Ordinance 37650006.900000
WSS /gjz
12/3/09
ORDINANCE NO. 3765
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE EDMONDS
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO UPDATE THE " EDMONDS
SCHOOL DISTRICT CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN" AND
FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME
EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, public participation programs were adopted for the 2009
Comprehensive Plan, and
WHEREAS, public hearings were held regarding the Edmonds School District
Capital Facilities Plan before the Planning Board on November 12, 2008 and the Edmonds City
Council on December 2, 2008; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that both individually and collectively, the
proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan (including the adoption of the Community
Sustainability element as a new element to the Plan):
• Are consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and are in
the public interest.
• Would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or welfare of
the City;
• Would not impact or do not affect the appropriate balance of land uses
within the City.
• The City Council further finds that because the amendments do not amend
the map, the findings required by ECDC 20.01.001(D) are not applicable;
{WSS752572.DOC;1 \00006.900000\ } - 1 -
NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Edmonds Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended by the
adoption of the 2009 Edmonds School District Capital Facilities Plan, replacing the prior
Edmonds School District Capital Facilities Plan:
Section 2. A copy of the amendment is attached hereto as Exhibit A and
incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth.
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.
ATTEST /AUTHENTTIICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
APPROVED AS TO ORM:
OFFICE OF tb&V A O EY:
- BY
W. SCOTT SNYDER
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO. 3765
{WSS752572.DOC;1 \00006.900000\ }
4642�
MAY GA HAAKENSON
12 -11 -09
12 -15 -09
12 -21 -09
12 -26 -09
-2-
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 3765
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the 15th day of December, 2009, the City Council of the City of Edmonds,
passed Ordinance No. 3765. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title,
provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE
EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO UPDATE THE "EDMONDS SCHOOL
DISTRICT CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN" AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME
SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this 16th day of December, 2009.
"'j, K�W�-
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
{WSS752572.DOC;1 \00006.900000\ } -3 -
New Lynnwood High School: Opening Fall 2009
2008 -2013
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
EDMONDS
HL
DISTRICT
August, 2008
2008 -2013
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 15
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS
Susan Paine, President
Director District 1
Ann McMurray, Vice President
Director District 2
Gary Noble
Director District 3
Susan Phillips
Director District 4
Patrick Shields
Director District 5
SUPERINTENDENT
Nick Brossoit, Ed. D.
Plan adopted by Board of Directors, August 12, 2008
For information on the Edmonds School District Capital Facilities Plan,
Contact Facilities Operations at (425) 431 -7332.
This document is also available at:
www.edmonds.wednet.edu
EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1 -- INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... ..............................1
PURPOSE OF THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN ................................................................... ..............................1
OVERVIEW OF EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT .................................................................. ..............................2
PLANNINGOBJECTIVES ...................................................................................................... ..............................2
SECTION 2 -- STUDENT ENROLLMENT TRENDS AND PROJECTIONS ..............................4
HISTORICTRENDS ............................................................................................................. ..............................4
METHODOLOGY................................................................................................................... ..............................4
PROJECTED STUDENT ENROLLMENT 2008- 2013 .......................................................... ..............................4
2025 STUDENT ENROLLMENT PROJECTION .................................................................... ..............................8
SECTION 3 — DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL FACILITY STANDARDS ......... .............................10
EDUCATIONAL FACILITY CLASS SIZE AND DESIGN CAPACITY STANDARDS FOR ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
............................................................................................................................................ .............................11
EDUCATIONAL FACILITY CLASS SIZE AND DESIGN CAPACITY STANDARDS FOR MIDDLE AND HIGH
SCHOOLS........................................................................................................................... .............................12
MINIMUMLEVELS OF SERVICE ......................................................................................... .............................12
ElementarySchools ................................................................................................ .............................12
MiddleSchools / K- 8 .............................................................................................. .............................13
HighSchools ............................................................................................................. .............................13
SECTION 4 — CAPITAL FACILITIES INVENTORY ......................................... .............................14
SCHOOLS........................................................................................................................... .............................14
MEASURESOF CAPACITY .................................................................................................. .............................14
RELOCATABLE CLASSROOM FACILITIES ( PORTABLES) .................................................. .............................19
LANDINVENTORY .............................................................................................................. .............................20
UndevelopedSites .................................................................................................. .............................20
DevelopedSites ....................................................................................................... .............................20
SECTION 5 -- PROJECTED FACILITY NEEDS .................................................. .............................22
SIX -YEAR FACILITY NEEDS (THROUGH 2013) .............................................................. .............................22
SECTION 6 -- PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS ....................................................... .............................24
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS - (SIX -YEAR PLAN) ............................................................ .............................24
RELOCATABLE CLASSROOM FACILITIES (PORTABLES) - (SIX -YEAR PLAN) ............... .............................26
SITE ACQUISITION AND IMPROVEMENTS ........................................................................ .............................26
SECTION 7 -- CAPITAL FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN ........................... .............................27
GENERALOBLIGATION BONDS ........................................................................................ .............................27
STATEMATCH FUNDS ....................................................................................................... .............................27
SALES AND GROUND LEASE OF DISTRICT SURPLUS PROPERTY ................................... .............................28
DEVELOPERCONTRIBUTION ............................................................................................. .............................28
SECTION8 - IMPACT FEES .................................................................................... .............................29
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 - Comparison of Student Enrollment Projections ........................ ............................... 7
Figure 2 - Map of School Facility Locations ........................................... ............................. ... 16
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 - Comparison of Student Enrollment Projectsions ....................... ............................... 6
Table 2 - Projected Student Enrollment by Grade Span ............................ ............................... 8
Table 3 - Projected Student Enrollment Through 2025 ............................. ............................... 9
Table 4 - Elementary School Capacity ..................................................... ...............................
17
Table 5 - Middle School Capacity Inventory ........................................... ...............................
18
Table 6 - High School Capacity Inventory ............................................... ...............................
19
Table 7 - Relocatable Classroom Inventory ............................................. ...............................
19
Table 8 - Inventory of Support Facilities ................................................. ...............................
20
Table 9 - Inventory of Undeveloped Sites ............................................... ...............................
20
Table 10 - Inventory of Developed Sites ................................................. ...............................
21
Table 11 - Projected Available Student Capacity .................................... ...............................
22
Table 12 - Projected Housing Needs ........................................................ ...............................
23
Table 13 - Construction Projects .............................................................. ...............................
25
Table 14 - Capital Construction Finance Detail in Thousands ................ ...............................
26
SECTION 1 -- INTRODUCTION
Purpose of the Capital Facilities Plan
This Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) is intended to provide Edmonds School
District (District), Snohomish County (County), other jurisdictions, and
the community with a description of facilities needed to accommodate
projected student enrollment at acceptable levels of service over the next
twenty years. A more detailed schedule and financing program for capital
improvements over the next six years, (2008 -2013) is also included. 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 will cooperate with the District to
reassess the land use element to ensure that land use, the CFP, and
financing plan within the CFP are coordinated and consistent.
Jurisdictions within ESD 15 include: Brier, Edmonds, Lynnwood,
Mountlake Terrace, and the Town of Woodway as well as portions of
unincorporated Snohomish County
In addition to the CFP elements required by the Growth Management Act
(GMA), Section 8 of this CFP addresses development fees, mitigation, and
other regulatory sources of funding from developers. This report
demonstrates that impact fees are not anticipated during the 2008 -2013
period.
Overview of Edmonds School District
The District is the largest school district in the County, and the eleventh
largest of Washington's 296 public school systems. The District covers an
area of 36 square miles. The District currently serves a total student
population (headcount, including Kindergarten) of 20,4641 (as of October
1, 2007) with twenty -one schools serving grades K -6; three 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 district program for students with severe disabilities.
The grade configuration of schools 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.
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 2006 Capital
Facilities Plan. Much of this report is based on population projections
provided by the County. The current projections cycle is 2014 to 2025.
Consequently, the District bases projections on this cycle, explaining why,
in some cases, estimates end in 2025 instead of the customary twenty
year horizon.
This CFP applies the County's allocation of planned urban and rural
growth based on Washington State's Office of Financial Management,
(OFM) twenty -year projections for 2025 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.
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
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
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 Urban Growth Area (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.
This edition of the CFP differs from previous documents in several
aspects. As the District will not ask for mitigation fees during 2008
through 2013, much of the in depth supporting documents that had been
contained in appendixes has not been reprinted. All appendixes in prior
CFP's have been deleted and all sources are now referenced by footnote
or are listed in the bibliography. Information regarding the planning
process previously discussed in the prior CFP has been condensed and is
included in this introduction. Building area figures have been updated to
reflect actual capacity as reported to OSPI. Additionally, this report used
headcount as a standard unit of measure, as opposed to Full Time
Equivalencies, (FTE) as explained in Section 2. Finally, early photos of
District schools are provided for your interest.
3
F SECTION 2 -- STUDENT ENROLLMENT. TRENDS. AND PROJECTIONS
Historic Trends
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 is now declining.
Methodology
Future facility needs are determined, in part by evaluating recent trends
in student enrollment and comparing forecast enrollment against available
capacity. For this evaluation, October headcount numbers are used. (The
month of October is typically the high -water mark for enrollment in a
given year). In addition, kindergarten enrollment is treated as if the
students attend full time. While the state only provides funding for half -
day kindergarten, the District operates full -day kindergarten programs,
using local funds including tuition and I -728).
Furthermore, in recent years the state has begun moving towards funding
full -day kindergarten. It is prudent, therefore, to consider this capacity
as being consumed under the plan.
This capital facilities plan uses three forecast methodologies: one from
the Washington State Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction,
(OSPI); one based on data from the Washington State's Office of Financial
Management (OFM); and one from Edmonds School District. A
comparison to forecast enrollment using the three forecast methodologies
is provided in Table 1.
Projected Student Enrollment 2008 -2013
School districts typically forecast enrollment based on cohort survival: the
number of students that remain in a grade group as they transition
together from one grade level to the next. Enrollment forecast models are
generally based upon trend data from previous years, and as such,
assume that trends in a particular direction will continue in that direction
(for instance, a series of years in which enrollment declines will forecast
as a continuation of those declines). Therefore, enrollment projections are
most accurate for the initial years of a forecast period. Underlying cohort
rd
survival methodologies are based on assumptions about economic
conditions and demographic trends in the current year that become less
valid the further into the future the projection is made. Because cohort
survival models cannot be applied to kindergarten enrollment (since there
are no preceding grade levels), how kindergarten is forecast is important.
Districts typically forecast kindergarten enrollment using birth rates in the
County and may use other factors influencing population growth or
decline for the area (termed "net migration ").
The District uses two different models for forecasting enrollment - a more
conservative- model for staffing purposes and a less conservative model
for long -range facility planning. In the event that enrollment growth
slows, plans for new facilities can be delayed. It is much more difficult,
however, to initiate new projects or speed projects up in the event
enrollment growth exceeds the projections.
The District's long -range forecast projects kindergarten enrollment based
on a market share of Snohomish County live births five years prior to
entry to kindergarten, and projected enrollment for grades 1 -12 based on
cohort survival from the latest year. An assumption inherent in this
method is the assumption that the same population of children born in a
given year will remain within the enrollment boundaries of the district into
school age. Recent enrollment declines suggest that this may no longer
be the case, and therefore such a method may be more optimistic than
realistic given changing economic and other conditions. Using the less
conservative model, total enrollment is expected to decline by 477
students by the year 2013, a decrease of 2.33% from existing levels,
(table 1).
In addition to the District's long -range forecast, two other models are
presented for comparison: a forecast by OSPI, and a forecast based on
data from OFM's population projections.
The second model, the OSPI method, calculates an average cohort
survival based on the previous six years, and applies that rate to recent
enrollment in the District to project enrollment. Kindergarten enrollment
is projected separately 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 1,929 students by the year 2013,
a decrease of 9.43% from existing enrollment levels (Table 1).
The third forecast model considers a population -based enrollment
projection using the current population forecast for the school districts
prepared by Snohomish County Planning and Development Services, and
is based on the current population forecasts made by OFM. This method
assumes 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. This model is primarily used
to determine the 2013 and 2025 enrollments. Based on a linear
projection of the 2007 to 2013 District general population estimates
provided by Snohomish County and on actual student enrollment figures
from 1998 through 2007, an average of 14.38% of the general population
residing in the District are students enrolled In Edmonds School District
from 2000 -2007. Using this methodology, a total of 384 fewer students
are expected to enroll in the District by the year 2013, a decrease of
approximately 1.88% over existing enrollment levels.
Table 1 - Comparison of Student Enrollment Projectsions
Edmnds School District 2008 -2013
r
Actual
Percent
Change
Change
Projection
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2008-
2007-
2013
2013
ESD 15
20,464
20,169
2200,00667
19,980
19,908
19,955
19,987
(477)
-2.33%
OSPI
20,464
20 319
19,840
19,475
19,092
18,848
18,535
(1,929)
-9.43%
OFM
20464
20428
20,381
20,323
20,253
20 172
20,080
384
-1.88%
r
Figure 1 - Comparison of Student Enrollment Projections
26,500
25,500
24,500
23,500
E22,500
a 21,500
w
c
20,500
U 19,500
18,500
17,500
16,500
15,500
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Based on the District's model for the six -year period in question, student
enrollment is projected to grow by 233 students (2.25 %) at the
elementary school level, but decrease by 104 students (- 3.39 %) at the
middle school level and decrease by 606 students (- 8.60 %) at the high
school level. Although elementary enrollment is expected to grow, this will
be offset by declines at the secondary levels. Projected student
enrollment by grade span based on the District's model is provided in
Table 2.
7
Table 2 - Projected Student Enrollment by Grade Span
Edmonds School District 2008 -2013
2025 Student Enrollment Projection
The year 2025 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 2025 are based on
OFM's twenty -year population projection. The District's 2007 -2013
student to population ratio is expected to be 12.39 %; by holding the ratio
constant, a total enrollment of 24,379 students would be expected by the
year 2025. This represents an increase of approximately 19.2% over
existing enrollment levels.
The total enrollment
year 2025, was then
site acquisition need s
Enrollment by grade
enrollment trends at
Projected enrollment
provided in Table 3.
estimate, using OFM population projections for the
broken down by grade span to evaluate long -term
for elementary, middle, and high school facilities.
E
8
pan was determined based on recent and projected
the elementary, middle and high school levels.
by grade span for the year 2013 and 2025 is
Actual
Projected
Change
Percent
2007
2013
Change
Grade Span
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Elementary
K -6
10 346
10,237
10,252
10,257
10 372
10 423
10,579
233
2.25%
Middle
School 7 -8
3,074
1 3,101
3,035
1 3,037
2,998
2,982
1 2,970
-104
-3.390/o
High School
9 -12
7,04
6,831
6,780
6,687
6.538
6,550
6,438
-606
-8.60%
Total
20,464
20,169
20,067
19,981
19,908
19,955
19,987
-477
-2.33%
2025 Student Enrollment Projection
The year 2025 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 2025 are based on
OFM's twenty -year population projection. The District's 2007 -2013
student to population ratio is expected to be 12.39 %; by holding the ratio
constant, a total enrollment of 24,379 students would be expected by the
year 2025. This represents an increase of approximately 19.2% over
existing enrollment levels.
The total enrollment
year 2025, was then
site acquisition need s
Enrollment by grade
enrollment trends at
Projected enrollment
provided in Table 3.
estimate, using OFM population projections for the
broken down by grade span to evaluate long -term
for elementary, middle, and high school facilities.
E
8
pan was determined based on recent and projected
the elementary, middle and high school levels.
by grade span for the year 2013 and 2025 is
Table 3 - Projected Student Enrollment Through 2025
Grade Span
2013 Projected Student
Headcount
2025 Projected Student
Headcount
Elementary K -6
10,389
12,613
Middle School 7 -8
3,031
3,680
High School 9 -12
6,660
8,086
District Total K -12
20,08
24,379
Sources: 2013- Edmonds School District; 2025 - Shockey Brent
Student Generation Rates were last updated in 2006. As the District is not
requesting impact fees, they have not been updated for this plan. Student
Generation Rates are the average number of students by grade span
(elementary, middle school, and high school) typically generated by each
housing type. Student Generation Rates are calculated based on a survey
of all new residential units permitted by the jurisdictions within the school
district during the most recent five to eight -year period.
Old Edmonds Grade School circa 1920
0
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, and current understanding
of educational best practices, 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 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 had facility space implications but has not
resulted in over capacity at that level
The total curriculum program, including both the basic educational
program and local- choice educational programs, is hereafter referred to
as the total local educational program. This program may cause
variations in student capacity between schools.
10
District educational program standards will undoubtedly change in the
future as a result of changes in the program year, funding, 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 also exist.
Educational Facility Class Size and Design Capacity Standards for
Elementary Schools
• The District's student to classroom teacher ratio for staffing
purposes for grades K -1 is 21 students, 25 students for grades 2 -4;
and 27 students for grades 5 -6.
• 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 classroom staffing ratios and capacity standards
to the District's current educational program causes average classroom
utilization in individual schools to vary usually within a range of 17 to 29
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.
11
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 28 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 26 students. These facility design standards are
applied in Section 5 to determine existing capacities and to determine
future facility needs.
Minimum Levels of Service
Elementary Schools
With a total of 600 classrooms, the District could accommodate 12,813
elementary school children based upon actual capacity. The current
design capacity results in a utilization rate of 85 %. With significant
alteration to educational programming criteria, the District could increase
current enrollment by 2,467 students if conditions required it.
12
Middle Schools / K -8
With a total of 168 classrooms, the District could accommodate 3,453
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 90 %.
Without significant alteration to educational programming criteria, the
District could increase enrollment by 379.
Hic7hh Schools
The District could accommodate 8365 high school students based upon
actual capacity. The current design capacity results in a utilization rate of
82 %. Without significant alteration to educational programming criteria,
the District could increase enrollment by an additional 1,321 students
without seriously compromising educational standards.
13
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
Edmonds School District currently operates:
• Twenty one schools serving grades K -6;
• Three schools serving grades K -8;
Four schools serving grades 7 -8;
• Five schools serving grades 9 -12; and
• One resource center for K -12 home - schooled students.
The District offers a District program, Maplewood Center, for severely
developmentally and physically - challenged students 5 to 21 years of age.
Additionally, the District also offers Alderwood Early Childhood Center
(AECC) for pre - school children with developmental delays.
Measures of Capacity
The OSPI2 calculates school capacity by dividing gross square footage of a
building by a standard square footage per student (e.g.,90 square feet
per elementary student, 117 square feet per middle school student, and
130 square feet per high school student)2. 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
? WAC 392 -343 -035 Space allocation
14
be an accurate reflection of the actual capacity required to accommodate
the adopted educational program of Edmonds School District.
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. Should higher student enrollment
increases 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.
Inventory
The school facility inventory is summarized in Tables 4, 5 and 6.
JlKey for Figure 2
1 - Beverly
20 - Chase Lake
40 - Maplewood K -8
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 Center
25 - Spruce
70 - College Place MS
8 - Sherwood
27 - Martha Lake
77 - Former Woodwa HS
9 - Westgate
30 - Oak Heights
82 - Mountlake Terrace HS
13 - Mountlake Terrace
33 - Hilltop
83 - Meadowdale HS
14 - Terrace Park K -8
35 - Edmonds
85 - Lynnwood HS
15 - Brier
36 - College Place
86 - Ed/ Woodway HS
16 - Cedar Way
38 - Evergreen
19 - Woodwa
39 - Madrona K -8
15
Figure 2 - Map of School Facility Locations
o g
mbu
1�
Q
A
W
a�=
E „d
o ° E
� m.6'v s
Table 4 - Elementary School Capacity
Elementary
School
Site Size
(acres)
Bldg.
Area
(Sq. Ft.)
Year
Built or
Last
Remodel
Total #
of
Classes
Total
Capacity
Alderwood
8.9
36,869
1965
20
520
Beverly
9.1
48,020
1988
24
526
Brier
10.0
43,919
1989
25
531
Cedar Valley K -8
22.1
64,729
2001
25
517
Cedar Way
9.4
53,819
1993
27
549
Chase Lake
10.3
57,697
2000
25
533
College Place
9.0
48,180
1968
27
552
Edmonds (1)
8.4
34,726
1966
20
391
Evergreen
10.3
42,747
1969
21
448
Hazelwood
10.3
51,453
1987
26
567
Hilltop
9.8
49,723
1967
25
604
Lynndale
10.0
39,043
1989
20
417
Lynnwood
8.9
45,460
1962
25
494
Madrona K -8 (2)
26.9
85,505
1963
32
631
Maplewood K -8
7.4
76,554
2002
27
486
Martha Lake
10.0
50,753
1993
26
599
Meadowdale
9.1
57,111
2000
25
583
Melody Hill
7.4
37,663
1958
20
494
Mountlake
8.0
40,412
1989
21
406
Oak Heights
9.4
49,355
1966
26
615
Seaview
8.3
49,420
997
22
479
Sherwood
13.6
43,284
1966
20
414
Spruce
8.9
43,022
1966
20
414
Terrace Park K -8
15.3
71,664
2002
33
756
Westgate
8.1
44,237
1989
22
443
Woodway (3)
13.1
37,291
1962
20
364
Less Grades 7 -8
(520)
Totals
1
1 1,302,656
624
1 12,813
Source: Facilities Operations Department, Edmonds School District, OSPI
Notes:
(1) Formerly Olympic Elementary School.
(2) Formerly Madrona Junior High School.
3 Formerly Snoline Elementary School.
17
f
-.� _�.. .r• i
Table 5 - Middle School Capacity Inventory
Middle School
Site
Size
acres
Bldg Area
(S q. Ft.
Year Built
or Last
Remodel
Total
Class
rooms
Student
Ca aci
Iderwood
19.3
93,882
1988
36
753
Brier Terrace
22.7
89,258
1969
37
1 684
College Place
18.7
87,031
1970
37
737
Meadowdale
20.7
102,925
1961
39
687
Grades 7 &8 1
19
1 520
Former Woodwa 2
72
Totals
81.40
1373,096
1
1 168
1 3,453
Source: Facilities Operations Department, Edmonds School District
Notes:
(1) Grades 7 and 8 housed in K -8 schools.
2 Edmonds Home School Resource Center housed at former Woodway High School
18
Table 6 - High School Capacity Inventory
Relocatable Classroom Facilities (Portables)
Relocatable classrooms provide supplemental housing for students and
may be located on a campus for extended periods. They may be used
additionally, to temporarily house students pending construction of
permanent classrooms, or also to provide non - disruptive space for music
programs. Their additional teaching stations and student capacities are
added to the totals for the elementary schools where they are located.
The District currently uses six portables at various school sites.
Table 7 - Relocatable Classroom Inventory
School Site
Number of
Portable
Classrooms
Building
Year Built
Teachin
Program
2
Site Size
Area (Sq.
or Last
g
Student
High School
acres
Ft. )
Remodel
Stations
Capacity
Edmonds-Woodway
28.5
208,912
1998
*
1,794
L ynnwood
40.1
176,428
1971
52
1,352
Meadowdale
40.0
197,306
1998
*
I 600
Mountlake Terrace
33.2
211,950
1991
*
1,848
Scriber Lake (l)
Demolished
In 2007
Former Woodway 2
39.0
148,740
1967
55
1,430
217,597
(41,169 net
New LHS 3
40.5
gain)
2009
1 62
341
Totals
221.30
1,160,933
*
8,365
Source: Facilities Operations Department, Edmonds School District
*Notes: Capacity may vary depending on education program.
(1) Formerly Cedar Valley Community School. Moved to Former Woodway High, 2007
(2) Edmonds Home School Resource Center and Scriber Lake High housed at former Woodway High
School.
(3) The new facility will provide capacity for 341 more students than the current facility in 2009 and
rovide an additional area of 41,169 square feet
Relocatable Classroom Facilities (Portables)
Relocatable classrooms provide supplemental housing for students and
may be located on a campus for extended periods. They may be used
additionally, to temporarily house students pending construction of
permanent classrooms, or also to provide non - disruptive space for music
programs. Their additional teaching stations and student capacities are
added to the totals for the elementary schools where they are located.
The District currently uses six portables at various school sites.
Table 7 - Relocatable Classroom Inventory
School Site
Number of
Portable
Classrooms
Less Units to
Surplus
Available
Units
Interim
Student
Capacity
Provided
College Place Elementary
2
0
2
52
Evergreen Elementary
1
0
1
26
Hilltop Elementary
2
0
2
52
Oak Heights Elementa
1
0
1
26
Former Woodway High School
4
1
0
0
Totals
10
1
6
156
JVUI t,C. rcwnuns VPCFCILIWII5 Lit:PdrLmern, cumonas �cnooi vismcE
19
The portables at College Place, Evergreen, Hilltop, and Oak Heights
elementary schools are older units that are nearing the end of their useful
lives.
In addition to schools, the District owns and operates additional facilities
that provide operational support functions to the schools. An inventory of
these facilities is provided in Table 8.
Table 8 - Inventory of Support Facilities
Facility Name
Building Area
(S q. Ft.
Site Size Acres
Administration Center (ESC *
57,400
5.0
Maintenance Trans ortation*
65,000
9.1
Warehouse*
9,600
3.4
District Stadium
7,068
6.0
New District Support Center
130,000
19.6
source: racmtles operations department, tamonas scnooi District
* To be relocated to the New District Support Center Site
Land Inventory
Undeveloped Sites
The District owns seven undeveloped parcels varying in size from 3.3 to
18.9 acres. An inventory of the undeveloped parcels (sites) owned by the
District is summarized in Table 9.
Table 9 - Inventory of Undeveloped Sites
School District
Site Description
Site
Size Acres
Development Constraints /Environmental
Issues
Es erance
3.30
Building demolished in 2003
Site 29
8.90
N.E. of Martha Lake
Site 28
9.50
S. of New Lynnwood High School
Site 32
9.40
N. of Beverly Elementary
Site 7 Middle School
18.90
Next to Martha Lake Elementary
Chase Lake Bog
7.50
Wetlands
Old ESC Site
3.90
3800 1961 Street, SW
source: racwties uperations department, tamonas scnooi 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
20
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
Facility /Site
Size
Acres
Development Constraints/ Environmental Issues
Meadowdale Playfields
21.00
Recreation Facility - Lynnwood, Edmonds, Snohomish County
Civic Center Playfield
7.9
Recreation Facility City of Edmonds
Source: Facilities Operations Department, Edmonds School District
21
SECTION 5 -- PROJECTED FACILITY NEEDS
Six -Year Facility Needs (through 2013)
Projected available student capacity was derived by subtracting projected
student enrollment for each of the six years in the forecast period from
the existing 2007 school capacity. Available student capacity by grade
span, based on capacity existing in 2007, is shown in Table 11. As
described above, the District counts portable classroom units in capacity
calculations; therefore, supplimental capacity provided by portables is
included (information on portables can be found in Table 7).
Table 11 - Projected Available Student Capacity
(Based on 2007 Actual Capacity)
Edmonds School District 2008— 2013
Grade Span
2007
2008
2009*
2010
2011
2012
2013
Elementary
2 467
2 576
2,561
2,556
2,441
2,390
2,234
Middle School
379
370
377
386
396
408
422
Hi h School
1 1,321
1 1,534
1 1,585
1 1,678
1 1,827
1 1,815
1 1,927
New Lynnwood High School will provide capacity for an additional 341 students beginning in
2009
The District projects that it will have no unhoused students by the end of
the forecast period (the year 2013). The District will not have to construct
any additional classrooms. 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.
While Edmonds School District is not anticipating dramatic population
fluctuations in student enrollment until after 2013, population forecasts
suggest that the District will have an enrollment in excess of current
capacity by 2025.
Although schools may be rebuilt or remodeled, the District does not
expect to create new schools to accommodate students in established
service areas. The District has identified all anticipated capital
22
construction projects 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. However,
if student enrollment exceeds projections, the District may need to
acquire additional property.
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 2008 -2025
Grade Span
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2025
Elementary
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Middle School
0
0
0
0
0
0
-227
High School
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
23
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.
In February 2006, voters approved Capital Construction funding for
remodeling, rebuilding and renovating schools and building systems.
Discussed further below is the 2008 Capital Construction scope of work.
The majority of the capital construction work is 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 systems 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 2008 to 2013 period will see a great deal of activity in the
construction of a number of new sites. The new Lynnwood High School,
currently under construction, will open for the 2009/2010 school year. In
2007, Scriber Lake High was relocated to former Woodway High to make
room for the construction of the new District Services Center.
Administration, Maintenance, Transportation, and the Warehouse will all
move to the new DSC. The Warehouse, Maintenance /Transportation, and
the old ESC property on 196th Street, SW will be sold or ground leased,
adding to the revenue stream along with the current Lynnwood High
School Property. Proceeds from the development of these three
properties will allow the District to use independent, non -tax dollars for
capital construction purposes. The current Administration building (ESC)
will be remodeled to house Scriber Lake, High School along with other
activities. Currently in the planning stages, a new Meadowdale Middle
School is scheduled to open in 2011. These projects are described in
table 13.
24
Table 13 - Construction Projects
Active Projects
Estimated
Completion
Date*
Student
Capacity
Change(i)
Estimated
Project
Cost **
New Lynnwood High School
Fall 2009
341
$ 86 million
New Meadowdale Middle
Fall 2011
TBD
$38 million
Bond total
$137,800,000
New Alternative Learning Center
TBD
TBD
$12 million
New District Support Center
TBD
N/A
TBD
Revenue from Surplus Property Sub total
$12 million
Capital Improvement Projects multi
uncertain
42 million
Proposed Projects
Estimated
Completion
Date*
Student
Capacity
Change
Estimated
Project Cost**
New Madrona K -8 Design &
construction*
Fall 2013
TBD
$30 million
New Alderwood Middle- Design and
Construction*
Fall 2013
TBD
$40 million
New Lynnwood Elementary- Design and
Construction*
Fail 2013
TBD
$21 million
Revenue from Surplus Property Sub
total
$91 million
Total- All Projects
$282,800,000
(1) iiasea on yistnct-s Eaucational Facility Standards
* Completion dates for projects funded from property revenue depend upon the availability of
future revenues
** Project costs represent currently approved amounts. Budgets may be revised as additional cost
and revenue data are available
25
The primary source of funding for these construction projects will be
proceeds from bond sales, interest earnings, real- estate earnings, and
from State matching funds as shown in Table 14.
Table 14 - Capital Construction Finance Detail in Thousands
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
2013 and to update existing classroom and building space to assist in
achieving its total local educational program objectives,
Relocatable Classroom Facilities (Portables) - (Six -Year Plan)
Six serviceable portables are expected to be in use at school sites
throughout the District, providing supplemental capacity for
approximately 156 students The District does not intend to purchase
additional portables.
Site Acquisition and Improvements
The District currently owns enough school sites to accommodate
projected student housing needs through the year 2013.
26
Budget
2006
2004
Reserve
Local
State
Other
Bond
Levy
Funds
Funds
Match
New
$99,700
$86,000
$2,900
$924
$9,376
$500
LHS
New
$38,000
$38,000
MDM
New Alt.
TBD
Property
EdCC
Learning
Revenue
Ctr.
New
TBD
Property
DSC
Revenue
New
TBD
Property
AWM
Revenue
New
TBD
Property
MAD
Revenue
New
TBD
Properly
LDE
Revenue
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
2013 and to update existing classroom and building space to assist in
achieving its total local educational program objectives,
Relocatable Classroom Facilities (Portables) - (Six -Year Plan)
Six serviceable portables are expected to be in use at school sites
throughout the District, providing supplemental capacity for
approximately 156 students The District does not intend to purchase
additional portables.
Site Acquisition and Improvements
The District currently owns enough school sites to accommodate
projected student housing needs through the year 2013.
26
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, and proceeds
from real- estate leases and surplus property sales. 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 construction bond for $140 million in
February 2006.
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. State matching funds are
generated from a complex formula based on many factors. At the
present time, the State provides matching funds on Edmonds School
District projects at a rate of 41.89% of ELIGIBLE costs, which are a
fraction of actual costs. For example, the new Lynnwood Nigh School has
a total project cost of $99.7 million dollars. The state match for this
project is $15,644,178.71 or an actual rate of 15.69 %. State match for
all Edmonds School District projects for the last fifteen years have had a
similar actual state match ratio.
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 or 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 reserves in the Capital
Projects Fund.) When the State share is disbursed (without accounting
for escalation), the District's capital projects fund Is reimbursed, but
without interest earnings or accounting for escalating construction costs.
27
Sales and Ground Lease of District Surplus Property
School districts are permitted to sell or engage in long -term leases of
surplus properties. The proceeds of these activities are deposited in the
Capital Facilities Fund and become available to fund capital construction
projects. As of 2008, the District has entered into a development
agreement for the current Lynnwood High School site, which anticipates a
long term ground lease when the site is vacated. Future leases or sales,
affecting the current Maintenance and Transportation site and the
Lynnwood City Center (Old ESC) site, will provide additional continuing
property revenues.
Developer Contribution
Development impact fees authorized by the GMA have been adopted by a
number of jurisdictions in the state 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 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.
28
SECTION 8 -- 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.
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. This
conclusion is based on information available at the time of publication.
Given the dynamic development of additional residential capacity within
the District's borders the District cannot rule out the need for fees after
2013. In preparation for the time when such fees may be needed, the
District requests that all jurisdictions adopt a school impact fee ordinance
that will allow the district to make use of this source of revenue should
the need arise. 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,
after 2013. The District has not updated Student Generation Rates,
(SGR's) this year as the District is not requesting collection of impact
fees. SGR's are not used in forecasting enrollment and are only needed if
calculating impact fees.
29
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 2006 -2011, Edmonds School District No. 15,
October 2006.
Snohomish County Tomorrow 1999 Growth Monitoring Report, Snohomish
County Planning & Development Services, December 1999.
30
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH
``SpF FOI,pNN
M1'C. 159p
of the City of Edmonds,
On the 15th day of Decem-
bar; 2009, the'' 'City. Council of
the .City of Edmonds, passed
Ordinance No. 3765. A surnma-
ry of the content of said ordi-
nance, consisting of the title,
Oas follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF•THE CITY
OF EDMONDS, WASHING-
TON, AMENDING THE ED-
MONDS COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN TO UPDATE THE "ED-,
MONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT
CAPITAL FACILITIES -PLAN"
AND FIXING A. TIME WHEN
THE SAME SHALL BECOME
EFFECTIVE.
The full text of this Ordinance
will be mailed upon request.
DATED this 16th. day of De-
cember, 2009. '
CITY CLERK,
SANDRA S. CHASE
Published: December 21, 2009.
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. 3765
Amending the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan
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:
December 21, 2009
and that said newspaper was regularly distributed tq,its subscribers during all of said period.
Subscribed and swom to before me this 21st
day of December, 2009
Notary Public in and fo he S to of Wai tin idi}y0�2t efett, Sn homish
County. _'Pia "eft et,`
Account Name: City of Edmonds Account Number: 101416 aj. k Ara.�M i OrdQY.tdttht7t±r: 0007679284