LWSD Boundary Survey

Link

If you haven’t taken the survey, I encourage you to do so. It’s a bit time consuming to wade through the information; I found that printing out the maps for each scenario and page 2 (describing how many kids to and from which school) helped a lot.

And a map of the district to see feeder schools to Middle and then High is helpful too.

LWSD Boundary Website link

Boundary Review Process

​A boundary committee will determine the boundaries for two new elementary schools and one new middle school

Boundary Feedback Meetings
May 4, 2017
The information presented at both Redmond Boundary Process Community Meetings is posted here. The first set of slides covers background information, including how the district determines how many students a school can accommodate. Three slides follow that present three different options for elementary school boundaries. The last set of slides provides information on four possible middle school feeder patterns.

After you have reviewed the possible scenarios, you are invited to provide feedback to the committee on these options.

To provide input, fill out the Boundary Change Scenario Feedback form by May 19.

No decisions have been made. The committee will use your feedback as it continues to develop options. The committee’s goal is to determine their recommendations so that boundaries can be set before February 2018. That’s when kindergarten registration will begin for the 2018-19 school year.

These changes would go into effect for elementary in the 2018-19 school year and for middle in 2019-20.

 

 

​​LWSD Seeks Feedback on Redmond Area School Boundary Changes
April 17, 2017
In January 2017, a Lake Washington School District boundary committee began the work to recommend new school attendance boundaries in the Redmond area. The district is building two new elementary schools and one new middle school in the Redmond area due to enrollment growth. These new schools serve students drawn from existing schools. Neighborhood boundaries for all elementary and middle schools in Redmond could change as a result.

The boundary committee is preparing multiple new attendance boundary options. The boundary committee will hold two meetings to get feedback on those options. Attendees will view the options in an open house format. Committee members will be present to discuss these scenarios and answer questions.  Both meetings will present the same information.

Boundary Feedback Meetings

  • May 4, 6:30-8:30 p.m., Redmond Middle School Cafeteria
  • May 9, 6:30-8:00 p.m., Evergreen Middle School Cafeteria

Parents and community members are invited to come to either meeting to learn more and review the options. Read the full press release about the May 4 and May 9 boundary meetings.

 

Redmond schools boundary criteria results
April 12, 2017
The first step in the committee’s process to develop new boundaries for the Redmond area is to review the criteria it will use to evaluate potential new boundaries. On January 31, parents received a message about the boundary process and a link to a survey. This survey asked for the boundary criteria to be ranked. Over 1,300 families responded to the survey. Respondents ranked the criteria in the following order:

 

​Ranked Criteria Rank 1 Rank 2​ Rank 3​ Rank 4​ Rank 5​ Rank 6​ Weighted Rank Total​
​1. Maintain neighborhoods to the extent possible 436​ ​383 ​204 ​124 ​109 ​67 ​6004
​2. Minimize the number of students and families affected 325​ ​245 ​223 ​193 ​184 ​153 ​5167
​3. Redistribute enrollment to match school capacity and accommodate growth ​269 ​207 ​251 ​233 ​201 ​162 ​4916
​4. Minimize transportation impacts ​115 ​217 ​280 ​302 ​250 ​159 ​4460
​5. Use natural boundaries to the extent possible ​97 ​161 ​216 ​233 ​255 ​361 ​3821
​6. Provide proximity of special programs to the extent possible ​81 ​110 ​149 ​238 ​324 ​421 ​3415

 

The boundary committee will meet throughout the school year. Later in the spring, families will be invited to participate in a community feedback meeting. Boundary options will be available for review and written feedback at the meeting. An online feedback forum will be available for families who cannot attend one of the community meetings.

 

 

Redmond area school boundary process begins
January 20, 2017
Lake Washington School District will build three new schools in the Redmond area to meet the needs of its growing enrollment. New schools draw enrollment from neighborhoods now assigned to existing schools. As a result, a boundary committee is beginning the process to determine the boundaries for two new elementary schools and one new middle school.

The new middle school and one elementary school will be located in Redmond Ridge. The other elementary school will be in north Redmond. The two new elementary schools are scheduled to open in fall 2018. The new middle school will open in fall 2019.

Read the full press release.

Advertisements
Standard

Here is the bell schedule for this week at Redmond High School (Redmond Washington):

No automatic alt text available.SBA testing is for 10th grade students and certain others who may require to take the SBA tests

Dear RHS Families:

This is to remind you and your student of the SBA testing next week – April 17th thru 21st.  All 10th Grade students will be testing along with several 11th and 12th students.  The Bell Schedule and more information is linked below.

 

The SBA (Smarter Balanced Assessment) test is connected to the Common Core curriculum and is part of the overall testing plan for Washington State.

My son is a senior this year.  As you can see from today’s (Wednesday) schedule, he has no school until 10 am followed by a 2 hour home room class followed by lunch.  It’s no wonder that he’s asked me to skip the day.  (I’ll let you guess if I said yes or no).

Tuesday’s schedule was not much better; with an 85 minute class period followed by and 80 minute home room period, then lunch or 4th period lasting 2 hours and 5 minutes.  They round the day off with 6th period of 85 minutes then dismiss at 2 pm.

I’m not a fan of the shortened Wednesday (LEAP) schedule to begin with.  On top of this year’s shortened Wednesdays, block scheduling, and standardized testing the school District had to change the school calendar due to snow days.  They made this decision AFTER the scheduled mid-Winter break (another waste of time) and added 2 days to the school year and made four ‘early release Wednesdays’ regular full school days. Last day of school for non-seniors in the District is June 23rd.  (Graduation day for Seniors at Redmond High is June 15th).  Here is the bell schedule for the Snow Days.

What is the purpose of having school days/hours if those hours are not used towards the best possible purpose?  For non-10th graders (for math sake, let’s say 3/4 of the student population or roughly 1500 students) the schedule seems to be mostly an excuse to skip.

Homeroom seems to be an excuse for the schools to host multiple assemblies. Attendance is required and absences are not excused except for the case of medical appointments. Last Friday (regular bell schedule) my other son ‘skipped’ home room to do homework in the lunchroom/cafeteria.  I received a call to report his absence and when I asked for it to be excused it was denied.  Apparently assemblies for ASB elections are far more important than studying or homework completion.

So, let’s recap:

Washington State schools are required to provide an annual average of 1,080 hours per school year in grades 9-12.

Those hours are not required to be actual learning hours.

 

 

 

Helping those in need

Standard

While you’re out shopping and dining and checking off your Christmas list, please consider grabbing a few more items for those in your area that are in need.

There are a number of ways you can help in your community — from food banks to homeless shelters, gifting trees at malls and other organized giving groups.  But I’d like you to consider just a couple more ways you can help in your local community.

This week I received an email blast from our high school principal.:

Our Counseling Department and our PTSA have asked me to send the following message to you. As a bit of background, every Friday, we provide food for the weekend for close to 30 of our students who would otherwise have little to eat on a non-school day. These same students have no money to buy clothing or school supplies for themselves, much less anything to get a small gift for the holidays for someone they love. In the past, we have counted on the incredible generosity of our community to help make these students’ lives just a bit easier.

Our Pantry Pack elves would like to include a small gift card in our last Pantry Pack delivery before the holiday break. Our hope is for $25 gift cards to Target or Fred Meyer – this way kids can get presents, clothes or food over the holidays. We also use these cards throughout the school year when we find students need new backpacks, school supplies or other items. Our stash of these cards is running very low at this time so we do not have enough to give one to all 38 of our Pantry Pack kids, not to mention other emergencies that come up. In the past we have had students tell us these cards made their season!

All gift cards can be dropped off in the counseling office! Please drop off by Tuesday December 13th, that way all the students will have time to receive their items. Thank you for helping to make the holiday season memorable for our students!

Now I’m pretty sure that there’s a local school in your area that has the same type of program.  Maybe it’s not called “Pantry Packs”.  Maybe you no longer have kids in school or you’ve just moved into the area and don’t know anyone.  Or maybe you just would like to spend your money in a way that would help local families but cannot stand the idea of going to a mall or toy store.

Go to your local grocery or grocery-department store and buy a gift card.  Any amount, or several different amounts would be great.  Next, go to any of your local schools  — elementary, middle/jr. or high school.  Let the office staff know you’d like the card(s) donated to their families in need.  I can guarantee that they know who they are and will make sure to get them to those families.

DO IT RIGHT NOW.  School closes (for our District at least) this Friday, December 16th.

Merry Christmas!

 

Eric Campbell speaks at community meeting

Standard

In January of this year, a new community organization was formed; highlighting the specific issues and community of Education Hill.  This new organization is called Education Hill Neighborhood Association (EdHNA).  At this time EdHNA has an online presence through Facebook and email.

The Association’s first 3 meetings focused on a Mission and Value Statement as well as meeting residents of Education Hill and others.  EdHNA meetings are open to anyone that is interested in attending; meetings are held the first Thursday of each month, 7 PM at the First Baptist Church of Redmond, 16700 NE 95th Street.

At the February and March meetings guest speakers from the Lake Washington School District, School Board and Facilities Planning Commission gave presentations.  Speakers included Dr. Traci Pierce, Siri Bliesner and Eric Campbell.  In addition to their presentations, the speakers were available to answer questions about the upcoming Bond request on April 26th, 2016.  For more information on the Bond, you can see the LWSD Bond page here.

Eric Campbell spoke at the March 3rd meeting. Eric is the CEO of MainStreet Property Group LLC and GenCap Construction Co., leading real estate development and construction-management firms dedicated to the vision, construction, and operation of landmark properties throughout the Puget Sound Region.Eric is also a Managing Member at Insite Property Solutions, which specializes in the management of multi-family properties. In his myriad roles, Eric is widely recognized for his dynamic industry leadership. He has successfully overseen billions of dollars in real estate transactions, leading the helm in the purchase, development, and operations of award-winning, mixed-used communities.

Eric spoke to the EdHNA members in his role as a member of the LWSD Long-Term Facilities Task Force.  Most of the presentation that Eric offered can be found here.

Of interest to me, was the insight and consideration the Task Force seemed to take regarding the overcrowding issue in the District.  Several strategies have been implemented to improve the planning and construction of new and re-built school buildings, including:

 

  • Using design pre-work to improve design concepts and lower costs.
  • Exploring best practices in school design and lean building principles.
  • Continuing to learn from other school districts that have had success with cost-effective design.
  • Convening a small expert advisory group to review design and construction of funded projects.

 

New “Design Principles” have been developed, which seem to be more in line with cost effective habits instead of award-winning architecture:

 

Design principle Description
​Stacking buildings ● ​Eliminate or minimize one-story designs

● Change designs to increase number of stories

​Efficient and simple design ● ​Buildings designed in more compact manner, i.e., box/cube shape

● Utilize quality systems, i.e., mechanical, lighting, controls, that are simple to use and maintain

​Aesthetic ●​ Emphasis on aesthetics that are pleasing and fit with neighborhood context, but not on design awards
​Standards ● ​Clear standards for design teams to ensure commonality in construction documents and building/system solutions
​Accountability of design teams ●​ System of accountability for design teams with respect to district standards, short-term/long-term value and educational goals
​Proto-parts ● ​Re-using portions of designs or design concepts across projects
​Grouping multiple projects to the extent possible ● ​Consider combining projects together using same design team and / or contractor

And the District / Task Force has a chart that explains the cost per project for each project in the proposed Bond and even a cost comparison of building different levels of schools in different areas and districts (see page for charts).

 

I recommend that everyone read up on the pages that LWSD has posted on their website regarding the bond and make sure to turn in your ballot on or before April 26th to cast your vote.

LWSD Bond Request April 2016

Standard

It’s been awhile since I’ve posted; life has been busy and there hasn’t been more than a short moment to put somethings together.  However, I have been asking questions, getting information and doing research so I’ll likely post quite a few things in the next week(s) or so.

First up is the Bond request from Lake Washington School District (LWSD) that will be on the ballot locally on April 26th.  I had a long list of questions that I asked of Kathryn Reith (*), Communications Director at LWSD.

I have copied and pasted the email questions and answers, with no edits below.

 

Kathryn, as always thank you for providing answers to my questions.  I, of course, have more:

2)  I have been told that the refurbishment of the ORSCC will cost roughly $8 million and only seat 96 students.  

Is this cost-effective for under 100 students (3 & 4 years old) in one location due to the age and structural needs of the ORSCC? 

How many preschool children does the program expect to serve and is this the only location for the preschool program? 

Why not put the preschool program in portables on site at the neighborhood school they would be attending?

Will this require more busses (and the expense for more drivers and IA’s for the classrooms)?

What is the student to teacher ratio for a preschool program vs. Elementary?

How many classrooms does the $8 million build and what are the future plans for the building? (what will be done with the building spaces that are NOT refurbished?)

3)  Why is the District focusing on buildings for preschoolers when they will be required to provide full-day kindergarten district-wide beginning in Fall of 2016?  What will be the student increase with full day kindergarten to the District?

ORSCC answers:

Let me give you some background on this project that will answer some of your questions. It’s important to consider all options to solve our overcrowding issues in a cost-effective, responsible manner. In doing so, the Long-Term Facilities Planning Task Force recommended using a facility the district already owns, the Old Redmond Schoolhouse. Because we accepted state money to build the new Redmond Elementary School, we cannot use the Old Redmond Schoolhouse for K-12 education without forfeiting the opportunity to get state construction assistance, but we can use it for preschool. By moving 10 preschool classes out of elementary schools, we free up 10 classrooms in elementary schools for K-5 education, which will help us reduce overcrowding.

The cost is about $7.8 million. The number of preschool students that could be housed will vary depending on the level of disabilities of the specific students, which then affects class size, but the number of students served on average likely would be closer to 120. What’s important, though, is not the number of preschool students served. It’s really about the space we now would be able to use in the elementary schools by moving classes into ORSCC. Putting the preschool program in portables at the elementary school would not provide any additional space.

Preschool classes are held in seven elementary schools around the district, serving about 400 students total. This location would not be the only location for preschool. Students are all bused to their schools and IAs are already assigned to their classes so this change would not require any additional bus drivers or IAs.

Plans for the spaces that are not used for preschool have not yet been determined. The district will be working with the city as plans are developed to ensure a smooth transition. As we do in all our buildings, community use will be possible in non-school hours. Since preschool does not have after school activities, I expect there would be more opportunity for community use of this building than most school buildings.

 

4)   As the first new schools won’t be available until 2018 and 2019, how will the District manage the estimated 1900 new students that will enter the system between now and then (District estimates 625 students per year growth)?

The district’s short-term housing plan is designed to get us through to the fall of 2018, when the first new schools open. You can find more information on that plan here. Note: the 625 students/year is the past growth, not the projected. (Last projections were for about 1500 more students by the fall of 2018.)

 

5)  Why is the capacity so small for remodels of Kirk and Mead Elementary schools; and no increase for Explorer remodel?

The Kirk and Mead Elementary School remodels would both grow those schools to serve 550 students. Mead was designed to serve 449 students under current class sizes. With the class size reduction funded by the state legislature going into effect, they could only house 392 students in the same building as it is now. So we will actually be growing the school from 392 to 550.  Kirk is designed to house 414 students at current class sizes. Under class size reduction, they could accommodate 360 students. So Kirk will grow from 360 to 550.

Explorer is a Choice School: their enrollment is set by the lottery and the fact they have three multi-age classes. This project is not designed to increase space. Instead, it is simply replacing three of the oldest portables in the district that are in the worst shape.


6)  What is the capacity ceiling (assuming there is one) for elementary, middle and high schools in our District?  How many schools are at that ceiling?  For instance, the proposed, new elementary schools have a capacity of 550; is that the ceiling (the highest number of students an elementary school can be built to hold)?

There is no specific capacity ceiling. However, there are generally accepted practices on school sizes. Some of the considerations include supervision requirements, capacity of common areas (playgrounds, cafeterias, libraries, etc.), traffic impacts and impact on the neighborhood, etc.


7)  Will the District be requesting an increase in impact fees from Kirkland, Redmond and King County with all the growth that is planned for these areas? 

The amount the district can request in impact fees is determined by a King County formula. I expect we will continue to request the amount we are allowed to.

8)  Will site and construction plans/layouts be available for citizen review & comment?

The Task Force recommended continued community input and involvement in planning. I don’t know yet exactly what shape that will take but I expect there will be opportunities for citizen input along the way, whether it is before, during and/or after the development of plans/layouts.

9)  How will the location of the new schools affect traffic in the areas they serve?  Is the City working with the District to mitigate the impact?

The city and the district will work together on traffic around the elementary school in North Redmond. The other two new schools are in Redmond Ridge, which is in unincorporated King County. We will work with King County on those schools.

 

10)  The $398 million bond only adds 2892 student capacity (based on the #’s from this page) for specific projects mentioned.  What is the proposed capacity increase for each of the bonds proposed 2018 – 2026?  And how does that match with the proposed 32,000 student increase by 2029-2030?  By my math, that’s an increase of nearly 2300 students per year for 14 years.  (2016-2030 is 14 years; 32,000 / 14 = 2285.71 rounded up). And why is that number different than the 625/year average the District is using on the website?

The district will increase from 27,830 TO 32,000 students total. The total increase from now to 2029-30 is about 4,000 students. The 625/year average is what the increase has been over the last five years. We expect the increase in students to slow. That’s because a significant driver in our rapid growth has been the incoming classes of 2200 kindergarten/1st grade students, replacing graduating classes of 1500-1600. As those larger classes have made their way through the system, we have fewer grades with the smaller total. Once all grades have that larger cohort, we won’t see that same kind of growth. I’ve attached a chart that should help you see the impact of the proposed bonds on classroom space.

11)  How many new schools does the District plan to build in the next several bond requests?  Not remodel, enlargements or additions, but NEW?  Where is the property located for these schools and has the District begun acquisition of these sites?

The Future Projects page now has that information for projects through 2029-30. There are two new elementary schools planned for Kirkland and one more new Redmond elementary school, in addition to those on the current bond. Two choice high schools will be added: one on each side of the district. I don’t believe that land has been specifically identified for any of those projects. The district does own some land but I don’t know if the specific parcels would work for any of these needs. There is money for land acquisition being requested in each of the next three bonds.

 

The information page online for the Bond requests is here.  The information is updated frequently; so I recommend you check back often.

Four upcoming community meetings are a chance to learn more about the bond measure and the projects it would fund. The four meetings will take place:

  • March 15 changed to March 23, Redmond High School cafeteria, 6:30-8:00 pm
  • March 22, Juanita High School cafeteria, 6:30-8:00 pm
  • March 29, Lake Washington High School commons, 6:30-8:00 pm
  • April 13, Eastlake High School commons, 6:30-8:00 pm

More information on the bond measure is also available at www.lwsd.org/news/2016-bond

 

If you’d like to ask questions of the school district, board members or Facilities Task Force; contact information:

Kathryn M. Reith, APR
Communications Director
Lake Washington School District
Office: 425-936-1342
www.lwsd.org
Facebook / Twitter

Siri Bliesner, District 5 (Education Hill)
sbliesner@lwsd.org

Other LWSD Board Members and emails here

Janene Fogard,
Deputy Superintendent
jfogard@lwsd.org
(425) 936 – 1229

Other ways to contact the District are here

 

(*) I had the pleasure of FINALLY meeting Kathryn in February at the Education Hill Neighborhood Association (EdHNA) meeting.  After all the years of questions and answers, it was fantastic to have a face to go with the emails.  I appreciate her thorough and information answers to my questions.

More LWSD Bond Questions

Standard

Monday, January 25th, the LWSD School Board approved putting a $398 million bond on the April ballot.  The “April 26, 2016 Bond measure will fund:  1) a remodel or replacement and enlargement (RR) of Juanita HS, 2) a RR of Kirkland El, 3) a RR of Mead El, 4) a new middle school on Redmond Ridge, 5) a new elementary school in north Redmond on 172nd, 6) refurbishment of the Old Redmond School House for preschool space, 7) a modular replacement of Explorer school. 8) Rockwell El will not be remodeled or replaced on any Bond. Pierce said the Capital Funds Levy would cover maintenance.  The “ask” includes $21K from potential State construction funding and $10K from impact fees. (From <http://redmondcity.blogspot.com/>  January 14, 2016)

I posed some questions I had to Kathryn Reith, Communications Director at LWSD.  Kathryn has always been a great source for me and repeatedly answers my questions and provides source documents and web links when I request.  I greatly appreciate her cooperation in providing information for me.

From an email dated Saturday, January 16th and answered Tuesday, January 26th (copied in total — boldface are Ms. Reith’s responses to my questions):

Paige:

Here are some answers for you. There is more information now posted on the website, and more to come. Let me know if you have other questions.

Kathryn M. Reith, APR
Communications Director
Lake Washington School District
Office: 425-936-1342
Mobile: 425-214-6115
www.lwsd.org
Facebook / Twitter

 From: Paige Norman [mailto:PaigeNor@outlook.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2016 10:43 PM
To: Reith, Kathryn <kreith@lwsd.org>
Subject: April 2016 bond questions

Hi Kathryn!  Hope you had a great weekend!

I have some questions about the new proposed bond issue for April.

Dr. Pierce said in her talk to the City Council last week that bond funds would be used for “remodel or replacement and enlargement” of several schools, refurbishment of the Old Redmond School House, and a modular replacement of Explorer school. (among other things).

What is the difference between “modernization” and “remodel or replacement and enlargement” of an existing school? 

The district is taking the advice of the Long Term Facilities Task Force to do some things differently: we are using specific cost-conscious design principles and are tapping into outside experts to act as advisors on the processes of determining how to redo an aging school. We hope to have more complete information on how we would proceed with each specific project available soon on the website, including the studies that have been done to determine the best way to proceed.

Why is Rockwell not considered in the 2016 funding?

The district is following the recommendations for projects through 2029-30 from the Task Force, which did not include Rockwell. Their focus on aging schools was on the older schools where they could be built larger, adding some space in areas where an entire new school wasn’t required. There are enough students to need an entire new school in North Redmond, which would also benefit Rockwell by relieving their overcrowding.

Will the new schools being built be planned to include future growth in the boundary areas?

The new schools are part of the overall plan that is designed to address enrollment projections through 2029-30. Those projections expect continued growth. This one bond measure won’t be enough to take care of all the future growth: we will need to pass the additional bond measures in the funding plan that are proposed for 2018, 2022 and 2024, all continuing the 2015 tax rate.

Will schools under the “remodel or replacement and enlargement” classification include more classrooms or just larger building footprints?

More classrooms. The enlargement part is because the Task Force suggested focusing aging schools projects on those schools that could be built larger to accommodate more students to help with the growing enrollment. To accommodate more students, they will need more classrooms.

What will be done with all the portables the district has purchased (at millions of dollars cost) and can a portion of that cost be recouped?

For the first bond, many of the portables are close to if not past their useful life. Portables are expected to last 20-30 years.  The portable inventory given to the Task Force last year showed portables at Mead Elementary between 24 and 28 years old, those at Kirk between 19 and 28 years old and those at Juanita High School between 23 and 28 years old. Add one more year since that list is now a year old. So most of these portables would be slated to be demolished. Newer portables that still have life in them can be relocated and/or potentially sold. That’s more likely to happen in later bond phases where the schools have portables that are younger and in better shape.

If the bond passes in April, when would projects start and when would the new elementary school be ready to accept students?

Preliminary planning is beginning, using funding left over from the 2006 bond measure, which was under budget. The new elementary school in North Redmond would open in the fall of 2018. (Remember, the school board approved a short-term housing plan to get the district through the 2017-18 school year.)

Thank you as always for your responses.

Paige Norman 😄

 

Bob Yoder at the Redmond Neighborhood Blog has published several posts about the District Bond issues, including Dr. Pierce’s report to the Redmond City Council and a list of “Principles” or terminology that the District is using to identify processes for the Bond.

 

 

The Board and the District are passionate about getting the word out for the Bond.  They will be hosting a Q&A meeting (details TBA) so that residents can get more information.  Both Eric Laliberte and Siri Bliesner will be attending one or both of the meetings for the newly formed EdHNA group in February and March to answer questions and give a presentation on the new bond.

 

I will continue to post information as I find out.

 

LWSD Press Release on Bond Requests

2016 Bond pages

LWSD Bond Requests Announced for next 10 years

Standard

Thanks to the Redmond Neighborhood Blog for posting this information!

http://redmondcity.blogspot.com/2016/01/update-on-redmond-council-lwsd-joint.html

http://redmondcity.blogspot.com/2016/01/superintendent-tracy-pierce-lays-out.html

Superintendent Traci Pierce laid out the funding schedule for building, more schools at last night’s city council study session.

  • $398,000,000 Bond measure will be put on the ballot on April 26, 2016.
  • $288,000,000 proposed Bond measure in 2018
  • $278,000,000 proposed Bond measure in 2022.
  • $207,000,000 proposed Bond measure in 2026.
  • EP&O (Educational Program and Operations) Levy/Capital Project Levy measure on 2018.
  • EP&O Levy/Capital Project Levy on 2022.
  • EP&O Levy/Capital Project Levy on 2026.

According to LWSD, the Purpose of a Capital Projects Levy

A capital projects levy provides funding for items that require a larger sum to acquire, improve, or maintain a capital asset, such as a school building or a technology solution.

Press Release on the 2016 Bond http://www.lwsd.org/News/2016-Bond/Pages/default.aspx

Total funds over the next 10 years that will be requested through Bond Process is $1,171,000,000 (1Billion, 171 million)

The District has 10 undeveloped properties in Kirkland and Redmond (Capital Facilities Plan 2015-2020, Table 4).  4 of these are listed as “In reserve”; 1 in Kirkland and 3 in Redmond (none in Juanita).

$398,000,000 April 26, 2016 Bond measure will fund:
1) a remodel or replacement and enlargement (RR) of Juanita HS,
2) a RR of Kirkland El,
3) a RR of Mead El,
4) a new middle school on Redmond Ridge,
5) a new elementary school in north Redmond on 172nd,
6) refurbishment of the Old Redmond School House for preschool space,
7) a modular replacement of Explorer school.
8) Rockwell El will not be remodeled or replaced on any Bond.

The Capital Funds Levy would cover maintenance.  The “ask” includes $21K from potential State construction funding and $10K from impact fees.

Pierce said the proposed 2018 Bond ($288M) would fund:
1) an addition to Lake Washington HS,
2) a new elementary school in the Lake Washington Learning Community,
3) a remodel or replacement (RR) at Kamiakin MS,
4) Eastlake/Redmond Learning community Choice School,
5) a RR at Alcott El,
6) land,
7) Special Ed learning spaces.

 

This chart from LWSD shows the age of buildings in the District:

http://www.lwsd.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/News/Long-Term-Facilities-Planning-Task-Force/2015.04.15/Aging-Facilities-Schedule-with-Choice.pdf

Additions such as at Redmond and Lake Washington High Schools are not listed on here; neither are portable/temporary classroom buildings.

The oldest schools listed that have not been rebuilt/remodeled/modernized are:

Juanita HS (1971), Kamiakin MS (1974), Kirk (1975), Mead (1979), Rockwell (1981),  Emerson (1983), Evergreen MS (1983), Smith (1986), Alcott (1986), Wilder (1989), McAuliffe (1990) and Inglewood MS (1991).
My questions for the District for the 2016 Bond:

  • How much larger will Juanita High School be?  Does that match the projected growth rate for that area?  Why or why not?
  • Why is Rockwell Elementary not being replaced in conjunction with the new school built on 172nd?
  • What will be done with the portables (that cost us $500k on average per portable)?
    Are the plans drawn for these remodel or replacements?
  • When will construction begin if the Bond is approved?
  • How will the District continue to manage the funds that come in for impact fees?
  • Why did the District use $29 MILLION mostly for portable classrooms instead of building a new elementary on 172nd or another of the unused properties?
  • How is the District planning on implementing the smaller class size ruling based on McCleary?

 

 

It’s no surprise I’ve not been supportive of the past bond issues due to my belief that the District has constantly misused funds.  Yet, we are in a no-win situation here.  Either we vote yes and give the District the money or we vote no and face more crowding in already overcrowded schools and portables littering school grounds.

Can we trust the District to use the money as promised?  Will they follow through in building schools that will house enough students for the community they are placed in for the current and coming growth?  Is it worse to have schools with empty classrooms or learning spaces for a few years or children learning in portables?

McCleary Decision  http://www.k12.wa.us/Communications/OtherCommunications/SummaryMcLearyDecision2013.pdf