2009-10 Long-term Facilities Planning
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Annexation of SMS to MSHS (Satellite Campus), and Build Replacement Middle School Model
This model alleviates overcrowding at Mt. Si High School (MSHS) by utilizing space at the nearby Snoqualmie Middle School (SMS) campus for high school students. It also recommends building a replacement middle school on land the district owns in Snoqualmie, to service SMS students in grades 6-8. This model increases the capacity at the high school by 600 students, and maintains the Snoqualmie Valley School District’s current grade level configuration of K-5, 6-8, 9-12. Some remodeling of the current MSHS building will also be considered as the facility ages. Potential challenges: daily transitions for students from the satellite campus to the main high school campus, and increased transportation costs.

Expansion of Mount Si High School Model
This model adds capacity at Mount Si High School through an extensive expansion of the current facility. This could be achieved in a phased approach, or all at once. Ideas include: building upward to add second floor classrooms; improving areas prone to flooding; modernizing the current aging facility, including expanding common areas (such as auditorium and gym) to accommodate a larger student population; and adding a parking garage. The cost of a comprehensive expansion and remodel to Mount Si High School is comparable to building a new school (around $100 million). However, significant savings would be realized in two areas: 1) by not needing to purchase land for a second high school; and 2) by avoiding ongoing operating costs associated with a second high school (approximately $2.5 -$3 million per year) that would impact the General Fund budget annually. Potential challenges: As the facility is undergoing renovation, the high school may need to temporarily utilize all or a portion of the nearby SMS building to teach students displaced during the construction.

The Long-term Facilities Planning (LTFP) Committee identified six criteria that were used to narrow the models from five to the two remaining. Each criteria was scored on a scale of 0-4 with zero indicating there was no evidence to support that criteria to a four which indicated there was strong evidence to support that specific criteria.

• Best for kids at all Grade Levels
  Does the solution serve the best interest of ALL students at all levels?
  
• Financial Realities
  Does the solution impact District General Fund, overall cost of the solution?
• Geographical Realities
  Does solution align with current district demographics, transportation costs, impact on school attendance boundaries?
• Aligns with Enrollment Projections
  Does the solution address immediate and long-term (10 years) needs related to overcrowding and future population growth?
• Long Term Sustainability
  Does the solution stand the test of time related to enrollment growth and associated needs?
• Political Realities
  Will the community support the solution?

• Maintains the district’s current grade level configurations; elementary K-5, middle school 6-8 in three middle schools, and high school 9-12 all on the same campus.
• Minimizes student disruption and impact at the elementary and middle schools
• Maintains a single high school
• Minimizes additional transportation costs in the long term
• This option received the most positive feedback from the public meetings.

• Maintains the district’s current grade level configurations; elementary K-5; middle school 6-8 in three middle schools; high school 9-12
• Builds a middle school to replace Snoqualmie Middle School when it is annexed for additional capacity for Mount Si High School
• Addresses capacity needs and flexibility to expand high quality programming at Mount Si High School
• Maintains a three middle school model housing students in grades 6-8.
• Minimal cost to retrofit Snoqualmie Middle School to accommodate high school programming needs

• Changes the district’s current grade level configuration at all three levels – elementary from K-5 to K-6; middle school from 6-8 to 7-9; and high school from 9-12 to 10-12 – would disrupt students and programming in every school across the district.
• This model pushes the high school overcrowding problem down to the lower levels.
• This model would make it more difficult for 9th-graders to participate in advanced courses, athletics or other high-school-level activities.
• There would be transportation costs to shuttle 9th grade students from all three middle school to and from the main campus to access high school opportunities.
• Common areas (lunch or multipurpose rooms) at the elementary schools would be impacted as the result of increasing the enrollment by adding sixth grade students.
• This model represents a major philosophy & educational program change from the Middle Schools back to an older-style Junior High School configuration, from which most districts in our state have moved away.
• Teacher certification would become an issue with the need to reassign high school and middle school staff.
• This option received little support from the community.

• This model changes the grade level configuration at the elementary from K-5 to K-6; middle school from 6-8 in three middle schools to 7-8 in two middle schools – disrupting all elementary and middle school students.
• This model “pushes” the high school overcrowding problem down to the lower grades.
• This model would annex Snoqualmie Middle School for additional capacity at Mount Si High School.
• Increased transportation costs would result from shuttling students to and from Snoqualmie Middle School to the main high school campus.
• Common areas at the elementary schools would be negatively impacted from the increased enrollment by adding sixth grade students to each elementary school campus.
• This model would require a school attendance boundary adjustment and, at the same time, additional modular classrooms to the existing elementary school campuses to address the increased enrollment.
• Staff would need to be reassigned from the middle schools to elementary schools.
• This model received little support from the community.

• Staff would need to re reassigned from the high school to middle schools.
• This model results in having the ninth graders to be housed at the three existing middle schools.
• This model changes the grade level configuration at the high school from 9-12 to 10-12 and middle schools from 6-8 to 6-9.
• This model would make it difficult for 9th grade students to participate in advanced courses, athletics or other high-school-level activities.
• Transportation costs would be higher shuttling students from the three middle schools to and from the main high school campus.
• This model maximizes the use of modular classrooms to address the overcrowding at the three middle schools as needed.
• Common areas at the three middle schools would be negatively impacted as the result of increased enrollment at each of the schools.
• Middle school buildings are currently designed to accommodate three grade levels.
•
• This model received little community support. Many opposed combining 6th graders and 9th graders.

After a long and very comprehensive review of the district’s projected enrollment and long-term facility needs by the Facilities Task Force (2006-07), the Task Force believed building a second high school was the best solution to address the quickly expanding school district. At that time, our student population was growing 6-7% annually, and the enrollment at the high school level was projected to reach approximately 3500 students by the year 2019. Consequently, a bond measure to build another high school was presented to the community three times and each time the measure failed by a small number.

Today, however, several important factors have changed since 2006 which has lead the Long-term Facilities Committee to explore other solutions both in terms of construction costs, economics, impact to the district operating costs, enrollment projections, etc. Specifically:

• Enrollment projections show slower growth. We no longer need as much space as previously anticipated, nor with the same urgency. We do not foresee having enough high school students, in the next 5-10 years, to adequately fill two high schools to a cost-effective capacity.
• Costs – to build and operate. We are sensitive, in these difficult economic times, to the financial impact on the community. The district also is acutely aware of the ongoing costs required to operate new schools that impact its General Fund each year. At this time when our state’s financial crisis is continuing to reduce education funding, any increase in operating costs is a serious concern and potentially an unsurmountable obstacle.
• Lack of sufficient voter support. We clearly heard from local voters three times that our community was not ready to support a second high school.
• Property. The district does not currently own a plot of land large enough to build a high school, so purchasing more land would be an additional cost to build a second high school. (The district does, however, own land that would be appropriate for a middle school or elementary school.)

Economy: Four years ago, school construction costs were escalating at approximately 1% per month. Today, even though construction costs are still high, they are not increasing at the same rate as three years ago. At the same time, with the current budget challenges facing school districts across the state including our own, we must consider the ongoing financial impact that operating costs associated with opening a new school would have on the district’s General Fund and the additional enormous challenges it would create.

Enrollment: The Snoqualmie Valley School District is still growing, but currently at a much slower pace (1-2% per year) than in the past three years when the 6-7% growth created a strong sense of urgency. New growth estimates suggest our District’s enrollment in 2015-16 will include approximately 500-600 more students than current school building capacity can effectively accommodate.

School Capacities – Shift in Thinking: The Snoqualmie Valley School District has had a history of keeping the size of its schools relatively small, i.e. elementary schools with 500-600 students, middle schools with 500-700, and the high school with 1200-1500. Because of the cost for new school construction coupled with operating costs to run new buildings on a yearly basis, school districts are looking to increase the capacities of their existing schools in order to address the increase in enrollment, by adding modular classrooms and/or remodeling.

Ultimately, the School Board will make the final decision regarding the long-term direction (next ten years) for the Snoqualmie Valley’s public schools. In the meantime, the Board of Directors have charged a committee to research options, analyze data, and engage the community, in order to make a recommendation to the Board on most viable options for our community’s public school. If final option requires additional funding – to expand, build or renovate school buildings – support from local voters would be needed.

The Superintendent appointed members from the district staff including building principals (elementary, middle school and high school administrators), district staff (Operations Supervisor, Director of Instructional Technology), District Project Manager, and two School Board Liaisons (Caroline Loudenback and Dan Popp). The Superintendent, Director of Business Services, and Director of Student Services are advisors to the Committee.

The committee was charged with analyzing data, review research, and develop possible solutions to meet the long-term school facilities needs of the SVSD for the next 10 years. They are considering the following factors to help identify the most viable solution for our community’s needs:

• Enrollment trends
• School capacities
• Research related to various K-12 program models and what other districts have found successful
• Financial impact to the district’s operating budget
• Impact of disruption to students and staff at all levels
• Programming needs

The Long-term Facilities Planning Committee has complete freedom to evaluate any and all potential solutions to meet the district’s future enrollment growth. The Superintendent placed no restrictions on the committee other than:

• Recommendations shall be consistent with the Snoqualmie Valley School District’s mission statement.
• The Board of Directors will review the committee’s recommendations and make final decisions in regard to the future course of action

Since the spring of 2009, the committee hosted focus groups, four public meetings, staff meetings in all ten schools, and an online survey to gather community and staff input, in addition to numerous updates during public school board meetings. Based on their findings and feedback, the Long-term Facilities Planning committee made a recommendation to the School Board to focus on the two most viable options that best met the established criteria (narrowing the list from five models down to two.) The Board approved this recommendation to allow for additional in-depth study of the top two options, with a goal of defining the district’s future facilities plans by March 2010.

Here are next steps in the process:

• November 13, 2009 - January 2010
  - Further refine details associated with both models being considered
  - Long-Term Facilities Planning (LTFP) Committee continues to meet: 12/8, 1/5, 1/28, 2/2, 2/9
  - Provide opportunities for Community/Staff Input:
       • Website update with online feedback link
       • Launch scientific phone survey: Jan.11-15
       • “Live” online meeting: 1/14, 2-3:30pm, Dist. Office or website at www.svsd410.org
       • Focus group activities: 1/12 and 1/19
       • District/PTSA Council public meeting: 1/25
       • School Board meeting updates: 1/7, 1/21
       • February 11, 2010
  - LTFP Committee presents recommendation to the Board
• February 12 - 24, 2010
  - Website updated with recommendation
  - Additional opportunities for community input
• February 25, 2010
  - Public Hearing regarding recommendation
• February 26 - March 10, 2010
  - Additional opportunities for community input
• March 11, 2010
  - School Board takes action on recommendation

• A modified middle school boundary review beginning the 2004-05 school year
• A middle school boundary review prior to the opening of Twin Falls Middle School in the spring of 2008
• An elementary school boundary review prior to the opening of Cascade View Elementary School in the spring of 2005
• An elementary boundary adjustment between Cascade View Elementary School and Snoqualmie Elementary School in the spring of 2007
• Additional capacity in the form of modular classrooms were added to Mount Si High School and Cascade View Elementary School

In November of 2002 and again in March of 2005, a Facilities Task Force consisting of about 25 community members and district staff was convened for the purpose of evaluating the district’s growing enrollment needs.

The 2002 Facility Task Force identified critical student housing needs as well as urgently needed upgrades to district athletic facilities and systems infrastructure. The recommendation to the Board of Directors at that time was a $53 million bond issue that was passed by voters in 2003 to fund the following:

• The construction of a new elementary school: Cascade View Elementary School opened in the fall of 2005.
• The construction of a new middle school: Twin Falls Middle School opened in the fall of 2008.
• Upgrades to the athletic field complexes at MSHS and CKMS
• A fiber-optic communications backbone for the entire district

At the same time, the Facility Task Force discussed the idea for a new high school facility, but felt that the use of additional modular classrooms was the appropriate solution to meet the growing high school enrollment needs for the next several years.

The 2005 Task Force revisited the district’s growing enrollment needs along with additional needed upgrades to the district systems. Based on unprecedented enrollment increases in 2005 (7%) and 2006 (6%), the committee felt a high level of urgency to address the projected long term overcrowding at the elementary and high school levels. After nearly 18 months of researching and planning, this Task Force recommended to the Board of Directors a $209 million bond issue that included the following:

• The construction of a second high school
• Specific repairs and renovations for existing school facilities as well as to the District Transportation facilities
• Purchase of 50 acres of land to accommodate the second high school.

This bond request was presented to the voters three times over the course of 18 months during 2007 and 2008. These bond propositions failed by a very narrow margin each time.

In March of 2009, voters passed a bond for $27.5 million that would add modular classrooms to Mount Si High School and fund vital upgrades and system replacements to existing schools. The Long-term Facilities Planning Committee resumed discussions on future enrollment needs in February 2009.

• Several of our schools have zoning or floodplain/floodway issues that limit our schools’ ability to expand.
• Mount Si High School, Chief Kanim Middle School, Twin Falls Middle School and Opstad Elementary School have the capacity to be remodeled and/or expanded by adding modular classrooms.

Economic forces of supply and demand continue at work throughout every tier of construction supply, support, and trades with few work projects in the marketplace and too much available material supply and workforce both locally and internationally. Internationally, China and India continue to impact the international material acquisition process along with other dynamic consuming countries like Japan and the United States with depressed economies that have postponed approved projects and stalled the approval of new projects. The Vancouver Canada 2010 XXI Olympic Winter Games were attracting local construction firms for fully-funded fast-track projects that are profitable creating at least some relief for those companies and individuals willing to relocate and/or travel.

Locally, the billions of dollars for more lucrative “private” works projects that previously prevailed in the marketplace have been completed or are in the final stages of completion. In this economy, there are fewer new projects of significance in the pre-development phase –due to resulting mergers, bankruptcies, and outright business failures within the construction industry – making the more difficult and restrictive “public” works projects now more attractive. School projects are public works projects.

The use of modular classrooms is an important tool for school districts to quickly and relatively inexpensively provide classroom space as enrollment grows. But they alone cannot solve a district’s long-term capacity needs:

• Their intended use is to address the peak of an enrollment growth “bubble” and to minimize the risk of “over building” permanent facilities that may not be needed in the future as the local population ages and student enrollment growth levels off (a typical suburban growth pattern).
• Modern-day modular structures provide a safe and effective classroom environment, but they do not expand a school’s common areas or shared infrastructure such as restrooms, kitchens, lunchrooms, gymnasiums, and libraries. Often the school’s shared infrastructure will limit the number of temporary classrooms that may be added.
• The previous Task Force recommended the prudent use of modular classrooms where it makes sense. For example, the March 2009 Bond included the addition of 12 modular classrooms to house 360 additional students at Mount Si High School to address the additional growth in enrollment between now and 2012.

Yes. Changes in attendance boundaries will always occur when there is growth in a school district that may stretch building capacities and/or new schools are built. There is a process in place – per school district policy – to ensure public feedback is considered whenever a boundary change is necessary to help balance student populations appropriately.

The committee uses data from various sources for its enrollment projections:

• Data from City of Snoqualmie Planning Department, showing existing and planned unit development
• Data from City of North Bend Planning Department, showing existing and planned unit development
• Data from King County demography department, showing existing and planned unit development in all unincorporated areas, including Fall City
• Professional enrollment analysis from Calm River Demographer
• Recent City of Snoqualmie census data
• Spring 2009 kindergarten registrations
• District enrollment data for school year 2005-2006 (as a trend baseline)

This data was projected into the future using variations of the Cohort-Survival methodology, to derive both low and high enrollment estimates for the years 2008-2020.

These efforts represent the most comprehensive effort yet to accurately project future enrollments in the Snoqualmie Valley School District.

These enrollment projections are reviewed and updated annually and more often if unexpected zoning, development, or economic changes occur as the district monitors the recommendations.

Approximately 38% of the district's total enrollment comes from Snoqualmie, yet by 2020, we project that Snoqualmie students will comprise about 55% of total enrollment for the district. Although Fall City comprised about 23% of the district enrollment in 2008, only about 16% of the district's enrollment is projected to come from the Fall City area in 2020. The North Bend area comprised 39% of the students in 2008, projections fall to 29% in 2020.

Looking at just high school enrollment, Snoqualmie students made up about 24% of the high school in 2008, but by 2020, we project the Snoqualmie area could have approximately 2,000 students, or 59% of the high school enrollment. Fall City will have between 400 and 500 high school students, representing 15% of high school enrollment by 2020, with the North Bend area comprising 26% in 2020.

The committee received detailed information from the North Bend City Planning Department regarding the effects of lifting the city’s water moratorium. A significant number of new residential units could be built within the North Bend city limits, within 3-4 years of the time the water moratorium was lifted – above and beyond the recent historical growth seen in the North Bend area.

However, the committee did not count the potential impact of the lifting moratorium in its enrollment projections. Our projections, therefore, use the recent historical growth rates for the North Bend area.

The Snoqualmie Valley School District is geographically among the largest districts in western Washington covering approximately 400 square miles. In particular, our district is long and narrow. It is 54 miles in length, extending from the Sammamish city limits and Ames Lake on one end, to the top of Snoqualmie Pass on the other. As a result, our district faces more logistical challenges with transportation and school locations than do most other school districts.

Here is a link to a Map of the Snoqualmie Valley School District

The Snoqualmie Valley School District currently owns three undeveloped parcels of land:

• 40-acre parcel on Snoqualmie Ridge, approx. 30 acres of which is directly usable.
• 25-acre parcel on Snoqualmie Ridge, approx. 17 acres of which is directly usable.
• 10-acre parcel east of North Bend, adjacent to Twin Falls Middle School campus. This parcel is already zoned and permitted such that it could house a 600-student elementary school.

Every piece of property is unique, but in general the following are the minimum site requirements for the various school types:

• An elementary school requires 10 net usable acres
• A middle school requires 30 net usable acres
• A high school requires 40 net usable acres

No. Any of the parcels could be potentially sold or swapped if more favorable opportunities emerge. But because the school district acquired these parcels at a very favorable price, there are restrictions on their sale. The original developer (Weyerhaeuser/Quadrant) retains the first right of purchase, at a pre-determined price.

The school district’s intention with the other parcel is to hold onto them for use as a potential future school site. It is the district’s policy to sell property only if 1) there is no intention to build a school on it, and 2) the district can receive a fair price for it.

King County, City of Snoqualmie, and City of North Bend require that all Developers of newly constructed homes must pay School Impact and/or Mitigation fees. These fees are not a source of permanent funding, but a one-time fee that can help the district manage short-term growth providing a bridge until a permanent solution can be implemented. By law, impact fees can only be spent to address “new student capacity”. In our district in particular, they have been used to fund temporary classrooms and inflationary cost increases on new construction projects.

Based on state and county statutes, these fees are currently set for the year 2010 as follows:

• $2,687 for a new single-family home
• $1,033 for each new unit in a multi-family home

Collection of such fees is based on the health of the local housing construction and the annual adoption by the local cities and county to impose such fees on home builders.

Bonds and Levies are two funding mechanisms available to schools in Washington State to fund new construction through local tax collections

• A bond measure can be used for capital projects for large purchases and/or specific projects such as new buildings, substantial remodels, or land purchase. A bond measure authorizes the District to incur debt and the taxes are used to pay off the debt over the life of the bond – which is typically 12 to 20 years. They are not – and legally cannot – be used for day-to-day operations.
  School bond measures still require a super-majority of voters (60% + 1 yes votes) to pass, plus bond measures have a validation requirement linked to the last general election.
• A levy can be used for a variety of purposes. Levies can be used for ongoing Maintenance and Operations, Technology and Transportation. Levies can also be used for capital projects like new school buses or computers. Essentially, a levy is a ‘pay as you go’ type of tax – no debt is incurred and expenditures are largely made in the same fiscal year as the funds are received. Levies generally last no more than 4 years before expiring.
  With the passage of EHJR 4204 (“Simple Majority for Schools”) in November 2007, school levies now only require a simple majority of voters (50% + 1 yes votes) to pass.

The usage of bond and levy monies is strictly controlled by law, and these funds are not interchangeable.

See the Washington School Finance Primer for more details on how education is funded here in our state.