Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
04-18-2011_Council Meeting Packet
Arlington City Council April 18, 2011 – 7 PM City Council Chambers 110 E. Third 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 1-800-833-8388 (TDD only) prior to the meeting date if special accommodations are required. CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS PUBLIC COMMENT For members of the public to speak to the Council regarding matters NOT on the agenda. Please limit remarks to three minutes CONSENT AGENDA 1. Minutes of the April 4 & 11, 2011 meetings ATTACHMENT A 2. Accounts Payable 3. Reappointment of Laura Kuhl to the Lodging Tax & Advisory Committee ATTACHMENT B to April 1, 2013; and Bruce Wargo to PARC to 4-1-2015 PUBLIC HEARING 1. Star Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Concurrent Rezone ATTACHMENT C 2. Arlington School District Capital Facilities Plan Comprehensive ATTACHMENT D Plan Amendment 3. Lakewood School District Capital Facilities Plan Comprehensive ATTACHMENT E Plan Amendment UNFINISHED BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS 1. Purchase of Airfield Cameras ATTACHMENT F 2. Approval to surplus the buildings on Airport lots 12 & 13 ATTACHMENT G (the old A & B hangars) 3. Interlocal Agreement with Monroe Fire District #3 for vehicle maintenance ATTACHMENT H DISCUSSION ITEMS INFORMATION ADMINISTRATOR & STAFF REPORTS MAYOR’S REPORT COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS – OPTIONAL 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 1-800-833-8388 (TDD only) prior to the meeting date if special accommodations are required. EXECUTIVE SESSION -To review collective bargaining negotiations, grievances, or discussions regarding the interpretation or application of a labor agreement [RCW 42.30.140(4)] RECONVENE ADJOURNMENT To download all attachments, click here DRAFT Page 1 of 3 Council Chambers 110 East Third April 4, 2011 City Council Members Present by Roll Call: Dick Butner, Sally Lien, Scott Solla, Marilyn Oertle, Chris Raezer, Linda Byrnes, and Steve Baker Council Members Absent: No Council members were absent. City Staff Present: Allen Johnson, Kristin Banfield, Paul Ellis, Jim Chase, Fire Chief Bruce Steadman, Jim Kelly, David Kuhl, Cristy Brubaker, Jan Bauer, Steve Peiffle – City Attorney Also Known to be Present: Walt Riebe, Nola Smith and Debora Nelson - DABA, Kirk Boxleitner – Arlington Times, Sarah Arney – North County Outlook, and Mike Hobson In the absence of Mayor Larson, Mayor Pro Tem Steve Baker called the meeting to order at 7:00PM, and the pledge of allegiance to the flag followed. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Marilyn Oertle moved to approve the Agenda. Chris Raezer seconded the motion which passed with a unanimous vote. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no one in the audience who wished to speak to matters not on the Agenda. CONSENT AGENDA Marilyn Oertle moved and Sally Lien seconded the motion to approve the Consent Agenda which was unanimously carried to approve the following Consent Agenda items: 1. Minutes of the January 8, March 21 & 28, 2011 meetings 2. Accounts Payable EFT Payments and Claims Checks #72947 through #73075 dated March 22, 2011 through April 4, 2011 in the amount of $746,162.95, and EFT Payments and Payroll Checks #27152 through #27177 for the period March 1, 2011 through March 31, 2011 in the amount of $1,173184.29 3. Arbor Day Proclamation 4. Volunteer Week Proclamation 5. Renewal of Library Board term for Tom Monroe to 4-1-2016 6. Acceptance of Vista Final Short Plat 7. Acceptance of Draco Final Short Plat 8. Public Art Acceptance – Carved Eagle 9. Authorization for the Mayor Pro Tem to sign confidentiality agreements with PSRC and Washington State Employment Security to complete the City’s Transportation Comprehensive Plan element Minutes of the Arlington City Council Meeting Minutes of the City of Arlington City Council Meeting DRAFT April 4, 2011 Page 2 of 3 PUBLIC HEARING Resolution Supporting Proposition 1 - City of Arlington Fire Department Permanent Levy for Emergency Medical Services Assistant City Administrator Kristin Banfield addressed the Levy request. She briefly reviewed the Resolution. City Attorney Steve Peiffle explained this opportunity afforded those who wished to speak. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:05PM, and with no one wishing to speak, the Public Hearing was closed immediately. Ms. Banfield then answered Council questions. Discussion and clarification followed. Mr. Peiffle stated that a clarifying statement could be inserted into the motion. Linda Byrnes, Sally Lien, and Steve Baker spoke in favor of the Resolution. Sally Lien moved to adopt the proposed Resolution Supporting the Establishment of a Permanent Emergency Medical Services (EMS) levy with direction to the staff to amend the resolution to clarify that it is a continuing levy and not a new tax. Dick Butner seconded the motion that passed with a unanimous vote. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no Unfinished Business. NEW BUSINESS Authorization to Advertise the Bid for the Slurry Seal Pavement Preservation Project Utilizing the City’s Small Works Roster Public Works Director Jim Kelly spoke to the project planned for the Arlington and Smokey Point areas. He gave a brief description of the pavement preservation process, and then answered Council questions. Scott Solla moved to authorize staff to advertise and bid for the Slurry Seal Pavement Preservation Projects from the Small Works Roster, pending final review and approval of the bidding documents by the City Attorney. Sally Lien seconded the motion that passed with a unanimous vote Authorization for the Mayor Pro Tem to Sign the 67th Phase III – Supplement #5 with HDR Engineering Jim Kelly addressed the request for approval of Supplement #5. He then answered Council questions. Scott Solla moved to approve Supplement No. 5 to the HDR Engineering Contract for 67th Avenue Reconstruction Project authorizing HDR Engineering to move forward with the additional right-of-way work and complete the final design of the 67th Phase III Reconstruction Project, pending final review by the City Attorney. Sally Lien seconded the motion that passed with a unanimous vote. Approval to close Olympic Ave from 4th to 5th on May 14, 2011 for the May Hunt Special Projects Manager Paul Ellis addressed the DABA request for a May Hunt street closure. DABA members Nola Smith and Debora Nelson were present and answered Council questions. Marilyn Oertle moved to approve the closure of Olympic Avenue between 4th and 5th Streets for the May Hunt event on May 14, 2011. Dick Butner seconded the motion that passed with a unanimous vote INFORMATION Interlocal Agreement with Monroe Fire District #3 for Fire Department Vehicle & Apparatus Maintenance Fire Chief Bruce Steadman addressed the requested Interlocal Agreement. He then answered Council questions. This item was informational and will come back for Council consideration on April 18, 2011. ADMINISTRATOR & STAFF REPORTS City Administrator Allen Johnson gave an update on Mayor Margaret after her surgery, an update on the Arbor Day event on Saturday, and noted the upcoming newsletter. Paul Ellis reported that monies are now available for the bathrooms at Legion Park. Minutes of the City of Arlington City Council Meeting DRAFT April 4, 2011 Page 3 of 3 MAYOR’S REPORT Mayor Larson was not present, thus no report was given. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS Dick Butner, Scott Solla, Marilyn Oertle, Steve Baker, Chris Raezer, and Linda Byrnes gave brief reports, while Sally Lien had nothing to report at this time. EXECUTIVE SESSION City Attorney announced that there would not be need for an Executive Session. ADJOURNMENT With no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 7:49 PM. ____________________________ Steve Baker, Mayor Pro Tem Page 1 of 4 Recorded by Julie Davis CASCADE VALLEY HOSPITAL BOARD of COMMISSIONERS, ARLINGTON CITY COUNCIL, and ARLINGTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS BOARD of DIRECTORS JOINT MEETING MINUTES Monday, April 11, 2011, 6:30 pm Linda M. Byrnes Performing Arts Center The Cascade Valley Hospital Board of Commissioners, the Arlington City Council, and the Arlington Public Schools Board of Directors held a joint meeting on April 11, 2011 at the Linda M. Byrnes Performing Arts Center, 18821 Crown Ridge Boulevard, Arlington, WA, to discuss matters of mutual interest. Arlington Public Schools hosted, and School Board Vice President Kay Duskin, called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm. She welcomed all who were present. In attendance: Cascade Valley Hospital Commissioners: Tina Davis, Tim Cavanagh, John Meno, Margo Powell and Steve Peterson CVH Administrator: Clark Jones City of Arlington Council Members: Dick Butner, Scott Solla, Linda Byrnes, Steve Baker, Marilyn Oertle, and Chris Raezer City Administrator: Allen Johnson Arlington Public Schools Board Members: Kay Duskin and Bob McClure Student Advisor: Sara Deeter Superintendent: Kristine McDuffy Schools Board Members Jeff Huleatt, Ursula Ghirardo, and Jim Weiss, and Student Advisor, Claire Logan were absent and excused, as were City Council Member Sally Lien, and Mayor Margaret Larson. Also present were Arlington School District staff members Sid Logan, Diane Kirchner-Scott, Mike Johnson, Vickie Johnson, Mark Ehrhardt, and Julie Davis, City of Arlington staff members Chris Badger, Kristin Banfield, Nelson Beazley, Bruce Stedman, Jim Chase, Paul Ellis, and Steve Peiffle, and Cascade Valley Hospital staff members Heather Logan and Connie DiGregorio. The flag salute was conducted. Joint Meeting Minutes Hospital Commission, City Council, and School Board Monday, April 11, 2011 Page 2 of 4 Recorded by Julie Davis Arlington Public Schools GENERAL UPDATES City of Arlington - Allen Johnson, City Administrator This week is National Volunteer appreciation week. The City is honoring their volunteers, who have provided over 5300 hours of service this past year and saved the City an estimated $115,000. Saturday was Arbor Day and more than 80 volunteers planted 700 trees in Graafstra Park. Mr. Johnson also shared brief updates on various City projects, including parks and trails improvements, the Fire Station 46 remodel, the waste water treatment plant, and two works of art to being installed soon. He also spoke about the City’s new website. Cascade Valley Hospital - Mr. Clark Jones, CVH Administrator The hospital construction project is essentially complete. He commended Connie DiGregorio for her lead role in coordinating the effort; all went very well and the project came in under budget. Mr. Jones also noted that the hospital and clinics are in the process of converting records to an electronic medical records system; the hospital records are near finished and the clinics will begin soon. Mr. Jones also spoke about clinic expansions and the hospital’s partnership with Skagit Valley Hospital. Arlington Public Schools - Dr. Kristine McDuffy, Superintendent Dr. McDuffy noted that, although the District is facing its third year of dramatic budget reductions, there is great progress being made in instruction and student achievement. New learning opportunities for students include online learning, tuition-based full day/every day kindergarten, and new course offerings, with several being in the area of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM). The District is facing an estimated $1.2 million reduction for next year. Dr. McDuffy invited all to attend any of the twelve budget forums she’ll be hosting this month. She briefly shared the results of a recent nationwide study rating school districts on their “Return on Educational Investment” where Arlington placed in the highest quadrant! EMS LEVY Bruce Stedman, Arlington Fire Chief, shared a video and information about the very important permanent EMS Levy. He has been speaking to many groups to share information about this levy, the services it provides, and the fact that it is not a new levy - not a new tax. There has been a lot of community support and help in getting the word out for this levy and he is hopeful that it will pass. The City Council passed a Resolution in support of the levy. EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT Chris Badger, Emergency Management Coordinator, shared a PowerPoint presentation and information regarding the county-wide earthquake/emergency management drill on May 18. She shared details about last year’s drill and the plans for this year. She noted that many Snohomish County agencies are participating and that the City received grants to pay for the exercise. They will be doing several things to let community know what is happening, including placing signs around hospital stating “drill in progress”. Ms. Badger also shared information about upcoming trainings in which City, Hospital, and School District staff will be participating. Joint Meeting Minutes Hospital Commission, City Council, and School Board Monday, April 11, 2011 Page 3 of 4 Recorded by Julie Davis Arlington Public Schools HOSPITAL CONSTRUCTION UPDATE Ms. Heather Logan, CVH Assistant Administrator, shared a PowerPoint presentation and information about the hospital expansion and renovation project. She shared some of the many benefits to our community, including that the hospital is operationally debt free. PARTNERING/STEWARDSHIP Paul Ellis, Capital Projects Manager for the City of Arlington, shared a list of considerations for ways that services and resources can be shared amongst the three agencies, including, but not limited to grounds keeping, snow removal, fire extinguisher maintenance, summer help, garbage pick up, shredding service, and office supplies. They are also looking at coordinating trainings to be able to provide them locally and reduce the cost of duplication. PUBLIC WORKS UPDATE Allen Johnson, City Administrator, spoke on behalf of Jim Kelly, Public Works Director, who was unable to attend. He provided updates for some of the City’s primary public works projects, including paving on Stillaguamish Avenue, paving on 173rd, safety improvements on SR9 at Crown Ridge Boulevard, and educational outreach to include water conservation, composting, and recycling. BYRNES PERFORMING ARTS CENTER Members of the BPAC Executive Committee, Bob McClure and Kris McDuffy for Arlington Public Schools, and Chris Raezer and Marilyn Oertle for the City of Arlington, shared information about the Committee, including its members and meeting schedule. A list of regular/repeat users of the BPAC was shown and Bob McClure noted that Brett Sarver and Vickie Johnson do a terrific job taking care of the needs of the users. The theater is staying really busy and is currently being used about 70% by the School District and about 30% by the community. Dr. McDuffy shared about an upcoming luncheon meeting on May 16 to report out about this community asset and to begin making plans (in partnership with the Arlington Education Foundation) for a 5-year celebration next year. RELAY FOR LIFE Kay Duskin, School Board Vice President, shared information about the 2011 Arlington Relay for Life, to be held at the John C. Larson Stadium at Arlington High School on June 4-5: • It will be a Saturday/Sunday event this year, rather than Friday/Saturday. • 121 teams already registered (46% increase from this time last year) • 1062 participants registered (31% increase from this time last year) • $78,700 raised to date, with 54 days to go! (39% increase from this time last year) • Paint the town Purple fundraising event - May 7 from 11:00-2:00 at Legion Park Gazebo NEXT JOINT MEETING • October 31, 2011 Hospital Hosts Joint Meeting Minutes Hospital Commission, City Council, and School Board Monday, April 11, 2011 Page 4 of 4 Recorded by Julie Davis Arlington Public Schools ADJOURN With no further business to come before the group, the meeting was adjourned at 8:08 pm. Ms. Kay Duskin, Vice President Dr. Kristine McDuffy, Superintendent Arlington Public Schools Board of Directors Arlington Public Schools Mr. Steve Baker, Mayor Pro Tem Mr. Steve Peterson, Board Secretary City of Arlington Cascade Valley Hospital Board of Commissioners City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill AGENDA ITEM: Consent Agenda #3 ATTACHMENT B COUNCIL MEETING DATE: April 13, 2011 SUBJECT: Commission Renewals DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Executive ATTACHMENTS: Re-appointment applications for: Laura Kuhl, Tax Lodging Advisory Committee to 4-1-2014; Bruce Wargo to the PARC to 4-1- 2015 EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: N/A BUDGET CATEGORY: N/A LEGAL REVIEW: N/A DESCRIPTION: These are reappointments for the Tax Lodging Advisory Committee and the Parks, Arts & Recreation Commission. HISTORY: Laura Kuhl has served on the PARC since 7-2009. This will reappoint her to a 3-year term. Bruce Wargo has served on the PARC since 8-2007. This will reappoint him to a 4-year term. COMMITTEE REVIEW AND ACTION: Mayor Larson has reviewed and requested those listed above serve another term. ALTERNATIVES: -Do not reappoint. RECOMMENDED MOTION: I move that the Council approve the Reappointment of Laura Kuhl to the Tax Lodging Advisory Committee for a 2-year term and Bruce Wargo to the PARC for a 4-year term. City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill AGENDA ITEM: Public Hearing #1 ATTACHMENT C COUNCIL MEETING DATE: April 18, 2011 SUBJECT: Star Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Concurrent Rezone (PLN20110010 & PLN20110012) DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Community Development – David Kuhl, Todd Hall ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Report 2. Star Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Concurrent Rezone – Proposed Land Use and Zoning Maps. EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: N/A BUDGET CATEGORY: N/A LEGAL REVIEW: N/A DESCRIPTION: This is a request from two private parties for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Land Use Map and rezone request to the Official Zoning Map. The applicants, Gray1 Washington and Equity Funding, submitted applications to modify the pre-zoning and land use designations of two parcels located on the southeast corner of SR 9 & 172nd St. NE. See attached report and maps for details. HISTORY: The applicant’s Comprehensive Plan and rezone requests were received by the City on January 28, 2011. The deadline for the 2011 Comprehensive Plan docket was January 31, 2011. The requests will be reviewed by the Planning Commission on March 15, 2011 and we recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on April 5, 2011. ALTERNATIVES: 1. No action. 2. Remand to staff to clarify any issue that Council deems appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Move to adopt the ordinance approving the Star Comprehensive Plan Amendment (PLN20110010) and Concurrent Rezone (PLN20110012). PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT To: Arlington City Council From: David Kuhl, AICP, Community Development Director Todd Hall, Associate Planner Hearing Date: April 18, 2011 Project: Star Comprehensive Plan Amendment (PLN20110010) and Concurrent Rezone (PLN20110012) A. INTRODUCTION The applicants, Gray1 Washington and Equity Funding, wish to modify the pre-zoning and land use designations of two parcels located on the southeast corner of SR9 & 172nd St. NE. B. GENERAL INFORMATION Applicants/Owners: Parcel 1: Gray1 Washington, LLC, 550 West C St., Ste. 1470, San Diego, CA 92101 Parcel 2: Equity Funding, LLC, 12505 Bel-Red Rd., Ste. 200, Bellevue, WA 98005 Contact: Parcel 1: Ron Thomas, 206-841-0773, rnt12@aol.com Parcel 2: Michael Lawrence, 425-283-1048, Michael.lawrence@equity-funding.com General Location: Southeast corner of SR9 & 172nd St. NE; Parcel Nos. 31052500200100 (northern parcel) & 31052500201800 (southern parcel) Project Description: Parcel 1: Change land use and pre-zoning designations of eastern portion of parcel from Residential High Density (RHD) to General Commercial (GC). Parcel 2: Change land use and pre-zoning designations of western portion of parcel from GC to RHD. Requested Action: Hold public hearing and adopt the ordinance approving the Star Comprehensive Plan Amendment (PLN20110010) and Concurrent Rezone (PLN20110012). Review Process: See Title 20 – Land Use Code of AMC, Chapter 20.96 Amendments Community Development Planning Division PLN201100010 & PLN20110012 Star Comp Plan Amendment & Concurrent Rezone April 18, 2011 – City Council 2 Exhibits: Star Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Concurrent Rezone – Proposed Land Use and Zoning Maps C. DETALIED PROJECT INFORMATION This is a request from two private parties for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Land Use Map and Official Zoning Map. The applicants, Gray1 Washington and Equity Funding, submitted applications to modify the pre-zoning and land use designations of two parcels located on the southeast corner of SR 9 & 172nd St. NE. The request is as follows: Parcel 1: (Parcel #31052500200100 – northern parcel) (Gray1) Change land use and pre-zoning designations of eastern portion from Residential High Density (RHD) to entirely General Commercial (GC). Parcel 2: (Parcel #31052500201800 – southern parcel) (Equity Funding) Change land use and pre-zoning designations of western portion from GC to RHD. Currently, both parcels are located within Snohomish County jurisdiction but are located within the Arlington UGA. The current County zoning and land use is Planned Community Business (PCB) (northern) and Low Density Multi-family Residential (LDMR) (southern). Parcel 1 is heavily impacted by a large wetland area located in the central portion of the parcel, which will have an impact on the development potential of the area. In addition, future commercial traffic would be routed through the current RHD zone and thus limiting residential function. Therefore, the designation of Parcel 2 as RHD would offset this loss of residential density on Parcel 1 due to the wetland impacts, and Parcel 2 would allow for a more contiguous residential site plan without commercial traffic impacts. Additionally, there would be no net loss in site density and respective zone designation. D. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 1. SEPA COMPLIANCE: The amendment of a comprehensive plan is subject to provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and Chapter 20.98 of the Arlington Municipal Code (AMC). The applicant submitted an environmental checklist on January 28, 2011. On March 11, 2011, the City issued a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) for the proposal. No comments were received on the DNS. 2. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION/INVOLEVMENT: b. A Notice of Public Hearing was issued for the April 18, 2011 City Council meeting. Notices were mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the subject properties. Notices were posted at the site along each right-of-way, as well as the Arlington and Smokey Point Post Offices, the Arlington Library and City Hall. Notices were also published in the Arlington Times and Everett Herald on March 23, 2011. PLN201100010 & PLN20110012 Star Comp Plan Amendment & Concurrent Rezone April 18, 2011 – City Council 3 3. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOTIFICATION: On February 2, 2011, the Star Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Concurrent Rezone was submitted to the Washington State Department of Commerce (DOC) for review. The DOC notified the City that is was in procedural compliance with RCW 36.70A.106, Material ID #16581 4. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT: In accordance with RCW 36.70A.130, a city may revise its comprehensive plan, if needed, on a yearly basis. This amendment is in accordance with this provision. E. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. The City’s comprehensive plan was adopted on December 5, 2005 with amendments approved on an annual basis since this time, the most recent of which were approved in February 2011. The amendment as described above is part of the 2011 Comprehensive Plan Amendment docket. F. ANALYSIS 1. The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and concurrent rezone, which includes an update to the City’s Land Use Map and Official Zoning Map, is included in this proposal. No other substantive changes to the Comprehensive Plan are proposed as part of this amendment. G. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. The call for 2011 Comprehensive Plan amendments was conducted in January 2011. The application for the Star Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Concurrent Rezone was received by the January 31, 2011 deadline. 2. Seven amendments were submitted for the 2011 docket, including the Star Comprehensive Plan Amendment (PLN20110010) and Concurrent Rezone (PLN20110012). 4. A Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) was issued for the Star Comp Plan amendment on March 11 2011 (see above for details). No comments were received. 5. The amendment was submitted to the DOC on February 2, 2011 in accordance with RCW 36.70A.106 and the submittal met all DOC’s procedural requirements. 6. A Notice of Public Hearing was published in the March 23, 2011 Everett Herald and Arlington Times for the April 5, 2011 Planning Commission public hearing and April 18, 2011 City Council public hearing. 7. On March 22, 2011, a Notice of Public Hearing for the April 5, 2011 Planning Commission public hearing and April 18, 2011 City Council public hearing was posted at Arlington City Hall, Arlington Post Office, Smokey Point Post Office and the Arlington Public Library. PLN201100010 & PLN20110012 Star Comp Plan Amendment & Concurrent Rezone April 18, 2011 – City Council 4 8. The applications for PLN20110010 & PLN20110012 have been reviewed for consistency with the Arlington Comprehensive Plan and for internal consistency and the Star Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Concurrent Rezone is consistent with, and internally consistent with, the Arlington Comprehensive Plan. 9. The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment as described has been reviewed in accordance with, and is consistent with, the Snohomish County Countywide Planning Policies. 10. The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment was prepared in accordance with the Washington State Enabling Legislation (RCW 35A.63) and the Growth Management Act. 11. Documentation supporting the findings of fact is located in the file, which is adopted by reference into this approval. 12. Adoption of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment, as listed above, furthers the public health, safety and general welfare. H. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Arlington City Council hold a public hearing and adopt the ordinance approving the Star Comprehensive Plan Amendment (PLN20110010) and Concurrent Rezone (PLN20110012). ORDINANCE NO. _____ 1 ORDINANCE NO. 2011-xxx AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ARLINGTON, WASHINGTON MAKING AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING MAP AND APPROVING THE STAR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (PLN20110010) AND CONCURRENT REZONE (PLN20110012). WHEREAS, the City of Arlington, Washington has the authority to regulate land uses within the City, and has gone through its periodic review and update of the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan may be updated once per year per RCW 36.70A.130; and WHEREAS, included in the review of the Comprehensive Plan was a proposed amendment to the City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map; and WHEREAS, the Star Comprehensive Plan Amendment is included in the 2011 Comprehensive Plan Amendment docket; and WHEREAS, staff reviewed the project for environmental impacts under the State Environmental Protection Act and issued a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) on March 11, 2011 for the Star Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Concurrent Rezone; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezone at their March 15, 2011 meeting and at a public hearing on April 5, 2011 and made a recommendation to the City Council to adopt the amendment and rezone. The City Council considered this amendment and rezone at their March 14, 2011 workshop and at a public hearing on April 18, 2011 and determined approving the amendment and rezone was in the best interest of the City and its citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Arlington do hereby ordain as follows: Section 1. Star Comprehensive Plan Amendment (PLN20110010) and Concurrent Rezone (PLN20110012). The City of Arlington Official Zoning Map, pursuant to AMC §20.36.100, and Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan shall be amended as described on Attachment “1” (Proposed Land Use Map Amendments) and Attachment “2” (Proposed PreZoning Amendments), amending land use designations and zoning to the following: ORDINANCE NO. _____ 2 Parcel 1: (Parcel #31052500200100 – Northern parcel) (Gray1) Change land use and pre-zoning designations of eastern portion from Residential High Density (RHD) to entirely General Commercial (GC). Parcel 2: (Parcel #31052500201800 – Southern parcel) (Equity Funding) Change land use and pre-zoning designations of western portion from GC to entirely RHD. Section 2. Severability. If any provision, section, or part of this ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. Section 3. Effective Date. A summary of this Ordinance consisting of its title shall be published in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five (5) days of the date of publication. PASSED BY the City Council and APPROVED by the Mayor this day of ________________, 2011. CITY OF ARLINGTON ____________________________ Margaret Larson, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________ Kristin Banfield, City Clerk APPROVED TO AS FORM: __________________________ Steven J. Peiffle, City Attorney UV9 !"`$ ?Ó ?Ô SR 530 51ST AVE NE SR 530 E BURKE AVE N OLYMPIC AVE 211TH PL NE E HIGHLAND DR 47TH AVE NE PIONEER HWY E 186TH ST NE 204TH ST NE 67TH AVE NE 188TH ST NE SR 531 CEMETERY RD 59TH AVE NE MCELROY RD SR 531 N WEST AVE SMOKEY POINT BLVD SMOKEY POINT BLVD SR 9 SR 9 TVEIT RD TVEIT RD BURN RD North Fork Stillaguamish River Stillaguamish River North Fork Stillaguamish River Olson Lake City of Arlington Cartographer: File Name: UGALandUseAmend_24x36_11(Star).mxd Maps and GIS data are distributed “AS-IS” without warranties of any kind, either express or im plied, including but not lim ited to w arranties of suitabilityfor a particular purpose or use. Map data are compiled from a variety of sources which may contain errors and users who rely upon the information do so at their own risk. Users agree to indem nify, defend, and hold harmless the City of Arlington for any and all liability of any nature arising out of or resulting from the lack of accuracyor correctness of the data, or the use of the data presented in the maps. Proposed Land Use MapAmendments Date: Stream courses, waterbo dies (2009) Snoho mish C ounty Dept of In formation Syste ms GIS d ata se t. Pa rce ls d ownlo aded from Snoh omish County Assessor's FTPsite 201 0. Legend SR 9 172ND ST NESR 531 GCRLMD P/SP GC RHD RHD SR SR T4-NG Curr ent C it y a nd UG A La nd Us e Amen d lan d us e d esi gn ation o f eas te rn po rtio n of Parc el 1 fro m RHD to G C a nd w estern po rti on o f Parce l 2 fro m G C to RH D. SR = Su rb u rba n Re sid en tia l RLM D = L o w to Mo de ra te De n sity Reside ntial RMD = Mo d era te Den sity Re side n tial RHD = High De n sity Reside ntial OT RD = Old To wn Re sid en tia l Distr ict NC = Ne ig h bo rh oo d Com m e rcia l !!!!! !!!!! !!!!!OT BD - 1 = Old To wn Bu sin ess District 1 OT BD - 2 = Old To wn Bu sin ess District 2 D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D OT BD - 3 = Old To wn Bu sin ess District 3 GC = Gen e ral Co m m ercial HC = High wa y Com m er cia l BP = Bu sin e ss Par k LI = L ig ht Ind u strial GI = Ge ne ra l In du str ia l P/SP = Pu blic/Se mi-Pu b lic MS = M ed ica l Se rvice s AF = Avia tion F lig htlin e Boundar ies & Transpor tation Arlington_polyg on State Highway St ate Rou te Arterial Co llec tor Arlington UGA th 2/14/11 Area of Interest Parcel 1 RHD to GC GC to RH D Parcel 2 Attachment 1 UV9 !"`$ ?Ó ?Ô SR 530 51ST AVE NE SR 530 E BURKE AVE N OLYMPIC AVE 211TH PL NE E HIGHLAND DR 47TH AVE NE PIONEER HWY E 186TH ST NE 204TH ST NE 67TH AVE NE 188TH ST NE SR 531 CEMETERY RD 59TH AVE NE MCELROY RD SR 531 N WEST AVE SMOKEY POINT BLVD SMOKEY POINT BLVD SR 9 SR 9 TVEIT RD TVEIT RD BURN RD North Fork Stillaguamish River Stillaguamish River North Fork Stillaguamish River Olson Lake City of Arlington Cartographer: File Name: UGAZoningAmend_24x36_11(Star).mxd Maps and GIS data are distributed “AS-IS” without warranties of any kind, either express or im plied, including but not lim ited to w arranties of suitabilityfor a particular purpose or use. Map data are compiled from a variety of sources which may contain errors and users who rely upon the information do so at their own risk. Users agree to indem nify, defend, and hold harmless the City of Arlington for any and all liability of any nature arising out of or resulting from the lack of accuracyor correctness of the data, or the use of the data presented in the maps. Proposed StarPreZoningAmendments Date: Stream courses, waterbo dies (2009) Snoho mish C ounty Dept of In formation Syste ms GIS d ata se t. Pa rce ls d ownlo aded from Snoh omish County Assessor's FTPsite 201 0. Legend SR 9 172ND ST NESR 531 GCRLMD P/SP GC RHD RHD SR SR T4-NG Curr ent C it y a nd UG A Zo ni ng Amen d pre zo n ing d esi gn atio n of ea stern po rtio n of Parc el 1 fro m RHD to G C a nd w estern p ortio n of Parc el 2 fro m GC to R HD. SR = Su rb u rba n Re sid en tia l RLM D = L o w to Mo de ra te De n sity Reside ntial RMD = Mo d era te Den sity Re side n tial RHD = High De n sity Reside ntial OT RD = Old To wn Re sid en tia l Distr ict NC = Ne ig h bo rh oo d Com m e rcia l !!!!! !!!!! !!!!!OT BD - 1 = Old To wn Bu sin ess District 1 OT BD - 2 = Old To wn Bu sin ess District 2 D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D OT BD - 3 = Old To wn Bu sin ess District 3 GC = Gen e ral Co m m ercial HC = High wa y Com m er cia l BP = Bu sin e ss Par k LI = L ig ht Ind u strial GI = Ge ne ra l In du str ia l P/SP = Pu blic/Se mi-Pu b lic MS = M ed ica l Se rvice s AF = Avia tion F lig htlin e Boundar ies & Transpor tation Arlington_polyg on State Highway St ate Rou te Arterial Co llec tor Arlington UGA th 2/14/11 Area of Interest Parcel 1 Parcel 2 RHD to GC GC to RH D Attachment 2 City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill AGENDA ITEM: Public Hearing #2 ATTACHMENT D COUNCIL MEETING DATE: April 18, 2011 SUBJECT: Arlington School District Capital Facilities Plan Comprehensive Plan Amendment (PLN20110008) DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Community Development – David Kuhl, Todd Hall ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Report 2. Arlington Public Schools Capital Facilities Plan 2010-2015 EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: N/A BUDGET CATEGORY: N/A LEGAL REVIEW: N/A DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to revise the Capital Facilities Element to update the Arlington School District Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) to the 2010-2015 version. This amendment would also modify the impact fee schedule to conform to this latest CFP. Based on this CFP, the Arlington School District would charge no impact fees for either single- family or multi-family residences. HISTORY: The School District’s request to amend the Comprehensive Plan was received by the City on January 25, 2011. The deadline for the 2011 Comprehensive Plan docket was January 31, 2011. Environmental review was conducted by the Arlington School District and a DNS was issued on August 12, 2010. The Capital Facilities Plan was reviewed by the Planning Commission on March 15, 2011. The Plan was presented at the April 5, 2011 Planning Commission public hearing and recommended for approval. ALTERNATIVES: 1. No action. 2. Remand to staff to clarify any issue that Council deems appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Move to adopt the ordinance approving the Arlington School District Capital Facilities Plan Comprehensive Plan Amendment (PLN20110008). PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT To: Arlington City Council From: David Kuhl, AICP, Community Development Director Todd Hall, Associate Planner Hearing Date: April 18, 2011 Project: Arlington School District Capital Facilities Plan Comprehensive Plan Amendment (PLN20110008) A. INTRODUCTION The applicant, Arlington Public Schools, submitted an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to revise the Capital Facilities Element to update the Arlington School District Capital Facilities Plan (CFP). The update is required by State law every two years. B. GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant/Owner: Arlington Public Schools, 135 S. French Ave., Arlington, WA 98223 Contact: Deborah Borgens, 360-618-6203 General Location: Arlington School District Boundaries (cities of Arlington and Snohomish County) Project Description: Arlington School District Capital Facilities Plan Comprehensive Plan Amendment Requested Action: Hold public hearing and adopt the ordinance approving the Arlington School District Capital Facilities Plan Comprehensive Plan Amendment (PLN20110008). Review Process: See Title 20 – Land Use Code of AMC, Chapter 20.96 Amendments Exhibits: Arlington Public Schools Capital Facilities Plan 2010-2015 C. DETALIED PROJECT INFORMATION This is a request for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to revise the Capital Facilities Element to update the Arlington School District Capital Facilities Plan (CFP). The District’s 2010-2015 Plan includes an introduction, district educational program standards, capital facilities Community Development Planning Division PLN20110008 Arlington School District CFP Comp Plan Amendment April 18, 2011 – City Council 2 inventory, student enrollment projections, capital facilities needs, capital facility financing plan, and school impact fees. Pursuant to Chapter 20.90 Part II, Concurrency and Impact Fees – School Impact Fees, this amendment to the Comprehensive Plan would revise the Capital Facilities Element to update the Arlington School District CFP, with a corresponding modification to the impact fee schedule to conform to this latest CFP. The CFP proposes update school impact fees for the Arlington School District as follows: Current Proposed Single-family $4,444 No fee ($0) Multi-family (1 bedroom) No fee ($0) No fee ($0) Multi-family (2 bedroom) $4,546 No fee ($0) D. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 1. SEPA COMPLIANCE: The amendment of a comprehensive plan is subject to provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and Chapter 20.98 of the Arlington Municipal Code (AMC). The School District’s SEPA official completed an environmental checklist on August 12, 2010. They determined that the 2010-2015 Capital Facilities Plan will not have a probable adverse impact on the environment. Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was not required. On August 12, 2010, a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) was issued by the School District’s SEPA official for the Arlington Public Schools 2010-2015 Capital Facilities Plan. No comments were received on the DNS. 2. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION/INVOLEVMENT: b. A Notice of Public Hearing was issued for the April 5, 2011 Planning Commission meeting. A notice was posted at the Arlington and Smokey Point Post Offices, the Arlington Library and City Hall. Notices were also published in the Arlington Times and Everett Herald on March 23, 2011. 3. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOTIFICATION: On February 2, 2011, the Arlington School District Capital Facilities Plan Comprehensive Plan Amendment was submitted to the Washington State Department of Commerce (DOC) for review. The DOC notified the City that is was in procedural compliance with RCW 36.70A.106, Material ID #16583 4. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT: In accordance with RCW 36.70A.130, a city may revise its comprehensive plan, if needed, on a yearly basis. This amendment is in accordance with this provision. PLN20110008 Arlington School District CFP Comp Plan Amendment April 18, 2011 – City Council 3 E. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. The City’s comprehensive plan was adopted on December 5, 2005 with amendments approved on an annual basis since this time, the most recent of which were approved in February 2011. The amendment as described above is part of the 2011 Comprehensive Plan Amendment docket. F. ANALYSIS 1. The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, which includes an updated 6-year capital facilities plan, updates the Comprehensive Plan and is adopted by reference as described in Chapter 12 – Other Plans Adopted by Reference. No other substantive changes to the Comprehensive Plan are proposed as part of this amendment. G. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. The call for 2011 Comprehensive Plan amendments was conducted in January 2011. The application for the Arlington School District CFP amendment was received by the January 31, 2011 deadline. 2. Seven amendments were submitted for the 2011 docket, including the Arlington School District CFP Comprehensive Plan Amendment (PLN20110008). 4. A Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) was issued for the CFP amendment on March xx, 2011 (see above for details). No comments were received. 5. The CFP amendment was submitted to the DOC on February 2, 2011 in accordance with RCW 36.70A.106 and the submittal met all DOC’s procedural requirements. 6. A Notice of Public Hearing was published in the March 23, 2011 Everett Herald and Arlington Times for the April 5, 2011 Planning Commission public hearing and April 18, 2011 City Council public hearing. 7. On March 22, 2011, a Notice of Public Hearing for the April 5, 2011 Planning Commission public hearing and April 18, 2011 public hearing was posted at Arlington City Hall, Arlington Post Office, Smokey Point Post Office and the Arlington Public Library. 8. The application for PLN20110008 has been reviewed for consistency with the Arlington Comprehensive Plan and for internal consistency and the Arlington School District CFP Comprehensive Plan Amendment is consistent with, and internally consistent with, the Arlington Comprehensive Plan. 9. The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment as described has been reviewed in accordance with, and is consistent with, the Snohomish County Countywide Planning Policies. 10. The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment was prepared in accordance with the Washington State Enabling Legislation (RCW 35A.63) and the Growth Management Act. PLN20110008 Arlington School District CFP Comp Plan Amendment April 18, 2011 – City Council 4 11. Documentation supporting the findings of fact is located in the file, which is adopted by reference into this approval. 12. Adoption of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment, as listed above, furthers the public health, safety and general welfare. H. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Arlington City Council hold a public hearing and adopt the ordinance approving the Arlington School District Capital Facilities Plan Comprehensive Plan Amendment (PLN20110009). ORDINANCE NO. _____ 1 ORDINANCE NO. 2011-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 City of Arlington has the authority to regulate land uses within the City, and has gone through its periodic review and update of the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, included in the review of the Comprehensive Plan was a proposed update to the Arlington School District Capital Facilities Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered these amendments at their March 15, 2011 meeting and at their April 5, 2011 public hearing. The City Council considered the same at their meeting on March 14, 2011, and at a public hearing conducted on April 18, 2011, 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 Public Schools Capital Facilities Plan 2010-2015” approved by the Arlington School District on September 13, 2010, as part of Chapter 11 – Public Services and Capital Facilities Element of the Arlington Comprehensive Plan. Section 2. Severability. If any provision, section, or part of this ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. Section 3. Effective Date. A summary of this Ordinance consisting of its title shall be published in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five (5) days of the date of publication. ORDINANCE NO. _____ 2 PASSED BY the City Council and APPROVED by the Mayor this day of __________, 2011. CITY OF ARLINGTON ____________________________ Margaret Larson, Mayor Attest: _________________________ Kristin Banfield, City Clerk Approved as to form: __________________________ Steven J. Peiffle, City Attorney City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill AGENDA ITEM: Public Hearing #3 ATTACHMENT E COUNCIL MEETING DATE: April 18, 2011 SUBJECT: Lakewood School District Capital Facilities Plan Comprehensive Plan Amendment (PLN20110009) DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Community Development – David Kuhl, Todd Hall ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Report 2. Lakewood School District Capital Facilities Plan 2010-2015 EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: N/A BUDGET CATEGORY: N/A LEGAL REVIEW: N/A DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to revise the Capital Facilities Element to update the Lakewood School District Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) to the 2010-2015 version. This amendment would also modify the impact fee schedule to conform to this latest CFP. Based on this CFP, the Lakewood School District would change the single-family impact fee from $1,906 to $1,780. The multi-family (1 bedroom) fee would not change, from $0. And the multi-family (2 bedroom) fee would change from $2,121 to $1,379. HISTORY: The School District’s request to amend the Comprehensive Plan was received by the City on January 27, 2011. The deadline for the 2011 Comprehensive Plan docket was January 31, 2011. Environmental review was conducted by the Lakewood School District and a DNS was issued on August 2, 2010. The Capital Facilities Plan was reviewed by the Planning Commission on March 15, 2011. The Plan was presented at the April 5, 2011 Planning Commission public hearing recommended for approval. ALTERNATIVES: 1. No action. 2. Remand to staff to clarify any issue that Council deems appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Move to adopt the ordinance approving the Lakewood School District Capital Facilities Plan Comprehensive Plan Amendment (PLN20110009). PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT To: Arlington City Council From: David Kuhl, AICP, Community Development Director Todd Hall, Associate Planner Hearing Date: April 18 2011 Project: Lakewood School District Capital Facilities Plan Comprehensive Plan Amendment (PLN20110009) A. INTRODUCTION The applicant, Lakewood School District No. 306, submitted an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to revise the Capital Facilities Element to update the Lakewood School District Capital Facilities Plan (CFP). The update is required by State law every two years. B. GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant/Owner: Lakewood School District, PO Box 222, N. Lakewood, WA 98259 Contact: Fred Owyen, 425-327-5039 General Location: Lakewood School District Boundaries (cities of Arlington and Marysville and Snohomish County) Project Description: Lakewood School District Capital Facilities Plan Comprehensive Plan Amendment Requested Action: Hold public hearing and adopt the ordinance approving the Lakewood School District Capital Facilities Plan Comprehensive Plan Amendment (PLN20110009). Review Process: See Title 20 – Land Use Code of AMC, Chapter 20.96 Amendments Exhibits: Lakewood School District No. 306 Capital Facilities Plan 2010-2015 Community Development Planning Division PLN20110009 Lakewood School District CFP Comp Plan Amendment April 18, 2011 – City Council 2 C. DETALIED PROJECT INFORMATION This is a request for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to revise the Capital Facilities Element to update the Lakewood School District Capital Facilities Plan (CFP). The District’s 2010-2015 Plan includes an introduction, district educational program standards, capital facilities inventory, student enrollment projections, capital facilities needs, capital facility financing plan, and school impact fees. Pursuant to Chapter 20.90 Part II, Concurrency and Impact Fees – School Impact Fees, this amendment to the Comprehensive Plan would revise the Capital Facilities Element to update the Lakewood School District CFP, with a corresponding modification to the impact fee schedule to conform to this latest CFP. The CFP proposes to update school impact fees for the Lakewood School District as follows: Current Proposed Single-family $1,906 $1,780 Multi-family (1 bedroom) No fee ($0) No fee ($0) Multi-family (2 bedroom) $2,121 $1,379 D. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 1. SEPA COMPLIANCE: The amendment of a comprehensive plan is subject to provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and Chapter 20.98 of the Arlington Municipal Code (AMC). The School District’s SEPA official completed an environmental checklist on July 26, 2010. They determined that the 2010-2015 Capital Facilities Plan will not have a probable adverse impact on the environment. Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was not required. On August 2, 2010, a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) was issued by the School District’s SEPA official for the Lakewood School District No. 306 2010-2015 Capital Facilities Plan. No comments were received on the DNS. 2. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION/INVOLEVMENT: b. A Notice of Public Hearing was issued for the April 5, 2011 Planning Commission meeting. A notice was posted at the Arlington and Smokey Point Post Offices, the Arlington Library and City Hall. Notices were also published in the Arlington Times and Everett Herald on March 23, 2011. PLN20110009 Lakewood School District CFP Comp Plan Amendment April 18, 2011 – City Council 3 3. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOTIFICATION: On February 2, 2011, the Lakewood School District Capital Facilities Plan Comprehensive Plan Amendment was submitted to the Washington State Department of Commerce (DOC) for review. The DOC notified the City that is was in procedural compliance with RCW 36.70A.106, Material ID #16582 4. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT: In accordance with RCW 36.70A.130, a city may revise its comprehensive plan, if needed, on a yearly basis. This amendment is in accordance with this provision. E. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. The City’s comprehensive plan was adopted on December 5, 2005 with amendments approved on an annual basis since this time, the most recent of which were approved in February 2011. The amendment as described above is part of the 2011 Comprehensive Plan Amendment docket. F. ANALYSIS 1. The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, which includes an updated 6-year capital facilities plan, updates the Comprehensive Plan and is adopted by reference as described in Chapter 12 – Other Plans Adopted by Reference. No other substantive changes to the Comprehensive Plan are proposed as part of this amendment. G. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. The call for 2011 Comprehensive Plan amendments was conducted in January 2011. The application for the Lakewood School District CFP amendment was received by the January 31, 2011 deadline. 2. Seven amendments were submitted for the 2011 docket, including the Lakewood School District CFP Comprehensive Plan Amendment (PLN20110009). 4. A Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) was issued for the CFP amendment on August 2, 2010 (see above for details). No comments were received. 5. The CFP amendment was submitted to the DOC on February 2, 2011 in accordance with RCW 36.70A.106 and the submittal met all DOC’s procedural requirements. 6. A Notice of Public Hearings was published in the March 23, 2011 Everett Herald and Arlington Times for the April 5, 2011 Planning Commission public hearing and April 18, 2011 City Council public hearing. PLN20110009 Lakewood School District CFP Comp Plan Amendment April 18, 2011 – City Council 4 7. On March 22, 2011, a Notice of Public Hearing for the April 5, 2011 Planning Commission public hearing and April 18, 2011 public hearing was posted at Arlington City Hall, Arlington Post Office, Smokey Point Post Office and the Arlington Public Library. 8. The application for PLN20110009 has been reviewed for consistency with the Arlington Comprehensive Plan and for internal consistency and the Lakewood School District CFP Comprehensive Plan Amendment is consistent with, and internally consistent with, the Arlington Comprehensive Plan. 9. The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment as described has been reviewed in accordance with, and is consistent with, the Snohomish County Countywide Planning Policies. 10. The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment was prepared in accordance with the Washington State Enabling Legislation (RCW 35A.63) and the Growth Management Act. 11. Documentation supporting the findings of fact is located in the file, which is adopted by reference into this approval. 12. Adoption of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment, as listed above, furthers the public health, safety and general welfare. H. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Arlington City Council hold a public hearing and adopt the ordinance approving the Lakewood School District Capital Facilities Plan Comprehensive Plan Amendment (PLN20110009). ORDINANCE NO. _____ 1 ORDINANCE NO. 2011-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 City of Arlington has the authority to regulate land uses within the City, and has gone through its periodic review and update of the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, included in the review of the Comprehensive Plan was a proposed update to the Lakewood School District Capital Facilities Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered these amendments at their March 15, 2011 meeting and at their April 5, 2011 public hearing. The City Council considered the same at their meeting on March 14, 2011, and at a public hearing conducted on April 18, 2011, 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 2010-2015” approved by the Lakewood School District on August 18, 2010, as part of Chapter 11 – Public Services and Capital Facilities Element of the Arlington Comprehensive Plan. Section 2. Severability. If any provision, section, or part of this ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. Section 3. Effective Date. A summary of this Ordinance consisting of its title shall be published in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five (5) days of the date of publication. ORDINANCE NO. _____ 2 PASSED BY the City Council and APPROVED by the Mayor this day of __________, 2011. CITY OF ARLINGTON ____________________________ Margaret Larson, Mayor Attest: _________________________ Kristin Banfield, City Clerk Approved as to form: __________________________ Steven J. Peiffle, City Attorney LAKEWOOD SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 306 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2010-2015 APPROVED: AUGUST 18,2010 LAKEWOOD SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 306 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2010-2015 BOARD OF DIRECTORS KEN CHRISTIANSEN OSCAR ESCALANTE GREGORY JENSEN LARRY BEAN KELLY ALLEN SUPERINTENDENT DR.DENNIS HADDOCK For information regarding the Lakewood School District Capital Facilities Plan, contact the Office of the Superintendent, Lakewood School District, P.O. Box 220, North Lakewood, WA 98259-0220. Tel: (360) 652-4500 or Fax: (360) 652-4502. 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 .........................................................................................13 Section 6.Capital Facilities Financing Plan ...........................................................................16 Section 7.School Impact Fees ................................................................................................19 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 (2010-2015). 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. The CFP must identify alternative funding sources in the event that -2- impact fees are not available due to action by the state, county or cities within the District. ·The methodology used to calculate impact fees also complies with the criteria and the formulas established by the County. B.Overview 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 2,436 (October 1, 2009 FTE 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 full access needs of students with special needs. In addition to factors which affect the amount of space required, government mandates and community expectations may affect how classroom space is used. Traditional educational programs offered by school districts are often supplemented by nontraditional, or special programs such as special education, expanded bilingual education, remediation, migrant education, alcohol and drug education, AIDS education, preschool and daycare programs, computer labs, music programs, and others. These special or nontraditional educational programs can have a significant impact on the available student capacity of school facilities, and upon planning for future needs. Special programs offered by the District at specific school sites include, but are not limited to: Lakewood Elementary School (Preschool through 2nd Grade) •Bilingual Education Program •Title I Remedial Services Program •P –2nd Grade Counseling Services •Speech and Language Disorder Therapy Program •Early Childhood Education and Assistance Program (ECEAP) •Developmentally Delayed Preschool Program -Ages 3 to 5 •K-2nd Grade Special Education Resource Room Program •Learning Assistance Program -Remedial Services •Occupational Therapy Program •K-2nd Grade Autism Program •Kindergarten Boost Program English Crossing Elementary School (3rd through 5th Grades) •3rd through 5th Grade Special Education Resource Room Program •After School Tutoring Program •Bilingual Education Program •3rd –5th Grade Counseling Services -5- •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 •After School Tutoring Program •K –5th Grade Special Education Resource Room Program •K –5th Grade Special Education Life Skills Program •K –5th Grade Counseling Services •Grades 3-5 Highly Capable/Enrichment Program Lakewood Middle School (6th through 8th Grades) •Speech and Language Disorder Therapy Program •6th-8th Grade Special Education Resource and Inclusion Program •After School Tutoring 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 -6- 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. Schools recently added to the District’s inventory have been designed to accommodate many of these programs. However, existing schools often require space modifications to accommodate special programs, and in some circumstances, these modifications may affect the overall classroom capacities of the buildings. District educational program standards may change in the future as a result of changes in the program year, special programs, class sizes, grade span configurations, use of new technology, and other physical aspects of the school facilities. The school capacity inventory will be reviewed periodically and adjusted for any changes to the educational program standards. These changes will also be reflected in future updates 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 26 students. •Class size for grades 5th –8th will not exceed 28 students. •All students will be provided library/media services in a school library. •Special Education for students may be provided in self-contained or specialized classrooms. •All students will be provided music instruction in a separate classroom. •All students will have scheduled time in a computer lab, or time in which a mobile lab will be assigned to each classroom, for those buildings that have mobile computer labs. 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 or in a multipurpose room. Educational Program Standards For Middle and High Schools •Class size for middle school grades will not exceed 28 students. •Class size for high school grades will not exceed 30 students. •As a result of scheduling conflicts for student programs, the need for specialized rooms for certain programs, and the need for teachers to have a work space during planning periods, it is not possible to achieve 100% utilization of all regular teaching stations throughout the day. 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 86% at the middle school and 83% at the high school to reflect the use of -7- classrooms for teacher planning. Special Education for students will be provided in self- contained or specialized classrooms. •All students will have scheduled time in a computer lab, or time in which a mobile lab will be assigned to each classroom, for those buildings that have mobile 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, home-economics, physical education, Industrial Arts and Agricultural Sciences). •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, 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 has set minimum educational service standards based on several criteria. Exceeding these minimum standards will trigger significant changes in program delivery. Minimum standards have not been met if, on average using current FTE figures: K-4 classrooms have 26 or more students per classroom, 5-8 classrooms have 28 or more students per classroom, or 9-12 classrooms have 30 or more students per classroom. 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. The minimum educational service standards are not District’s desired or accepted operating standard. -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 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 K-2, Cougar Creek Elementary School accommodates grades K-5, and English Crossing Elementary School accommodates grades 3-5. Lakewood Middle School serves grades 6-8, and Lakewood High School serves grades 9-12. School capacity was determined based on the number of teaching stations within each building and the space requirements of the District’s adopted educational program. It is this capacity calculation that is used to establish the District’s baseline capacity, and to determine future capacity needs based on projected student enrollment. The school capacity inventory is summarized in Table 1. Relocatable classrooms are not viewed by the District as a solution for housing students on a permanent basis. Therefore, these facilities were not included in the school capacity calculations provided in Table 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 18 479 1994 Cougar Creek 10**44,217 19 500 2003 Lakewood *45,400 16 416 1998/1997 TOTAL *131,047 53 1,395 Middle School Site Size (Acres) Building Area (Square Feet) Teaching Stations Permanent Capacity Year Built or Remodeled Lakewood Middle *62,835 25 602 1971, 1994, and 2002 High School Site Size (Acres) Building Area (Square Feet) Teaching Stations Permanent Capacity Year Built or Remodeled Lakewood High *79,422 24 598 1982 *Note: All facilities are located on one 89-acre campus **The Cougar Creek site is approximately 22 acres; however, the presence of critical areas on the site does not allow full utilization. -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 29 relocatable classrooms at various school sites throughout the District to provide additional interim capacity. A typical relocatable classroom can provide capacity for a full-size class of students. Current use of relocatable classrooms throughout the District is summarized in Table 2. Table 2 includes only those relocatable classrooms used for regular capacity purposes. Table 2 Relocatable Classroom (Portable) Inventory Elementary School Relocatables Interim Capacity English Crossing 5 135 Cougar Creek 0 0 Lakewood 7 182 SUBTOTAL 12 317 Middle School Relocatables Interim Capacity Lakewood Middle 10 241 SUBTOTAL 10 241 High School Relocatables Interim Capacity Lakewood High 7 174 SUBTOTAL 7 174 TOTAL 29 732 -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 5,216 Maintenance Shop 4,096 Stadium 14,500 D.Land Inventory The District does not own any sites which are developed for uses other than schools and/or which are leased to other parties. -11- SECTION 4 STUDENT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS The District’s October 1, 2009 FTE enrollment was 2,436. 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 OSPI based upon the cohort survival method; and an estimate based upon County population as provided by OFM (“ratio method”). Based on the cohort survival methodology, a total of 2,279 FTE students are expected to be enrolled in the District by 2015, a decrease from the October 2009 enrollment levels. Notably, the cohort survival method does not anticipate new students from new development patterns. This is particularly true of new development resulting from annexation and rezoning (both of which have recently occurred in the City of Marysville). OFM population-based enrollment projections were estimated for the District using OFM population forecasts for the County. The County provided the District with the estimated total population in the District by year. In 2009, the District’s average student enrollment constituted approximately 17.9% of the total population in the District. Assuming that between 2010 and 2015, the District’s enrollment will constitute 17.9% of the District’s total population and using OFM/County data, OFM/County methodology projects a total enrollment of 2,632 FTEs in 2015. Table 4 Projected Student Enrollment 2010-2015 Projection Oct. 2009*2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Change 2010-15 Percent Change 2010-15 OFM/County 2,436 2,469 2,502 2,535 2,568 2,601 2,632 196 8.0% OSPI**2,436 2,405 2,372 2,336 2,329 2,302 2,279 (157)(6.5%) * Actual FTE, October 2009 **Based upon the cohort survival methodology; complete projections located at Appendix A. -12- In addition to the OFM population-based enrollment projections, the District is aware of pending development within the District’s portion of the City of Marysville.This information is based on development applications filed with the City and does not consider additional projects that may be submitted to the City within the six years of this plan period. Given the relative uncertainty of these pending developments, the District has chosen to rely on the OFM population-based enrollment projections for purposes of planning for the District’s needs during the six years of this plan period. Future updates to the Plan may revisit this issue. B.2025 Enrollment Projections Student enrollment projections beyond 2015 are highly speculative. Using OFM/County data as a base, the District projects a 2025 student FTE population of 3,154. This is based on the OFM/County data for the years 1990 through 2009 and the District’s average fulltime equivalent enrollment for the corresponding years (for the years 1990 to 2009, the District’s actual enrollment averaged 18.95%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 2025 is provided in Table 5. Again, these estimates are highly speculative and are used only for general planning purposes. Table 5 Projected Student Enrollment 2025 Grade Span FTE Enrollment – October 2009 Projected Enrollment 2025* Elementary (K-5)1,043 1,347 Middle School (6-8)599 789 High School (9-12)794 1,018 TOTAL (K-12)2,436 3,154 *Assumes that percentage per grade span will remain constant through 2025. Note: Snohomish County Planning and Development Service provided the underlying data for the 2025 projections. -13- 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 (2010-2015). 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 2010. 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 2010-2015. Table 6-A* Additional Capacity Needs 2009-2015 Grade Span 2009**2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 Pct. Growth Related Elementary (K-5) Total Growth Related 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- 0 --0% Middle School (6-8) Total Growth Related*** 0 -- 15 15 24 24 32 32 40 40 48 48 57 57 100% High School Total Growth Related*** 196 -- 200 4 210 14 221 25 231 35 242 46 252 56 22.2% *Please refer to Table 7 for capacity and projected enrollment information. **Actual October 2009 FTE Enrollment ***This figure does not include growth-related needs from recent development activity within the District.Therefore, the District’s growth-related needs are much higher. For example, the 2008 Capital Facilities Plan shows that, based on October 2007 FTE enrollment, the District’s growth needs include an additional 9 students at the middle school level and an additional 29 students at the high school level. The actual growth-related needs are higher than even the 2008 base figures when considering recent development activity and its impact on District facilities. -14- By the end of the six-year forecast period (2015), 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)0 / (0) Middle School (6-8)57 / (57) High School (9-12)252 / (56) TOTAL UNHOUSED (K-12)309 / (113) 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 2015 Unhoused Students /Growth Related in Parentheses) Relocatable Capacity Unhoused Students* Elementary (K-5)0 / (0)182 ----- Middle School (6-8)57 / (57)241 ----- High School (9-12)252 / (56)174 78 Importantly, Table 6-C does not include relocatable adjustment that may be made to meet capacity needs. For example, the relocatable classrooms currently designated to serve elementary school needs could be used to serve high school capacity needs. Therefore, assuming no permanent capacity improvements are made, Table 6-C indicates that the District will have adequate interim capacity with the use of relocatable classrooms to house students during this planning period. Projected permanent capacity needs are depicted in Table 7. They are derived by applying the District’s projected number of students to the projected capacity. Planned improvements by the District through 2015 are included in Table 7 and more fully described in Table 8. -15- Table 7 Projected Student Capacity 2010-2015 Elementary School Surplus/Deficiency Oct 2009 FTE 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Existing Capacity 1,395 1,395 1,395 1,395 1,395 1,395 1,395 Added Permanent Capacity Total Capacity 1,395 1,395 1,395 1,395 1,395 1,395 1,395 Enrollment 1,043 1,054 1,068 1,082 1,097 1,111 1,123 Surplus (Deficiency) 352 341 327 313 298 284 272 Middle School Surplus/Deficiency Oct 2009 FTE 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Existing Capacity 602 602 602 602 602 642 727 Added Permanent Capacity* 85 Added Alternative Program Capacity* 40 Total Capacity 602 602 602 602 642 727 727 Enrollment 599 617 626 634 642 650 659 Surplus (Deficiency)3 (15)(24)(32)--77 68 *See Section 6 for project information. High School Surplus/Deficiency Oct 2009 FTE 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Existing Capacity 598 598 598 598 598 658 823 Added Permanent Capacity* 165 Added Alternative Program Capacity* 60 Total Capacity 598 598 598 598 658 823 823 Enrollment 794 798 808 819 829 840 850 Surplus (Deficiency)(196)(200)(210)(221)(171)(17)(27) *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. -16- SECTION 6 CAPITAL FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN A.Planned Improvements In March 2000, the voters passed a $14,258,664 bond issue for school construction and site acquisition. A new elementary school and a middle school addition were funded by that bond measure. These projects are complete. Based upon current needs, the District anticipates that it may need to consider the following acquisitions and/or improvements within the six years of this Plan: Projects Adding Permanent Capacity: ·Acquisition of a new 10 to 15 acre Elementary School site within the District’s service boundaries and dependent on growth needs; ·Acquisition of a new high school or middle school site within the District’s service boundaries and dependent on growth needs; ·An eighty-five (85) student expansion at the Lakewood Middle School; ·A one hundred sixty-five (165) student expansion at Lakewood High School; and ·Acquisition and siting of portable facilities to accommodate growth needs. Projects Adding Program Capacity: ·Lease space for a new alternative program, providing program capacity for forty (40) middle school students and sixty (60) high school students. Non-Capacity Adding Projects: ·High School modernization and improvements; ·Middle School modernization and improvements; ·Lakewood Elementary School modernization; ·Replacement of 11 relocatable classrooms; ·Bus Garage improvements; ·Replace Administration Building; and ·Replace Business Office Building. 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. -17- Funding for planned improvements is typically secured from a number of sources including voter approved bonds, State Match funds, and impact fees. The District would need to request voter authorization of a bond issue within the six years of this Plan to fund the above projects and/or find other capital funding sources (including the use of school impact fees). The potential funding sources are discussed below. 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 the recently completed elementary school. The District is considering a request for voter authorization of a bond issue within the six-years of this Plan to fund the school construction projects identified in this plan. Additional details regarding the bond issue will be included in future updates. 2.State School Construction Assistance State School Construction Assistance funds come from the Common School Construction Fund (the “Fund”). Bonds are sold on behalf of the Fund, and then retired from revenues accruing predominantly from the sale of timber from common school lands. If these sources are insufficient, the Legislature can appropriate funds or the State Board of Education can change the standards. School districts may qualify for State School Construction Assistance funds for specific capital projects based on a prioritization system. The District is eligible for State School Construction Assistance funds for new schools at the 53.12% funding percentage level. 3.Impact Fees Impact fees are a means of supplementing traditional funding sources for construction of public facilities needed to accommodate new development. School impact fees are generally collected by the permitting agency at the time plats are approved or building permits are issued. 4.Six Year Financing Plan The Six-Year Financing Plan shown in Table 8 demonstrates how the District intends to fund new construction and improvements to school facilities for the years 2010-2015. 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. -18- Table 8 Capital Facilities Plan Improvements Adding Permanent Capacity (Costs in Millions) Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total Cost Bonds/ Levy State Match Impact Fees Elementary School Site Acquisition $1.5000 $1.5000 X Middle School Lakewood Middle Addition $1.56625 $1.56625 $3.13251 X X X High School Lakewood High Addition $3.03125 $3.03125 $6.06252 X X X Secondary Site Acquisition $4.5000 $4.5000 X X Improvements Not Adding Capacity (Costs in Millions) Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total Cost Bonds/ Levy State Match Impact Fees Elementary Lakewood Elem 2.0000 $2.0000 Middle School Lakewood Middle $6.00125 $6.00125 $12.0025 X X High School Lakewood High $15.74875 $15.74875 $31.4975 X X 11 Relocatables Replaced $1.1000 $1.1000 X Bus Garage $1.4361 $1.4361 X Admin Area $0.6564 $0.6564 X Business Office $0.7612 $0.7612 X Total Permanent Improvements (Costs in Millions) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total Cost Bonds/ Levy State Match Impact Fees TOTAL $28.9475 $28.3475 $2.8537 $64.6487 X X X Leased Program Facilities (Costs in Millions) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total Cost Bonds/ Levy State Match Impact Fees Alternative Program (Grades 6-12)$1.1203 X 1 Includes a portion of capacity-related improvements related to core gymnasium/ancillary space. Remaining costs included in “Improvements Not Adding Capacity.” 2 Includes a portion of capacity-related improvements related to core gymnasium/ancillary space and performance arts space. Remaining costs included in “Improvements Not Adding Capacity.” 3 Tenant Improvement Costs. Does not include annual lease costs. -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 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 have been calculated utilizing the formula in the Snohomish County Impact Fee Ordinance. The resulting figures are based on the District’s cost per dwelling unit to purchase land for school sites, make site improvements, construct schools, and purchase/install relocatable facilities that add interim capacity needed to serve new development. As required under the GMA, credits have also been applied in the formula to account for State Match funds to be reimbursed to the District and projected future property taxes to be paid by the dwelling unit. The costs of projects that do not add capacity are not included in the impact fee calculations. Furthermore, because the impact fee formula calculates a “cost per dwelling unit”, an identical fee is generated regardless of whether the total new capacity project costs are used in -20- 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: ·A capacity addition at Lakewood Middle School; and ·A capacity addition at Lakewood High School. Please see Table 8 and page 21 for relevant cost data related to each capacity project. -21- FACTORS FOR ESTIMATED IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS Student Generation Factors –Single Family Average Site Cost/Acre Elementary .269 Middle .125 Senior .197 Total .591 Temporary Facility Capacity Student Generation Factors –Multi Family (1 Bdrm)Capacity Elementary .000 Cost Middle .000 Senior .000 State Match Credit Total .000 Current State Match Percentage 53.12% Student Generation Factors –Multi Family (2+ Bdrm)Construction Cost Allocation Elementary .322 Current CCA 180.17 Middle .107 Senior .078 District Average Assessed Value Total .507 Single Family Residence $323,833 Projected Student Capacity per Facility District Average Assessed Value Middle School (new capacity) –85 High School (new capacity) -165 Multi Family (1 Bedroom)$90,329 Multi Family (2+ Bedroom)$131,359 Required Site Acreage per Facility SPI Square Footage per Student Facility Construction/Cost Average Elementary 90 Middle (Addition) $3,132500 Middle 108 High School (Addition) $6,062,500 High 130 District Debt Service Tax Rate Current/$1,000 $1.417 Permanent Facility Square Footage General Obligation Bond Interest Rate Elementary 113,472 Current Bond Buyer Index 4.00% Middle 62,835 Senior 79,422 Developer Provided Sites/Facilities Total 93.15%255,729 Value 0 Dwelling Units 0 Temporary Facility Square Footage Elementary 8,960 Middle 6,272 Senior 3,584 Total 6.85%18,816 Total Facility Square Footage The total costs of the school construction projects Elementary 122,432 and the total capacities are shown in the fee calculations. Middle 69,107 However, new development will only be charged for the Senior 83,006 system improvements needed to serve new growth. Total 100.00%274,545 -22- 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 9A. See also Appendix C. Table 9A School Impact Fees Snohomish County,City of Arlington, City of Marysville Housing Type Impact Fee Per Dwelling Unit Single Family $1,780 Multi-Family (1 Bedroom)$0 Multi-Family (2+ Bedroom)$1,379 APPENDIX A POPULATION AND ENROLLMENT DATA A-1 Table A-1 HISTORICAL STUDENT ENROLLMENT 2001-2009 ACTUAL ENROLLMENTS ON OCTOBER 1st* GRADES 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 K 96 99 100 102 98 89 95 86 97 1st Grade 159 201 204 193 200 205 186 186 175 2nd Grade 185 174 201 189 194 204 189 190 184 3rd Grade 197 196 174 197 190 204 199 189 183 4th Grade 223 196 204 183 202 200 200 209 194 5th Grade 180 234 214 205 177 200 194 192 210 6th Grade 186 197 242 220 193 184 200 191 212 7th Grade 206 201 204 222 222 198 183 189 190 8th Grade 187 218 189 199 216 215 207 185 197 9th Grade 202 211 214 187 199 227 221 203 189 10th Grade 174 200 190 202 158 188 218 212 205 11th Grade 157 162 178 180 171 157 184 203 196 12th Grade 153 163 163 172 175 171 161 188 204 Total Enrollment 2,305 2,452 2,477 2,451 2,395 2,442 2,437 2,423 2,436 * FTE enrollment. A-2 Table A-2 PROJECTED STUDENT ENROLLMENT 2009-2015 Based on OSPI Cohort Survival* GRADES ACTUAL FTE October 2009 ESTIMATE FTE 2010-2011 ESTIMATE FTE 2011-2012 ESTIMATE FTE 2012-2013 ESTIMATE FTE 2013-2014 ESTIMATE FTE 2014-2015 ESTIMATE FTE 2015-2016 K 97 89 88 86 85 83 81 1st Grade 175 197 181 178 175 172 169 2nd Grade 184 174 195 179 176 174 171 3rd Grade 183 184 174 195 179 176 174 4th Grade 194 188 189 179 200 184 181 5th Grade 210 190 184 185 175 196 180 3-5 Total 1,043 1,022 1,011 1,002 990 985 956 6th Grade 212 213 193 187 188 177 199 7th Grade 190 211 212 192 186 187 176 8th Grade 197 192 213 214 194 187 188 6-8 Total 599 616 618 593 568 551 563 9th Grade 189 200 195 216 217 197 190 10th Grade 205 178 189 184 204 205 186 11th Grade 196 192 166 177 172 191 192 12th Grade 204 197 193 167 178 173 192 9-12 Total 794 767 743 744 771 766 760 Total Enrollment 2,436 2,405 2,372 2,339 2,329 2,302 2,279 * The cohort survival method of predicting future enrollment does not consider enrollment attributable to new development in the District. Enrollment projections are most accurate for the initial years of the forecast period. A-3 Table A-3 AVERAGE PERCENTAGE ENROLLMENT BY GRADE SPAN (OSPI Enrollment Projections) Enrollment by Grade Span Oct. 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Elementary (K-5)1,043 1,022 1,011 1,002 990 985 956 Middle School (6-8)599 616 618 593 568 551 563 High School (9-12)794 767 743 744 771 766 760 TOTAL 2,436 2,405 2,372 2,339 2,329 2,302 2,279 Percentage by Grade Span Oct. 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Elementary (K-5)43%42%43%43%43%43%42% Middle School (6-8)25%26%26%25%24%24%25% High School (9-12)32%32%31%32%33%33%33% TOTAL**100%100%100%100%100%100%100% Average Percentage by Grade Span Elementary (K-5)42.7% Middle School (6-8)25.0% High School (9-12)32.3% TOTAL 100% A-4 Table A-4 AVERAGE PERCENTAGE ENROLLMENT BY GRADE SPAN (COUNTY/OFM Enrollment Projections)*** Enrollment by Grade Span Oct. 2009 Avg. %age 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Elementary (K-5 1,043 42.7%1,054 1,068 1,082 1,097 1,111 1,123 Middle School (6-8)599 25.0%617 626 634 642 650 659 High School (9-12)794 32.3%798 808 819 829 840 850 TOTAL**2,436 100%2,469 2,502 2,535 2,568 2,601 2,632 *Actual October 2009 Enrollment. ** Totals may vary due to rounding. ***Using average percentage by grade span. APPENDIX B STUDENT GENERATION FACTOR REVIEW B-1 B-2 APPENDIX C SCHOOL IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill AGENDA ITEM: New Business #1 ATTACHMENT F COUNCIL MEETING DATE: April 18, 2011 SUBJECT: Purchase of Airfield Cameras DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Airport ATTACHMENTS: Camera Information EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: $6,266.86 BUDGET CATEGORY: Capital Outlay LEGAL REVIEW: None DESCRIPTION: This item involves the purchase of two AXIS P5534-E outdoor pan-tilt-zoom cameras for installation on the airport office building. The cameras will be used to monitor activity on the flightline. Images from the cameras will be available to airport staff remotely in order to monitor airfield conditions and will be available to the general public via the City’s website. Staff’s ability to view the airfield remotely is especially useful during snow events after hours when staff is trying to determine whether or not to plow. Staff is also working with WSDOT to have the camera images available on their website. HISTORY: Until recently, WSDOT Aviation had a camera installed on the airport that provided staff and pilots the opportunity to view field conditions. The camera however has been inoperable for some time and staff and WSDOT have been unsuccessful getting the camera to operate consistently. The two new cameras will once again provide staff and the general public with views of the airfield. Staff is purchasing two cameras to allow for a wider view of the field. One camera will provide a view of the South end of the field to include the airport parking lot for security/safety purposes. The other camera will primarily focus on the North end of the airfield but will also be available to view the South end of the main runway and the Westside flightline area. WSDOT often funds the purchase of cameras with their security grants; however, the airport has already received its allocated security grant which was used for gates a couple of years ago. Since the purchase of the cameras is not budgeted both Airport Commission and City Council approval is required. In 2011, the airport carried over $207,743 from the Airport Improvement Fund and those funds will be used to purchase the cameras. ALTERNATIVES: Approve Airport Commission’s Recommendation with Modifications Table Airport Commission’s Recommendation Deny Airport Commission’s Recommendation RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Airport Commission recommends City Council approve the purchase of two AXIS P5534-E outdoor pan-tilt-zoom cameras in the amount of $6,266.86. DATASHEET AXIS P5534-E provides HDTV 720p in compliance with SMPTE 296M standard of 1280 x 720 pixel resolution, full frame rate, HDTV color fidelity and a 16:9 format. The day and night camera can deliver multiple H.264 and Motion JPEG streams simultaneously. The PTZ dome camera provides 18x optical and 12x digital zoom with autofocus. With the unique Auto-flip functionality, it can pan 360° to continuously follow an object. The camera's Advanced Gatekeeper functionality enables it to automatically move to a preset position when motion is detected in a pre-defined area. The outdoor-ready AXIS P5534-E PTZ Dome Network Camera offers outstanding HDTV-quality video and 18x zoom, enabling surveillance of a large area and great details when zooming in. With quick and reliable installation features, it is ideal for city and perimeter surveillance, and for use at airports and train stations. AXIS P5534-E PTZ Dome Network Camera Outdoor-ready HDTV camera with 18x zoom. > HDTV 720p, day/night and H.264 > Outdoor-ready: IP66 and NEMA 4X rated > 18x optical zoom > Advanced Gatekeeper functionality > High Power over Ethernet (IEEE 802.3at) The IP66- and NEMA 4X-rated AXIS P5534-E provides cost-efficient installation since no external housing is required. It can operate in temperatures from -20 °C (-4 °F) up to 50 °C (122 °F). AXIS P5534-E is powered with High Power over Ethernet, which makes installation easy since only one cable is needed for carrying power, video and PTZ commands. A High PoE midspan is supplied. The camera supports local storage with its built-in SD/SDHC memory card slot. Note: Mounting brackets are sold separately Technical specifications – AXIS P5534-E PTZ Dome Network Camera www.axis.com ©2010 Axis Communications AB. AXIS COMMUNICATIONS, AXIS, ETRAX, ARTPEC and VAPIX are registered trademarks or trademark applications of Axis AB in various jurisdictions. All other company names and products are trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective companies. We reserve the right to introduce modifications without notice. 39 6 6 3 / E N / R 1 / 1 0 0 6 Camera Models AXIS P5534-E 60 Hz; AXIS P5534-E 50 Hz Image sensor 1/3" progressive scan CCD 1.3 megapixel Lens f=4.7 – 84.6 mm, F1.6 – 2.8, autofocus, automatic day/night Horizontal angle of view: 55.2° - 3.2° Minimum illumination Color: 0.74 lux at 30 IRE F1.6 B/W: 0.04 lux at 30 IRE F1.6 Shutter time 1/10000 s to 1/4 s Pan/tilt/zoom E-flip, Auto-flip, 100 preset positions Pan: 360° (with Auto-flip), 0.2° - 300°/s Tilt: 180°, 0.2° – 300°/s 18x optical zoom and 12x digital zoom, total 216x zoom Pan/tilt/zoom functionalities Limited guard tour Control queue On-screen directional indicator Video Video compression H.264 (MPEG-4 Part 10/AVC) Motion JPEG Resolutions HDTV 720p 1280x720 to 320x180 Frame rate H.264: Up to 30/25 fps (60/50 Hz) in all resolutions Motion JPEG: Up to 30/25 fps (60/50 Hz) in all resolutions Video streaming Multiple, individually configurable streams in H.264 and Motion JPEG Controllable frame rate and bandwidth VBR/CBR H.264 Image settings Manual shutter time, compression, color, brightness, sharpness, white balance, exposure control, exposure zones, backlight compensation, fine tuning of behavior at low light, rotation, text and image overlay, privacy mask, image freeze on PTZ Network Security Password protection, IP address filtering, HTTPS encryption*, IEEE 802.1X network access control*, digest authentication, user access log Supported protocols IPv4/v6, HTTP, HTTPS*, SSL/TLS*, QoS Layer 3 DiffServ, FTP, SMTP, Bonjour, UPnP, SNMPv1/v2c/v3 (MIB-II), DNS, DynDNS, NTP, RTSP, RTP, TCP, UDP, IGMP, RTCP, ICMP, DHCP, ARP, SOCKS System integration Application Programming Interface Open API for software integration, including VAPIX® and AXIS Camera Application Platform from Axis Communications; specifications available at www.axis.com Includes the ONVIF specification available at www.onvif.org Support for AXIS Video Hosting System (AVHS) with One-Click Camera Connection Intelligent video Video motion detection, Advanced Gatekeeper Support for AXIS Camera Application Platform enabling installation of additional applications Alarm triggers Video motion detection, AXIS Camera Application Platform, PTZ position, temperature, memory card full Alarm events File upload via FTP, HTTP and email Notification via email, HTTP and TCP External output, PTZ position, local storage Video buffer 96 MB pre- and post-alarm General Casing IP66- and NEMA 4X-rated metal casing (aluminum), acrylic (PMMA) clear dome, sunshield (PC/ASA) Processors and memory ARTPEC-3, 256 MB RAM, 128 MB Flash Power High Power over Ethernet (High PoE) IEEE 802.3at, max. 30 W AXIS T8123 High PoE Midspan 1-port included: 100-240 V AC, max. 37 W Connectors RJ-45 for 10BASE-T/100BASE-TX PoE IP66-rated RJ-45 connector kit included Local storage SD/SDHC memory card slot (card is not included) Operating conditions -20 °C to 50 °C (-4 °F to 122 °F) Approvals EN 55022 Class B, EN 61000-3-2, EN 61000-3-3, EN 61000- 6-1, EN 61000-6-2, EN 55024, FCC Part 15 Subpart B Class B, ICES-003 Class B, VCCI Class B, C-tick AS/NZS CISPR 22, EN 60950-1, KCC Class B IEC 60529 IP66, NEMA 250 Type 4X IEC 60721-4-3 Class 4K1, 4C3, 4M3 EN/IEC 60068-2 Midspan: EN 60950-1, GS, UL, cUL, CE, FCC, VCCI, CB, KCC, UL-AR Weight 2.0 kg (4.4 lb.) Included accessories AXIS T8123 High PoE Midspan 1-port, IP66-rated RJ-45 connector kit, clear and smoked dome cover, Installation Guide, CD with User's Manual, recording software, installation and management tools, Windows decoder 1-user license More information is available at www.axis.com * This product includes software developed by the OpenSSL Project for use in the OpenSSL Toolkit. (www.openssl.org) Corner Dimensions Optional accessories AXIS T90A Illuminators AXIS T91A Mounting Accessories Wall Corner Ceiling Pendant kit AXIS Camera Station and video management software from Axis’ Application Development Partners. For more information, see www.axis.com/products/video/software/ AXIS T8310 Video Surveillance Control Board AXIS P8221 Network I/O Audio Module 21 1 m m ( 8 . 3 ” ) 19 5 m m ( 7 . 7 ” ) 212 mm (8.3”) City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill AGENDA ITEM: New Business #2 ATTACHMENT G COUNCIL MEETING DATE: April 11, 2011 SUBJECT: Approval to surplus the buildings on Airport lots 12 & 13 (the old A & B hangars) DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Airport ATTACHMENTS: Memo from Rob Putnam, Airport Manager EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: None BUDGET CATEGORY: N/A LEGAL REVIEW: Not at this time DESCRIPTION: Discussion and action regarding the surplus of A & B hangars. HISTORY: The airport has been discussing different options on how to improve A & B hangars. In December the airport received a proposal from a private developer to take over the site and construct new buildings. In February airport staff hired the appraisal firm of Allen, Brackett and Shedd to evaluate the financial feasibility of some different scenarios ALTERNATIVES: Approve staff recommendation with modifications Table Deny RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discussion item only at this time. MEMO City of Arlington Airport To: Mayor Larson and City Council From: Rob Putnam, Airport Manager Date: April 14, 2011 Subject: A (lot 12) & B (lot 13) Hangar ISSUE: Discussion and action to surplus two buildings on the airport; A hangar and B hangar BACKGROUND: The Airport Commission and staff have been struggling with the most appropriate means of dealing with A & B hangars. These buildings were constructed in 1959/1960. The buildings are bare bone structures and do not have any utilities. Prior to 1992 the buildings had dirt floors and did not have partitions between the individual units. Initially our approach was to renovate the buildings, but the cost estimate for each building was $515,000. The current rental rate for each unit is $148 per month. Hangar rents on the airport range from $225 to $255 and around $285 for an end unit. Most T-hangar units are approximately 1,000 sq ft in size, but these units are approximately 765 sq ft. Last summer the airport received a proposal from a private party to redevelop the site with new buildings. That proposal was tied to development of some property on the west side of the airport and some of the conditions were not acceptable to staff. In November the Airport Commission gave staff authorization to go out to bid for renovation. In December staff received another proposal for redevelopment of the site from the same private party and the Airport Commission rescinded the authority to get bids until the proposal could be evaluated. In February staff contracted with an appraisal firm to provide some market analysis regarding the renovation, new construction and ground lease scenarios. The appraiser also added a fourth scenario they called an “as is”, which left the existing buildings and only did the minimum amount of repairs. This scenario did not take into consideration the fact that eventually the other repairs would need to be addressed in the future. The appraiser was tasked with answering four basic questions: 1) What should the rate of return and hangar rent be if we renovated the buildings? The answer was “A fair rate of return for the renovation generates a rent in excess of market rent and is not feasible”. MEMO City of Arlington Airport 2) If we construct the buildings what should the rent be for a decent rate of return? The answer was “The rent that would provide a decent rate of return for the new construction is in excess of market rent and is not feasible”. 3) If we let a developer take over the site, what should the lease term be for the developer to realize a reasonable return on their investment? The answer was “30-40 years is a reasonable lease term”. 4) Which of the three makes the most sense, financially for the airport? The answer was “The Ground Lease scenario, followed by the “As-Is” scenario, provides the highest returns for the airport”. The Renovation scenario is the least profitable. After evaluating the costs for the renovation and construction, the appraiser concluded rents of $378 per month for the renovation and $370 per month for new construction. Both rental amounts are in excess of market rent and are therefore not feasible. The airport has submitted a proposal from a private developer to demolish the existing buildings and construct new buildings. The current buildings have 30 units and the new construction would contain 44 units. The proposal is attached. DISCUSSION & ANALYSIS: The appraiser’s report gives a fairly clear, unbiased finding that the renovation approach is not financially viable. Although staff and the Airport Commission have struggled emotionally with the idea of relocating tenants to units that cost more, there has to be a point that we understand it is not financially responsible to proceed. The As-Is scenario came out as the second best route to go, but that only included the cost of immediate improvements such as re-roofing both buildings and some minor door repairs. It is staff’s contention that over the next 5-10 years all of the renovation items would need to be done. As we have heard in our meetings, some of the current tenants are willing to be in sub-standard buildings in order to retain the low rent. That scenario increases the airports liability and I do not feel that achieves our goal of maintaining quality structures on the airport. In order for the airport to construct new hangars we would have to go out for revenue bonds. At this point in time with some of the larger projects on the table for the Business Park, that would not be feasible. We are currently paying on three loans; the airport office construction, building 44 and the purchase of the Cornehl property. Also as the report indicated we would have to charge rent in the neighborhood of $370 per month. MEMO City of Arlington Airport The final option is to surplus the buildings and enter into a ground lease for new construction. Based on the report, this is the most financially responsible approach. The proposed ground lease makes some provision to ease the transition for our current tenants. The basic items in the proposal includes; • The lease terms for both lots 12 and 13 would be for 40 years. Commencing on November 2011 for lot 12 (A hangar) and June 2012 for lot 13 (B hangar) • The lease rate will be at the current appraised value ($0.22 per sq ft) through 2014. Then subject to the airport future appraisal process. • The tenant will be responsible for the demo of both structures at their cost. • Current tenants of A and B would have first rights of refusal in the new buildings. • Current tenants would also have first option on any vacant City hangar. • Carerra (developer) would have their first building completed on lot 403 (west side of airport) around September 2011. • Hangar A construction would begin on November 1, 2011. Tenants that have not already relocated would have the option to move into the completed building on lot 403. • Hangar B construction would begin on June 2012. Tenants would have the option to move into the new hangar A or the building on lot 403. • Carerra’s proposal includes a reduced rental rate for the first two years for the current tenants of A and B hangar. The rental rate for the first calendar year would be $189 per month, $207 per month for the second year, and then market rate for the following years. • Each unit will be approximately 1,065 sq ft, with power and compressed air in each hangar unit. ALTERNATIVES: Approve staff recommendation with modifications. Table Deny RECOMMENDATION: This item is for discussion only. MEMO City of Arlington Airport To: Mayor Larson and City Council From: Rob Putnam, Airport Manager Date: April 5, 2011 Subject: A (lot 12) & B (lot 13) Hangar ISSUE: Discussion and action to surplus two buildings on the airport; A hangar and B hangar BACKGROUND: The Airport Commission and staff have been struggling with the most appropriate means of dealing with A & B hangars. These buildings were constructed in 1959/1960. The buildings are bare bone structures and do not have any utilities. Prior to 1992 the buildings had dirt floors and did not have partitions between the individual units. Initially our approach was to renovate the buildings, but the cost estimate for each building was $515,000. The current rental rate for each unit is $148 per month. Hangar rents on the airport range from $225 to $255 and around $285 for an end unit. Most T-hangar units are approximately 1,000 sq ft in size, but these units are approximately 765 sq ft. Last summer the airport received a proposal from a private party to redevelop the site with new buildings. That proposal was tied to development of some property on the west side of the airport and some of the conditions were not acceptable to staff. In November the Airport Commission gave staff authorization to go out to bid for renovation. In December staff received another proposal for redevelopment of the site from the same private party and the Airport Commission rescinded the authority to get bids until the proposal could be evaluated. In February staff contracted with an appraisal firm to provide some market analysis regarding the renovation, new construction and ground lease scenarios. The appraiser also added a fourth scenario they called an “as is”, which left the existing buildings and only did the minimum amount of repairs. This scenario did not take into consideration the fact that eventually the other repairs would need to be addressed in the future. The appraiser was tasked with answering four basic questions: 1) What should the rate of return and hangar rent be if we renovated the buildings? The answer was “A fair rate of return for the renovation generates a rent in excess of market rent and is not feasible”. MEMO City of Arlington Airport 2) If we construct the buildings what should the rent be for a decent rate of return? The answer was “The rent that would provide a decent rate of return for the new construction is in excess of market rent and is not feasible”. 3) If we let a developer take over the site, what should the lease term be for the developer to realize a reasonable return on their investment? The answer was “30-40 years is a reasonable lease term”. 4) Which of the three makes the most sense, financially for the airport? The answer was “The Ground Lease scenario, followed by the “As-Is” scenario, provides the highest returns for the airport”. The Renovation scenario is the least profitable. After evaluating the costs for the renovation and construction, the appraiser concluded rents of $378 per month for the renovation and $370 per month for new construction. Both rental amounts are in excess of market rent and are therefore not feasible. The airport has submitted a proposal from a private developer to demolish the existing buildings and construct new buildings. The current buildings have 30 units and the new construction would contain 44 units. The proposal is attached. DISCUSSION & ANALYSIS: The appraiser’s report gives a fairly clear, unbiased finding that the renovation approach is not financially viable. Although staff and the Airport Commission have struggled emotionally with the idea of relocating tenants to units that cost more, there has to be a point that we understand it is not financially responsible to proceed. The As-Is scenario came out as the second best route to go, but that only included the cost of immediate improvements such as re-roofing both buildings and some minor door repairs. It is staff’s contention that over the next 5-10 years all of the renovation items would need to be done. As we have heard in our meetings, some of the current tenants are willing to be in sub-standard buildings in order to retain the low rent. That scenario increases the airports liability and I do not feel that achieves our goal of maintaining quality structures on the airport. In order for the airport to construct new hangars we would have to go out for revenue bonds. At this point in time with some of the larger projects on the table for the Business Park, that would not be feasible. We are currently paying on three loans; the airport office construction, building 44 and the purchase of the Cornehl property. Also as the report indicated we would have to charge rent in the neighborhood of $370 per month. MEMO City of Arlington Airport The final option is to surplus the buildings and enter into a ground lease for new construction. Based on the report, this is the most financially responsible approach. The proposed ground lease makes some provision to ease the transition for our current tenants. The basic items in the proposal includes; • The lease terms for both lots 12 and 13 would be for 40 years. Commencing on November 2011 for lot 12 (A hangar) and June 2012 for lot 13 (B hangar) • The lease rate will be at the current appraised value ($0.22 per sq ft) through 2014. Then subject to the airport future appraisal process. • The tenant will be responsible for the demo of both structures at their cost. • Current tenants of A and B would have first rights of refusal in the new buildings. • Current tenants would also have first option on any vacant City hangar. • Carerra (developer) would have their first building completed on lot 403 (west side of airport) around September 2011. • Hangar A construction would begin on November 1, 2011. Tenants that have not already relocated would have the option to move into the completed building on lot 403. • Hangar B construction would begin on June 2012. Tenants would have the option to move into the new hangar A or the building on lot 403. • Carerra’s proposal includes a reduced rental rate for the first two years for the current tenants of A and B hangar. The rental rate for the first calendar year would be $189 per month, $207 per month for the second year, and then market rate for the following years. • Each unit will be approximately 1,065 sq ft, with power and compressed air in each hangar unit. ALTERNATIVES: Approve staff recommendation with modifications. Table Deny RECOMMENDATION: This item is for discussion only. City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill AGENDA ITEM: New Business #3 ATTACHMENT H COUNCIL MEETING DATE: April 18, 2011 SUBJECT: Interlocal Maintenance Agreement: with East County Support Services at Monroe Fire District # 3(ECFSS) DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Fire; Contact: Chief Bruce Stedman, 360-403-3601 ATTACHMENTS: Interlocal Maintenance Agreement with ECFSS – EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: N/A BUDGET CATEGORY: N/A LEGAL REVIEW: Interlocal has been reviewed by city attorney with no comments or concerns. DESCRIPTION: This agreement is necessary for the fire department to maintain essential preventative and regular maintenance for all department vehicles. Our vehicles will be serviced either by a mobile repair technician or if appropriate be provided at the Monroe Fire District Mechanical shops. HISTORY: For over ten years the Marysville Fire District provided vehicle maintenance to much of North Snohomish County Fire Departments, including Arlington Fire. This service as of January 1, 2011 is no longer available to any agencies. Alternative repair facilities have been pursued and the Monroe site is currently the only viable option due to costs, equipment and an actual maintenance site. City Council reviewed this item at the April 4, 2011 meeting and requested the item be placed on the April 18, 2011 agenda for formal action ALTERNATIVES: 1. Table for additional review 2. Deny request RECOMMENDED MOTION: I move to approve the Interlocal Agreement with Monroe Fire District #3 for vehicle and apparatus maintenance and authorize the Mayor Pro Tem to sign the agreement. East County Fire Support Services Division Associate Interlocal Agreement Pursuant to the authority granted in RCW 39.34, this agreement is entered into between East County Support Services Division, referred to as “ECFSS” and “City of Arlington Fire Department” referred to as the “Subscribing Agency”. ECFSS has automotive and truck repair facilities and trained personnel to provide maintenance and repair services for vehicles. ECFSS is sufficiently equipped and staffed to provide maintenance and repair services to other municipal corporation vehicles and equipment. ECFSS is willing to provide such services from time to time on a fee basis established to provide cost reimbursement to the ECFSS. ECFSS does not provide such services to private parties on a commercial basis and, therefore, furnishes such services to other governmental entities as a governmental service and not as a proprietary function. The Subscribing Agency does not maintain trained personnel and equipment necessary to meet its requirements for repair and maintenance services and, therefore, has a need for such services from outside sources for its apparatus and equipment. It is the purpose of this agreement to provide the terms and conditions under which ECFSS will provide apparatus and equipment repair and maintenance services. To accomplish this purpose it is agreed as follows: 1. Exclusions/Limitations: The ECFSS shall reserve the right to exclude any other agency from participating in this Interlocal Agreement and/or limit services provided and establish qualifications or contingencies to the providing of service. 2. Governmental Service: No services as anticipated herein shall be allowed to any non-municipal agencies. Agencies to become Subscribing Agencies shall be political sub-divisions of the State of Washington or Federal Agencies. No private services shall be provided. 3. Termination/Limitation of Services: The ECFSS shall have the right to terminate the participation of any Subscribing Agencies or limit services after association has been established. 4. Non-Exclusive: Notwithstanding any express or implied provision of this Agreement, all Subscribing Agencies reserve the right to provide for services of the type covered by this Agreement from their own resources or by contract or otherwise with outside persons or entities. No Subscribing Agency shall be required to exclusively use the services available under this Agreement. 5. Locations: ECFSS agrees to provide such repair and maintenance services on vehicles and equipment delivered to the Monroe Fire station by the Subscribing Agency as may be agreed upon from time to time by the Chiefs of the fire departments of the parties or their designees. ECFSS further agrees to provide repair services to vehicles of the Subscribing Agency at other locations if deemed appropriate and available by the Chief of Support Services. Additional fees may be charged for remote location services and for transportation of Subscribing Agencies vehicles. 6. Insurance: The Subscribing Agency shall maintain automobile physical damage insurance including comprehensive and collision coverage’s on all vehicles delivered to the ECFSS for service, maintenance or repair. The Subscribing Agency shall maintain inland marine or similar property insurance covering all equipment and vehicles not licensed that are delivered to the ECFSS for service, maintenance and repair. 7. Permission to Perform Duties: The Subscribing Agency authorizes the requested repair work to be done along with the purchase of necessary parts and material and agrees that the ECFSS is not responsible for the loss or damage to the vehicles and or equipment in case of fire, theft or any other cause beyond the control of the ECFSS or for any delays caused by unavailability of parts or delays in parts shipments by the supplier or transporter. The Subscribing Agency grants the ECFSS and its personnel permission to operate the vehicle on streets, highways or elsewhere for the purpose of testing and inspection. 8. Warranty: ECFSS will repair or replace any new parts or redo any labor, which fails in normal service due to defects in parts, or labor if notified within 90 days. This warranty does not cover loss of time, use, inconvenience, normal wear, abuse, used parts or other matters not specified and there shall be no liability for consequential, incidental or commercial damages. The ECFSS disclaims any implied warranty of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose and neither assumes nor authorizes any other person to assume for it any liability in connection with the repair work. No warranty, whether expressed or implied, extends beyond 90 days. 9. Notice of Termination: Either party giving to the other party 90 days written notice of termination may terminate this agreement. Signature Block ‘ ECFSS Board Chair Date ‘ Contracting Party Date ‘ Title