Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Ordinance 3357
0006.900000 WSS/gjz 4/9/01 ORDINANCE NO.3357 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 15.05.000 RELATING TO THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN ORDER TO ADOPT THE EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2000-2005 (DATED APRIL 20, 2000) AS PART OF THE CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act RCW 36.70A.070(3) requires the City adopt a Comprehensive Plan which includes a Capital Facilities element; and WHEREAS, that element has incorporated the Edmonds School District's Capital Facilities Plan in ECDC 15.05.000; and WHEREAS, the Edmonds Planning Board has considered and made its recommendation regarding adoption of an update of the Edmonds School District Capital Facilities Plan 2000-2005 (Dated April 20, 2000) as part of the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, following public hearing, the Edmonds City Council deems it to be in the public interest and consistent with the provisions of its Comprehensive Plan to adopt said Capital Facilities element, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. ECDC 15.05.000 adopting the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Edmonds, Capital Facilities element, is hereby amended by the repeal of a prior adopted {WSS472394.D0C;1/00006.900000/} - 1 - Edmonds School District Capital Facilities Plan and the adoption in its place of the Edmonds School District Capital Facilities Plan 2000-2005 (Dated April 20, 2000), replacing thereby the prior Capital Facilities element of the School District. The Capital Facilities Plan shall be in the format set forth in the attached Exhibit A, which is incorporated by this reference as fully as if set forth herein. The Planning Manager is hereby authorized to incorporate said amendment into the City's Comprehensive Plan. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to provide a certified copy of such amendment and all other amendments of the City's Comprehensive Plan and development regulations that were adopted before July 31, 2001 to the County Assessor in Snohomish County. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: MA R GA6k HAAKENSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF T E CI ATT Y: BY W. SCOTT SNYDER FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: 04/13/2001 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: 04/17/2001 PUBLISHED: 04/22/2001 EFFECTIVE DATE: 04/27/2001 ORDINANCE NO. 3357 {WSS472394.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 2 - SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.3357 of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the 17th day of April, 2001, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. 3357. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 15.05.000 RELATING TO THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN ORDER TO ADOPT THE EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2000-2005 (DATED APRIL 20, 2000) AS PART OF THE CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT OF THE CITY' S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this 18th day of April, 2001. . / eAa,44, CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE {WSS472394.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 3 - EDMONDS SCHUDL DISTRICT CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2000-2005 April 2000 Exhibit. A if CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 15 SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS Larry Ehl Sally Fabro Judy Janes Mimi Terwilliger Dr. Bruce Williams SUPERINTENDENT Dr. Wayne Robertson Plan adopted by Board of Directors on J un c. A 0 a o For information on the Edmonds School District Capital Facilities Plan, contact Planning and Property Management at (425) 670-7334. n Section 1 -- Introduction......................................................................... 1 Purpose of the. Capital Facilities Plan ............................. 4 .................. 1 Overview of the Edmonds School District ........................................... 1 Planning Objectives ............................................... Section 2 -- Student Enrollment Trends and Projections.....II .............................. 3 HistoricTrends..............................:............................................ 3 Recent Trends - Student Enrollment .................................................. 3 Projected Student Enrollment 2000 - 2005.......................................... 3 Twenty -Year Student Enrollment Projection ........................................ 6 Section 3 -- District Educational Facility Standards ........................................ 8 Educational Facility Standards for Elementary Schools ........................... 9 Educational Facility Standards for Middle and High Schools .................... 9 Section 4 -- Capital Facilities Inventory ....................................................... 11 Schools..................................................................................... 11 Measures of Capacity ................................................................... 11 Inventory............................................ ............ .................:................... 12 Relocatable Classroom Facilities (Portables) ........................................ 16 Support Facilities......................................................................... 17 LandInventory........................................................................... 17 Undeveloped Sites.......................................:...................... 17 DevelopedSites................................................................. 18 Section 5 -- Projected Facility Needs......................................................... 19 Six -Year Facility Needs (through 2005):............................................ 19 Section 6 -- Planned Improvements ....................................... Construction Projects (Six -Year Plan) ................................................ 21 Temporary Classroom Facilities (Portables) ........................................ 22 Site Acquisition and Improvements.................................................... 22 Section 7 -- Capital Facilities Financing Plan ................................................ 23 General Obligation Bonds.............................................................. 23 StateMatch Funds....................................................................... 23 Developer Contribution................................................................. 24 Section8 -- Impact Fees......................................................................... 26 Section 9 -- Projected Facility Needs (Years 2005-2020) ............................... 27 Section 10 -- The Planning Process............................................................ 28 Bibliography....................................................................................... 29 Edmonds School District i Capital Facilities Plan 4 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 - Comparison of Student Enrollment Projections ................................ 5 Figure 2 - Map of School Facility Locations ................................................. 13 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 - Comparison of Student Enrollment Projections .................................. 5 Table 2 - Projected Student Enrollment by Grade Span .................................... 6 Table 3 - Year 2018 Projected Enrollment By Grade Span ................................ 7 Table 4 - Elementary School Capacity Inventory ............................................ 14 Table 5 - Middle School Capacity Inventory ................................................. 15 Table 6 - High School Capacity Inventory ................................................... 15 Table 7 - Relocatable Classroom Inventory .................................................. 16 Table 8 - Inventory of Support Facilities..................................................... 17 Table 9 - Inventory of Undeveloped Sites .................................................... 17 Table 10 - Inventory of Developed Sites ...................................................... 18. Table 11 - Projected Available Student Capacity ............................................ 19 ..................... Table 12 - Projected Housing Needs .......................................................... 20 Table 13 - Growth -Related Construction Projects ........................................... 21 Table 14 - Projected Available Student Capacity (with Added Capacity from Funded Construction)......................................................................22 Table 15 - Six -Year Finance Plan.............................................................. 26 Table 16 - Long -Range Projection of Unhoused Students for Year 2012..................27 Table 17 - Long -Range Projection of Unhoused Students for Year 2020..................27 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A - District Population and Enrollment Data Appendix B - School Facility Capacity Analysis and Land Inventory Appendix C - Snohomish County Code Title 26C Appendix D - Long Range Enrollment Forecast & Methodology Overview Appendix E - Capital Projects Scope of Work Edmonds School District ii Capital Facilities Plan Purpose of the Capital Facilities Plan This Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) is intended to provide the Edmonds School District (District), Snohomish County (County), other jurisdictions, and the community with a description of facilities which will be needed to accommodate projected student enrollment at acceptable levels of service over the next twenty years, and a more detailed schedule and financing program for capital improvements over the next six years (2000 - 2005). In accordance with the Growth Management Act (GMA), this CFP contains the following elements: • An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by the District, showing the locations and capacities of those facilities. • A forecast of the future needs for capital facilities owned and operated by the District. • The proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new capital facilities. • A six -year plan for financing capital facilities. Should probable funding fall short of meeting existing capital facility needs, the planning jurisdictions (i.e., Snohomish County; the cities of Edmonds, Lynnwood, Brier, and Mountlake Terrace; and the Town of Woodway) will cooperate with the District to reassess the land use element to ensure that the land use element, capital facilities plan element, and financing plan within the capital facilities plan element are coordinated and consistent. In addition to the CFP elements required by the GMA, Section 8 of this CFP addresses the development fees and mitigations. Overview of the Edmonds School District The District is the largest school district in the County, and the sixth largest of Washington's 297 public school systems. The District covers an area of 36 square miles and includes the Cities of Edmonds, Lynnwood, Brier and Mountlake Terrace, as well as the Town of Woodway and some unincorporated areas of southwest Snohomish County. The District currently serves a total student population (headcount, including Kindergarten) of 21,509 ,(as of October 4, 1999) with eighteen schools serving grades K-6, one school serving grades K-3, one school serving grades 4-6, four schools serving grades K-8, four schools serving grades 7-8, five schools serving grades 9-12, one resource center for grades K-12 home -schooled students, and one regional school for the handicapped. The typical grade configuration for schools in the District are as follows: the elementary schools primarily provide educational programs for students in kindergarten through grade six; middle schools serve grades seven and eight, and high schools offer educational programming for students in grades nine through twelve. The grade configuration has Edmonds School District 1 Capital Facilities Plan A changed over time in response to the desires of the community and needs of the educational program. These changes are made after processing with the community and approved by the Board of Directors. Snohomish County Department of Planning and Development Services reports that "slightly over one-half of the 20 year population forecasted for cities has been accommodated by cities during the first 7 years of the 1992-2012 GMA planning period."' Furthermore it is reported that, "Nearly half of the county's population growth has occurred in the Southwest county UGA alone. 112 The District has observed resulting demographic impacts to the educational system from this development and will continue to monitor the residential growth. Planning Objectives The objective of this CFP is to assess existing school facility capacities, forecast future facility needs within six -year and twenty-year planning horizons, and to articulate a facility and financing plan to address these needs. This CFP replaces and supersedes the District's 1998 Capital Facilities Plan. t Snohomish County Tomorrow - 1999 Growth Monitoring Report, Snohomish County Planning & Development Services, December 1999, pg. 1. 2 Snohomish County Tomorrow - 1999 Growth Monitoring Report, Snohomish County Planning & Development Services, December 1999, pg. 15. Edmonds School District • 2 Capital Facilities Plan Historic Trends Student enrollment (headcount) records dating back to 1973 were available from Snohomish County. Student enrollment in the District reached its highest levels during the late 1960s and early 1970s, with 26,120 students attending District schools in 1973. Enrollment declined steadily between 1974 and 1985, reaching its lowest level in 1985 at 16,315 students. Enrollment then increased steadily from 1987 through 1998, with current enrollment at 21,509 students (Headcount with Kindergarten as of October 4, 1999). Historical student enrollment data is provided in Appendix A. Recent Trends - Student Enrollment Future facility needs are determined in part by evaluating recent trends in student enrollment. For this evaluation, headcount enrollment numbers are used for grades 1 through 12; kindergarten enrollment is counted at one-half. Enrollment in grades K-6 decreased by 374 students between 1996 and 1999, a decrease of 3.15%. In grades 7-8 enrollment grew by a total- of 108 students, an increase of 3.35 % . Enrollment in grades 9- 12 grew by 603 students over the four-year period, an increase of 9.75%. Between 1996 and 1999, total District enrollment grew by 337 students, an increase of 1.65 % . See Appendix D for more information. Projected Student Enrollment 2000 - 2005 Enrollment projections are most accurate for the initial years of a forecast period. Moving further into the future, more assumptions about economic conditions and demographic trends in the area affect the projection. Monitoring birth rates in the County and other factors influencing population growth or decline for the area are essential yearly activities. The District uses two enrollment projection models — a more conservative model for staffing purposes and a less conservative model for long-range facility planning. In the event that enrollment growth slows, plans for new facilities can be delayed. It is much more difficult, however, to initiate new projects or speed projects up in the event enrollment growth exceeds the projections. The District uses a the more conservative model to forecast enrollment for grades 1 through 12 which utilizes a weighted cohort survival methodology and incorporates assumptions on demographic trends occurring within the District. In addition, future kindergarten enrollment projections are based on demographic factors, including birth statistics from five years prior. Using this model, a total enrollment is expected to decrease by 1,231 students by the year 2005, which is an decrease of 5.93% over existing .enrollment levels. The Edmonds School District long-range forecast is provided in Appendix A. Edmonds School District 3 Capital Facilities Plan Enrollment projections for each school district in the State of Washington are also generated by the Washington State Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction I (OSPI) using a six -year forecast period. OSPI uses the weighted cohort survival methodology to project student enrollment for grades 1 through 12. Kindergarten enrollment is projected using a linear regression analysis of actual kindergarten enrollment over the previous six years. This methodology assumes that enrollment trends, which have occurred over the previous six years, will likely continue through the next six years. OSPI updates these projections annually. Based on OSPI projections, enrollment in the District would be expected to decline by 1,175 students by the year 2005, a decrease of approximately 5.7 % over existing enrollment levels. The OSPI student enrollment projections by grade level for the six -year forecast period (2000 - 2005) are provided in Appendix A. A third forecast considers a population based enrollment projection using the current population forecast for school districts prepared by the Snohomish County Planning Department, and based on the current population forecasts made for Snohomish County by the Office of Fiscal Management (OFM). Based on the 1999 District general population estimate and on actual student enrollment figures at the beginning of the school year in 1999, 14.79% of the general population residing in the District are students enrolled in the Edmonds School District. This figure was applied to the District population forecast to derive total student enrollment for the years 2000-2005. Using this methodology, a total of 1,830 students are expected to be added to the District by the year 2005, an increase of approximately 8.81% over existing enrollment levels. The population forecast for the Edmonds School District together with the population based enrollment projections are provided in Appendix A. A comparison of the total enrollment projections derived using the three forecast methodologies discussed above is provided in Table 1. This CFP applies the County's allocation of planned urban and rural growth based on OFM's twenty-year projections in the formulation of a twenty-year planning horizon for long-term .capital facility needs. Based on the OFM projected population growth to be allocated by the County's comprehensive plan for the succeeding twenty-year period to the area served by the District, the District will serve the educational needs of its students by a combination of both existing facilities and additional new facilities. However, in formulating a six -year plan to address near -term capital facility needs, the District -generated 5.93 % decrease in student population growth is more accurate, and therefore, provides a better near -term planning tool. Thus, as its current six -year plan, the District has chosen to accommodate student enrollment needs indicated by the District's most current data. In doing so, the District has determined that should the County's higher projection of student enrollment increases (8.81 %) be realized in the near term, the District has sufficient flexibility within its six -year plan to advance the timing and implementation of necessary capital improvements. Similarly, should the OSPI lower projection of Edmonds School District 4 Capital Facilities Plan enrollment be realized, the District has the ability to defer improvements until such time as they are needed. The District would also revise this CFP as necessary, in order to more closely reflect school demographic trends. Table 1 Comparison of Student Enrollment Projections Edmonds School District 2000-2005 Actual Percent Change Change Projection 1999 * 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 99-05 99-05 OSPI 20,773 20,870 20,794 20,594 20,199 19,899 19,596 (1,175) (5.7%) Edmonds School District 20,773 20,605 20,363 20,168 19,853 19,637 19,540 (1,231) (5.9%) 1 Count /OFM 20,773 21,076 21,381 21,686 21,991 22,296 22,601 1,830 8.87, Source: OSPI, Edmonds School I)tstrtct, Snonomnsn t:ounty, respecuvety * Actual Student Enrollment (October 4, 1999) Kintergarten enrollment counted at one-half e Y E zs' Figure 1 Comparison of Student Enrollment Projections 23,500 23,000 22,500 22,000 21.500 21.000 20,500 20,000 19,500 19,000 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 4205 Actual Student Enrollment OSPI 6 Edmonds School District -.x -. Population Forcast Edmonds School District 5 Capital Facilities Plan As noted above, the District's enrollment projection will be used in implementation of near -term (six years) facility needs. Based on the District's model for the six -year period in question, student enrollment is projected to decrease by 749 students (-7.0%) at the elementary school level and 408 students at the middle school level (42.3 %). High school enrollment is projected to decrease by 74 students (-1.1 %) by the year 2005. Projected student enrollment by grade span based on the District's model is provided in Table 2. Table 2 Projected Student Enrollment by Grade Span Edmonds School District 2000-2005 Actual Projected (1) 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Grade Span Elementary (K-6) 10,653 10,369 10,100 9,949 9,799 9,851 9,903 Middle School (7-8) 3,330 3,248 3,257 3,185 3,163 3,042 2,922 High School (9-12) 6,790 6,989 7,008 7,034 6,892 6,745 6,716 Total 20,773 20,606 20,365 20,168 19,854 19,638 19,541 Source: Edmonds School District Long -Range Enrollment Forecast (1) Actual Student Enrollment (October 4, 1999) Twenty -Year Student Enrollment Projection Twenty-year student enrollment projections are useful for developing long-range comprehensive land use plans. These long-range enrollment projections are used by the District in determining its long-range (twenty-year) facility plan. The long-range plan also operates as a "check" on the six -year plan, and, therefore, is a means to ensure that this CFP is internally consistent, as well as ensuring this CFP's consistency with other elements of the local planning jurisdictions' comprehensive plans. Student enrollment projections for the year 2020 are based on the Snohomish County Planning Department's OFM twenty-year population projection. By holding the District's year 1999 student -to -population ratio of 14.79 % constant, a total enrollment of 27,407 students would be expected by the year 2020. This represents an increase of approximately 19.1 % over existing enrollment levels. By holding year 1999 student -to -population ratio constant, it is assumed that there would be no change in demographic trends within the District over the next twenty years. The total enrollment estimate, using OFM twenty-year population projections, was then broken down by grade span to evaluate long-term site acquisition needs for elementary, middle, and high school facilities. Enrollment by grade span was determined based on recent and projected enrollment trends at the elementary, middle and high school levels. Projected enrollment by grade span for the year 2020 is provided in Table 3. Edmonds School District 6 Capital Facilities Plan Table 3 Edmonds School District Year 2012 and 2020 Projected Enrollment By Grade Span Grade Span 2012 Projected Student 2020 Projected Student Enrollment Enrollment Elementary (K-6) 12,686 14,054 Middle School (7-8) 3,966 4,394 High School (9-12) 8,087 8,959 District Total (K-12) 24,739 27,407 The District enrollment projections summarized in this section will be used to evaluate future near -term and long-term school capacity needs. Analysis of future facility and capacity needs is provided in Sections 5 and 9 of this CFP. The District does not project beyond 6 years; the long-range forecast of facility needs is based upon the County's twenty-year population projection. The District's six -year facilities plan will be periodically reassessed, and revised as necessary, to maintain consistency with long-range projections of facility needs. s�' * zvYR tmRRru Edmonds SchoolDistrict 7 Capital Facilities Plan School facility and student capacity needs are dictated by the types and amounts of space required to accommodate the District's adopted educational program. The educational program standards which typically drive facility space needs include grade configuration, optimum facility size, class size, educational program offerings, as well as classroom utilization and scheduling requirements and use of relocatable classroom facilities (portables). Program factors, as well as government mandates and community expectations, affect how classroom space is used. The District's basic educational program is a fully integrated curriculum program offering instruction to meet Federal, State, and District mandates. In addition, the District's basic educational program is supplemented by special programs, such as music programs, computer labs, and preschool and day care programs that are developed in response to local community choices. Special programs require classroom space that can reduce the overall capacity of buildings. Some students, for example, leave their regular classroom for a short period of time to receive instruction in special programs. Newer schools within the District have been designed to accommodate most of these programs. Older schools, however, often require space modifications to accommodate special programs, and, in some circumstances, these modifications may reduce the classroom capacity and, therefore, the student capacity of these schools. Grade configurations have changed over time in response to desires from the community and to provide additional learning opportunities for students. New program offerings also continue to evolve in response to research. It is expected that changes will continue in both the type of educational program opportunities and grade clustering being offered by the District. The total curriculum program, including both the basic educational program and local - choice educational program, is hereafter referred to as the total local educational program. As discussed, this program may cause variations in student capacity between schools. The lower capacity numbers noted in the classroom utilization tables in Appendix B reflect implementation of the District's total local educational program. District educational program standards will undoubtedly change in the future as a result of changes in the program year, special programs, class sizes, grade span configurations, and use of new technology, as well as other physical aspects of the school facilities. The school capacity inventory will be reviewed periodically and adjusted for any changes to the educational program standards. These changes will also be reflected in future updates of this CFP. Edmonds School District 8 Capital Facilities Plan The District educational program standards as they relate to class size and facility design capacity are outlined below for the elementary, middle and high school grade levels. This CFP illustrates the program in this manner for the ease of the reader. As noted earlier, other grade configurations exist. Educational Facility Class Size and Design Capacity Standards For Elementary Schools • The District's standard class size for grades K-3 is 24 students; its standard for grades 4-6 is 28 students. • Some local -choice educational opportunities for students will be provided in self- contained classrooms designated as resource or program -specific classrooms (e.g., computer labs, music rooms, band rooms, remediation rooms, learning assistance programs). • Current design capacity for new elementary schools is 25 teaching stations with 21 assigned as K-6 or K-8 basic educational program classrooms and four designated as self-contained resource or program -specific classrooms. School capacity will vary between 500 and 550 students. • The actual capacity of individual schools may be lower than the design capacity depending on the total local educational program offered at each school. The application of these class size and capacity standards to the District' S current educational program causes average classroom utilization in individual schools to vary from 17 to 22 students. The District estimates that it would require approximately 25 classrooms to accommodate an enrollment of 500 to 550 elementary school students in new facilities. Educational Facility Class Size and Design Capacity Standards For Middle and High Schools Taking account of needs for scheduling student programs, specialized rooms for certain programs, and the need for teachers to have a work space during planning periods, it is not possible to achieve 100 % utilization of regular teaching stations. Based on the analysis of actual utilization of its existing secondary schools, the District can achieve a utilization rate of 83 % with a class size average of 26 students. It has achieved a utilization rate of 90% in the design of its newest secondary schools. This rate will be used in the planning of new secondary school facilities. Current design capacity for new middle schools is 800 students. However, actual capacity of individual schools may vary. Capacity may be lower than the design capacity depending on the total local educational program offered at each school and the size and configuration of older schools. Likewise, capacity may be higher than Edmonds School District 9 Capital Facilities Plan the design capacity based on the design of the District's educational program and ' the length of the educational day. , • Current design capacity for new high schools is 1,600 students. However, actual capacity of individual schools may vary. Capacity may be lower than the design capacity depending on the total local educational program offered at each school and the size and configuration of older schools. Likewise, capacity may be higher than the design capacity based on the design of the District's educational program and the length of the educational day. The application of these standards to the District's current local educational program causes classroom utilization in individual secondary schools to average 22 students. As an example, the District estimates it would require approximately 36 classrooms to accommodate an enrollment of 800 middle school students in new facilities. It would require approximately 73 classrooms to accommodate an enrollment of 1,600 high school students in new facilities. These facility design standards are applied in Section 5 to determine existing capacities and to determine future facility needs. iS��l"-�.` ., ... .,:—..._. 1„ ,ems ,,..., -,<.. .r �. Edmonds School District 10 Capital Facilities Plan . The purpose of the facilities inventory is to establish a baseline for determining what facilities will be required to accommodate future. demand (student enrollment) at acceptable or established levels of service. This section provides an inventory of capital facilities owned and operated by the District including schools, relocatable classrooms (portables), undeveloped land, and support facilities.. School facility capacity was inventoried based on the space required to accommodate the District's adopted educational program standards for class size and design capacity (see Section 3). A map showing locations of the District's developed educational facilities is provided as Figure 2. Schools The Edmonds School District currently operates: eighteen schools serving grades K-6; • four schools serving grades K-8; • one school serving grades K-3; • one school serving grades 4-6; • four schools serving grades 7-8; • five schools serving grades 9-12; and • one resource center for K-12 home -schooled students. Additionally, the District offers a regional school for the handicapped (Maplewood), which serves severely handicapped students aged 3 to 21 years. Measures of Capacity The OSPI, calculates school capacity by dividing gross square footage of a building by a standard square footage per student (e.g., 80 square feet per elementary student, 110 square feet per middle school student, and 140 square feet per high school student). This method is used by the State as a simple and uniform approach to determining school capacity for purposes of allocating available State Match Funds to school districts for new school construction. However, this method is not considered to be an accurate reflection of the actual capacity required to accommodate the adopted educational program of Edmonds or other Snohomish County school districts. This method does not take into consideration the capacity required to accommodate the District's educational facility standards discussed in the previous section. As a result, it is not a useful measure of capacity for the purposes of this plan. Edmonds School District 11 Capital Facilities Plan For this plan, school capacity was determined by applying the District's educational facility standards for class size and design capacity to individual schools. It is this capacity calculation that is used to establish the District's baseline capacity and determine future capacity needs based on projected student enrollment. Inventory The school facility inventory is summarized in Tables 4, 5 and 6. Edmonds School District 12 Capital Facilities Plan 3S'O"V 9 35'o^V V ADM uapoxo) • 3 3 NADM 41 Vl M'IdBI Y 0 M'a^V 9l ■■ ■ • r M'O"VBZI Z,>0014 111 ■ ■ M uv si ■ v3 • • CO • C'n C) � 3 oCl 0 x 3 o 4) �� 3 0 CA cc >,M U ¢C?u w � e Ca 6 C tA-A%b %O �O %0 I- 00 00 00 00 00 Peril dcS WA o- e RI Ja C ! C O Vf C i�f � Z S 6 N J Q ir1 • Peril uo�uo0 , � SAo Mum M W R ■ ■ ©namommus some"— N � m : �� 1A vq 91 MS'w 9Z ■ 9 ♦••� N N ® / — ♦ N fV 1 m M'o d �• B � a - N •• N i M'o^V VV • y� z MVLZs • • 3 • ■ • e N C • u i • a H M'a199 ■■■■■: •qw • C3, a V a - 3 ;. • •.�... �M A "a"-V VL_ 0 •• M anV 91 8 oP^�P�W •♦• • • M'a^V 09 • •• _ 8 B M'o^V VB � i M'e^V V9 • M'AV Beago i =. • • LA pwidow CA • e `r i ■■a o r W N'o"V 6 S'o"V 6 U O U o a� aai 3 3 3> O a+ °' p, C u G 3 22 orp t.2"a00od �sxe�E=ovcci v w t°.� °�U�E.,pyU3U�U,�tn0ZW UW v' yA%'ppp�-M-N--NNNNNNMMr�1MMenQ M'�^V VOl `` M'•g901 r •� 0 Table 4 Elementary School Capacity Inventory Site Year Built Size Bldg. Area or Last Total Student Elementary School (acres) (Sq. Ft.) Remodel Classrooms Capacity Alderwood (1) 8.9 36,869 1965 20 382 Beverly 9.1 47,641 1988 24 516 Brier 10.0 45,742 1989 25 510 Cedar Valley 8.5 36,837 1961 20 360 Cedar Way 9.4 55,140 1993 27 562 Chase Lake 10.3 36,837 1964 20 380 College Place 9.0 48,969 1968 25 460 Edmonds (2) 8.4 34,296 1966 20 398 Esperance (3) 3.3 43,473 1952 0 0 Evergreen 10.3 43,386 1969 20 412 Hazelwood 10.3 51,330 1987 26 494 Hilltop 9.8 50,926 1967 25 526 Lynndale 10.0 38,467 1989 20 414 Lynnwood 8.9 45,813 1962 25 530 Madrona(4) 26.9 84,856 1963 32 540 Maplewood (5) 7.4 56,475 1974 20 398 Martha Lake 10.0 50,737 1993 26 552 Meadowdale 9.1 36,837 1963 20 520 Melody Hill (6) 6.8 37,663 1958 0 0 Mountlake Terrace 8.0 39,868 1989 21 422 Oak Heights 9.4 50,099 1966 25 542 Old Woodway (7) 9.8 34,228 1955 0 0 Seaview 8.3 45,668 1997 22 448 Sherwood 13.6 43,283 1966 20 380 Spruce 8.9 41,968 1988 20 397 Terrace Park (8) 15.3 99,448 1958 35 762 Westgate 8.1 45,095 1989. 22 416 Woodway (9) 13.1 37,291 1962 20 390 Less grades 7-8 468) Sub Totals 580 11,243 Esperance C berschool Program 340 Grand Total 11,583 Source: Edmonds School District, OSPI Notes: (1) Transition school for Meadowdale program for 1999-2000 school year then transition for Maplewood Nongraded. (2) Formerly Olympic Elementary School. (3) Houses Cybershool K-12 Resource Center for home -schooled students. (4) Formerly Madrona Junior High School. (5) Current construction provides for program to occupy Alderwood Elementary school. (6) Long-term lease. . (7) Long-term lease. (8) Formerly Mountlake Terrace Junior High. Current construction provides for the Terrace Park program to occupy the former Woodway High for 2000-2001. (9) Formerly Snoline Elementary School. Edmonds School District 14 Capital Facilities Plan Table 5 Middle School Capacity Inventory Middle School Site Size (acres) Bldg Area (Sq. Ft.) Year Built or Last Remodel Total Classrooms Student Capacity Alderwood 19.3 93,691 1988 36 780 Brier Terrace 22.7 90,838 1969 37 801 College Place 18.7 89,505 1970 37 753 Meadowdale 20.7 114,892 1988 39 829 Grades 7&8 (1) 19 468 Esperance (2) 72 Totals 168 3,703 Source: Edmonds School District Notes: (1) Grades 7 and 8 housed in elementary schools. (2) Home -schooled middle school students housed at Cyberschool Resource Center. Table 6 High School Capacity Inventory (1) 0 High School Site Size (acres) Bldg. Area (Sq. Ft.) Year Built or Last Remodel Teaching Stations Student Capacity Edmonds- 28.5 218,000 1998 Woodway 1,794 Lynnwood 40.1 173,329 1971 52 1,259 Meadowdale 40.0 195,000 1998 * 1,600 Mountlake Terrace 33.2 215,016 1991 * 1,848 Former 39.0 149,520 1967 60 Woodway(1) Scriber Lake(2) 22.1 108,265 1954 * 350 Es erance (3) 179 Totals 7,031 Source: Edmonds School District Notes: * Current design capacity is 1600 students, Capacity may vary depending on educational program. (1) Capacity counted at elementary level for 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 school years. (2) Formerly Lynnwood Junior High. (3) Home -schooled high school students housed at Cyberschool Resource Center. A detailed school capacity analysis is provided in Appendix B. Edmonds School District 15 Capital Facilities Plan Relocatable Classroom Facilities (Portables) Relocatable classrooms (portables) do not serve as housing for students on a permanent basis. Therefore, these facilities are not included in the school capacity calculations provided in Tables 4 through 6. The District uses relocatable classroom facilities (portables) as classroom space to house students and programs on a temporary basis only. Portables are used to address a temporary imbalance between student demand for classroom space and its supply at any given location. For example, they are used to temporarily house students pending construction of permanent classrooms. The District currently uses twelve portables at various school sites throughout the District to provide for temporary transitional needs. A typical portable classroom has an average student capacity of 26 at the elementary school level and 28 at the secondary school level. Current use of portables throughout the District is summarized in Table 7. Table 7 Relocatable Classroom Inventory School Site Number of Portable Classrooms Less: Units to be Surplused Available Units Interim Student Capacity Provided College Place Elementary 2 2 0 0 Evergreen Elementary 1 1 0 0 Hilltop Elementary 2 1 1 26 Maplewood K-8 1 1 0 0 Oak Heights Elementary 1 1 0 0 Former Woodway High School 5 0 5 130 Totals 12 6 6 156 Source: Edmonds School District The portables at College Place, Evergreen, Hilltop (one unit), and Oak Heights elementary schools are older units that are at the end of their useful lives. They are not used to provide temporary capacity at the schools where they are located and will not be relocated to add temporary or transitional capacity at other locations. Accordingly, only six units are available to temporarily house students. Those units currently in service are used to provide temporary housing for special programs. The District has all the portables needed for temporary housing and has no plans to increase its inventory. Edmonds School District 16 Capital Facilities Plan Support Facilities In addition to schools, the District owns and operates additional facilities that provide operational support functions to the schools. An inventory of these facilities is provided in Table 8. Table 8 Inventory of Support Facilities Facility Name Building Area (Sq. Ft.) Site Size (Acres) Administration Center (ESC) 55,000 5.0 Maintenance/Transportation 44,878 9.1 Warehouse 9,600 3.4 District Stadium 7,068 6.0 Leased Warehouse space 11,680 N/A Leased Apartments (Work Adjustment) 7,260 N/A Leased Apartment (Lifeskills) 680 N/A Source: Edmonds School District Land Inventory Undeveloped Sites The District owns eight undeveloped parcels varying in size from 3.9 to 40.5 acres. Some: of these sites have physical characteristics that would make them difficult for school construction. An inventory of the undeveloped parcels (sites) owned by the District is summarized in Table 9. More detailed descriptions of the undeveloped sites are provided in Appendix B. Table 9 Inventory of Undeveloped Sites School District Site Description Site Size (Acres) Development Constraints/Environmental Issues Site 29 8.90 Site 28 9.50 Site 32 9.40 Site 6 (Middle School) 21.30 (Surplus) Site 7 (Middle School) 18.90 Demolition of Old Martha Lake Elementary, road improvements Site 86 (High School) 40.50 Stream Chase Lake Bog 7.50 Wetlands Old ESC Site 3.90 Located in Lynnwood Central Business District (surplus), Source: Edmonds School District Edmonds School District 17 Capital Facilities Plan Developed Sites Table 10 provides an inventory of District -owned sites that are currently developed for uses other than schools under long-term ground leases. Table 10 Inventory of Developed Sites Site Size Facility/Site (Acres) Development Constraints/Environmental Issues Meadowdale Playfields 21.00 Recreation Facility - Lynnwood, Edmonds, Snohomish County Civic Center Playfield 7.90 Recreation Facility - City of Edmonds Source: Edmonds School District OWNER,.OWN ys.6 Edmonds School District 18 Capital Facilities Plan Six -Year Facility Needs (through 2005) Projected available student capacity was derived by subtracting projected student enrollment for each of the six years in the forecast period from the existing 1999 school capacity. Available student capacity by grade span, based on capacity existing in 1999, is shown in Table 11. As described above, the District does not count portable classroom units in capacity calculations; therefore, temporary capacity provided by portables is not included (information on portables can be found in Table 7). Table 11 Projected Available Student Capacity (Based on 1999 Actual Capacity) Edmonds School District 2000 — 2005 Capacity Surplus or (Deficit) Grade Span 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Elementary 930 1,474 1,873 1,894 2,044 1,992 1,940 Middle School 373 455 446 518 540 661 781 High School 241 42 23 598 740 887 916 Source: Edmonds School District By the end of the six -year forecast period (the year 2005), no additional classroom capacity will be required. The District projects that it will have sufficient capacity at all grade span categories through the year 2005. Projected housing needs by grade span for each year in the six -year forecast period are provided in Table 12. Edmonds School District 19 Capital Facilities Plan Table 12 Projected Housing Needs Edmonds School District 1999-2005 Grade Span 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Elementary 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Middle School 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 High School 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 The District projects that it will have no unhoused students by the end of the forecast period (the year 2005). The District will not have to construct any additional classrooms. The District is fortunate to have available capacity and not require additional portables or other temporary housing for students. The District does have schools that are in need of rebuilding and remodel and can be expected to seek voter approval for capital construction funds in the future. h Edmonds School District 20 Capital Facilities Plan In 1998 voters approved Capital Construction funding for remodeling, rebuilding and renovating schools and building systems. The planning, design and construction to complete the promised and funded construction is in process. Discussed further below and attached as Appendix E is the 1998 Capital Construction scope of work. The majority of the capital construction work is focused upon remodeling, however, some additional student capacity is being constructed as part of the rebuilding of schools. Many of the District's schools need remodeling or renovation of the building systems. Funds beyond the 1998 voter approved Capital Construction dollars will be needed in order to continue to remodel and upgrade the schools. Construction Projects - (Six -Year Plan) The District has voter approved funding and is in the process of replacing and expanding two elementary schools (Meadowdale and Chase Lake) and two K-8 schools (Cedar Valley and Maplewood), remodel the regional school for the handicapped (Maplewood Center), and to replace one K-8 school (Terrace Park) currently housed at a former junior high- school site. Replacement of the Terrace Park site will reduce the current number of classrooms. Growth -related planned construction projects are summarized in Table 13. Table 13 Construction Projects Planned & Funded Estimated Student Estimated Completion. Capacity Project Project Date Change(1) Cost (1998 $) Meadowdale Elementary (replace with addition) 2000 130 $12.5 million Chase Lake Elementary (replace with addition) 2000 130 $12.75 million Cedar Valley K-8 (replace with addition) 2001 130 $13.0 million Maplewood K-8 (replace with addition) 2002 130 $15.25 million Terrace Park K-8 (replace with capacity deduction) 2002 (260) $16.5 million Total 260 $70.0 million (1) Based on District's Educational Facility Standards The primary source of funding for these construction projects will be proceeds from bond sales approved February 3, 1998, interest earnings, and from State matching funds. Upon completion of the planned and funded construction projects the District will have a surplus of capacity at the elementary, middle, and high school levels to house projected Edmonds School District 21 Capital facilities Plan student enrollment through the year 2005. Table 14 shows the projected available student capacity, including the additional capacity added by funded school construction projects, through the six -year forecast period. Table 14 Projected Available Student Capacity (With Added Capacity from Funded Construction) Edmonds School District 1999-2005 Grade Span 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Elementary 930 1,474 1,873 1,894 2,174 ' 1,992 1,940 Middle School 373 455 446 518 540 661 781 High School 241 42 23 598 740 887 916 Temporary Classroom Facilities (Portables) - (Six -Year Plan) Six serviceable portables are expected to be in use at school sites throughout the District, providing temporary capacity for approximately 156 students (i.e., to address transitional needs, not to provide permanent capacity). The District does not intend to purchase additional portables. Site Acquisition and Improvements The District currently owns enough school sites to accommodate student housing needs through the year 2005. Recent development patterns have shown a greater degree of residential development occurring within the north and east areas of the District. ? AI y '� �'a a �4t '� ,P".. . `"} � ����'GY' i ��ki"�g�� ,ff� a� ,nNr4.. _.�a';x Edmonds School District 22 Capital Facilities Plan Funding of school facilities is secured from a number of sources, with the major source being voter -approved bonds. Other sources may include State matching -funds, development fees and mitigations. Each of these funding sources is discussed in greater detail below. General Obligation Bonds Bonds are typically used to fund construction of new schools and other capital improvement projects. A 60% voter approval is required to pass a bond. Bonds are then retired through collection of property taxes. Voters in the District passed a capital improvement bond for $72.25 million in February 1998. The Capital Projects scope of work can be found in Appendix E, for additional and updated information see the District website (www.edmonds.wednet.edu/cpo). State Match Funds State Match Funds come .from the Common School Construction Fund. School districts may qualify for State matching funds for specific capital projects based on an eligibility system (currently undergoing revision by the State Board of Education). Eligible projects are then prioritized for allocation of available funding resources to school districts statewide based on seven prioritization categories. Funds are then disbursed to the districts based on a formula which calculates district assessed valuation per pupil relative to the whole State assessed valuation per pupil to establish the ratio of the total project cost to be paid by the State. The State contribution can range from less than half to more than seventy percent of the eligible project's cost.3 State match funds can only be applied to school construction projects. Site acquisition and improvements are not eligible to receive matching funds from the State. Because availability of State match funds has not been able to keep pace with the rapid enrollment growth occurring in many of Washington's school districts, matching funds from the State may not be received by a school district until two to three years after a school has been constructed. In such cases, the District must "front fund" a project. That is, the District must finance the complete project with local funds (the future State's share coming from funds allocated to future District projects). When the State share is finally disbursed (without accounting for escalation), the future District project is (partially) reimbursed. 3 Paving for Growth's Impacts - A Guide To Impact Fees, State of Washington Department of Community Development Growth Management Division, January 1992, Pg. 30. Edmonds School District 23 Capital 'Facilities Plan Developer Contribution Development impact fees authorized by the GMA, have recently been adopted by a number I of jurisdictions in the County as a means of supplementing other funding sources for construction of public facilities needed to accommodate new development. To date, Snohomish County is the only jurisdiction within the Edmonds School District to adopt an 1 impact fee ordinance. School impact fees are generally collected by the permitting agency at issuance of the building permit or certificates of occupancy. A discussion on impact fees is provided in Section 8. Schools are also eligible to receive developer contributions for impacts attributable to development by operation of other laws, such as the State Environmental Policy Act, and the Subdivision Act. The Six -Year Finance Plan shown on Table 15 demonstrates how the Edmonds School District intends to fund improvements to school facilities for the years 1999 through 2005. Edmonds School District 24 Capital Facilities Plan a OR v! a M O 111 111 ON1 pQ "•� O CD O iS V: chi etl o fA 609 69 fA 6N9 (, 6 09 �! 609 � .N.•i 69 O ^'� 69 69 00 y� '•+ C tR n q is 00 664s K 66e w 6019 K 49wl ONO h 8 S n N r h N CD O O Oo O O O y F" K 69 vi 6H 409 69 609 d9 6Ny 69 c o c o 0 c o y Go 69 69 C cd g O o o ew 2 40% O 69 69 M S o o o U c� w T N � 6� � �_ � o U, 64 6A n fA V U aN y 8 M o O M 00 p y 8 d, — 69 m 69 _v! W O g ON N p ..+ 69 69 W% 6~9 4n O N 69 N K 'LS t�0 ent0�1 M � �O �° O O CD d V ag v1 h v1 v1 0 O o 0 TJ N a � ^e N K fn 8 C� U L7o r N C1 � � � •L �p .�i to � {,� � � � d d � �-axx�c �g'g�°� a � •A W W W� j 00 tl0 00 C? T� �'" V° o T �� •a •a y > � � ed aacn i The County is currently the only local government within the District's jurisdictional boundaries that has adopted a GMA-based impact fee ordinance. The implementing ordinance is found at SCC Title 26C (see Appendix Q. Local city governments within the District's boundaries also have the ability to adopt their own approach to school impact fee assessment or to adopt an ordinance requiring compliance with the County's 26C criteria and incorporating the County -approved CFP by reference. Additionally, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) authorizes jurisdictions to require mitigation for impacts directly related to a proposed development. In the previous years, some impacts to schools resulting from new residential development have been mitigated through voluntary agreements negotiated on a case -by -case basis. The State subdivision code also addresses the need to provide appropriate provisions for schools (Chapter 58.17 RCV). The District does not presently anticipate collecting impact fees. The District will closely monitor development as it occurs and will actively seek appropriate developer contributions for impacts upon the District. Edmonds School District 26 Capital Facilities Plan By the year 2020, the District is expected to have unhoused students at all .grade levels. Current funded construction projects will not provide adequate capacity to house all of the projected high school students through the year 2020. A long-range projection of unhoused students is shown in Table 16 and 17 below. Table 16 Long -Range Projection of Unhoused Students for Year 2012 Grade Projected Enrollment Existing Capacity in Projected Unhoused Level Year 2012 Year 2005 Students Elementary 12,686 11,843 843 Middle School 3,966 3,703 263 ,High School 8,087 7,557 530 Total 24,739 23,103 1,636 Table 17 Long -Range Projection of Unhoused Students for Year 2020 Grade Projected Enrollment Existing Capacity in Projected Unhoused Level Year 2020 Year 2005 Students Elementary 14,054 11,843 2,211 Middle School 4,394 3,703 691 ,High School 8,959 7,557 1,402 Total 27,407 23,103 4,304 In order to house all of the projected unhoused students for 2020, the District would have to construct approximately 110 elementary classrooms, approximately 34 middle school classrooms, and approximately 70 additional high school classrooms. To provide for these facilities, the District would be required to purchase additional property for new elementary schools. The District should have adequate undeveloped sites for construction of a new .middle school and a new high school. The District does not project beyond 6 years and as noted above, the long-range forecast of facility needs is based upon the County's twenty-year population projection (see CFP at pages 6-7). The District's six -year facilities plan will be periodically reassessed, and revised as necessary, to maintain consistency with long-range projections of facility needs. r Edmonds School District 27 Capital Facilities Plan The process of delivering education within the District is not a static function. The educational program changes and adapts in response to the changing conditions within the learning community of the District. This CFP must be viewed as a work -in -progress that responds to the changing educational program and will assist in decision -making. The District monitors proposed new residential growth for impacts and implications to its facility planning and educational programs. Additionally, the District comments upon proposed new development working to ensure appropriate provisions for students are factored into a proposed development. Charges to the character of the District are noted as the Southwest UGA builds out and resulting issues of congestion and affordability occur. These changes may require the District to modify its facilities (i.e., the location, design, etc.) and its educational program (i.e., school year, grade configuration, etc.). changes would be made in consultation with the community and approved by the Board of Directors. The CFP records and documents how the District utilizes its educational facilities given current District enrollment configurations, educational program standards and locations, fixed capital facilities, and known capital funding sources. Using this information as a platform to look into the future, the CFP analyzes the implications of current variables upon future possibilities and arrives at directional conclusions and courses of action. 4 Edmonds School District 28 Capital Facilities Plan Pains For Growth's Impacts - A Guide To Impact Fees, State of Washington Department of Community Development Growth Management Division, January 1992. The Washington State Board of Education White Paper on School Construction, February 11, 1992. Capital Facilities Plan 1999-2004, Edmonds School District No. 15, November 1998. Snohomish County Tomorrow 1999 Growth Monitoring Report, Snohomish County Planning & Development Services, December 1999. Edmonds School District 29 Capital Facilities Plan Appendix A District Population and Enrollment Data Edmonds School District Capital Facilities Plan N 0po� m pry O� qN V ^mN N N Mq P O N N PP M O pp�� N P b pppp pppp �y en S �p .r. �pN �N O��p v�begi�0� �i1 vN1 .. env a riaN r Sao Oe m O N " Opp �D M r e0 r O "n P pp+p �pplvpV�Nf N�`O Ne0 Or- ',z � q �.� rrivaeri aDO f` r Q� �n m ..• ••en mm r4 eo w �o vvat� ��rQQ 10�°�$��355�.$.°8 bjiri Vry .. gg ggyy yy�� „ b .••� wi 'N �O vi ..�..NV+ aeNel a yN ���bNppp �aVp ENV �pp� e�� rt O� � N i r N 00 �r Obi O b N O eD ti � V1�^ ^ ^ ��Q•0�0O O1N'�I�n 00 f� L���pp vl N r ^NenN N`O e0 v1 �en 7[ y .eems� � ..: Ny N �pDp eO epryy evpyt ..p^p..en. ew�1 8 eVy1 eN.� �' �G � �T�f •w Nen NpNp eO �O v1 �P1 O, of R i^ g A O o'P0 r O� E h N v� � v„1 N �pq' ee�� pVp pp qy eq� �"qp' „ 00 •�-� a0 + en pp�j� N !f nn, p„p eel ��p�p �Npppp �Npp p^pp pM��1 pVppf eo�nf �e^sppjy NN�.V q ^ � p 1I1 dl ^�00 eN'Iao<I��aD I� V eel ei N 3d �p�N p eN�N 10�r Orein l�91 Oo� a ` 'A8!$$Q�tQ�tpp` I v�i<�i �fN Z � g a N b wi O f•i O fV IG n O O O R eIi IC fV r v r -• * W * tRtR* * * .R* * tR� perp.� IN+ N r allo n r IN•1 P 0 O f�11 V A PI O e0 r fT fV IC of fT N n1 V < N r lT � NOO INR� aOO .�• r Or r �n P� I.1 A V t0 O C O O IG Vf tV P e'1 N^ i 1V G C; N fV IG C < b ^ H1 ^ O r V ID O F OI O w^i r•1 VftR am0 V vet IO f�•1 .�..�. t11 of r b t•1 b r V N R Vf O bR tR tR Wt bR tR tR IR bR W tlt bR tR H N N .q• N f.i M O f•i ^ < V1 IC t•1 Vt f•l fV .: Vf V V iR tR IR W bR tRwt tR PIap�p pp� fV f? fV C a0 `O O O b tR .i�ppK O f•l IR IR p�Ip0t t1�!R 1R ftit1 tR W tR 1NfR� IppR INR IR N ID ao vi f4 es: NrroCa ld eara rofri ^ A r r Q C .� tV en fV .� q PI fV fIl 00 tR O as tR p bR O N e V tRpIR� .t.plt IR tR N pWppttR r, ID r b N C O P R fT OI N fV 4 q q ad tV C fV .; C ^r f•i fV ni A '; O P tR ��� a O hIR Wt O N Ot rygRry tR �tR Ntf.� N tR bR� IppR r N O h T O N T IO T OI tit ri r: IC.+C Ni qmN q C -C m r W a O tR* tR tR p * IR IR ORtlt tlt t fV tR 01 < O ^< r b O O r I'.1 AS �.� dfi-:AqC^C^CNC tR 1R 1R� IR tR tR bR tR IR * tR Wt 1R M�°$e"3IoOsaC2�-'o°a 89 S� C w1 v1 NiO 01O IV OCC r. r C?C? m etR IR IppR tR EyMR�rM tR!NfRy �t�RRp tyR�� OtRR� tR tR!ppR 1Wf.t� IR = V Vf Q /V A A% A OI R P N f�^ri A fV V; CC ei viC C ^ ifo.t� 1R !R !R !R 1R INfR.� * tR tRtR!R. W %R r 1�R 00 OI pMp 1trRR .�•<fN11� NOI ID�T Ob ar fY ftj MC^ Vf V1 V14 _: NIG IG ^ qfV IR aR I I I IR W IR IR IR .� p�p fy� fV W"V1 a 1 So %a A 9 ;z A fri v00i, a Pf 1Q co.4 r b -1 V q V1 IC OI C fV .� IN �ra��AStQ^G"-m=5ln r v� N f4 fi 66 vvii O vi f V C IG q V GO vi S, h IR a tR Vt M iR � Vi m IR IR Ian a lr�f o eZ eg as aal�i�r oon .: .q NCv"C d V46 f4 qPI h OI IR i� 9.aR1. IR tR IR IR 1R iR IR IR 1R * IR IR IR IR E. SNoffi�.�-9S',� 8&� fV fV fV � f f11 N f�1 IC COG ^ wi C fIl r YI � P fab OOI aD OIn �IOO h ION C «NYq�rs-�N.�Yoq -�eli $ r ° a R g o n q R § o g u% a« m � _ ® CZ, C %,O,� / n # E $.00 9 - ® cn t- e § .� K 2r-7k� � cl; @ � $ q # E J 2 - q�q�_ 2 � .3 en � en @ A § 2 k 2 0cn C � 7 0 \ 2 § ® � 1 � m It % key K eeeq m %�aA K /k� ikk 2 kkr4 k ktn en 00 ® RCD E7% K kkQ � bo 4n § J § % Go 2 OC7, 7�2�Aen 4§k33� §kKk ~eeR /00 k� . ®keR kk C4 eq— eq-00# Ema� §eq 0aa00 �C4§� CD @E�k _ C4 ��r.-I� � I MA ■ 0 � � m ■ � c $ °a 2 kk£k� 1 1 E z .W N N 0, Ul m m N N m h U1 lD It N N 1` a m N tD O C, m 0, N h O N O m r/ Ul h m " m m LD v G, 14 in m V' a to N O in %0 Ul r1 m 0, h a O N Ln a ri .i rl ri 11 rl r7 0 O, 11 .1 m ri r4 r1 11 h ' N a C O V m Ln r♦ %D O O O, d O 10 h ri h LD Ill O m m O, 90 N N m b r/ o O h .i m 0, m N m in 1D O 10 0, m " a -0 to Ill tD N LD Ln lD N m 0, h -0 O N m z ri ri ri rl 11 rl 4 O 0, .i rl m r1 r1 .i ri h O O, O W rl N r1 M E CJ Ll m O m %O N %D 01 %D ri O m .i O1 m h h 10 01 m 01 h Ln a m N O m Ch. . m W m V' a in 14 Ul Ln Ln h a h N h Pl LO %0 m %D m m 0, M w a, -0 m O m r1 hW O E4 ri rl r♦ ri .-1 r! rl o Di .-� rl 1+f rl ri r I ri t► o C W NM V tt W W N m O 10 a O, It .-1 h -CD 0, m N m m N .i• a m -0 O 0, O O O 0, LD N m m LD h V' wm m m AD OL 0, E tD m Ln Ln N in Ln h h O LD %D m m 0, h %D r� N Ul z H O .-1 r1 rl .-1' ri rl rl 0 ri ri m r1 r1 rl rf h ► 0, N N W a . 1 0 m m O m 10 O LD O ' m O h h N m 0, -0 m rl 0, ' ' a 1 V' Ul Ul m m h ,D O N h tD m m m m Q rl Ul h 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �7 ; ri r♦ ri rI +i rl ri C r1 ri m ri .i .i r1 h N N O ►7 1 - a 1 O a 0, m 0, ri Ln h m a, .-4 N m If w v h m .a O 1 o lD m rn m .`I V0 o, ri h o m rl %D %0 h Ln Ln o n z ' a Ln ul ul h LD 1D N 10 h lD m . m .-1 LD m O LD m W M ri rl ri ri .i .i ri r! O r7. .-1 m r♦ N r1 r1 h ri O N A a ea � m o m m, m rt m m o h v m W �91 ' Ln 0, h LD V .i m N In v v r1 • E a h O, O 0, .`, O m r1 LO h LD to ,11x a>a 01 cyl Ch m m U > D roi rO i .Oi -1 .0 .�-1 rO., . to i m PIJ 0$ $ N h N O m m In h It rl 0, O a Ln \D Ln O h ri >~ O O O 1 0, h N %0 O In h 01 m Ln LD LO in m r1 h LD cn z �' Lo m h lD LD 10 m Lo LD LD m o o, m N h a h a m E1, �••i ri ri ri ri ri ri � 0 rl ri ti Na ri ri ri ,O a Q N N w W O m O in m O, 14 U1 O, m m Ut a O, m h N V' r1 m m V W O, h 0, N m N m h m to %0 m 0, er LD h O, co � to O yL 02 an Ul h %O 1- %D LD %D m h h v h 0, m N W 9 rl N ri If .-1 rl r - C rl r1 m rl ri rl' rl b N z N O AA4v+' h N O LO -0 %D O .i a% m O N N h rl v N in V' M rl z at N rl 0, O m h r1 0, m O 10 LD O h h m m O, m 'z O in m w h lD lD h h O m 10 -0 m h to N b a, E x to rl .-1 .4 rl rl rl rl .-i rl ri ri ni ri rl .4 rl LO .-i O .. LC O rl ri N N z to ID Co m VF O N O m m N O N N Ul m m r- N �l O, O N O, -0 %D 1D m %0 h N 1V O N 1D m O m Ln a0 h h LD LD LD \D h m O LD LD N h h V' N d N a z O rl r/ rl ri .-I ri rl rl rl m r/ rl rl rl N 0.' N UI O, a w Ol Ol m m LO in m m N Ln 0, a at v O O � E to LD 0, LD .-1 ,0 a ,D 10 LD O h N LD r1 LD m h .i 10 rn . N LD .-1 h lD h LD O m .0 1V O, ID m W .•1 .-1 ri rl rl .-1 rl 14 .-I rl in rl .-1 ri rl � 0 C Q .0-,1 94 1 N 1 1 Vh N ' to N V. It 0, m• h V. m h h a0" m Ol O, m Q 1 O, Pf In t m h m m 0, T. m h 0 1n m r1 N N r1 • LD lD LD 10 h wLO w LD w h In Uf O .� a m N %a m Uf r1 ri rl ri .`i rl rl .-i O rl rl m rl rl r1 r1 kn O O, .i {�C4 N 0 i7 O r/ �m � to a�Vy' 94 N m -0In %D 'p 0\�. 9- m � 01 rf ri rNl , s z W 00 00 00 W W W x z Ol 00 M M � N a !V ' tv OC L4 n II � o e N C a h N ^ N $ m W .. ^ n O �O h N N 00 V Cl N V i4 N y bo X :' $ e QXp X X O N ti N N r• N w VI 8 fn N �p pppp ^ _ P1 ti O 00 C T T ,e rcr h x N C4CD N h in �O K1 C Z9. X w0 to C OR 00 N C• p N w0 to „Q„ Ai � G w.l x X �_. � N q X $ Q v $ OR N C N v 8 e C x p$o x S = pxppp a& xp e V N OR N ^ N C M oC N b v pa y8B m X ��pC O f�f �O OGN� S N N .Np O v1 ~ W O h y .Nr C 'i Q WW Epp. ao N e mQ p OmO� O� x O V c c x g !� s a aH f^�1 01 N Q w+ N N t��1 � .�+ Q wwd1 Q V1 C4 Q a w X X V %e N x X x X$ x a N M q $ N WTj C CI OO X x It X X X x oil. u �+ 5§E a a a p 0o0 ON N t- O N O h V f to r N V1 en N h V� O .-� a\ Q' M p N eM M d� et N erg 10 to 00 CN l � v O N CC O\ •-i . y �rj r i -i .-+ .-� (� N 00 V1 kD O to a\ O V r- %0 c to O 00 p N N M �D r+ CD O N �. 00 0\ 00 N 00 M �D CDy� O0 In 1O b V 1 \D N 00 O^ O N N a M M N IM r• M �--� 00 r b o0 O\ � N �O c p �D �D �O O r+ O� [� O� N M \O \D 00 O� m M 00 l �D M SO ON \O Cl O\ ^' .� M .--7 _ .--i --i t-:.i ON O N o0 O O1 •-4 •-- Or0 g O% M N M p O� CDO a\ �D N �D r- 't �D M M M N h to to �n �n 1n I �O %D M 00 O h t. %D _ M N r �D N O� O� N M M �--� tY O d N � '~ A M M O OO �D O �O j N O t� l� N 00 ON 4 M to l� �O M 00 ON 00 . r l; N (7A M O\ 4n l- I M� �+ N C1 00 ON O �D M O� 1n .-� O\ O M M �D �D [� �n �n :i p v I �n t �l^� M 00 �O M O 00 CC N .-r .--1 —4 .-a �--i .--i .~r .- rr M .� ry �--i .r l 1 N N O� to OR0 h — O\ O t- N 1.D CDun C\ O\ M �D �D en M �-+ r- O� �O �O �D \D NO M O OI N N I .fir O V1 00 O\ N O\ 00 M N et O� 00 l� N �+ 00 M O\ M h \0 cn ON * �D I- O� 00 M v'1 vq l�\D l-'D �D l'l-� l^O^tn N vy O\ 'D O _14 00 h 0000 \0 r-\0 b[ w O 000� 000 N OQ�\ %n O\ 00 n�D 00 00 O 00NNp O N O� �D 00 000 00 10 ONDNet -i1-; + .ter .~r � .� M .-r .r .--7 FINN N 00 � r�i ►�i d u O u � w PC tl f N M � n O! pp f0 o N o m n A pp tp o N 0 f p 10 pp 0 0 fD o 1n p O n A oo N �n tl l'Nf n o�$ N ua o f 0 tl 0 a I o Yf N tl tl A tl N 8 p N O r tl A 8 10 O O tl p tl O O tl N O 10 tl tl A N S tl Yf h tl N O O O Yf ^ N {� pl m f m h N f m {'7 A N A C! �/1 l7 pp tl to A Y A l7 O N In 0 Y IV10 O N A tl pp Y O A l7 %6 Y/ O o 10 f 0 W Y f A N N O Y N C W i a C m N OI N f A t0 tD PZ tl m O O ^ O O O N N f !! O N fO f0, ly b A 10 � �O N Pf Y f Uf Y l7 Y t0 Y MfN Y Y I Y 0 O O 8 g t0Iq F 8$ 8 8$ 8 8888$8g N N Y m i tl tl i !/ A lV tl N O) ' N m tl v U _ e W 10 O tl 8$ S O 10 S O N off Sl q $ O O N 10 Pf I S q O O q N r U. N C" N tl00 r �tfj7 a0 N InY tl tl ^ N N N A tl O Y {!f 10 O co OW IV g f f N 03 m p M a H f In N l7 0 to Nl tl Y tl {0'1 Y Y J C O O E ("i I 1� tl f O N v7 m W m tl m N tl Y n !/ N �O N tl W O N tl � f N ^ N N tl E fl NO f A tl tl m Y N tl) r �I � 1 f N P7 ED IR � m N q N W LL O tl f tl Y O O �► O O N N O O O Y O tl tl A O O 0 O A N O A O O A 17 O O tl f/ O O po N O O A ♦ O O A A O O N In O O O� � O O N O O A Y A O O O 10 O O �! Y n O tl N tl q O O 'f �O O 10 O tl O tl Y� Y O tl A I! f O O tl O O N tl tl N O w! tl O O O; A N a! O w f L C n V = O tl O tl N N O! tl A A O tl N tl tl Aft YOO O AN NO N V N tl tl 0O tltl Oal A bO O tltl O' YtltA OtlA mT l a i tl 0 m A A N A p iD Y A Y Y O r 1(f n n r tl 10 A m f AN A A O 10 N A h '?, a a Q v Q f O m t00 m A N r N �p m mm Pl n A O f N r r Y pp O A 0 N N 0 Yf � tl tl N tl O O Y pp N N m 01 A 0 � � tl tl Y tl tl A tl tl Atl tiO 1 0101 O Y1 O O Y W Nm tl � M �? A n A owA m m N O m f m m (O n O h N r • A O l07 N A f g 8 r !q N m q !07 aD 0 /7 O e {p ^^ A tl A tl O O) tl N N tl O tl Y O tl t7 A A tl m Pf ♦ tl N Y tl tl _ O O ^ �0 O n po N mm m !A9 O m 10 00 a A AA q O n p 10 A r n A A y� W N N INO JH 0 O ? Y A m N C l9 tl N f n fD 1ef r O O Ce b N f {� O n 1y0 0 N O 0 f r Vi U. W W O W V W lyy tO f� W j W W O O Z Qo O l` cd 1- mW a oQO d� W W Y J vg� 0': U Z R d�� O W ��� IMt 1 U 2 �J W + o �' O Wa� O CGRZ = m m U U U U U W 2 2} tWiJ y S u �� co N N a a 0 z E-E v a E+ A a 0 0 x U A z 0 ca w Appendix B School Facility Capacity Analysis and Land Inventory Edmonds School District Capital Facilities Plan V L' E3 N CO O O N O O aD N It CO `7 O O CO N N N OD O t- N t0 O CO � O p J a Cl) 00 CO CO DD CO 01 v O N e- O M O e� O a M O O O N 'd' ee�� CO M 0I M CO , d' O M CO d• O cc Cn O CO M O M w CM v r- �o W pU OW O d d d v v st lot 11 �l �7 O 7 v It et v q co a OU:.Q a C4 O Q rn Vr�-- o CCOO co O M — O N CO N � N O 'm 0� co MOOCO Ow F'U to CO v O O O d ONO co M M M m U X N 101 '� M O t` O N M O N O d M et tp O M N N 0 0) N O W U O N N N N �- M e- e- �- r- N M N �- m �C t0 N M Qp p CO !� v Go t0 N O co CO Go N CO M O t0 O t0 CV O M 00 1� O O N O — .- — CO O r- CA 1� .- et e- O CO — O O � _pa O � V �[ N N N N N N M N N N O M N N N N N N N 4 U N 3 O I-T 0 0 P O O O O CO toO O N M O N CO N p N O N N N O N O N to M N O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N HW U 00 m `0 O S W W T U' Q •� to l0 Ncc g Im om C Q C 9 C = •S N h m U m _ w W' _O S. 5"- o y n y 3 3 J u O a m tr3 cg 2 Co �� o � (a CL 20 2@ co mo w 2 00 2 V ¥ a Q o -0 2 E $ cm ��� > 2�f ~ /07 £ co � k A G$ e co r- CD co co c 2 v p C Q c k 2 $ $ q $ k d o 0 0— � � Co CO 04 � � e $ \ � ® (k Rco%Rco 4 CD - 2 U E k k a. w k .0E c# o# o m 04 �U-N7KKV)7\l�cc Cop — — — — 'D il g 0 to 2 @� I S E$ 0 2 0� ■ o E�C-4 CO CO o g 00� o �k2v----—� w 2 E a) &co ��c � 2of q a � f�\ �� i � CL k k R m p_ k 3 o\ ■ � � � \ © _0 $ o Rƒ ®®—_ D 2.1 e 13 k�kk�k � J � k 2c I k 3 - g - - S §$ e � § � J � � (D e 7 2 m s b E cc \ \ 0 Cl. 2 w 7 2 ch w EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT Undeveloped Land Elementary School Sites Site 28 General Location: Approximately 1.3 miles south of 160 Street Southwest and 0.4 miles north of Filbert Road, located near the intersection of North Road and 180 Street Southwest. Approximate Acres: 9.5 acres OPSI guidelines for 600-student elementary school: 11 acres The property is an irregular shape bounded by North Road to the east and 180 Street Southwest to the north. The site has approximately 330 feet of frontage on North Road and approximately 550 feet of frontage on 180 Street Southwest. Site 29 (Significant wetlands per District study) General Location: Approximately 0.6 miles north of 164"' Street Southwest, located near the intersection of 2nd Avenue West and 155"' Street Southwest, northeast of Martha Lake. Approximate Acres: 8.9 acres OPSI guidelines for 600-student elementary school: 11 acres The property is generally "L" shaped bounded by 155d' Street Southwest to the south and by 2"d Avenue West to the west. The site has approximately 150 feet of frontage on 155"' Street Southwest and approximately 300 feet of frontage on 2nd Avenue West. Site 32 General Location: Approximately 0.8 miles north of Beverly Elementary School, located near the intersection of 56th Avenue West and 156d' Street Southwest. Approximate Acres: 9.4 acres OPSI guidelines for 600-student elementary school: 11 acres The property is square shaped bounded by 56`h Avenue West to the west and by 1560' Street Southwest to the north. The site has approximately 638 feet of frontage on 5e Avenue West and approximately 660 feet of frontage on 156 h Street Southwest. Middle School Sites Site 6 (Significant wetlands per District study) General Location: Approximately 0.5 miles north of 168 h Street Southwest, and 486' Avenue West. Approximate Acres: 21.3 acres OPSI guidelines for 800-student middle school: 18 acres The property is square shaped bounded by 48d' Avenue West to the east; 160`i' Street Southwest is an undeveloped, platted street through the site. It is unlikely that the County will ever construct or vacate 160`h Street Southwest at its intersection with 51s` Place Southwest given the wetland nature of this area. There is a Type II barricade on 160`h Street Southwest at its intersection with 5 1 " Place Southwest. There are ten developed lots in Cedar Ponds subdivision on the 515` Place Southwest cul-de-sac. It is likely that these residents would oppose the extension of 160s' Street Southwest due to traffic concerns. Site 7 General Location: Near 1000 170t' Street Southwest. Approximate Acres: 18.9 acres OPSI guidelines for 800-student middle school: 18 acres This site is contiguous with, and west of, the Martha Lake Elementary School. It is bordered by 14t` Avenue West, a low -traffic dead-end road. Considerable road improvements would be expected if this site were to be developed. High School Sites Site 86 General Location: Near the intersection of 184t' Street Southwest and North Road. Approximate Acres: 40.5 acres OPSI guidelines for 1600-student high school: 26 acres The property is rectangular in shape and located immediate!X north of Site 28. It is bound by North Road to the east and 184a' Street Southwest to the south, with 180 and 181" Place Southwest dead -ending near the property boundary of North Road. Miscellaneous Property Administration Site (o1d.ESC) General Location: 3800 196h Street Southwest Approximate acres: 5.1 This site was vacated in 1991 by the Edmonds School District administration. It is bordered by 196`h Street Southwest to the north and 200d' Street Southwest to the south. This site is in the business center of the City of Lynnwood. Chase Lake Bog (Significant wetlands per District study) General Location: Near the intersection of 86"' Avenue West and 222°d Street Southwest. Approximate Acres: 7.5 acres OPSI guidelines for 600-student elementary school: 11 acres The property is,square in shape, bounded by 84`s Avenue West to the east. This site has a high-class wetland on -site. This site was formerly used as an outdoor laboratory for students. Snohomish County Parks Department has enhanced the wetlands/pond on the east side of 840' Avenue West. Developed Land Meadowdale Playfields Site General Location: Near the intersection of 66`h Avenue West and Meadowdale Road. Approximate acres: 21.0 This site has been developed into a sports complex cooperatively by the cities of Lynnwood and Edmonds and the Snohomish County Parks Department. Lighted softball fields, soccer fields, and picnic areas exists on site. Civic Center Playfield Stadium General Location: 6' Avenue South and Bell Street — downtown Edmonds Approximate acres: 7.9 This property is currently long-term leased to the City of Edmonds. Lighted playfields (track, sand football/soccer fields, and softball) exist on site. The City of Edmonds considers this site as part of its park and recreation facilities. Appendix C Snohomish County Code Title 26C Edmonds School District Capital facilities Plan Adopted 11/17/97 Effective Date: Sections 3 & 5 become effective on November 29, 1997 See Section 7 for effective date provisions for Sections 1, 2, 4, and 6 SNOHOMISH COUNTY COUNCIL SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON AMENDED ORDINANCE NO.97-095 AMENDING SNOHOMISH COUNTY CODE TITLE 26C RELATING TO THE SCHOOL IMPACT MITIGATION FEE PROGRAM WHEREAS, the State of Washington enacted the Growth Management Act in 1990 amending RCW 82.02 to authorize the collection of school impact fees on new development under specified conditions, including the adoption by the county of a GMA Comprehensive Plan as defined in RCW 36.70A; and WHEREAS, on February 15, 1991 the Snohomish County Council adopted ordinance No. 91-027 establishing a SEPA-based school mitigation program; and WHEREAS, the Snohomish County Council adopted a GMA Comprehensive Plan on June 28, 1995 that included a policy commitment to consider the adoption of a GMA-based school impact fee program (Goal CF 9 and Policy CF 9.A.3); and WHEREAS, the county and school districts conducted a joint capital facility planning project to develop school capital facility plans for each district in accordance with the requirements of RCW 36.70A and RCW 82.02.050, et seq., as well as a model impact fee ordinance; and WHEREAS, county staff has developed draft code amendments based upon the model ordinance which are designed to meet the conditions for impact fee programs in RCW 82.02.050, et seq.; and WHEREAS, county staff prepared an environmental checklist and issued a determination of nonsignificance on March 11, 1997 to comply with the requirements of SEPA; and WHEREAS, the Snohomish County Planning Commission held hearings on February 25, March 25, April 22, May 12, and June 24, 1997, on the draft code amendments; and WHEREAS, the Snohomish County Council held public hearings on November 5 and November 17, 1997 to consider the Planning Commission's recommendations; and WHEREAS, the Snohomish County Council considered the entire hearing record including the written and oral testimony submitted during the Planning Commission's hearings, the Planning Commission's recommendation, and the written and oral testimony submitted during the council hearings. AMENDED ORDINANCE No. 97-095 SCHOOL IMPACT FEES p.\data\winword6\wp\ord97095.doc4stm) Adopted 11/17/97 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED: Section 1. The name of Snohomish County Code Title 26C is AMENDED to read: TITLE 26C SCHOOL IMPACT FEES AND MITIGATION Section 2. The following new chapters are ADDED to Snohomish County Code Title 26C to read: Chapter 26C.20 GENERAL PROVISIONS Sections: 26C.20.010 Purposes. 26C.20.020 Applicability. 26C.20.010 Purposes. The purposes of this title are (1) to ensure that adequate school facilities are available to serve new growth and development; and (2) to require that new growth and development pay a proportionate share of the costs of new school facilities needed to serve new growth and development. 26C.20.020 Applicability. The terms of this title shall apply to all development for which a complete application for approval is submitted on or after the effective date of this chapter, except for development that was the subject of a prior SEPA threshold determination that provided for school mitigation under the terms of Title 26C SCC as codified prior to the effective date of this chapter. All building permit applications accepted by the department prior to the effective date of this chapter, or for development that was the subject of a prior SEPA threshold determination that included provisions for school mitigation under Title 26C SCC, shall be reviewed for all purposes allowed under state law, including environmental review pursuant to the Snohomish County environmental policy ordinance (SCEPO), Title 23 SCC, under the provisions of Title 26C SCC as codified prior to the effective date of this chapter, unless the developer, where allowed by state law, consents in writing to the application of the provisions of this chapter. Section 3. The following new chapters are ADDED to Snohomish County Code Title 26C to read: Chapter 26C.22 DEFINITIONS Sections: 26C.22.010 Words defined by RCW 82.02.090. AMENDED ORDINANCE No. 97-095 SCHOOL IMPACT FEES 2 p:\data\winword6\wp\ord97095.dx (stm) Adopted 11/17/97 26C.22.020 Other definitions. 26C.22.010 Words defined by RCW 82.02.090. Words used in this title and defined in RCW 82.02.090 shall have the same meaning assigned in RCW 82.02.090 unless a more specific definition is contained in SCC 26C.22.020. 26C.22.020 Other definitions. 1) Appendix F - means Appendix F of the Snohomish County Growth Management Act (GMA) Comprehensive Plan, also referred to as the General Policy Plan. 2) Average Assessed Value - means the district's average assessed value for each dwelling unit type. 3) Boeckh Index - means the current construction trade index of construction costs for each school type. 4) Capital Facilities - means school facilities identified in a school district's capital facilities plan and are "system improvements" as defined by the GMA as opposed to localized "project improvements." 5) Capital Facilities Plan - means a district's facilities plan adopted by its school board consisting of those elements required by Chapter 26C.24 SCC and meeting the requirements of the GMA. 6) Council - means the Snohomish County Council. 7) County - means Snohomish County. 8) Developer - means the proponent of a development activity, such as any person or entity who owns or holds purchase options or other development control over property for which development activity is proposed. 9) Development - means all subdivisions, short subdivisions, conditional or special use permits, binding site plan approvals, rezones accompanied by an official site plan, or building permits (including building permits for multi -family and duplex residential structures, and all similar uses) and other applications requiring land use permits or approval by Snohomish County. 10) Development Activity - means any residential construction or expansion of a building, structure or use of land, or any other change in use of a building, structure, or land that creates additional demand and need for school facilities, but excluding building permits for attached or detached accessory apartments, and remodeling or renovation permits which do not result in additional dwelling units. Also excluded from this definition is "Housing for Older Persons" as defined by 46 U.S.C. § 3607, when guaranteed by a restrictive covenant, and new single-family detached units constructed on legal lots created prior to May 1,1991. AMENDED ORDINANCE No. 97-095 SCHOOL IMPACT FEES 3 p.\data\winword6\wp1ord97095.doc (stm) Adopted 11/17/97 11) Development Approval - means any written authorization from the county which authorizes the commencement of a development activity. 12) Director - means the Director of the Snohomish County Department of Planning and Development Services, or the director's designee. 13) District - means a school district whose geographic boundaries include areas within Snohomish County. 14) District Property Tax Levy Rate - means the district's current capital property tax rate per thousand dollars of assessed value. 15) Dwelling Unit Type - means (1) single-family residences, (2) multi -family one -bedroom apartment or condominium units and (3) multi -family multiple -bedroom apartment or condominium units. 16) Encumbered - means school impact fees identified by the district to be committed as part of the funding for capital facilities for which the publicly funded share has been assured, development approvals have been sought or construction contracts have been let. 17) Estimated Facility Construction Cost - means the planned costs of new schools or the actual construction costs of schools of the same grade span recently constructed by the district, including on site and off -site improvement costs. If the district does not have this cost information available, construction costs of school facilities of the same or similar grade span within another district are acceptable. 18) Facility Design Capacity - means the number of students each school type is designed t accommodate, based on the district's standard of service as determined by the district. 19) Grade Span - means a category into which a district groups its grades of students (e.g., elementary, middle or junior high, and high school). 20) Growth Management Act / GMA - means the Growth Management Act, Chapter 17, Laws of the State of Washington of 1990, 1st Ex. Sess., as now in existence or as hereafter amended. 21) Interest Rate - means the current interest rate as stated in the Bond Buyer Twenty Bond General Obligation Bond Index. 22) Land Cost Per Acre - means the estimated average land acquisition cost per acre (in current dollars) based on recent site acquisition costs, comparisons of comparable site acquisition costs in other districts, or the average assessed value per acre of properties comparable to school sites located within the district. 23) Multi -Family Unit - means any residential dwelling unit that is not a single-family unit as defined by this ordinance. AMENDED ORDINANCE No. 97-095 SCHOOL IMPACT FEES p:WataWnwordt3lwpbrd97095.doc (stm) Adopted 11/17/97 24) Permanent Facilities - means school facilities of the district with a fixed foundation. 25) Relocatable Facilities - means factory -built structures, transportable in one or more sections, that are designed to be used as education spaces and are needed to prevent the overbuilding of school facilities, to meet the needs of service areas within a district, or to cover the gap between the time that families move into new residential developments and the date that construction is completed on permanent school facilities. 26) Relocatable Facilities Cost - means the total cost, based on actual costs incurred by the district, for purchasing and installing portable classrooms. 27) Relocatable Facilities Student Capacity - means the rated capacity for a typical portable classroom used for a specified grade span. 28) School Impact Fee - means a payment of money imposed upon development as a condition of development approval to pay for school facilities needed to serve new growth and development. The school impact fee does not include a reasonable permit fee, an application fee, the administrative fee for collecting and handling impact fees, or the cost of reviewing independent fee calculations. 29) Single -Family Unit - means any detached residential dwelling unit designed for occupancy by a single family or household. 30) Standard of Service - means the standard adopted by each.district which identifies the program year, the class size by grade span and taking into account the requirements of students with special needs, the number of classrooms, the types of facilities the district believes will best serve its student population, and other factors as identified in the district's capital facilities plan. The district's standard of service shall not be adjusted for any portion of the classrooms housed in relocatable facilities which are used as transitional facilities or from any specialized facilities housed in relocatable facilities. 31) State Match Percentage - means the proportion of funds that are provided to the district for specific capital projects from the state's Common School Construction Fund. These funds are disbursed based on a formula which calculates district assessed valuation per pupil relative to the whole state assessed valuation per pupil to establish the maximum percentage of the total project eligible to be paid by the state. 32) Student Factor (Student Generation Rate) - means the number of students of each grade span (elementary, middle/jr. high, high school) that a district determines are typically generated by different dwelling unit types within the district. Each school district will use a survey or statistically valid methodology to derive the specific "student generation rate, provided that the survey or methodology is approved by the Snohomish County Council as part of the adopted capital facilities plan for each school district. AMENDED ORDINANCE No. 97-095 SCHOOL IMPACT FEES 5 p.\data\winword6Mwp\Wd97095-doc (stm) Adopted 11/17/97 Chapter 26C.24 SCHOOL DISTRICT ELIGIBILITY FOR IMPACT FEES Sections: 26C.24.010 Capital facilities plan required. 26C.24.020 Expiration of district plans. 26C.24.030 Updating of district plans. 26C.24.010 Capital facilities plan required. Any district serving Snohomish County shall be eligible to receive school impact fees upon adoption by the council of a capital facilities plan for the district by reference as part of the capital facilities element of the county comprehensive plan. The plan shall meet the requirements of the GMA and Appendix F of the GMA Comprehensive Plan/General Policy Plan. These actions will also constitute adoption by the county of the schedule of school impact fees specified in such capital facilities plan. 26C.24.OZO Expiration of district plans. For purposes of school impact fee eligibility, a district's capital facilities plan shall expire two years from the date of its adoption by the council, or when an updated plan meeting the requirements of the GMA and of Appendix F is adopted by the council, whichever date first occurs. 26C.24.030 Updating of district plans. (1) A district's capital facilities plan shall be updated by the district and transmitted to the county by the district at least 60 days prior to its biennial expiration date. The district's updated plan shall be submitted by the department to the council for its consideration within forty-five (45) days of the department's receipt of complete and accurate information as required in Appendix F. In the event any district desires to amend its capital facilities plan prior to the biennial expiration date, the district may propose an amendment to be considered by the county pursuant to the procedures established by Appendix F, provided such amendments shall be considered by the county no more than once per year unless the board of directors of such district declares, and the county finds, that an emergency exists. (2) A district's updated capital facilities plan may include revised data for the fee calculation and a corresponding modification to the impact fee schedule, consistent with the county GMA Comprehensive Plan. Chapter 26C.26 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES Sections: 26C.26.010 Minimum requirements for district capital facilities plans. 26C.26.020 Department review and acceptance. 26C.26.030 Council adoption. AMENDED ORDINANCE No. 97-095 SCHOOL IMPACT FEES 6 p:ldataWnword6lwpbrd97095.doo (stm) Adopted 11/17/97 26C.26.040 Correction of deficiencies. 26C.26.050 Delays. 26C.26.010 Minimum requirements for district capital facilities plans. To be eligible for school impact fees, districts must submit capital facilities plans to the county pursuant to the procedure established by this chapter. Capital facilities plans shall contain data and analysis necessary and sufficient to meet the requirements of the GMA and Appendix F of the GMA Comprehensive Plan/General Policy Plan. The plans must provide sufficient detail to allow computation of school impact fees according to the formula contained in Table 1. Additional elements may be contained within a capital facilities plan, provided that any such additional elements are consistent with those mandatory elements outlined in Appendix F. 26C.26.020 Department review and acceptance. Upon receipt of a district's capital facilities plan (or amendment thereof) the department shall determine the following: 1) That the required plan contents and plan performance criteria outlined in Appendix F are reflected in the document. 2) That the analysis contained within the capital facilities plan is consistent with current data developed pursuant to the requirements of the GMA and Appendix F. 3) That any school impact fee proposed in the district's capital facilities plan has been calculated using the formula contained in Table 1 of this title. 4) That the capital facilities plan has been adopted by the district's board of directors. Upon finding that these requirements have been satisfied, the department shall transmit the capital facilities plan to the council for consideration and adoption. 26C.26.030 Council adoption. Following receipt from the department of a district's capital facilities plan or amendment thereof, the council shall consider adoption of said plan or amendment by reference as part of the capital facilities element of the county comprehensive plan. 26C.26.040 Correction of deficiencies. Prior to its adoption by the council, should the department find a district's capital facilities plan to be deficient in any way, the department shall notify the district of the deficiency, identifying the specific matters found to be deficient, and shall indicate the standard for correction. The district shall then have forty-five (45) days (or such longer period as may be necessaryto comply with applicable legal requirements) to correct the deficiencies and resubmit its revised, adopted capital facilities plan to the department. 26C.26.050 Delays. If a district fails to submit its biennial update of the capital facilities plan prior to 60 days before the expiration date, or if the department notifies a district of deficiencies in the district's proposed capital facilities plan and the district fails to correct identified deficiencies within forty-five (45) days (or such longer period as may be necessary to comply with applicable legal requirements), the department shall endeavor, but shall not be obligated, to complete review AMENDED ORDINANCE No. 97-095 SCHOOL IMPACT FEES 7 p.\data\winword6\wp\ord97095.doe (stm) Adopted 11/17/97 prior to the plan expiration date. If an updated capital facilities plan has not been adopted by the council prior to the existing plan's expiration date due to the district's failure to submit an updated plan, the district shall be ineligible to receive school impact fees until the updated plan has been adopted by the council. Section 4. The following new chapters are ADDED to Snohomish County Code Title 26C to read: Chapter 26C.28 SCHOOL IMPACT FEE Sections: 26C.28.010 Fee required. 26C.28.020 Impact fee schedule; exemptions. 26C.28.030 Service areas established. 26C.28.040 Impact fee limitations. 26C.28.050 Fee determination. 26C.28.070 Credit for in -kind contributions / existing lots. 26C.28.080 SEPA mitigation and other review. 26C.28.010 Fee required. (1) Each development activity, as a condition of approval, shall be subject to the school impact fee established pursuant to this title. The school impact fee shall be calculated in accordance with the formula established in Table 1 below. The school impact fee calculated in accordance with the formula established in Table 1 of this title shall then be multiplied by 0.5 to determine the school impact fee due and payable in accordance with Section 26C.30.010(1). Such school impact fee shall, however, be subject to the limitations of Sections 26C.28.010(2), (3), and (4) below. (2) The school impact fee amount calculated in accordance with Section 26C.28.010(1) shall not exceed the amount of $2000 per each single-family unit proposed for a given development activity. (3) The school impact fee amount calculated in accordance with Section 26C.28.010(1) shall not exceed the amount of $1500 per each multi -family unit proposed for a given development activity. (4) The school impact fee limitations set forth in Section 26C28.010(2) and (3) above(i.e., $2000 per single-family unit and $1500 per multi -family unit) shall be subject to annual adjustment to reflect the increase (if any) in the adjustment index for the adjustment year, as follows: AMENDED ORDINANCE No. 97-095 SCHOOL IMPACT FEES g p:\data\winword6\wp\ord97095.doc (stm) Adopted 11/17/97 . SCHOOL IMPACT X FEE LIMITATION ADJUSTMENT INDEX FOR ADJUSTMENT YEAR ADJUSTMENT INDEX FOR BASE YEAR ADJUSTED SCHOOLIMPACT FEE LIMITATION The "adjustment index for the adjustment year" shall be determined by reference to the Producer Price Index, Material Inputs to Construction Industries, New Construction. The "adjustment index for the base year" is 135.1 (May, 1997.) If for any reason the adjustment index referenced herein shall cease to exist, the Director shall determine a successor adjustment index. TABLE 1 Impact Fee Calculation Formula A. General The formula in this section provides the basis for the impact fee schedule for each district serving Snohomish County. District capital facilities plans shall include a calculation of its proposed impact fee schedule, by dwelling unit type, utilizing this formula. In addition, a detailed listing and description of the various data and factors needed to support the fee calculation is included herein and within Chapter 26C.22 SCC - Definitions. B. Determination of Projected School Capacity Needs Each district shall determine, as part of its capital facilities plan, projected school capacity needs for the current year and for not less than the succeeding five-year period. The capital facilities plan shall also include estimated capital costs for the additional capacity needs, and those costs provide the basis for the impact fee calculations set forth in this section. C. Cost Calculation by Element The fees shall be calculated on a "per dwelling unit" basis, by "dwelling unit type" as set forth below. Site Acquisition Cost Element {(B(2) x B(3)] = B(1)} x A(1) = Site Acquisition Cost Element Where: B(2) = Site Size (in acres, to the nearest 1/10th) AMENDED ORDINANCE No. 97-095 SCHOOL IMPACT FEES 9 p:\data\winword6\wp\ord97095.doc (strn) Adopted 11/17/97 B(3) = Land Cost (Per Acre, to the nearest dollar) B(1) = Facility Design Capacity [see SCC 26C.22.020] A(1) = Student Factor (for each dwelling unit type) [see SCC 26C.22.O201 The above calculation shall be made for each of the identified grade levels (e.g. elementary, middle, junior high and/or senior high). The totals shall then be added with the result being the "Total Site Acquisition Cost Element" for purposes of the final school impact fee calculation below. 2. School Construction Cost Element [C(1) _ B(1)] x A(1) = School Construction Cost Element Where: C(1) = Estimated Facility Construction Cost [see SCC 26C.22.020] B(1) = Facility Design Capacity A(1) = Student Factor (for each dwelling unit type) The above calculation shall be made for each of the identified grade levels (e.g. elementary, middle, junior high and/or senior high). The totals shall then be added and multiplied by the square footage of permanent facilities divided by the total square footage of school facilities, with the result being the "Total School Construction Cost Element" for purposes of the final school impact fee calculation below. 3. Relocatable Facilities (Portables) Cost Element [E(1) _ E(2)] x A(1) = Relocatable Facilities Cost Element Where: E(1) = Relocatable Facilities Cost E(2) = Relocatable Facilities Student Capacity [see SCC 26C.22.020] A(1) = Student Factor (for each dwelling unit type) The above calculation shall be made for each of the identified grade levels (e.g. elementary, middle, junior high and/or senior high). The totals shall then be added and multiplied by the square footage of relocatable facilities divided by the total square footage of school facilities, with the result being the "Total Relocatable facilities Cost Element" for purposes of the final school impact fee calculation below. AMENDED ORDINANCE No. 97-095 SCHOOL IMPACT FEES 10 p:\data\winword6\wp\ord97095.doc (stm) Adopted 11/17/97 D. Credits Against Cost Calculation --Mandatory The following monetary credits shall be deducted from the calculated cost elements defined above for purposes of calculating the final school impact fee below. 1. State Match Credit D(1) x D(3) x D(2) x A(1) = State Match Credit Where: D(1) = Boeckh Index [see SCC 26C.22.020] D(3) = Square footage of school space allowed per student, by grade span, by the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction D(2) = State Match Percentage [see SCC 26C.22.020] A(1) = Student Factor (for each dwelling unit type) The above calculation shall be made for each of the identified .grade levels (e.g. elementary, middle, junior high and/or senior high). The totals shall then be added with the result being the "Total State Match Credit" for purposes of the final school impact fee calculation below. 2. Tax Payment Credit x F(2)] x F(3)= Tax Credit F(1)(1+F(1))10 Where: F(1) = Interest Rate [see SCC 26C.22.020] F(2) = District Property Tax Levy Rate [see SCC 26C.22.020] F(3) = Average Assessed Value (for each dwelling unit type) [see SCC 26C.22.020] E. Adjustments Against Cost Calculation --Elective by District Recognizing that the availability of other sources of public funds varies among districts, each district may provide an additional credit against school impact fees which the district determines will provide the .best balance in system improvement funding within the district, between school impact fees and other sources of local public funds available to th AMENDED ORDINANCE No. 97-095 SCHOOL IMPACT fEES 'I 1 p:\data\winword6\wp\ord97095.doc (stm) Adopted 11/17/97 district. This adjustment may reduce, but may not increase, the school impact fee from the amount determined by application of the elements identified above. The adjustment, if any, applied by the district shall be specified within the capital facilities plan adopted by the county. F. Calculation of Total Impact Fee 1. The total school impact fee, per dwelling unit, assessed on a development activity shall be the sum of: minus the sum of: Total Site Acquisition Cost Element Total School Construction Cost Element Total Relocatable Facilities Cost Element Total State Match Credit Total Tax Payment Credit Electiye Adjustment by District expressed in Total Dollars per Dwelling Unit, by Dwelling Unit Type. 2. The total school impact fee obligation for each development activity pursuant to the school impact fee schedule of this ordinance shall be calculated as follows: Number of Dwelling Units, by Dwelling Unit Type multiplied by School Impact Fee for Each Dwelling Unit Type less the value of any in -kind contributions proposed by the developer and accepted by the school district, as provided in Chapter 26C.28 SCC. 26C.28.020 Impact fee schedule; exemptions. (1) The school impact fees specified in each district's capital facilities plan and adopted by the council shall constitute the county's schedule of school impact fees. The department shall, for the convenience of the public, keep available an information sheet summarizing the schedule of school impact fees applicable throughout the county. (2) The council may, on a case -by -case basis, grant exemptions to the application of the fee schedule for low-income housing that achieves broad public purposes as defined in Chapter 14.01.020 SCC and authorized by and in accordance with the conditions specified under RCW 82.02.060(2). To qualify for the exemption, the developer of such housing shall submit a petition to the director for consideration by the council prior to application for building permit. Conditions for such approvals shall be established by the council at the time of approval that, at AMENDED ORDINANCE No. 97-095 SCHOOL IMPACT FEES 12 p:\data\winword6\wpNord97095.doa (stm) Adopted 11/17/97 a minimum, meet the requirements of RCW 82.02.060(2) and which shall also include a requirement for a covenant to assure the project's continued use for low-income housing. The covenant entered into by and between the developer and the district shall be an obligation that runs with the land, and shall be recorded against the title of the real property upon which such housing is located in the real property records of Snohomish County. 26C.28.030 Service areas established. For purposes of calculating and imposing school impact fees for various land use categories per unit of development, the geographic boundary of each district constitutes a separate service area. 26C.28.040 Impact fee limitations. (1) School impact fees shall be imposed for district capital facilities that are reasonably related to the development under consideration, shall not exceed a proportionate share of the costs of. system improvements that are reasonably related to the development, and shall be used for system improvements that will reasonably benefit the new development. (2) School impact fees must be expended or encumbered for a permissible use within six years of receipt by the district. (3) To the extent permitted by law, school impact fees may be collected for capital facilities costs previously incurred to the extent that new growth and development will be served by the previously constructed capital facilities, provided that school impact fees shall not be imposed to make up for any existing system deficiencies. (4) A developer required to pay a fee pursuant to RCW 43.21C.060 for capital facilities shall not be required to pay a school impact fee pursuant to RCW 82.02.050 - .090 and this title for the same capital facilities. (5) A condition of eligibility shall be that a school district must provide documentation that it has petitioned every other local government (city and/or county) served by that district to establish a school impact fee or mitigation program. 26C.28.050 Fee determination. (1) At the time of development approval the county shall determine whether school impact fees will be due at the time of building permit issuance. Where such fees are due, the development approval shall state that the payment of school impact fees will be required prior to issuance of building permits. The amount of the fee due shall be based on the fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit application. Credit amounts and allocation of credits to be applied against the fees shall be determined at the time of development approval in accordance with SCC, 26C.28.070. (2) The final determination of a development activity's fee obligation under this chapter shall be made prior to the application for building permit. Said final determination shall include any credits for in -kind contributions provided under SCC 26C.28.070 below. Final determinations may be appealed pursuant to the procedures established in Chapter 26C.32 SCC. 26C.28.070 Credit for in -kind contributions / existing lots. (1) A developer may request, and the director may grant a credit against school impact fees otherwise due under this title for the value of any dedication of land, improvement to, or new construction of any capital facilities identified in the district's capital facilities plan provided by AMENDED ORDINANCE No. 97-095 SCHOOL IMPACT FEES 13 p: data\winword%wp\ord97095.doa (stm) Adopted 11/17/97 the developer. Such requests must be accompanied by supporting documentation of the estimated value of such in -kind contributions. All requests must be submitted to the department in writing prior to its determination of the impact fee obligation for the development activity. Each request for credit will be immediately forwarded to the affected school district for its evaluation. (2) Where a district determines that a development activity is eligible for a credit for a proposed in -kind contribution, it shall provide the department and the developer with a letter setting forth. the justification for and dollar amount of the credit, the legal description of any dedicated property, and a description of the development activity to which the credit may be applied. The value of any such credit may not exceed the impact fee obligation of the development activity in question. (3) Where there is agreement between the developer and the school district concerning the value of proposed in -kind contributions, their eligibility for a credit, and the amount of any credit, the director may 1) approve the request for credit and adjust the impact fee obligation accordingly, and 2) require that such contributions be made as a condition of development approval. Where there is disagreement between the developer and the school district regarding the value of in -kind contributions, however, the director may render a decision that can be appealed by either party pursuant to the procedures in Chapter 26C.32 SCC. (4) For any development subject to the provisions of this title that is sited on one or more legal lots created prior to May 1, 1991, a credit equal to the applicable impact fee for a single-family unit times the number of such pre-existing lots shall apply to the fee obligation of the development. (5) For subdivisions, PRDs and other large-scale developments where credits for in -kind contributions or pre-existing lots are proposed or required, it may be appropriate or necessary to establish the value of the credit on a per -unit basis as a part of the development approval. Such credit values will then be recorded as part of the plat or other instrument of approval and will be used in determining the fee obligation - if any - at the time of building permit application for the development activity. In the event that such credit value is greater than the impact fee in effect at the time of permit application, the fee obligation shall be considered satisfied, and the balance of the credit may be transferable to future developments by the applicant within the same school district by agreement with the school district. 26C.28.080 SEPA mitigation and other review. (1) The county shall review development proposals and development activity permits pursuant to all applicable state and local laws and regulations, including the State Environmental Policy Act (Chapter 43.21C RCW), the state subdivision law (Chapter 58.17 RCW), and the applicable sections of Snohomish County Code. Following such review, the county may condition or deny development approval as necessary or appropriate to mitigate or avoid significant adverse impacts to school services and facilities, to assure that appropriate provisions are made for schools, school grounds, and safe student walking conditions, and to ensure that development is compatible and consistent with each district's services, facilities and capital facilities plan. (2) Impact fees required by this title for development activity, together with compliance with development regulations and other mitigation measures offered or imposed at the time of development review and development activity review, shall constitute adequate mitigation for all of a development's specific adverse environmental impacts on the school system for the AMENDED ORDINANCE No. 97-095 SCHOOL IMPACT FEES 14 p:\data\winword6\wpbni97095.doc (stm) Adopted 11/17/97 purposes of Title 23 SCC. Nothing in this title prevents a determination of significance from being issued, the application of new or different development regulations, and/or requirements for additional environmental analysis, protection, and mitigation measures to the extent required by applicable law. Chapter 26C.30 IMPACT FEE ACCOUNTING Sections: 26C.30.010 Collection and transfer of fees. 26C.30.020 Use of funds. 26C.30.030 Refunds. 26C.30.040 Reimbursement for county administrative costs, legal expenses, and refund payments. 26C.30.010 Collection and transfer of fees. (1) School impact fees shall be due and payable to the county by the developer at the time of issuance of residential building permits for all development activities. (2) Districts eligible to receive school impact fees collected by the county shall establish an interest -bearing account separate from all other district accounts. The county shall deposit school impact fees in the appropriate district account within ten (10) days after receipt, and shall contemporaneously provide the receiving district with a notice of deposit. (3) Each district shall institute a procedure for the disposition of impact fees and providing for annual reporting to the county that demonstrates compliance with the requirements of RCW 82.02.070, and other applicable laws. 26C.30.020 Use of funds (1) School impact fees may be used by the district only for capital facilities that are reasonably related to the development for which they were assessed and may be expended only in conformance with the district's adopted capital facilities plan. (2) In the event that bonds or similar debt instruments are issued for the advance provision of capital facilities for which school impact fees may be expended, and where consistent with the provisions of the bond covenants and state law, school impact fees may be used to pay debt service on such bonds or similar debt instruments to the extent that the capital facilities provided are consistent with the requirements of this title. (3) The responsibility for assuring that school impact fees are used for authorized purposes .rests with the district receiving the school impact fees. All interest earned on a school impact fee account must be retained in the account and expended for the purpose or purposes for which the school impact fees were imposed, subject to the provisions of Section 26C.30.030 below. (4) Each district shall provide the county an annual report showing the source and the amount of school impact fees received by the district and the capital facilities financed in whole or in part with those school impact fees. AMENDED ORDINANCE No. 97-095 SCHOOL IMPACT FEES 15 p:\data\winword6\wp\ord97095.doc{stm) Adopted 11/17/97 26C.30.030 Refunds. (1) School impact fees not spent or encumbered within six years after they were collected shall - upon receipt of a proper and accurate claim - be refunded, together with interest, to the then current owner of the property. In determining whether school impact fees have been encumbered, impact fees shall be considered encumbered on a first in, first out basis. At least annually, the county, based on the annual report received from each district pursuant to SCC 26C.30.020(4), shall give notice to the last known address of potential claimants of any funds, if any, that it has collected that have not been spent or encumbered. The notice will state that any persons entitled to such refunds may make claims. (2) Refunds provided for under this section shall be paid only upon submission of a proper claim pursuant to county claim procedures. Such claims must be submitted to the director within one year of the date the right to claim the refund arises, or the date of notification provided for above, where applicable, whichever is later. 26C.30.040 Reimbursement for county administrative costs, legal expenses, and refund payments. Each participating school district shall enter into an agreement with Snohomish County for reimbursement of the actual administrative costs of assessing, collecting and handling fees for the district, any legal expenses and staff time associated with defense of this title against district -specific challenges, and payment of any refunds provided under Section 26C.30.030. The county will bill each participating district on a quarterly basis to cover the cost of staff time spent on administration of the impact fee program for the district, and other covered expenses incurred during the last quarter. Chapter 26C.32 ADJUSTMENTS; APPEALS; ARBITRATION Sections: 26C.32.010 Administrative adjustment of fee amount. 26C.32.020 Appeals of decisions - procedure. 26C.32.030 Arbitration of disputes. 26C.32.010 Administrative adjustment of fee amount. (1) Within 14 days of acceptance by the county of a building permit application a developer or school district may appeal to the director for an adjustment to the fees imposed by this title. The director may adjust the amount of the fee, in consideration of studies and data submitted by the developer and any affected district, if one of the following circumstances exists: a) it can be demonstrated that the school impact fee assessment was incorrectly calculated; b) unusual circumstances of the development activity demonstrate that application of the school impact fee to the development would be unfair or unjust; c) a credit for in -kind contributions by the developer, as provided for under SCC 26C.28.070 above, is warranted; or d) any other credit specified in RCW 82.02.060(1)(b) may be warranted. AMENDED ORDINANCE No. 97-095 SCHOOL IMPACT FEES 16 p:\data\vAnword6\wp\ord97095.doc (stm) Adopted 11/17/97 (2) To avoid delay pending resolution of the appeal, school impact fees may be paid under protest in order to obtain a development approval. (3) Failure to exhaust this administrative remedy shall preclude appeals of the school impact fee pursuant to SCC 26C.32.020 below. . 26C.32.020 Appeals of decisions - procedure. (1) Any person aggrieved by a decision applying an impact fee under this title to a development activity may appeal such decision to the hearing examiner pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 2.02 SCC. Where there is an administrative appeal process for the underlying development approval, appeals of an impact fee under this title must be combined with the administrative appeal for the underlying development approval. Where there is no administrative appeal for the permit, then appeals solely of the impact fee issue shall be subject to the provisions of SCC 2.02.125 and chapter 2.02 SCC. (2) At the hearing, the appellant shall have the burden of proof, which burden shall be met by a preponderance of the evidence. The impact fee may be modified upon a determination that it is proper to do so based on the application of the criteria contained in SCC 26C.32.010. Appeals shall be limited to application of the impact fee provisions to the specific development activity and the provisions of this title shall be presumed valid. (3) The decision of the hearing examiner pursuant to subsection shall be final and conclusive with an optional right of reconsideration as provided in SCC 2.02.167 and may then be reviewable by filing a land use petition in Snohomish County superior court as provided in.. Chapter 2.02 SCC; except as may be limited by Chapters 43.21C RCW, 197-11 WAC and 23.40 SCC. 26C.32.030 Arbitration of disputes. With the consent of the developer and the affected district, a dispute regarding imposition or calculation of a school impact fee may be resolved by arbitration. Section 5. Snohomish County Code Chapter 26C.11 adopted by Ordinance No. 91-027, on February 27, 1991, is AMENDED to read: Chapter 26C.((44)) 34 SEVERABILITY AND SAVINGS. Sections: 26C. ((44)) 34. ((04.0)) 020 (( )) Savings clause. 26C. ((44)) M. 014)) 020 ((Sever)) Savings clause. ((U-my pr-evisien ef this title er- its applie-4-i en to aRy Pose— - itease is hold to be, .)) In the event that this title is determined to be invalid in whole or in partthe provisions of Title 26C SCC in effect immediately prior to the effective date of this ordinance shall be revived and applied in addition to any surviving provisions of this ordinance, AMENDED ORDINANCE No. 97-095 SCHOOL IMPACT FEES 17 p:\data\winword6\wp\ord97095.doc (stm) Adopted 11/17/97 except that in the event of a conflict, the surviving provisions of this ordinance shall apply instead of the conflicting provisions of Title 26C SCC in effect immediately prior and these conflicting provisions shall not be revived. Section 6. The following chapters of Snohomish County Code Title 26C, adopted by Ordinance No. 91-027 on February 27, 1991, and amended by Ordinance Nos. 91-117 (July 31, 1991), 92-053 (May 6, 1992), 94-029 (April 6, 1994), 95-004 (February 15, 1995), and 97-047 (June 4, 1997), are REPEALED, in their entirety: Chapter 26C.01 (GENERAL PROVISIONS), Chapter 26.03 (DEFINITIONS), Chapter 26C.05 (SCHOOL DISTRICT CERTIFICATION), Chapter 26C.07 (METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURE), including Appendix 1, and 26C.09 (APPEALS). Section 7. Effective dates. Sections 3 and 5 of this ordinance shall be effective as set forth in Snohomish .County Charter Section 2.110. Sections 1,2,4 and 6 of this ordinance shall be effective on the effective date of the initial ordinance adopting any school district capital. facility plans as part of the county's GMA comprehensive plan. Passed this 17th day of November, 1997. . ATTEST: Sheila McCallister Asst. Clerk of the Council (X ) APPROVED () VETOED () EMERGENCY APPROVED AS TO FORM ONLY: Gordon Sively Deputy Prosecuting Attorney SNOHOMISH COUNTY COUNCIL Snohomish County, Washington John Garner Chair Date: November 19, 1997 Robert Drewel County Executive ATTEST: Marilyn Abel AMENDED ORDINANCE No. 97-095 SCHOOL IMPACT FEES p:\data\winword6Xwp1ord97095.doe (stm) Adopted 11/17/97 18 al Policy Plan Appendix F APPENDIX F REVIEW CRITERIA FOR SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANS Required Plan Contents 1. Future Enrollment Forecasts by Grade Span, including. - a 6-year forecast (or more) to support the financing program; - a 20-year forecast to match the land use element of the county's comprehensive plan; and - a description of the forecasting methodology and justification for its consistency with OFM population forecasts used in the county's comprehensive plan. 2. Inventory of Existing Facilities, including: - the location and capacity of existing schools; - a description of educational standards and programs that action needsct , capacity, qu r y,su such a facilities, classroom size, school size, use of portables, special etc.; - the location and size of all district -owned or leased sites and properties; - a description of leased facilities (if any), including their location, site size, capacity, the remaining term of leases, etc.; - a description of support facilities, such as administrative centers, transportation and maintenance yards and facilities, etc.; and - information on portables, including numbers, locations, remaining useful life (as appropriate to educational standards), etc. 3. Forecast of Future Facility Needs, including: - identification of new schools and/or school additions needed to address existing deficiencies and to meet demands of projected growth over the next 20 years; - the number of additional portable classrooms needed; and - other school and support facility needs. 4. Forecast of Future Site Needs, including: - the number, size, and general location of needed new school sites; and - other facility site needs (transportation, administration, etc.). 5. Financing Program (6-year minimum Planning Horizon) - estimated cost of specific construction and site acquisition and development projects proposed to address growth -related needs; - projected schedule for completion of these projects; - proposed sources of funding, including impact fees (if proposed), local bond issues (both approved and proposed), and state matching funds. 6. Impact Fee Support Data (where applicable), including: - an explanation of the calculation methodology, including description of key variables and their computation; - definitions and sources of data for all inputs into the fee calculation, indicating that it: a) is accurate and reliable and that any sample data is statistically valid; b) accurately reflects projected costs in the 6-year financing program; and - a proposed fee schedule that reflects expected student generation rates from, at minimum, the following residential unit types: single-family, multi -family / studio or 1-bedroom, and multi- family / 2-bedroom or more General Policy Plan Appendix F Plan Performance Criteria 1. School facility plans must meet the basic requirements set down in RCW 36.70A (the Growth Management Act). Districts proposing to use impact fees as a part of their financing program must also meet the requirements of RCW 82.02. 2. Where proposed, impact fees must utilize a calculation methodology that meets the conditions and tests of RCW 82.02. 3. Enrollment forecasts should utilize established methods and should produce results which are not inconsistent with the OFM population forecasts used in the county comprehensive plan. 4. The financing plan should separate projects and portions of projects which add capacity from those which do not, since the latter are generally not appropriate for impact fee funding. The financing plan and/or the impact fee calculation formula must also differentiate between projects or portions of projects which address existing deficiencies (ineligible for impact fees) and those which address future growth -related needs. 5. Plans should use best -available information from recognized sources, such as the U.S. Census or the Puget Sound Regional Council. District -generated data may be used if it is derived through statistically reliable methodologies. 6. Districts which propose the use of impact fees should identify in future plan updates alternative funding sources in the event that impact fees are not available due to action by the state, county or the cities within their district boundaries. 7. Repealed effective January 2, 2000. Plan Review Procedures 1. District capital facility plan updates should be submitted to the County Planning and Development Services Department for review prior to formal adoption by the school district. 2. Each school district planning to expand its school capacity must submit .to the county an updated capital facilities plan at least every 2 years. Proposed increases in impact fees must be submitted as part of an update to the capital facilities plan, and will be considered no more frequently than once a year. 3. Each school district will be responsible for conducting any required SEPA reviews on its capital facilities plan prior to its adoption, in accordance with state statutes and regulations. l�o 4. District plans and plan updates must be submitted no later than bq calendar days prior to their desired effective date. (For example, if a district requires it's updated plan to take effect on January 1, 1997 in order to meet the minimum updating requirement of item 2. above, it must formally submit that plan no later than October 30, 1996.) 5. District plans and plan updates must include a.resolution or motion from the district school board adopting the plan before it will become effective. Appendix D Long Range Enrollment Forecast & Methodology Overview Edmonds School District Capital Facilities Plan 88 4-j. U N "-' O Cd O b�j cd U a--+ O os > 4 a� ' 3 o c� -, Cd cd C>,3 P., Ul Cd . o U bA �► U 0C14 CA En �• � a� t bA O N W ,� O �-, Q. conH 3 �� -° o o En cd b co � -4-j cd '�.b r, cd O in .0 U -4 N N v) Q,, O =.., p �U-+ 'gyp U vOi � O O ''' N 1,4 v O 4--+ p � O O U O c p 'O � 5 O �' U ►-4 V1 O O Cd v O U -4-) $-(o 0 N .0 0 °o 4 v o •T--4 24 o u 0 Cd�, O o v o Cd o � t° o Cd Cd aA cn rn crs Cd tb 4J 0, 0 b) �., �i Cd Cd a� O �.' ,�,,, • W Cd Cd v N O C 4Cd U v� r--► o � .. 00 a� Cd 0 Gn cd O N ►�+ O V� U Cdto ' �+ cis ✓ • -4 O 1-4 cd Cd .� .� >Cd �-1 U ° r Cd � �� O P-4 cd ° ;-4 ►� d O � Cd Cd � � 5 ¢'' O � � O �--1 ;••i N78 U O O 0 v C7 044% to Cd c� Cd cn rA Cd C.� 4� O 4� Cd 4� U N � � O 4 Cd cd . cd Cd Cd O � � U � U U U � U O � W 5 U N 0 Q 0 `J O O O ;--� r--A • �""� 4 I U cn O C� Cd O Cd y .O Cd ' ..., U) y O po34 U � U O Q, t ..-� cd O cd � N N � v 'C O O U .� O O �.+ •vim`-']. 'd U C; 3 En r-' U U 0 34 'd s-� U O b�4 O O cn .[-,4 O .� U O .CA i � .:; O 0 U O p � I I Z I z I I I I I I O z cc LL O t_ CD 0 � rn C t O V O 1.1. r C ..J O U- C L- W a� C C vi n to M n to W CD tp CO tOt 0)O n CO T NOM Um, ntn NMCO is 0 r' n to to to CO co co CO to O N to N O "tp, M 0 N r J p r r �- r N r 0 C; t0 M C6 N C a OOr V— r C w rn m> r cLi Z � � N o.�omconton°�oco's�Wa�tn m Eta N NS 1 d, pQ o>3E�3i3E�3E��ee�3@p��tr� . O V r��N�^to�o��O,�W�Co �m �► = N� NO CS CS CNr tC�� �Z m CD Cl)r+ t4 Wp gE oe oe gE 02 aE $E oe ?� 3� � �' T = W `td N N M n N O O O n O a n p C> a 0 `>N W0to Mtoto O4om K>a0W0 C W C Q� IV; 01 0l 01 Q W O CCCQ777 v + G C L o W? Y rN(n 1*toco nco0 ��� � .+ t�..i NCeO NtroOfr` �O��r e�rtroMCO O OtO WOWO o�wN c 9C, oV Y r N CO et to tO n C0 0� � � �;E3'SE�o 0 02,�'lop_ ICIRa2 LO OOCo �trN P twm WNW .W. � CV CV C 6 rz L6 06 L6 C; e= M th r r r r r P r F n O M N N N n W O W O f O C O T t0ON LOOM TON toNr t0 ' CA CO to to st M et to I CO O t0 Wh Q 0 v T r T T T T r r r T r o per, r nnn nOM n0 O r N N M CO totna0 M CDN CO Lq t OWO C'J O r T T r T r r r N r r O a ..O to O r N Ln � C, to p M CO CO CM nrM tONO vTto MrCO '.v_ to to W to CO O CO M r r r r r r T T T T N r o .a N MtoO MAN to00 COOWO WO to n CO O t0 O w WO r N M Ct Min Est tnvWO tptnco N r r CV D: 0 0 - :p WOVW NMN ICON ton 9 O.Oto V) times v NN N ,' 1- n It It tO to CO 10 CO to CO r f` N c ;a m=P w e-.0- "Or N 0 N ci t0 N o cor Wri WO 3� 1 m m m In �Wl O CO M Ln m o ° O n M aW Q IO O At O O N O n t'� ��CVir i w a �x � x d t Q N a � v .Oi J2 O a x � �? e Iri N Er O � O N t O\ H N Z 00 e O �O Appendix E Capital Projects Scope of Work Edmonds School District Capital Facilities Plan 0 Z OM CO co e W N o CL M O cc a a N 0 4 U d O C r�i► v N ° c V 0 0 t0 0 c'D � y U. Im Z� N > E o C C N p p N :. O Q A m c s v> N a M Lei a > a. r 0 0 E -0 v LL c1 o f . C 01 E! IM a Of a E d 0 j_ N a a0' I � N C.0ed o OI 01 rnm°' p Of C t) E=°o io 0 JIL p w 41 E CH2 r o p d WLLmOx2wu.5oj d� ti Q. 0 r+ m 41 �+ 0>,ain O O O O 0 0 0 p o O 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 N N 0 WA tt> P O O N M N N �tiIww �% M r r r. r r W 44 w (01 /1 O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O R C)0 C F Le LO 11% 40 C CD Q CD C CD L CD C Y/ o C7 V- !- r � n- T- 4* co V/ 40 4a w 40), 4OD- c to V dl c C m � € V d 0 o o m m a Z $ O wa 0 E 0 te aN N N o ix o Z c 0 0 0 0 0 E E N N N W W Y Y Y Y a o 0 cc 0 z z z z z J a eJ 0. it o m m O �° Y 3 V •. •- G 0WEEZ �O ymea-� ai ° tea' a m a c� a Ci OL W Z m01 CL c_�, c C > C 14 ro LL to LR E r W c y io J N c m 3 C 0 E m m co c a_ � Ic m co Document Page 1 REVISED CODE of WASHINGTON Title 36 RCW COUNTIES Chapter 36.70A RCW GROWTH MANAGEMENT— PLANNING BY SELECTED COUNTIES AND CITIES . ............... RCW 36.70A.070 Comprehensive plans --Mandatory elements. RCW 36.70A.070 Comprehensive plans --Mandatory elements. The comprehensive plan of a county or city that is required or chooses to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 shall consist of a map or maps, and descriptive text covering objectives, principles, and standards used to develop the comprehensive plan. The plan shall be an internally consistent document and all elements shall be consistent with the future land use map. A comprehensive plan shall be adopted and amended with public participation as provided in RCW 36.70A.._140. Each comprehensive plan shall include a plan, scheme, or design for each of the following: (1) A land use element designating the proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of land, where appropriate, for agriculture, timber production, housing, commerce, industry, recreation, open spaces, general aviation airports, public utilities, public facilities, and other land uses. The land use element shall include population densities, building intensities, and estimates of future population growth. The land use element shall provide for protection of the quality and quantity of ground water used for public water supplies. 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; (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. (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: Adopted by Reference Ordinance # 3357 on -/ -U I ./om isapi.dll?clientID=112710&hitsperheading=on&ir City Clerk 5/4/2001 Document Page 2 ; (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. In order 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 ground water resources; and (v) Protecting against conflicts with the use of agricultural, forest, and mineral resource lands designated under RCW 36.70A.170. (d) Limited areas of more intensive rural development. Subject to the requirements of this subsection and except as otherwise specifically provided in this subsection (5)(d), the rural element may allow for limited areas of more intensive rural development, including necessary public facilities and public services to serve the limited area as follows: (i) Rural development consisting of the infill, development, or redevelopment of existing commercial, industrial, residential, or mixed -use areas, whether characterized as shoreline development, villages, hamlets, rural activity centers, or crossroads developments. A 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. An industrial area is not required to be principally designed.to serve the existing and projected rural population; (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. 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; ... /om isapi.dll?clientID=112710&hitsperheading=on&infobase=rcw.nfo&jump=36.70A.070& 5/4/2001 Document Page 3 (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 jurisdiction boundaries; (B) Level of service standards for all locally owned arterials and transit routes to serve as a gauge to judge performance of the system. These standards should be regionally coordinated; (C) For state-owned transportation facilities, level of service standards for highways, as prescribed in chapters 47.06 and 47.80 RCW, to gauge the performance of the system. The purposes of reflecting level of service standards for state highways in the local comprehensive plan are to monitor the performance of the system, to evaluate improvement strategies, and to facilitate coordination between the county's or city's six -year street, road, or transit program and the department of transportation's six -year investment program. The concurrency requirements of (b) of this subsection do not apply to transportation facilities and services of state-wide 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; ... /om isapi.dll?clientID=112710&hitsperheading=on&infobase=rcw.nfo&jump=36.70A.070& 5/4/2001 Document Page 4 (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 state-wide multimodal transportation plan required under chapter 47.06 RCW; (iv) Finance, including: (A) An analysis of funding capability to judge needs against probable funding resources; (B) A multiyear financing plan based on the needs identified in the comprehensive plan, the appropriate parts of which shall serve as the basis for the six -year street, road, or transit program required by RCW 35.77..010 for cities, RCW 36.81.121 for counties, and RCW 35.58.2795 for public transportation systems. The multiyear financing plan should be coordinated with the six -year improvement program developed by the department of transportation as required by RCW 47.05.030: (C) If probable funding falls short of meeting identified needs, a discussion of how additional funding will be raised, or how land use assumptions will be reassessed to ensure that level of service standards will be met; (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. (b) After adoption of the comprehensive plan by jurisdictions required to plan or who choose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040, local jurisdictions must adopt and enforce ordinances which prohibit development approval if the development causes the level of service on a locally owned transportation facility to decline below the standards adopted in the transportation element of the comprehensive plan, unless transportation improvements or strategies to accommodate the impacts of development are made concurrent with the development. These strategies may include increased public transportation service, ride sharing programs, demand management, and other transportation systems management strategies. For the purposes of this subsection (6) "concurrent with the development" shall mean that improvements or strategies are in place at the time of development, or that a financial commitment is in place to complete the improvements or strategies within six years. (c) The transportation element described in this subsection (6), and the six -year plans required by RCW 35.77.010 for cities, RCW 36.81.121 for counties, RCW 35.58.2795 for public transportation systems, and RCW 47.05.030 for the state, must be consistent. [1998 c 171 § 2; 1997 c 429 § 7; 1996 c 239 § 1. Prior: 1995 c 400 § 3; 1995 c 377 § 1; 1990 1st ex.s. c 17 § 7.] Notes: Prospective application-4997 c 429 §§ 1-21: See note following RCW 36.70A 3201. Severability--1997 c 429: See note following RCW 36.70A.3201. Construction--Application--1995 c 400: "A comprehensive plan adopted or amended before May 16, 1995, shall be considered to be in compliance with RCW 36.,70A 070. or 36.70A.1.10. as in effect before their amendment by this act, if the comprehensive plan is in compliance with RCW 36.70A.070 and 36.70A.110 as amended by this act. This section shall not be construed to alter the relationship between a county -wide planning policy and comprehensive plans as specified under RCW 36.70A.210. As to any appeal relating to compliance with RCW 36.70A_.070, or 36.70A.110 pending before a growth management hearings board on May 16, 1995, the board may take up to an additional ninety days to resolve such appeal. By mutual agreement of all parties to the appeal, this additional ninety -day period may be extended." [1995 c 400 § 4.] Effective date--1995 c 400: See note following RCW 36.70A.040. RCW 36.70A.080 Comprehensive plans -=Optional elements. (1) A comprehensive plan may include additional elements, items, or studies dealing with other subjects relating to the physical development within its jurisdiction, including, but not limited to: (a) Conservation; (b) Solar energy; and (c) Recreation. ... /om isapi.dll?clientID=112710&hitsperheading=on&infobase=rcw.nfo&jump=36.70A.070& 5/4/2001 Affidavit of Publication STATE OF WASHINGTON, is COUNTY OF SNOHONfISH, SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 3357 The undersigned, being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says of the ty of dmonds, Washinglon On the 171h day of April, 2001, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. 3357. A summary of the content of that she is Principal Clerk of THE HERALD, a daily newspaper said ordinance, consisting of the title, Provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, printed and published in the City of Everett, County of Snohomish, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 15.05.000 RELATING TO THE and State of Washington; that said newspaper is a newspaper of CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN ORDER TO ADOPT THE EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2000- 2005 (DATED APRIL 20, 2000) AS PART OF THE CAPITAL general circulation in said County and State; that said newspaper FACILITIES ELEMENT OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior EFFECTIVE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. Court of Snohomish County and that the notice ........................................ DATED this 18th day of April, 2001. CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE ;Pubrsned:apnlz2,2oo1. Summary of Ordinance No 3357 —........................................................ ...... :...................................................................... City of Edmonds ...................................................................................................................................... ..................................I _........_.................................... _................._.................................. a printed copy of which is hereunto attached, was published in said newspaper proper and not in supplement form, in the regular and entire edition of said paper on the following days and times, namely: April 22, 2001 ...................................................................................................................................... ..................................................... Y ...... ...................... ...........:........... ad �thataid newspaper was re..0 a 3 distributed to its subscribers of said pe 'od. ............................. ................. Principal Clerk J 7 th Subscribed and sworn to before me this ............................ ay 01 day............. ......... 20......... �.j._. •...........................:............ Notary Public in and or a State of Washington. residing at Everett, oho 'sh County. t%jit trtaeoe `ate .\55\0 :?'NOTARY 9N% m vU PUBLIC ti : 2 A- e�'®J�'•etop RECEIVED MAY 0 8 2001 a"2"' EDMONDS CITY CLERK