HomeMy WebLinkAboutO-2912 - Amends comprehensive plan (Repealed by 2976)CITY OF MARYSVILLE
Marysville,Washington
ORDINANCE NO.:)..q Id----
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MARYSVILLE,WASHINGTON
RELATING TO THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN;AMENDING THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY THE ADOPTION OF THE MARYSVILLE,LAKE
STEVENS AND LAKEWOOD SCHOOL DISTRICTS'2012 -2017 CAPITAL
FACILITIES PLANS AS A SUBELEMENT OF THE CITY'S
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ESTABLISHING THE ADOPTION OF SAID
PLAN AND THE COLLECTION AND IMPOSITION OF SCHOOL IMPACT
FEES,PURSUANT TO THE CITY'S ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT AND UPDATE PROCESS.
WHEREAS,the State of Washington enacted the Growth Management Act (nGMAn)in
1990 amending RCW Chapter 82.02 to authorize the collection of school impact fees on new
development under specified conditions,including the adoption by the City of a GMA
Comprehensive Plan as defined in RCW Chapter 36.70A;and
WHEREAS,the Marysville City Council adopted a GMA Comprehensive Plan on April
25,2005 that included a policy commitment to consider the adoption of a GMA-based school
impact fee program (Policy SC-8);and
WHEREAS,on November 22,2010 the Marysville City Council approved Ordinance
No.2843,adopting an update to the Comprehensive Plan that adopted the Marysville,Lake
Stevens and Lakewood School Districts'2010 -2015 Capital Facilities Plans as a
subelement to the City Comprehensive Plan;and
WHEREAS,City staff has reviewed the respective capital facility plans developed by
the Marysville,Lake Stevens,and Lakewood School Districts and adopted by their Board of
Directors in accordance with the requirements of RCW Chapter 36.70A arid RCW 82.02.050,
et seq.and has determined that the plans meet the reqUirements of said statutes and
Marysville Municipai Code (MMC)Chapter 22D.040 School Impact Fees and Mitigation;and
WHEREAS,the City of Marysville has adopted MMC Chapter 22D.040 relating to
school impact fees and mitigation which is designed to meet the conditions for impact fee
programs in RCW 82.02.050,et seq.;and
WHEREAS,the Marysville,Lake Stevens and Lakewood School Districts have
prepared an environmental checklist and issued a SEPA Threshold Determination of Non-
significance relating to their respective capital facilities plans;and
WHEREAS,the Marysville,Lake Stevens and Lakewood School Districts Board of
Directors have each adopted their respective 2012 -2017 Capital Facilities Plan;and
WHEREAS,the City has submitted the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment to
the State of Washington Department of Commerce for 60-day review in accordance with
RCW 36.70A.106;and
WHEREAS,the Marysville Planning Commission held public hearings on the 2012 -
2017 Capital Facilities Plans of each School District on October 23,2012;and
WHEREAS,the Marysville Planning Commission,after review of the proposed
Comprehensive Plan amendment,held a public workshop on October 9,2012,and held a
public hearing on October 23,2012,and received testimony from each Districts'
representative,staff and other interested parties following public notice;and
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission prepared and provided its written
recommendation that said proposed amendment be approved by the Marysville City
Council;and
WHEREAS,on November 26,2012 the Marysville City Council reviewed the Planning
Commission's recommendation relating to the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment;
and
WHEREAS,the Marysville City Council has considered the School Districts'2012 -
2017 Capital Facilities Plans in the context of the adopted Comprehensive Plan.
NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MARYSVILLE,WASHINGTON
DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1:Adoption.The Marysville School District Capital Facilities Plan 2012 -
2017,the Lake Stevens School District Capital Facilities Plan 2012 -2017,and the
Lakewood School District Capital Facilities Plan 2012 -2017 (collectively referred to as
"Plans")are hereby incorporated by this reference and are hereby adopted as a subelement
to the capitai facilities element of the City of Marysville Comprehensive Plan.The Plans
hereby adopted replace the School District Capital Facility Plans previously adopted by
Marysville City Council in Ordinances No.2843.
Section 2:Schedule of fees.The Department of Community Development is hereby
directed to develop a schedule of school impact fees based upon the School Districts'Capital
Facilities Plans hereby adopted and as adjusted by the provisions of MMC 22D.040.050
School impact fee.
Section 3:Severability.If any section,subsection,sentence,clause,phrase or work
of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent
jurisdiction,such invalidity or unconstitutionality thereof shall not affect the validity or
constitutionality of any other section,subsection,sentence,clause,phrase or word of this
ordinance.
PASSED by the City Council and APPROVED by the Mayor thisd.(".fA
",/£ll!e-m be.[,2012.
day of
CITY OF MARYSVILLE
BY:~~JONEHRiNG,~OR
::~'{la-
.~¥-1::A-N<3E>5N,CITY CLERK
Apf2..,L 0 '(je.,e,'v 'tQ",,-s.
Approved as to form:
By:~t<.LU~
GRANT K.WEED,CITY ATTORNEY
Date of Publication:'No,)g5S;0,0 l J...
Effective Date:D?<:'~20 l 2.
CITY OF MARYSVILLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE'November 26 2012,
AGENDA ITEM:AGENDA SECTION:
PA 12019 -Marysville School District CFP New Business
PA 12020 -Lake Stevens School District CFP
PA 10021 -Lakewood School District CFP
PREPARED BY:APPROVED BY:
Chris Holland,Senior Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
1.PC Recommendation
2.Memo to PC,from Chris Holland,dated October 19,2012 MAYOR CAO
3.Marysville School District CFP
4.Lake Stevens School District CFP
5.Lakewood School District CFP
6.Adopting Ordinance
BUDGET CODE:AMOUNT:
DESCRIPTION:
Pursuant to Section MMC 220.040.030(1),Capital facilities plan required,any district
serving the City ofMarysville shall be eligible to receive school impact fees upon
adoption ofa Capital Facilities Plan (CFP)as a sub-element ofthe Capital Facilities
Element ofthe Marysville Comprehensive Plan.School District CFPs are reviewed and
adopted on a biennial basis.
The Planning Commission (PC)held a public workshop on October 9,2012 and a duly
advertised public hearing on October 23,2012 to review the Marysville,Lake Stevens
and Lakewood School District's 2012 -2017 CFPs,and received testimony from staff
and the applicant.There was no public testimony provided at the public hearing.
Following the public hearing the PC made a motion to forward the Marysville,Lake
Stevens and Lakewood School District 2012 -2017 CFPs,to Marysville City Council for
adoption by ordinance.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Affirm the PC's Recommendation and adopt the Marysville,Lake Stevens and Lakewood 20 J2-
20 J7 CFPs as a subelement ofthe Capital Facilities Element ofthe Marysville Comprehensive
Plan.
COUNCIL ACTION:
COMMUNiTY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
80 Columbia Avenue·Marysville,WA 98270
(360)363-8100 •(360)651-5099 FAX
PC Recommendation -Marysville,Lake Stevens &Lakewood Schooi
Districts'2012 -2017 Capital Facilities Plan
The Planning Commission (PC)of the City of ~1ary5viile,having held a public hearing,on
October 23,2012,jn review of a NON-PROJECT action amendment proposing adoption of
the Marysville,Lake Stevens and Lakewood School Districts'2012 -2017 Capital Facilities
Plans (CFPs)as a sub-element of the Capital Facilities Eiement of the Marysville
Comprehensive Plan,and having considered the eXhibits and testimony presented,does
hereby enter the following findings,conclusions and recommendation for consideration by
the Marysville City Council:
FINDINGS:
1.The proposal was submitted to the State of Washington Department of Commerce
for 60-day notice of intent to adopt a comprehensive plan amendment under the
Growth Management Act in accordance with RCW 36.70A.I06.
2.A State Environmental Threshold Determini:ltion of Non-Significi:lnce CDNS)was
issued by each school district,in accordance with Chapter 197-11 WAC,"s follows:
Marysville School District:August 29,2012
Lake Stevens School District:June 19,2012
Lakewood School District:August 20,2012
3.The PC Ileld a public work session to review the NON-PROJECT action amendment
to the Capital Facilities Element of the Marysville Comprehensive Plan,on October
9,2012.
4.The PC held a dUly-advertised public hearing on October 23,2012 and received
testimony from each Districts'representative,city staff,and other interested
parties.
5.At the pUblic hearing the PC reViewed and considered the 1-1arysville,Lake Stevens
i:lnd Lakewood School Districts'2012 -2017 CFPs and supplemental "pplication
materii:lis and exhibits,including a staff recommendation.
CONCLUSIONS:
At the public hearing,held on October 23,2012,the PC recommended adoption of the
Marysville,Lake Stevens and Lakewood School Districts'2012 -2017 CFPs as a sub-
element of the Capital Facilities Element of the Marysville Comprehensive Plan,as I'eflected
in the PC minutes,attached hereto as Exhibit A.
hair
By:
RECOMMENDATION:,
Forwarded to thp IvJarysville City Council as a Recommendation of Approval to adopt the
IVfarysville,LakEf Stevens aneyJ.akewood School Districts'2012 -2017 CFPs,as ~sub-element~ofhe "pltal FaCili Ikg·Element of the Marysvlile ComprehenSive Plan,thiS 23""
day of ct be 2012.
\\l..-;It--k
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
80 Columbia Avenue +Marysville,WA 98270
(360)363-8100 •(360)651-5099 FAX
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
cc:
October 19,2012
Planning Commission
Chris Holland,Senior Planner
School District Capital Facilities Plans -PC Public Workshop
PA 12019 -Marysville School District
PA 12020 -Lake Stevens School District
PA 12021 -Lakewood School District
Gloria Hirashima,CD Director
Jim Baker,Marysville School District
Robb Stanton,Lake Stevens School District
Fred Owyen,Lakewood School District
Pursuant to MMC 22D.040.030(1),any district serving the City of Marysville shall be eligible
to receive school impact fees upon adoption by Marysville City Council of a capital facilities
plan (CFP)for the district as a sub-element of the Capital Facilities Element of the Marysville
Comprehensive Plan.District's CFP are reviewed and adopted on a biennial basis.
Upon receipt of a district's CFP the Community Development Department must determine:
1.That the analysis contained within the CFP is consistent with current data developed
pursuant to the requirements of the GMA.
2.That any school impact fee proposed in the district's CFP has been calculated using the
formuia contained in MMC 22D.040.050 Table 1.
3.That the CFP has been adopted by the District's board of directors.
Based on a review of the district's CFP it appears each plan has been prepared pursuant to
the requirements of the GMA (RCW 36.70A),the impact fees have been calculated using the
formuia contained in MMC 22D.040.050 Table 1 and the CFP's have been adopted by each
district's board of directors.
The following is a breakdown of current and proposed impact fees,as outlined in the
district's CFP,applying the 50%discount pursuant to MMC 22D.040.050(1):
Marysville School.Dist..-ict 2010 -2015 2012 -2017 Difference(current)(proposed)
Single-family $4,263.00 $1,879.00 -$2,384.00
Multi-family (studio or one bedroom unit)$0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Multi-family (two or more bedroom unit)$3,637.00 $2,882.00 -$755.00
Lake Stevens School District 2010-2015 2012 ~2017 Difference(current)(proposed)....
Single-family $4,532.00 $4,692.00 +$160.00
Duplex/Townhouse $3,035.00 $2,915.00 -$120.00
Multi-family (studio or one bedroom unit)$0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Multi-family (two or more bedroom unit)$3,035.00 $2,915.00 -$120.00
••••2010 ~2015 2012 ":2017LakewoodSchoolDistrict Difference..(current)(proposed)
Single-family $1,780.00 $892.00 -$888.00
Multi-family (studio or one bedroom unit)$0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Multi-family (two or more bedroom unit)$1,379.00 $396.00 -$983.00
Staff respectfully requests the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval
for the Marysville,Lake Stevens and Lakewood School Districts'2012 -2017 CFPs to the
City Council for adoption as a sub-element of the Capital Facilities Element of the Marysville
Comprehensive Plan.
lVIARYSVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.25
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2012-2017
Marysville
School District
"Mm:I'S!Jif(e School District ...del'elopillg selj-dll'ected,file/ong lcamcrs."
Adopted:September 17,2012
fdARYSVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.25
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2012-2017
"Marysville School District ..•developing self-directed,li/elong learners."
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Chris Nation,President
Wendy Fryberg,Vice President
Dr.Tom Albright
Cindy Erickson
Pete Lundberg
SUPERINTENDENT
Dr.Larry Nyland
Table ofContelllS
Page
Introduction ,,',2
Educational Program Standard ,,7
Capital Facilities Inventory 10
Student Enrollmcnt Trcnds and Projections 15
Capital Facilities Projections for Future Needs 15
Financing Plan , , , ,20
Schoollmpac.'Fees ,,",.,.,,23
AppendixA ,Population and Enrollment Data
Appendix B.Schoolllllpacl Fee Calculatious
Appendix C.,, , ,Student Generation Rates
For info1'1lmtioll regardillg the Marysville School Dis!ri,.t 2010·2015 Capilal Facilities Plan,contact Jim
Balwr,Marysville School Di""'icl Nu.25,4220 80th Stred N.E.,Mary,ville,W""hingltm 98270·3498.
Telephone:(360)653·7058,
SECTION01\'£:J:lIlIRODUCTION
Purpose ofthe Capital Facilities Plan
The Washington State Growth Management Act (the "GMA")outlines 13 broad goals including
adequate provision of necessary public facilities and services.Schools are among these
neecssal)'facilities and services.School districts have adopte<:l capital facilities plans to satisfy
the requirements of RCW 36.70A.070 and to identifY additional school facilities necessury to
I11cet the educational needs ofthe growing student populations anticipated in their districts.
The Marysville School District (the "District")has prepare<!this Capital Facilities Plan (the
"CFP")to provide SnohomIsh Connty (the "ComHy"),the City of Marysville (the "City"),oud
the City ofEverett ("Everett"),,~th a schedule and financing program for capital improvements
over thenext six years (2012-2017).
In occordanee with the Growth Management Act,adopted County policy,Snohomish County
Ordinance Nos.97-095 and 99-107,and the City ofMarysville Ordinance Nos.2306 and 2213,
this CFP mnta;ns the follOWing required elements:
•Future emollment forecasts for each grade span (eleme.ntlli)'schools,
middle level sdwo!s,and high schools).
•All inventory of exIsting capital facilities owned by the District,showing
the 10catio11s and capncilies ofthe facilities.
• A forecast ofthe fUlnre needs for capital facilities and school sites.
•The proposed cap:tcities of expanded or new eapit<ll facilities.
..A six-year plan for financing capital facilities wiLbin pn:~jectL~funding
capacities,which clearly identifies sources of public money for such
purposes.The l1nancing plan separates projects and ponions of projects
whic1J add cupncity from those which do not,since the laHer arc generally
not appropriate for impflet fee funding.
• A cnkulation ofimpact fees to be nsscsscd and S\IPPOrt dato SllhsuU1tilillng
said fees.
In developing this CFP,the District followed the following guidelines set fOlth in Appendix F of
Snohomish County's General.Policy Plan:
•Districts shonld use information from recognized so[u'ces,such "5 the U.S,
Censns [lr the Puget Sound Regional ConnciL School districts may
-2-
generate their own data if it is derived through statistically reliable
methodologies.Infonnation must nQt be incQnsistent with Office Qf
Financial Management (OFM)population forecasts.Student generatiou
rates must be independently calculated by eacb school disu"ict.
"The CFP must comply with the GMA.
•The methodology used to calculate impact fees illust comply with Chapter
82.02 RC\V.The CFP must identity alternative lunding SQUTCeS in the
event that impact fees are not available due tQ actiQn by thc state,COllnty
or cities within the Disb-icl.
O,'e,..,iew ofthe Marys,iJle SchoolDi,trict
The District encompasses most of the City of Marysville,u small porUml of the City ofEverett,
,md purtions of unincorpomted Snohomish County.The District's houndaries also include the
TulaHp Indian Reservation.The District enCtlmpas,es a total of72 sqm're miles.
The District currently serves an approximate student population of 10,875 (October 1,2011 FTE
enrollment)with cleven elementary schools (grades Ko5),four middle level schOQls (6-8),and
two comprehensive high school (grades 9-12).In addition,the District operates sevet'al small
Ie.arning communities.In 1999,the District moved approximately 400 9'"graders to Marysville
pilchuok High School with 11pproximate1y 500 91h gmders remaining nt lvlarysvlllc Junior High
SchooL In 2007,the District completed the shift of 9'"graders to Marysville Pilehudc High
School and renamed Mal'ysville JUllior High Sch{)(ll a.~Totem MiddIe.School.Dnring 2008,th"
District completed construction of the f\,jarysville Tulalip Campus and consolidated scveral
programs (serving grades 6-12)on one emnpus.The District also opened Grovc Elemcntary
School in the fall of 2008.The District opened the Marysville Getchell Campus,housing fOUT
separate 9-12 small learning communities,in the fall of 2010.For the purposes of facility
planning,this eFP considers grades K~5 as elementary school,grades 6~8 as middle level scbool,
and grades 9-12 as high school.
The District continues to face challenges related to the capacity and tile condition ofits facilities.
The opening Clf Grove Elemental)'Sel1001,the IVlarysvilie TIlI.lip Cmnpus,snd the Mary,,'ille
Getchell Campus help to nlleviate some of these concerns.However,rhe Distdct expects
continued growth-related cnrollment increascs at the elemenwy level.Also of concern is tbe
conditiQn of its facilities.All schools need technology support upgrades (elecu'kul and
network).Eight elementary schools (Cascade,Kellogg Marsh,Grove,Liberty,Marshall,
Pinewood,ShQultcs,and Sunnyside),two middle schools (Marys\'ille and Totem),and two high
school (Marysville Pilchuck.and J\'!arysville Getchell)need improvements.In addition,support
facilities need additional space,
-3-
Significant Issues
The District faces signifLcant issues,as do other districts,with regard to matters affecting the
e~pital facilities planning process,Affordable housing (as compared to Seattle and a(ljaceat
cities)in the District tends to draw young families,which puts demands 011 tbe schoolfilcilities,
In addition,the 2005 amendments to the Snohomisb County Comprehensive Plan expanded lbe
Marysville urban growtl!b<;uudmy to include un udditiQnuJ 560A acres zone.d for residcntial
development.Also,a significant amount of acreage already within the Mmysville UGA was
rezoned to accommodate more density in IKlUsing developments.The dramatic modifications to
land use priorities will have a signifiClll1!impact 011 schools.Capacity impacts are obvious.In
addition,locating and purchasing suitable property and agrcemcnt on scope "nd mnOlmt of futurc
bond me"sures are ofconcern.The ctlnent economy further eomplicates capacity planning.
In February of2006,the Distrkt's voters approved a schoo!construction bond for approximately
$JJ 8 million.The bond helped to pay lor the eOllstmction of l\'larysYiIle Getchell High School
and Gmve Elementary SchooL The District also used the bond proc'eem to acquire future
school sires,The District will consider presenting a future bond to the voters during the six years
ofthis Plan.
-4-
A,
'Iu
t
,,
u,
,
"u,
"10 ,
,
rt
"",
",
",,,,
,
rl
"",
",
!"",,,,-,,''!:
Welcome to the
Marysville School District No.25
i B~Tubl!p!,*,Unt.Jry!lljbe.l'l
;."..~dt<l:lI!g!.!ll:(J!d.41£llI!!Tlfntir,:,
,1;f;d,";t'l"i""~"","':'liiii<&th;,h;,d,ioL'hi.>'t:l"",';lI<c',g;_,!t;,fuo!"~~
~'H
-~~~bi6\'id
-)-~~$
tJihtrll.&¢.~<l1;1
ill<'~"J""'';(l hj~~~k'IAn~':i"·,_,1(11¢')1;,
l:lIJrlm.\'H<,;-MJ¥-Et):lt!J'~~'N!
-5-
,!.~(~Jimf~i ~lt/;ll.~~hc:;!
~1%3:lh:l'l,-n11-J"!'
;:~IJS."l'1.
..:..~t'l)tbodbwjll!ItlQ1.>,I,'pmri(:'P_.
!All~:rt~!~~k n~m:"~~::JJ;i;"~Hl(;G~
£,!>(l~60thI:irll!Q ilJ£h;;i~l~McfE.Jb,p(i-;-,II"":
Till;"~It~;ljto'.'lIfn!'1)5i".'l'l!i!~jle€i,l'oLivw
"i!11',y;.I,~""',~6.5dl,'uN,'''J Il,,;ic:f'_
S21111100lh Sl...."tj~E n.~""~1\,,~~,"y2ll;'tn~,Pr\"':OF~1
Tn/;:"f~ltfrAo"'),?t.T(I nJ;<1<:,>J,SBji!.5(,A'~,~"!"pro"',:f.mrlt~
fJllf;1;:I'!i'l1 !:1$1P'I;t':il[,GO10 l~i[rtl':'';.W.
:3 Gll>~'~Et~fl\iI!ntil'l"f
IlSUlGI...~..SltH;t
l"".lf'i'.>IitIElIi ''-'illcru-t ,m,o;'¢!il~r,,"I!rrrll('w,~rr;"w:JSI'~f+.
5;;",,<>Ii;"-1th<'l!~~rL
n ~bfjlwJl1~Mlddl~Wl;:;oi 3M.t.!>~,[i&1S
..!IE61....$Ifoll..tIiIE ~"-"";-'H"t~t-'!":l,rj.ffi'lf)"d
Tp:..~r,f~Jt,t'f~l,Trjm r<';i~liii,Sf.-I'oN,:'t~'O~1prt'J:,15m(.'{J b
;;)liJJi~l'_iW.rowillml kfi,f~!Ia"H,,',j"IJdhiWi',!J}ililltilE"""
('jlijfi'.;',..)Jit,}j),ml.~r ....[~d"..(>lI:><:"iIiI:...!ifli't
Ii:!,t"1~'Sll"'"t!JlO,t!i.1(II'~'fL F<l"/{jc.·QIlI~fJ(lpHJ!f..~Ii~'fi1;t
J/<'mik,.,G'",w'~li(N.T"rJ;>rl\lM¢J>r,.i~~r-.1"#N'P4~
livnfQl;;LiJl";ij~J,~1;nQlio;{lfl~l~ri!i-/JI
lfi(!571tl5ifJ!l\1!'j\~ti.ct,"l;!d~J""'~l',~d!r.ii'
rLJt:i:'i~,l ,tl~.I'!lr,1cmjPl,i::{{<51,Iiii:"wW.Hill.:'AyE'.(lildCl(,'!!
/.OIL .J'r4';wr",lt~51.<ro"l;lJII/Il If..I'~$!1J1)ofi~L'''.u,~"-11.
t;elfo:>ilt M~fih ~leMHU1Y
"d!~-!JHt$tr;O'ir(Nt
"".~<'f"i'lJi'll.'ml,.",);.!OJ!Jl,,:r!',,~r,L h',~['n'
"I;pu".&~"·'i.b.5d".o.::1h ":1 rho'!"/!_
[ok'!{x,)ti.!lJfl [e'm ,,1l~1F11",~:!r~f,tIE F('>Utl',"i>,!Jp'WiI,-:;
mi,''t'.'i,'(um .'eft"'-.l'lJt[lr,iVE.f{ljlo>~<t"4-'.!,'iJy!lf\",[,iII'
jirlf,1 ihl ~.,m..'iLJ'!t:..~UL"iiiis II;[!IJl-'oJ jJ},~j1jj.
~Ji;l"m ~1'!'TI1~!l~m -!!t/Q,t!~·Hi~~
ii.ll910ltdtrF<jlt ~r01t"iYir~!'rkclpid
T~£!J~'lii.!L"_tlJi:'.'.,"HL'?~'~ril.:{f.Ali.,T~,ti>~':fjb\'
m:'~fi!1lI ~g tJ(l f,lfll,liI{Hi<?';;'t :5(/'('Io)I;'~fNlilJ~'1 ,"'k'ilJ,
riy)ir,~dlC"rI.;tt5If'~b!!!l tilt'tEJl
l"~tlwill'o"I ..1{hnIH.""r.~r;"'"f,,-,~~.j"'1.d~",if
15-,.ury.v'Jlc Mi)lJntllEJiiJie-w Hl~h Stl'<blll 3fiO-1l5HlWI
'-'111 ?-i>lil5liji,;;1rJE D""""arihihakH,P:-'....rlj""l
'-pi;"'"C~,U,'l~TUII!f1l!("";;Iii!:s-t f.,~l:\>wt·,}ll'i.,.,ll\T'.M;;'lw"
8jL fiilll;'\rt'.?NrP ~~,Nlt'fi.iII'J/IIfWli.!iJ,'I;;XNl.::-;;;j:jj,ASo",HL
fil1tlt<JJ1'kft.:;(iw"j I,WI thr!rj/.
lif."'~r~~v;j~·pJlr,II"<~C"mf1'.l~
~"tJ l¢ith~n...trl!
Tl1~"(~iJ ~.,!¢C',",fm ~(i;'1N!.5-"ii_\tNf,Fpijowa-p~'.o.,;,~Wll't
<!lIdI"".,.,'tJf('11 ,~IJ!A~·t,NF frV:",l'!·"1(',II,!tfit,n'ld10.');
j';O"~~;O~ilO
M:il'·<'II'(jl!ffiH."ili,IJp&1
G M~j<l!l.ijftil!'l1'lIl1llP;
.uorUGlt,~Il~eH/£
f'1~~.~'",'Cd~I~il''-'~r~ry
511S~11l:StrutlfE
;·'J.'I~",~i".,.I-""';'Inti,,,.T,j!!,(!giild.'1 <;26D.U·IfF
5c!IQlii,;m";(lM'l1h~"d
11 M"ryw;-U..Tul,;,t;pC"li\pU.iilFW.·~"m~d InQ@::-",JlJ"
l~t(lfm~/fy MlifJ'wn.~c<>(ld..rJ~""pu'i
n(lol.lJtll .0."';',>1,,,.,IE
r"I;,-f~.~f/lfJ(f.rum L''':''ftJIIINtiiJ :;j,Nt (GoJ,~t!."il(J ~~'<1I'I'r..,'~'wm
.UII,i!.l.'eIJf!~,',1 !("{')~fl.fN'\l'"<','ii''-''''..r.~1;:~ld ·~(I'J(''',II';.·~'"1/;<:Jilillf
'O.l:il C,,-;lJlfTula-1lpfltmtnllll'J'
.:N1S 71j'~,:$1tllfttJE
J7A M.r..w)l~A!"!~~Tl;'tl'!lOlD~Y ;J,i,,1l:"l\w!;;!{~d'rlrKljjT
11ft btflnJ):~!'.ifilduY-l:lj..;t!"llr!.'i<C'f,D:it#t~~"
J1(lULh5U,.,H i(;r.~u~l;.ll),~;I';ll,Vrr'!,:'~\·""';~·Il.rr"lwlpl
3(oll-.6SHi(;;;4
~en.J;~kttis!o
!~~y..(Il;l\!!o
,','it,:~tlil"..n~',il,m ,\',;;1 IJI,IJ8II,n,i'.,I(ll-lil n.r,'lW"l",L
iu_Ya,wllVr ,i,\(c.Hl i~mhlJ.lntelL rrj,'fJl"(II.'I-~·~K.1.:';IIdfL'i
(074111 ~L 'if.,jjJ,'JtUl.'i /111.'11,~;(fli~JIiI ~t,.,;i-.JM r;/rim;l.
~,si\CI\llltiVl)1nt'tlfjt~'
IH·1S!hlA'Yun\l~In
,,,'If'(1'If~Ji!<',1m'",j!,,!!""1 jPdjJ,:It.Nf-Fl'i!!,'V
I~~MeJ'~"'lOlJt{J.'I,I WnllolL tl!.~!ll¥il:':HtlilJ 5r...Fltmu
Jul1'll'~f'L JLoI....."'61'i~·.'."\"·II.$lil'l6..51.r.'4",!j,.llJJ",#~~li.';;,,1,
j8 M,i,r/l..-lileG;lldl..ll Cllrnl"ij~IOpfn~d blllOWj
ti~lllHill W"tr~f
f.lk/Jill f,;"lJ.'ofJIr:r;f'5£!:liNl&t,ii!,lNr;.i~li{,~,,(I!liUJ.t J,~f<:'iJt"
F!I!!UJ!tfli..,..iiltJI.ii1'fWf I/irIH.:f,t~CUi~rU,dl\U4!i!~lm:,
t{j!~JCIr~"~J!pC<l;;;1,f)mik!~,~lIl(l~IJJ t'.'llIii'cleft.
Ii,},Jl,o;~d.(0'':Q:I~t.t.E".;.,51,,,,,,,,,,H",'f-ij r'.iem,Pdil('f'll 1l!51).l'5",£31'l
n:B l'll!)Mt!>d jln(l~tl\Y')I~dfth !ikttdo<~.,hi"dl'"',!1.liG4ilj:t.!:a~-l
U-C Illtfl'/:!idwol DfrComm 'An~~I-.H"m~",p,j,";!pt 3~"'.~!i~--olI~~
U~.$:d.oo"ll"r Ihol·!,lI'''fw'Wf'('·"''''''~.t>~r.,r,l!Ir.i;:J~1 ~b(poli>J-Ja(l2
l(J$!)~""'llo;!~t'I~m1!'-Ijl]f.ry
3:i't'11 sur.n'fIid~l!l.d.
7"'0;-r"!r-/d~9;""'r'~"i.~'~'I ,lrt,sr,~i,I,'",w I"~11';'k '~"I",
",,,Itw"'JIii',r..,e"U~;u·'I"grd $!,",,'Id!~fIIltlt.i'(,ir\.".l'
/;.I'pr;;:·'·,ISin'I,'".;;il",,,'~;,wi'll"'j',!l
1!J DI~tfkt Offl(oO
.>:1220 sothStu-ct FIlE
350,653-7058
I Til"l'f:1-JIIU(rt.~.n;,'~€'l;t(i.'1 ,W~ti1 ~t fJe.F~lii\I;'M ~I,jl.f liit:,.";;-Jt1!;l;
'([jilt,~(lii;)w'tolWtJ,~r .lJidlumI-,','LfAI<:H\'r/lhhr:t ~<"il'{rl'C~l1r~r
;-;1':;1H,,<fi~'hl,
SECTION1-·bJ)UCATIONAL PROGRAMSTAIVDAIWS
The District acknowledges and realizes that classroom population impacts the quality of
instruction provided.School facility and student cnpacity needs arc dietJItcd by the types and
amounts of space required to accommodate the District's adopted edncational program.The
educational program standards which !)1,icaJly drive facility space needs include grade
configuration,optimum ibcillty size,class size,educational program offerings,classrootn
utilization and scheduling re'luircments,and usc ofrelocatahlc classrooms (portables).
In addition to student population,other factors such as collective bargaining agreements,
governmenl mandates,and community expectations also affect classroom space requh'ements.
Traditional educational programs are often supplemcntcd by programs such as special education,
remediation,alcohol [Uld drug education,computer lahs,music,"rl,"nd other programs.These
programs can have a significant impact on the available student capacity ofschool facilities.
Disllict educationlll program standards may change in the future as a result of changes in the
prognun year,special progranlS class sizes,grade span conlij,'Unllions,rmd Wle of new
technology,as well as other physical aspects of the school facilities_The school capacity
iuventory will be reviewed periodically and adjusted fot'any changes to the educational program
standnrds_Tbese changes will also be reflected in future updates oftltis CFP.
Withhl the context or this t(,plc,there are at leasl three methodologies that can be applied to
capacity forecasting.Those include a maximum class size based on contractual obligations,a
maxiulluu class s,ize tiLrget~and aminimum service leveL
The Distriel has internlll tamets.whio,h predio,<lte staffing decisions_These internal targets are
the District's preferred capacity levels.ln comparison,class size based on a maximum number
of studeuts is predicated on eontractuallfllJguage in the cOl1tract with the Marysville Education
Assoclatiol1.This conn'aet speclties a maximum number of studeJlts in a classroom above which
the District mllst fund nddltional cl.ssroom assistance.Finally,thc minimum service level
represents the capacity level Ulat Ule District willl10t exceed.This is determined by an average
maximum l1u111ber of students ill a.classroom by grade (for K-8 classes)or by a COUfse ofstudy
(for the 9-12 grade level).FOf example,grade 8 may have an average class size (and minimum
level of service)of 32 studcnts.Some classrooms !night have less than 32 studonts and S0111e
classrooms might have more than 32 studcnts;however the average of grade 8 classrooms
district-wide will not eKcced 32 students.At the secondaIy school level,some classes will
exceed 34 shldents (band,physical education,etc.).This minimum service level is defined for
core dasses and is an average of all core classes for thc seo,Qudary level,Table 1 compares class
size metllOdologics_
-7-
Table 1
ClIJSS Size MelJuu!<llogks
Grade Level District Target<111aximlilil Jl'fii,iiiwm Serl!icl!Lepel
(I'cr Confroct!
J(jndercrarten 23 24 27
Grades I -3 23 24 29
Grades 4,~5 25 27 30
Gl'ades6~g 25 30 32
Grades9-12 25 30 34
Edu,:alhll1al ProgramStandards Base"UpOlllnfemal Targets
Elemmtal:J'Schools:
•Average class size for Kindergarten should not exceed 23 students.
•Average class size for grades 1-3 should not exceed 23 slUdents.
•Average class size for grades 4-5 should not exceed 25 students.
•Special education for students may be provided in regular clusses when
inclusion is possible and in self-contained classrooms when this is the
most appropriate option available.
Middle tind JU/lior High Schools:
•Average c1a$S size for grurl~:;6-8 :.--huuld Hot exceed 25 studenls.
•It is not possible to aellieve 100%utilization of all regillar teaching
slations !llrougholll the day,Therefore,clas,wll1l1 capacit)'is adjusted
using a iltilization factor of available teaching statiollS depending on the
physical characteristics ofthc facility and program needs.
•Special education for students may be provided in regular classes wben
inclusion is possible and in se]j:contained classrooms wbell this ls the
most appropriate option available.
•Identified students will also be provided otller programs in "re'omce
rooms (i.e.,computer labs,study morns),alld program specific cIa~sl'(I{Jms
(i.e.,music,drama,art,home and family education).
High Sdw()/;....
•Average class size for grades 9,12 should not exceed 25 students,
•It is not possible to achieve lOO%utilization of all regula]'teaching
sllitiol1s throughout the day,Therefore,claSsroom capacity is adjusted
-8-
using a utilization factor of available teaching stations depending on the
physical characteristics ofUle facility and program needs.
•Special education for students may be provided itl regular classes when
inclusion is possible and in self-contained classrooms when this is the
most appropriate option available.
•Identified studenlll will also be provided other programs in "resource
)'(>(lttlS (Le.,cmuputer labs,study rooms),and program specific classrooms
(i.e.,muslc,dmma,art,home and family educl1tion).
The District repOlted the following information to Snohomish County in 2011 to demonstrate
compliance with the minimum educational service standards:
LOS SWI1l..hJrd
MUTys:vilk Nt.,25
MINIMUM CURRENT !I'!!!'>1MUM CURRENT MINIMUM CURREI'iT
LOSff LOS LOS LOS Le~LOS
Element.ao'Elcmentan'~)Hdtlle Middle HI I Hi.:oh1:
29 20.5 32 2l5,4 >4 28.7
M<tXEtm,U11 11vcrl1gt
daBS size
Thc District determines the minimum sorvice level by adding the number ofstudents per
regular classroom at eacb grade level and dividing tbat number by the number ofteaching
stations.
-9-
SECTlOlI'THREE:C4PlTAL FACILiTiES INVENTORY
Under the GMA,public entities are required to inventory capital facilities used to serve existing
development.The pmpo.e of the facilities inventory is to establish a baseline for determining
what facilities will be required to aCW1hrnodale future demnnd (student enrollment)at acceptable
levels ofservice.This section provides Illl inventory ofcapital facilities owned and operated by
the District inclUding schools,reloealflble classrooms (portables),undeveloped land,aud Sllpport
facilities.School facility capacity was inventoried based on the space required to accommodate
the District's adopted educational prl)gram standards.See Sec/ion Two:Educational Progr!lll1
Standards.A map showing locations of District facilitie~is provided on page 4.
Schools
See Sec/ion One for a description ofthe District's schools and progl'alllS.
School capacit)"was determined based on the number ofteaching stations within each building
and the space requirements of ,he District's adopted educational program and internal targets.It
is tl1i~capuliity wlculation that is used to establish the District's b"selinc capacity,and to
detcrminc future capacity needs based on projected student enrolhlient.The school capacity
inventory is sunm1arized in Tables 2,3.and 4.
Relocatable Classrooms (Portables)
Reloclltable classrooms (portables)are used as interim classroom 'puce to house students until
funding can be secured to construct permanent classrooms.The Disllict clll1"ently uses 65
relocatablc c·lassrooms at various school sites 1broughout the District 10 provide additional
interim capalilly.A typical rclocawblc classroom call provide capucily for a full-size class of
students,Current usc of relocatable classrooms throughout the District is summarized in
Table 5.
Table 2
Elementary School1m'elltory
Sile Si,.e Building Teaching Permanent
ElelJii!lilUI')I SChOlll (Acres)Area (sq ft)Stutiolls*Capacity**
Allen Creek 11.0 47,594 21.0 496
Cascade 9.5 38,923 21.0 496
Grove 6.2 54,000 24.0 566
KelloggMarsh 12.8 47,8\6 21.0 496
Liberty 9.\40,459 20,0 472
Marshall 13.7 53,063 14.0 330
Pinewood 10.5 40,073 17.0 401
Quil Ceda 10.0 47,594 27.0 637
Shoultes 9.5 40,050 16.0 378
Sunnyside 10.4 39,121 22.0 519
TOT.4L 102,7 448,693 203 4,791
.
of'Te.aching Station DefinitiDn.:A space designated as a classroom.U1her sl31ions Include spaDes deSignated
for sp~cial education tlnd pull-out programs,
>1<,;Regular clllssroe'l11s,
Table 3
,tliiltlle Level Sc!wolJlI>,elllmJ'
SiteS/ze Building Tellcldllg Permallent
Middle Lellel School (Acres)Area (.<qft)Stlltions*Capacity*'
C~darcr~sl 27.0 83,]28 29.0 72S
lvlarysville Middle 21.0 99,617 32.0 800
MaI)'svil1e TlIl.lip ***IS,OOO 7,0 17S
Campus*"(6-8)
Tolem IS.2 124,822 30,0 750
TOTAL 63,2 322,567 98 2,450
o Te~lChing Station Definition:A space designated as n Classroom.Other stations inch1de sp.ac~-:qesignated
for spe-dal education snd pull-out programs,
1}*RCglllM classrooms.
H >l<Thc J\rfarysville Tulalip Campll5 includes the followirig sclloflls c(l-locat-ed vii one campus:Af'l~&
Technology.Tulalip Heri1age,and the lotll Street School.Grades 6-I2 arc scrvi.'d anhe ?vlarysvitlc Tulalip
Cmnpu:.;,The ubove -elmr!identifif,'::s illfonnntion rc1c"unt to gmdcs 6-8.
-11-
Table 4
High Scltooll/n'eJtlory
SI/(tSize Blliidillg Teachiltg Permanetlt
High School (Acre.,)Area (sqft)StatiOJJs*CllflacilJ'**
Mal)'sville Pilchuck 83.0 259,033 56.0 1,400
Mal)'sville Getchell 38.0 193,000 61.0 1,525
Marysville Tulalip 39.4 70,000 19.0 475
Campus".'(9-]2)
iVIountain View 2.4 18,350 8.0 200
TOTAl-162.8 540,383 144 3,600
~,Teaching Station Definition:A spac.e designawd ~s a classroom.Other slations jnelude spaces designated
for special education .and JlllU~out pmgrams.
**Regular classrooms.
**tThc Marysville Tulaljp C~1l11mf>indudcl'i the follmving Rehools cLJ~locatcd on nne campus:Arts &
Techllology!TulaHp I-Ieritage,~1nd the lOll:Street School.Grades (i~J2 are served at the Marysville Tulalip
Campus.The ubove dmrt iue-rtiif1es inrormation relevant (I)gmd{~s 9~12.
-12-
Table 5
Relomlable Classl'i!olll (Portable)b,,'entory*
Elemenlary School Reloealables'•Other III/aim Capacity
Relocatables***
Allen Creek 7 0 165
Cascade 3 2 71
Kellogg Marsh 5 2 118
Libelty 6 2 142
M"rsh"l1 3 3 7J
Pinewood 3 4 71
Quil Ceda 3 3 71
Shoultes 5 3 118
SmlTIyside 4 5 94
SUBTOTAL 39 24 921
Mi<ldle Le"el SelwlIl Reh,,,,,,,,bles Other Ill/erim Cap/lci/y
Reloc/ltab!es
Cedarcrest 12 2 300
Marysville Middle 7 2 175
Totem 0 0 0
SUBT01:4L 19 4 475
High School Relocalables Other Il1terim Capllci~r
Relocmahles
Marysville-I'ilchuck 5 0 125
Mml!1tain View 2 0 52
SUBTOTAL 7 0 177
ITOTAL 65 28.I 1,573
<"Each port<lblc is 600 squure tL.""C1.
*~'Used for regular dilSSWOlll capadty.
';:B"ll'Th.;:.rcll)oatabks rcfcl'Cfi~ed under "ot:het'mlocatabJcs"arc used for speci!11 PllU~out programs.
-13-
Support Faciliiles
In addition to schools,the District owns and operates additional facilities which provide
operational snpp01t limetiollS to the schools.An inventory of these lacilities is provided in
Table 6.
Table 6
Support Facility'"venial)'
Building Arc(f Sift!Size
Facilin'(SnlUlft'Fce~)(Ae,..,)
Service Center 11.35
Aumlnistration 33,028
Grounds 3,431
Maintenance 12,361
Engineering 7,783
WarehQuse 16,641
Land lnl'enfory
The District owns a numbcT ofundeveioped sites.An inventoly'ofthese ~it:es i~provided in
Table 7.
laMe 7
Undel'eloped Site !1J1'elllm'y
.Wit!.t:Ute.\'ize (,-4ac:O
43157J"AveNE 7.00
132ml Str~cl Site 20.00
152nd StrC(;t Site 35,02
Old Getchell Site 10.00
West Marshall Site (School Faon)18.00
SlIJll1ysidc Hills SHe.13.00
Frondorf Site 27.75
I-Iigll\v(l)'9 Site 53.00
Development on some of lhese sites is restricted due to sigllllJeant wetlands,limited site sizes,
high utility costs,and/or inappropriate locations.
The District does nol own any sites which are developed for uses other than schools.
-14·
SECTiON FOUR:STUDENTENROLLMENT TRENDS A/lTD PROJECTIONS
Generally,emollment projections \lsing historical calculations are most accurate for the initial
years ofthe forecast period.Moving further into the future,more assumptions about economic
conditions,land use,and demographic trends in the Erea affect the projection.Monitoring birth
rates in the COUJ1ly and population grol'lth for the arca arc essential yearly activities in the
ongoing mfmagement of the CFP.In the event Ihat elli'ol1menl growth slows,plans for new
fheilities can be delayed.It is much more difficult,however,10 initiate now projects or specd
projects up in the event enrollment growth exceeds tlle projections.
With the assistance of a professional demographer,the District has developed its own
m"tllOdology tor for"casting future enrollments.This methodology,a modifie4 eohort survival
method,COtlsiders 'I variety offactors to evaluate the potential sUldent population !,'I'owLh for the
years 2012 through 2024.TheBe factors include:Office of Financial Management population
forecasts for SnollOmish County and historical data;Office of the Snperintendent of l'ubHc
Instruction data regarding enrollment history by year aud grade and other statistical d~la
regarding District-specific enrollment trends;Vv'ashington State Health Department and
Snohomish COUllty birth statistics (for purposes of predicting kindergarten enrollmenLs);
Washingtoll Stale Department of Licensing statistics regarding population migmlior\;
Educational Service District 189 statistics regarding enrollment trends;Snohomish County and
City of Marysville data regarding residential home c,mstruclion;United States Census rce.ords
regarding popnlation age groupings;and Dish'iet dahl regarding alternative pl'ogmm enrollment
statistics and trends,student tFdllsfer statistics and trends,anti CU!Tent school enrollment figures
by g,'ade level anti schools.
The District methodology uses the cohort projections developed by the Ofliee of the
Superintendent of Public Instruction 3S a baseline and then llpplies u grO\'1h factor,derived from
the evaluated factors,for each year through 2024.&1'Appendix A (wbich shows Lhe District's
Headcollnl Enrollment Projections).The growth factor starts at 0%and is then detelminod by
halancing the positive and negative evaluated factors (i.e.those listed in the pardgraph above)
which could affect stndent enrollment fif,'Ures over the term of the foreeast.As an example,the
2009 kindergarten class is the largest in the history of the District and,along with the large
number of biI1hs in Snohomish County over the Jast five years,should indicate that high
kindergarten enrollments wiI!continue,resulting in positive overall enrollment.However,on thc
negative side,the District is has lost some students who have opted to attend schools in other
surrounding districts.The.sc two trends tend to cmwel each other out,in ,.renting either a plus or
Ininus grov~·tb fUL.:.10f,
District enrollment has declined in recent years,likely due to a variety of lactors such as
economic circumstances,slower ilHuigration,and students opting for alternative education
plans.However,the six year cnrollmcnt forecast dmmlllBtrates enrollment groWUl at Ole
elementary level over the next six years,UsiIJg thCU10dified c<.lhort survival proJections,a total
-15-
enrol~nent of 10,744 (FTE)I is expected in 2017.In other words,tbe District projects a decline
in enrollment by 131 students between 2011 and 2017.See Table 10.However,elementary
enrollment is projected to have c.antinued growth with an addition of145 students.See Table 14.
OFM population-based em01lltlent projections were estimated for the District using OFM
population forecasts for the COLlnty.Between 1990 and 2011 the District's elUollmeut
constituted approximately 17.8%ofthe District's total population.Assuming that,between 2012
und 2017,the District's enrollmen!will continue to constitute 17.8%ofthe District's populution,
using OFM!Count)'data,the Distric·t projects a total enrollment of 13,945 students in 2017.See
Table 10.
Table 10
Projeclgr!Sludenl Enfof(mml (PTE)"
2012-2017
Actual Pen'cnt
Projection 2011'2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 1017 Change CJumge
OFMiCounty 10.&75 11,387 11,899 12.411 12,923 13.435 13,945 3,070 28.2%
District 10.&75 10,838 101840 10,816 10,810 10,&Ol 10,744 (131)([,2)%,.---,Ihe DistrIct U:';\:-:>f IEcnmJ..mtJEt,lhbJCD!S CSj;~DtI.a!ly heWC(\UIRcnmJlmeni _vJill thc kmdcf£,o;MkJ1 ('Il"dlmeu\llllJ.;lIphcd b~0.5.10
!-tdk,ct ..dualdillil:1NUlll L:~g~,Fm'i::'liUllplc.lh(;"'m:;lri",i"l"llrollmmllinl!in Tilbll!10 l~tll.:'dvcoJ frum the Di:;ml;['l:![lI~lIl:lcmll1iel1mlJmcnl
pmjc-~riQn:;!l)';;.::lted in Append!;;I,The rcarlcrC;JD ~cc lliB,Appendix t\project!i 11,279 srudcnts.in 2(1-1::1"\Vhcn thckirukrgancllc:nmlllllOllt r~lr
2011 is multiplied hy a,5.thl;!tfHl'Il K<12 cnr..llmcl1l f{l::20t-;(hlil,Sj.£,
n ActualFIE Oltu]lmbnl (Oct>ilbcr i.10l I).
Based lIpon the immediate dYIlllmic.s ofthe District,as disc.ussed above,the Distric.t has chosen
to follow the more conservative Districl estimates as opposed to tl,e OFlvllCOlltlly projections
during this planning period.This decision will be revisited in future updates 10 the CFP.
2025EnrollmentProjectiolls
Student enrollment projections beyond 2015 and to the futurc arc highly specnlativc.The
District projects a total enrollment of 11,007 PTE students in 2025.'I1lli is based on the
District's enrollment projections updated in 2011.See Appendix A.The (ota1 enrollment
estimate was then broken down by grade span to evalnate long-term site acquisition needs fot
elementary,middlc level,and bigh school facilities.See Table JJ-A helow,Again,these
estimates are highly speculative llnd are used only for genend plimning purposes.
I FrE ptojl'lcled enrollmellJ is derlYed by llSlltg the Hcadcoltll1 EllroUmell!Proj{X~lions Lil App:..'Udix Anud multiplying
kindorgm1C'tl Cnfl,"Jllment by 0.5 to refled1hatthe ffi'liOlity ofkindergm1en stlJdcr.ls in thc:Disl.rict Iltteud school for ~';'pftllG
SC]1.OB!cl.uy_
-16-
Table ll-A
Projecte,l PTE Student Enrollment-District
2025
GttuleSpun Pn~il~dt:dFTE Ellrollment
E1cm:::ntary (K~5)4,988
Middle Level School (6-1l)2,563
High 8d1001 (9-12)3,456
TOTAL (K·J])11,007
Assuming tlmt the DislJ"iet's enrolhnent wlll continue to "ousliture 17.8%of the District's
population through 2025,the projected enrollment by grade span [JC/sed upon the Cmm(rIOFlV!
projections is as follovls:
Table Il-B
PI'Iljected FTE StudelltEltrllllment-COr/IlIy/OFM
2025
Grade-Span Pnycc:(cd PTE Enrollment
Elctncnt"ry (1<-5)7,226
Middle Lev..::;!School (6~8)3,716
High School (9-12)5,008
TOTAL (II-V)15.950
-17-
SECTIOI',FiVE:CAPITAL FAClLI1'lES PROJECTlOlVS FOR FUTURE""'EEDS
Projected available studerlt capacity was derived by subtracting proje,'led student enrollment
from exi~Iillg ~d1001 capacity (excluding relocalllble cla5Sroom~)for each of the six years in the
forecast period (2012-2017).Capacity needs are expressed in terms of "unhoused students"
Table 12 identifies the District's eUlTen!capacity needs (based upon information contained in
Table 14):
Table 12
[llt/umsed Studellt,·-Rased 0"October 2011 Enrol/mellI/Capacity
Gtatle SJJim VllhoJised SirlJell(s1(1f"'~.'ied Studehfl.)
Elemelltary Le\'<1 (K-5)(48)
Middle Level (6-8)158
HighSchool Level (9·12)(76)
The method used to define future capacit)'nceds assumes that:
•Capacity additions at Cascade and Liberty Elementary Schools are complete hy the C;tll oC
2016.
Assuming these c:;pacity additions,Table 13 identifies the additional permanent classroom
c~p~city thM will be needed in 2017,the end ofthe six ye~r f"reca5i period:
Table 13
U"hol/sedStl/dents-2017
I GradeS"un [}"IWll,'Scd S(uaeJ1ls/(Howi/cd Stsulent.,<;)
!Elcmcntmv Level (K-5)(67)
I lvtiddJe Level (6~S)3D
I High School Level (9·J2)(225)
-18-
Projected future capacity needs,shown in Table 14,are derived by applying the projected
number ofstudents to the projected capacity.Grade reconfigurations and planned improvements
by the District through 2017 arc included in Table 14.It is not the District's policy to include
reloc~mble classrooms when determining future capital fucilit)'needs;therefore interim capacity
provided by r<:locatable classrooms is not included (exeept for in the total District capacity
summary).(Information on relocatable c1ass1:ooms by gillde level and interim capacity can be
found in Table 5.Infonnation on planned construction projects call be found in the Financing
Plan,Table 15.)Current deficiencies are shown in Table 12,
Table 14
Projected Stlldent Clf]llldty -2012throllgh 2017
Elementw}'ScbOQI --Surplus/Deliciency
2011"2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Existing Capacity 4,79]4,791 4,791 4,791 4,791 4,791 4,955
Added Permanent Capacity 0 0 0 0 0 164'·'0
Total Capacity"4,79]4,79]4,791 4,791 4,791 4,955 4,955
EnroUment 4,743 4,718 4,762 4,837 4,843 4,867 4,888
Surplus (Defici.ency)**48 73 29 (46)(52)88 67
*Actual October 2(111 FTE enrollment
**Does '~Ol include added relocatahle c-apacilY
¥**Additiop.s at Cascade al~d Liberty
Middle School Level -SfJrpluslIJefJeiellcy
Actual October 2011 ITE enrollment
'f-'~D!Jes not include added rcloc.ntablc C'<lpncity
20ll*2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Existing Capacity 2,450 2,450 2,450 2,450 2,450 2,450 2,450
Added Permanent Capacity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Capaci.ty**2,450 2,450 2,450 2,450 2,450 2,450 2,450
Enrollment 2,608 2,6]6 2,545 2,495 2,470 2,457 2,480
Surplus (Deficicncy)**(158)(166)(95)(45)(20)(7)(30)
-----.---
-]9-
High SchoolLevel-Surplus/Deficiency
2011*2012 2013 2014 2015 20J6 2017
Existing Capacity 3,600 3,600 3,600 3,600 3,600 3,600 3,600
AddedPermanent 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Capacity
Total Capacity"3,600 3,600 3,600 3.600 3,600 3,600 3,600
Enrollment 3,524 3,504 3,532 3,484 3,497 3,477 3,375
Surplus (Deficiency)'"76 96 68 116 103 123 225
I!iAGlual Octllbcr 2011 FTE enrollment
**Does ll\lt include m1ded l'elO{,·fltahlc 0t1pUelty,
-20-
SEC110NSiX:FiNANClll/G PLAN
Planned11I1l'rovemellls
In 2010,the District opened the Marysville Getchell Campus,a new 1,600 student high sebool
campus,with four separate smallieaming communities.The new high school is open with some
available capacity to serve students from new development.
The District also plans to present for voter approval the replacement and additiotl ()[cupacity at
Cascade Elementary School and Uberty Element"ry Sebool (using the Grove Elementary Scbool
prototype).These proje01s will help to address capacity nee{!s at the elementary level.The
District is not currently planning to add permanent capacity at the middle school level.
Enrollment at that level is expected to decline over the si"year planning period (as ilhlstrated in
Table 14)and existing relooatables should provide sufficient interim capacity.The District also
plans to present for voter approval various health and safety improvement..,technology upgrades,
and improvement of the existing Marysville l\'fiddle School,tvIarysviHe Pilehuek High School
(with an additional provision for tlle JviPHS swimming pool).
Filllmdngjor PlIH!lIed Improvements
Funding for planned improvements is typically secured from a number of sources inclUding
voter"approved bonds,State match funds,and impact fees.
General Obligation Bonds:Bonds are typically used to fund constmction of new
schools and other capital improvement projccts,and require a 60%voter approvaL The
District's Yoters ul'pr()'ied funding for the new 11igh school and new elementary school in
February of 2006.Future baud issues will require input from coJllmunity lind stmf,substantial
e"l'loration offi~.cnityoptions,(11)(1 critic"l decisio11S by the Board ofDirectors,
Stule School COllstruetioll Assistance PUtIlls:State School Construction Assistance
Funds come from the Common School Construction Fund,which is composcd of revenues
accruing predominantly from the sale of renewable resources (i.e"timber)from State school
lands set aside by the Enahling Act of 1889.If these sources are insufficient to meet needs,the
Legi~lature can appropriate fimds or the State Board of Education can establish a moratorium on
certain projects.School districts may qualify for State Schoo)Constmc.\ion Assistance Funds for
specific capitnl projects bllsed on "prioritization system.
IlIIl'tJd Fees:Impact fees are 11 means of supplementing traditional funding sources for
eCl11struction of public filcilities needed to accommodilte new development.School impact tees
are generally collccteil by the permitting agency at the time plats arc appwved or building
permits are issued.See Sec/ion 7 School Impact Fees,
The Six-Year Financu1g PIM shown On Table 15 demonstrates how the Districl intends to fund
ncw construction and improvements tll school facilities for the years 20)2-2017.The financing
components include bmlds,State match flmds,and impact fees.The Fil11lncing Plan separates
projects and portions ofprojc£1s which add capacity frolll those which do not,since tlle latter are
generally not appropriate for impact tee funding.
-21-
Table 15
Cflpital Fadlities Fhumcfng Plan
Impro,tementsAdding Permanent Capacity (Costs in .l\lillions)**
Project
Ii.Eleme,lIlt:l,lJ'
Casca{je AddidonJ
Libcrt)"Adclition4
!i Mill-dll':5ehnol
Hlell School
Lalld Purchll£f (lor future grrm>thl
-/0..All projl:'Il:'~:Iregrowtlt-reIatl'd.
2011 I :lOU I lOB I 1014 I 2015 I 20H,I 2017 I T.ntal Di'llll.dlgJ Injrm'd ImpllC"t
C~~t .L.ocaJ Sf1lfe ,
Fret'>'"Fued:'!Makltt
I
SL75n I SD"nS ;S2Aj'8 $].,600 $0,743 $1J.lJ,5!
£1.40-4 I SO.916 53320 $;J,,;?.-;12 $O,l)4!~$tIJJ9'J.
Total Capacity ]mpro;'emenfs -(C()sfs iniVUIfions)**
;ZOll 2912 ;ton 1014 2015 2016 20n n,tnl R'OIlHli.,1 Projeclcd Impact
ClJ~t Lotti)Stale Feeg
FlIInd..ft'latch
F.ICln~~ltllrrr S,.:i.l:i~SI.M4 $5_79l':l $3$32 51.139 ${l.ni
Mi:ddII;!'Lc"cl
Hil!h School
Land PurchMt'
TOTALS $<1.1$4 $1.644 S5.1!l8 :!l."3.8J2 S1.13,9 $0,227
"""AI1 pmjeelsareglionth-Telab:d.
2 Fee;;intnI-",t-.::.lumn un::la~elllJlI ..mtotltlt(lfle-Bs co-llectcd to-da1-c nnd t:~timM....d f~~on future unhs.Estim....re>d fotor are bssoo on lT~~lltfr.'l,l Ci.,jk'r,)1i(,l1ls-lUlJ lllCl'bew o-fprojeC"Ged,£:.e nm(lllnts ~nd
kl'lIY>Vfl orl:lntl~!pfll!jJdfiIture,gmwtn,
3 The cost e;.timl1te f'l'lr C<'l~e:l.de'i~for ttpm·mta (@ 12J9%)ofilia trJIaj t-"31iiTI~lr¢1;t C09(ofcom::tructinn,Thi5;CCT£<1l'Sponds to th~;!dtJili>cm~l r;i!lpadl)',tltlo:leiJ t"lhereplacennent.C<lplldtyfM111c$chool.
4 TIill8 c-(l$11:!:;:llim~!c r~ll'Llbct'!:;'i~lilt IiIlriO-f:1tl1 (@ l(.i.61"l'l,J~)ofth'li liO~l es:timaleti cro:lllfcon~lnu;·lion,Thi~rorteSlXJ!l1d.to the arlditiOllJal c~Jll/.c:itr lidded '\0therep~<'lc-ernerntcapacIty fGr the school,
-22-
rable 15
Capital Facilities Fhumdng Plan
Improve-me-nts NotAdd~ng N~w Penn:anenl Capacit)r (Costs in l'Hillions)
Prtlj~r.l I 2m2 I 21HJ I 2014-I 2015 I 2016,I 2017 I Tl,llat ,I B",ud~Prolfct",d 1 Impact
Cost Stah.FeesilMl1kh
'.:lcf!!t"n.I!li'V ii
Cn."c~de Renlllr:emen.f I $l:L,WO ')5.:12.2.$17.521 ~I S12.2G5 S5.25'J
Lihel1,'.'ReJiln~emenf'I SllAOO ,S-5,2Sfl $!6.lf80 'I $11.016 S5,OOil
Middle
Marys"il]CMiddleNloucmiizlllin-n $ZO.cf1){)S16..1DOO S36.0DO S25.2DO $10.1100
Uilith,Se!loo]
MPHS Pbil"':1Mocle-rni:i';!ttklll $32,1))0 $B:.I!lCl(l S40.(ff)f)$i:fU)()O $12JJOO
M:PHS Pt1(l!$4.l)(.lO $4,(1)0 S4,OOO
Ditfrict~wicle
Te.cll/Landl}.·I.isc IImpruY~mellls $5.0DO .$5.000 SSJ)OO SL5.0DO $15.000
TO'l~tU.S $lR.600 %7,60i $..13.000 s:t:29;202 $96.141 I S-l3.061
5 The:costC"S1;nmatc for the Casc>!dc rl,!'pJil-cl:m~nts :refllOCIS 87.61%,urthc C51imlrtl,':-.d co<;f ~foonli-tnn:tioo.Thix ~~:re~cl11ds to the roplacement cfll'l'!dty portion oftnc:pn.1JGct.
6 The 00g\(:SlnlllMC for the Llberl)'replncemcntrdlects:83.4%offull cslnnah:dta.\!;1 ufCUll$lrJ.lC1Li!l't~.This {:ilt1CSPl1illQ$to theTCp~ttc;i:'mcnt c$p~cil1 ptlrtiOTl (lflhe'Project.
-23-
SECTlOl'i SEVEN:SCHOOL HfPACT FE}:;"};
The GJl'lA authorizes jurisdictions to collect impact fees to supplement fllnding of addilionnl
public facilities needed 10 accommodate new development.Impact fees cannot be used for the
operation,maintenance,repair,alteration,or replacement of ¢xisting capital facilities used to
meet cxistlng service demands.
Schoo'Impact Fees ;11 Stw/WIn;:;"CQI/lily,the City <JfMatysville,amI the City <JfEverett
The Snohomish County General Policy Plan ("GPP")which implemcnts rhe GMA sets certain
conditions for school districts wishing to nssess impact fees:
•The District must provide support data including:an explanation of the
calculation methodology,description of key variables and the·ir
compntation,and de±1nitions and sources of data tbr all inputs into the fee
calculation.
•Data must be acctIJ'atc,reliable,and statistically valid.
•Data must accurately reflect projected costs in the Six-Year Financing
Plan.
•Data in the proposed impact fcc schedule must reflect cxpectcd student
generation rate,f)'0111 the following residential unit lypes:siugle fiunily;
multi-family/studio or one-bedroom;and multi-family/two or l11ore-
bedroom.
Snohomish Counly cstablished a school impact fee program in Novcmber 1997,aud amended
the program in December 1999.This program requircs school districts to prepare and adopt
Capital Facilities Plans meeting thc specifications of the GMA.Impact fees calculated in
accordance with the formula,which are bascd on projected school f3cillty costs necessitated by
new growth and arc contained in the District's CFP,become effcctive following County Council
adoption ofthe District's CFt'.
The City of Mat)'sville also adopted a school impact fcc program consistent with the Growth
Management Act in November 1998 (with subsequcnt amendments).
il1etlwtllll<Jgy Use,l to Cnklflttle Scl"",1 ["'pUc'{Fees
Impael fees in Appendix B have been ealculaled utilizing tbe formula in ille Snohomish COUJlt)'
Code una tbc Municipal Code for the Cit)'of Marysville.The resulting figures "'·C bascd on the
District's cost per dwelling \Init 10 purchase land for Bchool sitcs,make site improvements,
-24-
construct schools,and purchllse/inslall relocatable facilities (portables).As required under the
GMA,credits have also been applied in the formula to account for Slate Match Funds to be
reimbursed 10 the District and projected future propelty tm<e$to bepaid by the dwelling lmit.
The District's cost per dwelling unit is derived by multiplying the cost per student by the
applicable stadent generation rate per dwelling unit.The student generation rate is the average
number of students generated by each hO~ISillg type ••in this case,single family dwellings and
mUlti-family dwellings.Multi-family dwellirlgs wel'e broken out into one-bedroom and two-plus
bedroom units.Pursuant to the Snohomish County and the City ofMarysville School Impact Fec
Ordinances,the District conducted student generation studies within jJ,e District.This was done
to "localize"generation ratcs for PU'l)()SCS of calculating impact fees.Student generation rates
for the District are shown Oil Table 16.See also Appendix C.
Table 16
Student GeneruiitJfl Rilles
(Source:Doyle Consulting,ro.·1arcn 20]2)
E/ementru}'i.l'filf,l[c Le",(!/High Schuol TOTAL
Singlefamily .261 .lIi5 .099 .525
l\fulti-Family NoDat.:L No Dat£l No Data No Dtlta
(I Bedtbom)
Mtllti~Famlly .295 .120 .066 .481
(2+Bedrooms)
,
-25-
Proposed Marysville School District Impact Fee &"edule for Sflolwmish COllnty alld the
cities ofEl'erett andl~l"rJ'SI'ille
Using the variables and formula described,impact fees proposed for the District in Snohomish
County and ia ihe cities ofEvereti and Marysville,using the ordinances'discount rate of 50%,
are summarized in Table 17.See also Appendix B.
Tablel7
Sdwo[[II/pact Fees
20/2
Ilous'ing Type Impact Fee Per .DwelJiug Unit
Single Family 51,879
Multi·F"mily (l Bedl'Oom)N/A
?vfulti-Family (2+Bedroom)52,882
-26-
FACTORS FORESTIMATE])IMP..\CTFEE CALCULATIONS
StudentGeneratlon Factors-Singl~Family
Elcmel1~ary
Middle
Senior
Tot.1
.261
.165
.099
.525
.4."cn~gc Site Cl)~t!Acre
Elememary $0
Studeut Genemtimi J"Hcrni's-Multi Fi'l.iiiU~(1 Bdnil)
Elemental,',000
Middlo .000
Senior .000
Tot'll .000
Stude_ItGeneratiou Fndofs-Multi Family (2+Bdl'm)
Elcillciilai'y .295
Middle .120
Senior ,066
Total .4BI
Tcmporar)''Facility Copadt]'
Capacity
Cost
State SellOol Construction As.-sistance
Current Funding Percentage,
Constructioll CQ~t A.llocation
Cllrrent eCA
Uistrid Average Asse.ssed'/:lluc
Single:Family Residence
63.38%
188.55
$238,910
"Pro,tceted Student Capaclt)·per FacUit)1
Elementary School
G.ascade (10)
Uberty (94)
R<rluiro<1 Site Aer.age per VadUty
Elementary
facility Constructj(Jn Cost
Elemcl1tury
C<lscadc -S2t478,OOO
Uberly.$3,320,000
PermanentFacili!)'Square Footage
ElemenJary
Middle
Senior
Tutal 95.92%
1'cmpor.u'y FacillJ~'Squa,'e '!<'ootage
Ell~mcntory
Middle
Senior
Total 4.08%
164
o
SS,,798fO{)[)
448,693
322,567
540,383
1,311,643
37~800
13,800
4,200
55,BOO
District Avcr,age-Assessed Value-
Multi Family (l Deuroam)
g)jstrictAvenge Ass;e~sed Vslue
Multi Family (2+Bedroom)
SPI Square Footage PCI'Student
Elcm~Dtal'Y
M;ddlc
High
Ubtricl PI"operty ',fax Levy Rtltc (Bund~)
Currcnl/$I,OOO
General Obligation Bond Interest Rate
Current Bond Buyer hHlex
Deyelope."Pt'oyjded Site~IFadlide~
Value-
OwcHing Units
$76,281
SII1,002
90
108
130
$1.18
4.0%
oo
Total Facility Square Footage
Elemental)'
Middle
Senior
486,493
336,367
544,583
1,367,443
-27-
Nole;TIle t01al costs of the school construction projects
and the tow]capncitics arc ~hownin the fee culcu1ations.
'However,new de\'e1upment will on]}'be charged Il;lf the
system improvements needed to SCt'VCHc::W ¥:rQwth.
APPEI'lJ)!XA
POPULATIONANDENROLLMENTDATA.
Prepared:
27-Jan-t2:MARYSVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT
ENROLLMENT PROJECTlON
INDMDUAL GRADE LEVEL
2~12 TO 201:5
GROWTH
COHORT FACTOR
(Oct,HeBd'cDunti excl.running start)FACTOR PERYEAR
2001 2002 2003 2004 2DOb 211116 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 20'12 2013 2014 2015
K 805 815 lS1 676 004 860 836 834 se,851 855 882 921 8B1 861
1 918 851 818 852 009 852 915 683 859 890 862 102.3%99.40%873 .01 941 '906
2 868 923 821 eoo 000 $Oe S62 907 871 843 6i9 99"8%855 B$893 933
3 955 891 855 518 882 !l09 948 894 904 840 830 00;3%861 844 855 881
4 1005 '005 849 SS1 SSG as!900 933 aIlS E99 857 100.5%829 IlS1 B43 854
5 992 009 956 837 919 895 878 $13 017 874 aS7 100.0%002 824 802 B38
Subll 5,553 5,,-456 M81 5,1'30 5,290 5,365 5.3575~3e;4 5.320 5,203 0,110 5,159 0,222 5,280 5,273
"961 000 921 932 847 921 8n 840 a7~ifI91 052 98,0%864 830 803 839
7 944 '939 940 941 942 897 915 375 851 859 903 100.9%ll55 866 a~2 S05
$891 918 894 969 941 910 800 913 866 631 852 100,0%897 850 860 827
Subtl 2,796-2.M3 2,755 2.842 2,750 2.728 2,583 2,62,B 2.596 2,581 2,608 2.616 2.545 2,495 2,470
9 1137 1113 91:7 929 gg{}949 912 902 S8,852 83B 99.,6%844 888 841 852
10 859 M8 948 950 1043 958 950 911 874 892 901 102..4%B53 858 004 856
11 849 a05 799 818,907 87.$75 897 849 8.2 842 00,4%IlS3 817 823 886
12 739 751 718 763 723 926 1032 963 9&0 987 943 112..8%944 968 915 922
Subtl 3,583 3.517 3,382 3,'150 $.563 3,707 3,759 3,673 3,584 3,593 3,,524 3,504 3,532 3,484 3,497
Tot.lsl1,932 11,816 11,218 11,432 11,S63 1.MO.O..JMj9 11,665 11,500 11,371 ...!l.!!OZ.11,279'11,300 11,z5ll 11~1O, =
Ch:ange 1S3 ·11S ·598 214 151 217 19 -154 -16-5 -123 -75 -23 21 -41 -19
%Ch3flge 1.-38%..Q.97%--5.013%1.91'70 1.32.%1.87%O.16%-~1..JQ%...:1.41%"1.()r'l~"'O.~%..1).21%0.19%~,36%-'I!J.17%
"Projections me headcount figures.
A-I
Pitepar~
270·Ja~·12 MARYSVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT
ENROl.LMENT PROJECTION
INDIIIIOUAL GRADEl.EVEI
201,6 TO 2026
201S--'2017 21]1&2~---2020 2021 2022 ;;;oi3 ;;;024 2025 202.
K 875 880 884 888 893 89'1 901 906 910 914 919
1 880 694 B99 903 907 9'12 91G 921 925 113'~534
2 899 8'12 887 891 800 900 904 909 913 917 922
3 921 887 851 875 860 884 aS8 692 697 901 905
4 881 920 886 860 874 S79 883 B87 691 891l 900
5 649 875 914 881 855 il6!l 874 87'8 eS2 sas 891
Subti ~,3(l4 5,328 5,331 5,299 5,304 5,340 5,366 5:'392 5,418 5.445 5,471
6 81'6 827 852 890 858 632 846 651 865 WI 853
7 841 SiS 829 855 893 650 835 849 853 857 861
8 SOO 8,1.6 813 824 8'9 881 854 829 B43 1147 651
2,457 2,480 2,494 2,5G9 2.600 2,579 2.538 2,529 2,551 2,003 2,576
9 etB 7~2 827 805 815 841 878 846 821 835 839
10 867 333 306 842 S19 820 856 894 S61 836 SSO
11 $21 831 798 n2 807 no 195 820 E513 67.5 801
12 $71 920 932 '-'95 866 90.5 880 892 919 960 920
5iJbtl 3,4n ;3.,375 3.363 3.314 3,30r 3,360 3,409 3,451 M58 3,456 3,414
Totals 11.238 11,184 _j1,188 11.181 11.211 11.280 11.311 11iE2 11,427 11',464 11,461
,,~..
Change "3 ·53 3 ·7 30 69 31 81 55 :37 -3
%Change ·0.02%.0.48%0.D3%..(I.06~o 0,.27%0.62%0.27%0.64%0.4&%0.32%.0.02";'
A-2
APPENDIXB
SCHOOL IMPACTFEE CALCULATIONS
SCHOOL IMpAcTFE£CAi.¢Ui.ATIOtH.
at-sutler
'""!.~p,.1:S;[}l(:Tl9
M _}vIUe .so;.:llOQIC!J~tid"
2012
~,~,~IMt;F:)'svllle O!1~Snohomish COU:llttl~__'.,.
$10,004
SO
'"1•.
Co~ll
MFa:2+,.,.
"
SSB!ils.
l:)OI..,
ul$lfiOIi C!:',l~
iorAo;;llfl/fg,;ffitv CglXl>;;l
a~l'Till-l'\tlu -
Mlddl@
'High
SchoolSlI!l'
A(;rv~l\CQ~1 lal'Vdiilll (l!,!.I.!;!j',WQ.ll fg(.'<,'>l
IS!yge."$IYd~m ~,Iyd~nt
FatUlI C-Osl'Foc::ml Fedor Fodor Facl-c-r C-o$H
~lY-,~~:~~~:O,aQlf.~~~--~,~~~~I:~s~ol!!.~~'~',Q,2'b,l ~~,~-Ul{J:-OOD IMP.{~t29i ~~--
MJdciJil?:".'_•••.:to,oa:1'::::=t:-.'...'.4!iO - ---o_-165 - ----0:000 0-,120'
~f9~,__'.'-'.'AO,M;S -'.';'.1.600r"~~,~,O TOT;<L:?Ob6
SlihQQllCgrmlrw.liol'l ~,M;I
(facifify CostlfacUn.,.Capc:cll jlSllJ-d{>ol GeM>rtlll~n t:ps:t90:l'ilR~rm'.I,!!~!}l!loIQl ,5 fl
t :-Stud6\;Student SflJdt'ht
%farm'Foci!lFo-e11l .faclol FC!ctor_~factcf Ccs-!J-
loleJ!Sq.ft Ca~l rC'l'3paclty"'[Iff .MHfTIY"MFR 2+SFR
C:O$fI G-o~l
~!l ~~~..L2:':1__
$0
$fi",.•
emil
s.~~
lud-E'1l1 Gi>l\ilJrffil£lri1uc-10f It Tem orU;:;'fClt'li S uan:;ff?e-t
iSIl}de--nt Studenl ,s.hiae;nt
~JllL"_'-1~:lor ---~ijVjh---t~#~t~:+r
:l-4 0.261 D,.OOO 0295
24 D.i6S 0.(01)(U.,U
-24 0.019 ---- -'Q.W 0,066
rTOTAl
-"-~------1f~~:r£i~fr---I~ti~it}..
E1Erne.l"Iklty ..nsr-$
MI(;ljle 4J,e~5
High -4,t'8%$
Temp:9~il~[;Uil CIl-st:iff';dii,v-C~§.tlfad!lCa a:c:1
StahlM<:It\:hlng Crt;d!l:
I1e.eocl~hInd~);X5-Pl Sewall!'fctole1 ~XDilblelMtltch %XStudent fodor
Srudr.m1 ~S-fude-nt Sf\Jde-nl
&(>~c::~ll -sri Ohlrld 1'-ll(cIOf ;F(le:tttf Fcit'fot
--.Jlm:l"X jFc.ologe Motet.o::'~sn:iMHl I MfR 2.·.HI!
Eleme-~':;,.•tM_f>5;'•••••., •~o."'3,38-0;;0.261 i 11.000 0.2'15,
JUI'\!C!'.s.'_'Jsa.55.·'.'.'.101t 0.00";;;0.1651 (10::16 0.12.!)
Sf,HI h $.186.55 .,••.,130.O.OO~O.o?i 0.0 _0:0&6
ITOTAl-
,-::'lE;;jF""--
;MFR
$2,801 i
SO,.
~;I;,vr
C¢~I;..,,"_.
MfR 2+
$0 $.1:.173so5.
$(I I SO,
T~)(PaYiri~nl¢:reqjti
AVE-TOgE-Asws1">f1d Value
Co:Ilg!~QiioInte<e.~l fldle
He1 PU:!E'nt Vlllu~efAvera €Owell!n
Yf1!~f~Amorllz~d
r!')p~rjylQ}l:t~vy tlblj!.Iof lIond:!.
pr~3~ht \,/{;du~¢!R~\io!>nue-5#~gm
SHe MAl'(1)";MfiI(2+)
.'.S~3UJO.·.·."$76-.2&1-.'.'$111.;,\0;1:'
•' •'•'40P"'~-4 liD,,"40G';'
.SI:9~7,?74 t .~61.flf~071.•~!O~_5?O, , • ,,10 , ,••,11).,.", ,10'Sus 51.18 !sue
,:J.<I 6
Fe!l'ftumrna ;
Sile-Acovlslilon CO'ih"iMfI"Iefh~'nj fOO:liif,,-C¢ll
em OrOI)'Fticffi CG!~1
Slate-Malch Cr~dlt
lener ni~ntCf",(;!ll
Sin Ie
forml
S,
&6.651'0$2,.807
52281\
Ml1!li-
femt'21'
"$IO_Q.9A
~o(53,17$0
$1.D6~
SlEl79 5tM2
APPENDlXC
snmENrOBNERAllO/1'RATES (SGR)
DOYLE
CONSULTING
J:L,[NAlJUNG SCHOOL ulSTR1CTS 7(.)MANAGE"~,~PUSE SR1D£,f!JTIISSrSSM£NT DAVA
Student Generation Rate Study
for the
Marysville School District
3.13012012
This document describes the methodology used to -calculZlte stlldent geheration rates
(SGRs)lor the Marysville School Distriot and provides resulls 01the calculalions.
SGRs'l/ere calculated for IV,'o types of residential constro<>tion:Single family detached.
and multi·famlly wlth 2 or more bedroom..Attached condominiums,tovmhouses and
duple...are included in U,e muiti·family cla.sification slnee they are not considered
Rdetached",Manuft:!otured home$on owned land ~re included in the $lngle family
ciasslflcatlon,
1.Electronic records were obtained from the Snohomish GOiJnty Assessor's Office
contaIning data on all ri~construction within the Marys\rille School District from
January 2004 ti1fough December 2010.As conlpiled by the County Assessor's
Office,this data included the address,building size,assessed value,and yese built
for new single and mUlti-famIly construction.The data was t1dean-ed up"by
eliminating records which did not contair.sufficient information to gener.te a match
with the District's student ''''cord d.ta 11.",.Incompleteaddresses).
2.The District downloaded .tud",nt records d.t.Into Microsoft Exc",1 format.This data
Included the addr.sses and grade levels of all K-12 students attending the
Marysville School District as of March 2012.Befor.proceeding.this data wa$
reformatted and abbreviations were modified as required to prOVIde consIstency with
the County Assessor's oab:!,
210 Polk Street Sulta GA •Pori Townsl3'nd,WA 98368 •(360)680·901~
3.Single Famlly Rates:The data on all new single family cletachec!residential units In
COllnty Assessor's clata were compared with the Oislrlct's student record data,and
the number of sfude:nts at each grade level Jiving in those units was determined.
The records of 2,905 single family detached units were compared with data on
11,126 students registered In the District.and the following matches ,','ere found by
grade le','el(s)':
K 131 0.045
1 132 0.045
2 127 0.044
J 128 O,ll44
4 119 0.041
5 120 OJM1
e 131 (1.045
7 134 0.046
8 105 0.036
9 110 0,006
in 96 0.034
11 95 0.1)33
4.Larg$Multi-Family Developments:Snohomish County Assessor's data does not
$peciflcally Indicate the number of units or bedrooms contained In large multi-family
developments.Additio:nal research was performed to obtain this information frpm
specific parcel 10 searches,and Information provided by building management,
when available.Information obtained included the number of 0-1 bedroom units.the
number of 2+bedroom units,and specific addresses of 0-1 bedroom units.If
speoiflc addresses or unit numbers of 0-1 bedroom units were not prOVided by
building management,the assumption of matohes being 2+bedroom units was
made,This assumption is supported by previous SGR studies,
Small Mum-Family Developments:This method Included all developments in the
County Assessor'.data containing four-plexes.tn-plexes,duplaxes,condominiums
and townhOLlses,This data contained Information on the number of bedrooms for all
tovmhouses and condominiums.Specific parcel 1D searches were performed for
dL,p!ex and larger linits In cases where numberof bedroom data was missing.
5.Multi-Family 2+BR Rates:The multi.family 2+BR SGR's Ware calclIl.bod by
oomparing data on 2+BR muill-family lIn1ts with the District's st<ldent ,ecord data,
and the numberofstl.'dents at each grade level living In those units was determined.
The records of 183 muttl-family 2+8R unit.were compared wiU,data on 11,126
sl<ldent.registered in the District,and the following .matches were fmmd by grade
lovel(s)"
50 ,,)1,~
'6'P_.Ji~9
1 12 .,0:056
",2 a O,Q4S
3 a 0.049
4 7 0.03$
s a (J,D44
6 7 0,03B
~-...."0,033
I 8 ~0.022
9 5 0.027
10 5 0.027,11 6 0.033
1t 1 o,oa5~~
;,
i K·5 ,;.I 0.295
6~~22 0.1tO ,~
10-12 i 12 0.066 "I
K·12 as 0.4\11 1
6.Multi·famlly 0·1 BF(Rates:Research Indicated thai 9 multi-family 0-1 BR unils
were constructed Within District boundaries during the time perIod coverecl by Ihis
study~These unITS were compared with the data on 11,126 students regIstered in
the Distrlcl.No specific unit number matches were made.
Single Fflmil~
Mlllli-FmnllJ 2+llR
K-S 6-9 10-12
.261 ,165 .099
.29,.120 .066
K-12
.525
.48J
MARYSVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.25
Resolution No.2013-2
UPDATEDCAPITALFACILlTIESPLAN
PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATE GRo\VTH MANAGEMENT ACT
AND THE SNOHOlVlISH COUNTY GENERAL POLlCY PLAN.
WHEREAS,fu,;,Distrkt is authorized by 36,70A RCW (The Growth IVlanagemcnt Act)
and RCW 82.02.050 and the SllOhomish County General PGlicy Plan to adopt a Capital Facilities
Plan,and is required to do so ifimpact fees are assessed;and
\'iHEREAS,developl11ent of the Plan was carried O1lt by the District in accordance with
aceeptedmefuodologies and requirements ortlle Growth Management Act und 82,02 RCW;and
WHEREAS,the impllet fee calculations are consistent wifumelhoclologies meeting tbe
conclitions and tests of 82,02 RCW and fuc Snohomish County and City of Marysville school
impact fee ordil1ances;and
WHEREAS,the District finds that the methodologies for determining capital facilities
requirements accurately assess nec€'~sary additional capacity which addl'e~s only fllture growth-
related needs;lUld
VvTffiREAS,a draft ofthe Capital Facilities PIUU1NUS submitted to Snohomish Comly for
review with changcs having beenmadc in accordancc 'With County COtlllllCnls;and
WHEREAS,th,;,District finds that the Cal)it~l Facilities Pllln complies with RCW 36.70A
and 82.02 RCW;fUld -
WlffiREAS,otlvitU'muelllal review of the Capital Facilities Plan was carried out pursuant
to RCW 43.21.C (the State Environmmital Policy Act)wifu a Determiuation ofNQnsigniiical1ce
having bee.tl issued;
NOW,THEREFORE BE 11'RESOLVEU AS FOLLOWS;
1.The 2012 Capital Facilities Plan for the ye<Jrs 2012-2017 is hercby adopted pmsuant to
the requirements of 36.70A Rew,82.02 RCW,and the Snohomish County General
Policy Plan.
2.The Snohomish COUl1ty Council is hereby requested to adopt the Pkm as an element of its
Capital Faci1iHes Plan and its General Policy Plan.
3.Thc Cit)'ofMarysville Council is hereby requcsted to adopt the'Plan as an element ofits
Capital Facilities Plan.
Peter Lundberg,DiIector J
ATTEST:(
BY(~/j1'~'-;T ')."'Zf-i!:;;L>
.Dr.~mTJrNY~"llc1,~uperintendentand
Secretarito't1e BOl!l'cl
LAKE STEVENS SCHOOL
DISTRICT NO.4
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2012-2017
preparedfor:
Snohomish County
City ofMarysville
City ofLake Stevens
June 2012
Revised September 2012
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
LAKE STEVENS SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.4
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
David Iseminger
John Boerger
Mad Taylor
Paul Lund
Kevin Plemel
SUPERINTENDENT
Dr.Amy Beth Cook
This plan is not a static document.It will change as demographics,information and
District plans change.It is a "snapshot"ofone moment in time.
For information on the Lake Stevens School District Capital Facilities Plan contact
the District at (425)335-1500.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1:INTRODUCTION 1-1
Fwpose ofthe Capital Facilities Plan 1-1
Overview ofthe Lake Stevens School District 1-2
Significant Issues Related to Facility Planning in the Lake Stevens School District 1-2
SECTION 2:DEFINITIONS 2-1
SECTION 3:DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM STANDARDS 3-1
Educational Program Standards for Elementary Grades 3-2
Edueational Program Standards for Middle,Mid-High andHigh Schools 3-2
Minimum Educational Service Standards 3-3
SECTION 4:CAPITAL FACILITIES INVENTORY 4-1
Capital Facilities ..4-1
Schools ..4-4
Leased Facilities .4-5
Relocatable Classroom Facilities (Portables)4-5
Support Facilities 4-6
Land Inventory .4-6
SECTION 5:STUDENT ENROLLMENT TRENDS AND PROJECTIONS 5·1
Historic Trends and Projections ,5-1
2025 Enrollment Projections 5-2
SECTION 6:CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 6-1
Existing Deficiencies 6-1
FacilityNeeds (2012-2017)6-1
Forecast ofFuture Facility Needs through 2025 6-2
Planned Improvements (2012 ..2017)6-2
~.r:::.:~~i~~~~:~:.:.~.~~~.:.~~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~:~
1.Site Acquisition Cost Element....,6-6
2.School Consl111ction Cost Element..6-8
3.Relocatable Facilities Cost Element 6-8
4.FeeCredit Variables 6-9
5.Tax Credit Variables 6-9
6.Adjustments 6-10
Proposed Lake Stevens School District Impact Fee Schedule 6-11
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1..School Capacity loventory 4-4
Table 2 ..Porlables 4-5
Table 3 ..Support Facilities .4-6
Table 4-Projected Enrollment by Grade Span 2011-2017 5-2
Table 5-Projected 2025 Enrolhnent (Ratio Method·OFM).5-3
Table 6-Projected Additional Capacity Needs 2012- 2017)6-I
Table 7..2017 Additional Capacity Needed 6-2
Table 8..Capital Facilities Plan 2012-2017 6-5
Table 9..Projected Capacity Surplus (Deficit)After Progranuned Improvements 6-7
Table 10 ..Student Generation Rates 6-8
Table 11 ..Impact Fee Variables 6-11
Table .12 -Calculated Impact Fees 6-12
Table 13 -Calculated Impact Fees (50%Discount):6-12
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure I -Map ofDistrict Facilities .4-3
Figure 2 ..Lake Stevens School DistrictEnrollment 5-1
APPENDICES
Appendix A-Impact Fee Calculation
Appendix B-OSPI Enrolhnent Forecasting Methodology
Appendix C..EnrollmentData
Appendix D -Student Generation Rate Methodology
Appendix E ..Board Resolution Adopting Capital Facilities Plan
Appendix F -Snohomish County General Policy Plan-Raview Criteria for Capital Facility Plans
Appendix G-Detennination ofNon-Significance and Environroental Checklist
Appendix H ..Education Program Standards -Verification
SECTION 1:INTRODUCTION
Purpose ofthe Capital Facilities Plan
The Washington Growth Management Act (GMA)outlines thirteen broad goals including
adequate provision of necessary public facilities and services.Schools are among these
necessary facilities and services.The public school districts serving Snohomish County
residents have developed capital facilities plans to satisfy the requirements of RCW 36.70A.070
and to identify additional school facilities necessary to meet the educational needs ofthe growing
student populations anticipated in their districts.
This Capital Facilities Plan (CFP)is intended to provide the Lake Stevens School District
(District),Snohomish County,the City of Lake Stevens,the City of Marysville and other
jurisdictions a description of facilities needed to accommodate projected student enrollment at
acceptable levels of service over the next fIfteen years,with a more detailed schedule and
fInancing program for capital improvements over the next sixyears (2012-2017).
The CFP for the District was fIrst prepared in 1998 in accordance with the specifications set in
Snohomish County Code;"certifIcation"packets were prepared earlier for the County's old
SEPA-based "fee"program.When Snohomish County adopted its GMA Comprehensive Plan in
1995,it addressed future school capital facilities plans in Appendix F ofthe General Policy Plan.
This part ofthe plan establishes the criteria for all future updates ofthe District CFP,which is to
occur every two years.This CFP updates the GMA-based Capital Facilities Plan last adopted by
the District in 2010.
In accordance with GMA mandates,and Snohomish County Chapter 30.66C,this CFP contains
the following required elements:
•Future enrollment forecasts for each grade span (elementary,middle,mid-high and high).
•An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by the District,showing the locations and
student capacities ofthe facilities.
• A forecast of the future needs for capital facilities and schoolsites;distinguishing between
eXisting and projected defIciencies.
•The proposed capacities ofexpanded or new capital facilities.
• A six-year plan for fInancing capital facilities within projected funding capacities,which
clearly identifIes sources ofpublic money for such purposes.The financing plan separates
projects and portions ofprojects that add capacity from those which do not,since the latter
are generally not appropriate for impact fee funding.The financing plan and/or the impact
fee calculation formula must also differentiate between projects or portions ofprojects that
address existing defIciencies (ineligible for impact fees)and those which address future
growth-related needs.
• A calculation ofimpact fees to be assessed and support data substantiating said fees.
Lake Stevens School District 1-1 Capital Facilities Plan
In developing this CFP,the guidelines ofAppendix F ofthe General Policy Plan were used as
follows:
•Information was obtained from recognized sources,such as the U.S.Census or the Puget
Sound Regional Council.School districts may generate their own data ifit is derived through
statistically reliable methodologies.Information is to be consistent with the State Office of
Financial Management (OFM)population forecasts and those ofSnohomish County.
•Chapter 30.66C requires that student generation rates be independently calculated by each
school district.Rates were updated for this CFP.
•The CFP complies with RCW.36.70A (the Growth Management Act)and;where impact fees
are to be assessed,RCW 82.02.
•The calculation methodology for impact fees meets the conditions and test ofRCW 82.02.
Districts which propose the use of impact fees should identifY in future plan updates
alternative funding sources inthe event that impact fees are !;lot available due to action by the
state,county orthe cities within their district boundaries.
Adoption of this CFP by reference by the County and cities constitutes approval of the
methodology used herein by the Council(s).
Unless otherwise noted,all enrollment and student capacity data in this CFP is expressed in
terms ofFIE (Full Time Equivalent)'.
Overview ofthe Lake Stevens School District
The Lake Stevens School District is located six miles east of downtown Everett,and
encompasses all of the City ofLake Stevens as well as portions ofunincorporated Snohomish
County and a small portion of the City of Marysville.The District is located south of the
Marysville School District and north ofthe Snohomish School District.
The District currently serves a student population of 8,051 (October 1,2011 headcount)with six
elementary schools,two middle schools,one mid-high school,one high school and one
homeschool partnership program (HomeLink).Elementary schools provide educational
programs for students in Kindergarten through grade five.Middle schools serve grades six and
seven,the mid-high serves grades eight and nine and the high schools serve grades ten through
twelve.HomeLink provides programs for students from Kindergarten through grade twelve.
SignificantIssues Related to Facility Planning in the Lake Stevens School District
The most significant issues facing the Lake Stevens School District in terms of providing
classroom capacity to accommodate existing and projected demands are:
•continuing enrollment growth (among the highest in Snohomish County since 2000);
I Full Time Equivalents (FTE)include halfthe students attending kindergarten and all students enrolled in
grades I -12.
Lake Stevens School District 1-2 Capital Facilities Plan
•uneven distribution of growth across the district,requiring facilities to balance
ellTollment;
•aging school facilities;
•the need for additional property and lack of suitable sites to accommodate a school
facility;
•limited local resources to hire maintenance and grounds personnel.
These issued are addressed in greater detail in this Capital Facilities Plan.
LakeStevens School District 1-3 Capital Facilities Plan
SECTION 2:DEFINITIONS
Note:Definitions of terms proceeded by an asterisk (*)are provided in Chapter 30.91SCC.
They are included here,in some cases with further clarification to aid in the understanding of
this CFP.Any such clarifications provided herein in no way affect the legal definitions and
meanings assigned to them in Chapter 30.9ISCC.
'Appendix F means Appendix F ofthe Snohomish County Growth Management Act (GMA)
Comprehensive Plan,also referred to as the General Policy Plan (GPP).
'Area Cost Allowance (Boeckh Index)means the current aSPI construction allowance for
construction costs for each school type.
'Average Assessed Value means the average assessed value by dwelling unit type of all
residential units constructed within the District.
'Boeckh Index means the number generated bythe E.H.Boeckh Company and used by aSPI as
a guideline for determining the area cost allowance for new school construction.
'Board means the Board ofDirectors ofthe Lake Stevens School District ("School Board'').
'Capital Facilities means school facilities identified in the District's capital facilities plan and are
"system improvements"as defined by the GMA as opposed to localized "project improvements."
"Capital Facilities Plan (CFP)means the District's facilities plan adopted by its school board
consisting of those elements required by Chapter 30.66C and meeting the requirements of the
GMA and Appendix F ofthe General Policy Plan.The definition refers to this document.
'City means City ofLake Stevens and/or City ofMarysville.
'Council means the Snohomish County Council and/or the Lake Stevens or Marysville City
Council.
*County means Snohomish County.
*DCTED means the Washington State Department of Community,Trade and Economic
Development.
*Developer means the proponent of a development activity,such as any person or entity that
owns or holds purchase options or other development control over property for which
development activity is proposed.
"Development means all subdivisions,short subdivisions,conditional use or special use permits,
binding site plan approvals,rezones accompanied by an official site plan,or bnilding permits
(including building permits for multi-family and duplex residential structures,and all similar
LakeStevens SehoolDistrict 2-1 Capital Facilities Plan
uses)and other applications requiring land use permits or approval by Snohomish County,the
City ofLake Stevens and/orCity ofMarysville.
'Development Activity means any residential construction or expansion of a building,structure
or use of land or any other change of building,structure or land that creates additional demand
and need for school facilities,but excluding building permits for attached or detached accessory
apartments,and remodeling or renovation permits which do not result in additional dwelling
units.Also excluded from this definition is "Housing for OlderPersons"as defined by 46 U.S.C.
§3607,when guaranteed by a restrictive covenant,and new single-family detached units
constructed on legal lots created prior to May 1,1991.
'Development Approval means any written authorization from the County and/or City,which
authorizes the co=encement ofa development activity.
'Director means the Director of the Snohomish County Department of Planning and
Development Services (PDS),or the Director's designee.
·District means Lake Stevens School District No.4 whose geographic boundaries are within
Snohomish County.
·District Property Tax Lew Rate means the District's current capital property tax rate per
thousand dollars ofassessed value.
·Dwelling Unit TyPe means (1)single-family residences,(2)multi-family one-bedroom
apartment or condominium units and (3)multi-family multiple-bedroom apartment or
condominium units.
'Encumbered means school impact fees identified by the District to be committed as part ofthe
funding for capital facilities for which the publicly funded share has been assured,development
approvals have been sought or construction contracts have been let.
·Estimated Facility Construction Cost means the planned costs of new schools or the actual
construction costs of schools of the same grade span recently constructed by the District,
including on-site and off-site improvement costs.If the District does not have this cost
information available,construction costs of school facilities of the same or similar grade span
within another District are acceptable..
·FTE (Full Time Equivalent)is a means ofmeasuring student enrollment based on the number
ofhours per day inattendance at the Di$ict's schools.A student is considered one FTE ifhe/she
is enrolled for the equivalent ofa full schedule each full day.Kindergarten students attend half-
day programs and therefore are counted as 0.5 FTE.For purposes ofthis Capital Facilities Plan,
all other students are counted as full FTE. (This is in line with OSPl's Capital Facilities Section,
FTE measurements and projections.)
·GFA Cper student)means the Gross FloorArea per student.
LakeStevens SchoolDistrict 2-2 Capital Facilities Plan
'Grade Span means a category into which the District groups its grades of students (e.g.,
elementary,middle orjunior high,and high school).
'Growth Management Act CGMA)means the Growth Management Act,Chapter 17,Laws ofthe
State ofWashington of 1990,I"Ex.Sess.;as now in existence or as hereafter amended.
'Interest Rate means the current interest rate as stated in the Bond Buyer Twenty-Bond General
Obligation Bond Index.
"Land Cost Per Acre means the estimated average land acquisition cost per acre (in current
dollars)based on recent site acquisition costs,comparisons ofcomparable site acquisition costs
in other districts,or the average assessed value per acre of properties comparable to school sites
located within the District.
"Multi-Family Dwelling Unit means any residential dwelling unit that is not a single-family unit
as defined by ordinance Chapter 30.66C.2
"OFMmeans Washington State Office ofFinancial Management.
"OSPImeans Washington State Office ofthe Superintendent ofPublic Instruction.
"PermanentFacilities means school facilities ofthe District with a fixed foundation.
"R.C.W.means the Revised Code ofWashington (a state law).
"Relocatable Facilities (also referred to as Portables)means factory-built structures,
transportable in one or more sections,that are designed to be used as an education spaces and are
needed to prevent the overbuilding ofschool facilities,to meet the needs ofservice areas within
the District,or to cover the gap between the time that families move into new residential
developments andthe date that construction is completed on permanent school facilities.
'Relocatable Facilities Cost means the total cost,based on actual costs incurred by the District,
for purchasing and installing portable classrooms.
"Relocatable Facilities Student Capacity means the rated capacity for a typical portable
classroom used for a specified grade span.
'School Impact Fee means a payment ofmoney imposed upon development as a condition of
development approval to pay for school facilities needed to serve the new growth and
development.The school impact fee does not include a reasonable permit fee,an application fee,
the administrative fee for collecting and handling impact fees,or the cost of reviewing
independent fee calculations.
'SEPA means the State Environmental Policy Act.
2 For pmposes ofcalculating Student Generation Rates,assisted living or senior citizen housing is not included in
this definition.
Lake StevtmS School District 2-3 Capital Facilities Plan
·Single-Family Dwelling Unit means any detached residential dwelling unit designed for
occupancy bya single-family orhousehold.
·Standard of Service means the standard adopted by the District which identifies the program
year,the class size by grade span and taking into account the requirements of students with
special needs,the number of classrooms,the types of facilities the District believes will best
serve its student population and other factors as identified in the District's capital facilities plan.
The District's standard ofservice shall not be adjusted for any portion ofthe classrooms housed
in relocatable facilities that are used as transitional facilities or from any specialized facilities
housed inrelocatable facilities.
·State Match Percentage means the proportion of funds that are provided tu the District for
specific capital projects from the State's Common School Construction Fund.These funds are
disbursed basedon a formula which calculates district assessed valuation per pupil relative to the
whole State assessed valuationper pupil to establish the maximumpercentage ofthe total project
eligible to bepaid bythe State.
·Student Factor [Student Generation Rate CSGR)]means the number of students of each grade
span (elementary,.middle,mid-high,high school)that the District determines are typically
generated by different dwelling unit types within the District Each District will use a surveyor
statistically valid methodology to derive the specific student generation rate,provided that the
surveyor methodology is approved by the Snohomish County Council as part of the adopted
capital facilities plan for each District.
•Subdivision means the division or redivision ofland into five or more lots,tracts,parcels,sites or
divisions outside the urban growth areas adopted by the county council pursuant to cbapter 36.70A
RCWand ten or more lots,tracts,parcels,sites or divisions inside the urban growth area adopted by
the county council pursuant to chapter 36.70A RCW for the purpose of sale,lease or transfer of
owoership.(SCC3M1S.710).
·Teaching Station means a facility space (classroom)specifically dedicated to implementing the
District's educational program and capable of accommodating at anyone time,at least a full
class of up to 30 students.In addition to traditional classrooms,these spaces can include
computer labs,auditoriums,gymnasiums,music rooms and other special education and resource
rooms.
·Unhoused Students means District enrolled students who are housed in portable or temporary
classroom space,or in permanent classrooms inwhich the maximum class size is exceeded.
·WAC means the Washington Administrative Code.
Lake Stevens SellOalDistrict 2-4 Capital Facilities Plan
SECTION 3:DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM 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 that typically drive facility space needs include grade configuration,optimum facility
size,class size,educational program offerings,classroom utilization and scheduling
requirements,and use ofrelocatable classroom facilities (portables).
In addition,government mandates and community expectations may affect how classroom space
is used.Traditional educational programs offered by school districts are often supplemented by
nontraditional or special programs such as special education,English as a second language,
remediation,migrant education,alcohol and drug education,AIDS education,preschool and
daycare programs,computer labs,music programs,etc.These special or nontraditional
educational programs can have a sigoificant impact on the available student capacity of school
facilities.
Examples of special programs offered by the Lake Stevens School District at specific school
sites include:
•Bilingual Program
•Behavioral Program
•Community Education
•Conflict Resolution
•Contract-Based Learning
•Credit Retrieval
•Drug Resistance Education
•Early Learning Center,which includes ECEAP and developmentally-delayed preschool
•Highly Capable
•Home School Partnership (HomeLink)
•Language Assistance Program (LAP)
•Life Skills Self-Contained Program
•Multi-Age Instruction
•Running Start
•Senior Project (volunteer time as part ofcourse work)
•Summer School
•Structured Learning Center
•Title 1
LakeStevens SchoolDistrict 3-1 Capital Facilities Plan
•Title 2
•Vocational Education
Variations instudent capacity between schools are often a result ofwhat special or nontraditional
programs are offered at specific schools.These special programs require classroom space,which
can reduce the permanent capacity of some of the buildings housing these programs.Some
students,for example,leave their regular classroom for a short period of time to receive
instruction in these special programs.Newer schools within the District have been designed to
accommodate most ofthese programs.However,older schools often require space modifications
to accommodate special programs,and in some circumstances,these modifications may reduce
the overall classroom capacities ofthe buildings.
District educational program requirements will undoubtedly change in the future as a result of
changes in the program year,special programs,class sizes,grade span configurations,state
funding levels 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 ofthis Capital Facilities Plan.
The District's minimum educational program requirements,which directly affect school
capacity,are outlined on page 3-3 for the elementary,middle and high school grade levels.
Educational Program Standards for Elementary Grades
•Average class size for grades K-3 should notexceed 25 students.
•Average class size for grades 4-5 should not exceed 27 students.
•Special Education for students may be provided in a self-contained classroom.The practical
capacity for these classrooms is 12 students.
•All students will be provided music instruction in a separate classroom.
•Students may have a scheduled time in a computer lab.
•Optimum design capacity for new elementary schools is 500 students.However,actual
capacity ofindividual schools may vary depending on the educational programs offered.
Educational Program Standards for Middle,Mid-High andHigh Schools
•Class size for middle school grades should not exceed 30 students.The District assumes a
practical capacity for high school and middle school classrooms of30 students.
•Classsize for grades 9-12 should not exceed 30 students.
•Special Education for students may be provided in a self-contained classroom.The practical
capacity for these classrooms is 12 students.
•As a result of scheduling conflicts for student programs,the need for specialized rooms for
certain programs,and the need for teachers to have a workspace during planning periods,it is
not possible to achieve 100%utilization ofall regular teaching stations throughout the day.
Therefore,classroom capacity is adjusted using a utilization factor of83%at the high school
level and 80%at the middle and mid-high levels.
Lake Stevens SchoolDistrict 3-2 Capital Facilities Plan
•Some Special Education services for students will be provided ina self-contalned classroom.
•Identified students will also be provided other nontraditional educational opportunities in
classrooms designated as follows:
•Resource Rooms (Le.computer labs,study rooms).
•Special Education Classrooms.
•Program Specific Classrooms:
•Music
•Drama
•Art
•Physical Education
•Family and Consumer Sciences
•Career and Teclmical Education
•Optimum design capacity for new middle schools is 750 students.However,actual capacity
ofindividual schools may vary depending onthe educational programs offered.
•Optimum design capacity for new high schools is 1500 students.However,actual capacity
ofindividual schools may vary depending on the educational programs offered.
Minimum Educational Service Standards
The Lake Stevens School District will evaluate student housing levels based on the District as a
whole system and not on a school by school or site by site basis.This may result in portable
classrooms being used as interim housing,attendance boundary changes or other program
changes to balance student housing across the system as a whole.
The Lake Stevens School District has set minimum educational service standards based on
several criteria Exceeding these minimum standards will trigger significant changes in program
delivery.Ifthere are 26 or more students per classroom in a majority ofK-3 classrooms,28 or
more students in 4-5 classrooms or 31 or more students in a majority of 6-12 classrooms,the
minimum standards have not been met.
Over the past three school years the state Legislature has reduced funding used to maintain lower
K-4 class sizes.For the 2011-2012 school year,this funding was eliminated entirely.As a result,
class sizes in Lake Stevens classrooms have increased to above the minimum level ofservice in
more than 50%ofclassrooms at the elementary level.This in no way reflects on the facilities'
ability to house students,but is instead tied to funding for instructional programs.As level of
service standards are adjusted to address this lack of funding,or as the funding is returned to
previous levels,it is expected that a majority of elementary classrooms will again meet the
minimum level of service.The District continues to meet the minimum level of service in
totality.
Although they may meet the number criteria above,double shifting with reduced hours of"Year
Round Education"programs adopted for housing reasons would also not meet the minimums.
It should be noted that the minimum educational standard is just that,a minimum,and not the
desired oraccepted operating standard.
Lake Stevens SChool District 3-3 Capital FfJJ:ilities Plan
SECTION 4:CAPITAL FACILITIES INVENTORY
Capital Facilities
Under GMA,public entities are required to inventory capital facilities used to serve the existing
populations.Capital facilities are defined as any structure,improvement,piece ofequipment,or
other major asset,including land that has a useful life of at least ten years.The putpose ofthe
facilities inventory is to establish a baseline for determining what facilities will be required to
accommodate future demand (student enrolhnent)at acceptable or established levels of service.
This section provides an inventory ofcapital facilities owned and operated by the Lake Stevens
School District including schools,portables,developed school sites,undeveloped land and
support facilities.School facility capacity was inventoried based on the space required to
accommodate the District's adopted educational program standards (see Section 3).A map
showing locations ofDistrict school facilities is provided as Figure 1.
Lake Stevens School District 4-1 Capital Facilities Plan
Lake Stevens Sc1l001 District
(This page left intentionally blank.)
4-2 Capital Facilities Plan
L4ke$J~"~1QSdroolDllfdd
Figure1-Map orDiIItrictFadllties
LAKE STEVENS SCHOOL DISTRICT#4
.:::ill::''':':..
..,Cap/ttltFaclUJIelPlrm
Schools
.The Lake Stevens School District includes:six elementary schools grades K-S,two middle
schools grades 6-7,one mid-high school grades 8-9,one high school grades 10-12,and an
alternative K-12 home school partnership program (HomeLink).
Table 1-Scbool Capacity Inventory
Elementary Schools
Glenwood Elementary 9 42,673 2 21 513 621 1992 No
Hillcrest Elementary 15 49,735 23 549 711 2008 No
Highland Elementary 8.7 49,727 21 512 620 1999 No
Mt.PilchUck Elementary 22 49,833 4 19 501 582 2008 No
Skyline Elementary 15 42,673 3 20 513 621 .1992 No
Sunnycrest Elementary 15 46,970 23 549 738 2009 No
Source:Lake Stevens School District*Note:Student Capacity figure is exclusive ofportables and adjusbnents for special programs.
The Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (aSP!)calculates school capacity by
dividing gross square footage of a building by a standard square footage per student.This
method is used by the State as a simple and uniform approach for determining school capacity
for purposes ofallocating available State Match Funds to school districts for school construction.
However,this method is not considered an accurate reflection of the capacity required to
accommodate the adopted educational program of each individual district.For this reason,
school capacity was determined based on the number of teaching stations within each building
and the space requirements of the District's adopted education program,These capacity
calculations were used to establish the District's baseline capacity and determine future capacity
needs based on projected student enrollment.The school capacity inventory is summarized in
Table 1.
LakeStevensSchoolDistrict 4-4 Capital Facilities Plan
Relocatable classrooms (portables)are not viewed by.the District as a solution for housing
students on a pennanent basis.Therefore,these facilities were not included in the permanent
school capacity.calculations provided in Table 1.
Leased Facilities
The District does not lease any.permanentclassroom space.
Relocatable Classroom Facilities (Portables)
Portables are used as interim classroom space to house students until funding can be secured to
construct permanent classroom facilities.Portables are not viewed by the District as a solution
for housing students on a permanent basis.The Lake Stevens School District currently.uses 61
portables at various school sites throughout the District to provide interim capacity.for K-12
.students.In addition,14 portables are used to accommodate the Early.Learning Center,which is
not a K-12 program.A typical portable classroom can provide capacity.for a full-size class of
students.Current use ofportables throughoutthe District is summarized in Table 2.
Table 2 -Portables
Glenwood ~108 3-,584
Hillcrest --_-_::::=~+_----162-f-5,376
HigiiiBrld--,4,108 3,584
1_=M;;;I....;P,c.il:::C.:.:hu:.c::.:k:-.-f~--3T 81 --2,688
I---cS;:;:k"'y-"Ii"'ne=---;-~_-_--_4j--1081 3,58~
Sunnycrest i 71 ~2
In addition to the portables listed above,the District purchased a portable in 2005 to house the
Technology.Support Group,a District-wide support group.The portable is located at North Lake
Middle School,across from the District Administration Office.It will not add space for interim
student housing.
Lake Stevens SchoolDistrict 4-5 Capital Facilities Plan
The District will continue to purchase or move existing portables,as needed,to cover the gap
between the time that families move into new residential developments and the time the District
is able to complete construction on permanent school facilities.
Some ofthe District's existing portables are beyond theirserviceable age and are no longer able
to be moved..Upon completion ofadditional school facilities,the probability exists these units
will be demolished.
Support Facilities
In addition to schools,the Lake Stevens School District owns and operates additional facilities
that provide operational support functions to the schools.An inventory of these facilities is
provided in Table3.
Table 3-SupportFacilities
LandInventory
.The Lake Stevens School District owns six undeveloped sites described below:
Ten acres located in the northeast area ofthe District (Lochsloy area),west ofHighway 92.This
site will eventually be used for an elementary school (beyond the year 2017).It is presently used
as an auxiliary sports field.
An approximately 35-acre site northwest ofthe intersection ofHighway 9 and Soper Hill Road,
bordered by Lake Drive onthe east planned for use as a middle school site.
A parcel of approximately 23 acres located at 20th Street SE and 83'd Street.This property was
donated to the School District for an educational facility.The property is encumbered by
wetlands and easements,leaving less than 10 available acres (not considered sufficient for an
elementary school site)..
A 5.4 acre parcel located at 20th Street SE and 83rd Street that has been used as an access to the
mid-high site.
A 20 ft.x 200 ft.parcel located on 20th Street SE has been declared surplus by the Lake Stevens
School Board and will be used in exchange for dedicated right-of-way for Cavelero Mid-High.
A 2.42 acre site (Jubb Field),located in an area north ofHighway #92,is used as a small softball
field.It is not ofsufficient size to support a school.
lAkeStevens Sc//Ool District 4-6 Capital Facilities Plan
SECTION 5:STUDENT ENROLLMENT TRENDS AND PROJECTIONS
Figure2 -Lake Stevens School District Enrollment
Lake Stevens School District October 1 Enrollment
9,000
8,000
7,000
t
ioo~
3,000
1,000
School Year
I "aemenlary "MIddle "MidoHigh "High I
Historic Trends andProjections
Student enrollment records dating back to 1973 were available from Snohomish County and
asp!.Student enrollment in the Lake Stevens School District remained relatively constant
between 1973 and 1985 (15%)and then grew significantly from 1985 through 2005
(approximately 120%).Between October 1991 and October 2000,student enrollment increased
by 2553 students,the 4th highest in the County.The October 1,2011 enrollment was 7,776
students,an increase of259 students,or 3.4%over October I,2009 (7517 FTE).
Actual enrollment by year is shown in Figure 2.Average annual growth between 1974 and 2005
was 4.18%,more than double the countywide average of 1.75%per year.Between 1994 and
2005 average annual growth was 4.47%compared to a countywide average of 1.71%.The
District has been,and is projected to continue to be,one of the fastest growing districts in
Snohomish County based on the OFM-based population forecast.
Enrollment projeCtions are most accurate for the initial years of the forecast period.Moving
further into the future,more asswnptions about economic conditions and demographic trends in
the area affect the projections.Monitoring birth rates in Snohomish County and population
Lake Stevens ScIIOQI District 5·1 CapitalFacilities Plan
growth for the area are essential yearly activities in the ongoing management of the capital
facilities plan.In the event that enrolhnent 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
enrolhnent growth exceeds the projections.
The future enrollment forecasts by the Office ofthe Superintendent ofPublic Instruction (OSPI)
were adopted for use in the District's CFP update.The District will sometimes use the OFM
Ratio method,however its review of the two alternative approaches showed that they were
almost identical,thus the OSPI estimates were used.OSPI methodology uses a modified cohort
survival method.This method estimates how many students in one year will.attend the next
grade in the following year.The methodology is explained inAppendix B.
OSPI estimates that enrolhnent will total 8,777 studentFTEs in 2017.This is a 12.9%increase
over 2011.
Table 4 -Projected EnroUment by Grade Span 2011-2017
Elementary School
Middle School
Mid-High School
High School
2011'
3,420
1,273
1,352
1,731
2012
3,440
1,341
1,401
1,666
2013
3,590
1,322
1,384
1,695
2014
3,700
1,290
1,454
1,740
2015
3,818
1,366
1,441
1,769
2016
3,861
1,474
1,399
1,830
2017
4,011
1,484
1,483
1,799
Source:OSPIdata:Report dales 11/11
•Actual F1B StudeniEnrollment (October 1,2011)
2025 Enrollment Projections
Although student enrollment projections beyond 2017 are higpJy speculative,they are useful for
developing long-range comprehensive facilities plans.These long-range enrolhnent projections
may also be used in determining future site acquisitionneeds.
The District projects a 2025 student FTE enrolhnent of 10,455 based on the "ratio"method.
(OSPI does not forecast enrollments beyond 2015)The forecast is based on the County's OFM-
based population forecast of 55,027.Assuming the County forecasts are correct,student
enrolhnent will continue to increase through 2025 and the 19.0%ratio is considered reasonable.
The 2011 actual ratio was 20.65%.OSPI has forecasted a decline in the student/population ratio.
The 2025 assumption reflects this ratio decline.
The 2025 estimate represents a 35.2%increase over existing 2011 enrolhnent levels.The total
enrolhnent estimate was broken down by grade span to evaluate long-term site acquisition needs
for elementary,middle school,mid-high school and high school facilities.Enrollment by grade
span was detennined based on recent and projected enrollment trends at the elementary,middle,
mid-high and high school levels.Projected enrolhnent by grade span for the year 2025 is
provided in Table 5.
LakeStevensSchoolDistrid 5-2 CapItal Facilities Plan
Table 5 -Projected 2025 Enrollment (Ratio Method -OFM)
Should projected enrollment materialize as described in Table 5,it is estimated that the District
would require an additional 58 classrooms at the elementary level,10 classrooms at the middle
school level,13 classrooms at the mid-high level and 27 classrooms at the high school level.
These additional classrooms could take the form of relocatable classrooms (portables)l,
additional classrooms at existing schools or new campuses.In addition,it is possible that the
District would require additional support facilities,like a maintenance building,technology
center or additional bus service facilities,to serve the projected enrollment
Again,the 2025 estimates are highly speculative and are used ouly for general planning
purposes.Analysis of future facility and capacity needs is provided in Section 6 ofthis Capital
Facilities Plan.
3 Portable classroom space is not considered a part ofpennanent capacity
Lake StevensSchool District 5-3 Capital Focilities Plan
SECTION 6:CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
Existing Deficiencies
Current enrollment at each grade level is identified on Table 4.The District is currently (2011)
over capacity at the elementary level by283 students,under capacity at the middle school level
by 162 students,under capacity atthe mid-high level by 66 students and over capacity at the high
school by 205 students.
Facility Needs (2012.2017)
The District expects that .686 students will be generated from each new single family home in
the District and that .372 students will be generated from each new two-plus bedroom multi-
family unit These numbers are based uponthe District's student generation rates.
Projected available student capacity was derived by subtracting projected FTE student
emollment from existing permanent school capacity (excluding portables)for each of the six
years inthe forecast period (2012-2017).The District's emollment projections,in Table 4,have
been applied to the existing capacity and the District will be over capacity atthe elementary level
by 874 students,by 49 students at the middle school level,49 students atmid-high and 273 at the
high school level ifno capacity improvements are made by the year 2017.
The District's six-year capital improvement plan (Table 8)includes capacity projects to address
future needs at the elementary level.Deficiencies would remain at all four grade levels,although
the elementary deficit would drop by 500 students to 374.
Projected future capacity needs are depicted on Table 6.This table shows actual space needs and
the portion of those needs that are "growth related."RCW 82.02 and SCC 30.66C mandate that
new developments cannot be assessed impact fees to correct existing deficiencies.Thus,any
capacity deficiencies existing in the District in 2011 must be deducted from the total projected
deficiencies before impactfees are assessed.The percentage figure shown in the last column of
Table 6 is the "growth related"percentage ofoverall deficiencies that is used to calculate impact
fees.
Table 6 -Projected Additional CapacityNeeds 2012-2017)
Elementary (1<-5)
Capacity Deficn (283)(303) (453)(563)(681)(724) (874)
Growth Related (20)(170) (280)(398)(441) (591)67.60%
Middle School (6-7)
Capacity Deficit 162 94 113 145 69 (39)(49)
Growth Related 0 (68) (49)(17)(93)(201)(211)100.00%
Mid-High (8-9)
Capacity Deficit 66 17 34 (36)(23)19 (65)
Growth Related (49)(32)(102)(89)(47)(131)100.00%
High School 10-12)
Capacity Deficit (205)(140)(169)(214) (243)(304)(273)
Growth Related 65 36 (9)(38)(99)(68)24.91%
Lake Stevens School District 6-1 Capital Facilities Plan
Forecast ofFuture Facility Needs through 2025
Additional elementary,middle,mid-high and high school classroom space will need to be
constructed between 2015 and 2025 to meet the projected stodent population increase.The
District will have to purchase additional school sites to facilitate growth during this time frame.
By the end of the six-year forecast period (2017),additional permanent student capacity will be
needed as follows:
Table 7 -2017 Additional Capacity Needed
*Assumes construction ofnew school in2017
These figures reflect a planiJed elementary school improvement by the District through 2017.
Planned improvements are discussed in the sections that follow.Because the elementary school
is unfunded,itdoes not factor into impact fee calculations.
Planned Improvements (2012-2017)
The following is a brief outline of those projects likely needed to accommodate un-housed
students in the Lake Stevens School District through the Year 2017 based on aSPI enrollment
projections.
Elementary Schools:Based upon current enrollment estimates,elementary student population
will increase to the level of requiring a new elementary school.The construction of a new
elementary school is projected by 2017 and will require placing a bond issue before the
electorate in2014..
Middle Schools:With the move ofthe g1h grade to the new Cavelero Mid-High School,there is
currently sufficient student capacity,although some deficiencies will occur beginuing in 2012.
Mid-High School:Cavelero Mid-High,opened in 2007,houses grades g &9.Additional
classroom space may be needed by 2017 based on the aSPI forecasts.
High Schools:Effective September 2007,the high school.houses grades 10-12.There are
currently unhoused students at this level.Additional classroom space will be needed at the high
school through 2017.
Interim Classroom Facilities (Portables):Additional portables will be purchased in future
years,as needed.However,it remains a District goal to house all students in permanent
facilities.
Lake Stevens SchoolDistrict 6-2 Capital Facilities Plan
Site Acquisition and Improvements:An additional elementary school site will be needed in an
area where student growth is taking place.The 10-acre Lochsloy property is in the far corner of
the district,not in an area ofgrowth and will not meet this need.Affordable land suitable for
school facilities will be difficult to acquire.Funds for the purchase of land suitable for an
elementary facility will have to be included in a bond issue.At this time a bond issue has not
been scheduled for placement before the District electorate.
SupportFacilities
The District does not project the need for additional support facilities during period ofthe six-
year finance plan.
Capital Facilities Six-Year Finance Plan
The Six Year Finance Plan shown on Table 8 demonstrates howthe District intends to fund new
construction and improvements to school facilities for the years 2012-2017.The financing
components include bond issue(s),State match funds,school mitigation and impact fees.
The financing plan separates projects and portions ofprojects that add capacity from those that
do not,since the latter are generally not appropriate for impact fee funding.The financing plan
and impact fee calculation formula also differentiate between projects or portions ofprojects that
address existing deficiencies (ineligible for impact fees)and those which address future growth
related needs.
General Obligation Bonds:Bonds are typically used to fund construction ofnew 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.The Lake Stevens School District passed a
capital improvements bond for $15 million in 1994,another for $9 million in 1999.All funds
from these bonds have been utilized.A capital improvements bond for $65,500,000 was
approved by the electorate in February 2005.These funds were used to construct the Cavelero
Mid-High School,the modernization of Mt.Pilchuck,Swmycrest and Hillcrest Elementary
schools,Lake Stevens High School 500 Building and the District athletic facility.
In the event action by state,county and local jurisdictions determined that impact fees were not
available in the future to fund growth-related projects,it would be necessary for the District to
seek additional funds through voter approved general obligation bonds coupled with available
state match.
The total costs ofthe growth related projects outlined in Table 8 represent recent and currentbids
per information obtained through aSPI,the District's architect and neighboring school districts
that have recently or are planning to construct classroom space.An iof1ation factor of2.5%per
year has beenapplied out to 2017.
State Match Funds:State Match Funds come from the Common School Construction Fund.
Bonds are sold on behalfofthe fund then retired from revenues accruing predominately from the
sale ofrenewable resources (i.e.timber)from State school lands set aside by the Enabling Act of
1889.Ifthese sources are insufficient to meetneeds,the Legislature can appropriate funds or the
State Board ofEducation can establish a moratorium on certain projects.
Lake Stevens School District 6-3 Capital Facilities Plan
School districts may qualify for State matching funds for a specific capital project To qualify,a
project must first meet State-established criteria of need.This is determined by a formula that
specifies the amount of square footage the State will help finance to house·the enrollment
projected for the.district.If a project qualifies,it can become part of a State prioritization
system.This system prioritizes allocation ofavailable funding resources to school districts based
on a formula which calculates district assessed valuation per pupil relative to the whole State
.assessed valUation per pupil to establish the percent of the total project cost to be paid by the
State for eligible projects.The Stste contribution for eligible projects can range from less than
halfto more than 70%ofthe project's cost.4
State Match Funds can only be applied to major school construction projects.Site acquisition
and minor 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 occuning in many ofWashington's school districts,matching funds from the State may
not be received by a school district until 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 futore District projects).
When the State share is finally disbursed (without accounting for escalation)the future District
project is partiallyreimbursed.
Because of the method of computing State Match,the District has historically received
approximately 39%ofthe actual cost ofschool construction in state matching funds.
School Impact Fees Development impact fees have been adopted by a number ofjurisdictions
as a means of supplementing traditional funding sources for construction of public facilities
needed to accommodate new development School impact fees are generally collected by the
permitting agency atthe time building permits or certificates ofoccupancy are issued...
Impact fees have been calculated utilizing the formula in Table 1 of Snohomish County
Ordinance,Chapter 30.66C.The resulting figures are based on the District's cost per dwelling
unit to purchase land for school sites,make site improvements,construct schools and purchase,
install or relocate temporary facilities (portables).Credits have also been applied in the formula
to account for State Match Funds to be reimbursed to the District and projected futore property
taxes to be paid by the owner ofa dwelling unit.The costs ofprojects that do not add capacity or
which address existing deficiencies have been eliminated from the variables used in the
calculations.
By ordinance,new developments cannot be assessed impact fees to correct existing deficiencies.
Thus,existing capacity deficiencies must be deducted from the total projected deficiencies inthe
calculation ofimpaet fees.
4 Paying for Growth's Impacts -A Guide to Impact Fees.State ofWasbington Department ofCommunity
Development Growth Management Divisioll,Jannary 1992,pi;.30.
LakeStevens SchoolDistrict 6-4 Capital Facilities Plan
Table 8-Capi1lll Fac:llitiilS I'IRl.t 2012-2017
Improvements Atldlng $tl«Ient
CaPacl
Elementary
Site Acqulsltlon
Elementary School
Cap~cily Addition
Middle
aciIY Addition
MId-High
CanaciIY Addition
Hi!lIiS"hool
CanacilY Addition
Improvements N,ot Adding stt!dent,Capac
Elementary
Middle
MId-HIgh
High S,C>hool
DliltrlC\""lde Improvemel)ts
$1.0S
~21;70
500
$1.0S
$2l.J:0
500
$1.05
$13.02
Local
8.68
Match
Totsls
Elementary (Including liiiidaCQuisillon)$22.75 I $22.75
Middle
Mid-High
HlghSch091
Distillll Wide
AnnuaITOta,I-$22.7SI $22.1S
.*LooaI Cnsllncludes llIl10untsCUl'n!lltiyavallablelothe,DiStrict,future uncollectediinpactfees'andbonds lIlid lOti..notyel.app",ved.
Local
$14.07
$14.07
Match
$8.68'
.$8.68,
Like SU.en.SchoolDIBtrlct
6·5
CaJ!ilalFacil/Ii••P14n
The financing plan separates projects and portions ofprojects that add capacity from those that
do not,since the latter are generally not appropriate for impact fee funding.The financing plan
and impact fee calculation also differentiate between projects or portions ofprojects that address
existing deficiencies (ineligible for impact fees)and those which address future growth-related
needs.From this process,the District can develop a plan that can be translated into a bond issue
package for submittal toDistrict voters,ifdeemed appropriate.
Table 9 presents an estimate of the capacity impacts of the proposed capital construction
projects.
Calculation Criteria
1.Site Acquisition Cost Element
Site Size:The site size given the optimum acreage for each school type based on studies of
existing school sites aSP]standards.Generally,districts will require 11-15 acres for an
elementary school;25-30 acres for a middle school orjunior high school;and 40 acres or more
for a high school.Actual school sites mayvary in size depending on the size ofparcels available
for sale and other site development constraints,such as wetlands.It also varies based on the
need for athletic fields adjacent to the school along with other specific planning factors.
This space for site size on the Variable Table contains a number only when the particular district
plans to acqulre additional land during the six-year planning period,2012 -2017.As noted
previously,the District will need to acquire an additional elementary school site between 2012
and 2017.The District acqulred a site for an elementary school and a high school in 2001.
Average Land Cost Per Acre:The cost per acre is based.on estimates oflandcosts within the
.District,based either on recent land purchases or byits knowledge ofprevailing costs in the
particular real estate market.Prices per acre will vary throughout the County and will be heavily
influenced by the urban vs.rural setting ofthe specific district and the location ofthe planned
school site.The Lake Stevens School Districtestimates its vacant land costs tu be$100,000 per
acre.Until a site is actually located for acquisition,the actual purchase price is unknown.
Developed sites,which sometimes must be acquired adjacentto existing school sites,can cost
well over $100,000 per acre.
Facility Design Capacity (Student FIE):Facility design capacities reflect the District's optimum
number of students each school type is designed to accommodate.These figures are based on
actual design studies of optimum floor area for new school fucilities.The Lake Stevens School
District designs new elementary schools to accommodate 500 students,new middle schools 750
students and newhigh schools 1,500 students.
Student Factor:The student factor (or student generation rate)is the average number ofstudents
generated by each housing type -in this case:single-family detached dwellings and multiple-
family dwellings.Multiple-family dwellings,which may be rental or owner-occupied units
within structures containing two or more dwelling units,were broken out into one-bedroom and
two-plus bedroom units.
LakeStel'ens School District 6-6 Capital Facilities Plim
Table 9 -Projected Growth Related CapacitySurplus (Deficit)
AfterPr~grammedImprovements
Existing Capacity 3,137 1,435 1,418 1,526
Programmed Improvement Capacity
Capacity After Improvement 3,137 1,435 1,418 1,526
Current Enrollment 3,420 1,273 1,352 1,731
Surpius (Deficit)After Improvement (283)162 66 (205)
Existing Capacity 3,137 1,435 1,418 1,526
Programmed Improvement Capacity 0 0 0 0
Capacity After Improvement 3,137 1,435 1,418 1,526
Projected Enrollment 3,440 1,341 1,401 1,666
Surplus (Deficit)After Improvement (303)94 17 (140)
Existing Capacity 3,137 1,435 1,418 1,526
Programmed Improvement Capacity 0 0 0 0
Capacity After Improvement 3,137 1,435 1,418 1,526
Projected Enrollment 3,590 1,322 1,384 1,695
Surplus (Deficit)After Improvement (453)113 34 (169)
Existing Capacity 3,137 1,435 1,418 1,526
Programmed improvement Capacity 0 0 0 0
Capacity After Improvement 3,137 1,435 1,418 1,526
Projected Enrollment 3,700 1,290 1,454 1,740
Surplus (Deficit)After Improvement (563)145 (36)(214)
Existing Capacity 3,137 1,435 1,418 1,526
Programmed Improvement Capacity 0 0 0 0
Capacity After Improvement 3,137 1,435 1,418 1,526
Projected Enrollment 3,818 1,366 1,441 1,769
Surplus (Deficit)After Improvement'(681)69 (23)(243)
Existing Capacity 3,137 1,435 1,418 1,526
Programmed Improvement Capacity 0 0 0 0
Capacity After Improvement 3,137 1,435 1,418 1,526
Projected Enrollment 3,861 1,474 1,399 1,830
Surplus (Deficit)After Improvement'(724)(39)19 (304)
Existing Capacity 3,137 1,435 1,418 1,526
Programmed Improvement Capacity 500 0 0 0
Capacity After Improvement 3,637 1,435 1,418 1,526
Projected Enrollment 4,011 1,484 1,483 1,799
SurplUS (Deficit)After Improvement (374)(49)(65)(273)
Lake Stl!lJens School District 6-7 Capital Facilities Plan
Pursuant to a requirement ofChapter 30.66C,each school district was required to conduct
student generation studies within theirjurisdictions.lbiswas done to "localize"generation rates
for purposes ofcalculating impact fees.A description ofthis methodology is contained in
AppendixD.
The student generation rates for the Lake Stevens School District are shown on Table 10.
Table 10-Student GenerationRates
Single Family
Multiple Family,1 Bedroom
MUltiple Family,2+Bedroom
0.363
0.000
0.203
0.102
0.000
0.074
0.104
0.000
0.036
0.117
0.000
0.059
0.686
0.000
0.372
2.School Construction Cost Variables
Additional Building Capacity:These figures are the actual capacity additions to the Lake
Stevens School District that will occur as a result of improvements listed on Table 8 (Capital
Facilities Plan).
Current Facility Square Footage:These numbers are taken from Tables 1 and 2.They are used
in combination with the "Existing Portables Square Footage"to apportion the impact fee
amounts betweenpermanent and temporary capacity figures in accordance with Chapter 30.66C.
Estimated Facility Construction Cost:The estimated facility construction cost is based on
planned costs or onactual costs ofrecently constructed schools.The facility cost is the total cost
for construction projects as defined on Table 8,including ouly capacity related improvements
and adjusted to the "growth related"factor.Projects or portions ofprojects that address existing
deficiencies (which are those students who are un-housed as ofOctober 2011)are not included in
the calculation offacility cost for impact fee calculation.
Facility construction costs also include the off-site development costs.Costs vary with each site
and may include such items as sewer line extensions,water lines,off-site road and frontage
improvements.Off-site development costs are not covered by State Match Funds.Off-site
development costs vary,and can represent 10%or more ofthe total building construction cost.
3.Relocatable Facilities Cost Element
Impact fees may be collected to allow acquisition of portables to help relieve capacity
deficiencies on a temporary basis.The cost allocated to new development must be growth
related and must be in proportion to the current permanent versus temporary space allocations by
the district.
Existing Units:lbis is the total number ofexisting portables in use by the district as reported on
Table 2.
Lake StevensSchoolDistrict 6-8 CapUalFacilitiesPlan
New Facilities Required Through 2017 This is the estimatednumber ofportables to be acquired.
Cost Per Unit:This is the average cost to purchase and set up a portable.It includes site
preparation,but does not include furnishing ofthe unit.
Relocatable Facilities Cost:This is simply the total number of needed units multiplied by the
cost per unit.The number is then adjusted to the "growth-related"factor.
For districts,such as Lake Stevens,that do not credit any portable capacity to the pennanent
capacity total (see Table I),this number is not directly applicable to the fee calculation and is for
information only.The impact fee allows a general fee calculation for portables;however the
amount is adjusted to the proportion of total square footage in portables to the total square
footage ofpermanent and portable space inthe district.
Where districts do allow a certain amount ofportable space to be credited to permanent capacity,
that amount would be adjusted by the "growth-related"factor,because it is considered to be
permanent space.
4.Fee CreditVariables
BOECKH Index:This number is generated by the E.H.Boeckh Company and is used by OSPI
as a guideline for determining the area cost allowance for new school construction.The index is
an average of a seven-city building cost index for commercial and factory buildings in
Washington State,and is adjusted every two months for inflation.The current BOECKH Index
is $188.55 (March 2012).
State Match Percentage:The State match percentage is the proportion offunds that are provided
to the school districts,for specific capital projects,from the State's Common School
Construction Fund.These funds are disbursed based on a formula which calculates the District's
assessed valuation per pupil relative to the whole State assessed valuation per pupil to establish
the percentage of the total project to be paid by the State.The District will continue to use a
state match percentage of40%vs.the historical percentage of39%.
5.Tax Credit Variables
Under Title 30.66C,a credit is granted to new development to account for taxes that will be paid
to the school district over the next ten years.The credit is calculated using a "present value"
formula.
Interest Rate (20-year GO Bond):This is the interest rate of return on a 20-year General
Obligation Bond and is derived from the bond buyer index.The current assumed interest rate is
4.00%.
Levy Rate (in mils):The Property Tax Levy Rate (for bonds)is determined by dividing the
District's average capital property tax rate by one thousand.The current levy rate for the Lake
Stevens School District is .00195.
LakeStevens SchoolDistrict 6-9 Copitol Facilities Plan
Average Assessed Value:This figure is based on the District's average assessed value for each
type of dwelling unit (single-family and multiple-family).The averaged assessed values are
based on estimates made by the County's Planning and Development Services Department
utilizing information from the Assessor's files.The current average assessed value is $265,232,
for single-family detached residential dwellings;$76,281 for one-bedroom multi-family units,
and $111,402 for two or more bedroom multi-family units.
6.Adjustments
Growth Related Capacity Percentage:This is explained in preceding sections.
Discount:In accordance with Chapter 30.66C,all fees calculated using the above factors are to
be reduced by 50%.
These variables and calculations are shoWn inTable 11.
Lake Stevens School District 6-10 Capital Facilities Plan
Table 11-ImpactFee Variables
Site Acquisition Cost Element
Sile Needs (acres)15.0
Growth Relalad 10.1 ---
CostPer Acre $100,000
Additional Capacity 500
Growth Relatad 338 ---
Student Factor
Single Family 0.363 0.102 0.104 0.117
Multiple Family 1 Bdrm ----
Multiple Family 2 Bdrm 0.203 0.074 0.036 0.059
School Construction Cost Element
Estimated Facility Construction Cost $21,700,000.00 ---
Growth Rel.tad $14,669,647.00 $-$-$-
Additional Capacitv 500 ---
Growth Relatad 338 ---
Current Facility Square Footage 281,611 176,697 224,694 207,195
Relocatable Facilities Cost Element
Relocatable Facilities Cost $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000
Growth Relalad $50,701 $75,000 $75,000 $18,681
Reloeatable FacilitiesCapacity/Unit 25 30 30 30
Growth Related 16 30 30 7
Existing Portable Sauare Footaae 25,088 14,336 -15,232
State Match Credit
Boeckh Index 186.55 188.55 188.55 188.55
School Space perStudent (OSPI)90.00 117.00 117,00 130.00
State Match Percentage 40.00%40.00% 40.00%40,00%
Tax PaymentCredit
InterestRate 4,0%4.0%4.0%4.0%
Loan Payoff (Years)10 10 10 10
propertyTax Levy Rate (Bonds)0.00195 0.00195 0.00195 0.00195
Average AV per DU Type $265,232 $76,261 $111,402
(Single Farn.)(MF 1 bdrm)(MF 2 bdrm)
Growth~ReJated CapaCity Percentage 67.60%100.00%100.00%24.91%
Discount 0.60 0.50 0.50 0.50
Proposed Lake Stevens SchoolDistrict Impact Fee Schedule
Using the variables and formula described,impact fees proposed for the Lake Stevens School
District are summarized in Table 12 and 13 (refer to Appendix A for worksheets).
LakeStevens SchoolDistrict 6-11 Capital Facilities Plan
Table12 •CalCUlated ImpactFees
Single Family DetaQhed
One Eledroom Apartment
Two+Bedroom Aparlment
DuplexTrOWiiholiSe
$9,383
$0
$5,830
$5,830
Table13.cakli1atedlmpaetFees (50%Discount)
Single Family Detaohed
one Bedrqom Aparlmenl
Two +Bedroom Apartment.
DuplexfrowrlhaU$$
6·12
$4,692
$0
$2,915
$2,915
Copltal FtldJiIies Plmt
Appendix A
Impact Fee Calculation
IMPACT FEEWORKSHBBT
LAKE STIlVNS S.CB:OOr.DISTRICT
SINGLE,FAMILYRESIDENTIAL
TOTAL FACILITY t:;ONS'iRUctidN COST
TOTAL SIDlACQUIsmONcoST
"~8 x studentfactor 0.363 =$1,085 «!Icinenfllly)
x SlUdentfactor 0.102 =$0 (middl.)
x studetl.t factor O.I()4 =$0 (midJrlgh)
:x stud,ent-faetor Ii:ii1 =$0 (high,ihool)--
=--$(,085
_.
x student.factor-0,363 =$15.755 (.~fllly)
•SlUden!factor 0;102 =$0 (~ddlt;)
x studentfactQr 0.104 =ro--(mid-high)
x -student factor 0.1l7 $0 (high._1)
SubtoW m;m-
944~=94.22%
$14,843
$100,000 I capocity(#stUdeuls),.
$-I capllCity(ilstildel)ls)<;
$•I eBpllCity{#stUdenls).~
$•I eBpoclty(#SlUdenrs)v
I capeclty.(4f.Students)~~o
I eapocity{US\Udel)ls)~
I eapocity{U••"lents)v
I capaclty.(#s'tudCflts)v
I Tora!Square Feet
___..:8::;:90=.1;;.97:...ofSehodIFllCUIti.,.(OOO)
x
x
x
X
Total Square'Peet
ofperm8nent Space .(District )
SCHOOLCONSTRUCTIONCOST
totn1 oonst.cost $14,669,547
totn1 cottst.cost $0
total canst cost --"$0
total,consl cost --"$0
SITEACQUJSITldN·COST
acre&neede4 10.10.
""'""needed 0
ac....needed --0
"",""needed --0
RELOCaTABLEFACILITIESCOST(poRTABLES)
TOTAL1UlLOCATABLECOSTBLIlMBNT
PortableCost.$50,701 I 16 facDitysize X .sbJdentfactor
PoltDbleee.t $75,000·I 30 focility size x studentfactor
Portlibleeo",$15,000 t 30 faclilly.size x -studentfactor
POltDbie eo",$18.681 I 7 facililysize X stndent factor
TotalSqllllreFeet
ofPoltDble Space (DIstrict)
ITotn!Sqllllre Feet
____:S;;.4"',1i5;;;.6:;."ofSehOOI ;FacUlties(000)
0.363 =$1,150 (.I.....fllly)
0.102 =$255 (lnlddI.)
0.104 =$260 (.,;,.high)
0.117 =$312 (highs_a
Subtotal $1.978
944~..5.18%
$114
CltEDtr AGAINST COST CALCULATION -MANDATORY
STATEMATCRCREDIT
TOTALSTAmMAleRCRllDIT
llOECKlllndex
BOECKlllndex
BOECKlIlndex
BOECKll1l1dex
$1118.55
$lS8.55
$18S.55
S18S:55
XOSP!Allowance 90.00 x
xOSP!Allowam:e lI7.(lO x
X osP!Allo......117.00 X
x·OSPIAllowance 130.00 X
StateMatch%
S""eMateh%
.SIale·MOlIch%
SIaleMatch \\i
4O.oolt x sb,ldentfactor 0,363 =$21164 (->
x $ludentfactor 0,102 =$Q (middle)
X studentfittor 0.104 =$0 (mid'blg1l)
X studentfltetm:0:117 =$0.(hlg1lschod)
=$2.#1
TAX PAYMENT CltEDIT
[«1+interest rnte ~)A 10 yem.to~offbond)-1].1 [in-.,rate 4.00%x_._-
(1+~trate
-.edvsfue
4.0011>)'
$265;232
10 yeats topayoffbond]:It _____Q"'.OO~19"'"5",,!,itallevy·""x
""'_crcdjl =$.4,195
IMPACT FEE CALCULATION
SITEACQUIS!TiON COST
l'AClIiTYCOJ:'!STRUCDON COST
RELOCA'J,'~LE!'ACILmES COST(i'ORTABLES)
(LESS STArnMAleRCREDIt)
(LESS TAX.PAYMBNTCREPITJ
$
$1.085
14,1l43
$114
(S70464)
($4,195)
IMPAcrFEBWORKSHEBT
LAlOlS'mVNS.SCHOOLD1Snucr
MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ~1BPRM QRI,ESS
"
SITEACQUISlTION COST
-acres needed 10.1 x $~OO,OOO I capacity (#,tu~enlS)338 -x studentfactor 0 =$0 (olcmeDtoly)
acres needed 0 x $I capacilJl (#.tu~enlS)0 x student factor 0 =$0 (micldle)
acr.esneeded 0 x $I capacjty (#'tu~ents)O.~student ,faclor 0 =$0 (mfd-blgb)
acres needed 0 x I capacity (il;tu~eI1lS)0 x stn<lent_0 =$0 (highsohool)
TafALSJ.'IEACQUJSmONCOST =$0
SCHOOL CONSTllUcr10NCOST
totalconst..CQst $.14,669,547 I capaclly(#.rodenlS)338 x.studenrfactor 0 =$0 (eIemootmy)
total,const.cost $0 I capacity (#st;.lde<>Is)0 x''tu~entt!lClOr 0 =$0 (mlik\l.)
total const cost $0 I capacity (#,tuilenls)0 x studentfactor 0 =$0 (mld-blgh)
totalconst.cost $0 I capacity (#students)0 x .$den.t f~r 0 =$0 .(blgh.school)
Subtotal $0
TotalSquareFeet I Total S\[llIlteFeet
ofPcmnanent $pace (District)890,197 ofSeboot Facilities(000)944,853 =94.22%
TarALFACILITY CONSTRUCTION COST =$"
RJ;LOCATABLE.FA.ClLQ1IlSCOST (J,'ORTABLllS)
Portable-Cost.$50;701 I 16 facility_ire x student factor 0 =$0 (~)
Pqrtable COlli $.I 30 facility size x studen~~or 0 =$0 (middle)
Pnrtable Cost $7S;IlOO I 30 ·facility.>ize x stnde<>t factor 0 =$0 (mid-lrignl
Portable.Cost $18;681 I 7 facility>ize Jt studMt factor 0 =$0 ,(highficltool).__..-$0.s"b.rotal
Total SquareFeet I lOtaI Square Feet
ofPnrtableSpa<:<:(Di!l!d<t)54,656 ofScbool Facilities (Ooo)944,853 =5.78%
TOTAL RELOCATABLB COSTELEMENT =$0
.
CIlFJ)ITAGAINSTCOSTCALC\JL,\.TION••MANDATORY
STArEJlj:ATCH CREDIT
TOTALSTAmMATCHCREDIT
BOECKHIilde.
BbECKItI'ndox
1l0HCKItIil<lox
BOECKH Iildox
$188.$5
$188.$5
$18So5S
$188055
x"OSPI Allowance 90 x
xOSE'lAUowance ;17 x
xOSPl Allo\t<mceU1 j;
j;om Allowance 130 x
StaloMatch %
StaloMatoh.%
Stale Mateb%
StaIoMatoh%
40.00%x studooHaetor 0 =$0 (okmon.ary)
x !ll1dentfacror 0 =$0 (middle)
x studentfactor 0,=$0 (mld-lrlgh)
•studet\t~or 0 "-.10 Qligl..ehcoU
"$0
TAXPAYMlWrCJlEljIT
[«(1+intoreat",to ~)'10,years IDPay offbond)-II I [iDleJ,'est~4;,00%x
.(1 +interest rate
assessed value
4.00%
$16,28\
10 year9.to.payoffbond)x ~capllallOVY""e x
...paym<ot<=llt =$1,206
J;J\4PACT FEE CALCULAUON
SITE ACQUISITION COST
FACIi.lTY CONSTRUCI10N COST
RELOCATABIEFACILJTIES COST (pORTABLES)
(LBSSSTAmMATCH CREDm
(LESSTAXlo'AYMENTCIlEDm
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
IMPACfFEE WORKS!!EEl'
LAKESmYNSSClIOOLDISTRICf
MULTIPtEFAMILYRESIDENTIAL~ZBDRl\;l.ORMORE
8lTEACQUlStrIONCOST
acr.es needed 10;1 •$100,000 I capacity (IfstUdenlli)~~8 x stud~n,t~r;0;2.03 =$607 (eJ.....w;y)
QCres needed 0 •$I Capacity(If students)0 •studentfaotrn:0;074 $0 (middle)
acresneeded 0 x I cllp3City (Ifstudents)0 ~studentfm;tQ1'0.036 =$0 (mld.Jilgh)
acres needed 0 x I capacity (If students)0 X stud,ent factor 0.05.9 =$0 (lilgl"cbool).
TOTALSTIEACQUlSmON COST =-1607
SClIOOL CONSTRUCTIONCOST
total~cost $[4,669,547 I capacity (It.tudents)338 x stud~t~r 0.203 =$8,SlO (•..........,,)
total CQ~.cost $0 I capaoity(htudents)0 x studentfactor 0.074 =$.(oiiddlei)
total oonsl cost $0 I capacity·(If·studen..)0 x stqden,tfactor 0.036 =$0 (m1d-high)
toW coost.Cost $0 I capacity (If stud<:nls)0 .x'student factor 0.05.9 =~(higli "hooO
$8;810
Totll Squarefee'ITotllSqu""feet
efPennanen'Space (llistriet)890,197 of8chooll'aciUti..(000)944,853 =94.22%
TOTAL fACILITY CONSTRUCTION COST =_18,301
RELOCATABLEFACILlTIESCOST'(l'(iATABLES)
Portable Cool $50,701 I 16 facl1ity size x studentfactor (1;203 =$643 (eJ...../my)
Portable Cost $75,000 I 30 .liicliity .....xsluden,t factor 0.074 =$ISS (nndd"')
Portable eost $75,000.I 30.facIIitysize .x student factor 0.036 =$90 (mld-'Igh)
Poi:tllbie eost $18,681 I 1 r""Uilys!ze x student factor 0,0.s9 =$157 '(.IugIUlc1¥xJt)
Subtotal $1,0.76
Tot.lSquare feet fTotalSqll&nlFeel
ofPortable Space (Di,trlet)54,65.6.ofSchool Facilities (000)944,853 =5..78%
TOTALRELOCATABLBCOSTELEMENT =$6t
ClUIDIT AGAINST CQSTCALCOLA'11ON -MANDATORY
STATE MATCHClIEDlT
TOTALSTAlEMATCHCRE1>IT
BOEemindex
BoEemIndex
BOEemindex
BOECKH Index
$188.55
$188.55
$188,55
$188.55
x 0SPlAllowanoe 90 x S...,Match9&
xOSPIAllowan<;e 117 x StllleMateh9&
x OSPlAllowanco 111 x Stll1eMatc:h9&
x OsPI Allowance .~x SlateMatch 9&
4ll.00%J..tudentlOclor 0.203 =$1,378 (~)
x .studO!ltliletor 0.074 '"$0 (middle)
x student.factor 0,036 =$0 (mid-high)
x studt:!Dtmcror 0.()59 =-22 Q>l8h ochoa»
=.$1,318.
TAX l'AYMENT C1tEDlT
[«Hml_'_~)'10·yelttS'10 payoff bond)-1J J [int=st_4.001'>x
(l+interestrate
assessed~~ue-
4.009&l"
$111,402
'10 yeaJ:lllO payoffbond 1 x __...::;o.",OO",I,,95::..aq>u..JIe\';'ra""
tax..,-,o"",';I.-$1,762
IMl'ACTFEE.CALCULATION
SUEACQUlSmON CO$T
FACILITY CONSTRlJCTJ.ON COST
lUlLOCATABLEFACILlTIESCO$'l'(PORTABLES)
(l.J3SS'STATBMATCHCRE1>IT)
(l.J3SS TAX PAYMBNrCRBDIT)
$607
$8,301
$62
($1,378)
($1,762)
AppendixB
OSPI Enrollment Forecasting Methodology
OSPI PROJECTION OF ENROLLMENT DATA
Cohort-Survival or Grade-Succession Technique
Development ofa long-range school-building program requires a careful forecast ofschool
enrollment indicating the projected number of children who will attend school each year.
The following procedures are suggested for determining enrolhnent projections:
1.Enter in the lower left comer ofthe rectangle for each year the number ofpupils
actually enrolled in each grade on October I,as reported on the October Report of
School District Enrolhnent,Form M-70,column A.(For years prior to October I,
I965"enter pupils actually enrolled as reported in the county superintendent's annual
report,Form A-I.)
2.In order to arrive at enrollment projections for kindergarten and/or grade one pupils,
determine the percent that the number ofsuch pupils each year was ofthe number
shown for the inunediately preceding year.Compute an average ofthe percentages,
enter it in the column headed "Ave.%ofSurvival",and apply such average percentage
in projecting kindergarten and/or grade one enrolhnent for the next six years.
3.For grade two and above determine the percent ofsurvival ofthe enrolhnent in each
grade for each year to the enrolhnenl In the next lower grade during the preceding
year and place this percentage in the upper right comer ofthe rectangle.(For example,
ifthere were 75 pupils in actual enrolhnent in grade one on October I,1963,and 80
pupils were in actual enrolhnent in grade two on October I,1964,the percent of
survival would be 80175,or 106.7%.Ifthe actual enrolhnent on October I,1965 in
grade three had further increased to 100 pupils,the percent ofsurvival to grade three
would be 100/80 or 125 %.)
Compute an average ofsurvival percentages for each year for each grade and enter it in
the column,"Ave.%ofSurvival".
In order to determine six-year enrollment projections for grade two and above,multiply
the enrolhnent in the next lower grade during the preceding year by 7 the average
percent ofsurvivaI.For example,if,on October 1 ofthe last year ofrecord,there were
100 students in grade one and the average percent ofsurvival to grade two was 105,
then 105%of 100 would result in a projection of 105 students in grade two on October
I ofthe succeeding year.
4.If,after calculating the "Projected Enrolhnent",there are known factors which will
further influence the projections,a statement should be prepared showing the nature of
those factors,involved and their anticipated effect upon any portion ofthe calculated
projection.
'Kindergarten students are projected based on a regression line.
Appendix B-1
AppendixC
Emollment Data
TOOleC-l
LAKE STEVENS SCHOOL DISTRICT
STUDENT ENROLLMENT BY GRADE SPAN 2003-2011
(Based on actna!studentt enrollment on October I ofeach year)
School Grade I School Year
Tvne Level 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Elementary K 534 545 534 498 510 556 646 550
I 536 555 558 563 538 579 596 666
2 568 555 570 575 594 571 598 608
3 557 591 563 586 587 634 581 616
4 544 589 592 577 615 605 665 576
5 618 552 568 616 597 627 614 679
K5Headcount 3357 3387 3385 3415 3441 3572 3700 3695
K-5F1'B 3090 3115 3118 3166 3186 3294 3377 3420
Middle 6 610 654 570 576 624 625 643 626
7 603 602 645 596 600 627 662 647
6-7Headcount 1213 1256 1215 1172 1224 1252 1305 1273
Mid High Grade 8 611 612 603 646 595 606 636 665
Grade 9 714 717 679 702 725 702 663 687
8-9 Headcount 1325 1329 1282 1348 1320 1308 1299 1352
Sr.High Grade 10 657 652 663 623 632 647 624 609
Grade II 504 584 545 564 556 553 571 585
Grade 12 397 429 503 460 470 463 474 537
10-12Headcount 1558 1665 1711 1647 1658 1663 1669 1731
K-12 Headcount 7453 7637 7593 7582 7643 7795 7973 8051
K-12F1'B 7186 7365 7326 7333 7388 7517 7650 7776
TableC-2
LAKESTEVENS SCHOOLDISTRICT
STUDENTENROLLMENTBYGRADE SPAN 2012-2017
School Grade School Year
T Level 2011 SPR 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
.Elementary K 550 606 622 639 655 671 687
1 666 591 651 668 687 704 721
2 608 693 615 677 695 714 732
3 616 628 716 635 699 718 737
4 576 634 646 737 653 719 739
5 679 591 651 663 756 670 738
K-5 Headcount 3695 3743 3901 4019 4145 4196 4354
K-5FfE 3420 3440 3590 3700 3818 3861 4011
Middle 6 626 695 605 666 679 774 686
7 647 646 717 624 687 700 798
6-7 Headcount 1273 3.38%1341 1322 1290 1366 1474 1484
MidHigb Grade 8 665 651 650 721 628 691 704
Grade 9 687 750 734 733 813 708 779
8-9 Headcount 1352 3.59%1401 1384 1454 1441 1399 1483
Sr.IDgb Grade 10 609 621 678 663 662 735 640
Grade 11 585 541 551 602 588 588 652
Grade 12 537 504 466 475 519 507 507
10-12 Headcount 1731 4.60%1666 1695 1740 1769 1830 1799
K-12Headcount 8051 8151 8302 8503 8721 8899 9120
K-12FfE 7776 20.65%7848 7991 8184 8394 8564 8777
Source:Snohomish County,Lake Stevens School District and aSPI
AppendixD
Student Generation Rate Methodology
DOYLE
CONSULTINGAS_ENABLING SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO MANAGEAND USESTUDENTASSESSME:NTDATA
Student Generation Rate Study
for the
Lake Stevens School District
With Grade Levels (K.5,6-7,8-9,10-12)
4113/2012
This document describes the methodology used to calculate student generation rates
(SGRs)for the Lake Stevens School District,and provides results ofthe calculations.
SGRs were calculated for two types of residential construction:Single family detached,
and multi-family with 2 or more bedrooms.Attached condominiums,townhouses and
duplexes are included in the multi.family classification since they are not considered
"detached".Manufactured homes on owned land are included in the single family
classification.
1.Electronic records were obtained from the Snohomish County Assessor's Office
containing data on all new construction within the Lake Stevens School District from
January 2004 through December 2010.As compiled by the County Assessor's
Office,this data included the address,building size,assessed value,and year built
for new single and multi-family construction.The data was "cleaned up"by
eliminating records which did not contain sufficient information to generate a match
with the District's student record data (I.e.incomplete addresses).
2.The District downloaded student records data into Microsoft Excel format.This data
included the addresses and grade levels of all K-12 students attending the Lake
Stevens School District as of March 2012.Before proceeding,this data was
reformatted and abbreviations were modified as required to provide consistency with
the County Assessor's data.
210 Polk street,Sufte 6A •Port Townsend,WA 98368 •(360)680·9014
3.Single Family Rates:The data on all new single family detached residential units in
County Assessor's data were compared with the District's student record data,and
the number of students at each grade level living in those units was determined.
.The records of2,404 single family detached units were compared with data on 8,048
students registered in the District,and the following matches were found by grade
level(s)*:
K 129 0.054
1 155 0.064
2 152 0.063
3 141 0.059
4 139 0.056
5 157 0.065
6 113 0.047
7 132 0.055
8 130 0.054
9 121 0.050
10 100 0.042.
11 84 0.035
12 96 0.040
K-5 673 0.363
6-7 245 0.102
8-9 251 0.104
10·12 280 0.117
K-12 1649 0.686
4.Large Multi-Family Developments:Snohomish County Assessor's data does not
specifically indicate the number of units or bedrooms contained in large multi-family
developments.Additional research was performed to obtain this information from
specific parcel ID searches,and information provided by building management,
when available.Information obtained included the number of 0-1 bedroom units,the
number of2+bedroom units,and specific addresses of 0-1 bedroom units.
Small Multi-Family Developments:This method inclUded all developments in the
County Assessor's data containing four-plexes,tri-plexes,duplexes,condominiums
and townhouses.This data contained information on the number ofbedrooms for all
townhouses and condominiums.Specific parcel ID searches were performed for
duplex and larger units in cases Where number of bedroom data was missing.
5.MUlti-Family 2+BR Rates:The multi-family 2+BR SGR's were calculated by
comparing data on 2+BR multi-family units with the District's student record data,
and the number ofstudents at each grade level living in those units was determined.
The records of 271 multi-family 2+BR units were compared with data on 8,048
students registered in the District,and the following matches were found by grade
level{s)*:
K 5 0.018
1 19 0.070
2 9 0.033
3 7 0.026
4 7 0.026
5 8 0.030
6 11 0.041
7 9 0.033
8 5 0.018
9 5 0.018
10 8 0.030
11 2 0.007
12 6 0.022
K-5 55 0.203
6·7 20 0.074
8·9 10 0.036
10·12 16 0.059
K·12 101 0.373
6.Multi-Family 0-1 BRRates:Research indicated that no (0)mUlti-family 0-1 BR units
were constructed within District boundaries during the time period covered by this
study.
7.Summary ofStudent Generation Rates*:
Single Family
Multi-Family 2+DR
K-5 6-7 8-9
.363 .102 .104
.203 .074 .036
10-12
.117
.059
K-12
.686
.373
*Calculated rates forgradelevel groups may notequal the sum ofindividual grade rates dueto rounding.
.Appendix E
Board Resolution Adopting
Capital Facilities Plan
Lake Stevens School District No.4 (425)335-1500·FAX (425)335-1549
EduClitional Service Ce.nter 12309 22nd StN.B.•Lake Snl\"....Washington 98258-9500
RESOLUTION NO.6-12
REVISED 2012-2017 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
WHEREAS.the Lake Slevens School District is required by RCW 36.70 (the Gro....1h Management Act)and
the Snohomish County General Policy Plan to adopt a CapiIal Facilities Plan;
WHEREAS,development ofthe Capital Facilities Plan was carried out by the District in accordance with
accepted methodologies and requirements ofthe Growth Management Act;
VI-'HEREAS.impact fee calculations are consistent with methodologies meeting the conditions and tests of
RCW 82.02 and Snohomish County Code;
WHEREAS.the District finds that the methodologies accurately assess necessary additional capacity which
address only growth-related needs;
WHEREAS,adraft ofthe Plan was submitted to Snohomish County for review ....ith changes having been
made in accordance with County comments;
WHEREAS,the District finds that the Planmeets the basic requirements ofRCW 36.70A and RCW 82.02;and
WHEREAS.arC\'iew ofthe Plan was carried out pursuant to RCW 43.21C (the State Environmental Policy
Act).ADetennination ofNon Significance has been issued.
NOW.THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the Board ofDirectors ofthe Lake Stevens School District
hereby adopts the Capital Facilities Plan for the years 2012-2017,pursuant to the requirements ofRCW 36.70A
and the Snohomish County General Policy Plan.The Snohomish County Council,the City ofLake Stevens and
the City ofMarysville are hereby requested to adopt the Plan as an element oftheir general policy plans and
companion ordinances.
ADOPTED,by the Board ofDirectors ofthe Lake Stevens School District No.4,Snohomish County,state of
Washington,at a regular meeting thereof held this 22nd day ofAugnst,2012.
LAKE STEVENS SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.4
BOARDOFDIRE~~..rPresi~~:r-
ATTEST:.JJ-.I/N'\Y"
SUPerintendent~O:::::"-------
AppendixF
Snohomish County General Policy Plan
APPENDIXF
REVIEW CRIlERIA FOR SCHOOLDISlRICTCAPITAL FACILITY PLANS
RequiredPlan Contents
1.Future EnrollmentForecasts by Grade Span,including:
a6-year forecast (or more)to support the financing program;
·SeeTables 4 and 5;Appendix C
- a description ofthe forecasting methodology and justification for its consistency with OFM
population forecasts used in the county's comprehensive plan.
*Explanation on page 5-2
2.Inventory ofExisting Facilities,including:
the location and capacity ofexisting schools;
·See Figure 1for location;See Table 1 fur schools,theircapacities and grade spans served
a description ofeducational standards and a clearly defined minimum level ofservice such
as classroom size,school size,use ofportables,etc.;
*See Section 3 for educational standards;minimum educational service standards are
identified on page 3-3;
the location and description ofall district-owned or leased sites (ifany)and properties;
*SeeFigure 1for map ofschool facilities;Seetable 1 for schools with further description
locatedon page 4~3;land inventory is located on page 4-5.
a description ofsupport facilities)such as administrative centers)transportation and
maintenance yards and facilities,etc.;
*See page4-4 for a description ofsupport facilities;also,Table 3.
and information on portables,including numbers,locations,remaining useful life (as
appropriate to educational staridards),etc.
RelocatabJe classroom facilities (portables)afe identified on page 4-4;see Table 2 for
locations and capacities.
.3.Forecast ofFuture Facility Needs,including:
identification ofnew schools and/or school additions needed to address existing deficiencies
and to meet demands ofprojected growth.over the next 6 years;and
*See pages 6-2 and 6-3 for schools and school additions;
-the number ofadditional portable classrooms needed.
·Seepages 6-3 and pages 4-2 and 4,3.
4.Forecast ofFuture,Site Needs,including:
-the number,size,and general location ofneeded new school sites.
·See pages 6-2 and 6-3
5.FinancingProgram (6-year minimum Planning Horizon)/
estimatedcostofspecific construction and site acquisition and development projects proposed
to address growth-related needs;
*SeeTable 9;see also pages 6-2
projected schedule for completion ofthese projects;and
*See Table 9
-proposeds-ources offunding,including impact fees (ifpfoposed),local bond issues (both approved
and proposed),and state matching funds.
·See Table 9
6.Impact Fee Support Data (where applicable),including:
an explanation ofthe calculation methodology,including description ofkey variables and
their computation;
'Seepages 6-8,6-9,6-10;Table 13;see also appendices A-I through A-3.
definitions and sources ofdata for all inputs into tbe fee calculation,indicating that it:
a)is accurate and reliable and that any sample data is statistically valid;
'SeeAppendices B,Cand D;see also pages 5-1, 5-2,5-3,6-8,6-9 and 6-10.
b)accurately reflects projected costs in the 6-year financing program;
'Seepages 6-2 &6-3.
c)and a proposed ree schedule that refiects expected student generation rates from,at
minimum,the following residentialunit types:single4amily,multi.family/studio or 1-
bedroom,and multi-family/2-bedroom or more.
'See Tables 14 and 15.
Plan Performance Criteria
1.School facility plans must meet the basic requirements setdown in RCW 36.70A (the Growth
Management Act).Djsmcts proposing to use impactfees as a part oftheir financing program must also
meet the requirements ofRCW 82.02.
2.Where proposed,impact fees must utilize acalculation methodology thatmeets the conditions and tests
ofRCW82.02.
3.Enroliment forecasts should utilize established methods and should produce results which are not
inconsistent with the OFM population forecasts used in the county comprehensive plan.Each plan shOUld
also demonstrate that it is consistent with the 20-yearforecast in the land use element oftile countY's
comprehensive plan.
4.The financing plan should separate projects and portions ofprojects which add capacity from those
wbich do not,since the latter are geaerally not appropriate for impact fee funding.The financing plan
and/or the impact fee calculation fOrmula must also difrerentiate between projects or portions ofprojects
which address existing deficiencies (ineligible fur impact fees)and those wbich address future growth-
related needs.
*Table 9 delineates improvements adding student capacity from those that don~t..The inclusjon ofthe
student generation factor within the fonnula addresses specifically that growth which is forthcoming from
any new housing unit.
5.Plans 'should use best~available information from recognized sources,such as the U.S.Census orthe
Puget Sonnd Regional Connell.District-generated data may be used ifit is derived through statistically
reliable methodologies.
6.Dismcts which propose the use ofimpact fees should identifY in future plan updates alternative funding
sources in the event that impact fees are not available due to action by the state,county or the cities ~ithin
their district boundaries.
'See page 6-2 relating to General Obligation Bonds.
7.Repealed effective January 2,2000.
Plan Review Procedures
1.District capital facility plan updates should be submitted to the County Planning and Development
Services Department for review prior to fonnal adoption by the school district.
2.Each school district planning to expand its school capacity must submit to the county an updated capital
facilities plan at least every 2 years.Proposed increases in impact fees must be submitted as part ofan
update to the capital facilities plan,and will be considered no more frequently than once ayear.
3.Each school district will be responsible for conducting any required SEPA reviews on its capital facilities
plan prior to its adoption,in accordance with state statutes and regulations.
4.School district capital facility plans and plan updates must be submitted no late'than 60 calendar days
prior to their desired effective date.(For example,ifa district requires its updated plan to take effect on
January 1,2007 in order to meet the minimum updating requirement ofitem 2.above,it must formally
submit that plan no later than October 30,2006.)
5.District plans and plan updates must include aresolution or motion from the district school board
adopting the plan before it will become effective.
AppendixG
Determination oiNon-Significance and Environmental Checklist
WAC 197-11-970 Determination ofnon-significaDce (DNS)
DETERMlNATION OFNON-8IGNIFlCANCE
Lake Stevens Sehool DistrictNo.4
Capital Facililies Plan
DESCRIPTIONOF PROPOSAL:Theproposed aefton is the adOptiOD oftheLake Stevens
SchoolDistriet No.4 CapitalFaeiIiIieB Plan,2012-2017.This CapitalFacilities Plan has
beendeveloped inaccordance with requiremenu of theState Growth ManagementAct and
isa non-projectproposaL ItdocnmenQ how theLake Stevens School District ndllzes its
existing ednealioual facilities given currentdistrictenrollment oontiguratioDB and
educational program standards,anduses six-yearand 15-year enroDmentprojeelions to
quantify capitalfacility needs for yeaD2012·2027.
PROPONENT:LakeStevens School District No;4
LOCAnON OFPROPOSAL:Lake SteveJis School District No.4
Snohomish County.Washington
LEAD AGENCY:LakeStevens SchoolDistrict No.4
The leadagency for this proposal has determined thatitdoes nothave a probable
.significantadverseimpact on theenvironment.An environmentalimpactstatement (EIS)
is not required under RCW43.21C.030(2)(c).This decision was made after review ofan
environmental checldist and other information on file with the lead agency.This
informationis available to the public on reqnest.
This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340-(2).Thelead agencywill not act on this
proposalfor 15 days from the datebelow.Comments mustbesubmitted to the Responsible
Official,LakeStevens School District,12309-22"St.N.E.,LakeStevens,Washington
98258-9500 byJuly 3,2012.
RESPONSffiLE OFFICIAL:Robb Stanton PHONE:425335-1506
POsmONfflTLE:
ADDRESS:
DATE:.rune19.2012
Direetor ofOperatioDB Services
Lake Stevens SchoolDistrictNo.4
12309.ZZncl S1.N.E.~
LakeStevens,Wffl!95~.~.I,)\.
SIGNATIJRE:__~+..L..l"""'-='-'-~""';''':'-'--_
PUBLISH:TheHerald
LakeStevens Journal
June 19,2012 &.rune 26,2012
Jnne27,2012
There Is no agency appeal.
LAKE STEVENS SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.4
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Adoption
of
Capital Facilities Plan 2012-2017
Prepared by
SHOCKEY PLANNING GROUP,Inc.
for
Lake Stevens School District No.4
Proposal
Adoption ofCapital Facilities Plan 2012-2017
Lake Stevens School District No.4
Proponent
Lake Stevens School District No.4
Robb Stanton
12309 22nd StreetNE
Lake Stevens,Washington 98258
Phone:(425)335-1506
Project Representative
SHOCKEY PLANNING GROUP,INC.
Reid H.Shockey,AICP
2716 Colby Avenue
Everett,Washington 98201
Phone:(425)258-9308
June 2012
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A.BACKGROUND 1
B.ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 3
1.EARTH 3
2.AIR 6
3.WATER 7
4.PLANTS 9
5.ANIMALS 10
6.ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 11
7.ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 11
8.LAND AND SHORELINE USE 13
9.HOUSING 15
10.AESTHETICS 16
11.LIGHT AND GLARE 16
12.RECREATION ,17
13.mSTORlC AND CULTuRAL PRESERVATION 17
14.TRANSPORTATION 18
15.PUBLIC SERVICES 19
16.UTILITIES 19
C.SIGNATURE ,20
Figure 1-Map ofSchool Facilities 5
Appendices
Appendix A -Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions
Appendix B -2012-2017 Capital Facilities Plan
Environmental CT,ecklist-Lake StevensSchool District No.4
Adoption ofCapital Facilities Plan,2012 -2017
Table of Contents
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
A.BACKGROUND
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCYUSE ONLY
1.Name of proposed project,ifapplicable:
2.Name ofapplicant:
Adoption ofCapital Facilities Plan,
2012-2017
Lake Stevens School District No.4
3.Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
Applicant Contact:Lake Stevens School District No.4
Attn.:Robb Stanton
12309 22nd S1.N.E
Lake Stevens,WA 98258
Phone:(425)335-1506
Email:rstanton@lkstevens.wednet.edu
Project Representative:Shockey Planning Group,Inc.
Attn.:Reid H.Shockey,Alep
2716 Colby Avenue
Everett,WA 98201
Phone:(425)258-9308
Email:rshockey@shockeyplanning.com
4.Date checklist prepared:.
5.Agency requesting checklist:Lead agency for environmental review and SEPA
compliance is the Lake Stevens School District No 4.
6.Proposed timing or Schedule (including phasing,ifapplicahle):
The Lake Stevens School District's Capital Facilities Plan,2012-2017,is scheduled
to be adopted by the Lake Stevens School Board August 8,2012.
7.Do you have any plans for future additions,expansion,or further activity
related to or connected with this proposal?Ifyes,explain.
The Capital Facilities Plan identifies school construction projects to accommodate un-
housed students in the Lake Stevens School District through 2017.The Capital
Facilities Plan will be updated at least bi-annually.Changes in actual enrollment and
in enrollment projections will be used to recalculate facility needs.As noted above,
project-specific environmental review will be undertaken at the time ofconstruction
on the identified projects and future projects.
8.List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared,or
will be prepared,directly related to this proposal.
EnvironmentalChecklist -Lake StevensSchool District No.4
Adoption ofCapitaI Facilities Plan,2012 -2017
Page 1
•Snohomish County General Policy Plan
•City ofLake Stevens Comprehensive Plan
9.Do you know whether applicatious are pending for governmental approvals of
other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal?Ifyes,
explaiu.
Following adoption of the Capital Facilities Plan,it is anticipated that it will be
incorporated into the comprehensive plans for Snohomish County and the City of
Lake Stevens.
10.List any government approvals or permits thatwill be needed for your proposal,
ifknown.
Individual proposed projects may require various governmental approvals,and each
project would be reviewed at the project-specific level.The District would obtain
any ofthe required approvals.
11.Give brief,complete description of your proposal,including the proposed uses
and the size of the project and site.There are several questions later iu this
checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects ofyour proposal You do not
need to repeat those answers on this page.
The Washington Growth Management Act (GMA)outlines thirteen broad goals
including adequate provision of necessary public facilities and services.Schools are
among these necessary facilities and services.The public school districts serving
Snohomish County residents have developed capital facilities plans to satisfY the
requirements of RCW 36.70A.070 and to identify additional school facilities
necessary to meet the educational needs of the growing student populations
anticipated in their districts.
This Capital Facilities Plan (CFP)is intended to provide the Lake Stevens School
District (District),Snohomish County,the City of Lake Stevens,the City of
Marysville and other jurisdictions a description offacilities needed to accommodate
projected student enrollment at acceptable levels ofservice over the next fifteen years,
with a more detailed schedule and financing program for capital improvements over
the next six years (2012-2017).
12.Location of the proposal.Give sufficient information for a person to
understand the precise location of your proposed project,including a street
address,ifany,and section,township,and range;ifknown.Ifa proposal would
occur over a range of area,provide the range or boundaries of the site(s).
Provide a legal description,site plan,vicinity map,and topographic map,if
reasonably available.While you should submit any plans required by the
agency,you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with
any permit applications related to this checklist.
The Lake Stevens School District is located six miles east ofdowntown Everett,and
encompasses all of the City of Lake Stevens as well as portions ofunincorporated
Environmental Checklist-LakeStevens SchoolDistrictNo.4
Adoption ofCapitalFacilities Plan,2012-2017
EVALUATIONFOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
Page 2
Snohomish County and a small portion of the City of Marysville.The District is
located south ofthe Marysville School District and north of the Snohomish School
District.
B.ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1.EARTH
a.General description of the site (circle one):Flat,rolling,hilly,steep slopes,
mountainous,other.
The Lake Stevens School District is comprised of a variety oftopographic.features
and landforms.Specific topographic and landform characteristics of the sites of
proposed individual projects included in the CFP have been or would be described
during project-level environmental review.
b.What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)?
Specific slope characteristics at sites ofthe proposed individual projects included in
the CFP have been or would be identified during project-level environmental review.
c.What general lypes of soils are found au the site (for example,clay,sand,
gravel,peat,muck)?If you know the classification of agricultural soils,specify
them and note any prime farmland..
Specific soil types and their characteristics at the sites of the proposed individual
projects included in the CFP have been or would be identified during project-level
environmental review.
d.Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate
vicinily?Ifso,describe.
Specific soil types and properties have been or would be analyzed on the sites ofthe
proposed individual projects included in the CFP,at the time of project-level
environmental review.Any limitations or necessary mitigation would be identified
during project-level environmental review.
e.Describe the purpose,lype,and approximate quantities of any fIlling or grading
proposed.Indicate source offill.
Individual projects included in the CFP have been or would be subject to local
jurisdictional project approval and environmental review,at the time ofapplication.
Proposed grading activities as well as quantity,type,source and purpose of such
activities would be addressed at that time.Adoption of the CFP will not,and it is
not anticipated that any project described in the CFP will,cause any significant
adverse unavoidable impact.
Environmental Checklist'-LakeStevens SchoolDistrictNo.4
Adoption ofCapital Facilities Plan,2012 -2017
EVALUATIONFOR
AGENCYUSE ONLY
Page 3
f.Could erosion occur as a result ofclearing,construction,or use?Ifso,generally
describe.
Erosion could occur during fue construction of projects proposed in fue CFP.
Individual projects would be subject to fue local project review process.Potential
erosion impacts would be addressed on a site-specific basis during project-level
enviromnental review.Adoption of fue CFP wilI not,and it is not anticipated fuat
any project described in the CFP wilI,cause any significant adverse unavoidable
impact.
Environmental Checklist-Lake StevellS School DistrictNo.4
Adoption ofCapital FacOities Plan,2012 -2017
EVALUATIONFOR
AGENCYUSE ONLY
Page 4
Filffire 1 -Man ofSchool Facilities
LAKE STEVENS SCHOOLDISTRICT #4
••~:''i:io:.w••
Environmental Checklist -LakeStevens SchoolDistrictNo.4
Adoption ofCapital Facilities Plan,2012 -2017
EVALUATIONFOR
AGENCYUSE ONLY
PageS
e.Describe the purpose,type,and approximate quantities of any fIlling or grading
proposed.Indicate source offilL
Individual projects included in the CFP have been or would be subject to Lake
Stevens,Marysville or County project approval and environmental review,at the
time ofapplication.
Proposed grading activities as well as quantity,type,source and purpose of such
activities would be addressed at that time.Adoption of the CFPwill not,and it is
not anticipated that any project described in the CFP will,cause any significant
adverse unavoidable impact.
f.Could erosion occur as a result ofclearing,construction,or use?Ifso,generally
describe.
Erosion could occur during the construction of projects proposed in the CFP.
Individual projects would be subject to the local project review process.Potential
erosion impacts would be addressed on a site-specific basis during project-level
environmental review.Adoption ofthe CFP will not,and it is not anticipated that
any project described in the CFP will,cause any significant adverse unavoidable
impact.
g.About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after
project construction (for example,asphalt orbUildings)?
The renovations and new school facilities proposed in the CFP would result in the
increase of impervious surfaces.The amount of impervious surface constructed
would vary by individual project.Impervious surface quantities proposed to be
constructed at each of the individual projects would be subject to project-level
environmental review as well as the local project review process.Adoption ofthe
CFP will not,and it is not anticipated that any project described in the CFP will,
cause any significant adverse unavoidable impact.
h.Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion,or other impacts to the earth,if
any:
Measures to control and reduce erosion impacts would be assessed and implemented
in accordance with individual jurisdictional requirements.Erosion control and
reduction measures have been or would be determined during project-level
environmental review and requirements ofthe permitting jurisdiction would be met.
2.AIR
a.What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e.,dust,
automobile,odors,and industrial wood smoke)during construction and when
the project is completed?If any,generally describe and give approximate
quantities ifknown.
Environmental Checklist-LakeStevens School DistrictNo.4
Adoption ofCapital Facilities Plan,2012 -2017
EVALUATIONFOR
AGENCVUSE ONLY
Page 6
Various air emissions may result from the projects proposed in the CFP.The
majority ofemissions would be construction related and temporary.The air-quality
impacts of specific projects have been or would be evaluated during project-level
environmental review.For greater detail please see Appendix A -Supplemental
Sheetfor Nonproject Actions.
b.Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your
proposal?Ifso,generally describe.
Any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect individual projects included
in the CFP would be addressed during project-level environmental review.Adoption
of the CFP will not,and it is not anticipated that any project described in the CFP
will,cause any significant adverse unavoidable impact.
c.Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air,if
any:
The individual projects in the CFP would be subject to site-specific environmental
review,and also subject to individual jurisdiction local project review processes.
The District would be required to comply with all applicable clean air regulations
and pennit requirements.Proposed air quality measures,specific to individual
projects would be identified during project-level environmental review.Adoption of
the CFP will not,and it is not anticipated that any project described in the CFP will,
cause any significant adverse unavoidable impact.For greater detail please refer to
Appendix A -Supplemental Sheetfor Nonproject Actions.
3.WATER
a.Surface:
1)Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site
(including year-round and seasonal streams,saltwater,lakes,ponds,and
wetlands)?Ifyes,describe type and provide names.If appropriate,state
what stream or riverit flows into.
The Lake Stevens School District is characterized by a variety of surface water
bodies.The individual water bodies that are in close proximity to proposed
projects included in the CFP have been or would be identified during project-level
environmental review.When necessary,detailed studies ofsurface water regimes
and flow patterns would be conducted,and the findings ofsuch studies would be
incorporated into the site designs ofthe individual projects.Adoption ofthe CFP
will not,and it is not anticipated that any project described in the CFP would,
cause any significant adverse unavoidable impact.
2)Will the project require any work over,in,or adjacent to (within 200 feet)
the described waters?Ifyes,please describe and attach available plans.
The proposed projects included in the CFP could require work within 200 feet of
the surface waters located in the LakeStevens School District.All local project
Environmental Checklist -Lake Stevens School DistrictNo.4
Adoption ofCapital Facilities Plan,2012 -2017
EVALUATIONFOR
AGENCYUSE ONLY
Page 7
approval requirements would be satisfied and evaluated at project-specific
environmental review.
3)Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or
removed from surface water orwetlands and indicate the area ofthe site that
would be affected.Indicatethe source offill material.
Specific information in regard to quantities and placement of fill or dredge
material,resulting from the proposed projects contained in the CFP,would be
provided during project-specific environmental review.All applicable local
regulations regarding quantity and placement ofdredge and fill material would be
satisfied for all of the individual projects.All projects would be subject to local
project review processes.Adoption ofthe CFP will not,and it is not anticipated
that any project described in the CFP will,cause any significant adverse
unavoidable impact.
4)Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions?Give
general description,purpose,and approximate quantitiesifknown.
Any surface .water withdrawals or diversions made in connection with the
.proposed projects outlined inthe CFP would be addressed during project-specific
environmental review.
S)Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain?Ifso,note location on the
site plan.
If any ofthe projects proposed in the CFP are located in a floodplain area,then
they would be required to meet all applicable regulations addressing flood hazard
areas through project-specific environmental review.
6)Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface
waters?If so,describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of
discharge.
Waste material disposal methods required for specific projects included in the
CFP would be addressed during project-level environmental review.Adoption of
the CFP will not,and it is not anticipated that any project described in the CFP
will,cause any significant adverse unavoidable impact.For greater detail please
see AppendixA -Supplemental Sheetfor NonprojectActions.
b.Ground:
1)Will ground water be withdrawn,or will water be discharged to ground
water?Give general description,purpose,and approximate quantities if
known.
Individual projects proposed by the CFP may withdraw or discharge to
groundwater resources.Any potential impacts on groundwater resources would
be identified during project-specific environmental review.Each project is
Environmental Checklist -Lake Slevens School DistrictNo.4
Adoption a/Capital Facilities PIIln,2012 -2017
EVALVAT!ON FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
PageS
subject to local jurisdiction regulations regarding groundwater resources and
would be compliant with such regulations.For more detail please see Appendix A
-Supplemental Sheetfor NonprojectActions.
2)Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic
tanks or other sources,if any (for example:Domestic sewage;industrial,
containing the following chemicals••.;agricultural;etc.).Describe the
general size of the system,the number ofsuch systems,the number ofhouses
to be served (if applicable),or the number of animals or humans the
system(s)are expected to serve.
Discharges of waste material associated with proposed individual projects
included in the CFP would be addressed during project-specific environmental
review.
c.Water Runoff(including storm water):
1)Describe the source of runoff (including storm water)and metbod of
collection and disposal,ifany (include quantities,if known).Where will this
water flow?Will this water flow into other waters?Ifso,describe.
Individual projects included in the CFP may have various effects on stormwater
runoff quantities and rates.These effects would be identified during project-
specific environmental review.All proposed projects would be subject to local
stormwater regulations and would be compliant as such.
2)Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters?If so,generally
describe.
The impacts of specific projects included in the CFP on potential ground or
surface water discharges would be addressed during project-specific
environmental review.Each project would be subject to all applicable regulations
regarding discharges to ground or surface water.For greater detail please see
AppendixA -Supplemental Sheetfor NonprojectActions.
d.Proposed measures to reduce or control surface,ground,and runoff water
impacts,ifany:
Proposed measures to reduce or control surface runoff attributable to the individual
projects included in the CFP would be addressed during project-specific
environmental review.All jurisdictional regulation requirements would be satisfied.
4.PLANTS
a.Check or circle IYpes ofvegetation found on the site:
X deciduous tree:alder,maple,aspen,other:_
X evergreen tree:fir,cedar,pine,other:_
X shrubs
EnvironmentalChecklilll-Lake Stevens School DistrictNo.4
Adoption ofCapital Facilities Plan,2012 -2017
EVALUATIONFOR
AG},'NCY USE ONLY
Page 9
x grass
_pasture
_crop or grain
X wet soil plants:cattail,buttercup,bulrush,skunk cabbage,other:_
_water plants:water lily,eelgrass,milfoi!,other:~_
X other types ofvegetation:domestic vegetation
A variety of plant communities exist within the Lake Stevens School District
boundaries.Vegetation types located at specific project sites included in the CFP
would be identified during project-specific environmental review.Any potential wet
soil plants would be identified at the project specific environmental review.
b.What kind and amount ofvegetation will be removed or altered?
Some of the projects proposed in the CFP may require removal or alteration of
vegetation.The specific alterations to vegetation on the sites ofindividual projects
would be identified during project-specific environmental analysis.
c.Listthreatened orendangered species known to be on ornear the site,ifany:
The specific impacts to threatened or endangered species by any of the proposed
projects in the CFP have been or would be identified during project-specific
environmental analysis.The proposed projects would be compliant with all
spplicable regulations regarding threatened and endangered species.
d.Proposed landscaping,use ofnative plants,or other measures to preserve or
enhance vegetation on the site,ifany:
Proposed landscaping and other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the
sites included in the CFP would be identified during project-specific environmental
review.All projects would be subject to local jurisdiction project review,and the
landscaping requirements implied therein.
5.ANIMALS
a.Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on ornear the site or
are known to be on or near the site:
EVALUATIONFOR
AGENCYUSEONLY
birds:
mammals:
fish:
hawk,heron,eagle,songbirds,other:_
deer,bear,elk,beaver,other:,-,-,.."...,_--,---
bass,salmon,trout,herring,shellfish,other:_
A wide variety of wildlife exists in the Lake Stevens School District.Inventories of
existing species observed on the proposed sites included in the CFP would be
conducted during project-level enviromnental review.
b.Listany threatened orendangered species known to be on or near the site.
Environmental Checklist-Lake Stevens Scltool District No.4
Adoption ofCapital Facilities Plan,2012 -2017
Page 10
The specific impacts to threatened or endangered species by any of the proposed
projects in the CFP would be identified during project-level environmental review.
The proposed projects would be compliant with all regulations regarding threatened
and endangered species..
c.Is the site part ofa migration route?Ifso,explain.
hnpacts on migration routes by the proposed projects included in the CFP have been
or would be identified during project-level environmental review.
d.Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife,ifany:
Measures to preserve or enhance wildlife would be identified and determined during
project-level environmental analysis.
6.ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
a.What kinds ofenergy (electric,natural gas,oil,wood stove,solar)will be used to
meet the completed project's energy needs?Describe whether it will.be used for
heating,manufacturing,etc.
The State Board of Education requires a life cycle cost analysis be conducted for all
heating,lighting,and insulation systems,prior to permitting of specific school
projects.The identification ofproject energy needs has been or would be done during
project-specific environmental review.
b.Would your project affect the potential use ofsolarenergy by adjacent
properties?Ifso,generally describe.
The impacts ofproposed projects included in the CFP,on the use of solar energy by
adjacent properties,have been or would be identified during project-specific
environmental review.
c.What kinds ofenergy conservation features are included in the plans ofthis
proposal?List ofother proposed measures to reduce or coutrol energy impacts,
ifany:
Projects included in the CFP have been or would be required to complete a life cycle
cost analysis.Other conservation measures have been or would be identified during
project-specific environmental review.
7.ENVIRONMENTALHEALTH
a.Are there any environmental health hazards,including exposureto toxic
chemicals,riskoffire and explosion,spill,or hazardous waste,that could occnr
as a result ofthis proposal?Ifso describe.
Environmental Checklist-Lake Stevens School District No.4
Adoption ofCapital Facilities Plan,2012 -2017
EVALUATIONFOR
AGENCYUSE ONLY
Page 11
For a detailed discussion,see Appendix A -Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject
Actions.
1)Describe special emergency services that might be required•
.Special emergency services have been or would be identified dUring project-
specific environmental review.For greater detail,see AppendixA -Supplemental
Sheetfor Nonproject Actions.
2)Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards,if
any:
Safety procedures and programs are part ofthe school's emergency programs for
both existing and proposed school facilities.Projects included in the CFP would
comply with all current codes,regulations,and rules.Individual projects have
been or would be subject to environmental review,and the local project approval
process.
b.Noise
1)What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for
example:traffic,equipment,operation,aircraft,other?
Various noise sources exist within the Lake Stevens School District boundaries.
The specific noise sources that may affect individual projects included in the CFP
have been orwould be identified dUring project-specific environmental review.
2)What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the
project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example:traffic,
construction,operation,other)?Indicate what hours noise would come
from the site.
Short-term noise intpacts associated with construction would exist for future
projects included in the CFP.Long-term noise impacts associated with
individual projects included in the CFP have been or would be identified through
project-specific environmental review.Adoption ofthe CFP will not,and it is
not anticipated that any project described in the CFP will,cause any significant
adverse unavoidable intpact See Appendix A -Supplemental Sheet for
NonprojectActions.
3)Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts,ifany:
Mitigation measures to reduce or control project-generated noise impacts have
been or would be analyzed dUring project-specific environmental review.All
projects would be subjectto all applicable regulations regarding noise and would
be compliant as such.
Environmental Checklist -Lake Stevens School DistrictNo.-I
Adoption ofCapital Facilities Plan,2012 -2017
EVALUATIONFOR
AGENCYUSE ONLY
Page 12
8.LAND AND SHORELINE USE
a.What is the current use ofthe site and adjacent properties?
There are various land uses throughout the District's boundaries.Schools are a
commonfeature in local neighborhoods Specific land use designations that apply to
individual sites included in the CFP would be identified during project-specific
environmental review.
b.Has the site been used for agriculture?H so,describe.
Existing school sites have not recently been used for agriculture.A historical review
would be conducted for proposed sites,in conjunction with project-specific
environmental review.
c.Describe any structures on the site.
A brief description of existing school facilities is included in Section 4 ofthe CFP.
Proposed structures,located on the proposed sites,have been or would be described
in detail during the project-specific environmental review.See 2012-2017 Capital
Facilities Plan.
d.Will any structures be demolished?H so,what?
The remodeling and renovation of school structures may involve demolition of
existing structures;any potential demolition would be reviewed for hazardous
material removal.Any demolition of structures has been or would be identified
during project-specific environmental review.
e.What is the current zoning classification ofthe site?
Projects in the Lake Stevens School District are,and would be,located in various
zoning classifications under applicable local zoning codes.Current zoning
classifications,at the time ofproject application,would be identified at the time of
project-specific environmental review.
f.What is the current comprehensive plan designation ofthe site?
Projects included in the CFP are located within various Comprehensive Plan
designations.Comprehensive plan designations would be identified at the time of
project-specific environmental review.
g.If applicable,what is the current shoreline master program designation of the
site?
Shoreline master program designations ofthe proposed project sites included in the
CFP have been or would be identified during project-specific environmental review.
Em'ironmental Cllecklist-Lake Stevens Scllool District No.4
Adoption ofCapitaI Facilities Plan,2012 -2017
EVALUATIONFOR
AGENCYUSE ONLY
Page 13
h.Has any part ofthe site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive"area?
Ifso,specify.
Any environmentally sensitive areas located on District project sites have been or
would be identified duringthe project-specific environmental review.
i.Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed
project?
Current employment in the District as ofJune,2012 is as follows;
•Certificated 418
•Administrators 23
•Non Represented 41
•Classified 377
j.Approximately how many peoplewould the completed project displace?
Any displacement of people caused by the projects proposed in the CFP has been or
would be identified during project-specific environmental review.
k.Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts,ifany:
Projects included in the CFP would be subject to project-specific environmental
review and local approval,when appropriate.Proposed mitigating measures would
be identified at that time.
L Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and
projected land uses and plans,ifany:
The CFP is intended to identify facilities needed to accommodate student population
growth anticipated by the land use elements ofthe County,Everett and Mill Creek's
Comprehensive Plans.Under the GMA,these jurisdictions are required to reassess
the land use element oftheir comprehensive plans,ifprobable funding falls short of
meeting existing needs.Reassessment undertaken is to ensure that the land use
element,capital facilities plan elements and financing plan are coordinated and
consistent
The compatibility ofthe specific projects included in the CFP with existing uses and
plans has been or would be assessed as part ofthe comprehensive planning process,
and during project-specific environmental review,when appropriate.
In accordance with GMA mandates and Chapter 30.66C SCC,this CFP contains the
following elements:
•Future enrollment forecasts for each grade span (elementary,middle and high).
•An inventory ofexisting facilities owned by the District.
• A forecast of thc future facility needs for capital facilities and school sites,
distinguishing between existing and projected deficiencies.
Environmental Checkiist-Lake Stevens Schooi DistrictNo.4
Adoption ofCapital Facilides PlIln,2012 -2017
EVAWATION FOR
AGENCYUSEONLY
Page 14
o The proposed capacities ofexpanded or new capital facilities.
o A financing program (minimum 6-year planning horizon).
o A schedule ofimpact fees (proposed),and support data
In developing this CFP,the plan performance criteria of Appendix F of the
Snohomish County General Policy Plan were used as follows:
o Information was obtained from recognized sources,such as the U.S.Census or
the Puget Sound Regional Council.In addition,District generated data derived
through statistically reliable methodologies was used.The information is
consistent with the State Office of Financial Management (OFM)population
forecasts used in the General Policy Plan.
o The CFP complies with the provisions ofRCW 36.70A (Growth Management
Act)and RCW 82.02.
o The calculation methodology for impact fees meets the conditions and tests of
RCW 82.02.The District proposes the use ofimpact fees for funding its capital
projects and facilities.In future CFP updates,fue District intends to update
alternative funding sources in the event that impact fees are not available due to
action byfue State,County orthe cities within their district boundaries.
o The district has available 1hree major sources ofproject financing:bonds,state
match funds and school impact fees.Bonds are typically used to fund
construction of new schools and require a 60%voter approval.They are fuen
retired through property taxes.State match funds come from the common school
construction fund.Bonds are sold on behalf of fue funds fuen retired from
revenues acquired predominantly from the sale ofrenewable resources from State
school loans set aside by Enabling Act of 1889.To qualifY,schools must meet
state-established criteria ofneed.School impact fees are usually collected by fue
permitting agency at fue time building permits are issued.
Housing projects in the Cities ofMarysville and Lake Stevens and unincorporated
Snohomish County are required to mitigate impacts to the District by voluntary
mitigation agreements based on the anticipated impacts ofeach specific project
9.HOUSING
a.Approximately how many units would be provided,ifany?
No housing units would be provided in connection with the completion of the
projects included in fue CFP.
b.Approximately how many units,if any,would be eliminated?Indicate whether
high,middle,or low-income housing.
The impacts ofthe projects proposed in the CFP on existing housing units have been
orwould be identified at fue time ofproject-specific environmental analysis.
c.Proposed measures to reduce orcontrol housing impacts,ifany:
Environmental Checklist -Lake Stevens School District No.4
Adoption ofCapitaI Facilities Plan,2012 -2017
EVALVAnONFOR
AGENCYUSE ONLY
Page 15
Measures to reduce or control any housing impacts caused by the projects included in
the CFP have been or would be addressed during project-specific environmental
review.
10.AESTHETICS
a.What is the tallest height of any proposed structure{s),not including antennas;
whatis the principal exterior buildingmaterial(s)proposed?
The design elements of the projects included in the CFP have been or would be
addressed during project-specific environmental review.
b.Whatviews in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?
The aesthetic impacts of the projects included in the CFP have been or would be
identified during project-specific environmental review.
c.Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts,ifany:
Appropriate measures to reduce or control the aesthetic impacts of the projects
included in the CFP have been or would be identified on a project-specific basis.
Jurisdictional design requirements would be satisfied during project review.
11.LIGHT AND GLARE
a.What type of light or glare will the proposal produee?What time ofday would
it mainly occur?
The light or glare impacts ofthe projects included in the CFP have been or would be
identified during project-specific environmental review.
b.Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere
with views?
The light or glare impacts ofthe projects included in the CFP have been or would be
identified during project-specific environmental review when appropriate.
c.What existing off-site sonrces oflight or glare may affect your proposal?
Off-site sources (such as land use generators and traffic)of light or glare that may
affect projects included in the CFP have been or would be identified during project-
specific environmental review,when appropriate.
d.Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts,ifany:
Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts have been or would
be identified during project-specific environmental review.
EnvironmentalClIecklist -LakeStevens Scllo01District No.4
Adoption ojCapital FacfJities Plan,2012 -2017
EVALUATIONFOR
AGENCYUSE ONLY
Page 16
12.RECREATION
a.What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate
vicinity?
There are numerous fonnal and infonnal recreational facilities within the Lake
Stevens School District.These include facilities both on and in the vicinity of
District facilities.
b.Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational nses?If so,
describe.
The recreational impacts ofthe projects included in the CFP have been or would be
addressed during project-specific.environmental review.The proposed projects
included in the CFP,once completed,may enhance recreational opportunities and
uses that exist on school sites.
c.Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation,iucluding
opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant,ifany:
Recreational impacts of the projects included in the CFP have been or would be
subject to mitigation during project-specific environmental review.School sites
provide opportunities for public use throughout the District's boundaries.
13.InSTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION
a.Are there any places or objects listed on,or proposed for,national,state,or
local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site?If so,generally
describe.
There are no known places or objects listed on or proposed for such registers on the
sites of the projects included in the CFP.The existence of historic and cultural
resources on or next to the proposed sites included in the CFP has been or would be
identified in more detail during project-specific environmental review.
b.Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic,archaeological,
scientific,or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site?
An inventory ofhistoncal sites at or near the sites ofthe projects included in the CFP
has been or would be developed during project-specific environmental review.
c.Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts,ifany:
If any landmarks or evidence of historic,archaeological,scientific,or cultural
iroportance were to be discovered during project~specific review,the State Historic
Preservation Officer would be contacted.
Environmental Checklist-LakeStevens School District No.4
Adoption ofCapital Facilities Plan,2012 -2017
EVALUATIONFOR
AGENCYUSEONLY
Page 17
14.TRANSPORTATION
a.Identify public streets and highways serving the site,and describe proposed
access to the existing street system.Show on site plans,ifany.
The impact on public streets and highways ofthe individual projects included in the
CFP has been orwould be identified during project-specific environmental review.
b.Is site currently served by public transit?If not,what is the approximate
distance to the nearest transit stop?
The relationship between the specific projects included in the CFP and public transit
has been or would be identified during project-specific environmental review.The
District does provide school bus service to their facilities,and the need for service
bas or would be evaluated during project-specific review.Transit facilities are
located throughout the District's boundaries.
c.How many parking spaces would the completed project have?How many
would the project eliminate?.
An inventory of parking spaces located at the sites ofthe projects included in the
CFP,and the impacts ofspecific projects on parking availability,has been or would
be conducted during project-specific environmental review.
d.Will the proposal require any new roads or streets,or improvements to existing
roads or streets,not including driveways?If so,generally describe (indicate
whether public or private).
The need for new streets or roads,or improvements to existing streets or roads bas
been or would be addressed during project-specific environmental review.
e.Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of)water,rail,or air
transportation?Ifso,generally describe.
Use of water,rail or air transportation has been or would be addressed during
project-specific environmental review,when appropriate.
f.How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed
project?Ifknown,indicate when peak volumes would occur.
The traffic impacts of the projects included in the CFP have been or would be
addressed during project-specific environmental review.
g.Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts,if any:
The mitigation oftraffic impacts associated with the projects included inthe CFP has
been or would be addressed during project-specific environmental review.Identified
mitigation would be consistent with the local permitting jurisdiction requirements for
transportation mitigation and concurrency.
EnvironmentalChecklist -Lake Stevens SchoolDistrict No.4
Adoption o/Capital Facilities Plan,2012 -2017
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCYUSE ONLY
Page 18
15.PUBLIC SERVICES
a.Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example:
fire protection,police protection,health care,schools,other)?H so,generally
describe:
The District does not anticipate that the projects identified in the CFP would
substentially increase the need for public services.Actual needs would be evaluated
at project-specific environmental review.
The CFP is intended to provide the District,Snohomish County,the City ofEverett,
Mill Creek,and other jurisdictions a description offacilities needed to accommodate
projected student enrollment at acceptable levels ofservice throughthe year 2015.It
also provides a more detailed schedule and financing program for capital
improvements over the six-year period 2012-2011.The capital facilities fmancing
plan is outlined in the CFP (page 6-3).Funding sources include General Obligation
Bonds,State Match Funds,and School Impact Fees.See Appendix B -2012-2017
CapitalFacilities Plan.
b.Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services,if
any.
New school facilities would be built with automatic security systems,fire alarms,
smoke alarms,heat sensors,and sprinkler systems.Other measures to reduce or
control impacts to public services would be identified at the project-specific level of
environmental review.
16.UTILITIES
a.Circle utilities currently available at the site:~lectricit)J,ratural gllSl,lWate~,
kefuse service],Jtelephon~,sanitary sewer,septic system,other:
Electricity,natural gas,water,refuse service,and telephone are available at the sites
of the projects proposed in the CFP.Sanitary sewer utilities are either available at
the sites,or the District would apply for approval of alternative sewage disposal
systems/procedures.The types of utilities available at specific project sites have
been or would be addressed in more detail during project-specific environmental
.review.
b.Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project,the utility providing the
service,and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate
vicinity which might be needed.
Utility revisions and construction have been or would be identified during project-
specific environmental review when appropriate.
Environmental Checklist-LakeStevens SchoolDistrictNo.4
Adoption ofCapitai Facilities PUln,2012 -2017
EVALUATIONFOR
AGENCYUSEONLY
Page 19
C.SIGNATURE
The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge.I
understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision.
.Signature~~r<1T__
Date submitted:~W'L =+-
Environmental ClJeckll.t -LakeSteven.School Dbitrict No.4
Adoptwn ofCapital Facilitie.Plan,2012 -2017
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
Page 20
Appendix A
Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions
D.SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FORNON-PROJECT ACTIONS
(Do not use this sheet for project actions)
Because these questions are very general,it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list
ofthe elements ofthe environment.
.When answering tbese questions,be aware ofthe extent the proposal,or the types of activities likely
to result from tbe proposal,would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate tban ifthe
proposal were not implemented.Respond briefly and in general terms.
1.How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water;emissions to
air;production,storage,or release of toxic or hazardous substances;or
production ofnoise?
The Capital Facilities Plan (CFP)identifies school facilities to be constructed,
renovated,and remodeled.There would be some environmental impacts associated
with these activities.Additional impervious surfaces,such as roofs,parking lots,
sidewalks,access roads,and playgrounds could increase stormwater runoff,which
could enter surface or ground waters.Heating systems,emergency generators,and
other school construction equipment could result in air emissions.The projects
included in the CFP most likely would not requlre the production,storage,or release
oftoxic or hazardous substances,with the possible exception ofthe storage of diesel
fuel or gasoline for emergency generation equipment.The District does not anticipate
a significant increase in the production ofnoise from its facilities,with the possible
exception ofnoise production due to short-term construction activities or the presence
ofadditional students on a site.Construction impacts related to noise and air would
be short term and are not anticipated to be significant.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are:
Proposed measures to mitigate any such increases described above have been or
would be addressed during project-specific environmental review.Stormwater
detention and runoff would meet all applicable County,State and/or local
requlrements,and may be subject to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
("NPDES")permitting requirements.Discharges to air would meet applicable air
pollution control requirements.Any fuel storage would be done in accordance with
all applicable regulations.
Environmental Checklist-Lake Stevens School DistrictNo.4
Adoption a/Capital Facilities Plan,2012 -2017
EVALUATIONFOR
AGENCYUSE ONLY
PageZ1
·2.How would the proposal be likely to affect plants,animals,fish,or marine life?
The projects included in the CFP may require clearing plants offofthe building sites
and a loss of animal habitat.Because some sites for the remodeling and renovation
projects included in the CFP are already developed,lost habitat resulting from these
projects should be minimal.These impacts have been or would be addressed in
more detail during project-specific environmental review.This would include
researching the State register for any threatened or endangered species that may exist
on a school site or in the vicinity.
Proposed measnres to protect or conserve plants,animals,fish,or marine life
are:
Specific measures to protect and conserve plants,animals,fish,and birds have been
or would be identified during project-specific environmental review.The District
would work directly with the permitting agency to minimize impacts and potentially
provide mitigation measures for plants and animals.All applicable regulations would
be satisfied.The District has incorporated many ecological programs into their
curriculum.
3.How would the proposal belikely to deplete energy or naturalresonrces?
The construction of the projects included in the CFP would require the consumption
of energy.The consumption would be related to short-term construction impacts as
well as projects at completion.
Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are:
The projects included in the CFP would be constructed in accordance with applicable
energy efficiency standards.This would also include the completion ofthe life-cycle
cost analysis,as required by the State Board ofEducation.
4.How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas
or areas designated (or eligible or nnder study)for governmental protection;
snch as parks,wilderness,wild and scenic rivers,threatened or endangered
specifies habitat,historic or cultural sites,wetlands,floodplains,or prime.
farmlands?
The CFP and proposed individual projects would analyze these potential impacts on a
ptojeet-specific level.
Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are:
Appropriate measures to protect environmentally sensitive areas have been or would
be implemented through the process of project-specific environmental review.
Updates of this CFP would be coordinated with permitting agencies as part of the
GMA process.One of the purposes of the GMA is to protect environmentally
EnvironmentalChecklist-Lake Sttn'ensSchool DistrictNo.4
Adoption ofCapitaI FacUities Plan,2012 -2017
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCYUSE ONLY
Page22
sensitive areas.The District's facilities planning process is part ofthe overall growth
management planning process.Environmentally sensitive resources are more likely
to be protected,with the extent ofthe Districts CFP process.Future projects would
comply with permitting regulations regarding environmentally sensitive areas.
5.How wOJlld the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use,inclJlding
whether it wOJlld allow or encoJirage land or shoreline uses incompatible with
existing plaus?
The CFP would not have any impact on land or shoreline uses that are incompatible
with existing comprehensive plans,land use codes,or shoreline management plans.
The District does not anticipate that the CFP,or the projects contained therein,would
directly affect land and shoreline uses in the area served by the District.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are:
No measures to avoid or reduce land use impacts resulting from the CFP,or the
projects included,are proposed at this time.To the extent the District's facilities
planning process is part ofthe overall growth management planning process,land use
impacts or conflicts should be minimized.
6.How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or
public services and utilities?
The proposal should not create substantial new demands for transportation.The
projects included in the CFP may create an increase in traffic near District facilities.
The construction ofthe facilities included in the CFP may result in minor increases in
the demand for public services and utilities,such as fire and police protection,and
water,sewer and electric utilities.None ofthese impacts is likely to be significant.
The impacts on transportation,public services and utilities ofthe projects included in
the CFP would be addressed during project-level environmental review.
Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s)are:
Any proposed measures to reduce demands on transportation,public services or
utilities have been or would be done at the project-specific level.Requirements ofthe
permitting jurisdiction would be complied with,as well as a review of concurrency
requirements.
7.Identify,if possible,whether the proposal may conflict with local,state,or
federal laws or requirements for the protection ofthe environment.
The CFP would not conflict with any laws or requirements for the protection ofthe
environment.The Washington Growth Management Act (the GMA)outlines 13
broad goals,including adequate provision ofnecessary public facilities and services.
Schools are among these necessary facilities and services.The public school districts
serving Snohomish County residents have developed capital facilities plans to satisfY
Environmental Checklist-Lake StevensSchool District No.4
Adoption ofCapitalFacilities Plan,2012 -2017
EVALUATIONFOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
Page 23
the requirements of RCW 36.70A.070,and to identify additional school facilities
necessary to meet the educational needs of the growing student populations
anticipated in their districts.
EnvironmentalChecklist-Lake Stevens SchoolDistrictNo.4
Adoption ofCapital Facilities Plan,2012 -2017
EVALUATIONFOR
AGENCYUSEONLY
Page 24
AppendixB
2012-2017
Capital Facilities Plan
INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE.
COPIESAVAILABLE FOR REVIEW BY CONTACTING LAKE STEVENS SCHOOL DISTRICT
Environmental Checklist -Lake StevensSchoolDistrictNo.4
Adoption ofCapitalFacilities Plan,2012 -2017
AppendixB
AppendixH
Education Program Standards -Verification
Education Program Standards -Verification
Over the past three school years the state Legislature has reduced funding used to maintain lower
K-4 class sizes.Forthe 2011-2012 school year,this funding was eliminated entirely.As a result,
class sizes in Lake Stevens classrooms have increased to above the minimum level ofservice in
more than 50%of classrooms at the elementary level.lbis in no way reflects on the facilities'
ability to house students,but is instead tied to funding for instructional programs.As level of
service standards are adjusted to address this lack of funding,or as the funding is returned to
previous levels,it is expected that a majority of elementary classrooms will again meet the
minimum level of service.The District continues to meet the minimum level of service in
totality.
#
Classrooms
Exceeding
Grade #Class Size
-Span Classrooms Guidelines
Elementary Level
Glenwood Elementary K-5 27 16
Highland Elementary K-5 25 13
Hillcrest Elementary K-5 23 16
Mt.Pilchuck Elementary K-5 23 13
Skyline Elementary K-5 27 8
Sunnycrest Elementary K-5 30 15
Totals 155 81
Meeting LOS 48%
Middle Level
Lake Stevens Middle 6-7 40 2
North Lake Middle 6-7 47 0
Cavelero Mid-High 8-9 60 1
Totals 147 3
Meeting LOS 98%
Lake Stevens High
School 10-12 69 5
Meeting LOS 93%
District Totals 371 89
Meeting LOS 76%
LAKEWOOD SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.306
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2012-2017
APPROVED:
SEPTEMBER 19,2012
LAKEWOOD SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.306
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2012-2017
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
KELLY ALLEN,PRESIDENT
LARRY BEAN,VICE PRESIDENT
KEN CHRISTIANSEN
OSCAR ESCALANTE
GREGORY JENSEN
SUPERINTENDENT
DR.DENNIS HADDOCK
For information regarding the Lakewood School District Capital Facilities Plan,contact the Office of the Superintendent,
Lakewood School District,P.O.Box 220,North Lakewood,WA 98259-0220.Tel:(360)652-4500 or Fax:(360)652-4502.
Section I.
Section 2.
Section 3.
Section 4.
Section 5.
Section 6.
Section 7.
Appendix A
Appendix B
AppendixC
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction 1
District Educational Program Standards .4
Capital Facilities Inventory 8
Student Enrollment Projections 11
Capital Facilities Needs 13
Capital Facilities Financing Plan 16
School Impact Fees 19
.Population and Enrollment Data
.........................................................Student Generation Factor Review
.............................................................School Impact Fee Calculations
INTRODUCTION
A.Purpose ofthe Capital Facilities Plan
The Washington State Growth Management Act (the "GMA")includes schools in the category
of public facilities and services.School districts have adopted capital facilities plans to satisfY
the requirements of the GMA and to identifY additional school facilities necessary to meet the
educational needs ofthe growing student populations anticipated in their districts.
The Lakewood School District (the "District")has prepared this Capital Facilities Plan (the
"CFP")to provide Snohomish County (the "County")and the cities of Arlington and Marysville
with a description of facilities needed to accommodate projected student enrollment and a
schedule and financing program for capital improvements over the next six years (2012-2017).
In accordance with the Growth Management Act,adopted County Policy,the Snohomish County
Ordinance Nos.97-095 and 99-107,the City of Arlington Ordinance No.1263,and the City of
Marysville Ordinance Nos.2306 and 2213,this CFP contains the following required elements:
•Future enrollment forecasts for each grade span (elementary,middle,and
high school).
•An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by the District,showing
the locations and capacities ofthe facilities.
• A forecast of the future needs for capital facilities and school sites.
•The proposed capacities ofexpanded or new capital facilities.
• A six-year plan for financing capital facilities within projected funding
capacities,which clearly identifies sources of public money for such
purposes.The financing plan separates projects and portions of projects
which add capacity from those which do not,since the latter are generally
not appropriate for impact fee funding.
• A calculation of impact fees to be assessed and supporting data
substantiating said fees.
In developing this CFP,the District followed the following guidelines set forth in the Snohomish
County General Policy Plan:
•Districts should use information from recognized sources,such as the U.S.
Census or the Puget Sound Regional Council.School districts may
generate their own data if it is derived through statistically reliable
methodologies.Information must not be inconsistent with Office of
Financial Management ("OFM")population forecasts.Student generation
rates must be independently calculated by each school district.
•The CFP must comply with the GMA.
•The methodology used to calculate impact fees must comply with the
GMA.The CFP must identifY alternative funding sources in the event that
impact fees are not available due to action by the state,county or cities
within the District.
•The methodology used to calculate impact fees also complies with the
criteria and the formulas established by the County.
B.Overview ofthe LakewoodSchool District
The Lakewood School District is located along Interstate 5,north of Marysville,Washington,
primarily serving unincorporated Snohomish County and a part of the City of Arlington and the
City ofMarysville.The District is bordered on the south by the Marysville School District,on
the west and north by the Stanwood School District,and on the east by the Arlington School
District.
The District serves a student population of 2,288 (October 1,2011 FTE Enrollment) with three
elementary schools,one middle school,and one high school.
-2-
FIGURE 1
MAP OF FACILITIES
Districtg~.v.oo:EdW~
DC~~t.lJrrn;
N
ItI
•;
ewood School
•"_1m
~r<mttCIUtl1!,,~:Iir.o:""'"Of""'ll"'"""'"..,:".,m,j.fim,{,~.clt..n.ltt:~""1...."",;rd=",~~t-...~~"",""'.f
!N'''"''11 ,;!"'"''''iof.;i;."Br'"n;".,,,<tifu'.,.'O'I!lh<!Olii:f~1::<
","'J!"I1l;I";~'-'l1>"iiJl\.l!"'..ffi...."'I'~OI<';lIJ;rlH~"""'0;;::-...--11 :;~~tr,~1~::~,~~"';"~'(~~;tI~1;~~"if,~~
"'..~,...""I."tri"'iS'...IH40t.·{-l1m101lr;;...~I~h"",""'''''~"";!~:'=~","~,I=n",bcit;";<»;Ir=.-J,,".dt"....
i",~.."INIW-,m'~;~oi/t<l.....ii:;;ilhll.;..eutul~~~
_ol"lt'nr~""'/<i·=;:z;:>7""rn.·_l~m1
"~=b:'=="..>IiF'F""'<:!u:;j,,,=c:I<,=m:,~'iai;P"'i£·h.~~!;,t"'w.f""o;,,","~ItIl!U;i'>'!n"l>;>~
~!'",h"'".....~...u••i~rm.,lm;I!1-.ol""",,,,,"'O;/·,,",.''''''''·11-''".!ttl>O:<!l_"."...!llf..!tlOI"""'~~i=/o'.N.I!o':·"';I~_~'!:!'
JIIf';;"':o..oI.,,,,,,1 ..-,..,:0>1..;>:1;.1""fj",b;lEto'''''''ld:ii;>'D""'"i;~;'r:\i:id1oi""':;",ho;""",,,,j;,,t:Fo~,,,,...:IPK;;:iiib>~ma
"FIri':~~,
-~£
~~
1SU~
•~
-3-
~\~~-'~~
"J'
8>1!ilitlll'-------,I~~"~~.r.E'~.m-f
SECTION 2
DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM 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,classroom utilization and scheduling
requirements,and use of relocatable classroom facilities (portables),as well as specific and
unique physical structure needs required to meet the full access needs of students with special
needs.
In addition to factors which affect the amount of space required,government mandates and
community expectations may affect how classroom space is used.Traditional educational
programs offered by school districts are often supplemented by nontraditional,or special
programs such as special education,expanded bilingual education,remediation,migrant
education,alcohol and drug education,AIDS education,preschool and daycare programs,
computer labs,music programs,and others.These special or nontraditional educational
programs can have a significant impact on the available student capacity ofschool facilities,and
upon planning for future needs.
Special programs offered by the District at specific school sites include,but are not limited to:
LakewoodElementary School (Preschool through 5th Grades)
Bilingual Education Program
Title I Remedial Services Program
P -Sth Grade Counseling Services
Speech and Language Disorder Therapy Program
Early Childhood Education and Assistance Program (ECEAP)
Developmentally Delayed Preschool Program -Ages 3 to S
K_S'h Grade Special Education Resource Room Program
•Learning Assistance Program -Remedial Services
Occupational Therapy Program
K_S'h Grade Autism Program
English Crossing Elementary School (Kindergm·ten through 5th Grades)
• K through Sth Grade Special Education Resource Room Program
•Bilingual Education Program
• K -Sth Grade Counseling Services
Speech and Language Disorder Therapy Program
Learning Assistance Program -Tutorial Services
-4-
Occupational Therapy Program
Special Education EBD Program
Cougar Creek Elementary School (Kindergarten through 5th Grades)
Bilingual Education Program
Title I Remedial Services Program
•Speech and Language Disorder Therapy Program
Learning Assistance Program -Remedial Services (Learning Lab)
•Occupational Therapy Program
K -Sth Grade Special Education Resource Room Program
K -Sth Grade Special Education Life Skills Program (serves all K-S schools)
K -Sth Grade Counseling Services
• 3 -Sth Highly CapablelEnrichment Program (serves grades 3-S district-wide)
Lakewood Middle School (6th through 8th Grades)
•Speech and Language Disorder Therapy Program
•6th-8th Grade Special Education Resource and Inclusion Program
Bilingual Education Program
Learning Assistance Program -Tutorial Services
Occupational Therapy Program
• 6
th -8th Grade Counseling Services
Lakewood High School
9th-12th Grade Special Education Resource Room and Transition Program
6th-12th Grade Special Education Life Skills Program
Bilingual Education Program
•Occupational Therapy Program
•Speech and Language Disorder Program
9th -12th Grade Counseling Program
Variations in student capacity between schools may result trom the special or nontraditional
programs offered at specific schools.Some students,for example,leave their regular classroom
for a short period oftime to receive instruction in these special programs.Schools recently added
to the District's inventory have been designed to accommodate many of these programs.
However,existing schools often require space modifications to accommodate special programs,
-S-
and in some circumstances,these modifications may affect the overall classroom capacities of
the buildings.
District educational program standards may change in the future as a result of changes in the
program year,special programs,class sizes,grade span configurations,use of new technology,
and 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 ofthis Capital Facilities Plan.
The District educational program standards which directly affect school capacity are outlined
below for the elementary,middle,and high school grade levels.
Educational Program Standards For Elementary Schools
•Class size for grades K -4th will not exceed 26 students.
Class size for grades 5th -8th will not exceed 28 students.
•All students will be provided library/media services in a school library.
Special Education for students may be provided in self-contained or specialized
classrooms.
•All students will be provided music instruction in a separate classroom.
All students will have scheduled time in a computer lab.Each classroom will have
access to computers and related educational technology.
Optimum design capacity for new elementary schools is 475 students.However,actual
capacity of individual schools may vary depending on the educational programs offered.
AII students wi II be provided physical education instruction in a gym or in a multipurpose
room.
Educational Program Standards For Middle and High Schools
Class size for middle school grades will not exceed 28 students.
Class size for high school grades will not exceed 30 students.
•As a result of scheduling conflicts for student programs,the need for specialized rooms
for certain programs,and the need for teachers to have a work space during planning
periods,it is not possible to achieve 100%utilization of all regular teaching stations
throughout the day.Tn updating this Capital Facility Plan,a building review ofclassroom
use was conducted in order to reflect the actual classroom utilization in the high school
and middle school.Therefore,classroom capacity should be adjusted using a utilization
factor of 86%at the middle school and 83%at the high school to reflect the use of
classrooms for teacher planning.Special Education for students will be provided in self-
contained or specialized classrooms.
All students will have access to computer labs.Each classroom is equipped with access
to computers and related educational-teclmology.
-6-
Identified students will also be provided other nontraditional educational opportunities in
classrooms designated as follows:
Counseling Offices
Resource Rooms (i.e.computer labs,study rooms)
Special Education Classrooms
Program Specific Classrooms (i.e.music,drama,art,physical education,
Industrial Arts and Agricultural Sciences).
Optimum design capacity for new middle schools is 600 students.However,actual
capacity ofindividual schools may vary depending on the educational programs offered.
Optimum design capacity for new high schools is 800 students.However,actual capacity
ofindividual schools may vary depending on the educational programs offered.
Minimum Educational Service Standards
The District will evaluate student housing levels based on the District as a whole system and not
on a school by school or site by site basis.This may result in portable classrooms being used as
interim housing,attendance boundary changes or other program changes to balance student
housing across the system as a whole.A boundary change or a significant programmatic change
would be made by the District's Board of Directors following appropriate public review and
comment.
The District has set minimum educational service standards based on several criteria.Exceeding
these minimum standards will trigger significant changes in program delivery.Minimum
standards have not been met if,on average using current FTE figures:K-4 classrooms have 26
or more students per classroom,5-8 classrooms have 28 or more students per classroom,or 9-]2
classrooms have 30 or more students per classroom.For purposes ofthis determination,the term
"classroom"does not include special education classrooms or special program classrooms (i.e.
computer labs,art rooms,chorus and band rooms,spaces used for physical education and other
special program areas).Furthermore,the term "classroom"does not apply to special programs
or activities that may occur in a regular classroom.The minimum educational service standards
are not District's desired or accepted operating standard.
The District reported the following information to Snohomish County in 2011 to demonstrate
compliance with the minimum educational service standards:
The DIstrictdetermmes the mInImum servIce level by addmg the number ofstudenl'\In regular classrooms
at each grade level and dividing that number by the number ofteaching stations.
LOS Standard MINIMUM CURRENT MINIMUM CURRENT MINIMUM CURRENT
LOS#LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS
Elementary Elementarv Middle Middle High High
Lakewood No.306 26 17 28 24 30 29
..
-7-
SECTION 3
CAPITAL FACILITIES INVENTORY
The facilities inventory serves to establish a baseline for determining the facilities necessary to
accommodate future demand (student enrollment)at acceptable levels of service.This section
provides an inventory ofcapital facilities owned and operated by the District including schools,
relocatable classrooms,undeveloped land,and support facilities.Facility capacity is based on
the space required to accommodate the District's adopted educational program standards.See
Section 2.Attached as Figure I (page 3)is a map showing locations ofDistrict facilities.
A.Schools
The District maintains three elementary schools,one middle school,and one high school.
Lakewood Elementary School accommodates grades K-2,Cougar Creek Elementary School
accommodates grades K-5,and English Crossing Elementary School accommodates grades 3-5.
Lakewood Middle School serves grades 6-8,and Lakewood High School serves grades 9-12.
School capacity was determined based on the number of teaching stations within each building
and the space requirements of the District's adopted educational program.It is this capacity
calculation that is used to establish the District's baseline capacity,and to determine future
capacity needs based on projected student enrollment.The school capacity inventory is
summarized in Table 1.
Relocatable classrooms are not viewed by the District as a solution for housing students on a
permanent basis.Therefore,these facilities were not included in the school capacity calculations
provided in Table I.
Table 1
School Capacity Inventory
Site Size Building Area Teaching Permanent Year Built or
Elementary School (Acres)(Square Fcct)Stations Capacity Remodeled
English Crossing *41,430 18 479 1994
Cougar Creek 10**44,217 19 500 2003
Lakewood *45,400 16 416 1998/1997
TOTAL *13t,047 53 1,395
Site Size Building Area Teaching Permanent Year Built or
Middle School (Acres)(Square Feet)Stations Capacity Remodeled
Lakewood Middle *62,835 25 602 1971,1994,
and 2002
Site Size Building Area Teaching Permanent Year Built or
High School (Acres)(Square Feet)Stations Capacity Remodeled
Lakewood High *79,422 24 598 1982
*Note:All facilities arc located on one 89-acrc campus located at Tax Parcel No.31053000100300.
**The Cougar Creek site is approximately 22 acres located at 162I6 11th Ave NE,Arlington,WA 98223.Note that
the presence ofcritical areas on the site does not allow full utilization at this site.
-8-
B.Relocatable Classrooms
Relocatable classrooms are used on an interim basis to house students until funding can be
secured to construct permanent classrooms.The District currently uses 29 relocatable
classrooms at various school sites throughout the District to provide additional interim capacity.
A typical relocatable classroom can provide capacity for a full-size class of students.Current use
of relocatable classrooms throughout the District is summarized in Table 2.Table 2 includes
only those relocatable classrooms used for regular capacity purposes.
Table 2
Relocatable Classroom (portable)Inventory
Interim
Elementary School Relocatables Capacity
English Crossing 5 135
Cougar Creek 0 0
Lakewood 7 182
SUBTOTAL 12 317
Interim
Middle School Relocatables Capacity
Lakewood Middle 10·241
SUBTOTAL 10 241
Interim
High School Relocatables Capacity
Lakewood High 7 174
SUBTOTAL 7 174
ITOTAL 29 732
*Six of the ten relocatables at the middle school level are unusable due to condition.These rclocatablcs will be
replaced in 2012 and allow a continued total number often reJocatables at the middle school level.
-9-
C.Support Facilities
In addition to schools,the District owns and operates additional facilities which provide
operational support functions to the schools.An inventory of these facilities is provided in
Table 3.
Table 3
Support Facility Iuveutory
Building Area
Facility (Square Feet)
Administration 1,384
Business and Operations 1,152
Storage 2,456
Bus Garage 5,216
Maintenance Shop 4,096
Stadium 14,500
D.Land Inventory
The District does not own any sites which are developed for uses other than schools andlor
which are leased to other parties.
-10-
SECTION 4
STUDENT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS
The District's October I,2011 FTE enrollment was 2,288.Enrollment projections are most
accurate for the initial years of the 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 Snohomish County and population growth for the area are essential
yearly activities in the ongoing management of the capital facilities plan.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
projection.
A.Six Year Enrollment Projections
Two enrollment forecasts were conducted for the District:an estimate by the Office of the
Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI)based upon the cohort survival method;and an
estimate based upon County population as provided by OFM ("ratio method").
Based on the cohort survival methodology,a total of 2,179 FTE students are expected to be
enrolled in the District by 2017,a decrease from the October 2011 enrollment levels.Notably,
the cohort survival method does not anticipate new students from new development patterns.
This is particularly true of new development resulting from annexation and rezoning (both of
which have recently occurred in the City ofMarysville).
OFM population-based enrollment projections were estimated for the District using OFM
population forecasts for the County.The County provided the District with the estimated total
population in the District by year.Between 1990 and 2011,the District's student enrollment
constituted approximately I8.15%ofthe total population in the District.Assuming that between
2012 and 2017,the District's enrollment will continue to constitute 18.15%ofthe District's total
population and using OFM/County data,OFMlCounty methodology projects a total enrollment
of2,743 FTEs in 2017.
Table 4
Projected Student Enrollment
2012-2017
Percent
Oct.Change Change
Projection 2011*2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012-17 2012-17
OFM/County 2,288 2,363 2,438 2,513 2,588 2,663 2,743 455 19.89%
OSPI 2,288 2,405 2,372 2,336 2,329 2,302 2,179 (109)(4.76%)
Cohort**
*Actual FTE,October 20II
"Based upon the cohort survival methodology (using FTE,which for the District is headcount
enrollment with kindergarten at 0.5);complete projections located at Appendix A.
-11-
In addition to the OFM population-based enrollment projections,the District is aware ofpending
development within the District's portion ofthe City ofMarysville.This information is based on
development applications filed with the City and does not consider additional projects that may
be submitted to the City within the six years ofthis plan period.
Given these pending developments and the fact that the OSPI method does not incorporate the
County's planning data,the District has chosen to rely on the OFM population-based enrollment
projections for purposes of planning for the District's needs during the six years of this plan
period.Future updates to the Plan may revisit this issue.
B.2025 Enrollment Projections
Student enrollment projections beyond 2017 are highly speculative.Using OFM/County data as
a base,the District projects a 2025 student FTE population of 3,021.This is based on the
OFM/County data for the years 1990 through 2011 and the District's average fulltime equivalent
enrollment for the .corresponding years (for the years 1990 to 2011,the District's actual
enrollment averaged 18.15%of the OFMlCounty population estimates).The total enrollment
estimate was broken down by grade span to evaluate long-term needs for capital facilities.
Projected enrollment by grade span for the year 2025 is provided in Table 5.Again,these
estimates are highly speculative and are used only for general planning purposes.
Table 5
Projected Stndent Enrollment
2025
Grade Span FTE Enrollment-Projected Enrollment 2025*
October 201 (
Elementary (K-5)959 1,266
Middle School (6-8)598 789
High School (9-12)731 967
TOTAL (K-12)2,288 3,021
*Assumes that percentage per grade span will remain constant through 2025
Note:Snohomish County Planning and Development Service provided the underlying data for the 2025
projections.
-12-
SECTIONS
CAPITAL FACILITIES NEEDS
The projected available student capacity was determined by subtracting projected FTE student
enrollment from permanent school capacity (i.e.excluding portables)for each ofthe six years in
the forecast period (2012-2017).
Capacity needs are expressed in terms of"unhoused students."
Projected future capacity needs are depicted on Table 6-A and are derived by applying the
projected enrollment to the capacity existing in 2012.The method used to define future capacity
needs assumes no new construction.For this reason,planned construction projects are not
included at this point.This factor is added later (see Table 7).
This table shows actual space needs and the portion ofthose needs that are "growth related"for
the years 2012-2017.
Table 6-A*
Additional Capacity Needs
2011-2017
Grade Span 2011**2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 Pet.
Growth
Related
Elementary (K-5)
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Growth Related ---- ----------0%
Middle School (6-8)
Total 0 0 0 I 19 37 56
Grovith Related***--0 0 I 19 37 56 100%
High School
Total 133 168 192 216 241 265 291
Grovvth Related***--35 59 83 108 132 158 54.3%
*Please refer to Table 7 for capacity and projected enrollment infonnation.
**Actual October 2011 FTE Enrollment
***This figure does not include growth-related needs from recent development activity within the District.Therefore,
the District's gmwth-related needs are much higher.
-13-
By the end of the six-year forecast period (2017),additional permanent classroom capacity will
be needed as follows:
Table 6-B
Unhoused Students
Grade Span Unhoused Students
/Growth Related in
Parentheses)
Elementary (K-5)o 1(0)
Middle School (6-8)56/(56)
High School (9-12)291/(158)
TOTAL UNHOUSED
(K-12)347/(214)
It is not the District's policy to include relocatable classrooms when determining future capital
facility needs;therefore interim capacity provided by relocatable classrooms is not included in
Table 6-B.However,Table 6-C incorporates the District's current relocatable capacity (see
Table 2)for purposes ofidentifYing available capacity.
Table 6-C
Unhoused Students -Mitigated with Relocatables
Grade Span 2017 Unhoused Studeuts Relocatable Capacity Unhoused Students*
IGrowtb Related in
(Parentheses)
Elementary (K-5)0/(0)317 -----
Middle School (6-8)56/(56)241 -----
High School (9-12)291/(158)174 -----
'Importantly,Table 6-C does not include relocatable adjustment that may be made to meet
capacity needs.For example,the relocatable classrooms currently designated to serve
elementary school needs could be used to serve high school capacity needs.Therefore,assuming
no permanent capacity improvements are made,Table 6-C indicates that the District will have
adequate interim capacity with the use of relocatable classrooms to house students during this
planning period.
Projected permanent capacity needs are depicted in Table 7.They are derived by applying the
District's projected number ofstudents to the projected capacity.Planned improvements by the
District through 2017 are included in Table 7 and more fully described in Table 8.
-14-
Table 7
Projected Student Capacity
2012-2017
/fi'Elementarv School Surnlus De lClenc~
Oct 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
FTE
Existing Capacity 1,395 1,395 1,395 1,395 1,395 1,395 1,395
Added Permanent
Capacity
Total Capacity 1,395 1,395 1,395 1,395 1,395 1,395 1,395
Enrollment 959 1,030 1,063 1,096 1,128 1,161 1,196
Surplus (Deliciency)
436 365 332 299 267 234 199
Middle School SurnluslDeficiencv
Oct 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
FTE
Existing Capacity 602 602 602 602 602 602 602
Added Permanent
Capacity*
Total Capacity 602 602 602 602 602 602 602
Enrollment 598 567 585 603 621 639 658
Surplus (Deficiency)4 35 17 (I)(19)(37)(56)
*See SectIOn 6 for project mformatlon.
Hil!h School SurnluslDeficiencv
Oct 2011 2012 2011 2012 2013 2014 2017
FTE
Existing Capacity 598 598 598 598 598 598 598
Added Permanent 300
Capacity*
Total Capacity 598 598 598 598 598 598 898
Emollment 731 766 790 814 839 863 889
Surplus (Deficiency)(133)(168)(192)(216)(241)(265)9
*Scc SectIOn 6 for project mformatJOll.
See Appendix A for complete breakdovm ofenrollment projections.
See Table 6-A for a comparison ofadditional capacity needs due to growth versus existing deficiencies.
-15-
•
SECTION 6
CAPITAL FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN
A.Planned Improvements
In March 2000,the voters passed a $14,258,664 bond issue for school construction and site
acquisition.A new elementary school and a middle school addition were funded by that bond
measure.These projects are complete. Based upon current needs,the District anticipates that it
may need to consider the following acquisitions and/or improvements within the six years ofthis
Plan:
Projects Adding Permanent Capacity:
A three hundred (300)student expansion at Lakewood High School;
A potential expansion at Lakewood Middle School,subject to future
planning analysis and funding;and
Acquisition and siting ofportable facilities to accommodate growth needs.
Non-Capacity Adding Projects:
High School modernization and improvements;
Cougar Creek HVAC improvements;
English Crossing roofreplacement;
Replacement of relocatable classrooms;
Bus Garage improvements;
Replace Administration Building;
Replace Business Office Building;and
Land acquisition for future sites.
In the event that planned construction projects do not fully address space needs for student
growth and a reduction in interim student housing,the Board could consider various courses of
action,including,but not limited to:
Alternative scheduling options;
Changes in the instructional model;
Grade configuration changes;
Increased class sizes;or
Modified school calendar.
Funding for planned improvements is typically secured from a number ofsources including voter
approved bonds,State Match funds,and impact fees.The District would need to request voter
authorization of a bond issue within the six years of this Plan to fund the above projects and/or
find other capital funding sources (including the use of school impact fees).The potential
funding sources are discussed below.
-16-
B.Financing for Planned Improve11U!nts
1.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 approve the issuance of bonds.
Bonds are then retired through collection of property taxes.In March 2000,District voters
approved a $14,258,664 bond issue for school construction and site acquisition,which included
funding of the recently completed elementary school.The District is considering a request for
voter authorization of a bond issue within the six-years of this Plan to fund the school
construction projects identified in this plan.Additional details regarding the bond issue will be
included in future updates.
2.State School Construction Assistance
State School Construction Assistance funds come from the Common School Construction
Fund (the "Fund").Bonds are sold on behalf of the Fund,and then retired from revenues
accruing predominantly from the sale oftimher from common school lands.Ifthese sources are
insufficient,the Legislature can appropriate funds or the State Board of Education can change
the standards.School districts may qualify for State School Construction Assistance funds for
specific capital projects based on a prioritization system.The District is eligible for State School
Construction Assistance funds for new schools at the 51.21 %funding percentage level.
3.Impact Fees
Impact fees are a means of supplementing traditional funding sources for construction of
public facilities needed to accommodate new development.School impact fees are generally
collected by the permitting agency at the time plats are approved or building permits are issued.
4.Six Year Financing Plan
The Six-Year Financing Plan shown in Table 8 demonstrates how the District intends to
fund new construction and improvements to school facilities for the years 2012-2017.The
financing components include a bond issue,impact fees,and State Match funds.Projects and
portions of projects which remedy existing deficiencies are not appropriate for impact fee
funding.Thus,impact fees will not be used to finance projects or portions of projects which do
not add capacity or which remedy existing deficiencies.
-17-
Table 8
Capital Facilities Plan
Improvements Addinl!:Permanent Capacity (Costs in Millions
Total Bonds!State Impact
Pmiect 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Cost Levv Match Fees
Elementary School
MiddleSchool
Portables $6.000 X X
Hi2h School
Lakewood High
Addition $4.208 $12.623 $16.832 X X X
Secondary
SiteACduisition $4.500 $4.500 X X
Improvements Not Addinl!:Capacity (Costs in Millions)
Total Bonds!State Impact
Proiect 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Cost Levy Match Fees
Elemenianr
MiddleSchool
Hil!h School
Lakewood High $7436 $22.269 $29.705 X X
Modernization
and Shop/Lab
Replacement
LHS Track $2.340 $2.340 X X
Imnrovements
Total Permanent Improvements (Costs in Millions)
Total Bonds!State Impact
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Cost Levy Match Fees
TOTAL $6.000 $4.500 $11.644 $37.232 $59.377 X X X
-18-
SECTION 7
SCHOOL IMPACT FEES
The GMA authorizes jurisdictions to collect impact fees to supplement funding of
additional public facilities needed to accommodate new development.Impact fees cannot be
used for the operation,maintenance,repair,alteration,or replacement ofexisting capital facilities
used to meet existing service demands.
A.School Impact Fees in Snohomish County
The Snohomish County General Policy Plan ("GPP")which implements the GMA sets
certain conditions for school districts wishing to assess impact fees:
•The District must provide support data including:an explanation of the
calculation methodology,a description of key variables and their
computation,and definitions and sources ofdata for all inputs into the fee
calculation.
•Such data must be accurate,reliable and statistically valid.
•Data must accurately reflect projected costs in the Six-Year Financing
Plan.
•Data in the proposed impact fee schedule must reflect expected student
generation rates from the following residential unit types:single family;
multi-family/studio or I-bedroom;and multi-family/2-bedroom or more.
Snohomish County established a school impact fee program in November 1997,and
amended the program in December 1999.This program requires school districts to prepare and
adopt Capital Facilities Plans meeting the specifications ofthe GMA.Impact fees calculated in
accordance with the formula,which are based on projected school facility costs necessitated by
new growth and are contained in the District's CFP,become effective following County Council
adoption ofthe District's CFP.
B.Methodology and Variables Used to Calculate School Impact Fees
Impact fees have been calculated utilizing the formula in the Snohomish County Impact
Fee Ordinance.The resulting figures are based on the District's cost per dwelling unit to
purchase land for school sites,make site improvements,construct schools,and purchase/install
relocatable facilities that add interim capacity needed to serve new development.As required
under the GMA,credits have also been applied in the formula to account for State Match funds
to be reimbursed to the District and projected future property taxes to be paid by the dwelling
unit.The costs of projects that do not add capacity are not included in the impact fee
calculations.Furthermore,because the impact fee formula calculates a "cost per dwelling unit",
an identical fee is generated regardless ofwhether the total new capacity project costs are used in
-19-
the calculation or whether the District only uses the percentage ofthe total new capacity project
costs allocated to the Districts growth-related needs,as demonstrated in Table 6-A.For purposes
ofthis Plan,the District has chosen to use the full project costs in the fee formula.Furthermore,
impact fees will not be used to address existing deficiencies.See Table 8 for a complete
identification offunding sources.
The following projects are included in the impact fee calculation:
• A capacity addition at Lakewood High School.
Please see Table 8 and page 21 for relevant cost data related to each capacity project.
-20-
FACTORS FOR ESTIMATED IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS
Student Generation Factors -Single Family
Elementary
Middle
Senior
Total
.221
.125
.154
.500
Average Site Cost/Acre
Student Generation Factors -Multi Family (1 Bdrm)
Elementary .000
Middle .000
Senior .000
Total .000
Student Generation Factors -Multi Family (2+Bdrm)
Elementary .122
Middle .069
Senior .061
Total .252
Temporary Facility Capacity
Capacity
Cost
State Match Credit
Current State Match Percentage
Construction CostAllocation
CurreniCCA
District Average Assessed Value
SingleFamily Residence
51.21%
188.55
$295,743
Required Site Acreage per Facility
Projected Student Capacity per Facility
High School (new addition)-300
Facility Construction/Cost Average
High School (Addition)$16,831,500
District Average Assessed Value
Multi Family (1 Bedroom)
Multi Family (2+Bedroom)
SPI Square Footage per Student
Elementary
Middle
High
$76.281
$111,402
90
108
130
District Debt Service Tax Rate for Bonds
Current/$I,OOO $1.82
Permanent Facility Square Footage
Elementary
Middle
Senior
Total 93.56%
Temporary Facility Square Footage
Elementary
Middle
Senior
Total 6.44%
Total Facility Square Footage
Elementary
Middle
Senior
Total 100.00%
131,042
62,835
79,422
273,304
8,960
6,272
3,584
18,816
140,007
69,107
83,006
292,120
-21-
General Obligation Bond Interest Rate
Current Bond Buyer Index
Developer Provided Sites/Facilities
Value
Dwelling Units
4.00%
o
o
C.Proposed Lakewood School District Impact Fee Schedule
Using the variables and formula described in subsection B,impact fees proposed for the
District are summarized in Table 9.See also Appendix C.
Table 9
School Impact Fees
Snohomish County,City ofArlington,City of Marysville
Housing Type Impact Fee Per Dwelling Unit
Single Family $892
Multi-Family (l Bedroom)$0
Multi-Family (2+Bedroom)$396
-22-
APPENDIX A
POPULATION AND ENROLLMENT DATA
Table A-I
mSTORICAL STUDENT ENROLLMENT 2003-2011
ACTUAL ENROLLMENTS ON OCTOBER Ist*
GRADES 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
K 100 102 98 89 95 86 97 82 99
1st Grade 204 193 200 205 186 186 175 181 164
2na Grade 201 189 194 204 189 190 184 158 179
3m Grade 174 197 190 204 199 189 183 181 162
4tn Grade 204 183 202 200 200 209 194 171 175
5'"Grade 214 205 177 200 194 192 210 181 180
61 Grade 242 220 193 184 200 191 212 210 194
in Grade 204 222 222 198 183 189 190 193 200
gIn Grade 189 199 216 215 207 185 197 190 204
9'"Grade 214 187 199 227 221 203 189 185 183
10'"Grade 190 202 158 188 218 212 205 181 187
11'"Grade 178 180 171 157 184 203 196 187 172
12'"Grade 163 172 175 171 161 188 204 180 189
Total
Enrollment 2,477 2,451 2,395 2,442 2,437 2,423 2,436 2,280 2,288
*FTE enrollment.
A-I
Table A-2
PROJECTED STUDENT ENROLLMENT 2012-2017
Based on OSPI Cohort Survival*
(Headcount Enrollment)
:lTA.TI"or l-!A311l:~lai'TON
SUPERIUTENO'EJH OF PUBLIC l.rJ.oHRUI:t .iUN
IJLY~l"lJ\
n ~T ~N M T N A 'T T n N 0 F P R ~~~C TED E ~~C L L HEN T3
ncr-onT 'NO.'134~
HU~l UN ~<:I':''''VI::;l:'0'/'Til
LAlo(lI::~iO()O [)1t:)'l,n!WT NO.0(113 rr::~I(bIiOI'lICH
8Y C<:>HQ;RT ~~'FIIfT.V'A
COlJ'NlTY r-1O'_:311
10:10"::LlI:;I-(l'tAJII "'r1C"Jl!f.:"tH"'~l
,oACTtlAI_E:NilCLLt·[!:}(TS em OCH:H3lCR r':IFi\~T---
2~~6 ~D07 ~C~8 2D~G ~u~o 2~11
....VI!:R.....
~I)I~Vl'\fAL
-- - --- -,--r IfI (}.,J I:C T r;n r;;N no ""t l1 :e.N T ;f);
;,tl1.:.:1 :;:Ul;i "'U~·,!:.I'QTIb :.o:\)H:.:;tu"..
J<:r l'IDEF<GtI.fl:TEN
'Qf1p-.f.ll:
WH~t::lOI
8Rfoll]r::J:
ldHi\Uh '1
OAAnF "
O:fl!\tlE ""
!{-G lilCADCOUNl
K_i::j ~Jf!<.:"-,,,1~:.!.
onr\tm .,
nlRflnF 1'1
";-E!,HENX:OUI'lT
!1if'l,,,,nr "l
~R""Uto -:lU
OIflAOIl':~1
1.'I.f,""L:l1E ~:.f
f-lo·1·;:!HFAr:lCCUNT
....-~I',;><H'I"'A,n....01JNT
1'7<l'O
!:lOS
:;<U4
.04
:.IUU
2lHl
,.,
1 .;J:;'!;
1 .:.a~1it
H,fl,l
;>1~
<1.
~'!'"'":"
1 'S'tI
1~'7
,"
74:8
:>.)....;";;
'R"
11}~
la<;o
HIS
:.!Q"-l
194
•••
,,:tJ$7
11 .2.6'3
ll,l::~
?,tn'
300
~~"
~j,8
HJ-<l,.,
7.s~
;>',,,-,Iii
."
HIS
~<;jO
~(JB'
:./U\Io
192:
l~·1
1,:;l2Qo
I ,:2~;""
~Yl:l'
~'A-!""
'37'1
Q{ltll
21«:
.,0
,."
8:.'ll-0'
.:I!",.>iH(;
;1 "1<1
1715
1>:\4
100
1 ....4
2:'f'O
:Io~~
~.:.1'5::;!
1.;<:(';"r.
,r.l'1)
,9F
::t'li:l';r
l,n'!)
2:0!.'<
1~:Hj
:';"'U';
794
i'!',fi:'t,:1l
~of"I~,
1..1
~"I.'"
1<0,1
11"1
1,1.11,,,
1 ..:::l4S-
~,.1~4
1'~:';:
19(1,
:~Ii!'~-ll
105
'B-j
H)?
1-.30
70'"
:<!.3Q1
1 i'r"i'
is.
17SO
i l;;':l:!
175
W"
1<;:0-'
1.~51
1.(~;."I
~uu
::'::f,4,
'liH
18a
IJ;il7"
Ht
j tH;.i
70;'1
:..:])1';
'!l'O .71
q!l"\,<lCil
D.o.DS
9'9.II(i
SU."H,),
H:;I";l-....'
1.Jlb.~<l1
1(18.11
DB_8-4
"''7....''';
:)().9,:)
~1)_6~
100
ItH;
1~1'l
1n..,
11';'"
~$>::I
1.~::'lfj.
I .•1oJ'
'.1:10.>
2(lQ
::J":~
.::!ol'l
OTO
176
17'.
"~'l'
:<.m:;::i
1R'7
'l"li;
II'I~
150S
',1'''
I~U
1 :1'8
,,~::!IJ
1,1:'11'1
118
'9'
~,/u
:::l03
lC,7
16;8
jT~
?4l:)
:::,o::l4-l1::
1,lJB
'.IlII;:
"'"
187
l!"!<"\
1"~
1""~
~,::1::i.u
1,1;1,7
l;r\
10·$
~""",
1.0
'""
1S.s
1~7
740
E-.,::.'I:2'U
1 IS:>!
'1;"'''
11"1":1:1,
'77
!A!"IO
~,~,;.If
":17'1'
1 ,.:!o\1'l+
1,1i;l'l."I.
~,~rJ,
~t(j;
':;j'C!-:.I'
1,B'1
ll'\~
167
Il;loL
1'07
:2 ,011:1
1St1
lJ;[l'l
11'l;1l
177
17"1'!'i
1 ~;,!
i """"
1 .'f.~:l:
1 "1"'1~
,n
1(;'1
'.J;3~
'74
.~
1N
lA.fi
711
2.Z'iH'
'I$Z
UJI;J
1Al
179
I'TI'!
1 f'l:l
i J:I.l'l
1 ,;::'1 (.If
1 ,l,A,>!
I ~;>:
i'l'?'
:l:.i!Q
1 Gtl
OYO
i.e
17."1
.6a
~;~1':::J
*The cohort survival method ofpredicting future enrollment does not consider enrollment attributable to new development in the District.Enrollment
projections are most accurate for the initial years ofthe forecast period.
A-2
TableA-3
AVERAGE PERCENTAGE ENROLLMENT BY GRADE SPAN
(OSP!EnrollmentProjections -Using FTE Enrollment)
Enrollment by Oct.
Grade Snan 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Elementary (K-5)959 957 958 974 976 999 994
Middle School (6-8)598 578 548 518 511 491 517
High School (9-12)731 727 743 740 737 711 668
TOTAL 2,288 2,262 2,249 2,232 2,224 2,201 2,179
Percentage by Oct.
Grade Soan 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Elementary (K-5)42% 42% 43%44%44%45% 45%
Middle School (6-8)26% 26%24%23% 23% 22% 24%
High School (9-12)32%32%33% 33%33% 33% 31%
TOTAL**100%100%100% 100% 100%100%100%
Average Percentage
bv Grade Snan
Elementary (K-5)43.6%
Middle School (6-8)24.0%
High School (9-12)32.4%
TOTAL 100%
A-3
TableA-4
AVERAGE PERCENTAGE ENROLLMENT BY GRADE SPAN
(COUNTY/OFM Enrollment Projections)···
Enrollment by Oct.Avg.
Grade Span 2011·%3l!e 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Elementary (K-5)959 43.6%1,030 1.063 1,096 1,128 1,161 1,196
Middle School (6-8)598 24.0%567 585 603 621 639 658
High School (9-12)731 32.4%766 790 814 839 863 889
TOTAL··2,288 100%2,363 2,438 2,513 2,588 2,663 2,743
"'Actual October 2011 Enrollment.**Totals mayvary due to rounding.
*'"*Using average percentage by grade span.
A-4
APPENDlXB
STUDENT GENERATION FACTOR REVIEW
DOYLE
CONSULTING~m~~~_~~~-;;=="""...C>'='=:.-.-._l!!5!E!=~.j -.'0."}-ENABLING SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO MANAGE AND USE STUDENTASSESSMENTDATA
Student Generation Rate Study
for the
Lakewood School District
3/30/2012
This document describes the methodology used to calculate student generation rates
(SGRs)for the Lakewood School District,and provides results of the calculations.
SGRs were calculated for two types of residential construction:Single family detached,
and mUlti-family with 2 or more bedrooms.Attached condominiums,townhouses and
duplexes are included in the multi-family classification since they are not considered
"detached".Manufactured homes on owned land are included in the single family
classification.
1.Electronic records were obtained from the Snohomish County Assessor's Office
containing data on all new construction within the Lakewood School District from
January 2004 through December 2010.As compiled by the County Assessor's
Office,this data inclUded the address,building size,assessed value,and year built
for new single and multi-family construction.The data was "cleaned up"by
eliminating reccrds which did not contain sufficient infonmation to generate a match
with the District's student record data (i.e.incomplete addresses).
2.The District downloaded stUdent reccrds data Into Microsoft Excel fonmal.This data
induded the addresses and grade levels of all K-12 students attending the
Lakewood School District as of March 2012.Before proceeding,this data was
reformatted and abbreviations were modified as required to provide consistency with
the County Assessor's data.
210 Polk Street,Sul1:e 6A •Port Townsend,WA 98368 •(360)680-9014
B-1
~i.Single Family Rates:The data on all new single family detached residential units in
County Assessor's data were compared with the District's student record data,and
the number of students at each grade level living in those units was determined.
The records of 272 single family detached units were compared with data on 2,378
students registered in the District,and the foiiowing matches were found by grade
level(.)':
K 13 0.048
1 9 0.033
2 12 0.044
3 10 0.037
4 9 0_033
5 7 0.026
6 12 0.044
7 9 0.033
S 13 0048
9 7 0.026
10 9 0.033
11 10 0.037
12 16 0_059
K·5 60 0221
6-8 34 0.125
9·12 42 0,154
K-12 136 0.500
4.Large Multi-Family Developments:Snohomish County Assessor's data does not
specifically indicate the number of units or bedrooms contained In large mUlti-family
developments.Additional research was performed to obtain this information from
specific parcel 10 searches,and information provided by building management,
when available.Information obtained included the number of 0-1 bedroom units,the
number of 2+bedroom units,and specific addresses of 0-1 bedroom units.
Small Multi-Family Developments:This method included all developments in the
County Assessor's data containing four-plexes,trl-plexes,duplexes,condominiums
and townhouses.This data contained information on the number of bedrooms for all
townhouses and condominiums.Specific parcel ID searches were performed for
duplex and larger units in cases where number of bedroom data was missing.
B-2
5.Multi-Family 2+BR Rates:The multi-family 2+BR SGR's were calculated by
comparing data on 2+·BR multi-family units with the District's student record data,
and the number of students at each grade level living in 1hose units was determined.
The records of 131 mUlti-family 2+BR units were compared with data on 2,378
students registered in the District,and the following matches were found by grade
level(s)·:
K 23
1 27
2 25
3 24
4 18
5 24
6 17
7 14
8 16
9 12
10 11
11 6
12 5
K-5 16
6-8 9
9-12 8
K·12 33
~.~~f.
0_015
0.053
0.023
0.023
0023
0.031
0015
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.122
0.069
0.061
0.252
6.Mum.Family 0·1 BR Rates:Research indicated that no (0)multi-family 0·1 BR units
were constructed within District boundaries during the time period covered by this
study.
7.Summar,r ufStudent Generation Rates'*;
Singh.-Fnmily
Mul1i-Farnily 2+DR
K-5 6-8 9-12
.221 .125 .154
,122 ,069 ,061
K-12
.soo,.,....:'1-
"Calculiltcd ratt's COl'grade level gl'OUP~nm~'not equal tlie sum of ludhic1ual gt'nde rates due to rounding.
B-3
APPENDIXC
SCHOOL IMPACT FEE CALCULAnONS
SCHOOL IMPACTFEE CALCULATIONS _l
Snohomish CountviCitiesof Arrington ~md Marysville
DI~TR:ICr lakewoodS.choolOistrict
YEAR 2D12
SchoolSite AcqUisition C01;t:
f(ACr~sxCosttl!>r ACle}!focllltl'CapacJIy}X!iIUdl!>lll GaMrotlon Feetor
I I"",,..Student ~Ivdent
Facility C05t!facililv Jfactor F<Jclor factor Cost!Cosl!Coslf
.IA~r:Q~e.••AC.re.••.•I~~p~c~ty..I~F~••••~F~(;)•••~fR.(~"')•.,SfR Mfftfll Mfll(2t-1
Elementory .•>.0..P-,?Q.S.·.0•...;.......•...?~'...'...()..?!..0...'~~.'.'.'.-<!.1~2 SO SO SO
Middle '.'0·.".as".·.·o'£'-125·.·.·.·a.D£){).·.·.·0'0-0..9 SO SO SO
High ................,'.',·······16.5·······.0.154·······fL.oo9-·•.:0·961'so so S.
Schoolcons;r:te~lo-n~o~t:•••.•.'1'....I ....-r...so SO SO
facility Co~t!FadlilyCapacity)xStudentGenNllliol'l Factor)X(permanen1iTotal Sa FI)
I I Stud(>nt Student StudeIII
lioPerm/FacfUly IfacUlly lfoctor Foclor Faclor Cost,'CasU Co~J
IrotalSq,ft.Cost ,1:apacl",!SFR MFRP)MfR(2...)SF.MFR (1)MFR {2t-j
Elementary .:.:.~;;.~?i:(':':':,,':':':':':'!O!>'0.2:2:1 MOO 0.122 SO S.SO
Middle '.-93.5Q%.$,·,115'0_125 0000 0.069 SO SO S.
Hlgh ;:':':9~_5~~'$':i~;~(.5QG :1':1190 0_154 0000 O.O{'l $.6,084 SO $3.202
I TOTAL SS,OIl'l SO $3.202
Temporary FacllilyCost:I I
(facility Cosl/fQcllity CapacilyjxSlvdenlG-enerollon Foctor)x{lempOfary/ToIQI Square Feel)
I ISludent Sludent Siudelli C05f/Cosll CO-ilf
~alemp/Facility .1?ClIlly Factor Foctor Factor SFR MFR[l}MFR (2+1
Total ~q.Ft Cost '0"'fR MFR (1)MFR(2+)
Eleme-l'Itory 644%'$''"2~.0.221 0000 0,122 $0 SO 'aMiddle6,44%.$..·.·0·.21'0.125 0000 0.069 SO SO SO
Higll
I 6.44%·~·:·:·:·:':,30 0.1-54 0000 0.061 $0 SO So{,'I TOTAL SO SO SO
Slate MlItr;hing t:rl!!dlt:
flo,"ckh IndQ,x X sri Square footage XDI~trlcl Match %X Studel'lt Factor
Stud~l1t StUdent StUdent
lIoeckh '"District Factor Foctor Factor Cost,'Cos1!CostI
Ilrld<:ox Foola9E'•._I~~t(:.h~••SfR MFR(l)MFR(2-t-)SfR MFR(1)MFR (21")
ElemenlQry ··~·:·1B~.5~·.•'':1.0 •.•.••?:qo~·0.221 0,000 0.122 SO SO $0
Middle ..s...-lB8.55·.TOB,._·O:OO~·0.125 0.000 0,069 SO SO SO
Sr.High 5 1Ba-.55 '13Q': •:.j>·1;21:,..0.154 0,000 0.061 $1)133 SO $766
I TOTAL $1.'?3J SO $766
Tax Paymentlcredit:SFR MFR(l)MFR (2+)
Average A$5essed Value ':'~2~5,?4~':':'}1~~(':')11-1:402
CapitalBond Inle-restROle .'••••""'.00%·4_00%4_00%
NetPresent Valve01 Average Dwelling I.$i396,74I -I S6111.7071 S903.570
'-eaR Amorllz@d .•••',1:0...'10·lq
Ptop&rly Tax le-vy Rale-(Bonds)','.'$1.82·Sl.82 51,82
rre5enl ValuE'of Revenue5IJeam &4.366 ~1.12b 51.644
F&&Summilry:Slngll!>Mull]-MUlti•.
FClmily Family{l)Family (2...)
51\,::,ACqUfStiOIl Costs SO SO ,0
roe-nnaflent Facilify Cost $B,084 SO $3.202
TempororyFacility Cosl SO SO SO
Stah~Motl::h Credit (Sl,9:tl)SO [S766)
Tax Payment Credit (S4,36l»(SI,126)(:)1.644)
FEE (AS CAlCULATED)51,735 SO ~792
FEE AS DISCOuNTED 50".1 5892 "S396
LAKEWOOD SCHOOL DISTRICT
REGULAR BOARD MEETING
September 19,2012
OFFICIAL
BOARD MINUTES
1.CALL TO ORDER
At 6:00 p.m.President Kelly Allen called to order the September 19,2012 Board
Meeting held in the Board Room at English Crossing Elementary School (Room 209).
The meeting opened with the flag salute led by President Allen.
Zaya Tsengelmaa
Larry Bean
Greg Jensen
Kelly Allen
Ken Christiansen
Oscar Escalante
Taylor Studzinski
Board Members Present:
Board Member Excused:
Student Representatives Present:
District Administration Present:
Dennis Haddock,Ed.D.,Superintendent
Tita Mallory,Director of Instructional Programs,Assessment &Technology
Joyce Scott,Director of HR &Learning Support Services
Crystal Knight,LMS Principal
Dale Leach,LHS Principal
Consultant:Fred Owyen
2.RECOGNITION OF GUESTS/CHANGES TO AGENDA
a)Recognition of Guests and Request to be Heard
None
b)Board Additions,Deletions,and/or Changes
None
3.MINUTES
a-b)Approval of Special Board Meeting Minutes -9/5/2012
Approval of Regular Board Meeting Minutes -9/5/2012
Director Christiansen moved for approval of both the Special Board Meeting
and the Regular Board Meeting minutes from September 5,2012.Director
Bean Christiansen seconded the motion,which passed with a 4-0 vote.
4.CONSENT AGENDA
Director Bean pointed out that within the Consent Agenda,policy #4210 contained a
typographical error.Director Christiansen moved for approval of the Consent
Agenda,following the correction of the error noted above,which consisted of:
•Staff Status;
Checks audited and certified by the auditing office reqUired by RCW 42.23.080,
and those expense reimbursement claims certified by RCW42.24.080,have been
recorded and the listing made available to the Board.Those checks for approval
Board Minutes
9-19-12
Page Two
included numbers 80071-80178 totaling $119,473.84 in the following amounts:
•General Fund $87,330.38
•ASB Fund $28,092.16
•Capital Fund $4,051.30
Payroll for the month of August 2012 including warrant numbers #79929-79995
totaling $1,210,010.86.
•Policy #4210 -Regulations of Dangerous Weapons on School Premises -Second
Reading
•Policy #4260-Use of School Facilities -Second Reading
The motion was seconded by Director Bean and passed with a 4-0 vote.
5.COMMUNICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
a)Dr.Haddock shared a letter received from Canfield commending the district,
under the leadership of Joyce Scott,for taking a pro-active approach to risk
management by scheduling the Right Response Advanced Recertification
training for staff which was held on August 24,2012.
b)Dr.Haddock also shared a letter from Korea University regarding the
possibility of establishing a student teaching program with the Lakewood
School District.
A discussion took place.
6.ADMINISTRATION REPORTS
a)School Reports eLMS &LHS)
Lakewood Middle School:Mrs.Knight shared with the Board changes that are
taking place at Lakewood Middle School for the 2012-13 school year.Some of
those changes include:seven period day;Literacy Blocks at all grade levels;
Math 1 changed to Stem Math 1;Competitive Edge Class at all three grade
levels;planners provided to each student;grade level lunches;and ~What's
Brewing"program being implemented.Mrs.Knight also informed the Board
that the LMS Open House held September 18th took on a new format this year
in which informational parent meetings were held at three different times
rather than parents having to follow the student's bell schedule.She shared
that based on feedback received parents seemed to like the new format.
Lakewood High School:Mr.Leach shared some important dates and activities
taking place at LHS,including:Open House held September 17th;upcoming
football game vs.Archbishop Murphy;October 1st_5th Homecoming week;Hole
in the Wall Cross Country meet scheduled for October 6th;and LHS hosting
PSAT testing on October 20th •Mr.Leach also shared the LHS Science End of
Course Exam (EOC)results.He informed the Board that LHS students scored
67%proficient,higher than the previous years.He further shared that
science teachers Mike Fellows and Jere Gale promised to shave their beards if
the students scored 60%or higher.As a result at the LHS opening assembly
on September 7th the beards were shaved in front of the student body.
A discussion took place regarding new courses being offered this year at LHS.
Board Minutes
9-19-12
Page Three
b)Student RePQrts
Taylor and Zaya shared that they have met and been in contact with all the
elementary schools and are in the process of setting up times to visit with
them.They also shared that they plan on meeting with the middle school
student representatives next week and will report back to the Board.
A discussion took place regarding the Student Representatives attending the
WSSDA Conference in November and that Taylor will be participating in the
Student Representative Forum scheduled as part of the conference.President
Allen has also agreed to serve as one of five Board members sitting on a panel
for this workshop.
c)Director of HR &Learning Support Services
Mrs.Scott shared with the Board information regarding the district's
categorical program enrollment.
A discussion followed.
d)Financial Report
Dr.Haddock stated that Mrs.Dowd was excused from the meeting and he
reported on the August financials and September enrollment.
A discussion took place.
e)Superintendent Report
Dr.Haddock informed the Board that Mrs.Mallory would be reporting,in his
place,on the recent change by the state from Annual Yearly Progress (AYP)to
Annual Measureable Objectives (AMO)
Mrs.Mallory shared a PowerPoint presentation explaining the similarities and
differences between AYP and AMO reporting and why the change is occurring.
She also shared the timeline for the state AMO release and the appeal that the
district filed with the state due to last year's elementary reconfiguration.
A discussion took place.
70 BOARD REPORTS/AGENDA REOUESTS
a)Board Event Calendar 2012-13
The Board Event Calendar was reviewed and Dr.Haddock informed the Board
that the Fall WSSDA Regional Meeting was going to be held at Stanwood
School District on October 8th and asked if anyone was interested in attending.
A discussion took place.
8.UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a)Energy Savings Performance Contracting Program
Fred Owyen,District Consultant,shared a few slides from a Perkins Coie
presentation he had attended explaining the basic process of the Energy
Savings Performance Contracting Program.
A lengthy discussion took place.
Board Minutes
9-19-12
Page Four
9.NEW BUSINESS
a)Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)Between LWSD and LEA -Flexibility in
Kindergarten Planning Time
Mrs.Scott shared wit~the Board a recent MOU requiring an adjustment in
how planning time is schedule for AlB Kindergarten sections.She further
shared that the MOU between the district and LEA allows flexibility In the
kindergarten planning time for the 2012-13 school year given the additional
kindergarten staffing hired recently and need to meet total allocation of
planning time in accordance with the CBA.
b)2012-15 Collective Bargaining Agreement with PSE and 2012-13 Salary
Schedule A
Mrs.Scott explained that the district entered into collective bargaining with
PSE in the spring of 2012.The terms of the agreement and salary schedule
were ratified by PSE on August 30,2012.She shared a summary of the terms
of the three year agreement (2012-2015)and the salary schedule for the
2012-13 school year.
Director Christiansen made a motion to approve the 2012-15 Collective
Bargaining Agreement with PSE and 2012-13 Salary Schedule A.Director
Bean seconded the motion that passed with a 4-0 vote.
c)2012-2017 Capital Facilities Plan (Final)
Consultant,Fred Owyen,explained that there have been no changes made to
the proposed 2012-2017 Capital Facilities Plan since it was last presented and
briefly explained the necessity of the plan.
Director Christiansen moved for approval of the 2012-2017 Capital Facilities
Plan and Director Jensen seconded the motion that passed with a 4-0 vote.
10.POLICY REVIEW
None
11.PUBLIC DISCUSSION
None
12.EXECUTIVE SESSION
None
13.ADJOURNMENT
a)President Allen thanked everyone for coming to the meeting.She announced
that the next regular Board meeting is scheduled for October 3,2012 at 6:00
p.m.in the Board Room at ECE (Room #209).
b)She also announced that a Board Study Session would be held on September
26,2012 at Rhodes River Ranch,Oso,Washington at 5:30 p.m.
c)President Allen adjourned the regular meeting at 8:00 p.m.
President of the Board
63 01:1:/2
Date _...."-'re~ary of the Board Date