 $0 'See cost basis on Pg.26 Senior High @ 31 $0 Temporary Facility Square Footage State Funding Assistance Credit homehy"Sate Match) x Elementary 70,892 District Funding Assistance Percentage 56.65% x Middle School 16,376 x Senior High 22,064 x Total 3% 109,332 Construction Cost Allowance CCA-costScl.Ft. Area Cost Allowance(Effective July 09) $180.17 Permanent Facility Square Footage x Elementary (includesKMVA) 1,470,543 x Middle School 667,829 District Average Assessed Value x Senior High 1,111,036 Single Family Residence $268,279 x Total 97% 3,249,408 Total Facilities Square Footage District Average Assessed Value x Elementary 1,541,435 Multi-Family Residence $99,888 x Middle School 667,829 Apartments 71%Condos 29% x Senior High 1,133,100 x Total 3,342,364 Capital Levy Tax Rate/$1,000 Current /$1,000 Tax Rate(1.7236) $1.84 Developer Provided Sites/Facilities Value 0 General Obligation Bond Interest Rate Dwelling Units 0 Current Bond Interest Rate 4.91% Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2011 Page 28 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 Cost/Acre I Facility Capacity I Student Factor A 1 (Elementary) 11 $287.573 600 0.486 $2,562.28 A 2 (Middle School) 21 $0 1,065 0.130 $0 A 3 (Senior High) 32 $0 1,000 0.250 $0 0.866 A b $2,562.28 Permanent Facility Construction Cost per Single Family Residence Formula. ((Facility Cost/Facility Capacity)x Student Factor)x(Permanent/Total Square Footage Ratio) Construction Cost Facility Capacity Student Factor I Footage Ratio B 1 (Elementary) $32,620,000 600 0.486 0.97 $25,629.53 B 2 (Middle School) $0 900 0.130 0.97 $0 B 3 (Senior High) $1,500,000 53 0.250 0.97 $6,863.21 0.866 $32,492.74 Temporary Facility Cost per Single Family Residence Formula: ((Facility Cost/Facility Capacity)x Student Factor)x(Temporary/Total Square Footage Ratio) Facility Cost Facility Capacity Student Factor I Footage Ratio C 1 (Elementary) $127,500 24 0.486 0.03 $77.46 C 2 (Middle School) $0 29 0.130 0.03 $0 C 3 (Senior High) $0 31 0,250 0.03 $0 0,866 C b $77.46 State Funding Assistance Credit per Single Family Residence (formerly"State Match") Formula: Area Cost Allowance x SPI Square Feet per student x Funding Assistance% x Student Factor Area Cost Allowance I SPI Sq.Ft.I Student I Equalization% I Student Factor D 1 (Elementary) $180.17 90 0.5665 0.486 $4,464,38 D 2 (Middle School) $180.17 117 0 0.130 $0 D 3 (Senior High) $180.17 130 0.5665 0.250 $3,317,15 D $7,781.54 Tax Credit per Single Family Residence Average SF Residential Assessed Value $268,279 Current Capital Levy Rate/$1,000 $1.84 Current Bond Interest Rate 4.91% Years Amortized (10 Years) 10 TC b $3,838.62 Developer Provided Facility Credit Facility/Site Value Dwelling Units 0 0 FC 0 Fee Recap A = Site Acquisition per SF Residence $2,562.28 B = Permanent Facility Cost per Residence $32,492.74 C = Temporary Facility Cost per Residence $77.46 Subtotal $35,132.47 D = State Match Credit per Residence $7,781.54 TC=Tax Credit per Residence $3,838.62 Subtotal - $11,620.15 Total Unfunded Need $23,512.32 50%Developer Fee Obligation $11,756 FC=Facility Credit(if applicable) 0 District Adjustment (See Page 26 for explanation) ($6,270) Net Fee Obligation per Residence-Single Family $5,486 Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2011 Page 29 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION for MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENCE Site Acquisition Cost per Multi-Family Residence Unit Formula: ((Acres x Cost per Acre)/Facility Capacity)x Student Generation Factor Required Site Acreage I Average Site Cost/Acre I Facility Capacity I Student Factor A 1 (Elementary) 11 $287,573 500 0.331 $2,094.11 A 2 (Middle School) 21 $0 1,065 0.067 $0 A 3 (Senior High) 32 $0 1,000 0.124 $0 0.522 A {' $2,094.11 Permanent Facility Construction Cost per Multi-Family Residence Unit Formula: ((Facility Cost/Facility Capacity)x Student Factor)x(Permanent/Total Square Footage Ratio) Construction Cost Facility Capacity Student Factor I Footage Ratio B 1 (Elementary) $32,620,000 600 0.331 0.97 $17,455.51 B 2 (Middle School) $0 900 0,067 0.97 $0 B 3 (Senior High) $1,500,000 53 0.124 0.97 $3,404.16 0.522 B b $20,859.66 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 i (Elementary) $127,500 24 0.331 0,03 $5275 C 2 (Middle School) $0 29 0,067 0.03 $0 C 3 (Senior High) $0 31 0,124 0,03 $0 0.522 C b $52,75 State Funding Assistance Credit per Multi-Family Residence (formerly"State Match") Formula: Area Cost Allowance x SPI Square Feet per student x Funding Assistance% x Student Factor Area Cost Allowance I SPI Sq.Ft./Student I Equalization% I Student Factor D 1 (Elementary) $180.17 90 0.5665 0.331 $3,040.56 D 2 (Middle School) $180.17 117 0 0.067 $0 D 3 (Senior High) $180.17 130 0.5665 0.124 $1,645.31 D -0 $4,685.86 Tax Credit per Multi-Family Residence Unit Average MF Residential Assessed Value $99,888 Current Capital Levy Rate/$1,000 $1.84 Current Bond Interest Rate 4,91% Years Amortized (10 Years) 10 TC b $1,429.23 Developer Provided Facility Credit Facility/Site Value Dwelling Units 0 0 FC b 0 Fee Recap A = Site Acquisition per Multi-Family Unit $2,094.11 B = Permanent Facility Cost per MF Unit $20,859.66 C = Temporary Facility Cost per MF Unit $52.75 Subtotal $23,006.52 D = State Match Credit per MF Unit $4,685.86 TC=Tax Credit per MF Unit $1,429.23 Subtotal - $6,115.09 Total Unfunded Need $16,891.42 50%Developer Fee Obligation $8,446 FC=Facility Credit(if applicable) 0 District Adjustment (See Page 26 for explanation) ($5,068) Net Fee Obligation per Residential Unit-Multi-family $3,373 Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2011 Page 30 IX Summary of Changes to April 2010 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 2010 Plan are summarized here. New Panther Lake Elementary School replaced "Old" Panther Lake Elementary and opened in Fall 2009. "Old" Panther Lake Elementary is being held in reserve for utilization in the event of flood emergency in the Kent Valley. Future projects include potential replacement and expansion of Covington Elementary School, future new Elementary School #31 (actual #29), and one project that increases capacity at Kent-Meridian High School to accommodate new growth. Changes to capacity continue to reflect fluctuations in class size as well as program changes. Changes in relocatables or transitional capacity reflect use, purchase, sale, surplus and/or movement between facilities. The student enrollment forecast is updated annually. Six-year Kindergarten projections were modified to meet the requirements for Full Day Kindergarten programs at all Elementary schools in 2011-12, The district expects to receive some State Funding Assistance (formerly called "state matching funds") for projects in this Plan and tax credit factors are updated annually. Biennial update of student generation rates was completed last year. Unfunded site and facility needs will be reviewed in the future. Based on current economic conditions, the District Adjustment results in no change to the current impact fees. Changes to Impact Fee Calculation Factors include: ITEM Grade/Type FROM TO Comments Student Generation Factor Elem 0.445 0A86 Biennial Update in 2010 Single Family (SF) Ms 0.118 0.130 SH 0.245 0.250 Total 0.808 0,866 +.58 Student Generation Factor Elem 0.296 0.331 Biennial Update in 2010 Multi-Family (MF) Ms 0.075 0.067 SH 0,111 0.124 Total 0.482 0.522 + .40 State Funding Assistance Ratios (state Mamm") 56.06% 56,65% Per OSPI Website Area Cost Allowance (former Boeckh Index) $174.26 $180.17 Per OSPI Website Average Assessed Valuation (AV) SF $277,129 $268,279 Per Puget Sound ESD AV-Average of Condominiums &Apts. MF $109,125 $99,888 Per Puget Sound ESD Debt Service Capital Levy Rate/$1000 $1.72 $1.84 Per King Co.Assessor Report General Obligation Bond Interest Rate 4.33% 4.91% Market Rate Impact Fee -Single Family SF $5,486 $5,486 No Change to fee Impact Fee - Multi-Family MF $3,378 $3,378 No Change to fee Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2011 Page 31 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 Facilities Plan April 2011 Page 32 M M v W ro n LL ❑ y F Q S F ¢ F- '- Q F S S a Q S � Q F Y � a 6 k '- S Q F ¢ F m a [2 C O ZCpp ro O N LU O U O N O t C 4 C O a E Y N N Ol Cy f O 01 f� O N Cl N t7 O UI m m N M m m m O 2 (J l6 Q Q O N W U ro V d C 4 a o E E U W d O W O W r 2 O F E ` Vl p ` O O m N N N N N 0 0 W N O N m P m O O O O O O F m O O VI 1` O O m O O O O VI O N d O O m N M N tN+l O 1+1 N I� O m O m W N d N N m O N d N N ! N M � m W 2 O a X U LL m o E m W ro O O O N O O O O O O N O N O N O O O Q O n O O O O N V d LL C m U N W W W E W U a O LL E m Q a Y o W m U II N Q E _"v � a Q N OU Q N d M N M N M OJ N O �- O M O N d N CI O t+l M N M O j 2 M a O LL C N Z J i W m m m N V N f0 g m m d m m m N d d m O O m P P N N m m P P m ((� r p O N O Vl N m O O f� N m m N O O h O N Q @ d P N P d P P P th O F ❑ II 0 O N a U m O Y Z J F N N W O W d m IL U E Y t Q ((J <p O q� m Z N Y U d m 4 LL a � w ❑ � a � a 6 N U m CU O o N LL. c L U O N N O m N P W N m N P O m P m P O P N d d d m m m P m m d O W Q aI S E P d d C' d m d d d d i0 CJ d N P P h P M M O h v) P C o m M N II v V a N m Pro Q iL m o m m a o m f m m m �n m o m m m d ro U uj ? 7 Z a U b a a2i w t'- m y (n y 11 W w U a °' x a w K E w ' r m w O O L 3: x °' m > Z' 9 o F m N < U U O w w 3 ❑ C9 x y z a a a p m m y m ti m o a @ a m r m w Z 10 E ¢ E m m m Q a -09 `v m m 0 E y Q O F O N 'C w ro 9 ¢ F m O Y Z O _ Q m w x _ m O w m a m W d s _ m r ro 0 y m m Y `L U U p LL z r K W w a 0 N O '% O _❑ U F J m w j O o = .a ap H rn J m y 'o m x p o ?� x y a E Z oo 2. N W q CI T N z O y 0 C W 1 C O v C T C O H N V U W y V m LL N 9 ? N ro C O ^� Y N e ro .- ry C W >` C N N E II Y `m w o @ ro E 'm ro =� m `oa°�i m `w m o n 3 W E `c E Y x V V U U W W (�J 2 Y Z LL LL d K m y m m to Y 0 0 ❑ VJ 0 0 U m W Y Q M m pt N a N 4 O z O 3 `j d m O O W 8 E N m Q r Q N m Q E o r b m m N 8 rn r o m M Q �a c 0 Q Q .- N t4 m c W N 6 w 'c a J o n O O W N W m O O Q ,N(1 ° W N V rl,N ,O O m O Wp N C 0n m m mm m m O N N_ _ M % Ro fnN O W N w n G o m N o o m o m Q M ° a O W U N U N N N C C = E m E m ° c C o v o v Q y W N N C U U ° n L o LL U J H E a E 4 m w N W a no o Q o M o o n rn n w m a ¢ a ¢ c v o E us r ry o N ` 0 U �N b r W O Q b -am N q c M� Z 0 O �j m r m n m m N Yi W O °.22 m N N N n Z Aa W F.. W N a U N N a U ® N m U U W _ ^ _ f X N O W T C N F, O q °m @ 0 N 5 m v �i Z 'u 2 o.A m m m rn Z Q� v Y a o m Q W a s m �e N M M m - W O C y a U a m a` U "J20 a Ea a O € C E �U NN UW- y CL GO p m> Cd m Q E D m m m O W m o x C w U m m J U m O V°IL y `mU mN FO— o S L @ 2 d N9id m s $ ° m Nu O N N N m > n Q ° m O ° U V o Z a ° 5 & U ° N V Q `G Z Q Y Y Y Y d N � = m > E W °° N0 L Q° as � Z' -� o Y .� 0 o a v 3 c ym .jt OL OH amc�m SaMa� aCHO 0 p Q o x U cm c Z m mv N ° c. NZ O m° xy a c >'- ' ° a 15 . mac Om g E v x N w m avi m U o Y v m m aci Y Y <n o f in U Z Y Y Y Y g N W y °� c N N n a 0 8 L U C N Y ) / \ } ( � \ m ! / / ) ) ) CO \ _\ : ( % \ x § LU / _! , , _ . ! ( - w _ - / ) / a � F- co 2 \ \ ) \ @ io \ ° ! TO 4R - } \ ~ ` , / \ _ , _ ; \25 \ \ \ 22CD 0 $ [ } _ 0 } ai ) m m m m m a = N Q O N N N O N N P m N N = O M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Q O O O O O O O O O O O O N O O � U Q r m m m o m O N N m A fn N O Q V N M N O� O N m (O P M U1 M O Q m m m n m w C M o N o o C o 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 o O o 0 06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a o o w N N N N 0 E h N M N r m O M m YI m m � O M � N � m N m N N N P pp N N Q W m m M m O E C m N m N Q N M m P a C d N V 6 N O � 0 M O Q O M � w o O O O O O O O O O o O O O O o Q � W O O O � O O o O o 0 � J O N N n M N O O Q O O P O N O N O O m m m h P N P o o m Q m m r t0 n in P Q o n v m m N O O Q m m m W O Q O O P O h m r m p] O m m m r N M (O N N C6 0 0 0 0� o a o � 0 0 � N $ N N N N M LO N m 22 O Z N N z J U o W LL (n m M N m r o m P N nP- �2 oONn P � n � m m o°i �2 �2 U c N J N m R _ m y = 3 z 0 3 3 3 3 d 0 m M 2 M 0 O m W E ¢ U U U R' 0 o ¢ 0 w m w 0 0 z m a Y w w m m U) C N S C ° = d O p° c 0 E N 2 O O U w m y o c ❑ c` m � m N c m � d a v T 0 w o o ❑ �, p Y Y mLLxC C d v.m. mW " Cc m o vm v LLw° Y a+ Um Yaci vE m 0 mv Ycc o m °M d o ` °m o LL LLmo m m E a. E c a t y U m a m = v m x `° o m `m m c w w wI w x x g z a. wo mm q n - p m c m Y This page intentionally left blank. DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE for Kent School District No. 415 2011 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 2011 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 2011 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 2011 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 2011 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 2011 Capital Facilities Plan as part of the Capital Facilities Plan Element of the Comprehensive Plans of the City of Auburn. 6. The amendment of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Renton to include the Kent School District's 2011 Capital Facilities Plan as part of the Capital Facilities Plan Element of the Comprehensive Plans of the City of Renton. 7. This proposal may also involve amendment of Comprehensive Plans of the Cities of Maple Valley, Black Diamond, and/or SeaTac to incorporate the Kent School District 2011 Capital Facilities Plan into the Capital Facilities element of that jurisdiction's Comprehensive Plan, Proponent: Kent School District No. 415 Location of the Proposal: The Kent School District includes an area of approximately 72 square miles. The City of Covington and portions of the cities of Kent, Auburn, Renton, Black Diamond, Maple Valley, 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 43.21C.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., June 21, 2011. 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: r. Richard A. Stedry, Chief Business Officer for Kent School District No. 415 Telephone: (253) 373-7295 Address: 12033 SE 256th Street#A-600 Kent, Washington 98030-6643 Appeals of this determination are governed by Board Policy No. 9280 which can be obtained from Dr. Richard A. Stedry, Chief Business Officer, 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: June 7, 2011 Date Published: June 8, 2011 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAC 197-11-960 Environmental Checklist. Purpose of Checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21 C 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 Renton, City of Auburn and possibly Cities of Maple Valley, Black Diamond and SeaTac have been and/or will be amended to include the Kent School District 2011 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: Dr. Richard A. Stedry, Chief Business Officer Telephone: (253) 373-7295 4. Date checklist prepared: May 27, 2011 5. Agency requesting checklist: Kent School District No. 415 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): The 2011 Kent School District Capital Facilities Plan is scheduled to be adopted in June, 2011 and forwarded to King County, Cities of Kent, Covington, Auburn, Renton, Maple Valley, Black Diamond, and SeaTac for possible inclusion in each jurisdiction's Comprehensive Plan. The Capital Facilities Plan will be updated annually. Site-specific projects have been or will be subject to project-specific environmental review. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. The Capital Facilities Plan reviews classroom additions to one existing high school and proposes construction of a new elementary school and a replacement of Covington 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 Plans of King County and Cities of Kent, Covington, Renton and Auburn. Cities of Maple Valley, Black Diamond, and SeaTac may also review and approve the Plan for the purposes of any school impact fee ordinances and may adopt the Plan 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 2011 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 Renton, City of Auburn, City of SeaTac, City of Maple Valley and City of Black Diamond. A copy of the Capital Facilities Plan may be viewed at the Kent School District Business Services 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 2011 Capital Facilities Plan will affect the Kent School District. The District includes an area of approximately 70 square miles. The City of Covington, and portions of the Cities of Kent, Auburn, Renton, Black Diamond, Maple Valley, 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, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Specific soil types will be identified during the planning and permit process for each capital project. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Unstable soils may exist within the 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 (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 individual projects. Air-quality impacts will be evaluated during project-specific environmental review. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Off-site sources and necessary mitigation will be addressed during project-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. 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 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 project is formally proposed. 5 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 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 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? 7 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. 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 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. 8 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. 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. 9 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 exist within the Kent School District. Specific noise sources have been or will be identified during project-specific environmental review. 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 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? 10 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. 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. In. 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 has been or would be evaluated during project-specific environmental review procedures. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Measures to reduce or control any housing impacts have been or will be addressed during site-specific, project-level environmental review. 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? 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 be 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. 12 d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Mitigation of light and glare impact has been or will be addressed during project- specific environmental review. 1 Z 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. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: Any adverse effects on recreation stemming from individual project proposals have been or will be subject to mitigation during the 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: Appropriate measures have been or will be proposed on a project-specific basis. 13 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. 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 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. 14 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. 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 th�4-re d agency is relying on them to make its decision. t _ Signature: Dr. Richard A. Stedry, Chief Bus ess Officer Date Submitted: June 7, 2011 15 This page intentionally left blank. 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 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 marine 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, Renton, SeaTac, Maple Valley 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. 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 April 22, 2011 Charlene Anderson Planning Manager City of Kent Planning Department 220 S 4th Ave Kent WA 98032 Dear Ms. Anderson, Enclosed you will find a copy of the Environmental Checklist and the accompanying Determination of Non-Significance for the Federal Way School District's 2012 Capital Facilities Plan. The 14-day comment period to submit written comments or to appeal the decision begins on April 23, 2011 and will continue through 5:00 PM, May 7, 2011. Please let me know if you have any questions or need any additional information. Sincerely, Tanya Nascimento Enrollment and Demographic Analyst FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS School District No. 210 - King County 31405 - 18th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003 RESOLUTION NO. 2011-11 A RESOLUTION of the Board of Education of the Federal Way School District No. 210, to provide to the City of Kent the 2012 Capital Facilities Plan. WHEREAS, the Federal Way School District Board of Education hereby provides to the City of Kent the District's 2012 Capital Facilities Plan, documenting present and future school facility requirements of the District, and WHEREAS, the Plan contains all elements required by the Growth Management Act and City of Kent Ordinance No. 3260, which addresses concurrency, allows each school district to establish their own standards of service, and provides for future school impact fees. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Superintendent be authorized and directed to submit the adopted 2012 Capital Facilities Plan to the City of Kent. ADOPTED this 14th day of June, 2011. Board Secretary Direct Directo Dire r D' o Director FEDERAL Y PUBLIC SCHOOLS �Adwr bilmll"', �Affil ,&A 'Jum V& Adowl., W,&I 2012 CAPITAL FACILITIES LAN r r r 3 l j �p FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2012 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN BOARD OF EDUCATION Tony Moore Amye Bronson-Doherty Ed Barney Angela Griffin Suzanne Smith SUPERINTENDENT Rob Neu Prepared by: Sally D. McLean Tanya Nascimento FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2012 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION 2-3 SECTION 1 THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Introduction 4 Inventory of Educational Facilities 5 Inventory of Non-Instructional Facilities 6 Needs Forecast- Existing Facilities 7 Needs Forecast- New Facilities 8 Six Year Finance Plan 9 SECTION 2 MAPS OF DISTRICT BOUNDARIES Introduction 11 Map - Elementary Boundaries 12 Map - Middle School Boundaries 13 Map - High School Boundaries 14 SECTION 3 SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION Introduction 15 Building Capacities 16-17 Portable Locations 18-19 Student Forecast 20-22 Capacity Summaries 23-27 King County Impact Fee Calculations 28-30 SECTION 4 SUMMARY OF CHANGES FROM THE 2011 31-33 PLAN 1 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2012 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 of King County Code 21A, City of Federal Way Ordinance No. 95-249 effective December 21, 1995 as amended, City of Kent Ordinance No.3260 effective March 1996, and the City of Auburn Ordinance No. 5078 effective 1998, Federal Way Public Schools has updated its 2012 Capital Facilities Plan as of May 2011. This Plan is scheduled for adoption by King County, the City of Kent, City of Federal Way and the City of Auburn and is incorporated in the Comprehensive Plans of each jurisdiction by reference. This plan is also included in the Facilities Plan element of the Comprehensive Plans of each jurisdiction. To date, the City of Des Moines has not adopted a school impact fee ordinance. The City of Des Moines collects school impact fees as part of the SEPA process. The Growth Management Act requires the County to designate Urban Growth areas within which urban growth can be encouraged. The Growth Management Planning Council adopted and recommended to the King County Council four Urban Growth Area Line Maps with designations for urban centers. A designation was made within the Federal Way planning area, which encompasses Federal Way Public Schools boundaries. King County will encourage and actively support the development of Urban Centers to meet the region's need for housing, jobs, services, culture, and recreation. This Plan's estimated population growth is prepared with this underlying assumption. This Capital Facilities Plan will be used as documentation for any jurisdiction, which requires its use to meet the needs of the Growth Management Act. This plan is not intended to be the sole planning tool for all of the District needs. The District may prepare interim plans consistent with Board policies or management need. Currently,the District plans to replace Federal Way High School and to increase capacity by approximately 200 students. Federal Way High School was built in 1938. It has been added onto at least 10 times and currently has an almost maze-like layout. Based on a 2006 bond estimated construction cost, the estimated cost to rebuild Federal Way High School is $81 million. Final construction costs are under consideration by the Board for the February 2012 bond election. Plans to replace Decatur High School and to increase capacity by approximately 200 students are planned in a later phase. None of the cost to replace Decatur High School is included in the Impact Fee calculation in this Plan. The non-instructional projects included in the 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. The District continues to monitor factors that may have an impact on enrollment and capacity at our schools. One such factor is SHB 2776, which will phase in full-day kindergarten for all students and decrease K-3 class size from 20 to 17. This is proposed to be fully funded by 2017-18. Using current enrollment,the decrease in class size would create the need for an additional 69 classes for K-3 students. This number would 2 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2012 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN significantly increase by 2017-18. The District will follow this bill as it progresses and assess the facility impact this bill will create. Another factor would be the inclusion of a Program of Early Learning for at risk children within the overall Program of Basic Education. The District will also continue to follow the changes in legislation surrounding the Running Start program. Changes in availability and cost to parents of this program could result in the return of high school students to our schools. We will also continue to study school boundaries as new housing and fluctuating populations impact specific schools. Some shifts in boundaries may be required in the coming years. We currently have three areas under review for boundary changes. The maps included in this Plan reflect our current boundaries. 3 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2012 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 that shows expected funding for any new construction, portables and modernization listed follows this. 4 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2012 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN INVENTORY OF EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS Adelaide 1635 SW 304`h St Federal Way 98023 Brigadoon 3601 SW 336`h St Federal Way 98023 Camelot 4041 S 298" St Auburn 98001 Enterprise 35101 5`h Ave SW Federal Way 98023 Green Gables 32607 47" Ave SW Federal Way 98023 Lake Dolloff 4200 S 308" St Auburn 98001 Lake Grove 303 SW 308" St Federal Way 98023 Lakeland 35827 32"d Ave S Auburn 98001 Mark Twain 2450 S Star Lake Rd Federal Way 98003 Meredith Hill 5830 S 300" St Auburn 98001 Mirror Lake 625 S 3le St Federal Way 98003 Nautilus (K-8) 1000 S 289' St Federal Way 98003 Olympic View 2626 SW 3271h St Federal Way 98023 Panther Lake 34424 l't Ave S Federal Way 98003 Rainier View 3015 S 368" St Federal Way 98003 Sherwood Forest 34600 12" Ave SW Federal Way 98023 Silver Lake 1310 SW 325`h Pl Federal Way 98023 Star Lake 4014 S 270" St Kent 98032 Sunnycrest 24629 42°d Ave S Kent 98032 Twin Lakes 4400 SW 320`h St Federal Way 98023 Valhalla 27847 42"d Ave S Auburn 98001 Wildwood 2405 S 300" St Federal Way 98003 Woodmont(K-8) 26454 16" Ave S Des Moines 98198 MIDDLE SCHOOLS Federal Way Public Academy(6-10) 34620 9`h Ave S Federal Way 98003 Illahee 36001 l't Ave S Federal Way 98003 Kilo 4400 S 308" St Auburn 98001 Lakota 1415 SW 314`h St Federal Way 98023 Sacajawea 1101 S Dash Point Rd Federal Way 98003 Saghalie 33914 19" Ave SW Federal Way 98023 Sequoyah 3450 S 360" ST Auburn 98001 Totem 26630 40" Ave S Kent 98032 TAF Academy(6-12) 26630 40" Ave S Kent 98032 HIGH SCHOOLS Decatur 2800 SW 320`h St Federal Way 98023 Federal Way 30611 16" Ave S Federal Way 98003 Thomas Jefferson 4248 S 288" St Auburn 98001 Todd Beamer 35999 16" Ave S Federal Way 98003 Career Academy at Truman 31455 28" Ave S Federal Way 98003 ALTERNATIVE SCHOOLS Merit School 36001 l't Ave S Federal Way 98003 Internet Academy 31455 28" Ave S Federal Way 98003 Employment Transition Program 33250 214 Ave SW Federal Way 98023 5 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2012 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN CURRENT INVENTORY NON-INSTRUCTIONAL FACILITIES Developed Property Administrative Building 31405 18t' Ave S Federal Way 98003 MOT Site 1066 S 320t' St Federal Way 98003 Central Kitchen 1344 S 308t' St Federal Way 98003 Federal Way Memorial Field 1300 S 308t' St Federal Way 98003 Northwest Center 33330 81' Ave S Federal Way 98003 Leased Space Community Resource Center 1813 S Commons Federal Way 98003 Student Support Annex 32020 lsr Ave S Federal Way 98003 Notes: In November 2011, the Administrative Building, Community Resource Center, and Student Support Annex will be relocated to the Northwest Corporate Center. The leases for the Community Resource Center and the Student Support Annex will end in November 2011. In 2010, construction began on Site 81. The MOT Site & Central Kitchen will be relocated to this site in late 2011. The Administration Building and MOT Site have been surplussed and will be marketed for sale. Undeveloped Property Site Location 75 SW 360th Street& 3rd Avenue SW—9.2 Acres 65 S 351st Street& 52nd Avenue S —8.8 Acres 60 E of loth Avenue SW - SW 334th & SW 335t' Streets - 10.04 Acres 73 N of SW 320t' and east of 45t'PL SW—23.45 Acres 71 S 344th Street& 46th Avenue S - 17.47 Acres 82 lsr Way S and S 342°d St—Minimal acreage 96 S 308t' St and 14t' Ave S —.36 Acres 81 S 332°d St and 9t' 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. 6 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2012 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. Federal Way High School Replace Existing Building, Future bond authorization Increase Capacity Decatur High School Replace Existing Building, Future bond authorization. Increase Capacity The District is also replacing some non-instructional facilities. The District has purchased 20 acres (Site #81)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 multi-phase plan,the District intends to increase capacity for high school students with expansion at the Federal Way High School site. Increased capacity at Federal Way High and Decatur High in later phases supplant the need for construction of a fifth comprehensive high school. 7 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2012 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN NEEDS FORECAST - ADDITIONAL FACILITIES NEW FACILITY LOCATION ANTICIPATED SOURCE OF FUNDS No current plans for additional facilities. 8 c9 F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � � G a � o � u w O b [y O M O a � C O O 6 '4 'i 0 �j E .� a4 d d 09 _ 9r 4p o C O yO N 1"I L yO 0 F S 3 Vl P6/ s a 2 a x q F� O 0 0 'm 5 'm &' [a• °' P-i N o o 0 ° Eu b a Fa "o wo m 2 a # o o ° m � � ova to c w o c•�C �, m ,°3 &' c Pu v . s o .g '0 8 o s .5 0 0 .5 d 5 iC 00 Q h w 5 Cam, o o ° m o iO o v '° o m y U u CJ '(i O a uu v y o a IS $' .� •°m3 . m �oq A v E o O O FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2012 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN SECTION 2 - MAPS OF DISTRICT BOUNDARIES Federal Way Public Schools has twenty-one elementary schools (grades K-5), two schools with a K-8 grade configuration, seven middle school schools (grades 6-8), four high schools (grades 9-12) and three small secondary schools. The Federal Way Public Academy serves students in grades 6-10. The TAF Academy serves students in grades 6- 12 who reside in the Totem Middle School service area. The Career Academy at Truman High School serves students in grades 9-12. The Internet Academy serves grades K-12. The following maps show the service area boundaries for each school, by school type. (Career Academy at 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 boundaries can be adjusted to match the population changes to the surrounding facilities. Adjusting boundaries requires careful consideration by the District and is not taken lightly. It is recognized that there is a potential impact on students who are required to change schools. Boundary adjustments impact the whole district, not just one school. We currently have 3 areas under consideration for boundary changes. It is important to realize that a single housing development does not require the construction of a complete school facility. School districts are required to project growth throughout the district and build or adjust boundaries based on growth throughout the district, not just around a single development. 11 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2012 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL BOUNDARIES E encntay 9hools � � � � ' Name I 1 aaelalae iff z H&gadoon IIIP 3 camel& ' � . 4 Enterprise 6 Green Gables 5 6 Lake Oollott ] Lake Grwe 8 Lakeland WIN 9 Mark Twain tE 10 Meredtth Hill f 11 Mimw Lake j 12 AaA (148) i( 13 CWpicviaw 14 Panther Larejj _ f 16 RainierVew 16 Sherwood Fores 17 Sinter Late IIIIIIIIIIIIIII3 s<arL�e i � , Uffl� 19 Su nrrycresl � ', 2] Tw n Laces d , 21 Valhalla C. Z2 Wildwood t 1�1 Il M Woodmont(KS) Mddle Schools efyj§ High Schook r r MminktraSre Building; Undeveloped Sties Y i rj i r r r , l� 5, 1/4 r Ii N r w Ir 12 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2012 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN MIDDLE SCHOOL BOUNDARIES Mtltlle Name ' 30 Federal Way Poblio Academy �SO Illahee 31 Kilo 32 Lakofa � 1 33 Saca]anea r l'J, 34 Saghalle + PAY y 37 Sequnyalh 35 Totem ( �fffD� Elementary High Schoob j "min'utraiv Build ing, Bndeoeloped St. r M i r - i 10 i 32 4jf �f n as Il � , �37 Np yr I�9�L i r, p 13 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2012 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN HIGH SCHOOL BOUNDARIES A h m Decatur M41 FederalMa,, �..� �1 Thomas Jefferson 95 Todd Beamer 9B0 Career Academy al Truman �•i�Ir �51 Employment Trarsdlon Program EIeme Mary Sohools hA ddle S hookr(rj riI AAminahati,e Building rIj Undeveloped Sit. I } r� ., r... r,:., I: I I I p/ t 9Jl )'.:� "I r IIIII i I � I f jr low Hr q !, r r { >� s � J I � YY �I y I 14 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2012 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN SECTION 3 - SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION Building Capacities - The Education Program Portable Locations Student Forecast—2012 through 2018 Capacity Summaries King County Impact Fees - Single and Multi-Family Units 15 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2012 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. In general, the District's current target class size provides that the average class size for a standard classroom for grades K through 2 should be 20 students. In grades 3-5 the target is 25 students. For grades 6 to 12 the target class size is 26 students. Classrooms for students with Individualized Education Program (Special Education) needs are calculated at 12 seats per classroom. Using the OSPI square footage calculation as a base line, the District has calculated a program capacity for all schools. A recent Study & Survey was the basis for changes to the OSPI building report. The following list clarifies the adjustments to the OSPI calculation. Music Rooms: Each elementary school requires a standard classroom for music instruction. All Day Kindergarten: Every elementary school operates at least one all day Kindergarten program. These all day Kindergarten programS require additional capacity because the standard classroom is available for one all day session rather than two half day sessions. The District will operate 52 sections of all day Kindergarten in 2011-12. Special Education Resource Rooms: Each elementary and middle school requires the use of a standard classroom(s)for special education students requiring instruction to address specific disabilities. English as a Second Language Programs: Each elementary, middle school and high school requires the use of a standard classroom for students learning English as a second language. Middle School Computer Labs: Each middle school has computer labs, except Totem Middle School. Wireless access has been installed at all secondary schools. If additional classroom space is needed,these computer labs may be converted to mobile carts. High School Career Development and Learning Center(Resource) Room: Each high school provides special education resource room and career development classrooms for students requiring instruction to address specific disabilities. Preschool/ECEAP/Headstart: Our district currently offers preschool programs for both special needs &typically developing students at 8 elementary schools. We also have the ECEAP and Headstart program at 6 schools (3 elementary & 3 high schools). These programs decrease capacity at those sites. 16 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2012 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN BUILDING PROGRAM CAPACITIES ELEMENTARY BUILDING MIDDLE SCHOOL BUILDING PROGRAMCAPACH Y PROGRAMCAPACH Y School Name Headcount School Name Headcount FTE Adelaide 372 Mabee 855 864 Bngadoon 319 Kilo 829 837 Camelot 269 Lakota 707 714 Enterprise 458 Sacajawea 655 662 Green Gables 437 Saghalie 804 812 Lake Dolloff 433 Sequoyah 569 575 Lake Grove 323 Totem 739 746 Lakeland 406 Federal Way Public Academy 209 211 Mark Twain 287 Technology Access Foundation Academy** Meredith Hill 453 2011 TOTAL 5,367 5,421 Mirror Lake 325 Nautilus(K-8) 367 Olympic View 348 'Mdde School Awrage 737 744 Panther Lake 434 Rainier View 432 HIGH SCHOOL BUILDING Sherwood Forest 423 PROGRAMCAPACHY Silver Lake 410 Star Lake 361 School Name Headcount FTE Sunnycrest 382 Decatur 1249 1,336 Twin Lakes 297 Federal Way 1538 1,645 Valhalla 442 Thomas Jefferson 1349 1,443 Wildwood 297 Todd Beamer 1123 1,201 Woodmont(K-8) 346 Career Academy at Truman 163 174 2011 TOTAL 8,621 Federal Way Public Academy 109 117 Employment Transition Program 48 51 Technology Access Foundation Academy** 11ementaryAverage 375 2011 TOTAL 5,579 5,967 I'llighSchoolAver e 1315 1406 Notes: *Federal W ay Public Academy,Career Academy at Truman High School,and Employment Transition Program are non-boundary schools. These schools are not usedin the calculated averages. **Technology Access Foundation Academy is housed entirely in portables on the TotemMiddle School site. 17 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2012 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 when increasing population impacts a school attendance area. Portables may also be required to house students when new or changing programs require additional capacity. They also provide temporary housing for students until permanent facilities can be financed and constructed. When permanent facilities become available, the portable(s) is either used for other purposes such as storage or child care programs, or moved to another school for an interim classroom. Some portables may not be fit to move due to age or physical condition. In these cases, the District may choose to buy new portables and surplus these unfit portables. It is the practice and philosophy of Federal Way Public Schools that portables are not acceptable as permanent facilities. The following page provides a list of the location of the portable facilities, used for temporary educational facilities by Federal Way Public Schools. 18 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2012 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN PORTABLE LOCATIONS PORTABLESLOCATED PORTABLES LOCATED AT ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS AT HIGH SCHOOLS rvory NON MSMUCTIONAL MS MUCTIONAL IISTWCTIONAL MSMUCTIONAL Adelaide 1 2 Decatur 9 Brigadcon 1 Federal Way 2 1 Camelot 1 Thomas Jefferson 10 Enterprise 2 1 Todd Beamer 9 Green Gables 1 TAF Academy 8 1 Lake Dolloff 1 1 TOTAL 38 2 Lake Grove 1 1 Lakeland Mark Twain 2 1 Meredith Hill 1 2 Minor Lake 4 PORTABLES LOCATED Nautilus 1 AT SUPPORT FACILITIES Olympic View 1 1 Panther Lake MOT 1 Rainier View 1 2 TDC 5 Sherwood Forest 3 1 TOTAL 6 Silver Lake 1 3 Star Lake 4 Sunnycrest HEAD START PORTABLES AT DISTRICT SITES Twin Lakes 3 Valhalla Sherwood Forest 1 W ildwood 4 Woodmorit 3 11otal1 TOTAL 31 20 PORTABLESLOCATED AT MIDDLE SCHOOLS rvory MSMUCTIONAL MS MUCTIONAL Illahee 3 Kilo 7 Lakota Sacajawea 7 Saghahe 2 2 Sequoyah 1 1 Totem Merit 3 TAF Academy 8 1 28 7 19 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2012 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 Master TM software provides statistical methods including trend line, standard grade progression (cohort) and combinations of these methods. This software produces a five-year projection of school enrollment. In December 2006, the District contracted a demographer to develop projections for the Federal Way School District. The report was complete in January 2007. The model used to forecast next year's enrollment uses cohort survival rates to measure grade to grade growth, assumes market share losses to private schools (consistent with county-wide average), assumes growth from new housing or losses due to net losses from migration. This forecast was provided as a range of three projections. The long-range forecast provided with this report used a model with cohort survival rates and growth rates based on projected changes in the 5-19 age group for King County. Most of the methods used for long range enrollment reporting assume that enrollment is a constant percent of 20 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2012 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN something else (e.g. population) or that enrollment will mirror some projected trend for the school-age population over time. The report included 5 different calculations to provide a range of possible projections for the District to the year 2017. This model produces a projection that is between 23,000 and 24,000 when applied to the low, medium and high range modes. This provides a reasonable range for long-range planning and is consistent with estimates from various models. Long-range projections that establish the need for facilities are a modification of the cohort survival method. The cohort method of analysis becomes less reliable the farther out the projections are made. The Federal Way School District long-range projections are studied annually. The study includes information from the jurisdictional demographers as they project future housing and population in the region. The long-range projections used by Federal Way Public Schools reflect a similar age trend in student populations as the projections published by the Office of Financial Management for the State of Washington. Near term projections assume some growth from new housing, which is offset by current local economic conditions. Current economic conditions do appear to be affecting enrollment. This is reflected in the District's projections. The District tracks new development from five permitting jurisdictions. Long range planning assumes a student yield from proposed new housing consistent with historical growth patterns. Growth Management requires jurisdictions to plan for a minimum of twenty years. The Federal Way School District is a partner in this planning with the various jurisdictions comprising the school district geography. These projections create a vision of the school district community in the future. 21 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2012 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Full Time Equivalent Enrollment History and Projections S4mphfled FFE(K Headcount=.5 FTE;Middle School FTE=.99 Headcount;High School FTE=.935Headcount) Total K-12 Percent CalendarYr SchoolYear Elementary Middle School High School FTE Change 2006 2005-06 9,105 5,309 6,770 21,184 2007 2006-07 9,022 5,261 6,754 21,037 -0.7% 2008 2007-08 8,912 5,167 6,637 20,716 -1.5% 2009 2008-09 8,865 5,155 6,456 20,476 -1.2% 2010 2009-10 8,738 5,119 6,594 20,451 -0.1% 2011 2010-11 8,753 5,142 6,544 20,439 -0.1% 2012 B2011-12 5,759 5,166 6,425 20,350 -0.4% 2013 P2012-13 8,848 5,118 6385 20,351 0.0% 2014 P2013-14 8,948 5,093 6396 20,437 0.4% 2015 P2014-15 9,034 5,138 6363 20,535 0.5% 2016 P2015-16 9,111 5,215 6320 20,646 0.5% 2017 P2016-17 9,215 5,258 6284 20,757 0.5% 2018 P2017-18 9,310 5,286 6294 20,890 0.6% Elementary K-5 Middle School6-8 High School9-12 - �' �' �' � v>� J� SchcolYear G FTE 22 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2012 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Capacity Summaries All Grades, Elementary, Middle School, and High Schools The Capacity Summaries combine Building Capacity information and the Student Forecast information. The result demonstrates the requirements for new or remodeled facilities and why there is a need for the District to use temporary facilities or interim measures. The information is organized in spreadsheet format, with a page summarizing the entire District, and then evaluating capacity vs. number of students at elementary, middle school, and high school levels individually. The notes at the bottom of each spreadsheet provide information about what facilities are in place each year. 23 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2012 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN CAPACH'Y SUMMARY-ALL GRADES Budget -- Projected-- Calendar Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 CAPACITY School Year 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 BUILDINGPROGRAM HEADCOUNT CAPACITY 19,567 19,667 19,667 19,667 19,867 19,867 19,867 FTECAPACITY 20,009 20,109 20,109 20,109 20,309 20,309 20,309 Add or subtract changes to capacity Increase Capacity-Lakeland and Sunnycrest 100 Increase Capacity at Federal Way HS 200 Adjusted Program Headcount Capacity 19,667 19,667 19,667 19,867 19,867 19,867 19,867 Adjusted ProgramFTE Capacity 20109 20,109 20,109 20,309 20,309 20,309 20,309 ENROLLMENT Basic FTE Enrollment 20,350 20,351 20,437 20,535 20,646 20,757 20,890 Intemet Academy Enrollment(AAFTE) (315) (315) (315) (315) (315) (315) (315) Basic FTE Enrollment without Internet Academy 20,035 20,036 20,122 20,220 20,331 20,442 20,575 SURPLUS OR(UNHOUSED) PROGRAM EITCAPAMY 74 73 (13) 89 (22) (133) (26b) RELOCATABLECAPAMY Current Portable Capacity 2,300 2,325 2,325 2,325 2,275 Z275 2,275 Deduct Portable Capacity (25) (50) Add New Portable Capacity 50 Adjusted Portable Capacity 2,325 Z325 2,325 ', 2 275 2 775 2,275 2 275 SURPLUS OR(UNHOUSED) PROGRAMAND RELOCATABLE CAPACRY 2, 99 2, 98 2,312 2,364 2 253 2,142 2,009 24 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2012 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN CAPACITY SUMMARY-ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS Budget -- Projected-- CalendarYear 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 CAPACITY JSchoolYear 12011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 201E-17 2017-18 BUILDING PROGRAM HEAD COUNT CAPACITY 8,621 8,721 8,721 8,721 8,721 8,721 8,721 FTECAPACITY 8,621 8,721 8,721 8,721 8,721 8721 8,721 1. Increase Capacity Lakeland and Surm crest 100 Adjusted Program Headcount Capacity $721 8,721 8,721 8,721 8,721 8,721 8,721 Adjusted Program FTE Capacity j 8,721 8,721 8,721 8,721 '..8,721 8721 8,721 ENROLLMENT Basic FT Enrollment 8,759 8,848 8,948 9,034 9,111 9,215 9,310 2. Internet Academy(AAFTE) (36) (36) (36) (36) (36) (36) (36) Basic FTE Enrollment without Internet Academy 8,723 8,812 8,912 8,998 '..9,075 9,179 9,274 SURPLUS OR(UNHOUSED) PROGRAMCAPACITY (2) (91) (191) (277) (354) ( $8) (SS3) RELOCATABLECAPACHY3. Current Portable Capacity 775 1101 1100 800 800 11 800 Subtract s ing le port ab le from Mirror Lake (25) Add double portable to Mirror Lake 50 Adjusted Portable Capacity 800 800. 800 800 800 800 800 SURPLUS OR(UNHOUSED) PROGRAM AND RELOCATABLE CAPACITY 798 709 609 : 523 446 342 247 NOTES: 1. Increase Capacity at Lakeland,and Sunnycrest 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 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. 25 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2012 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN CAPACITY SUMMARY-MmDLESCHOOLS Budget -- Projected-- Calendar Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 CAPACITY School Year 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 BUILDING PROGRAM HEADCOUNT CAPACITY 5,367 5,367 5,367 5,367 5,367 5,367 5,367 FTECAPACITY 5,421 5,421 5,421 5,421 5,421 5,421 5,421 Add or subtract changes in capacity Adjusted Program Headcount Capacity 5,367 5,367 5,367 5,367 5,367 5,367 5,367 Adjusted ProgramFTECapacity; 5,421 5,421 5,421 5,421 5,421 5,421 5,421 ENROLLMENT Basic FTEFnrollment 51166 5,118 5,093 5,138 5,215 5,258 5,286 1 IntemetAcademy (AAFTE) (74) (74) (74) (74) (74) (74) (74) Basic FTE Fnrolhnent without Internet Academy 5,092 5,044 5,019 '.5,064 5,141 5,184 5,212 SURPLLS OR(UNHOUSED) PROGRAMCAPACITY 329 377 402 357 280 237 209 RELOCATABLECAPACIT'Y 2. Current Portable Capacity 575 575 575 575 575 575 575 Add/Subtract portable capacity Adjusted Portable Capacity 575 575 575 575 575 575 575 SURPLtN OR(UNHOUSED) PROGRAMAND RELOCATABLE CAPACITY ' 904 952 977 932 855 812" 784 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 pemunent 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 fromthe instructional inventory. Age and condition of the portables will deter ine feasibility for continued instructional use. 26 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2012 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN CAPACITY SUNRIARY-MGR S CHOOLS Budget -- Projected-- Calendar Year 2012 2013 1 2014 1 2015 1 2016 2017 2018 CAPACITY JSchoolYear 12011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 201E-17 2017-18 BUILDING PROGRAM HEADCOUNT CAPACITY 5,579 5,579 5,579 5,579 5,779 5,779 5,779 FTE CAPACITY 5,967 5,967 5,967 1 5,967 6,167 6,167 6,167 i Add or subtract changes in capacity Add capacity to Federal Way US 200 Adjusted Pro ram Headcount Capacity 5,579 5,579 5,579 5,779 5,779 5,779 5,779 Adjusted Program FTE Capacity', 5,967 5,967 5,967 6,167 6167 6,167 6,167' i ENROL I XffiN ' BasicFTEEnrollment 6,425 6,385 6,396 6,363 6,320 6,284 6,294 1 Internet Academy(AAFTE) (205) (205) (205) (205) (205) (205) (205) Basic Ed without Internet Academy 6,220 6,180 6,191 6,158 6,115 6,079 6,089' '. SURPLUS OR(UNHOLSED) PRO(aZA iCAPACITY (253) (213) (224) 9 52 88 78 RELOCATABLECAPACITY 2. Current Portable Capacity 950 950 950 950 900 901 900 Add/Subtract portable capacity Subtract portable capacity at Federal Way US (50) Adjusted Portable Capacity 950 9501 950 900 900 900 900 SURPLUS OR(UNHOLSED) PROQ2 AMAND RELOCATABLE 3. CAPACITY 697 737 726 909 952 988 978 NOTES: 1. Intemet Academy students are included in projections but do not require full time us e of school facilities. 2. Relocatable Capacity is based on the number of portables available and other administrative techniques which can be us ed 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. 27 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2012 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-family unit and to gather some standard construction costs, which are unique to that district. - STUDENT GENERATION FACTOR ANALYSIS Federal Way Public Schools student generation factor was determined separately for single-family units and multi-family units. The factors used in the 2012 Capital Facilities Plan were derived using actual generation factors from single-family units that were constructed in the last five (5) years. - IMPACT FEE CALCULATION Following the calculations for the student generation factor is a copy of the Impact Fee Calculation for single family and multi-family units based on King County Code 2 1 A and the Growth Management Act. ➢ Temporary Facility Cost is the average cost of a portable purchased within the last 12 months. Plan Year 2012 Plan Year 2011 Single Family Units* $4,014 $4,014 Multi-Family Units $1,253 $2,172 *Due to current economic conditions, Federal Way Public Schools has made the decision to retain the impact fee for Single Family Units at the 2011 rate instead of the updated 2012 rate of$4,461. 28 .A. w O C L O 2 O O O y O m 0 of M N (O N O O V Iry. 'O O N V N O V LL� O 4V LL O O O O O O O O O O O. w W h O 00 y OO W J Ol N 0 � = Z 2 = S O L r y L 14 U � p aN vNmmrnrm � rn � � � � � Ncro °� � zz d Zw d v w z > > N 0 U � z w E E N (V my w E0000ci'.. = w m U p z W = w P� T y � w A a LL - o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o y E w z A a a w a Q 0 A = J Ol y z C L] (0 fn O O N A a C f/1 z O N W — C 0 a Y A w w m m "�a Y F (� m d = . ' N of N p c W = E -o > U T Y W V 0 a Y 00 A L 0 A a0 0I N N (0 Y f/1 O mFU CD FZU U o o rn rn m m n n � 0 0 0 0 0 0 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2012 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN IMPACT FEE School Site Acquisition Cost: Student Student Facility Cost/ Facility Factor Factor Cost/ Cost/ Acreage Acre Capacity SFR MFR SFR MFR Elementary 0.3315 0.1480 $0 $0 Middle School ............................ ...................... ..................... ............ .1658............................... . 0420 $0 $0 High School .....................4.8 . .......$ �. .8.. .................. .� ............ 9 ..........."^0.05901 $4,313 1 $1,215 TOTALI $4,313 1 $1,215 School Construction Cost: Student Student % Perm Fac./ Facility Facility Factor Factor Cost/ Cost/ Total Sq Ft Cost Capacity SFR MFR SFR MFR Elementary 95:90%1 1 0.3315 0.1480 $0 $0 Middle School 94.76% 0.1158 0 0420 $0 $0 High School 96.53%1 $10,530,000 200 0_2095 00590 $10,647 $2,999 TOTAL $10,647 $2,999 Temporary Facility Cost: Student Student %Temp Fac. Facility Facility Factor Factor Cost/ Cost/ Total Sq Ft Cost Size SFR MFR SFR MFR Elementary 4.10% $199,832 25 0.3315 0.1480 $109 $49 Middle School 5.24°/o 0.1658 0.0420 High School 3.47% 1 0.2095 0.0590 TOTAL $109 $49 State Matching Credit Calculation: Student Student Construction Cost Sq. Ft. State Factor Factor Cost/ Cost/ Allocation/Sq Ft Student Match SFR MFR SFR MFR Elementary $180.17 0.3315 0.1480 $0 $0 Middle School $180.17 0.1658 0.0420 $0 $0 High School $180.17 1 130 62.53% 0.2095 0.0590 $3,068 $864 Total $3,068 $864 Tax Payment Credit Calculation SFR MFR Average Assessed Value (March 2011) $257,849 $74,692 Capital Bond Interest Rate arch 2011 4.91%0 4 p (M ) 91% Net Present Value of Average Dwelling $1,999,773 $5 79,281 Years Amortized 10 10 Property Tax Levy Rate $1.54 $1.54 Present Value of Revenue Stream $3,079 $892 Single Family Multi-Family Residences Residences Mitigation Fee Summary Site Acquisition Cost $ 4,313 $ 1,215 Permanent Facility Cost $ 10,647 $ 2,999 Temporary Facility Cost $ 109 $ 49 State Match Credit $ (3,068) $ (864) Tax Payment Credit $ (3,079) $ (892) Sub-Total $ 8,922 $ 2,506 50% Local Share $ 4,461 $ 1,253 alculated act Fee $ 4,461 $ 1,253 012 Imapct Fee $ 4,014 $ 1,253 30 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2012 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN SECTION 4 SUMMARY OF CHANGES FROM THE 2011 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN The 2012 Capital Facilities Plan is an updated document, based on the 2011 Capital Facilities Plan. The changes between the 2011 Plan and the 2012 Plan are listed below. SECTION I - THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN SIX-YEAR FINANCE PLAN The Six Year Finance Plan has been rolled forward to reflect 2012-2018 SECTION III - SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION CAPACITY Elementary capacity includes space for All Day Kindergarten programs at every elementary school. Changes to the Building Program Capacities calculation are found on page 17. PORTABLES The list of portables reflects the movement of portables between facilities or new portables purchased. Portable Locations can be found on page 19. STUDENT FORECAST The Student Forecast now covers 2012 through 2018 Enrollment history and projections are found on page 22. 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 24-27. 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 2011 Capital Facilities Plan and the 2012 Capital Facilities Plan can be found on page 32 and 33. 31 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2012 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN IMPACT FEE CALCULATION CHANGES FROM 2011 TO 2012 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 2011 Capital Facilities Plan and the 2012 Capital Facilities Plan are due to developments that were deleted or added based upon the age of the developments and the year placed in the survey. The Student Generation worksheet is found on page 29. SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION COSTS The anticipated cost based on 2006 estimates for replacing Federal Way High is $81,000,000. The replacement will add 200 additional seats. The current capacity of Federal Way High is 1538. The addition of200 seats will increase capacity by 13%. Total Cost $81,000,000 x.13 =$10,533,000 SCHOOL ACO UISITION COSTS The district purchased the Norman Center to house the Employment Transition Program and at a later date the ECEAP program. The purchase and use of this site increased our high school capacity by 51 students. Total Cost $2,100,000/2 =$1,050,000 The District will use the above formulas created as a base for the 2012 Capital Facilities Plan. The capacity of Federal Way High may vary from year to year as programs are added or changed and construction cost may increase over time. 32 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2012 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN IMPACT FEE CALCULATION CHANGES FROM 2011 TO 2012 IMPACT FEE Item From/To Comment Percent of Permanent 95.71%to 95.16% Report#3 OSPI Facilities 4.29%to 4.84% Updated portable inventory Percent Temporary Facilities Average Cost of Portable $183,996 to $199,832 Updated average of portables Classroom purchased and placed in 2010 Construction Cost Allocation $180.17 to $180.17 Change effective July 2010 State Match 61.86%to 62.53% Change effective July 2011 Average Assessed Value SFR— Per Puget Sound Educational $267,668 to $257,849 Service District (ESD 121) MFR— $84,429 to $74,692 Capital Bond Interest Rate 4.33%to 4.91% Market Rate Property Tax Levy Rate $1.72 to $1.54 King County Treasury Division Single Family Student Yield Updated Housing Inventory Elementary .3507 to .3315 Middle School .1701 to .1658 High School .2236 to .2095 Multi-Family Student Yield Updated County-Wide Average Elementary .1650 to .148 Middle School .0530 to .042 High School .0640 to .059 Impact Fee SFR— Due to current economic conditions, $4,014 to $4,014 SFR retained at 2011 rate. (Calculated 2012 SFR $4,461) MFR— MFR based on the updated $2,172 to $1,253 calculation 33 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 action: 1. The adoption of the Federal Way Public Schools' 2012 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' 2012 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' 2012 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' 2012 Capital Facilities Plan into the Capital Facilities Element of the City of Des Moines' Comprehensive Plan. Proponent: Federal Way Public Schools Location of the Proposal: The Federal Way Public Schools District includes an area of approximately 35 square miles. Areas of the cities of Federal Way, Kent, Des Moines and Auburn 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., May 7, 2011. 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. Tanya Nascimenot Enrollment and Demographics 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.m., May 7, 2011 to Tanya Nascimento, Federal Way Public Schools, 31405 18th Avenue South, Federal Way, WA 98003. Date of Issue: April 23, 2011 Date Published: April 23, 2011 2 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 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, City of Kent and the City of Auburn's Comprehensive Plan will be amended to include the District's 2011 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 2011 Capital Facilities Plan. 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. Tanya Nascimento Enrollment and Demographics Telephone: (253) 945-2071 4. Date checklist prepared: April 23, 2011 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 2011 Capital Facilities Plan is scheduled to be adopted by the District in May 2011. 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. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The Capital Facilities Plan sets forth the capital improvement projects that the District is currently implementing. These include construction of four elementary schools, Lakeland, Panther Lake, Sunnycrest and Valhalla This plan also includes construction of Lakota Middle School. Additionally the plan covers the purchase and siting of temporary facilities at various locations. Non-instructional projects included in the plan will consolidate support services operations at a single location. This will include the construction of new facilities to house the Transportation, Maintenance and Nutrition Services departments. Current plans are for all the projects to be complete by 2013. 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. Permits will be applied for with the appropriate jurisdiction for minor projects during the 2012 calendar year. 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 city 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 proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) This is a non-project action. This proposal involves the adoption of the Federal Way School District's 2012 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 City of 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. 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. 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. 6 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 Nonproj ect Actions. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect the individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: The individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be subject to project-specific environmental review when appropriate and relevant local approval processes. The District will be required to comply with all applicable air regulations and air permit requirements. Proposed measures specific to the individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 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 Nonproj ect 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 Nonproj ect 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: 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 during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. The impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan on migration routes have been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Appropriate measures to preserve or enhance wildlife have been or will be determined during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. 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 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 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. The 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. 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 22,200 students. The student population is expected to increase to 23,000 by the year 2016. This projection has been adjusted to reflect the current economic conditions. The District employs approximately 3,200 people. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? Any displacement of people caused by the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan has been or will be evaluated during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. However, it is not anticipated that the Capital Facilities Plan, or any of the projects contained therein, will displace any people. 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 material(s) proposed? The aesthetic impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. 15 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 determined 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 appropriate. 12. Recreation: a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? There are a variety of formal and informal recreational facilities within the Federal Way School District. 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 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 historical 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. 17 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 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: Date Submitted: April 23, 2011 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 noise? To the extent the Capital Facilities Plan makes it more likely that school facilities will be constructed and/or renovated and remodeled, some of these environmental impacts will be more likely. Additional impermeable surfaces, such as roofs, parking lots, sidewalks, access roads, and playgrounds could increase storm water runoff, which could enter surface or ground waters. Heating systems, emergency generators, and other school equipment that is installed pursuant to the Capital Facilities Plan could result in air emissions. The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan should not require the production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances, with the possible exception of the storage of diesel fuel or gasoline for emergency generating equipment. The District does not anticipate a significant increase in the production of noise from its facilities, although the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will increase the District's student capacities. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: Proposed measures to mitigate any such increases described above have been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. Storm water detention and runoff will meet applicable County and/or City requirements and may be subject to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permitting requirements. Discharges to air will meet applicable air pollution control requirements. Fuel oil will be stored in accordance with local and state requirements. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? 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. 22 Auburn School District No. 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2011 through 2017 QV / // o III 111 Ili I 1 uumuuu�Illlli i LYH/MYimWJf%U.PrI/Y/✓r �yl%IIO/��/, . nw �'FY✓R ,'riGl'fi(r//f1//rI(1/,' m p�r k� u Adopted by the Auburn School District Board of Directors May 9, 2011 ■Y SCHOOL DISTRICT ENGAGE - EDUCATE - EMPOWER 915 Fourth Street NE Auburn, Washington 98002 (253) 931-4900 Serving Students in: Unincorporated King County City of Auburn City of Algona City of Kent City of Pacific City of Black Diamond BOARD of DIRECTORS Carol Helgerson Lisa Conners Craig Schumaker Ray Vefik Janice Nelson Dr. Dennis Kip Herren, Superintendent Table of Contents Section I Executive Summary ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. Page 1 Section 11 Enrollment Projections... ... ... ... ... ... ... 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 21 Section VI Impact Fees... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . Page 25 Section VIII Appendices... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ........ Page 29 Appendix A.1 - Student Enrollment Projections Page 30 Appendix A.2 - Capital Facilities Plan Projections Page 44 Appendix A.3 - Student Generation Survey Page 49 Auburn School District No. 408 Capital Facilities Plan 2011 through 2017 Section I Executive Summary Auburn School District No. 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2011 through 2017 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 2011. This Plan is consistent with prior long-term capital facilities plans adopted by the District. However, this Plan is not intended to be the sole plan for all of the District's needs. The District may prepare interim and periodic long-range Capital Facilities Plans consistent with Board Policies and actions, taking into account a longer or a shorter time period, other factors and trends in the use of facilities, and other needs of the District as may be required. However, any such plan or plans will be consistent with this Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan. To enable the collection of impact fees in the unincorporated areas of King County and within the City of Auburn and City of Kent, the King County Council, the City of Auburn and the City of Kent will adopt this Plan by reference as part of each jurisdiction's respective comprehensive plan. To enable the collection of impact fees in the Cities of Algona, Pacific and Black Diamond, these municipalities must also adopt this Plan and adopt school impact fee ordinances. Pursuant to the requirements of the Growth Management Act and the local ordinances, the Plan will be updated on an annual basis, and any changes in the fee schedule(s) adjusted accordingly. The Plan establishes the District's"standard of service" in order to ascertain the District's current and future capacity. While the State Superintendent of Public Instruction establishes square footage guidelines for capacity, those guidelines do not account for the local program needs of the District. The Growth Management Act and the school impact fee ordinance authorize the District to define its standard of service based on the District's specific needs. In general, the District's current standard provides that class size for grades K-2 should not exceed 25 students, class size for grades 3-4 should not exceed 27 students, class size for grade 5 should not exceed 30 students. When averaged over the six elementary grades, this computes to 26.5 students per classroom. Class size for grades 6-12 should not exceed 30 students, with some subject areas restricted to lesser numbers. (See Section III for more specific information.) The capacity of the schools in the District is calculated based on this standard of service and the existing inventory of facilities including transitional classrooms. The District's 2010-11 capacity was 13,725 whereas Full Time Equivalent ("FTE") enrollment for this same period was 13,812.45 (includes Full Day Kindergarten). The actual number of individual students was 14,482 as of October 1, 2010. (See Section V for more specific information.) The capital construction plan shown in Section VI addresses the additions and proposed modernization to the District's existing facilities. This provided for a new high school approved by the voters in February 2003 and opened in September 2005, and the addition of two new elementary schools approved by the voters in February 2005, with Lakeland Hills Elementary opening in the Fall of 2006 and Arthur Jacobsen Elementary opening in the Fall of 2007. The plan includes the construction of a new middle school and a new elementary school, as well as the acquisition of future school sites to accommodate growth. The new facilities are required to meet the projected student population increase to be generated from the large development areas within the Auburn School District. Three areas that have significant impact on the school 2 district are the Lakeland South, the Lea Hill, and the north Auburn valley areas of the district. There are other pockets of development that impact the District as well. The City of Kent has an area of approximately 158 acres that was sold to developers in 2004. The economic downturn has slowed development in these areas. The district completed a comprehensive review of all district facilities and in October 2008 a Steering Committee made recommendations to the board for capital improvements to existing facilities and replacement of seven schools over the next ten years. These recommendations led to a capital improvements levy and a bond issue that was placed on the ballot in March 2009. Both ballot measures were not successful in March. The board determined to re-run only the capital improvements levy in November 2009, which the voters approved. The School Impact Fee Ordinances adopted by King County, the City of Auburn and the City of Kent provide for the assessment of impact fees to assist in meeting some of the fiscal impact incurred by a District experiencing growth and development. Section VII sets forth the proposed school impact fees for single family and multi-family dwelling units. The student generation factors have been generated using the students who actually attend school in the Auburn School District from single family and multi-family developments constructed in the last five years. The method of collecting the data is with the use of GIS mapping software, data from King County and Pierce County GIS, and to integrate the mapping with student data from the district's student data system. This method gives the District actual student generation numbers for each grade span for identified developments. This data is contained in Appendix A.3. 3 Auburn School District No.408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2011 through 2017 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN CHANGES FROM 2010 TO 2011 Listed below is a summary level outline of the changes from the 2010 Capital Facilities Plan that are a part of the 2011 Plan. The changes are noted by Section for ease of reference. Section I Executive Summary A. Updated to reflect new information within the Plan. B. Summary level list of changes from previous year. Section II Enrollment Projections Updated projections. See Appendices A.1 &A.2. Section III Standard of Service A. Increase of 1 adaptive behavior classroom at high school level B. Reduction of 1 adaptive behavior room at elementary level Section IV Inventory of Facilities No change from 2010-11 to 2011-12. Section V Pupil Capacity No change from 2010-11 to 2011-12. 4 Auburn School District No.408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2011 through 2017 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Section VII Impact Fees CHANGES TO IMPACT FEE DATA ELEMENTS 2010 to 2011 CPF CPF DATA ELEMENTS 2010 2011 EXPLANATION Student Generation Factors Single Family Consistent with King County Ordinance 11621, Elementary 0.3080 0.3130 Student Generation Factors are calculated Mid School 0.1470 0.1540 by the school district based on district Sr. High 0.1770 0.1650 records of average actual student generation Multi-Family rates for new developments constructed Elementary 0.0860 0.1240 over the last five years. Mid School 0.0380 0.0560 Sr. High 0.0310 0.5190 School Construction Costs Elementary $21,750,000 $21,750,000 Middle School $42,500,000 $42,500,000 Site Acquisition Costs Cost per acre $290,381 $290,381 Updated estimates on land costs Area Cost Allowance noeckh index $180.17 $180.17 Updated to projected SPI schedule. Match %-State 60.23% 58.67% Updated to current SPI schedule. Match %- District 39.77% 41.33% Computed District Average AV Single Family $254,009 $248,795 Updated from March 2011 King County Dept of Assessments data. Multi-Family $76,573 $67,821 Updated from March 2011 King County Dept of Assessments data using weighted average. Debt Sery Tax Rate $0.82 $0.93 Current Fiscal Year GO Bond Int Rate 4.33% 4.91% Current Rate (Bond Buyers 20 Index 3-11) Section VIII Appendices Appendix A.1 - Updated enrollment projections from October 1, 2010 Appendix A.2 - Updated enrollment projections with anticipated buildout schedule. Appendix A.3 - Student Generation Survey March 2011 5 Auburn School District No. 408 Capital Facilities Plan 2011 through 2017 Section II Enrollment Projections Auburn School District No.408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2011 through 2017 ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS The Auburn School District uses a modified cohort survival model to project future enrollment for all of the District's operations. Table 11.1 is an extract from the comprehensive projection model found in Appendix A.2 titled "CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Enrollment Projections". This Table shows the anticipated enrollment for the next six years based on the previous 6 year history of the District under the assumptions set forth in the comprehensive projections, Appendix A.1, and the projection for additional students generated from new developments in the district as shown in Appendix A.2. TABLE ASD ENROLLMENT 11.1 PROJECTIONS(March 2010) 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 GRADE Actual Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected KDG 1010 1027 1047 1069 1095 1123 1148 1 1066 1056 1077 1099 1125 1153 1179 2 1016 1081 1074 1095 1122 1150 1176 3 1013 1038 1105 1100 1127 1155 1180 4 1024 1055 1082 1152 1152 1180 1206 5 1079 1049 1083 1113 1187 1189 1215 K- 5 6208 6305 6468 6627 6809 6949 7104 6 1041 1086 1059 1094 1129 1204 1203 7 1060 1065 1113 1088 1128 1164 1238 8 1112 1080 1088 1138 1118 1160 1194 6 - 8 3213 3231 3260 3320 3375 3529 3635 9 1221 1336 1310 1322 1380 1366 1409 10 1238 1237 1356 1332 1351 1411 1394 11 1258 1209 1212 1333 1314 1334 1391 12 1344 1267 1222 1226 1353 1336 1352 9 - 12 5061 5050 5100 5213 5398 5446 5546 TOTALS 14,482 14,586 14,828 15,160 15,582 15,924 16,286 GRADES K-12 Actual Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected K-5 w/K @ 1/2 5703 5792 5945 6093 6261 6388 6530 6-8 3213 3231 3260 3320 3375 3529 3635 9-12 5061 5050 5100 5213 5398 5446 5546 K-12w/K @ 1/2 13,977 14,072 14,304 14,626 15,034 15,362 15,711 Note: The district is currently operating Full Day Kindergarten in eight schools and includes two state funded Full Day Kindergartens at two additional elementary schools. 7 Auburn School District No. 408 Capital Facilities Plan 2011 through 2017 Section III Standard of Service Auburn School District No.408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2011 through 2017 STANDARD OF SERVICE The School Impact Fee Ordinances adopted by King County, the City of Auburn and the City of Kent indicate that each school district m ust establish a "Standard of Service"in order to ascertain the overall capacity to house its projected student population. The Superintendent of Public Instruction establishes square footage "capacity"guidelines for computing state funding support. The fundamental purpose of the SPI guidelines is to provide a vehicle to equitably distribute state matching funds for school construction projects. By default these guidelines have been used to benchmark the district's capacity to house its student population. The SPI guidelines do not make adequate provision for local district program needs, facility configurations, emerging educational reform, or the dynamics of each student's educational program. The Auburn School District Standard of Service addresses those local considerations that require space in excess of the SPI guidelines. The effect on the space requirements for both permanent and relocatable facilities is shown below for each grade articulation pattern. Conditions that may result in potential space needs are provided for information purposes without accompanying computations. OVERVIEW The Auburn School District operates fourteen elementary schools housing 6,208 students in grades K through 5. For Kindergarten students, 665 of the 1,010 attend 1/2 days throughout the year and 5,198 students, grades 1 through 5, plus 345 kindergartners, attend on a full day basis. When converted to full time equivalents, the K-5 enrollment is 5,797. The four middle schools house 3,213 students in grades 6 through 8. The District operates three comprehensive senior high schools and one alternative high school, housing 5,061 students in grades 9 through 12. CLASS SIZE The number of pupils per classroom determines the number of classrooms required to house the student population. Specialists create additional space needs. Class sizes are subject to collective bargaining. Changes to class size agreements can have significant impact on available space. The current pupil/teacher limit across all elementary programs is an average of 26.5 students per teacher. Consistent with this staffing limit, room capacities are set at 26.5 students per room at grades K- 5. At grades 6 - 12 the limit is set at 30 pupils per room. The SPI space allocation for each grade articulation level, less the computed reduction for the Auburn School District Standard of Service, determines the District's capacity to house projected pupil populations. These reductions are shown below by grade articulation level. ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS STRUCTURED LEARNING FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED SPECIAL EDUCATION The Auburn School District operates a structured learning program for students with moderate to severe disabilities at the elementary school level which currently uses ten classrooms to provide for 105 students. The housing requirements for this program are provided for in the SPI space guidelines. No loss of capacity is expected unless population with disabilities grows at a disproportionate rate compared to total elementary population. ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR The Auburn School District operates an adaptive behavior program for students with behavior disabilities at the elementary school level. The program uses two classrooms to provide for 15 students. The housing requirements for this program exceed the SPI space allocations by two classrooms. Loss of Permanent Capacity 1 room @ 26.5 each = (27) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 26.5 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss (27) 9 Auburn School District No.408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2011 through 2017 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. Fourteen standard classrooms are required to house this program. The housing requirements for this program exceed the SPI space guidelines by seven standard classrooms. The loss of capacity is expected as growth in program is larger than the total elementary population. Loss of Permanent Capacity 7 rooms @ 26.5 each = (186) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 26.5 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss (186) NATIVE AMERICAN RESOURCE ROOM The Auburn School District operates 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 room @ 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 120 youngsters in six sections of 1/2 day in length. The program is housed at three elementary schools and utilizes three standard elementary classrooms and auxiliary office spaces. The housing requirements for this program are not provided for in the SPI space guidelines. Loss of Permanent Capacity 3 rooms @ 26.5 each = (80) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 26.5 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss (80) EARLY CHILDHOOD SPECIAL EDUCATION The Auburn School District operates a pre-school program for young children with disabilities below age five. This program is housed at seven different elementary schools and currently uses ten standard classrooms. The housing requirements for this program are not provided for in the SPI space guidelines. Loss of Permanent Capacity 10 rooms @ 26.5 each = (265) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 26.5 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss (265) READING LABS The Auburn School District operates a program for students needing remediation and additional language arts instruction. These programs utilize non-standard classroom spaces if available in each elementary school. Four elementary schools do not have non-standard rooms available, thus they are housed in a standard classroom. The housing requirements for this program are not provided for in the SPI space guidelines. Loss of Permanent Capacity 4 rooms @ 26.5 each = (106) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 26.5 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss (106) 10 Auburn School District No.408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2011 through 2017 STANDARD OF SERVICE MUSIC ROOMS The district elementary music programs require one acoustically modified classroom at each elementary school for music instruction. The housing requirements are not provided for in the SPI space guidelines. Loss of Permanent Capacity 14 rooms @ 26.5 each = (371) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 26.5 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss (371) ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE PROGRAM The Auburn School District operates a pullout program at the elementary school level for students learning English as a second language. This program requires fourteen standard classrooms that are not provided for in the SPI space guidelines. Loss of Permanent Capacity 14 rooms @ 26.5 each = (371) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 26.5 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss (371) SECOND GRADE TOSA PROGRAM The Auburn School District provides a TOSA reading specialist program for eight highly impacted elementary schools. This pullout model provides direct instruction to students who are not at grade level and do not receive other services. This program requires eight standard classrooms that are not provided for in the SPI space guidelines. Loss of Permanent Capacity 8 rooms @ 26.5 each = (212) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 26.5 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss (212) ELEMENTARY LEARNING SPECIALIST PROGRAM The Auburn School District provides a learning specialist program to increase literacy skills for first and second graders. This program model has been created from the I-728 funds and currently has the specialist going into existing teacher classrooms, as well as pulling out students into designated classrooms. The district is utilizing classrooms at all fourteen elementary schools. Loss of Permanent Capacity 14 rooms @ 26.5 each = (371) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 26.5 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss (371) FULL DAYKINDERGARTEN The Auburn School District provides Full-Day Kindergarten programs to increase academic skills for kindergarten students. This program model has been created from tuition, ARRA funds and currently there are two schools receiving state funding for 2010-11 school year. The district is utilizing fourteen classrooms at eight of the fourteen elementary schools. Housing requirements exceed the OSPI space guidelines for this program by seven classrooms. Loss of Permanent Capacity 7 rooms @ 26.5 each = (186) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 26.5 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss (186) 11 Auburn School District No.408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2011 through 2017 STANDARD OF SERVICE MIDDLE SCHOOLS SPECIAL EDUCATION RESOURCE ROOMS The Auburn School District operates a resource room program for each grade at the middle school level. This is to accommodate special education students needing remedial instruction to address their specific disabilities. Eleven classrooms are required at the middle school level to provide for approximately 350 students. The housing requirements for this program are not entirely provided for in the SPI space guidelines. ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR SPECIAL EDUCATION The Auburn School District offers a self-contained program for students with moderate to severe behavior diabilities. The program is housed at one of the middle schools and uses one classroom. The housing requirements for this program are provided for in the SPI space allocations. STRUCTURED LEARNING CENTER AND DEVELOPMENTALLYDISABLED SPECIAL EDUCATION The Auburn School District operates four structured learning classrooms at the middle school level for students with moderate to severe disabilities and one developmentally disabled classroom for students with profound disabilities. Two of the four classrooms for this program are provided for in the SPI space allocations. Loss of Permanent Capacity 2 rooms @ 26.5 each = (53) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 26.5 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss (53) MIDDLE SCHOOL COMPUTER LABS The Auburn School District operates a minimum of one computer lab at each middle school. This program utilizes a standard classroom per middle school. The housing requirements for this program are not provided for in the SPI space guidelines. Loss of Permanent Capacity 4 rooms @ 30 each = (120) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 30 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss (120) ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE The Auburn School District operates a pullout program at the middle school level for students learning English as a second language. This program requires four standard classrooms that are not provided for in the SPI space guidelines. Loss of Permanent Capacity 4 rooms @ 30 each = (120) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 30 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss (120) ROOM UTILIZATION The Auburn School District provides a comprehensive middle school program that includes elective options in special interest areas. Facilities to accommodate special interest activities are not amenable to standard classroom usage. The district averages 95% utilization of all available teaching stations. SPI Report#3 dated 11/23/10 identifies 148 teaching stations available in the mid-level facilities. The utilization pattern results in a loss of approximately 8 teaching stations. Loss of Permanent Capacity 8 rooms @ 30 each = (240) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 30 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss (240) 12 Auburn School District No.408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2011 through 2017 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 three comprehensive high schools for students learning English as a second language. This program requires three standard classrooms that are not provided for in the SPI space guidelines. Loss of Permanent Capacity 3 rooms @ 30 each = (90) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 30 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss (90) ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR SPECIAL EDUCATION The Auburn School District offers a self-contained program for students with moderate to severe behavior diabilities. The program is housed at one of the high schools and uses one classroom. The housing requirements for this program are not provided for in the SPI space allocations. Loss of Permanent Capacity 1 rooms @ 30 each = (30) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 30 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss (30) STRUCTURED LEARNING CENTER PROGRAM The Auburn School District operates six structured learning center classrooms for students with moderate to severe disabilities. This program requires two standard classrooms that are not provided for in the SPI space guidelines. Loss of Permanent Capacity 2 rooms @ 30 each = (60) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 30 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss (60) SPECIAL EDUCATION RESOURCE ROOMS The Auburn School District operates a resource room program at the senior high level for special education students requiring instruction to address their specific learning disabilities. The current high school program requires eleven classrooms to provide program to meet educational needs of the students. The SPI space guidelines provide for one of the eleven teaching stations. Loss of Permanent Capacity 10 rooms @ 30 each = (300) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 30 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss (300) 13 Auburn School District No.408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2011 through 2017 STANDARD OF SERVICE PERFORMING ARTS CENTERS Auburn High School includes 25,000 square feet used exclusively for a Performing Arts Center. The SPI Inventory includes this space when computing unhoused student capacity. This space was not intended for nor is it usable for classroom instruction. It was constructed to provide a community center for the performing arts. Using SPI capacity guidelines, 25,000 square feet computes to 208 unhoused students or 8.33 classrooms. Loss of Permanent Capacity 8.33 rooms @ 30 each = (250) ROOM UTILIZATION The Auburn School District provides a comprehensive high school program that includes numerous elective options in special interest areas. Facilities to accommodate special interest activities are not amenable to standard classroom usage. The district averages 95% utilization of all available teaching stations. There are 185 teaching stations available in the senior high facilities. The utilization pattern results in a loss of approximately 10 teaching stations. Loss of Permanent Capacity 10 rooms @ 30 each = (300) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 30 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss (300) STANDARD OF SERVICE COMPUTED TOTALS ELEMENTARY Loss of Permanent Capacity= (2,200) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 Total Capacity Loss (2,200) MIDDLE SCHOOL Loss of Permanent Capacity= (533) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 Total Capacity Loss (533) SENIOR HIGH Loss of Permanent Capacity= (1,240) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 Total Capacity Loss (1,240) TOTAL Loss of Permanent Capacity= (3,972) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 Total Capacity Loss (3,972) 14 Auburn School District No. 408 Capital Facilities Plan 2011 through 2017 Section IV Inventory of Facilities Auburn School District No.408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2011 through 2017 INVENTORY OF FACILITIES Table IV.1 shows the current inventory of permanent district facilities and their OSPI rated capacities. Table IV.2 shows the number and location of each portable unit by school. The district uses relocatable facilities to: 1. provide interim housing in school attendance areas uniquely impacted by increasing school populations that would otherwise require continual redistricting. 2. make space available for changing program requirements and offerings determined by unique student needs, and 3. provide housing to cover district needs until permanent facilities can be financed and constructed. Relocatable facilities are deemed to be interim, stop gap measures that often place undesirable stress on existing physical plants. Core facilities (i.e. gymnasiums,restrooms,kitchens, labs, lockers, libraries, etc.) are not of sufficient size or quantity to handle the increased school population served by adding relocatable classrooms. Table Permanent Facilities District School Facilities IV.1 @ OSPI Rated Capacity (November 2010) Building Capacity Acres Address Elementa Schools Washington Elementary 486 5.40 20 E Street Northeast,Auburn WA, 98002 Terminal Park Elementary 408 6.70 1101 D Street Southeast,Auburn WA, 98002 Dick Scobee Elementary 477 10.50 1031 14th Street Northeast,Auburn WA, 98002 Pioneer Elementary 441 8.30 2301 M Street Southeast,Auburn WA, 98002 Chinook Elementary 440 8.75 3502 Auburn Way South,Auburn WA,98092 Lea Hill Elementary 450 10.00 30908 124th Avenue Southeast,Auburn WA, 98092 Gildo Rey Elementary 551 10.00 1005 37th Street Southeast,Auburn WA,98002 Evergreen Heights Elem. 456 8.09 5602 South 316th,Auburn WA,98001 Alpac Elementary 497 10.60 310 Milwaukee Boulevard North,Pacific WA, 98047 Lake View Elementary 559 16.40 16401 Southeast 318th Street,Auburn WA, 98092 Hazelwood Elementary 580 12.67 11815 Southeast304th Street,Auburn WA, 98092 Ilalko Elementary 585 12.00 301 Oravetz Place Southeast,Auburn WA, 98092 Lakeland Hills Elementary594 12.00 1020 Evergreen Way SE,Auburn WA, 98092 Arthur Jacobsen Elementary 614 10.00 1 29205 132" Street SE,Auburn WA, 98092 ELEM CAPACITY 7,138 Middle Schools Cascade Middle School 829 17.30 1015 24th Street Northeast, Auburn WA, 98002 Olympic Middle School 921 17.40 1825 K Street Southeast,Auburn WA, 98002 Rainier Middle School 843 26.33 30620 116th Avenue Southeast,Auburn WA, 98092 Mt Baker Middle School 837 30.88 620 37th Street Southeast, Auburn WA,98002 MS CAPACITY 3,430 Senior High Schools West Auburn High School 233 5.10 401 West Main Street, Auburn WA, 98001 Auburn Senior High 2,101 18.60 800 Fourth Street Northeast,Auburn WA, 98002 Auburn Riverside HS 1,387 33.00 501 Oravetz Road,Auburn WA, 98092 Auburn Mountainview HS 1,443 40.00 28900 124 Ave SE,Auburn WA,98092 SH CAPACITY 5,164 TOTAL CAPACITY 15,732 16 Auburn School District No.408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2010 through 2017 INVENTORY OF FACILITIES TABLE TEMPORARY/RELOCATABLE IV.2 FACILITIES INVENTORY (March 2011) Elementary Location 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 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 0 2 2 2 2 Alpac 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Lake View 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Hazelwood 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ilalko 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Lakeland Hills Elementary 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 Arthur Jacobsen Elementary 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 TOTAL UNITS 32 32 32 33 33 33 33 TOTAL CAPACITY 848 848 848 875 875 875 875 Middle School Location 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 Cascade 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 Olympic 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 Rainier 5 5 5 7 7 8 8 Mt. Baker 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 TOTAL UNITS 13 13 13 15 19 20 20 TOTAL CAPACITY 390 390 390 450 570 600 600 Sr. High School Location 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 West Auburn 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 Auburn High School 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Auburn High School -*TAP 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Auburn Riverside 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 Auburn Mountainview 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL UNITS 26 26 26 26 27 27 27 TOTAL CAPACITY 1 780 780 780 780 810 810 810 *TAP-Transition Assistance Program for 18-21 year old students with special needs. COMBINED TOTAL UNITS 71 71 71 74 79 80 80 COMBINED TOTAL CAPACITY 2,018 2,018 2,018 2,105 2,255 2,285 2,285 17 Auburn School District No. 408 Capital Facilities Plan 2011 through 2017 Section V Pupil Capacity Auburn School District No.408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2011 through 2017 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 VA Capacity WITH relocatables 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 A. SPI Capacity 15,732 15,732 15,732 15,732 15,732 15,732 16,532 A.1 SPI Capacity-New Elem 585 1/ A.2 SPI Capacity- New MS 800 B. Capacity Adjustments (1,954) (1,954) (1,954) (1,868) (1,718) (1,688) (1,688) C. Net Capacity 13,778 13,778 13,778 13,864 14,014 14,844 15,429 D. ASD Enrollment 14,482 14,586 14,828 15,160 15,582 15,924 16,286 3/ E. ASD Surplus/Deficit (704) (808) (1,050) (1,296) (1,568) (1,080) (857) CAPACITY ADJUSTMENTS Include Relocatable 2,018 2,018 2,018 2,105 2,255 2,285 2,285 _2/ Exclude SOS (pg 14) (3,972) (3,972) (3,972) (3,972) (3,972) (3,972) (3,972) Total Adjustments (1,954) (1,954) (1,954) (1,868) (1,718) (1,688) (1,688) Table V.2 Capacity WITHOUT relocatables 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 A. SPI Capacity 15,732 15,732 15,732 15,732 15,732 15,732 16,532 A.1 SPI Capacity-New Elem 585 1/ A.2 SPI Capacity- New MS 800 B. Capacity Adjustments (3,972) (3,972) (3,972) (3,972) (3,972) (3,972) (3,972) C. Net Capacity 11,760 11,760 11,760 11,760 11,760 12,560 13,145 D. ASD Enrollment 14,482 14,586 14,828 15,160 15,582 15,924 16,286 3/ E. ASD Surplus/Deficit (2,722) (2,826) (3,068) (3,400) (3,822) (3,364) (3,141) CAPACITY ADJUSTMENTS _2/ Exclude SOS (pg 14) (3,972) (3,972) (3,972) (3,972) (3,972) (3,972) (3,972) Total Adjustments (3,972) (3,972) (3,972) (3,972) (3,972) (3,972) (3,972) 1/ New facilities shown in 2015-16 and 2016-17 are not funded under the current Capital Facilities Plan. 2/ The Standard of Service represents 25.38% of SPI capacity. When new facilities are added the Standard of Service computations are decreased to 23.35% of SPI capacity. 3/ Students beyond the capacity are accomodated in other spaces(commons, library, theater, shared teaching space). 19 Auburn School District No.408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2011 through 2017 PERMANENT FACILITIES PUPIL CAPACITY SPI Rated Capacity (March 2011) A. Elementary Schools Building 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 Washington 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 Terminal Park 408 408 408 408 408 408 408 Dick Scobee 477 477 477 477 477 477 477 Pioneer 441 441 441 441 441 441 441 Chinook 440 440 440 440 440 440 440 Lea Hill 450 450 450 450 450 450 450 Gildo Rey 551 551 551 551 551 551 551 Evergreen Heights 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 Alpac 497 497 497 497 497 497 497 Lake View 559 559 559 559 559 559 559 Hazelwood 580 580 580 580 580 580 580 Ilalko 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 Lakeland Hills 594 594 594 594 594 594 594 Arthur Jacobsen 614 614 614 614 614 614 614 Elementary#15 585 ELEM CAPACITY 7,138 7,138 7,138 7,138 7,138 7,138 7,723 B. Middle Schools Building 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 Cascade 829 829 829 829 829 829 829 Olympic 921 921 921 921 921 921 921 Rainier 843 843 843 843 843 843 843 Mt. Baker 837 837 837 837 837 837 837 Middle School#5 800 800 MS CAPACITY 3,430 3,430 3,430 3,430 3,430 4,230 4,230 C. Senior High Schools Building 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 West Auburn 233 233 233 233 233 233 233 Auburn 2,101 2,101 2,101 2,101 2,101 2,101 2,101 Auburn Riverside 1,387 1,387 1,387 1,387 1,387 1,387 1,387 Auburn Mountainview 1,443 1,443 1,443 1,443 1,443 1,443 1,443 SH CAPACITY 5,164 5,164 5,164 5,164 5,164 5,164 5,164 COMBINED CAPACITY 15,732 1 15,732 1 15,732 1 15,732 1 15,732 1 16,532 1 17,117 20 Auburn School District No. 408 Capital Facilities Plan 2011 through 2017 Section VI Capital Construction Plan Auburn School District No.408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2011 through 2017 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 District's teaching, learning and operations. In addition to the technology needs of the District, the Ad Hoc committee recognized the District must prepare for continued student enrollment growth. As stated in their report, "the District must pursue an appropriate high school site as soon as possible." The Ad Hoc recommendation included commentary that the financing should be timed to maintain consistent rates of assessment. A proposition was approved by the voters on April 28, 1998 that provided $8,000,000 over six years to address some of the technology needs of the District; and $5,000,000 to provide funds to acquire school sites. During the 1997-98 school year, a Joint District Citizen's Ad Hoc Committee was appointed by the Auburn and Dieringer School Boards to make recommendations on how best to serve the school population from an area that includes a large development known as Lakeland South. Lakeland South at that time was immediately adjacent to the southern boundary of the Auburn School District. On June 16, 1998 the Ad Hoc Committee presented its recommendation at a joint meeting of the Auburn and Dieringer Boards of Directors. On June 22, 1998 the Auburn School Board adopted Resolution No. 933 authorizing the process to initiate the adjustment of the boundaries of the District in accordance with the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendation. On June 23, 1998 the Dieringer School Board adopted a companion Resolution No. 24-97-98 authorizing the process to initiate the adjustment of the boundaries in accordance with the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendation. These actions resulted in the transfer of an area from Dieringer to Auburn containing most of the Lakeland South development and certain other undeveloped properties. Development in this area is progressing at an aggressive rate. In April of 2002, the Board formed a fifth citizen's Ad Hoc committee to address the following two items and make recommendations to the board in the Fall of 2002: a. A review of the conclusion and recommendations of 1985 and 1995 Ad Hoc Committees related to accommodating high school enrollment growth. This included the review of possible financing plans for new facilities. b. Develop recommendations for accommodating high school enrollment growth for the next 10 years if a new senior high school is not built. 22 Auburn School District No.408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2011 through 2017 CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION PLAN This committee recommended the board place the high school on the ballot for the fifth time in February 2003. The February election approved the new high school at 68.71%yes votes. The school opened in the Fall of 2005. In the Fall of 2003 the school board directed the administration to begin the planning and design for Elementary #13 and Elementary #14. In the Fall of 2004, the Auburn School Board passed Resolution No. 1054 to place two elementary schools on the ballot in February 2005. The voters approved the ballot measure in February of 2005 at 64.72%. Lakeland Hills Elementary (Elementary #13) opened in the Fall of 2006. Arthur Jacobsen Elementary (Elementary #14) is located in the Lea Hill area on a 10 acre site and opened in the Fall of 2007. These two elementary schools were built to accommodate the housing growth in Lakeland Hills and Lea Hill areas of the school district. In the 2004-05 school year, the Board convened a sixth Citizen's Ad Hoc committee to again study and make recommendations about the future impacts in the District. One of the areas of study was the need for New Facilities and Modernization. The committee made a number of recommendations including school size, the need for a new middle school, and to begin a capital improvements program to modernize or replace facilities based upon criterion. During the 2005-06 school year, a Joint District Citizen's Ad Hoc Committee was appointed by the Auburn and Kent School Boards to make recommendations on how best to serve the school population that will come from an area that includes a number of projected developments in the north Auburn valley. On May 17, 2006 the Ad Hoc Committee presented its recommendation at a joint meeting of the Auburn and Kent Boards of Directors. On June 14, 2006 the Kent School Board adopted Resolution No. 1225 authorizing the process to initiate the adjustment of the boundaries of the District in accordance with the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendation. On June 26, 2006 the Auburn School Board adopted a companion Resolution No. 1073 authorizing the process to initiate the adjustment of the boundaries in accordance with the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendation. These actions resulted in the transfer of an area from the Kent School District to the Auburn School District effective September 29, 2006. In October of 2008, after two years of review and study, a Steering Committee made recommendations to the school board regarding the capital improvements program to modernize or replace facilities as recommended by the 2004-05 Citizen's Ad Hoc Committee. These recommendations, based on specific criteria, led to the school board placing a school improvement bond and capital improvements levy on the ballot in March 2009. Voters did not approve either measure that would have updated 24 facilities and replaced three aging schools. The board decided to place only a six-year Capital Levy on the ballot in November of 2009, which passed at 55.17%. The levy will fund $46.4 million of needed improvement projects at 24 sites over the next seven school years. Planning for the replacement of aging schools has started with educational specifications and schematic design process beginning in 2010. A future bond issue will be necessary to fund these projects. The Special Education Transition Facility opened in February of 2010. This facility is designed for students with disabilities that are 18 to 21 years old. The school district acquired a site for a future middle school in 2009 and will need to consider possibilities for a site for elementary school #15. 23 Auburn School District No.408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2011 through 2017 CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION PLAN The District is projecting 1800 additional students within the six year period including the Lakeland, Lea Hill, and north Auburn valley areas. This increase in student population will require the acquisition of new middle school and new elementary school sites and construction of a middle school and elementary school during the six year window. Based upon the District's capacity data and enrollment projections, as well as the student generation data included in Appendix A.3, the District has determined that approximately eighty- six percent of the capacity improvements are necessary to serve the students generated from new development, with the remaining additional capacity required to address existing need. The table below illustrates the current capital construction plan for the next six years. The exact timelines are wholly dependent on the rate of growth in the school age population and passage of bond issues and/or capital improvement levies. 2011-17 Capital Construction Plan March 2011 Projected Fund Project Timelines Project Funded Cost Source 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 All Facilities - 2006 Technology Yes $12,000,000 6Year XX XX Modernization Cap Levy Portables Yes $1,200,000 Impact XX XX XX XX XX XX XX Fees Property Purchase Impact New Elementary No $3,500,000 Fees XX XX XX XX Multiple Facility Yes $46,400,000 Capital 1/ Improvements Levy Bond XX XX XX 1/ Middle School #5 No $42,500,000 Impact Fee plan const open Bond XX XX XX 1/ Elementary#15 No $21,750,000 Impact Fee plan const open Replacement of three aging No $239,000,000 Bond Issue XX XX XX XX XX XX XX 1/ schools 1/ These funds may be secured through local bond issues, sale of real property,impact fees, and state matching funds. The District currently is not eligible for state assistance at the elementary school level for new construction. The district is eligible for state matching funds for modernization. 24 Auburn School District No. 408 Capital Facilities Plan 2011 through 2017 Section VII Impact Fees LL 0 0 0 O LL M I� O V VI LL V O b LL m T M N O - O O O OO U O - � 4 N N O {Op O N O pj O r M CN F» ^ U � � e> F» Nyj U � � m F» Nam" T T T T 0 LL 0 0 0 O VI LL V T O V VI LL V N O I� VI LL r N r h U) T T T T E o o m E o o m E o o m E o o m m v m m v m m v m LL N N N � LL N N N LL N N N LL N N N LL N LL N LL LL C a C 0 C C o d o m o 0 N T A N T A N T N T Z 0. m o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 o 0 0 o 0 0 d M V N LL d M V N LL d M V N d M V N o J m N m r� �D m CD o N r m m m m ) U) U) U) U) a � U N N N Ja F F cl 0_ O LL li O LL li (O O U O T T W (n Q N N N W ` � O Q _ 0 0 0 O C U) N N N O V V V LL U r r r U LL E T T T Z ¢ — O O O C c, N (D (D (D J co p LL U W m a o 0 0 o W a m o ate_ LL Wa o d P X Q Q R ° g X d (/J LL T d O VJ LL T N CU H O m 0 O N (J Q F» F» F» V m fD in m U m fD N '^ fD O C. U) Z "O LL Z "O LL W C LL U OU) Z x 0 U x U x W m o O (IXN_ (IXN_ W o d d � O O U LL O. W U N = VI O O O O 'U — VI O O W U)CL U N T d Z N d N V O N O (� 0 0 0 0 R X d 0 0 0 M T O D_ U O Q \ LL U r � 1 - LL U � ~ X �O C N N N O !EC ul O O O fA fA O fA fA fA U W U Z, N m Z g U 0 a U 5 Y L Q M W Y L Q m m o m u g M. m " o' R ' o' �- o U) U g w _ E = g E W fIl LL W fn a LL W 2 fn h LL W fn y LL W 2fn \ \ § 2 \ « \ \\ \ ) \ ) » » \ \ � \ � \� \ \ � \ \ k � ) LL � } \ : 2 � < k - \ \ \ \ \ � � \ } / � U) / \ . / \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ( \ ) } } \ ) k \ { 0 fCL , \ \ § � j ) ` {E � E � : ` : ` lea , : ! ) ! r M M p N r J O Q N N p 0 0 N V N N o O r M N M o cl V 00 MLO J O N M M r M r T M N V fA V N Q N O _ Q fA N � O N V O O O � J O T Z Q u v O o N M o r o o o m o m m o v m N Q O J W "O_ O O M O N M O _ N N � O a r 2 o 0 o N M fA M T co N V N Q N fA fA fA fA M N M N z F N� L J_ O Q aL. E N M O O N O ry N N O O I� M r L Q O N O L LL U M i Q N N fA fA � � fA a U fA fA fA Fp fA IL Q Q m m m o v m m o ` O O L L U N N 'F LL LL i p O i a` p O M O N O N ] m O () U)p >Q O a fA fA fA N M N N C z M O O O ! a N F F E W O � N Y C ♦ N p � N C C � W N W U "O "O U O "C VI O N � ~ N N � Ot � o o OI N L 0 O Q N U m N C m d O } m o E U O U N N U "�O VI E 0 0 a' VUI > T T U d OI O O O O E L. LL m fD Y m a m m a a a Q? p m LL m m N vi r v N N N yp N U) U) U) U cl m a o E `m 0o o o o 5 > > C Q m Q U) U) I� (n m F LL LL LL U 3 U U w� V N � T T VI y� N y�j N N O r VI o m U m m := - m 'U N LL CJ Y L N O C N N d' LL U O (n E LL L N O U N Q J J y ~ LL LL C N N Y L L > rn m U Q 3 3 E E m m E m a F fD m " " Q D O m m m m -- -- `m m o a O m m Ozz F F U) aFFo o Om � � mC9 N Auburn School District No. 408 Capital Facilities Plan 2011 through 2017 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 Auburn School District 4408 Student Enrollment Projections October 2010 Introduction The projective techniques give some consideration to historical and current data as a basis for forecasting the future. In addition,the `projector' must make certain assumptions about the operant variables within the data being used. These assumptions are'Judgmental"by definition. Forecasting can be defined as the extrapolation or logical extension from history to the future, or from the known to the unknown. The attached tabular data reviews the history of student enrollment, sets out some quantitative assumptions, and provides projections based on these numerical factors. The projection logic does not attempt to weigh the individual sociological,psychological, economic, and political factors that are present in any demographic analysis and projection. The logic embraces the assumptions that whatever these individual factors have been in the past are present today, and will be in the future. It further moderates the impact of singular factors by averaging data over thirteen years and six years respectively. The results provide a trend, which reflects a long(13-year) and a short (6-year)base from which to extrapolate. Two methods of estimating the number of kindergarten students have been used. The first uses the average increase or decrease over the past 13 and 6-year time frame and adds it to each succeeding year. The second derives what the average percentage Auburn kindergartners have been of live births in King County for the past 5 years and uses this to project the subsequent four years. The degree to which the actuals deviate from the projections can only be measured after the fact. This deviation provides a point of departure to evaluate the effectiveness of the assumptions and logic being used to calculate future projections. Monitoring deviation is critical to the viability and credibility of the projections derived by these techniques. Tables Table 1—Thirteen Year History Of October 1 Enrollments—page 3 The data shown in this table is the baseline information used to project future enrollment. This data shows the past record of enrollment in the district on October 1 of each year. Table 2—Historical Factors Used in Projections -page 4 This table shows the three basic factors derived from the data in Table 1. These factors have been used in the subsequent projections. The three factors are: 1. Factor I—Average Pupil Change Between Grade Levels This factor is sometimes referred to as the"holding power"or"cohort survival." It is a measure of the number of pupils gained or lost as they move from one grade level to the next. 2. Factor 2 -Average Pupil Change by Grade Level This factor is the average change at each grade level over the 13 or 6-year period. 3. Factor 3—Auburn School District Kindergarten Enrollment as a Function of King County Live Births. This factor calculates what percent each kindergarten class was of the King County live births in the 5 previous years. From this information has been extrapolated the kindergarten pupils expected for the next 4 years. 1 Table 3—Projection Models—pages 5-13 This set of tables utilizes the above mentioned variables and generates several projections. The models are explained briefly below. ❑ Table 3.13 (pg 5)—shows a projection based on the 13-year average gain in kindergarten (Factor 2) and the 13-year average change between grade levels (Factor 1). The data is shown for the district as a whole. ❑ Table 3.6(pg 5)—shows a projection using the same scheme as Table 3.13 except it shortens the historical to only the most recent 6 years. ❑ Table 3.13A and 3.6A(pg 6)—uses the same factors above except Factor 3 is substituted for Factor 2. The kindergarten rates are derived from the King County live births instead of the average gain. ❑ Tables 3E.13,3E.6,3E.13X 3E.6A(pg 7)—breaks out the K-5 grades from the district projection. Summary level data is provided for percentage gain and pupil gain by grade articulation. ❑ Tables 3MS.13,3MS.6, 3MS.13X 3MS.6A(pg 8)—breaks out the 6-8 grades from the district projection. Summary level data is provided for percentage gain and pupil gain by grade articulation. ❑ Tables 3SH.13,3SH.6, 3SH.13X 3SH.6A(pg 9)—breaks out the 9-12 grades from the district projection. Summary level data is provided for percentage gain and pupil gain by grade articulation. ❑ Table 4(pg 10)—Collects the four projection models by grade group for ease of comparison. ❑ Table 5 (pgs 11-13)—shows how well each projection model performed when compared with actual enrollments. Data is provided in both number and percent formats for the past 13 years. Summary This year we had a second consecutive year of unprecedented decline in student enrollment of 107 students. The loss of those students changes our historical average gain in students. Over the past 6 years the gain is now .97%annually down from 1.53%;that equates to 135 students down from 213 in prior projections. Over the past 13 years the average gain has dropped from 1.41%to .92%and equates to 122 students annually down from 189 students. Using the cohort survival models, the data below is a summary of the range of variation between the four models. This data can be used for planning for future needs of the district. The models show changes in the next six years: • Elementary level shows increase ranging from 449 to 545. (page 7) • Middle School level shows increase ranging from 190 to 211. (page 8) • High School level shows increases ranging from 32 to 104. (page 9) The models show these changes looking forward thirteen years: • Elementary level shows increase ranging from 911 to 1091. (page 7) • Middle School level shows increase ranging from 414 to 498. (page 8) • High School level shows increase ranging from 485 to 531. (page 9) This data does not factor new developments that are currently under construction or in the planning stages. 2 O O N W a 0 U 0 ------------------------------------------- O D D M N V D N N M N V M M h h V T T M M h T 0 V U O O O O O O O O O N N N M h O T M '.O O N N O N N M N'. Q - p .r..p M 0 h M N 0 M N M N M'.. O O N M M M O O N V h M 0 0 ° f:' N M T T V h h 0 0 O V O r M M h M V N M V h O N r M 0 N T N N 0 T N O M O O pp O O D D O O O O N N M V 0 h r O O O V N O N p 0 .... � M (D h M N (D M N M N M'. L d 0 O W h N V h O 0 0 O 0 T M'. N V V (D T M h N V N N T ,,.OMTT WOO Oro OV ONM M 0 O D NO N NN MN O 0 Np M NO '. N 0 ry 1 � T N O h N h h M h N N M O O N O 0 M O O MZ O N DN O N N O OMOO N 0 M N N M0 '.'.'.. O � _ O mo w N M - N N O 0 N O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 O N 0V MVMVVM m 2V 0 O - - - - - - - N M I. o .d a F o a NN MN OM 00004 NMN MNNMMNMN OOOOO D O N M h N N N N p OOO � MMOV O D NM '.'.GJ _ ____________________________________ ¢ '... J ¢OKZ O V 0m O V O D NV N N O M M Nh M N'.. M O NO OD NO N NNM N N OW NM O VMN 00 00 vOO ONM N M O CN N N N N N M 0 N —O mO O W M F Q O hO M W O0 0 0 0 O OM h N N N (D O N N M (D (� p M 0 0 0 M N N0 V ° N v v N 0 N 0 O N N vO OOVhM O O N V M NVTM 0 0 MV NM pOO hNN NNO MOV N O Nh0 N N M VO'. MI. F y V iA 0 ¢ ¢ UE � N h 0 N N h V N M O o �O C M V N M N (D O (D N M O O V M V M n O N O O h O 0 N M N O O'. O W O N O O O O O O O V O O O N M n ...........� h O O N O O O O V V O M .. N N 0 N N 0 M N M V M'. 2 OU NVN ONO ONV � O O NhM N M MN N OM N U) U . � N O U0O N 0NON N M M T C Q = O O O O O O O N O N M O O 0 N N N O O O O O O N O'. U N N 0 M N N N N o � p yCj O M O (D N h N O W M U1 N O N O h N (D M N 0NN h O h M N O N V 00 h O N N V (D O N V N'. r O W W lPo N O OON OO O0 oO N .6] ¢ p N M V N (D h N O FY `w F �y Y Y Y m h h rn o'.. a a 0 n O O N W a 0 U O Z LL N p e F = N N N � K M W ¢ j 00 00 00 J N M O) N N N V h N N O) (D O N O) (D N M O) N N N V h h (D N V V ~ F Z J F Q J I7 a a a a 0 = m o D ; O = O J ¢ W ¢ Q N O v v v v o 4) W w W Z W J w E y W J 0 0 0 O N 0 0 N 0 N 0 ^ h N O NN °M N N 0 0 V N V O N O) N V O) O) M O E o. O O O O O () F F Y Z N 0 (D N (D (D h h N h N N N O) O) O) O) O) O) O) N N O) N O) O) N O) O) O) 0 C Q 0 Q Z 0 W w W (/J O F M O) N V h N N N N O M h O M N V N N (D M M O) M h N M N h V N N (O N M M V O Z W U D W = M h N N h N o O O N N N W N N o m -- h o N N N 0 N M N N V N N 0 O M 0 F N V N 6 M 4 O 0 O N (O N N N N (O O M 40 o N N O N Ni Ni Ni(D O O M O N N N Ni N h (O O r 0 0 Z O J - M M M M V V - - h N N - m m N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N F Z Z ¢ 6] OI Y Y W U_O 0 J 0 O N M V N 0 h N 0 O N M V N 0 h N 0 O N M V N (D h N 0 O N M V N 0 ry m m m m m m m m m rn rn Z W O N T O N M V N (D h T O N M V N rn rn rn rnorn rn h N o o O N 00000000 M N 0 O > Z r r m m m m m m m m m m rn rn 0 16 a s � W U J Z Z O D a =N M M M N M h V N N O 00 N N M O i0 (D O h M M N N V 00 0 N h N O N Es N O h N T N T M O O O h h N T N O N O N V V M T O M T N N h N (D T N jn W O LL m U fq o V V V V V V N N N N (D (D (D (D (D h h N N h (D h h N h h h h h h h h h h N N N N S J 0 4 w J Z = M (D O O NN T N NO MN MM TT Mh hN ND O NN NO N VN T ON M(0D E; MTh N MF TTO ^ O NV Mo ONO N MNDoM N TN MmN N N N M M N V h h N MV0VV V VVV N N6Oh WO Nw - - - - - v a Z J M T T M O N (O O O M V N M V (D T T O O T N M (D N h h N M V O V N O h U Q W = VOV (O WO N N O O M h h N O M h V T (D M N O h V O N h (D M h N V O T N W W F � F h V V 0 h 0 0 0 N N 0 0 h T N O 0 h h O M O 0 00 N O V h N V N 0 N 0 - O Q O J o M M M M M V N - - h N N N m m N N NNNNNNN N N NNNNNNNNNNNNO F N0 < N M V N 0 h N 0 O � N M V N 0 h N 0 O N M V N 0 h N 0 O E N M V 0 0 h N 0 V ry M o W 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) m o m m o m m o O O 00000000 LL W Y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - N N NNNNNNNN F 0 J 0 O = 0000000000000 , O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 600 W W O 0 0 NCO N V V 0 0 0 N N y� o N,iO N N,O h M o h...o -,.0 L 0 O O Nth N h 0 i{5 N (A W M - M - N M M 0 7 W N Z M N J 7 W K N O 7 N N < O G Q ° m > ° ° o 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 -0 ° ,°� 32 v m > m N OI ° N 0 U N m LL L C L C U .m O OI U L W j W v N j W 2 LL M N M N,M N M N M M O of 0 0 M W O U1 T LL O N i{5 of Mph N N N N N N N N O O 0 v M h N N M N O m o o K N a N 41 O T M�� O N O h V O T N W N N h.N N N.O (D M T t6'..N O OI N M N O O V N 0 O.N N 0 O.N ry O. LL ¢ J ¢ ... O 4 ¢ _ ... 0,. 0] 0_ N. m - 0 N.. W K O r �E K P _ N T 6] N ° 0 0 O 0 .2 U E MYo o 0 0 o 0 0 0 LLO .. O n O O N W a 0 U O Mo M N O) M h N V O N N V (D (D O O N o M O N N N h N O O (D N O O) M O 0)N M N N N N N V V M M O N O M N o o N N N N o M O) (D o M N N N (D V M O) h M N N o r O N 0O N N N N N V V M O N y n 0 n 0 O O) O) O O O N V N N N O N N N N N N N N N N V M N D 0 N � ry � � N - - N V V M M - h am G! mNMMNMNN N M M O 0 O O ONN 0 N 0 O O 0 O M O N (D N M N N O 0NVN � o U VVM M M M M M M O �O N_ OO N O N N N0 0 0h0 NoNZ O O O D O O N O M O NNVVN hN N 0O N NoO O O - - - - M O - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - �2 �2 �2 Mh F U W O h h N h 0 N N 0 h h O O O o O 0 N N 0 M O 0 N V h N N o O Q N (O (O (O h N N N W O O N h N CM, 0 O N O M M M (O h o o f h o O N O N 0 N N a 0)_ 0V 0 N 0 MV0 N O 0 N NO) hN N NN NN O(D 0V NN hN OO) 0Z O 000 O M VN (D oN N N W d N O N a M 0 N N M c 0 GJ J O 2 N M 0 00 0 N (D N N o w h o M h 0 N V V N O N O - N O O V M V i2 i2 i2 F h N O) N h M O N V V M V h M N (D O) h M Z M ^ - - - - - - - - - - - - - N O d ^ O - - - - - - - - - - - N N 00 m W a F Z n N N M N O (O M N O O h M M o n ( N N (O O M O N M (O (O N o W O N N N N V V V (D O) O N V N N O n O O O M M N N (D O) N N O O Q d N O � � � � � � � � � � � � N � h a (D O N M� � � N N O N F N N N N O N h M (O N h h M V (D M o N N V N O) h M N h O) M N N o F O U 0 M V O OMO ON N NN OMNNn O Nm o o o o OO) NN MM NNN0000 M O F V1 0 JO ay 0 NM _O r 00OrMN V0 N N N O V N NhN 0 0 0 � M O 0 O N OO O O MNN M 0 M N nO�a O V 0 0 V 0 h N h O O V h N O O o M N O) M N N h O O h h O) M o U O r V N N N h 0 h N 00 V 00 h N O V h (D h N N (D (D N O) O) O) O (D N � M O O O O - O O O - M N N O � M 0) M O O O O O O O N N N N n Z a a K m f7 Or m h( h ON m Nh NM o DM N4Noy O MONwoDVOOwMM N o 0OhO OONN O O O O O O O M M O N 0 OO O O O O OhN M N 0 h�O F N F O N N O N (D h M M V O) N h O N V O) O O) N O N N h M V V h N h N N O N O O v 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V N W O O O O O O O O O O O M N N N � 0 0 a M a N U O G 0 0 0 M V 0 O N N N V N N N U O G 0 0 0 M V 0 O N N N V N N N F0 6W] F OOO000 - NN NM NN M ICC7 CO7 FK0 "WO F000 ON Oh V 0 - N NM NN M ¢Q m C7 C_7 C O v a v a U U W N W N J M 0 J J 6] G 0 N M V N (D h N O) O N F a M M G 0 N M V N (D h N O) F a ri Y 0 ¢ Y 0 F � F F � F O n O O N W a 0 U O O N N V N O N O M N N N O 0 M N N N N N N N N V M N N N V M M M O d N d N N G! a N N (D O) N N (D N N V N y O N N N h O O V O N M O h N V 0 O O N O N N V N N O h 0 N N N h O M Z O N M O h h 0 O 0 O N O) (D h N 0 O K O M 0 N 0 N F O O O VNVOO O ON N Nn OV) (p Vn Oh ON N N K T N K T N �2 �2 �2 N IL r N N V V N O (D r M N N N O V Z O O N V (D h 0(D V M N O O) h M V M N O) m N (D W N V N M M M N N J J 0 2 O NhO 0 NO N N O NO O rO O O N M MVM N D (p O) W a F Z n W O r O n0V M O(D N M 0O) 0O) 0 N Q K M � K (D N a a 7 N (O FU Om N VN M D NhMVVD O-D Nh NhM NhO) ON MM N - M0 0 N a O O N M NN N(D F V1 0 O H O O) M N N N M O) O N O n O O O) (D h O V N N h N O) (D O M N V J a y 0 0 0 0 0 V N N M M a y 0 0 0 0 0 0 M N N M N (D N O N O U T O � 00 h N 0 O ON o 0 V O V V h O W N N 0 h N N 0 0 (/J O M O O 00 00 O M N N O 0 V O M O O 0- 0- O O O O N N N M 0) _ 0- 0- 0 v N h LO f7 Y O h (D h (D o Mv OmN N W 0 0 V 0ON M OM � MO 0VN 0 0 h M 0 oN NOOON OOhOhhN MYENOOOOOOOOhNM � Noo p,QzMa � o Z OOOO MMOVM OM - Vo O O y O v o W v W ry N V M V V N M O h V N h N W ry N V O V N N O) N M N N OJ O O o OOnMMVNhO OL 00000 000V DO NNOVC OO N N OO O 00 M V 0 V O N NVN _ _ M WFO 0 O ONhO0M0VWC7CC7 OOO N N M _ v a v a w w 6] M G Y N M V N (D h N O) F a 6] (D G 0 N M V N (D h N O) F a ¢ co0 ¢ m K Y 0 F � F F � F O n O O N W a 0 N N U O) O N O O) ry M v N T N T T T M N O)V O)M M O) o N m m O 0 O o O N O N �N N M M N h N h 0_ N 0_ N M NN(O V M ' M M r N 000� N N OD N h(Oh0) O N h ^ N G! a N M m M N M N O h—ice M h N N y Nn O)N O)O O N FNN O2 N N V (O n O) (O K O 0 N0 OONONNNn N000NZ O — Nh D o(D ON KO OO ---- 0 N F W O hNhO) N h O NNO)M N O V O m ON (D(D(Dr N N O N MM MAD h N �p O N N O N EL O) V O)V LD N O) O) h V N N O O)Z 7 N O N O 7 O m I� W (D ^ O (D M Kw N K J J O O (DAM O) O (DMh� O) M O ON h O V M V N N M o O V V N �p O 7 N f0 M O m N M O F Z n NMNO (D M NN(DO N n NNO h n m�M W � N N N V V N O 7 O O O M M O �p N 07 0M G M O 7V N� M a � a � 7 N F (O NONr M N (O V NO) h 7 N— O T— M 07 f0,7 N N 000 � (D M F U Q NhN V (D J OOO� MO VN M N N mlamM O B NNOVNp m. SO VT MM 0 y 0 0 m X y O O O f f M O a a O T V T r N (O N T M N N (O m N T r m N y N M N N h U ON- 07 �www— h00N h N ( 8 O vim m N m N M 0oo 0 o 0 M 0oo 0 o 0 0 pMj p K M O O O O V N 0 K M . O O O V O Z � 0 � � a � ���� � 0 K 7m hD h NT TN hN T o M N O M a Dv10 0 MN N T h 0 DNWDOhO > O vN O0 NM NV Nm mm. mn VT T N OOOOOM N Y N O O O O O M m MAOOOOOM Q = Z. Z `! Z v (DhMM m h oh O NhMV V I oT O K O MO O M O oN O O NnM V V (D oN Y o000 0 �o U o000 0 ip U o000 0 ip Ur o000 0 m v r a a M W Y W Y W Y 0 C7 d 0 G mmM V m OO DM T NN N O D(DMVTNN Fox OQ — DDMTN 0 Nh0 7dOO D OO NotN W. NNv F O O O OO O N vFO m O O O O O N tt] < Ytt] < va va va va Fp2 p F M W O W W W O W W M W O v W ¢ W O W 0 F J W 0 F J M 0 F 10 0 F Q N M V N 6] y j Q N M V N 6] Q N M V N 6] Q N M V N W K Q M K Q W Q W M 0 n O O N W O N N N N U T T T O T O O O) O (D M M0 0 O O M T N T m T N T O O N M M M 0 0 O N O O N N N M O N O N M N N N h O M M N N N (D M M M O N N N N h h O� O N OMj pOj O O) M M O N O N 0 N N N N 0 O M N N N p M N N K N N N W a N N N M M o N N N O o N N N N o C O N O M 0 M O N N N O) m M O N N N O N M O O0 m N N N m O M K � N C- M m N N K N N d N � � M 0_ N � � � M 0_ N 0_ N Z O N O) O) O O 0 0 O Np ONM O N O NN M NN0 W N Nh NO W-n O 0 M F W O N (D h N o O O o N N o O O) (D h M N O pN N O) N o d 7 O N O O O M � o O N_ 0 0 0 0 N M M O N N h V 0 O O O a a a 0) O) M V (D o 0)Zc 0 0 0 N O W K M V O - - M K 0M) NM NV hin hMV VM Ne- M D GJ J O a/ 0 0 0 N O 0 0 0 M 00 O O o O M V h V N (D W W a F Z n M N O N o n O N M o n M N O N o n O N M o W O 7 V (O C N N �O O W N N (D � O O p O 7 y (p C N N �O O r N N (D � O O p � � � � V N (O F F O 7 V O 0 V N MUF0JO r 0 0__ 7� VO O 0 VMv OMO� 0 7 VOO) OVO 0 VM(D N Mr 0 7�� VNO O 0 VMN OMoO OKN - � OMNo KM - - OM - KM OMNo KN - - OM - OOVVD VMNoO D 7 7 MyOOONO . y0 0ON My00ONO . MyOOONO �O 0 - - - - - - - M M - - - - MO 0 - - - MO O h O O h o h 0 0 0 o h 0 O h o h 0 0 0 o p p T O 7 0 h N N o O 7 0 0 � M �O N M O O N N N K M O O N N O M O O N N N T M O O N N ry Z M M M D M 0_ M M N 0_ M D M 2 0_ � � � M D Z Z Z = Z O_ O_ O m F M (D ~ O_ _O m M 0 h Oo U O U vOM D U O NO O - M0O - o - UvO V0N OW � NO � ONM W � NOOONO WMENONO WYENOOOO M Q 0 O TM - - M O M- m D O 0 M - m 0 J N O h V o J = N 0 O M ° J N N O h V o J N N 0 O M ° O m O - 0 N h N V O O 7 n N n h O O 7 0 N h N V O O 7 h N h h O v 0 0 0 N N O O O O O O N O O O O O N N O O O O O N O x > a M D = Y a M 0 = S a M 0 = r a M D U �2 U O U m U m W JDD am J wm J `v a' wO O amO ¢O W J O M J O M O M C7 D a D w O OO N wO O O N F N wFO O OO N M MO M O . 0 - - - U - - M O < ¢ <¢ CN7 C'NO7 0 0 a LU O 0 0 a W M 0 FO `v w w FO `v m 0 ¢ O r O F m m Q O r O F m ¢ O r O F a m f� Q 0 h N F a F M C7 F M F N F N 0 (D M (D M (D O n O O N W O N N N N U U1 N U1 M U1 M 41 O p T M M V M V M N M N V V T M T p T M T p V o VN V N 0 OON N N O N NN 0V 0o O NV 0N NO) 0N o 0 K M N V M N N O) N K M V M N N V K M N N N (D T K M V M N (D p) D O M MV NM NM ON M m MN NN NV OM 0N NV N _ MN NV NM NM NM O 0 N MONO ON O p p ONNNVON 0 N N N N 0 N N N oN ryM N 0 G! m N M 0 0 0 h o N 0 N V N M o N 0 T n o N N 0 V N N o y OQO O V N O N O) O) V (D O) N V O N n O O V N p O N n V 0 0 0 V V M N V M M M M V V M M M M MO 0 V0 N V 0 N O O N h 0 N N O M 0 O h o NO M N000O 0 O O O m 0ONZ O O m O O OO O m m pON M oO) VpVMM MOW MMMMVM VMM M F 7 O O Q OO O M � N M O Q n OO O N N O � O Q OO O N � N M O ON V N NpOj 0 nO O w N N O V IL 0 0 N O 0 h o 0 00 V M o 0 0 N O O h o 0 00 V M o Z O r o V M N T O o O r m M N o h M V O r o V M N T O o O r m M N o h M V J J O N (O N o a/ rN ON TO r N D N o rh NM M ON NN T oN V TOhV N N T V M O M N D TO D O N M O M N D TO D Z MNm O O O O a NOV W mU F ZQ an OM h� M� M� MN o nMT No nOhMMMo an� M mm N( o W O rn O N m O 0 0 0 NO O 0 m O N m O 0 0 N M N O V DMN N N n V M M N O V OMNN Nn Vh ry 0 m 0 0 V o (O h MFU OK N V O ° T M N ° DhM D O ° D T M N v o 4 OrmMn 0 n O O N mM0 ro 0 m M M N O 0 N N N M NN M M N O 0 N M NN M F 0 O M T O N 0) ° N O N T 0 O N O N O � M T O N T ° N O � N T 0 O N 0 i0 J y V N N O T 0) y M N N M O O y V N N - O T 0) y M N N M O O O 0_ N M 0_ N N 0_ V V h N 00 o V h h T M N o V V h N 00 o V h h T M N o U O ro 0 V 00 r O r N T T T r M n O r 0 0 V 00 r O r N T T T r M n N M M N N 00 i0 M N N N C O — 0 O M M N N 00 i0 K M N N N C O — 0 � � N N m ON _ _ w O O OO r 0 M 0 N 0 O r M 0 M 0 N 0 0 O r M T ONMMOON O N N M O O MMOONO NNM N OV N Z Tm 0 Z Z 0 O ° O F� _ a � N � h� N r.• Fo O O o oFW WO O N V T O W W NO 0 N Nm0 N N Th ° O N N O N O N N O N h V O > T O MNNNO NVO 0 O MNNN O NV= 0 J C C = C7 0 ¢ 'm 'm C7 0 ¢ � � m m C=7 0 ¢ � � m m C=7 0 ¢ m m v m m v m m v m m v C7 C7 _ "O M N V (D C7 C7 _ "O N M N V (D C7 C7 W F O N N N M O .F W F O N N N M O .0 W F O N N N M O .F W F O N N N M O - N O O O. fnm ¢ vafnm ¢ `v a' mm ¢ `vm fnm ¢ `v a' F U aU W ¢ W aUW ¢ F dU O W W O O WM O W O W N mN C61 Nm ¢ ¢ m ¢ TO N (9 FM (� F (90 T O n O O N W O N N N N N U v T M v N N v N V d N M M ry V O N T O M T ON N V V N N M � O N N O N ON 0 O N � N O N y N 0 0 O N N O G M r0 O N 0 yN O MN NN M M VO Nn OO NM Mh N N O 0 N NNN N N N 0 N M M N N N N 00 G! hN(D 0 N M N O 0 N M N h M h N N V O N N M O N p� N O N M (D O N N T N (D O N M N 0 Z O N y ON O N N O O O N n N 0 N O N M O O O m O N N (D N K O M V M V , 0 0 W d N d N N N d N M M M M d N 00 N N d N M M F W O h 0 O O 0 O N N M N O h N h N O 0 N 7 O N N O O N 0 y O N N T M N O N N N N N O N N O O K m O N N O M M M M O N N N N m N N a T Z O T T O T 0 O T N N W O N N M M M M N N N N N N w a 0 a a a a J J 0 �2 o m O � 0 M O � N 0 m 0 O � a 0 v 0 O z � M 0 � ^ _ O K h h 0 K h V V V V K h N N K h W d d N N d M M M M d N N N N d N N� OI W 0 a Z n W0 Od � NN � Od 0n� NN N Od n� NNM OMM NNM OMM Od n� MN N mMN On ^ N D 0 0 D 0 00 O 0 N N N N d � F F O 0 00 O O N O a v a v O v v O 0 0 U N 00 K N 00 N M M M M K N O O N N N d d N N d M M M M d N N N N d � F U_ Q D N JO d y d N O T N N N O N O 4M M 0 0 0V0V y nw 00 N N N N N 0 O O000 NN N 00 d M M M M d N N N N d 0 V UN Od NN� NN Od V 0 NM N T O V 0 m 0 m O V 0 NO OV 0 M 00 O O M M MN N N N MT0 T 0 m0V hV 0 - 00 00 VV (hVD Z � � Z m D N NN ND O O N N O V MO N O O N M M M N V N N N N N N N N O N O K N V V V V Q a g a O 0 N M V V N 00 O - N O NN 0 NN 0 N N O O - N N N N N N N N T O T Od N Mh VV M Z NN NN MMMM NN O N hV w 00 J J J J J W < < - 0 0 0 0 < N N N N < M M M M < (n < N N N N 0 C7 F O O O O O 0 T T T T 0 N 0 (D (D (D (D J 0 6 N N N N Z N F O w F O N N N N F O O O O O < ~ O V V V V K Y F U D U - N N 00 0 U M M M M D U - N N N N F U a m < 0 < < < O < < 7 7 7 ~ w U 0 0 0 0 U W J 0 0 0 < 0 < 0 m V W < < < < < < < < < < < 0 M M < 0 K M M < 0 K M M 0 K M F M M < F Z (� - 0 0 (� - 0 — 0 K (9 Y W W W W (7 W W W LLl (7 (7 M M M M 0 M M M M O n O O N W a 0 U O 0 0 0 0 . o 0 0 $$ 0 0 0 0 o Q M O (D o Q O OM O O m m M o m m o Q V N O O O O O - - 0 - 0 - 0 0 0 - M $�$$ M $$ M $$ M ��f$ 00 0 R M N M 00 0 R M V M V 00 0 R V N V N 00 O R N m M N N N N 0 M N M (D N N N N N N h V h V ry N N N O 0 r V N M V h N N m N m M h m h m V V N N N O 0 mom m 0 O O N N N N N O N F N N N N N F M M M M M F V V V V V ~ M �2 �2 �12 �2 L a �f . . . �f . . . . . . $$ 000 = Y i( W o Q V N N V o Q N N o m V m V o Q 00 0 M O O O O O O O O O O O C N N � v m wv Y Y v v o o 0N 0N x t0 IN 0 o � 0 o � o -- - - w ¢ ¢J C)T T U V C N N m m N 0 N N N (O N (D N 0 m N 7 C m m O N O M M O V N N O m N h N h O 'y� C O p� w w w w O O O O O O O V V V V V O V M N M M 0 0 Y Y F N N N N N F M M M M M F V V V V V F �2 �2 �2 �2 �2 � � > � > o000 0000 0000 0000 z O 0 O o o o �f N m N m o $$ O N V m W O O Q h N Q (D V (D V Q M V M V Q M N V N ^� LO w LO w M N N N N N O O O O J = _ ZY Y Y Y o0 O R M h N o0 0 u w i4 w i4 O 0 u N m N m 00 0 u 0 co ! 0 rn W m (p (O N N N N a F ¢ z (O - N N N N NN O ON MM mM MM M F V mV VV mV V F MM O� 0�¢ M N W j M N N D 0m N N O N O M . m . m M 0 0 w FmOOOO M M M M O M N M MM F �f 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V o Q N m (D m o (D (D o Q h N h N o Q M N O V F C O O 0 W 0 j m m m m 0 0 0 (D N N N O h N h N N M M ry N O V M m U 0 N h M N h N o N O) N O O 0 0 00 0 O w h h 0 h O m m N m N O N M M M M O N Z ¢ a a F N N N N N F NNNNN F V V V V V F M M N M N Z O C N O a o 7 < O o 0 0 0 �f 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �f 0 0 0 m 0_ U N O O o (D N M o Q h (D h (D o M G M o Q m N M Q 2E (9 U v v M M 0 0 M M M M O O O O 0 W ¢ O 'O 0 � d 0 m m m m z ¢ O a a v t N m m o $$ o m o m N v v F o E u m 0 R N A m m m 0 u N N m 0 R (ry r (ry r m 0 u N N V' W m O o w m m m v v v m O z m O d II a h 00 0 h a 0 0 II II O N N O NN OM OM a y mD OO Nm mU E Om O ~ 00m p p Owo N N oo N N F NNNNN F V V V V V F F 0 W J M ¢ J M M ¢ J M ¢ J M ¢ m N W W W W W W D W W W W v N < W W W W W W W W W ¢ N F M M M M F M M M M F M M M M I F M M M M F (D ¢ a` a` a` a` (7 °' ¢ a` a` a` a` ¢ (7 < mm m` m 0 n O O N W a 0 U O �f 0 0 0 0 �f 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $$$$ 0 0 0 0 o Q OMj O M o Q M (D M (D o y y y y o Q N � M O 0 0 0 O O O O N N N N O 0 X 9 9 O NO 00 0 vI v( O t0 N N N N 0 N N N m V h h (D h (D 0 0 N O N ry N N V N O O V O M O O 0 0 0 0 O M m m m m O N M V M V NF (D 0 (D 0 0 F M M M M M F N N N N N F L a o000 �f0000 . . . . . . Y i� W o (mp n 0 o Q V O V O o O�j OMj O�j OMj o M m 0 O ti N N N N Soso N N N N N N N C � v m Q! W z Y O $$ N N V 0 $$ 0 $$ (6 t0 (6 t0 0 $$ t0 M V 0 O N Y r O 0 R M v M N 00 0 R (,�.. N (,,.. N 00 0 R t0 t0 t0 t0 O 0 R M N M N F v m m N N N N J T T U a < C) W m m U M m N V (D (O N (D N (D N h M N V 7 C C m m O M h N (D O V M V M V O V N N N N O V O O V O N m N m O O N O O 00 O 0 0 Y Y F 0 00 N N F M M M M M F 00 N 00 F O 0 O o �f M (D M N o ��ff h h o �f (D N (D N o �f N N N N W O O Q M N M h Q - 0 - 0 Q 0 0 0 O Q N m 0 . ^� LO w LO w N N N M N M O J = _ < < < < 9 V v v O W Q W Q N tG h N h M tG_ h N h N 0 V N V N 0 tG M O t0 N K W W M M O M M t0 M t0 M h M N (6 Z � � 00 �- rn 00 air air air M 00 0 � rn W m 0 m (O N N N N a F Q Z M �p M ¢ h O N O m NhN N m N h O ON NN NO mN N m m w N NO MhV MN N N N M M ON� F N �f o 0 0 0 �f 0 0 0 0 �f U o Q VMNW o Q N O N O o m 0 m 0 o Q NOWN y� O O O sees N M N M - - 0 - 0 O J N N N N a G G V $$ 0 0 (D V $$ h h V $�$$ 0 0 00 V' N V J W O 0 R N N N N O 0 R N M N M O 0 R 0 O 0 R N A M O w 0 O O O O O O O m O O N m h D N m (D V N N M M m M m ry n M O N M U 0 M (D N O N h m M M m O N 0 N 0 M O) O h h N h h O N N N O (p h h h h O N Z v ¢ a a F N N N N N F M M M M M F V V V V V F M M M M M Q J C C _ - J < O U C N �f o 0 0 0 �f 0 0 0 0 �f 0 0 0 d U N O o Q O m m V o Q V M V M o Q O O o Q V M N N J w O Q N N N N N N N O O O O O 0 4 0 0 �. U O Z a a` v V V V O_F W 0 0 O $�$$ O 0 U R O U O O O 00 W U J W O — O O O O Z m MN tMp MN (N6 N N N N O C7 K Y II V N a m O wII oII OFO hh N(p (p (p (p V O m O mNO ON OO M M M M MN ON V NNNNN 00000 O ^ m Nh Vm V N NN N N (D �2 �2 �2 �12 �2 F 0 J M M G J M G J M G J m M G N Q (D 0 N ¢ (D (D N ¢ (D (D N ¢ (D (D J N W W W W W W D W W W W W N W W W W W D W W W W m a N F M M M M a F MMMM a 7 F M M M M a F M M M M N N N N 0 n O O N W a 0 U O T C p T � .0 C N p U L W O Y C C O N C W O E Q :. r N 7 O N O N O m o O E v v O O U O_ a N v U � _ - O 0 v W O N r E O J 0 5 u = Y < a m m v v (A Y Y v m rn o 0 0 o rn o 0 0 o rn o 0 0 o rn �f o 0 0 0 Z U W L L W ° R O O h V W ° R O N O N W ° R 0h 0 0 m m F W v m m ¢ O O O O ¢ - 0 - 0 ¢ O O O O ¢ O O O O V Q U v v v v O m ? N (6 ^• If ? w � Iv m Iv O� ? w 14 ^• h r ? j$ (6 (6 m W W Y Y Q Q Q Q Z O 0 O 0 o O) N N o W O O m r m co r co r r co r co M r in M c LO ~ LO ~ 0 0 O 00 O N O N O 00 O O W W W W O V V O M M O O �f t0 t0 O 7 7 0 0 h V (D - 0 N N N N o 0 R �- m �, mo 0 R �.t O h N OI W (p (O N N N N a F Q Z �. NjMNj O O N m w O MN N W O N N N 0 N N M N N O N N N N N O O m O m O O 0 F 0 00 0 0 F M M M M M F N V N V N F F U R N m N ^ V h V h �f (D M (D o Q M N N M 0 0 y y y y o Q 0 0 0 0 0 y� - N M N M N so so F C O O U U U O O O O "O G G T N N N N T 0 h 0 h T 0 J v 0 � o0 m M m n o0 0 w o > oN oN O O 0 0 0 2 a` ° o m O 0 M 0 jp m 0 0 (2 U 0 N N N M (D m N N N N M 0 N 0 N N N (D N (D O N N N N O N N N N O N O O O N Z v ¢ a a F (D 0000 F M M M M M F 00 N N _ - J < O U C N �f o 0 0_ 0 �f 0 0 0 0 �f 0 0 0 0 �f 0 0 0 0 d U N O o Q M (D V o Q N M N M o Q N h N h o Q V N N J U 00 Q �. 0 O O O O M N M N O O 00 UO4 �. Z a a` O 0 O E U O 0 R M N O 0 R N v N e- O 0 R V V O 0 R ry N W U U J Wv O O O(6 — O W U Z m N N N N O C7 K Y II N m h m N (D m N m N m m N m N M h h m N a m II II 0 m h N N h 0 O h m h m 0 N N N N N D V N V N O w o ~ M M M M M F M M M M M F N N N N N F F 0 J M o M G J m M G J M G J � M G J N v W W W W W D W W W W W N D W W W W v D W W W W m a N F M M M M -O F M M M M -O F MMMM a F M M M M N N N N 0 n Appendix A.2 - CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Enrollment Projections T O 0 O W O O N LL 0 0 0 0 O T O O O O y 6 E m N M V LL 0 0 00 A LL � C y 3 (6 O O N N d) N N O N N O LO N 0 V O —0N 0 N N I� W P r r V N W O O O N N O N m p 00 C Q w (n fn N Or O N m � N N mN N 0 N O O N OO OOOO N O 0N N 00 mV N C NNF NLL U) N 0 q O 000 N N N N N W m V 0 N ` O m 0 m O N N 00 O O O O m O N O N N N I oO _ w N N m N m N = N N N 0 N O [ N O O 0 L L N Q ` O N= O N NO NN m NNm 00 ONNN O O m 0N NV OO DIN� m N W = N p N o U o = v U = U d 0 N 0 0 0 0 m N 00 N (O N m O m N m N m m 0 f� OY « O m I� O M O N O O O N V = 0 0 N O O V N a Na a (0 � p am E 3 p a c O 0 O N 0 V m m N N W V V I� W m m O N N O m m O P O = W O r N N (O m m I� r N r m V W W M O W N PO W — N 0 W y y N w = P O p N d m N N Q G O 0m m N N M r r W V V O M M M N m N y O N N n O N O N G N O D a v v 0 a O O N m N N N N N m m 0 N N V CS N V m p = CM: �O = O N N m M V N N m N N V N N W = V N N m j O = aQ 0 7 . Y Y ON U N �I 7 O T N m N N j N m N N 0 m N N N m 0 Y o T Y 6 Y o ~ o m Y W = o api ° a=i 'E m m c ayi ayi ayi LL a a U a 0 y y p in = H O v 7 v �. .Q .Q .Q F Y .Q .Q .Q FE F U w V Uhl m m Y L j YO nN LL LL LL LL y LL LL a O O Q 0 so sU- Jca s6 I 'a"Oi = n O W ° d a d a m = u E � LL u E � 0 E � a 'E m 5 � sss m ° _ ° w , U) a aU W n co v m m m 3 y m o w 3 o w w o mZac� v v ax JJO a` a` c� z Q O l m m m ay Qa m a ayi ayi ayi 3 2 O cL y = Y Y Y V m y D y q NMaLo ( m � N 0 N 0 0 O N O �p � r r r r r r W W W Wo O N N O N O N N o 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L M M M M M V M N V 0 O M N M M V V V N N (O V M O 0-0 M O M 0 N N V M N M I O (6 V V V V V V V V V N N N N N 0 I N r r r r r r M W M M O O I� O r O O O O M O 0 0 M N 0 0 0 O O O M N N N M N M V M V M M (O M M 0 M m N r N r r M r M M V N V M Q M O M N 0 N 0 O M N I� O O N N N N N N N N N M M M M M T W O O O O O O M M N N � n N O C M m E N (O (O (O (O (O (O 0 O O O� N N � 0 0 0 M V M O (V N O N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N M 0 U N W a _ S o N M M M M O M OMOO 0 0O W O N N N o M V o 0 O 0 N j a 0 V _ O V O O] O O MVW O N O OO NNM NM MV M N V M V W O O O O O O O N000000NMMO Q OO M � oo v t0N N O. C M r r M r M N M O o 3 6I m m YO 9 W W O N I O N M M (O N (O N m N V N M H d o W W O O O O O O O M M M N m Z v c 0 C 4 = _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ = O 0 N N N W M V N N O N Q U .N M O N O N m N V N N NT r t0 to W O OO O O O O O M M M O O JdddS p W d O Mod� � V W W co N O O O O M M O O O O O O O O O M M N N � odm. m M Z a N Q W N Q O U 0 o O � � �CO N Q 0 N MVN 0Mm 0 N MVN 0Mm H CO M 6 D � N HY(D Fy yN6 � f0 5 0 a m a N .O- O N N N N N N N N M V V V V N O m rn a .O- N N N N N N N N m V V M V N 0 a V M O M O I� V V M I W M N M I� O m O r O W O N M M N M M N V M M O V O in w - O 6 0 O M M M M M O O M M N I M V o w M W M 0 (O N M M N W V N M M o �p O M O W O N O N V W o N M O V M I� M v m � V I� r M O O O Mm M O W W N V M O O - - - - - - M - - - - N O N 0 0 - - - - - - M - - - - 0 0 O N O N N V V N N M N M M N w W N N M V M M V N - M pO - - - - - - M - - - - N N O O - - - - - - M - - - M - - - - 0 - " N a N a O N U 6 OO w MVMNNMO o0W N N N N -M MMMMMMO � O - - - - - � M � - - M - - - - N — r O - - - - - - M - - - M - - - - m 0 - " C O O o N O Cj w M W W V M M M N M O O � N - w M W W O N - N W M M N N M M N v M O - M O O - M M M N O N v M 0 0 0 - M O O - M M M M N N N N M O O O M M N N O O M M N N n N a N a N N r M N M M O N M O I M r o r r N N M M W M M O O M N N Ooom � M o N w 0 0 0 ° O O � O N O N M M O ° W M v o N W O O O ° O O V O - O N M M N N O M M " O p O - - - - - - M - - - M - - - - V N Off- - - - - - M - - - M - - - - N � N c N d N d W N N 0 - W W O O V W (6 M V M O N N V - 2 r M M N WN000 N O M W O MNMVV WMMV MNOM N N M M N VM MM M M o o OOOOOOOOOV - - NW o OOOOOOMOOONMNNNO - OO - - - - - - M - - - N - - - - V � o OO- - - - - - M - - - M - - - - No Q N a N a D N N O OMco m m ? ` O O O O O O O O N O O - CN, N N N M O � O . E ` O Q 0 0 0 0 O O N 0 0 - CN, N N N M O � O m U A V A u c c O 'O W MN O v W M N W Or 0 D N M V N N M I� M �° W Or W ` cr Ir Y Y � ~ Y Y crIr ~a p a p a z a z O N r. rC l r. rC O N a = o w � -O L a � pr `m N > io � U J $ w L U J Z w L D o. o w 3 3 Q 0 E z az o w 7 3 0 0 E a A y G G ai E o O a A y O1 w ° o E o o a ° o °o o °o -o M o y d cl w w a r m z n E — w z v ro E Q w O f Y OQ m p yO co 'w > Zyi jO a ° Q z C) o° O 'Djj WO t 5 0 a m W M O M M V N M M V aJ 0 O aJ V N V M V aJ V N M N W I� O N M N V M N O NN V .O N N N M N N N M N V M N mN 0 .O N N N N N N M V V M V N N a N a r r ONV V N O O M � aJ N � aJ V = wM N W M M M V N W V N N N W M O O M W M O W m N V 0 .O N N N N N M V V M N mV O O N N N N = M V M M M mN N a N a 0 O V MMMOM O V M O O V O N I M m V V O m N = V (O N O r N I� W O aJ aJ M N N M N I� 60 O N M I M O (O (O N aJ M M V N N W N N V V N N M w N N — N M V M M V N d N d O N 0 o o NM o N oU 0 4 o m � p �O� � � � � � aJ � � � M � � � = N = ri 0 0� � � � � � aJ � � � M � � � = N � ri � N a` N a` C O U V N aJ V aJ aJ N M M O W N W V V M o V M O N M j MW M MM ON NN NM MM NO M a) a = O = O O O — (O O O = M M M M N N m') p p 0 aJ M N N ry 0 0 aJ M N N ry n N a N a N O M I M N M N O N M O I aJ I N o — O W V N N M V W M M O O (O N N O M o 0 N O O O O O O V O N O N M M O O W N " - N W O O O O O O V O = O N M M N N O M N c N d N d W N N �O = W 0 0 O V m VN V M O N N V O o = - O a M N mMN N O O W O M o WaMV aNOM ONNMMNVW MMONNN OOOOOOMOOONV — NWo OOOOOONOOONM N N N O o Nd aNd O N 3 N O V N N M N V N m N 3 N O (O N M N N m O] O ` p Q O0 O O OO 0 0 CN, N N N M O ` 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0O 0 CN, N N N M w M O 5 U to N = � N � � � � � � � S O U U g o c O` v W O v W ja Q O U A Q D N M V N aJ I� M W O a' j Y F ojI Y � a a N a 0 r. rC O N r. rC O o w _ o a, -6 r a -6 r a > > d � Or a5 0 a Ul a5 0 a) O N O N o O U a) O o m o A e e a m a) Eo O a A e e ai o Eo o vT� '- a � � � ° oo � 3 � C '- a � � a5 mo0 -o oE � o tea`) ID a , ° � a`0O tea`) (D o znoy �, � y � m you, a5 zn0N �, � y � m you, a5 Z w � so � = a� � mm oo � � wmso � = a oM oo � � yaOa NO j aa N O OjCO m o co 0 a � O - o Q u z N a e ` in Q o �° m Y C) 5 0 a m Appendix A.3 Student Generation Survey O o o ri ri o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 o O rn o m N O N M I� O M N O w o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o w v O = O = c c •- Y Y (n (n W W (O CEO O M N CO = m (n N 0 U N N O O M N m M V M I� d) N N O s o 11J M 11J O N = O t O 0 Cf) N .� N .� jo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m C o o C0 m co Q O O 0 U U > O O Q m a a U w U C c C c QO V (O O O O M M N rL O O m M c,2 N L M N N M V L (h M L) U U U O O N U O V (O 0 0 M M N M !- U O (O (O rn a cDa 0 w mn U n m 7 m 0 .L o N c N O m U m L Z � � Z_ N J_ N � 00 0 3 w m m s S E ` N -Q N N O S OQ ' N O 00 6LL Z m c in LLl m ami m m = H > > w o Q N ami 3 d > m J p m a o c a w o 0 0 T .E > E o m O p .; o o .o c E 0 g m m m ii s s N c m m a Fn Q Q Q U D S Y J J J J d U > 0 CO 0 J J H [if O N N V O ~ � U (0 w p = � N — m M V V M (NO N V N N CO N V M M m N M N c U N � _ c 0 U U) _ � O � O N W L o t U 7 a c 9 (n A ,41 ad+ 2 COQ v �n co CO co rn v N o co r� o o CO v c+� rn co m y o. O_ 0 Cf Q 0 F U C C � ; 0 ga Q o a w U o w c c N Z 9 Q- o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 U N U v m o 0 0 � N ~ c w+ M A N tll y (� w' U M U) Da to w+ f6 FL 0 w � � v E m V Z � IL a L 0 a LU w E W C O d' N (6 d (6 L 0) O m O (6 U N a J (6 (p U C w c w d w co .m Y A W d -o -o -o d a c_ a ~ d m d m m C7 �o 0 0 w m 0 d S > m a m m m o m o Q d d a N N � 1d 1d 1d >i m e 2� m Q N mo UI (6 (6 (6 N N (6 (6 (6 (6 N O O N -O w c — N N Q Q [0 [0 [0 [0 [0 U U D w S S S Y Y J J J J 2 2 Z (n (n > �j } O V M r N O N M V 0 N (O r = 00 N W N M co M p V (O O O = (O N O O (O N LO N p F O O O O O O O O O O O O F 0 0 LL N O N M N N W N LL N = O O O O O O O O O = O _ O O O O O O O O O O O O W (:Y) Ln co r O O w N .� 1� � 0 M N d) O N M N N .� 'O (1) Cl) O N O N O 0 0 0 O ( L O O O O N O O O O O O O O O O N a a E (O OLn Ln N o) o)N Mc0 ON M I-- MLO M 'N'N E I� w N N O O O O O O V O M w N W O O O O O O O O O O O O W V LO LO m M N 1� N co V V M V R Lo o) R l6 coco O O w O V N 00 V co F F o F U N O N LO V M N d) O � LL N M N N N co N m o) 2 2 0 2 C6 `m w V M V O co N O N77 (O w O w O Lo 1� O 'C 'cO_ 'cO_ 'cO N V co N N N V C C � C co N N O N O N LO O N co 0 3 w w w V c0 c0 N U � u W W W U) � m v O O O O O O O O O O O O 'O LO v 00 N 0co O C w i w w w w w w O M (O V M O 7 a m Q Co Q m Q U w o O O O c -6 a m co co O O N d) N d N) a 0 a 0 O O O O O w y� V N (O 1� 1� O O r M i+ V O y� V U M � C = = Cl) Cl) C C CL 7 C 7 C 7 O O O x m co co O O N d) N d) N lo Lo Ln O NLn WONO N (O 1� 1� O O 1� M M V O (O f0 W w M M VI w W w N co C O c c ca U R R R � a a a m 0 F Ro M O R R Z = Z Z � � 7 } w F M M O (aD = 0 'p C m 0 J E m m C — M O c o Q O M M `m m m W `o U O � w O Q w m 0 Q w � U U a U) to _ y w 0 A w � E a a U LL w 0 -o -o -o -o -o -o Q ° w c 'p w = o w J w m m m m m m 0 0 R w m w m m m m m m M — Cl) -o X Y Y Y Y Y YU f/1 M '� Q '� - 0 C 0] 0 J J J J J J d d U) N H N Q C� = U) 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 2011-2017 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 the cities of Auburn and Kent to include the Auburn School District's 2011-2017 Capital Facilities Plan as part of the Capital Facilities Element of each jurisdiction's Comprehensive Plan. The cities of Algona, Pacific, and Black Diamond 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, Black Diamond, 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 Nonsignifieanee (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., May 9, 2011. 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: Mike Newman Deputy Superintendent, Business and Operations Auburn School District No. 408 Telephone: (253) 931-4900 Address: Auburn School District 915 4"" Street N.E. Auburn, WA 98002 You may appeal this determination in writing by 4:00 p.m., May 9, 2011, to Mike Newman, Deputy Superintendent, Auburn School District No. 408, 915 4°i Street N.E., Auburn, WA 98002. Date of Issue: April 22, 2011 Date Published: April 22, 2011 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 non- project 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. A. BACKGROUND 1 . Name of proposed project, if applicable: The adoption of the Auburn School District's 2011 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 Comprehensive Plans will be amended to include the Auburn School District 2011 Capital Facilities Plan in the Capital Facilities Element of each jurisdiction's Comprehensive Plan. The Cities of Algona, Black Diamond, and Pacific Comprehensive Plans may be amended to include the Auburn School District 2011 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: Michael Newman, Deputy Superintendent, Business/Operations Telephone: (253) 934-4930 4. Date checklist prepared: April 1, 2011 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 May 9, 2011. After adoption, the District will forward the Capital Facilities Plan to the cities of Auburn, Algona, Black Diamond, Kent, and Pacific, and to King 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 purchase property for and construct a new middle school and a new elementary school 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 facility improvements at existing school sites 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. 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 will review the Plan for the purposes of implementing the County's impact fee ordinance and incorporating the Plan as a part of the Capital Facilities Element of the King County Comprehensive Plan. The Cities of Algona, Black Diamond, and Pacific Comprehensive Plans may be amended to include the Auburn School District 3 2011 Capital Facilities Plan in the Capital Facilities Element of each jurisdiction's Comprehensive Plan and each jurisdiction may adopt a school impact fee ordinance to implement school impact fees. 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 2011 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 County Comprehensive Plan to include the Auburn School District 2011 Capital Facilities Plan as a part of each jurisdiction's Capital Facilities Element of their Comprehensive Plans. The Cities of Algona, Black Diamond, and Pacific Comprehensive Plans may be amended to include the Auburn School District 2011 Capital Facilities Plan in the Capital Facilities Element of each jurisdiction's Comprehensive Plan and each jurisdiction may adopt a school impact fee ordinance to implement school impact fees. 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 2011 Capital Facilities Plan will affect the Auburn School District. The District includes an area of approximately 57 square miles. The Cities of Aubum, Algona, Black Diamond, Kent, and Pacific, and parts of unincorporated King 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 4 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. 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 5 environmental review when appropriate. Individual projects have been or will be subject to local approval processes. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings?) The 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 environmental review when appropriate. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect the individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project- level environmental review when appropriate. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: 6 The individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be subject to project-level environmental review and relevant local approval processes when appropriate. The District has been or will be required to comply with all applicable air regulations and air permit requirements. Proposed measures specific to the individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project-level environmental review when appropriate. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 3. Water 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 floodplam 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 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 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 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 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 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, rules, 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-teen 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. 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 13,977 full-time equivalent ("FTE") students. Enrollment is expected to increase to approximately 15,711 FTE students by the 2016-2017 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 glare 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 (fore 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 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 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: a �w Date Submitted: A Pa.oL 2 ®4 2.011 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: 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 appropriate. The projects included in the Plan are not likely to generate significant impacts on fish or marine life. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: Specific measures to protect and conserve plants, animals, and fish cannot be identified at this time. Specific mitigation proposals will be identified, however, during project-level environmental review when appropriate. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? 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 County 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, 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. 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 o D o Q O Z2f/1 0 p 'L-' O L_ a) O O m (6 -O a) O (�6 O Q tU/1 (D 0- U >i O a) E E Q p O .� N a) 0 C — C Q -6 O C E w a) 6 a) U_ L O -6 T -O O 5 aj O .0 C O U Q a) Q O a) xo O Q Ul U X a) t/) -O a) E f �p m a) L m L a m U ` m a) m E f/) C - -O L c f/) C> � a) �U O N m O a) _ m (D CD LO > N a) O — m O- E m a) 0 C - w U -6 V O a) O t0/1 = a) _0 > C o E 0 p � U w m 0 O � m ° m O U C 1 -6 N (6 tom/) LO O a) _ a) N O o Y m X O V a) O U C ° U Lp — Y v L f/) L . m � .N- co> �Y 00 w NN O O OCO a) ) 0 Cl)O co O a)°) m NC� X a) 4C) O E U m O U Y x co -o a) U X w o E Q Y L o y N > C O U -00 C L O O 0) m N +' wO m w Z 0 m .. C -L- Q R E O t/) a) — O N N a) w N O O O R Q U p U >O m X -0 m Q E 0 C -O Q a) O N a) '-' U t/) 0 0 m_ f/) p a+ U a) m -p Ul C O CU Y O E ' 0 L O O -O m ` -O a) ` �, L N m E w tU/1 a O L U (D f/) O =p O O -O L a) - y X f/) f/) a) f/) f/) L a) O a) U a) p 0 O O .� U U E U U .L.. a) O m Q C C O m a) a) a) a) N N U Q Ul uj m Q L L m L L L C a) O m a) O - f/) O- N F F F ~ m r Q x m a) > N m a) w m U y m m co V Q >i Lo a) a) a) O m 0 p F � w F E E a a a U 0 L ci L W (D 0- U .� N 0 M C Q (D U 0- E y O 0) a) 2 O O N M O` 6 N mo Q 0 °- Q 0 a) M � Ul M O U M (6 C co -0 M U a) a) Y M U a) a) jp E C -6 D U O O 0 a) M O Q C m 6 O E 0 L N [) Q a) -0 > C > 0 Ul C () M y C Q 0 O L a) .L.. Y 0 N 0 w C M W (L6 6 -0 Q C a) ° y ° a) 0 C N N N - M a) .W. .L-. a) 0 L 0 ° M ° M -0M o ° _o u, Q ° a) C a) O a) E U L a) t/) 0 Y Q Q a) E _0y -0 OU U 0) N M +L' w 0 °) .L-. Y ° -° °- 0— —W M ° - N >, U (D =p >O '� 0 U C O) N -0 .L-. L O °_ � M _ _ ° f/) L O N a) Q ° -0 U ° N ° E E ° E M y O N a) -0 co O ( C N ` �0 C f/) ` (D Q w a) O w O Q O a) Q E O CJ U a) y O 0 0- -° L a) a) a) U C) 0 0 Q Y Q M 'L"' w N Y (� m Q N C — ° C -0 Y w a) (D L .L.. (D 0 M o .� Z2 N L C 0_ C D E 0 Ul O E a) 0 -0 LL M 0) -0 M C) ° m ° E � M Q ` C C U U — N m - 0 _0) 0 a) -E U L � N E a) M ° o _ M U ° C 0 0 — a) -0 M a) -0 _ ° r > 4 ° m L m — U5 `o E 0 -0 N a) Y .Q 0 0 a) M U Q a> _6 > 0 wY 0 N M y U 0 a) O U a) y C 0 0 O N U U -0 y M M U 0 ) m F E -0 0 -0 U � Q 0 M C L M ° m -0 U -6 0 a) M a) M a) M -0 O 2 E N a) ° ° O vn U 0 0 V,n w L Q ° M O - O a) CO U — a) L Q N a U N 2 t/) t/) 'L-' N a) N y O a) Q m c M rNi E a) ° E E C >, rNi w r Q a) ( M 0 0- m LL u, a) -0 a) (V. z r m U z W U U m a) MD °) .E U z C Q o Q Q - > ° C -0 4 ° Q M co E E .0 -0 .— Q L N CO L a) -0 0 � M 0 a) O F F (n (D -0 C. M -- in ° ° 0 w Q m -o L L F m (j (D Q M -0 m } \ \ 0 \ ( \ \ _ 1 2 \ - - § { \ \ \ \ 0) : 0) D \ \ \ _\ \ \ \ \ \ ) \ ) 0 a) 0 ~ ) / \ \ k .0 \ 0 \ \ \ \ \ \ - s % \ \ \ ) \ \ . \ \ \ \ \ 0 y : m o ) / \ ) 4 99 _ } ± \ _ - _ _ J { { o 0) / _ \ y 2 { 9 / / / ) _ = e e e - e 3 \ \ \ / { E \_ { { ) { k { » f 2 ; \ : _ - a y | \ „ ) / { ) ƒ ) / 0 ƒ E \ ƒ § » ) a ) \ 0 \ / \ j \ j \ \ / \ ) / { / / \ ( ) \ k \ ! \ ! \ \ d 2 ) 6 z z z e « - < [ _ ( o ( _ { < \ \ \ \ ! ) } / ! ° mo » \ \ \ \ \ m . \ \ \ ( } \ z \ (D y \ \ \ \ \ c , - \ � : \ . § { / - \ , g - ƒ \ _ > \ ) o _ 2 0 - \ - # 7 ® \ \ \ f ® c \ 0 { E / / y \ § ) - � \ 4 { \ { \ _ ) C) - f - \ \ [ \ ow \ ( 2 � - / } z }11 _ - = 2 _ { } 7 \ { , ® ) / / [ \ ) + -_ \ \ g _ - _ \ \ - = y # f ) \ _ / ) e ) D / ( ) ) ( ) \ \ \ - - D - : : ) 7 ® ® a 6 6J 6 \ \ > \ \ \ \ \ .......................................................................... / / ( \ } ) ) ) ) } / ) ) 0 / ) \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 0 \ \ \ \ \ \ OD 0) 2 \ _ - _ / + 2 ; k \ co k \ \ k \ } \ ^ - m \ { 7 3 / { 3 / { \ / ] CO { ) ) # j ) j a \ ) ( A j ) II II N N � N U X - � o � � L � � U O C L C U c N O 6 > O O O O N O O N Q c >O 0 N c I I 0 CL U -Op N c + X m O O O CO :p a U O O +_ + + O CO N N N v 6 0 U a C C C J C M 6 / J U) U J Q �+ + 0 J z z 0 0 H LL H H W1 O ai N 5 C1 ai O o Z O E 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. [2002 c 154§1;1990 1st ex.s.c 17§2.] 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. Each 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 groundwater 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: (i) Containing or otherwise controlling rural development, (ii) Assuring visual compatibility of rural development with the surrounding rural area, (iii) 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 groundwater resources, and ................................. (v) Protecting against conflicts with the use of agricultural, forest, and mineral resource lands designated under RCW 3.6 70A.1 70. (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 allowfor 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)(ii) and (iii) 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), (ii) 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, (iii)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.030(15). 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(15). 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, (B) On the date the county adopted a resolution under RCW 36..TQA.Q4.FO(2), in a county that is planning under all ................................. of the provisions of this chapter under RCW 36........................TQA............Q4.FO(2), or (C) On the date the office of financial management certifies the county's population as provided in RCW 3�.:TQA.Q F0 5), in a county that is planning under all of the provisions of this chapter pursuant to RCW 36,70A.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 3 .:TQH:33Q and 3 -Z.O. 335, (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, (ii) 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, (iii) 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 47.0 8,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 office of financial management's ten-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 7.:Q8 RCW; (iv) Finance, including: (A) An analysis of funding capability tojudge 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 351 T7:01 Q for cities, RCW 36.81 A 21 for counties, and RCW 35,58.2795 for public transportation systems. The multiyear financing plan ............................ ................................ should be coordinated with the ten-year investment program developed by the office of financial management as required by RCW 47.05 OI (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, (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, (vii) 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 35.:TQH:Q4FQ, 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 belowthe 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" means 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), the six-year plans required by RCW 35.:77 01-Q,for cities, RCW 36.81.121 for counties, and RCW 35.58.2795 for public transportation systems, and the ten-year investment program required by RCW 7.05.030 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,workforce, 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 36.70AA30. 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. ................................. [2010 1st sp s.c 26§6;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.] Notes: 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 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 35.:TQH:J2Q1, Severability--1997 c 429: See note following RCW 35..TQH:32Q1, Construction --Application -- 1995 c 400: "A comprehensive plan adopted or amended before May 16, 1995, shall be considered to be in compliance with RCW 36.70A.070 or 36.70A.110, as in effect before their amendment by this act, if the comprehensive plan is in compliance with RCW 36.7 T" .0 and 36.70A.110 as amended by this act. This section shall not be construed to alter the relationship between a countywide planning policy and comprehensive plans as specified under RCW 35.:TQH.11Q, As to any appeal relating to compliance with RCW 35.:TQH.Q7Q,or 35.:T0,A"11 0pending 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 36.70 040 RCW 82.02.050 I mpact fees—I ntent—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.Q2.Q9Q 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 3 .:70H 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.070, and on the capital facilities plan ................................. identifying: (a) Deficiencies in public facilities serving existing development and the means by which existing deficiencies will be eliminated 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§43.] Notes: Severability--1994 c 257: See note following RCW 3 ..TQH.ITQ; Effective date--1993 sp.s. c 6: See note following RCW 36..70K040. Severability--Part, section headings not law --1990 1st ex.s. c 17: See RCW 39.:7QH:9QQ,and 36.:TQH:9Q1. SEPA: RCW 43.21 C.065. S:APermPPlanACOMP PLAN AM EN DM ENTS\2011ACPA2011-1 SchDIstsCFPs\P CW36 70A 82 02doc 2012 Capital Improvement Program �- KENT W A S H I N G T O N FINANCE October 3, 2011 2012 - 2017 Capital Improvement Program Amounts in 000's 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total Sources of Funds Capital Improvement Fund 835 2,952 15,452 2,734 2,110 1,612 25,695 Utility Funds 11,450 11,500 14,100 14,700 14,900 15,200 81,850 Facilities Fund 260 600 490 890 315 265 2,820 Street Revenue 155 50 150 250 350 450 1,405 Grants 235 685 2,990 1,605 1,655 455 7,625 Revenue Bonds 14,050 0 0 0 0 0 14,050 Other Sources 21,221 38,105 30,948 22,875 23,269 21,570 157,988 Total Sources of Funds 48,206 53,892 64,130 43,054 42,599 39,552 291,433 Projects General Government 3,277 1,098 2,803 1,761 1,560 790 11,289 Public Safety 0 1,250 13,500 200 25 175 15,150 Transportation 7,640 13,550 16,750 13,300 12,000 12,000 75,240 Parks, Rec, and Comm Service: 4,577 4,664 6,897 9,363 11,054 8,627 45,182 Utilities 32,712 33,330 24,180 18,430 17,960 17,960 144,572 Total Projects 48,206 53,892 64,130 43,054 42,599 39,552 291,433 Sources of Funds Projects 2 50% 8% 1%0 9% wd,�, mmouuu�IIIIVII�I�u@����������U����I �IIIUI�S% 4% 26% Capital Improvement Fund in General Government Utility Funds IIIIII Public Safety IN Facilities Fund Transportation IIIIII Street Revenue IIIIIIII Parks, Rec,and Comm Services Grants Utilities Illlllf1 Revenue Bonds 'JJJJJ.:;Other Sources 2 General Government 2012 - 2017 Capital Improvement Program Amounts in Thousands 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total Sources of Funds CIP Revenues 260 145 145 75 25 25 675 Facilities Revenues (Internal) 260 600 490 890 315 265 2,820 King County Grant 55 55 Source To Be Determined 2,702 353 2,168 796 1,220 500 7,739 Total Sources of Funds 3,277 1,098 2,803 1,761 1,560 790 11,289 Projects Funded Facilities Centennial Center Upgrades 45 45 50 140 City Hall Entry Replacement 0 Corrections Portable Back-up Power Conn. 0 Emergency Facility Repairs (Lifecycle) 50 100 100 100 100 100 550 Facilities Card Access 75 75 150 Floor Covering Replacements (Lifecycle) 150 250 200 50 650 HVAC Lifecycle Replacements (Lifecycle) 75 150 50 50 75 50 450 Kent Pool Improvements 25 25 25 25 25 25 150 Kitchen Equipment (Lifecycle) 25 25 25 25 25 125 Parks Maintenance Renovation 35 35 Roof Repairs (Lifecycle) 75 450 25 550 Sealcoat Parking Lots (Lifecycle) 35 100 65 65 65 65 395 Security Camera Software Upgrade 40 40 Senior Center Upgrades 0 Technology Hardware Lifecycle Replacements 260 233 853 318 204 250 2,118 Software Business System Replacements 0 120 1,315 478 1,016 250 3,179 Telephone System Replacement 930 930 IT Data Center/ Service Desk 177 177 Chambers Video / Audio Replacement 395 395 Permit/CSDC Project 1,200 1,200 Other General Government Trails Planning (CPPW) 55 55 Total Projects Funded 3,277 1,098 2,803 1,761 1,560 790 11,289 3 Public Safety 2012 - 2017 Capital Improvement Program Amounts in Thousands 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total Sources of Funds CIP Revenues 1,250 13,500 200 25 175 15,150 Total Sources of Funds 0 1,250 13,500 200 25 175 15,150 Projects Funded Police Services CKCF Renovation 500 5,500 6,000 Crime Scene Van Replcmnt/Equip Upgrd 75 75 Ergonomic Work Stations 25 25 25 25 100 Pursuit Intervention Technique Equip 25 25 Robotic Laser Scanning Total Station 50 50 Police /Fire Training Center Citywide Driving Simulator 150 150 Expansion Police/Fire Training Center 750 7,890 8,640 Training Center Classroom Upgrades 25 25 Other Public Safety Annex Furniture Upgrades 25 25 Work Crew Van/Trailer Equipment 60 60 Total Projects Funded 0 1,250 13,500 200 25 175 15,150 a Transportation 2012 - 2017 Capital Improvement Program Amounts in Thousands 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total Sources of Funds Street Revenues 155 50 150 250 350 450 1,405 Sources To Be Determined 7,485 13,500 16,600 13,050 11,650 11,550 73,835 Total Sources of Funds 7,640 13,550 16,750 13,300 12,000 12,000 75,240 Projects Funded Arterials 72nd Avenue 50 50 500 800 1,400 S 224th Street Improvements 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 8,000 S 228th Grade Separation 100 1,000 2,000 3,100 S 212th Bridge Repair 1,000 1,000 Southeast 256th Street 750 750 1,500 Other Transportation Battery Backup 120 110 230 Railroad Quiet Zone 1,000 1,250 750 3,000 Repair/Replace Transit Control Equip 120 390 500 500 1,510 Sidewalk Replacement 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 12,000 Traffic Interconnect & Performance Opt 175 175 Asphalt Overlays 3,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 43,000 Paint Striping 100 100 Sign Replacement 70 70 Transit Service 155 155 Total Projects Funded 7,640 13,550 16,750 13,300 12,000 12,000 75,240 5 Parks, Recreation & Community Services 2012 - 2017 Capital Improvement Program Amounts in Thousands 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total Sources of Funds CIP REET2 Revenues 315 1,207 1,657 1,309 1,910 762 7,160 CIP Revenues 260 350 150 1,150 150 650 2,710 Washington State Grant 500 2,300 1,500 1,650 450 6,400 King County Grant 175 180 185 50 590 Other Grant 5 5 505 55 5 5 580 Donations / Contributions 10 10 10 10 10 10 60 Source To Be Determined 3,812 2,412 2,090 5,289 7,329 6,750 27,682 Total Sources of Funds 4,577 4,664 6,897 9,363 11,054 8,627 45,182 Projects Funded Sports Fields Valley Floor Athletic Complex Dev 1,000 1,000 Wilson Playfields Renovation 1,600 1,600 Community Parks Adopt-A-Park Volunteer Program 5 41 41 42 42 43 214 Clark Lake Development 50 1,000 1,050 Community Sports Fields 3,200 200 4,000 7,400 Eagle Creek Park Development 100 900 1,000 East Hill Park Land Acquistion 200 500 700 International Parks Acquistion 50 50 Kent City Gateways 50 50 50 50 50 250 Kent Memoril Park Renovation 200 1,500 1,700 Kent Parks Foundation 25 25 25 25 25 125 Lake Meridian Park Dock Replacement 150 1,150 1,000 2,300 Life Cycle - Trails 9 9 9 9 9 9 54 Mill Creek/Greenway Plan & Renovation 500 550 550 1,600 Russell Road Parking Lot 200 200 Russell Road Renovation 3,800 3,800 Urban Forestry Program/Green Kent 20 20 20 20 21 21 122 Valley Floor Athletic Complex Acquistion 500 500 Van Doren's Park Improvements 150 530 680 West Fenwick Park Renovation 100 600 700 Wilson Playfields Acquistion 500 500 s Parks, Recreation & Community Services 2012 - 2017 Capital Improvement Program Amounts in Thousands 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total Neighborhood Parks 132nd Street Park Development 100 1,700 300 2,100 Clark Lake Land Acquisition 500 1,000 1,500 Community Parks Reinvestment Program 100 100 100 100 100 500 Garrison Creek Renovation 431 431 Green Tree Park Renovation 130 130 Huse Property Development 50 100 1,000 600 1,750 Kiwanis Tot Lot #3 Renovation 100 100 Meridian Glen Renovation 175 175 North Meridian Park Renovation 603 603 Panther Lake PAA Park Acquistion 500 500 1,000 Park Orchard Park Renovation 175 175 Scenic Hill Park Renovation 170 170 Seven Oaks Park Renovation 103 103 Springwood Park Improvements 100 450 550 Tudor Square 181 181 West Hill Park Development 100 1,820 1,920 Lifecycle Renovations Event Center Lifecycle 300 300 300 300 300 300 1,800 Life Cycle Park System 260 250 250 250 250 250 1,510 Planning-Architecture & Engineering Architect/Engineering 10 10 10 10 10 50 Lake Fenwick Park Renovation 1,200 1,200 Master Plans 25 25 25 25 25 125 Park and Open Space Plan 25 25 Regional Trails - Levy Program 175 180 185 540 Other Parks, Recreation &Comm Eagle Scout Volunteer Program 5 26 26 27 27 28 139 Grant Matching Funds/Land Acq. 75 75 75 75 75 375 Old Fishing Hole Renovation 42 42 Replacement, Renovation at Misc. Parks 2,443 2,443 Total Projects Funded 4,577 4,664 6,897 9,363 11,054 8,627 45,182 7 Utilities 2012 - 2017 Capital Improvement Program Amounts in Thousands 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total Sources of Funds Water Revenues 3,000 3,800 3,800 4,100 4,200 4,200 23,100 Sewer Revenues 1,250 1,900 2,000 2,100 2,100 2,200 11,550 Drainage Revenues 7,200 5,800 8,300 8,500 8,600 8,800 47,200 Revenue Bonds 14,050 14,050 Source To Be Determined 7,212 21,830 10,080 3,730 3,060 2,760 48,672 Total Sources of Funds 32,712 33,330 24,180 18,430 17,960 17,960 144,572 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total Projects Funded Stormwater Management NPDES 265 270 380 380 400 400 2,095 Green River Levee Repair 3,000 3,000 Storm Pipe/Culvert Maintenance 1,500 1,000 400 400 400 400 4,100 South 228"' Drainage Bypass 2,000 1,200 3,200 Mill Creek/James Street Pump Station 2,500 2,500 Mill Creek @ James Flood Protection 235 2,800 1,900 4,935 Upper Russell Raod Levee 1,000 1,000 2,000 Lower Russell Road Levee 1,000 1,000 2,000 Citywide Pond Maintenance 1,000 500 400 400 400 400 3,100 Drainage Portion of Street Improve 1,000 1,150 1,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 9,150 Upper Mill Creek Dam Improvements 2,500 600 3,100 Lower Garrison Creek Bridge 500 1,000 1,000 2,500 Miscellaneous Storm Replacement 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 9,000 Boeing Levee 200 200 Briscoe/Desimone Levee 1,000 1,200 720 2,920 Kent Airport Levee 300 300 600 South 212th Levee 300 300 Riverview Park Channel 100 100 Downey Farmstead Side Channel 120 300 420 Mill Creek Auburn Back Channel 80 200 280 Senior Center Conveyance 200 800 1,000 Smith to James Stream Restoration 200 1,000 1,200 761h Ave Stream Improvements 200 800 3,000 1,500 5,500 GRNA Improvements 600 1,500 1,200 3,300 Creek Conveyance Restoration 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 Big Soos Creek Bridge Replacement 500 2,000 2,500 Sanitary Sewer Miscellaneous Sewer Replacements 4,500 4,000 4,000 3,500 3,000 3,000 22,000 a Utilities 2012 - 2017 Capital Improvement Program Amounts in Thousands 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total Water Supply& Distribution Water Conservation Plan 25 30 30 30 30 30 175 Rock Creek Mitigation Projects 185 300 300 300 300 300 1,685 Landsburg Mine 250 250 100 100 100 100 900 Guiberson Reservoir Replacement 3,500 2,250 2,250 8,000 Pump Station #4 Generator 125 125 East Hill Pressure Zone 3,000 7,000 2,500 12,500 Blue Boy Reservoir Fall Protection 15 15 Pump Station #5 Valve 12 12 Spoils Disposal Equipment 200 200 Derbyshire Water Main 500 500 1,000 228eh Road Restoration 750 750 2561h Water Main Improvements 500 500 Seismic Study Upgrades 150 150 Clark Springs Transmission Main 500 500 Land Acquisition 2,000 2,000 2,500 2,500 2,500 11,500 Miscellaneous Water Replacements 500 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 10,500 Hydrant Replacement 30 30 60 Total Projects Funded 32,712 33,330 24,180 18,430 17,960 17,960 144,572 s ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director PLANNING SERVICES Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Planning Director 40r,�,/ ��® Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager KE®�i T Phone: 253-856-5454 WA5H1NOTON Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S Kent, WA 98032-5895 CITY OF KENT ADDENDUM TO THE KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Responsible Official: Charlene Anderson SCOPE The City of Kent has completed environmental analysis, pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), for an amendment of the Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan to include the City's 2012-2017 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). This amendment to the Capital Facilities Element is occurring concurrently with the adoption of the City's 2012 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 concurrently with the city's annual budget is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan EIS - Addendum Capital Improvement Program 2012-2017 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 COMPLIANCE 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 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 the 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 Page 2 of 4 Comprehensive Plan EIS - Addendum Capital Improvement Program 2012-2017 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 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, safety, and quality of life. Policy 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 provision of needed public services and facilities. Page 3 of 4 Comprehensive Plan EIS - Addendum Capital Improvement Program 2012-2017 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY 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 2012-2017 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. This analysis and subsequent addendum did not identify any new significant impacts associated with the adoption of the 2012-2017 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,. n . Dated: November 4, 2011 Signature: &�,A) Charlene Anderson, AICP, Responsible Official CA:jm\\S:\Permit\Plan\Env\2011\ClPaddendum2012-2017.doc Page 4 of 4 KENT ADOPTION 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 2012 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 documents) 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. Document availability: This document is available for review at the City of Kent Planning Services office, 400 West Gowe, 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: Charlene Anderson, AICP (253) 856-5431 Planning Manager City of Kent Community Development Dept. 220 Fourth Ave South Kent, WA 98 32 Date: November 4, 2011 Signaturelu&1 c_ S:\Permit\Plan\Env\2011\CIPadopt2012-2017.doc w," Agenda Item: Public Hearings — 5D TO: City Council DATE: November 15, 2011 SUBJECT: 2011 Tax Levy for 2012 Budget MOTION: To close the public hearing. SUMMARY: This date has been set for the public hearing on the 2011 Tax Levy for the 2012 Budget. Public input is welcome. EXHIBITS: None RECOMMENDED BY: Finance Director BUDGET IMPACTS: N/A PUBLIC COMMENT Agenda Item: Consent Calendar 7A — 7B CONSENT CALENDAR 7. City Council Action: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds to approve Consent Calendar Items A through CC. Discussion Action 7A. Approval of Minutes. Approval of the minutes of the workshop and special Council meeting of November 1, 2011. 7B. Approval of Bills. Approval of payment of the bills received through September 30 and paid on September 30 after auditing by the Operations Committee on November 1, 2011. Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount 9/30/11 Wire Transfers 4773-4791 $3,103,154.97 9/30/11 Regular Checks 657163-657512 3,736,574.98 9/30/11 Use Tax Payable 126.99 $6,839,856.94 Approval of payment of the bills received through October 15 and paid on October 15 after auditing by the Operations Committee on November 1, 2011. Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount 10/15/11 Wire Transfers 4792-4810 $1,821,856.67 10/15/11 Regular Checks 657513-657924 2,113,778.88 10/15/11 Use Tax Payable 2,821.35 $3,938,456.90 (continued on back) 7B. Approval of Bills. Approval of checks issued for payroll for September 16 through September 30 and paid on October 5, 2011: Date Check Numbers Amount 10/5/11 Checks 324949-325134 $ 174,775.51 9/21/11 Voids & Reissues 324947 0.00 9/23/11 Voids & Reissues 324948 0.00 10/5/11 Advices 288978-289625 1,222,584.09 $1,397,359.60 Approval of checks issued for payroll for October 1 through October 15 and paid on October 20, 2011: Date Check Numbers Amount 10/20/11 Checks 325135-325307 $ 123,820.53 9/6/11 Voids & Reissues 324762 0.00 10/20/11 Advices 289626-290282 1,225,963.69 $1,349,784.22 Kent City Council Meeting KENT November 1, 2011 A special meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at 7:13 p.m. by Mayor Cooke. Councilmembers present: Albertson, Harmon, Higgins, Perry, Ranniger, and Raplee. (CFN-198) CHANGES TO THE AGENDA A. From Council, Administration. Staff. (CFN-198) Mayor Cooke explained that the first meeting in November usually falls on Election Day and is therefore held at 5:00 p.m., and that since this is not election day, the time was changed to 7:00 p.m., making it a special meeting. She added that because this is a special meeting, no changes to the agenda can be made. B. From the Public. (CFN-198) No changes were made. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS A. Public Recognition. (CFN-198) Council President Perry said that recently she mistakenly violated the Open Public Meetings Act when she sent a letter to the editor of the Kent Reporter containing the signatures of four Council members. She ex- plained the situation, took full responsibility, and apologized. She also announced that because of this error, she has stepped off of the Operations Committee and appointed Council member Albertson in her place. As one of the signers of the letter, Albertson also apologized and said the thought was to send one letter rather than several individual letters, without realizing that that would result in action by a quorum of the council. Perry and Albertson both said this was a learning experience and it will not happen again. CAO Hodgson announced that this week the City received certification for the Habitat Conservation Plan, which provides a water supply for fifty years as well as providing habitat restoration and protection. He commended Council and Public Works staff for their commitment. B. Community Events. (CFN-198) Ranniger announced upcoming community events and Raplee announced upcoming events at ShoWare. C. Public Safety Report. (CFN-122) Police Chief Thomas introduced Officers Will Davis and Adam Ferguson, who were then sworn in by Mayor Cooke. The Chief then updated crime statistics and current events. PUBLIC COMMENT Budget. (CFN-186) Delores Christianson, 23030 1641h Avenue SE, voiced concern about the cost of drainage fees at her 3-acre storage facility on Central Avenue. She also said money should be spent on maintaining streets and sidewalks rather than on the ShoWare Center, parks, and golf course. Tim Clark, 26121 Woodland Way South, thanked the Mayor and Council for keeping human service needs in mind in the past, and encouraged them to continue it as a 1 Kent City Council Minutes November 1, 2011 priority for 2012, since the need is even greater now. He said whatever budget is passed will probably need fine-tuning after the state legislature acts, and encouraged public input on the budget by the use of a survey sent out with the January utility bills. Open Public Meetings Act. (CFN-198) Bailey Stober, 24911 381h Avenue South, said he had been contacted by citizens and employees regarding the letter to the editor signed by four Council members. He said the letter was not a mistake, but a violation of state law, and that although the author of the letter stepped off the Operations Committee, she appointed another signer of the letter to replace her. He stated that this issue has been referred to the Attorney General's Office and the State Auditor's Office and will be investigated. Albertson requested the names of those who contacted Stober, noting that no one contacted her. Kent Black Action Commission. (CFN-198) Willie Wright, 11921 SE 2171h Street, reported that their recent events demonstrated the wealth of community support available and helped the community understand the issues and plans of current city council and school board candidates. He emphasized the KBAC was formed out of love for the community and said their strategic plan is to listen to the community and work with the city to make Kent a better place for all cultural groups. It was noted that council members will receive notice of upcoming events. Veterans. (CFN-198) Michael Sealfon, 162 Olympic Way, announced the Veterans Day Parade in Auburn this weekend and encouraged everyone to come out and support the veterans. He offered the services of American Legion Post 15 to work on homeless or youth issues. Sealfon also noted that the Kent Communications Support Team had an emergency drill last weekend which was highly successful. Ranniger encouraged Sealfon to talk with Parks Director Watling about the 10-year Plan to End Homelessness. CONSENT CALENDAR Perry moved to approve Consent Calendar Items A through L. Raplee seconded and the motion carried. A. Approval of Minutes. (CFN-198) Minutes of the workshop and regular Council meeting of October 18, 2011, were approved. B. Approval of Bills. (CFN-104) Bills were not available for approval. C. Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness, Resolution. (CFN-118) Resolution No. 1874, endorsing "A Roof Over Every Head: A 10-year Plan to End Homelessness," was adopted. D. 2012 Community Development Block Grant Action Plan. (CFN-118) The Mayor was authorized to sign the appropriate certifications and agreements for the proposed Community Development Block Grant 2012 Action Plan, including funding allocations and contingency plans. 2 Kent City Council Minutes November 1, 2011 E. Yamaha Golf Cart Lease Agreement Extension. (CFN-118) The Mayor was authorized to sign the agreement with Yamaha Motor Corporation U.S.A. to extend the lease of golf carts at Riverbend Golf Complex, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and the Parks Director. F. 256th Street Transportation Impact Fee Funds. (CFN-171) The Mayor was authorized to direct staff to allocate TIF funds to the SE 2561h Street project for preliminary engineering and permitting and to adjust the budget accordingly, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and Public Works Director. G. Interlocal Agreement. Boeing and Hawley Road Levees. (CFN-1318) The Mayor was authorized to sign an Interlocal Agreement between the City of Kent and the King County Flood Control District for the City to receive reimbursement for improvements to and FEMA accreditation of the Boeing and Hawley Road Levees, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and the Public Works Director. H. 2012 Annual Budget (Second Hearing). (CFN-186) November 15, 2011, was set for the second public hearing on the 2012 Annual Budget at the regular City Council meeting. I. 2012-2017 Capital Improvement Plan (Second Hearing) and Compre- hensive Plan Amendments. (CFN-775) November 15, 2011, was set for the second public hearing on 2012-2017 Capital Improvement Plan at the regular City Council meeting. J. Kent Comprehensive Plan and Amendments to Kent City Code Sec. 12.13 re School Impact Fees. (CFN-775/961/1000) November 15, 2011, 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, Kent City Code, to incorporate the updated Capital Facilities Plans of the Auburn, Kent and Federal Way School Districts, the City's 2012-2017 Capital Improvement Plan, and changes to adopted school impact fees. K. 2011 Tax Levy for 2012 Budget. (CFN-104) November 15, 2011, was set as the public hearing date on the 2011 Tax Levy for the 2012 budget at the regular City Council meeting. L. S. 277th Street ValleyCom Fiber Optics Interconnect. (CFN-122/1038) The S. 2771h ValleyCom Fiber Optics Interconnect Project was accepted as complete and release of retainage to Robinson Brothers Constructors, Inc., upon receipt of standard releases from the state and release of any liens was authorized. The original contract amount was $205,783.39. The final contract amount was $171,100.45. REPORTS A. Council President. (CFN-198) No report was given. 3 Kent City Council Minutes November 1, 2011 B. Mayor. (CFN-198) Mayor Cooke announced that she has appointed RFA Chief Jim Schneider to represent Kent on the Emergency Medical Services Advisory Task Force in preparation for a ballot issue next year. She commended staff for their efforts on the KaBOOM project at Tudor Square Park, and noted that she, Police Chief Thomas, and Lt. Lowery have been working on a gang intervention and prevention task force. C. Administration. (CFN-198) CAO Hodgson noted that the cuts proposed by the Governor were presented to the Council at a workshop earlier today, and said that the cuts are quite burdensome to the city. He said the Mayor, along with mayors of other cities, has already signed a letter to the Governor letting her know the impacts of the cuts she has proposed and the cuts already made over the years. Hodgson said the city is working with staff from the Governor's Office and the Department of Revenue, and asked Council members to call on state legislators before the special session begins. Upon Albertson's question, Hodgson said the cuts to liquor and annexation funds would total $4,000,000 annually. Hodgson noted that the next budget workshop will be on Thursday, November 10, and that the second public hearing on the budget will be on Tuesday, November 15. D. Economic & Community Development Committee. (CFN-198) Perry noted that the next meeting will be on Monday, November 7. E. Operations Committee. (CFN-198) Raplee noted that the next meeting will be at 4:30 on Tuesday, November 15. F. Parks and Human Services Committee. (CFN-198) Parks Director Watling pointed out that the Council just passed a resolution endorsing the Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness and introduced Bill Block, Project Director from the Committee to End Homelessness. Block reported on their successes, gave an overview of the plan, and outlined next steps. Jason Johnson of the Parks & Community Services Department was commended for his involvement in addressing homelessness. G. Public Safety Committee. (CFN-198) Harmon noted that the next meeting will be at 5:00 p.m. on November 8. H. Public Works Committee. (CFN-198) Raplee noted that the next meeting will be on Monday, November 7, and that the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Plan is on the agenda. I. Regional Fire Authority. (CFN-198) Raplee noted that the budget is being developed. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. (CFN-198) Brenda Jacober, CMC City Clerk 4 1ET�I P Kent City Council Workshop November 1, 2011 Council members Present: Harmon, Higgins, Perry, and Raplee The meeting was called to order at 5:35 p.m. by Council President Perry. Council member Albertson arrived at 6:03 p.m.; Council member Ranniger arrived at 6:22 p.m. Redistricting. Michelle Wilmot provided copies of the proposed King County Council Districts map showing Kent mainly in the 5ch district with bits in the 7ch and 91h districts. Council members expressed a desire to trade part of south Renton for some of the Lake Meridian area if possible. Wilmot agreed to prepare a follow-up commentary for Perry's review. Wilmot then distributed proposed draft legislative and congressional maps. After reviewing the maps, Council members said they will get back to Wilmot with their comments in the next week or so. Habitat Conservation Plan. Kelly Peterson, Environmental Conservation Supervisor, reported that permits for the Clark Springs Water Supply System Habitat Conservation Plan were issued in September and explained that the Plan protects the water supply as well as the fish habitat. He added that the permit was approved through 2061. Lake Meridian Outlet. Environmental Engineer Beth Tan explained the history of the Lake Meridian Outlet project, and displayed photos of flooding in the area. She explained the work being done and showed before and after photos. Council member Albertson arrived at this point. Green River Levee. Environmental Engineering Manager Mike Mactutis, Environmental Engineering Supervisor Alex Murillo, and Public Works Director Tim LaPorte gave an overview of regional issues they've worked on this year, described specific project issues dealt with and anticipated, and explained policy and Federal issues. Ranniger arrived at this point. Upon questions from Council members, LaPorte explained the work done and needed at The Lakes. Kent City Council Workshop November 1, 2011 Page Two Budget. CAO Hodgson distributed copies of a list of preliminary recommend- ations which are alternatives to the budget reductions which the Governor laid out last week. He explained the impact of the cuts to the city in 2012. He noted that a letter signed by the mayors of many cities is being sent by AWC to the Governor regarding her proposed cuts, and said that discussions with the state will continue. It was noted that since the budget must be adopted by the end of the year and that changes may be needed after the legislative session, the adopted budget will be temporary. Council members expressed a desire to include a process for the public to provide input on the budget. The meeting adjourned at 7:02 p.m. Brenda Jacober, CMC City Clerk KENT Agenda Item: Consent Calendar — 7C TO: City Council DATE: November 15, 2011 SUBJECT: Pawnbrokers Ordinance — Adopt MOTION: Adopt Ordinance No. , amending Chapter 5.05 of the Kent City Code entitled, "Pawnbrokers," updating provisions in conformance with state law. SUMMARY: In 1995, the City Council, pursuant to Ordinance 3235, amended Chapter 5.05 of the Kent City Code relating to licensing of pawnbrokers to update its provisions in conformance with state law. The state legislature, during the 2007 legislative session, pursuant to House Bill 1231, amended the Revised Code of Washington as it related to the regulation of pawnbrokers. It is appropriate for the city council to amend Chapter 5.05 of the Kent City Code to be in conformance with current state law. Amendments to KCC 5.05 include: (1) An increase to the fees for the preparation of documents, pledges, or reports required under the law; (2) A storage fee of $2.00; and (3) an additional $30 fee for storing a firearm. EXHIBITS: Ordinance RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety Committee BUDGET IMPACTS: None ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, amending Chapter 5.05 of the Kent City Code, entitled "Pawnbrokers," to bring the Kent City Code into compliance with current state law. RECITALS A. In 1995 the City Council, pursuant to Ordinance 3235, amended Chapter 5.05 of the Kent City Code relating to licensing of pawnbrokers to update its provisions in conformance with state law. B. The state legislature, during the 2007 legislative session, pursuant to House Bill 1231, amended the Revised Code of Washington as it relates to regulation of pawnbrokers, therefore, it is appropriate for the City Council to amend Chapter 5.05 of the Kent City Code to bring it into conformance with current state law. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: 1 Pawnbrokers Amend KCC 5.05 ORDINANCE SECTION 1. — Amendment. Chapter 5.05 of the Kent City Code is amended as follows: Sec. 5.05.010. Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: 1. Loan period means the period of time from the date the loan is made until the date the loan is paid off, the loan is in default, or the loan is refinanced and new loan documents are issued, including all grace or extension periods. 2. Melted metals means metals derived from junk metal or precious metals that have been reduced to a melted state from other than ore or ingots which are produced from ore that has not previously been processed. 3. Metal junk means any metal that has previously been milled, shaped, stamped, or forged and that is no longer useful in its original form, except precious metals. 4. Nonmetal junk means any nonmetal, commonly discarded item that is worn out, or has outlasted its usefulness as intended in its original form except nonmetal junk does not include an item made in a former period which has enhanced value because of its age. 5. Pawnbroker means every person engaged, in whole or in part, in the business of loaning money on the security of pledges of personal property, 2 Pawnbrokers Amend KCC 5.05 or deposits or conditional sales of personal property, or the purchase or sale of personal property. 6. Precious metals means gold, silver, and platinum. 7. Second-hand dealer means every person engaged, in whole or in part, in the business of purchasing, selling, trading, consignment selling, or otherwise transferring for value, second-hand property including metal junk, melted metals, precious metals, whether or not the person maintains a fixed place of business within the state. "Second-hand dealer' also includes persons or entities conducting business at flea markets or swap meets, more than three (3) times per year. 8. Second-hand property means any item of personal property offered for sale which is not new, including metals in any form, except postage stamps, coins that are legal tender, bullion in the form of fabricated hallmarked bars, used books, and clothing of a resale value of seventy-five dollars ($75) or less, except furs. 9. Transaction means a pledge, or the purchase of, or consignment of, or the trade of any item of personal property by a pawnbroker or second- hand dealer from a member of the general public. Sec. 5.05.020. Fixed place of business. No person may operate as a pawnbroker unless the person maintains a fixed place of business within the city. Sec. 5.05.030. Records of transactions. A. Every pawnbroker and second-hand dealer doing business in the city shall maintain wherever that business is conducted a record in which shall 3 Pawnbrokers Amend KCC 5.05 be legibly written in the English language, at the time of each transaction the following information: 1. The signature of the person with whom the transaction is made; 2. The date of the transaction; 3. The name of the person or employee or the identification number of the person or employee conducting the transaction as required by the chief of police; 4. The name, date of birth, sex, height, weight, race and address and telephone number of the person with whom the transaction is made; 5. A complete description of the property pledged, bought, or consigned, including the brand name, serial number, model number or name, any initials or engravings, size, patterns, and color or stone or stones, and in the case of firearms, the caliber, barrel length, type of action, and whether it is a pistol, rifle or shotgun; 6. The price paid or the amount loaned; 7. The type and identifying number of identification used by the person with whom the transaction was made, which shall consist of a valid driver's license or identification card issued by any state or two (2) pieces of identification issued by a governmental agency, one (1) of which shall be descriptive of the person identified. At all times, one (1) piece of current government issued picture identification will be required; and 4 Pawnbrokers Amend KCC 5.05 8. The nature of the transaction, a number identifying the transaction, the store identification as designated by the applicable law enforcement agency or the name and address of the business and the name of the person or employee conducting the transaction, and the location of the property. B. This record shall at all times, during the ordinary hours of business, or at reasonable times if ordinary hours of business are not kept, be open to the inspection of any commissioned law enforcement officer of the city, state or any of its political subdivisions, and shall be maintained wherever that business is conducted for three (3) years following the date of the transaction. Sec. 5.05.040. Report to chief of police. A. Upon request, every pawnbroker and second-hand dealer doing business in the city shall furnish or mail within twenty-four (24) hours to the chief of police a full, true and correct transcript of the record of all transactions conducted on the preceding day within the city. These transactions shall be recorded on such forms as may be provided and in such format as may be required by the chief of police. This information may be transmitted electronically, by facsimile transmission, or by modem or similar device, or by delivery of computer disk subject to the requirements of, and approval by, the chief of police. B. If a pawnbroker or second-hand dealer has good cause to believe that any property in his possession has been previously lost or stolen, the pawnbroker or second-hand dealer shall promptly report that fact to the chief of police together with the name of the owner, if known, and the date when, and the name of the person from whom it was received. 5 Pawnbrokers Amend KCC 5.05 Sec. 5.05.050. Notification of stolen property. Following notification from a law enforcement agency that an item of property has been reported as stolen, the pawnbroker or second-hand dealer shall hold that property intact and safe from alteration, damage or commingling. The pawnbroker or second-hand dealer shall place an identifying tag or other suitable identification on property so held. Property held shall not be released for one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of police notification unless released by written consent of the applicable law enforcement agency or by order of a court of competent jurisdiction. In cases where the applicable law enforcement agency has placed a verbal hold on an item, that agency must then give written notice within ten (10) business days. If such written notice is not received within that period of time, then the hold order will cease. The pawnbroker or second-hand dealer shall give a twenty (20) day written notice before the expiration of the one hundred twenty (120) day holding period to the applicable law enforcement agency about the stolen property. If notice is not given within the required twenty (20) day period, then the hold on the property shall continue for an additional one hundred twenty (120) days. The applicable law enforcement agency may renew the holding period for additional one hundred twenty (120) day periods as necessary. After the receipt of notification from a pawnbroker or second-hand dealer, if an additional holding period is required, the applicable law enforcement agency shall give the pawnbroker or second-hand dealer written notice, prior to the expiration of the existing hold order. A law enforcement agency shall not place on hold any item of personal property unless that agency reasonably suspects that the item of personal property is a lost or stolen item. Any hold that is placed on an item will be removed as soon as practicable after the item on hold is determined not to be stolen or lost. Sec. 5.05.060. Retention of pawned property — Inspection. Property bought or received in pledge by any pawnbroker shall not be 6 Pawnbrokers Amend KCC 5.05 removed from that place of business, except when redeemed by, or returned to the owner within thirty (30) days after receipt of the property. Property shall at all times during the ordinary hours of business be open to inspection to any commissioned law enforcement officer of the city, state or any of its political subdivisions. Sec. 5.05.070. Retention of consigned property — Inspection. A. Property bought or received on consignment by a second-hand dealer with a permanent place of business in the city shall not be removed from that place of business, except consigned property returned to the owner within thirty (30) days after the receipt of the property. Property shall, at all times during the ordinary hours of business, be open to inspection to any commissioned law enforcement officer of the city, state or any of its political subdivisions. B. Property bought or received on consignment by a second-hand dealer without a permanent place of business in the city, shall be held within the city, except consigned property returned to the owner, for thirty (30) days after receipt of the property. The property shall be available for inspection at reasonable times by any commissioned law enforcement officer of the city, state or any of its political subdivisions. Sec. 5.05.080. Rates of interest and other fees. A. All pawnbrokers are authorized to charge and receive interest and other fees at the rates in this section for money loaned on the security of personal property actually received in pledge. The interest for the loan period shall not exceed: 1. For an amount loaded up to nine dollars and ninety-nine cents ($9.99) — interest at one dollar ($1) for each thirty (30) day period to include the loan date. 7 Pawnbrokers Amend KCC 5.05 2. For an amount loaded from ten dollars ($10) to nineteen dollars and ninety-nine cents ($19.99) — interest at one dollar and twenty- five cents ($1.25) for each thirty (30) day period to include the loan date. 3. For an amount loaded from twenty dollars ($20) to twenty- four dollars and ninety-nine cents ($24.99) — interest at one dollar and fifty cents ($1.50) for each thirty (30) day period to include the loan date. 4. For an amount loaded from twenty-five dollars ($25) to thirty- four dollars and ninety-nine cents ($34.99) — interest at one dollar and seventy-five cents ($1.75) for each thirty (30) day period to include the loan date. 5. For an amount loaded from thirty-five dollars ($35) to thirty- nine dollars and ninety-nine cents ($39.99) — interest at two dollars ($2) for each thirty (30) day period to include the loan date. 6. For an amount loaded from forty dollars ($40) to forty-nine dollars and ninety-nine cents ($49.99) — interest at two dollars and twenty-five cents ($2.25) for each thirty (30) day period to include the loan date. 7. For an amount loaded from fifty dollars ($50) to fifty-nine dollars and ninety-nine cents ($59.99) — interest at two dollars and fifty cents ($2.50) for each thirty (30) day period to include the loan date. 8. For an amount loaded from sixty dollars ($60) to sixty-nine dollars and ninety-nine cents ($69.99) — interest at two dollars and seventy-five cents ($2.75) for each thirty (30) day period to include the loan date. 8 Pawnbrokers Amend KCC 5.05 9. For an amount loaded from seventy dollars ($70) to seventy- nine dollars and ninety-nine cents ($79.99) — interest at three dollars ($3) for each thirty (30) day period to include the loan date. 10. For an amount loaded from eighty dollars ($80) to eighty-nine dollars and ninety-nine cents ($89.99) — interest at three dollars and twenty-five cents ($3.25) for each thirty (30) day period to include the loan date. 11. For an amount loaded from ninety dollars ($90) to ninety-nine dollars and ninety-nine cents ($99.99) — interest at three dollars and fifty cents ($3.50) for each thirty (30) day period to include the loan date. 12. For an amount loaded from one hundred dollars ($100) or more — interest at the rate of three (3) percent for each thirty (30) day period to include the loan date. B. The fee for preparation of documents, pledges, or reports required under the laws of the United States, the state, King County or the city shall not exceed: 1. For the amount loaned up to four dollars and ninety-nine cents ($4.99) — the sum of one dollar and fifty cents ($&-5A1.50). 2. For the amount loaned from five dollars ($5) to nine dollars ($9) — the sum of t ethree dollars ($23). 3. For the amount loaned from ten dollars ($10) to fourteen dollars and ninety-nine cents ($14.99) — the sum of #hFeefour dollars 9 Pawnbrokers Amend KCC 5.05 4. For the amount loaned from fifteen dollars ($15) to nineteen dollars and ninety-nine cents ($19.99) - the sum of threefour dollars and fifty cents ($-3394.50). 5. For the amount loaned from twenty dollars ($20) to twenty- four dollars and ninety-nine cents ($24.99) - the sum of feuffive dollars ($45). 6. For the amount loaned from twenty-five dollars ($25) to twenty-nine dollars and ninety-nine cents ($29.99) - the sum of feuffive dollars and fifty cents ($43A5.50). 7. For the amount loaned from thirty dollars ($30) to thirty-four dollars and ninety-nine cents ($34.99) - the sum of#ivesix dollars ($-56). 8. For the amount loaned from thirty-five dollars ($35) to thirty- nine dollars and ninety-nine cents ($39.99) - the sum of f+vesix dollars and fifty cents ($6396.50). 9. For the amount loaned from forty dollars ($40) to forty-four dollars and ninety-nine cents ($44.99) - the sum of sixseven dollars ($67). 10. For the amount loaned from forty-five dollars ($45) to forty- nine dollars and ninety-nine cents ($49.99) - the sum of sFxseven dollars and fifty cents ($6 387.50). 11. For the amount loaned from fifty dollars ($50) to fifty-four dollars and ninety-nine cents ($54.99) - the sum of sev-eneight dollars 10 Pawnbrokers Amend KCC 5.05 12. For the amount loaned from fifty-five dollars ($55) to fifty- nine dollars and ninety-nine cents ($59.99) - the sum of :-ram eight dollars and fifty cents ($7308.50). 13. For the amount loaned from sixty dollars ($60) to sixty-four dollars and ninety-nine cents ($64.99) - the sum of e+gMnine dollars 14. For the amount loaned from sixty-five dollars ($65) to sixty- nine dollars and ninety-nine cents ($69.99) - the sum of eigMnine dollars and fifty cents ($& 9.50). 15. For the amount loaned from seventy dollars ($70) to seventy- four dollars and ninety-nine cents ($74.99) - the sum of nirteten dollars ($910). 16. For the amount loaned from seventy-five dollars ($75) to seventy-nine dollars and ninety-nine cents ($79.99) - the sum of f,ineten dollars and fifty cents ($93010.50). 17. For the amount loaned from eighty dollars ($80) to eighty- four dollars and ninety-nine cents ($84.99) - the sum of teneleven dollars (W11). 18. For the amount loaned from eighty-five dollars ($85) to eighty-nine dollars and ninety-nine cents ($89.99) - the sum of teneleven dollars and fifty cents ($193811.50). 19. For the amount loaned from ninety dollars ($90) to ninety- four dollars and ninety-nine cents ($94.99) - the sum of eleventwelve dollars ($3112). 11 Pawnbrokers Amend KCC 5.05 20. For the amount loaned from ninety-five dollars ($95) to ninety-nine dollars and ninety-nine cents ($99.99) - the sum of e'eventwelve dollars and fifty cents ($34-5912.50). 21. For the amount loaned from one hundred dollars ($100) to one hundred four dollars and ninety-nine cents ($104.99) - the sum of twe'vethirteen dollars ($3213). 22. For the amount loaned from one hundred five dollars ($105) to one hundred nine dollars and ninety-nine cents ($109.99) - the sum of twelvethirteen dollars and twenty-five cents ($42.2513.25). 23. For the amount loaned from one hundred ten dollars ($110) to one hundred fourteen dollars and ninety-nine cents ($114.99) - the sum of twelvethirteen dollars and seventy-five cents ($12-.7-513.75). 24. For the amount loaned from one hundred fifteen dollars ($115) to one hundred nineteen dollars and ninety-nine cents ($119.99) - the sum of thiFteenfourteen dollars and twenty-five cents ($1-3-.Z514.25). 25. For the amount loaned from one hundred twenty dollars ($120) to one hundred twenty-four dollars and ninety-nine cents ($124.99) - the sum of thiFteenfourteen dollars and fifty cents ($13 5014.50). 26. For the amount loaned from one hundred twenty-five dollars ($125) to one hundred twenty-nine dollars and ninety-nine cents ($129.99) - the sum of thiFteenfourteen dollars and seventy-five cents ($13.-7-514.75). 12 Pawnbrokers Amend KCC 5.05 27. For the amount loaned from one hundred thirty dollars ($130) to one hundred forty-nine dollars and ninety-nine cents ($149.99) - the SUM of fOUFteenfifteen dollars and fifty cents ($14.5015.50). 28. For the amount loaned from one hundred fifty dollars ($150) to one hundred seventy-four dollars and ninety-nine cents ($174.99) - the SUM of fOUFteenfifteen dollars and seventy-five cents ($14-7-515.75). 29. For the amount loaned from one hundred seventy-five dollars ($175) to one hundred ninety-nine dollars and ninety-nine cents ($199.99) - the sum of€i€teensixteen dollars ($1516). 30. For the amount loaned from two hundred dollars ($200) to two hundred twenty-four dollars and ninety-nine cents ($224.99) - the sum of sixteenseventeen dollars ($1617). 31. For the amount loaned from two hundred twenty-five dollars ($225) to two hundred forty-nine dollars and ninety-nine cents ($249.99) - the sum of seve teeneighteen dollars ($1T18). 32. For the amount loaned from two hundred fifty dollars ($250) to two hundred seventy-four dollars and ninety-nine cents ($274.99) - the sum of eightee nineteen dollars ($3819). 33. For the amount loaned from two hundred seventy-five dollars ($275) to two hundred ninety-nine dollars and ninety-nine cents ($299.99) - the sum of noneteentwenty dollars ($3920). 34. For the amount loaned from three hundred dollars ($300) to three hundred twenty-four dollars and ninety-nine cents ($324.99) - the sum of twenty-one dollars ($2821). 13 Pawnbrokers Amend KCC 5.05 35. For the amount loaned from three hundred twenty-five dollars ($325) to three hundred forty-nine dollars and ninety-nine cents ($349.99) — the sum of twenty-onetwo dollars ($2122). 36. For the amount loaned from three hundred fifty dollars ($350) to three hundred seventy-four dollars and ninety-nine cents ($374.99) — the sum of twenty-tw three dollars ($2- 23). 37. For the amount loaned from three hundred seventy-five dollars ($375) to three hundred ninety-nine dollars and ninety-nine cents ($399.99) — the sum of twenty-tKFeefour dollars ($2324). 38. For the amount loaned from four hundred dollars ($400) to four hundred twenty-four dollars and ninety-nine cents ($424.99) — the sum of twenty-feu five dollars ($2425). 39. For the amount loaned from four hundred twenty-five dollars ($425) to four hundred forty-nine dollars and ninety-nine cents ($449.99) — the sum of twenty-f+vesix dollars ($2-526). 40. For the amount loaned from four hundred fifty dollars ($450) to four hundred seventy-four dollars and ninety-nine cents ($474.99) — the sum of twenty-ss-xseven dollars ($2627). 41. For the amount loaned from four hundred seventy-five dollars ($475) to four hundred ninety-nine dollars and ninety-nine cents ($499.99) — the sum of twenty- r Reiaht dollars ($2-728). 14 Pawnbrokers Amend KCC 5.05 42. For the amount loaned from five hundred dollars ($500) to five hundred twenty-four dollars and ninety-nine cents ($524.99) — the sum of twenty-e+gMnine dollars ($2-829). 43. For the amount loaned from five hundred twenty-five dollars ($525) to five hundred forty-nine dollars and ninety-nine cents ($549.99) — the sum of twenty niRethirty dollars ($2930). 44. For the amount loaned from five hundred fifty dollars ($550) to five hundred ninety-nine dollars and ninety-nine cents ($599.99) — the sum of thirty-one dollars ($3031). 45. For the amount loaned from six hundred dollars ($600) to six hundred ninety-nine dollars and ninety-nine cents ($699.99) — the sum of thirty-f+vesix dollars ($3536). 46. For the amount loaned from seven hundred dollars ($700) to seven hundred ninety-nine dollars and ninety-nine cents ($799.99) — the sum of feft}-forty-one dollars ($4041). 47. For the amount loaned from eight hundred dollars ($800) to eight hundred ninety-nine dollars and ninety-nine cents ($899.99) — the sum of forty-six dollars ($4846). 48. For the amount loaned from nine hundred dollars ($900) to nine hundred ninety-nine dollars and ninety-nine cents ($999.99) — the sum of fifty-one dollars ($5851). 49. For the amount loaned from one thousand dollars ($1,000) to one thousand four hundred ninety-nine dollars and ninety-nine cents ($1,499.99) — the sum of fifty-f+vesix dollars ($5-556). 15 Pawnbrokers Amend KCC 5.05 50. For the amount loaned from one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500) to one thousand nine hundred ninety-nine dollars and ninety-nine cents ($1,999.99) — the sum of sixty-one dollars ($6-061). 51. For the amount loaned from two thousand dollars ($2,000) to two thousand four hundred ninety-nine dollars and ninety-nine cents ($2,499.99) — the sum of sixty-f+vesix dollars ($f 566). 52. For the amount loaned from two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) to two thousand nine hundred ninety-nine dollars and ninety-nine cents ($2,999.99) — the sum of seventy-one dollars ($7-971). 53. For the amount loaned from three thousand dollars ($3,000) to three thousand four hundred ninety-nine dollars and ninety-nine cents ($3,499.99) — the sum of seventy-f+vesix dollars ($7576). 54. For the amount loaned from three thousand five hundred dollars ($3,500) to three thousand nine hundred ninety-nine dollars and ninety-nine cents ($3,999.99) — the sum of eighty-one dollars ($&881). 55. For the amount loaned from four thousand dollars ($4,000) to four thousand four hundred ninety-nine dollars and ninety-nine cents ($4,499.99) — the sum of eighty-f+vesix dollars ($8-586). 56. For the amount loaned from four thousand five hundred dollars ($4,500) or more — the sum of ninety-one dollars ($9991). C. A pawnbroker may charge a storage fee of $3.00. An additional fee of $30.00 may be charged for storing a firearm. 16 Pawnbrokers Amend KCC 5.05 GD. Fees under subsection (B) of this section may be charged one (1) time only for each loan period; no additional fees, other than interest allowed under subsection (A) of this section, shall be charged for making the loan. Storage fees are allowed under subsection (C) of this section. DE. A copy of this section set in twelve (12) point type or larger shall be posted prominently in each premises subject to this chapter. Sec. 5.05.090. Sale of pledged property limited. A. The term of the loan shall be for a period of yninety (3990) days to include the date of the loan. B. A pawnbroker shall not sell any property received in pledge until both the teFng of the loan any a gFace peFied of a minimum of sixtyninety (6990) days has expired. However, if a pledged article is not redeemed within the ninety (90) day period of the term of the loan and the gFace period, the pawnbroker shall have all rights, title and interest of that item of personal property. The pawnbroker shall not be required to account to the pledgor for the proceeds received from the disposition of that item. Any provision of law relating to the foreclosures and the subsequent sale of forfeited pledged items, shall not be applicable to any pledge as defined under this chapter, the title to which is transferred in accordance with this section. C. Every loan transaction entered into by a pawnbroker shall be evidenced by a written document, a copy of which shall be furnished to the pledgor. The document shall set forth the term of the loan; the final date of which the loan is due and payable; the loan preparation fee; the storage fee; the firearm fee, if applicable; and any other fee allowed under law that is charged; the amount of interest charged every thirty (30) days; the total amount due including the principal amount, the preparation fee, and 17 Pawnbrokers Amend KCC 5.05 all interest charges due if the loan is outstanding for the full ninety (90) days allowed by the term and n9iningung gFace peFiedj and the annual percentage rate, and shall inform the pledgor of the pledgor's right to redeem the pledge at any time within the term of the loan OF the n9ini...um D. If a person who has entered into a loan transaction with a pawnbroker in this state is unable to redeem and repay the loan on or before the expiration of the term of the loan plus the n9ini.. ung sixty (60) day• gFace peFied and that person wishes to retain his or her rights to use that item by rewriting the loan, and if both parties mutually agree, an existing loan transaction may be rewritten into a new loan, either in person or by mail. All applicable provisions of this chapter shall be followed in rewriting a loan, except that where an existing loan is rewritten by mail, KCC 5.05.030(A)(1) and (7) shall not apply. Sec. 5.05.100. Violations, penalty. A. It is unlawful for: 1. Any person to remove, alter or obliterate any manufacturer's make, model or serial number, personal identification number, or identifying marks engraved or etched upon an item of personal property that was purchased, consigned or received in pledge. In addition, an item shall not be accepted for pledge or a second-hand purchase where the manufacturer's make, model, or serial number, personal identification number, or identifying marks engraved or etched upon an item of personal property have been removed, altered, or obliterated. 18 Pawnbrokers Amend KCC 5.05 2. Any person to knowingly make, cause or allow to be made any false entry or misstatement of any material matter in a book, record, or writing required to be kept under this chapter. 3. Any pawnbroker or second-hand dealer to receive any property from any person under the age of eighteen (18) years, or any person under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs. 4. For any pawnbroker or second-hand dealer to receive any property from any person known to the pawnbroker or second-hand dealer as having been convicted of burglary, robbery, theft or possession of or receiving stolen property within the past ten (10) years whether the person is acting in his or her own behalf or as the agent of another. 5. Any pawnbroker to engage in the business of cashing or selling checks, drafts, money orders, or other commercial paper serving the same purpose unless the pawnbroker complies with the provisions of Chapter 31.45 RCW. 6. Any person to violate knowingly any other provisions of this chapter. B. Violation of any of the sections of this chapter is a gross misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than one (1) year or a fine of not more than five thousand dollars ($5,000) or both. Sec. 5.05.110. Resale agreement to avoid interest and fee restrictions prohibited. A purchase of personal property shall not be made on the condition of selling it back at a stipulated time and price greater than the purchase price, for the purpose of avoiding the interest and fee restrictions of this chapter. 19 Pawnbrokers Amend KCC 5.05 Sec. 5.05.120. Transactions excluded. The provisions of this chapter do not apply to transactions conducted by the following: 1. Motor vehicle dealers licensed under Chapter 46.70 RCW; 2. Motor vehicle wreckers or hulk haulers licensed under Chapter 46.79 or 46.80 RCW; 3. Persons giving an allowance for the trade-in or exchange of second- hand property on the purchase of other merchandise of the same kind or greater value; and 4. Persons in the business of buying or selling empty food and beverage containers or metal or nonmetal junk. SECTION 4. — Savings. The existing chapter 5.05 of the Kent City Code, which is repealed and replaced by this ordinance, shall remain in full force and effect until the effective date of this ordinance. SECTION 5. — Severability. If any one or more section, subsection, or sentence of this ordinance is 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 6. — Corrections by City Clerk or Code Reviser. Upon approval of the City Attorney, the City Clerk and the code reviser are authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance, including the correction of clerical errors; references to other local, state or federal laws, codes, rules, or regulations; or ordinance numbering and section/subsection numbering. 20 Pawnbrokers Amend KCC 5.05 SECTION 7, — Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its passage, as provided by law. SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED: day of 20. APPROVED: day of 20. PUBLISHED: day of 20. 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:\Civil\Ordinance\Pawnbrokers Amend KCC 5.05.docx 21 Pawnbrokers Amend KCC 5.05 KENT Agenda Item: Consent Calendar — 7D TO: City Council DATE: November 15, 2011 SUBJECT: Bulletproof Vest Partnership Award — Authorize MOTION: Authorize the Kent Police Department to accept the Fiscal Year 2011 Bureau of Justice Assistance Bulletproof Vest (BVP) grant in the amount of $4,832.16, amend the budget and approve expenditure of the funds in accordance with the grant terms acceptable to the Police Chief and City Attorney. SUMMARY: This federal program funds 50% of new and replacement bulletproof vest costs for police officers. EXHIBITS: Bureau of Justice Assistance Award Notification RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety Committee, 11/8/11 BUDGET IMPACTS: None Thompson, Jolene Subject: FW: Bulletproof Vest Partnership FY 2011 Award Announcement Attachments: BVP2011Awards.pdf From: Leroy, Debra. Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 1:38 PM To: Thompson, Jolene Subject: FW: Bulletproof Vest Partnership FY 2011 Award Announcement Re: November Public Safety Committee meeting agenda Jo, Please add this award to the November Public Safety Committee meeting agenda. I attached the award list with Kent's award of $4,832.16 (organized by State). Please advise if you need anything else. Thanks, Deb Debra LeRoy, Research and Development Analyst Support/Administrative Services I Police Department 220 Fourth Avenue South, Kent, WA 98032 Main 253-856-5800 1 Direct 253-856-5856 "+ngo-aa dleroy(a�KentWA.00v we n ,xa.rn, rn www.KentWA.gov 9 LC,. 3 i:0!_...,.f£'Sr b h3d6i....,i 3 S:.xi d E E d},tom 3"ens.YA�i'F➢sfl s.,PBjt€€. From: owner-bvp-list@ojp.usdoj.gov [maI Ito:owner-bvp-list(aojp.usdoi.gov] On Behalf Of BVP Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 4:18 PM To: BVP Subject: Bulletproof Vest Partnership FY 2011 Award Announcement The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) is pleased to inform you that your agency will receive an award under the Fiscal Year(FY) 2011 Bulletproof Vest Partnership (BVP) solicitation.These funds have been posted to your account in the BVP system. For questions regarding the BVP Program or your award, please do not hesitate to contact the BVP Help Desk at vests@usdoi.gov or 1-877-758-3787. A complete list of FY 2011 BVP awards is available at: http://www.oip.usdol.gov/bvpbasi/ The FY 2011 award funds may be used for National Institute of Justice (NIJ) compliant armored vests which were ordered on or after April 1, 2011. The deadline to request payments from the FY 2011 award funds is August 31, 2013, or until all available 2011 awards funds have been requested. Please see the following websites for a list of NU compliant vests: Ballistic Vests: http://nii.gov/nii/topics/technology/body-armor/compliant-ballistic-armor.htm Stab Resistant Vests: http•//nii gov/nii/topics/technology/body-armor/compliant-stab-armor.htm As a reminder, all jurisdictions that applied for FY 2011 BVP funding certified during the application process that a mandatory wear policy was in place for their jurisdiction. BJA will be conducting reviews of the mandatory wear policies as funds are requested from the BVP system. For more information on the BVP mandatory wear policy, please see the FAQs here: http://www oip,usdoi.gov/bvpbasi/dots/`FAQsBVPMandatorVWearPoIicy.J)df Thank You. BVP Program Support Team t KENT Agenda Item: Consent Calendar — 7E TO: City Council DATE: November 15, 2011 SUBJECT: Bureau of Justice Assistance Grant — Authorize MOTION: Authorize the Kent Police Department to accept the Fiscal Year 2011 Bureau of Justice Assistance Grant in the amount of $9,975, amend the budget, and approve expenditure of the funds in accordance with the grant terms acceptable to the Police Chief and City Attorney. SUMMARY: The Kent Police Department has received award notification from the Bureau of Justice Assistance, State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP). The funds may be used in three designed areas as noted in the award notification: construction, training/ education for offenders, and/or training for corrections officers to help manage offender population. EXHIBITS: Bureau of Justice Assistance Award Notification RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety Committee, 11/8/11 BUDGET IMPACTS: None r 201 -P13470-WA-AP State Criminal Alien Assistance ProgrMn �— OMH Number:112E-0243 Expires:02729/2004 SCAAP Grant Number: 2011-AP-BX-0661 Help wrismcnon: City of Kent G L5 Vendor Number: 916001265 Home Award Amount: $9,975 Log. off Fiscal Year 2011 Payment Acceptance and Electronic Transfer of Funds The Bureau of Justice Assistance(BJA)has completed its review of your facility, inmate, and correctional officer data related to the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCRAP). The Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement has vetted the inmate records, and an award amount has been calculated. In accepting this award, you understand that BJA reserves the right to take appropriate administrative action, Including Intensive monitoring, repayment action, or adjustment to future payments, to resolve data discrepancies, errors, or audit findings related to any information reported in your application. Applicants are now required to accept awards online within 45 calendar days of award notice, in accordance with the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) Financial Guide, Part II, Chapter 2, Acceptance Procedures requiring acceptance/drawdown of awards with 45 days of notice of award, and Part IV, Chapter 2, section 16,606, State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) requiring an "expeditious draw-down of payments." Jurisdictions accepting SCAAP awards are not required to submit financial or progress reports to OJP. For FY 2009 SCAAP awards, the Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-162, Title XI) requires that all SCAAP funds be used for correctional purposes only. Please see the use of funds list and certification below. With your acceptance (by clicking on the Accept button below) of SCAAP's terms, conditions, and award amount, OJP will initiate an electronic payment In that amount to your bank account of record, as verified through the on-line SCAAP registration process and in accordance with applicable E-Government rules and requirements, All issues related to the electronic transfer of funds or the bank account of record must be referred to the OCFO Customer Service Center at 800-458-0786. Please allow 15 business days for the electronic payment process to be complete before contacting OCFO. Please have the grant number, amount, and vendor Information (noted above) available when you call. FY 2011 SCAAP Use of Funds List ---Construction--- Construction for Inmate housing, inmate programs, prison industries in ADA compliance --- Tra/n/ng/Educatlon for offender--- Specific trade employment skills GED testing Job Preparedness --- Training for corrections off/cars to help manage offender population--- BI-lingual language skills Less than lethal technology training J Diversity training F_ As the CEO or authorized designee of this jurisdiction, I understand the guidelines and requirements as associated with the previous statements and agree to abide by them in all matters involving the FY 2011 State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. Accept pocline , KENT Agenda Item: Consent Calendar — 7F TO: City Council DATE: November 15, 2011 SUBJECT: Washington Traffic Safety Commission Grant for DUI and Seat Belt Enforcement — Authorize MOTION: Authorize the Kent Police Department to accept the Washington Traffic Safety Commission grant in an amount not to exceed $8,500, amend the budget, and authorize the expenditure of funds in accordance with the grant terms acceptable to the Police Chief and City Attorney. SUMMARY: The grant will fund the deployment of Target Zero Team DUI and Seat Belt enforcement patrols at times and locations where data indicates that the most safety benefit can be realized, as determined by the King County Target Zero Task Force. Amounts Impaired Driving: $7,000.00 Seat Belts: $1,500.00 The Kent/South King County Target Zero Task Force will support the WTSC goal to reduce deaths, serious injuries, and economic losses that result from traffic collisions. An emphasis will be placed on the primary goals/emphasis areas of the Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan — Target Zero: • Reduce crashes involving impaired drivers • Reduce speed related crashes • Increase seat belt & child restraint use EXHIBITS: WTSC Memorandum of Understanding RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety Committee, 11/8/11 BUDGET IMPACTS: None � 'rnmg s yyt lean d°v MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WASHINGTON TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION THIS AGREEMENT, pursuant to Chapter 39.34 RCW, is made and entered into by and between the KENT POLICE DEPARTMENT (Agency) and the Washington Traffic Safety Commission (WTSC). IT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS AGREEMENT to provide overtime funding to law enforcement agencies to conduct multijurisdictional, high visibility enforcement (HVE), traffic safety emphasis patrols (as outlined in Addendum A), in support of Target Zero priorities. The Target Zero Manager and Law Enforcement Liaison assigned to your county shall coordinate the Scope of Work as outlined below: TERM: October 1, 2011 - September 30, 2012. AMOUNTS Impaired Driving: $7,000.00 CFDA# 20.600 Seat Belts: $1,600.00 CFDA # 20.602 These funds shall not be commingled and are only to be utilized for the specific emphasis area. IT IS, THEREFORE, MUTUALLY AGREED THAT: 1 . GOAL: To reduce traffic related deaths and serious injuries by engaging in multijurisdictional HVE patrols in the areas of impaired driving and occupant protection. 2. SCOPE OF WORK: Impaired Driving: Agency will engage in multijurisdictional HVE patrols for all or part of the following: Holiday DUI Patrols; November 24, 2011 — January 1 , 2012 St. Patrick's Day DUI Patrols; March 9, 2012 — March 18, 2012 Summer Kick-Off DUI Patrols; June 22, 2012 — July 8, 2012 Drive Hammered Get Nailed (DHGN) Labor Day DUI Crackdown; August 17, 2012 — September 3, 2012. These patrols shall occur in locations where the highest rate of fatality and serious injury collisions caused by impaired driving occur in your geographic area of the Created: September 30, 2011 Page 1 of 8 state and will not begin before 4:00 pm. Patrols will occur Friday-Sunday, with the exception of: Thursday, November 24, to cover Thanksgiving, and Wednesday and Thursday, July 4 & 5, to cover the 4th of July Holiday. Monday, September 3 to cover the Labor Day Holiday Seat Belts: Agency will engage in multijurisdictional HVE seat belt-focused patrols on some or all of the following dates: May 21 , 2012 - June 3, 2012; these shall occur where the lowest rates of occupant protection use occur in your geographic area of the state. These patrols will not begin before 4:00 pm. Agency agrees to take a zero tolerance approach to seat belt and child car seat violations. Law enforcement officers will complete the Emphasis Patrol Activity Logs and forward to their Target Zero Manager within 48 hours of the completion of the seat belt patrols. 3. CONDITIONS: For each of the emphasis patrols listed above, Multilurisdictional High Visibility Enforcement Protocols, as outlined in Addendum A of this document will be followed. These protocols are incorporated in their entirety to this document by reference. Exceptions to these protocols may only be provided by the WTSC Program Director. These are enforcement activities intended to apprehend impaired drivers, and unbuckled vehicle occupants. It is expected that Notices of Infraction/Citation (NOI/C's) will be issued at contact unless circumstances dictate otherwise. Standardized Field Sobriety Testing (SFST) Training Requirement Agency certifies that all of the officers participating in patrols under the terms of this agreement are SFST trained. SFST training is required as follows: • Officers who received SFST training prior to 2008 will need to pass SFST refresher training before participating in these patrols. • Officers who received SFST training in 2008 or later will need to take the SFST refresher training when their BAC re-certification is due to stay current and be qualified to work these patrols. (BAC re-certification and SFST refresher training are required every three years.) Created: September 30, 2011 Page 2 of 8 Media Contacts: All of these patrols are conducted as part of highly publicized efforts. As such, publicity campaigns about these patrols are planned to alert the public to the fact that extra patrols are targeting these violations. Therefore, Agency must provide the names of at least two agency officers who can be available for media requests and questions. *At least one of the individuals listed below must be available for weekend media contacts, beginning at noon on Fridays before mobilizations: Lt. Pat Lowery Sgt. Robert Constant w: 253-856-5833 plowery@kentwa.gov w: 253-856-5882 ronstant@kentwa.gov c: 253-266-6379 ❑ Available weekends per above?' ❑ Available weekends per above?' 4. PAYMENT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT: Agency will provide commissioned law enforcement with appropriate equipment (vehicle, radar, etc.) and on an overtime basis (not to exceed 1 .5 times their normal salary and benefits) to participate in these emphasis patrols. 5. SHIFT LENGTH: Agency will not schedule individual officer shifts for longer than eight hours. (WTSC understands there may be instances when more than eight hours are billed because of DUI processing, etc.) 6. RESERVE OFFICERS: Agency certifies that any reserve officer for whom reimbursement is claimed has exceeded his/her normal monthly working hours when participating in this emphasis patrol and is authorized to be paid the amount requested. Agency understands that reserve officers are not eligible for overtime for this project. 7. DISPATCH: WTSC will reimburse communications officers/dispatch personnel for work on this project providing Agency has received prior approval from the WTSC Program Manager. 8. GRANT AMOUNT: WTSC will reimburse Agency for overtime salary and benefits. The total cost of overtime and benefits shall not be exceeded in any one campaign area and funds may not be commingled between campaign areas. Upon agreement by the Agency and the local Target Zero Manager, the DUI or Occupant Protection allocation may be increased or decreased without amending this agreement PROVIDED THAT the increase in the allocation does not exceed 50% of the original agreed amount for the specific emphasis area. Any increase in allocation exceeding 50% will require an amendment to this document. Created: September 30, 2011 Page 3 of 8 9. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS: a. Participating law enforcement officers are required to have a minimum of 3 self-initiated contacts per hour of enforcement. b. Some violator contacts may result in related, time-consuming activity. This activity is reimbursable. c. Other activities, such as collision investigation or emergency response that are not initiated through emphasis patrol contact WILL NOT be reimbursed. 10. REIMBURSEMENT OF CLAIMS: Claims for reimbursement must include: a. Invoice Voucher (Al 9-1A Form). 1) Agency identified as the "Claimant'; 2) A Federal Tax ID #; and, 3) Original signature of the agency head, command officer or contracting officer. b. Payroll support documents (signed overtime slips, payroll documents, etc.). c. Emphasis Patrol Activity Logs showing 3 or more self-initiated contacts per hour. Emphasis Patrol Activity Logs cannot be modified. Payment cannot be made unless these activity logs are included. The Invoice Voucher (A19-1A Form), payroll supporting documents, and Emphasis Patrol Activity Logs shall be submitted to your Target Zero Manager for review. The Target Zero Manager will forward these documents to WTSC for processing and payment. 11 . DEADLINES FOR CLAIMS All claims must be approved by your Target Zero Manager, please allow adequate time for processing in order to meet the following deadlines: a. First Deadline: All claims for reimbursement for emphasis conducted from October 1 , to June 30, must be received by WTSC no later than August 15, 2012. b. Second Deadline: All claims for reimbursement for emphasis conducted between July 1 and September 30 must be received by WTSC no later than November 15, 2012. (NOTE: Two separate invoices may be necessary for the Summer Kick-off DUI patrols if hours are worked in both June and July.) Invoices submitted for reimbursement after the above dates, will not be paid. WTSC will NOT accept faxed invoices. Created: September 30, 2011 Page 4 of 8 12. DISPUTES: Disputes arising under this Memorandum shall be resolved by a panel consisting of one representative of the WTSC, one representative from Agency, and a mutually agreed upon third party. The dispute panel shall decide the dispute by majority vote. 13. TERMINATION: Either party may terminate this agreement upon 30 days written notice to the other party. In the event of termination of this Agreement, the terminating party shall be liable for the performance rendered prior to the effective date of termination. 14. SUPPLANTING DISCLAIMER: I certify that none of the funds for this project supplant the normally budgeted funds of this agency nor do these funds pay for routine traffic enforcement normally provided by this agency. IN WITNESS THEREOF, THE PARTIES HAVE EXECUTED THIS AGREEMENT. Agency Signature Washington Traffic Safety Commission Signature (Date) (Date) Please return this signed MOU (No later than October 24, 2011) to your Target Zero Manager: Cesi Velez, Target Zero Manager Kent Police Department 220 4,n Ave. S. Kent, WA 98032 Target Zero Manager will forward this signed document to: Angie Ward, WTSC 621 — 8th Avenue SW, Suite 409 PO Box 40944 Olympia, WA 98504-0944 360.725.9860 O later than October 31 , 2011 Created: September 30, 2011 Page 5 of 8 Addendum A Multilurisdictional High-Visibility Enforcement Protocols Purpose This protocol is intended to guide Target Zero Managers, Law Enforcement Liaisons, and law enforcement agencies in coordinating multijurisdictional high visibility enforcement (HVE) mobilizations to address impaired driving and seat belt use. These mobilizations are funded by federal highway safety grants. Goal The goal of multijurisdictional high-visibility campaigns is to reduce fatal and serious injury collisions through the coordination of: • Publicity addressing increased enforcement, and • Increased contacts and arrests of violators. Method Funding from the Washington Traffic Safety Commission (WTSC) will support multijurisdictional HVE patrol activities to increase the number of officers working on impaired driving, and occupant protection enforcement. Public education and media will be coordinated by the Target Zero Manager and Law Enforcement Liaison. The law enforcement activity will support the media effort by demonstrating to the public that the media messages are true; i.e., that "extra enforcement patrols (with a particular focus) are going on now" so that the public takes the media messages seriously. The media work will support the police effort by encouraging voluntary compliance with the law. The objective of multijurisdictional HVE patrol activities is to change driver behavior by raising the awareness of tougher enforcement. Definitions: • HVE is enforcement of the law in conjunction with publicity that draws the attention of the public to the enforcement activity. Created: September 30, 2011 Page 6 of 8 • Multijurisdictional enforcement is defined as a minimum of three law enforcement agencies (LEA's) or patrol units participating at a designated date and time, enforcing a specific activity, in a location determined by fatality and serious injury collision data. Responsibilities WTSC: • Provide Funding. • Coordinate paid media at the state level. • Lead earned media efforts for: o Holiday DUI o Click It or Ticket o Drive Hammered Get Nailed. • Summarize enforcement activity. • Report results to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Target Zero Manager and Law Enforcement Liaison: • Lead the development of Multijurisdictional High Visibility Enforcement Mobilization Plans. • Coordinate mobilization briefings. • Lead earned media efforts for: o St. Patrick's Day DUI o Summer DUI • Lead earned media efforts optional for all other mobilizations. • Review and approve all MOUs, invoices, and other documentation before submission to WTSC. Law Enforcement Agencies: • Provide commissioned police officer(s) (active or paid reserve) with appropriate equipment (vehicle, radar, etc.) to participate in multijurisdictional HVE patrols. Created: September 30, 2011 Page 7 of 8 • Ensure that officers assigned to the multijurisdictional HVE campaigns are qualified to enforce the impaired driving laws as outlined on page 2, section 3 of this document. • Require all officers participating in multijurisdictional HVE patrols to attend mobilization briefings. • Ensure officers conduct a minimum of three (3) self-initiated contacts per hour. This is an enforcement activity that is intended to apprehend violators. It is expected that a Notice of Infraction/Citation (NOI/C) will be issued at contact unless circumstances dictate otherwise. It is understood that violator contacts may result in related, time-consuming activity. Such activity will be considered for reimbursement. Activity other than that initiated through HVE patrol contact (investigating collisions, emergency responses, etc.) will be the responsibility of the contracting agency and may not be considered for reimbursement. • Require officers to complete and submit multijurisdictional HVE patrol productivity on WTSC Emphasis Patrol Activity Log. Agency Signature Date Created: September 30, 2011 Page 8 of 8 KENT Agenda Item: Consent Calendar — 7G TO: City Council DATE: November 15, 2011 SUBJECT: Washington Traffic Safety Commission Grant for Traffic Safety Patrols — Authorize MOTION: Authorize the Kent Police Department to accept additional grant funds in the amount of $1,500 from the Washington Traffic Safety Commission, amend the budget, and authorize the expenditure of funds in accordance with the funds in accordance with the grant terms acceptable to the Police Chief and City Attorney. SUMMARY: The additional funds will provide officer overtime funding to conduct high visibility enforcement traffic safety emphasis patrols in support of Target Zero priorities. The original Target Zero grant was approved by Council on November 16, 2010. EXHIBITS: None RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety Committee, 11/8/11 BUDGET IMPACTS: None KENT Agenda Item: Consent Calendar — 7H TO: City Council DATE: November 15, 2011 SUBJECT: Public Safety Testing Agreement — Authorize MOTION: Authorize the Mayor to sign the Public Safety Testing Subscriber Agreement with terms and conditions acceptable to the Police Chief and City Attorney. SUMMARY: This is a renewal agreement between the Kent Police Department and Public Safety Testing, Inc. (PST). PST is the testing service for entry level police and corrections officers. PST provides advertising, processes applications and administers written examinations and/or physical agility tests. The contract period begins July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2014, unless either party withdraws from this Agreement with 45 days written notice. The term option of 3.5 years has been selected for both Police Officer and Corrections Officer testing for an annual cost savings of $1,100. EXHIBITS: Public Safety Testing Subscriber Agreement RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety Committee, 11/8/11 BUDGET IMPACTS: Budgeted in GF Public 5c&fy Teshing SUBSCRIBER AGREEMENT WHEREAS, Public Safety Testing, Inc. is a skilled provider of testing services to police, fire, and other public safety agencies, and WHEREAS, the subscriber public agency, either directly or through a civil service commission, tests, evaluates, ranks and hires law enforcement and/or firefighters and/or other public safety positions in the performance of its public safety functions, and WHEREAS, the subscribing public entity desires to join in a Subscriber Agreement, NOW, THEREFORE, Public Safety Testing, Inc. (the "Contractor") and the City of Kent, a municipal corporation of the state of Washington (hereinafter "Subscriber") do enter into this Subscriber Agreement under the terms and conditions set forth herein. 1 . Description of Basic Services. This Agreement begins July 1 , 2011 . The Contractor will provide the following services to the Subscriber: 1 .1 Advertising and recruiting assistance, application processing, and administration of written examinations and/or physical ability tests for (check all that apply): Q Police Officer Personnel Q Corrections Officer Personnel 1 .2 Report to the Subscriber the scores of applicants, with all information necessary for the Subscriber to place passing applicants upon its eligibility list, and rank them relative to other candidates on appropriately constituted continuous testing eligibility lists. Contractor will report "raw" test scores to the Subscriber— no preference points will be factored into applicant scores and it is the Subscriber's responsibility to factor veteran's preference points in accordance with applicable federal and state laws. Written examination scores will be reported to the Subscriber as a percentage score (based on 100%) and physical ability test scores will be reported as "Pass" or "Fail". The passing score for written examinations is set by the test developer at 70%. If Subscriber requires a different passing score, please check the box below and note the required passing score: ❑ Subscriber's passing score is: % 1 .3 Appear in any administrative or civil service proceeding in order to testify to and provide any and all necessary information to document the validity of the testing process, to participate in the defense of any testing process conducted by the Contractor pursuant to this Agreement and to otherwise provide any information necessary to the Subscriber to evaluate challenges to or appeals from the testing process. The Contractor shall appear without additional charge. The Subscriber shall pay the reasonable cost of travel and appearance for any expert witness deemed necessary by the Subscriber to validate the testing process, including but not limited to, representatives of any company which holds the copyright to any testing material and whose testimony or appearance is deemed necessary to validate the process. Provided, however, Contractor shall not be required to appear at its cost nor to defend in any administrative or court proceeding arising from our out of a claim or challenge relating to Subscriber's use of other testing process(es) or out of Subscriber's attempt to establish multiple or blended eligibility lists for the same position based in whole or in part on other testing process(es). "Other testing process(es)" means any test or testing process other than those provided by the Contractor under this Agreement. 2. Fees & Term. The Subscriber elects: ❑ A one (1) year, six (6) month subscription at the following rates: ❑ Police Officer (entry &/or lateral) testing at $8,200 annually ❑ Corrections Officer (entry &/or lateral) testing at $1 ,400 annually ❑ A three (3)-year, six (6) month subscription at the following rates: ❑ Police Officer (entry &/or lateral) testing at $7,500 annually ❑ Corrections Officer (entry &/or lateral) testing at $1 ,000 annually 3. Payment. Subscriber shall pay an amount equal to twenty-five percent (25%) of the annual fee set forth above quarterly for services rendered in the previous quarter and for basic services including but not limited to, software relating to online application, advertising formats, previously advertised scheduling of test dates, model civil service rules, testing systems, as well as ongoing testing and recruitment, and any and all other work developed at the cost of the Contractor SubscnberAgreement Page 2 of11 Public Safety Testing,Inc. City of Kent Police Department 2011 prior to or contemporaneous with the execution of this Agreement. Payment shall be made within 45 days of receipt of invoice. 4. Additional Services. In addition to the services provided under this Agreement, the Subscriber may, at its sole discretion, elect to purchase additional services from the Contractor. Such services shall be requested by and contracted for pursuant to separate written agreement. 5. Acknowledgements of Subscriber. The Subscriber understands and acknowledges, and specifically consents to the following stipulations and provisions: 5.1 Because applicable civil service law prohibits having multiple eligibility lists for the same class of hires, this Agreement is an exclusive agreement for these services. 5.2 The written and physical agility scores of any applicant shall be valid for 12 months from the date of placement upon the Subscriber's eligibility list, following the report of the Contractor, and rules compatible with continuous testing shall be adopted. 5.3 An applicant may, in addition to the Subscriber's eligibility list, elect to have his/her score reported to and subject to placement on the eligibility list of any other Subscriber. Nothing in this Agreement shall be interpreted to prohibit the use of an applicants' score for consideration in or processing through any other subscriber's hiring and/or civil service eligibility process. The Subscriber agrees that if an applicant is hired by another agency through this service, the applicant's name shall be removed from Subscriber's eligibility list. 5.4 The Subscriber specifically understands and acknowledges that the Contractor may charge a reasonable application fee from any and all applicants. 5.5 The Subscriber is encouraged to and may also conduct advertising as it deems necessary to support/enhance recruiting efforts. The Subscriber may link PublicSafetyTesting.com on its agency's website, if it so maintains one. 5.6 Public Safety Testing views recruiting as a partnership with the Subscriber. The Subscriber agrees to actively participate in recruiting efforts for positions within the Subscriber agency. 5.7 The Subscriber agrees to keep the Contractor up-to-date as to the agency's hiring status, minimum and special requirements, all information appearing on the agency's PST website profile and the names of any candidates hired through these services. 6. Testing Standard and Warranty of Fitness for Use. All testing services conducted under this Agreement shall be undertaken in accordance with the provisions of the Washington State Civil Service Statutes, Chapter 41 .08 and 41 .12 RCW, all federal and state laws and regulations that prohibit discrimination in testing and hiring SubscnberAgreement Page 3 of11 Public Safety Testing,Inc. City of Kent Police Department 2011 practices of the type provided by Contractor, any federal and state laws and regulations that apply to the services being provided by Contractor, or the terms of other applicable statute as the Subscriber shall notify the Contractor that the Subscriber must meet. Tests shall also be conducted in accordance with the general standards established by the Subscriber; the Subscriber shall be responsible for notifying the Contractor of any unusual or special process or limitation. The test utilized, the proctoring of the test and any and all other services attendant to or necessary to provide a valid passing or failing score to the Subscriber shall be conducted in accordance with generally accepted practice in the human resources, Civil Service and Public Safety Testing community. The Subscriber may monitor the actions and operations of the Contractor at any time. The Contractor shall maintain complete written records of its procedures and the Subscriber may, on reasonable request, review such records during regular business hours. Any and all written materials, and the standards for physical fitness testing utilized, shall comply with all applicable copyrights and laws. The Contractor expressly agrees and warrants that all tests and written materials utilized have been acquired by the Contractor in accordance with the appropriate copyright agreements and laws and that it has a valid right to use and administer any written materials and tests in accordance with such agreements and laws. 7. Independent Contractor. The parties intend that an Independent Contractor- Employer Relationship will be created by this Agreement and that the Contractor has the ability to control and direct the performance and details of its work, the Subscriber being interested only in the results obtained under this Agreement. Any and all agents, employees or contractors of the Contractor, shall have such relation only with the Contractor. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to create an employment, agency or contractual relationship between the Subscriber and any employee, agent or sub-contractor of the Contractor. 8. Discrimination. In the hiring of employees for the performance of work under this Agreement or any subcontract, the Contractor, its subcontractors, or any person acting on behalf of the Contractor or subcontractor shall not, by reason of race, religion, color, sex, age, sexual orientation, national origin, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability, discriminate against any person who is qualified and available to perform the work to which the employment relates. Contractor shall execute the attached City of Kent Equal Employment Opportunity Policy Declaration, Comply with City Administrative Policy 1 .2, and upon completion of the contract work, file the attached Compliance Statement. 9. Indemnification and Hold Harmless. Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold the Subscriber, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits, including all legal costs and attorney fees, arising out of or in connection with the Contractor's performance of this Agreement. Provided, however, that nothing herein shall be interpreted to require the Contractor to indemnify the Subscriber or any officer, official, employee, agent or volunteer for a claim or loss occasioned by the negligence, unlawful or tortious act of the Subscriber. SubscnberAgreement Page 4 of11 Public Safety Testing,Inc. City of Kent Police Department 2011 The Subscriber's inspection or acceptance of any of Contractor's work when completed shall not be grounds to avoid any of these covenants of indemnification. IT IS FURTHER SPECIFICALLY AND EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD THAT THE INDEMNIFICATION PROVIDED HEREIN CONSTITUTES THE CONTRACTOR'S WAIVER OF IMMUNITY UNDER INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE, TITLE 51 RCW, SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS INDEMNIFICATION. THE PARTIES FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THEY HAVE MUTUALLY NEGOTIATED THIS WAIVER. Subscriber shall defend, indemnify and hold the Contractor, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits, including all legal costs and attorney fees caused by the Subscriber's negligence. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. 10. Insurance. The Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Contractor, its agents, representatives, employees, sub-consultants or sub- contractors. Before beginning work on the project described in this Agreement, the Contractor shall provide a Certificate of Insurance evidencing the following insurance coverage and limits: Commercial General Liability insurance written on an occurrence basis with limits no less than $1 ,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence and general aggregate for personal injury, bodily injury and property damage. Coverage shall include but not be limited to: products/completed operations/broad form property damage; and employer's liability. Insurance shall be written on ISO occurrence form CG 00 01 and shall cover liability arising from premises, operations, and independent contractors. The Subscriber shall be named as an additional insured under the Contractor's Commercial General Liability insurance policy with respect to the work performed for the Subscriber. Worker's Compensation coverage as required by the Industrial Insurance laws of the State of Washington. Any payment of deductible or self-insured retention shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor. All required policies shall be provided on an "occurrence" basis except professional liability insurance (if required), which shall be provided on a "claims-made" basis. The Subscriber shall be named as an additional insured on the Commercial General Liability insurance policy, as respects work performed by or on behalf of the Contractor and a copy of the endorsement naming the Subscriber as additional SubscnberAgreement Page 5 of11 Public Safety Testing,Inc. City of Kent Police Department 2011 insured shall be attached to the Certificate of Insurance. The Subscriber reserves the right to receive a certified copy of all the required insurance policies. The Contractor's Commercial General Liability insurance shall also contain a clause stating that coverage shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respects to the limits of the insurer's liability. The Contractor's insurance shall be primary insurance as respects the Subscriber and the Subscriber shall be given thirty (30) days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, of any cancellation, suspension or material change in coverage. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. best rating of not less than A:VII. 11 .Termination. This Agreement terminates December 31 , 201 . The Contractor and the Subscriber may withdraw from this Agreement at any time for any reason with 90 days written notice, provided, however, that the provisions of paragraphs 1 .3, 6, 7 and 9 shall remain in full force and effect following the termination of this Agreement with respect to, and continuing for so long as any applicant tested by the Contractor remains on the eligibility list of the Subscriber. 11 .1 If the Subscriber elects to terminate this Agreement, Subscriber shall pay the Contractor an early termination fee. The purpose of this early termination fee is to cover the direct and indirect costs of refunding and or rescheduling applicants that had signed up to test for the Subscriber. The early termination fee is one-third (33%) of the annual subscriber fee as noted in Section 1 .5 of this Agreement. The early termination fee is in addition to any other fees agreed to by this Agreement. 12. Miscellaneous Provisions. 12.1 Recyclable Materials. Pursuant to Chapter 3.80 of the Kent City Code, the Subscriber requires its contractors and consultants to use recycled and recyclable products whenever practicable. A price preference may be available for any designated recycled product. 12.2 Non-Waiver of Breach. The failure of the Subscriber to insist upon strict performance of any of the covenants and agreements contained in this Agreement, or to exercise any option conferred by this Agreement in one or more instances shall not be construed to be a waiver or relinquishment of those covenants, agreements or options, and the same shall be and remain in full force and effect. 12.3 Resolution of Disputes and Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. If the parties are unable to settle any dispute, difference or claim arising from the parties' performance of this Agreement, the exclusive means of resolving that dispute, difference or claim, shall only be by filing suit SubscnberAgreement Page 6 ofll Public Safety Testing,Inc. City of Kent Police Department 2011 exclusively under the venue, rules and jurisdiction of the King County Superior Court, King County, Washington, unless the parties agree in writing to an alternative dispute resolution process. In any claim or lawsuit for damages arising from the parties' performance of this Agreement, each party shall pay all its legal costs and attorney's fees incurred in defending or bringing such claim or lawsuit, in addition to any other recovery or award provided by law; provided, however, nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to limit the parties' right to indemnification under this Agreement. 12.4 Assignment. Any assignment of this Agreement by either party without the written consent of the non-assigning party shall be void. If the non-assigning party gives its consent to any assignment, the terms of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect and no further assignment shall be made without additional written consent. 12.5 Modification. No waiver, alteration, or modification of any of the provisions of this Agreement shall be binding unless in writing and signed by a duly authorized representative of the Subscriber and Contractor. 12.6 Compliance with Laws. The Contractor agrees to comply with all federal, state, and municipal laws, rules, and regulations that are now effective or in the future become applicable to Contractor's business, equipment, and personnel engaged in operations covered by this Agreement or accruing out of the performance of those operations. 13. Entire Agreement. The written terms and provisions of this Agreement, together with any exhibits attached hereto, shall supersede all prior verbal statements of any officer or other representative of the Subscriber, and such statements shall not be effective or be construed as entering into or forming a part of or altering in any manner this Agreement. All of the exhibits are hereby made part of this Agreement. Should any of the language of any exhibits to this Agreement conflict with any language contained in this Agreement, the language of this document shall prevail. SubscnberAgreement Page 7 ofll Public Safety Testing,Inc. City of Kent Police Department 2011 This Agreement is dated this day of 20 SUBSCRIBER: CONTRACTOR: CITY OF KENT, WA PUBLIC SAFETY TE TING, INC. By: By. Print: Ken Thomas Print: Jon F. Walters, Jr. Its: Chief of Police Its: President Date: Date: October 30, 2011 NOTICES TO BE SENT TO: NOTICES TO BE SENT TO: Ken Thomas, Chief Jon Walters, President Kent Police Department Public Safety Testing, Inc. 220 Fourth Avenue South 20818 — 44h Ave. W., Suite 160 Kent, WA 98032 Lynnwood, WA 98036 253.856.5800 (telephone) 425.776.9615 (telephone) 253.856.6802 (facsimile) 425.776.0165 (facsimile) SubscnberAgreement Page 8 of11 Public Safety Testing,Inc. City of Kent Police Department 2011 DECLARATION CITY OF KENT EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY POLICY The City of Kent is committed to conform to Federal and State laws regarding equal opportunity. As such all contractors, subcontractors and suppliers who perform work with relation to this Agreement shall comply with the regulations of the City's equal employment opportunity policies. The following questions specifically identify the requirements the City deems necessary for any contractor, subcontractor or supplier on this specific Agreement to adhere to. An affirmative response is required on all of the following questions for this Agreement to be valid and binding. If any contractor, subcontractor or supplier willfully misrepresents themselves with regard to the directives outlines, it will be considered a breach of contract and it will be at the City's sole determination regarding suspension or termination for all or part of the Agreement; The questions are as follows: 1 . I have read the attached City of Kent administrative policy number 1 .2. 2. During the time of this Agreement I will not discriminate in employment on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin, age, or the presence of all sensory, mental or physical disability. 3. During the time of this Agreement the prime contractor will provide a written statement to all new employees and subcontractors indicating commitment as an equal opportunity employer. 4. During the time of the Agreement 1, the prime contractor, will actively consider hiring and promotion of women and minorities. 5. Before acceptance of this Agreement, an adherence statement will be signed by me, the Prime Contractor, that the Prime Contractor complied with the requirements as set forth above. By signing below, I agree to fulfill the five requirements referenced above. Dated this 30th day of October, 201)1 . By: Jon F. Walters, Jr. For: Public Safety Testing, Inc. Title: President Date: October 30, 2011 SubscnberAgreement Page 9 of11 Public Safety Testing,Inc. City of Kent Police Department 2011 CITY OF KENT ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY NUMBER: 1 .2 EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1 , 1998 SUBJECT: MINORITY AND WOMEN SUPERSEDES: April 1 , 1996 CONTRACTORS APPROVED BY Jim White, Mayor POLICY: Equal employment opportunity requirements for the City of Kent will conform to federal and state laws. All contractors, subcontractors, consultants and suppliers of the City must guarantee equal employment opportunity within their organization and, if holding Agreements with the City amounting to $10,000 or more within any given year, must take the following affirmative steps: 1 . Provide a written statement to all new employees and subcontractors indicating commitment as an equal opportunity employer. 2. Actively consider for promotion and advancement available minorities and women. Any contractor, subcontractor, consultant or supplier who willfully disregards the City's nondiscrimination and equal opportunity requirements shall be considered in breach of contract and subject to suspension or termination for all or part of the Agreement. Contract Compliance Officers will be appointed by the Directors of Planning, Parks, and Public Works Departments to assume the following duties for their respective departments. 1 . Ensuring that contractors, subcontractors, consultants, and suppliers subject to these regulations are familiar with the regulations and the City's equal employment opportunity policy. 2. Monitoring to assure adherence to federal, state and local laws, policies and guidelines. SubscnberAgreement Page 10 of II Public Safety Testing,Inc. City of Kent Police Department 2011 CITY OF KENT EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMPLIANCE STATEMENT This form shall be filled out AFTER COMPLETION of this project by the Contractor awarded the Agreement. I, the undersigned, a duly represented agent of Company, hereby acknowledge and declare that the before-mentioned company was the prime contractor for the Agreement known as that was entered into on the (date) between the firm I represent and the City of Kent. I declare that I complied fully with all of the requirements and obligations as outlined in the City of Kent Administrative Policy 1.2 and the Declaration City of Kent Equal Employment Opportunity Policy that was part of the before-mentioned Agreement. Dated this day of 201_ By: For: Title: Date: SubscnberAgreement Page 11 ofll Public Safety Testing,Inc. City of Kent Police Department 2011 KENT Agenda Item: Consent Calendar — 7I TO: City Council DATE: November 15, 2011 SUBJECT: Pace Engineer/640 Pressure Zone Analysis Agreement — Authorize MOTION: Authorize the Mayor to sign a Consultant Services Agreement with PACE Engineers, Inc., to perform Hydraulic Modeling for the 640 Pressure Zone in an amount not to exceed $14,800, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and Public Works Director. SUMMARY: The new 640 reservoir is nearly complete. Design of additional improvements that are required to operate the proposed 640 Pressure Zone will begin shortly. Additional hydraulic modeling is required for these design efforts. The hydraulic modeling will be used to design and control key infrastructure improvements that will allow us to operate the 640 Zone and provide increased water pressure to customers living at high elevations on the east hill. This work is required by the Department of Health due to low pressure in Kent's system. The most cost effective solution to comply with state regulations is to implement the 640 Zone. EXHIBITS: Scope of Work RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee BUDGET IMPACTS: There will be no unbudgeted fiscal impacts. The contract will be paid through the Water Utility. CnpineeIs I P19nners I SLirveyoIE rpP,A C-, HI All En lu aerii9 evvlcov Alllayblly `b`tober 13, 201.1 Mr. David Brock, PE Utility Engineer City of Kent 5821 S 240"' St Kent, WA 98032 Subject: 640 Zone Hydraulic Modeling and Value Engineering City of (Cent Dear Dave: Thank you for thinking of PACE for assisting the City with the 640 Zone hydraulic modeling and value engineering. As discussed in our meeting with the City on October 7`r' 2011, PACE Engineers is pleased to submit a proposed scope of work and fee estimate for the above subject project. If anything in this proposal is not as you anticipated, please let us know so we can adjust it as required. Overall Scope of Work In the City's 2008 Comprehensive Water System Plan update, an analysis for creation of a new 640 Zone to resolve pressures within portions of the existing 590 Zone was performed by RH2. In the analysis, recommendations were made for water main improvements, facility improvements, and improvements related to fire flows. The City is nearly complete with the new 640 Zone reservoir and is continuing to work towards implementing the necessary upgrades necessary to create the proposed 640 Zone. We understand that the recommendations as presented by RH2 were conceptual and intended for planning purposes. Thus, the City has requested PACE perform a peer review to further refine the recommendations now that design will commence for the necessary improvements. PACE Engineers will review the improvements with consideration to value engineering, potential construction efficiencies, and construction savings. The work to be included in this analysis is as follows: Task 1 - Hydraulic Modeling and Piping Configuration PACE will review the RH2 proposed 640 water main improvements and confirm the need for improvernents (water main and fire flow), determine if smaller diameter water mains(or a section of smaller diameter mains) can be installed for each improvement, and/or recommend alternative water main improvements routes if construction savings can be achieved. This task includes the following activities: 1. Perform analysis on the hydraulic model which was prepared by RH2 for the analysis of the proposed 640 Pressure Zone. Analysis will be performed to verify necessary water main and fire flow improvements. 2. Review proposed water main and fire flow improvement routes and provide alterative routes for potential cost savings. 3. Review the location and confirm the necessity for all proposed mainline PRVs. VACS 2n g i n E eis, ie p. 'I12,y,5 IUrklan(I WOY I Suite 300 1 Kirkland, WA 93033 p 425.627.2014 J 425.G2] )0,13 p(1 c e e n G r a.r.0m Eipin el,rs I Planners SIlfveyefs Mr. David Brock, PE City of Kent October 13, 2011. Page 2 Task 2 - Facility Siting Consistent with the creation of a new 640 Zone, the City will need to also install mainline PRV stations, individual homeowner PRV's, a new pump station, dedicated transmission mains, and possibly zone valves, amongst other improvements. We understand that over 1,000 individual PRV's will be necessary with the creation of the 640 Zone. PACE will also review the boundary of the 640 Zone to assess whether it can be configured such that the number of individual PRV's can be reduced while maintaining minimum required static pressures. This task includes the following activities: 1. Review Facility siting for mainline PRV's, proposed pump station(s), and transmission mains. PACE will provide alternative siting based on cost savings and potential elimination/reduction of facilities needed, if feasible. 2. Perform analysis on the hydraulic model which was prepared by RH2 for the proposed 640 Pressure Zone. Analysis will be performed to confirm the viability of recommended alternative facility siting and necessary facility sizing. Task 3 —Technical Memo Preparation / Summary of Findings Under this task, PACE will compile all findings in a technical memorandum and a summary table will be provided for the recommended improvements. in the report, previously proposed water main improvements will be compared to revised proposed water main improvements for the City to consider. Assumptions The above scope of work and subsequent fees have been based on the following assumptions: 1. Two (2) meetings with the City of Kent as work sessions to review recommendations at each iteration of analysis. 2. In review of the existing hydraulic model prepared by RH2, there are over 25 separate scenarios as well as numerous alternative settings. PACE will perform the above described analyses utilizing the worst case buildout year (2030) Peak Day Demands with a reliable Tacoma Supply. 3. PACE will not review future demand use and storage analysis findings as presented by RH2. PACE will utilize the presented demand use and storage calculations. 4. All map/exhibit creation will be performed by the City of Kent with the exception of specific mapping created by the hydraulic model. 5. The City will submit this report to DOH and provide all coordination with DOH as necessary for their 640/590 Zone transition plan. 6. This budget does not include major revisions to the scope of work. Engineers f Planners I Sui'veya'3 Mr. David Brock, PE. City of Kent October 13, 1011 Page 3 Fee Estirrrate PACE proposes to provide these services on a time and expense basis. The estimated cost for each task is shown on the attached spreadsheet based upon our 2011 Standard Rates. Estimated direct reimbursable expenses are included in the contract amount. The estimated cost for this work, including reimbursable expenses, is $14,800. PACE will complete this work within 5 weeks from the Notice to Proceed as directed by the City. In summary, we have developed a scope of work and budget based on our present knowledge of the proposed project. We have tried to cover all aspects of the proposed project; however, if you feel that additional areas of work require our attention, if you have any questions or if you desire additional information please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, PACE Engineers, Inc Paj Hwang, P.E. Project Manager Attachment O [J O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 O O O O O O Vi v-- Nd .Q....... .........e....................... ... ...... N tap N -p H 0 n N O N � M 2 N d O O 0 V O V d ..... _ O O 609 � N 609 p � a U W C r m C W a C @ U .......................... ___ N W C9 V1 `L 00 O N N CN O V3 �m a w ). ro m c H .... � E I to .��� U AM- Li Ol d W � G . ......... ..... . . O N N N O O to UJ a N N .M- r 0 a m m p Y z .o a ~ 3 d LL a p O O IL @ E'O m � r N Q ? C 2 rn O m a c p m C z p : � yp o api a Y W Q m m m a n. o o m in a in in o`jr19- KENT Agenda Item: Consent Calendar — 73 TO: City Council DATE: November 15, 2011 SUBJECT: Systems Interface/Guiberson Corrosion Control Agreement — Authorize MOTION: Authorize the Mayor to sign a Consultant Services Agreement with Systems Interface Inc., to perform programming for the Guiberson Water Treatment Facility in an amount not to exceed $16,350, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and Public Works Director. SUMMARY: On February 15, 2011, Council awarded a contract for the construc- tion of the Guiberson Water Treatment Facility. This facility will treat water from the Tacoma Second Supply pipeline for use with well and spring water. Tacoma water is slightly and naturally acidic. The treatment facility will reduce the acidity by injecting water treatment compounds. A computerized operation and communication system is required for the operation of these types of facilities. The proposed contract is for Systems Interface Inc., to complete the programming of this computerized system. Kent Water staff is well-versed at using these types of systems once the program- ming is complete. EXHIBITS: Scope of Work RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee BUDGET IMPACTS: There will be no unbudgeted fiscal impacts. The contract will be paid through the Water Utility. Systems Interface Inc. 22125 17"Avenue BE• Suite 111 • Bothell,Washington 98021-7406 • USA•Tel 425.481.1225 • Fax 425.481.2115•www.systems-interface.com David Brock, P.E. July 151", 2011 City of Kent S11G15 5821 South 2401" Street Kent, Washington 98032 Re: City of Kent, Guiberson Corrosion Control Facility Upgrade Project - Professional Services Dear Mr. Brock, Thank you for the opportunity to provide Professional Engineering services for the City of Kent. Systems Interface proposes to provide programming and commissioning services for the City of Kent, Guiberson Corrosion Control Facility Upgrade project. Our scope of supply for this project includes: • Engineering services to program and test the new Siemens S7-315-2DP PLC system that will be utilized at the Guiberson Corrosion Control Facility. The City of Kent standard programming library and methodologies will be utilized. • Engineering services to program the Operator Interface Touchscreen Unit. Standardized City of Kent User Interface screens and functionality will be utilized. • Preparation of a Detailed Software Design Submittal with annotated PLC Program Listings, Operator Interface Screen Pictures, and Database Configuration for City Review and Approval. • Attendance at a Software Design Meeting with the City to review the functionality of the station and the Software Design Submittal. • Configure, commission, and test radio telemetry communications from this site to the headquarters. • Provide program interface documentation to the City to allow for the proper integration of this new site with the headquarters radio telemetry, SCADA, and Siemens S7-400 systems. • Provide on-site technical services for inspections, system commissioning, witnessed acceptance testing, and as-built documentation. We can break the above scope items into 3 phases: Phase 1: Programming of the PLC and Operator Interface Unit Phase 2: Configure, test, and document the radio telemetry systems to properly communicate to the Headquarters. Phase 3: On-site startup, testing, training, and as-built documentation. Below is the price break-out for each of the phases and total proposed Not-To-Exceed budgets: PHASE 1: Program PLC and OIU Description Ratethr Est.Hrs Total Project Manager& Professional Engineer $105 3 $315 Project Engineer (incl. programming) $98 72 $7,056 Admin Support (documentation) $55 2 $110 Project expenses (mail, binders,supplies, mileage, etc.) $100 Contingency (control strategy revisions, reviews, revising $98 6 $588 designs) TOTAL: $8,169 Fax 253-856-6600 Systems Interface Inc. 22125 17"Avenue BE• Suite 111 • Bothell,Washington 98021-7406 • USA•Tel 425.481.1225 • Fax 425.481.2115•www.systems-interface.com PHASE 2: Telemetry and Radio Interface Description Ratethr Est.Hrs Total Project Manager& Professional Engineer $105 1 $105 Project Engineer(Radio Config, HQ telemetry interface) $98 16 $1,568 Project expenses (mail, docs, supplies, mileage, etc.) $50 Contingency (control strategy revisions, reviews, revising $98 4 $392 designs) TOTAL: $2,115 PHASE 3: On-site Testing, Commissioning & Training Description Ratethr Est.Hrs Total Project Manager& Professional Engineer $105 2 $210 Project Engineer (Testing, Tuning, etc.) $98 44 $4,312 Admin Support (copying &transmit As-Built docs) $55 2 $110 Drafting (as-Built Documentation) $65 6 $390 Project expenses (copies, supplies, mileage, etc.) $260 Contingency (revising designs, added scope of work, etc) $98 8 $784 TOTAL: $6,066 We propose that we bill the City of Kent on a Time and Material basis with a Not-To-Exceed Professional Services contract value of$16,350. Systems Interface will invoice only for actual time spent on the project and not exceed the maximum contract value, while guaranteeing to provide all agreed upon scope of work items. We would invoice the City on a monthly basis with timecard and expense information attached. Delivery of the Detailed Software Design Submittal documents would be approximately five to six weeks from receipt of a Notice to Proceed, all other phases of the project (such as on-site testing and startup) will be coordinated with the City and Contractors involved in the manufacturing and installing the new control and telemetry systems. Thank you again for the opportunity to work again with the City of Kent. Please call with any questions. Sincerely, Systems Interface Inc. Robert H. Schommer, P.E. Vice President email:rhs@systems-interface.com Fax 253-856-6600 KENT Agenda Item: Consent Calendar — 7K TO: City Council DATE: November 15, 2011 SUBJECT: King Conservation District Grant/Downey Farmstead Restoration Design — Authorize MOTION: Authorize the Mayor to accept the King Conservation District Grant in the amount of $46,419 and direct staff to amend the budget, and authorize expenditure of the funds in accordance with the grant terms, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and Public Works Director. SUMMARY: The Downey Farmstead Restoration Project involves four parcels totaling 21.81 acres located along the left bank of the Green River from River Mile 21.5 to 22.1 (across the river from the Riverbend Driving Range, near SR 516). This restoration project will include creation of floodplain storage and side channel refuge habitat for salmonids in the Green River. It will increase access to floodplain habitat for Chinook and other salmonids and restore floodplain functions. Funds from this Grant would be used to cover the cost of design plans, specs and construction cost estimate. EXHIBITS: King Conservation District WRIA Forum Grant, Exhibit A, and Site Maps RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee BUDGET IMPACTS: The City will receive a grant for $46,419 from the King Conservation District. Without those funds the City would not be able to move ahead on the project at this time. AGREEMENT FOR A'4ti+'AtRD O I'CINC,C.t7NSP RW"A'I'ION DISTRICTWRIA FORUM GI;L%N'I' green/Dowvaanish/CPS Watershed >L'nM•um (AV RIA 9f) C:Ity of Ktt nt 't tn:is ahgreetnvnt is made l oovicen the King Conservation District Number !9, a municipal carporaiioar in I irtt, Couanly, Wn�a�slainp;ton, located al 1107 SW Cprady 'Way, "Suite 130, Reatoa, WA 98057 (rcfasaud to herein aas "Distriet"), and tlhc City o,i''`Kennt„ a muniuipral corpnurkidc:rn'a in 1'hipp County, Washingtioa, locale d at 220 O' Ave S„Kont, W.A 98032-5895 (rere red to herein, as "Recipient"), for the purposes set forth litre n. SECTION J. RECITALS t,1 wherc¢*' llac Diarsct is a s'paccnal ptrrpacasc tliStrnal oltp,;aoiZ0d MId eXistitnp; Warier aauth erity of Chapter 89.09 RCW whicli engages, in ceftaairn activities ard pare gmaa s to coomerve natutat resrrnn°ces, ineludin} seed rind water, which [aenvilics are dmIared to lac of spacc:W bearetit to, lands; and 1.2 Whercas, pursuant to RC:WW 89.08.400, King County litis nnthorj:rcd xid imposed a sy4tem of'vls ssuaaonts to lirtanee tltG aictivitics and parogrmns of the District; and 1.3 Whereas, prursmml to IRC°;W 89,08.220, RCrW 89 08.341 :and/or C:'h.spraer 39.34 ti.CW, ale District is a:ullacirized to watcu- i ilo al;reencnts with tanwnicspal enti ies and apn;cneies (governmental or ttlhe nvisc), or their designees, in oi:cicr to ca ri y out and fiacilffitic the activities and prrogi atr,t of'the District to conserve natural aesomv s; untl L14 Whereas„ certain.WiAershcd Forturrs were cstahlish.ed in.;King (:aunty acid through the voluntary association of sagonciu, and cl'Itill4s s1umed whlnena the p oriticular w titc rshed laassim'; or areas (i.e., Snoclualntic Watershed Foriurt Collar/I ike Wattctshcd Fora; C,iu n/I7urvamish/C'entnal pugct Sound Wntrrslwd h'cruln) for the purpose of addressing and iesp oudin g to environmental needs within their arep)uetivc vcatc,ts4red lnasiars and it' the rc,P30011 by t srapaci taltvca,a Ndairts, and 1.5 Whereas, the Wato'shud 4^teama s iiaclnde rcpare*.seantatives of jurisdictions that taro^ locatod within or have ai in"ajor interest nn the anrnaap,;emenl of W'atcr Resources Invtearisry r1actas (WRIA) 7, 8 and 9; and p.Ci Whereas, the District has revimed tlnc plrzuat upapliuution Submitted by Recz'ipsiel a: and has dotermfile l Alai Cie api�plit ttion meets the i:ayuirements of Chapter 89,08 RC;.W, the District's policies Auld p rocodurass fiar aawrnt'dinp; gvmts and the fannding, principIcscstsih9is➢aetl by Kirg C.ounty's Rehioiud Wfiler° Quality Cornrititim ;and 1 .7 'nillia,ra.int, the Mstrict snd [Zc,cipscnt dcsires to enter into this Agrecmunl for Ric porpww ofvn4oWishjug Vw teirats and conditions relating to the Disirict':; award tti` ai graant to l:f mi p¢era t. Papua 1. of 4 SFUl"JON 2. AGREEMENT 2.1 The District rigree3 to award recipient a giatlt in the total araourit of Forty Six 11nouskrid I-our Handred Nineteen Dollars ($46,41p.00) ftOol Returned, 2007, and 2011 hinds, Grant fends shall be used by Recipient sotcly for the perfoarin a vice of the work described in Fxhibit A whidi is alfached hereto Oil(] i11G0TP0Ja1Cd hOrCill by lb�k rcfearence, The Distdctshall pay the gnant funds to Rwipimt in oceordonce with tire Wstrict's poheics, and procetloves, including but not limited w, CIre policies and proc% Burrs conlaincd ni the Member Jurisdiction & WRIA Fortint Grant Application Insiniclions, and Policies, provided that .;rich firrids have been eollceted,anti roecNed by the District. 22 Rodyent reprusuras and warrunin At it will only use tho grant funds for the work demur led in Exhibit A, which may lie arnevuled by the parties pursuant to Paragraph 3.3 of the Agreement, Recipient shall be required to retimid to We ONNat Omt porticin of any grant hinds, mriddi are used Ir unauthorized mirk. Farther, Recipient agrees to re him M to NO% any grant furds dial are not expended Dr rernain after oolvitfloion of the work coveted 1)y this 2.3 Recipient ackrowbodges anti apses that Ove gmnt Wds may only be expanded on work which sluill! be mdruly within the Lrislrict's kirisdleficual bourickiries. ']'lie loflowint,, Inunicibial Untuies are not within the District's juiisdictiond boundaries: II-municlaw, Federal Way, Milton, Pacific, and Skykoniish. Recipient slidl be nuitiNd to Wind to the LAW that lvirtion ofimygrant finds vdich are used for mirk perl"ormed ontaide die Dishiellfirisdiethnil boarridaries. 2.4 In the event the Ncope of work authorized by this Agreement nicluelm fliG use of grant filmis to Purchase housos localed on real pr,:)p(nly wiflibi a Hoed hazard area, Recipient acknowledges and apecs At grant Amds may only be used C(n sudi pul:)osus ifflic houses, to be I)LII'Lejoa.Wej were constiL vvtud bef'ore hoodph m in mapping or m r scrisitive areas gWatiOnS were ilt , phicis Q Amt mina. Recipimit Will he requked a) refund U) the DjsAct that Portion of ally grant WAR which are used for unawhoriz.ed limlloses. 2.5 RceQnt shall be mlioned ni, provide the DAY with il Inrancial and projcul progress reports, alang with an arummi sianniary report. Finaridal and pwdect repork shall he due We 30 and Noveiriber 30 each year The RedpInt shall also be iexl1dred to submit to thou f)lstrid a final roped whhoh doculionts the Rccipicul's completien of tfic work in CORR)rrumcu wilh this Agrucricirt wiffiin lfiltfy (30) days after the urmipletion -worl, The Anvi report shall, antiong other Cibigs, surrurinrim the prodect's miccesses rod strait addross the regicatul handits accompishad by-Ae wor& the firal report shnit also ideviffy any obstacles, o:r chn1leiges which were durijvg, ilia wm*, along with gene1nal mgmdOg vmys to avoid such abstacics;or chdlengu,%, ir the hilure, If mquested, Recipicylt agrees to prtivide the District worth addithmial financial or progress reports from iirnc to laric, at i easirn,,aWe in isivals. 11ginUN 26 Recipient's experditure� of gram,, hinds shall be separately identified in the Recipient's aeminCrig records. If requestec], Recipient s'l)all comply with other reasonablo i'cqucsts inade by the District worth respect u) the manner in which project expenditures vwe Iracked and accoonted fbi- in. RccipianVs accounting books and records. Rcerpient shall manAnin ,saQ11 tovw-ds of Uxpvd4Ura3 as way be 1weessary to conflorm to genonflly oeoptect accounting principaN zind to meet the requirenients of all apphcable state aud fedcral htwq, 23 Recipient shall be reqaivedto track project expenscs using the Budget Accounting and Reporting SyMern & the Rfilo of Washingion ("BARS1. 2A Thu INsAct or its represcidatNe shall have the rigIq hom We W UM9 at reasonable intervals, to airdh the Recipient's books and rovords in order to verify amipliance with [lie terms of His Agreemera. RecipAt shall ctooveraic with the District In any such W& 19 Rocipiant shall retain aril accowiting records mid project filo.g I•Claurg tc this Agrecoican �a t ire i,Jlh crierin asmblished in the RAW (Jodie of Wa a shington nd the Washington Stnte MAN& 11C MOM shall cusurc that all work perlienned by Reclinh ov- is UPI)IOyces, agents, continctors or subconunctors is performed in a mariner which Inotects and safeguards lhe LnVilonment and natural resaarces, and which is in conrflionco with local, slate and federal laws Re6pinst shall Irnplainent an apprepriato rnoriltaring system or program to and, regokitions, ensurecoulphanco with ffiiw Inovision. 2J I Redoent agroes to indern0y, defer d and hold harniless the Disirict, its clectud or appinted otliciA3, wriployeeg and aguls, Gom all dahns, alleged liability, dmnaps, los,,wi to or death of penan or damage lo Ixoperty allegedly resalfing froal [lie negfiga3t or hitenHOOM a0g of the Rc6piciv or any of its CnIployees, agarts, contracinns, or subcontractors in conneetion with Chis Agrawnwe 2J2 WNW .awes to acknoudedge ilia UstAct as a source of Muding Cor this pr(.jecet on all literature, signage or pinss rcica es rcAvd to &1id PIX&A trEUFION.1_GENERAL PROJ" l 3A 'llis Agreemient WaR be binding upan and inure, to the henefit of [lie parlici lrci-cO and their rrspedive ,ajue ,,sons and ivsJgns- 3 2 This Agrcernu)t aotis6vutea the entire agreenlent butwCen the parfics, With respect W cc subjed matter hu'reot", Nro prior or contempon,,neous repitsenlalk, inducenient, prmniso or agrveniont betweexi or among the Imades which Mae to the snlajoc't alON'r hero of wl)ich are not embodied in fi-as Agreemani shall tic of any force or Jfccl. FIgo 3 of 4 3.:3 No araterrahnasnt to this Aga?as.=aarcatt shnit be hrarcEng on any of ilia: parties to Aiis Agreement unless stach auiriendaatent is laa wrath)& aaacl is exccuatod by the Parties, The paarfics contemplate that this Agrcacmcnt may from tiaaae In tauarc be modified ed by mitten raaaaeridment whioli sliall be cxec�uted by duly authorized repirsenlativrs of the paNics and a ttiiclied to this t`grc:enwnt. 3A lsach Ludy avarraaatts and mprosurrts lbat such party has Ball and complete aaullorAy to caner grata this Agreement and each perscrat +eaOccaloarg tHs Agreement on behalf of aa, party Warrants ;and represents nts thaat ha/she ha.s boen dully authorized to execute ilhis Ag; ecjncnt on befi alf of such party and that such party is baaraud by the sigaaatau,rc of such representative. DISTRICT: REC:IPTIENT: ti'—__........ — --. By _ -- ---- — Name— Nanvu "l"itle `11tte Date I)atc Apparovctl as to lfa'taa1at. Appsrra'v'cd as to Form: DISTRICT LEGAL COUNSEL N2l+,CUPIlal" T'SAI"Tt)ltNEY: 4 r 13y . �11ti.�.W!..,, r wvrtl G� 1I BY, .. .. mm .�..... ....... Name-, P t t. +brcrsf Name Date t, .� �� -� ..........._.. CAamte _ _...... �. ......... P'i c4of4 Exhibit Member Jurisdiction Forurn Grant Program King Conservation District rangy Application Fi Project 71t1e Downey apolcant: City of Farmstead Restoration -- Final DesignPdans 2012 l y Kent Public Works Contact. Alex M uriido Principal (if any): Title Environmental p � . ��,._,�..� �n�trreerlrs��Supervisor Address. WRIA 9 Watershed (City of Kent Salmon Recovery Funding Board Public Works Engineering — u.,_... _.._ ... _.. ..._...................... .... ..�......._......._... _ 220 01 Ave.S. fotSNd Project isnrrYt Otd,Otli) ...... ttetlrt,iftf.Ak 98032.5895 _..—. . .. .... _.. WR'IA Funding lurdsrllction Fun( ng KCD Funding Requested $ 46,419 Phony 252-956 5528 Project End Date Tune 2016 Fax 252 856 650tbWk E-small amu�wilioci.Icant w a� us Projo Start M>ate December 2f1 .�.. .... _ _..... 2.. Project Description -- provide a brief description of the project that surmrrrarires what you will do, hour you will do it, and why you will do It. Consider the following In the answer to this question: whatpressing need Will be addressed by the projector what promising opportunity will be capitalized on?Who or what will benefit orbe positively and nagatively affected? The purpose of this grant request to ICCD is to support the City of Kurt in colm7pieting the Final Design Vans for the Downey Farmstead Restoration project. The project site is located in King County along Frager Road from the SR 516 crossing downstream to Mullen Slough. "rive site is bounded by the Green River to the north and east" between RM 2.1.5 and 22.3, SR 516 to the South, and Mullen Slough to the west. 'rhe 21.81 acre site is owned by the City of Kent. The project is consistent with the VVRIA 9 Salmon Ccnservation and Recovery Strategy and is listed as project i.ld-7 ism tlae Saimcn Habitat. Plan.. The project will create off_CJJaruro�nl rearing, and reflago habitat for rise in winter and spring months by Juvenile salnnon, particularly ,juvenile Chinook salmon, that inhabit time Green Riven Enhancing habitat for improved juvenile sralimondd rearing, Iifestage diver,54y, and productivity is a priority in the Green River- waLershed, The project will also create additional flood storage, to help alleviate flood damage in the urban and agrira.rltural areas in the project vlcil'Ilty. MlurdrrrZabon of flooding will also protect water qua4y. Reolignrnent of fr-ager Road from near tire 'tops of the bank and through this site tc the southern portion of the properties is necessary to allnva creation of the side cirannel retworlr and itxpanded floocdplain. The road realignment will provide a greater buffer/setback from the river and will continue to provide necessary vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian access, "rho cord{.aletacd restoration project will iae accomplished by excavation of 145,500 CY of coil, installation of 52 habitat structures and 668,000 native plants. M Linber Sim Is circtra n as wRIA Foo u in Go iW P1109i1ram,AM1popyncatr an 2011 aW 5 3. Project Activities and MeasuraWe Results - using the table below, list specific project activities to be completed,the thinietable for the activities, and the deliverables associated with those actIVItles, Consider the following In Your answer to this question: What actions, fnterverytions,programs,services will be deployed?' ............... TACtivilty-besci iption DcliverablesTinaehrae e v e lop RFP for Final Project Reciti est for Proposal December DesrgnAdvertisement . ............. -2 .-Project Design Propowls M Scope of Work, Budget, sign Contract for Project Design May 2C12 contract with Consulting Cosulting Firm ........... ........ 4. Work begins on Draft Final DesiTi Schedule ay 2012 Design Plans, Specs, Cost Estionates, ........... Meet with Stakeholders on Draft Final Design input and June and Draft Final e review b Stakeholders October 2012 Draft Final Design submki Plans, Specs, Cost Estimates January 2013 for- review by_s! ff._a,aencies Final Design Project Completed Final Design Plans, Specs, ,tune 202 Cost Estimates' Pernlits, Cultural Resources, t-----------.. .... ............. 4. Effectiveness(see page 2 of application instructions,for definition) --describe haw the project will 0001i implement the natural resource Improvement measures Identified In question No. 2 above. Consider the following In your answer to this question: Whyis tile pr1maryalepticarit the best eritlity to deliver the proposed prograrn/service/interveiitiori?Mat is the calrOcifyof the prit"aryappli4ant to deliver the proposed PfOgram/servicelintervenHon?What toads, services and partners wIll be broaght to bear? Th®r City of Kent has a proven track record of successfully completing similar design and construction projects In Kent irducling the Meridian Vahey Creek Flume i completed in 2005, the Lake Meridian Outlet Project (Phase I completed in 2006 arid 2007 and Phase 11 tinder construction now), Riverview Park Channe[ Restoration Design Plans, Feasibility Study and Preliminary Design, of the Mill Creek Confluence/Green River Project and tire Downey Farmstead Restoration Project. The City of Kent his additional funding sources for those projects, inciluding KCU, Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) and the Army Corps of Engineers. At, with the other properties, the Downey Farmstead site is owned and rnaintaVned by the City or Kent and will he nizqntained and monitored in perpetuity. Kient works collaboratively with other agerides and jurisdictions, for revlev and assistance on these projects; including King County, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, WRIA 9, SRFB, the Corps and King Conservation District. The Lower, Green River has been heavily impacted in the past by the construction of the levees arad the closure of creek tributaries, These off.-chanriel habltaitw are necessary for" salmon to be, able to grow and survive as they ITIOVe froin the Middle Green River OLA to Puget Sound, This project w1il provide that type of habitat need that is severely Wriii on the Lower Green River, The side channel complex will provide a Earqe are'a where salmon can move off i river channel during high flows 'rhe charineis mil also provide areas wth the food sources and htding places for them to take refuge off the inadn !;;tern Of the Green. MOM lame AlVi9diriftil W WRXA FDI'UM G1',10t NOON am, AplAcuVoll 0 )lAne 2011. a Not 3 of 5 activities (milestcries) will be tracked and documented throughout the final design project to ensure project goals are being met, Federal agencies will also be consulted with during, the permitting process and will be able to provide feedback thrOL1911 that review, B, Project Budget& Expeln5eS ...................... Budget Item KGD Funds—i ether Funds ther Funds Total SRFB Grant (specify) SalaHes and Benefits $ 20,()00 2o'000 TraG„el/'ItleaNs/rrH�lease Office/Field Supplies 206,081 $232,500 Professional Services Land Acquisition Permits 27-,5"00.. ... ............................. $ 27,500 Other(Cultural Z0,000 $ 20,000 Resources) TOTAL $ 46,42, S. KCD Acknowledgement-Describe how the KCD will be acknowledged as a source of funding for the proposed progyarn/sorvice/Intervention (see Grant program Over%lew& Policies, General Grant Progfarn Poffeles, 46). The Kiing ConservaUon District will be acknowledged in any future printed rnaterlal, interpretive signage along the project site and press-releases. KDC aill also be invited and recognized as a sponsor of this project at D grourid breaking ceremony that will occur at the -start of construction. The City of Kent wlf prepare all, action page to accept the gnant by the public Works Conornitkee and also by the Kent City Council at nleetings open tc the public and televised meetings. Authorized Signature Date Member Jurlsulid in,m&WRXA Falrom Gaut Prograw,AlprAlcation June 2011 0 5 Y y� 'W h b,�e r.Wa[•, � ( �' � ✓'�u v 'r�Y Iwn p r :"' i�'� r�l'br � ld ,,. �. rt I ^ iIG II as � 9 '7 � '. e4 � m�b,� � ����� � � ✓,� r� � � �/���1 ,, bbr¢ �a n a r .��J w '�y„,; � � f -,,,8r. ppp � '^f: rf'`�;✓+n '�a�"��' n �%' (�Gi d �1L'r�,'�'' �q yi,- i � r• fr�r'� � ;�i ry � JN � i 1i f a r .mmm E �� r � ��,u P � � � � ir✓i// A, J i yr, Project Location Map RESTORATION yE.p��\�Wpp'1`4g"JSp�rylry ll" y'ryd�1�,.PROJECT �,� Y"4E 8 �.J,t4A LI�.TN L�ROJL,iC �„'r,1��.k5�,�J IlUDLIUS OWNED �I x. 'I�^" 1. f"IiYJW 6i N9(1VVNGa'o WAS arc ld --.,.- ...... ......_. .... ........... Ury 4'�I pf r74+4"d'�"If,�N f h p Yw yac P Ifp., Il� o L �:w� N M N sf � wd am h J111 1 �✓� !y 9g d,. d - ,h Para vyt,4 i 1 ti un a 1 ry r�l o r To ,a y>a 'o�a 1 t� � .V �fa Y 1 rd i Y //N h � ✓ { py / / ' r r/'il1 l/If/' 1��l� /.ir """' / r / Ir�f �ICI Y ✓f/r l�% (/ �l rr� ��� N � r ��r�� 1, /���fi' / 1 r� , /��j�, I � r, �,' S /,��aN ��i//l, ri /i/l�F!!// � f f✓j r r n;�. J � �/ r�' rr/f r �✓b // / r / �� � /Hrlr i ✓ r // ^ I /�r 1/% �3///ir r r �i rl r �r Yr / i r / d d 1 � if , 1/;l r��/�1i ,/rti eil "now r/ !i r 9 / j SITE MAP KlNG COUNTY FIROPPoWlY _ . "14 04 9028 PaG-n""I 2 4 ,�u I %nti'wi - " rr✓r '9k %"1; I 7 " /i� / l�%�j// rr ..� r I ir�%�j/iii/I %�r//� � //i���/ir r ✓ ,//�1f///� 'r/ r �r�%��J, //��iq�W„ V•.. r � '� '1 ����/Jl����V,�, /1 � u r / / // //I/i�l f ° fir' [✓i I k ic.,,, %'i T.! % ' 1-1 r r r /' r NkW�I G I r ✓/r�7firr/py/G/rUF%V I ���/� 91r>�/ /r'� �N% ' ', 11�/;r% r�o///i ' � y. eim�/NG ll"�`JiN;'��� � �rUkj/yj /, of/r�/, ✓ lJ/iiii����ryry �/, ;/ ,r/, J ���%///iir /rrmy /✓�l�r;,, ri/r'ia JI!�"'. //// fir'/%�%i i r � Y !dllwr, ,iy, ✓, f`k�r�M ��� r���// n Ih �l�/>`i j � n , r r✓ /�I"!��i 6 ' f /� Y7 ��// ri/r/i /ie ��� o r 1f/ /i%/ � ih Il o �/ o,/. %'i % (✓' if i ��rrG l/o f pr d/ i/ir H er r rl r '.r rr n✓W a v r P // // rrr✓ian ' �71 �� , I, O� // J J r i r jjj Aw PARCE, N m 2322 imcm °r w000;oR 74n,�, P,-�reell 4 IN-10 'NW,,lu L1 I N C,10 W .. .... ........_.,.. . ...................._— King Conservation District Member Judsclictlon & WRIA Forum Grant Program Grant Application-City of Kert Downey Farmstead Restoration-Final DeMgn Plans 2012 August 24, 2011 City of Kent's responses to KCID grant Subcommittee additional questions! 1, Can you elaborate more about how the project meets the requirements of the ordinance mentioned in the appliciWon (King County Code 1IA.Z4.381)7 In Section ALa.of the code, one of the factors that may be relevant in doternrifiAng vahether an aqUalk habitat restoration project is allowed or a,site in the Agricultural Production Ill(APD 15 if prIcnr to January 1, 2009 tire project proponent received grant funds or made a substantial divestment of resources In the project for ache purposed of a grant application for land acquisition,design or construction. The City of Il has spent$1,,441,119 in funding from grants and the city prior to 2009 for the Downey Farmstead Restoration project. The funding was used to purchase the four parcels in addition to demolition and clean-up, Environmental Assessments, feasibility studies, field surveying,vegetation maintenance and project design. In Section Al.b. ofthe code, ail aquatic habitat restoration project may be allowed on ag,ricultuar,al lard In the APID if the proposed project will result In a net benefit to agrilcuKire. In evaluating whether a proposed project will result in a net benefit to agriculture, the committee may consider the following factors: (of 11 total factors, the ones listed below w1h be beriefitted by this project). 1 ThE'pl'Qjfft WO rMit ifr iMpgd)ved druioage or less fieqtden tfioc,&ng ln the APD. a See response to question 5 on page 3. 2 The project whf provide ropgoil to another property in the sane APID thot is wilding to accept (lie topsod The city will explore Nhether excavated soils not rpmuci or 5 lic could be mixed with orga r ic amendments that could be of beneficial use for nearby agricultural lanais. 3. The py ojer t iovifl resuit ira tho 1'enj OVni 0r'typ a r)77e n r of rod?ionr fnated soO5. 0 'in hi5has beencrinpleted through denrolition and clean up of the prol lies by the city, 4, The peojcct was proposed through a collaborative process aict involved v vorxty of hjtere56, inchrofing par tiers iriterestedir. habitat protection ondrestorobon 0 aqvicuirorolproduction, and than The city has disc u,55ed than. project fro rn Its incept it n with the Agricu Itu re Corin ri iq sion Lower Green Subcoinnaitteo ineetings and liias worked collaboratively on the Downey Farmstead Rpstoral'ion project with VVIRIA 9, King Conservation District, Mucli Indian Tribe, Salmon Ill Furdlng Board, and Xing County DelmrVitient c,f Naturil ResDiffces and Padrs, Water Land Rescturc(m Division. Pa", 1 of 4 Funding received and anticipated fcr this project includes: Con5virvatfoo Futures(CFT), 2008 $94,000 Purchase of the Desiniore and Latto property King Conservartion District 2007 $85,961 l2eroohtion and clean-up of the Desirrone, pii,operty Sfunding spent in 2009 and 2010) 2012 $46,419 Request for final design Salmon Recovery Funding Board 2008 $1,035,085 Purchase of project area prfjlperties; DesIrrone, Lotto and King County 2008 $131,569 Feasibility' tudy and 30% Design of Downey Farmstead Restoratiun ftinding spent in 2010 and 2011) 2011 $253,591 Request for Final li of Downey Farmstead Restoration Project �Puget Sound Acquisiflon and Restor8ron Fund], City of Kept 1996 $30,701) Purchase cf Meat packing Company Property frann 16Q, CoUlIty 2008 $281,334 Purdia5v of project area properties: Desinnone, Latta and King County 3. What are the costs up to this point and what is the anticipated total cost for construction? ToOl rosts to dne: $1,65B,649 (do" not fii 20,11 & 2012 grant i'eque-rfts totaling$300,000) Preliminary Construction Cost Estimate: $3,846,000 ronstructiorl 14Ubtotall $1,923,00 contingency L�365 LLO._izIlLs tax $6,100,000 total Co5t estimate better Cos esti mute null he i ro ided bythe consultant when floe 70 design level isreached. 4. Have you received the 5RFB funding for this phase of design? the SRFIB awards grant f Lind ing in Deceinibe 1,2011. final design of the Downey rarni Pestoration Frojea has been recomriended t,o SRFB fi r funding by WiIIA 9. 5, to is the plan to protect surrouniefing, downstrearr and uingtream PrQperHes frarn flood inglinpacts? The flood reduction benefit to upstrearn Landowners is a key iopect of diis project, AccordirV to YCC 21A24,381, tire lairg CoLulty [jepallli Of Deyek)pfrent ao'Icl ErIvirorui services "...snail op ily approve and aquade habliat restoration project., Alf it] re-sultlsp in a ret benefit is agricultural productivity url the agricultural production distrlct-" The city's consuls ant, Hei rera Eivironriental Page 3 of 4 I i a ❑. l " m III a I 4 / dg pr ? J r I Z to v f . r 1, I A. m l 0 y ^ w py I. _ o LSpp ' t � W La cn d µpi V + z R `�� �✓ ', b '� Ld W bI w 1 Y ❑ I rL Rl LAI ! Q p 0-1 vi 9 :! r p ❑ �. A� LDS , it �,. � i 4 i I j 111 e i <y `• v �� L�9 Zil En v a LLJ 'I cn iV w d Q.m T yu 1 1 19 i I { C] 2 KENT Agenda Item: Consent Calendar — 7L TO: City Council DATE: November 15, 2011 SUBJECT: Boeing Levee Project, Amendment No. 2/Tetra Tech, CLOMR Review — Authorize MOTION: Authorize the Mayor to sign Amendment No. 2 with Tetra Tech, Inc., to perform analysis and certification of the Boeing Levee Project in an amount not to exceed $72,284, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and Public Works Director. SUMMARY: On January 18, 2011, the Council authorized a consultant contract with Tetra Tech, Inc., to perform analysis and certification of the Boeing Levee in an amount not to exceed $254,108. Council authorized an amendment (Contract Amendment 1) to the contract to allow for more geotechnical investigations and analysis on May 17, 2011, in the amount of $28,708. This amendment (Contract Amendment 2) provides for additional hydraulic and geotechnical services to respond to FEMA comments, and to revise submittals as necessary. The additional costs are $72,284 for a total amended contract amount of $355,100. The Boeing Levee is approximately one river mile in length and is located between S. 2001h St. and S. 2121h St on the right bank of the Green River. This levee reach, in combination with the other levee segments along the Green River, protects the Kent Valley businesses and residential areas from flood risks. EXHIBITS: Contract Modification No. 2 RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee BUDGET IMPACTS: This contract will be paid through a grant from the Washington Department of Ecology administered through the King County Flood Control District. TET ATH October 27, 2011 Mr.Toby Hallock City of Kent 220 4" Avenue South Kent,WA 98032 Subject: Contract Modification No. 2 for Boeing Levee Certification Project—Version 3 Dear Mr. Hallock: Attached is our revised proposal for Contract Modification No. 2 for the Boeing Levee certification. This contract modification includes the work effort necessary to address up to three (3) rounds of comments from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)on the Boeing Levee CLOMR application that was submitted to FEMA on October 18, 2011. The scope of work is included as Attachment A. As requested, we have estimated the portion of the work effort that would be conducted under the current rate schedule,which is effective through January 19, 2012, and the portion of the work effort that would be conducted under the updated rate schedule, which will be effective for the time period starting on January 20, 2012 through December 31, 2012. The two fee estimates are provided as Attachment B and Attachment C. The total fee estimate for this proposal is$72,284. Attachment D includes both the current and updated rate schedules. It is anticipated that one of the comments will pertain to the proposed sheet pile flood wall. At this time, the sheet pile floodwall has not been designed nor has the necessary structural analysis been conducted as required by FEMA. It is anticipated that there will be a comment from FEMA on this subject. The scope and fee estimate for resolution of this comment has been provided under a separate proposal and is therefore not included in the attached scope of work or fee estimate. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at iay.smithC@tetratech.com or at (206) 728- 9655. Sincerely, Jay Smith, Project Manager Tetra Tech, Inc. l+i)a 100 0 A riiurp uilr f) `Icmflk WA.ibf„ 01 TETRATECH ATTACHMENT A SCOPE OF WORK FOR THE BOEING LEVEE CONTRACT MODIFICATION NO. Contract Modification No. 2 includes the work effort necessary to address up to three (3) rounds of comments from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on the Boeing Levee CLOMR application that was submitted to FEMA on October 18, 2011. It is anticipated that one of the comments will pertain to the proposed sheet pile flood wall. At this time, the sheet pile floodwall has not been designed nor has the necessary structural analysis been conducted as required by FEMA. It is anticipated that there will be a comment from FEMA on this subject. However, the resolution of this comment is not included in the attached scope of work. This scope or work includes additional project management time under existing Task 1 and the creation of three new tasks (Tasks 12, 13 and 14) that include the effort to address FEMA comments. TASK 1 ® PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND MEETINGS Project management includes the work effort for internal Tetra Tech and Kleinfelder processing of the contract modification, preparing monthly invoices and oversight of project execution. For this task, an average of 1.5 hours per month is assumed for the Tetra Tech project manager for the estimated duration of the contract modification, which is assumed as November 2011 through December 2012, inclusive. TASK 12 ® FEMA COMMENTS ROUND 1 Tetra Tech and Kleinfelder will address comments provided by FEMA. The number of comments expected in this first round, and the level of effort necessary to address these first round comments is unknown at this time. The actual level of effort to address the comments will depend upon the nature and number of the comments. Therefore, the fee estimate reflects an estimate of the level of effort. This subtask will include the following work items: • Review FEMA comments and participate in a phone call meeting with City staff to discuss approach to addressing the comments. One staff member from each of Kleinfelder and Tetra Tech will participate in this phone call meeting. The consultant team will provide a brief written document to the City that outlines the approach to addressing the comments and the expected level of effort necessary to address the comments. • Tetra Tech and Kleinfelder will address the FEMA comments. • The consultant team will issue an addendum to the Boeing Levee CLOMR report that describes how the comments were addressed. It is assumed that the Boeing Levee CLOMR Application Report, dated October 2011, will not be reissued in its entirety as part of this contract modification. TASK 13 ® FEMA COMMENTS ROUND 2 Tetra Tech and Kleinfelder will address comments provided by FEMA. The number of comments expected in this second round, and the level of effort necessary to address these second round 2 TETRATECH comments is unknown at this time. The actual level of effort to address the comments will depend upon the nature and number of the comments. Therefore, the fee estimate reflects an estimate of the level of effort. This subtask will include the following work items: • Review FEMA comments and participate in a phone call meeting with City staff to discuss approach to addressing the comments. One staff member from each of Kleinfelder and Tetra Tech will participate in this phone call meeting. The consultant team will provide a brief written document to the City that outlines the approach to addressing the comments and the expected level of effort necessary to address the comments. • Tetra Tech and Kleinfelder will address the FEMA comments. • The consultant team will issue an addendum to the Boeing Levee CLOMR report that describes how the comments were addressed. It is assumed that the Boeing Levee CLOMR Application Report, dated October 2011, will not be reissued in its entirety as part of this contract modification. TASK 1 ® IFEMACOMMENTs ROUND 3 Tetra Tech and Kleinfelder will address comments provided by FEMA. The number of comments expected in this third round, and the level of effort necessary to address these third round comments is unknown at this time. The actual level of effort to address the comments will depend upon the nature and number of the comments. Therefore, the fee estimate reflects an estimate of the level of effort. This subtask will include the following work items: • Review FEMA comments and participate in a phone call meeting with City staff to discuss approach to addressing the comments. One staff member from each of Kleinfelder and Tetra Tech will participate in this phone call meeting. The consultant team will provide a brief written document to the City that outlines the approach to addressing the comments and the expected level of effort necessary to address the comments. • Tetra Tech and Kleinfelder will address the FEMA comments. • The consultant team will issue an addendum to the Boeing Levee CLOMR report that describes how the comments were addressed. It is assumed that the Boeing Levee CLOMR Application Report, dated October 2011, will not be reissued in its entirety as part of this contract modification. x M1F n d o 0o 0 e 0 a ,o o m10 o x3 ° 0 gip, o Ao N A O OO d 0 o d LU a 7 = aI JfVlVlvlYlmY Y ,. LLJ (] o cn v/ L a n O LLJ v y i L o o ri r =N � N Z L o W R U o W y m C F 3 "o O j... Z M o U U z m . n � Q I.w N ® u ® ® E 0 l+ C o . N rLLJW aN � LL y . a ly/1 cn W = o a0 ft ffi Fa £ co W F $ LL 0 L _ a W o ujJ t a a a v a s s s cn v �' EEE �',EEE �' EEE E o Rm' E TE.',EE W Y E,,.E W Y E.E W Y o g s -o gs -o 2 o d o O T N b JO o F » e e O a e m N a o C-4 x s Do 0 0O.. oo' d (}; W L1 0 W Q y® y V `cG ®w d a q M® W Q NLLJ Y 0 —70 aat a C L 6 W O tl q+ Y K R N ry U Y U LU z Z ~ W " L U =� F� U c u O Q ye W Cy q F U < W W OU LL Y aca o LU L W R r6 w W Y Fad E9 O r$ LL uW O r m 0 III' m ? g u u u coLU c ® W a c K E E E �'.E E E E �'.E E E o o ELU ui a w '.0 a a u a u a 6L, mEEiEwm E.,Ew E.,Ewm Y Y o Y � go LL LL a 4gp � gp4gp � gp4gp a (00 TET ATH ATTACHMENTD CURRENT AND UPDATED RATE SCHEDULE (RAW RATES) CONTRACT MODIFICATION . Current and Updated Rate Schedule City of Kent Boeing Levee Certification Current Billing Catagories Contract Updated Raw Raw All Billing Categories Rates(a) Ratesl6l Tetra Tech Senior Technical QA/QC $79.73 $79.73 no increase Tetra Tech Project Manager $69.93 $72.03 3% increase Tetra Tech Senior Engineer $51.49 $53.03 3% increase Tetra Tech Project Engineer $46.51 $47.91 3% increase Tetra Tech Staff Engineer $41.53 $42.78 3% increase Tetra Tech GIS $41.53 $42.78 3% increase Tetra Tech Word Processor $30.00 $30.90 3% increase Kleinfelder Principal Geotech $69.23 $71.31 3% increase Kleinfelder Senior Geotech $52.39 $53.96 3% increase Kleinfelder Staff Geotech $36.02 $37.10 3% increase Kleinfelder CAD Draftsman $30.51 $31.43 3% increase Kleinfelder Word Processor $24.50 $25.24 3% increase (a) Effective through January 19, 2012 (b) Effective January 20, 2012 through December 31, 2012 I+::Pm loch, Inc,,., 100 A rnu, 1,on, Y,0 `Icarrlr, WA,ibf„d101 1206/%6W In. ?ob,.%/' iJO ✓wwrrr ,rrtl MI I KENT Agenda Item: Consent Calendar — 7M TO: City Council DATE: November 15, 2011 SUBJECT: Boeing Levee Project, Amendment/GEI, Peer Review — Authorize MOTION: Authorize the Mayor to sign an Amendment with GEI Consultants for peer review of the Boeing Levee Project in the amount not to exceed $14,568, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and Public Works Director. SUMMARY: On February 15, 2011, Council authorized GEI's consultant contract for peer review of the Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) of the Boeing Levee in an amount not to exceed $17,920. The Public Works Department has requested GEI Consultants to perform additional services including peer review of the City's response to FEMA comments. The additional costs are $14,568 for a total amended contract of $32,488. The Boeing Levee project is approximately one river mile in length and is located between S. 200th St. and S. 212th St. on the right bank of the Green River. This levee reach, in combination with the other levee segments along the Green River, protect the Kent Valley businesses and residential areas from flood risks. EXHIBITS: Scope of Work RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee BUDGET IMPACTS: This contract will be paid through a grant from the Washington Department of Ecology administered through the King County Flood Control District. IIf Gcatechnical October 20, 2011 Environmental Water Resources Ecological Mr. Toby Hallock City of Kent Public Works Department 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 RE: Supplemental Proposal for Peer Review Engineering Services Boeing Levee System FEMA Accreditation - Green River Right Bank City of Kent, Washington Dear Mr. Hallock: We are pleased to submit this proposal for supplemental peer review services for the Boeing Levee System FEMA Accreditation project. Our proposed scope of work is based on your email dated October 20, 2011. Based on the City's previous experience working with FENIX we expect several rounds of review comments and submissions for the CLOMR application. We will review the response documents and revised CLOMR applications prepared by the City and their consultants in response to FEMA comments. Our comments will be provided in a letter after each review. For the purposes of this proposal,we have assumed 3 rounds of review comments with FEMA. Cost Estimate We will perform the above scope of service on a time and materials basis based on the attached Fee Schedule and Payment Terms associated with our current contract. Based on the information available to us,we estimate that the cost of performing the services outlined above will be approximately$14,568. Invoices will be submitted monthly based on the services performed as of the end of each billing period. Labor Budget Staff A.PuJol J.Nickerson Expense Task J K. Dirocco Labor Budget Total Rate ($229/hr) ($172/hr) Total Review response to FEMA Comments 12 60 $13,068 $1,500 $14,568 (Assume 3 rounds) v✓ww.geicans ill tants.com GEI Consultant,Inc. 180 Gtand Avenue,Suite 1410,Oakland,CA 94612 510.350.2900 fax:510.350.2900 Mr. Toby Hallock 2 October 20, 2011 Terms and Conditions Our work will be performed in accordance the terms and conditions negotiated by the City of Kent and GEI Consultants,Inc. Time of Completion We understand that the time of completion be of our current contract will be extended to December 31, 2012. It is understood that the FEMA review process will depend on FEMA's workload and other factors that are not within our control. GEI will continue to strive to respond to the City of Kent's needs on a timely basis. We appreciate the opportunity to submit this proposal and look forward to working with you on this project. Please call me at 510-350-2908 or Jim Nickerson at 781-721-4023 with any questions. Sincerely, GEI CONSULTANTS, INC. P&4r Alberto Pujol,P.E. Vice President, Project Manager KENT Agenda Item: Consent Calendar — 7N TO: City Council DATE: November 15, 2011 SUBJECT: SR 516 & 2315t Way Levee, Amendment/GEI FEMA Accreditation Support — Authorize MOTION: Authorize the Mayor to sign an Amendment with GEI Consultants to perform design and technical analysis in support of FEMA Accreditation for the SR 516 to S 231st Way Levee in an amount not to exceed $15,172, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and Public Works Director. SUMMARY: On February 1, 2011, Council authorized a consultant contract with GEI to prepare a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) certification report for the SR 516 to S 231st Way Levee in an amount not to exceed $499,498. The Public Works Department has requested GEI Consultants perform design and technical analysis in support of the FEMA accreditation process of the SR 516 to S 231st Way Levee. The work will include responding to FEMA's comments and revising submittals as necessary. The total additional costs are $70,172. However, there is $55,000 unspent on the original contract. Therefore, the total additional costs are $15,172 for a total amended contract amount of $514,670.00. The SR 516 to 231st Way Levee project is 2.7 river miles in length and is located on the right bank of the Green River, adjacent to the Lakes Community and Riverbend Golf Complex. This levee reach, in combination with the other levee segments along the Green River, protects the Kent Valley businesses and residential areas from flood risks. EXHIBITS: Scope of Work RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee BUDGET IMPACTS: There will be no unbudgeted fiscal impacts, as this expense was anticipated when the 2011 budget was developed. The contract will be paid through the stormwater utility. R October 20, 2011 Ms. Beth Tan, PE City of Kent Gcotechrdcel Public Works Department Enviiarimental 220 Fourth Avenue South watzr Resources Kent, WA98032 Eculoeal RE: Supplemental Proposal for Engineering Services CLOMR Application - SR 516 to S. 231't Way Levee Green River Right Bank River Mile 19.28 TO 22.05 City of Kent, Washington Dear Ms. Tan: We are pleased to submit this proposal for supplemental engineering services to support the CLOMR Application for the SR 516 to S. 231s`Way Levee. Our proposed scope of work is based on our email correspondence with you on October 12, 2011. Proposed Scope We understand that,based on the City's recent experience submitting CLOMR applications to FENIX you anticipate multiple rounds of review comments. For budgeting purposes,you are anticipating three rounds of review comments. Until the comments are provided by FENIX we do not know the nature or extent of the work that will be required to respond. In anticipation, we have made an assumption on the hours that will be required to respond to the comments. In addition,we will also provide a review of the City's Engineering Cost Estimate for the work shown on the 30% Design Submittal that was included in the CLOMR application. We will perform the work on a time and materials basis. Our estimate of hours is provided in the table below: Labor Budget J.Nickerson Staff A. Grade 4 Grade 2 Expense Item Pujol Professional Professional Labor Total K. DiRocco Total Budget Rate $229/hr $172/hr $127/hr $104/hr Cost Estimate 4 8 24 12 $6,588 $500 $7,088 Review FENIA Comment 12 40 80 80 $28,108 $3,500 $31,608 Response Round 1 0 FENIA Comment 'x 8 16 60 60 $18,444 $1,000 $19,444 Response Round 2 FENIA Comment 4 8 40 40 $11,532 $500 $12,032 Response Round 3 Total Cost 1 28 72 1 204 192 1 $70,172 Amount Estimated to Remain on Existing $55,000 Contract Contract Amendment $15,172 wo✓w.geiconsults�ts.com GEI Consultant,Inc. 180 Grand Avenue,Suite 1410,Oakland,CA 94612 510.350.2900 tax:510.350.2900 Ms. Beth Tan 2 October 20, 2011 Current Project Status We recently completed our FEMA Accreditation Report and understand the City has sent the CLOMR application to FEMA. Therefore, the scope of work under our existing contract is substantially complete. We expect to have approximately $55,000 remaining in our current budget once reproduction and other expenses are processed and recognized. Requested Budget Addition The remaining budget of approximately $55,000 will need to be supplemented with an additional $15,172 to meet the proposed $70,172 budget for the work outlined in this letter. Accordingly,we are requesting a budget amendment of$15,172 to accomplish the scope outlined above. We propose to consolidate the remaining project budget with the requested addition and reallocate it to a new Task 10—Response to FEMA comments. Time of Completion In follow up to our telephone conversation,we request that the time of completion be extended to December 31, 2012. It is understood that the FEMA review process will depend on FEMA's workload and other factors that are not within our control. GEI will continue to strive to respond to the City of Kent's needs on a timely basis. Other Terms and Conditions Our work will be performed in accordance the terms and conditions negotiated by the City of Kent and GEI Consultants,Inc. under our Consulting Services Agreement dated February 18, 2011. We appreciate the opportunity to submit this proposal and look forward to working with you on this project. Please call me at 510-350-2908 or Jim Nickerson at 781-721-4023 with any questions. Sincerely, GEI CONSULTANTS,INC. P&4r Alberto Pujol,P.E. Vice President,Project Manager KENT Agenda Item: Consent Calendar — 70 TO: City Council DATE: November 15, 2011 SUBJECT: SR 516 & 2315t Way Levee, Amendment/NHC, CLOMR Review — Authorize MOTION: Authorize the Mayor to sign an Amendment with Northwest Hydraulic Consultants to support the FEMA accreditation process for the SR 516 to S 231" Way Levee in an amount not to exceed $30,000, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and Public Works Director. SUMMARY: The City submitted the Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) request for the SR 516-231" Levee on October 131h 2011, to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). We expect to receive review comments from FEMA that will require responses from the consultants. This amendment will allow Northwest Hydraulic Consultants to provide a timely response once we receive additional comments from FEMA. EXHIBITS: Scope of Work RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee BUDGET IMPACTS: There will be no unbudgeted fiscal impacts, as this expense was anticipated when the 2011 budget was developed. The contract will be paid through the stormwater utility. SCOPE OF WORK - AMENDMENT #1 TO HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS OF SR516-2315t LEVEE - CLOMR REVIEW RESPONSE I DESCRIPTION OF WORK / PROJECT OBJECTIVES The objective of this contract is for Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, Inc. (NHC) to provide continued technical support in the response to questions by FEMA and its contractors regarding submittals related to the application for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) of the Horseshoe Bend Levee. TASKS, ITEMS, AND WORK PRODUCTS NHC shall furnish all services and labor necessary to furnish responses to comments from FEMA and it contractors. Major items NHC will be responsible for responding to include: Interior Drainage Analysis; Floodplain Modeling & Mapping; Scour Analysis; and Risk Based Analysis of Reduced Freeboard. Upon receipt and analysis of comments from FEMA and/or its contractors NHC and the City of Kent shall jointly agree to a) all comments that NHC is responsible for, and b) the type of response and deliverable required. Work and work products may include but not be limited to: • Written responses and clarifications to comments. Direct communications with FEMA contractors regarding comments received.• i • Modification and re-running of hydraulic models. • Modification of floodplain mapping products. • Preparation of revised reports and mapping products in hard copy and digital form for re- submittal. • Review and coordination with City of Kent and other consultants to ensure consistency of all deliverables. • Meetings and other communications as necessary or requested in the preparation of responses. STAFF AND COORDINATION WITH OTHERS The Principal-in-Charge will be Mr. Todd Bennett. Mr. Vaughn Collins will serve as project manager and senior engineer, and Alex Anderson will serve as engineer. NHC will coordinate with geotechnical consultants and the City of Kent the in scheduling and delivery of products needed for geotechnical analysis, plan revision and resubmittal. SCHEDULE Schedule is dependent upon FEMA contractor review time and scope of comments received. Upon receipt of comments from the City of Kent, NHC and Kent shall jointly agree to a schedule of response for each comment. It is understood that there is a 90 day response deadline upon receipt of comments from FEMA that must be met in all cases. 1 COST ESTIMATE ........ _... _. ___._ �_.._.. . I 16300 Christensen Road,Suite 350 Prepared for City of Kent Seattle,WA 98188-3418 Project: SR516-231st CLOMR Response - -- - ----- Date: October 5 2011 Fax (206)439-2420 Project#: Prepared By: Vaughn Collins -- - TASK DESCRIPTION _.._ _.... Sr. Jr.. Total Principal Engineer Engineer Engineer GIS Tech Clerical $0 $D Past Submittal Redew Support 8 - 80 60 40 8 $28,775 Total $28775 Total Hours L8.0 80.0 80.0 0.0 40.0 1 8.0 Direct Labor Rate 67.53 49.52 36.32 '.. 30.69 22.12 '. 22.80 '.. Overhead(208.7 h) i 140.94 '. 103.35 ! 75.79 '. 64.05 46.15 ', 47.58 '. -.--__ _ .. _ __... ,...... ,Profit(10%of DL+OH) I 20.85 15.29 11.21 ; 9.47 6.63 7.04 ' Rates - $229.32 1 $168.15 $123.32 1 $104.21 1 $75.10 $77.42 TOTALLAROR COST(NHC) - ���_-- -_-_-- $28,775 Direct Expense Detail Units Rate Cost Repmduchon,Couriers,&Communication 1 1 206r$ 1,206 Mileage. 36 051�$ 18 $ 1224 .Cost Summary Total Labor $ 28,775 li _- Total Direct Expenses $ 1,224 _..-`TOTAL COST. - $ 30,000 '.. 2 i KENT Agenda Item: Consent Calendar — 7P TO: City Council DATE: November 15, 2011 SUBJECT: SR 516 & 2315t Way Levee, Amendment/Tetra Tech, FEMA Accreditation and Peer Review — Authorize MOTION: Authorize the Mayor to sign an Amendment with Tetra Tech Inc., for peer review of the FEMA accreditation process for the SR 516 to S. 231st Way Levee in the amount not to exceed $6,315, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and Public Works Director. SUMMARY: On February 15, 2011, Council authorized a consultant contract with Tetra Tech for peer review of the Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) certification report for the SR 516 to S. 231st Way Levee in an amount not to exceed $13,702. The Public Works Department has requested Tetra Tech perform additional peer review services in support of the FEMA accreditation process of the SR 516 to S 231" Way Levee. The additional costs are $6,315.00 for a total amended contract amount of $20,017. The SR 516 to S. 231st Way Levee project is 2.7 river miles in length and is located on the right bank of the Green River, adjacent to the Lakes Community and Riverbend Golf Complex. This levee reach, in combination with the other levee segments along the Green River, protect the Kent Valley businesses and residential areas from flood risks. EXHIBITS: Scope of Work RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee BUDGET IMPACTS: There will be no unbudgeted fiscal impacts, as this expense was anticipated when the 2011 budget was developed. The contract will be paid through the stormwater utility. T TRATECH October 24 2011 Mark Madfai City of Dent Public Works Department 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 RE: Additional FEMA Review Support for SR-516 Dear Mark: As requested, below please find below our Scope of Work and Fee Estimate for the Additional FEMA Review Support related to the Peer Review of the Levee Certification Package for the SR-516 Levee. I Scope of Work This task assumes that FEMA will provide 3 sets of comments on the SR-516 Levee CLOMR submittal. Each set of comments is estimated to require up to 10 hours of peer review support.The hours (30 hours total)are a combined effort for Civil review and Geotechnical review. FEE ESTIMATE Role Hourly Rate Hours Total Senior Project Manager $210.50 15 $3,157.50 Sr.Geotechnical Engineer $210.50 15 $3,157.50 GRAND TOTAL 30 $6,315 If you have any questions,feel free to contact me at 949.809.5099. Sincerely, Patti Sexton, P.E. Project Manager 17885 Von Karman Avenue,Suite 500,Irvine,CA 92614 Tel 949,809.5900 Fax:949.809.5010 WwW.tetratech.com KENT Agenda Item: Consent Calendar — 70 TO: City Council DATE: November 15, 2011 SUBJECT: Briscoe/Desi mone Levee, Amendment/GEO Engineers, Analysis & Certification — Authorize MOTION: Authorize the Mayor to sign an Amendment with GeoEngineers, Inc., to perform analysis and certification of the Briscoe/Desimone Levee Project in an amount not to exceed $66,145, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and Public Works Director. SUMMARY: On January 18, 2011, Council authorized GeoEngineers, Inc. contract to perform analysis and certification of the Briscoe/Desimone Levee in an amount not to exceed $158,425. This amendment provides for additional services for analysis of sheet pile walls, for revisions to the operations and maintenance manual, to respond to FEMA comments, and to revise submittals as necessary. The additional costs are $66,145 for a total amended contract amount of $224,570. The Briscoe/Desimone Levee project is 2.7 river miles in length and is located between S. 2001h St. and S. 1801h St. EXHIBITS: Scope of Work RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee BUDGET IMPACTS: There will be no unbudgeted fiscal impacts, as this expense was anticipated when the 2011 budget was developed. The contract will be paid through the stormwater utility. I EXHIBIT A GEOENGINEERS, INC. DESIMONE AND BRISCOE LEVEES ANALYSIS AND CERTIFICATION GREEN RIVER, FROM RIVER MILE 13.5 TO 17.0 RENT,WASHINGTON OCTOBER 7, 2011 FILE NO. 0410-176-00 SCOPE OF SERVICES -GEOTECHNICAL The purpose of our services is to provide additional recommendations for the design and construction of the Desimone and Briscoe Levee project, address comments from Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA)and reviewers,and update our previous certification report as necessary. Our geotechnical scope of services includes: 1. Provide additional analysis and design recommendations for levee construction including recommendations and analysis for design of roadway sections constructed on certified levees, analysis of the impacts of existing structures on existing levee sections, and additional recommendations for the design and construction of sheet pile I-Walls. This includes providing design parameters for the structural design of sheet pile I-Walls. 2. Attend meetings with City of Kent and the design team or FEMA to coordinate geotechnical engineering and civil engineering design with the City of Kent and assist with levee certification. 3. Assist the City of Kent with revisions to the operations and maintenance manual and other parts of the submittal as needed. 4. Address comments and revise submittals as needed. We have assumed up to three rounds of comments and revisions between now and December 2012. This includes coordination with the City of Kent, Northwest Hydraulics, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), FEMA, and others as required to incorporate necessary revisions into the submittal of the final report. Our scope does not include developing plans for construction of levee improvements. This scope also does not include any construction management, monitoring or inspections. us:GwH d Attachment: Exhibit B Fee Estimate Disclaimer..Any electronic form,facsimile or hard copy of the original document(email,text,table,and/or figure),if provided,and any attachments are only a copy of the original document The original document is stored by GeoEngineers,Inc.and will serve as the official document of record. copyright©2011 by GeoEngineers,Inc.All rights reserved. i EXHIBIT H FEE ESTIMATE CIS-( OF KEfNT ADDITIONAL GEOTECH LAICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES DESIMONE AND BRISCOE LEVEES ANALYSIS AND CERTIFICATION GREEN RIVER, FROM RIVER MILE 13.5 TO 17.0 FILE NO.0410-176-00 Personnel Hours x Rate = Cost Principal(Gary Henderson) 75 x $160 = $12,000 ',.. Project Engineer 1(Lyle Stone) 210 x $145 = $30,450 Engineer/Scientist 1(Craig Jordan) 135 x $112 = $15,120 CAD Designer 45 x $85 = $3,825 � Support 30 x $75 = $2,250 Subtotal Personnel Cost(direct costs) $63,645 Other Expenses Reproduction, Mileage,Other Expenses $2,500 Subtotal(indirect costs) $2,500 Total Estimated Costs $66,145 i i File No.0410-176-00 October7,2011 GEoE NGINEERS j .»ram KENT Agenda Item: Consent Calendar — 7R TO: City Council DATE: November 15, 2011 SUBJECT: Briscoe/Desi mone Levee, Amendment/NHC, CLOMR Review — Authorize MOTION: Authorize the Mayor to sign an Amendment with Northwest Hydraulic Consultants to support the FEMA Accreditation process for the Briscoe- Desimone Levee in an amount not to exceed $30,000, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and Public Works Director. SUMMARY: The City recently submitted the Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) request for the Briscoe-Desimone Levee to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). We expect to receive review comments from FEMA that we will need to respond to. This amendment will allow Northwest Hydraulic Consultants to provide a timely response once we receive additional comments from FEMA. EXHIBITS: Scope of Work RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee BUDGET IMPACTS: There will be no unbudgeted fiscal impacts, as this expense was anticipated when the 2011 budget was developed. The contract will be paid through the stormwater utility. i SCOPE OF WORK - AMENDMENT #1 TO HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS OF i BRISCOE-DESIMONE LEVEE - CLOMR REVIEW RESPONSE DESCRIPTION OF WORK / PROJECT OBJECTIVES The objective of this contract is for Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, Inc. (NHC) to provide continued technical support in the response to questions by FEMA and its contractors regarding submittals related to the application for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) of the Briscoe-Desimone Levee. TASKS, ITEMS, AND WORK PRODUCTS NHC shall furnish all services and labor necessary to furnish responses to comments from FEMA and it contractors. Major items NHC will be responsible for responding to include: Interior Drainage Analysis; F000dplain Modeling & Mapping; Scour Analysis; and Risk Based Analysis of Reduced Freeboard. Upon receipt and analysis of comments from FEMA and/or its contractors NHC and the City of Kent shall jointly agree to a) all comments that NHC is responsible for, and b) the type of response and deliverable required. Work and work products may include but not be limited to: • Written responses and clarifications to comments. • Direct communications with FEMA contractors regarding comments received. • Modification and re-running of hydraulic models. • Modification of floodplain mapping products. • Preparation of revised reports and mapping products in hard copy and digital form for re- submittal. • Review and coordination with City of Kent and other consultants to ensure consistency of all deliverables. • Meetings and other communications as necessary or requested in the preparation of responses. STAFF AND COORDINATION WITH OTHERS The Principal-in-Charge will be Mr. Todd Bennett. Mr. Vaughn Collins will serve as project manager and senior engineer, and Alex Anderson will serve as engineer. NHC will coordinate with geotechnical consultants and the City of Kent the in scheduling and delivery of products needed for geotechnical analysis, plan revision and resubmittal. SCHEDULE Schedule is dependent upon FEMA contractor review time and scope of comments received. Upon receipt of comments from the City of Kent, NHC and Kent shall jointly agree to a schedule of response for each comment. It is understood that there is a 90 day response deadline upon receipt of comments from FEMA that must be met in all cases. - 1 COST ESTIMATE Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Estimate of Professional Services 16300 Christensen Road,Suite 350 Prepared for: ;City of Kent Seattle,WA 98 1 8 8-341 8 Project: Briscoe-Desinnone CLOMR Response Tel. (206) 241.6000 Date: October5, 2011 Fax (206)439-2420 Project#: Prepared By: Vaughn Collins TASK DESCRIPTION Sr. Jr. Totals Principal Engineer Engineer Engineer GIS Tech. Clerical $0 Post Submittal ReNew Support 8 80 80 40 8 $28,775 Total = $28,775 Total Hours�• �� •:.:. 8.0 80 0 80.0 0 0 40.0 8 0 Direct Labor Rate 67.53 49.52 1 36.32 30.69 22.12 22.80 Oserhead(208.7/0) 140.1)4 103.35 75.79 64.06 46.15 47 58 Profit(10%of DL+OH) 20.85 15.29 11.21 9.47 6.63 7.04 Rates $229.32 $168.15 1 $123.32 $104.21 1 $75.10 $77.42 TOTAL LAEOR COST(NHC) - ' $28,775 Direct Expense Detail Units Rate Cost $. Reproduction Couriers,&Communication 1 1 206r$ 1,,206 Mileage ... _. __. 36 0.51r$. 18 1,224 Cost summary Total Labor $ 28.775 Total birect Expenses - $ 1,224 .TOTAL COST I $ 30,000 2 KENT Agenda Item: Consent Calendar — 7S TO: City Council DATE: November 15, 2011 SUBJECT: Briscoe/Desi mone Levee, Amendment/GEI, CLOMR Peer Review — Authorize MOTION: Authorize the Mayor to sign an Amendment with GEI Consultants for peer review of the FEMA Accreditation process for the Briscoe/Desimone Levee Project in an amount not to exceed $25,200, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and Public Works Director. SUMMARY: On February 15, 2011, Council authorized GEI's consultant contract for peer review of the Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) of the Briscoe/ Desimone Levee in an amount not to exceed $19,342. The Public Works Department has requested GEI to perform additional services including peer review of sheet pile walls, review of construction cost estimate, and response to FEMA comments. The additional costs are $25,200 for a total amended contact amount of $44,542. The Briscoe/Desimone Levee project is 2.7 river miles in length and is located between S. 2001h St. and S. 1801h St. EXHIBITS: Scope of Work RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee BUDGET IMPACTS: There will be no unbudgeted fiscal impacts, as this expense was anticipated when the 2011 budget was developed. The contract will be paid through the stormwater utility. I.,IIf Geotechnical Environmental October 7, 2011 Water Resources Ecological Mr. Ken Langholz City of Kent Public Works Department 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 RE: Supplemental Proposal for Peer Review Engineering Services Briscoe-Desimone Levee System FEMA Accreditation - Green River Right Bank City of Kent, Washington Dear Mr. Langholz: We are pleased to submit this proposal for supplemental peer review services for the Briscoe- Desimone levee system FEMA Accreditation project. Our proposed scope of work is based on our telephone conversation with you on October 4, 2011. Our proposed scope of work is summarized below: Task 1—Peer Review of the levee upgrade concepts proposed by GeoEngineers in their letter to you titled`Draft Report Sheet Pile Wall, Preliminary Concepts,"dated March 3, 2011. We understand that purpose of this peer review is to provide a second opinion to the City regarding the proposed concepts for strengthening the existing levee with sheet piles and the ballpark costs provided for construction of the strengthening concepts. Also,we understand the following: • Design calculations and detailed cost breakdowns are not available for our review. • Detailed engineering analyses are not required. • Site specific geology is not available for our review. From our conversation with you,we understand that we should assume the geologic conditions at the proposed levee strengthening locations are similar to the geologic conditions encountered in the section of levee currently being evaluated for certification by GEI. • Cross section drawings are available in the areas proposed for levee strengthening. The City will provide available cross sections to GEI for review. We propose the following scope of work: v✓ww.geicans ill tants.com GEI C,u9.Itant3,Inc. 180 Gtand Avenue,Suite 1410,Oakland,CA 94612 510.350.2900 fax:510.350.2900 Mr. Ken Langholz 2 October 7, 2011 1. Review the technical merits of the strengthening concepts presented in GeoEngineers March 3, 2011 letter to the City. 2. Review the levee geometry and proximity of adjacent buildings, and evaluate other possible levee strengthening alternatives that could be considered, if available. 3. Review the ballpark costs provided in the GeoEngineers letter. 4. Prepare a letter summarizing the results of our review and our recommendations. Task 2—Peer Review of Construction Cost Estimate of the proposed levee modifications included on the City's current 35%Design Drawings. We propose the following scope of work: 1. Review the unit costs provided with the cost estimate. 2. Review the estimated quantities provided in the cost estimate. 3. Prepare a letter summarizing the results of our review and our recommendations. Task 3—Peer Review Response to FEMA Comments on CLOMR Submittal. Based on the City's previous experience working with FEMA, we expect several rounds of review comments and submissions for the CLOMR application. We will review the response document and revised CLOMR application prepared by the City and their consultants in response to FEMA comments. Our comments will be provided in a letter. For the purposes of this proposal,we have assumed 3 rounds of review comments with FEMA. Cost Estimate We will perform the above scope of service on a time and materials basis based on the attached Fee Schedule and Payment Terms. Based on the information available to us,we estimate that the cost of performing the services outlined above will be approximately$25,200. The estimated cost includes approximately 102 hours of Senior Engineer time and 24 hours of Senior Project Manager time. Invoices will be submitted monthly based on the services performed as of the end of each billing period. Labor Budget Task Staff A.PnJol J.Nickerson Expense Total K. Dirocco Labor Budget Rate ($229/hr) ($172/hr) Total 1 —Review Sheet Pile Wall Preliminary 8 22 $5,616 $460 $6,076 Concepts Report 2—Construction Cost 4 20 $4,356 $200 $4,556 Estimate 3 —Review response to FEMA Comments 12 60 $13,068 $1,500 $14,568 (Assume 3 rounds) Total 24 102 $25,200 Mr. Ken Langholz 3 October 7, 2011 Terms and Conditions Our work will be performed in accordance the terms and conditions negotiated by the City of Kent and GEI Consultants,Inc. We appreciate the opportunity to submit this proposal and look forward to working with you on this project. Please call me at 510-350-2908 or Jim Nickerson at 781-721-4023 with any questions. Sincerely, GEI CONSULTANTS, INC. P&4r Alberto Pujol,P.E. Vice President, Project Manager Attachments: GEI Fee Schedule and Payment Terms FEE SCHEDULE AND PAYMENT TERMS FEE SCHEDULE Hourly Billing Rate Personnel Caleaory $oer hour Staff Professional—Grade 1 $ 94 Staff Professional—Grade 2 $ 104 Project Professional—Grade 3 $ 114 Project Professional—Grade 4 S 127 Senior Professional—Grade 5 $ 151 Senior Professional—Grade 6 $ 172 Senior Professional—Grade 7 $204 Senior Consultant—Grade 8 $229 Senior Consultant—Grade 9 $282 Senior Principal—Grade 10 $282 Senior CADD Drafter and Designer $ 114 CADD Drafter I Designer and Senior Technician $ 104 Technician, Word Processor, Administrative Staff $ 84 Office Aide $ 67 These rates are billed for both regular and overtime hours in all categories. Rates will increase up to 5% annually, at GET's option, for all contracts that extend beyond twelve(12)months after the date of the contract OTHER PROJECT COSTS Snhconaultants, Subcontractors and Other Pru tcl Expenses - All costs for subconsultants, subcontractors and other project expanses will be billed at cost plus a /. service charge. Examples of such expenses ordinarily charged Af 1/7/11 to projects are subcontractors; subconsultants: chemical laboratory charges; rented or leased Field and laboratory equipment; outside printing and reproduction; communications and mailing charges; reproduction expenses; shipping casts for samples and equipment; disposal of samples; rental vehicles; fares for travel on public carriers; special fees for insurance certificates, permits, licenses, etc.; fees for restoration of paving or land due to field exploration, etc.; state sales and use taxes and state taxes on GET fees. Billing Rates for CADD and Specialized Technical Computer Programs — Computer usage for CADD and specialized technical programs will be billcd at a flat rate of$10.00 per hour in addition to the labor required to operate the computer. Field and Laboratory Equipment Billing Rates — GEI-owned field and laboratory equipment such as pumps, sampling equipment, monitoring instrumentation, field density equipment, portable gas chromatographs, etc. will be billed at a daily,weekly,or monthly rate,as needed for the project. Expendable supplies are billed at a unit rate. Transportation and Subsistence- Automobile expenses for GET or employee owned cars will be charged at the rate per mile set by the Internal Revenue Service [or tax purposes plus tolls and parking charges. When required for a project, four-wheel drive vehicles owned by GEI or the employees will be billed at a daily rate appropriate for those vehicles. Per diem living costs for personnel on assignment away from their home office will be negotiated for each project. PAYMENTTERMS Invoices will be submitted monthly or upon completion of a specified scope of service, as described in the accom- panying contract(proposal,project,or agreement document that is signed and dated by GEI and CLIENT). Payment is due upon receipt of the invoi c.�Iv�Y rest will accrue at the rate of t%of the invoice amount per month,for amounts that remain unpaid more than 'icclays after the invoice data All payments will be made by either check or 1/7/11 electronic transfer to the address specified by GET and will include reference to GET's invoice number. Standard Fee Schedule 2011 Effective January 1,2011 W," Agenda Item: Consent Calendar — 7T TO: City Council DATE: November 15, 2011 SUBJECT: Horseshoe Bend Levee, Contract/NHC, CLOMR Review — Authorize MOTION: Authorize the Mayor to sign a Consultant Services Agreement with Northwest Hydraulic Consultants to support the FEMA accreditation process for the Horseshoe Bend Levee in an amount not to exceed $30,000, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and Public Works Director. SUMMARY: The City submitted Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) requests for the Horseshoe Bend and Foster Park Levees in September of 2010. Since then we have responded to 3 sets of review comments from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requiring a significant amount of work from our consultants. We expect more review comments that we will need to respond to before FEMA approves the CLOMR requests. This contract will allow Northwest Hydraulic Consultants to provide timely responses once we receive additional comments from FEMA. EXHIBITS: Scope of Work RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee BUDGET IMPACTS: The cost of this amendment will be fully paid for by the $10 million grant from the Department of Ecology. SCOPE OF WORK - CLOMR REVIEW RESPONSE DESCRIPTION OF WORK / PROJECT OBJECTIVES The objective of this contract is for Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, Inc. (NHC) to provide continued technical support in the response to questions by FEMA and its contractors regarding submittals related to the application for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) of the Horseshoe Bend Levee. TASKS, ITEMS, AND WORK PRODUCTS NHC shall furnish all services and labor necessary to furnish responses to comments from FEMA and it contractors. Major items NHC will be responsible for responding to include: Interior Drainage Analysis; Floodplain Modeling & Mapping; Scour Analysis; and Risk Based Analysis of Reduced Freeboard. Upon receipt and analysis of comments from FEMA and/or its contractors NHC and the City of Kent shall jointly agree to a) all comments that NHC is responsible for, and b)the type of response and deliverable required. Work and work products may include but not be limited to: • Written responses and clarifications to comments. • Direct communications with FEMA contractors regarding comments received. • Modification and re-running of hydraulic models. • Modification of floodplain mapping products. • Preparation of revised reports and mapping products in hard copy and digital form for re- submittal. • Review and coordination with City of Kent and other consultants to ensure consistency of all deliverables. • Meetings and other communications as necessary or requested in the preparation of responses. STAFF AND COORDINATION WITH OTHERS The Principal-in-Charge will be Mr. Todd Bennett. Mr. Vaughn Collins will serve as project manager and senior engineer, and Alex Anderson will serve as engineer. NHC will coordinate with geotechnical consultants and the City of Kent the in scheduling and delivery of products needed for geotechnical analysis, plan revision and resubmittal. SCHEDULE Schedule is dependent upon FEMA contractor review time and scope of comments received. Upon receipt of comments from the City of Kent, NHC and Kent shall jointly agree to a schedule of response for each comment. It is understood that there is a 90 day response deadline upon receipt of comments from FEMA that must be met in all cases. COST ESTIMATE Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Estimate of Professional Services 16300 Christensen Road,Suite 350 Prepared for: ,City of Kent Seattle,WA 98188-3418 Project: Horseshoe Bend CLOMR Response Tel.(206)241-6000 _ Date: 'October 5,2011 Fax (206)439-2420 Project#: Prepared By: ,Vaughn Collins TASK DESCRIPTION Sr. Jr. Total Principal Engineer Engineer Engineer GIS Tech. Clerical _... _ $0 $0 Post Submittal Review Support 8 80 80 40 8 $28,775 Total= $28,776 Total Hours 8.0 80.0 80.0 0.6 40.0 8.0 Direct Labor Rate 67.53 49.52 36.32 30.69 22.12 22.80 Overhead(208 7%) 140.94 103.35 75.79 64.05 46.15 47.58 Profit(10%of DL+OH) 20.85 15.29 11.21 9.47 6.83 7.04 Rates $229.32 $168.15 $123.32 $104.21 $75.10 $77.42 TOTAL LABOR COST(NHC) $28,775 Direct Expense Detail Units. Rate Cost $: Reproduction,Couners &Communication 1 1,206 $ 1,206 Mileage 36 0.51'$ 18 Cost Summary Total Labor $ 28,775 Total Direct Expenses .i $ 1.224 TOTAL COST 1 $ 30,000 2 KENT Agenda Item: Consent Calendar — 7U TO: City Council DATE: November 15, 2011 SUBJECT: Horseshoe Bend Levee, Contract/Tetra Tech, CLOMR Review & Stability Analysis — Authorize MOTION: Authorize the Mayor to sign a Consultant Services Agreement with Tetra Tech, Inc., for peer review of the FEMA accreditation process for the Horseshoe Bend/Foster Park Levee Project in an amount not to exceed $18,372, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and Public Works Director. SUMMARY: The City has submitted the Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) request to FEMA last September. We have received three comment letters back requiring additional work by staff and consultants to respond. We do expect additional comments from FEMA before it is approved. Tetra Tech is providing peer review of the response packets prior to being sent back to FEMA, they are also providing an independent slope stability analysis to confirm GeoEngineers' results. EXHIBITS: Scope of Work RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee BUDGET IMPACTS: The cost of this work is covered entirely by the $10 million Department of Ecology grant for the Horseshoe Bend Levee. NTIETRATECH October 27, 2011 Mark Madfai City of Kent Public Works Department 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 RE: Support for Horseshoe Bend and Foster Park Contract Dear Mark: As requested,below please find below our Scope of Work and Fee Estimate for Support related to the Peer Review of the Levee Certification Packages for the Horseshoe Bend Levee and Foster Park Levee. Scope of Work Task 1. Peer Review for FEMA Comments This contract assumes that FEMA will provide 3 sets of comments on the Horseshoe Bend Levee CLOMR submittal and 3 sets of comments on the Foster Park CLOMR submittal. Each set of comments is estimated to require up to 10 hours of peer review support for each submittal. The hours (60 hours total) are a combined effort for Civil review and Geotechnical review of both Horseshoe Bend and Foster Park. (Task Cost: $12,630) Task 2. Independent Analysis of Geotechnical Stabilty Tetra Tech will perform an independent analysis of the geotechnical stability of the Horseshoe Bend Levee at the location where the levee was raised. This analysis will rely on the boring data and laboratory results included in the"Levee Stability Analysis and Certification"report(GeoEngineers August 2010). (Task Cost$5,742) FEE ESTIMATE Role Hourly Rate Hours Total Senior Project Manager $210.50 34 $7,157 Sr. Geotechnical Engineer $210.50 38 $7,999 Project Engineer $134 24 $3,216 GRAND TOTAL 60 $18,372 If you have any questions,feel free to contact me at 949.809.5099. Sincerely, Patti Sexton,P.E. Project Manager 17885 Von Karman Avenue,Suite 500, Irvine,CA 92614 I el: 949.809.5900 Fayr: 949.809.5010 www.te mtech.com KENT Agenda Item: Consent Calendar — 7V TO: City Council DATE: November 15, 2011 SUBJECT: Horseshoe Bend Levee, Contract GeoEngineers Additional Geotechnical Analysis — Authorize MOTION: Authorize the Mayor to sign a Consultant Services Agreement with GeoEngineers, Inc. for the Horseshoe Bend Levee for additional geotechnical analysis in an amount not to exceed $67,930, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and Public Works Director. SUMMARY: The City has been working closely with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to certify the Green River levees within Kent. As part of this certification effort, the City has constructed secondary levees along the east and west sides of Horseshoe Bend. In order to complete the Horseshoe Bend Levee certification, it will be necessary to conduct additional geotechnical studies to evaluate levee alternatives. EXHIBITS: Scope of Work RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee BUDGET IMPACTS: The cost of this work will be fully paid for through the $10 million grant from the Department of Ecology. EXHIBIT A GEOENGINEERS, INC. HORSESHOE BEND LEVEE WALLS AND ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS GREEN RIVER, FROM UPRR TO RIVER MILE 26.0 KENT,WASHINGTON OCTOBER 25,2011 FILE NO.0410-172-04 INTRODUCTION The purpose of the project is to connect the new improvements to the Horseshoe Bend Levee (currently under construction)to the existing Foster Park Levee to the west and high ground at the valley wall to the east. The preliminary alignment for the Foster Park connection indicates that the project will consist of three segments of levee walls totaling about 1,800 linear feet, raising portions of 1st,3rd and 5(h Avenues, and constructing retaining walls at grade changes. The preliminary alignment of the high ground connection indicates that the project will consist of a single levee wall with multiple closures at private driveways. The purpose of our services will be to conduct subsurface explorations as a basis for developing design recommendations and completing analysis for the certification of levees. We anticipate two general work phases in our approach: * Develop preliminary recommendations for the design and construction of retaining walls and levee floodwalls. The purpose of these preliminary recommendations will be to assist the City of Kent in the design and layout of the levee components so they may be incorporated into the final road and levee design. Once a final levee layout is determined we will complete a more detailed analysis of the levee sections for inclusion in the Levee Analysis and Certification reports completed for the Foster Park and Horseshoe Bend Levees. I SCOPE OF SERVICES Our specific geotechnical scope of services for the Desimone and Briscoe Levees includes: 1. Review existing information, including in-house reports, reports by others provided by the City of Kent and appropriate Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)documents. 2. Conduct a site visit prior to subsurface explorations to coordinate exploration locations and site safety issues with the design team. 3. Coordinate clearance and location of existing underground public utilities in the project area. We will contact the Washington Utilities Coordinating Council "One Call" service prior to beginning City of Kent October 26,2011 Page 2 explorations. We request that City of Kent and City of Tukwila personnel confirm that exploration locations are clear from potential damage to City-owned underground utilities. 4. Complete three Cone Penetration Test (CPT) soundings to 50 feet along the Foster Park connection levee alignment. The explorations will be completed on existing City of Kent right-of-way. We understand permitting and site access coordination for explorations will be completed as necessary by the City of Kent. 5. Provide recommendations for the design and construction of levee walls. We will address levee T-walls and levee I-walls. We will provide allowable bearing pressures, lateral earth pressures, and hydrostatic uplift pressures. Structural design will be completed by others. 6. Provide recommendations for the design and construction of retaining walls. We will provide design soil properties for the design of proprietary structural earth walls. We will also provide recommendations for incorporating retaining walls into earth berm levees. 7. Complete stability and seepage analyses for proposed levee cross sections under each of the following conditions: end of construction, steady state seepage during full flood stage, sudden drawdown, and seismic conditions. Stability analysis will be based in part on survey data provided by the City of Kent and hydraulics information. We anticipate developing ten design cross sections,eight for the Foster Park Connection and two for the high ground connection. 8. Attend meetings with City of Kent and the design team or FEMA to coordinate geotechnical engineering and civil engineering design with the City of Kent and assist with levee certification. 9. Incorporate this analysis into the Levee Certification Reports previously prepared for Foster Park and Horseshoe Bend Levees. Our report will be part of the submittal to FEMA. 10. Review plans related to the flood barrier prepared by us and the City of Kent as required for the submittal to FEMA. 11.Assist the City of Kent in revising the Horseshoe Bend and Foster Park Levee Operations and Maintenance manual, MT2 forms and other parts of the submittal as needed. 12. Address comments and revise submittals as needed. We have assumed up to two additional rounds of comments and revisions between now and December 2012. This includes coordination with the City of Kent, the design team, USACE, FEMA and others as required to incorporate necessary revisions into the submittal of the final report. Our scope does not include a detailed finite element analysis of earthquake induced liquefaction or displacement and is not expected to be necessary. This scope also does not include any construction management, monitoring or inspections. uS:Gwe:tt Attachment: Exhibit B.Fee Estimate i Disclaimer.Any electronic form,facsimile or hard copy of the original document(emall,teat,table,and/or figure),if provided,and any attachments are only a copy of the original document.The original document is stored by GeoEngineers,Inc.and will serve as the official document of record. Copyright©2011 by GeoEngineers,Inc.All rights reserved. GEoENGINEERS rile No.0410-112-04 EXHIBIT FEE ESTIMATE CITY OF KENT ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES HORSESHOE BEND LEVEE WALLS AND ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS GREEN RIVER, FROM UPRR TO RIVER MILE 26.0 FILE NO.0410-172-04 Personnel Hours x Rate = Cost Principal(Gary Henderson) 75 x $160 = $12,000 Project Engineer 1(Lyle Stone) 200 x $145 = $29,000 Engineer/Scientist 2(Craig Jordan) 140 x $112 = $15,680 CAD Designer 40 x $85 = $3,400 Support 40 x $75 = $3,000 Subtotal Personnel Cost(direct costs) $63,080 Other Expenses Subcontracted CPTs $2,600 Reproduction,Mileage,Other Expenses $2,250 Subtotal (indirect costs) $4,850 Total Estimated Costs $67,930, Re No.0410472-04 S October 25,2011 GEOENGINEERS - KENT Agenda Item: Consent Calendar — 7W TO: City Council DATE: November 15, 2011 SUBJECT: Lower/Lowest Russell Road Levee, Amendment/NHC, CLOMR Review Response — Authorize MOTION: Authorize the Mayor to sign an Amendment with Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, to support the FEMA accreditation process for the Lower/ Lowest Russell Road Levee in an amount not to exceed $30,000, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and Public Works Director. SUMMARY: The City submitted the Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) request for the Lower/Lowest Russell Road Levee on October 10, 2011, to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). We expect to receive review comments from FEMA that we will need to respond to. This amendment will allow Northwest Hydraulic Consultants to provide a timely response once we receive additional comments from FEMA. EXHIBITS: Amendment No. 1 RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee BUDGET IMPACTS: There will be no unbudgeted fiscal impacts, as this expense was anticipated when the 2011 budget was developed. The contract will be paid through the stormwater utility. I KENT AMENDMENT NO. 1 NAME OF CONSULTANT OR VENDOR: Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, Inc. CONTRACT NAME & PROJECT NUMBER: Lower/Lowest Russell Road Levee ORIGINAL AGREEMENT DATE: January 20, 2011 This Amendment is made between the City and the above-referenced Consultant or Vendor and amends the original Agreement and all prior Amendments. All other provisions of the original Agreement or prior Amendments not inconsistent with this Amendment shall remain in full force and effect. For valuable consideration and by mutual consent of the parties, Consultant or Vendor's work is modified as follows: 1. Section I of the Agreement, entitled "Description of Work," is hereby modified to add additional work or revise existing work as follows: In addition to work required under the original Agreement and any prior Amendments, the Consultant or Vendor shall: Provide continued technical support in the response to questions by FEMA and its contractors regarding submittals related to the application for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR). For a description, see the Consultant's Scope of Work which is attached as Exhibit A and incorporated by this reference. I 2. The contract amount and time for performance provisions of Section II "Time of Completion," and Section III, "Compensation," are modified as follows: Original Contract Sum, $35,691.00 including applicable WSST Net Change by Previous Amendments $0 including applicable WSST Current Contract Amount $35,691.00 including all previous amendments Current Amendment Sum $30,000.00 Applicable WSST Tax on this $0 Amendment Revised Contract Sum $65,691.00 AMENDMENT - 1 OF 2 Original Time for Completion 12/31/11 (insert date) Revised Time for Completion under o prior Amendments (insert date) Add'I Days Required (f) for this 366 calendar days Amendment Revised Time for Completion 12/31/12 (insert date) The Consultant or Vendor accepts all requirements of this Amendment by signing below, by its signature waives any protest or claim it may have regarding this Amendment, and acknowledges and accepts that this Amendment constitutes full payment and final settlement of all claims of any kind or nature arising from or connected with any work either covered or affected by this Amendment, including, without limitation, claims related to contract time, contract acceleration, onsite or home office overhead, or lost profits. This Amendment, unless otherwise provided, does not relieve the Consultant or Vendor from strict compliance with the guarantee and warranty provisions of the original Agreement. All acts consistent with the authority of the Agreement, previous Amendments (if any), and this Amendment, prior to the effective date of this Amendment, are hereby ratified and affirmed, and the terms of the Agreement, previous Amendments (if any), and this Amendment shall be deemed to have applied. I The parties whose names appear below swear under penalty of perjury that they are authorized to enter into this Amendment, which is binding on the parties of this contract. IN WITNESS, the parties below have executed this Amendment, which will become effective on the last date written below. CONSULTANT/VENDOR: CITY OF KENT: By: By: (signature) (signature) Print Name: Print Name: Suzette Cooke Its Its Mayor (title) (title) DATE: DATE: APPROVED AS TO FORM: (applicable if Mayor's signature required) I i I, Kent Law Department NHC-Lower-Lowest Russell Rd Amd I/Madfai III AMENDMENT - 2 OF 2 i EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF WORK - AMENDMENT #1 TO HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS OF LOWER/LOWEST RUSSELL ROAD LEVEE - CLOMR REVIEW RESPONSE DESCRIPTION OF WORK / PROJECT OBJECTIVES The objective of this contract is for Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, Inc. (NHC) to provide continued technical support in the response to questions by FEMA and its contractors regarding submittals related to the application for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) of the Lower/Lowest Russell Road Levee, TASKS, ITEMS, AND WORK PRODUCTS NHC shall furnish all services and labor necessary to furnish responses to comments from FEMA and it contractors. Major items NHC will be responsible for responding to include: Interior Drainage Analysis; Floodplain Modeling & Mapping; Scour Analysis; and Risk Based Analysis of Reduced Freeboard. Upon receipt and analysis of comments from FEMA and/or its contractors NHC and the City of Kent shall jointly agree to a) all comments that NHC is responsible for, and b) the type of response and deliverable required. Work and work products may include but not be limited to: • Written responses and clarifications to comments. • Direct communications with FEMA contractors regarding comments received. • Modification and re-running of hydraulic models. • Modification of floodplain mapping products. • Preparation of revised reports and mapping products in hard copy and digital form for re- submittal. • Review and coordination with City of Kent and other consultants to ensure consistency of all deliverables. • Meetings and other communications as necessary or requested in the preparation of responses. I STAFF AND COORDINATION WITH OTHERS The Principal-in-Charge will be Mr. Todd Bennett. Mr. Vaughn Collins will serve as project manager and senior engineer, and Alex Anderson will serve as engineer. NHC will coordinate with geotechnical consultants and the City of Kent the in scheduling and delivery of products needed for geotechnical analysis, plan revision and resubmittal. SCHEDULE Schedule is dependent upon FEMA contractor review time and scope of comments received. Upon receipt of comments from the City of Kent, NHC and Kent shall jointly agree to a schedule of response for each comment. It is understood that there is a 90 day response deadline upon receipt of comments from FEMA that must be met in all cases. 1 i EXHIBIT A COST ESTIMATE Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Estimate of Professional Services 163DO Christensen Road,Suite 350 Prepared for: City of Kent Seattle,WA 98188.3418 Project: Lower/Lowest Russell CLOMR Response Tel.(206)241-6000 Date: October 5, 2011 Fax(206)439-2420 Project#: Prepared By: Vaughn Collins TASK DESCRIPTION '.. Sr. Jr. Total- PdEE[ML Engineer Engineer Engineer CIS Tech. Clerical $0 i Post Submittal R0ew Support 8 -80 130 40 8 $28,775 ..._ ._._ Total $28,775 t.v Total Hours 76 1 80.0 80.0 1 0.0 40.0 8.0 Direct Labor Rate 67.53 49.52 35.32 30,69 22.12 22.80 '.Overfeed(2083%) ! 140.94 103.35 75.79 '.. 64.06 46.15 47.58 Profit(10%of DL+OH) 20 85 15,29 11.21 947 6.83 7.04 Rates $229.32 1 $168.15 $123.32 1 $104.21 $75.10 1 $77 42 TOTAL LABOR COST(NHC) $25,776 Direct Expense Detail Units Rate Cost Reproduction,Couriers &Communication - - 1 1,206,r$ 1,206 Mileage _.._ _ _.. _.. 36 _._. 051"$ _.14 § 1,224 Cost Summary Total Labor _ $ 28,775 r Total Direct Expenses $ 1,224 TOTAL COST 1 $ 30,000 1 2 KENT Agenda Item: Consent Calendar — 7X TO: City Council DATE: November 15, 2011 SUBJECT: Lower/Lowest Russell Road Levee, Amendment/Tetra Tech, FEMA Accreditation & Peer Review — Authorize MOTION: Authorize the Mayor to sign a Contract Amendment with Tetra Tech, for peer review of the FEMA accreditation process for the Russell Road Levee Project in an amount not to exceed $6,315, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and Public Works Director. SUMMARY: February 15, 2011, Council authorized the Tetra Tech contract for peer review of the Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) of the Russell Road Levee in an amount not to exceed $13,702. The Public Works Department has requested Tetra Tech perform additional services including peer review of construction cost estimate and response to FEMA comments. The additional costs are $6,315.00 for a total amended contract amount of $20,017.00. The Russell Road Levee project is 1.4 river miles in length and is located on the right bank of the Green River between S. 231st Way to S. 212th Street. EXHIBITS: Scope of Work RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee BUDGET IMPACTS: There will be no unbudgeted fiscal impacts, as this expense was anticipated when the 2011 budget was developed. The contract will be paid through the stormwater utility. TETRATCH I October 24, 2011 Mark Madfai City of Kent Public Works Department 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 RE: Additional FEMA Review Support for Russell Road Dear Mark: As requested, below please find below our Scope of Work and Fee Estimate for the Additional FEMA Review Support related to the Peer Review of the Levee Certification Package for the Russell Road j Levee. Scope of Work This task assumes that FEMA will provide 3 sets of comments on the Russell Road Levee CLOMR submittal. Each set of comments is estimated to require up to 10 hours of peer review support.The hours (30 hours total) are a combined effort for Civil review and Geotechnical review. FEE ESTIMATE Role Hourly Rate Hours Total Senior Project Manager $210.50 15 $3,157.50 Sr. Geotechnical Engineer $210.50 15 $3,157.50 GRAND TOTAL 30 $6,315 If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at 949.809,5099. Sincerely, Patti Sexton,P.E. Project Manager 17885 Von Karman Avenue,Suite 500,Irvine,CA 92614 �, Tel 949.809.5900 Fax 949,809.5010 ! v .tetratechxom KENT Agenda Item: Consent Calendar — 7Y TO: City Council DATE: November 15, 2011 SUBJECT: Hawley Road Levee, Contract/NHC, CLOMR Review — Authorize MOTION: Authorize the Mayor to sign a Consultant Services Agreement with Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, to support the FEMA accreditation process for the Hawley Road Levee in an amount not to exceed $15,000, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and Public Works Director. SUMMARY: The City submitted the Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) request for the Hawley Road Levee in December of 2010. Since then we have responded to 2 sets of review comments from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requiring a significant amount of work from our consultants. We expect more review comments that we will need to respond to before they approve the CLOMR request. This contract will allow Northwest Hydraulic Consultants to provide timely responses once we receive additional comments from FEMA. EXHIBITS: Scope of Work RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee BUDGET IMPACTS: This contract will be paid through a grant from the Washington Department of Ecology administered through the King County Flood Control District. SCOPE OF WORK - HAWLEY ROAD LEVEE CLOMR REVIEW RESPONSE DESCRIPTION OF WORK / PROJECT OBJECTIVES The objective of this contract is for Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, Inc. (NHC) to provide continued technical support in the response to questions by FEMA and its contractors regarding submittals related to the application for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) of the Hawley Road Levee. TASKS, ITEMS, AND WORK PRODUCTS NHC shall furnish all services and labor necessary to furnish responses to comments from FEMA and it contractors. Major items NHC will be responsible for responding to include: Interior Drainage Analysis; Floodplain Modeling & Mapping; Scour Analysis; and Risk Based Analysis of Reduced Freeboard. Upon receipt and analysis of comments from FEMA and/or its contractors NHC and the City of Kent shall jointly agree to a) all comments that NHC is responsible for, and b) the type of response and deliverable required. Work and work products may include but not be limited to: • Written responses and clarifications to comments. • Direct communications with FEMA contractors regarding comments received. • Modification and re-running of hydraulic models. • Modification of floodplain mapping products. • Preparation of revised reports and mapping products in hard copy and digital form for re- submittal. • Review and coordination with City of Kent and other consultants to ensure consistency of all deliverables. • Meetings and other communications as necessary or requested in the preparation of responses. STAFF AND COORDINATION WITH OTHERS The Principal-in-Charge will be Mr. Todd Bennett. Mr. Vaughn Collins will serve as project manager and senior engineer, and Alex Anderson will serve as engineer. NHC will coordinate with geotechnical consultants and the City of Kent the in scheduling and delivery of products needed for geotechnical analysis, plan revision and resubmittal. SCHEDULE Schedule is dependent upon FEMA contractor review time and scope of comments received. Upon receipt of comments from the City of Kent, NHC and Kent shall jointly agree to a schedule of response for each comment. It is understood that there is a 90 day response deadline upon receipt of comments from FEMA that must be met in all cases. 1 COST ESTIMATE Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Estimate of Professional Services 16300 Christensen Road, Suite 350 Prepared for: City of Kent Seattle,WA 981883418 Project: Hawley Road CLOMR Response Tel.(206) 241-6000 Date: October 17, 2011 Fax(206) 439-2420 Project#: Prepared By: Vaughn Collins TASK DESCRIPTION Sr. Jr. Total Principal Engineer Engineer Engineer GIS Tech. Clerical 7$136$03 Post Submittal ReviewSupport 4 40 36 12 8 To[al= $13,603 Total Hours 4.0 40.0 36.0 1 0.0 1 12.0 1 8.0 Direct Labor Rate 67.53 49.52 36.32 30.69 22.12 22.80 Overhead(208.7%) 140.94 103.35 75.79 64.05 46.15 47.58 Profit(10%of DL+OH) 20.85 15.29 11.21 9.47 6.83 7.04 Rates F$229.32 $168.15 $123.32 I $104.21 I $75.10 I $77.42 TOTAL LABOR COST(NHC) $13,603 Direct Expense Detail Units Rate Cost a $ Reproduction, Couriers,&Communication 1 1,378 $ 1,378 Mileage 36 0.51 18 $ 1,396 Cost Summary Total Labor $ 13,603 Total Direct Expenses $ 1,396 TOTAL COST $ 15,000 2 KENT Agenda Item: Consent Calendar — 7Z TO: City Council DATE: November 15, 2011 SUBJECT: Hawley Road Levee, Contract Amendment Tetra Tech FEMA Accreditation Peer Review — Authorize MOTION: Authorize the Mayor to sign an Amendment with Tetra Tech, for peer review of the FEMA Accreditation process for Hawley Road Levee Project in an amount not to exceed $6,315, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and Public Works Director. SUMMARY: Council authorized the Tetra Tech contract for peer review of the Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) of the Hawley Road Levee in an amount not to exceed $17,609. The Public Works Department has requested Tetra Tech perform additional services including peer review of construction cost estimate and response to FEMA comments. The additional costs are $6,315.00 for a total amended contract amount of $23,924. The Hawley Road Levee project is 0.3 river miles in length and is located on the right bank of the Green River between State Route 167 and Washington Avenue. EXHIBITS: Scope of Work RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee BUDGET IMPACTS: This contract will be paid through a grant from the Washington Department of Ecology administered through the King County Flood Control District. I TETRATECH October 24,2011 Mark Madfai City of Kent Public Works Department 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 RE: Additional FEMA Review Support for Hawley Road Dear Mark: As requested, below please find below our Scope of Work and Fee Estimate for the Additional FEMA Review Support related to the Peer Review of the Levee Certification Package for the Hawley Road Levee. Scope of Work This task assumes that FEMA will provide 3 additional sets of comments on the Hawley Road Levee CLOMR submittal.Each set of comments is estimated to require up to 10 hours of peer review support. The hours (30 hours total)are a combined effort for Civil review and Geotechnical review. FEE ESTIMATE Role Hourly Rate Hours Total Senior Project Manager $210.50 15 $3,157.50 Sr. Geotechnical Engineer $210.50 15 $3,157.50 GRAND TOTAL 30 $6,315 If you have any questions,feel free to contact me at 949.809.5099. i Sincerely, Patti Sexton,P.E. Project Manager 17885 Von Karman Avenue,Suite 500,Irvine,CA 92614 'Fel: 949.809,5900 Fax:949.809.5010 w .tetratech.com '. i KENT Agenda Item: Consent Calendar — 7AA TO: City Council DATE: November 15, 2011 SUBJECT: Hawley Road Levee, Contract GeoEngineers Additional Geotechnical Analysis — Authorize MOTION: Authorize the Mayor to sign a Consultant Services Agreement with GeoEngineers, Inc., for additional recommendations for Design and Construction of the Hawley Road Levee in an amount not to exceed $15,050, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and Public Works Director. SUMMARY: The certification report for the Hawley Road Levee was submitted to FEMA in September 2010. We are now finalizing plans to construct the levee/widened roadway. GeoEngineers is needed provide additional recommendations for the design and construction of the project. EXHIBITS: Scope of Work RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee BUDGET IMPACTS: This contract will be paid through a grant from the Washington Department of Ecology administered through the King County Flood Control District. EXHIBIT A GEOENGINEERS, INC. HAWLEY ROAD LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS GREEN RIVER, FROM SR 167 TO SR 516 KENT,WASHINGTON OCTOBER 11, 2011 FILE NO.0410-175-02 SCOPE OF SERVICES - GEOTECHNICAL The purpose of our services is to provide additional recommendations for the design and construction of Hawley Road Levee project, address comments from Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and reviewers,and update our previous certification report as necessary. I Our geotechnical scope of services includes: 1. Provide additional levee analysis including recommendations and analysis for structures constructed on or adjacent to the proposed or existing levee section. 2. Provide additional analysis of existing high ground features including the State Route 167 highway embankment. 3. Attend meetings with City of Kent and the design team or FEMA to coordinate geotechnical engineering and civil engineering design with the City of Kent and assist with levee certification. 4. Assist the City of Kent with revisions to the operations and maintenance manual and other parts of the submittal as needed. 5. Address comments and revise submittals as needed. We have assumed up to two additional rounds of comments and revisions between now and December 2012. This includes coordination with the City of Kent, Northwest Hydraulics, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and FEMA to incorporate necessary revisions into the submittal of the final report. Our scope does not include developing plans for construction of levee improvements. This scope also does not include any construction management, monitoring or inspections. US:GWH:tt Attachment: Exhibit B Fee Estimate Disclaimer:Any electronic form,facsimile or hard copy of the original document(email,text,table,and/or figure),If provided,and any attachments are only a copy of the original document.The original document is stored by GeoEngineers,Inc.and will serve as the official document of record. Copyright©2011 by GeoEngineers,Inc.All rights reserved. i EXHIBIT B FEE ESTIMATE CITY OF KENT ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES HAWLEY ROAD LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS GREEN RIVER, FROM SR 167 TO SR 516 FILE NO.0410-175-02 Personnel Hours x Rate = Cost Principal(Gary Henderson) 15 x $160 = $2,400 Project Engineer 1(Lyle Stone) 50 x $145 = $7,250 Engineer/Scientist 1(Craig Jordan) 25 x $112 = $2,800 CAD Designer 10 x $85 = $850 Support 10 x $75 = $750 Subtotal Personnel Cost(direct costs) $14,050 Other Expenses - - Reproduction,Mileage,Other Expenses $1,000 Subtotal(Indirect costs) $1,000 Total Estimated Costs $15,050 li File GWENGINEEF�� Octobberr 11,2011 KENT Agenda Item: Consent Calendar — 71313 TO: City Council DATE: November 15, 2011 SUBJECT: Kent SODO Neighborhood Council Resolution — Adopt MOTION: Adopt Resolution No. , amending Resolution No. 1757, renaming the "South Kent Community Neighborhood Council" to "Kent SODO Neighborhood Council. SUMMARY: On June 5, 2007, the Kent City Council adopted Resolution No. 1757 formally recognizing the "South Kent Community Neighborhood Council" as an official neighborhood council of the city of Kent, supporting the neighborhood council's com- munity building efforts, and conferring on the neighborhood council all opportunities offered by the city's neighborhood program. After the City's adoption of Resolution 1757, the South Kent Community Neighborhood Council voted to reinvigorate the neighborhood, to elect new board members for the neighborhood council, and to change the neighborhood council's name from "South Kent Community Neighborhood Council" to the "Kent SODO Neighborhood Council." The number of housing units associated with the neighborhood council remains approximately 389 housing units. EXHIBITS: Resolution RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee BUDGET IMPACTS: None RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, amending Resolution 1757 by changing the name of the "South Kent Community Neighborhood Council" to "Kent SODO Neighborhood Council." RECITALS A. On June 5, 2007, the Kent City Council adopted Resolution No. 1757 formally recognizing the "South Kent Community Neighborhood Council" as an official neighborhood council of the City of Kent, supporting the neighborhood council's community building efforts, and conferring on the neighborhood council all opportunities offered by the City's neighborhood program. B. After the City's adoption of Resolution No. 1757, the South Kent Community Neighborhood Council voted on October 20, 2011 to change the neighborhood council's name from "South Kent Community Neighborhood Council" to "Kent SODO Neighborhood Council." The neighborhood council wishes to reinvigorate their neighborhood and start fresh with a new name. 1 Resolution South Kent Community/Kent SODO Neighborhood Council- Revise Name C. With the exception of revising the neighborhood council's name, all other provisions of Resolution No. 1757 remain unchanged. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: RESOLUTION SECTION 1, — Name Chanae. The name of the neighborhood council recognized by Resolution No. 1757 is changed from the "South Kent Neighborhood Council" to "Kent SODO Neighborhood Council." SECTION 2, — Remaining Provisions. With the exception of changing the name of the neighborhood council, all other provisions of Resolution No. 1757 remain unchanged. SECTION 3, — Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this resolution is hereby ratified and affirmed. SECTION 4, — 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 5, — Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect and be in force immediately upon its passage. 2 Resolution South Kent Community/Kent SODO Neighborhood Council- Revise Name PASSED at a regular open public meeting by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, this day of November, 2011. CONCURRED in by the Mayor of the City of Kent this day of November, 2011. SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR 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 November, 2011. BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK P:\Civil\Reuel utio n\Neigh borhood Cou nci l-Sou thK ntNa meCha nge.docx 3 Resolution South Kent Community/Kent SODO Neighborhood Council- Revise Name KENT Agenda Item: Consent Calendar — 7CC TO: City Council DATE: November 15, 2011 SUBJECT: Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program — Set Hearing Date MOTION: Set December 13, 2011, as the Public Hearing date to consider the Modified Draft 2012-2017 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program. SUMMARY: As discussed during the October 17 and October 24, 2011, Public Works Committee meetings, the Draft 2012-2017 Six-Year TIP has been prepared for a public hearing. The Modified Draft 2012-2017 Six-Year TIP represents the City's proposed transportation improvement program for the next six years. It includes street, bicycle, pedestrian, traffic signal, and transit improvements as well as street maintenance and preservation projects. Including these projects in the Six-Year TIP allows the City to keep existing grant funds, continue looking for new funding partners and apply for upcoming grants. State law requires that each City develop a local Six-Year TIP and that it be updated annually (RCW 35.77.010). EXHIBITS: Modified Draft 2012-2017 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee BUDGET IMPACTS: None CITY OF KENT WASHINGTON MODIFIED DR " ' I YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT 01 - 017 Mayor Suzette Cooke Yinic uiy J. i aporto, PI., Directw- Of PUblIC Works T CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 2012 - 2017 Tabl�e of Contents-. I. Resolution adopting the 201 - 2017 Six Year TIP . Introduction : . Listenq of the Projects 4. Project Descriptions 5. Map of the Projects . Contact Information n the cover: 4'" Avenue East V'alley Highway) CITY OF T' SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION T PROGRAM 2012 - 2017 This page intentionally left Blank For Resolution CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENIT PROGRAM 1` Introduction 'ufaJhat is the Six Year Tr r�stroftatarwn_imp - meet program T W The Six-Year Transportation Improvement Prcgrawm (TIP) is a short-range planning document that is updated annuallly baser) on needs and policies id'er ifieri in the city's adopted Comprehensive Phan and the 2008 Transportation Master Plan. It represents Kent's current list of needed projects that may begin work in the next six years, The document also identifies secured or reasonably expected revenue sources for each of than projects for which funding is currently known. The. TIP serves as a draft work plan for the development of the local transportation network. Mardated by State Law State law requires that each city develop a local TIP, that it be updated annually (RCW 35,77,010), and that it be submitted to the State Department of Transportation not more than thirty days after Its adoptiorr, It represents an important planning component under the state's Growth Management Act. For rl des to compete for transportation flunding grants from Federal and State sources, most granting agencies require that projects be included in the 'fti?, .HnoA is the ;ZQ12-2017 TI:P. different from preyIous ygAI57, 1-he Z012-2017 Six-Year TIP does contain substantive changes from last year's Program and is being adolptedl much later in the year. In response to a multi-year economic downturn which has reduced local revenues available for transportation improvements and the realization that fewer Federal and State grants will become availla,bde for local transportation projects in the near six-year tirneframe, Council invited a Citizen Advisory Committee to review the Draft 2012-201.7 Six-year TIP. This Committee Met 11 times over four rnonths and made reco rn mend at!ons to the full Council in September of 2011. 'This TIP reflects the findings of the Citizen Advisory CornrWtli recommendations by incorporating a number of intersection drnprovernents frorn the Transportation Master Plan project list and deferring a nurnben of the roadway widening projects that: were on last year's TIP but have no funding identified to be: postponed until the next six-year Perko d. CITY OF KEN] SIX VEAR TRANSI'ORTA"6ION IMPROVEMENT Pi O(.' 2AM 2012 - 201.7 Project Project Name Number Pre'?ject Location and Exicnt I Smith street and Lincoln Avenue intersection Improvements 2. Kent Kangley Pedestrian Safety Improvements 104"d' Avenue SE to 124'r' Avenue SE' g. Southeast 2 h"' Street Widening, Phase II SR 516 (Kent K angiey) to 116a' Avenue Southeast 4. South 228a" street/union pacific Railroad Grade Separation Grade separation crossing at Union Pacific Railroad S. 72nd Avenue Souith Extension South 20&' .Street to South 196m"" Street . south 224"' Street Extension 84"' Avenue South to 104"' .Avenue Southeast (Benson Road) (SR 515) g.. S coati^p t;t,�'mn Street° tin wam mmeifie,..ttait" d +t wade.Se rot con Grade seRorar ion ug. m.t &drrirm fbeffic-.t Oroaad %'%71 , Central Avenue South Improvement Project Green River Bridge to East 4Wilils Street (SR 516), giro('.,, ,e�R Nillllls Street and Central Avenue Intersection Improvements 'J:ira" 'G 108'" Avenue Southeast Extension Southeast Kent Kangley Road (Sly 516) to Southeast i? 6"' Street 1 I, Military Road South at Keith Road Intersection Improvement 1,20. ii iaa5taa nt 9 ui"auaaaaa Ii na.ilin >i eAraand Graade Sepairtrti ani aaaic �ir.lramAri.MerVe r!iraa^�rrma;�..uui d"dhrara- l�uirr�la- i��°aa6lduarad i`l�J"lti��� 13A,A, Smith Street and Central Avenue Intersection Improvement Intersection Operations Enhancement " Q •__sE 20W" street and t,q 8"' Avenue SE (SR 515/ enso'n Highway) Intersection Improvement Intersection Operations Enhancement CITY OF KENT SIX V(,',ARTRANSPO RTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 2012 - 2017 Project Project Name Number Project Loration and Extent ,J_,3,',,S 212"' Street and 72na Avenue South Intersection Improvement Intersection Operations Enhancemept 240'h Street and 104cr Avenue SE (SR 515 Benson Highway) Intersection Improvement intersection Operations Enhancement 17:.. W&O-Mv*tker-Street Widening 64r" Awmue South to Road 4-6, ,"- f a h "/2""' �,.;tfvet In-Kentf),es NoJnes Rocxl SR 5. 16) 11 n 132 Ild Avenue Southeast Widening - Phase I Kent Kangley Road (SR 516) to Southeast 248"' Street 6,132 Md Avenue Southeast Widening - Phase 11 Southeast 246"' Street to Southeast 240"' Street 1-i 7,Kent Kangley Road aind 132"d Avenue SE Intersection Improvement Intersection Operations Enhancement �,2,; _South 26W" Street and Pacific Highway South (SR 99) Intersection Improvement Intersection Operations Enhancement 256"' Street and 104" Avenue SE (SR SIS/Senson Highway) Intersection Improvement Intersection Operations Enhancement lko Kent Kangley Road and 100t" Avenue SE Intersection Improvement Intersection Operations Enhancement "),,,,South 212"' Street and 84Lh Avenue South Intersection Improvement Intersection Operations Enhancement Street and Washington Avenue Intersection Improvement Operations Fnhance5nient CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEM FN,r PROGRAM 2012 - 2017 Project Project Name Number Project Location and Extent 27,121 ' 1. 1-, 1 1 South 272"" Street and Military Road Intersection Improvement Intersection Operations Enhancement 64"' South to 906 woy South 21!'1111 _ ,.,Street Preservation Program Ongoing Citywide Program 2 Residential Traffic Calming Program going Citywide Program Traffic Signal Management Program Ongoing Citywide Program 33 Miscellaneous Intersection Improvements Ongoing Citywide Program Comprehensive Plan Update Ongoing Citywide Proc gram Channelization (Street Markings) Improvement Program Ongoing Citywide Program Bicycle Vstern Improvements Ongoing Citywide Program 3, Sidewalks, Sidewalk Repair and the Americans with Disabilities Act Compliance Program Ongoing Citywide Prog am "'1 3 Guardrail and Safety Improvements Ongoing Citywide Ptoyrafr? "19;31311, ,, 'Community Based Circulating Shuttles Ongoing Dtytvide Program CITY OF KENT SIX VEAR TRANSPORTATtON IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 2012 - 2017 Project Project Narne Number Project Location and Extent Transit Now Service Partnership Program ngoing Citywide Program 511,1 Railroad Quiet Zone for Downtown Urban Center Ongoiny Citywide Program ....................I.......... .......................wool CITY OF KENTModified Draft SIX IMPROVEMENrr PROGRAM YEA11- 2012 PIUM 1"C"IF NI t Sonith f4rml and Uncoln Amm Intelimection lonprovedmenI DESCIUMON: widen SAM Wevulmol Awnuo to oll It kofl lurn lanc fi-mil llorflibotiod Uncolrl "Smilh Stweet ow"I northhound Lincoln Fhe projecil Endudw, m°comj.rEeiion oreeng curb. Mulm and Newaks akdrig ";nigh NEreet and 1,incoln Avcrme� P1111JEC"I' COSY Prohminup, Aginecring............$75MOO Right of TV oy AUqv;JSwkmI .. .. . 355A00 Amnl —....... ....... .3593JMO FU N 1)1 N C S 0 I H,C F(S): S1 P, City ol'KcnIa PROJISA, A S"D N FICAIJON: hls project W imp um walic Ikpm wilhi P dw won I A Lon Andor a"d AN= acces,s, to the K,,mEl t ('rmtcr wElf the downtow I di illii io, 'I he let'( U11111 ylocko w S11101 arld I AtCoN sllcell% will fiw1huitc Hit rodevolopmeni III a porl sin of'K.Jiog Anny Wm I mn&Cs Pm k amJ We I of A I P,,AfImW Wiprovcmc it It Mmn IWO CMAf? Comgoflofl MhploWv III A,j Quably I I'nll I; FAS"I Ficighl jUigm'^�'oAvg for Fvo felt.Sailtle,1111 Im C(m jdoi;lisl,',I I i Fividl MoNHIJ WWI hwoWma Mad pu4jrA 1IF"S I Ivilrd HI III I s0oml I pol aml l,IPS WoykS I I I on A Exon J�MAo I S Ell rs Ii I Cake I)aaiv III A Uf I I on am 11 Fv do al EA - k Im is pol talwo I Imp I ovCRINI Avel)@Aw I I ft - Cl alls P'n I m i III I'm piumvelit IY ow J t S I a I¢.1, 11 Pg I ninspo'l A iol I I'a rur I A i 1)111,00 V111)I S1 tact (,]TY Of' KENTModilied Dirart SIX YEAR 1100SPORTAA11014 IMU'ROVEMENT PILL OGRAIM V Rk It: 2012 11140,11OC!" ml Kent KangWy PedcW don MAY lmppnvmeoW� MW A PIT A to 1214 A rmmh,, D EIS("N I PT 0,N: Add two lim, pocilignian unmings or Keni Kangley RoW with imediara Ycru),!,c and Rcct,,tttg,,tA"r ]Zelpid llashill�,,, Bcacolts Rostripe crosswaHms and sky brus. upgmde Iwdesorkm crosditgs to 4'outodl"7%,Vll mcsope modWes aM lknwric,,,im Kh DisablKy"Vecessible (ADA) SN'Mdard podoonan pudi buthms. I her arc a (Wal of 8 ihaI W be klapmal by th s pqeci and pnMer sknagu MAc updMal mfocty, the WE prqicci length, UUhig p"cet Aw Waks mhlmki md ClOorceme"I Pimmur cmu mgm or kway mqukitim,..... . ... ...so $342,000 F I JN D]NG SO LJIRCE,(S) Washinglon ";me l)cpvrlmcnl cfl' rriansporwdrm PRUIEUT R STI FIli A'HON Kent Kanglcy Roml (SR 516) K one (K We mom akinsely I'sopulaWd In he OW I he gon6on Imm 104" Ave SE to 124" A vu To is a Inked imm! use. PY5611pul Ameri,,fl Ika k a fi'llck rOLHC 01FTCUlly OfWfafilll.!, itt u Level of S'ermice (D)S) 1',, djotillig (lu" PIVI pel tj�, ]f,, mkitmity of houskq; ulong, M INwHon of SR $16 h: hJ& denshy nadWrldly housh, duo hymcru, it ,rulmaraial mount opf p(&,oriall Mflfic. WN Men i0f, �"'xlil Kanvl�vy is <1 higli hoatding irl,°a I,ol h,mlk6l "Old ds tllko ,i pqitiW clemimitimi, Iaar rwinim cifi,,tcus dul', to, flic hip;h cquacollilraGoin ol shopping fi"1611fliec, fevik, medical allices aml stonim housing The I'mqom ma Includes Ywn of dic hit_,hust colkKiot I incideS loa.,athnn hi the i io, 11040 Avenue SF. at 2`5l',P'a' Streot nnd 1 16" Avewiic SE at Kent KanMky ]OW), Ibl", Irj,,,t4orky 'ol era hsioms l,q)oded in the piplec, aren hnn 255 XXW imm,rcd d(fling dw (fityliphl himr.a woo InAesirkuls over! Ow aps: or lK, Has project wth onprovc, sakr,ly filroLlf,h flhe elmsoucaon of theso eiginewirlp clambined wifll educafion A"d A IP-Alto 31 1 n I voyotivat IWWMA PWO AN AO CmAcAicm mid A it Qudfiy 11 cdga I f,f I�rdgbi A oknj rmluq,,y filr Sit j;lVC 11fik)II J'i cemm I Fvd vial HA , H5 TI auspo I I atom [III ploulnell I I kmill I Sla6cp; IPP Tra"I�im I alimi Pai I wiship hograim�Slalcj 3 CFFY OF KENTModified Di'all SIX YU',Alk 2012 PROJI1071, N31 Mouthcusl 2561h filred VIVA h1g, I hose 11 XR 516 rkmv A'"ngky Rucu�) to / k,vmv Sowheaxf DEMUPTION: Cunsfarud a three how roadway hum SK 16 (0n; KmogIcy Road) to 1160 Avvnvc 1% Ibis pr;jjxt irI Leila: panes uir h(Alt saala.v ol' nhe smud"my. Me prxqcm OR indude emmnuution of Adk�,N,It&h pavhny! C0110C]IC CLUI)!i, guuciq and AdewAky slRyt hghdng; sioun d0nupw laudsciping; utilkgi and vWpuNcIlunus, PROJECIT11ST: flrdiminar}a Fa)pInex,:ring�,,, ,SIj00x00 16gM cd Way Acqupsifim -SI ,500,000 (Onanw6an .... ...040MY00 mrAl.................s7moopou ,imsimpic soustov(s); chy orKeUL 'Alen] hmmisvement Divaict. TW PROJEC1, JUSTIFICATIOM Southem 256" Succa is ii two-Inne roadway ws�h no ciuhs, j,,aNcrS or sidevallaid and as himiLed sice Jigh! sysicin WON punk houm. Q I`(, (hA,,1V CMIno oclanumodate 01c, Mflfiw vokune's dm, tcl Inc kugv tavITN.,n� ed' vchicles WWI, the ioalwav whik, mmulng 10 Imn Ion hu &veways, wwoong or suma, Aw" Sum ON" W&WOWS ImMc on SIT 516 (Kno Kunglay Road) as The Iwo muds ossw&lh; rim praHel To each laher The vd] sxmaw The vaywhy of I& Rmdvmy hy addiap nc,w4 tr,encml pimp ose land arld 'n ccukn, pok Issyn Icarun. this, pq,rIcc1 Wilt counic-cr 1he St 515M 516 imsmWAI Wim the impmemmas u4cudy uxkthq; mi khmahom 256flu Simul o( t tO,h ,Avenay, S'nutImam mu, the lummovenTeMs ajojlp,!, I M,bl "Vveinuc `~vudrcwd helmen, Sonnhemo 2.56'" SIwct and Kem K-,mglpoy Hxad. AIN APWHMhwmvummPmgmm l%m44MM# IlEs Imull lapel V Im114, 1011al i cm sy�,Avns[FMCW t 1 A3 A mod In ptumm rjt Lhs�I i0 P%J F—111111htw. Sol HIP CITY OU' R .ENT Modified Draft YEAR. 201 z mcmiccir 04; Sucah 220 ShwedAimi PmdAc MAW Chide Sepmmdon (;/c0c Scjmaokvja ctvssing, �,,It Uldon 1,acilk RaOroaci DESOUP110,41 Chmsmat g1mde sqxuaiiwi of A Mon PAU lbilroad mainfire 1.1�acks ali "ioub 22H" Suvel IS pnjcc; wdl inclo(le ific consirkwlion of a brikipe: Jocir-lam, vchlic crossing hdbwkhh pavinn@ cmxmoc cudw gwas a"d Newals; 9wel hvjifing,: LlpilNL mslncB �olalrcletasmL�rac PROJECT COSI Irchminary Qhd OrWay Acqwswon . S15D%1[M .. .. ......$21 ,on,mm ,ramt....... .......-,,—,,—$25mUOmOO FUNIH NC SOURCF�(S)i Ty nrKenn Pon Memile, HAS I , FNAIR. Lnion PrOlic Railmad PIMIEC 11' JUSTIPICATIO,N� "lac project will cad Io a scamicss aumcc6oll between mapor ficig,1A hand,llcis arxi their jadruary dcominnikons. TIN projew 'Will Q)f011 High; inuAig duough Kew to Ow Ports. cfl seaule aml Tacoma, Sea]ac AlYpoO and ffic hvov,dy syAcim (-nvde �,�xixmaping this MOM YOU himme loolh mil on(t roadway carwAy, aJccreasc and hwipwye TAghl nu&My in ids corOdm WIRi l j`iNtoiq.,ihon1 ilhe, rcrgioki Ihk pmpeo vvN powido ropiolvd cm,roIcclims i6y thimsands of hudimses mphym, mm! We 40 m0hon spun: SO of wa qwacc in ffic va I ILY, A6gMAwRmSwmqyAi Federal 1 uoisiq Adininimul an[Fdo;111, HIN 15"MDAMWIRMI]ATS PIOR,14 WmkinmLhmdLwmjMWY SIP jr,,,I,,,,,,,(,,Ii,),l Unto, .SUM, I" N,,,1 Mdj CITY OF KENTModified Drah SIX ltitl 'I'R . I,"011 ,],"A"9'1014 DIPROVEC"HAT PROGRAM WEAR: 2012 q"Rd:y,ll+;C11, d6� 72"" m,errnuc South Ekte'rraalauu'a. Ddt`P,SC IUVV`PON: CCAR MAhIA ur nl.W 11ou Noe ranlld ways C'u-MI snlr. b 2;C,nQ40" Swam h1 Wah 190 `5tvCUL The 1111 UCI wwirV➢ & dulls die crna.aniog Of NCH CWC1, 01KI ,ulalnwEu"11u;tar'unp of du116re>tiddh lraonv: concrete ruarkrs, pnerr, saadcwuw c , ,,ucct Nidw,6kllung, �Io¢1111 Idarsuunnl,e Van&clalnulalt, 1.1lupllia K„tl' d apportQrmoslnces, PRq"uncr co , Aralwsliutunaauarmv l.lad.olac raual. ,.,......, S250jXHt R°'.Ilsdnl or Way Acqul,.,i lenai ......... ... .WHd('9d,da,MN) u�."rlua��Inah�.P.ua�¢a ._,.. , .� .,.,,_ , ,.�d,�dll(I,Cyti➢tl5 'TO I........ ....., � pq�q� IIC444 PPIOJNd'oCTI, WUS1 lFRATION: C ulildul wd deati^prgmIncril in the noillhernn p eiA uwndurmial a,°al, olwi Ilug,yI levels (if ccuigeuvflaon wllrau g N"✓c;a 'dP„III cy° I lig wal.y Intnlme„nn die SouT 1131,gor. dakuuuu �aaaw'1. .`du,ulll'u i1yd"�In' "�,rra 1 corrHk;i" nwinulsuta �nal,'Id6He,n'rll nordia-sm&i aped ad raln,acay. '1'O dry¢ inn pnrna ks , osne Auw P Jbr So ullt 180 Swel-A Snaunpl 8961 SAL fuml `w,uutk 2l2"' S[IVc1 lndlr rnrcClilN r «nlsafuld W'cud Valllcv Highway, It Wo hllrw ilJu Y wllldpolnnuarl arcus, to We Ou,ulk Isy " :°"LIV;.d exslnhulwau fruauna 72" adtirmua "uo ub Pain Lxw1 t,J1V V14'tl'l1'iq! 111c I'Ink � np An'ulw. lraBwucna S roupllu Ad' � ircc i :nIld eolith d96 i, Ln G"" f+irediul 1imlxuumrmu,rY I�r'ew rrvn'ru lwinCtp,t'.p.l:'�f,i i ,nupu stloud Mrdig rtllr n,.int9�1n(Muu�l i[,y ll ailsu,nl p; 1051 n luey M Ac"n hn,1l gy h1 1 wLr@f'h hA^NtI C- r�e�rroua d'rerrrrtlur;YMS nV Firipll I M,111110 ti "vflomlrkie 01rcAjA@III I d¢aui rl l,%Ic1 F f A ��^4tll':Itl"I irrru,wi.L hAtln�nlusl�aal oia'I [9'v^r�i^I'nlJ 111"S' 1190111den1 Pm MN"own Snowu llb&,rytf uD I o ul Inrdp6ryvemmt GYi5lnu inv!"f d',bhe vows rmgFknlclt,M1YWWl.4'1I' '��Ilri[C,"CrBdn�c,rlul.'uBn Ytirp�,YNI"Y[I'`GBLI'LARI, ILA '1P�11N1Sw1+4+r'l9rplrAn PYrinYn,V�,"nYi`I1l AUU'tYlO�ll �rlla- 1tanslWmmilml Inprurvelvicurl IfownEJSIfflcj,"IIT...:IofNIVIoulmlPunrcrAiijrPr gram ti mvj OF KE.N'I' Modified Draft SIX YEA RTRANSPORTA11 ON I NIPROW"R1 It 14 T PROC RAM IRA It 2012 1"IM1 M 7 061 lb"dit 224 m Meet Atenshmi 8 4""A �v wh I a If 01h A wq U w StutF,w oxf (Bero on R (, R 51 INSCRIPPON: Onworud to bec-lalle wad fi-om 84"' Avcniw Southi it) 104" Avenue Southeast lSR 5 5), iro,Audinp, new bI,kCges over SH 167 allid Gmt-ison Civek. The pk`(�jCd Wdl iji(AIAC the consir,uction of Ciilk ,Wjdflh gxiving; concieil-, euths, puUms and Amilky mica Aghtim, sunm kfolscajptl,q,,, otifities ard appacnances, PROJEC7COST Pndhninway kngineoi�ng - . .........$3,0WOM Righ, ol"Way ("qppejjuctiC,q) . ........ .. TOTA I....... FUNDING SOURCIRAY: Chyuf Aw. LV) PIUMIC79, J U ST I F1 CATI 9)N Fhe exkiiiig I-(Rrxdvoy colmol Ific ern-rvill Ol, ftm,ecaM 11mfic voko'nus Iwta,xeyl KwCa Fxrl HN Wnd tho" Oveo Rlw� - V,Woy lfotw ht mder lo wal brawsmadon at murency rephruments of Yhv (Jirowfli MonngmM Am wckfinomfl a2asl�we,.r vehiOc imixicity is pixuiilcd, 4w smAnN alung A% 2002 120 Am a wl 24" SmOs rue An ol to over calmumv 11 is wn'll d ris,mMe toy m,idoll Hic Jlvvos/�owheaso 2'10,fi i1R',c[ U11d 20, Silvxq Qo1161(wl, 'dD UCCOMMO(IMC d'OR�UaS� fiaffiC WIWTIO, "'WmA jljdllmmval vvvs capacity bectniso of maiming dm,-,1njplvOrJt 'Ind wp olvaphic conmr,udrts A HP-A tvlinl finpownwill Propvina IMMUj,CMAQ on KikipMion M Ah QM4 Ph WaII;rAST hoglit Adiim SArmepV for I Ile I 110(mla Col I mjol:I MSHI I mikAt NIM j I ity strmcgk I ow+ ,I III mil I knird ISINIC I,FJ A—Fudul'1411 Drum!I Admi I w I ninfl,I] edenll�, I 11iS I I uimd Himination 11 C&ral I,IT5—I TwWwUwn SpWms WMIn11;LID I,nuj I I m1twymn I Dislriv,PWI F PAllic vmA; ma rmW Lmui P WWI SVP %Ma I mmFwwmm hoWwn PI&Q,T A numpmMion I Wwmnmo Amou I I I R 'Nampo"wOn fi qwovemcn I [if ml 191wel; 1`111I J iampormlim I'mmeP46p Ili opram[Stale] CITY., OF SIX VUAR9 2013 I 19"Swee who r1higs a n P4011herin Nallin Fe-Ruilrumll Gralle ("4vde ;VtT(w4fIfim("k DEMAIPPONI COF IVA -gm esqwWwal Ow-RudQ1010 N4�d14IL4-n wks awl ulh UP j* Jmw vide[e croming; IAWWSW-pavkg�- sideNvulkip fiefligfan bicycle travel, weet fit#ifiiijt; 16011 Of Way Au(rpaasi6oii 7A0;fX9)jwo S2,1"'i0o"m ............... �,,AAMI mwiflan tif-Ken,t, VXC%44,1, GuAAT, Tl J44S Il VJ(JN,['I ON o ew-ji-wi"Sil frVif!jA-Hftd UMMMW0 On4AHI!� ifc fiW Grek4i RNver Vafley. Apprt),6wxltedy 211001) -Vehielwpeir lhay Tra,w] www lS'4)iuklo '20"' krurlu °I;fqniu,wivw nw ire elIkAew I be ra4np"AA c"Irv"Ming NAN SD kMeei klip,Od[2 keiflli Ind uflrfioa 41[vlWr flc�r. RmMunin m adjukAng" w,15,eets ailad ledawv-d impaNg VOW by -146s, lfrfk eci vi dl ferilivine Kuw kM On eVAJV0q-Iqk, Find emiuecqi+"L:s R)f d'wwsauk6 e 1: Wmvam,amp Qcs and vwnmuwrs. AID"- AgImal Iflawj,GMAQ Coiugcswjn Mogalim and A i QuAily[Tul"211: FAM FICIVI)i Aclion "11'11cgy fn 1;M,','M-s�migh M&%#WqW IWOMM RM Pwel= Fc4eflil Trunli( 111.ti rharc ]IJI'morkm cdcfalj,H'S MWIFigont VWdl; UD W hqmwmmDwWa PWRI NNic WooksTm"l unA Loan IS4owl STP 4u&wc I'Vamlimbfic.11 11gopiormi jFwdcuafl, AA ]jrgj",jr;jjj,j[kupwvorucM Ammlil 'I B `I range ialion ImpTrivement Rowel b"Irliel, M, Viagraiii S9Wcj CTIFY OF IKENT' Modified Drah SIX 'YEAII "1'11,klitil'(O! R"rA'I"1(,ON IMPROVE'RIENT PROGRAM 111:A IV 2013 PRUJI M A ON, Central Avenue SmAh hmpruvenwids, Gtvcn Rirer Pvid1 e (rw 1,,ow Wdli+ S4Y vet (SR 516� IMSCRIP11ON; Unove and rchabillare Iha eNi.,Mng roadwny pnvemkmt Io addl ti;ervcc hl-c to dw roadway. k1w,con th,, (3rean River lhid�.v and FaM Willis Street CS Its 161 flops IM1.3 &H Wde dw I emova I a Ikd I (s f f a;I in g pavemew scohns and a fidkvidlh aspW1 concrete kwoJqA9Ahw Me road"na, Alwa includex] In this prycei is We repiacerneto (if culs. gulters. WwAs end sfreet Irccz, as well US AnTHW Still KIII PIMAW1 C(Wil Virdindnary-Aginocring —.35LAMM Rit^ha of Way Acquisition $4,000.0191 FUNDING SMMCEN�S): S1 P, 011/ ofKon� PR0JECF JUSTIFICATIM, Ilk, cxkbng InIveawni Wong INS mxlksi of Awk Ancupe SNA is .igns or dKom, as dumu"Winned by -uMpwQ,,,," (A-atlonq anti cracking A Vic uInS am! gnnnN Ile NwNbe Wk. and lhk' nxhk%ay tw,y hecrI, I'aNwlwd, ol the ivadwy. The ;Wwal sym; is wh-sUmduml in Mummy IucadoRs and hi ()f replac.einIery AIN'-Avlwifl Ilnpluvc I I=WnMM QWY AN!A Q UMIMM M900M MW A r0wifily I F Mcni I I;IWS I - Freit;vl ALfi(MR SIMnur,I Im MMMMIphamm Wrddw;FMSIR INWWd MOMY Mwqw hwanwnt Bmird Jti'uaej,N'A FLAICTal I MOM AdII IFMCV'Vt� INES Sysicins jkdel III J,1,11 P111I NAMMM find kiwi IS'Intel,SAP OFFYOF' KEN'"I' Mo(fified Draft SIX YEA IMPROVEINIUNT PROGRAM YE did,W 2014 PROJ M"I" NIA Wilks Sitireet mid CemtliI Avetm Interseefitm hnprowI DE,SCRIPTION InWrove We intersecdon (&VVHhs SUed and Amml Avent.11C [00 111I Ni i"rit lane hvrn I,,olvhluwnd oil (antrud Avomm N) weilhound WIiHk SIved, PI-QjC(A AM; Newak umb mnd guider vephivenwifl at Sysumm VIROJE,CTCOST NIAMmy Fogs mering .......... "9VM)"000 Highl ol,woly AcqWsifioll , I I A I L IC N))I FUNDING SOURKqSP 0 1 of Kem, Devdopn hidgmAm PROJECT 'Ibis ImIject is a IN& MpWon IwQrimieo Coraddittional h,ips qcnermcd Nay ute XxVIT DevelopiI l w WVH he impleillc r1l'i fig flni's rff0jCL1 11V,11 is required A Ific devilolper A In-AKlu I lod IN I III I,I I kq,-Irwil I SO Ila (,xintocNiuin Mi Ii galion anA A it Qakdk tFOJI VM1 , 'rettolil Act iml Si I ftlef'),Jbo Ny-I xx)owa Cwn d�Nr;INS ID- I'reip"m MMA I I Sintlegic III I 00STOWIm I Ward pS I ou I,V I Oe&rn I']'III aSir A FMI I Fvdva I HIPS Pktlihc V,w1k I rum FLI and I 8 mul I SUIL I SNIr S[I I[Nice'I rNIJ I jv I lollumm I*mprtim i I udmd I:'I IA , I m I vqnjilatiuA I I FYI plovemal Ucooml;J Ik- 1,u I m1luvatwin Imp I Nvente I I IkYolld I Smic I, IT]I 'I I alkspr I Felim I pom to VVIN I Ijo 111wrpull I statep (1117YOF KENI' Modified Drall ui SIX IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 1004,10, 2015 11 RM FOC J,10: 1108", AveRmue SONN1111'emA Extemision Sowheavt henr kwiel ISR 5 P6! io Ivnahoust 2R."'Sovol DESCRI MON; (Ammiuml a no" two We road"o); Qmi Mahmal Kem Kanwey Read (SR J'16), icl SmOmN, Wh Mel iflCtflKiiiig 101nldiUp, ON' tr,lfik sn the WxWnn of Soii(lwast Ktnt Kongdey Road and 108'1' AvLMUC Souffitqtsl and in ogling a new traffic k;ipoad m doe intmeetkin of SOinheaM 256"' Shmi aid if Avenue Nou0cal IS pnial WAMS Eight Iunn, Ioncs mmthbound on 109" sa Soudmm 256 A stlecl and soudilclund oil 104' vtt Kom Kangley, Road The pm* will alw inOudc comonw6un of W1 width Imming; coiscreic curiae, Wnwas and sielewaks Shai-rmvs; xfiv%-t Hghdng; sy"m drainogca kmrdscapjng,'� wihtics n"d appurlenamTs A taul of this p,,(,oje(j, 111(; e.]Sj ,�anjjjnLj pefi I tat" vajj Korat Kan!'Jey Road to Smuhm 256'r' Sircel will he clinimaled PIM11071' CONY 11rckminary Enf.,!,imnahip..... $200„000 Right of My AcqukiHon ......S2JOK1,000 TOTA�........ FUNDM; SKMJHCE(N: (by of Kent p ROJ PUT, t I STI F1 CATI 0 N I fix pr6m mush rcheve ev nVes W at the Y iio teisediun cW I 0,!V' vemle Soinheast (Rmmm Highway) (IN 515VKoml Kaiq,Icy Road tSR 516),,'",'ounlhcaso 2150h Soteet by Irmlrtoving tho. tnfltic Ilawwaa Monjim SWIR ` 16, It mfll chwimjoc he let-[ turn pocket firijIn to Souflu",asl 250h Soccl and ic(fficc,[ thot imffic abrg M 546 lu Mt Amuc WMA Thar M be a newleR nun pocko mortaud 6or nni c)i ims wishtng to travel mth on Mh Avem Soudimst Im Souleas! 254" SM. By movin"g t1csc Ot wrning n swycmcm i.s Cumbel to the vaso, a"vay Clont file congeled Y Knis"IM all dircuflons, of mlklc wdl [W kle lo 11mv 11,101-C cfficictdlti, Impimeillent Pi op.,nim,I xi ow 1; Impm On Wgw mm mw m,pwq poom,ms r-i mo a 4o um sa mly N, UN000 Fr�vpjil%1,�Inihhy��imlcgjc IMSIUR.J11 ROAM tSua(.),P A-[c&,,I r I T.Vqit MJ IiiASUAk"ll t Ftdej i211, Ill�S I fivard Hfinnincoii ftdcral), ITS. glicifigCM I lkmNpmullion�y5km I tcflcmlj[1,R) ,I�L41 ImpimUmM 0151fic I'WIT I'LLWIL Woi ks 1)mJ Fund Loan P1 A k 8;YIP 8 m We I I v Impm ta.u011 Pgogl aria 11:Mcuo 11,1 TA , n'rajmyc),U mil Ivr1wo Vem-M Acamlnl;TVA 112unji'm 11 I'U111 Implumil V11r I iki Wd I xuhloj, I VP rrmtupc FM on r'nalersl1q)Puqiu aln 1"aacut CITY OF KENTModified Draft IMUR(WEMENT PROGRAM VEA R: 2015 PR(MUM 011: 14HAry IVA Onsih at RhAh MA Ant-meciion huprovemeyv DESCRIPMON: Wide" all appvadws of =Wry Rawl AM at ReAh MY Wersculimmi To prov& exclusNe len Imv 11mg A onsch uppn)1dn and exclulyc dghl Wim hunes f6i nonfAround M imuAwnd Whe on Mithary Road MuTh and wesLbound uaffi.0 oo kc ffi Road Ruloix' flit" trM,lic sifa]Ial FlIc pr(jecl will iI1cll['h]c. 11W construdicin of Cukl widfll paving, J)avcaJ 4toulders, sirect liphling, sk)nff] (h-ailhlge, UfifiiiCS Wad dPPUM,'J'WPWvS, PlUJI&M COS 11 Prel On inmy S 180,000 Aght of Way Acip Q On chmoruedon ..............S 1100 IN) P UNDING WUM QNP 1111, Cit) ol Keni, Develop i[viom Midg'oIiorl Funds Piumour JUST1111CATI(M I he kn'cl of dcvukqm1un1 sm We Kma Wc. UM Goulded 'uvi(h the g'yomfi hi Tc Pugm Sound ar,%',i and lhcG rcjofl wly ocouhig comycAny Amp, bolh 1%chnr High�vwy SoA and Interme 5 nmu% in Q611m, congumbn mi ills hermbno in ho comidag aml evening peak hm, AIP-AM.ral WanYwYlethl MWMM JMMMAO ,Mopmai MApwm md IASI HAWaAMMIn"Myllm !how"UNMYTMtegic FIA Fud,md: II SYmt')dmrm Am um if Mf INS I lamb Itlldni7 Wim I NcmW[HT Wloml ImW rnjg()vcrvvia0XNIjUr I F -P:iMic Ildrti 12 ...... .. . _.. PI Ma ICTY Al m mdlis M�-cal (SRA"16)/'Umieawm P atMe a.A,aad — .....(l)=e We �rrdrorm ( "roe vwvdwa,g ref-P1uvawra Poe�A, Rurar-mm dw 1,dJPR1�)- 44RSCMd&M'T14)ff 9-ru"Snuiala -�,r�ui�..���i�auaww�i�dwaal....vf I-kia..-[Aflitml Pfunfic Rauidroad w ilea-ill ilx-Oil A5 of xg�iGm ar�¢�:raMt dJ N 516). 4.9a jillefiKk.-Ahe, &bpilulge; .aa M�tamu•1uruaa u�a�tal w,W �, .fuuH Width jmaavinu .,u+omclele e:wutNra,, gaal9era , 'tuauad lchnwadkl, a#awa�l a3;hatdrro �„ 1aki�Ca�dae, uauu l ad pa ialuMaa�oiurau�b. Rlus G:'id � raiN wol* wa�ith °�-Sd dhd".. 0 ere 0urarug;a7wpnwkio:'aof a Uau*ARty drrr lvierwle-trr velh PIMBda;Cr COST: _.yxaa•}dlu imilty .... .:,. . AWChtBM Rig!do"Wminy aulwada+wfiola,. C'4a�,wuwMruutauua ... 1'd,ClddyBN M 4^OTA ra.,m. vve.m a,. .. a; ,......e°dw WMw4MM,M0-,044l) Ma'Mdl"gM:M d"'M MdM M M'M�, Mm, ,., rtMw�ard Mzaaaad�;:fl�v adl 014M Noa^R Watale f 14; finj rua W'tmilie AndiurvrA Idu4da;'du.4Mul�T,M, Jl.bagwTlM^"M .A"4,°MON: Ilk :auaab-a:«,auri muuta4 .uauwlhr 41g .eta tW� Gdu�u�r N�ar Ruw+m uad•la,y.---Mme—lduluuw M,d UU ww•alwdau9-i fler da'y, ,taauyd on, J MdV 'a,raveek itlullbAh g Over uwks Me la.vtfl IH fiiva'ighl 1uru1 rk, rltro the 8 P, d"M.a0.Al1!'otNu,M tlp1u6111kne B also Wwkc'R+.w4lvr to o pT,>Ma79aiaakrllflw' 70i Ifaifl'4—fl—divy' Crn d,e taudalaatmMuaa drlraub,aadw-ai riohuluouu W Olt, The, m-mrnlrouad wawurom4wag,01 umuu--kmlgaea impel v fmm ghua and flow Rerdutu.auons--aan tU%uRV4 6,PrV1td;4.°E bin on a4laal IIIURttu °nl1Y ms aa6611:d 9`a^RdVM0.",:??4M W:V'a'�➢i'"-YN klplll<",Pwl��'r� �l^N^IFahHNle yrl9&'dw�9;'f4°{d [>y luy'dfic e.aaurt r,uuluau-n Dre u:R -enadua^ew, h'I , i,me^aalecl �w�i f ma llaao-u awl C reuuP ar;u rmu�a eivovl4amB'E.i-""ge4 31.5Pk*lRp mul Mml6m4`AW ,iN4�;("='llm"=&wal cu m7Ba!M1.YIha Dow or ah'IOd La'van d"m-- 14 {f»0.V.r9 k7nu.r" 4:1„r-a"k114�"ai4F�gldi$Y, allN Yrtr R.YJrkRai tmats, 41l' Jr,McalJbl lllllrr{Pfcn'tiIrt I�YY)�9'AY41 l�iIr18c];d."M91h1„F d�t10'MW;G.4Altlmf�i111�":YCICIal�llll lllr l")wal'oly�l�alcm,ai „1•tt°�'I llAlk;hl ArAllttl S41s1ug„a'i�n� l;m Lie U-SwilllE Hcm1IL III I mll{mf.1,"Mw 113 -1'reig1d^.hr5W M VS1i81i w010Wa[Yton i4mfx [Slnlu I,11A -1edeOd Nmi9 iG Adii VYlalbll ul Blll lI-cd u"I'raIl� IIIl fI ae nrd I l i mill m1 iOki l lCcli^ 111, Ilw E1110,0igoI C lamsItl*11'sthoiSislcuis?Ft(11all,1.,11 l Ou al lmai towuncn m 1Yos11Id.,l°W I I Pil& iWuoks'leaatl 4•a+wul L�aYCIISC:mYcl;£aft' 'sm('anm'r radlrory lwsllxgn P"rnp,m lnm llLxi,ra1 114 wp;u11.4Yrei6arulr lmrapnrucan u.ut.Accavau[,'n ld...... lr msprnal alain Ir"I'mYuIxC)IHimdt'rzma4'IPP—'fijam lee,tla'li am IIgm I urti l u 11;op mr lsl Me 3y CITY OF' KENTModified Wall 1,OX YEARTRANSPORTATION VEAR. 201(1 PIMPINA, 013W WoUb Stred and Central Avcouc Icsteirscieflon InwrycegWn Op7r'rwPopv7 11ESCRI1m110% Ink smaWmAwd aud northboLuld lurn lanc! 11110JECT CUNY Wkn6my, Fnginccr!ng---,---,n,$ 10010N) WgW of"Way Acqid�„roitioo . .....$400,000 FUNDING M111" C14SY Cig ol Kent PROJE("T JUSUFROARM On M%wid vOkle loovkNnera is houviest cur lho riflcrnwm pcA pc6od. lfw pin'doinhutu; vd9de flo�,, in dw pcalk Itcriod wulhimu1W On I lmr,"d Avenue oind dwirt [64 taxi SMith SAV, t 10 i)r0cM] HI-) Ae HL TV revOwn at lane config,walkon. pwwo cupacil, mod lusAm", cupwil rchwes urmigustion, lids pnjol coodd roluce the kAcirFccrfi(w, MUM die allenwmi penk yNx! Wn 167 sunnim jvr vAde to I I I sckxW(h la vTj,lick All'-A Icri It I nip I I ner,c],I Plulmni I 1;lmo I CWVe CmIAMivii Nlraia;.arinm and AT S,W I ilS I F.dcrxl FAti f- I TO& Ac 6m I Sit ale�W A,I vwulcAvAto I o� 'nuovin t(111 do);F W fit 11 vight PAK A)d ily Siniq',I c luvt�I 14101�I Wald[SWO r F.'A Feda,,if Fmqi I Adjmisiqu jtkm I Fe(I orn I tl I FS- I vard Flhuhlsti(5i I I N'' TBICH I pCffl I Tali qpofwho I I SYNA�ITI I Fcdefd),f (1) Loud hillpolwomem Ofslrlo;"WIT- PulAw wt,Iar l7ml&roW A'an I AM4 f W,wnsl:rcE;`I'r;nnrpvuanrie,lPILOttnw I W"L V A -I W"M Am Npnnmd Rvmt I W hmmpalaCkm tnpwvvwm Hamd INIvUl HT -TrMqwO;MM PMUMNI,IhMmn PUel ('11"'Y OF' KENTRIodifled lkallt qua SlIX YEAR nm mums irrATION ]MPR0'VF,,',1WFiN"T" PROCRAM VEAR: 2016 smajun wim SE 208th SWO and 1001 Mcnav, Sf"r (SR 51-5/3cm4n4 Highway) boersevflon 9k,"provennim Operelhons )cnhrnW0yh71U 11ESCRIPSWIT Add dwd unahbound VoR mWimpe huw on 108" Mom SL wAn the teceivity lane on SH 218" SL and nu&Uj lie Agnal plhaM, numocr ma m mimmy Engveming .. .. ., . wimm) QM of Way /keldithn 575100 FUNDING SOURC14MY 01 of IF, PROJ ECT j ffS,j'ffrj CA r 110 N: Slime Roiuu- 511 Jmv known aiq Hw Beniwi I1 or 1081 Avenuc S I� is the jahnary nodh sou di rotac on Hic Matm I UH aml scrves as a my I oT tramil muav% \Vnh tnuil to flva kuh. ' in Tb, currcry loadway htva bvev mi'iderod to its praclical HnATv, haommions Any & mikhm can have pyre Ne Wals m mwkbr Congestion and inlprovc cf,ficiency, "lbk prcrjvc'k wo"W add qitleuh g Cillizacky im ihe southbound tch umi MOVC10"nT lkhilu to luoyide Iwo 1wous of Ihnangh novel A could mduce IN insurAccibn My W dw Murnumn Immk1wriod hy name Own 600 WRes per Imur. ITS, - toss (ITY OF' KENT' Mo(fifie d Draft SIX YI�l,AR 'I'IIAN,SPORI'A,'1'11()N INIPROVENMEN't' PROGRAM NVIKAM 2016 P ROJEC"4151 S 21241rcel and 72"" Avounuc Soulb hrterh"tkm Intersecomo Olvrtilitom brNmcenxm'� DESCRIPTION: Add southhumud ;kwl OR nu braes ak mQu: noahbomd Lane conngunubtl PROJECTCONT: 11rdininmy AgAmOng ..........3(u010) !tight of Way AxpWon ......31 WOO Consiruc6on ...... 1505,10(),() F 1)N 1) IN C S 0 J R(J:(S): I FKc�t 1 PRUIEC!, J S'll Ff A'Ill N: I&M in im impmana helghl (USIAMMI cemm h, & Puyd Sumild Rcgiclr The eflicima movemew 0' tt'oight, 11'a'wiph and %vidoin flic ( rly is uddcA Io KoWs og"onomic lr, rnkhH WRLI 6", (A fltv filull, road segnIcni of 710 Avenue Sirudi Stmen Soll'th I%i"' Sarvct allo.] schkldl md" sircel, 72" Avcnut., Samflh lucomes at by kiglhi corridor and (his itacricuioto ol' mo imponmit tro-Ight col"r0ong, (72";'" Avo S wired S' Sam) ulvn4 mt as hyjdy sTalcmIn rok A MKing Ile ec%vskan onvo buriml vni West Tdky Rghovy at pcak p,,,dg)ds. This impI rcduu(-�". hal'tor(' 'smaWound velf0c qnmdug arucl tAiaqxsaion and Suns lhg�° pflentud 4o lIltpou" Iulla.lsarr�9laull dckay hom 03, sccoll'(k t:Ief vehlIu ' to 61 monds brut vchkdu. Aflo Ailvivfl I inpievoinicli I Nomm NUM A MAO (t,)olVCSIw]I MI v"plum I arld A II Oklallfly I kdci�i I],I A I - 16pfil Aaiuoi SOvdq fii FvQ I va Nunc Ile'lacu m go Coorkdw,FNISIH- I'ow"III W&hy 546dti'po hNBI MOO flM hl I Yn W I,t JA Ndm'0 Iro I wl Ad I uIgi.qvnNIII IF ug I cluilli I WS I logzxd I IS lOtdi get A nmMommysium I ANW9 LH) Loul I mpovemew SMS;PWI F Pkjbh�: Waok��'l ftn(I rued r.FDll I [.SIa[ggj,SI I" SUllkr I 11111TI)ITAlki I I Prqpony I rcdg�wfl,')I A guiII Aammt; IIH rmm"mom Impmmmm woo pw a I rrovmig ymwi CITIA 014' KENT Mol Draft SIX 1N1PR0VbMFNT PROCRAM VEAM 20M 11 RQ1 ECT M I A NIL 240m Wral a"d ION"' Avenue 14K (S It S I 5111comon H l Intei%ecdon Inquiwell bdirerq,"'flon (,"Periahnis le.n6aideeweWs DEMUPIUM: Add dual ninl and sowhbmaW A Imn lwww Add noWmand and wnioldomwid tighl hm, rvickow. %Wil signal phaRinp, mmawr cos, Proliminary unginectirig.....,..,. $ 20,000 R,ightol Way AKrXpu0lQV $275,000 (4nomicM .. .... . ... I 30=0 ro,rAl,—,........ VV N D I N G MI U M(IqSl (my or Aw 111MIECTI, JIM IF10WIll I 0111t Avow M (SR 515, MY knowi as the ficus", I lighway). is ilic pWry no4w south mine w Q lfilfl and SMOLS M� aRi[ nwo,c)r irans roultv, Wkh linn (r;�, tie c lanwwv, in iis cid,rcin flik roadway li,ls hoon vviticned Co its, piracilical hmns. hUer4,col4ml-, Ili oc;nrrl n -ridol, coligo'shon nind :arl tKive pus[iivc cffcc�K,, On cm pimp rove MAncy."Th Igubw noWd all queuint; capHy & bidi Ihe, lajdij rati�i�jboullid Iloit lum movemcos whik, collilnuing to provide, lm,o airie", Of through wavel h couid Teduco,, Ilic iiia.,iscOkm lic,ky hi (he aHernoon peak period iroin whit nVcl,,tgc I M secclauk per Vc,hi6v w obow 56 sc,(.%mds per vehicie All, -F.Ilcl gill 1llll1fd1VVdlwau MJMU jW4(WM? Kisw i�[Ljm Nwwhw sm,upu inumment Hand wAwL r I A -I edmil 16�imfl U I `YcdkrAJl I; lL Pkallj� Tmmpa%Mpmonloom Ammon UU Mrt piodidu I Pal 11 W1 sh I p llycglaoll I Sl die] Draft )o-kasyed Rood D PSC R I P'I'l O-N, Widen We,�A h4ccha,StWeLlo tafovide a-Ave lane rowl way. indwding Ibur goiu,wttf, pnirpww, ��Inwd 'it eenlk4 �ofj+,,an md the rtigfwl symvm af-lhe W&A Meekkn Klreel mW WANI -Rcmuk The pcjecl vvHW4nehQ 4he 44WdYi`&]�' rinol 5kfewado�,, Lailifieq kaghwelifIg .......... (,livy-ot Kew PROJI&M, Mk TIFIH A"'T"140h - The lanemoxlwoy Sopnw,144i aequ4c"d o thn:mgh w0fic. -Vx:mkfug- U'arTik f�(Olwfllos Weq� Avem,oe"Yoodl aInqlieote the Oteud teor [I WNW dewdopmoo AWNW W bly0e 4IueVIi','e lo eHCOUW'U' sA "Rife ondl A[P-Auklial 111pwVuIIMHNVMn §WdUMAQ- cvVoov mmWummW At Qdhy QMal JASK KWWdAciHMSHMqybI H A I dioral lraansnl Alhidnish;Wwli C Fcdool I; Wwkrs IUIJ�L hand .��An�,Suaob�,,I p .&Ijn�jcc f,j,,,UM,N,,, WCWI VA. o,,jm,qkn%Mumma&uwjTW 'I nav�gxvmifm 1121 11W.,hip Pmvpm I 4uaeli n i SIX pItf,-IJEk 4' 4#W Alil6Nol, lootaa44 43u1olh W&HiOx4 Saarrfr 2;72",Mrenil, io Kc°raPey Alo(ne,w,Row'"OR ;5M) �4.."1��4w"���hl'�r ®4-lal�w lnr,rwpw4 �uealll -wwtadwru Wlukle"X, Irb�al���4-I'ranaro-�•,ro�nm�9la-�:��lil?�� _�a4r¢:a�k w, ;w^w�- 9:es f44rwlrie,r oviid addiog &a=wP�wRE„n'dwull-tum 4tm �meylarlm> 6runtwrs...ajinlw-VU140t and sideww�w4lw. 4 wwn lwr„kua of ds the unwtr�trtilclioen oC ratomi-drainage dm aovinnuaw9 and nl;laaln4waa.64a1i (Nkme: '44Ma,._Rekh P;mrana! CMOs a tiroqtwnutte.J'lropwivt dw^Ii tlldw larcjj.w^cL. PROJECT ( , '4t Prefitauilt A �,$2%000.4bt4 a, — .., ....A9V00�G6w00(l) „44 5,S,4A ad,C➢0o ..V 4 ....... , n4444�44GY4� 4w"44ND41adG, ............... ' it,yanfxkatt DvaFa,tlopw aut Udt}�Egpfiaaiu l^'usrrlaa, 44N� ........... ......... .... da44OAKI J$NT'4R4"ATII ON1 'kluaz-kwel•(-4 rla«vea tadumw:alud wlalawr'; 8hki sov iun aa{',,NliIidraa4 Rtu;nd S"outh hut, r4,',wlueal an Point w1me as ^wr4naairwe twitler 4wo way kMt iauirr.4me umq requited, d4>aing lot^tldw fruuCdaaa Ilmv larwun;^ the vcwrdw o Ow traffie vo4tmes, dIVRiJt,w 11dw limpe CYENg MYber dli u' "w'k^l'Bffi 4a"p,lYlwVw.l Ca'1 tiV� Np, Ni@}k3ukkt,y uwwprndng-twwwonlrr-IedS turrruw . 4las5t ww 6ow.q of-kfilfivwy d4nad--k-ife laaekin4,g ;a¢rlr,a+aM ami we ilrlwalwagm^.•ahaa n��rdrrnGrrn��m^ xy" 4a^&k'fo.. Alr'-A i lu u A Imp rowonem l'anp;rrw d w4 j"P.'KQ Cmig+:dap Nfii g2ii mm and A n IQhuOI y dl+.malf FAbl -1 wol Ad um SwAlp hm a'uiY1Kl1'r'tia^�tl1tlG;'C'tvJiSINIe I+iflif9Ul';1�"t.R'hll§ I'YGiI;VtiC"tAtitliiRrly S'I�,�Icgis.Velwn4sIw11en419uanh8lSim9ud,V�llk -Pmu7eial Paoma�i AcltlSilau4dl:;WrtiuY ll�ruduK'iltr; HEN 61nr.,rrJ trN111uYnirtu�rx dGcrlua uld 16ps Inlullitparerl Iatunahr�l2sllliili Syxtterius' ,I°uegwdall J.IG �l.nc+n11in1arcrv�wcipl l7iwYrl¢a„�'WRd f'Ip9tlim; Y4orkal�uyl l'ianefl lsarun Sladwt:4fl' Siartaauc�'tawnx�:ur¢rvfrarr i°rlolldani 11 uTPnu'xll PIMm Tran,Innl irun lizsyuivclnMrrt 6�an5p,�rreUdian Innlaennuitruirtl 13 sea¢�I.d'tiNt�Cc 11'V'-,..-°p ydnwl^��mt:+t iim I°�rrlrnnrslnipr Y'a i+g,�ruui dtila�trJ 19 Cl']'Y OFAMNI' Modificd Draft "SIX "F;.^ WFIT/I Py ban()Rl'A:F")NJ VEAR: !2016 6`ROJEC1, 9191 1320 ,%venim Soludle"sm WWONia: 9 kevit Kw gic:r' Roarl fSj? i labk IoSwalwamy in,min i rrism Nwjtjs i 1 12...k AvewW SOLIGIMst ul Imovido m fiwe bano IkMdW Y, fOur Pam! rmlimu WN 1,,C, 11 CajWr jdk"Hn JMW, MKI a 11% 161. hiuYeAv lmAQ&g the exisOnO llliliC im sysics m ll"ic^ jyjp,-,,�.oL�jjows of Uril Kanyricy ROW] ajjrj y(oLvthcw�I r 256", Siroo, 11w projVC1 WM include Ow cotisli-twfioll (d, full widlh pavilq' ba Cle kmcs; collcme t:m-hS' pifflel's und .�idcwaflgs; Streel UghOng, .storm djc.613a'"+C!� WIN; :UK! appmenaum; FROJEC1, Clpil': fliviiinkawy Ejq?,incei-ing- .... Ighl of Way Acmid6mr.. ...SVIODA00 CvnMnwhon . ...... 5 1 VOCOW FUNDING SOURCE(S)! C'ily sal PROMM Av(�rmc has Wdy jj ,";'J'IFICATAON�� I he levei a r amn rem."h("'d lu:' poho vdic'mby fio'c kimid rmukvay wcrkm ks k'N.-lum acl'�ess inter adjoklill¢' jm-opotfies and torccw"O 'Ofic voju"U.'S un']Oic vokll�w"s 111,11 OKmcd 20YN! AD F Mar the infOrstd"I "Of 132"" Awillue s rhma ulnd ni hve kinc vtlluran. Spawals and kavluses Mo .A Wflul Iff'PrOW I"Olt PfaJVP'gl) CNV O MiliDAL011 anal A ul ITS arG-W"m Hong.[Ru'ridl 1 ante�l hu to Tunsl mumm Spow PW ant 6D 14 fTYf,b 1 fkw Pulld Low I�Slatc 11,Sul C111" OF KENTModitled Dii-arl SIX YEA IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM YEAW 2016 PRAYMA20: 132"d lkVell, SotodleaSt vVidening Phase 1V owlkww 2,9A,'6'Avvl M Authousl 74007revt DENCRINION: INklmi 132"1 menw; AnHhuml Un Kovkk� ii fiv(u hanc, ruudm,,�iy inch6jig fimr poleral d!)urptmu lravd [ancs, a ca,,mo dvflt-tuijir LOW, and a 6icydv 150hy; nUKH!'Ang lhu MAng imm; signal sysica, w iocirseetion of Soudiam 240" Soto, The pwi w wil[ hwludc the ol' full- VMidlh piuvixq!' lYN I�'y%f?I4 lavke,, curb, ;, paters, kind s dcm)lks� strcck HgbiNg surm dnaimagc; ujillhies and appurctiMiceS. PROJECT COST PrAnIng AgNecting- ...3750AM lUght of%Way Acqmsaljm ...........$L,500,040 Awnwdou 1°d ADING SAKIRCVJS)� City c 11 E' en t PROA&M, J , Sil F I CATI 0 N: Be NO oNevelepRnm akmg dis Won A 13? Avem has ukmdy o'"achcd O'W IN(alA Vd-mell-)v as c1cmSimew illvv jmw nmdlvay geclion it m:ed-A to, pouvid(,, %fle lctl-w6n ,.lcccss to mlj(6161ng prop c�rlius allid luxam[cKwale hynonam hank: vwunws� Sidcwdks wid Nk!yCk Mil plovidc 11-minimmfid �'lcccs"s w adjja lll kuld usc"I� All Aflewil limp oveniall Nogmlm IS Lmej,CMAQ (A'I pcs I I n11 Mvdgalilm I dild An r QwlliLy lFtdorA I,FASp Frvig,lll Man KainWge y l g Evww-'15caulk-hm)lna Cullkloc WSW hcjg�l M")lnjil) Str'ilqw MMMM NO'd ISLOW], F J A VolkrW I rollsit rialrrl nivaranrem 11 cdcmlj; W�S Aimud llimrunatunl 11:0mill,I'P, ,, lwclljouil Tmnqimakon Symems 1..9 ) enol Improvement 'rjMylcl M a F hisliu wo3k« frusl I°mld Lau I I J'St"uf;'0 P Surfi I CC lsalo5pxuv I ninom lsqwm I f'cdvjj I I;'[lA 'riaysp,)jw*)m I mprovemew Accimim I[A MmspWUNUM hupmVem.m5ard 15[mLbl 15P I ranqvilation Pailacohip Pa,,pim JSLaiiep CITY OF I(ENT Modificid Draft SIX YEA R "FITATIMIC KUNTION IMPROVEMENT 111100440d YEAR- 2017 PIT MECT 021 : 10011 KiliolgiCy [10ad and 132nd Avenue SE Intersection AnpirwesucrA Q trufoons An/war cuu"ede DENCRIPTIOM Add iwalbowd wfinj N'00111)(PUILI d(M] left aina Luies PROJECT COST" Pre fiadawy $85,000 16ght of%y AmpWo" WIN) Conswuclion . .. . .. .. , --,._. S94(),000 1`01 ... I'M0,11M) FUNDING SOLRCI;4S)s Oly 4il'Ketil PIROJE"C"'T J fSTIFICA U(M Kent Fang to 1hud is a I'lincipal .0 wriul whh wi 3=0 daily vdide wifs on. W`„i memic SE is a hinvor AMW with (wur 14500 My vehile lips. The Anand on hodi romis is :m%pwvd no gmav AN Hie text dec"Ildc us uPuv&) in Jlow"Cholds alld Jobs on Am Asa 11ill cofdinmr s to deve lop. 0101 die rwxl 20 yv'ws' fl'te gro"ah ot, tralfic oil 132...o Avciaw I% IvIonNI un pnAm to an awage nm,, ol" O pLr.81,1i YCM I tri's rtlivan"r 01C (Wrid Lon the roadway wotdd he 2014 higher by 2010 The MMUMV OF Ovesulm,o kuy riLedwo" Wows a dmkqwint Mr Ivliji locall and regionai Nsmmuleirg, Ibis Alvoverrwrol wduces wiNkg am! WW"i sondAimml conges6an U has The Imbnobil No Wive the ale hilt Wn 109 scupids p" vchidc in 44 suammig jvr A I P A i I aiii I hypirmvinent Protinim I;,nifij I:;CMM) C'mige%linaNfifigV I ik)jj wit Au Oun I Ay[Fud ujult FAST hCVA Ad An%MR gy W Local h"vown V'JVI 01SI Vic I,i"Al rV ,P Lill]it WAS num FMw I MM,§ww It SIP W&C I VMspMMMv I Mmo pkctwfllTrA hinpinvoixiA AccA)umr;jrElj hamponalinu finprMICIDICT11 Board 1M111cp 1 Pl, -I lminnorhmcii,j"ai uwatio Pmtvaln phi atol 2 F'm,o jRorr Yus Sau Um 2610Mr Hi c^ei ant, IParcil'ic lVHphwmy Alpodh (HR 99) I¢lkruc,4am lflln p rarveir w'Mint fa'rlaracalr"aanta(xrratlerara °rad'lurrarc°lara^drs' h Ds,: CR RRa`T"pO R: halal atirstRnrutMwcd lllclal Ir^R tlu.'Ialn 1:1171J . Ac1cP a°aaatt'R)arnlltcV Il lrl turn g'urelwl. h1lochly signal RahMcl,~hVtsytt, PROJECT COS'TM � l;lrguwcrullg;... ...., .. $1.00,000 kit,jll +«W vV ay dryry';Mrqqu ztlyhl.ppc'�tinur ....... . ............ . .. °(a900,000 �IFWD W,,TN.Jmsan. »«.rtifi..v x.rmnar ,'�q y�'SflR,4pt111 FUNRDING OURlC K(8): (7 itya of lsRA RaR,lY.lEC71, JUSTIFICATIOM "S 260 " t"irl vel trrlun,Qcl % one, 01 khrcr dtwnv direct Connections homcon IlIIc PAN Jlig wayr ast'tw6clou and the aiisnnrnfiowr" Cuy° t"1au, 5'arM. h 2601 is er nruithu nudanl c orr i'lo %&hi„rir vc hicics, lacd ca;f:u lalMal.u, Picychsl,1 'and bus hank An the Vllid ay vmM imo A 11101V uunMluwcrcRsMl�u,4 n rlcl'utfl l rr"a.scrd Lvsc zone, dre pnuffia 1 oInlu+:atious taa Ilrc hcloigtsaa')r Road rIl up hborhucalrci and ccrrinourl.don s to the a MuP el ra Haul and c�aa'i cM°awr need IQ;r he uup d awd to lulylucm a°6 hla iericy l h is� Inuer•sarcthcau.l ouut@rlmcu't'tmu rcadcam iuwtllum vvesCVaoa.und vr°h hart (lo uin r,'md cMruM�Oa Iion W over 500 cc.➢ulucRcss JI l ¢cr and hnstrovesr that, itul,nsee(iml <ic;'htay fii•ram l"tw s conds lrc,r vculch, 01 mi ulauaa�s) In elpip•c"rsimawly, 8,7 per vchic hR In Clio Nat R'"cak Y1c6od, AIP''- A-IaW411prcrVl°anannrizrld�dmISwIclar.:PAU, I inn and Air Onit.IMy Pic Clad I,UAAK' U reirp AcIiinlSlaanci,,vA,,I I Wcfti'PV^tie"•uItIC°rd,Lnlr„a4 roc udu9';I'-;MSHI 1 rCughI M rlvlray Saratcgic I vcsiv9inil 14mawl [,Saateh,I'IA Incdci iil'M lmn5il Adm nu+.lintnn [Fedurnll; I1IFS' I Ineard FImminal.n it ryl edcrall,US II1ICII MI2,CA1] Ira A.'ralrrllal it,n Sywuvn>r[WheiA k L I D i,ncrl Ionprnrrainc•m l hvaria;a,mlh tl!'—IWr E LWirA%I n o lAnnel I ml l tilau CI SIP SmNee I"atimnpn mAm P nWunn l `Mcr M:TI A 'I'mrspaahnon lnapunocrrane A^. aynl' I'IIa rnnsp'IIa[imI Imp Iov:ln k MMA p alcl, Chlr—'laonsgrin'ralimla I'laetnmislauyl�l gdrinn t,5lllta� Ti CITY OF KFAT Modified Draft INUMOVLMEN'TPROCIRAM YEAW 2017 1IR 03 ECT 423; Sit 256" firm$ and 10?h Avenue SAO (SR 515/Bcimmian Mghnay) RPifcrsccfion IniprovvyiNeymil hverscc,fiofr Opero0on,l DESCRIP110"S" Add anthb000d iigld hirer lane. Motfify sigji,,id pfiasung. P110JECT CUM F%indriany 141pbecring S301000 Right ;)f Way QQKdou . .....S I WOW Myrawthn .................$2200M F1 INDUNC SOURCF,(S)� Ciky of Kent PIMUSTI, J U STI F I CATI 0 N At tlhe oiflbomx ot Ns7 Aase faghways (SR 516 awl SR 5 15) Ths inumedion experkiwes vangeMinn during Rnom liHiles W We Wy Alyin"XiMANY 13,000 ljad,' Vehicle rrals lrav travehq," ca',["wom on SR 516 (Kcn Kingley) %vhcue4 nPecis " Y 2501' 'Arev( md 104°11 at %lun is cornasmdY kmown as the MA KmnWcy M."k) RIP AWRIA", 11w wol/cnic'm M this 011s plojec'r wffl P![00dc per deldicated light unn kluc for o-aCf-K� tiowhig onshboinuid on IM 216 0 Wcul mw ownh) Kcid Kaiq.!,icy R=J Rhjs F,iw 'flso g'uovidvs smuc Orpawemew (uppiides) Ili allow churiges U; the Qml hminy and phmfig al: ids 'I ho combbund Anproveniculs wre cNinvocil tar Wv My on dw iw5thhconld svLpineiit fi ocn 1 `i( seconds pF!r v�chl cac k) Sh sevunds 1wr Ych1cle in & peak y0ml, A I P A I le I ill] hnprcvejileirl I Ygmn ym4 M M) (mg nkn N4hqMiou nrul A,i Quably Federn I I, I�AS I r kcil,12 Adiov SV 41vily fur Vvc rm I Neill[IV-I aul'i nn(All Vidol,FM'll B 111 I filzald I lipfullil I I'vo !'VdV I a I 4 I i S 1111VT I gUIJ IT[MISim)IM 1]011 SyAtw I M A Y UD WI Q"womw I WK PWI F PH He NA CITY OF KENT Modified Draft S13C YEAH: 2017 PIUMPUP ME Wro Kanocy RUUd Ind JUNO Avenue SK Imlersection Inkpimetuem eyveo"e0icdq Opol�euions DESCHIM H)PA Add mthound anti msibmind dual lJ1 tum Isms. Add c!asflxnmd rigi)i iuta ix)cko- Cheinge norilibound riVht iurn phasing. Cornpicle �ralfic stulinal replatemenl PRE XIEC11, COS'[ Pirchininw)' mgm or my uculLulMaiaaernr............. . ..;-p5,000 Con,,voc6on .. ......... - - -Sl JA5,000 mirm..........................S1,2000M) FIT D!AS S(MRCT(N; Cily oF KeW PROJEC9, JUST11FICATHM: "Ibis jun'Wel is needed U) suplmm the topil Spromm prMou adding a nov 1 68'�' Sircd or 104" Sucut eonno:fion betvuecn Kom Kaigk-,r Rood owl SE 250h Scroul. Am% siudy lookod at vmious io ihis im"Smdon, WWI I oad addid(m, ll, Pho IMS111/1 od0l, prnj(,?cR 'orv,inrd, n would then ,yet aapr thu iwud kw lurdwi o 61c 4yvlaOnns On Kcml Road "116s project mkhcssA , ffrose impzwl , Mis ]m:jm would Kup A My as H& humection at V seconds per vchible or lems WhIch is Wildn lk City's Wpm! UK uf Service flandamL 1AS E, A A QQmMyPAkmMFAKr. NdgMAumnAmlegfur. KIM Road IML I A k1td4om numpalMmv Sylenm Qkndb sin 1MCH18rqmmvmnm11AiyuQPVV1F Mu 11A- I p m M I I I I I 1111jumoululd 11m)I d 1,19,11v,I, I P11-71awpoWl I u I]I I larl I I efq)I p Frogrim IrrlmlwI C11"IFY OFKFI.N'I' Modified Draft SIX IMPROVEMENT P ROGRAM V 1110 2017 PROJECT925i Smah 212" f0roel and 84di Avenim Nouth Infemecdon hnprovement Movivion COMM MAIMMMY DENOUPTION: fixtend cowhowid l(,,ft lurn lams and add woMmond and scohMund dual jeft Wall IR11CS' ECYC'OST: InAilyliffilry Riglo ofWay Acquisijon ...... ...... .$420,000 ComirmA _,__..._ _ __ .,AL250,000 _A1,800,000 FUNDING SOURCUS)v (my orsom PROJEC1, JUNTIMATION: Illis imersection cxpericincww umgcs1ion Jmiq nosh lelmcs offl'io day F'Imh roads arc Plincipal Q�JCju (�s2 ,00 0 I c I5 jI w1m; per day lbo dmandom holh M Tese mad is m1wewd W gm", A If lx xt dixadv os glro%,oh h boh fln, ighl rilovemenIt u.md residenkal dc"Tqmmont In AnA Sky vowbum it) dioveltup. 11is prqlicv, alw ynovi&,; mu no signal hquivemcnis kj%,'�radcs) to aflov,�, chm"'Yes lo Ilse sig jjju, k�,IuLj iml 6ming ond phnhq� tfl'this, ij ,)10 l aa r Id mduce comygntimi hoc ausc oNwov,, denland fiol. k"fi Ium; lmrivcohmts It is arnic.ipuIled Owt use Mquovivawn, Wd I dic inlcl-swuon cickly UP aS IIffic,uIs 47 Iwconds Per "'c"1114 C AW Al lei al fillplovellma NNMn JW4 CMMJ ,CMIMMM Mil Rphoil de al M Qualilu a Acuill I WO IiVL I VU,sc�j[Ile,I aIola I ILI) v (',IIr, rMgIIJ_ �ja PlUJINIV[y Slial I IVS,-1411111 diet I ma lon[led:,IAI l,I I S- bIlI chi7pAl 11 13114IMMi On Sy,telvvs JR&I 111:IAD Public 2 6 CATY OF KUNTModified Draft SIX YEAR TRANS!"0117"ATION IM PRO V E'W :NT' PIZOGRAM VFAR� 2017 moin, 4210 Amiker Suves vind AVa0QqY1wu Avonne Inwmeefirm ImprovemeW dJoa Opvn�uKwpx ifnhtm rnwlW,e" i�)vs c ii i ivir i o P, Add ensthmid said wesibuirul right rum ptickos. FxWnd 10 umi MmWe pockoN,. Modif.", S pwd lflxkshlg" Imomommosm viraminary Itight A AM, MquibWon...... ....... ...... ,".$5 5 0,0 0 0 FUNDINC MUM?: SY (11 of Kem PIMIEC11, JUSTIFICOMON: Ills isclow ol-flic busiom hweakim, W Tu (Ty "Noddi%mv Avenw: is as Pdn6p& AMeNd and Mocli ' tlCd i' .1 NfiW'll Alt'W Rlr cN,16) carry u1sout 25,0(W? veAk arts 1wr day w flak [ilsafion, Much od IhC vehille vuhune on Wwdhin�,,)ioiri Avemic is lino, k wip:l, hew�od fiw I'lv rqjomid Nghways am] thv, Pfyhl Of SUIMC 2,141d TUCOIlanlr Al 6(.o aalne Jim, immal ma(anobdu, bicycle, and pedemi-A traftic, licmvco IN: wum side or AM md it: Dumbom C)ly Cum- mee(,ki k mmlclive, fluough flik, lmsy inlicirsecliam I hose iniplywomos Ion jurvu dw glum eninct cm improving We ullicknivy or iiw ewil/w"A mowmwil, lit i", dhw tfil c, imprvvmmat� CkjUld rc,,duce [he iniorgeerion delkily [c as lilde, as 5,7 svxomfis per arc hickV , CMAO Wouk.5 I mqhmd1.o.'m lSMICl! S I P -Sill =e I I muipmuillon Pmplm I WasT I m Amqww"n hpmmww Am mwM 2 7 CITY OFKENTNIodificd Draft SIX YEARTRANSPORTATION ININZONTINW], NTAIROCMAM VILAW 2017 PRIMITT 427, SOLdh 27V" rota el and k1unry luitl Ilwbtmeown 11miiwov"mient drvarar.rrlcnrxtl'7pw° f6nm )""nhum emvvvs DRSCRIPTION: Add a suuMNuu] Oulaq?,if Lim! apt Rhc Infvjir� (,Ooii- Nkuhfy dpufl phainp Punimn" (:()s,r, PrKninury Lbighiming. . . .. . $2,000 Righl o�' Wciy ............... . ..rr ...$0 Ownsdan —.32400n) TOTA I.,....--.-...... It 1)N 1)1 N G M If U H(T("Q (TyuFUnt PROJISTI, .11 KTIFICATION: 'he, incieaml dovlopment or; flic Kul Wem HM a,.omhlned wish Ille Wck ufuhmmivc wrOlwah samiS phc,,es siguificaw loc,�ay on hChutry IN& (if dxwe mcubms whcri the 1�1,0c Hjgh�%ay SyMmn J�arnj(,99, aU 1406c; Highway Out) breAs down, kld1 wry Road wN:oiiries iho ahvimOve of choke 14, mgkuml dKemOn Mc Ilk jmdco Wnwsubskj "and 11hury suuMumul congestion A I I' MWikil hnprOVCvAC1W1 IOWMM$MY AV AQ CO I ugk lmi Mi I irmlion md Am Q rail'RNE a I PAS Rd WM Aawn We MMY 6ir Ew On I k1w,FWU I S- FivigLt Niubi I A, SMdq% h I VuaWICW If Oard JStalcp, A'A-Mum I'I raiiiit A dmmv JJH,S' 'w[ir 1101fic Mnk)Tir,,sl I'n d I owi 1.Uujr�ti"l" bm[f lu. Nograftl 11 kyql I fIA 7 hupri5voineivi 7'Wcown I I'I B di C1 IN 0 F-KENT M, vdified Dru ft tMPROV KNUWA-T 444,004-A.A. 4 P"Horl 4281 Noulb A Wo' A-veme 6'o"ok pop 9644MUMQ RENCHNPTION� Kelulbifitalt ffiv cmislllwpd pavemetilt w add,additional jervIe(q-4H(-4iY Ole r^kwfh fo ..........44ti'oi jmujvcaIt "OH ww n ifie to two 14 Itocll Wies %k4th Aw-a4kkknii ol cuircrelte rallb, gum" Ademby-11on�n knimge, Art(] ..ma...... 1, piI w4m)uftild Will, mamrdwaury Mr.elkiwrlour 93'l Avinilrle and add-ai "MIMMUM 200, Avel"Ie SombAuldming mats and gum*lik WtH momer c(mus mumallywagweefing........... R400 of thy Accjt4sa6(xI :n.......... WyMM JUSIMPATION: Wrdi 108"" Sum-hemsem Avoorw ',kqtttl and 'fraa,�y]%y,(ty, tDffkl ragmt�vts 0,41l" A yet Ikte(Viim !VlY 14J#[ ifl lre�sl A4NkSk�I 'I Ilk �, cl wyfl wyw caitimlit Ole eximing mid is expe6endlig , Mmemsm —and mondway DIJIMM SQ01-40qI Felm9r, fit' dw roirkkyay, vMlv, dw iwlmHmlvin A W06 mld flliS ]Jllo 11"IC1111 n1imporl nli on t am I Fedcull 1,1AD Slurfiuu 11 w boil 1,141g,1111 I J-,[Ljlj]1, 1 JA I iampoilalaw IIl)lTwvcnr Ammill, I III— ttp Cl-'F'V-- OF SIX YEAR WGRA-M "VEAR! 2017 P110JIG(TV039p———somhems 4rao9i4rwe 07 Wo 10W�, !"h400me Nombeef"'I DFAC"RIV1,100 Wkkil smet beowem Sime Rowe 167 mid I 08'�' Avenue Smlhewq Q81[AG-RoLfle-,`5 1,5)4o providev AN R; A We roadway, irlefudl-ng "NY jymieral rximme unvo ttmrma klw where i I ity inlemeu600i of 208" Mum oad 160'Ammiut Sowbew;t The pri ,je(,74 wM ific I vide,1"llo-co"m i'miqwths;ov AIR-wi(14` oud !?6996wMa�il3y sirvoi mid appmenanow", FUNDING SOUR(Awsp- TIVA Kem JUNTIMATUM Mukem*200212"' S4e"tm k g�-neridlly a cit"itects fliels'(ont ,afley Hoor,ki K enk Asy IM mj� Vl..4lmmauan Pt+,Rm Jjt�,owt hoUffi, 1,110 Rulij�kvny fumne tradrfic caWr huw w1hefe rwcu:smiry vAH poolF,mdo a ddiluom*f I y to aocm amx&N vokmiol. Si&,walks ond Nc,,yde kmes milkilmOul m'u"est; to"mJivwon't k"t'd A W-A ima I hupiovemuit Vmjpmri I SlkcL(AiAQ Comignstio"KIglipy I ifni wid Air Oral!Fly I Fc(RiA It IF A gr rmWe Amion%Mqy Or I I C-I i1colmi kv As J*GM NO On FAKAyMuSgic M vonvin Me WPM 1,HA I odno I i it Advemomimum I 12cfluAl Hh'sGGS VM[jd1oTtfttwv1 Symems[Fcdcflfld,G 0) lxrcffl Improvemcm 11,iricr; 1W'JF Public W(,r k I rum hind 1.om IS"imel;S'[P Simave Trumspommiov m I rogi mi,[17u&m I,I m A IumspoiI;di ou I mpinu I]L IIL A mjmfl; 118 7umsprw;Wn huprumnard Awd Puy CMP kwqnwium Not n M Negrtimphik I tlY CATY 011' KENT Modlified Dridl SIX YEAR 'off"IZAr �i,o,,)R,"r,Arri�()N YEAR: 2012 - 2017 PROJECT 030: Stred Preservation pooplralm Oti�gopng, O Ivrhje Pny6,worn DESCM MON: IKQ:m that ruammil I exislIng varhpm-tation syslctn hy ov&aying. rchaNl4al mid III(.' CxWing &,olphah wId cuncrelc s1reds d1rol flic City. 1"ROJECTC(1161% Preliminary Fi�ginuering.. .. . .... $1,5010 000 Right of Way AI,, uisidmi --- ----------ID Umls ruclion . , .— -.... -- ,%23,1ll "U)TAL.................S213041,4OD F ISDING XMIMIS); Oty (4 Kum PITOMM ,JU,sT1FiC,,%TIcmA Ile (Ty assessed W condbon of A swoM twomulk it 2001 A wng band 11hal umny W it, Weis wxhM deficienciw, llmt wflu'd they ale boyond 01011 cXpecte'd I I I€r amid in creed vat a I naivUllmice ol ¢chal)Ohfutickil I ovcHay, Olt SOMe "Awnull, (70 fVk)wnv(4% the "wiloulm oI Imenicn, muQuing, rchaWkwim. and recomml inomes the CAU hm I onch 'vem has BXxml msuffiI,�:k"Flil €o wkficss div of k", Arcel nclworkl 11)"suf4iciont hudp.-tnS 10 pedAm this necessary worh rcsisks h, mom, cxpen,,rivc "'"Id 1%,",hablhl ol A I P-A00401 101pil 19•n9MM SWn CM K Q Wslvm Milipitliol,mrill A.rfl[I'Mcin I I 'ASI Freighl Actiom Strmupy l6i HM 111maidl1innAlmll Sual JuWw, W�I]k t I Is 1 1�u[I d 9 If I II t Sl I[Cl,S 11], lnT4jII,I,tIrIi;1wa 1pfolArgun&FOaall, J M hmmtANIalivii Impiovairril,Am'NIIII 113- 'Fail'spw IMion fillpromiltal&aeral(t jslawt. I I'll I'm I I s I)offel I I'm J I m4nCrAlp P I ngla III I n IV I CITY OFKENT' Modified Drall SIX 'Vll:Ali ']'Il NSIIOIITikll()N IMPR(WENIENT PROCRARI YEAIL 2012 - 2017 PROJECT 9:3 mocsidentiaurrallic (Alming 1%,gram Oo,lgoiko�q aVlj m,hjc PtogrMH DESC RIP PUT lids prRiz %Hl deveky) and hopMoti MeAd traflk MAN4 Om"Whow ific Cky on as prkq ly busis ,,ts fimding sHows. MUMEM (A) Id Prehitrinw), RAgh[ ofWay AcquAtion ..1,L050,000 FUNIANG SOURCF(Sl� Cjt�� ot Kent PRORICA, J1 NYMCA'110)h 1N le progrMn WIS WigiiwAy cWhohm! in [U9U ho ndIdws aunk—WHIMMS Ch residential siwow rhe Chy (bunch recowly shinpled a ievised l raflk ("ahning 1hognum in (fAr to make Womat s),skmisllic, de�ci,'ions "Jot'alt acflotos to commt Huse wncerns. rhvru IwK been is sub,�Iagii6l iss leqwms No We ('jly l+g of physical devices w4h; To last coq0t; or yems wat -esuked in A QNSw Kwas, 5, Ow numbw of qwed am l Mum sswoks and Poquired rminummm p"bhc "weli"gs, I hti pogwin MR dfllkmk, lour itdcqwatc is affic si idics lo keep up %Qh the incrocased demand., suplNwu , sial rcummes w 1wrAm 1hic swdic msd! vork ,vidii a(svvw,d ni'Afic Concerns, :Ind lund Ilse pix1visv, iINWHAM MKI lawmMAWn Of phy�,icM dc,"iecs rol reS^ dew4d Unilic ealmii;g, IHN Works lF LJA I'und Lams lIslaw I YIP Spuf,%sr RmmNaMkwPwW am PchQUA DMvpNialka InV"WeMOM ACMUMAY Tumspaw On Imp -I ranipwation I lmlnurddphlf4,Afalio I Ssmc I 12 CITY (W KENTModifical Draft SIX VIRAR TRANSPORTATION INIMOVENIENT PROGRAM YEAW 2012 - 2017 PR(MFX"T 032,. Trnffic Sippud Managen-hen.1 Prop ank Cf(vll We Prrrg�-qvpl IMS("IRIP110PY Ris plop non wM anitlyze wersecams for mumdal QW156on nlr Wic sQnld,,.,, ur other ImIN conmW lo Amne mr1k and cHN&M use orm cWting and phnnod tlrqjlpspt"'D,,Jjiaqu neoxody Wyk of hun umvenew,.', eind colfisicm hisavy 'Add lac used to priorihzv rm viat"fic sigird inslakaic"Is", Pumpiver cosm PrOhninmy Emp-jrweri ng ., -. .....— $6000q) prit ormy AcquAkdon .......... .......... ........-.$4 200,000 FUNDUAR; SOURCE(S)� Citl: of'Kent P110JECT jivirmcN& rion i Hmicaiiy, die niy jusli&s; lllc� nood Rn° kvo re ftaffic supmk por yc�ol, W nnt ct s,,0'eiy uid rnobAN neak 'Ohs pagram Wows Au plu"ems neakd to mucl Ow hmeasing dumalrd lor AgmMud Wsecdcmi coond and 0w conslani ncM lira traffic couai to riorkoiv ywhiviv volmnes and Indinvior 11 WSU Sq3pow; ,hu replammem oi'o d, owdated urnfjk ;igmd equipimcnt al, cuircintly sigmdizc,ed 'Ile li%Nks hir 1011c gignals MH he so by tninspomadon symen, sigura wan my mudko AS hwhtdc sWvs ofvolunws CoHision history. 'f I�i,'� Wi ni � hel Me ped es l d a l i m h i d l i y noNI 1w, areal eAj I%%J(� I t(�Ij T°V �j T%>g 11-o l , IN ' ' PS I' 0W jummill WPM smywe rat ulanis vieclasm3 U) nnyink" munummicy us [equired by the Gj,owlh Ad All' Ailmil linprwormal Propgram HSlalcjh q',MAQ Com"Wom Milipifimi and A[r Onably Fmlcrnl�, AX I rrcj,,?,lh1 Aution MImtep,,,y fi',j by^c¢clPhr Mlle 1*(Yma Cogrid1m;FNISW- Whilut) Sljacgic hivatinua th,mrd ISUAvi, PGA I edmil I rm,S4 Adminiwa0vi jVvdmq. I WS laxild H11111mavil jkdwajjj,I 11S� ]nlVljjVVjjt Itri ampuflanon Symcim lk&Wh HD Imm siqlmycivoll Disjim I%I F 11111flk Wolks rmst hind Immil J'Idtcl,$Irl'- Siirfue fianspow6m 1W9mm lhkrWk rm. lumqumW Inrpuvavr mM AWWWW TWmWWvm Nymmmm ROM pmg. V P11 Mwmpaimloo Vacaelghp rropfam smiol CITY OFKENT" Modffid Dp-aft SIX YEAR "FRANspoijurmam muntowMEN"I" PROGRAM YEAR. 2012 2017 PROAQ 7433: MccHaneuum InImeckm luqmnemeob fmgnhw ONalk how anyr imscRnmup, Improve vinscellancous, inlorrweclhns wMA dw t'GtyA w umnunwWw Hame frdfic a,Ohlmes, 111owidcs fife hilploveruents w the operifimufl cff�cicm,y of the"., YOON"Py p'ysterl induding sVkjring, sig�mfl Fn"grmns, hunk ignal pcKly, ImIcHipcis Dangp)Mon Syglems. QnW upgp-adcs such as, phaging artd IT I) ;ignal incficmion� upgl ades. I'ROJECT COST 'zelilarllat:ryaIT&CM W .3454M) ityp or Way Acq&hinn..... .. ..........SO Conswickmi S255JHH) FUNIANG SOIJRCE(8)1; CiRy of Keni PIRRIFTIT JUS Mv,nopc ov: Maqvr Plan AMMed svvuiad ?nkcvscutAom dial ivN mcd to b" hnplov0d to ,tc�'ojninodwc I,utan, tuuffik: cook "ITIOS, Jhesc iltersc%flons ruc' sprcas? Ihinmighoms 11w Chy virul nre iml �indu&d as scpwt atc progccts wklfin this ()Auar TH!" the capAcil"", mml ONACIKH V 01 IN-, kWLIW,3 ' ";V"Acin flj7ough olmovolval inqMVINUMenu is a yyy cost clocuve c1cric"I of dw progrant A I P-Aileflnl I qwwennun I PWpmnVMWpUMAQ, Cneigcsfiani MMpananaWAu CauallY,ryr pow an jogr F mot Ad wnM;aWg to Cul I tu I,INS I I$ , FIVIgIA Mab4 I I YSlrawgl� Ellvc�,inlval Nix"Iw9 SWtv I I I A Pcftial finsil A(finin0jalion I VAko,�, HUS A Ovad UUM"m P%Mnj HT- haMpW Lua4ulskm SPWM JuMan IJD 4mul ImpnWeMeM NOM PVFI F-PWWV Wc)vks Irum kinil Loan JSIalcj,SI P� SuFfiWe Ifalaqw1mic 1,) 1 'C(JVrIIJJCIL IA I ranspwriniOn I'M `I ra i Npoiw4vl Wpovoijut MMd PUY COP CTFYOF KENT Modified Draft IMPIZOVENIENT PROGRAM V 1"A R. 2012 - 2017 PRCUEcr um (No mprVienmive Plan 111whole fQW44 Colwak 1vwv?n1xu DESCRI PIMN: 11is projeci CCIVsdyAS 01 sul ilpdalu of th(." I ldcm m of ilic CkN'." C'o1nr,r0wI0;1vc Mail aild MasIej Plain including near M-11) wid hmg rarpo ol dw City's Ininsporcadon symoni needs. PI-QjGC1 ClllsN lncl ude cwisul Yain cowiIIIC I S. J�II' II to �tj I S I ik')w rta I I as 11, t)t nr I I rI i i Jg' C C)I t( 1t I I-I c 11(n Y maimg,cmuni, pubfic involvemcmi., 1mvel denumd mum imnic (1wrat4ons inoddinop and nnalysis of polunkhd Hanicing svwcgws io c(mssw Nvndc am! I-indivain oowurk, The paQ1 dwImbs M off rowume& hankmte mid soRmawc u) mnQxc, fnamTe and vionhoi tl'J(: Pluticin, cos"r: INdiinhaq EDWricany. ... . . . $4501M) Righl or NWay Accluki0on ..SO C q.11 aS ITUC a u n a I A . . .. r . r.. r n r r��(:I TOTAL—P.—....... ........ FUNDING SOURCE(Ii'): (Ityul'Kew till RI)JECTI, JUSTIFICA'1'110N J lie Cily q 200K Fransportaflon lonsier Plan ideri6ftnxt flies City s ianspokUliiou qsloir IIL°cds old lo the yemw 2MO bud wm hased on [he (JI�S's 20104 Coimprolivosivc, Phin, Tli' prose(;[ will ^;Ilppolt dic Ci1'y's 20H ('oInprSbwnv;J")o Plon I Ipddlv by incol porwhiV Ific 011'N tqxlawl Im"mchold ouid Jobs krecosis into hinlre InnispoTtalion den'land 111cidel forccnst sccnariwq mid chvvcb,ap possiblu ,fllcrnnhvcs in aeckmiumidaw dic new pYvovvfli proic,(.AiwN I he ('11Y Imw h", in cotUNKUKU MIT all sun, coway nud moonul in orcu'r tea l'w cfi,6blc two "Ipply J'(" gj LTft' IffiC t 'ijy Cll&,aVoIrr; V(, transpowMatkon cfficiel)cy. nwdlo& o4 Incaskallig Concm'lcucy thm hiC(il])OldiC Hdl DOCICS of 11ivcl, boici xlhx,s flio vua)e our r,�cKnnilin6ii1v i's (Iwngia ' viigagcs the cointnuidly in dkciui1�icms ahmn tol6i4Nry and invc.slipWos viiijV)Iod R"qjy"; 0 fijfJ(fiUg (I[31jr newN AIV Ailokil Ivolv"moil Pwgr�Ii)IStnicl,CMAQ-?Angnunn NIApki mil Ak0Wq"0.41aamJ IASI hvgWAo&mShIxpyhg Ficigfi[WhIky SMW&hwcamwi Mud PNI, FFA 'Ition Iaaaprorwclncnl Ioord I Yaklz'1111 1"In 15pillaholl i'milicnimp hogmil JSwfl (:rry (w man mo(junj oran SIX YEA, IMPROVER/lEN]" PROCRAM hjl VIONW, 2012 - 2017 "IMIECT 435: Chanraeliziasoin (Shvet Idarkings! hyleavewn! PIV91Mnni Ongoina ,' (" rq'b"We P age 0"1 DENCRI FIION Providc Mtswel umarking fltV(Hgj tjnt f1W (J(( It) SC MI-k4L IInd 1VV'.,UWVr GontRoing, triovurrierns, delnw paths of IMYCL and ANAVC Sao ;uw MAdy nwvwnwH on Cil SOVM Pitanwr cosw Pre1iminawy Engleadq iti gh i c;r way Acq I tixi I IF oi 1 30 QuamMm6ann . --....---.. . ......... $494AX) TOTA L---...................SWAM FUNNANG' SOUR(IXSQ (Uy of Keni PRIUM71, J 1 N'TIFU"ATION: 'I his ongoing iwnjllain'� aml aIximes Ole channehzvdion throlq!hout thu '`at I he Vitt' Ims I KBA61 Mw Ito (IR of citanndinabn sn QW, OEM) raiscd pavenicffl nia6 jnt,,,, 2,10�2 111 WT viol) vied At 79 LF o r potted CCUd'r ftc4Ig lo fin'dl corifficl jwke� and cfirecns Irmloli ds Olrough kw ew�' I�)f k�o A rj I bail ' ar an I M1 use A U) gichn Cate V It RUT s I oraq qt to"e, areas rngj Low; OF riglH urban np MAY I WS PF110A PRSCMCS &C CaNwhy and cukiency of 1he exisOng tondwly sy icjn' I°Pjgli 6 N1 o n1hy M1411f.gk 1I Iwsl III L III How d I Milk], I-I A FsIk,rat t ransit A&06 1i oCk* I kdo ml I; 111iS Mos 1100 kunt11 Aw,ywwt SDI SWAM tPonvowilor IwNmn P%kN[IM -Twmqwdon IMPPOVUMM Amoun, Ill's.. C,'1TY OF KENTModified Draft SIX IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM V CA R:: 2012 - 2017 mourur 630 111 sy'stefil fbwomg 17""wk 10"Injo unaurrion mahc fn!,,�cmxanuous humunwas in ow 00 hicy0c rcuaws as NOW In lk muDowum Clialmer wimIrdwr Y of we w1opu'd Troinsport"dIon N(LISded "kin"I (J Vlll), Bicy& Was ale Imo of MAIMI sueo implavMnow prounts Mul Mwh anti lhow pi'ojeck,� would he nentized Hic coms, offlrm,;o bko Gailrea rulded io 'I N411 Ancei jiMuJevk aiv cmimoled aT appyiMmely WMINAM and are TKII I'MCCIed 110V 110S j)R)j('C[, k far aJfailcd I"Ific 4611Inv, and sig,niiI and for flhe umension of flaw wiharu(kisc lxulh netwufL PROMIJO PrAninary knginecring.,_ .. ...... .$08,500 R�j,,fit of Wiy Acajlfl iacm._ ...S72,500 OwnWon, ...S72150C.1 ........ ............__3904,500 FUNDINC SOURICT(M: ojoww 1,11(1,1110121, JUSTI FICATMAJ; Tim: AWK Mastur Plan Nwntoorked Symknn 'Suidy prolxvii-II n flowork ("It "MI"tred! tane 10LAI'S 0H frafuportadon voiiidorc fhrougholul Ow, cify Io hcoi uumm the Wycle syslur Me nuukiilg,W aml uml i0frin YwASK ;TKJ uydims of Use unvykicars hem t,siltr.aN fix sigindjumol! bike l.arc., I hee'e SAM enn InuMde WIN! linkages lu sup ir cycling ackily, comas arul aP nwwo1ow1 In dic 6wed toe pit systunis. Min pnYlal can 101I fl(Anevc Oi 01's gcqdH Ar inipwoAllfr Inobilk"Y w'Chirde increwal'i, Ind rfpniOng InInqw),Wdon A W Ai I vina I finim)von viki Prui-pun Slate, 6AIAO Coii;yIniuri Mi I gaakln and Air Qoali(y Tederld I,FAS I —I Tei,„ll t A C I Ion'mIa1q.V III" I wc I CM,su III Ile'I wo I I la Cmndpr,I AIM 13 F IV 101 MaN I I f Slldw6 'Jc I nvollucvf Hcmd sinw I,F1'A kd wl rium sli,Ad ineusaulion i I Icki-1 I III " I fIrl"Are, "'houlliwn I Fl4 IV$"ll,e)S"filIVINgel I I halislPoi I alion Sysicom POW W IUD A mul Improycirlwim Distrizo I`w I F-ind,I C W(JkS I rjj,vT IlIlIj I'l)"in IN W4 SU"SMIhm MquvOw I NWMM IN dml-, I IA Tra I rsporladriv I fill prawinell Aeconlw I la"wAn kupwramm 1 Jwd ISM 1, 11151 MAJIII)Oflai0ft IlIm I Ploglul I%Ile I ('1TV OFASCENTModified Do-di't sax viRmurRANSPORT .um f%MPROVEMENT PROGRALAM Y EA R 2M - 2(p17 I1R0.JF,CT 437:! 8khnvallis,Nidewalk Repah and the Mnerkaum whh DisalAillies Acg Compharl Prngram Ch't w0e Prop OW DESCM)"I ION: Systemadcully consow new shkwWks as WaliPed in the 'An to The HitovesUlligh VMS% throughoW dice City, Rccoilsn-1,lict and loput- Ming sWcwu%s and cink ivilinlog and AM ncwv inimnUal dmites um! W? mWev! Adewalks to impkinicut RK.- rc-quircnnents of [he cdcrul Articricarpil wilb Dkahilinc; Act (ADA) c,whim Mij, IQ 1b,dingS ofoyl! 1401MM,d(Miled ("hapmen (Chapwr ,6) offlu, 2008 l' Mamer 1111h,111, PROJECTCOM Prelimhuq .—SWIDJU) Ri;!W Ol'Wily Consiructhn 32251000 HADING SOURCV(S): Ciev t0 Kumt PROJE4"I', JUSAFRAMOM I WN pnyco is inundMul by Tide 11 lWilic Autulcutv, wilh Act� Tifle 11 requhes flue a poblk� cmiT u p y initst cwbuye A svices, ogranis pil, tuid prac6ix's Io det u:nti I ic wh6l)(1 I,[K-,y AW ht Wi fl 1, IhC ratuhumu0s of die ADA, The ADA requirc,,, fliat an ADA fiauviluwi T/fol iv prcpared to dow6be :my MruC",1rJ or phy'skla chanvos reclukal to make pogrom; accesslMe" I he Ca hw, coilducted S =wlf ovaltialicin aml pmpawd a hvinshovew IM hwImUng a yknhhcd lha of 1Q,as la Ining W1 YAO complimce with the Fedewl ADA Tkis p,,,graili lyc auaa vvolkitig oo llin,O li�l M projecl lo Construct ajid repair dit, Cilly's sldcv,,kdk and wire uVAckailk lmnshkni mw,,; It'ir access'lliallity iol A user) and begjits io ad(hoss, flic petkis(yalil improvoivw.uils nlcnWlt-.rd hit 11he li-ansportatloin M<ewr Plan, Thn� projicc! elm huyl nwhicvc the (Ay's junds kir Irnlpirovinui.0 inobdity, rvduciiq; vvikk ukrq hictl 11y1cal rWliviilry, Ind illyroving, irmiquMation All' 41(erial hiltuovoucill Prog,ranl I.Sinte I,CMAQ Umpsou NMWdWPuW A h QUdYR&m I J, 1,AS I , fvtllolhl AC601 I;SftAlct,!Yl6r -ruble NA is ary OF KENI' Modified Draft SIX wimmumMEN]" IIRO(,,;RAM YEAR. 2012 - Z017 PRAIAT 93T Guard"61 m"l Safety �Wnpvovenleiaihl DENCRIP11ON: nonke miscellauleous imurdmil imiummme each ycar lo cnk"inu, mcrcwisl Calldl(Lilu Q00S WI ide "raver Pcmd, SE, Aveouc h,R1,,jidc, [,,,ik(,-, FcmwkA Road norlh or 127 SAM and I Q Avywe Scludwas Upgntdc exktung gHavoroP vod-ocauments as amirldawd by State anvil Federal negWadonh. PROJECINOST: PrOlAnary [.atgillCO.illg ...$20,000, Righl ofWay Acqui,,iidom $01 Construuthm M75AM PUPPING SA)URCIMP My of KxnL I Hj,'- PROJEC"l, IUSTJFRATION 'I Ilis pii�jw is menAtfud by ,outphl incc, wirli Vacdcnfl wait SiAc and the mpnMunwrit U) Anhadc jmMMy AmMous ioudv�my coirditilliv, A I P,Ai let;rol IIdIIwvemenC l'Yogunw,I�tldcE CMAtj , Cmlie%limi Mivtnium mild At QWMIMWN I FAA r mmgm Awn sat kim%i Am;rMSIR Vrvigk NOW%Mmwgk AwnwU BmW[Mwo,F I A Fclluiol hucAl Adminku,10cm HEN Himaw Flimmmma JUMI RA Wd%mt I lonpMudion 4pumb judmay;I H A-Load ImpmemoM JAMINq PVVn-- Public Woos )MA FMW I um,pukk 81 P -NOW'Lliumpolub,PRislu,FWAL TA rmnslummium,impmenew Amcv%THA 39 corry orKNENTModified IN-aft hills Y Y Pith: 2012 - 2017 PROJ KC F U31 CvRuwainily Bwvc'd Circul-Oding f4vusfle4m M,U,Oii'fyx ( 'r�VWNC IYOa pP'OJYA FHOSOUP11ON: (Sublue N) IMOVOC CRAWliced aansh Sawke to riwo dw ficods ol Che coil')Inunbly 111tough 1he use a& fixed-roule shriul wrvicc, wi(h dooms tnd roufin�-.� Rowus 914NI6 verve the Kcn "Frausk Cenlei, RcgJ(,)pkd Jusflcer Ccimer, Kew, ('1W 1hdL Green Dever CamnaurdLy College's lien, carnInI& vuld kw,d 4ropping and rurvdhao& WOUM IS JAnde 918 AM connmls Te Olf's ccnk!w w4h ffic rejun,'A hus wO omirinwor train senWes aC dre Kew Fransit Cenicu% 11ROAQ71' CQST� lrclhwinar+ knh�Ine�'xn'lg. `4 i'gju 'r'O Wa" Acquisibon Qnwawhmi S252jXV) FUNDING SOURCE(1,4): 01y ol'Kcnr � CNIA(,'k, Kk)g County, H'S VII(LIECTI, JUS 11 FICATIOM Rowo. 9H?9[to provi(L wohifity and indcpcndcn-x to noisy ebt the cky',, senurs x1110 W411WIC fl1C 11C(Nd ko' WTSS scuvicc l'aar niany 5'�Vvi4x trip'3 Conuikuni[y ciputdahng dluffcs encoulage Jw paf6cipudon ot'ZO aqxs, ah oxuoanjc gs)upm A physlak"Hilics, and Nil"O"alty A of wu- coriirnlulily in cvc1ploy 6vk! lil'c %vilau; the iwohahin ud rm)"Worr of Ole waonlob ke ful v c y trip. ( ournnfflc) sNHOCs cnhancc the sovkc by RnOdnri, [ho vitul HE Goni homw or "work ;a—Axy WIS Now, CeCCPIMIging peopIc to bavcd %'J[how flr6r twrstomj Mides 9p1u, avoklow die cAfaut inipcis k; air RILw1by urul rcduOhq on lucN[ sfrcc s A311-ANIUL11 hopovilmd Fmaq,�Cklitle - [Siay.j, PIA redmfl IiVS 1W Srvil mmmuM Wdct PVVn2 Pubhc kvolhs V I ustr[ind Mann I SWO Spn swhm I MMpxhWMpMWvO PUMA K 114 Boo pMqqF"'j I an)JImilklifion 10 CIIN OFKENT Modified Draft SIX V1100 14. TRANS FORTATION I M PROV ENIENI' PROG RAM NUM; 2012 - 2017 PROJECT HU: Transit Now Service Padwiership Program Ongoikpg Ckrw;dc Ptogrmpj DENOUPIMN: Vw,.it, NcNw is a volcr,approved Ning ( cmWy Mdw I ransit [lroSi,aw which pruvides Mcnlives Mr local MHUM; vi impvvc Imal wAnnit qxwkw by enwdng Whi a dimcl finl,rneial P,1t-wejJ,ijp wiih Metro j6r provikhiW, addi6on,,fl scrvwce Nh` le) wifl aa[ch, a parineCK comhWon oa a 2:1 hao�is, Now inquics or nikinnum inm0bubmi from the pariner 4 SIOUAKM per Ivar Or live (5) ycus in add a new wane Kard has entorcd ivN) ji�,irtncn;hip vvith, Metro lo pmvida nuiv servico to Me lakes and lUvcrvknV wighholthoods and to provide thc miy�ing htflk howcun duo Kew Danosh Nola, and axajot- worksiles in fh,,� valley inclumdal awa. PROJEC"F COS11 PrOhr inary Enghrucri ng l,mxp(w Right wrWuy KNIMING SOURCEOS): City of1sent. Kirqz, Cor"oy, Coni'minio, hip Reduction Prg)p,�pinl Of It) Empkqcrs JUS H FICATION; TannA, so,vkc WN am? train) hctivevn Kcnl wnd d(wwown scardv is y�cmllal)y comperkivv with awowc)hfle 6lvhq thuing die conw-im hours, I raivint, servicc "Whi Ker; and Mwen V:Ynl wd NO KOWng jUHUMAKris twS SCAMS dMOCKS 13w; no low ficxpucilicy. 11['OrSi� jS S1111p11Y InCtI, A Vi lbk- 0 )14YO fOr [raviolers who nced w maN a 'All during rhC n,61]day, cowrilitels wmidag tirm- wad4ional ",160., hOW CO"1111IMels who 014, (oncr"mcd that Owre k no Why net service xhouhl they nued U) navul daring rho Odday I hese parnwrviiip piopo Ms aflOW 4LS R1 bUy OLW VVIIy itiro p-wiifing uddAi1)1r11[ wr6x lo ow conIMM" W me 1"M MH OOVYWIC No W M OWN MrS CITY 011 KENT ModHijed Diraft dI SAVIOR TRANSPORTAIJON IMPROVEMENTPROGRAIM VEARN 2612 - 2017 PROJ F("I'M I Radroad Oa iel Zone lor Downftnvn cewer On'�pwplg" Clf:v'�vide Perigraw DESCRIP1104 lowNishinew da nAW q0t zcmc Or h; Hudhipm Nonhem Saw R! RaWd (BNSI�) tracks and te Union Pacific R,,Iihoud (UPRR) swcU thrm1h tc Cily of K,lml, Tlw gaadc crw"4wgS h) he Wkwed Harr A t;do AMC (M the MY, railruad nulinlincow S 259"AW VAllis Shea Tihis SMod, (Jovvc Sficel, Muekei S rvcl, Smith Sh-cot Suva as S 212"' Stvccu . f1w g,ladc crossings included in the ym wome Mr the UPRIk n,aiiiflhic mld s aw: Wift..; Sn-trxl d,SR 5161 W Stnih SO'oot, W Nfoctxr Sireel, VV Janws Slrec�, S 228"' and P ROJECT ("OST:: Prcljmall"V5' klghl of-Way (Ninstruckmi PlipUDING SOURCE(N: OQ &Ken( As RA Admiawkit JANVA PROAX"r 31),S"I'MCATION: 1,ok,4,mn-,afive enonems begin wniding he Ink nwuowd hom approxiinalcly Q wHv h,00i dw inkisection du highway/rody(ax! wosing. Ilds mu Ang Andee n' an olkwipc devinsw ua asJdcanls al t.,iaicdc cny;silngs but c%pkr:sys lhe loi'.ol cl"runallity w s.ip."nificant pc eis orown thl off (kIvewes the LOW# WIS Ar Me HvingeWwi R) to Shut Witis A IP-Artc I dA hinplawalmll Nerjano I%Azj,UMAQ (ongmIrnh Nblign I win W An OMN; pwamk msr i www mom snNgy w, MUCH&caw O-Woun(A no ITFW height rdollikly swAwpc Owmwm 9md Pm I,F,A-FrdcjA I minAiNAdnionolffncoll (Fedurllj� HES Lou!hnpmvanmO 11MW 11WH' hlbfik: Tynm%Jlwodoln 1111pow CITY OF KENT SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPRO 12 1 This page intentionally left Blank For MAP SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATIONIMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 2012 2017 40 WAS HINGTON For more information or additional copies of this document contact: Steve Mul n, "fransportatlon Engineering Manager City of Kent, Pudic Works, Engineering 220 Fourth. Avenue South Kent, J A g g 2- 8 9 (253) gay_ 5t3 smull dkent.wa,us KENT Agenda Item: Other Business — 8A TO: City Council DATE: November 15, 2011 SUBJECT: Municipal Court Judge Confirmation MOTION: Move to confirm for the position of Judge of the Kent Municipal Court for the remainder of the current judicial term which will end December 31, 2013. SUMMARY: In October of this year, Judge Robert McSeveney resigned his position as Judge of the Kent Municipal Court in order to accept a position as a federal immigration judge. Pursuant to section 3.50.093 of the Revised Code of Washington and section 2.32.060 of the Kent City Code, Mayor Cooke is responsible for appointing a judge to serve the remainder of the judicial term, subject to confirmation by the Kent City Council. The appointed judge will serve until December 31, 2013. The judge who will serve in the position beginning January 1, 2014 will be determined by way of election in November of 2013. The Mayor will present the candidate for confirmation at tonight's meeting, after reviewing the candidate's qualifications and experience. EXHIBITS: N/A RECOMMENDED BY: BUDGET IMPACTS: REPORTS FROM STAFF, COUNCIL COMMITTEES, AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES A. Council President B. Mayor C. Administration D. Economic & Community Development E. Operations F. Parks & Human Services G. Public Safety H. Public Works I. Regional Fire Authority J. Other K. Other KE"NT OPERATIONS ELld P41TTEE MINUTE'S October r 4, 2011 'Cop mmil I^.._Wd dm�ens Preserm lainrie Perry, I_es Thomas and Debbie Raplee, Chair, The itneethrig was called to order by D Map lee at 4,.08 p.m. I. APPROVAL P MINUTES DATED SEPTEMBER 6o dd33 L. Thomas moved to approve the Operations Committee mmnimasmtes rotated September 6, 2011, J. Ferry seconded time motion, which passed 3-0, APPROVAL, t3P VOUCHERS DATED AUGUST 31, 2011 AND SEPTEMBER 15, 2011. J. Perry moved to approve the vouchers dated August 31, 2011 and September 15, 2011. L. Thomas, seconded time rinotion, which passed 3 d. 3. RECOMMEND MEND COUNCIL CONFIRM THE MAYOR'S APPOINTMENT OF LASS P INDL,E AND LEW SELLERS TO THE KENT EVENTS CENTER PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT FOR AN ADDITIONAL FOUR-YEAR TERM, SAND RATIFY ALL ACTS CONSISTENT WITH THIS M Tld3dmd. E'conornic:, and Community Devclop;ment Director, Ben Wolicrt, presented the Mayor's reappointments to the Public Facilities DiArlct that cversees the public finances of the fahoWarc Center, Nornincaticns are to reappoint Cass Prindle end Lew Sellers, In accordance +math Oty of Dent. Ordinance No 3352 and Public; Fao bties District Resolution No, 2769, each director was appointed to a different term in order to stagger t1w term emad dates. These legislative documents and RC'W 35.57.010(3) (a) require that, after the ininad apircmtrvment, each rdirecftor's term is to be for a period of four years, Walters advised both had served well and they were looking funvard to having them continue to serve on the board, L, Thomas questioned City Attorney Torre Brubaker as to vOether or not could approve broth norninatiomis Under one rmodon. I Brubaker responded eyes L. Thomas moved to recommend council confirr"rm the Mayor's appointment of Cass POndle and Leann Sellers tma time hint Events Center F ublidc EacHlitdes blistrdct for an aadditionall four- year term, and ratify ail acts consistent with tha:s motion. J. Perry seconded the motion, v Mich passed 3-0, . MOVE TO RECOMMENDCOUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSOLIDATING BUDGET AD349 'TMdENT ORDINANCE FOR ADJUSTMENTS MADE BETWEEN JANU ARY 1, 2011 SAND JUKE 30e 2011 REFLECTING Ifs OVERALL BUDGET REDUCTION OF f$ ,351,709' Finance Director, Bob Nachfinger stated that this k the item he was asked to bring back from the last rneeting with more darif cation. Asking For Council's approval only on the change on the experdltrmre budget, Per b adget oardirmanccs, you don't adopt the revenue budget, you only adapt the mmaximurn amount that may be spent within a, Fund. @terrors prevlcusly approved totaled an increase In overcall all funds budget of $426k, asking approval of $2,778 million of recluctiors in overall expendltiare budget all fronds for a net charge of a reduction of $2.35 rni llion. (mNachlinger referred to Page 12 in the packet which shows a surrrrmary by fund, D. Rapadee asked if the $23 rrrdlllron change in expenditures was how much reverue than we did not have to expend, hlachlinger responded generally, yes,. J. Perry questioned the $I million adjustment general fund transfer to the street fcmnd, was that what was previously alaproved arr the budget adjustment ordinance? Nachdingezr replied yes, D Rauplee questioned if the $LL million that had been held in the general fund or Flood Fight had been transferred to the street fc,nd. lNachlr....nger replied yeas it had been back In dune 7011. L. Thomas advised that he could not 2"`m a motion, tie wants additional time to discuss items with Machlinger. Cmrnrrittee Knui:L S---pterrber 6, 2011 :rub qe: 2 J. Perry moved to recommend Counces approve the cmisofidating budget adjustment ordinance for adjustments imade between January 1, 2011 and Jurte 30, 2011 re-fleeting an overall budget reduction of $2,351,709. D, Raplee seconded the ntoUon, whkh passed 2-1, L. Thomas opposed, The "item wpffl go under Other Business at the October 18, 2011 City Council meeting, S. SUMMARY FINANCIAL REPORT ASOF AUGUST 31, 2012 (INFORMATION ONLY) Finance Dwectcr, Bob Nachfinger oresented a brief overview of the August 31, 2011 Summary F nanclaY Report. Nachhinger stated that revenues are stW anticipated to come- in under budget but Our expenses are trending to come: in even fUrthel' Under budget khan the RVeFIUeS. Generall Fund Summary Based on information available through Augu.�t, General Fund revenues are estimated to endl about $2,164,122 or 3,611/c under budget, while expenditures are pro3ected to end the year abCA $2,777,769 or, 4.50/a below the budget. 71his results un i projected ending find balance of $2,it5a,S54 or 4.20/6 or the expenditure budget, ReVeMiUeS tNhilesales tax revenues continue to show an irnproverrient over past years, overall revenues are estimated to end about $2,164,122 or 3.611/o under budget. ReverlUe higIffights include:: * Saies, Tax revenues are expected to exceed projectiorif by $369,082 or' 2.2% over budget, continuing the upward trend observed over the past"few months. * Utildty Tax revenues are trending to corne, hi approximately 8.811/,1 below budget. Building Permits and Pian Check Fees continue to he m-7gaLjvely impacted by the deterior?Uon in the building industry. Both are trending to end the year �iear 2010 actuals, or about 9-10/b below budget. We continue to work with Economic and Con-irnurity Developrrent to :tiateqize long Lerm solutions, * Recreation, Fees are condnuing to show an irnprovernent, trending to end the year about $40,000 under budgk--t, * Misce"aneous revenues are running appmxirnately 5900,000 under budget, €argply due to cat'itinuing Iow interest rates and the avail!231e cash to invest Fund Saliamic Endmq fund balance is esbrnated ca be $2,199,554, which equates to 4.21fr5 of the expenditure budget. 6, CHANGE THE START TIME OF THE OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING FROM 4:00 PM TO 4-30 PM BEGINNING WITH THE OCTOBER 18, 2011 MEETING A l comirnkitee merribers were in agreement of c'�2nging the start time to 4:�30 p.m. .She meeting was adjourned at 4m26 p.rn. by D. Raplee 14u'Incy 0'a)f'V PerotJQo 9 lnF CQMJ�njtte re Lary -'00 � KENT CITY OF KENT PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES October 11, 2011 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Les Thomas, Dennis Higgins, and Ron Harmon, Chair The meeting was called to order by Chair Harmon at 5:03 PM. 1. Approval of Minutes L. Thomas moved to approve the minutes of the September 13, 2011 meeting. The motion was seconded by D. Higgins and passed 3-0. 2. Fourth Amendment to Corrections Facility Medical Services Agreement - AUTHORIZE Chief of Police Ken Thomas explained the increase in compensation and staffing for medical services provided by Valley Medical Center Occupational Health Services to inmates at the City of Kent Corrections Facility was attributed to new labor contracts at VMC. D. Higgins moved to recommend that Council authorize the Mayor to sign the Fourth Amendment to the Corrections Facility Medical Services Agreement. The motion was seconded by L. Thomas and passed 3-0. 3. Amend Kent City Code 9.02 - Possession of Graffiti Tools - ADOPT City Prosecutor Michele Walker explained the amendment may be applied when suspects commit or facilitate the commission of an offense involving damaging, defacing, or destroying public or private property and they possess item(s) used or intended to be used to commit the offense. L. Thomas moved to recommend Council adopt the proposed ordinance amending Ch. 9.02 of the Kent City Code by adding a new section 9.02.193 entitled, "Possession of Graffiti Tools", making it unlawful for any person to possess graffiti tools within the City of Kent. The motion was seconded by D. Higgins and passed 3-0. 4. Snohomish County Transport Memorandum of Understanding - AUTHORIZE Chief Thomas explained that Snohomish County is requiring the MOU in order to transport inmates with Kent warrants who are being held in Snohomish County to the Kent Correctional Facility. The cost of the transport service will be $50.00 per inmate transported. The yearly cost is expected to be minimal. D. Higgins moved to recommend that Council authorize the Chief of Police to sign the Snohomish County Memorandum of Understanding Relating to Inmate Transport Services. The motion was seconded by L. Thomas and passed 3-0. S. Washington Traffic Safety Commission grant - AUTHORIZE and Establish budget Chief Thomas explained the Memorandum of Understanding provides grant funding for overtime, training and travel for the Law Enforcement Liaison for the South King County Target Zero Task Force. L. Thomas moved to authorize the Chief of Police to sign the Washington Traffic Safety Commission Memorandum of Understanding to accept grant funds not to exceed $5,000.00 and establish the budget. The motion was seconded by D. Higgins and passed 3-0. 6. Police Department Updates — INFO ONLY • Chief Thomas stated that several South County Police Chiefs have agreed to form a permanent gang task force unit to target the most violent offenders. He's working on a process to receive continued funding from the Federal government for web-based crime data access in police patrol cars. • He gave an update on the car show shooting arrests and noted that a King County prosecutor was assigned to the shooting investigation the day of the incident and continues to be assigned to the investigation. He also stated there are four King County prosecutors working on gang issues in the county. • There is a police sergeant's exam in process this week with over 20 applicants. One promotion will occur soon and two more will be promoted next spring. • Chief expects the next police lieutenant exam will occur in January which will create another sergeant's promotion. • One entry level and two lateral police officers were hired on October 3r'. Three additional officers may be hired form the most recent process. • The second police community meeting will be held on the West Hill in mid-November. Notifications will be made as soon as a date and location are selected. • Corrections Lieutenant Curt Lutz explained that a modified accreditation process will be used on October 201heat the Kent Corrections Facility. Jail commanders from around the state will assist in the process using state level guidelines. The previous American Correctional Association (ACA) process was focused on much larger jails and prisons. The meeting adjourned at 5:45 PM. Jo Thompson, Public Safety Committee Secretary Public Safety Committee Minutes 2 October 11, 2011 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE Minutes of Monday, October 17, 2011 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Committee Chair Debbie Raplee and committee members Dennis Higgins and Ron Harmon were present. The meeting was called to order at 4:06 p.m. Item 1 — Approval of Minutes Dated October 3, 2011: Councilmember Harmon MOVED to approve the minutes of October 3, 2011. The motion was SECONDED by Higgins and PASSED 3-0. Item 2— Draft 2012-2017 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Proaram (TIP): Senior Transportation Planner, Cathy Mooney gave an informative PowerPoint presentation on the Draft 2012-2017 Six-Year TIP. She noted that it represents the City's proposed transportation improvement program for the next six years. Mooney stated that the TIP Citizen Advisory Committee input and existing items are included in the draft. The following items were presented and discussed: The TIP is updated annually, required by law Declares list of projects, plans and programs (by year) Allows projects to be eligible for grants Is a significant planning tool The 2012-2017 Six-Year TIP is significantly smaller than previous years, reflecting current economic conditions. Acknowledges reduced opportunities to obtain state and federal grants in the next few years. There are 13 new projects - Kent Kangley Pedestrian Safety Improvements 1041h Ave SE to 1241h Ave SE - Miscellaneous Intersection Improvements - 11 Intersection improvement projects from the 2008 TMP project list as recommended by the Citizen's Advisory Committee 2 Projects were completed 15 projects were deferred 6 projects had minor scope modifications Ken Sharp, TIP Citizen Advisory Committee member stated that the advisory committee had taken apart the total master plan and put it back together again, separating the major regional issues from the City; intersection, road and other infrastructure improvements. Sharp stated a funding source for road maintenance is also needed. The Committee asked that this item be an Information Only Item at this time, and that it be brought back at a Special Public Works Committee meeting on Monday, October 24, 2011 at 4:00 p.m. for a vote. Item 3 — 2561h Street Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) — Funds: Public Works Director, Tim LaPorte showed a couple of photos of 2561h Street in its current condition. He noted that the 2561h Street Improvements project will widen the roadway to 3 lanes between the "Y" and 1161h Ave SE, including sidewalks, bicycle lanes and new drainage facilities. LaPorte went on to state that the $2-million Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) grant for this project requires matching funds from the City. TIF funds collected to date total roughly $187,000. The funds are eligible for use as City matching funds for the grant and have not been allocated for other projects. Page 1 of 3 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE Minutes of Monday, October 17, 2011 Using these funds for all $187,000 SE 2561h Street will allow us to continue moving forward on the project and utilize the Preliminary Engineering portion of the TIB grant. Higgins MOVED to recommend Council authorize the Mayor to direct staff to allocate Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Funds to the SE 2561h Street project for preliminary engineering and permitting. The motion was SECONDED by Harmon and PASSED 3-0. Item 4 - Information Only/Speed Bumps: Larry Rabel, Regional Fire Authority Deputy Fire Marshall presented a performance analysis that stated in some portions of the area in question (Tudor Square) the department is meeting their response time level of service but in others they are not. He talked about survivability on a call; that the fire department has never had a successful CPR save if they don't get to the home before 7 minutes 34 seconds. He stated that the area in the vicinity of 1141h Ave SE and SE 2691h Street is an area of concern for the Fire Department and he is opposed to speed bumps in this area. Information Only/No Motion Required Item 5 - Information Only/Prescription Drug Take Back Even t and Water Quality: Todd Hunsdorfer, Environmental Conservation Tech explained that with the excess of medicines found in our homes, society is now faced with finding responsible ways to dispose of them. He explained that placing prescription drugs in the garbage makes them available to other people, and flushing them down the toilet sends them to Puget Sound. The Kent Police Department is hosting the Prescription Drug Take Back Event on October 29, 2011 from 10:00 am - 2:00 pm at 232 41h Ave, Kent WA 98032. Information Only/No Motion Required Item 6 - Information Only/National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, (NPDES) - Program Update & Upcoming Re-issuance: Shawn Gilbertson, Environmental Scientist and Greg Reed, Utilities Superintendent gave an informative PowerPoint presentation on the status of our NPDES permits and a status update on our stormwater system. Information Only/No Motion Required Item 7 - Information Only/Lake Valley Stormwater Proiects: Environmental Engineering Supervisor, Alex Murillo gave an informative PowerPoint presentation on various Valley Stormwater Projects. Murillo clarified that the flood risk associated with the Green River is totally separate from our creek systems. He went on to state that Storm pond cleanup for 2011 is complete for this year, as work stops once the rainy season starts. The City storm crews are continuing to work year round. The contracted work is through the end of October. Council members thanked staff for the sidewalk boards that have been placed at the construction site to let people know where their money is going. Information Only/No Motion Required Page 2 of 3 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE Minutes of Monday, October 17, 2011 Item 8 — Information Only/Tacoma Second Supply Water Storage Disposition: Tim LaPorte, Public Works Director, said this is a new item for discussion. Two water supply systems; one from a well system and one with the City of Tacoma which is water held by the Howard Hanson dam. We get water from that source year around. The Corp of Engineers will be draining the dam soon. The water is technically a commodity that we own jointly with....it is an asset. In the future we will work to surplus the water. We donated part of the water to Lakehaven Utility District. Information Only/No Motion Required Item 9 — Information Only/3rd Quarter Report: Public Works Director, Tim LaPorte gave a brief overview and PowerPoint presentation on the Public Works Engineering and Operations Work Plans. Information Only/No Motion Required Added Item: King County Interlocal Agreement Tim LaPorte stated staff is working with the King County Flood Control District to enter into an agreement to proceed with design and construction of the Hawley and Boeing Levees. Several slides of the area were shown. Mike Mactutis, Environmental Engineering Manager noted that the State of Washington included in its 2011-2013 biennial budget a $4 million grant for Green River Levee Improvements targeted towards three levees; Boeing ($2,070,000) Hawley Road ($900,000) and Reddington Levee in Auburn ($1,030,000). The funding was directed to the King County Flood Control District and is intended to pay for improvements to the levees needed for FEMA accreditation as well as the accreditation process itself. Working on getting the interlocal signed so we can complete the design and proceed to construction next year. We anticipate getting the ILA approved by the King County Flood District executive committee next Monday. We are working hard to secure the following before the State Legislature convenes their special session. This item will be brought back to committee once an agreement is in place. Information Only/No Motion Required The meeting was adjourned at 6:13 p.m. Cheryl Viseth Council Committee Recorder Page 3 of 3 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE Minutes of Monday, October 24, 2011 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Committee Chair Debbie Raplee was absent. Ron Harmon was present as was Dennis Higgins, who chaired the Committee at Raplee's request. The meeting was called to order at 4:16 p.m. Item 1— Draft 2012-2017 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP): Tim LaPorte, Public Works Director noted that the Draft 2012-2017 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) represents the City's proposed transportation improvement program for the next six years. Mooney stated that the Citizen Advisory Committee's input and existing items are included in the draft. The following items were presented and discussed: The TIP is updated annually, required by law Declares list of projects, plans and programs (by year) Allows projects to be eligible for grants Is a significant planning tool The 2012-2017 Six-Year TIP is significantly smaller than previous years, reflecting current economic conditions. Acknowledges reduced opportunities to obtain state and federal grants in the next few years. There are 13 new projects - Kent Kangley Pedestrian Safety Improvements 1041h Ave SE to 1241h Ave SE - Miscellaneous Intersection Improvements - 11 Intersection improvement projects from the 2008 TMP project list as recommended by the Citizen's Advisory Committee 2 Projects were completed 15 projects were deferred 6 projects had minor scope modifications Comments were offered by Mike Miller, co-chair of the Citizens Advisory Committee, regarding the project list proposed by the Advisory Committee. Comments were offered by Mel Roberts, chairperson of the Kent Bicycle Advisory Board regarding the projects on the draft 2012-2017 6 Year TIP. Higgins moved that the comments be included in the record. Harmon agreed. After much discussion, it was decided that the following six projects would be removed from the Draft 2012-2017 Six-Year TIP list: Numbers 7, 12, 17, 18, 28 and 29. Harmon MOVED to recommend forwarding the Modified Draft 2012-2017 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) to the Council and recommend that Council set a Public Hearing date. Higgins did not second the motion. Raplee had indicated her approval prior to the meeting (Assistant City Attorney Hardy stated the motion could be passed as amended). The motion then PASSED 2-1, with Raplee's concurrence. However, the amended motion was reviewed by the City Attorney's office following the meeting and the City Attorney determined that Raplee's prior concurrence could not be considered because the item as it appeared in the committee packet was amended at the meeting. Because council member Raplee Page 1 of 2 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE Minutes of Monday, October 24, 2011 did not have an opportunity to review and approve the amendments, her prior concurrence could no longer be relied upon. With council member Raplee not in attendance at the meeting, the City Attorney determined that a quorum was present, but that the motion FAILED for lack of a second. Item 2 - Agreement for Levee Construction, Operation and Maintenance: Public Works Director, Tim LaPorte noted this item was brought to committee on October 17, 2011. It was again noted that the State of Washington included in its 2011-2013 biennial budget a $4 million grant for Green River Levee Improvements targeted towards three levees; the Boeing ($2,070,000) and Hawley Road Levees ($900,000) in Kent, and the Reddington Levee in Auburn ($1,030,000). Funding was directed to the King County Flood Control District and is intended to pay for improvements to the levees needed for FEMA accreditation as well as the accreditation process itself. City and King County staff are in agreement that it would be most advantageous for the City to complete the work. The City has evaluated these levees, prepared an accreditation request and designed related improvements. The attached interlocal agreement describes the procedure for King County to reimburse the City for some of these efforts using state grant money. Work completed after July 1, 2011 will be eligible for reimbursement. The vast majority of the grant funds will be used for levee construction projects on the Hawley Road and Boeing Levees in 2012. LaPorte stated that if this item passes at the King County Council meeting today this item will go on the consent calendar on November 1, 2011. Harmon MOVED to recommend Council authorize the Mayor to sign an Interlocal Agreement between the City of Kent and the King County Flood Control District for the City to receive reimbursement for improvements to and FEMA accreditation of the Boeing and Hawley Road Levees, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and Public Works Director. The motion was SECONDED by Higgins and PASSED 3-0, with Raplee's concurrence. The meeting was adjourned at 5:17 p.m. Cheryl Viseth Council Committee Recorder Page 2 of 2 EXECUTIVE SESSION ACTION AFTER EXECUTIVE SESSION