HomeMy WebLinkAbout3281Ordinance No. 3281
(Amending or Repealing Ordinances)
CFN=1000-Planning Dept.
Passed - 3/5/1996
School Impact Fees - Amending KCC Sec. 12.13.160
Amended by Ords. 3412;3482;3546;3591;3637;3675;3730;
3777;3827;3870;3904;3941;3987;4024;4057
The date [`Beginning July 1, 1998"] has led to confusion This date will be deleted from cover sheets of
ordinance/resolution revision pages This cover sheet will be deleted on electronic pages only, no other
deletions or changes have been made to the document — 6/21/2012
LL
ORDINANCE NO. a
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent,
Washington, relating to School Impact Fees
for the Kent School District and the Federal
Way School District within the City of Kent;
establishing school impact fees to be
collected by the City of Kent on behalf of
the districts; adopting the Capital
Facilities Plans of the districts as an
element of the Kent Comprehensive Plan for
purposes of implementing the Impact Fee
Program; and amending Ordinance No. 3222,
Section 1.
WHEREAS, in compliance with the Growth Management Act,
the Kent School District No. 415 and Federal Way School District
No. 210 adopted Capital Facilities Plans in April of 1995; and
WHEREAS, the plans have been reviewed by the interim
Land Use and Planning Hearings Board for the City of Kent; and
WHEREAS, on January 30, 1996, the interim Land Use and
Planning Hearings Board recommended the adoption of the
district's plans as a sub -element of the capital facilities
element of the Kent Comprehensive Plan; and
School Impact Fee
WHEREAS, the plans contain the information required
under the Growth Management Act and the City of Kent Ordinance
No. 3222; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution #1450, the Kent City Council
declared an emergency pursuant to the comprehensive Plan
Amendment procedures set forth in Kent City Code Chapter 12.02;
and
WHEREAS, the City has provided notice of the Emergency
Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the State of Washington, and the
state and citizens have the opportunity to comment, or to take
such other action as they may deem appropriate, during the 60 day
period prior to the effective date of this ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the SEPA responsible official has reviewed the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment adopting the Districts' Capital
Facilities Plans as a sub -element of Kent's Comprehensive Plan
Capital Facilities Element and has issued a Determination of
Nonsignificance, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A;
and
WHEREAS, since the adoption of Ordinance No. 3260, the
district does not believe multi -family studio units have impacts
on the districts and therefore no fee is assessed on multi -family
studio units at this time; NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
2
SECTION 1. Authority. This ordinance is adopted to
implement the policies of the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan and
the 1990 Growth Management Act. This ordinance is necessary to
address identified impacts of development on the districts
participating in the Impact Fee Program to protect the public
health, safety and welfare, and to implement the City of Kent's
authority to impose impact fees pursuant to RCW 82.02.050 through
RCW 82.02.080.
SECTION 2. Ordinance Amendment. A new section is
hereby added to Ordinance No. 3222, Sub -Section 4, to read as
follows:
a.) Kent School District No. 415 Capital Facilities Plan,
April 1995, and Federal Way School District No. 210
Capital Facilities Plan, April 1995, which are included
in Exhibits B and C, respectively, and are incorporated
herein by reference, are adopted as a sub -element of
the Capital Facilities element of the Kent
Comprehensive Plan. Copies of each Districts' Capital
Facilities Plans shall be on file with the City Clerk.
SECTION 3. City Code Amendment. Chapter 12.13 of the
Kent City Code is hereby amended to add a new Section 12.13.160
as follows:
CA
Sec. 12.13.160. Base Fee Schedule.
The following fees shall be assessed for the indicated types)
of development:
School District
Kent, No. 415
Single Family
$3,675.42
Multi -
Family
Multi -Family Studio
$1,935.94 $0.00'
Federal Way, No. 210 $1,707.00 $1,423.00 $0.00
SECTION 4. Assessment of Fees. The assessment and
collection of impact fees are governed by Chapter 12.13 of the
Kent City Code.
SECTION 5*. Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The section
entitled "PUBLIC EDUCATION FACILITIES" in Chapter 8 of the City
of Kent Comprehensive Plan, which appears on page 8-12, is hereby
amended as follows:
PUBLIC EDUCATION FACILITIES
Most of Kent's residential areas are served by the Kent
School District. The Renton School District serves students
from an area of Kent near the north City limits, and Kent
students from a section of the West Hill of Kent attend
Federal Way Schools. Detailed inventories of school
district capital facilities are contained in the capital
facilities plan of each school district. The capital
facilities plans of the Kent and Federal Way School
Districts have been adopted as part of the City's Capital
Facilities Element.
4
The geographic locations of schools in Kent are found on
Figure 8.1.
SECTION 6*: Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The
following new paragraph shall be added to Chapter 8 of the City
of Kent Comprehensive Plan, to be inserted immediately after the
heading entitled "ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS," which appears on page 8-
13:
ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS
The followina section outlines the capital costs, financin
and levels of service for the public facilities which are
provided by the City of Kent. This same information for the
Kent and Federal Way School Districts is available in the
districts' capital facilities plans, which have been adopted
by reference as part of the Capital Facilities Element.
SECTION 7*: Comprehensive Plan Amendment. A new
Capital Facilities Policy (Policy CFP -6.5) shall be added to the
section entitled "CAPITAL FACILITIES GOALS AND POLICIES," in
Chapter 8 of the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan to be inserted
after the existing Policy CFP -6.4, which now appears on page 8-
27:
CAPITAL FACILITIES GOALS AND POLICIES
Policy CFP -6.5 -The City shall adopt the capital facilities
plans of the Kent and Federal Way School Districts by
reference as part of this Capital Facilities Element. The
5
City will review these plans on an annual basis to assess
the districts' enrollment projections, levels of service,
capacity, and financing Dlan.
*A copy of the text (only) of Chapter 8 which incorporates
the preceding amendments is attached as Exhibit D and shall be on
file with the City Clerk.
SECTION 8. Severability. Should any section,
subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this
ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance be
unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such decision shall
not affect the validity of the remainder of the ordinance or the
application of the invalidated provision to other persons or
circumstances.
SECTION 9. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be
effective commencing April 1, 1996.
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
JIM WHITE, MAYOR
0
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
C
ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY
-rikCMkS L . i31ZU►3Al�krz� AUT% tract
PASSED
APPROVED
S
day of �,lc/L-cam 1996.
day of
1996.
PUBLISHED O day of 1996.
I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance
No. 3e? -o'>1 , passed by the City Council of the City of Kent,
Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as
hereon indicated.
scimfee.ord
(SEAL)
BRENDA JACOB R, ITY CLERK
7
SEPA RULES
WAC 197-11-965 Adoption Notice
Adoption for (check appropriate box) A DNS _ EIS _ other
Description of current proposal Comprehensive Plan amendment to incorporate the capital
facilities plans of both the Federal Way and Kent School Districts into the City of Kent Capital
Facility Plan amendment
Proponent City of Kent
Location of current proposal City limits of the City of Kent, WA
Title of document being adopted Kent School District 1995 6eater Capital Facilities Plan/DNS
Federal Way School District 1994/95 6eay r Capital Facility Plan/DNS
Agency that prepared document being adopted Kent School District/Federal Way School District
Date adopted document was prepared KSD - June 22, 1995: FWSD - March 10 1995
Description of document (or portion) being adopted Declaration of Nonsignificance and
environmental checklists for the Kent and Federal Way School Districts' capital facilities plans
If the document being adopted has been challenged (197-11-630), please describe: NA
The document is available to be read at (place/time) Kent Planning Department Centennial
Building, 220 4th Avenue South, Kent, WA 98032
We have identified and adopted this document as being appropriate for this proposal after
independent review. The document meets our environmental review needs for the current
proposal and will accompany the proposal to the decision maker.
Name of Agency adopting document City of Kent
Contact person, if other than responsible official Fred N. Satterstrom Phone: 859-3390
Responsible Official James P. Harris
Position/title Planning Director Phone: 859-3390
Addr(
Date
CAPITAL FACILITIES
PLAN.
1995-1996 - 2000-2001
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415
King County, Kent, Auburn, Renton, Washington
APRIL 1995
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
1995-1996 - 2000-2001
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415
King County, Kent, Auburn, Renton, Washington
APRIL 1995
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415
12033 SE 256th Street
Kent, Washington 98031-6643
(206) 852-9550
SIX-YEAR CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
1995-1996 - 2000-2001.
April 1995
BOARD of DIRECTORS
Sandra Collins
Susan Follmer
Edward H. Kosnoski, O.D.
Linda Petersen
Carolyn Tolas
ADMINISTRATION
James L. Hager, Ph.D.
Superintendent
Elaine Collins, Ed.D.
Deputy Superintendent
Fred High
Executive Director of Finance
Gwen Dupree
Assistant Superintendent of Secondary Schools
Gary Morrison, Ed.D.
Assistant Superintendent of Elementary Schools & Community Outreach
Marcia Slater, Ph.D.
Assistant Superintendent of Elementary Schools & Instructional Services
William L. Welk, Ed.D.
Executive Director of Human Resources
Margaret Whitney
Executive Director of Student Support Services
Judy Parker, ASPR
School -Community Relations
Kent School District No. 415
Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan
1995-1996 - 2000-2001
April 1995
For information on the Plan, please call the
Finance & Planning Department at 813-7295.
Capital Facilities Plan
Contributing Staff
Gwenn Escher, Forecast & Planning Administrator
Glen Anderson, Director of Plant & Facilities
Donna Smith, Supervisor of Accounting
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415
SIX-YEAR CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
TABLE of CONTENTS
Section
Page Number
I
Executive Summary
2
I I
Six -Year Enrollment Projection
4
III
Current District "Standard of Service"
8
I V
Inventory and Capacity of Existing Schools
12
V
Six -Year Planning and Construction Plan
15
V I
Relocatable Classrooms
18
VII
Projected Classroom Capacity
20
VIII
Finance Plan and Impact Fee Schedules
25
Ix
Appendixes
30
Kent School Distrid Sb( -Year Capital Facilities Plan April, 1995 Page 1
I Executive Summary
This Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan (the "Plan") has been prepared by the Kent
School District (the "District") as the District's facilities planning document, in
compliance with the requirements of Washington's Growth Management Act and
King County Ordinance No. 10162. This annual plan update was prepared
using data available in the spring of 1995.
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. Any such plan or
plans will be consistent with this Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan.
The King County Council adopted the Kent School District Capital Facilities Plan
and a fee implementing ordinance for the unincorporated areas effective
September 15, 1993. In order for impact fees to continue to be collected in the
unincorporated portions of the District, the Metropolitan King County Council
must also adopt this plan update. In order for impact fees to be collected in the
incorporated portions of the District, the City of Kent and the City of Auburn must
also adopt this Plan and adopt their own school impact fee ordinances. To date,
neither city has adopted a school impact fee ordinance.
A financing plan is included in Section V I I I which demonstrates the District's
ability to implement this Plan.
This Capital Facilities 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 in the
District. The Growth Management Act and King County Ordinance No. 10162
authorize the District to make adjustments to the standard of service based on
specific needs of the District.
In general, the District's current standard provides that class sizes for grades
K - 3 should not exceed 26 students, class size for grades 4 - 9 should not
exceed 29 students, and class size for grades 10 - 12 should not exceed 31
students. (See Section I I I for more specific information.)
(Continued)
Kent School District Sbc-Year Capital Facilities Plan . April, 1995 Page 2
I Executive Summary (cordin,ed)
The capacities of the schools in the District are calculated based on this
standard of service and the existing inventory, which includes relocatable
classrooms. The District's 1994-95 program capacity of permanent facilities is
21,798. This includes Spring Glen Elementary which is leased from Renton
School District through 1996 and has a permanent facility capacity of 297 which
increases to a program capacity of 381 through use of relocatables.
Relocatables provide additional transitional capacity until permanent facilities
are completed.
Full Time Equivalent enrollment for this same period was 22,881. The actual
number of individual students per the October 1, 1994, head count was 23,937.
The District's standard of service, enrollment history and projections, and use of
transitional facilities were among subjects studied by the Citizens' Concurrency
Task Force. The Final Report of the Concurrency Task Force was approved by
the Board of Directors on March 10, 1993. Findings and recommendations of
the Concurrency Task Force are discussed further in Section I I I of this Plan.
In subsequent years, the current plan is to maintain surplus capacity consistent
with today's surplus. The predominant reason for this surplus is the transitional
use of relocatables as recommended by the Citizens' Concurrency Task Force.
The Concurrency Task Force reaffirms that, as has been the practice and
philosophy of the Kent School District, and also based on the most recent
recommendation of the Citizens' Facilities Planning Committee, portables are
NOT acceptable as permanent facilities. Portables, or, using the more accurate
but interchangeable term, "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.
Use of relocatable and transitional capacity and specific recommendations by
the Concurrency Task Force are further discussed in Section V I of this Plan.
Pursuant to the requirements of the Growth Management Act, this Plan will be
updated annually, with changes in the fee schedule(s) adjusted accordingly.
Kent School District Sb( -Year Capital Facilities Plan . April, 1995 Page 3
11 Six - Year Enrollment Projection
Growth projections were calculated by analyzing an 9 -year history of the District.
The King County live births and the District's relational percentage average were
used to determine the number of kindergartners entering the system. Through
the nine-year period, the percentage increases ranged from a low of 7.79% in
1986 to a high of 9.51 % in 1991. (See Table 1) Based on a nine-year
average, 8.39% of King County live births is equivalent to the number of
students projected to enter kindergarten in the district for the next six-year
period. (See Table 2)
Preschool Special Education ("SE" or handicapped) students are calculated and
reported separately on an FTE basis and projections for an additional 87 - 180
students are based on approximately 11 % annual increase for that program
which is the lowest rate in the last four years.
The first grade population is traditionally 7 - 8% larger than the kindergarten,
population due to growth and transfers to the District from private kindergartens.
Projections for grades 1 -12 are calculated using historical cohort survival ratios
from the past five years. The historical relationship of one grade ascending to
the next are run through three models: a 4 -year weighted model, a 3 -year
weighted model, and a 2 -year average model. The most consistent statistic per
grade is posted to a comprehensive model that becomes the annual base -line
forecast. The results are analyzed and compared to current economic factors,
then adjusted accordingly.
The total rate of growth in District enrollment is very conservatively projected to
decline slightly for 1995, and then gradually increase over the next six years by
approximately 1,300 students through the 2000 - 2001 school year. (see Table 2)
With a few exceptions, the expectation is that enrollment increases will occur
District -wide. District projections are based on historical growth patterns
combined with continuing development of projects in the pipeline dependent on
market and 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.
Within practical limits, the District has kept abreast of proposed developments.
The Kent School District primarily lies in three permitting jurisdictions: King
County, the City of Kent, and the City of Auburn. Information on new residential
developments and the completion of these proposed developments may be
considered in the District's future analysis of growth projections.
(Continued)
Kent School District Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan April, 1995 Page 4
I I Six - Year Enrollment Projection (Cwftvjed)
STUDENT GENERATION FACTOR
King County Ordinance No. 10162 defines "Student Factor' 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, student generation factor for Kent
School District is based on a survey of 2,430 single family dwelling units and
2,611 occupied multi -family dwelling units.
The actual number of students in those residential developments was
determined using the District's Education Logistics (Edulog) Transportation
System. In 2,430 single family dwelling units there were 1,255 elementary
students, 440 junior high students, and 355 senior high students for a total of
2,050 students. In 2,611 multi -family dwelling units, there were 673 elementary
students, 215 junior high students, and 180 senior high students, for a total of
1,068 students.
The student generation factor by grade span is as follows:
Single Family Elementary .516
Junior High .181
Senior High .146
Total .843
Multi -Family Elementary .258
Junior High .082
Senior High .069
Total .409
Kent School District Sb( -Year Capital Facilities Plan April, 1995 Page 5
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415
OCTOBER NINE-YEAR ENROLLMENT HISTORY
..,.+f:++r+`+,.,.++eL..'�+9`i,..c •. :.✓{,s •+Af'<.{{.++.+ :+�+;^++..f.�. »:'..+✓{:,'{:"
c{++.Sh`...,<:.r'•.+`}.ifi44:.
1,586
1986
1987
1 1988
1989
1990
1 1991
1 19921993
1994
'R•ri 8+�$C i .i+{{:i }h+f tiv>r$ff•+U{J,lirv+}'Kr N•.vv.� 'P/ :irY.}y:.:}:t}n
v •..CAS {Jn :,4ti•V �4%)S Yv+•�i<L•x' :
+,}+
King County Live Births 18,388 18,811 18,533 18,974 19,788 19,953 20,423 21,275 22,386
Kindergarten / Birth % 7.79 % 8.43 % 8.80 % 8.80 % 8.89 % 9.51 % 9.42 % 9.07% 8.53 %
Kindergarten • •
1,433
1,586
1,631
1,669
1,760
1,897
1,923
1,930
1,909
Grade
1
1,471
1,593
1,749
1,759
1,852
1,945
2,029
2,017
1,968
Grade
2
1,409
1,520
1,616
1,781
1,773
1,944
1,998
2,048
1,938
Grade
3
1,362
1,461
1,583
1,718
1,824
1,867
1,950
1,971
1,965
Grade
4
1,294
1,412
1,501
1,639
1,793
1,916
1,901
1,939
1,943
Grade
5
1,206
1,373
1,498
1,599
1,702
1,865
1,911
1,907
1,899
Grade
6
1,251
1,256
1,418
1,552
1,629
1,733
1,885
1,951
1,915
Grade
7
1,305
1,330
1,330
1,561
1,625
1,721
1,812
1,915
1,949
Grade
8
1,324
1,345
1,336
1,380
1,546
1,629
1,727
1,799
1,883
Grade
9
1,420
1,395
1,426
1,488
1,484
1,613
1,690
1,716
1,803
Grade
10
1,551
1,394
1,400
1,426
1,469
1,482
1,666
1,698
1,693
Grade
11
1,366
1,487
1,274
1,313
1,361
1,402
1,410
1,537
1,536
Grade
12
1,373
1,243
1,332
1,223
1,206
1,268
1,298
1,340
1,393
Total Enrollment • • 17,765 18,395 19,094 20,108 21,024 22,282 23,200 23,768 23,794
Yearly Increase 630 699 1,014 916 1,258 918 568 26
Cumulative Increase 630 1,329 2,343 3,259 4,517 5,435 6,003 6,029
Average increase in the number of students per year (1986 - 1994) 670
Total increase for the 9 -year period 6,029
• Number indicates actual births in King County 5 years prior to enrollment year.
• • This count from the October OSPI P223 report includes Kindergarten at headcount and excludes Preschool Handicapped students.
Total October, 1994 enrollment with Preschool 6 Kindergarten Headcourt and 1-12 FTE a 23,863.10.
Total October, 1994 enrollment with Preschool & Kindergarten FTE at .5 - 22,881.
Total October, 1994 individual student headcount is 23,937.
Keri School District Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 1
April, 1995 Page 6
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415
SIX -YEAR ENROLLMENT PROJECTION
King County Live Births
?JrC#A4 rry�r�fcy'/;1:.]rr;f>'f>•We
:rr,r�rrrf<.<:r;'ac:t::r�,<..,
1994 1 1995
1996
1997
1998•
1999
• 2000
v
r /fir :rJrrrr \v:r:
ti
King County Live Births
22,386
22,951
22,799
23,049
22,330
24,083
24,442 '
Increase / Decrease
852
565
-152
250
-469
1,753
359
Kindergarten / Birth % "
8.53%
8.32%
8.95%
8.73%
9.11%
8.26%
8.42%
PreSchool Handicapped
87
98
109
122
137
156
180
Kindergarten FTE C .5"
955
963
1,020
1,006
1,017
995
1,029
Grade 1
1,967
1,892
1,928
2,064
2,051
2,095
2,080
Grade 2
1,937
1,844
1,807
1,837
1,983
1,990
2,063
Grade 3
1,965
1,814
1,752
1,720
1,763
1,922
1,956
Grade 4
1,942
1,890
1,770
1,714
1,696
1,755
1,941
Grade 5
1,899
1,856
1,833
1,720
1,678
1,678
1,762
Grade 6
1,915
1,860
1,848
1,827
1,728
1,703
1,728
Grade 7
1,945
1,855
1,877
1,898
1,912
1,900
1,920
Grade 8
1,882
1,857
1,853
1,862
1,885
1,974
.1,935
Grade 9
1,800
1,829
1,888
1,872
1,882
1,980
2,048
Grade 10
Grade 11
Grade 12
Total Enrollment
Yearly Increase
Yearly Increase %
Cumulative Increase
1,690
1,806
1,857
1,886
1,929
1,992
2,051
1,529
1,550
1,598
1,672
1,768
1,802
1,843
1,368
1,386
1,355
1,421
1,549
1,632
1,647
22,881
22,500
22,495
22,621
22,978
23,574
24,183
581
-381
-5
126
357
596
609
2.50%
-1.67%
-0.02%
0.56%
1.58%
2.59%
2.58%
581
200
195
321
678
1,274
1;883
Full Time Equivalent EE122,881 22,500 1 22,495 22,621 1 22,978 23,574 1 24,183
Projection through 1998 is King County actual live births and remainder is forecasted live births
from trend data compiled by Kent School District.
" Kindergarten FTE enrollment projection at .5 is calculated by using the District's past 5 - year
weighted average of kindergarten enrollment compared to King County live births 5 years earlie
10/1/94 Full time equivalent q (FTE) with Preschool Handicapped and Kindergarten at .5 = 22,881.
10/1/94 Individual student headcount = 23,937 students. (K/Sp Ed Prschl HdCt + 1-12 FTE = 23,863
IGROWTH P R O J E C T 10 N S - Adjustments for current economic factors I
This six-year projection anticipates enrollment decline for 1995, flat growth for 1996, slow incremental
growth through 1999 and resumes the normal forecast pattem thereafter.
Kent School Distnct Sb( -Year capital Facilities Plan Table 2 April, 1995 Page 7 -
III Current Kent School District "Standard of Service"
In order to determine the capacity of the District's facilities, the King County
Ordinance No. 10162 refers to a "standard of service" that each school district
must establish in order to ascertain its overall capacity. The standard of service
identifies the program year, the class size, the number of classrooms, students
and programs of special need, and other factors determined by the District which
would, in the District's judgment, best serve its student population.
This Plan includes the standard of service as established by Kent School District
and as affirmed by the Kent School District Citizens' Concurrency Task Force.
Relocatables included in the capacity calculation use the same standard of
service as the permanent facilities. (See Appendix A, 8 & C)
The standard of service defined herein may change significantly in the future.
Kent School District is currently involved in a long-term strategic planning
process which may affect aspects of the District's "standard of service". Future
changes to the standard of service will be reflected in future capital facilities
plans.
Current Standards of Service for Elementary Students
Class size for grades K - 3 should not exceed 26 students.
Class size for grades 4 - 6 should not exceed 29 students.
Program capacity for regular education classrooms is calculated at an average
of 27 students per classroom because there are four grade levels at K - 3 and
fluctuations between primary and intermediate grade levels (ie. Third / Fourth
grade split classes, etc.).
Students may be provided music instruction and physical education in a
separate classroom or facility.
Students may have scheduled time in a special computer lab.
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 Sbc-Year capital Facilities Plan April, 1995 Page 8
III Current Kent School District "Standard of Service" (continued)
Identified students will also be provided other educational opportunities in
classrooms for programs designated as follows:
English As a Second Language (ESL)
Integrated Programs & Resource Rooms (for special remedial assistance)
Education for Disadvantaged Students (Chapter 1)
Gifted Education
Other Remediation Programs
Learning Assisted Program (LAP)
School Adjustment Programs for severely behavior -disordered students
Hearing Impaired
Mild, Moderate and Severe Developmental Disabilities
Developmental Kindergarten
Preschool Handicapped
ECEAP (Early Childhood Education Assistance Programs)
All of the above special programs require specialized classroom space; 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 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. In addition, when programs change,
program capacity fluctuates and is updated annually to reflect the change in
program and capacity.
Current Standards of Service for Secondary Students
The standards of service outlined below reflect only those programs and
educational opportunities provided to secondary students which directly affect
the capacity of the school buildings.
Class size for grades 7 - 9 should not exceed 29 students.
Class size for grades 10 -12 should not exceed 31 students.
Special Education for students with disabilities may be provided in a self-
contained classroom with a capacity of 10-15 depending on the program.
(continued)
Kent School District Sb( -Year Capital Facilities Plan April, 1995 Page 9
III Current Kent School District "Standard of Service" (continued)
Identified students will also be provided other education opportunities in
classrooms for programs designated as follows:
Computer Labs
English As a Second Language (ESL)
Integrated Programs & Resource Rooms (for special remedial assistance)
Preschool and Daycare
Honors (Gifted) and Advanced Placement Programs
Basic Skills Programs
Traffic Safety Education
JROTC - Junior Reserve Officers Training Corps
Variety of Technical & Applied Programs (Vocational Education)
ie. Home & Family Life (Cooking, Sewing, Child Development, etc.)
Business Education (Keyboarding, Accounting, Business Law,
Sales & Marketing, etc.) Woods, Metals, Welding, Electronics,
Manufacturing Technology, Auto Shop, Commercial Foods,
Commercial Art, Drafting & Drawing, Electronics, Careers, etc.
Many of these programs require specialized classroom space which can reduce
the permanent capacity of the school buildings. In addition, an alternative
(continuation) program with limited capacity and enrollment is provided for
secondary students at Kent West High School.
Space or Room 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. Based on the analysis of actual utilization of
classrooms, the District has concluded that the standard utilization rate is 95%
for elementary schools and 85% for secondary schools. In future, the District
will continue close analysis of actual utilization.
Kent School District Citizens' Concurrency Task Force
The Kent School District Board of Directors appointed a Citizens' Concurrency
Task Force, made up of a cross section of the community, to assist in defining
the District's Standard of Service. To accomplish this task, the Task Force was
directed to study Kent School District enrollment history and projections,
demographics and planned new developments, land availability for new schools,
facility capacities and plans, frequency of boundary changes, and portable
(relocatable) vs. permanent facility issues. A meeting for public input was
conducted and the Final Report of the Citizens' Concurrency Task Force was
approved by the Board of Directors on March 10, 1993. (continued)
Kent School Distad Sbc-Year Capital Facilities Plan . April, 1995 Page 10
III Current Kent School District "Standard of Service" (continued)
The Final Report of the Citizens' Concurrency Task Force included Findings and
Recommendations and provision for the following long term goals:
A. Seek to reduce classroom utilization rates to allow more
flexibility on the building level.
B. Seek to lower average class size from that established for
the 1992-93 school year.
C. Seek to minimize boundary changes.
D. Ensure that new permanent facilities are designed to accommodate
portables:
1) to resolve current quality concerns
2) to provide for sites for portables to meet increased demand.
E. Pursue modernization of current permanent facilities to resolve
current quality concerns and to provide for additional sites for
portables to meet increased demand.
F. Pursue modernization or replacement of current portables to
resolve quality concerns.
G. Ensure that new portables meet current concerns of quality.
H. Ensure that all sites for portables be modernized and utilities
be installed to meet quality concerns.
I. The quality of facilities, when using relocatable facilities, is a
major concern of citizens of the Kent School District. Use of
relocatable and transitional capacity as well as more specific
concerns and recommendations by the Task Force are further
discussed in Section V I of this Plan.
The Task Force also states that it has reviewed and accepted the explanation of
methodology and the conclusions reached in the enrollment Forecasting System
report and recommends that methodology not be changed without Board
approval.
Kent School District Six -Year Capita Facilities Plan April, 1995 Page 11
IV Inventory and Capacity of Existing Schools
Currently, the District has permanent program capacity to house 21,417 students
based on the District's Standard of Service as set forth in Section I I I.
Additional permanent capacity for 297 students is provided by Spring Glen
Elementary School magnet program which serves students from the entire
District. The program capacity increases to 381 at Spring Glen through the
addition of relocatables to accommodate the special programs. Spring Glen is
leased without guarantee from Renton School District and continued use of that
facility is projected for only one year beyond the current one. The additional
capacity of Spring Glen brings the total of permanent facilities capacity to 21,714
and 21,798 program capacity. Relocatable capacity for 1,215 students brings
the total capacity to 22,929. Full Time Equivalent student enrollment for
October, 1994 was 22,881 with Preschool Special Education and kindergarten
students counted at .5 and excluding College -only Running Start FTE's.
(See Tables 5 8 5 A43 -C)
The breakdown at each grade span is as follows:
1994 - 1995 Permanent Other Relocatable Total 1994 - 1995
Current Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity 'FTE Enrollment
- - Swiro iiia+' Spatial Ed
PmschW
Elementary
12,257
297
135
12,689
12,666
Junior High
5,107
0
522
5,629
5,628
Senior High 4,053 0 558 4,611 4,587
District Total 21,417 . 297 1,215 22,929 22,881
• FTE - Full Time Equivalent students with kindergarten & preschool special ed students at .5
(FTE enrollment without special ed preschool students Is 22,793.60. Headcount Is 23,937.)
Included in this Plan is an inventory of the District's schools by type, address
and current capacity. (see Table 3) A map of existing schools is included on
Page 14.
Calculation of Elementary, Junior High and Senior High School capacities are
set forth in Appendices A, B and C on pages 30 and 31.
Kent School District Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan April, 1995 Page 12
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT
INVENTORY and CAPACITY of EXISTING SCHOOLS
---------
A, f+ J ++4.0 ir+l f�•+fy rrfi{ rx f}/:)• �r / �,.Wj• /ryyf}+lff •ii +r {f,: r f f++ f
i.:..r '•,�ii`r •J•ffr v f` 9�}{f fr, rr, :r..f .{ .. {,'r4y+rr.:r::: .y+;itCr,,.•,r•:.'{C.Yy ;i.},r i'{ ?cf r.,L.v
rrf%�r �7+.£�i '>%f#:::r:::. r:» q••^ 6..fi!!•�'� t5,•'•:,., €r,`.£�'�:Y $,:,;,z•.
•9 4 ,}f y: f ,: Gr :'ryf;.'f•: :3,: t:.ti, wf • : f„ Y
,. % � �f s•. f .r.,. ,r i; f X"••''",, J;• J i r :
<;}::; r,.�fi•{'/.}.; v:'.'+f„fdj`f,�r arrr. +r sly'+ %;+fy'ti /! a..;�tvf ff o„s:'•,.:1^v,f.6 ..h,,.:..'r.. +Y
. r� •:s`'. >f, ..,..�.fv.>.+::..f.•.::•ltyn �:.� ' �'���f�,�l';>�:..�.:} k�:'.,o;: r� f ��•�f:. �;,.�f;;�•,���:r.,:, •f 199495
I:', SCHOOL ABR ADDRESS xw;,:{:':< Program 4
caeacu
{. 011
{f, rf{y f;. C .. 70. fi•fycx•,\E,:{x int"f{,.`nc. -, {Fcr' .w.,+< 4 �;c9r%� '}f i'',: ::Cw.• r, .. t :,rs. • u £�., S{�': S`.;f '}'�'/ r`':f: �;%;r, : • 5'{:�y' .�}im'j':f�:yr.'%>`� u4�;{ s;'.. ' r{',•r o•{{ ✓• }'.:7. •:,nf,,�' " Y rfr a ff•;.a f,f. 4.: y.,:f.:', / •>2',``:5.{c,Y.}..'},
Carriage Crest Elementary CC 18235 -140th Avenue SE, Rendon 98058 513
Cedar Valley Elementary CV 26500 Timberlane Way SE, Kent 98042 436
Covington Elementary CO 17070 SE Wax Road, Kent 98042 516
Crestwood Elementary CW 25225 -180th Avenue SE, Kent 98042 487
Daniel Elementary DE 11310 SE 248th Street, Kent 98031 453
East Hill Elementary EH 9825 S 240th Street, Kent 98031 436
Fairwood Elementary FW 16600 -148th Avenue SE, Rendon 98058 465
Grass Lake Elementary GL 28700 -191st Place SE, Kent 98042 455
Horizon Elementary HE 27641 -144th Avenue SE, Kent 98042 490
Jenkins Creek Elementary JC 26915 -186th Avenue SE, Kent 98042 458
Kent Elementary KE 317 - 4th Avenue South, Kent 98032 282
Lake Youngs Elementary LY 19660 -142nd Avenue SE, Kent 98042 616
Martin Sortun Elementary MS 12711 SE 248th Street, Kent 98031 513
Meadow Ridge Elementary MR 27710 -108th Avenue SE, Kent 98031 506
Meridian Elementary ME 25621 -140th Avenue SE, Kent 98042 584
Neely -O'Brien Elementary NO 6300 South 236th Street, Kent 98032 487
Panther Lake Elementary PL 20831 -108th Avenue SE, Kent 98031 425
Park Orchard Elementary PO 11010 SE 232nd Street, Kent 98031 558
Pine Tree Elementary PT 27825 -118th Avenue SE, Kent 98031 559
Ridgewood Elementary RW 18030 -162nd Place BE, Renton 98058 533
Sawyer Woods Elementary SW 31135 228th Avenue SE, Kent 98042 533
Scenic Hill Elementary SH 26025 Woodland Way South, Kent 98031 439
Soos Creek Elementary SC 12651 SE 218th Place, Kent 98031 490
Springbrook Elementary SB 20035 -100th Avenue SE, Kent 98031 455
Sunrise Elementary SR 22300 -132nd Avenue SE, Kent 98042 568
Elementary SUBTOTAL (Exdu&V Spring Glen which is leased from Renton School District) 12,257
rr.wr apuy
Spring Glen Elementary (Leased from RSD) SG 2607 Jones Avenue South, Renton 98055 297 381
Elementary TOTAL 12,638
Cedar Heights Junior High CH 19640 SE 272 Street, Kent 98042 1,006
Kent Junior High KJ 620 North Central Avenue, Kent 98032 847
Mattson Junior High MA 16400 SE 251 at Street, Kent 98042 789
Meeker Junior High MK 12600 SE 192nd Street, Renton 98058 901
Meridian Junior High MJ 23480 -120th Avenue SE, Kent 98031 749
Sequoia Junior High SJ 11000 SE 264th Street, Kent 98031 815
Junior High TOTAL 5,107
Kent West High School KT 22420 Military Road, Des Moines 98198 205
Kent -Meridian Senior High KM 10020 SE 256th Street, Kent 98031 1,418
Kentridge Senior High KR 12430 SE 208th Street, Kent 98031 1,200
Kentwood Senior High KW 25800 -164th Avenue SE, Kent 98042 1,230
Senior High TOTAL 4,053
Subtotal - District Permanent Facilities Capacity (excluding Spring Glen) 21,714
DISTRICT TOTAL(including Spring Glen - leased from Renton SD 21,798
Kent School District So( -Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 3
April, 1995 Page 13
17 l 86ed 9661 'IpdV
Mid selPipej lqdLo jeeA-)qS pip!(3 1OO40S lug>,
-
.j,M
+
. %
I
41AY ORtCCr4�
`D
7
5
3�7
0
152 All �E
AV
�
ic
I I-
S
C.
0
7
`X
X
AM.
ab
91
Mid selPipej lqdLo jeeA-)qS pip!(3 1OO40S lug>,
-
.j,M
+
. %
I
41AY ORtCCr4�
`D
4 AV
5
0
152 All �E
r" I
A'J
100
94
kEAST 14
cc
43
SE
w 108
ZZ
2 'At sE 41T
SE
ZE
10 �E
IL
AU A
z
14B AV
``Sl_ - I X 148 AV
F
t2
156 AV ,SE
C)
SE
z
a81~ -COOS �Z�;;
SE
1105
IVO N-17
3�
6800to/
U,
N. INC
7600
1k
I RD) Qdn 4.
S�k
RD S
AV
+
900
lAV �88SE in -AV
515 Sol 515
It6
AV SE
rr,
L%
Z
OCAV
Me
C)
-14000
142 AV
1560a
Irb
E
-AST IVALLE,
G 1S
IISE
SE
Z -I:,N-
1E
CL
M47 1
3c
+
I
F J "E i - .
- �a.2
134 AV SE
0
152 All �E
AV
ic
I I-
S
C.
0
`X
X
AM.
ab
91
20400
2 OTANTS27"
Z
E
-AST IVALLE,
G 1S
IISE
SE
Z -I:,N-
1E
CL
M47 1
3c
+
V The District's Six Year Planning and Construction Plan
At the time of preparation of this Plan in spring of 1995, the following projects
are currently underway in the District:
• Elementary #28, new school under construction for 1996 to replace
Spring Glen Elementary currently leased from Renton School District
• Elementary #27a, currently seeking a site in the valley for a new
school to replace Kent Elementary
• Junior High #7 is in the design & development stages for estimated
opening in Fall of 1996
• Senior High #4 is in the design & development stages for estimated
opening in Fall of 1997
Based on voter approval of construction funding in February, 1990 and 1994, at
least four additional new elementaries (# 27a, #28, #29 and #30), one new junior
high (#7), and one new senior high (#4) will be constructed during the Plan
period.
Elementary #27a is planned as a replacement for Kent Elementary School in city
of Kent and will approximately double the capacity of the existing school.
Elementary #28 is currently under construction near SE 196th Street and 118th
Avenue SE in Renton. It is planned to open in the Fall of 1996 to replace Spring
Glen Elementary currently leased from Renton School District.
Each of the elementaries have capacity planned for approximately 520 students
each, depending on placement of special programs. Junior High #7 is planned
for a program capacity of approximately 1,000 and Senior High #4 is planned for
an approximate program capacity of 1,350.
County and city planners are also encouraged to consider safe walking
conditions for students when approving new developments.
Included in this Plan is an inventory of these projects by type, size, location or
region, and estimated completion date. Also included in the inventory are sites
identified by the District which are likely to be acceptable site alternatives in the
future. (See Table 4) The voter approved 1990 Bond Issue for $105.4 million
included funding for the purchase of eleven sites for some of these and future
schools, and the sites acquired to date are included in this Plan.
Kent School District Sb( -Year Capital Facilities Plan April, 1995 Page 15
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415
PROJECTS PLANNED or UNDER CONSTRUCTION and SITES ACQUIRED
----------------- ------------ ......
`---- r iii$ r rr.%, }rfirin}: r r. rrrr •xs,1f :r<.,}n��}`';%v , :r."r,:r r,rr+}. r. r ft ...>.C.;w zr
f +,'%?v%irfr +✓f .. •v }'r..:... { : }v; ,: ,.:.r;,:/.Y:{ir> :%+, r.`:" ' } }::. i'. r'!%•.'}'w•:;Cr•
' .} ':•fr r',•ri,rrrf ry.: rrn:.{',rrF..: ``%:`.f; •: •, r}; •.,.'. :r .'h fnrrr? i; ;:}vhlg i r,:,G:'/r/ lir.'• ' : ri .v inti • • : ,..;ri.,e;:<:: :b:}r r.
Projected Projected %for
Y SCHOOL / FACILITY / SITE LOCATION TXRe Status Completion Program new
F ` � � r rrr; l Date Ca ac' Growth
./., ;,+.:4 i%`%Y fri'` r`+u`st;r } fr:x:�1f.`.';yfir�:f{r;j�ir;7:::�A:s'.'JiT `'rFIF %rr}. �•+,: 'rya.::,:'r `'r, r `} r
r,
r�pr y,a r r r
ir.'rii'.t,%f+�%,j{�.•`��' fi .r'` r '.�%v7�' , f.`+%r%r/.;r+�r2%rr.�i}. rr'-r� •C ry�6%},� ":ice?.:,. r �#` .� ..: .. v v v p
: rr[ f:}v- ri ••'f •r• :. �(r +C v f fiY: % 4 •}hn•
ELEMENTARY (Numbers assigned to A&ro schools may not correlate with number of existing schools.)
Elementary 0 28 (Funded) 19405 -120 Ave SE, Renton
New •
Condmx* n
1996 520
50%
r Elementary 28 wX be built before Elem. #t274 and wff replace Spring Glen Elementary, leased ftm Renton SO)
Covington area (Near Mattson JH)
Elementary 6 27a - Kent Elementary Replacement (Funded) To be determined • •
Replacement
Planning
1M? 238 (net)
50%
Elementary 0 29 (Funded) To be determined • •
New
Planning
2000 ? 520
50%
Elementary#I 30 (Funded) To be determined • •
New
Planning
2000 ? 520
50%
(' • Some sites are acquired but placement has not been determined.)
New Planning
1995 27 - 31 each 100%
JUNIOR HIGH
Junior High tl 7 (Funded) 17007 SE 184 St, Renton 058
SENIOR HIGH
New Permit 1996 1,000 25%
New Senior High (Funded)
21404 SE 300 St, Kent 98042
New Permit
1997 1,350 25%
OTHER SITES ACQUIRED
Covington area (Near Mattson JH)
SE 251 & 164 SE, Kent 98042
Additional
SE 290 8 156 SE, Kent 98042
TEMPORARY FACILITIES
16820 SE 240, Kent 98042
Horseshoe/Keevies Lake area (West)
SE 332 & 204 SE, Kent 98042
Capacity
17426 SE 192, Renton 98058
She changes from 1994 Capital Facilities Plan
Replacement Relocatables
For replacement as needed
New Planning
1995 0
Additional Relocatables
For placement as needed
New Planning
1995 27 - 31 each 100%
SUPPORT FACILITIES
Educational Support BldgMarehouse 12033 SE 256 St, Keri 98031
Satellite Bus Facility
To be determined
South KC Activity (Conference) Center
SE 167 6170 SE, Renton 98056
OTHER SITES ACQUIRED
Covington area (Near Mattson JH)
SE 251 & 164 SE, Kent 98042
Covington area (Scarsella)
SE 290 8 156 SE, Kent 98042
Ham Lake area (Pollard)
16820 SE 240, Kent 98042
Horseshoe/Keevies Lake area (West)
SE 332 & 204 SE, Kent 98042
Shady Lake area (Sowers, etc.)
17426 SE 192, Renton 98058
She changes from 1994 Capital Facilities Plan
Spring Hill area (Near Meeker JH)
SE 196 6120 SE, Renton 98058
Lake Sawyer area (Falk elem. site)
SE 296 8 215 SE, Kent 98042
Kent School District Sic -Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 4
Renovation Planning ? N / A
New Planning ? N / A
Coherence Planning ? N / A
or School
Emory Site Bank
Elementary Site Bank per 1990 Bond Issue
Elementary •
Junior High
Elementary •
(See Elementary t128 above)
(Traded for ballfield property w/KC Parks for new Sr Hi)
April, 1995 Page 16
. `'4 :. 1. � • �.. x:?'iF.:i.:�:.,
.:.�' �•Y.... � �f-x' f,,� � � �• ~� 411 >.
44:
So.
� � r:.i• 7:•v. t �
�r. ,;. 1� Loc • ��N�•... � • r� ` .� �...
•.`J ' �,. 4% ;�. Y; ., . , l• Leaf
'e� ;� x•�c ►' :':,� r Air
Evill�Li s�=-5
CAAAA Co..
.`,.•!••••' a: .. { w1 f.•Li�.' ��; SIM EO • , • 1
pap
fir{('+Y v�/ LTti
181W bmw P,
ST 06 911
at
S .<�'•: • •y ATF. �' w'�^ : A r T `}.
C S ;; t;.. M
KENT b�.
SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 -� ', o i
�• ,
Sites Acquired or Under Construction ft.r�. \ i��N„► \
•sem -�� — � ..
S = Senior High site
J = Junior High site �''••
E = Elementarysite
X = Support Facility site'• .M •'
Map 60ur0e: King County Plennlnp a CortunuMty Development DivisionC� , r"••••�
Site identificawn by Kent School Drctrict
KW School District Six -Year Capital Fadities Plan
April. 1995 Page 17
VI Relocatable Classrooms
Currently, the District utilizes 141 total relocatables. Of this total, 79 are utilized
to house students in excess of permanent capacity, 62 are used for program
purposes at school locations, and seven for other purposes. The District has
identified 121 potential relocatable locations. (See Appendixes A, e, C, D)
Based on enrollment projections and funded permanent facilities, the District
anticipates the need to replace some relocatables during the next six-year
period. (For a definition of relocatables and permanent facilities, see Section 2
of King County Ordinance No. 10162.)
In the Final Report approved by the Board of Directors on March 10, 1993, the
Kent School District Citizens' Concurrency Task Force reaffirmed that, as has
been the practice and philosophy of the Kent School District, based on the most
recent recommendation of the Citizens' Facilities Planning Committee, portables
(or "relocatables") are NOT acceptable as permanent facilities.
In addition to the Findings and Recommendations regarding portables listed in
Section I I L "Standard of Service," the Task Force also listed some specific
concerns in regard to use of portables as interim or transitional capacity:
I. The quality of facilities, when using relocatable facilities, is a major
concern of citizens of the Kent School District. That the Kent School
District should consider the following factors and priorities when
using, purchasing and modernizing portables:
A. HIGHEST CONCERNS
1. Adequate heat
2. Portable covered walkways, where practical
3. Adequate ventilation
4. Fire Safety
B. MODERATE CONCERNS
1. Adequate air conditioning
2. Security
3. Intercoms / Communication
4. Restroom facilities
5. Storage facilities
6. Crowding / class size
7. Noise
8. Availability of equipment (i.e. projectors, etc.)
9. Lack of water (use bottled water/portable tanks for drain)
(Continued)
Kent School District Sb( -Year Capital Facilities Plan April, 1995 Page 18
VI Relocatable Classrooms (Continued)
For the purpose of clarification, the term "portables" and the more descriptively
accurate term, "relocatables" are used interchangeably in this Plan as well as in
the Concurrency Task Force Report. The reports also reference use of
portables or relocatables as interim or transitional capacity/facilities.
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 certain communities and these relocatables provide the flexibility to
accommodate the immediate needs of community.
Although the Citizens' Concurrency Task Force has reaffirmed that portables are
not acceptable as PERMANENT facilities, they did recommend that 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.
Portables, or relocatables, currently in use will be evaluated resulting in some
being improved and some replaced. Quality concerns will be among those
addressed by the next Citizens' Facilities Planning Committee in 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 be examined.
Kent School District Sb( -Year Capital Facilities Plan . April, 1995 Page 19
VII Projected Six -Year Classroom Capacities
To summarize the current enrollment and program capacity, the breakdown at
each grade span is as follows:
Elementary 12,257 297 135 12,689 12,666 23
Junior High 5,107 0 522 5,629 5,628 1
Senior High 4,053 0 558 4,611 4,587 24
Distri
1994 - 1995
Current
Permanent
Capacity
Other
Capacity
Relocatable
Capacity
Total
Capacity
1994 - 95
•FTE Enrollment
Surplus
Capacity
B+ii GAM
ct Total
21,417 297
kwkWAO S"" Ed
Pfe.chool
22,929
Elementary 12,257 297 135 12,689 12,666 23
Junior High 5,107 0 522 5,629 5,628 1
Senior High 4,053 0 558 4,611 4,587 24
Distri
•FTE . Full Time Equivalent students with kindergarten &preschool special ed students at .5
(FTE enrollment without special ed preschool students is 22,793.60. Headcount
ct Total
21,417 297
1,215
22,929
22,881 48
is 23,937.)
Based on the enrollment forecasts, current inventory and capacity, current
standard of service, relocatable capacity, and future planned classroom
space, the Distri
ct anticipates having sufficient capacity to house students
over the next six years. (See .Table 5 and Tables 5 A -B -C)
This does not mean that some schools will not experience overcrowding. There
will be significant need for new schools to accommodate growth within the
District. Some schools, by design, may be opened with relocatables on site.
Boundary
changes, movement of relocatables, zoning changes, market
conditions, and educational restructuring will all play a major role in solving
overcrowding and underutilization of facilities in different parts of the District.
Kent School District Sbc-Year Capital Facilities Plan April, 1995 Page 20
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415
PROJECTED ENROLLMENT and CAPACITY
TOTAL DISTRICT
[Permanent Program Ca acit
20,316
21,417
21,417
22,937
24,2&7
24,525
SCHOOL YEAR
1994-95
1995-96T1996-97
1997-98
1 1998-99
1 1999-2oo0
I 2o0o-2oo1
Actual
P R O J E C T
E D
506
Sawyer Woods Elementary
[Permanent Program Ca acit
20,316
21,417
21,417
22,937
24,2&7
24,525
24,525
New Permanent Constriction'
Meadow Ridge Elementary
506
Sawyer Woods Elementary
533
Kent -Meridian Senior Hi Addn
62
Elementary # 28
(Replace Spring Glen Eleni.)
520
Elementary # 27a
(Replace trent Elerner" - Net Capacity)
238
Junior High # 7
1,000
Senior High # 4
1,350
Elementary # 29
520
Elementary # 30
520
Permanent Program Ca city subtotal
21,417
21,417
22,937
24,287
24,525
24,525
25,565
Other Capacity - Spring Glen • •
297
297
0
0
0
0
0
Elam ftfy Rebcafabb Capecily Required
135
Junior High Relocatabie Capacity Required
522
435
Senior High RelocetaNe Capacity Required
558
713
775
31
155
Total Relocatable Capacity Required 1
1215
1148
775
0
0
31
155
TOTAL PROGRAM & OTHER CAPACITY 1 22,929 22,862 23,712 24,287 24,525 24,556 25,720
TOTAL FTE ENROLLMENT/ PROJECTION 22,881 22,500 22,495 22,621 22,978 23,574 24,183
[DISTRICT AVAILABLECAPACrY 1 48 362 1,217 1,666 1,547 982 1,537
• Note 1: Capacity numbers are based on standard of service for program capacity.
Note 2: Spring Glen Elementary Is additional capacity leased without guarantee from Renton School District until 1996.
• Note 3: FTE a Approximate Full Time Equivalent Enrollment (ie. Preschool Handicapped 812 day Kindergarten student a .5).
Kent School District Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 5 April, 1995 Page 21 -
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415
PROJECTED ENROLLMENT and CAPACITY
ELEMENTARY
Elermentary Permanent Program Capacity 1 11,218 12,257
12,257
12,777
12,777
13,015 13,015
New Permanent Construction
SCHOOL YEAR
1994-95
199;9T61996-97
1997-98
1 1998-99
1 1999-2000
2000-2001
Actual
P R O J E C T
E D
Elementary # 28
520
Elermentary Permanent Program Capacity 1 11,218 12,257
12,257
12,777
12,777
13,015 13,015
New Permanent Construction
Meadow Ridge Elementary 506
Sawyer Woods Elementary 533
Elementary # 28
520
(Replace Spring Glee Elementary - leased from Renton SO)
Elementary # 27a
(Net capacity)
238
(Replace Kwd Elementary 520 - 2a2 - 238 Net Capacay)
Elementary # 29
520
Elementary # 30
520
Subtotal 12,257 12,257
12,777
12,777
13,015
13,015 14,055
Other Capacity - Spring Glen' •
297 297
0
0
0
0 0
lRelocatable Capacity Required 135
TOTAL CAPACITY 1 12,689 12,554 12,777 12,777 13,015 13,015 14,055
• • • FTE ENROLLMENT/PROJECTION1 12,666 12,217 12,067 12,010 12,053 12,294 12.739
[SURPLUS(DEFICIT) CAPACITY 23 337 710 767 962 721 1,316
'Note 1: Capacity numbers are based on standard of service for program capacity.
• Note 2: Spring Glen Elementary is additional capacity leased without guarantee from Renton School District until 19%..
"' Note 3: FTE = Approximate Full Time Equivalent Enrollment (ie. Preschool Handicapped & 1/2 day Kindergarten student = .5).
Kent School District Sic -Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 5 A DRAFT Page" 22
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415
PROJECTED ENROLLMENT and CAPACITY
JUNIOR HIGH
,junior High Permanent Program Capacity 5,107 5,107 5,107 6,107 6,107 6,107 6,107
New Permanent Construction
Junior High # 7 1,000
Subtotal 5,107 5,107 6,107 6,107 6,107 6,107 6,107
lRelocatable Capacity Required 522 435
TOTAL CAPACITY 1 5,629 5,542 6,107 6,107 6,107 6,107 6,107
• FTE Enrollment / Pro'ection 5,628 5,541 5,618 5,632 5,679 5,854 5,903
CAPACITY I 1 1 489 475 428 253 204
*Note 1: Capacity numbers are based on standard of service for program capacity.
• • Note 2: FTE = Approximate Full Time Equivalent Enrollment
The equivalent of approximately 50 FTE Junior High students are served part of the day at high schools.
Kent School District Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 5 B April, 1995 Page 23
SCHOOL YEAR
1994-951995-96
1
1996-97
1 1997-98
1 1998-99
1 1999-2000
2000-2001
Actual
P R O J E C T
E D
,junior High Permanent Program Capacity 5,107 5,107 5,107 6,107 6,107 6,107 6,107
New Permanent Construction
Junior High # 7 1,000
Subtotal 5,107 5,107 6,107 6,107 6,107 6,107 6,107
lRelocatable Capacity Required 522 435
TOTAL CAPACITY 1 5,629 5,542 6,107 6,107 6,107 6,107 6,107
• FTE Enrollment / Pro'ection 5,628 5,541 5,618 5,632 5,679 5,854 5,903
CAPACITY I 1 1 489 475 428 253 204
*Note 1: Capacity numbers are based on standard of service for program capacity.
• • Note 2: FTE = Approximate Full Time Equivalent Enrollment
The equivalent of approximately 50 FTE Junior High students are served part of the day at high schools.
Kent School District Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 5 B April, 1995 Page 23
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415
PROJECTED ENROLLMENT and CAPACITY
SENIOR HIGH
[Senior High Permanent Program Ca ac 3,991 4,053 4,053 4,053 5,403 5,403 5,403
New Permanent Construction
Kent -Meridian Sr High Addition 62
New Senior High 1,350
Subtotal
4,053
4,053
4,053
5,403 5,403 5,403
5,403
SCHOOL YEAR
199495
1995-96
1 1996-97
1997-98
1998-99
1 1999-2000
2000-2001
Actual
P R O J E C T
E D
[Senior High Permanent Program Ca ac 3,991 4,053 4,053 4,053 5,403 5,403 5,403
New Permanent Construction
Kent -Meridian Sr High Addition 62
New Senior High 1,350
Subtotal
4,053
4,053
4,053
5,403 5,403 5,403
5,403
558
713
775
31
155
lRelocatable Capacity R uired
TOTAL CAPACITY 1-4,611 4,766 4,828 5,403 5,403 5,434 5,558
• • FTE Enrollment / Projection 4,587 4,742 4,810 4,979 5,246 5,426 5,541
CAPACITY 1 24 24 18 424 157 8 17
'Note 1: Capacity numbers are based on standard of service for program capacity.
•' Note 2: FTE = Approximate Full Time Equivalent Enrollment
The equivalent of approximately 50 FTE Junior High students are served part of the day at high schools.
Kent School District Sb( -Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 5 C April, 1995 Page 24
VIII Finance Plan
The finance plan shown on Table 6 demonstrates how the Kent School District
plans to finance improvements for the years 1995 - 1996 through 2000 - 2001.
The financing components include secured and unsecured funding. The plan is
based on passage of future bond issues, securing of state funding and collection
of impact fees under the State Growth Management Act and voluntary mitigation
fees paid pursuant to State Environmental Policy Act:
Kent School District Sb( -Year Capital Facilities Pian April, 1995 Page 25
W
m
W
c`
m
m
m
..
n
m
Cl)
yo
—i
O
D
awC�e,I
N:
a!
a
n
�
s
°
78
=
m
pI
�
�
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
���ippj•
y
m
or
r
-n
N`�
t�
p�p�jj
A
A
Co
co
CY
Opi
Z
o.
o
ID
fA
•_
=
S2
_
m
O
co
8
A
$
M
M
rp
8
pQ
;f co
CO
co
e�
a
h
O
O
CO
.cli?
co
h•
+•f yy
1
Ti
(A
y40
wT,
g
SY O
" '' •
(:
Z
yt+vV-
m
N
h
M
fA
4*1
k}lr
�•
O
r y'v'•fi•'
�
W
yi
h
A
V
n
}� Ol
N -v
�
aNagqivgqN��nni
i5
{
co
?•
8s
8S
25
m£
N
m
�
QQ
Q
5�
ro
rs
N
4
C
(p
O!
A
f
'
V
yr
Af
C
{J/yr'��
(irk•
40
Y
y'
OQVVV
V
��.y1
O
O
O
CJJ
O
l
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT
FACTORS FOR ESTIMATED IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS
Student Generation Factors - Single Family
Elementary
0.516
Junior High
0.181
Senior High
0.146
Total
0.843
Projected Student Capacity per Facility
Elementary
520'
Junior High
1,000
Senior High
1,350
Site Acreage per Facility
Elementary (required) 11
Junior High (required) 21
Senior High (required) 26
New Facility Cost
Elementary $6,500,000
Junior High $15,500,000
Senior High $39,500,000
Temporary Facility Square Footage
Elementary
68,892
Junior High
30,260
Senior High
19,653
Total
118,805
Permanent Facility Square Footage
Elementary
1,134,059
Junior High
623,980
Senior High
602,810
Total
2,360,849
Total Facilities Square Footage
Elementary
1,202,951
Junior High
654,240
Senior High
622,463
Total
2,479,654
Developer Provided Sites / Facilities
Value 0
Dwelling Units 0
Student Generation Factors - Multi -Family
Elementary
0.258
Junior High
0.082
Senior High
0.069
Total
0.409
SPI Square Footage per Student
Elementary 80
Junior High 113.33
Senior High 120
Average Site Cost / Acre
Elementary $39,000
Junior High $39,000
Senior High $39,000
Temporary Facility Capacity & Cost
Elementary 27 $48,000
Junior High 29 $48,000
Senior High 31 $48,000
School Construction State Match
Local District Percentage 55.64%
Boeckh Index Factor
Current Boeckh Index $90.20
District Average Assessed Value
Single Family Residence $136,645
District Average Assessed Value
Multi -Family Residence $46,022
District Debt Service Tax Rate
Current / $1000 Rate $2.24
General Obligation Bond Interest Rate
Current Bond Buyer Index 5.79%
Kent School Disbid Sb( -Year Capital Facilities Plan April, 1995 Page 27
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT
ESTIMATED IMPACT FEE CALCULATION for SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
Based on King County Ordinance No. 10162
Site Acquisition Cost per Single Family Residence
I Construction Cost
Formula: ((Acres x Cost per
Acre) / Facility CapacW
x Student Generation Factor
B 1
(Elementary)
Required She Acreage I
Average Site CoWAcre I Facility CapacityI
Student Factor
0.95
A 1 (Elementary)
- 11
$39,000 520
0.516
$425.70
A 2 (Junior High)
21
$39,000 1,000
0.181
$148.24
A 3 (Senior High)
26
$39,000 1,350
0.146
$109.66
A —>
$683.60
Permanent Facility Construction Cod per Single Family Residence
Formula: ((Facility Cost / Facility Capacity) x Student Factor) x (Permanent/Total Square Footage Ratio
C —> $72.15
State Match Credit per Single Family Residence
I Construction Cost
Facility Capacity
I Student Factor I
Footage Ratio
B 1
(Elementary)
$6,500,000
520
0.516
0.95
$6,127.50
B 2
(Junior High)
$15,500,000
1,000
0.181
0.95
$2,665.23
B 3
(Senior High)
$39,500,000
1,350
0.146
0.95
$4,058.26
D —>
$3,980.49
B —>
$12,850.98
Temporary Facility Cost per Single Family Residence
Formula: ((Facility
Cost / Facility Capacity) x Student Factor) x (Tem
/ Total Square Footage Ratio)
Facility Cost
Facility Capacity
I Student Factor I
Footage Ratio
C 1
(Elementary)
$48,000
27
0.516
0.05
$45.87
C 2
(Junior High)
$48,000
29
0.181
0.05
$14.98
C 3
(Senior High)
$48,000
31
0.146
0.05
$11.30
C —> $72.15
State Match Credit per Single Family Residence
Formula: Boeckh Index x SPI Square Footage x District Match % x Student Factor
Boeckh Index
SPI Footage
District Match % I
Student Factor
D 1 (Elementary) $90.20
8o
0.5564
0.516
$2,071.73
D 2 (Junior High) $90.20
113.33
0.5564
0.181
$1,029.48
D 3 (Senior High) $90.20
120
0.5564
0.146
$879.28
D —>
$3,980.49
Tax Credit per Single Family Residence
Average Residential Assessed Value $136,645
Current Debt Service Tax Rate $2.24
Bond Buyer Index Interest Rate 5.79%
Discount Period (10 Years) 10
Developer Provided Facility Credit Facility/ Site Value I Dwelling Units
0 0
Fee Recap
A = Site Acquisition per SF Residence
B = Permanent Facility Cost per Residence
C = Temporary Facility Cost per Residence
Subtotal
D = State Match Credit per Residence
TC = Tax Credit per Residence
Subtotal
Total Unfunded Need
Developer Fee Obligation
FC = Facility Credit ('t applicable)
$683.60
$12,850.98
$72.15
$13,606.73
$3,980.49
$2,275.40
$6,255.89
Net Fee Obligation per Single Family Residence
Keri School District Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan
$7,350.84
TC —> $2,275.40
FC— 0
$3,675.42
0
$3,675.42
April. 1995 Page 28
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT
ESTIMATED IMPACT FEE CALCULATION for MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENCE
Based on King County Ordinance No. 10162
Site Acquisition Coat per Multi -Family Residence Unit
Formula: ((Acmes x Cost per Acre) / Facility Capacity) x Student Generation Factor
I _Required Site Acreage i Average Site CosVAcre i
Facility Capacity i
Student Factor
A 1 (Elementary) 11 $39,000
520
0.258
$212.85
A 2 (Junior High) 21 $39,000
1,000
0.082
$67.16
A 3 (Senior High) 26 $39,000
1,350
0.069
$51.83
A —>
$331.83
Permanent Facility Construction Cod per Multi -Family Residence Unit
Formula: ((Facility Cost / Facility Ca x Student Factor) x (Permanent / Total Square Foots
Ratio)
Constriction Cost Facility Capacity
Student Fedor
Footage Ratio
B 1 (Elementary) $6,500,000 520
0.258
0.95
$3,063.75
B 2 (Junior High) $15,500,000 1,000
0.082
0.95
$1,207.45
B 3 (Senior High) $39,500,000 1,350
0.069
0.95
$1,917.94
B —>
$6,189.14
Temporary Facility Cod per Multi-Famnily Residence Unit
Formula: ((Facility Cost / Facility Ca x Student Factor) x (Temporary / Total Square Footage Ratio)
Fadtity Cost Favi ty Capacity
Student Fador I
Footage Ratio
C 1 (Elementary) $48,000 27
0.258
0.05
$22.93
C 2 (Junior High) $48,000 29
0.082
0.05
$6.79
C 3 (Senior High) $48,000 31
0.069
0.05
$5.34
C —>
$35.06
State Match Credit per Multi -Family Residence Unit
Formula: Boeckh Index x SPI Square Footage x District Match % x Student Factor
BoecM Index SPI Footage
DWrid Match %
Student Fador
D 1 (Elementary) $90.20 80
0.5564
0.258
$1,035.87
D 2 (Junior High) $90.20 113.33
0.5564
0.082
$466.39
D 3 (Senior High) $90.20 120
0.5564
0.069
$415.55
D—>
$1,917.81
Tax Credit per Multifamily Residence Unit
Average Residential Assessed Value $46,022
Current Debt Service Tax Rate $2.24
Bond Buyer Index Annual Interest Rate 5.79%
Discount Period (10 Years) 10
Developer Provided Facility Credit Facility / Site Value I Dwelling Units
0 0
Fee Recap
A = Site Acquisition per Mufti -Family Unit
B = Permanent Facility Cost per MF Unit
C - Temporary Facility Bost per MF Unit
Subtotal
D = State Match Credit per MF Unit
TC = Tax Credit per MF Unit
Subtotal
Total Unfunded Need
Developer Fee Obligation
FC = Facility Credit (if applicable)
$331.83
$6,189.14
$35.06
$6,556.04
$1,917.81
$766.35
$2,684.16
Net Fee Obligation per Mufti -Family Residence Unit
Kent School District Sic -Year Capital Facilities Plan
$3,871.88
TC —> $766.35
FC— 0
$1,935.94
0
$1,935.94
April, 1995 Page"29
IX
Appendixes
Appendix A: Calculations of Capacities for Elementary Schools
Appendix B: Calculations of Capacities for Junior High Schools
Appendix C: Calculations of Capacities for Senior High Schools
Appendix D: Use of Relocatables
Kent School District Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan . April, 1995
1►
CliM h �f l0•f M ! N �h M! �f to h •pit M q 1N0 N M
.may
cm N
m A O O f 1•f W O m A h O O A m O A m m O A O O O f fD m
O m t0 N O O m b O o O a' a'0 O O m'
N
f !7 m m — O O f h f O f A A A O O f f m A f N f N O
0 o r o 0 0 0 0 o N o 0 8 0 0 0 C-4 o ,`� m o '�•�
N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O— O O f O O O B O N A Pf N N m
N N N A N !7 N W N N O O r f A f N O N l•1 r O N
O f !•! N f m N f N N O C N b N O A f N r a O
N
N N O N f f 0 f f m N f A f A h N A f N N O A {•1 f N O
Ion N
r
CD A a m m m A m m m o �I m m m to R R a m ago m 3
U U U (3j O W U' 2 �+ Y J 2 22 a m v� u)
2
^l r
a r
pti
N
a
�^ O
�s E c °7 21tm~
co
W Co tL
U U O W ILL C9 �i Y X00 2 a a' �C C N co N N
c
m
CL
LLW
b
a
U
M
O
u
to
c
m
Y
I -
z
W
J
J
w
z
W
F
z
m
O
V
W
c
0
LU
F..
LL
F.
N
r
rn
O
m
m
R
n
QQ
a
I
a�
a�
I
N
o
O
�
�
�
aD
a0
M
Q
�
N
x
J
�
a
N
�
m
�
m
r
N
m
0
0
V)
N
r -b
a
.�
a
F.
N
co " enI In
C4 O ml a
O O m OI co
AIWO99
r
rn
O
m
m
R
n
QQ
a
a�
N
o
O
�
�
�
aD
a0
M
Q
�
N
x
J
�
a
N
�
co " enI In
C4 O ml a
O O m OI co
AIWO99
rn
�
R
n
QQ
a
a�
N
o
O
�
�
�
aD
a0
M
Q
�
N
x
�
a
N
�
co " enI In
C4 O ml a
O O m OI co
AIWO99
g
€$
N OC
.L
co l0
d
H
H
Q W
LL
r-
0
i�
J
O E
O
U a
H m
c
m
C
z
W
IL
a
a
rn
R
n
a
a
o
O
�
O
�
aD
a0
M
O
�
N
x
�
a
N
�
N
g
€$
N OC
.L
co l0
d
H
H
Q W
LL
r-
0
i�
J
O E
O
U a
H m
c
m
C
z
W
IL
a
a
rn
R
n
a
a
o
Q
x
�
a
N
�
g
€$
N OC
.L
co l0
d
H
H
Q W
LL
r-
0
i�
J
O E
O
U a
H m
c
m
C
z
W
IL
a
a
�
�
Z W
V -i
Q
U V
p O
i
J LU
O
W
CO) U)
2
W
Y
CL
CL
§
�
a
Z
W
IL
CL
Q
�
0
0
W)
§
A
% �
■
0
0
I I
0
0
2
§
a �
0
0
0
0
§
0
0
0
§
�
■
0
0
0
0
I
■
G
o
0
0
§
�
o
o
E
I
.
�
2
0
o
m
�
�
■
8
% �
�
■
G
-
�
_
■
t
k
CLt
■
■
c
CL
0
�
�
w
�
C
$
$
�
0
�
�
o
#
a
co
n
CL
CL
§
�
a
Z
W
IL
CL
Q
�
,.r e��a a eoo .__,�
Bs fic #
v..nv.:...n.%-:.�.v:-�.:.:nx.:::.-.v~v rr..:n.:�-:r.:nv.Y::..�.:: �vnv.rv:.xv..r-r rrN.n.:::n..N...: vn}:}.::v:n:n.w}:..::-r:}_..r:.%:: {-:..3. .
.v• }r . _ ._
.r
`�+ --' - .+v:-}':- --- - n:: •n::. r: x:rrrvv v- rr -:w-. ir: i. r:{v - r - v yr .vi• rte:%xnv xnn.:FP}• - }.;r }vr:.•Y+f.}i..•: r �.n .n-ry r:::3 ::.n.r v.. v .r •• ...r .. -
- :V
1994/95
Capita/faci/ities P/an
April 1995
FEDERAL WAY SCHOOL DISTRICT
1994/95
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
BOARD OF EDUCATION
Helen Pepper, President
Gail Pierson, Vice President
Orlando Trier
Ann Murphy
Linda Hendrickson
SUPERINTENDENT
Thomas J. Vander Ark
ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT
Chief Financial Officer
Donn Fountain
DEVELOPED BY
Jody Putman, Fiscal Analyst, Planner
Geri Walker, GIS
SECTION I
SECTION II
SECTION III
SECTION IV
SECTION V
FEDERAL WAY SCHOOL DISTRICT #210
1994/95 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................ i
INTRODUCTION..................................................
THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
Introduction............................................................. I-1
Inventory of Educational Facilities ............................. I-2
Inventory of Non -Instructional Facilities .................... I-3
Needs Forecast - Existing Facilities .......................... I-4
Needs Forecast - New Facilities .............................. I-5
Six Year Finance Plan .............................................. I-6
MAPS OF DISTRICT BOUNDARIES
Introduction............................................................. II -1
Map - 1995/96 Elementary Boundaries .................... II -2
Map - 1995/96 Junior High Boundaries .................... II -3
Map - 1995/96 Senior High Boundaries ................... II -4
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
Introduction.............................................................
III -1
Building Capacities ..................................................
III -2
Portable Locations ...................................................
III -4
Student Forecast......................................................
III -6
Capacity Summaries .................................................
III -8
King County Impact Fee Calculations .......................
III -13
SUMMARY OF CHANGES FROM THE 1993/94 PLAN IV -1
APPENDIX
Introduction
V-1
Cost of Site Acquisition - Elementary
V-2
Cost of Site Acquisition - Junior High
V-3
Cost of Site Acquisition - Senior High
V-4
Cost of Permanent Facilities - Elementary
V-5
Cost of Permanent Facilities - Junior High
V-6
Cost of Permanent Facilities - Senior High
V-7
I
i
INTRODUCTION
In response to the requirements of the State of Washington Growth Management Act
(SHB 2929 (1990) and RSHB 1025 (1991) and King County Ordinance 10162, the
Federal Way School District has updated its 1993/94 Capital Facilities Plan.
.i This Capital Facilities Plan will be used by the district to help determine when new schools
,. will be needed and what funds are available for these facilities and required modernizations
in the current six year window (1995-2000). At this time, the Federal Way School District
is evaluating the need for and possible timing of future bonds. This document will also be
used as documentation for any jurisdiction which requires its use to meet the needs of the
Growth Management Act.
The 1994/95 Capital Facilities Plan and its supporting documentation are organized as
follows:
I CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
Inventory of Educational Facilities
Inventory of Non -Instructional Facilities
Needs Forecast - Existing Facilities
Needs Forecast - New Facilities
Six Year Finance Plan
II MAPS OF DISTRICT BOUNDARIES
Elementary Boundaries
Junior High Boundaries
Senior High Boundaries
III SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
Building Capacities
Portable Locations
Student Forecast
Capacity Summaries
Student Mitigation Factors
King County Impact Fee Calculation
IV SUMMARY OF CHANGES FROM THE 1993/94 PLAN
V APPENDIX
ii
SECTION I - 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 the Federal Way School District #210. This is followed by a
Financial Plan which shows expected funding for the new construction and modernization needs
listed.
I-1
El
INVENTORY OF EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
Adelaide
1635 SW 304th Street
Federal Way
98023
Brigadoon
3601 SW 336th Street
Federal Way
98023
Camelot
4041 S 298th Street
Auburn
98001
Enterprise
35101 5th Avenue SW
Federal Way
98023
Green Gables
32607 47th Avenue SW
Federal Way
98023
Lake Dolloff
4200 S 308th Street
Auburn
98001
Lake Grove
303 SW 308th Street
Federal Way
98023
Lakeland
35675 32nd Avenue S
Auburn
98001
Mark Twain
2450 S Star Lake Road
Federal Way
98003
Meredith Hill (open 9/95)
5830 S 300th Street
Auburn
98001
Mirror Lake
625 S 314th Street
Federal Way
98003
Nautilus
1000 S 289th Street
Federal Way
98003
Olympic View
2626 SW 327th Street
Federal Way
98023
Panther Lake
34424 1 st Avenue S
Federal Way
98003
Rainier View
3015 S 368th Street
Federal Way
98003
Sherwood Forest
34600 12th Avenue SW
Federal Way
98023
Silver Lake
1310 SW 325th Place
Federal Way
98023
Star Lake
4014 S 270th Street
Kent
98032
Sunnycrest
24629 42nd Avenue S
Kent
98032
Twin Lakes
4400 SW 320th Street
Federal Way
98023
Valhalla
27847 42nd Avenue S
Auburn
98001
Wildwood
2405 S 300th Street
Federal Way
98003
Woodmont
26454 16th Avenue S.
Kent
98032
JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS
Illahee
36001 1st Avenue S
Federal Way
98003
Kilo
4400 S 308th Street
Auburn
98001
Lakota
1415 SW 314th Street
Federal Way
98023
Sacajawea
1101 S Dash Point Road
Federal Way
98003
Saghalie
33914 19th Avenue SW
Federal Way
98023
Totem
26630 40th Avenue S
Kent
98032
SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS
Decatur
2800 SW 320th Street
Federal Way
98023
Federal Way
30611 16th Avenue S
Federal Way
98003
Harry S. Truman
31455 28th Avenue S
Federal Way
98003
Thomas Jefferson
4248 S 288th Street
Auburn
98001
2-2
CURRENT INVENTORY NON -INSTRUCTIONAL FACILITIES
Developed Propertv
Administrative Building
MOT Site
Central Kitchen
Federal Way Memorial Field
Print Shop/Security/Science
Kit
Undeveloped Property
31405 18th Avenue S
1066 S 320th Street
1344 S 308th Street
1300 S 308th Street
33818 9th Avenue S
Site # Location
Federal Way 98003
Federal Way 98003
Federal Way 98003
Federal Way 98003
Federal Way 98003
9 27th Avenue SW & Dash Point Road
23 S 356th Street & 1st Avenue S
35 S 351 st Street & 52nd Avenue S
40 E of 10th Avenue SW Between SW 334th & SW 335th Streets
42 NE of S 340th Street & Peasley Canyon Road
63 E of 47th Avenue SW & SW 314th Place
71 S 344th Street & 46th Avenue S
72 36600 block of Pacific Highway S
84 3737 S 360th Street
96 S 308th Street & 14th Avenue S
98 35706 16th Avenue S
Notes:
Not all undeveloped properties are large enough to meet school construction requirements.
L Properties may be traded or sold depending on what locations are needed to house students in the
District.
I-3
NEEDS FORECAST - EXISTING FACILITIES
EXISTING FACILITY
FUTURE NEEDS
ANTICIPATED SOURCE OF FUNDS
Various schools and support
Technology updates,
(1)
services buildings - facility
expanded parking
equity
facilities, various
environmental system
replacements, exterior
lighting improvements,
and possible major
modernizations.
Federal Way Memorial
Jfield
Renovate existing sport
(1)
Stadium
and facilities
Notes:
(1) Anticipated source of funds is state matching funds, mitigation fees or future bond issues.
A committee is currently examining these needs and will develop a plan for when and how
these needs will be met.
I-4
NEEDS FORECAST - NEW FACILITIES
Notes:
(1) Construction of Maintenance, Operations and Transportation (MOT) site is dependent on
sale of current MOT site.
I-5
EST
% OF
YEAR
YEAR
EST
PROJECT
NEW
NEEDED
AVAIL
FUND
FOR NEW
FACILITY
LOCATION
1
2
SOURCE
STUDENTS
MOT Site 1
Unknown
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Notes:
(1) Construction of Maintenance, Operations and Transportation (MOT) site is dependent on
sale of current MOT site.
I-5
FEDERAL WAY SCHOOL DISTRICT #210 - 1994/95 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
Six Year Finance Plan
Secured Funding
Sources
1995
1996
1997 1998 1999 2000 Total Revenue
1991 Bond & Interest
6,512,179
Mitigation Fees (5)
$6,512,179
Impact Fees (1)
24,000
$24,000
City Interlocal Funds
929,338
$929,338
Land Sale Funds (2)
$250,000
$150,000
$0 $0 $0 $0 $400,000
State Match Funds (3)
9,775,000
8,575,000
1 1 1 1 $18,350,000
TOTAL
$17,490,517
$8,725,000
Sol Sol $0 $01 526,215,517
Unsecured Funding Sources
1995
State Match Funds (6)
2,822,019
Bond or Levy Funds (4)
31,000,000
Mitigation Fees (5)
1,065,984
,JTOTAL
$34,888,003
NEW SCHOOLS
1995
1996
1997 1998 1999 2000 Total Cost
Green Gables (Elem #21)
209,689
209,689
Enterprise ( Elem #22)
818,693
818,693
ered th Hill (Elem #23)
5,213,134
5,213,13
Saghalie (Jr. High #6)
929,338
929,338
0
MODERNIZATIONS
0
Mark Twain Elementary
50,523
50,523
Kilo Jr High
229
229
0
TEMPORARY FACILITIES
0
Portables
178,415
178,415
0
OTHER
0
Sport Fields - Lakota/Memonal Stadium
1,265,496
1,265,496
Reserve for Facility Improvements
8,575,000
8,575,000
17,150,000
Facilities Department
250,000
150,000
0 01 0 0 400,000
0
0
OTAL
$17,490,517
58,725,000
SO $0 $0 $0 $26,215,517
NOTES:
1. These fees have been collected in calendar year 95 to date.
2. These funds come from various sales of land and are set aside for estimated expenditures.
3 Guaranteed state match reimbursements
4 These funds, if secured, will be used for modernizations of schools
5 See page I-7 for calculations of estimated impact fees
6. These funds are tenatrvely allotted state matching funds
FINANCE XLS
Y27/95 T
3 05 PM 1-6
FEDERAL WAY SCHOOL DISTRICT 4210 - 1994195
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
CALCULATION OF ESTIMATED IMPACT FEES
PROJECTED NUMBER OF STUDENTS BASED ON HEADCOUNT ENROLLMENT
YEAR
STUDENTS
Actual
1994
----------------Projected------------------
1995 1996 1 1997 1 1998 1 1999 1 2000
20,039
20,126
20,331
20,624
20,862
21,099
21,492
HOUSING DISTRIBUTION IN THE DISTRICT
NUMBER IN DISTRICT
% OF DISTRICT
IMPACT FEE BY TYPE
STUDENT MITIGATION FACTOR
CALCULATION OF ESTIMATED IMPACT FEES
WEIGHTED AVERAGE FEE BY DISTRICT %
WEIGHTED AVERAGE FACTOR BY DISTRICT %
NEW STUDENTS EXPECTED BETWEEN 1993-1999
ESTIMATED FUTURE IMPACT FEES
----TYPE----
SFR MFR MFR
APART
HOMES MENTS CONDOS
TOTAL
28,432
13,179
3,030
44,641
63.69%1
29.52%
6.79%
100.00°/
$1,707
$1,423
$1,423
$4,553
0.509
0.366
0.366
1.241
$1,087 $420 1 $97 $1,604
0.3241 0.108 0.025 0.45729
1,453
$1,065,984
NOTE:
The above calculation is based on the assumption that the District is able to collect impact fees for all years
presented.
NEWFEES NLS
3127/95
308 PM
I-7
SECTION H - MAPS OF DISTRICT BOUNDARIES
The Federal Way School District (the District) will have twenty-three elementary schools
(grades K-6), six junior high schools (grades 7-9), and three senior high schools and Harry S.
Truman High School (grades 10-12) for the 1995/96 school year. On March 13, 1995, the
Federal Way School District Board of Education adopted the 1995/96 boundaries for these
schools. The following maps show the service area boundaries for each school for each grade
level (Harry S. Truman High School serves students from throughout the District). The
identified boundaries will not change in the near future unless it becomes necessary to relieve
overcrowding in schools.
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.
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.
,9951,96 EJernentary School Boundarias
------ --------- E __.ES NOIN_ ES �I
F —I —G H
................... . ------ -
FEDERAL WAY SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 210
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Z..Rh
Code Code
10 Adelaide
C-6 64 Illahee E-9
16 Bn adoon B-8 66 Kilo G-6 2
28 Camelot G-5 62 Lakota 0-6 .12
22 Enterprise D-9 61 Sacajawea E-5
14 Green Gables A-7 70 Saghalse C-8 2
30 Lake Dolloff G-6 65 Totem G-3
11 Lake GroveD-6 8 Merit F-6
33 Lakeland F-9
2 Mark Twain F4
29 Meredith Hill H-5 SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS
33
6 Mirror Lake E-6 T
5 Nautilus E-5 Code
15 Olympic View C-72
21 Panther Lake E-8 80 Decatur C-6
37 Rainier View F-10
81 Federal Way E-5
41 Sherwood Forest D-883 Thomas Jefferson G4
24 Silver Lake D-7 8 Harry S Truman F-6
26 Star Lake G-3 8 Merit F-6
25 Sunnycrest G-2 :f
13 Twin Lakes B-6 61.
27 Valhalla G4 Future School Sites — 4 �2
7 Wildwood F-5
Surplus Sites
I Woodmont F-3Nst
100 Educational Service Center F-6
ry a3
99 Future Support Services
E-8 Code-- 286 288 StKINGCOU TI
e-Operations-Transportation E-6
E0
gg
97 Maintenancr
Parks— D
7- 5
A B C
5 FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON and VICINITY ze P
.0
............... . .
0
6
6
IN
P
320 St ii
A
7
N
8
E
'!A
S
N 356. S 356 St
9
PrINNII-I AugI IM 91
f
0
S, 376',,
10' 10
AY
Federal Way Public Schools I
Planning& Facllliles 11 •'x
K.,g C—Wd,
W 7420 11 MILTON P— G
E F 0. H
11-2
I
-3
1995/96 Junior High School Boundaries
EH
------------- PES mo-
.S
------------------- --------
FEDERAL WAY SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 210
Z-1h
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS
Code Code
10 Adelaide C-6 64 Illahee E-9 2
6 Bngadoon 8-8 66 Kilo G-62 4
s'";'
2
2' Camelot G-5 62 Lakota D-6
22 Enterprise D-9 61 Sacalawea E-5
14 Green Gables A-7 70 Saghalle C-8
A 30 Lake Dolloff G-6 65 Totem G-3
11 Lake Grove D-6 8 Merit F-6 P
33 Lakeland F-9
a St
2 Mark Twain F-4
29 Meredith Hill H-5 SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS
6 Mirror Lake E-6 3 3
5 Nautilus E-5 Code
15 Olympic View C-7
21 Panther Lake E-8
80 Decatur C-6
37 Rainier View F-10— "
81 Federal Way E-5
41 Sherwood Forest D-8
83 Thomas Jefferson G-4 WOODMON
24 Silver Lake D -7 8 Harry S Truman F-6 S 27i Si S&F�
26 Star Lake G-3 8 Merit F-6
25 Surmycrest G-2
13 Twin Lakes B-6
27 Valhalla G,4 Future School Sites 4
U
7 Wildwood F-5 Surplus Sites
I Woodmont F-3
100 Educational Service Center F-6
86
99 Future Support Services E-8 Code--
97
Maintenance-operations-Transportation E-6
Parks — D
E'
A B
5 FEDERAL WAY. WASHINGTO C/
-----------------
113!
6
6
fi—.
A
333 S,
BE
N B
g�•
W
8ori f 8
E
S
St
C.n.5w•NM
9
PrgMR3 AAQ1. I9589
MR— WILE IN 'ILES
ASF Y)
�172
D
13 Ic
10 2 10
Federal Way Public Schools .LTON
Planning &
K 384 N-0S 13h—.— pwm MILTON
---y WA—S .1 F =—H
4
11-3
Moog -
1995/96 Senior High School Boundaries
------ --------- VES MOINES1_ r7 H
--------- I
FEDERAL WAY SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 210
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS
Code Code10 Adelaide C-6 64 Illahee E-9
B-8 66 Kilo
16 Elngadoon 2
G-6 2
28 Camelot G-5 62 Lakota D-6
22 Enterprise D-9 61 Sacajawea E-5
2S
14 Green Gables A-7 70 Saghalie C-8 2'52
30 Lake Dolloff G-6 65 Totem G-3
11 Lake Grove D-6 8 Ment F-6 m. P.I.
33 Lakeland F-9
2 Mark Twain F-4 :g
29 Meredith Hill H-5 SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS 3 !P 3
6 Mirror Lake E-6
5 Nautilus E-5 Code
15 OlympicView C-7
21 Panther Lake E-8 80 Decatur C-6
37 Rainier View F-10 81 Federal Way E-5 6
41 Sherwood
D-8 83 Thomas Jefferson G-4
24 Silver Lake
e D-7 .0s.. 0 S MMSJJ
8 Harry S. Truman F-6
26 Star Lake G-3 8 Ment F-6
25 Sunnycrest G-2
13 Twin Lakes B-6 4
7
27 Valhalla GA Future School Sites --
7 W Idwood F-5 Surplus Sites
Woodmont F-3
100 Educational Service Center F-6
99 Future Support Services E-8 Code-- 286 -t
80 St �C,,N,
TI L-1
97 Ma,ntnanceOprat,ons-Transporlalon E-6 r
coq. K Parks
D 4 -z -
A B
I Fj;ff -1
3 FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON and VIC""'
Moll
6
- P4
7
-F
swine sl S 38 :IS
B
N
IJ
W* 8
E ww 2111 —
S
St
�W fa.. 9
D 37
376 th
10 10
zi
Federal Way Public SchoolsS
MILTONPlPnnmg & FacIIINes King County 384 th
F--, WA -1 ezt t.zo 11 E F G —H
11-4
SECTION III - SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
Building Capacities - The Education Program
Portable Locations
Student Forecast - 1995 through 2000
Capacity Summaries
King County Impact Fees - Single and Multi Family Units
Building Capacities
73 The District has identified a Building Program Capacity for each of the schools in the District.
This Full Time Equivalent (FTE) capacity is based on:
• the number of classrooms available in each school
• any special requirements at each school
• the average class load district wide
Educational Program Capacities change every year. This analysis is for the 1994/95 school
year. The capacity of an individual school could and does change at any time depending on
program changes which may require additional space.
FEDERAL WAY SCHOOL DISTRICT #210 -1994/95 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
BUILDING PROGRAM CAPACITIES
ELEMENTARY BUILDING
PROGRAM FTE CAPACITY
Adelaide
531
Briadoon
504
Camelot
366
Enterprise
507
Green Gables
468
Lake Dolloff
543
Lake Grove
485
Lakeland
472
Mark Twain
492
Mirror Lake
405
Nautilus
539
Olympic View
441
Panther Lake
465
Raimer View
402
Sherwood Forest
543
Silver Lake
516
Star Lake
515
Sunn crest
453
Twin Lakes
530
Valhalla
507
Wildwood
414
Woodmont
429
Meredith Hill (1995)
507
1994 TOTAL
10,527
1995 TOTAL
11,034
JUNIOR HIGH BUILDING
PROGRAM CAPACITY
Illahee
885
Kilo
873
Lakota
770
Saca'awea
880
Totem
731
Saghalie
862
TOTAL
5,001
SENIOR HIGH BUILDING
PROGRAM CAPACITY
Decatur
1,240
Federal Way
1,391
Thomas Jefferson
1,325
Truman/CBE/Merit
250
ITOTAL4,206
Notes:
Elementary Program Capacities are based on the number of teaching stations
in the building, average class size, and special use classrooms in place
during the 94/95 school year.
Secondary Capacities are based on average class size, using regular classrooms
six periods per day, and special use classrooms in place during the 94/95
school year.
cAPALL aa.s - III -3
Portable Locations
It is a requirement that each child in the State of Washington be provided with a basic
education. Because the population changes throughout the year, and because it does not
make sense to build a school with capacity for 500 students for a lack of space for 25
students, the District must use temporary facilities or interim measures to house students until
permanent facilities can be built or boundary adjustments can be made.
A major form of funding of new facilities, which allows the elimination of temporary facilities
or interim measures, is the use of State Match Funds. Because of the shortage of State Match
Funds it is important for districts to evaluate all options for housing its students.
The following page provides a list of the location of theortable facilities used for temporary
P p ry
educational facilities by the Federal Way School District.
Other interim measures which can be used by the District to house students include larger
class sizes with teaching assistants or using rooms for classes which were designated for
purposes other than classrooms. The District is in the process of rewriting the strategic plan
for the District. This process is being done to comply with the requirements of the State
education goals under ESHB 1209 "Education Refrom Act of 1993". The results of this
planning procedure will assist, among other things, the District to determine the future
housing needs of students. This process may require the District to consider educational
options such as year-round schooling with tracks, extended days, or other alternatives. This
process may also require the District to seek funding from the community members by selling
general obligation bonds and the collection of school impact fees.
A
1
FEDERAL WAY SCHOOL DISTRICT #210 - 1994/95 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
PORTABLE LOCATIONS
PORTABLESLOCATED
AT ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (1994/95)
Adelaide
2
Bri adoon
1
Camelot
1
Enterprise
1
Green Gables
Lake Dolloff
4
Lake Grove
Lakeland
3
Mark Twain
2
Meredith Hill (1995)
Mirror Lake
3
Nautilus
Olympic View
2
Panther Lake
3
Rainier View
2
Sherwood Forest
5
Silver Lake
2
Star Lake
4
Sunn crest
Twin Lakes
3
Valhalla
Wildwood
1
Woodmont
2
TOTAL
38
PORTABLES LOCATED
AT JUNIOR HIGHS (1994/95)
111ahee
2
Kilo
4
Lakota
1
Saca'awea
1
Sa halie
Totem
1
Total
9
FORTS )a4
3495
1013 /M
III -5
PORTABLES LOCATED
AT SENIOR HIGHS (1994/95)
Decatur 4
Federal Way 1
Thomas Jefferson
Truman/Merit 8
TOTAL 13
PORTABLES LOCATED
AT SUPPORT FACIITIES (1994/95)
Maintenance 1
Science & Testing Kits 1
5 -Mile Lake 1
Purchasing 1
Clothing Bank 1
TOTAL 5
Student Forecast
The District has several methods available to forecast the number of students it anticipates in
future years. For the last five years we have used a computer software program called
Microsam, developed by The Omega Group. During this time period, the district forecast has
been within 2% of actual October 1 st attendance.
Microsam uses several elements to develop an accurate forecast. The key is to determine the
number of students which will come from each housing unit in a geographical area.
The number of students is evaluated using historical data. The student database looks at the
number of students who have:
moved from one grade to another
transferred in from another school
remained in their current grade
The number of housing units is based on the current number of housing units as identified by
King County's Land Development Information System (LDIS), plus the projected number of
housing units based on building permits and plat applications issued by King County, City of
Federal Way, and City of Kent Building Departments. These projections reflect a similiar age
trend in student populations as the projections published by the Office of Financial
14 Management of the State of Washington.
I
III -6
FEDERAL WAY SCHOOL DISTRICT #210 -1994/95 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
FEDERAL WAY SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT FORECAST
Actual - - - - - - Projected - - - - -
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1 1999 1 2000
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
K
........... ..............
1.650
1,676
1,713
1,744
.............................................................................
1,764
1,778
1,801
-1 ...............
-1.670
1:629
1,661.
1,695
............................................................................
1,722
1,740
1,763
2
1;593
1:654
1.630
.........
1 665
......................:...........................................:........
1 694
1,718
1 741
3 ..............
1.570
-1,592
1.639..........1,626
.............................................................................
1,658
1,684
1,707
.........................................1:59..............596
...........1,631
..........1:669
...........1,66............1:690
...........1:713
5
....... ..............
1.642
1,603
...........1,609
...........
.1,648
1.677
1,674
.............................................
1,697
6
1,6091
1,641
1,6101
1,624
1,660
1,682
1,705
JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS
7 ..............
1.670
-1:633
1.667..........1,648
...........................................................................
1,662
1,693
1,725
8 ...............
1,524
..........................................................................................................................................
1,630
1,608
1,641
1,625
1,640
1,672
9
1,483
1,450
1,538
1,529
1,555
1,545
1,577
SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS
10
................
1, 363
1,452
1,429
1,504
.............................................................................
1,500
1,522
1,568
11
....... .............
1,353
..........................................................................................................................................
1,293
1,358
1,343
1,405
1,405
1,451
12
1,316
1,277
1,238
1,288
1,278
1,328
1,374
ENROLLMENT - HEADCOUNT SUMMARY
Elem (HC)
...............................
11,330
11.391
11,493
.......................................................................................................
11,671
11,837
11,966
12,124
h High
............
4,677
......................................
4,713
4,813
4,818
.........................................................................................
4,842
4,878
4,975
Sr High
4,032
4,022
4,025
4,135
4,183
4,255
4,393
TOTAL (HC)
20,039
20,126
20,331
20,624
20,862
21,0991
21,492
ENROLLMENT - FULL TIME EQUIVALENT (FTE) SUMMARY
Elem (FTE)
.............................
10,505
.............
10.553
10,637
...............................................................................
10,799
10,955
11,077
11,224
Jr High
............
4,677
.........................................................................................................................................
4,713
4,813
4,818
4,842
4,878
4,975
SrHigh
4,032
4,022
4,025
4,135
4,183
4,255
4,393
TOTAL (FTE)
19,214
19,288
19,475
19,7521
19,9801
20,2101
20,592
CFPFCSf XLS
3/&95
10 14 AM
III -7
Capacity Summaries
All Grades, Elementary, Junior High, and Senior High Schools
The Capacity Summaries combine Building Capacity information and the Student Forecast
information. The result demonstrates the requirements for new 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, junior high, and
senior high levels individually.
The notes at the bottom of each spreadsheet provide information about what facilities are in
place each year.
FEDERAL WAY SCHOOL DISTRICT #210 -1994/95
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
CAPACITY SUMMARY - ALL GRADES
CAPACITY
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
A 1 BUILDING FTE
CAPACITY (1)
19980
19734
20241
20241
20241
20241
20241
2 Add or subtract
changes to capacity (2)
0
50
0
0
0
0
0
3 Adjusted Capacity
19734
20241
20241
20241
20241
20241
20241
4 Add Interim Capacity (3)
0
0
0
0
0
100
400
5 District's Permanent &
Interim Capacity Threshold
19734
20241
20241
20241
20241
20341
20641
ENROLLMENT
Actual
- - Projected - -
B 1 Basic FTE Enrollment
19214
19288
19475
19752
19980
20210
2 Add or subtract FTE
students based on
historical projections
489
74
187
278
2
210
3$2
3 Total Enrollment
1 19214
119288
19475
19752
199801
20210
20592
SURPLUS CAPACITY Actual
- - Projected - -
C PERMANENT & INTERIM
SURPLUS CAPACITY 520
953
767
489
261
131
49
9(A5
minus B3) or
UNHOUSED CAPACITY Actual
- - Projected - -
UNHOUSED
DDENTS
STU 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0(AS
minus 133)
CAPSUM XLS
3/9/95
7 55 nM
NOTES:
1. FTE capacity is based on building program capacities.
2. 1994 capacity is based on 22 elementary schools, 6 jumor highs,
3 senior highs, and one alternative school.
1995 capacity is adjusted to reflect the addition of Meredith Hill
Elementary (#23) as new construction.
3. Interim 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.
III -9
FEDERAL WAY SCHOOL DISTRICT #210 -1994/95
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
CAPACITY SUMMARY - ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
CAPACITY
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
A 1 BUILDING FTE
CAPACITY (1)
10955
10527
11034
11034
11034
11034
11034
2 Add or subtract
changes to capacity (2)
122
507
3 Total Enrollment
10505
10553
1 10637
1 10799
3 Adjusted Capacity
10527
11034
11034
11034
11034
11034
11034
4 Add Interim Capacity (3)
50
200
5 District's Permanent &
Interim Capacity Threshold
10527
11034
11034
11034
11034
11084
11234
ENROLLMENT
Actual
- - Projected - -
B 1 Basic FTE Enrollment
10505
10553
10637
107991
10955
11077
2 Add or subtract FTE
students based on
historical projections
235
49
84
163
156
122
14.7
3 Total Enrollment
10505
10553
1 10637
1 10799
10955
11077
11224
SURPLUS CAPACITY Actual
- - Projected - -
& INTERIM
CSURPLUS
D UNHOUSED
EPERMANENT
CAPACITY 22
481
398
235
79
7
10
(A5 minus B3) or
0
0
0(A5
minus 133)
UNHOUSED CAPACITY
Actual
- - Projected - -
D UNHOUSED
STUDENTS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0(A5
minus 133)
cnrsveXLS
39/95
7 55 Aht
NOTES:
1. FTE capacity is based on building program capacities.
2. 1995 capacity adds Meredith Hill Elementary #23 (new construction).
3. Interim 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.
III -10
FEDERAL WAY SCHOOL DISTRICT #210 -1994/95
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
CAPACITY SUMMARY - JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS
CAPACITY
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
A 1 BUILDING FTE
CAPACITY (1)
4842
5001
5001
5001
5001
5001
5001
2 Add or subtract
changes to capacity
36
97
3 Total Enrollment 1
4677
4713
4813
4818
3 Adjusted Capacity
5001
5001
5001
5001
5001
5001
5001
4 Add Interim Capacity
5 District's Permanent &
Interim Capacity Threshold
5001
5001
5001 1
5001
5001
5001 1
5001
ENROLLMENT
Actual
-- Projected - -
B 1 Basic FTE Enrollment
4677
4713
4813
4818
4842
4878
2 Add or subtract FTE
students based on
historical projections
324
36
100
g
24
36
97
3 Total Enrollment 1
4677
4713
4813
4818
1 4842 1
4878
4975
SURPLUS CAPACITY
Actual
- - Projected - -
C PERMANENT & INTERIM
SURPLUS CAPACITY
324
288
188
183
159
123
26
(A5 minus B3) or
UNHOUSED CAPACITY
Actual
- - Projected - -
HOUSED
UDENTS
[7(A5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
minus B3)
NOTES:
I. FTE capacity based on building program capacities
CAPSUM Ms
3/9/95
L 7 55 AM
t�
FEDERAL WAY SCHOOL DISTRICT #210 -1994/95
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
CAPACITY SUMMARY - SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS
CAPACITY
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
A 1 BUILDING FTE
CAPACITY (1)
4183
4206
4206
4206
4206
4206
4206
2 Add or subtract
changes to capacity (2)
72
13-9
3 Total Enrollment
4032
4022
4025
4135
3 Adjusted Capacity
4206
4206
4206
4206
4206
4206
4206
4 Add Interim Capacity (3)
50
200
5 District's Permanent &
Interim Capacity Threshold
4206
4206
4206
4206
4206
4256
4406
ENROLLMENT
Actual
- - Projected - -
B 1 Basic FTE Enrollment
4032
4022
4025
4135
4183
4255
2 Add or subtract FTE
students based on
historical projections
71
23
1
110
0
72
13-9
3 Total Enrollment
4032
4022
4025
4135
4183
4255
4393
SURPLUS CAPACITY Actual
- - Projected - -
C PERMANENT & INTERIM
D UNHOUSED
SURPLUS CAPACITY 174
184
181
71
23
1
13
(A5 minus B3) or
0
0
(A5 minus B3)
UNHOUSED CAPACITY
Actual
- - Projected - -
D UNHOUSED
STUDENTS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(A5 minus B3)
NOTES
1. FTE capacity is based on building program capacities.
2. Interim 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.
3. Interim 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.
CnPSUM xis
3/9/95
758 AM
III -12
I King County Impact Fee Calculations
Single and Multi -Family Residences
King County Council has adopted Ordinance 10162, which requires that developers pay
impact fees to help cover a share of the impact of new housing developments on school
facilities.
11 To determine an equitable fee throughout unincorporated King County, a formula was
established. The formula requires the District to establish a "Student Mitigation 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 MITIGATION FACTOR ANALYSIS
The Federal Way School District Student Mitigation Factor was determined separately for
s single family units and multi -family units. The factors used in the 1994/95 Capital Facilities
Plan were derived using actual mitigation factors from single family units and multi -family
units which were constructed in the last five (5) years.
- MITIGATION FEE CALCULATION
Following the calculations for the student mitigation factor is a copy of the Impact Fee
Calculation for single family and multi -family units based on King County Ordinance 10162
and the Growth Management Act.
Single Family Units
Multi -Family Units $1,423
t/]
O
E" h
w 0
Oa
C7 O
�a
En
O
U
En3
a
:.
`7
r
C\
C
N
C\
r
00
r
L
CN
o
w
N
M
C\
M
p
M
00
O
C�
4jC p
C
�O
.�.
C
C
p
C
N
-'r
oc
r-
C V
r-
C
7
F.,
r
c*N
oe
o0
c
c�
p
E, a
v
W)"o
w
ao
LTi
et
M
00
N
h
Fly
N
v1
G
N
C
O
O
C
C
O
r
O
O
C
o
C
�O
0000
o0
et
C�
O
M
7
�O
N
oe
O
M
S
v1
O
N
Cw
C
t
N
C
O
M
M
W)
G
00
r-
C
i.w L
N
OC
et
N
C
C L
CN
C
M
Q
C
w O
of
G�
v
C
w O
Ul
O
M
of
L •fl V
M
�C
C
�n
L .L
N
O
M
00
r-
00
C 3 R
0�
M
C
C
C
ci
C
O
C
C
O
u
C
O
O
C
C
�
Ln
OD
00
M
�
m
'Ir.
00:;
~r
h
C1
00p
C1
Ccz
V1
W)
�C
Iz
v7
C\
N
C\
C`
r --
%n
+•' L
CU
,�
i... r L
U O
M
t!1
..
i/'1
!f
C
w U O
h
V
00
r
�C
C
L 7 U
L ••7 U
OM
O
00
....
IZ
��.
to
�C
N
-•
O
O—
o
O
t/i
G
�''
N
M
00m
"C
N
C
M
C\
W)
r
GN
C\
h
M
M
—
00
N
\C
M
to
3 ►+
rC\
�p
I!t
M
C1
-RTC\
N
C
N
en-
V1
M
W)
C
U
�C
O
�C
'�7
00
U 'O U
N
M
C\
W)
00
M
-'TC,
00
c 7 CC
C\
00
C
—
h
L0
M't
N
o
W��
W S
O
O
O
O
C
M
00
U1
M
C
M
to
M
M
C CL q
M
N
N
C\
O y
M
z5rA
r
V
N
N
tn
C\
M
M
7
N
O t0
M
N
00
^ L •�
,G L �
•O C
O C
CN
N
W
r
O
00
C\
r
C �' q
N
N
•0-
C
ci
v
E a
z"W�'
C
--
o
C
O
o
C
C
h
O
N
t..
O an
f
O �• H
C
�
L L'
L G
ci
zoo
zA
C-4
o
�co--!t�
oococ
a,
�,
�"' � rn
C •�
M
•--
N
OC
�'' � of
•�
L C
L O
" 3
�' 3
z
z
a
R
a
R
Gc
O..
.4
C
L
O
h
C
U
p
L
iPw3F8'�F
C
W
co
C
O
-OU
��.`J1i5V5U
QinaGUU[i
I
FEDERAL WAY SCHOOL DISTRICT #210 - 1994/95 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
IMPACT FEE
School Site Acquisition Cost: Student Student
Facility Cost / Facility Factor Factor Cost/ Cost/
Acreaee Acre Capacity SFR MFR SFR MFR
Elementary
Jr High
Sr High
106-22]$4,500
..........................................................................................................................................................
0.00
.......................................................................................................................
$7,726
$0
507
862
0
.305
097
.000
.232
2.17
.058
.000
$27 $21
$26 $16
$0 $0
TOTAL
$53 $36
School Construction Cost:
% Perm Fac./ Facility Facility
Total SQ Ft Cost Capacity
Elementary
Jr High
Sr High
Student
Student
Factor
Factor
SFR
MFR
Cost/ Cost/
SFR MFR
97.43%
..........................................................................................................................................................
,97:43%
.....................................
0.00%
$9,048,856
$13,002,571
$0
507
862
........................................................................
0
.305
.097
.000
.232
.058
.000
$5,310 $4,031
$1,420 $848
$0 $0
TOTAL
$6,729 4,878
Temporary Facility Cost: Student
% Temp Fac. Facility Facility Factor
Total So Ft Cost Size SFR
Elementary
Jr High
Sr High
Student
Factor Cost/ Cost/
MFR SFR MFR
2.57%
..........................................................................................................................................................
$39,427
25
.305
.232
$12 $9
2.57%
.........................o................................................................................
$39,427
25
.097
.058
$4 $2
2.57 /o
$39,427
25
..............................................
.107
.076
$4 $3
TOTAL
$21 $15
State Matching Credit Calculation: Student
Boeck Cost/ Sq. Ft. State Factor
So Ft Student Match SFR
Elementary
Jr High
Sr High
Student
Factor Cost/ Cost/
MFR CFR MFR
$89:57
$89.57
..................................................................................o
$0.00
80
113.33
0
58.39%
..........................................................................
58.39%
.....................................................................
0.00 /0
305
097
107
.232
.058
.000
$1,278 $970
$572 $342
$0 $0
Total
$1,850 $1,312
Tax Payment Credit Calculation
Average Assessed Value (March 95)
Capital Bond Interest Rate (March 95)
Net Present Value of Average Dwelling
Years Amortized
Property Tax Levy Rate
Present Value of Revenue Stream
atPCIFEE xis
mvs
407PM
SFR MFR
$133,443
............................................................
$66,971
6.11%
6.11%
............................................................
$977,054
............................................................
$490,354
Mitigation Fee Summary
............10............................10
$1.57
............
$1.57
$1,539
$772
III -15
Single Family
Multi -Family
Residences
Residences
Mitigation Fee Summary
Site Acquisition Cost
$53.22
$36.17
Permanent Facility Cost
$6,729.38
$4,878.48
Temporary Facility Cost
$20.65
$14.83
State Match Credit
($1,850.10)
($1,311.74)
Tax Payment Credit
($1,538.85)
($772.30)
Sub -Total
$3,414
$2,845
50% Local Share
$1,707
$1,423
Im act Fee
$1,707
$1,423
III -15
SECTION IV
SUMMARY OF CHANGES FROM THE 1993/94 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
The 1994/95 Capital Facilities Plan is a updated document, based on the 1993/94 Capital
Facilities Plan. The changes between the 1993/94 and 1994/95 Plan are listed.
The Board of Education section has been updated to reflect changes on the Board from the
1993/94 Capital Facilities Plan.
SECTION I - THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
INVENTORY OF EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES
Meredith Hill (#23) Elementary School has been added to the Current Inventory list and
removed from the "Undeveloped Property" list. This school will be completed and occupied
in September 1995. Northlake Elementary was deleted as an interim facility as it was sold in
December 1994.
CURRENT INVENTORY OF NON -INSTRUCTIONAL FACILITIES
Security was moved from 35706 16th Avenue South to 33818 9th Avenue South in 1994.
We added Science Kit to the property located at 33818 9th Avenue South. This is a center
where science kits are assembled, distributed to school sites and, in some cases, sold to the
public. The Site (#98) where Security was located was added to the undeveloped property
list. This site is surplused and is currently for sale. Site #20 was deleted from the undeveloped
property as it was sold in April 1994.
NEEDS FORECAST - EXISTING FACILITIES
All of the existing facilities that were listed in the 1993/94 Capital Facilities Plan have been
deleted as these projects are completed or near completion. Five elementary schools have
been added as needing modernizations. Various schools, support buildings, and Federal Way
Memorial Stadium were added as needing major improvements or additions. All of these
issues are currently being examined and a plan will be developed for when, how, and if these
needs will be met.
The Six Year Finance has been rolled forward to reflect 1995-2000
SECTION II - 1995/96 MAPS OF DISTRICT BOUNDARIES
District maps reflect boundary changes that will occur in the 1995/96 school year. The maps
included in the 1993/94 Capital Facilities Plan were for the 1994/95 school year.
IV -1
SECTION III - SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
CAPACITY
Changes to capacity between the 1993/94 Capital Facilities Plan and the 1994/95 Capital
Facilities Plan can be found on page IV -3.
PORTABLES
The list of portables reflects the movement of portables between facilities. Changes to
portables between the 1993/94 Capital Facilities Plan and the 1993/94 Capital Facilities Plan
can be found on page IV -4.
STUDENT FORECAST
The Student Forecast now covers 1995 through 2000. The new forecast reflects an increased
rate of growth at a decreasing rate observed in the District.
CAPACITY SUMMARY
The changes in the Capacity Summary are a reflection of the changes in the capacities and
student forecast.
IMPACT FEE CALCULATION - KING COUNTY ORDINANCE 10162
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 1993/94
Capital Facilities Plan and the 1994/95 Capital Facilities Plan can be found on page IV -5.
J
IV -2
CAPACITY CHANGES FROM 1993/94 TO 1994/95
ELEMENTARY CHANGES
During 1994, we did a full inventory of school capacities at each of our elementary schools.
Based upon this inventory, many of the elementary school capacities changed. In the past, the
capacities have been calculated based upon the optimal use of each building. The capacities
shown represent actual program capacities as they exist at the time of publishing.
SECONDARY SCHOOL CHANGES
Sacajawea Junior High
Capacity adjusted to show the actual capacity
not counted correctly.
In prior years, the number of classrooms was
IV -3
PORTABLE CHANGES FROM 1993/94 TO 1994/95
ELEMENTARY
Camelot One from Mahee Junior High
Mark Twain One from Panther Lake Elementary
Rainier View One from Silver Lake Elementary
SECONDARY
Harry S Truman Four from Illahee Junior High
SUPPORT FACILITIES
Clothing Bank Clothing Bank formed with portable from Security
IV -4
IMPACT FEE CALCULATION CHANGES FROM 1993/94 TO 1994/95
STUDENT MITIGATION FACTORS
Student mitigation 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
mitigation factors between the 1993/94 Capital Facilities Plan and the 1994/95 Capital
Facilities Plan are due to developments that were deleted or added based upon the age of the
developments.
IMPACT FEE
Item
Sr. High School Site
Acquisition Cost
Elementary School
Construction Cost
Sr. High School
Construction Cost
Sr. High State Matching
Credit Calculation
Boeck Cost/Sq Ft
State Match
Average Assessed Value
From/To Comment
$270 to $0
No senior high costs exist for impact
fee calculation.
$8,818,050 to
Updated costs of most recently built
$9,048,856
school.
$14,559,829 to $0
No senior high costs exist for impact
fee calculation.
All factors to 0
No senior high costs (except for
from previous year
portables) exist for impact fee
(see below)
calculation, therefore no state matching
credit.
$86.69 to $89.57
Change per SPI
58.41% to 58.39%
MFR - $128,882
to $133,443
SFR - $68,069 to
$66,971
Capital Bond Interest Rate 5.3% to 6.11%
Property Tax Levy Rate
$1.49 to $1.57
IV -5
Change per SPI
Per Puget Sound ESD
Market Rate
Per King County
SECTION V - APPENDIX
This section provides additional information that is needed for statements or calculations
contained in the Capital Facilities Plan. All supplements are referenced in the body of the
Plan.
V-1
FEDERAL WAY SCHOOL DISTRICT #210 - 1994/95 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
Site
Elementary #23
Total
Cost per Station
1..
A
SMEELEM XLS
IV95
_a 1121 AM
COST OF SITE ACQUISITION - ELEMENTARY
STUDENT STATIONS
Total 10/1/94 Reserved
Built and Actual Currently
Acres Cost To Be Built Attendance Unused
10.00 45,000.00 507 0 507
10.00 45,000.00 507 507
V-2
88.76
FEDERAL WAY SCHOOL DISTRICT 4210 - 1994/95 CAPITAL FACILI'T'IES PLAN
COST OF SITE ACQUISITION - JUNIOR HIGH
Site
Saghalie
Total
Cost per Station
srmml xis
10ZAM
STUDENT STATIONS
Total 10/1/94 Reserved
Built and Actual Currently
Acres Cost To Be Built Attendance Unused
30.17 233,106.93 862 775
30.17 233,106.93 862
270.43
V-3
87
87
FEDERAL WAY SCHOOL DISTRICT #210 - 1994/95 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
COST OF PERMANENT FACILITIES - ELEMENTARY
STUDENT STATIONS
Total 10/1/94 Reserved
Built and Actual Currently
Site Cost To Be Built Attendance Unused
Meredith Hill #23 9,048,856.00 507 507
Total 9,048,856.00 507 507.00
Cost per Station 17,847.84
BLDGELEM XLS
18/95
10 25 AM V-4
a
FEDERAL WAY SCHOOL DISTRICT 4210 - 1994/95 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
COST OF PERMANENT FACILITIES - JUNIOR HIGH
STUDENT STATIONS
Total 10/1/94 Reserved
Built and Actual Currently
Site Cost To Be Built Attendance Unused
Saghalie Junior High 13,002,571.00 862 775 87
Total 13,002,571.00 862 87.00
Cost per Station
BLDGIMI XLS
10 2 25
10 5 ph{ `%-5
15,084.19
CHAPTER EIGHT
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
CHAPTER EIGHT
CAPITAL, FACILITIES ELEMENT
INTRODUCTION
The capital facilities element contains a summary of the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP)
for the City of Kent. The element consists of the following information: (1)
statements of requirements, level -of -service (LOS) standards, guidelines, and criteria
that are used to develop and implement the CFP; (2) inventories of existing facilities;
(3) maps showing the locations of existing facilities; and (4) a list of proposed capital
projects, including a financing plan, future operating costs, and reconciliation of
project capacity and LOS standards. The complete CFP and supporting documents are
available for review at the City of Kent Planning Department.
The CFP is a required element of the City's comprehensive plan, mandated by the
Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA). The GMA requires cities and
counties to approve and maintain a CFP which includes requirements for specific types
of capital facilities, LOS standards, financial feasibility, and assurance that adequate
facilities will be provided as development occurs.
As required by the GMA, the CFP is a 6 -year plan for capital improvements that
support the City's current and future population and employment growth. It contains
LOS standards for each public facility, and requires that new development is served
by adequate facilities. The CFP also contains broad goals and specific policies that
guide and implement the provision of adequate public facilities. The capital facilities
element is the element that makes real the rest of the comprehensive plan. By
establishing LOS as the basis for providing capital facilities and for achieving
concurrency, the CFP determines the quality of life in the community. The
requirement to fully finance the CFP provides a reality check on the vision set forth
in the comprehensive plan. The capacity of capital facilities that are provided in the
CFP affects the size and configuration of the urban growth area.
KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 8.1
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT CHAPTER EIGHT
The purpose of the CFP is to use sound fiscal policies to provide adequate public
facilities in a manner consistent with the land use element and at a time concurrent
with (or prior to) the impacts of development. These capital facilities propose to
achieve and maintain adopted standards for LOS in order to maintain the quality of life
for existing and future development. The plan fulfills the GMA requirement for
facilities planning; but, in addition, the plan serves as a base for good city management
and establishes eligibility for grants and loans. It provides coordination among the
City's many plans for capital improvements, including other elements of the
comprehensive plan, master plans of departmental service providers, and facilities
plans of the state, the region, and adjacent local jurisdictions.
Requirements of the Growth Management Act
The GMA requires the CFP to identify public facilities that will be required during the
six years following adoption of the new plan (1994 through 1999). The CFP must
include the location and cost of the facilities, and the sources of revenue that will be
used to fund the facilities. The CFP must be financially feasible; in other words,
dependable revenue sources must equal or exceed anticipated costs. If the costs exceed
the revenue, the City must reduce its level of service, reduce costs, or modify the land
use element to bring development into balance with available or affordable facilities.
Other requirements of the GMA mandate forecasts of future needs for capital facilities
and the use of standards for levels of service of facility capacity as the basis for public
facilities contained in the CFP [see RCW 36.70A.020 (12)]. As a result, public
facilities in the CFP must be based on quantifiable, objective measures of capacity,
such as traffic -volume capacity per mile of road and acres of park per capita.
One of the goals of the GMA is to have capital facilities in place concurrent with
development. This concept is known as concurrency (also called "adequate public
facilities"). In the City of Kent, concurrency requires 1) facilities which serve the
development to be in place at the time of development (or for some types of facilities,
a financial commitment to be made to provide the facilities within a specified period
of time) and 2) facilities which serve the development to have sufficient capacity to
serve the development without decreasing LOS below minimum standards adopted in
the CFP.
8-2 KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CHAPTER EIGHT CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
The GMA requires concurrency for transportation facilities. The GMA also requires
all other public facilities to be "adequate" [see RCW 19.27.097, 36.70A.020,
36.70A.030, and 58.17.110]. Concurrency management procedures will be developed
to ensure that sufficient public facility capacity is available for each proposed
development.
After the CFP is completed and adopted as part of the comprehensive plan, the City
must adopt development regulations to implement the plan. The development
regulations will provide detailed regulations and procedures for implementing the
requirements of the plan.
Each year, the City must update the CFP. The annual update will be completed before
the City's budget is adopted in order to incorporate into the budget the capital
improvements from the updated CFP.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
LOS (SCENARIO -DRIVEN) METHOD OF ANALYSIS
Explanation of Levels of Service
Levels of service usually are quantifiable measures of the amount of public facilities
that are provided to the community. Levels of service also may measure the quality of
some public facilities.
Typically, measures of LOS are expressed as ratios of facility capacity to demand (i.e.,
actual or potential users).
The following chart lists examples of LOS measures for some capital facilities.
Type of Capital Facility
Corrections
Fire and Rescue
Hospitals
Law Enforcement
Sample LOS Measures
Beds per 1,000 population
Average response time
Beds per 1,000 population
Officers per 1,000 population
KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 8.3
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT CHAPTER EIGHT
Library
Parks
Roads and Streets
Schools
Sewer
Solid Waste
Surface Water & River Levees
Transit
Water
Collection size per capita
Building square feet per capita
Acres per 1,000 population
Ratio of actual volume to design
capacity
Square feet per student
Gallons per customer per day
Effluent quality
Tons (or cubic yards) per capita or per
customer
Design storm (i.e., 100 -year storm)
Runoff water quality
Ridership
Gallons per customer per day
Water quality
Each of these LOS measures needs one additional piece of information: the specific
quantity that measures the current or proposed LOS. For example, the standard for
parks might be 5 acres per 1,000 population; but the current LOS may be 2.68 acres
per 1,000, which is less than the standard.
In order to make use of the LOS method, the City selects the way in which it will
measure each facility (i.e., acres, gallons, etc.). It also identifies the amount of the
current and proposed LOS standard for each measurement.
There are other ways to measure the LOS of many of these capital facilities. The
examples in the previous chart are provided to give greater depth to the following
discussion of the use of LOS as a method for determining the City's need for capital
facilities.
Method for Using Levels of Service
The LOS method answers two questions in order to develop a financially -feasible CFP.
The GMA requires the CFP to be based on standards for service levels that are
measurable and financially feasible for the six fiscal years following adoption of the
8-4 KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CHAPTER EIGHT CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
plan. The CFP must meet the City's capital needs for the fiscal years 1994 through
1999.
The two questions that must be answered in order to meet the GMA requirements are:
(1) What is the quantity of public facilities that will be required by the end of the
6th year (i.e., 1999)?
(2) Is it financially feasible to provide the quantity of facilities that are required by
the end of the 6th year (i.e., 1999)?
The answer to each question can be calculated by using objective data and formulas.
Each type of public facility is examined separately (i.e., roads are examined separately
from parks). The costs of all the types of facilities then are added together in order to
determine the overall financial feasibility of the CFP. A detailed explanation of the
formulas used is contained in the Capital Facilities Plan. One of the CFP support
documents, Capital Facilities Requirements, contains the results of the use of this
method.
Setting the Standards for Levels of Service
Because the need for capital facilities is determined largely by the adopted LOS, the
key to influencing the CFP is to influence the selection of the LOS standards. LOS
standards are measures of the quality of life of the community. The standards should
be based on the community's vision of its future and its values. Traditional approaches
to capital facilities planning rely on technical experts (i.e., staff and consultants) to
determine the need for capital improvements. In the scenario -driven approach, these
experts play an important advisory role, but they do not control the determination.
Their role is to define and implement a process for the review of various scenarios, to
analyze data, and to make suggestions based on technical considerations.
The final, legal authority to establish the LOS rests with the City Council because the
City Council enacts the LOS standards that reflect the community's vision. The City
Council's decision should be influenced by recommendations of the 1) Planning
Commission; 2) providers of public facilities (i.e., local government departments,
special districts, private utilities, the State of Washington, tribal governments, etc.);
3) formal advisory groups that make recommendations to the providers of public
KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN g_S
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT CHAPTER EIGHT
facilities (i.e., community planning groups); 4) the general public through individual
citizens and community civic, business, and issue -based organizations that make their
views known or are sought through sampling techniques.
The scenario -driven approach to developing the LOS standards provides
decision -makers and anyone else who wishes to participate with a clear statement of
the outcomes of various LOS for each type of public facility. This approach reduces
the tendency for decisions to be controlled by expert staff or consultants, opens up the
decision-making process to the public and advisory groups, and places the decisions
before the City Council.
Selection of a specific LOS to be the "adopted standard" ultimately will be
accomplished by a 12 -step process:
(1) The "current" (1993), actual LOS are calculated.
(2) Departmental service providers are given national standards or guidelines and
examples of LOS from other local governments.
(3) Departmental service providers research local standards from City studies,
master plans, ordinances, and development regulations.
(4) Departmental service providers recommend a standard for the City of Kent's
CFP.
(5) The first draft of Capital Facilities Requirements forecasts needed capacity and
approximate costs of two LOS scenarios (e.g., the 1993 actual LOS and the
department's recommended LOS)
(6) The City Council reviews and comments on the first draft of Capital Facilities
Requirements.
(7) The Operations department prepare a follow-up Capital Facilities Level of
Service/Cost Options report which identifies five alternative LOS options, or
scenarios, to forecast the amount of capital facilities that would be most
appropriate for the City of Kent during the 6 -year growth period 1994-1999.
This report complements Capital Facilities Requirements, which was reviewed
with the City Council November 30, 1993, and not only identifies LOS options
but also includes specific recommendations from the Operations department.
8-6 KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CHAPTER EIGHT CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
(8) The City Council reviews and comments on Capital Facilities Level of
Service/Cost Options and indicates their preferences for LOS and noncapacity
capital projects to be included in the first draft of the CFP.
(9) Departmental service providers prepare specific capital improvements projects
and estimates of related maintenance and operating costs to support the City
Council's preferred LOS and noncapacity projects.
(10) The first -draft CFP is prepared using the City Council's preferred LOS and
noncapacity projects. The LOS in the first -draft CFP serves as the basis for
capital projects, their costs, and a financing plan necessary to pay for the costs.
(11) The draft CFP is reviewed/discussed during City Council and Planning
Commission workshop(s) prior to formal reading/hearing of the CFP by the
City Council.
(12) The City Council formally adopts LOS as part of the CFP.
(13) Every year, as required by the Growth Management Act, department service
providers reassess land use issues, level of service standards, and projected
revenues to determine what changes, if any are needed.
CURRENT FACILITIES INVENTORIES
CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
The Kent Correction Center is managed by the Kent Police Department. The current
inventory of the Correctional Facility totals 130 beds. The Center is located at 1201
Central in the City. An intergovernmental contract with the Federal Marshall's Office
currently allows the City to provide approximately 20 beds for Federal prisoners.
The geographic location of the Correctional Facility is found on Figure 8.1.
FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES
The Kent Fire Department is responsible for delivering fire protection and emergency
medical services to the City, and to the geographic area within King County fire
District #37.The City owns 4 fire stations: Station 71 (south); Station 73 (west);
Station 74 (east); and Station 76 (north). Each station is equipped with one fire/aid
KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 8-7
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT CHAPTER EIGHT
unit which consists of a pumper truck with emergency medical service/rescue
equipment and manpower, and each station has a future capacity for three units.
The table below lists each station, fire/aid units in service, total capacity, and average
response time:
Name of
Fire/Aid Units
Total Capacity
Location
Station
in Service
(Bays)
Station 71
1
3
South
Station 73
1
3
West
Station 74
1 *
3
East
Station 76
1
3
North
*Ladder Truck
King County Fire District #37 owns three fire stations: Station 72 (Meridian), with two
fire/aid units in service and capacity for three; Station 74 (Covington), with one
fire/aid unit and capacity for three, and Station 77 (Kentridge), with one fire/aid unit
in service and capacity for two.
The geographic locations of the Fire and Emergency Services facilities are found on
Figure 8.1.
POLICE/FIRE TRAINING CENTER
The Police/Fire Training Center is located on East Hill at 24611 116th Avenue SE.
The Center, housed in an 8,000 square foot building, provides audio and visual
equipment and other facilities for in-service training for City of Kent police officers
and fire fighters. Instruction is conducted by Kent Police and Fire Department
personnel, and by nationally known instructors from organizations such as the
International Association of Police Chiefs and the State Fire Service. In addition to
providing a facility for training city of Kent personnel, the training center also
accommodates a satellite training program sponsored by the Washington State Criminal
Justice Training commission.
The geographic locations of the police/fire training facilities are found on Figure 8.1.
CITY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES - GENERAL GOVERNMENT
8-8 KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CHAPTER EIGHT CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
The City of Kent Operations Department manages several facilities and buildings
necessary to the administrative and maintenance functions of the City. These include
City Hall and the City Council Chambers, leased offices in the Centennial Center, the
Municipal Court facility, and City maintenance shops. The table below lists the name,
location and capacity of each facility:
U.- ►� � i�!
City Hall
Centennial Center
(Leased)
Municipal Court
(Leased)
LOCATION CAPACITY
(Square Feet)
220 4th Avenue South 33,100
400 West Gowe 26,460
302 West Gowe 4,251
The geographic locations of the City administrative facilities are found on Figure 8.1.
CITY ADMINISTRATION OFFICES - POLICE HEADQUARTERS
The inventory of City administrative offices for the Police Department headquarters
totals 18,000 square feet, and is located at 232 4th Avenue South in downtown Kent.
The geographic location of the Police Headquarters is found on Figure 8.1.
CITY MAINTENANCE FACILITIES
The total area of city government maintenance facilities totals 22,558 square feet, and
includes the Public Works maintenance shops (17,173 square feet) and Park and
Recreation Department maintenance shops (5,385 square feet). The Police Vehicle
Storage facility (3,600 square feet), which is an open, uncovered yard is not included
in this inventory.
The geographic location of the City Maintenance facilities is found on Figure 8.1
PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES
KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 8.9
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT CHAPTER EIGHT
The City of Kent owns and manages 128.8 acres of neighborhood park land and 779.7
acres of community park land within the current City limits. King County owns 6.1
acres. Within the unincorporated Urban Growth Area (UGA) of Kent, King county
owns 807.8 acres of park land, and the City of Kent owns 7.2 acres. the Park and
Recreation Department manages a wide variety of facilities located on park land,
including the Senior Center, Kent Commons, Special Populations Resource Center,
play fields, and trails. A detailed inventory of current parks and recreation facilities
is contained in the Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan.
The geographic locations of the parks and recreational facilities are found
on Figures 10.1 and 10.2 of the parks element.
GOLF COURSES
The inventory of current City golf courses includes the following:
NAME LOCATION CAPACITY (HOLES)
Par 3 Golf Course 2030 West Meeker 9
18 Hole Golf Course 2019 West Meeker 18
The geographic locations of the golf course facilities are found on Figure 10.1 of the
parks element.
SANITARY SEWER FACILITIES
The sewer service area of the City of Kent encompasses 23 square miles, and includes
most of the incorporated City, as well as adjacent franchise areas within
unincorporated King County. Since the existing collection system already serves most
of the City's service area, expansion of this system will occur almost entirely by infill
development, which will be accomplished primarily through developer extensions and
local improvement districts. In general, the existing sewer system is sized based on
existing standards which will carry peak flows which will be generated by the service
area for ultimate development. However, the City of Kent Comprehensive Sewerage
Plan has identified various undersized lines, as well as others that require
rehabilitation.
8-10 KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CHAPTER EIGHT CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
A complete inventory of Sanitary Sewer facilities is found in the City of Kent
Comprehensive Sewerage Plan.
The Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro) has assumed the responsibility for
interception, treatment, and disposal of wastewater from the City of Kent and its
neighboring communities. Therefore, the City does not incur any direct capacity -
related capital facilities requirements or costs for sanitary sewer treatment. The
voluminous inventory of current Sanitary Sewer facilities is on file with the City's
Department of Public Works.
The geographic locations of the sanitary sewer facilities are found on Figure 8.2.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
The City of Kent lies primarily within the Green River Watershed, which encompasses
480 square miles and the total drainage area of the City is 19 square miles which
includes most of the incorporated city, as well as the adjacent franchise areas within
unincorporated King County. The eight major watershed areas include (1) Green
River; (2) Lake Fenwick; (3) Midway; (4) Mill Creek (Kent); (5) Mill Creek
(Auburn); (6) Mullen Slew; (7) Springbrook-Garrison Creek; (8) Star Lake. The City
has operated a stormwater utility since 1981 as a means of financing the construction,
operation, and maintenance of the surface water management program. Conveyance
systems in both the "hillside" and "valley" areas must convey at minimum the 25 year
storm event. The standards include requirements to provide water quality control
recommended by the "State Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual".
The voluminous inventory of current stormwater management facilities is on file with
the City's Department of Public Works.
The geographic locations of the stormwater management facilities are found on Figure
8.3.
WATER SUPPLY, DISTRIBUTION, AND STORAGE FACILITIES
The water service area of the City encompasses 27 square miles. This area includes
most of the incorporated City, as well as adjacent franchise areas within
unincorporated King County. To the east, the service area boundary coincides with
the boundary of Water District No. 111 and Soos Creek Sewer and Water District.
KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 8-11
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT CHAPTER EIGHT
To the north, the service area boundary coincides with the mutual Kent/Renton and
Kent/Tukwila city limits. to the west, it coincides with Highline Water District's
boundary, and to the south, the City's service area boundary coincides with the City
of Auburn, and Federal Way Sewer and Water District. The principal sources of water
supply for the City's water system are Kent Springs and Clark Springs. During high
demand periods, the capacity of these two sources is exceeded, and supplemental well
facilities are activated. These sources are adequate to meet peak day demands;
however, during an extreme dry/hot spell, the City purchases water from adjacent
purveyors. Water system interties are presently available with Highline Water
District, Tukwila, and Renton during such emergency situations; however, these
sources are not considered to be dependable for meeting long-term demand
requirements. A new open storage reservoir is proposed to be located on a site near'
124th Avenue SE and SE 304th Street. The City also plans a future intertie with
Tacoma's pipeline 5 project. The water distribution system exists throughout most of
the City's service area. Expansion will take place almost entirely through infill
development, which will be accomplished primarily through developer extensions.
Most of the remaining projects in the City's most recent water system Plan consist
primarily of water main replacements and upsizing in older portions of the system.
A Comprehensive Water System Plan update is required by the Washington State
Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) every five years. The City's most
recent Water System Plan (completed in 1988 and amended in 1990) has been
approved by DSHS. This plan was completed in conjunction sith the Critical Water
Supply Plan for the South King County area. A detailed inventory of current water
system facilities, and City water rights records are on file with the City's Department
of Public Works. The voluminous inventory of current stormwater management
facilities is on file with the City's Department of Public Works.
The geographic locations of water distribution facilities are found on Figure 8.4.
TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES
The City's road system current inventory consists of approximately 164 total land
miles for 4 major categories of roads; 9.5 miles of principal arterials; 28.3 miles of
minor arterials; 13.8 miles of collector arterials, and 112 miles of local roads. There
are 9 bridges in Kent.
8-12 KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CHAPTER EIGHT CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
Transportation networks for pedestrians include:
Widened shoulder
19.35 miles
Gravel Paths
28.31 miles
Asphalt sidewalks
4.69 miles
Concrete sidewalks
108.56 miles
Pathways
21.01 miles
The geographic locations of major transportation facilities are found on Figure 9.1 of
the transportation element.
PUBLIC EDUCATION FACILITIES
Most of Kent's residential areas are served by the Kent School District. the Renton
School District serves students from an area of Kent near the north City limits, and
Kent students from a section of the West Hill of Kent attend Federal Way Schools.
Detailed inventories of school district capital facilities are contained in the capital
facilities plan of each school district. The capital facilities plans of the Kent and
Federal Way School Districts have been adopted as part of the Cis s Capital Facilities
Element.
The geographic locations of schools in Kent are found on Figure 8.1.
PUBLIC LIBRARY FACILITIES
The City of Kent is served by the King County Library system in the Kent Library
building at 212 2nd Avenue West, which was built in 1992. Detailed information
regarding the King County Library System is contained in the King County Library
System, The Year 2000 Plan, September 1992.
The geographic location of the Kent Library building is found on Figure 8.1.
ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS
The following section outlines the capital costs. financing and levels of service for the
public facilities which are provided by the City of Kent This same information for
the Kent and Federal Way School Districts is available in the districts' capital facilities
plans, which have been adopted by reference as part of the Capital Facilities Element
KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 8-13
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT CHAPTER EIGHT
CAPITAL COSTS
Table 8.1
FINANCING
The revenue sources that are available to the City of Kent for capital facilities include
taxes, fees and charges, and grants. Some sources of revenue for capital facilities can
also be used for operating costs. A comprehensive list of revenue sources and a
discussion of limitations on the use of each revenue source is contained in the Capital
Facilities Plan. Existing City revenues are not forecast, nor are they diverted to capital
expenditures from maintenance and operations.
The financing plan for these capital improvements includes the revenues listed in the
pie chart below. The chart lists the major categories of Capital Improvement Projects
(CIP) revenue sources and the amount contributed by each source.
Table 8.2
8-14 KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CHAPTER EIGHT
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
TOTAL REVENUES (in 000's)
Detailed project lists and financing plans are contained in the Capital Facilities Plan.
LEVEL OF SERVICE CONSEQUENCES OF THE CFP
The CFP will enable the City of Kent to accommodate 15.1 % growth during the next
6 years (48,144 people in 1999) while maintaining the 1993 LOS for the following
public facilities:
Facility
LOS Units
Fire/Emergency Services
Units/1,000 pop.
Neighborhood Rec. Facilities
Investment/Capita
Community Rec. Facilities
Investment/Capita
Sanitary Sewer
Per DOE and METRO
$496.26
Regulations
Stormwater Management
Per State Regulations/King
Police/Fire Training Center
County Stds.
Transportation
N/A
Water System
Per DSHS Regulations/King
1,525.0
County Stds
1993 LOS
CFP LOS
1993 LOS
PROPOSED
0.096
0.096
$151.52
$151.52
$496.26
$496.26
The level of service for the following facilities will be increased as a result of the
CFP:
Facility
LOS Units
City Maintenance Facilities Sq. Ft./1,000 pop.
1993 LOS CFP LOS
PROPOSED
539.0 625.0
The level of service for the following facilities will be reduced as a result of the CFP:
Facility
LOS Units
1993 LOS
CFP LOS
PROPOSED
Correctional Facility
Beds/1,000 pop.
3.11
2.70
Police/Fire Training Center
Sq. Ft./Employee
32.5
28.3
City Admin. Offices
Sq. Ft./1,000 pop.
1,525.0
1,325.0
- General Government
City Admin. Offices
Sq. Ft./1,000 pop.
430.0
396.0
- Police Headquarters
Neighborhood Park/
Acres/1,000 pop.
2.59
2.53
KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 8-15
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT CHAPTER EIGHT
Recreational Land
Community Park/ Acres/1,000 pop. 18.80 18.19
Recreational Land
Golf Courses Holes/1,000 pop. 0.65 0.56
CAPITAL FACILITIES GOALS AND POLICIES
Goal CFP -1 - As the City of Kent continues to grow and develop, ensure that an
adequate supply and range of capital facilities are available to provide satisfactory
standards of public health, safety, and quality of life.
Goal CFP -2 - Encourage and support patterns of growth and development which are
consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan by concentrating capital facilities
spending in those areas where growth is desired.
Goal CFP -3 - Define types of public facilities, establish standards for levels of service
for each type of public facility, and in coordination with the Comprehensive Plan Land
Use Element, determine what capital improvements are needed in order to achieve and
maintain the standards for existing and future populations, and to repair or replace
existing public facilities. As growth and additional development occur in the City and
adjacent growth areas, consistently reassess land use, update the capital facilities
data, and use these data as a basis for making financial decisions regarding capital
facilities investment. Identify alternatives to spending and establish priorities.
Policy CFP -3.1 - Establish and maintain definitions of terms which apply
throughout this Capital Facilities Plan and related documents. Place the
definitions in the introduction to the Capital Facilities Plan and update them
as necessary.
Policy CFP -3.2 - The capital facilities provided within the City of Kent are
defined in the introduction and categorized below as A., B., and C. facilities.
Establish standards for levels of service for Categories A and B public
facilities, and coordinate with providers of Category C public facilities. Apply
the standards for Category A and B facilities and coordinate Category C
facilities as follows:
8-16 KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CHAPTER EIGHT
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
(i) Category A: Capital facilities owned or operated by the City of
Kent. Apply the standards for levels of service of each type of
public facility in Category A to development permits issued by
the City (as set forth in the City's Concurrency Ordinance) after
the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, the City's annual
budget beginning with the 1995 fiscal year, the City's Capital
Improvements Program beginning with the 1995 fiscal year, and
other elements of this Comprehensive Plan.
(ii) Category B: Capital facilities owned or operated by the City of
Kent, but not subject to requirements for concurrency. Apply
the standards for levels of service of each type of public facility
in Category B to the City's annual budget beginning with the
1995 fiscal year, the City's Capital Improvements Program
beginning with the 1995 fiscal year, and other elements of this
Comprehensive Plan. The standards for levels of service in
Category B are for planning purposes only, and shall not apply
to development permits issued by the City.
(iii) Category C: Capital facilities owned or operated by federal,
state, county, independent district, and private organizations.
Coordinate levels of service and capacity with other entities who
provide capital facilities within the City, such as libraries,
Washington State Department of Transportation, school
districts, and transit service providers.
Policy CFP -3.3 - Provide standards for levels of service according to the
following:
(i) Category A Public Facilities
Transportation facilities:
Sanitary Sewer: State DOE and Metro Regulations
Stormwater Management: State Regulations and King County
Standards
Water: DSHS Regulations and King County Standards
(ii) Category B Public Facilities
Fire and Emergency Services:
0.096 fire aid units per 1,000 population
Law Enforcement:
Correctional facility: 2.70 beds per 1,000 population
KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 8.17
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
CHAPTER EIGHT
Parks:
Neighborhood Park/Recreational Land: 2.53 acres per 1,000
population
Community Park/Recreational Land: 18.19 acres per 1,000
population
Neighborhood Recreational Facilities: $151.52 investment per
capita
Community Recreational Facilities: $496.26 investment per
capita
Golf Courses: 0.56 holes per 1,000 population
City Administrative Offices:
City Hall: 1,325 square feet per 1,000 population
Police Headquarters: 396 square feet per 1,000 population
City Maintenance Facilities:
625 square feet per 1,000 population
City Training Facilities:
Police/Fire training center: 28.3 square feet per employee
Policy CFP -3.4 - Determine the needed quantity of capital improvements as
follows:
The quantity of capital improvements needed to eliminate existing
deficiencies and to meet the needs of future growth shall be determined
for each public facility by the following calculation: Q = (S x D) - I.
Where Q is the quantity of capital improvements needed,
S is the standard for level of service,
D is the demand, such as the population, and
I is the inventory of existing facilities.
Use the calculation for existing demand in order to determine existing
deficiencies. Use the calculation for projected demand in order to
determine needs of future growth.
Policy CFP -3.5 - Consider the standards for levels of service to be the
exclusive determinant of need for a capital improvement except in the following
circumstances:
8-18 KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CHAPTER EIGHT
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
(i) Repair, remodeling, renovation, and replacement of obsolete or
worn-out facilities shall be determined by the City Council upon
the recommendation of the Mayor.
(ii) Capital improvements that provide levels of service in excess of
the standards adopted in this Comprehensive Plan may be
constructed or acquired at any time as long as the following
conditions are met:
(a) The capital improvement does not make financially
infeasible any other capital improvement that is needed
to achieve or maintain the standards for levels of service
adopted in this Comprehensive Plan, and
(b) The capital improvement does not contradict, limit, or
substantially change the goals or policies of any element
of this Comprehensive Plan, and
(c) The capital improvement meets one of the following
conditions:
The excess capacity is an integral part of a
capital improvement that is needed to achieve or
maintain standards for levels of service (i.e., the
minimum capacity of a capital project is larger
than the capacity required to provide the level of
service), or
The excess capacity provides economies of scale
making it less expensive than a comparable
amount of capacity if acquired at a later date, or
... The asset acquired is land that is
environmentally sensitive, or designated by the
City as necessary for conservation or recreation,
or
.... The excess capacity is part of a capital project
financed by general obligation bonds approved
by referendum.
Policy CFP -3.6 - Encourage non -capital alternatives to achieve and maintain
the adopted standard for level of service. Non -capital alternatives, which use
programs, strategies, or methods other than traditional "brick and mortar"
capital facilities to provide the level of service standards, may include, but are
KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 8-19
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
CHAPTER EIGHT
not limited to the following: (1) programs that reduce or eliminate the need for
the capital facility; (2) programs that provide a non -capital substitute for the
capital facility; (3) programs that reduce the demand for a capital facility or
the service it provides; (4) programs that use alternative methods to provide
levels of service; (5) programs that use existing facilities more efficiently in
order to reduce the need for additional facilities.
Policy CFP -3.7 - Include in the "CFP Projects and Financing Plan " contained
in the Capital Facilities Plan any capital improvement that is determined to be
needed as a result of any of the factors listed in Policy CFP -3.5. Approve all
such capital improvements in the same manner as the capital improvements that
are determined to be needed according to the quantitative analysis described
in Policy CFP -3.4.
Policy CFP -3.8 - Assign relative priorities among capital improvements
projects as follows:
(i) Priorities Among Types of Public Facilities. Legal restrictions
on the use of many revenue sources limit the extent to which
types of facilities compete for priority with other types of
facilities because they do not compete for the same revenues. All
capital improvements that are necessary for achieving and
maintaining a standard for levels of service adopted in this
Comprehensive Plan are included in the financially feasible
"CFP Projects and Financing Plan" contained in the Capital
Facilities Plan. The relative priorities among types of public
facilities (i.e., roads, sanitary sewer, etc.) were established by
adjusting the standards for levels of service and the available
revenues until the resulting public facilities needs became
financially feasible. Repeat this process with each update of the
Capital Facilities Plan, thus allowing for changes in priorities
among types of public facilities.
(ii) Priorities of capital improvements within a type of public
facility. Evaluate and consider capital improvements within a
type of public facility using the following criteria and order of
priority. Establish the final priority of all capital facility
improvements using the following criteria as general guidelines.
Use any revenue source that cannot be used for a high-priority
facility by beginning with the highest priority for which the
revenue can be expended legally.
(a) Reconstruction, rehabilitation, remodeling, renovation,
or replacement of obsolete or worn-out facilities that
8-20 KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CHAPTER EIGHT
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
contribute to achieving or maintaining standards for
levels of service adopted in this Comprehensive Plan.
(b) New or expanded facilities that reduce or eliminate
deficiencies in levels of service for existing demand.
(c) New public facilities, and improvements to existing
public facilities, that eliminate public hazards if such
hazards were not otherwise eliminated by facility
improvements prioritized according to (a) or (b), above.
(d) New or expanded facilities that provide the adopted
levels of service for new development and redevelopment
during the next six fiscal years, as updated by the annual
review of the Capital Facilities Plan. The City may
acquire land or right of way in advance of the need to
develop a facility for new development. Ensure that the
location of facilities constructed pursuant to this policy
conform to the Land Use Element, and that specific
project locations serve projected growth areas within the
allowable land use categories.
(e) Capacity of public facilities to serve anticipated new
development and applicants for development permits
shall be addressed in the City's concurrency ordinance.
( Improvements to existing facilities, and new facilities
that significantly reduce the operating cost of providing
a service or facility, or otherwise mitigate impacts of
public facilities on future operating budgets.
(g) New facilities that exceed the adopted levels of service
for new growth during the next six fiscal years by either
Providing excess public facility capacity that is
needed by future growth beyond the next six
fiscal years, or
Providing higher -quality public facilities than
are contemplated in the City's normal design
criteria for such facilities.
(h) Facilities not described in policies (a) through (g)
above, but which the City is obligated to complete,
provided that such obligation is evidenced by a written
KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 8.21
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT CHAPTER EIGHT
agreement the City executed prior to the adoption of this
Comprehensive Plan.
(iii) Evaluate all facilities scheduled for construction or improvement
in accordance with this policy in order to identify any plans of
state or local governments or districts that affect, or will be
affected by, the City's proposed capital improvement.
(iv) Include in the project evaluation additional criteria that are
unique to each type of public facility, as described in other
elements of this Comprehensive Plan.
Goal CFP -4 - To ensure financial feasibility, provide needed public facilities that the
City has the ability to fund, or that the City has the authority to require others to
provide.
Policy CFP -4.1 - In the estimated costs of all needed capital improvements, do
not exceed conservative estimates of revenues from sources that are available
to the City pursuant to current statutes, and which have not been rejected by
referendum, if a referendum is required to enact a source of revenue.
Conservative estimates need not be the most pessimistic estimate, but cannot
exceed the most likely estimate. Revenues for transportation improvements or
strategies must be "financial commitments " as required by the Growth
Management Act.
Policy CFP -4.2 - Pay for the costs of needed capital improvements in the
following manner:
(i) Existing development shall pay for the capital improvements that
reduce or eliminate existing deficiencies and for some or all of
the replacement of obsolete or worn-out facilities. Existing
development may pay a portion of the cost of capital
improvements needed by future development.
Payments may take the form of user fees, charges for services,
special assessments, and taxes.
(ii) Future development shall pay its fair share of the capital
improvements needed to address the impact of such
development. Transportation impact fees, water, sewer, storm
water infrastructure fees, and the fee in lieu of parks shall
continue as established ':fair share " payments. Upon
completion of construction, 'future " development becomes
"existing " development and shall pay the costs of the
8-22 KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CHAPTER EIGHT CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
replacement of obsolete or worn-out facilities as described
above.
Payments may take the form of, but are not limited to, voluntary
contributions for the benefit of any public facility, mitigation
payments, impact fees, capacity fees, dedications of land,
provision of public facilities, public/private partnerships,
voluntary funding agreements, future payments of user fees,
charges for services, special assessments, and taxes. Future
development shall not pay impact fees for the portion of any
public facility that reduces or eliminates existing deficiencies.
(iii) Both existing and future development may have part of their
costs paid by grants, entitlements, or public facilities from other
levels of government and independent districts.
Policy CFP -4.3 - Finance capital improvements and manage debt as follows:
(i) Finance capital improvements from City enterprise funds by:
(a) Debt to be repaid by user fees and charges and/or
connection or capacity fees for enterprise services, or
(b) Current assets (i.e., reserves, equity or surpluses, and
current revenue, including grants, loans, donations and
interlocal agreements), or
(c) A combination of debt and current assets.
(ii) Finance capital improvements by non -enterprise funds from
either current assets (i.e., current revenue, fund equity and
reserves), debt, or a combination thereof. Consider in the
financing decisions which funding source (current assets, debt,
or both) will be a) most cost effective, b) consistent with prudent
asset and liability management, c) appropriate to the useful life
of the project(s) to be financed, and d) the most efficient use of
the City's ability to borrow funds.
(iii) Do not use debt financing to provide more capacity than is
needed within the "CFP Projects and Financing Plan" for
non -enterprise public facilities unless one of the conditions of
Policy CFP -3. S(ii) (c) is met.
KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 8-23
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT CHAPTER EIGHT
Policy CFP -4.4 - Do not provide a public facility, nor accept the provision of
a public facility by others, if the City or other provider is unable to pay for any
planned subsequent annual operating and maintenance costs of the facility.
Policy CFP -4.5 - In the event that sources of revenue listed in the "CFP
Projects and Financing Plan " require voter approval in a local referendum that
has not been held, and a referendum is not held, or is held and is not
successful, revise this Comprehensive Plan at the next annual amendment to
adjust for the lack of such revenues, in any of the following ways:
(i) Reduce the level of service for one or more public facilities;
(ii) Increase the use of other sources of revenue;
(iii) Decrease the cost, and therefore the quality of some types of
public facilities while retaining the quantity of the facilities that
is inherent in the standard for level of service;
(iv) Decrease the demand for and subsequent use of capital
facilities;
(v) A combination of the above alternatives.
Policy CFP -4.6 - Condition all development permits issued by the City which
require capital improvements that will be financed by sources of revenue which
have not been approved or implemented (such as future debt requiring
referenda) on the approval or implementation of the indicated revenue sources,
or the substitution of a comparable amount of revenue from existing sources.
Goal CFP -5 - Provide adequate public facilities by constructing needed capital
improvements which (1) repair or replace obsolete or worn-out facilities, (2) eliminate
existing deficiencies, and (3) meet the needs of future development and redevelopment
caused by previously -issued and new development permits. The City's ability to
provide needed improvements will be demonstrated by maintaining a financially -
feasible "CFP Projects and Financing Plan " in the Capital Facilities Plan.
Policy CFP -5.1 - Provide, or arrange for others to provide, the capital
improvements listed in the "CFP Projects and Financing Plan " portion of the
Capital Facilities Plan. The capital improvements projects may be modified as
follows:
(i) Pursuant to the Growth Management Act, the "CFP Projects
and Financing Plan " may be amended one time during any
8-24 KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CHAPTER EIGHT
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
calendar year. Coordinate the annual update with the annual
budget process.
(ii) The "CFP Projects and Financing Plan" may be adjusted by
ordinance not deemed to be an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan for corrections, updates, and modifications
concerning costs; revenue sources; acceptance of facilities
pursuant to dedications which are consistent with the plan; or
the date of construction (so long as it is completed within the
6 -year period) of any facility enumerated in the "CFP Projects
and Financing Plan. "
(iii) Any act, or failure to act, that causes any project listed in the
"CFP Projects and Financing Plan " of this Comprehensive Plan
to be scheduled for completion in a fiscal year later than the
fiscal year indicated in the "CFP Projects and Financing Plan "
shall be effective only if the act causing the delay is subject to
one of the following:
(a) Accelerate within, or add to the "CFP Projects and
Financing Plan " those projects providing capacity equal
to, or greater than the delayed project, in order to
provide capacity of public facilities in the fiscal year at
least equal to the capacity scheduled prior to the act
which delayed the subject project.
(b) For those projects which are subject to concurrency
requirements and which are authorized by development
permits which were issued conditionally subject to the
concurrent availability of public facility capacity
provided by the delayed project, restrict them to the
allowable amount and schedule of development which
can be provided without the incomplete project.
(c) Amend the Comprehensive Plan (during the allowable
annual amendment) to temporarily reduce the adopted
standard for the level of service for public facilities until
the fiscal year in which the delayed project is scheduled
to be completed.
Policy CFP -5.2 - Include in the capital appropriations of the City's annual
budget all the capital improvements projects listed in the "CFP Projects and
Financing Plan "for expenditure during the appropriate fiscal year, except that
the City may omit from its annual budget any capital improvements for which
a binding agreement has been executed with another party to provide the same
KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 8.25
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
CHAPTER EIGHT
project in the same fiscal year. Also include in the capital appropriations of
its annual budget additional public facility projects that conform to Policy
CFP-3.5(ii) and Policy CFP-3.8(ii)(0.
Policy CFP -5.3 - Adopt a concurrency ordinance to ensure that adequate
facilities, as determined by the City, are available to serve new growth and
development.
Policy CFP -5.4 - Determine the availability of public facilities by verifying that
the City has in place binding financial commitments to complete the necessary
public facilities or strategies within six years, provided that:
(i) The six-year "CFP Projects and Financing Plan " is financially
feasible.
(ii) The City uses a realistic, financially feasible funding system
based on revenue sources available according to laws adopted
at the time the CFP is adopted.
(iii) The six-year "CFP Projects and Financing Plan " in this
Comprehensive Plan demonstrates that the actual construction
of the roads and mass transit facilities are scheduled to
commence in or before the fourth year of the six-year "CFP
Projects and Financing Plan. "
(iv) The six-year "CFP Projects and Financing Plan " includes both
necessary facilities to maintain the adopted level -of -service
standards to serve the new development proposed to be
permitted and the necessary facilities required to eliminate
existing deficiencies.
Goal CFP -6 - Provide adequate public facilities to urban growth areas.
Policy CFP -6.1 - Ensure levels of service for public facilities in the urban
growth area are consistent, and where possible, identical for the City of Kent
and the unincorporated portion of the Kent Urban Growth Area (see Policy
CFP -3.3).
Policy CFP -6.2 - Declare the primary providers of public facilities and
services in the unincorporated portion of the Kent Urban Growth Area to be:
Public Facility services d. Parks & Recreation
a. Fire Protection and b. Law Enforcement e. Local roads, sidewalks,
emergency medical c. Library lighting
8-26 KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CHAPTER EIGHT
f. State roads
g. Sanity sewer
h. Schools
i. Solid waste disposal
j. Storm Water
k. Transit
1. Water
m. General government
offices
Before Annexation
Districts
King County
Library District
King County
King County
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
After Annexation
City of Kent
City of Kent
Library District
City of Kent
City of Kent
Washington State
Washington State
Districts
City of Kent
Districts
Districts
King County
King County
King County
City of Kent
King County
King County
Districts
City of Kent
King County
City of Kent
Policy CFP -6.3 - Make providers of public facilities responsible for paying for
their facilities. Providers may use sources of revenue that require users of
facilities to pay for a portion of the cost of the facilities. As provided by law,
some providers may require new development to pay impact fees and/or
mitigation payments for a portion of the cost of public facilities.
(i) Use Policy CFP -4.2 as the guideline for assigning responsibility
for paying for public facilities in the Kent Urban Growth Area.
(ii) Coordinate with King County and other providers of public
facilities regarding collection of fees from development in their
respective jurisdictions for impacts on public facilities in other
jurisdictions.
Policy CFP -6.4 - When possible, enter into agreements with King County and
other providers of public facilities to coordinate planning for and development
of the Kent Urban Growth Area, including implementation and enforcement of
Policies CFP -6.1 - 6.3.
Policy CFP -6 5 -The City shall adopt the capital facilities plans of the Kent and
Federal Way School Districts by reference as part of this Capital Facilities
Element. The City will review these plans on an annual basis to assess the
districts' enrollment proiections, levels of service capacity, and financier Dlan
KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 8-27
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
CHAPTER EIGHT
Goal CFP -7 - Implement the Capital Facilities Plan in a manner that coordinates and
is consistent with the plans and policies of other elements of the City Comprehensive
Plan, Countywide Planning Policies, the Growth Management Act of the State of
Washington, and, where possible, the plans and policies of other regional entities,
adjacent counties, and municipalities.
Policy CFP -7.1 - Manage the land development process to ensure that all
development receives public facility levels of service equal to, or greater than
the standards adopted in Policy CFP -3.3 by implementing the "CFP Projects
and Financing Plan " contained in the Capital Facilities Plan, and by using the
fiscal resources provided for in Goal CFP -4 and its supporting policies.
(i) Ensure that all Category A and B public facility capital
improvements are consistent for planning purposes with the
adopted land use map and the goals and policies of other
elements of this Comprehensive Plan. Ensure that the location
of, and level of service provided by projects in the "CFP
Projects and Financing Plan " maintain adopted standards for
levels of service for existing and future development in a manner
and location consistent with the Land Use Element of this
Comprehensive Plan.
(ii) Integrate the City's land use planning and decisions with its
planning and decisions for public facility capital improvements
by developing, adopting, and using the programs listed in the
"Implementation Programs" section of the Capital Facilities
Plan. (Note: Plans to implement the Comprehensive Plan
elements, including a proposed concurrency ordinance, will be
presented to the Planning Commission at a later date.)
Policy CFP -7.2 - Ensure that implementation of the Capital Facilities Plan is
consistent with the requirements of the adopted Countywide Planning Policies.
Goal CFP -8 - The City shall participate in a cooperative interjurisdictional process
to determine siting of essential public facilities of a county -wide, regional, or state-
wide nature.
Policy CFP -8.1 - Proposals for siting essential public facilities within the City
of Kent or within the City's growth boundary shall be reviewed for consistency
with the City's Comprehensive plan during the initial stages of the proposal
process.
8-28 KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CHAPTER EIGHT CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
Policy CFP -8.2 - When warranted by the special character of the essential
facility, the City shall apply the regulations and criteria of Kent Zoning Code
Section 15.04.200, Special use combining district, to applications for siting
such facilities to insure adequate review, including public participation.
Conditions of approval, including design conditions, conditions, shall be
imposed upon such uses in the interest of the welfare of the City and the
protection of the environment.
Policy CFP -8.3 - In the principally permitted or conditional use sections of the
zoning code, the City shall establish, as appropriate, locations and
development standards for essential public facilities which do not warrant
consideration through the special use combining district regulations. Such
facilities shall include but not be limited to small inpatient facilities and group
homes.
Goal CFP -9 - The City shall participate in a cooperative interjurisdictional process
to resolve issues of mitigation for any disproportionate financial burden which may fall
on the jurisdiction which becomes the site of a facility of a state-wide, regional or
county -wide nature.
KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 8-29