edu.sismadesimple.netedu.sismadesimple.net/board/2007statestudyandsurvey.pdf · office of...
TRANSCRIPT
2007 State Study and SurveyMonroe School District No. 103 Snohomish County, Washington
Dr. Ken Hoover
Board MembersTom MacIntyre, PresidentGreg AccetturoDebra Kolrud Jim ScottJamie Wright
Compiled by
Superintendent
OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONSchool Facilities and Organization
Old Capitol Building, PO BOX 47200OLYMPIA WA 98504-7200
(360) 725-6265 TTY (360) 664-3631
FORM D-1 STUDY AND SURVEY GRANT APPLICATION
The D-1 is an application for a grant to assist with the cost of preparing a Study and Survey of existing and proposed facilities in accordance with WAC 392-341-030 (Refer to Chapter 3 of the School Facilities Manual).
To determine if your district is eligible to receive a study and survey grant, please contact your regionalcoordinator.
SCHOOL DISTRICT INFORMATION
School District: Monroe No. 103 County: SnohomishAddress: 200 East Fremont Street Contact Person: Ralph YinglingCity: Monroe Telephone: 360 - 804 - 2679Zip Code: 98272 Fax: 360 - 804 - 2508
E-Mail: [email protected]
School districts are eligible for a study and survey grant once every six years.
The calculation of the grant is based on the following table.
CALCULATION OF GRANTOct. 1 Headcount EnrollmentExisting sq. ft. according to OSPI Inventory (Report 3)
Headcount Enrollment Categories
Enrollment of 1 to 500 $4,000 + $.03 / Sq. Ft. Enrollment of 501 to 3,000 $4,500 + $.02 / Sq. Ft. Enrollment of 3,001 to 10,000 $6,000 + $.0175 / Sq. Ft. Enrollment of Above 10,000 $9,000 + $.015 / Sq. Ft.
Date: Signature:School District SuperintendentDr. Ken Hoover
Return completed form to: School Facilities and OrganizationOffice of Superintendent of Public InstructionOld Capitol BuildingPO BOX 47200OLYMPIA WA 98504-7200
FORM D-1 (Rev. 9/01) Fax Number: (360) 586-3946
2007 Monroe School District Study & Survey
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Study and Survey replaces and updates the 2001 Study and Survey prepared by Hutteball & Oremus Architecture, Inc. The Monroe School District No. 103 engaged the services of Hutteball & Oremus Architecture, Inc. to provide consultant services for a study and survey in accordance with WAC 392-341-025. The key elements of this document includes the District’s education plan, enrollment projections, evaluation of existing facilities, a measure of the District’s financial capabilities, and a long-range plan to achieve these goals. The District has reviewed its capital facility needs as part of a Six Year Capital Facility Plan prepared in response to student growth projections, condition and capacity of existing facilities, and the districts educational plan. The District plans to put a bond referendum on the ballot in the Spring of 2009 for approximately $70,000,000 to $100,000,000 in response to the projected enrollment figures, identified educational program deficiencies, and for extending the life of selected current facilities. The bond is planned to cover the local share of the cost of these projects. The District intends to file additional D-3 Project applications for new and modernized facilities in the future.
0 03 Executive Summary.doc
2007 Monroe School District Study & Survey
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter I Inventory and Area Analysis of Existing School Facilities Chain Lake Elementary (CLE) Frank Wagner Elementary East (FWE) Frank Wagner Elementary West (FWW) Fryelands Elementary (FRE) Maltby Elementary (MBE) Salem Woods Elementary (SWE) Hidden River Middle School (HRM) Monroe Middle School (MMS) Park Place Middle School (PPM) Monroe High School (MHS)
Chapter II Long-range Educational and Facilities Plan Chapter III Demographic Data Chapter IV District’s Capital Funds Chapter V Existence of a Housing Emergency Chapter VI Racial Balance or Imbalance Chapter VII School Facilities Required and Urgency of Need Chapter VIII Modernization Chapter IX Deferred Maintenance Chapter X District’s Time-line Chapter XI Accessible Unused or Underutilized School Facilities in Neighboring Districts Chapter XII Adjustments of School Attendance
0 05 Table of Contents.doc
CHAPTER I
WAC 392-341-025 (1) An inventory and area analysis of existing school facilities within the district, a description of the types and kinds of systems and subsystems used in those facilities and their physical condition.
2007 Monroe School District Study & Survey
AREA ANALYSIS SUMMARY
School Building Names Current Building Area ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
1. Chain Lake Elementary School (K-5) 46,207 sf 2. Frank Wagner Elementary School East (K-5) 27,500 sf 3. Frank Wagner Elementary School West (K-5) 46,418 sf 4. Fryelands Elementary School (K-5) 54,074 sf 5. Maltby Elementary School (K-5) 50,230 sf 6. Salem Woods Elementary School (K-5) 38,338 sf
TOTAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AREA 262,767 s.f. MIDDLE SCHOOLS
1. Hidden River Middle School (6-8) 60,688 sf 2. Monroe Middle School (6-8) 84,997 sf 3. Park Place Middle School (6-8) 109,912 sf
TOTAL MIDDLE SCHOOL AREA 255,597 s.f. HIGH SCHOOLS 1. Monroe High School (9-12) 209,432 sf TOTAL HIGH SCHOOL AREA 209,432 s.f. TOTAL FOR ALL EXISTING SCHOOL BUILDINGS 727,796 s.f. OTHER DISTRICT FACILITIES
1. District Administration Office 2. District Warehouse 3. Transportation/Maintenance Facility 4. Central Athletic Facility 5. Sky Valley Education Center (Leased)
1 02 Area Analysis Summary.doc 2/27/2008
2007 Monroe School District Study & Survey
DISTRICT INVENTORY DESCRIPTION
SCHOOLS
Chain Lake Elementary:
! Site Size: approx. 29 acres
! Number of Teachi! Date of Constructio
ize: 900 sq. ft. stics: Capacity of existing holding tank limits expansion. The site
utside the current UGA which limits the possibility of onnecting to City sewer.
E
! Current Square Footage: 46,207 sq. ft. ng Stations: 21
n: 1990 ! Classroom S! Unique Characteri
is oc
rFrank Wagner Elementa ast:y
a! Site Size: ! Current Square Foota! Number of Teachi
ructioe: Varies
ue Characteri red site with Frank Wagner Elementary West and aintenance Facilities. Originally built as a middle school.
Has served students grades K-12 over the years. Auditorium was built with funds donated by Frank Wagner.
nds. Frank Wagner Elementary We
pprox. 5 acres ge: 27,500 sq. ft.
ng Stations: 11 n: 1938, 1954, 1990 ! Date of Const
! Classroom Siz! Uniq stics: Sha
M
School was built with W.P.A. matching fust:
approx. 10 acre
! Site Size: s nt Square Footage: 46,418 sq. ft.
! Number of Teaching Stations: 22 of Constructio 0
50 sq. ft. Shared site with Frank Wagner Elementary East and District Maintenance Facilities. School was rebuilt on the site of the
l. School site was
Fryelands Elementary:
! Curre
! Date n: 199! Classroom Size: 9! Unique Chara s: cteristic
first Frank Wagner Elementary Schoodonated by the Wagner Family
! Site Size: approx. 7 acres ! Current Square Footage: 54,074 sq. ft. ! Number of Teaching Stations: 22 ! Date of Construction: 2005 ! Classroom Size: 840 sq. ft. ! Unique Characteristics: Newest elementary school in the District. The site adjoins
the Lake Tye Park and the School District has an inter-local agreement for joint use of the playfields during normal school hours.
1 03 District Inventory.doc
2007 Monroe School District Study & Survey
Maltby Elementary:
approx. 9.5 acres
ction: rnized in 2005 ! Classroom Size: ! Unique Characteristics: mentary School
(which is now the current Maltby Café and other businesses). A forced main sewer extension is a possibility
is site to accommodate population increases.
! Site Size: ! Current Square Footage: 50,230 sq. ft. ! Number of Teaching Stations: 25 ! Date of Constru 1968, playshed in 1987, Mode
950 sq. ft. Replaced the original Maltby Ele
for th Salem Woods Elementary:
! Site Size: approx. 10 acres ! Current Square Footage: 38,338 sq. ft.
ng Stations: 20 n: 1980, 1987
900 sq. ft.
! Number of Teachi! Date of Constructio! Classroom Size:
e Characteristics: Named after an early Monroe area pioneer. Located in close proximity to the Wagner Mill site. Built with the
ntion of shared parking facilities with the Wagner ommunity Club. Designed to fit into rural environment and
“institutional” appearance.
! Uniqu
inteCnot to have an
eMonro Middle School:
approx. 5 acres ge: 84,997 sq. ft.
! Site Size:
uare Footaaching Stations: 33
of Constructio , 1964, 1967, 1980, 1990 aries
Originally built as a replacement for the original MHS, which was torn down at this site after a 1965 earthquake. School
zes buildings that were ool (annex, tech ed).
Hidden River Middle School:
! Current Sq! Number of Te! Date n: 1954! Classroom Size: V! Unique Characteristics:
was rebuilt at the original site and utilipart of the original sch
Size: ox. 25 acres 88 sq. ft.
: 20 uctio , 2005
:e two story addition
lace Middle School:
! Site appr
,6! Current Square Footage: 60! Number of Teaching Stations! Date of Constr n: 1999! Classroom Size 900 sq. ft. ! Unique Charact ristics: Master plan of facility accommodates a
expanding the student capacity to 800.
Park P
! Site Size: approx. 19 acres ! Current Square Footage: 109,912 sq. ft. ! Number of Teaching Stations: 43 ! Date of Construction: 1974, 1980, 1990 ! Classroom Size: Varies ! Unique Characteristics: Originally built for 600 students, grades 10-12. Site
originally was intended for a new junior high school. School served as the high school from 1977 to 1999.
1 03 District Inventory.doc
2007 Monroe School District Study & Survey
1 03 District Inventory.doc
ool: Monroe High Sch
approx. 33 acres e 209,432 sq. ft.
c! Classroom Size:! Unique Characteristics: Site obtained from the Department of Corrections. Monroe’s
only high school sits on top of a hill with sweeping views to the north, south and west.
! Site Size: ! Current Squar Footage: ! Number of Teaching Stations: 74 ! Date of Constru tion: 1999, 2005
840 sq. ft.
Leaders in Learning:
! Site Size: N/A ! Current Square Footage: 1,798 sq. ft.
ng Stations: 2
! Number of Teachiof Construction: Remodeled 2000
! Classroom Size: N/A racteristics ce to a remodeled
portion of the Districts Maintenance Building in 2000. OTHER PROPERTIES
! Date
! Unique Cha Program relocated from a leased spa
istrict in the early
Burke Hales Property: 32.7 acres donated to Monroe School District in the early
e Baseball Field: hich has a potential of the Park Place
ance field for varsity all.
rty: parated from school property; septic problems in area.
BPA Property: wer Authority to be
cated in the Sultan School District. It is also used as an outdoor education site
Memorial Stadium/ 10+ acres secured in the mid-1930’s as part of the complex Marshall Field for the original high school.
Central School: 3.5 acres – set aside in 1916 for the construction of the
newly established Monroe Unified School District. Closed to students in 1972. Currently used for District Administrative Offices.
Transportation: A transportation center of approximately 3,000 sq. ft. located on a 3.4 acre site on Main Street near downtown Monroe.
Lake Fontal Property: 2.7 acres donated to Monroe School D1900’s.
1900’s.
Park Plac 2.54 acres – Area may be developed wfor increased value. This was the site Grade School. It is currently the performsoftb
ke Prope res) – Land would need to be seChain La (South 14 ac
33+ acres – Secured from Bonneville Poused as an outdoor education site. Lo
for forest studies.
2007 Monroe School District Study Survey
School/Facility
MSD 2001 Study & Survey Current SPI
MSD 2007 Study & Survey Comments
Chain Lake Elem. (K-5) 44,457 44,457Covered Play x 1/2 1,750 1,750
Total 46,207 46,207 46,207
Frank Wagner Elem. East (K-5) 0 19,7741954 Annex Addition 0 4,9751980 Library Addition 0 2,751
Total 0 0 27,500 Converted from Frank Wagner MS
Frank Wagner Elem. West (K-5) 44,668 44,668Covered Play x 1/2 1,750 1,750
Total 46,418 46,418 46,418
Fryelands Elem. (K-5) 0 52,525Covered Play x 1/2 0 1,549
Total 0 54,074 54,074
Maltby Elementary (K-5) 42,210 48,4801987 Covered Play x 1/2 1,750 1,750
Total 43,960 43,960 50,230 2005 Additions
Salem Woods Elem. (K-5) 35,842 35,842Covered Play x 1/2 1,440 1,4401987 Classroom Addition 1,056 1,056
Total 38,338 38,338 38,338
K-5 Elementary Span Total 174,923 228,997 262,767
(continued)
Inventory of School FacilitiesMonroe School District No. 103
1 04 Inventory.xls
2007 Monroe School District Study Survey
School/Facility
MSD 2001 Study & Survey Current SPI
MSD 2007 Study & Survey Comments
Frank Wagner Middle (6-8) 19,774 0 Converted to Frank Wagner1954 Annex Addition 4,975 0 Elementary East1980 Library Addition 2,751 0
Total 27,500 27,500 0
Hidden River Middle (6-8) 38,798 38,798 38,7982002 Covered Play x 1/2 1,2202005 Gym & Music Addition 20,670 20,670
Total 38,798 59,468 60,688
Monroe Middle School (6-8) 17,568 17,5681967 Additions 56,747 56,7471980 Gym Addition 9,485 9,4851990 Admin. Addition 1,197 1,197
Total 84,997 84,997 84,997
Park Place Middle (6-8) 71,903 71,903 Formerly Monroe Junior High1980 Additions 13,733 13,7331990 Additions 24,276 24,276
Total 109,912 109,912 109,912
6-8 Middle School Span Total 261,207 281,877 255,597
Monroe High School (9-12) 184,468 184,468 184,4682005 Classroom Addition 24,964 24,964
Total 184,468 209,432 209,432
9-12 High School Span Total 184,468 209,432 209,432
Total District Inventory 620,598 720,306 727,796
Inventory of School FacilitiesMonroe School District No. 103
1 04 Inventory.xls
Building Condition Summary Report School: Chain Lake Elementary School Address: 12125 Chain Lake Road City: Snohomish, WA 98290-8643 County: Snohomish Telephone: 360-794-3030
Site Information Tax Parcel No.: 28073000200400 Approximate Acreage: 28.82 Acres Police Jurisdiction: Snohomish County Sheriff Fire Jurisdiction: Monroe Fire Department Unincorporated: x Incorporated: Zoning: R-5
Building Information: Current Sq. Footage: 46,207 S.F. Original Construction: 1990
School Capacity: Current Enrollment: (Oct. 1, 2007) 478.6 FTE 522.0 Head Count As determined by educational program and number of classrooms:
K Grades 1-5 SE Capacity Portables Total CR S CR S CR S CR S 4 96 16 396 1 0 492 4 100 592
*Grades K-4 average classroom loading at 24 students per classroom (K at .5) *Grade 5 average classroom loading at 28 students per station (includes music & PE) *Special Education – Only Life Skills students (severely disabled or medically fragile) are assigned to a classroom. All other students are
assigned to a regular classroom.
1 05 BCSR CLE.doc
1 05 BCSR CLE.doc
Construction History: Chain Lake Elementary was constructed in 1990 and is composed of four single story buildings connected by covered walks. It has had no significant upgrades, additions or modernizations. Surrounding Site Description and Utilization: The school is located on a fairly level site in a rural neighborhood outside the County GMA. The site contains two ball fields, one grass play field and one soft play equipment area. Parking lots and drives are asphalt with concrete curbs. There are 98 on-site parking spaces. Fire hydrants are provided. The storm drain system is collected and dispersed through an on-site detention pond. The sewer system runs to a holding tank and is pumped bi-weekly. The play field area is fenced with chain link fencing and buildings are fenced with steel rail fencing. Landscaping includes shrubs and trees in planting areas. Site development includes outdoor seating. The unused portion of the site to the south contains an identified wetland. Preliminary reports identify this wetland and associated buffer to be of such a size that development of this portion of the site for a middle school with playfields is not feasible unless additional adjacent property is purchased. Another limiting factor for development is the site is outside of the current UGA and therefore does not have access to sewer. Brief Building Component Description: Exterior Walls The primary structure is single-story, slab on grade, wood framed building,
with CMU veneer. The gym and covered play area is structural CMU on spread footings.
Interior Walls Interior walls are wood studs with gypsum board. There is vinyl wall covering
and cedar tackboards in the classrooms; ceramic tile in the bathrooms; and veneer plaster in the corridors.
Roof The roof structure in the gym is glu-lam trusses with dimensional lumber and
plywood. The roof of the other buildings are wood trusses at 24-inches o.c. and plywood. All roofs have composition shingles.
HVAC The existing mechanical system consists of packaged air to air heat pumps,
with a separate heat pump for each classroom, the Administration area and the Gymnasium/Cafeteria. Air distribution is through ceiling diffusers.
Plumbing Water piping is copper. Storm, waste and vent piping is cast iron. Fixtures in
toilet rooms, classrooms, and janitor areas are white vitreous china or enameled cast iron. Fixtures appear to meet ADA requirements.
Fire Sprinklers The stage is the only portion of the facility that is sprinklered. Electrical The electrical service consists of 120, 277/480V distribution system for
lighting and power. Step down transformation from 480V to 120/208V for convenience outlets and small motors is provided.
Security A security system is located in all circulation areas and is tied into an outside
monitoring agency. Lighting Lighting is fluorescent except high pressure sodium for exterior lighting.
1 05 BCSR CLE.doc
Intercom/Communications An integrated intercom/telephone system is provided. Clocks A master clock and clock system is provided throughout. Fire Alarm An addressable fire alarm system is provided throughout with off site
monitoring. Asbestos containing Materials The building is reported to have no asbestos containing materials. Facility/Site Deficiencies Site: 1. The Chain Lake Elementary site is situated outside the Urban Growth Area (UGA) boundary. Snohomish
County prohibits the extension of sewer service outside of the designated UGA. Until the UGA is extended to include this site, or the County adopts an exception to this policy, the District can not extend sewer service to the site and must continue bi-weekly pumping of the existing septic holding tank.
2. Add sprinkler irrigation to playfields – requires booster pump 3. Improve soft play area drainage 4. Play structure improvements 5. Install sump pumps in utility vaults 6. Improve safety and efficiency of auto and bus circulation Building: 1. Install ventilation in Workroom for laminator 2. Office Building structural inspection and potential repair 3. Gym ceiling tile repair/replacement 4. Replace carpet 5. New roofing. 6. Painting of entire facility 7. Selected window replacement 8. Replacement of Kitchen equipment and electrical upgrades 9. Replace all original wallcovering
INSTRUCTIONAL ADEQUACY July 2007
District: Monroe School District #103 School: Chain Lake Elementary County: Snohomish Evaluators: Ralph Yingling
Kevin Oremus
In the area below, indicate any features of the building which are identified as impeding the instructional programs or contributing to a less than suitable educational environment. 1. HVAC needs to be upgraded/modernized to provide constant temperatures in classrooms.
CHAIN LAKE ELEMENTARYAREA ANALYSIS
Add/Area Length Width Area Subtr. Factor TotalsBuilding A 1990 14,959 SFA1 54.00 x 150.00 = 8,100.00 s.f. + 1 8,100A2 22.00 x 54.00 = 1,188.00 s.f. + 1 1,188A3 70.00 x 50.00 = 3,500.00 s.f. + 0.5 1,750A4 12.00 x 70.00 = 840.00 s.f. + 1 840A5 48.00 x 42.00 = 2,016.00 s.f. + 1 2,016A6 3.00 x 7.00 = 21.00 s.f. + 1 21A7 15.50 x 10.00 = 155.00 s.f. + 1 155A8 3.50 x 7.00 = 24.50 s.f. + 1 25A9 24.00 x 36.00 = 864.00 s.f. + 1 864
Building B 1990 10,416 SFB1 36.00 x 94.00 = 3,384.00 s.f. + 1 3,384B2 48.00 x 76.00 = 3,648.00 s.f. + 1 3,648B3 36.00 x 94.00 = 3,384.00 s.f. + 1 3,384
Building C 1990 10,416 SFC1 36.00 x 94.00 = 3,384.00 s.f. + 1 3,384C2 48.00 x 76.00 = 3,648.00 s.f. + 1 3,648C3 36.00 x 94.00 = 3,384.00 s.f. + 1 3,384
Building D 1990 10,416 SFD1 36.00 x 94.00 = 3,384.00 s.f. + 1 3,384D2 48.00 x 76.00 = 3,648.00 s.f. + 1 3,648D3 36.00 x 94.00 = 3,384.00 s.f. + 1 3,384
TOTAL ALL BUILDINGS 46,207 SF
Building Condition Summary Report School: Frank Wagner Elementary School East Address: 639 W. Main Street City: Monroe, WA 98272-2199 County: Snohomish Telephone: 360-794-3017
Site Information Tax Parcel No.: 27060100407000 Approximate Acreage: 5.27 Acres Police Jurisdiction: Monroe Police Department Fire Jurisdiction: Monroe Fire Department Unincorporated: Incorporated: x Zoning: PS
Building Information: Current Sq. Footage: 27,500 S.F. Original Construction: 1938 Annex Addition: 1955 Partial Renovation: 1980 Roofing: 1988 HVAC Upgrade: 2001
School Capacity: Current Enrollment: (Oct. 1, 2007) 314.0 FTE 340.0 Head Count As determined by educational program and number of classrooms.
K Grades 1-5 SE Capacity Portables Total CR S CR S CR S CR S 1 24 10 248 0 0 272 4 100 372
*Grades K-4 average classroom loading at 24 students per classroom (K at .5) *Grade 5 average classroom loading at 28 students per station (includes music & PE) *Special Education – Only Life Skills students (severely disabled or medically fragile) are assigned to a classroom. All other students are
assigned to a regular classroom.
1 11 BCSR FWE.doc
Construction History: Frank Wagner Elementary School East is a single story facility originally built in 1938. In 1955 a detached classroom annex was constructed to create four additional classrooms. Then in 1980, the locker rooms were remodeled for use as the cafeteria, a new library and classroom was added, and various minor upgrades were made to the facility. The entire facility was re-roofed in 1988. Surrounding Site Description and Utilization: The school is located on a level site near downtown Monroe shared by Frank Wagner Elementary School West and a maintenance building. Shared play fields are grass and play areas are asphalt. An asphalt parking area for this school is located between it and Frank Wagner Elementary and is shared with the maintenance building. Landscaping is minimal and not conducive to children. The site contains approximately 50 parking spaces which are shared with the district maintenance facility. The school shares it’s facility with the community auditorium. Originally constructed as a part of the school, it has since been delegated a community theater and no longer a part of the school districts educational inventory. Brief Building Component Description: Exterior Walls The structure varies within the building area but generally consists of single-
story construction on concrete spread footings, wood stud walls with brick veneer. The facility has large windows at the classroom areas and exterior exposed wood trim, typical of a building of this age.
Interior Walls Interior walls are typically wood studs with painted plaster or gypsum board
finish. Roof The roof is a composite of low slope built up and mansard shingles with
gutters and downspouts. The roof structure of the original building is composed of wood ceiling joists and sloped rafters. The annex consists of wood decking on steel trusses.
HVAC The school is heated by gas fired boilers. Air handler units and coils are used
for the classroom heating devices. Individual unit heaters serve a few classrooms. The library has its own individual heat pump, ductwork and ceiling diffusers. The Annex has exhaust fans in the corridor. The Boiler Room floor drains appear to be inadequate to handle drain water. The gym ventilation system is very poor as it utilizes passive ventilation.
Plumbing The plumbing fixtures are in poor condition. The piping is old and in poor
condition. Several plumbing and handicap code deficiencies were noted. Fire Sprinklers This facility is not sprinkled. Energy Controls The boilers are controlled by time clocks and thermostats in the rooms
operate the valves for the radiators. Electrical The electrical service was replaced in 1980 and a new pad mounted
transformer placed in the front of the school. Much of the existing wiring was replaced.
Security None
1 11 BCSR FWE.doc
1 11 BCSR FWE.doc
Lighting The lighting is fluorescent. Intercom/Communications Bogen intercom system with handsets in each room. Clocks Original 1938 mechanical master clock system is still being used. Fire Alarm Fire alarm system was upgraded to a new addressable system with battery
back-up, pull stations, horns, strobes, etc. for the entire building. Asbestos containing Materials The building contains both friable and non-friable asbestos containing materials. These include pipe insulation, sprayed on acoustical materials, and cement asbestos board. Facility/Site Deficiencies Site: 1. Parking space is inadequate. 2. Vehicular traffic and bus circulation is inadequate. 3. Annex building is sited directly adjacent to an alley with no setback. This is a safety concern. 4. Asphalt drives and parking lot needs resurfacing. 5. Concrete walkways need replacement. Building: 1. Replace exterior deteriorating and rotten wood columns. 2. Replace failing gutters and downspouts. 3. Repair spalling plaster walls and ceilings. 4. Replace corridor wood panel doors and relite glazing to conform to current codes. 5. Upgrades needed to comply with current energy codes. (sawdust insulation in ceilings) 6. Replace failing windows. 7. Replace deteriorated wood casework and provide additional casework to meet programmatic needs. 8. Paint entire interior and exterior of facility. 9. Replace deteriorated restroom finishes. 10. Upgrade plumbing fixtures and accessible routes to comply with handicap codes. 11. Abate asbestos containing materials. 12. Demolish tall unreinforced masonry chimney. 13. Seismic retrofit of entire facility is needed. 14. Replace plumbing lines and fixtures. 15. Upgrade and expand electrical convenience outlets. 16. Upgrade technology wiring to district standards. 17. Replace incandescent light fixtures with fluorescent fixtures. 18. Clock, intercom, emergency lighting and security systems need replacement. 19. Add fire sprinklers to the building – currently only the stage is sprinklered.
INSTRUCTIONAL ADEQUACY July 2007
District: Monroe School District #103 School: Frank Wagner Elementary East County: Snohomish Evaluators: Ralph Yingling
Kevin Oremus
In the area below, indicate any features of the building which are identified as impeding the instructional programs or contributing to a less than suitable educational environment. 1. The cafeteria is a converted locker room and does not meet programmatic needs. 2. There is inadequate storage throughout the facility. 3. Covered play area is needed. 4. Gym does not meet programmatic needs. 5. Administrative office area is small, inefficient and not contiguous. Location is inadequate for surveillance. 6. Acoustics in classroom is poor. 7. The busses drop student off on Main Street in front of the building which is a safety issue. 8. Inadequate electrical distribution throughout the facility. 9. There are no specialty type classrooms. 10. Classroom casework is minimal. 11. Chalkboards need to be replaced with whiteboards. 12. Lighting levels in instructional areas is inadequate. 13. Acoustical wall treatment is needed for wall and ceiling in the gym. 14. Consider adding a prep kitchen.
1 12 IA-FWE.doc
FRANK WAGNER ELEMENTARY EASTAREA ANALYSIS
Add/Area Length Width Area Subtr. Factor TotalsBuilding A 1938 19,774 SFA1 207.42 x 61.58 = 12,772.72 s.f. + 1 12,773A2 7.00 x 37.46 = 262.22 s.f. + 1 262A3 13.75 x 3.00 = -41.25 s.f. - 1 -41A4 10.63 x 16.50 = 175.31 s.f. + 1 175A5 34.21 x 60.08 = 2,055.35 s.f. + 1 2,055A6 3.00 x 22.08 = 66.25 s.f. + 1 66A7 73.5 x 57.75 = 4,244.63 s.f. + 1 4,245A8 4.58 x 57.75 = 264.69 s.f. + 1 265A9 1.50 x 7.00 = 10.50 s.f. + 1 11A10 10.50 x 3.50 = -36.75 s.f. - 1 -37
Building A1 1954 4,975 SFA11 66.50 x 70.83 = 4,710.39 s.f. + 1 4,710A12 30.33 x 10.75 = 326.05 s.f. + 1 326A13 10.17 x 3.00 = -30.50 s.f. - 1 -31A14 10.17 x 3.00 = -30.50 s.f. - 1 -31
Building A2 1980 2,751 SFA15 27.00 x 37.58 = 1,014.75 s.f. + 1 1,015A16 4.08 x 16.83 = 68.73 s.f. + 1 69A17 20.33 x 52.50 = 1,067.33 s.f. + 1 1,067A18 16.83 x 8.42 = 141.65 s.f. + 1 142A19 18.83 x 16.83 = 316.91 s.f. + 1 317A20 16.83 x 8.42 = 141.62 s.f. + 1 142
TOTAL ALL BUILDINGS 27,500 SF
Building Condition Summary Report School: Frank Wagner Elementary School West Address: 115 Dickinson Rd. City: Monroe, WA 98272-2104 County: Snohomish Telephone: 360-794-3015
Site Information Tax Parcel No.: 00504300000403 Approximate Acreage: 10.21 Acres Police Jurisdiction: Monroe Police Department Fire Jurisdiction: Monroe Police Department Unincorporated: Incorporated: x Zoning: PS Building Information: Current Sq. Footage: 46,418 S.F. Original Construction: 1990
School Capacity: Current Enrollment: (Oct. 1, 2007) 381.0 FTE 414.0 Head Count As determined by educational program and number of classrooms:
K Grades 1-5 SE Capacity Portables Total CR S CR S CR S CR S 3 72 16 396 3 0 468 4 100 592
*Grades K-4 average classroom loading at 24 students per classroom (K at .5) *Grade 5 average classroom loading at 28 students per station (includes music & PE) *Special Education – Only Life Skills students (severely disabled or medically fragile) are assigned to a classroom. All other students are assigned to a regular classroom.
1 16 BCSR FWW.doc
Construction History: Frank Wagner Elementary was constructed in 1990 and is composed of three single story buildings and one two story classroom building connected by exterior covered walks. It has had no significant upgrades, additions or modernizations. Surrounding Site Description and Utilization: The school is located on a level site near downtown Monroe shared by Monroe Elementary School and a district maintenance building. Shared play fields are grass and play areas are asphalt except for bark in the play equipment area. The combined use of this site by both elementary schools separated by the District Maintenance Facility is less than optimal. Parking and driveway areas are asphalt with concrete curbs. There are 81 on-site parking spaces. The site is partially fenced. Landscaping is minimal. Walkways are concrete. The kitchen serves Frank Wagner Elementary and Monroe Elementary School. Brief Building Component Description: Exterior Walls The structure is composed of structural masonry, wood framing and masonry
veneer and precast concrete plank. Exterior walls are brick masonry. Windows are aluminum fixed or casement windows with double-glazing.
Interior Walls The interior partitions are wood frame with gypsum wallboard. There is a
combination of vinyl wallcovering, cedar tackboards and brick throughout and ceramic tile in the bathrooms. The corridors of the classroom building are finished with veneer plaster.
Roof The roof structure in the gym is glu-lam beams wrapped with gypsum board.
The roof of the other buildings are wood trusses at 24-inches o.c. with plywood sheathing. All roofs are medium slope with composition shingles. Roof flashing is sheet metal on painted cedar trim. Soffits are gypsum board and downspouts are painted PVC.
HVAC The existing mechanical system consists of packaged air to air heat pumps,
with a separate heat pump for each classroom, the Administration area and the Gymnasium/Cafeteria. Air distribution is through ceiling diffusers.
Plumbing Water piping is copper. Storm, waste and vent piping is cast iron. Fixtures in
toilet rooms, classrooms, and janitor areas are white vitreous china or enameled cast iron. Fixtures appear to meet ADA requirements.
Fire Sprinklers The stage is the only portion of the facility that is sprinklered. Electrical The electrical service consists of 120, 277/480V distribution system for
lighting and power. Step down transformation from 480V to 120/208V for convenience outlets and small motors is provided.
Security A security system is located in all circulation areas and is tied into an outside
monitoring agency. Lighting Lighting is fluorescent except high pressure sodium for exterior lighting.
1 16 BCSR FWW.doc
1 16 BCSR FWW.doc
Intercom/Communications An integrated intercom/telephone system is provided. Clocks A master clock and clock system is provided throughout. Fire Alarm An addressable fire alarm system is provided throughout with off site
monitoring. Asbestos containing Materials The building is reported to have no asbestos containing materials. Facility/Site Deficiencies Site: 1. Paving additions 2. Improve soft play area 3. Playfield Improvements 4. Remove older portables 5. Remove trees that are causing pavement damage 6. Improve safety and efficiency of auto and bus circulation Building: 1. Painting of entire facility 2. Replace carpet 3. New roofing 4. Vent stack replacement for Kitchen hot water heater 5. Replacement of Kitchen equipment and electrical upgrades
INSTRUCTIONAL ADEQUACY July 2007
District: Monroe School District #103 School: Frank Wagner Elementary West County: Snohomish Evaluators: Ralph Yingling
Kevin Oremus
In the area below, indicate any features of the building which are identified as impeding the instructional programs or contributing to a less than suitable educational environment. 1. Campus-style configuration creates many unsupervised areas. 2. Several of the classrooms are too small. 3. Storage is inadequate throughout the building. 4. Renovation is needed to the special services area to conform to program requirements. 5. HVAC system does not maintain constant air temperatures throughout the facility. 6. Arrangement of administration office is not very efficient.
1 17 IA-FWW.doc
FRANK WAGNER ELEMENTARY WESTAREA ANALYSIS
Add/Area Length Width Area Subtr. Factor TotalsBuilding A 1988 3,664 SFA1 54.00 x 56.00 = 3,024.00 s.f. + 1 3,024A2 3.33 x 5.00 = 16.65 s.f. - 1 -17A3 14.00 x 37.33 = 522.62 s.f. + 1 523A4 7.00 x 14.00 = 98.00 s.f. + 1 98A5 9.00 x 4.00 = 36.00 s.f. + 1 36
Building B 1988 2,800 SFB1 56.00 x 50.00 = 2,800.00 s.f. + 1 2,800
Building C 1988 10,304 SFC1 44.67 x 32.00 = 1,429.44 s.f. + 1 1,429C2 7.33 x 2.33 = 17.08 s.f. - 1 -17C3 16.00 x 66.00 = 1,056.00 s.f. + 1 1,056C4 78.00 x 54.00 = 4,212.00 s.f. + 1 4,212C5 52.00 x 12.00 = 624.00 s.f. + 1 624C6 20.00 x 64.00 = 1,280.00 s.f. + 1 1,280C7 8.75 x 3.50 = 30.63 s.f. - 1 -31C8 50.00 x 70.00 = 3,500.00 s.f. + 0.5 1,750
Building D 1988 18,821 SFD1 298.00 x 70.00 = 20,860.00 s.f. + 1 20,860D2 30.33 x 8 (2) = 485.28 s.f. - 1 -485D3 21.00 x 8 (2) = 336.00 s.f. - 1 -336D4 26.00 x 12 (2) = 624.00 s.f. - 1 -624D5 10.00 x 29.67 (2) = 593.40 s.f. - 1 -593
Building E 1988 10,829 SFE1 172.00 x 70.00 = 12,040.00 s.f. + 1 12,040E2 10.00 x 29.33 (2) = 586.60 s.f. - 1 -587E3 26.00 x 12 (2) = 624.00 s.f. - 1 -624
TOTAL ALL BUILDINGS 46,418 SF
Building Condition Summary Report School: Fryelands Elementary School Address: 15286 Fryelands Boulevard City: Monroe, WA 98272 County: Snohomish Telephone: 360-863-4770
Site Information Tax Parcel No.: 00831900099800 Approximate Acreage: 7.09 Acres Police Jurisdiction: Monroe Police Department Fire Jurisdiction: Monroe Fire Department Unincorporated: Incorporated: X Zoning: PS
Building Information: Current Sq. Footage: 54,074 S.F. Original Construction: 2005
School Capacity: Current Enrollment: (Oct. 1, 2007) 466.5 FTE 503.0 Head Count As determined by educational program and number of classrooms.
K Grades 1-5 SE Capacity Portables Total CR S CR S CR S CR S 2 48 18 448 2 0 496 0 0 496
*Grades K-4 average classroom loading at 24 students per classroom (K at .5) *Grade 5 average classroom loading at 28 students per station (includes music & PE) *Special Education – Only Life Skills students (severely disabled or medically fragile) are assigned to a classroom. All other students are assigned to a regular classroom.
1 21 BCSR FRE.doc
Construction History: The school was completed in 2005 with funding secured by a 2003 bond issue. The facility is a two-story building designed to house K-5 grades and zoned to accommodate after hour and community use by centrally organizing the Media Center, Administration and the Multi-purpose Room directly off the main entry. Surrounding Site Description and Utilization: The site is a relatively flat triangular shaped seven-acre parcel located within the City of Monroe. The site is adjoined on the North by a City Park which the District uses for playfields under an inter-local agreement. A service loop encircles the entire school. A parent drop-off zone and main parking is located at the front of the school serving the main entrance, kindergarten classrooms and the multi-purpose room. A large covered play area is provided off the back of the multi-purpose room near the bus-loading zone which students use to wait in inclement weather. Brief Building Component Description: Exterior Walls The building exterior is a masonry veneer with painted fiber cement siding
above. The building has a steel frame with metal stud walls and tube steel seismic bracing concealed within interior and exterior walls except for the Multipurpose Room, Kitchen area and Music Platform, which is comprised of reinforced concrete masonry.
Interior Walls The interior walls are typically painted gypsum board on metal studs except
for the multipurpose area which is painted masonry. A medium density fiberboard (MDF) wainscot runs around the perimeter of all heavy traffic areas. Vinyl wallcovering is provided throughout as a tackable surface.
Roof Asphalt composition shingles on plywood over vented rigid insulation on 3/4”
plywood supported on steel joists at 32” o.c. HVAC Heating and ventilation is provided to each zone in the facility by hydronic
heat pump and air handlers. Air handlers are located in isolated mechanical rooms above the second floor corridor. Primary heating is provided by gas-fired boilers located in the Boiler Room. Heating water is distributed to each unit by Schedule 40 steel piping and Type L copper piping. Piping for the heat loop is not insulated. Air conditioning is provided as part of the heat pump system. An outdoor air-cooled fluid cooler provides heat rejection. Ventilation air is tempered by an electric coil and supplied to the heat pumps by a separate fan system and relieved from each zone.
Plumbing A 3” domestic water service is provided from a new main outside the building
to a main shutoff valve located in the Boiler Room. Premium efficient condensing type gas water heaters provide hot water for toilet room facilities, and sinks. Recirculating hot water lines are provided with time and temperature controlled pumps. All above grade water and heating service is Type L copper. All below grade water piping is Type K copper. All storm waste and vent piping is cast iron. Insulation is provided on all water piping inside the building. All fixtures meet ADA requirements. Toilet room and janitorial plumbing fixtures are white vitreous china. Water closets and urinals are furnished with heavy duty manually operated flush valves with
1 21 BCSR FRE.doc
1 21 BCSR FRE.doc
water conserving flow rates. Lavatories are furnished with metering water conserving faucets.
Fire Sprinklers The building is sprinklered throughout. A 6” fire service main is provided to
the building riser in the fire sprinkler riser room. A complete wet pipe sprinkler system conforming to NFPA 13 is installed.
Energy Controls DDC temperature control system is provided incorporating energy
conservation and building occupation control stratagies. Electrical The electrical distribution is 480V/277V. Step down transformers are used to
supply branch panels at 208V/120V. Surge suppression is provided at all 120 volt panels. Each computer lab has a branch panel to facilitate future changes.
Security A complete security system is installed throughout the facility. Lighting Interior lighting systems are fluorescent with T8 lamps and electronic
ballasts. Parabolic fixtures are used in the computer areas. Lensed fixtures are used in other areas except for the Gymnasium where there are metal halide fixtures.
Intercom/Communications An integrated intercom/telephone system exists throughout the entire facility.
Fire Alarm An addressable fire alarm system meeting current code is provided. Asbestos containing Materials The building does not have any known asbestos containing materials. Facility/Site Deficiencies Site: 1. None Noted. Building: 1. None Noted.
INSTRUCTIONAL ADEQUACY July 2007
District: Monroe School District #103 School: Fryelands Elementary School County: Snohomish Evaluators: Ralph Yingling
Kevin Oremus
In the area below, indicate any features of the building which are identified as impeding the instructional programs or contributing to a less than suitable educational environment. 1. Inlay gym court lines.
1 22 IA-FRE.doc
FRYELAND ELEMENTARY AREA ANALYSIS
Add/Area Length Width Area Subtr. Factor TotalsFIRST FLOOR 37,037 SF
1 148.67 x 58.67 = 8,722.47 s.f. + 1 8,7222 103.92 x 75.34 = 7,829.33 s.f. + 1 7,8293 103.92 x 75.34 = 7,829.33 s.f. + 1 7,8294 85.00 x 48.34 = 4,108.90 s.f. + 1 4,1095 67.34 x 46.00 = 3,097.64 s.f. + 0.5 1,5496 30.67 x 27.92 = 856.31 s.f. + 1 8567 30.67 x 27.92 = 856.31 s.f. + 1 8568 16.00 x 44.75 = 716.00 s.f. + 1 7169 16.00 x 44.75 = 716.00 s.f. + 1 716
10 15.92 x 33.34 = 530.77 s.f. + 1 53111 15.92 x 33.34 = 530.77 s.f. + 1 53112 40.67 x 8.67 = 352.61 s.f. + 1 35313 29.00 x 11.00 = 319.00 s.f. + 1 31914 29.00 x 11.00 = 319.00 s.f. + 1 31915 4.17 x 45.67 = 190.44 s.f. + 1 19016 4.17 x 45.67 = 190.44 s.f. + 1 19017 11.79 x 49.58 = 584.55 s.f. + 1 58518 11.79 x 49.58 = 584.55 s.f. + 1 58519 15.34 x 5.34 = 81.92 s.f. + 1 8220 15.34 x 5.34 = 81.92 s.f. + 1 8221 17.34 x 3.00 = 52.02 s.f. + 1 5222 17.34 x 3.00 = 52.02 s.f. + 1 5223 1.58 x 17.58 = 27.78 s.f. + 1 2824 1.58 x 17.58 = 27.78 s.f. + 1 2825 7.25 x 3.00 = 21.75 s.f. + 1 2226 7.25 x 3.00 = 21.75 s.f. + 1 2227 6.67 x 8.67 = 57.83 s.f. - 1 -5828 6.67 x 8.67 = 57.83 s.f. - 1 -58
SECOND FLOOR 17,037 SF1 76.42 x 32.50 = 2,483.65 s.f. + 1 2,4842 76.42 x 32.50 = 2,483.65 s.f. + 1 2,4843 56.50 x 32.92 = 1,859.98 s.f. + 1 1,8604 56.50 x 32.92 = 1,859.98 s.f. + 1 1,8605 84.20 x 11.83 = 996.09 s.f. + 1 996
(Continued)
FRYELAND ELEMENTARY AREA ANALYSIS
(Continued)Add/
Area Length Width Area Subtr. Factor Totals6 28.50 x 32.92 = 938.22 s.f. + 1 9387 28.50 x 32.92 = 938.22 s.f. + 1 9388 28.17 x 27.34 = 770.17 s.f. + 1 7709 28.17 x 27.34 = 770.17 s.f. + 1 770
10 69.50 x 9.50 = 660.25 s.f. + 1 66011 69.50 x 9.50 = 660.25 s.f. + 1 66012 32.34 x 16.08 = 520.03 s.f. + 1 52013 34.67 x 9.75 = 338.03 s.f. + 1 33814 34.67 x 9.75 = 338.03 s.f. + 1 33815 15.34 x 7.32 = 112.29 s.f. + 1 11216 15.50 x 29.00 = 449.50 s.f. + 1 45017 15.50 x 29.00 = 449.50 s.f. + 1 45018 16.58 x 5.68 = 94.17 s.f. + 1 9419 16.58 x 5.68 = 94.17 s.f. + 1 9420 2.67 x 15.17 = 40.50 s.f. + 1 4121 2.67 x 15.17 = 40.50 s.f. + 1 4122 21.05 x 5.17 = 108.83 s.f. + 1 10923 21.05 x 5.17 = 108.83 s.f. + 1 10924 12.46 x 4.34 = 54.08 s.f. + 1 5425 12.46 x 4.34 = 54.08 s.f. + 1 5426 1.51 x 17.50 = 26.43 s.f. + 1 2627 1.51 x 17.50 = 26.43 s.f. + 1 2628 1.33 x 15.17 = 20.18 s.f. - 1 -2029 1.33 x 15.17 = 20.18 s.f. - 1 -2030 2.67 x 14.83 = 39.60 s.f. - 1 -4031 2.67 x 14.83 = 39.60 s.f. - 1 -4032 2.42 x 8.50 = 20.57 s.f. - 1 -2133 2.42 x 8.50 = 20.57 s.f. - 1 -2134 3.25 x 6.00 = 19.50 s.f. - 1 -2035 3.25 x 6.00 = 19.50 s.f. - 1 -2036 1.34 x 14.83 = 19.87 s.f. - 1 -2037 1.34 x 14.83 = 19.87 s.f. - 1 -20
TOTAL ALL BUILDINGS 54,074 SF
Building Condition Summary Report School: Maltby Elementary School Address: 9700 212th S.E. City: Snohomish, WA 98296-7198 County: Snohomish Telephone: 360-863-4130
Site Information Tax Parcel No.: 27052500100300 Approximate Acreage: 9.48 Acres Police Jurisdiction: Sno. County Sheriff Fire Jurisdiction: Sno. Fire District #7 Unincorporated: x Incorporated: Zoning: R-5
Building Information: Current Sq. Footage: 50,230 S.F. Original Construction: 1968 Covered Playshed: 1987 Modernization: 2005 Classroom Addition: 2005
School Capacity: Current Enrollment: (Oct. 1, 2007) 389.5 FTE 418.0 Head Count As determined by educational program and number of classrooms.
K Grades 1-5 SE Capacity Portables Total CR S CR S CR S CR S 2 48 21 516 2 0 564 0 0 564
*Grades K-4 average classroom loading at 24 students per classroom (K at .5) *Grade 5 average classroom loading at 28 students per station (includes music & PE) *Special Education – Only Life Skills students (severely disabled or medically fragile) are assigned to a classroom. All other students are
assigned to a regular classroom.
1 26 BCSR MBE.doc
Construction History: Maltby Elementary was constructed in 1968 as a campus style facility composed of three single story buildings connected by covered walks and breezeways. A detached covered playshed was added in 1987. The building was re-roofed in 1988. A classroom building was added in 2005 including expansion of the main office along with full modernization of the existing facility. Site improvements were made to parking, bus loading area and the main courtyard. Surrounding Site Description and Utilization: The school is located on a fairly level site in a rural neighborhood surrounded by farms, houses, and vacant lots. Play fields are grass and play areas are asphalt except bark in the soft play equipment area. Parking lots and drives are asphalt with extruded concrete curbs. There are approximately 76 on-site parking spaces. Fire hydrants and equipment access is provided. The storm drain system is on site and part of the grass play field area contains the septic tank and drainfield. The site is fenced with chain link fencing. Landscaping includes shrubs and trees in well-maintained planting areas. Brief Building Component Description: Exterior Walls The structure is composed of brick masonry bearing walls, steel columns,
glu-lam beams and wood T & G decking. Windows are aluminum. Fascias are laminated wood and soffits are exposed decking and glu-lams. Exterior walls are non-insulated giant brick.
Interior Walls The interior partitions are wood framed with gypsum wallboard. Roof The roof is low slope SBS modified built-up roofing over minimal rigid
insulation and flashings. The roof structure is 2x6 T&G decking on glu-lam beams. Downspouts are galvanized and painted.
HVAC Each classroom has a vertical fan coil unit in a closet that is equipped with
an economizer damper arrangement to allow up to 100% outside air for free cooling, when atmospheric conditions allow. During the occupied mode, the DDC system controls the automatic dampers to confirm that minimum ventilation outside air quantities are delivered to the spaces. The economizer controls allow for modulation of outside air quantities to maintain temperature in the space, as well as control the heating coil valve to allow additional heat as required by each individual space. These units also can be set up for 100% recirculation, 0% outside air for morning warm up and unoccupied mode operation. Thee units are controlled thru the DDC system, and monitored at the Monroe SD central maintenance office. The Gym air handling system utilizes the DDC system and CO2 sensors to modulate the outside air damper to the minimum position to maintain the set point CO2 levels in the space.
Plumbing The domestic hot, cold, and hot water circulation system is Type L hard
drawn copper with fiberglass insulation. All sinks, faucets, and trim in the classrooms were replaced with new equipment. Portions of the underslab soil, waste, and vent system were reused where appropriate, new piping was added where required. A new hydronic heating system was installed with boilers, base mounted circulating pumps, and connections to new fan coil units in each classroom. This hydronic heating system is controlled by the DDC system
1 26 BCSR MBE.doc
1 26 BCSR MBE.doc
Fire Sprinklers The building is sprinklered throughout. A 6” fire service main is provided to
each building for separate fire sprinkler riser rooms. A complete wet pipe sprinkler system conforming to NFPA 13 is installed.
Energy Controls DDC temperature control system is provided incorporating energy
conservation and building occupation control strategies. The DDC system is by Alerton Technologies, installed by ATS Automation, the district’s energy management system vendor
Electrical The electrical service consists of 120, 277/480V distribution system for
lighting and power. Step down transformation from 480V to 120/208V for convenience outlets and small motors is provided.
Lighting Lighting is fluorescent except HID fixtures in the Gym and high pressure
sodium for exterior lighting. Intercom/Communications An integrated intercom/telephone system exists throughout the entire facility. Fire Alarm An addressable fire alarm system meeting current codes is provided. Asbestos containing Materials The building was abated of all known asbestos containing material in 2005. Facility/Site Deficiencies Site: 1. Septic field improvements and upgrades are needed to reduce maintenance. Building: 1. Renovate Kitchen and Kitchen Storage area. 2. New roofing is needed.
INSTRUCTIONAL ADEQUACY July 2007
District: Monroe School District #103 School: Maltby Elementary School County: Snohomish Evaluators: Ralph Yingling
Kevin Oremus
In the area below, indicate any features of the building which are identified as impeding the instructional programs or contributing to a less than suitable educational environment. 1. Provide a fenced pre-school play area with new equipment.
1 27 IA-MBE.doc
MALTBY ELEMENTARYAREA ANALYSIS
Add/Area Length Width Area Subtr. Factor TotalsBuilding A 1974 10,512 SFA1 88.75 x 112.67 = 9,999.46 s.f. + 1 9,999A2 7.92 x 64.67 = 512.19 s.f. + 1 512
Building B 1974 18,769 SFB1 128.67 x 136.67 = 17,585.33 s.f. + 1 17,585B2 8.00 x 24.67 (6) = 1,184.16 s.f. + 1 1,184
Building C 1974/2005 14,038 SFC1 128.67 x 104.67 = 13,467.89 s.f. + 1 13,468C2 3.00 x 7.33 = 21.99 s.f. - 1 -22C3 8.00 x 24.67 (3) = 592.08 s.f. - 1 592.08
Building D 1987 1,750 SFD1 50.00 x 70.00 = 3,500.00 s.f. + 0.5 1,750
Building E 2005 5,160 SFE1 89.00 x 58.67 = 5,221.63 s.f. + 1 5,222E2 9.30 x 5.42 = 50.41 s.f. + 1 50E3 5.00 x 22.33 = 111.65 s.f. - 1 -112
TOTAL ALL BUILDINGS 50,230 SF
Building Condition Summary Report School: Salem Woods Elementary School Address: 12802 Wagner Road City: Monroe, WA 98272-7712 County: Snohomish Telephone: 360-794-3027
Site Information Tax Parcel No.: 28072900300400 Approximate Acreage: 10.09 Acres Police Jurisdiction: Snohomish County Sheriff Fire Jurisdiction: Monroe Fire Department Unincorporated: x Incorporated: Zoning: R-5
Building Information: Current Sq. Footage: 38,338 S.F. Original Construction: 1980 Classroom Addition: 1987 Parking revisions: 1988 Roofing: 1999
School Capacity: Current Enrollment: (Oct. 1, 2007) 441.0 FTE 478.0 Head Count As determined by educational program and number of classrooms.
K Grades 1-5 SE Capacity Portables Total CR S CR S CR S CR S 2 48 17 420 1 0 468 3 75 543
*Grades K-4 average classroom loading at 24 students per classroom (K at .5) *Grade 5 average classroom loading at 28 students per station (includes music & PE) *Special Education – Only Life Skills students (severely disabled or medically fragile) are assigned to a classroom. All other students are
assigned to a regular classroom.
1 31 BCSR SWE.doc
Construction History: Salem Woods Elementary was constructed in 1980 and is composed of five single story buildings connected by the roof system, covered walks and breezeways. A single classroom was added in 1987. Parking lot revisions occurred in 1988. Irrigation was added to two of the play field areas in 1998 and the entire facility was re-roofed and painted in 1999. Surrounding Site Description and Utilization: The school is located on a fairly level site in a rural neighborhood. The site contains an irrigated grass play field and an irrigated baseball field. A soft surface play area divides the two play fields. Hard surface play areas are concrete. Parking lots and drives are asphalt with concrete curbs. The fire hydrants are serviced from a drafting station in the lake across the street; adequate fire flow is not available from the existing utilities provided to the site. The storm drain system is collected from the roof and dispersed into rain barrels. A small detention pond is located on site. The sewer system consists of a septic tank with two drain fields located under the play fields. The site is partially fenced with chain link fencing. Landscaping includes shrubs and trees in planting areas and planter boxes. The site contains a wooded area with a stream, which is used as an environmental instruction area. Brief Building Component Description: Exterior Walls The structure consists of single-story timber pole and steel tube column
construction on spread footings. The exterior walls are painted beveled wood siding. Plywood soffits are stain finished. Aluminum windows are single-glazed with glass and plastic.
Interior Walls The interior partitions are painted gypsum board on metal studs except for
the folding walls between classrooms. Roof The roof structure consists of glu-lam beams with sawn purlins and 1-1/8”
plywood. Roofing is composition shingles. Roof drainage is to gutters and then overflows to concrete catch basins except at the gym where downspouts are utilized.
HVAC The existing mechanical system consists of packaged air to air heat pumps,
with a separate heat pump for each classroom, the Administration area and the Gymnasium/Cafeteria. The equipment is clean and in fair condition but at the end of its useful life. Air distribution is through ceiling diffusers. The HVAC system should be investigated for conformance with current codes for air exchange.
Plumbing Plumbing consists of hot and cold piping and drain lines under slabs and in
frame walls. All classroom sinks have independent water heaters, which are undersized for regular use.
Fire Sprinklers Fire sprinklers are provided under the stage platform only. The rest of the
building is not sprinkled. A small pond is located across the street and a drafting station was constructed for additional fire flow capacity to the building in case of an emergency.
Energy Controls The facility contains the original pneumatic energy control system.
1 31 BCSR SWE.doc
1 31 BCSR SWE.doc
Electrical The electrical service consists of 120, 277/480V distribution system for lighting and power. Step down transformation from 480V to 120/208V for convenience outlets and small motors is provided.
Security A security system is located in the office area and library which, is tied into
an outside monitoring agency. Lighting Lighting is fluorescent except HID fixtures in the Gym and high pressure
sodium for parking lot lighting and incandescent for walkway security lighting. Intercom/Communications An integrated intercom/telephone system is provided. Clocks A master clock and clock system is provided throughout. Fire Alarm The building maintains the original non-addressable fire alarm system. Asbestos containing Materials The building is not reported to contain any friable asbestos containing materials but does have asbestos tile mastic. Facility/Site Deficiencies Site: 1. Improve roof and storm drainage system to meet current codes. 2. Improve the southern play field. 3. Repair deteriorating asphalt surfaces 4. Replace 4-foot high perimeter fencing with 6-foot high fencing 5. Replace exterior security and walkway lighting. 6. Parking capacity is inadequate. Building: 1. Repair cracking and rotted areas of timber pole columns and covered play area beams. 2. Replace gutters and provide downspouts & drainage improvements. 3. Replace flooring throughout the facility. 4. New wall finishes in restrooms. 5. Add ventilation to Health Room 6. Replacement of worn equipment in Multi-Purpose Room. 7. Investigate HVAC system for conformance with current air exchange codes. 8. Replace/upgrade HVAC control system. 9. Remove undersized water heaters and replace with central units. 10. Replace plumbing fixtures. 11. Upgrade fire alarm system. 12. Upgrade technology system to current district standards. 13. Clock system is not fully operational and should be upgraded. 14. Repaint entire facility
INSTRUCTIONAL ADEQUACY July 2007
District: Monroe School District #103 School: Salem Woods Elementary County: Snohomish Evaluators: Ralph Yingling
Kevin Oremus
In the area below, indicate any features of the building which are identified as impeding the instructional programs or contributing to a less than suitable educational environment. 1. Covered Play Area needs to be enlarged and more surface play areas added. 2. Exterior circulation causes heating and circulation problems 3. There is inadequate storage for student items in the classrooms. 4. There is insufficient custodial storage. 5. Stage curtain and lighting does not meet programmatic needs. 6. Student restrooms open into unsupervised open hallways. 7. Classroom casework is inefficient. 8. There is inadequate storage around entire facility. 9. Inadequate electrical service. 10. Parking lot design encourages unsafe parent drop-off of students. 11. Staff Room is undersized. 12. With the campus plan arrangement it is difficult to control, or be notified, of visitors.
1 32 IA-SWE.doc
SALEM WOODS ELEMENTARYAREA ANALYSIS
Add/Area Length Width Area Subtr. Factor TotalsBuilding A 1980 9,943 SFA1 70.67 x 120.33 = 8,503.72 s.f. + 1 8,504A2 62.25 x 46.25 = 2,879.06 s.f. + 0.5 1,440
Building B 1980 6,231 SFB1 45.25 x 64.50 = 2,918.63 s.f. + 1 2,919B2 44.50 x 12.50 = 556.25 s.f. + 1 556B3 52.50 x 52.50 = 2,756.25 s.f. + 1 2,756
Building C 1980 6,625 SFC1 64.50 x 90.50 = 5,837.25 s.f. + 1 5,837C2 15.00 x 52.50 = 787.50 s.f. + 1 788
Building D 1980 8,528 SFD1 64.50 x 120.00 = 7,740.00 s.f. + 1 7,740D2 15.00 x 52.50 = 787.50 s.f. + 1 788
Building E 1980 5,956 SFE1 15.00 x 52.50 = 787.50 s.f. + 1 788E2 64.00 x 64.50 = 4,128.00 s.f. + 1 4,128E3 32.00 x 32.50 = 1,040.00 s.f. + 1 1,040
Building E1 1987 1,056 SFE4 32.50 x 32.50 = 1,056.25 s.f. + 1 1,056
TOTAL ALL BUILDINGS 38,338 SF
Building Condition Summary Report School: Hidden River Middle School Address: 9224 Paradise Lake Road City: Snohomish, WA 98296-7145 County: Snohomish Telephone: 360-863-4100
Site Information Tax Parcel No.: 27052500102400 Approximate Acreage: 25.2 Acres Police Jurisdiction: Snohomish County Sheriff Fire Jurisdiction: Snohomish County Fire District #7 Unincorporated: x Incorporated: Zoning: IP Building Information: Current Sq. Footage: 60,688 S.F Original Construction: 1999 Covered Playshed: 2002 Gym/Music Addition: 2005
School Capacity: Current Enrollment: (Oct. 1, 2007) 289.0 FTE 289.0 Head Count As determined by educational program and number of classrooms.
Grades 6-8 SE Sub Total 83% Portables Totals
CR S CR S CR S 100% 90% 19 532 1 0 532 442 0 0 532 442
*Grades 6-8 average classroom loading at 28 students per station (includes music & PE) * Calculated at 83% room utilization. *Special Education – Only Life Skills students (severely disabled or medically fragile) are assigned to a classroom. All other students are
assigned to a regular classroom.
February 08 1 36 BCSR HRMS.doc
Construction History: Hidden River Middle School was constructed in 1999 as the first phase of a planned two-phase facility. Initially constructed to house 400 students, the school is planned for an eventual expansion to 800 students with specialty classrooms and labs. A covered playshed was added in 2002. A gymnasium, music and choir room addition was added in 2005 Surrounding Site Description and Utilization: The school is located on a large 25 acre rural site. The fields are natural grass consisting of a play field and ball field. The play fields are not irrigated or under-drained. A location for a future track and field has been identified and may be accommodated on site in the future. Parking can accommodate 144 cars and eight busses with a future planned addition for up to another 61parking spaces. Handicap parking, loading/unloading areas and handicap access features are provided and are sufficient for current use. On-site biofiltration swales and a detention pond accommodate storm drainage. Sewer is tied into a mainline that services the highway 522 corridor. Brief Building Component Description: Exterior Walls The structure is a two-story wood framed building with CMU veneer and fiber
cement exterior siding. Interior Walls Interior walls are typically wood studs with gypsum board finish. The
corridors are finished with veneer plaster, the bathrooms with ceramic tile and the kitchen with FRP panels. Some of the classroom walls have vinyl wallcovering.
Roof The roofing is 25-year composition shingles on plywood sheathing on pre-
manufactured wood trusses. HVAC Heating and ventilation is provided to each zone in the facility by hydronic
heat pump air handlers. Air handlers are located in the attic with easy access for safe access for maintenance and repair. A constant volume air handler with gas furnace sections serves the Multipurpose Room. Primary heating is provided by gas fired boilers located in the Boiler Room. Air conditioning is provided as part of the heat pump system. An outdoor air-cooled fluid cooler provides heat rejection.
Plumbing A 6” domestic water service is provided from a main outside the building to a
main shutoff valve located in the Boiler Room. A 6” fire service main is provided to the building to a header in the Boiler Room.
Standard efficiency gas fired water heaters provide hot water for toilet room facilities, sinks and labs. Re-circulating hot water lines with time and temperature controlled pumps provide quick hot water delivery at all fixtures.
Fixtures in toilet rooms, water coolers and in classrooms meet current ADA requirements. Water closets and urinals are furnished with heavy duty automatic operated flush valves with water conserving flow rates. Lavatories are furnished with metering, water conserving faucets.
February 08 1 36 BCSR HRMS.doc
February 08 1 36 BCSR HRMS.doc
Fire Sprinklers A complete wet pipe sprinkler system is installed. Dry side wall heads
protect the exterior canopy areas. Energy Controls Direct digital control is provided for all HVAC systems, exterior lighting and
landscape sprinklers. Electrical 208Y/120V. Surge suppression is provided at the main distribution panel and
all 120-volt panels. Security A security system is installed throughout the facility and is in working order. Lighting Interior lighting systems are fluorescent with T8 lamps and electronic
ballasts. Exterior lighting is HPS with photocell and EMS control. Exit and emergency lights are provided in the corridors, media center,
multipurpose room and other areas as required by code. Intercom/Communications A master clock system is provided and fully operational. An integrated intercom/telephone system is provided and fully operational. The Data Network System is provided. System meets the District middle
school standards. TV distribution system with local origination is provided. Fire Alarm An addressable fire alarm system meeting current jurisdiction requirements
is provided. Asbestos containing Materials The building does not have any asbestos containing materials. Facility/Site Deficiencies Site: 1. Cooling tower fencing. 2. Add irrigation sprinklers to fields Building: 1. Kitchen expansion needed.
INSTRUCTIONAL ADEQUACY July 2007
District: Monroe School District #103 School: Hidden River Middle School County: Snohomish Evaluators: Ralph Yingling
Kevin Oremus
In the area below, indicate any features of the building which are identified as impeding the instructional programs or contributing to a less than suitable educational environment. 1. The building satisfies all the educational objectives for which it was built within the constraints of it being a
starter school for the area.
1 37 IA-HRMS.doc
HIDDEN RIVER MIDDLE SCHOOLAREA ANALYSIS
Add/Area Length Width Area Subtr. Factor TotalsBuilding A 1999 46,391 SFA1 112.50 x 32.67 = 3,675.38 s.f. + 1 3,675A2 98.58 x 30.67 = 3,023.55 s.f. + 1 3,024A3 84.50 x 11.33 = 957.39 s.f. + 1 957A4 37.25 x 70.42 = 2,623.15 s.f. + 1 2,623A5 51.33 x 113.00 = 5,800.29 s.f. + 1 5,800A6 42.67 x 8.42 = 359.28 s.f. + 1 359A7 16.5 x 62.67 = 1,034.06 s.f. + 1 1,034A8 8.92 x 31.42 = 280.16 s.f. + 1 280A9 74.67 x 76.42 = 5,706.03 s.f. + 1 5,706A10 46.00 x 7.75 = 356.50 s.f. + 1 357A11 31.42 x 59.33 = 1,864.15 s.f. + 1 1,864A12 18.67 x 2.42 = 45.18 s.f. + 1 45A13 30.25 x 9.33 = 282.23 s.f. + 1 282A14 7.75 x 13.33 = 103.31 s.f. + 1 103A15 23.66 x 85.75 = 2,028.85 s.f. + 1 2,029A16 7.83 x 17.08 = 133.74 s.f. + 1 134A17 13.92 x 27.10 = 377.23 s.f. + 1 377A18 31.25 x 78.00 = 2,437.50 s.f. + 1 2,438A19 9.33 x 10.33 = 96.38 s.f. + 1 96A20 7.33 x 46.00 = 337.18 s.f. + 1 337A21 99.58 x 13.91 = 1,385.16 s.f. + 1 1,385A22 114.00 x 87.00 = 9,918.00 s.f. + 1 9,918A23 82.00 x 31.50 = 2,583.00 s.f. + 1 2,583A24 46.00 x 6.25 = 287.50 s.f. + 1 288A25 10.50 x 64.50 = 677.25 s.f. + 1 677A26 NA x NA = 18.48 s.f. + 1 18
Building B 1999 13,073 SFB1 84.50 x 74.67 = 6,309.62 s.f. + 1 6,310B2 32.67 x 28.00 = 914.76 s.f. + 1 915B3 9.67 x 13.67 = 132.19 s.f. + 1 132B4 20.58 x 13.67 = -281.37 s.f. - 1 -281B5 70.00 x 37.67 = 2,636.90 s.f. + 1 2,637B6 12.50 x 13.83 = -172.88 s.f. - 1 -173B7 10.00 x 6.67 = -66.70 s.f. - 1 -67B8 41.75 x 42.50 = 1,774.38 s.f. + 1 1,774B9 6.00 x 7.83 = -47.00 s.f. - 1 -47B10 12.33 x 32.17 = 396.62 s.f. + 1 397B11 3.25 x 6.50 = 21.13 s.f. + 1 21
B12 27.00 x 24.00 = 648.00 s.f. + 1 648B13 4.42 x 18.75 = 82.81 s.f. + 1 83B14 25.42 x 28.50 = 724.38 s.f. + 1 724
Building C 2002 1,224 SFC1 40.13 x 61.00 = 2,447.93 s.f. + 0.5 1,224
TOTAL ALL BUILDINGS 60,688 SF
Building Condition Summary Report School: Monroe Middle School Address: 351 Short Columbia City: Monroe, WA 98272-1802 County: Snohomish Telephone: 360-794-3020
Site Information Tax Parcel No.: 27060100102300 27060100402600 Approximate Acreage: 5.28 Acres (15 acres of fields across street) Police Jurisdiction: Monroe Police Department Fire Jurisdiction: Monroe Fire Department Unincorporated: Incorporated: x Zoning: PS Building Information: Current Sq. Footage: 84,997 S.F. Vocational Building: 1954/1981 Science Building: 1964/1967
Classroom/PE/Admin: 1967 Aux. Gym/Cafeteria: 1980 Roofing: 1989 Admin. Addition: 1990 School Capacity: Current Enrollment: (Oct. 1, 2007) 496.4 FTE 498.0 Head Count As determined by educational program and number of classrooms.
Grades 6-8 SE Sub Total 83% Portables Totals
CR S CR S CR S 100% 90% 28 784 5 5 789 655 2 56 845 701
*Grades 6-8 average classroom loading at 28 students per station (includes music & PE) * Calculated at 83% room utilization. *Special Education – Only Life Skills students (severely disabled or medically fragile) are assigned to a classroom. All other students are
assigned to a regular classroom.
1 41 BCSR MMS.doc
Construction History: Monroe Middle School was built as a replacement for the original Monroe High School, which was torn down at this site after a 1965 earthquake. The school was rebuilt at the original site and utilizes buildings that were part of the original school. The oldest building on the site is the Vocational Building originally constructed in 1954. An addition to this building was added in 1981. The Science Building was constructed in 1964. Two additions were added to the Science Building in 1967. The main Classroom and Library Building was constructed in 1967 along with the Physical Education Building and Administration Building. An Auxiliary Gym and Lunchroom addition was added to the PE Building in 1980. The entire facility was re-roofed in 1989. An addition to the Administration Building was added in 1990. Surrounding Site Description and Utilization: The school is located on a level site near downtown Monroe and is across the street from the Auxiliary Athletic Facilities, which it shares for PE fields. The facility is composed of five buildings connected by covered walks. There is very little space left for additions to the campus. There is a blacktop area on site. Lawn areas and landscaping is minimal. Parking areas are asphalt with concrete curbs. Walkways are concrete. The storm system is tied into the City’s system but some of the storm water is reported to infiltrate back into the ground through french drains. The sewer is connected to the City system. Brief Building Component Description: Exterior Walls Exterior walls are typically uninsulated brick masonry with some metal siding
at the shop building. Fascias are painted wood and galvanized copings except for beveled wood siding at the gym. Exterior windows are single glazed steel and aluminum.
Interior Walls The interior walls are primarily a combination of reinforced masonry,
reinforced concrete, reinforced brick and wood studs. Finishes include painted and integral colored masonry, plaster, and sheetrock.
Roof Roofs are low slope SBS roofing. Roof drainage is to drains and gutters and
then to downspouts. HVAC The heating system is mostly electric with unit ventilators in each classroom;
heating and ventilating units in the gymnasium, cafeteria, and shops; and wall heaters in the administration area. The shops have exhaust systems for sawdust collection, welding and the foundry. Electronic air filters are installed to remove fine dust from the shop air. None of the existing HVAC equipment is in compliance with current codes.
Plumbing The domestic water piping system is galvanized steel, typically installed
under slab on grade. The water is rusty indicating corrosion of the galvanized pipes. Many of the china plumbing fixtures are cracked or broken. All of the flush valves are manual flush. The domestic water heaters are of various ages.
Fire Sprinklers The facility is not protected by a fire sprinkler system. Many of the existing
buildings have combustible overhangs that exceed four feet which will require a dry sprinkler system.
Energy Controls The existing system is a “piece meal” collection of various manufacturers’
pneumatic controls. All of the controls have exceeded their anticipated useful life. There is no energy management system in use at this site.
1 41 BCSR MMS.doc
1 41 BCSR MMS.doc
Electrical The electrical distribution is 480V/277. Step down transformers are used to supply branch panels at 208V/120V.
Security Motion detectors and door contacts are in place at the General Office,
Computer Rooms, Shop, Library and one classroom which used to be a computer lab.
Lighting There is a variety of fixtures of all different ages throughout. Intercom/Communications Clock/speaker system was replaced in 1990. Fire Alarm Two independent fire alarm systems exist within the facility. Both are
antiquated and should be replaced. Asbestos containing Materials The building contains friable asbestos containing materials such as pipe insulation and non-friable vinyl asbestos tile. Facility/Site Deficiencies Site: 1. Repair deteriorating covered walkways. 2. Improve storm drainage so parking lot does not flood. 3. Improve site lighting. 4. Event parking is inadequate. 5. Play area is inadequate. Fields across the street is a safety issue and cannot be used for recess. 6. Repair existing deteriorated walkways and add new to improve site circulation. 7. Facility does not have a covered play area. Building: 1. Gym walls need to be sealed. Showing effervescence. 2. Install curbs in shower area to contain water. 3. Provide screening to control visibility into shower room. 4. Expand the size of the kitchen to accommodate programmatic needs. 5. Renovate cafeteria. 6. Replace windows and add insulation to bring buildings up to current energy code compliance. 7. Replace deteriorated flooring. 8. Paint entire facility – inside and out. 9. Perform a seismic evaluation for conformance to current codes. 10. Replace deteriorated plumbing system with copper piping. 11. Improve/replace heating and ventilation system throughout facility. 12. Upgrade the shop exhaust systems. 13. Upgrade and expand the electrical and data systems. 14. Replace fire alarm system to comply with current codes. 15. Extend data system to all classrooms. 16. Upgrade/replace lighting system to increase lighting levels. 17. Replace fluorescent lighting in gym with HID fixtures for safety and efficiency. 18. Plumbing upgrades 19. Modernize classrooms 20. Upgrade restrooms 21. Remove masonry smokestack 22. Add exhaust fan in Library for Laminator 23. Add smoke detectors and fire alarm system throughout facility.
INSTRUCTIONAL ADEQUACY July 2007
District: Monroe School District #103 School: Monroe Middle School County: Snohomish Evaluators: Ralph Yingling
Kevin Oremus
In the area below, indicate any features of the building which are identified as impeding the instructional programs or contributing to a less than suitable educational environment. 1. The library needs to be redesigned to meet current programmatic needs. 2. Acoustics need to be improved in the small gym. 3. Play fields and play field access is not adequate. A covered play area is needed and more surfaced play
areas and playground equipment are needed to accommodate current student population. 4. Building needs to be made more accessible, especially the toilet rooms. 5. The teacher’s workroom needs to be enlarged or another one built. 6. The classrooms are generally too small for the 7th and 8th grades. (School originally designed as an open
concept high school) 7. More conference and itinerant spaces are needed around the campus. 8. Shower rooms need to be remodeled and upgraded. 9. There is not adequate storage. 10. There is a shortage of electrical outlets in the classrooms. 11. Corridors with lockers on each side are too narrow for safety and adequate use. 12. A custodial supply room occupies the central part of the open library and should be relocated. 13. The classrooms are in a “pod-system” and do not meet current programmatic needs. 14. Band Room acoustics is poor. 15. Band Room does not have ADA accessibility. 16. Physical reconfiguration of instructional spaces is needed throughout the campus to deliver current
programs.
1 42 IA-MMS.doc
MONROE MIDDLE SCHOOLAREA ANALYSIS
Add/Area Length Width Area Subtr. Factor TotalsBuilding A 1954 7,008 SFA1 78.00 x 97.84 = 7,631.52 s.f. + 1 7,632A2 4.00 x 14.00 = 56.00 s.f. + 1 56A6 10.00 x 44.00 = -440.00 s.f. - 1 -440A7 10.00 x 24.00 = -240.00 s.f. - 1 -240
Building A1 1967 4,174 SFA3 34.00 x 17.50 = 595.00 s.f. + 1 595A4 34.00 x 6.50 = 221.00 s.f. + 1 221A5 78.00 x 34.33 = 2,677.74 s.f. + 1 2,678A6 10.00 x 44.00 = 440.00 s.f. + 1 440A7 10.00 x 24.00 = 240.00 s.f. + 1 240
Building B 1967 24,192 SFB1 144.00 x 168.00 = 24,192.00 s.f. + 1 24,192
Building B1 1980 9,485 SFB2 36.50 x 35.75 = 1,304.88 s.f. + 1 1,305B3 7.50 x 31.75 = 238.13 s.f. + 1 238B4 12.67 x 35.75 = 452.95 s.f. + 1 453B5 12.67 x 36.58 = 463.47 s.f. + 1 463B6 80.33 x 85.00 = 6,828.05 s.f. + 1 6,828B7 4.00 x 49.33 = 197.32 s.f. + 1 197
Building C 1967 2,640 SFC1 36.00 x 73.33 = 2,639.88 s.f. + 1 2,640
Building C1 1990 1,197 SFC2 16.33 x 73.33 = 1,197.48 s.f. + 1 1,197
Building D 1954 10,560 SFD1 80.00 x 132.00 = 10,560.00 s.f. + 1 10,560
Building E 1967 25,741 SFE1 27.50 x 13.75 = 378.13 s.f. + 1 378E2 39.00 x 27.50 = 1,072.50 s.f. + 1 1,073
(CONTINUED)
MONROE MIDDLE SCHOOLAREA ANALYSIS
(CONTINUED)
E3 27.50 x 13.75 = 378.13 s.f. + 1 378E4 27.50 x 39.00 = 1,072.50 s.f. + 1 1,073E5 39.00 x 39.00 = 1,521.00 s.f. + 1 1,521E6 27.50 x 39.00 = 1,072.50 s.f. + 1 1,073E7 27.50 x 13.75 = 378.13 s.f. + 1 378E8 39.00 x 27.50 = 1,072.50 s.f. + 1 1,073E9 33.50 x 33.50 = 1,122.25 s.f. + 1 1,122E9A 6.00 x 3.00 = 18.00 s.f. - 1 -18E9B 8.00 x 3.50 = 28.00 s.f. - 1 -28E10 39.00 x 33.50 = 1,306.50 s.f. + 1 1,307E11 33.50 x 33.50 = 1,122.25 s.f. + 1 1,122E11A 6.00 x 3.00 = 18.00 s.f. - 1 -18E11B 8.00 x 3.50 = 28.00 s.f. - 1 -28E12 39.00 x 27.50 = 1,072.50 s.f. + 1 1,073E13 29.00 x 13.75 = 398.75 s.f. + 1 399E14 238.33 x 19.50 = 4,647.44 s.f. + 1 4,647E15 29.00 x 19.50 = 565.50 s.f. + 1 566E16 39.00 x 19.50 = 760.50 s.f. + 1 761E17 27.50 x 19.50 = 536.25 s.f. + 1 536E18 27.50 x 19.50 = 536.25 s.f. + 1 536E19 39.00 x 19.50 = 760.50 s.f. + 1 761E20 29.00 x 19.50 = 565.50 s.f. + 1 566E21 37.00 x 37.00 = 1,369.00 s.f. + 1 1,369E21A 3.50 x 4.00 = 14.00 s.f. - 1 -14E21B 9.50 x 4.75 = 45.13 s.f. - 1 -45E21C 8.00 x 1.75 = 14.00 s.f. - 1 -14E22 39.00 x 27.50 = 1,072.50 s.f. + 1 1,073E23 27.50 x 13.75 = 378.13 s.f. + 1 378E24 27.50 x 13.75 = 378.13 s.f. + 1 378E25 39.00 x 27.50 = 1,072.50 s.f. + 1 1,073E26 37.00 x 37.00 = 1,369.00 s.f. + 1 1,369E26A 3.50 x 4.00 = 14.00 s.f. - 1 -14E26B 9.5 x 4.75 = 45.13 s.f. - 1 -45E26C 8 x 1.75 = 14.00 s.f. - 1 -14
TOTAL ALL BUILDINGS 84,997 SF
Building Condition Summary Report School: Park Place Middle School Address: 1408 West Main Street City: Monroe, WA 98272-2099 County: Snohomish Telephone: 360-794-3010
Site Information
Tax Parcel No.: 27060100306500 27060200409400 Approximate Acreage: 19.4 Acres Police Jurisdiction: Monroe Police Department Fire Jurisdiction: Monroe Fire Department Unincorporated: Incorporated: x Zoning: PS Building Information: Current Sq. Footage: 109,912 S.F. Original Construction: 1974 Additions: 1980 Library Building: 1990 Roofing 1997/1998
Art & Tech 1999 School Capacity: Current Enrollment: (Oct 1, 2007) 576.6 FTE 577 Head Count As determined by educational program and number of classrooms.
Grades 6-8 SE Sub Total 83% Portables Totals
CR S CR S CR S 100% 90% 40 1120 3 6 1126 935 5 140 1266 1051
*Grades 6-8 average classroom loading at 28 students per station (includes music & PE). * Calculated at 83% room utilization. *Special Education – Only Life Skills students (severely disabled or medically fragile) are assigned to a classroom. All other students are
assigned to a regular classroom.
1 46 BCSR PPM.doc
Construction History: Park Place Middle School was originally constructed in 1974 as the high school for the District. It was converted to a junior high in 1999 after the completion of a new high school for the District. In 2005 the District moved the 9th grade up to the High School and renamed this facility from Monroe Junior High to Park Place Middle School. The campus consists of six independent buildings connected by covered walks. Three additions were added in 1980. Another addition and the Library building were added in 1990. Five of the buildings were re-roofed in 1997 and 1998. An Art & Technology Program remodel was performed in 1999 Surrounding Site Description and Utilization: The school is located on a level site on Main Street near downtown Monroe. A grass playfield is located in the back of the site for PE use. Parking and driveway areas are asphalt with extruded asphalt and concrete curbs. Walkways are concrete. Additional pedestrian areas include a paved area near the front entry and asphalt strips between the buildings. Landscaping is minimal with lawn in front and along the perimeter buildings, some large trees, and a small landscaped area near the Library. The campus is mostly open with a minimal amount of chain link fencing. Parking is sufficient but the paving and curbing is deteriorating in many locations. Drainage improvements are needed as many of the drain lines are frequently plugged. Due to slight elevation gains around the site, there are many areas that do not conform to handicap accessible regulations. The middle school has extensive field space for physical education. The back portion of the site is not fenced and is accessible to the dike by the river. Brief Building Component Description: Exterior Walls Exterior walls are brick masonry, with small single glazed aluminum sash
windows and painted hollow metal doors and frames. Interior Walls Interior walls consist of gyp-board on wood framing as well as exposed
masonry which is predominately around the exterior. Most of the interior finishes shows excessive wear due to the high use in the past.
Roof The roofs are low slope SBS roofing. Flashings and downspouts are painted
galvanized steel and sheet metal. Covered walks are metal decking. Fascias are painted wood boards and soffits are exposed T&G decking.
HVAC The school is heated with natural gas and most buildings have roof-mounted
multi-zone heating and ventilating units which are Nesbitt in the older sections and Mammoth in the newer additions. Most of the rooftop units appear to be beyond their anticipated useful life and should be replaced. The Locker Rooms are heated with gas unit heaters. Underground gas piping has leaked in the past and has been found to be pitted.
Plumbing Plumbing consists of hot & cold water copper piping under slabs and
galvanized hot and cold water piping above grade. There are insufficient gate valves for the water piping system, and the City main must be shut down to service the water system within the school.
Fire Sprinklers Only the stage is sprinkled.
1 46 BCSR PPM.doc
1 46 BCSR PPM.doc
Energy Controls Most of the campus is served by pneumatic controls. The central air compressor is located in the mechanical room of Building A. Building F is the newest of the buildings and has an outdated Alerton 3500 series control system.
Electrical The main electrical service is a 1200A, 277/480V, 3 phase, 4 wire
switchboard. A Snohomish PUD three phase transformer is located west of Building A. The 1400 amp service is badly underpowered.
Security Security system consists of (2) Silent Knight 4720 Security Panels and (2)
4120 Zone Expander panels supporting door contacts and wall mount PIR motion detectors.
Lighting Fluorescent fixtures are used for classrooms, office, and corridor lighting.
The Main Gym contains tandem wired industrial strip fluorescent fixtures. Commons area lighting is surface wrap and mono-point incandescent lights.
Intercom/Communications The intercom head-end is located in a storage room inside the men’s
restroom in main office and consists of a Bogen wall mount cabinet. The Lathem Master Clock in the office is not functioning.
Fire Alarm Fire alarm system is Notifier System 5000 with a Kirkland annunciator panel.
Facility does not have complete smoke detector coverage. Asbestos containing Materials The building is not reported to have friable asbestos containing materials but does have vinyl asbestos tile. Facility/Site Deficiencies Site: 1. Patch and repair deteriorated parking lot asphalt paving. 2. Accommodate handicap accessibility throughout the campus. 3. Improve exterior lighting. 4. Patch and repair asphalt and concrete walkways and curbs. 5. Repair downspouts and improve the storm drainage system. 6. Add fencing and security cameras. 7. Replace underground gas piping. Building: 1. Upgrade electrical and data distribution throughout the facility. 2. Replace old rooftop HVAC units and controls. 3. Install additional gate valves on the main water line and the lines to each building. 4. Glu-lam beams are rotting at exposed exterior ends. 5. Improve ventilation in labs. 6. Replace Gym fluorescent lighting with HID lighting for safety and efficiency. 7. Replace Gym ceiling 8. Replace gym bleachers 9. Remove lockers 10. Replace Library security gate. 11. Gas service needs to be replaced. 12. A large underground 2500 gallon LPG tank needs to be decommissioned.
INSTRUCTIONAL ADEQUACY July 2007
District: Monroe School District #103 School: Park Place Middle School County: Snohomish Evaluators: Ralph Yingling
Kevin Oremus
In the area below, indicate any features of the building which are identified as impeding the instructional programs or contributing to a less than suitable educational environment. 1. Security of campus should be reviewed. The campus is too accessible from surrounding public areas. 2. Science Labs need remodeling to meet current program requirements. 3. Need additional office and tutoring spaces. 4. Need classroom space which is conducive to OT/PT and SLP programs. 5. Cafeteria and gym space is too small for the current student population. 6. Divider curtain in Gymnasium is in need of replacement. 7. Provide hot water to physical science room. 8. Dedicated space is needed for District-wide MDF.
1 47 IA-PPM.doc
PARK PLACE MIDDLE SCHOOLAREA ANALYSIS
Add/Area Length Width Area Subtr. Factor TotalsBuilding A 1974 28,993 SFA1 157.00 x 184.67 = 28,993.19 s.f. + 1 28,993
Building A1 1990 3,197 SFA2 67.67 x 36.67 = 2,481.46 s.f. + 1 2,481A3 15.00 x 31.67 = 475.05 s.f. + 1 475A4 15.00 x 16.00 = 240.00 s.f. + 1 240
Building B 1974 13,229 SFB1 48.67 x 62.75 = 3,054.04 s.f. + 1 3,054B2 96.67 x 105.25 = 10,174.52 s.f. + 1 10,175
Building B1 1980 2,989 SFB3 58.00 x 52.00 = 3,016.00 s.f. + 1 3,016B4 4.00 x 3.33 = 13.32 s.f. - 1 -13B5 4.00 x 3.33 = 13.32 s.f. - 1 -13
Building C 1974 10,360 SFC1 72.67 x 44.67 = 3,246.17 s.f. + 1 3,246C2 64.67 x 110.00 = 7,113.70 + 1 7,114
Building C1 1980 6,414 SFC3 4.00 x 3.33 = 13.32 s.f. - 1 -13C4 4.00 x 3.33 = 13.32 s.f. - 1 -13C5 4.00 x 3.33 = 13.32 s.f. - 1 -13C6 4.00 x 3.33 = 13.32 s.f. - 1 -13C7 64.67 x 100.00 = 6,467.00 s.f. + 1 6,467
Building D 1974 10,056 SFD1 56.00 x 64.33 = 3,602.48 s.f. + 1 3,602D2 80.00 x 80.67 = 6,453.60 s.f. + 1 6,454
Building D1 1980 4,330 SFD3 4.00 x 3.33 = 13.32 s.f. - 1 -13D4 4.00 x 3.33 = 13.32 s.f. - 1 -13
54.00 x 80.67 = 4,356.18 s.f. + 1 4,356(CONTINUED)
PARK PLACE MIDDLE SCHOOLAREA ANALYSIS
(CONTINUED)
Building D2 1990 457 SFD6 28.00 x 16.33 = 457.24 s.f. + 1 457
Building E 1974 9,265 SFE1 32.67 x 112.67 = 3,680.93 s.f. + 1 3,681E2 11.33 x 80.67 = 913.99 s.f. + 1 914E3 52.67 x 88.67 = 4,670.25 s.f. + 1 4,670
Building F 1990 20,622 SFF1 90.67 x 32.00 = 2,901.44 s.f. + 1 2,901F2 109.33 x 45.33 = 4,955.93 s.f. + 1 4,956F3 30.67 x 32.00 = 981.44 s.f. + 1 981F4 29.33 x 24.00 = 703.92 s.f. + 1 704F5 30.67 x 32.00 = 981.44 s.f. + 1 981F6 64.00 x 16.00 = 1,024.00 s.f. + 1 1,024F7 90.67 x 16.00 = 1,450.72 s.f. + 1 1,451F8 109.33 x 45.33 = 4,955.93 s.f. + 1 4,956F9 30.67 x 32.00 = 981.44 s.f. + 1 981F10 29.33 x 24.00 = 703.92 s.f. + 1 704F11 30.67 x 32.00 = 981.44 s.f. + 1 981
TOTAL ALL BUILDINGS 109,912 SF
Building Condition Summary Report School: Monroe High School Address: 17001 Tester Road City: Monroe, WA 98272-2819 County: Snohomish Telephone: 360-863-4000
Site Information Tax Parcel No.: 27061100201100 Approximate Acreage: 33 Acres Police Jurisdiction: Monroe Police Department Fire Jurisdiction: Monroe Fire Department Unincorporated: x Incorporated: Zoning: PS Building Information: Current Sq. Footage: 209,432 S.F. Original Construction: 1999 Classroom Addition 2005 Stadium 2005
School Capacity: Current Enrollment: (Oct. 1, 2007) 1725.3 FTE 1761.0 Head Count
As determined by educational program and number of classrooms.
Grades 9-12 SE Sub Total 90% Portables Totals CR S CR S CR S 100% 90% 68 1820 6 5 1909 1718 8 224 2133 1920
* Grades 9-12 average classroom loading at 28 students per station (includes music & PE) * Calculated at 90% room utilization. * Special Education – Only Life Skills students (severely disabled or medically fragile) are assigned to a classroom. All other student
are assigned to a regular classroom. * Based on rotating schedule of classrooms.
1 51 BCSR MHS.doc
Construction History: The High School was constructed in 1999. The facility was designed to allow for an additional classroom wing to be added in the future. This wing and the final build out of parking were constructed in 2005. Also in 2005 the original grass football field was replaced with synthetic turf and a partially covered grandstand, concession building with restrooms, and a ticket booth was constructed. Surrounding Site Description and Utilization: Site improvements include two entry drives, parking for 742 cars, bus loading and a parent drop-off zone. A service drive circles the building with gates at either end to limit the traffic to service and fire department vehicles. Bus loading is at the north end of the school. Athletic improvements include a synthetic football/soccer field with running track, one natural grass baseball field, two grass softball fields, and eight tennis courts. A 200 seat covered grandstand and press booth is located to the north of the football/soccer field and a 500 seat visitors bleacher is located to the south. All storm water from the building roof and parking lots are retained in two separate filtration and detention ponds before leaving the site to maintain the current flow rate off the site. Water from the larger west pond flows directly to an existing culvert under Tester Road. Brief Building Component Description: Exterior Walls The building exterior is a masonry veneer with brick accents up to the
second floor and then stucco above. The building has a steel frame with metal stud walls except for the gym, which is comprised of reinforced masonry.
Interior Walls The interior walls are typically painted gypsum board on metal studs except
for the gym and locker room areas, which are reinforced masonry. A medium density fiberboard (MDF) wainscot runs around the perimeter of all heavy traffic areas.
Roof Metal panel roofing at a 3/12 pitch over a 1 ½” deep composite steel deck
spanning to open web steel K-joists. HVAC Heating and ventilation is provided to each zone in the facility by hydronic
heat pump air handlers. Air handlers are located in isolated mechanical rooms above the second floor classroom pods and in general attic spaces. Air conditioning is provided as part of the heat pump system. Primary heat is provided by gas fired boilers located in the Boiler Room.
Administration areas are conditioned by fan powered VAV boxes installed
above the ceiling in each room served. Plumbing Domestic water piping is all copper. Toilet room and janitorial plumbing
fixtures are white vitreous china. Water closets and urinals are furnished with heavy duty manually operated flush valves with water conserving flow rates.
Fire Sprinklers The building is sprinklered throughout. Energy Controls DDC temperature control systems are provided.
1 51 BCSR MHS.doc
1 51 BCSR MHS.doc
Electrical The electrical distribution is 480V/277V. Step down transformers are used to
supply branch panels at 208V/120V. Surge suppression is provided at all 120 volt panels. Each computer lab has a branch panel to facilitate future changes.
Security A complete security system is installed throughout the facility. Lighting Interior lighting systems are fluorescent with T8 lamps and electronic
ballasts. Parabolic fixtures are used in the computer areas. Lensed fixtures are used in other areas except for the Gymnasium where there are T-5 fixtures.
Intercom/Communications An integrated intercom/telephone system exists throughout the entire facility.
Fire Alarm An addressable fire alarm system meeting current code is provided. Asbestos containing Materials The building does not have any known asbestos containing materials. Facility/Site Deficiencies Site: 1. Conversion of the practice fields into competition fields to centrally locate High School sports. 2. Stadium/Field lighting modifications. 3. Drainage improvements needed at football field. 4. Resurfacing of the existing track is needed. Building: 1. Additional exhaust in Science Prep Rooms.
INSTRUCTIONAL ADEQUACY July 2007
District: Monroe School District #103 School: Monroe High School County: Snohomish Evaluators: Ralph Yingling
Kevin Oremus
In the area below, indicate any features of the building which are identified as impeding the instructional programs or contributing to a less than suitable educational environment. 1. Convert photo darkroom into TV Production Lab 2. Sound system upgrades to PAC 3. Acoustical upgrades to PAC 4. Acoustical upgrades to Gym 5. Limited outdoor playfield area. 6. Field House needed to accommodate wrestling program.
1 52 IA-MHS.doc
MONROE HIGH SCHOOLAREA ANALYSIS
Add/Area Length Width Area Subtr. Factor TotalsBuilding A1 1999 136,182 SFA1 222.33 x 117.66 = 26,159.35 s.f. + 1 26,159A2 94.66 x 10.33 = 977.84 s.f. + 1 978A3 84.66 x 31.33 = 2,652.40 s.f. + 1 2,652A4 34.00 x 10 = 340.00 s.f. + 1 340A5 95.66 x 105.33 = 10,075.87 s.f. + 1 10,076A6 86.66 x 28 = 2,426.48 s.f. + 1 2,426A7 42.66 x 11.33 = 483.34 s.f. + 1 483A8 83.66 x 19.66 = 1,644.76 s.f. + 1 1,645A9 NA x NA = 334.00 s.f. + 1 334A10 18.66 x 4 = 74.64 s.f. - 1 -75A11 NA x NA = 334.00 s.f. + 1 334A12 NA x NA = 727.50 s.f. + 1 728A13 NA x NA = 4,053.60 s.f. + 1 4,054A14 NA x NA = 4,053.60 s.f. + 1 4,054A15 NA x NA = 1,154.80 s.f. + 1 1,155A16 NA x NA = 1,154.80 s.f. + 1 1,155A17 54.75 x 34 = 1,861.50 s.f. + 1 1,862A18 81.00 x 81.33 = 6,587.73 s.f. + 1 6,588A19 NOT USEDA20 98.00 x 105.33 = 10,322.34 s.f. + 1 10,322A21 86.66 x 28 = 2,426.48 s.f. + 1 2,426A22 42.66 x 11.33 = 483.34 s.f. + 1 483A23 22.50 x 6.33 = 142.43 s.f. + 1 142A24 193.00 x 103.5 = 19,975.50 s.f. + 1 19,976A25 19.33 x 11.83 = 228.67 s.f. + 1 229A26 32.66 x 11.83 = 386.37 s.f. + 1 386A27 71.33 x 44 = 3,138.52 s.f. + 1 3,139A28 35.33 x 10 = 353.30 s.f. + 1 353A29 42.66 x 11.33 = 483.34 s.f. + 1 483A30 86.66 x 28 = 2,426.48 s.f. + 1 2,426A31 105.33 x 85.33 = 8,987.81 s.f. + 1 8,988A32 97.00 x 12.66 = 1,228.02 s.f. + 1 1,228A33 97.00 x 6.75 = 654.75 s.f. + 1 655A34 105.33 x 42.66 = 4,493.38 s.f. + 1 4,493A35 76.00 x 38 = 2,888.00 s.f. + 1 2,888A36 NOT USEDA37 NA x NA = -48.00 s.f. + 1 -48A38 NOT USEDA39 NA x NA = -48.00 s.f. + 1 -48A40 NA x NA = 1,207.00 s.f. + 1 1,207A41 31.33 x 112.5 = 3,524.63 s.f. + 1 3,525A42 41.83 x 92.66 = 3,875.97 s.f. + 1 3,876A43 31.33 x 6.08 = 190.49 s.f. + 1 190A44 22.16 x 30.5 = 675.88 s.f. + 1 676
(Continued)
MONROE HIGH SCHOOLAREA ANALYSIS
(Continued)
Add/Area Length Width Area Subtr. Factor TotalsA45 10.83 x 10.25 = 111.01 s.f. + 1 111A46 41.83 x 10.25 = 428.76 s.f. + 1 429A47 11.50 x 17.16 = 197.34 s.f. + 1 197A48 3.33 x 12.08 = 40.23 s.f. + 1 40A49 16.83 x 18.08 = 304.29 s.f. + 1 304A50 6.45 x 12.91 = 83.27 s.f. + 1 83A51 15.33 x 15.42 = 236.39 s.f. + 1 236A52 26.83 x 0.66 = 17.71 s.f. - 1 -18A53 31.33 x 47.91 = 1,501.02 s.f. + 1 1,501A54 12.66 x 28 = 354.48 s.f. + 1 354
Building B1 1999 73,352 SFB1 96.00 x 12.33 = 1,183.68 s.f. + 1 1,184B2 44.00 x 29.00 = 1,276.00 s.f. + 1 1,276B3 62.58 x 5.08 = 317.91 s.f. + 1 318B4 104.83 x 96.33 = 10,098.27 s.f. + 1 10,098B5 12.66 x 9.58 = 121.28 s.f. + 1 121B6 73.50 x 28.00 = 2,058.00 s.f. + 1 2,058B7 42.16 x 11.33 = 477.67 s.f. + 1 478B8 NA x NA = 223.37 s.f. + 1 223B9 4.08 x 20.91 = 85.38 s.f. + 1 85B10 10.16 x 11.58 = 117.65 s.f. - 1 -118B11 28.50 x 6.75 = 192.38 s.f. - 1 -192B12 92.83 x 38.75 = 3,597.16 s.f. + 1 3,597B13 NA x NA = 1,974.96 s.f. + 1 1,975B14 NA x NA = 1,974.96 s.f. + 1 1,975B15 27.66 x 20.16 = 557.63 s.f. - 1 -558B16 NA x NA = 224.95 s.f. - 1 -225B17 NA x NA = 224.95 s.f. - 1 -225B18 82.00 x 41.00 = 3,362.00 s.f. + 1 3,362B19 9.16 x 10.50 = 96.18 s.f. - 1 -96B20 9.16 x 7.00 = 64.12 s.f. - 1 -64B21 104.83 x 83.75 = 8,779.51 s.f. + 1 8,780B22 9.75 x 12.66 = 123.44 s.f. + 1 123B23 73.50 x 28.00 = 2,058.00 s.f. + 1 2,058B24 42.16 x 11.33 = 477.67 s.f. + 1 478B25 NA x NA = 223.37 s.f. + 1 223B26 10.16 x 11.58 = 117.65 s.f. - 1 -118B27 28.50 x 6.75 = 192.38 s.f. - 1 -192B28 170.66 x 14.00 = 2,389.24 s.f. + 1 2,389B29 16.25 x 4.25 = 69.06 s.f. + 1 69B30 10.75 x 4.25 = 45.69 s.f. + 1 46
(Continued)
MONROE HIGH SCHOOLAREA ANALYSIS
(Continued)
Add/Area Length Width Area Subtr. Factor TotalsB31 27.16 x 19.66 = 533.97 s.f. + 1 534B32 15.33 x 8.08 = 123.87 s.f. + 1 124B33 102.16 x 66.50 = 6,793.64 s.f. + 1 6,794B34 19.58 x 7.16 = 140.19 s.f. + 1 140B35 12.08 x 17.50 = 211.40 s.f. + 1 211B36 8.08 x 58.5 = 472.68 s.f. + 1 473B37 9.75 x 12.66 = 123.44 s.f. + 1 123B38 84.83 x 104.83 = 8,892.73 s.f. + 1 8,893B39 73.50 x 28.00 = 2,058.00 s.f. + 1 2,058B40 NA x NA = 223.37 s.f. + 1 223B41 42.16 x 11.33 = 477.67 s.f. + 1 478B42 10.16 x 11.58 = 117.65 s.f. - 1 -118B43 28.50 x 6.75 = 192.38 s.f. - 1 -192B44 NA x NA = 1,895.74 s.f. + 1 1,896B45 NA x NA = 67.00 s.f. + 1 67B46 NA x NA = 69.70 s.f. + 1 70B47 31.33 x 84.00 = 2,631.72 s.f. + 1 2,632B48 NA x NA = 80.34 s.f. + 1 80B49 41.33 x 4.91 = 202.93 s.f. + 1 203B50 41.83 x 124.00 = 5,186.92 s.f. + 1 5,187B51 31.33 x 112.50 = 3,524.63 s.f. + 1 3,525B52 28.33 x 6.83 = 193.49 s.f. - 1 -193B53 9.33 x 12.16 = 113.45 s.f. - 1 -124B54 26.83 x 0.66 = 17.71 s.f. - 1 -18B55 10.83 x 10.66 = 115.45 s.f. + 1 156B56 30.33 x 10.66 = 323.32 s.f. + 1 323B57 15.00 x 27.42 = 411.30 s.f. + 1 411B58 12.08 x 15.42 = 186.27 s.f. + 1 185B59 6.45 x 12.91 = 83.27 s.f. + 1 83
73,352
TOTAL BUILDING AREA 209,534 SF
CHAPTER II
WAC 392-341-025 (2) A long-range educational and facilities plan setting forth the projected facility needs and priorities of the district based on the educational plan.
2007 Monroe School District Study & Survey
2. LONG RANGE EDUCATIONAL AND FACILITIES PLAN Overview of the Monroe School District
Monroe School District is uniquely located in the southeastern portion of Snohomish County and covers approximately 82 square miles. The Skykomish and Snoqualmie Rivers join to form the Snohomish River in the center of the District. The topography includes flood plains to rolling hills. The major east-west road is U.S. Highway 2, leading from Everett to Stevens Pass and Eastern Washington. The major link to Bothell, Seattle, and the east side of the County is SR-522, leading from Monroe to Woodinville. SR-203 is a major traffic link between Monroe, Duvall, Carnation and the Redmond/Bellevue areas. The District currently serves a student population of 7,174 (October 1, 2007) with six elementary schools, three middle schools, and one high school. “Leaders in Learning”, an individualized secondary program, is also offered in a facility owned by the District but not located in an existing school. Sky Valley Education Center, an individualized program for students in grades K-12 who otherwise would be home schooled, is housed in leased facilities. Summit School is a cooperative program with Snohomish and Sultan School Districts to offer a highly specialized program for students in grades 7-12 and is also housed in leased facilities. Sky Valley Education Center, Summit School and Leaders in Learning student enrollment figures are included in both the District and OSPI figures. Elementary schools provide educational programs for students in kindergarten through grade five. Middle schools serve grades six through eight and the high school, grades nine through twelve. Leaders in Learning serve grades nine through twelve. The District also provides fiscal and administrative support for the Youth Re-Engagement program housed off-site at Everett Community College in Everett Washington. Re-Engagement program enrollment figures are not included in either District or OSPI figures. Significant Issues Related to Facility Planning in the Monroe School District
Student Growth - A significant issue faces the Monroe School District in terms of providing classroom capacity to accommodate projected enrollment demands due to the rate of student growth, and the availability and affordability of suitable school sites for development of new facilities. Enrollment projections for the District indicate continued growth. Accommodating this growth within the District’s adopted educational program will require expansion of existing facilities, construction of new facilities on acquired sites, and temporary housing of students in portables until such time as permanent facilities can be provided. Enrollment Projection Summary Enrollment in the Monroe School District has been increasing steadily since the 1980’s. This trend is partially due to an increase in births in the 1980’s and 1990’s as the children of baby boomers entered the schools. It is also due to continued housing and population growth in Snohomish County (see the detailed demographic data and population projections included in Chapter 3 of this report). In summary, the medium range enrollment projection for Monroe School District is expected to increase from today’s enrollment of 7,174 to 7,500 students in 2010 and to more than 9,100 students by 2020. More growth is expected at the elementary grade band than at the middle school and high school level through 2010. The long range forecast suggests that the District could see an additional 1,000 elementary students, approximately 500 middle school students, and over 600 high school students by 2020. Educational Facility and Program Standards School facility and student capacity needs are dictated by the types and amounts of space required to accommodate the District’s adopted educational program. The educational program standards which typically drive facility space needs include grade configuration, optimum facility size, class size, educational
2 01 Long Range Plan.doc 1
2007 Monroe School District Study & Survey
program offerings, classroom utilization and scheduling requirements, and use of relocatable classroom facilities (portables). Monroe School District grade level configurations were modified in September 2005 to meet student needs by converting the Junior High into a Middle School, thereby reducing student load at the elementary and middle school levels. The District’s educational program standards which directly affect school capacity are outlined below for the elementary, middle, and high school levels. Educational Program Standards for Elementary Schools
" Class size for grades K-4 should not exceed 24 students. Class size for grade 5 should not exceed 28 students.
" Special Education for students will be provided in a self-contained classroom or in a separate classroom.
" All students will be provided music instruction in a separate classroom. " All students will have scheduled time in a computer lab. " Optimum design capacity for new elementary schools is 500-700 students.
Educational Program Standards for Middle and High Schools
" Class size for middle school grades should not exceed 28 students. " Class size for high school grades should not exceed 28 students. " As a result of scheduling conflicts for student programs, the need for specialized rooms for
certain programs, and the need for teachers to have work space during planning periods, it is not possible to achieve 100% utilization of all regular teaching stations throughout the day.
" Special Education for students will be provided in a self-contained classroom. " Identified students will also be provided other nontraditional educational opportunities in
classrooms designated as follows: Resource Rooms (i.e. computer labs, study rooms); Special Education Classrooms; and Program Specific Classrooms (i.e. music, drama, art, science, family and consumer science, physical education, technology education).
" Desired design capacity for new middle schools is 750 students. However, actual capacity of individual schools may vary depending on the educational programs offered and/or geographic area served.
" Desired design capacity for new high schools is 1,600-1,800 students. However, actual capacity of individual schools may vary depending on the educational programs offered.
Relocatable Classroom Facilities (Portables) Portables are used as interim classroom space to house students until construction of permanent classroom facilities takes place. The Monroe School District currently uses 30 portables at various school sites throughout the District to provide additional interim capacity. These portables will continue to be used and moved from site to site in order to meet instructional needs and temporarily house students as necessary until permanent facilities are constructed or service areas are adjusted. Land Inventory The Monroe School District owns an undeveloped parcel of 14 acres adjacent to Chain Lake Elementary. The District could build a middle school on this site to serve the growing northern end of the District but the presence of a large wetland in the southwest corner and associated buffers will make this challenging. It is believed that a 2-story middle school will fit in the southeast corner of the site but there will be little to no room left for development of playfields conducive to a middle school program. The site is outside the urban growth boundary and therefore does not have sewer service. A new school will have to include a sewage holding tank and be pumped regularly as is currently done for Chain Lake Elementary. The District is in the process of pursuing a property purchase of 14 acres along the Old Owen Road corridor. The property is expected to be used for a new elementary school.
2 01 Long Range Plan.doc 2
2007 Monroe School District Study & Survey
It is anticipated the District will still need additional elementary schools in the area north of Highway 2. The necessary sites should be purchased in the near future while developable property suited to school sites is still available. Renovation/Replacement of Existing Facilities – A number of Monroe School District’s facilities have surpassed their useful life and are in need of a major renovation or replacement. Building systems are failing at a rate that surpasses routine maintenance and the physical structures at several sites are deteriorating at an accelerated rate. In addition to the infrastructure needs, District programs are challenged to keep current with educational needs due to lack of classroom and support resources. The three District school facilities requiring the most significant attention are as follows: Monroe Middle School Park Place Middle School Frank Wagner Elementary School East Additional District facilities are in need of minor improvements to correct life safety issues, implement code upgrades, and provide parity across grade bands at selected school sites. Funding should be allocated as part of a District-wide improvement plan for miscellaneous small projects to correct deficiencies at all sites. District support facilities such as the Central Administration Building and the Maintenance Offices are in need of significant renovations but have not been listed as a higher priority than the schools mentioned above. In the near future the District will need to address funding of support services as their current facilities continue to grow more outdated and require more maintenance New Facilities and Additions – Additional elementary classroom capacity is needed. Immediate capacity can be accommodated by classroom additions to existing schools. The following three campuses have been identified as having expansion potential: Salem Woods Elementary School – 4 classroom addition Chain Lake Elementary School – 4 classroom addition Frank Wagner Elementary School Campus – 12 classroom addition To accommodate the long range growth forecast which predicts that the District will see an additional 1,000 elementary school students by 2020, two new elementary school sites should be purchased as soon as possible and planning for development of the sites started in the near future. Facility Planning Committee
In anticipation of a school construction bond in 2008, the District convened a series of facility work groups to review facility needs and study different aspects of a future bond issue. The process involved district personnel, school staff, parents, and community members. Volunteers were divided up into selected committees and groups as follows:
Oversight Committee – approximately 12 members, meeting once a month to discuss the nature of education, review big picture perspectives on schools, make recommendations as to what school facilities will need to meet District program requirements in the future, and to oversee the bond development planning and process. School and Site Review Groups – unlimited membership to identify needs at specific school sites, organized by “school of attendance”. Synthesis and Analysis Group – 10 to 15 members to review data specific to grade bands and begin prioritization of school needs.
2 01 Long Range Plan.doc 3
2007 Monroe School District Study & Survey
Facility Oversight Review Committee – approximately 12 members to review comments and suggestions for feasibility and cost effectiveness.
Summary of Facility Work Group Recommendations After three months of meetings, tours and workshops, the facility work groups presented the following summary of information to the Facility Professionals Review Group: High School – Top 5 Suggested Projects
" Purchase existing Sky Valley Education Center facility to add “Leaders in Learning” to additional space provided
" Increase MHS Library square footage " Upgrade MHS Performing Arts Center " Upgrade baseball/softball fields at MHS to competition fields " Add new soft-floor field house on MHS site
Middle Schools – Top 5 Suggested Projects
" Modernize Monroe Middle School " Improve student safety by improving traffic patterns & campus access, student activity
seating " Improve “comfort” systems – ADA accessibility, restrooms, kitchens & heating/ventilation " Increase student access to technology at all schools " Install/improve outdoor play areas to be equitable between schools
Elementary Schools – Top 5 Suggested Projects for Safety
" Chain Lake – gym drainage & tile; office building structural inspection & potential repair " Salem Woods – parking & traffic flow; gym floor " Monroe – office visibility to entrance; parking lot " Fryelands – portico run-off " Frank Wagner – portable classrooms; drainage; trees/parking lot
Elementary Schools – Top 5 Suggested Projects for Improved Learning
" Improve heating/ventilation at Salem Woods, Fryelands, Monroe, Frank Wagner and Chain Lake
" Enclose halls at Salem Woods " Add library, technology center & classrooms in a new building to be shared by Frank Wagner
& Monroe; use Monroe library as new main office; demolish annex classrooms " Revamp Fryelands storage areas to add classrooms
Elementary Schools – Top 5 Suggested Projects for Core Facilities
" New roof at Chain Lake " Monroe kitchen and lunchroom revamp " Maltby storage for PE equipment " Maltby kitchen revamp " Chain Lake playground remodel
Elementary Schools – Top 5 Suggested Projects for Infrastructure
" Covered play area added at Monroe " New carpet at Frank Wagner and Chain Lake " New gutters at Salem Woods " Classroom technology to be increased at all schools " Chain Lake playground drainage improved
2 01 Long Range Plan.doc 4
2007 Monroe School District Study & Survey
Facility Oversight Review Committee The Facility Oversight Review Committee examined and discussed the Work Group recommendations. To assist the committee in refinement and prioritization of needs into a fiscally responsive long-term facility use plan, the following goals were established to frame future decisions:
1. Use current available school sites for future expansion or new schools, (e.g. combine Frank Wagner Elementary and Monroe Elementary into one site utilizing available “underutilized” property between the sites for development of “Core-facilities” to be used by both schools, development of the Chain Lake Middle School Site to accommodate middle school growth at the north end of the District, Classroom additions to Chain Lake Elementary and Salem Woods Elementary, and development of a new elementary school facility at the Old Owen property).
2. Evaluate current facilities to identify modifications needed to adequately serve the grade bands
assigned to the school.
3. Attempt to maintain the current grade configuration if possible. Determine a consistent configuration for the longest possible duration.
4. Recognize the uniqueness of the respective grades and programs served at each site.
5. Develop a long-term plan that would be the most fiscally responsible to the local taxpayer.
Long-Term Strategic Facility Plan
Based on the Facility Committee’s established goals, examination of population projections, and the recommendations of the Facility Work Group, the following items have been determined to be significant facility needs. Implementation of a plan to address these items is necessary to restore the condition of the existing buildings, upgrade/expand instructional space to meet current program requirements, and accommodate growth in student enrollment. A. Optimize Current Facilities and Land
1. Determine if the Chain Lake Site or another District owned site can be used for a future middle school.
2. Add four classrooms at Chain Lake Elementary. 3. Add four classrooms at Salem Woods Elementary. (Student capacity restricted due to septic holding
tank) 4. Renovation of Park Place Middle School to serve program requirements and replace failing systems. 5. New core facility serving Frank Wagner Elementary and Monroe Elementary. Demolish the Monroe
Elementary classroom annex and provide a new core facility building between the schools consisting of a library, technology center, and up to twelve classrooms.
6. Transition out of the existing Monroe Middle School and determine best use for facility/site. Should this facility be replaced on its current site or relocated to a different site?
7. Determine future of the Central School Site and if it should continue to be used as the District Office. 8. Hidden River Middle School site can be expanded to accommodate 800+ students if needed.
(Enrollment projected through 2012 does not indicate a need for expansion within this service area). B. Future Sites
1. Purchase the Old Owen site for development of future elementary school. 2. Purchase the leased facility for the Sky Valley Education Center.
2 01 Long Range Plan.doc 5
2007 Monroe School District Study & Survey
2 01 Long Range Plan.doc 6
3. Locate and purchase a site for a satellite transportation facility. 4. Find and purchase a future elementary site north of Highway 2.
C. Program Considerations
1. Ensure full state / local funding for low class size ratios. 2. Relocate “Leaders in Learning” to a space that is conducive to education – possibly co-locate with
Sky Valley Education Center. 3. Improve softball and baseball fields at the high school to consolidate competition fields. 4. Implement technology upgrades and expansion throughout all school facilities.
D. Immediate Needs
1. Bond Issue is needed to fund improvements. 2. Middle School program and facility upgrades are needed at existing middle schools. 3. Additional elementary school capacity is needed. 4. Site safety and access upgrades are needed at older schools. 5. HVAC upgrades, new roofing, and ADA improvements are required at selected sites.
Committee Recommendations
The above items will be presented to the Monroe School District Board of Directors for further review and discussion. These are immediate needs and as many of these items as possible should be addressed in the next Bond campaign. Any items that are not included on the upcoming Bond Issue should be re-evaluated and considered on a following Bond Issue within the next 4-6 years. Strategic Plan Cost Estimate Summary See attached spreadsheet
Monroe School District
Estimated Project Costs for 2009 Bond10/31/2007
2007 2007 2007 2009Student Square Square Footage Building Other Required Escalation Escalation Projected Bid Opening
Project Type Size Footage Construction Construction Project Costs Percentage Years Project Year Yearor Purchase or Purchase 30% 8% Amount
Cost Cost
1) Monroe MS Replacement (146 sf/student) 750 109,500 $265 $29,017,500 $37,722,750 30.91% 3.5 $49,382,852 2010 2012
2) Four classroom addition at CLE 104 5,200 $265 $1,378,000 $1,791,400 16.64% 2 $2,089,489 2009 2009
3) Four classroom addition at SWE 104 5,200 $265 $1,378,000 $1,791,400 16.64% 2 $2,089,489 2009 2009
4) Modernize Park Place Middle School - 109,912 $211 $23,191,432 $30,148,862 36.05% 4 $41,017,526 2011 2013
5) FWE Core Facilities & Classroom Addition - 25,000 $265 $6,625,000 $8,612,500 16.64% 2 $10,045,620 2011 2012
6) District School System Upgrades - Varies Varies $10,000,000 $13,000,000 16.64% 2 $15,163,200 2009 2012
7) Building Purchases - - - $4,000,000 - 16.64% 2 $4,665,600 - 2011
8) District Technology Upgrades - Varies Varies $3,000,000 $3,900,000 16.64% 2 $4,548,960 2009 2011
9) Transportation Facility - - - $6,000,000 $7,800,000 25.97% 3 $9,825,660 2010 2012
10) Land Purchases - - - $4,000,000 - 16.64% 2 $4,665,600 - -
11) Old Owen Site Improvements - - - $1,000,000 $1,300,000 8.00% 1 $1,404,000 2010 -
12) ADA, Demolition, Kitchem Imp., Bus Loading Areas
- - Varies $10,500,000 $13,650,000 25.97% 3 $17,194,905 2010 2013
$162,092,901 Sub-Total
Bond Management & Administration 3% $4,862,787$166,955,688 Subtotal
Bond Contingency 8% $13,356,455
$180,312,143 Total
Assumptions:Bond Issue - February 2008
1) Middle SchoolDesign/Permit 2/09 - 4/10Bid 5/10Construction 6/10 - 12/11Midpoint of Construction 3/11
2) Classroom AdditionsDesign/Permit 2/09 - 1/10Bid 2/10Construction 3/10 - 11/10Midpoint of Construction 5/10
3) PPM RenovationDesign/Permit 10/09 - 2/11Bid 3/11Construction 4/11 - 7/12Midpoint of Construction 11/11
Hutteball Oremus Architecture, Inc.
CHAPTER III
WAC 392-341-025 (3)
Demographic data including population projections and projected economic growth and development.
: L L
MO
NR
OE
SCH
OO
L D
ISTR
ICT
HEA
D C
OU
NT
ENR
OLL
MEN
T
DA
TE10
/1/2
007
BIL
ING
UA
L: 4
56O
ut o
f Dis
t.C
LEFW
EFW
WFR
EM
BE
SWE
HR
MM
NM
PPM
MH
SLI
LSV
CSP
EDW
AV
AU
3TO
TAL
R.S
.K
85.0
052
.00
66.0
073
.00
57.0
074
.00
407.
001
92.0
080
.00
66.0
091
.00
76.0
071
.00
90.0
056
6.00
298
.00
45.0
068
.00
91.0
069
.00
95.0
053
.00
1.00
520.
003
85.0
063
.00
76.0
087
.00
76.0
084
.00
56.0
052
7.00
471
.00
37.0
079
.00
85.0
051
.00
79.0
054
.00
456.
005
91.0
063
.00
59.0
076
.00
89.0
075
.00
60.0
02.
0051
5.00
688
.00
167.
0018
2.00
75.0
01.
0051
3.00
798
.00
153.
0020
1.00
3.00
80.0
01.
0053
6.00
810
3.00
178.
0019
4.00
3.00
2.00
59.0
053
9.00
948
5.00
11.0
063
.00
1.00
167.
0072
7.00
1043
1.00
29.0
058
.00
1.00
97.0
061
6.00
1147
4.00
55.0
044
.00
2.00
575.
0012
365.
0010
0.00
35.0
01.
0017
6.00
677.
00TO
TA52
2.00
340.
0041
4.00
503.
0041
8.00
478.
0028
9.00
498.
0057
7.00
1761
.00
197.
0072
7.00
10.0
026
4.00
176.
0071
74.0
010
0.00
MO
NR
OE
SCH
OO
L D
ISTR
ICT
FTE
ENR
OLL
MEN
TO
ut o
f Dis
t.C
LEFW
EFW
WFR
EM
BE
SWE
HR
MM
NM
PPM
MH
SLI
LSV
CSP
EDW
AV
AU
3TO
TAL
K42
.50
26.0
033
.00
36.5
028
.50
37.0
020
3.50
192
.00
80.0
066
.00
91.0
076
.00
71.0
088
.91
564.
912
98.0
045
.00
68.0
091
.00
69.0
095
.00
52.9
31.
0051
9.93
385
.00
63.0
076
.00
87.0
076
.00
84.0
055
.36
526.
364
70.1
037
.00
79.0
085
.00
51.0
079
.00
53.9
545
5.05
591
.00
63.0
059
.00
76.0
089
.00
75.0
059
.73
2.00
514.
7327
84.4
86
88.0
016
6.20
182.
0074
.92
1.00
512.
127
98.0
015
2.40
201.
003.
0079
.37
1.00
534.
778
103.
0017
7.80
193.
573.
002.
0057
.44
536.
8115
83.7
09
484.
4011
.00
62.4
41.
0015
1.85
710.
6910
431.
8028
.40
56.5
31.
0090
.57
608.
3011
447.
5056
.30
38.9
62.
0054
4.76
1235
5.60
94.8
031
.39
1.00
176.
0065
8.79
2522
.54
TOTA
478.
6031
4.00
381.
0046
6.50
389.
5044
1.00
289.
0049
6.40
576.
5717
25.3
019
2.50
711.
9310
.00
242.
4217
6.00
6890
.72
FORM SPI 1066 (Rev. 10/07) Page 1 of 2
OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION ESD CO DIST School Facilities and Organization Old Capitol Building PO BOX 47200 OLYMPIA WA 98504-7200
(360) 725-6265 TTY (360) 664-3631
ENROLLMENT/CLASSROOM COUNT 2007–08
School District 1. ENROLLMENT REPORT AS OF LATEST OCTOBER 1 COUNT Enter the number of students with disabilities (as reported on actual October headcount enrollment) who are assigned to a
specially designated self-contained classroom for at least 100 minutes per school day. Enter pre-kindergarten students with disabilities at 50 percent of the actual headcount enrollment.
Grade October Enrollment per above definition
Pre-Kindergarten Kindergarten
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total 2. NUMBER OF CLASSROOMS BY FACILITY List by building the number of specially designed self-contained classrooms for students with disabilities and the number of
classrooms assigned to the regular instructional program.
Building Name Self-Contained Classrooms for
Students with Disabilities
Regular Classrooms/Teaching
Stations Return to: School Facilities and Organization Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction Old Capitol Building PO BOX 47200 SIGNATURE OF SUPERINTENDENT/DESIGNEE DATE OLYMPIA WA 98504-7200 Fax Number: (360) 586-3946
FORM SPI 1066 (Rev. 10/07) Page 2 of 2
ESD
CO
DIST
2. NUMBER OF CLASSROOMS BY FACILITY (continued) List by building the number of specially designed self-contained classrooms for students with disabilities and the number of
classrooms assigned to the regular instructional program.
Building Name Self-Contained Classrooms for
Students with Disabilities
Regular Classrooms/Teaching
Stations
Mon
roe
Scho
ol D
istri
ctEn
rollm
ent,
Dem
ogra
phic
Tre
nds a
nd P
roje
ctio
ns(U
pdat
ed w
ith S
choo
l Pro
ject
ions
)
Prep
ared
by
Will
iam
L. (
“Les
”) K
endr
ick
Edu
catio
n an
d Pl
anni
ng C
onsu
ltant
May
200
7
2D
emog
raph
ic T
rend
s and
Pro
ject
ions
--M
a y 2
007
Not
es o
n D
ata
•O
ctob
er h
eadc
ount
s are
use
d in
this
repo
rt to
trac
k en
rollm
ent t
rend
s. O
ctob
er d
ata
is u
sed
beca
use
it is
the
peak
enr
ollm
ent m
onth
form
any
dist
ricts
. In
addi
tion
Oct
ober
dat
a is
avai
labl
e fo
r all
dist
ricts
in th
e St
ate
back
to 1
972,
and
priv
ate
scho
ol a
nd o
ther
dat
a th
at is
use
d fo
r co
mpa
rativ
e pu
rpos
es is
ava
ilabl
e fo
r Oct
ober
of e
ach
year
.
•H
eadc
ount
dat
a is
use
d ra
ther
than
FTE
bec
ause
hea
dcou
nt
enro
llmen
ts a
re g
ener
ally
aff
ecte
d by
dem
ogra
phic
tren
ds, w
here
as
FTE
enro
llmen
ts a
re a
ffec
ted
by p
rogr
am o
ffer
ings
and
oth
er
cond
ition
s tha
t are
not
pre
dict
able
by
dem
ogra
phic
tren
ds.
•Th
e fo
reca
sts m
odel
s als
o us
e O
ctob
er h
eadc
ount
s but
they
can
be
conv
erte
d as
nec
essa
ry to
ave
rage
ann
ual h
eadc
ount
s and
/or F
TE a
s ne
eded
, bas
ed o
n hi
stor
ical
com
paris
ons.
3D
emog
raph
ic T
rend
s and
Pro
ject
ions
--M
a y 2
007
Enro
llmen
t Tre
nds
Mon
roe
and
the
Cou
nty
•En
rollm
ent i
n th
e M
onro
e sc
hool
dis
trict
has
bee
n in
crea
sing
stea
dily
sinc
e th
e 19
80’s
. Th
is tr
end
is p
artia
lly d
ue to
an
incr
ease
in b
irths
in 1
980’
s and
19
90’s
as t
he c
hild
ren
of b
aby
boom
ers e
nter
ed th
e sc
hool
s. A
nd it
is a
lso
due
to c
ontin
ued
hous
ing
and
popu
latio
n gr
owth
in th
e ea
ster
n an
d no
rther
n po
rtion
s of S
noho
mis
h co
unty
.
•M
onro
e’s e
nrol
lmen
t has
incr
ease
d at
a st
eady
pac
e ov
er th
e la
st15
yea
rs,
as h
as L
ake
Stev
ens.
Oth
er d
istri
cts,
like
Ever
ett,
have
seen
gro
wth
in so
me
parts
of t
heir
dist
rict b
ut d
eclin
es in
oth
ers.
And
Muk
ilteo
has
cont
inue
d to
gr
ow th
anks
to a
com
bina
tion
of n
ew h
ousi
ng a
nd a
mar
ked
incr
ease
in th
e EL
L po
pula
tion
with
in th
e di
stric
t.
•Th
e ot
her a
rea
of th
e co
unty
that
con
tinue
s to
grow
is th
e fa
r nor
th w
hich
in
clud
es th
e A
rling
ton
and
Snoh
omis
h di
stric
ts. T
he o
ne d
istri
ctth
at h
as
show
n a
mar
ked
decl
ine
sinc
e 20
00 is
Edm
onds
.
4D
emog
raph
ic T
rend
s and
Pro
ject
ions
--M
a y 2
007
Enro
llmen
t Tre
nds
Mon
roe
and
the
Cou
nty
•En
rollm
ent g
row
th c
ount
y-w
ide
show
ed a
dis
tinct
cha
nge
betw
een
1997
an
d 20
00, d
ue to
the
smal
ler b
irth
coho
rts o
f the
prio
r 5 y
ears
and
a
mar
ked
slow
-dow
n in
pop
ulat
ion
grow
th in
the
Puge
t Sou
nd R
egio
n.
Cou
nty-
wid
e en
rollm
ent i
ncre
ased
by
22,8
67 st
uden
ts b
etw
een
1991
and
20
00, b
ut h
as g
row
n by
onl
y 3,
548
stud
ents
sinc
e 20
00.
•Th
is c
hang
e in
the
enro
llmen
t pat
tern
is h
ardl
y no
ticea
ble
at a
ll in
the
Mon
roe
and
Lake
Ste
vens
scho
ol d
istri
cts.
Bot
h di
stric
ts h
ave,
for t
he m
ost
part,
con
tinue
d to
gro
w a
t a p
ace
betw
een
2000
and
200
6 th
at is
re
mar
kabl
y si
mila
r to
the
patte
rn th
at w
as se
en b
etw
een
1991
and
2000
. Th
is su
gges
ts th
at th
e ef
fect
s of n
ew h
ousi
ng a
nd p
opul
atio
n gr
owth
in
thes
e di
stric
ts h
as se
rved
to o
ffse
t the
ove
rall
slow
-dow
n th
at h
as h
it th
e co
unty
. The
onl
y no
ticea
ble
chan
ge h
as b
een
a sl
ight
slow
-dow
n in
el
emen
tary
gro
wth
in so
me
year
s (m
ost l
ikel
y du
e to
slig
htly
smal
ler b
irth
coho
rts).
But
this
has
gen
eral
ly b
een
offs
et b
y be
tter t
han
aver
age
grow
th
at th
e hi
gh sc
hool
or m
iddl
e sc
hool
leve
l in
a gi
ven
year
.
5D
emog
raph
ic T
rend
s and
Pro
ject
ions
--M
a y 2
007
Mon
roe
Enro
llmen
t Tre
nd19
91-2
006
Oct
ober
P22
3 En
rollm
ent
1972
-199
0 P1
05 S
tate
of W
ashi
ngto
n
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000 Oct-
72Oct-
73Oct-
74Oct-
75 Oct-76
Oct-77
Oct-78 Oct-79
Oct-80
Oct-81
Oct-82 Oct-83
Oct-84
Oct-85 Oct-86
Oct-87
Oct-88
Oct-89 Oct-90
Oct-91
Oct-92 Oct-93
Oct-94
Oct-95
Oct-96 Oct-97
Oct-98
Oct-99 O
ct-00 O
ct-01 O
ct-02 O
ct-03 O
ct_04 O
ct_05 Oct_06
6D
emog
raph
ic T
rend
s and
Pro
ject
ions
--M
a y 2
007
Mon
roe
Enro
llmen
t Tre
ndO
SPI P
223
1991
-200
6 D
ata
from
200
1 to
200
6 re
flect
s rev
isio
ns su
bmitt
ed b
y th
e D
istri
ctD
ata
from
199
1-20
00 re
pres
ents
the
orig
inal
enr
ollm
ent s
ubm
itted
by
the
Dis
trict
4102
4335
4484
4651
4799
4829
4957
5318
5584
5846
6115
6161
6323
6370
6637
6796
5.70
%
3.40
%3.
70%
3.20
%
0.60
%
2.70
%
7.30
%
5.00
%4.
70%
4.60
%
0.80
%
2.60
%
0.70
%
4.20
%
2.40
%
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
Oct
-91
Oct
-92
Oct
-93
Oct
-94
Oct
-95
Oct
-96
Oct
-97
Oct
-98
Oct
-99
Oct
-00
Oct
-01
Oct
-02
Oct
-03
Oct
-04
Oct
-05
Oct
-06
00.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
Enr
ollm
ent
Per
cent
Cha
nge
7D
emog
raph
ic T
rend
s and
Pro
ject
ions
--M
a y 2
007
Snoh
omis
h C
ount
y Pu
blic
Sch
ools
En
rollm
ent T
rend
Dat
a m
ay n
ot re
flect
revi
sion
s sub
mitt
ed a
fter t
he o
rigin
al c
ount
dat
e
8217
185
696
8846
190
835
9314
296
709
9999
210
2512
1035
3910
5038
1063
6010
7092
1063
0310
6648
1079
2510
8586
4.3%
3.2%
2.7%
2.5%
3.8%
3.4%
2.5%
1.0%
1.4%
1.3%
0.7%
-0.7
%0.
3%1.
1%0.
6%
0
2000
0
4000
0
6000
0
8000
0
1000
00
1200
00
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
-0.0
3
-0.0
1
0.01
0.03
0.05
0.07
0.09
0.11
0.13
0.15
Enro
llmen
tP
erce
nt C
hang
e
8D
emog
raph
ic T
rend
s and
Pro
ject
ions
--M
a y 2
007
Mon
roe’
s Sha
re o
f Cou
nty
K-1
2 Pu
blic
Sc
hool
Enr
ollm
ent (
Oct
ober
)N
ote:
The
per
cent
may
not
refle
ct e
nrol
lmen
t cha
nges
subm
itted
afte
r the
cou
nt d
ate.
4.99
%5.
06%
5.07
%5.
12%
5.15
%4.
99%
4.96
%5.
19%
5.39
%5.
57%
5.69
%5.
75%
5.95
%5.
96%
6.15
%6.
26%
0%1%2%3%4%5%6%7%
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
9D
emog
raph
ic T
rend
s and
Pro
ject
ions
--M
a y 2
007
Snoh
omis
h C
ount
y Pu
blic
Sch
ools
Elem
enta
ry E
nrol
lmen
t Tre
ndO
ct P
223
K-5
4232
443
472
4391
744
294
4504
546
183
4723
348
125
4797
948
181
4811
247
547
4678
246
631
4726
847
725
2.7%
1.0%
0.9%
1.7%
2.5%
2.3%
1.9%
-0.3
%0.
4%-0
.1%
-1.2
%-1
.6%
-0.3
%
1.4%
1.0%
0
1000
0
2000
0
3000
0
4000
0
5000
0
6000
0
7000
0
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
-0.0
3
-0.0
2
-0.0
1
00.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.1
Enr
ollm
ent
Per
cent
Cha
nge
The
effe
ct o
f sm
alle
r birt
h co
horts
and
slow
ing
pop.
gro
wth
star
ts
to b
e fe
lt in
the
late
199
0’s.
10D
emog
raph
ic T
rend
s and
Pro
ject
ions
--M
a y 2
007
Cha
nge
in E
nrol
lmen
t by
Dis
trict
Snoh
omis
h C
ount
y O
ct -1
991
to O
ct -2
000
Not
e: D
ata
may
not
refle
ct e
nrol
lmen
t rev
isio
ns su
bmitt
ed a
fter t
he c
ount
dat
e
3279
2824
2594
2553
2302
2198
1744
1317
1317
996
822
676
214
229
-500
050
010
0015
0020
0025
0030
0035
0040
00
Muk
ilteo
(W/O
Skil
ls C
NTR)
*
Mar
ysvi
lle
Ever
ett
Lake
Ste
vens
Edm
onds
Stan
woo
d
Mon
roe
Arli
ngto
n
Snoh
omis
h
Gra
nite
Fal
ls
Lake
woo
d
Sulta
n
Skills
Cen
ter (
Muk
ilteo)
Darr
ingt
on
Inde
x
Tota
l net
cha
nge
in c
ount
y en
rollm
ent =
22,
867
11D
emog
raph
ic T
rend
s and
Pro
ject
ions
--M
a y 2
007
Cha
nge
in E
nrol
lmen
t by
Dis
trict
Snoh
omis
h C
ount
y O
ct -2
000
to O
ct -2
006
Not
e: D
ata
may
not
refle
ct e
nrol
lmen
t rev
isio
ns su
bmitt
ed a
fter t
he c
ount
dat
e
950
905
803
718
596
299
117
9539353430-1
4-3
6-1
023
-200 0
-150 0
-100 0
-500
050
010
0015
0020
0025
0030
0035
0040
00
Mon
roe
Lake
Ste
vens
Snoh
omis
h
Muk
ilteo
(W/O
Skil
ls C
NTR)
*
Arli
ngto
n
Ever
ett
Gra
nite
Fal
ls
Lake
woo
d
Sulta
n
Mar
ysvi
lle
Stan
woo
d
Skills
Cen
ter
Inde
x
Darr
ingt
on
Edm
onds
Tota
l net
cha
nge
in C
ount
y En
rollm
ent =
3,5
48
12D
emog
raph
ic T
rend
s and
Pro
ject
ions
--M
a y 2
007
Puge
t Sou
nd P
ublic
Sch
ool E
nrol
lmen
t N
et C
hang
e in
Enr
ollm
ent
Kin
g, K
itsap
, Pie
rce,
& S
noho
mis
h C
ombi
ned
Sour
ce: O
SPI P
223
Enro
llmen
t Rep
orts
1242
7
1003
9
8860
8727
1261
8
9911
6517
1439
1189
4714
855
2397
376
3152
916
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
1000
0
1200
0
1400
0
1991
-19
9219
92-
1993
1993
-19
9419
94-
1995
1995
-19
9619
96-
1997
1997
-19
9819
98-
1999
1999
-20
0020
00-
2001
2001
-20
0220
02-
2003
2003
-20
0420
04-
2005
2005
-20
06
13D
emog
raph
ic T
rend
s and
Pro
ject
ions
--M
a y 2
007
ELL
Enro
llmen
t in
Mon
roe
Oct
ober
Hea
dcou
ntTh
ese
coun
ts d
o no
t ref
lect
revi
sion
s sen
t afte
r the
off
icia
l cou
nt d
ate
OSP
I P22
3 En
rollm
ent R
epor
t
2143
4446
4760
6482
110
151
166
234
269
280
306
346
050100
150
200
250
300
350
400
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
14D
emog
raph
ic T
rend
s and
Pro
ject
ions
--M
a y 2
007
Enro
llmen
t: Lo
okin
g fo
rwar
d•
Futu
re e
nrol
lmen
t tre
nds a
re m
ost r
elia
bly
pred
icte
d by
birt
h ra
tes,
gene
ral p
opul
atio
n gr
owth
and
the
targ
eted
loca
tion
of p
opul
atio
ns d
ue to
ne
w h
ousi
ng g
row
th. F
ocus
ing
on th
ese
fact
ors p
rovi
des t
he c
onte
xt fo
r un
ders
tand
ing
wha
t has
hap
pene
d in
the
past
and
wha
t is l
ikel
y to
hap
pen
in th
e fu
ture
.
•Th
e fo
llow
ing
sect
ion
look
s at p
ast t
rend
s in
birth
s, po
pula
tion
and
hous
ing
grow
th a
nd p
roje
ctio
ns o
f fut
ure
trend
s. Th
ese
proj
ectio
ns a
re
the
maj
or fa
ctor
s tha
t are
con
side
red
for p
redi
ctin
g fu
ture
enr
ollm
ent i
n th
e M
onro
e sc
hool
dis
trict
.
•A
fter e
xam
inin
g th
is d
ata
the
final
sect
ion
pres
ents
enr
ollm
ent f
orec
asts
fo
r the
dis
trict
bas
ed o
n m
odel
s tha
t pre
dict
cha
nges
in e
nrol
lmen
t bas
ed
on c
hang
es in
the
num
ber o
f cou
nty
birth
s, an
d ch
ange
s in
popu
latio
n an
d ho
usin
g gr
owth
with
in th
e di
stric
t’s b
ound
arie
s.
Dem
ogra
phic
For
ecas
tsB
irths
, Pop
ulat
ion
and
Hou
sing
16D
emog
raph
ic T
rend
s and
Pro
ject
ions
--M
a y 2
007
Birt
hs•
Birt
hs in
the
coun
ty a
nd n
atio
nwid
e be
gan
to in
crea
se in
the
1980
’s a
s ba
by b
oom
ers b
egin
to h
ave
child
ren.
Thi
s mar
ked
incr
ease
in b
irths
re
pres
ents
the
“ech
o” o
f the
bab
y bo
om, a
nd it
s eff
ects
wer
e fe
lt fr
om
1985
thro
ugh
2000
.
•Si
nce
that
tim
e bi
rths h
ave
tend
ed to
tren
d do
wn
or d
eclin
e sl
ight
ly
resu
lting
in sl
ower
ele
men
tary
gro
wth
in m
any
area
s aro
und
the
coun
try.
•B
irths
in S
noho
mis
h C
ount
y sh
ow a
sim
ilar p
atte
rn to
nat
iona
l tre
nds.
They
incr
ease
d be
twee
n 19
85 a
nd 1
993
and
then
star
ted
to tr
end
dow
n be
twee
n 19
94 a
nd 2
000.
Thi
s res
ulte
d in
slow
er e
lem
enta
ry e
nrol
lmen
t gr
owth
in th
e la
te 1
990’
s. Si
nce
2000
ann
ual b
irths
hav
e ra
nged
be
twee
n 83
00 a
nd 8
700
per y
ear,
until
200
5 w
hen
they
rose
to 8
934.
C
ount
y bi
rths f
or 2
006
have
not
yet
bee
n fin
aliz
ed.
17D
emog
raph
ic T
rend
s and
Pro
ject
ions
--M
a y 2
007
Birt
hs: L
ooki
ng F
orw
ard
•Th
e de
mog
raph
er fo
r the
Sta
te o
f Was
hing
ton
is p
redi
ctin
g a
mar
ked
incr
ease
in b
irths
stat
ewid
e be
twee
n 20
10 a
nd 2
020,
whi
ch is
like
ly to
re
sult
in a
subs
eque
nt in
crea
se in
K-1
2 en
rollm
ent.
•B
irths
hav
e av
erag
ed a
bout
850
0 pe
r yea
r ove
r the
pas
t 5 y
ears
. B
etw
een
2005
and
201
0 th
is a
vera
ge is
exp
ecte
d to
rise
to
appr
oxim
atel
y 9,
400
a ye
ar a
nd b
etw
een
2010
and
201
5 bi
rths w
illav
erag
e ov
er 1
0,00
0 a
year
cou
nty-
wid
e.
•Th
e la
rger
pro
ject
ed b
irth
coho
rts in
the
com
ing
year
s sug
gest
that
en
rollm
ent g
row
th w
ill li
kely
star
t to
incr
ease
at a
gre
ater
rate
(fro
m
curr
ent l
evel
s) so
mew
here
bet
wee
n 20
12 a
nd 2
020.
By
2015
it is
like
ly
that
all
dist
ricts
in th
e co
unty
will
be
grow
ing,
incl
udin
g Ed
mon
ds,
whe
re e
nrol
lmen
t has
dec
lined
sinc
e 20
00.
18D
emog
raph
ic T
rend
s and
Pro
ject
ions
--M
a y 2
007
Snoh
omis
h C
ount
y B
irths
Was
hing
ton
Stat
e D
epar
tmen
t of H
ealth
6646
6801
7390
7862
8286
8224
8128
8062
7833
7629
7921
8110
8352
8496
8545
8703
8344
8592
8675
8924
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
1000
0
1200
0
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Dec
line
in b
irths
was
follo
wed
by
a le
velin
g of
f and
subs
eque
nt
decl
ine
in e
lem
enta
ry e
nrol
lmen
t in
the
coun
ty.
19D
emog
raph
ic T
rend
s and
Pro
ject
ions
--M
a y 2
007
Proj
ectio
ns o
f Birt
hs fo
r Sno
hom
ish
Cou
nty
Bas
ed o
n C
ount
y Po
pula
tion
fore
cast
s fro
m O
FM a
nd b
irth
rate
est
imat
es
8344
8592
8675
8924
9135
9219
9395
9574
9911
1007
210
236
1038
510
534
1065
0
010
0020
0030
0040
0050
0060
0070
0080
0090
0010
000
1100
012
000
1300
014
000
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Coh
orts
for 2
011
to 2
015
Ave
rage
:940
0 a
year
Coh
orts
for 2
016
to 2
020
Ave
rage
:10,
300
a ye
arA
ctua
l Birt
h C
ohor
ts fo
r K
Cla
sses
from
200
7 to
201
0
Proj
ectio
ns
20D
emog
raph
ic T
rend
s and
Pro
ject
ions
--M
a y 2
007
Popu
latio
n: C
ount
y an
d K
-12
•Th
e po
pula
tion
in S
noho
mis
h C
ount
y in
crea
sed
by a
ppro
xim
atel
y 2.
4%
betw
een
2005
and
200
6 ba
sed
on e
stim
ates
from
the
Off
ice
of F
inan
cial
M
anag
emen
t (O
FM) a
t the
Sta
te o
f Was
hing
ton.
Thi
s rat
e of
gro
wth
is
the
high
est s
ince
200
0, a
nd th
e ne
t gai
n in
the
popu
latio
n be
twee
n 20
05
and
2006
is th
e la
rges
t gai
n si
nce
the
perio
d be
twee
n 19
97 a
nd 1
998.
•In
gen
eral
pop
ulat
ion
grow
th in
Sno
hom
ish
Cou
nty
and
the
Puge
t Sou
nd
regi
on h
as b
een
slow
er in
rece
nt y
ears
than
it w
as in
the
late
198
0’s a
nd
early
199
0’s.
OFM
attr
ibut
es th
is c
hang
e in
the
late
199
0’s t
o th
e fa
ct
that
Cal
iforn
ia’s
eco
nom
y re
cove
red
from
a re
cess
ion,
hal
ting
the
flow
of
resi
dent
s fro
m th
at st
ate
to o
ther
wes
tern
stat
es. T
he m
ost r
ecen
t es
timat
es o
f the
pop
ulat
ion
sugg
est t
hat c
ount
y gr
owth
is tr
endi
ng c
lose
to
the
inte
rmed
iate
pro
ject
ion
from
OFM
.
21D
emog
raph
ic T
rend
s and
Pro
ject
ions
--M
a y 2
007
Popu
latio
n K
-12
•B
aby-
boom
ers s
till m
ake
up th
e gr
eate
st p
erce
ntag
e of
the
popu
latio
n in
the
coun
ty. A
nd e
ven
thou
gh K
-12
enro
llmen
t has
bee
n gr
owin
g co
unty
-wid
e, t
he p
erce
ntag
eof
the
popu
latio
n th
at is
K-1
2 ha
s bee
n de
clin
ing
in re
cent
yea
rs (o
ther
gro
ups a
re g
row
ing
at a
fast
er ra
te).
•Th
is tr
end
is e
xpec
ted
to st
art t
o ch
ange
bet
wee
n 20
10 a
nd 2
020
as
birth
s sta
rt to
rise
. Bet
wee
n 20
15 a
nd 2
020
it is
exp
ecte
d th
at th
e pe
rcen
tage
of t
he p
opul
atio
n th
at is
K-1
2 w
ill st
art t
o in
crea
se a
gain
.
•Lo
ng ra
nge
estim
ates
of K
-12
publ
ic sc
hool
enr
ollm
ent i
n th
e co
unty
su
gges
t tha
t the
cur
rent
pop
ulat
ion
of a
ppro
xim
atel
y 10
8,00
0 w
ill
incr
ease
to so
mew
here
bet
wee
n 13
4,00
0 an
d 14
0,00
0 by
202
0. T
he
mos
t dra
mat
ic ri
se is
like
ly to
occ
ur b
etw
een
2015
and
202
0.
22D
emog
raph
ic T
rend
s and
Pro
ject
ions
--M
a y 2
007
Snoh
omis
h C
ount
y Po
pula
tion
Estim
ates
Sour
ce: O
FM S
tate
of W
ashi
ngto
n
483,
986
494,
286
507,
900
516,
500
525,
600
538,
100
551,
200
568,
100
583,
300
606,
024
618,
600
628,
000
637,
500
644,
800
655,
800
671,
800
2.1%
2.8%
1.7%
1.8%
2.4%
2.4%
3.1%
2.7%
3.8%
2.1%
1.5%
1.5%
1.1%
1.7%
2.4%
0
100,
000
200,
000
300,
000
400,
000
500,
000
600,
000
700,
000
800,
000
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
OFM Estim
ate
-1.0
%
1.0%
3.0%
5.0%
7.0%
9.0%
11.0
%
13.0
%
15.0
%
Popu
latio
nPe
rcen
t Inc
reas
e
23D
emog
raph
ic T
rend
s and
Pro
ject
ions
--M
a y 2
007
Net
Cha
nge
in S
noho
mis
h C
ount
y Po
pula
tion
Sour
ce: P
uget
Sou
nd R
egio
nal C
ounc
il R
evis
ed E
stim
ates
Bas
ed o
n 20
00 C
ensu
s
1522
9
13,0
1913
,871
9,55
310
,351
11,9
30
17,4
37
19,1
49
15,4
2514
,434
12,5
76
9,40
09,
500
7,30
0
11,0
00
16,0
00
0
5000
1000
0
1500
0
2000
0
2500
0
1990
-91
1991
-92
1992
-93
1993
-94
1994
-95
1995
-96
1996
-97
1997
-98
1998
-99
1999
-00
2000
-01
2001
-02
200
2-03
2003
-04
2004
-05
2005
-06
24D
emog
raph
ic T
rend
s and
Pro
ject
ions
--M
a y 2
007
Net
Cha
nge
in P
uget
Sou
nd P
opul
atio
n:K
ing,
Kits
ap, P
ierc
e &
Sno
hom
ish
OFM
Est
imat
es (N
ot A
djus
ted
for l
ates
t cen
sus d
ata)
68,9
67 29,6
36 15,5
9333,8
0847,6
68 36,7
4451,7
4764,0
1675,8
6784,3
84 77,7
05 61,8
00 57,9
28 31,8
0041,9
00 36,8
0044,3
0048,6
00 40,3
0043,0
2647,9
00 38,3
01 25,5
0029,1
0043,8
0163,6
00
0
1000
0
2000
0
3000
0
4000
0
5000
0
6000
0
7000
0
8000
0
9000
0 1980
-81 1981
-82 1982
-83 1983
-84 1984
-85 1985
-86 1986
-87 1987
-88 1988
-89 1989
-90 1990
-91 1991
-92 1992
-93 1993
-94 1994
-95 1995
-96 1996
-97 1997
-98 1998
-99 1999
-00 2000
-01 2001
-02 2002
-03 2003
-04 2004
-05 2005
-06
25D
emog
raph
ic T
rend
s and
Pro
ject
ions
--M
a y 2
007
Snoh
omis
h C
ount
y Po
pula
tion
Fore
cast
Low
, Med
ium
, and
Hig
h Po
pula
tion
Fore
cast
sSo
urce
: OFM
Sta
te o
f Was
hing
ton
5500
0065
0000
7500
0085
0000
9500
0010
5000
011
5000
0
2005
Pop
. Est
im.
655,
800
Low
606,
024
634,
232
676,
708
717,
312
759,
087
795,
725
Med
ium
606,
024
666,
735
728,
937
793,
720
862,
599
929,
314
Hig
h60
6,02
469
9,23
878
1,80
687
0,11
696
6,91
11,
062,
903
Cen
sus
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
The
popu
latio
n es
timat
e fr
om
2005
is c
lose
to th
e m
ediu
m
proj
ectio
n
26D
emog
raph
ic T
rend
s and
Pro
ject
ions
--M
a y 2
007
Snoh
omis
h C
ount
y K
-12
Publ
ic S
choo
l En
rollm
ent F
orec
asts
Proj
ectio
n B
ased
on
OFM
Age
5-1
9 Fo
reca
sts a
nd L
ates
t Pop
. Est
imat
es
100,
000
110,
000
120,
000
130,
000
140,
000
Low
107,
925
109,
704
112,
500
121,
241
131,
935
Med
ium
107,
925
111,
943
114,
796
123,
715
134,
628
Hig
h10
7,92
511
4,22
811
7,13
912
6,24
013
7,37
5
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
P223
Cou
nty
Enro
llmen
t Oct
20
05
27D
emog
raph
ic T
rend
s and
Pro
ject
ions
--M
a y 2
007
Popu
latio
n in
the
Mon
roe
Scho
ol D
istri
ct•
Bet
wee
n th
e 19
90 a
nd 2
000
cens
us, t
he p
opul
atio
n in
the
Mon
roe
scho
ol
dist
rict g
rew
by
over
11,
000
resi
dent
s. B
ased
on
data
from
New
Hom
e Tr
ends
and
the
Stat
e of
Was
hing
ton
it is
est
imat
ed th
at th
e re
side
nt
popu
latio
n of
the
dist
rict i
n 20
06 w
as a
ppro
xim
atel
y 36
,000
.
•D
ata
from
the
Snoh
omis
h C
ount
y of
fice
of p
lann
ing
from
Dec
embe
r 20
05 e
stim
ates
that
the
Dis
trict
’s p
opul
atio
n w
ill b
e ju
st u
nder
40,0
00
resi
dent
s by
2011
, and
will
exc
eed
50,0
00 b
y 20
25.
•A
lthou
gh e
stim
ates
from
the
coun
ty p
lann
ing
offic
e ar
e re
ason
able
, the
re
are
othe
r est
imat
es th
at su
gges
t the
pop
ulat
ion
mig
ht tr
end
high
er. T
he
Puge
t Sou
nd R
egio
nal C
ounc
il’s f
orec
ast o
f pop
ulat
ion
and
hous
ing
for
neig
hbor
hood
are
as in
and
aro
und
Mon
roe
pred
icts
hig
her g
row
th ra
tes
than
the
coun
ty p
lann
ing
offic
e.
28D
emog
raph
ic T
rend
s and
Pro
ject
ions
--M
a y 2
007
Popu
latio
n in
the
Mon
roe
Scho
ol D
istri
ct•
Dat
a fr
om P
SRC
sugg
est t
hat M
onro
e’s p
opul
atio
n co
uld
be a
ppro
xim
atel
y 41
,000
by
the
2010
cen
sus a
nd tr
end
to 4
9,00
0 by
202
0. T
hese
diff
erin
g es
timat
es o
f the
pop
ulat
ion
(PSR
C a
nd th
e C
ount
y) c
an b
e us
ed a
spar
t of t
he
basi
s for
mak
ing
a lo
w a
nd h
igh
proj
ectio
n of
Mon
roe’
s fut
ure
K-1
2 en
rollm
ent.
•A
lthou
gh p
opul
atio
n gr
owth
is ty
pica
lly c
orre
late
d w
ith e
nrol
lmen
t gro
wth
, it
is im
porta
nt to
rem
embe
r tha
t mos
t dis
trict
s in
the
coun
ty w
ill in
crea
se th
eir
popu
latio
n be
twee
n no
w a
nd 2
020.
Gro
wth
per
se is
not
that
impo
rtant
. K-1
2 gr
owth
is li
kely
to b
e m
ore
dram
atic
in d
istri
cts t
hat i
ncre
ase
thei
r per
cent
age
or sh
are
of th
e co
unty
pop
ulat
ion.
•C
ompa
ring
Mon
roe’
s pro
ject
ed p
opul
atio
n (u
sing
the
PSR
C e
stim
ate)
to th
e m
ediu
m c
ount
y pr
ojec
tion
we
wou
ld p
redi
ct th
at M
onro
e w
ill in
crea
se it
s sh
are
of th
e po
pula
tion
over
tim
e (s
ee th
e ch
art o
n pa
ge 3
1), a
nd su
bseq
uent
ly
incr
ease
its s
hare
of c
ount
y K
-12
enro
llmen
t.
29D
emog
raph
ic T
rend
s and
Pro
ject
ions
--M
a y 2
007
Mon
roe
Scho
ol D
istri
ctR
esid
ent P
opul
atio
n So
urce
: Cen
sus a
nd P
uget
Sou
nd R
egio
nal C
ounc
il Es
timat
es o
f Pro
ject
ed G
row
th in
an
d A
roun
d th
e M
onro
e Sc
hool
Dis
trict
20,0
69
31,8
31
36,0
00
05,
000
10,0
0015
,000
20,0
0025
,000
30,0
0035
,000
40,0
00
Cen
sus 1
990
Cen
sus 2
000
2006
Est
imat
e
Not
e: T
he la
test
200
6 Es
timat
e is
bas
ed o
n N
ew H
ome
Tren
ds d
ata
rega
rdin
g ho
me
sale
s sin
ce 2
000
30D
emog
raph
ic T
rend
s and
Pro
ject
ions
--M
a y 2
007
Mon
roe
Scho
ol D
istri
ctR
esid
ent P
opul
atio
n Fo
reca
sts
Sour
ce: S
noho
mis
h C
ount
y Pl
anni
ngPu
get S
ound
Reg
iona
l Cou
ncil
Estim
ates
of G
row
th fo
r N
eigh
borh
oods
In a
nd A
roun
d M
onro
e
30,0
00
35,0
00
40,0
00
45,0
00
50,0
00
55,0
00
Base
d on
PSR
C N
eigh
borh
ood
Fore
cast
36,0
0041
,000
45,0
0049
,000
53,0
00
Snoh
omis
h C
ount
y Pl
anni
ng (D
ec 2
005)
36,0
0039
,927
50,2
77
2006
Est
imat
e20
1020
1120
1520
2020
25
31D
emog
raph
ic T
rend
s and
Pro
ject
ions
--M
a y 2
007
Snoh
omis
h C
ount
y Po
pula
tion
Fore
cast
OFM
Med
ium
Ran
ge C
ount
y Fo
reca
st
The
char
t als
o sh
ows M
onro
e’s r
esid
ent p
opul
atio
n as
a p
erce
ntag
e of
the
coun
ty
popu
latio
n (R
esid
ent P
opul
atio
n ba
sed
on th
e PS
RC
neig
hbor
hood
fore
cast
)
6.38
%6.
52%
6.68
%6.
80%
0
100,
000
200,
000
300,
000
400,
000
500,
000
600,
000
700,
000
800,
000
900,
000
1,00
0,00
0
2010
2015
2020
2025
3.00
%
3.50
%
4.00
%
4.50
%
5.00
%
5.50
%
6.00
%
6.50
%
7.00
%
Cou
nty
Pop
ulat
ion
Mon
roe
Sch
ool D
istri
ct R
esid
ent P
op. A
s a
% o
f Cou
nty
Pop
.
32D
emog
raph
ic T
rend
s and
Pro
ject
ions
--M
a y 2
007
Hou
sing
in M
onro
e•
The
num
ber o
f hou
ses i
n th
e M
onro
e sc
hool
dis
trict
incr
ease
d fr
om 6
,626
in
the
1990
cen
sus t
o 10
,718
uni
ts b
y th
e 20
00 c
ensu
s. O
n av
erag
e,ap
prox
imat
ely
400
new
hou
sing
uni
ts w
ere
adde
d an
nual
ly b
etw
een
1990
an
d 20
00. S
ince
200
0 (b
ased
on
data
from
New
Hom
e Tr
ends
and
OFM
) th
e di
stric
t has
bee
n ad
ding
app
roxi
mat
ely
200
hous
ing
units
ann
ually
due
to
new
con
stru
ctio
n (s
ingl
e-fa
mily
and
mul
ti-fa
mily
).
•U
sing
dat
a fr
om th
e PS
RC
nei
ghbo
rhoo
d fo
reca
sts (
for a
reas
in a
nd a
roun
d M
onro
e) w
e ca
n es
timat
e th
at o
ver 8
5% o
f the
hou
ses i
n th
e di
stric
t are
si
ngle
-fam
ily. T
he p
ropo
rtion
of m
ulti-
fam
ily u
nits
is p
roje
cted
to in
crea
se
in M
onro
e an
d co
unty
-wid
e be
twee
n no
w a
nd 2
020
due
to a
n em
phas
is o
n gr
eate
r den
sity
. But
eve
n w
ith th
is in
crea
se it
is li
kely
that
by
2020
ap
prox
imat
ely
80%
of t
he h
ouse
s in
the
dist
rict w
ill b
e si
ngle
-fam
ily h
omes
.
•It
is c
urre
ntly
est
imat
ed th
at th
ere
are
12,0
00 h
ousi
ng u
nits
inth
e M
onro
e sc
hool
dis
trict
. The
PSR
C fo
reca
st su
gges
ts th
at th
e nu
mbe
r of h
omes
in th
e di
stric
t will
incr
ease
to so
mew
here
bet
wee
n 15
,000
and
17,
000
by20
20.
33D
emog
raph
ic T
rend
s and
Pro
ject
ions
--M
a y 2
007
Hou
sing
in M
onro
e•
Ass
umin
g th
at th
e ho
usin
g st
ock
incr
ease
s to
15,0
00 b
y 20
20 th
isw
ould
m
ean
the
addi
tion
of 3
000
units
ove
r 14
year
s (ap
prox
imat
ely
214
per y
ear)
. If
the
tota
l tre
nds t
owar
d 17
,000
uni
ts b
y 20
20 th
is w
ould
repr
esen
t an
incr
ease
just
ove
r 350
uni
ts a
nnua
lly. S
imila
r to
the
popu
latio
nes
timat
es
thes
e di
ffer
ing
estim
ates
of h
ousi
ng g
row
th c
an b
e us
ed a
s the
bas
is fo
r m
akin
g a
low
and
hig
h ra
nge
proj
ectio
n of
futu
re e
nrol
lmen
t.
•B
ased
on
data
from
New
Hom
e Tr
ends
ther
e ar
e cu
rren
tly 1
00 n
ew si
ngle
fa
mily
hom
es a
nd 5
1 m
ulti-
fam
ily h
omes
for s
ale
or re
nt w
ithin
the
dist
rict’s
bo
unda
ries.
Ther
e ar
e 45
6 si
ngle
fam
ily h
omes
and
285
mul
ti-fa
mily
uni
ts
prop
osed
for f
utur
e co
nstru
ctio
n an
d sa
le w
ithin
the
dist
rict’s
bou
ndar
ies.
In
gene
ral m
ost n
ew m
ulti-
fam
ily a
nd si
ngle
fam
ily h
omes
are
bui
lt ou
t and
so
ld so
mew
here
bet
wee
n 3-
5 ye
ars f
rom
the
date
of a
pplic
atio
n (d
ata
from
N
ew H
ome
Tren
ds).
Thi
s sug
gest
s tha
t the
dis
trict
is li
kely
to se
e ap
prox
imat
ely
200
new
hou
sing
uni
ts a
nnua
lly b
etw
een
now
and
201
0.
34D
emog
raph
ic T
rend
s and
Pro
ject
ions
--M
a y 2
007
Hou
sing
Gro
wth
in th
e M
onro
e Sc
hool
Dis
trict
Sour
ce: C
ensu
s Dat
a
0
2,00
0
4,00
0
6,00
0
8,00
0
10,0
00
12,0
00
00.5
11.5
22.5
33.5
Hou
ses
6,62
610
,718
Avg
. Hou
seho
ld S
ize
3.02
2.97
1990
Cen
sus
2000
Cen
sus
35D
emog
raph
ic T
rend
s and
Pro
ject
ions
--M
a y 2
007
New
Hou
sing
Con
stru
ctio
n in
the
Mon
roe
Scho
ol D
istri
ctSo
urce
: New
Hom
e Tr
ends
App
roxi
mat
e bu
ild-o
ut ti
me
for M
ulti-
fam
ily is
3 y
ears
from
the
date
of a
pplic
atio
n; S
ingl
e fa
mily
5 y
ears
from
the
date
of a
pplic
atio
n
5110
0
285
456
0
100
200
300
400
500
Mul
ti-fa
mily
Uni
tsSi
ngle
-Fam
ily U
nits
Cur
rent
ly S
ellin
gPr
opos
ed fo
r Fu
ture
Con
stru
ctio
n an
d Sa
le
Proj
ectio
ns
37D
emog
raph
ic T
rend
s and
Pro
ject
ions
--M
a y 2
007
Proj
ectio
n M
etho
dolo
gy•
Bas
ed o
n hi
stor
ical
ana
lysi
s it w
as d
eter
min
ed th
at th
e be
st p
redi
ctor
s of
enro
llmen
t for
the
Mon
roe
dist
rict a
re c
ount
y bi
rths,
and
the
proj
ecte
d po
pula
tion
and
hous
ing
grow
th w
ithin
the
dist
rict’s
bou
ndar
ies.
Thes
e m
easu
res w
ere
used
to c
reat
e a
pred
ictiv
e m
odel
that
wou
ld e
stim
ate
futu
re
enro
llmen
t in
the
dist
rict b
etw
een
now
and
202
0.
•K
inde
rgar
ten
enro
llmen
t was
pro
ject
ed b
ased
on
the
assu
mpt
ion
that
the
dist
rict’s
kin
derg
arte
n en
rollm
ent w
ould
cha
nge
in re
latio
n to
the
proj
ecte
d ch
ange
in b
irths
ove
r tim
e. E
nrol
lmen
t at g
rade
s 1-1
2 w
as p
roje
cted
bas
ed o
n ex
pect
ed g
row
th in
hou
sing
and
pop
ulat
ion
with
in th
e di
stric
t’s b
ound
arie
s ov
er ti
me.
•A
coh
ort s
urvi
val m
odel
was
als
o cr
eate
d to
look
at c
hang
es in
gra
de-to
-gra
de
grow
th. I
n ge
nera
l, th
e co
hort
mod
el p
rodu
ces r
esul
ts th
at a
re si
mila
r to
the
pred
ictiv
e m
odel
bas
ed o
n bi
rths,
popu
latio
n an
d ho
usin
g. H
owev
er, f
or
proj
ectio
ns b
eyon
d 3
year
s, co
hort
surv
ival
tend
s to
have
a h
ighe
r err
or ra
te
than
mul
tiple
regr
essi
on a
nd o
ther
line
ar m
odel
s (G
rip &
You
ng, 1
999)
.
38D
emog
raph
ic T
rend
s and
Pro
ject
ions
--M
a y 2
007
Proj
ectio
n M
etho
dolo
gy•
Two
sepa
rate
pro
ject
ions
mod
els w
ere
crea
ted,
a m
ediu
m ra
nge
proj
ectio
n an
d a
high
rang
e. T
he m
ediu
m ra
nge
mod
el a
ssum
es lo
wer
ho
usin
g an
d po
pula
tion
grow
th w
ithin
the
dist
rict’s
bou
ndar
ies t
han
does
the
high
rang
e m
odel
. Th
e hi
gh ra
nge
mod
el is
bas
ed o
n th
em
ost
optim
istic
fore
cast
s of h
ousi
ng a
nd p
opul
atio
n gr
owth
with
in th
edi
stric
t’s b
ound
arie
s. B
oth
mod
els u
se a
wei
ghte
d 3
year
ave
rage
co
hort
surv
ival
rate
to p
redi
ct g
row
th a
t eac
h gr
ade.
•A
pop
ulat
ion
and
hous
ing
grow
th fa
ctor
is a
dded
to e
ach
mod
el to
adju
st th
e en
rollm
ent o
ver t
ime
so th
at th
e ov
eral
l tot
al m
atch
es th
e pr
edic
tions
bas
ed o
n th
e lin
ear m
odel
. Th
is a
llow
s us t
o pr
edic
t gr
owth
by
grad
e (u
sing
coh
ort s
urvi
val)
whi
le a
lso
insu
ring
that
the
over
all t
otal
is p
roje
cted
to b
e cl
ose
to th
e re
sults
of t
he li
near
mod
els
that
pre
dict
the
tota
l enr
ollm
ent u
sing
birth
s, po
pula
tion,
and
hou
sing
.
39D
emog
raph
ic T
rend
s and
Pro
ject
ions
--M
a y 2
007
Proj
ectio
n M
etho
dolo
gyO
ther
Con
side
ratio
ns•
Som
e co
nsid
erat
ion
was
als
o gi
ven
to o
ther
fact
ors t
hat m
ight
aff
ect
enro
llmen
t. Fo
r exa
mpl
e, th
e di
stric
t has
seen
a st
eady
incr
ease
in it
s EL
L po
pula
tion
over
the
last
seve
ral y
ears
, esp
ecia
lly si
nce
2000
. Th
is tr
end
is si
mila
r to
the
coun
ty-w
ide
trend
of g
row
th in
this
po
pula
tion
and
refle
cts t
he m
arke
d in
crea
se in
His
pani
c im
mig
ratio
n in
to th
e co
unty
.
•In
gen
eral
, dis
trict
s with
a la
rge
His
pani
c EL
L po
pula
tions
will
tend
to
see
larg
er e
nrol
lmen
t gai
ns o
ver t
ime.
Thi
s occ
urs b
ecau
se
His
pani
c bi
rth ra
tes t
end
to b
e hi
gher
than
thos
e fo
r oth
er g
roup
s. A
n in
crea
se in
the
His
pani
c po
pula
tion
in a
n ar
ea w
ill m
ost l
ikel
y be
ac
com
pani
ed b
y sh
arp
incr
ease
s in
enro
llmen
t whe
n bi
rth tr
ends
be
gin
to c
ycle
bac
k up
.
40D
emog
raph
ic T
rend
s and
Pro
ject
ions
--M
a y 2
007
Proj
ectio
ns M
etho
ds
Oth
er C
onsi
dera
tions
Con
tinue
d•
Alth
ough
ther
e ar
e so
me
indi
catio
ns th
at M
onro
e m
ight
see
a gr
eate
r en
rollm
ent g
ain
due
to a
n in
crea
se in
the
His
pani
c po
pula
tion,
the
evid
ence
at
this
tim
e is
inco
nclu
sive
. Alth
ough
Mon
roe’
s His
pani
c po
pula
tion
has b
een
grow
ing
at a
rate
that
is fa
ster
than
the
coun
ty ra
te, o
ther
dis
trict
s, lik
e M
ukilt
eo, h
ave
seen
a m
ore
dram
atic
rise
(esp
ecia
lly a
mon
g th
e im
mig
rant
H
ispa
nic
popu
latio
n) d
ue to
a l
arge
num
ber o
f mul
ti-fa
mily
rent
al u
nits
. Th
ese
affo
rdab
le re
ntal
uni
ts a
re a
ttrac
tive
loca
tions
for n
ew im
mig
rant
po
pula
tions
as t
hey
gain
a fo
otho
ld in
the
com
mun
ity. T
he g
reat
er p
ropo
rtion
of
such
uni
ts in
pla
ces l
ike
Muk
ilteo
is c
orre
late
d w
ith th
e gr
owth
of H
ispa
nic
ELL
popu
latio
ns in
that
dis
trict
.
•D
ata
from
Kin
g C
ount
y te
nds t
o co
nfirm
this
con
clus
ion.
Alth
ough
man
y di
stric
ts h
ave
seen
an
incr
ease
in th
eir H
ispa
nic
and
ELL
popu
latio
ns in
Kin
g C
ount
y, E
LL g
row
th (a
nd H
ispa
nic
ELL
grow
th g
ener
ally
) ha
s ten
ded
to
conc
entra
te in
the
Hig
hlin
e sc
hool
dis
trict
, jus
t sou
th o
f Sea
ttle
whe
re th
ere
is
a ba
lanc
ed m
ix o
f aff
orda
ble
mul
ti-fa
mily
rent
al u
nits
and
sing
le fa
mily
ho
mes
.
41D
emog
raph
ic T
rend
s and
Pro
ject
ions
--M
a y 2
007
Proj
ectio
n M
etho
dsTh
inki
ng B
eyon
d 20
10•
It is
use
ful t
o re
-iter
ate
that
the
loca
tion
of th
e H
ispa
nic
imm
igra
nt a
nd
non-
imm
igra
nt p
opul
atio
ns c
ount
y-w
ide
is a
crit
ical
(and
som
ewha
t un
know
n) fa
ctor
that
will
influ
ence
futu
re e
nrol
lmen
t. Th
e di
stric
ts w
hich
pr
ove
mos
t attr
activ
e to
thes
e su
b-gr
oups
in th
e po
pula
tion
are
likel
y to
se
e a
dist
inct
gro
wth
spik
e (d
ue to
hig
her H
ispa
nic
birth
rate
s)th
an so
me
of th
e ot
her d
istri
cts i
n th
e co
unty
. Thi
s is e
spec
ially
true
for t
he p
erio
d be
twee
n 20
10 a
nd 2
020
whe
n th
e ki
nder
garte
n co
horts
are
exp
ecte
dto
be
larg
er. T
he c
ensu
s upd
ate
in 2
010
will
pro
vide
a g
ood
indi
catio
nof
whe
re
His
pani
c po
pula
tions
hav
e se
ttled
ove
r the
pas
t dec
ade.
Onc
e th
is
info
rmat
ion
is k
now
n it
can
be in
corp
orat
ed in
to u
pdat
ed e
nrol
lmen
t fo
reca
sts.
42D
emog
raph
ic T
rend
s and
Pro
ject
ions
--M
a y 2
007
Proj
ecte
d Tr
ends
Dis
trict
Enr
ollm
ent
•Th
e m
ediu
m ra
nge
mod
el p
redi
cts t
hat e
nrol
lmen
t will
tren
d to
just
ov
er 7
300
by 2
010
and
to ju
st u
nder
880
0 by
202
0.
•Th
e hi
gh ra
nge
mod
el p
redi
cts t
hat e
nrol
lmen
t will
tren
d to
750
0by
20
10 a
nd to
mor
e th
an 9
100
stud
ents
by
2020
.
•B
oth
mod
els p
redi
ct m
ore
grow
th a
t ele
men
tary
than
at t
he m
iddl
esc
hool
and
hig
h sc
hool
leve
l fro
m n
ow th
roug
h 20
10.
•Th
e lo
ng ra
nge
med
ium
fore
cast
sugg
est t
hat t
he d
istri
ct c
ould
add
an
addi
tiona
l 100
0 el
emen
tary
stud
ents
by
2020
, app
roxi
mat
ely
500
mid
dle
scho
ol st
uden
ts, a
nd o
ver 6
00 h
igh
scho
ol st
uden
ts T
he h
igh
rang
e fo
reca
st p
redi
cts s
light
ly g
reat
er to
tals
at e
ach
leve
l.
Det
aile
d N
umbe
rs
Oct
ober
Hea
dcou
nt P
roje
ctio
ns b
y G
rade
Med
ium
and
Hig
h R
ange
For
ecas
t
44D
emog
raph
ic T
rend
s and
Pro
ject
ions
--M
a y 2
007
Mon
roe
Scho
ol D
istri
ct (O
ctob
er E
nrol
lmen
t His
tory
)Sn
ohom
ish
Coun
ty B
irths
Birth
Yea
r19
8619
8719
8819
8919
9019
9119
9219
9319
9419
9519
9619
9719
9819
9920
0020
01Co
unty
Birth
s66
4668
0173
9078
6282
8682
2481
2880
6278
3376
2979
2181
1083
5284
9685
4587
03Pc
t of C
ohor
t4.
59%
5.16
%4.
44%
4.29
%4.
68%
3.98
%4.
43%
4.71
%4.
81%
5.23
%4.
65%
4.71
%4.
48%
4.78
%5.
10%
5.01
%Co
hort
Enro
llmen
t Hist
ory
(Not
e: C
ount
s fro
m 1
991
to 2
000
are
the
Orig
inal P
223
coun
ts) 2
001-
2006
Ref
lect R
evisi
ons
3 Yr
.Oc
t-91
Oct-9
2Oc
t-93
Oct-9
4Oc
t-95
Oct-9
6Oc
t-97
Oct-9
8Oc
t-99
Oct-0
0 O
ct-0
1Oc
t-02
Oct-0
3Oc
t-04
Oct-0
5Oc
t-06
Wei
ghte
dK
305
351
328
337
388
327
360
380
377
399
368
382
374
406
436
436
0.05
01
359
331
395
355
394
406
371
425
422
421
448
451
466
436
515
532
1.22
02
371
365
340
416
364
402
408
408
453
455
481
478
466
461
453
512
1.00
83
369
374
384
348
415
363
438
452
435
494
472
482
472
474
487
457
1.02
64
340
366
369
382
358
415
357
456
468
472
503
485
485
473
495
507
1.03
65
359
349
377
388
373
360
410
400
482
499
497
491
500
491
491
505
1.02
56
332
378
364
378
384
381
378
474
447
496
524
494
510
508
517
499
1.02
87
360
344
384
384
378
394
379
402
484
455
505
510
514
509
525
540
1.03
38
281
365
345
389
398
382
403
373
417
499
468
512
515
522
529
538
1.02
89
271
304
380
369
388
398
496
487
405
454
532
470
538
508
558
518
1.01
010
268
280
297
370
356
435
397
472
526
404
465
531
514
526
517
565
1.00
811
277
260
267
274
344
279
312
294
354
460
416
430
502
491
523
526
0.99
912
210
268
254
261
259
287
248
295
314
338
436
445
467
565
591
661
1.22
1To
tal
4102
4335
4484
4651
4799
4829
4957
5318
5584
5846
6115
6161
6323
6370
6637
6796
Chan
ge23
314
916
714
830
128
361
266
262
269
4616
247
267
159
% C
hang
e5.
7%3.
4%3.
7%3.
2%0.
6%2.
7%7.
3%5.
0%4.
7%4.
6%0.
8%2.
6%0.
7%4.
2%2.
4%
Enro
llmen
t by
Leve
lK-
521
0321
3621
9322
2622
9222
7323
4425
2126
3727
4027
6927
6927
6327
4128
7729
49 6
-897
310
8710
9311
5111
6011
5711
6012
4913
4814
5014
9715
1615
3915
3915
7115
77 9
-12
1026
1112
1198
1274
1347
1399
1453
1548
1599
1656
1849
1876
2021
2090
2189
2270
Chan
ge b
y Le
vel
K-5
3357
3366
-19
7117
711
610
329
0-6
-22
136
72 6
-811
46
589
-33
8999
102
4719
230
326
9-1
286
8676
7352
5495
5157
193
2714
569
9981
45D
emog
raph
ic T
rend
s and
Pro
ject
ions
--M
a y 2
007
Proj
ectio
nP
roje
cted
Med
ium
Ran
ge F
orec
ast
Birt
hs20
0220
0320
0420
0520
0620
0720
0820
0920
1020
1120
1220
1320
1420
15P
opul
atio
n83
4485
9286
7589
2491
3592
1993
9595
7499
1110
072
1023
610
385
1053
410
650
Hou
sing
4.98
%5.
01%
5.02
%5.
01%
5.02
%5.
03%
5.04
%5.
05%
5.06
%5.
07%
5.08
%5.
09%
5.09
%5.
10%
Gro
wth
Per
cent
Cha
nge
in B
irths
5 (y
r)4.
4%11
.1%
7.5%
Fact
or O
ct-0
7 O
ct-0
8O
ct-0
9O
ct-1
0O
ct-1
1O
ct-1
2O
ct-1
3 O
ct-1
4O
ct-1
5O
ct-1
6O
ct-1
7O
ct-1
8O
ct-1
9O
ct-2
0Le
vel
2007
K41
643
043
544
745
946
447
448
350
351
052
052
853
754
4K
-51.
007
153
851
152
853
854
756
156
858
059
261
662
563
664
665
7 6
-81.
005
254
354
751
853
754
455
456
857
458
659
862
363
264
365
4 9
-12
1.00
53
532
561
565
536
552
560
570
584
591
603
616
641
650
662
2008
-10
447
955
458
558
955
657
458
159
260
761
462
764
066
667
5K
-51.
007
552
649
457
260
460
657
259
059
860
862
463
164
465
868
4 6
-81.
005
652
654
451
159
162
262
458
960
861
662
764
365
066
467
8 9
-12
1.00
57
518
546
564
530
612
644
646
610
629
638
649
666
673
687
2011
-20
855
853
556
458
354
663
166
366
562
964
865
766
968
669
3K
-51.
003
954
656
754
457
359
055
363
867
267
463
665
666
567
769
4 6
-81.
002
1052
555
457
455
157
959
655
964
567
968
164
366
367
268
4 9
-12
1.00
211
567
527
556
577
552
579
597
560
646
680
682
644
664
673
All
grad
es12
645
696
647
682
705
675
709
731
685
790
831
834
787
812
2021
-25
0.99
9To
tal
6919
7065
7164
7337
7471
7587
7752
7901
8043
8264
8400
8509
8621
8796
Cha
nge
123
146
9917
313
311
616
514
914
222
113
610
911
217
4%
Cha
nge
1.9%
2.1%
1.4%
2.4%
1.8%
1.5%
2.2%
1.9%
1.8%
2.7%
1.6%
1.3%
1.3%
2.0%
Enro
llmen
t by
Leve
lK
-530
3330
9732
0432
5032
6432
8433
5034
1134
8735
6536
4037
2037
9938
75 6
-816
0216
2516
3917
0517
8118
9918
9918
8318
7319
1219
4919
8420
2220
58 9
-12
2284
2344
2321
2382
2426
2404
2503
2607
2683
2787
2812
2805
2800
2863
Cha
nge
by L
evel
K-5
8464
107
4614
2066
6176
7875
8079
76 6
-825
2315
6676
118
0-1
6-1
039
3636
3836
9-1
214
60-2
362
43-2
210
010
476
104
25-7
-563
46D
emog
raph
ic T
rend
s and
Pro
ject
ions
--M
a y 2
007
Proj
ectio
nP
roje
cted
Hig
h R
ange
For
ecas
tB
irths
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Pop
ulat
ion
8344
8592
8675
8924
9135
9219
9395
9574
9911
1007
210
236
1038
510
534
1065
0H
ousi
ng4.
98%
5.01
%5.
02%
5.06
%5.
07%
5.08
%5.
09%
5.10
%5.
11%
5.12
%5.
13%
5.14
%5.
15%
5.15
%G
row
thP
erce
nt C
hang
e in
Birt
hs 5
(yr)
4.4%
11.1
%7.
5%Fa
ctor
Oct
-07
Oct
-08
Oct
-09
Oct
-10
Oct
-11
Oct
-12
Oct
-13
Oct
-14
Oct
-15
Oct
-16
Oct
-17
Oct
-18
Oct
-19
Oct
-20
Leve
l20
07K
416
430
435
452
463
468
478
488
508
516
525
533
542
549
K-5
1.01
71
544
516
534
543
556
570
576
588
601
625
634
645
656
667
6-8
1.01
52
548
558
529
547
552
565
579
586
598
610
635
644
656
667
9-1
21.
015
353
757
258
255
256
657
158
459
960
661
863
165
766
767
920
08-1
04
484
566
603
613
576
591
596
610
625
632
646
659
686
696
K-5
1.01
75
531
504
589
628
633
595
610
616
630
646
653
667
681
708
6-8
1.01
56
531
554
526
615
650
655
616
632
637
652
668
676
690
704
9-1
21.
015
752
355
758
155
263
967
568
164
065
666
267
769
570
271
720
11-2
08
563
546
581
607
571
661
698
704
662
679
685
701
719
726
K-5
1.00
89
552
578
560
596
617
580
672
710
716
673
690
696
712
730
6-8
1.00
610
530
565
591
573
604
625
589
682
720
726
682
700
706
722
9-1
21.
006
1157
353
857
360
057
660
862
959
268
672
473
068
670
471
0A
ll gr
ades
1265
271
066
671
073
770
874
677
272
784
288
989
684
286
420
21-2
51.
004
Tota
l69
8471
9373
5175
8777
4078
7380
5582
1883
7186
0587
4688
5689
6291
40
Cha
nge
188
209
158
236
153
132
182
163
153
234
141
110
107
177
% C
hang
e2.
8%3.
0%2.
2%3.
2%2.
0%1.
7%2.
3%2.
0%1.
9%2.
8%1.
6%1.
3%1.
2%2.
0%
Enro
llmen
t by
Leve
lK
-530
5931
4532
7233
3533
4633
6034
2434
8735
6836
4837
2438
0638
8739
65 6
-816
1816
5716
8817
7418
6019
9219
9519
7519
5519
9320
3120
7121
1121
48 9
-12
2307
2390
2391
2478
2534
2521
2636
2756
2848
2965
2991
2978
2964
3027
Cha
nge
by L
evel
K-5
110
8612
763
1114
6463
8180
7682
8178
6-8
4139
3185
8613
23
-19
-20
3838
4140
37 9
-12
3784
088
55-1
311
512
092
117
27-1
3-1
462
Scho
ol P
roje
ctio
ns
48D
emog
raph
ic T
rend
s and
Pro
ject
ions
--M
a y 2
007
Scho
ol P
roje
ctio
ns•
Scho
ol e
nrol
lmen
ts w
ere
proj
ecte
d fo
r the
per
iod
from
200
7 to
201
2. T
hese
pr
ojec
tions
ass
ume
that
scho
ol c
onfig
urat
ions
, bou
ndar
ies a
nd p
rogr
ams w
ill
rem
ain
the
sam
e du
ring
this
tim
e pe
riod.
And
they
ass
ume
that
cap
acity
is
not a
n is
sue.
In re
ality
, any
num
ber o
f con
ditio
ns m
ight
cha
nge
betw
een
now
and
201
2 al
terin
g th
e di
rect
ion
of a
scho
ol’s
enr
ollm
ent.
Thes
e pr
ojec
tions
shou
ld b
e vi
ewed
as a
n in
dica
tor o
f wha
t mig
ht h
appe
n if
curr
ent c
ondi
tions
wer
e to
rem
ain
in p
lace
and
bui
ldin
g ca
paci
ties w
ere
not
an is
sue.
•A
s a g
ener
al ru
le sc
hool
pro
ject
ions
are
less
acc
urat
e th
an d
istri
ct le
vel
proj
ectio
ns b
ecau
se th
ey a
re b
ased
on
smal
ler n
umbe
rs w
hich
may
be
less
re
liabl
e w
hen
estim
atin
g fu
ture
enr
ollm
ents
. For
this
reas
on th
ese
num
bers
sh
ould
be
view
ed a
s ind
icat
ors o
f tre
nds (
is a
scho
ol g
oing
up,
dow
n, o
r st
ayin
g th
e sa
me)
rath
er th
an a
pre
cise
indi
cato
r of a
scho
ol’s
futu
re
enro
llmen
t.
•Th
e m
etho
dolo
gy fo
r sch
ool p
roje
ctio
ns v
arie
s fro
m d
istri
ct to
dis
trict
de
pend
ing
upon
the
cond
ition
s tha
t are
rele
vant
in e
ach
case
.
49D
emog
raph
ic T
rend
s and
Pro
ject
ions
--M
a y 2
007
Scho
ol P
roje
ctio
n M
etho
dolo
gy•
At t
he e
ntry
gra
des (
K, 6
, and
9) e
ach
scho
ol’s
pro
porti
on o
f the
dis
trict
en
rollm
ent (
as o
f Oct
ober
200
6) w
as u
sed
as th
e st
artin
g po
int f
or th
e pr
ojec
tion.
Thi
s per
cent
age
was
mul
tiplie
d by
the
appr
opria
te d
istri
ct g
rade
le
vel p
roje
ctio
n to
est
imat
e th
e fu
ture
enr
ollm
ent a
t tha
t gra
de.
The
num
ber
of st
uden
ts e
xpec
ted
from
new
hou
sing
wer
e th
en a
dded
to th
is to
tal.
•A
t the
con
tinui
ng g
rade
s the
cur
rent
pop
ulat
ion
was
rolle
d up
toth
e ne
xt
grad
e an
d th
e nu
mbe
r of s
tude
nts e
xpec
ted
from
new
hou
sing
wer
e ad
ded
to
the
tota
l.
•Th
e fin
al n
umbe
rs a
t bot
h en
try a
nd c
ontin
uing
gra
des w
ere
then
bal
ance
d to
th
e m
ediu
m d
istri
ct fo
reca
st; a
s with
the
dist
rict n
umbe
rs th
ese
num
bers
are
O
ctob
er h
eadc
ount
pro
ject
ions
.
•Th
e pr
ojec
tions
in th
is c
ase
are
heav
ily in
fluen
ced
by tw
o fa
ctor
s, ea
ch
scho
ol’s
pro
porti
on o
f the
ent
ry g
rade
enr
ollm
ent i
n 20
06 a
nd th
e am
ount
of
new
hou
sing
pla
nned
for p
artic
ular
serv
ice
area
s.
50D
emog
raph
ic T
rend
s and
Pro
ject
ions
--M
a y 2
007
New
Sin
gle
Fam
ily H
omes
by S
ervi
ce A
rea
Dat
a fr
om N
ew H
ome
Tren
ds
Mon
roe
Scho
ol D
istri
ctNe
w Ho
usin
g Un
its (S
ellin
g or
Pro
pose
d fo
r Fut
ure
Cons
truct
ion
and
Sale
by
Serv
ice A
rea)
Data
from
New
Hom
e Tr
ends
Deve
lopm
ents
were
gro
uped
into
serv
icea
area
s bas
ed o
n O
nlin
e at
tend
ance
are
a m
aps f
rom
the
Mon
roe
Scho
ol D
istric
tDa
ta is
for s
ingl
e fa
mily
hom
es o
nly
Sing
le-F
amily
Type
Nam
eUn
its1
Chai
n La
ke E
lem
enta
ry28
21
Fran
k W
agne
r Ele
men
tary
01
Frye
land
s Ele
men
tary
14No
te: N
umbe
rs a
re sl
ight
ly lo
wer t
han
the
556
1M
altb
y El
emen
tary
114
uni
ts re
porte
d in
the
earli
er p
art o
f thi
s rep
ort.
The
num
bers
1M
onro
e El
emen
tary
24
repo
rted
here
refle
ct th
e la
test
upda
tes f
rom
1
Sale
m W
oods
Ele
men
tary
70
New
Hom
e Tr
ends
and
indi
cate
a c
hang
e in
50
4
the
num
ber o
f pro
pose
d un
its fo
r som
e de
velo
pmen
ts.
2Hi
dden
Riv
er M
iddl
e Sc
hool
114
2M
onro
e M
iddl
e Sc
hool
942
Park
Pla
ce M
iddl
e29
650
4
51D
emog
raph
ic T
rend
s and
Pro
ject
ions
--M
a y 2
007
Proj
ectio
n Su
mm
ary
by S
choo
l (2
007-
2012
) 1
O
CT03
O
CT04
O
CT05
O
CT06
O
CT07
O
CT08
O
CT09
O
CT10
O
CT11
O
CT12
C
hain
Lak
e Elem
enta
ry
605
642
507
517
529
548
580
599
610
625
Fry
elan
ds E
lemen
tary
53
0 52
3 53
7 54
7 55
5 55
4 54
4 54
2 F
rank
Wag
ner E
lemen
tary
51
9 51
8 44
8 43
9 45
5 44
1 43
4 41
9 40
0 39
8 M
altby
Ele
men
tary
40
3 35
9 43
3 42
9 43
0 42
9 45
9 46
8 47
8 48
3 M
onro
e Elem
enta
ry
244
302
321
356
388
416
446
437
Sale
m W
oods
Elem
enta
ry
538
535
450
460
463
465
458
455
440
451
20
65
2054
26
12
2670
27
34
2787
28
73
2910
29
18
2937
Note
: Num
bers
may
not
add
to ex
act t
otal
s due
to ro
undi
ng
Not
e: Pr
ojec
tions
are b
est r
ead
as tr
ends
, ind
icatin
g wh
ether
a sc
hool
is li
kely
to tr
end
up, d
own
or st
ay ab
out t
he sa
me,
rath
er th
an p
recis
e esti
mat
es o
f fut
ure e
nrol
lmen
ts. M
ethod
and
A
ssum
ptio
ns: A
t the
entry
gra
des (
K,6
& 9
) eac
h sc
hool
's sta
rting
enro
llmen
t is a
ssum
ed to
be e
qual
the O
ctobe
r 200
6 pe
rcen
tage
of t
he D
istric
t enr
ollm
ent a
t tha
t gra
de. A
t the
cont
inui
ng
gra
des,
stude
nts a
re ro
lled
up fr
om th
e pre
viou
s gra
de. A
t the
hig
h sc
hool
leve
l a "r
educ
tion
facto
r" is
appl
ied to
the p
roje
ction
s at g
rade
s 11
and
12 to
acco
unt f
or th
e gre
ater
leve
ls of
attri
btio
n
that
occu
r at t
hose
gra
des.
Once
this
initi
al en
rollm
ent p
rojec
tion
is es
tablis
hed,
addi
tiona
l stu
dent
s are
adde
d ba
sed
on th
e num
ber o
f new
hom
es ex
pecte
d in
each
serv
ice ar
ea o
ver t
he co
urse
of
the f
orec
ast (
usin
g th
e Dist
rict's
stud
ent g
ener
ation
rates
for n
ew h
omes
). T
he n
ew h
ome n
umbe
rs co
me f
rom
an an
alys
is of
data
from
the N
ew H
ome T
rend
s data
base
. The
fina
l num
bers
are
then
bala
nced
to th
e Dist
rict p
roje
ction
. F
or al
terna
tive s
choo
ls an
d pr
ogra
ms (
e.g.,
Sky V
alley
and
Yout
h Re
-eng
agem
ent)
it is
assu
med
that
each
scho
ol's
perc
entag
e of t
he cu
rrent
enro
llmen
t
at ea
ch g
rade
(Oct
2006
) will
rem
ain
cons
tant o
ver t
ime .
Thi
s per
cent
age i
s app
lied t
o th
e Dist
rict p
roje
ction
at ea
ch g
rade
leve
l for
each
year
of t
he fo
reca
st to
estim
ate th
e fut
ure e
nrol
lmen
t at
thes
e sch
ools.
As w
ith th
e reg
ular
scho
ols,
an ad
justm
ent f
acto
r is a
pplie
d to
bala
nce t
he n
umbe
rs to
the d
istric
t pro
jectio
n.
52D
emog
raph
ic T
rend
s and
Pro
ject
ions
--M
a y 2
007
Proj
ectio
n Su
mm
ary
by S
choo
l (2
007-
2012
) 2
O
CT
03
OC
T04
O
CT0
5 O
CT
06
OC
T07
O
CT
08
OC
T09
O
CT
10
OC
T11
O
CT
12
FW
MS
345
347
0 0
0 0
0 0
Hid
den
Riv
er M
iddl
e Sc
hool
29
9 28
6 27
8 29
3 28
3 29
2 29
5 30
5 31
8 33
7 P
ark
Plac
e M
iddl
e 95
1 91
4 61
0 60
3 65
4 68
1 68
9 71
3 74
3 78
8 M
onro
e M
iddl
e Sc
hool
74
3 73
5 51
8 49
5 47
1 45
1 45
5 46
9 48
6 51
4
2338
22
82
1406
13
91
1408
14
23
1439
14
87
1547
16
39
Not
e: N
umbe
rs m
ay n
ot a
dd to
exa
ct to
tals
due
to r
ound
ing
Not
e: P
roje
ctio
ns a
re b
est r
ead
as tr
ends
, ind
icat
ing
whe
ther
a s
choo
l is l
ikel
y to
tren
d up
, dow
n or
stay
abo
ut th
e sa
me,
rath
er th
an p
reci
se e
stim
ates
of f
utur
e en
rollm
ents
. M
etho
d an
d
Ass
umpt
ions
: At t
he e
ntry
gra
des (
K,6
& 9
) eac
h sc
hool
's st
artin
g en
rollm
ent i
s ass
umed
to b
e eq
ual t
he O
ctob
er 2
006
perc
enta
ge o
f the
Dis
trict
enr
ollm
ent a
t tha
t gra
de. A
t the
con
tinui
ng
gra
des,
stud
ents
are
rolle
d up
from
the
prev
ious
gra
de. A
t the
hig
h sc
hool
leve
l a "
redu
ctio
n fa
ctor
" is
app
lied
to th
e pr
ojec
tions
at g
rade
s 11
and
12
to a
ccou
nt fo
r the
gre
ater
leve
ls o
f attr
ibtio
n
that
occ
ur a
t tho
se g
rade
s. O
nce
this
initi
al e
nrol
lmen
t pro
ject
ion
is e
stab
lishe
d, a
dditi
onal
stud
ents
are
add
ed b
ased
on
the n
umbe
r of n
ew h
omes
exp
ecte
d in
eac
h se
rvic
e ar
ea o
ver t
he c
ours
e of
th
e fo
reca
st (u
sing
the
Dis
trict
's st
uden
t gen
erat
ion
rate
s for
new
hom
es).
The
new
hom
e nu
mbe
rs c
ome
from
an
anal
ysis
of d
ata f
rom
the
New
Hom
e Tr
ends
dat
abas
e. T
he fi
nal n
umbe
rs a
re
then
bal
ance
d to
the
Dis
trict
pro
ject
ion.
Fo
r alte
rnat
ive
scho
ols
and
prog
ram
s (e
.g.,
Sky
Val
ley
and
You
th R
e-en
gage
men
t) it
is a
ssum
ed th
at e
ach
scho
ol's
perc
enta
ge o
f the
cur
rent
enr
ollm
ent
at
eac
h gr
ade
(Oct
200
6) w
ill re
mai
n co
nsta
nt o
ver t
ime
. Thi
s per
cent
age
is a
pplie
d to
the
Dis
trict
pro
ject
ion
at e
ach
grad
e lev
el fo
r eac
h ye
ar o
f the
fore
cast
to e
stim
ate
the
futu
re e
nrol
lmen
t at
th
ese
scho
ols.
As
with
the
regu
lar s
choo
ls, a
n ad
just
men
t fac
tor i
s app
lied
to b
alan
ce th
e nu
mbe
rs to
the
dist
rict p
roje
ctio
n.
53D
emog
raph
ic T
rend
s and
Pro
ject
ions
--M
a y 2
007
Pro
ject
ion
Sum
mar
y by
Sch
ool
(200
7-20
12)
3
OC
T03
O
CT
04
OC
T05
O
CT
06
OC
T07
O
CT
08
OC
T09
O
CT
10
OC
T11
O
CT
12
Mon
roe
Hig
h Sc
hool
12
40
1302
18
20
1794
18
25
1829
18
09
1824
17
95
1737
1240
13
02
1820
17
94
1825
18
29
1809
18
24
1795
17
37
Not
e: N
umbe
rs m
ay n
ot a
dd t
o ex
act t
otal
s du
e to
rou
ndin
g N
ote:
Pro
ject
ions
are
bes
t rea
d as
tren
ds, i
ndic
atin
g w
heth
er a
sch
ool i
s lik
ely
to tr
end
up, d
own
or s
tay
abou
t the
sam
e, ra
ther
than
pre
cise
est
imat
es o
f fut
ure
enro
llmen
ts.
Met
hod
and
A
ssum
ptio
ns: A
t the
ent
ry g
rade
s (K
,6 &
9) e
ach
scho
ol's
star
ting
enro
llmen
t is
assu
med
to b
e eq
ual t
he O
ctob
er 2
006
perc
enta
ge o
f the
Dis
trict
enr
ollm
ent a
t tha
t gra
de. A
t the
con
tinui
ng
gra
des,
stu
dent
s ar
e ro
lled
up fr
om th
e pr
evio
us g
rade
. At t
he h
igh
scho
ol le
vel a
"re
duct
ion
fact
or"
is a
pplie
d to
the
proj
ectio
ns a
t gra
des
11 a
nd 1
2 to
acc
ount
for
the
grea
ter l
evel
s of
attr
ibtio
n
tha
t occ
ur a
t tho
se g
rade
s. O
nce
this
initi
al e
nrol
lmen
t pro
ject
ion
is e
stab
lishe
d, a
dditi
onal
stu
dent
s ar
e ad
ded
base
d on
the
num
ber
of n
ew h
omes
exp
ecte
d in
eac
h se
rvic
e ar
ea o
ver t
he c
ours
e of
t
he fo
reca
st (u
sing
the
Dis
tric
t's s
tude
nt g
ener
atio
n ra
tes
for
new
hom
es).
The
new
hom
e nu
mbe
rs c
ome
from
an
anal
ysis
of d
ata
from
the
New
Hom
e T
rend
s da
taba
se. T
he fi
nal n
umbe
rs a
re
the
n ba
lanc
ed to
the
Dis
tric
t pro
ject
ion.
Fo
r al
tern
ativ
e sc
hool
s an
d pr
ogra
ms
(e.g
., Sk
y V
alle
y an
d Y
outh
Re-
enga
gem
ent)
it is
ass
umed
that
eac
h sc
hool
's pe
rcen
tage
of t
he c
urre
nt e
nrol
lmen
t
at e
ach
grad
e (O
ct 2
006)
will
rem
ain
cons
tant
ove
r tim
e . T
his
perc
enta
ge is
app
lied
to th
e D
istr
ict p
roje
ctio
n at
eac
h gr
ade l
evel
for
each
yea
r of
the
fore
cast
to e
stim
ate
the
futu
re e
nrol
lmen
t at
the
se s
choo
ls. A
s w
ith th
e re
gula
r sch
ools
, an
adju
stm
ent f
acto
r is
app
lied
to b
alan
ce th
e nu
mbe
rs to
the
dist
rict
pro
ject
ion.
54D
emog
raph
ic T
rend
s and
Pro
ject
ions
--M
a y 2
007
Proj
ectio
n Su
mm
ary
by S
choo
l (2
007-
2012
) 4
O
CT0
3 O
CT0
4 O
CT0
5 O
CT0
6 O
CT0
7 O
CT0
8 O
CT0
9 O
CT1
0 O
CT1
1 O
CT1
2 L
eade
rs in
Lea
rnin
g 10
6 86
93
15
1 14
5 16
0 16
1 17
5 19
5 21
0 S
ped
7 13
10
10
10
11
11
12
13
14
S
ky V
alle
y Ed
ucat
ion
Cent
er
455
480
560
633
660
695
722
775
826
874
Sno
-Isle
0
0 0
0 0
0 S
umm
it Sc
hool
20
26
0
0 0
0 0
0 T
rans
. 12
15
16
0
0 0
0 0
0 Y
outh
Re-
Enga
gem
ent
80
112
120
147
136
161
148
156
176
175
68
0 73
2 79
9 94
1 95
1 10
27
1041
11
18
1210
12
74
Not
e: N
umbe
rs m
ay n
ot a
dd to
exa
ct to
tals
due
to r
ound
ing
Not
e: P
roje
ctio
ns a
re b
est r
ead
as tr
ends
, ind
icat
ing
whe
ther
a s
choo
l is l
ikel
y to
tren
d up
, dow
n or
stay
abo
ut th
e sa
me,
rath
er th
an p
reci
se e
stim
ates
of f
utur
e en
rollm
ents.
Met
hod
and
A
ssum
ptio
ns: A
t the
ent
ry g
rade
s (K
,6 &
9) e
ach
scho
ol's
star
ting
enro
llmen
t is a
ssum
ed to
be
equa
l the
Oct
ober
200
6 pe
rcen
tage
of t
he D
istri
ct e
nrol
lmen
t at t
hat g
rade
. At t
he c
ontin
uing
g
rade
s, stu
dent
s are
rolle
d up
from
the
prev
ious
gra
de. A
t the
hig
h sc
hool
leve
l a "
redu
ctio
n fa
ctor
" is
appl
ied
to th
e pr
ojec
tions
at g
rade
s 11
and
12
to a
ccou
nt fo
r the
gre
ater
leve
ls of
attr
ibtio
n
that
occ
ur a
t tho
se g
rade
s. O
nce
this
initi
al e
nrol
lmen
t pro
ject
ion
is es
tabl
ishe
d, a
dditi
onal
stud
ents
are
adde
d ba
sed
on th
e num
ber o
f new
hom
es e
xpec
ted
in e
ach
serv
ice
area
ove
r the
cou
rse
of
the
fore
cast
(usin
g th
e D
istri
ct's
stude
nt g
ener
atio
n ra
tes f
or n
ew h
omes
). T
he n
ew h
ome
num
bers
com
e fro
m a
n an
alys
is of
dat
a fro
m th
e N
ew H
ome
Tren
ds d
atab
ase.
The
fina
l num
bers
are
th
en b
alan
ced
to th
e D
istric
t pro
ject
ion.
Fo
r alte
rnat
ive
scho
ols
and
prog
ram
s (e.
g., S
ky V
alle
y an
d Y
outh
Re-
enga
gem
ent)
it is
assu
med
that
eac
h sc
hool
's pe
rcen
tage
of t
he c
urre
nt e
nrol
lmen
t
at e
ach
grad
e (O
ct 2
006)
will
rem
ain
cons
tant
ove
r tim
e . T
his p
erce
ntag
e is
appl
ied
to th
e D
istri
ct p
roje
ctio
n at
eac
h gr
ade l
evel
for e
ach
year
of t
he fo
reca
st to
esti
mat
e th
e fu
ture
enr
ollm
ent a
t th
ese
scho
ols.
As w
ith th
e re
gula
r sch
ools
, an
adju
stmen
t fac
tor i
s app
lied
to b
alan
ce th
e nu
mbe
rs to
the
dist
rict p
roje
ctio
n.
Long
Ran
ge E
nrol
lmen
t Pro
ject
ions
by
Scho
ol (M
ediu
m P
roje
ctio
n)1
GRADE
OCT_04OCT_05OCT_06
OCT_03
OCT_02
Cha
in L
ake
Elem
enta
ryOCT_07OCT_08OCT_09OCT_10OCT_11OCT_12
013
186
8311
710
881
8588
9296
981
123
8490
117
119
9188
9295
9910
32
125
7487
120
118
9697
9398
101
105
313
892
7412
212
591
100
101
9810
210
54
125
8788
129
127
8097
107
108
104
109
584
9590
8299
109
109
105
Totals
642
507
517
605
597
529
548
580
599
610
625
Wed
nesd
ay, M
ay 0
9, 2
007
Page
1 o
f 19
Num
bers
may
not
add
to e
xact
tota
ls du
e to
roun
ding
.
Not
e: P
roje
ctio
ns a
re b
est r
ead
as tr
ends
, ind
icat
ing
whe
ther
a sc
hool
is li
kely
to tr
end
up, d
own
or st
ay a
bout
the
sam
e, ra
ther
than
pre
cise
est
imat
es o
f fut
ure
enro
llmen
ts.
Met
hod
and
Ass
umpt
ions
: At t
he e
ntry
gra
des (
K,6
9) e
ach
scho
ol's
star
ting
enro
llmen
t is a
ssum
ed to
be
equa
l the
Oct
ober
200
6 pe
rcen
tage
of t
he D
istri
ct e
nrol
lmen
t at t
hat g
rade
. At t
he c
ontin
uing
gr
ades
, stu
dent
s are
rolle
d up
from
the
prev
ious
gra
de. A
t the
hig
h sc
hool
leve
l a "
redu
ctio
n fa
ctor
" is
app
lied
to th
e pr
ojec
tions
at g
rade
s 11
and
12 to
acc
ount
for t
he g
reat
er le
vels
of
attri
btio
n th
at o
ccur
at t
hose
gra
des.
Onc
e th
is in
itial
enr
ollm
ent p
roje
ctio
n is
est
ablis
hed,
add
ition
al st
uden
ts a
re a
dded
bas
ed o
n th
e nu
mbe
r of n
ew h
omes
exp
ecte
d in
eac
h se
rvic
e ar
ea
over
the
cour
se o
f the
fore
cast
(usi
ng th
e D
istri
ct's
stud
ent g
ener
atio
n ra
tes f
or n
ew h
omes
). T
he n
ew h
ome
num
bers
com
e fr
om an
ana
lysi
s of d
ata
from
the
New
Hom
e Tr
ends
dat
abas
e.
The
final
num
bers
are
then
bal
ance
d to
the
Dis
trict
pro
ject
ion.
Fo
r alte
rnat
ive
scho
ols a
nd p
rogr
ams (
e.g.
, Sky
Val
ley
and
You
th R
e-en
gage
men
t) it
is a
ssum
ed th
at e
ach
scho
ol's
perc
enta
ge o
f the
cur
rent
enr
ollm
ent
at e
ach
grad
e (O
ct 2
006)
will
rem
ain
cons
tant
ove
r tim
e . T
his p
erce
ntag
e is
app
lied
to th
e D
istri
ct p
roje
ctio
n at
eac
h gr
ade
leve
l for
eac
h ye
ar o
f the
fo
reca
st to
est
imat
e th
e fu
ture
enr
ollm
ent a
t the
se sc
hool
s. A
s with
the
regu
lar s
choo
ls, a
n ad
just
men
t fac
tor i
s app
lied
to b
alan
ce th
e nu
mbe
rs to
the
dist
rict p
roje
ctio
n.
Long
Ran
ge E
nrol
lmen
t Pro
ject
ions
by
Scho
ol (M
ediu
m P
roje
ctio
n)1
GRADE
OCT_04OCT_05OCT_06
OCT_03
OCT_02
Frye
land
s Ele
men
tary
OCT_07OCT_08OCT_09OCT_10OCT_11OCT_12
094
8580
8282
8485
851
9996
9085
8787
8889
284
9310
094
8890
9091
382
8495
102
9589
9191
484
8488
9910
699
9294
587
8184
8798
105
9891
Totals
530
523
537
547
555
554
544
542
Wed
nesd
ay, M
ay 0
9, 2
007
Page
2 o
f 19
Num
bers
may
not
add
to e
xact
tota
ls du
e to
roun
ding
.
Not
e: P
roje
ctio
ns a
re b
est r
ead
as tr
ends
, ind
icat
ing
whe
ther
a sc
hool
is li
kely
to tr
end
up, d
own
or st
ay a
bout
the
sam
e, ra
ther
than
pre
cise
est
imat
es o
f fut
ure
enro
llmen
ts.
Met
hod
and
Ass
umpt
ions
: At t
he e
ntry
gra
des (
K,6
9) e
ach
scho
ol's
star
ting
enro
llmen
t is a
ssum
ed to
be
equa
l the
Oct
ober
200
6 pe
rcen
tage
of t
he D
istri
ct e
nrol
lmen
t at t
hat g
rade
. At t
he c
ontin
uing
gr
ades
, stu
dent
s are
rolle
d up
from
the
prev
ious
gra
de. A
t the
hig
h sc
hool
leve
l a "
redu
ctio
n fa
ctor
" is
app
lied
to th
e pr
ojec
tions
at g
rade
s 11
and
12 to
acc
ount
for t
he g
reat
er le
vels
of
attri
btio
n th
at o
ccur
at t
hose
gra
des.
Onc
e th
is in
itial
enr
ollm
ent p
roje
ctio
n is
est
ablis
hed,
add
ition
al st
uden
ts a
re a
dded
bas
ed o
n th
e nu
mbe
r of n
ew h
omes
exp
ecte
d in
eac
h se
rvic
e ar
ea
over
the
cour
se o
f the
fore
cast
(usi
ng th
e D
istri
ct's
stud
ent g
ener
atio
n ra
tes f
or n
ew h
omes
). T
he n
ew h
ome
num
bers
com
e fr
om an
ana
lysi
s of d
ata
from
the
New
Hom
e Tr
ends
dat
abas
e.
The
final
num
bers
are
then
bal
ance
d to
the
Dis
trict
pro
ject
ion.
Fo
r alte
rnat
ive
scho
ols a
nd p
rogr
ams (
e.g.
, Sky
Val
ley
and
You
th R
e-en
gage
men
t) it
is a
ssum
ed th
at e
ach
scho
ol's
perc
enta
ge o
f the
cur
rent
enr
ollm
ent
at e
ach
grad
e (O
ct 2
006)
will
rem
ain
cons
tant
ove
r tim
e . T
his p
erce
ntag
e is
app
lied
to th
e D
istri
ct p
roje
ctio
n at
eac
h gr
ade
leve
l for
eac
h ye
ar o
f the
fo
reca
st to
est
imat
e th
e fu
ture
enr
ollm
ent a
t the
se sc
hool
s. A
s with
the
regu
lar s
choo
ls, a
n ad
just
men
t fac
tor i
s app
lied
to b
alan
ce th
e nu
mbe
rs to
the
dist
rict p
roje
ctio
n.
Long
Ran
ge E
nrol
lmen
t Pro
ject
ions
by
Scho
ol (M
ediu
m P
roje
ctio
n)1
GRADE
OCT_04OCT_05OCT_06
OCT_03
OCT_02
Fran
k W
agne
r Ele
men
tary
OCT_07OCT_08OCT_09OCT_10OCT_11OCT_12
010
278
6311
310
459
6161
6263
631
108
7781
8611
867
6364
6465
652
9079
8211
611
384
6965
6666
673
117
8174
106
105
8485
7066
6767
410
063
8498
106
7787
8973
6869
51
7055
8476
8688
7267
Totals
518
448
439
519
546
455
441
434
419
400
398
Wed
nesd
ay, M
ay 0
9, 2
007
Page
3 o
f 19
Num
bers
may
not
add
to e
xact
tota
ls du
e to
roun
ding
.
Not
e: P
roje
ctio
ns a
re b
est r
ead
as tr
ends
, ind
icat
ing
whe
ther
a sc
hool
is li
kely
to tr
end
up, d
own
or st
ay a
bout
the
sam
e, ra
ther
than
pre
cise
est
imat
es o
f fut
ure
enro
llmen
ts.
Met
hod
and
Ass
umpt
ions
: At t
he e
ntry
gra
des (
K,6
9) e
ach
scho
ol's
star
ting
enro
llmen
t is a
ssum
ed to
be
equa
l the
Oct
ober
200
6 pe
rcen
tage
of t
he D
istri
ct e
nrol
lmen
t at t
hat g
rade
. At t
he c
ontin
uing
gr
ades
, stu
dent
s are
rolle
d up
from
the
prev
ious
gra
de. A
t the
hig
h sc
hool
leve
l a "
redu
ctio
n fa
ctor
" is
app
lied
to th
e pr
ojec
tions
at g
rade
s 11
and
12 to
acc
ount
for t
he g
reat
er le
vels
of
attri
btio
n th
at o
ccur
at t
hose
gra
des.
Onc
e th
is in
itial
enr
ollm
ent p
roje
ctio
n is
est
ablis
hed,
add
ition
al st
uden
ts a
re a
dded
bas
ed o
n th
e nu
mbe
r of n
ew h
omes
exp
ecte
d in
eac
h se
rvic
e ar
ea
over
the
cour
se o
f the
fore
cast
(usi
ng th
e D
istri
ct's
stud
ent g
ener
atio
n ra
tes f
or n
ew h
omes
). T
he n
ew h
ome
num
bers
com
e fr
om an
ana
lysi
s of d
ata
from
the
New
Hom
e Tr
ends
dat
abas
e.
The
final
num
bers
are
then
bal
ance
d to
the
Dis
trict
pro
ject
ion.
Fo
r alte
rnat
ive
scho
ols a
nd p
rogr
ams (
e.g.
, Sky
Val
ley
and
You
th R
e-en
gage
men
t) it
is a
ssum
ed th
at e
ach
scho
ol's
perc
enta
ge o
f the
cur
rent
enr
ollm
ent
at e
ach
grad
e (O
ct 2
006)
will
rem
ain
cons
tant
ove
r tim
e . T
his p
erce
ntag
e is
app
lied
to th
e D
istri
ct p
roje
ctio
n at
eac
h gr
ade
leve
l for
eac
h ye
ar o
f the
fo
reca
st to
est
imat
e th
e fu
ture
enr
ollm
ent a
t the
se sc
hool
s. A
s with
the
regu
lar s
choo
ls, a
n ad
just
men
t fac
tor i
s app
lied
to b
alan
ce th
e nu
mbe
rs to
the
dist
rict p
roje
ctio
n.
Long
Ran
ge E
nrol
lmen
t Pro
ject
ions
by
Scho
ol (M
ediu
m P
roje
ctio
n)1
GRADE
OCT_04OCT_05OCT_06
OCT_03
OCT_02
Mal
tby
Elem
enta
ryOCT_07OCT_08OCT_09OCT_10OCT_11OCT_12
071
6570
5575
6769
7173
7576
151
6968
8283
7572
7476
7779
277
5173
8291
7279
7578
7981
373
8152
9589
7674
8177
8081
487
7785
8910
255
7978
8681
845
9081
8656
8078
8681
Totals
359
433
429
403
440
430
429
459
468
478
483
Wed
nesd
ay, M
ay 0
9, 2
007
Page
4 o
f 19
Num
bers
may
not
add
to e
xact
tota
ls du
e to
roun
ding
.
Not
e: P
roje
ctio
ns a
re b
est r
ead
as tr
ends
, ind
icat
ing
whe
ther
a sc
hool
is li
kely
to tr
end
up, d
own
or st
ay a
bout
the
sam
e, ra
ther
than
pre
cise
est
imat
es o
f fut
ure
enro
llmen
ts.
Met
hod
and
Ass
umpt
ions
: At t
he e
ntry
gra
des (
K,6
9) e
ach
scho
ol's
star
ting
enro
llmen
t is a
ssum
ed to
be
equa
l the
Oct
ober
200
6 pe
rcen
tage
of t
he D
istri
ct e
nrol
lmen
t at t
hat g
rade
. At t
he c
ontin
uing
gr
ades
, stu
dent
s are
rolle
d up
from
the
prev
ious
gra
de. A
t the
hig
h sc
hool
leve
l a "
redu
ctio
n fa
ctor
" is
app
lied
to th
e pr
ojec
tions
at g
rade
s 11
and
12 to
acc
ount
for t
he g
reat
er le
vels
of
attri
btio
n th
at o
ccur
at t
hose
gra
des.
Onc
e th
is in
itial
enr
ollm
ent p
roje
ctio
n is
est
ablis
hed,
add
ition
al st
uden
ts a
re a
dded
bas
ed o
n th
e nu
mbe
r of n
ew h
omes
exp
ecte
d in
eac
h se
rvic
e ar
ea
over
the
cour
se o
f the
fore
cast
(usi
ng th
e D
istri
ct's
stud
ent g
ener
atio
n ra
tes f
or n
ew h
omes
). T
he n
ew h
ome
num
bers
com
e fr
om an
ana
lysi
s of d
ata
from
the
New
Hom
e Tr
ends
dat
abas
e.
The
final
num
bers
are
then
bal
ance
d to
the
Dis
trict
pro
ject
ion.
Fo
r alte
rnat
ive
scho
ols a
nd p
rogr
ams (
e.g.
, Sky
Val
ley
and
You
th R
e-en
gage
men
t) it
is a
ssum
ed th
at e
ach
scho
ol's
perc
enta
ge o
f the
cur
rent
enr
ollm
ent
at e
ach
grad
e (O
ct 2
006)
will
rem
ain
cons
tant
ove
r tim
e . T
his p
erce
ntag
e is
app
lied
to th
e D
istri
ct p
roje
ctio
n at
eac
h gr
ade
leve
l for
eac
h ye
ar o
f the
fo
reca
st to
est
imat
e th
e fu
ture
enr
ollm
ent a
t the
se sc
hool
s. A
s with
the
regu
lar s
choo
ls, a
n ad
just
men
t fac
tor i
s app
lied
to b
alan
ce th
e nu
mbe
rs to
the
dist
rict p
roje
ctio
n.
Long
Ran
ge E
nrol
lmen
t Pro
ject
ions
by
Scho
ol (M
ediu
m P
roje
ctio
n)1
GRADE
OCT_04OCT_05OCT_06
OCT_03
OCT_02
Mon
roe
Elem
enta
ryOCT_07OCT_08OCT_09OCT_10OCT_11OCT_12
034
7564
6666
6769
691
4442
8068
6970
7172
242
4844
8370
7273
733
2742
4945
8472
7374
463
4044
5147
8874
765
3455
4044
5147
8774
Totals
244
302
321
356
388
416
446
437
Wed
nesd
ay, M
ay 0
9, 2
007
Page
5 o
f 19
Num
bers
may
not
add
to e
xact
tota
ls du
e to
roun
ding
.
Not
e: P
roje
ctio
ns a
re b
est r
ead
as tr
ends
, ind
icat
ing
whe
ther
a sc
hool
is li
kely
to tr
end
up, d
own
or st
ay a
bout
the
sam
e, ra
ther
than
pre
cise
est
imat
es o
f fut
ure
enro
llmen
ts.
Met
hod
and
Ass
umpt
ions
: At t
he e
ntry
gra
des (
K,6
9) e
ach
scho
ol's
star
ting
enro
llmen
t is a
ssum
ed to
be
equa
l the
Oct
ober
200
6 pe
rcen
tage
of t
he D
istri
ct e
nrol
lmen
t at t
hat g
rade
. At t
he c
ontin
uing
gr
ades
, stu
dent
s are
rolle
d up
from
the
prev
ious
gra
de. A
t the
hig
h sc
hool
leve
l a "
redu
ctio
n fa
ctor
" is
app
lied
to th
e pr
ojec
tions
at g
rade
s 11
and
12 to
acc
ount
for t
he g
reat
er le
vels
of
attri
btio
n th
at o
ccur
at t
hose
gra
des.
Onc
e th
is in
itial
enr
ollm
ent p
roje
ctio
n is
est
ablis
hed,
add
ition
al st
uden
ts a
re a
dded
bas
ed o
n th
e nu
mbe
r of n
ew h
omes
exp
ecte
d in
eac
h se
rvic
e ar
ea
over
the
cour
se o
f the
fore
cast
(usi
ng th
e D
istri
ct's
stud
ent g
ener
atio
n ra
tes f
or n
ew h
omes
). T
he n
ew h
ome
num
bers
com
e fr
om an
ana
lysi
s of d
ata
from
the
New
Hom
e Tr
ends
dat
abas
e.
The
final
num
bers
are
then
bal
ance
d to
the
Dis
trict
pro
ject
ion.
Fo
r alte
rnat
ive
scho
ols a
nd p
rogr
ams (
e.g.
, Sky
Val
ley
and
You
th R
e-en
gage
men
t) it
is a
ssum
ed th
at e
ach
scho
ol's
perc
enta
ge o
f the
cur
rent
enr
ollm
ent
at e
ach
grad
e (O
ct 2
006)
will
rem
ain
cons
tant
ove
r tim
e . T
his p
erce
ntag
e is
app
lied
to th
e D
istri
ct p
roje
ctio
n at
eac
h gr
ade
leve
l for
eac
h ye
ar o
f the
fo
reca
st to
est
imat
e th
e fu
ture
enr
ollm
ent a
t the
se sc
hool
s. A
s with
the
regu
lar s
choo
ls, a
n ad
just
men
t fac
tor i
s app
lied
to b
alan
ce th
e nu
mbe
rs to
the
dist
rict p
roje
ctio
n.
Long
Ran
ge E
nrol
lmen
t Pro
ject
ions
by
Scho
ol (M
ediu
m P
roje
ctio
n)1
GRADE
OCT_04OCT_05OCT_06
OCT_03
OCT_02
Sale
m W
oods
Ele
men
tary
OCT_07OCT_08OCT_09OCT_10OCT_11OCT_12
010
279
5989
9564
6667
6970
711
9977
8712
488
6368
7072
7374
211
974
7896
102
9166
7174
7476
310
280
8310
612
180
9368
7375
764
113
6777
123
113
8784
9771
7678
571
7677
8784
9771
766
20
00
00
0Totals
535
450
460
538
519
463
465
458
455
440
451
Wed
nesd
ay, M
ay 0
9, 2
007
Page
6 o
f 19
Num
bers
may
not
add
to e
xact
tota
ls du
e to
roun
ding
.
Not
e: P
roje
ctio
ns a
re b
est r
ead
as tr
ends
, ind
icat
ing
whe
ther
a sc
hool
is li
kely
to tr
end
up, d
own
or st
ay a
bout
the
sam
e, ra
ther
than
pre
cise
est
imat
es o
f fut
ure
enro
llmen
ts.
Met
hod
and
Ass
umpt
ions
: At t
he e
ntry
gra
des (
K,6
9) e
ach
scho
ol's
star
ting
enro
llmen
t is a
ssum
ed to
be
equa
l the
Oct
ober
200
6 pe
rcen
tage
of t
he D
istri
ct e
nrol
lmen
t at t
hat g
rade
. At t
he c
ontin
uing
gr
ades
, stu
dent
s are
rolle
d up
from
the
prev
ious
gra
de. A
t the
hig
h sc
hool
leve
l a "
redu
ctio
n fa
ctor
" is
app
lied
to th
e pr
ojec
tions
at g
rade
s 11
and
12 to
acc
ount
for t
he g
reat
er le
vels
of
attri
btio
n th
at o
ccur
at t
hose
gra
des.
Onc
e th
is in
itial
enr
ollm
ent p
roje
ctio
n is
est
ablis
hed,
add
ition
al st
uden
ts a
re a
dded
bas
ed o
n th
e nu
mbe
r of n
ew h
omes
exp
ecte
d in
eac
h se
rvic
e ar
ea
over
the
cour
se o
f the
fore
cast
(usi
ng th
e D
istri
ct's
stud
ent g
ener
atio
n ra
tes f
or n
ew h
omes
). T
he n
ew h
ome
num
bers
com
e fr
om an
ana
lysi
s of d
ata
from
the
New
Hom
e Tr
ends
dat
abas
e.
The
final
num
bers
are
then
bal
ance
d to
the
Dis
trict
pro
ject
ion.
Fo
r alte
rnat
ive
scho
ols a
nd p
rogr
ams (
e.g.
, Sky
Val
ley
and
You
th R
e-en
gage
men
t) it
is a
ssum
ed th
at e
ach
scho
ol's
perc
enta
ge o
f the
cur
rent
enr
ollm
ent
at e
ach
grad
e (O
ct 2
006)
will
rem
ain
cons
tant
ove
r tim
e . T
his p
erce
ntag
e is
app
lied
to th
e D
istri
ct p
roje
ctio
n at
eac
h gr
ade
leve
l for
eac
h ye
ar o
f the
fo
reca
st to
est
imat
e th
e fu
ture
enr
ollm
ent a
t the
se sc
hool
s. A
s with
the
regu
lar s
choo
ls, a
n ad
just
men
t fac
tor i
s app
lied
to b
alan
ce th
e nu
mbe
rs to
the
dist
rict p
roje
ctio
n.
Long
Ran
ge E
nrol
lmen
t Pro
ject
ions
by
Scho
ol (M
ediu
m P
roje
ctio
n)2
GRADE
OCT_04OCT_05OCT_06
OCT_03
OCT_02
FWM
SOCT_07OCT_08OCT_09OCT_10OCT_11OCT_12
41
00
00
00
510
710
712
20
00
00
06
108
118
112
00
00
00
713
012
011
20
00
00
08
10
00
00
0Totals
347
345
346
00
00
00
Wed
nesd
ay, M
ay 0
9, 2
007
Page
7 o
f 19
Num
bers
may
not
add
to e
xact
tota
ls du
e to
roun
ding
.
Not
e: P
roje
ctio
ns a
re b
est r
ead
as tr
ends
, ind
icat
ing
whe
ther
a sc
hool
is li
kely
to tr
end
up, d
own
or st
ay a
bout
the
sam
e, ra
ther
than
pre
cise
est
imat
es o
f fut
ure
enro
llmen
ts.
Met
hod
and
Ass
umpt
ions
: At t
he e
ntry
gra
des (
K,6
9) e
ach
scho
ol's
star
ting
enro
llmen
t is a
ssum
ed to
be
equa
l the
Oct
ober
200
6 pe
rcen
tage
of t
he D
istri
ct e
nrol
lmen
t at t
hat g
rade
. At t
he c
ontin
uing
gr
ades
, stu
dent
s are
rolle
d up
from
the
prev
ious
gra
de. A
t the
hig
h sc
hool
leve
l a "
redu
ctio
n fa
ctor
" is
app
lied
to th
e pr
ojec
tions
at g
rade
s 11
and
12 to
acc
ount
for t
he g
reat
er le
vels
of
attri
btio
n th
at o
ccur
at t
hose
gra
des.
Onc
e th
is in
itial
enr
ollm
ent p
roje
ctio
n is
est
ablis
hed,
add
ition
al st
uden
ts a
re a
dded
bas
ed o
n th
e nu
mbe
r of n
ew h
omes
exp
ecte
d in
eac
h se
rvic
e ar
ea
over
the
cour
se o
f the
fore
cast
(usi
ng th
e D
istri
ct's
stud
ent g
ener
atio
n ra
tes f
or n
ew h
omes
). T
he n
ew h
ome
num
bers
com
e fr
om an
ana
lysi
s of d
ata
from
the
New
Hom
e Tr
ends
dat
abas
e.
The
final
num
bers
are
then
bal
ance
d to
the
Dis
trict
pro
ject
ion.
Fo
r alte
rnat
ive
scho
ols a
nd p
rogr
ams (
e.g.
, Sky
Val
ley
and
You
th R
e-en
gage
men
t) it
is a
ssum
ed th
at e
ach
scho
ol's
perc
enta
ge o
f the
cur
rent
enr
ollm
ent
at e
ach
grad
e (O
ct 2
006)
will
rem
ain
cons
tant
ove
r tim
e . T
his p
erce
ntag
e is
app
lied
to th
e D
istri
ct p
roje
ctio
n at
eac
h gr
ade
leve
l for
eac
h ye
ar o
f the
fo
reca
st to
est
imat
e th
e fu
ture
enr
ollm
ent a
t the
se sc
hool
s. A
s with
the
regu
lar s
choo
ls, a
n ad
just
men
t fac
tor i
s app
lied
to b
alan
ce th
e nu
mbe
rs to
the
dist
rict p
roje
ctio
n.
Long
Ran
ge E
nrol
lmen
t Pro
ject
ions
by
Scho
ol (M
ediu
m P
roje
ctio
n)2
GRADE
OCT_04OCT_05OCT_06
OCT_03
OCT_02
Hid
den
Riv
er M
iddl
e Sc
hool
OCT_07OCT_08OCT_09OCT_10OCT_11OCT_12
586
102
900
00
00
06
112
8888
9510
893
9691
103
108
108
788
107
9410
211
695
100
103
9711
111
68
8311
196
9610
110
599
112
Totals
286
278
293
299
314
283
292
295
305
318
337
Wed
nesd
ay, M
ay 0
9, 2
007
Page
8 o
f 19
Num
bers
may
not
add
to e
xact
tota
ls du
e to
roun
ding
.
Not
e: P
roje
ctio
ns a
re b
est r
ead
as tr
ends
, ind
icat
ing
whe
ther
a sc
hool
is li
kely
to tr
end
up, d
own
or st
ay a
bout
the
sam
e, ra
ther
than
pre
cise
est
imat
es o
f fut
ure
enro
llmen
ts.
Met
hod
and
Ass
umpt
ions
: At t
he e
ntry
gra
des (
K,6
9) e
ach
scho
ol's
star
ting
enro
llmen
t is a
ssum
ed to
be
equa
l the
Oct
ober
200
6 pe
rcen
tage
of t
he D
istri
ct e
nrol
lmen
t at t
hat g
rade
. At t
he c
ontin
uing
gr
ades
, stu
dent
s are
rolle
d up
from
the
prev
ious
gra
de. A
t the
hig
h sc
hool
leve
l a "
redu
ctio
n fa
ctor
" is
app
lied
to th
e pr
ojec
tions
at g
rade
s 11
and
12 to
acc
ount
for t
he g
reat
er le
vels
of
attri
btio
n th
at o
ccur
at t
hose
gra
des.
Onc
e th
is in
itial
enr
ollm
ent p
roje
ctio
n is
est
ablis
hed,
add
ition
al st
uden
ts a
re a
dded
bas
ed o
n th
e nu
mbe
r of n
ew h
omes
exp
ecte
d in
eac
h se
rvic
e ar
ea
over
the
cour
se o
f the
fore
cast
(usi
ng th
e D
istri
ct's
stud
ent g
ener
atio
n ra
tes f
or n
ew h
omes
). T
he n
ew h
ome
num
bers
com
e fr
om an
ana
lysi
s of d
ata
from
the
New
Hom
e Tr
ends
dat
abas
e.
The
final
num
bers
are
then
bal
ance
d to
the
Dis
trict
pro
ject
ion.
Fo
r alte
rnat
ive
scho
ols a
nd p
rogr
ams (
e.g.
, Sky
Val
ley
and
You
th R
e-en
gage
men
t) it
is a
ssum
ed th
at e
ach
scho
ol's
perc
enta
ge o
f the
cur
rent
enr
ollm
ent
at e
ach
grad
e (O
ct 2
006)
will
rem
ain
cons
tant
ove
r tim
e . T
his p
erce
ntag
e is
app
lied
to th
e D
istri
ct p
roje
ctio
n at
eac
h gr
ade
leve
l for
eac
h ye
ar o
f the
fo
reca
st to
est
imat
e th
e fu
ture
enr
ollm
ent a
t the
se sc
hool
s. A
s with
the
regu
lar s
choo
ls, a
n ad
just
men
t fac
tor i
s app
lied
to b
alan
ce th
e nu
mbe
rs to
the
dist
rict p
roje
ctio
n.
Long
Ran
ge E
nrol
lmen
t Pro
ject
ions
by
Scho
ol (M
ediu
m P
roje
ctio
n)2
GRADE
OCT_04OCT_05OCT_06
OCT_03
OCT_02
Park
Pla
ce M
iddl
eOCT_07OCT_08OCT_09OCT_10OCT_11OCT_12
620
220
521
722
421
224
125
225
47
199
213
220
233
240
228
259
272
846
720
918
547
147
521
722
423
724
423
126
39
447
480
429
00
00
00
100
00
00
011
00
00
00
120
00
00
0Totals
914
610
603
951
904
654
681
689
713
743
788
Wed
nesd
ay, M
ay 0
9, 2
007
Page
9 o
f 19
Num
bers
may
not
add
to e
xact
tota
ls du
e to
roun
ding
.
Not
e: P
roje
ctio
ns a
re b
est r
ead
as tr
ends
, ind
icat
ing
whe
ther
a sc
hool
is li
kely
to tr
end
up, d
own
or st
ay a
bout
the
sam
e, ra
ther
than
pre
cise
est
imat
es o
f fut
ure
enro
llmen
ts.
Met
hod
and
Ass
umpt
ions
: At t
he e
ntry
gra
des (
K,6
9) e
ach
scho
ol's
star
ting
enro
llmen
t is a
ssum
ed to
be
equa
l the
Oct
ober
200
6 pe
rcen
tage
of t
he D
istri
ct e
nrol
lmen
t at t
hat g
rade
. At t
he c
ontin
uing
gr
ades
, stu
dent
s are
rolle
d up
from
the
prev
ious
gra
de. A
t the
hig
h sc
hool
leve
l a "
redu
ctio
n fa
ctor
" is
app
lied
to th
e pr
ojec
tions
at g
rade
s 11
and
12 to
acc
ount
for t
he g
reat
er le
vels
of
attri
btio
n th
at o
ccur
at t
hose
gra
des.
Onc
e th
is in
itial
enr
ollm
ent p
roje
ctio
n is
est
ablis
hed,
add
ition
al st
uden
ts a
re a
dded
bas
ed o
n th
e nu
mbe
r of n
ew h
omes
exp
ecte
d in
eac
h se
rvic
e ar
ea
over
the
cour
se o
f the
fore
cast
(usi
ng th
e D
istri
ct's
stud
ent g
ener
atio
n ra
tes f
or n
ew h
omes
). T
he n
ew h
ome
num
bers
com
e fr
om an
ana
lysi
s of d
ata
from
the
New
Hom
e Tr
ends
dat
abas
e.
The
final
num
bers
are
then
bal
ance
d to
the
Dis
trict
pro
ject
ion.
Fo
r alte
rnat
ive
scho
ols a
nd p
rogr
ams (
e.g.
, Sky
Val
ley
and
You
th R
e-en
gage
men
t) it
is a
ssum
ed th
at e
ach
scho
ol's
perc
enta
ge o
f the
cur
rent
enr
ollm
ent
at e
ach
grad
e (O
ct 2
006)
will
rem
ain
cons
tant
ove
r tim
e . T
his p
erce
ntag
e is
app
lied
to th
e D
istri
ct p
roje
ctio
n at
eac
h gr
ade
leve
l for
eac
h ye
ar o
f the
fo
reca
st to
est
imat
e th
e fu
ture
enr
ollm
ent a
t the
se sc
hool
s. A
s with
the
regu
lar s
choo
ls, a
n ad
just
men
t fac
tor i
s app
lied
to b
alan
ce th
e nu
mbe
rs to
the
dist
rict p
roje
ctio
n.
Long
Ran
ge E
nrol
lmen
t Pro
ject
ions
by
Scho
ol (M
ediu
m P
roje
ctio
n)2
GRADE
OCT_04OCT_05OCT_06
OCT_03
OCT_02
Mon
roe
Mid
dle
Scho
olOCT_07OCT_08OCT_09OCT_10OCT_11OCT_12
525
124
124
90
00
00
06
238
176
137
256
234
144
148
140
158
165
165
724
516
817
824
524
214
715
415
915
017
017
78
117
418
01
418
014
815
616
115
117
1Totals
735
518
495
743
729
471
451
455
469
486
514
Wed
nesd
ay, M
ay 0
9, 2
007
Page
10
of 1
9
Num
bers
may
not
add
to e
xact
tota
ls du
e to
roun
ding
.
Not
e: P
roje
ctio
ns a
re b
est r
ead
as tr
ends
, ind
icat
ing
whe
ther
a sc
hool
is li
kely
to tr
end
up, d
own
or st
ay a
bout
the
sam
e, ra
ther
than
pre
cise
est
imat
es o
f fut
ure
enro
llmen
ts.
Met
hod
and
Ass
umpt
ions
: At t
he e
ntry
gra
des (
K,6
9) e
ach
scho
ol's
star
ting
enro
llmen
t is a
ssum
ed to
be
equa
l the
Oct
ober
200
6 pe
rcen
tage
of t
he D
istri
ct e
nrol
lmen
t at t
hat g
rade
. At t
he c
ontin
uing
gr
ades
, stu
dent
s are
rolle
d up
from
the
prev
ious
gra
de. A
t the
hig
h sc
hool
leve
l a "
redu
ctio
n fa
ctor
" is
app
lied
to th
e pr
ojec
tions
at g
rade
s 11
and
12 to
acc
ount
for t
he g
reat
er le
vels
of
attri
btio
n th
at o
ccur
at t
hose
gra
des.
Onc
e th
is in
itial
enr
ollm
ent p
roje
ctio
n is
est
ablis
hed,
add
ition
al st
uden
ts a
re a
dded
bas
ed o
n th
e nu
mbe
r of n
ew h
omes
exp
ecte
d in
eac
h se
rvic
e ar
ea
over
the
cour
se o
f the
fore
cast
(usi
ng th
e D
istri
ct's
stud
ent g
ener
atio
n ra
tes f
or n
ew h
omes
). T
he n
ew h
ome
num
bers
com
e fr
om an
ana
lysi
s of d
ata
from
the
New
Hom
e Tr
ends
dat
abas
e.
The
final
num
bers
are
then
bal
ance
d to
the
Dis
trict
pro
ject
ion.
Fo
r alte
rnat
ive
scho
ols a
nd p
rogr
ams (
e.g.
, Sky
Val
ley
and
You
th R
e-en
gage
men
t) it
is a
ssum
ed th
at e
ach
scho
ol's
perc
enta
ge o
f the
cur
rent
enr
ollm
ent
at e
ach
grad
e (O
ct 2
006)
will
rem
ain
cons
tant
ove
r tim
e . T
his p
erce
ntag
e is
app
lied
to th
e D
istri
ct p
roje
ctio
n at
eac
h gr
ade
leve
l for
eac
h ye
ar o
f the
fo
reca
st to
est
imat
e th
e fu
ture
enr
ollm
ent a
t the
se sc
hool
s. A
s with
the
regu
lar s
choo
ls, a
n ad
just
men
t fac
tor i
s app
lied
to b
alan
ce th
e nu
mbe
rs to
the
dist
rict p
roje
ctio
n.
Long
Ran
ge E
nrol
lmen
t Pro
ject
ions
by
Scho
ol (M
ediu
m P
roje
ctio
n)3
GRADE
OCT_04OCT_05OCT_06
OCT_03
OCT_02
Mon
roe
Hig
h Sc
hool
OCT_07OCT_08OCT_09OCT_10OCT_11OCT_12
71
00
00
00
81
20
00
00
09
250
646
05
548
549
446
948
248
444
910
484
471
482
471
488
450
474
480
455
463
462
1144
646
345
145
438
048
245
047
448
045
446
112
369
379
401
310
311
409
411
386
407
394
365
Totals
1302
1820
1794
1240
1186
1825
1829
1809
1824
1795
1737
Wed
nesd
ay, M
ay 0
9, 2
007
Page
11
of 1
9
Num
bers
may
not
add
to e
xact
tota
ls du
e to
roun
ding
.
Not
e: P
roje
ctio
ns a
re b
est r
ead
as tr
ends
, ind
icat
ing
whe
ther
a sc
hool
is li
kely
to tr
end
up, d
own
or st
ay a
bout
the
sam
e, ra
ther
than
pre
cise
est
imat
es o
f fut
ure
enro
llmen
ts.
Met
hod
and
Ass
umpt
ions
: At t
he e
ntry
gra
des (
K,6
9) e
ach
scho
ol's
star
ting
enro
llmen
t is a
ssum
ed to
be
equa
l the
Oct
ober
200
6 pe
rcen
tage
of t
he D
istri
ct e
nrol
lmen
t at t
hat g
rade
. At t
he c
ontin
uing
gr
ades
, stu
dent
s are
rolle
d up
from
the
prev
ious
gra
de. A
t the
hig
h sc
hool
leve
l a "
redu
ctio
n fa
ctor
" is
app
lied
to th
e pr
ojec
tions
at g
rade
s 11
and
12 to
acc
ount
for t
he g
reat
er le
vels
of
attri
btio
n th
at o
ccur
at t
hose
gra
des.
Onc
e th
is in
itial
enr
ollm
ent p
roje
ctio
n is
est
ablis
hed,
add
ition
al st
uden
ts a
re a
dded
bas
ed o
n th
e nu
mbe
r of n
ew h
omes
exp
ecte
d in
eac
h se
rvic
e ar
ea
over
the
cour
se o
f the
fore
cast
(usi
ng th
e D
istri
ct's
stud
ent g
ener
atio
n ra
tes f
or n
ew h
omes
). T
he n
ew h
ome
num
bers
com
e fr
om an
ana
lysi
s of d
ata
from
the
New
Hom
e Tr
ends
dat
abas
e.
The
final
num
bers
are
then
bal
ance
d to
the
Dis
trict
pro
ject
ion.
Fo
r alte
rnat
ive
scho
ols a
nd p
rogr
ams (
e.g.
, Sky
Val
ley
and
You
th R
e-en
gage
men
t) it
is a
ssum
ed th
at e
ach
scho
ol's
perc
enta
ge o
f the
cur
rent
enr
ollm
ent
at e
ach
grad
e (O
ct 2
006)
will
rem
ain
cons
tant
ove
r tim
e . T
his p
erce
ntag
e is
app
lied
to th
e D
istri
ct p
roje
ctio
n at
eac
h gr
ade
leve
l for
eac
h ye
ar o
f the
fo
reca
st to
est
imat
e th
e fu
ture
enr
ollm
ent a
t the
se sc
hool
s. A
s with
the
regu
lar s
choo
ls, a
n ad
just
men
t fac
tor i
s app
lied
to b
alan
ce th
e nu
mbe
rs to
the
dist
rict p
roje
ctio
n.
Long
Ran
ge E
nrol
lmen
t Pro
ject
ions
by
Scho
ol (M
ediu
m P
roje
ctio
n)4
GRADE
OCT_04OCT_05OCT_06
OCT_03
OCT_02
Lead
ers i
n Le
arni
ngOCT_07OCT_08OCT_09OCT_10OCT_11OCT_12
81
11
11
11
92
37
124
79
911
1313
1011
628
1216
2527
3232
3945
1123
3137
3031
4238
4048
4858
1250
5378
5240
6986
7883
9393
Totals
8693
151
106
9114
516
016
117
519
521
0
Wed
nesd
ay, M
ay 0
9, 2
007
Page
12
of 1
9
Num
bers
may
not
add
to e
xact
tota
ls du
e to
roun
ding
.
Not
e: P
roje
ctio
ns a
re b
est r
ead
as tr
ends
, ind
icat
ing
whe
ther
a sc
hool
is li
kely
to tr
end
up, d
own
or st
ay a
bout
the
sam
e, ra
ther
than
pre
cise
est
imat
es o
f fut
ure
enro
llmen
ts.
Met
hod
and
Ass
umpt
ions
: At t
he e
ntry
gra
des (
K,6
9) e
ach
scho
ol's
star
ting
enro
llmen
t is a
ssum
ed to
be
equa
l the
Oct
ober
200
6 pe
rcen
tage
of t
he D
istri
ct e
nrol
lmen
t at t
hat g
rade
. At t
he c
ontin
uing
gr
ades
, stu
dent
s are
rolle
d up
from
the
prev
ious
gra
de. A
t the
hig
h sc
hool
leve
l a "
redu
ctio
n fa
ctor
" is
app
lied
to th
e pr
ojec
tions
at g
rade
s 11
and
12 to
acc
ount
for t
he g
reat
er le
vels
of
attri
btio
n th
at o
ccur
at t
hose
gra
des.
Onc
e th
is in
itial
enr
ollm
ent p
roje
ctio
n is
est
ablis
hed,
add
ition
al st
uden
ts a
re a
dded
bas
ed o
n th
e nu
mbe
r of n
ew h
omes
exp
ecte
d in
eac
h se
rvic
e ar
ea
over
the
cour
se o
f the
fore
cast
(usi
ng th
e D
istri
ct's
stud
ent g
ener
atio
n ra
tes f
or n
ew h
omes
). T
he n
ew h
ome
num
bers
com
e fr
om an
ana
lysi
s of d
ata
from
the
New
Hom
e Tr
ends
dat
abas
e.
The
final
num
bers
are
then
bal
ance
d to
the
Dis
trict
pro
ject
ion.
Fo
r alte
rnat
ive
scho
ols a
nd p
rogr
ams (
e.g.
, Sky
Val
ley
and
You
th R
e-en
gage
men
t) it
is a
ssum
ed th
at e
ach
scho
ol's
perc
enta
ge o
f the
cur
rent
enr
ollm
ent
at e
ach
grad
e (O
ct 2
006)
will
rem
ain
cons
tant
ove
r tim
e . T
his p
erce
ntag
e is
app
lied
to th
e D
istri
ct p
roje
ctio
n at
eac
h gr
ade
leve
l for
eac
h ye
ar o
f the
fo
reca
st to
est
imat
e th
e fu
ture
enr
ollm
ent a
t the
se sc
hool
s. A
s with
the
regu
lar s
choo
ls, a
n ad
just
men
t fac
tor i
s app
lied
to b
alan
ce th
e nu
mbe
rs to
the
dist
rict p
roje
ctio
n.
Long
Ran
ge E
nrol
lmen
t Pro
ject
ions
by
Scho
ol (M
ediu
m P
roje
ctio
n)4
GRADE
OCT_04OCT_05OCT_06
OCT_03
OCT_02
Sped
OCT_07OCT_08OCT_09OCT_10OCT_11OCT_12
01
11
11
11
21
00
00
00
31
11
00
00
00
41
11
11
11
11
52
11
11
11
11
61
11
11
11
11
71
11
11
11
11
81
11
11
11
11
93
11
11
11
12
22
101
12
12
22
22
33
111
11
21
11
11
212
22
21
00
00
00
Totals
1310
107
710
1111
1213
14
Wed
nesd
ay, M
ay 0
9, 2
007
Page
13
of 1
9
Num
bers
may
not
add
to e
xact
tota
ls du
e to
roun
ding
.
Not
e: P
roje
ctio
ns a
re b
est r
ead
as tr
ends
, ind
icat
ing
whe
ther
a sc
hool
is li
kely
to tr
end
up, d
own
or st
ay a
bout
the
sam
e, ra
ther
than
pre
cise
est
imat
es o
f fut
ure
enro
llmen
ts.
Met
hod
and
Ass
umpt
ions
: At t
he e
ntry
gra
des (
K,6
9) e
ach
scho
ol's
star
ting
enro
llmen
t is a
ssum
ed to
be
equa
l the
Oct
ober
200
6 pe
rcen
tage
of t
he D
istri
ct e
nrol
lmen
t at t
hat g
rade
. At t
he c
ontin
uing
gr
ades
, stu
dent
s are
rolle
d up
from
the
prev
ious
gra
de. A
t the
hig
h sc
hool
leve
l a "
redu
ctio
n fa
ctor
" is
app
lied
to th
e pr
ojec
tions
at g
rade
s 11
and
12 to
acc
ount
for t
he g
reat
er le
vels
of
attri
btio
n th
at o
ccur
at t
hose
gra
des.
Onc
e th
is in
itial
enr
ollm
ent p
roje
ctio
n is
est
ablis
hed,
add
ition
al st
uden
ts a
re a
dded
bas
ed o
n th
e nu
mbe
r of n
ew h
omes
exp
ecte
d in
eac
h se
rvic
e ar
ea
over
the
cour
se o
f the
fore
cast
(usi
ng th
e D
istri
ct's
stud
ent g
ener
atio
n ra
tes f
or n
ew h
omes
). T
he n
ew h
ome
num
bers
com
e fr
om an
ana
lysi
s of d
ata
from
the
New
Hom
e Tr
ends
dat
abas
e.
The
final
num
bers
are
then
bal
ance
d to
the
Dis
trict
pro
ject
ion.
Fo
r alte
rnat
ive
scho
ols a
nd p
rogr
ams (
e.g.
, Sky
Val
ley
and
You
th R
e-en
gage
men
t) it
is a
ssum
ed th
at e
ach
scho
ol's
perc
enta
ge o
f the
cur
rent
enr
ollm
ent
at e
ach
grad
e (O
ct 2
006)
will
rem
ain
cons
tant
ove
r tim
e . T
his p
erce
ntag
e is
app
lied
to th
e D
istri
ct p
roje
ctio
n at
eac
h gr
ade
leve
l for
eac
h ye
ar o
f the
fo
reca
st to
est
imat
e th
e fu
ture
enr
ollm
ent a
t the
se sc
hool
s. A
s with
the
regu
lar s
choo
ls, a
n ad
just
men
t fac
tor i
s app
lied
to b
alan
ce th
e nu
mbe
rs to
the
dist
rict p
roje
ctio
n.
Long
Ran
ge E
nrol
lmen
t Pro
ject
ions
by
Scho
ol (M
ediu
m P
roje
ctio
n)4
GRADE
OCT_04OCT_05OCT_06
OCT_03
OCT_02
Sky
Val
ley
Educ
atio
n C
ente
rOCT_07OCT_08OCT_09OCT_10OCT_11OCT_12
155
6568
5743
7368
7274
7578
249
4951
5254
5660
5659
6061
343
4348
4242
5762
6661
6466
446
5348
4637
4755
6164
5963
544
5461
5030
6362
7379
8377
650
4868
4039
7175
6787
9595
741
5154
4536
5558
6154
7177
849
6160
3829
6364
6771
6382
946
4850
3328
5363
6479
9190
1024
3953
2923
4851
6061
7486
1120
2837
1516
4238
4048
4858
1213
2135
89
3138
3537
4242
Totals
480
560
633
455
386
660
695
722
775
826
874
Wed
nesd
ay, M
ay 0
9, 2
007
Page
14
of 1
9
Num
bers
may
not
add
to e
xact
tota
ls du
e to
roun
ding
.
Not
e: P
roje
ctio
ns a
re b
est r
ead
as tr
ends
, ind
icat
ing
whe
ther
a sc
hool
is li
kely
to tr
end
up, d
own
or st
ay a
bout
the
sam
e, ra
ther
than
pre
cise
est
imat
es o
f fut
ure
enro
llmen
ts.
Met
hod
and
Ass
umpt
ions
: At t
he e
ntry
gra
des (
K,6
9) e
ach
scho
ol's
star
ting
enro
llmen
t is a
ssum
ed to
be
equa
l the
Oct
ober
200
6 pe
rcen
tage
of t
he D
istri
ct e
nrol
lmen
t at t
hat g
rade
. At t
he c
ontin
uing
gr
ades
, stu
dent
s are
rolle
d up
from
the
prev
ious
gra
de. A
t the
hig
h sc
hool
leve
l a "
redu
ctio
n fa
ctor
" is
app
lied
to th
e pr
ojec
tions
at g
rade
s 11
and
12 to
acc
ount
for t
he g
reat
er le
vels
of
attri
btio
n th
at o
ccur
at t
hose
gra
des.
Onc
e th
is in
itial
enr
ollm
ent p
roje
ctio
n is
est
ablis
hed,
add
ition
al st
uden
ts a
re a
dded
bas
ed o
n th
e nu
mbe
r of n
ew h
omes
exp
ecte
d in
eac
h se
rvic
e ar
ea
over
the
cour
se o
f the
fore
cast
(usi
ng th
e D
istri
ct's
stud
ent g
ener
atio
n ra
tes f
or n
ew h
omes
). T
he n
ew h
ome
num
bers
com
e fr
om an
ana
lysi
s of d
ata
from
the
New
Hom
e Tr
ends
dat
abas
e.
The
final
num
bers
are
then
bal
ance
d to
the
Dis
trict
pro
ject
ion.
Fo
r alte
rnat
ive
scho
ols a
nd p
rogr
ams (
e.g.
, Sky
Val
ley
and
You
th R
e-en
gage
men
t) it
is a
ssum
ed th
at e
ach
scho
ol's
perc
enta
ge o
f the
cur
rent
enr
ollm
ent
at e
ach
grad
e (O
ct 2
006)
will
rem
ain
cons
tant
ove
r tim
e . T
his p
erce
ntag
e is
app
lied
to th
e D
istri
ct p
roje
ctio
n at
eac
h gr
ade
leve
l for
eac
h ye
ar o
f the
fo
reca
st to
est
imat
e th
e fu
ture
enr
ollm
ent a
t the
se sc
hool
s. A
s with
the
regu
lar s
choo
ls, a
n ad
just
men
t fac
tor i
s app
lied
to b
alan
ce th
e nu
mbe
rs to
the
dist
rict p
roje
ctio
n.
Long
Ran
ge E
nrol
lmen
t Pro
ject
ions
by
Scho
ol (M
ediu
m P
roje
ctio
n)4
GRADE
OCT_04OCT_05OCT_06
OCT_03
OCT_02
Sno-
Isle
OCT_07OCT_08OCT_09OCT_10OCT_11OCT_12
100
00
00
011
00
00
00
120
00
00
0Totals
00
00
00
Wed
nesd
ay, M
ay 0
9, 2
007
Page
15
of 1
9
Num
bers
may
not
add
to e
xact
tota
ls du
e to
roun
ding
.
Not
e: P
roje
ctio
ns a
re b
est r
ead
as tr
ends
, ind
icat
ing
whe
ther
a sc
hool
is li
kely
to tr
end
up, d
own
or st
ay a
bout
the
sam
e, ra
ther
than
pre
cise
est
imat
es o
f fut
ure
enro
llmen
ts.
Met
hod
and
Ass
umpt
ions
: At t
he e
ntry
gra
des (
K,6
9) e
ach
scho
ol's
star
ting
enro
llmen
t is a
ssum
ed to
be
equa
l the
Oct
ober
200
6 pe
rcen
tage
of t
he D
istri
ct e
nrol
lmen
t at t
hat g
rade
. At t
he c
ontin
uing
gr
ades
, stu
dent
s are
rolle
d up
from
the
prev
ious
gra
de. A
t the
hig
h sc
hool
leve
l a "
redu
ctio
n fa
ctor
" is
app
lied
to th
e pr
ojec
tions
at g
rade
s 11
and
12 to
acc
ount
for t
he g
reat
er le
vels
of
attri
btio
n th
at o
ccur
at t
hose
gra
des.
Onc
e th
is in
itial
enr
ollm
ent p
roje
ctio
n is
est
ablis
hed,
add
ition
al st
uden
ts a
re a
dded
bas
ed o
n th
e nu
mbe
r of n
ew h
omes
exp
ecte
d in
eac
h se
rvic
e ar
ea
over
the
cour
se o
f the
fore
cast
(usi
ng th
e D
istri
ct's
stud
ent g
ener
atio
n ra
tes f
or n
ew h
omes
). T
he n
ew h
ome
num
bers
com
e fr
om an
ana
lysi
s of d
ata
from
the
New
Hom
e Tr
ends
dat
abas
e.
The
final
num
bers
are
then
bal
ance
d to
the
Dis
trict
pro
ject
ion.
Fo
r alte
rnat
ive
scho
ols a
nd p
rogr
ams (
e.g.
, Sky
Val
ley
and
You
th R
e-en
gage
men
t) it
is a
ssum
ed th
at e
ach
scho
ol's
perc
enta
ge o
f the
cur
rent
enr
ollm
ent
at e
ach
grad
e (O
ct 2
006)
will
rem
ain
cons
tant
ove
r tim
e . T
his p
erce
ntag
e is
app
lied
to th
e D
istri
ct p
roje
ctio
n at
eac
h gr
ade
leve
l for
eac
h ye
ar o
f the
fo
reca
st to
est
imat
e th
e fu
ture
enr
ollm
ent a
t the
se sc
hool
s. A
s with
the
regu
lar s
choo
ls, a
n ad
just
men
t fac
tor i
s app
lied
to b
alan
ce th
e nu
mbe
rs to
the
dist
rict p
roje
ctio
n.
Long
Ran
ge E
nrol
lmen
t Pro
ject
ions
by
Scho
ol (M
ediu
m P
roje
ctio
n)4
GRADE
OCT_04OCT_05OCT_06
OCT_03
OCT_02
Sum
mit
Scho
olOCT_07OCT_08OCT_09OCT_10OCT_11OCT_12
61
00
00
00
73
23
00
00
00
84
42
00
00
00
98
73
00
00
00
106
12
00
00
00
111
31
00
00
00
124
30
00
00
0Totals
2620
120
00
00
0
Wed
nesd
ay, M
ay 0
9, 2
007
Page
16
of 1
9
Num
bers
may
not
add
to e
xact
tota
ls du
e to
roun
ding
.
Not
e: P
roje
ctio
ns a
re b
est r
ead
as tr
ends
, ind
icat
ing
whe
ther
a sc
hool
is li
kely
to tr
end
up, d
own
or st
ay a
bout
the
sam
e, ra
ther
than
pre
cise
est
imat
es o
f fut
ure
enro
llmen
ts.
Met
hod
and
Ass
umpt
ions
: At t
he e
ntry
gra
des (
K,6
9) e
ach
scho
ol's
star
ting
enro
llmen
t is a
ssum
ed to
be
equa
l the
Oct
ober
200
6 pe
rcen
tage
of t
he D
istri
ct e
nrol
lmen
t at t
hat g
rade
. At t
he c
ontin
uing
gr
ades
, stu
dent
s are
rolle
d up
from
the
prev
ious
gra
de. A
t the
hig
h sc
hool
leve
l a "
redu
ctio
n fa
ctor
" is
app
lied
to th
e pr
ojec
tions
at g
rade
s 11
and
12 to
acc
ount
for t
he g
reat
er le
vels
of
attri
btio
n th
at o
ccur
at t
hose
gra
des.
Onc
e th
is in
itial
enr
ollm
ent p
roje
ctio
n is
est
ablis
hed,
add
ition
al st
uden
ts a
re a
dded
bas
ed o
n th
e nu
mbe
r of n
ew h
omes
exp
ecte
d in
eac
h se
rvic
e ar
ea
over
the
cour
se o
f the
fore
cast
(usi
ng th
e D
istri
ct's
stud
ent g
ener
atio
n ra
tes f
or n
ew h
omes
). T
he n
ew h
ome
num
bers
com
e fr
om an
ana
lysi
s of d
ata
from
the
New
Hom
e Tr
ends
dat
abas
e.
The
final
num
bers
are
then
bal
ance
d to
the
Dis
trict
pro
ject
ion.
Fo
r alte
rnat
ive
scho
ols a
nd p
rogr
ams (
e.g.
, Sky
Val
ley
and
You
th R
e-en
gage
men
t) it
is a
ssum
ed th
at e
ach
scho
ol's
perc
enta
ge o
f the
cur
rent
enr
ollm
ent
at e
ach
grad
e (O
ct 2
006)
will
rem
ain
cons
tant
ove
r tim
e . T
his p
erce
ntag
e is
app
lied
to th
e D
istri
ct p
roje
ctio
n at
eac
h gr
ade
leve
l for
eac
h ye
ar o
f the
fo
reca
st to
est
imat
e th
e fu
ture
enr
ollm
ent a
t the
se sc
hool
s. A
s with
the
regu
lar s
choo
ls, a
n ad
just
men
t fac
tor i
s app
lied
to b
alan
ce th
e nu
mbe
rs to
the
dist
rict p
roje
ctio
n.
Long
Ran
ge E
nrol
lmen
t Pro
ject
ions
by
Scho
ol (M
ediu
m P
roje
ctio
n)4
GRADE
OCT_04OCT_05OCT_06
OCT_03
OCT_02
Tran
s.OCT_07OCT_08OCT_09OCT_10OCT_11OCT_12
1215
1612
130
00
00
0Totals
1516
1213
00
00
00
Wed
nesd
ay, M
ay 0
9, 2
007
Page
17
of 1
9
Num
bers
may
not
add
to e
xact
tota
ls du
e to
roun
ding
.
Not
e: P
roje
ctio
ns a
re b
est r
ead
as tr
ends
, ind
icat
ing
whe
ther
a sc
hool
is li
kely
to tr
end
up, d
own
or st
ay a
bout
the
sam
e, ra
ther
than
pre
cise
est
imat
es o
f fut
ure
enro
llmen
ts.
Met
hod
and
Ass
umpt
ions
: At t
he e
ntry
gra
des (
K,6
9) e
ach
scho
ol's
star
ting
enro
llmen
t is a
ssum
ed to
be
equa
l the
Oct
ober
200
6 pe
rcen
tage
of t
he D
istri
ct e
nrol
lmen
t at t
hat g
rade
. At t
he c
ontin
uing
gr
ades
, stu
dent
s are
rolle
d up
from
the
prev
ious
gra
de. A
t the
hig
h sc
hool
leve
l a "
redu
ctio
n fa
ctor
" is
app
lied
to th
e pr
ojec
tions
at g
rade
s 11
and
12 to
acc
ount
for t
he g
reat
er le
vels
of
attri
btio
n th
at o
ccur
at t
hose
gra
des.
Onc
e th
is in
itial
enr
ollm
ent p
roje
ctio
n is
est
ablis
hed,
add
ition
al st
uden
ts a
re a
dded
bas
ed o
n th
e nu
mbe
r of n
ew h
omes
exp
ecte
d in
eac
h se
rvic
e ar
ea
over
the
cour
se o
f the
fore
cast
(usi
ng th
e D
istri
ct's
stud
ent g
ener
atio
n ra
tes f
or n
ew h
omes
). T
he n
ew h
ome
num
bers
com
e fr
om an
ana
lysi
s of d
ata
from
the
New
Hom
e Tr
ends
dat
abas
e.
The
final
num
bers
are
then
bal
ance
d to
the
Dis
trict
pro
ject
ion.
Fo
r alte
rnat
ive
scho
ols a
nd p
rogr
ams (
e.g.
, Sky
Val
ley
and
You
th R
e-en
gage
men
t) it
is a
ssum
ed th
at e
ach
scho
ol's
perc
enta
ge o
f the
cur
rent
enr
ollm
ent
at e
ach
grad
e (O
ct 2
006)
will
rem
ain
cons
tant
ove
r tim
e . T
his p
erce
ntag
e is
app
lied
to th
e D
istri
ct p
roje
ctio
n at
eac
h gr
ade
leve
l for
eac
h ye
ar o
f the
fo
reca
st to
est
imat
e th
e fu
ture
enr
ollm
ent a
t the
se sc
hool
s. A
s with
the
regu
lar s
choo
ls, a
n ad
just
men
t fac
tor i
s app
lied
to b
alan
ce th
e nu
mbe
rs to
the
dist
rict p
roje
ctio
n.
Long
Ran
ge E
nrol
lmen
t Pro
ject
ions
by
Scho
ol (M
ediu
m P
roje
ctio
n)4
GRADE
OCT_04OCT_05OCT_06
OCT_03
OCT_02
You
th R
e-En
gage
men
tOCT_07OCT_08OCT_09OCT_10OCT_11OCT_12
1211
212
014
780
7113
616
114
815
617
617
5Totals
112
120
147
8071
136
161
148
156
176
175
Wed
nesd
ay, M
ay 0
9, 2
007
Page
18
of 1
9
Num
bers
may
not
add
to e
xact
tota
ls du
e to
roun
ding
.
Not
e: P
roje
ctio
ns a
re b
est r
ead
as tr
ends
, ind
icat
ing
whe
ther
a sc
hool
is li
kely
to tr
end
up, d
own
or st
ay a
bout
the
sam
e, ra
ther
than
pre
cise
est
imat
es o
f fut
ure
enro
llmen
ts.
Met
hod
and
Ass
umpt
ions
: At t
he e
ntry
gra
des (
K,6
9) e
ach
scho
ol's
star
ting
enro
llmen
t is a
ssum
ed to
be
equa
l the
Oct
ober
200
6 pe
rcen
tage
of t
he D
istri
ct e
nrol
lmen
t at t
hat g
rade
. At t
he c
ontin
uing
gr
ades
, stu
dent
s are
rolle
d up
from
the
prev
ious
gra
de. A
t the
hig
h sc
hool
leve
l a "
redu
ctio
n fa
ctor
" is
app
lied
to th
e pr
ojec
tions
at g
rade
s 11
and
12 to
acc
ount
for t
he g
reat
er le
vels
of
attri
btio
n th
at o
ccur
at t
hose
gra
des.
Onc
e th
is in
itial
enr
ollm
ent p
roje
ctio
n is
est
ablis
hed,
add
ition
al st
uden
ts a
re a
dded
bas
ed o
n th
e nu
mbe
r of n
ew h
omes
exp
ecte
d in
eac
h se
rvic
e ar
ea
over
the
cour
se o
f the
fore
cast
(usi
ng th
e D
istri
ct's
stud
ent g
ener
atio
n ra
tes f
or n
ew h
omes
). T
he n
ew h
ome
num
bers
com
e fr
om an
ana
lysi
s of d
ata
from
the
New
Hom
e Tr
ends
dat
abas
e.
The
final
num
bers
are
then
bal
ance
d to
the
Dis
trict
pro
ject
ion.
Fo
r alte
rnat
ive
scho
ols a
nd p
rogr
ams (
e.g.
, Sky
Val
ley
and
You
th R
e-en
gage
men
t) it
is a
ssum
ed th
at e
ach
scho
ol's
perc
enta
ge o
f the
cur
rent
enr
ollm
ent
at e
ach
grad
e (O
ct 2
006)
will
rem
ain
cons
tant
ove
r tim
e . T
his p
erce
ntag
e is
app
lied
to th
e D
istri
ct p
roje
ctio
n at
eac
h gr
ade
leve
l for
eac
h ye
ar o
f the
fo
reca
st to
est
imat
e th
e fu
ture
enr
ollm
ent a
t the
se sc
hool
s. A
s with
the
regu
lar s
choo
ls, a
n ad
just
men
t fac
tor i
s app
lied
to b
alan
ce th
e nu
mbe
rs to
the
dist
rict p
roje
ctio
n.
Long
Ran
ge E
nrol
lmen
t Pro
ject
ions
by
Scho
ol (M
ediu
m P
roje
ctio
n)OCT_04OCT_05OCT_06
6370
6637
6796
OCT_03
6323
OCT_02
6161
OCT_07
6919
OCT_08
7066
OCT_09
7163
OCT_10
7338
OCT_11
7470
OCT_12
7587
Wed
nesd
ay, M
ay 0
9, 2
007
Page
19
of 1
9
Num
bers
may
not
add
to e
xact
tota
ls du
e to
roun
ding
.
Not
e: P
roje
ctio
ns a
re b
est r
ead
as tr
ends
, ind
icat
ing
whe
ther
a sc
hool
is li
kely
to tr
end
up, d
own
or st
ay a
bout
the
sam
e, ra
ther
than
pre
cise
est
imat
es o
f fut
ure
enro
llmen
ts.
Met
hod
and
Ass
umpt
ions
: At t
he e
ntry
gra
des (
K,6
9) e
ach
scho
ol's
star
ting
enro
llmen
t is a
ssum
ed to
be
equa
l the
Oct
ober
200
6 pe
rcen
tage
of t
he D
istri
ct e
nrol
lmen
t at t
hat g
rade
. At t
he c
ontin
uing
gr
ades
, stu
dent
s are
rolle
d up
from
the
prev
ious
gra
de. A
t the
hig
h sc
hool
leve
l a "
redu
ctio
n fa
ctor
" is
app
lied
to th
e pr
ojec
tions
at g
rade
s 11
and
12 to
acc
ount
for t
he g
reat
er le
vels
of
attri
btio
n th
at o
ccur
at t
hose
gra
des.
Onc
e th
is in
itial
enr
ollm
ent p
roje
ctio
n is
est
ablis
hed,
add
ition
al st
uden
ts a
re a
dded
bas
ed o
n th
e nu
mbe
r of n
ew h
omes
exp
ecte
d in
eac
h se
rvic
e ar
ea
over
the
cour
se o
f the
fore
cast
(usi
ng th
e D
istri
ct's
stud
ent g
ener
atio
n ra
tes f
or n
ew h
omes
). T
he n
ew h
ome
num
bers
com
e fr
om an
ana
lysi
s of d
ata
from
the
New
Hom
e Tr
ends
dat
abas
e.
The
final
num
bers
are
then
bal
ance
d to
the
Dis
trict
pro
ject
ion.
Fo
r alte
rnat
ive
scho
ols a
nd p
rogr
ams (
e.g.
, Sky
Val
ley
and
You
th R
e-en
gage
men
t) it
is a
ssum
ed th
at e
ach
scho
ol's
perc
enta
ge o
f the
cur
rent
enr
ollm
ent
at e
ach
grad
e (O
ct 2
006)
will
rem
ain
cons
tant
ove
r tim
e . T
his p
erce
ntag
e is
app
lied
to th
e D
istri
ct p
roje
ctio
n at
eac
h gr
ade
leve
l for
eac
h ye
ar o
f the
fo
reca
st to
est
imat
e th
e fu
ture
enr
ollm
ent a
t the
se sc
hool
s. A
s with
the
regu
lar s
choo
ls, a
n ad
just
men
t fac
tor i
s app
lied
to b
alan
ce th
e nu
mbe
rs to
the
dist
rict p
roje
ctio
n.
CHAPTER IV
WAC 392-341-025 (4) The ability of such district to provide capital funds by local effort.
2007 Monroe School District Study & Survey
4. ABILITY TO PROVIDE CAPITAL FUNDING SUPPORT Introduction The Monroe School District is currently a district that meets the statutory and fiscal requirements for eligibility to compete for state assistance for construction projects. This plan is based on the assumption that the district will continue to compete for state matching funds for new construction and if eligible, remodeling and new-in-lieu of modernization. In addition to state monies, capital projects will be financed through issuance of general obligation bonds and/or capital projects levies. Money collected through voluntary mitigation agreements and land dedicated for school sites through voluntary mitigation agreements will be included in the local share of capital projects, primarily portable purchases, portable relocation and refurbishing, and land acquisition. Bond History The Monroe School District passed a capital improvements bond for $10.8 million in 1987. Revenues from this bond were used to construct Frank Wagner Elementary, Chain Lake Elementary, additions to the now Park Place Middle School, new roofs and insulation at three schools, a playshed at Maltby Elementary, and other small projects. A bond was passed in 1996 for $24 million. It was used for the construction of a new high school and Hidden River Middle School, both of which opened in September 1999. It also funded several other minor projects. The District passed their latest bond issue in 2003 in the amount of $21,852,000. These funds were used for the construction of Fryelands Elementary, additions to Hidden River Middle School and Monroe High School, remodeling of Maltby Elementary School, new athletic facilities and technology upgrades. These projects were completed in 2005/2006.
Historical Bond Issue Results Date Total $ Request % Yes Validation Result May 2003 (classrooms, fields, tech) $21.852 M 60.29 yes passed May 2002 (schools, tech) $12.0 M 57.6 yes failed February 2002 (schools, tech) $12.0 M 56.1 yes failed April 1999 (stadium) $2.98 51.1 yes failed November 1996 Prop 2 (stadium) Prop 3 (pool) Prop 4 (auditorium) Prop 5 (cap projects)
$2.1 M $1.9 M $1.5 M $4.0 M
50.3 53.9 47.9 64.1
yes yes yes yes
failed failed failed failed
May 1996 Prop 1 (schools) Prop 2 (stadium) Prop 3 ( pool) Prop 4 (auditorium) Prop 5 (cap projects)
$24 M $2.1 M $1.9 M $1.5 M $4.0 M
70.5 55.4 57.7 53.4 64.1
yes yes yes yes yes
passed failed failed failed passed
May 1995 (schools, stadium) $38.5 M 45.1 yes failed February 1994 Prop 1 (schools) Prop 2 (upgrades)
$23.06 M $1.015 M
49.5 47.9
yes yes
failed failed
March 1993 Prop 1 (schools) Prop 2 (stadium)
$19.85 M $4.8 M
61.6 57.0
no no
failed failed
May 1991 (schools) $16.6 M 47.2 yes failed February 1991 (schools) $16.6 M 59.6 yes failed
4 01 capital funding.doc
2007 Monroe School District Study & Survey
State Match Funds State match funds come from the Common School Construction Fund. Bonds are sold on behalf of the fund then retired from revenues accruing predominantly from the sale of renewable resources (i.e. timber) from state school lands set aside by the Enabling Act of 1889. If these sources are insufficient to meet needs, the Legislature can appropriate general funds, or the State Board of Education can establish a moratorium on certain projects. School districts may qualify for state matching funds for specific capital projects based on a prioritization system. This system prioritizes allocation of available funding resources to school districts statewide based on several prioritization categories. Funds are then distributed to the districts based on a formula which calculates district assessed valuation per pupil relative to the whole state assessed valuation per pupil to establish the ratio of the total project cost to be paid by the state. State match funds can only be applied to school construction projects. Site acquisition and improvements are not eligible to receive matching funds from the state. Because availability of state match funds has not been able to keep pace with the rapid enrollment growth occurring in many of Washington’s school districts, matching funds from the state may not be received by a school district until two to three years after a school has been constructed or modernized. In such cases the District must “front fund” a project. That is, the District must finance the complete project with local funds and use the state matching share on future projects. Impact Fees Development impact fees have been adopted by a number of jurisdictions as a means of supplementing traditional funding sources for construction of public facilities needed to accommodate new development. School impact fees are generally collected by the permitting agency at the time building permits or certificate of occupancy are issued. Assessed Valuation Basic Assessed Valuation – May 31, 2007 $4,514,407,239 Five percent maximum Capital Outlay $225,720,362 Less Outstanding Bonds and Debt $35,307,079 Allowable Bonded Indebtedness $190,413,283 Refer to the following spreadsheet for detailed information related to the Debt Limit Calculations for the Monroe School District.
4 01 capital funding.doc
2007 Monroe School District Study & Survey
4 01 capital funding.doc
Six-Year Finance Plan (2007-2013) Of the approximately $225 million authorized, the remaining bonding authority of the district is $190 million. These funds will be issued as needed in compliance with the Six-Year Financial Plan for Capital Projects. The table below demonstrates how the Monroe School District intends to fund new construction and improvements to school facilities for the years 2009 through 2013. The financing components include funding through voter approved bonds and development impact fees collected under the State Growth Management Act, and state matching funds. In the event impact fees are not available for new developments due to legislative changes, bond issues placed before the electorate would have to be increased. Monroe School District anticipates qualifying for state matching funds for modernization and new construction projects.
Monroe School District Six-Year Finance Plan (2007-2013)
Estimated Project Cost by Year (in $millions)
Construction Project 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total Bond/ Levy
State Match Local
Construction Projects (Growth Related) Monroe MS Replacement CLE/SWE Classroom Additions FEW Core Land Purchase Transportation COOP Construction Projects (Non-Growth Related) System Upgrades Building Purchases Technology Old Owen Site Improvements ADA, Demo, Kitchen, Bus Areas Modernize Park Place MS
21.90 4.20 3.79 1.52
27.48 3.79 1.52 1.40 4.30
5.00 4.90 3.79 4.67 1.51 4.30 20.50
5.05 4.93 3.79 4.30 20.50
4.67 4.30
49.38 4.20 10.05 4.67 9.83 15.16 4.67 4.55 1.40 17.20 41.00
30.28 2.10 5.98 4.57 0.92 15.16 4.67 4.55 1.40 17.20 41.00
19.0 1.90 3.97 8.91
0.10 0.20 0.10 0.10
Sub-Totals 31.41 38.49 44.67 38.57 6.63 162.11 127.83 33.78 0.50
Not included in the above financial spending plan is a 3% bond management and administrative budget totaling $4.86 million and an overall bond contingency of 8% which totals $13.36 million. This will be spent throughout the duration of the plan as required to cover excess inflation, bid market adjustments, and unforeseen cost expenditures.
Debt Limit Calculation WorksheetMonroe School DistrictInformation Reflects Financial Data Prior to Bond Payment on 6/1/07May 31, 2007
1. ASSESSED VALUATIONA. Assessed Valuation $4,509,473,675B. Timber Tax Roll At 100% $4,933,564C. TOTAL ASSESSED VALUATION $4,514,407,239
WITHOUT VOTE WITH VOTE CAPITAL VOTED TOTAL LIMIT2. DEBT LIMIT PERCENTAGES 0.3750% 2.1250% 2.5000% 5.0000%
3. LEGAL DEBT LIMIT $16,929,027 $95,931,154 $112,860,181 $225,720,362
4. OUTSTANDING CURRENT DEBTA. 675 Matured Bonds Payable $0 $0 $0 $0
680 Bond Service Fees Payable $0 $0 $0 $0685 Matured Bond Interest Payable $0 $0 $986,495 $986,495
B. 241 Warrants Outstanding $1,837,771 $1,837,771601 Accounts Payable $0 $0602 Contracts Payable-Current $0 $0604 Accrued Interest Payable $0 $0605 Accrued Salaries $0 $0606 Revenue Anticipation Notes Payable $0 $0610 Payroll Deductions and Taxes Payable $0 $0635 Deferred Compensation Payable $0 $0637 Est. Unemployment Benefits Payable $0 $0638 Est Other Employee Benefits Payable $0 $0639 Est Industrial Insur Benefits Payable $0 $0650 Deposits $0 $0685 Arbitrage Rebate Payable $0 $0750 Deferred Revenue $21,725 $21,725
C. TOTAL OUTSTANDING CURRENT DEBT $1,859,496 $0 $986,495 $2,845,991
5. CASH, SECURITIES, RECEIVABLESA. 240 Cash on Deposit with County Treasurer-DSF $0 $553,580 $553,580
250 Cash with Fiscal Agent (DSF) $0 $0 $0450 Investments (DSF) $0 $2,483,835 $2,483,835
B. 200 Imprest Cash - GF, CPF, TVF $14,400 $14,400230 Cash on Hand - GF, CPF, TVF $0 $0240 Cash on Dep w/ County Treas-GF, CPF, TVF $1,938,210 $1,938,210330 Due From Other Gov't Units - GF, CPF, TVF $0 $0340 Accounts Receivable - GF, CPF, TVF $0 $0450 Investments - GF, CPF, TVF $2,918,877 $2,918,877455 Investments-Def Comp - GF, CPF, TVF $0 $0459 Self Insurance Deposits - GF, CPF, TVF $0 $0
C. TOTAL CASH, SECURITIES, & RECEIVABLES $4,871,487 $0 $3,037,415 $7,908,901
D. APPLIED TO CURRENT DEBT $1,859,496 $0 $986,495 $2,845,991
6. NET OUTSTANDING CURRENT DEBT $0 $0 $0 $0
7. LONG-TERM DEBTA. 690 Bonds Payable-Long Term $0 $0 $42,520,000 $42,520,000B. 603 Contracts Payable-Long Term $609,802 $609,802
607 Vacation Leave Payable $380,000 $380,000608 Sick Leave Payable $782,000 $782,000
C. LONG TERM DEBT $1,771,802 $0 $42,520,000 $44,291,802
Debt Limit Calculation WorksheetMonroe School DistrictInformation Reflects Financial Data Prior to Bond Payment on 6/1/07May 31, 2007DEBT LIMIT CALCULATION
8. CASH SECURITIES, RECEIVABLESA. 890 Unreserved Fund Balance $0 $3,037,415 $3,037,415B. Net Cash, Securities, Receivables (5c-5d) $3,011,990 $0 $2,050,920 $5,062,910C. 830 Reserved For Debt Service $0 $1,949,771
D. Smaller of two amounts, a,b, or c $0 $0 $2,050,920 $2,050,920
9. NET OUTSTANDING LONG-TERM DEBTLong-Term Debt less Net Cash (7c-8d) $1,771,802 $0 $40,469,080 $42,240,882
10. NET OUTSTANDING DEBTShort-term plust Long-Term (6+9) $1,771,802 $0 $40,469,080 $42,240,882
11. UNCOLLECTED TAXES310 Taxes Receivable $4,587,175 $0 $2,346,628 $6,933,803
12. DEBT MARGIN AVAILABLEDebt Limit - O/S Debt + Taxes (3-10+11) $19,744,400 $95,931,154 $74,737,729 $190,413,283
Debt Limit Calculation WorksheetMonroe School DistrictInformation Reflects Financial Data Prior to Bond Payment on 6/1/07May 31, 2007SUMMARY FOR REPORTING PURPOSTS
ASSESSSED VALUATION $4,514,407,239
WITHOUT VOTE WITH VOTE CAPITAL VOTED TOTAL LIMIT0.3750% 2.1250% 2.5000% 5.0000%
LEGAL DEBT LIMIT $16,929,027 $95,931,154 $112,860,181 $225,720,362
NET OUTSTANDING DEBT $1,771,802 $0 $40,469,080 $42,240,882
UNCOLLECTED TAXES $4,587,175 $0 $2,346,628 $6,933,803
DEBT MARGIN AVAILABLE $19,744,400 $95,931,154 $74,737,729 $190,413,283
CHAPTER V
WAC 392-341-025 (5) The existence of a school housing emergency.
2007 Monroe School District Study & Survey
5 01 Housing Emergency.doc
5. EXISTENCE OF A HOUSING EMERGENCY Because the Monroe School District currently has available bonding capacity, no housing emergency exists per the definition contained in WAC 392-343-115. None of the district’s schools have been damaged from catastrophes or natural disasters such as fires, earthquakes, wind damage or other related structural failures. All of the district’s current permanent and temporary facilities are fully operable.
CHAPTER VI
WAC 392-341-025 (6) The need to improve racial balance and/or avoid creation or aggravation of racial imbalance.
2007 Monroe School District Study & Survey
6. RACIAL BALANCE OR IMBALANCE The Monroe School District has long been committed to a policy of non-discrimination for all students and employees. The district’s Long-Range Facilities Plan will not adversely impact the racial balance within the district. Included in this chapter is a table identifying the October 1, 2007 enrollment at each school, the number of African-American, Asian, Native Americans, Hispanic and Caucasian students.
RA
CIA
L B
ALA
NC
EM
onro
e S
choo
l Dis
trict
As
of O
ctob
er 1
, 200
7
Afr
ican
-Am
eric
an
Per
cent
of
Tota
l S
choo
lA
sian
Per
cent
of
Tota
l S
choo
lN
ativ
e A
mer
ican
Per
cent
of
Tota
l S
choo
lH
ispa
nic
Per
cent
of
Tota
l S
choo
lH
awai
ian
or P
acifi
c Is
land
er
Per
cent
of
Tota
l S
choo
lM
ultir
acia
l
Per
cent
of
Tota
l S
choo
lC
auca
sian
Per
cent
of
Tota
l Sch
ool
Tota
l S
choo
l E
nrol
lmen
tSc
hool
Mal
eFe
mal
eTo
tal
Enr
ollm
ent
Mal
eFe
mal
eTo
tal
Enr
ollm
ent
Mal
eFe
mal
eTo
tal
Enr
ollm
ent
Mal
eFe
mal
eTo
tal
Enr
ollm
ent
Mal
eFe
mal
eTo
tal
Enr
ollm
ent
Mal
eFe
mal
eTo
tal
Enr
ollm
ent
Mal
eFe
mal
eTo
tal
Enr
ollm
ent
Cha
in L
ake
Ele
men
tary
21
30.
58%
147
214.
06%
43
71.
35%
1010
203.
87%
02
20.
39%
712
193.
68%
228
217
445
86.0
7%51
7Fr
ank
Wag
ner E
lem
enta
ry2
68
1.81
%8
412
2.72
%3
25
1.13
%77
9517
239
.00%
31
40.
91%
1011
214.
76%
114
105
219
49.6
6%44
1Fr
yela
nds
Ele
men
tary
34
71.
34%
1213
254.
78%
41
50.
96%
4139
8015
.30%
03
30.
57%
510
152.
87%
198
190
388
74.1
9%52
3M
altb
y E
lem
enta
ry1
23
0.70
%8
917
3.97
%2
24
0.93
%17
1128
6.54
%1
12
0.47
%4
59
2.10
%17
618
936
585
.28%
428
Mon
roe
Ele
men
tary
43
72.
33%
10
10.
33%
02
20.
66%
2953
8227
.24%
00
00.
00%
94
134.
32%
111
8519
665
.12%
301
Sal
em W
oods
Ele
men
tary
05
51.
09%
510
153.
26%
63
91.
96%
1910
296.
30%
01
10.
22%
51
61.
30%
195
200
395
85.8
7%46
0To
tal E
lem
enta
ry12
2133
1.24
%48
4391
3.41
%19
1332
1.20
%19
321
841
115
.39%
48
120.
45%
4043
833.
11%
1022
986
2008
75.2
1%26
70
Hid
den
Riv
er M
iddl
e S
choo
l2
02
0.68
%5
813
4.44
%2
13
1.02
%10
414
4.78
%0
00
0.00
%2
13
1.02
%12
912
925
888
.05%
293
Mon
roe
Mid
dle
Sch
ool
43
71.
43%
98
173.
47%
53
81.
63%
2527
5210
.61%
10
10.
20%
10
10.
20%
209
195
404
82.4
5%49
0P
ark
Pla
ce M
iddl
e S
choo
l1
78
1.33
%11
617
2.82
%6
17
1.16
%64
6512
921
.39%
00
00.
00%
20
20.
33%
217
223
440
72.9
7%60
3To
tal M
iddl
e Sc
hool
710
171.
23%
2522
473.
39%
135
181.
30%
9996
195
14.0
7%1
01
0.07
%5
16
0.43
%55
554
711
0279
.51%
1386
Mon
roe
Hig
h S
choo
l6
612
0.66
%31
3364
3.51
%16
723
1.26
%92
8517
79.
70%
02
20.
11%
27
90.
49%
768
769
1537
84.2
7%18
24To
tal H
igh
Scho
ol6
612
0.66
%31
3364
3.51
%16
723
1.26
%92
8517
79.
70%
02
20.
11%
27
90.
49%
768
769
1537
84.2
7%18
24
Lead
ers
in L
earn
ing
01
10.
64%
12
31.
91%
13
42.
55%
64
106.
37%
11
21.
27%
20
21.
27%
6174
135
85.9
9%15
7S
ky V
alle
y E
duca
tion
Cen
ter
13
40.
63%
26
81.
26%
34
71.
11%
1212
243.
79%
00
00.
00%
57
121.
90%
271
307
578
91.3
1%63
3O
ut o
f Dis
trict
Spe
cial
Ed
00
00.
00%
00
00.
00%
00
00.
00%
00
00.
00%
00
00.
00%
00
00.
00%
114
1510
0.00
%15
Mon
roe
Spe
cial
Ed
Pre
scho
ol0
00
0.00
%0
22
4.44
%0
00
0.00
%4
15
11.1
1%0
00
0.00
%0
00
0.00
%30
838
84.4
4%45
Tota
l Oth
ers
14
50.
59%
310
131.
53%
47
111.
29%
2217
394.
59%
11
20.
24%
77
141.
65%
373
393
766
90.1
2%85
0
Dis
tric
t Tot
als
2537
621.
04%
104
9820
23.
44%
4825
731.
25%
384
399
783
13.0
6%5
1015
0.21
%47
5198
1.34
%23
4523
0246
4779
.66%
6730
6 02
Rac
ial B
alan
ce.x
ls
CHAPTER VII
WAC 392-341-025 (7) The type and extent of new and/or additions to existing school facilities required, and the urgency of need for such facilities.
2007 Monroe School District Study & Survey
7. NEW AND ADDITIONS TO EXISTING SCHOOL FACILITIES AND THE URGENCY OF NEED FOR SUCH FACILITIES
ild classrooms and e forecast suggests dents, and 600 high ections, Prepared by 012 to 2020 than is
2012 based on the projections outlined in the tables below. The net result of this obs onroe School District will see continued growth (especially toward the north end of the Dist for two future elementary school sites to accommodate projected growth over the next 10-12 years. The District is in progress of obtaining one such
identify the projected housed/un-housed student population for each school and respective grad d for 2012. Over the next 6 years Monroe School District will incur approximately
roe area indicating a need for additional classroom entary school sites
which a to provide a net gain of 16 additional classrooms. These additions are estimated to ed. The excess capacity over the projected 2012
un-hou teriorating portables which a
ached site plans for
y require extensive . See attached site
er Elementary Campus (demolish 4 classroom annex at Frank Wagner Elementary East). The District owns a large contiguous piece of property which is currently occupied by Frank Wagner Elementary East, Frank Wagner Elementary West and District Maintenance Offices. The Maintenance Offices are located in an old deteriorating building which if removed will open up the site and allow for a number of options to add classrooms and other program support areas which may serve both schools. Providing additional classrooms to this site should take into consideration the poor quality of the four classroom annex at Frank Wagner Elementary East. Therefore adding additional classrooms should take into account that four existing classrooms should be demolished. See attached site plan which indicates possible new building location, bus loading/unloading expansion and parking expansions.
New Elementary Sites
As student enrollment continues to climb, Monroe School District must continue to buschool facilities in order to serve current and future students of the District. The long rangthat the District could see an additional 1,000 elementary students, 500 middle school stuschool students by 2020 (Monroe School District Enrollment, Demographic Trends and ProjWilliam L. (“Les”) Kendrick, May 2007). This indicates a higher percentage of growth from 2predicted for 2007 to
ervation is the Mrict) and should plan to obtain developable property
site off of Old Owen Road. Urgency of Need
1. Purchase two elementary sites in the North end of the District. Classroom Additions at Existing Sites
The tables belowe band as forecaste
-hou257 un sed elementary school students in the Monfacilities. The District has identified possible classroom additions at three existing elem
re anticipated provide additional capacity for 384 students when complet
sed enrollment amount could be used to eliminate one or two of the old and dere now in use.
Urgency of Need 2. Classroom addition to Chain Lake Elementary School.
Add a four classroom addition to the existing campus style facility. See attlocation options.
3. Classroom addition to Salem Woods Elementary School. Add a four classroom addition to the existing school. Increased enrollment masanitary waste system which is currently routed to a holding tank and pumpedplan for potential location options.
4. Twelve classroom addition at the Frank Wagn
7 01 Urgency of Need.doc 1
2007 Monroe School District Study & Survey
nta o – AEleme ry Scho l Capacity Monroe rea
School
Educational Program Capacity
Oct. 1, 2007 Enrollment
2007 Unh d ouse
Projected 2008
Enrollment
Projected 2010 rollment
Projected 2012
En2012 Projected
Enrollment Unhoused CLE 492 522 8 599 625 133 30 54FWE 272 340 6 416 437 165 68 35FWW 468 414 419 398 (70) (54) 441 FRE 496 503 7 547 554 542 46 SWE 468 478 10 465 455 451 (17) Totals 2,196 2,257 61 2,357 2,443 2,453 257
Elementary hool C y – M Area Sc apacit altby
School
Educational Program Capacity
Oct. 1, 2007 Enrollment
2007 Unhoused
Projected 2008
Enrollment
Projected 2010
Enrollment
Projected 2012
2012 Projected
Enrollment Unhoused MB ) 429 468 483 (81) E 564 418 (146Totals 564 418 (146) 429 468 483 (81)
* Monroe schools and Maltbervice. C
Po es
y sch ave b t is ogr related to bussing and student s ap o in rat
* are in p t* Refer to Chapter 1 for expanded program cap
mentary hool C y – En e Distri
ools hschools with pro m ca
een separa ed due to dhould be evaion.
tance in geluated sepa
aphic areaely. acity related t
not ded each area sacity culartabl inclu gra cal
acity calculations. Ele Sc apacit tir ct
School
Educational Program Capacity
Oct. 1, 2007 Enrollment
2007 Unh d ouse
Projected 2008
Enrollment
Projected 2010
Enrollment
Projected 2012 2012 Projected
Enrollment Unhoused CLE 492 522 30 548 599 625 133 FWE 272 340 68 356 416 437 165 FWW 468 414 (54) 441 419 398 (70) FRE 496 503 7 547 554 542 46 MBE 564 418 (146) 429 468 483 (81) SWE 468 478 10 465 455 451 (17) Totals 2,760 2,675 (85) 2,786 2,911 2,936 176
middle schools an les bel ge at add al capa ill not be necessary for e grad ls ove next si rs. T ger-r enro t forec uggests that by 2020,
significant growth is expected to occur within these upper grade levels. Future planning should be done to ed expansion of these facilities does not appear necessary at this time.
S ap on
The d high school tab ow sug st th ition city wthes e leve r the x yea he lon ange llmen ast s
account for this growth but plann
Middle chool C acity – M roe Area
School
Educational Program Capacity
Oct. 1, 2007 Enrollment
2 007 Unhoused
Projected 2008
Enrollment
Projected 2010
Enrollment
Projected 2012 2012 Projected
Enrollment Unhoused MNM 655 498 (157) 451 469 514 (141) PPM 935 577 (358) 681 713 788 (147) Totals 1,590 1,075 (515) 1,132 1,182 1,302 (288)
Middle School Capacity – Maltby Area
School
Educational Program Capacity
Oct. 1, 2007 Enrollment
2007 Unhoused
Projected 2008
Enrollment
Projected 2010
Enrollment
Projected 2012 2012 Projected
Enrollment Unhoused HRM 442 289 (153) 292 305 337 (105) Totals 442 289 (153) 292 305 337 (105)
7 01 Urgency of Need.doc 2
2007 Monroe School District Study & Survey
7 01 Urgency of Need.doc 3
eparated due to distance in geographic area related to bussing and student rea should be evaluated separately.
rogram capacity calculation. d program c cu
S ap ti t
* Monroe schools and Maltby schools have been sservice. Capacity related to schools within each a
* Portables are not included in p* apter 1 for expande Refer to Ch
chool C
apacity cal lations.
Middle acity – En re Distric
School
Educational Program Capacity
Oct. 1, 2007 Enrollment
2 007 Un d house
Projected 2008
Enrollment
Projected 2010
Enrollment
Projected 2012
Enrollment
2012 Projected Unhoused
HRM 442 289 (153) 292 305 337 (105) MNM 655 498 (157) 451 469 514 (141) PPM 935 577 (358) 681 713 788 (147) Totals 2,032 1,364 (668) 1,424 1,487 1,639 (393)
High Scho pacityol Ca
School
Educational Program Capacity
Oct. 1, 2007 Enrollment
2007 Unhoused
Projected 2008
Enrollment
Projected 2010
Enrollment
Projected 2012
Enrollment
2012 Projected Unhoused
MHS 1,718 1794 76 1,829 1,824 1,737 19 Leaders 182 191 95 183 1 9 195 1Totals 1,900 1985 85 2,024 2,019 1,920 20
* Portables are no program capacit ulation.* Refer to Chapter 1 for expanded program cap calcula
Sky Valley Education Center
t included in y calc acity tions.
School
Educational Program Capacity
Oct. 1, 2007 Enrollment
2007 Unhoused
Projected 2008
Enrollment
Projected 2010
Enrollment
Projected 2012
Enrollment
2012 Projected Unhoused
SVEC* 613 713 100 695 775 874 261 Totals 613 713 100 695 775 874 261
* Fluctuations on campus headcount due to program It should be noted that the State (OSPI) calculates school capacity by dividing gross square footage of a building by a standard square footage per student (i.e. 90 square feet per kindergarten through sixth grade student, 117 square feet per grade seven and grade eight student, 130 square feet per grade nine through grade twelve student, and 144 square feet per handicapped student). This method is used by the State as a simple approach to determining school capacity for purposes of allocating available State Match Funds to school districts for new school construction. However, this method is not an accurate reflection of the actual capacity required to accommodate the adopted educational program of each district. The projections above are based on Monroe School District’s educational program capacity forecasts.
CHAPTER VIII
WAC 392-341-025 (8) A cost/benefit analysis on the need to modernize and/or replace existing school facilities in order to meet the current educational needs and the current state building code.
2007 Monroe School District Study & Survey
8 01 Mod-Replacement.doc 1
8. COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS FOR MODERNIZATION OR REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING SCHOOL
FACILITIES Introduction The Capital Facilities Plan Developed by the Monroe School District is a six-year rolling-plan that is intended to be reviewed and revised each year for the succeeding six years. It provides an intermediate time frame perspective for capital facility decisions. Of the listed potential modernization or replacement projects, one of the District’s facilities is scheduled for replacement. Another project is scheduled for a modernization. Monroe Middle School
Determination for Replacement The District’s decision to replace Monroe Middle School is premised on deficiencies and special factors. The Monroe Middle School was built as a replacement for the original Monroe High School, which was mostly torn down at this site after the 1965 earthquake. The school was rebuilt at the original site and utilizes buildings that were part of the original school. The oldest building on site is the Vocational Building originally constructed in 1954. Other buildings were added in 1964, 1967, 1980 and 1990. This current campus-style school has surpassed its useful life and is in need of a great deal of facility and programmatic improvements. The facility is deteriorating at a rate which exceeds that of normal maintenance efforts and funding. In addition, the architecture restricts flexibility and reconfiguration of educational spaces thereby rendering them programmatically obsolete. The school is a candidate for a full modernization but studies have shown this may not be the best financially viable option based on cost and location of enrollment growth within the District. Full modernization of this facility is expected to reach 85% of the replacement cost, therefore replacement of this facility is recommended. Of the five buildings on campus, only the Gym/Cafeteria Building and the General Office Building is believed to be worth renovating. The other three buildings are recommended to be replaced due to age, deteriorating conditions, and restricted flexibility to reconfigure spaces to meet current educational needs. With the recommended replacement of the three buildings, it is possible that the General Office Building may also need to be replaced due to its central location on the small site which restricts potential design and relationship options. Three options for replacement were presented in a supplementary feasibility study (See report enclosed at the end of this Section). In summary, each option proposes advantages and challenges but all options focus on providing a quality facility conducive to middle school education. Depending on the option selected, the project cost for replacement of this facility with one of the same size is expected to range from $45 to $51.8 million. Option -1: Renovation and Partial Replacement of Existing Facility Modernization of the existing Monroe Middle School to meet current program standards will require extensive renovation of some of the existing buildings and full replacement of others. A project such as this must be evaluated and designed in a comprehensive manner to allow phasing and temporary accommodations to allow continued operation of the school. The complexity will add costs due to an extended construction timeline and accommodations for temporary housing and services to keep the facility operational.
To establish a preliminary cost opinion we have graphically depicted two design schemes (included in the Appendix as Attachment C & D of the report that follows) which indicate replacement and renovation of existing buildings. Utilizing Attachment D as the most comprehensive approach to achieving a quality facility, we assume the parking will be expanded and all buildings will be replaced except for the Gym/Cafeteria Building which is proposed in this scheme to be modernized.
2007 Monroe School District Study & Survey
8 01 Mod-Replacement.doc 2
Estimated cost for renovation and partial replacement of Monroe Middle School (delivery in 2011): New replacement building 51,320 s.f. x $368 = $18,885,760 Renovation of Gym/Cafeteria 33,677 s.f. x $275 = $9,261,175 Temporary accommodations, demolition, phasing $3,000,000 Total Estimated Construction Budget $31,146,935 Soft Costs @ 30% $ 9,344,081 Subtotal $40,491,016 Bond Management/Administration (3%) $ 1,214,730 Subtotal $41,705,746 Project Contingency (8%) $ 3,336,460
Total Estimated Project Budget $45,042,206
Option 2 – New Middle School on Auxiliary Athletic Complex Property or other District Owned Site This option explores the possibility of constructing a new middle school on the Auxiliary Athletic Complex Property located west of the existing Monroe Middle School directly across Kelsey Street. The property currently contains the former high school football and track facility and is adjacent to the current District baseball and softball competition fields. Both sites total almost 12 acres. If the existing baseball and softball practice fields at Monroe High School were developed into competition fields, the District would have the full 12 acres to develop as a potential new middle school site. Considering a new 2-story middle school and associated parking located where the existing baseball/softball fields are and the track and football field reconditioned, this site is a viable option for a new middle school facility. Positive Features:
" Development of existing Monroe School District property. " New replacement project can be constructed without disruption of Monroe Middle School program. " Site is flat and has a high percentage of useable area. " Football field and track needs only minor improvements
Negative Features:
" Close location to Park Place Middle School and not in an area of the district which is experiencing growth.
" Limited site area will not allow baseball or softball fields unless these facilities are developed on the existing Monroe Middle School site once the new replacement school is constructed.
Cost:
Estimated project cost for new middle school on the Auxiliary Athletic Complex property:
New Middle School 85,000 s.f. x $368 = $31,280,000 MHS Competition Fields $2,160,000 Demolition of MMS and development of grass playfields to serve new facility $2,430,000
Total Estimated Construction Budget $35,870,000 Soft Costs @ 30% $10,761,000 Subtotal $46,631,000 Bond Management/Administration (3%) $ 1,398,930 Subtotal $48,029,930 Project Contingency (8%) $ 3,842,395
Total Estimated Project Budget $51,872,325
2007 Monroe School District Study & Survey
8 01 Mod-Replacement.doc 3
Option 3 – New Middle School on Chain Lake Property The District owns approximately 14 acres of undeveloped land within a contiguous parcel shared by Chain Lake Elementary School. Of the 14 undeveloped acres, approximately 40 percent is encumbered by critical areas (wetland & buffer). The other obstacle to development of this site is that it is currently outside the Urban Growth Area (UGA) and Snohomish County has a policy of prohibiting the extension of sewer service outside of the designated UGA. Chain Lake Elementary currently pumps sewage from a holding tank, a new middle school will likely need to do the same until such time as this area is adopted into the UGA.
As shown on Attachment E in the Appendix of the report that follows, there appears to be inadequate room to develop a new middle school and associated parking, fields, and stormwater detention on the undeveloped southeast portion of the existing site. The undeveloped portion of the site can accommodate a middle school and parking but unless the District pursues purchase of adjacent property, playfield use would need to be shared with the elementary school. Combined use of the small playfield area is not a desirable alternative. Positive Features:
" Development of existing Monroe School District property. " Middle School located in an area of student population growth.
Negative Features:
" Sewer not available. Must pump from a holding tank. " Limited sports field area. Must purchase additional property or share with Chain Lake Elementary.
Cost: Estimated project cost for new middle school on Chain Lake Property (without sports fields):
New Middle School 85,000 sf x $368 = $31,280,000 Allowance for conversion of existing MMS into other use $3,250,000
Total Estimated Construction Budget $34,530,000 Soft Costs @ 30% $10,359,000 Subtotal $44,889,000 Bond Management/Administration (3%) $ 1,346,670 Subtotal $46,235,670 Project Contingency (8%) $ 3,698,854
Total Estimated Project Budget $49,934,524
2007 Monroe School District Study & Survey
8 01 Mod-Replacement.doc 4
Park Place Middle School
Determination for Renovation Park Place Middle School is a prime candidate for renovation and upgrades. It is located in a prime location to serve the community of Monroe and occupies a sufficiently sized 19.4-acre site. The campus facility is in fair condition relative to its past 33 years of use. It is believed that Monroe School District will benefit by investing funds to extend the life of this facility.
The following categories were developed for use by the Monroe School District in evaluation of several options related to the scope of work for Park Place Middle School. Repair of deteriorated finishes, replacement of failing mechanical and electrical systems, and structural life-safety corrections should be implemented at a minimum. These items are included under the Priority 1 Recommendations. Priority 2 Recommendations expand the scope to include program enhancements and functional relationships that are intended to make the school function better educationally. Finally, Priority 3 Recommendations include exterior building improvements which would offer such things as increased natural lighting into educational spaces, a clear and identifiable main entry, over-framing of the existing low sloped roof to provide scale, interest, and an aesthetic component to the campus while at the same time providing a functional element for enclosing and routing of mechanical and electrical systems thereby reducing future maintenance burdens. The cost opinions that follow are provided to assist the District in establishing a financially viable scope of modernization for this facility.
Recommendations – Priority 1 The Priority 1 recommendations suggest correction of observed life safety issues and scope of improvements focused on extending the facilities functional life. This includes seismic and structural upgrades and replacement of mechanical and electrical systems that are likely to fail and need replacement in the immediate future. This category also includes technology infrastructure improvements and a minimum amount of miscellaneous architectural improvements related to replacement of finishes and maintenance driven items. This proposed scope of work is intended to extend the life of the facility for another 30 years but only includes minimal improvements to the programmatic and educational aspect of the facility.
Seismic & Structural Upgrades Structural Improvements including patching 109,912 s.f. x $20.00 = $ 2,198,240 General Contractor OH&P @ 8% $ 175,859 Subtotal Structural Upgrades $2,374,099 Site Improvements Demo, Earthwork, Allowance $ 485,000 Landscaping Allowance $ 65,000 Curbs, Sidewalks & Paving Allowance $ 485,000 Site Utilities – Power, water, gas Allowance $ 405,000 Storm Drainage, Water Quality Allowance $ 390,000 Site Lighting Allowance $ 48,000 Misc. Site Amenities Allowance $ 240,000 General Contractor OH&P @ 8% $ 169,440 Subtotal Site Improvements $2,287,440 Interior Finishes Upgrades Demolition Allowance $ 100,000 Flooring Allowance $ 240,000 Casework Allowance $ 430,000 Interior Painting, Wallcovering Allowance $ 189,000 Walls Allowance $ 243,000 Ceilings Allowance $ 265,000 Wood & HM Doors Allowance $ 125,000 Door Hardware Allowance $ 140,000 General Contractor OH&P @ 8% $ 138,560 Subtotal Interior Finishes $1,870,560
2007 Monroe School District Study & Survey
8 01 Mod-Replacement.doc 5
Mechanical Systems Replacement Mobilization, permits, submittals 109,912 s.f. x $ .45 = $ 49,460 Demolition 89,290 s.f. x $ .30 = $ 26,787 HVAC Replacement (except Bldg. F& E 89,290 s.f x $48.00 = $4,285,920 Plumbing (all piping & 75% of fixtures) 89,290 s.f. x $12.25 = $1,093,803 Controls at Bldg. F (excluded above) 20,622 s.f. x $ 5.50 = $ 113,421 Fire Sprinklers 109,912 s.f. x $ 3.40 = $ 373,701 General Contractor OH&P @ 8% $ 475,447 Subtotal Mechanical $6,418,539 Electrical Systems Replacement Mobilization, permits, submittals 109,912 s.f. x $ .45 = $ 49,460 Demolition 89,290 s.f. x $ .30 = $ 26,787 Power 89,290 s.f x $14.60 = $1,303,634 Lighting 89,290 s.f. x $ 7.80 = $ 696,462 Low Voltage 109,912 s.f. x $ 7.60 = $ 835,331 General Contractor OH&P @ 8% $ 232,934 Subtotal Electrical $3,144,608
Priority 1 - Total Estimated Construction Cost $16,095,246 Soft Costs @30% $4,828,574
Subtotal $20,923,820 Bond Management & Administration @ 3% $627,715
Subtotal $21,551,535 Project Contingency @ 8% $1,724,123
Total Estimated Project Cost for Priority 1 $23,275,658
The total estimated project amount for Priority 1 equals approximately 40% of the replacement cost.
Priority 2 – Programmatic Enhancements Of high importance to the overall education of the students, is the evaluation of programmatic issues related to classroom arrangement, functional relationships and provision of proper educational delivery tools. This involves further research and involvement of staff and community to determine prioritization of such things as new computer labs, enhancement of the commons/cafeteria, general office reconfiguration, science classroom upgrades, and other required programmatic changes.
It is recommended that the District consider reconfiguration and upgrades of educational spaces to bring this facility up to current middle school standards. Budgeting for programmatic enhancements is not as precise as the preceding category dealing with identifiable life safety and system replacement items. There are numerous elective possibilities that require study and input. Program deficiencies, options, improvements, and possibilities are typically addressed as part of an architectural programming exercise produced by committee effort. As such, we can only provide a reasonable budget to work with and task a planning committee with prioritization of items to fit within the selected budget. Experience has proven that significant programmatic upgrades can be added to the project with an additional 15% of the project replacement cost added to the scope of work identified in Priority 1. This recommends adding another $8,773,816 to the project to accomplish Priority 2.
Estimated budget to accomplish Priority 2 adds - $8,773,816.
2007 Monroe School District Study & Survey
8 01 Mod-Replacement.doc 6
Priority 3 – Architectural Enhancements Utilizing a similar philosophy for budgeting architectural enhancements for such things as a new entry, sloped roof, new window configuration, covered playshed, or a multitude of other options which will add to the function and overall character of the facility we will again suggest a budget to work with during development of the project’s priorities. We believe that investing up to 70% of the buildings replacement cost into extension of its life is a reasonable and prudent investment. This would provide the District, students and a community with a “like-new” facility and save 30% of the cost of a new facility. Adding the described architectural enhancements to the project will increase the recommended project budget another 15% as follows:
Estimated budget to accomplish Priority 3 adds - $8,895,000
It is evident that the existing facility is in need of renovation and upgrades. Maintenance efforts and dollars will continue to be spent on this facility in increasing amounts every year. The instructional quality will continue to be limited by the environment in which it is delivered. Existing life safety issues, energy inefficiencies, and code issues will continue to exist until significant action is taken to correct these deficiencies. To assist the District with the determination of the scope of work required at this facility recommendations are divided into three categories and an appropriate budget for each was established as summarized below:
Priority 1 – Life Safety & Systems Replacements $23.3 million Priority 2 – Programmatic Enhancements $ 8.8 million Priority 3 – Architectural Enhancements $ 8.9 million
Total Modernization Budget $41.0 million
2007 Facilities Assessment Monroe Middle School
September 2007
Compiled by Hutteball & Oremus Architecture
Table of Contents
1.0 Executive Summary1.1 Introduction1.2 Methodology1.3 Summary of Conclusions
2.0 Background2.1 Overview of Monroe School District2.2 Middle School Enrollment2.3 Middle School Capacity2.4 Middle School Program Assessment
3.0 Project Description3.1 Location3.2 Construction History
4.0 Site Improvements4.1 Site Description4.2 Site Elements
5.0 Facility Description5.1 Architectural5.1.1 General5.1.2 Classroom/Library Building5.1.3 Science Building5.1.4 Gym/Cafeteria Building5.1.5 Vocational Building5.1.6 Administration Building
6.0 Engineering Requirements6.1 Structural Engineering Requirements6.2 Mechanical Engineering Requirements6.3 Electrical Engineering Requirements
7.0 Summary of Observations & Recommendations
8.0 Cost Opinions/Options8.1 Replacement Cost8.2 Option 1 – Renovation and Partial Replacement of Existing Facility8.3 Option 2 – New Middle School on Auxiliary Athletic Complex Property8.4 Option 3 – New Middle School on Chain Lake Property
9.0 Conclusion
Appendix Attachments A - E Table of Contents
Monroe School District
Monroe Middle School Facility Assessment
Hutteball & Oremus Architecture
1.0 Executive Summary
1.1 Introduction
This Facility Assessment Report details the current condition of Monroe Middle School relative to current codes, building systems and materials, and the ability of site and buildings to accommodate the District’s middle school edu-cational program. The existing buildings are in critical need of structural seismic upgrades, life safety improvements, and overall renovation. The level of deterioration at this facility is the most severe of any school within the District. Monroe Middle School is deteriorating at a rate which exceeds that of normal maintenance efforts and funding. In addition, arrangement of the existing educational spaces and the associated structural components of the original construction restrict flexibility and reconfiguration of educational spaces thereby rendering them programmatically obsolete.
It is evident that this facility needs extensive improvements in order to continue to serve the students and community of Monroe School District. The focus of this study is to evaluate the financial viability of a full modernization to the existing facility or if a replacement (new facility) will best serve the future interests of the Monroe School District.
1.2 Methodology
Hutteball & Oremus Architecture, Inc., along with Coughlin Porter Lundeen, structural engineers, and Hargis Engi-neers, mechanical and electrical engineers were asked by Monroe School District to evaluate the existing conditions of Monroe Middle School. This investigation involved the following components of work:
> Review of the existing facility and current Capital Facilities Plan.> Analysis of program accommodations for middle school grade band.> Assessment of engineering systems for civil, structural, mechanical and electrical.> Review of available drawings.> Study of alternative building locations and additions.> Review of enrollment growth projections.> Development of cost analysis options.
1.3 Summary of Conclusions
Upon completion of the building assessment process, three options were explored. Option 1 was a partial replace-ment and modernization of the school on its existing site at a recommended probable project budget of $45,042,206. Option 2 was to relocate the school to the Auxiliary Athletic Complex Property across the street and upgrade the baseball and softball fields at the Monroe High School to competition fields at a recommended probable construction budget of $51,872,325. Option 3 was to replace the school with a new school on the Chain Lake Property or other District-owned site at a recommended probable project budget of $49,934,524. Each option proposes advantages and challenges as further described within this report, but all options focus on providing a quality facility conducive to middle school education.
Executive Summary 1
Monroe School District
Monroe Middle School Facility Assessment
Hutteball & Oremus Architecture
2.0 Background
2.1 Overview of Monroe School District Monroe School District is uniquely located in the southeastern portion of Snohomish County and covers approximate-ly 82 square miles. The Skykomish and Snoqualmie Rivers join to form the Snohomish River in the center of the Dis-trict. The topography includes flood plains to rolling hills. The major east-west road is U.S. Highway 2, leading from Everett to Stevens Pass and Eastern Washington. The major link to Bothell, Seattle, and the east side of the County is SR-522, leading from Monroe to Woodinville. SR-203 is a major traffic link between Monroe, Duvall, Carnation and the Redmond/Bellevue areas.
The District currently serves a student population of 6,795 (October 1, 2006) with six elementary schools, three middle schools, and one high school. “Leaders in Learning”, an individualized secondary program, is also offered in a facility owned by the District but not located in an existing school. Sky Valley Education Center, an individualized program for students in grades K-12 who otherwise would be home schooled, is housed in leased facilities. Summit School is a cooperative program with Snohomish and Sultan School Districts to offer a highly specialized program for students in grades 7-12 and is also housed in leased facilities. Sky Valley Education Center, Summit School and Leaders in Learning student enrollment figures are included in both the District and OSPI figures.
Elementary schools provide educational programs for students in kindergarten through grade five. Middle schools serve grades six through eight and the high school, grades nine through twelve. Leaders in Learning serve grades nine through twelve.
2.2 Middle School Enrollment
A significant issue faces the Monroe School District in terms of providing classroom capacity to accommodate pro-jected enrollment demands due to the rate of student growth. Enrollment projections for the District indicate con-tinued growth. Accommodating this growth within the District’s adopted educational program will require expansion of selected existing facilities, construction of new facilities on acquired sites, and temporary housing of students in portables until such time as permanent facilities can be provided.
Enrollment in the Monroe School District has been increasing steadily since the 1980’s. This trend is partially due to an increase in births in the 1980’s and 1990’s as the children of baby boomers entered the schools. It is also due to continued housing and population growth in Snohomish County. The medium range enrollment projection for Monroe School District is expected to increase from today’s enrollment of 6,795 to 7,500 students in 2010 and to more than 9,100 students by 2020. The long range forecast suggests that the District could see an additional 1,000 elemen-tary students, approximately 500 more middle school students, and an increase in high school enrollment of over 600 students by 2020.
School facility and student capacity needs are dictated by the types and amounts of space required to accommodate the District’s adopted educational program. The educational program standards which typically drive facility space needs include grade configuration, optimum facility size, class size, educational program offerings, classroom utiliza-tion and scheduling requirements, and use of relocatable classroom facilities (portables).
Background 2
Monroe School District
Monroe Middle School Facility Assessment
Hutteball & Oremus Architecture
2.0 Background
The District’s educational program standards which directly affect school capacity at the middle school level are out-lined below.
> Class size for middle school grades should not exceed 28 students.> As a result of scheduling conflicts for student programs, the need for specialized rooms for certain programs, and the need for teachers to have work space during planning periods, it is not possible to achieve 100% utilization of all regular teaching stations throughout the day.> Special Education for students will be provided in a self-contained classroom.> Identified students will also be provided other nontraditional educational opportunities in classrooms desig- nated as follows: Resource Rooms (i.e. computer labs, study rooms); Special Education Classrooms; and Program Specific Classrooms (i.e. music, drama, art, science, family and consumer science, physical education, technology education).> Desired design capacity for new middle schools is 750 students. However, actual capacity of individual schools may vary depending on the educational programs offered and/or geographic area served.
Portables are used as interim classroom space to house students until construction of permanent classroom facilities takes place. The Monroe School District currently uses 30 portables at various school sites throughout the District to provide additional interim capacity; seven of these portables are currently located at the middle school level. These portables will continue to be used and moved from site to site in order to meet instructional needs and temporarily house students as necessary until permanent facilities are constructed or service areas are adjusted.
2.3 Middle School Capacity
The table below is a summarization of information taken from “Monroe School District Enrollment, Demographic Trends and Projections prepared by William L. (“Les”) Kendrick, dated May of 2007. The information presented in that report suggests that additional capacity will not be necessary for grade levels 6-8 over the next six years. As indicat-ed in the table below, it is projected that both Monroe area middle schools will be under capacity by 288 students in the year 2012. The longer-range enrollment forecast however suggests that by 2020, significant growth is expected to occur within these grade levels. Future planning should be done to account for this growth but expansion of these facilities to accommodate increased enrollment does not appear necessary at this time.
Middle School Capacity – Monroe Area
School Educational Program Capacity
Oct. 1, 2006 Enrollment
2006 Unhoused
Projected 2008Enrollment
Projected 2010 Enrollment
Projected 2012 Enrollment
2012 Projected Unhoused
MNM 655 495 (160) 451 469 514 (141)
PPM 935 603 (332) 681 713 788 (147)
Totals 1,590 1,098 (492) 1,132 1,182 1,302 (288)
Background 3
Monroe School District
Monroe Middle School Facility Assessment
Hutteball & Oremus Architecture
2.0 Background
Middle School Capacity – Maltby Area
School Educational Program Capacity
Oct. 1, 2006 Enrollment
2006 Unhoused
Projected 2008 Enrollment
Projected 2010 Enrollment
Projected 2012 Enrollment
2012 Projected Unhoused
HRM 442 293 (149) 292 305 337 (105)
Totals 442 293 (149) 292 305 337 (105)
* Monroe schools and Maltby schools have been separated due to distance in geographic area related to busing and student service. Capacity related to schools within each area should be evaluated separately.* Portables are not included in program capacity calculation.* The projections above are based on Monroe School District’s educational program capacity forecasts.* Educational Program Capacity is calculated by number of classrooms (including music and p.e.) times 28 students per class room at 83% room utilization.
2.4 Middle School Program Assessment
A significant challenge for this facility due to age, configuration, and construction type is its ability to support the District’s current instructional methods and facilitate curriculum objectives. Systems such as inadequate electrical outlets, minimal technology, and uncomfortable environments can be changed with a renovation but relationships, room configurations and limited site availability at Monroe Middle School provide some significant and costly obsta-cles, which many times results in a total building replacement.
Background 4
Monroe School District
Monroe Middle School Facility Assessment
Hutteball & Oremus Architecture
3.0 Project Description
3.1 Location
Monroe Middle School is one of the District’s three middle schools and is located near downtown Monroe. This facility’s feeder schools are Salem Woods Elementary and Monroe Elementary. Less than one-half mile away is Park Place Middle School which serves the other half of the eastern portion of the District. The school is surrounded by single-family residential homes on all sides.
The entrance to Monroe Middle School is from the south via N. Sams Street or Short Columbia Street. The school site is bordered on the west by Kelsey Street and on the north by W. Hill Street.
The site is located within the governing jurisdiction of the City of Monroe.
The school address is:
Monroe Middle School351 Short Columbia StreetMonroe, Washington 98272-1802.
3.2 Construction History
Monroe Middle School was built as a replacement for the original Monroe High School, which was mostly torn down at this site after the 1965 earthquake. The school was rebuilt at the original site and utilizes buildings that were part of the original Monroe High School Complex. The oldest building on site is the Vocational Building which was originally constructed in 1954 with an addition added in 1981. The Science Building was constructed in 1964, with two additions added in 1967. The Classroom/Library building, Physical Education and Administration buildings were constructed in 1967. An Auxiliary Gym and Lunchroom addition was added to the PE building in 1980. The entire facility was re-roofed in 1989. An addition to the Administration building was added in 1990.
Refer to Attachment A in the Appendix for construction dates of the buildings and additions.
Project Description 5
Monroe School District
Monroe Middle School Facility Assessment
Hutteball & Oremus Architecture
4.0 Site Improvements4.1 Site Description
Monroe Middle School is composed of five buildings connected by covered walks on a level 5.28-acre site. The existing site is fully developed with buildings, walks, and parking except for a small area to the east which is occupied by two portable classrooms and includes a small grass play area. The existing buildings are arranged in an appropri-ate configuration to promote ease of accessibility and prominence. The Administration Building is well situated at the front of the school providing good supervision and a formal entry to the campus, the library is central to the cam-pus and located within easy access of the parking lot for evening community use. The gym is related appropriately for access to the playfields except for P.E., which requires students to cross Kelsey Street for access to the play-fields. The entire site is surrounded by a 6-foot high chain link fence with gated access to the north, south and west. The main entry to the site has large swinging chain link gate, which can secure the entire site. Concrete walkways connect the five buildings.
4.2 Site Elements
ParkingExisting on-site parking is asphalt and supports approximately 98 vehicular spaces. Of this total, there are three accessible (handicap) parking spaces, two of which meet current code requirements. Five spaces are designated as visitor parking. The asphalt is in satisfactory condition and the parking lot is minimally illuminated by high intensity discharge (HID) lighting.
The City of Monroe Zoning Code off-street parking requirements are:
> 1.5 spaces for each staff member; plus> 1 space for every 4 persons based on occupancy of public assembly areas.> Adjacent property may be developed for parking as long as it is under the same ownership and is not more than 300 feet from the perimeter of the site.
Current staffing is estimated at 75. At 1.5 spaces per staff member - 113 parking spaces are required.
The public assembly areas per the City of Monroe Planning Department include all three gymnasiums and do not include the Library or Cafeteria. The occupancy load factor for the gymnasiums is calculated per the 2003 Interna-tional Building Code as follows:
Main Gym 10,130 s.f. Practice Gym 4,095 s.f. Aux. Gym 2,380 s.f.
Total 16,605 s.f. 16,605 s.f. / 15 s.f. per person = 1,107 Occupants
At 1 parking space per 4 occupants - 277 parking spaces are required.
Site Improvements 6
Monroe School District
Monroe Middle School Facility Assessment
Hutteball & Oremus Architecture
4.0 Site Improvements
Parking (continued)In summary, the current City of Monroe Zoning Code requires 390 (113+277) off-street parking spaces to serve the existing facility. If the practice gym and auxiliary gym is converted into other uses (i.e. cafeteria, kitchen, classrooms), the City required parking count could be reduced by approximately 108 parking spaces for a total of 282 required spaces.
If the School District believes the existing 98 spaces and off-site parking have historically provided sufficient capac-ity to serve the existing facility, further discussions with the City to relax this requirement or pursuit of a variance may be in order.
Based on the existing 98 spaces, the ADA Code requires 4 accessible stalls; one of which is to be van accessible. Currently 3 standard accessible stalls are designated (one space needs minor modifications to meet current code requirements) and no van accessible stalls are provided. If 390 parking spaces are provided, 8 of these spaces are required to be accessible with one designated as van accessible.
Auto/Bus CirculationCars enter though the main entry and immediately park in the main on-site parking lot, or proceed to the drop/off and pick-up area. The student loading and unloading area is small and regularly becomes congested during peak times. As a result, many parents use Kelsey Street to drop off or pick up students resulting in a less than desirable situation for monitoring student safety as they access the site. Due to lack of auto drop-off and pick-up area, the buses load and unload students at the back of the school on the shoulder of W. Hill Street. This provides a good separation of buses and cars at peak times but also causes supervision issues with students entering from the rear of the site. Correction of these issues will require additional property acquisition or replacement of selected building(s) with a 2-story facility to free up site area.
DrainageThe site collects surface stormwater and roof drainage through catch basins and PVC pipes that drain to on-site infiltration areas. The stormwater is infiltrated back into the ground through perforated PVC pipe encased in a cross section of 4-foot wide by 4-foot deep gravel dry wells of varying lengths.
Any major improvements to the site will require conformance to the current stormwater manual. This generally in-cludes addition of water quality treatment through grass-lined swales or a cartridge filter system. The treated water then can be discharged to an underground filtration system similar to the existing system but up-sized to current code.
PavingThe existing asphalt paving at the parking lot was installed in 1990 and consists of 2” of asphalt over 4” of ATB. The paving appears to be in satisfactory condition. New striping was painted during the summer of 2007. Other asphalt surfaces at the paved play area and throughout the campus courtyards are in bad condition. Paving is not level, cracks have formed, and the surface is deteriorating.
Concrete sidewalks around the buildings are in good condition. The courtyard concrete paving however is in bad condition. Surface spalling and cracking was noted at numerous locations and large areas are in need of replace-ment. Paved emergency access lanes do not currently exist around the campus. Specific solutions to correct this deficiency will need to be addressed with the City as part of any major renovation. Site Improvements 7
Monroe School District
Monroe Middle School Facility Assessment
Hutteball & Oremus Architecture
4.0 Site ImprovementsSite UtilitiesElectrical - Site is served by underground power originating from a transformer located at the southeast corner of the site providing 3000 amp, 277/480 volt, three-phase, four wire service.
Gas – Site is served by gas. Metered gas enters the site from W. Hill Street at the north side of the site.
Water – The City of Monroe provides good water supply and pressure. It is anticipated that any new water service required by Monroe Middle School can be accommodated by the existing water system in Kelsey Street.
Sanitary Sewer – Sanitary sewer is available at this site. It is anticipated that any new connections necessary can be made to the City’s system located in the streets around the Monroe Middle School property. LandscapingThe existing site is Zoned “Public Service and Park Zone” (PS). The City of Monroe Zoning Code requires “at least ten-percent of the site to be landscaped for any use. Along common borders, with any use other than parks, open space and buffers shall be installed with landscaping.” Buffer requirements are defined in the code and vary depend-ing on adjacent property uses. Current buffer landscaping is non-existent and will need to be added around the property to meet current code.
Landscaping at the existing parking lot is minimal. The current Zoning Code requires five percent of the parking area to be landscaped. It is assumed that the City will require additional landscaping islands in the parking lot to meet the five-percent requirement. This will reduce available parking spaces which are already significantly less than the requirements of the current City Code.
Ornamental landscaping around the site is minimal and consists of a combination of plants, trees and lawn. The site does not have landscape irrigation except for a small area of lawns/shrub beds at the main entry. Irrigation of planted areas around the campus and the grass playfield area will help preserve and protect growth of these areas, reduce maintenance efforts, and provide more utilization of the limited amount of grass playfield area.
Site AccessibilityThe individual buildings are connected by concrete walkways. All walkways appear to be in satisfactory condition except for the central courtyard that is showing signs of deterioration. The entire campus is accessible via walkways and ramps. Exterior entrances to the buildings should be retrofitted with door hardware, which complies with the cur-rent ADA code. Many of the exterior doors swing out into the pedestrian travel way presenting a safety issue. One set of restrooms located at the Classroom Building was remodeled in 2000 and conforms to current ADA stan-dards. Consideration should be given to renovation of all other restroom facilities for conformance to current code.
The main entrance to the Science building is not handicap accessible. Building access for the handicapped is gained through a side door of the facility.
There is no handicap accessibility at W. Hill Street where the buses load and unload.
Site Improvements 8
Monroe School District
Monroe Middle School Facility Assessment
Hutteball & Oremus Architecture
4.0 Site ImprovementsSite ElementsA number of benches, bike racks and trash receptacles exist on the current site. All appear to be in satisfactory condition and appropriately placed.
Pedestrian and security exterior lighting is minimal and antiquated throughout this campus-style complex. New and appropriately located lighting is recommended for safety and security.
The paved play area is located directly adjacent to at least six classrooms. Recess noise disrupts the classrooms during recess periods. Equipment at the paved play area is limited to six basketball hoops, three tether ball poles, and four four-square courts. Basketball hoops and backstops are in poor condition. There is no covered play area. Consideration should be given to enlargement of the paved play surface and maximum efficiency of desired play equipment. The addition of a covered play area should be considered.
Two portables stand at the east side of the site near the grass playfield. These portables appear to be at least 40-years old and it is doubtful they can be relocated to another site if needed.
Site Improvements 9
Monroe School District
Monroe Middle School Facility Assessment
Hutteball & Oremus Architecture
5.0 Facility Description5.1 Architectural
5.1.1 General The campus consists of five, one-story buildings containing a total of 84,997 square feet distributed as follows:
Classroom/Library Building 25,741 s.f. Science Building 11,182 s.f. Administration Building 3,837 s.f. Gym Building 33,677 s.f. Vocational Building 10,560 s.f.
Total 84,997 s.f. Two occupied portable classroom buildings are located on-site for overflow classroom space.
Refer to Attachment B in the Appendix for an existing campus site plan.
Exterior Although the ages of the buildings vary, they are similarly constructed. All have conventional spread and strip foot-ings with a concrete slab on grade ground floor. Exterior walls consist of solid masonry and masonry veneer except for the Vocational building which has some metal siding. The masonry appears to be in good condition except for signs of effervescence, which indicates moisture penetration. A majority of the fascia and soffits are wood, which requires continued maintenance of painting. New roofing and roof insulation was added to all buildings in 1989. The roofing is now 80% through its expected life. Exterior doors and frames are hollow metal and most are in satisfac-tory condition. Exterior door hardware is old, mismatched, and in need of replacement throughout to conform to ADA and District standards. Windows (except for the Administration Building) are single-pane, non-insulated, with alumi-num frames which do not comply with current energy code requirements.
InteriorThe interior walls are primarily a combination of reinforced masonry, reinforced brick, reinforced concrete, and wood studs. Finishes include painted and integral colored masonry, plaster, sheetrock, and wood paneling.
Doors are predominately wood in hollow metal frames. Relites are single glazed in hollow metal frames. Door hard-ware is mixed and most does not comply with ADA standards.
Floor finishes include carpet, vinyl tile, and rubber tile over vinyl asbestos tile. The main gym has a wood floor and the auxiliary gyms have cushion vinyl floors. Much of the flooring (especially in the Classroom/Library Building) is worn and has surpassed its useful life.
Ceilings consist of suspended acoustical panels, glue-on acoustical ceiling tiles, exposed structural decking, and gypsum board.
Various types and finishes of casework, chalkboards, markerboards, toilet accessories, etc. exist throughout the facili-ty. Many of these items are in a state of disrepair due to age and require continual maintenance or must be replaced.
Facility Description 10
Monroe School District
Monroe Middle School Facility Assessment
Hutteball & Oremus Architecture
5.0 Facility DescriptionHazardous MaterialsThe campus is reported to contain friable asbestos containing materials such as pipe insulation and non-friable vinyl asbestos floor tile. The Classroom/Library building contains insulated asbestos panels at the window areas. A haz-ardous material survey by an independent consultant is recommended in conjunction with planning of future modern-ization, additions or replacements.
5.1.2 Classroom/Library Building
GeneralThe library contains adequate square footage to serve the facility although the configuration is irregular in shape and somewhat inefficient. The casework is old and mismatched as well as inefficient. The building has had various in-terior modifications and retrofits which is evident by the amount of exposed electrical and data raceways and wiring. The carpet has surpassed its useful life and is in need of replacement. The classrooms are small, irregular in shape and contain minimal casework. There is very little classroom storage available. Operable walls between classrooms are not used and given the age, may not work properly and do not provide adequate acoustical value between class-rooms. Minimal technology and convenience outlets exist which impair current instructional delivery systems. The classrooms are arranged in a pod configuration around a common workroom. The common workrooms contain two sinks that serve the surrounding classrooms. Relites between the classrooms and the commons area provide visual supervision into each area. There is a mixture of chalkboards and whiteboards throughout the classrooms. Unit ven-tilators in each room provide heat for the building. These units are in need of replacement. Power and data outlets are below district standards in number and location and limit certain types of instruction.
5.1.3 Science Building
GeneralThis rectangular building is configured with a double-loaded corridor that provides access to science, biology and computer labs. The labs are large and provide more than sufficient instructional space. The building consists of a masonry exterior with wood framed interior walls. The facility has been adequately maintained but is showing signs of deterioration due to age. Science casework is old and outdated, new door hardware is needed throughout, restrooms are not ADA accessible, and most windows are fitted with single-pane, non-insulated glazing which is very energy inefficient. All plumbing in this building is galvanized pipe and often supplies rusty brown water. Rooms are heated by old electric unit ventilators which is one of the most expensive forms of heat available. Some of the data and power in this building has been upgraded, but not all of it.
5.1.4 Gym/Cafeteria Building
GeneralThe Gym/Cafeteria Building contains the Main Gym which is large and has a wood floor. The Main Gym has manual bleachers capable of seating the entire student population. These bleachers are in need of replacement or total ret-rofit due to age and wear. The cafeteria is long, narrow and undersized to serve the existing student population. The existing facility serves approximately 500 students in three lunch periods. The existing kitchen is undersized, under-equipped, and outdated to function as a kitchen.
Facility Description 11
Monroe School District
Monroe Middle School Facility Assessment
Hutteball & Oremus Architecture
5.0 Facility Description
Connected to the main gym is the auxiliary gym, which can be divided into two areas by use of a drop-down gym divider curtain. The cushion vinyl floor in the auxiliary gyms is in need of replacement. Three gyms are excessive for a typical middle school facility. The third gym doubles as a play area for the students during bad weather as the facil-ity does not have a covered play area. The restroom facilities in this building are very limited. Additional restrooms should be provided. The locker rooms receive limited use by the 7th grade PE class (who are not required to show-er). The special education room is inadequate to serve the needs of the occupants. The music room is not handicap accessible. 5.1.5 Vocational Building
GeneralAt 48 years old, this is the oldest building on campus. It houses the school’s vocational programs consisting of art, wood shop, plastic and metals. The building was originally set up for welding and foundry, but the program is no lon-ger in existence. Although the school currently has a strong wood, metals and plastic program, the area dedicated to the instruction of this program is excessive when compared to the current school district educational specifications.
5.1.6 Administration Building
GeneralThe administration building is the newest of the campus facilities. This building appears to be adequately sized and functions well. It provides an identifiable entry to the campus and serves to provide good supervision of the main parking lot.
If this school undergoes selective renovation and replacement, the Administration Building could remain. It should be noted, however, that its control location may limit efficient organization and placement of proposed new buildings.
Facility Description 12
Monroe School District
Monroe Middle School Facility Assessment
Hutteball & Oremus Architecture
6.0 Engineering Requirements
6.1 Structural Engineering Requirements
Description of Structural SystemsThe Monroe Middle School consists of five one-story buildings, primarily constructed with wood-framed roofs and brick walls. The Vocational Building was constructed in 1954, with a renovation in 1981. The Science Building was constructed in 1964, with an addition in 1967. The Gymnasium Building, Classroom/Library Building, and Adminis-tration Building were constructed in 1967, with a Gymnasium addition in 1980 and an Administration Building addi-tion in 1990. Vertical Force-Resisting SystemThe Vocational Building, the Science Building, the Classroom/Library Building, and the Administration Building roof framing consists of wood decking spanning between glue-laminated beams. Steel columns support the roof framing. The first floor consists of a concrete slab-on-grade. The foundations consist of spread footings. The Science Build-ing addition is of similar construction.
The Gymnasium Building roof framing consists of tongue-and-groove wood decking spanning between open-web steel joists at 8-feet on-center. The two wings on the east and west sides of the main gymnasium consist of a 3-inch concrete slab over metal deck which is supported in turn by open-web steel joists at 2-feet on-center. Steel columns support the roof framing. The 1980 addition roof framing consists of tongue-and-groove wood decking spanning between glue-laminated beams, which are supported in turn by deep glue-laminated beams. Steel columns or ma-sonry walls support the roof framing. The ground floor consists of a concrete slab-on-grade.
The Administration Building addition roof consists of similar wood-framing to the original building, except that wood stud walls support the roof framing.
Lateral Force-Resisting SystemLateral loads are the result of wind on the exterior walls, or inertia forces due to earthquakes. The lateral force-re-sisting system of the buildings primarily consists of wood roof diaphragms which distribute loads to reinforced brick masonry shear walls. The shear walls in the Vocational Building are probably not reinforced given the age of the building. At the Gymnasium Building, the lateral system around the main gymnasium consists of concrete masonry unit (CMU) walls supported by concrete walls. The addition to the Administration Building utilized plywood shear walls for the lateral system.
Based on a cursory seismic review, the buildings at the Monroe Middle School do not currently meet the require-ments for a complete lateral force-resisting system. Recommendations have been provided to mitigate the noted deficiencies.
Engineering Requirements 13
Monroe School District
Monroe Middle School Facility Assessment
Hutteball & Oremus Architecture
6.0 Engineering Requirements
Seismic Review FindingsBased on our review, the following positive and negative features were noted which will influence the seismic perfor-mance of the buildings.
Positive Features:
> The buildings are relatively regular, both vertically and in plan.> The brick walls in the Science Building, the Gymnasium Building, the Classroom Building, and the Adminis- tration Building have reinforcement and are doweled into the foundations.
Negative Features:
> Original construction drawings were not available for the Vocational Building. However, the building appears to consist of unreinforced masonry walls. In addition, given the age of this building, it probably does not have out-of-plane anchorage to the walls.> The Science Building, the Gymnasium Building, the Classroom Building, and the Administration Building do not have out-of-plane wall anchorage perpendicular to the roof beams. In addition, the out-of-plane wall anchors parallel to the beams induce cross-grain bending which leads to brittle failures in the wood framing.> At the Science Building, the in-plane connection from the roof to the brick walls is not shown. In addition, the diaphragm lacks continuity ties perpendicular to the beams.> At all the buildings, the roof diaphragm appears to be inadequate for the roof spans.> At the Science Building, there appears to be inadequate shear wall length along the north side.> At the Gymnasium Building, there appears to be inadequate shear wall length in the east-west direction. Also, the addition to the gymnasium lacks continuity ties at the glue-laminated beam connections.> At the Classroom Building, there is a mechanical mezzanine level that does not appear to be tied into the lateral force-resisting system.> At the Administration Building, there appears to be inadequate shear wall length along the north wall.> At the Vocational Building, there appears to be inadequate shear wall length in the east-west direction> The Vocational Building has a chimney that appears to consist of unreinforced brick that is not anchored at the roof level. This chimney may be a falling hazard.> There appear to be hollow clay tile partition walls in the Gymnasium and Administration Buildings which presents a falling hazard.
Structural Recommendations and ConclusionsBased on the above findings, the following recommendations are made to address the issues.
> At the Vocational Building, survey the building for as-built conditions and perform a more detailed analysis. Seismic upgrades would most likely include adding new shear walls, especially in the east-west direction, anchoring the walls for out-of-plane loads, tying the brick walls to back-up studs for out-of-plane loads on the walls, adding new plywood onto the roof, and providing continuity ties at the roof. > At the Science Building, the Gymnasium Building, the Classroom Building, and the Administration Building, install a connection between the wall and the existing columns or a connection between the roof beams and the wall. In addition, install struts from the existing out-of-plane wall anchors parallel to the beams to the roof diaphragm.
Engineering Requirements 14
Monroe School District
Monroe Middle School Facility Assessment
Hutteball & Oremus Architecture
6.0 Engineering Requirements
Structural Recommendations and Conclusions (Continued)
> At the Science Building, install a perimeter steel angle ledger to provide an in-plane connection from the roof to the brick walls. In addition, add continuity ties perpendicular to the beams.> At all the buildings, install a new plywood roof diaphragm over the existing wood decking.> At the Science Building, install new CMU or plywood shear walls along the north side.> At the Gymnasium Building, install new CMU or concrete shear walls in the east-west direction. Also, install continuity ties at the glue-laminated beam connections in the gymnasium addition.> At the Classroom Building, install plywood shear walls beneath the mechanical mezzanine level in order to provide a new lateral force-resisting system.> At the Administration Building, install new plywood or CMU shear walls along the north wall.> At the Vocational Building, install new plywood or CMU shear walls in the east-west direction.> At the Vocational Building, remove the unreinforced brick chimney. Alternatively, anchor the chimney at the roof level and, if necessary, provide bracing for the portion extending above the roof. > Remove the hollow clay tile partition walls in the Gymnasium and Administration Buildings.
6.2 Mechanical Engineering Requirements
Plumbing SystemsThe domestic water piping system is galvanized steel, typically installed under slab on grade. It is common that this pipe flows rusty brown water. There have been many repairs accomplished through the years to stop leaks that have developed. Many of the flush valves are manual flush, no proximity sensing devices were observed.
Several of the domestic water heaters have been replaced within the last six years. It would be appropriate to reuse these existing electric water heaters if five years or less service time to date. We would recommend replacing all electric water tanks that are over five years in service.
The areas that currently serve the fifth grade teaching area are dry classrooms. No classroom sinks exist.
Heating and Ventilating SystemThrough the facility are unit ventilators with electric heat and pneumatic controls. All of these unit ventilators have been in service, some as far back as the 1964 and 1967 portions of Building A. All of these unit ventilators have exceeded their anticipated normal useful life.
Direct replacement with new unit ventilators will be troublesome, as the systems commonly are not within the OSPI required maximum NC35 point source of noise generation in the teaching space. As spaces may be changed in their area to accommodate the teaching program, the existing pattern of perimeter unit ventilators will be interrupted.
All of the existing unit ventilators and air handlers in all spaces except the Administration Building area renovations and additions of 1990 will not be in compliance with current ventilation code requirements.
Life Safety SystemsThere are no fire protection sprinklers. Many of the existing buildings have combustible overhangs that exceed 4 feet from the perimeter wall. These overhangs will require a dry pipe sprinkler system.
Engineering Requirements 15
Monroe School District
Monroe Middle School Facility Assessment
Hutteball & Oremus Architecture
6.0 Engineering Requirements
Energy Management and Temperature ControlThe existing system is a piecemeal collection of various manufacturers’ pneumatic controls. All of these pneumatic controls like the systems they serve have far exceeded their anticipated useful life. There is no energy management system in use at this site. Mechanical Deficiencies and Recommendations
> The existing domestic plumbing systems should be replaced with copper pipe below and above slab on grade. Replacing above-grade piping may mean exposed piping when there is no ceiling space or furred piping.> The heating and ventilation system does not meet current codes, and has exceeded its anticipated service life. This system should be replaced to provide 20 years (or more) of service.> An Energy Management and Control System (EMCS) should be installed for all new heating and ventilation systems.> A combination wet and dry sprinkler system should be installed, if required by the local building authority.> 3” domestic water service should be replaced to the City main in the street, and the reduced pressure back flow preventor and shut-off valve should be replaced.
6.3 Electrical Engineering Requirements
Main Electrical ServiceThe existing main electrical service to the buildings is a 3000A, 277/480V, 3 phase, 4 wire, Square D switchboard with six fusible disconnects. A Snohomish PUD transformer is 480-120/208V, three phase transformer, and is located on south of the Science building.
The main switchboard appears to be original 1960’s equipment, and replacement parts are not readily available. The main electrical room does not meet current NEC code clearances for ampacity of the main switchboard.
There is a separate overhead feed and separate meter #120711, to an 800A 120/208V service to the Vocational Building. It serves three panels and a 100A sawdust collector. The 800A distribution panel is relatively new, and replacement parts are readily available.
Lighting SystemThe existing lighting system varied depending on the locations. Portables are lighted with 2 rows of 2 lamp industrial fixtures with T-8 lamps. Parking lot lights are HID. 2’ x 4’ recessed fixtures are used in the offices, and suspended 8’ fixtures with HO lamps are installed in a classrooms and library. Existing emergency egress lighting is provided by battery pack which appears to have exceeded expected life and require replacement. The Main Gym contains (2) 4’ tandem wired industrial strip fluorescent fixtures with 3-40W T-12 lamps each. The Auxiliary Gym lighting is 2’X2’ square fixtures and appears to be in good condition and can be considered for re-use in new/remodeled facility. Lights in the locker rooms are linear 8’-T12 and some incandescent lights. Exterior building mounted lights are in poor condition and require replacement.
Engineering Requirements 16
Monroe School District
Monroe Middle School Facility Assessment
Hutteball & Oremus Architecture
6.0 Engineering Requirements
Fire Alarm SystemFire alarm horn/strobes are installed in classrooms, and exits have a pull stations. Fire alarm panel is a 1967 simplex model 4246-2 and needs to be replaced and a remote annunciator is required at main entry. Facility does not cur-rently have smoke detector coverage.
Intercom/Clock SystemThe intercom and master clock head-end rack in the main office consists of an aging Bogen MCP 35A Console, MT-60C amplifier, (2) SBA-225 call panels and a CLK6A Master Clock. The classrooms typically contain a call switch and wall mounted speaker and clock. The system needs to be replaced with a newer model such as the Bogen Mul-ticom 2000 or Telecenter ICS with updated a GPS controlled master clock and modern GUI computer interface for scheduling, notification and program modifications to the intercom head-end system. The cross-connect wall field for connection to the Nortel PBX cabinet is in the MDF room adjacent to the main office.
Security SystemThe security system consists of a new Panel supporting door contacts and wall mount PIR motion detectors. A CCTV surveillance system should be considered to augment the intrusion system at the campus.
Telecommunications SystemThe telecommunications system consists of an MDF in the main office and (4) IDF’s in the Library, Lab building, Gym and Shop building. The MDF room is not cooled and extremely hot which will result in premature equipment failure unless addressed. The telephone service entrance demarc extension is located on the telephone backboard to serve the Nortel Option 11 PBX cabinet. The PBX cabinet contains (1) digital card and (5) analog cards. The PBX is in excellent condition and should be reused.
The MDF rack is a wall mounted CPI Heavy Duty swing rack with an Ortronics rack mount fiber cabinet (RMFC). The RMFC houses (4) 12-strand 62.5/125 optical fiber cables routing (1) 12-strand cable to each of the (4) IDF’s for the fiber backbone with Duplex SC connectors. The copper backbones consist of multipair voice cabling cross-con-nected with the intercom system. The horizontal copper cabling to the main office area workstation outlets consists of AMP ACO patch panels and outlets with Berk-Tek CAT 5 cable.
The Library IDF consists of (2) 7’x19” CPI rack’s with an Ortronics RMFC and (1) 12-Strand 62.5/125 optical fiber cable with Duplex SC connectors. The horizontal copper cabling to the workstation outlets in the Library building consists of AMP ACO patch panels and outlets with Berk-Tek CAT 5 cable. The space is large enough to dissipate heat from the switches, but should be located in an environmentally controlled and locked room.
The Lab building IDF is located in the buildings electrical room directly adjacent to a distribution panel. The IDF has (1) 7’x19” CPI rack with an Ortronics RMFC and (1) 12-Strand 62.5/125 optical fiber cable with Duplex SC connec-tors. The horizontal copper cabling to the workstation outlets in the Lab building consists of AMP ACO patch panels and outlets with Berk-Tek CAT 5 cable. There has been a recent addition of updated Ortronics CAT5e patch panels and Berk-Tek CAT 5e cable. The rack should be relocated to space at least 6’ from the distribution panel to follow BICSI and NEC code violations in relation to the working distance around any electrical panel.
Engineering Requirements 17
Monroe School District
Monroe Middle School Facility Assessment
Hutteball & Oremus Architecture
6.0 Engineering Requirements
The Gym building IDF in an electrical closet adjacent to the main gym and consists of a wall mounted CPI Heavy Duty swing rack with an Ortronics RMFC and (1) 12-Strand 62.5/125 optical fiber cable with Duplex SC connectors. The horizontal copper cabling to the workstation outlets in the Lab building consists of AMP ACO patch panels and outlets with Berk-Tek CAT 5 cable. The rack should be relocated to a space at least 3’ from an electrical panel to fol-low BICSI and NEC code violations in relation to the working distance around electrical panels.
The Shop building IDF is on an attic wall mounted backboard with an Ortronics surface mount fiber cabinet (SMFC) and (1) 12-Strand 62.5/125 optical fiber cable with Duplex SC connectors. The horizontal copper cabling to the workstation outlets in the Lab building consists of AMP ACO patch panels and outlets with Berk-Tek CAT 5 cable.
In looking ahead toward a potential remodel, the telecommunications system should be demolished and updated with new MDF and IDF telecommunications rooms with 50/125 multimode fiber for support of 10-Gigabit Ethernet backbones between the telecommunications rooms (TR)/ IDF’s. A new 50-pair CAT3 multipair backbone to each IDF with rack mounted patch panels should be provided for support of the voice backbone cabling and ease of patch cord cross-connects allowing data and voice port flexibility with the change of a patch cord. Horizontal cabling to the workstations should be upgraded to CAT6 cabling for compliance of Gigabit Ethernet and support future moves, adds and changes. CAT5e cabling could become hard to find in the near future as the industry transitions to CAT6 and augmented CAT6a cabling. The MDF and IDF locations should be in dedicated environmentally controlled and locked rooms. A proper grounding and bonding system should be provided in the telecommunications rooms follow-ing NEC and industry standards. Cable runways to the racks should be utilized for seismic support and as a pathway for cabling support to the racks.
Electrical Deficiencies and Recommendations > The entire electrical system is in need of modernization. Additional power distribution will be required to sup- port instructional programmatic demands and mechanical equipment upgrades.> Lighting changes should be made where possible to upgrade and standardize fixtures for lighting levels and code requirements. The HO lamps in the library should be changed out to T-8 lamps with electric ballasts for energy efficiency.> Changes in the lighting switching and the addition of occupancy sensors will be required to meet codes.> Additional data/telephone outlets should be installed.> A new fire alarm system should be Exterior lighting should be improved.> The existing gym lighting may remain.> New switchboard, panels and feeders should be installed. Existing feeder conduits may be reused where ap- propriate.> A new intercom system, interfaced with the telephone system, should be considered.> No clock system is requested.> Shop wiring should be upgraded if the Vocational Building is remodeled.
Engineering Requirements 18
Monroe School District
Monroe Middle School Facility Assessment
Hutteball & Oremus Architecture
7.0 Summary of Observations
7.0 Summary of Observations and Recommendations
Site Recommendations
> Significant improvements needed to enlarge automobile drop-off and pick-up.> Improved accommodations for bus loading and unloading area.> Renovation of the school will require significant parking modifications per current City Code.> Additional landscaping around the entire site perimeter and within the parking lot is required.> Significant renovations or building replacement(s) will require new stormwater improvements.> Improvements to ADA accessibility.> Replace deteriorated asphalt and concrete paving.> Repair/replace covered walkways.> Increase size and condition of paved play area.> Irrigate and recondition the grass playfield. Increase size if possible.> Add a covered playshed.> Provide new and efficient site lighting for safety.
Classroom/Library Building RecommendationsDemolition of the existing Classroom/Library Building and replacement with a two-story classroom building and new library is recommended. Current size and configuration of the classrooms limits the programmatic capacity of educational delivery and the instructional environment. The small, irregular shaped classrooms along with the lack of storage do not meet current District standards and will be difficult to reconfigure in a modernization without reducing the existing number of classrooms. There is space for a classroom addition but this area would decrease the already small grass playfield area. All of the buildings mechanical and electrical systems are nearing the end of their useful life and are in need of replacement. Replacement of a new mechanical system within the structure of the existing classroom building would be very challenging due to the low ceiling height and the exposed beams that hang down from the roof deck.
The finishes, hardware and accessories throughout are deteriorating to a point where replacement is the most eco-nomical option based on a life cycle cost analysis. The cost required for a major renovation to bring this building up to district program standards, correct life safety issues, and bring it up to current codes is expected to approach 80-percent of the cost of a new facility. A new two-story building would provide additional classrooms and make the site more efficient. A new building would also provide a library and classrooms that meet district educational standards to provide parity among Monroe School District Middle Schools.
> Replacement of this building with a new facility designed to provide a 40-60 year life should be strongly considered.
Summary of Observations 19
Monroe School District
Monroe Middle School Facility Assessment
Hutteball & Oremus Architecture
7.0 Summary of Observations
Science Building RecommendationsFull modernization or replacement of this building is recommended. The classrooms are adequately sized and con-figured but need all new finishes. Program changes necessitate modernization of equipment, casework and other accessories. Mechanical and electrical systems are in need of replacement. Existing restrooms need total reconfig-uration to comply with codes and be functional for normal use. Exterior upgrades to the building should be consid-ered to replace the single-pane windows, provide new roofing and insulation. Life safety modifications to the existing structure are also recommended to comply with current seismic codes.
> The Science building needs a full modernization or replacement.
Gym/Cafeteria Building RecommendationsRenovation and reconfiguration of spaces in this building should be considered. The large gym is in satisfactory condition except for the existing bleachers, which should be repaired or replaced. Consideration should be given to interior reconfiguration of the existing remaining spaces to more effectively utilize programmed spaces within this building. One possible scenario is to relocate the cafeteria and serving kitchen to the auxiliary gym space; construct a covered play area near the playground to accommodate gym overflow uses; and convert the existing cafeteria and kitchen into additional classrooms, restrooms, and an entry foyer to the main gym. The special education area should be renovated to serve the needs of the program and the music area reconfigured for handicap accessibility.
> The Gym/Cafeteria Building needs to be renovated and reconfigured to extend the life of the building and provide adequate spaces to support the school.
Vocational Building RecommendationsThe extent of physical and programmatic deficiencies of this building makes this a strong candidate for a new re-placement. A wing suited to current vocational instruction could be planned in conjunction with the recommended new Classroom Building allowing multi-media, shop/tech, and art classrooms to be constructed in an efficient man-ner to district standards (refer again to Attachment C and D). It is highly probable that a renovation of this facility will approach 80-90 percent of the replacement cost. State funding possibilities, life cycle cost benefits, programmatic benefits, and overall campus improvements suggest that a new facility for this program is preferable to moderniza-tion.
> The Vocational Building should be replaced with a new building that better accommodates the District’s educational goals.
Administration Building RecommendationsMinor modifications and maintenance items are recommended as part of the overall campus improvement plan. Up-grades to mechanical, electrical, data and the fire alarm system are warranted as part of the overall modernization of the school.
> Upgrades to this building are recommended although total replacement should be considered for maximum efficiency of the site.
Summary of Observations 20
Monroe School District
Monroe Middle School Facility Assessment
Hutteball & Oremus Architecture
8.0 Cost Opinions/Options
8.1 Replacement Cost
To begin a budgetary cost analysis of the options and recommendations presented in this report, a baseline for total replacement of a new facility should be established. Five recent new Middle School/Junior High projects bid in western Washington are shown below. Cost per square foot of each school was calculated and then escalated using historic inflation rates to bring each school up to May 2007 prices. Each project was then escalated as a square foot price over the next four years using an estimated 8% annual inflation rate. The estimated inflation rate should be reviewed and carefully selected as current professional estimator’s viewpoints range from an estimated 7% to 12% annual inflation increase.
New MS/JH Construction Cost Study (Project soft-costs not included)Estimated Escalation @ 8%
School District Bid Date Area $M Bid$/SF on Bid Day
$/SF in May 07
$/SF in May 09
$/SF in May 10
$/SF in May 11
JH #7 Puyallup Oct - 06 97,235 $25.30 $269.35 $290.90 $339.31 $368.46 $395.78
MS #3 SVSD Nov - 06 87,600 $22.14 $252.74 $260.13 $303.42 $327.69 $353.91
Aylen JH Puyallup Nov - 06 97,235 $24.99 $257.01 $264.52 $308.54 $333.22 $359.88
Pioneer MS Steilacoom Dec - 06 83,805 $22.87 $272.90 $281.84 $328.73 $355.03 $383.43
Gray MS Tacoma Mar - 07 116,872 $28.50 $243.86 $252.63 $294.67 $318.24 $343.70
Averages 96,549 $24.76 $257.34 $265.69 $309.91 $340.13 $367.34
Assuming the District intends on running a bond in 2009, an estimated cost per square foot should be determined for a time that coincides with the midpoint of construction. Assuming passage of a 2009 bond issue, and an im-mediate start with design of the project we suggest using the May 2011 projected timeline as the midpoint of con-struction. The historical data above suggests establishing a budgetary cost per square foot for new construction at a minimum of $368.00. These numbers reflect construction costs only. An additional amount of 30% should be added to the construction cost to cover design fees, taxes, permitting, testing and inspection, furniture and equip-ment, etc., to arrive at a recommended total project cost.
After establishment of the initial project cost, it is recommended that an 3% bond management and adminstration budget is applied. On top of this subtotal, an 8% contingency is recommended to protect the District from fluctua-tions in bid market, material prices, scope increases and unforeseen escalation above the 8% annual escalation shown above.
The existing Monroe Middle school contains 84,997 square feet. Based on an estimated construction cost of $368.00 per square feet in 2011, the estimated replacement construction cost of Monroe Middle School would be approximately $31.3 million. It should be noted that this estimate (and the options that follow) utilizes the existing square footage of the current Monroe Middle School facility and does not allow for increased student growth or spe-cial programs yet to be developed.
> Estimated 85,000 s.f. new middle school construction budget - $31.3 million.> Estimated new middle school project budget (30% soft costs) - $40.69 million.> Total project cost including Bond Management/Administration (3%) and Contingency (8%) - $45.26 million.
Cost Opinions/Options 21
Monroe School District
Monroe Middle School Facility Assessment
Hutteball & Oremus Architecture
8.2 Option 1 – Renovation and Partial Replacement of Existing Facility
Modernization of the existing Monroe Middle School to meet current program standards will require extensive reno-vation of some of the existing buildings and full replacement of others. A project such as this must be evaluated and designed in a comprehensive manner to allow phasing and temporary accommodations to allow continued opera-tion of the school. The complexity will add costs due to an extended construction timeline and accommodations for temporary housing and services to keep the facility operational.
To establish a preliminary cost opinion we have graphically depicted two design schemes (included in the Appendix as Attachment C & D) which indicate replacement and renovation of existing buildings. Utilizing Attachment D as the most comprehensive approach to achieving a quality facility, we assume the parking will be expanded and all build-ings will be replaced except for the Gym/Cafeteria Building which is proposed in this scheme to be modernized.
Estimated cost for renovation and partial replacement of Monroe Middle School:
New replacement building 51,320 s.f. x $368 = Renovation of Gym/Cafeteria 33,677 s.f. x $275 = Temporary accommodations, demolition, phasing
Total Estimated Construction Budget Soft Costs @ 30% Subtotal Bond Management/Administration (3%) Subtotal Project Contingency (8%) Total Estimated Project Budget
8.0 Cost Opinions/OptionsMonroe Middle School Facility Assessment
Cost Opinions/Options 22
Monroe School DistrictHutteball & Oremus Architecture
$18,885,760$ 9,261,175$ 3,000,000
$31,146,935$ 9,344,081$40,491,016$ 1,214,730$ 41,705,746$ 3,336,460$ 45,042,206
8.0 Cost Opinions/Options
8.3 Option 2 – New Middle School on Auxiliary Athletic Complex Property
This option explores the possibility of constructing a new middle school on the Auxiliary Athletic Complex Property located west of the existing Monroe Middle School directly across Kelsey Street. The property currently contains the former high school football and track facility and is adjacent to the current District baseball and softball competition fields. Both sites total almost 12 acres. If the existing baseball and softball practice fields at Monroe High School were developed into competition fields, the District would have the full 12 acres to develop as a potential new middle school site. Considering a new 2-story middle school and associated parking located where the existing baseball/softball fields are and the track and football field reconditioned and left in its existing location, this site is a viable op-tion for a new middle school facility.
Positive Features:
> Development of existing Monroe School District property.> New replacement middle school could be constructed without disruption of Monroe Middle School program.> Site is flat and has a high percentage of usable area.> Football field and track needs only minor improvements.
Negative Features:
> Close location to Park Place Middle School and not in an area of the district which is experiencing growth.> Limited site area will not allow baseball or softball fields unless these facilities are developed on the existing Monroe Middle School site once the new replacement school is constructed.
Cost: Estimated project cost for new middle school on the Auxiliary Athletic Complex property:
New Middle School 85,000 sf x $368 = MHS Competition Fields Demolition of MMS and development of grass playfields to serve new facility
Total Estimated Construction Budget Soft Costs @ 30% Subtotal Bond Management/Administration (3%) Subtotal Project Contingency (8%) Total Estimated Project Budget
Monroe Middle School Facility Assessment
Cost Opinions/Options 23
Monroe School DistrictHutteball & Oremus Architecture
$31,280,000$ 2,160,000$ 2,430,000
$35,870,000$ 10,761,000$46,631,000$ 1,398,930$48,029,930$ 3,842,395$51,872,325
8.0 Cost Opinions/Options
8.4 Option 3 – New Middle School on Chain Lake Property or other District-Owned Property
The District owns approximately 14 acres of undeveloped land within a contiguous parcel shared by Chain Lake Elementary School. Of the 14 undeveloped acres, approximately 40 percent is encumbered by critical areas (wetland & buffer). The other obstacle to development of this site is that it is currently outside the Urban Growth Area (UGA) and Snohomish County has a policy of prohibiting the extension of sewer service outside of the designated UGA. Chain Lake Elementary currently pumps sewage from a holding tank, a new middle school will likely need to do the same until such time as this area is adopted into the UGA and sewer is made available.
As shown on Attachment E in the Appendix, there appears to be adequate room to develop a new middle school and associated parking on the southeast portion of the existing site. The limitation appears to be lack of sports field space within the current configuration of the property. Unless the District pursues purchase of adjacent property, playfield use would need to be shared with the elementary school.
Positive Features:
> Development of existing Monroe School District property.> Middle School located in an area of student population growth.
Negative Features:
> Sewer not available. Must pump from a holding tank.> Limited sports field area. Must purchase additional property or share with Chain Lake Elementary.
Cost:
Estimated project cost for new middle school on Chain Lake Property (without sports fields):
New Middle School 85,000 sf x $368 = Allowance for conversion of existing MMS into other use
Total Estimated Construction Budget Soft Costs @ 30% Subtotal Bond Management/Administration (3%) Subtotal Project Contingency (8%) Total Estimated Project Budget
Monroe Middle School Facility Assessment
Cost Opinions/Options 24
Monroe School DistrictHutteball & Oremus Architecture
$31,280,000$ 3,250,000
$34,530,000$10,359,000$44,889,000$ 1,346,670$ 46,235,670$ 3,698,854$49,934,524
9.0 Summary
9.0 Summary
It is evident that the Monroe Middle School is in need of immediate renovation and upgrades. Maintenance efforts and dollars will continue to be spent on this facility in increasing amounts every year. The instructional quality will continue to be limited by the environment in which it is delivered. Existing life safety issues, energy inefficiencies, and code issues will continue to exist until significant action is taken to correct these deficiencies.
This report includes only a few of the possible options for improvements. Cost information has been presented based on the information available at this time. Appropriate contingencies should be added to cover unforeseen market conditions that are not quantifiable at this time. When decisions are reached on a preferred option, it is rec-ommended that further investigation be pursued to further evaluate the scope of work and associated cost impacts.
Available state funding assistance was not investigated as part of this report, but it is assumed that a portion of any significant part of renovation or replacement to Monroe Middle School could receive state matching funding to assist the District with the cost of construction.
Monroe Middle School Facility Assessment
Summary 25
Monroe School DistrictHutteball & Oremus Architecture
Appendix
Attachment A Dates of Construction – Monroe Middle SchoolAttachment B Existing Site Plan - Monroe Middle SchoolAttachment C Option 1a DiagramAttachment D Option 1b DiagramAttachment E Option 3 Diagram
Appendix 26
Monroe School District
Monroe Middle School Facility Assessment
Hutteball & Oremus Architecture
Attachment ADates of Construction – Monroe Middle School
Appendix 27
Monroe School District
Monroe Middle School Facility Assessment
Hutteball & Oremus Architecture
Attachment B
Appendix 28
Hutteball & Oremus Architecture Monroe School District
Monroe Middle School Facility Assessment
Existing Site Plan - Monroe Middle School
Attachment C
Appendix 29
Monroe School District
Monroe Middle School Facility Assessment
Option 1a Diagram
Hutteball & Oremus Architecture
Attachment D
Appendix 30
Hutteball & Oremus Architecture Monroe School District
Monroe Middle School Facility Assessment
Option 1b Diagram
Attachment E
Appendix 31
Hutteball & Oremus Architecture Monroe School District
Monroe Middle School Facility Assessment
Option 3 Diagram
2007 Facilities Assessment Park Place Middle School
September 2007
Compiled byHutteball & Oremus Architecture
Table of Contents1.0 Executive Summary1.1 Introduction1.2 Methodology1.3 Summary of Conclusions
2.0 Background2.1 Overview of Monroe School District2.2 Middle School Enrollment2.3 Middle School Capacity
3.0 Project Description3.1 Location3.2 Construction History
4.0 Site Improvements4.1 Site Description4.2 Site Elements
5.0 Facility Description5.1 Architectural5.1.1 General5.1.2 Classroom/Library Building5.1.3 Science Building5.1.4 Gym/Cafeteria Building5.1.5 Vocational Building5.1.6 Administration Building 6.0 Engineering Requirements6.1 Structural Engineering Requirements6.2 Mechanical Engineering Requirements6.3 Electrical Engineering Requirements
7.0 Summary of Observations & Recommendations
8.0 Cost Opinions/Options8.1 Replacement Cost8.2 Modernization Cost8.2.1 Priority 1 – Life Safety & Systems Replacement8.2.2 Priority 2 – Programmatic Enhancements8.2.3 Priority 3 – Building Enhancements
9.0 Conclusion
Appendix Attachments A - C
Table of Contents
Monroe School DistrictHutteball & Oremus Architecture
Park Place Middle School Facility Assessment
1.0 Executive Summary
1.1 Introduction
This Facility Assessment Report details the current condition of Park Place Middle School relative to current codes, building systems and materials, and the ability of site and buildings to accommodate the District’s middle school educational program. Park Place Middle School was originally constructed in 1974 to serve as the high school for Monroe School District. Except for a new library building and a couple small additions added in 1990, the school remains pretty much as it was designed 33 years ago. The school has been well maintained over its life but with over three decades use, it is now a prime candidate for a renovation to revitalize the facility infrastructure, upgrade safety components, improve its educational delivery potential, and extend the life of the facility to serve the Districts educa-tional needs for another 30 to 40 years.
The focus of this study is to document and evaluate the current condition of the school and assist the District in determination of a financially viable scope for modernization which will best serve the future interests of the Monroe School District.
1.2 Methodology
Hutteball & Oremus Architecture, Inc., along with Coughlin Porter Lundeen, structural engineers, and Hargis Engi-neers, mechanical and electrical engineers were asked by Monroe School District to evaluate the existing conditions of Park Place Middle School. This investigation involved the following components of work:
> Review of the existing facility and current Capital Facilities Plan.> Analysis of program accommodations for middle school grade band.> Assessment of engineering systems for civil, structural, mechanical and electrical.> Review of available drawings.> Review of enrollment growth projections.> Development of cost analysis.
1.3 Summary of Conclusions
It is believed that Monroe School District will benefit by investing funds to extend the life of Park Place Middle School. To assist the District with the determination of the scope of work required at this facility, our recommenda-tions are divided into three categories and an appropriate budget for each was established. The three categories and associated budgets summarized below are further detailed in the following report.
Priority 1 – Life Safety & Systems Replacements $23.3 millionPriority 2 – Programmatic Enhancements $ 8.8 millionPriority 3 – Building Enhancements $ 8.9 million Total Modernization Budget $ 41 million
The $41 million modernization budget equates to 70% of the replacement value of the school which is estimated to be $58.5 million.
Executive Summary 1
Monroe School DistrictHutteball & Oremus Architecture
Park Place Middle School Facility Assessment
2.0 Background
2.1 Overview of Monroe School District Monroe School District is uniquely located in the southeastern portion of Snohomish County and covers approximate-ly 82 square miles. The Skykomish and Snoqualmie Rivers join to form the Snohomish River in the center of the Dis-trict. The topography includes flood plains to rolling hills. The major east-west road is U.S. Highway 2, leading from Everett to Stevens Pass and Eastern Washington. The major link to Bothell, Seattle, and the east side of the County is SR-522, leading from Monroe to Woodinville. SR-203 is a major traffic link between Monroe, Duvall, Carnation and the Redmond/Bellevue areas.
The District currently serves a student population of 6,795 (October 1, 2006) with six elementary schools, three middle schools, and one high school. “Leaders in Learning”, an individualized secondary program, is also offered in a facility owned by the District but not located in an existing school. Sky Valley Education Center, an individualized program for students in grades K-12 who otherwise would be home schooled, is housed in leased facilities. Summit School is a cooperative program with Snohomish and Sultan School Districts to offer a highly specialized program for students in grades 7-12 and is also housed in leased facilities. Sky Valley Education Center, Summit School and Leaders in Learning student enrollment figures are included in both the District and OSPI figures.
Elementary schools provide educational programs for students in kindergarten through grade five. Middle schools serve grades six through eight and the high school, grades nine through twelve. Leaders in Learning serve grades nine through twelve.
2.2 Middle School Enrollment
A significant issue faces the Monroe School District in terms of providing classroom capacity to accommodate pro-jected enrollment demands due to the rate of student growth. Enrollment projections for the District indicate con-tinued growth. Accommodating this growth within the District’s adopted educational program will require expansion of selected existing facilities, construction of new facilities on acquired sites, and temporary housing of students in portables until such time as permanent facilities can be provided.
Enrollment in the Monroe School District has been increasing steadily since the 1980’s. This trend is partially due to an increase in births in the 1980’s and 1990’s as the children of baby boomers entered the schools. It is also due to continued housing and population growth in Snohomish County. The medium range enrollment projection for Monroe School District is expected to increase from today’s enrollment of 6,795 to 7,500 students in 2010 and to more than 9,100 students by 2020. The long range forecast suggests that the District could see an additional 1,000 elemen-tary students, approximately 500 more middle school students, and an increase in high school enrollment of 600 students by 2020.
Background 2
Monroe School DistrictHutteball & Oremus Architecture
Park Place Middle School Facility Assessment
2.0 Background
2.2 Middle School Enrollment (continued)
School facility and student capacity needs are dictated by the types and amounts of space required to accommodate the District’s adopted educational program. The educational program standards which typically drive facility space needs include grade configuration, optimum facility size, class size, educational program offerings, classroom utiliza-tion and scheduling requirements, and use of relocatable classroom facilities (portables). The District’s educational program standards which directly affect school capacity at the middle school level are outlined below.
> Class size for middle school grades should not exceed 28 students.> As a result of scheduling conflicts for student programs, the need for specialized rooms for certain programs, and the need for teachers to have work space during planning periods, it is not possible to achieve 100% utilization of all regular teaching stations throughout the day.> Special Education for students will be provided in a self-contained classroom.> Identified students will also be provided other nontraditional educational opportunities in classrooms desig- nated as follows: Resource Rooms (i.e. computer labs, study rooms); Special Education Classrooms; and Pro- gram Specific Classrooms (i.e. music, drama, art, science, family and consumer science, physical education, technology education).> Desired design capacity for new middle schools is 750 students. However, actual capacity of individual schools may vary depending on the educational programs offered and/or geographic area served.
2.3 Middle School Capacity
The table below is a summarization of information taken from “Monroe School District Enrollment, Demographic Trends and Projections” prepared by William L. (“Les”) Kendrick, dated May of 2007. The information presented in that report suggests that additional capacity will not be necessary for grade levels 6-8 over the next six years. As indicated in the table below, it is projected that both of the Monroe area middle schools will be under capacity by 288 students in the year 2012. The longer-range enrollment forecast however suggests that by 2020, significant growth is expected to occur within these grade levels which could add as many as 500 more middle school students to the District. Future planning should be done to account for this growth but expansion of these facilities to accommodate increased enrollment does not appear necessary at this time.
Middle School Capacity – Monroe Area
School Educational Program Capacity
Oct. 1, 2006 Enrollment
2006 Unhoused
Projected 2008Enrollment
Projected 2010 Enrollment
Projected 2012 Enrollment
2012 Projected Unhoused
MNM 655 495 (160) 451 469 514 (141)
PPM 935 603 (332) 681 713 788 (147)
Totals 1,590 1,098 (492) 1,132 1,182 1,302 (288)
Background 3
Monroe School DistrictHutteball & Oremus Architecture
Park Place Middle School Facility Assessment
2.0 Background
Middle School Capacity – Maltby Area
School Educational Program Capacity
Oct. 1, 2006 Enrollment
2006 Unhoused
Projected 2008 Enrollment
Projected 2010 Enrollment
Projected 2012 Enrollment
2012 Projected Unhoused
HRM 442 293 (149) 292 305 337 (105)
Totals 442 293 (149) 292 305 337 (105)
* Monroe schools and Maltby schools have been separated due to distance in geographic area related to busing and student service. Capacity related to schools within each area should be evaluated separately.* Portables are not included in program capacity calculation.* The projections above are based on Monroe School District’s educational program capacity forecasts.* Educational Program Capacity is calculated by number of classrooms (including music and p.e.) times 28 students per class room at 83% room utilization.
Background 4
Monroe School DistrictHutteball & Oremus Architecture
Park Place Middle School Facility Assessment
3.0 Project Description
3.1 Location
Park Place Middle School is one of the District’s three middle schools and is located just west of downtown Monroe. This facility’s feeder schools are Fryelands Elementary and Frank Wagner Elementary. Less than one-half mile away is Monroe Middle School. Park Place and Monroe Middle Schools each serve one-half the eastern portion of the District. Hidden River Middle School serves the western portion of the District.
The entrance to Park Place Middle School is off of Main Street which borders the site to the North. To the west of the site is the District’s Transportation Facility, to the south is a dike that separates the school site from the Skykom-ish River flood plain, and to the east are a few single family residences and some light industrial buildings.
This site is located within the governing jurisdiction of the City of Monroe.
The school address is:
Park Place Middle School1408 West Main StreetMonroe, Washington 98272-1802.
3.2 Construction History
Park Place Middle School was originally constructed in 1974 as the high school for the District. It was converted to a junior high in 1999 after completion of a new high school for the District. In 2005 the District moved the 9th grade up to the high school and renamed this facility from Monroe Junior High to Park Place Middle School.
The campus consists of six independent buildings connected by covered walks. Five of the buildings are single story with the sixth building being a two-story library building. Three additions were added in 1980. Another addition and the Library Building were added in 1990. Five of the buildings were re-roofed in 1997 and 1998. An Art & Technol-ogy Program remodel was performed in 1999.
Refer to Attachment A in the Appendix for construction dates of the buildings and additions.
Project Description 5
Monroe School DistrictHutteball & Oremus Architecture
Park Place Middle School Facility Assessment
4.0 Site Improvements4.1 Site Description
Park Place Middle School has a campus-style configuration with exterior circulation to six individual buildings located on a level 19.4-acre site near downtown Monroe. A grass playfield is located in the back of the facility for PE use. Asphalt parking and driveways surround the building to the west, north and east. The campus is mostly open with a small amount of chain link fencing at portions of the site perimeter. The main entry to the site is oriented to Main Street but the campus can be accessed from all sides. A paved access road loops around the entire campus provid-ing emergency access. The general office is located at the front of the school but has limited visibility and promi-nence due to small windows and an architecturally understated main entry.
4.2 Site Elements
ParkingExisting on-site parking is asphalt and contains a total of 192 designated vehicular spaces. Of this total, 13 spaces are designated as visitor parking at the front of the school. No handicap designated spaces were noted anywhere on site.
A parking lot to the west contains 125 spaces. Originally created to serve the former high school, this lot is currently underutilized by the middle school except for event parking. Due to limited drop off area at the front of the build-ing, a portion of this west parking lot has been reconfigured to function as the bus loading and unloading area. The remainder of the lot is leased to community transit. District bus drivers also park at this lot and walk next door to the District’s transportation facility. Joint use of this parking during the day still allows for school event parking in the evening. The east side of the site accommodates another 54 spaces which are used by school staff and District Grounds personnel who utilize a portion of the site.
The City of Monroe Zoning Code off-street parking requirements are:
> 1.5 spaces for each staff member; plus> 1 space for every 4 persons based on occupancy of public assembly areas.> Adjacent property may be developed for parking as long as it is under the same ownership and is not more than 300 feet from the perimeter of the site.
Current staffing is estimated at 75. At 1.5 spaces per staff member - 113 parking spaces are required.
The public assembly areas per the City of Monroe Planning Department include the gymnasium but do not include the Library or Commons/Cafeteria. The occupancy load factor for the gymnasium is calculated per the 2003 Inter-national Building Code as follows:
Main Gym 13,440 s.f. / 15 s.f. per person = 896 Occupants.
At 1 parking space per 4 occupants - 224 parking spaces are required.
Site Improvements 6
Monroe School DistrictHutteball & Oremus Architecture
Park Place Middle School Facility Assessment
4.0 Site Improvements
4.2 Site Elements (continued)
In summary, the current City of Monroe Zoning Code requires 337 (113+224) off-street parking spaces to serve the existing facility. If the School District believes the existing 192 spaces have historically provided sufficient capacity to serve the existing facility, further discussions with the City to relax this requirement or pursuit of a variance may be in order.
Based on the existing 192 spaces, the ADA Code requires 6 accessible stalls; one of which is to be van accessible.
Auto/Bus CirculationAuto drop off and pick up is accommodated at the front of the school directly off Main Street. One-way circula-tion allows a dedicated circulation path but exiting the site onto Main Street at an uncontrolled intersection causes some congestion at the beginning and end of the school day. The student auto loading and unloading area is small and regularly congested during peak times. The buses load and unload at the west end of the site providing good separation of buses and autos. The bus entrance/exit to the site is from Main Street at a four-way-stop intersection providing good vehicular circulation. Students accessing and leaving the campus by bus from the west side of the campus are difficult to supervise. This problem is mitigated by use of additional school staff to monitor this operation. Separate auto and bus loading areas that can be monitored from a single location would be preferred.
DrainageThe site collects surface stormwater and roof drainage through catch basins and PVC pipes routing them around the site. Existing documentation is unclear but the surface storm water appears to be infiltrated back into the site via 6’x6’ drywells located at the bottoms of selected catch basins.
Any major improvements to the site will require conformance to the current stormwater manual regulations. This is expected to include construction of water quality treatment facilities such as grass-lined swales or a cartridge filter system. The treated water then can be discharged to an underground filtration system similar to the existing system but up-sized to meet current codes.
PavingThe asphalt paving remains in the original configuration as designed and installed in 1974 with the exception of the fire lane which was modified in 1990 to accommodate the new library building and the locker room expansion at the south side of the site
The asphalt paving appears structurally sound but is in need of an overlay almost everywhere. Excessive cracking due to age is prominent throughout all paved areas. Weeds are growing in the cracked areas creating an ongoing maintenance issue. The paving will continue to deteriorate at an accelerated rate if this issue is not addressed.
Concrete curbs and sidewalks around the site are deteriorating. Thirty years of use along with cutting and patching for miscellaneous improvements has created a patchwork of concrete paving. The overall atmosphere of the cam-pus can be dramatically improved by new paving to enhance the pedestrian experience and improve the way-finding functionality of the campus.
Emergency paved access around the building appears to function well and meets current code requirements.Site Improvements 7
Monroe School DistrictHutteball & Oremus Architecture
Park Place Middle School Facility Assessment
4.0 Site Improvements
Gas – Site is served by gas. Service and meter enters the site from the west side of campus. The auxiliary LPG to natural gas conversion plan has been abandoned. Water – The City of Monroe typically has good water supply and pressure. It is anticipated that any new water ser-vice required by Monroe Middle School can be accommodated by the existing water system located in Main Street.
Sanitary Sewer – Existing sanitary sewer is available to this site. It is anticipated that any new connections neces-sary can be obtained by connection to the City’s system located in Main Street.
LandscapingThe existing site is Zoned “Public Service and Park Zone” (PS). The City of Monroe Zoning Code requires “at least ten-percent of the site to be landscaped for any use. Along common borders, with any use other than parks, open space and buffers shall be installed with landscaping”. Buffer requirements are defined in the code and vary depend-ing on adjacent property uses. Current buffer landscaping appears satisfactory although minor improvements may be necessary as part of a renovation project.
Landscaping at the existing parking lots is minimal. The current Zoning Code requires five percent of the parking area to be landscaped. It is assumed that the City will require additional landscaping islands in the parking lot to meet the five-percent requirement. This will reduce available parking spaces which currently is less than required by the current City Code.
Ornamental landscaping around the site is minimal and consists of a combination of a few plants, trees and lawn. Integration of concentrated landscaping areas throughout the campus will help alleviate the “hard” surface feeling of the existing pedestrian ways and help to promote social gathering areas for the students.
Site AccessibilityThe individual buildings are connected by concrete walkways and courtyards. The entire campus is accessible via walkways under deteriorating covered walks and large roof overhangs which require continual maintenance. Exte-rior entrances to the buildings should be retrofitted with door hardware, which complies with the current ADA code. Many of the exterior doors swing out into the pedestrian walkways presenting a safety issue. Site ElementsA number of benches, bike racks and trash receptacles exist on the current site. All appear to be in satisfactory condition and appropriately placed.
Pedestrian and security exterior lighting is minimal and antiquated throughout this campus-style complex. New and appropriately located lighting is recommended.
The paved play area located at the west side of the campus is in need of extensive improvements. New paving and equipment is needed. Basketball hoops and backstops are in poor condition. No covered play area exists. Consider-ation should be given to reconditioning and enlargement of the paved play surface. The benefits of adding a covered play area should be considered.
Site Improvements 8
Monroe School DistrictHutteball & Oremus Architecture
Park Place Middle School Facility Assessment
4.0 Site Improvements
Site Elements (continued)The site is fenced at the west and east sides. Fencing should be considered at the rear of the site where native veg-etation is growing on the dike that separates the school site from the Skykomish River flood plain. This is a potential safety issue.
Five portables exist at the south side of the site near the grass playfield. One is used for storage, two for special education classrooms and two for regular classrooms. The portables are appropriately placed on the site and can remain until they are no longer needed.
Site Improvements 9
Monroe School DistrictHutteball & Oremus Architecture
Park Place Middle School Facility Assessment
5.0 Facility Description5.1 Architectural
5.1.1 General The campus consists of (5) one-story buildings and (1) two-story library/classroom building containing a total of 109,912 square feet distributed as follows:
Building A – Gym, Computer Science 32,190 s.f. Building B – Commons, Music, Kitchen 16,218 s.f. Building C - Office, Classrooms 16,774 s.f. Building D – Counseling, Science 14,843 s.f. Building E – Art & Technology 9,265 s.f. Building F – Library, Classrooms 20,622 s.f.
Total 109,912 s.f.
Five portable classroom buildings are located on-site and not included in the square footage above.Refer to Attachment B in the Appendix for an existing campus site plan.
Exterior The buildings are similarly constructed with spread and strip footings with a concrete slab on grade ground floor. Exterior walls are un-insulated brick masonry with small single-glazed aluminum sash windows and painted hol-low metal doors and frames. The exterior masonry is in good shape but numerous areas are painted to cover graf-fiti. The buildings primarily consist of wood-framed roofing on steel columns. The Gym wood roof is supported by open-web steel joists and the second floor of the Library building consists of a precast concrete floor system. Large exposed roof overhangs and covered walkways protect students from rain as they travel between buildings. These overhangs and walkways are painted wood and require regularly scheduled maintenance. Some of the exposed glue-lam beams are showing signs of deterioration and it was noted that several beams have been replaced in the past. Exterior hollow metal doors and hardware are in various states of operation and age, many of which should be replaced.
InteriorInterior walls mainly consist of gypsum board on wood framing as well as exposed masonry which is predominately around the exterior. Almost all of the interior finishes such as carpet, paint, operable walls, ceiling tiles, etc. are in need of replacement.
RoofThe roofs are low–sloped, modified SBS roofing. The roofing was replaced on five of the buildings in 1997 and 1998. With a life expectancy of approximately 25 years for this type of roof system, the existing roofing is approxi-mately 40% through its useful life. Flashings and downspouts are painted galvanized steel and sheet metal. Deterio-ration exists in the roof deck at the downspout connections.
Hazardous MaterialsThe presence of friable asbestos-containing material such as pipe insulation and non-friable vinyl asbestos tile at various locations throughout the campus is documented. A hazardous material survey by an independent consultant is recommended in conjunction with planning of future modernization, additions or replacements.
Facility Description 10
Monroe School DistrictHutteball & Oremus Architecture
Park Place Middle School Facility Assessment
5.0 Facility Description5.1.2 Building A – Gym, Computer Science
GeneralOriginally constructed as part of the high school program, the large gym provides sufficient space for a middle school program. The maple hardwood floor was refinished in 2007. A divider curtain separates the gym into two instruc-tional areas. Bleachers provide seating which accommodates the entire student body. The ceiling shows staining from roof leaks and should be replaced. The lighting is inadequate and should also be replaced. Even with the large size of the gym, the school incurs a scheduling conflict as the wrestling season overlaps the basketball season. There is space available immediately adjacent to the south of the gym for the addition of an auxiliary gym if desired.
The locker rooms appear to be in good condition and adequately-sized. Minor renovations in the locker rooms should be considered, such as providing handicap restroom fixtures and toilet compartments.
The gym vestibule is in need of upgrades. The low ceiling, outdated and deteriorated finishes, and overall poor envi-ronment should be improved to support school and community events.
Classrooms in this building have been converted to computer instruction. They contain surface mounted conduits, power and data columns from the ceiling and acrylic lens light fixtures. Extensive improvements are recommended to meet programmatic needs and provide future flexibility to accommodate changes in technology and educational delivery systems as they evolve.
5.1.3 Building B – Commons, Music, Kitchen
GeneralThe Commons is adequately-sized but shows signs of failing finishes such as cracking floor tiles. This space would benefit greatly with the addition of more natural daylight. New wall finishes, lighting and architectural interest would make this space a more comfortable and functional place for students and community use.
The restrooms are not ADA accessible and require reconfiguration and all new finishes.
The Kitchen appears to be adequately-sized and functions well. Further review of food service equipment is recom-mended to determine if selective replacement of equipment is needed.
The Music Room requires all new finishes and sound attenuation products for proper acoustics.
5.1.4 Building C – Office, General Classrooms
GeneralThe main office is located at the front of the school but has limited supervision of students and visitors entering and leaving the site. This adds to the already tough job of monitoring a campus style facility for safety. Another possible issue is that the main office is separated from the counseling office which does not allow support staff, office equip-ment and supplies to be shared.
Facility Description 11
Monroe School DistrictHutteball & Oremus Architecture
Park Place Middle School Facility Assessment
5.0 Facility Description
General (continued)The existing classrooms remain as originally designed for a high school campus in 1974. There is little natural light into the rooms, a minimal amount of casework, and no sinks in the classrooms - typical of a high school program and not a middle school program. All finishes and interior materials are in need of replacement. Current middle school education methods benefit greatly from pod-configuration classroom arrangements with flex-ible break-out space for small group instruction and special projects. The current configuration of all classrooms exiting to the exterior does not promote this educational philosophy. Renovation of this building should consider the viability of classroom reconfiguration to include interior circulation and flexible learning areas centered on classroom pod relationships. See Attachment C concept sketch in the Appendix.
5.1.5 Building D – Counseling, Sciences
GeneralConsideration should be given to relocate the counseling offices adjacent to the general office for efficiency of staff-ing support and commonly use equipment.
The Science and Home & Family Life classrooms are in need of updated finishes, materials and equipment condu-cive to current program needs. The size and shape of the classrooms are adequate but all finishes are showing signs of accelerated deterioration. It is likely that a number of code issues exist at these areas such as ventilation require-ments, emergency equipment requirements, and other life safety issues.
5.1.6 Building E – Art & Technology
GeneralThe interior of this building was modernized in 1999 with all new finishes, casework, mechanical, data, and electrical systems. The interior of this building appears to be in good shape. The exterior should be cosmetically enhanced to blend in with other campus upgrades, as determined.
5.1.6 Building F – Library
GeneralThis building is in good condition and, as the newest building on campus, has minimal needs.
Facility Description 12
Monroe School DistrictHutteball & Oremus Architecture
Park Place Middle School Facility Assessment
6.0 Engineering Requirements
6.1 Structural Engineering Requirements
Description of Structural SystemsThe Park Place Middle School consists of five one-story buildings constructed in 1974, and a two-story building con-structed in 1990. A one-story classroom wing was added to the end of Building A in 1990, and modifications were made to Building E (Art and Technology Building) in 1999. The buildings primarily consist of wood-framed roofs on steel columns with concrete masonry unit (CMU) walls. The two-story Building F also consists of a precast concrete floor system at the second floor.
Vertical Force-Resisting SystemThe original buildings, Buildings A through E, are of wood-frame and masonry wall construction. The roof framing of Building A (the gymnasium) consists of plywood over tongue-and-groove wood decking spanning between open-web steel joists. The roof framing of Buildings B through E consists of plywood over tongue-and-groove wood deck-ing spanning between glue-laminated beams. Steel columns support the roof framing. The ground floor consists of a reinforced concrete slab-on-grade. The foundations consist of spread footings
Building F (the library and classroom building constructed in 1990) roof framing consists of plywood spanning between manufactured wood trusses, which are supported in turn by glue-laminated beams or wood-framed walls. Steel columns support the roof framing. The second floor framing consists of a 2 !” concrete topping over precast concrete hollowcore planks. The hollowcore planks are supported by wide-flange steel beams on steel columns or by the CMU walls. The ground floor consists of a reinforced concrete slab-on-grade.
The Building A addition roof framing consists of plywood spanning between manufactured wood trusses, which are supported in turn by glue-laminated beams. CMU and wood-framed walls support the roof framing. The ground floor consists of a reinforced concrete slab-on-grade.
Lateral Force-Resisting SystemLateral loads are the result of wind on the exterior walls, or inertia forces due to earthquakes. The lateral force-re-sisting system of the buildings consists primarily of wood roof diaphragms which distribute loads to CMU shear walls. The lateral system at the north wall of Building D and the south wall of the Building A addition consists of a wood-framed shear wall. At Building F, the lateral system at the second floor consists of wood-framed shear walls.
Seismic Review FindingsBased on our review, the following positive and negative features were noted which will influence the seismic perfor-mance of the building.
Positive Features:
> The buildings are fairly regular, both vertically and in plan.> Building F and the Building A addition appear to contain complete lateral load-resisting systems.> In the original 1974 buildings, the CMU shear walls are reinforced and anchored to the foundations.> In the 1974 buildings, the CMU walls appear to be anchored for out-of-plane forces (forces perpendicular to the walls) where the glue-laminated beams run parallel to the walls.
Engineering Requirements 13
Monroe School DistrictHutteball & Oremus Architecture
Park Place Middle School Facility Assessment
6.0 Engineering Requirements
Negative Features:
> Building A (gymnasium) appears to lack adequate out-of-plane anchorage for the CMU walls.> The 1974 buildings (Buildings A through E) appear to lack cross-ties between walls.> At Building D, the wood-framed shear wall may be under-sized. In addition, the original plans did not specify anchor bolt spacing, plywood nailing, or hold downs.> At Building F (new library), the wood-framed walls with brick veneer may not be adequately anchored for out- of-plane loads in some areas.
Recommendations and Conclusions
Based on the above findings, the following recommendations are made to address the issues.
> At Building A, install out-of-plane wall anchorage from the CMU walls to the roof diaphragm.> At the 1974 buildings, cross-ties may need to be added perpendicular to the existing glue-laminated beams to strengthen the diaphragm.> At the Building D wood shear wall, remove the existing gypsum board, add anchor bolts and hold-downs to the foundation, and add plywood directly to the wood studs.> At Building F (new library), perform a more detailed analysis on the out-of-plane anchorage for the brick veneer over wood framing. Add straps and/or blocking from the wood studs to the roof diaphragm.
Based on a cursory seismic review, the buildings at the Park Place Middle School meet most of the requirements for a complete lateral force-resisting system, but have some deficiencies. Recommendations have been provided to mitigate the noted deficiencies.
6.2 Mechanical Engineering Requirements
Plumbing SystemsThe existing domestic cold water service serves the campus from the northwest. The city meter is located in a vault at the northwest side of campus. Water is distributed throughout the campus underground to each building.
Most of the plumbing fixtures are newer and in good operating condition. Selected plumbing fixtures in classrooms may need updating to meet District program requirements. Most fixtures appear to have manual flush valves and faucets.
Each building has its own source of hot water. Most of the water heaters are gas fired and have hot water circulation pumps serving each respective building. Building A water heaters (serving the locker rooms) appear to be original 1970’s equipment. The locker room domestic hot water system also has a 1500 gallon hot water storage tank which also appears to be 1970’s vintage and is wrapped with asbestos insulation. The locker room showers appear to have a temperature control system located in the Building A Mechanical Room. This water temperature control system appears to be newer.
Engineering Requirements 14
Monroe School DistrictHutteball & Oremus Architecture
Park Place Middle School Facility Assessment
6.0 Engineering Requirements
Heating and Ventilating SystemMost of the school is served by approximately 23 rooftop, gas-fired air handling units. Age and condition of the existing units varies considerably. Most air handling units are showing signs of aging, i.e. rusting of outer housing, decayed seals and flashing.
Gas service for the campus originates from the west side of campus. The central gas meter is located in a field west of Building A. The campus is also served by a back-up (interruptible gas service) liquid petroleum gas (propane) tank located below grade adjacent to the gas meter. Since the local utilities no longer offer cost effective incentives to in-terruptible gas service, the propane tank and associated equipment are no longer used and have been abandoned by the District. The gas distribution piping downstream of the meter is distributed underground throughout the campus. The condition of the below grade, black steel piping is unknown, but it is more than 30 years old in some places, and has shown some instances of corrosion and leaking. Gas piping enters each campus building above ground. Each campus building has its own gas pressure regulator.
Life Safety SystemsThe campus buildings currently do not contain fire sprinkling systems.
Energy Management and Temperature ControlMost of the campus is served by pneumatic controls. The central air compressor is located in the mechanical room of Building A. Building F is the newest of the buildings and has an Alerton 3500 series DDC control system.
Mechanical Deficiencies and Recommendations
> Replace select gas-fired water heaters.> Replace gym gas-fired water heaters and storage tank.> Replace select rooftop air handling units.> Provide new DDC controls throughout.> A combination wet and dry fire sprinkler system should be installed.> Drain, remediate and remove abandoned propane tank, associated equipment and piping.> Test and evaluate condition of all below-grade gas piping and replace where required.
6.3 Electrical Engineering Requirements
Main Electrical ServiceThe existing main building’s electrical service is a 1200A, 277/480V, 3 phase, 4 wire, switchboard with meter #01 104 524 SN. A Snohomish PUD three phase transformer, and is located west of building A. The main service en-trance 1200A capacity is too small for this site. Typical classroom currently has four duplex receptacles; two in front and one each at adjacent wall.
Lighting SystemFluorescent 2’x 4’ light fixtures are used for classroom, office, and corridor lighting. The Main Gym contains (2) 4’ tandem wired industrial strip fluorescent fixtures with 3-40W T-12 lamps each. Commons area lighting is surface wrap and mono-point incandescent lights.
Engineering Requirements 15
Monroe School DistrictHutteball & Oremus Architecture
Park Place Middle School Facility Assessment
6.0 Engineering Requirements
Fire Alarm SystemFire alarm horn/strobes are installed in classrooms, and exits have a pull stations. The fire alarm system is Notifier system 5000 in main office. Kirkland annunciator panel is also at the main entry. Facility does not have complete smoke detector coverage.
Intercom/Clock SystemThe intercom head-end is located in a storage room inside the men’s restroom in main office and consists of a Bo-gen wall mount cabinet. The Lathem Master Clock in the office is not functioning. Future remodel work should plan for the intercom/clock system to be replaced with a newer model such as the Bogen Multicom 2000 or Telecenter ICS with updated a GPS controlled master clock and modern GUI computer interface for scheduling, notification and program modifications to the intercom head-end system. The cross-connect wall field for connection to the Nortel PBX cabinet is in the same storage room as the intercom cabinet. Security SystemThe security system consists of (2) Silent Knight 4720 Security Panels and (2) 4120 Zone Expander panels support-ing door contacts and wall mount PIR motion detectors. The security panel should be upgraded to a different panel since this Silent Knight panel has been discontinued by Honeywell if a remodel is undertaken. A CCTV surveillance system and perhaps an access control system should be considered to augment the intrusion system at the school.
Telecommunications SystemThe telecommunications system consists of what could be considered multiple MDF’s due to the separate loca-tions of the copper backbones in the district PBX room, multimode fiber in a telecom room (TR) on the lower floor of Building F and singlemode fiber in a TR on the upper floor of Building F. There are also several IDF locations throughout the campus located in shared storage rooms or custodial rooms to serve the horizontal cabling to the workstations in each building.
The phone demarc is located in the main electrical room on the west side of the Gym building with several multipair CAT3 extensions to the phone backboard in the Main office intercom room, telecom rooms and the district PBX room in Bldg-A Gym. There are (3) T1 shelves or chassis in the demarc room connecting the district main PBX to the Nortel option 11 PBX cabinets in other schools in the district.
The district Nortel CS-1000 PBX is located in the Bldg-A Gym Storage room. This room has a 24-strand singlemode connection to the server farm TR on the second floor of Building F and a 6-strand optical fiber connection to the portable IDF classroom. There are (2) UPS’s in the room to support the PBX system. The telecommunications racks in the room are (2) CPI 7’x19” racks housing the multimode and singlemode rack mount fiber cabinets (RMFC), AMP ACO copper patch panels and a DS3 MUX. There is a Verizon singlemode fiber service point of presence (POP) on a 7’x23” rack in the room as well with a battery rectifier.
The IDF room in Bldg-B doubles as a storage room and consists of a wall-mounted backboard with an AMP ACO patch panel with CAT 5 cabling to the workstation outlets. There is a Surface-Mounted Fiber Cabinet (SMFC) for the optical fiber backbone. There is a 6-strand 62.5/125 fiber connected with ST connectors in the SMFC to Bldg-F lower floor IDF room RMFC and another 6-strand 62.5/125 fiber connected in the SMFC to the network administra-tors room also located in Bldg-B adjacent to the Kitchen.
Engineering Requirements 16
Monroe School DistrictHutteball & Oremus Architecture
Park Place Middle School Facility Assessment
6.0 Engineering Requirements
The IDF room in Bldg-C is in a shared custodial room. The IDF houses (1) 7’x19” CPI rack with an Ortronics RMFC and (1) 6-Strand 62.5/125 optical fiber cable to the RMFC in the lower floor telecom room of Bldg-F. The horizontal copper cabling to the workstation outlets in Bldg-C consists of AMP ACO patch panels and outlets with CAT 5 cable.
The IDF room in Bldg-D is in a shared custodial room. The IDF is on a wall-mounted on a backboard with an Ortron-ics SMFC and (1) 6-Strand 62.5/125 optical fiber cable to the RMFC in the lower floor telecom room of Bldg-F. The horizontal copper cabling to the workstation outlets in Bldg-D consists of AMP ACO patch panels and outlets with CAT 5 cable. The switch is located on a shelf adjacent to the backboard.
The IDF room in Bldg-E is in a shared custodial room. The IDF houses (1) 7’x19” CPI rack with an Ortronics RMFC and (1) 6-Strand 62.5/125 optical fiber cable to the RMFC in the lower floor telecom room of Bldg-F. The horizontal copper cabling to the workstation outlets in Bldg-E consists of Ortronics CAT5 patch panels and outlets with CAT 5 cable.
The telecom room (TR) in Bldg-F on the lower floor in the Library in a shared room. The room houses (1) 7’x19” CPI rack with (2) rack mount fiber cabinets supporting the multimode fiber backbones from all the IDF rooms on the campus. The horizontal copper cabling to the workstation outlets in Bldg-F consists of AMP ACO patch panels and outlets with CAT 5 cable from this TR.
The telecom room (TR) in Bldg-F on the upper floor is in its own locked and dedicated room to support district serv-ers and singlemode support to the Transportation Bldg, High School and district PBX room in Bldg-A. The servers and rack-mount fiber cabinets are housed in 4-post server enclosures. This room appears to be the district data center.
In looking ahead toward a potential remodel several factors should be addressed. The district PBX room is located in a space that is too small for its intended purpose of supporting the phone network and should be relocated to the upper floor TR in Bldg-F. The existing PBX room should become an IDF room for Bldg-A with the sole purpose to support the horizontal cabling and copper and fiber backbones of the building. The room can be divided to (2) room to become an IDF room and a separate storage room for gym equipment.
The 62.5/125 multimode fiber backbones should be demolished and replaced with 50/125 multimode fiber for sup-port of 10-Gigabit Ethernet backbones between all of the campus IDF rooms. A new 50-pair CAT3 multipair back-bone to each IDF with rack mounted patch panels should be provided for support of the voice backbone cabling and ease of patch cord cross-connects allowing data and voice port flexibility with the change of a patch cord.
All new the copper and fiber backbones should be pulled to the upper floor TR Bldg-F creating (1) MDF for the con-vergence of the backbone cabling infrastructure in one location. The MDF room in the upper floor of Bldg-F will need to be environmentally controlled 24/7 and house a UPS to maintain uptime for district server and phone support in the event of a short power outage. In the event of an extended power outage, the potential electrical modifications for this room include the addition of a generator to maintain the use of the district servers and phone system.
Engineering Requirements 17
Monroe School DistrictHutteball & Oremus Architecture
Park Place Middle School Facility Assessment
6.0 Engineering Requirements
Telecommunications System (continued)The horizontal cabling to the workstations should be upgraded to CAT6 cabling for compliance of Gigabit Ethernet and support future moves, additions and changes. CAT5e cabling could become hard to find in the near future as the industry transitions to CAT6 and augmented CAT6a cabling.
All IDF locations should be in dedicated environmentally controlled and locked rooms. A proper grounding and bonding system should be provided in the telecommunications rooms following NEC and industry standards. Cable runways to the racks should be utilized for seismic support and as a pathway for cabling support to the racks.
Engineering Requirements 18
Monroe School DistrictHutteball & Oremus Architecture
Park Place Middle School Facility Assessment
7.0 Summary of Observations
7.0 Summary of Observations The following categories were developed by the design team for use by the Monroe School District in evaluation of several options related to the scope of work for Park Place Middle School. Repair of deteriorated finishes, replace-ment of failing mechanical and electrical systems, and structural life-safety corrections should be implemented at a minimum. These items are included under the Priority 1 Recommendations. Priority 2 Recommendations expand the scope to include program enhancements and functional relationships that are intended to make the school function better educationally. Finally, Priority 3 Recommendations include exterior building improvements which would offer such things as increased natural lighting into educational spaces, a clear and identifiable main entry, over-framing of the existing low sloped roof to provide scale, interest, and an aesthetic component to the campus while at the same time providing a functional element for enclosing and routing of mechanical and electrical systems thereby reducing future maintenance burdens. The cost opinions that follow this section are arranged in the same categories to assist the District in establishing a financially viable scope of modernization for this facility.
Recommendations – Priority 1
The Priority 1 recommendations suggest correction of observed life safety issues and scope of improvements fo-cused on extending the facilities functional life. This includes seismic and structural upgrades and replacement of mechanical and electrical systems that are likely to fail and need replacement in the immediate future. This category also includes technology infrastructure improvements and a minimum amount of miscellaneous architectural im-provements related to replacement of finishes and maintenance driven items. This proposed scope of work is intend-ed to extend the life of the facility for another 30 years but only includes minimal improvements to the programmatic and educational aspect of the facility.
Recommendations – Priority 2
Beyond the scope of this report, but still of high importance to the overall education of the students, is the evaluation of programmatic issues related to classroom arrangement, functional relationships and provision of proper educa-tional delivery tools. This involves further research and involvement of staff and community to determine prioritization of such things as new computer labs, enhancement of the commons/cafeteria, general office reconfiguration, sci-ence classroom upgrades, and other required programmatic changes.
It is recommended that the District consider reconfiguration and upgrades of educational spaces to bring this facility up to current middle school standards.
Summary of Observations 19
Monroe School DistrictHutteball & Oremus Architecture
Park Place Middle School Facility Assessment
7.0 Summary of Observations
Recommendations – Priority 3
The items recommended above can be accomplished with little improvement to the 1970’s look and feel of the ex-terior of the school. Architectural enhancement of Park Place Middle School can provide a significant benefit to the District, its students and the community. Park Place Middle School is situated in a prominent location in Monroe and very visible to the community. Enhancement of the exterior to provide an identifiable entry, allow more natural day-light into occupied spaces, and over-framing of the roof to house new mechanical and electrical systems will provide the District with a quality educational facility ready to perform another 30 years. Replacement of covered walkways and enclosing exposed roof overhangs will not only enhance the look and feel of the campus but will also minimize future maintenance burdens. Providing the extra investment to update the exterior of this facility will portray an im-age of civic pride to the District and the community it serves.
Summary of Observations 20
Monroe School DistrictHutteball & Oremus Architecture
Park Place Middle School Facility Assessment
8.0 Cost Opinions/Options
8.1 Replacement Cost
To begin a budgetary cost analysis of the options and recommendations presented in this report, a baseline for total replacement of a new facility should be established. This is presented as a check to ensure that estimated renova-tion costs do not approach that of replacement.
Five recent new Middle School/Junior High projects bid in western Washington are shown below. Cost per square foot of each school was calculated then escalated using historic inflation rates to bring each school up to May 2007 prices. Each project was then escalated as a square foot price over the next four years using an estimated 8% an-nual inflation rate.
New MS/JH Construction Cost Study (Project soft-costs not included)Estimated Escalation @ 8%
School District Bid Date Area $M Bid$/SF on Bid Day
$/SF in May 07
$/SF in May 09
$/SF in May 10
$/SF in May 10
JH #7 Puyallup Oct - 06 97,235 $25.30 $269.35 $290.90 $339.31 $368.46 $395.78
MS #3 SVSD Nov - 06 87,600 $22.14 $252.74 $260.13 $303.42 $327.69 $353.91
Aylen JH Puyallup Nov - 06 97,235 $24.99 $257.01 $264.52 $308.54 $355.03 $359.88
Pioneer MS Steilacoom Dec - 06 83,805 $22.87 $272.90 $281.84 $328.73 $355.03 $383.43
Gray MS Tacoma Mar - 07 116,872 $28.50 $243.86 $252.63 $294.67 $318.24 $343.70
Averages 96,549 $24.76 $257.34 $265.69 $309.91 $334.70 $367.34
Assuming the District intends on running a bond in 2009, an estimated cost per square foot should be determined for a time that coincides with the midpoint of construction. The historical data above suggests establishing a budget-ary cost per square foot for new construction at a minimum of $368.00. These numbers reflect construction costs only. An additional amount of 30% should be added to the construction cost to cover design fees, taxes, permitting, testing and inspection, furniture ans equipment, etc. to arrive at a recommended total project cost.After establishment of the initial project cost, it is recommended that a 3% bond management and administration budget is applied. On top of this subtotal, an 8% contingency is recommended to protect the District from unfore-seen fluctuations in the bid market, material price and scope increases and escalation above the 8% annual escala-tion shown above.
The existing Park Place Middle School contains 109,912 square feet. Based on an estimated construction cost of $368.00 per square feet for new construction in 2011, the estimated construction cost to replace Park Place Middle School on its existing site would be approximately $40.45 million plus another $1.5 million for demolition and abate-ment of the existing facility bringing the total to $41.95 million. Adding 30% to this total for soft costs associated with taxes, design fees, permitting, furniture and equipment, etc., and then 3% for bond management and administration costs brings the project cost subtotal to $56.1 million. We then suggest adding an 8% contingency to protect the District from fluctuations in the bid market, material price in-creases above the norm, scope increases, and unforeseen escalation above the estimated 8% per year. This calcu-lates the estimated replacement cost of Park Place Middle School on its current site to $58,492,107.
> Estimated project replacement cost of Park Place Middle School - $58.5 million. Cost Opinions/Options 21
Monroe School DistrictHutteball & Oremus Architecture
Park Place Middle School Facility Assessment
8.0 Cost Opinions/Options
8.2 Modernization Cost
Determining a historic guideline of modernization costs is not as simple as replacement/new construction costs. The wide variety of scope for past middle school modernizations makes it impossible to establish a cost per square foot figure. The estimates that follow are projected to 2011 dollars and based solely on the architects experience and evaluation of the existing conditions and assumptions presented in this report.
8.2.1 Priority 1 – Life Safety & Systems Replacement
Seismic & Structural UpgradesStructural Improvements including patching 109,912 s.f. x $20.00 = $2,198,240General Contractor OH&P @ 8% $ 175,859
Subtotal Structural Upgrades $2,374,099Site ImprovementsDemo, Earthwork, Allowance $ 485,000Landscaping Allowance $ 65,000Curbs, Sidewalks & Paving Allowance $ 485,000Site Utilities – Power, water, gas Allowance $ 405,000Storm Drainage, Water Quality Allowance $ 390,000Site Lighting Allowance $ 48,000Misc. Site Amenities Allowance $ 240,000General Contractor OH&P @ 8% $ 169,440
Subtotal Site Improvements $2,287,440
Interior Finishes UpgradesDemolition Allowance $ 100,000Flooring Allowance $ 240,000Casework Allowance $ 430,000Interior Painting, Wallcovering Allowance $ 189,000Walls Allowance $ 243,000Ceilings Allowance $ 265,000Wood & HM Doors Allowance $ 125,000Door Hardware Allowance $ 140,000General Contractor OH&P @ 8% $ 138,560
Subtotal Interior Finishes $1,870,560
(continued)
Cost Opinions/Options 22
Monroe School DistrictHutteball & Oremus Architecture
Park Place Middle School Facility Assessment
8.0 Cost Opinions/Options
Mechanical Systems ReplacementMobilization, permits, submittals 109,912 s.f. x $ .45 = $ 49,460Demolition 89,290 s.f. x $ .30 = $ 26,787HVAC Replacement (except Bldg. F) 89,290 s.f x $48.00 = $4,285,920Plumbing (all piping & 75% of fixtures) 89,290 s.f. x $12.25 = $1,093,803Controls at Bldg. F (excluded above) 20,622 s.f. x $ 5.50 = $ 113,421Fire Sprinklers 109,912 s.f. x $ 3.40 = $ 373,701General Contractor OH&P @ 8% $ 475,447
Subtotal Mechanical $6,418,539
Electrical Systems ReplacementMobilization, permits, submittals 109,912 s.f. x $ .45 = $ 49,460Demolition 89,290 s.f. x $ .30 = $ 26,787Power 89,290 s.f x $ 14.60 = $1,303,634Lighting 89,290 s.f. x $ 7.80 = $ 696,462Low Voltage 109,912 s.f. x $ 7.60 = $ 835,331General Contractor OH&P @ 8% $ 232,934
Subtotal Electrical $3,144,608 Priority 1 - Total Estimated Construction Cost $16,095,246 Soft Costs @30% $ 4,828,574 Subtotal $ 20,923,820 Bond Management & Administration @ 3% $ 627,715 Subtotal $ 21,551,535 Project Contingency @ 8% $ 1,724,123 Total Estimated Project Cost for Priority 1 $23,275,658
The total estimated project amount for Priority 1 equals approximately 40% of the replacement cost.
Cost Opinions/Options 23
Monroe School DistrictHutteball & Oremus Architecture
Park Place Middle School Facility Assessment
8.0 Cost Opinions/Options
8.2.2 Priority 2 – Programmatic Enhancements
Budgeting for programmatic enhancements is not as precise as the preceding category dealing with identifiable life safety and system replacement items. There are numerous elective possibilities that require study and input. Pro-gram deficiencies, options, improvements, and possibilities are typically addressed as part of an architectural pro-gramming exercise produced by committee effort. As such, we can only provide a reasonable budget to work with and task a planning committee with prioritization of items to fit within the selected budget. Our experience has proven that significant programmatic upgrades can be added to the project with an additional 15% of the project replacement cost added to the scope of work identified in Priority 1. This recommends adding another $8,773,816 to the project to accomplish Priority 2.
Priority 2Estimated budget to accomplish Priority 2 adds - $8,773,816.
8.2.3 Priority 3 – Building Enhancements
Utilizing a similar philosophy for budgeting building enhancements for such things as a new entry, sloped roof, new window configuration, covered playshed, or a multitude of other options which will add to the function and overall character of the facility we will again suggest a budget to work with during development of the project’s priorities. We believe that investing up to 70% of the buildings replacement cost into extension of its life is a reasonable and prudent investment. This would provide the District, students and a community with a “like-new” facility and save 30% of the cost of a new facility. Adding the described architectural enhancements to the project will increase the recommended project budget another 15% as follows: Priority 3Estimated budget to accomplish Priority 3 adds - $8,895,000.
Cost Opinions/Options 24
Monroe School DistrictHutteball & Oremus Architecture
Park Place Middle School Facility Assessment
9.0 Summary
9.0 Summary
The existing facility is in need of renovation and upgrades. Maintenance efforts and dollars will continue to be spent on this facility in increasing amounts every year. The instructional quality will continue to be limited by the environ-ment in which it is delivered. Existing life safety issues, energy inefficiencies, and code issues will continue to exist until significant action is taken to correct these deficiencies.
This report includes only a few of the possible options for improvements. Cost information has been presented based on the information available at this time. Appropriate contingencies should be added to cover unforeseen market conditions that are not quantifiable at this time. When decisions are reached on a preferred option, it is rec-ommended that further investigation be pursued to further evaluate the scope of work and associated cost impacts.
Available state funding assistance was not investigated as part of this report, but it is assumed that a portion of any significant renovation to Park Place Middle School could receive state matching funding to assist the District with the cost of construction.
Summary 27
Monroe School DistrictHutteball & Oremus Architecture
Park Place Middle School Facility Assessment
Appendix
Attachment A Dates of Construction – Park Place Middle SchoolAttachment B Existing Site Plan - Park Place Middle School Attachment C Option 1a Diagram
Appendix 28
Monroe School DistrictHutteball & Oremus Architecture
Park Place Middle School Facility Assessment
Attachment ADates of Construction – Park Place Middle School
Appendix 29
Monroe School DistrictHutteball & Oremus Architecture
Park Place Middle School Facility Assessment
Attachment B
Appendix 30
Hutteball & Oremus Architecture Monroe School District
Existing Site Plan - Park Place Middle School Park Place Middle School Facility Assessment
Attachment C
Appendix 31
Monroe School District
Option 1a Diagram
Hutteball & Oremus Architecture
Park Place Middle School Facility Assessment
CHAPTER IX
WAC 392-341-025 (9) The need and the estimated capital cost to restore to design specifications the major building systems and subsystems that have deteriorated due to deferred maintenance.
2007 Monroe School District Study & Survey
9. ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST TO RESTORE MAJOR FACILITY SYSTEMS DUE TO DEFFERRED MAINTENANCE
The Monroe School District has traditionally been aggressive in the maintenance of District’s facilities. Upon review of scheduled capital projects none are ascertained as being the results of deferred maintenance. Current projects in the newly adopted Capital Facilities Plan are the result of programmatic changes, code upgrades, or replacement of systems due to age.
CHAPTER X
WAC 392-341-025 (10) A determination of the district’s time line for completion of the school facilities project.
2007 Monroe School District Study & Survey
10 01Timelines.doc
10. TIMELINE FOR COMPLETION OF MAJOR SCHOOL FACILITIES PROJECTS
The following is a tentative timeline for completion of new construction and modernization projects. These projects are contingent on voter approval of a future bond referendum and approval of State Assistant Funding. The Board expects to put a bond referendum on the ballot in the spring of 2009. If the referendum passes, and bonds are issued in a timely manner, then the planning, design and construction could be completed by the 2012-2013 school year.
NEW OR MODERNIZED MONROE MIDDLE SCHOOL 1. Design and Permitting February 2009 – April 2010 2. Bidding May 2010 3. Construction June 2010 – December 2011
CLASSROOM ADDITIONS TO CHAIN LAKE AND SALEM WOODS ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 1. Design and Permitting February 2009 – December 2009 2. Bidding January 2010 3. Construction February 2010 – September 2010
MODERNIZATION OF PARK PLACE MIDDLE SCHOOL 1. Design and Permitting October 2009 – February 2011 2. Bidding March 2011 3. Construction April 2011 - December 2012
Other projects identified under the 2009 bond such as land purchases, roofing, technology upgrades, kitchen improvements, etc. are planned to commence at various times throughout the prescribed 4-year bond campaign.
CHAPTER XI
WAC 392-341-025 (11) An inventory of accessible unused or underutilized school facilities in neighboring school districts and the physical condition of such school facilities.
2007 Monroe School District Study & Survey
11. INVENTORY OF UNUSED OR UNDERUTILIZED SCHOOL FACILITIES IN NEIGHBORING DISTRICTS
Introduction The Monroe School District conducted a survey of neighboring school districts to determine if accessible unused or underutilized school facilities were available for use. Each neighboring district was sent a letter requesting if school facilities were currently vacant or scheduled to be vacant within the next six years. Letters were sent to the following districts: Northshore School District Cheryl DeBoer, Facilities Specialist Riverview School District Conrad Robertson, Superintendent Snohomish School District Dr. William Mester, Superintendent Sultan School District Dan Chaplik, Superintendent The Monroe School District Board of Directors passed Resolution No. 1-2008 on the 14th day of January, 2008 stating that this survey had been conducted and is complete. A copy of the resolution is included in this chapter along with copies of the returned survey letters.
CHAPTER XII
WAC 392-341-025 (12) The need for adjustments of school attendance areas within the district.
2007 Monroe School District Study & Survey
12. ATTENDANCE AREA ADJUSTMENTS As a regular operating procedure, the Monroe School District adjusts service area boundaries to meet current housing requirements and projections. With every school in the district near or over optimum capacity, changes in the attendance area will not result in adequate space to house school children. Chapter XI indicates neighboring districts do not have unused or underutilized facilities and therefore, an adjustment in District boundaries will not defer the need for new construction and modernization.
Page 1 of 1
2/25/2008http://www.monroe.wednet.edu/HOME/LINKS/ESMap/Elementary-Attendance-map.jpg
Page 1 of 1Monroe Public Schools
2/25/2008http://www.monroe.wednet.edu/HOME/LINKS/MSMap/MS1.html