HomeMy WebLinkAbout3776Ordinance No. 3776
(Amending or Repealing Ordinances)
CFN=377 - Comprehensive Plan
CFN=1000 - Planning Department
Passed - 12/13/2005
Comprehensive Plan Amendments School Districts' Capital Facilities Plans
ORDINANCE NO. 9 776
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of
Kent, Washington, amending the City of Kent
Comprehensive Plan to amend the Capital Facilities
Element of the Comprehensive Plan to include the Capital
Facilities Plans of the Kent, Federal Way, and Auburn
School Districts (CPA -2005-1).
RECITALS
A. The Washington State Growth Management Act ("GMA") requires internal
consistency among comprehensive plan elements and the plans from other jurisdictions.
B. To assure that comprehensive plans remain relevant and up to date, the
GMA allows amendments to the capital facilities element of comprehensive plans
concurrently with the adoption or amendment of a city budget (RCW 36.70A.130(2)(111)).
C. The City of Kent has established procedures for amending the
Comprehensive Plan in chapter 12.02 of the Kent City Code, allowing amendment of the
Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan concurrently with the adoption or
amendment of the City budget and allowing the City Council to hold the public hearing
instead of the Land Use and Planning Ebard.
D. The Kent, Federal Way, and Auburn School Districts have submitted
proposed amendments to their Capital Facilities Plans to be included in an amendment of
the City's Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
E. After providing appropriate public notice, the City Council of the City of
Kent considered the requested comprehensive plan amendment and conducted a public
hearing on the same on November 15 2005.
1
Comprehensive Plan Amendments
School Districts' Capital Facilities Plans
F. On September 30, 2005, the City provided the required sixty (60) day
notification under RCW 36.70A.106 to the state of Washington of the City's proposed
amendment to the Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan and the sixty
(60) day notice period has lapsed.
G. On December 13, 2005, the City Council for the City of Kent approved the
Capital Facilities Element amendment CPA -2005-1 to include the Capital Facilities Plans
of the Kent, Federal Way, and Auburn School Districts, as set forth in Exhibit "A"
attached and incorporated by this reference (CPA -2005-1); NOW, THEREFORE,
NOW THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OFTHE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1, - Amendment. The Capital Facilities Element of the City of Kent
Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended to include the Capital Facilities Plans of the
Kent, Federal Way, and Auburn School Districts, as set forth in Exhibit"A" attached and
incorporated by this reference (CPA -2005-1).
SECTION 2, - Severability If any one or more sections, sub -sections, or
sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall
not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance and the same shall
remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 3. - Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force
thirty (30) days from and after the date of passage as provided by law.
2
Comprehensive Plan Amendments
School Districts -Capital Facilities Plans
ATTEST:
DA JACOBER, Cok CLERK
APPROVED AS TO F RM:
' � I
TO BRUBAK R, CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED / 4 day of December, 2005.
APPROVED / � day of December, 2005.
PUBLISHED —7 day of December, 2005.
I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. V4 passed by
the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City
of Kent as hereon indicated.
(SEAL)
BRENDA JACOBEK,.trTY CLERK
P \Civil\ORDINANCE\CompPlanAmend-SchwIDlstncts'CapdalFaolibesPlans2005 doc
3
Comprehensive Plan Amendments
School Districts' Capital Facilities Plans
EXHIBIT "A"
M
rm
KENT
SCHOOL
DISTRICT
Business Services
12033 SE 256th Street
Suite A-600
Kent, Washington
98030-6643
Ph 253-373-7295
Fax 253-373-7018
August 8, 2005
City of Kent Planning Services Department
Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager
220 4'h Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032-5895
Dear Ms. Arson: '�'��
Enclosed per your request are 12 copies of the Final 2005 update of the
Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan adopted by the Kent School District Board
of Directors on July 27, 2005
Following review by King County School Technical Review Committee,
there were only minor technical changes made to the Finance Plan on
Page 24 of the Draft Plan which was submitted to you on May 6, 2005.
If you have any questions, please call me at (253) 373-7293.
Sincerely,
Gwenn Escher-Derdowski
Planning Administrator
GE ds
Enclosures
c: Fred Satterstrom, Director of Community Development
Gloria Gould-Wessen, AICP, GIS Coordinator/Planner
Bill Osborne, Planning Services Department
Grace T. Yuan & Denise Stiffarm, Counsel for King County School Coalition
2005 —2006
al
2010-2011
BIT SCNOOL 013THICT No. 411
Fa mld Park Elementary Sm:
Emerald Park Elementary School
Emerald Park Elementary
Serving Unincorporated King County
and
Kent, Covington, Auburn, Maple Natky, Black Diamond Renton, Sea7ac,
Washington
April20i05
Kent school
12033 SE 256' Street
Kent, Washington 98030-6643
(253) 373-7295
SIX -YEAR CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2005 - 2006 - 2010 - 2011
A
KENT
SCHOOL
DISTRICT
BOARD of DIRECTORS
Bill Boyce
Sandra Collins
Scott Floyd
Lisa Holliday
Mike Jensen
ADMINISTRATION
Barbara Grohe, Ph.D. — Superintendent
Fred H. High — Assistant Superintendent for Business Services
Mark Haddock, Ph.D. — Assistant Superintendent for Leaming & School Improvement
Margaret A. Whitney — Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources
Janis Bechtel — Executive Director, Kentwood Strand
Donald Hall — Executive Director of Information Technology
John Knutson — Executive Director of Finance
Joseph McBrayer, Ph.D. — Executive Director, Kentlake Strand
Gary Plano, Ed.D. — Executive Director, Kent-Mendian Strand
Mern Rieger — Executive Director, Kentridge Strand
Kent School District Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan Apnl 2005
Kent school owlstrwict
A
Ift-
KENT
SCHOOL
DISTRICT
SIX -YEAR CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2005 - 2006 — 2010 - 2011
April 2005
For information on the Plan, please call the
Finance & Planning Department at (253) 373-7295
Capital Facilities Plan
Contributing Staff
Gwenn Escher-Derdowski
Forecast & Planning Administrator
Larry Price, Director of Facilities & Construction
Karla Wilkerson & Lynell Mooney, Facilities Department
Don Walkup & Helen Shindell-Butler, Transportation Department
Cover Design by Debbi Smith
Maps by Jana Tucker
Kent School District Sin -Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2005
Kent school awlstrict
Sk Tear Capital Tacifities Flan
7a6k of Contents
Section
Page Number
I
Executive Summary
2
11
Six -Year Enrollment Projection
4
III
District Standard of Service
8
I V
Inventory and Capacity of Existing Schools
11
V
Six -Year Planning and Construction Plan
14
V I
Relocatable Classrooms
17
VII
Projected Classroom Capacity
18
VIII
Finance Plan, Cost Basis and Impact Fee Schedules
23
I X
Summary of Changes to Previous Plan
30
X
Appendixes
31
Kent Schod District Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan Apnl 2005
I Executive Summary
This Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan (the "Plan") has been prepared by the Kent
School District (the "District") as the organization's facilities planning document,
in compliance with the requirements of Washington's Growth Management Act,
King County Code K.C.C. 21A.43 and Cities of Kent, Covington, Auburn, Maple
Valley and Black Diamond. This annual plan update was prepared using data
available in the spring of 2005 for the 2004-2005 school year.
This Plan is consistent with prior long-term capital facilities plans adopted by the
Kent School District. This Plan is not intended to be the sole planning document
for all of the District's needs. The District may prepare interim and periodic Long
Range Capital Facilities Plans consistent with Board Policies, taking Into account
a longer or shorter time period, other factors and trends in the use of facilities,
and other needs of the District as may be required.
Prior Capital Facilities Plans of the Kent School District have been adopted by
Metropolitan King County Council and Cities of Kent, Covington and Auburn and
included in the Capital Facilities Plan element of the Comprehensive Plans of
each jurisdiction. The first ordinance implementing impact fees for the
unincorporated areas was effective September 15, 1993.
In order for impact fees to be collected in the unincorporated areas of Kent
School District, the Metropolitan King County Council must adopt this Plan and a
fee -implementing ordinance for the District. For impact fees to be collected in the
incorporated portions of the District, the cities of Kent, Covington and Auburn
must also adopt this Plan and their own school impact fee ordinances. This Plan
has also been submitted to cities of Maple Valley, Black Diamond, SeaTac, and
Renton.
This Capital Facilities Plan establishes a "standard of service" in order to
ascertain current and future capacity. While the State Superintendent of Public
Instruction establishes square footage guidelines for capacity, those guidelines
do not account for the local program needs in the District. The Growth
Management Act, King County and City codes and ordinances authorize the
District to make adjustments to the standard of service based on specific needs
of the District.
This Plan includes the standard of service as established by Kent School District.
Program capacity is based on an average capacity and updated to reflect
changes to special programs served in each building. Relocatables in the
capacity calculation use the same standard of service as the permanent
facilities.
(continued)
Kent School District Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2005 Page 2
I Executive Summary (continued)
The capacity of each school in the District is calculated based on the District
standard of service and the existing inventory, which includes some relocatable
classrooms. The District's program capacity of permanent facilities reflects
program changes and the reduction of class size to meet the requirements of
Student Achievement Initiative 728. Relocatables provide additional transitional
capacity until permanent facilities are completed.
Kent School District is the fourth largest district in the state. Enrollment is
reported monthly to the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI)
on Form P223. Enrollment on October 1 is considered to be the enrollment for
the year. P223 Headcount for October 1, 2004 was 26,891. P223 FTE (Full
Time Equivalent) enrollment was 25,770.44. (FTE reports Kindergarten at .5 and
excludes Early Childhood Education [ECE] and college -only Running Start students.)
The actual number of individual students per the October 2004, full head count
was 27,340. (Full Headcount reports ail students at 1.0 including Kindergarten, ECE
and college -only Running Start students.)
The District's standard of service, enrollment history and projections, and use of
transitional facilities are reviewed in detail in various sections of this Plan. Our
plan is to continue to satisfy concurrency requirements through the transitional
use of relocatables.
A financing plan is included in Section V I I I which demonstrates the District's
ability to implement this Plan. Pursuant to the requirements of the Growth
Management Act, this Plan will be updated annually with changes in the fee
schedules adjusted accordingly.
Kent School District Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2005 Page 3
I I Six - Year Enrollment Projection
For capital facilities planning, growth projections are based on cohort survival
and student yield from documented residential construction projected over the
next six years. (see Table 2) The student generation factor, as defined on the next
page, is the basis for the growth projections from new developments.
King County births and the Distncfs relational percentage average were used to
determine the number of kindergartners entering the system. (See Table 1) 8.34%
of 22,487 King County live births in 2000 is forecast for 1,876 students expected
in Kindergarten for October 1, 2005. Together with proportional growth from new
construction, 8.34% of King County births is equivalent to the number of students
projected to enter kindergarten in the district for the next six-year period. (see Table 2)
Early Childhood Education students (sometimes identified as "Preschool Special
Education [SE] or handicapped students") and non -disabled peer models are
forecast and reported separately. Capacity is reserved to serve that program at
seven elementary schools. Full day kindergarten programs are provided at most
elementary schools with alternative funding for the second half of the day.
The first grade population is traditionally 7 - 8% larger than the kindergarten
population due to growth and transfers to the District from private kindergartens.
Cohort survival method uses historical enrollment data to forecast the number of
students projected for the following year.
Near term projections assume some growth from new developments to be offset
by current local economic conditions. With notable exceptions, the expectation is
that enrollment increases will occur District -wide in the long term. District
projections are based on historical growth patterns combined with continuing
development of projects in the pipeline dependent on market/growth conditions.
The District will continue to track new development activity to determine impact
to schools and monitor conditions to reflect adjustments in this assumption. The
six-year enrollment projection anticipates moderate enrollment growth from new
development currently in some phase of planning or construction in the district.
Information on new residential developments and the completion of these
proposed developments in all junsdictions may be considered in the District's
future analysis of growth projections.
Within practical limits, the District has kept abreast of proposed developments.
The Kent School District serves seven permitting jurisdictions: unincorporated
King County, the cities of Kent, Covington, and Auburn and a small portion of the
city of Maple Valley. The west Lake Sawyer area of Kent School District is in the
city limits of Black Diamond and Kent Mountain View Academy is located in the
small portion of the City of SeaTac served by Kent School District.
(Continued)
Kent School District Sic -Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2oos Page 4
I I Six - Year Enrollment Projection (Continued)
STUDENT GENERATION FACTOR
"Student Factor" is defined by King County code as "the number derived by a
school district to describe how many students of each grade span are expected
to be generated by a dwelling unit" based on district records of average actual
student generated rates for developments completed within the last five years.
The Student Factor has been updated to reflect the secondary grade level
reconfiguration. Following these guidelines, the student generation factor for
Kent School District is as follows:
Single Family Elementary .482
Middle School .161
Senior High .284
Total .927
Multi -Family Elementary .293
Middle School .069
Senior High .114
Total .476
The student generation factor is based on a survey of 4,219 single family
dwelling units and 2,701 multi -family dwelling units with no adjustment for
occupancy rates. Please refer to Appendix E on Pages 35-36 for details of the
Student Generation Factor survey.
The actual number of students in those residential developments was
determined using the District's Education Logistics (EDULOG) Transportation
System. In 4,219 single family dwelling units there were 2,035 elementary
students, 679 middle school students, and 1,197 senior high students for a total
of 3,911 students. In 2,701 multi -family dwelling units, there were 791
elementary students, 186 middle school students, and 308 senior high students,
for a total of 1,285 students.
Kent School District Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2005 Page 5
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415
OCTOBER P 223 F. T. E. ENROLLMENT HISTORY '
LB - Lisa B1r9he LB In 1985 LB le 1989 LB le 1987 LB in1988 1-41n1989 LB in 1990 LB in1991 LB In 1992 LB le 1993 LB m 1994 LB e11995 LB inn 1996 LB In 1997 LB in1998 LB In 1999
October FTE Enrollment 1990 1991 1 1992 1 1993 1 1994 1 1995 1 1996 1 1997 1 1998 1 1999 1 2000 I 2001 2002 2003 2004
King County LFre Births'
19,825
19,999
20,449
21,289
22,541
23,104
23,002
23,188
22,355
22,010
21,817
21,573
21,646
22,195
22,007
Kindergarten 1 Bhth % 2
888%
949%
940%
907%
847%
854%
844%
838%
827%
856%
825%
BA1 %
806%
806%
834%
Kindergarten 2
880
949
962
965
955
987
971
972
925
942
900
907
873
894
918
Grade 1
1,852
1,945
2,029
2,017
1,967
1,975
2,162
2,085
2,064
1,989
2,069
1,935
1,922
1,851
1,964
Grade 2
1,773
1,944
1,998
2,048
1,937
2,011
1,979
2,194
2,095
2,078
2,015
2,067
1,936
1,985
1,935
Grade 3
1,824
1,866
1,950
1,972
1,965
1,959
2,025
2,058
2,208
2,111
2,098
2,040
2,055
1,975
2,020
Grade 4
1,793
1,916
1,900
1,939
1,942
2,012
1,966
2,064
2,045
2,222
2,086
2,166
2.066
2,072
2,057
Grade 5
1,702
11865
1,911
1,907
1,899
1,924
1,988
2,023
2,108
2,037
2,251
2,110
2,149
2,067
2,102
Grade 6
1,629
1,733
1,885
1,951
1,915
1,895
1,924
2,036
2,045
2,119
2,056
2,251
2,151
2,205
2,139
Grade 7
1,624
1,720
1,812
1,915
1,946
1,925
1,899
1,952
2,063
2,081
2,208
2,123
2,380
2,209
2,243
Grade 8
1,545
1,628
1,724
1,799
1,882
1,941
1,927
1,936
1,970
2,015
2,033
2,152
2,079
2,351
2,221
Grade 9
1,483
1,(112
1,689
1,716
1,800
1,894
1,963
1.931
1,925
2,102
2,208
2,244
2,404
2,309
2,705
Grade 10
1,468
1,480
1,663
1,698
1,690
1,765
1,851
1,977
1,953
2,045
2,113
2,054
2,039
2,207
2,124
Grade 11
1,360
1,400
1,409
1,537
1,529
1,606
11681
1,797
1,849
1,782
1,770
1,835
1,823
1,787
1,907
Grade 12
1,202
1,255
1,290
1,340
1,368
1,430
1,465
1,507
1,632
1_,537
.1,432
1,439
1,475
1,466
1,446
Total Enrollment' 20,135 21,312 22,222 22,803 22,794 23,323 23,792 24,560 24,882 25,060 25,238 25,333 25.354 25,358 25,771
Yearly FTE Increase 916 1,178 900 582 -10 529 469 768 322 176 178 95 21 4 413
cumulaWe Increase 918 2,094 3,003 3,585 3,575 4,104 4,574 5,341 5,663 5,841 8,019 6,115 6,135 8,140 6,553
1 FTE enrollment counts haw been rounded to the areal whole number
2 This number indicates actual binhs M Klvg County 5 years prior to enrolment year as updated by King Ca Health Dept KSD peroentage based on aclue) Kindergarten anroliment 5 years later
3 P 223 Enrollment Report eadudes Eady Childhood Education (-ECE- or Preschool Handicapped) and college -only Running Stan students
October 2004 P 223 Headcount = 26,891 8 Full Headcount = 27,340 Full Headcount Includes Kindergarten, Early Childhood Edutabon It ODXOpe-Mty, Running Slat students at 10 Headcount
Kam School Distrid Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 1 April 2005 Page 6
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415
SIX -YEAR F.T.E. ENROLLMENT PROJECTION
Octoberl 2004 1 2005 1 2006 1 2007 2008 2009 2010
King County Live Births'
22,007
22,487
21,778
21,863
22,431
22,500
22,600 '
Increase/ Decrease
-188
480
-709
85
568
69
100
Kindergarten / Birth % 2
834%
834%
8.34%
6.340/6
8.34%
8.34%
8.34%
213 Kindergarten FTE @ .5
918
938
918
922
945
948
952
Grade 1
1,954
1,986
2,060
2,017
2,025
2,076
2,082
Grade 2
1,935
2,023
2,085
2,163
2,118
2,126
2,179
Grade 3
2,020
1,969
2,090
2,153
2,234
2,187
2,196
Grade 4
2,057
2,084
2,062
2,188
2,253
2,338
2,289
Grade 5
2,102
2,067
2,123
2,101
2,229
2,295
2,381
Grade 6
2,139
2,155
2,149
2,207
2,185
2,317
2,385
Grade 7
2,243
2,176
2,202
2,196
2,255
2,232
2,366
Grade 8
2,221
2,255
2,197
2,223
2,217
2,276
2,253
Grade 98
2,705
2,542
2,606
2,539
2,569
2,562
2,630
Grade 10
2,124
2,475
2,349
2,408
2,346
2,373
2,367
Grade 11
1,907
1,822
2,148
2,040
2,091
2,037
2,060
Grade 12
1,446
1,543
1,484
1,748
1,660
1,702
1,658
Total FTE Enrollment
25,771
26,035
26,473
26,905
27,127
27,469
27,798
Nob.2/3/4
Yearly Increase
413
264
438
432
222
342
329
Yearly Increase %
1.60%
102%
1.68%
1.63%
0.83%
1.26%
1.20%
Cumulative Increase
413
677
1,115
1,547
1,769
2,111
2,440
Full Time Equivalent FTE 25 771 1 26,035 26,473 1 26,905 1 27,127 11 27,469 27 798
' Kindergarten projection based on King County actual live birth percentage and proportional growth from new construction.
2 Kindergarten FTE enrollment projection at 5 is calculated by using the District's percentage of King County live births.
5 years earlier compared to actual kindergarten enrollment in the previous year (Excludes ECE - Early Childhood Education)
3 Kindergarten pr*ct1on Is at 5 FTE although most schools provide Full Day Kindergarten with alternative funding
4 Oct 2004 P223 FTE Is 25,771 & Headcount is 26,891 Full student count with ECE Preschool & Running Start = 27,340
8 Grade level reconfiguradon. In 2004, all 9th grade students were served at the senior high schools.
G R O W T H P R O J E C T I O N S - Adjustments for current economic factors
For facilities planning purposes, this six-year enrollment projection anticipates moderate enrollment
growth from new development currently in some phase of planning or construction In the district
Kent School District Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan Table Z
April 2005 Page 7
III Current Kent School District "Standard of Service"
In order to determine the capacity of the District's facilities, King County Code
21A.06 refers to a "standard of service" that each school district must establish
in order to ascertain its overall capacity. The standard of service identifies the
program year, the class size, the number of classrooms, students and programs
of special need, and other factors determined by the District which would, in the
District's judgment, best serve the student population.
This Plan includes the standard of service as established by Kent School District.
The District has identified schools with significant special needs programs as
"impact' schools and the standard of service targets a lower class size at those
facilities. Relocatables included in the capacity calculation use the same
standard of service as the permanent facilities. (see Appendix A, a & C)
The standard of service defined herein may continue to change in the future.
Kent School District is continuing a long-term strategic planning process
combined with review of changes to capacity and standard of service
adjustments to meet the requirements of Student Achievement Initiative 728.
This process will affect various aspects of the District's "standard of service" and
future changes will be reflected in future capital facilities plans. Because the
funding for Initiative 728 is incremental, implementation of the Initiative is also
incremental and may result in annual changes to school capacity.
Current Standards of Service for Elementary Students
Class size for grades K - 3 should not exceed an average of 22 students.
Class size for grade 4 should not exceed an average of 23 students.
Class size for grades 5 - 6 should not exceed an average of 29 students.
Program capacity for regular education elementary classrooms is calculated at
an average of 24 students per classroom because of fluctuations between
primary and intermediate grade levels (i.e. third/fourth or fourth/fifth grade split
classes, etc.). Most elementary schools provide full day kindergarten programs
(FDK or KAI — Full Day Kindergarten or Kindergarten Academic Intervention) with
the second half of the day funded by grants or tuition.
Students have scheduled time in a computer lab. Students may also be provided
music instruction and physical education in a separate classroom or facility.
Special Education for students with disabilities may be provided in a self-
contained classroom with a capacity of 10-15 depending on the program.
(continued)
Kent School District SN -Year Capital Fadhhes Plan April 2005 Page 8
III Current Kent School District "Standard of Service" (continued)
Identified students will also be provided other educational opportunities in
classrooms for programs such as those designated as follows:
English Language Learners (E L L)
Self-contained Special Education Support Center Programs (SC)
Integrated Programs & Resource Rooms (for special remedial assistance)
Early Childhood Education (ECE) (3-4 yr. old students with disabilities)
School Adjustment (sA) Program for severely behavior -disordered students
Speech & Language Therapy & Programs for Hearing Impaired students
Mild, Moderate and Severe Developmental Disabilities (DD)
Occupational & Physical Therapy Programs (OTIPT)
Developmental Kindergarten (Magnet K Programs)
Kindergarten Academic Intervention Program (KAI-Full Day Kindergarten)
Education for Disadvantaged Students (Title I)
Learning Assisted Programs (LAP)
District Remediation Programs
Education for Highly Capable Students (formerly "Gifted" Program)
Some of the above special programs require specialized classroom space, as
well as music and physical education classrooms, computer labs, etc.; thus, the
permanent capacity of some of the buildings housing these programs is reduced.
Some students, for example, leave their regular classroom for a short period of
time to receive instruction in these special programs and "pull-out" space must
be allocated to serve these programs. Some newer buildings have been
constructed to accommodate most of these programs; some older buildings have
been modified, and in some circumstances, these modifications reduce the
classroom capacity of the buildings. When programs change, program capacity
fluctuates and is updated annually to reflect the change in program and capacity.
Current Standards of Service for Secondary Students
The standards of service outlined below reflect only those programs and
educational opportunities provided to secondary students which directly affect
the capacity of the school buildings. Reductions have been made in 7°t and 10th
grade English classes for Initiative 728. These standards are subject to change
pending annual updates based on staff and public review for changes funded by
Student Achievement Initiative 728.
Class size for grades 7 - 9 should not exceed an average of 29 students
Class size for 7d' & 10th grade English class should not exceed an average of 25
students.
Class size for grades 10 - 12 should not exceed an average of 31 students.
Special Education for students with disabilities may be provided in a self-
contained classroom with a capacity of 10-15 depending on the program. (conrd )
Kent School District Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2005 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, Mufti -media & Technology Labs and Programs
English Language Learners (E L L)
Science Programs & Labs — Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Oceanography,
Astronomy, Meteorology, Manne Biology, General Science, etc.
Integrated Programs & Resource Rooms (for special remedial assistance)
Basic Skills Programs
Preschool and Daycare Programs
Music Programs — Band, Orchestra, Chorus, Jazz Band, etc.
Art Programs — Painting, Design, Drawing, Ceramics, Pottery, Photography, etc.
Theater Ants — Drama, Stage Tech, etc.
Journalism and Yearbook Classes
Highly Capable (Honors or Gifted) and Advanced Placement Programs
International Baccalaureate Program
Traffic Safety Education
JROTC - Junior Reserve Officers Training Corps
Variety of Career & Technical Education Programs (CTE -Vocational Education)
Family & Consumer Science — Cooking, Sewing, Child Development, etc
Health Sciences, Sports Medicine, etc.
Business Education — Keyboarding, Accounting, Business Law, DECA,
Sales & Marketing, etc.
Material Sciences — Woods and Cabinet Making, Metals, Welding,
Electronics, Auto Shop, Manufacturing Technology, Machine Shop,
CAD, (Computer-aided Design) Drafting & Drawing, etc.
Culinary Arts, Graphic & Commercial Arts, Engineering, etc.
Many of these programs and others require specialized classroom space which
can reduce the permanent capacity of the school buildings. In addition, an
altemative home school assistance, choice and transition program is provided for
students in grades K - 12 at Kent Mountain View Academy.
Space or Classroom Utilization
As a result of scheduling conflicts for student programs, the need for specialized
rooms for certain programs, and the need for teachers to have a work space
during their planning periods, it is not possible to achieve 100% utilization of
regular teaching stations at secondary schools. Based on the analysis of actual
utilization of classrooms, the District has determined that the standard utilization
rate is 85% for secondary schools. Program capacity at elementary schools
reflects 100% utilization at the elementary level with adjustments for pull-out
programs served in relocatables. In the future, the District will continue close
analysis of actual utilization.
Kent School District Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2005 Page 10
I V Inventory and Capacity of Existing Schools
Currently, the District has permanent program capacity to house 26,978 students
and transitional (relocatable) capacity to house 1,843. This capacity is based on
the District's Standard of Service as set forth in Section I I I. Included in this Plan
is an inventory of the Districts schools by type, address and current capacity.
(See Table 3 on Page 12)
The program capacity is periodically updated for changes in programs, additional
classrooms and new schools. Program capacity has been updated in this Plan to
reflect program changes at elementary schools and Kentlake High School. It has
also been updated to estimate new capacity for building additions at the other
three high schools. It excludes capacity for the temporary closure of Kent Junior
High which will re -open as Mill Creek Middle School in the fall of 2005.
Program capacity also reflects adjustments for the Student Achievement
Initiative 728 reduction in class size. The class size reduction received voter
approval in the Educational Programs and Operations Levy as well as through
funding for Student Achievement Initiative 728. The District will conduct annual
public review and update class size recommendations in accordance with the
requirements and incremental funding of Student Achievement Initiative 728.
Kent Mountain View Academy (formerly Kent Learning Center) serves grades
Kindergarten through 12 with transition, choice and home school assistance
programs. It is located in the former Grandview School in the western part of the
District in the city of SeaTac. This school was originally designed as an
elementary school and is included in the elementary capacity for this Plan.
Calculation of Elementary, Junior High and Senior High School capacities are set
forth in Appendices A, B and C. A map of existing schools is included on Page
13.
Kent Sdwd Distnct Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2005 Page 11
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415
INVENTORY and CAPACITY of EXISTING SCHOOLS
' Changes to caPscity rallied program changes and new building additions at high schools
' Kent Mountain View Academy serves grades K - 12 The school was formerly known as Kent Looming Center & Grandview Elementary
Kent School District Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 3
April 2005 Page 12
'
2004-2005
Year
SCHOOL
Opened
ABR
ADDRESS
Program
Ca a 1
Carnage Crest Elementary
1990
CC
18235 - 140th Avenue SE, Renton 96058
490
Ceder Valley Elementary
1971
CV
26500 Timberlane Way SE, Covington 98042
418
Covington Elementary
1961
CO
17070 SE Wax Road, Covington 98042
478
Cresbvood Elementary
1980
CW
25225 - 180th Avenue SE, Covington 98042
480
Daniel Elementary
1992
DE
11310 SE 248th Street, Kent 98031
488
East Hill Elementary
1953
EH
9825 S 240th Street, Kent 98031
490
Emerald Park
1999
EP
11800 SE 218th Street, Kent 98031
504
Fekwood ElenleMery
1969
FW
16800 - 148th Avenue SE, Renton 98058
408
Glenddge Elementary
1998
GR
19406 -120th Avenue SE, Renton 98058
456
Gress Lake Elementary
1971
GL
28700. 191st Place SE, Kent 98042
490
Horizon Elementary
1990
HE
27641 -144th Avenue SE, Kent 98042
480
Jenkins Creek Ebmenlary
1987
JC
26915. 186th Avenue SE, Covington 98042
428
Kent Ekunentey
1999
KE
24700 - 64th Avenue South, Kent 98032
466
Lake Youngs Elementary
1965
LY
191180. 142nd Avenue SE, Kent 98042
5B2
Martin Sortun Elementary
1987
MS
12711 SE 248th Street Kent 98031
468
Meadow Rkige Elementary
1994
MR
27710. 108th Avenue SE, Kent 98031
466
Morkbn Elementary
1939
ME
25621 - 140th Avenue SE, Kent 98042
538
Millennium Elementary
2000
ML
11919 SE 270th Street, Kent 98031
492
Neely-O'Brlen Elementary
1990
NO
6300 South 238th Street Kent 98032
442
Panther Lake Elementary
1938
PL
20831 -108th Avenue SE, Kent 98031
384
Park Orchard Elementary
1963
PO
11010 SE 232nd Street Kent 98031
498
Pins True Elementary
1987
PT
27825 - 118th Avenue SE, Kent 98031
540
Ridgewood Elementary
1987
RW
18030 -162nd Place SE, Renton 98058
5D4
Sawyer Woods Elementary
1994
SW
31135- 228th Avenue SE, Kent 98042
504
Scenic HAI Elementary
1960
SH
28025 Woodland Way South, Kant 98031
478
Sone Creek Elementary
1971
SC
12651 SE 218th Place, Kent 98031
418
Spnrgbrook Elementary
1969
SB
20035- 100th Avenue SE, Kent 98031
440
Sunrise Elementary
1992
SR
22300- 132nd Avenue SE, Kent 98042
504
ElsmenteryTOTAL
13,290
Cedar Heights Middle School
1993
CH
19640 SE 272 Street, Covington 98042
949
Kent Junior High (Closed for 1 Year)
1952
KJ
02D Nath Central Avenue, Kent 98032
-0-
Mattson Middle School
1981
MA
16400 SE 251st Street, Covington 98042
am
Masker Middle School
1970
MK
12800 SE 192nd Street, Renton 9WW
890
Meridian Middle School
1958
MJ
23480 - 120th Avenue SE, Kent 98031
747
Northwood Middle School
1996
NW
17007 SE 184th Street Renton 9&158
944
Sequoia Middle School
1988
SJ
11000 SE 264th Street, Kent 98031
1130
Middle School TOTAL
5,168
Kent-Meridlen Senior High School
1951
KM
10020 SE 256th Street, Kent 98031
1,803
Kendeke Senior High School
1997
KL
21401 SE 300th Street, Kent 98042
1,812
Kenaidge Senior High School
1988
KR
12430 SE 208th Street, Ker DW31
2,302
Kentwood Senior High School
1981
KW
25800 - 164th Avenue SE, Covington 98042
2,187
Senior High TOTAL
8.1134
Kent Mountain View Academy 2
1965
LC
22420 Military Road. Des Moines 98198
416
DISTRICT TOTAL
2B gig
' Changes to caPscity rallied program changes and new building additions at high schools
' Kent Mountain View Academy serves grades K - 12 The school was formerly known as Kent Looming Center & Grandview Elementary
Kent School District Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 3
April 2005 Page 12
N'
N
A
Neely amen
Eiar Te e
E✓neMvy
•
HN Mitldb Scfoc
1
ElnlM.
t-
Uh So un.
EI»mentory
Flartix�tay � MIC I•d.cfieq
MI
�Ebn Y p
28 Elementary Schools L t
7 Middle Schools
4 Senior Hlgh Schools
Kent Mountain View Academy Grades K-12
Kent School District No. 415
Serving residents of
Unincorporated King County
City of Kent
City of Auburn
City of Sea Tac
City of Covington
City of Maple Valley
City of Black Diamond
4�ab
MMon
Nrw=A
V Six -Year Planning and Construction Plan
At the time of preparation of this Plan in spring of 2005, the following projects are
completed or in the planning phase in the District:
• The Board authorized grade level reconfiguration to move 9°i grade students to high
schools and serve 7s' and 8th grade students at middle schools. Additions to three high
schools have added capacity for additional students from new development and 9'" Grade
students moving to the high schools.
• Reconfiguration to 7"' and 8"' grades provides additional capacity at middle schools
effective in September 2004.
• The Board approved temporary closure of Kent Junior High for re -purpose and remodel.
In 2004-05, students from KJH are attending other middle schools since all a grade
students moved to the high schools. Kent Junior High is expected to re -open as MITI
Creek Middle School (# 7a) with a 7"' Grade Technology Academy in September 2005.
• Enrollment trends continue to show an increase in enrollment Projections reflect future
need for additional capacity at the elementary and high school level. Facility needs are
reflected in this Plan pending preliminary review.
• Sites for potential future schools and facilities are listed In Table 4 and shown on the site
map on page 17
• Some funding is secured for purchase of additional portables and some funding may be
provided by impact fees as needed Sites are based on need for additional capacity.
County and city planners and decision -makers are encouraged to consider safe walking
conditions for all students when reviewing applications and design plans for new roads
and developments. This should include sidewalks for pedestrian safety, as well as pull-
outs and turn-arounds for school buses.
Included in this Plan is an inventory of potential projects and sites identified by the
District which are potentially acceptable site alternatives in the future. (see Tawe 4)
The voter approved bond issue for $105 4 million in 1990 and $130 million in 1994
included funding for the purchase of eleven sites for some of these and future schools,
and the sites acquired to date are included in this Plan Some funding is secured for
purchase of additional sites but some may be funded with impact fees as needed. Not
all undeveloped properties meet current school construction requirements and some
property may be traded or sold to meet future facility needs.
2002 voter approval of $69.5 million bond issue for capital improvement included the
construction funding for additions to three high schools and some impact fees have also
been applied to those projects. Student Achievement Initiative 728 funds are being
utilized to reduce class size and provide extended learning opportunities. Based on
community input at public hearings, the Board will continue annual review of standard of
service and those decisions will be reflected in the each update of the Capital Facilities
Plan
Kent School Distnct Slx-Year Capital Faalitles Plan April 2005 Page 14
# on
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415
Site Acquisitions and Projects Planned to Provide Additional Capacity
SCHOOL / FACILITY / SITE LOCATIONT Status
Projected
Prolectad
%for
Completion
Program
new
Date
Ca a
Growth
�—ELEMENTARY (Numbers assigned to future schools may not correlate with number of existing schools)
Elementary # 31 (Unfunded)' To be determined ' New Planning 2009 500 75%
MIDDLE SCHOOL
Grade Level Reconfigunuion has Moved 9th grade to High School Program Planning 2004 WA WA
provided additional capacity at Middle Schools
SENIOR HIGH
Covington area (Near Mattson JH)
SE 251 & 164 SE, Covington 96042
Elementary
City of Covington
7
Covington area South (Scarsella)
Classroom additions at three
Kent -Meridian
Additions c« munwn
2004
386
75%
high schools and reconfiguration
Kentridge
Additions co wucuw
2004
1,000
75%
moved 9th Grade to high school
Kentwood
Additions co uucum
2004
896
75%
Senor High #5 (Unfunded) '
To be determined '
New Planning
2010
1,OOD
75%
TEMPORARY FACILITIES
Relocatables For placement as needed
Adddional
Capacity
New Planning 2004+ 24 - m each 100%
SUPPORT FACILITIES
Bus Facility (Unfunded)' Near Kent -Meridian High School New
' OTHER SITES ACQUIRED
Planning TBD' NIA
Land Use
Type
Jurisdiction
4
Covington area (Near Mattson JH)
SE 251 & 164 SE, Covington 96042
Elementary
City of Covington
7
Covington area South (Scarsella)
SE 290 & 156 SE, Kent 98042
Elementary
King County
5
Covington area West (Halleson-Wikstrom)
15435 SE 256 Street, Covington 98042
TBD'
City of Covington
3
Ham Lake area (Pollard)
16820 SE 240, Kent 98042
Elementary
King County
8
SE of Lake Morton area (Wast)
BE 332 & 204 SE, Kent 98042
Secondary
King County
2
Shady Lake area (Sowers, ate.)
17426 SE 192 Street, Renton 98058
Elementary
King County
1
So King Co Activity Center (Nike site)
SE 167 & 170 SE, Renton 98058
TBD'
King County
12
South Central site (Plemmons-Yeh-Wma)
SE 286th Street & 124th Ave SE, Kent
TBD'
King County
Notes:
' Unfunded facility needs will be reviewed in the future.
' TBD - To be determined - Some sites are acquired but placement, timing andfor configuration have not been determined.
' Numbers correspond to sines on Map on Page 16 Other site locations are parcels identified in Table 7 on Page 26
Kent School District Slx-Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 4 April 2005 Page 15
F,
1-4-4
Kent School District No. 415
(� Site Bank
:� o<noae ae •
1
SE 19 SI
• M.ekw
SE 2AOm
• MIOAe Schvd
d
Ebmen�tay
•Be
• gn"d v
•
sE zoaa.l
szlzm sr
Ems„ O EE
flew
y1
• Bxr�enlvY
•
E"w �rw° F
•
Enron ay
Npe l N
f
e
Neely O'Srbn
EbmenfarY•
Kenf
Ebnanfory
�s
?
HHllh�h of
•Marldm
EQIHIA MtlNe Stfgd
IX
• �
� Merltllm Elemen MaXn
Hlpn •
nool 9 A�nlary
r==
•
SE 25N St
JenNss
•
Mgdle
p
d
•
A(i'nYiiehvXat
iHMO • Cenla
L �Se9�wb9 :EI
YO
Ifatrgn•
Ebnienfary
doe
• H
MNne Are" i
SE 2AOm
d
A
Npe l N
e
HHllh�h of
r==
•
MxkNan
JenNss
•
Mgdle
ElernsiC�
• S�iiiaa M27
Kent KarK Rvatl
0
�1g
•Ele�irian�l�oy
`%p
vSchvd
E SOCm Sh et
�
�MKa B
4
V I Relocatable Classrooms
For the purpose of clarification, the term "portables" and the more descriptively
accurate term, "relocatables" are used interchangeably in this Plan. The Plan
also references use of portables or reloGatables as interim or transitional
capacity/facilities.
Currently, the District utilizes 132 total relocatables to house students in excess
of permanent capacity, for program purposes at school locations, and six for
other purposes. (see Appendices a a c D)
Based on enrollment projections, program capacity and funded permanent
facilities, the District anticipates the need to purchase some additional
relocatables during the next six-year period The continually escalating cost of
moving relocatables will increasingly limit the choice between building new
relocatables on site and relocating older ones.
During the time period covered by this Plan, the District does not anticipate that
all of the Districts relocatables will be replaced by permanent facilities. During
the useful life of some of the relocatables, the school-age population may decline
in some communities and increase in others, and these relocatables provide the
flexibility to accommodate the immediate needs of the community.
Portables, or relocatables, may be used as interim or transitional facilities:
1. To prevent overbuilding or overcrowding of permanent school
facilities.
2. To cover the gap between the time of demand for increased
capacity and completion of permanent school facilities to meet
that demand.
3. To meet unique program requirements.
Relocatables currently in use will be evaluated resulting in some being improved
and some replaced. Quality concerns will be among those addressed by the
next Community Facilities Planning Committee for review of capital facilities
needs for the next bond issue.
The Plan projects that the District will use relocatables to accommodate interim
housing needs for the next six years and beyond. The use of relocatables, their
impacts on permanent facilities, life cycle and operational costs, and the
interrelationship between relocatables, emerging technologies and educational
restructuring will continue to be be examined.
Kent School District Six-year Capital Facilities Plan April 2005 Page 17
VII Projected Six -Year Classroom Capacity
As stated in Section I V, the program capacity study is periodically updated for
changes in special programs and reflects class size fluctuations in Grades K - 4.
As shown in the Inventory and Capacity chart in Table 3 on Page 12, the
program capacity is also reflected in the capacity and enrollment comparison
charts. (see Tables 5& 5 A -&Con papas 19 - 22)
Enrollment is reported to OSPI on Form P-223 on a monthly basis and funding
apportionment is based on Annual Average FTE (AAFTE). The first school day
of October is set by OSPI as the "enrollment count date" for the year.
Full Time Equivalent (FTE) student enrollment for October 1, 2004 was
25,770.44 which represents an increase of 413 FTE over the previous year.
Kindergarten students are counted at .5 and P223 FTE excludes Early Childhood
Education students (ECE - preschool special education) and College -only
Running Start students. (See Tables 5 e 5 A -B -C on pages 19 - 22)
On October 1, there were 535 students in 11' and 12' grade participating in the
Running Start program at 9 different colleges and receiving credits toward both
high school and college graduation. 261 of these students attended classes only
at the college ("college -only") and are thus excluded from the FTE and
headcount for capacity and enrollment comparisons.
Kent School District continues to be the fourth largest district in the state of
Washington. P223 Headcount for October 1, 2004 was 26,891 with kindergarten
students counted at 1.0 and excluding ECE and college -only Running Start
students. A full headcount of all students enrolled on October 1, 2004 totals
27,340 which includes ECE and college -only Running Start students. This
reflects an increase of 470 actual students compared to October 1, 2003.
Based on the enrollment forecasts, current inventory and capacity, current
standard of service, relocatable capacity, and future planned additional
classroom space, the District anticipates having sufficient capacity to house
students over the next six years. (See Tawe 5 and Tables 5 A -&C on Pages 19 - 22)
This does not mean that some schools will not experience overcrowding. There
may be significant need for additional portables and/or new schools to
accommodate growth within the District and class size reduction mandated
under Student Achievement Initiative 728. Some schools, by design, may be
opened with relocatables on site. Boundary changes, limited movement of
relocatables, zoning changes, market conditions, and educational restructuring
will all play a major role in addressing overcrowding and underutilization of
facilities in different parts of the District.
Kent Schod District Six -Year Capital Facirtles Plan April 2DO5 Pape 18
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415
PROJECTED ENROLLMENT and CAPACITY
TOTAL DISTRICT
Permanent Program Capacity' 25,512 26,978 27,778 27,778 27,778 27,778 28,278
New Permanent Construction 1
Estimated Program Capacity
4 Kent Junior High dosed 1 year for remodel & re -purposing In 2004-05 - WHI re -open as Mill Creek Middle School 7a in Fall 2005
-816 800
Additions to 3 Senior High schools 2,282
Elementary # 31 (Unfunded) 6
411,1]
Senior High # 5 (Unfunded) 6 1,000
Permanent Program Capacity Subtotal 26,978 27,778 27,778 27,778 27,778 28,278 29,278
Interim Relocatable Capacity
Elementary Rdocenbie Cepsdty Required
SCHOOL YEAR
3
2004-2005
2005-2006 1 2006-2007
1 2007-2008
2008-2009
1 2009-2010
1 2010-2011
Actual
P R O J E C T E D
0
0
0
Permanent Program Capacity' 25,512 26,978 27,778 27,778 27,778 27,778 28,278
New Permanent Construction 1
Estimated Program Capacity
4 Kent Junior High dosed 1 year for remodel & re -purposing In 2004-05 - WHI re -open as Mill Creek Middle School 7a in Fall 2005
-816 800
Additions to 3 Senior High schools 2,282
Elementary # 31 (Unfunded) 6
411,1]
Senior High # 5 (Unfunded) 6 1,000
Permanent Program Capacity Subtotal 26,978 27,778 27,778 27,778 27,778 28,278 29,278
Interim Relocatable Capacity
Elementary Rdocenbie Cepsdty Required
0
0
0
48
288
96
264
Middle Sdwd Relocahble Capacity Required
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Senior High Relocatable Capacity Required
93
279
496
651
589
589
0
Total Relocatable Capacity Required 1&5
93
279
496
699
877
685
264
TOTAL CAPACITY t 1 27
2 & 3
TOTAL FTE ENROLLMENT/ PROJECTION 1 25,771 26,035 26,473 26,905 27,127 27,469 27,798
DISTRICT AVAILABLE CAPACITY 1 1,300 2,022 1,801 1,572 1,528 1,494 1,744
t Capacity is based on standard of service for program capacity and updated periodically to reflect program changes.
2 FTE = Full Time Equivalent Enrollment (i a 1/2 day Kindergarten student = 5).
a In Fall 2004, 9th grade moved to the high schools which provided increased capacity at Middle School level
4 Kent Junior High closed for remodel and re -purposing in 2004-05 with students served at five other Middle Schools.
KJ will re -open as Mill Creek Middle School in Fall 2005 with a Technology Academy serving 7th grade students from other service areas.
Capacity for Mill Creek Middle School & Technology Academy will be determined when new programa are in place
5 2004-2005 total classroom relocatable capacity is 1,843
6 Facility needs are pending review.
Kent School DlA t Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 5
April 2005 Pape 19
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415
PROJECTED ENROLLMENT and CAPACITY
SENIOR HIGH - Grades 9 -12
Senior High Permanent Program Capacity t 5,822 8,104 8,104 8,104 8,104
New Permanent Senior High Construction
Grade level reconflguratlon - 9tim grade students moved to high schools in Fall 2004
Classrooms added at three high schools
Estimated program capacity 2,282
Senior High # 5 (Unfunded) 4
8,104 8,104
1,000
Subtotal 8,104 8,104 8,104 8,104 8,104 8,104 9,104
Relocatable Capacity Required ' 64
SCHOOL YEAR
3
2004-2005
2005-2006
2006-2007
2007-2008
1 2008-2009 1 2009.2010
1 2010-2011
Actual
P R O J E C T E D
8,197
8,383
8,600
Senior High Permanent Program Capacity t 5,822 8,104 8,104 8,104 8,104
New Permanent Senior High Construction
Grade level reconflguratlon - 9tim grade students moved to high schools in Fall 2004
Classrooms added at three high schools
Estimated program capacity 2,282
Senior High # 5 (Unfunded) 4
8,104 8,104
1,000
Subtotal 8,104 8,104 8,104 8,104 8,104 8,104 9,104
Relocatable Capacity Required ' 64
93
279
496
651
589
589
0
TOTAL CAPACITY t
8,197
8,383
8,600
8,755
8,693
8,693
9,104
FTE ENROLLMENT] PROJECTION 283 8,182 8,382 8,587 8,735 8,666 8,674 8,715
Number of Relocatables Required 3 9 18 21 19 19 0
t Capacity is based on standard of service for program capacity and updated periodically to reflect program changes
2 FTE = Approximate Full Time Equivalent Enrollment, excluding College -only Running Start students.
3 Grade level reconfiguration - All 9th grade students moved to the high schools in Fall 2004.
4 Facility needs are pending review.
Kent School District Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 5 A
April 2005 Pape 20
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415
PROJECTED ENROLLMENT and CAPACITY
MIDDLE SCHOOL - Grades 7 - 8
3
SCHOOL YEAR 2004.2005 2005.2008 1 20015-2007 1 2007-2DOa 2008-2009 2009-20to 2010 2011
Actual P R O J E C T E D
Middle school Program CapactyY1 5,984 5,168 5,968 5,968 5,968 5,968 5,968
New Capacity from Grade Reconfiguration
3 Grade level reconfiguration - gth grade students moved to high schools In 2004
4 Kent Junior High dosed for remodel & re -purposing In 2004-D5 - Will reopen as Mill Creek Middle School 7a in Fail 2005
Estimated program capacity -816 800
Subtotal 5,168 5,968 5,968 5,968 5,968 5,968 5,968
Relocatable Capacity Required
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL CAPACITY '8'
5,168
5,968
5,968
5,968
5,96B
5,968
5,968
FTE ENROLLMENT / PROJECTION 2
No Relocatables Required
t Capacity is based on standard of service for program capacity and updated periodically to reflect program changes.
2 FTE = Approximate Full Time Equivalent Enrollment / Projection
3 Grade level reconfiguration - All 9th grade students moved to the high schools in Fall 2004.
4 Kent Junior High closed for remodel and re -purposing in 2004-05 with students served at five other Middle Schools.
KJ will reopen as Mill Creek Middle School In Fall 2005 with a Technology Academy serving 7th grade students from other service areas
Capacity for Mill Creek Middle School & Technology Arademy will be determined when new programs are In place
Kant School District Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 5 B April 2005 Page 21
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415
PROJECTED ENROLLMENT and CAPACITY
ELEMENTARY - Grades K .6
lElementary Permanent Prognem Capacity 13,290 13,706 13,706 13,706 13,706 13,706 14,206
Kent Mountain view Academy 1 416
New Permanent Elementary Construction
Elementary # 31 (Unfunded) 4
500
Subtotal 13,706 13,706 13,706 13,706 13,706 14,206 14,206
Retocatable Capacity Required 2
0
0
0
48
288
96
SCHOOL YEAR
2004-2005
zoos zoos
2006-200
2007-2008
1 2008-2009
2009-2010 1
2010-2011
Actual
P R O 1 E C T E
D
lElementary Permanent Prognem Capacity 13,290 13,706 13,706 13,706 13,706 13,706 14,206
Kent Mountain view Academy 1 416
New Permanent Elementary Construction
Elementary # 31 (Unfunded) 4
500
Subtotal 13,706 13,706 13,706 13,706 13,706 14,206 14,206
Retocatable Capacity Required 2
0
0
0
48
288
96
264
TOTAL CAPACITY'
13,706
13.706
13,706
13,754
13,994
14,302
14,470
Number of Relocatables Required 0 0 0 2 12 4 11
1 Kent Mountain View Academy is a special program at the former Grandview School serving students in Grades K -12.
The school building (formerty Kent Learning Center & Grandview Elem ) was designed as an elementary school
2 Capacity is based on standard of service for program capacity and is updated periodically to reflect program changes.
3 FTE = Approximate Full Time Equivalent Enrollment or Projection (Kindergarten @ 5 & excluding ECE)
Kindergarten projection is at 5 FTE although most schools provide Full Day Kindergarten with alternative funding
4 Facility needs are pending review
Kent School District Six -Yew Capital Facilities Plan Table 5 C
April 2005 Page 22
VIII Finance Pian
The finance plan shown on Table 6 demonstrates how the Kent School District
plans to finance improvements for the years 2005 - 2006 through 2010 - 2011.
The financing components include secured and unsecured funding and impact
fees. The plan is based on voter approval of future bond issues, collection of
impact fees under the State Growth Management Act and voluntary mitigation
fees paid pursuant to State Environmental Policy Act.
Kent Elementary #27a, which opened In January 1999 as a replacement for the
original Kent Elementary School, was the last elementary school for which the
District received state matching funds under the current state funding formula.
Millennium Elementary #30 which opened in the fall of 2000 was the last
elementary school that received funding approval from voters.
Voters approved a $69.5 million bond issue for Capital Construction and
Improvements in February 2002. This will partially fund building additions at
three high schools which coincided with moving 9"' grade students to the senior
high in September 2004. The District anticipates receiving state matching funds
and is utilizing impact fees for the senior high school additions.
Enrollment projections reflect future need for additional capacity at the
elementary and high school level and unfunded facility needs will be reviewed in
the future.
Some funding is secured for additional portables and some will be funded from
impact fees.
For the Six -Year Finance Plan, costs of future schools are based on estimates
from Kent School District Facilities Department. Please see pages 25-26 for a
summary of the cost basis.
Kent School District Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2005 Pape 23
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415
SIX-YEAR FINANCE PLAN
Kent Shod District Six -Year Capital Facilities Flan Table 6 Apr% 2005 Pape 24
Secured
Local B State
Unsecured
Stab i c Locel3
Impact
Fees 5
SCHOOL FACILITIES 2005 2000 2007 2008 2009 2010 TOTAL
@3tilllaNd
PERMANENT FACILITIES
F $39,800,000
$39,000.000 $23,300,000 $16.500.000
142 AddlBons to Senior*hs
1263 Elementary # 31
U 317,500,000
$17,500.000 $13,000,000 $4,500,000
12 a 3 Senior High #5
U $52.000,000
F
$52,000,0110 $44.000.000 $8,000.000
TEMPORARY FACILITIES
Additional Rebcalables 3 a 4
U $299,000 $208.000 $212,000 $109,200 $112,500
$939,500 $310,430 $829.070
3 nelaratables 2 relocatables 2 neiotatables 1 mWamble 1 relocalabie
OTHER
NIA
Totals
$39,800,000 $299,800 $200,0110 $212,000 1117,809,200 $52.112,500
$110,239,500 $23,010,430 $57,000,000 $29,829.070
' F = Funded U = Unfunded
1 Based on estimates of actual or future construction ousts from Facilities Department (See Peps 25 far Cost Balis Sranma y)
' The Dlstrlcl anticipates recsI g $lata matching funds on these projects
' Facility needs are pending review These furwa must be secured through additional band Issues and Impact fees.
4 Cost of Reloratables based on cment cost of $94,200 n 2004-05 and adjusted for 3% Inflation factor for future yens
s Fees In this column are based on amount of fees collected to date and estimaled fees on future units
Kent Shod District Six -Year Capital Facilities Flan Table 6 Apr% 2005 Pape 24
VIII Finance Plan - Cost Basis Summary
For impact fee calculations, construction costs are based on cost of the last
elementary school, with inflation factor, and projected cost of the next
elementary school.
Elementary School
Cost
Projected Cost
Millennium Elementary (#30 -open 2000
$12,182,768
Current cost of Elementary #31
$14,952,532
Projected cost of Elementary #31 in 2009
$11,200,000
1$17,500,000
For impact fee calculations, construction costs are based on cost of the last high
school, with inflation factor and projected cost of the next high school:
Senior High School
Cost
Projected Cost
Kentlake High School (Opened in 1996)
$44,600,000
Current cost for Senior High School #5
adjusted for capacity of - 1000
$42,615,821
Projected cost of High School #5 in 2010
$11,200,000
$52,000,000
Construction cost of the additions to three high schools:
Senior High School Additions
Projected Cost
Total
Addition to Kent -Meridian
$7,000,000
Addition to Kentrid a
$13,600,000
Addition to Kentwood
$11,200,000
Construction cost of additions to
3 High Schools
$31,800,000
Kent School District Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2005 Page 25 a / b
VIII Finance Plan - Cost Basis Summary (Continued)
Site Acquisition Cost
The site acquisition cost is based on an average cost of sites purchased or built
on within the last ten years. Please see Table 7 on page 26 for a list of site
acquisition costs and averages.
District Adjustment for 2005
The impact fee calculations on pages 28 and 29 include a "District Adjustment"
which is equal to the amount of increase that the impact fee formulas drive out
for this year and adjusted for increase in the Consumer Price Index. The reasons
for this adjustment include: 1) the district's long-term commitment to keep impact
fee increases as minimal as possible, and 2) our community's overwhelming
support of Initiative 695.
Kent School District Six -Year capital Facillbes Plan Apnl 2005 Page 25 a / b
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415
Site Acquisitions & Costs
Average of Sites Purchased or Built on within last 10 Years
Elementary
GlenndgeElementary
low
19W120AvSE,Renton9906e
1165
$1,498,334
Urban
Kent Elem (Nm -#27a repisrsd ad Kent Eleni)
1989
2470064 AV S. Kent NM2
1053
$2.559,786
Urban
Emerald Park Elementary
1889
11800 SE 216, Kent 98031
1260
$1,010,000
Urban
Millennium Elementary
2000
11919 SE 270, Kent 98031
1154
$1,133,500
21 Urban
Site - Shady Lake (sowe,a assemblage)
1995
17426 SE 192, Rehm 98(158
1576
$508,662
Elementary she Subtotal
6208
$6,710,282
$128,612
$243,095
$80,159
$98.224
$32,276
$108,091
Elam alb average
Middle School
K -M High School Addition (Kelt e a 9dh Smith p 2002 a 2003 11002 SE 255th Street
631
$3,310,000
Soria wgh
Kentlake High School (Keeled Mems)
Urban
Northwood Middle School
1996 VWSE186atreason MM
24.42
$655,138
$26,828
101 Urban
Mill Creek MS (Kent JH) / McMillan St assemblage
2002 411432 MdAgen St. Kent 96032
123
$844,666
$686,883
121 Urban
Site - UNncorporated KC (Plemmons, Yoh, WIINeme)
1998 E of 124 SE btw 296-288 PI (UKC)
3970
$1,935,020
$48,741
Middle School Sate Subtotal
6535
$3,435,024
$52,563
Maar xM sw Avg
111 urban
K -M High School Addition (Kelt e a 9dh Smith p 2002 a 2003 11002 SE 255th Street
631
$3,310,000
Soria wgh
Kentlake High School (Keeled Mems)
1997 21401 Sr 305 St, Ked 9SO42
40 Cio
$537,534
6/ Urban
Kentwood Sr HI Addition (sand u)
1998 16507 SE 256th Street
383
$302,117
s/ urten
Site - Covington area (Hanesm 8 wikstrnm)
2000& 2904 15435 SE 256 St, Covington 913042
3636
$3,977,464
Sorter High Site Sublobl
8650
$8,127,115
Note All rural Mea vrere purchased prior to adoption of Urban Growth Arm
$524,564
$13,438
$76,882
$109,391
$93,955
Sr HI Sita Avenge
Total Aueage a CoatThal Ave age Cent / Asn
213 93 $18,272,421 $85,413
Ked Sdipa District Sri -Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 7 April 2005 Page 26
I Properbes purcha9ad prior to 1994
1
So ItIng County Activity Center (Nike site) purchased prior to 19M
4 / Urban
Site - Connumn (So of Million JH)
1984
3/Rural
Sib -Hem Lake mal (Pollard)
1992
7/Rural
Site- South of Covingtm(Scerwale)
1193
81 Rural
Ste - SE of Lake Marton area (W eat)
1993
$524,564
$13,438
$76,882
$109,391
$93,955
Sr HI Sita Avenge
Total Aueage a CoatThal Ave age Cent / Asn
213 93 $18,272,421 $85,413
Ked Sdipa District Sri -Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 7 April 2005 Page 26
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT
FACTORS FOR ESTIMATED IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS
Student Generation Factors - Single Family
Elementary
(Grades K - 6)
0 482
Middle School
(Grades 7 - 8)
0.161
Senior High
(Grades 9 - 12)
0.284
Total
0.927
Projected Student Capacity
Elementary 500
Middle School 1,065
Senior High 1,000
Required Site Acreage per Facility
Elementary (required) 11
Middle School (required) 21
Senior High (required) 32
New Facility Construction Cost
Elementary' $17,500,000
Middle School $0
Senior High ' $52,000,000
See cost basis on Pg 25 a
Temporary Facility Square Footage
Elementary
71,652
Middle School
27,000
Senior High
20,272
Total 4%
118,924
Permanent Facility Square Footage
Elementary
1,475,936
Middle School
651,273
Senior High
1,007,522
Total 96%
3,134,731
Total Facilities Square Footage
Elementary
1,547,588
Middle School
678,273
Senior High
1,027,794
Total
3,253,655
Developer Provided Sites / Facilities
Value 0
Dwelling Units 0
Student Generation Factors - Multi -Family
Elementary
0 293
Middle School
0.069
Senior High
0.114
Total
0.476
OSPI - Square Footage per Student
Elementary
80
Middle School
110
Senior High
120
Special Education
140
Average Site Cost / Acre
Elementary $108,091
Middle School $52,563
Senior High $93,955
Temporary Facility Capacity & Cost
Elementary @ 24 $94,200
Middle School aQ 29 $0
Senior High @ 31 $94,200
State Match Credit
Current State Match Percentage 54.29%
Area Cost Allowance - CostlSq. Ft.
Current Area Cost Allowance $129.81
District Average Assessed Value
Single Family Residence $242,558
District Average Assessed Value
Multi -Family Residence $76,682
Capital Levy Tax Rate/$1,000
Current / $1,000 Tax Rate $1.84
General Obligation Bond Interest Rate
Current Bond Interest Rate 4.57%
Kent School Dlsbid Six Year Capital Faellldes Plan
April 2W5 Page 27
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT
IMPACT FEE CALCULATION for SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
Site Acquisition Cost per Single Family Residence
Fomiuta: ((Acres x Cost Acre / Faall Ca x Stutlent t3eneradan Factor
$2,000.08
B = Permanent Fedlity Coat per Residence
Required Site Average Site CostlACro
Facility Cap aaty
Student Factor
Subtotal
Al (Elementary) 11 $108,091
500
0482
$1,146.20
A 2 (Middle School) 21 $0
1,065
0 161
$0
A 3 (Senior High) 32 $93,955
1,000
0.284
$85386
0 927
A—>
a�—
$2,000.06
Permanent Facility Construction Cost per Single Family Residence
Formula. ((Fadlity Cost! Facility ) x Student Fads) x (PermanentiTotal Square Footage Ratio)
Comyuctim Cost Facility CapsW
Student Fades
Footage Raso
B1 (Elementary) $17,500,000 500
0.482
096
$16,195.20
B 2 (Middle School) $0 11065
0.161
0.96
$0
B 3 (Senior High) $52,000,000 1,000
0284
0.96
$14,17728
0 927
B —>
$30,37248
Temporary Facittly Coat par Single Family Residence
Formula. ((Facility Cost/ Fadl Ca d) x Student Factor) x (Temporary
/ Total Square Footage Ratio)
Fant Cost F Cs
Student Factor
Footage Rabo
C 1 (Elementary) $94,200 24
0.482
004
$7567
C 2 (Middle School) $0 29
0.161
0.04
$0
C 3 (Senior High) $94,200 31
UK
0.04
$3452
0.927
C —>
$110.19
State Match Credit per Single Family Residence
Formula, Area Coat Allowance x SPI Square Feet per student x District Match % x Student Factor
Area Coat Albwence SPI SQ. FL / student I
District Match 9i
1 SddeM Factor
D 1 (Elementary) $129.81 BO
0.5428
0482
$2,717A7
D 2 (Middle School) $129.81 110
0
0 161
$0
D 3 (Senior High) $129.81 120
05429
o2ea
$2,40175
D —>
$5,119.22
Tax Credit per Single Family Residence
Average SF Residential Assessed Value $242,558
Current Capital Levy Rate / $1,000 $1.84
Current Bond Interest Rate 4.57%
Years Amortized (10 Years) 10 TC —> $3,517.04
Developer Provided Facility Credit Fadii / Site Value I DweNing Units
0 0 FC—> 0
Fee Recap
A = Site Acquisition per SF Residence
$2,000.08
B = Permanent Fedlity Coat per Residence
$30,37248
C = Temporary Facility Cost per Residence
$110 19
Subtotal
$32,482.73
D = State Match Credit per Residence
$5,119.22
TC = Tax Credit per Residence
$3,517.04
Subtotal
$8,63626
Total Unfunded Need $23,84647
50% Developer Fee Obligation $11,923
FC = Facility Credit (if applicable) 0
District Adjustment (See Page 25 for e>%ilanalbn) ($7,148)
Net Fee Obligation per Single Family Residence 1 $4,775
Kent School District six -Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2006 Page 28
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT
IMPACT FEE CALCULATION for MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENCE
Site Acquisition Cost per Multi -Family Residence Unit
Formula- ((Acres x Cost per Acre) I Facility Capacity) x Student Generation Factor
Required Site Aoieepo I Average Site Cost/Acre I
Facility Capacity I
Student Factor I
A 1 (Elementary) 11 $108,091
500
0 293
$696.75
A 2 (Middie School) 21 $0
1,065
0 069
$0
A 3 (Senior High) 32 $93,955
1,000
0114
$34275
0.476
A—>
$1,039.50
Permanent Fatality Construction Cost per Multi -Family Residence Unit
Formula: ((Facility Coat / Facility Ca x Student Fodor) x Permanent / Total Square Foo
a Ratio)
Corubuctbn Coat FadHty CapedtyI
Student Factor
Footage Rabo
B 1 (Elementary) $17,500,000 500
0.293
096
$9,844.80
B 2 (Middle School) $0 1,065
0.069
096
$0
B 3 (Senior High) $52,000,000 1,000
0.114
096
$5,690.68
0476
B—>
$15,535.68
Temporary Facility Cost per Multl-Famiy Residence Unit
Formula ((Facility Cost I Facility Ca x Student Factor) x (Temporary/
Total Square Footage Ratio)
Facility Cost Facility Capacity
Student Factor
Footage Rata
C 1 (Elementary) $94,200 24
0293
0.04
$46.00
C 2 (Middle School) $0 29
0.069
004
$0
C 3 (Senior High) $94,200 31
0.114
004
$1386
0 476
C_>
$5986
State Match Credit per MuM-Family Residence Unit
Formula Area Cost Allowance x SPIuare Feet per student x District Match % x Student Factor
Area Cost Ailowarxx+ SPI Sq Ft I Student
Dislttat Match %T
Student Factor
D 1 (Elanentary) $129.81 80
0.5429
0 293
$1,651.91
D 2 (Middle School) $12981 110
0
0 069
$0
D 3 (Senior High) $129.81 120
05429
0 114
$964.08
D —>
$2,615.99
Tax Credit per Multi -Family Residence Unit
Average MF Residential Assessed Value $76,682
Current Capital Levy Rate 1$1,000 $184
Current Bond Interest Rate 4.57%
Years Amortized (10 Years) 10 TC —>
Developer Provided Facility Credit Facility/ Site Value I Dwelll Units
0 0 FC —>
Fee Recap
A = Site Acquisition per Multi -Family Unit
B = Permanent Facility Coat per MF Unit
C = Temporary Facility Cost per MF Unit
Subtotal
D = State Match Credit per MF Unit
TC = Tax Credit per MF Unit
Subtotal
$1,03950
$15,53568
$5986
$16,63504
$2.61599
$1.11187
$3,72786
Total Unfunded Need $12,90718
50% Developer Fee Obligation
FC = Facility Credit (if applicable)
District Adjustment (See Page 25 for dares"
Net Fee Obligation per Mulb-Family Residence Unit
KOM School District Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan
$1,111.87
0
$6,454
0
($3,514)
$2,940
Apri12005 Page 29
IX Summary of Changes to April 2004 Capital Facilities Plan
The Capital Facilities Plan (the "Plan") is updated annually based on previous Plans in
effect since 1993. The primary changes from the April 2004 Plan are summarized here.
Voters approved funding for additions at three high schools to accommodate new
growth and moving 9ei grade students to senior highs. This has provided additional
capacity for grades 7-8 at middle schools. Kent Junior High is closed for remodeling and
re -purposing in 2004-05 and will re -open as Mill Creek Middle School In 2005-06.
Changes to capacity continue to reflect fluctuations in class size as well as program
changes. Reduction in class size for Student Achievement Initiative 728 Is reflected in
this update. Changes in portables or transitional capacity reflect purchase, sale, surplus
and/or movement of portables between facilities.
Student enrollment forecast is updated annually. At this time, enrollment projections
reflect need for future additional capacity at elementary and high school level.
The district expects to receive state matching funds for projects in this Plan and tax
credit factors are updated annually. Unfunded facility needs will be reviewed in the
future.
The biennial student generation factor survey was previously updated to reflect changes
and grade level reconfiguration. Changes reflected no adjustment for occupancy.
Survey data is included as Appendix E.
Changes to Impact Fee Calculation Factors Include:
FROM I TO
Student Generation Factor
Elem
0.482
0 462
Updated for 91° Grade
Single Family (SF)
MS
0.161
0.161
Reconfiguration
SH
0.284
0.284
No change required this year.
Total
0 927
0 927
Student Generation Factor
Elem
0.293
0.293
Updated for a Grade
Multi -Family (MF)
Ms
0.069
0.069
Reconfigurabon
SH
0 114
0 114
No change required this year.
Total
0.476
0.476
State Math Credit
5330%
5429%
Per OSPI (+ 99%)
Area Cost Allowance (Boeckh Index)
$129.91
$129.61
Per OSPi
Average Assessed Valuation (AV)
SF
$234,279
$242,558
Per Puget Sound ESD
AV - Average of Condominiums $ Apts.
MF
$74,065
$76,682
Per Puget Sound ESD
Debt Service Capital Levy Rate / $1000
$1.66
$184
Per King County Assessment
General Obligation Bond Interest Rate
435%
457%
Market Rate
Impact Fee - Single Family
SF
$4,056
$4,775
Change to fee - $719
Impact Fee - Multi -Family
MF
$1,762
$2,940
Change to fee - $1178
Kent School District Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2005 Page 30
X
Appendixes
Appendix A: Calculations of Capacities for Elementary Schools
Appendix B: Calculations of Capacities for Middle Schools
Appendix C: Calculations of Capacities for Senior High Schools
Appendix D: Use of Relocatables
Appendix E: Student Generation Factor Survey
Kent School District Six -Year Capital Facilibes Plan Apnl 2005 Page 31
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415
STANDARD of SERVICE - PROGRAM CAPACITY - INVENTORY of RELOCATABLES - FTE and HEADCOUNT ENROLLMENT
wMsaw61District Six -Year Capital FadMleaPlan APPENDDC A ap9 2005 v.9e 32
KSO
SEIP
'ty
Numbxd
SdM
Pragrrn
Claeercom
Ralauerela
1011!2304
10/112700
37930
41495
ELL
ELEMENTARY
ABR
Stl ar Wp+Oq
Caped
Caoedfy
4
P223 FTE
P213 F}OnWM
Gasaroomc
st+zuz4 seg
CR
Ca
Cepadly'
SCWJOL
Rsloulsebs
r74
Eraolnrertl
Enmyrtrenl
478
1
0
0
46750
519
Crestwood
�a wamla OEf� aaA0631t 40
wMsaw61District Six -Year Capital FadMleaPlan APPENDDC A ap9 2005 v.9e 32
1pn Cap
SEIP
'ty
$pedal
20012006
Pragrrn
Claeercom
Ralauerela
1011!2304
10/112700
37930
41495
ELL
Program
Pmgram
Use
Use
Caoedfy
4
P223 FTE
P213 F}OnWM
Gasaroomc
st+zuz4 seg
CR
Ca
Cepadly'
11a1maYpbs
Rsloulsebs
r74
Eraolnrertl
Enmyrtrenl
Carnage Crest
CC
20
450
3
10
490
1
0
0
37930
41495
Cedervalley
Cv
17
3
5
20
415
2
O
0
39650
422
1 Covington
GO
21
466
4
10
478
1
0
0
46750
519
Crestwood
CW
20
460
2
0
460
2
3
72
443,00
467
1 Oanb1
DE
19
444
7
22
456
1
0
0
35603
425
1 East HIO
EH
21
400
3
10
400
2
3
72
44851
489
6nenald Park
EP
21
504
2
0
504
1
1
24
50505
539
Fskrood
FIN
17
405
3
0
408
4
0
0
433.60
467
Glarnndge
GR
19
465
4
0
458
2
0
0
41550
445
Grass Lake
GLIA
20
480
2
10
490
1
0
0
40050
423
Pm
HE
20
50 4
1
0
480
2
1
25
55505
590
Jenkins Geek
JC
17
400
6
20
426
2
2
48
46350
481
1 KaM Elem
KFJ9
20
456
3
10
466
2
2
4a
45700
507
Lake Youngs
LYON
23
552
S
10
552
1
0
0
44454
473
1 Marlin Srbn
M9
20
458
2
0
400
1
1
24
47350
505
1 Meadox Rdp
MR
20
456
3
10
466
1
1
24
508 00
551
Mendmn Elam
MF4
22
528
3
10
538
3
2
48
59100
022
I Millennium Earn4l
21
492
2
0
492
0
0
0
45550
487
I NeelyOBrbn
NO
19
432
4
10
442
4
4
95
59250
547
I Panthers lake
PL
17
384
2
0
364
4
3
72
46700
504
1 Park OrdMrd
PO
20
468
5
30
498
2
0
0
48093
512
1 Pie Tree
PTP
23
540
2
0
540
3
0
0
44811
483
Rdgewood
Mfg
21
504
1
0
504
1
1
24
54191
581
Sawyer woods
SW
21
504
2
0
5040
0
0
41303
437
1 Scenic H9
SH
20
488
2
10
476
3
1
24
48150
520
Sacs Crosti
SC
17
408
6
10
419
3
0
0
41793
451
1 SpM9Mook
S8
15
421
2
20
440
2
0
0
40250
429
SuMse
We
21
604
2
a
504
3
1
24
62552
557
KaM IMYw Ageamy
LC
14
355
3
80
416
0
0
0
10833
117
ElementaryTOTAL
569
13424
86
2112
13,706
54
26
624
13,12387
14087
' Ebmwtarydassroom upacNy Is based on awrago of 24 12-22 i KJ, 23 i Grade 4 8 291n Gable 541 idudes adl�nM tar cbea arm mdu w program changes
4 Kent Stlrod Dlsbwt StaMaM d Srvrw reaxws some rornb tar pWl-oW ProOnanr a 20 Tota' - 17 Standad+ 1 Compiler Lab + 1 Muds + 1 IMeps4ad Program dearorn
r Eln senry adwde naw 1001E apaoe uMuabon rate 4 Elanrentry, FIE bxkd. KndeMarten 0 5, P223 HeedOound Indud" KMergerlen 0 10 8 ea *d. ECE .!,dente
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415
STANDARD of SERVICE - PROGRAM CAPACITY - INVENTORY of RELOCATABLES - FTE and HEADCOUNT ENROLLMENT
Not srarieeld sacro
sp.uw Ea
Spec
Special'
2004-05 Program
C:lexsroom
ILMowMhis
107!2009
10/1/2004
Sid CavecM' Eu
E11
Prgm
Program
Prglram Use
Use
Capedly
P223 FTE'
Headcount �
Gonna at 25-29 Ga
Capacity
Gsms
Capacity
cepady � Relocasbles
RdautaMes
et 29 m
Enm9ment
Fnrdlrrenl
KSD
Net
ShsdsM
SE
Spend. Ed
Spec
SPeciel'
2004-05
Program
Classroom
Relacelebie
10/1/2004
10/1/2004
MIOOIJ_
ASq
Slid
CaNc4
Kenlrfdge Sr High KR 69 1,808 8 so 17 405
s1.
Prgm
Program
Program
Use
Use
Capeaty
P223 FTE'
Headcount"
SCHOOL
2,201
Kent Mounters Vi" Academy (Cradea K . 12) Senor High Grade 9 -12 Enrollmeol
e125-31
CaparM
Came
Capacity
CepaGty°
Ralmaladles
Radask deo
a131 ea
Enrdlmant
Enrollment
Samor High TOTAL 237 8,205 38 458 61 1,441
8,194 5
15
465
816250
8352
APPENDIX
C
Cedar Heights MS
CH
32
782
6
48
5
119
949
0
5
145
89454
897
Kent JH I MS closed
Ki
Closed 1 Year for Remodel & Re-purgoatrq
0
0
0
0
000
0
Mattson Middle Schl
MA
26
634
5
59
a
115
808
1
10
290
72843
729
Meeker Middle SrJN
MK
29
898
4
51
8
143
890
0
0
0
724 78
727
Maridsn Middle Schl
MJ
24
585
5
43
5
119
747
2
7
203
81000
812
Northwood MS
NW
34
831
2
25
5
Be
944
0
0
0
88790
887
Sequoia Middle Schl
SJ
28
684
4
27
5
119
830
2
4
118
548.00
548
Kent Mountain View
Academy (Grades K , 12)
Middle
School Grade 7.8 Enrolment
7084
72
Middle School TOTAL
173
4,212
26
253
32
703
8,188
5
28
754
4,48407
4,472
APPENDIX
B
KSD
Net
ShsdsM
SE
Spend. Ed
Spec
SPeciel'
2004-05
Program
Classroom
Relacelebie
10/1/2004
10/1/2004
SENIOR HIGH
HCNm
Slid
CaNc4
Kenlrfdge Sr High KR 69 1,808 8 so 17 405
s1.
Prgm
Program
Program
Use
Use
Capeaty
P223 FTE'
Headcount"
SCHOOL
2,201
Kent Mounters Vi" Academy (Cradea K . 12) Senor High Grade 9 -12 Enrollmeol
e125-31
CaparM
Came
Capacity
CepaGty°
Ralmaladles
Radask deo
a131 ea
Enrdlmant
Enrollment
--_ s6fYsanitio _...______ _
__.,
...
Kent-Mendlan Sr High KM 51 1,334 11 136 14 333
1,803 1
4
124
1,84740
1969
Kentlake Senor Hqh W. 49 1,291 13 161 16 370
1,812 0
3
93
1,88.518
1921
Kenlrfdge Sr High KR 69 1,808 8 so 17 405
2,302 1
3
93
1,11841
2,185
Kentwood Sr High KW 88 1,792 8 72 14 333
2,187 3
5
155
2,14878
2,201
Kent Mounters Vi" Academy (Cradea K . 12) Senor High Grade 9 -12 Enrollmeol
15656
187
Night Academy, Regional Justice Center, Contract School, Homo/Haspital, etc
2617
29
Samor High TOTAL 237 8,205 38 458 61 1,441
8,194 5
15
465
816250
8352
APPENDIX
C
(Headcount Esduoes
I DISTRICT TOTAL 979 1 23,941 1 152 1 993 1 93 1 2,144 I 26,979 1 64 1 67 1 1,643 12677044 1 26,891
'
SPK -al Program capacity Includes classrooms regWrhV specialized use such as Greer 6 Technical Education Programa, Computer Labs, etc
s SecaMary school capacity, Is adjusted for 85% uhhzaoon rate and 4728 class sae redudon m 70m 6 t (ah grade English dames 9th grade moved te FIB in 2004
s Enrollment is reported of FTE & Headcount bass P223 Headcount "dudes ECE & 261 college -only thinning Start students Full headcount = 27,340
K M Soled Diem Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan Total of Appendices A B & C " 2805 Pegs 33
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415
USE of RELOCATABLES
Grade Level Retonfigumbon - In 2004, 9th gnide students nerved to high schools
Kent Schad DII Six -Year Capital FadlWw Plan APPENDIX D April 2005 Page 34
2004-2W5
'
20052006
2006-2007
2007-2008
1
1 2008-2009
1
2009-2010 1
2010.20it
No or
Slid"
No of
Studa i
No d
Ssdanl
No of
Student
Na Of
Student
Nod III
Student
No of
S6deot
Relocatable Use
Raboitadaa
RobCffkhMs
Rabcetabba
RakrateMas
Ralouteales
CepadlY
Relaagblea
ReloceleMes
COI
Required for program use
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
(ie Computer labs, music etc)
Elementary Classroom Capacity Q 24
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
48
12
255
4
96
11
264
Middle School Classroom Capacity 0 29
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Senior High Classroom Capacity ® 31
3
93
9
279
18
496
21
651
19
589
19
589
0
0
# of Relocatables Required
67
73
se
87
95
67
75
Total Student Capacity
93
279
496
e99
87T
885
264
Plan for Allocation of Classroom Reloceteble Facilities included in Finance Plan
Senior High
3
9
16
21
19
19
0
Junior High I Middle School
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
Elementary
o
o
a
2
12
4
11
Total
3
'
9
16
23
31
23
11
Grade Level Retonfigumbon - In 2004, 9th gnide students nerved to high schools
Kent Schad DII Six -Year Capital FadlWw Plan APPENDIX D April 2005 Page 34
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No 415
Student Generabon Factor Survey
Kent sd,pa District SL -Year Capra[ Faraues Plan APPENDIX E April 2005 Page 35
Elementary
Total
S t u d e n t s
Student Generation Factor
Total
Elem
Jr
sr
Total
Elem I
Jr j
Sr
Single Family Developments
Aro&
units
Bayberry
ME
48
40
20
8
12
0633
0417
0167
0250
Canyon Creek / Country View I KareBluS / Willow Way
PL
07
69
42
12
15
0 711
0 433
0124
0155
Cantagewood I Truth t9 Cardegewood
RW
344
258
126
44
98
0779
0388
0126
0285
Chancellor CresWPark/Kensnglon
MS
222
185
85
32
68
0833
0383
0144
0306
Copper Ridge
EP
37
45
15
12
18
1216
0405
0324
0486
Country Gate ® Lake Youngs
LY
25
26
10
7
9
1 040
0 40D
0 280
0 360
Eastland Meadows
SC
13
19
12
3
4
1 482
0 923
0 231
0 306
Emerald Ridge & Canyon Crossing
EH
52
59
33
11
15
1 135
0 635
0 212
0 285
Faalkld
CO
95
64
49
13
22
0 884
0 518
0137
0 232
Forasf Estates
CC
280
238
119
37
52
0 850
0 425
0132
0 293
Foxwcud
CW
130
113
59
16
35
0 569
0 454
0123
0 292
Highland Crossing
MS
79
60
33
11
16
0 759
0 418
0139
0203
Highpoirae
CO
109
55
39
14
33
0 789
0 356
0128
0 303
Hillahke
SR
68
63
34
8
21
0 926
0 500
0118
0 309
Horizon Creat
HE
100
120
78
18
26
1200
0 750
0 180
0 260
Hunter's Grove & HG Short Plat
MS
22
13
2
5
6
0 591
0 D91
0 227
0 273
Kentridge Placa / Forest Tralls / Sunwood / Forest Glen 5
LY
288
256
122
39
95
0 589
0 424
0 135
0 330
Lake al Wnterwaod
GL
111
111
56
19
35
1 000
0 505
0171
0 324
Lake Youngs at the Park
LY
19
19
8
4
7
1 D00
0 421
0 211
0 388
Lyndon Placa I Sprhq Hill / Vintage Hills
GR
104
84
36
14
34
0 608
0 346
013S
0 327
Mallory Meadows
ME
25
23
13
4
6
0 920
0 520
0160
0 240
NMhParkarea East&West
NO
132
149
93
20
36
1129
0705
0152
0273
North Peak 1 & 2 (Jane's Plow)
SR
87
83
32
11
20
0 724
0 308
0 126
0.230
Pheasants Hollow
PH
116
94
55
16
23
0 810
0 474
0138
0 196
Prestige Park
ME
45
45
22
10
13
1 000
0489
0222
0209
Remingtm
SW
283
249
131
55
63
0 947
0 498
0209
0 240
Rhododendron Estates
ML
18
22
12
3
7
1375
0750
0188
0438
Ridgefield
SR
128
112
55
24
32
0875
0438
0188
0250
Seven Oaks & Seven Oaks East / West/ Court
HE
262
238
119
47
72
0908
0 454
0179
0275
Stillwater / Shihvater Green& / Shadow Creek
ME
101
65
35
10
23
0 673
0 347
0 099
0 225
Stone Wood
EH
17
12
4
1
7
0706
0235
0059
0412
Strawberry Lane area / Meridian Creet / SwanVisla
EH
117
149
92
19
38
1 274
0 786
0 182
0 325
Summer Glen & Strethmoro (Summer Glen East)
SC
218
274
145
51
78
1 257
0 665
0 234
0 358
The Parka
RW
172
147
78
28
41
0 555
D 453
0 153
0 238
Westview Ridge / Fez Creek I Sequoia Ridge / Applawood
MR
Igo
242
144
39
59
1 222
0 727
0197
0.298
Windham Ridge
CCTD
66
28
14
24
0835
0354
0177
0304
19
3,911
2,035
678
1,197
0.927
0.462
0161
0284
Total
Kent sd,pa District SL -Year Capra[ Faraues Plan APPENDIX E April 2005 Page 35
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No 415
Student Generation Factor Survey
Edulog
Ettenw"
Total
S t u d e n t s
Student Genera4on Factor
Total
Elenn
Jr
Sr
Total
FJem
Jr
5r
tt
Mulct-FamilyDevelo mems
Am
Unds
SA
ANartaoolc Apartments -402 Novak Lyre
EH
207
96
67
12
17
0 464
0 324
0 058
0 082
156
Bmtvood Toeonhomes
SH
81
46
28
a
12
0568
0321
0099
0148
145
County Glen I Estates
PT
174
60
50
7
9
0 379
0.287
0.040
0 052
146
Fakwood Pond Apaftwis
FW
194
70
59
0
11
0402
0.304
0.041
0057
180
Hentage at Falrvood Condos
FW
82
15
4
3
a
0.242
0065
0048
0129
173
Highland Creste
MS
198
76
35
19
22
0384
0177
0096
0111
154
Indigo Spdngs
GR
206
118
48
18
32
0573
0330
0087
0155
97
James Street Crossing
NO
300
114
90
14
20
0380
0.267
0047
0067
138
Liberty Estates
EH
96
46
25
6
14
0479
0.271
0063
0146
148
Meridian Green Apartneras
MR
108
58
29
11
18
0 537
0.269
0102
0167
SA
Pak Placa Apartments - 1406 Maple Lana
SH
51
53
35
5
12
1 039
0 706
0 098
0.235
102
Rock Creek Landing
EH / PL
275
125
76
14
35
0 455
0 276
0 051
0127
171
Sher Conk Apartne ds
MR
52
39
12
9
18
0 750
0 231
0173
0 346
SA
Silver Spnngs Apartment 2241888Th Av So
PL
251
116
87
10
19
0462
0347
0040
0076
192
Sundae at Berawn Concha
GR
08
41
27
5
9
0466
0307
0057
0102
76
Ashton Sprigs
DE
329
100
60
t8
24
0 304
0 182
0 049
0 073
92
Walnut Park
DE
140
134
74
25
35
0 957
0 529
0 179
0.250
149
WhkWme Pokrte
ML
96
60
42
8
10
0625
0438
0083
0104
2,701
1,285
791
186
308
0.476
0.293
0069
0114
Total
Kers 8dwd Dtetkt ft-Yw Caphl Fa OU Plan APPENDIX E Ape 2005 Pegs 36
31405 18th Ave Sa
Federal Way, WA
98003-5433
Tel 253 945 2000
w fmd.wednet edu
o
'JO
Q
May 25, 2005
Charlene Anderson
City of Kent
220 South 0 Avenue
Kent WA 98032
Dear Charlene,
• Federal Way
Public Schools
Every Smdenr, a Reader
Enclosed is a copy of the Federal Way School District 2006 Capital Facilities Plan. The
Federal Way School District Board of Education adopted this plan on May 24, 2005
I have also enclosed the report of Impact Fee collections and expenditures for calendar
year 2004.
Please let me know if you have any questions about the changes in the CFP for Federal
Way Schools My direct line is (253) 945-2071 or email at gw,11kei C ewsd wednet edu
Thanks for your help preparing this plan.
Sincerely,
en Walker
Enrollment and Demographic Analyst
7 -ft impact fees 1
FEDERAL WAY SCHOOL DISTRICT
imp fees - kent xls
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
by clayton betz
IMPACT FEES FROM CITY OF KENT (a)
01/24/05
COLLECTED & EXPENDED
CALENDAR YEAR 2004
Month COLLECTED
Transfers Ending
Collected
Net
In Out Account Warrant
Interest
1391 Date # Amount
Earned
(b)
63,830 97
Jan -U4 2,387 29
11721
66,335 47
Feb -04 983 76
12119
67,440 42
Mar -04
12035
67,560 77
Apr -04 3,872 98
12506
71,558 81
May -04
11917
71,677 98
Jun -04
11457
71,792 55
Jul -04
11604
71,908 59
Aug -04
12480
72.033 39
Sep -04
12630
72,159 69
Oct -04
12654
72,286 23
Nov -04
13232
72,418 55
Dec -04
13141
72,549 96
13th Mo
72,549 96
Totals
7,24403
1,47496
0001
0001
000
(a) per King Co Treas Acct # 06210-0241 'GL Activity' reports - see Prime Acct 10100
(b) equals King Co Treas bal
(d) to pay for student expansion space - site costs, new construction, remodeling, and equipment (tun not computers or textbooks) -
per a 1-17-02 letter from Grace Yuan & Denise Stdfamt of Preston Gates Ellis
Project I Vendor
Expenditure
Type
11
Federal Way Public Schools
2006
Capital Facilities Plan
Building for the Future
.. ■ ef,
IrV r
fJ1 C , c� •
h A
16 MAYY1r_ ■
■�
Building for the Future
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2006 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
2006
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
BOARD OF EDUCATION
Ed Barney
Evelyn Castellar
Charles Hoff
Thomas Madden
Bob Millen
SUPERINTENDENT
Thomas R Murphy
:�
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2006 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ii
INTRODUCTION iii -v
SECTIONI. THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
Introduction 1
Inventory of Educational Facilities 2
Inventory of Non -Instructional Facilities 3
Needs Forecast - Existing Facilities 4
Needs Forecast - New Facilities 5
Six Year Finance Plan 6
SECTION 2 MAPS OF DISTRICT BOUNDARIES
Introduction 7
Map - Elementary Boundaries 8
Map - Middle school Boundaries 9
Map - Senior High Boundaries 10
SECTION 3 SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
Introduction 1 I
Building Capacities 12-13
Portable Locations 14-15
Student Forecast 16-18
Capacity Summaries 19-23
King County Impact Fee Calculations 24-26
SECTION 4 SUMMARY OF CHANGES FROM THE 2005 PLAN 27-30
ii
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2006 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
INTRODUCTION
In response to the requirements of the State of Washington Growth Management Act
(SHB 2929 (1990) and ESHB 1025 (1991)), and under the School Impact Fee Ordinances
of King County Code 21A, City of Federal Way Ordinance No. 95-249 effective
December 21, 1995 as amended, and the City of Kent Ordinance No 3260 effective
March 1996, Federal Way Public Schools has updated its 2005 Capital Facilities Plan as
of May 2005.
This Plan is scheduled for adoption by King County, the City of Kent and the City of
Federal Way and is incorporated in the Comprehensive Plans of each jurisdiction by
reference. This plan is also included in the Facilities Plan element of the Comprehensive
Plans of each jurisdiction. To date, the City of Des Moines has not adopted a school
impact fee ordinance
The Growth Management Act requires the County to designate Urban Growth areas within
which urban growth can be encouraged. The Growth Management Planning Council
adopted and recommended to the King County Council four Urban Growth Area Line
Maps with designations for urban centers. A designation was made within the Federal
Way planning area, which encompasses Federal Way Public Schools boundaries. King
County will encourage and actively support the development of Urban Centers to meet the
region's need for housing, jobs, services, culture and recreation. This Plan's estimated
population growth is prepared with this underlying assumption
This Capital Facilities Plan will be used as documentation for any jurisdiction, which
requires its use to meet the needs of the Growth Management Act. This plan is not
intended to be the sole planning tool for all of the District needs The District may prepare
interim plans consistent with Board policies.
Federal Way citizens approved a bond proposal of $83 million in September 1999. This
bond provided for Todd Beamer High School ($44 million); Sequoyah Middle School
($17 million); expansion and improvement of existing schools ($9 million); replacement
of Truman Htgh School ($6 million) and other general improvements ($7 million) Other
planned and completed improvements included in the bond proposal were parking and
pedestrian safety, playgrounds and sports fields, new classroom start-up and music
equipment, information systems and networks and emergency communications.
A Middle School Transition Team began meeting in May 2001 to develop
recommendations for the middle school programs These recommendations were adopted
by the Board of Education on March 25, 2002. The adopted recommendations include
block instruction with 2 teacher teams meeting with about 60 students daily for students in
the 6`s and 7a' grade Eighth grade teachers will see 90 students each day This structure
lengthens contact time for students with fewer adults and is believed to develop stronger
relationships. Fewer transitions for students will provide continuity to the day and
promote a calmer campus The 2006 Capital Facilities Plan reflects a reduced capacity to
accommodate the middle school block instruction.
iii
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2006 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
INTRODUCTION (continued)
As smaller class sizes roll forward into the secondary levels, we anticipate a slight decline
at middle school between 2006 and 2011 This does not diminish the need to open
Sequoyah Middle School in the 2005/06 school year. With the opening of Sequoyah
Middle School the average enrollment at all huddle schools will be between 700 and 800
students.
Another initiative that will impact capacity at the secondary schools is the Puget Sound
Early College Highlme Community College is offering this program to I I th and 12`s
grade students at the Federal Way campus. The program allows promising 11'" and 12'
grade students the opportunity to complete their high school diploma and the Associate of
Arts college degree in their final two years of high school.
The district has a cooperative agreement with Head Start for facility use to serve income
eligible Pre -Kindergarten students A new Headstart facility on the Harry Truman High
School campus opened in January 2005 This facility centralizes Headstart services in the
Federal Way community. Headstart was housed at three of the elementary schools in the
Federal Way District. Currently the only decentralized program is in a portable facility at
Sherwood Forest Elementary. The District intends to expand the ECEAP Pre -
Kindergarten program.
The District is considering offering a Kindergarten through 8's grade instructional
configuration. This program could be offered at an existing site, with appropriate facility
changes. Other options for opening this program are new construction or purchase and
remodel of an existing building
As the projects from the 1999 bond are finalized, the District is presenting a 20 -year plan
for the renovation and construction of Federal Way Schools and support buildings. If
approved the $245 million bond to be run in 2006 would replace four elementary schools,
Lakeland, Panther Lake, Sunnycrest and Valhalla and one middle school Lakota Federal
Way High School would be replaced and capacity increased by approximately 800
students Federal Way High School was built in 1938. It has been added onto at least 10
times and currently has an almost maze -like layout, The cost to rebuild is $81 million.
The reconstruction would increase the capacity of the high school by 800 students, or by
about 33%. Part of this cost is included in the Capital Facilities Plan impact fee
calculation. The non -instructional projects included in the 20- year plan will consolidate
support services operations at a single location. The current Transportation and
Maintenance facility cannot continue to meet the District needs in the future Nutrition
services and other administrative functions will also relocate to this centralized location
The proposed bond package includes shared instructional and community facilities The
current stadium would be moved to align with the City of Federal Way Celebration Park
sports fields and future Community Center A performance auditorium is planned for a
corner of the Federal Way High School campus This is a facility that would serve the
District schools as well as the community An environmental instruction and retreat
center is proposed for property adjoining Sequoyah Middle School
iv
r
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2006 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
SECTION 1- THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
The State Growth Management Act requires that several pieces of information be gathered to
determine the facilities available and needed to meet the needs of a growing community.
This section provides information about current facilities, existing facility needs, and expected
future facility requirements for Federal Way Public Schools. A Financial Plan which shows
expected funding for any new construction, portables and modernization listed follows this.
1
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2006 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
INVENTORY OF EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
Adelaide
1635 SW 304th Street
Federal Way
98023
Brigadoon
3601 SW 336th Street
Federal Way
98023
Camelot
4041 S 298th Street
Auburn
98001
Enterprise
35101 5th Avenue SW
Federal Way
98023
Green Gables
32607 47th Avenue SW
Federal Way
98023
Lake Dolloff
4200 S 308th Street
Auburn
98001
Lake Grove
303 SW 308th Street
Federal Way
98023
Lakeland
35675 32nd Avenue S
Auburn
98001
Mark Twain
2450 S Star Lake Road
Federal Way
98003
Meredith Hill
5830 S 300th Street
Auburn
98001
Mirror Lake
625 S 314th Street
Federal Way
98003
Nautilus
1000 S 289th Street
Federal Way
98003
Olympic View
2626 SW 327th Street
Federal Way
98023
Panther Lake
34424 1 st Avenue S
Federal Way
98003
Rainer 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.
Des Moines
98198
MIDDLE SCHOOLS
Federal Way Public Academy
34620 9i° Avenue S
Federal Way
98003
Illahee
36001 1st Avenue S
Federal Way
98003
Kilo
4400 S 308th Street
Auburn
98001
Lakota
1415 SW 314th Street
Federal Way
98023
Sacajawea
1101 S Dash Point Road
Federal Way
98003
Saghalie
33914 19th Avenue SW
Federal Way
98023
Sequoyah
3450 S 360`s ST
Auburn
98001
Totem
26630 40th Ave S
Kent
98032
SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS
Decatur
2800 SW 320th Street
Federal Way
98023
Federal Way
30611 16th Avenue S
Federal Way
98003
Thomas Jefferson
4248 S 288th Street
Auburn
98001
Todd Beamer
35999 16th Ave S
Federal Way
98003
Harry S Truman
31455 28th Ave S
Federal Way
98003
ALTERNATIVE SCHOOLS
Ment School 36001 131 Ave S Federal Way 98003
LEASED SPACES
Internet Academy 32020 1st Ave S Federal Way 98003
2
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2006 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
CURRENT INVENTORY NON -INSTRUCTIONAL FACILITIES
Developed Property
Administrative Building
MOT Site
Central Kitchen
Federal Way Memorial Field
Leased Space
Community Resource Center
ECEAP Offices
Undeveloped Property
31405 18th Avenue S
Federal Way
98003
1066 S 320th Street
Federal Way
98003
1344 S 308th Street
Federal Way
98003
1300 S 308th Street
Federal Way
98003
1813 S Commons Federal Way 98003
30819 14th Ave S Federal Way 98003
Site # Location
75 SW 360th Street & 3rd Avenue SW — 9.2 Acres
65 S 351st Street & 52nd Avenue S — 8.8 Acres
60 E of 10th Avenue SW - SW 334th & SW 335th Streets - 10.04 Acres
73 N of SW 320th and east of 45`h PL SW — 23.45 Acres
71 S 344th Street & 46th Avenue S - 17 47 Acres
82 15t Way S and S 342°d St — Minimal acreage
74 3737 S 360' St - 47.13 Acres (Part of this site is being used for Sequoyah Middle School)
96 S 308th St and 14th Ave S — .36 Acres
81 S 332"d St and 9th Ave S — 20 Acres
Notes:
Not all undeveloped properties are large enough to meet school construction requirements.
Properties may be traded or sold depending on what locations are needed to house students to the
District.
3
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2006 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
NEEDS FORECAST - EXISTING FACILITIES
EXISTING FACILITY
FUTURE NEEDS
ANTICIPATED SOURCE OF
FUNDS
Purchase and Relocate
Interim Capacity
Anticipated source of funds is
Portables
Impact Fees.
Elementary Schools:
Replace Existing Building
Future Bond Sales
Lakeland, Panther Lake,
Sunn crest and Valhalla
Lakota Middle School
Replace Existing Building
Future Bond Sales
Federal Way High School
Replace Existing Building,
Future Bond Sales
Increase Capacity
Todd Beamer High School
Library conversion to increase
Impact Fees
classroom ca acit
The District is also planning the replacement of some non -instructional facilities. The District
has purchased 20 acres for construction of consolidated facilities for support services functions.
Transportation, Nutrition Services, Maintenance and other non -instructional functions will be
housed at this centralized location.
As part of the 20 -year plan, the District intends to increase capacity for high school students
include expansion at the Decatur High School site These plans supplant the need for
construction of a fifth comprehensive high school.
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2006 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
NEEDS FORECAST - NEW FACILITIES
NEW FACILITY
LOCATION
ANTICIPATED SOURCE
OF FUNDS
Sequoyah Middle School
Site 74
Anticipated source of
funds are current bond
issues and state match.
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2006 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
Six Year Finance Plan ,
Secured Funding
Projected Revenue
Actual and Planned Expenditures
NEW SCHOOLS
Budget
2007
2008
2009
2010
2031
7012
Total
T499 Cold
ua Muddle School
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008M
2009/10
201W Il
2011/12
2006-2012
$528,860 $528,86
rddle School Sue
$
$1
ederal Wa Public Acde
F$1471
$
Valhalla Elementary
$5,070,000
$7,430,000
$12,500,
Pantheir Lake Elementary,
$5,070,000
57430,000
$12,500100($1
04
Lakeland Elementary
$5,070,000
$7,430000
$12,500,
$1
Surmycirest Elementary
$5,070000
$7,430,000
$12,501$
500
akow Middle School
$10,361,250
$15,038,750
$25,400.
$25440
Federal Way Ifigh School
$26,625,000
$36,250,000
$18125000
$81000,
$81000
MODERNIZATION AND EXPANSION
Recrinfigurationt Todd Beamer High School
$500^05500,
TEMPORARY FACILITIES
S
Portables 9
$61RIA110
$1,000,000
5600,000
$1,600,
S2
TOTAL
523,01
Sl 28
$10 740 000
$35 61250
$29898750
$26625000
536,250000
$18,125000
$158,528
$181,543
vuars
1 These fees arecurrency bemg held m a Kmg County Cu) of Federal Way and City of Kent m"a fee account and m0 be
avadable for use by the Dismet for system nvpmvements llusr)earendbalanceon12/31/04
1 These funds cons; from vanous sales of laod and are set aside for estimated expendmues This is year and balance on 12/31/04
3 Thts is the 12/31/04 balance of bond fords
4 These are sure matching funds receaved for Todd Beamer High School, Turman High School and the additions to existing hmidinga
This is a year end balance on 1131/04
5 This u annnjwed State Match for projects attached so the $245 million bond issue Sequoyah Middle School is not ebgtbie for true match fiords (This has ant been reolcuisted with new Sum Match formulas)
6 These are anappated bond funds Voters have not yet approved this bond The bond amount shown reflects the dollar amount for instructions! facilities
7 Sale agreement for a portion of Lakou sne add anurpated sale of surplus pmpeNa
S. These an, projected tees based upon known residential developments in We thsuict over the next six years Thus figure assumes $50000 per month for the next sec years
9 These fees represent the cost of mo ing exruag portables and purchasing new portables
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2006 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
SECTION 2 - MAPS OF DISTRICT BOUNDARIES
Federal Way Public Schools (the District) has twenty-three elementary schools (grades K-5),
seven middle school schools (grades 6-8), five senior high schools (grades 09-12) and one
school serving students in grades 6 -10 for the 2005/06 school year. The Internet Academy
serves grades K-12. In January 2005 the Board of Education adopted new secondary
boundaries beginning with 2005/06 school year. The following maps show the service area
boundaries for each school, by school type. (Harry S. Truman High School, Ment School,
Internet Academy and Federal Way Public Academy serve students from throughout the
District). The identified boundaries are reviewed annually. Any change in grade
configuration or adoption of programs that affect school populations may necessitate a
change in school service areas
The Growth Management Act requires that a jurisdiction evaluate if the public facility
infrastructure is in place to handle new housing developments In the case of most public
facilities, new development has its mayor 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.
ft1
VAz'f
4.
FZ
aj
e,
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2006 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
SECTION 3 - SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
Building Capacities - The Education Program
Portable Locations
Student Forecast - 2006 through 2012
Capacity Summaries
King County Impact Fees - Single and Multi Family Units
11
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2006 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
Building Capacities
This Capital Facilities Plan establishes the District's "standard of service" in order to
ascertain the District's current and future capacity The Superintendent of Public Instruction
establishes square footage guidelines for capacity, but these guidelines do not take into
consideration the education program needs The District has identified a Building Program
Capacity for each of the schools in the District. This Full Time Equivalent (FTE) capacity is
based on:
• The number of classrooms available in each school
• Any special requirements at each school
In general, the District's current target class size provides that the average class size for a
standard classoom for grades K through 2 should be 20 students. For grades 3-5 the target is
25 students In sixth and seventh grade the students are scheduled with block instruction and
see only two teachers for core curriculum Teachers at this level see 60 students per day. At
eighth grade, the teachers will see 90 students per day For grades 9-12 the target class size is
26 students.
In the 2004/05 school year, all of the 23 elementary schools offer at least one all day
Kindergarten. This program does have capacity impacts, as the classroom is only available
for one session of Kindergarten for the full day.
12
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2006 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
BUILDING PROGRAM CAPACITIES
ELEMENTARY BUILDING
PROGRAM CAPACITY
School Name
Headcount
FTE
Adelaide
456
436
Bri adoon
510
490
Camelot
347
327
Enterprise
404
384
Green Gables
432
412
Lake Dolloff
490
470
Lake Grove
424
404
Lakeland
450
430
Mark Twain
465
444
Meredith Hill
437
417
Mirror Lake
379
35
Nautilus
475
455
Olympic View
424
404
Panther Lake
437
417
Rainier View
445
425
Sherwood Forest
494
474
Silver Lake
502
482
Star Lake
474
454
Sunn crest
424
404
Twin Lakes
450
430
Valhalla
477
457
Wildwood
445
425
Woodmont
375
355
006 TOTAL
10,216
9,755
ementary Average
Notes:
* Federal Way Public Academy capacity is not used in
calculated average
* Truman High School capacity is not used in
calculated average.
13
MIDDLE SCHOOL BUILDING
PROGRAM CAPACITY
School Name
Headcount
FTE
Illahee
799
807
Kilo
799
807
Lakota
750
758
Saca awea
774
782
Sa halie
694
701
Se uo ah
700
707
Totem
735
742
Federal Way Public Academy
212
214
2006 TOTAL
1 5,463
5518
J*Middle School Average 1 875 1 884-1
SENIOR HIGH BUILDING
PROGRAM CAPACITY
School Name
Headcount
FTE
Decatur
1,269
1343
Federal Way
1,456
1541
Thomas Jefferson
1,435
1519
Todd Beamer
1,523
1612
Truman High School
200
200
Federal Way Public Academy
133
133
2006 TOTAL
6,016
6,348
J*Senior High Average 1 1,421
ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL BUILDING
PROGRAM CAPACITY
School Name Headcount FTE
Ment School 16 16
2005 TOTAL 16 16
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2006 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
Portable Locations
The Washington State Constitution requires the State to provide each student a basic
education. It is not an efficient use of District resources to build a school with a capacity for
500 students due to lack of space for 25 students when enrollment fluctuates throughout the
year and from year to year.
Portables are used as temporary facilities or interim measures to house students until
permanent facilities can be built or boundary adjustments can be made When permanent
facilities become available, the portable(s) is either used for other purposes such as storage or
child care programs, or moved to another school for an interim classroom. Some portables
may not be fit to move due to age or physical condition. In these cases, the District may
choose to buy new portables and surplus these unfit portables. It is the practice and
philosophy of Federal Way Public Schools that portables are not acceptable as permanent
facilities.
The following page provides a list of the location of the portable facilities, used for temporary
educational facilities by Federal Way Public Schools.
14
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2006 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
PORTABLE LOCATIONS
PORTABLES LOCATED PORTABLES LOCATED
AT ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS AT SENIOR HIGHS
PORTABLES LOCATED
AT MIDDLE SCHOOLS
INST0.VCLIOhAL
NON
IN6TRUCTIONAL
Adelaide
3
7
Bri adoon
1
Saca'awea
Camelot
Sa hake
1
Enterprise
3
Merit
Green Gables
1
30
Lake Dolloff
2
Lake Grove
2
Lakeland
2
Mark Twain
3
Meredith Hill
3
Mirror Lake
4
Nautilus
1
Olympic View
2
Panther Lake
3
Rainier View
3
Sherwood Forest
4
Silver Lake
4
Star Lake
2
2
Sunn crest
1
1
Twin Lakes
Valhalla
1
1
Wildwood
4
Woodmont
T T L
546
PORTABLES LOCATED
AT MIDDLE SCHOOLS
15
NOM
!N UMONAL IN UCIIONAL
Illahee
5
Kilo
7
Lakota
3
Saca'awea
4
Sa hake
4
Totem
5
Merit
2
30
15
PORTABLES LOCATED
AT SUPPORT FACILITIES
MOT
NON
[N UMIONAL IN RUC19ONAL
Decatur
5
Federal Way
1
Thomas Jefferson
3
TOTAL
9
PORTABLES LOCATED
AT SUPPORT FACILITIES
MOT
1
TDC
3
TOTAL
4
HEAD START PORTABLES AT DISTRICT SITES
Sherwood Forest 1
Tota
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2006 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
Student Forecast
Student enrollment projections are a basic component of budget development. Enrollment
projections influence many of the financial estimates that go into budget preparation. The
majority of staffing requirements are derived directly from the forecasted number of students.
Allocations for instructional supplies and materials are also made on the basis of projected
enrollment. Other expenditures and certain revenue projections are directly related to
enrollment projections.
Enrollment projections are completed annually in the Business Services Department.
Projections must be detailed at various levels, district total, school -building totals, grade level
and program level to include vocational and special education students.
The basis of projections has been cohort survival analysis. Cohort survival is the analysis of
a group that has a common statistical value (grade level) as it progresses through time. In a
stable population the cohort would be 100 for all grades This analysis uses historical
information to develop averages and project the averages forward This method does not
trace individual students, it is concerned with aggregate numbers in each grade level. The
district has used this method with varying years of history and weighted factors to study
several projections Because transfers in and out of the school system are common, student
migration is factored into the analysis as it increases or decreases survival rates. Entry grades
(kindergarten) are a unique problem in cohort analysis The district collects information on
birth rates within the district's census tracts, and treats these statistics as a cohort for
kindergarten enrollment in the appropriate years.
The Federal Way School District is using various statistical methods for projecting student
enrollments. The resultant forecasted enrollments are evaluated below.
The first method is a statistical cohort analysis that produces ten distinct forecasts. These are
forecast of enrollment for one year. The projections vary depending on the number of years
of historical information and how they are weighted
A second method is a projection using an enrollment projection software package that allows
the user to project independently at school or Bade level and to aggregate these projections
for the district level. The Enrollment Masteri�i software provides statistical methods
including trend line, standard grade progression (cohort) and combinations of these methods.
This software produces a five-year projection of school enrollment
In November of 2001, the District contracted a demographer to develop projections for the
Federal Way School District. The report was complete in January 2002. The model used to
forecast next year's enrollment uses cohort survival rates to measure grade to grade growth,
16
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2006 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
assumes market share losses to private schools (consistent with county -wide average),
assumes growth from new housing or losses due to net losses from migration. This forecast
was provided as a range of three projections The report substantiated that for next year,
Federal Way expects little or no growth. The long-range forecast provided with this report
used a model with cohort survival rates and growth rates based on projected changes in the 5-
19 age group for King County. Most of the methods used for long range enrollment reporting
assume that enrollment is a constant percent of something else (e.g population) or that
enrollment will mirror some projected trend for the school-age population over time. The
report included 5 different calculations to provide a range of possible projections for the
District to the year 2015. This model produces a projection that is between 24,000 and
26,000 when applied to the low, medium and high range modes. This provides a reasonable
range for long-range planning and is consistent with estimates from various models.
Long-range projections that establish the need for facilities are a modification of the cohort
survival method The cohort method of analysis becomes less reliable the farther out the
projections are made. The Federal Way School District long-range projections are studied
annually. The study includes information from the jurisdictional demographers as they
project future housing and population in the region The long-range projections used by
Federal Way Public Schools reflect a similar age trend in student populations as the
projections published by the Office of Financial Management for the State of Washington.
Near term projections assume some growth from new housing, which is offset by current
local economic conditions. The District tracks new development from four permitting
jurisdictions. Long range planning assumes a student yield from proposed new housing
consistent with historical growth patterns.
Growth Management requires jurisdictions to plan for a minimum of twenty years. The
Federal Way School District is a partner in this planning with the various jurisdictions
comprising the school district geography These projections create a vision of the school
district in the future.
17
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2006 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
Full Time Equivalent Enrollment History and Projections
Simplified FTE (K Headcount = 5 FTE, Middle School FTE= 99 Headcount, Senior High FTE = 945Hcadcount)
Total K -12 Per
Calendar Yr School Year Elementary Middle School Senior High FTE Chi
2000
1999-00
2001
2000-01
2002
2001-02
2003
2002-03
2004
2003-04
2005
2004-05
2006
B2005-06
2007
P2006-07
2008
P2007-08
2009
P2008-09
2010
P2009-10
2011
P2010-11
2012
P2011-12
5,473
* New Configuratio
23,000
22,000
21,000
c
'0 20,000
u
9
A
= 19,000
a
a
u 18,000
O
17,000
16,000
15,000
11,641
5,156
4,380
21,176
11,640
5,305
4,338
21,283
05%
11,498
5,337
4,467
21,302
0.1%
11,202
5,454
4,437
21,093
-1 0%
9,127
5,524
6,408
21,059
-0.1%
9,164
5,473
6,515
21,152
04%
9,119
5,410
6,619
21,158
0.0%
9,203
5,181
6,744
21,229
a3%
9,444
5,106
6,844
21,494
1.1%
9,631
5,117
6,828
21,676
a8%
9,765
5,183
6,813
21,861
0.8%
9,912
5,393
6,695
21,999
0.6%
10,011
5,500
6,681
22,202
0.9%
ElementaryR-5
Middle School 6-8
High School 9-11
Enrollment History and Six Year Forecast
ea$ 4a0
� a �
School Year
18
15%
10%
05%
m
N
R
d
00% �
C
-05%
-1 0%
-1 5%
'0`0 -o -o -o
-60 �0�r2
FTE
O FTE 0 Percent of Change
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2006 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
Capacity Summaries
All Grades, Elementary, Middle School, and Senior High Schools
The Capacity Summaries combine Building Capacity information and the Student Forecast
information. The result demonstrates the requirements for new or remodeled facilities and
why there is a need for the District to use temporary facilities or interim measures.
The information is organized in spreadsheet format, with a page summarizing the entire
District, and then evaluating capacity vs. number of students at elementary, middle school,
and senior high levels individually
The notes at the bottom of each spreadsheet provide information about what facilities are in
place each year.
19
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2006 CAPITAL FACILITES PLAN
CAPACITY SUMMARY - ALL GRADES
ENROLLMENT
Basic FTE Enrollment 21,158
21,229
Budget
- Projected - -
Calendar Year
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
288
CAPACITY
School Year
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
20010/11
20011/12
BUILDING PROGRAM
2,881
Deduct Portable Capacity
HEADCOUNT CAPACITY
21,011
21,011
20,985
20,959
20,933
20,933
20,933
FTE CAPACITY
20,930
21,611
21,585
21,559
21,533
21,533
21,533
Add or subtract changes to capacity
Special Education Changes
(26)
(26)
(26)
(26)
Sequoyah Middle School
747
Increase Capacity at Federal Way High
800
Adjusted Program Headcount Capacity
21,011
20,985
20,959
20,933
20,933
20,933
1 21,733
Adjusted Program FTE Capacity
21,611
21,585
21,559
21,533
21,533
21,533
22,333
ENROLLMENT
Basic FTE Enrollment 21,158
21,229
21,494
21,676
21,861
21,999
22,202
Internet Academy Enrollment (AAFTE) 288
288
288
288
1
288
1
288
288
Basic FTE Enrollment without Internet Academy 20,870
20,941
21,206
21,388
21,573
21,711
21,914
SURPLUS OR (UNHOUSED)
2,325
2,525
2,725
2,725
2,725
2,725
2,462
PROGRAM FTE CAPACITY
741
644
353
145
(40)
1 (178)
419
RELOCATABLE CAPACITY
Current Portable Capacity
2,325
2,525
2,725
2,725
2,725
2,725
2,462
Add/Subtract Portable Capacity
1
Add New Portable Capacity
200
200
3,078
2,870
2,685
2,547
2,881
Deduct Portable Capacity
Adjusted Portable Capacity
2,525
2,725
2,725
2,725
2,725
2,725
2,462
SURPLUS OR (UNHOUSED)
PROGRAM AND RELOCATABLE
1
CAPACITY
3,266
3,369
3,078
2,870
2,685
2,547
2,881
20
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2006 CAPITAL FACILITES PLAN
CAPACITY SUMMARY - ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
CAPACITY
9,199
Budget
- - Projected - -
Calendar Year
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
School Year
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
20010/11
20011/12
BUILDING PROGRAM
HEAD COUNT CAPACITY
FTE CAPACITY
10,216
9,755
10,190
9,729
10,164
9,703
10,138
9,677
10,112
9,651
10,112
9,651
10,112
9,651
1. Special Education Changes
(26)
(26)
(26)
(26)
Adjusted Program Headcount Capacity
10,190
10,164
10,138
10,112
10,112
10,112
10,112
Adjusted Program FTE Capacity
9,729
9,703
9,677
9,651
9,651
1 9,651
9,651
ENROLLMENT
Basic FTE Enrollment
9,199
9,203
9,444
9,631
1 9,765
9,912
]0,021
2. Internet Academy (AAFTE)
32
1
32
32
32
32
32
32
Basic FTE Enrollment without Internet Academy
9,167
9,171
9,412
9,599
9,733
9,880
9,989
SURPLUS OR (UNHOUSED)
1,350
1,350
1,350
1,350
1,350
1
1,350
PROGRAM CAPACITY
562
532
265
52
(82)
(229)
(338)
RELOCATABLE CAPACITY 3
Current Portable Capacity
Add/Subtract portable capacity
1,350
1,350
1,350
1,350
1,350
1,350
1,350
Adjusted Portable Capacity
1,350
1,350
1,350
1,350
1,350
1,350
1,350
SURPLUS OR (UNHOUSED)
PROGRAM AND RELOCATABLE
1
1
1
[1,7012
CAPACITY
1,912
1,882
1,615
1,402
1,268
1,121
iN u LLS:
Add Special Education and ECEAP Programs
This reduces Basic Education capacity in the school years indicated.
Internet Academy students are included in projections but do not require full time use of school facilities.
Relocatable Capacity is based on the number of portables available and other administrative techniques which
can be used to temporarily house students until permanent facilities are available This is a calculated number only
The actual number of portables that will be used will be based on actual student population needs
The District may begin to pull portables from the instructional inventory Age and condition of the portables
will determine feasibility for continued instructional use
21
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2006 CAPITAL FACILITES PLAN
CAPACITY SUMMARY - MIDDLE SCHOOLS
CAPACITY
5,410
Budget
Projected - -
Calendar Year
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
School Year
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
20010/11
20011/12
BUILDING PROGRAM
HEADCOUNT CAPACITY
FTE CAPACITY
4,763
4,811
5,470
5,518
5,470
5,518
5,470
5,518
5,470
5,518
5,470
5,518
5,470
5,518
1. Sequoyah Middle School
707
750
750
Adjusted Program Headcount Capacity
5,470
5,470
5,470
5,470
5,470
5,470
5,470
Adjusted Program FTE Capacity
5,518
1 5,518
5,518
5,518
5,518
5,518
1 5,518
ENROLLMENT
Basic FTE Enrollment
5,410
5,282
5,206
5,217
5,283
5,393
5,500
2. Internet Academy (AAFTE)
92
92
1
92
92
92
1
92
92
Basic FTE Enrollment without Internet Academy
5,318
5,190
5,114
5,125
5,191
5,301
5,408
SURPLUS OR (UNHOUSED)
1
750
750
750
750
750
750
PROGRAM CAPACITY
152
280
356
345
279
169
62
RELOCATABLE CAPACITY 3.
Current Portable Capacity
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
Add/Subtract portable capacity
Add new portable capacity
Adjusted Portable Capacity
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
SURPLUS OR (UNHOUSED)
PROGRAM AND RELOCATABLE
1
1
4. CAPACITY
902
1,030
1,106
1,095
1,029
919
812
1 Sequoyah Middle School to Open
2 Internet Academy students are included in projections but do not require full time use of school facilities.
3 Relocatable Capacity is based on the number of portables available and other administrative techniques which
can be used to temporarily house students until permanent facilities are available. This is a calculated number only
The actual number of portables that will be used will be based on actual student population needs
The District may begin to pull portables from the instructional inventory Age and condition of the portables
will determine feasibility for continued instructional use.
4. Capacity for unhoused students will be accommodated with traveling teachers and no planning time in some classrooms
22
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2006 CAPITAL FACILITES PLAN
CAPACITY SUMMARY - SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS
CAPACITY
6,629
Budget
- Projected - -
Calendar Year
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
School Year
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
20010/11
20011/12
BUILDING PROGRAM
HEADCOUNT CAPACITY
FTE CAPACITY
6,032
6,364
6,032
6,364
6,032
6,364
6,032
6,364
6,032
6,364
6,032
6,364
6,032
6,364
Add or subtract changes in capacity
Increase Capacity at Federal Way High School
$QO
Adjusted Program Headcount Capacity
6,032
6,032
6,032
6,032
6,032
6,032
6,832
Adjusted Program FTE Capacity
6,364
6,364
6,364
6,364
6,364
6,364
7,164
ENROLLMENT
Basic FTE Enrollment
6,629
6,744
6,844
6,828
6,813
6,695
6,681
1. Internet Academy (AAFTE)
164
164
164
1
164
1
164
164
164
Basic Ed without Internet Academy
6,465
6,580
6,680
6,664
6,649
6,531
6,517
SURPLUS OR (UNHOUSED)
1
1
1
1
1
1
625
PROGRAM CAPACITY
(433)
(548)
(648)
(632)
(617)
(499)
315
RELOCATABLE CAPACITY 2.
Current Portable Capacity
225
425
625
625
625
625
625
3 Add new portable capacity
204
200
Adjusted Portable Capacity
425
625
625
625
625
625
625
SURPLUS OR (UNHOUSED)
PROGRAM AND RELOCATABLE
1
4. CAPACITY
(8)
77
(23)
(7)
8
126
940
NOTES:
1. Internet Academy students are included in projections but do not require full time use of school facilities.
2 Relocatable Capacity is based on the number of portables available and other administrative techniques which
can be used to temporarily house students until permanent facilities are available This is a calculated number only.
The actual number of portables that will be used will be based on actual student population needs
3 Add Portable Capacity
4. Capacity for unhoused students will be accommodated with traveling teachers and no planning time in some classrooms.
Puget Sound Early College will house approximately 60 of the unhoused students This would provide program
for additional high school students.
23
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2006 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
King County, the City of Federal Wayland the City of Kent Impact Fee Calculations
Single and Multi -Family Residences
Each jurisdiction that imposes school impact fees requires that developers pay these fees to
help cover a share of the impact of new housing developments on school facilities.
To determine an equitable fee throughout unincorporated King County, a formula was
established. This formula can be found in King County Code 21A and was substantially
adopted by the City of Federal Way and Kent. The formula requires the District to establish a
"Student Generation Factor" which estimates how many students will be added to a school
district by each new single or multi -family unit and to gather some standard construction
costs, which are unique to that district.
- STUDENT GENERATION FACTOR ANALYSIS
Federal Way Public Schools student generation factor was determined separately for single-
family units and multi -family units The factors used in the 2006 Capital Facilities Plan were
derived using actual generation factors from single family units which were constructed in
the last five (5) years. The multi -family yield is derived from an average of other King
County school districts
- IMPACT FEE CALCULATION
Following the calculations for the student generation factor is a copy of the Impact Fee
Calculation for single family and multi -family units based on King County Code 21A and the
Growth Management Act.
➢ Temporary Facility Cost is the average cost of a portable purchased within the last 12
months.
➢ Site Acquisition Costs is the per acre cost of the last school site purchased (site 45); this
is a negotiated purchase price.
Plan Year 2006 Plan Year 2005
Collection Year 2006 Collection Year 2005
Single Family Units $3393. $2868
Multi -Family Units $ 895. $ 905
24
FEDERAL, WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2006CAPITAL FACILITIES PIAN
STUDENT GENERATION
NEW CONSTRUCTION IN PRIOR 5 YEARS
Single Fartnly Student Generation
DEVELOPMENT
Number of
Single Family
Dwellings
Number of
Multi-Femlly
Dwellings
Number of
Elementary
Students
Number of
Middle School
Students
Number of
Senior High
Students
Elementary
Student
Factor
Middle School
Student
Factor
Senior High
Student
Factor
Total
Student
Factor
04 Danville Station 1
35
0
10
4
5
02857
01143
01429
05429
04 Northlake Ridge
51
0
10
7
10
01961
01373
01961
05294
03 Hunters Glen
47
0
10
9
9
02128
01915
0 1915
05957
03 Bluffs at Redondo
28
0
9
5
B
03214
01786
02143
07143
02 Cedar Heights Estates
38
0
18
12
9
04737
03158
02368
1 0263
02 Silverwood
68
0
28
20
14
0 41 18
02941
02059
09118
Ot High Point Park
18
0
7
7
9
03889
03889
05000
12778
01 Woodhrook
120
0
22
14
19
01833
01167
01583
04583
00 YI eat Star Lake
26
0
7
6
5
02 692
02 08
208
0 1923
06923
(00) Dash Pc!nte
31
0 1
19
91
7 1
06129
02903
02258
1 1290
Total
462
0
140
93
93
Student Generation
D,3030
0.2013
82013
0.7056
Multi Family Student Generation
DEVELOPMENT
Number of
Single Family
Dwdlln s
Number of
Muhl -Family
Dwellln s
Number of
Elementary
Students
Number of
Middle School
Students
Number of
Senior High
Students
Elementary
Student
Factor
Middie School
Student
Factor
Senior Hlgh
Student
Factor
Tote]
Student
Factor
Lo at the Lakes
0
291
24
6
13
0 0825
00275
1 00447
0 1546
Brookside Village
0
75
10
7
10
0 1333
00933
1 0 1333
0 3600
Total
0
366
34
15
23
Student Generation
00929
04410
0.4628
011967
25
• FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2006 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
School Site Acquisition Cost:
Facility Cost/
Acreage Acre
Elementary
Middle School
Sr High
1MPACT FEE
Student Student
Facility Factor Factor
("anarity CFR MFR
Cost/ Cost/
SFR MFR
0 00
21 80
1 20
$0
$87,747
$173,833
417
921
1331
0 3030
0 2013
020131
0 0929
00410
00628
$0 $0
$418 $85
$316 $98
TOTAL
$734 $184
School Construction Cost:
$0
$18,352,956
$28,968,637
% Perm Fac /
Facility
Total Sq Ft
Cost
Elementary
Middle School
Sr High
Student Student
Facility Factor Factor Cost/ Cost/
Canacity SFR MFR SFR MFR
9660%
9660%
96 60%
$0
$18,352,956
$28,968,637
417
921
933
0 3030
02013
0 2013
00929
$0 $0
00410
0 0628
$3,875 $789
$6,038 $1,884
TOTAL
$9,913 $2,673
Temporary Facility Cost:
% Temp Fac Facility
Total Sq Ft Cost
Elementary
Middle School
Sr High
Student Student
Facility Factor Factor Cost/ Cosy
S,OP CFR MPR CFR MFR
3 40%
3 40%
3 40%
............_........ $0
$0
$82,151
25
25
25
0 3030
,..
0 2013
0 2013
0 0929
. 041
00410
0 0628
$0 $0
$0 $0
$22 $7
TOTAL
$22 $7
State Matching Credit Calculation:
Boeck Cosy Sq Ft State
Sq Ft Student Match
Elementary
Middle School
New Sr High
Student Student
Factor Factor Cosy Cosy
CFR MFR CFR MFR
$129 811
$129 81
$12981
90000%
117
130
000%
5997%
030301..
0 2013
0 2013
0 0929
00410
-00628
$0 $0
$0 $0
$2,037 1 $636
Total
$2,037 $636
Tax Payment Credit Calculation
Average Assessed Value (April 2005)
Capital Bond Interest Rate (March 2005)
Net Present Value of Average Dwelling
Years Amortized
Property Tax levy Rate
Present Value of Revenue Stream
SFR MFR
$224,943
$53,384
457%
457%
$1,773,800
$420,962
10
10
$104
$104
$1,845
$438
26
Single Family
Multi -Family
Residences
Residences
Mitigation Fee Surmnary
Site Acquisition Cost
$
734
$
184
Permanent Facility Cost
$
9,913
$
2,673
Temporary Facility Cost
$
22
$
7
State Match Credit
$
(2,037)
$
(636)
Tax Payment Credit
$
(1,845)
$
(438)
Sub -Total
$
6,787
$
1,790
50% Local Share
$
3,393
$
895
Im act Fee
$
3,393
$
895
26
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2006 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
SECTION 4
SUMMARY OF CHANGES FROM THE 2005 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
The 2006 Capital Facilities Plan is an updated document, based on the 2005 Capital Facilities
Plan. The changes between the 2005 Plan and the 2006 Plan are listed below
SECTION I - THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
SIX-YEAR FINANCE PLAN
The Six Year Finance Plan has been rolled forward to reflect 2006/2012
SECTION III - SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
CAPACITY
Elementary school capacity reflects program changes for the 2005/06 school year. Middle
School capacity changes reflect the opening of Sequoyah Middle School. Elementary
capacity includes space for All Day Kindergarten programs at every elementary school.
Bwlding Program Capacities are found on page 13.
PORTABLES
The list of portables reflects the movement of portables between facilities or new portables
purchased. Portable Locations can be found on page 15.
STUDENT FORECAST
The Student Forecast now covers 2006 through 2012 Enrollment history and projections are
found on page 18.
CAPACITY SUMMARY
The changes in the Capacity Summary are a reflection of the changes in the capacities and
student forecast. New schools and increased capacity at current buildings are shown as
increases to capacity. Capacity Summaries are found on pages 20-23
IMPACT FEE CALCULATION - KING COUNTY CODE 21A
The Impact Fee Calculations have changed due to changes in several factors The adjustment
made in the Impact Fee Calculation, causing a change in the Impact Fee between the 2005
Capital Facilities Plan and the 2006 Capital Facilities Plan can be found on page 29.
27
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2006 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
IMPACT FEE CALCULATION CHANGES FROM 2005 TO 2006
STUDENT GENERATION FACTORS
Student Generation factors are based on rates for new developments constructed over a
period of not more than five years prior to the date of the fee calculation. The changes in
student Generation factors between the 2005 Capital Facilities Plan and the 2006 Capital
Facilities Plan are due to developments that were deleted or added based upon the age of the
developments and the year placed in the survey. The Student Generation worksheet is found
on page 25.
SITE ACQUISITION COSTS
The negotiated purchase price for the Todd Beamer High School site was $80,000 per acre.
This is the base line cost for acreage for Sequoyah Middle School The assessed valuation
for the Federal Way Public Academy land was $521,000 at the time of purchase
The calculated cost per acre in the impact fee calculation is a weighted calculation using the
$80,000 per acre baseline cost and the assessed valuation at the time of purchase for the
Federal Way Public Academy. Federal Way Public Academy is a 3 -acre site. The grade span
for this facility is grades 6-10. Middle school accounts for 60% of the cost; senior high is
40%.
Sequoyah: 20 x $80,000 = $1,600,000
FWPA $ 312,900 (60 % of $521,500, 1.8 acres of 3 acre parcel)
Total Cost $1,912,900
Cost/Acreage $1,912,900/21.8 = $87,747 cost per acre
Senior High
FWPA $ 208,600 (40% of $521,500, 1.2 acres of 3 acre parcel)
Cost/Acreage $ 208,600/1.2 = $173,833 cost per acre
SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION COSTS
The cost for Federal Way Public Academy (exclusive of land) is $4,921,594 The Federal
Way Public Academy costs are split 60% to riddle school and 40% to senior high in the
impact fee calculation
Middle school construction costs = 60% of $4,921,594 $ 2,952,956 FWPA
$15,400,000 Sequoyah
Total Cost $18,352,956
The total cost for replacing Federal Way High School is projected to be $81m. The capacity
of the school would increase from approximately 1500 to 2400 students The Impact Fee
calculation used one-third, $27m as the basis for capacity increases at high school.
High school construction costs = 40% of $4,921,594 $ 1,9682,637 FWPA
$27,000,000 Federal Way High
Total Cost $28,9689637
NE
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2006 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
IMPACT FEE CALCULATION CHANGES FROM 2005 TO 2006
IMPACT FEE
Item From/To Comment
Percent of Permanent Facilities 96.32 to 96.60% Report #3 OSPI
Percent Temporary Facilities
Boeck Cost/Sq Ft
State Match
Average Assessed Value
Capital Bond Interest Rate
Popertyr Tax Levy Rate
Square Foot Allocations
Elementary
Middle School
High School
Single Family Student Yield
Elementary
Middle School
High School
Multi -Family Student Yield
Elementary
Middle School
High School
3.68 to 3.40%
$114 88 to $129.81
59.97 % (No Change)
SFR —
$213,859 to $224,943
MFR —
$44,571 to $539384
4.35% to 4.57%
$1.40 to $1.04
80 to 90 sq ft
110 to 117 sq ft
120 to 130 sq ft
.3138 to.3030
.1632 to .2013
1695 to .2013
.119 to .0929
.042 to .0410
.053 to .0628
29
Updated portable inventory
Change per OSPI
Per Puget Sound Educational
Service District (ESD 121)
Market Rate
King County Treasury Division
Legislative Change (Effective
2006/07)
Updated Housing Inventory
Updated Housing Inventory
31405 18th Ave So
Federal Way. WA
98003-5433
Tel 253 945 2000
v fwsd wedneL edu
April 26, 2005
Charlene Anderson
Planning Manager
City of Kent Planning Department
220 South 4th Avenue
Kent WA 98032
Dear Charlene,
Federal Way
Public Schools
Every Student, a Reader
Enclosed you will find a copy of the Environmental Checklist and the accompanying
Determination of Non -Significance for the Federal Way School District's 2005/06
Capital Facilities Plan.
The 14 -day comment period to submit written comments or to appeal the decision begins
on April 26, 2005 and will continue through 5 00 PM, May 10, 2005. Please let me know
if you have any questions or need any additional information.
Sincerely,
h 9
f li (vaz"4'
Gen Walker,
Enrollment and Demographic Analyst
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
Issued with a 14 Day comment and appeals period
Description of Proposal:
This threshold determination analyzes the environmental impacts associated with the
following actions, which are so closely related to each other that they are in effect a single action:
1. The adoption of the Federal Way Public Schools' 2005/06 Six Year Capital
Facilities Plan by the Federal Way Public Schools for the purposes of planning for the facilities
needs of the District.
2. The amendment of the King County Comprehensive Plan by King County to
include the Federal Way Public Schools' 2005/06 Capital Facilities Plan as part of the Capital
Facilities Plan Element of the King County Comprehensive Plan.
3. The amendment of the Comprehensive Plans of the City of Federal Way and the
City of Kent to include the Federal Way Public Schools' 2005/06 Capital Facilities Plan as part
of the Capital Facilities Plan Element of the City of Federal Way and the City of Kent's
Comprehensive Plan.
This proposal may also involve the amendment of the Comprehensive Plans of the Cities
of Auburn, and Des Moines to incorporate the Federal Way Public Schools' 2005/06 Capital
Facilities Plan into the Capital Facilities Element of each jurisdiction's Comprehensive Plan.
Proponent: Federal Way Public Schools
Location of the Proposal:
The Federal Way Public Schools District includes an area of approximately 35 square
miles The cities of Federal Way, Kent, Des Moines andAubum fall within the District's
boundaries, as do parts of unincorporated King County.
Lead Agency:
Federal Way Public Schools is the lead agency pursuant to WAC 197-11-926.
The lead agency for this proposal has determined that the proposal does not have a
probable significant adverse environmental impact on the environment. An environmental
impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made
after a review of the completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the
lead agency. This information is available to the public upon request.
This Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2). The
lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date of issue. Comments must be
submitted by 5:00 p m , May 10, 2005. The responsible official will reconsider the DNS based
on timely comments and may retain, modify, or, if significant adverse impacts are likely,
withdraw the DNS. If the DNS is retained, it will be final after the expiration of the comment
deadline.
Responsible Official: Ms Gen Walker
Enrollment and Demographic Analyst
Federal Way Public Schools
Telephone: (253) 945-2071
Address: 31405 18th Avenue South
Federal Way WA 98003
You may appeal this determination in writing by 5.00 p.m., May 10 2005 to Gen Walker,
Federal Way Public Schools, 31405 18th Avenue South, Federal Way, WA 98003
Date of Issue: April 26, 2005
Date Published: April 26, 2005
2
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
WAC 197-I1-960 Environmental Checklist.
Purpose of Checklist:
The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43 21C RCW, requires all governmental
agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental
impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on
the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the
agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be
done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required
Instructions for Applicants.
This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal
Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your
proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS Answer the questions briefly, with the most
precise information known, or give the best description you can
You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most
cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the
need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your
proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid
unnecessary delays later.
Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark
designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can
assist you.
The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a
period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe
your proposal or its environmental effects The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to
explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be
significant adverse impact.
1
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Use of checklist for nonproject proposals.
Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does
not apply" In addition, complete the Supplemental Sheet for nonproject actions (part D).
For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and
"property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively.
2
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
A. BACKGROUND
Name of proposed project, if applicable:
The adoption of a Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan by the Federal Way School District No 210 for
the purposes of planning for the District's facilities needs. The King County, City of Federal Way,
and the City of Kent's Comprehensive Plan will be amended to include the District's 2005/06
Capital Facilities Plan in the Capital Facilities Plan Element. This project may also involve the
amendment of the Comprehensive Plans of the cities of Des Moines and Auburn to incorporate the
District's 2005/06 Capital Facilities Plan. A copy of the District's Plan is available for review in
the District's offices
2. Name of applicant:
Federal Way School District No. 210.
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
Federal Way School District No. 210
31405 18th Avenue South
Federal Way WA 98003
(253)945-2000
Contact Person: Ms. Gen Walker
Enrollment and Boundary Analyst
Telephone: (253) 945-2071
4. Date checklist prepared:
April 26, 2005
5. Agency requesting checklist:
Federal Way School District No. 210
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
The Federal Way School District's 2005/06 Capital Facilities Plan is scheduled to be adopted by
the District in May 2005. The Capital Facilities Plan will be forwarded to King County, the City of
Federal Way and the City of Kent for inclusion in each jurisdiction's Comprehensive Plan. It will
also be forwarded to the cities of Des Moines and Auburn for possible inclusion in these
jurisdiction's Comprehensive Plans The District will continue to update the Capital Facilities Plan
annually The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be subject to
project -specific environmental review
K
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or
connected with this proposal? If yes, explain.
The Capital Facilities Plan sets forth the capital improvement projects that the District plans to
implement over the next six years These include purchase and siting of temporary facilities and
construction of a middle school and increasing high school capacity.
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be
prepared, directly related to this proposal.
The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will undergo adchuonal environmental review,
when appropriate, as they are developed.
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other
proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain.
Land use approvals are pending for placing new portable buildings at Federal Way High School,
30611 16`h Ave S, Federal Way; Decatur High School, 2800 SW 320`h ST, Federal Way and
Thomas Jefferson High School, 4248 S 288`h St, Auburn WA
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known.
The District anticipates that King County, the City of Federal Way and the City of Kent will adopt
this Capital Facilities Plan into their Comprehensive Plan. The cities of Des Moines and Auburn
may also adopt this Capital Facilities Plan into the Capital Facilities Elements of their
Comprehensive Plans (when issued).
11. Give a brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the
size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to
describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page.
(Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project
description.)
This is a non -project action. This proposal involves the adoption of the Federal Way School
District's 2005/06 Capital Facilities Plan for the purpose of planning the District's facilities needs
The District's Capital Facilities Plan will be incorporated into King County's, the City Federal
Way, and the City of Kent's Comprehensive Plans It may also be incorporated into the
Comprehensive Plans of the cities of Des Moines and Auburn The projects included in the
Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be subject to project -specific environmental review. A
copy of the Capital Facilities Plan may be viewed at the District's offices.
4
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the
precise location of your proposed project, including a street address if any, and section, township,
and range, if known If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or
boundaries of the site(s) Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map,
if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not
required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this
checklist.
The Capital Facilities Plan will affect the Federal Way School District The District includes an
area of approximately 35 square imles. The City of Federal Way, parts of the cities of Kent, Des
Moines and Auburn, parts of unincorporated King County, fall within the District's boundaries A
detailed map of the District's boundaries can be viewed at the District's offices.
5
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. Earth
a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous,
other
The Federal Way School District is comprised of a variety of topographic land forms and
gradients. Specific topographic characteristics of the sites at which the projects included in the
Capital Facilities Plan are located have been or will be identified during project -level
environmental review when appropriate.
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)?
Specific slope characteristics at the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan
have been or will be identified during project -level environmental review.
c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat,
muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime
farmland.
Specific soil types found at the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have
been or will be identified during project -level environmental review when appropriate.
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so,
describe.
Unstable soils may exist within the Federal Way School District. Specific soil limitations on
individual protect sites have been or will be identified at the time of project -level environmental
review when appropriate.
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed.
Indicate source of fill.
Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be subject, when
appropriate, to protect -specific environmental review and local approval at the time of proposal.
Proposed grading projects, as well as the purpose, type, quantity, and source of any fill
materials to be used have been or will be identified at that time.
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe.
It is possible that erosion could occur as a result of the construction projects currently proposed
in the Capital Facilities Plan. The erosion impacts of the individual projects have been or will
be evaluated on a site-specific basis at the time of project -specific environmental review when
appropriate Individual projects have been or will be subject to local approval processes.
6
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project
construction (for example, asphalt or buildings?)
The proposed new school facilities included in the Capital Facilities Plan as well as the
proposed renovation projects will require the construction of impervious surfaces The extent of
any impervious cover constructed will vary with each capital facilities project included in the
Capital Facilities Plan This issue has been or will be addressed during project -specific
environmental review when appropriate
It. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any:
The erosion potential of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan and appropriate
control measures have been or will be addressed during project -specific environmental review
when appropriate. Relevant erosion reduction and control requirements will be met.
2. Air
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i e., dust, automobile,
odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any,
generally describe and give approximate quantities if known.
Various emissions, many construction -related, may result from the individual projects included
in the Capital Facilities Plan The air-quality impacts of each project have been or will be
evaluated during project -specific environmental review when appropriate Please see the
Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions.
b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so,
generally describe.
Any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect the individual projects included in the
Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project -specific environmental
review when appropriate.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any:
The individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be subject to
project -specific environmental review when appropriate and relevant local approval processes.
The District will be required to comply with all applicable air regulations and air permit
requirements Proposed measures specific to the individual projects included in the Capital
Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project -specific environmental review
when appropriate. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions.
7
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
3. Water
a. Surface:
1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including
year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)9 If yes, describe type
and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into.
There is a network of surface water bodies within the Federal Way School District. The
surface water bodies that are in the immediate vicinity of the projects included in the
Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified during project -specific environmental
review when appropriate. When necessary, the surface water regimes and flow patterns
have been or will be researched and incorporated into the designs of the individual
protects.
2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the
described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans
The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may require work near the surface
waters located within the Federal Way School District. Applicable local approval
requirements have been or will be satisfied
3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed
from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected.
Indicate the source of fill material.
Information with respect to the placement or removal of fill and dredge material as a
component of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan has been or will be
provided during project -specific environmental review when appropriate. Applicable local
regulations have been or will be satisfied.
4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
Any surface water withdrawals or diversions required in connection with the projects
included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project -
specific environmental review when appropriate.
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site
plan.
Each project included in the Capital Facilities Plan, if located in a floodplain area, will be
required to meet applicable local regulations for flood areas.
6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If
so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge
8
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Specific information regarding the discharge of waste materials that may be required as a
result of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan has been or will be provided
during project -specific environmental review when appropriate. Please see the
Supplemental Sheet for Nonprolect Actions
b. Ground:
1) Will groundwater be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to groundwater9 Give
general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may impact groundwater
resources. The impact of the individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan on
groundwater resources has been or will be addressed during project -specific environmental
review when appropriate Each project is or will be subject to applicable local regulations
Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonprglect Actions
2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or
other sources, if any (for example Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following
chemicals ...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of
such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals
or humans the system(s) are expected to serve.
The discharges of waste material that may take place in connection with the projects
included in the Plan have been or will be addressed during project -specific environmental
review.
c. Water Runoff (including storm water):
1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and
disposal, if any (include quantities, if known) Where will this water flow? Will this water
flow into other waters? If so, describe.
Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may have storm water runoff
consequences Specific information regarding the storm water impacts of each project has
been or will be provided during project -specific environmental review when appropriate.
Each project is or will be subject to applicable local storm water regulations.
9
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe.
The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may result in the discharge of waste
materials into ground or surface waters The specific impacts of each project on ground
and surface waters have been or will be identified during project -specific environmental
review when appropriate. Each project is or will be subject to all applicable regulations
regarding the discharge of waste materials into ground and surface waters. Please see the
Supplemental Sheet for Nonprolect Actions
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any:
Specific measures to reduce or control runoff impacts associated with the projects included in
the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project -specific environmental
review when appropriate.
4. Plants:
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site:
deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other
evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other
shrubs
grass
pasture
crop or grain
wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other
water plants water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other
other types of vegetation
A variety of vegetative zones are located within the Federal Way School District Inventories of
the vegetation located on the sites of the projects proposed in the Capital Facilities Plan have
been or will be developed during project -specific environmental review when appropriate.
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered9
Some of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may require the removal or
alteration of vegetation. The specific impacts on vegetation of the projects included in the
Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified during project -specific environmental
review when appropriate.
c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
The specific impacts to these species from the individual projects included in the Capital
Facilities Plan have been or will be deternimed during project -specific environmental review
when appropriate.
10
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plans, or other measures to preserve or enhance
vegetation on the site, if any:
Measures to preserve or enhance vegetation at the sites of the projects included in the Capital
Facilities Plan have been or will be identified during project -specific environmental review
when appropriate. Each project is or will be subject to applicable local landscaping
requirements.
5. Animals:
a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to
be on or near the site.
birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: _
mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other
fish bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other:
An inventory of species that have been observed on or near the sites of the projects proposed in
the Capital Facilities Plan has been or will be developed during project -specific environmental
review when appropriate.
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
Inventones of threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the sites of the projects
included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be developed during project -specific
environmental review when appropriate.
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain.
The impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan on migration routes have
been or will be addressed during project -specific environmental review when appropriate.
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:
Appropriate measures to preserve or enhance wildlife have been or will be determined during
project -specific environmental review when appropriate
11
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
6. Energy and Natural Resources:
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the
completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing,
etc.
The State Board of Education requires the completion of a life cycle cost analysis of all heating,
lighting, and insulation systems before it will permit specific school projects to proceed The
energy needs of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be
determined at the time of specific engineering and site design planning when appropriate
Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions.
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so,
generally describe:
The impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan on the solar potential of
adjacent projects have been or will be addressed during project -specific environmental review
when appropriate.
c. What lands of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List
other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any:
Energy conservation measures proposed in connection with the projects included in the Capital
Facilities Plan have been or will be considered during project -specific environmental review
when appropriate.
7. Environmental Health:
a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of
fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so,
describe
Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions.
1) Describe special emergency services that might be required.
Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions.
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any.
The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will comply with all current codes,
standards, rules, and regulations. Individual projects have been or will be subject to
project -specific environmental review and local approval at the time they are developed
when appropriate.
12
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
b. Noise:
1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example.
traffic, equipment, operation, other)?
A variety of noises from traffic, construction, residential, commercial and industrial areas
exists within the Federal Way School District. The specific noise sources that may affect
the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified during
project -specific environmental review when appropriate.
2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project
on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)?
Indicate what hours noise would come from the site.
The District does not anticipate that the projects will create long-term increases in traffic -
related or operations -related noise levels.
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any:
The projected noise impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have
been or will be evaluated and mitigated during project -specific environmental review when
appropriate. Each project is or will be subject to applicable local regulations.
S. Land and Shoreline Use:
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?
There are a variety of land uses within the Federal Way School District, including residential,
commercial, industrial, institutional, utility, open space, recreational, etc.
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe.
The project sites covered under the Capital Facilities Plan have not been used recently for
agriculture.
c. Describe any structures on the site.
The structures located on the proposed sites for the projects included in the Capital Facilities
Plan have been or will be identified and described during project -specific environmental review
when appropriate.
13
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
The remodeling and renovation projects will require the demolishment of school structures. The
structures that will be demolished as a result of the projects included in the Capital Facilities
Plan have been or will be identified during project -specific environmental review when
appropriate.
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site?
The sites that are covered under the Capital Facilities Plan have a variety of zoning
classifications under the applicable zoning codes. Site-specific zoning information has been or
will be identified during project -specific environmental review when appropriate.
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?
Inventories of the comprehensive plan designations for the sites of the projects included in the
Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be completed during project -specific environmental
review when appropriate
g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site?
Shoreline master program designations of the sites of the projects included in the Capital
Facilities Plan have been or will be identified during project -specific environmental review
when appropriate.
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so,
specify.
Any environmentally sensitive areas located on the sites of the projects included in the Plan
have been or will be identified during project -specific environmental review.
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project?
The Federal Way School District currently serves approximately 22,400 students. The student
population is expected to increase to 23,300 by the year 2010. The District employs
approximately 3,100 people.
j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace9
Any displacement of people caused by the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan has
been or will be evaluated during project -specific environmental review when appropriate.
However, it is not anticipated that the Capital Facilities Plan, or any of the projects contained
therein, will displace any people.
14
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any:
Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will be subject to project -specific
environmental review and local approval when appropnate Proposed mitigating measures will
be proposed at that time, if necessary
1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land
uses and plans, if any:
The compatibility of the specific projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan with existing
uses and plans has been or will be assessed as part of the comprehensive planning process and
during project -specific environmental review when appropriate.
9. Housing:
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle,
or low-income housing.
No housing units would be provided in connection with the completion of the projects included
in the Capital Facilities Plan.
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high,
middle, or low-income housing.
It is not anticipated that the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will eliminate any
housing units. The impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan on existing
housing have been or will be evaluated during project -specific environmental review when
appropriate.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:
Measures to reduce or control any housing impacts caused by the projects included in the
Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project -specific environmental
review when appropriate.
10. Aesthetics:
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the
principal exterior building material(s) proposed?
The aesthetic impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be
addressed during project -specific environmental review when appropriate.
15
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?
The aesthetic impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be
determined during protect -specific environmental review when appropriate
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any:
Appropriate measures to reduce or control the aesthetic impacts of the projects included in the
Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be determined on a project -specific basis when
appropriate.
11. Light and Glare:
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly
occur?
The light or glare impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or
will be addressed during project -specific environmental review.
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views?
The light or glare impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or
will be addressed during project -specific environmental review when appropriate.
c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?
Off-site sources of light or glare that may affect the projects included in the Capital Facilities
Plan have been or will be evaluated during project -specific environmental review when
appropriate.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any:
Proposed measures to mitigate light and glare impacts have been or will be addressed during
project -specific environmental review when appropriate.
12 Recreation:
a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity?
There are a variety of formal and informal recreational facilities within the Federal Way School
District.
16
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe
The recreational impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will
be addressed during project -specific environmental review when appropriate. The projects
included in the Capital Facilities Plan, including proposed renovated school and support
facilities, may enhance recreational opportunities and uses.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation
opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any:
Adverse recreational effects of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or
will be subject to mitigation during protect -specific environmental review when appropriate A
school site usually provides recreational facilities to the community in the form of play fields
and gymnasiums.
13. Historic and Cultural Preservation:
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local
preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe.
There are no known places or objects listed on, or proposed for such registers on the sites of the
projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan. The existence of historic and cultural resources
on or next to the sites has been or will be addressed in more detail during project -specific
environmental review when appropriate.
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or
cultural importance known to be on or next to the site.
An inventory of historical sites at or near the sites of the projects included in the Capital
Facilities Plan has been or will be developed during project -specific environmental review
when appropriate.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any:
Appropriate measures have been or will be proposed on a project -specific basis when
appropriate.
14. Transportation -
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the
existing street system. Show on site plans, if any
The impact on public streets and highways of the individual projects included in the Capital
Facilities Plan has been or will be addressed during project -specific environmental review when
appropriate.
17
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the
nearest transit stop?
The relationship between the specific projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan and public
transit has been or will be addressed during project -specific environmental review when
appropriate.
c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the
project eliminate?
An inventory of parking spaces located at the sites of the projects included in the Capital
Facilities Plan and the impacts of specific projects on parking availability has been or will be
conducted during project -specific environmental review when appropriate.
d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or
streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private).
The need for new streets or roads, or improvements to existing streets and roads has been or
will be addressed during project -specific environmental review when appropriate.
e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation?
If so, generally describe.
Use of water, rail, or air transportation has been or will be addressed during project -specific
environmental review when appropnate.
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known,
indicate when peak volumes would occur.
The traffic impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be
addressed during project -specific environmental review when appropriate.
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any:
The mitigation of traffic impacts associated with the projects included in the Capital Facilities
Plan has been or will be addressed during project -specific environmental review when
appropriate.
15. Public Services:
a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire
protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe.
The District does not anticipate that the projects identified in the Capital Facilities Plan will
substantially increase the need for other public services.
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any
18
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Remodeled/renovated school or facilities will be built with automatic security systems, fire
alarms, smoke alarms, heat sensors, and sprinkler systems.
16. Utilities:
a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service,
telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other.
Electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, and sanitary sewer utilities are
available at the sites of the projects proposed in the Capital Facilities Plan. The types of utilities
available at specific project sites have been or will be addressed in more detail during project -
specific environmental review when appropriate.
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the protect, the utility providing the service, and
the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be
needed.
Utility revisions and construction needs have been or will be identified during project -specific
environmental review when appropriate.
C. SIGNATURE
The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead
agency is relying on them to make its decision.
Signatur J' A44,11 c
Date Submitted: April 26, 2005
W9
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS
(do not use this sheet for project actions)
Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the
list of the elements of the environment.
When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities
likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the
proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms.
1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air;
production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise?
To the extent the Capital Facilities Plan makes it more likely that school facilities will be
constructed and/or renovated and remodeled, some of these environmental impacts will be more
likely Additional impermeable surfaces, such as roofs, parking lots, sidewalks, access roads,
and playgrounds could increase storm water runoff, which could enter surface or ground waters.
Heating systems, emergency generators, and other school equipment that is installed pursuant to
the Capital Facilities Plan could result in air emissions. The projects included in the Capital
Facilities Plan should not require the production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous
substances, with the possible exception of the storage of diesel fuel or gasoline for emergency
generating equipment. The District does not anticipate a significant increase in the production
of noise from its facilities, although the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will
increase the District's student capacities.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are:
Proposed measures to mitigate any such increases described above have been or will be
addressed during project -specific environmental review when appropriate. Storm water
detention and runoff will meet applicable County and/or City requirements and may be subject
to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permitting requirements.
Discharges to air will meet applicable air pollution control requirements Fuel oil will be stored
in accordance with local and state requirements.
2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life?
The Capital Facilities Plan itself will have no impact on these elements of the environment.
These impacts have been or will be addressed in more detail during project -specific
environmental review when appropriate. The projects included in the Plan are not likely to
generate severe impacts on fish or marine life.
Ell
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are:
Specific measures to protect and conserve plants, animals, and fish cannot be identified at this
time. Specific mitigation proposals have been or will be identified, however, during project -
specific environmental review when appropriate.
3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources?
The construction of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will require the
consumption of energy.
Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are:
The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will be constructed in accordance with
applicable energy efficiency standards.
4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas
designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild
and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands,
floodplains, or prime farmlands?
The Capital Facilities Plan and individual projects contained therein should have no impact on
these resources.
Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are:
Appropriate measures have been or will be proposed during project -specific environmental
review when appropriate. Updates of this Plan will be coordinated with King County and the
cities of Federal Way, Kent, Des Moines, and Auburn as part of the Growth Management Act
process, one of the purposes of which is to protect environmentally sensitive areas. To the
extent the District's facilities planning process is part of the overall growth management
planning process, these resources are more likely to be protected.
5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it
would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans9
The Capital Facilities Plan will not have any impact on land or shoreline use that is
incompatible with existing comprehensive plans, land use codes, or shoreline management
plans. The District does not anticipate that the Capital Facilities Plan or the projects contained
therein will directly affect land and shoreline uses in the area served by the District.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are:
No measures to avoid or reduce land use impacts resulting from the Capital Facilities Plan or
the projects contained therein are proposed at this time.
21
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services
and utilities?
The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may create temporary increases in the
District's need for public services and utilities. Upon the completion of the projects included in
the Capital Facilities Plan, however, the District does not anticipate that its need for public
services and utilities will increase substantially beyond existing levels.
Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are:
No measures to reduce or respond to such demands are proposed at this time.
7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or
requirements for the protection of the environment.
The Capital Facilities Plan will not conflict with any laws or requirements for the protection of
the environment
22
AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT AVENUE TO EXCELLENCE
June 23, 2005
Charlene Anderson
City of Kent
220 Fourth Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032-5895
Dear Ms. Anderson,
R� cv
SUN �� � 2005
?LigWIG SE�ICES
Enclosed you will find two (2) copies of the Auburn School District Capital Facilities
Plan for 2005 through 2011. The Plan has been prepared and adopted by the Auburn
School District Board of Directors on April 25, 2005, in conformance with the Growth
Management statutes of the State of Washington.
Included in the Plan are the folloyAng:
❑ Six -Year Enrollment Projections
❑ Auburn School District Standard of Service
❑ The District's overall capacity of the 6 -year period
❑ An inventory of existing facilities
❑ Impact Fee Computations
❑ District Capital Construction Plan
The Auburn School District Board of Directors is requesting the plan be adopted by
reference as part of the capital facilities element of the City of Kent's Comprehensive
Plan.
Please advise if additional information is required or needed. Thank you for your
assistance.
*Sincerel
lNe
te Su tendent
Business and Operations
Copy to:
Linda Cowan, Superintendent, Auburn School District w/o enclosure
Grace Yuan, Preston Gates & Ellis w/o enclosure
Jeff Grose, Executive Director of Capital Projects w/o enclosure
915 Fourth Street NE; Aubum, WA 980024152 (253) 9314930
a►ni+a►I Facilities Vic
' - Fpaisnvse�
Xardiovev Arrhilvrmral Giniparq•
Adopted by the Auburn School Board of Directors - April 25, 2005
Auburn School District No. 408 - 915 4th Street NE, Auburn, WA 98002
AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 408
915 Fourth Street NE
Auburn, Washington 98002
(253) 931-4900
Serving Students in:
Unincorporated King County
Unincorporated Pierce County
City of Aubum
City of Algona
City of Kent
City of Pacific
BOARD of DIRECTORS
Janice Nelson
Ray Vefik
Carol Helgerson
Craig Schumaker
Therald Leonard
Linda S. Cowan, Superintendent
..AA&66
AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT
"Avenue to Excellence"
Table of Contents
Section I Executive Summary ....................... Page 1
Section II Enrollment Projections ..................... Page 6
Section III Standard of Service ...................... Page 8
Section N Inventory of Facilities ...................... Page 15
Section V Pupil Capacity ................................ Page 18
Section VI Capital Construction Plan ................. Page 20
Section VII Impact Fees .................................. Page 23
Section Vlll Appendices.... Page 27
Appendix A.1 - Student Enrollment Projections Page 28
Appendix A2 - Capital FacAlmes Plan Projections Page 42
Appendix A3 - Student Generation Survey Page 45
Auburn School District No. 408
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2005 through 2011
I. Executive Summary
This Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan (the "Plan's has been prepared by the Aubum
School District (the "District") as the District's principal planning document, in
compliance with the requirements of Washington's Growth Management Act and the
adopted ordinances of the counties and cities served by the Distnct. This plan was
prepared using data available in the spring of 2005
This Plan is consistent with prior long-term capital facilities plans adopted by the District.
However, this Plan is not intended to be the sole plan for all of the District's needs. The
District may prepare intenm and periodic Long Range Capital Facilities Plans consistent
with Board Policies and actions, taking into account a longer or a shorter time period,
other factors and trends in the use of facilities, and other needs of the District as may be
required. However, any such plan or plans will be consistent with this Six -Year Capital
Facilities Plan.
To enable the collection of impact fees in the unincorporated areas of King County and
Pierce County and within the City of Auburn and City of Kent; the King County Council,
the Pierce County Council, the City of Auburn and the City of Kent will adopt this Plan by
reference as part of each junsdiction's respective comprehensive plan. To enable the
collection of impact fees in the Cities of Algona and Pacific, these municipalities must
also adopt this Plan and adopt school impact fee ordinances.
Pursuant to the requirements of the Growth Management Act, the Plan will be updated
on an annual basis, and any changes in the fee schedule(s) adjusted accordingly.
The Plan establishes the District's "standard of service' in order to ascertain the
District's current and future capacity While the State Superintendent of Public
Instruction establishes square footage guidelines for capacity, those guidelines do not
account for the local program needs of the District. The Growth Management Act and
the school impact fee ordinance authorize the District to define its standard of service
based on the District's specific needs In general, the District's current standard
provides that class size for grades K-2 should not exceed 25 students; class size for
grades 3-4 should not exceed 27 students; class size for grade 5 should not exceed 30
students. When averaged over the six elementary grades, this computes to 26.5
students per classroom. Class size for grades 6-12 should not exceed 30 students, with
some subject areas restricted to lesser numbers (See Section III for more specific
information.)
The capacity of the schools in the District is calculated based on this standard of service
and the existing inventory of facilities including transitional classrooms. The District's
2004-05 capacity was 12,883 whereas Full Time Equivalent ("FTE") enrollment for this
same period was 13,031.89. The actual number of individual students was 13,672 as of
October 1, 2004 (See Section V for more specific information.)
The capital construction plan shown in Section VI addresses the additions to the
District's existing facilities currently underway and provides for a new high school
approved by the voters in February 2003 and the addition of two new elementary
schools approved by the voters in February 2005 Also, the acquisition of a new middle
school site and construction of a new middle school is needed to accommodate growth.
The new facilities are required to meet the projected student population increase to be
generated from the large development areas within the Auburn School District. Two
areas that have significant impact on the school district are the Lakeland South and the
Lea Hill areas of the district. There are other pockets of development that impact the
District as well. The Pierce County area includes most of the Lakeland South
development and some adjacent undeveloped properties. The City of Kent has an area
of approximately 158 acres that was sold to developers in 2004.
The School Impact Fee Ordinances adopted by King County, Pierce County, the City of
Auburn and City of Kent provide for the assessment of impact fees to assist in meeting
some of the fiscal impact incurred by a District experiencing growth and development.
Section VII sets forth the proposed school impact fees for single family and multi -family
dwelling units The student generation factors have been generated using the students
who actually attend school in the Auburn School District from single family and multi-
family developments constructed in the last five years. The method of collecting the
data is with the use of GIS mapping software, data from King County and Pierce County
GIS, and to integrate the mapping with student data from the District data system. This
method gives the District actual student generation numbers for each grade span for
identified developments. This data is contained in Appendix A.3.
Auburn Sarva tWa No. 408
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
soon mrouyn 2011
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN CHANGES FROM 2004 TO 2005
Listed below is a summary level outline of the changes from the 2004 Capital
Facilities Plan that are a part of the 2005 Plan. The changes are noted by Section
for ease of reference.
aallsistili
Executive Summary
A. Updated to reflect new information within the Plan.
B. Summary level list of changes from previous year
111tSL2t71L
Enrollment Projections
Updated projections. See Appendices A.1 & A.2.
11101211-111
Standard of Service
A. Increase in English as a Second Language program required 1 additional
classroom at the high school level
B. Increase of 2 Computer labs at high school level
C. Increase of 4 learning specialist classrooms at elementary level
D. Increase of 1 early childhood classroom at elementary level
22t
Inventory of Facilities
A. Updated to include Auburn Mountainview High School in inventory opening 2005
B. Updated to reflect addition of 3 relocatable units at Lea Hill Elementary School.
and 2 relocatables units at Mt Baker Middle School.
120211y
Pupil Capactty
A. Updated to include Auburn Mountainview High School in inventory opening 2005.
B. Updated to reflect addition of 3 re locatable units at Lea Hill Elementary School.
and 2 relocatables units at Mt Baker Middle School
Aubum Sdiod DkM No 408
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2005 thrm9h 2011
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Section VII
Impact Fees CHANGES TO IMPACT FEE DATA ELEMENTS 2004 to 2005
DATA ELEMENTS
CPF
2004
CPF
2005
EXPLANATION
Student Generation Factors
Single Family
Consistent with King County Ordinance 11621,
Elementary
02964
0.3216
Student Generation Factors are calculated
Mid School
0.1353
01584
by the school district based on district
Sr High
01503
0.1632
records of average actual student generation
Mufti -Family
rates for new developments constructed
Elementary
0.0846
0.0687
over the last five years.
Mid School
00455
00462
Sr. High
0.0533
00486
Boeckh Index
$129.81
$129.81
Updated to projected SPI schedule (G. Beck)
Match % - State
54.19%
5586%
Updated to current SPI schedule.
Match % - District
4581%
44.14%
Computed
District Average AV
Single Family
$206,623
$218,805
Updated from February 2005 King County
Dept of Assessments data.
Multi -Family
$52,994
$55,264
Updated from February 2005 Kraig County
Dept of Assessments data using weighted
average
Debt Sery Tax Rate
$218
$2.49
Current Fiscal Year
GO Bond Int Rate
4.35%
463%
Current Rate (Bond Buyers 20 Index 3-05)
Section
Appendices
Appendix A.1 - Updated enrollment projections from October 1, 2004
Appendix A.2 - Updates enrollment projections vnth anticipated buildout schedule.
Appendix A.3 - Student Generation Survey
Aubum Sdiod DkMd No 408
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2006 throlph 2011
ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS
The Auburn School District uses a modified cohort survival model to project future enrollment for all
of the Districts operations. Table 11.1 is an extract from the comprehensive projection model found in
Appendix A.2 titled "CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Enrollment Projections" This Table shows the
anticipated enrollment for the next six years based on the previous 13 year history of the District under the
assumptions set forth in the comprehensive projections, Appendix A.1, and the projection for additional
students generated from the Lakeland South and Lea Hill areas as shown in Appendix A 2
TABLE
ASD ENROLLMENT
2005-2006
11.7
PROJECTIONS Oct 2004
2008-2009
2009-2010
ACTUAL
PROJ
PROJ
PROJ
PROJ
PROJ
PROJ
GRADE
20042005
2005.2006
2006-2007
2007-2008
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
KDG
892
917
936
936
944
952
961
1
960
976
992
1011
1011
1019
1027
2
992
994
1001
1016
1035
1035
1043
3
918
1042
1035
1041
1056
1075
1075
4
1016
968
1082
1074
1081
1096
1114
5
957
1062
1004
1118
1110
1116
1131
K-5
5735
5959
6051
6196
6236
6293
6352
6
1020
1004
1099
1040
1154
1146
1153
7
1124
1061
1035
1130
1071
1185
1177
8
1130
1165
1093
1066
1160
1102
1215
6-8
3274
3231
3227
3236
3385
3432
3545
9
1461
1560
1582
1509
1482
1576
1517
10
1261
1343
1430
1451
1378
1351
1445
11
1055
1153
1225
1311
1333
1259
1232
12
886
959
1048
1119
1206
1227
1154
9-12
4663
5014
5285
5391
5398
5414
5349
TOTALS
13672 1
14204
14563
14823
15020
15139
1 15246
GRADES K-12
20042005
2005-2006
2006-2007
2007-2008
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
WK K @112
5289
5501
5583
5728
5764
5817
5871
6-8
3274
3231
3227
3236
3385
3432
3545
9-12
4663
5014
5285
5391
5398
5414
5349
K-12 w/K 112
13226
13745
14095
14355
146 48
14663
14765
Aubum School Dhthicl No 408
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2006 through 1011
STANDARD OF SERVICE
The School Impact Fee Ordinances adopted by Icing County, Pierce County, the City of Auburn
and the City of Kent indicate that each school district must establish a "Standard of Service" in
order to ascertain the overall capacity to house its projected student population. The Superintendent
of Public instruction establishes square footage "capacffy" guidelines for computing state funding
support. The fundamental purpose of the SPI guidelines is to provide a vehicle to equitably
distribute state matching funds for school construction projects. By default these guidelines
have been used to benchmark the district's capacity to house its student population The SPI
guidelines do not make adequate provision for local district program needs, facility configurations,
emerging educational reform, or the dynamics of each student's educational program The Aubum
School District Standard of Service addresses those local considerations that require space in
excess of the SPI guidelines The effect on the space requirements for both permanent and
relocatable facilities is shown below for each grade articulation pattern. Conditions that may
result in potential space needs are provided for information purposes without accompanying
computations.
OVERVIEW
The Aubum School District operates twelve elementary schools housing 5,735 students in grades
K through 5 The 867 of the 892 Kindergarten students attend 112 days throughout the year Grades 1
through 5, plus 25 kindergartners, attend on a full day basis When converted to a full time equivalence
the K-5 enrollment is 5,302. Four middle schools house 3,274 students in grades 6 through 8 The District
operates two comprehensive senior high schools and one aftemative high school housing 4,683
students in grades 9 through 12. The District will open the fourth high school in the fall of 2005
CLASS SIZE
The number of pupils per classroom determines the number of Classrooms required to house the
student population. Class sizes are subject to collective bargaining Changes to class size
agreements can have significant impact on available "Co.
The current pupiUteacher limit across all elementary programs is an average of 26 5 students per
teacher. Consistent with this staffing limit, room capacities are set at 26.5 students per room at grades
K - 5. At grades 6 -12 the limit is set at 30 pupils per room The SPI space allocation for each grade
articulation level, less the computed reduction for the Aubum School District Standard of Service,
determines the District's capacity to house projected pupil populations. These reductions are shown
below by grade articulation level
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
STRUCTURED LEARNING AND BEHAVIOR AND DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED SPECIAL EDUCAT701
The Aubum School District operates a structured learning program for students with moderate disabilities at the
elementary school level which currently uses nine classrooms to provide for 80 students. The
housing requirements for this program are provided for in the SPI space guidelines. No loss of
capacity is expected unless population with disabilities grows at a disproportionate rate compared to
total elementary population.
Aubum Sdad Mbrict No. 408
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2006 through 2011
STANDARD OF SERVICE
SPECIAL EDUCATION RESOURCE ROOMS
The Auburn School District operates a resource room program at the elementary level for
special education students requiring instruction to address their specific disabilities Fifteen standard
classrooms are required to house this program The housing requirements for this program exceed
the SPI space guidelines by ten standard classrooms. The loss of capacity is expected as growth
in program is larger than the total elementary population.
Loss of Permanent Capacity 10 rooms @ 26.5 each = (265)
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 26.5 each = 0
Total Capacity Loss (265)
NATIVE AMERICAN RESOURCE ROOM
The Auburn School District operates one resource room to support the education of Native American
students at the elementary level. One standard classroom Is fully dedicated to serve these students.
Loss of Permanent Capacity 1 room (4126.5 each = (27)
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms a 26 5 each = 0
Total Capacity Loss (27)
HEAD START
The Auburn School District operates a Head Start program for approximately 118 youngsters in six
sections of 112 day in length The program is housed at Evergreen Heights Elementary School and
utilizes three standard elementary classrooms and auxiliary office space. The housing
requirements for this program are not provided for in the SPI space guidelines.
Loss of Permanent Capacity 3 rooms C 26.5 each = (80)
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms Q 26.5 each = 0
Total Capacity Loss (80)
EARLY CHILDHOOD SPECIAL EDUCATION
The Auburn School District operates a pre-school program for young children with disabilities below
age five. This program is housed at nine different elementary schools and currently uses nine
standard classrooms. The housing requirements for this program are not provided for in the SPI
space guidelines.
Loss of Permanent Capacity 9 rooms 4126.5 each = (239)
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms ® 28.5 each = 0
Total Capacity Loss (239)
10
Auburn Sdwd District No 408
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2005 through 2011
STANDARD OF SERVICE
READING LASS
The Auburn School District operates a program for students needing remediation and additional
language arts Instruction. These programs utilize non-standard classroom spaces if available in
each elementary school. Four elementary schools do not have non-standard rooms available, thus
they are housed in a standard classroom. The housing requirements for this program are not
provided for in the SPI space guidelines.
Loss of Permanent Capacity 4 rooms 26.5 each = (106)
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms 26 5 each = 0
Total Capacity Loss (106)
MUSIC ROOMS
The district elementary music programs require one acoustically modified classroom at each
elementary school for music instruction The housing requirements are not provided for
in the SPI space guidelines.
Loss of Permanent Capacity 12 rooms 26.5 each = (318)
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms 26.5 each = 0
Total Capacity Loss (318)
ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE PROGRAM
The Auburn School District operates a pullout program at the elementary school level for students
learning English as a second language This program requires twelve standard classrooms that are not
provided for in the SPI space guidelines.
Loss of Permanent Capacity 12 rooms C 26.5 each = (318)
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms Q 26.5 each = 0
Total Capacity Loss (318)
SECOND GRADE TOSA PROGRAM
The Auburn School District provides a TOSA reading specialist program for nine highly Impacted
elementary schools. This pullout model provides direct instruction to students who are not at grade
level and do not receive other services This program requires nine standard classrooms that are
not provided for in the SPI space guidelines.
Loss of Permanent Capacity 9 rooms ® 26.5 each = (239)
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms 26.5 each = 0
Total Capacity Loss (239)
ELEMENTARY LEARNING SPECIALIST PROGRAM
The Auburn School District provides a learning specialist program to increase literacy skills for
first and second graders. This program model has been created from the 1-728 funds and currently
has the specialist going into existing teacher classrooms, as well as pulling out students into
designated classrooms The district is utilizing classrooms at all twelve elementary schools.
Loss of Permanent Capacity 12 rooms @ 26 5 each = (318)
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms Q 26 5 each = 0
Total Capacity Loss (318)
11
Aubum School District No 40B
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2008 through 1011
STANDARD OF SERVICE
MIDDLE SCHOOLS
STRUCTURED LEARNING CENTER AND DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED SPECIAL EDUCATION
The Auburn School District operates two structured learning classrooms at the middle school level for
students with moderate disabilities. One developmentally disabled Classroom for students with profound
disabilities. The housing requirements for this program are provided in the SPI space allocations
ACCESS SPECIAL EDUCATION
The Auburn School District provides a transition program for students with behavioral disorders The
program is housed at one of the middle schools and uses one classroom The housing requirements
for this program are provided in the SPI space allocations
SPECIAL EDUCATION RESOURCE ROOMS
The Auburn School District operates a resource room program for each grade at the middle school level.
This is to accommodate special education students needing remedial instruction to address their specific
disabilities Three classrooms per school (twelve total) are required to provide for approximately 300
students. The housing requirements for this program are not entirely provided for in the SPI space
guidelines.
MIDDLE SCHOOL COMPUTER LABS
The Auburn School District operates a minimum of one computer lab at each middle school This program
utilizes a standard classroom per middle school. The housing requirements for this program
are not provided for in the SPI space guidelines
Loss of Permanent Capacity 4 rooms @ 30 each = (120)
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms C 30 each = 0
Total Capacity Loss (120)
ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE
The Auburn School District operates a pullout program at the middle school level for students
leaming English as a second language. This program requires four standard classrooms that are not
provided for in the SPI space guidelines.
Loss of Permanent Capacity 4 rooms Q 30 each = (120)
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms Q 30 each = 0
Total Capacity Loss (120)
ROOM UTILIZATION
The Auburn School District provides a comprehensive middle school program that includes
elective options in special interest areas Facilities to accommodate special interest activities are
not amenable to standard classroom usage. The district averages 95% utilization of all available
teaching stations. SPI Report #3 dated 11/09/04 identifies 151 teaching stations available in the
mid-level facilities. The utilization pattern results in a loss of approximately 8 teaching stations
Loss of Permanent Capacity 8 rooms 30 each = (240)
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms 30 each = 0
Total Capacity Loss (240)
12
Aubum School DWW No 408
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2006111rouah 2011
STANDARD OF SERVICE
SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS
SENIOR HIGH COMPUTER LABS
The Auburn School District operates two computer labs at each of the senior high schools This
program utilizes two standard classrooms at comprehensive high schools and one at West Auburn.
The housing requirements for this program are not provided for In the SPI space guidelines.
Loss of Permanent Capacity 7 rooms ® 30 each = (210)
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms ® 30 each = 0
Total Capacity Loss (210)
ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE
The Auburn School District operates a pullout program at both comprehensive high schools for students
learning English as a second language. This program requires five standard classrooms that are riot
provided for in the SPI space guidelines.
Loss of Permanent Capacity 5 rooms Q 30 each = (150)
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 30 each = 0
Total Capacity Loss (150)
STRUCTURED LEARNING CENTER PROGRAM
The Auburn School District operates three structured learning center classrooms for 40 students with
moderate to severe disabilities The housing requirements for this program are provided in the SPI space
guidelines.
SPECIAL EDUCATION RESOURCE ROOMS
The Auburn School District operates a resource room program at the senior high level for special
education students requiring instruction to address their specific Ieamlng disabilities. The current senior
high school program requires sixteen classrooms to provide for approximately 420 students
The SPI space guidelines provide for one of the sixteen teaching stations.
Loss of Permanent Capacity 15 rooms a 30 each = (450)
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 30 each = 0
Total Capacity Loss (450)
PERFORMING ARTS CENTERS
Auburn High School Includes 25,000 square feet used exclusively for a Performing Arts Center The
SPI Inventory includes this space when computing unhoused student capacity This space was
not Intended for nor is it usable for classroom instruction it was constructed to provide a
community center for the performing arts. Using SPI capacity guidelines, 25,000 square feet
computes to 208 unhoused students or 8 33 classrooms
Loss of Permanent Capacity 8 33 rooms Q 30 each = (250)
13
Aubum Sdwoi Dlshict No. 408
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2006 through 2011
STANDARD OF SERVICE
ROOM UTILIZATION
The Auburn School District provides a comprehensive high school program that includes numerous
elective options in special interest areas Facilities to accommodate special interest activities are
not amenable to standard classroom usage. The district averages 95% utilization of all available
teaching stations SPI Report #3 dated 11109/04 Identifies 148 teaching stations available In the
senior high facilities. The utilization pattern results in a loss of approximately 15 teaching stations.
Loss of Permanent Capacity 15 rooms C 30 each = (450)
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms C 30 each = 0
Total Capacity Loss (450)
STANDARD OF SERVICE COMPUTED TOTALS
ELEMENTARY
Loss of Permanent Capacity =
(1,908)
Loss of Temporary Capacity
0
Total Capacity Loss
(1,908)
MIDDLE SCHOOL
Loss of Permanent Capacity =
(480)
Loss of Temporary Capacity
0
Total Capacity Loss
(480)
SENIOR HIGH
Loss of Permanent Capacity =
(1,510)
Loss of Temporary Capacity
0
Total Capacity Loss
(1,510)
TOTAL
Loss of Permanent Capacity =
(3,898)
Loss of Temporary Capacity
0
Total Capacity Loss
(3,898)
14
15
Aubum School Disirld No 408
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2005 through 2011
INVENTORY OF FACILITIES
Table IV.1 shows the current inventory of permanent district facilities and their OPSI rated capacities.
Table IV.2 shows the number and location of each portable unit by school. The district uses relocatable
facilities to:
1. provide interim housing in school attendance areas uniquely impacted by increasing school
populations that would otherwise require continual redistricting.
2. make space available for changing program requirements and offerings determined by unique student
needs, and
3. provide housing to cover district needs until permanent facilities can be financed and constructed.
Relocatable facilities are deemed to be interim, stop gap measures that often place undesirable stress on existing
physical plants. Core facilities (i.e. gymnasiums, restiooms, kitchens, labs, lockers, libraries, etc.) are not of
sufficient size or quantity to handle the increased school population served by adding relocatable classrooms.
Table Pem anent Facilities
IV.1 Q OSPI Rate Capacity
(November 2004)
District School Facilities
Building
Capacity
Acres
Address
Elements
Schools
Washington
553
5.40
20 E Street Nordicast. Auburn WA 98002
Terminal Park
450
670
1101 D Street Soukhe&94 Auburn WA, 98002
Dick Scobee
618
10.50
1031 14th Street WorthAuburn WA 98002
Pioneer
467
8.30
2301 M Street Southeas Auburn WA 98002
Chinook
543
8.75
3502 Auburn Way South Auburn WA 98092
Lea Hill
516
10.00
30908 124th Avenue Southeast, Auburn WA 98092
Gildo Rey
596
1000
1005 37th Street Southeast, Auburn WA 98002
Evergreen Hei
512
8.09
5602 South 316th, Auburn WA, 98001
Alpac
554
10.60
310 Milwaukee Boulevard North Pacific WA 98047
Lake View
667
16.40
16401 Southeast 318th Street Auburn WA 98092
Hazelwood
648
12.67
11815 Southeast 304th Street, Auburn WA 98092
Ilalko
657
12.00
301 Oravetz Place Southeast, Auburn WA 98092
ELEM CAPACITY
6,781
Middle Schools
Cascade
902
17.30 1
1015 24th Street Northeast, Auburn WA 98002
Olympic
970
17.401825
K Sweet South Auburn WA 98002
Rainier
916
26 33
30620 116th Avenue Southeast, Auburn WA 98092
Mt. Baker
913
3098 1620
37th Street Southeast, Auburn WA 98002
MS CAPACITY
3,741
Senior Hith
Schools
West Aubum
250
5 10 1401
West Main S Auburn WA 98001
Auburn Senior High
2,485
1860 I
800 Fourth Street Northeast, Auburn WA 98002
Auburn Riverside HS
1,503
33 00
501 Orevetz R Auburn WA 98092
Auburn Mountainview HS
1,551
40.00
26900 124 Ave SE Aub WA 98092
SH CAPACITY
5L729
TOTAL CAPACM
1 11
18
Auburn School Olehtat No 408
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
20H through 2011
INVENTORY OF FACIU7IES
TABLE
TEMPORARYIRELOCATABLE
2006-06
N.2
FACILITIES INVENTORY
I
2008-09
2009-10
March 20011
Cascade
Elements Location
2004-05
2005.06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09 1
2009.10
2010.11
Washington
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Terminal Palk
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Dick Scobee
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Pioneer
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Chinook
5
5
5
5
5
5
S
Lee Hill
2
5
5
5
2
2
2
Giklo Rey
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
Evergreen Heights
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Alpac
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Lake View
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Hazelwood
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ilalko
5
5
5
3
3
3
3
TOTAL UNITS
30
33
33
31
28
28
28
TOTAL CAPACITY
795
875
875
822
742
742
742
Middle School Location
2004-05
2006-06
2008-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
Cascade
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Olympic
0
0
2
4
4
4
4
Rainier
5
5
5
8
8
8
8
Mt Baker
2
4
6
8
8
6
6
TOTALUNITS
7
9
13
20
20
18
18
TOTAL CAPACITY
210
270
390
600
600
540
540
Sr High School Location
2004-05
2006-06
2008-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2009-10
West Aubum
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Auburn
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Auburn Riverside
15
10
10
10
10
10
10
Auburn Mountamwew
NA
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL UNITS
27
22
22
22
22
22
22
TOTAL CAPACITY
810
660
660
660
660
660
660
COMBINED TOTAL UNITS 6484 68 73 70 68 88
COMBINED TOTAL CAPACITY 1,815 1,805 1,925 2 082 2 002 1,942 1 942
17
18
Auburn School Dlsbiot No 408
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2505 through 2011
PUPIL CAPACITY
While the Aubum School District uses the SPI Inventory of permanent facilites as the data from
which to determine space needs, the Districts educational program requires more space than that
provided for under the formula This additional square footage is convened to numbers of pupils In
Section III, Standard of Service The Dstncfs capacity s sdIusted to reflect the need for additional
space to house Its programs Changes in the capacity of the district recognize new unfunded
facilities and the elimination of the facility that formerly housed the Alternative Jr High The
combined efect of these adjustments is shown on Line Bin Tables VA and V 2 below Table V.1
shows the Dislicfs capacity with relocatable units included and TOW V2 without these urft
Al
A2
A.3
B
C
D
E.
A
A.1
A2
A.3
B.
C
D
E.
Capacity -New Elam
600
600
Capacity- New MS
800
Capacdy-New Sr. High
1,500
*city Adjustments
1870
2133
2130
1973
053
113
2,113
Capacity
12,890
14,127
14,730
15,487 1
15,407
16,147
1 16,147
) Enrollment
13,672
14,204
14,563
14,823
15,020
15,139
15,245
) Surplus/Da fcft 1 (702)1 (77)1 1671 553 1 387 1 1.008 1 sot
AK JH
Relocatable
Capacity
Capacity -New Elam
Capacity- New MS
Capacity~ Sr High
&city Adjustments
Capacity
I Enrollment
) Srrplusm"alt
Ah JH
(40)1 (40)1 (40)1 (40)1 (40)1 (40)1 (40;
1,8151 1,805 1,925 2,082 2,002 1,942 1,942
6001 600
B00
1,500
3 685 3,938(4,055)14,055 4,055 4,055 (4,055)
11,075 12,322 1 12,805 1 13,405 1 13,405 1 14,205 1 14,205
13,672 1 14,204 1 14,563 1 14.823 1 15,020 1 15,139 1 15,245
(2,587) (1.881) (1,758) (1,418) (1.815) (834) (1.040)
I I Total Ad)ustrrrerrta 1 (3,885)1 (3,838)1 (4.057)1 (4,055)1 KOM I (4055)1 (4.078
J New facilities shown In 200&10 are not funded under the current Capital Facilities Plan
al The Standard of Service represents 24 69% of SPI capacity When newfao5ties are added the Standard
of Service computations are decreased to 20 28% of SPI apathy
,( Students beyond the capacity are seoomodated in nonclassmom spaces (commons, library, theater)
as well as rented space
119
20
Aubum Sdod Disbict No 408
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2WS through 2011
CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION PLAN
The formal process used by the Board to address current and future facility needs began In 1974 with
the formation of a community wide citizens committee. The result of this committee's work was published
in the document titled 'Guidelines for Development' In 1985 the Board formed a second Ad Hoc citizens
committee to pick up from the work of the first and address the needs of the District for subsequent years.
The work of this committee was published in the document titled 'Directions for the Nineties' In 1995
the Board commissioned a third Ad Hoc citizens committee to make recommendations for improvements
to the District's programs and physical facilities The committee recommendations are published in the
document titled 'Education Into The Twenty -First Century - - A Community Involved'
The 1995 Ad Hoc committee recommended the District develop plans for the implementation, funding,
and deployment of technology throughout the District's programs. The 1996 Bond proposition provided
funding to enhance the capacity of each facility to accommodate technological applications. The 1998
Capital Levy provided funding to further deploy technology at a level sufficient to support program
requirements in every classroom and department
In addition to the technology needs of the District the Ad Hoc committee recognized the District must prepare
for continued student enrollment growth. As stated in their report, "the District must pursue an appropriate
high school site as soon as possible." The Ad Hoc recommendation included commentary that the financing
should be timed to maintain consistent rates of assessment.
A proposition was approved by the voters on April 28, 1998 that is providing $8,000,000 over six
years to address some of the technology needs of the District; and $5,000,000 to provide funds to acquire
school sites.
During the 1997-98 school year a Joint District Citizen's Ad Hoc Committee was appointed by the Auburn and
Dieringer School Boards to make recommendations on how best to serve the school population that will come
from an area that includes a large development known as Lakeland South. Lakeland South is immediately
adjacent to the southern boundary of the Aubum School District On June 16, 1998 the Ad Hoc Committee
presented its recommendation at a joint meeting of the Aubum and Dieringer Boards of Directors. On
June 22, 1998 the Aubum School Board adopted Resolution No. 933 authorizing the process to Initiate the
adjustment of the boundaries of the District in accordance with the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendation On
June 23, 1998 the Dieringer School Board adopted a companion Resolution No 24-97-98 authorizing the
process to initiate the adjustment of the boundaries in accordance with the Ad Hoc Committee's
recommendation These actions resulted in the transfer of an area from Dieringer to Aubum owtaining
most of the Lakeland South development and certain other undeveloped properties. Development in this
area is progressing at an aggressive rate
In April of 2002, the Board formed a fifth citizen's Ad Hoc committee to address the following two items and
make recommendations to the board in the fall of 2002:
a A review of the conclusion and recommendations of 1985 and 1995 Ad Hoc Committees related to
accommodating high school enrollment growth This includes the review of possible financing plans
for new facilities.
b. Develop recommendations for accommodating high school enrollment growth for the next 10 years
if a new senior high school is not built
This committee recommended the board place the high school on the ballot for the fifth time in February 2003.
The February election approved the new high school at 68.71°% yes votes The school is currently under
construction and will open in the Fall of 2005.
21
Auburn Sdiool District No. 408
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2006 through 2011
CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION PLAN
In the Fall of 2003 the school board directed the administration to begin the planning and design for
Elementary #13 and Elementary #14. In the fall of 2004, the Auburn School Board passed resolution #1054
to place on the ballot in February 2005 two elementary schools (Elementary #13 and Elementary #14).
The voters approved the ballot measure in February at 64 72%. Elementary #13 will be built in the Lakeland
area on a 12 acre site the district owns. Elementary #13 is scheduled to open in the Fall of 2006
Elementary #14, scheduled to open In the Fall of 2007, will be constructed on a 10 acre site the district
owns in the Lea HIII area.
The District is projecting an additional 1790 students within the six year period including the Lakeland and
Lea Hill areas. This increase in student population will require the construction of two new elementary
schools, and the acquisition of a new middle school site and construction of a middle school during the six
year window.
Based upon the DistricPs capacity data and enrollment projections, as well as the student generation data
included in Appendix A.3, the District has determined that approximately eighty-one percent of the capacity
improvements are necessary to serve the students generated from new development, with the remaining
additional capacity required to address existing need.
The table below illustrates the current capital construction plan for the next six years. The exact
timelines are wholly dependent on the rate of growth in the school age population.
200411 Capital Construction Plan
March 2006
Funded
Projected
Fund
Project Timelines
Project
as of
Cost
Source
04-05
05-06
W07
07-08
08-09
09-10
10-11
Mar -05
All Facilities -
1996
Technology
Yes
$8,000,000
6 Year
XX
Modernization
Cap Levy
All Facilities -
2006
Technology
Yes
$12,000,000
6 Year
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
Modemization
Cap Le
Impact
Portables
Yes
$700,000
Fees
XX
XX
XX
XX
Property r se
New Middle
School
Yes
$5,000,000
XX
XX
Elementary #13
Yes
$15,600,000
Impact
XX
XX
XX
Fees
const
const
open
I
Elementary #14
Yes
$15,600,000
Bond—
impact
XX
XX
XX
XX
Fees
plan
const
const
open
Middle School #5
No
$30,000,000
XX
XX
XX
XX
an
const
const
o en
Bond
New Sr High
Yes
$58,500,000
Impact
XX
XX
Fees
const
open
1/ These funds may be secured through local bond Issues, sale of real property. Ynpact fees, and state maturing funds
The District arrently Is not eligible ler state assistance at the elementary school level
22
23
Auburn School District No 408
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2005 through 2011
IMPACT FEE COMPUTATION (Spring 2005)
Auburn Mwntain i High School within 6 year pend
Ekn maty M3 and 814 within 5 year period
MBNle Schod f5 within 6 year period
Middle adlool Me acqule6on wiVen sic year period
(.TE _ STPMe FPPF CE
Formule flArxsax Coal oerAmellFaNiN Cizalx fihxleM Fwfnr
5 PERAIANENiFACWYCONSTRUCTK)N COST PER RESIDENCE
Formula ((Fadilly CoaVFedky Sire) x Student Factor) x (Permanent
AIL
000
$00 D 01584 0 G02 $5,73372 $1,87234
2)) I 556,50 .000 I 1500 I 0 8853 I 01632 I 00496 I 58.143 77 I 51.52958
rammer Itr..
Site
Cosy Faclity
I
SMOerd Geaaratkn Factor
CWV
Cow
Acreage
Acle capactv
Skate Family Mu19 Fame
Single Farroy
I Muga Fam1hr
Elem (K - 5)
12
so 6500
3216
00687
$0 00
$000
Middle Sch (6 - 51
25
$146,720 800
01584
0 0482
$72631
$211 64
Sr High 6 - 12
40
$0 1500
01632
00486
50 00
5000
01584
$726.31
5211.84
5 PERAIANENiFACWYCONSTRUCTK)N COST PER RESIDENCE
Formula ((Fadilly CoaVFedky Sire) x Student Factor) x (Permanent
AIL
000
$00 D 01584 0 G02 $5,73372 $1,87234
2)) I 556,50 .000 I 1500 I 0 8853 I 01632 I 00496 I 58.143 77 I 51.52958
rammer Itr..
vosur aea)
x JOIOen[ r
x 11 em m [0
10an M AM rooter K800)
Foclily
Facility
%Temp Sp FV
Student Generation Factor
COaV
Coat/
Cosy
Single Farob
Indent
size
Total Ft
SkV18 Family MuN Fa
Single Fa
MUN Family
Ekm (K - 5)
580,000
2s 5
0 03M
0.3210
00887
$3475
$743
Md Sd1(6-8)
So
30
00358
01584
00462
$000
$000
sr h(S-12)
SO
30
00356
015"
00488
$000
$000
$34.75
$717
rommle toosam
lrrwx x art u22r
x um= melon
x bmowm r
BOeckh
SPI
Dlebk1
ShrdeM GanereOon Factor
CosU
Cosy
Indent
Fod
Match
Single Family Muhl Famity
Singla Family
Will Family
Elem(K-5)
:129 a1
a0
5586%
03216
0.00117
S1,a6559
$39853
Mid Sch (6 - B)
8129 01
100
5586%
0 15910
0482
$1,148.50
$33500
SrH b(9-12)
$12951
120
5558%
01632
00186
$1,12007
042209
$1,431.25
$1,15&42
24
Aebten 9r$No1 r , No, 406
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
$sssnrroeah mi
V MCCRIEWPWRESIRENCE
Formula Expmued u Cr p uni nkm d an annuly
TC = PV(hNrest rele,dI0i pedod,averop asad vsaN x to rate)
Formula (Valued SINaFscft/4umberofdw9WQWb)
Value No of Unix I Facll Crede
7SaION Fam" $000 1 $000
MA Famb $a 00
FEE
PER UNfr IMPACT FEES
RECAP
Single
MYpI
SUMMARY
FamilyFerM
See Coats
$72531
$211A4
Par wwd FaWry Const Costa
$19,31952
$5,001.67
Terrpenry Facft Cosh
$3476
$743
store match Crede
($4,43125)
($1,15812)
Tax Crede
4,28382
$105152
FEE (No Dhmunt)
$11.36273
$3,07200
FEE (50%Discoum)
$5,68136
$1,53630
Fad Credit
$000
$001
NHFae 0811 m
$568136 r
$1,512
Auburn School DWIM No 408
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
uA944
IMPACT FEE ELEMENTS
SINGLE FAMILY
MULTI FAMILY
Elam
Mid Sell
Sr High
Elem
Mid SCh
Sr High
K'
9-12
K-5
6-6
9-12
Student Factor
Sklgle Family -Auburn adual count (405)
03216
0 1584
0 1532
00687
00482
00480
New Fac CapadW
ASD Dktrtct Standards
650
800
1500
850
800
1500
New Farcy Cost
Sr High Cost Bangle as of May 2003
$15,600,000
$30,000,000
$58,500,000
$15,600,000
$30,1300,INI0
$58,500,000
Elementary Cost Estimates Feb 2005
Middle Sdmd Cost Estimate Feb 2005
amp Rm Capacity
ASD Dktrid Standard of Service Grades K - 5! 261
256
30
30
283
30
30
ade-12®30
Tamp Facility Coat
Ratccrtables, krhdhq aft work, set up. and tamntahin
$501000
$80.000
sul000
$90,000
$80,000
$80,000
Site Acreage
ASD Dlatricl Stallard or SPI Minimum
12
25
40
12
25
40
She Cost/Acre
See below
$146,729
$146,729
$146729
$146,729
$146,729
$146,729
Peron Sp Footage
SPI Rill 83 dared Nov 1, 2004
1,433,827
1,433,527
1,433,827
1,433,827
1,433,827
1,433,737
Temp Sq Footage
64 Podables at 832 ad K each
53,248
51,594
51,584
51,554
515$4
51,584
Total Sq Footage
Spm of Pemwtenl and Temporary above
1,487,075
1,485,411
1,405,411
1,485,411
1,4115411
1485,321
% - Perm Fadi tles
Permanent Sq Footage divided by Total Sq Foolage
09842
09653
09653
09653
09853
09553
% - Temp Faclitlea
Temporary Sq Footage divided by Total Sq Footage
a 0358
00347
00347
00347
00347
00347
SPI Sq Fi Student
From SPI Regulation
80
100
120
80
100
120
Boackh trwlex
From SPI schedule for March 2005
$12901
$12981
$12081
$12081
$12661
$12981
Match %- Slate
From SPI Wabpage Mardi 2005
5566%
5588%
5586%
5506%
5586%
5586%
Match %- District
Computed
4414%
4414%
4414%
4414%
4414%
4414%
Dkt Aver"
Febuory 23,2W5 data from" County
$218,805
$218,805
$218,805
$55.264
$55,284
$55,264
(mule family, welghled avenge)
Deni Sery lex
:Vint
Current Fiscal Yev
$249
$2A9
$249
$249
$249
$249
G O Rata
CumaM Rate - (Bond Buyer 20 Index YandA 3.30-05)
4A3%
463%
403%
4,83%
483%
483%
Recant Properly
Moore Poypon I 22� I logo I fil12,1561 $:24,208( 511% �sd-oil— 2036 $148,729
Auburn School District No. 408
Capital Facilities Plan
2005 through 2011
Section VIII
Appendix
Appendix A.1 - Student Enrollment Projections
Appendix A 2 - CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Enrollment Projections
Appendix A.3 - Student Generation Survey
27
Appendix A.1 - Student Enrollment Projections
28
Auburn School District #408
Student Enrollment Projections
October 2004
Introduction
The projective techniques give some consideration to historical and current data as a
basis for forecasting the future. In addition, the `projector' must make certain
assumptions about the operant variables within the data being used. These assumptions
are "judgmental" by definition. Forecasting can be defined as the extrapolation or logical
extension from history to the future, or from the known to the unknown. The attached
tabular data reviews the history of student enrollment, sets out some quantitative
assumptions, and provides projections based on these numerical factors.
The projection logic does not attempt to weigh the individual sociological, psychological,
economic, and political factors that are present in any demographic analysis and projection.
The logic embraces the assumptions that whatever these individual factors have been in the
past are present today, and will be in the future. It further moderates the impact of singular
factors by averaging data over thirteen years and six years respectively. The results
provide a trend, which reflects a long (13 -year) and a short (6 -year) base from which to
extrapolate.
Two methods of estimating the number of kindergarten students have been used. The
first uses the average increase or decrease over the past 13 and 6 -year time frame and
adds it to each succeeding year. The second derives what the average percentage Auburn
kindergartners have been of the live births in King County for the past 5 years and uses
this to project the subsequent four years.
The degree to which the actuals deviate from the projections can only be measured after
the fact. This deviation provides a point of departure to evaluate the effectiveness of the
assumptions and logic being used to calculate future projections. Monitoring deviation is
critical to the viability and credibility of the projections derived by these techniques.
Tables
Table I — Thirteen Year History of October I Enrollments — page 3
The data shown in this table is the baseline information used to project future enrollment.
This data shows the past record of enrollment in the district on October 1 of each year.
Table 2 — Historical Factors Used in Protections - page 4
This table shows the three basic factors derived from the data in Table 1. These factors
have been used in the subsequent projections. The three factors are:
1. Factor 1— Average Pupil Change Between Grade Levels
This factor is sometimes referred to as the "holding power" or "cohort
survival." It is a measure of the number of pupils gained or lost as they move
from one grade level to the next.
29
2. Factor 2 - Average Pupil Change by Grade Level
This factor is the average change at each grade level over the 13 or 6 -year
period.
3. Factor 3 — Auburn School District Kindergarten Enrollment as a
Function of King County Live Births.
This factor calculates what percent each kindergarten class was of the King
County live births in the 5 previous years. From this information has been
extrapolated the kindergarten pupils expected for the next 4 years.
Table 3 — Proiection Models — pages 5-13
This set of tables utilizes the above mentioned variables and generates several
projections. The models are explained briefly below.
a Table 3.13 (pg 5) — shows a projection based on the 13 -year average gain in
kindergarten (Factor 2) and the 13 -year average change between grade levels
(Factor 1). The data is shown for the district as a whole.
o Table 3.6 (pg 5) — shows a projection using the same scheme as Table 3.13
except it shortens the historical to only the most recent 6 years.
o Table 3.13A and 3.6A (pg 6) — uses the same factors above except Factor 3 is
substituted for Factor 2. The kindergarten rates are derived from the King
County live births instead of the average gain.
o Tables 3E.13, 3E.6, 3E. 13A, 3E.6A (pg 7) — breaks out the K-5 grades from
the district projection. Summary levet data is provided for percentage gain
and pupil gain by grade articulation.
a Tables 3MS.13, 3MS.6, 3MS.13A, 3MS.6A (pg 8) — breaks out the 6-8 grades
from the district projection. Summary level data is provided for percentage
gain and pupil gain by grade articulation.
o Tables 3SH.13, 3SH.6, 3SH.I3A, 3SH.6A (pg 9) — breaks out the 9-12 grades
from the district projection. Summary level data is provided for percentage
gain and pupil gain by grade articulation.
o Table 4 (pg 10) — Collects the four projection models by grade group for ease
of comparison.
o Table 5 (pgs 11-13) — shows how well each projection model performed when
compared with actual enrollments. Data is provided in both number and
percent formats for the past 13 years.
30
AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS -October 2004
TABLE Thirteen Year History o1 OdoMr 1 Emabro6yRm 10A4)
1
ANwI
GRADE 1
92M
1 93/94
94195
95198 9687 1
97!88 9889
99-00 1
0041
01-02 02-03
0344
04-06
KDG
920 930
927
957 967
978 654
649
812
846 905
922
892
1
881 959
984
948 998
1031 905
943
905
968 800
962
960
T
91{ 980
957
989 970
1014 1023
1015
914
949 961
BOB
997
3
931 023
963
971 990
980 1009
1054
1031
960 940
906
919
4
924 924
921
934 951
905 974
1012
1071
1077 973
947
1016
5
850 922
933
930 917
958 962
983
1011
1108 1062
1018
957
8
928 650
924
924 916
941 962
981
996
1026 1104
1111
1020
7
874 976
872
953 934
650 939
1015
979
1017 1021
1131
1124
6
939 800
904
886 840
911 959
974
1003
1004 1026
1052
1130
9
671 961
968
1073 1081
1163 1156
1202
1222
1405 wl
1473
1481
10
826 842
908
967 1084
1012 1165
1132
1157
1073 1234
1249
1261
ll
709 706
819
886 893
1028 1007
1036
1067
1090 927
1010
1055
12
702 639
882
727 805
811 917
855
885
930 933
902
888
TOTALS
11248 11512
11802
)2113 12N/
12789 12042
13051
13135
13461 13427
13702
13872
Percent of Gain 234% 252% 204% 271% 284% 135% 064% 064% 248% (0 251% 205% (022)%
Pu98 Gsin 203 290 311 328 328 173 109 84 328 34 275 30
Awego %Gain for IN B yeen 237% Awra9e % Goin for 4st a yean 092%
Average Pupg Gab br ld 0 282 Aw a Pupa Gain for last 0 ymrs 122
Awnee X Gab /or 13 year, 154%
A Pupa Geb for 13 year 202
K,1,2 2795 2549 2888 2894 2931 3023 2872 2607 2731 2763 2766 2813 2814
K-5 5500 5818 Sees 5729 5789 5916 5877 5858 5841 5914 5741 5774 5735
K-8 6428 6488 9809 6653 6715 6887 6799 6037 6842 6942 6945 0685 6756
1-3 2806 2842 2904 2908 2958 3025 3027 3012 2850 2887 2801 2887 2870
1-5 4580 4688 4758 4772 4836 4988 4983 5007 4932 5088 4836 4852 4843
1-8 5508 5536 8582 5696 5752 5909 5945 5988 5930 6098 $940 5903 5863
6.8 2641 2685 2760 2755 2799 2611 2860 2970 298D 3049 3151 3294 3274
7-8 1713 1838 1836 1831 1883 1870 1898 1989 1892 2021 2047 2183 2254
7-0 2684 2797 2804 2904 2941 3033 3054 3191 3204 3426 3488 3658 1 3715
9.12 3106 3208 3357 3629 3843 4012 4245 4225 4311 4498 4535 4634 4803
10-12 2237 2247 2389 2568 2782 2849 3089 ]023 3089 3093 3064 3161 3202
31
AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS - October 2004
TABLE Factors Used lo Pmlecilorq
2
Fedor Average Pupil Change Belween Grade
1 Levels
1131Y
13 YEAR BASE
1
6 YEAR BASE
K 1 50 83
K to 1 56,20
1 to t 658
1 102 540
2to3 1353
2103 2080
3104 3A2
3104 1940
Obs 850
4lo5 1520
5105 708
Slob 1580
6 to 7 21 92
6lo 7 1000
7to8 167
7lo8 1040
a t09 28475
8100 311860
91010 7600)
91010 (15380)
101011 9066)
tot011 (13920)
11 10 12 10733
11 to 12 (122 80
total 12560
total 10267
Factor 1 b the average gain or loss m pupils an May
move Nom one grade lejsl Io go neat Famor1 uses
the put It2) OR s ears of changes
Faclor AYprNk dp9 sngdBy 4100,04,110vol
2
13 YEAR RASE
AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENTS
AS FUNCTION OF KING COUNTY LIVE BIRTH RATES
8YEAR BASE
K (2 33)
K sea
1 (a Goa)
1 340
2 850
2 460
3 (108)
3 (2720
4 767
4 000
5 8.92
5 (5 20)
e 7197
8 700
7 20.63
7 2180
8 2425
8 3120
9 4917
9 51 80
10 3625
10 2580
11 28 83
11 380
12 15 33
12 620
Factor 2 Is du avmege Wipe in grade W M a¢e
Bam 92813 OR 99100
Fedor
3
AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENTS
AS FUNCTION OF KING COUNTY LIVE BIRTH RATES
CAL-
TOTAL
YEAR
DJUSTED
AUBURN KINDERGARTEN
ENDAR
LIVE
2fdrtls
1l3rds
OF
WE I
KDG
ENROLLMENT ASA%OF
YEAR
BIRTHS
BIRTHS
BIRTHS
ENROLL
BIRTHS JENROLL
ADJUSTED LIVE BIRTHS
1958
20,468
13,545
6,823
75178
19,840
622
3135%
1970
19,526
13,017
5,509
78177
17,466
652
3733%
1971
16,436
10,957
5,479
77178
14625
576
3952%
1972
13,719
9,148
4,573
78(79
13,539
588
4417%
1973
13,449
8,988
4,483
TWO
13 476
818
4585%
1974
13,493
8,995
4,498
80181
13,524
600
4436%
1975
13,540
9,027
4,513
81182
13,687
588
4296%
1978
13,761
9,174
4,587
62183
14,375
698
4658%
1977
14,SB2
9,788
4,894
83184
14,958
866
4452%
1978
15.096
10,064
5,032
54155
16048
728
4524%
1979
18 524
11,016
5 508
85186
16,708
702
4740%
1980
18,800
11,200
5,800
86187
17,000
829
4876%
1981
17,100
11,400
5,700
87/08
18,241
769
4218%
1962
18,811
12,541
6,270
88/89
18,626
817
4358%
1983
18,533
12,355
6,178
89190
18,827
871
4626%
1984
18,974
12,849
6,325
90841
18,510
858
4398%
1985
19,778
13,185
6,583
91192
19 893
909
4569%
1986
19,951
13,301
6.650
92193
21,852
920
4210%
1987
22,803
15,202
7,801
93194
21,524
930
4301%
1988
21,034
14,023
7,011
9495
24,062
027
3.853%
1989
25,576
17,051
8.525
95188
26,358
954
3619%
1990
26,749
17,833
8,918
9&97
24,116
963
3993%
1991
22,799
15,199
1,600
97198
20,973
978
4663%
1982
20060
13,373
5,087
98/09
21573
864
3959%
1993
22,330
14,887
7,443
99/00
22,129
849
3837%
1994
22,029
14,886
7,343
00101
24,013
912
3796% Loa
1985
25,005
16 670
8,335
01102
22,717
a46
3 MMA ywr
1996
21,573
14,362
7,191
02103
21,522
905
4185% Average
1997
21,646
14,431
7,215
03104
22,023
922
4186% 3487%
1996
22,212
14,808
7,404
04105
22,075
992
ACIuN 4041%
1999
22,007
14,671
7,338
05846
22,327
890
<-Prfdd 3187%
2000
22,487
14991
7496
08107
22,014
979
«Octl 3987%
2001
21778
14519
7¢59
07196
21835
oil
--0r}crd 3987%
2002
21 883
14 575
7,288
08109
22 258
687
«FjL 3987%
2003
22,455
14,970
7,485
OBI09
1,465 'prelon1myrturnoorofDOH
Sow. Cenbr for Heoll SAks, Wadulpb0 Slob DBpaMlpd of Hs*
32
AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS - October 2004
GRADE I 04105 I 05106 1 06107 1 07108 1 96109 I MID 1 10111 1 11112 1 12113 1 13114 1 14115 1 15118 1 16117 I 17118
KOG 892 690 587 885 883 880 879 578 873 871 889 866 864 662
1 960 943 910 938 936 934 931 929 927 924 922 920 017 915
2 992 967 949 947 945 942 04D 938 935 933 931 928 028 924
3 918 1008 980 963 961 959 956 954 952 949 947 945 942 940
4 1018 921 1009 984 967 964 962 960 957 955 953 950 948 949
5 957 1023 928 1016 990 973 971 969 958 964 962 959 957 955
9 1020 964 1030 935 1023 997 980 978 976 973 971 959 966 984
7 1124 1042 956 1052 957 1045 1010 1002 1000 998 995 993 991 988
8 1130 1126 1044 968 1053 059 1046 1021 1004 1002 998 997 995 992
9 1461 1395 1390 1308 1252 1318 1223 1311 1288 1269 1286 1264 1262 1259
10 1261 1385 1319 1314 1232 1176 1242 1147 1235 1210 1103 1100 1188 1188
11 1055 1170 1294 1228 1224 1142 1086 1151 1057 1145 1119 1102 1100 109T
12 889 948 1063 1187 1121 1117 1034 979 1044 949 1037 1012 995 992
TOTALS1 13672 1 13778 1 13921 1 13745 1 13544 1 13406 1 13270 1 13214 1 13211 13141 13163 13095 13049 13011
Percent o1 Gain 078% 031% (055)% (1 47)7. (1.021% (101)% (0 42)% (0 02)% (053)1 017% (0 52)% (0 34)% (023)1
GRADE
IA04105 I
05!08 I
P08107
I 07708
I 06709
I 08/10
I 10/011
I PRfl'2 I
PR
11013
I P3/114
I 141105
I 1518
I P16Rl17
I PRO,
KDG
892
901
909
918
926
935
944
952
901
969
978
987
995
1004
1
980
948
957
965
974
983
991
1000
1008
1017
1026
1034
1043
1051
2
992
965
954
962
971
979
988
997
1005
1014
1022
1031
1040
1048
3
918
1013
880
974
983
991
1000
1000
1017
1028
1034
1043
1052
1060
4
1016
937
1032
1005
094
1002
1011
1019
1028
1037
1045
1054
1062
1071
5
957
1031
953
1047
1021
1009
1017
1020
1035
1043
1052
1050
1069
1078
6
1020
973
1047
986
1063
1036
1025
1033
1042
1050
1050
1088
1078
1085
7
1124
1030
983
1057
976
1073
1046
1035
1043
1052
1080
1089
1076
1068
6
1130
1134
1040
993
1067
968
1083
1057
1045
1054
1062
1071
1079
1098
9
1481
1519
1523
1429
1392
1450
1377
1472
1445
1434
1442
1451
1459
1468
10
1261
1307
1365
1389
1275
1228
1302
1224
1318
1292
1280
1288
1297
1306
11
1055
1122
1168
1226
1230
1138
1089
1163
1084
1179
1152
1141
1149
1158
12
888
932
999
1045
1103
1107
1013
966
1040
962
1056
1030
1018
1026
TOTALS
13872 1
13812 1
13015 1
13990 1
13987 1
13925 1
13667 1
13952 1
14072 1
14127 1
14270 1
14326 1
14417 I
14529
33
1
2
3
4
5
8
7
8
9
10
11
12
TOTALS
1
2
3
4
e
e
7
e
9
10
11
12
TOTALS
AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS - October 2004
980 943 941 929 921 938
962 967 949 049 935 928 945
918 1008 980 963 961 949 942 969
1016 921 1009 964 067 955 952 945 962
957 1023 926 1018 990 973 971 959 952 999
1020 964 1030 235 1023 997 880 976 956 959 975
1124 1042 956 1052 957 1045 1019 1002 1000 968 981 998
1130 1126 1044 958 1053 959 1046 1021 1004 1002 990 982 999
1461 1395 1390 1309 1252 1310 1223 1311 1286 1269 1267 1254 1247 1264
1261 1385 1319 1314 1232 1170 1242 1147 1235 1210 1193 1191 1178 1171
1055 1170 1294 1226 1224 1142 1086 1151 1057 1145 1119 1102 1100 1088
892
590
878
871
887
960
948
948
934
927
944
992
985
954
952
939
932
940
91e
1013
988
974
972
980
953
970
1016
937
1032
1005
904
992
979
972
989
957
1031
953
1047
1021
1009
1007
995
997
1004
1020
973
1617
966
1063
1036
1025
1023
1010
1003
1020
1124
1030
983
1057
978
1073
1046
1035
1033
1020
1013
1030
1130
1134
1040
093
1067
989
1083
1057
1045
1043
1031
1024
1040
1461
1519
1523
1429
1352
1455
1377
1472
1445
1434
1432
1410
1412
1420
1261
1307
1365
1369
1275
1228
1302
1224
1318
1202
1280
1278
1266
1258
1055
1122
1168
1228
1230
1136
1069
1163
1084
1179
1152
1141
1139
1126
a
34
AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS - October 2004
3E 13
Beed on 13 Year Hbton
GRADE
04105
05108
06107
07/08
08109
09M0
10111
11112
1L13
13M4
11115
559
I 15M8
500
1 1&17Guz
a"
17!18
1
980
am
943
W/
941
add
938
w
936
am
934
bid
931
afu
929
aid
027
all
924
922
920
917
915
2
992
961
949
947
945
942
940
938
935
933
931
928
926
924
3
918
1006
980
963
961
959
958
954
952
940
947
945
942
940
4
1016
921
1008
964
967
964
962
960
957
955
953
950
648
946
5
957
1023
928
1016
990
973
971
969
966
964
952
959
957
955
Bfvl 0 In
Pupil Gehl
14
54
36
52
29
14
14)
11
14
14
14
11
14
3E8
Based ana Year HkCP
IR01
GRADE
04105
05108
08107
D7080=9
M
10!11
11712
12)13
in
14715
in
16M7
17118
I
960
948
BST
965
974
983
991
1000
1008
1017
1026
1034
1043
1051
2
892
955
954
962
971
979
988
997
1005
1014
1022
1031
1040
1048
3
B18
1013
988
974
983
991
1000
1009
1017
1026
1034
1043
1052
1080
4
1016
937
1032
1005
994
1002
1011
1010
1028
1037
1045
1054
1052
1071
5
957
1.
1031
953
104T
1021
1009
1017
1026
1035
1043
1052
1080
1069
1078
kU
n o n
PU II Geln
BO
5
82
4
31
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
3E -13A Based an Birth Rata ik I a HIZ
GRADE
04105
05/06
06107
D7/08
OWO
09110
10111
11112
12113
13/14
14115
15116
18117
17118
1
960
943
041
929
921
938
2
992
967
949
948
935
928
945
3
918
1006
880
963
961
949
642
959
4
1018
921
1009
984
967
985
952
945
982
5
957
1023
928
1016
990
973
971
959
852
989
"= Mo
Pu II Gain
14
84
24
4
3E GA
Based on 84181 Rates 8 6 Year Hktar
GRADE
04M5
OSMS
DW7
07M8
"O 9
09/70
10111
11112
12113
13114
14115
15116
16117
17118
KW
1
awd
960
am
948
ala
946
671
934
of
927
944
2
092
965
954
952
939
932
949
3
B18
1013
986
974
972
960
953
970
4
1016
937
1D32
1005
994
992
979
B72
989
5
957
1031
953
1047
1021
1009
1007
995
987
1004
FeWToIW
Puill Gain
50
3
35
43
35
AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS - October 2004
TABLE
MIDDLE SCHOOL PROJECTIONS
WE 13A
Based an BIM Rale 813 Year Hb
3MS 13
Based on 13 Year H vn
ACTUAL PROD I PROD I PROJ
PRODPROJ
PROJ
PROJ
PROJ
ACTUAL PROJ
PROD
PROJ
PRO'
PROJ
PROJ
PROD
PROJ
PRO'
PROD
PROJ
PROJ
PROJ
GRADE
04105 05108
I
06107
07108
08109
09110
1411
11112
12113
13114
14/15
15/18
16117
17118
6 1020 964
1030
935
1023
997
980
978
078
973
971
969
988
964
7 1124 1042
086
1052
957
1045
1019
1002
1000
998
995
993
091
888
8 1130 1126
1044
988
1053
959
1048
1021
1004
1002
999
097
995
892
6 - 9 TOTI 3274 1 3132
3059
2974
3033
3001
1 3046
1 3001
2979
2072
2885
2958
2951
1 2944
Pe rd of GaM (4.35)%
(232)%
(278)6
198%
(108)%
151%
(14T)%
(073)%
(023)%
(024)%
(024)%
(024)%
(0.24)%
Pupil Gain (142)
(73)
85
SB
32)
45
45)
(22)
(7)
(7
7)
25
26
TABLE
MIDDLE SCHOOL PROJECTIONS
WE 13A
Based an BIM Rale 813 Year Hb
3MS a
Beeea en 8 Year
ACTUAL PROD I PROD I PROJ
PRODPROJ
PROJ
PROJ
PROJ
ACTUAL PROJ
PROJ
PROJ
PROJ
PROD
PROJ
PROD
PROD
PROD
PROJ
PRG/
PRG/
PROD
GRADE
04/05 05108
Dam?
07108
08/08
09110
10/11
11112
12113
13114
14 15
15118
16117
17118
8 1020 0T3
1047
969
1083
1038
1025
1033
1042
1050
1059
1088
1078
1095
7 1124 1030
983
1057
978
1073
1048
1035
1043
1052
1060
1069
1078
1086
8 1130 1134
1040
993
1067
989
1093
1057
1045
1D54
1062
1071
1079
1088
8 - 8 TOT 1 3274 3137 1
3070
3019
3108
3088
3154
3125
3130
3156
3182
3207
3233
3259
Penenlof Gain (418)%
-214%
-168%
299%
-34%
181%
-94%
17%
62%
82%
81%
80%
80%
Pupil Gain (137)
(e7
52
90
11)
56
130)
5
26
26
28
25
26
TABLE
MIDDLE SCHOOL PROJECTIONS
WE 13A
Based an BIM Rale 813 Year Hb
ACTUAL PROD I PROD I PROJ
PRODPROJ
PROJ
PROJ
PROJ
PROD
PROD
PROJ
PROJ
PROD
GRADE
04105 05M 08/07 07108
08108
09110
10111
71112
IVI3
13114
1815
164/9
lam
17118
6 1020 964 1030 935
1023
997
980
978
988
959
976
7 1124 1042 888 1052
957
1045
1019
1002
1000
088
901
BBB
8 1130 1120 1044 gas
1053
950
1046
1021
1004
1002
980
982 999
6-8 TOT 3271 1 3132—F -3 -05 -9—T -2-9-74—T--3023
3001 1
3046
3002
2970
2948
2946
Pareenl of Gain (4 35)1 (2 32)% (2 78)%
198%
(108)%
1 51 %
(146)%
(105)%
(1 721%
(009)%
PUPH Gain (142) (73) (85)
so
32
45
44
(31)
(21)
3
On Bath Rats 88 Year
GRADE 1 0805 1 ONDS 1 0&07 1 07108 1 08109 1 09110 1 10111 1 11112 1 12113 1 13114 1 14/15 1 15118 1 16117 117118
8 1020 973 1047 888 1083 1036 1025 1023 1010 1003 1020
7 1124 1030 983 1057 978 1073 1049 1035 1033 1020 1013 1030
e _ _1130 1134 1010 093 1067 989 1083 1057 1045 1043 1031 1024 1040
Gain (1371 (67) (521 90 1111 56
38
AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS • October 2004
GRADE
I 0405 I
05106
06107
07108
OWD
09/10
10111 1
11112
12/13
13114
14115
1 15/16 1
16117 1
17118
9
1461
1395
1390
1308
1252
1318
1223
1311
1288
1289
1286
1264
1262
1259
10
1261
1385
1319
1314
1232
1176
1242
1147
1235
1210
1193
1190
1188
1186
11
1055
1170
1294
1228
1224
1142
1086
1151
1057
1145
1118
1102
1100
1097
12
888
948
1063
1187
1121
1117
1034
979
1044
949
1037
1012
995
992
j9-12TQTj
4663 1
4898
5057
5038
4829
4753
4556 1
4588
4622
4572
4615
1 4568 1
4544 1
4535
Pacenl of Gain
504%
345%
(057)%
(414)%
(159)%
(352)%
006%
073%
11.071%
094%
(102)0/.
(053%
(021)%
4958
Pupil Gam
235
169
(29)
(209)
(77)
(167)
3
33
1191
43
1471
120
191
3fJ4 131'Rau4 m RLM RAW a to Ye H6kav
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
PRO/
PROD
PROJ
PRO.I
PROJ
PROD
PRO/
PROD
PRO/
PRO/
PROJ
PROJ
PROD
GRADE
04115
05106
0507
97n]B
08109
09110
10/11
11112
12113
13114
1415
15!18
16117
17!18
9
1461
1519
1523
1429
1382
1456
1377
1472
1445
1434
1442
1451
1459
1488
10
1281
1307
1365
1369
1275
1228
1302
1224
1318
1292
1280
1288
1297
1308
11
1055
1122
1188
1226
1230
1135
1089
1163
1054
1179
1152
1141
1149
1158
12
586
932
999
1045
1103
1107
1013
966
1040
962
1056
1030
1018
1026
942 TOTJ
4883
1 4980 1
5055
1 5089
1 4990
1 4927
4782 1
4825
4886 T
4886
4931
ON
4823
4958
Patent of Gain
465%
359%
028%
(156)%
(115)%
(298)%
090%
132%
(048)%
1.33%
(043)%
029%
070%
3
Pupl Gain
217
175
14
(79)
(63)
146)
43
64
(22)
65
(21)
14
34
3fJ4 131'Rau4 m RLM RAW a to Ye H6kav
ACTUAL
PROJ
PROJ
PROJ
PROD
PROJ
PROJ
PROD
PRO/
PROD
PRO.1
PROD
PRO?
PRO,
GRADE 04115
05106
O6f07
07.08
oem
09110
10111
11112
12113
13/14
1415
15116
16117
17/16
9 1461
1395
1390
1305
1252
1318
1223
1311
1268
1269
1267
1251
1247
1264
f0 1261
1385
1319
1314
1232
1176
1242
1147
1235
1210
1193
1191
1178
1171
11 1055
1170
1294
1228
1224
1142
1088
1151
1057
1145
1119
1102
1100
1088
12 688
948
1063
1187
1121
1117
1034
979
1044
949
1037
1012
995
993
9.12 Turf 4863 1
4898
1 5067
j 5038 1
4829 1
4763
1 4586
1 4588 1
4622
1 4572
1 4618 1
4569 1
4520
4516
Pen:aa of Gain
504%
345%
(0.57)%
(4114)%
(1.59)%
(352)%
006%
O T3%
(1.0770
095%
(113)%
(0 85)%
(0 10)%
Pupil Gain
235
189
29)
(206)
(77)
(18
3
33
49)
43
57
(39)
(5)
IADE I 04105 1 05.018 1 05.007 1 07108 1 0509 1 09110 1 10111 I 1112 1 12113 1 13114 1 1415 1 15116 1 1817 1 1711E
9 1461 1519 1523 1429 1382 1455 1377 1472 1445 1434 1432 1419 1412 1129
10 1281 1307 1365 1369 1275 1228 1302 1224 1318 1292 1280 1278 1266 1258
11 1055 1122 1188 1228 1230 1136 1089 1163 1084 1179 1152 1141 1139 1125
PementofGain 465% 359% 028% (156)% (125)% (296)% 090% 132% (048)% 112% (107)% (086)% (791 (0.10)%I
Pupil Gain 217 175 14 (631 146) 43 64 221 54 (53) (33) 15)
37
AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS - October 2004
TABLE
PROJECTION COMPARISONS
4
BY GRADE
GROUP
PROJ
PROJ
PROJ
PROJ
PROD
PROJ
PROJ
PROJ
PROJ
PROJ
PROD
PROD
KINDERGARTEN
ACTUAL
PROJ
PROD
PROD
PROD
PROD
PROJ
PRO'
PROJ
PROJ
PROD
PROD
PROD
PROD
GRADE 0005
05/08
06107
07106
0&OB
OB/10
10/11
11/12
12113
13/14
11115
15718
18117
17/18
E 13 892
590
887
885
883
860
878
576
973
871
B60
886
884
862
E6 882
901
BOB
918
926
936
944
952
681
969
976
987
995
1004
E 13A 692
680
878
871
887
13672
13802
13873
13871
13939
EAA 892
690
878
871
887
GRO 1—ORD 5
ACTUAL
PROJ
PROD
PROJ
PROJ
PROJ
PROD
PROJ
PROJ
PROD
PROJ
PROD
PROJ
PROJ
GRADE 0405
05/08
0607
D7A8
0809
OB1f0
10711
11112
12119
13114
1015
15/18
1S 17
17118
E13 4543
4659
4808
4848
4799
4772
4760
4749
4737
4725
4714
4702
4600
4679
E 6 4849
4895
4881
4954
4942
4984
5007
5050
5063
6136
5179
5222
8285
5308
E 13A 4643
4859
4808
4839
4775
ERA 4943
4895
4871
4912
4853
30-6 --G-RD-8--1
ACTUAL
PROJ
PROD
PROD
PROJ
PROD
PROD
PROJ
PROD
PROD
PROD
PROJ
PROD
PROJ
GRADE
04M
05108
0607
ORM08.09
09110
1411
11/12
12713
13114
1015
16/16
18/17
17/18
MS 13 3274
3132
3059
2074
3033
3001
300
3001
2979
2972
2885
2858
2951
2944
MS 5 32T4
3137
3070
3019
3109
3098
3154
3125
3130
3156
3182
3207
3233
3259
MS 13A 3214
3132
3059
2974
3033
3001
3045
3002
2970
2949
298
MS 8A 3274
3137
3070
3019
3109
3096
3154
3114
3068
3087
3064
GRO B — GRO 12
ACTUAL
PROJ
PROD
PROJ
PROD
PROJ
PROD
PROD
PROD
PR0J
PROJ
PROJ
PROJ
PROJ
GRADE 01!05
OSAe
08107
0780
08/08
09/10
10111
11!12
12113
13114
1015
15116
16117
17/18
SH 13 4883
4898
5087
5038
4829
4753
4586
4588
4622
4572
4615
4568
4544
4535
SHO 4663
4860
5055
5088
4990
4927
4792
4825
4886
4886
4931
4909
4823
4958
H 13A 4663
4898
5067
5038
4629
4753
4586
4586
4622
4572
4618
4559
4520
4516
SH BA 4553
4980
5055
5088
4890
4827
4762
4825
4889
4888
4920
4967
4834
4830
ISTRICTTOTALS
ACTUAL
PROJ
PROJ
PROJ
PROJ
PROD
PROJ
PROJ
PROJ
PROJ
PROJ
PROD
PROD
PROJ
TRADE
84105 I
05106
O6N7
07!08
08109
09fl0
10111
11112
1L13
1L14
14116
15118
18117
17/18
13
13672
13778
13821
13745
13544
13406
13270
13214
13211
13141
13163
13095
13049
13019
8
13672
13812
13015
13980
13867
13926
13887
13852
14072
1027
14270
14326
14417
14529
13A
13872
13779
13812
13722
13525
8A
13672
13802
13873
13871
13939
38
AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS - October 2004
TABLE PRQ C71ONCOMPARISONS
5 BY GRADE 3R 1,
Total • October 1 Actual Court AND Pro*W Count
Dm - Number PmJac Ion is under(-) or ow Actual
% . PeroeM Pre*Wn is under(-) or war Actual
124311- 13 YEAR HISTORY 6 UsYl9 Aws9s Kd991alaass
PQ 3 8 - 8 YEAR HISTORY 6 Us9q Aversee Kd9 b¢rease
I'd 3 13A 11 YEAR HISTORY 8 K018 Cly 80111 Rats
Pr) 3 8A- S YEAR HISTORY S "Cry B4UI Rates
(1ra0as
K -S
Total
1992431983-0/
DM
Y.
Total
D1
%
Total
199495
OM
X
Total
JOW96
qll
X
ToW
1998-87
DBf
%
ACTUAL
6428
sm
m
6468
Icor
not
6609
nn
na
6653
nor
mi
6715
w
m
PQ 3E 13
5380
(48)
(076)%
6504
36
0.58%
6638
29
044%
8898
45
058%
6780
65
097%
PO 3E.5
8129
1
002%
8578
108
167%
6675
66
100%
6684
31
047%
6753
38
057%
I'd 3E 13
6415
(13)
(020)%
6517
49
076%
6610
1
0 02%
6876
223
335%
6790
75
1 12%
P 3EAA
6473
45
070%
8585
117
181%
8852
43
085%
8870
217
326%
6730
15
022%
Grades
7-B
TOW
199249
DM
%
Total
1983-94
Dol
%
Tod
199445
DIR
%
Total
199548
0111
%
Tetal
1998-87
DM
%
ACTUAL
2584
7m
Iou
2797
rou
-m
21M
7m
sex
2904
nm
m
2944
m
m
I'd 3E 13
2572
(12)
4045)%
2785
(12)
(043)%
2838
32
114%
2912
8
028%
2903
(41)
(139)%
PO 3E9
2598
15
D58%
2799
2
007'4
2"4440
74
143%
2998
(6)
(021)%
2894
(50)
(170)%
I'd 3E 13
2572
(12)
(048)%
2785
(12)
(043)%
2836
32
114%
2912
8
028%
2903
(41)
(139)%
I'd 3E -BA
2599
15
0511%
2799
2
007%
284
4D
143%
2898
@1
JO21%
2894
(50)
(170%
Grades
10-12
Total
199243190394
Diff
X
Total
DIB
%
Total
199"
Off
%
Total
199548
DIB
%
Total
1998-07
DIB
%
ACTUAL
2237
ma
w
2247
nor
nor
2389
m
no
2556
nm
nm
2782
mr
not
I'd 3E 13
2307
70
313%
2340
93
414%
2480
100
419%
2603
47
184%
2803
21
075%
PB SEA
2297
50
224%
2316
69
307%
2463
1
74
310%
2569
13
051%
2772
(10)
(038)%
PQ 3E 13
2307
70
3 13%
2340
93
414%
2489
100
419%
2503
47
184%
2803
21
075%
I'd 3E SA
2287
50
2.24%
2316
89
307%
2403
74
310%
2560
13
OSI%
2772
10
30
AN
Grades
Totes
199243
Diff
%
I Total
1993-91
DIB
%
I Total
1894.95
DM
%
Total
199548
Diff
%
I Total
1998-97
DIB
%
ACTUAL
11249
3701
1m
11512
roe
m
11802
m
nm
12113
nor
rux
12441
res
m
P03E 13
11259
10
009%
11629
117
102%
11963
161
136%
12213
100
083%
12486
45
036%
Pr13E5
11315
88
059%
11691
179
155%
11982
180
153%
12152
39
032%
12419
(22)
(018)%
I'd 3E 13
11294
45
040%
11642
130
113%
11935133
1 13%
12392
279
230%
12496
55
0 44%
P 3E SA
11359
110
098%
11700
Ise
163%
11959
157
133%
12338
225
188%
12398
45)
(036)%
39
AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS - October 2004
TABLE PROJECTION COMPARISONS
5 BV GRADE GROUP Contin
Total - Ocb6er 1 Actual Count AND Projected Count
DM - Number Projection la under(-) or Over Actual
% . Parreld Projection N under(-) a over Actual
PO 313. 13 YEAR HISTORY E Us" Average Kdo In 2aaee
PO 3 6 - 6 YEAR HISTORY 6 Using Avenge Kd9 mates
PO313A 13 YEAR HISTORY 8 King Cd Birth Reties
PO 3 BA - 6 YEAR HISTORY 6 King Cry BIM Rales
radr
K-6
Total
1997-98
Dim
% I
Total
199549
DIR
%
I Total
1099-00
DM
% I
Total
2000-01
DIR
%
Total
2001-02
DM
%
ACTUAL
8887
m
m
6799
mot
m
6938
m
toot
6842
tat
ton
6042
m
m
P43E13
6850
(3T)
(054)%
7013
214
1054)%
6765
(73)
315%
6798
(M)
(084)%
6843
(99)
(143)%
PII3EA
6821
(66)
(008)%
6985
186
(096)%
6717
(121)
274%
6748
(94)
(137)%
6819
(123)
(177)%
Pd 3E 13
6705
(182)
(2 541%
6902
103
(264)%
6798
(40)
151%
8906
64
094%
6555
(87)
(125)%
Pq 3E.6A
6085
(202)
(2 93)%
6877
78
(293)%
6767
1
1 15%
6879
37
0$4%
6847
95)
(137)X
Grades
7-9
Total
1907-B8
DM
%
Total
19911419
DM
%
Total
1999-00
DRI
%
Total
2000-01
DIR
%
Total
2001-02
DIB
%
ACTUAL
3033
m
m
3054
m
m
3191
m
m
3204
m
m
3428
m
m
Pd 3E 13
2953
(80)
(2541%
2974
(60)
(264)%
3032
(80)
(262)%
3154
(50)
(156)%
3171
(255)
(744)%
Pr) 3E 6
2951
(82)
(270)%
2979
(75)
(270)%
3048
(75)
(246)%
3199
(5)
(016)%
3226
(200)
(564)%
Pd 3E 13
2053
(50)
(284)%
2974
(80)
(264)%
3032
(80)
(262)%
3154
(50)
(156)6
3171
(255)
(744)%
P4 3EJIA
2051
82
(270)%
2979
5
(270)%
3048
108
(248
3199
5
(0 Itirl,
3228
00
561
Grafts
10.12
TOW
19g741
DM
%
I Total
190848
DIR
%
Total
1999-M
DM
%
Total
2000-01
DIB
%
Total
2001-02
Dim
V.
ACTUAL
2840
our
m
3089
m
m
3071
m
m
3D89
m
m
3003
m
m
PII 3E 13
2927
78
274%
3079
(10)
274%
3208
137
(032)%
3249
180
518%
3249
155
504%
Pd 3E8
2892
43
151%
3043
(48)
151%
3179
108
(149)%
3220
131
424%
3220
127
411%
Pr) 3E 13
2927
78
274%
3079
(10)
274%
3208
137
(032)%
3249
160
5 18%
3249
156
5 04%
PTJ 3E SA
2892
43
151%
3043
46
151%
3179
108
149
3220
131
424%
3220
127
411%
AN
Grease
Total
1887-96
DM
%
Total
1998-99
DIB
%
Total
7999-00
DIR
%
Total
2000-01
DIR
%
TOW
2001-02
Ddl
%
ACTUAL
12769
m
m
12942
m
m
13100
m
m
13135m
m
13481
m
m
PO 3E 13
12731
(39)
(030)6
13067
125
(030)%
13005
(95)
097%
13201
65
050%
13263
(198)
(147)%
P03E6
12564
(105)
(092)76
13007
65
(082)%
12942
(158)
050%
13167
32
0.2
13285
(198)
(148)%
PO 3E 13
12585
(194)
(144)%
12955
13
(144)%
13038
(62)
010%
13309
174
13:
13275
(186)
(1.35)%
I'd 3E BA
12528
41
1 89)%
12899
43
(189)%
12992
108
(0331%
13298
163
12.
13293
168)
(1251%
40
AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS - October 2004
ABLE PROJECTION COMPARISONS
5 BY GRADE GROUP Cahn
Toa • October 1 Actual C minl AND Pmjecled Counts PO 313. 13 YEAR HISTORY 8 Usurp AYMaga Kd9 Ytr4a m
DO - Number ProNctlm is under(-) or over Actual Pr) 3 6 - 6 YEAR HISTORY 6 Using Average Kd9 lnaeaee
% - Percent Profeceon to under(-) or over Actual Pr) 3 13A 13 YEAR HISTORY 6 King Cry BBN Rees
Pd 3 SA - 8 YEAR HISTORY 6 King CH Birth Rates
Orbits
K-6
Toa
2002-032003-04
Diff
%
Total
DM
%
Total
2004-05
Dill
%
Averege
Odl
Averege
%
ACTUAL
8845
m
m
6885
m
m
6755
m
m
m
m
Pd 3E 13
6835
(10)
(015)%
6722
(1ea)
(2371%
6788
33
049%
(4)
(001)%
P4 3E6
8854
9
013%
6732
(153)
(222)%
8854
BB
147%
p)
008%
1(005)%1
Pd 3E 13
6837
(8)
(012)%
6671
(214)
(311)%
8736
(19)
(021
µ)
(02D)%
Pd 3E.BA
6877
32
D 47%
6700
(185)
(209)%
6789
34
050%
5
(178)%
Grades
7.9
Toa
2002-03
OM
%
Total
21103-04
DM
%
Toa
2004-05
DIN
%
Awra9e
DIf
Awrbpe
%
ACTUAL
3488
m
m
3656
m
m
3715
m
m
m
m
Pr) 3E 13
3258
(230)
IS 59)%
3388
(270)
(7391%
3560
(155)
(4 17)%
(94)
(276)%1
PO 3E83345
3320
(142)
(407)%
3490
(166)
(454)%
3685
(30)
(D61)%
(60)
(178)%
Pd 3E.13
3258
(230)
(859)%
3385
(271)
(741)%
3560
(155)
(417)%
(94)
(277)%
Pr13E SA
3318
(142)
(407)%
3490
(165)
(454)%
3885
(30)
(061)%
(60)
(178)%
Grades
10-12
Toa
2002-03
DIN
%
Toa
2003414
DIN
%
7oa
2004-05
Del
%
Average
DIN
ACTUAL
3094
m
m
3161
m
m
3202
m
m
m
P�j 3E 13
3391
297
950%
3303
232
734%
3491
259
903%
128
J289%
I'd 3E8
3320
228
730%
3297
136
430%
3362
160
5 DD%
83
Pd 3E 13
3301
297
960%
3393
232
734%
3491
289
903%
128
Pr13E BA
3320
226
730%
3297
138
480%
3362
160
5 DO%
63
Grades
Toa
2002-03
DM
K
Total
2003-04
DM
%
Total
2004-05
Di
Diff
Y.
Awrbge
Ddl
Average
%
TUAL
13427
m
m
13702
m
m
13672
101 0
IDOr
)D0r
m
Pr13E 13
13464
57
042%
13501
(201)
(147)%
13839
167
122%
24
025%
PO3E6
13520
93
060%
13519
(193)
(134)%
13901
229
167%
17
019%
P4 3E 13
13486
59
044%
13449
(253)
(185)%
13787
115
094%
24
015%
Pd 3E eA
13543
118
085%
13497
(215)
(1 57)%
13836
164
120%
23
014%
41
x*-
I 'm 'rat D* 16WMtped hY
K -6, 74, 10-12 artlortodam
pattern
Arlrulaoon Prom tw no
nmwic BnPact ca efficacy
of pfo*Cbon mallet,
Appendix A.2 - CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
Enrollment Projections
42
2005 Auburn School District New Developments
Buildout Schedule and Enrollment Projections
BASE DATA- BUILDOIRSCHE'OfJLE
Student Geresration Factors
111
ASSUMPTIONS.
132
2005 Auburn Single
Mul4
1 Uses post 9IM1 Bulk) Out Estirnataa rw~ Son Lakeland Developer.
100 874
Factor
Family
Famih
18 T&ker ane lobalad Lakeland Future slated for 2006 and divides across 2005-00
65
Elementary
03216
0 0687
2 Student Generation Factor are updated Aubum data for 2000 as affowadper King county Ordinance
Sr Hi hPupils
Middle School
01584
0 0462
3 kreludea Lee HUI known dewbpnhenla and Non -Lakeland davelopmrnes (a" Dalralopment Growth
67 1
Senor High
0 1632
--T
00486
3a Takes ane labeled Kersey Prgwt slated for 2006 and dNkkes across 2MY-10
K-12 1
Total
6432
0 1635
3b Taker area labeled Kent kwounormat andoroiecar at across 2000-2011
264
264
199 1744
Lakeland Single Fahndy Unds 278 276 101 101 101 101 977
Lea Hill Area 41 189 189 189 189 189 189 1175
Ekmenla Pupila
K-5
111
185
132
132
132
132
100 874
Md School PuOhlc
6-8
65
91
65
65
fi5
65
49 429
Sr Hi hPupils
6-12
Sfi
94 1
67
67 1
57
67
51 418
Total
K-12 1
223
1 369
264
264 1
264
264
199 1744
Lakeland MUPo Family Undo
Other Mutth Famd Umts
109
0
168
32
38
27
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
315
59
Total Muttl Family Unroll
109
1 200 1
65
D
07
0
1 0
374
letnentary Pup115K-5 7 14 4 0 0 0 0 _ 44
Id School PUDIIs 6-8 5 9 3 0 0
Sr Koh Nods 9-12 1 5 1 10-1 -1 0 X0 1 0 1 25
132 1 132
Total K-12 1
240
1 402 1
275
1 264 1
264
1 264
1 19E
nulative Protion
2005-M
1 200807 1
2007-N
1 2008-09 1
2009-10
1 2010-11
1 2011-
Elerneniary-GrWnK-5
119
W
454
586
118
850
950
Mid School - Grades 6 - 8
60
160
228
293
358
423
473
ieruor High - Grades 9 - 12
62
165
235
302
370 1
437
487
Total
240
641 1
017 1
1182 1
1416
1710
1511
43
2005 Auburn School District New Developments
Buddout Schedule and Enrollment Projections
TABLE
New Projects - Pupil Protection Cumulellve
Cumulative
2
b Grade Level
Updated 412-05
412-05
Y e co survival"
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
model assuming 100% of
Actual
Pro
Pro trod
dad
Projected
I Prolechad
Prcletled
clad
previous year new
KDG
892
16
27
t6
17
17
17
13
enrollees move to On next
1
960
28
35
45
37
36
36
32
grade level.
2
992
29
48
64
84
56
65
50
3
918
29
49
67
74
93
75
70
Kindergarten calculates
4
1016
30
50
s9
87
94
103
90
birth rate average plus
5
957
31
51
70
89
107
114
119
current generation based on
5
1020
31
52
72
91
110
125
129
% of total enrollment Other
7
1124
31
53
73
93
112
130
144
use 100% cohort survival
81
1130 1
31
53
73
93
113
132
146
9
1461
41
69
so
100
120
140
152
10
1261
35
65
82
103
123
143
157
11
1055
31
57
a6
103
123
144
159
12
586
27
49
74
103
120
141
157
Total
13672
391
1 648
883
1053
1 1214
1358
1 1411
ate
8557% 1
33.31%
1 2200°.4
1 1529%
1 1135%
1 431%
TABLEcts • Pupil
Projection
Cumulative
3 bGrade Level
3AA ND Updated
412-05
US" a colgion survival,
2004-M
2005-06
2008-07
21107-08
200899
2009-10
2010 t
2011-12
moda/assuming 100%of
Aceml
Pro sled
Pro cted
P
Pro dad
Pro
Pro ed
Pro dad
previous year new
892
917
938
930
944
962
981
965
enrolleas mow to the next
1
960
979
992
toll
1011
1019
1027
1031
grade level.
2
992
904
1001
1018
1035
1035
1043
1047
3
918
1042
1035
1041
1055
1075
1075
1078
Kindergarten calculates
4
tole
988
1082
1074
1061
1096
1114
1110
birth rate average plus
5
957
1062
1004
1118
1110
1116
1131
1145
current generation based on
6
1020
1004
1099
1940
1154
1146
1153
1162
% of total enrollment Other
7
1124
1061
1035
1130
1071
1185
1177
1178
use 100% cohort survival
51130
1165
1093
1088
1160
1102
1215
1202
9
1461
1560
1562
1609
1482
1878
1517
1624
10
1261
1343
1430
1451
1378
1361
1445
1381
11
1055
1153
1225
1311
1333
1259
1232
1322
12
686
958
1048
1119
1205
1227
1154
1123
4663
5014
5285
5391
1 5398
1 15,414
1 5349
1 5450
ate
389%
253%
179%
133%
079%
070%
I 081%
44
Appendix A.3 Student Generation Survey
45
Auburn School District
Single Family Development Growth since 111199
April. 2005
Goo
Code
Development Name
n
Parcels
Current o
Occupied
Be
1
AshleyAvenue
12
17
0
10
Bent Tree
20
3
0
20
Berkshire Crest
31
29
0
36
Berkshire Glen
95
64
0
LH01
Berkshire Glen Phase 2
96
61
6
0
Bifrost Gate
52
521
0
43
ICanterberry Crossing
20
201
0
101
Carrington Meadows
56
56
0
6
Country Green
22
22
0
5
Crvstal Court
13
13
0
9
Crystal Meadows
27
27
0
23
Dennison Park
11
11
0
10
Dorne Lane
16
16
0
2
Emerald Park
11
11
0
31
Jomada
94
94
0
21
The Junction
49
49
0
18
Kell! Meadows
8
8
0
11
Kendall Heights
31
31
0
HZ01
Kingsley Meadows
56
21
35
15
Lakeland Ashton
54
54
0
4
Lakeland. Ashton Phase 2
102
102
0
1
Lakeland: East orate
801
80
0
46
Lakeland: East into Div 2
66
66
0
ill
Lakeland. Evergreen
49
49
0
11
Lakeland- Evergreen, Div 213
102
102
0
2
Lakeland Montiano
104
104
0
4
Lakeland: Summit
22
22
0
1
Lakeland: Tuscany
76
76
0
GR00
Lakeland* Verona
400
122
278
7
Lakeland: View Ride
65
65
0
12
Lakeland. View Ridge South
74
74
0
10
LeeAnn Meadows
23
23
0
4
McDonnel Estates
6
6
0
0
Peasley Rid a
54
54
0
5S07
River Park Estates
18
-6-12
9
8
Riverwalk The Palisades at
145
145
0
6
Royal Hills Division 1
49
49
0
25
Royal Hills. Division 2
33
33
0
78
Soos Creek Vista
10
10
0
Elementa
Summerfield Estates
40
40
0
55
Swansons Flat
21
21
0
lValley View Estates
8
8
0
Vinta a Hills Division 6
61
61
0
Vintage Hills Division 7
20
20
0
EH02
Vrstara 2
38
33
5
LV05
Washington National Div 1
42
32
Willow Park The Rid at
94
94
1000
Willow Park The Rid e -Ph 2
47
47
LOzo 346
Student Generatlon actors
46
Elem
Middle
HS
Total
0
1
1
2
17
6
10
33
9
3
8
20
52
24
29
105
36
18
101
64
251
15
6
46
61
1
0
7
201
13
10
43
231
7
0
30
101
4
5
19
121
6
3
21
81
6
5
19
31
3
3
9
11
1
2
4
23
12
8
43
22
10
10
42
0
0
2
2
15
6
10
31
7
2
0
9
21
6
121
39
34
18
261
78
131
6
11
30
6
5
10
21
23
5
8
36
15
7
7
29
19
4
7
30
2
1
1
4
23
12
11
46
24
17
13
54
ill
6
17
34
141
11
14
39
41
4
2
10
21
2
0
4
131
8
16
37
1
2
2
5
39
20
22
81
8
7
7
22
8
2
2
12
1
1
0
2
10
4
3
17
151
4
3
22
71
2
0
9
241
11
9
44
7
1
1
9
8
2
1
11
8
6
3
17
46
26
25
97
38
23
17
78
7
21
361
372
0.1
--749
W3
Elementa
Middb
High
Total
111
55
56
223
Aubum School District
Single Family Development Growth since 111199
April, 2005
2005
HZ01
Auburn Place
14
0
14
LH04
Backbone Ridge
7
0
7
HZ01
Cambridge Pointe
26
0
26
HZ01
Carrington Pointe
24
0
24
HZ04
Dawson Hills
6
0
6
AL01
Hansen Development
31
0
31
HZ01
IHazel Park
15
0
15
GR00
Lakeland: Future
181
0
161
GR00
Lakeland: Thuline
95
0
95
LV0710 Little Fields
8
0
8
LH04
Marchini Meadows
83
0
83
LV07
Mystery Heights
6
0
6
AL01
Pacific Meadows
44
0
44
WA02
Plemmons Development
8
0
8
HZ01
River Rim
12
0
12
EH06
IRiverpointe
12
0
12
HZ01
lWhite Mountain Trails
30
0
euz95 98 1
2006 and Un
30 Elementa Middle High I Total
1 4
LV05
Anderson Acres
14
Ol
14
IL02
Aspen Meadows
21
0
21
EH04
Auburn 40
600
0
600
LH04
Brandon Meadows
55
0
55
LH06
Brandon Place
78
0
78
HZ01
Dalid Dhahwal Plat
8
0
8
LH04
Harpreet Kang
8
0
8
HZ01
Hazel View
201
0
20
LH04
Kendall Ride
109
0
109
HZ01
Kent Impound Area
376
0
376
GR04
Kersey 3 Project
403
0
403
HZ03
Potter Plat
33
0
33
LH06
Vintage Place
25
025
LH04
lWillow Place
18
0
iters
!t1
18 Elemental Middle I High ITotal
F753 1 56
Pro'ected Additional Students to i
Elements Middle I High I Total
87 44 47
Aubum School District
Development Growth since 111/99
April, 2005
MULTI FAMILY
Geo
Code
Development Name
Units/
Parcels
Current
3ecupancl
To Be
occupied
1 L0
Cherry Meadows
16
16
0
GR00
Emerald Pointe
93
93
0
GR00
Lakeland: Capri
168
132
36
LH06
Lakeland: Foxwood Townhomes
69
691
0
4
Lakeland. Heatherwood Townhor
92
92
0
3
Lakeland: Mill Pond Apartments
123
123
0
GR00
Lakeland: Siena
73
0
73
16
Meadow Valley Condominiums
78
78
0
39
Pasa Fina Apartments
147
147
0
0.0486
Vella e Square Townhomes
94
94
0
953 1 109
Student Generation Factors
2005
GR03
PD" Street Plat
32
0
32
1 L0
Faehnrich Addition
7
0
7
GR00
Lakeland: Future
168
0
168
IL01
Lakeland: Vista Heights
38
0
38
LH06
Worley Condominiums
19
0
19
264 264
48
Etem
Middle
HS I
Total
61
7
21
15
31
3
8
14
11
0
2
3
31
2
1
6
2
1
2
5
12
4
4
20
0
1
3
4
5
4
6
15
10
8
6
24
16
9
7
32
58
39
41
138
0 0687
0.0462
0.0486
0.1636
Elementai
Middle
High
Total
7
S 1
S
18
Elementa
Middle
High
Total
18
12
13
43
Total
Elemental
Middle
High
Total
26 1
17
18
61
DETERNHNATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
Issued with a 14 -day comment and appeals period
Description of Proposal:
This threshold determination analyzes the environmental impacts associated with the
following actions, which are so closely related to each other that they are in effect a single course
of action:
1. The adoption of the Auburn School District's Capital Facilities Plan 2005-2010 by
the Auburn School District No. 408 for the purposes of planning for the facilities needs of the
District; and
2. The amendment of the Comprehensive Plans of King County and Pierce County
and the cities of Auburn and Kent to include the Auburn School District's Capital Facilities Plan
2005-2010 as part of the Capital Facilities Element of each jurisdiction's Comprehensive Plan.
The cities of Algona and Pacific may also amend their Comprehensive Plans to include the
Auburn School District's Capital Facilities Plan as part of the Capital Facilities Element of each
jurisdiction's Comprehensive Plan.
Proponent: Auburn School District No. 408
Location of the Proposal:
The Auburn School District includes an area of approximately 57 square miles. The
Cities of Auburn, Algona, and Pacific and parts of unincorporated King and Pierce Counties fall
within the District's boundaries.
Lead Agency:
Auburn School District No. 408
The lead agency for tlus proposal has determined that the proposal does not have a
probable significant adverse environmental impact on the environment. An environmental
impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43 21C.030(2)(c) This decision was made
after a review of the completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the
lead agency. This information is available to the public upon request.
This Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2). The
lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date of issue. Comments must be
submitted by 4:00 p.m., April 25, 2005. The responsible official will reconsider the DNS based
on timely comments and may retain, modify, or, if significant adverse impacts are likely,
withdraw the DNS. If the DNS is retained, it will be final after the expiration of the comment
deadline.
Responsible Official: Mike Newman
Assistant Superintendent, Business and Operations
Auburn School District No. 408
Telephone: (253) 931-4900
Address: Auburn School District
915 4`h Street N.E.
Auburn, WA 98002
You may appeal this determination in writing by 4:00 p.m., April 25, 2005, to
Linda Cowan, Superintendent, Auburn School District No. 408, 915 4a' Street N.E., Auburn,
WA 98002.
Date of Issue: April 11, 2005
Date Published: April 11, 2005
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
WAC 197-11-960 Environmental Checklist.
Purpose of Checklist:
The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all
governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before
making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all
proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment.
The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency
identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if
it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required.
Instructions for Applicants:
This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about
your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the
environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS.
Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best
description you can.
You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your
knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own
observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know
the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or
"does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary
delays later. '
Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline,
and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems,
the governmental agencies can assist you.
The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do
them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional
information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The
agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or
provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be
significant adverse impact.
Use of checklist for nonproject proposals:
Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be
answered "does not apply". In addition, complete the Supplemental Sheet for non -
project actions (part D).
For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project,"
"applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and
"affected geographic area," respectively.
A. BACKGROUND
Name of proposed project, If applicable:
The adoption of the Auburn School District's 2005-2010 Capital Facilities Plan ("Capital
Facilities Plan") for the purposes of planning for the District's facilities needs. The cities
of Auburn and Kent and the King County and Pierce County Comprehensive Plans will
be amended to include the Auburn School District 2005 Capital Facilities Plan in the
Capital Facilities Element of each jurisdiction's Comprehensive Plan. The Cities of
Algona and Pacific Comprehensive Plans may be amended to include the Auburn School
District 2005 Capital Facilities Plan in the Capital Facilities Element of each
jurisdiction's Comprehensive Plan. A copy of the District's Capital Facilities Plan is
available for review in the District's offices.
2. Name of applicant:
Auburn School District No. 408.
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
Auburn School District No. 408
915 4'" St. N.E.
Auburn, WA 98002
Contact Person: Mike Newman, Assistant Superintendent, Business/Operations
Telephone: (253) 931-4900
4. Date checklist prepared: April 6, 2005
2
5. Agency requesting checklist: Auburn School District No. 408.
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
The Capital Facilities Plan is scheduled to be adopted by the District on April 25, 2005.
After adoption, the District will forward the Capital Facilities Plan to the cities of
Auburn, Algona, Kent, and Pacific, pd to King County and Pierce County for inclusion
in each jurisdiction's Comprehensive Plan. The Capital Facilities Plan will be updated
annually. Site-specific projects will be subject to project -level environmental review.
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity
related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain.
The Capital Facilities Plan sets forth the capital improvement projects that the District
plans to implement over the next six years. The District plans to construct a new high
school, a new middle school, and two new elementary schools over the next six years to
meet projected student population increases. The District may also add portable facilities
at existing school sites. The District will also conduct technology modernization projects
at facilities throughout the District.
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been
prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal.
The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have undergone or will undergo
additional environmental review, when appropriate, as they are developed.
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental
approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If
yes, explain.
None known.
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your
proposal, if known.
The cities of Auburn and Kent will review and adopt the Capital Facilities Plan for the
purposes of updating the cities' school impact fees and incorporating the updated Plan as
a part of the Capital Facilities Elements of both the Auburn and Kent Comprehensive
PIans. King County and Pierce County will review the Plan for the purposes of
implementing the Counties' impact fee ordmance and incorporating the Plan as a part of
the Capital Facilities Element of both the King and Pierce County Comprehensive Plans.
3
11. Give a brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed
uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this
checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to
repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include
additional speck information on project description.)
This is a nonproject action. This proposal involves the adoption of the Auburn School
District's Capital Facilities Plan 2005-2010 for the purpose of planning the District's
facilities needs. This proposal also involves the amendment of the cities of Auburn and
Kent Comprehensive Plans and the King and Pierce Counties' Comprehensive Plans to
include the 2005 Auburn School District Capital Facilities Plan as a part of each
,jurisdiction's Capital Facilities Element of their Comprehensive Plans.
12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to
understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address if
any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range
of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site
plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should
submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or
detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist.
The 2005 Capital Facilities Plan will affect the Auburn School District. The District
includes an area of approximately 57 square miles. The Cities of Auburn, Algona, and
Pacific, and parts of unincorporated King County and Pierce County fall within the
District's boundaries.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. Earth
a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes,
mountainous, other
The Auburn School District is comprised of a variety of topographic landforms and
gradients. Specific topographic characteristics of the sites at which the projects
included in the Capital Facilities Plan are located have been or will be identified
during project -level environmental review when appropriate.
n
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)?
Specific slope characteristics at the sites of the protects included in the Capital
Facilities Plan have been or will be identified during project -level environmental
review.
c. What general types of soils,are found on the site (for example, clay, sand,
gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify
them and note any prime farmland.
Specific soil types found at the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities
Plan have been or will be identified during project -level environmental review when
appropriate.
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate
vicinity? If so, describe.
Unstable soils may exist within the Auburn School District. Specific soil limitations
on individual project sites have been or will be identified at the time of project -level
environmental review when appropnate.
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or
grading proposed. Indicate source of fill.
Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be subject,
when appropriate, to project -level environmental review and local approval at the time
of proposal. Proposed grading projects, as well as the purpose, type, quantity, and
source of any fill materials to be used have been or will be identified at that time.
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so,
generally describe.
It is possible that erosion could occur as a result of the construction protects currently
proposed in the Capital Facilities Plan. The erosion impacts of the individual projects
have been or will be evaluated on a site-specific basis at the time of project -level
environmental review when appropriate. Individual projects have been or will be
subject to local approval processes.
6
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces
after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings?)
The construction projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have required or will
require the construction of impervious surfaces. The extent of any impervious cover
constructed will vary with each project included in the Capital Facilities Plan. This
issue has been or will be addressed during project -level environmental review when
appropriate.'
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the
earth, if any:
The erosion potential of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan and
appropriate control measures have been or will be addressed during project -level
environmental review when appropriate. Relevant erosion reduction and control
requirements have been or will be met.
2. Air
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e.,
dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when
the project is completed? If any, generally descnbe and give approximate
quantities if known.
Various emissions, many construction -related, may result from the individual projects
included in the Capital Facilities Plan. The air-quality impacts of each project have
been or will be evaluated during project -level environmental review when appropriate.
Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions.
b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your
proposal? If so, generally describe.
Any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect the individual projects
included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project -
level environmental review when appropriate.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air,
if any.
The individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be
subject to project -level environmental review and relevant local approval processes
when appropriate. The District has been or will be required to comply with all
2
applicable air regulations and air permit requirements. Proposed measures specific to
the individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be
addressed during project -level environmental review when appropriate. Please see the
Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions.
3. Water
a. Surface:
1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of
the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes,
ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If
appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into.
There is a network of surface water bodies within the Auburn School District.
The surface water bodies that are in the immediate vicinity of the projects
included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified during
project -level environmental review when appropriate. When necessary, the
surface water regimes and flow patterns have been or will be researched and
incorporated into the designs of the individual projects.
2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200
feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available
plans.
The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may require work near the
surface waters located within the Auburn School District. Applicable local
approval requirements have been or will be satisfied.
3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be
placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area
of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material.
Information with respect to the placement or removal of fill and dredge material
as a component of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan has been or
will be provided during project -level environmental review when appropriate.
Applicable local regulations have been or will be satisfied.
7
I]
4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions?
Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
Any surface water withdrawals or diversions required in connection with the
projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed
during project -level environmental review when appropriate.
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note
location on the site plan.
Each project included in the Capital Facilities Plan, if located in a floodplain area,
has beet) or will be required to meet applicable local regulations for flood areas.
6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to
surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume
of discharge.
Specific information regarding the discharge of waste materials that may be
required as a result of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan has been
or will be provided during project -level environmental review when appropriate.
Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions.
Ground:
1) Will groundwater be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to
groundwater? Give general description, purpose, and approximate
quantities if known.
Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may impact
groundwater resources. The impact of the individual projects included in the
Capital Facilities Plan on groundwater resources has been or will be addressed
during project -level environmental review when appropriate. Each project has
been or will be subject to applicable local regulations. Please see the
Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions.
2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground
from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage;
industrial, containing the following chemicals . .; agricultural; etc.).
Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the
number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or
humans the system(s) are expected to serve.
Il
The discharges of waste material that may take place in connection with the
projects included in the Plan have been or will be addressed during project -level
environmental review.
c. Water Runoff (including storm water):
1) Describe the source Qf runoff (including storm water) and method of
collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will
this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? if so, describe.
Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may have stormwater
runoff consequences. Specific information regarding the stormwater impacts of
each project has been or will be provided during project -level environmental
review when appropriate. Each project has been or will be subject to applicable
local stormwater regulations.
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so,
generally describe.
The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may result in the discharge of
waste materials into ground or surface waters. The specific impacts of each
project on ground and surface waters have been or will be identified during
project -level environmental review when appropriate. Each project has been or
will be subject to all applicable regulations regarding the discharge of waste
materials into ground and surface waters. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for
Nonproject Actions.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water
impacts, if any:
Specific measures to reduce or, control runoff impacts associated with the projects
included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during
project -level environmental review when appropriate.
M
4. Plants:
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site:
deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other
evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other
shrubs
grass
pasture
crop or grain
wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other
water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other
gther'types of vegetation
A variety of vegetative zones are located within the Auburn School District.
Inventories of the vegetation located on the sites of the projects proposed in the
Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be developed during project -level
environmental teview when appropriate.
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
Some of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may require the removal or
alteration of vegetation. The specific impacts on vegetation of the projects included in
the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified during project -level
environmental review when appropriate.
c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
The specific impacts to these species from the individual projects included in the
Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be determined during project -level
environmental review when appropriate.
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plans, or other measures to preserve
or enhance vegetation on the site, if any -
Measures to preserve or enhance vegetation at the sites of the projects included in the
Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified during project -level
environmental review when appropriate. Each project is or will be subject to
applicable local landscaping requirements.
i1c
5. Animals:
a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the
site or are known to be on or near the site:
birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other:
mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other
fish: bass, salmon, trout, hemng, shellfish, other:
An inventory of species that have been observed on or near the sites of the projects
proposed in the Capital Facilities Plan has been or will be developed during project -
level environmental review when appropriate.
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the
site.
Inventories of threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the sites of the
projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be developed during '
project -level environmental review when appropriate.
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain.
The impacts of the projects, included in the Capital Facilities Plan on migration routes
have been or will be addressed during project -level environmental review when
appropriate.
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:
Appropriate measures to preserve or enhance wildlife have been or will be determined
during project -level environmental review when appropriate.
6. Energy and Natural Resources:
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be
used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will
be used for heating, manufacturing, etc.
The State Boatel of Education requires the completion of a life -cycle cost analysis of
all heating, lighting, and insulation systems before it will permit specific school
projects to proceed. The energy needs of the projects included in the Capital Facilities
Plan have been or will be determined at the time of specific engineering and site
11
design planning when appropriate. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject
Actions.
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent
properties? If so, generally describe,
The impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan on the solar
potential of adjacent projects have been or will be addressed during project -level
environmental review when appropriate.
c. What kends 'of energy conservation features are included in the plans of
this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy
impacts, if any:
Energy conservation measures proposed in connection with the projects included in
the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be considered during protect -level
environmental review when appropriate.
7. Environmental Health:
a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic
chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could
occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe.
Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions
1) Descnbe special emergency services that might be required.
Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions.
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health
hazards, if any:
The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan comply or will comply with all
current codes, standards, rules, and regulations. Individual projects have been or
will be subject to project -level environmental review and local approval at the
tune they are developed, when appropriate.
12
b. Noise:
1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project
(for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)?
A variety of noises from traffic, construction, residential, commercial, and
industrial areas exists within the Auburn School District. The specific noise
sources that may affect the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have
been or will be identified during project -level environmental review when
appropriate.
2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated
with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic,
construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come
from the site.
The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may create normal
construction noises that will exist on short-term bases only. The construction
projects could increase traffic around the construction sites on a short-term basis.
Because the construction of additional school capacity will increase the capacity
of the District's school facilities, this project may create a slight increase in
traffic -related or operations -related noise on a long-term basis. Similarly, the
placement of portables at school sites will increase the capacity of school facilities
and may create a slight increase in traffic -related or operations -related noise.
Neither of these potential increases is expected to be significant. Please see the
Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions.
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any:
The projected noise impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan
have been or will be evaluated and mitigated during project -level environmental
review when appropriate. Each project is or will be subject to applicable local
regulations.
8. Land and Shoreline Use:
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?
There are a variety of land uses within the Auburn School District, including
residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, utility, open space, recreational, etc.
13
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe.
The known sites for the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have not been
used recently for agriculture.
c. Describe any structures on the site.
The structures located on the sites for the projects included in the Capital Facilities
Plan have been or will be identified and described during project -level environmental
review when appropriate.
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
The structures that will be demolished as a result of the projects included in the
Capital Facilities Plan, if any, have been or will be identified during project -level
environmental review when appropriate.
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site?
The sites that are covered under the Capital Facilities Plan have a variety of zoning
classifications under the applicable zoning codes. Site-specific zoning information has
been or will be identified during project -level environmental review when appropriate.
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?
Inventories of the comprehensive plan designations for the sites of the projects
included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be completed during project -
level environmental review when appropriate.
g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of
the site?
Shoreline master program designations of the sites of the projects included in the
Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified during project -level
environmental review when appropriate.
14
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive"
area? If so, specify.
Any environmentally sensitive areas located on the sites of the projects included in the
Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified during project -level
environmental review.
L Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed
project?
The Auburn School District currently serves approximately 13,031 full-time
equivalent ("FTE") students. Enrollment is expected to increase to approximately
14,478 FTE students by the 2009-2010 school year.
j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace?
Any displacement of people caused by the projects included in the Capital Facilities
Plan has been or will be evaluated during project -level environmental review when
appropriate. However, it is not anticipated that the Capital Facilities Plan, or any of
the projects contained therem, will displace any people.
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any:
Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be subject
to project -level environmental review and local approval when appropriate. Proposed
mitigating measures have been or will be developed at that time, when necessary.
i. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and
projected land uses and plans, 'rf any:
The compatibility of the specific projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan with
existing uses and plans has been or will be assessed as part of the comprehensive
planning process and during protect -level environmental review when appropriate.
9. Housing:
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? 'Indicate
whether high, middle, or low-income housing.
No housing units would be provided in connection with the completion of the projects
included in the Capital Facilities Plan.
15
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate
whether high, middle, or low-income housing.
It is not anticipated that the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will
eliminate any housing units. The impacts of the projects included in the Capital
Facilities Plan on existing housing have been or will be evaluated during project -level
environmental review when appropriate.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:
Measures to reduce or control any housing impacts caused by the projects included in
the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during protect -level
environmental review when appropriate.
10. Aesthetics:
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including
antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed?
The aesthetic impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been
or will be addressed during project -level environmental review when appropriate.
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?
The aesthetic impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been
or will be addressed during project -level environmental review when appropriate.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any:
Appropriate measures to reduce or control the aesthetic impacts of the projects
included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be determined on a project -
level basis when appropriate.
16
11. Light and Glare:
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day
would it mainly occur?
The light or glare impacts of the'projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have
been or will be addressed during project -level environmental review, when
appropriate.
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere
with views?
The light or glare impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have
been or will be addressed during project -level environmental review when appropriate.
c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?
Off-site sources of light or glare that may affect the projects included in the Capital
Facilities Plan have been or will be evaluated during project -level environmental
review when appropriate.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any:
Proposed measures to mitigate light and glare impacts have been or will be addressed
during project -level environmental review when appropriate.
12. Recreation:
a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the
immediate vicinity?
There are a variety of formal and informal recreational facilities within the Auburn
School District.
b. Would the.proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so,
describe.
The recreational impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have
been or will be addressed during project -level environmental review when appropriate.
17
The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan, including proposed new school
facilities, may enhance recreational opportunities and uses.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including
recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any:
Adverse recreational effects of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have
been or will be subject to mitigation during project -level environmental review when
appropriate. School facilities usually provide recreational facilities to the community
in the form of play fields and gymnasiums.
13. Historic and Cultural Preservation:
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state,
or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so,
generally describe.
There are no known places or objects listed on, or proposed for, such registers for the
project sites included in the Capital Facilities Plan. The existence of historic and
cultural resources on or next to the sites has been or will be addressed in detail during
project -level environmental review when appropriate.
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological,
scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site.
An inventory of historical sites at or near the sites of the projects included in the
Capital Facilities Plan has been or will be developed during project -level
environmental review when appropriate.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, If any:
Appropriate measures will be proposed on a project -level basis when appropriate.
14. Transportation:
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe
proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any.
The impact on public streets and highways of the individual projects included in the
Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project -level
environmental review when appropriate.
iL
b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate
distance to the nearest transit stop?
The relationship between the specific projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan
and public transit has been or will be addressed during project -level environmental
review when appropriate.
c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many
would the project eliminate?
Inventories of parking spaces located at the sites of the projects included in the Capital
Facilities Plan and the impacts of specific projects on parking availability have been or
will be conducted during project -level environmental review when appropriate.
d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to
existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe
(indicate whether public or private).
The need for new streets or roads, or improvements to existing streets and roads has
been or will be addressed during project -level environmental review when appropriate.
e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air
transportation? If so, generally describe.
Use of water,'rail, or air transportation has been or will be addressed during project -
level environmental review when appropriate.
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed
project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur.
The traffic impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or
will be addressed during project -level environmental review when appropriate.
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any:
The mitigation of traffic impacts associated with the projects included in the Capital
Facilities Plan has been or will be addressed during project -level environmental
review when appropriate.
19
15. Public Services:
a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for
example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so,
generally describe.
The District does not anticipate that the projects identified in the Capital Facilities
Plan will significantly increase the need for public services.
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services,
if any.
New school facilities have been or will be built with automatic security systems, fire
alarms, smoke alarms, heat sensors, and sprinkler systems.
16. Utilities:
a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water,
refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other.
Electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, and sanitary sewer utilities
are available at the known sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan.
The types of utilities available at specific protect sites have been or will be addressed
in more detail during project -level environmental review when appropriate.
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing
the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the
immediate vicinity which might be needed.
Utility revisions and construction needs have been or will be identified during project -
level environmental review when appropriate.
20
C. SIGNATURE
The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge.
I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision.
Signature:
Date Submitted:
21
D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS
(do not use this sheet for project actions)
Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in
conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment.
When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the
types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater
intensity or at a faster rate than If the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly
and in general terms.
1. How would the proposal be likely to Increase discharge to water;
emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or
production of noise?
life?
To the extent the Capital Facilities Plan makes it more likely that school facilities,
including new high school, middle school and elementary school capacity, will be
constructed, some of these environmental impacts will be more likely. Additional
impermeable surfaces, such as roofs, access roads, and sidewalks could increase
stormwater runoff, which could enter surface or ground waters. Heating systems,
emergency generators, and other school equipment that is installed pursuant to the
Capital Facilities Plan could result in air emissions. The projects included in the
Capital Facilities Plan should not require the production, storage, or release of toxic or
hazardous substances, with the possible exception of the storage of diesel fuel or
gasoline for emergency generating equipment. The Distnct does not anticipate a
significant increase in the production of noise from its facilities, although the projects
included in the Capital Facilities Plan will increase the Distnct's student capacities.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are:
Proposed measures to mitigate any such increases described above have been or will
be addressed during protect -level environmental review when appropriate.
Stormwater detention and nmoff will meet applicable County and/or City
requirements and may be subject to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
("NPDES") permitting requirements. Discharges to air will meet applicable air
pollution control requirements. Fuel oil will be stored in accordance with local and
state requirements.
2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine
The Capital Facilities Plan itself will have no impact on these elements of the
environment. The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may require clearing
plants off of the project sites and a loss to animal habitat. These impacts have been or
22
are:
will be addressed in more detail during project -level environmental review when
appropriate. The projects included in the Plan are not likely to generate significant
impacts on fish or marine life.
Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life
Specific measures to protect and conserve plants, animals, and fish cannot be
identified at this time. Specific mitigation proposals will be identified, however,
during project -level environmental review when appropriate.
3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources?
The construction of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will require the
consumption of energy.
Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are:
The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will be constructed in accordance
with applicable energy efficiency standards.
4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive
areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such
as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat,
historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands?
The Capital Facilities Plan and individual projects contained therein should have no
impact on these resources.
Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are:
No specific measures are being proposed at this time. Appropriate measures would be
proposed during project -specific review. Annual updates of this Plan will be
coordinated with the Cities of Auburn, Algona, Kent, and Pacific, and King and Pierce
Counties as part of the Growth Management Act process, one of the purposes of which
is to protect environmentally sensitive areas. To the extent the School District's
facilities planning process is part of the overall Growth Management planning process,
these resources are more likely to be protected.
5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use,
including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with
existing plans?
The Capital Facilities Plan will not have any impact on land or shoreline use that is
incompatible with existing comprehensive plans, land use codes, or shoreline
23
management plans. The District does not anticipate that the Capital Facilities Plan or
the projects contained therein will directly affect land and shoreline uses in the area
served by the District.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are:
No measures to avoid or reduce land use impacts resulting from the Capital Facilities
Plan or the projects contained therein are proposed at this time.
B. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation
or public services and utilities?
The construction projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may create temporary
increases in the District's need for public services and utilities. The new school
facilities will increase the District's demands on transportation and utilities. These
increases are not expected to be significant.
Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are:
No measures to reduce or respond to such demands are proposed at this time.
7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or
federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment.
The Capital Facilities Plan will not conflict with any laws or requirements for the
protection of the environment.
24