The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 10/18/2016adccW11411 Mayor Suzette Cooke Council President Bill Boyce Councilmembers Jim Berrios Tina Budell Brenda Fincher Dennis Higgins Dana Ralph Les Thomas City of Kent Council MeetingAgenda October 18, 2016 KENT CITY COUNCIL AGENDAS October 18, 2016 Council Chambers Mayor Suzette Cooke Council President Bill Boyce Councilmember Jim Berrios Councilmember Tina Budell Councilmember Brenda Fincher Councilmember Dennis Higgins Councilmember Dana Ralph Councilmember Les Thomas ******************************************************************** COUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDA 5 p.m. Subject Speaker Time 2017/2018 Budget Process Aaron BeMiller 90 min COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 7 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE 2. ROLL CALL 3. CHANGES TO AGENDA FROM COUNCIL, ADMINISTRATION, OR STAFF 4. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS A. Public Recognition B. Community Events C. Public Safety Report D. Intergovernmental Reports 5. PUBLIC HEARING A. 2017-2018 Biennial Budget – Second Public Hearing B. 2017-2022 Capital Improvement Plan – Second Public Hearing C. Comprehensive Plan/Capital Facilities Element Amendment and Update to Kent City Code Chapter 12.13, School Impact Fees – Public Hearing D. 2016 Tax Levy for 2017 Budget – Public Hearing 6. PUBLIC COMMENT - Please state your name and address for the record. You will have up to three (3) minutes to provide comment. Please address all comments to the Mayor or the Council as a whole. The Mayor and Council may not be in a position to answer questions during the meeting. For more details regarding the public comment process, please refer to the section titled, “Public Comments,” on the reverse side. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of Previous Meetings and Workshops – Approve B. Payment of Bills – Approve C. Ordinance Revising Enforcement Provisions of Illicit Discharge Code – Authorize (Continued) COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA CONTINUED D. Joint Funding Agreement for Water Resources Investigations with the U.S. Geological Survey – Authorize E. Ordinance Amending Kent City Code 3.12.030 – Surplus of Real Property – Exempt Properties – Adopt F. Strategic Plan Resolution – Adopt G. Linen and Uniform Services Agreement with Cintas Corporation – Authorize H. 2015-2016 Police Services Agreement with Kent School District – Authorize I. 2016-2017 Police Services Agreement with Kent School District – Authorize J. 2016 Annual Docket Report – Approve K. Hawkesbury Division I & II Bill of Sale – Accept L. Heritage Bank Bill of Sale – Accept 8. OTHER BUSINESS A. Utility Tax Ordinance Revision – Authorize 9. BIDS A. Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements Reach 1 River Mile 14.75 to 14.96 Mitigation Planting – Award 10. REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES, COUNCIL, AND STAFF 11. EXECUTIVE SESSION AND ACTION AFTER EXECUTIVE SESSION 12. ADJOURNMENT NOTE: A copy of the full agenda packet is available for perusal in the City Clerk's Office. The Agenda Summary page and complete packet are on the website at KentWA.gov An explanation of the agenda format is given on the back of this page. Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City Clerk's Office in advance at 253.856.5725. For TDD relay service, call the Washington Telecommunications Relay Service at 1.800.833.6388. COUNCIL WORKSHOP 1) 2017/2018 Budget Process, Aaron BeMiller CHANGES TO THE AGENDA FROM COUNCIL, ADMINISTRATION, OR STAFF PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS A) Public Recognition B) Community Events C) Public Safety Report D) Intergovernmental Reports Agenda Item: Public Hearing 5A_ TO: City Council DATE: October 18, 2016 SUBJECT: 2017-2018 Biennial Budget – Second Public Hearing SUMMARY: This is the second public hearing on the 2017-2018 Biennial Budget at the regular City Council meeting. Public input is welcome as the City prepares the 2017-2018 Biennial Budget. EXHIBITS: None RECOMMENDED BY: Finance Director YEA: NAY: BUDGET IMPACTS: N/A MOTION: (No action required) Agenda Item: Public Hearing 5B_ TO: City Council DATE: October 18, 2016 SUBJECT: 2017-2022 Capital Improvement Plan – Second Public Hearing SUMMARY: This date has been set for the second public hearing on the 2017-2022 Capital Improvement Plan. The Capital Improvement Plan is incorporated into the Capital Facilities Element of the Kent Comprehensive Plan. Public input is welcome. EXHIBITS: Draft 2017-2022 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) RECOMMENDED BY: Finance Director YEA: NAY: BUDGET IMPACTS: N/A MOTION: (No action required) October 3, 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total Sources of Funds City Resources 17,861 15,788 13,267 13,367 13,910 11,819 86,012 Utility Resources 19,075 14,700 15,500 15,500 15,500 15,500 95,775 Other Resources 510 755 18,873 17,728 16,129 16,079 70,074 Total Sources of Funds 37,446 31,243 47,640 46,595 45,539 43,398 251,861 Projects Requested General Government 4,061 2,888 3,802 2,447 2,940 849 16,987 Parks, Rec & Comm Services 5,010 3,510 7,773 8,083 6,534 6,484 37,394 Transportation 9,300 10,145 17,065 17,065 17,065 17,065 87,705 Utilities 19,075 14,700 19,000 19,000 19,000 19,000 109,775 Total Projects Requested 37,446 31,243 47,640 46,595 45,539 43,398 251,861 Amounts in Thousands 2017 - 2022 Capital Improvement Program City of Kent, WA City Resources 34% Utility Resources 38% Other Resources 28% Sources of Funds General Government 7% Parks, Rec & Comm Services 15% Transportation 35% Utilities 43% Projects by Category 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total Sources of Funds City Resources Business & Occupation Tax 6,600 6,700 7,020 7,020 7,020 7,020 41,380 CRF REET 2 2,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 7,000 CRF General 3,000 2,250 5,250 Facilities Fund 566 591 550 550 555 799 3,611 General Fund 2,000 2,000 4,000 Information Technology Fund 995 547 1,697 1,797 2,335 7,371 Solid Waste Utility Tax 2,700 2,700 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 17,400 Total City Resources 17,861 15,788 13,267 13,367 13,910 11,819 86,012 Utility Resources Drainage Revenues 4,400 4,950 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 41,350 Sewer Revenues 2,100 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 17,100 Water Revenues 12,575 6,750 4,500 4,500 4,500 4,500 37,325 Total Utility Resources 19,075 14,700 15,500 15,500 15,500 15,500 95,775 Other Resources Fuel Tax 10 10 20 Grants 500 500 500 500 2,000 Transportation Benefit District 745 745 GO Bonds 500 500 Funding Gap 18,373 17,228 15,629 15,579 66,809 Total Other Resources 510 755 18,873 17,728 16,129 16,079 70,074 Total Sources of Funds 37,446 31,243 47,640 46,595 45,539 43,398 251,861 Projects Requested General Government Facilities 566 591 805 650 605 849 4,066 Fleet 1,300 1,300 Technology 2,745 1,797 1,697 1,797 2,335 10,371 Strategic Investments 750 500 1,250 Total General Government 4,061 2,888 3,802 2,447 2,940 849 16,987 Parks, Rec & Comm Services Programs 160 45 293 243 194 194 1,129 Planning & Design 190 90 90 190 190 90 840 Redevelopment & Renovations 4,160 2,875 6,890 6,650 1,150 2,600 24,325 Development 500 4,500 3,100 8,100 Acquisitions 500 500 500 500 500 500 3,000 Total Parks, Rec & Comm Svcs 5,010 3,510 7,773 8,083 6,534 6,484 37,394 Transportation Site Improvements 9,300 10,145 17,065 17,065 17,065 17,065 87,705 Total Transportation 9,300 10,145 17,065 17,065 17,065 17,065 87,705 Utilities Water Supply & Distribution 12,575 6,750 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 43,325 Sewer 2,100 3,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 25,100 Stormwater Management 4,400 4,950 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 41,350 Total Utilities 19,075 14,700 19,000 19,000 19,000 19,000 109,775 Total Projects Requested 37,446 31,243 47,640 46,595 45,539 43,398 251,861 Amounts in Thousands 2017 - 2022 Capital Improvement Program City of Kent, WA 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total Sources of Funds CRF General 2,500 1,750 4,250 Facilities Fund 566 591 550 550 555 799 3,611 Information Technology Fund 995 547 1,697 1,797 2,335 - 7,371 Funding Gap 1,555 100 50 50 1,755 Total Sources of Funds 4,061 2,888 3,802 2,447 2,940 849 16,987 Projects Requested Facilities HVAC Replacements (Lifecycle)100 100 100 100 275 115 790 Emergency Facility Repairs 106 47 100 100 100 100 553 Kitchen Equipment (Lifecycle)25 20 20 30 25 25 145 Roof Repairs (Lifecycle)- 35 400 145 55 450 1,085 Kent Pool Lifecycle 25 25 25 25 25 25 150 Centennial Center Reseal 45 50 95 Parking Lots (Lifecycle)130 100 55 54 339 Floor Covering Replacements (Lifecycle)200 60 100 20 30 410 City Hall Elevator Doors 60 60 Facilities Card Access 75 114 189 Corrections Portable Back-up Power Conn.50 50 Tenants Requested Renovations 50 50 50 50 200 Total Facilities Projects 566 591 805 650 605 849 4,066 Fleet Fuel Island Phase 1 (Portable)785 785 Fuel Island Phase 2 (Partially Portable)515 515 Total Fleet Projects - - 1,300 - - - 1,300 Technology Hardware Lifecycle 725 768 622 622 622 3,359 Software Lifecycle 875 975 1,513 3,363 Tech Plan 200 200 200 600 Permitting System Replacement (KIVA)1,259 419 1,678 eFax/Email/File Record Retention Mgmt 100 50 150 Data & Records Mgmt-Dashboard & Collaboration 40 35 75 eAlert Functionality 40 40 Intranet Redesign 50 50 Electronic Plan Review System 197 197 IT Service Desk Redeployment 125 125 Connected Conference Rooms 70 70 Avanti System Replacement 250 250 Online Resident Engagement Tools Analysis 114 114 Parks Dashboard 150 150 Communications Dashboard 75 75 150 Total Technology Projects 2,745 1,797 1,697 1,797 2,335 - 10,371 Strategic Investment Projects Place Making - Meet Me On Meeker 450 450 900 Downtown Strategic Action Plan Implementation 50 50 100 Naden Ave & Willis St - Right In/Right Out 250 250 Total Strategic Investment Projects 750 500 - - - - 1,250 Total Projects Requested 4,061 2,888 3,802 2,447 2,940 849 16,987 Amounts in Thousands 2017 - 2022 Capital Improvement Program General Government Draft 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total Sources of Funds CRF REET2 2,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 7,000 Grants - Washington State 500 500 500 500 2,000 GO Bonds 500 500 General Fund 2,000 2,000 4,000 Fuel Tax 10 10 20 CRF General 500 500 1,000 Funding Gap 6,273 6,583 5,034 4,984 22,874 Total Sources of Funds 5,010 3,510 7,773 8,083 6,534 6,484 37,394 Projects Requested Programs Green Kent 15 250 200 150 150 765 Adopt-A-Park 25 25 25 25 25 25 150 Eagle Scout Volunteer Program 10 10 10 10 10 10 60 Paths and Trails Reinvestment Program 10 10 8 8 9 9 54 Neighborhood Parks Reinvestment Program 100 100 Total Programs 160 45 293 243 194 194 1,129 Planning & Design - Master Plans 50 50 50 50 50 50 300 Architect/Engineering 40 40 40 40 40 40 240 Uplands Playfield Renovation - Design 100 100 Hogan Park at Russell Road Ph II Design 100 100 Mill Creek Canyon Trails Design 100 100 Total Planning & Design 190 90 90 190 190 90 840 Redevelopment & Renovations - Lifecycle 610 580 310 500 500 500 3,000 Salt Air Vista Playground 100 100 Morrill Meadows Park Expansion 800 800 Green River Trail / Van Doren's Landing 200 200 Kent Valley Loop Trail Imple - Phase II 650 650 Downtown Place-Making Program - Phase I 275 275 Uplands Extension Renovation 400 400 Service Club Park Loop Trail/Drainage 100 100 Lake Fenwick Park Renovation - Phase 1 500 500 West Fenwick Park Renovation Phase 2 625 1,375 2,000 Kent Memorial Park Renovation 620 480 1,100 Springwood Park Renovation 200 2,500 1,500 4,200 Chestnut Ridge Playground 200 200 Old Fishing Hole Improvements 300 300 First Avenue Lunar Rover - Phase I 250 250 Mill Creek Earthworks Renovation 100 1,100 1,200 North Meridian Park Renovation Phase I 850 50 900 Eastridge Renovation 100 100 Interurban Trail, 3 Friends Fishing Hole 400 400 First Avenue Lunar Rover - Phase II 300 300 Garrison Creek Park Renovation 400 400 Uplands Playfield Renovation - Construct 1,350 1,350 Green River Trail / Van Doren's Landing 2,500 2,500 Downtown Place-Making Program - Showare 350 350 Sun Meadows Improvements 150 150 Frager Ped Bridge Rest Stop/Russell Wood 250 250 Meeker Street Place-Making 250 250 Kherson Urban Play 300 300 Hogan Park at Russell Road Reno. Ph II 1,500 1,500 Park Orchard Park Renovation 50 50 Lake Fenwick Park Renovation - Phase II 200 200 Amounts in Thousands Draft 2017 - 2021 Capital Improvement Program Parks, Recreation & Community Services 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total Amounts in Thousands Draft 2017 - 2021 Capital Improvement Program Parks, Recreation & Community Services Glenn Nelson Park Renovation 50 50 Total Redevelopment & Renovations 4,160 2,875 6,890 6,650 1,150 2,600 24,325 Development - Clark Lake Park Development 240th 500 1,700 2,200 Huse/Panther Lake Community Park 2,800 3,100 5,900 Total Development - - - 500 4,500 3,100 8,100 Acquisition - Strategic Acquisitions 500 500 500 500 500 500 3,000 Total Acquisitions 500 500 500 500 500 500 3,000 Total Projects Requested 5,010 3,510 7,773 8,083 6,534 6,484 37,394 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total Sources of Funds Solid Waste Utility Tax 2,700 2,700 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 17,400 Business & Occupation Tax 6,600 6,700 7,020 7,020 7,020 7,020 41,380 Transportation Benefit District 745 745 Funding Gap 7,045 7,045 7,045 7,045 28,180 Total Sources of Funds 9,300 10,145 17,065 17,065 17,065 17,065 87,705 Projects Requested Traffic Controllers, Signals & Cameras 700 700 700 700 2,800 Pavement Striping & Loops 350 350 225 225 225 225 1,600 Thermoplastic Markings 225 215 400 400 400 400 2,040 Pavement Preservation 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 48,000 Neigh. Traffic Control Prog.250 250 250 250 1,000 Crack Sealing Roadways 150 125 275 Guardrail Repair / Replace 110 110 220 Street Signs Repair / Replace 250 250 200 200 200 200 1,300 Street Lights Repair / Replace 100 100 90 90 90 90 560 Pavement Rating Consultant - 75 75 Concrete Replacement Program 700 700 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 9,400 Crosswalk Safety Improvements 150 150 300 Flashing Yellow L Turn Ph. 3, 4 & 5 200 200 400 Traffic Signal Controller Cab / Parts 300 300 600 Street Lights - New 100 100 200 Residential ADA, Sidewalk, Ramps 200 200 400 Street Tree Replacement & Mtc 375 375 750 Sidewalk, Walking Path, ADA Impv/Plan 430 450 880 Quiet Zone Improvements 300 300 600 Overlay - Teresa Terrace 125 60 185 Overlay - SE 217th St 55 55 Bridges 60 400 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 5,260 E. Valley Hwy 196th - 180th 100 1,400 1,500 S 212th St & 72nd Ave 1,000 1,000 James Street Concrete Street 1,400 1,400 Guardrail 212th 100 100 Overlay - SE 280th St 35 35 Overlay - 122nd Pl SE 60 60 Overlay - 123rd Pl SE 50 50 Overlay - Highridge 50 50 Overlay - S 252nd Pl 60 60 Overlay - 105th Ave SE 55 55 Overlay - 103rd Pl SE 50 50 Overlay - 118th Ave SE 60 60 Overlay Seven Oaks 300 300 Misy Meadows Overlay 800 800 Overlay Starlake Highlands 800 800 Guardrail - 208th 200 200 132nd Ave Pedestrian Imp 745 745 Residential Traffic Calming 100 100 S 212th St / S 208th St 1,000 1,000 Residential Crack Sealing 130 130 Overlay - 121st Ave SE 60 60 Overlay 121st Pl SE 55 55 Overlay - 105th Ave SE 50 50 Overlay - 108th Ave SE 60 60 Overlay - North Peak Crest 60 60 Overlay - 264th Pl 55 55 Inlay - 124th Ave SE 60 60 Inlay - SE 248th St 60 60 Overlay 103rd Pl SE - SE 204th St 100 100 Overlay SE 268th 550 550 Amounts in Thousands Draft 2017 - 2022 Capital Improvement Program Transportation 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total Amounts in Thousands Draft 2017 - 2022 Capital Improvement Program Transportation Overlay Meridian Glen 900 900 Overlay Alderwood 300 300 Total Projects Requested 9,300 10,145 17,065 17,065 17,065 17,065 87,705 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total Sources of Funds Water Revenues (New)7,450 6,750 4,500 4,500 4,500 4,500 32,200 Water Revenues (Reallocated)5,125 - - - - - 5,125 Sewer Revenues 2,100 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 17,100 Drainage Revenues 4,400 4,950 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 41,350 Funding Gap - - 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 14,000 Total Sources of Funds 19,075 14,700 19,000 19,000 19,000 19,000 109,775 Projects Requested Water Supply & Distribution Habitat Conservation Plan Implementation - 2,450 300 300 300 300 3,650 Reservoir Recoating - - - - - - - Tacoma Pipeline - - 50 50 50 50 200 Water Conservation - - 100 100 100 100 400 Landsburg Mine - - 100 100 100 100 400 Misc Water; Piping Upgrades 500 500 550 550 550 550 3,200 Water Zone Improvements - - 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 6,000 Large Meter & Vault Replacements - - 100 100 100 100 400 Hydrant Replacements - - 50 50 50 50 200 Water Generators - - 100 100 100 100 400 Wellhead Protection 400 100 100 100 100 100 900 Reservoir Maintenance & Improvements - - 500 500 500 500 2,000 Security Improvements on Water Sites - 50 50 50 50 50 250 Water Main Repairs/Replacements - - 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 10,000 Automated Meter Reading Study 2,500 - - - - - 2,500 Water Quality Database 50 - - - - - 50 Water System Plan Update 400 - - - - - 400 E. Valley Hwy Valve & Bypass Repl 400 - - - - - 400 Kent Springs Generator 1,000 - - - - - 1,000 SCADA Security Upgrades 150 - - - - - 150 Village Green Meter/Vault/Line Repl 250 - - - - - 250 Jenkins Creek Line Relocation 2,000 - - - - - 2,000 E. Hill Pressure Zone PS (Blue Boy)2,500 - - - - - 2,500 Clark & Kent Springs Fire Supression 100 - - - - - 100 Pump Station 5 Bypass Improvements 75 - - - - - 75 Derbyshire Water Main Replacements - 3,000 - - - - 3,000 Pump Station 3 Electrical Upgrades - 150 - - - - 150 E. Hill Pressure Zone PRV's - - - - - - - 224th St Phase II 1,050 500 - - - - 1,550 Transmission Easements 100 - - - - - 100 Seismic System Controls 225 - - - - - 225 West Hill Reservoir 100 - - - - - 100 Armstrong Springs Generator 175 - - - - - 175 228th St Grade Separation 500 - - - - - 500 Kent 14 Bridge & Water Repair 100 - - - - - 100 Total Water Supply & Distribution 12,575 6,750 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 43,325 Sewer Sewer Pipe Replacements 1,600 2,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 18,100 Pump Station Repairs & Replacements 500 500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 7,000 Total Sewer 2,100 3,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 25,100 Stormwater Management NPDES - 200 220 225 230 230 1,105 West Hill Drainage - - - - - - - Mill/Garrison/Spring/Grn. River & Tribs - - 1,000 1,000 1,170 1,170 4,340 Soos Creek & Tribs - - - - - - - Green River Levee Repair - - 6,180 6,175 6,000 6,000 24,355 144th Ave Drainage Improvements - 200 - - - - 200 Lower Russell Road Levee - 100 - - - - 100 Amounts in Thousands Draft 2017 - 2022 Capital Improvement Program Utilities 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total Amounts in Thousands Draft 2017 - 2022 Capital Improvement Program Utilities Mill Creek Culverts - 300 - - - - 300 Misc Drainage; Large Pipe/Culvert - 300 600 600 600 600 2,700 S 224th St. Phase 2 300 1,000 - - - - 1,300 Frager Rd Levee 50 - - - - - 50 Kent Airport Levee 50 - - - - - 50 Drainage Master Plan - 200 - - - - 200 Valley Creek System CLOMR - 50 - - - - 50 Upper Mill Creek Dam 2,200 400 - - - - 2,600 Valley Channel Rehabilitation 1,800 1,200 - - - - 3,000 228th St UPRR Grade Separation - - - - - - - S. 224th St. Phase 1 - - - - - - - Mill Creek @ 76th Ave Flood Protection - 1,000 - - - - 1,000 Total Stormwater Management 4,400 4,950 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 41,350 Total Projects Requested 19,075 14,700 19,000 19,000 19,000 19,000 109,775 Agenda Item: Public Hearing 5C_ TO: City Council DATE: October 18, 2016 SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan/Capital Facilities Element Amendment and Update to Kent City Code Chapter 12.13, School Impact Fees – Public Hearing SUMMARY: This public hearing will consider amendment of the Capital Facilities Element of the Kent Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the updated Capital Facilities Plans of the Auburn, Federal Way, Highline and Kent School Districts. These plans propose to also amend school impact fees outlined in Kent City Code Chapter 12.13. Kent City Code authorizes school impact fees on behalf of any school district which provides to the City a capital facilities plan; the plan is adopted by reference as part of the Capital Facilities Element of the Kent Comprehensive Plan. The school districts are required to submit for annual Council review their updated capital facilities plans. The City Council holds the public hearing on the school district plans at the same time as the public hearing for the budget, i.e., October 18, 2016. Any Council action is taken concurrently with adoption of the budget. The Auburn, Federal Way, Highline and Kent School Districts have submitted updated Capital Facilities Plans for Council review and consideration. EXHIBITS: 1) Staff memo dated 10/18/2016 2) Auburn, Federal Way, Highline and Kent School Districts Capital Facilities Plans 3) SEPA checklists and threshold determinations 4) Comparison Tables 1, 2 and 3 5) Annual Impact Fee Report from Auburn, Federal Way and Kent School Districts 6) Code References – RCW 36.70A.020 & 070, RCW 82.02.050, KCC 12.13.060-090, KCC 12.13.140 RECOMMENDED BY: Staff BUDGET IMPACTS: N/A MOTION: None at this time. This issue will be decided concurrently with adoption of the 2017-18 Biennial Budget. ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 October 18, 2016 To: Mayor Suzette Cooke, Council President Bill Boyce and City Council From: Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager Subject: Kent Comprehensive Plan and Amendments to Kent City Code Chapter 12.13 Re School Impact Fees SUMMARY: This public hearing will consider amendment of the Capital Facilities Element of the Kent Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the updated Capital Facilities Plans of the Auburn, Federal Way, Highline and Kent School Districts. These plans propose to also amend school impact fees outlined in Kent City Code Chapter 12.13. Kent City Code requires the School Districts to submit their updated Plans annually for Council review and consideration. The City Council holds the public hearing on the school district plans at the same time as the public hearing for the budget, i.e., October 18, 2016. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND: One of the planning goals under the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.020) is to ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development are adequate and timely to serve the development without decreasing current service levels below minimum standards. The Act (RCW 36.70A.070) requires the Capital Facilities Element of the Kent Comprehensive Plan to inventory existing capital facilities, forecast future needs and provide for financing of those facilities. RCW 82.02.050 authorizes cities planning under the Growth Management Act to impose impact fees on development activity as part of the financing for public facilities needed to serve new growth and development. As a result, KCC 12.13.080 and 090 provide for imposition of school impact fees on behalf of any school district which provides to the City a capital facilities plan; the plan is adopted by reference as part of the Capital Facilities Element of the Kent Comprehensive Plan. The school districts are required to submit for annual Council review their updated capital facility plans (KCC 12.13.060 & 070). The Auburn, Federal Way, Highline and Kent School Districts submitted their 2016/17 – 2021/22 Capital Facilities Plans and are requesting amendments of the Kent Comprehensive Plan and Kent City Code Chapter 12.13 to reflect changes to impact fees resulting from new student population generated by new single family and multifamily residential development. The plans include an inventory of existing facilities, existing facility needs, expected future facility requirements, expected funding, and calculation of the impact fees according to the formula set forth in KCC 12.13.140. MOTION: None at this time. This issue will be decided concurrently with adoption of the 2017-18 Biennial Budget. Kent Comprehensive Plan and Kent City Code Chapter 12.13 Amendments, School District Capital Facilities Plans-Impact Fees 10/18/16 City Council Meeting Page 2 of 2 The Auburn, Kent, Federal Way and Highline School Districts propose amendment of the Kent Comprehensive Plan and Kent City Code Chapter 12.13 to reflect changes to impact fees resulting from new student population generated by new single family and multifamily residential development. The plans include an inventory of existing facilities, existing facility needs, expected future facility requirements, and expected funding. The Kent School District proposes to increase their existing school impact fees for single family units from $4,990 to $5,100 (an increase of $110 or 2.2%) and increase their fees for multifamily units from $2,163 to $2,210 (an increase of $47 or 2.2%). The Federal Way School District proposes to increase their existing school impact fees for single family units from $2,899 to $3,198 (an increase of $299 or 10.3%) and increase their fees for multifamily units from $506 to $8,386 (an increase of $7,880 or 1,557.3%). The Auburn School District proposes to increase their existing school impact fees for single family units from $5,330.88 to $5,469.37 (an increase of $138.49 or 2.6%) and decrease their fees for multifamily units from $2,625.01 to $1,639.70 (a decrease of $985.31 or 37.5%). The only area in Kent where Auburn School District’s impact fees are applied is the Verdana or Bridges Planned Unit Development on the former impoundment reservoir site. The Highline School District proposes to decrease their existing school impact fees for single family units from $8,229 to $7,528 (a decrease of $701 or 8.5%) and decrease their fees for multifamily units from $7,453 to $6,691(a decrease of $762 or 10.2%). The Highline School District covers the northern section of the Midway Subarea. Included with this memo are comparison tables among the four school districts, historical data on the school impact fees and a list of impact fee expenditures for each of the school districts except Highline which did not have any Kent development that would have incurred impact fees. CA\pm S:\Permit\Plan\COMP_PLAN_AMENDMENTS\2016\CPA-2016-1 School Districts CFPs\CPA-2016-1_hearing10182016.doc Enc: School Districts’ Capital Facilities Plans Determinations of Nonsignificance Environmental Checklists List of Impact Fee Expenditures – Kent, Auburn, Federal Way RCW 36.70A.020 & 070, RCW 82.02.050 KCC 12.13.060-090, KCC 12.13.140 Comparison Tables and Historical Data (Tables 1, 2, and 3) cc: Ben Wolters, Economic & Community Development Director Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager Project File CPA-2016-1 Parties of Record Auburn School District No. 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2016 through 2022 Adopted by the Auburn School District Board of Directors June 13, 2016 915 Fourth Street NE Auburn, Washington 98002 Unincorporated King County City of Auburn Serving Students in: Ray Vefik Robyn Mulenga Anne Baunach (253) 931-4900 City of Pacific City of Algona City of Kent City of Black Diamond Dr. Alan Spicciati, Superintendent BOARD of DIRECTORS Ryan Van Quill Laurie Bishop Section I Executive Summary ……………………Page 1 Section II Enrollment Projections…………………Page 6 Section III Standard of Service…………………… Page 8 Section IV Inventory of Facilities……………………Page 16 Section V Pupil Capacity……………………………Page 20 Section VI Capital Construction Plan………………Page 23 Section VII Impact Fees………………………………Page 27 Section VIII Appendices…………………………..… Page 31 Appendix A.1 - Student Enrollment Projections Page 32 Appendix A.2 - Capital Facilities Plan Projections Page 47 Appendix A.3 - Student Generation Survey Page 51 Table of Contents Auburn School District No. 408 Capital Facilities Plan 2016 through 2022 Section I Executive Summary 2 Auburn School District No. 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2016 through 2022 I. Executive Summary This six-year Capital Facilities Plan (the “Plan”) has been prepared by the Auburn School District (the “District”) as the District’s principal planning document, in compliance with the requirements of Washington’s Growth Management Act and the adopted ordinances of the counties and cities served by the District. This Plan was prepared using data available in the spring of 2016. This Plan is consistent with prior long-term capital facilities plans adopted by the District. However, this Plan is not intended to be the sole plan for all of the District’s needs. The District may prepare interim and periodic long-range Capital Facilities Plans consistent with Board Policies and actions, taking into account a longer or a shorter time period; other factors and trends in the use of facilities; and other needs of the District as may be required. However, any such plan or plans will be consistent with this six-year Capital Facilities Plan. To enable the collection of impact fees in the unincorporated areas of King County and within the City of Auburn and City of Kent; the King County Council, the City of Auburn and the City of Kent will adopt this Plan by reference as part of each jurisdiction’s respective comprehensive plan. To enable the collection of impact fees in the Cities of Algona, Pacific, and Black Diamond, these municipalities must also adopt this Plan and adopt school impact fee ordinances. Pursuant to the requirements of the Growth Management Act and the local ordinances, this Plan will be updated on an annual basis, and any changes in the fee schedule(s) adjusted accordingly. The Plan establishes the District’s “standard of service” in order to ascertain the District’s current and future capacity. While the State Superintendent of Public Instruction establishes square footage guidelines for capacity, those guidelines do not account for the local program needs of the District. The Growth Management Act and the school impact fee ordinance authorize the District to define its standard of service based on the District’s specific needs. In general, the District’s current standard provides that class size for grades K-2 should not exceed 24 students and 18.23 students for our ten schools designated as serving high poverty areas; class size for grades 3-4 should not exceed 26 students; class size for grade 5 should not exceed 29 students. When averaged over the six elementary grades, this computes to 23.8 students per classroom. Class size for grades 6-12 should not exceed 30 students, with some subject areas restricted to lesser numbers. Decisions by current legislative actions may create the need for additional classrooms. (See Section III for more specific information.) The capacity of the schools in the District is calculated based on this standard of service and the existing inventory of facilities including transitional classrooms. The District’s 2015-16 capacity was 14,578. The actual number of individual students was 15,663 as of October 1, 2015. (See Section V for more specific information.) 3 The Capital Construction Plan shown in Section VI addresses the additions and proposed modernization to the District’s existing facilities. The plan includes the replacement of five elementary schools and one middle school, construction of two new elementary schools, and acquisition of future school sites to accommodate growth. The new facilities are required to meet the projected elementary school class size reductions mandated by the State of Washington and student population increases generated by the large development areas within the Auburn School District. Three areas that have significant impact on the school district are the Lakeland South, Lea Hill, and north Auburn valley areas of the district. There are other pockets of development that impact the District as well. The District completed a comprehensive review of all district facilities in October 2008. A Steering Committee made recommendations to the Board for capital improvements to existing facilities and replacement of seven schools over the next ten years. These recommendations led to a capital improvements levy and a bond issue that was placed on the ballot in March 2009. Both ballot measures were unsuccessful in March. The Board determined to rerun only the capital improvements levy in November 2009, which the voters approved. In the fall of 2011, the Board determined to move forward with the Auburn High School Modernization and Reconstruction Project and placed the project before the voters in February of 2012. The bond issue was supported by the community at nearly 57% approval rate, but was short of the super majority requirement of 60%. In March of 2012, the Board determined to rerun the bond in November of 2012. In November 2012, the bond passed at 62% and construction for the Auburn High School Modernization and Reconstruction Project began on February 25, 2013. Phases 1 and 2 of the three phase project have been completed and the entire new building area was occupied by Auburn High School students and staff in the fall of 2015. Site work included in Phase 3 will be completed during the summer of 2016. The School Impact Fee Ordinances adopted by King County, the City of Auburn and the City of Kent provide for the assessment of impact fees to assist in meeting some of the fiscal impacts incurred by a district experiencing growth and development. Section VII sets forth the proposed school impact fees for single family and multi-family dwelling units. The student generation factors have been developed using the students who actually attend school in the Auburn School District from single family and multi-family developments constructed in the last five years. There have been dramatic changes in the student generation factors for single and multi-family in the past four years. The District plans to carefully monitor the numbers over the next several years to determine if this is a trend or an anomaly. The method of collecting the data is with the use of GIS mapping software, data from King County and Pierce County GIS, and integration of the mapping with student data from the District’s student data system. This method gives the District actual student generation numbers for each grade span for identified developments. This data is contained in Appendix A.3. Auburn School District No. 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2016 through 2022 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Listed below is a summary level outline of the changes from the 2015 Capital Facilities Plan that are a part of the 2016 Plan. The changes are noted by Section for ease of reference. Section I Executive Summary A. Updated to reflect new information within the Plan. B. Summary level list of changes from previous year. Section II Enrollment Projections Updated projections. See Appendices A.1 & A.2. Section III Standard of Service A. Reduction of maximum K-2 class size from 20.3 to 18.23 students at 10 elementary schools designated as serving high poverty areas in 2015-16 and from 25 to 24 students at the remaining 4 elementary schools. B. Reduction of maximum third and fourth grade class size from 27 to 26 students. C. Reduction of maximum 5th grade class size from 30 to 29 students. Section IV Inventory of Facilities A. Add 1 portable at Alpac Elementary School. B. Add 2 portables at Arthur Jacobsen Elementary School. C. Add 1 portable at Chinook Elementary School. D. Add 2 portables at Pioneer Elementary School. E. Add 2 portables at Terminal Park Elementary School. F. Add 3 portables at Washington Elementary School. G. Add 1 portable at Mt. Baker Middle School. H. Add 1 portable at Auburn Mountainview High School. Section V Pupil Capacity All three of the new portable classrooms placed in January 2016 and five of the ten portables to be placed in June 2016 are needed to accommodate enrollment increase. The remaining five portables to be placed in June 2016 are needed to accommodate facility needs resulting from class size reduction rather than increased enrollment. 4 Auburn School District No. 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2016 through 2022 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Impact Fees CHANGES TO IMPACT FEE DATA ELEMENTS 2015 to 2016 CPF CPF 2015 2016 EXPLANATION Student Generation Factors Single Family Consistent with King County Ordinance 11621, Elementary 0.1960 0.2260 Student Generation Factors are calculated Middle School 0.0730 0.0820 by the school district based on district Sr. High 0.0940 0.0940 records of average actual student generation Multi-Family rates for new developments constructed Elementary 0.0650 0.0720 over the last five years. Middle School 0.0380 0.0220 Sr. High 0.0220 0.0440 School Construction Costs Elementary $40,880,000 $48,500,000 Site Acquisition Costs Cost per acre $393,774 $413,463 Updated estimate based on 5% annual inflation. Area Cost Allowance Boeckh Index $200.40 $213.23 Updated to projected SPI schedule. (July 2016) Match % - State 63.11% 63.83% Updated to current SPI schedule (May 2016) Match % - District 36.89% 36.17% Computed District Average AV Single Family $255,116 $269,764 Updated from March 2016 King County Dept of Assessments data. Multi-Family $111,737 $113,408 Updated from March 2016 King County Dept of Assessments data using weighted average. Debt Serv Tax Rate $1.42 $1.59 Current Fiscal Year GO Bond Int Rate 3.68% 3.27% Current Rate (Bond Buyers 20 Index 3-14) Section VIII Appendices Appendix A.1 - Updated enrollment projections from October 1, 2015 Appendix A.2 - Updated enrollment projections with anticipated buildout schedule from April 2016 Appendix A.3 - Student Generation Survey April 2016 DATA ELEMENTS From replacement school cost estimate in May 2016. 5 Auburn School District No. 408 Capital Facilities Plan 2016 through 2022 Section II Enrollment Projections Auburn School District No. 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2016 through 2022 ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS The Auburn School District uses a modified cohort survival model to project future enrollment for all of the District's operations. Table II.1 is an extract from the comprehensive projection model found in Appendix A.2 titled "CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Enrollment Projections". This Table shows the anticipated enrollment for the next six years based on the previous six year history of the District under the assumptions set forth in the comprehensive projections, Appendix A.1, and the projection for additional students generated from new developments in the district as shown in Appendix A.2. TABLE ASD ENROLLMENT II.1 PROJECTIONS (April 2016) 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 GRADE Actual Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected KDG 1198 1242 1286 1332 1375 1417 1456 1 1279 1261 1305 1351 1394 1436 1476 2 1289 1309 1291 1336 1380 1422 1461 3 1232 1312 1332 1314 1357 1400 1438 4 1170 1265 1345 1366 1347 1387 1428 5 1172 1193 1288 1369 1388 1367 1407 K - 5 7340 7582 7847 8068 8241 8429 8666 6 1116 1178 1199 1295 1374 1392 1369 7 1099 1142 1205 1227 1321 1398 1414 8 1136 1113 1157 1221 1241 1333 1409 6 - 8 3351 3433 3561 3743 3936 4123 4192 9 1229 1301 1279 1325 1387 1406 1497 10 1316 1241 1313 1292 1336 1397 1413 11 1167 1308 1233 1306 1283 1325 1383 12 1260 1246 1388 1315 1386 1362 1401 9 - 12 4972 5096 5213 5238 5392 5490 5694 TOTALS 15,663 16,111 16,621 17,049 17,569 18,042 18,552 GRADES K-12 Actual Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected K-5 7340 7582 7847 8068 8241 8429 8666 6-8 3351 3433 3561 3743 3936 4123 4192 9-12 4972 5096 5213 5238 5392 5490 5694 K-12 15,663 16,111 16,621 17,049 17,569 18,042 18,552 7 Auburn School District No. 408 Capital Facilities Plan 2016 through 2022 Section III Standard of Service Auburn School District No. 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2016 through 2022 STANDARD OF SERVICE The School Impact Fee Ordinances adopted by King County, the City of Auburn and the City of Kent indicate that each school district must establish a "Standard of Service" in order to ascertain the overall capacity to house its projected student population. The Superintendent of Public Instruction establishes square footage "capacity" guidelines for computing state funding support. The fundamental purpose of the SPI guidelines is to provide a vehicle to equitably distribute state matching funds for school construction projects. By default these guidelines have been used to benchmark the district's capacity to house its student population. The SPI guidelines do not make adequate provision for local district program needs, facility configurations, emerging educational reform, or the dynamics of each student's educational program. The Auburn School District Standard of Service addresses those local considerations that require space in excess of the SPI guidelines. The effect on the space requirements for both permanent and relocatable facilities is shown below for each grade articulation pattern. Conditions that may result in potential space needs are provided for information purposes without accompanying computations. OVERVIEW The Auburn School District operates fourteen elementary schools housing 7,340 students in grades K through 5. The four middle schools house 3,351 students in grades 6 through 8. The District operates three comprehensive senior high schools and one alternative high school, housing 4,972 students in grades 9 through 12. CLASS SIZE The number of pupils per classroom determines the number of classrooms required to house the student population. Specialists create additional space needs. Class sizes are subject to collective bargaining agreements. Changes to class size agreements can have significant impact on available space. The current pupil/teacher limit across all elementary programs is an average of 23.8 students per teacher. Consistent with this staffing limit, room capacities are set at 23.8 students per room at grades K - 5. At grades 6 - 12 the limit is set at 30 pupils per room. The SPI space allocation for each grade articulation level, less the computed reduction for the Auburn School District Standard of Service, determines the District's capacity to house projected pupil populations. These reductions are shown below by grade articulation level. STRUCTURED LEARNING FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED SPECIAL EDUCATION The Auburn School District operates a structured learning program for students with moderate to severe disabilities at the elementary school level which currently uses eleven classrooms to provide for 107 students. The housing requirements for this program are provided for in the SPI space guidelines. No loss of capacity is expected unless population with disabilities grows at a disproportionate rate compared to total elementary population. ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR The Auburn School District operates an adaptive behavior program for students with behavior disabilities at the elementary school level. The program uses one classroom to provide for seven students. The housing requirements for this program exceed the SPI space allocations by one classroom. Loss of Permanent Capacity 1 room @ 23.8 each = (24) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 23.8 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss = (24) ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 9 Auburn School District No. 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2016 through 2022 STANDARD OF SERVICE SPECIAL EDUCATION RESOURCE ROOMS The Auburn School District operates a resource room program at the elementary level for special education students requiring instruction to address their specific disabilities. Fourteen standard classrooms are required to house this program. The housing requirements for this program exceed the SPI space guidelines by seven standard classrooms. Continued loss of capacity is expected as growth in program is larger than the total elementary population. Loss of Permanent Capacity 7 rooms @ 23.8 each =(167) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 23.8 each =0 Total Capacity Loss =(167) 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 @ 23.8 each = (24) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 23.8 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss = (24) HEAD START The Auburn School District operates a Head Start program for approximately 114 pre-school aged children in six sections of 1/2 day in length. The program is housed at three elementary schools and utilizes three standard elementary classrooms and auxiliary office spaces. The housing requirements for this program are not provided for in the SPI space guidelines. Loss of Permanent Capacity 3 rooms @ 23.8 each =(71) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 23.8 each =0 Total Capacity Loss =(71) EARLY CHILDHOOD SPECIAL EDUCATION The Auburn School District operates a pre-school program for young children below age five with disabilities. This program is housed at seven different elementary schools and currently uses 10 standard classrooms. The housing requirements for this program are not provided for in the SPI space guidelines. Loss of Permanent Capacity 10 rooms @ 23.8 each =(238) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 23.8 each =0 Total Capacity Loss =(238) READING LABS The Auburn School District operates a program for students needing remediation and additional language arts instruction. These programs utilize non-standard classroom spaces if available in each elementary school. Four elementary schools do not have non-standard rooms available, thus they are housed in a standard classroom. The housing requirements for this program are not provided for in the SPI space guidelines. Loss of Permanent Capacity 4 rooms @ 23.8 each =(95) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 23.8 each =0 Total Capacity Loss =(95) 10 Auburn School District No. 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2016 through 2022 STANDARD OF SERVICE MUSIC ROOMS The Auburn School District elementary music programs require one acoustically modified classroom at each school for music instruction. The housing requirements are not provided for in the SPI space guidelines. Loss of Permanent Capacity 14 rooms @ 23.8 each = (333) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 23.8 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss = (333) ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS PROGRAM The Auburn School District operates a pullout program at the elementary school level for students learning English as a second language. This program requires fourteen standard classrooms that are not provided for in the SPI space guidelines. Loss of Permanent Capacity 14 rooms @ 23.8 each = (333) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 23.8 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss = (333) SECOND GRADE TOSA PROGRAM The Auburn School District provides a TOSA reading specialist program for eight highly impacted elementary schools. This pullout model provides direct instruction to students who are not at grade level and do not receive other services. This program requires eight standard classrooms that are not provided for in the SPI space guidelines. Loss of Permanent Capacity 8 rooms @ 23.8 each =(190) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 23.8 each =0 Total Capacity Loss =(190) ELEMENTARY LEARNING SPECIALIST PROGRAM The Auburn School District provides a learning specialist program to increase literacy skills for first and second graders. This program model was originally created from the I-728 funds and currently has the specialist going into existing teacher classrooms, as well as pulling out students into designated classrooms. The district is utilizing classrooms at all fourteen elementary schools. Loss of Permanent Capacity 14 rooms @ 23.8 each = (333) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 23.8 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss = (333) EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM The Auburn School District provides an Early Childhood Education Assistance Program to meet local needs for disadvantaged students. The State has funded an increase of 24 ECEAP seats. This program will require two new classrooms for 2015-16. Loss of Permanent Capacity 3 rooms @ 23.8 each = (71) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 23.8 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss = (71) 11 Auburn School District No. 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2016 through 2022 STANDARD OF SERVICE 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. Eight classrooms are required at the middle school level to provide for approximately 316 students. The housing requirements for this program are not entirely provided for in the SPI space guidelines. ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR SPECIAL EDUCATION The Auburn School District offers a self-contained program for students with moderate to severe behavior disabilities. The program is housed at one of the middle schools and uses two classrooms. One of the two classrooms for this program are provided for in the SPI space allocations. Loss of Permanent Capacity 1 rooms @ 30 each = (30) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 30 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss (30) STRUCTURED LEARNING CENTER AND DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED SPECIAL EDUCATION The Auburn School District operates five structured learning classrooms at the middle school level for students with moderate to severe disabilities and one developmentally disabled classroom for students with profound disabilities. Two of the five classrooms for this program are provided for in the SPI space allocations. Loss of Permanent Capacity 3 rooms @ 30 each = (90) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 30 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss (90) NATIVE AMERICAN RESOURCE ROOM The Auburn School District operates one resource room to support the education of Native American students at the middle school level. One standard classroom is fully dedicated to serve these students. Loss of Permanent Capacity 1 room @ 30 each = (30) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 30 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss (30) MIDDLE SCHOOL COMPUTER LABS The Auburn School District operates a minimum of one computer lab at each of the four middle schools. This program utilizes a standard classroom. The housing requirements for this program are not provided for in the SPI space guidelines. Loss of Permanent Capacity 4 rooms @ 30 each = (120) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 30 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss (120) ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS PROGRAM The Auburn School District operates a pullout program at the middle school level for English Language Learner students. This program requires four standard classrooms that are not provide for in the SPI space guidelines. Loss of Permanent Capacity 4 rooms @ 30 each = (120) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 30 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss (120) MIDDLE SCHOOLS 12 Auburn School District No. 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2016 through 2022 STANDARD OF SERVICE 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 12/14/11 identifies 148 teaching stations available in the mid-level facilities. The utilization pattern results in a loss of approximately 8 teaching stations. Loss of Permanent Capacity 8 rooms @ 30 each = (240) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 30 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss (240) NATIVE AMERICAN RESOURCE ROOM The Auburn School District operates one resource room to support the education of Native American students at the high school level. One standard classroom is fully dedicated to serve these students. Loss of Permanent Capacity 1 room @ 30 each = (30) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 30 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss (30) 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 LANGUAGE LEARNERS PROGRAM The Auburn School District operates a pullout program at three comprehensive high schools for English Language Learner students. This program requires three standard classrooms that are not provided for in the SPI space guidelines. Loss of Permanent Capacity 3 rooms @ 30 each = (90) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 30 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss (90) ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR SPECIAL EDUCATION The Auburn School District offers a self-contained program for students with moderate to severe behavior diabilities. The program is housed at one of the high schools and uses one classroom. The housing requirements for this program are not provided for in the SPI space allocations. Loss of Permanent Capacity 1 rooms @ 30 each = (30) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 30 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss (30) SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS 13 Auburn School District No. 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2016 through 2022 STANDARD OF SERVICE STRUCTURED LEARNING CENTER PROGRAM The Auburn School District operates nine structured learning center classrooms for students with moderate to severe disabilities. This program requires five standard classrooms that are not provided for in the SPI space guidelines. Loss of Permanent Capacity 5 rooms @ 30 each = (150) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 30 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss (150) SPECIAL EDUCATION RESOURCE ROOMS The Auburn School District operates a resource room program at the senior high level for special education students requiring instruction to address their specific learning disabilities. The current high school program requires 11 classrooms to provide program to meet educational needs of the students. The SPI space guidelines provide for one of the 10 teaching stations. Loss of Permanent Capacity 10 rooms @ 30 each = (300) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 30 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss (300) PERFORMING ARTS CENTERS Auburn High School includes 25,000 square feet used exclusively for a Performing Arts Center. The SPI Inventory includes this space when computing unhoused student capacity. This space was not intended for, nor is it usable for, classroom instruction. It was constructed to provide a community center for the performing arts. Using SPI capacity guidelines, 25,000 square feet computes to 208 unhoused students or 8.33 classrooms. Loss of Permanent Capacity 8.33 rooms @ 30 each = (250) ROOM UTILIZATION The Auburn School District provides a comprehensive high school program that includes numerous elective options in special interest areas. Facilities to accommodate special interest activities are not amenable to standard classroom usage. The district averages 95% utilization of all available teaching stations. There are 185 teaching stations available in the senior high facilities. The utilization pattern results in a loss of approximately 10 teaching stations. Loss of Permanent Capacity 10 rooms @ 30 each = (300) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 30 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss (300) 14 Auburn School District No. 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2016 through 2022 STANDARD OF SERVICE STANDARD OF SERVICE COMPUTED TOTALS ELEMENTARY Loss of Permanent Capacity (1,880) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 Total Capacity Loss (1,880) MIDDLE SCHOOL Loss of Permanent Capacity (630) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 Total Capacity Loss (630) SENIOR HIGH Loss of Permanent Capacity (1,360) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 Total Capacity Loss (1,360) TOTAL Loss of Permanent Capacity (3,870) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 Total Capacity Loss (3,870) 15 Auburn School District No. 408 Capital Facilities Plan 2016 through 2022 Section IV Inventory of Facilities Auburn School District No. 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2016 through 2022 INVENTORY OF FACILITIES 1 Table IV.1 shows the current inventory of permanent district facilities and their OSPI rated capacities. Table IV.2 shows the number and location of each portable unit by school. The district uses relocatable facilities to: 1. provide interim housing in school attendance areas uniquely impacted by increasing school populations that would otherwise require continual redistricting, 2. make space available for changing program requirements and offerings determined by unique student needs, and 3. provide housing to cover district needs until permanent facilities can be financed and constructed. Relocatable facilities are deemed to be interim, stop gap measures that often place undesirable stress on existing physical plants. Core facilities (i.e. gymnasiums, restrooms, kitchens, labs, lockers, libraries, etc.) are not of sufficient size or quantity to handle the increased school population served by adding relocatable classrooms. District School Facilities Building Capacity Acres Address Elementary Schools Washington Elementary 486 5.40 20 E Street Northeast, Auburn WA, 98002 Terminal Park Elementary 408 6.70 1101 D Street Southeast, Auburn WA, 98002 Dick Scobee Elementary 477 10.50 1031 14th Street Northeast, Auburn WA, 98002 Pioneer Elementary 441 8.30 2301 M Street Southeast, Auburn WA, 98002 Chinook Elementary 440 8.75 3502 Auburn Way South, Auburn WA, 98092 Lea Hill Elementary 450 10.00 30908 124th Avenue Southeast, Auburn WA, 98092 Gildo Rey Elementary 551 10.00 1005 37th Street Southeast, Auburn WA, 98002 Evergreen Heights Elem. 456 8.09 5602 South 316th, Auburn WA, 98001 Alpac Elementary 497 10.60 310 Milwaukee Boulevard North, Pacific WA, 98047 Lake View Elementary 559 16.40 16401 Southeast 318th Street, Auburn WA, 98092 Hazelwood Elementary 580 12.67 11815 Southeast 304th Street, Auburn WA, 98092 Ilalko Elementary 585 12.00 301 Oravetz Place Southeast, Auburn WA, 98092 Lakeland Hills Elementary 594 12.00 1020 Evergreen Way SE, Auburn WA, 98092 Arthur Jacobsen Elementary 614 10.00 29205 132nd Street SE, Auburn WA, 98092 ELEMENTARY CAPACITY 7,138 Middle Schools Cascade Middle School 829 17.30 1015 24th Street Northeast, Auburn WA, 98002 Olympic Middle School 921 17.40 1825 K Street Southeast, Auburn WA, 98002 Rainier Middle School 843 26.33 30620 116th Avenue Southeast, Auburn WA, 98092 Mt. Baker Middle School 837 30.88 620 37th Street Southeast, Auburn WA, 98002 MIDDLE SCHOOL CAPACITY 3,430 Senior High Schools West Auburn HS 233 5.10 401 West Main Street, Auburn WA, 98001 Auburn HS 2,100 20.50 711 East Main Street, Auburn WA, 98002 Auburn Riverside HS 1,387 33.00 501 Oravetz Road, Auburn WA, 98092 Auburn Mountainview HS 1,443 40.00 28900 124th Ave SE, Auburn WA, 98092 HIGH SCHOOL CAPACITY 5,164 TOTAL CAPACITY 15,732 Table Permanent Facilities IV.1 @ OSPI Rated Capacity (March 2016) Auburn School District No. 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2016 through 2022 INVENTORY OF FACILITIES TABLE TEMPORARY/RELOCATABLE IV.2 FACILITIES INVENTORY (June 2016) Elementary Location 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-2023 Washington 5566666 Terminal Park 6777777 Dick Scobee 7777777 Pioneer 7688888 Chinook 6777777 Lea Hill 5666666 Gildo Rey 6677777 Evergreen Heights 4455555 Alpac 6666666 Lake View 2333333 Hazelwood 2344444 Ilalko 6777777 Lakeland Hills Elementary 6777777 Arthur Jacobsen Elementary 4456666 TOTAL UNITS 72 78 85 86 86 86 86 TOTAL CAPACITY 1,786 1,934 2,108 2,133 2,133 2,133 2,133 Middle School Location 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-2023 Cascade 0001122 Olympic 0001122 Rainier 5778899 Mt. Baker 9 10 10 11 11 11 11 TOTAL UNITS 14 17 17 21 21 24 24 TOTAL CAPACITY 420 510 510 630 630 720 720 Sr. High School Location 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-2023 West Auburn 0001111 Auburn High School 0000000 Auburn High School - *TAP 1111111 Auburn Riverside 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 Auburn Mountainview 3445555 TOTAL UNITS 17 18 18 20 20 20 20 TOTAL CAPACITY 510 540 540 600 600 600 600 *TAP - Transition Assistance Program for 18-21 year old students with special needs. COMBINED TOTAL UNITS 103 113 120 127 127 130 130 COMBINED TOTAL CAPACITY 2,716 2,984 3,158 3,363 3,363 3,453 3,453 1 Auburn School District No. 408 Capital Facilities Plan 2016 through 2022 Section V Pupil Capacity Auburn School District No. 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2016 through 2022 PUPIL CAPACITY While the Auburn School District uses the SPI inventory of permanent facilities as the data from which to determine space needs, the District's educational program requires more space than that provided for under the formula. This additional square footage is converted to numbers of pupils in Section III, Standard of Service. The District's capacity is adjusted to reflect the need for additional space to house its programs. Changes in the capacity of the district recognize new unfunded facilities. The combined effect of these adjustments is shown on Line B in Tables V.1 and V.2 below. Table V.1 shows the Distict's capacity with relocatable units included and Table V.2 without these units. Table V.1 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 A. SPI Capacity 15,732 15,732 15,732 15,732 16,382 17,032 17,032 A.1 SPI Capacity-New Elem 650 650 B. Capacity Adjustments (1,154) (886) (712) (507) (507) (417) (417) C. Net Capacity 14,578 14,846 15,020 15,875 16,525 16,615 16,615 D. ASD Enrollment 16,111 16,621 17,049 17,569 18,042 18,552 19,047 3/E. ASD Surplus/Deficit (1,533) (1,775) (2,029) (1,694) (1,517) (1,937) (2,432) CAPACITY ADJUSTMENTS Include Relocatable 2,716 2,984 3,158 3,363 3,363 3,453 3,453 2/Exclude SOS (pg 14) (3,870) (3,870) (3,870) (3,870) (3,870) (3,870) (3,870) Total Adjustments (1,154) (886) (712) (507) (507) (417) (417) Table V.2 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 A. SPI Capacity 15,732 15,732 15,732 15,732 16,382 17,032 17,032 A.1 SPI Capacity-New Elem 650 650 B. Capacity Adjustments (3,870) (3,870) (3,870) (3,870) (3,870) (3,870) (3,870) C. Net Capacity 11,862 11,862 11,862 12,512 13,162 13,162 13,162 D. ASD Enrollment 16,111 16,621 17,049 17,569 18,042 18,552 19,047 3/E. ASD Surplus/Deficit (4,249) (4,759) (5,187) (5,057) (4,880) (5,390) (5,885) CAPACITY ADJUSTMENTS 2/Exclude SOS (pg 14) (3,870) (3,870) (3,870) (3,870) (3,870) (3,870) (3,870) Total Adjustments (3,870) (3,870) (3,870) (3,870) (3,870) (3,870) (3,870) 1/New facilities shown in 2019-20 and 2021-22 are not funded under the current Capital Facilities Plan. 2/The Standard of Service represents 24.60% of SPI capacity. When new facilities are added the Standard of Service computations are decreased to 22.72% of SPI capacity. 3/Students beyond the capacity are accommodated in other spaces (commons, library, theater, shared teaching space). Capacity WITH relocatables Capacity WITHOUT relocatables 21 Auburn School District No. 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2016 through 2022 PUPIL CAPACITY A. Elementary Schools Building 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 Washington 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 Terminal Park 408 408 408 408 408 408 408 Dick Scobee 477 477 477 477 477 477 477 Pioneer 441 441 441 441 441 441 441 Chinook 440 440 440 440 440 440 440 Lea Hill 450 450 450 450 450 450 450 Gildo Rey 551 551 551 551 551 551 551 Evergreen Heights 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 Alpac 497 497 497 497 497 497 497 Lake View 559 559 559 559 559 559 559 Hazelwood 580 580 580 580 580 580 580 Ilalko 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 Lakeland Hills 594 594 594 594 594 594 594 Arthur Jacobsen 614 614 614 614 614 614 614 Elementary #15 650 650 650 650 Elementary #16 650 650 650 ELEMENTARY CAPACITY 7,138 7,138 7,138 7,788 8,438 8,438 8,438 B. Middle Schools Building 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 Cascade 829 829 829 829 829 829 829 Olympic 921 921 921 921 921 921 921 Rainier 843 843 843 843 843 843 843 Mt. Baker 837 837 837 837 837 837 837 MIDDLE SCHOOL CAPACITY 3,430 3,430 3,430 3,430 3,430 3,430 3,430 C. Senior High Schools Building 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 West Auburn 233 233 233 233 233 233 233 Auburn 2,101 2,101 2,101 2,101 2,101 2,101 2,101 Auburn Riverside 1,387 1,387 1,387 1,387 1,387 1,387 1,387 Auburn Mountainview 1,443 1,443 1,443 1,443 1,443 1,443 1,443 HIGH SCHOOL CAPACITY 5,164 5,164 5,164 5,164 5,164 5,164 5,164 COMBINED CAPACITY 15,732 15,732 15,732 16,382 17,032 17,032 17,032 PERMANENT FACILITIES @ SPI Rated Capacity (March 2016) 2 Auburn School District No. 408 Capital Facilities Plan 2016 through 2022 Section VI Capital Construction Plan Auburn School District No. 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2016 through 2022 CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION PLAN 2 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 further the work of the first and address the needs of the District for subsequent years. The work of this committee was published in the document titled 'Directions for the Nineties.' In 1995 the Board commissioned a third Ad Hoc citizens committee to make recommendations for improvements to the District's programs and physical facilities. The committee recommendations are published in the document titled 'Education Into The Twenty-First Century - - A Community Involved.' The 1995 Ad Hoc committee recommended the District develop plans for the implementation, funding, and deployment of technology throughout the District's programs. The 1996 Bond proposition provided funding to enhance the capacity of each facility to accommodate technological applications. The 1998 Capital Levy provided funding to further deploy technology at a level sufficient to support program requirements in every classroom and department. In 2005 and 2014, replacement technology levies were approved to continue to support technology across all facets of the District’s teaching, learning and operations. In addition to the technology needs of the District, the Ad Hoc committee recognized the District must prepare for continued student enrollment growth. As stated in their report, "the District must pursue an appropriate high school site as soon as possible." The Ad Hoc recommendation included commentary that the financing should be timed to maintain consistent rates of tax assessments. A proposition was approved by the voters on April 28, 1998 that provided $8,000,000 over six years to address some of the technology needs of the District; and $5,000,000 to provide funds to acquire school sites. During the 1997-98 school year, a Joint District Citizen's Ad Hoc Committee was appointed by the Auburn and Dieringer School Boards to make recommendations on how best to serve the school population from an area that includes a large development known as Lakeland South. Lakeland South at that time was immediately adjacent to the southern boundary of the Auburn School District. On June 16, 1998, the Ad Hoc Committee presented its recommendation at a joint meeting of the Auburn and Dieringer Boards of Directors. On June 22, 1998, the Auburn School Board adopted Resolution No. 933 authorizing the process to initiate the adjustment of the boundaries of the District in accordance with the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendation. On June 23, 1998, the Dieringer School Board adopted a companion Resolution No. 24-97-98 authorizing the process to initiate the adjustment of the boundaries in accordance with the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendation. These actions resulted in the transfer of an area from Dieringer to Auburn containing most of the Lakeland South development and certain other undeveloped properties. Property for the third comprehensive high school was acquired in 1999. The Board placed the proposition to construction a new high school on the ballot four times. Each election was extremely close to passing. After the fourth failure a community meeting was held and from that meeting the Board determined need for further community study. In April of 2002, the Board formed a fifth citizen's Ad Hoc committee to address the following two items and make recommendations to the Board in the Fall of 2002: a. A review of the conclusion and recommendations of 1985 and 1995 Ad Hoc Committees related to accommodating high school enrollment growth. This included the review of possible financing plans for new facilities. b. Develop recommendations for accommodating high school enrollment growth for the next 10 years if a new senior high school is not built. Auburn School District No. 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2016 through 2022 CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION PLAN 2 This committee recommended the Board place the high school on the ballot for the fifth time in February 2003. The February election approved the new high school at 68.71% yes votes. The school opened in the fall of 2005. In the fall of 2003, the Board directed the administration to begin the planning and design for Elementary #13 and Elementary #14. In the fall of 2004, the Board passed Resolution No. 1054 to place two elementary schools on the ballot in February 2005. The voters approved the ballot measure in February of 2005 at 64.72%. Lakeland Hills Elementary (Elementary #13) opened in the fall of 2006. Arthur Jacobsen Elementary (Elementary #14) is located in the Lea Hill area and opened in the fall of 2007. These two elementary schools were built to accommodate the housing growth in Lakeland Hills and Lea Hill areas of the school district. In the 2004-05 school year, the Board convened a sixth Citizen’s Ad Hoc committee to again study and make recommendations about the future impacts in the District. One of the areas of study was the need for New Facilities and Modernization. The committee made a number of recommendations including school size, the need for a new middle school, and to begin a capital improvements program to modernize or replace facilities based upon criterion. During the 2005-06 school year, a Joint District Citizen's Ad Hoc Committee was appointed by the Auburn and Kent School Boards to make recommendations on how best to serve the school population that will come from an area that includes a number of projected developments in the north Auburn valley. On May 17, 2006, the Ad Hoc Committee presented its recommendation at a joint meeting of the Auburn and Kent Boards of Directors. On June 14, 2006, the Kent School Board adopted Resolution No. 1225 authorizing the process to initiate the adjustment of the boundaries of the District in accordance with the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendation. On June 26, 2006, the Auburn School Board adopted a companion Resolution No. 1073 authorizing the process to initiate the adjustment of the boundaries in accordance with the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendation. These actions resulted in the transfer of an area from the Kent School District to the Auburn School District effective September 29, 2006. In October of 2008, after two years of review and study, a Steering Committee made recommendations to the Board regarding the capital improvements program to modernize or replace facilities as recommended by the 2004-05 Citizen’s Ad Hoc Committee. These recommendations, based on specific criteria, led to the Board placing a school improvement bond and capital improvements levy on the ballot in March 2009. Voters did not approve either measure that would have updated 24 facilities and replaced three aging schools. The Board decided to place only a six- year Capital Levy on the ballot in November of 2009, which passed at 55.17%. The levy funded $46.4 million of needed improvement projects at 24 sites over the following seven school years. Planning for the replacement of aging schools was started with educational specifications and schematic design process for the replacement of Auburn High School. The District acquired a site for a future high school in 2008 and a second site for a future middle school in 2009. The District also continued efforts to acquire property around Auburn High School. The Special Education Transition Facility opened in February of 2010. This facility is designed for students with disabilities that are 18 to 21 years old. In the November 2012 election, the community supported the $110 million bond issue for the Auburn High School Modernization and Reconstruction Project at 62%. Construction began in February 2013. The entire new building was occupied by Auburn High School students and staff in the fall of 2015, with site improvements being completed during the 2015/16 school year. Auburn School District No. 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2016 through 2022 CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION PLAN 2 In January 2015, a citizen’s ad hoc committee was convened by direction of the Board to address growth and facilities. The major recommendations were to construct two new elementary schools in the next four years and to acquire 3 new elementary school sites as soon as possible. Within the six-year period, the District is projecting 2,889 additional students. This increase in student population along with anticipated class-size reductions, will require the construction of two new elementary schools and acquiring three new elementary school sites during the six-year window. The table below illustrates the current capital construction plan for the next six years. The exact timelines are wholly dependent on the rate of growth in the school age population and passage of bond issues and/or capital improvement levies. 2016-22 Capital Construction Plan (May 2016) Projected Fund Project Timelines Project Funded Cost Source 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23 All Facilities - Technology 2013 Yes $22,000,000 6 Year XX XX XX XX Modernization Cap Levy 1/ Portables Yes $6,000,000 Impact Fees XX XX XX XX XX XX XX 1/ Property Purchase - 3 New Elementaries No $14,900,000 Bond Impact Fee XX XX XX XX XX XX XX Multiple Facility Improvements Yes $46,400,000 Capital Levy XX 1/ Elementary #15 No $48,500,000 Bond Impact Fee XX plan XX const XX open 1/ Elementary #16 No $48,500,000 Bond Impact Fee XX plan XX const XX open 1/ Replacement of five Elementary Schools No $242,500,000 Bond XX Plan XX Plan XX const XX const XX const 1/ Replacement of one Middle School No $78,000,000 Bond XX Plan XX Plan XX const 1/ These funds may be secured through local bond issues, sale of real property, impact fees, and state matching funds. The District currently is currently eligible for state matching funds for new construction at the elementary school level and for modernization at the elementary and middle school levels. Auburn School District No. 408 Capital Facilities Plan 2016 through 2022 Section VII Impact Fees Auburn School District No. 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2016 through 2022 IMPACT FEE COMPUTATION (Spring 2016) Elementary #15 within 3 year period Elementary #16 within 4 year period I. SITE COST PER RESIDENCE Formula: ((Acres x Cost per Acre)/Facility Size) x Student Factor Site Cost/ Facility Student Generation Factor Cost/ Cost/ Acreage Acre Capacity Single Family Multi Family Single Family Multi Family Elem (K - 5)12 $413,463 650 0.2260 0.0720 $1,725.09 $549.59 Middle Sch (6 - 8) 25 $0 800 0.0820 0.0220 $0.00 $0.00 Sr High (9 - 12)40 $0 1500 0.0940 0.0440 $0.00 $0.00 $1,725.09 $549.59 II. PERMANENT FACILITY CONSTRUCTION COST PER RESIDENCE Formula: ((Facility Cost/Facility Size) x Student Factor) x (Permanent to Total Square Footage Percentage) Facility Facility % Perm Sq Ft/ Student Generation Factor Cost/Cost/ Single Family Cost Size Total Sq Ft Single Family Multi Family Single Family Multi Family Elem (K - 5) $48,500,000 650 0.9470 0.2260 0.0720 $15,968.72 $5,087.38 Mid Sch (6 - 8)$0 800 0.9470 0.0820 0.0220 $0.00 $0.00 Sr High (9 - 12) $0 1500 0.9470 0.0940 0.0440 $0.00 $0.00 $15,968.72 $5,087.38 III. TEMPORARY FACILITY CONSTRUCTION COST PER RESIDENCE Formula: ((Facility Cost/Facility Size) x Student Factor) x (Temporary to Total Square Footage Ratio) Facility Facility % Temp Sq Ft/ Student Generation Factor Cost/Cost/ Single Family Cost Size Total Sq Ft Single Family Multi Family Single Family Multi Family Elem (K - 5) $150,000 23.8 0.0530 0.2260 0.0720 $75.54 $24.07 Mid Sch (6 - 8) $150,000 30 0.0530 0.0820 0.0220 $21.74 $5.83 Sr High (9 - 12) $150,000 30 0.0530 0.0940 0.0440 $24.93 $11.67 $122.21 $41.57 IV. STATE MATCH CREDIT PER RESIDENCE Formula: (Boeckh Index x SPI Footage x District Match x Student Factor) Boeckh SPI State Cost/ Cost/ Index Footage Match Single Family Multi Family Single Family Multi Family Elem (K - 5)$213.23 90 63.83% 0.2260 0.0720 $2,768.37 $881.96 Mid Sch (6 - 8) $0.00 117 63.83% 0.0820 0.0220 $0.00 $0.00 Sr High (9 - 12) $0.00 130 63.83% 0.0940 0.0440 $0.00 $0.00 $2,768.37 $881.97 Student Generation Factor 27 Auburn School District No. 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2016 through 2022 V. TAX CREDIT PER RESIDENCE Formula: Expressed as the present value of an annuity TC = PV(interest rate,discount period,average assd value x tax rate) Ave Resid Curr Dbt Serv Bnd Byr Indx Number of Tax Credit Tax Credit Assd Value Tax Rate Ann Int Rate Years Single Family Multi Family Single Family $269,764 $1.59 3.27% 10 $3,608.91 Multi Family $113,408 $1.59 3.27% 10 $1,517.18 VI. DEVELOPER PROVIDED FACILITY CREDIT Formula: (Value of Site or Facility/Number of dwelling units) Value No. of Units Facility Credit Single Family $0.00 1 $0.00 Multi Family $0.00 1 $0.00 FEE PER UNIT IMPACT FEES RECAP Single Multi SUMMARY Family Family Site Costs $1,725.09 $549.59 Permanent Facility Const Costs $15,968.72 $5,087.38 Temporary Facility Costs $122.21 $41.57 State Match Credit ($2,768.37)($881.97) Tax Credit ($3,608.91)($1,517.18) FEE (No Discount)$11,438.74 $3,279.39 FEE (50% Discount)$5,719.37 $1,639.70 Less ASD Discount ($250.00) Facility Credit $0.00 $0.00 Net Fee Obligation $5,469.37 $1,639.70 2 Auburn School District No. 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2016 through 2022 SINGLE FAMILY MULTI FAMILY IMPACT FEE ELEMENTS Elem Mid Sch Sr High Elem Mid Sch Sr High K - 5 6 - 8 9 - 12 K - 5 6 - 8 9 - 12 Student Factor Single Family - Auburn actual count April 2016 0.226 0.082 0.094 0.072 0.022 0.044 New Fac Capacity 650 800 1500 650 800 1500 New Facility Cost Elementary Cost Estimates April 2016 $48,500,000 $48,500,000 Temp Rm Capacity ASD District Standard of Service. 23.8 30 30 23.8 30 30 Grades K - 5 @ 23.8 and 6 - 12 @ 30. Temp Facility Cost Relocatables, including site work, set up, and furnishing $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 Site Acreage ASD District Standard or SPI Minimum 12 25 40 12 25 40 Site Cost/Acre See below $413,463 $413,463 $413,463 $413,463 $413,463 $413,463 Perm Sq Footage 14 Elementary, 4 Middle, and 4 High Schools 1,695,317 1,695,317 1,695,317 1,695,317 1,695,317 1,695,317 Temp Sq Footage 103 portables at 896 sq. ft. each + TAP 2661 94,949 94,949 94,949 94,949 94,949 94,949 Total Sq Footage Sum of Permanent and Temporary above 1,790,266 1,790,266 1,790,266 1,790,266 1,790,266 1,790,266 % - Perm Facilities Permanent Sq. Footage divided by Total Sq. Footage 94.70% 94.70% 94.70% 94.70% 94.70% 94.70% % - Temp Facilities Temporary Sq. Footage divided by Total Sq. Footage 5.30% 5.30% 5.30% 5.30% 5.30% 5.30% SPI Sq Ft/Student From SPI Regulations 90 117 130 90 117 130 Boeckh Index From SPI schedule for December 2012 $213.23 $213.23 $213.23 $213.23 $213.23 $213.23 Match % - State From SPI Webpage December 2012 63.83% 63.83% 63.83% 63.83% 63.83% 63.83% Match % - District Computed 36.17% 36.17% 36.17% 36.17% 36.17% 36.17% Dist Aver AV King County Department of Assessments March 2015 $269,764 $269,764 $269,764 $113,408 $113,408 $113,408 Debt Serv Tax Rate Current Fiscal Year $1.59 $1.59 $1.59 $1.59 $1.59 $1.59 G. O Bond Int Rate Current Rate - (Bond Buyer 20 Index March 2014) 3.27% 3.27% 3.27% 3.27% 3.27% 3.27% Site Cost Projections Recent Property Purchase Purchase Purchase Adjusted Projected Annual Sites Latest Date Projected Acquisitions Acreage Year Price Cost/Acre Present Day Inflation Factor Required of Acquisition Cost/Acre Lakeland 12.00 2002 $2,701,043 $225,087 $445,657 5.00% Elementary 2017 $434,136 Labrador 35.00 2008 $7,601,799 $217,194 $320,895 5.00% Elementary 2018 $455,843 Lakeland East 27.00 2009 $9,092,160 $336,747 $473,836 5.00% Elementary 2022 $554,079 Total 74.00 $19,395,002 $262,095 $413,463 Auburn School District No. 408 Capital Facilities Plan 2016 through 2022 Section VIII Appendix Appendix A.1 - Student Enrollment Projections Appendix A.2 - CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Enrollment Projections Appendix A.3 - Student Generation Survey Appendix A.1 - Student Enrollment Projections 1 Auburn School District #408 Student Enrollment Projections October 2015 Introduction The projective techniques give some consideration to historical and current data as a basis for forecasting the future. In addition, the ‘projector’ must make certain assumptions about the operant variables within the data being used. These assumptions are “judgmental” by definition. Forecasting can be defined as the extrapolation or logical extension from history to the future, or from the known to the unknown. The attached tabular data reviews the history of student enrollment, sets out some quantitative assumptions, and provides projections based on these numerical factors. The projection logic does not attempt to weigh the individual sociological, psychological, economic, and political factors that are present in any demographic analysis and projection. The logic embraces the assumptions that whatever these individual factors have been in the past are present today, and will be in the future. It further moderates the impact of singular factors by averaging data over thirteen years and six years respectively. The results provide a trend, which reflects a long (13-year) and a short (6-year) base from which to extrapolate. Two methods of estimating the number of kindergarten students have been used. The first uses the average increase or decrease over the past 13 and 6-year time frame and adds it to each succeeding year. The second derives what the average percentage Auburn kindergartners have been of live births in King County for the past 5 years and uses this to project the subsequent four years. The degree to which the actuals deviate from the projections can only be measured after the fact. This deviation provides a point of departure to evaluate the effectiveness of the assumptions and logic being used to calculate future projections. Monitoring deviation is critical to the viability and credibility of the projections derived by these techniques. Tables Table 1 – Thirteen Year History of October 1 Enrollments – page 3 The data shown in this table is the baseline information used to project future enrollment. This data shows the past record of enrollment in the district on October 1 of each year. Table 2 – Historical Factors Used in Projections - page 4 This table shows the three basic factors derived from the data in Table 1. These factors have been used in the subsequent projections. The three factors are:  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.  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.  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 five previous years. From this information has been extrapolated the kindergarten pupils expected for the next four years. 2 Table 3 – Projection Models – pages 5-13 This set of tables utilizes the above mentioned variables and generates several projections. The models are explained briefly below.  Table 3.13 (pg 5) – shows a projection based on the 13-year average gain in kindergarten (Factor 2) and the 13-year average change between grade levels (Factor 1). The data is shown for the district as a whole.  Table 3.6 (pg 5) – shows a projection using the same scheme as Table 3.13 except it shortens the historical data to only the most recent 6 years.  Table 3.13A and 3.6A (pg 6) – uses the same factors above except Factor 3 is substituted for Factor 2. The kindergarten rates are derived from the King County live births instead of the average gain.  Tables 3E.13, 3E.6, 3E.13A, 3E.6A (pg 7) – breaks out the K-5 grades from the district projection. Summary level data is provided for percentage gain and pupil gain by grade articulation.  Tables 3MS.13, 3MS.6, 3MS.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.  Tables 3SH.13, 3SH.6, 3SH.13A, 3SH.6A (pg 9) – breaks out the 9-12 grades from the district projection. Summary level data is provided for percentage gain and pupil gain by grade articulation.  Table 4 (pg 10) – Collects the four projection models by grade group for ease of comparison.  Table 5 (pgs 11-13) – shows how well each projection model performed when compared with actual enrollments. Data is provided in both number and percent formats for the past 13 years. Summary This year is the fourth consecutive year of an increase in enrollment after three consecutive years of declining enrollment. The increase of 386 students changes our historical average gain/loss in students. Over the past 6 years the average gain is now 1.20% annually, which equates to an average annual gain of 179 students. Using the cohort survival models, the data below is a summary of the range of variation between the four models. This data can be used for planning for future needs of the district. The models show changes in the next six years:  Elementary level show increases ranging from 780 to 1,133. (page 7)  Middle School level show increases ranging from 747 to 750. (page 8)  High School level show increases ranging from 579 to 628. (page 9) The models show these changes looking forward thirteen years:  Elementary level show increases ranging from 1,746 to 2,712. (page 7)  Middle School level show increases ranging from 1,112 to 1,388. (page 8)  High School level show increases ranging from 1,007 to 1,556. (page 9) This data does not factor new developments that are currently under construction or in the planning stages. AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS - October 2015 TABLE Thirteen Year History of October 1 Enrollments(Rev 10/15) 1 Actual GRADE 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 KDG 922 892 955 941 996 998 1032 1010 1029 1098 1170 1232 1198 1 982 960 963 1012 995 1015 1033 1066 1068 1089 1188 1219 1279 2 909 992 963 1002 1019 1024 998 1016 1097 1083 1124 1196 1289 3 996 918 1002 1031 997 1048 993 1013 996 1111 1125 1136 1232 4 947 1016 939 1049 1057 1044 1073 1024 1022 1038 1123 1156 1170 5 1018 957 1065 998 1078 1069 1030 1079 1018 1070 1075 1122 1172 6 1111 1020 1004 1058 1007 1096 1040 1041 1063 1041 1076 1059 1116 7 1131 1124 1028 1014 1057 1034 1125 1060 1032 1086 1072 1091 1099 8 1052 1130 1137 1072 1033 1076 1031 1112 1046 1017 1116 1088 1136 9 1473 1461 1379 1372 1337 1256 1244 1221 1273 1200 1159 1275 1229 10 1249 1261 1383 1400 1368 1341 1277 1238 1170 1278 1229 1169 1316 11 1010 1055 1182 1322 1352 1350 1303 1258 1233 1164 1240 1211 1167 12 902 886 1088 1147 1263 1352 1410 1344 1316 1321 1274 1323 1260 TOTALS 13,702 13,672 14,088 14,418 14,559 14,703 14,589 14,482 14,363 14,596 14,971 15,277 15,663 Percent of Gain (0.22)%3.04%2.34% 0.98% 0.99% (0.78)%(0.73)% (0.82)% 1.62%2.57% 2.04% 2.53% Pupil Gain (30)416 330 141 144 (114) (107) (119)233 375 306 386 Average % Gain for 1st 6 years. 1.06% Average % Gain for last 6 years 1.20% Average Pupil Gain for 1st 6 years. 148 Average Pupil Gain for last 6 years 179 Average % Gain for 13 years. 1.13% Average Pupil Gain for 13 years. 163 TABLE 1A Grade Group Combinations KDG 922 892 955 941 996 998 1032 1010 1029 1098 1170 1232 1198 K,1,2 2813 2844 2881 2955 3010 3037 3063 3092 3194 3270 3482 3647 3766 K - 5 5774 5735 5887 6033 6142 6198 6159 6208 6230 6489 6805 7061 7340 K - 6 6885 6755 6891 7091 7149 7294 7199 7249 7293 7530 7881 8120 8456 1 - 3 2887 2870 2928 3045 3011 3087 3024 3095 3161 3283 3437 3551 3800 1 - 5 4852 4843 4932 5092 5146 5200 5127 5198 5201 5391 5635 5829 6142 1 - 6 5963 5863 5936 6150 6153 6296 6167 6239 6264 6432 6711 6888 7258 6 - 8 3294 3274 3169 3144 3097 3206 3196 3213 3141 3144 3264 3238 3351 7 - 8 2183 2254 2165 2086 2090 2110 2156 2172 2078 2103 2188 2179 2235 7 - 9 3656 3715 3544 3458 3427 3366 3400 3393 3351 3303 3347 3454 3464 9 - 12 4634 4663 5032 5241 5320 5299 5234 5061 4992 4963 4902 4978 4972 10 - 12 3161 3202 3653 3869 3983 4043 3990 3840 3719 3763 3743 3703 3743 Page 3 October 2015 AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS - October 2015 TABLE Factors Used in Projections Factor AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENTS 2 3 AS FUNCTION OF KING COUNTY LIVE BIRTH RATES CAL- TOTAL YEAR ADJUSTED AUBURN KINDERGARTEN Factor Average Pupil Change Between Grade ENDAR LIVE 2/3rds 1/3rds OF LIVE KDG ENROLLMENT AS A % OF 1 Levels YEAR BIRTHS BIRTHS BIRTHS ENROLL BIRTHS ENROLL. ADJUSTED LIVE BIRTHS 13 YEAR BASE 6 YEAR BASE 1975 13,540 9,027 4,513 81/82 13,687 588 4.296% K to 1 51.00 K to 1 56.33 1976 13,761 9,174 4,587 82/83 14,375 698 4.856% 1 to 2 17.75 1 to 2 23.67 1977 14,682 9,788 4,894 83/84 14,958 666 4.452% 2 to 3 14.92 2 to 3 16.50 1978 15,096 10,064 5,032 84/85 16,048 726 4.524% 3 to 4 28.75 3 to 4 26.50 1979 16,524 11,016 5,508 85/86 16,708 792 4.740% 4 to 5 20.42 4 to 5 16.67 1980 16,800 11,200 5,600 86/87 17,000 829 4.876% 5 to 6 3.50 5 to 6 0.33 1981 17,100 11,400 5,700 87/88 18,241 769 4.216% 6 to 7 17.17 6 to 7 20.00 1982 18,811 12,541 6,270 88/89 18,626 817 4.386% 7 to 8 11.67 7 to 8 8.17 1983 18,533 12,355 6,178 89/90 18,827 871 4.626% 8 to 9 208.00 8 to 9 157.83 1984 18,974 12,649 6,325 90/91 19,510 858 4.398% 9 to 10 (18.33)9 to 10 4.67 1985 19,778 13,185 6,593 91/92 19,893 909 4.569% 10 to 11 (43.83)10 to 11 (14.67)1986 19,951 13,301 6,650 92/93 21,852 920 4.210% 11 to 12 25.33 11 to 12 71.50 1987 22,803 15,202 7,601 93/94 21,624 930 4.301% total 336.33 total 387.50 1988 21,034 14,023 7,011 94/95 24,062 927 3.853% Factor 1 is the average gain or loss of pupils as they 1989 25,576 17,051 8,525 95/96 26,358 954 3.619% move from one grade level to the next. Factor 1 uses 1990 26,749 17,833 8,916 96/97 24,116 963 3.993% the past (12) OR (5) years of changes.1991 22,799 15,199 7,600 97/98 20,973 978 4.663% 1992 20,060 13,373 6,687 98/99 21,573 854 3.959% Factor Average Pupil Change By Grade Level 1993 22,330 14,887 7,443 99/00 22,129 849 3.837% 2 1994 22,029 14,686 7,343 00/01 24,013 912 3.798% 13 YEAR BASE 6 YEAR BASE 1995 25,005 16,670 8,335 01/02 22,717 846 3.724% K 23.00 K 37.60 1996 21,573 14,382 7,191 02/03 21,622 905 4.186% 1 24.75 1 42.60 1997 21,646 14,431 7,215 03/04 22,023 922 4.186% 2 31.67 2 54.60 1998 22,212 14,808 7,404 04/05 22,075 892 4.041% 3 19.67 3 43.80 1999 22,007 14,671 7,336 05/06 22,327 955 4.277% 4 18.58 4 29.20 2000 22,487 14,991 7,496 06/07 22,014 941 4.274% 5 12.83 5 18.60 2001 21,778 14,519 7,259 07/08 21,835 996 4.562% 6 0.42 6 15.00 2002 21,863 14,575 7,288 08/09 22,242 998 4.487% 7 (2.67)7 7.80 2003 22,431 14,954 7,477 09/10 22,726 1032 4.541% 8 7.00 8 4.80 2004 22,874 15,249 7,625 10/11 22,745 1010 4.441% 9 (20.33)9 1.60 2005 22,680 15,120 7,560 11/12 23,723 1029 4.338% 10 5.58 10 15.60 2006 24,244 16,163 8,081 12/13 24,683 1098 4.448%Last 5 11 13.08 11 (18.20)2007 24,902 16,601 8,301 13/14 25,094 1162 4.631%year 12 29.83 12 (16.80)2008 25,190 16,793 8,397 14/15 25,101 1232 4.908%Average Factor 2 is the average change in grade level size 2009 25,057 16,705 8,352 15/16 24,695 1198 Actual 4.851%4.635% from 01/02 OR 08/09.2010 24,514 16,343 8,171 16/17 24,591 1140 <--Prjctd year 2011 24,630 16,420 8,210 17/18 24,898 1154 <--Prjctd year 2012 25,032 16,688 8,344 18/19 24,951 1157 <--Prjctd year 2013 24,910 16,607 8,303 19/20 25,202 1168 <--Prjctd 2014 25,348 16,899 8,449 20/21 * number from DOH Source: Center for Health Statistics, Washington State Department of Health Page 4 October 2015 AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS - October 2015 Contact Todd Rime - todd.rime@doh.wa.gov 360-236-4323 TABLE DISTRICT PROJECTIONS 3.13 Based on 13 Year History ACTUAL PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ GRADE 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 23-24 24-25 25-26 26-27 27-28 28-29 KDG 1198 1221 1244 1267 1290 1313 1336 1359 1382 1405 1428 1451 1474 1497 1 1279 1249 1272 1295 1318 1341 1364 1387 1410 1433 1456 1479 1502 1525 2 1289 1297 1267 1290 1313 1336 1359 1382 1405 1428 1451 1474 1497 1520 3 1232 1304 1312 1282 1305 1328 1351 1374 1397 1420 1443 1466 1489 1512 4 1170 1261 1333 1340 1310 1333 1356 1379 1402 1425 1448 1471 1494 1517 5 1172 1190 1281 1353 1361 1331 1354 1377 1400 1423 1446 1469 1492 1515 6 1116 1176 1194 1285 1357 1364 1334 1357 1380 1403 1426 1449 1472 1495 7 1099 1133 1193 1211 1302 1374 1382 1352 1375 1398 1421 1444 1467 1490 8 1136 1111 1145 1204 1223 1314 1385 1393 1363 1386 1409 1432 1455 1478 9 1229 1344 1319 1353 1412 1431 1522 1593 1601 1571 1594 1617 1640 1663 10 1316 1211 1326 1300 1335 1394 1412 1503 1575 1583 1553 1576 1599 1622 11 1167 1272 1167 1282 1257 1291 1350 1369 1459 1531 1539 1509 1532 1555 12 1260 1192 1298 1192 1307 1282 1316 1376 1394 1485 1557 1564 1534 1557 TOTALS 15,663 15,960 16,348 16,654 17,088 17,431 17,821 18,200 18,543 18,891 19,170 19,401 19,647 19,946 Percent of Gain 1.90% 2.43% 1.87% 2.61% 2.00% 2.24% 2.13% 1.88% 1.87% 1.48% 1.20% 1.27% 1.52% Pupil Gain 297 388 306 434 342 391 379 343 347 280 231 246 299 TABLE DISTRICT PROJECTIONS 3.6 Based on 6 Year History ACTUAL PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ GRADE 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 23-24 24-25 25-26 26-27 27-28 28-29 KDG 1198 1236 1273 1311 1348 1386 1424 1461 1499 1536 1574 1612 1649 1687 1 1279 1254 1292 1330 1367 1405 1442 1480 1518 1555 1593 1630 1668 1706 2 1289 1303 1278 1316 1353 1391 1428 1466 1504 1541 1579 1616 1654 1692 3 1232 1306 1319 1295 1332 1370 1407 1445 1483 1520 1558 1595 1633 1671 4 1170 1259 1332 1346 1321 1359 1396 1434 1471 1509 1547 1584 1622 1659 5 1172 1187 1275 1349 1362 1338 1375 1413 1450 1488 1526 1563 1601 1638 6 1116 1172 1187 1276 1349 1363 1338 1376 1413 1451 1488 1526 1564 1601 7 1099 1136 1192 1207 1296 1369 1383 1358 1396 1433 1471 1508 1546 1584 8 1136 1107 1144 1201 1215 1304 1377 1391 1366 1404 1441 1479 1517 1554 9 1229 1294 1265 1302 1358 1373 1462 1535 1549 1524 1562 1599 1637 1674 10 1316 1234 1299 1270 1307 1363 1378 1466 1540 1553 1529 1566 1604 1641 11 1167 1301 1219 1284 1255 1292 1348 1363 1452 1525 1539 1514 1552 1589 12 1260 1239 1373 1291 1355 1327 1364 1420 1435 1523 1597 1610 1586 1623 TOTALS 15,663 16,026 16,448 16,774 17,219 17,637 18,122 18,607 19,074 19,563 20,002 20,404 20,831 21,319 Percent of Gain 2.32% 2.63% 1.98% 2.66% 2.43% 2.75% 2.68% 2.51% 2.57% 2.24% 2.01% 2.09% 2.35% Pupil Gain 363 422 325 445 418 485 485 466 489 439 403 427 489 Page 5 October 2015 AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS - October 2015 TABLE DISTRICT PROJECTIONS 3.13A Based on Birth Rates & 13 Year History ACTUAL PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ GRADE 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 23-24 24-25 25-26 26-27 27-28 28-29 K 1198 1140 1154 1157 1168 1 1279 1249 1191 1205 1208 1219 2 1289 1297 1267 1209 1223 1225 1237 3 1232 1304 1312 1282 1224 1238 1240 1252 4 1170 1261 1333 1340 1310 1252 1266 1269 1281 5 1172 1190 1281 1353 1361 1331 1273 1287 1289 1301 6 1116 1176 1194 1285 1357 1364 1334 1276 1290 1293 1304 7 1099 1133 1193 1211 1302 1374 1382 1352 1293 1308 1310 1322 8 1136 1111 1145 1204 1223 1314 1385 1393 1363 1305 1319 1322 1333 9 1229 1344 1319 1353 1412 1431 1522 1593 1601 1571 1513 1527 1530 1541 10 1316 1211 1326 1300 1335 1394 1412 1503 1575 1583 1553 1495 1509 1511 11 1167 1272 1167 1282 1257 1291 1350 1369 1459 1531 1539 1509 1451 1465 12 1260 1192 1298 1192 1307 1282 1316 1376 1394 1485 1557 1564 1534 1476 TOTALS 15,663 15,879 16,177 16,373 16,685 Percent of Gain 1.38% 1.88% 1.21% 1.91% Pupil Gain 216 298 195 312 TABLE DISTRICT PROJECTIONS 3.6A Based on Birth Rates & 6 Year History ACTUAL PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ GRADE 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 23-24 24-25 25-26 26-27 27-28 28-29 KDG 1198 1140 1154 1157 1168 1 1279 1254 1196 1210 1213 1224 2 1289 1303 1278 1220 1234 1237 1248 3 1232 1306 1319 1295 1236 1251 1253 1265 4 1170 1259 1332 1346 1321 1263 1277 1280 1291 5 1172 1187 1275 1349 1362 1338 1280 1294 1296 1308 6 1116 1172 1187 1276 1349 1363 1338 1280 1294 1297 1308 7 1099 1136 1192 1207 1296 1369 1383 1358 1300 1314 1317 1328 8 1136 1107 1144 1201 1215 1304 1377 1391 1366 1308 1322 1325 1336 9 1229 1294 1265 1302 1358 1373 1462 1535 1549 1524 1466 1480 1483 1494 10 1316 1234 1299 1270 1307 1363 1378 1466 1540 1553 1529 1471 1485 1487 11 1167 1301 1219 1284 1255 1292 1348 1363 1452 1525 1539 1514 1456 1470 12 1260 1239 1373 1291 1355 1327 1364 1420 1435 1523 1597 1610 1586 1527 TOTALS 15,663 15,930 16,233 16,405 16,670 Percent of Gain 1.71% 1.90% 1.05% 1.62% Pupil Gain 267 303 171 265 Page 6 October 2015 AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS - October 2015 TABLE K - 5 PROJECTIONS 3E.13 Based on 13 Year History ACTUAL PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ GRADE 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 23-24 24-25 25-26 26-27 27-28 28-29 KDG 1198 1221 1244 1267 1290 1313 1336 1359 1382 1405 1428 1451 1474 1497 1 1279 1249 1272 1295 1318 1341 1364 1387 1410 1433 1456 1479 1502 1525 2 1289 1297 1267 1290 1313 1336 1359 1382 1405 1428 1451 1474 1497 1520 3 1232 1304 1312 1282 1305 1328 1351 1374 1397 1420 1443 1466 1489 1512 4 1170 1261 1333 1340 1310 1333 1356 1379 1402 1425 1448 1471 1494 1517 5 1172 1190 1281 1353 1361 1331 1354 1377 1400 1423 1446 1469 1492 1515 6 year 13 year K - 5 TOT 7340 7522 7708 7827 7897 7982 8120 8258 8396 8534 8672 8810 8948 9086 780 1746Percent of Gain 2.48% 2.48% 1.54% 0.89% 1.08% 1.73% 1.70% 1.67% 1.64% 1.62% 1.59% 1.57% 1.54% Pupil Gain 182 186 119 70 85 138 138 138 138 138 138 138 138 TABLE K - 5 PROJECTIONS 3E.6 Based on 6 Year History ACTUAL PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ GRADE 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 23-24 24-25 25-26 26-27 27-28 28-29 KDG 1198 1236 1273 1311 1348 1386 1424 1461 1499 1536 1574 1612 1649 1687 1 1279 1254 1292 1330 1367 1405 1442 1480 1518 1555 1593 1630 1668 1706 2 1289 1303 1278 1316 1353 1391 1428 1466 1504 1541 1579 1616 1654 1692 3 1232 1306 1319 1295 1332 1370 1407 1445 1483 1520 1558 1595 1633 1671 4 1170 1259 1332 1346 1321 1359 1396 1434 1471 1509 1547 1584 1622 1659 5 1172 1187 1275 1349 1362 1338 1375 1413 1450 1488 1526 1563 1601 1638 6 year 13 year K - 5 TOT 7340 7543 7769 7945 8084 8248 8473 8699 8924 9150 9376 9601 9827 10052 1133 2712Percent of Gain 2.77% 3.00% 2.26% 1.75% 2.02% 2.74% 2.66% 2.59% 2.53% 2.47% 2.41% 2.35% 2.30% Pupil Gain 203 226 175 139 163 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 TABLE K - 5 PROJECTIONS 3E.13A Based on Birth Rates & 13 Year History ACTUAL PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ GRADE 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 23-24 24-25 25-26 26-27 27-28 28-29 K 1198 1140 1154 1157 1168 1 1279 1249 1191 1205 1208 1219 2 1289 1297 1267 1209 1223 1225 1237 3 1232 1304 1312 1282 1224 1238 1240 1252 4 1170 1261 1333 1340 1310 1252 1266 1269 1281 5 1172 1190 1281 1353 1361 1331 1273 1287 1289 1301 4 year K - 5 TOT 7340 7441 7537 7545 7493 153Percent of Gain 1.37% 1.30% 0.11% (0.69)% Pupil Gain 101 96 8 (52) TABLE K - 5 PROJECTIONS 3E.6A Based on Birth Rates & 6 Year History ACTUAL PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ GRADE 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 23-24 24-25 25-26 26-27 27-28 28-29 KDG 1198 1140 1154 1157 1168 1 1279 1254 1196 1210 1213 1224 2 1289 1303 1278 1220 1234 1237 1248 3 1232 1306 1319 1295 1236 1251 1253 1265411701259133213461321126312771280 1291 5 1172 1187 1275 1349 1362 1338 1280 1294 1296 1308 4 year K - 5 TOT 7340 7448 7555 7576 7535 195Percent of Gain 1.46% 1.44% 0.28% (0.54)% Pupil Gain 108 107 21 (41) Page 7 October 2015 AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS - October 2015 TABLE MIDDLE SCHOOL PROJECTIONS 3MS.13 Based on 13 Year History ACTUAL PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ GRADE 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 23-24 24-25 25-26 26-27 27-28 28-29 6 1116 1176 1194 1285 1357 1364 1334 1357 1380 1403 1426 1449 1472 1495 7 1099 1133 1193 1211 1302 1374 1382 1352 1375 1398 1421 1444 1467 1490 8 1136 1111 1145 1204 1223 1314 1385 1393 1363 1386 1409 1432 1455 1478 6 year 13 year 6 - 8 TOT 3351 3419 3531 3700 3881 4052 4101 4102 4118 4187 4256 4325 4394 4463 750 1112 Percent of Gain 2.04% 3.28% 4.78% 4.89% 4.39% 1.23% 0.02% 0.39% 1.68% 1.65% 1.62% 1.60% 1.57% Pupil Gain 68 112 169 181 170 50 1 16 69 69 69 69 69 TABLE MIDDLE SCHOOL PROJECTIONS 3MS.6 Based on 6 Year History ACTUAL PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ GRADE 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 23-24 24-25 25-26 26-27 27-28 28-29 6 1116 1172 1187 1276 1349 1363 1338 1376 1413 1451 1488 1526 1564 1601 7 1099 1136 1192 1207 1296 1369 1383 1358 1396 1433 1471 1508 1546 1584 8 1136 1107 1144 1201 1215 1304 1377 1391 1366 1404 1441 1479 1517 1554 6 year 13 year 6 - 8 TOT 3351 3416 3524 3683 3860 4035 4098 4124 4175 4288 4401 4513 4626 4739 747 1388 Percent of Gain 1.92% 3.16% 4.53% 4.80% 4.55% 1.55% .65% 1.23% 2.70% 2.63% 2.56% 2.50% 2.44% Pupil Gain 65 108 160 177 176 63 27 51 113 113 113 113 113 TABLE MIDDLE SCHOOL PROJECTIONS 3MS.13A Based on Birth Rates & 13 Year History ACTUAL PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ GRADE 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 23-24 24-25 25-26 26-27 27-28 28-29 6 1116 1176 1194 1285 1357 1364 1334 1276 1290 1293 1304 7 1099 1133 1193 1211 1302 1374 1382 1352 1293 1308 1310 1322 8 1136 1111 1145 1204 1223 1314 1385 1393 1363 1305 1319 1322 1333 6 year 10 year 6 - 8 TOT 3351 3419 3531 3700 3881 4052 4101 4021 3947 3905 3934 750 583 Percent of Gain 2.04% 3.28% 4.78% 4.89% 4.39% 1.23%(1.96)% (1.84)% (1.05)%0.72% Pupil Gain 68 112 169 181 170 50 (80) (74) (41)28 TABLE MIDDLE SCHOOL PROJECTIONS 3MS.6A Based on Birth Rates & 6 Year History ACTUAL PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ GRADE 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 23-24 24-25 25-26 26-27 27-28 28-29 6 1116 1172 1187 1276 1349 1363 1338 1280 1294 1297 1308 7 1099 1136 1192 1207 1296 1369 1383 1358 1300 1314 1317 1328 8 1136 1107 1144 1201 1215 1304 1377 1391 1366 1308 1322 1325 1336 6 year 10 year 6 - 8 TOT 3351 3416 3524 3683 3860 4035 4098 4029 3960 3919 3947 747 596 Percent of Gain 1.92% 3.16% 4.53% 4.80% 4.55% 1.55%(1.69)% (1.70)% (1.05)%0.72% Pupil Gain 65 108 160 177 176 63 (69) (69) (41)28 Page 8 October 2015 AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS - October 2015 TABLE SR. HIGH PROJECTIONS 3SH.13 Based on 13 Year History ACTUAL PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ GRADE 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 23-24 24-25 25-26 26-27 27-28 28-29 9 1229 1344 1319 1353 1412 1431 1522 1593 1601 1571 1594 1617 1640 1663 10 1316 1211 1326 1300 1335 1394 1412 1503 1575 1583 1553 1576 1599 1622 11 1167 1272 1167 1282 1257 1291 1350 1369 1459 1531 1539 1509 1532 1555 12 1260 1192 1298 1192 1307 1282 1316 1376 1394 1485 1557 1564 1534 1557 6 year 13 year 9-12 TOT 4972 5019 5109 5127 5311 5397 5600 5841 6030 6170 6243 6266 6305 6397 628 1425 Percent of Gain 0.95%1.78% 0.36% 3.58% 1.63% 3.76% 4.30% 3.23% 2.33% 1.18% 0.38% 0.62% 1.46% Pupil Gain 47 90 19 183 87 203 241 189 140 73 24 39 92 TABLE SR. HIGH PROJECTIONS 3SH.6 Based on 6 Year History ACTUAL PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ GRADE 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 23-24 24-25 25-26 26-27 27-28 28-29 9 1229 1294 1265 1302 1358 1373 1462 1535 1549 1524 1562 1599 1637 1674 10 1316 1234 1299 1270 1307 1363 1378 1466 1540 1553 1529 1566 1604 1641 11 1167 1301 1219 1284 1255 1292 1348 1363 1452 1525 1539 1514 1552 1589 12 1260 1239 1373 1291 1355 1327 1364 1420 1435 1523 1597 1610 1586 1623 6 year 13 year 9-12 TOT 4972 5067 5155 5146 5275 5355 5551 5784 5974 6125 6225 6290 6378 6528 579 1556 Percent of Gain 1.92%1.74% (0.18)% 2.51% 1.50% 3.67% 4.20% 3.29% 2.53% 1.63% 1.03% 1.40% 2.36% Pupil Gain 95 88 (9)129 79 197 233 190 151 100 64 88 150 TABLE SR. HIGH PROJECTIONS 3SH.13A Based on Birth Rates & 13 Year History ACTUAL PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ GRADE 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 23-24 24-25 25-26 26-27 27-28 28-29 9 1229 1344 1319 1353 1412 1431 1522 1593 1601 1571 1513 1527 1530 1541 10 1316 1211 1326 1300 1335 1394 1412 1503 1575 1583 1553 1495 1509 1511 11 1167 1272 1167 1282 1257 1291 1350 1369 1459 1531 1539 1509 1451 1465 12 1260 1192 1298 1192 1307 1282 1316 1376 1394 1485 1557 1564 1534 1476 6 year 13 year 9-12 TOT 4972 5019 5109 5127 5311 5397 5600 5841 6030 6170 6161 6095 6024 5994 628 1022 Percent of Gain 0.95%1.78% 0.36% 3.58% 1.63% 3.76% 4.30% 3.23% 2.33% (0.14)%(1.07)% (1.17)% (0.50)% Pupil Gain 47 90 19 183 87 203 241 189 140 (8) (66) (71) (30) TABLE SR. HIGH PROJECTIONS 3SH.6A Based on Birth Rates & 6 Year History ACTUAL PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ GRADE 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 23-24 24-25 25-26 26-27 27-28 28-29 9 1229 1294 1265 1302 1358 1373 1462 1535 1549 1524 1466 1480 1483 1494 10 1316 1234 1299 1270 1307 1363 1378 1466 1540 1553 1529 1471 1485 1487 11 1167 1301 1219 1284 1255 1292 1348 1363 1452 1525 1539 1514 1456 1470 12 1260 1239 1373 1291 1355 1327 1364 1420 1435 1523 1597 1610 1586 1527 6 year 13 year 9-12 TOT 4972 5067 5155 5146 5275 5355 5551 5784 5974 6125 6130 6075 6009 5979 579 1007 Percent of Gain 1.92%1.74% (0.18)% 2.51% 1.50% 3.67% 4.20% 3.29% 2.53% 0.07%(0.90)% (1.09)% (0.50)% Pupil Gain 95 88 (9)129 79 197 233 190 151 4 (55) (66) (30) Page 9 October 2015 AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS - October 2015 TABLE PROJECTION COMPARISONS 4 BY GRADE GROUP KINDERGARTEN ACTUAL PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ GRADE 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 23-24 24-25 25-26 26-27 27-28 28-29 6 year 13 year E.13 1198 1221 1244 1267 1290 1313 1336 1359 1382 1405 1428 1451 1474 1497 138 299 E.6 1198 1236 1273 1311 1348 1386 1424 1461 1499 1536 1574 1612 1649 1687 226 489 E.13A 1198 1140 1154 1157 1168 E.6A 1198 1140 1154 1157 1168 GRD 1 -- GRD 5 ACTUAL PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ GRADE 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 23-24 24-25 25-26 26-27 27-28 28-29 6 year 13 year E.13 6142 6301 6464 6560 6607 6669 6784 6899 7014 7129 7244 7359 7474 7589 642 1447 E.6 6142 6308 6496 6634 6736 6862 7050 7238 7426 7614 7802 7990 8178 8365 907 2223 E.13A 6142 6301 6383 6389 6325 E.6A 6142 6308 6401 6419 6367 GRD 6 -- GRD 8 ACTUAL PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ GRADE 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 23-24 24-25 25-26 26-27 27-28 28-29 6 year 13 year MS.13 3351 3419 3531 3700 3881 4052 4101 4102 4118 4187 4256 4325 4394 4463 750 1112 MS.6 3351 3416 3524 3683 3860 4035 4098 4124 4175 4288 4401 4513 4626 4739 747 1388 MS.13A 3351 3419 3531 3700 3881 4052 4101 4021 3947 3905 3934 750 MS.6A 3351 3416 3524 3683 3860 4035 4098 4029 3960 3919 3947 747 GRD 9 -- GRD 12 ACTUAL PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ GRADE 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 23-24 24-25 25-26 26-27 27-28 28-29 6 year 13 year SH.13 4972 5019 5109 5127 5311 5397 5600 5841 6030 6170 6243 6266 6305 6397 628 1425 SH.6 4972 5067 5155 5146 5275 5355 5551 5784 5974 6125 6225 6290 6378 6528 579 1556 SH.13A 4972 5019 5109 5127 5311 5397 5600 5841 6030 6170 6161 6095 6024 5994 628 1022 SH.6A 4972 5067 5155 5146 5275 5355 5551 5784 5974 6125 6130 6075 6009 5979 579 1007 DISTRICT TOTALS ACTUAL PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ GRADE 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 23-24 24-25 25-26 26-27 27-28 28-29 6 year 13 year 3.13 15,663 15,960 16,348 16,654 17,088 17,431 17,821 18,200 18,543 18,891 19,170 19,401 19,647 19,946 2158 4283 3.6 15,663 16,026 16,448 16,774 17,219 17,637 18,122 18,607 19,074 19,563 20,002 20,404 20,831 21,319 2459 5656 3.13A 15,663 15,879 16,177 16,373 16,685 3.6A 15,663 15,930 16,233 16,405 16,670 Page 10 October 2015 AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS - October 2015 TABLE 5 Total = October 1 Actual Count AND Projected Counts Prj 3.13 - 13 YEAR HISTORY & Using Average Kdg Increase Diff = Number Projection is under(-) or over Actual Prj 3.6 - 6 YEAR HISTORY & Using Average Kdg Increase % = Percent Projection is under(-) or over Actual Prj 3.13A 13 YEAR HISTORY & King Cty Birth Rates Prj 3.6A - 6 YEAR HISTORY & King Cty Birth Rates Grades 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 K - 5 Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff % ACTUAL 5774 xxx xxx 5735 xxx xxx 5887 xxx xxx 6033 xxx xxx 6142 xxx xxx Prj 3E.13 5723 (51) (0.88)%5655 (80) (1.39)%5761 (126)(2.14)% 5750 (283) (4.69)%5871 (271) (4.41)% Prj 3E.6 5735 (39) (0.68)%5662 (73) (1.27)%5821 (66)(1.12)% 5795 (238) (3.94)%5921 (221) (3.60)% Prj 3E.13A 5743 (31)(0.54)% 5605 (130) (2.27)%5709 (178) (3.02)%5750 (283) (4.69)%5869 (273) (4.44)% Prj 3E.6A 5776 2 0.03% 5631 (104) (1.81)%5756 (131)(2.23)% 5784 (249) (4.13)%5912 (230) (3.74)% Grades 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 6 - 8 Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff % ACTUAL 3294 xxx xxx 3274 xxx xxx 3169 xxx xxx 3144 xxx xxx 3097 xxx xxx Prj 3E.13 3025 (269) (8.17)%3185 (80) (2.72)%3214 45 1.42%3295 151 4.80% 3131 34 1.10% Prj 3E.6 3011 (283) (8.59)%3192 (75) (2.50)%3216 47 1.48%3311 167 5.31% 3146 49 1.58% Prj 3E.13A 3025 (269) (8.17)%3185 (80) (2.72)%3214 45 1.42%3295 151 4.80% 3131 34 1.10% Prj 3E.6A 3011 (283) (8.59)%3192 (75) (2.50)%3216 47 1.48%3311 167 5.31% 3146 49 1.58% Grades 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 9 - 12 Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff % ACTUAL 4634 xxx xxx 4663 xxx xxx 5032 xxx xxx 5241 xxx xxx 5320 xxx xxx Prj 3E.13 4455 (179) (3.86)%4577 (86) (1.84)%4630 (402) (7.99)%4783 (458) (8.74)%5085 (235) (4.42)% Prj 3E.6 4476 (158) (3.41)%4594 (69) (1.48)%4639 (393) (7.81)%4769 (472) (9.01)%5086 (234) (4.40)% Prj 3E.13A 4455 (179) (3.86)%4577 (86) (1.84)%4630 (402) (7.99)%4783 (458) (8.74)%5085 (235) (4.42)% Prj 3E.6A 4476 (158) (3.41)%4594 (69) (1.48)%4639 (393) (7.81)%4769 (472) (9.01)%5086 (234) (4.40)% All 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Grades Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff % ACTUAL 13,702 xxx xxx 13,672 xxx xxx 14,088 xxx xxx 14,418 xxx xxx 14,559 xxx xxx Prj 3E.13 13,203 (499) (3.64)%13,417 (255) (1.87)%13,605 (483) (3.43)%13,828 (590) (4.09)%14,087 (472) (3.24)% Prj 3E.6 13,222 (480) (3.50)%13,448 (224) (1.64)%13,676 (412)(2.92)% 13,875 (543) (3.77)%14,153 (406) (2.79)% Prj 3E.13A 13,223 (479) (3.50)%13,367 (305) (2.23)%13,553 (535) (3.80)%13,828 (590) (4.09)%14,085 (474) (3.26)% Prj 3E.6A 13,263 (439) (3.20)%13,417 (255) (1.87)%13,611 (477) (3.39)%13,864 (554) (3.84)%14,144 (415) (2.85)% PROJECTION COMPARISONS BY GRADE GROUP Page 11 October 2015 AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS - October 2015 TABLE 5 Total = October 1 Actual Count AND Projected Counts Prj 3.13 - 13 YEAR HISTORY & Using Average Kdg Increase Diff = Number Projection is under(-) or over Actual Prj 3.6 - 6 YEAR HISTORY & Using Average Kdg Increase % = Percent Projection is under(-) or over Actual Prj 3.13A 13 YEAR HISTORY & King Cty Birth Rates Prj 3.6A - 6 YEAR HISTORY & King Cty Birth Rates Grades 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 K - 5 Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff % ACTUAL 6198 xxx xxx 6159 xxx xxx 6208 xxx xxx 6230 xxx xxx 6489 xxx xxx Prj 3E.13 6085 (113) (1.82)%6179 20 0.32%6254 46 0.74% 6282 52 0.83% 6275 (214) (3.30)% Prj 3E.6 6138 (60) (0.97)%6237 78 1.27% 6294 86 1.39% 6323 93 1.49% 6267 (222) (3.42)% Prj 3E.13A 6059 (139) (2.24)%6129 (30) (0.49)%6237 29 0.47% 6252 22 0.35% 6266 (223) (3.44)% Prj 3E.6A 6094 (104) (1.68)%6172 13 0.21%6264 56 0.90% 6269 39 0.63% 6260 (229) (3.53)% Grades 2008-09 2009-10 2003-04 2011-12 2012-13 6 - 8 Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff % ACTUAL 3206 xxx xxx 3196 xxx xxx 3213 xxx xxx 3141 xxx xxx 3144 xxx xxx Prj 3E.13 3107 (99)(3.09)% 3179 (17) (0.53)%3242 29 0.90% 3234 93 2.96% 3221 77 2.45% Prj 3E.6 3116 (90)(2.81)% 3195 (1) (0.03)%3243 30 0.93% 3236 95 3.02% 3211 67 2.13% Prj 3E.13A 3107 (99)(3.09)% 3179 (17) (0.53)%3242 29 0.90% 3234 93 2.96% 3221 77 2.45% Prj 3E.6A 3116 (90)(2.81)% 3195 (1) (0.03)%3243 30 0.93% 3236 95 3.02% 3211 67 2.13% Grades 2008-09 2009-10 2003-04 2011-12 2012-13 9 - 12 Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff % ACTUAL 5299 xxx xxx 5234 xxx xxx 5061 xxx xxx 4992 xxx xxx 4963 xxx xxx Prj 3E.13 5190 (109) (2.06)%5129 (105) (2.01)%5074 13 0.26%4921 (71) (1.42)%4901 (62) (1.25)% Prj 3E.6 5192 (107) (2.02)%5155 (79) (1.51)%5128 67 1.32%5027 35 0.70%5017 54 1.09% Prj 3E.13A 5190 (109) (2.06)%5129 (105) (2.01)%5074 13 0.26%4921 (71) (1.42)%4901 (62) (1.25)% Prj 3E.6A 5192 (107) (2.02)%5155 (79) (1.51)%5129 68 1.34%5027 35 0.70%5017 54 1.09% All 2008-09 2009-10 2003-04 2011-12 2012-13 Grades Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff % ACTUAL 14,703 xxx xxx 14,589 xxx xxx 13,672 xxx xxx 14,363 xxx xxx 14,596 xxx xxx Prj 3E.13 14,382 (321) (2.18)%13,499 (173) (7.47)%14,570 898 6.57% 14,437 74 0.52%14,397 (199)(1.36)% Prj 3E.6 14,446 (257) (1.75)%13,542 (130) (7.18)%14,665 993 7.26% 14,586 223 1.55% 14,495 (101)(0.69)% Prj 3E.13A 14,356 (347) (2.36)%13,447 (225) (7.83)%14,553 881 6.44% 14,407 44 0.31%14,388 (208)(1.43)% Prj 3E.6A 14,402 (301) (2.05)%13,510 (162) (7.40)%14,636 964 7.05% 14,532 169 1.18% 14,488 (108)(0.74)% BY GRADE GROUP (Continued) PROJECTION COMPARISONS Page 12 October 2015 AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS - October 2015 TABLE 5 Total = October 1 Actual Count AND Projected Counts Prj 3.13 - 13 YEAR HISTORY & Using Average Kdg Increase Diff = Number Projection is under(-) or over Actual Prj 3.6 - 6 YEAR HISTORY & Using Average Kdg Increase % = Percent Projection is under(-) or over Actual Prj 3.13A 13 YEAR HISTORY & King Cty Birth Rates Prj 3.6A - 6 YEAR HISTORY & King Cty Birth Rates Grades 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Average Average Historical Data is grouped by K - 5 Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff % Diff % K - 5, 6-8, 9-12 articulation ACTUAL 6805 xxx xxx 7061 xxx xxx 7340 xxx xxx xxx xxx pattern. Prj 3E.13 6372 (433) (6.36)%6659 (402) (5.69)%7052 (288) (3.92)% (132) (2.52)% Prj 3E.6 6368 (437) (6.42)%6632 (429) (6.08)%7046 (294) (4.01)% (107) (2.10)%Articulation pattern has no Prj 3E.13A 6346 (459) (6.75)%6643 (418) (5.92)%6979 (361) (4.92)% (155) (2.91)%numeric impact on efficacy Prj 3E.6A 6339 (466) (6.85)%6611 (450) (6.37)%6966 (374) (5.10)% (135) (2.59)%of projection models. Grades 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Average Average 6 - 8 Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff % Diff % ACTUAL 3264 xxx xxx 3238 xxx xxx 3351 xxx xxx xxx xxx Prj 3E.13 3143 (121) (3.71)%3230 (8) (0.25)%3256 (95)(2.83)%(11) (0.59)% Prj 3E.6 3132 (132) (4.04)%3213 (25) (0.77)%3246 (105)(3.13)%(10) (0.57)% Prj 3E.13A 3143 (121) (3.71)%3230 (8) (0.25)%3256 (95)(2.83)%(11) (0.59)% Prj 3E.6A 3132 (132) (4.04)%3213 (25) (0.77)%3246 (105)(3.13)%(10) (0.57)% Grades 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Average Average 9 - 12 Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff % Diff % ACTUAL 4902 xxx xxx 4978 xxx xxx 4972 xxx xxx xxx xxx Prj 3E.13 4813 (89) (1.82)%4773 (205) (4.12)%4874 (98) (1.97)% (154) (3.17)% Prj 3E.6 4906 4 0.08%4856 (122) (2.45)%4956 (16) (0.32)% (115) (2.25)% Prj 3E.13A 4813 (89) (1.82)%4773 (205) (4.12)%4874 (98) (1.97)% (154) (3.17)% Prj 3E.6A 4906 4 0.08%4856 (122)(2.45)%4956 (16)(0.32)% (115) (2.25)% All 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Average Average Grades Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff % Diff % ACTUAL 14,971 xxx xxx 15,277 xxx xxx 15,663 xxx xxx xxx xxx Prj 3E.13 14,328 (643) (4.29)%14,662 (615) (4.03)%15,182 (481) (3.07)% (289) (2.43)% Prj 3E.6 14,406 (565) (3.77)%14,701 (576) (3.77)%15,248 (415) (2.65)% (223) (1.97)% Prj 3E.13A 14,302 (669) (4.47)%14,646 (631) (4.13)%15,109 (554) (3.54)% (315) (2.61)% Prj 3E.6A 14,377 (594) (3.97)%14,680 (597) (3.91)%15,168 (495) (3.16)% (251) (2.16)% PROJECTION COMPARISONS BY GRADE GROUP (Continued) Page 13 October 2015 Appendix A.2 - CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Enrollment Projections Buildout Data for Enrollment Projections-April 20 BASE DATA - BUILDOUT SCHEDULE Student Generation Factors ASSUMPTIONS:Single Multi- 1 Uses Build Out estimates received from developers. 2016 SF 2016 MF Family Family 2 Student Generation Factors are updated Auburn data for 2016 as allowed per King County Ordinance Elementary 0.2260 0.0720 3 Takes area labeled Lakeland and Kersey Projects projects across 2016-2022 Middle School 0.0820 0.0220 4 Takes area labeled Bridges and other Lea Hill area developments and projects across 2016-2022 Senior High 0.0940 0.0440 5 Includes known developments in N. Auburn and other non-Lea Hill and non-Lakeland developments Total 0.4020 0.1380 Table Auburn S.D. 1 Development 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total Lakeland/Kersey Single Family 100 100 75 75 60 30 440 Lea Hill Area Single Family 50 50 50 40 30 20 18 258 Other Single Family Units 60 70 60 30 30 14 5 269 Total Single Family Units 210 220 185 145 120 64 23 967 Projected Pupils: K-5 47 50 42 33 27 14 5 219 6-8 17 18 15 12 10 5 2 79 9-12 20 21 17 14 11 6 2 91 K-12 84 88 74 58 48 26 9 389 Multi Family Units 0 0 200 120 48 0 0 368 Total Multi Family Units 0 0 200 120 48 0 0 368 Projected Pupils: K-50014930026 6-800431008 9-12 009520016 K-12 0 0 28 17 7 0 0 51 Total Housing Units 210 220 385 265 168 64 23 1335 K-5 47 50 56 41 31 14 5 245 6-8 17 18 20 15 11 5 2 87 9-12 20 21 26 19 13 6 2 107 K-12 84 88 102 75 55 26 9 440 Cumulative Projection 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 47 97 153 195 225 240 245 17 35 55 69 80 86 87 20 40 67 86 99 105 107 84 173 275 350 405 430 440 Auburn Factors Elementary Pupils Mid School Pupils Sr. High Pupils Elementary Pupils Total Mid School Pupils Sr. High Pupils Elementary Pupils Mid School Pupils Total Total Sr. High Pupils Elementary - Grades K -5 Mid School - Grades 6 - 8 Senior High - Grades 9 - 12 Total Buildout Data for Enrollment Projections-April 201 TABLE New Projects - Annual New Pupils Added & Distributed 2 by Grade Level 6 Year Percent of average GRADE Average Pupils by Grade 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 Enroll. & Level KDG 1123 7.54%1198 6 13 21 26 31 32 33 1 1152 7.73%1279 7 13 21 27 31 33 34 2 1134 7.62% 44.92%1289 6 13 21 27 31 33 33 3 1102 7.40%1232 6 13 20 26 30 32 33 4 1089 7.31%1170 6 13 20 26 30 31 32 5 1089 7.31%1172 6 13 20 26 30 31 32 6 1066 7.16%1116 6 12 20 25 29 31 31 7 1073 7.21% 21.66%1099 6 12 20 25 29 31 32 8 1086 7.29%1136 6 13 20 25 29 31 32 9 1226 8.23%1229 7 14 23 29 33 35 36 10 1233 8.28% 33.43%1316 7 14 23 29 34 36 36 11 1212 8.14%1167 7 14 22 28 33 35 36 12 1306 8.77%1260 7 15 24 31 35 38 39 Totals 14892 100.00% Total 15663 84 173 275 350 405 430 440 TABLE 6 year Historical Data 3 Average Enrollment and Percentage Distributed by Grade Level Grade 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 6yr Ave % KDG 1010 1029 1098 1170 1232 1198 1122.83 7.54% 1 1066 1068 1089 1188 1219 1279 1151.50 7.73% 2 1016 1097 1083 1124 1196 1289 1134.17 7.62% 3 1013 996 1111 1125 1136 1232 1102.17 7.40% 4 1024 1022 1038 1123 1156 1170 1088.83 7.31% 5 1079 1018 1070 1075 1122 1172 1089.33 7.31% 6 1041 1063 1041 1076 1059 1116 1066.00 7.16% 7 1060 1032 1086 1072 1091 1099 1073.33 7.21% 8 1112 1046 1017 1116 1088 1136 1085.83 7.29% 9 1221 1273 1200 1159 1275 1229 1226.17 8.23% 10 1238 1170 1278 1229 1169 1316 1233.33 8.28% 11 1258 1233 1164 1240 1211 1167 1212.17 8.14% 12 1344 1316 1321 1274 1323 1260 1306.33 8.77% Totals 14482 14363 14596 14971 15277 15663 14892.00 100.00% % of change -0.82% 1.62% 2.57% 2.04% 2.53% change +/- (119)233 375 306 386 4 Buildout Data for Enrollment Projections-April 201 TABLE 4 New Projects - Pupil Projection Cumulative ND 3.13 by Grade Level Updated April 2016 Uses a 'cohort survival'GRADE 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 model assuming 100% of Actual Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected previous year new KDG 1198 1227 1257 1288 1316 1344 1368 1392 enrollees move to the next 1 1279 1256 1285 1316 1345 1372 1397 1421 grade level.2 1289 1303 1280 1311 1339 1367 1392 1415 3 1232 1310 1324 1302 1331 1358 1383 1406 Kindergarten calculates 4 1170 1267 1345 1361 1336 1363 1388 1412 previous years number plus 5 1172 1197 1294 1373 1386 1360 1385 1409 K-5 7340 7560 7786 7950 8054 8163 8313 8455 Current generation based on 6 1116 1182 1206 1304 1382 1393 1365 1389 % of total enrollment. Other 7 1099 1139 1205 1231 1327 1403 1413 1383 factor uses 100% cohort 8 1136 1117 1157 1224 1248 1343 1417 1425 survival, based on 6 year GR 6-8 3351 3438 3569 3760 3957 4139 4194 4197 history.9 1229 1351 1333 1375 1441 1464 1557 1630 10 1316 1218 1340 1323 1363 1428 1448 1540 11 1167 1279 1181 1304 1285 1324 1385 1404 12 1260 1200 1313 1216 1338 1317 1354 1414 GR 9-12 4972 5047 5166 5219 5427 5532 5744 5988 Total 15663 16045 16521 16929 17438 17835 18251 18640 % of change 2.44% 2.97% 2.47% 3.01% 2.28% 2.33% 2.13% change +/- 382 476 408 509 397 416 389 TABLE 5 New Projects - Pupil Projection Cumulative ND 3.6 by Grade Level Updated April 2016 Uses a 'cohort survival'GRADE 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2022-23 2023-24 model assuming 100% of Actual Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected previous year new KDG 1198 1242 1286 1332 1375 1417 1456 1494 1511 1528 enrollees move to the next 1 1279 1261 1305 1351 1394 1436 1476 1514 1531 1548 grade level.2 1289 1309 1291 1337 1380 1422 1461 1499 1516 1534 3 1232 1312 1332 1315 1358 1400 1439 1477 1494 1511 Kindergarten calculates 4 1170 1265 1345 1366 1347 1388 1428 1466 1483 1499 previous years number plus 5 1172 1193 1288 1369 1388 1367 1407 1445 1461 1478 K-5 7340 7581 7847 8068 8241 8429 8666 8896 8997 9099 Current generation based on 6 1116 1178 1199 1295 1374 1392 1369 1407 1423 1439 % of total enrollment. Other 7 1099 1142 1205 1227 1321 1398 1414 1390 1405 1421 factor uses 100% cohort 8 1136 1113 1157 1221 1241 1333 1409 1423 1439 1455 survival, based on 6 year GR 6-8 3351 3434 3561 3743 3935 4123 4191 4220 4268 4316 history.9 1229 1301 1279 1325 1387 1406 1497 1571 1589 1607 10 1316 1241 1313 1292 1336 1397 1413 1503 1520 1537 11 1167 1308 1233 1306 1283 1325 1383 1399 1415 1431 12 1260 1246 1388 1315 1386 1362 1401 1458 1475 1492 GR 9-12 4972 5096 5213 5238 5392 5490 5695 5931 5998 6066 Total 15663 16111 16621 17049 17569 18042 18552 19047 19263 19481 % of change 2.86% 3.17% 2.57% 3.05% 2.69% 2.83% 2.67% 1.14% 1.14% change +/- 448 511 427 520 473 510 494 216 219 4 Buildout Data for Enrollment Projections-April 201 TABLE 6 New Developments - Pupil Projection Cumulative 2.83% 1.14% ND3.13A by Grade Level Updated April 2016 Uses a 'cohort survival'GRADE 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 model assuming 100% of Actual Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected previous year new KDG 1198 1146 1167 1177 1195 enrollees move to the next 1 1279 1256 1204 1226 1235 1250 grade level.2 1289 1303 1280 1230 1249 1256 1270 3 1232 1310 1324 1302 1249 1268 1272 1284 Kindergarten calculates 4 1170 1267 1345 1361 1336 1282 1298 1301 birth rate average plus 5 1172 1197 1294 1373 1386 1360 1304 1319 7340 7479 7615 7669 7650 6416 5144 3904 Current generation based on 6 1116 1182 1206 1304 1382 1393 1365 1308 % of total enrollment. Other 7 1099 1139 1205 1231 1327 1403 1413 1383 factor uses 100% cohort 8 1136 1117 1157 1224 1248 1343 1417 1425 survival, based on 6 year 3351 3438 3569 3760 3957 4139 4194 4116 history.9 1229 1351 1333 1375 1441 1464 1557 1630 10 1316 1218 1340 1323 1363 1428 1448 1540 11 1167 1279 1181 1304 1285 1324 1385 1404 12 1260 1200 1313 1216 1338 1317 1354 1414 4972 5047 5166 5219 5427 5532 5744 5988 Total 15663 15964 16350 16647 17035 % of change 1.92% 2.42% 1.82% 2.33% change +/- 301 387 297 387 TABLE 7 New Projects - Pupil Projection Cumulative ND 3.6A by Grade Level Updated April 2016 Uses a 'cohort survival'GRADE 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 model assuming 100% of Actual Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected previous year new KDG 1198 1146 1167 1177 1195 enrollees move to the next 1 1279 1261 1210 1232 1240 1256 grade level.2 1289 1309 1291 1241 1261 1267 1281 3 1232 1312 1332 1315 1262 1281 1285 1297 Kindergarten calculates 4 1170 1265 1345 1366 1347 1292 1309 1312 birth rate average plus 5 1172 1193 1288 1369 1388 1367 1311 1326 7340 7485 7632 7699 7692 Current generation based on 6 1116 1178 1199 1295 1374 1392 1369 1311 % of total enrollment. Other 7 1099 1142 1205 1227 1321 1398 1414 1390 factor uses 100% cohort 8 1136 1113 1157 1221 1241 1333 1409 1423 survival, based on 6 year 3351 3434 3561 3743 3935 4123 4191 4124 history.9 1229 1301 1279 1325 1387 1406 1497 1571 10 1316 1241 1313 1292 1336 1397 1413 1503 11 1167 1308 1233 1306 1283 1325 1383 1399 12 1260 1246 1388 1315 1386 1362 1401 1458 4972 5096 5213 5238 5392 5490 5695 5931 Total 15663 16015 16406 16679 17019 % of change 2.25% 2.44% 1.66% 2.04% change +/- 352 392 273 340 Appendix A.3 Student Generation Survey Auburn School District Development Growth since 1/1/10 April 2016SINGLE FAMILY Units/ Current To BeDevelopment Name Parcels Occupancy Occupied Elem Middle HS Total Elem Middle HS Total Alicia Glenn 24 24 0 4 7 2 13 0.167 0.292 0.083 0.542 Beaver Meadows 60 60 0 19 8 6 33 0.317 0.133 0.100 0.550 Brandon Meadows 55 55 0 19 2 8 29 0.345 0.036 0.145 0.527 Bridges 386 236 150 37 19 17 73 0.157 0.081 0.072 0.309 Carrington Pointe 24 24 0 10 2 1 13 0.417 0.083 0.042 0.542 Greenacres 16 16 0 6129 0.375 0.063 0.125 0.563 Kendall Ridge 106 106 0 18 9 12 39 0.170 0.085 0.113 0.368 Lakeland East: Portola 130 130 0 44 16 24 84 0.338 0.123 0.185 0.646 Lakeland: Edgeview 373 373 0 52 10 14 76 0.139 0.027 0.038 0.204 Lakeland Hills Estates 66 30 36 3205 0.100 0.067 0.000 0.167 Lakeland: Pinnacle Estates 76 76 0 46 12 19 77 0.605 0.158 0.250 1.013 Lakeland: Villas At …81 81 0 15 1 3 19 0.185 0.012 0.037 0.235 Lakeland: Vista Heights 125 125 0 42 19 21 82 0.336 0.152 0.168 0.656 Lawson Place 14 14 0 3249 0.214 0.143 0.286 0.643 Monterey Park 239 239 0 39 20 15 74 0.163 0.084 0.063 0.310 Mountain View 55 15 40 0011 0.000 0.000 0.067 0.067 Sonata Hills 72 68 4 7 2 3 12 0.103 0.029 0.044 0.176 Sterling Court 8 8 0 3036 0.375 0.000 0.375 0.750 Trail Run 169 169 0 52 16 18 86 0.308 0.095 0.107 0.509 Vintage Place 25 25 0 5 6 4 15 0.200 0.240 0.160 0.600 Totals 2104 1874 230 424 154 177 755 0.226 0.082 0.094 0.403 Actual Students Student Generation Factors 55/16/2016 Auburn School District Development Growth since 1/1/10 April 2016 Current Construction to be Occupied 2016 and beyond Units/ Current To Be Development Name Parcels Occupancy Occupied Elem Middle HS Total Elem Middle HS Total Bridges 386 236 150 37 19 17 73 34 12 14 60 Lakeland Hills Estates 66 30 36 3205 8 3 3 15 Mountain View 55 15 40 0011 9 3 4 16 Sonata Hills 72 68 4 7 2 3 12 1 0 0 2 Totals 579 349 230 47 23 21 91 52 19 22 93 2016 and beyond Units/ Current To Be Development Name Parcels Occupancy Occupied Elem Middle HS Total Anderson Acres 14 0 14 3 1 1 6 Backbone Ridge 7 0 7 2 1 1 3 Bridle Estates 18 0 18 4 1 2 7 Canyon Creek (formerly Cam-West)154 0 154 35 13 15 62 Hazel Heights 22 0 22 5 2 2 9 Hazel View 20 0 20 5 2 2 8 Lakeland: Forest Glen At ..30 0 30 7 2 3 12 Lakeland: Park Ridge 256 0 256 58 21 24 103 Lakeland: River Rock 14 0 14 3 1 1 6 Megan's Meadows 9 0 9 2 1 1 4 Pacific Lane 11 0 11 2 1 1 4 Ridge At Tall Timbers 104 0 104 24 9 10 42 Spencer Place 13 0 13 3 1 1 5 Vista Center (formerly Estes Park)31 0 31 7 3 3 12 Willow Place 18 0 18 4 1 2 7 Yates Plat 16 0 16 4 1 2 6 737 737 Totals 2016 and beyond 167 61 70 297 Grand Totals 219 79 91 390 Student Generation Factors Student Generation Factors Actual Students Estimated Students Based on Estimated Students Based on /16/2016 Auburn School District Development Growth since 1/1/10 May 2016 MULTI FAMILY Units/ Current To Be Development Name Parcels Occupancy Occupied Elem Middle HS Total Elem Middle HS Total Lakeland: Four Lakes Apts 234 234 0 9 4 11 24 0.038 0.017 0.047 0.103 Legend Townhomes 11 11 0 31150.273 0.091 0.091 0.455 Trail Run Townhomes 115 115 0 14 3 4 21 0.122 0.026 0.035 0.183 360 360 0 26 8 16 50 0.072 0.022 0.044 0.139 2016 and beyond Promenade Apts (formerly Auburn Hills)320 0 320 23 7 14 44 Sundallen Condos 48 0 48 3127 368 368 Total 27 8 16 51 Student Generation Factors 5 5/16/2016 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2017 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2017 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Adopted June 14, 2016 BOARD OF EDUCATION Geoffery McAnalloy Claire Wilson Liz Drake Carol Gregory Hiroshi Eto SUPERINTENDENT Dr. Tammy Campbell Prepared by: Sally D. McLean, Chief of Finance & Operations Tanya Nascimento, Student & Demographic Forecaster FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2017 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION 2-3 SECTION 1 THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Introduction 4 Inventory of Educational Facilities 5 Inventory of Non-Instructional Facilities 6 Needs Forecast - Existing Facilities 7 Needs Forecast - New Facilities 8 Six Year Finance Plan 9 SECTION 2 MAPS OF DISTRICT BOUNDARIES Introduction 10 Map - Elementary Boundaries 11 Map - Middle School Boundaries 12 Map - High School Boundaries 13 SECTION 3 SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION Introduction 14 Building Capacities 15-17 Portable Locations 18-19 Student Forecast 20-22 Capacity Summaries 23-27 King County Impact Fee Calculations 28-30 SECTION 4 SUMMARY OF CHANGES FROM THE 2016 PLAN 31-33 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2017 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2 INTRODUCTION In response to the requirements of the State of Washington Growth Management Act (SHB) 2929 (1990) and ESHB 1025 (1991)), and under the School Impact Fee Ordinances of King County Code 21A, City of Federal Way Ordinance No. 95-249 effective December 21, 1995 as amended, City of Kent Ordinance No.3260 effective March 1996, and the City of Auburn Ordinance No. 5078 effective 1998, Federal Way Public Schools has updated its 2017 Capital Facilities Plan as of May 2016. This Plan is scheduled for adoption by King County, the City of Kent, City of Federal Way and the City of Auburn and is incorporated in the Comprehensive Plans of each jurisdiction by reference. This plan is also included in the Facilities Plan element of the Comprehensive Plans of each jurisdiction. To date, the City of Des Moines has not adopted a school impact fee ordinance. The City of Des Moines collects school impact fees as part of the SEPA process. The Growth Management Act requires the County to designate Urban Growth areas within which urban growth can be encouraged. The Growth Management Planning Council adopted and recommended to the King County Council four Urban Growth Area Line Maps with designations for urban centers. A designation was made within the Federal Way planning area, which encompasses Federal Way Public Schools boundaries. King County will encourage and actively support the development of Urban Centers to meet the region’s need for housing, jobs, services, culture, and recreation. This Plan’s estimated population growth is prepared with this underlying assumption. This Capital Facilities Plan will be used as documentation for any jurisdiction, which requires its use to meet the needs of the Growth Management Act. This plan is not intended to be the sole planning tool for all of the District needs. The District may prepare interim plans consistent with Board policies or management need. Currently, construction is underway to replace Federal Way High School and to increase capacity by approximately 200 students. Federal Way High School was built in 1938. The estimated cost to rebuild Federal Way High School is $106 million. The District began Phase I in Summer 2014. Phase I consists of site work and preparation for the portable village that will house students during the construction of the new building. Phase II, demolition of the existing classrooms and rebuild, began in January 2015. The existing cafeteria, gymnasium, and kitchen will continue to be in use during construction. The newly constructed building is scheduled for use beginning in the 2016-17 school year. Phase III, demolition of the cafeteria, gymnasium, and kitchen, and construction of athletic fields, will begin this summer and is expected to be completed by Fall 2017. The District continues to monitor factors that may have an impact on enrollment and capacity at our schools. In accordance with the McCleary decision, the State continues to phase in funding based on a reduction of K-3 class size to 17 and 4-12 class size to 25. Initiative Measure No. 1351 would further reduce these class sizes in schools where more than 50% of students were eligible for free and reduced-price meals in the prior year. Under this measure, class sizes in those schools would be reduced to 15 in grades K-3, 22 in grade 4, and 23 in grades 5-12. The additional class size reductions required by FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2017 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 3 Initiative 1351 would increase our classroom need from 60 to 120 at our Elementary & K-8 schools and add a need for an additional 26 classrooms at our Secondary schools. The 2015 Legislature provided $200 million in competitive grant capital funds to help school districts achieve progress towards class size reduction and all-day kindergarten goals. As a condition of grant application, districts were required to certify and count and usage of all K-3 classrooms and other teaching stations. This certification process demonstrated a District need for 60 additional K-3 classrooms. The District applied for and has been awarded a grant amount, yet to be determined, to add additional K-3 capacity. We will also continue to study school boundaries as new housing and fluctuating populations impact specific schools. Some shifts in boundaries may be required in the coming years. The maps included in this Plan reflect our current boundaries. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2017 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 4 SECTION 1 - THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN The State Growth Management Act requires that several pieces of information be gathered to determine the facilities available and needed to meet the needs of a growing community. This section provides information about current facilities, existing facility needs, and expected future facility requirements for Federal Way Public Schools. A Financial Plan that shows expected funding for any new construction, portables and modernization listed follows this. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2017 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 5 INVENTORY OF EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (K-5) Adelaide 1635 SW 304th St Federal Way 98023 Brigadoon 3601 SW 336th St Federal Way 98023 Camelot 4041 S 298th St Auburn 98001 Enterprise 35101 5th Ave SW Federal Way 98023 Green Gables 32607 47th Ave SW Federal Way 98023 Lake Dolloff 4200 S 308th St Auburn 98001 Lake Grove 303 SW 308th St Federal Way 98023 Lakeland 35827 32nd Ave S Auburn 98001 Mark Twain 2450 S Star Lake Rd Federal Way 98003 Meredith Hill 5830 S 300th St Auburn 98001 Mirror Lake 625 S 314th St Federal Way 98003 Nautilus (K-8) 1000 S 289th St Federal Way 98003 Olympic View 2626 SW 327th St Federal Way 98023 Panther Lake 34424 1st Ave S Federal Way 98003 Rainier View 3015 S 368th St Federal Way 98003 Sherwood Forest 34600 12th Ave SW Federal Way 98023 Silver Lake 1310 SW 325th Pl Federal Way 98023 Star Lake 4014 S 270th St Kent 98032 Sunnycrest 24629 42nd Ave S Kent 98032 Twin Lakes 4400 SW 320th St Federal Way 98023 Valhalla 27847 42nd Ave S Auburn 98001 Wildwood 2405 S 300th St Federal Way 98003 Woodmont (K-8) 26454 16th Ave S Des Moines 98198 MIDDLE SCHOOLS (6-8) Federal Way Public Academy (6-10) 34620 9th Ave S Federal Way 98003 Illahee 36001 1st Ave S Federal Way 98003 Kilo 4400 S 308th St Auburn 98001 Lakota 1415 SW 314th St Federal Way 98023 Sacajawea 1101 S Dash Point Rd Federal Way 98003 Saghalie 33914 19th Ave SW Federal Way 98023 Sequoyah 3450 S 360th ST Auburn 98001 Totem 26630 40th Ave S Kent 98032 TAF Academy (6-12) 26630 40th Ave S Kent 98032 HIGH SCHOOLS (9-12) Decatur 2800 SW 320th St Federal Way 98023 Federal Way 30611 16th Ave S Federal Way 98003 Thomas Jefferson 4248 S 288th St Auburn 98001 Todd Beamer 35999 16th Ave S Federal Way 98003 Career Academy at Truman 31455 28th Ave S Federal Way 98003 ADDITIONAL SCHOOLS Internet Academy (K-12) 31455 28th Ave S Federal Way 98003 Employment Transition Program (12+) 33250 21st Ave SW Federal Way 98023 LEASED SPACE Federal Way Acceleration Academy 2104 S 314th St, Ste 2104 Federal Way 98003 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2017 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 6 CURRENT INVENTORY NON-INSTRUCTIONAL FACILITIES Developed Property Central Kitchen 1214 S 332nd Federal Way 98003 Federal Way Memorial Field 1300 S 308th St Federal Way 98003 Educational Services Center 33330 8th Ave S Federal Way 98003 Support Services Center 1211 S 332nd St Federal Way 98003 Undeveloped Property Site # Location 75 SW 360th Street & 3rd Avenue SW – 9.2 Acres 65 S 351st Street & 52nd Avenue S – 8.8 Acres 60 E of 10th Avenue SW - SW 334th & SW 335th Streets - 10.04 Acres 73 N of SW 320th and east of 45th PL SW – 23.45 Acres 71 S 344th Street & 46th Avenue S - 17.47 Acres 82 1st Way S and S 342nd St – Minimal acreage 96 S 308th St and 14th Ave S – .36 Acres Notes: Not all undeveloped properties are large enough to meet school construction requirements. Properties may be traded or sold depending on what locations are needed to house students in the District. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2017 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 7 NEEDS FORECAST - EXISTING FACILITIES EXISTING FACILITY FUTURE NEEDS ANTICIPATED SOURCE OF FUNDS Purchase and Relocate Portables Interim Capacity Anticipated source of funds is Impact Fees. Federal Way High School Replace Existing Building, Increase Capacity Capital levy request As part of the multi-phase plan, the District intends to increase capacity for high school students with expansion at the Federal Way High School site. Increased capacity at Federal Way High and Decatur High in later phases, supplant the need for construction of a fifth comprehensive high school. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2017 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 8 NEEDS FORECAST - ADDITIONAL FACILITIES NEW FACILITY LOCATION ANTICIPATED SOURCE OF FUNDS Elementary #24 TBD K-3 Class Size Reduction Grant and Bond request Elementary #25 TBD K-3 Class Size Reduction Grant and Bond request Recent analysis confirms the need for 60 new elementary classrooms to meet K-3 class size reduction requirements. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2017 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 9 Six Year Finance Plan Secured Funding Sources Impact Fees (1)$20,141 Land Sale Funds (2)($4,532,182) Bond or Levy Funds (3)$16,745,512 State Match (4)$1,287,848 TOTAL $13,521,319 Pro jected Revenue Sources State Match (5)$34,000,000 Bond or Levy Funds (6)$30,000,000 Land Fund Sales (7)$0 Impact Fees (8)$1,400,000 TOTAL $65,400,000 Actual and Planned Expenditures Total Secured Funding and Projected Revenue $78,921,319 NEW SCHOOLS Estimated and Budget 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total Total Cost Prior Years 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2017-2023 MODERNIZATION AND EXPANSION Federal Way High School (9)$46,000,000 $30,000,000 $20,000,000 $10,000,000 $60,000,000 $106,000,000 SITE ACQUISITION Norman Center $1,205,000 $220,000 $225,000 $235,000 $235,000 $915,000 $2,120,000 (Employment Transtion Program) (10) TEMPORARY FACILITIES Portables (11)$200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $1,400,000 $1,400,000 TOTAL $47,205,000 $30,420,000 $20,425,000 $10,435,000 $435,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $62,315,000 $109,520,000 NOTES:` 1. These fees are currently being held in a King County, City of Federal Way and City of Kent impact fee account, and will be available for use by the District for system improvements. This is year end balance on 12/31/15. 2. This is year end balance on 12/31/15. 3. This is the 12/31/15 balance of bond funds and capital levy funds. This figure includes interest earnings. 4. This represents the balance of State Match Funds which will be used to to support the rebuilding of Federal Way High School. This is the balance on 12/31/15. 5. This is anticipated State Match for the rebuilding of Federal Way High School. Application for funds was made in July 2013. 6. These include $30m of the $60m six-year levy approved in November 2012. 7. Projected sale of surplus properties. 8. These are projected fees based upon known residential developments in the District, $25,000 per month over the next 6 years. 9. Project budget has been adjusted to match current project cost estimates. 10. Norman Center was purchased in 2010 to house the Employment Transition Program. The $2.1m purchase has been financed through a state approved LOCAL program through 2020. 11. These fees represent the cost of purchasing and installing new portables. The portable expenditure in future years may replace existing portables that are not functional. These may not increase capacity and are not included in the capacity summary. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2017 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 10 SECTION 2 - MAPS OF DISTRICT BOUNDARIES Federal Way Public Schools has twenty-one elementary schools (grades K-5), two schools with a K-8 grade configuration, seven middle school schools (grades 6-8), four high schools (grades 9-12) and three small secondary schools. The Federal Way Public Academy serves students in grades 6-10. The TAF Academy serves students in grades 6- 12 who reside in the Totem Middle School service area. The programs at Career Academy at Truman High School serves students in grades 9-12. The following maps show the service area boundaries for each school, by school type. (Career Academy at Truman High School and Federal Way Public Academy serve students from throughout the District). The identified boundaries are reviewed annually. Any change in grade configuration or adoption of programs that affect school populations may necessitate a change in school service areas. The Growth Management Act requires that a jurisdiction evaluate if the public facility infrastructure is in place to handle new housing developments. In the case of most public facilities, new development has its major impact on the facilities immediately adjacent to that development. School Districts are different. If the District does not have permanent facilities available, interim measures must be taken until new facilities can be built or until boundaries can be adjusted to match the population changes to the surrounding facilities. Adjusting boundaries requires careful consideration by the District and is not taken lightly. It is recognized that there is a potential impact on students who are required to change schools. Boundary adjustments impact the whole district, not just one school. 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. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2017 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 11 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2017 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 12 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2017 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 13 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2017 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 14 SECTION 3 - SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION Building Capacities - The Education Program Portable Locations Student Forecast – 2017 through 2023 Capacity Summaries King County Impact Fees - Single and Multi-Family Units FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2017 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 15 Building Capacities This Capital Facilities Plan establishes the District’s “standard of service” in order to ascertain the District’s current and future capacity. The Superintendent of Public Instruction establishes square footage guidelines for capacity, but these guidelines do not take into consideration the education program needs. In general, the District’s current target class size provides that the average class size for a standard classroom for grades K through 3 should be 17 students to comply with McCleary. In grades 4-5 the target is 25 students. For grades 6 to 12 the target class size is 26 students. Classrooms for students with Individualized Education Program (Special Education) needs are calculated at 12 seats per classroom. Historically, the District has used the OSPI square footage calculation as a baseline for capacity calculation and made adjustments for specific program needs. The District will continue to use this calculation for determining capacity at our middle and high schools. However, with the implementation of McCleary which requires a significant reduction in K-3 class sizes, elementary capacity, in this Plan, will be calculated based on the number of classroom spaces, the number of students assigned to each classroom and the extent of support facilities available for students, staff, parents, and the community. Class Size Guidelines FWPS Historical “Standard of Service” HB2661/SHB2776 Enacted Law Square Footage Guideline Kindergarten 20 17 25-28 Grades 1-2 20 17 25-28 Grade 3 25 17 28 Grades 4-5 25 25 28 For the purposes of determining student capacity at individual schools, the following list clarifies adjustments to classroom spaces and the OSPI calculation. Music Rooms: Each elementary school requires a standard classroom for music instruction. Special Education Resource Rooms: Each elementary and middle school requires the use of a standard classroom(s) for special education students requiring instruction to address specific disabilities. English as a Second Language Programs: Each elementary, middle school and high school requires the use of a standard classroom for students learning English as a second language. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2017 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 16 Middle School Computer Labs: Each middle school has computer labs, except Totem Middle School. Wireless access has been installed at all secondary schools. If additional classroom space is needed, these computer labs may be converted to mobile carts. High School Career Development and Learning Center (Resource) Room: Each high school provides special education resource room and career development classrooms for students requiring instruction to address specific disabilities. Preschool/ECEAP/Headstart: Our district currently offers preschool programs for both special needs & typically developing students at 8 elementary schools. We also have the ECEAP and Headstart program at 6 schools (4 elementary & 3 high schools). These programs decrease capacity at those sites. Alternative Learning Experience: Federal Way offers students the opportunity to participate in an Alternative Learning Experience through our Internet Academy. These students have never been included in the capacity calculation of unhoused students. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2017 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 17 BUILDING PROGRAM CAPACITIES ELEMENTARY BUILDING MIDDLE SCHOOL BUILDING PROGRAM CAPACITY PROGRAM CAPACITY School Name Headcount School Name Headcount FTE Adelaide 374 Illahee 810 818 Brigadoon 282 Kilo 783 791 Camelot 277 Lakota 766 774 Enterprise 337 Sacajawea 609 615 Green Gables 404 Saghalie 703 710 Lake Dolloff 366 Sequoyah 556 562 Lake Grove 353 Totem 770 778 Lakeland 341 Federal Way Public Academy 199 201 Mark Twain 430 Technology Access Foundation Academy** Meredith Hill 378 TOTAL 5,196 5,249 Mirror Lake 270 Nautilus (K-8)432 *Middle School Average 714 721 Olympic View 370 Panther Lake 330 HIGH SCHOOL BUILDING Rainier View 355 PROGRAM CAPACITY Sherwood Forest 486 Silver Lake 387 School Name Headcount FTE Star Lake 358 Decatur 1244 1,330 Sunnycrest 413 Federal Way 1431 1,530 Twin Lakes 392 Thomas Jefferson 1224 1,309 Valhalla 406 Todd Beamer 1085 1,160 Wildwood 372 Career Academy at Truman 159 170 Woodmont (K-8)357 Federal Way Public Academy 109 117 TOTAL 8,470 Employment Transition Program 48 51 Technology Access Foundation Academy** TOTAL 5,300 5,668 Elementary Average 368 *High School Average 1,246 1,333 Notes: * Federal Way Public Academy, Career Academy at Truman High School, and Employment Transition Program are non-boundary schools. These schools are not used in the calculated averages. ** Technology Access Foundation Academy is housed entirely in portables on the Totem Middle School site. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2017 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 18 Portable Locations The Washington State Constitution requires the State to provide each student a basic education. It is not an efficient use of District resources to build a school with a capacity for 500 students due to lack of space for 25 students when enrollment fluctuates throughout the year and from year to year. Portables are used as temporary facilities or interim measures to house students when increasing population impacts a school attendance area. Portables may also be required to house students when new or changing programs require additional capacity. They also provide temporary housing for students until permanent facilities can be financed and constructed. When permanent facilities become available, the portable(s) is either used for other purposes such as storage or child care programs, or moved to another school for an interim classroom. Some portables may not be fit to move due to age or physical condition. In these cases, the District may choose to buy new portables and surplus these unfit portables. It is the practice and philosophy of Federal Way Public Schools that portables are not acceptable as permanent facilities. The District is investigating alternatives to portables. We are currently in the planning phase of designing buildings that would require shorter construction time and provide permanent classroom space for our students. These buildings may replace the need for portables in the future. The following page provides a list of the location of the portable facilities, used for temporary educational facilities by Federal Way Public Schools. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2017 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 19 PORTABLES LOCATED PORTABLES LOCATED AT ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS AT HIGH SCHOOLS NON NON INSTRUCTIONAL INSTRUCTIONAL* INSTRUCTIONAL INSTRUCTIONAL Adelaide 12Decatur 81 Brigadoon 1 Federal Way Camelot 1 Thomas Jefferson 10 Enterprise 3 Todd Beamer 8 Green Gables 1 TAF Academy 82 Lake Dolloff 1 1 TOTAL 34 3 Lake Grove 11 Lakeland Mark Twain 3 Meredith Hill 12 Mirror Lake 6 4 PORTABLES LOCATED Nautilus 1 AT SUPPORT FACILITIES Olympic View 2 Panther Lake 22MOT Rainier View 32TDC 9 Sherwood Forest 2 2 TOTAL 9 Silver Lake 4 Star Lake 4 Sunnycrest 4 2 HEAD START PORTABLES AT DISTRICT SITES Twin Lakes 12 Valhalla 4 Sherwood Forest 1 Wildwood 4 Woodmont 3 Total 1 TOTAL 47 26 PORTABLES LOCATED AT MIDDLE SCHOOLS NON INSTRUCTIONAL INSTRUCTIONAL Illahee 3 Kilo 7 Lakota Sacajawea 3 Saghalie 4 Sequoyah 2 Totem TAF Academy 82 TOTAL 13 16 *Non-instructional portables at Mirror Lake, Panther Lake, Rainier View, Silver Lake, and Sunnycrest Elementaries will be in use as Instructional portables in the 2016-17 school year. PORTABLE LOCATIONS FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2017 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 20 Student Forecast Student enrollment projections are a basic component of budget development. Enrollment projections influence many of the financial estimates that go into budget preparation. The majority of staffing requirements are derived directly from the forecasted number of students. Allocations for instructional supplies and materials are also made on the basis of projected enrollment. Other expenditures and certain revenue projections are directly related to enrollment projections. Enrollment projections are completed annually in the Business Services Department. Projections must be detailed at various levels, district total, school-building totals, grade level and program level to include vocational and special education students. The basis of projections has been cohort survival analysis. Cohort survival is the analysis of a group that has a common statistical value (grade level) as it progresses through time. In a stable population the cohort would be 1.00 for all grades. This analysis uses historical information to develop averages and project the averages forward. This method does not trace individual students; it is concerned with aggregate numbers in each grade level. The district has used this method with varying years of history and weighted factors to study several projections. Because transfers in and out of the school system are common, student migration is factored into the analysis as it increases or decreases survival rates. Entry grades (kindergarten) are a unique problem in cohort analysis. The district collects information on birth rates within the district’s census tracts, and treats these statistics as a cohort for kindergarten enrollment in the appropriate years. The Federal Way School District is using various statistical methods for projecting student enrollments. The resultant forecasted enrollments are evaluated below. The first method is a statistical cohort analysis that produces ten distinct forecasts. These are forecast of enrollment for one year. The projections vary depending on the number of years of historical information and how they are weighted. A second method is a projection using an enrollment projection software package that allows the user to project independently at school or grade level and to aggregate these projections for the district level. The Enrollment MasterTM software provides statistical methods including trend line, standard grade progression (cohort) and combinations of these methods. This software produces a five-year projection of school enrollment. In December 2012, the District contracted a demographer to develop projections for the Federal Way School District. The report was complete in March 2013. The model used to forecast next year’s enrollment uses cohort survival rates to measure grade to grade growth, assumes market share losses to private schools (consistent with county-wide average), assumes growth from new housing or losses due to net losses from migration. This forecast was provided as a range of three projections. The long-range forecast provided with this report used a model with cohort survival rates and growth rates based on projected changes in the 5-19 age group for King County. Most of the methods used for long range enrollment reporting assume that enrollment is a constant percent of FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2017 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 21 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 2023. This model produces a projection that is between 23,000 and 24,000 when applied to the low, medium and high range modes. This provides a reasonable range for long-range planning and is consistent with estimates from various models. Long-range projections that establish the need for facilities are a modification of the cohort survival method. The cohort method of analysis becomes less reliable the farther out the projections are made. The Federal Way School District long-range projections are studied annually. The study includes information from the jurisdictional demographers as they project future housing and population in the region. The long-range projections used by Federal Way Public Schools reflect a similar age trend in student populations as the projections published by the Office of Financial Management for the State of Washington. Near term projections assume some growth from new housing, which is offset by current local economic conditions. The District tracks new development from five permitting jurisdictions. Currently there are three new multi-family complexes planned within the District. These three complexes have a total of 819 units. Two of the three developments opened and occupied during the 2015-16 school year. The third development, which will have about 300 units, is scheduled to be ready for occupancy during the 2016-17 school year. Long range planning assumes a student yield from proposed new housing consistent with historical growth patterns. Growth Management requires jurisdictions to plan for a minimum of twenty years. The Federal Way School District is a partner in this planning with the various jurisdictions comprising the school district geography. These projections create a vision of the school district community in the future. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2017 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 22 Full Time Equivalent Enrollment History and Projections Simplified FTE (K Headcount = .5 FTE; Middle School FTE=.99 Headcount; High School FTE = .935Headcount) Total K -12 Percent Calendar Yr School Year Elementary Middle School High School FTE Change 2011 2010-11 8,753 5,142 6,544 20,439 2012 2011-12 8,800 5,134 6,448 20,382 -0.3% 2013 2012-13 8,914 4,963 6,367 20,244 -0.7% 2014 2013-14 9,230 4,801 6,354 20,384 0.7% 2015 2014-15 9,177 4,884 6,402 20,462 0.4% 2016 2015-16 9,397 5,047 6,273 20,717 1.2% 2017 B2016-17 9,579 5,171 6,212 20,962 1.2% 2018 P2017-18 9,830 5,458 5,890 21,178 1.0% 2019 P2018-19 9,927 5,432 6,034 21,393 1.0% 2020 P2019-20 9,994 5,573 6,078 21,645 1.2% 2021 P2020-21 10,077 5,675 6,219 21,971 1.5% 2022 P2021-22 10,198 5,733 6,255 22,186 1.0% 2023 P2022-23 10,322 5,716 6,293 22,331 0.6% Elementary K-5 Middle School 6-8 High School 9-12 15,000 16,000 17,000 18,000 19,000 20,000 21,000 22,000 23,000 School Year Enrollment History and Six Year Forecast FTE FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2017 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 23 Capacity Summaries All Grades, Elementary, Middle School, and High Schools The Capacity Summaries combine Building Capacity information, Portable Capacity information and the Student Forecast information. The result demonstrates the requirements for new or remodeled facilities and why there is a need for the District to use temporary facilities or interim measures. The District has recently adjusted its capacity calculation method for Elementary schools to better show capacity needed to comply with the K-3 Class Size Reduction. This adjustment is also shown in the portable capacity calculation. In order to allow for flexibility in portable usage the District will use an average class size calculation of 21 for each Elementary portable and an average class size of 25 for each Middle and High School portable. The information is organized in spreadsheet format, with a page summarizing the entire District, and then evaluating capacity vs. number of students at elementary, middle school, and high school levels individually. The notes at the bottom of each spreadsheet provide information about what facilities are in place each year. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2017 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 24 CAPACITY SUMMARY - ALL GRADES Budget - - Projected - - Calendar Year 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 CAPACITY School Year 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 BUILDING PROGRAM HEADCOUNT CAPACITY 18,966 19,166 19,166 19,166 19,166 19,166 19,166 FTE CAPACITY 19,387 19,587 19,587 19,587 19,587 19,587 19,587 Add or subtract changes to capacity Increase Capacity at Federal Way HS 200 Adjusted Program Headcount Capacity 19,166 19,166 19,166 19,166 19,166 19,166 19,166 Adjusted Program FTE Capacity 19,587 19,587 19,587 19,587 19,587 19,587 19,587 ENROLLMENT Basic FTE Enrollment 20,962 21,178 21,393 21,645 21,971 22,186 22,331 Internet Academy Enrollment (AAFTE)(315) (315) (315) (315) (315) (315) (315) Basic FTE Enrollment without Internet Academy 20,647 20,863 21,078 21,330 21,656 21,871 22,016 SURPLUS OR (UNHOUSED) PROGRAM FTE CAPACITY (1,060) (1,276) (1,491) (1,743) (2,069) (2,284) (2,429) RELOCATABLE CAPACITY Current Portable Capacity 2,162 2,171 2,171 2,171 2,171 2,171 2,171 Deduct Portable Capacity (75) Add New Portable Capacity 84 Adjusted Portable Capacity 2,171 2,171 2,171 2,171 2,171 2,171 2,171 SURPLUS OR (UNHOUSED) PROGRAM AND RELOCATABLE CAPACITY 1,111 895 680 428 102 (113) (258) FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2017 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 25 CAPACITY SUMMARY - ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS Budget - - Projected - - Calendar Year 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 CAPACITY School Year 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 BUILDING PROGRAM HEAD COUNT CAPACITY 8,470 8,470 8,470 8,470 8,470 8,470 8,470 FTE CAPACITY 8,470 8,470 8,470 8,470 8,470 8,470 8,470 Add or subtract changes in capacity Adjusted Program Headcount Capacity 8,470 8,470 8,470 8,470 8,470 8,470 8,470 Adjusted Program FTE Capacity 8,470 8,470 8,470 8,470 8,470 8,470 8,470 ENROLLMENT Basic FTE Enrollment 9,579 9,830 9,927 9,994 10,077 10,198 10,322 Internet Academy (AAFTE)1 (36) (36) (36) (36) (36) (36) (36) Basic FTE Enrollment without Internet Academy 9,543 9,794 9,891 9,958 10,041 10,162 10,286 SURPLUS OR (UNHOUSED) PROGRAM CAPACITY (1,073) (1,324) (1,421) (1,488) (1,571) (1,692) (1,816) RELOCATABLE CAPACITY2 Current Portable Capacity 987 1,071 1,071 1,071 1,071 1,071 1,071 Add/Subtract portable capacity Add portable capacity at Rainier View 84 and Sunnycrest Adjusted Portable Capacity 1,071 1,071 1,071 1,071 1,071 1,071 1,071 SURPLUS OR (UNHOUSED) PROGRAM AND RELOCATABLE CAPACITY (2) (253) (350) (417) (500) (621) (745) NOTES: 1 Internet Academy students are included in projections but do not require full time use of school facilities. 2 Relocatable Capacity is based on the number of portables available and other administrative techniques which can be used to temporarily house students until permanent facilities are available. This is a calculated number only. The actual number of portables that will be used will be based on actual student population needs. The District may begin to pull portables from the instructional inventory. Age and condition of the portables will determine feasibility for continued instructional use. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2017 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 26 CAPACITY SUMMARY - MIDDLE SCHOOLS Budget - - Projected - - Calendar Year 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 CAPACITY School Year 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 BUILDING PROGRAM HEADCOUNT CAPACITY 5,196 5,196 5,196 5,196 5,196 5,196 5,196 FTE CAPACITY 5,249 5,249 5,249 5,249 5,249 5,249 5,249 Add or subtract changes in capacity Adjusted Program Headcount Capacity 5,196 5,196 5,196 5,196 5,196 5,196 5,196 Adjusted Program FTE Capacity 5,249 5,249 5,249 5,249 5,249 5,249 5,249 ENROLLMENT Basic FTE Enrollment 5,171 5,458 5,432 5,573 5,675 5,733 5,716 Internet Academy (AAFTE)1 (74) (74) (74) (74) (74) (74) (74) Basic FTE Enrollment without Internet Academy 5,097 5,384 5,358 5,499 5,601 5,659 5,642 SURPLUS OR (UNHOUSED) PROGRAM CAPACITY 152 (135) (109) (250) (352) (410) (393) RELOCATABLE CAPACITY2 Current Portable Capacity 325 325 325 325 325 325 325 Add/Subtract portable capacity Adjusted Portable Capacity 325 325 325 325 325 325 325 SURPLUS OR (UNHOUSED) PROGRAM AND RELOCATABLE CAPACITY 477 190 216 75 (27) (85) (68) NOTES: 1 Internet Academy students are included in projections but do not require full time use of school facilities. 2 Relocatable Capacity is based on the number of portables available and other administrative techniques which can be used to temporarily house students until permanent facilities are available. This is a calculated number only. The actual number of portables that will be used will be based on actual student population needs. The District may begin to pull portables from the instructional inventory. Age and condition of the portables will determine feasibility for continued instructional use. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2017 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 27 CAPACITY SUMMARY - HIGH SCHOOLS Budget - - Projected - - Calendar Year 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 CAPACITY School Year 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 BUILDING PROGRAM HEADCOUNT CAPACITY 5,300 5,500 5,500 5,500 5,500 5,500 5,500 FTE CAPACITY 5,668 5,868 5,868 5,868 5,868 5,868 5,868 Add or subtract changes in capacity Add capacity to Federal Way HS 200 Adjusted Program Headcount Capacity 5,500 5,500 5,500 5,500 5,500 5,500 5,500 Adjusted Program FTE Capacity 5,868 5,868 5,868 5,868 5,868 5,868 5,868 ENROLLMENT Basic FTE Enrollment 6,212 5,890 6,034 6,078 6,219 6,255 6,293 Internet Academy (AAFTE)1 (205) (205) (205) (205) (205) (205) (205) Basic Ed without Internet Academy 6,007 5,685 5,829 5,873 6,014 6,050 6,088 SURPLUS OR (UNHOUSED) PROGRAM CAPACITY (139)183 39 (5) (146) (182) (220) RELOCATABLE CAPACITY2 Current Portable Capacity 850 775 775 775 775 775 775 Add/Subtract portable capacity Subtract portable capacity at Federal Way HS (75) Adjusted Portable Capacity 775 775 775 775 775 775 775 SURPLUS OR (UNHOUSED) PROGRAM AND RELOCATABLE CAPACITY3 636 958 814 770 629 593 555 NOTES: 1. Internet Academy students are included in projections but do not require full time use of school facilities. 2 Relocatable Capacity is based on the number of portables available and other administrative techniques which can be used to temporarily house students until permanent facilities are available. This is a calculated number only. The actual number of portables that will be used will be based on actual student population needs. The District may begin to pull portables from the instructional inventory. Age and condition of the portables will determine feasibility for continued instructional use. 3. Capacity for unhoused students will be accommodated with traveling teachers and no planning time in some classrooms. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2017 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 28 King County, the City of Federal Way, and the City of Kent Impact Fee Calculations Single and Multi-Family Residences Each jurisdiction that imposes school impact fees requires that developers pay these fees to help cover a share of the impact of new housing developments on school facilities. To determine an equitable fee throughout unincorporated King County, a formula was established. This formula can be found in King County Code 21A and was substantially adopted by the City of Federal Way and Kent. The formula requires the District to establish a "Student Generation Factor" which estimates how many students will be added to a school district by each new single or multi-family unit and to gather some standard construction costs, which are unique to that district. - STUDENT GENERATION FACTOR ANALYSIS Federal Way Public Schools student generation factor was determined separately for single-family units and multi-family units. The factors used in the 2017 Capital Facilities Plan were derived using actual generation factors from single-family units and multi-family units that were constructed in the District in the last five (5) years - 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 5 years. Plan Year 2016 Plan Year 2017 Single Family Units $2,899 $3,198 Multi-Family Units (King County, Auburn, Kent)1 $506 $8,386 Multi-Family Units – City of Federal Way2 $9,273 $8,386 Mixed-Use Residential3 $4,637 $4,193 1 Based on impact fee calculation in the 2016 Capital Facilities Plan, this fee applies to King County, City of Auburn, City of Kent and, if an impact fee ordinance is adopted, City of Des Moines. 2 Based on impact fee calculation in the 2016 Capital Facilities Plan as Restated for the City of Federal Way. This fee applies to the City of Federal Way. 3 In accordance with the City of Federal Way Ordinance No. 95-249. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2017 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 29 STUDENT GENERATION NEW CONSTRUCTION IN PRIOR 5 YEARS Single Family Student Generation Number of Number of Number of Number of Elementary Middle School High School Total Single Family Elementary Middle School High School Student Student Student Student DEVELOPMENT Dwellings Students Students Students Factor Factor Factor Factor (16) Jefferson Place 11 6 0 0 0.5455 0.0000 0.0000 0.5455 (16) Star Lake East 30 3 2 8 0.1000 0.0667 0.2667 0.4334 (15) Swan Song 29 6 2 4 0.2069 0.0690 0.1379 0.4138 (15) Wynstone East 114 29 27 15 0.2544 0.2368 0.1316 0.6228 (14) North Lake Rim 37 2 2 6 0.0541 0.0541 0.1622 0.2704 (14) Wynstone 44 13 2 6 0.2955 0.0455 0.1364 0.4774 (13) Lake Point 22 4 4 0 0.1818 0.1818 0.0000 0.3636 (13) Saghalie Firs 34 8 4 5 0.2353 0.1176 0.1471 0.5000 (12) Ming Court 15 8 4 4 0.5333 0.2667 0.2667 1.0667 (12) Sunset Gardens 12 7 2 0 0.5833 0.1667 0.0000 0.7500 Total 348 86 49 48 Student Generation*0.2471 0.1408 0.1379 0.5259 Multi-Family Student Generation - City of Federal Way Number of Number of Number of Number of Elementary Middle School High School Total Multi Family Elementary Middle School High School Student Student Student Student DEVELOPMENT Dwellings Students Students Students Factor Factor Factor Factor (16) Kandila Townhomes 27 1 2 0 0.0034 0.0068 0.0000 0.0102 (15) Park 16 293 171 88 83 0.5836 0.3003 0.2833 1.1672 Total 320 172 90 83 Student Generation*0.5375 0.2813 0.2594 1.0781 * Student Generation rate is based on totals. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2017 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 30 IMPACT FEE School Site Acquisition Cost:Student Student Facility Cost / Facility Factor Factor Cost/ Cost/ Acreage Acre Capacity SFR MFR SFR MFR Elementary 0.2471 0.5375 $0 $0 Middle School 0.1408 0.2813 $0 $0 High School 4.85 $216,718 51 0.1379 0.2594 $2,839 $5,341 TOTAL $2,839 $5,341 School Construction Cost:Student Student % Perm Fac./ Facility Facility Factor Factor Cost/ Cost/ Total Sq Ft Cost Capacity SFR MFR SFR MFR Elementary 94.54%0.2471 0.5375 $0 $0 Middle School 97.26%0.1408 0.2813 $0 $0 High School 96.86% $13,780,000 200 0.1379 0.2594 $9,203 $17,311 TO TAL $9,203 $17,311 Temporary Facility Cost:Student Student % Temp Fac. Facility Facility Factor Factor Cost/ Cost/ Total Sq Ft Cost Capacity SFR MFR SFR MFR Elementary 5.46% $178,686 84 0.2471 0.5375 $29 $62 Middle School 2.74% 0.1408 0.2813 $0 $0 High School 3.14% 0.1379 0.2594 $0 $0 TOTAL $29 $62 State Matching Credit Calculation:Student Student Construction Cost Sq. Ft. State Factor Factor Cost/ Cost/ Allocation/Sq Ft Student Match SFR MFR SFR MFR Elementary $213.23 0.2471 0.5375 $0 $0 Middle School $213.23 0.1408 0.2813 $0 $0 High School $213.23 130 65.59% 0.1379 0.2594 $2,507 $4,716 Total $2,507 $4,716 Tax Payment Credit Calculation SFR MFR Average Assessed Value (March 2016) $274,781 $106,352 Capital Bond Interest Rate (February 2016) 3.27% 3.27% Net Present Value of Average Dwelling $2,311,968 $894,831 Years Amortized 10 10 Property Tax Levy Rate $1.37 $1.37 Present Value of Revenue Stream $3,167 $1,226 Single Family Multi-Family Residences Residences Mitigation Fee Summary Site Acquisition Cost $2,839 5,341$ Permanent Facility Cost $9,203 17,311$ Temporary Facility Cost $29 62$ State Match Credit (2,507)$ (4,716)$ Tax Payment Credit (3,167)$ (1,226)$ Sub-Total 6,396$ 16,772$ 50% Local Share 3,198$ 8,386$ Calculated Impact Fee 3,198$ 8,386$ FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2017 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 31 SECTION 4 SUMMARY OF CHANGES FROM THE 2016 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN The 2017 Capital Facilities Plan is an updated document, based on the 2016 Capital Facilities Plan. The changes between the 2016 Plan and the 2017 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 2017-2023 and adjusted for anticipated Federal Way High School construction schedule. The plan is found on page 9. SECTION III - SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION CAPACITY Changes to the Building Program Capacities calculation are found on page 17. PORTABLES The list of portables reflects the movement of portables between facilities or new portables purchased. Portable Locations can be found on page 18.9 STUDENT FORECAST The Student Forecast now covers 2017 through 2023 Enrollment history and projections are found on page 22. CAPACITY SUMMARY The changes in the Capacity Summary are a reflection of the changes in the capacities and student forecast. New schools and increased capacity at current buildings are shown as increases to capacity. Capacity Summaries are found on pages 24-27. IMPACT FEE CALCULATION - KING COUNTY CODE 21A The Impact Fee Calculations have changed due to changes in several factors. The adjustment made in the Impact Fee Calculation, causing a change in the Impact Fee between the 2016 Capital Facilities Plan and the 2017 Capital Facilities Plan can be found on page 32 and 33. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2017 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 32 IMPACT FEE CALCULATION CHANGES FROM 2016 TO 2017 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 2016 Capital Facilities Plan and the 2017 Capital Facilities Plan are due to developments that were deleted or added based upon the age of the developments and the year placed in the survey. The Student Generation worksheet is found on page 29. SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION COSTS The anticipated cost based on 2013 estimate for replacing Federal Way High is $106,000,000. The replacement will add 200 additional seats. The current capacity of Federal Way High is 1538. The addition of 200 seats will increase capacity by 13%. Total Cost $106,000,000 x .13 = $13,780,000 SCHOOL ACQUISITION COSTS The district purchased the Norman Center to house the Employment Transition Program and to allow for the expansion of the ECEAP program. The purchase and use of this site increased our high school capacity by 51 students. Total Cost $2,100,000 / 2 = $1,050,000 Cost per Acre $1,050,000 / 4.85 = $216,718 The District will use the above formulas created as a base for the 2017 Capital Facilities Plan. The capacity of Federal Way High may vary from year to year as programs are added or changed and construction cost may increase over time. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2017 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 33 Item From/To Comment Percent of Permanent Facilities 95.10% to 95.30%Report #3 OSPI Percent Temporary Facilities 4.87% to 4.70%Updated portable inventory Average Cost of Portable $184,183 to $178,686 Updated 5-yr rolling average of Classrooms portables purchased and placed by 2015. Construction Cost Allocation $200.40 to $213.23 Change effective July 2016 State Match 64.73% to 65.59%Change effective July 2016 Average Assessed Value Per Puget Sound Educational SFR- $257,998 to $274,781 Service District (ESD 121) MFR- $99,030 to $106,352 Capital Bond Interest Rate 3.68% to 3.27%Market Rate Property Tax Levy Rate $1.44 to $1.37 King County Treasury Division Student Generation Factors Updated Housing Inventory Single-Family Elementary .3204 to .2471 Middle School .1647 to .1408 High School .1257 to .1379 Multi-Family - City of Federal Way Elementary .5802 to .5375 Middle School .3072 to .2813 High School .2799 to .2594 Multi-Family - King Co, Auburn & Kent Elementary .0990 to .5375 Middle School .0320 to .2813 High School .0310 to .2594 Impact Fee SFR- $2,899 to $3,198 SFR based on the updated calculation MFR (King Co, Auburn & Kent)- $506 to $8,386 MFR based on the updated calculation MFR (City of Federal Way)- $9,273 to $8,386 Note: Student generation factors for are single family units are based on new developments constructed within the District over the last five (5) years prior to the date of the fee calculation. Student generation factors for are multi- family units are based on new developments constructed within the District over the last five (5) years prior to the date of the fee calculation. IMPACT FEE CALCULATION CHANGES FROM 2016 TO 2017 This document is published by the Business Services Department of the Federal Way Public Schools. May 2016 Federal Way Public Schools 33330 8th Avenue S Federal Way, Washington 98003 (253) 945‐2000 GRADUATION AND ADVANCEMENT Each student will graduate with the prerequisite skills and confidence to access college, career, and other post‐secondary options. ENDS Our students will graduate with the academic knowledge and 21st century skills ready to succeed as a responsible citizen. ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT Each student, at every grade level, will perform at or above the state or district standards in all disciplines. PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITIY AND CITIZENSHIP Each student will take responsibility for his/her academic success and exhibit positive, ethical, behaviors treating others with dignity and respect. EACH SCHOLAR: A VOICE. A DREAM. A BRIGHT FUTURE. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 1 of 20 SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of checklist: Governmental agencies use this checklist to help determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant. This information is also helpful to determine if available avoidance, minimization or compensatory mitigation measures will address the probable significant impacts or if an environmental impact statement will be prepared to further analyze the proposal. Instructions for applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Please answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. You may need to consult with an agency specialist or private consultant for some questions. You may use “not applicable” or "does not apply" only when you can explain why it does not apply and not when the answer is unknown. You may also attach or incorporate by reference additional studies reports. Complete and accurate answers to these questions often avoid delays with the SEPA process as well as later in the decision- making process. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Instructions for Lead Agencies: Please adjust the format of this template as needed. Additional information may be necessary to evaluate the existing environment, all interrelated aspects of the proposal and an analysis of adverse impacts. The checklist is considered the first but not necessarily the only source of information needed to make an adequate threshold determination. Once a threshold determination is made, the lead agency is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of the checklist and other supporting documents. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: [help] For nonproject proposals (such as ordinances, regulations, plans and programs), complete the applicable parts of sections A and B plus the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). Please completely answer all questions that apply and note that the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proponent," and "affected geographic area," respectively. The lead agency may exclude (for non-projects) questions in Part B - Environmental Elements –that do not contribute meaningfully to the analysis of the proposal. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 2 of 20 A. Background [help] 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: [help] The adoption of a Federal Way Public Schools’ 2017 Capital Facilities Plan by the Federal Way Public Schools No. 210 for the purposes of planning for the District's facilities needs. The King County, City of Federal Way, City of Kent and the City of Auburn’s Comprehensive Plan will be amended to include the District's 2017 Capital Facilities Plan in the Capital Facilities Plan Element. This project may also involve the amendment of the Comprehensive Plans of the City of Des Moines to incorporate the District’s 2017 Capital Facilities Plan. 2. Name of applicant: [help] Federal Way School District No. 210. 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: [help] Federal Way School District No. 210 33330 8th Avenue South Federal Way WA 98003 (253) 945-2000 Contact Person: Ms. Tanya Nascimento Enrollment and Demographics Telephone: (253) 945-2071 4. Date checklist prepared: [help] May 13, 2016 5. Agency requesting checklist: [help] Federal Way School District No. 210 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): [help] The Federal Way Public Schools’ 2017 Capital Facilities Plan is scheduled to be adopted by the District in June 2016. The Capital Facilities Plan will be forwarded to King County, the City of Federal Way, City of Kent, and the City of Auburn for inclusion in the City's Comprehensive Plan. It will also be forwarded to the City of Des Moines for possible inclusion in this jurisdiction’s Comprehensive Plans. The District will continue to update the Capital Facilities Plan annually. The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be subject to project-specific environmental review. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. [help] The Capital Facilities Plan sets forth the capital improvement projects that the District is currently implementing. This includes construction of Federal Way HS. Additionally the plan covers the purchase and siting of temporary facilities at various locations. Current plans are for all the projects to be complete by 2017. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 3 of 20 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. [help] The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will undergo additional environmental review, when appropriate, as they are developed. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. [help] This is a nonproject action. See Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. [help] The District anticipates that King County, the City of Federal Way, the City of Kent, and the City of Auburn will adopt this Capital Facilities Plan into the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The City of Des Moines may also adopt this Capital Facilities Plan into the Capital Facilities Elements of their Comprehensive Plans (when issued). 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) [help] This is a non-project action. This proposal involves the adoption of the Federal Way Public Schools’ 2017 Capital Facilities Plan for the purpose of planning the District's facilities needs. The District's Capital Facilities Plan will be incorporated into King County’s, the City Federal Way’s, the City of Kent’s, and the City of Auburn’s Comprehensive Plans. It may also be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plans of the City of Des Moines. The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be subject to project-specific environmental review. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. [help] The Capital Facilities Plan will affect the Federal Way School District. The District includes an area of approximately 35 square miles. The City of Federal Way, parts of the cities of Kent, Des Moines and Auburn, parts of unincorporated King County, fall within the District's boundaries. A detailed map of the District's boundaries can be viewed at the District's offices. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 4 of 20 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS [help] 1. Earth [help] a. General description of the site: [help] (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)? [help] Specific slope characteristics at the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified during project-level environmental review. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any agricultural land of long-term commercial significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of these soils. [help] Specific soil types found at the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified during project-level environmental review when appropriate. Project-level environmental review for any projects identified in the Capital Facilities Plan will include identification of any agricultural soils and associated impacts. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. [help] Unstable soils may exist within the Federal Way School District. Specific soil limitations on individual project sites have been or will be identified at the time of project-level environmental review when appropriate. e. Describe the purpose, type, total area, and approximate quantities and total affected area of any filling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. [help] Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be subject, when appropriate, to project-specific environmental review and local approval at the time of proposal. Proposed grading projects, as well as the purpose, type, quantity, and source of any fill materials to be used have been or will be identified at that time. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. [help] 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. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 5 of 20 g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? [help] The proposed renovation projects will require the construction of impervious surfaces. The extent of any impervious cover constructed will vary with each capital facilities project included in the Capital Facilities Plan. This issue has been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: [help] 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 [help] a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal during construction, operation, and maintenance when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. [help] 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. [help] 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: [help] The individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be subject to project- specific environmental review when appropriate and relevant local approval processes. The District will be required to comply with all applicable air regulations and air permit requirements. Proposed measures specific to the individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 3. Water [help] a. Surface Water: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. [help] There is a network of surface water bodies within the Federal Way School District. The surface water SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 6 of 20 bodies that are in the immediate vicinity of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. When necessary, the surface water regimes and flow patterns have been or will be researched and incorporated into the designs of the individual projects. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. [help] 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. [help] 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. [help] 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. [help] 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. [help] Specific information regarding the discharge of waste materials that may be required as a result of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan has been or will be provided during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. b. Ground Water: 1) Will groundwater be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? If so, give a general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn from the well. Will water be discharged to groundwater? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. [help] 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 SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 7 of 20 Nonproject Actions. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals. . . ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. [help] The discharges of waste material that may take place in connection with the projects included in the Plan have been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review. c. Water runoff (including stormwater): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. [help] Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may have storm water runoff consequences. Specific information regarding the storm water impacts of each project has been or will be provided during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. Each project is or will be subject to applicable local storm water regulations. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. [help] The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may result in the discharge of waste materials into ground or surface waters. The specific impacts of each project on ground and surface waters have been or will be identified during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. Each project is or will be subject to all applicable regulations regarding the discharge of waste materials into ground and surface waters. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 3) Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so, describe. [help] Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site. Specific information regarding the drainage pattern impacts of each project has been or will be provided during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. Each project is or will be subject to applicable local drainange pattern regulations. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water, and drainage pattern impacts, if any: [help] 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 [help] a. Check the types of vegetation found on the site: [help] ____deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 8 of 20 ____evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other ____shrubs ____grass ____pasture ____crop or grain ____orchards, vineyards or other permanent crops. ____wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other ____water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other ____other types of vegetation A variety of vegetative zones are located within the Federal Way School District. Inventories of the vegetation located on the sites of the projects proposed in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be developed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? [help] Some of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may require the removal or alteration of vegetation. The specific impacts on vegetation of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. c. List threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. [help] The specific impacts to these species from the individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be determined during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: [help] Measures to preserve or enhance vegetation at the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. Each project is or will be subject to applicable local landscaping requirements. e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site. [help] A variety of vegetative zones are located within the Federal Way School District. Inventories of the noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the sites of the projects proposed in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be developed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. 5. Animals [help] a. List any birds and other animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site. [help] Examples include: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other ________ SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 9 of 20 An inventory of species that have been observed on or near the sites of the projects proposed in the Capital Facilities Plan has been or will be developed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. b. List any threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. [help] Inventories of threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be developed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. [help] 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: [help] Appropriate measures to preserve or enhance wildlife have been or will be determined during project- specific environmental review when appropriate. e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site. [help] Inventories of any invasive animal species known to be on or near the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be developed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. 6. Energy and Natural Resources [help] a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. [help] 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. [help] The impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan on the solar potential of adjacent projects have been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: [help] 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. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 10 of 20 7. Environmental Health [help] a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. [help] Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 1) Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses. [help] The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan that may have any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses have been or will be identified during project- specific environmental review when appropriate. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 2) Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity. [help] The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan that may contain existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development and design have been or will be identified during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 3) Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced during the project's development or construction, or at any time during the operating life of the project. [help] Toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used or produced during the project’s development or construction, or at any time during the operating life of the project have been or will be identified during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 4) Describe special emergency services that might be required. [help] Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 5) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: [help] The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will comply with all current codes, standards, rules, and regulations. Individual projects have been or will be subject to project-specific environmental review and local approval at the time they are developed when appropriate. b. Noise [help] 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? [help] 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 SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 11 of 20 the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indi- cate what hours noise would come from the site. [help] The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may create normal construction noises that will exist on a short-term basis only. The construction projects could increase traffic around the construction sites on a short-term basis. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: [help] The projected noise impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be evaluated and mitigated during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. Each project is or will be subject to applicable local regulations. 8. Land and Shoreline Use [help] a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Will the proposal affect current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe. [help] There are a variety of land uses within the Federal Way School District, including residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, utility, open space, recreational, etc. Impacts on projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan on land uses on nearby or adjacent properties have been or will be identified and described during project-level environmental review when appropriate. b. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If so, describe. How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will be converted to other uses as a result of the proposal, if any? If resource lands have not been designated, how many acres in farmland or forest land tax status will be converted to nonfarm or nonforest use? [help] The project sites covered under the Capital Facilities Plan have not been used recently as working farmlands or working forest lands. 1) Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides, tilling, and harvesting? If so, how: [help] Any areas located on the sites of the projects included in the Plan that may affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal business operations have been or will be identified and described during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. c. Describe any structures on the site. [help] SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 12 of 20 The structures located on the proposed sites for the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified and described during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? [help] The remodeling and renovation projects in the Capital Facilities Plan will require the demolishment of school structures. The structures that will be demolished as a result of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? [help] 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? [help] 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? [help] Shoreline master program designations of the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. h. Has any part of the site been classified as a critical area by the city or county? If so, specify. [help] Any areas located on the sites of the projects included in the Plan that have been classified as a critical area by the city or county have been or will be identified during project-specific environmental review. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? [help] The Federal Way School District currently serves approximately 22,400 students. The student population is expected to increase to 23,800 by the year 2023. This projection has been adjusted to reflect the current economic conditions. The District employs approximately 3,200 people. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? [help] Any displacement of people caused by the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan has been or will be evaluated during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. However, it is not anticipated that the Capital Facilities Plan, or any of the projects contained therein, will displace any people. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: [help] SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 13 of 20 Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will be subject to project-specific environmental review and local approval when appropriate. Proposed mitigating measures will be proposed at that time, if necessary. L. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: [help] The compatibility of the specific projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan with existing uses and plans has been or will be assessed as part of the comprehensive planning process and during project- specific environmental review when appropriate. m. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with nearby agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial significance, if any: [help] The compatibility of the specific projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan with nearby agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial significance have been or will be assessed as part of the comprehensive planning process and during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. 9. Housing [help] a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, mid- dle, or low-income housing. [help] 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. [help] 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: [help] 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 [help] a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? [help] The aesthetic impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? [help] 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. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 14 of 20 b. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: [help] 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 [help] a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? [help] 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? [help] 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? [help] 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: [help] Proposed measures to mitigate light and glare impacts have been or will be addressed during project- specific environmental review when appropriate. 12. Recreation [help] a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? [help] There are a variety of formal and informal recreational facilities within the Federal Way School District. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. [help] 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: [help] Adverse recreational effects of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be subject to mitigation during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. A school site usually provides recreational facilities to the community in the form of play fields and gymnasiums. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 15 of 20 13. Historic and cultural preservation [help] a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are over 45 years old listed in or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers located on or near the site? If so, specifically describe. [help] There are no known places or objects listed on, or proposed for such registers on the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan. The existence of historic and cultural resources on or next to the sites has been or will be addressed in more detail during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources. [help] 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. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the department of archeology and historic preservation, archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS data, etc. [help] Methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be developed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. d. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may be required. [help] Appropriate measures have been or will be proposed on a project-specific basis when appropriate. 14. Transportation [help] a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. [help] The impact on public streets and highways of the individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan has been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so, generally describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? [help] The relationship between the specific projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan and public transit has been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. c. How many additional parking spaces would the completed project or non-project proposal have? How many would the project or proposal eliminate? [help] SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 16 of 20 An inventory of parking spaces located at the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan and the impacts of specific projects on parking availability has been or will be conducted during project- specific environmental review when appropriate. d. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian, bicycle or state transportation facilities, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). [help] The need for new streets or roads, or improvements to existing streets and roads has been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. e. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. [help] Use of water, rail, or air transportation has been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project or proposal? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the volume would be trucks (such as commercial and nonpassenger vehicles). What data or transportation models were used to make these estimates? [help] The traffic impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. g. Will the proposal interfere with, affect or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products on roads or streets in the area? If so, generally describe. [help] Projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan that may interfere with, affect or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products on roads or streets in the area has been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: [help] 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 [help] a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. [help] 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. [help] Remodeled/renovated school or facilities will be built with automatic security systems, fire alarms, smoke alarms, heat sensors, and sprinkler systems. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 18 of 20 D. supplemental sheet for nonproject actions [help] (IT IS NOT NECESSARY to use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; pro- duction, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? To the extent the Capital Facilities Plan makes it more likely that school facilities will be constructed 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. 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? SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 19 of 20 The construction of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will require the consumption of energy. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will be constructed in accordance with applicable energy efficiency standards. 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? The Capital Facilities Plan and individual projects contained therein should have no impact on these resources. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: Appropriate measures have been or will be proposed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. Updates of this Plan will be coordinated with King County and the cities of Federal Way, Kent, Des Moines, and Auburn as part of the Growth Management Act process, one of the purposes of which is to protect environmentally sensitive areas. To the extent the District's facilities planning process is part of the overall growth management planning process, these resources are more likely to be protected. 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? The Capital Facilities Plan will not have any impact on land or shoreline use that is incompatible with existing comprehensive plans, land use codes, or shoreline management plans. The District does not anticipate that the Capital Facilities Plan or the projects contained therein will directly affect land and shoreline uses in the area served by the District. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: No measures to avoid or reduce land use impacts resulting from the Capital Facilities Plan or the projects contained therein are proposed at this time. 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. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 20 of 20 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. School District Capital Facilities Plans 2016/17 to 2021/22 Impact Fee Calculation – Single Family and Multifamily \\Cityvmp1v\sdata\PUBLIC\City Clerk's Office\City Council\City Council Meetings\2016\Council Packets\10.18\5Cg1 CPA-2016-1_School Districts CFPs_capfacilitiestable1.doc Kent Federal Way Auburn Highline Site Cost SFR MFR $ 2,248.07 $ 970.96 $ 2,839.00 $ 5,341.00 $ 1,725.09 $ 549.59 $ -0- $ -0- Construction Cost SFR MFR $19,065.47 $ 8,217.46 $ 9,203.00 $17,311.00 $15,968.72 $ 5,087.38 $21,959.00 $16,763.00 Temporary Facility Cost SFR MFR $ 72.82 $ 31.45 $ 29.00 $ 62.00 $ 122.21 $ 41.57 $ -0- $ -0- State Funding Assistance Credit SFR MFR $ 2,809.27 $ 1,213.34 $ 2,507.00 $ 4,716.00 $ 2,768.37 $ 881.97 $ 2,844.00 $ 2,180.00 Tax Credit SFR MFR $ 3,379.62 $ 1,352.32 $ 3,167.00 $ 1,226.00 $ 3,608.91 $ 1,517.18 $ 4,060.00 $ 1,201.00 Impact Fee SFR MFR $ 5,100.00 (+ 2.2%) $ 2,210.00 (+ 2.2%) $ 3,198.00 (+ 10.3%) $ 8,386.00 (+1557.3%) $ 5,469.37 ( +2.6%) $ 1,639.70 (-37.5%) $ 7,528 (- 8.5%) $ 6,691 (-10.2%) % financed by impact fees 19% 1.3% ? ? Impact Fees History 2000 – 2017 SFR Kent Federal Way Auburn Highline MFR Kent Federal Way Auburn Highline 2017 $5,100 $3,198 $5,469.37 $7,528 2017 $2,210 $8,386 $1,639.70 $6,691 2016 $4,990 $2,899 $5,330.88 $8,229 2016 $2,163 $ 506 $2,625.01 $7,453 2015 $5,486 $5,171 $4,137.21 $6,328 2015 $3,378 $1,834 $3,518.17 $3,761 2014 $5,486 $5,363 $5,398.93 $7,412 2014 $3,378 $1,924 $3,387.84 $3,251 2013 $5,486 $4,014 $5,511.69 $7,912 2013 $3,378 $1,381 $3,380.26 $3,101 2012 $5,486 $4,014 $5,557.30 N/A 2012 $3,378 $1,253 $2,305.22 N/A 2011 $5,486 $4,014 $5,266.33 N/A 2011 $3,378 $2,172 $1,518.22 N/A 2010 5,394 3,832 5,432.70 N/A 2010 3,322 2,114 1,184.71 N/A 2009 5,304 4,017 5,374.64 N/A 2009 3,266 1,733 877.02 N/A 2008 5,110 3,883 5,361.04 N/A 2008 3,146 1,647 465.78 N/A 2007 4,928 3,018 5,657.05 N/A 2007 3,034 856 1,228.84 N/A 2006 4,775 3,393 5,681.36 N/A 2006 2,940 895 1,536.30 N/A 2005 4,056 2,868 5,296.90 N/A 2005 1,762 905 1,831.85 N/A 2004 4,292 3,269 4,528.00 N/A 2004 2,643 940 1,212.00 N/A 2003 4,147 3,865 N/A N/A 2003 2,554 1,086 N/A N/A 2002 3,782 2,616 N/A N/A 2002 2,329 896 N/A N/A 2001 3,782 2,710 N/A N/A 2001 2,329 830 N/A N/A 2000 3,782 2,384 N/A N/A 2000 2,329 786 N/A N/A School District Capital Facilities Plans 2016/17 to 2021/22 Kent Federal Way Auburn Highline Area Cost Allowance $213.23 $213.23 $213.23 -0- State Funding Assistance % 56.96% 65.59% 63.83% 56.13% District Match % 36.17% District Average Assessed Valuation SFR MFR $307,784 $123,109 $274,781 $106,352 $269,764 $113,408 $294,206 $ 87,018 Debt Service Capital Levy Rate/$1000 $1.40 $1.37 $1.59 $1.64 Bond Interest Rate 3.27% 3.27% 3.27% 3.27% Issues: Kent: Replacement of Covington Elementary School. Additional elementary school in Kent Valley. 20 additional classrooms in elementary schools. Federal Way: Phase III of Federal Way high school replacement; increase capacity at Decatur High. Norman Center (Employment Transition Program) financed through state-approved LOCAL program through 2020. Initiative 1351 class size reductions create need for 60 new Elementary and K-8 classrooms and 26 Secondary school classrooms. Auburn: Construct 2 Elementary Schools. Replace 5 Elementary Schools and 1 Middle School; Acquire 3 elementary school sites. Technology upgrades at all facilities; Miscellaneous facility updates at multiple sites. Add 13 portables, 8 due to enrollment increase and 5 resulting from class size reduction. Highline: Replace Des Moines Elementary School to increase capacity, add classrooms at existing elementary schools, build one new middle school. Land Purchase for future elementary school. S:\Permit\Plan\COMP_PLAN_AMENDMENTS\2016\CPA-2016-1 School Districts CFPs\CPA-2016-1_capfacilitiestable2.doc School District Capital Facilities Plans – 2016/17 to 2021/22 General Statistics Kent Federal Way Auburn Highline Student Generation SFR Elementary Middle Senior High MFR Elementary Middle Senior High .257 .070 .138 .111 .022 .039 0.2471 0.1408 0.1379 0.5375 0.2813 0.2594 0.2260 0.0820 0.0940 0.0720 0.0220 0.0440 0.21 0.045 0.099 0.134 0.059 0.089 Enrollment 2015/16 26,512 20,717 15,663 19,058 Capacity 2015/16 27,105 19,587 14,578 20,946 Class Size K = 23 1-3 = 23/18 4 - 6 = 27 7 - 8 = 28.6 9–12 =30.6 K - 3 = 17 4 - 5 = 25 6-12 = 26 K – 2 = 18.23/24 3 – 4 = 26 5 = 29 6–12 = 30 K = 24 1 – 3 = 25 K-3=17 (2019) 4 – 6 = 27 7 – 8 = 30 9 – 12 = 32 S:\Permit\Plan\COMP_PLAN_AMENDMENTS\2016\CPA-2016-1 School Districts CFPs\CPA-2016-1_capfacilitiestable3_.doc RCW 36.70A.020 Planning goals. The following goals are adopted to guide the development and adoption of comprehensive plans and development regulations of those counties and cities that are required or choose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040. The following goals are not listed in order of priority and shall be used exclusively for the purpose of guiding the development of comprehensive plans and development regulations: (1) Urban growth. Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner. (2) Reduce sprawl. Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density development. (3) Transportation. Encourage efficient multimodal transportation systems that are based on regional priorities and coordinated with county and city comprehensive plans. (4) Housing. Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the population of this state, promote a variety of residential densities and housing types, and encourage preservation of existing housing stock. (5) Economic development. Encourage economic development throughout the state that is consistent with adopted comprehensive plans, promote economic opportunity for all citizens of this state, especially for unemployed and for disadvantaged persons, promote the retention and expansion of existing businesses and recruitment of new businesses, recognize regional differences impacting economic development opportunities, and encourage growth in areas experiencing insufficient economic growth, all within the capacities of the state's natural resources, public services, and public facilities. (6) Property rights. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation having been made. The property rights of landowners shall be protected from arbitrary and discriminatory actions. (7) Permits. Applications for both state and local government permits should be processed in a timely and fair manner to ensure predictability. (8) Natural resource industries. Maintain and enhance natural resource-based industries, including productive timber, agricultural, and fisheries industries. Encourage the conservation of productive forestlands and productive agricultural lands, and discourage incompatible uses. (9) Open space and recreation. Retain open space, enhance recreational opportunities, conserve fish and wildlife habitat, increase access to natural resource lands and water, and develop parks and recreation facilities. (10) Environment. Protect the environment and enhance the state's high quality of life, including air and water quality, and the availability of water. (11) Citizen participation and coordination. Encourage the involvement of citizens in the planning process and ensure coordination between communities and jurisdictions to reconcile conflicts. (12) Public facilities and services. Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards. (13) Historic preservation. Identify and encourage the preservation of lands, sites, and structures, that have historical or archaeological significance. RCW 36.70A.070 Comprehensive plans—Mandatory elements. (Effective until September 1, 2016.) The comprehensive plan of a county or city that is required or chooses to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 shall consist of a map or maps, and descriptive text covering objectives, principles, and standards used to develop the comprehensive plan. The plan shall be an internally consistent document and all elements shall be consistent with the future land use map. A comprehensive plan shall be adopted and amended with public participation as provided in RCW 36.70A.140. Each comprehensive plan shall include a plan, scheme, or design for each of the following: (1) A land use element designating the proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of land, where appropriate, for agriculture, timber production, housing, commerce, industry, recreation, open spaces, general aviation airports, public utilities, public facilities, and other land uses. The land use element shall include population densities, building intensities, and estimates of future population growth. The land use element shall provide for protection of the quality and quantity of groundwater used for public water supplies. Wherever possible, the land use element should consider utilizing urban planning approaches that promote physical activity. Where applicable, the land use element shall review drainage, flooding, and storm water run-off in the area and nearby jurisdictions and provide guidance for corrective actions to mitigate or cleanse those discharges that pollute waters of the state, including Puget Sound or waters entering Puget Sound. (2) A housing element ensuring the vitality and character of established residential neighborhoods that: (a) Includes an inventory and analysis of existing and projected housing needs that identifies the number of housing units necessary to manage projected growth; (b) includes a statement of goals, policies, objectives, and mandatory provisions for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing, including single-family residences; (c) identifies sufficient land for housing, including, but not limited to, government-assisted housing, housing for low-income families, manufactured housing, multifamily housing, and group homes and foster care facilities; and (d) makes adequate provisions for existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community. (3) A capital facilities plan element consisting of: (a) An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by public entities, showing the locations and capacities of the capital facilities; (b) a forecast of the future needs for such capital facilities; (c) the proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new capital facilities; (d) at least a six-year plan that will finance such capital facilities within projected funding capacities and clearly identifies sources of public money for such purposes; and (e) a requirement to reassess the land use element if probable funding falls short of meeting existing needs and to ensure that the land use element, capital facilities plan element, and financing plan within the capital facilities plan element are coordinated and consistent. Park and recreation facilities shall be included in the capital facilities plan element. (4) A utilities element consisting of the general location, proposed location, and capacity of all existing and proposed utilities, including, but not limited to, electrical lines, telecommunication lines, and natural gas lines. (5) Rural element. Counties shall include a rural element including lands that are not designated for urban growth, agriculture, forest, or mineral resources. The following provisions shall apply to the rural element: (a) Growth management act goals and local circumstances. Because circumstances vary from county to county, in establishing patterns of rural densities and uses, a county may consider local circumstances, but shall develop a written record explaining how the rural element harmonizes the planning goals in RCW 36.70A.020 and meets the requirements of this chapter. (b) Rural development. The rural element shall permit rural development, forestry, and agriculture in rural areas. The rural element shall provide for a variety of rural densities, uses, essential public facilities, and rural governmental services needed to serve the permitted densities and uses. To achieve a variety of rural densities and uses, counties may provide for clustering, density transfer, design guidelines, conservation easements, and other innovative techniques that will accommodate appropriate rural densities and uses that are not characterized by urban growth and that are consistent with rural character. (c) Measures governing rural development. The rural element shall include measures that apply to rural development and protect the rural character of the area, as established by the county, by: (i) Containing or otherwise controlling rural development; (ii) Assuring visual compatibility of rural development with the surrounding rural area; (iii) Reducing the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low- density development in the rural area; (iv) Protecting critical areas, as provided in RCW 36.70A.060, and surface water and groundwater resources; and (v) Protecting against conflicts with the use of agricultural, forest, and mineral resource lands designated under RCW 36.70A.170. (d) Limited areas of more intensive rural development. Subject to the requirements of this subsection and except as otherwise specifically provided in this subsection (5)(d), the rural element may allow for limited areas of more intensive rural development, including necessary public facilities and public services to serve the limited area as follows: (i) Rural development consisting of the infill, development, or redevelopment of existing commercial, industrial, residential, or mixed-use areas, whether characterized as shoreline development, villages, hamlets, rural activity centers, or crossroads developments. (A) A commercial, industrial, residential, shoreline, or mixed-use area shall be subject to the requirements of (d)(iv) of this subsection, but shall not be subject to the requirements of (c)(ii) and (iii) of this subsection. (B) Any development or redevelopment other than an industrial area or an industrial use within a mixed-use area or an industrial area under this subsection (5)(d)(i) must be principally designed to serve the existing and projected rural population. (C) Any development or redevelopment in terms of building size, scale, use, or intensity shall be consistent with the character of the existing areas. Development and redevelopment may include changes in use from vacant land or a previously existing use so long as the new use conforms to the requirements of this subsection (5); (ii) The intensification of development on lots containing, or new development of, small- scale recreational or tourist uses, including commercial facilities to serve those recreational or tourist uses, that rely on a rural location and setting, but that do not include new residential development. A small-scale recreation or tourist use is not required to be principally designed to serve the existing and projected rural population. Public services and public facilities shall be limited to those necessary to serve the recreation or tourist use and shall be provided in a manner that does not permit low-density sprawl; (iii) The intensification of development on lots containing isolated nonresidential uses or new development of isolated cottage industries and isolated small-scale businesses that are not principally designed to serve the existing and projected rural population and nonresidential uses, but do provide job opportunities for rural residents. Rural counties may allow the expansion of small-scale businesses as long as those small-scale businesses conform with the rural character of the area as defined by the local government according to RCW 36.70A.030(15). Rural counties may also allow new small-scale businesses to utilize a site previously occupied by an existing business as long as the new small-scale business conforms to the rural character of the area as defined by the local government according to RCW 36.70A.030(15). Public services and public facilities shall be limited to those necessary to serve the isolated nonresidential use and shall be provided in a manner that does not permit low-density sprawl; (iv) A county shall adopt measures to minimize and contain the existing areas or uses of more intensive rural development, as appropriate, authorized under this subsection. Lands included in such existing areas or uses shall not extend beyond the logical outer boundary of the existing area or use, thereby allowing a new pattern of low-density sprawl. Existing areas are those that are clearly identifiable and contained and where there is a logical boundary delineated predominately by the built environment, but that may also include undeveloped lands if limited as provided in this subsection. The county shall establish the logical outer boundary of an area of more intensive rural development. In establishing the logical outer boundary, the county shall address (A) the need to preserve the character of existing natural neighborhoods and communities, (B) physical boundaries, such as bodies of water, streets and highways, and land forms and contours, (C) the prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries, and (D) the ability to provide public facilities and public services in a manner that does not permit low-density sprawl; (v) For purposes of (d) of this subsection, an existing area or existing use is one that was in existence: (A) On July 1, 1990, in a county that was initially required to plan under all of the provisions of this chapter; (B) On the date the county adopted a resolution under RCW 36.70A.040(2), in a county that is planning under all of the provisions of this chapter under RCW 36.70A.040(2); or (C) On the date the office of financial management certifies the county's population as provided in RCW 36.70A.040(5), in a county that is planning under all of the provisions of this chapter pursuant to RCW 36.70A.040(5). (e) Exception. This subsection shall not be interpreted to permit in the rural area a major industrial development or a master planned resort unless otherwise specifically permitted under RCW 36.70A.360 and 36.70A.365. (6) A transportation element that implements, and is consistent with, the land use element. (a) The transportation element shall include the following subelements: (i) Land use assumptions used in estimating travel; (ii) Estimated traffic impacts to state-owned transportation facilities resulting from land use assumptions to assist the department of transportation in monitoring the performance of state facilities, to plan improvements for the facilities, and to assess the impact of land- use decisions on state-owned transportation facilities; (iii) Facilities and services needs, including: (A) An inventory of air, water, and ground transportation facilities and services, including transit alignments and general aviation airport facilities, to define existing capital facilities and travel levels as a basis for future planning. This inventory must include state- owned transportation facilities within the city or county's jurisdictional boundaries; (B) Level of service standards for all locally owned arterials and transit routes to serve as a gauge to judge performance of the system. These standards should be regionally coordinated; (C) For state-owned transportation facilities, level of service standards for highways, as prescribed in chapters 47.06 and 47.80 RCW, to gauge the performance of the system. The purposes of reflecting level of service standards for state highways in the local comprehensive plan are to monitor the performance of the system, to evaluate improvement strategies, and to facilitate coordination between the county's or city's six- year street, road, or transit program and the office of financial management's ten-year investment program. The concurrency requirements of (b) of this subsection do not apply to transportation facilities and services of statewide significance except for counties consisting of islands whose only connection to the mainland are state highways or ferry routes. In these island counties, state highways and ferry route capacity must be a factor in meeting the concurrency requirements in (b) of this subsection; (D) Specific actions and requirements for bringing into compliance locally owned transportation facilities or services that are below an established level of service standard; (E) Forecasts of traffic for at least ten years based on the adopted land use plan to provide information on the location, timing, and capacity needs of future growth; (F) Identification of state and local system needs to meet current and future demands. Identified needs on state-owned transportation facilities must be consistent with the statewide multimodal transportation plan required under chapter 47.06 RCW; (iv) Finance, including: (A) An analysis of funding capability to judge needs against probable funding resources; (B) A multiyear financing plan based on the needs identified in the comprehensive plan, the appropriate parts of which shall serve as the basis for the six-year street, road, or transit program required by RCW 35.77.010 for cities, RCW 36.81.121 for counties, and RCW 35.58.2795 for public transportation systems. The multiyear financing plan should be coordinated with the ten-year investment program developed by the office of financial management as required by RCW 47.05.030; (C) If probable funding falls short of meeting identified needs, a discussion of how additional funding will be raised, or how land use assumptions will be reassessed to ensure that level of service standards will be met; (v) Intergovernmental coordination efforts, including an assessment of the impacts of the transportation plan and land use assumptions on the transportation systems of adjacent jurisdictions; (vi) Demand-management strategies; (vii) Pedestrian and bicycle component to include collaborative efforts to identify and designate planned improvements for pedestrian and bicycle facilities and corridors that address and encourage enhanced community access and promote healthy lifestyles. (b) After adoption of the comprehensive plan by jurisdictions required to plan or who choose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040, local jurisdictions must adopt and enforce ordinances which prohibit development approval if the development causes the level of service on a locally owned transportation facility to decline below the standards adopted in the transportation element of the comprehensive plan, unless transportation improvements or strategies to accommodate the impacts of development are made concurrent with the development. These strategies may include increased public transportation service, ride- sharing programs, demand management, and other transportation systems management strategies. For the purposes of this subsection (6), "concurrent with the development" means that improvements or strategies are in place at the time of development, or that a financial commitment is in place to complete the improvements or strategies within six years. (c) The transportation element described in this subsection (6), the six-year plans required by RCW 35.77.010 for cities, RCW 36.81.121 for counties, and RCW 35.58.2795 for public transportation systems, and the ten-year investment program required by RCW 47.05.030 for the state, must be consistent. (7) An economic development element establishing local goals, policies, objectives, and provisions for economic growth and vitality and a high quality of life. The element shall include: (a) A summary of the local economy such as population, employment, payroll, sectors, businesses, sales, and other information as appropriate; (b) a summary of the strengths and weaknesses of the local economy defined as the commercial and industrial sectors and supporting factors such as land use, transportation, utilities, education, workforce, housing, and natural/cultural resources; and (c) an identification of policies, programs, and projects to foster economic growth and development and to address future needs. A city that has chosen to be a residential community is exempt from the economic development element requirement of this subsection. (8) A park and recreation element that implements, and is consistent with, the capital facilities plan element as it relates to park and recreation facilities. The element shall include: (a) Estimates of park and recreation demand for at least a ten-year period; (b) an evaluation of facilities and service needs; and (c) an evaluation of intergovernmental coordination opportunities to provide regional approaches for meeting park and recreational demand. (9) It is the intent that new or amended elements required after January 1, 2002, be adopted concurrent with the scheduled update provided in RCW 36.70A.130. Requirements to incorporate any such new or amended elements shall be null and void until funds sufficient to cover applicable local government costs are appropriated and distributed by the state at least two years before local government must update comprehensive plans as required in RCW 36.70A.130. RCW 82.02.050 Impact fees—Intent—Limitations. (Effective September 1, 2016.) (1) It is the intent of the legislature: (a) To ensure that adequate facilities are available to serve new growth and development; (b) To promote orderly growth and development by establishing standards by which counties, cities, and towns may require, by ordinance, that new growth and development pay a proportionate share of the cost of new facilities needed to serve new growth and development; and (c) To ensure that impact fees are imposed through established procedures and criteria so that specific developments do not pay arbitrary fees or duplicative fees for the same impact. (2) Counties, cities, and towns that are required or choose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 are authorized to impose impact fees on development activity as part of the financing for public facilities, provided that the financing for system improvements to serve new development must provide for a balance between impact fees and other sources of public funds and cannot rely solely on impact fees. (3)(a)(i) Counties, cities, and towns collecting impact fees must, by September 1, 2016, adopt and maintain a system for the deferred collection of impact fees for single-family detached and attached residential construction. The deferral system must include a process by which an applicant for a building permit for a single-family detached or attached residence may request a deferral of the full impact fee payment. The deferral system offered by a county, city, or town under this subsection (3) must include one or more of the following options: (A) Deferring collection of the impact fee payment until final inspection; (B) Deferring collection of the impact fee payment until certificate of occupancy or equivalent certification; or (C) Deferring collection of the impact fee payment until the time of closing of the first sale of the property occurring after the issuance of the applicable building permit. (ii) Counties, cities, and towns utilizing the deferral process required by this subsection (3)(a) may withhold certification of final inspection, certificate of occupancy, or equivalent certification until the impact fees have been paid in full. (iii) The amount of impact fees that may be deferred under this subsection (3) must be determined by the fees in effect at the time the applicant applies for a deferral. (iv) Unless an agreement to the contrary is reached between the buyer and seller, the payment of impact fees due at closing of a sale must be made from the seller's proceeds. In the absence of an agreement to the contrary, the seller bears strict liability for the payment of the impact fees. (b) The term of an impact fee deferral under this subsection (3) may not exceed eighteen months from the date of building permit issuance. (c) Except as may otherwise be authorized in accordance with (f) of this subsection (3), an applicant seeking a deferral under this subsection (3) must grant and record a deferred impact fee lien against the property in favor of the county, city, or town in the amount of the deferred impact fee. The deferred impact fee lien, which must include the legal description, tax account number, and address of the property, must also be: (i) In a form approved by the county, city, or town; (ii) Signed by all owners of the property, with all signatures acknowledged as required for a deed, and recorded in the county where the property is located; (iii) Binding on all successors in title after the recordation; and (iv) Junior and subordinate to one mortgage for the purpose of construction upon the same real property granted by the person who applied for the deferral of impact fees. (d)(i) If impact fees are not paid in accordance with a deferral authorized by this subsection (3), and in accordance with the term provisions established in (b) of this subsection (3), the county, city, or town may institute foreclosure proceedings in accordance with chapter 61.12 RCW. (ii) If the county, city, or town does not institute foreclosure proceedings for unpaid school impact fees within forty-five days after receiving notice from a school district requesting that it do so, the district may institute foreclosure proceedings with respect to the unpaid impact fees. (e)(i) Upon receipt of final payment of all deferred impact fees for a property, the county, city, or town must execute a release of deferred impact fee lien for the property. The property owner at the time of the release, at his or her expense, is responsible for recording the lien release. (ii) The extinguishment of a deferred impact fee lien by the foreclosure of a lien having priority does not affect the obligation to pay the impact fees as a condition of final inspection, certificate of occupancy, or equivalent certification, or at the time of closing of the first sale. (f) A county, city, or town with an impact fee deferral process on or before April 1, 2015, is exempt from the requirements of this subsection (3) if the deferral process delays all impact fees and remains in effect after September 1, 2016. (g)(i) Each applicant for a single-family residential construction permit, in accordance with his or her contractor registration number or other unique identification number, is entitled to annually receive deferrals under this subsection (3) for the first twenty single-family residential construction building permits per county, city, or town. A county, city, or town, however, may elect, by ordinance, to defer more than twenty single-family residential construction building permits for an applicant. If the county, city, or town collects impact fees on behalf of one or more school districts for which the collection of impact fees could be delayed, the county, city, or town must consult with the district or districts about the additional deferrals. A county, city, or town considering additional deferrals must give substantial weight to recommendations of each applicable school district regarding the number of additional deferrals. If the county, city, or town disagrees with the recommendations of one or more school districts, the county, city, or town must provide the district or districts with a written rationale for its decision. (ii) For purposes of this subsection (3)(g), an "applicant" includes an entity that controls the applicant, is controlled by the applicant, or is under common control with the applicant. (h) Counties, cities, and towns may collect reasonable administrative fees to implement this subsection (3) from permit applicants who are seeking to delay the payment of impact fees under this subsection (3). (i) In accordance with RCW 44.28.812 and 43.31.980, counties, cities, and towns must cooperate with and provide requested data, materials, and assistance to the department of commerce and the joint legislative audit and review committee. (4) The impact fees: (a) Shall only be imposed for system improvements that are reasonably related to the new development; (b) Shall not exceed a proportionate share of the costs of system improvements that are reasonably related to the new development; and (c) Shall be used for system improvements that will reasonably benefit the new development. (5)(a) Impact fees may be collected and spent only for the public facilities defined in RCW 82.02.090 which are addressed by a capital facilities plan element of a comprehensive land use plan adopted pursuant to the provisions of RCW 36.70A.070 or the provisions for comprehensive plan adoption contained in chapter 36.70, 35.63, or 35A.63 RCW. After the date a county, city, or town is required to adopt its development regulations under chapter 36.70A RCW, continued authorization to collect and expend impact fees is contingent on the county, city, or town adopting or revising a comprehensive plan in compliance with RCW 36.70A.070, and on the capital facilities plan identifying: (i) Deficiencies in public facilities serving existing development and the means by which existing deficiencies will be eliminated within a reasonable period of time; (ii) Additional demands placed on existing public facilities by new development; and (iii) Additional public facility improvements required to serve new development. (b) If the capital facilities plan of the county, city, or town is complete other than for the inclusion of those elements which are the responsibility of a special district, the county, city, or town may impose impact fees to address those public facility needs for which the county, city, or town is responsible. Kent City Code 12.13.060 Submission of district capital facilities plan and data. A. On an annual basis, the district shall submit the following materials to the city council: 1. The district’s capital facilities plan (as defined in KCC 12.13.010 herein) and adopted by the school board; 2. The district’s enrollment projections over the next six (6) years, its current enrollment and the district’s enrollment projections and actual enrollment from the previous year; 3. The district’s standard of service; 4. The district’s overall capacity over the next six (6) years, which shall take into account the available capacity from school facilities planned by the district but not yet built and be a function of the district’s standard of service as measured by the number of students which can be housed in district facilities; 5. An inventory of the district’s existing facilities. B. To the extent that the district’s standard of service identifies a deficiency in its existing facilities, the district’s capital facilities plan must identify the sources of funding other than impact fees, for building or acquiring the necessary facilities to serve the existing student population in order to eliminate the deficiencies within a reasonable period of time. C. Facilities to meet future demand shall be designed to meet the adopted standard of service. If sufficient funding is not projected to be available to fully fund a capital facilities plan which meets the adopted standard of service, the district’s capital facilities plan should document the reason for the funding gap, and identify all sources of funding that the district plans to use to meet the adopted standard of service. D. The district shall also submit an annual report to the city council showing the capital improvements which were serviced in whole or in part by the impact fees. E. In its development of the financing plan component of the capital facilities plan, the district shall plan on a six (6) year horizon and shall demonstrate its best efforts by taking the following steps: 1. Establish a six (6) year financing plan, and propose the necessary bond issues and levies required by and consistent with that plan and as-approved by the school board consistent with RCW 28A.53.020, 84.52.052 and 84.52.056 as amended; and 2. Apply to the state for funding, and comply with the state requirements for eligibility to the best of the district’s ability. (Ord. No. 3260, § 1, 12-19-95) 12.13.070 Annual council review. On at least an annual basis, the city council shall review the information submitted by the district pursuant to KCC 12.13.060(A) herein. The review shall occur in conjunction with any update of the capital facilities plan element of the city’s comprehensive plan. (Ord. No. 3260, § 1, 12-19-95) 12.13.080 Impact fee program elements. A. Impact fees will be assessed on every new dwelling unit in the district for which a fee schedule has been established. B. Impact fees will be imposed on a district by district basis, on behalf of any school district which provides to the city a capital facilities plan, the district’s standards of service for the various grade spans, estimates of the cost of providing needed facilities and other capital improvements, and the data from the district called for by the formula in KCC 12.13.140. Any impact fee imposed shall be reasonably related to the impact caused by the development, and shall not exceed a proportionate share of the cost of system improvements that are reasonably related to the development. The impact fee formula shall account in the fee calculation for future revenue the district will receive from the development. The ordinance adopting the fee schedule shall specify under what circumstances the fee may be adjusted in the interests of fairness. C. The impact fee shall be based on the capital facilities plan developed by the district and approved by the school board, and adopted by reference by the city as part of the capital facilities element of the comprehensive plan for the purpose of establishing the fee program. (Ord. No. 3260, § 1, 12-19-95) 12.13.090 Fee calculations. A. The fee shall be calculated based on the formula set out in KCC 12.13.140. B. Separate fees shall be calculated for single-family and multifamily types of dwelling units, and separate student generation rates must be determined by the district for each type of dwelling unit. For the purpose of this chapter, mobile homes shall be treated as single- family dwellings and duplexes shall be treated as multifamily dwellings. C. The fee shall be calculated on a district-wide basis using the appropriate factors and data to be supplied by the district, as indicated in KCC 12.13.140. The fee calculations shall also be made on a district-wide basis to assure maximum utilization of all school facilities in the district used currently or within the last two (2) years for instructional purposes. D. The formula in KCC 12.13.140 provides a credit for the anticipated tax contributions that would be made by the developments based on historical levels of voter support for bond issues in the district. E. The formula also provides for a credit for school facilities or sites actually provided by a developer which the district finds acceptable. F. The city may also impose an application fee to cover the reasonable costs of administration of the impact fee program. (Ord. No. 3260, § 1, 12-19-95) Kent City Code 12.13.140 Formula for determining school impact fees. A. School impact fees shall be determined as follows: IF: A = Student factor for dwelling unit type and grade span x site cost per student for sites for facilities in that grade span = Full cost fee for site acquisition cost B = Student factor for dwelling unit type and grade span x school construction cost per student for facilities in that grade span x ratio of district’s square footage of permanent facilities to total square footage of facilities = Full cost fee for school construction C = Student factor for dwelling unit type and grade span x relocatable facilities cost per student for facilities in that grade span x ratio of district’s square footage of relocatable facilities to total square footage of facilities = Full cost fee for relocatable facilities D = Student factor for dwelling unit type and grade span “Boeckh Index” x SPI square ft per student factor x state match % = State match credit, and A1, B1, C1, D1 = A, B, C, D for elementary grade spans A2, B2, C2, D2 = A, B, C, D, for middle/junior high grade spans A3, B3, C3, D3 = A, B, C, D for high school grade spans TC = Tax payment credit = The net present value of the average assessed value in the district for unit type x current school district capital property tax levy rate, using a ten (10) year discount period and current interest rate (based on the bond buyer twenty (20) bond general obligation bond index) FC = Facilities credit = the per-dwelling-unit value of any site or facilities provided directly by the development Then the unfunded need = UN = A1 + . . . + C3 (D1-D2-D3) – TC And the developer fee obligation = F = U/N2 And the net fee obligation = NF = F – FC B. Notes to formula. 1. Student factors are to be provided by the district based on district records of average actual student generation rates for new developments constructed over a period of not more than five (5) years prior to the date of the fee calculation; if such information is not available in the district, data from adjacent districts, districts with similar demographics, or countywide averages must be used. Student factors must be separately determined for single-family and multifamily dwelling units, and for grade spans. 2. The “Boeckh index” is a construction trade index of construction costs for various kinds of buildings; it is adjusted annually. 3. The district is to provide its own site and facilities standards and projected costs to be used in the formula, consistent with the requirements of this chapter. 4. The formula can be applied by using the following table: Table for Calculating School Impact Fee Obligations for Residential Dwelling Units (to be separately calculated for single-family and multifamily units) A1= Elementary school site cost per student x the student factor = A2= Middle/junior high site cost per student x the student factor = A3= High school site cost per student x the student factor = A= A1 + A2 + A3 = B1= Elementary school construction cost per student x the student factor = Table for Calculating School Impact Fee Obligations for Residential Dwelling Units (to be separately calculated for single-family and multifamily units) B2= Middle/junior high construction cost per student x the student factor = B3= High school construction cost per student x the student factor = B= (B1 + B2 + B3) x square footage of permanent facilities total square footage of facilities = C1= Elementary school relocatable facility cost per student x the student factor = C2= Middle/junior high relocatable facility cost per student x the student factor = C3= High school relocatable facility cost per student x the student factor = C= (C1 + C2 + C3) x square footage of permanent facilities total square footage of facilities = D1= Boeckh index x SPI square footage per student for elementary school x state match % x student factor = D2= Boeckh index x SPI square footage per student for middle/junior high school x state match % x student factor = D3= Boeckh index x SPI square footage per student for high school x state match % x student factor = D= D1 + D2 + D3 = TC= ((1+i)10) - 1 x average assessed value for the dwelling unit type in the school district i(1 + i)10 x current school district capital property tax levy rate where i+ the current interest rate as stated in the bond buy twenty (20) bond general obligation bond index FC= Value of site of facilities provided directly by the development number of dwelling units in development Total unfunded need = A + B + C - D = A +B +C -D Subtotal -TC Total unfunded need UN = divided by 2 = Developer fee obligation Less FC (if applicable) Net fee obligation (Ord. No. 3260, § 1, 12-19-95) 12.13.150 Termination of school impact fees. Repealed by Ord. No. 3484, § 1, 11-16-99. (Ord. No. 3260, § 1, 12-19-95; Ord. No. 3339, § 1, 2-18-97; Ord. No. 3393, § 1, 2- 17-98) 12.13.160 Base fee schedule. The following fees shall be assessed for the indicated types of development: School District Single- Family Multifamily Multifamily Studio Kent, No. 415 $4,990.00 $2,163.00 $0.00 Federal Way, No. 210 $2,899.00 $506.00 $0.00 Auburn, No. 408 $5,330.88 $2,625.01 $0.00 Highline, No. 401 $8,229.00 $7,453.00 $0.00 (Ord. No. 3281, § 3, 3-5-96; Ord. No. 3412 § 2, 7-21-98; Ord. No. 3482, § 2, 11- 16-99; Ord. No. 3546, § 1, 3-6-01; Ord. No. 3591, § 1, 2-19-02; Ord. No. 3637, § 1, 3-18-03; Ord. No. 3675, § 1, 12-9-03; Ord. No. 3730, § 1, 12-14-04; Ord. No. 3777, § 1, 12-13-05; Ord. No. 3827, § 1, 12-12-06; Ord. No. 3870, § 1, 12- 11-07; Ord. No. 3904, § 1, 12-9-08; Ord. No. 3941, § 1, 12-8-09; Ord. No. 3987, § 1, 12-14-10; Ord. No. 4024, § 1, 12-13-11; Ord. No. 4057, § 2, 12-11-12; Ord. No. 4101, § 1, 12-10-13; Ord. No. 4138, § 1, 12-16-14; Ord. No. 4179, § 1, 12-8- 15) Agenda Item: Public Hearing 5D_ TO: City Council DATE: October 18, 2016 SUBJECT: 2016 Tax Levy for 2017 Budget – Public Hearing SUMMARY: This is the public hearing on the 2016 Tax Levy for the 2017 Budget. Public input is welcome. EXHIBITS: None RECOMMENDED BY: Finance Director YEA: NAY: BUDGET IMPACTS: N/A MOTION: (No action required) PUBLIC COMMENT Agenda Item: Consent Calendar 7A – 7B_ CONSENT CALENDAR 7. City Council Action: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds to approve Consent Calendar Items A through L. Discussion Action 7A. Approval of Minutes. Approval of the minutes of the workshop and regular council meetings of July 19 and the regular council meeting of August 2, 2016 7B. Approval of Bills: Approval of payment of the bills received through September 15 and paid on September 15 after auditing by the Operations Committee on October 4, 2016. Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount 9/15/2016 Wire Transfers 6808 - 6829 $2,405,119.65 9/15/2016 Regular Checks 707056 - 707593 $3,612,354.11 Void Checks ($5,000.00) 9/15/2016 Use Tax Payable $5,059.21 $5,354,469.97 Approval of checks issued for payroll for September 1 through September 15 and paid on September 20, 2016: Date Check Numbers Amount 9/20/2016 Checks $0.00 Voids and Reissues 9/20/2016 Advices 373816 - 374680 $1,515,116.44 $1,515,116.44 Kent City Council Workshop Minutes July 19, 2016 The workshop meeting was called to order at 5:16 p.m. by Council President Boyce. Councilmembers present: Berrios, Boyce, Budell, Fincher, Higgins, and Ralph. King County Assessor – John A. Wilson King County Assessor had three things to put on the table: 1) Senior Exemption Program; 2) Affordable Housing; 3) Modernize Tax System. Reach out to people 61 and older with an income of $40,000 or less with a sliding scale exemption. Seniors who find taxes tough, many seniors even though they own their own homes find paying the taxes tough, some of the property taxes are now as much as they originally paid for the home mortgage. Look at how we can preserve older apartment buildings, can homes with basements be finished as alternative affordable housing, perhaps offer tax incentives to people who rent out rooms or basements. There was discussion on how Kent is doing, we are in good shape we are unique, there is a 1% cap on property tax, increases altered by Legislation index to inflation would reduce the threshold of Junior and smaller taxing groups. Councilmembers questioned incentives for affordable housing, make better place to live. Senior exemption for taxes, City provide outreach programs to identify eligible seniors. Naden Avenue Properties Surplus Consideration – The 7.5 acres made up of 19 parcels had been part of a potential aquatic park in 2006. In 2008 the project was set aside, pursuing Morrow Meadows Park in cooperation with the YMCA, since that time the property has been sitting as it is today. Propose a Resolution to Council under the new Surplus Property Policy. The process to begin building on the site is anticipated at 2-5 years, possible buildings of medical/hospitality. There was much discussion with residents if the city is interested in buying other properties around this location. Meeting adjourned at 6:20 p.m. Sue Hanson Interim City Clerk Kent City Council Meeting Minutes July 19, 2016 The regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Mayor Cooke. Councilmembers present: Berrios, Boyce, Budell, Fincher, Higgins, and Ralph. CHANGES TO THE AGENDA FROM COUNCIL ADMINISTRATION OR STAFF Chief Administrative Officer Derek Matheson noted that the public hearing for the crosswalk policy was originally scheduled for July 19, 2016, but did not make it onto the agenda. Matheson will present a motion to set the public hearing on this topic for August 16, 2016. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Cooke took a moment of silence to reflect on the recent tragedies occurring all over the world, specifically Baton Rouge, LA. She also spoke about an upcoming community meeting where the Kent Police Department will be present to answer questions and listen to the residents of Kent discuss their concerns and fears. A. Public Recognition – None. B. Recognition of Jeff Watling – Council President Boyce recognized Jeff Watling for his exceptional dedication to the Kent Parks Department while serving as Director and presented him with a plaque. Each Councilmember, CAO Matheson and Mayor Cooke briefly spoke about Watling’s exceptional work, integrity and leadership and thanked him for his ten years of service. Watling thanked Council and staff for the recognition and their well wishes. C. Appointments to the Cultural Communities Board – Mayor Cooke introduced 16 of the 18 members to the Kent Cultural Communities Board. This former Mayor’s advisory team has now developed into an advisory group to the Mayor and City Council. This board represents communities within our community. D. Proclamation for National Night Out – Mayor Cooke introduced John Pagel from Kent Police Department who spoke about National Night Out on August 2, 2016. Departments from across the City visit various neighborhoods and talk with community members and have a great time. E. Community Events – Council President Boyce highlighted various events coming to Showare center in the next few weeks. He also noted the Thunderbirds home opener on October 1, 2016 and Disney on Ice coming in the winter, both highly anticipated. Council Member Ralph reminded everyone of the Kent Summer Concert Series during the week at various locations around the City running through August 18, 2016. Kent City Council Meeting Minutes July 19, 2016 2 Councilmember Berrios took the opportunity to express his excitement about the Cultural Communities Board. He expects a lot of great things to come from the development of this committee. He encouraged the members to attend the upcoming community meeting in which the Police department will be present to gain insight into the questions and concerns of the residents of Kent. F. Public Safety Report – Assistant Chief Kammerzell presented the Public Safety Report. He re-capped the recent 4th of July holiday and the Police Departments coverage during that weekend. There were 371 fireworks calls generated to 911, and a good portion of these calls were duplicate calls for same event. Three criminal citations were issued, three infractions were given and 50 calls were cleared with warnings. Assistant Chief Kammerzell then spoke again about the upcoming community meeting. He said the purpose of the meeting is to allow the police to listen and hear concerns from Kent residents and engage in a conversation about those feelings and what we can do to work together. Finally, Mayor Cooke swore in three new officers to the Kent Police Department; Officer Joshua Bava, Officer Gregory Cox and Officer Clayton Grubb. G. Intergovernmental Reports – Council President Boyce serving on Public Issues Committee, wanted to bring awareness to Council that King County currently in their biennial budget cycle. He wanted to bring light to a few things that may have an impact on the City of Kent, the closure of the Kent Regional Justice Center for booking, and the stoppage of work release. Councilmember Budell serving on Domestic Violence Initiate Committee noted that the next meeting will be September 8, 2016 at Seattle Pacific University – update following that meeting. Councilmember Higgins serving on King County Regional Transit Committee stated the meeting scheduled for July 20th had been cancelled; the next meeting is slated for the middle of August. Councilmember Berrios serving on Puget Sound Regional Council Economic Development Committee will not be meeting until September. The committee is currently working on a regional economic strategy and Councilmember Berrios has been working with Ben Wolters, Director of Economic and Community Development here in Kent to figure out how to better represent the City on the regional scale. Councilmember Ralph had two reports. Serving on the Transportation Policy Board, she noted that at their recent meeting they approved the recommended list of projects for federal funding that comes through Puget Sound Regional Council. The list will move on for further approval. Serving on the South County Area Transportation Board, she spoke about tolling on 405 and the changes and improvements there. There is concern from WSDOT that there are people paying to use the toll lanes and not experiencing the relief that they are looking for. Councilmember Fincher sitting on the Mental Illness and Drug Dependency Committee will be meeting in the coming week. Serving on the King Conservation District, she Kent City Council Meeting Minutes July 19, 2016 3 reported there will be a meeting on the 20th and they will be discussing their 5 year work plan. PUBLIC HEARING – None. PUBLIC COMMENT Louis I.P. spoke about medical marijuana and specifically the positive things that it does for individuals who use it. He advocated for medical marijuana. Gini Beck from Crisis Clinic thanked the City for their support over the years. She noted that Kent is the 2nd highest user of the 211 phone number to help connect people to both social and mental health resources. The Crisis Clinic has touched 14,000 Kent residents over the past year and thanked the City for their support. Kristy Herrick touched on the B&O tax and the Council’s use of this tax. She does not believe that the B&O tax should be used for anything other than what it was originally intended for, streets. She also mentioned medical and recreational marijuana and spoke about the will of the voters. She also requested that the money from the school zone cameras be used for something that does not require continued spending, such as improved safety measures outside schools. CONSENT CALENDAR Council President Boyce moved to approve Consent Calendar items A through M, seconded by Councilmember Ralph. Motion carried 6-0. A. Minutes of Previous Meetings and Workshops – Approve. The minutes of the workshop and regular council meeting of June 7, 2016 were approved. B. Approval of Bills. Bills received through June 15 and paid on May 31 and June 15 after auditing by the Operations Committee on June 21 and July 5, 2016 were approved. Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount 5/31/2016 Wire Transfers 6685 - 6701 $1,622,131.10 5/31/2016 Regular Checks 703823 - 704324 $6,420,520.64 Void Checks ($28.47) 5/31/2016 Use Tax Payable $1,193.97 $8,043,817.24 Approval of checks issued for payroll for May 16 through May 31 and paid on June 3, 2016: Date Check Numbers Amount 6/3/2016 Checks $0.00 Voids and Reissues Kent City Council Meeting Minutes July 19, 2016 4 6/3/2016 Advices 367687 - 368578 $1,466,073.69 $1,466,073.69 Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount 6/15/2016 Wire Transfers 6702 - 6723 $3,162,866.01 6/15/2016 Regular Checks 704325 - 704710 $2,254,967.66 Void Checks 6/15/2016 Use Tax Payable $4,730.68 $5,422,564.35 Approval of checks issued for payroll for June 1 through June 15 and paid on June 20, 2016: Date Check Numbers Amount 6/20/2016 Checks $0.00 Voids and Reissues 6/20/2016 Advices 368579 - 369451 $1,501,663.71 $1,501,663.71 C. Excused Absence for Les Thomas – Approve. Council approved excused absence for Councilmember Thomas as he is unable to attend the City Council meeting of July 19, 2016. D. Appointments to the Cultural Communities Board – Confirm. Council confirmed the appointment of 17 members to the Kent Cultural Communities Board. E. Surplus of Utility Equipment and Materials – Resolution – Adopt. Resolution No. 1929 was adopted, determining that certain public utility equipment is surplus to the City’s needs, providing for the sale thereof, stating the consideration to be paid for the equipment, and authorizing the director of public works to enter into a sales agreement. F. CenturyLink Loyal Advantage Agreement for Telecommunications Support and Services – Authorize. The Mayor was authorized to sign CenturyLink’s Loyal Advantage Agreement, in the amount not to exceed $140,000.00, for communications hardware and services, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the Information Technology Director and City Attorney. G. DLT – Oracle – JDE Database and OneWorld ERP Maintenance Renewal – Authorize. The Mayor was authorized to sign the DLT Oracle DB Enterprise and Oracle JDE OneWorld Maintenance Renewal Agreements, in the amount not to exceed $59,345.00 and $126,520.45, respectively, for existing Oracle software and support, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the Information Technology Director and City Attorney. H. School Zone Traffic Safety Camera Program Fund Expenditures – Authorize. Council approved the expenditure of funds from the School Zone Traffic Kent City Council Meeting Minutes July 19, 2016 5 Safety Camera fund to (1) relocate and set-up the East Hill police substation, in the approximate amount of $35,000, and install (2) ballistic barriers on portions of the Centennial Center Garage in the approximate amount of $115,000; amend the budget; and authorized the Mayor to sign all documents necessary to complete these projects, subject to final terms acceptable to the Police Chief and City Attorney. I. K2 Police Substation Lease – Authorize. The Mayor was authorized to enter into a lease agreement with Kent Hill, LLC, for an initial 5-year term with one 5-year option to renew to relocate the police substation to the Kent East Hill Shopping Center, subject to final lease terms and conditions acceptable to the Police Chief and City Attorney. J. Interlocal Agreement with Yakima County for Housing of Inmates – Authorize. The Mayor was authorized to sign an interlocal agreement with Yakima County to house Kent inmates on an as-needed basis, during 2016, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and Police Chief. K. Tree Preservation – Ordinance – Adopt. Ordinance No. 4209 was adopted, amending Chapter 15.02 and Chapter 15.08 of the Kent City Code pertaining to the preservation of trees. L. Landscape Easement, Dwell at Kent Station – Approve. Council approved “Grant of Non-Exclusive Easement for Maintenance of Landscaping within Public Right- Of-Way” for the Dwell at Kent Station project. M. IT Long-Term Staffing Plan – 2016 FTE Request – Authorize. The Mayor was authorized to add a Senior Systems Analyst, Systems & Integration Development Manager, Project Manager/Business Analyst and Trainer position in the Information Technology Department and add those positions to the City’s approved classification/position list at the salary range to be determined by the Human Resource and Information Technology Directors within established IT budgets. OTHER BUSINESS – None. BIDS – None. REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES, STAFF AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES A. Council President. – Council President Boyce spoke about the workshop with John Arthur Wilson, the King County Assessor. He presented items about a need for affordable housing, more senior housing and modernizing the tax system. Council was interested in brining Wilson back to go more in depth about these items that were presented. Council President Boyce then spoke about the mini retreat the City of Kent City Council had the previous weekend focusing mostly on the strategic plan. He stated that this was a highly participated meeting and is excited about things to come. The second portion of that retreat will be held on August 13th and will also include a discussion about homeless policy and tenant rights. Kent City Council Meeting Minutes July 19, 2016 6 B. Mayor. – Mayor Cooke discusses a memo that she sent to Council regarding her stance on the ordinance regarding medical marijuana patient cooperatives. In sum, she allowed the ordinance to go through without her signature as opposed to vetoing it. This is because the City has a permissive zoning code, so if a use is not allowed it is prohibited. Patient cooperatives are a newly established land use created by State legislature and does not appear in City code as a regulated land use. The Council will discuss both medical and recreational marijuana in the coming year, and what Kent’s position will be in the future. C. Chief Administrative Officer. – Councilmember Higgins moved to reset a public hearing to August 16, 2016 to receive public comment on the City’s proposed guidelines for installing and maintaining marked crosswalks, seconded by Councilmember Ralph. Motion carried 6-0. Matheson then spoke about some vacant leadership positions and updated the Council. City Clerk position is being advertised and applications will be accepted through the first week of August. The Parks, Recreation and Community Services Director position will be defined by Mayor, Matheson and HR Director. The Strategy and Performance Analyst position was offered to a gentleman in Colorado and he will be starting on August 29th. D. Economic & Community Development Committee. – Council President Boyce stated they are in the minutes. E. Operations Committee. – Councilmember Ralph noted that the committee did not meet, and the next scheduled meeting will be August 2, 2016. F. Parks and Human Services Committee. – Councilmember Fincher had no report. The next meeting is scheduled for Thursday July 21, 2016. G. Public Safety Committee. – Councilmember Berrios noted that the report is in the minutes. H. Public Works Committee. – Councilmember Higgins noted two significant items working through the legislative process. One item working its way to full council is a utility rate adjustment for sewer and water. He encouraged Council to learn more about what is being discussed. The other item making its way to Council is the 2017- 2018 B&O project list coupled with the residential asphalt overlay through solid waste utility tax. I. Regional Fire Authority. – Councilmember Higgins stated the next meeting will be tomorrow July 20, 2016 at station #78. EXECUTIVE SESSION A. Property Negotiations, as per RCW 42.30.110(1)(c). Kent City Council Meeting Minutes July 19, 2016 7 ACTION AFTER EXECUTIVE SESSION – None. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:26 p.m. Sue Hanson Interim City Clerk Kent City Council Meeting Minutes August 2, 2016 The regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at 5:03 p.m. by Mayor Cooke. Councilmembers present: Berrios, Boyce, Budell, Fincher, Ralph and Thomas. CHANGES TO THE AGENDA FROM COUNCIL ADMINISTRATION OR STAFF Chief Administrative Office Derek Matheson wanted to make a point of clarification on item 7A, as it is a motion to excuse the absence of Councilmember Higgins. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS A. Public Recognition – None. B. Community Events – Councilmember Boyce recognized Showare being recognized in Venue Today for being the number 15 top spot for venues in the nation of similar size. He discussed the upcoming events at Showare such as Disney on Ice, the Thunderbirds hockey camp, and the Thunderbird preseason beginning September 16, 2016. Councilmember Ralph made mention of the summer concert series in full swing. Councilmember Budell spoke about the NHRA event at Pacific Raceways during the upcoming weekend. Mayor Cooke discussed events at the Greater Kent Historical Society. She discussed the historic walking tour and a display that the Historical Society will have at the Kent Farmer’s Market as well as the historic cemetery bus tour. C. Intergovernmental Reports – Council President Boyce sitting on the Public Issue Committee has no report. Councilmember Budell sitting on the Sound Cities Association and Domestic Violence Initiative had no report. Councilmember Berrios on the Puget Sound Economic Development Committee has no report and does not meet until September. Councilmember Ralph discussed body cameras and surveillance policies that were presented during the Regional Law Safety and Justice Committee. There is much concern surrounding these items in reference to transparency and privacy and public records requests. Councilmember Fincher sitting on the King Conservation District and Mental Illness and Drug Dependency Advisory Council has no report. PUBLIC HEARING – None. Kent City Council Meeting Minutes August 2, 2016 2 PUBLIC COMMENT – Andrew Toeaina, a Pastor in Kent spoke about the town hall meeting in July and what he gleaned. He listened to the concerns of the people. On August 27th 11-3 p.m. at Kent Meridian, him and his church will host a free BBQ for the community to bring people together. CONSENT CALENDAR Council President Boyce moved to approve Consent Calendar items A through E, seconded by Councilmember Thomas. Motion carried 6-0. A. Excused Absence for Dennis Higgins – Approve. Council approved excused absence for Councilmember Higgins as he is unable to attend the City Council meeting of August 2, 2016. B. Downey Farmstead Salmon Recovery Funding Board – Grant Funding Authorization Resolution – Adopt. Resolution No. 1930 was adopted, in support of the City’s application for grant funding assistance to the Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) for the Downey Farmstead Salmon Habitat Restoration project, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and Public Works Director. C. Utility Easement Revision – Authorize. The Mayor was authorized to sign all documents to revise the water line utility easement on parcel 6315000381 and release ownership of approximately 160 feet of existing, abandoned 8-inch diameter water line to the property owner, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and Public Works Director. D. Amendment No. 1 with Natural Systems Design for the Habitat Conservation Plan – Authorize. The Mayor was authorized to sign a contract amendment with Natural Systems Design in the amount of $49,434 for project design and management of Rock Creek Fish Passage Improvements as required by the City’s Habitat Conservation Plan, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and Public Works Director. E. 2016 First and Second Quarter Fee-in-Lieu Funds – Accept. Council accepted $33,675 of Fee-in-Lieu funds, amended the Community Parks Reinvestment Program budget, and authorized the future expenditure of these funds for capital improvements at Lake Meridian Park and Service Club Ballfields. OTHER BUSINESS – None. BIDS – None. A. South 212th Street Erosion Repairs – Award. Alex Murillo Environmental Engineering Supervisor in Public Works presented this project to Mayor and Council. He discussed the meandering of the creek nearby which has caused erosion on South 212th ultimately creating a need for these repairs. Kent City Council Meeting Minutes August 2, 2016 3 Councilmember Ralph, moved to award the South 212th Street Erosion Repairs Project to Maroni Construction Inc. in the amount of $92,606.72 and authorize the Mayor to sign all necessary documents, on the prior condition that the City first obtain all property rights needed to complete the project and also subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and Public Works Director. Seconded by Councilmember Fincher, motion carried 6-0. REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES, STAFF AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES A. Council President. – Council President Boyce had no report. B. Mayor. – Mayor Cooke announced Wilbur Lee as the August employee of the month. C. Chief Administrative Officer. – Chief Administrative Officer’s report is in the packet. He also reminded the audience and staff that the Council mini-retreat will be held at Down Home Catering at 7:00 a.m. August 13, 2016. D. Economic & Community Development Committee. – Council President Boyce had no report. E. Operations Committee. – Councilmember Ralph reported positive reports from the Director of Finance. F. Parks and Human Services Committee. – Councilmember Fincher noted the acceptance of $33,675.00 of fee-in-lieu funds. G. Public Safety Committee. – Councilmember Berrios mentioned that the next meeting will be held Tuesday August 9, 2016. H. Public Works Committee. – Councilmember Ralph noted that the committee approved the ordinance regarding water and sewer rates, discussed the quiet zone and other positive things coming through for the City. I. Regional Fire Authority. – Councilmember Thomas confirmed that the Regional Fire Authority is now going to be called the Puget Sound Regional Fire Authority. There will be no meeting in August, the next one will be held in September. EXECUTIVE SESSION – None. ACTION AFTER EXECUTIVE SESSION – None. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 5:29 p.m. Kent City Council Meeting Minutes August 2, 2016 4 Sue Hanson Interim City Clerk Agenda Item: Consent Calendar – 7C_ TO: City Council DATE: October 18, 2016 SUBJECT: Ordinance Revising Enforcement Provisions of Illicit Discharge Code – Authorize SUMMARY: The City of Kent has codified its regulations concerning prohibited discharges into the City’s storm system in Chapter 7.14 of the Kent City Code. Included within this chapter is KCC 7.14.150, which provides the remedies available to the City should a prohibited discharge occur. Currently, KCC 7.14.150 provides that a violation of the illicit discharge provisions may be enforced through either criminal or civil code enforcement proceedings. These two options, however, are not appropriate in all situations. Civil code enforcement proceedings are often appropriate when an ongoing code violation exists and the responsible party has not responded to the City’s request to voluntarily remove or abate the violation. That code enforcement process, however, is not a good fit when the violation is completed; any resulting injury is slight; or when immediate corrective action must be taken by the City to mitigate potential damage or injury to the environment or the City’s storm system. Similarly, criminal charges are most appropriate when the violation is egregious, when the violator is a repeat offender, or when other avenues have proven ineffective. Criminal charges are often not appropriate for smaller violations or those whose impact is not far reaching. Without another option available, the City occasionally finds itself in a position where a violator is not held accountable for his or her illegal conduct. This ordinance amends KCC 7.14.150 to make a third remedy available to the City—a civil infraction. By adding an option for a civil infraction, a police officer will be able to use his or her discretion to determine whether criminal charges or a civil infraction is most appropriate depending upon the particular situation’s circumstances. Additionally, this ordinance expressly provides that a violator must reimburse the City for any costs it incurs as a result of the prohibited discharge. Failure to contest, mitigate, or pay the City’s costs within fourteen (14) calendar days of invoice is also a violation for which an officer may issue a civil infraction. EXHIBITS: Ordinance RECOMMENDED BY: Public works Committee MOTION: Adopt Ordinance No. _________, amending section 7.14.150 of the Kent City Code to expand the enforcement options available to the City when its illicit discharge code provisions are violated. YEA: Ralph, Fincher, Higgins NAY: BUDGET IMPACTS: None 1 Amend KCC 7.14.150—Violations and Enforcement for Illicit Discharges ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the city of Kent, Washington, amending section 7.14.150 of the Kent City Code relating to the City’s illicit discharge code provisions and entitled “Violations and Enforcement.” RECITALS A. The city of Kent has codified its regulations concerning prohibited discharges into the city of Kent’s municipal separate storm sewer system (“MS4”) in Chapter 7.14 of the Kent City Code (“KCC”). Included within this chapter is KCC 7.14.150 which provides the remedies available to the city of Kent should a prohibited discharge occur. B. Currently, KCC 7.14.150 provides that a violation of the illicit discharge provisions may be enforced through either criminal or civil code enforcement proceedings. These two options, however, are not appropriate in all situations. Civil code enforcement proceedings are often appropriate when an ongoing code violation exists and the responsible party has not responded to the City’s request to voluntarily remove or abate the violation. That civil code enforcement process is not a good fit when the violation is completed, any resulting injury is slight, or when immediate corrective action must be taken by the City to mitigate potential damage or injury to the environment or the City’s MS4 system. Similarly, 2 Amend KCC 7.14.150—Violations and Enforcement for Illicit Discharges criminal charges are most appropriate when the violation is egregious, when the violator is a repeat offender, or when other avenues have proven ineffective. Criminal charges are often not appropriate for smaller violations or those whose impact is not far reaching. Without another option available, the City occasionally finds itself in a position where a violator is not held accountable for his or her illegal conduct. C. This ordinance amends KCC 7.14.150 to make a third remedy available to the city of Kent—a civil infraction. By adding an option for a civil infraction, a police officer will be able to use his or her discretion to determine whether criminal charges or a civil infraction is most appropriate depending upon the particular situation’s circumstances. Additionally, this ordinance expressly provides that a violator must reimburse the City of Kent for any costs it incurs as a result of the prohibited discharge. Failure to contest, mitigate, or pay the City’s costs within fourteen (14) calendar days of invoice is also a violation for which an officer may issue a civil infraction. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: ORDINANCE SECTION 1. - Amendment. Section 7.14.150 of the Kent City Code, entitled “Violations and Enforcement,” and related to prohibited discharges into the city of Kent’s municipal separate storm sewer system, is amended as follows: Sec. 7.14.150. Violations and enforcement—Penalties. Any violation of any provision of this chapter may be enforced as provided for in this section. Each separate date, or portion thereof, during which any violation occurs shall constitute a separate violation. 3 Amend KCC 7.14.150—Violations and Enforcement for Illicit Discharges A. Recovery of costs incurred by the City. In addition to any penalty provided for in KCC 7.14.150(B) through KCC 7.14.150(D), a person who violates any of the provisions of this chapter shall be liable for all costs incurred by the City as a result of the violation. The City will issue an invoice to the person responsible for the violation advising him or her of the amount of costs incurred by the City as a result of the violation. The person to whom the invoice was directed must respond within 14 calendar days of the date the invoice is served upon that person by: (i) paying the invoice, (ii) requesting a hearing before the City’s hearing examiner to mitigate the amount of the invoice, or (iii) requesting a hearing before the City’s hearing examiner to contest the amount of the invoice. Failure to timely respond shall result in the invoice being deemed valid and the City may seek collection of the invoice through the process provided for in Chapter 3.10 of the Kent City Code, including the use of a collection agency. Payment of any invoice issued shall not alleviate the person responsible for the violation from complying with this chapter. 1. Service of notice. Service of an invoice issued under KCC 7.14.150(A) shall occur and is deemed complete in the same manner and under the same provisions as provided for in KCC 1.04.060. 2. Process to mitigate or contest invoice. The process through which a person may request a hearing to contest or mitigate an invoice issued to him or her as a person responsible for the violation is the same as that provided for Notices of Violation under KCC 1.04.120 through KCC 1.04.190. The hearing examiner’s decision as to any invoice issued under KCC 7.14.150(A) is final and may not be further appealed. 3. Failure to pay—Civil infraction. The failure to timely pay an invoice issued under KCC 7.14.150(A), or any mitigated invoice amount set by the hearing examiner, is a separate violation that may be enforced through the issuance of a civil infraction pursuant to KCC 7.14.150(B). 4 Amend KCC 7.14.150—Violations and Enforcement for Illicit Discharges B. Civil infraction. A person who violates any provision of this chapter may be issued a class 1 civil infraction 1 as set forth in RCW 7.80.120, as currently enacted or hereafter amended. An infraction issued pursuant to this section shall be filed in the Kent Municipal Court and processed in the same manner as other infractions filed in the Kent Municipal Court. In addition, a civil code enforcement action may be instituted in accordance with KCC 7.14.150(C) to effectuate any abatement or corrective action required by the person as a result of the violation. C. Civil code enforcement. In addition to, or as an alternative to any other penalty provided for in this chapter or by law, a civil code enforcement action may be instituted under the provisions provided for in Chapter 1.04 KCC to effectuate any abatement or corrective action required as a result of a violation of this chapter, including the issuance of a stop use or stop work order under KCC 1.04.090 – KCC 1.04.110. The process through which the person responsible for the violation may contest a stop use or stop work order is the same as that provided for Notices of Violation under KCC 1.04.120 through KCC 1.04.190. Failure to timely abate the violation or take the required corrective action will result in the issuance of a fine in accordance with KCC 1.04.080 and KCC 1.04.200, which fine will be separate and apart from any fine that may have been issued under KCC 7.14.150(B). D. Criminal offense. Except as may otherwise be provided, a person who: 1. Negligently violates a provision of this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by up to the maximum penalty established in RCW 9A.20.021(3) as now enacted or hereafter amended; or who 1 Reference note for staff and Council, not to be codified: Class 1 - Base fine $250, total fine $513 ($277.44 local, rest to state); Class 2 - Base fine $125, total fine $257 ($133.28 local, rest to state); Class 3 - Base fine $50, total fine $103 ($46.24 local, rest to state); Class 4 - Base fine $25, total fine $52 ($34 local, rest to state). 5 Amend KCC 7.14.150—Violations and Enforcement for Illicit Discharges 2. Knowingly violates a provision of this chapter, or commits a repeated violation of this chapter, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor, punishable by up to the maximum penalty established in RCW 9A.20.021(2), as now enacted or hereafter amended. a. For purposes of this section “repeated violation” means, as evidenced by either a prior committed finding by the Kent Municipal Court of an infraction issued under this chapter, or a committed finding by the Hearing Examiner of a Notice of Violation issued under Chapter 1.04 KCC, or a committed finding by operation of law under KCC 1.04.130, that a violation of this chapter has occurred on the same property or that a person responsible for the violation has committed a violation of this chapter elsewhere within the city of Kent. To constitute a “repeat violation,” the violation need not be the same violation as the prior violation. 3. If a person is found guilty of a criminal offense as provided for in this KCC 7.14.150(D), or pleads guilty to another offense on recommendation of the prosecutor, the court shall order the defendant pay restitution to the City of Kent, or any other victim of the offense, for the total suffered loss or damage by reason of the commission of the crime. A. Any violation of any provision of this chapter constitutes a civil violation under Chapter 1.04 KCC for which a monetary penalty may be assessed and abatement may be required as provided therein. B. In addition to or as an alternative to any other penalty provided in this chapter or by law, any person who violates any provision of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor pursuant to KCC 1.01.140. SECTION 2. – Severability. If any one or more section, subsection, or sentence of this ordinance is held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such 6 Amend KCC 7.14.150—Violations and Enforcement for Illicit Discharges 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. – Corrections by City Clerk or Code Reviser. Upon approval of the city attorney, the city clerk and the code reviser are authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance, including the correction of clerical errors; ordinance, section, or subsection numbering; or references to other local, state or federal laws, codes, rules, or regulations. SECTION 4. – Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its passage as provided by law. SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR ATTEST: KIM KOMOTO, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY 7 Amend KCC 7.14.150—Violations and Enforcement for Illicit Discharges PASSED: day of , 2016. APPROVED: day of , 2016. PUBLISHED: day of , 2016. I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. passed by the City Council of the city of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the city of Kent as hereon indicated. (SEAL) KIM KOMOTO, CITY CLERK P:\Civil\Ordinance\7.14 Illicit Discharge - Penalty Section.docx Agenda Item: Consent Calendar – 7D_ TO: City Council DATE: October 18, 2016 SUBJECT: Joint Funding Agreement for Water Resources Investigations with the U.S. Geological Survey – Authorize SUMMARY: The City of Kent has an ongoing partnership with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) for stream data collection. For federal fiscal year 2017, Kent will contribute $68,750 to the total annual program costs of $114,400 with the USGS providing the remainder. The city of Tukwila also contributes half of the cost of the Green River gage. These gages provide valuable information on stream and weather conditions, including water surface elevations, flow levels and amounts of precipitation. The information is used to calibrate stream flow models and increase the accuracy of City design of stormwater flood projection models as well as respond to flood events more effectively. The stream flow measured at the gage at Rock Creek and Kent Kangley Road is included in the Clark Springs Habitat Conservation Plan as a criterion to determine the City’s augmentation of flows in Rock Creek from October through December. This agreement will provide for operation, maintenance and data collection at six gages. Two are located on Mill Creek, one on Springbrook Creek, two on Rock Creek, and one on the Green River. EXHIBITS: Joint Funding Agreement RECOMMENDED BY: The Public Works Committee YEA: Fincher, Ralph, Higgins NAY: BUDGET IMPACTS: Costs for this contract will be charged to the Water Utility for the Rock Creek gages and to the Stormwater Utility for the Green River, Mill and Springbrook gages. MOTION: Authorize the Mayor to sign the Joint Funding Agreement for Water Resources Investigations between the City of Kent and the U.S. Geological Survey upon concurrence of the language therein by the City Attorney and Public Works Director. Agenda Item: Consent Calendar – 7E_ TO: City Council DATE: October 18, 2016 SUBJECT: Ordinance Amending Kent City Code 3.12.030 – Surplus of Real Property – Exempt Properties – Adopt SUMMARY: On May 17, 2016, the city council adopted Ordinance No. 4203, that enacted a new chapter 3.12 to the Kent City Code entitled “Surplus of real property,” to establish a public participation process before deciding to sell, transfer, or exchange city-owned real property. Since enacting Ordinance No. 4203, Kent has determined there is a need to amend the code to provide for an exemption for the sale, transfer, or exchange of real property to another public agency. EXHIBITS: Ordinance RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee YEA: Boyce, Ralph, Thomas NAY: BUDGET IMPACT: None MOTION: Adopt Ordinance No. , amending section 3.12.030 of the Kent City Code entitled “Exempt properties and property interests,” to add an exemption to real property surplus procedures when transferring property to another public entity. 1 Amend Section 3.10.030 KCC- Re: Surplus of Real Property ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the city of Kent, Washington, amending section 3.12.030 of the Kent City Code entitled “Exempt properties and property interests,” to add an exemption to real property surplus procedures when transferring property to another public entity. RECITALS A. On May 17, 2016, the city council adopted Ordinance No. 4203, that enacted a new chapter 3.12 to the Kent City Code entitled “Surplus of Real Property,” to establish a public participation process before deciding to sell, transfer, or exchange city-owned real property. B. Since enacting Ordinance No. 4203, Kent has determined there is a need to amend the code to provide for an exemption for the sale, transfer, or exchange of real property to another public agency. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: ORDINANCE SECTION 1. - Amendment. Section 3.12.030 of the Kent City Code, entitled “Exempt properties and property interests,” is hereby amended as follows: 2 Amend Section 3.10.030 KCC- Re: Surplus of Real Property 3.12.030 Exempt properties and property interests. Because of their size, configuration, or character, these properties are exempt from this process: A. Property owned by any of the city’s utilities, to any statutory street or alley vacation, or to other surplus process when state law provides a separate process to surplus those properties; or B. Partial or remnant properties, such as strips purchased for road widening purposes, areas conveyed as a result of lot line adjustments or boundary disputes, or partial or full lots remaining and unused after project completion; or C. Easements, licenses, and other subordinate interests in real property.; or D. Properties sold, transferred or exchanged to a local, state, or federal agency. SECTION 2. – Severability. If any one or more section, subsection, or sentence of this ordinance is held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 3. – Corrections by City Clerk or Code Reviser. Upon approval of the city attorney, the city clerk and the code reviser are authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance, including the correction of clerical errors; ordinance, section, or subsection numbering; or references to other local, state, or federal laws, codes, rules, or regulations. 3 Amend Section 3.10.030 KCC- Re: Surplus of Real Property SECTION 4. – Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force 30 days from and after its passage, as provided by law. SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR ATTEST: KIM KOMOTO, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED: day of , 2016. APPROVED: day of , 2016. PUBLISHED: day of , 2016. I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated. (SEAL) KIM KOMOTO, CITY CLERK P:\Civil\Ordinance\Surplus Property Amend Title 3.docx Agenda Item: Consent Calendar – 7F_ TO: City Council DATE: October 18, 2016 SUBJECT: Strategic Plan Resolution – Adopt SUMMARY: The mayor, city council and city staff worked to realign the city’s strategic plan to add detail and structure to the plan. The resolution will officially incorporate and adopt the vision, mission, goals and values developed by council and staff. The strategic plan will provide direction and continuity in guiding elected officials and city employees throughout their daily work. EXHIBITS: Strategic Plan Resolution describing the background and City Vision, Mission, Goals and Guiding Values. Goals include: Innovative Government; Authentic Connectivity and Communication; Thriving Neighborhoods and Urban Centers; Sustainable Funding; and Inclusive Community. Guiding Values include: Integrity; Caring; Communication; Teamwork; Innovation; and Achievement. RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee YEA: Ralph, Boyce, Thomas NAY: BUDGET IMPACTS: None MOTION: Adopt Resolution No. , incorporating and adopting the City’s Strategic Plan. 1 Resolution Adopting Strategic Plan RESOLUTION NO. ___________ A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the city of Kent, Washington, adopting the City’s Strategic Plan. RECITALS A. The Kent city council and staff have, in the past, each prepared separate visions, missions, goals and values. In some instances these elements overlapped but in other ways they did not. B. In 2016, the mayor and city council determined to revisit and align these two approaches into a unified single Strategic Plan for use by all. C. The purpose of this realigned Strategic Plan is to add detail and structure to the plan so that the mayor, city council and staff can work collectively to achieve the City’s vision, mission, goals, and values. D. The purpose of this resolution is to officially incorporate and adopt the vision, mission, goals, and values to provide continuity, direction, and guidance to all elected and appointed city employees as they prioritize, schedule, and complete their daily work. 2 Resolution Adopting Strategic Plan NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: RESOLUTION SECTION 1. – Recitals Incorporated. The foregoing recitals are incorporated into the body of this resolution and will act as the findings of the Kent City Council on this matter. SECTION 2. – Vision. The Kent City Council adopts the following Strategic Plan Vision: Kent is a safe, connected, and beautiful city, culturally vibrant, with diverse urban centers. SECTION 3. – Mission. The Kent City council adopts the following Strategic Plan Mission: The city of Kent is dedicated to building a thriving, sustainable, and inclusive community through innovative leadership, inspired teamwork, and unwavering devotion to responsibly advancing our quality of life. SECTION 4. – Goals. The Kent City Council adopts the following Strategic Plan Goals: • Innovative Government—Empowering responsible citizen engagement, providing outstanding customer service, leveraging technologies, and fostering new opportunities and industries that benefit our community. • Authentic Connectivity and Communication—Uniting people to people, to places, and to their government through 3 Resolution Adopting Strategic Plan superior infrastructure, enriched community interactions, and responsive, trusting relationships. • Thriving Neighborhoods and Urban Centers—Creating vibrant urban centers, welcoming neighborhoods, and green spaces for healthy growth and cultural celebration. • Sustainable Funding—Maximizing long-term financial success through responsible fiscal oversight, economic growth, and community partnerships. • Inclusive Community—Embracing the power of our diversity by encouraging community participation and creating a strong sense of belonging. SECTION 5.—Guiding Values. The Kent City Council adopts the following Strategic Plan Guiding Values: • Integrity—Do the Right Thing. • Caring—Care to Serve. • Communication—Connect to Understand. • Teamwork—Include Others. • Innovation—Find a Better Way. • Achievement—Be the Difference. SECTION 6. – Severability. If any one or more section, subsection, or sentence of this resolution is held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this resolution and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 7. – Corrections by City Clerk. Upon approval of the city attorney, the city clerk is authorized to make necessary corrections to this resolution, including the correction of clerical errors; resolution, section, or 4 Resolution Adopting Strategic Plan subsection numbering; or references to other local, state, or federal laws, codes, rules, or regulations. SECTION 8. – Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect and be in force immediately upon its passage. PASSED at a regular open public meeting by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, this _______ day of _________________, 2016. CONCURRED in by the Mayor of the City of Kent this ______ day of __________________, 2016. SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR ATTEST: KIM KOMOTO, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. ______ passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, the ________ day of _________________, 2016. KIM KOMOTO, CITY CLERK P:\Civil\Resolution\Strategic Plan.docx Agenda Item: Consent Calendar – 7G_ TO: City Council DATE: October 18, 2016 SUBJECT: Linen and Uniform Services Agreement with Cintas Corporation – Authorize SUMMARY: The city is required to provide rental and laundering of uniforms for approximately 10 employees and the purchase of parkas, Carhartt jackets and raingear for approximately 239 employees. Additionally, the contract will provide linen services for the use of mats, towels, and mops. Cintas was selected from a response to a Request for Proposal (“RFP”). Two vendors responded to the City’s RFP, and Cintas was selected as the preferred vendor for the following reasons: 1. Reduction in setup fees since we are currently using Cintas. 2. On hand inventory will be rolled over. 3. The quality of merchandise provided by Cintas meets our requirements. 4. The service provided by Cintas meets our requirements. The other vendor also failed to provide pricing on certain required Carhartt garments. This agreement is for an initial three year term. After September 30, 2019, and upon mutual agreement, the agreement may continue on a month-to-month basis up to one additional year. EXHIBIT: Good and Services Agreement RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee YEA: Ralph, Boyce, Thomas NAY: BUDGET IMPACTS: The Uniform and Linen contract is valued at approximately $200,500 over a period of three (3) years. This represents a 7% increase over the previous three years. The additional $19,500 will be held and only used as contingency for staffing and uniform need increases. MOTION: Authorize the Mayor to sign a three year agreement with Cintas Corporation for the rental and laundering of uniforms and linens in an amount not to exceed $220,000, with terms and conditions acceptable to the Finance Director and City Attorney. Agenda Item: Consent Calendar – 7H_ TO: City Council DATE: October 18, 2016 SUBJECT: 2015-2016 Police Services Agreement with Kent School District - Authorize SUMMARY: The Kent Police Department and the Kent School District have partnered for many years to provide school resource officers for various Kent schools, as well as a commander to serve as a liaison and safety advisor to the District. These agreements covered the 2015-2016 school years. During the school year, the Department provided the services called for in the contract, and the District paid for the services in accordance with the contract rates. However, due to various staffing changes and other unforeseen circumstances, the agreements were not completed. The agreements being approved by this motion constitute a ratification of the work performed by the Department and paid for by the District. The School Resource Officer Agreement provides that the City assign one police officer to split his or her time between Kent-Meridian High School and Mill Creek Middle School, and another officer to split his or her time between Kentridge High School and Meridian Middle School. The officers work in the assigned schools to respond to school safety related incidents, assist in emergency planning, and generally provide for a safe and productive learning environment for students. The Police Services Agreement provides that the City assign one officer of the rank of commander or above to act as a liaison between the Department and the District, respond to school safety incidents as appropriate, provide school safety related advice to administration, and assist in emergency management planning. In exchange for providing the services called for in the agreements, the District reimbursed the City for 60% of the officers’ total compensation (salary plus benefits), and 25% of the commander’s total compensation. EXHIBITS: 2015-2016 Police Services Agreement and School Resource Officer Agreement RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety Committee YEA: Berrios, Thomas, Ralph NAY: BUDGET IMPACT: Income for payment of portion of salaries MOTION: Authorize the Mayor to sign the Police Services Agreement and School Resource Officer Agreement between the Kent Police Department and the Kent School District for the 2015-2016 school year, subject to final contract terms and conditions acceptable to the Police Chief and City Attorney. 1 Police Services Agreement Between the Kent Police Department and the Kent School District 2015 – 2016 THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the City of Kent and the Kent Police Department, hereinafter referred to collectively as the “Department,” and the Kent School District, hereinafter referred to as the “District.” RECITALS The District desires to fill the position of School Safety Services Director with a law enforcement officer who is employed by the Department and holds the rank of Commander or higher, and who can bring valuable experience and provide advice to District safety officers. The Department desires that its senior officers have the opportunity to: (a) partner with a large local school district in the community; (b) gain valuable administrative, command, and community relations experience; and (c) experience unique professional growth and development. The District and Department share a compelling common value in seeing that the community enjoys a safe, secure environment for its students and staff. NOW, THEREFORE, and in consideration of the mutual promises set forth herein, the parties mutually agree as follows: AGREEMENT 1. TERM This Agreement shall be effective from September 1, 2015, through August 31, 2016, subject to any prior termination as provided herein and unless extended by written agreement of the parties. If this Agreement is signed on a date after the commencement of the 2015-2016 school year, the terms of this Agreement shall apply retroactively to the first date services are provided by the City to the District, or September 1, 2015, whichever date is earlier. The parties recognize this Agreement is being adopted after the services required herein have been provided by the Department to the District. The approval of this Agreement shall constitute a full ratification of the Agreement as well as a full acceptance of the services provided by the Department to the District. 2. DUTIES OF THE DEPARTMENT The Department with the District’s approval shall provide an officer the rank of Commander or higher to serve as the District’s School Safety Services Director, 2 hereafter referred to as “Director,” for the purpose of assisting with communication and logistics between the two organizations relating to school safety. Such assistance shall include, but not be limited to: a. Provide advice and direction to personnel regarding best practices to help ensure a safe and secure learning environment. b. Respond to school incidents as necessary. c. Periodically review and recommend revisions to the procedures and protocols for school safety. d. Support administrators and staff with school safety inquiries and/or needs for assistance. e. Assist in the development of Kent School District emergency management practices and procedures. f. Assist in the establishment and implementation of emergency operation procedures and threat assessment procedures for buildings. g. Help establish and maintain security procedures focused on prevention of problems in schools and the community. h. Help foster an attitude promoting a safe school environment. i. Present the monthly safety services report to the Board. j. Attend the monthly safety services meeting. The Department shall provide the Director a vehicle, radio communication, cellular phone, uniform, and other necessary equipment provided to the Department’s on- duty commanders to enable the Director to perform his/her duties with the District. The District shall provide the use of office space, mobile computer or similar device, and a District email account to the Director. 3. CONSIDERATION In consideration of those services provided under this Agreement, the District shall provide the Director with the unique opportunity to obtain administration and community relations experience. The Director will be considered a part of the Superintendent’s Cabinet and the District Leadership Team. The total compensation for an officer the rank of Commander or higher to serve as the School Safety Services Director position for the length of this Agreement is set forth in Attachment A to this Agreement. Attachment A reflects the District’s agreement to reimburse the Department twenty-five percent (25%) of the total 3 compensation (salaries/benefits) for one officer the rank of Commander or higher, as mutually agreed by the parties in Attachment A. The twenty-five percent (25%) reimbursement obligation of the total compensation amount shall be spread across twelve (12) approximately equal monthly payments payable to the Department; provided, in the event this Agreement is executed after the term of this Agreement begins, the District shall pay the total compensation as set forth in Attachment A, but will have fewer months to make such payments. The District shall pay said reimbursement upon submission by the Department of a monthly invoice. 4. WORK SCHEDULE The Director shall be on duty with the District, as needed, to fulfill the duties outlined in Section 2 above. The parties will coordinate the Director’s schedule, to the best extent practicable, to ensure the needs of the District and the Department are both adequately fulfilled. 5. MODIFICATION No waiver or modification of the Agreement or any covenants, conditions, or limitations herein contained shall be valid unless in writing and duly executed by the parties, and no evidence of any waiver of modification shall be offered or received in evidence during any proceedings or litigation between the parties unless such waiver or modification is in writing duly executed as aforesaid. The parties further agree that the provisions of this section may not be waived except as herein set forth. 6. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT This Agreement may be terminated without cause at any time by mutual agreement of the parties or by either party sixty (60) days following the other party’s receipt of written intent to terminate. Each party shall have the right to cancel and immediately terminate the Agreement without prior notice upon breach of the Agreement by the other party. In the event of termination under this section, the Department will be entitled to receive, to the date of such termination on a pro-rated basis, the compensation as set forth in Section 3 above. 7. INDEMNIFICATION The parties agree that the District shall bear all responsibility and cost of defending any and all claims, actions, suits, liabilities, losses, costs, expenses, and damages that relate in any way whatsoever to School Safety Services, the security and safety of the District and its students, employees, and visitors, and/or the provisions of any services set forth in Section 2 of this Agreement, and for this purpose, and notwithstanding Section 9 of this Agreement, the Director shall be considered an agent of the District. Further, to this end, the District shall defend, 4 indemnify, and hold harmless the Director, and the Department and its officers, agents, and employees, from any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses, and damages of any nature whatsoever relating to and arising out of the performance of the Agreement. The District shall not defend, indemnify, or hold the Department harmless from any claims, actions, or suits for injury, damage, or loss of any kind caused by the intentional act(s) of the Director which are beyond the scope of this Agreement. In executing the Agreement, the Department does not assume liability or responsibility for or in any way release the District from any liability or responsibility which arises in whole or in part from the existence or effect of District policies, rules, or regulations. If any cause, claim, suit, action, or administrative proceeding is commenced in which the enforceability and/or validity of any such District policy, rule, or regulation is at issue, the District shall defend the same at its sole expense, and if judgment is entered or damages are awarded against the District, the Department, or both, the District shall satisfy the same, including all chargeable costs and attorney’s fees. 8. MEDICAL/HEALTH AND WORKERS COMPENSATION BENEFITS In the event of any injury, illness, or death of the Director, the Director shall be considered an employee of the Department while acting in performance of this Agreement, and the Department agrees to extend to the Director the medical/health and workers’ compensation benefits and other compensation, to the same extent and in the same manner as if such injury, illness, or death had occurred during the regular work assignment in and for the Department. 9. DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL SAFETY IS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE DEPARTMENT The Director shall, at all times, be considered an employee of the Department, and shall for no purpose be considered an employee of the District. The District shall have no obligation to provide the Director with any workers’ compensation or other benefits, and the salary of the Director shall be paid in full by the Department. 10. VENUE STIPULATION This Agreement shall be construed as having been made and delivered within the State of Washington, and the laws of the State of Washington shall be applicable to its construction and enforcement. Any action at law, suit in equity, or judicial proceeding for the enforcement of this Agreement or any provision hereto shall be instituted in King County, Washington. 11. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS In carrying out the terms of this Agreement, the parties agree to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, and regulations, including but not necessarily limited to the laws pertaining to civil rights and laws pertaining 5 to the District and Department. In carrying out this Agreement, the parties agree that they will not in any way discriminate against others on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, creed, sexual orientation, marital status, veteran status, or disability. 12. NOTICES All notices shall be in writing and shall be sent by registered mail to the parties at their recognized business addresses. 13. HEADINGS The article headings contained in this Agreement are inserted solely as a matter of convenience and for reference and in no way do they define, limit, or describe the scope or intent of the provisions of this Agreement. 14. AGREEMENTS OUTSIDE OF THIS AGREEMENT This Agreement contains the complete agreement between the parties and shall, as of the effective date hereof, supersede all agreements, either written or oral, between the parties. The parties agree that neither of them has made any representations with respect to the subject matter of the Agreement except such representation as are specifically set forth herein, and each party acknowledges that it has relied on its own judgment in entering into this Agreement. 15. RATIFICATION All acts consistent with the authority of this Agreement and prior to its effective date are ratified and affirmed, and the terms of this Agreement shall be deemed to have applied. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have affixed their signatures on the dates below. Kent School District City of Kent / Kent Police Department Dr. Calvin J. Watts (Superintendent) Suzette Cooke (Mayor) Date Date 6 ATTACHMENT ‘A’ TO POLICE SERVICES AGREEMENT The parties agree that the total cost to the Department to provide a School Safety Services Director with a law enforcement officer who is e mployed by the Department and holds the rank of Commander or higher to the District in accordance with the terms of this Agreement is $166,280.75, regardless of actual salary or benefit adjustments that may be made by the Department for the Commander. The District’s reimbursement obligation, which is twenty-five percent (25%) of the total cost to the Department for the Director provided to the District, equals $41,570.18. This sum will be considered the District’s total reimbursement obligation for the Director provided by the Department for the duration of the performance period of this Agreement, regardless of actual salary or benefit adjustments that may be made by the Department for its officer the rank of Commander or higher. The District shall pay said reimbursement in twelve (12) approximately equal monthly payments spread over a one-year period starting September 1, 2015 with each payment being made upon submission by the Department of a monthly invoice; provided, in the event this Agreement is executed after the term of this Agreement begins, the District shall pay the total compensation as set forth in this Attachment, but will have fewer months to make such payments. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have affixed their signature on the dates below. KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT CITY OF KENT/KENT POLICE DEPARTMENT Dr. Calvin J. Watts, Superintendent Suzette Cooke, Mayor Date Date P:\Civil\Files\Open Files\1671-Police Services Agreement - KSD\2015-2016\KSD Police Services Agreement School Safety Services Director 2015-2016 Final(....docx 1 SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER (SRO) AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE KENT POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 2015-2016 THIS SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER (SRO) AGREEMENT (hereinafter “Agreement”) is made and entered into by and between the City of Kent and its Kent Police Department (hereinafter referred to collectively as the “Department”) and the Kent School District (hereinafter referred to as the “District”) for the provision of School Resource Officers (SROs). WHEREAS, the District desires to have the presence and assistance on school campuses of commissioned law enforcement officers who can work collaboratively with school personnel to enforce the law while building healthy relationships with students of the District; WHEREAS, the Department desires to partner with local school districts and seeks an opportunity for its officers to positively impact the community; and WHEREAS, the District and the Department share a compelling common value in seeing that the community enjoys a safe, sustainable, healthy, and respectful learning environment for its students and staff; NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual promises set forth herein, the parties hereto mutually agree as follows: 1. TERM The Agreement shall be effective September 1, 2015 through August 31, 2016, subject to any prior termination as provided herein and unless extended by written agreement of parties hereto. The parties recognize this Agreement is being adopted after the services required herein have been provided by the Department to the District. The approval of this Agreement shall constitute a full ratification of the Agreement as well as a full acceptance of the services provided by the Department to the District. 2. DUTIES OF THE DEPARTMENT AND ASSIGNED SROs The Department shall provide two (2) commissioned police officers to work as SROs in the District for twelve (12) months for the purpose of assisting school personnel in enforcing the law and maintaining a safe, sustainable, healthy, and respectful learning environment for students and staff. The placement of a particular officer in the role of SRO will be a decision mutually agreed upon by the Department and District. a. One SRO will be assigned to the campuses of Kent-Meridian High School and Mill Creek Middle School, with time split between the campuses as deemed appropriate by school administrators and the respective school principals. 2 b. One SRO will be assigned to the campuses of Kentridge High School and Meridian Middle School, with time split between the campuses as deemed appropriate by school administrators and the respective school principals. c. Each SRO shall respond to school incidents in the District as necessary and support District administrators and staff with school safety inquiries and/or needs for assistance. d. Each SRO will provide assistance to enforce the law on school grounds, conduct investigations as necessary, and advise/consult with school personnel regarding best practices for ensuring a safe and secure learning environment. e. Each SRO will develop a daily routine that ensures high visibility to staff, students, parents and community stakeholders. f. Each SRO will have access to education records of District students consistent with access available to members of the District’s Safety Services, but the Department acknowledges that each SRO is restricted in the same manner as other District personnel by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. 1232g, accompanying regulations, corresponding state law, and District policies from nonconsensual disclosure of such records to third parties without lawful authorization. g. Each SRO will be a positive adult role model and will develop positive relationships with students that promote learning and citizenship. h. Each SRO will work collaboratively with the District’s Safety Services Director, including the preparation of reports as needed regarding school safety activity for the Superintendent and Board of Directors. i. Each SRO will assist, as needed, in the establishment and implementation of emergency operation procedures and threat assessment procedures for buildings. j. Each SRO will assist with contacting truant children and their parents. k. Each SRO will perform other duties as mutually agreed upon by the Kent School District and the Department. l. The Department reserves the right to utilize one or both of the SROs from the end of the school year to the beginning of the next school year for emergency Department operational needs as determined or declared by the mayor of the City of Kent. Emergency operational needs include but are not limited to the following: severe staffing shortages, natural and/or manmade disasters, or unforeseen city emergencies. In the event that such an emergency arises, the Department will make reasonable efforts to give timely advanced notice to the District and will make reasonable efforts to minimize the duration of their utilization. The Department will also refund the District for all time that one or both SROs are not performing work for the District pursuant to this section 2(l). 3. CONSIDERATION The total compensation for two (2) commissioned officers for the length of this Agreement is set forth in Attachment A to this Agreement. Attachment A reflects the District’s agreement to reimburse the Department sixty percent (60%) of the total compensation (salaries/benefits) for two (2) commissioned SROs, as mutually agreed by the parties in Attachment A. The sixty percent (60%) reimbursement obligation of the total compensation amount shall be spread across twelve (12) approximately equal monthly payments payable to the Department; provided, in the event this Agreement is executed after the term of this Agreement begins, the District shall pay the total 3 compensation as set forth in Attachment A, but will have fewer months to make such payments. The District shall pay said reimbursement upon submission by the Department of a monthly invoice. 4. WORK SCHEDULE It is the intent of this Agreement that the SROs work during scheduled class times and cover the start of school and release of school. Each SRO shall work other hours and days agreed upon by the District, Department, and the officer providing the services; provided, that each SRO’s work schedule shall be subject to the terms and conditions set forth in his or her collective bargaining agreement, which sets forth hours of work, days off, vacation, holidays, etc. One SRO will be assigned to work Monday through Thursday. The second SRO will be assigned to work Tuesday through Friday. 5. OVERTIME Costs associated with approved overtime for District business shall be paid by the District, except that costs associated with overtime for any Department trainings or functions not relating to District business will be paid by the Department. Overtime costs for District business shall be determined by the officers’ collective bargaining agreement with the City of Kent. 6. MODIFICATION No waiver or modification of this Agreement or any covenants, conditions, or limitations herein contained shall be valid unless in writing and duly executed by the parties to be charged therewith; and no evidence of any waiver of modification shall be offered or received in evidence of any proceeding or litigation between the parties hereto arising out of or affecting this Agreement, or the rights or obligations of the parties hereunder, unless such waiver or modification is in writing duly executed as aforesaid; and the parties further agree that the provisions of this section may not be waived except as herein set forth. 7. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT This Agreement may be terminated without cause at any time by mutual agreement of the parties hereto, or by either party after thirty (30) days following the other party’s receipt of a written intent to terminate. Each party shall have the right to cancel and immediately terminate this Agreement without prior notice upon material breach of the Agreement by the other party. In the event of termination under this section, the Department will be entitled to receive, to the date of such termination on a pro rata basis, the compensation as set forth in section 3 above. In addition, each party shall have the right to remove a specific SRO from District. Any officer selected to replace an SRO will be mutually agreed upon by the Department and District as set forth in section 2 above. 8. TRAINING The District agrees to permit SROs to attend training sessions required by the Department, provided the Department notifies the District of such training ten (10) calendar days in advance. The Department shall provide the District’s Chief Information and Digital Strategy Officer, who oversees the District’s Safety Services department, notice sufficiently in advance to allow the District to make 4 other security arrangements in the absence of a school’s SRO. The District may likewise provide training to SROs on school in-service days. 9. INDEMNIFICATION To the extent permitted by law, the District shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Department and its officers, agents, and employees, or any of them, from any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses, and damages of any nature whatsoever, arising out of any act or omission of the District, its officers, agents, and employees or any of them relating to or arising out of the performance of the Agreement. The District shall not defend, indemnify, or hold the Department harmless from any claims, actions, or suits for injury, damage, or loss of any kind caused by either intentional act(s) or the negligence of the Department, its officers, agents, and employees or any of them where the District did not contribute to such negligence. Similarly, the Department shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the District and its officers, directors, agents, and employees, or any of them from any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses, and damages of any nature whatsoever, out of any act or omission of the Department, its officers, agents, and employees, or any of them in the performance of this Agreement. The Department shall not defend, indemnify, or hold the District harmless from any claims, actions, or suits for injury, damage, or loss of any kind caused by either intentional act(s) or the negligence of the District, its officers, directors, agents, and employees or any of them where the Department did not contribute to such negligence. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, in executing this Agreement, the Department does not assume liability or responsibility for, or in any way release the District from, any liability or responsibility which arises in whole or in part from the existence, effect, or enforcement of District policies, rules, or regulations or the acts of District employees, volunteers, or students. If any cause, claim, suit, action, or administrative proceedings is commenced in which the enforceability or validity of any District policy, rule, or regulation is at issue, the District shall defend the enforceability or validity of the policy, rule, or regulation at its sole expense, and if judgment is entered or damages are awarded against the District, the Department or both, the District shall satisfy the same, including all chargeable costs and attorney’s fees. 10. MEDICAL/HEALTH AND WORKER’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS In the event of any injury to, or the illness or death of, an SRO, such officer will be considered an employee of the Department while acting in performance of this Agreement, and the Department agrees to extend to any Department SRO the medical/health and workers’ compensation benefits and other compensation, to the same extent and in the same manner as in such injury, illness, or death had occurred during regular work assignment in and for the Department. Any SRO provided pursuant to this Agreement is not an employee of the District, and the District shall have no obligation to provide an SRO with any workers’ compensation or other benefits. 11. VENUE STIPULATION This Agreement shall be construed as having been made and delivered within the state of Washington, and the laws of the state of Washington shall be applicable to its construction and enforcement. Any action at law, suit in equity, or judicial proceeding for the enforcement of this Agreement or any provision hereto shall be instituted in King County, Washington. 12. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS The parties hereto agree to, in carrying out the terms of this Agreement, comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, and regulations, including but not necessarily limited to, 5 the laws pertaining to civil rights and laws pertaining to the District and the Department. The Department and its officers, agents and employees in carrying out this Agreement agree that they will not in any way discriminate against others on the basis of sex, race, creed, religion, color, national origin, age, honorably discharged veteran or military status, sexual orientation including gender expression or identity, or the presence of any sensory, mental or physical disability. 13. NOTICES All notices given herein shall be in writing and shall be sent by personal service or registered mail to the parties at their recognized business addresses. For the District, notice shall be sent by personal service or registered mail to the District’s Chief Information and Digital Strategies Officer who oversees the District’s Safety Services. 14. HEADINGS The article headings contained in this Agreement are inserted solely as a matter of convenience and for reference and in no way do they define, limit, or describe the scope or intent of the provisions of this Agreement. 15. AGREEMENTS OUTSIDE OF THIS AGREEMENT This Agreement contains the complete agreement between the parties and shall, as of the effective date hereof, supersede all agreements, either written or oral, between the parties. The parties agree that neither of them has made any representation with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement or any representations, including the executing and delivery hereof, except such representations as are specifically set forth herein, and each of the parties hereto acknowledges that it has relied on its own judgment in entering into this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have affixed their signature on the dates below. KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT CITY OF KENT/KENT POLICE DEPARTMENT Dr. Calvin J. Watts, Superintendent Suzette Cooke, Mayor Date Date 6 ATTACHMENT ‘A’ TO SRO AGREEMENT The parties agree that the total cost to the Department to provide SROs to the District in accordance with the terms of this Agreement is $242,680.66, regardless of actual salary or benefit adjustments that may be made by the Department for its officers. The District’s reimbursement obligation, which is sixty percent (60%) of the total cost to the Department for the SROs provided to the District, equals $145,608.39. Unless overtime is authorized by the District in accordance with Section 6, or the Agreement modified as set forth in Section 6, this sum will be considered the District’s total reimbursement obligation for all SROs provided by the Department for the duration of the performance period of this Agreement, regardless of actual salary or benefit adjustments that may be made by the Department for its officers, subject to the Department’s obligations to refund the District as set forth in section 2(l) . The District shall pay said reimbursement in twelve (12) approximately equal monthly payments spread over a one-year period starting September 1, 2015 with each payment being made upon submission by the Department of a monthly invoice; provided, in the event this Agreement is executed after the term of this Agreement begins, the District shall pay the total compensation as set forth in this Attachment, but will have fewer months to make such payments. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have affixed their signature on the dates below. KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT CITY OF KENT/KENT POLICE DEPARTMENT Dr. Calvin J. Watts, Superintendent Suzette Cooke, Mayor Date Date P:\Civil\Files\Open Files\1671-Police Services Agreement - KSD\2015-2016\KSD Police SRO Agreement 2015-2016 Final.docx Agenda Item: Consent Calendar – 7I_ TO: City Council DATE: October 18, 2016 SUBJECT: 2016-2017 Police Services Agreement with Kent School District – Authorize SUMMARY: The Kent Police Department and the Kent School District have partnered for many years to provide school resource officers for various Kent schools, as well as a commander to serve as a liaison and safety advisor to the District. The School Resource Officer Agreement provides that the City will assign one police officer to split his or her time between Kent-Meridian High School and Mill Creek Middle School, and another officer to split his or her time between Kentridge High School and Meridian Middle School. The officers will work in the assigned schools to respond to school safety related incidents, assist in emergency planning, and generally provide for a safe and productive learning environment for students. The Police Services Agreement provides that the City will assign one officer of the rank of commander or above to act as a liaison between the Department and the District, respond to school safety incidents as appropriate, provide school safety related advice to administration, and assist in emergency management planning. In exchange for providing the services called for in the agreements, the District will reimburse the City for 60% of the officers’ total compensation (salary plus benefits), and 25% of the commander’s total compensation. The agreements may be extended for three additional terms, and if extended, the reimbursements will increase in accordance with any increase to the total compensation of the assigned officers and commander. EXHIBITS: 2016-2017 Police Services Agreement and School Resource Officer Agreement RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety Committee YEA: Berrios, Thomas, Ralph NAY: BUDGET IMPACT: Income for payment of portion of salaries MOTION: Authorize the Mayor to sign the Police Services Agreement and School Resource Officer Agreement between the Kent Police Department and the Kent School District for the 2016-2017 school year, subject to final contract terms and conditions acceptable to the Police Chief and City Attorney. 1 Police Services Agreement Between the Kent Police Department and the Kent School District 2016 – 2017 THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the City of Kent and the Kent Police Department, hereinafter referred to collectively as the “Department,” and the Kent School District, hereinafter referred to as the “District.” RECITALS The District desires to fill the position of School Safety Services Liaison with a law enforcement officer who is employed by the Department and holds the rank of Commander or higher, and who can bring valuable experience and provide advice to District safety officers. The Department desires that its senior officers have the opportunity to: (a) partner with a large local school district in the community; (b) gain valuable administrative, command, and community relations experience; and (c) experience unique professional growth and development. The District and Department share a compelling common value in seeing that the community enjoys a safe, secure environment for its students and staff. NOW, THEREFORE, and in consideration of the mutual promises set forth herein, the parties mutually agree as follows: AGREEMENT 1. TERM This Agreement shall be effective from September 1, 2016, through August 31, 2017, subject to any prior termination as provided herein and unless extended by written agreement of the parties. If this Agreement is signed on a date after the commencement of the 2016-2017 school year, the terms of this Agreement shall apply retroactively to the first date services are provided by the City to the District, or September 1, 2016, whichever date is earlier. The parties may opt to extend the term of this Agreement, on the same terms and conditions as in effect just prior to the then-current end of term, for up to three (3) successive periods of twelve (12) months each, pursuant to the procedure outlined in this Agreement. The Mayor is authorized to approve and execute said extensions, without further authorization of the City Council. The parties shall mutually agree in writing no later than May 1st of the then-current term whether the parties will opt to extend this Agreement for an additional twelve (12) months (September 1 – August 31) or will let the Agreement expire at the end 2 of the then-current term, or if all three (3) extension have been optioned, then this Agreement will default to expire at the end of the then-current term. Prior to May 1st the parties agree to hold a progress meeting. 2. DUTIES OF THE DEPARTMENT The Department with the District’s approval shall provide an officer the rank of Commander or higher to serve as the District’s School Safety Services Liaison, hereafter referred to as “Liaison,” for the purpose of assisting with communication and logistics between the two organizations relating to school safety. Such assistance shall include, but not be limited to: a. Provide advice and direction to personnel regarding best practices to help ensure a safe and secure learning environment. b. Respond to school incidents as necessary. c. Periodically review and recommend revisions to the procedures and protocols for school safety. d. Support administrators and staff with school safety inquiries and/or needs for assistance. e. Assist in the development of Kent School District emergency management practices and procedures. f. Assist in the establishment and implementation of emergency operation procedures and threat assessment procedures for buildings. g. Help establish and maintain security procedures focused on prevention of problems in schools and the community. h. Help foster an attitude promoting a safe school environment. i. Present the monthly safety services report to the Board. j. Attend the monthly safety services meeting. The Department shall provide the Liaison a vehicle, radio communication, cellular phone, uniform, and other necessary equipment provided to the Department’s on- duty commanders to enable the Liaison to perform his/her duties with the District. The District shall provide the use of office space, mobile computer or similar device, and a District email account to the Liaison. 3 3. CONSIDERATION In consideration of those services provided under this Agreement, the District shall provide the Liaison with the unique opportunity to obtain administration and community relations experience. The Liaison will be considered a part of the Superintendent’s Cabinet and the District Leadership Team. The total compensation for an officer the rank of Commander or higher to serve as the School Safety Services Liaison position for the length of this Agreement is set forth in Attachment A to this Agreement. Attachment A reflects the District’s agreement to reimburse the Department twenty-five percent (25%) of the total compensation (salaries/benefits) for one officer the rank of Commander or higher, as mutually agreed by the parties in Attachment A. The twenty-five percent (25%) reimbursement obligation of the total compensation amount shall be spread across twelve (12) approximately equal monthly payments payable to the Department; provided, in the event this Agreement is executed after the term of this Agreement begins, the District shall pay the total compensation as set forth in Attachment A, but will have fewer months to make such payments. The District shall pay said reimbursement upon submission by the Department of a monthly invoice. Annual Cost Rate Increases. For each successive twelve-month period this Agreement is extended beyond the then-current term, the parties agree that the total compensation (salaries/benefits) shall increase based on the actual costs as provided by the City of Kent. 4. WORK SCHEDULE The Liaison shall be on duty with the District, as needed, to fulfill the duties outlined in Section 2 above. The parties will coordinate the Liaison’s schedule, to the best extent practicable, to ensure the needs of the District and the Department are both adequately fulfilled. 5. MODIFICATION No waiver or modification of the Agreement or any covenants, conditions, or limitations herein contained shall be valid unless in writing and duly executed by the parties, and no evidence of any waiver of modification shall be offered or received in evidence during any proceedings or litigation between the parties unless such waiver or modification is in writing duly executed as aforesaid. The parties further agree that the provisions of this section may not be waived except as herein set forth. 6. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT This Agreement may be terminated without cause at any time by mutual agreement of the parties or by either party sixty (60) days following the other party’s receipt of written intent to terminate. 4 Each party shall have the right to cancel and immediately terminate the Agreement without prior notice upon breach of the Agreement by the other party. In the event of termination under this section, the Department will be entitled to receive, to the date of such termination on a pro-rated basis, the compensation as set forth in Section 3 above. 7. INDEMNIFICATION To the extent permitted by law, the District shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Department and its officers, agents, and employees, or any of them, from any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses, and damages of any nature whatsoever, arising out of any act or omission of the District, its officers, agents, and employees or any of them relating to or arising out of the performance of the Agreement. The District shall not defend, indemnify, or hold the Department harmless from any claims, actions, or suits for injury, damage, or loss of any kind caused by the negligence of the Department, its officers, agents, and employees or any of them where the District did not contribute to such negligence. Similarly, the Department shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the District and its officers, directors, agents, and employees, or any of them from any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses, and damages of any nature whatsoever, out of any act or omission of the Department, its officers, agents, and employees, or any of them in the performance of this Agreement. The Department shall not defend, indemnify, or hold the District harmless from any claims, actions, or suits for injury, damage, or loss of any kind caused by the negligence of the District, its officers, directors, agents, and employees or any of them where the Department did not contribute to such negligence. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, in executing this Agreement, the Department does not assume liability or responsibility for, or in any way release the District from, any liability or responsibility which arises in whole or in part from the existence, effect, or enforcement of District policies, rules, or regulations or the acts of District employees, volunteers, or students. If any cause, claim, suit, action, or administrative proceedings is commenced in which the enforceability or validity of any District policy, rule, or regulation is at issue, the District shall defend the enforceability or validity of the policy, rule, or regulation at its sole expense, and if judgment is entered or damages are awarded against the District, the Department or both, the District shall satisfy the same, including all chargeable costs and attorney’s fees. 8. MEDICAL/HEALTH AND WORKERS COMPENSATION BENEFITS In the event of any injury, illness, or death of the Liaison, the Liaison shall be considered an employee of the Department while acting in performance of this Agreement, and the Department agrees to extend to the Liaison the medical/health and workers’ compensation benefits and other compensation, to the same extent and in the same manner as if such injury, illness, or death had occurred during the regular work assignment in and for the Department. 5 9. LIAISON OF SCHOOL SAFETY IS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE DEPARTMENT The Liaison shall, at all times, be considered an employee of the Department, and shall for no purpose be considered an employee of the District. The District shall have no obligation to provide the Liaison with any workers’ compensation or other benefits, and the salary of the Liaison shall be paid in full by the Department. 10. VENUE STIPULATION This Agreement shall be construed as having been made and delivered within the State of Washington, and the laws of the State of Washington shall be applicable to its construction and enforcement. Any action at law, suit in equity, or judicial proceeding for the enforcement of this Agreement or any provision hereto shall be instituted in King County, Washington. 11. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS In carrying out the terms of this Agreement, the parties agree to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, and regulations, including but not necessarily limited to the laws pertaining to civil rights and laws pertaining to the District and Department. In carrying out this Agreement, the parties agree that they will not in any way discriminate against others on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, creed, sexual orientation, marital status, veteran status, or disability. 12. NOTICES All notices shall be in writing and shall be sent by registered mail to the parties at their recognized business addresses. 13. HEADINGS The article headings contained in this Agreement are inserted solely as a matter of convenience and for reference and in no way do they define, limit, or describe the scope or intent of the provisions of this Agreement. 14. AGREEMENTS OUTSIDE OF THIS AGREEMENT This Agreement contains the complete agreement between the parties and shall, as of the effective date hereof, supersede all agreements, either written or oral, between the parties. The parties agree that neither of them has made any representations with respect to the subject matter of the Agreement except such representation as are specifically set forth herein, and each party acknowledges that it has relied on its own judgment in entering into this Agreement. 15. RATIFICATION All acts consistent with the authority of this Agreement and prior to its effective 6 date are ratified and affirmed, and the terms of this Agreement shall be deemed to have applied. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have affixed their signatures on the dates below. Kent School District City of Kent / Kent Police Department Dr. Calvin J. Watts (Superintendent) Suzette Cooke (Mayor) Date Date 7 ATTACHMENT ‘A’ TO POLICE SERVICES AGREEMENT The parties agree that the total cost to the Department to provide a School Safety Services Liaison with a law enforcement officer who is employed by the Department and holds the rank of Commander or higher to the District in accordance with the terms of this Agreement is $170,859.93, regardless of actual salary or benefit adjustments that may be made by the Department for the Commander. The District’s reimbursement obligation, which is twenty-five percent (25%) of the total cost to the Department for the Liaison provided to the District, equals $42,714.98. This sum will be considered the District’s total reimbursement obligation for the Liaison provided by the Department for the duration of the performance period of this Agreement, regardless of actual salary or benefit adjustments that may be made by the Department for its officer the rank of Commander or higher. The District shall pay said reimbursement in twelve (12) approximately equal monthly payments spread over a one-year period starting September 1, 2016 with each payment being made upon submission by the Department of a monthly invoice; provided, in the event this Agreement is executed after the term of this Agreement begins, the District shall pay the total compensation as set forth in this Attachment, but will have fewer months to make such payments. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have affixed their signature on the dates below. KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT CITY OF KENT/KENT POLICE DEPARTMENT Dr. Calvin J. Watts, Superintendent Suzette Cooke, Mayor Date Date P:\Civil\Files\Open Files\1671-Police Services Agreement - KSD\2016-2017\KSD Police Services Agreement School Safety Services Liaison 2016-2017 Final.docx 1 SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER (SRO) AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE KENT POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 2016-2017 THIS SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER (SRO) AGREEMENT (hereinafter “Agreement”) is made and entered into by and between the City of Kent and its Kent Police Department (hereinafter referred to collectively as the “Department”) and the Kent School District (hereinafter referred to as the “District”) for the provision of School Resource Officers (SROs). WHEREAS, the District desires to have the presence and assistance on school campuses of commissioned law enforcement officers who can work collaboratively with school personnel to enforce the law while building healthy relationships with students of the District; WHEREAS, the Department desires to partner with local school districts and seeks an opportunity for its officers to positively impact the community; and WHEREAS, the District and the Department share a compelling common value in seeing that the community enjoys a safe, sustainable, healthy, and respectful learning environment for its students and staff; NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual promises set forth herein, the parties hereto mutually agree as follows: 1. TERM The Agreement shall be effective September 1, 2016 through August 31, 2017, subject to any prior termination as provided herein and unless extended by written agreement of parties hereto. The parties may opt to extend the term of this Agreement, on the same terms and conditions as in effect just prior to the then-current end of term, for up to three (3) successive periods of twelve (12) months each, pursuant to the procedure outlined in this Agreement. The Mayor is authorized to approve and execute said extensions, without further authorization of the City Council. The parties shall mutually agree in writing no later than May 1st of the then-current term whether the parties will opt to extend this Agreement for an additional twelve (12) months (September 1 – August 31) or will let the Agreement expire at the end of the then-current term, or if all three (3) extension have been optioned, then this Agreement will default to expire at the end of the then- current term. Prior to May 1st the parties agree to hold a progress meeting. 2 2. DUTIES OF THE DEPARTMENT AND ASSIGNED SROs The Department shall provide two (2) commissioned police officers to work as SROs in the District on days in which school is in session during the normal school year plus two workshop days, and one week after the last day of school. In addition, SROs will work on July 4, and up to ten business days scheduled in the month of August for academy training prior to the start of school for the purpose of assisting school personnel in enforcing the law and maintaining a safe, sustainable, healthy, and respectful learning environment for students and staff. The placement of a particular officer in the role of SRO will be a decision mutually agreed upon by the Department and District. a. One SRO will be assigned to the campuses of Kent-Meridian High School and Mill Creek Middle School, with time split between the campuses as deemed appropriate by school administrators and the respective school principals. b. One SRO will be assigned to the campuses of Kentridge High School and Meridian Middle School, with time split between the campuses as deemed appropriate by school administrators and the respective school principals. c. Each SRO shall respond to school incidents in the District as necessary and support District administrators and staff with school safety inquiries and/or needs for assistance. d. Each SRO will provide assistance to enforce the law on school grounds, conduct investigations as necessary, and advise/consult with school personnel regarding best practices for ensuring a safe and secure learning environment. e. Each SRO will develop a daily routine that ensures high visibility to staff, students, parents and community stakeholders. f. Each SRO will have access to education records of District students consistent with access available to members of the District’s Safety Services, but the Department acknowledges that each SRO is restricted in the same manner as other District personnel by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. 1232g, accompanying regulations, corresponding state law, and District policies from nonconsensual disclosure of such records to third parties without lawful authorization. g. Each SRO will be a positive adult role model and will develop positive relationships with students that promote learning and citizenship. h. Each SRO will work collaboratively with the District’s Safety Services Director, including the preparation of reports as needed regarding school safety activity for the Superintendent and Board of Directors. i. Each SRO will assist, as needed, in the establishment and implementation of emergency operation procedures and threat assessment procedures for buildings. j. Each SRO will assist with contacting truant children and their parents. k. Each SRO will perform other duties as mutually agreed upon by the Kent School District and the Department. l. The Department reserves the right to utilize one or both of the SROs for emergency Department operational needs as determined or declared by the Department’s Chief of Police and the mayor of the City of Kent. Emergency operational needs include but are not limited to the following: severe staffing shortages, natural and/or manmade disasters, or unforeseen city emergencies. In 3 the event that such an emergency arises, the Department will make reasonable efforts to give timely advanced notice to the District and will make reasonable efforts to minimize the duration of their utilization. The Department will also refund the District for all time that one or both SROs are not performing work for the District pursuant to this section 2(l). 3. CONSIDERATION The total compensation for two (2) commissioned officers for the length of this Agreement is set forth in Attachment A to this Agreement. Attachment A reflects the District’s agreement to reimburse the Department sixty percent (60%) of the total compensation (salaries/benefits) for two (2) commissioned SROs for the days they work for the District, as mutually agreed by the parties in Attachment A. The sixty percent (60%) reimbursement obligation of the total compensation amount shall be spread across twelve (12) approximately equal monthly payments payable to the Department; provided, in the event this Agreement is executed after the term of this Agreement begins, the District shall pay the total compensation as set forth in Attachment A, but will have fewer months to make such payments. The District shall pay said reimbursement upon submission by the Department of a monthly invoice. Annual Cost Rate Increases. For each successive twelve-month period this Agreement is extended beyond the then-current term, the parties agree that the total compensation (salaries/benefits) shall increase based on the actual costs as provided by the City of Kent. 4. WORK SCHEDULE It is the intent of this Agreement that the SROs work during scheduled class times and cover the start of school and release of school. Each SRO shall work other hours and days agreed upon by the District, Department, and the officer providing the services; provided, that each SRO’s work schedule shall be subject to the terms and conditions set forth in his or her collective bargaining agreement, which sets forth hours of work, days off, vacation, holidays, etc. One SRO will be assigned to work Monday through Thursday. The second SRO will be assigned to work Tuesday through Friday. 5. OVERTIME Costs associated with approved overtime for District business shall be paid by the District, except that costs associated with overtime for any Department trainings or functions not relating to District business will be paid by the Department. Overtime costs for District business shall be determined by the officers’ collective bargaining agreement with the City of Kent. 6. MODIFICATION No waiver or modification of this Agreement or any covenants, conditions, or limitations herein contained shall be valid unless in writing and duly executed by the parties to be charged therewith; and no evidence of any waiver of modification shall be offered or received in evidence of any proceeding or litigation between the parties hereto arising out of or affecting this Agreement, or the rights or obligations of the parties hereunder, unless such waiver or modification is in writing duly 4 executed as aforesaid; and the parties further agree that the provisions of this section may not be waived except as herein set forth. 7. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT This Agreement may be terminated without cause at any time by mutual agreement of the parties hereto, or by either party after thirty (30) days following the other party’s receipt of a written intent to terminate. Each party shall have the right to cancel and immediately terminate this Agreement without prior notice upon material breach of the Agreement by the other party. In the event of termination under this section, the Department will be entitled to receive, to the date of such termination on a pro rata basis, the compensation as set forth in section 3 above. In addition, each party shall have the right to remove a specific SRO from District. Any officer selected to replace an SRO will be mutually agreed upon by the Department and District as set forth in section 2 above. 8. TRAINING The District agrees to permit SROs to attend training sessions required by the Department, provided the Department notifies the District of such training ten (10) calendar days in advance. The Department shall provide the District’s Chief School Operations & Academic Support Officer, who oversees the District’s Safety Services department, notice sufficiently in advance to allow the District to make other security arrangements in the absence of a school’s SRO. The District may likewise provide training to SROs on school in-service days. 9. INDEMNIFICATION To the extent permitted by law, the District shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Department and its officers, agents, and employees, or any of them, from any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses, and damages of any nature whatsoever, arising out of any act or omission of the District, its officers, agents, and employees or any of them relating to or arising out of the performance of the Agreement. The District shall not defend, indemnify, or hold the Department harmless from any claims, actions, or suits for injury, damage, or loss of any kind caused by the negligence of the Department, its officers, agents, and employees or any of them where the District did not contribute to such negligence. Similarly, the Department shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the District and its officers, directors, agents, and employees, or any of them from any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses, and damages of any nature whatsoever, out of any act or omission of the Department, its officers, agents, and employees, or any of them in the performance of this Agreement. The Department shall not defend, indemnify, or hold the District harmless from any claims, actions, or suits for injury, damage, or loss of any kind caused by the negligence of the District, its officers, directors, agents, and employees or any of them where the Department did not contribute to such negligence. 5 Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, in executing this Agreement, the Department does not assume liability or responsibility for, or in any way release the District from, any liability or responsibility which arises in whole or in part from the existence, effect, or enforcement of District policies, rules, or regulations or the acts of District employees, volunteers, or students. If any cause, claim, suit, action, or administrative proceedings is commenced in which the enforceability or validity of any District policy, rule, or regulation is at issue, the District shall defend the enforceability or validity of the policy, rule, or regulation at its sole expense, and if judgment is entered or damages are awarded against the District, the Department or both, the District shall satisfy the same, including all chargeable costs and attorney’s fees. 10. MEDICAL/HEALTH AND WORKER’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS In the event of any injury to, or the illness or death of, an SRO, such officer will be considered an employee of the Department while acting in performance of this Agreement, and the Department agrees to extend to any Department SRO the medical/health and workers’ compensation benefits and other compensation, to the same extent and in the same manner as in such injury, illness, or death had occurred during regular work assignment in and for the Department. Any SRO provided pursuant to this Agreement is not an employee of the District, and the District shall have no obligation to provide an SRO with any workers’ compensation or other benefits. 11. VENUE STIPULATION This Agreement shall be construed as having been made and delivered within the state of Washington, and the laws of the state of Washington shall be applicable to its construction and enforcement. Any action at law, suit in equity, or judicial proceeding for the enforcement of this Agreement or any provision hereto shall be instituted in King County, Washington. 12. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS The parties hereto agree to, in carrying out the terms of this Agreement, comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, and regulations, including but not necessarily limited to, the laws pertaining to civil rights and laws pertaining to the District and the Department. The Department and its officers, agents and employees in carrying out this Agreement agree that they will not in any way discriminate against others on the basis of sex, race, creed, religion, color, national origin, age, honorably discharged veteran or military status, sexual orientation including gender expression or identity, or the presence of any sensory, mental or physical disability. 13. NOTICES All notices given herein shall be in writing and shall be sent by personal service or registered mail to the parties at their recognized business addresses. For the District, notice shall be sent by personal service or registered mail to the District’s Chief School Operations & Academic Support Officer who oversees the District’s Safety Services. 6 14. HEADINGS The article headings contained in this Agreement are inserted solely as a matter of convenience and for reference and in no way do they define, limit, or describe the scope or intent of the provisions of this Agreement. 15. AGREEMENTS OUTSIDE OF THIS AGREEMENT This Agreement contains the complete agreement between the parties and shall, as of the effective date hereof, supersede all agreements, either written or oral, between the parties. The parties agree that neither of them has made any representation with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement or any representations, including the executing and delivery hereof, except such representations as are specifically set forth herein, and each of the parties hereto acknowledges that it has relied on its own judgment in entering into this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have affixed their signature on the dates below. KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT CITY OF KENT/KENT POLICE DEPARTMENT Dr. Calvin J. Watts, Superintendent Suzette Cooke, Mayor Date Date 7 ATTACHMENT ‘A’ TO SRO AGREEMENT The parties agree that the total cost to the Department to provide SROs to the District in accordance with the terms of this Agreement is $257,110.62, regardless of actual salary or benefit adjustments that may be made by the Department for its officers. The District’s reimbursement obligation, which is sixty percent (60%) of the total cost to the Department for the SROs provided to the District, equals $ 154,266.37. Unless overtime is authorized by the District in accordance with Section 6, or the Agreement modified as set forth in Section 6, this sum will be considered the District’s total reimbursement obligation for all SROs provided by the Department for the duration of the performance period of this Agreement, regardless of actual salary or benefit adjustments that may be made by the Department for its officers, subject to the Department’s obligations to refund the District as set forth in section 2(l) . The District shall pay said reimbursement in twelve (12) approximately equal monthly payments spread over a one-year period starting September 1, 2016 with each payment being made upon submission by the Department of a monthly invoice; provided, in the event this Agreement is executed after the term of this Agreement begins, the District shall pay the total compensation as set forth in this Attachment, but will have fewer months to make such payments. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have affixed their signature on the dates below. KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT CITY OF KENT/KENT POLICE DEPARTMENT Dr. Calvin J. Watts, Superintendent Suzette Cooke, Mayor Date Date Agenda Item: Consent Calendar – 7J_ TO: City Council DATE: October 18, 2016 SUBJECT: 2016 Annual Docket Report – Approve SUMMARY: The docketing process is required by the Growth Management Act and is provided for in Chapter 12.02 of the Kent City Code (KCC). This year, no docket applications submitted (2) the dockets were reviewed by the ECDC committee on October 10, 2016. EXHIBITS: October 10, 2016 ECDC memo with docket attachments RECOMMENDED BY: Economic & Community Development Committee YEA: Boyce, Berrios, Budell NAY: BUDGET IMPACTS: None MOTION: Move to approve the 2016 Annual Docket Report and amended 2014 and 2015 Docket Reports. ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 October 10, 2016 To: Chair Bill Boyce and Economic & Community Development Committee From: Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager Subject: 2016 Annual Docket Report Meeting of October 10, 2016 SUMMARY: The docketing process is required by the Growth Management Act and is provided in Chapter 12.02 of the Kent City Code (KCC). The Annual Docket may include suggestions for amendments to the comprehensive plan text, land use plan map designations, or the City’s development regulations. Staff will present this year’s Annual Docket Report to the Committee on October 10th. The City did not receive any requests from the public for amendments in 2016. However, staff is proposing items for the 2016 docket. BUDGET IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: The Growth Management Act outlines a procedure that assists the public in making suggested amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, development regulations, and growth policies on an annual basis. ”Docketing” refers to compiling and maintaining a list of suggested changes to the Comprehensive Plan or development regulations to ensure they will be considered by the City and will be available for review by the public. The deadline for filing a docket item is the first business day of September. There is no fee for submitting a docket item. The 2016 Annual Docket Report contains a number of potential comprehensive plan and zoning amendments proposed by staff. These amendments are attached and will be further discussed at the ECDC meeting on October 10th. As provided in KCC 12.02.035, also attached are updates on the status of the 2014 and 2015 Docket Reports. CA/ P:\Planning\DOCKETS\2016\Dkt-2016_ECDCMemo10-10-16.doc Enc: 2016 Annual Docket Report and Updates to 2014 and 2015 Docket Reports cc: Ben Wolters, Economic and Community Development Director Project Files MOTION: Recommend to the full City Council approval of the 2016 Annual Docket Report and amended 2014 and 2015 Docket Reports as presented by staff. Agenda Item: Consent Calendar – 7K_ TO: City Council DATE: October 18, 2016 SUBJECT: Hawkesbury Division I & II Plat Bill of Sale – Accept SUMMARY: Hawkesbury I&II is located at 27911 155th PL SE Kent, WA EXHIBITS: Bill of Sale RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Director BUDGET IMPACTS: None MOTION: Authorize Council to accept the Bill of Sale for Hawkesbury I&II Plat, Permit No. RECC-2082334, for: new streets including 4,079 linear feet of curb, sidewalk and paving; frontage improvements including 3,328 linear feet of 5’ sidewalk and curb; storm sewers including 1,803 linear feet of 12 inch PVC sewer line, 371 linear feet of 15 inch PVC sewer line, and 781 linear feet of 12 inch SDR 21 sewer line along with 12 manholes and 28 catch basins. Agenda Item: Consent Calendar – 7L_ TO: City Council DATE: October 18, 2016 SUBJECT: Heritage Bank Bill of Sale – Accept SUMMARY: Heritage Bank is located at 415 W James St Kent, WA EXHIBITS: Bill of Sale RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Director BUDGET IMPACTS: None MOTION: Authorize Council to accept the Bill of Sale for Heritage Bank, Permit No. RECC-2123647, for: watermains including 1 irrigation deduct service; frontage improvements including 438 linear feet of variable width widening, channelization and sidewalk frontage; storm sewers, including 2 catch basins. Agenda Item: Other Business – 8A_ TO: City Council DATE: October 18, 2016 SUBJECT: Utility Tax Ordinance Revision – Adopt SUMMARY: At the request of the Public Works Committee, staff has examined and proposed draft language to broaden the solid waste utility tax ordinance provisions. The proposal would include the ability to fund the planning, design, and installation of neighborhood traffic calming devices, crosswalks and appurtenances within the funding source. The current code allows only for the maintenance and replacement of existing infrastructure. EXHIBITS: Ordinance RECOMMENDED BY: The Public Works Committee YEA: Ralph, Fincher, Higgins NAY: BUDGET IMPACTS: Reallocation of the solid waste utility tax. MOTION: Adopt Ordinance No.______ amending Kent City Code 3.18.020(A)(5) to allow revenue from the solid waste utility tax to be used for the installation of residential traffic calming control devices, crosswalks and appurtenances, up to a maximum of $150,000 per year, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and Public Works Director. 1 Amend KCC 3.18.020 - Re: Certain Utilities Subject to Tax ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, amending Section 3.18.020 of the Kent City Code entitled “Certain utilities subject to tax,” to include crosswalks and the residential traffic calming program as eligible expenses under the solid waste utility tax. RECITALS A. The City Council adopted a residential traffic calming program via resolution to address speeding in residential areas; and B. No funding mechanism currently exists to fund residential traffic calming projects; and C. The solid waste utility tax currently includes improvements to residential streets. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: ORDINANCE SECTION 1. – Amendment – KCC 3.18.020. Section 3.18.020 of the Kent City Code, entitled “Certain utilities subject to tax,” is amended as follows: Sec. 3.18.020. Certain utilities subject to tax. 2 Amend KCC 3.18.020 - Re: Certain Utilities Subject to Tax A. In addition to the other business and license fees required by the ordinances of the city, the city levies upon all persons, firms, or corporations (including the city) engaged in certain business activities a utilities tax to be collected as follows: 1. Upon every person, firm, or corporation engaging in or carrying on any telephone business within the city, an annual tax equal to six (6) percent of the total gross income, including revenues from intrastate toll, derived from the operation of such business within the city. This six (6) percent tax will be allocated as follows: four and seven-tenths (4.7) percent to the general fund, three-tenths (0.3) percent to youth/teen programs, and one (1) percent to street improvement programs. 2. Upon every person, firm, or corporation engaging in or carrying on a business of selling, wheeling, furnishing, distributing, or producing gas, whether manufactured or natural, for commercial or domestic use or purposes, a fee or tax equal to six (6) percent of the total gross income from such business in the city during the tax year for which the license is required. This six (6) percent tax will be allocated as follows: four and seven-tenths (4.7) percent to the general fund, three-tenths (0.3) percent to youth/teen programs, and one (1) percent to street improvement programs. 3. Upon every person, firm, or corporation engaged in or carrying on the business of selling, wheeling, furnishing, or distributing electricity for light and power, a fee or tax equal to six (6) percent of the total gross income from such business in the city during the tax year for which a license is required. This six (6) percent tax will be allocated as follows: four and seven-tenths (4.7) percent to the general fund, three- 3 Amend KCC 3.18.020 - Re: Certain Utilities Subject to Tax tenths (0.3) percent to youth/teen programs, and one (1) percent to street improvement programs. 4. Upon every person, firm, or corporation engaged in or carrying on the business providing cable television services, a tax equal to six (6) percent of the total gross income from that business in the city during the tax year for which the license is required. All revenue received from this tax must be applied only to funding the city’s information technology department operations and capital projects budgets in the proportion determined by the city council in its biennial budget, including all amendments. 5. Upon every person, firm, or corporation engaging in or carrying on a business providing solid waste collection services, a tax equal to eighteen and four-tenths (18.4) percent of the total gross income from such business in the city during the tax year for which the license is required. This eighteen and four-tenths (18.4) percent tax will be allocated as follows: six and one-half (6.5) percent to the general fund, three-tenths (0.3) percent to youth/teen programs, one (1) percent to street improvement programs, and ten and six-tenths (10.6) percent to maintain and repair residential streets, including related impacts to curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and other road amenities, including crosswalks along with necessary appurtenances, and improvements related to residential traffic calming, but this ten and six-tenths (10.6) percent portion of the solid waste utility tax shall not be used to expand, extend, or widen existing residential streets or to build new residential streets. The amount used from this fund for neighborhood traffic calming devices and crosswalks shall not exceed $150,000 in any year. 6. Upon every person (including the city) engaging in or carrying on the business of selling, furnishing, or distributing water, sewer, or 4 Amend KCC 3.18.020 - Re: Certain Utilities Subject to Tax drainage services, a tax equal to thirteen (13) percent of the total gross income from such business in the city during the tax year. This thirteen (13) percent tax will be allocated as follows: five and seven-tenths (5.7) percent to the general fund for the use as allocated in the city’s budget; four (4) percent to the general fund only for the installation, operation, maintenance, and repair of street lighting, subject to the limitations provided in subsection (A)(6)(a) of this section; two (2) percent dedicated solely to the repayment and elimination of debt in the city’s “other capital projects” fund subject to the limitations provided in subsection (A)(6)(b) of this section; one (1) percent to street improvement programs; and three- tenths (0.3) percent to youth/teen programs. a. The four (4) percent allocation for street lighting is further contingent on the requirement that the city allocate the funds freed up by this revenue to the city’s capital improvement fund(s). After payment of all capital debt, unless otherwise allocated by council, the remaining funds must be applied equally to (i) information technology capital programs directed at funding long- and short-term hardware and software replacement and (ii) street capital programs, but further restricted to funding street maintenance, repair, and signage only. If the cost to install, operate, maintain, and repair street lighting is less than the four (4) percent allocation for these purposes, the full four (4) percent amount must still be allocated from the general fund to capital programs for the above-stated purposes. b. The two (2) percent internal tax allocation will be dedicated to the city’s capital improvements fund for the sole purpose of retiring all debt in the city’s other capital projects fund. This two (2) percent portion of the tax shall be eliminated on January 1, 2023, or on the first day of the year following the date the debt in this fund is fully retired, whichever occurs first. 5 Amend KCC 3.18.020 - Re: Certain Utilities Subject to Tax B. In computing the tax provided in subsection (A) of this section, the taxpayer may deduct from total gross income the following items: 1. The actual amount of credit losses and uncollectible receivables sustained by the taxpayer. 2. Amounts derived from transactions in interstate and foreign commerce which the city is prohibited from taxing under the laws and Constitution of the United States. SECTION 2. – Severability. If any one or more section, subsection, or sentence of this ordinance is held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 3. – Corrections by City Clerk or Code Reviser. Upon approval of the city attorney, the city clerk and the code reviser are authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance, including the correction of clerical errors; ordinance, section, or subsection numbering; or references to other local, state, or federal laws, codes, rules, or regulations. SECTION 4. – Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force 30 days from and after its passage, as provided by law. SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR ATTEST: KIM KOMOTO, CITY CLERK 6 Amend KCC 3.18.020 - Re: Certain Utilities Subject to Tax APPROVED AS TO FORM: TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED: day of , 2016. APPROVED: day of , 2016. PUBLISHED: day of , 2016. I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated. (SEAL) KIM KOMOTO, CITY CLERK Agenda Item: Bids – 9A_ TO: City Council DATE: October 18, 2016 SUBJECT: Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements Reach 1 River Mile 14.75 to 14.96 Mitigation Planting – Award SUMMARY: This project is part of the Briscoe-Desimone Levee improvements and consists of planting and maintaining 300 native trees and 5,000 shrubs along the Green River upstream of Reach 1 within Tukwila city limits. The project includes spreading 3” of arborist chip mulch along the river bank and securing the chips with coir fabric. Maintenance of plantings is also included which consists of weeding and watering for 3-years after installation to ensure plant survival. Kent has an interlocal agreement with Tukwila for work within Tukwila city limits. The Engineer’s estimate for this project is $298,579.13. EXHIBITS: Memo dated October 12, 2016 RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Director YEA: N/A NAY: N/A BUDGET IMPACTS: The City of Kent has an interlocal agreement with the King County Flood Control District (FCD) for design and construction of Briscoe-Desimone Levee improvements. The agreement includes $18 million of funding from the Washington State Dept. of Ecology and the FCD. This project is included in the $18 million. MOTION: Award the Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements Reach 1 River Mile 14.75 to 14.96 Mitigation Planting Project to Watershed Environmental Solutions in the amount of $240,457.34 and authorize the Mayor to sign all necessary documents, subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and Public Works Director. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Timothy J. LaPorte, P.E., Public Works Director Address: 400 West Gowe Street Kent, WA. 98032-5895 Phone: 253-856-5500 Fax: 253-856-6500 DATE: October 12, 2016 TO: Mayor Cooke and Kent City Council FROM: Timothy J. LaPorte, P.E. Public Works Director RE: Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements Reach 1 River Mile 14.75 to 14.96 Mitigation Planting Project - Award Bid opening for the Briscoe-Desimone Levee Improvements Reach 1 River Mile 14.75 to 14.96 Mitigation Planting Project was held on Tuesday October 11, 2016 with three (3) bids received. The lowest responsible and responsive bid was submitted by Watershed Environmental Solutions in the amount of $240,457.34. The Engineer's estimate was $298,579.13. The Public Works Director recommends awarding this contract to Watershed Environmental Solutions. Bid Summary 01. Watershed Environmental Solutions $240,457.34 02. Terra Dynamics, Inc. $256,208.29 03. Buckley Nursery Co. $320,991.59 Engineer's Estimate $298,579.13 REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES, COUNCIL, AND STAFF A. Council President B. Mayor C. Administration D. Economic & Community Development E. Operations F. Parks & Human Services G. Public Safety H. Public Works I. Regional Fire Authority J. Other K. Other Page 1 of 2 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR Derek Matheson, Chief Administrative Officer Phone: 253-856-5700 Fax: 253-856-6700 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA. 98032-5895 DATE: 10/18/16 TO: Mayor Cooke Councilmembers FROM: Derek Matheson, Chief Administrative Officer SUBJECT: CAO Report for Tuesday, October 18, 2016 The Chief Administrative Officer’s report is intended to provide Council, staff and community an update on the activities of the City of Kent. ADMINISTRATION • The CAO and incoming City Clerk Kim Komoto met last week to set priorities for the City Clerk’s Office. Kim officially starts her new job on Monday, October 17, and will staff the city council meeting the following day. • Performance Analyst Todd Babcock is working on Lean training courses and a business plan for the city’s strategic planning, Lean continuous improvement, and performance management efforts. • The first round of parks director interviews are scheduled for next Friday, October 21. We are very pleased with the strong candidate pool. • Council budget workshops continue with department presentations the next two Tuesdays. • The Kent Neighborhood Program is working in conjunction with the Public Works Transportation Division to assess if residents south of SE 208th St. between 124th Ave. SE and 127th Pl. SE are impacted by spillover parking from Kentridge High School. A letter will be sent out the week of October 17 asking residents to respond whether they’re impacted or not. Responses are due October 31 and will help determine if a no parking ordinance needs to be established. • Erosion repair work is scheduled to start Monday, October 17 at Garrison Creek at S. 212th St. near WinCo Foods. This work will require temporary, intermittent lane closures during weekdays between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. Heavy rains forced a portion of Garrison Creek to divert from its normal channel, severely eroding a portion of road. The $92K repair cost is covered by the city’s drainage utility fund. The work is expected to be finished by October 28. • The pear trees lining First Avenue between Meeker and Titus streets will be removed and replaced. Because of their declining health, these are highly susceptible to broken limbs during storms, making them a hazard to pedestrians when branches extend over sidewalks. They’ll be replaced with more columnar, easy-to-maintain Golden Maples and Page 2 of 2 Tulip trees. Tree removal will begin October 17 and is scheduled between 8 a.m. and noon on weekdays to minimize the impacts to businesses along First Avenue. The new trees will be planted in the existing tree pits in early November. ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT • Staff attended a “FullConTech” conference hosted by the Washington Technology Industry Association in Redmond, WA and networked with area colleges, schools, and tech industry. A follow-up meeting with Boeing Ventures is scheduled this week as an example of a new connection made. • Staff hosted two facility planning meetings with multiple colleges, CAMPS, and non- profit aerospace trainers in attendance. Under consideration and development is a possible Kent aerospace training facility. • ECD planned and scheduled public outreach to communities who live and work along Meeker Street to update them on the progress of concepts as part of the initiative “Meet Me on Meeker,” while continuing to supervise the next stages of KPG consultant’s scope of work for design and cost estimating. • Staff fielded calls and provided market overviews to brokers that represent hotelier development sites in Kent. • Staff is attending the Idea Exchange ICSC (International Council of Shopping Centers) regional conference in Portland, OR this week to meet with developers and retailer representatives. • Staff attended a workgroup meeting of the Food Innovation Network (FIN) as it sought to plot its main work items for next year. Project Feast, a FIN member, is gathering contractor quotes for building its commercial kitchen in downtown Kent. • ECD and Public Works staff helped to coordinate with KPG Civil Engineering, Urban Design and SeaTac Lighting and Controls, a live demonstration of a couple of the Phillips vendor ColorBlast lighting fixtures in the evening time for beneath the SR-167 underpass on Meeker Street. The demonstrations were meant to confirm the previous photometric computer modeling before settling on a final design and submission of proposed fixtures to WSDOT for approval. FINANCE • The Department of Revenue (DOR) has completed their fieldwork on an audit testing the City’s compliance in payment of sales and use taxes as well as other tax payments to the state. The audit tested over 450 transactions for sales and use tax compliance and found only one error. Additionally, the state found that, because of a law change in 2003, the City has been overpaying some taxes. This has been corrected and the City will receive a credit from the state in the amount of the overpayment. Overall, this is a fantastic result and demonstrates that great work by City staff and finance’s Accounts Payable and General Ledger teams. • The finance and law departments continue to work through changes to how the City handles non-compliant businesses failing to properly attain a City business license. Finance has previously briefed the Mayor and Operations Committee and is planning to bring the code changes to Operations in November. Page 3 of 2 HUMAN RESOURCES • Benefits o The Charitable Contributions Committee is organizing the Giving Campaign on October 27, from 11:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. Please join us for the Hunger Games – It’s not always a game! o Staff completed a 2-day Lean process improvement workshop to revitalize the Onboarding Process for all new employees. o Open enrollment set-up for 2017 is scheduled for November 18 through December 2. • Community Outreach staff attended a Seattle Event in celebration of ‘Indigenous People’s Day’ on Monday, October 10. • Recruitment o Interviews are Monday for the Survey Party Chief (3 candidates). o The Police Records Specialist position opened in-house Monday and will close October 18. o Staff members Stephanie and Natalie attended the NEOGOV conference from Wednesday, October 12 through Friday, October 14. o Eligibility lists have been established for Entry Level and Lateral Police Officer on October 3 and for Entry Level and Laterals Corrections Officer on October 7. o The Written test was administered last Friday for the Maintenance Worker 2 positions that are split between Parks and Public Works; the top eight will move on to the practical exam. o The written exam for the Administrative Asst. I position in Economic and Community Development will be held on October 14. • Risk Management is currently working to complete the 2017 application for excess worker’s comp and liability coverage. The application is due on October 29. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY • Be on the lookout for the new citywide Information Security Program (ISP). Information Technology will be introducing the program in the next few weeks through email and departmental meetings. The ISP is an ongoing city-wide initiative that includes training and improvements to existing systems. The IT department is working behind the scenes and with you, to help keep you and the city Cyber Secure. LAW • Pat Fitzpatrick completed negotiations and prepared contracts for the Police Resource Officers in Kent Schools, and wrapped up months-long negotiations with KPOA for the implementation of a new internal affairs policy. He also reviewed and revised the VNET lease of office space for VNET cities, and revised the VSWAT interlocal agreement for VSWAT agencies. Pat also assisted with various personnel matters. • Victoria Robben assisted the Economic and Community Development Department with her review of 22 correction notices, nine notices of violation, one stop-use order, one declaration of service, and three voluntary correction agreements. • Victoria Robben participated in a code enforcement hearing where a property owner was cited for three inoperable vehicles on her property and the City issued a fine for each Page 4 of 2 vehicle ($1,500 total). The property owner requested a hearing and asked that the fines be reduced. Victoria objected to the reduction because the individual was a repeat violator within the City and had received a reduction in her fine on a prior violation. The hearing examiner imposed the full amount because the owner had made no progress and the City presented a convincing case. • Tammy White obtained title reports and assisted Finance with transmitting pre- foreclosure notices to five properties included in this year’s Local Improvement District foreclosure lawsuit due to each property being delinquent in at least two annual installment payments. The City’s lawsuit will be filed on or about November 4 if the accounts remain delinquent. MUNICIPAL COURT • Kent Municipal Court started a relicensing program in April 2016: o Eighty-three defendants have participated in our relicensing program with a total of 222 cases. o We have received $13, 674 dollars. o Seven hundred seventy-eight community service hours have been performed and credited towards fines. o Of the 222 cases, 62 (28%) have been closed with full compliance. o Only 5 defendants, 6% of the total participants, have failed to comply. PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY SERVICES • Facilities o Facilities maintenance has been working with Police and Information Technology staff to get the new sub-station open on the East Hill near McDonalds and Kent Meridian High School. Work included installing work stations and running some power drops for cameras and work stations. o We have started a small tenant improvement at the city shops to accommodate space for the radio technician. o The maintenance crews have been busy making repairs to exterior lighting systems at the commons, city shops, and the Centennial Center in preparation for the dark winter months. o Repairs have been made to several showers at Kent Commons and interior maintenance painting at City Hall continues. o The Custodial Division has been busy carpet cleaning the Centennial Center this past month and into October. The work at Centennial is nearly complete and the crew will be moving on to City Hall carpets in the very near future. The annual window cleaning is also is full swing, with Court and all Police substations now complete. • Housing and Human Services o Staff provided the Rise presentation at the Sound Cities Association dinner. The topic was “Riding the Culture Train”. o Kent Cultural Diversity Initiative Group re-convened after a two-month summer break. The meeting included a panel discussion on global education, with the featured topic of “How Do Global Education Traditions Impact Students Transitioning into US Schools?” Page 5 of 2 o The Parallel Application Letter of Interest (LOI) was released by the Cities of Kent, Federal Way, and Tukwila in partnership with Seattle Foundation. The Cities and Seattle Foundation are collaborating to make $100,000 in human services funding available to small organizations that specialize in serving under-served, under- represented, and/or under resourced populations. These populations include racially, ethnically and disadvantaged residents; including refugees, immigrants, english language learners, people of color, people with disabilities, and/or LGBTQ. o Staff attended the Housing Washington Conference in Tacoma. Housing Washington focuses on affordable housing and this year celebrated the 30th anniversary of two housing programs: The Washington State Housing Trust Fund and the federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit program. Keynote speakers included Johan A Howell, who addressed issues including structural racism, ethnicity, housing, poverty and democracy. Governor Inslee addressed the importance of affordable housing and Washington’s recently approved 1115 Medicaid Waiver, which will allow for housing supports to assist individuals to remain in their setting of choice. Staff also attended a separate Fair Housing clinic to learn more about best practices in community engagement and HUD’s fair housing mapping and data set tools. o Staff met with refugee youth participants during the third week of the Coalition for Refugee’s from Burma’s Youth Voices Leadership Training Program (CRB). CRB worked with the youth on how to impact policy, and staff discussed how to influence policy within government. Twenty-two young people participated in the program. o Staff met with King County library staff to identify possible areas for collaboration. While the key focus of the library is literacy, they have a broad array of activities and programs to address other barriers residents face. They are in process of developing a new strategic plan for the library system. • Parks Planning and Development had a very successful ReLeaf event this past Saturday at Clark Lake Park. It was well-attended by 60 volunteers, the Mayor, and Councilmembers Ralph and Fincher. Twenty cubic yards of invasive plants were removed, ten cubic yards of mulch was spread over the newly-cleared areas, and 16 trees were planted. • Recreation o Lake Meridian Lifeguard season concluded in September. Lifeguard staff tracked over 76,000 visitors to the supervised beach area during the eleven week beach season. Safety and prevention are primary goals of the beach program and a popular free life vest loaner program is in place to help patrons more safely enjoy their visit. There were 2,197 life vests checked out this summer. o Kent Commons Community Center continues to be a popular destination with over 250,000 visitors annually. September kicks off the Fall trade show season with large multi-day events booked every weekend through the end of year. o The Puget Sound Advocates for Retirement Action (PSARA) co-sponsored a luncheon for seniors on Monday, September 26. Their president, Robby Stern, led a discussion on how we can work together to insure the preservation of Social Security and Medicare for future generations. This was a sold out event. Page 6 of 2 POLICE • Staff Changes - Hiring/Retirement/Recruitment/ Leaves/Promotions o Corrections Oral Boards were held October 6 and 7. o Jennifer Arnold starts October 17 as a Records Specialist. o Officer’s Jason Clift and Corey Chapman are receiving a Lifesaving Award at Council on October 18 for their part in saving a victim’s life at the shooting at Rock Creek Apartments on August 2. • Significant crime activities/arrests/investigations o On October 5, officers responded to a Physical Domestic / No Contact Order / Unlawful Imprisonment with a knife call at Washington Park Apartments. The suspect initially barricaded himself in the restroom with a knife. He later made it to the roof of the complex and after negotiation and de-escalation tactics, was taken into custody by SWAT officers. o On October 5 officers responded to a fight with a weapon call on the West Hill (240th and Pacific Hwy S) that ended up being a shooting. Several 9mm casings were recovered from the scene. The victim was located and found to have been chased and advised that the shooting was from an ongoing gang dispute; drug related. The victim was arrested on several outstanding warrants. • Staff worked with Kent School District to address “creepy clown” threats that turned out to be nothing. PUBLIC WORKS • Street maintenance and concrete crews will be will be doing sidewalk work on Reith Rd east of S 254th and sidewalk repairs at 12017 SE 250th Pl. • The Signs and Markings crews continue to remove thermoplastic crosswalks throughout the city. • Vegetation crews are continuing Leber fish channel plantings, shoulder/ditch mowing on the East Hill and Valley areas and normal pond maintenance. • Water Department: Dead end water main flushing will begin. There are 589 dead ends throughout the city that need to be flushed which will take approximately 30 days to complete. Mains and Services is also be planning the first cubing run in the Northeast section of the valley system • Sewer crews will be cleaning lines on the west hill. The TV truck will be inspecting LARC at Kent Station located at 1001 NE 1st Ave, 8 Lot Short Plat located at 10243 SE 208th St and Rainier Pond located at 248th and 124th. The tech crew will be changing actuators at Horseshoe Pump Station. • Storm crews will be working on winter prep on various bridges throughout the City. NPDES crews will be focusing on catch basin assessments near 38th and 253rd, 39th and 242nd, with vactor trucks pumping and cleaning out catch basins on 262nd and Woodland Way. The project crew will be making repairs on the Washington and James Street project; they will also be focusing on raising numerous lids and frames on 208th between 96th and 101st. • Radio crews are programming VHF radios for the trucks that haul sanders and plows and testing new modems for the Information Technology department that will go into new police vehicles. Fleet services continues their winter prep of vehicles by inspecting Page 7 of 2 sanders and plows, installing new programmed VHF radios into sanders and plow, and scheduled and non-scheduled general maintenance and repair. • Design o 224th St. Phase 2 – 30% design and right-of-way plans for the roadway are being prepared. The type, size and location study for replacement of the Garrison Creek bridge should be complete next week. o 228th/UPRR Grade Separation –Geo Engineers performed two additional borings and are revising the geofoam limits to reduce costs. o 132nd Ave. Pedestrian Improvements –Working with the Transportation and Economic Community Development Departments on the complete streets checklist. Preparing project management plan. o 277th Street Auburn Project – Reviewed the permit application from Auburn for installation of wetland fencing and requested revisions. o 228th Bikeway – Bike lane along south side of 228th between West Valley Highway and Interurban trail. Paperwork to obligate funds has been submitted to the WA State Dept. of Commerce. Final agreement being prepared with final execution pending acquisition of DWF property on 228th. o 212th at 72nd Ave. concrete intersection – Project scoping meeting was held on September 13. Working on an Public Information Plan and estimates. o East Valley Highway asphalt overlay project – 180th to 196th – Project scoping meeting was held on October 10. Overlay work to be done in 2018. Advance water main and sidewalk repairs will be done in 2017. • Survey o Construction Surveying on 228th Grade Separation and Kent Regional Trails; Topographic Mapping for Leber Back Channel As-Built and James and Russell Road Bike Path Design; Water Asset Mapping; Right of Way: 228th/224th E. Leg Phase II. • Construction o Central Ave S. Pavement Preservation and Utility Improvements: Expect intermittent daytime lane closures while the punch list and handrail work is taking place. o 72nd Ave Extension: Forming of the footing for the South bridge abutment is taking place. The concrete pour is scheduled to take place at the end of the week. o James St. Pump Station: The pump station is operational. Construction on two of the three equipment shelters is ongoing. We are moving forward on changes to the generator shelter roof in addition to the addition of a catwalk for access to the generator. Onsite drainage along the North property line is being added to the contract via change order and the work has proceeded. Offsite drainage and concrete work on Woodford is being added to the contract via change order has proceeded and expected to complete next week. Lane closures on James Street will intermittently take place for the duration of the project. o James Street Improvements – Watermain and Landscaping: Planting work has begun and will continue over the next several weeks. Lane closures and traffic shifts for this work and added irrigation and planting work from the current project limits to Central Ave will be ongoing for the following months. o Kent Regional Trails Connector: Re-grading of Interurban Trail to meet the new bridge grade and grading between the new bridge and 82nd Ave is on-going. Paving Page 8 of 2 is scheduled to take place this week (weather permitting). Electrical work for pedestrian crossings at 64th, 68th and 72nd has begun and will continue for the next several weeks requiring intermittent lane closures at each location. WSDOT’s Local Programs office had a document review audit for this project on Wednesday, October 12. o Mill Creek Side Channel / Leber Homestead Property: Repaving of S 262nd Street leading into the jobsite has been delayed due to scheduling issues with the paving contractor. Planting by City crews is ongoing. o Pacific Highway Median Planting Project: Planting in the islands will proceed this month. o 1st Avenue North Improvements – W. Smith Street to W. James Street: Final cleanup and road striping remain. o 1st Avenue South Drainage Improvements: Roadway and sidewalk restoration is ongoing through next week as weather permits. 1st Ave S is closed during work hours. o Armstrong Springs Generator: Testing, startup and training is complete. The catwalk has a conflict with a utility panel that will require revisions to the catwalk’s stairs on one side of the generator. Field revisions to the catwalk are ongoing. o S 228th Street. Grade Separation at UPRR – Pier 2: Pier 2 shaft installation is complete. Final testing on the installation is currently taking place. Roadway restoration and reinstalling and energizing power lines will take place over the end of this week and next. S 228th will be closed for this construction until October 21. o Briscoe Desimone Levee, Reach 1: Mowing of the project site in preparation for spraying and the forthcoming planting contract that is advertising for bid is complete. A separate contract for spraying this area is forthcoming. Work is expected to be scheduled this month pending the execution of the contract with the spray contractor. o S 212th Erosion Repairs: This project contract has been executed with Maroni Construction of Enumclaw, WA. The preconstruction meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, October 19. o 108th Ave SE & SE 208th St Intersection Improvements: This contract has been executed with Road Construction Northwest of Renton, WA. A date and time is not yet scheduled for this project. Design is working through the selection of a consultant to manage the construction of this federally funded project. o Traffic Signal Control System: WSDOT’s Local Programs office had a document review audit for this project on Wednesday, October 12. • Transportation o A Request For Proposal has been issued for the development of a conceptual plan and preliminary cost estimate for a roundabout at 4th and Willis Street. o Staff and Council member Ralph attended the SR509/SR167 Executive Committee Meeting and bus tour on October 13. o Testing for the vacant signal technician position has been completed and interviews will be scheduled soon. Page 9 of 2 o Staff is currently reviewing preliminary engineering plans for the Federal Way link extension, including two stations in Kent near 30th Ave S. and the Star Lake Park & Ride. • Environmental o Meeting with King County and FEMA staff regarding seclusion of a few levees on the left bank (looking downstream). FEMA will be making a decision shortly on which levees to seclude from their current mapping process. o Meeting with King County staff regarding Inter Local Agreement, Memorandum of Understanding and design issues on the Lower Russell Road Levee Project. o Continuing to prepare final draft of the new Kent Surface Water Design Manual. We are incorporating comments from various city departments into the draft. o Receiving final plans for the Meridian Valley Creek Erosion Repair and procuring bids to do that repair. o Coordinating with other jurisdictions on flood season preparations. o Continuing inspections of private utility systems to ensure they function for stormwater, fats, oils, greases and water supply cross-connection control. o Preparing 90% plans for Upper Mill Creek Dam improvements for review by other city sections. This project is scheduled for bidding in January and construction in 2017. # # # EXECUTIVE SESSION ACTION AFTER EXECUTIVE SESSION