Capital Facilities Planning Setting the foundation for a 2018 - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

capital facilities planning
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Capital Facilities Planning Setting the foundation for a 2018 - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Presentation Capital Facilities Planning Setting the foundation for a 2018 capital bond Board of Directors 2016-17 Summer Planning Workshop August 29, 2016 2 8/29/2016 Objectives and overview Review recent capital projects Consider


slide-1
SLIDE 1

Presentation

Capital Facilities Planning

Setting the foundation for a 2018 capital bond Board of Directors 2016-17 Summer Planning Workshop August 29, 2016

slide-2
SLIDE 2

2

  • Review recent capital projects
  • Consider revising the 40-year modernization cycle
  • Discuss process for considering major projects for a

2018 capital bond

  • Discuss optimum high school size
  • Discuss possible play structure

funding options

Objectives and overview

8/29/2016

slide-3
SLIDE 3

3

  • 1.2.a – Each student has equitable access to rigorous course offerings.
  • 2.1.a – Creativity and innovation are integrated into the instructional

and operational work of the district.

  • 2.1.b – Creativity and innovation are celebrated.
  • 2.2.a – Tools for collaboration, communication, and creativity

are available, accessible and widely used.

  • 2.2.b – Access to systems, information and resources is easy and

seamless for the end user.

  • 2.2.c – Communication and engagement with families, staff, and

community strengthens understanding of and support for district strategic priorities.

  • 3.4.a – Our students and staff learn and work in an emotionally,

physically and intellectually safe and secure environment.

  • 4.1.a – Long-term planning in finances, staffing, technology, and

facilities are intentionally and systematically driven by student enrollment, learning measures and strategic priorities.

Links to the strategic plan and AOP

8/29/2016

slide-4
SLIDE 4

4

2016 summer capital projects (all projects are completed or nearly so)

  • Memorial Stadium Baseball Miscellaneous Upgrades Emergency Lighting
  • Athletics Building Roof and Gutter Replacement
  • Portables Classrooms – Summer 2016
  • District-wide HVAC Controls – Phase I
  • North Satellite Bus & Storage Facility Fencing
  • Jackson HS Chiller Upgrade
  • Transportation Radio System Upgrades – Phase I
  • Gateway Home & Family Life (HFL) to STEM conversion
  • Everett HS Civic Auditorium Air Conditioning Systems Upgrades
  • Heatherwood MS Backup Generator
  • Healthy Kids Healthy Schools Grant
  • Everett HS Gymnasium Bleacher Upgrades

Recent capital projects

8/29/2016

slide-5
SLIDE 5

5

Major projects funded by the 2006 capital bond (all projects are completed)

  • Everett High School Gym Modernization
  • Monroe Elementary School Modernization
  • View Ridge Elementary School Modernization
  • Jefferson Elementary School Modernization
  • Whittier Elementary School Modernization
  • Everett High School Little Theater Modernization
  • Garfield Elementary School Modernization
  • Forest View Elementary School
  • North Middle School Auxiliary Gym Addition
  • Silver Lake Elementary School Modernization

Recent capital projects

8/29/2016

slide-6
SLIDE 6

6

Do you have any questions or comments about this information? Do you have any guidance for staff on this?

Recent capital projects

8/29/2016

slide-7
SLIDE 7

7

Potential bond and levy cycle

Note: This document is for preliminary discussion purposes only Bond and levy cycle - 1990 to 2030

Potential Approved Bonds and Levies Future Bonds and Levies

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030

Capital Bonds

X X X X X O O O O

Capital Levies

X X X O O

Educational Programs

X X X X X X X X X* X O O O O

and Operations Levies X = Approved O = Future X* = Educational Programs and Operations Levy + Supplemental Educational Programs and Operations Levy = Years when a bond or levy failed

8/29/2016

slide-8
SLIDE 8

8

Potential 44 year modernization cycle

11 phases of 4 years each – 2022 to 2066 Note: This document is for preliminary discussion purposes only

Phase Name of School Original Date Age at Date Built Modernized End of Phase CHS Gymnasium 1961 1982 44 CHS Science Building 1961 & 1989 37 Phase I CHS Automotive Shop & Trades Bldg. 1965 61 2022 to 2026 EHS Vocational Building 1912 1980 46 EHS Civic Auditorium/Cafeteria 1939 1982 44 Athletics Building 1981 45 Phase Il Mill Creek ES 1988 42 2026 to 2030 Silver Firs ES 1988 42 Heatherwood MS 1990 40 Madison ES 1947 1991 43 Jackson ES 1949 1993 41 Phase lll Lowell ES 1951 1991 43 2030 to 2034 EHS Science Building 1989 45 Everett HS Commercial Building 1915 1991 43 Phase lV Gateway MS 1993 45 2034 to 2038 Everett HS Main Building 1910 1995 43 Cedar Wood ES 1991 47 Phase V Jackson HS 1994 48 2038 to 2042 Hawthorne ES 1952 1992 54 Phase Vl Penny Creek ES 1998 48 2042 to 2046 Sequoia HS 1926 1994 52 Memorial Baseball Stadium 1951 1998 48 Phase Vll Eisenhower MS 1971 2006 44 2046 to 2050 Evergreen MS 1958 1999 51 Emerson ES 1957 2006 44 Cascade HS 1961 2000 54 Phase Vlll Maintenance Facility 2003 51 2050 to 2054 Central Bus Facility 2005 49 Forest View ES 2007 47 Garfield ES 1946 2009 49 Phase lX Jefferson ES 1964 2011 47 2054 to 2058 Monroe ES 2012 2012 46 Silver Lake ES 1959 2009 49 View Ridge ES 2013 2013 49 Phase X Whittier ES 1949 2011 51 2058 to 2062 EHS Little Theater 1924 2009 53 EHS Gymnasium Building 1969 2014 48 Lively Environmental Center 2009 53 Community Resource Center 2014 48 Phase Xl Woodside ES 1981 2020 46 2062 to 2066 North MS 1981 2019 47 Elementary #18 2019 47

8/29/2016

slide-9
SLIDE 9

9

Potential 48 year modernization cycle

12 phases of 4 years each – 2022 to 2070 Note: This document is for preliminary discussion purposes only

Phase Name of School Original Date Age at Date Built Modernized End of Phase CHS Gymnasium 1961 1982 44 CHS Science Building 1961 & 1989 37 Phase I CHS Automotive Shop & Trades Bldg. 1965 61 2022 to 2026 EHS Vocational Building 1912 1980 46 EHS Civic Auditorium/Cafeteria 1939 1982 44 Athletics Building 1981 45 Phase Il Mill Creek ES 1988 42 2026 to 2030 Silver Firs ES 1988 42 Heatherwood MS 1990 40 Madison ES 1947 1991 43 Jackson ES 1949 1993 41 Phase lll Lowell ES 1951 1991 43 2030 to 2034 EHS Science Building 1989 45 Everett HS Commercial Building 1915 1991 43 Phase lV Gateway MS 1993 45 2034 to 2038 Everett HS Main Building 1910 1995 43 Cedar Wood ES 1991 47 Phase V Jackson HS 1994 48 2038 to 2042 Hawthorne ES 1952 1992 54 Phase Vl Penny Creek ES 1998 48 2042 to 2046 Sequoia HS 1926 1994 52 Memorial Baseball Stadium 1951 1998 48 Phase Vll Eisenhower MS 1971 2006 44 2046 to 2050 Evergreen MS 1958 1999 51 Phase Vlll Cascade HS 1961 2000 54 2050 to 2054 Maintenance Facility 2003 51 Emerson ES 1957 2006 48 Garfield ES 1946 2009 49 Phase lX Jefferson ES 1964 2011 47 2054 to 2058 Monroe ES 2012 2012 46 Forest View ES 2007 51 View Ridge ES 2013 2013 49 Phase X Whittier ES 1949 2011 51 2058 to 2062 Central Bus Facility 2005 57 Lively Environmental Center 2009 53 Silver Lake ES 1959 2009 53 Phase Xl EHS Little Theater 1924 2009 57 2062 to 2066 EHS Gymnasium Building 1969 2014 52 Elementary #18 2019 47 Community Resource Center 2014 52 Phase XIl North MS 1981 2019 51 2066 to 2070 Woodside ES 1981 2020 50

8/29/2016

slide-10
SLIDE 10

10

Do you have any questions or comments about this information? Do you have any guidance for staff on this?

Revising the 40-year modernization cycle

8/29/2016

slide-11
SLIDE 11

11

Criteria to be used to make decisions about a future capital levy or bond (from 2016 bond/levy process)

Degree of Alignment

  • Community trust
  • Safety & security
  • Equity & access
  • 21st century skills
  • Professional development
  • Facilities maintenance infrastructure

Range of Feasibility

  • Tax rate
  • Ability to communicate the “why”
  • Cost/size/appetite
  • Deployment timeline

Process for considering major projects for a 2018 capital bond

8/29/2016

slide-12
SLIDE 12

12

Process used to develop 2016 bond/levy proposals

  • Linkage to strategic plan, board and superintendent goals, 21st century

skills, enrollment and capacity projections, anticipation of future needs, facilities inventory and assessments, technology plan, financing structure, Thoughtexchange, and staff surveys

  • Extensive process over 1½ years including presentations, discussions and

work sessions at fourteen separate board meetings, fishbowls, and community engagement events

  • Participation by community, cabinet, CFAC, TAC, board, staff, SLT,

students

Capital bond development process

8/29/2016

slide-13
SLIDE 13

13

Process used to develop 2016 bond/levy proposals - continued

Community engagement

  • Thoughtexchange process (share, star, and discover phases)
  • Capital Facilities fishbowls (capital facilities and technology
  • Spanish fishbowl (capital facilities and technology)
  • Student technology summit
  • Community outreach

Possible election dates - February, April, August, November

  • Resolution filing deadline is 2-3 months before election date

Capital bond development process

8/29/2016

slide-14
SLIDE 14

14

Possible schedule for February 2018 bond

Update Facility Needs Assessments Develop Draft Bond Proposal

 CFAC, TAC, SLT and cabinet develop and review bond proposal  Board discuss bond proposal

Finalize bond proposal

 CFAC, TAC, and Cabinet review bond proposal  Board discussion and direction

  • n bond proposal

 Board approve bond resolution

Update Enrollment & Capacity Projections

 Enrollment projections updated  CFAC review enrollment & capacity projections  Cabinet review enrollment & capacity projections  Board review enrollment & capacity projections

Community Engagement On Bond Proposal Special Election

June 2016 July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec 2016 Jan 2017 Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec 2017 Jan 2018 Feb

8/29/2016

slide-15
SLIDE 15

15

2016 enrollments* and capacities**

Permanent Building Capacity Projected Student Enrollment Students (Over) or Under Total # of Portables Permanent Building Capacity Projected Student Enrollment Students (Over) or Under Total # of Portables

Elementary School Middle School Cedar Wood 540 720 (180) 8 Eisenhower 841 869 (28) 5 Emerson 518 603 (85) 7 Evergreen 966 994 (28) 6 Forest View 593 712 (119) 6 Gateway 936 894 42 2 Garfield 441 391 50 Heatherwood 811 979 (168) 10 Hawthorne 496 426 70 North 961 707 254 1 Jackson 384 378 6 3 Other*** 31 Jefferson 485 573 (88) 4 Total MS: 4,515 4,474 72 24 Lowell 496 488 8 6 Madison 508 450 58

Permanent Building Capacity Projected Student Enrollment Students (Over) or Under Total # of Portables

Mill Creek 561 671 (110) 5 Monroe 542 546 (4) 2 High School Penny Creek 684 726 (42) 4 Cascade 1,801 1,776 25 1 Silver Firs 496 491 5 2 Everett 1,897 1,408 489 Silver Lake 485 684 (199) 11 Jackson 1,765 2,156 (391) 14 View Ridge 580 577 3 Sequoia 336 225 111 Whittier 460 505 (45) 2 Other*** 26 Woodside 542 685 (143) 10 Total HS: 5,799 5,591 234 15 Other*** 88 Total ES: 8,811 9,714 (815) 70 District total: 19,779 109

* Mid-range headcount projections by Educational Data Solutions (Les Kendrick) based on the October 1, 2015 enrollment ** Capacities reflect all-day kindergarten programs at all schools *** “Other” includes students housed at Discovery, Fairfax, NW Learning, and Port Gardner 8/29/2016

slide-16
SLIDE 16

16

2024 enrollments* and capacities**

Permanent Building Capacity Projected Student Enrollment**** Students (Over) or Under Total # of Portables Permanent Building Capacity Projected Student Enrollment Students (Over) or Under Total # of Portables

Elementary School Middle School Cedar Wood 540 599 (59) 8 Eisenhower 841 881 (40) 5 Emerson 518 603 (85) 7 Evergreen 966 1,000 (34) 6 Forest View 593 526 67 7 Gateway 936 975 (39) 6 Garfield 441 410 31 Heatherwood 811 1,101 (290) 13 Hawthorne 496 430 66 North 961 799 162 1 Jackson 384 416 (32) 3 Other*** 35 Jefferson 485 540 (55) 4 Total MS: 4,515 4,791 (241) 31 Lowell 496 497 (1) 6 Madison 508 479 29

Permanent Building Capacity Projected Student Enrollment Students (Over) or Under Total # of Portables

Mill Creek 561 584 (23) 5 Monroe 542 597 (55) 2 High School Penny Creek 684 714 (30) 4 Cascade 1,801 2,127 (326) 13 Silver Firs 496 468 28 3 Everett 1,897 1,694 203 Silver Lake 485 617 (132) 11 Jackson 1,765 2,432 (667) 28 View Ridge 580 564 16 Sequoia 336 281 55 Whittier 460 533 (73) 4 Other*** 30 Woodside 542 608 (66) 10 Total HS: 5,799 6,564 (735) 41 Other*** 90 ES #18 600 600 Total ES: 9,411 9,875 (374) 74 District total: 21,230 146

* Mid-range headcount projections by Educational Data Solutions (Les Kendrick) based on the October 1, 2015 enrollment ** Capacities reflect all-day kindergarten programs at all schools *** “Other” includes students housed at Discovery, Fairfax, NW Learning, and Port Gardner **** Projected student enrollment for Elementary #18 = 150 from FV, 150 from WO & 100 from CW, 100 from MC, and 100 from SF 8/29/2016

slide-17
SLIDE 17

17

Enrollment and capacity summary

Changes expected between 2016 and 2024

By 2024, without changes, 13 of our 18 elementary schools will be over capacity and will have 74 portable classrooms By 2024, without changes, Jackson High will have 28 portable classrooms and Cascade High will have 13 portable classrooms

* Mid-range headcount projections by Educational Data Solutions (Les Kendrick) based on the October 1, 2015 enrollment 8/29/2016

slide-18
SLIDE 18

18

When has EPS built new high schools in the past?

District historical data indicates a pattern of constructing a new high school when the existing high school(s) student enrollment exceeds 2,300 students.

  • Cascade HS was built in 1950 when enrollment at Everett HS reached 2,353
  • Jackson HS was built in 1994 when enrollment at Cascade HS reached 2,328

In 2023, Jackson HS enrollment is projected to reach 2,462, while Cascade HS will be at 2,153 and Everett HS will be at 1,718.

Rationale for a new high school

8/29/2016

slide-19
SLIDE 19

19

Needs considered but not included in 2016 bond & levy

New construction

(New comprehensive high school No. 4, new elementary school No. 19, Cascade HS cafeteria expansion, 30 classrooms for K-3 class size reductions, and a new science/curriculum/technology materials center)

Major modernizations/replacements

(Modernize Madison ES, Jackson ES and Lowell ES; modernize Everett HS cafeteria, vocational and science buildings; and modernize Cascade HS science, gymnasium, and auto shop buildings)

Site improvements/property acquisition

(Synthetic turf fields at 2 high schools; drainage improvements at Cascade HS softball field and Memorial Stadium baseball field; field upgrades at Jefferson ES, Hawthorne ES and Whittier ES; electronic reader boards at 4 high schools, and property for future south end bus facility)

Safety and security upgrades

(Secure key boxes for police use, and playground safety matting at 17 elementary schools)

Total amount is over $500,000,000

Future potential capital bond projects

8/29/2016

slide-20
SLIDE 20

20

Other needs for future consideration

Early learning centers - $12.9M each Additional synthetic turf fields at HS/MS - $2.1M each Facilities to accommodate future program changes, class size reduction Network based, integrated building security system Expanded security camera system

Future potential capital bond projects

slide-21
SLIDE 21

21

Projects that will be completed

  • Phase I of district-wide safety and security upgrades
  • Gateway MS HVAC upgrades and roofing replacement
  • Everett HS main building exterior finish restoration
  • Hawthorne ES flooring replacement
  • Heatherwood MS fire alarm system
  • Property purchases for future elementary school
  • Portable classrooms placed at various elementary and middle schools
  • Phase I technology PD for instructional staff
  • Everett HS student 1:1 devices
  • Sequoia HS student 1:1 devices
  • Phase I offsite Internet access solutions
  • Phase I WIFI and network equipment upgrades
  • Phase I network and cyber security upgrades

Status of 2016 bond/levy projects in spring 2018

slide-22
SLIDE 22

22

Projects that will be in design

  • Elementary #18 and North MS Modernization

▫ Design work will be about 95% complete ▫ Educational specifications, topographic survey, geotechnical report, value engineering study, and constructability review will be completed ▫ Environmental review and permitting process will be underway and complete in about 2 months ▫ Construction will begin in 2 to 3 months

  • Woodside ES Modernization

▫ Design work will be about 20% complete ▫ Educational specifications, topographic survey, and preliminary geotechnical report will be completed ▫ Value engineering study, constructability review, environmental review, and permitting process will be underway over the next 4 to 14 months ▫ Construction will begin in about 16 months

Status of 2016 bond/levy projects in spring 2018

slide-23
SLIDE 23

23

Projects that will be in design

  • Phase II of the district-wide safety and security upgrades
  • Synthetic turf replacement at Everett HS Lincoln field
  • Next phases of upgrades/replacements of HVAC systems, fire alarm

systems, roofing, painting and flooring.

  • Future portable classroom placements
  • Phase II technology PD for instructional staff
  • Telephone and voicemail system replacement
  • Cascade HS student 1:1 device deployment
  • Jackson HS student 1:1 device deployment
  • Offsite Internet access solutions expansion
  • Phase II WIFI and network equipment upgrades
  • Phase II network and cyber security upgrades

Status of 2016 bond/levy projects in spring 2018

slide-24
SLIDE 24

24

Successful bond measures two years apart

  • Auburn SD - 2003 and 2005
  • Dieringer SD - 2003, 2004 and 2006
  • Oak Harbor - 2005 and 2006

Successful bond measures three years apart

  • Blaine SD - 2012 and 2015
  • Bainbridge Island SD – 2006 and 2009
  • Pasco SD – 2003 and 2006

Lake Washington SD and Central Valley SD are both planning to run large capital bonds in 2018, after passing bonds in 2016 and 2015, respectively

Two-year bond election history

(in Washington)

8/29/2016

slide-25
SLIDE 25

25

Do you have any questions or comments about this information? Do you have any guidance for staff on this?

Process for considering major projects for a 2018 capital bond

8/29/2016

slide-26
SLIDE 26

26

Sources: Capital Facilities Plans and OSPI

Local high school sizes

Everett Public Schools 2016 Design: 1,500 Capacity @ 83%* Enrollment CHS 1,801 1,814 EHS 1,897 1,430 JHS 1,765 2,160 Average : 1,801 Edmonds SD 2016 Design: 1,600 Program @ 80%* Enrollment

  • Cap. @ 83%* Max @ 93%

EWHS 1,539 1,655 1,597 1,789 LHS 1,577 1,429 1,636 1,833 MHS 1,364 1,617 1,415 1,586 MTHS 1,541 1,296 1,599 1,791 Average : 1,499 Lake Stevens SD 2016 Design: 1,500 Capacity @ 83%* Enrollment LSHS 1,526 1,826 Average : 1,826

8/29/2016

slide-27
SLIDE 27

27

Sources: Capital Facilities Plans and OSPI

Local high school sizes

Marysville SD 2016 Design: Not listed Capacity @ 83-85%* Enrollment MGHS 1,525 1,647 MPHS 1,400 1,268 Average : 1,458 Mukilteo SD 2016 Design: Not listed Capacity @ 85%* Enrollment KHS 1,666 2,129 MHS 1,852 2,208 Average : 2,169 Northshore SD 2016 Design: 1,813- 2,251 Capacity @ 85%* Enrollment Design BHS 1,918 1,650 2,251 HIS 1,807 1,504 2,125 WHS 1,672 @ 92% 1,407 1,813

8/29/2016

slide-28
SLIDE 28

28

Sources: Capital Facilities Plans and OSPI

Local high school sizes

Snohomish SD 2016 Design: 1,500 Capacity @ 83%* Enrollment GPHS 1,500 1,768 SHS 1,800 1,735 Average : 1,752

8/29/2016

slide-29
SLIDE 29

29

Essentially, the research does not easily distinguish between high schools with differences of 200 or 300 students from one another when they get to enrollments of 1,200 and above. For example, a researcher might compare schools less than 600 to schools over 1,500 but not schools of 1,200 to 1,500, or 1,501 to 1,700,

  • r 1,701 to 1,900, or 1,901 and above.

Therefore, unless we are contemplating a new high school size of 600

  • r so, the research on comparative sizes is not useful.

High school size research

8/29/2016

slide-30
SLIDE 30

30

Another challenge in this research is the specificity based on the criteria being judged.

  • For example, academic achievement is higher in large schools and

school satisfaction is higher in small schools. Small schools (again defined generally as 600 or less) have lower discipline and absenteeism and higher parent involvement, while large schools have more programs to meet students’ needs. The research is also specific often to the students’ demographics such as ethnicity, socio-economic status, or federal program.

  • For example, large schools with populations that are homogeneous

by ethnic group have greater student satisfaction than large diverse schools.

High school size research

8/29/2016

slide-31
SLIDE 31

31

Therefore, if we do decide to look more deeply into the research (which we can certainly do) we need to narrow the values or the criteria we will use to judge what is optimal. Do we mean optimal for academic achievement, student satisfaction, program capacity, attendance, discipline, school, climate, or perhaps another factor?

High school size research

8/29/2016

slide-32
SLIDE 32

32

Projections for Capacities and Enrollments

Implications of building a new HS

2016 2025 High School Capacity Enrollment Capacity Enrollment Everett HS 1897 1430 1897 1491 Cascade HS 1801 1776 1801 1664 Jackson HS 1765 2160 1765 1602 Sequoia HS 336 209 336 274 New HS

  • 1500

1380 Totals: 5799 5565 7299 6411

8/29/2016

slide-33
SLIDE 33

33

Implications of building a new HS

Implications

  • A new high school would reduce enrollments at our other high schools, improve

parking and traffic congestion at those schools, and reduce stress on their central support areas and administrative staff

  • Would provide flexibility to meet need for future high school space, and opportunity

to build full size high school now and redo boundaries district-wide to achieve more equitable 1,500 student enrollments at all 4 comprehensive high schools

  • Would decrease congestion and traffic in parking lots and streets at existing high

schools (30% to 35% of high school students are bussed, and approximately 40% drive themselves)

  • Higher 10 year cost to the capital and general fund than building additions at

Jackson and Cascade high schools

  • Opportunities for participation in “cut” sports and activities/clubs would increase
  • Athletic field complex at new school would be smaller than Cascade HS and Jackson

HS, but with the installation of synthetic turf fields it would be comparable to other local high schools

  • Opportunity for specialized or magnet program design
  • Likely reduce the number of EPS students attending out-of-district high schools
  • Reduce transportation costs

8/29/2016

slide-34
SLIDE 34

34

Implications of expanding Jackson and Cascade high schools

2016 2025 High School Capacity Enrollment Capacity Enrollment Everett HS 1897 1430 1897 1661 Cascade HS 1801 1776 2137 2089 Jackson HS 1765 2160 2437 2387 Sequoia HS 336 209 336 274 Totals: 5799 5565 6807 6411

Projections for Capacities and Enrollments

8/29/2016

slide-35
SLIDE 35

35

Implications

  • Without a change in boundaries, by the year 2023, 28-29 classrooms would be

required at Jackson HS and 14-15 classrooms would be needed at Cascade HS

  • Lower 10 year cost to the capital and general fund than building a new school
  • High school capacities would increase well beyond optimum size of 1,500
  • Possible equity concerns between schools of different enrollment levels
  • May reduce need for and support for a new high school in the future
  • Would put added stress on central support areas that may need to be expanded as

well (cafeterias, gymnasiums, libraries, offices, fields, etc.)

  • Would increase congestion and traffic in parking lots and streets around schools

(30% to 35% of high school students are bussed, and approximately 40% drive themselves)

  • Opportunities for participation in “cut” sports and activities/clubs at these schools

would decrease

  • Likely increase the number of EPS students attending out-of-district high schools

Implications of expanding Jackson and Cascade high schools

8/29/2016

slide-36
SLIDE 36

36

Do you have any questions or comments about this information? Do you have any guidance for staff on this?

High school size

8/29/2016

slide-37
SLIDE 37

37

Option A

District provides funding for installing/replacing playground structures on a prorated need basis, according to rates of free & reduced priced meals program and other factors

Example:

district contribution F&RPM rates % of cost Regular play KG play

  • Over 80%

80% $96,000 $32,000

  • 60%-80%

60% $72,000 $24,000

  • 40-60%

40% $48,000 $16,000

  • 20-40%

20% $24,000 $8,000 Estimated 20 year cost = $1.024M CPF + $900K GF

(Based on 20 year replacement cycle, $2,500 annual M&O cost per year per site)

Possible play structure funding plan

8/29/2016

slide-38
SLIDE 38

38

Schools sorted by F&RPM rates

Over 80% Hawthorne 60%-80% Emerson, Garfield, Jackson, Lowell, Madison 40-60% Jefferson, Monroe, Silver Lake, Whittier, Woodside 20-40% Penny Creek, Silver Firs, View Ridge 0-20% Cedar Wood, Forest View, Mill Creek, ES No. 18

Possible play structure funding plan

8/29/2016

slide-39
SLIDE 39

39

Option B

District is responsible for installing/replacing playground structures

Example:

district contribution Locations % of cost Regular play KG play

  • All schools

100% $120,000 $40,000 Estimated 20 year cost = $2.88M CPF + $900K GF

(Based on 20 year replacement cycle, $2,500 annual M&O cost per year per site)

Possible play structure funding plan

8/29/2016

slide-40
SLIDE 40

40

Implications

  • Higher costs to the district to install and maintain play

equipment (less reliance on PTA and grants)

  • More district control of materials, equipment and

design.

  • Equity concerns would continue to be managed on a case

by case basis

Possible play structure funding plan

8/29/2016

slide-41
SLIDE 41

41

Do you have any questions or comments about this information? Do you have any guidance for staff on this?

Play structure funding plan

8/29/2016

slide-42
SLIDE 42

42

  • Review recent capital projects
  • Consider revising the 40-year modernization cycle
  • Discuss process for considering major projects for a

2018 capital bond

  • Discuss optimum high school size
  • Discuss possible play structure funding options

Wrap up

8/29/2016