analysis of the potential closure of hilltop elementary …

Puyallup School District Hilltop Analysis Education Support, Facilities Department April 13, 2009 of 32

ANALYSIS OF THE POTENTIAL CLOSURE OF HILLTOP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

In Accordance With

PUYALLUP SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD POLICY # 6883

APRIL 13, 2009


INTRODUCTION - The following written analysis is attendant to the requirement for such an analysis stipulated in Board Policy #6883. The policy states that: “…the board shall have prepared a written analysis which considers the following issues:

A. Projected or actual enrollment declines and the likelihood that they shall remain permanent;

B. The effect that the disposition or retirement shall have on other facilities and on the

District's educational program offering;

C. Student and staff displacement, including transportation costs to new facilities and staff reassignment;

D. Potential for renovation;

E. Financial considerations in terms of such factors as staff costs, operating and

maintenance cost, the potential revenue from sale or lease of property, the cost of closure and transferring operations elsewhere, the impact on the potential receipt of state matching funds for school construction;

F. Safety, health and fire regulations; and

G. Whether or not the facility may effectively be used for other purposes.

This analysis is intended to fulfill this requirement of the policy. While this analysis follows the framework of the policy, it should be noted that the District’s concerns regarding Hilltop Elementary School have been studied for many years.


HISTORY - Some of the earliest documentation and discussions for consideration of eventual closure can be found in the District’s board meetings going back to October 22, 1998. The October 1998 Board meeting was a joint meeting with the City of Edgewood City Council at the old Edgemont Junior High building (see Appendix ‘A’). The agenda included a presentation and discussion of the search for a site for the new junior high school. The District was down to considering two sites, one of which was the existing site. The meeting was attended by over 300 people and many questions were considered and discussed, among them building the new Edgemont on the existing site, which included a discussion of the possibility of consolidating Hilltop with Northwood at some time in the future. It was made clear that a 20 acre site was eventually needed for Edgemont Junior High. A November 11, 1998 Tacoma News Tribune Article announces that the Board will meet on November 23, 1998 to make the final decision as to where to located Edgemont Junior High (see article Appendix ‘A’). At the November 1998 the Board approves a motion to build the Edgemont Junior High at the site of the old school which includes Hilltop Elementary. For a clear definition of the motion see the memo dated November 16, 1998 in Appendix ‘A’. This memo which was part of the agenda says:

“At the completion of the project, both Edgemont Junior High and Hilltop Elementary would occupy the same site. This concept is not unlike our shared campus at Ballou and Stahl Junior Highs. In the long term (6 to 12 years), the District would build replacement space for Hilltop Elementary at an as yet undetermined location or locations, and Edgemont would expand into the Hilltop structure once it is vacated. The District's Citizens Facility Advisory Committee would be tasked with evaluating options for implementation of the long-range (6 to 12 year) plan.”

Subsequent to that Board action both the Tacoma New Tribune (TNT) and the Pierce County Herald (Herald) published articles which reiterated the contents of the memo and the Board action (see Appendix ‘A’). The November 25, 1998 TNT article read as follows:

“The five-member board also approved closing Hilltop Elementary School next to the junior high school in six to eight years.”

The November 27, 1998 Herald article read as follows:

“However, in six to 12 years the district plans to relocate Hilltop Elementary to an undetermined location. Edgemont Junior High would expand into the Hilltop school building.”

In it’s March 1999 issue of “Connections” the Puyallup School District noted in an article regarding the new Edgemont Junior High that (see Appendix ‘A’):

“In an effort to meet the space needs of a 750-student junior high school (projected long-term capacity), the students at Hilltop Elementary School will be relocated with a six to twelve year time frame.”

The “Connections” publication is sent to every household (46,500 addresses) in the District.


The Citizens Advisory Committee (CFAC) submitted its report to the Board on June 28, 1999 (See Appendix ‘B’). The CFAC is a committee that is commissioned by the Board periodically as needed, it had over 37 citizen representatives from throughout the District including North Hill, and spent over 18 months reviewing all the District’s facility needs in order to provide recommendations to the Board for facilities planning, and eventual improvements to facilities. It clearly recommended to the Board that, in the seven to twelve year planning period Hilltop be consolidated with Northwood at the Northwood site. After studying the issues around the demographics and availability of sites as well as the quality of buildings, the 2005 CFAC (made up of a new group of citizens from throughout the District) again, validating and expanding on the earlier report, recommended the eventual closure of Hilltop Elementary on pages 5, 7, 79, 81, 95, 112, and 115 of their May 22, 2006 report to the Board (See Appendix ‘B’). The District developed a master plan for Northwood Elementary in 2006 with input and review by the City of Edgewood on November 18, 2005. The master plan underwent a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) for which notice was posted for two consecutive weeks in the media, and for which comments were accepted from May 4 to May 19, 2006. The School Board received the master plan report at its August 18, 2006 Board meeting, at which public comment was welcomed, and acted to accept the final master plan on August 28, 2006 (again in public session where testimony was welcome) via Resolution # 200 2005-06. Even with prior public notice and an extended opportunity to respond, comments were only received from: the Washington State Department of Ecology; the Tacoma Pierce County Health Department; and the City of Edgewood. These comments were all technical in nature, and no citizen comments were received. This master plan represents an in-depth analysis and develops a long-range master plan for Northwood which includes a possible consolidation with Hilltop Elementary. The plan (See Appendix ‘D’) has two phases:

Phase I: “The Master Plan - Phase 1 Study concentrates on development of a new playfield that allows for students and community use throughout the year. Underground drainage and an irrigation system are critical to a successful installation. Adding temporary portable structures on site will also be a priority to house expected enrollment growth and the possibility of combining Hilltop Elementary School with Northwood Elementary School.” 1 Phase II: “The goal of the Master Plan -Phase 2 Study is to complete school site development by constructing a new elementary school that may house up to 750 students.” 1

The District included a proposal to build a new 550 elementary with a core for 750 at Northwood on both failed bond attempts in 2007. In 2009 the school was not included because of declining enrollment, and the lack of student generation out of the “Radiance” sub-division in Fife.

1 Underlined for emphasis


Many of the issues discussed in the following analysis have been looked at in the past; this analysis builds on past investigations, and updates them, as well as bringing forward the latest information. It is historically clear that the consolidation of Hilltop has been discussed and planned for in public venues for over ten years.


A. Projected or actual enrollment declines and the likelihood that they shall remain permanent

Historical Growth & Planning - When discussing enrollment at Hilltop Elementary School, one must look at the whole of the North Hill service area which includes Edgewood and portions of Fife as well. This area is served by three elementary schools: Mountain View, Northwood, and Hilltop. Edgemont Junior High serves this area for students grades 7 through 9 students while grades 10 through 12 students attend Puyallup High School. For planning purposes the District uses its October head count of students. Student numbers based on that headcount at the three elementary schools in the region were as follows: Hilltop 211, Northwood 265, and Mt. View 294 students. This results in a combined total of 770 elementary students. As a point of comparison the District’s largest elementary schools had an October 2008 enrollment of: 861 at Carson Elementary, 715 at Firgrove Elementary, and 707 students at Hunt Elementary. Out of the District’s 22 elementary schools, Hilltop is the smallest followed by Northwood, Maplewood, and Mt. View. Thus this region houses three of the District’s four smallest schools as of October, 2008. The District’s educational specifications for the elementary level set either a 550 student or a 750 student elementary as the standard. The following charts show the population of schools in the North Hill planning area over the years.


NORTHWOOD ELEMENTARY STUDENT HEAD COUNT

215

213 22

5

280

318

297

280

281

264

243 26

0

244

233

227 24

4 271

274

274

250

236

215 22

5 240

243

239

230

229

201

203

206

175

208

260 27

3

265

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Year

Stud

ent N

umbe

r

EDGEMONT JUNIOR HIGH STUDENT HEAD COUNT

445

436

429 44

8

409 43

5

422 44

1

430

429

404 43

0

429

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Year

Stud

ent N

umbe

r


HILLTOP ELEMENTARY STUDENT HEAD COUNT

547

372

404

398 42

546

139

835

1 369

401

341

304

311

271

267

258

214 22

8 251 26

226

5 278

308

344

323 33

533

431

531

330

230

230

830

428

0 291

288

272

262

242

241

234

211

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1967

1969

1971

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

Year

Stud

ent N

umbe

rMOUNTAIN VIEW ELEMENTARY STUDENT HEAD COUNT

393

350 36

735

732

832

340

036

128

828

827

833

933

332

930

830

230

228

825

730

535

432

232

537

035

736

236

536

235

736

335

734

132

832

331

731

732

331

730

828

729

229

4

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1967

1969

1971

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

Year

Stud

ent N

umbe

r

In 2007 100 students attending Stewart Elementary were moved to Mt. View via the 2007 boundary adjustments made for the opening of Carson and Edgerton, but for these additional students the population of Mt. View would be approximately 100 less students.


One can see from this documentation that the total elementary school population of North Hill has dropped by 125 students in the time period since the incorporation of the City of Edgewood in 1995, and until October 2008, a decrease of 14%. During that time each school’s student numbers changed as follows: Northwood increased by 40 students or 18%, Mountain View decreased by 63 students (even with the addition of 100 students in 2007 from Stewart Elementary, see chart page 7) or 18%, and Hilltop decreased by 102 students or 33%. On a District wide level the population of elementary students, in the same time period increased by 1,431 students or 15%. At the junior high level Edgemont Junior High decreased by 16 students or 4% between 1996 and October 2008. When the CFAC looked at the demographics of the region it saw only a remote possibility of any considerable growth in the North Hill planning area. The City of Edgewood was torn between wanting to limit development and the requirements of the Washington State Growth Management Act, which required cities to plan for their fair share of growth. Nevertheless some growth did occur. City of Edgewood data, shown in Appendix ‘D’, provides the basis for student number calculations. The data are summarized in the following chart with the District’s student generation rates (SGR) applied in order to estimate the number of students that were or will be generated. The chart demonstrates that 207 single family homes were completed in Edgewood generating approximately 86 students.

Single Family Homes

Platting In Progress

Single Family Homes

Completed

Multi Family Homes

Platting In Progress

Multi Family Homes

Completed

317 207 150 0SGR 0.414 0.414 0.126 0.126

Students 131 86 19 0

SGR = Student Gereration Rate (see Puyallup School District, Capital Facilites Plan

75 Plats in the City of Edgewood Completed & In Progress

Plat & Home Data = From City of Edgewood spread sheet with corrections of cell formula and removal of non Puyallup School District plats (see Appendix 'D')


In its 1999 deliberations and analysis the CFAC was also looking at the “Radiance” development, in Fife, for significant growth in this region. Some student growth did come from “Radiance” but not at the same level as in other parts of the District. The student generation rate was significantly less than that in the rest of the District. “Radiance” did, however, generate the most growth in the North Hill region. As of October 2008 counts, the following numbers of students live in “Radiance”: 100 elementary students, 25 junior high students, and 30 high school students. Combining the student generation from “Radiance”, at 100 elementary students, with the student generation of 86 students, within the City of Edgewood, results in a total student generation of 186 elementary students during this period. Yet, during this same time frame, the number of elementary students actually declined by 125 students. What this means is that, but for the student generation driven by new homes, the region would have dropped by 311 elementary students. The region in fact did not grow in terms of student numbers in the first 13 years of incorporation, rather elementary numbers dropped by 14% during a period of time when the District grew by 15% in the elementary ranks overall, this in spite of new students being generated due to new homes being built. In effect the number of elementary students graduating out and leaving the area significantly exceeded the number of new students arriving. Future Growth Potential Five to Six Year Window - Long term growth may come to the Edgewood community, but little short term growth is expected. The 2006 CFAC report projects a growth of 91 elementary students from the October 2008 enrollment, which could be expected by the year 2016 (See Appendix B, page 37). These projections were made in a time of high growth throughout the District, assuming a growth economy. The economy, especially the housing market has changed drastically since the deliberations of the 2006 CFAC, in fact the elementary population of the three elementaries has declined by 17 students over the past three years. The expectation is that the economy, and the attendant housing market, will again pick up. At this point, when this will occur is not certain. There are currently no valid or reliable economic indicators that offer insight into when an upswing may again occur. For the purposes of this study we will assume that it is at best, in a year. In an effort to update its demographic projections, using development activity within the City of Edgewood as the data point, the District asked for an update from the City and received it for inclusion in this report. The City’s raw data can be reviewed in Appendix ‘E’ of this report. Using that data one can make a determination of student generation. There are 317 potential single family and 150 multi-family units in the sub-division process yet to be built. Applying the District’s student generation factor of .414 for single family, and .126 for multi-family one arrives at a student generation number of 150 students (see previous chart) within the Puyallup School District and the jurisdiction of the City of Edgewood over the next five years or so, providing the economy picks up again within one year.


Growth in those portions of the City of Fife within the Puyallup School District also needs to be considered. There is minimal activity in Fife, limited to one approved subdivision. The Valley Haven sub-division has 59 single family units yet to build. Apply the District’s .414 student generation factor to 59 results in 24 students. Thus the total number of students generated by new homes would be 174 students. Based upon the above calculations, the total number of students would grow from 770 students in October 2008 to at most 944 students in October of 2015. This calculation, however, does not take into account the aging and concurrent reduction of the number of students during that same period of time during which new housing is built. As one can see from the discussion regarding “Historical Growth and Planning”, even though new homes generate new students, the overall population does not necessarily grow because the aging/graduation (outflow) of students actually exceeds growth. That is exactly what has happened in the North Hill Planning area since 1995. The area’s total elementary student population actually dropped by 125 students even though 186 new elementary students were generated by new homes being constructed. We do know that over the next five years our existing sixth grade elementary cohorts will be graduating and that they will need to be replaced, see the following chart.

NORTH HILL ELEMENTARY STUDENTS SUMMARY OCTOBER 2008 HEADCOUNT SIXTH GRADE COHORTS GRADUATING IN FIVE YEAR PERIOD

Grade Level Hilltop Mt. View NorthwoodK 21 42 41 1 24 42 38 2 40 36 42 1183 30 47 30 1074 30 37 37 1045 32 51 35 1186 34 39 42 115

Sub Totals: 211 294 265 562 Grand

Total:770

Cohorts Graduating in Five Year Period:

562

Obviously to expect new home construction to completely replace the entire graduating cohort is not reasonable. To assume that every new student generated will result in a student’s worth of growth is equally unreasonable. We do know that the ratio of student growth to new students generated has historically been 125 (decline in students) /186 (students generated by home construction) or .67. If one were to apply that ratio to 174 students generated by new homes (174 X .67) one would expect a reduction of 117 students over the next five years.


In order for growth to occur the existing trend would need to be reversed. An investigation into that possibility is beyond the scope of this study. The District will continue to monitor the student numbers in this region on an annual basis and make adjustments as needed. For the purposes of this study and planning for the next five to six years the District will use the very conservative (on the high end) number of 87 (half of 174) students growth. This assumes the trend of declining population is reversed and credits 50% of students generated by new homes to growth. So in summation, by the year 2014 (using the very high end of growth) the North Hill service area may grow by 87 elementary students or 4 classrooms (25 students per classroom) at most. Future Growth Potential Beyond Five to Six Years - The ability for the area to grow is driven to some extent by the availability of sewers in the City of Edgewood. The Phase I sewer implementation will help to provide infra structure to allow growth to happen. The following map shows the City’s phased sewer plan. It should be noted that Phase II is not planned to come on line for another 20 years. The map is useful in that one can see the limits of the Phase I area and the underlying zoning. In looking at the plan one must remember that high density residential (apartments & condominiums) have a student generation factor of .126 vs. the single family factor of .414, simply said apartments generate by far fewer students than single family residences. In the long term (six to twenty years out) one would take into account the balance of the Phase I sewer property available for residential construction. It should be noted that the Phase I sewer serves a relatively small portion of the City. Given the economy and the unknown nature of development at this point the District will continue to monitor this activity and make adjustments as needed on an annual basis. Growth Summary Phase I The District’s Northwood Master Plan uses portables during Phase I. For the next five years the addition of four portables will most likely accommodate growth. Phase II Phase II of the master plan has the District constructing a new 550 or 750 student (depending on growth at the time) elementary school at Northwood. Given the estimated population at Northwood for the 2009-10 school year of 381 students, Phase II would allow for the growth of an additional 369 students at the site. This will adequately serve this region for both the short and the long term.


B. The effect that the disposition or retirement shall have on other facilities and on

the District's educational program offering Effects on Other Facilities - There would be effects on the other schools in the region if Hilltop Elementary were closed. Edgemont Junior High Site When Edgemont Junior High School was constructed and opened in 2000, it was designed and built with the core facilities for a typical 800 student junior high in the District, but classrooms for about 550 students. After struggling for over a year in 1998 to find a new site for the new Edgemont Junior High, the District decided to place the new school next to the old one and then remove the old Edgemont Junior High. Since students at Edgemont Junior High students need to cross 24th Street to access their track and field, an elaborate crossing walk was built when the new school was constructed to mitigate the risk of the daily street crossing by students for their physical education classes and athletics. Development of the junior high site is also limited by the fact that a large amount of space on the west side of the campus is utilized as a drain field for the on site sewer system. The intent was to develop the Edgemont/Hilltop site as a contiguous junior high site of approximately 20 acres. It was assumed that if and when the student population in this region grew enough to warrant an addition to Edgemont Junior High, it would be built to increase its capacity to 800 students. The core facilities such as commons, library, and public areas are already in place. The plan also calls for moving the track and field to the 20 acre Edgemont site so that students no longer needed to cross 24th Street on a daily basis. The only viable location for the track and field on the site is on the area currently occupied by Hilltop. In fall 2008 the District approved an inter-local agreement with the City of Edgewood which now makes the junior high site part of the Phase I sewer district. This means that within the next two years the District could eliminate the on-site sewer system and connect to the City’s sewer, thereby liberating the space taken up for the drain field by the on-site system. This would position the District to be able to add on to expand Edgemont if growth might necessitate it. The closing of Hilltop Elementary would allow for the completion of the Edgemont Junior High site plan in the future. Together with the connection to the City sewer, it would allow for an eventual addition to Edgemont, and the moving of the track and field to the site proper. The site on which the track and field are presently housed could then be surplused and sold. The City of Edgewood has expressed and interest in the site in the past.


Current Conditions The following map & chart show where students were housed, by grade level, as of October 2008 in the three North Hill Schools.


Grade Level Hilltop Mt. View NorthwoodK 21 42 411 24 42 382 40 36 423 30 47 304 30 37 375 32 51 356 34 39 42

Sub Totals: 211 294 265

Grand Total: 770

NORTH HILL ELEMENTARY STUDENTS SUMMARY

OCTOBER 2008 HEADCOUNT

In September 2007 elementary boundaries throughout the district were realigned. To reinforce the North Hill population and expand the educational offerings, approximately 100 students were reassigned from valley schools to North Hill schools. As a result, the 770 elementary student numbers reflected in the chart above include 670 North Hill students plus 100 valley students.


Service Area Change For Consolidation This approach realigns school service areas to move students from Hilltop to Northwood and Mt. View as is shown on the following potential boundary map and the student distribution matrix.


It should be noted that District plans call for moving the special education preschool program to Maplewood Elementary regardless of the disposition of Hilltop Elementary. There are 20 fewer students anticipated for the 2009 - 2010 school year because of the reduced kindergarten enrollment and the graduation of the 6th grade. Kindergarten estimates are based on the current data as of April 7, 2009. The closure of Hilltop Elementary would be in alignment with plans for the region. During the effort to purchase land for the new Edgemont Junior High school an additional five acres of land were purchased at Northwood Elementary School. At that time Northwood, was also connected to the Pierce County Sewer system. This in effect made it, and it continues to be the most viable site for elementary growth in the region. Current plans call for the replacement of Northwood Elementary with a new school for either 550 or 750 students depending on growth in the region.

Mt. View Sections Northwood SectionsK 45 2 50 21 51 3 53 22 53 2 51 23 55 2 63 34 51 2 56 25 52 2 52 26 62 2 56 2

Sub Totals: 369 15 381 15

Region Student Totals: 750Region Section Totals: 30

Potential Students & Sections Via Consolidation at Northwood & Mt. View


UP

UP

5th Grade

DN

DN

UP

6th Grade6th Grade

Main Building

Playshed

5th Grade

Northwood Elementary Student Housing Approximately 381 students would be served by Northwood elementary school during the 2009-2010 school year. Classes would be located as shown on the following maps. One classroom would be vacant. Future year expansion would be accommodated by portable classrooms until such time a new elementary school building is constructed per the Northwood master plan Phases I & II approved by the Board in 2006.

Office

Counselor

Sto

r.

OT/PT

Res

ourc

eC

lass

room

Kindergarten

VacantClassroom

Counselor

Multi Purpose

StageMusic

2nd Grade

4th Grade 4th Grade

3rd Grade

3rd Grade 3rd Grade

2nd Grade

Girl

sBo

ys

1st Grade Title I Lounge Work

Prin

.

Con

f.

OfficeNurse

Men

Boys/GirlsWomen

Girls

Boys

Comp. Lab

Kitchen

Boys

Girls

Storage

Cust.

Mec

h.

Cust.

1st Grade

08-01-107

Hall

Boys/Girls

Hall

Hal

lH

all

Library

Hall

Hall

Entry

Storage


Storage

Multi-Purpose

KitchenServing

Restroom

Boys

Girls

Cust.07-01-112

Hall

Elec.Mech/Elec.

Women

MenLounge

Office

WorkroomHealth

Principal

Restroom

Hall

Restroom

Cus

t.

1st Grade

Hall

1st Grade

2nd Grade2nd Grade

1st Grade

Resource

Coats

Coats

Office

Office

Office

Office

CoatsCoats

Restroom

Girls

Boys

Office

Office

Hall

Closet

Main Building 07-0107-02

07-03

07-05 4th Grade

3rd Grade

UP

UP

UP

3rd GradeUP

Storage

Title I

Music Classroom

Foyer

Boy

s

Kindergarten

Girl

s

Speech/ Psych Counselor

Mountain View Elementary Student Housing Approximately 369 students would be served at Mountain View elementary school during the 2009-2010 school year. Classes would be located as shown on the following maps.

OfficeOffice

Office

OfficeOffice

Library

ReadingBoys

Girls

Stor.

Mech.

Coats

5th Grade 5th Grade

Coats

6th Grade

4th Grade

OT/PT

6th Grade

Office Coats

Coats Coats

Coats

Hall

Hall


Effects on the Educational Program Offering Student Achievement – In order to maximize student achievement, the following elements should be present in educational environments:

placement options for students that address varying learning and teaching styles

placement options that allow for enhanced student to student interaction among

a broader group of peers in the classroom and during recess

placement options that provide for a combination of student groupings

opportunities for teachers to collaborate both horizontally across grade levels as well as vertically through grade levels

opportunities to participate in professional development in response to student

needs, changes in curriculum, and teaching methodologies.

breadth of program and extra-curricular offerings such as the arts, clubs, special education, remediation, and intervention

availability of educational specialists in the areas of physical education, library,

music, band, orchestra, and related special education services such as speech occupational and physical therapy, behavior, and counselors


Past considerations: The District has considered and used a variety of options to address both over and under utilization of buildings throughout the District and the North Hill Planning Region. Such options include the following:

1. Shuttles - The district uses shuttles to distribute students in order to balance class size and reduce combination grade classes. Given the small size of the schools in this planning region, this approach was particularly useful in achieving this end. While this approach has been effective in balancing class size for the past 20 years, it is costly and negatively impacts instructional time. First, transportation costs were high because students rode their bus to the school in their home attendance area then transferred to a shuttle for the ride to the school in which they were enrolled. At the end of the day they again rode a shuttle to their service area school and transferred to their regular bus home. Secondly, more importantly, students lost class time riding shuttle busses. Primarily because of this loss of instructional time, the Board ended the practice of shuttling students in 2003.

2. K – 9 Configuration - From 2001 to 2002 the District administered the Hilltop

and Edgemont campus as a “K-9” campus under one administration. Given the fact that the buildings were quite distinctly separated the campus still maintained its full complement of custodial staff, clerical staff, and administrative staff. This approach was abandoned because it did not save resources and it made the management of the site difficult. The District’s educational program specifications do not align with this configuration.

3. Grade Level Realignment – This alignment has been considered and discussed for a number of years. The reason to realign was to avoid split classes and give teachers an opportunity for grade level teaming. This option would realign grades in a K-2; 3-4; and 5-6 configuration with each North Hill school serving one of these grade levels. While this would serve to minimize grade level split classes and encourage grade level teaming is does not work for vertical teaming nor is it in alignment with the current District regional (K-12) concept which seeks to ease student transition between grade spans such as from elementary to junior high and junior high to high school. Such a scheme would add two additional transitions to students in their K-12 educational journey, and it would not save resources by keeping three schools open.


Consolidation Option:

By consolidating three schools into two and moving students from Hilltop to Mt. View and Northwood a number of financial gains will be realized at a time when we must make difficult decisions. The reduction of redundant staff positions over a series of years could result in significant savings. This potential annual cost savings and the ability of the district to enhance educational programs at both Mt. View and Northwood suggest that closure of Hilltop is a viable option that must be considered. The benefits of a smaller school model, at both the elementary and secondary level, have been cited for a number of years. Higher overall student achievement and a reduced effect of socio-economic and demographic factors may be a result of a smaller school enrollment. The reality is that they are dependent on a number of factors and each school has its own unique set of circumstances affecting achievement. Students at Hilltop have not experienced the increased achievement suggested by the research on small schools. Assessment scores have lagged behind those of other North Hill elementary schools and the district average. While slight gains have been made in recent years, Hilltop remains one of the lowest performing schools in the district. Hilltop students have not benefited academically from attending a small school. The district’s top performing elementary schools do not appear to be impacted by size and range from 225 to over 700 students. Our most recent 4th grade WASL results from North Hill schools and the district overall does not seem to show any correlation with size.

2007 – 2008 WASL Results

School

Reading

Math

Writing

Free and Reduced %

Hilltop 61.8% 47.1% 35.3% 18.5%

Northwood 91.9% 81.1% 64.9% 29.2%

Mt. View 76.0% 58.0% 58.0% 30.0%

Puyallup District Average 76.7% 58.6 61.3% 23.0%


Some of the latest research on elementary school size suggests that a student population from 300-400 is an appropriate size for primary schools. The US Department of Education reports that the average enrollment for elementary schools in the nation is 477 students. An example of an improvement to a program that would occur through the consolidation of students at Mt. View and Northwood with populations in the 350-450 would be the orchestra program. Currently there are just two 6th grade students in the Hilltop orchestra class. While this provides students with more individual attention, the limited instrumentation deprives them of the opportunity to have a full orchestra experience until they reach junior high while students in other schools are able to perform in larger groups.


C. Student and staff displacement, including transportation costs to new

facilities and staff reassignment. Transportation -Transportation costs would remain neutral because most students are being picked up by bus at present. Only 25 to 30 students currently walk to Hilltop Elementary school. Staff Displacement - If Hilltop were closed, staff would need to be realigned throughout the District. Pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement with the Puyallup Education Association, the certificated instructional staff at Hilltop would be involuntarily transferred to other assignments. Depending on their seniority and the number of vacant positions that are available, they would either be able to choose their new assignments or be placed in assignments for which they are qualified. They would participate in that process with all other teachers involuntarily transferred from their buildings or programs this year (approximately 125 staff). To the extent that layoffs are necessary, it would be decided on a District-wide basis in various employment categories, including elementary education, and would be driven by seniority. Assignment to a building or a program that is to be closed does not raise, or lower, an employee's risk of layoff. The other staff at Hilltop (secretaries, custodians, para-educators, food services) would be subject to a staffing process pursuant to the collective bargaining agreements covering each employee group. Generally each would be eligible for vacancies elsewhere in the District in their job classification, or, if their seniority is sufficient, would be placed in a position currently held by a less senior employee.


D. Potential for renovation. Hilltop Elementary School was opened in 1957 as part of a separate Edgemont School District. The school is located on North Hill, east of Meridian Avenue North and north of 24th Street East. The Edgemont School District consolidated with the Puyallup School District in 1967. Remodeling work was done at Hilltop Elementary in 1970 and 1977. In addition, a new Multi-Purpose Room Building was constructed in 1977. In 1990, the Main Classroom Building was modernized. This remodel was a state matched project with local funding coming from the 1984 Bond Issue. The permanent buildings have a total of 12 general-use classrooms, one (1) kindergarten room, two (2) special education classrooms and a number of smaller specialty instructional spaces. In addition, the school has one (1) of the District's prototype play sheds. In March 2004, the building had a Condition and Suitability Score of 94.0 for the main building and 63.27 for the gymnasium. Hilltop will be eligible for state matching funds for modernization or new construction in lieu of modernization in the year 2010. While the building could be remodeled again, given the configuration of the structure it would be very difficult to meet today’s educational specification. The site is planned to be utilized by Edgemont Junior High for relocation of the track. The District would want to expand and renovate to meet the District’s minimum size of 550 students or 750 students, and the site would not adequately support such an upsizing, thus there is no real opportunity for renovation.


E. Financial considerations in terms of such factors as staff costs, operating and maintenance cost, the potential revenue from sale or lease of property, the cost of closure and transferring operations elsewhere, the impact on the potential receipt of state matching funds for school construction

Staff, Operating Costs – The following chart shows the anticipated staff and operating cost savings if the building were closed. Operating Cost Comparisons – The following table looks at annual operating costs in terms of per student costs.

Description Total Cost

Administrator (130,500)Clerical (54,500)Paraeducator (32,500)Custodial (109,000)Utilities (23,000)

Grand Total (349,500)

Hilltop Elementary ClosureEstimated Annual Financial Savings

TotalCarson Hilltop Mt. View Northwood North Hill

Administrators 261,000 130,500 130,500 130,500 391,500Clerical 109,000 54,500 62,700 62,700 179,900Paraeducators 65,000 32,500 37,000 37,000 106,500Custodial 191,000 109,000 109,000 109,000 327,000Utilities 58,400 23,200 32,800 34,400 90,400Total Overhead Costs $684,400 $349,700 $372,000 $373,600 $1,095,300

October 2008 Students 861 211 294 265 770

Overhead Cost/Student $795 $1,657 $1,265 $1,410 $1,422

TotalCarson Hilltop Mt. View Northwood North Hill

Administrators 261,000 0 130,500 130,500 261,000Clerical 109,000 0 70,900 70,900 141,800Paraeducators 65,000 0 41,500 37,000 78,500Custodial 191,000 0 109,000 109,000 218,000Utilities 58,400 0 32,800 34,400 67,200Total Overhead Costs $684,400 $0 $384,700 $381,800 $766,500

October 2008 Students 861 0 391 379 770

Overhead Cost/Student $795 $0 $984 $1,007 $995

Analysis of Overhead Cost/Student if Hilltop Closed

Analysis of Overhead Cost/Student in Current Configuration


From the preceding table one can see that in the current configuration Hilltop Elementary has the highest operating cost in the District when viewed on a per student basis. With the proposed reconfiguration and consolidation of schools the per student operating costs for North Hill elementary schools are much closer to those of our most efficiently operating elementary schools like Carson Elementary. Impact on State Match Funding – Hilltop Elementary would be declared surplus to the needs of the District and demolished. After a period of five years the 30,762 square feet of the former Hilltop would be eligible for full State new construction matching funds. If the construction of a new Northwood Elementary would occur prior to the five years the matching funds could be available via a “new in lieu of remodel” project approach, which would allow for the same State matching fund eligibility. Capital Costs - There will be a one time capital cost of demolishing the facility and grading and seeding the site of approximately $200,000. Capital Moving Costs – Moving furniture, fixtures, equipment, and curriculum materials now at Hilltop for use at Mt. View and Northwood would require a one time expense of approximately $20,000.


F. Safety, health and fire regulations Other than the ability to improve safety by relocating the track and field to the Hilltop site there are no other life safety issues related to the building.


G. Whether or not the facility may effectively be used for other purposes. District plans have shown that the building would best serve the District if removed from the Edgemont Junior High site in order to allow the track and field to be moved to that location thereby eliminating a long standing safety concern with students crossing 24th Street to get to the existing track and field. There has been some limited consideration for use as the expansion space for classrooms at Edgemont Junior High. The building while functioning on an acceptable level as an elementary school in the past would be difficult to remodel to serve as junior high classrooms. While it has served the District well in the past it will not carry it through the 21st century. The District has no other uses for the building in its long term plans if closed. Ongoing utilization of the building would not allow for moving of the field, thus eventual demolition is the logical course of action.


SUMMARY: The District’s overhead operating expenses are approximately $349,500 per year at Hilltop Elementary, all of which could be redirected to other educational expenses by consolidating Hilltop Elementary with another school. That equates to roughly seven teaching positions. The total elementary population of the North Hill planning area is 770 students but that includes 100 students from the valley (former Stewart Elementary service area), thus the region’s real student population is 670. The entire population of students on North Hill could reasonably be served in a single school rather than the three schools that are currently open on North Hill. Closure of at least one elementary school on North Hill is prudent and reasonable given the educational and financial interests. The District is undergoing historically unprecedented budget cuts due to the severely reduced funding from the State of Washington. These saved annual operating costs could be better applied to facilitate student learning. The closure of Hilltop Elementary would have no detrimental effect on student learning; rather it would enhance learning by allowing for better horizontal and vertical faculty teaming as well as more versatile student placement. Even in a period of time without drastic State revenue shortfalls, moving these resources strategically to improve student learning would make sense. Given the unprecedented State revenue shortfall this budget period it not only makes sense but seems imperative to reallocate these District resources, thus the Superintendent hereby recommends the Board consider closure of Hilltop Elementary.


APPENDIX Appendix A …………………Edgemont JH Site Impact, Board Mtgs. & Media ArticlesAppendix B …………………1999 Citizens Facilities Advisory Committee Extract Appendix C ………………….2006 Citizens Facilities Advisory Committee Extract Appendix D ………………….Northwood Elementary Master Plan Appendix E ………………….City of Edgewood Data

Puyallup School DistrictEducation Support, Facilities Department April 13, 2009

Page 1 of 11 Hilltop Analysis

Appendix A

FylesRK

Polygon

FylesRK

Polygon



Appendix A

FylesRK

Polygon



Appendix A



Appendix A

FylesRK

Polygon

Of the Herald .

costs $5.

However, the cost of buildin

8) . L .. . 1,.



Appendix A

FylesRK

Polygon

FylesRK

Polygon

T O W

60-year-old Edgemont Junior High will be demolished for new school

The Puyallup School Board decided unanimously Monday night to de- molish 60-year-old Edgemont Ju- nior High School and build an $18.7 million junior high on the same site.

The five-member board also approved closing Hilltop Elementary School next to the junior hlgh school in six to eight years. The elementary school building would then become part of the new junior high, raising the junior high's capacity to 800 students.

Some Edgewood City Council members said they had hoped the school board would retain the old junior high building at 10909 24th St. E. that opened in 1938. They wanted time to determine if it was feasi- ble to purchase the landmark building and renovate it so it could become a community center, senior citizen center and possibly a future city hall.

But after hearing what the school district went through to find a site to build the new school, a t least one council member was relieved by the school board's decision.

"Hallelujah," Edgewood Council- woman Rose Hill said. "Our biggest concern was that we wanted it in Edgewood. The school board made good on that promise. It's not the perfect site, but costs kept going up."

Rudy Fyles, director of facilities for the school district, said other possible 20-acre sites in Edgewood were either too expensive or had soil that wasn't suitable for the large sewage drain field the school will need.

In March 1997, Puyallup School District voters approved a bond issue of $76.9 million that included $14.8 million to replace Edgemont Junior High School. But the lengthy site search delayed the project by 20 months and the projected cost of the school increased by about $2 million, Fyles said.

Because the board selected the existing school site for new construction, the district also must pay demolition costs, pay for building new

Roy Gallop/The News Tribune

athletic fields and parking lots on the site of the old building after its demolition and pay at least $500,000 more to build a pedestrian overpass or underpass to make a safer crossing to the playfields across 24th Street East, Fyles said.

Some of the extra costs can be cov- ered by interest earnings on the bond money, he said.

After the first site search failed, the district hired a firm that spe- cializes in finding school sites. After a second search, the district considered three possible locations for the new school.

It tried to purchase property from six owners near Northwood Ele- mentary School, 9805 24th St. E. The district bought 5 acres there, and had an option to buy more, but wasn't able to negotiate successfully with four other property owners.

Gail Carlson, one of the four property owners, said her family wanted the new junior high school. One of their children attends Edgemont, she said.

But negotiations with district offi-

cials failed because "they didn't want to pay appraised value," she said.

The district also looked at pur- chasing 22 acres along Meridian Av- enue East in Edgewood, but again, the high cost of land stopped the sale, Fyles said. I

And the district considered a 17- acre site in Edgewood that it owned, ; but determined that wetlands on the I site made it unsuitable for a school.

School Board chairman Terry As- bjornsen said the district had allo- cated $1.5 million for new land, but realized the total land-purchase cost ; had reached $2.5 million. So the district fell back on the old junior high school site that it already owned.

The new school is scheduled to be 1

completed in the winter of 2000- 2001. Students will continue to oc- I cupy the old school until the new one 1 is completed. Then the old school i will be demolished. 1

The new building will hold 550 students. Later, the district will use the Hilltop Elementary School build- i ing next to the junior high, which ! has an established sewage drain I

field, so it can add 250 more junior high students, Fyles said. I

(/ Staff writer Rob Tucker covers , East Pierce County. Reach him at , 253-597-8374 or by e-mail a t rltOp.tribnet.com



Appendix A

FylesRK

Polygon

FylesRK

Polygon

FylesRK

Polygon

1 Work on the "new" Edgemont Junior High is in full swing A rather large trailer has arrived on the front lawn of Edgemont Junior High School. The trailer is being used by the new school's architectural design team, which is com- prised of staff, students, and community members who are working on the planning and design of the new school.

The new building, which is currently planned for construction between the existing Edgeinont and Hilltop Elementary buildings, is scheduled for completion by January 2001. Its projected enrollment at opening will be about 550 students. Assuming the district stays on schedule, excavation for the new building will start this summer and will be followed by construction of the new building beginning in November 1999. Once the new building is occupied, the old building will be removed to make room for new baseball fields and parking, which will be constructed during summer 200 1.

Planning for this project began six years ago when the Edgemont Junior High Facilities Advisory Committee reported its recommendations to the Puyallup School Board. Their message clearly recoin- mended the construction of a new building as opposed to remodeling the school. Further, they recommended building the new school on a new site.

Upon passage of the 1997 bond, district officials began an intensive search for land in the Edgewood area. With the help of a real estate consultant, more than 5,700 acres of land were evaluated. No available land fitting the criteria was found. As a final effort to locate land, a specialized consulting group was hired in July 1998. Again, no available land was found that would percolate and allow the district to put in a drain field to serve the needs of the school. As the land search ended, it was clear that the prospects for fmding another site were nonexistent, and the delay was increasing the cost of the project by about $100,000

Sixth graders from nearby elementary schools are helping to make plans for their future Edgemont Junior High. Students pictured, left to right, are Adina ~ a n ~ u b a t (Hilltop), Josh ~hampneys (Hilltop), Nathaniel Conrad (Mountain View), Edgemont Principal Tim McKamey, Brian Pease (Northwood), Rachel Lamphear (Mountain View), and Sarah Brooks (Northwood).

per month. So, the decision was made to is a compromise but is the best solution build the school on the existing site. available to the district. Once completely

developed, the site will address all the In an effort to meet the space needs of a deficiencies articulated by the 1993 750-student junior high school (projected Edgemont Facilities Advisory Committee. long-term capacity), the students at Hilltop The new Hilltop site is undetermined at this Elementary School will be relocated within time; however, a long-range plan is a six- to twelve-year time frame. The school presently being developed by the Citizens building will be "attached to the new junior Facilities Advisory Co~nmittee that will high school anddwill become part of the address this issue as well as other needs to total building. The total site for the new house students. Edgemont Junior High School will be just short of 20 acres, the site size the district Community members are invited to drop in had been looking for in its property search. to the regularly scheduled meetings of the If sewers can be run to the site at some Citizens Advisory Coin~nittee to check on point in the future, the design will allow for the progress of the project and to provide moving the track and fields, currently input regarding the design. For a schedule located across 24th street, onto the 20-acre of design meetings, please contact Tiin site. In this final stage, the Edgemont site McKamey, Principal, at 841-8727 or Greg will meet all district's construction require- Brown, Construction Supervisor, at 841- ments for a junior high school site. 8772.

--contributed by Rudy Fyles, Without question, the selection of this path Director of Facilities

Puyallup School DistrictEducation Support, Facilities DepartmentApril 13, 2009


Appendix A

FylesRK

Polygon

FylesRK

Polygon



Appendix B

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Puyallup School District, Facilities Department would like to thank the citizens, staff, and consulting Architects for their participation in the Citizens Facilities Advlsory Committee. If it were not for the dedication and concern of these citizen representatives fiom throughout our district, planning for appro riate facilities for all our students would not be possible. We , sincerely thank the following committee members for the contn l! ution of their time and expertise.

CITIZEN SCHOOL REPRESENTATIVES Craig Murphy Brouillet Elem. Amie Hayes Sunrise Elem.

Doug Olmstead Firgrove Elem.

Lynn Goretti Fruitland Elem

Danna Malkuch Hilltop Elem.

Earnest Phinisey Waller Road Elem.

Mitch Bushnell Wildwood Elem.

Cathy Howell Woodland Elem.

Tamara Trent Hunt Elem. Cindy Krebs Woodland Elem.

Brett Willis Karshner Elem.

Bob Yeanvood Maplewood Elem.

David Pasqual Meeker Elem.

Eileen Dye Mt. View Elem.

Mike Strozyk Zeiger Elem.

Brett Willis Aylen Jr. High

Jeffrey Funk Ballou Jr. High

Eleanor DeVore Edgemont Jr. High

Mark Merrill Northwood Elem. Susan Pemu Ferrucci Jr. High

Cheryl Hyman Pope Elem. Craig Roskelley Kalles Jr. High

Catherine Schwartz Quest

Charlene Jarvis Ridgecrest Elem.

Brett Anderson Riverside Elem.

Sue Fickess Shaw Road Elem

Jim Jenkins Spinning Elem.

Tom Carroll Stewart Elem.

Obra Sherk Stahl Jr. High

J o h n Keller Puyallup High

Ben Heeb Rogers High

Carrie Butler Karshner Museum

Fred Brown Sparks Stadium

CITIZEN SCHOOL BOARD REPRESENTATIVES Ian Douglas Member at Large Wayne Lerch Member at Large

Bob Braddock Member at Large Pam Herrick Member at Large

PUYALLUP SCHOOL DISTRICT STAFF & PRESENTERS Ken Benny Assistant Superintendent Molly Ringo Assistant Superintendent

Carolyn Stella Executive Director Secondary and Vocational Education

Leska Wetterauer Director of Vocational Education

Ann Jones Almlie Executive Director of Special Services

Terry Cavendar Director of Athletics

Rosemary Eckerson )'rector of Karshner buscum

Rudolph J.K. Fyles A I A. Director of Facilities

Shaun Taylor Business Manger

Steve Peretti Director of Technology

Tom Riedel Maintenance Supervisor

Jim Hansen Assistant for Facilities

Carol Wood Staff

Greg Stack

PSD #3 Facilities Department

CONSULTANTS Northwest Architectural Les Kendrick Demographer Company

11 CFAC Report Puyallup School DistrictEducation Support, Facilities Department April 13, 2009


Appendix B

FylesRK

Highlight

FylesRK

Highlight

FylesRK

Highlight

FylesRK

Highlight

FylesRK

Polygon



Appendix B



Appendix B

FylesRK

Polygon

CITIZENS FACILITIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE

REPORT TO THE PUYALLUP SCHOOL DISTRICT

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

MAY 22, 2006

PSD #3 Facilities Department CFAC Report 2006 Puyallup School DistrictEducation Support, Facilities Department

April 13, 2009Page 1 of 18 Hilltop Analysis

Appendix C

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Puyallup School District, Facilities Department would like to thank the citizens, staff, and consulting Architects for their participation in the Citizens Facilities Advisory Committee. If it were not for the dedication and concern of these citizen representatives from throughout our district, planning for appropriate facilities for all our students would not be possible. We sincerely thank the following committee members for the contribution of their time and expertise. CITIZEN SCHOOL REPRESENTATIVES

Kari Afdem Woodland

Pat and Dana Binkley Northwood

Jay BuAylen

rrell, Dan Cardwell Maplewood

Nonnie Chapek Maplewood

Ken Charboneau Puyallup High

Bebe Colley Shaw Road

Anne Dody Sunrise

Kris Durr Hunt

Kris Englund Meeker

Sue Fickess Kalles

George Freeborn Emerald Ridge

Christina Grabski Karshner

Scott Hawn Walker High

Brad Helle Waller Road

Anne Hogenson Spinning

Cyndi Howells Hilltop

Celeste Hurst Ridgecrest

Heather Yuckert- Maggard, Zeiger

Andy McAfee Riverside

Craig McCoy Quest

Karin McNett Sunrise

Kelli McRill Stewart

Karl Zohn Wildwood

CITIZEN SCHOOL BOARD REPRESENTATIVES

Christine Wilson – At Large

PUYALLUP SCHOOL DISTRICT STAFF & PRESENTERS

Dick Cvitanich

Assistant Superintendent Gary Frentress Facilities Planner

Rudolph J.K. Fyles A.I.A.

Executive Director of Facilities Mary Robinson Secretary

Casey Cox Executive Director for Secondary Leadership (Educational Planner)

CONSULTANTS

Bob Katica A.I.A. BCRA Design W. Les Kendrick, Ph.D. Consultant

PSD #3 Facilities Department i CFAC Report 2006 Puyallup School DistrictEducation Support, Facilities Department


Appendix C

FylesRK

Highlight

FylesRK

Highlight

FylesRK

Polygon

MEMBER INTERESTS

As with any group process, the volunteers giving of their time and expertise to this activity come with their own motivation and interests. At the first meetings of the CFAC, we set about the task of identifying those concerns and interest. One of the goals of the facilitator was to address each of the following by, at a minimum, having a discussion around each. It is our belief that this goal has been attained:

• How do we take care of North Hill? • Maintenance & Sustainability • Dealing with growth • North Hill issues loss of students (no growth) • Growth moratorium and higher impact fees • Running out of land - add/upgrade existing schools • Don’t want to go down the wrong track • How are decisions made or not made? • How will Quest be accommodated? • Enjoy structured process • Accountability/credibility • Safety (emergency preparedness) • Growth, keep District great • Assist with research • Integration of Quest • How do we deal with rapid growth (portables)? • Need to catch up and get ahead (proactive)? • Future of Riverside (dilemma of closure of schools during growth) • Ridgecrest grounds condition. • How can we replace portables with new? • E.B. Walker, lots of needs. Great program (grounds, bad shape, public

involvement) • Don’t want the Pope situation to happen again • Lack of grounds maintenance (public help) • Old technology needs to be replaced • Want to learn more • How are decisions made? • Would like info to help with change (understand the culture)

PSD #3 Facilities Department Page 3 CFAC Report 2006 Puyallup School DistrictEducation Support, Facilities Department


Appendix C

FylesRK

Polygon

FylesRK

Polygon

THE CFAC COLLABORATIVE WEB SITE

Soon after deliberations of the CFAC commenced, one of the members suggested the use of a web site as a common work platform. The Facilities department set up a “Share Point” based collaborative web site. The site provides a record of all meetings, planning resources, and the final report. It provides a calendar of events, announcements, connects the CFAC members via e-mail, and thus enables a free flowing dialogue during the process. This was the first committee to utilize this process, and while still in its infancy, it provided the CFAC with a new and dynamic form of communication and processing heretofore not available to a citizens committee in the District. The Facilities Department intends to develop and expand the utilization of this tool in the future.



Appendix C

SUMMARY OF PROJECTS 2006 - 2010 Year Planning Period2

1. New Construction Elementary #25 for 750 Students $ 25.1 M Emerald Ridge High School Classroom Addition $ 14.1 M 2. Program Improvements PHS Phase II Classroom Building $ 30.0 M Classroom Sound Amplification Systems District-Wide $ 3.3 M District-Wide ADA Accessibility Improvements $ 4.2 M Retrofit or Build Sciences Classrooms $ 4.8 M Support Services Consolidations Study & Build Training Center $ 5.4 M 12 Street Transportation Facility Bus Wash/Oil Water Separator $ .62 M Special Education Classrooms 4 District-Wide $ 2.3 M Construct Satellite Transportation Facility $ 10.3 M Upgrade Student Food Service Areas $ 4.7 M RHS Build Practice Gymnasium $ 3.2 M ERHS Build Pool $ 12.4 M 3. Remodel or Replacement Construction Replace Sunrise with a 750 Student Elementary $ 25.1 M Replace Spinning with a 550 Student Elementary $ 19.6 M Replace Firgrove with a 550 Student Elementary $ 19.6 M Provide Upgraded Interim Housing for Quest $ .4 M Replace Northwood with a 750 Student Elementary $ 27.0 M Replace Waller Road Elementary with a 550 Student Elementary $ 20.8 M 4. Life Cycle Improvements Selected Facilities District-Wide $13.5 M (See detail in Life Cycle Improvement section) 5. Land Disposition Purchase a 15 Acre Site for a Magnet 9 -12 HS $ 7.5 M Purchase a 20 Acre Site for J.H. School #8 $ 10.0 M Purchase Land for Elementary #25 (Ongoing 2004 Bond) Sell the Lidford Site Sell Meridian Frontage of Firgrove & Ballou when Firgrove Built 6. Housing Potential Consolidations

Consider More Special Programs at Stewart Which Has Capacity TOTAL: $263.4 M

2 Dollar values are budget estimates for the purpose of basic planning and prioritization. Dollars are in spring 2006 values. These estimates will need to be fine tuned and escalated to the point of bid. These refinements will take place during bond issue planning.



Appendix C

FylesRK

Polygon

2010 - 2014 Year Planning Period3

1. New Construction Elementary #24 for 750 Students Construct $ 25.1 M Junior High #8 Construct $ 33.1 M Roger High School 400 Student Classroom Addition $ 9.7 M 2. Program Improvements PHS Phase III – Pool & Library Building Replacements $ 19.5 M Ferrucci Field Improvements $ 3.0 M Special Education Classrooms (4 District-Wide) $ 2.3 M Support Services Consolidation Phase II $ 15.0 M ERHS Build Stadium $ 12.3 M Ballou Fields Relocation & Improvements $ 3.2 M ERHS Add Baseball & Softball Fields $ 3.3 M Emergency Storage Sheds District-Wide $ .8 M Elementary Climbing Toys & Reader Boards District-Wide $ 1.6 M 3. Remodel or Replacement Construction Pope Remodel $ 11.2 M Ridgecrest Remodel $ 13.5 M Possibly Remodel/Adapt Riverside to New Program Study RHS Performing Arts Remodel $ 7.0 M Mountain View Elementary Remodel & Addition $ 13.9 M Fruitland Elementary Main Building Remodel $ 5.4 M Karshner Elementary Replacement 400 Students $ 12.6 M Wildwood Remodel & Addition to 550 Students $ 13.8 M Karshner Museum Remodel (Use Grant Funds $4.2 M) 4. Life Cycle Improvements Selected Facilities District-Wide $15.0 M 5. Land Disposition None 6. Housing Potential Consolidations

Potential Hilltop & Northwood Consolidation in Future Requires 750 Northwood Potential Riverside & Waller Road Consolidation in Future Requires 550 Waller Road

TOTAL: $221.1 M 3 Dollar values are budget estimates for the purpose of basic planning and prioritization. Dollars are in spring 2006 values. These estimates will need to be fine tuned and escalated to the point of bid. These refinements will take place during bond issue planning



Appendix C

FylesRK

Polygon

2014 - 2018 Year Planning Period4

1. New Construction

Will be developed during next planning period as growth trends become more clear.

2. Program Improvements PHS Phase IV – Gymnasium Replacement & Site Completion $21.0 M Special Education Classrooms 4 District-Wide $ 2.3 M Stahl Junior High Field Improvements $ 3.5 M Support Services Consolidation Phase III $15.0 M Warehouse Addition Phase I (Service Consolidations & Expansion) $ 6.3 M Warehouse Addition Phase II (Firwood Replacement) $ 5.7 M ERHS Add Two Tennis Courts $ .4 M 3. Remodel or Replacement Construction Ferrucci J.H. Remodel $ 24.9 M Hunt Elementary Remodel $ 8.0 M RHS Pool Remodel $ 5.7 M Brouillet Elementary Remodel $ 8.7 M Hilltop Elementary Replacement (If consolidated with NW) $ 7.8 M Shaw Road Elementary Remodel $ 9.1 M Riverside Elementary Remodel to Then Current Program $ 4.0 M 4. Life Cycle Improvements Selected Facilities District-Wide $15.0 M 5. Land Disposition None 6. Housing Potential Consolidations None TOTAL: $137.4 M

4 Dollar values are budget estimates for the purpose of basic planning and prioritization. Dollars are in spring 2006 values. These estimates will need to be fine tuned and escalated to the point of bid. These refinements will take place during bond issue planning



Appendix C

Study Process The overall context of the CFAC planning process can be seen in the following illustration.

THE CONTEXT OF THE CFAC PLANNING PROCESS 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Even as the District is in the implementation phase of the 2004 Bond Program, work on planning by the CFAC is occurring. This allows the District to be in a position to be able to run the subsequent bond issue to implement the needs for the next planning period. As future bond programs are implemented the planning cycle continues, always dropping the four years being implemented and adding the next four years. With this approach and the passage of funding measures by the tax payer, the educational needs of students can be met as they occur.



Appendix C

The issues surrounding Capital Facilities needs in the Puyallup School District are both intricate and complex. The age of facilities, their size, capacity, location, and physical condition are all part of the equation. Beyond these factors, the needs of academic and other programs, population growth, neighborhood preferences, and the history of the District must also be considered. To allow the CFAC to make informed recommendations, it was necessary to first provide them with information on these factors. To this end, District staff, professionals, and officials were brought into meetings to inform the CFAC about specific issues. A summary of how the CFAC has dealt with these issues can be found in the following listing of meetings, which shows the topics for each of the CFAC meetings. MEETINGS September 20 At Educational Service Center (ESC), Second Introduction and Kick-

off Contact Information, Basic Procedures, Introductions, Members Interests, Four Corners Activity, Scope of Committee Work

September 29 At Educational Service Center (ESC), Second Introduction and Kick-

off Contact Information, Basic Procedures, Introductions, Members Interests, Four Corners Activity, Scope of Committee Work

October 13 At Educational Service Center (ESC), Small Groups Review CFAC

Tasks & Report Out, Review Operating Procedures (Revise & Agree to Adhere), Establish Meeting Dates, Discuss District Bus Tour.

November 1 Tour Spinning Elementary, Review Building Condition Evaluation

Form (BCEF) System, Apply BCEF to Spinning to Learn About Process, Discussion About Cost vs. Benefit Analysis to determine Mod vs. Replacement, Review Projects on Last CFAC List not on 2004 Bond

November 10 Tour Sunrise Elementary, Elect Co-Chairs, Review State Funding &

Eligibility Schedule, Create Prioritization Criteria, Perform Preliminary Prioritization of Mod & Replacement Projects

November 20 Sunday District Bus Tour December 13 Tour Firgrove Elementary, Review Mod vs. Replacement Prioritization

Criteria, Small Group Prioritization Activity, Preliminary Large Group Mod vs. Replacement Prioritization

January 5 Tour Waller Road Elementary, Dick Cvitanich District Curriculum &

Instruction Needs Presentation

PSD #3 Facilities Department Page 10 CFAC Report 2006

Puyallup School DistrictEducation Support, Facilities Department


Appendix C

January 17 Tour Edgemont Junior High & Hilltop Elementary, Review Preliminary List of Program Improvement Projects, Review New Committee Working Web Site

February 2 Tour Pope Elementary, Les Kendrick Demographics Presentation,

Review South Hill East & West Developments & Growth Project Needs, Review District-Wide Housing Needs at: Elementary, Junior High, & High School

February 23 Tour Walker High School, Review Valley & North Hill Planning Area

Capacities & Growth Needs, List Growth Projects in Those Planning Areas.

March 2 Tour Northwood Elementary, Review Board Report Presentation,

Identify & List Program Driven Projects March 13 Update report to the Board of Directors was given March 14 Tour PHS, Review Property, Needs, Identify Program Projects Scope

& Costs March 25 Saturday Work Session, Tour Riverside Elementary, Place Projects in

Planning Periods by Planning Areas March 30 Tour RHS, Place Life Cycle Projects in Planning Periods by Planning Areas April 13 Tour Wildwood Elementary, Finalize Placement of Projects in

Planning Periods District Wide, Discuss Priority Filters April 27 Place Support Services Projects District-Wide, Discuss Project

Priorities, & Filters May 4 Set Project Priorities Review & Finalize Draft Report May 15 Review final draft of report for School Board submittal. The format of meetings was typically around a tour of a “needy” facility, the presentation of information regarding a particular subject area, the processing of information, and planning for next steps.




Appendix C

FylesRK

Polygon

FylesRK

Polygon

North Hill




Appendix C

REG

ION

AL G

RO

WTH

PRO

JECTIO

NS

N

orth Hill R

egion Grow

th Plan P

SD

#3 Facilities Departm

ent

P

age 37

CFA

C

Report 2006



Appendix C

REMODEL OR REPLACEMENT PROJECTS 2006 – 2010 Planning Period Replace Sunrise with a 750 Student Elementary $ 25.1 M Replace Spinning with a 550 Student Elementary $ 19.6 M Replace Firgrove with a 550 Student Elementary $ 19.6 M Provide Upgraded Interim Housing for Quest $ .4 M Replace Northwood with a 750 Student Elementary $ 27.0 M Replace Waller Road Elementary with a 550 Student Elementary $ 20.8 M 2010 – 2014 Planning Period Pope Remodel $ 11.2 M Ridgecrest Remodel $ 13.5 M Possibly Remodel/Adapt Riverside to New Program Study RHS Performing Arts Remodel $ 7.0 M Mountain View Elementary Remodel & Addition $ 13.9 M Fruitland Elementary Main Building Remodel $ 5.4 M Karshner Elementary Replacement 400 Students $ 12.6 M Wildwood Remodel & Addition to 550 Students $ 13.8 M Karshner Museum Remodel (Use Grant Funds $4.2 M) 2014 – 2018 Planning Period Ferrucci J.H. Remodel $ 24.9 M Hunt Elementary Remodel $ 8.0 M RHS Pool Remodel $ 5.7 M Brouillet Elementary Remodel $ 8.7 M Hilltop Elementary Replacement (If consolidated with NW) $ 7.8 M Shaw Road Elementary Remodel $ 9.1 M Riverside Elementary Remodel to Then Current Program $ 4.0 M




Appendix C

FylesRK

Polygon

FylesRK

Polygon

REPLACE NORTHWOOD ELEMENTARY WITH A 750 STUDENT SCHOOL

NEEDS STATEMENT: The District is experiencing growth within the Northwood boundaries and should provide a facility that could accommodate a student population of as high as 750 students.

PRINCIPAL’S IDENTIFIED NEEDS:

1. Open school layout is not conducive to teacher collaboration and planning. 2. Library is high circulation area. Noise problem. 3. Classroom operable walls allow noise transition, lack outlets. 4. Facility lacks multi-purpose/science/parent area. 5. Technology limitations, computer lab inadequate. 6. Lunches queue in the entry foyer. 7. Office lacks privacy, secured storage, time out area, conference space. 8. Workroom lacks counter space for projects. 9. Supervision of outdoor play areas is difficult.

10. Growth will cause problems for bus/parent drop off. 11. Building has never been remodeled since it was built. It is worn and outdated.

FACTS:

• The original 1974 open school layout is not conducive to teaching and lacks many needed program spaces.

• New housing developments are estimated to produce approximately 150 students.

• The possible consolidation of Hilltop and Northwood Elementary Schools, could result in an additional 250 students bringing a current student population to approximately 577 students.

• Northwood is located on an 18-acre site, and is connected to sewer. • Northwood is currently eligible for State matching funds.

SUGGESTED REMEDIES:

• Build a new 70,843 square foot elementary school. • Consider the consolidation of Hilltop Elementary with Northwood into one school.

ESTIMATED COST: Total Cost $24,276,967




Appendix C

FylesRK

Polygon

REMODEL MOUNTAIN VIEW ELEMENTARY AT PRESENT CAPACITY 300

NEEDS STATEMENT:

Mountain View Elementary School is in need of expanded/improved core program spaces and parking facilities. Due to the age of the building, systems are beginning to reach the end of their useful life.

PRINCIPAL’S IDENTIFIED NEEDS: 1. Lack of meeting space, no stage in the multi-purpose room. 2. Library is very small. Access to books is limited. 3. Chalkboards need to be replaced with whiteboards. 4. Workroom is small. 5. Office lacks coat storage. 6. Gym and other areas may not handle additional students. 7. Parking expansion and improvements are needed.

FACTS: • The original 1966 school was modernized and added onto in 1991, and is

eligible for State Assistance Funding in 2011. The BCEF score of 77. • Current school population/capacity of 316 housed in 28,862 square feet of

building is projected to remain stable over the next ten years. • The library, administrative areas, and multipurpose room do not meet current

District educational specifications or do not exist. • Approximately 48 parking stalls exist after the 2006 re-striping project. Traffic

congestion and street parking problems persist.

SUGGESTED REMEDIES: • Remodel the whole facility and provide additional building area at Library,

administration area, and add a cafeteria, to enhance function ability of the school spaces for a total of 8,800 square feet of additional space. Provide additional parking and improved vehicular and pedestrian circulation for normal school day and after school event activities. The school continues to house a 300-student population through 2016.

ESTIMATED COST: Total Cost $13,870,119




Appendix C

REPLACE HILLTOP ELEMENTARY TO EXPAND EDGEMONT JUNIOR HIGH TO

800 STUDENT CAPACITY NEEDS STATEMENT:

The District should consider consolidating Hilltop with Northwood Elementary school into a new larger facility at the Northwood site, to accommodate population growth and allow for future expansion at Edgemont Junior High as was the plan when Edgemont Junior High was designed and built.

PRINCIPAL’S IDENTIFIED NEEDS:

1. Gymnasium has no stage. 2. The Library is undersized. 3. Lunches are served in the Junior High Building. 4. Carpets need to be replaced.

FACTS:

• The original 1957 school has had improvements over the years with a modernization as recent as 1989,

• Current school population is 245 with a capacity of 316. • The student population is projected to increase by 5 students by 2016. • The detached gymnasium built in 1977, with a BCEF score of 63, is eligible for

modernization or replacement. • Edgemont students need to cross 24th Street to access the track and field. • The ultimate timing of this project will depend on growth factors, boundary

adjustments, and potential magnet programs

SUGGESTED REMEDIES: If the District consolidates Hilltop Elementary with Northwood Elementary at the Northwood site, then a replacement of Hilltop for Edgemont Junior High use makes sense. This includes the addition of 17,241 square feet of classroom space and the relocation of the track and field to the Edgemont site. (If consolidation is not pursued, then consider a modernization or life cycle improvement projects at the gymnasium.) ESTIMATED COST: Total Cost $7,840,593




Appendix C

FylesRK

Polygon

Housing POTENTIAL CONSOLIDATIONS 2006 – 2010 Planning Period Consider More Special Programs at Stewart Which Has Capacity Study Riverside & Waller Road Consolidation Study Hilltop & Northwood Consolidation 2010 – 2014 Planning Period Potential Hilltop & Northwood Consolidation in Future Requires 750 Northwood

Potential Riverside & Waller Road Consolidation in Future Requires 550 Waller Road

2014 – 2018 Planning Period None




Appendix C

FylesRK

Polygon

CONSIDER CONSOLIDATION OF HILLTOP & NORTHWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

NEEDS STATEMENT:

Hilltop and Northwood Elementary schools have traditionally had small student populations, which many times has resulted in split classes. At some point Edgemont Junior High School will need to grow into the space where Hilltop presently is. This was part of the plan when Edgemont was built. The District needs a good alternative for Hilltop students when this happens.

FACTS:

• The population of Hilltop was 242 students in October of 2005 • The population of Northwood was 208 students in October of 2005 • The combined total of students between Hilltop and Northwood is anticipated at

about 577 students in 2016. • Population growth in the North Hill Region is very negligible except for the

population coming out of Fife in the Northwood service area. • Northwood has a sewer connection. • Northwood has an 18 acre site which could house a 750 student school with lots

of field space and parking. • Edgemont may need to expand in the future as was planned during its

construction. It has the core facilities for 800 students. • The Hilltop Elementary School septic drain field will fail at some point in the

future. With no sewer availability, it will be very difficult to replace the existing drain field and still fully utilize the site for student activities

SUGGESTED REMEDY:

Replace Northwood Elementary School with a 650 to 750 student elementary school and consolidate the two schools at the Northwood site. ESTIMATED COST: Total Cost $ Part of the Northwood Replacement




Appendix C

FylesRK

Polygon

INTRODUCTION

MASTER PLAN - COMMITTEE MEMBERS

EXISTING CONDITIONS

PLANNED DEVELOPMENT

master plan - phase 1

master plan - phase 2

SITE STUDY OPTIONS

APPENDICES

zoninglplanning

public rmrks

critical areas checklist and wetland analysis report

committee meeting minutes

1 Page

1 Page

4 Pages

4 Pages

4 Pages

35 Pages



Appendix D

Northwood Elementary School Site Utilization Master Plan

Puyallup School District No. 3

INTRODUCTION

The Site Utilization Master Plan Study for Northwood Elementary School is divided in two parts. Phase 1, which is funded, is to determine and site a new al l weather play£ield

Phase 2, which is not funded, studies the ability of the site to support a possible replacement school for approximately 750 students. The Master Plan Committee also discussed a school size of 550 students.

Retaining the existing school and its operation are essential until a new school is consttucted and occupied

Consideration also needs to be given to short term enrollment growth for the existing school; therefore locating additional portables is necessary. Planned growth and development, guided by program and curriculum needs is key to successful facilities that provide education

The selected concept to site a new field should be utilized as a tool that guides growth on this site, htst to serve educational needs, then the communiq-

The master plan should provide flexibility for future development to allow for change in programs, program requirements and funding priorities.

Site development considerations included review of available record information on soils, storm drainage, utilities and site accessories.

A Critical Areas review was undertaken and the report is included in the appendices. The review identified the presence of a wetland on the site and possible flood hazard

The ideas and options generated by this study were reviewed in a meeting with the City of Edgewood. Information and input by the City is included in the appendices along with a stmunary of City of Edgewood's Municipal Code for Zoning and Plonning Requirements.



Appendix D



MASTER PLAN COMMlllEE MEMBERS


Lisa Russell: Principal Barb Brooks: Playground supervisor/parent Lynne Rosellini: Executive Director - E.S. Leadership Rick Wells: School Dismct Athletic Director Jeanne Rynne: Director, Capital Projects Gary Frentress: Facilities Planner Rudy Fyles: Executive Director, Fadties Casey Cox: Executive Director - Secondary School Leadership

Design Team

Sitts & Hill: Civil Engineers/Sweyor 2901 South 40th Street Tacoma, WA 98409 Bob Dahmen

Wetlands Study Kucinski Consulting Services 2901 South W Street Tacoma, WA 98409 Gary Kucinski

McGranahan Architects 21 11 Pacific Avenue, Suite 100 Tacoma, WA 98402 Tom Marshall, AIA



Appendix D



MASTER PLAN - PHASE 1

The Master Plan - Phase 1 Study concentrates on development of a new playfield that allows for students and community use throughout the year. Undergound dramage and an inigation system are critical to a successful installation.

Adding temporary portable structures on site will also be a priority to house expected enrollment growth and the possibility of combining Hilltop Elementary School with Northwood Elementary School.



Appendix D

PROPOSED SITE PLAN NORM

Phase I SCALE 1:100

NORTHWOOD ELEMENTARY SITE PLAN

scale: 1:lOO

prom- 041 2.020 NORTHWOOD ES MASTER PLAN

client- PUYALLUP SCHOOL DISTRCT

date- FEBRUARY 17.2006



Appendix D



MASTER PLAN - PHASE 2

The goal of the Master Plan -Phase 2 Study is to complete school site development by constructing a new elementary school that may house up to 750 students.

Along with the new school additional parking will be provided for approximately 120 vehides. Had surface play areas and additional playfields will be developed with the new school.

On-going changes with storm water regulations anticipates a new stormwater detention system to be about four times

larger than the present system or about 60,000 s.f in area. This may be accomplished above ground as it is now or burying part of it underground in vaults to better utilize the available site.

Relocating existing on-site detention pond will be needed to accommodate the final recommended site layout of the Committee. See the following drawing.



Appendix D

PROPOSED SITE PLAN NORM

Phase II SCALE 1: 100

NORTHWOOD ELEMENTARY SITE PLAN

pr03@- 0412.020 NORTHWOOD ES MASTER PLAN

.-* PUYALLUP SCHOOL DISTRCT

date- FEBRUARY 17.2006



Appendix D

Northwood Elementary School Meeting Minutes #1 Page 1 of 2 Minutes by Tom Marshall Date: October 14,2005

MCGRANAH AN architects

21 11 Pacific. Suite 100 Tacoma. Washington 98402

MEETING MINUTES

Present Lisa Russell, Principal Barb Brooks, Playground Supervisor/Parent Lynne Rose& Executive Director Elementary School Leadership Rick Wells, School Dismct Athletic Director Jeanne Rynne, Director, Capital Projects Gary Frentress, Facilities Planner Bob Dahmen, Civil Engmeer Tom Marshall, Architect Andy Cottrill, Architect

253 383 3084

253 383 3097

Northwood Elementary School Northwood Elementary School Puyallup School Dismct P u y h p School Dismct Puyallup School District Puyallup School District Sitts & Hill McGranahan Architects McGranahan Architects

Items Discussed

A. GENERAL 1. Introduction and role of those in attendance. 2. Gary explained purpose of this master plan study and time schedule.

a. Main two objectives is to plan site for future growth for possible new school of 750 students and new playfield

b. New playfield scheduled to be constructed summer of 2006. There is no current fundmg for new school Northwood Elementary School may be consolidated with Hilltop Elementary School on Northwood's site. a. Lynn concerned with growth and population. 750 student school may be too large. Last previous study of site was around 1998/1999. Jeanne comments on need to site future portables on north side of playshed. Portables may be added summer of 2006. a. Bob believes sanitary sewer sized for 750 students already. Existing school will remain in place until future schools is constructed and ready to occupy. Discussed existing wetlands and s@cant tree. Need to get better information about wetlands to properly site new facilities. a. Gary authorized Bob to have site surveyed and retain wetlands biologist to delineate existing

conditions. Adjacent house and out buildmgs to east of school is dismct prop-. About 5 aaes in size. Discussed storm water issues with site and impacts it has on detention ponds. Rules keep changing every few years. a. Bob to discuss with public work director. Puyallup School District

Education Support, Facilities DepartmentApril 13, 2009Page 8 of 12 Hilltop Analysis

Appendix D

Northwood Elementary School Committee Meeting #1 Page 2 of 2

Discussion on fields: a. Strong cornmuniy use of fields. b. Joint use agreement with City. c. Use of site as elementary school needs is top priority. d Elementaty schools just need grass fields however current site has two skinned baseball fields with

nice backstops. e. Rick would like regulation sue soccer field (225'1~360').

i Best if oriented east/west direction but not required ii New field to have under drainage system.

f. Gary said new playfield will be fenced dosed for use until Fall 2007. Everyone thought future school best located out front doser to 24h Street a. Nowalkers. b. Currently bus half of students. Architect will develop 2 or 3 schemes of possible site layouts for next meeting for groups review nd preferences.

Next Meeting tentatively schedule for November 7,2005.

Submitted by Tom Marshall McGranahan Architects



Appendix D

Northwood Elementary School Meeting Minutes #2 Page 1 of 1 Minutes by Tom Marshall Date: November 8,2005

McGRAN AH AN architects


MEETING MINUTES

Present Lisa Russell, Principal Barb Brooks, Playground Supervisor/Parent Lynne Rose& Executive Director Elementary School Leadership Rick Wells, School Disuict Athletic Director Rudy Fyles, Direct, Capital Projects Gary Frenttess, Facilities Planner Bob Dahmen, Civil Engineer Tom Marshall, Architect

253 383 3084

253 383 3097

Northwood Elementary School Northwood Elementary School Pu yallup School Distria Puyallup School District Puyallup School Distria Puyallup School Distria Sitts & Hill McGranahan Architects

Items Discussed

GENERAL 1. Architect presented three (3) options with pros and cons for groups review and responses:

a. Option #1- Site out front on west side. b. Option #2 - Site in reat over existing playfield. c. Option #3 - Site out front on east side. Additional pros and cons added to options above. Group preferred Option #3: a School out front, field@) dose to school without crossing traffic- Need to incorporate storm water detention ponds in all options. a Bob to make rough calculation of area and forward to architect. b. Because of site's slope, detention pond most likely located along 24fh Street Et

c. Pond maybe several times larger than current pond due to changing regulations. Bob reported on findrngs of wetland biologist which conhrmed similnt lines as previously delineated. Sitts & Hill will be surveying site and induding delineation. Still need to confirm ditch along 24th Street is not wetland Discussed Gary setting up meeting with City manager to review school's ideas on growth. a. Architect to "dean-up" Option #3 for City's review. Remove landscape buffers; show new field

and (2) possible future fields, try to keep baseball backstop in N.E. comer. Rick noted he has meeting on 11.17.05 with community user groups for site and win discuss planned changed for Northwood.

Submitted by Tom Marshall McGranahan Architects



Appendix D

Northwood Elementary School Informational Meeting with City of Edgewood Officials Page 1 of 2 Minutes by Andy Cotdl Date: November 18,2005

MCGRANAHAN architects


MEETING MINUTES

Present Lisa Russell, Principal Gary Frentress, Facilities Planner Bob Dahmen, Civil Engineer h d y Cotdl, Architect Henry Lawrence, Jr., City Manager Robert Gnunbach, Senior Planner Dave Lorenzen, P.E., Public Works Director Kevin Stender, Associate Planner

253 383 3086

253 383 3097

Items Discussed

Northwood Elementary School Puyallup School District Sitts & Hill McGranahanArchitects City of Edgewood City of Edgewood City of Edgewood City of Edgewood

GENERAL 1. Potential school bond in 2007 which would include Northwood. 2. Portables - Land Use Zoning:

a. 5-10 yeat use of portables. Minimum 4 years. b. Design regulations 1881.10 muniupal code. Check list for design requirements. c. Review IBC for ADA requirements. d Consider sutface water for parking as well as new portables. Dismct's intent to construa new field this summer to replace existing upper N.E. field Frontage improvements will be required as Meridian is scheduled for upgrades. a. Concern raised about traffic back-up on 24fh Street and 2.d curb cut. b. %hway 161 (Meridian) to go to bid 2008 with construction 2009-10. 2 travel lanes north/south

with turn lanes. c. 24fh Street will remain 2 lane. W111 require sidewalk and curbing, par- smp and stteet trees. SEPA for field depends on amount of dirt bemg moved - 500 yards of movement will trigger SEPA (Title 20 code). a Goal to balance cut and tiU Clearing and grading permit required for field. Possibility to treat new field as maintenance. Look at erosion control. Wetland possibly head waters to Simons Creek (salmon bearing stream) if this connects into this system it can factor in. New code regulations being adopted December 6fh. Available on web-site. Ecology manual replaces Tide 13. Second readmg surface water regulations. a. Bob Dahmen to double check 2005 manual. Bob currently using 2002 manual Puyallup School District

Education Support, Facilities DepartmentApril 13, 2009Page 11 of 12 Hilltop Analysis

Appendix D

Northwood Elementary School Informational Meeting with City of Edgewood Officials Page 2 of 2

If detention pond is placed where there is existing wetland, the pond can't go there. a. Discharge from pond can only go into wetland if it is filtered, cleaned and slowed down long

enough. Can't contribute pollutants to them. There is criteria for combining pond with wetland (Title 14 on-line).

Check Parlung 18.91.30. Looks like code requires about 150 spaces. a. Code says 2 spaces per employee plus 1 space per 30 students. Consider low impact development (Green design). Code 18.81.10 will tell if conditional use is required Process for pubic input Comprehensive plan for Town Center could help design what the city is loolung for. a. Site is within Town Center master plan zone. b. Pedestrian access ftom 161 may be required

Submitted by Andy ComiU McGranahan Architects



Appendix D


Hilltop AnalysisAppendix E

City of Edgewood Land Analysis 3/2009

Plat NamePSD Plat #

Active -Yes vs Built Out-No #SF Plan #SF Built #MF Plan #MF Built Notes Dist

Bjerk Short Plat (1582) 103 Yes 4 1 EBNR Development SP (2881) 154 Yes 3 2 EDogwood Meadows Plat (3079) 166 Yes 55 150 EEdgewood Flower Farm Pl (3080) 167 60 1 EGreenwood Subdivision (1567) 100 Yes 10 EHagen Plat (2532) 151 Yes 14 1 EJohnson (2814) 175 Yes 14 1 EL 54 and L 55 (Pendell Heights) 49 No 7 7 ELeeper SP (3026) 177 Yes 3 ELetourneau (3012) 174 Yes 4 EGrayson Hills (2408) 160 Yes 10 1 EMahler SP (3042) 172 Yes 5 EMaple Grove SP (3106) 183 Yes 6 EMueller Short Plat 146 Yes 4 ENorthridge (3284) 210 Yes 10 1 EOstrander SP (2721) 192 Yes 3 2 EPascolo Estates (3198) 190 Yes 20 2 ERoesch SP (3353) 191 Yes 2 1 ERoesch SP 2844 162 Yes 4 1 ESimons Creek (2328) 173 Yes 19 ESwain Short Plat (1773) 107 Yes 4 4 EValenta SP 147 2 EWagner SP (2664) 150 Yes 2 1 EWolcott Div I & II (Avalon) (1032/1448) 76 Yes 15 15 EWolf Point (3363) 161 Yes 41 active, not built EHamre (619) No 2 1 EHuber (949) Yes 4 4 EHowe (1054) Yes 2 1 EFueston (1434) 77 No 2 1 EHynek (1522) No 2 2 EKober (1535) Yes 2 1 ELagom (1789) No 2 2 EKildare I (1825) No 2 2 EMacy (1833) Yes 2 EEddy (1867) Yes 2 1 EParmelee (1881) Yes 2 1 EHamill (1959) No 3 3 E

Prepared by City of Edgewood Community Development Department 3/26/2009 KJS 1Puyallup School DistrictEducation Support, Facilities Department April 13, 2009



Plat NamePSD Plat #


Bartholomew (2014) Yes 2 2 EMeier (2088) Yes 3 2 ECarr (2257) No 3 3 EAudett (2405) No 2 2 EMeeker (2578) Yes 2 1 ERaetz (2585) Yes 2 EGriebenow (2798) Yes 2 1 EHubly (2800) No 3 3 EFolk (2842) Yes 3 1 EUriarte (2845) Yes 4 ECox (2853) Yes 2 1 EFietz (2864) Yes 2 EMadland (2903) No 2 2 EWilliams (2974) Yes 2 1 EWiest (2975) Yes 2 1 EChaffey Homes (2987) Yes 2 ELong (3027) Yes 3 1 EMountain Lane II (3029) Yes 5 1 EBerry (3111) Yes 2 1 EJones (3154) Yes 2 1 EMerkle II (3157) Yes 2 2 EHunt (3223) Yes 2 1 EEdgewood Meadows (3540) Yes 6 1 EDivelbiss (1421) Yes 3 2 EPaynter (1612) Yes 2 1 EKelly (1660) No 4 4 EMerkle I (2083) No 3 2 EBerrens (811) Yes 4 2 ECampbell (828) No 4 4 EHuber (1021) No 4 4 EYanak (963) Yes 3 2 EKelley View Estates (974) Yes 11 EDawson Estates (1728) Yes 14 2 ECrawford (2260) Yes 6 2 EShasta Lane (2192) Yes 6 EYoung (2530) Yes 5 1 EEdgewood Place (1006) No 20 20 E




Plat NamePSD Plat #


Bella Ridge (451) Yes 21 EIrby (2006) Yes 2 1 EMiller (2289) No 2 2 ELake Chalet (2685) Yes 3 EKildare II (2396) No 3 3 EThaves/Birdsall (2360) No 2 2 EViggiano (2111) Yes 4 1 EPyfer Estates (909) No 9 9 EMaplewood Terrace (396) No 16 16 EHorizon Estates (416) No 15 15 EEdgemont Terrace (474) No 17 17 EHolland Highlands (2420) 15 1 EValley Vista (1014) Yes 7 3 EJovita Heights (1001) No 26 26 ENauvoo (2290) No 3 3 ELansford (2338) No 3 3 EIngraham (1998) Yes 3 2 EPollard (1553) Yes 4 EAnderson Estates (1541) Yes 6 1 ETOTAL 491 239 150 0

LEGEND:Under Review

Incomplete ApplicationExpired ApplicationCompleted Division

Waiting for Application Submittal Preliminary Approval/Site Development



City of Edgewood Land Analysis 3/2009 REVISED

Plat NamePSD Plat #

Active -Yes vs Built Out-No #SF Plan #SF Built #MF Plan #MF Built Parent Parcel #'s Site Address Recording # Notes Dist

Bjerk Short Plat (1582) 103 Yes 4 1 200403255001 E

Dogwood Meadows Plat (3079) 166 Yes 55 1500420102007, 2008, 2102, 2105 1927 Meridian Ave E E

Greenwood Subdivision (1567) 100 Yes 10 1 9770000270 1610 112th Ave E EHagen Plat (2532) 151 Yes 14 2 0420112004 1909 122nd Ave E E

Johnson (2814) 175 Yes 14 10420097001, 7002, 3001, 2355000080 9218 24th St E E

Leeper SP (3026) 177 Yes 3 1 0420098044 9721 31st St E ELetourneau (3012) 174 Yes 4 1 0420038004 11516 8th St E E

Madland (Grayson Hills) (2408) 160 Yes 10 10420153141, 3142, 3143, 3147 10605 41st St E E

Mahler SP (3042) 172 Yes 6 1 0420151103 11615 36th St E EMaple Grove SP (3106) 183 Yes 6 0420097014 87XX 27th St E EMueller Short Plat 146 Yes 4 9770000101 2217 112th Ave E ENorthridge (3284) 210 Yes 10 1 0420143003 4222 Caldwell Rd E E

Pascolo Estates (3198) 190 Yes 20 10420104111, 4112, 4115 2806 117th Ave Ct E E

Roesch SP (3353) 191 Yes 2 1 0420094059 2814 100th Ave E ERoesch SP 2844 162 Yes 4 1 0420113129 12321 27th St E 200709265001 ESimons Creek (2328) 173 Yes 19 6020210200 9625 36th St E ESwain Short Plat (1773) 107 Yes 4 4 4996000010 10301 45th St Ct E 200503185003 E

Wagner SP (2664) 150 Yes 3 10770000061, 0062, 0063 11226 18th St E E

Wolcott Div I & II (Avalon) (1032/1448) 76 No 15 15 0420104012 3XXX 115th Ave Ct E E

Wolf Point (3363) 161 Yes 41 30420161107, 12 additional parcels 99XX 36th St E active, not built E

Howe (1054) Yes 2 1 EFueston (1434) 77 No 2 1 0420104005 2813 112th Ave E EKober (1535) Yes 2 1 EKildare I (1825) No 2 2 EEddy (1867) Yes 2 1 EParmelee (1881) Yes 2 1 EHamill (1959) No 3 3 EBartholomew (2014) Yes 2 2 EMeier (2088) Yes 3 2 ECarr (2257) No 3 3 EAudett (2405) No 2 2 EMeeker (2578) Yes 2 1 ERaetz (2585) Yes 2 EGriebenow (2798) Yes 2 1 EFolk (2842) Yes 3 1 EUriarte (2845) Yes 4 ECox (2853) Yes 2 1 EFietz (2864) Yes 2 EWilliams (2974) Yes 2 1 EWiest (2975) Yes 2 1 EChaffey Homes (2987) Yes 2 ELong (3027) Yes 3 1 E

Prepared by City of Edgewood Community Development Department 3/26/2009Revised by PSD, Education Support, Facilities Department, 04-07-09 BD Page 1 of 2



City of Edgewood Land Analysis 3/2009 REVISED

Mountain Lane II (3029) Yes 5 1 EBerry (3111) Yes 2 1 EJones (3154) Yes 2 1 EMerkle II (3157) Yes 2 2 EHunt (3223) Yes 2 1 EEdgewood Meadows (3540) Yes 6 1 EDivelbiss (1421) Yes 3 2 EPaynter (1612) Yes 2 1 EKelly (1660) No 4 4 EMerkle I (2083) No 3 2 EBerrens (811) Yes 4 2 ECampbell (828) No 4 4 EHuber (1021) No 4 4 EKelley View Estates (974) Yes 11 ECrawford (2260) Yes 6 2 EShasta Lane (2192) Yes 6 EYoung (2530) Yes 5 1 EEdgewood Place (1006) No 20 20 EBella Ridge (451) Yes 21 EIrby (2006) Yes 2 1 EMiller (2289) No 2 2 ELake Chalet (2685) Yes 3 EKildare II (2396) No 3 3 EViggiano (2111) Yes 4 1 EPyfer Estates (909) No 9 9 EMaplewood Terrace (396) No 16 16 EHorizon Estates (416) No 15 15 EEdgemont Terrace (474) No 17 17 EJovita Heights (1001) No 26 26 ENauvoo (2290) No 3 3 EIngraham (1998) Yes 3 2 EPollard (1553) Yes 4 EAnderson Estates (1541) Yes 6 1 ETOTAL 524 207 150 0

LEGEND:Under Review

Incomplete ApplicationExpired ApplicationCompleted Division

Waiting for Application Submittal Preliminary Approval/Site Development

Prepared by City of Edgewood Community Development Department 3/26/2009Revised by PSD, Education Support, Facilities Department, 04-07-09 BD Page 2 of 2



analysis of the potential closure of hilltop elementary …

Documents