The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12-07-20 Council Meeting SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS: The City of Arlington strives to provide accessible meetings for people with disabilities. Please contact the ADA coordinator at (360) 403-3441 or 711 (TDD only) prior to the meeting date if special accommodations are required. To join Zoom meeting, click here. Meeting ID: 845 9544 7443 Passcode: 597561 To join by mobile: 1-253-215-8782 CALL TO ORDER Mayor Barb Tolbert PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Mayor Barb Tolbert – Ashleigh APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Mayor Pro Tem Jesica Stickles INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS Commercial Aviation Coordinating Commission (CACC) Informational Briefing by David Fleckenstein, WSDOT Aviation Division Director and CACC Chair Mayor Barb Tolbert PROCLAMATIONS PUBLIC COMMENT For members of the public who wish to speak to the Council about any matter not on the Public Hearing portion of the meeting. Please limit remarks to three minutes. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Pro Tem Jesica Stickles 1. Minutes of the November 16 and November 23, 2020 Council meetings, ATTACHMENT A and November 23, 2020 Joint meeting 2. Accounts Payable: Approval of EFT Payments and Claims Checks #101430 through #101628 dated November 17, 2020 through December 7, 2020 for $4,873,579.11 3. Resolution Vacating a Portion of Public Right of Way ATTACHMENT B Arlington City Council Meeting Monday, December 7, 2020 at 7:00 pm City Council Chambers – 110 E Third Street SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS: The City of Arlington strives to provide accessible meetings for people with disabilities. Please contact the ADA coordinator at (360) 403-3441 or 711 (TDD only) prior to the meeting date if special accommodations are required. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Ordinance Approving 2020 Budget Amendments ATTACHMENT C Staff Presentation: Kristin Garcia Council Liaison: Mayor Pro Tem Jesica Stickles 2. Resolution Approving the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Plan ATTACHMENT D Staff Presentation: Jim Kelly / Marc Hayes Council Liaison: Jan Schuette 3. Development Agreement with NorthPoint Development, LLC ATTACHMENT E Staff Presentation: Marc Hayes Council Liaison: Mayor Pro Tem Jesica Stickles 4. Ordinance Adopting Capital Facilities Plan for Arlington School District ATTACHMENT F Staff Presentation: Marc Hayes Council Liaison: Mayor Pro Tem Jesica Stickles 5. Ordinance Adopting Capital Facilities Plan for Lakewood School District ATTACHMENT G Staff Presentation: Marc Hayes Council Liaison: Mayor Pro Tem Jesica Stickles NEW BUSINESS 1. Resolution to Add Annexation into North County Regional Fire Authority ATTACHMENT H to the February 9, 2021 Ballot Staff Presentation: Paul Ellis Council Liaison: Mayor Pro Tem Jesica Stickles 2. Resolution to Reduce a Portion of the General Levy Rate ATTACHMENT I Staff Presentation: Paul Ellis Council Liaison: Marilyn Oertle 3. Professional Services Agreement with Southam Creative, LLC for ATTACHMENT J SnoCowork.com Project Staff Presentation: Paul Ellis Council Liaison: Mayor Pro Tem Jesica Stickles COMMENTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS INFORMATION/ADMINISTRATOR & STAFF REPORTS MAYOR’S REPORT EXECUTIVE SESSION RECONVENE ADJOURNMENT Mayor Pro Tem Jesica Stickles / Mayor Barb Tolbert DRAFT Page 1 of 3 November 16, 2020 Councilmembers Present: Mike Hopson, Michele Blythe, Jan Schuette, Marilyn Oertle, Jesica Stickles, Debora Nelson, and Don Vanney. Council Members Absent: None. Staff Present: Mayor Barb Tolbert, Paul Ellis, Sarah Lopez, Bryan Terry, Kristin Garcia, Marc Hayes, City Attorney Steve Peiffle, and Wendy Van Der Meersche. Also Known to be Present: Five YouTube viewers. Mayor Barb Tolbert called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m., and the Pledge of Allegiance and roll call followed. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Mayor Pro Tem Jesica Stickles moved to approve the agenda as presented. Councilmember Marilyn Oertle seconded the motion, which passed with a unanimous vote. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS None. PROCLAMATIONS None. PUBLIC COMMENT None. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Pro Tem Jesica Stickles moved and Councilmember Marilyn Oertle seconded the motion to approve the Consent Agenda that was unanimously carried: 1. Minutes of the November 2 and November 9, 2020 Council meetings 2. Accounts Payable: Approval of EFT Payments and Claims Checks #101309 through #101429 dated November 3, 2020 through November 16, 2020 for $1,099,831.04 and Approval of Payroll EFT Payments and Checks #30001 through #30010 dated October 1, 2020 through October 31, 2020 for $1,575,029.82 3. Interlocal Agreement with Snohomish County for IT and GIS Services 4. PUD Easement Request for 63rd Avenue NE and 188th Street NE 5. Acceptance of Dedication of Real Property for Public Right of Way – 188th St NE 6. Acceptance of Dedication of Real Property for Public Right of Way – 63rd Ave NE Minutes of the Arlington City Council Zoom Meeting Minutes of the City of Arlington City Council Meeting November 16, 2020 Page 2 of 3 PUBLIC HEARING None. NEW BUSINESS Public Art Proposals for 2021 Community Revitalization Manager Sarah Lopez requested Council accept the public art proposals for 2021. Councilmember Marilyn Oertle moved and Councilmember Debora Nelson seconded the motion to accept the public art proposals and budget as presented for 2021. The motion passed unanimously. Ordinance Adopting 2021/2022 Budget Finance Director Kristin Garcia requested Council adopt the 2021-2022 City of Arlington budget. Mayor Pro Tem Jesica Stickles moved and Councilmember Marilyn Oertle seconded the motion to approve the Ordinance Adopting the City of Arlington Biennial Budget for the Years 2021/2022, and authorized the Mayor to sign it. The motion passed unanimously. Resolution setting the 2021 Regular Property Tax Levy Finance Director Kristin Garcia requested Council approve the resolutions establishing the regular property tax levy for 2021. Mayor Pro Tem Jesica Stickles moved and Councilmember Marilyn Oertle seconded the motion to approve the Resolution of the City of Arlington Establishing the 2021 Regular Property Tax Levy and the Resolution of the City of Arlington Authorizing an Increase in Tax Levy Capacity Pursuant to RCW 84.55.120 and an Increase in Limit Factor for Maximum Levy Capacity Pursuant to RCW 85.55.0101, and authorized the Mayor to sign the resolutions. The motion passed unanimously. Resolution setting the 2021 EMS Tax Levy Finance Director Kristin Garcia requested Council approve the resolutions establishing the EMS tax levy for 2021. Mayor Pro Tem Jesica Stickles moved and Councilmember Marilyn Oertle seconded the motion to approve the Resolution of the City of Arlington Establishing the 2021 EMS Property Tax Levy and the Resolution of the City of Arlington Authorizing an Increase in Tax Levy Capacity Pursuant to RCW 84.55.120 and an Increase in Limit Factor for Maximum Levy Capacity Pursuant to RCW 85.55.0101, and authorized the Mayor to sign the resolutions. The motion passed unanimously. COMMENTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS Councilmember Debora Nelson thanked Finance Director Kristin Garcia for her work on the budget. Mayor Tolbert agreed. Councilmembers Nelson and Schuette spoke of the SKIT transportation meeting. Mayor Tolbert thanked them and Public Works Director Jim Kelly. Councilmember Michele Blythe attended a Zoom meeting regarding homelessness, and found it very helpful. Minutes of the City of Arlington City Council Meeting November 16, 2020 Page 3 of 3 ADMINISTRATOR & STAFF REPORTS City Administrator Paul Ellis thanked Councilmembers for their hard work on the budget. It went very smoothly and was all conducted in Zoom meetings. Mr. Ellis also stated that the Governor has placed additional restrictions in place regarding COVID-19. Staff will continue to rotate for office work and safety. The Mayor indicated that Mr. Ellis and Administrative Services Director James Trefry are working with staff members who are traveling and are following quarantine protocols afterwards. MAYOR’S REPORT Mayor Tolbert stated that she met with legislators from the 39th District. She and Mr. Ellis will finalize the legislative agenda tomorrow. EXECUTIVE SESSION None. ADJOURNMENT With no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 7:20 p.m. _________________________________________ Barbara Tolbert, Mayor DRAFT Page 1 of 6 November 23, 2020 Councilmembers Present: Mike Hopson, Marilyn Oertle, Debora Nelson, Don Vanney, Jan Schuette, Jesica Stickles and Michele Blythe. Council Members Absent: None. Staff Present: Mayor Barb Tolbert, Paul Ellis, James Trefry, Kristin Garcia, Jim Kelly, Marc Hayes, City Attorney Steve Peiffle, and Ashleigh Scott. Also Known to be Present: (44) Forty-Four YouTube Views, Denise Stiffarm from Pacifica Law Group, Brian Lewis and Dale Leach from the Arlington School District, Peter Condyles, Josh Wills and Duana Kolouskova. Mayor Barb Tolbert called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm, and the Pledge of Allegiance and roll call followed. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Mayor Pro Tem Jesica Stickles moved to approve the agenda as presented. Councilmember Marilyn Oertle seconded the motion, which passed with a unanimous vote. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS None. WORKSHOP ITEMS – NO ACTION WAS TAKEN Ordinance Approving 2020 Budget Amendments Finance Director Kristin Garcia reviewed the Ordinance amending the 2020 budget and the 2020 proposed budget amendments. The majority of items have been previously approved by Council. Adopting the budget Ordinance is the official action to formally incorporate the adjustments into the budget. 91% of the amendments fall into 3 categories; bond refinancing, inter-fund transfers to reserve funds and capital projects/equipment purchases. 48% of all amendments are related to refinancing the City’s 2007 and 2010 LTGO bonds and refinancing the Graafstra promissory note. And 19% of all amendments are related to inter-fund transfers (operating transfers to reserve funds or to capital funds to pay for projects and meet grant match requirements) and 23% of all amendments are for capital projects and/or equipment purchases which are paid for by grants and/or accumulated capital reserves. Minutes of the Arlington City Council Zoom Workshop Minutes of the City of Arlington City Council Workshop November 23, 2020 Page 2 of 6 A public hearing will be held December 7, 2020 to allow for public comment on the proposed budget amendments. Council will be asked to take action on the proposed budget amendments following the public hearing. On November 19, 2018, the Council adopted Ordinance 2018-008 establishing the 2019/2020 budget. On December 16, 2019 the Council adopted Ordinance 2019-020 modifying the 2020 budget. Discussion followed with Mrs. Garcia answering Council questions. Resolution Approving the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) Public Works Director Jim Kelly and Community and Economic Development Director Marc Hayes reviewed the proposed six-year transportation improvement plan for the years 2021 – 2026. In accordance with state law, every municipality must annually update their TIP for the following six years. Any road construction project that is to be considered for Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act or Transportation Improvement Board funding must be listed on the TIP. To be eligible for allocation of ½- one cent gas tax monies, projects must also be listed. The TIP represents projects that the City would like to have completed, or funded, over the next six years (2021 to 2026). Prior to adopting this plan, it must be presented for a public hearing which will be held on December 7, 2020. Discussion followed with Mr. Hayes and Mr. Kelly answering Council questions. Resolution Vacating a Portion of Public Right of Way Community and Economic Development Director Marc Hayes reviewed a proposed vacation of a portion of public right of way (alley). This is a City initiated process to vacate a portion of unopened right of way (alley) located between French Avenue and Lenore Avenue, and situated within Lot 9 of Gifford’s First Addition to Arlington. This alley is across property owned by the Arlington School District (district), and abuts First Street. The vacation process requires Council to refer the matter to Planning Commission, by resolution, for consideration and recommendation, after which the matter is returned to City Council and heard at a public hearing for final action to occur. Upon review of a proposed short plat by the district, it was discovered that storm water facilities owned by the district, were constructed within the unopened right of way, creating a limited liability to the City. This alley runs parallel with both French and Lenore Avenues and would be accessible from First Street, if ever opened. The alley is approximately 151 feet in length by 16 feet in width, and terminates at this point, as the remainder of the alley was vacated when the “A” building was constructed. No utilities currently exist in the alley, but an easement could be created within the alley to accommodate any future utilities, although there is adequate access from other locations to serve the property, if needed. Discussion followed with Mr. Hayes answering Council questions. Minutes of the City of Arlington City Council Workshop November 23, 2020 Page 3 of 6 Development Agreement with NorthPoint Development, LLC. Community and Economic Development Director Marc Hayes reviewed the proposed development agreement for the Cascade Commerce Center. The proposed development agreement is between the City and NorthPoint Development, LLC, and related to the planned industrial development known as the Cascade Commerce Center, a 426 acre industrial park, of which 87 acres are within Arlington’s portion of the Cascade Industrial Center. NorthPoint Development, LLC wishes to enter into this agreement to ensure that their multi-year investment of the project will not be unreasonably delayed or burdened. Per AMC 20.39.040, a public hearing will be held at the December 7 City Council meeting. Development Agreements are utilized to ensure that certain terms and conditions are addressed and memorialized through the agreement. In this instance, NorthPoint is seeking assurances that items such as vesting of Traffic Impact Fees (TIF) and permitting processes will not change within the terms established by this agreement, but only if the City receives a complete Binding Site Plan for the subject property by March 30, 2021, after which time the applicant will be subject to the fee rates and development regulations in place at the time of project submittal. Discussion followed with Mr. Hayes answering Council questions. Ordinance Adopting Capital Facilities Plan for Arlington School District Community and Economic Development Director Marc Hayes reviewed the Ordinance for the Arlington School District Capital Facilities Plan. The Arlington School District is requesting that the City approve for inclusion in its Comprehensive Plan, the District’s 2020-2025 Capital Facilities Plan. School districts are required by the Growth Management Act to provide a plan for future growth and future enrollment, and to establish impact fees consistent with the comprehensive plan, which are used to fund new facilities only. The Arlington School District must present their updated Capital Facilities Plan to the City for adoption on an annual basis, thus allowing the City to collect school impact fees on new development as it occurs. As part of this adoption cycle, the school district requested that the City adopt the plan as a part of the City’s budget adoption process, as allowed by RCW 36.70A.130 (2) (a) (iv), to align with the processes used by both Snohomish County and City of Marysville. The Planning Commission voted at a regular meeting on November 17, 2020 to unanimously approve recommendation of the plan to City Council. An open record Public Hearing is scheduled for December 7, 2020, before the City Council, at the regular meeting. Denise Stiffarm, Arlington School District Attorney reviewed their 2020 Capital Facilities Plan and the results of those plans. Discussion followed with Mr. Hayes answering Council questions. Minutes of the City of Arlington City Council Workshop November 23, 2020 Page 4 of 6 Ordinance Adopting Capital Facilities Plan for Lakewood School District Community and Economic Development Director Marc Hayes reviewed the Lakewood School District Capital Facilities Plan. The Lakewood School District is requesting that the City approve for inclusion in its Comprehensive Plan, the Districts 2020-2025 Capital Facilities Plan. School districts are required by the Growth Management Act to provide a plan for future growth and future enrollment, and to establish impact fees consistent with the comprehensive plan, which are used to fund new facilities only. The Lakewood School District must present their updated Capital Facilities Plan to the City for adoption on an annual basis, thus allowing the City to collect school impact fees on new development as it occurs. As part of this adoption cycle, the school district requested that the City adopt the plan as a part of the City’s budget adoption process, as allowed by RCW 36.70A.130 (2) (a) (iv), to align with the processes used by both Snohomish County and City of Marysville. The Planning Commission voted at a regular meeting on November 17, 2020 to unanimously approve recommendation of the plan to City Council. An open record Public Hearing is scheduled for December 7, 2020, before the City Council, at the regular meeting. Discussion followed with Mr. Hayes answering Council questions. Approval of Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement Community and Economic Development Director Marc Hayes reviewed the proposed Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement. The presentation explained the “draft” Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement (PA EIS). There are currently three alternatives that are being evaluated in the Planned Action, with only one to be selected to represent how development, within Arlington’s portion of the Cascade Industrial Center will occur. The Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement is the final step in ensuring that the Cascade Industrial Center remains a vibrant industrial employment center, as it identifies and implements the vision, goals, and policies that were included in the AMMIC Subarea Plan, and addresses the necessary capital investments required as development occurs. Once adopted, this process streamlines the development review process, as elements related to the SEPA process have been pre-identified, and a modified SEPA checklist will be utilized when development review occurs. This also identifies specific project mitigation for identified transportation projects, on a pro-rata basis. Discussion followed with Mr. Hayes answering Council questions. October Community & Economic Development Report Community and Economic Development Director Marc Hayes gave an update of the current development projects and work being conducted by the CED department. Discussion followed with Mr. Hayes answering Council questions. Minutes of the City of Arlington City Council Workshop November 23, 2020 Page 5 of 6 October Financial Report Finance Director Kristin Garcia reviewed the October 2020 financial reports. The financial reports included the narrative, general fund operating statement, revenue charts, other fund operating statements, and the public safety resourcing. Discussion followed with Mrs. Garcia answering Council questions. ADMINISTRATOR AND STAFF REPORTS City Administrator Paul Ellis provided an update on the proposed annexation to the Regional Fire Authority (RFA). The resolution will be sent to Snohomish County to be listed on the ballot. Mr. Ellis proposed to Council a decrease in the levy rate by 0.7 cents. Councilmembers Jesica Stickles and Marilyn Oertle, Finance Director Kristin Garcia, and City Administrator Paul Ellis worked on analyzing this information. They found that decreasing the rate by 0.7 cents would decrease the general fund of approximately $200,000 out of the anticipated $670,000, which is a large impact. This allows for an increase to about 51% of property tax owners to see a decrease or no change to their annual rates; 28% increase of $5 or less, and the remaining 21% on the higher valued houses will see an increase of $5 or more. The small increase in the levy rate gave the biggest increase on savings for the property tax payers that need it the most. MAYOR’S REPORT Cares Act money has been received and the program re-opened for small businesses to apply. The program will close December 1, 2020. Sno-Isle Libraries had begun opening up branches again since closing their doors due to COVID-19. It was brought to Mayor Tolbert’s attention that the Arlington branch was not on the list to be reopened. The building is in need of maintenance fixes such as the HVAC systems, to make sure customers and the community stay safe. In the coming months, the City Administrator will be having conversations with Sno-Isle Libraries to seek alternatives and bring those to Council for consideration. COMMENTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS None. COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS Councilmembers had nothing to report this evening. PUBLIC COMMENT None. REVIEW OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING City Council discussed and agreed to place the following items on the Consent Agenda for the December 7, 2020 Council meeting: 3. Resolution Vacating a Portion of Public Right of Way 7. Approval of Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement Minutes of the City of Arlington City Council Workshop November 23, 2020 Page 6 of 6 EXECUTIVE SESSION None. ADJOURNMENT With no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 8:47 p.m. _________________________________________ Barbara Tolbert, Mayor Monday, November 23, 2020 CALL TO ORDER Mayor Tolbert called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., and roll call followed. Council members present: Mike Hopson, Marilyn Oertle, Debora Nelson, Don Vanney, Jan Schuette, Jesica Stickles and Michele Blythe. Planning Commission members present: Tim Dean, Bruce Angell, Mike Thomas, Jan Berg and Yvonne Gallardo. Parks, Arts and Recreation Commission members present: Heather Logan, Barbara Butner, Brittany Kleinman, Clayton Conway, Jenner Egger, Jennifer Harrington and Steve Maisch. Staff Present: Mayor Barb Tolbert, Paul Ellis, James Trefry, Marc Hayes, Sarah Lopez, Tony Orr, City Attorney Steve Peiffle, and Ashleigh Scott Also Known To Be Present: Thirty-Seven YouTube viewers, Duana Kolouskova, Peter Condyles and John Wills. DISCUSSION ITEMS Planning Process City Administrator Paul Ellis reviewed the planning process, which revolves around the Comprehensive Plan. The Parks, Art and Recreation Commission serves as an advisory commission to the City Council with respect to the PARC facilities and programs within the City, as well as changes, expansion or new acquisition of both park’s facilities and programs. The Planning Commission serves as an advisory body to the City Council, as well, on matters of zoning and planning and acts as the City’s Design Review Board. The Planning Commission reviews new development projects for compliance with city codes and the comprehensive plan. Both commissions contribute to the development and implantation of the City Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission is primarily responsible for the development and implantation of the Comprehensive Plan. DRAFT City Council, Planning Commission and Parks, Arts, and Recreation Commission (PARC) Minutes of the Joint Meeting – Council, Planning Commission, and PARC November 23, 2020 Page 2 of 4 The Comprehensive Plan is a long-range planning document that outlines the city's policies, goals, and implementation strategies for guiding future growth and development in the city over the next 20-year horizon, with updates every eight years. The plan covers 14 elements: urban growth, reducing sprawling, transportation, housing, economic development, property rights, permits, open space, parks and recreation, natural resource industries, environment, citizen participation and coordination, public facilities and services, historic preservation, and consistency with other plans. Arlington has a docketing process which allows the public (and City) to submit requests for plan amendments once a year. The process ensures that changing circumstances that warrant changes to policies, zoning or projects are adequately considered to keep the Plan vibrant. The Planning Commission is tasked with reviewing the docket submittals with staff support. Insuring the consistency with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan, Arlington Municipal Code, and providing for public input during a public hearing process and coordination with other city commission. The recommendation of the Planning Commission is submitted to City Council in the form of Findings of Fact that is formally adopted by the Planning Commission in a public meeting. Planning Commission Roles Chair Tim Dean gave an overview of the roles of the Planning Commission. The municipal planning commissions are authorized by state law under RCW 35.63. Arlington’s Planning Commission was created in 1943, and codified in AMC 2.52.010. The responsibility is to advise council on legislation related to the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Code. This responsibly has two parts; process and content. The process describes how things are done, and the content describes the intent of the proposed action. Mr. Dean elaborated more by stating that, except for emergencies, the process that they follow for the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use issues are always the same; staff prepares the necessary documentation related to the proposed action – whether it is a private or City request – and the proposed action is then forwarded to the Planning Commission along with supportive documentation. Items are typically first heard at the Commission workshop then deliberated at the next regular Commission meeting. Comprehensive Plan amendments and land use issue items require a public hearing at the regular commission meetings. Following that is a vote that is taken on the recommendation. The Commission then forwards its findings and recommendation back to staff and the staff forwards the Commission summary, findings of fact, and recommendations along with staff reports to Council for action. At that time, Council can affirm, deny, modify or remand the item back to Commission for further consideration. Affirming or remanding back decisions are clear to staff and do not require explanation. However, if the commission recommendation is denied or modified, it creates a difficult gap in their understanding of Council’s intent. Without feedback loops, it becomes impossible for the Commission to anticipate Council’s decision. In meetings, the Planning Commission’s responsibility is to advise Council, and the most important function is to be the City’s stewards of the Comprehensive Plan. It takes time, Minutes of the Joint Meeting – Council, Planning Commission, and PARC November 23, 2020 Page 3 of 4 effort and commitment to understand the planning landscape, concepts, and legal frame work, which is why commissioners and members serve six year terms. The State requires that land use regulations are reflective of and consistent with the approved Comprehensive Plan. There is a long list of planning documents that are part of the Comprehensive Plan by reference, including – Airport Master Plan and Airport Layout Plan, Shoreline Master Plan, Transportation Master Plan, Sewer Master Plan and the Water Master Plan. The State also requires local comprehensive planning across a minimum of the following seven elements – land use, housing, parks and recreation, capital facilities, transportation, utilities and economic development. The Planning Commission’s job to make sure, from a citizen’s perspective, that the City is moving in the direction determined by Council. The Commission’s role is to advise Council on issues related to land use and the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission does not carry out its responsibilities in a vacuum. They rely on the professional staff as the primary, but not the sole source of information and opinion. The Commission also looks to other planning agencies and jurisdictions across the country to see what they’re doing to solve challenges similar to Arlington’s. In this process, the Commission has discovered that there are a lot of very smart people grappling with problems very similar to Arlington’s. The Commission pays careful attention to staff recommendations, but based on the insight gained from other jurisdictions and the Commission’s experience, while maintaining the ability to question those recommendations. As a result of the time spent over a span of years, the Commission is able to examine the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use issues with a discipline borne of experience, research and ongoing professional staff input. Parks, Arts and Recreation Commission (PARC) Roles Chair Heather Logan gave an overview of the Parks, Art and Recreation Commission roles by stating that the City adopted the updated Arlington Comprehensive Plan in December 2015. This is the main planning document for guiding growth and development for the next 20 years. The Comprehensive Plan gives details for parks, arts and recreation from the Park and Recreation Master Plan. PARC is codified in section 2.04.050 of Arlington’s Municipal Code. The planning process is detailed in the Park and Recreation Master Plan, which provides direction for the planning, acquisition, development of new facilities including parks, and renovation of parks, open space, recreation facilities and programs for the years 2016-2023. The role of PARC is as an advisory board to the Mayor and City Council; they are their research branch. PARC’s responsibilities include making recommendations for improvements and changes to the 17 parks in 248 acres and eight miles of trails. The Commission also plans for future parks, recreational facilities and programs, monitors the 48 pieces of public art, makes recommendations for new public art and makes recommendations for the Public Art Strategic Plan. They also monitor the Heritage Tree program and the City’s overall tree canopy and tree programs. They receive input from service area residents, identify needs for improvement, identify opportunities for partnerships, assess potential funding sources, and updates the master plan. Minutes of the Joint Meeting – Council, Planning Commission, and PARC November 23, 2020 Page 4 of 4 The PARC priorities, as detailed in the Master Plan, and approved by City Council, include renovating Haller Park (now completed), continue development of County Charm Park (currently on hold) and acquiring park and recreation space in Smokey Point. Acquiring park and recreation space has been a PARC priority since 2007. The work intersects with the Planning Commission in that the Comprehensive Plan specifies that new parks, especially neighborhood parks, be dedicated and constructed within development areas by implementing the requirements in the Land Use Codes. ADJOURNMENT With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:59 p.m. ______________________________________ Barbara Tolbert, Mayor City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill Item: CA #3 Attachment B across property owned by the Arlington School District (district), and abuts First Street. Refer to attached map. The vacation process requires Council to refer the matter to Planning Commission, by to the City. This alley runs parallel with both French and Lenore Avenues and would be accessible from First Street, if ever opened. The alley is approximately 151 feet in length by 16 feet in width, and terminates at this point, as the remainder of the alley was vacated when the “A” building was constructed. No utilities currently exist in the alley, but an easement could be created within the RESOLUTION NO. 2020 – XXX A RESOLUTION REGARDING THE PROPOSED VACATION OF A PORTION OF UNOPENED RIGHT OF WAY LOCATED WITHIN BLOCK 9 OF GIFFORDS FIRST ADDITION TO ARLINGTON WHEREAS, the City of Arlington has identified an unopened portion of public right of way (alley) located within Block 9 of Gifford’s First Addition to Arlington and wishes to initiate the vacation of said alley; and WHEREAS, it was identified that the Arlington School District constructed private storm drainage facilities within the alley; and WHEREAS, the School District is the sole ownership of property on both sides of the alley; and WHEREAS, the City has determined that the alley is no longer necessary to the City’s operation; and NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Arlington Washington do hereby resolve as follows: 1. The City Council directs city staff to refer the above alley vacation to the planning commission for its review. 2. A public hearing shall be scheduled before the City Council, as required by RCW Chapter 35.79 and the Arlington Municipal Code sections 3.70.030 and 12.18.050 at the regular meeting of the City Council on the XX day of January, 2021 APPROVED by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Arlington this 7th day of December, 2020. CITY OF ARLINGTON ______________________________ Barbara Tolbert, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ Wendy Van Der Meersche, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________________ Steven J. Peiffle, City Attorney City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill Item: PH #1 Attachment C Snohomish County 2) $97,713 in CARES ACT funding awarded by EASC and 3) an increase to the ORDINANCE NO. 2020—XXX AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 2018-008, WHICH ADOPTED THE 2019-2020 BIENNIAL BUDGET OF THE CITY OF ARLINGTON, BY PROVIDING SUPPLEMENT THERETO, AND PROVIDING TRANSFER AND ADJUSTMENT AUTHORITY FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2020 WHEREAS, staff has identified the need to make certain revisions to the 2019-2020 Biennial Budget that were not foreseen when Ordinance No. 2018-008 was adopted on November 19, 2018, and WHEREAS, this ordinance was introduced with proper notice and citizens have been given the opportunity to comment, and WHEREAS, because this will require increasing the appropriation level in one or more funds, an amendment is needed, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARLINGTON WASHINGTON AS FOLLOWS; Section 1. Pursuant to RCW 35A.34.130, the 2020 Budget section of the 2019-2020 biennial budget is hereby amended to provide for adjustments to expenditures, and by providing authority for any necessary transfers of money within or between funds as indicated in the “Amendment” column on the attached document Exhibit A. Section 2. That the attached is a summary of the amended budget for the year 2020 for the City of Arlington and that copies of the detailed amended budget are available to any interested taxpayer at the Finance Department, City Hall, Arlington, Washington. Section 3. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after its passage and publication of a summary consisting of the ordinance title hereof as authorized by law. Passed by the City Council and APPROVED by the Mayor this 7th day of December, 2020. CITY OF ARLINGTON _______________________________ Barbara Tolbert, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________________________ Wendy Van Der Meersche, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________________ Steven J. Peiffle, City Attorney EXHIBIT A 2020 BUDGET AMENDMENTS - ALL FUNDS 2020 MODIFIED BUDGET 12/16/2019 AMENDMENTS FINAL BUDGET 2020 BUDGET AMENDMENTS 12/7/2020 FUND Council Approval Date Item Amendment Notes 001 - GENERAL 1/21/2020 Professional Agreement for Housing Action Plan $ 50,000 Project is required per E2SHB1923. Project is grant funded (DOC). 001 - GENERAL 2/3/2020 City Council chambers microphones $ 30,000 General fund revenues. Franchise- PEG capital. 001 - GENERAL 2/18/2020 ILA for embedded social worker $ 37,950 Original budget was $120,470, additional amount in ILA provides for back fill for employee leave and medical oversight. 001 - GENERAL 3/16/2020 Professional services agreement with Karen Reed $ 25,000 Consultant for work related to annexation discussions with North County RFA. Cost split with North County RFA. 001 - GENERAL 5/4/2020 Equipment for live streaming/TV 21 $ 20,000 Accumulated PEG capital funds will be used for this purchase. The equipment will allow council meetings to be live streamed to YouTube. 001 - GENERAL 6/1/2020 & 9/5/2020 Coronavirus Relief Fund $ 888,300 CARES Act funding to cover eligible expenses related to COVID-19. 001 - GENERAL 8/3/2020 Professional services agreement with Liz Loomis $ 55,000 Public affair services for proposed annexation. Costs split with North County RFA. 001 - GENERAL 9/18/2018 Contract with Safebuilt $ 700,000 Professional services agreement for plan review, building inspection and code official services. Amendment needed due to volume of work. Paid for by plan review fees. 001 - GENERAL 3/2/2020 2020 Bond Refunding - 2010 LTGO $ 1,530,000 Refunding of the city's 2010 LTGO (Station 46) bonds to receive lower interest rate and save interest rate costs over the remaining life of the bonds. 001 - GENERAL 6/1/2020 2020 LTGO Bonds $ 343,000 Principal and interest payments for new bonds - construction of new fire station, police impound facility and M&O facility. 001 - GENERAL Transfer to establish CED Permitting Fund $ 1,011,749 This fund was created as a managerial fund to track permit related revenues as per state law and to meet audit requirements. 001 - GENERAL CARES funding from EASC $ 97,713 The EASC had a CARES ACT grant available to help with economic recovery. The project will be an online jobs portal to match employers with job candidates specifically in Snohomish County. 1 2020 BUDGET AMENDMENTS 12/7/2020 001 - GENERAL County CARES ACT grant award $ 117,249 Snohomish County awarded the city $117,249 under the CARES ACT to provide an additional round of business rent relief grants. TOTAL - 001 $ 4,905,961 005 - PROGRAM DVLP 10/19/2020 Police access control system $ 40,819 Paid for from available program development funds. TOTAL - 005 $ 40,819 006 - CED PERMITTING Transfer out to General Fund $ 1,200,000 This is a transfer (reimbursement to the general fund) of permit related revenues matched to permit related costs. TOTAL - 006 $ 1,200,000 101 - STREET 3/16/2020 Emergency repair - 207th/Burn Rd $ 30,000 A water main break occurred at 207th and Burn Rd. requiring emergency repair to restore water services to that location. TOTAL - 101 $ 30,000 105 - SOCIAL SERVICES Outreach program providing services to those in need of treatment/housing $ 2,000 Demand for services was more than originally budgeted. Paid for by a combination of grants and donations. TOTAL - 105 $ 2,000 107 - GROWTH FUND Increase transfer to Transportation Improvement Fund $ 500,000 Increase the transfer to the transpiration improvement fund for match on grant funded projects and for cash flow pending grant reimbursements. TOTAL - 107 $ 500,000 108 - EMS 6/1/2020 FCS Group cost of service update $ 20,000 Contract with FCS Group to update cost of transport rates for 2021/2022 that are billed to partner agencies that contract with the city for EMS services. 108 - EMS 6/1/2020 2020 LTGO Bonds $ 150,000 EMS Fund portion of Station 46 and Station 48 bonds. 2 2020 BUDGET AMENDMENTS 12/7/2020 TOTAL - 108 $ 170,000 116- Cemetery 9/16/2019 Contract with Southern By Design $ 50,000 Cemetery landscape maintenance. TOTAL - 116 $ 50,000 303 - REET 1 3/2/2020 Refinancing of Graafstra promissory note $ 3,286,500 Debt on the Graafstra note has been historically paid by REET 1 funds but expensed out of the Park Improvement Fund. Debt proceeds were recorded here and transferred to the Park Improvement Fund where the debt payment was made. Debt was refinanced to received lower interest rate and save on interest costs over the remaining life of the bond. TOTAL - 303 $ 3,286,500 304 - REET 2 3/2/2020 2020 Bond Refunding - 2007 LTGO $ 1,745,000 Refunding of the city's 2007 LTGO (N. Olympic Improvements) bonds to receive lower interest rate and save interest rate costs over the remaining life of the bonds. TOTAL - 304 $ 1,745,000 305 - CAPITAL FACILITIES 6/1/2020 Design and construction mgmt services for construction of station 48 $ 350,000 Paid for by accumulated reserves in the capital facilities building fund. TOTAL - 305 $ 350,000 306 - BOND FUND 6/1/2020 Construction costs for Station 48 $ 1,750,000 Paid for by 2020 LTGO bonds. TOTAL - 306 $ 1,750,000 310 - TRANS.IMP 3/2/2020 67th Ave Rail/Trail Crossing Project $ 195,000 Budgeted in 2019 but was pending federal grant award. Amendment will move budget from 2019 to 2020. 310 - TRANS.IMP 5/4/2020 Design contract 173rd Phase 1 $ 77,445 $75,000 was in 2019 budget, asking to move budget to 2020 with slight increase. 3 2020 BUDGET AMENDMENTS 12/7/2020 310 - TRANS.IMP 7/20/2020 Contract with Perteet $ 600,000 Smokey Point Blvd Corridor Project Planning and Design. Project budget approximately $1,600,000 but expect the majority of project costs to be in 2021. This project may require an additional amendment in 2021. 310 - TRANS.IMP 9/21/2020 SR 530 and Smokey Point Blvd Temporary Traffic Signal $ 257,639 This project will replace the trailer mounted signal system that has been in place since the fall 2019. TOTAL - 310 $ 1,130,084 311 - PARK.IMP 3/2/2020 Refinancing of Graafstra promissory note $ 3,200,000 Refinance of principal to lower interest rate costs and save on interest costs over the remaining life of the bonds. 311 - PARK.IMP Invoice for tree mitigation along 67th Ave $ 1,500 Paid for by tree mitigation fees. 311 - PARK.IMP 2019 Budget Retainage paid out on Haller Splash Park project $ 38,000 Project was completed in 2019 but L&I and other lien releases were not received until 2020 - retainage cannot be paid until all releases are received from the State. 311 - PARK.IMP 1/21/2020 Innovation Center/Pocket Park $ 303,357 In the 2019/2020 budget, council approved a total of $311,379 for the project. The 2019 portion of the project will be added to the 2020 budget as this project will take place in 2020. Project is grant funded. TOTAL - 311 $ 3,542,857 320 - EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT 2/3/2020 Medic Unit #48 replacement $ 236,500 Original approved budget was $190,000. Vehicle will be paid for from accumulated equipment replacement reserves. TOTAL - 320 $ 236,500 402 - AIRPORT 10/19/2020 Airport vehicle and aircraft recovery equipment $ 69,000 The Airport was awarded a CARES ACT grant for $69,000 to be used exclusively for airport operations. 402 - AIRPORT Transfer of excess Airport operating fund balance to Airport Reserve Fund $ 600,000 This is an annual transfer of excess airport revenues to the Airport Reserve fund to accumulate reserves to pay for future capital projects and have available funding to meet grant match requirements. TOTAL - 402 $ 669,000 4 2020 BUDGET AMENDMENTS 12/7/2020 405 - WATER IMP.1/21/2020 Design for Cascade Industrial Center Utilities (South of SR 531) $ 56,647 Project will be paid for from accumulated utility capital reserves. Split between Water/Sewer improvement funds. 405 - WATER IMPRV.3/16/2020 Emergency repair 207th St/Burn Rd. $ 60,000 A water main break occurred at 207th and Burn Rd requiring an emergency repair to restore water services to Arlington customers. 405 - WATER IMP.5/4/2020 Design for Cascade Industrial Center - amendment to Murraysmith contract $ 69,305 This an amendment to the existing Murraysmith contract for design services for infrastructure design and preparation of construction documents to support the 51st Ave Urban Village. Original budget was $113,295. Split between Water/Sewer Imprv. Funds. 405 - WATER IMP.7/6/2020 Contract with Pacific Groundwater Group $ 159,419 Geotechnical and hydrogeological services for testing and drilling 5 potable water exploration wells. 405 - WATER IMP.7/6/2020 Contract with Holt Services $ 208,088 Services for testing and drilling 5 potable water exploration wells. TOTAL - 405 $ 553,459 406 - SEWER IMP 1/21/2020 Design for Cascade Industrial Center Utilities (South of SR 531) $ 56,647 Project will be paid for from accumulated utility capital reserves. Split between Water/Sewer improvement funds. 406 - SEWER IMP 5/4/2020 Design for Cascade Industrial Center - amendment to Murraysmith contract $ 69,305 This an amendment to the existing Murraysmith contract for design services for infrastructure design and preparation of construction documents to support the 51st Ave Urban Village. Original budget was $113,295. Split between Water/Sewer Imprv. Funds. TOTAL - 405 125,952$ 410 - AIRPORT RESERVE Increase transfer to Airport CIP fund 1,500,000$ Increase transfer to make sure the Airport CIP fund has enough cash to pay for project invoices at year end pending FAA reimbursements. A project invoice was received 11/24/2020 for $1.4 million. TOTAL - 410 1,500,000$ 5 2020 BUDGET AMENDMENTS 12/7/2020 412 - STORM MGMT 2019 Budget Purchase of sweeper 262,500$ Paid for by Department of Ecology grant. Budgeted in 2019 but did not receive and wasn't invoiced until 2020, moving budget from 2019 to 2020. TOTAL - 412 262,500$ 504 - M&O Utilities Expense 35,000$ Under budgeted in 2019/2020. Budget trued up in 2021/2022. TOTAL - 504 35,000$ 622 - CEMETERY PRE-NEED Purchase of liners 2,000$ More services than expected resulting in more purchases of liners TOTAL - 622 2,000$ 633 - CITY FIDUCIARY Establish Fiduciary Fund 150,000$ GASB 84 now requires fiduciary activities to be reported in a separate fund. These are items that are collected on behalf of another organization (like court related costs that are remitted to the state). TOTAL - 633 150,000$ SUB TOTAL GENERAL FUND 4,905,961$ SUB TOTAL ALL OTHER FUNDS 17,331,671$ GRAND TOTAL ALL AMENDMENTS 22,237,632$ 6 City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill Item: PH #2 Attachment DCOUNCIL MEETING DATE: December 7, 2020 SUBJECT: Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan Resolution for the Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN Public Works; Jim Kelly, Director / Community and Economic Development; Marc Hayes, Director EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: None BUDGET CATEGORY: N/A BUDGETED AMOUNT: N/A LEGAL REVIEW: DESCRIPTION: Public Hearing for the Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan for years 2021-2026. 2020. HISTORY:Attached to this CAB is a copy of the City’s proposed Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan (6-year TIP) for Council review. In accordance with State Law, every municipality must annually update their TIP for the following six years. Any road construction project that is to be considered for Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act or Transportation Improvement Board funding must be listed on the TIP. To be eligible for allocation of ½ -cent gas tax monies, projects must also be listed. The attached TIP represents projects that the City would like to have completed, or funded, over the next six years (2021 to 2026). Prior to adopting this plan, it must be presented for a Public Hearing.ALTERNATIVES: Remand to staff for additional information. RECOMMENDED MOTION: I move to approve the resolution adopting the City of Arlington 2021-2026 six year transportation improvement plan, and authorize the Mayor to sign the resolution. Page 1 2020 6yr TIP Project List (DRAFT 11-25-20) Adopted Resolution No. To be Determined CITY OF ARLINGTON (Thousands of Dollars) TI P N O . AG E N C Y PROJECT NAME AND DESCRIPTION 2021 OBLIG & PHASE*CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS FUND SOURCE 2022 OBLIG & PHASE CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS FUND SOURCE 2023 OBLIG & PHASE CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS FUND SOURCE 2024-2026 OBLIG & PHASE CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS FUND SOURCE CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS 6 YR. PROJECT COST NON-MOTORIZED PROJECTS 707 33 674 1,620 300 1,320 1,880 230 1,650 1,475 100 1,375 663 5,019 5,682 *1 COA 74th St Trail Segment 77 13 64 PSRC (Fed)0 650 60 590 PSRC (Fed)73 654 727 Construct a multiuse (ped/bike) trail along the west side of 74th Ave between north end of PE CN Arlington Valley Rd trail and 204th St trail segment *2 COA Gilman Trail Segment 0 0 75 75 675 75 675 750 Construct a 12-ft wide multiuse trail connecting the Centennial Trail to Country Charm Park PE CN 675 UNFUNDED *3 COA 2nd Street Sidewalk Completion 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project to install sidewalks on 2nd St (French Ave to Washington Ave) where none exists. 4 COA 63rd Ave Trail - Gap Project to connect 197th to Cemetery Road 0 0 75 75 0 75 0 75 Extend 12-ft wide multiuse trail behind the cemetery to Cemetery Road PE CN *5 COA 59th/188th Sidewalk and connectivity improvements 530 530 TIB - CS 40 40 TIB - CS 0 0 0 570 570 Sidewalks, parking, ADA ramps, street trees, public art. Funding is from Compete Streets Grant ALL CN *6 COA Non-Motorized Improvements - Cemetery Rd/47th Ave/188th St 0 1,000 0 0 0 1,000 1,000 Create protected bike lanes, connect sidewalks, improve existing airport trail (fencing to meet ALL 1,000 UNFUNDED meet FAA requirements) Target Complete Streets or Non-Motorized Funding Opportunities *7 DEV 204th Portage Creek Trail 80 80 DEV 220 220 DEV 0 0 0 300 300 Multi use Trail along Portage Creek from HWY 9 to Centennial Trail.ALL ALL 8 DEV Multi Use Trail From Portage Creek Trail to Hazel (HWY 9)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Multi use Trail along Highway 9 (west side) to Hazel, then along Hazel (east side) to Highland intersection PE CN 9 COA Multi Use Trail From 204th to Crown Ridge Blvd (HWY 9)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Multi use Trail along Highway 9 (east side) to Crown Ridge Blvd, trail to be vertically separated from highway traffic. PE CN *10 COA 59th Sidewalk gap project 0 0 1,000 20 200 DEV 0 20 980 1,000 Connect gaps in sidewalk on east side of 59th and improvements to Airport Trail on east side ALL 780 UNFUNDED Target Complete Streets or Non-Motorized Funding Opportunities 11 COA Gilman Loop Trail - Gilman to 88th Dr NE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Trail connecting Country Charms Park to 88th Dr. From Gilman Ave PE CN 12 COA Bluff Trail – 188th St to Smokey Point Blvd 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Trail (12-foot wide) connecting 188th St to Smokey Point Blvd along the bluff PE CN 13 COA Burke Trail – Centennial Trail to Eagle Trail 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Connect the Eagle Trail to the Centennial Trail through Haller Park PE CN Page 2 2020 6yr TIP Project List (DRAFT 11-25-20) Adopted Resolution No. To be Determined CITY OF ARLINGTON (Thousands of Dollars) AG E N C Y PROJECT NAME AND DESCRIPTION 2021 OBLIG & PHASE*CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS FUND SOURCE 2022 OBLIG & PHASE CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS FUND SOURCE 2023 OBLIG & PHASE CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS FUND SOURCE 2024-2026 OBLIG & PHASE CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS FUND SOURCE CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS 6 YR. PROJECT COST *14 DEV Country Charm Access – Gilman to Country Charm Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COA Connect the Gilman Trail to the County Charm Park with a trail/access driveway.PE CN Developer driven and funded project. 15 COA Country Charm Park Trail and Connection to Twin Rivers Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Construct a walking trial loop within Country Charm Park.PE CN Connect Country Charm Park to Twin Rivers Park. Requires a bridge. 16 COA Edgecombe Trail – 172nd to City Limits 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Connect 172nd to Marysville Edgecombe creek trail, along the re-aligned Edgecombe Creek PE CN 17 COA Frontage Trail – 211th to Portage Creek Wildlife Refuge 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SNOCO Trail would connect Centennial Trail to the Portage Creek Wildlife Refuge PE CN 18 COA Gleneagle Trail – Centennial Trail to Arlington High School 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Trail would connect Centennial Trail to Arlington High School through Gleneagle PE CN *19 COA Olympic Ave Ped Improvements 0 300 300 0 0 300 0 300 Stop sign at 1st Ave, Bulb out ramps at crossings ALL PE Target Complete Streets or Non-Motorized Funding Opportunities *20 COA 188th BNSF Rail/Trail Crossing Project 0 0 0 500 100 400 UNFUNDED 100 400 500 Extend trail across BNSF RR to intersection at 67th Ave on 188th ST PE ALL Target Complete Streets or Non-Motorized Funding Opportunities *21 COA Annual Sidewalk Program 20 20 60 60 TBD 80 80 TBD 300 300 TBD 20 440 460 Repair existing sidewalks; citywide CN CN CN CN TRAFFIC SAFETY / INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS 3,017 1,712 1,305 0 0 0 540 165 375 250 0 250 1,877 1,930 3,807 *22 COA Island Crossing Temporary Signal 150 150 0 0 0 150 0 150 Install temporary signal at SR530 and Smokey Point Blvd CN (Carry-over from 2020) *23 COA 204th St and 74th Ave Intersection Improvement (Proj #I-9)912 757 155 WATER UTILITY 0 0 757 155 912 Install control and pedestrian improvements at the 204th St and 74th Ave intersection.ALL *24 COA 204th St and 77th Ave Roundabout (Proj #I-8)600 500 100 TIB GRANT 0 0 0 500 100 600 Install roundabout at 204th St and 77th Ave intersection CN (Carry-over from 2020) *25 COA 40th Ave Intersection Improvement (Proj #I-13)1,275 225 1,050 TIB GRANT 0 0 0 225 1,050 1,275 Install intersection control at 40th Ave/172nd St (SR-531)ALL (Carry-over from 2020) *26 COA Intersection Improvements 67th and 188th 0 420 45 375 UNFUNDED 0 45 375 420 Convert to a signal controlled intersection.ALL 27 COA Radius Improvements 172nd and 91st Ave 0 0 0 250 250 DEV 0 250 250 Increase radius, improve site distance, reduce speeds, adjust grade of cross section. Connect sidewalks. Page 3 2020 6yr TIP Project List (DRAFT 11-25-20) Adopted Resolution No. To be Determined CITY OF ARLINGTON (Thousands of Dollars) AG E N C Y PROJECT NAME AND DESCRIPTION 2021 OBLIG & PHASE*CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS FUND SOURCE 2022 OBLIG & PHASE CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS FUND SOURCE 2023 OBLIG & PHASE CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS FUND SOURCE 2024-2026 OBLIG & PHASE CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS FUND SOURCE CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS 6 YR. PROJECT COST *28 COA Analysis of Intersection at SPB/172nd 80 80 0 120 120 0 200 0 200 Study of intersection for improved traffic flow.PE PE 29 COA Airport Blvd/188th St NE Intersection Improvement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Install a roundabout at the Airport Blvd/188th St NE intersection PE CN WIDENING / CORRIDOR PROJECTS 1,345 570 775 2,843 488 2,355 2,320 320 2,000 7,975 610 7,365 1,988 12,495 44,709 *30 COA 211TH PL - 67th AVE to SR 530 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rehabilitate 59th Ave into a 3-lane roadway with sidewalks, connect to 211th Pl Extension *31 COA Burn Road Rehabilitation 150 150 STREETS FUND 250 250 STREETS FUND 0 0 400 0 400 Rehabilitate Burn Road to address instability issues, stream channel, and future growth. PE will be by PE CN competative design *32 COA Highland Dr. Corridor - SR 9 to Stillaguamish Ave(Proj #R-5 and #T4)50 50 0 0 3,900 600 3,300 TIB Grant 650 3,300 3,950 Project to upgrade the Highland Drive corridor from SR-9 to Stillaguamish Ave to arterial standards PE ALL *33 COA Smokey Pt Blvd Design - 174th Ave to 200th Ave(Proj #R-30)875 360 515 PSRC & UTIL 583 228 355 PSRC & UTIL 570 70 PSRC 75 10 PSRC 668 1,435 2,103 Complete preliminary planning, public outreach, engineering design, and PE & RW PE & RW 500 UNFUNDED 65 UNFUNDED ROW plan for corridor improvements to expand Smokey Point Blvd *34 COA SR-531 Corridor Rehabilitation (Proj #R-14B)10 10 10 10 0 0 20 0 20 Roadway and corridor improvements on 172nd St (SR-531) from 43rd Ave to Smokey Point Blvd.PE PE *35 DEV 51st Ave Improvements (Proj #R-20) - 172nd to South City Limits 0 0 1,000 1,000 DEV 4,000 WSDOT/TIB 0 5,000 5,000 Extend 51st Ave as a five-lane roadway from SR-531 to south Arlington city limits 4,000 UNFUNDED 36 COA 43rd Ave improvements - SR531 to 180th St 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Construct a 3-lane road section with sidewalks and bike lanes PE CN *37 DEV 204th corridor Improvements - 74th to 69th 100 100 DEV 2,000 2,000 DEV 750 250 500 DEV 0 250 2,600 2,850 COA Construct a 3-lane road section with sidewalks and bike lanes PE CN CN *38 DEV Smokey Point Blvd Safety Improvements 179th to 172nd 140 140 DEV 0 0 0 0 140 140 Construct restricted access and medians to improve safety. LID Project ALL 39 COA Smokey Point Blvd North 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reconstruct SPB from 200th to SR530 with a 3 lane section 40 COA 172nd from HWY 9 to 91st 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Improve 172nd to a 3 lane section from Highway 9 roundabout east to 91st Ave NE 41 DEV 91st Ave NE Improvements 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Improve 91st Ave NE to a 3-lane road section Page 4 2020 6yr TIP Project List (DRAFT 11-25-20) Adopted Resolution No. To be Determined CITY OF ARLINGTON (Thousands of Dollars) AG E N C Y PROJECT NAME AND DESCRIPTION 2021 OBLIG & PHASE*CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS FUND SOURCE 2022 OBLIG & PHASE CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS FUND SOURCE 2023 OBLIG & PHASE CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS FUND SOURCE 2024-2026 OBLIG & PHASE CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS FUND SOURCE CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS 6 YR. PROJECT COST 42 COA 59th Ave NE Improvements 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DEV Improve 59th Ave NE to a 3-lane road section with sidewalk and on street parallel parking on the east and an improved trail section on the west 43 COA 188th St NE Improvements from 59th Ave NE to 67th Ave NE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Improve 188th St NE to a 3-lane road section with sidewalk on the south and a trail section on the north 44 COA Tveit Rd Improvements from Stillaguamish Ave to City Limits 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Improve Tveit Road to a 3-lane section with sidewalk on the south side and a mixed-use trail on the north side *45 DEV 180th St NE Improvements from 59th Ave NE to end of road 20 20 DEV 0 0 0 0 20 20 Improve 180th St NE to a 2-lane industrial road section with an improved trail section on the north side ALL 46 DEV 183rd Extension from Smokey Point Blvd to Airport Property 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Construct a 3-lane road section with sidewalks and bike lanes PE CN 47 COA 63rd Ave Phase 5 Improvements from 188th to 197th 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Extend 63rd Ave as a three-lane roadway with 12-ft wide multiuse trail. PE CN Realign intersection at 188th to the east, add trail at east side of road. 48 COA Hazel St Improvements 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Improve Hazel St to a 3 lane urban section with sidewalks and mixed use trail PE CN NEW ALIGNMENT PROJECTS 1,850 0 1,850 9,733 2,833 6,900 5,030 580 4,450 3,100 450 2,650 3,863 15,850 19,713 *49 DEV 59th Extension from 195th to Cemetery Road 0 0 450 100 350 DEV 0 100 350 450 COA Construct 3 lane roadway with mixed use trail and intersection improvements at Cemetery Road.ALL 50 COA Extend Arlington Valley Road from 191st to 188th 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Construct a 3-lane road section with mixed use trail. Wetland delineation to be determined in feasibility stage.PE CN *51 DEV 180 the Extension from Smokey Point Blvd to Airport Property 0 50 50 DEV 400 400 DEV 0 0 450 450 Construct a 3-lane road section with sidewalks and bike lanes PE ALL *52 COA 180 th Extension from Airport Property to Airport Blvd 0 50 50 DEV 800 50 0 50 800 850 Construct a 3-lane road section with sidewalks and bike lanes PE ALL 750 UNFUNDED 53 COA 188th St NE Tunnel Extension through Airport Property 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Construct a tunnel and two-lane road with shoulders and mixed use trail PE CN Tunnel should be wide enough to expand to a 4-lane roadway in the future with a mixed-use trail 54 COA 183rd Extension from Developer Project (183rd) to Airport Blvd 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Construct a 3-lane road section with sidewalks and bike lanes PE CN Page 5 2020 6yr TIP Project List (DRAFT 11-25-20) Adopted Resolution No. To be Determined CITY OF ARLINGTON (Thousands of Dollars) AG E N C Y PROJECT NAME AND DESCRIPTION 2021 OBLIG & PHASE*CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS FUND SOURCE 2022 OBLIG & PHASE CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS FUND SOURCE 2023 OBLIG & PHASE CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS FUND SOURCE 2024-2026 OBLIG & PHASE CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS FUND SOURCE CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS 6 YR. PROJECT COST 55 DEV 211TH PL Extension to 59th AVE (Proj #Dev-1)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COA Install a 3-lane urban connector road and sidewalks between 211th Place and 59th Ave PE CN and install a multiuse trail in critical area buffer *56 DEV 169th St Extension Phase 1 SPB to 38th Ave (Affinity Property) (Proj # R-19)1,000 1,000 DEV 0 0 0 0 1,000 1,000 Extend 169th St as a three lane urban roadway from Smokey Point Blvd to 38th Ave (Affinity lot). CN *57 COA 169th St Extension - Phase 2 0 433 433 430 430 3,100 450 2,650 PSRC (Fed)1,313 2,650 3,963 Extend 169th St as a two lane urban roadway with multiuse trail from 38th Ave to 43rd Ave.PE & RW PE & RW CN PSRC Contingency funding; PE/RW in 2022-2023, CN in 2024. *58 DEV 169th St from 43rd Ave to 51st Ave - Phase 3 50 50 DEV 1,500 1,500 DEV 0 0 0 1,550 1,550 Extend east-west street as a three lane urban roadway with multiuse trail from 67th to Arlington Valley Road PE 59 COA 169th St from 51st Ave to 59th Ave - Phase 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Extend 169th St as a three lane urban roadway with multiuse trail from 51st to 59th Ave. PE 60 DEV 169th St from 59th Ave to 67th Ave – Phase 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Extend 169th St as a two lane urban roadway with multiuse trail from 59th to 67th. PE *61 DEV 199th/197th St Extension (Gayteway Project)0 550 0 550 DEV 1,700 0 0 0 2,250 2,250 COA 67th Ave to Arlington Valley Rd connector - Industrial section with multiuse trail.1,700 UNFUNDED *62 COA 173rd St, Phase 1 - SPB to 40th AVE (Proj #R-28)0 2,200 1,900 300 UTILITES 0 0 1,900 300 2,200 Project includes construction of new road and pedestrian facilities between Smokey Pt Blvd CN and 40th Ave. 63 COA 173rd St, Phase 2 (Proj #R-28)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project includes redesign of road alignment and construction of new road and pedestrian facilities btwn 40th and 43rd Ave *64 COA 173rd St, Phase 3 43rd to Airport Blvd (Proj #R-27)0 3,250 500 300 AIRPORT 0 0 500 2,750 3,250 Project includes redesign of road alignment and construction of new road between 43rd Ave ALL 2,450 UNFUNDED and Airport Blvd 65 COA 47th Ave in Airport Business Park (Proj #R-21A)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Design, permit and construct 2-lane road through Airport Business Park extending from PE CN 173rd to Airport Blvd 66 DEV 47th Ave NE from 169th South to City Limits 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Construct 47th as a 3 lane industrial section from 169th south to city limits PE CN *67 DEV 63rd Ave Phase 1 PUD Site to Smartcap 188th Site 500 500 DEV 0 0 0 0 500 500 COA Extend 63rd Ave as a three-lane roadway from PUD improvements ALL *68 DEV 63rd Ave Phase 2 188th south through HCI Property 100 100 DEV 0 0 0 0 100 100 COA Extend 63rd Ave as a three-lane roadway with 12-ft wide multiuse trail ALL Page 6 2020 6yr TIP Project List (DRAFT 11-25-20) Adopted Resolution No. To be Determined CITY OF ARLINGTON (Thousands of Dollars) AG E N C Y PROJECT NAME AND DESCRIPTION 2021 OBLIG & PHASE*CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS FUND SOURCE 2022 OBLIG & PHASE CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS FUND SOURCE 2023 OBLIG & PHASE CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS FUND SOURCE 2024-2026 OBLIG & PHASE CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS FUND SOURCE CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS 6 YR. PROJECT COST *69 DEV 63rd Ave Phase 3 Gap from HCI to Smartcap 0 400 0 0 0 400 400 COA Extend 63rd Ave as a (2 lane alley) to be increased to a PE & CN 400 UNFUNDED three-lane roadway with 12-ft wide multiuse trail by future development *70 COA 63rd Ave Phase 4 Gap from PUD site to 172nd 0 900 1,250 0 0 2,150 2,150 Extend 63rd Ave as a three-lane roadway with 12-ft wide multiuse trail.PE & RW 900 UNFUNDED 1,250 UNFUNDED *71 DEV 74th Ave Extension from 204th North to Portage Creek 200 200 DEV 0 0 0 0 200 200 Extend 74th Ave as a 3 lane urban section from the intersection at 204th to Portage Creek ALL RW 72 DEV 74th Ave Extension Portage Creek to Hazel St 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Extend 74th Ave as a 3 lane urban section from Portage Creek, including the bridge expansion, to Hazel St PE CN *73 DEV 71st Ave Extension from 204th to 74th Ave 0 400 400 DEV 0 0 0 400 400 Extend 71st Ave as a 3 lane urban section from the intersection at PE CN 204th northeast to meet up with and interconnect to 74th Ave 74 COA 180th St NE Extension from BSNF Railway to 67th Ave NE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Extend 180th St NE from current end near BNSF railway to 67th Ave NE PE CN including new crossing over the railroad tracks PAVEMENT PRESERVATION 2,035 225 1,810 1,975 0 1,975 2,200 0 2,200 6,600 0 6,600 225 12,585 12,810 75 COA Smokey Point Blvd Overlay 935 225 710 PSRC (Fed)0 0 225 710 935 Pavement preservation project on SPB from S City limits to 174th St. CN ALL 76 COA Annual Pavement Preservation Program 1,100 1,100 TBD 1,100 1,100 TBD 1,100 1,100 TBD 3,300 3,300 TBD 0 6,600 6,600 Misc. locations to be determined by 2012 Pavement Preservation Program ALL ALL ALL ALL 77 COA Broadway/Division Overlay 0 875 875 TBD & NIH Grant 1,100 1,100 TBD 3,300 3,300 TBD 0 5,275 5,275 Resurface Broadway (Burke to Division) and Division (Broadway to SR-9) under the NIH Grant ALL ALL ALL Program JOINT AGENCY PROJECTS 2,610 160 2,450 9,510 510 9,000 19,950 300 19,650 54,025 375 53,650 1,345 84,750 86,095 *78 WSDOT ISLAND CROSSING ROUNDABOUT 150 150 3,800 500 3,300 UNFUNDED 0 0 650 3,300 3,950 COA CONSTRUCT ROUNDABOUT AT SR 530 AND SMOKEY POINT BLVD PE CN COUNTY Complete design in 2021, seek funding for 2022 construction STILLI 79 WSDOT SR 530/59TH ROUNDABOUT 10 10 10 10 0 0 20 0 20 COA INSTALL ROUNDABOUT AT 59TH AVE AND SR 530 PE PE *80 WSDOT 172nd and 63rd Ave Roundabout 0 250 WSDOT 250 WSDOT 0 0 500 500 COA Roundabout at intersection of 63rd and 172nd 250 UNFUNDED 250 UNFUNDED *81 WSDOT SR530/Burke Signalization (Proj #I-7)0 0 2,550 50 WSDOT 0 50 2,500 2,550 COA Installation of signal and improvements at SR9/SR530/Burke per 2011 SR9 Route Development Plan PE & CN 2,500 UNFUNDED Page 7 2020 6yr TIP Project List (DRAFT 11-25-20) Adopted Resolution No. To be Determined CITY OF ARLINGTON (Thousands of Dollars) AG E N C Y PROJECT NAME AND DESCRIPTION 2021 OBLIG & PHASE*CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS FUND SOURCE 2022 OBLIG & PHASE CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS FUND SOURCE 2023 OBLIG & PHASE CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS FUND SOURCE 2024-2026 OBLIG & PHASE CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS FUND SOURCE CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS 6 YR. PROJECT COST *82 WSDOT SR530/SR9/Division Signal (Proj #I-6)0 0 1,050 50 WSDOT 2,625 75 WSDOT, PSRC/STP 125 3,550 3,675 COA Installation of improved signalization and channelization at SR530/SR9/Division intersection per 2011 PE & CN 1,000 UNFUNDED 2,550 UNFUNDED SR9 Route Development Plan *83 WSDOT SR-531 Widening Project (Proj #R-14A)2,450 2,450 WSDOT 5,450 5,450 WSDOT 15,750 15,750 WSDOT 16,000 250 15,750 WSDOT 250 39,400 39,650 COA Project to widen SR-531 (172nd Street) between 43rd Ave and 67th Ave. PE RW CN CN 84 WSDOT SR-531 Widening Phase 2 (Proj N/A)0 0 0 35,000 0 35,000 35,000 COA This project proposes to widen SR-531 from 67th Ave to SR-9. Other funding to be determined.ALL 35,000 UNFUNDED 85 WSDOT SR530/Broadway Intersection Improvement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COA Installation of improved signalization and channelization at Burke and Broadway PE CN *86 COA 89th from 172nd to 186th Feasibility study 0 0 150 150 0 150 0 150 COUNTY Determine location and alignment for connector to the Arlington High School and Crown Ridge Blvd to 172nd PE CN DEV 87 WSDOT Freeway On/Off Ramp at 188th 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COA Create on/off ramp to facility access to the SPB corridor, create alternative routes PE CN in / out of the city for traffic flow and safety. 88 WSDOT Portage Creek Trail crossing at HWY 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COA Trail crossing at HWY 9. Connects two segments of the Portage Creek Trail.PE CN *89 LID Smokey Point Local Improvement District 0 0 100 50 100 50 100 100 200 COA Create LID to improve areas of SPB, 169th, 40th, 172nd, 173rd PE 50 UNFUNDED CN 50 UNFUNDED May include Projects # 19, 27, 31, 40, and 45 *90 LID SR 530 Corridor Study 50 WSDOT 150 WSDOT 0 200 200 COA Corridor study PE 50 UNFUNDED CN 150 UNFUNDED *91 LID I5 and SR-531 Intersection Planning Level Study 50 WSDOT 150 WSDOT 0 200 200 COA Analyze I5 and SR-531 intersection for vehicle movement improvements (possible single point PLANNING 50 UNFUNDED CN 150 UNFUNDED Page 8 2020 6yr TIP Project List (DRAFT 11-25-20) Adopted Resolution No. To be Determined CITY OF ARLINGTON (Thousands of Dollars) AG E N C Y PROJECT NAME AND DESCRIPTION 2021 OBLIG & PHASE*CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS FUND SOURCE 2022 OBLIG & PHASE CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS FUND SOURCE 2023 OBLIG & PHASE CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS FUND SOURCE 2024-2026 OBLIG & PHASE CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS FUND SOURCE CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS 6 YR. PROJECT COST SUMMARY 2,700 8,864 4,131 21,550 1,595 30,325 1,535 71,890 9,961 132,629 STATE, FEDERAL, OTHER AND UNFUNDED FUNDS: DEVELOPER DEVELOPER 2,190 DEVELOPER 4,770 DEVELOPER 2,450 DEVELOPER 250 DEVELOPER 9,660 DEVELOPER 9660 WSDOT WASH. ST. DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION 2,450 WSDOT 5,450 WSDOT 15,800 WSDOT 15,750 WSDOT 39,450 WSDOT 39450 UNFUNDED CITY UNDETERMINED UNFUNDED 8,300 UNFUNDED 9,205 UNFUNDED 42,890 UNFUNDED 60,395 UNFUNDED 60395 COUNTY SNOHOMISH COUNTY 0 COUNTY COUNTY 0 COUNTY 0 COUNTY 0 COUNTY 0 TBD TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT 1,100 TBD 2,035 TBD 1,180 TBD 3,600 TBD 7,915 TBD 7915 AIR AIRPORT 0 AIR 300 AIR 0 AIR 0 AIR 300 AIR 300 TIB TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT BOARD 1,680 TIB 40 TIB 0 TIB 3,300 TIB 5,020 TIB 5020 PSRC PSRC 1,254 PSRC 320 PSRC 590 PSRC 2,650 PSRC 4,814 PSRC 4814 CMAQ CONGESTION MITIGATION AIR QUALITY 0 CMAQ 0 CMAQ 0 CMAQ 0 CMAQ 0 CMAQ 0 HSIP HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 0 HSIP 0 HSIP 0 HSIP 0 HSIP 0 HSIP 0 PED-BIKE PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROGRAM 0 PED-BIKE 0 PED-BIKE 0 PED-BIKE 0 PED-BIKE 0 PED-BIKE 0 SRTS SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL 0 SRTS 0 SRTS 0 SRTS 0 SRTS 0 SRTS 0 TIGER TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT GENERATING ECONOMIC RECOVER 0 BUILD 0 BUILD 0 BUILD 0 BUILD 0 BUILD 0 FMSIB FREIGHT MOBILITY STRATEGIC INVESTMENT BOARD 0 FMSIB 0 FMSIB 0 FMSIB 0 FMSIB 0 FMSIB 0 CDBG COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT 0 CDBG 0 CDBG 0 CDBG 0 CDBG 0 CDBG 0 DOC DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 0 DOC 0 DOC 0 DOC 0 DOC 0 DOC 0 OTHER BOND OR LOAN 0 OTHER OTHER 0 OTHER 0 OTHER 0 OTHER 0 8,674 SUB TOT 21,215 SUB TOT 29,225 SUB TOT 68,440 SUB TOT 127,554 SUB TOT 127554 CITY FUNDS: ART-ST ARTERIAL STREET FUND GMA-ST GROWTH MANAGEMENT STREET FUND DEMAND 0 PROJECTED GROWTH MANAGEMENT STREETS REVENUES 0 TM TRAFFIC MITIGATION 2,700 4,131 1,595 1,535 9,961 9961 UTIL WATER/SEWER/STORM FUNDS 190 335 525 ANNUAL DEFICIT OR SURPLUS 0 ESTIMATED CARRYOVER SURPLUS OR DEFICIT FROM PREVIOUS YEAR 0 YEAR TO YEAR ESTIMATED ANNUAL SURPLUS OR DEFICIT 0 2,890 SUB TOT 4,466 SUB TOT 1,595 SUB TOT 1,535 SUB TOT 10,486 SUB TOT 11,564 TOTAL 25,681 TOTAL 30,820 TOTAL 69,975 TOTAL 138,040 GRAND TOT 138040 RESOLUTION NO. 2020 – XXX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARLINGTON, WASHINGTON ADOPTING THE OFFICIAL SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR THE CITY OF ARLINGTON WHEREAS, the City of Arlington has the responsibility to plan for transportation improvements within the City pursuant to the Growth Management Act and RCW 36.70A.070; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the proposed six year transportation improvement plan (TIP) at their City Council workshop on November 23, 2020, and at a public hearing conducted on December 7, 2020 and determined approving the six year TIP was in the best interest of the City and its citizens; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARLINGTON, WASHINGTON, DO HEREBY RESOLVE: SECTION 1. That certain comprehensive Transportation Improvement Plan for the six years commencing July 1, 2021 as detailed in the attached “Exhibit A” is hereby adopted as the Official Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan for the City of Arlington. PASSED at a regular meeting of the City of Arlington, Washington held on the 7th day of December 2020. CITY OF ARLINGTON _______________________________ Barbara Tolbert, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Wendy Van Der Meersche, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ________________________________ Steven J. Peiffle, City Attorney City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill Item: PH #3 Attachment ECOUNCIL MEETING DATE: December 7, 2020 SUBJECT: Development agreement for NorthPoint Development, LLC ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Development Agreement, Legal Description of the Property, Depiction of the Property, Conceptual Site Plan, Economic Impact Analysis, and Policy Analysis DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN Community and Economic Development; Marc Hayes, Director 360-403-3457 EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: 0 BUDGET CATEGORY: 0 BUDGETED AMOUNT: 0 LEGAL REVIEW: DESCRIPTION: Public Hearing for proposed Development Agreement between the City and NorthPoint Development, LLC, related to the planned industrial development known as the Cascade Commerce Center, a 426 acre industrial park, of which 87 acres are within Arlington’s portion of the Cascade Industrial Center. NorthPoint Development, LLC wishes to enter into this agreement to ensure that their multi-year investment of the project will not be unreasonably delayed or burdened. Per AMC 20.39.040, a public hearing is required. HISTORY: Development Agreements are utilized to ensure that certain terms and conditions are addressed and memorialized through the agreement. In this instance, NorthPoint is seeking assurances that items such as vesting of Traffic Impact Fees (TIF) and permitting processes will not change within the terms established by this agreement, but only if the City receives a complete Binding Site Plan for the subject property by March I move to approve the Development Agreement for NorthPoint Development, LLC, and authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement, subject to final review by the City Attorney. Development Agreement - Page 1 of 15 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT This DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is entered into this ____ day of __________, 2020, by and between the City of Arlington (“City”), a Washington municipal corporation, and NorthPoint Development, LLC (“Owner”), a Missouri limited liability company. The City and Owner are referred to collectively as the “Parties” and individually as a “Party.” RECITALS A. WHEREAS, Owner is a national industrial developer of more than 80 million square feet nationwide with interest in developing approximately 426 acres in the Cascade Industrial Center, which development shall be known as the Cascade Commerce Center; and B. WHEREAS, the Cascade Commerce Center will include development of properties in the cities of Arlington and Marysville which is legally described in Exhibit A (the “Property”) and shown in Exhibit B (the “Development Area”); and C. WHEREAS, approximately 87 acres of this 426 acre development will be in the City of Arlington; and D. WHEREAS, Owner expects to invest nearly four hundred million dollars ($400,000,000) in this 426 acre industrial park over the next several years in its construction of approximately 4.156 million square feet of industrial space and approximately $14.7 million in public road, water and sewer improvements; and E. WHEREAS, Owner’s project will provide other public benefits to the City, including the creation of thousands of new jobs that improve the City’s jobs to housing balance and complete the realignment of Edgecomb Creek; and F. WHEREAS, a project of this magnitude will result in substantial short- and long- term economic benefits to the city and area taxing districts, including the Arlington School District, City of Arlington, Snohomish County Public Hospital District No. 3, Sno-Isle Library System, and Snohomish County, which estimated benefits are described further in Exhibit D (the “Economic Impact Analysis”); and G. WHEREAS, RCW 36.70B.170 through 36.70B.210 authorizes cities to enter into development agreements with property owners to govern the future development of real property, and a development agreement between Owner and the City is a collaboration that will provide mutual benefit for the Parties and the citizens and businesses of Arlington; and H. WHEREAS, this Agreement is necessary to provide the Owner with confidence that its multi-year investment in the project will not be unreasonably delayed or burdened; and I. WHEREAS, the completion of the Project in accordance with this Agreement will implement city, county and regional employment goals and policies, including goals and policies Development Agreement - Page 2 of 15 of the Arlington Comprehensive Plan and the Arlington-Marysville Manufacturing Industrial Center Subarea plan, which include but are not limited to: ____________________, as illustrated further in Exhibit E (the “Policy Analysis”); and J. WHEREAS, by executing this Agreement, the Parties intend to set forth common goals, mutual agreements and understandings as they relate to the development review process and ultimate development of the Property and the Project; and K. WHEREAS, by executing this Agreement, the Parties recognize that future amendments or separate Development Agreement(s) may be appropriate to further address development and mitigation. AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO RCW 36.70B.170 through 36.70B.210 and in consideration of, and subject to, the mutual promises, benefits, and obligations set forth herein, the City and Owner enter into the following Development Agreement and agree to be bound by its terms. 1. Land. The Property governed by this Agreement, exclusive of public right-of- way, consists of approximately eighty seven (87) acres located at 6600 172nd Street NE, Arlington, Washington, and legally described on Exhibit A to this Agreement. The Property governed by this Agreement is depicted on Exhibit B to this Agreement. 2. The Project. The Project is the proposed development of the Property with approximately 2.9 million square feet of Class A industrial manufacturing and warehouse space, together with associated parking, drainage, and utility infrastructure. The Project also includes a relocation of Edgecomb Creek, habitat enhancement, and a pedestrian trail. A copy of the project’s conceptual site plan is attached hereto as Exhibit C (“Conceptual Site Plan”) 3. Vested Rights. 3.1 Vesting of Binding Site Plan to Development Standards. Except as expressly stated otherwise herein, any amendments to or additions to City development standards adopted by the City during the term of this Agreement shall not apply to or affect the conditions of development of the Project and construction of buildings provided that Owner files a complete binding site plan application by March 30, 2021. If a complete binding site plan is not filed by March 30, 2021, development of the Project shall be vested to and governed by the City of Arlington Municipal Code development standards and any policies adopted consistent therewith which are in effect at the time Owners file a complete binding site plan application for the Development Area, generally consistent with the Conceptual Site Plan. As used in this Agreement, the term “development standards” shall be as defined in RCW 36.70B.170, including development regulations, policies, procedures and guidelines addressing zoning, environmental review (including SEPA procedures and substantive SEPA policies), building and site design, utilities, stormwater, transportation concurrency and other laws, ordinance, policies, and administrative regulations and guidelines of the City governing land development. Development Agreement - Page 3 of 15 3.2 Traffic Impact Fees – Vesting. Traffic impact fees assessed to this project shall be based on the rate in effect at the time this Agreement is approved unless in accordance with Section 3.1 the Owner has filed a complete binding site plan application by March 30, 2021. 3.3 Exemptions. Except as specifically addressed in Sections 3.1, the following are exempt from vesting under this Agreement: 3.3.1 Plan review fees, inspection fees, and school and fire impact fees established by schedules, charts, tables, or formula; 3.3.2 Water, sewer, stormwater, and other utility connection charges, general facility charges, Capital Facility Charges, and monthly service charges; 3.3.3 Amendments to building, plumbing, mechanical, fire, and other construction codes adopted pursuant to RCW 19.27 and 19.27A until such time as building permit application(s) are submitted; and 3.3.4 Other City enactments that are adopted pursuant to state or federal mandates (such as, but not limited to, the City’s NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit) that preempt the City’s authority to vest regulations. 3.4 Changes to Application or Approved Binding Site Plan. The Parties recognize the Owner may change aspects of the Conceptual Plan to accommodate market demand or better situate the buildings within the Development Area. Changes to orientation of the building, including any consequent infrastructure changes, or changes to the size of any building in the Conceptual Plan shall not be deemed to vitiate the vested rights set forth in the terms of this Agreement. 3.5 Minor Amendments to the Binding Site Plan. A minor revision to an approved binding site plan application shall be an administrative decision which does not require a change to this Agreement provided the minor revision does not result in a change in the proposed type of development or use, increase the trip generation by greater than 10 percent, require a variance, or require the re-recording of the Binding Site Plan. 3.6 Future Amendments to Code. Owner may request to be bound by future amendments to the Arlington Zoning Code, the Arlington Municipal Code, or other standards, regulations, policies, or guidelines against which Owner is vested under this Agreement. The City’s Community and Economic Development Director may deny such request if the Director determines that compliance with the vested regulation is necessary to meet the City’s intent in approving this Development Agreement or to achieve a development of like quality and benefit to the City. If Owner disagrees with such denial, Owner may apply for an amendment of this Agreement as provided in Subsection 3.7 below. Development Agreement - Page 4 of 15 3.7 Amendments to Agreement. This Agreement may be amended administratively if no new land use not allowed under then-current regulations is proposed, no reduction in the amount of required open space is proposed, no increase in the total amount of square footage allowed by main level FAR or no more than a 25% increase in total square footage if located on multiple levels; no reduction in the infrastructure required by this Agreement is proposed; and the request does not involve a request to be bound by future code amendments that has been denied by the Planning Director as provided in Subsection 3.5. Any amendment not meeting the criteria of the preceding sentence must be approved by the Arlington City Council using the process for consideration of development agreements set forth in the AMC. 3.8 City’s Reserved Rights. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement, pursuant to RCW 36.70B.170(4) the City reserves authority to impose new or different officially adopted regulations of general applicability to the extent required by a serious threat to public health and safety, as determined by the Arlington City Council after written notice and an opportunity to be heard has been provided to Owner. 4. Term. The term of this Agreement shall be eight (8) years, except as provided in this Section. The City and Owner may agree at any time after the extension of this Agreement to extend the term of this Agreement for a further five (5) years, provided that such extension is approved by the Arlington City Council,. 5. Access, Circulation, and Public Roads. As stated in Section 3.3 of the approved AMMIC Subarea Plan, the concepts of the framework plan were to be used to guide development over the short and long-term. However, the goal of the framework plan was not to establish inflexible locations of public roads. The City recognizes that the road layout within the Conceptual Site Plan is different from the road network shown in the Arlington-Marysville Manufacturing Industrial Subarea Plan; however, the City accepts that the construction of a roundabout at 63rd Ave., the construction of 59th Avenue NE to the city limits of Marysville and development of future internal private roads will achieve an equal level of service. Further, the Parties agree that the extension of 59th Avenue NE will be two travel lanes, a turn lane, an intersection to accommodate 168th St. NE, and no on-street parking, within the newly constructed portion. 6. Transportation Impact Fees and Credits. The City acknowledges that All road construction shall satisfy the requirements of the AMC Chapter 20.56 and other City ordinances, regulations and requirements of state law. Owner will be required to construct road improvements that may be eligible for credit towards payment of the City’s traffic impact fees in accordance with AMC 20.90.040(d) through (f), which at the time of this agreement states: (d) If, as a condition of approval of development activity, the city requires the dedication of land, or construction of system improvements, in excess of the minimum development standards set out in this title, the developer shall be eligible for a credit towards the transportation mitigation fees otherwise payable under this chapter. The amount of said credit shall be measured based on the pre-development fair market value of said land or Development Agreement - Page 5 of 15 improvements required in excess of the minimum standards and shall be deducted from the transportation mitigation fees charged under this chapter. (e) A trip-for-trip credit for existing trips may be given when a site is being expanded or undergoing a change in use. However, no credits for existing trips may be transferred from one site to another. (f) The city administrator or designee may adjust the amount of the impact fee otherwise imposed hereby with respect to specific projects requiring a building permit upon determining that: (1) Unusual circumstances requires such adjustment to ensure that such impact fees are imposed fairly; and (2) Studies and data submitted by the owner regarding the impacts of such owner's proposed development activity requires such adjustment to ensure that such impact fees are imposed fairly. Impact fees shall not be deemed unfair unless such unusual circumstances and studies and data support a finding that the impact fees otherwise imposed hereby allocate to the specific project in question a share of the cost of the systems improvements reasonably related to new development that is greater than or substantially less than such project's allocable proportionate share of such costs. 7. Oversized Water, Sewer and Stormwater – Credits. The City acknowledges that Owner may be eligible to receive credits for construction of oversized utilities as may be required by the City. 8. Cost Recovery (Latecomer) Agreements. The City agrees to cooperate with the Owner to timely review and act on Owner’s requests for cost recovery agreements in accordance with AMC Chapters 13.28 (Stormwater), 13.04 (water), and 13.08 (sewer) and RCW Chapter 35,91.. 9. Entitlement and Permitting. The City shall agree to timely review of requests for permits such as early clear and grading which may be necessary to achieve economies of scale for the volume of import fill material required for site development. 10. Building Heights Flexible. In accordance with AMC 20.39.010 and 20.39.020 building heights are a flexible development standard which the City may address through a development agreement as authorized in AMC 20.39.005. The City agrees to consider building heights above the maximum building height of 50 feet for the Light Industrial zone provided: a. the building height proposed complies with the applicable performance standards in AMC 20.38.080 for the Airport Protection Subdistrict; Development Agreement - Page 6 of 15 b. the Owner receives an approval from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) after submission of an FAA Form7460-1 and completion of any required public comment period; c. the Owner executes an avigation easement as requested by the City of Arlington Airport Authority; and d. the public safety and interests are considered and appropriately protected as may be required. 11. Realignment of Edgecomb Creek. The City, in adopting the Arlington- Marysville Manufacturing Industrial Center Subarea Plan, identified the realignment of Edgecomb Creek as critical improvement that would enhance fish and wildlife habitat, reduce flooding in the sub-basin, and integrate the stream with strategies for the management of stormwater as the industrial center is built-out. Further, the realignment project is necessary to maximize the economic benefit of industrial center development, including improvements to the City’s jobs to housing ratio. In recognition of the City’s Subarea Plan objectives, the City agrees to support Owner’s efforts to obtain the necessary federal and state permits prerequisite to local approvals that will be required to complete the realignment. 11.1 Edgecomb Creek Corridor. The City will accept a 215-foot-wide habitat corridor included in which will be the relocated Edgecomb Creek. 11.2 Ditch X Buffer Reduction. The City will work with Owner on the realignment of Ditch X and its connection to Edgecomb Creek. Recognizing the elevation change between Ditch X and Edgecomb Creek, the City will accept proposed reductions in the buffer down to 0 feet for Ditch X to allow for its alignment to connect with Edgecomb Creek. 12. Transfer of Ownership. The City has entered into this Agreement in reliance on the Owner’s experience, skill and resources. Nothing herein prevents NorthPoint or its capital partner, Northwestern Mutual, from transferring or assigning this project or a portion thereof, to entities controlled by either NorthPoint or Northwestern Mutual. However, should NorthPoint or Northwestern Mutual wish to sell or transfer their Ownership to a third party, the City reserves the right to inquire into the qualifications of the prospective assignee or transferee, and Owner shall assist the City in so inquiring. The City may request conditions on the sale or transfer of development rights governed by this agreement upon such terms and conditions as allowed under law, provided, however, any such terms and conditions so attached shall be related to the qualifications of the prospective assignee or transferee. In the event of transfer of ownership of all or any portion of the Property with the consent of the City, the benefits accruing to, and the obligations placed upon the Owner under this Agreement shall run with the land and title to the Property and inure to the benefit of, and be binding upon, each person having any right or title or other legal interest in the Property with respect to that party’s interest in the Property. This Agreement shall be deemed to create privity of contract and estate with and among all persons and entities acquiring any interest in the Property subsequent to the date hereof. 13. Miscellaneous Provisions. Development Agreement - Page 7 of 15 13.1 Code Citations. All citations and references to the Arlington Zoning Code and Arlington Municipal Code in this Agreement shall refer to those provisions in force as of the Effective Date. 13.2 Recording. This Agreement shall be recorded with the Snohomish County Recorder. The provisions of this Agreement shall run with the land and be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties, their successors in interest and assigns. 13.3 Amendments. City and Owner agree that amendments to this Agreement are likely just prior to or after completion of the project level SEPA review or binding site plan approval. Major amendments to this Agreement shall require review and approval by the Arlington City Council. City staff shall be entitled to administratively approve minor amendments to this Agreement. A “Minor Amendment” is defined as an amendment that does not increase the density of the Project or significantly increase its adverse impacts on surrounding properties. 14. Specific Performance. During the Term of this Agreement as provided for in Section 5, above, the Parties specifically agree that damages may not be an adequate remedy for breach of this Agreement and that the Parties may be entitled to specific performance of all terms of this Agreement by any Party in default hereof. No party shall be in default under this Agreement unless it has failed to perform following written notice of default from the other party. Notice of default shall allow the defaulting party thirty (30) days to cure or commence cure where thirty (30) days is insufficient for a complete cure. Each notice of default shall specify the nature of the alleged fault and the manner in which the default may be cured satisfactorily. A party not in default under this Agreement shall have all rights and remedies provided by law or equity, including without limitation: issuance of a stop work order, injunction, damages, action for specific performance, or to require action consistent with this Agreement. Nothing herein will operate to prevent either party from taking legal action regarding noncompliance that threatens public health, safety or welfare prior to the expiration of the thirty (30) day cure period following notice of default. No such action or preceding will operate to automatically terminate this Agreement, nor shall it release either party from any promise or obligation herein nor shall it release either party from any liability or obligation with respect to any breach of this Agreement occurring prior to the commencement of any legal action by a party. 15. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington, notwithstanding any conflicts of law provisions. 16. Notices. All notices and other communications required or otherwise provided for by this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be given to the following persons: CITY OF ARLINGTON NORTHPOINT DEVELOPMENT Attention: Attention: Marc Hayes Thane Smith 18204 59th Ave NE 4825 NW 41st ST, Suite 500 Arlington, WA 982223 Riverside, MO 64150 Development Agreement - Page 8 of 15 And to its Attorney: And to its Attorney: City of Arlington City Attorney Johns Monroe Mitsunaga Kolouskova, PLLC Attn: Steve Pieffle Attn: Duana Kolouskova 238 N. Olympic 11201 SE 8th Street, Suite 120 Arlington, WA 98270 Bellevue, Washington The Parties may, from time-to-time, notify each other in writing of changes in the names and addresses of persons to receive notices and communications and such changes shall become effective upon receipt by the non-notifying Party. Notices shall be deemed received within three days after being placed in the United States Mail, properly addressed and postage prepaid, or upon personal delivery. 17. Full Understanding – Construction. The Parties each acknowledge, represent and agree that they have read this Agreement, that they fully understand the terms thereof; that they have had the opportunity to be fully advised by their legal counsel and any other advisors with respect thereto; and that they are executing this Agreement after sufficient review and understanding of its contents. 18. Attorney’s Fees. If either Party institutes litigation against the other Party to enforce any provision of this Agreement or to redress any breach thereof, the prevailing Party shall be entitled to recover its costs and reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in such litigation. 19. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Agreement is determined to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining sections, sentences, clauses and phrases shall remain viable and in full force and effect. 20. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, with each Party sending a .pdf of its signature to the other Party via email transmission. This Agreement, when fully executed and signature pages exchanged as provided herein shall be effective as the original document. 21. Equal Opportunity to Participate in Drafting. The Parties have participated and had an equal opportunity to participate in the drafting of this Agreement. No ambiguity shall be construed against any Party based upon a claim that such Party drafted the ambiguous language. 22. Exhibits. This Agreement includes the following Exhibits: Exhibit A: Legal Description of the Property Exhibit B: Depiction of the Property Exhibit C: Conceptual Site Plan Exhibit D: Economic Impact Analysis Exhibit E: Policy Analysis Development Agreement - Page 9 of 15 23. Future Agreements. Nothing herein shall restrict the City and the Owner from agreeing to amend this Agreement or enter in to one or more additional Agreements relating to this property provided that this Agreement supersedes and replaces all prior agreements, discussions and representation on all subjects relating to the development of the Property. Neither Party is entering into this Agreement in reliance on any oral or written promises, inducements, representations, understandings, interpretations or agreements other than those contained in this Agreement and the exhibits hereto. 24. Effect of Expiration or Termination. Upon expiration as provided for in Section 4, all rights and obligations of the Parties under this Agreement shall terminate and be of no further effect. All development applied for after expiration or termination of this Agreement shall be required to satisfy any then applicable City codes, ordinances, regulations and requirements notwithstanding the issuance of any concurrency certificate during the effective period of this Agreement. All development applied for after the expiration or sooner termination of this Agreement shall be subject to SEPA review if not previously completed and may be conditioned to mitigate any environmental impacts of such development, notwithstanding any mitigation provided during the term of this Agreement and the City shall not be required to credit any mitigation provided during the term of this Agreement against any mitigation subsequently determined necessary to mitigate the environmental impacts of any development for which a permit is issued after expiration or sooner termination of this Agreement. It is the intent of the Parties that the requirements of this Agreement shall apply only during its term and to any permits or approvals applied for during its term, and that once this Agreement has expired or is terminated, all rights created by the terms of this Agreement will have expired or terminated. . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first set forth above. NORTHPOINT DEVELOPMENT CITY OF ARLINGTON By: By: Its: Barbara Tolbert Date: Its: Mayor Date: Attest: Wendy van Der Meersche, City Clerk Development Agreement - Page 10 of 15 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Steven J. Peiffle, City Attorney Development Agreement - Page 11 of 15 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ___________ ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that _____________________ is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that (he/she) signed this instrument, on oath stated that (he/she) was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the _______________ of NorthPoint Development, a _______ limited liability company, to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. DATED: ____________________ Printed: NOTARY PUBLIC in and for Washington Residing at: My appointment expires: STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that BARBARA TOLBERT is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he signed this instrument, on oath stated that he was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the Mayor of the CITY OF ARLINGTON, to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. DATED: _______________________ Printed: NOTARY PUBLIC in and for Washington Residing at: My appointment expires: Development Agreement - Page 12 of 15 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Development Agreement - Page 13 of 15 EXHIBIT B DEPICTION OF THE PROPERTY Development Agreement - Page 14 of 15 EXHIBIT C Development Agreement - Page 15 of 15 EXHIBIT D PARCEL A PARCEL B 31052700400300 31052700300100 31052700201000 31052700200900 31052700100100 31052700- 31052700-100200 100800 31052700100300 31052700100900 27 26 27 22 26 23 27 22 59TH AVE NE NO R T H E R N P A C I F I C RA I L R O A D 27 CITY OF ARLINGTON CITY OF MARYSVILLE www.LDCcorp.com 20210 142nd Avenue NE Woodinville, WA 98072 F 425.482.2893T 425.806.1869 S ur v ey i n g E n g i neer i ng Pl a nn i n g Woodinville 1851 Central Pl S, #101 Kent, WA 98030 Kent NATURAL 9 HOLDINGS LLC EXHIBIT MAP AR L I N G T O N C I C 0 SCALE: 1" =1000' 1000'1000'2000' www.LDCcorp.com 20210 142nd Avenue NE Woodinville, WA 98072 F 425.482.2893T 425.806.1869 S ur v ey i n g E n g i neer i ng Pl a nn i n g Woodinville 1851 Central Pl S, #101 Kent, WA 98030 Kent NATURAL 9 HOLDINGS LLC EXHIBIT MAP AR L I N G T O N C I C LEGAL DESCRIPTION TOYER STRATEGIC ADVISORS 3705 COLBY AVE, STE 1 EVERETT, WA 98201 toyerstrategic.com August 3, 2020 Mr. Thane Smith Director of Development NorthPoint Development 12977 N. Outer 40 Road, Suite 203 St. Louis, MO 63141 RE: PRELIMINARY EMPLOYMENT & ECONOMIC IMPACT FORECAST Mr. Smith: You have asked our firm to conduct a preliminary employment and economic impact forecast for NorthPoint’s Cascade Commerce Center project to be located on approximately 426 acres in the cities of Arlington and Marysville, Washington. Based on conceptual site plans this project is expected to have approximately 4.1 million square feet of industrial warehouse1 space. FORECAST LIMITATIONS Specific tenants have not been identified for this project at this stage, but the project will clearly accommodate core industrial uses in accordance with the local subarea plan, zoning, etc. We caution that forecasting/modeling impacts at this early stage is not precise and any model should be refined as the project progresses and more information is available. However, despite these limitations the following can be relied upon for general guidance as to the potential employment and economic impacts that are likely to result from your development project. METHODOLOGY SUMMARIZED In additional to providing site location analysis, our firm has completed a preliminary analysis of the potential 2 employment and economic impacts attributable to the proposed industrial park within the CIC. STEP ONE: ESTABLISHING BASE EMPLOYMENT A. The first part is to establish the project’s likely employment density. Absent specific employment levels supplied by an end user, we review the employment densities reported in local studies (e.g. buildable lands reports, market analysis), as well as any employment data the developer has for tenants of like facilities in their portfolio. The following are some of the sources we consulted: King County Buildable Lands Report In analyzing employment and population trends, the 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report cites employment density (employees per square feet) figures from 2012. These range from 1 employee per 250 square feet in Kirkland up to 1 employee per 1,000 square feet for Burien with a total average of 1 employee per 637 square feet. More specifically, Kent and Renton (which have diverse industrial bases of warehousing, storage, and manufacturing) saw overall industrial employment densities of 1 employee per 766 and 700 square feet, respectively. Snohomish County Employment Density Study Snohomish County’s study from April 2007 (which supported their buildable lands assumptions in 2012) determined that manufacturing generates 1 employee per 500 square feet; services generate 1 employee per 400 square feet; and wholesale, transportation and utilities (including warehousing) generated 1 employee per 1,000 square feet. The Snohomish County 1 “Industrial warehouse” space is not limited to warehousing uses. This term is generally used to describe a range of industrial buildings that have open floor plans and high ceilings, and which can accommodate manufacturers, technology firms, wholesalers, distributors, research facilities, etc. 2 Specific tenants are currently unknown. This analysis is limited to a preliminary forecast that relies upon assumptions which are highly likely to change over time. PRELIMINARY ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS NORTHPOINT CASCADE COMMERCE CENTER Page 2 of 3 study further reviews the employment densities used by other jurisdictions (pages 10-14), identifying employment densities that range from around 300 square feet per employee to roughly 2,000 square feet per employee. Rally the Valley The City of Kent recently finalized its Rally the Valley subarea planning. Based on research conducted for that effort, average employment densities in Kent’s large industrial area were reported as: Manufacturing/Flex Tech: 1 employee per 430 square feet Warehousing/Wholesale/Distribution: 1 employee per 2,070 square feet Thurston County 2014 Buildable Lands Report As part of Table 4-4 on page 68, the Thurston Regional Planning Council determined that generalized employment ratios per square feet in Thurston County in 2010 indicated that industrial development generated 1.5 employees per 1,000 square feet (excluding large distribution centers). Additionally, Table 4-6 on page 70 highlights development trends from recent construction during 2000-2009 show industrial development having a generalized employment rate of 1.5 employees per 1,000 square feet (excluding large distribution centers) or approximately 1 employee per 667 square feet. Arlington-Marysville MIC Subarea Plan This subarea plan indicates that the approximately 1,762 acres within the CIC have development capacity for additional employment. Further the study indicates that the CIC subarea’s growth target can be reached provide employment densities range from 5 to 14 jobs per acre. Based on an identified employment capacity of 24,800 to 32,700, we presume that these densities are per gross acre. B. A mix of industries anticipated to locate in the development was identified based on local plans (like the Arlington-Marysville MIC Subarea Plan), the targeted industries of local economic development groups, existing industries in the area, and other market factors. This selection process included making assumptions about the likely distribution of this mix of industries based on the proposed building sizes, conceptual building designs, industry characteristics, current and forecasted market demands, and proprietary information. C. Three scenarios were modeled (low, medium, and high) using a mix of core industry business types that may locate in this project. For each we conservatively applied a range of employment densities from 1 employee per 600 square feet to 1 employee per 2,000 square feet depending on each industry type. D. These scenarios resulted in the following forecast employment: Low Medium High Forecasted Jobs Jobs/Bldg Square Foot Jobs/Gross Acre STEP TWO: APPLYING MULTIPLIERS TO MODEL A. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) RIMS II Multipliers 3 for the Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue MSA against the forecast employment to estimate the direct, indirect, and induced employment4 resulting from the final demand change. B. Multipliers are also applied to forecast additional final demand changes, including economic output, value-add (local GDP), and earnings (e.g. wages, salaries, proprietor’s income). These figures are shown in 2018 dollars. 3 This is the 2012 benchmark input-output (I/O) national table with 2018 regional data 4 Multipliers do not distinguish between full-time and part-time jobs PRELIMINARY ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS NORTHPOINT CASCADE COMMERCE CENTER Page 3 of 3 FORECASTED ECONOMIC IMPACT 3,118 3,980 4,857 2,260 2,891 3,529 (in millions)$522M $698M $910M (in millions)$376M $500M $650M (in millions)$128M $169M $219M CONCLUSION We trust this information will be helpful. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at any time. TOYER STRATEGIC ADVISORS, INC. DAVID TOYER PRESIDENT 5 Also known as direct, indirect, and induced jobs GPM GPM GPM GPM 17 2 n d S T N E ST A T E R O U T E 5 3 1 51st AVE NE 15 2 n d S T N E LE V I N R O A D 59th AVE NE BUILDING 9 BU I L D I N G 1 BU I L D I N G 2 BU I L D I N G 6 BU I L D I N G 5 BU I L D I N G 4 BU I L D I N G 3 LO T 8 BU I L D I N G 8 BU I L D I N G 7 CASCADE INDUSTRIAL CENTER (ARLINGTON AND MARYSVILLE, WA)CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN 2020.11.06 SCALE 1:600 N PUBLIC ROAD PU B L I C R O A D PU B L I C R O A D PUBLIC ROAD PUB L I C R O A D PU B L I C R O A D PR I V A T E R O A D PR I V A T E R O A D PR I V A T E R O A D PRIV A T E R O A D PRIV A T E R O A D PRIVATE ROAD PR I V A T E R O A D PR I V A T E R O A D PR I V A T E R O A D PRIVATE ROADPRIVATE ROAD PUBLIC ROAD PU B L I C R O A D PUBLIC ROAD PUBLIC ROAD TOYER STRATEGIC ADVISORS, INC. 3705 COLBY AVE, STE 1 EVERETT, WA 98201 toyerstrategic.com September 14, 2020 Mr. Thane Smith Director of Development NorthPoint Development 12977 N. Outer 40 Road, Suite 203 St. Louis, MO 63141 PROPERTY TAX ANAYLSIS FOR CASCADE COMMERCE CENTER Mr. Smith: As a follow up to our “Preliminary Employment and Economic Impact Forecast” for NorthPoint’s 426-acre Cascade Commerce Center, you have asked our firm to provide a “Property Tax Analysis” for all applicable taxing districts. As shown in the spreadsheet below, this analysis identified a potential annual property tax benefit of more than $5 million to the applicable taxing districts. A more detailed breakdown by each Tax Code Area (TCA) is attached along with a map. Local Government Sub-Total 924,076.38$ Schools Sub-Total 2,849,436.51$ Public Safety Sub-Total 996,808.23$ Library Sub-Total 217,684.21$ Conservation Sub-Total 13,798.96$ TOTAL 5,001,804.30$ PROPERTY TAX ANALYSIS CASCADE COMMERCE CENTER Page 2 of 5 Please note that our Property Tax Analysis is limited by the following: 1. The levy rates used are those provided by the Snohomish County Assessor for Tax Year 2020, as future tax levy rates can not be predicted at this time 2. The project’s size results in buildings spread across three “tax code areas” necessitating each tax code area be analyzed separately before total projections by taxing district can be determined 3. The projected taxable valuation of each building is based on an average valuation of $119/square foot for the building shells and land, which number does not reflect taxable personal property at full occupancy 4. The projection assumes does not predict any property tax exemptions under RCW 84.25 as it is not known at this time which buildings (or portions thereof) will be occupied by qualifying firms 5. This analysis is limited to a view of what the total property taxes would be on this project in 2020 if all 9 shell buildings were constructed We trust this information is helpful to your company and the respective taxing districts affected by this project. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at any time. TOYER STRATEGIC ADVISORS, INC. DAVID TOYER PRESIDENT CC: Mayor Barb Tolbert, City of Arlington Mayor Jon Nehring, City of Marysville Gloria Hirashima, Chief Administrative Officer, City of Marysville Paul Ellis, City Administrator, City of Arlington Marc Hayes, Community & Economic Development Director, City of Arlington Jeff Thomas, Community Development Director, City of Marysville Executive Dave Somers, Snohomish County Councilman Nate Nehring, Snohomish County District 1 Terrie Battuello, Port of Everett Matt Smith, Economic Alliance of Snohomish County PROPERTY TAX ANALYSIS CASCADE COMMERCE CENTER Page 3 of 5 TAX C O D E A R E A 1 1 0 (AR L I N G T O N ) Ar l i n g t o n S c h o o l D i s t r i c t Bo n d s Ar l i n g t o n S c h o o l D i s t r i c t En r i c h m e n t Ci t y o f A r l i n g t o n Ar l i n g t o n E M S P e r m a n e n t Pu b l i c H o s p i t a l D i s t r i c t # 3 Pu b l i c H o s p i t a l D i s t r i c t # 3 Sn o - I s l e L i b r a r y S y s t e m Sn o h o m i s h C o u n t y - C N T Co u n t y C o n s e r v a t i o n Fu t u r e s St a t e S c h o o l 1 St a t e S c h o o l 2 Es t i m a t e d T o t a l R e a l Pr o p e r t y T a x 2020 Tax Levy Mil Rate Per $1000 1.039014907 1.503458348 1.428339642 0.338152539 0.478412969 0.268729408 0.441109017 0.637493757 0.027961822 1.864150739 1.003521812 9.03034496131 148,988,000$ 154,800.75$ 223,997.25$ 212,805.47$ 50,380.67$ 71,277.79$ 40,037.46$ 65,719.95$ 94,978.92$ 4,165.98$ 277,736.09$ 149,512.71$ 1,345,413.04$ Building 6 656,000 Building 7 596,000 Total 1,252,000 Est Taxable Value 148,988,000.00$ $119/sf TAX C O D E A R E A 5 1 1 Ma r y s v i l l e S c h o o l D i s t r i c t Bo n d s Ma r y s v i l l e S c h o o l D i s t r i c t Ca p i t a l P r o j e c t s Ma r y s v i l l e S c h o o l D i s t r i c t En r i c h m e n t Ci t y o f M a r y s v i l l e Ma r y s v i l l e R e g i o n a l F i r e Ma r y s v i l l e E M S P e r m a n e n t Sn o - I s l e L i b r a r y S y s t e m Sn o h o m i s h C o u n t y - C N T Co u n t y C o n s e r v a t i o n Fu t u r e s St a t e S c h o o l 1 St a t e S c h o o l 2 Es t i m a t e d T o t a l R e a l Pr o p e r t y T a x 2020 Tax Levy Mil Rate Per $1000 0.834740635 0.633980229 2.50000000 1.151426554 1.4500000 0.50000000 0.441109017 0.637493757 0.027961822 1.864150739 1.003521812 11.04438456560 125,902,000$ 105,095.52$ 79,819.38$ 314,755.00$ 144,966.91$ 182,557.90$ 62,951.00$ 55,536.51$ 80,261.74$ 3,520.45$ 234,700.31$ 126,345.40$ 1,390,510.11$ Building 8 626,000 Building 9 432,000 Total 1,058,000 Est Taxable Value 125,902,000.00$ $119/sf PROPERTY TAX ANALYSIS CASCADE COMMERCE CENTER Page 4 of 5 TAX C O D E A R E A 5 0 8 Ar l i n g t o n S c h o o l D i s t r i c t Bo n d s Ar l i n g t o n S c h o o l D i s t r i c t En r i c h m e n t Pu b l i c H o s p i t a l D i s t r i c t # 3 Pu b l i c H o s p i t a l D i s t r i c t # 3 Ci t y o f M a r y s v i l l e Ma r y s v i l l e R e g i o n a l F i r e Ma r y s v i l l e E M S P e r m a n e n t Sn o - I s l e L i b r a r y S y s t e m Sn o h o m i s h C o u n t y - C N T Co u n t y C o n s e r v a t i o n Fu t u r e s St a t e S c h o o l 1 St a t e S c h o o l 2 Es t i m a t e d T o t a l R e a l Pr o p e r t y T a x SCH016ARL SCH016ARL HSP003CAS HSP003CAS CTYMAR RFAMAR CTYMAR LIBSNO CNT CNT STASCH STASCH 2020 Tax Levy Mil Rate Per $1000 1.039014907 1.503458348 0.478412969 0.26872941 1.151426554 1.4500000 0.50000000 0.441109017 0.637493757 0.027961822 1.864150739 1.003521812 10.36527933394 218,603,000$ 227,131.78$ 328,660.51$ 104,582.51$ 58,745.05$ 251,705.30$ 316,974.35$ 109,301.50$ 96,427.75$ 139,358.05$ 6,112.54$ 407,508.94$ 219,372.88$ 2,265,881.16$ Building 1 243,000 Building 2 289,000 Building 3 952,000 Building 4 137,000 Building 5 216,000 Total 1,837,000 Est Taxable Value 218,603,000.00$ $119/sf PROPERTY TAX ANALYSIS CASCADE COMMERCE CENTER Page 5 of 5 POLICY ANALYSIS RCW 36.70A – GMA Goals (1) Urban growth. Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner. (2) Reduce sprawl. Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density development. (5) Economic development. Encourage economic development throughout the state that is consistent with adopted comprehensive plans, promote economic opportunity for all citizens of this state, especially for unemployed and for disadvantaged persons, promote the retention and expansion of existing businesses and recruitment of new businesses, recognize regional differences impacting economic development opportunities, and encourage growth in areas experiencing insufficient economic growth, all within the capacities of the state's natural resources, public services, and public facilities. (7) Permits. Applications for both state and local government permits should be processed in a timely and fair manner to ensure predictability. (11) Citizen participation and coordination. Encourage the involvement of citizens in the planning process and ensure coordination between communities and jurisdictions to reconcile conflicts. The Development Agreement furthers goals 1, 2, 5, 7 and 11 of the GMA. Specifically, it encourages economic development within an urban area and regionally designated manufacturing industrial center, including a focus on expanding and recruiting businesses and positioning the City to improve its jobs to housing balance. The Agreement further creates the predicable conditions required to support attracting economic development opportunities, processing site-specific development permits in a timely manner, and providing citizens with certainty as to the type of development that would occur on this site. Vision 2040 – Multicounty Planning Policies (MPPs) VISION 2040 continues to emphasize the important role of centers and compact urban communities in accommodating future population and employment. VISION 2040 envisions a future where 1: • The overall natural environment is restored, protected, and sustained. • Population and employment growth is focused within the designated urban growth area. • Within the urban growth area, growth is focused in cities. • Within cities, centers serve as concentrations of jobs, housing, and other activities. • A better balance of job locations and housing is achieved, facilitated, and supported by incentives and investments. • Rural development is minimized. • Resource lands are permanently protected, supporting the continued viability of resource-based industries, such as forestry and agriculture. • Existing infrastructure and new investments are used more efficiently and effectively, and are prioritized for areas that are planning for and accommodating growth. • Meaningful steps are taken to reduce carbon emissions and minimize the region’s contribution to climate change Vision 2040 also addresses manufacturing/industrial centers as follows: 1 From pages 13 and 14, Vision 2040, Regional Growth Strategy Manufacturing/Industrial Centers 2. The region also contains a number of manufacturing/industrial centers. These are existing employment areas with intensive, concentrated manufacturing and industrial land uses that cannot be easily mixed with other activities. Manufacturing/industrial centers are intended to continue to accommodate a significant amount of regional employment. Manufacturing/industrial centers have a different urban form and purpose than regional growth centers. They can be characterized as areas of large contiguous blocks served by the region’s major transportation infrastructure, including roads, rail, and port facilities. These centers have generally developed an urban form suitable for outdoor storage and facilities, with large spaces for the assembly of goods. They do not typically contain residential uses. Protecting these centers from incompatible uses, as well as providing them with adequate public facilities and services, requires deliberate and careful planning. Good access to the region’s transportation system, in particular, will contribute to their continued success. Regional Manufacturing/Industrial Centers Goal and Policies 3 Goal: The region will continue to maintain and support viable regional manufacturing/industrial centers to accommodate manufacturing, industrial, or advanced technology uses. MPP-DP-8: Focus a significant share of employment growth in designated regional manufacturing/industrial centers. The Development Agreement helps the City carry out the regional vision for these designated areas to accommodate significant regional employment growth, improve jobs-to-housing ratios region-wide, and protect industrial areas (short and long-term) from incompatible future land uses. Snohomish County Countywide Planning Policies (CPP) DP-7 City and County comprehensive plans should locate employment areas and living areas in close proximity in order to maximize transportation choices and minimize vehicle miles traveled and to optimize use of existing and planned transportation systems and capital facilities. DP-37 The County and cities should conserve designated industrial land for future industries and related jobs by: a. Protect it from encroachment by incompatible uses and development on adjacent land; b. Discouraging non-industrial uses on it unless such uses support and enhance existing industrial land uses; and c. Discouraging conversion of it to other land use designations unless it can be demonstrated that a specific site is not suitable for industrial uses. ED-6 Manufacturing/Industrial Centers (MICs) designated through the process in ED-5 shall be located in Urban Growth Areas (UGAs). MICs should have clearly defined geographic boundaries and develop in accordance with the general guidelines established in the VISION 2040 Regional Growth Strategy. Specifically, an MIC should meet the following criteria, it: a. Consists of major, existing regional employment areas of intensive, concentrated manufacturing, industrial and high technology land uses, including – but not limit to – aviation facilities and services; b. Provides capacity and planning for a minimum of 20,000 jobs; c. Is located outside other designated centers but in a UGA; d. Includes land uses that cannot easily be mixed at higher densities with other uses; e. Is supported by adequate public facilities and service, including good access to the regional transportation system; and f. Discourages retail and office uses unless they are supportive of the preferred uses in (a). ED-8 Jurisdictions are encouraged to work with businesses and organizations to develop economic 2 Pages 14 and 15, Vision 2040, Regional Growth Strategy 3 Page 49, Vision 2040, Development Patterns development plan elements and analyze the land use designations, infrastructure and services needed by business uses. ED-12 The County and cities should coordinate economic plans with transportation, housing, and land use policies that support economic development and predictability for future growth. ED-13 Jurisdictions should recognize, where appropriate, the growth and development needs of businesses of local, regional or statewide significance and ensure that local plans and regulations provide opportunity for the growth and continued success of such businesses. ED-16 In their comprehensive plans, the cities of Arlington and Marysville identify an industrial center spanning those two cities as a candidate for regional designation as a Manufacturing/Industrial Center (MIC). The proposed MIC is entirely within the urban growth area and predominantly within the city limits of Arlington and Marysville. Based on the recommendation of Snohomish County Tomorrow, developed through a collaborative and paricipatory process, the County identifies the proposed Arlington-Marysville Manufacturing Industrial Center as a candidate for regional designation as a Manufacturing/Industrial Center. The Development Agreement furthers and is consistent with the Countywide Planning Policies as it encourages projects within the designated industrial and manufacturing jobs center, which area is envisioned to be a primary employment center in the County. The Agreement encourages manufacturing and industrial development near major transportation corridors, promotes a higher jobs to housing ratio, and recognizes of the area’s ability to support employment growth. Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals & Policies PL-12.1 Industrial land uses should be located in the vicinity of Arlington Airport in order to take advantage of existing and anticipated transportation systems. PL-12.6 The City should support the development and growth of the Arlington-Marysville AMMIC by supporting a concentrated manufacturing and industrial base and by planning for future growth and infrastructure improvements. GE-1 Promote a strong, diversified, and sustainable local and regional economy, while respecting the natural environment and preserving and enhancing the quality of life in the City. PE-1.2 The City should maintain a favorable business climate through consistent implementation of City regulations, a streamlined permit process, excellent customer service, and through other available means and mechanisms. PE-1.5 The City should work to attract living wage job providers to locate in Arlington. GE-2 Provide an adequate job-producing land base to ensure an adequate number of jobs for citizens within the community and to aid the community in paying for infrastructure and services. PE-2.2 The City should strive to maintain a high jobs to housing ratio. PE-2.3 The City should identify sectors of the economy within Arlington where opportunity might exist to create additional jobs and identify potential strategies for attracting employment. In particular, provide a supportive business environment for start-up, light manufacturing and assembly businesses in the airport/industrial area. PE-8.1 The City should work to ensure there is adequate infrastructure to support existing industrial/manufacturing uses and protect the AMMIC area from encroachment by incompatible uses in order to attract new manufacturing and industrial businesses. PE-8.2 The City should develop policies and regulations that are coordinated with economic development strategies to encourage growth and sustain manufacturing and industrial businesses within the AMMIC. The Development Agreement helps to implement comprehensive plan goals and policies for industrial development, build-out of the AMMIC subarea, and a high ratio of jobs to housing. Arlington-Marysville MIC Subarea Plan Goals & Policies AMMIC-LU-1.6: Attract employment densities sufficient to accommodate the 20-year growth projection of 20,000 jobs by 2040. This proposal is consistent with and furthers the AMMIC subarea’s goals and policies, especially those listed above. City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill Item: PH #4 Attachment F COUNCIL MEETING DATE: December 7, 2020 SUBJECT: Arlington School District Capital Facilities Plan ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance, Planning Commission Findings of Fact, Capital Facilities Plan DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN Community and Economic Development; Marc Hayes, Director 360-403-3457 EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: 0 BUDGET CATEGORY: 0 BUDGETED AMOUNT: 0 LEGAL REVIEW: DESCRIPTION: Public Hearing for the Arlington School District, who is requesting that the City approve for inclusion in its Comprehensive Plan, the Districts 2020-2025 Capital Facilities Plan. School Districts are required by the Growth Management Act to provide a plan for future growth and future enrollment, and to establish impact fees consistent with the Comprehensive plan, which are used to fund new facilities only. HISTORY: The School District must present their updated Capital Facilities Plan to the City for adoption on an annual basis, thus allowing the City to collect School impact fees on new development as it occurs. As part of this adoption cycle, the School District requested that the City adopt the plan as a part of the City’s budget adoption process, as allowed by RCW 36.70A.130 (2) (a) (iv), to align with the processes used by both Snohomish County and City of Marysville. Planning Commission voted at a regular meeting on November 17, 2020 to unanimously approve recommendation of the plan to City Council. ALTERNATIVES: Remand back to staff for additional information. RECOMMENDED MOTION: I move to adopt the Arlington School District 2020-2025 Capital Facilities Plan, and authorize the Mayor to sign the ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. 2020-XXX 1 ORDINANCE NO. 2020--XXX AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ARLINGTON, WASHINGTON AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO INCLUDE THE ARLINGTON SCHOOL DISTRICT CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN AS PART OF THE CITY OF ARLINGTON CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN WHEREAS, the City of Arlington, Washington has the authority to enact laws to promote the health, safety and welfare of its citizens as a way of controlling the use and development of property within its jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, the Arlington School District, in accordance with the GMA, has proposed amendments to its Capital Facilities Plan to accommodate projected student enrollment, to include a schedule and a financing program for capital improvements over the next 6 years (2020- 2025); and WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission considered these amendments at their August 4, 2020 workshop and recommended approval to the City Council; and WHEREAS, included in the review of the City’s Biennial Budget process, per RCW 36.70A130 (2)(a)(iv), was a proposed update to the Arlington School District Capital Facilities Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the same, along with the Planning Commission recommendations, at their workshop meeting November 23, 2020, and held an open record public hearing on December 7, 2020 and determined approving the amendments was in the best interest of the City and its citizens; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and finds the same to be consistent with city and state law and in the best interests of the citizens; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Arlington do hereby ordain as follows: Section 1. Comprehensive Plan Amended. The City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan shall be amended to include the version of the “Arlington School District Capital Facilities Plan 2020 - 2025” approved by the Arlington School District on August 10, 2020 as part of the Capital Facilities Element (CF) of the Arlington Final Comprehensive Plan. Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof consisting of the title shall be published in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five (5) days after publication. ORDINANCE NO. 2020-XXX 2 PASSED BY the City Council and APPROVED by the Mayor this 7th day of December, 2020. CITY OF ARLINGTON ______________________________ Barbara Tolbert, Mayor Attest: ______________________________ Wendy Van Der Meersche, City Clerk Approved as to form: ______________________________ Steven J. Peiffle City Attorney ARLINGTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2020-2025 JUNE 2020 Draft Adopted: ____________, 2020 ARLINGTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2020-2025 BOARD OF DIRECTORS Judy Fay, Vice President Mary Levesque Michael Ray Marc Rosson Jim Weiss, President SUPERINTENDENT Dr. Chrys Sweeting For information regarding the Arlington Public Schools Capital Facilities Plan, contact the Office of the Superintendent, District Administration Office, 315 N. French Street, Arlington, WA 98223. Telephone: (360) 618-6200; Fax: (360) 618-6221. Approved by the Board of Directors on ___________, 2020 1 Table of Contents Page Section 1. Introduction ..............................................................................................................2 Section 2. District Educational Program Standards ..................................................................6 Section 3. Capital Facilities Inventory ......................................................................................9 Section 4. Student Enrollment Projections .............................................................................12 Section 5. Capital Facilities Needs .........................................................................................14 Section 6. Capital Facility Financing Plan ..............................................................................16 Section 7. School Impact Fees ................................................................................................19 Appendix A ……………………………………………...……..Population and Enrollment Data Appendix B ……………………………………………...……………Student Generation Rates Appendix C ……………………………………………...……………..Impact Fee Calculations 2 INTRODUCTION A. Purpose of the 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 of the growing student populations anticipated in their districts. Arlington Public Schools (the “District”) has prepared this Capital Facilit ies Plan (the “CFP”) to provide Snohomish County (the “County”) and the City of Arlington (the “City”) with a schedule and financing program for capital improvements over the next six years (2020-2025). In accordance with the Growth Management Act, the Snohomish County Ordinance Nos. 97-095 and 99-107, this CFP contains the following required elements:  Future enrollment forecasts for each grade span (elementary, middle, and high schools).  An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by the District, s howing the locations and capacities of the facilities.  A forecast of the future needs for capital facilities and school sites.  The proposed capacities of expanded 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 support data substantiating said fees. In developing this CFP, the District followed the following guidelines set forth in the S nohomish County General Policy Plan:  District 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. The 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. In the event that impact fees are not available due to action by the state, county or cities within the District, the District in a future CFP update must identify alternative funding sources to replace the intended impact fee funding.  The methodology used to calculate impact fees complies with the criteria and the formulas established by the County and the City. 3 Snohomish County’s Countywide Planning Policies direct jurisdictions in Snohomish County to “ensure the availability of sufficient land and services for future K-20 school needs.” Policy ED- 11. The District appreciates any opportunity for cooperative planning efforts with its jurisdictions. B. Overview of Arlington Public Schools Two-hundred square miles in area, the District encompasses the City of Arlington and portions of unincorporated Snohomish County. The District is bordered by the Conway, Darrington, Granite Falls, Lakewood, Marysville, Sedro-Woolley, and Stanwood-Camano School Districts. The District serves a student population of 5,581 (October 1, 2019 FTE enrollment) with four elementary schools (K-5), two middle schools (grades 6-8), one high school (grades 9-12), one alternative high school (grades 9-12), and one support facility for home schooled children (grades K-12). For the purposes of facility planning, this CFP considers grades K-5 as elementary, grades 6-8 as middle school, and grades 9-12 as high school. For purposes of this CFP, neither enrollment in the Stillaguamish Valley School (a home school support facility serving grades K-12) nor enrollment in the alternative high school (Weston) are included. The District has experienced moderate growth in recent years after a period of declining student population. For a period of years (2012-2015) the District, due to the declining student population, did not prepare an updated Capital Facilities Plan. The District prepared a CFP in 2016 in anticipation of potential growth, enrollment increases, and future capacity needs. Growth has been steady in the District since 2016 and is projected to continue to increase at all grade levels over the six year planning period. This 2020 update builds on the 2018 CFP and identifies growth-related projects at the middle and high school levels, and future planning for new capacity at the elementary level. 4 FIGURE 1 MAP OF FACILITIES 5 6 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 classrooms (portables). In addition to student population, other factors such as collective bargaining agreements, government mandates, and community expectations also affect classroom space requirements. Traditional educational programs are often supplemented by programs such as special education, bilingual education, preschool and daycare programs, computer labs, and music programs. These programs can have a significant impact on the available student capacity of school facilities. A. Districtwide Educational Program Standards Special programs offered by the District at specific school sites include, but are not limited to:  APPLE (formerly named ECEAP);  Elementary program for handicapped students; and  Enhanced Learning Program/Highly Capable; and  English Language Learner Program (Eagle Creek Elementary). District educational program standards may change in the future as a result of various external or internal changes. External changes may include mandates or needs for special programs, or use of technology. Internal changes may include modifications to the program year, class sizes, and grade span configurations. Changes in physical aspects of the school facilities could also affect educational program standards. The school capacity inventory will be reviewed periodically and adjusted for any changes to the educational program standards. These changes will also be reflected in future updates of this CFP. The District educational program standards which directly affect school capacity are outlined below for the elementary, middle, and high school grade levels. Each grade span has a targeted level of service (LOS) which is expressed as a “not to exceed” number. The minimum LOS for each grade span is expressed as “maximum average class size”. This figure is used to determine when another class is added. When this average is exceeded, the District will add additional classes if space is available. Only academic classes are used to compute the maximum average class size. The District has fully implemented full-day kindergarten in and reduced K-3 class size requirements. 7 B. Educational Program Standards for Elementary Schools  Class size for Kindergarten and grades 1-3 is targeted not to exceed 21 students, with a maximum average class size of 21 students;  Class size for grade 4 is targeted not to exceed 25 students, with a maximum average class size of 27 students;  Class size for grade 5 is targeted not to exceed 27 students, with a maximum average class size of 29 students;  Special Education for some students is provided in a self-contained classroom;  Music instruction will be provided in a separate classroom (when available); and  All elementary schools currently have a room dedicated as a computer lab, or have access to mobile carts with laptop computers for classroom use. C. Educational Program Standards for Middle and High Schools  Class size for grade 6 is targeted not to exceed 27 students, with a maximum average class size of 29 students  Class size for middle school grades 7-8 is targeted not to exceed 29 students, with a maximum average class size of 31 students;  Class size for high school grades 9-12 is targeted not to exceed 30 students, with a maximum average class size of 32 students;  It is not possible to achieve 100% utilization of all regular teaching stations throughout the day. Therefore, high school classroom capacity has been adjusted using a utilization factor in the range of 90% to 96% (based on a regular school day). Middle school classroom capacity has been adjusted using a utilization factor of 85%;  Special Education for some students will be provided in a self-contained classroom; and  Identified students will also be provided other programs in classrooms designated as follows: 1. Resource Rooms (i.e. computer labs, study rooms). 2. Learning Support Centers. 3. Program Specific Classrooms (i.e., music, drama, art, home and family education). D. 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, while meeting the District’s paramount duties under the State Constitution. 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 8 may also request that development be deferred until planned facilities can be completed to meet the needs of the incoming population; however, the District has no control over the ultimate land use decisions made by the permitting jurisdictions. The District’s intent is to adhere to the target facility service standards noted above without making significant changes in program delivery. At a minimum, average class size in the grade K -8 classrooms will not exceed 26 students and average class size in 9-12 classrooms will not exceed 32 students. For purposes of this 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 or to classes held in assembly halls, gyms, cafeterias, or other common areas. The minimum educational service standards are not the District’s desired or accepted operating standard. For the school years of 2017-18 and 2018-19, the District’s compliance with the minimum level of service was as follows 2017-18 School Year LOS Standard MINIMUM LOS# Elementary REPORTED LOS Elementary MINIMUM LOS Middle REPORTED LOS Middle MINIMUM LOS High REPORTED LOS High 26 21.7 26 19.4 32 32.5 * The District determines the reported service level by adding the number of students in regular classrooms at each grade level and dividing that number by the number of teaching stations. 2018-19 School Year LOS Standard MINIMUM LOS# Elementary REPORTED LOS Elementary MINIMUM LOS Middle REPORTED LOS Middle MINIMUM LOS High REPORTED LOS High 26 22.0 26 20.1 32 32.9 * The District determines the reported service level by adding the number of students in regular classrooms at each grade level and dividing that number by the number of teaching stations. Portables are not included in this analysis. 9 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 of capital facilities owned and operated by the District including schools, relocatable classrooms, 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 2. A map showing locations of District facilities is provided as Figure 1. A. Schools The District maintains four elementary schools, two middle schools, one high school, an alternative high school, and the Stillaguamish Valley School (a Home- School Support center). Elementary schools currently accommodate grades K-5, the middle schools serve grades 6-8, and the high school and alternative high school provide for grades 9-12. The Stillaguamish Valley School serves grades K-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 Tables 1, 2, and 3. The Stillaguamish Valley School and Weston High School are housed in separate District-owned facilities and are not included in this CFP for the purposes of measuring capacity or projecting enrollment. 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 Tables 1, 2, and 3. Table 1 Elementary School Inventory Elementary School Site Size (Acres) Building Area (Square Feet) Teaching Stations Permanent Capacity Year Built or Remodeled Eagle Creek 23.70 57,362 28 630 1989 Kent Prairie 10.10 57,362 28 630 1993 Presidents 12.40 60,977 31 680 2004 Pioneer 20.60 61,530 25 562 2002 TOTAL 66.62 237,231 112 2,502 10 Table 2 Middle School Inventory Middle School Site Size (Acres) Building Area (Square Feet) Teaching Stations* Permanent Capacity Year Built or Remodeled Post Middle 24.60 76,323 36 757 1993 Haller Middle 25.46 86,002 31 612 2006 TOTAL 50.06 162,325 67 1,369 *Includes a total of six special education classrooms between both schools. Table 3 High School Inventory High School Site Size (Acres) Building Area (Square Feet) Teaching Stations Permanent Capacity Year Built or Remodeled Arlington High 54.00 256,181 53 1,780 2003 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 eleven relocatable classrooms at various school sites throughout the District to provide additional interim capacity (an additional 10 relocatables are located at Stillaguamish Valley School). A typical relocatable classroom can provide capacity for a full-size class of students. The District’s relocatable classrooms have adequate useful remaining life and are evaluated regularly. Current use for the 2020-19 school year of relocatable classrooms throughout the District is summarized in Table 4. Table 4 Relocatable Classroom (Portable) Inventory Elementary School Relocatables Interim Capacity Eagle Creek 2 58 Kent Prairie 4 84 Presidents 2 58 Middle School Relocatables Interim Capacity Post Middle 4 113 High School Relocatables Interim Capacity Arlington High 1 32 TOTAL 13 345 11 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 5. Table 5 Support Facility Inventory Facility Building Area (Square Feet) Site Location Administration and Special Programs 21,402 Roosevelt Building, Presidents Transportation 41,550 Leased Support Services 70,991 Old HS “A” Bldg D. Land Inventory & Other Facilities The District owns the following undeveloped sites:  A 167-acre site (“Hwy 530 Site”) located 1.5 miles from the city limits of Arlington adjacent to SR 530. The property is outside of the Urban Growth Area boundary and not serviced by municipal utilities. The District is currently negotiating a sale of this property.  Seven sites ranging from 25 to 160 acres that are managed as forest land by a forestland manager and generally topographically unsuitable for school site development.  An additional 58.9 acres at the Post Middle School site of farmland located in a floodplain and therefore unsuitable for development. The District owns the “A” Building on the former high school campus. The “A” Building has been taken out of educational use and is no longer eligible (by OSPI) for use as for cl assroom space. The Stillaguamish Valley School, which supports home-schooled students, is located on the Eagle Creek Elementary site. This facility consists of 10 portable classrooms and is not considered part of the District’s permanent facility capacity. Additionally, the District leases a 33,000 square foot building on a 10 acre site near the Arlington Airport. This remodeled building houses the (alternative) Weston High School. Since this site houses only alternative educational programs, the building’s capacity is not included as part of the District’s eligible facility inventory1. 1 Students enrolled in these alternative programs are not included in enrollment numbers for the purposes of this CFP update. 12 SECTION 4 STUDENT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS A. Projected Student Enrollment 2020-2025 Enrollment projections are most accurate for the initial years of the forecast period. In the past, the District has used the methodology from the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) to determine enrollment projections. The cohort survival method uses historical enrollment data to forecast the number of students who will be attending school the following year. It uses a weighted average of the most recent years to project enrollment. The District has adjusted the OSPI projections to reflect the District’s full-time equivalent enrollment (reduction of students enrolled but not housed in District facilities). Based on this methodology, a total of 828 FTE students are expected to be added to the District by 2025 - an increase of 14.8% over 2019 enrollment levels. OFM population-based enrollment projections were estimated for the District using OFM population forecasts as adopted by Snohomish County. Between 2014 and 2019, the District’s enrollment constituted 17.2% of the total population in the District. Assuming that between 2020 and 2025 the District’s enrollment will constitute 17.2% of the District's total population and using OFM/County data, a total enrollment of 6,159 FTE is projected in 2025. See Appendix A. Table 6 Projected Student Enrollment 2025-2025 * Actual October 2019 FTE enrollment The District uses the adjusted OSPI cohort survival projections for purposes of predicting enrollment during the six years of this Plan. The District will monitor actual enrollment over the next two years and, if necessary, make appropriate adjustments in the next Plan update. Change % Change Projection 2019* 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 19-25 19-25 District/OSPI 5,581 5,690 5,843 5,972 6,083 6,279 6,409 828 14.8% OFM/County 5,581 5,677 5,773 5,869 5,965 6,061 6,159 578 10.4% 13 B. 2035 Enrollment Projections Student enrollment projections beyond 2025 are highly speculative. Based on OFM/County data for 2025 and an estimated student-to-population ratio of 17.2%, 6,800 FTE students are projected for 2035. The total enrollment estimate was broken down by grade span to evaluate long-term site acquisition needs for elementary, middle, and high school facilities. Enrollment by grade span was determined based on recent and projected enrollment trends at the elementary, middle school, and high school levels. Projected enrollment by grade span for the year 20352 is provided in Table 7. Again, these estimates are highly speculative and are used only for general planning purposes. Table 7 Projected Student Enrollment (Ratio Method – OFM/County) 2035 Grade Span Projected Enrollment Elementary (K-5) 3,060 Middle School (6-8) 1,632 High School (9-12) 2,108 TOTAL (K-12) 6,800 2 Snohomish County Planning & Development Services provided the underlying data for the 2035 projections. 14 SECTION 5 CAPITAL FACILITIES NEEDS Projected available student capacity was derived by subtracting projected student enrollment from existing school capacity (excluding relocatable classrooms) for each of the six years in the forecast period (2020-2025). Capacity needs are expressed in terms of “unhoused students.” Note that the identified capacity needs do not include growth-related capacity needs from recent development. Table 8A below shows future capacity needs assuming no new construction during the planning period. Table 8A Future Capacity Needs Grade Span 2025 Projected Unhoused Students - Total 2025 Projected Unhoused Students – Growth Post- 2019 Elementary (K-5) 533 517 Middle School (6-8) 136 136 High School (9-12) 89 89 TOTAL (K-12) 758 742 Projected student capacity is depicted on Table 8B. This is derived by applying the projected number of students to the projected capacity. Planned improvements (if any) by the District through 2025 are included in Table 8B. It is not the District’s policy to include relocatable classrooms when determining future capital facility needs; therefore interim capacity provided by relocatable classrooms (including additions and adjustments) is not included. Information on relocatable classrooms and interim capacity can be found in Table 4. Information on planned construction projects can be found in Section 6 and the Financing Plan, Table 9. 15 Table 8B Projected Student Capacity 2020 - 2025 Elementary School Surplus/Deficiency Elementary 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Existing Capacity 2,502 2,502 2,502 2,502 2,502 2,502 2,502 Added Capacity Total Capacity 2,502 2,502 2,502 2,502 2,502 2,502 2,502 Enrollment 2,518 2,579 2,648 2,753 2,849 2,961 3,035 Surplus (Deficiency) (16) (77) (146) (251) (347) (459) (533) Middle School Surplus/Deficiency Middle 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Existing Capacity 1,369 1,369 1,369 1,369 1,369 1,369 1,519 Added Capacity 150^ Total Capacity 1,369 1,369 1,369 1,369 1,369 1,519 1,519 Enrollment 1,343 1,399 1,391 1,399 1,412 1,420 1,505 Surplus (Deficiency) 26 (30) (22) (30) (43) 99 14 ^Replacement and Expansion of Post Middle School High School Surplus/Deficiency High 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Existing Capacity 1,780 1,780 1,780 1,780 1,780 2,036 2,036 Added Capacity 256^ Total Capacity 1,780 1,780 1,780 1,780 2,036 2,036 2,036 Enrollment 1,721 1,712 1,804 1,820 1,822 1,898 1,869 Surplus (Deficiency) 59 68 (24) (40) 214 138 167 ^Arlington High School Addition 16 SECTION 6 CAPITAL FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN A. Planned Improvements The District has identified several capacity projects within the six year planning period needed to meet growth-related needs: Permanent Capacity Adding Projects:  Replacement of Post Middle School with the addition of 150 new student seats.  Expansion of Arlington High School would add 256 additional student seats. Temporary Capacity Projects:  The District plans to add portable facilities at the elementary level and potentially at other levels during the six year planning period of this CFP. Property Acquisition:  The District plans to acquire land for an elementary school site. The District is also starting to plan for elementary capacity solutions as growth continues at that grade level. Future updates to the CFP will include any specifically planned projects. 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 of sources including voter approved bonds, state school construction assistance program funds, and impact fees. Each of these funding sources is discussed in greater detail below. 17 B. Financing Sources 1. General Obligation Bonds/Capital Levies Bonds are typically used to fund construction of new schools and other capital improvement projects, and require a 60% voter approval. Capital levies require a 50% voter approval and can be used for certain capital improvement projects. In February 2020, the District presented a $25.1 capital levy and $107.5 million bond measure to its voters. The voters approved the capital levy, which includes, among other things, funding for the new classrooms and a science, technology, engineering, art and math (STEAM) workshop wing addition at Arlington High School. The bond proposal included funding for the construction of a new middle school to replace Post Middle School. The bond did not achieve the required 60% minimum for passage. 2. State School Construction Assistance Funds State School Construction Assistance funds come from the Common School Construction Fund. The State deposits revenue from the sale of renewable resources from State school lands set aside by the Enabling Act of 1889 into the Common School Account. If these sources are insufficient to meet needs, the Legislature can appropriate General Obligation Bond funds or the Superintendent of Public Instruction can prioritize projects for funding. School districts may qualify for State School Construction Assistance funds for specific capital projects based on a prioritization system. The District is currently eligible for state school construction assistance funds at the 64.85% level for eligible projects. 3. Impact Fees Impact fees are a means of supplementing traditional funding sources for construction of public facilities needed to accommodate new development. C. Six-Year Financing Plan Table 9 demonstrates how the District intends to fund new construction and improvements to school facilities for the years 2020-2025. The financing components include a capital levy funds, future bond revenue, impact fees, and other future sources. 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. The District’s Board of Directors is considering options for funding the needed Post Middle School replacement/addition but has not made any decisions relative to the six year planning period of this CFP. However, the needs remain, as reflected in this CFP, and continue in the District’s planning. The District will update the CFP as needed, including consideration of an interim update, to reflect updated planning decisions. 18 Table 9 Capital Facilities Financing Plan Improvements Adding Permanent Capacity (Costs in Millions) Project 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Total Cost Bonds/ Levy/Other Local State Match Impact Fees Elementary Potential Property Purchase TBD X X Middle School Post Middle School Replacement and Expansion $27.666 $27.666 $27.666 $83.000 X X X High School Arlington High School Expansion $1.00 $1.00 $6.186 $8.186 X X Improvements Adding Temporary Capacity (Costs in Millions) Project 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Total Cost Bonds/ Levy/Other Local State Match Impact Fees Relocatables $0.600 $0.600 $0.600 $1.800 X X Noncapacity Improvements (Costs in Millions) Project 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Total Cost Bonds/ Levy/Other Local State Match Impact Fees Various Schools (all grade levels) Security improvements; pedestrian safety improvements; energy efficiency measures; miscellaneous improvements $5.259 $7.560 $4.298 $17.117 X 19 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 of existing 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 of data 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 1-bedroom; and multi-family/2-bedroom or more. Snohomish County and the City of Arlington’s impact fee programs require school districts to prepare and adopt CFPs meeting the specifications of the GMA. Impact fees are 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. B. Methodology and Variables Used to Calculate School Impact Fees Impact fees are 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. A student factor (or student generation rate) is used to identify the average cost per dwelling unit by measuring the average number of students generated by each housing type (single-family dwellings and multi-family dwellings of one bedroom and two bedrooms or more). A description of the student methodology is contained in Appendix B. The District has in recent years identified some volatility in the Multi-Family 2+ bedroom student generation rates given the small number of units in the data set. In order to control for that volatility in this CFP and until more consistent District-specific demographic information is available, the District has 20 calculated Multi-Family 2+ BR student generation rates using the countywide average of the corresponding rates published in the 2018 capital facilities plans (the last County-adopted set of plans) of the other school districts in Snohomish County. These averages reflect recent development trends in Snohomish County which will likely influence any multi-family construction that occurs in the District in the near term. King County recognizes countywide averages as a reasonable approach to calculating student generation rates when there is a lack of sufficient development data within a school district. See KCC 21A.06.1260. The resulting average student generation rates are as follows: Multi-Family 2+ BR Rates K-5 6-8 9-12 0.171 0.099 0.108 As required under the GMA, credits are applied in the formula to account for State School Construction Assistance 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 of whether the total new capacity project costs are used in the calculation or whether the District only uses the percentage of the total new capacity project costs allocated to the Districts growth-related needs, as demonstrated in Table 8- A. For purposes of this 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 9 for a complete identification of funding sources. The following projects are included in the impact fee calculation:  A capacity addition at Arlington High School.  A capacity addition at the replacement Post Middle School Please see Table 11 for relevant cost data related to each capacity project. 21 C. Proposed Arlington School District Impact Fee Schedule Using the variables and formula described in subsection B, impact fees proposed for the District are summarized in Table 10. See also Appendix C. Table 10 School Impact Fees 2020 Housing Type Impact Fee Per Dwelling Unit Single Family $3,811 Multi-Family (1 Bedroom) No fee ($0) Multi-Family (2+ Bedroom) $3,455 Table 10 reflects a 50% adjustment to the calculated fee as required by local ordinances. 22 Table 11: Impact Fee Variables **Uses 2018 Snohomish County average (see pages 19-20). Student Generation Factors – Single Family Average Site Cost/Acre Elementary .294 N/A Middle .126 Senior .175 Total .595 Temporary Facility Capacity Student Generation Factors – Multi Family (1 Bdrm) Capacity 22 Elementary .000 Cost $300,000 Middle .000 Senior .000 State Match Credit Total .000 Current State Match Percentage 64.85% Student Generation Factors – Multi Family (2+ Bdrm)** Construction Cost Allocation Elementary .171 Current CCA 238.22 Middle .099 Senior .108 District Average Assessed Value Total .378 Single Family Residence $403,171 Projected Student Capacity per Facility District Average Assessed Value Arlington HS (expansion) - 256 Post Middle School (replacement and expansion) – 150 added capacity (for total new capacity of 907) Multi Family (1 Bedroom) $125,314 Multi Family (2+ Bedroom) $178,051 Required Site Acreage per Facility SPI Square Footage per Student Facility Construction/Cost Average Elementary 90 Middle 108 Arlington HS (expansion) $8,186,671 Post Middle School (repl/expansion) $83,000,0000 High 130 District Debt Service Tax Rate for Bonds Current/$1,000 $1.039 Permanent Facility Square Footage General Obligation Bond Interest Rate Elementary 237,231 Current Bond Buyer Index 2.44% Middle 162,325 Senior 256,181 Developer Provided Sites/Facilities Total 98.61% 655,737 Value 0 Dwelling Units 0 Temporary Facility Square Footage Elementary 5,034 Middle 3,356 Senior 839 Total 1.39% 9,229 Total Facility Square Footage Elementary 242,265 Middle 165,681 Senior 257,020 Total 100.00% 664,966 APPENDIX A POPULATION AND ENROLLMENT DATA A-1 APPENDIX B STUDENT GENERATION FACTOR REVIEW B-1 B-2 B-3 **See pages 19-20 of the CFP for more information related to the Multi-Family 2+ Bedroom student generation rates used in this CFP. APPENDIX C SCHOOL IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS C-1 City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill Item: PH #5 Attachment G required by the Growth Management Act to provide a plan for future growth and future enrollment, and to establish impact fees consistent with the Comprehensive plan, which are used to fund new As part of this adoption cycle, the School District requested that the City adopt the plan as a part of the City’s budget adoption process, as allowed by RCW 36.70A.130 (2) (a) (iv), to align with the processes used by both Snohomish County and City of Marysville. Planning Commission voted at a ORDINANCE NO. 2020-XXX 1 ORDINANCE NO. 2020--XXX AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ARLINGTON, WASHINGTON AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO INCLUDE THE LAKEWOOD SCHOOL DISTRICT CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN AS PART OF THE CITY OF ARLINGTON CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN WHEREAS, the City of Arlington, Washington has the authority to enact laws to promote the health, safety and welfare of its citizens as a way of controlling the use and development of property within its jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, the Lakewood School District, in accordance with the GMA, has proposed amendments to its Capital Facilities Plan to accommodate projected student enrollment, to include a schedule and a financing program for capital improvements over the next 6 years (2020- 2025); and WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission considered these amendments at their August 4, 2020 workshop and recommended approval to the City Council; and WHEREAS, included in the review of the City’s Biennial Budget process, per RCW 36.70A130 (2)(a)(iv), was a proposed update to the Lakewood School District Capital Facilities Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the same, along with the Planning Commission recommendations, at their workshop meeting November 23, 2020, and held an open record public hearing on December 7, 2020 and determined approving the amendments was in the best interest of the City and its citizens; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and finds the same to be consistent with city and state law and in the best interests of the citizens; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Arlington do hereby ordain as follows: Section 1. Comprehensive Plan Amended. The City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan shall be amended to include the version of the “Lakewood School District Capital Facilities Plan 2020 - 2025” approved by the Lakewood School District on August 10, 2020 as part of the Capital Facilities Element (CF) of the Arlington Final Comprehensive Plan. Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof consisting of the title shall be published in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five (5) days after publication. ORDINANCE NO. 2020-XXX 2 PASSED BY the City Council and APPROVED by the Mayor this 7th day of December, 2020. CITY OF ARLINGTON ______________________________ Barbara Tolbert, Mayor Attest: ______________________________ Wendy Van Der Meersche, City Clerk Approved as to form: ______________________________ Steven J. Peiffle City Attorney LAKEWOOD SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 306 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2020-2025 Adopted: __________, 2020 May 2020 Draft LAKEWOOD SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 306 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2020-2025 BOARD OF DIRECTORS JAHNA SMITH, PRESIDENT LARRY BEAN LEAHA BOSER CATHERINE “SANDY” GOTTS STEVEN LARSON SUPERINTENDENT SCOTT PEACOCK 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. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Section 1. Introduction ..............................................................................................................1 Section 2. District Educational Program Standards ..................................................................4 Section 3. Capital Facilities Inventory ......................................................................................8 Section 4. Student Enrollment Projections .............................................................................11 Section 5. Capital Facilities Needs .........................................................................................14 Section 6. Capital Facilities Financing Plan ...........................................................................17 Section 7. School Impact Fees ................................................................................................20 Appendix A ……………………………………………………Population and Enrollment Data Appendix B ………………………………………………...Student Generation Factor Review Appendix C …………………………………………………….School Impact Fee Calculations INTRODUCTION A. Purpose of the 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 of the 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 (2020-2025). 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 of the facilities.  A forecast of the future needs for capital facilities and school sites.  The proposed capacities of expanded 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. In the event that impact fees are not available due to action by the state, -2- county or cities within the District, the District in a future CFP update must identify alternative funding sources to replace the intended impact fee funding.  The methodology used to calculate impact fees also complies with the criteria and the formulas established by the County. Snohomish County’s Countywide Planning Policies direct jurisdictions in Snohomish County to “ensure the availability of sufficient land and services for future K-20 school needs.” Policy ED- 11. The District appreciates any opportunity for cooperative planning efforts with its jurisdictions. B. Overview of the Lakewood School 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 of Marysville. 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 2,514 (October 1, 2019, reported OSPI enrollment) with three elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school. -3- FIGURE 1 MAP OF FACILITIES -4- 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 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 of school facilities, and upon planning for future needs. The educational program standards contained in this CFP reflect the District’s implementation of requirements for full-day kindergarten and reduced K-3 class size. Special programs offered by the District at specific school sites include, but are not limited to: Lakewood Elementary School (Preschool through 5th Grades) • Bilingual Education Program • Title I Remedial Services Program • P – 5th Grade Counseling Services • Speech and Language Disorder Therapy Program • Early Childhood Education and Assistance Program (ECEAP) • Developmentally Delayed Preschool Program - Ages 3 to 5 • Developmentally Delayed Kindergarten Program • K-5th Grade Special Education Resource Room Program • K – 5th Grade Special Education Life Skills Program • Learning Assistance Program - Remedial Services • Occupational Therapy Program -5- English Crossing Elementary School (Kindergarten through 5th Grades) • K through 5th Grade Special Education Resource Room Program • Bilingual Education Program • K – 5th Grade Counseling Services • Speech and Language Disorder Therapy Program • Learning Assistance Program - Tutorial Services • 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 – 5th Grade Special Education Resource Room Program • K – 5th Grade Special Education Life Skills Program • K – 5th Grade Counseling Services • 3 – 5th Highly Capable/Enrichment Program (serves grades 3-5 district-wide) Lakewood Middle School (6th through 8th Grades) • Speech and Language Disorder Therapy Program • 6th-8th Grade Special Education Resource and Inclusion Program • 6th-8th Grade Special Education Life Skills Program • Bilingual Education Program • Learning Assistance Program - Tutorial Services • Occupational Therapy Program • 6th – 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 from the special or nontraditional programs offered at specific schools. Some students, for example, leave their regular classroom for a short period of time to receive instruction in these special programs. New schools are designed to accommodate many of these programs. However, existing schools often require space modifications to accommodate special programs, and in some circumstances, these modifications may affect the overall classroom capacities of the buildings. -6- 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 of this 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 19 students. • Class size for grade 5th will not exceed 26 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. • All students will be provided physical education instruction in a gym/multipurpose room. Educational Program Standards For Middle and High Schools • Class size for middle school grades will not exceed 26 students. • Class size for high school grades will not exceed 28 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. In updating this Capital Facility Plan, a building review of classroom 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 95% at the middle school and 85% 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-technology. • 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). -7- • Optimum design capacity for new middle schools is 600 students. However, actual capacity of individual schools may vary depending on the educational programs offered. • Optimum design capacity for new high schools is 800 students. However, actual capacity of individual 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 Board of Directors following appropriate public review and comment. The District may also request that development be deferred until planned facilities can be complete d to meet the needs of the incoming population; however, the District has no control over the ultimate land use decisions made by the permitting jurisdictions. The District’s minimum level of service (“MLOS”) is as follows: on average, K-4 classrooms have no more than 24 students per classroom, 5-8 classrooms have no more than 26 students per classroom, and 9-12 classrooms have no more than 28 students per classroom. The District sets 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 more than 24 students per classroom, 5-8 classrooms have more than 28 students per classroom, or 9-12 classrooms more than 30 students per classroom. 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 MLOS is not the District’s desired or accepted operating standard. For 2017-18 and 2018-19, the District’s compliance with the MLOS was as follows (with MLOS set as applicable for those school years): 2017-18 School Year LOS Standard MINIMUM LOS# Elementary^ REPORTED LOS Elementary MINIMUM LOS Middle REPORTED LOS Middle MINIMUM LOS High REPORTED LOS High 26 19.06 28 22.88 30 21.47 * The District determines the reported service level by adding the number of students in regular classrooms at each grade level and dividing that number by the number of teaching stations (excludes portables). 2018-19 School Year LOS Standard MINIMUM LOS# Elementary^ REPORTED LOS Elementary MINIMUM LOS Middle REPORTED LOS Middle MINIMUM LOS High REPORTED LOS High 26 19.16 28 23.08 30 22.00 * The District determines the reported MLOS by adding the number of students in regular classrooms at each grade level and dividing that number by the number of teaching stations (excludes portables). -8- 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 of capital 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 1 (page 3) is a map showing locations of District facilities. A. Schools The District maintains three elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school. Lakewood Elementary School accommodates grades P-5, Cougar Creek Elementary School accommodates grades K-5, and English Crossing Elementary School accommodates grades K-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 inv entory is summarized in Table 1 and reflects the District’s updated educational program standards (reduced K-4 class size) and recently completed capacity addition at Lakewood High School. Relocatable classrooms are not viewed by the District as a solution for housing students on a permanent basis. Therefore, these facilities are not included in Table 1. Table 1 School Capacity Inventory Elementary School Site Size (Acres) Building Area (Square Feet) Teaching Stations Permanent Capacity Year Built or Remodeled English Crossing * 41,430 20 403 1994 Cougar Creek 10** 44,217 22 444 2003 Lakewood * 45,400 16 323 1958, 1997 TOTAL * 131,047 58 1,170 Middle School Site Size (Acres) Building Area (Square Feet) Teaching Stations Permanent Capacity Year Built or Remodeled Lakewood Middle * 62,835 25 618 1971, 1994, and 2002 High School Site Size (Acres) Building Area (Square Feet) Teaching Stations Permanent Capacity Year Built or Remodeled Lakewood High * 169,000 34 850 1982, 2020 *Note: All facilities are located on one 89-acre campus located at Tax Parcel No. 31053000100300. **The Cougar Creek site is approximately 22 acres located at 16216 11 th Ave NE, Arlington, WA 98223. Note that the presence of critical areas on the site does not allow full utilization at this site. -9- 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 15 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. The District’s relocatable classrooms have adequate useful remaining life and are evaluated regularly. Table 2 Relocatable Classroom (Portable) Inventory Elementary School Relocatable Classrooms Interim Capacity English Crossing 2 40 Cougar Creek 4 80 Lakewood 6 120 SUBTOTAL 12 240 Middle School Relocatable Classrooms Interim Capacity Lakewood Middle 3 78 SUBTOTAL 3 78 High School Relocatable Classrooms Interim Capacity Lakewood High 0 0 SUBTOTAL 0 0 TOTAL 15 318 -10- 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 Inventory Facility Building Area (Square Feet) Administration 1,384 Business and Operations 1,152 Storage 2,456 Bus Garage/Maintenance Shop 5,216 Stadium 14,304 The District is also a party to a cooperative agreement for use of the Marysville School District transportation facility (which is owned by the Marysville School District). D. Land Inventory The District does not own any sites which are developed for uses other than schools and/or which are leased to other parties. -11- SECTION 4 STUDENT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS The District’s October 1, 2019, reported enrollment was 2,514. 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 a modified cohort enrollment forecast prepared by a demographer. The District also estimated enrollment based upon adopted Snohomish County population forecasts (“ratio method”). Based on the cohort survival methodology, a total of 2,968 students are expected to be enrolled in the District by 2025, a notable increase from the October 2019 enrollment levels. Notably, the cohort survival method is not designed to anticipate fluctuations in development patterns. The cohort method has not proven to be a reliable measure for the Lakewood School District. For example, the cohort projection in 2017 predicted that the District’s October 2019 enrollment would be 2,423, about 91 fewer students than the actual October 2019 enrollment figures. The 2019 cohort projections for 2025, however, show a 19.1% projected increase by the 2025 school year. The District obtained in 2020 an enrollment forecast from a professional demographer, FLO Analytics. Based on this analysis, a total enrollment of 2,888, or 374 additional students, are expected by the 2025-26 school year. This projection is an increase of nearly 15% over 2019 enrollment. Growth is projected at all three grade levels. The FLO Analytics forecast utilizes historic enrollment patterns, demographic and land use analysis based upon information from Snohomish County and the cities of Arlington and Marysville, census data, OFM forecasts, and Washington State Department of Health birth data. The detailed FLO Analytics forecast report is on file with the District. Snohomish County provides OFM population-based enrollment projections for the District using OFM population forecasts as adopted by the County. The County provided the District with the estimated total population in the District by year. Between 2012 and 2019, the District’s student enrollment constituted approximately 15.74% of the total population in the District. Assuming that between 2020 and 2025, the District’s enrollment will continue to constitute 15.74% of the District’s total population and using OFM/County data, OFM/County methodology projects a total enrollment of 2,743 students in 2025. The comparison of OSPI cohort, District projections, and OFM/County projected enrollments is contained in Table 4. -12- Table 4 Projected Student Enrollment (FTE) 2020-2025 Projection Oct. 2019* 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Change 2019-25 Percent Change 2019-25 OFM/County 2,514 2,552 2,590 2,628 2,666 2,704 2,743 229 9.1% OSPI Cohort** 2,514 2,573 2,660 2,712 2,808 2,885 2,968 454 18.1% District*** 2,514 2,527 2,584 2,667 2,760 2,831 2,888 374 14.88% * Actual reported enrollment, October 2019 **Based upon the cohort survival methodology; complete projections located at Appendix A.. ***FLO Analytics (2020); grade level projections located in Appendix A. The District is aware of notable pending residential development within the District. Specifically, nearly 300 multi-family units are planned for or currently in construction over the next five year period within the District’s portion of the City of Arlington. In the District’s portion of the City of Marysville, there is ongoing multifamily and single family development are currently under construction. Sustained low to moderate levels of single family development are projected within the District through the next ten years. Given the District-specific detailed analysis contained in the FLO Analytics report, the District is relying on the projections in that report 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. 2035 Enrollment Projections Student enrollment projections beyond 2025 are highly speculative. Using OFM/County data as a base, the District projects a 2035 student FTE population of 2,878. This is based on the OFM/County data for the years 2012 through 2019 and the District’s average fulltime equivalent enrollment for the corresponding years (for the years 2012 to 2019, the District’s actual enrollment averaged 15.74% of the OFM/County 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 2035 is provided in Table 5. Again, these estimates are highly speculative and are used only for general planning purposes. -13- Table 5 Projected Student Enrollment 2035 Grade Span FTE Enrollment – October 2019 Projected Enrollment 2035* Elementary (K-5) 1,094 1,253 Middle School (6-8) 652 746 High School (9-12) 768 879 TOTAL (K-12) 2,514 2,878 *Assumes average percentage per grade span remains constant between 2029 and 2035. See Appendix, Table A-2. Note: Snohomish County Planning and Development Service provided the underlying data for the 2035 projections. -14- SECTION 5 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 of the six years in the forecast period (2020-2025). 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 the 2019-20 school year. 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 of those needs that are “growth related” for the years 2020-2025. Note that this chart is misleading as it reads out growth-related capacity needs related to recent growth within the District. Table 6-A* Additional Capacity Needs 2019-2025 Grade Span 2019** 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Pct. Growth Related Elementary (K-5) Total Growth Related 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- 28 28 24 24 9 9 100% Middle School (6-8) Total Growth Related 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- 42 42 42 42 100% High School Total Growth Related*** 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- 45 45 69 69 75 75 112 112 100% *Please refer to Table 7 for capacity and projected enrollment information. **Actual October 2019 Enrollment ***Additional “Growth Related Capacity Needs” equal the “Total” for each year less “deficiencies” existing as of 2019. Existing deficiencies as of 2019 include capacity needs related to recent growth from new development through that date. -15- By the end of the six-year forecast period (2025), 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) 9/(9) Middle School (6-8) 42/(42) High School (9-12) 112/(112) TOTAL UNHOUSED (K-12) 163/(163) Again, planned construction projects are not included in the analysis in Table 6-B. In addition, 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 of identifying available capacity. Table 6-C Unhoused Students – Mitigated with Relocatables Grade Span 2025 Unhoused Students /Growth Related in (Parentheses) Relocatable Capacity Elementary (K-5) 9/(9) 240 Middle School (6-8) 42/(42) 78 High School (9-12) 112/(112) 0 Total (K-12) 163(163) 318 Importantly, Table 6-C does not include relocatable adjustments 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 of students to the projected capacity. Planned improvements by the District through 2025 are included in Table 7 and more fully described in Table 8. -16- Table 7 Projected Student Capacity 2020-2025 Elementary School Surplus/Deficiency Oct 2019* 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Existing Capacity 1,170 1,170 1,170 1,170 1,170 1,170 1,170 Added Permanent Capacity 162^ Total Permanent Capacity 1,170 1,170 1,170 1,170 1,170 1,170 1,332 Enrollment` 1,094 1,103 1,138 1,163 1,198 1,194 1,179 Surplus (Deficiency) 76 67 32 7 (28) (24) 153 * Reported October 2019 enrollment ^ Capacity Addition at Lakewood Elementary Middle School Surplus/Deficiency Oct 2019* 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Existing Capacity 618 670 670 670 670 670 670 Added Permanent Capacity 52** 198^ Total Permanent Capacity 670 670 670 670 670 670 868 Enrollment 652 634 621 608 643 712 747 Surplus (Deficiency) 18 36 49 62 27 (42) 121 * Reported October 2019 enrollment **Addition of STEM Lab and 2 classrooms in Spring 2020 ^ Capacity Addition at Lakewood Middle School High School Surplus/Deficiency Oct 2019* 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Existing Capacity 571 850 850 850 850 850 850 Added Permanent Capacity* 279** Total Permanent Capacity 850 850 850 850 850 850 850 Enrollment 768 790 826 895 919 925 962 Surplus (Deficiency) 82 60 24 (45) (69) (75) (112) * Reported October 2019 enrollment **Lakewood High School expansion in 2017. See Section 6 for project information. See Appendix A for complete breakdown of enrollment projections. See Table 6-A for a comparison of additional capacity needs due to growth versus existing deficiencies. Table 7 does not include existing, relocated, or added portable facilities. -17- 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. In April 2014, the District’s voters approved a $66,800,000 bond measure to fund improvements, including a capacity addition at Lakewood High School, which opened in the fall of 2017. Based upon current needs, the District anticipates that it may need to consider the following acquisitions and/or improvements within the six years of this Plan. Projects Adding Permanent Capacity:  Addition of STEM Lab and two classrooms at Lakewood Middle School (spring 2020);  A planned expansion at Lakewood Elementary School, to create a preschool and early center in order to free up space for K-5 classrooms, subject to future planning analysis and funding; and  A planned expansion at Lakewood Middle School, subject to future planning analysis and funding; and  Acquisition and siting of portable facilities to accommodate growth needs. Non-Capacity Adding Projects:  Transportation Facility expansion to Operations Center; and  Administration Building improvements. Other:  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 of sources including voter approved bonds, State School Construction Assistance funds, and impact fees. The potential funding sources are discussed below. -18- B. Financing for Planned Improvements 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 Cougar Creek Elementary School. In April 2014, the District’s voters approved a $66,800,000 bond measure to fund improvements, including a capacity addition, at Lakewood High School. 2. State School Construction Assistance State School Construction Assistance funds come from the Common School Construction Fund. The State deposits revenue from the sale of renewable resources from State school lands set aside by the Enabling Act of 1889 into the Common School Account. If these sources are insufficient to meet needs, the Legislature can appropriate General Obligation Bond funds or the Superintendent of Public Instruction can prioritize projects for funding. 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 Program (SCAP) funds for certain projects at the 58.12% funding percentage level. The District does not anticipate being eligible for SCAP funds for the projects planned in this CFP. 3. Impact Fees Impact fees are a means of supplementing traditional funding sources for constructio n 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 2020-2025. 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. -19- Table 8 Capital Facilities Plan Improvements Adding Permanent Capacity (Costs in Millions) Project 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Total Cost Bonds/ Levy/ Other Local State Funds Impact Fees Elementary School Lakewood El Addition $4.0 $4.0 $8.00 X X Middle School STEM Lab and Class Room Addition at LMS Lakewood MS Addition $0.550 $6.0 $6.0 $0.555 $12.00 X X X X High School Portables $0.250 $0.750 $1.000 X Site Acquisition $0.775 $0.775 X X Improvements Not Adding Capacity (Costs in Millions) Project 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Total Cost Bonds/ Levy/ Other Local State Funds Impact Fees Elementary Middle School High School District Operations Center $3.0 X District Office $7.0-10.0 X -20- 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 of existing 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 of data 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 1-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 of the 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 of the District’s CFP. B. Methodology and Variables Used to Calculate School Impact Fees Impact fees are 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. A student factor (or student generation rate) is used to identify the average cost per dwelling unit by measuring the average number of students generated by each housing type (single-family dwellings and multi-family dwellings of one bedroom and two bedrooms or more). A description of the student methodology is contained in Appendix B. As required under the GMA, credits are applied in the formula to account for State School Construction Assistance 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 -21- 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 of whether the total new capacity project costs are used in the calculation or whether the District only uses the percentage of the total new capacity project costs allocated to the Districts growth-related needs, as demonstrated in Table 6-A. For purposes of this 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 of funding sources. The following projects are included in the impact fee calculation:  Capacity additions at Lakewood Elementary School and Lakewood Middle School.  Portable acquisition costs at the High School level. Please see Table 8 for relevant cost data related to each capacity project. -22- FACTORS FOR ESTIMATED IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS Student Generation Factors – Single Family Average Site Cost/Acre Elementary .193 N/A Middle .060 High .048 Total .301 Temporary Facility Capacity Student Generation Factors – Multi Family (1 Bdrm) Capacity 20/26 Elementary .033 Cost $250,000 Middle .017 High .010 State Match Credit Total .050 Current State Match Percentage 58.12% (not expected) Student Generation Factors – Multi Family (2+ Bdrm) Construction Cost Allocation Elementary .063 Current CCA 238.22 Middle .045 High .063 District Average Assessed Value Total .170 Single Family Residence $420,840 Projected Student Capacity per Facility District Average Assessed Value Lakewood El (addition) – 162 Lakewood MS (addition) – 198 Multi Family (1 Bedroom) $125,314 Multi Family (2+ Bedroom) $178,051 Required Site Acreage per Facility SPI Square Footage per Student Facility Construction/Cost Average Elementary 90 Middle 108 Lakewood El (Addition) $8,000,000 Lakewood MS (Addition) $12,000,000 High 130 District Debt Service Tax Rate for Bonds Current/$1,000 $1.55 Permanent Facility Square Footage General Obligation Bond Interest Rate Elementary 131,047 Bond Buyer Index (avg February 2020) 2.44% Middle 62,835 High 169,000 Developer Provided Sites/Facilities Total 97.12% 362,882 Value 0 Dwelling Units 0 Temporary Facility Square Footage Elementary 6,656 Middle 512 High 3,584 Total 2.88% 10,752 Total Facility Square Footage Elementary 137,703 Middle 63,347 High 172,584 Total 100.00% 373,634 -23- 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 of Arlington, City of Marysville* Housing Type Impact Fee Per Dwelling Unit Single Family $3,566 Multi-Family (1 Bedroom) $445 Multi-Family (2+ Bedroom) $1,641 *Table 9 reflects a 50% adjustment to the calculated fee as required by local ordinances. APPENDIX A POPULATION AND ENROLLMENT DATA A-1 Table A-1 ACTUAL STUDENT ENROLLMENT 2014-2019 PROJECTED STUDENT ENROLLMENT 2020-2025 Based on OSPI Cohort Survival* A-2 Table A-2 AVERAGE PERCENTAGE ENROLLMENT BY GRADE SPAN (COUNTY/OFM Enrollment Projections)*** Enrollment by Grade Span Oct. 2019* Avg. %age 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Elementary (K-5) 1,094 43.52% 1,111 1,127 1,144 1,160 1,177 1,194 Middle School (6-8) 652 25.93% 662 672 681 691 701 711 High School (9-12) 768 30.55% 779 791 803 815 826 838 TOTAL** 2,514 100% 2,552 2,590 2,628 2,666 2,704 2,743 *Actual October 2019 Enrollment. ** Totals may vary due to rounding. ***Using average percentage by grade span. A-3 Table A-3 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT BY GRADE SPAN (DISTRICT - FLO Analytics)** APPENDIX B STUDENT GENERATION FACTOR REVIEW B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 APPENDIX C SCHOOL IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill Item: NB #1 Attachment HCOUNCIL MEETING DATE: December 7, 2020 SUBJECT: Resolution to Add Annexation into the North County Regional Fire Authority (NCRFA) to the February 9, 2021 Ballot ATTACHMENTS: Amended Resolution adding Arlington’s Annexation to the February 9, 2021 Ballot DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN Administration; Paul Ellis, City Administrator 360-403-4603 EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: None BUDGET CATEGORY: N/A BUDGETED AMOUNT: N/A LEGAL REVIEW: DESCRIPTION: On November 2, 2020, City Council approved the planning document created by the RFA Planning Committee and a resolution to add the annexation to the February 9, 2021 ballot. The attached resolution amends the November 2, 2020 resolution, only by adding a request to the County to have a local voter’s pamphlet. HISTORY: A subcommittee includes two members of the Arlington City Council – Jesica Stickles and Marilyn Oertle, and two members of the North Snohomish County Regional Fire Authority – Commissioner Larry Longley and Commissioner Greg Oaks. The subcommittee, along with staff support and a facilitator, RESOLUTION NO. 2020-XXX 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2020-XXX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ARLINGTON, WASHINGTON, PROVIDING FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE CITY OF ARLINGTON AT AN ELECTION TO BE HELD ON FEBRUARY 9, 2021, OF A PROPOSITION REGARDING ANNEXATION BY THE CITY OF ARLINGTON TO THE NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL FIRE AUTHORITY AND THE APPROVAL OF A REGIONAL FIRE PROTECTION SERVICE AUTHORITY PLAN, AND PROVIDING FOR OTHER MATTERS PROPERLY RELATED THERETO WHEREAS, RCW 52.04.071 establishes the procedure for elections concerning annexation of a city into a fire protection district; and WHEREAS, by the adoption of this resolution the City Council of the City of Arlington states the City’s intent to annex into the North County Regional Fire Authority (NCRFA) and makes a finding that the public interest will be served thereby; and WHEREAS, likewise on October 14, 2020 the Board of Fire Commissioners of NCRFA approved the RFA Plan amendment to authorize the annexation; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to present the issue of annexation to the voters; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to amend its previously passed RESOLUTION NO. 2020-018 to include a request to Snohomish County relating to the local voter’s pamphlet; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARLINGTON, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, as follows: Section 1. Findings and Description of Proposition. The City Council of the City of Arlington, Washington, hereby finds that it is in the best interests of the City to submit to the qualified electors of the City, at the general election to be held on February 9, 2021, a proposition regarding annexation by the City of Arlington to the North County Regional Fire Authority (NCRFA), pursuant to chapter 52.26 RCW. If approved by the voters in accordance with RCW 52.26.060, this proposition would: (1) annex Arlington into NCRFA; and (2) approve the Amended RFA Plan prepared by the RFA Committee and available from the City Clerk. Section 2. Ballot Title and Proposition. The Snohomish County Auditor as ex officio supervisor of elections in Snohomish County, is hereby requested to submit to the qualified electors of the City, at a special election to be held on February 9, 2021, a proposition in the following form, which has been prepared by the City Attorney pursuant to RCW 29A.36.071: RESOLUTION NO. 2020-XXX 2 Proposition No. 1: City of Arlington annexation into North County Regional Fire Authority Ballot Title: Arlington’s Resolution No. 2020-XXX proposes annexing the City to North County Regional Fire Authority. Should this Resolution be approved? Response: Yes No Section 3. Copies to be Filed With Snohomish County Auditor. The City Clerk, or her designee, is hereby authorized and directed to provide to the Auditor a certified copy of this resolution and to perform such other duties as are necessary or required by law to the end that the proposition described in this resolution appears on the ballot at the February 9, 2021 special election. All actions taken prior to the effective date of this resolution and in furtherance of this objective are hereby ratified and confirmed. Section 4. Local Voter’s Pamphlet. The City Council requests, pursuant to Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 29A.32.210, that Snohomish County authorize the publication and distribution of a local voters' pamphlet for the February 9, 2021 special election. Section 5. Implementation. The Mayor and City Attorney are authorized to make such minor adjustments to the wording of such proposition as may be recommended by the Snohomish County Auditor, as long as the intent of the proposition remains clear and consistent with the intent of this Resolution as approved by the City Council. Section 6. Severability. If any provision of this resolution is determined to be invalid or unenforceable for any reason the remaining provisions shall remain in force and effect. Section 7. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect upon passage and signatures hereon. PASSED BY the City Council and APPROVED by the Mayor this 7th day of December, 2020. CITY OF ARLINGTON ______________________________ Barbara Tolbert, Mayor RESOLUTION NO. 2020-XXX 3 Attest: ______________________________ Wendy Van Der Meersche, City Clerk Approved as to form: ______________________________ Steven J. Peiffle City Attorney City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill Item: NB #2 Attachment I RESOLUTION 2020-XXX 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2020 - XXX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ARLINGTON ESTABLISHING THE INTENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO REDUCE A PORTION OF THE CITY’S 2022 REGULAR PROPERTY TAX LEVY IN THE EVENT OF ANNEXATION TO THE NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL FIRE AUTHORITY WHEREAS, the City of Arlington has been discussing the opportunity to annex the city’s fire department into the North County Regional Fire Authority; and WHEREAS, annexation is more cost effective for Arlington taxpayers; and WHEREAS, under annexation, beginning January 1, 2022, property owners would pay a dedicated fire and EMS levy directly to the NCRFA and Arlington would repeal the EMS levy, the ambulance utility fee and reduce its general property tax levy; and WHEREAS, on June 1, 2020, a council retreat was held to review and discuss financial scenarios to minimize impact to the Arlington taxpayer while retaining a portion of property tax revenue to pay for other city services such as parks, trails, roads, planning and/or facilities; and WHEREAS, the financial analysis showed that more than 54% of taxpayers would pay the same or save money if the city retained a levy rate of approximately $.75; and WHEREAS, a levy rate of approximately $.75 would allow the city to retain about $400,000 in property tax revenue that could be used for parks, trails, roads, planning and/or facilities; and WHEREAS, the city does not establish or set a specific levy rate, levy rates are determined by a combination of assessed valuation and levy amount (revenue) of the taxing district; and WHEREAS, the city council will be required to adopt a resolution before November 30, 2021 to establish the 2022 general property tax levy amount which combined with the 2021 assessed valuations may adjust the final levy rate for 2022; and WHEREAS, the city’s 2021/2022 biennial budget was adopted on November 16, 2020 and reflects revenues and expenditures as if annexation was not successful; if annexation is approved by the voters, the city will amend its 2022 budget to reflect the reduction in revenue and expenditures consistent with a general property tax levy rate of approximately $.75; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to express its intentions to the voters of how it would act with respect to its tax levy if the voters approve the annexation of the City into North County Regional Fire Authority, with respect to its tax levy; RESOLUTION 2020-XXX 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arlington, as follows: In the event the voters approve the annexation to North County Regional Fire Authority at the February 9, 2021 election, the City Council intends to amend the 2022 budget to levy its 2022 general property tax levy in an amount that results in an approximate levy rate of $.75, and to use any excess levy amounts to pay for city services which may include; parks, trails, roads, planning and/or facilities. PASSED and APPROVED by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Arlington, at a regular meeting held on the 7th day of December, 2020. Barbara Tolbert, Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________ Wendy Van Der Meersche, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________________ Steve Peiffle, City Attorney City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill Item: NB #3 website to match employers with potential employees. The project includes outreach to employers, with Page 1 of 11 Personal SA (Rev 2020.06.25) PERSONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, is made and entered into in duplicate this 7th day of December, 2020, by and between the CITY OF ARLINGTON, a Washington municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as the "CITY" and Southam Creative, LLC., hereinafter referred to as the "PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER". NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms, conditions, covenants, and performance contained herein, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES The SERVICE PROVIDER shall perform such services and accomplish such tasks, including the furnishing of all materials and equipment necessary for full performance thereof, as are identified and designated as PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER responsibilities throughout this Agreement and as detailed in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein (the "Project"). 2. TERM The Project shall begin on December 7th , 2020, and shall be completed no later than December 31st , 2020 unless sooner terminated according to the provisions herein. 3. CONTACT WITH CITY EMPLOYEES During the term of this Agreement, the PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER shall interact only with the following authorized CITY employees or agents, and with no other CITY employees absent written authorization to do so: Mayor and City Administrator . 4. COMPENSATION AND METHOD OF PAYMENT 4.1 Payments for services provided hereunder shall be made following the performance of such services, unless otherwise permitted by law and approved in writing by the CITY. 4.2 No payment shall be made for any service rendered by the PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER except for services identified and set forth in this Agreement. 4.3 The CITY shall pay the PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER for work performed under this Agreement as follows: Page 2 of 11 Personal SA (Rev 2020.06.25) 4.3.1 PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER shall submit monthly invoices detailing work performed and expenses for which reimbursement is sought. 4.3.2 CITY shall approve all invoices before payment is issued. Payment shall occur within thirty (30) days of receipt and approval of an invoice. 4.4 CITY shall pay PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER for such services: (check one) X Fixed Sum: A total amount of $ 97,713.00. Ninety Seven Thousand, seven hundred thirteen Dollars no/100. for all work performed and expenses incurred under this Agreement. 4.5 CITY reserves the right to withhold payment under this Agreement which is determined, in the reasonable judgment of the City Administrator or his/her designee to be noncompliant with this Agreement, the Scope of Services attached hereto, City standards, or city, state or federal law. 5. REPRESENTATIONS CITY has relied upon the qualifications of PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER in entering into this Agreement. By execution of this Agreement, PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER represents it possesses the ability, skill, and resources necessary to perform the work and is familiar with all applicable current laws, rules and regulations which reasonably relate to this Agreement. 6. STANDARD OF CARE PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER shall exercise the degree of skill and diligence normally employed by personal service providers engaged in the same profession and performing the same or similar services at the time such services are performed. PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER will be responsible for the technical accuracy of its services and documents resulting therefrom, and CITY shall not be responsible for discovering deficiencies therein. PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER agrees to correct any deficiencies discovered without additional compensation, except to the extent such deficiencies are directly attributable to deficiencies or omissions in City-furnished information. 7. REPORTS AND INSPECTIONS 7.1 The PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER at such times and in such forms as the CITY may require, shall furnish to the CITY such statements, records, reports, data, Page 3 of 11 Personal SA (Rev 2020.06.25) and information as the CITY may request pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. 7.2 The PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER shall at any time during normal business hours and as often as the CITY or State Auditor may deem necessary, make available for examination all of its records and data with respect to all matters covered, directly or indirectly, by this Agreement and shall permit the CITY or its designated authorized representative to audit and inspect other data relating to all matters covered by this Agreement. The CITY shall receive a copy of all audit reports made by the agency or firm as to the PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER's activities. The CITY may, at its discretion, conduct an audit at its expense, using its own or outside auditors, of the PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER's activities which relate, directly or indirectly, to this Agreement. 8. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR RELATIONSHIP The parties intend that an independent contractor relationship will be created by this Agreement. The CITY is interested primarily in the results to be achieved; subject to paragraphs herein, the implementation of services will lie solely with the discretion of the PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER. PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER shall not be deemed to be an employee, agent, servant or representative of the CITY for any purpose, and the PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER is not entitled to any of the benefits the CITY provides for its employees. The PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER will be solely and entirely responsible for his/her acts during the performance of this Agreement. 9. HOLD HARMLESS/INDEMNIFICATION 9.1 PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER shall, at its sole expense, defend, indemnify and hold the CITY, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, or costs including attorney fees, caused by the wrongful or negligent acts, errors or omissions of the PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER or the PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER’s agents, employees or subcontractors in performance of this Agreement, except for injuries and damages caused by the sole negligence of the CITY or the CITY’s agents or employees. 9.2 PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER’s duty to indemnify and hold the CITY harmless against liability for damages arising out of or caused by the concurrent negligence of CITY or CITY’s employees or agents and PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER or PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER’s employees or agents shall apply only to the extent of the negligence or wrongdoing of PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER and PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER’s employees or agents. Page 4 of 11 Personal SA (Rev 2020.06.25) 9.3 Should a court of competent jurisdiction determine that this Agreement is subject to RCW 4.24.115, then, in the event of liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or damages to property caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of the PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER and the CITY, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers, the PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER's liability, including the duty and cost to defend, hereunder shall be only to the extent of the PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER’s negligence. It is further specifically and expressly understood that the indemnification provided herein constitutes the PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER’s waiver of immunity under Industrial Insurance, Title 51 RCW, solely for the purposes of this indemnification. PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER certifies, by signing this Agreement, that this indemnification provision was mutually negotiated. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. 9.4 No liability shall attach to the CITY by reason of entering into this Agreement except as expressly provided herein. 10. INSURANCE The PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER, its agents, representatives, or employees. 10.1 Insurance Term. The PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER shall procure and maintain insurance, as required in this Section, without interruption from commencement of the PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER’s work through the term of this Agreement and for thirty (30) days after the completion date, unless otherwise indicated herein. 10.2 No Limitation. The PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER’s maintenance of insurance as required by the Agreement shall not be construed to limit the liability of the PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER to the coverage provided by such insurance, or otherwise limit the CITY’s recourse to any remedy available at law or in equity. 10.3 Minimum Scope of Insurance. PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER shall obtain insurance of the types described below: 10.3.1 Automobile Liability insurance covering all owned, non-owned, hired and leased vehicles. Coverage shall be written on Insurance Services Office (ISO) form CA 00 01 or a substitute form providing equivalent liability coverage. If necessary, the policy shall be endorsed to provide contractual liability coverage. Page 5 of 11 Personal SA (Rev 2020.06.25) 10.3.2 Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written on ISO occurrence form CG 00 01 and shall cover liability arising from premises, operations, independent contractors and personal injury and advertising injury. The City shall be named as an insured under the PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER's Commercial General Liability insurance policy with respect to the work performed for the City using an additional insured endorsement at least as broad as ISO CG 20 26. 10.3.3 Workers' Compensation coverage as required by the Industrial Insurance laws of the State of Washington. 10.4 Minimum Amounts of Insurance. PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER shall maintain the following insurance limits: 10.4.1 Automobile Liability insurance with a minimum combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage of $1,000,000 per accident. 10.4.2 Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written with limits no less than $2,000,000 each occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate and $2,000,000 products-completed operations aggregate limit. 10.5 Other Insurance Provisions. The PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER’s Automobile Liability and Commercial General Liability insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain that they shall be primary insurance as respect the CITY. Any Insurance, self-insurance, or self-insured pool coverage maintained by the CITY shall be excess of the PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER’s insurance and shall not contribute with it. 10.6 Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of not less than A: VII. 10.7 Verification of Coverage. PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER shall furnish the City with original certificates and a copy of the amendatory endorsements, including but not necessarily limited to the additional insured endorsement, evidencing the insurance requirements of the PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER before commencement of the work. 10.8 Subcontractors’ Insurance. The PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER shall cause each and every subcontractor to provide insurance coverage that complies with all applicable requirements of the PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER-provided insurance as set forth herein, except the PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER shall have sole responsibility for determining the limits of coverage required to be obtained by subcontractors. The PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER shall ensure Page 6 of 11 Personal SA (Rev 2020.06.25) that the CITY is an additional insured on each and every subcontractor’s Commercial General liability insurance policy using an endorsement as least as broad as ISO CG 20 10 10 01 for ongoing operations and CG 20 37 10 01 for completed operations. 10.9 Notice of Cancellation. PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER shall provide the CITY with written notice of any policy cancellation within two business days of their receipt of such notice. 10.10 Failure to Maintain Insurance. Failure on the part of the PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER to maintain the insurance as required shall constitute a material breach of contract, upon which the CITY may, after giving five business days’ notice to the PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER to correct the breach, immediately terminate this Agreement or, at its discretion, procure or renew such insurance and pay any and all premiums in connection therewith, with any sums so expended to be repaid to the CITY on demand, or at the sole discretion of the CITY, offset against funds due the PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER from the CITY. 10.11 City Full Availability of Professional Limits. If the PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER maintains higher insurance limits than the minimums shown above, the CITY shall be insured for the full available limits of Commercial General and Excess or Umbrella liability maintained by the PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER, irrespective of whether such limits maintained by the PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER are greater than those required by this Agreement or whether any certificate of insurance furnished to the CITY evidences limits of liability lower than those maintained by the PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER. 11. OWNERSHIP OF ASSETS Title to all property furnished by the CITY shall remain in the name of the CITY and the CITY shall become the owner of the work product and other documents, if any, prepared by the PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER pursuant to this Agreement. 12. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS 12.1 The PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER, in the performance of this Agreement, shall comply with all applicable federal, state or local laws and ordinances, including regulations for licensing, certification and operation of facilities, programs and accreditation, and licensing of individuals, and any other standards or criteria as described in this Agreement to assure quality of services. Page 7 of 11 Personal SA (Rev 2020.06.25) 12.2 The PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER specifically agrees to pay any applicable business and occupation (B & O) taxes which may be due on account of this Agreement. 12.3 The PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER shall, prior to performing services under this agreement, obtain a city business license as required by AMC 5.28.050. 13. NONDISCRIMINATION 13.1 The CITY is an equal opportunity employer. 13.2 Nondiscrimination in Employment. In the performance of this Agreement, the PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment on the grounds of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, marital status, age or the presence of any sensory, mental or physical handicap; provided that the prohibition against discrimination in employment because of handicap shall not apply if the particular disability prevents the proper performance of the particular worker involved. The PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER shall ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment without discrimination because of their race, creed, color, national origin, sex, marital status, age or the presence of any sensory, mental or physical handicap. Such action shall include, but not be limited to: employment, upgrading, demotion or transfers, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation, and programs for training including apprenticeships. The PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER shall take such action with respect to this Agreement as may be required to ensure full compliance with local, state and federal laws prohibiting discrimination in employment. 13.3 Nondiscrimination in Services. The PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER will not discriminate against any recipient of any services or benefits provided for in this Agreement on the grounds of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, marital status, age or the presence of any sensory, mental or physical handicap. 13.4 If any assignment and/or subcontracting has been authorized by the CITY, said assignment or subcontract shall include appropriate safeguards against discrimination. The PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER shall take such action as may be required to ensure full compliance with the provisions in the immediately preceding paragraphs herein. 14. ASSIGNMENT/SUBCONTRACTING 14.1 The PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER shall not assign its performance under this Agreement or any portion of this Agreement without the written consent of the CITY, and it is further agreed that said consent must be sought in writing by Page 8 of 11 Personal SA (Rev 2020.06.25) the PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER not less than thirty (30) days prior to the date of any proposed assignment. The CITY reserves the right to reject without cause any such assignment. 14.2 Any work or services assigned hereunder shall be subject to each provision of this Agreement and proper bidding procedures where applicable as set forth in local, state and/or federal statutes, ordinances and guidelines. 14.3 Any technical/PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER service subcontract not listed in this Agreement, must have express advance approval by the CITY. 15. CHANGES OR AMENDMENTS Either party may request changes to the scope of services and performance to be provided hereunder, however, no change or addition to this Agreement shall be valid or binding upon either party unless such change or addition be in writing and signed by both parties. Such amendments shall be attached to and made part of this Agreement. 16. OWNERSHIP, MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTION OF RECORDS 16.1 All drawings, plans, specifications, and other related documents prepared by PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER under this Agreement are and shall be the property of CITY and may be subject to disclosure pursuant to RCW Chapter 42.56 or other applicable public records laws. The written, graphic, mapped, photographic, or visual documents prepared by PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER under this Agreement shall, unless otherwise provided, be deemed the property of the CITY. CITY shall be permitted to retain these documents, including reproducible camera-ready originals of reports, reproduction quality mylars of maps, and copies in the form of computer files, for the CITY’s use. CITY shall have unrestricted authority to publish, disclose, distribute and otherwise use, in whole or part, and reports, data, drawings, images or other material prepared under this Agreement, provided that PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER shall have no liability for the use of PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER’s work product outside of the scope of its intended purpose, and the CITY agrees to indemnify and hold the PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER harmless from such use. 16.2 The PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER shall maintain books, records and documents, which sufficiently and properly reflect all direct and indirect costs related to the performance of this Agreement and shall maintain such accounting procedures and practices as may be necessary to assure proper accounting of all funds paid pursuant to this Agreement. These records shall be subject at all reasonable times to inspection, review, or audit, by the CITY, its authorized representative, the State Auditor, or other governmental officials authorized by law to monitor this Agreement. Page 9 of 11 Personal SA (Rev 2020.06.25) 16.3 The PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER shall retain all books, records, documents and other material relevant to this Agreement, for six (6) years after its expiration. The PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER agrees that the CITY or its designee shall have full access and right to examine any of said materials at all reasonable times during said period. PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER agrees to cooperate with the CITY to produce in a timely manner any records in the possession of PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER relating to the performance of this Agreement which are or may be the subject of a valid request under the Public Records Act, RCW Chapter 42.56. 17. OTHER PROVISIONS If changes in state law necessitate that services hereunder be expanded, the parties shall negotiate an appropriate amendment. If, after thirty (30) days of negotiation, an agreement cannot be reached, this Agreement may be terminated by the City no sooner than sixty (60) days thereafter. 18. TERMINATION 18.1 Termination for Convenience. The CITY may terminate this Agreement, in whole or in part, at any time, by at least five (5) days written notice to the PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER. 18.2 Termination for Cause. If the PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER fails to perform in the manner called for in this Agreement, or if the PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER fails to comply with any other provisions of the Agreement and fails to correct such noncompliance within five (5) days written notice thereof, the CITY may terminate this Agreement for cause. Termination shall be effected by serving a notice of termination on the PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER setting forth the manner in which the PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER is in default. The PERSONAL SERVICE PROVIDER will only be paid for services performed in accordance with the manner of performance set forth in this Agreement. 19. NOTICE Notices, other than applications for payment, shall be given in writing to the persons named below: Paul Ellis, City Administrator 238 North Olympic Ave Arlington, WA 98223 Southam Creative, LLC. Randal Southam, CEO 21201 39th Place West Brier, WA 98036 Page 10 of 11 Personal SA (Rev 2020.06.25) 20. ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS If any legal proceeding is brought for the enforcement of this Agreement, or because of a dispute, breach, default, or misrepresentation in connection with any of the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the other party, in addition to any other relief to which such party may be entitled, reasonable attorney's fees and other costs incurred in that action or proceeding. 21. WAIVER No officer, employee, agent or other individual acting on behalf of either party has the power, right or authority to waive any of the conditions or provisions of this Agreement. No waiver in one instance shall be held to be a waiver of any other subsequent breach or nonperformance. Failure of either party to enforce at any time any of the provisions of this Agreement or to require at any time performance by the other party of any provision hereof shall in no way be construed to be a waiver of such provisions nor shall it affect the validity of this Agreement or any part thereof. 22. JURISDICTION AND VENUE This Agreement has been and shall be construed as having been made and delivered within the State of Washington, and it is agreed by each party hereto that this Agreement shall be governed by laws of the State of Washington, both as to interpretation and performance. Any action of law, suit in equity, or judicial proceeding for the enforcement of this Agreement or any provisions thereof, shall be instituted and maintained only in any of the courts of competent jurisdiction in Snohomish County, Washington. 23. SEVERABILITY 23.1 If, for any reason, any part, term or provision of this Agreement is held by a court of the United States to be illegal, void or unenforceable, the validity of the remaining provisions shall not be affected, and the rights and obligations of the parties shall be construed and enforced as if the Agreement did not contain the particular provision held to be invalid. 23.2 If it should appear that any provision hereof is in conflict with any statutory provision of the State of Washington, said provision which may conflict therewith shall be deemed inoperative and null and void insofar as it may be in conflict therewith, and shall be deemed modified to conform to such statutory provisions. Page 11 of 11 Personal SA (Rev 2020.06.25) 24. ENTIRE AGREEMENT The parties agree that this Agreement is the complete expression of the terms hereto and any oral representations or understandings not incorporated herein are excluded. Further, any modification of this Agreement shall be in writing and signed by both parties. Failure to comply with any of the provisions stated herein shall constitute material breach of contract and cause for termination. Both parties recognize time is of the essence in the performance of the provisions of this Agreement. It is also agreed by the parties that the forgiveness of the nonperformance of any provision of this Agreement does not constitute a waiver of the provisions of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first hereinabove written. ____________________________ Barbara Tolbert, Mayor ____________________________ ____________________________ (Print)