The URL can be used to link to this page

Ordinance 35490006.90000 WSS /gjz 4/20/05 ORDINANCE NO. 3549 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ITS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ADOPT AN UPDATED ELEMENT ENTITLED EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 15 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN, AS A PART OF THE CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT OF THE EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, the City Council has incorporated the Capital Facilities Plan of the Edmonds School District No. 15 in the Capital Facilities Element of its Comprehensive Plan, and WHEREAS, the School District reports to the City Council annually, leading to potential updates of the Capital Facilities Plan element, and WHEREAS, the City Council has received the favorable recommendation of its Planning Board and held a public hearing regarding such Comprehensive Plan Element, and WHEREAS, the City Council deems it to be in the public interest to amend the Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the 2004 -2009 Capital Facilities Plan of Edmonds School District No. 15, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Capital Facilities Element of the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended to incorporate an annual update to the Edmonds School District No. 15 Capital Facilities Plan described in the attached Exhibit 1 and entitled 2004 -2009 {WSS598137.DOC;1 /00006.900000/} - 1 - Capital Facilities Plan. This document is incorporated by this reference as fully as if set forth herein. Section 2. The Community Services Director is hereby authorized to incorporate the document adopted in Section 1 in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi- cally 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: MAY GV HAAKENSON ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY ) &&& W. SCOTT SNYDER FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: 04/22/2005 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: 04/26/2005 PUBLISHED: 05/01/2005 EFFECTIVE DATE: 05/06/2005 ORDINANCE NO. 3549 {WSS598137.D0C;1/00006.900000/} - 2 - SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 3549 of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the 26th day of April, 2005, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. 3549. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ITS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ADOPT AN UPDATED ELEMENT ENTITLED EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 15 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN, AS A PART OF THE CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT OF THE EDMONDS 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 27th day of April, 2005. CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE { WSS598137.DOC;1/00006.900000/1- 3 - EDMONDS SCHODL DISTRICT �t Ill 2004 - 200 11 - 1. -,6 9 A Capita Face I ities * .. P I an .4 September 2004 EXHIBIT 1 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 15 SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS Doug Fair Gary Noble Patrick Shields Mimi Terwilliger Dr. Bruce Williams SUPERINTENDENT Nick Brossoit Plan adopted by Board of Directors on October 5, 2004 For information on the Edmonds School District Capital Facilities Plan, contact Planning and Property Management at (425) 670 -7331. This document is also available at: www.esdlS.org EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1 -- Introduction ...:.................................. ............................... 1 Purpose of the Capital Facilities Plan ..................... ............................... 1 Overview of the Edmonds School District ............... ............................... 1 Planning Objectives ............................................ ............................... 2 Section 2 -- Student Enrollment Trends and Projections ...................... 3 HistoricTrends .................................................. ............................... 3 Recent Trends - Student Enrollment ...................... ............................... 3 Projected Student Enrollment 2004 - 2009 ............. ............................... 3 Twenty -Year Student Enrollment Projection ........... ............................... 7 Section 3 -- District Educational Facility Standards .............................. 9 Educational Facility Standards for Elementary Schools ............................ 10 Educational Facility Standards for Middle and High Schools ...................... 11 Minimum Levels of Service .................................. ............................... 12 Section 4 -- Capital Facilities Inventory ................ ............................... 13 Schools............................................................. ............................... 13 Measures of Capacity .......................................... ............................... 13 Inventory.......................................................... ............................... 14 Relocatable Classroom Facilities (Portables) ........... ............................... 18 Support Facilities ............................................... ............................... 19 LandInventory .................................................. ............................... 19 Undeveloped Sites ....................................... ............................... 19 DevelopedSites ........................................... ............................... 20 Section 5 -- Projected Facility Needs ................... ............................... 21 Six -Year Facility Needs (through 2007) ................. ............................... 21 Section 6 -- Planned Improvements ..................... ............................... 23 Construction Projects (Six -Year Plan) .................... ............................... 23 Temporary Classroom Facilities (Portables) ............ ............................... 24 Site Acquisition and Improvements ....................... ............................... 24 Section 7 -- Capital Facilities Financing Plan ........ ............................... 25 General Obligation Bonds .................................... ............................... 25 StateMatch Funds ............................................. ............................... 25 Developer Contribution ....................................... ............................... 26 Section 8 -- Impact Fees ...................................... ............................... 27 Section 9 -- Projected Facility Needs (Years 2010 -2024) ........................ 28 Section 10 -- The Planning Process ...................... ............................... 29 Bibliography......................................................... ............................... 30 Edmonds School District i Capital Facilities Plan LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 - Comparison of Student Enrollment Projections ... ............................... 6 Figure 2 - Map of School Facility Locations ....................... .......:....................... 15 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 - Comparison of Student Enrollment Projections .... ............................... 6 Table 2 - Projected Student Enrollment by Grade Span ...... ............................... 7 Table 3 - Year 2014 and 2024 Projected Enrollment By Grade Span ................... 8 Table 4 - Elementary School Capacity Inventory ............... ..............:................ 16 Table 5 - Middle School Capacity Inventory ...................... ............................... 17 Table 6 - High School Capacity Inventory ........................ ............................... 17 Table 7 - Relocatable Classroom Inventory ...................... ............................... 18 Table 8 - Inventory of Support Facilities .......................... ............................... 19 Table 9 - Inventory of Undeveloped Sites ........................ ............................... 19 Table 10 - Inventory of Developed Sites .......................... ............................... 20 Table 11 - Projected Available Student Capacity ............... ............................... 21 Table 12 - Projected Housing Needs ................................ ............................... 21 Table 13 - Construction Projects ...............:..................... ............................... 23 Table 14 - Long -Range Projection of Unhoused Students for Year 2014 ............... 28 Table 15 - Long -Range Projection of Unhoused Students for Year 2024 ............... 28 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A - District Population, Enrollment Data and Student Generation Rates Appendix B - School Facility Capacity Analysis and Land Inventory Appendix C - Snohomish County Code Title 30.66C Appendix D - Long Range Enrollment Forecast & Methodology Overview Appendix E - Capital Projects Scope of Work Appendix F - Washington State Initiative 728 Edmonds School District ii Capital Facilities Plan SECTION. 1- -- INTRODUCTION 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 (2004 - 2009). 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 available 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 development fees, mitigation, and other regulatory sources of funding from developers. Overview of the Edmonds School District The District is the largest school district in the County, and the eighth largest of Washington's 296 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 Edmonds School District 1 Capital Facilities Plan Kindergarten) of 20,1751 (as of October 1, 2003) 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 grade configuration has changed over time in response to the desires of the community and needs of the educational program. These changes are made after a process that allows for community participation, with ultimate approval 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 seven years of the 1992 -2012 GMA planning period. "2 Furthermore it is reported that, "Nearly half of the county's population growth has occurred in the Southwest county UGA alone. "3 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 2002 Capital Facilities Plan. 1 Headcount differs from FTE in that the figure reflects total number of students served by District educational programming, while FTE is Full Time Enrollment and adjusts for half day attendance by Kindergarten students. 2 Snohomish County Tomorrow - 1999 Growth Monitoring Report, Snohomish County Planning & Development Services, December 1999, pg. 1. 3 Snohomish County Tomorrow - 1999 Growth Monitoring Report, Snohomish County Planning & Development Services, December 1999, pg. 15. Edmonds School District 2 Capital Facilities Plan SECTION 2 -- STUDENT ENROLLMENT TRENDS AND PR03ECTIONS 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 and then decreased, with current enrollment at 20,175 students (FTE K -12, as of October 1, 2003) 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 576 students between 2001 and 2003, a decrease of 5.06 %. In grades 7 -8 enrollment decreased by a total of 52 students, a decrease of 1.51 %. Enrollment in grades 9 -12 grew by 71 students over the two -year period, an increase of 1.03 %. Between 2001 and 2003, total District enrollment dropped by 557 students, a decrease of 2.56 %. See Appendix D for more information. Projected Student Enrollment 2004 - 2009 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. This CFP requires that three forecast models be utilized to project student enrollment. Washington State's Office of Financial Management assumes Edmonds School District 3 Capital Facilities Plan that student population grows at a level directly proportionate to the overall population in the District by assigning the student population at a fixed percentage of the total population. The Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction examines the trend over the previous six years and arrives at an estimation based upon recent enrollment in the District. The Edmonds School District takes recent enrollment figures into account while also adjusting for the total number of students as they pass from grade -to- grade. The first forecast model required and utilized for illustrative purposes considers a population based enrollment projection using the current population forecast for school districts prepared by Snohomish County Planning and Development Services, and based on the current population forecasts made for Snohomish County by the Office of Financial Management (OFM). Based on the 2001 District general population estimate provided by Snohomish County and on actual student enrollment figures at the beginning of the school year in 2003, 14.7% 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 2004- 2009. Using this methodology, a total of 2,847 students are expected to be added to the District by the year 2009, an increase of approximately 14.25% over existing enrollment levels. The population forecast for the Edmonds School District together with the population based enrollment projections are provided in Appendix A. The second forecast model involves enrollment projections for each school district in the State of Washington as generated by the Washington State Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (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 1,307 students by the year 2009, a decrease of approximately 6.17% over existing enrollment levels. The OSPI student enrollment projections by grade level for the six -year forecast period (2004 -2009) are provided in Appendix A. The District uses a more conservative model to forecast enrollment for grades 1 through 12 which utilizes a weighted cohort survival methodology and incorporates assumptions based on demographic trends Edmonds School District 4 Capital Facilities Plan occurring within the District, as well as recent actual enrollment data. In addition, future kindergarten enrollment projections are based on demographic factors, including birth statistics from five years prior. Using this model, total enrollment is expected to decrease by 2,452 students by the year 2009, which is a decrease of 11.99% over existing enrollment levels. The Edmonds School District long -range facility student enrollment forecast is 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 11.99% 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 enrollment forecast data. In doing so, the District has determined that should the County's higher projection of student enrollment increases (14.25 %) be realized in the near term, the District has sufficient flexibility within its six -year plan to house students or make programmatic changes to eliminate capacity deficits until additional capital improvements can be made. As the District regularly revises this CFP partly to maintain statistical validity in its projections and to closely reflect school demographic trends in its planning, it is not anticipated that enrollment could increase so significantly as to cause an unexpected capacity shortfall. . Edmonds School District 5 Capital Facilities Plan Table 1 Comparison of Student Enrollment Projections Edmonds School District 2004 -2009 Source: Edmonds School District, OSPI, Snohomish County, respectively * Actual Student Enrollment (October 1, 2003) Kindergarten enrollment counted at one -half 24,500 23,500 22,500 c v E 0 21,500 c w C C N v y 20,500 IA 19,500 18,500 17,500 0 Figure 1 Comparison of Student Enrollment Projections —♦— Actual Student Enrollment __0__ OSPI- ---,'— Edmonds School District — County /OFM 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Edmonds School District 6 Capital Facilities Plan Actual Percent 1 Change Change Projection 2003* 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 03 -09 03 -09 20,453 19,969 19,550 19,189 18,806 18,382 18,001 (2,452) (11.99 %) ESD15 OSPI 20,453 20,014 19,860 19,740 19,593 19,383 19,161 (1,292) (6.317 %) Count /OFM 20,453 20,690 20,926 21,398 21,871 22,343 22,816 2,363 11.553% Source: Edmonds School District, OSPI, Snohomish County, respectively * Actual Student Enrollment (October 1, 2003) Kindergarten enrollment counted at one -half 24,500 23,500 22,500 c v E 0 21,500 c w C C N v y 20,500 IA 19,500 18,500 17,500 0 Figure 1 Comparison of Student Enrollment Projections —♦— Actual Student Enrollment __0__ OSPI- ---,'— Edmonds School District — County /OFM 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Edmonds School District 6 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 1,133 students (- 11.30 %) at the elementary school level and 539 students at the middle school level (- 15.89 %). High school enrollment is projected to decrease by 715 students (- 10.91 %) by October 2009. . 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 2004 -2009 Source: Edmonds School District Long -Range Enrollment Forecast (1) Actual Student Enrollment on January 1 provides a more accurate figure for the academic year. Twenty -Year Student Enrollment Projection Twenty -year student 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 UP is internally consistent, as well as ensuring this CFP's consistency with other elements of the local planning jurisdictions' comprehensive plans. Student enrollment projections used for the year 2024 are based on Washington State's OFM twenty -year population projection. By holding the District's year 2001 student -to- population ratio of 14.7% constant, a total enrollment of 23,585 students would be expected by the year 2014. This represents an increase of approximately 15.3% over existing enrollment levels. By holding year 2002 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. However, demographic conditions within the Edmonds School District have Edmonds School District 7 Capital Facilities Plan Actual Projected 1 ary Grade Span 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Elementary 10,024.7 9,777.5 9,466.5 9,332.9 9,164.7 9,030.0 8,891.5 K -6 Middle School 3,393.4 3,310.3 3,201.3 3,052.8 2,903.3 2,894.3 2,854.2 7 -8 High School . 6,551.4 6,462.4 6,521.4 6,420.7 6,314.5 6,076.7 5,835.8 9 -12 Total 19,969.5 19,550.2 19,189.2 18,806.4 18,382.5 18,001.0 17, 581.5 Source: Edmonds School District Long -Range Enrollment Forecast (1) Actual Student Enrollment on January 1 provides a more accurate figure for the academic year. Twenty -Year Student Enrollment Projection Twenty -year student 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 UP is internally consistent, as well as ensuring this CFP's consistency with other elements of the local planning jurisdictions' comprehensive plans. Student enrollment projections used for the year 2024 are based on Washington State's OFM twenty -year population projection. By holding the District's year 2001 student -to- population ratio of 14.7% constant, a total enrollment of 23,585 students would be expected by the year 2014. This represents an increase of approximately 15.3% over existing enrollment levels. By holding year 2002 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. However, demographic conditions within the Edmonds School District have Edmonds School District 7 Capital Facilities Plan dramatically changed, resulting in a student -to- population ratio of less than 14.7 %, though a quantifiable impact has yet to develop. 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 2014 and 2024 is provided in Table 3, though this represents the largest possible impact under current forecasting. Table 3 Edmonds School District Year 20144 and 2024 Projected Enrollment By Grade Span Grade Span 2014 Projected Student 2024 Projected Student Enrollment Enrollment Elementary (K -6) 12,028 13,825 Middle School (7 -8) 3,773 4,337 High School 9 -12 7,784 8,946 District Total K -12 23,585 27,108 Student Generation Rates have yielded results that reflect a lessor impact upon future enrollment projections than articulated by Snohomish County. As a result, this data has been combined with District projections to mitigate the overall impact of anticipated enrollment growth. The District enrollment projections, as summarized in this section, will be used to evaluate long -term school capacity needs. However, to bring these estimates in line with actual trends, the District has moderated the impact of these forecasts by averaging them with District projections. Specific analysis of future facility and capacity needs is provided in Sections 5 and 9 of this CFP. Student Generation data is provided in Appendix A. 4 The year 2014 represents the end of the 20 -year forecast period, as developed in 1992. Edmonds School District 8 Capital Facilities Plan SECTION 3 -- DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL FACILITY STANDARDS 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 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 may 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. State Initiative 728, passed by the voters in November 2000 (receiving a 72% voter approval rate), directed local school districts to lower class size at grades K -3. This action has facility space implications. State Initiative 728 is provided in Appendix F. 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 Edmonds School District 9 Capital Facilities Plan 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. 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 educational 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 -1 is 20 students; its standard for grades 2 -4 is 24 students; its standard for grades 5 -6 is 26 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. Edmonds School District 10 Capital Facilities Plan 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. Actual capacity may be lower than the design capacity depending on the total local educational programs offered at each school and the size and configuration of older schools. Likewise, actual 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. Current design capacity for new high schools is 1,600 students. However, actual capacity of individual schools may vary. Actual 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, actual 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 11600 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. Edmonds School District 11 Capital Facilities Plan Minimum Levels of Service Elementary Schools With a total of 600 classrooms, the District could accommodate 12,378 elementary school children based upon actual capacity. The current design capacity results in a utilization rate of 87 %. With significant alteration to educational programming criteria, the District could increase current enrollment by 1,567 students if conditions absolutely required it. Middle Schools / K -8 With a total of 168 classrooms, the District could accommodate 3,703 seventh and eighth graders in its K -8 and Middle Schools based on actual capacity. The current design capacity results in a utilization rate of 92 %. Without significant alteration to educational programming criteria, the District could increase enrollment by 300. High Schools The District could accommodate 8,330 high school students based upon actual capacity. The current design capacity results in a a utilization rate of 84 %. Without significant alteration to educational programming criteria, the District could increase enrollment by an additional 1,346 students without seriously compromising educational standards if conditions absolutely require it. I" I i Old Chase Lake Elementary Edmonds School District 12 Capital Facilities Plan SECTION 4 -- CAPITAL FACILITIES INVENTORY 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 Edmonds School District 13 Capital Facilities Plan standards discussed in the previous section. As a result, it is not a useful measure of capacity for the purposes of this plan. Due to the District's total local educational program, design capacities within the District may result in more gross square footage per student than is required by OSPI. When assessing capacity needs, this means that the District's estimates of needed capacity will be more conservative than OSPI to allow the District to meet its program objectives. 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. Key for Figure 2 1 - Beverly 20 - Chase Lake 40 - Maplewood 2 - Meadowdale 22 - Hazelwood 64 - Meadowdale MS 4 - L nndale 23 - Cedar Valle 68 - Alderwood MS 5 - Seaview 24 - Lynnwood 69 - Brier Terrace MS 6 - Maplewood HC 25 - Spruce Prima 70 - College Place MS 8- Sherwood 27 - Martha Lake 82 - Mountlake Terrace HS 9 - Westgate 30 - Oak Heights 83 - Meadowdale HS 13 - Mountlake Terrace 33 - Hilltop 85 - Lynnwood HS 14 - Terrace Park 35 - Edmonds 86 - Edmonds Woodway HS 15 - Brier 36 - College Place 87 - Scriber Lake HS 16 - Cedar Way 38 - Evergreen 19 - Woodwa 39 - Madrona Edmonds School District 14 Capital Facilities Plan Figure 2 WON 9ZL Map of School Facility Locations 3S'°AV 9 — 3S'oAV 6 — ARM uelp ise0 a ou P °8 �S M Pa,jPe urn m gi °o M OAVS£ •L ��D E a o� '' 'E o 3 a L �_ 3 M'o ^tl9£ III, N xeM 4ve1 Peod uoswe0 • ♦ . • W M'-V6£ e® s� �JS a ® `� � S.feM �rrt,�J g' M'IdLI • • ••��••••..: fp M'Id£l 1113 01 M'anyZ6 i� m e M'oAV 8l p — e N N MS'OAV8Zo J� Qd�a�ay M'°AVBZ eM eW0 WON 9ZL Pa,jPe M OAVS£ •L M'o ^tl9£ W M'-V6£ �JS a ® 3 ••��••••..: N 1113 01 M'anyZ6 i� m e N N eM eW0 N ® M'o ^tl 66 M'o^V 66 M'o^V ZS 0 O u^V93 M oAV ZS M •♦ • • • • an 0 •• �B 3 Ori M'eAtl 09 -:9: • Ill M'any89 AA -av v 89 41 c.i EvEfift • �•.:� moms 0% O• C L L. Py sgpIUp3 M'°AV9L M'u ^V 9L aleµAOpeayy � M' °AV 08 ••• W N M'3AV y2 © •. .a M'o^V08 a • z 0 M'ontl 88 • • • O 3 °nuorAal 0 podeyy E M'3AVZ6 N O w 3 / �Pg M anV VOl • N;�df m M �a Mantl90l Cl) }O F• U �19 •any ®a S d I xy o � Q V- O ua v) o Edmonds School District 15 Capital Facilities Plan Table 4 Elementary School Capacity Inventory Edmonds School District 16 Capital Facilities Plan Site Year Built Size Bldg. Area or Last Total Total Elementa School acres (S q. Ft. Remodel Class. Capacity Iderwood 8.9 36,869 1965 20 520 Beverly 9.1 47,641 1988 24 458 Brier 10.0 45,742 1989 25 474 Cedar Valley 22.1 64,729 2001 25 449 Cedar Way 9.4 55,140 1993 27 510 Chase Lake 10.3 56,992 2000 25 290 College Place 9.0 48,969 1968 25 480 Edmonds (1) 8.4 34,296 1966 20 328 Evergreen 10.3 43,386 1969 20 372 Hazelwood 10.3 51,330 1987 26 444 Hilltop 9.8 50,926 1967 25 482 Lynndale 10.0 38,467 1989 20 374 Lynnwood 8.9 45,813 1962 25 512 Madrona (2) 26.9 84,856 1963 32 475 Maplewood 7.4 76,604 2002 27 523 Martha Lake 10.0 50,737 1993 26 494 Meadowdale 9.1 51,550 2000 25 462 Old Melody Hill (3) 6.8 37,663 1958 0 0 Mountlake Terrace 8.0 39,868 1989 21 374 Oak Heights 9.4 50,099 1966 25 490 Old Woodway (3) 9.8 34,228 1955 0 0 eaview 8.3 45,668 1997 22 394 Sherwood 13.6 43,283 1966, 20 346 Spruce 8.9 41,968 1988 20 317 Terrace Park 15.3 70,424 2002 33 604 Westgate 8.1 45,095 1989 22 376 oodwa 4 13.1 37,291 1962 20 360 Less Grades 7 -8 (460) Sub Total 600 1-0-,448- Former Woodway Home School Resource Center 340 Totals 600 10,788 Source: Edmonds School District, OSPI Notes: (1) Formerly Olympic Elementary School. (2) Formerly Madrona Junior High School. (3) Currently under lease. 4 Formerly Snoline Elementary School. Edmonds School District 16 Capital Facilities Plan Table 5 Middle School Capacity Inventory Table 6 High School Capacity Inventory Site Year Built Program Size Bldg Area or Last Total Student Middle School acres (S q. Ft. Remodel Class Capacity Iderwood 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 1961 39 829 Grades 7 &8 (1) 8.5 39,474 2001 19 468 Former Woodwa 2 39.0 149,520 1967 60 72 Totals 1 168 3,703 Source: Edmonds School District Notes: (1) Grades 7 and 8 housed in elementary schools. 2 Home schooled middle school students housed at Former Woodway High School. Table 6 High School Capacity Inventory A detailed school capacity analysis is provided in Appendix B. Edmonds School District 17 Capital Facilities Plan Site Year Built Program Size Bldg. Area or Last Teaching Student High School acres (S q. Ft. Remodel Stations Ca acit Edmonds - Woodway 28.5 218,000 1998 * 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 Scriber Lake(1) 8.5 39,474 2001 * 350 Former Woodwa 2 39.0 149,520 1967 60 179 Totals 1 7 031 Source: Edmonds School District Notes: * Optimum design capacity is 1600 students. Capacity may vary depending on education program. (1) Formerly Cedar Valley Community School. 2 Home schooled high school students housed at Home School Resource Center. A detailed school capacity analysis is provided in Appendix B. Edmonds School District 17 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. The District currently uses eleven 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 Source: Edmonds School District The portables at College Place, Evergreen, Madrona, 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 or need to increase its inventory, as indicated in Section 5 of this CFP. Edmonds School District 18 Capital Facilities Plan Number of Less: Units to Available Interim be Student School Site Portable Surplused Units Capacity Classrooms Provided College Place Elementary 2 2 0 0 Evergreen Elementary 1 1 0 0 Hilltop Elementary 1 0 1 26 Madrona 1 1 0 0 Oak Heights Elementary 1 1 0 0 Former Woodway High School 5 0 5 130 Totals 11 6 6 156 Source: Edmonds School District The portables at College Place, Evergreen, Madrona, 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 or need to increase its inventory, as indicated in Section 5 of this CFP. Edmonds School District 18 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 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 may make them difficult for school construction, however a detailed analysis for purposes of development has not been completed. An inventory of the undeveloped parcels (sites) owned by the District is summarized in Table 9. More detailed descriptions of the undeveloped s -ites are provided in Appendix B. Table 9 Inventory of Undeveloped Sites School District Site Description Building Site Esperance Area Size Facility Name (S q. Ft. Acres Administration Center (ESC) 57,400 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. 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 may make them difficult for school construction, however a detailed analysis for purposes of development has not been completed. An inventory of the undeveloped parcels (sites) owned by the District is summarized in Table 9. More detailed descriptions of the undeveloped s -ites are provided in Appendix B. Table 9 Inventory of Undeveloped Sites School District Site Description Site Size (Acres) Development Constraints /Environmental Issues Esperance 3.30 Building demolished in 2003 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 Site 86 (High School) 40.50 Stream Chase Lake Bog 7.50 Wetlands Old ESC Site 3.90 Located in Lynnwood Central Business District Sur lus Edmonds School District 19 Capital Facilities Plan Source: Edmonds School District Developed Sites Table 10 provides an inventory of District -owned sites that are currently developed or planned for uses other than schools under long -term ground leases, each with a recapture provision that would allow the District to reclaim the property if needed for school capacity needs. Table 10 Inventory of Developed Sites Source: Edmonds School District Old Martha Lake Elementary Edmonds School District 20 Capital Facilities Plan Site Size Facility /Site (Acres) Development Constraints /Environmental Issues Meadowdale Playfields 121.00 lRecreation Facility - Lynnwood, Edmonds, Snohomish County Civic Center Playfield 1 7.90 lRecreation Facility - City of Edmonds Source: Edmonds School District Old Martha Lake Elementary Edmonds School District 20 Capital Facilities Plan SECTION 5 -- PROJECTED FACILITY NEEDS Six -Year Facility Needs (through 2009) Projected available student capacity was derived by subtracting projected student enrollment for each of the six years in the forecast period from the existing 2003 school capacity. Available student capacity by grade span, based on capacity existing in 2003, 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 2003 Actual Capacity) Edmonds School District 2004 — 2009 Grade Span 2004 1 2005 1 2006 1 2007 1 2008 2009 Elementary 764 1,010 1,322 1,456 1,623 1,758 Middle School 310 393 502 650 800 809 High School 1,779 1,868 1,809 1,909 2,015 2,253 By the end of the six -year forecast period (the year 2009), no additional classroom capacity will be required. The District projects that it will have sufficient capacity at all grade span categories through the year 2009. Projected housing needs by grade span for each year in the six -year forecast period are provided in Table 12. Table 12 Projected Housing Needs Edmonds School District 2004 -2009 Grade Span 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Elementary 0 0 0 0 0 0 Middle School 0 0 0 0 0 0 High School 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 2009). 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. Edmonds School District 21 Capital Facilities Plan housing for students. The District does have schools that are in need of rebuilding and remodel within the twenty year planning horizon. When funding opportunities arise, the District will seek voter approval for capital construction funds for these projects. Oak Heights Elementary Edmonds School District 22 Capital Facilities Plan SECTION 6 --PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS On May 18, 2004, voters approved a capital levy for technological, structural and facility improvements. Once completed, these improvements will have no significant impact on building capacities but will provide educational and safety enhancements. A summary of the capital levy may be found in Appendix E. In 2002 and 2003 voters rejected Capital Construction funding for remodeling, rebuilding and renovating schools and building systems. Discussed further below and attached as Appendix E is the proposed 2002 Capital Construction scope of work. The majority of the capital construction work was focused upon rebuilding, however, some additional student capacity was planned as part of the rebuilding of schools. Many of the District's schools will be remodeled or building system's renovated as funding becomes available. These projects are described in this section not to meet any capacity shortfall but to reflect other planned improvements the District may make during the 6 -year planning period for this CFP. It is possible that when these projects occur, additional capacity may be added as a consequence of updated facility design according to current District standards. Construction Projects - (Six -Year Plan) The District failed to receive voter approved funding and is in the process of re- evaluating the construction needs of two high schools (Lynnwood and Scriber Lake). Construction projects that are planned but not funded are summarized in Table 13. Table 13 Construction Projects Proposed but not Funded (1) Basea on District's taucational racmty �)tanaaras Edmonds School District 23 Capital Facilities Plan Estimated Student Estimated Project Project Completion Capacity Cost (2002 Date Change(1) Lynnwood High School uncertain 341 $ 59.5 million Scriber Lake Alternative High School uncertain unknown $ 15.9 million Small Works Projects uncertain n/a $ 12.6 million Inflationary adjustment $ 22 million Total unknown 1 $ 110 million (1) Basea on District's taucational racmty �)tanaaras Edmonds School District 23 Capital Facilities Plan The primary source of funding for these construction projects would have been proceeds from bond sales, interest earnings, and from State matching funds. Completion of these construction projects will allow the District to continue to have sufficient capacity at the elementary, middle, and high school levels to house projected student enrollment through the year 2009 and to update existing classroom and building space to assist in achieving its total local educational program objectives. 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 2009. Recent development patterns have shown a greater degree of residential development occurring within the north and east areas of the District. Sherwood Elementary Edmonds School District 24 Capital Facilities Plan SECTION 7 -- CAPITAL FACILITIES FINANCING 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, but a similar proposal in February 2002 and February 2003 failed to secure voter approval. 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. 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.5 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 5 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 25 Capital Facilities Plan (without accounting for escalation), the future District project is (partially) reimbursed. Developer Contribution Development impact fees authorized by the GMA, have been adopted by a number 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 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 District encourages all of its respective jurisdictions to adopt a school impact fee ordinance. III Snoline Elementary (Renamed Woodway Elementary) I Edmonds School District 26 Capital Facilities Plan SEC7I01414 -= IMPACT FEES 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 30.66C (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 30.66C 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 RCW). The District does not presently anticipate collecting impact fees though encourages all of its jurisdictions to adopt a school impact fee ordinance. The District will closely monitor development as it occurs and will actively seek appropriate developer contributions for impacts upon the District on a case -by -case basis as authorized by applicable law. Spruce Primary (Formerly Spruce Elementary) Edmonds School District 27 Capital Facilities Plan SECTION 9 -- PROJECTED FACILITY NEEDS (YEARS 2010 -2024) By the year 2024, the Edmonds School District is not expecting to experience any dramatic fluctuations in student enrollment and expects to have some unhoused students at all grade levels. Current data suggests a continuation of enrollment trends with minimal variation. However, the District will continue to adjust enrollment projections on a regular basis. A long -range projection of unhoused students is shown in Table 14 and 15 below. Table 14 Long -Range Projection of Unhoused Students for Year 2014 Table 15 Long -Range Projection of Unhoused Students for Year 2024 Projected Existing Projected Grade Level Enrollment Capacity in Unhoused Year 2014 Year 2010 Students Elementary 12,028 12,378 (350) Middle School 3,773 3,703 70 High School 7,784 8,330 546 Total 23,585 24,411 826 Table 15 Long -Range Projection of Unhoused Students for Year 2024 The District does not expect to construct new schools to accommodate students in established service areas. The District does not plan capital construction projects that are not identified in its Six Year Facilities Plan, which is periodically reassessed, and revised as necessary, to maintain consistency with long -range projections of facility needs. The District appears to have adequate undeveloped sites for the construction of a new middle school and a new high school. However, if student enrollment exceeds projections, the District may need to acquire additional property. Edmonds School District 28 Capital Facilities Plan Projected Existing Projected Grade Level Enrollment Capacity in Unhoused Year 2024 Year 2010 Students Elementary 13,825 12,378 1,447 Middle School 4,337 3,703 634 High School 8,946 8,330 616 Total 27,108 24,411 2,697 The District does not expect to construct new schools to accommodate students in established service areas. The District does not plan capital construction projects that are not identified in its Six Year Facilities Plan, which is periodically reassessed, and revised as necessary, to maintain consistency with long -range projections of facility needs. The District appears to have adequate undeveloped sites for the construction of a new middle school and a new high school. However, if student enrollment exceeds projections, the District may need to acquire additional property. Edmonds School District 28 Capital Facilities Plan SECTION 10 -- THE PLANNING PROCESS 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. Changes to the character of the District are noted as the Southwest Snohomish County 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. Edmonds School District 29 Capital Facilities Plan BIBLIOGRAPHY Paying 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 2002 -2007, Edmonds School District No. 15, August 2002. Snohomish County Tomorrow 1999 Growth Monitoring Report, Snohomish County Planning & Development Services, December 1999. Snohomish County Tomorrow 2001 Growth Monitoring Report, Snohomish County Planning & Development Services, December 2001. Westgate Elementary Edmonds School District 30 Capital Facilities Plan Appendix A District Population and Enrollment Data 74 Q .a LO F n L d O V O f0 V O O s u (A Lfl L w s w O (A m C H N V m O W L O a+ W O O C V d U) � c 10 u U w a0+ H C Nl ._ O = O Z f0 Lt► H U m M r-I M m N M 01 Ct O w m It 0 01 N Ln t0 M N N N0NL1 M0 r-I NLnNW r-IM[t G% r-I Q LnO Nri�MOrIlDN�01O tLO'� C ^ .-I ririNMNNtDt0111 -Z C,; L() N r-4 r1 0 N 01 qt M Ln tD Ln N N r-I tD tD r-I O 't ri rl =00 N OMrl00[t00)M0000MtDOr-I UM N ^ Ln O) +1r-I%D r-I OoOIt MM001" !) '� Ln ^ .-i r-i N M N N M tD tD Ln r-I Ln wl rl rI -4 N Q nV00It r-I�tDMtDMnO)t0O) 00 N ^ 0 0 r4lnlnN CTNLnM r-I N00N 0 tD Q Ln 0) O-4 t0r- I000[t[tMIITtD '-i � I-z I-z N Iz M Ln Go Go r-I r1 O M co LnNO00Ln0)%D000Or-I 000)N 00 Ln 94 mNNIn00 r-I M0m0Ln -f00M 0) '1- W Ln 00 01OtDr4000Lf)MMNr N .-i n r-i N M N N tD tD Ln .-i M Ln � r-i r•I (31 N Q LnONLr)ITNL-, MIt 00NNtDN N O n LnOr NNtOM(n N00 r-I OOln 0) tD 01 LnM 0) - 1Ln0N0Nr- IMCtLn '- t0 MNNt0tDtor M Ln r1 +-I 00 N G) Ln tD Ln lcd' I' Ln Ln 0) ,4 0 N 00 r-1 O N Ln N 00 0) r-I N tD M 01 't 00 N tD ,-I rI 0 (3) O Ln 00 M 0 td, MnmMr*,NLnra r-I Ln r-I N N N rl Ln Ln Ln ri M Ln N Ln ^ 0NITIf koN V NLn00O1"1DO � V rl M00 r-I NNN00+- 1kOLnN01Q1Ln 01 M N Ln 00 OO r-I MO)tD00MN0kor� M N r-I N N N I- Ln Ln Ln r-I N Ln t0 w Q) MOOM00r" tDtD r-I (3).- I0)tDO N O p 01N It kokokoLn000)00MMLn 0) 00 ^ Ln 00 N0NOIIt OON0)0%DO '� rl r-I N N N -4 Ln It Ln .-I N Ln N Ln rI ^ tD tD N N 01 N r-I tD N N M It rI O N m Q O r-I - IO;1-Ln0tpr- INMOvLn 0) N ^ tD00 N0N0'Tmr-I MMr,f, rl rl N M N -Z Ln - [t r_ rl Ln Ln rL MNNNI.DNMMN r-I MMko0 n 0) n (n 0 r-I NNN r-I tDMLn00NNO 0) ,� M Ln 00 tD O M 00 It � ri co N tD M r-I O I rL r-I ri Ln N r-I r-I M m O 0OO r-I vtDOOONLnMNO1%Do N M N -, oNO0NLn0,No o J, -,Ln tDN tDONL*lMN�00N000) rl Nrl Ln J: tt * I O N 1-+ r-1 U � N 2r r = O UW E v o O) L 0 LL > t7 O) Ln L c c = o 0 i C N N m C 0) C L v s u M M me` rho o C j o 0 0 . _3 (n < -j V) In W Z Ln � n rn � O N N Ln tp rn pp rn �p r1 O N �' G1 � N � M O N M 01 O� N O� O� Ol 01 ri O O� Ol Ol 00 Ot r-I 00 O m L� 00 O r-I t0 00 O .--I Ln 00 m .-1 00 O ,--I 00 00 t0 t0 t0 O V' � kO N t0 O t0 -I t0 N1- N,TlMLn V LEMON I' 00 r- a1tOtttOM0CALnLn r-i I+- IM MOiNrl lkec r4 ri ri Ln rl OOt0t00LnM00t0Or-ILnM M OOONmmkD -- 4MMLn01NmN W O tOM Nor-vmv -4 4 ONN M - + -�riM� [tMC1 - I�tO06 00 �. r 4 ri +-i O ^ NLnN�000Ln00M�Lnl�d'M r-I M v m -1 0 tD mmmv%DNMr-1 Ln LnN t0Lnt0r- IOr-IMNMt0M 0 I rlr- 1M MOOrlLnL\ 00 vi -4 r-I r-I ,-I LA M N rI N%DmtOIt MNO v M 0 O NMN- 1(n ,-qCtt0t0O 'It t0ON Ln r-4 tD qt mm mmNM0N� N +"I rI N M NO�f��tl�Ct01M1000�1�0 O � �I��I�OOMM+- I0001LnLnN00 Ot M Ln v-4 Ln[tmMt0t0Nd'OIN. -� t0 d1 N O 00 00 O O 00 N t n Ln r4 Ln t0 N ^ Nr-I 't tO0)0)0100t0000NtO M^ Ln , I [- m r j to V Ln ON O t0 01 M ,-I r-I M (, M N L,� 06 tO (, 6 L\ r-1 r-I Ln N N Ln N 0) ri M O O r-i Ln ,-i ,--1 n 00 ri NNItON00L-riMtNLntOt0 ON Ln 0 t m o Ln N V N r-i M M tO N ^ +-I r-iriMMMNN00%DMLn tO ,-I -4 N C1 OOrAmooOOLno tad, �v-4ON N Co NLnN0)N0)LntOO V Nt00000 N Ln0 MN 00 V 0M tm0000 .I +- I+�NMMNL,L,tONLn t0 P% r1 -4 N N N tO t0 Ln Ln 00 V 00 t0 O O) Ln 0) �i 00NNMM .- Ot000Ln004MN. -I t0 M It N,- INr-Inri00NLnmLn Oi r-i *- INMNNt0 t0 Lr r 4 Ln ri ri ,t Qp N%DLntON tp000Ln,Itpr♦+ -L.-a N N N 0) N N Ln tD NV00M V MO%N M Lnm N+- lN"00+-l0)vkoN0 Zo .- L.-iNMNN%DtOLnN� rn 0 0 N O O O N O O N t� O O N 11) O O N O O N O � N N O 00 O rl N ti N N O N O N N N O � O r: N Tq N rn Ot rn O rn Ln N co � 0) .- r1 N Ln rn O O ri N a rl 1 Q 41 a H L a O d.1 v f� f0 C d E O V O N W w -W L C w 7 +r (ff O V H �L m c H � � = V E � H O H 0 C _ W C O +' d .0 � Ch C V 7 s�� u C 10 u U v L m .0 a - 0 'O Od sy 10 a U 00 O 01 r-I M 0 01' r4 N 0 01 rl 0 Ol r♦ O 0 O rI 01 N 01 r-I 0 N 01 rl N N .-I 10 N Ol rt Ln n O n 01 U �L N o p 812 0 .12 0 0 0 .12 0 0 0 0 0 -.-0 0 M N00N1D'IT N0) Itr10Ln01D O Ln 10 F 1D N ri r1 0 t 01 Ln Ol 01 N N c' OOOoNON -4o0 �MNMNrI \° \ \ \ \ \ \o \o R o p o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M ^ RTNMI- LnMN1D10NLnM1 -0) "^ rl+!f*N1 LgG�d'NO11D01, -101 rl MI,M1Dr10MOMN0a -40 o G 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d *� MMr-IM00NM1010Ln1O0[t'0 O r! rl V- NkD"tv'U'I,MNN .D . . . . . . . . . . . . rl � OMrIN00+- IOr10.�IONO � rl rl o p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 MN0rg00NNOM V LnfnLn M N N 10000 -! M0 00 0C! O(, O U1MOOlON 000+- -I+- -I x100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 rILnNNN1OLn01N 0M 01' Ln N 10rIl0Ln[rNNN10M01ML*N. ri N MMI,MMNMOOMMOO+--I, 1 rl O N p 0 M . 01 N � o p O N N M � o M � O N � O O O O O O O O O O O O O O M Ln M�� N ri O N co N 1-I rl (n ,--I 1� M O 10 N O1 10 rI 01 O 1p 01 N In OMLnLnLn ,:r -- iN1D10rlON i I i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ln r1 it N rI N 0 Ln N 1-1 0 N 0 Ln 0 0 ri O Ln O 01 N N n M M Ln ,;r O r1 N 1D Ln � N Ln 10 O1 O N +--I M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 +--I N 1p O M M 1-4 Ln Ln 4 O Ln N rI In rl 111 O1 114: 10 M 0 rI 0 *'1 Ln O 00Ln0mN0%D0 1-1 x+--400 1 Ln -i i p o p o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 rl MO10lt ri[rN.-- ICO10nLn01Ln 0 M +-I'I:000"f rICt"*:M011*0Ln' ,--I NOI,Lnr10r100NONON 1 i p o p o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 01Mr-,M'It 0NI,0 N01010 rI M ,� N t0 lD N O l0 rI rI Ln O N 01 131 N N N*-I rIMNMtOOd 0 -mom 1 � o p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 rl ^ 01M100101N01In 'It 10Mr1. -IO'. Ln Go N d'00a!0 0G 1-NtO l:Ln1DN 0 N r4 "t N N +q "t 4 N rI Cp 0 0 +iI M 1 I' 1-1 cn v o C t N1 N L N '0 O Iy C> O N N LO c C 0 N O }' L O> O tLil 7 X a: c c n O O N ++ 0 (5 t w i C +fu C �Y p L t' 2 O-0 (a M o fu 7 L O 10 m 7 C> O o U W 0 (7 �--� _3 U) _3 (n 2 � (n W Z Ln 10 0) N r-4 T4 O t.0 0 o 0) rn O � O et Ln 0 o ON rn tO rl CIN O *� M O M \ o 0 \ \ \ \ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O N 41 M 00 Ol , A 0) ,-1 tO It 00 00 OO M kD M 't Go OOMtOlONO� ":M000+-aNtO M G NIOI,'t"t"'d'MIOr4r,I- N o p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O M rq 0)qT LnkoLnNN00V NLn -IOM 00�111�001,L�t0MOlOOM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [t fM1 mow r MNtOMMNMd CtN i o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O .-1 NC%NN0M0)tO1"N0NM0 - O1 ^ LnOLgr!OR -Ir,�OnnMnO!O1 M +-I V OOOOd vkDLnr4mmN+ -1 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ON O o o 0 0 0 0 0 N Ln Ln N t-i M N N It Ln Ln 00 N M ,.i 00 . nd'.-INOMO� V Od'LnN1O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . d N Ln +� It N 0 Ln N 1O 0 � �O +� C'i -4 00 0 0 o p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 01 .-I ^ Mr100MtOM0O00LnMkDMkDf*, ,..I O W4 00�L171:n V'Ig11 -! !%qC? ,O1 . . Ln MLn I, toriMlO1,vLnvLnv of i 00 \° \0� \0 \0 \0 \° \0�-0 �.2 \0 \0 \0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 O o p N ^ 0 0 0 0 0 0 000)01N.-IO)000NMC)NLn tp . ONN*-INf*LnO�000 V r + . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M OM�t LnIOMLAMN. - - m �t \ 0 o 0 0 0 .1 \0 \0 \0 \ \ \ \0 \0 \0 \° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 O p M 0001*, 0000M0*-I 'IT M000000 ,I 01 . ,- INOMNMMO�Ln0O�1*1*00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C + - INO. - 00koM-,tLn "t 0 TMM Ln + I o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .a- Op m Q M %0 toa)Lna*, NoZo%DoNONr -I � M . LnLntOLn�ONnON�Lf1OO1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 O1 � I, N f, 1, O, a, 'D 0O O, 00 M Ln \° o \° o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 p N kDMOM00. -4-4fn V NOON ,� O tOOOn1I- !lnr-111 nLnnOLn IM �0+- INMN+-40fn -I NM 1 C 0% mO a° E N (U - O i O (� N m m -W = G G W M En i G ++ W H c� 0 'c N U U) N y H Qt;� C o�00 F- d. Au 76 :3 W ^ r. 0 0 o �. 0 C= Q t0 NLANQ > U ri N N Q t0 .... M C M a% CO Ln Wt QU oLrnN v W fn 00 ^^ ^ C O- N 0 0 m O O 0 Q V E 0 Ln M N O O o M M N 0600 O O ko �i 00 — L OO1fMM N 01Nt0� ONO �^O M LA M O ^N O V mmkow 'd Ito tOON� U0 11, O Vt C' LA ON mmko a` O n -4 t0 f,M[1' 0 N p NpQ�tNO� M �h N � ff ,s ri en 'It r60 fn �0o0v If O in .d CD N D fl tp N CL 0 � L p (n CU U N f0 c6 c v vN~ c� ESL (u w � _ U) 2 cu �° c c v E 0 c ri w o Q) o m N C CF cu m a J t t 0 a c v 0 0 0 U� (n w m c o E N v w 0 a o V) OI O O N v O a+ y C 9 d O E f O c W C H L 0 t' s7 « O H h o !h aA O U d dl G d CL a 9 ° O W O. v N t0 00 t0 m Val 'i .a-i n W Q fn O 01 01 OI T 0) 0) T O4 0 v- 0 VI 00 00 N ID t0 -.. - M ^ h w m N 01 .-i N m O m n N w m 0 tD p .-I a VI VI VI VI VI VI °? , W V1 tF O t0 l0 V1 t0 M m N - N ap n .+ .-i a s N Ln O O .y O t0 t0 Ln n N t0 O M p t0 N N N N .+ It O CO O N N 00 t0 m O n ti M p a m m VI VI VI Ln 0p VI VI O VI n tD a a N N 'D N N It n It M 0 VI a M VI Ln ^ O O N N M VI n t0 Ot .-IM V1 V1 Ln Op O �./ n �: ch M N Vf r .� 01 N M O p 0 N N m N N ti a u, in � � � in 0 O co M ut V? v 00 0+ n N VI t0 n r. F V N l m O v N N _ O d ^ O O i d O T m m O M M O M M M V1 '� N m co VI n M t0 N O Vl .� ao O �. On M OI LQ in Vi in 'I in to N v D co o a N N n ao r a a n 'I rn N Qi N N Ln VI m M m m 0 m NO O t0 N M N N a v n 1,4 o p 00 M M M O N F, VI O tD M o VI M n .-a n O tD O O p m m m m v a 00 tD N c0 00 t0 a n N 01 !j •-� 01 N .� ao N V' 0% M a .-I M VI III N N a VI O - OI - M n V1 co M t0 M 00 '� M M p p VI VI V1 VI a t0 ^ 00 01 tD n m c0 n lD a n ^ O N - .i ti - - ti ri OI Oi ti - rvi ti .-i ti ti t0 N N ti N t0 00 t0 m Val 'i .a-i n W Q fn O 01 01 OI T 0) 0) T O4 0 v v 0 v a 0 O T N v c w O m 0) O N c 01 3 a O 3 U N Q O) 0 Z ~. v- 00 00 T a a t0 N b M O O N O 00 n O.ti I tM 0 F 't O 01 M In o In In In a a °? o to v r. n r. N m - d N v W tD 00 M M M M ul O O "� O .-� .-i N VI .+ N 00 t0 O .-I 01 Ln .+ a N O O tD VI VI VI V1 t0 tD n �: C OD M tD n VI u) t0 n n n 00 n a p , ti n N N N It n It M 0 VI a M VI Ln ^ O O N N M VI n t0 Ot .-IM V1 V1 Ln Op O �./ V1 VI VI t0 t0 n to �: a rl n n a M t0 n 00 01 M .� 01 ^ 01 O O lul1 .-1 .-1 t0 N O ; N _ O rI ^ O Q i v n n n N n tD Ln In OatomaD+ '� Oo .-� M r a n tD OI O n.,vlrnln O ao N �. 00a eF VI tD tD n tD N to oDLn t0 tD M OI Ot n N m N N N v N N N O a OI VI VI 00 OD M .-� OI O t? In n [F O 01 O M N n N 10 O n S a t0 V) f\ t0 t0 tD fn t0 t0 t0 lD tD M M M- n t0 O 01 V1 N M n LQ .-i ti ti .-i ti ti .-i .-i ti m N .-i .-i ti t0 N N .~i O VI 00 01 N VI r, n 01 N VI N CO n 00 M M y VI a tp M 01 M W 0 N a a O n 01 CO 00 00 '� M M O VI In n tD n t0 0 O n n a n m VI N In ^ 0 ti ti c 3 l^ c 3 c 7 c 7 r^ ` 'O Y •~ N M a V1 tD 'a N 00 'O OI 'y .N-i U d A N 0 N N N Y 0 00 N N D y T Y N a� N 'O '07 fLC � Vr CN L Q 01 9 OI U) H W f S LJ v v 0 v a 0 O T N v c w O m 0) O N c 01 3 a O 3 U N Q O) 0 Z ~. 0 H 7 M r-+ o N 0. o to Ln M Ln O O O o 0 0 0 0 o 0 C� o� O M to N O 00 - O OO 111 co M O OR eV U, i O tp d M � O rte( ,�1 O t0 00 M O O M 01 (0 V o o to M n N o 0 0 0 \ 0 0 01 01 E O M v O O O n O O i M t0 O N O n N O(n Ln o r, -4 O Ln ' , O O M -4 lL .�-1 .�i .d-1 Ln O M O *-( M a.+ C N O Ip Ln *'� 0 to 00 p Ln 00 cyl �' 00 111 fn O 0 0 0 0 ° 0 o 0 E 0 o N o O M to 0 0 It O Ln N Ln t0 � [L' Ln O 01 (n � w �.+ M O M Lf Ln O O M M N WO r-I O M �- q L l9 00 t0 M t0 M M L cm L\ m co c O 0 O o 0 0 0 c 0 c c C O E 4 M '-4 � ro 0r1 01 M O [t ' N o co t0 a ri W ri O Ln N Uj O N M -4 N C O a c 00 t0 rl N O. Ln 00 U O LC IQ Ln 0 o a 0(1 0 0 0 o e o c 41 m C G � ^ M O M to ON1 ON to O E 0_ 001 M M N to M W� O Ln N O N M .-i LO 0_ C aN+ L y 0 o O O o oo 00 111 t0 to O O Ln \ 0 \° 0 \° \° 0 0 o \° o 0 N "o +' to Lo 10 t0 c d o Lr� n, O M 0) In 00 O c co 0 0 m IR M N LQ Ln to t0 N to to Ln t0 4 , 'O to > f0 Ln co 0 .--I M 00 N OL 0 3 It M Ln 0 o 0 o c o o a u 01 N tN0 � Obi 00 M ti C In Ln O N Ln n .--� M M V.--1 M w o 4_1 co t n v ^ ((00 0 U- 7 c c n c c a c O o o c m a v E _a _a E n n >> 0 M 0 n 0 o Q. 0 0 a. a p 0 a 0 a 0 c v � c O u = c y O >. +� V c w o N E O N {' S 0 z c 00n a+ a+ O u n U O L 4J m C G (m O O w c to Y Y 'O L n t O 0 0 O 41 a 0 0 a w t t C C O V 1 c LL c (D O fC o � '�' C a+ O a+ E E L c 0) u 10 _O C M ( ° 7 O 0 0 to w O of ( (L7 0) O O l3 O awU (n Vl 0) O Q. O U u C7 C7 w w = E a coca m (op o Qn 0 o 0 v c co Ln a c U aci E w o rp10 c E aci E ° o 0 o° o d i E (o 41 o ° n 2 w 41 o n 0 Ii o z n F- O W L L F- a 1 L L L d ct 0)NLn N�c� o rnMLn 00 L_ c O 3 ^00 N Lo G ^ Yvrn.. Y o O '0 0 'o o 10 N V u M O 41 -1 M M ro u H 'D L w o M tp .Na 00 a` acia�M v L L a.d �t N M In M O N G .-i 00 O M o o N 0o rl o o O o o o 10 N V Ln M O M -1 M M 00 .N-' 'D L w o M tp .Na 00 M 00 M O O �t N M In M O N G .-i 00 U. 60 N co N C 0 O N O� o o a o � o 10 0 0 +�I ,� to Ln M 00 ° . I I, M tt O M t0 O to t0 M 00 t0 L C l0 T'I •--I .-i N 01 .-I r 1 r-I LL .-i 4, ri Ln m Ln LA 1�0 00 Ln M M M O o 0 01 0 0 o c O V N^ M� O M t0 O ,�-1 tD (Yi t0 00 N NC .�-i I N M N M LL y IA 00 Ln rl \° N Li o .-I Ln O M 1-4 Ln N M o 0 41 0 ° \ o c m O V O M M O M t0 O M Ln to Ct t0 N ,-i M O o 00 M N0�NkooM I N� .N-I 4N N M M�M U. 41 01 t0 '- N r-I N M m fM IR N \° d' M M o 0 41 0 0 \° 0 0 V n It 01 00 O M t0 O r, t0 N N 00 n t0 N L p r-I Ln ID l0 rl ,� N M *j �t N to M m N cn LL ,� .--I r4 I O M Ln H N 10 Ln ° N o .. ° M p ON Ll') M 111 Ln Ln \° o \° O1 o N \° \° o L o c \ \° L 0 CIn 00 O M t0 N -4 t0 j � O r" L N ,� [t 10 -4 r N I� U. 'A � O O Ln M 00 \ Ln to [h ON m o O o o g o c W4 M -4 0 o n O M t0 O t0 t0 O1 .-i t ° t0 O .9 M k 1 M m ,-1 N t0 t0 to 01 .-i N t0 Ln N WLn N � Ln M r-I-I t CL m L L O v H C OM O V 0 N ni 0 � IL ;, 0 C N d v �L C � W C 0 O t C IA 10N y Q m C a0 E E F- V W Ooh CT 01 ti nl 01 CT �I rn 01 LA CT 01 It O r-L MI 01 0� r-L N� ON O .ti 0) O) .-L 0 Cn 0t .ti 0tl O 01 -4 M M 0t O N d' M O� O N v M d' O N 0% C M r-L ON 01 t0 d; 0� ri N M 0� ra Ln N t0 r-L N d' ON Ln n N n n ri c E L O VL c W � 4J p C L V LL 4 C C 0. � a E c a O W at O O N OI O O N O O N t0 O O N Ln O O N O O N M O O N N O O N ri O O N O O O N 0+ rn rn r-1 .-L 01- ko K .4 p IX 0i CO n ri ri n M r-L tC 00 00 M M IX Oi CO n ,-i 4 n rn o d U) 00 K CT 00 n 0 00 ri ri n It c IX ID It a co LA K r-L r-L n d 0t t< r-L n n O 00 Q O 0i n M M M K U1 U1 U1 V O O O c N N N n d' t0 U1 O N O O O O N N O O N M n n O N � V Or f�r1 O n a U O :6 ri rp cm Ot N M U1 c O V O 0 N 00 N M M a U p O O n O O O O N m 00 N rd r-1 N OD M r-i t0 O 00 r-I M O M W N 01 0p N ri ri N M M O 0 M O LOA 000 N 01 Op N 0 O d' 000 n O n rti O N 0i 0) ri H ri N Ln 0 m OD O t0 d' ON O O Ln M N 01 0i ri 1-4 +-4 N 'T 0) kD 0 N 0 O Oi 0t N O m O N r-L N v M M M Ln Ln Ln N N 6 6 N V 41 O O .L V V) LL_ Ln O C 41 O a E O w U c S c c U c i c c c S U Z c c E i u O U c 0 c U M i p I O N I r.1 I a� O Io c 0) E I � c W i I � 7 U r a r cz O �r t-- Wn M N o0 Ot — M Q, O N 01 01 N O e -� \O O 00 t- t, 7 M tt M 00 -I C� OR .-+ 00 V1 N O C\ n oo r- O O M O N O In to q N" M 00 00 t- \ M O\ ON M N on O h ct' — M 01 N M �o M M M M M M 00 et 00 00 00 00 to N .r M 00 O 00 tn t` 00 to O\ N V O .4 to to O o O O Do O t- N O rn o0 00 F O N O M � 00 N �--� O N t- In O N �O Q 'T C� Ch 00 t- et 00 h M rn In r-1 O �+ �y t` M t- M as t• � M M M M M v O�� 00 V %O V7 V= O 00 C O O tt eq -ti -. — .-- 00 140 M 00 h tl- %Z O t- r- +n 1.0 l \O r- rl O y V't O t` D\ O tn N r M 7 0 N M M In Q M r4 N tti f; (Yi O\ O C1 00 O M In \0 t- M O \O N .r �o O �O M M "r r�— of 7 O,. Z 'O Z 00 00 t i ti 49 M M O\ M M .r 00 -. m O N N c1' 01 00 O IT U�o M 00 00 O N Vr O 1�0 00 00 �o p f7 ON I� N O 2 O oo a1 �6 O\ N N- �_ N 0� d N oo , 4 O N co, IS O; Q O D\ M In r1 C,, M R M N \0 00 M N M in N M `R er f t lO ' O D O r �.-, v l v t q M C I n fV W W v. ,--. Q\ [� N O N t- Ct 't t� 'It O h tt et N M i N O Q 0 O v ct N O\ n M V'1 T �n N 00 O t- 0 N C N t- v In N t t �O M 1n Q N Oo M O ix Q In 0 �n O b O t� M M 4 ON O M 10 -1 N ON as O ON as G� tt N O An N V7 00 00 0 O Q N O f�+0or` O N N 00 00 v7 N C,C+vvt'r00(14 -�a,�"D tt p fY r,H1oV) v^ v V� v \o r In t- M t t^ �n M I r� v I r C%4 O Q to �D W U W j pr N N N vU') O \0 O t- M " M O O\ O 04 W ..r T't N O tf 1 N V! 00 't N Fr h O N %n OO 00 V1 r O, O O M O� as O� N t- O N O y G4 O l� O Ch V V t- 00 N -a �O ON t- �o t- -- �o t/1 ..� a+ 7 V) � � �O t - V^ r- M t- t- to rl Q t- M et V) Ot N O �O M n� M �D a 0 0 0 f1 h 0 7 - N M N o0 N Q '0 M Q Qi C to O\ Lo 00 01 N Vl 00 d' M 7 M -4 0% cp N M N ;- M 10 N O M 2 9i [� .-+ 00 C` to N O� V'i t0 �y F t- v, v,vtiv\,o%oot-��aMC�rwv»tn Qr�eno 1-� c N 9 - C 'G Q. t4 0 O O N U 0 ai E tQ C: N rm M 4 W C2 CO '- z a O n z d W m _ W to W W N m >n N co m o m in O N m N CD h h co m CD 1- M o d tO lD tO W W W M d O (D m CD M N W r O~x J N r r r .- .- .- o m r r M - •^ r r W m m CL. J O W z O OD h d d N 0 d o tD tD N N h N CD CD M O C o co N N N N d W O N N W lD M m h to S o d to W W lD 117 CO W W W o >n h CD d er M z N W z W to O w p h m M M N to h W m r 1p m co V o IMF- N N• Col N co Cl) m co h N m W N N m W W o d W N N W W Ill fD W M d m h h h d h M N F N m N � a ca y x W m W M Cl) o M M o N m W ti Cl) co N O m O o h M M Cl) co m tO W W N OD d tO N N d h d r 7 d ID to 7D IO d fD Of d fD o h W n d n d n z w N O r r .- — — r r o m r r M r r r r M O CD J N W LE Y Y a N W m M m Ill W N N O to h co N h d d h N O O IUD Cl) M M O N h O fD co W Cl) n h O CD co m J � O IT LO W tO Ill iO d CD W tD M N W W tD It h co CD J N m CD N m O J Q Q d m N W N < h N IT m M h N co M m d 02 O m Cl) d M N to N m O _m Cl) CD 1n lf/ r to o H 2 ? O d In tt7 LO In d CD n m co n M co n CD IT n n U W H N N N W 7 co O 2 ap Q to M N N W O O IT M d CD a z z W > N CD co CD r W m lO r r h CO cc > co m m m M •- co m CA CA d d lO LU cc C. m m m m P m m O m m co a t"I p » 2 m Q w F M m H 3 a£ 9L cc CO : M W d d d OD N r CO M o Cl) N h m co d W Cl) LL Y O O O i O m d d W N N W N co o W d M OD m CO O Z d W m tO d CD W W o n ll Q h n h h L O r Q S } H N Co r T r r T r r O O r r M r r r CD 4 W Z m O h IL N N {- Z LL O O LL N OD CD W tO m N m O r N m N W CD m m N W V cr o r d N P N 4 CD CD o to M W W W h d n N O } Wm N W. W N LO Co Co h d tD h d h h W h m Z OD O r r .- r r r C3 r r M r r '- r n O D: Z F r r N N W a. O O N r d h 7 M o to d n o N N IT m Co m 117 W m co ►+ ►+ Z o M LO to m d m W N d to 1O M b tD LO co E O O to >n 177 m CD h co Cl) Co n n d n co m M m n m O r r M r r r r' f0 N N z Z m Z M O h co h Cl) h n tD It d W h CD m OD o m W H J o W It to o d co M d o !� co W h to m to d o LO J O d tO tD CD h W h d n co CD M m m n N m n O O M (O OC z r N N W tL O z J m N h N O co W m h _ _ W o d W to tO o n I-- Q m n N tD o tO n m W co CD CO M M h CD m o h U m of tD to h Co m CO c co CO tD M o W tI7 N h tO h W t-t U r ,•- r — r r — r O r r M N r r r to O p cc Q r r N N t- rn W O lO co m N lO m co C7 M d m W h N d lD co p m h m N u7 N W h Cl) to CO Cl) m d CD h m W Cl) m N N h CO h tD CD f0 W h h d h m tD N m n m N H F- ,N H N H z Z Z Z Z_ 7 r W =) CD U F- 4 �QQ to pQ 2 Y h co CA '" 'N'- x S 3 CO cl r N co d W W p Z O cc W p W pp qq pp pp OO N N N f Q Q Q R 6 tD co Q Q co Q Q Q Q r r r tar tx cc o= w m Y Y cc cc cc a cc a m Y Y W x 0 CD CD CD tD 0 0 O n M Q tD CD 8 NN N v O �w O GOO U � � U A 16. Z 8 O •� p� b cn � ro V h r:: O � w O °0 V 1w o a � a w wa „ w bL C F � tl O fi R Q � � O N C eq O V1 � E h ;;A N 1 r b n v N A~ e� P w O� cv �D a r 'n Oa 00 00 N N b h 0000 M h 1 � N d h M M 00 G1 eq d 7 tMn 0« .�K•. W N N N 00 ry v`t'r O .N.. w op yQ• ��p M N N 8 tMw Q M < i� �v OD pC pp w 1* ..fppm O M 1 N N M 'Con 2r5 So ci�arnhoo� rrt opvi o ! eft w r S � �O 00 h� 00 00 Vl 0QQ0 O O� OM` N f•M1 V1 r O N C, b d .n OoO� be �v w O v�'1 obo v �D �Op U N N .fir O N= Vrl fn PIMO q 7 MM �Vp1 � N M v1 a v1 f�l ap a � nn tr„ h M rii <A si02$ 5i i ZoEnAcn F Z o O 8 O . , � g Q7Q H `f O O � C � u v V3 v a c 0 � F 3 � VRV C O U o T y 3 g• � v � L o�$ V O R NO C. v � H A C♦R r� � F O C1 ` 0 V 3 ci b � w ,o a •9 42 CO y0 be v sR p C W � N .O 0 pR ^ u 9 vN1 V C O O � O •C •V O R .pC C c 40 0 W v� U .5 �d a C O U � RI - U� G 6 U a d e a U o s O h R ' CA O o m v� eq C O d O N ° Cr'J .9 -9 0 0 � O R rj' v 3 � g U R C .S w ° p U 0 � E O ° ,n U v s$�N e u a� u N a. M T N O a 0 t7 O 0 0 61 S.' R S y� C o°. .O O �g o N 4 G d uuu O ,Gr Q L �y al y( O y�' O L yj R n' S3 p � O o :2 61 W a 0 p6 0. 's g bi N N O a, 9 wi b O C U E C 0 in< Nen..a- .aoowetrQ.aaoC\ � n U N N G Q ^ O r N +f r S v N S q N .� ' C. �j .. �.. vWpNp� pppp p ��pp .yt• � •�.. b "�N m:. S � �O YM1 d � N � <l N as �:1 m kn b rN) T vNf .b. M.. t} .�.. r V1 � E h ;;A N 1 r b n v N A~ e� P w O� cv �D a r 'n Oa 00 00 N N b h 0000 M h 1 � N d h M M 00 G1 eq d 7 tMn 0« .�K•. W N N N 00 ry v`t'r O .N.. w op yQ• ��p M N N 8 tMw Q M < i� �v OD pC pp w 1* ..fppm O M 1 N N M 'Con 2r5 So ci�arnhoo� rrt opvi o ! eft w r S � �O 00 h� 00 00 Vl 0QQ0 O O� OM` N f•M1 V1 r O N C, b d .n OoO� be �v w O v�'1 obo v �D �Op U N N .fir O N= Vrl fn PIMO q 7 MM �Vp1 � N M v1 a v1 f�l ap a � nn tr„ h M rii <A si02$ 5i i ZoEnAcn F Z o O 8 O . , � g Q7Q H `f O O � C � u v V3 v a c 0 � F 3 � VRV C O U o T y 3 g• � v � L o�$ V O R NO C. v � H A C♦R r� � F O C1 ` 0 V 3 ci b � w ,o a •9 42 CO y0 be v sR p C W � N .O 0 pR ^ u 9 vN1 V C O O � O •C •V O R .pC C c 40 0 W v� U .5 �d a C O U � RI - U� G 6 U a d e a U o s O h R ' CA O o m v� eq C O d O N ° Cr'J .9 -9 0 0 � O R rj' v 3 � g U R C .S w ° p U 0 � E O ° ,n U v s$�N e u a� u N a. M T N O a 0 t7 O 0 0 61 S.' R S y� C o°. .O O �g o N 4 G d uuu O ,Gr Q L �y al y( O y�' O L yj R n' S3 p � O o :2 61 W a 0 p6 0. 's g bi N N O a, 9 wi b O C U E C 0 in< BROWNING CONSULTING ENABLING SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO MANAGEAND USE STUDENTASSESSMENT DATA May 24, 2004 Student Generation Rate — Edmonds School District This document describes the methodology used by Browning Consulting to calculate student generation rates for the Edmonds School District, and provides results of the calculations. Using data files from the Metroscan database, Snohomish County Planning and Development Services staff provided addresses and land use codes of all new construction between the years 1996 to 2002 within the Edmonds school district. This data was "cleaned up" by eliminating any records that did not contain sufficient information (such as a missing site address) to generate a match from the student record data. Multifamily records were verified using the process described at the end of this document. Using data files from the Edmonds School District student records database, District staff provided student addresses and grade levels of K -12 students attending the District as of May 5, 2004. The student addresses were cleaned up and reformatted to be consistent with the Metroscan method of storing addresses. Data from the two sources were then electronically matched to obtain the following student generation rates: Single Family Rates: The records of 2,803 single family detached units were compared with 20,358 registered students in the District, and the following count of matches and calculated rates were found *: GRADES COUNT OF MATCHES CALCULATED RATE K 85 0.030 1 112 0.040 2 117 0.042 3 122 0.044 4 97 0.035 5 119 0.042 6 97 0.035 7 119 0.042 8 107 0.038 9 104 0.037 10 98 0.035 11 105 0.037 12 84 0.030 K -6 749 0.267 7 -8 226 0.081 9 -12 391 0.139 K -12 1366 0.487 *Calculated rates for individual grades may not equal overall totals due to rounding. P.O. Box 801 • Port Townsend, WA 98368 • iany@abrowningconsuiting.com . (360) 379 -1438 • eFAX (419) - 735 -8604 Multifamily Rates (0 -1 Bedrooms): The records of 239 0 -1 bedroom units were compared with 20,358 registered students in the district. In the K -6 grade level grouping, 2 students matches were found for a K -6 SGR of 0.008. In the 7 -8 grade level grouping, 2 student matches were found for a 7 -8 SGR of 0.008. In the 9 -12 grade level grouping, 1 student match was found for a 9 -12 SGR of 0.004. A total of 5 matches were found for a calculated K -12 SGR of 0.021. Multifamily Rates (2 -plus Bedrooms): The records of 2,022 2 -plus bedroom units were compared with 20,358 registered students in the District, and the following count of matches and calculated rates were found": GRADES COUNT OF MATCHES CALCULATED RATE K 23 0.011 1 20 0.010 2 15 0.007 3 12 0.006 4 15 0.007 5 23 0.011 6 21 0.010 7 21 0.010 8 18 0.009 9 25 0.012 10 31 0.015 11 17 0.008 12 16 0.008 K -6 129 0.064 7.8 39 0.019 9 -12 89 0.044 K -12 257 0.127 "Calculated rates for individual grades may not equal overall totals due to rounding. 2004 SGR Notes: The 2004 calculated student generation rate for the multifamily category containing 2+ bedrooms is significantly lower than the 2002 calculated rate. In 2002, the calculated rate was 0.219, while the calculated rate for 2004 is 0.127. This dramatic change appears to be driven by changing demographics within Edmonds School District boundaries and by the study parameters as explained below. This study matches students records with new construction data from a recent 7 -year period, with a slight time lag to account for housing unit occupation. For the 2002 study, the 7 -year period was 1994 -2000. For the 2004 study, the 7 -year period was 1996 -2002. This change in time periods between the two studies had a significant impact on the data used. For example, two of the largest construction projects in the 2002 study were not used in the 2004 study as they were built in 1994, and two of the largest construction projects used in the 2004 study were not used in the 2002 study as they were built in 2001. P.O. Box 801 - Port Townsend, WA 98368 - lanynabrown/ngconsulting.com - (360) 379 -1438 - eFAX (419) - 735 -8604 Since the projects built in 1994 had a significantly higher number of student matches found than the projects built in 2001, this had a significant impact on the difference between the two studies. These projects are listed below, with corresponding SGR's: Yr Built Address 2+ Units Matches SGR 1994 4525 164' St 319 92 0.288 1994 15700 44th Ave 84 40 0.476 Totals 403 132 0.328 2001 3333 164th St 336 43 0.128 2001 3116 164th St 233 27 0.116 Totals 569 70 0.123 It should also be noted that two methodology changes were implemented for the 2004 study based on input from Snohomish County Staff. First, property code descriptions #113 - Manufactured Home (Leased Site) and 115 - Manufured Home (Mobile Home Park) were excluded from the study. A complete analysis of the impact of this change in both time periods was not performed, however an initial review of properties in these categories for the 2004 study period revealed very few matches. In addition, category #141 — Residential- Condominium - Single Family- Detached was moved from the multifamily classification into the single family classification. This category contained 80 units, and 17 matches were found for a calculated SGR of .213. The reclassification of this category had a small but downward effect on both the Single Family and Multi Family 2+ calculated SGRs. P.O. Box 801 • Port Townsend, WA 98368 • /arry@browningconsu/ting.com . (360) 379 -1438 • eFAX (419) -735- -8604 2004 STUDENT GENERATION RATES Calculated by Browning Consulting, Inc. District # of Students Single Family SGR Multifamily 2+ Bed SGR Arlington 5,333 0.533 0.539 Edmonds 20,358 0.487 0.127 Everett 17,715 0.572 0.246 Granite Falls 2,376 0.634 0.460 Lake Stevens 7,386 0.700 0.255 11,200 0.643 0.453 —Marysville Mukilteo 13,906 0.604 0.214 Snohomish 9,1471 0.574 1 0.229 Stanwood 1 5,3751 0.617 1 0.351 . Appendix B School Facility Capacity Analysis and Land Inventory Table 131 Edmonds School District Elementary School Inventory Source: Edmonds School District, OSPI Notes: (1) Formerly Olympic Elementary School. (2) Formerly Madrona Junior High School. (3) Currently under lease. (4) Formerly Mountlake Terrace Junior High. (5) Formerly Snoline Elementary School. (6) Formerly Cyberschool. Currently Home School Resource Center Site Year Built Size Bldg. Area or Last Total Elements School (acres) (S q. Ft. Remodel Class. Alderwood 8.9 36,869 1965 20 Beverly 9.1 47,641 1988 24 Brier 10.0 45,742 1989 25 Cedar Valley 22.1 64,729 2001 25 Cedar Way 9.4 55,140 1993 27 Chase Lake 10.3 56,992 2000 25 College Place 9.0 48,969 1968 25 Edmonds (1) 8.4 34,296 1966 20 Evergreen 10.3 43,386 1969 20 Hazelwood 10.3 51,330 1987 26 Hilltop 9.8 50,926 1967 25 Lynndale 10.0 38,467 1989 20 Lynnwood 8.9 45,813 1962 25 Madrona (2) 26.9 84,856 1963 32 Maplewood 7.4 76,604 2002 27 Martha Lake 10.0 50,737 1993 26 Meadowdale 9.1 51,550 2000 25 Melody Hill (3) 6.8 37,663 1958 0 Mountlake Terrace 8.0 39,868 1989 21 Oak Heights 9.4 50,099 1966 25 Old Woodway (3) 9.8 34,228 1955 0 Seaview 8.3 45,668 1997 22 Sherwood 13.6 43,283 1966 20 Spruce 8.9 41,968 1988 20 Terrace Park (4) 15.3 70,424 2002 33 Westgate 8.1 45,095 1989 22 Woodwa 5 13.1 37,291 1962 20 Sub Total 600 Former Woodway High School HSRC (6) 340 Totals 940 Source: Edmonds School District, OSPI Notes: (1) Formerly Olympic Elementary School. (2) Formerly Madrona Junior High School. (3) Currently under lease. (4) Formerly Mountlake Terrace Junior High. (5) Formerly Snoline Elementary School. (6) Formerly Cyberschool. Currently Home School Resource Center X89 E f! 76E do� 2o9J o� C6 F$� mEn9¢ Vi C 09 y N �o y � T N V O N N V p T d y C g > U i O > y O UO y U y V Q d E O z d o d o_ y o E .Y O 0- �'yV-oD C>.0 f0 O 6 y O y L C N Z a C �:Q Ot OdO U C Q O. d�EaVE 0 C W J¢ N 'O aod�pd�p�� N L U U N U V V O 060 C .. l y i� O c U °c yy W O w Lu ~ � Q OQ W WMF- ~ Zi rn E L O N C C d C 2 C O dY 8 o C 0 0 o � y. EE H E�nin > > d N N C OOOW> oo O CU) - N J W > E 1' N 2 T � O � g.5 L Q G `c E u t� o o 0 3+ a 6 5 O O - V 2 o A � G N O l°y U w Q T b b N b h N r N 1 p 2 yy n W P b - - O O O Z' ? O O p U u 0•. q 4l d C 7 q O O O i N O N O i - z N N ap r b O 00 op �O O N N vNMI V1 D\ N W V' .N- � ..1 M - N _ h N Y N M — — — — — — — — — — N 0o V' M M O M N M M M R N N N M N N M N N N N M R N N N CCX FFry 2 h m � J O v p m `TC� ��jj o Sb o g ro c 5 z[ 0,o y Q qv p3 3 m m v v u v w' s 5 v o v A ti H 3 Vi C 09 y N �o y � T N V O N N V p T d y C g > U i O > y O UO y U y V Q d E O z d o d o_ y o E .Y O 0- �'yV-oD C>.0 f0 O 6 y O y L C N Z a C �:Q Ot OdO U C Q O. d�EaVE 0 C W J¢ N 'O aod�pd�p�� N L U U N U V V O 060 C .. l y i� O c U °c yy W O w Lu ~ � Q OQ W WMF- ~ Zi rn E L O N C C d C 2 C O dY 8 o C 0 0 o � y. EE H E�nin > > d N N C OOOW> oo O CU) - N J W > E 1' N 2 T � O � g.5 L Q G `c E u t� o Table 133 Edmonds School District Middle School Capacity Inventory Middle School Site Size acres Bldg Area (S q. Ft. Year Built or Last Remodel Total Class 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 1961 39 829 Grades 7 &8 (1) 19 468 Former Woodway High School 2 72 Totals 168 3,703 Source: Edmonds School District Notes: (1) Grades 7 and 8 housed in elementary schools. (2) Middle school students attending Home School Resource Center (HSRC). Table 134 Edmonds School District High School Capacity Inventory (1) High School Site Size acres Bldg. Area (S q. Ft. Year Built or Last Remodel Teaching Stations Program Student Ca acit Edmonds - Woodway 28.5 218,000 1998 * 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 Woodway(1) 39.0 149,520 1967 60 0 Scriber Lake(2) 8.5 39,474 2001 * 350 Former Woodway High School 3 179 Totals 7,031 Source: Edmonds School District Notes: * Optimum design capacity is 1600 students, Capacity may vary depending on education program. (1) Capacity counted at elementary level for 1999 -2000 through 2001 -2002 school years. (2) Formerly Cedar Valley Elementary. (3) High school students attending Home School Resource Center (HSRC). Z O H Q N w J H H O Q� U J O O x V M> m d a U �6 N c E > �o ri (0 O m om" c E 41 0 .41 " M M N M (0 M MOM T U O a+ N %D O N N m U O a a N a0 r` co � M .•-1 M Imo- w LU a v, ^ m m E m U o E It rnoco N .� N om, ON Ln 0 't O N O 0 {� N i m rn r, N tO Co O N 0^ O = j > v a w N in ^ Q O ,1 .�i �oE> - m > o4 `° tn ao10 In i N Y ate+ U O .-� .-i In 00 N 0 p a 0001- vn 1O�pN n ro r\o�au�M U I O M N M C O L o v M u N 0M0 000 0M0 co o > V (0 /0 LL O O O O j N N o w to v z J � i 'o � u kD o to %o to y u L M N a N N N N N Mf rl N f0 U M t0 o U T rn � C c i O t iLn � O o r` n rn oo - i O u 41 N M � i ri ri.i. (n u E o w C O O L Q J f. 0 2 H o%000rno m > O m O N O O m Ln 3 ~ a m � t0 N o O N U O N OM 0 D7 ^ W L v � N _ a E ` Q m U f Li x O O It U) U) g U J O O x U Z w 0 �o ri c E 41 0 .41 " M M N M T U O a+ M O O O M N O M M1 M r, 7 o" a fu rl ri .•-1 .•-I .••1 LU a m U o E It rnoco N .� N om, ON Ln 0 't O N O IM1 i m rn r, N tO Co O N 0^ O = j v a w in ^ �oE> `° ao10 In i N vn I O M N N - cm > V (0 N N w to J � i y u M O M N O to n w O O N Q1 Mf rl p d M t0 f� U C i O t iLn � O C U U - i O � i ri ri.i. -iO u o w C °o •� o%000rno u m O N O O m Ln a ko t0 %D N M N U o T � c 0 � U m O O L J U (n ~ L 2 Q 3 Co m 3 0 3 ~ p Y () o p m o o o 3 o i W v E E � m E '� W J W W o 0 l00 (n IL O O N O 4a C d c M 4! .fl m O a ++ H u E i O y O L 0 H fp =U U) m O � � 00 c d O u 73 E O H W O: v +� v c -a o O O N O O M Ln E :�:! L V N IO 41 CL Cro U O N fu _ ~ O OO.1OO,�tp Q O 0 -0 N V) :+ O c a N .-I ,-1 ,-I v4 O 0 D i 7 U) J N E O O O N U) M U N- 4N.- Ir4LnN O Z O a 6 O Ln � v � +J �. m to N _ 4.5 N = _N N f0 t O O � w E O N3 � N Y O u w � U O fp L auULU0cm N cu D N vCM °n�E Lj to tp Uw=zOL° O O L v N v c 0 E v w Table 137 Edmonds School District Inventory of Support Facilities Source: Edmonds School District Building Site Area Size Facility Name (S q. Ft. Acres Administration Center (ESC) 57,400 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. Former Woodwa Work Adjustment 9,800 N /A. Source: Edmonds School District 3S'a"Y9 = 35'a ^tl b °o - 1 uepe ,-j mdeSwm d O E �d� F1R'Fr� — X 3 •CA co 14 22 c aim m � o o_._ {fl 41 n � - �'' �_ 0 3 is _ ��`•a'= \ 3 N teM Pod uos ue0 , i S4,41 g M'IdLI i M "Id£t y� • Bt D x MS'a"Y BZ N �� M'a "tl 92 M'a"tlBZL c s c a Ip W bS M•antl5£ .L N M M atl9£ c e u W M'a"tl6£ ® n B �Pifay M'a^YZ5 �� a H C �.........� H 0 M'a"Y 66 N Way VV y b 0 M'a^YZS Q M'a "tlZS N M a^tl 99 .. .. Di ♦• � M antl 09 a g Ila i. Ln vs �' a Ca _ U . • .�G d d M'antl M •anY 99 � MGM� • vs M ZL ��••••• ..d M'a"V9L3 WON 9L $ • aleM+WeaW ® m � WON 08, ••� y S cm •�.. z M'a "Yee 00 CIO V'a"V Z6 M " W � n O �Pg Na"Y6 S'a d� "Y6 J • u M'a "tl VOL y�b� 54 M'a"tl90t a ` Cn F �L9 s « ��- ®U S'a ^tlta9mS 3 A cc O ►�+ x d o W 'a 0 � = @ � v a 0 e © �k kn © 0 U e m22 ■ 0 C 2 k '>u � e ■ = � Y v� CL ] 2 0 0 D k 0k s 0 0 FA E . FA �c C ■ \ § G �LUk # § 0 u 3 2 76 E (U k E \ § / / 0 � J � c w E L- 4 §UJ § K o U c �O E 0 t - / LL LL § 0 // J� m§oo °o 2�L. mm2m /7u3aN« /b c3V) ■ § 2 .0 / /E2- _ & 2 m cu LL 00 kk2U > ■ ] } A \ E j § m § x / f 0 t � 7 k k f 3 ) \ E / 2 °q �/ § w r7 U k �k 0 M u k 0 �0 [ 2 ® § o c o -D c E c o 2� (o 2� :3 �N� @9\7/9/79 \7 \r1l06 a«r"%CD wW )0 3 0 \o Mn = 2 �§ �� /E r- U � 4-5 © a) :2 (f) �� c 2: 7 = q � � 'D eggnm� =gib � m m■ o m m�� wFn \iz (z iz \33 e ■ = � Y v� CL ] 2 0 0 D k 0k s 0 0 FA E . FA �c C ■ \ § G �LUk # § 0 u 3 2 76 E (U k E \ § / / 0 � J � c w E L- 4 §UJ § K o U c �O E 0 t - / LL LL § 0 // J� m§oo °o 2�L. mm2m /7u3aN« /b c3V) ■ § 2 .0 / /E2- _ & 2 m cu LL 00 kk2U > ■ ] } A \ E j § m O 0 H t5 W � Cn O Z p w N W ED w N > O Q O = N W m J Q, CO � V 0 41 a C �o a H C E O L C W a+ L _H C 0 7. O � = W LL V H � H d m u N O G1 m "a •i H W a 00 O Ln Ln O In L Ln Ln O O't O n Ln Ln O N r% a pi O OO N M N 00 n O' n Ln Ln nttoo 00 0000 O �. 0 _I O t0 to O N f"O'i N � O�O o0 to O Ln Ln N r, rl fn ^ 0 r, C0 �Od�M 00 O0 a) O r` n C '1 4 rj U N M N a) Ln Lnto'� Cn 00 Ln �O M M to ai n to t0 a) N Ln O Ln Ln I, N N N 0 [tOt n M MM 0 O N I,01 N °00 NN N O r, to Ln M 0 Ln Ln O �Ln 0 OHO tin N N ^� N N N O O M M M eq O Ln LntD'{ ko V O 11, 10 ,1�. O O4C r- to Ln LOnIOn N ^ ^ N N N al O M o 0 0 O M M M N NO E N a) .O N OL o as M M c Ln U � �0 V O L C 0 � C (U } v a a oU) o 0 ° t � CM C � L 3 3 (n _ c y c ° ° (U :3 -a aci aci O a) ° O w N � ,,, U m U O.-0 'O U Q''U U U U > U la �a a) 0) O O •- U a- - O O = = � L oUo0 > w U a � ° t6 a) O O Ln L U L U la aJ w O L a) m O 0 U 0 L y T o C o — 0 o U C W U 1!1 C C Op O 7 E L44 v w N 4' U L Q 07 .. la a) O O L U N .0 U ra v w O L a) O 0 U 0 c C 0— .r_ o U c � W to C c� E 4+ W �a ° u L Q ° V) 00 O M -,t Ln ' ^O OM N 000 pi O OO O M N 00 N N to N O M M kD � O�O o0 O M N O 0 0 N rl to N O M N ' Ln .O 0 O Ln n O Ln 00 w 0 M M to U N n to t0 a) Ln O M Ln CL ' O O O N N N 0 0 0 C:) M M Ln °00 N O r, to Ln qt N O (no o M 0 00 O O M M M N 0 O 11, 10 M O r- to Ln O M M al O M o 0 0 O M M M N NO N O �t0000 O M M Ln �0 V O 0 0 M M M N M 00 to t U O C� CUI- 0 O O O � c a °- N U O a) L +a — 'V O C C C N a) ra L a C •- U @ (0 a >- la w c 0+ oUo0 u ° o ° °^ O 3 3 U c U p L a a Cn U (f) to C 41 41 C a) 0c 3 W c C M 4) 41 U O _v 'U O Ln Ln > a CLC ° a C rn .W C +; w w W W 0 U U a) 7 7 L °,aN.+ L 0 X o C L c c ° t U UL CU Ln d d la a) O O L U N .0 U ra v w O L a) O 0 U 0 c C 0— .r_ o U c � W to C c� E 4+ W �a ° u L Q ° V) 00 O rl to Ln MO O O C D O N to N n O ,1 fn O rn 0 0 O rl to N to O .-I O -0 C x.-100 O a) O n to t0 U N a) Ln O rI r1 ao o Ln °00 O r, to Ln N O 0 O 11, 10 O r- to Ln N M O rq N NO O �t0000 O Ln N N M 00 O C� CUI- O N to N N Lq u °^ O L a a O U a) 0c c C M 4) 41 U O _v 'U f — M s > a CLC a o M LU U 0 t o L °,aN.+ 3 3 0 °o ° t U UL CU Ln N C C a, a) 01� U-) C _° � cn = L O Ln U) ° U m aJ a! (n v) w c V u 4-j m 0 u w 3 7 O O .. CL 'o 'o r r = X M L wUaa» y C C 1°n a) O O .0 U U �a v w 0 L a1 O 0 C O C O c W •u c a! 7 U) to Q 01 0) z O C 0 0) U Q) a a in 0 Ln 01 In O u)OLn N , .j 00 01 N 0 00 O t0 O+1 N ,j00n tO n O LA 1,1 O 00 Ln +-1 N u Ln ' 1 O01 0 Or-I N rj Ln In u N ,0 M01t0 UN NMLn en v- v O) 0 OO Ln-IIO jN en Ln L 7 � Ln N rl 4-1 O LLq U N M a C �o a 0) MW O _ i 0 O fu U O C U N 0) Cn E -c �v Lu rn _ N O ^ O Q N OJ .0 fo L L O L LT O 3 c 'U L3 (n N a) 0) L � O L1 N 0) U a� 'o a Ln Ln LnOO .-i im pp O O �-i rl O O CT7 Q 0-6 O Ln U 01 Ln Ev a w�= 0 Ln Ln 00 00 11 Ln ,--i %0 n p 0c0 O O N � Ln . I O Obi O O fnN � O M O O N N O LLn OO N N N ,--I O Ln 00 O N N Cl 't3 0.1 t0 0.1 L .0 3 O L LT L }' c 3: to cl N Q1 0) u Z L71 C M O x �7t o O N U a, Ln U N0) ^ E t O o:2 Li w�2 ,*Ln O Ln M Ln O Ln O Ln N rl 00 01 u N ,, O N 10 O, ,,,j 00 N c Ln ,-1 rl CO Ln ,--L 01 N O 01 O r-L ,y Ln Ln M Ln O kD M Ln O n O It M O �= o O C Ln U O N Ln ov Q v Ln O D O ^ n M 'o N Ln N O CL` c U Ln CL C) In M -I U ? O N p�m n Mn00 01 .X W C OJ E O � CO %DON,, N d �ln� W L I*l .-q 00 N M 00 O�Mtn N } a O a` 0 o0 m N U L (j J U O N V1 N�L�' Appendix C Snohomish County Code Title 30.66C Chapter 30.66C SCHOOL IMPACT MITIGATION 30.66C.010 Purpose and applicability. (1) The purpose of this chapter is: (a) to ensure that adequate school facilities are available to serve new growth and development; and (b) to require that new growth and development pay its proportionate share of the costs of new school facilities. (2) This chapter shall apply to all development, except for development that was the subject of a prior SEPA threshold determination that resulted in the imposition of school mitigation conditions under chapter 30.66C SCC as codified prior to January 1, 1999. An applicant subject to a prior version of this chapter may consent in writing to the application of this chapter. (Added Amended Ord. 02 -064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003) 30.66C.020 School impact fee eligibility. (1) Any district serving the 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 comprehensive plan. (2) A condition of eligibility shall be that a district must provide documentation that it has petitioned every other city and/or county served by that district to establish a school impact fee or mitigation program. (Added Amended Ord. 02 -064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003) 30.66C.030 Expiration of district plans. For purposes of 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, as required in Appendix F of the comprehensive plan, is adopted by the council, whichever date first occurs. (Added Amended Ord. 02 -064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003) 30.66C.035 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 of the comprehensive plan. 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. 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 comprehensive plan and SCC 30.66C.040 through 30.66C.065. (Added Amended Ord. 02 -064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003) 30.66C.040 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. District capital facilities plans shall contain data and analysis necessary and sufficient to meet the requirements of the GMA and Appendix F of the comprehensive plan. The plans must provide sufficient detail to allow computation of school impact fees according to the formula contained in SCC 30.66C.045. Additional. elements may be contained within a school district capital facilities plan, provided that any such additional elements are consistent with those mandatory elements outlined in Appendix F. (Added Amended Ord. 02 -064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003) 30.66C.045 Impact fee calculation formula. (1) General. The formula in this section provides the basis for the impact fee schedule for each district serving the county. District capital facilities plans shall include a calculation of its proposed impact fee schedule, by dwelling unit type as provided in SCC 30.66C.105, 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. (2) 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. (3) Cost calculation by element. The fees shall be calculated on a "per dwelling unit" basis, by "dwelling unit type" as set forth below. (a) 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) B(3) = Land Cost (Per Acre, to the nearest dollar) 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 with the result being the "Total Site Acquisition Cost Element" for purposes of the final school impact fee calculation below. (b) School construction cost element. [C(1) _ B(1)] x A(1) = School Construction Cost Element Where: C(1) = Estimated Facility Construction Cost . 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. (c) 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 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. (4) 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. (a) State match credit. D(1) x D(3) x D(2) x A(1) = State Match Credit Where: D(l) = Boeckh Index 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 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. (b) Tax payment credit. {[(1 +F(1)) ^10] -11 {F(1)(1 +F(1)) ^10} x F(2)] x F(3) =.Tax Credit Where: F(1) = Interest Rate F(2) = District Property Tax Levy Rate F(3) = Average Assessed Value (for each dwelling unit type) (5) 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 the 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 district's capital facilities plan adopted by the county. (6) Calculation of total impact fee. (a) The total school impact fee, per dwelling unit, assessed on a development activity shall be the sum of. Total Site Acquisition Cost Element Total School Construction Cost Element Total Relocatable Facilities Cost Element minus the sum of- Total State Match Credit Total Tax Payment Credit Elective Adjustment by District expressed in Total Dollars per Dwelling Unit, by Dwelling Unit Type. (b) 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 school developer and accepted by the school district, as provided in SCC 30.66C.150. (Added Amended Ord. 02 -064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003) 30.66C.050 Department review and transmittal. (1) Upon receipt of a district's capital facilities plan (or amendment thereof) the department shall determine whether the plan meets the following requirements: (a) the required plan contents and plan performance criteria outlined in Appendix F of the comprehensive plan are included in the document; (b) The analysis contained within the district capital facilities plan is consistent with current data developed pursuant to the requirements of the GMA and Appendix F; (c) Any school impact fee proposed in the district's capital facilities plan has been calculated using the formula contained in SCC Table 30.66C.050(1) of this chapter; and (d) The district capital facilities plan has been adopted by the district's board of directors. (2) Upon finding that these requirements have been satisfied, the department shall transmit the district capital facilities plan to the planning commission. (3) The director is authorized to adopt policies and procedures for the establishment and operation of a technical review committee to assist the department in its review of capital facilities plans and the student factor methodologies used to support the plans. (Added Amended Ord. 02 -064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003) 30.66C.055 District capital facilities plan and fee adoption. Any school district capital facilities plan adopted by the county council shall be incorporated into the capital facilities element of the county's comprehensive plan. Adoption of the district capital facilities plan shall constitute adoption of the schedule of school impact fees specified in the district's capital facilities plan as modified by SCC 30.66C.100. (Added Amended Ord. 02 -064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003) 30.66C.060 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 necessary to comply with applicable legal requirements) to correct the deficiencies and resubmit its revised, adopted capital facilities plan. (Added Amended Ord. 02 -064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003) 30.66C.065 Delays. If a district fails to submit its biennial update of the district capital facilities plan at least 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 prior to the plan expiration date. If an updated district 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. (Added Amended Ord. 02 -064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003) 30.66C.100 Fee required. (1) Each development, as a condition of approval, shall be subject to the school impact fee established pursuant to this chapter. The school impact fee shall be calculated in accordance with the formula established in SCC 30.66C.045. The fees listed in Table 30.66C.100(1) represent one -half of the amount calculated by each school district in its respective capital facilities plan in accordance with the formula identified in SCC 30.66C.045. (2) 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. (3) The department shall maintain and provide to the public upon request a table summarizing the schedule of school impact fees for each school district within the county: (4) The fees set forth in Table 30.66C.100(1) apply to developments that vest to county development regulations from January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2004. (5) Building permits submitted after January 1, 1999 for which prior plat approval has been obtained under chapter 30.66C SCC as codified prior to January 1, 1999 shall be subject to the school impact fees established pursuant to this chapter, as set forth in this section, except as provided in SCC 30.66C.010(2). Click hereto view Table 30.66C.100(1) --SCHOOL IMPACT MITIGATION FEES .pdf file (Added Amended Ord. 02 -064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003; Ord. 03 -033, April 9, 2003, Eff date April 21, 2003) 30.66C.110 Impact fee schedule -exemptions. The council may, on a case -by -case basis, grant exemptions to the application of the fee schedule for low- income housing as defined in chapter 30.91 SCC and in accordance with the conditions specified under RCW 82.02.060(2). To qualify for the exemption, the developer shall submit a petition to the director for consideration by the council prior to application for building permit. Conditions for such approvals shall meet the requirements of RCW 82.02.060 (2) and include a requirement for a covenant to assure the project's continued use for low - income housing. The covenant shall be an obligation that runs with the land upon which the housing is located, and shall be recorded against the title of the real property. (Added Amended Ord. 02 -064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003) 30.66C.120 Service areas established. For purposes of calculating and imposing school impact fees, the geographic boundary of each district constitutes a separate service area. (Added Amended Ord. 02 -064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003) 30.66C.130 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. (Added Amended Ord. 02 -064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003) 30.66C.150 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 chapter 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 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. Each request for credit will be immediately forwarded to the affected school district for its evaluation. (2) Where a school district determines that a development 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. (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 approve the request for credit and adjust the impact fee obligation accordingly, and 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 SCC 30.66C.300 - 30.66C.310. (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 dwelling 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 subdivision 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. (Added Amended Ord. 02 -064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003) 30.66C.160 SEPA mitigation and other review. (1) The county may condition or deny development approval pursuant to the SEPA 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 chapter shall constitute adequate mitigation for impacts on capital facilities identified in the district's capital facilities plan; except that nothing in this chapter prevents issuance of a determination of significance under SEPA and conditioning or denial of the project based on specific adverse environmental impacts identified during project review. (Added Amended Ord. 02 -064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003) 30.66C.200 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 developments. (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 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. (Added Amended Ord. 02 -064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003) 30.66C.210 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 SCC 30.66C.220 below. (4) Each district shall provide the county an annual report showing the source and the amount of school impact fees received by the school district and the capital facilities financed in whole or in part with those school impact fees. (Added Amended Ord. 02 -064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003) 30.66C.220 Refunds. (1) School impact fees not spent or encumbered within six years after they were collected shall be refunded pursuant to RCW 82.02.080(1). For purposes of this chapter, "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. (2) When the county seeks to terminate any or all impact fee requirements under this section, all unexpended or unencumbered funds, including interest earned, shall be refunded in accordance with RCW 82.02.080(2). (3) 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 within one year of the date the right to claim the refund arises, or the date that notice is given, whichever is later. (Added Amended Ord. 02 -064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003) 30.6613.230 Reimbursement for county administrative costs, legal expenses, and refund payments. Each participating school district shall enter into an agreement with the 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 chapter against district- specific challenges, and payment of any refunds provided under SCC 30.66C.220. (Added Amended Ord. 02 -064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003) 30.66C.300 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 amount of or an elimination of fees imposed under this chapter by submitting a written explanation of the basis for the appeal. The director may adjust the amount of or eliminate the fee, in consideration of studies and data submitted by the developer and the affected school district, if one of the following circumstances exists: (a) The school impact fee assessment was incorrectly calculated; (b) Unusual circumstances exist that demonstrate the school impact fee is unfair as applied to the specific development; (c) A credit for in -kind contributions by the developer, as provided for under SCC 30.66C.150 above, is warranted; (d) Any other credit specified in RCW 82.02.060(1)(b) is warranted; or (e) The school impact fee assessment was improper under RCW 82.02.020 or RCW 82.02.050 et seq. (2) To avoid any delay pending resolution of the appeal, school impact fees may be paid under written protest in order to obtain development approval. Such written protest must be submitted at or prior to the time fees are paid, and will relate only to the specific fees identified in the protest. Failure to provide such written protest at the time of fee payment shall be deemed a withdrawal of any appeal to the director. (3) Failure to file a written protest and to seek a timely appeal to the director shall preclude any appeal of the school impact fee pursuant to SCC 30.66C.310. (4) Refunds approved under this section, or following an administrative appeal as provided in SCC 30.66C.310, shall be made to the current property owner at the time the refund is authorized, unless the current property owner releases the county and the school district from any obligation to refund the current property owner. (5) The developer or the school district may appeal the director's decision as provided in SCC 30.66C.310(1). (Added Amended Ord. 02 -064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003) 30.66C.310 Appeals of decisions - procedure. (1) Any person aggrieved by a decision to impose, impose modifications, or waive an impact fee under this chapter may appeal the decision to the hearing examiner. Where there is an administrative appeal process for the underlying development approval, appeals of an impact fee under this chapter must be combined with the administrative appeal for the underlying development approval. Where there is no administrative appeal for the permit, then appeal of the impact fee shall proceed as a Type 1 appeal pursuant to chapter 30.71 SCC. (2) The impact fee may be modified or refunded if paid under written protest in accordance with SCC 30.66C.300, upon a determination based on the application of the criteria contained in SCC 30.66C.300. Appeals shall be limited to application of the impact fee provisions to a specific development. (Added Amended Ord. 02 -064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003) 30.66C.320 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. (Added Amended Ord. 02 -064, December 9, 2002, Eff date February 1, 2003) Appendix D Long Range Enrollment Forecast & Methodology Overview (1) 13 0 s AW ai c 0 v a� 'o L am 0 V L CL 4- 0 O N a) L a) -4-a EO m 4- 0 cn 0 .cu cn 0 L m N cu cn .0 E cn cn 2 m M N O C`O 041, Cl) '"t 0 t 0 U cn 0 Ls, 0 0 75 0. 0 0 .� cn s° � y L 0 0 C. 0 V E E S E M- N OO C`D LMu 0 i o .... .` E o ♦i L L L L � o c � � L � LM 0 L O *-- CL 0 0 cm r0 ° o� LL CD a cn 0 Ls, 0 0 75 0. 0 0 .� cn s° � y L 0 0 C. 0 V E E S E M- N OO C`D LMu w Cl) t 0 a N cc a� c O U Q. O Z3 C. (D C: ; CCU cn C) C ^' O cr .i.i c {� O co E co 0 O L ` O UL C O E O O U CU CU O 0 m u cn ---j cn 4) cn cn 4) O O O N 0 O m ►i O cn O 75 _U U cn co ►i 0 N C) (_D to 14" U � U C O E O O U CU CU O 0 m u cn ---j cn 4) cn cn 4) O O O N 0 O m ►i O cn O 75 _U U cn co ►i 0 N C) (_D to 14" C*I%u L d 3 c a cc co 4- ^C/) cnW .E...r O E E C: o o. C: c: O a) L L L 00 W O 'o O � > O � ,- U C;) o � 0 c an) a� � U C;) O_N v)= O cl) t6 . U (D X w �: Q a) 0 0 N 0 +, I M i r N� r r I' r � O � r 0 � 00 O Coll O O CIO CDP O 9 N O iY Co O H E t0 O 9 w O d cc U o C O CU V L d a O C4 9 � = O O 7 v �a a C N � O 7 R U s. V w > o Cd � � c i O V a 9 O O O e e 00 DCnstr -LoN tir- M 0 CO CO CO r c0 00 co r M M M C C h N N C V r o 0 0 0 o M M 0coM0co0 0000 N r c0 co Cn CO CD 00 co r N N r n CD N co N 00 00 D r 0) 0) r M M M O M N N O r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0N0Cocol*- r T O 0000 -CA 00 V Ch CV CV CV T N T N O 0 0 0 0 0 N N 0 cD t` 0 co ti ti r-_ V N N N !` N 00 VCVCVCVOCV NN co O 0 0 0 0 0 c0 CO :pOm0d' M c0 CO co ncoCDcom Cp N 04 r r r Q r r r O N N O 0 0 0 o o r r - 'qt 00 M N O C0 c0 qV4 CM lo: 1nqt MM 0i N N co 0 0 0 M M 0r L.- 10L, r NN CO 7QOrrr 'cr� N N LO O X000 0 V O 00 Cn r h c0 0 Ci C'7 M to - �rrr.- .-•- O N N v O .O C d o 0 0 0 0 00 Y ?000rNN M M CI) to O CD Cn c0 Cn Cn X01 O D 0 0 0 0 0 r r N N C M O O w v 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X00000 ccootoo a` M 500000 cD D00000 0 N N N O A 6) LL � d 3 O C c m� t > > U ., UUUU ac�c m W LLL� «`O LL CU zcnmz0t- UU a O e e O O O T r CnmCDtooM ccoccn d c`7 M Q O r "7 4 r r r r r N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 w 00 MOM CD Go t- 00 �t,- NtoCD00 f- t` r O O N h 00 M M r r r N N 0 00 000 Of0 Iifl 'tccoo00 C07M 000 00 O1,: NN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0) ,-t to MOr 00 O d r c9 00 N C� Cl� t- CD CO T M Cn N N co d N Cn 0 O CA Cn M h1n "t r nP. Cp qr 'i M d' N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O CANgI,:Oi0�0 co co M M M r'TN NN cq rNCD000N MM Cn CO to Cn e- ti N N T r T r r r N N \o \\ CDO 0C� 0 7 0 O O •" 00 0 NN 0 0 0 0 0 o 00 C-rNr0� 00 CgNMt -NCO 00 0 0 0 r 910 N N p O O O C-4 NCO 0 0 0 0 O CO CO d� C) C) O N N 0 o a o 0 0 O 00000 coo coo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O OIO && r 0 r r T r 0 O O D o N NNNN1Q O a N .fl U- U- LL C zwwzoE -- ou O CA r 0 d O v r v V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o e o 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v � o 0 O(O(DM(D(DO r (OtOOot0(OmOO (O(ONO(000Ol ,�6 rrr'�rrNO(G rrrrrrNOO 7 7 .1�r7 rNO o riaioiTT TIT IT ririTTC?riIIT ric+ie*iriTTITIT ODOCONM00 (00)(O(Ottlotl-lnh OOMOOtt rODMO r V —000 r-�O (D r- r.-2p�m ONOM D7MOD0ODI,-I Lf) Cl) O M qt tt O tt tD tt co Ott v O V I- Cl) r I OCOMMN(OCOO CV <t w O .- O r Orr - MOhh I-- N r C>0E-000 M N OV O vO)ppM V t-N � O�eeOOONNrO~t Cl) MITv coCD Lft I U') Cl) Cp(0000 O r rO r NOD 9 N00a) to 0)rpp(ON -Nth O- (ON(OMNrNr O V' r N'�Y'rV- 41--ON (0M r.-00M(D(T)— U)coaco0)Go 2 (0w r In (OttOD OvttOIO I-- Mr vO M Cl) N tD0 C) nth rtA rO r NMMM MOIr OM ONOOOD MOM rNMN IT MV)00 N rOrttoDOM I- OoODOM(DMrl- O00 MMM2Op0M O VVwV (Ott00 O�C'OO� h('7r �V'O MMN(0000 r rIb rL O etMOOttrO�h Netr NOOt�rO MO)MOoNo Ir- a)co m N NOrO(� O n 000) Cl) I-N O 000 w07ccoDhO)N O O ttIT Ott(Detco Ott le W) Lo t'� N it O�MMNtoWO 00 r r to r to O to NIO(ON000000 tiCO0000) rthC7N O9 co0)N(nOoCNv co CY) O N NOrO t0 O O et�O�V'tOIn00 OetetO . r. r In r %o O OtQ�r0)tO MC MONM0rv0)CO M000GOCc MrM 0 IN C7 Itv W IT -0) Ii v co (M in vn cnN vlon t�(�m ((00 r� cb � MMOd)st0(DP -� r�rrtnOJd' -}� NO)0000OM001�0 f0 N NOrOQ) N f�o0000)M(O�t -O OOD��}}COd000M07 7 A r O r O O mt- glaowov t�wwtlqrtt000(D I�etOrtT(OOpMM O NttN rOOf� t- MWM MONO OCAO007ooOW f` p OMttttOvr - -W l OvI -TU) tN C14 ttO(OMMNf�(Or rtt r Ld rIA d =.w tt O0 jQ7O f-Oo Of- et m 0 of f- oD0rr O LNn t'7 vvED Nrom ('(C)vV Lnn �I --CO7N LO (3) 0 C07 m N�NN %6 r L c7 O P3OMWNOtOOr ee}}0) Or cop W04 (D MOOOM(O ((+r��OM(ONtD000D 0o00)OOOD(0(ON tDOCO0000N7 M Il)Mtt ttOttt�(00? O V V'tOOV7�e+fM ertDlOMetN(�hN 4 v t6 ui O Y t W CD O co to CM %3 pta � 10 � gOr m m (o m H =w O c`�oOO �3 Y — Y v7 N y v v 'm¢3_ QoQ v z t(g�D m Q ttpp '0000QQQ m >• a o (n $ Z C t0 O.) C 1 m 3 N O« i J m C l0 C N O Q� C a m O Cl) r N r T r O r O OO O co 4 O O (6 O M 0 N O � M O T M � o O O O O O O O O O O O O o o O O (DC7(000(DC7UnC'4q MOOT r M r r T T D 000 (NO M M I? t 0 C MOrM(- Nr- w 00 It O d) ONCDOT(OrMU,r C � e- M � V (O 0 u) I0 1t N 00 I� CD � co -0 O O N N TNr�}'erTN7oDW O NO�O r(OrMM� hl� 1� M M 1D !('T(D CD C7 CO N CO co OD r in O c N N N(ON(otoNM(O(O OMN a0pp0N N (D 0 NW0)T(nTM1n ��teY rM'd'v(O1-O O V T(O(O�{ �f N OD 00 O 00 0) r 9) O c N N MvMtoOMstW(oN OMh00(nm 01 0) ONOO O M(DO (OVT(O(D r �'VVTMV a (O►�O �N O O -- LO r N t- N ,-d* 0 V W N IW V N 0 N00000)0 M N r- O N W M Wo M N (D T W 0 (n of ,V dr(h��CD(�T 2 A vN O r T T Lo r r N N O n O D t-- Q M M (o O M N O O w O O o ON000)r rNN,-t V V V rM IT co r(o(D V N O (O N (D N r lti T T N N 0NU')wf� 1Ohlh0 0 ONW089 T ON00TT(Or T^ (O(OT(O(D(O co CD T v N CO M M N N at'hst(OhtY00N(Dh otF000l�/. M M N O T(OMCQ v v v V CO c (O T(O(D co �N OD N Ir N -;r to r N N w of W Oao0pN O� Go co 0o 0)(D t� -tn0 co ID OM000)N(ON(Olh(a vvv—m,.ty OO/-T 0A �N 00 (D M (O M r � r N N WN(A(�MWUJMMo OCO pp M OMa00�T(ONI�OT ^to CO (^O(D N NtV lgtrMttVWMN It CM co O O T {n T N T N ff c M(O(DO��(DrTO V'NCooN h((irtoW t'7 M O U �MOQN NON R tt tt N M '7 V (O 0 N V N O (D (D (O co .a T (O r W N N f0 C1 CL U) (q t7 Cr O E >, c �5 Cy w G a Co LLI C) (q Lo y U $Y O5 `g 0 O Y N C w W 0) (D d c d 6uj :r a =d t c 4 M � ((pp L ��pp L ^ ji IL 0 V CL � ci ?? C�q�L ��jmUoIN 7o t7c.)0W>m'T �t7 0 2 N O �O C 'C 0. m Y L C d Y rn d J C O v d O a T N li M h m O M r- r owrZoOOO C 0 N -4 O N 3 E 0 0 C7 ti vMrnto0 'IT 04 t .- t m V in0N M r t0OO CN r N tONO0t0 tO Oto �MMaOo0 5 �Oh LA CO tO !O r M N !h to 0 t- M 0 O N r- N W tT �NN1�- -OM r N Ncotl0ON0) tn0d'O'f to O O r tD r O to O N N0;z0WN r r f N M LO OOOtOrONN� L6 d a d r N O tnnjNa0M0 NccicoNNGo 0O00.trOtt 0 tnlfStO�N 0 N COrtMrstf-. VMOsY� -M pt70N�rON c tp tO In e- CV Cl N P- COrCONco co co ct-- Mr00 O N �Ot'- 00r0 co to in I' roo tp�N O N MtOwOMtO MOOto Me -00 11", tntn0M t` Go O N M O LO f- M p O co M ,i to to tO r �z O N . N 0 Lu Uj zcncoz0 .1 Appendix E Capital Projects Scope of Work EDMONDS is SCHWL 20420 68th Avenue West n.--T Lynmvrood, WA 980$6 IMPORTANT SCHOOL FUNDING INFORMATION DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS? CONTACT US AB www.edmonds.w ednet.edu 425- 670 -7044 schoolelecdon @edmonds.wednet.edu m R M �AEit Mai AS Z - V W = O J i o a•g c7 a -cs w 0z o 0 7 d o C s 0 0� -0 0 a y 72 C o 'o v 3 c •� -o :; •� o0 p O c o v ° o Qa a' 7 m' 7 o All � 5 If Y p� � � g _ z ° :s OC da CD 0 3 t9v O u a �n W n, o b0 Z - V W = O J i o a•g 0 7 d o C s 0 0� -0 0 a y 72 C o 'o _ egi ' a°i ai fs IL a' 7 m' 7 p� �• ,, y g z ° :s t9v ° p b°' a W bbo° Q .rJ• u b0 Ong m yi 7 •L' z •a " v w 'c7 a W W o Q � b0 � '� � 'r3 p c ,•y 0 �, m y y o c �s �� F 6 _ o z "'S Ln Ln a`t ti 4 • • 0 TO O y 001 p • D . � ¢ n c c > G OO W U N co o •y U 7 � o O o c y^a� v Got, v o� W O.-O ,0 'b cn a M O m y I.- �. . 04Ry oO 0 A O O O •� E V] 9L cn O i ti W O 16M �o G.�W mod' bQ -. i ■ 1 ■ 0 n ;n 'Eb • • •• " • • 9 • u - 2 M°• o Id o C 0 o C :r Q • (. ty6��.• � 44, O y •V 0 0 0 0 to El O CVJ o • o C C 0 c"t- u/ tZ m — 9 vn a u o u �� en`o a �a r p— V E O 8.O o 0 � O � E Z •�. z� ° O A u 83 � 0 o o u y 25! Z; cIo c1 o -co co n N a a OF, O C .s.+ es .n .ss ... s � IS 0 0 y O O O O O 0 0 0 0 � O 08 C O C> O C> O z y � W O, EAU o u - Ozd �� ,u o-� u °o a 0000 ooOO x t N W Aoao�N�C3 �■ O E pF E g cnoo�a5'0 CD 0 CD CD ? °wc°�c°�c°� 75 •s �. a a 4 • • 0 TO O y 001 p • D . � ¢ n c c > G OO W U N co o •y U 7 � o O o c y^a� v Got, v o� W O.-O ,0 'b cn a M O m y I.- �. . 04Ry oO 0 A O O O •� E V] 9L cn O i ti W O 16M �o G.�W mod' bQ -. i ■ 1 ■ 0 n ;n 'Eb • • •• " • • 9 • u - 2 M°• o Q �a Ep coot �v3vais�� • :r Q • • • to • • • • o C C 0 c"t- u/ tZ m — 9 vn a O 0 � � E -C -c4 W ovoo�n -.n c7 o0a � u W� O C s � IS 0 0 y O O O O O 0 0 0 0 � O O C O C> O C> O u y E E �F o 0 C Q O w h - U V :; G C O b y w C •w y Of v GL go ROD S c ° w �$� 4 4�,1 W o ff 'a .J N pb�b❑ y0o`�OO�F=+ i � d W V -0 e e 4 • • 0 TO O y 001 p • D . � ¢ n c c > G OO W U N co o •y U 7 � o O o c y^a� v Got, v o� W O.-O ,0 'b cn a M O m y I.- �. . 04Ry oO 0 A O O O •� E V] 9L cn O i ti W O 16M �o G.�W mod' bQ -. i ■ 1 ■ 0 n ;n 'Eb • • •• " • • • • u - 2 M°• o Q �a Ep coot �v3vais�� • :r Q • • • to • • • • o oo wn cv C 0 c"t- u/ tZ m o Z N ,A - vn a O 0 � -C -c4 q O ovoo�n -.n c7 o0a � u W� O C s � IS 0 0 y O O O O O 0 0 0 0 � O O C O C> O C> O u IIO 4 • • 0 TO O y 001 p • D . � ¢ n c c > G OO W U N co o •y U 7 � o O o c y^a� v Got, v o� W O.-O ,0 'b cn a M O m y I.- �. . 04Ry oO 0 A O O O •� E V] 9L cn O i ti W O 16M �o G.�W mod' bQ -. i ■ 1 ■ 0 n ;n 'Eb • • •• " • • • • • • • • • • • • • • to • • • • • • d O s 0 Nb a� I— t A W � r 0 0 o u W O co W o ff �C-4 d .J N m ❑yy i � d W C 8 -0 e e O it to ME zj - 0-0 o O C y E.a y ga Z ` W 90 y .0 v a o 6'0 Ls ° �o O O s � =• � ' co W °c' ao C�'c 0. e a �O rsj �i Zcn�= �mgA r�o�6a rg • . • �cd..... t9 `�'a W N d = S EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 15 Capital Construction Bond Our history ... 1986 Capital Construction Bond ($72 million) • Replaces Mountlake Terrace High and Martha Lake Elementary Schools. • Provides remodels at Alderwood Middle, Brier Elementary, Brier Terrace Middle, Beverly, Cedar Way, College Place Elementary, Hazelwood, Hilltop, Lynndale, Lynnwood Intermediate, Meadowdale Middle, Mountlake Terrace Elementary, Oak Heights, Spruce, and Westgate. • Construct covered activity shelters at 10 elementary sites. 1994 Capital Construction Bond ($118 million) • $94 million used to replace Edmonds - Woodway and Meadowdale High Schools and to remodel Seaview Elementary. • Further remodels and upgrades completed at all school sites. 1998 Capital Construction Bond ($72.25 million) , • Replacement of Cedar Valley Community School, Terrace Park K -8, Maplewood K -8, and remodel of Maplewood Center are underway and nearing completion. • Replacement of Meadowdale Elementary and Chase Lake Community School completed. • 142 small works projects at 24 school sites. What Citizen's Planning Committee is proposing ... 2002 Capital Construction Bond ($110 million) • $95 million to replace Lynnwood and Scriber Lake High Schools. • $15 million to complete small works projects at nearly all facilities, with priorities being seismic upgrades, planning for future building needs, and priority site -based needs. Input from staff, maintenance and parent groups are being gathered as part of the site -based needs process. C/) L. cn :3 N a •N o-:t 0 b1} o O .D �C ° '� A N •L"i bA UO � > L > U �O ° C/] y .0 O ° N 0 'Z) �, Q 0 b 'Z) ti0 E U: td O G Q .� C N -z: 0 � 'Z p c C w ti v e� .0 a> ° ^ U y 3 bip > cw ,p °1� ° i" -,a ° � -,a a GO > 4.4 O Et 041.1 kf) cri o:� c> -0 v) 3`° d m : 'CCU �•1 > co � 0.! o u� o � ' w .E ' sF' ue > o�Q o o M O s. O o ° co O 5, (OL) N O Q� O > N � N v7 v'1 N � U o �-d-dU Q U tpil cUn `. as � °:W 0w R»O:rs.0 L N 0 0 U ° M p 3 C 6s O cn C ¢,4. �1 U CC , O U S',• U O "Ci y U Q1 O U "d O N N Nr f." °n„ W5 C o 4� 0 w � a� i N N X to_ - � � >' o 0o o 00 N CIO to c� n.r id Cl 69 ..K N O O O V] +, 6 oo p Q kn M V) U �, -0 O �f O x 7 6�9 •� L ed � H O V1 G� '' O �, y U V1 '�' O O o rn M O O 0 C) V N"w O U O `� d O U�� O «+ N o ou .-.. ._� E N y ¢ 0 C� it 'IT 4" • cy O t. +� L O en O °o y '�I a� a� a� '�'� avi c� a bl9 a+ N bg Q' C E E E rte+ cd to v N O y L '� A.— ^,bU''� 0 -. d e� °�,' o° o °o o y a a rq it tltt C W)00o Q �� r cC= gi p' U 0 , d��m 0. a U. w ¢ co � A.s9��6s 0 i, QI oo N �n O v� O � V'i Ues s9 sF' > o�Q a O _O � N O � N H U o �-d-dU U tpil cUn `. R»O:rs.0 Appendix F Washington State Initiative 728 BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON: NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. This act may be known and cited as the K -12 2000 student achievement act. NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. GENERAL PURPOSE The citizens of Washington state expect and deserve great public schools for our generation of school children and for those who will follow. A quality public education system is crucial for our state's future economic success and prosperity, and for our children and their children to lead successful lives. The purpose of this act is to improve public education and to achieve higher academic standards for all students through smaller class sizes and other improvements. A portion of the state's surplus general fund revenues is dedicated to this purpose. In 1993, Washington state made a major commitment to improved public education by passing the Washington education reform act. This act established new, higher standards of academic achievement for all students. It also established new levels of accountability for students, teachers, schools, and school districts. However, the K -12 finance system has not been changed to respond to the new standards and individual student needs. To make higher student achievement a reality, schools need the additional resources and flexibility to provide all students with more individualized quality instruction, more time, and the extra support that they may require. We need to ensure that curriculum, instruction methods, and assessments of student performance are aligned with the new standards and student needs. The current level of state funding does not provide adequate resources to support higher academic achievement for all students. In fact, inflation - adjusted per- student state funding has declined since the legislature adopted the 1993 education reform act. The erosion of state funding for K -12 education is directly at odds with the state's "paramount duty to make ample provision for the education of all children..." Now is the time to invest some of our surplus state revenues in K -12 education and redirect state lottery funds to education, as was originally intended, so that we can fulfill the state's paramount duty. Conditions and needs vary across Washington's two hundred ninety -six school districts. School boards accountable to their local communities should therefore have the flexibility to decide which of the following strategies will be most effective in increasing student performance and in helping students meet the state's new, higher academic standards: (1) Major reductions in K -4 class size; (2) Selected class size reductions in grades 5 -12, such as small high school writing classes; (3) Extended learning opportunities for students who need or want additional time in school; (4) Investments in educators and their professional development; (5) Early assistance for children who need prekindergarten support in order to be successful in school; and (6) Providing improvements or additions to facilities to support class size reductions and extended learning opportunities. REDUCING CLASS SIZE Smaller classes in the early grades can significantly increase the amount of learning that takes place in the classroom. Washington state now ranks forty- eighth in the nation in its student - teacher ratio. This is unacceptable. Significant class size reductions will provide our children with more individualized instruction and the attention they need and deserve and will reduce behavioral problems in classrooms. The state's long- term goal should be to reduce class size in grades K -4 to no more than eighteen students per teacher in a class. The people recognize that class size reduction should be phased -in over several years. It should be accompanied by the necessary funds for school construction and modernization and for high - quality, well - trained teachers. EXTENDED LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES Student achievement will also be increased if we expand learning opportunities beyond our traditional - length school day and year. In many school districts, educators and parents want a longer school day, a longer school year, and /or all -day kindergarten to help students improve their academic performance or explore new learning opportunities. In addition, special programs such as before - and - after - school tutoring will help struggling students catch and keep up with their classmates. Extended learning opportunities will be increasingly important as attainment of a certificate of mastery becomes a high school graduation requirement. TEACHER QUALITY Key to every student's academic success is a quality teacher in every classroom. Washington state's new standards for student achievement make teacher quality more important than ever. We are asking our teachers to teach more demanding curriculum in new ways, and we are holding our educators and schools to new, higher levels of accountability for student performance. Resources are needed to give teachers the content knowledge and skills to teach to higher standards and to give school leaders the skills to improve instruction and manage organizational change. The ability of school districts throughout the state to attract and retain the highest quality teaching corps by offering competitive salaries and effective working conditions is an essential element of basic education. The state legislature is responsible for establishing teacher salaries. It is imperative that the legislature fund salary levels that ensure school districts' ability to recruit and retain the highest quality teachers. EARLY ASSISTANCE The importance of a child's intellectual development in the first five years has been established by widespread scientific research. This is especially true for children with disabilities and special needs. Providing assistance appropriate to children's developmental needs will enhance the academic achievement of these children in grades K -12. Early assistance will also lessen the need for more expensive remedial efforts in later years. NO SUPPLANTING OF EXISTING EDUCATION FUNDS It is the intent of the people that existing state funding for education, including all sources of such funding, shall not be reduced, supplanted, or otherwise adversely impacted by appropriations or expenditures from the student achievement fund created in RCW 43.135.045 or the education construction fund. INVESTING SURPLUS IN SCHOOLS UNTIL GOAL MET It is the intent of the people to invest a portion of state surplus revenues in their schools. This investment should continue until the state's contribution to funding public education achieves a reasonable goal. The goal should reflect the state's paramount duty to make ample provision for the education of all children and our citizens' desire that all students receive a quality education. The people set a goal of per- student state funding for the maintenance and operation of K -12 education being equal to at least ninety percent of the national average per- student expenditure from all sources. When this goal is met, further deposits to the student achievement fund shall be required only to the extent necessary to maintain the ninety percent level. NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. A new section is added to chapter 28A.505 RCW to read as follows: ACCOUNTABILITY. School districts shall have the authority to decide the best use of student achievement funds to assist students in meeting and exceeding the new, higher academic standards in each district consistent with the provisions of this act. (1) Student achievement funds shall be allocated for the following uses: (a) To reduce class size by hiring certificated elementary classroom teachers in grades K-4 and paying nonemployee- related costs associated with those new teachers; (b) To make selected reductions in class size in grades 5 -12, such as small high school writing classes; (c) To provide extended learning opportunities to improve student academic achievement in grades K -12, including, but not limited to, extended school year, extended school day, before- and - after - school programs, special tutoring programs, weekend school programs, summer school, and all -day kindergarten; (d) To provide additional professional development for educators, including additional paid time for curriculum and lesson redesign and alignment, training to ensure that instruction is aligned with state standards and student needs, reimbursement for higher education costs related to enhancing teaching skills and knowledge, and mentoring programs to match teachers with skilled, master teachers. The funding shall not be used for salary increases or additional compensation for existing teaching duties, but may be used for extended year and extended day teaching contracts; (e) To provide early assistance for children who need prekindergarten support in order to be successful in school; (f) To provide improvements or additions to school building facilities which are directly related to the class size reductions and extended learning opportunities under (a) through (c) of this subsection. (2) Annually on or before May 1 st, the school district board of directors shall meet at the time and place designated for the purpose of a public hearing on the proposed use of these funds to improve student achievement for the coming year. Any person may appear or by written submission have the opportunity to comment on the proposed plan for the use of these funds. No later than August 31 st, as a part of the process under RCW 28A.505.060, each school district shall adopt a plan for the use of these funds for the upcoming school year. Annually, each school district shall provide to the citizens of their district a public accounting of the funds made available to the district during the previous school year under this act, how the funds were used, and the progress the district has made in increasing student achievement, as measured by required state assessments and other assessments deemed appropriate by the district. Copies of this report shall be provided to the superintendent of public instruction and to the academic achievement and accountability commission. Sec. 4. RCW 67.70.240 and 1997 c 220 s 206 are each amended to read as follows: The moneys in the state lottery account shall be used only: (1) For the payment of prizes to the holders of winning lottery tickets or shares; (2) For purposes of making deposits into the reserve account created by RCW 67.70.250 and into the lottery administrative account created by RCW 67.70.260; (3) For purposes of making deposits into the education construction fund and student achievement fund created in RCW 43.135.045. For the transition period from the effective date of this section until and including June 30, 2002, fifty percent of the moneys not otherwise obligated under this section shall be placed in the student achievement fund and fifty percent of these moneys shall be placed in the education construction fund. On and after July 1, 2002, until June 30, 2004, seventy -five percent of these moneys shall be placed in the student achievement fund and twenty -five percent shall be placed in the education construction fund. On and after July 1, 2004, all deposits not otherwise obligated under this section shall be placed in the education construction fund. Moneys in the state lottery account deposited in the education construction fund and the student achievement fund are included in "general state revenues" under RCW 39.42.070; (4) For distribution to a county for the purpose of paying the principal and interest payments on bonds issued by the county to construct a baseball stadium, as defined in RCW 82.14.0485, including reasonably necessary preconstruction costs. Three million dollars shall be distributed under this subsection during calendar year 1996. During subsequent years, such distributions shall equal the prior year's distributions increased by four percent. Distributions under this subsection shall cease when the bonds issued for the construction of the baseball stadium are retired, but not more than twenty years after the tax under RCW 82.14.0485 is first imposed; (5) For distribution to the stadium and exhibition center account, created in RCW 43.99N.060. Subject to the conditions of RCW 43.99N.070, six million dollars shall be distributed under this subsection during the calendar year 1998. During subsequent years, such distribution shall equal the prior year's distributions increased by four percent. No distribution may be made under this subsection after December 31, 1999, unless the conditions for issuance of the bonds under RCW 43.99N.020(2) are met. Distributions under this subsection shall cease when the bonds are retired, but not later than December 31, 2020; (6) For the purchase and promotion of lottery games and game - related services; and (7) For the payment of agent compensation. The office of financial management shall require the allotment of all expenses paid from the account and shall report to the ways and means committees of the senate and house of representatives any changes in the allotments. NEW SECTION. Sec. 5. A new section is added to chapter 84.52 RCW to read as follows: (1) A portion of the proceeds of the state property tax levy shall be distributed to school districts in the amounts and in the manner provided in this section. (2) The amount of the distribution to each school district shall be based upon the average number of full - time equivalent students in the school district during the previous school year, and shall be calculated as follows: (a) Out of taxes collected in calendar years 2001 through and including 2003, an annual amount equal to one hundred forty dollars per each full -time equivalent student in all school districts shall be deposited in the student achievement fund to be distributed to each school district based on one hundred forty dollars per full -time equivalent student in the school district for each year beginning with the school year 2001- 2002. (b) Out of taxes collected in calendar year 2004, an annual amount equal to four hundred fifty dollars per full -time equivalent student in all school districts shall be deposited in the student achievement fund to be distributed to each school district based on four hundred fifty dollars per full -time equivalent student for each year beginning with the school year 2004 -2005. Each subsequent year, the amount deposited shall be adjusted for inflation as defined in RCW 43.135.025(7). (3) The office of the superintendent of public instruction shall verify the average number of full -time equivalent students in each school district from the previous school year to the state treasurer by August 1 st of each year. NEW SECTION. Sec. 6. Section 5 of this act applies to taxes levied in 2000 for collection in 2001 and thereafter. Sec. 7. RCW 84.52.067 and 1967 ex.s. c 133 s 2 are each amended to read as follows: All property taxes levied by the state for the support of common schools shall be paid into the general fund of the state treasury as provided in RCW 84.56.280, except for the amounts collected under section 5 of this act which shall be directly deposited into the student achievement fund and distributed to school districts as provided in section 5 of this act. Sec. 8. RCW 43.135.035 and 1994 c 2 s 4 are each amended to read as follows: (1) After July 1, 1995, any action or combination of actions by the legislature that raises state revenue or requires revenue - neutral tax shifts may be taken only if approved by a two- thirds vote of each house, and then only if state expenditures in any fiscal year, including the new revenue, will not exceed the state expenditure limits established under this chapter. (2)(a) If the legislative action under subsection (1) of this section will result in expenditures in excess of the state expenditure limit, then the action of the legislature shall not take effect until approved by a vote of the people at a November general election. The office of financial management shall adjust the state expenditure limit by the amount of additional revenue approved by the voters under this section. This adjustment shall not exceed the amount of revenue'generated by the legislative action during the first full fiscal year in which it is in effect. The state expenditure limit shall be adjusted downward upon expiration or repeal of the legislative action. (b) The ballot title for any vote of the people required under this section shall be substantially as follows: "Shall taxes be imposed on ....... in order to allow a spending increase above last year's authorized spending adjusted for inflation and population increases ?" (3)(a) The state expenditure limit may be exceeded upon declaration of an emergency for a period not to exceed twenty-four months by a law approved by a two- thirds vote of each house of the legislature and signed by the governor. The law shall set forth the nature of the emergency, which is limited to natural disasters that require immediate government action to alleviate human suffering and provide humanitarian assistance. The state expenditure limit may be exceeded for no more than twenty -four months following the declaration of the emergency and only for the purposes contained in the emergency declaration. (b) Additional taxes required for an emergency under this section may be imposed only until thirty days following the next general election, unless an extension is approved at that general election. The additional taxes shall expire upon expiration of the declaration of emergency. The legislature shall not impose additional taxes for emergency purposes under this subsection unless funds in the education construction fund have been exhausted. (c) The state or any political subdivision of the state shall not impose any tax on intangible property listed in RCW 84.36.070 as that statute exists on January 1, 1993. (4) If the cost of any state program or function is shifted from the state general fund on or after January 1, 1993, to another source of funding, or if moneys are transferred from the state general fund to another fund or account, the office of financial management shall lower the state expenditure limit to reflect the shift. This subsection does not apply to the dedication or.use of lottery revenues under RCW 67.70.240(3) or property taxes under section 5 of this act, in support of education or education expenditures. Sec. 9. RCW 43.135.045 and 1994 c 2 s 3 are each amended to read as follows: (1) The emergency reserve fund is established in the state treasury. During each fiscal year, the state treasurer shall deposit in the emergency reserve fund all general fund- -state revenues in excess of the state expenditure limit for that fiscal year. Deposits shall be made at the end of each fiscal quarter based on projections of state revenues and the state expenditure limit. (2) The legislature may appropriate moneys from the emergency reserve fund only with approval of at least two- thirds of the members of each house of the legislature, and then only if the appropriation does not cause total expenditures to exceed the state expenditure limit under this chapter. (3) The emergency reserve fund balance shall not exceed five percent of annual general fund - -state revenues as projected by the official state revenue forecast. Any balance in excess of five percent shall be transferred on a quarterly basis by the state treasurer as follows: Seventy-five percent to the student achievement fund hereby created in the state treasury and twenty -five percent to the general fund balance. When per- student state funding for the maintenance and operation of K -12 education meets a level of no less than ninety percent of the national average of total funding from all sources per student as determined by the most recent published data from the national center for education statistics of the United States department of education, as calculated by the office.of financial management, further deposits to the student achievement fund shall be required only to the extent necessary to maintain the ninety percent level. Remaining funds are part of the general fund balance and these funds are subject to the expenditure limits of this chapter. (4) The education construction fund is hereby created in the state treasury. (a) Funds may be appropriated from the education construction fund exclusively for common school construction or higher education construction. (b) Funds may be appropriated for any other purpose only if approved by a two- thirds vote of each house of the legislature and if approved by a vote of the people at the next general election. An appropriation approved by the people under this subsection shall result in an adjustment to the state expenditure limit only for the fiscal period for which the appropriation is made and shall not affect any subsequent fiscal period. (5) Funds from the student achievement fund shall be appropriated to the superintendent of public instruction strictly for distribution to school districts to meet the provisions set out in the student achievement act. Allocations shall be made on an equal per full -time equivalent student basis to each school district. Sec. 10. RCW 28A.150.380 and 1995 c 335 s 103 are each amended to read as follows: (1) The state legislature shall, at each regular session in an odd - numbered year, appropriate from the state general fund for the current use of the common schools such amounts as needed for state support to the common schools during the ensuing biennium as provided in this chapter, RCW 28A.160.150 through 28A.160.210, 28A.300.170, and 28A.500.010. (2) The state legislature shall also, at each regular session in an odd - numbered year, appropriate from the student achievement fund and education construction fund solely for the purposes of and in accordance with the provisions of the student achievement act during the ensuing biennium. NEW SECTION. Sec. 11. The provisions of this act are to be liberally construed to effectuate the policies and purposes of this act. NEW SECTION. Sec. 12. If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected. NEW SECTION. Sec. 13. This act takes effect January 1, 2001, except for section 4 of this act which takes effect July 1, 2001. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 23, 2005 Chair Young called the regular meeting of the Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 — 5h Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT James Young, Chair Janice Freeman, Vice Chair Jim Crim Virginia Cassutt John Dewhirst Judith Works Cary Guenther Don Henderson READING /APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Dave Gebert, City Engineer Don Fiene, Assistant Engineer Brian McIntosh, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director Karin Noyes, Recorder BOARD MEMBER WORKS MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 23, 2005 AND MARCH 9, 2005 AS CORRECTED. BOARD MEMBER FREEMAN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA There were no changes made to the proposed agenda. AUDIENCE COMMENTS City Council Member Mauri Moore thanked the Board for their work on the Comprehensive Plan. They devoted a lot of time and energy, and the document that was forwarded to the City Council was a well- considered piece of work. The Board did a great job of consensus building and accepting public comments. She said she would have supported the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update with only minor adjustments. However, the City Council ultimately decided to move in a direction that would place policy statements in the Comprehensive Plan, and then deal with the specifics in the design guidelines. They will try to do this work post haste. She reminded the Board that while they work for the City Council, it is important to remember that the City Council also works for them. The Board Members are constituents and the City Council values their opinion very highly. PUBLIC HEARING ON EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT #15 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN (CFP) UPDATE 2004 - 2009 (FILE NUMBER CDC- 05 -32) Mark Johnson, Edmonds School District Planning and Property Management Specialist, 9003 Olympic View Drive, provided a brief overview of the Edmonds School District's Capital Facilities Plan (CFP). He pointed out that the District is EXHIBIT 2 the largest in Snohomish County. It covers 36 square miles of land and serves a student population of 20,175. He explained that the Growth Management Act requires the District to have a Capital Facilities Plan. It's objective is to forecast future capacity and facility needs and to articulate a facility and financial plan to address the future needs. Mr. Johnson advised that because the District is currently experiencing a downward trend in their student enrollment, they have adequate capacity in their existing facilities. Therefore, they do not qualify for funding through mitigation fees as per the Snohomish County ordinance. However, the District is recommending that cities within their boundaries adopt a school mitigation ordinance in the event it become necessary in the future. He noted that Bret Carlstad, from the Edmonds School District is present to provide further clarification regarding mitigation fees. Mr. Johnson provided a graph depicting the downward trend of enrollment for the District. He noted that although Snohomish County projects an increase in student enrollment over the next six years, the District's enrollment has and will continue to move downward. He noted that the District's forecast is consistent with that of the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. He shared several graphs illustrating the expected downward trend. Chair Young summarized that according to the District's CFP, there would be adequate capacity in the existing facilities to accommodated the projected student enrollment. However, the District is still encouraging each jurisdiction within the District to adopt a mitigation fee ordinance. But before the Board can make this recommendation to the City Council, they must have a clear understanding of exactly what the City would be mitigating. Brett Carlstad, Edmonds School District, 9003 Olympic View Drive, answered that the District's CFP reflects the reality of more capacity than they need given the current enrollment trends. But the District is asking jurisdictions to adopt mitigation fee ordinances to address emergency situations in the future. Right now, time is their friend, and they do not have a need. But this has not and will not always be the case. Taking the time now to put an ordinance in place would allow for more thoughtful dialogue. He recalled that in the 90's the District collected mitigation fees using the Snohomish County ordinance. While they do not currently qualify to collect these fees now, they are pleased the ordinance exists should the District experience a significant increase in student population. Chair Young agreed that it is good to plan ahead, but it would be helpful if Mr. Carlstad could provide examples of cities within the District that have adopted mitigation fee ordinances and explain how this would help the District if their enrollment significantly increases. Mr. Carlstad answered that no City within the District's boundaries has adopted a mitigation ordinance yet; only Snohomish County has done so. He recalled that in the late 1980's there was an acute need for an ordinance of this type because enrollment was dramatically increasing. At that time, the District exerted its position under SEPA to collect mitigation fees for the adverse impacts the new residential developments would have on the school system. The concept of a mitigation fee program was introduced as part of the Growth Management Act that was adopted in the early 1990's. He pointed out that one of the criteria contained in the Snohomish County ordinance is that it also encourage local cities to adopt mitigation fee ordinances either by reference to the County's ordinance or by coming up with their own. If cities choose to do this, any future need to collect money from residential developments would be placed in the hands of the local jurisdictions. Board Member Crim questioned if a mitigation fee ordinance would be necessary for Edmonds since they do not have significantly large parcels available for redevelopment. Mr. Carlstad explained that the District manages the population within their boundaries with less regard to municipal boundaries. Students from one City are allowed to attend a school in another jurisdiction. The District could end up with a shortfall of space in one area of the District, which would invoke the need to collect impact fees from the jurisdictions within the County. The District must look at the entire 36 square miles with their jurisdiction as a whole. Board Member Young asked how a mitigation fee ordinance would work. Mr. Carlstad explained that with the Snohomish County ordinance, fees are payable at the time a building permit is issued. The assessment of need would be considered as part of the SEPA review. He noted that it could actually take several years from the time the fees are assessed for them to actually be paid, since the money would not be collected until a building permit application is approved. Mr. Chave said he is not familiar with the Snohomish County ordinance, but impact fees are typically assessed sometime in the design process and get paid at the building permit stage. 1 Planning Board Minutes March 23, 2005 Page 2 Chair Young suggested that the Board review the County's ordinance at some point during the year to determine if they want to consider the option of creating a City of Edmonds Mitigation Fee Ordinance, as requested by the District. Chair Young inquired if the District has a need to acquire more school property. Mr. Carlstad said the district has been very public about making changes with their property holdings. These change are all spoken to in the report that was published by the District in December of 2004. He noted that projected student enrollment is considered in both the long and short-term planning horizons. At this time there is more school building space than is needed at all levels. The District does not have immediate plans, based on enrollment projections, to construct additional classroom space at this time. Mr. Carlstad stated that the District's plans for vacating or disposing of District property would be clearly stated in the next update. He specifically noted the following: • The old Woodway Elementary School site has not been used as a classroom school for a number of years. While it has been identified as a school facility in the CFP, its capacity is zero, its condition is poor and it cannot be occupied for school purposes. The Edmonds School Board has made the decision to surplus this property and offer it for sale. • For a number of years the District has offered the property that houses the previous Administrative Center for a long -term lease arrangement. They recently made the decision to allow the property to be sold. • The Board has determined that the District could relocate the educational functions of Lynnwood High School to a new site the District owns on the easternmost part of the District boundaries just north of Floral Hills Cemetery. The existing school site could then be offered for a long -term lease. • The maintenance site could also be offered for a long -term lease arrangement. • The site where the District warehouse is located could be offered for sale if the facility is relocated. • Alderwood Middle School could be relocated to property the District owns contiguous to the Martha Lake Elementary site. The elementary school was constructed in a location that would. allow a middle school to be constructed on the site, as well. The existing Alderwood Middle School site could be offered for long -term lease. Don Kreiman, 24006 — 95`h Place West, referred to Table 4 on Page 16 of the Edmonds School District Capital Facilities Plan. He pointed out that Woodway Elementary, which was built in 1962, has waited longer than any other school to be remodeled or rebuilt. However, it was not included on the list of capital project priorities as of December 7, 2004. He pointed out that, according to the District's building conditions and background data summary sorted by target date and building name, there needs to be an update or upgrade of this school by 2008. That means the school only has about three years of useful life left. No other school on the capital projects priority list has as little useful life remaining. Mr. Kreiman said he understands that school facilities are not a matter for the Planning Board, but he recalled that not long ago, the City of Edmonds spent $180,000, the State of Washington granted $150,000 and the School District spent $58,000 to construct sidewalks and repave a parking lot to provide safer access for the children who walk to this school. He expressed his concern that the City, the State and the District may have wasted their meager funds if they will not property maintain Woodway Elementary. He reminded the Board that the District has to provide documentation that it has petitioned every city and /or county they serve in order to be eligible for impact fees or mitigation from the County when their capital facilities plan become part of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Kreiman suggested that the Board ask the District the following questions: • Why is an elementary school within Edmonds not a capital project priority? • Will the District reimburse the City for the cost of sidewalks if Woodway Elementary closes? • What are the consequences to the City of Edmonds if the school is closed? • Shouldn't the City receive notice in advance if a school within their boundaries is closing? Doug MacWilliams, 8204 — 181" Place Southwest, said he has lived in Edmonds since 1981. In the early 1980's he attended a series of District meetings in which they projected the population of students would drop and they were closing schools. The residents thought the District was crazy because of all the new development that was occurring throughout the 1 Planning Board Minutes March 23, 2005 Page 3 community, and the District ended up with a major problem by the late 1980's. He urged the Board to look around at all of the condominiums and apartments that are being built in the area. He said he can't believe all the people who will live in these units would be childless couples. He suggested that the Board take the District's student growth projections with a grain of salt. . Mr. Carlstad responded that forecasting future student enrollment is difficult, but the District's estimate represents their best forecast for what enrollment will be in the future. They update their plans frequently, and this includes a review of the projected student populations. Mr. Carlstad clarified that the District does not have any active plans to close Woodway Elementary, and they would not able to sell the property since it is on a parcel of land that is also occupied by the Madronna K -8 Program. It was purchased from the Department of Natural Resources, and there are restrictive covenants that apply to the site. He agreed with Mr. Kreiman that the walkways near the school were recently improved, and the District also worked with the City to complete parking lot improvements and circulation at the school. He said he takes exception to the characterization that Woodway Elementary has not been well maintained. He said he appreciates Mr. Kreiman's perspective that the school needs to be modernized and potentially upgraded. However, he is not qualified nor able to speak to specifics as to why Woodway Elementary is not on the list except to say that the list and needs for school buildings in the District have been discussed at numerous meetings open to the public, and the public has been highly encouraged to provide their comments about what should be on the list. The rating of projects was done by the District's Capital Construction Office, and he urged Mr. Kreiman to contact this office for additional information. Mr. Kreiman again asked if the City would be reimbursed for the money they spent to improve the walkways if the District decides to close the school in the near future. Mr. Carlstad answered that if the school were to close, a lengthy public process would be required to allow the public ample opportunity to provide comments. He said the parking lot work was done through an interlocal agreement between the City and the District and there are likely provisions for reimbursement if the District were to close the school. THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Board Member Dewhirst expressed his concern that access to schools has not been addressed in the proposed CFP. He felt this would continue to perpetuate the current problems. He suggested it would be appropriate for the District to include language regarding their expectations for how the children would get to school. Mr. Carlstad explained that the District completed a non - project SEPA action on the entire plan, and access was addressed as part of the SEPA Checklist. He said that every project the District does must undergo a specific project review and this includes the identification of specific infrastructure improvements as needed for the program and as imposed by SEPA and the ruling jurisdiction. He further explained that the CFP does not include the broad scope policy goals. It is a fairly technical document that looks at existing facilities, enrollment projections, etc. and draws conclusions based on this information. Chair Young expressed his opinion that figuring out how to get kids to school is not a visionary issue. Mr. Carlstad said that when reviewing school programs and how to get kids to the facilities, it is important to remember that the District does have a bussing program. They also take advantage of Community Transit buses and kids also walk to school. The circulation on each site is handled on a project specific basis as a proposal moves forward. It would be difficult for the District to talk about on and off -site infrastructure improvements that may or may not be necessary as part of their CFP because the necessary funding to complete the projects is not yet in hand. Board Member Dewhirst recalled that in other jurisdictions he has worked for, the Edmonds School District has said they do not have money to provide the needed infrastructure because it was not included in their bond issue. If there were an overriding plan for access to schools, there would be a better understanding about how access could be provided. He pointed out that walking to school would be a significant issue in the State over the next five years. Because the State pays for the buses, choosing whether or not a child walks to school may no longer be an option in the very near future. He suggested that as the District remodels existing schools, it would be appropriate for them to provide a plan for how the kids would get to the facility. He agreed that there are a lot of specifics that depend on the type and size of school, but there should also an overriding policy for getting kids to school. Mr. Carlstad pointed out that this type of information is contained in the ma N Planning Board Minutes March 23, 2005 Page 4 1 District's Transportation Policies for each school rather than the CFP.. In addition, the City provides a map of the official walking routes for all of its schools, and they work with the City for placement of crosswalks, etc. Mr. Gebert, City Engineer, indicated that the District's Transportation Department does work with the engineering staff on issues of this nature. Mr. Carlstad said he couldn't recall a time when the District declined to provide a necessary light, crosswalk, etc. because they did not have money and it was not included in their bond issue. Pedestrian circulation is considered as part of the traffic study, and the District completes the infrastructure that is requested and imposed upon them by the jurisdiction whether they have the money for the project in the bond or not. Chair Young suggested that it would be easier for the Board to consider the District's request that the City adopt a mitigation fee ordinance, if they had a clear understanding of what the District's pedestrian circulation policies were. Yet the CFP does not include any information regarding the policies. Mr. Carlstad pointed out that there are plenty of schools in the district that provide good sidewalks and slow streets for children to walk to school. The issue of children not walking to school is not generally related to the infrastructure. While the District encourages parents to let their kids walk or ride the bus, the trend is for parents to drive their kids to school. He said the District has and will continue to work with jurisdictions to improve the infrastructure around their facilities. The District works hard to leverage their funds and he does not believe they have shirked from their mandate to do pedestrian improvements both on and off -site as buildings are remodeled. Board Member Crim said that while the CFP indicates that the District needs a new high school or middle school, it does not include any specific plans for the project. He pointed out that the City's Capital Improvement Plan identifies specific project plans. Mr. Carlstad said the CFP speaks of the need to relocate the existing Lynnwood High School, but the District does not have plans to add any additional schools at this time since their enrollment is declining. BOARD MEMBER CRIM MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT #15 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN UPDATE FOR 2004 — 2009 TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH NO RECOMMENDATION. BOARD MEMBER DEWHIRST SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -2, WITH BOARD MEMBERS CASSUTT AND GUENTHER VOTING IN OPPOSITION AND BOARD MEMBER HENDERSON ABSTAINING. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP) UPDATE FOR 2005 — 2010 (FILE NUMBER CDC- 05 -28) Don Fiene, Assistant City Engineer, explained that the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is intended to be the City's long -range planning tool and spending blueprint. It outlines the City's resources and how future funds would be spent. As per the Growth Management Act requirement, the CIP is updated yearly based on input from staff, the constituents, science and a logic -based prioritization of projects. He advised that the CIP includes 11 different funds and a spreadsheet was prepared for each, showing the projects and cash balances on a year -by -year basis. In addition, staff has developed a project description for each of the major projects. He specifically reviewed the following funds: • Fund 112 — Combined Street Construction Improvements: Sources for this fund come from the motor vehicle tax, federal and state transportation grants and traffic impact fees. With the passage of I -776 the City's ability to collect vehicle register fees was eliminated, and the funds in this account were reduced by about 46 percent. Heavy cuts have had to be made, including the City's overlay program, which has changed from a 38 -year program to a 70 -year program. The City Council recently approved a traffic impact fee that should help the situation somewhat. Mr. Fiene provided a chart showing how the City has and would continue to fall behind in funding for projects identified in the City's Transportation Plan. He said the chart illustrates the difference between the amount of funding needed and the amount available. The City Council directed staff to develop a plan to finance the needs that were recognized. But when this plan was submitted to the City Council, the only alternative they adopted was the traffic impact fee ordinance. The remainder of the finance plan was deferred, and the City Council decided to wait for a State Legislative solution. Planning Board Minutes March 23, 2005 Page 5 STATE O WAs�IINGTON, COUNTY OF SNOHONHSH SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 3549 o the dy o Edmonds, as ington On the 261h day April, 2005, the City Council of the City O �of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. 3549. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHING- TON, AMENDING ITS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ADOPT AN UPDATED ELEMENT ENTITLED EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT N0. 15 CAPITAL FACILI 10j'_F 09 A9 11 3 !THE EDMONDS 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 27th day of April, 2005. CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE RECEIVED MAY 0 4 2005 EDMONDS CITY CLERK Account Name: City of Edmonds Affidavit of Publication S.S. The undersigned, being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says that she is Principal Clerk of THE HERALD, a daily newspaper printed and published in the City of Everett, County of Snohomish, and State of Washington; that said newspaper is a newspaper of general circulation in said County and State; that said newspaper has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County and that the notice Summary of Ordinance No. 3549 City of Edmonds 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: May 01, 2005 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 2nd Account Number. 101416 Order Number: 0001283461