Solutions

The April 22nd Bond measure doesn’t look like it will make the 60% approval it needs to pass.  Yes, I’m pleased, but instead of cheering “We Win!” or moaning “We Lose!” let’s come up with solutions to the problem instead of name calling or blaming the other side.

Using the assumption that the District still has access to the unused $10 million from the 2011 Bond for $65.4 million I have a few recommendations to offer.

Overcrowding in existing schools

To resolve the issue of overcrowding at Rockwell Elementary, I propose that the district replace the portables with building structures similar to the addition at RHS.  Rockwell is expecting enrollment of 723 students by the 2015-2016 school year with a capacity of 460 students in “regular” (non-portable) classrooms.  There are 5 portables on site (appendix A) with a total capacity of 115 students (that calculates to 23 student per portable capacity; although there can be as many as 30).

The “brick building” classroom addition at Redmond High School was built at approximately $800,000 (rounded up for simplification).  That building contained 14 classrooms in a two story building that could provide space for roughly 420 students. The cost of building a portable is roughly $400,000 (rounded up). A portable contains two classrooms and provides space for between 45 to 60 students.

For the cost of two portables, Rockwell could build one brick building similar to the RHS structure and have 14 classrooms ready for students.  Even if the neighborhood had height restrictions or capacity regulations (I’m not clear on these); the District could build a single story building with 5-7 classrooms and still financially be below the cost of 5 portables while using the same amount of space currently being used.  The District could then remove the additional portables from the site.

Cost to replace two portables with one 14 classroom building: $1 to $1.5 million (my estimation; includes permitting, etc.)  Using the 30 student/classroom calculation, this could increase the capacity of Rockwell from 460 to between 670 (7 classrooms) and 880 (14 classrooms).

This leaves approximately $8.5 million left to use for other building projects.  I recommend that the District use the above method to replace all portables with actual buildings in at minimum 5 schools that are overcrowded or in danger of overcrowding creating more permanent classrooms and removing the need for portables.

Modernization

It is true that Juanita, Rockwell and other older buildings are in need of “modernization”; we also need to look to the future and build additional buildings for incoming growth.   So, to that end, I recommend the District begin looking at each project individually and not as a block.  Taxpayers have voted with their checkbooks and decided against writing the District a “blank check” for use over several projects that are undefined, unplanned and vague.

Plans and property information should be provided BEFORE the bond funds are requested so that taxpayers can see what the money is going for directly. The District should provide plans with each project for each school that outlines number of classrooms, capacity limits, building layout and plans for over capacity during the 30-40 year building life.  If the project is acceptable, the bond measure would most likely be approved by the voters.

Planning ahead

Although schools should be safe, environmentally friendly and efficiently structured, it is also the District’s duty to use funds wisely and with long term plans in view.  The District has added two NEW buildings in twelve years – Rosa Parks and Rachel Carson Elementary schools, modernized many others and has seen an increase in 1,400 students in that same time period.  Plans for two more elementary schools were not begun until the 2010 bond request (which was rejected by voters).  Many of the ‘modernized’ buildings have been completed with the same number of classrooms as the original buildings, yet increased building square-footage.

The District has had the same information as the taxpayers from City councils regarding growth patterns, housing market and residency numbers.  They boast award-winning schools that are both impressive and environmentally friendly; take pride in above-standard test scores yet seem oblivious that more families would move here to take advantage of those award-winning schools.

District representatives have claimed that ‘generous’ variances are the reason for the wild fluctuations in school crowding; I recommend that variances be discontinued and that boundaries be tightened or widened depending on population/capacity needs.  

Representatives also stress that the change to four year high schools brought on the problems; then the District should have been more aggressive in planning in advance for the increased capacity needs of buildings, rather than holding the taxpayer hostage for more funds for undetermined projects or shoving “temporary classrooms” (portables) on existing sites.  Lake Washington High School modernization began in 2009; the District announced plans for the class restructuring in 2010.  Lake Washington High School opened in fall of 2011.  There was adequate time in that two year period to adjust construction to prepare for the increase in students that has now become a crisis.  This pattern of inattention has carried through in many of the building projects that were in process or have been completed since 2010.

The District repeats that the goal for our students is to make them “future ready”, yet spends hundreds of thousands on landscaping, esthetically pleasing buildings and futuristic designs.  Those stunning buildings and manicured grounds are not are not built to last for the 30 years of expansion and use they claim they are intended for.

Will any of these issues resolve the current overcrowding?  Are they realistic?  I am only offering a few solutions to a problem that seems to be on-going and far-reaching.

What solutions can you come up with?

Other links:  

Horace Mann Parent Meeting

Redmond Neighborhood Blog

Six Year Capital Facility Plan 

LWSD Bond issue -- VOTE ON OR BEFORE APRIL 22nd!!!

Another view of the construction bond measures for the past 15 years.  The board presentation (Page 41) lists the Bond funding requested and denied or approved since 1998.  (My chart below is a list of the $$ and schools the bonds represented).

Year Bond $$ Schools Pass/Fail
1998 160 million Elementary schools:  Audubon, Franklin, Juanita, Lakeview, Mann,
Rose Hill, Thoreau, Twain; Kirkland and Redmond Jr. High;
Redmond High School Pass

2006 $436 million Lake Washington HS, Finn Hill Jr. High, Rose Hill Jr. High,
International, Community, Bell Elementary, Frost Elementary,
Keller Elementary, Muir Elementary, Rush Elementary,
Sandburg Elementary, Carson Elementary Pass (used $424M)

2010 $234 million (Proposed two new elementary schools, Additions at Redmond
HS, Additions at Eastlake HS, new choice Middle School, Juanita
HS modernization) Fail

2011 $65.4 million Additions at Redmond HS, Additions at Eastlake HS, New STEM Pass
School

Feb. 2014 $755 million (Proposed three new elementary schools, one new Middle school,
Two new choice High Schools, additions at Lake Washington High
School, Juanita HS Modernization, Kamiakin Middle School, Kirk
Elementary, Mead Elementary, Rockwell Elementary.) Fail

April 2014 $404 million (Proposed three new elementary schools, one new Middle school,
One new choice High School, addition at Lake Washington High
School, Juanita HS Modernization.) April 22 Vote

2018 Proposed no information

2022 Proposed no information


Enrollment and school buildings listed in District Progress Reports http://www.lwsd.org/News/publications/Pages/Annual-Report.aspx

Year Enrollment Schools/Buildings Notes

2002-2003 23,476 48 schools LWSD had 25 Elementary Schools, 7 Jr. High Schools, 4 Sr. High Schools and 12 choice schools.

2003-2004 23,629 (increase of 153) 48 schools

2004-2005 Not listed 45 buildings References a planned elementary school in Redmond Ridge:

“The final school to be modernized under the 1998 Bond is Rose Hill Elementary, which recently celebrated its 50th anniversary. Construction began in late spring with a scheduled welcoming of students and staff in September 2006. The 54,000 square-foot building is designed to support the district’s current and future educational programs. Site 41, a new elementary school to open in Redmond Ridge, will begin construction in the summer of 2005 and open in the fall of 2006.”  This would be Rosa Parks Elementary.

2005-2006 24,332 (increase of 703) 48 schools There is a full page explanation of the “modernization” program for buildings;  (page 10).

2006-2007 23,696 (decrease of 636) 49 schools (completion of Rosa Parks)

2007-2008 23,722 (increase of 26) 49 schools

2008-2009 23,937 (increase of 215) 50 schools (Rachel Carson Elementary School) Construction began on new LWHS in 2009 and district considers shift to 4 year High School)

2009-2010 24,178 (increase of 241) 50 schools

2010-2011 24,330 (increase of 152) 50 schools LWHS and Finn Hill Jr. High opens fall 2011, Environment opens fall 2011; John Muir being constructed; Bell Elementary beginning modernization.

2011-2012 24,912 (increase of 582) 50 schools




So, to be clear, I am not “anti-school”, “anti-children” a “denier” or against the bond process in its entirety.  What I am is a proponent of fiscal responsibility and an obligation to actually do the math of school growth vs. building.  The district has steadily increased enrollment an average of 200 students 8 out of the past 9 years; yet they have only built two new schools in that time and have re-built (“modernized”) existing schools at current enrollment capacity in most cases.

In addition the District seems oblivious to the correlation between “award winning schools” and the current housing trend in the District’s geographical area for the last 10 years.

Yes, I get the connection between rejecting the bond issue and not having the money for building more schools.  But what is my assurance that the District will use those funds wisely to build for the future?

A few more answers on the April 22nd Bond measure

I'm always asking questions! From an email send Friday, April 4th to Kathryn Reith, Communications Director, LWSD.

Answers in italics:

I know it’s the Friday before spring break, but I have a couple more questions.

1)  How much is the special “election” voting costing the District?  What does a regular issue/vote cost (the one in February for instance) 

Election costs can vary based on how many other jurisdictions are running measures and how many issues are on the ballot.  A typical February election costs about $200,000.  We are able to split this cost between our capital fund and our general fund.  It is hard to estimate how much the April election will cost since we will be sharing the costs with King County who is also running a measure.

We run our levy elections in February because of the district's financial year and the state’s rules on levies. Keep in mind that levies are collected on a calendar year basis and the district's budget/financial year runs from September to August, essentially on a school year basis. You cannot run a levy measure for collection more than one year later. So a measure passed in 2014 must begin collection in 2015. If we ran the levies in November of 2013, collection must begin in 2014. But the 2013-14 budget was developed in the spring of 2013, approved by the board in August 2013 and put into effect in September of 2013. We must be sure of our funding before that budget starts: voting in November would mean we had already started the budget year without being sure of the 2014 part of the levy funding. Voting in February 2014 for a levy that begins in 2015 works well for the funding cycle. Budgeting for the 2014-15 school year starts in spring 2014 and the school board must approve that budget by August 2014. That allows levy funding for both 2014 and 2015 to be confirmed before the financial year begins. Unfortunately, that also means we sometimes are alone on the ballot, or share the ballot costs with one other entity.

2)  Can you give me a rundown of the building bonds over the past 15 years?  What I’m looking for is how much money per bond was requested, if it passed or failed, what schools/developments the $$ was used for in each case.

2006 modernization bond: $436 million, for modernization of Lake Washington High School, Finn Hill Jr. High, Rose Hill Jr. High, International Community School, Community School, and Bell, Frost, Keller, Muir, Rush and Sandburg Elementary Schools, plus construction of a new elementary school on the Sammamish plateau (now Carson Elementary). All these projects have been built. The district did not need the full $436 million requested so $12 billion in bonds were never sold. 

2010 modernization/new schools bond: $234 million: for two new elementary schools, additions at Redmond and Eastlake High Schools, new choice middle school, modernization of Juanita High School. This measure did not pass. 

2011 construction levy: $65.4 million 6-year construction levy for additions to Redmond High and Eastlake High and the new STEM School. Passed. All three projects are completed.

February 2014 bond: $755 million for three new elementary schools; one new middle school; two choice high schools (STEM school on the Juanita High School campus and an internationally-focused school on the east side of the district); additions at Lake Washington High School and Eastlake High School; modernization of Juanita High School, Kamiakin Middle School, and Kirk, Mead and Rockwell Elementary Schools. This measure did not pass.

April 2014 bond: $404 million, current ballot. For three new elementary schools, one new middle school, one choice high school (STEM high school on the Juanita High campus), an addition at Lake Washington High School and modernization of Juanita High School.

I’m going to post the answers/responses to my earlier questions on my blog today.  Thank you as always for answering my questions.

Yellow vs. Gold-fish

You might be a parent or a child-caretaker if:

• You are either wiping one end or the other of a small-ish person all day long.  
• You can walk in a room and tell that someone has pooped vs. farted.
• There are Dora or Elmo underwear, pants, and socks on various surfaces of your house.
• You do at least one load of laundry per day because of “accidents”.
• Goldfish and pretzels are gourmet snacks.
• Friday’s are “Pancake” day.
• The days of the weeks are called out by their activity.
• All the kids can count to three because that’s all the choices you give them.
• There is regular and sometimes violent fighting over a car-seat or booster seat.
• You can sing the theme song from most (if not all) of the children’s programming on several different stations.
• There is usually at least one person crying; sometimes it’s you.
• You are required to know the difference between a bucket loader and a back-hoe front-loader.
• You know where all the construction sites are in town and re-arrange your errand/driving pattern so the kids can see them.
• You can explain the difference to a two-year-old between a “transit” and “school” bus.
• You wave to school bus drivers because you’ve met them in the bus pull-through even though your kids don’t ride the bus.
• You get emails from all the local elementary schools with lunch schedules and newsletters.
• You dance in the kitchen, but not because there’s any music.  You’re actually dodging the dog and several children playing underfoot.
• A field trip is going to the library, drug store or grocery store and it takes 30 minutes to get two items.
• You regularly use bribes and extortion to get what you want.
• You need the nap times more than the kids because you just want to think for an hour without hearing Dora in your head.
• You drive around town with a talking potty in your car.
• You can repeat the dialogue from most Disney movies verbatim, but you’ve not really ever ‘watched’ them more than once or twice.
• You purge the toys to get rid of the old, unused, boring or out-dated items and then go to Value Village to buy more toys.
• You know that the yellow goldfish actually do taste different than the gold ones.

More responses and answers regarding Special Bond vote, April 22nd

Kathryn Reith, Communications Director at LWSD answered some of my questions about the upcoming Bond vote:


Kathryn, thanks for the emails keeping me (and others) updated. So, of course, I have questions.  

1) Currently I show there are 151 portables being used in the District at various schools.  How many are proposed to be added in the next few years until the proposed bond-funded buildings are complete?  If you could break it down by school, that would be great.

With the opening of several newly modernized schools this year, there are fewer portables since those schools opened with zero portables and portables were removed from their campuses. There were 148 classrooms in portables in use in 2012-13. (The 2013 capital facilities plan reported 140, but that did not count the 8 classrooms in four portables at Redmond High that were considered temporary. Those portables have since been added to the inventory.) Over the summer, 22 classrooms in portables were removed due to modernization at Bell, Community, Rush, ICS, Rose Hill Middle and Stella Schola. Two were added at Redmond Middle School. So there was a net reduction of classrooms in portables by 20 to 128 for 2013-14. 

Ten portables will be added this summer to accommodate the additional students coming in. There will be four added at Wilder, four at Mann and two at Redmond Elementary School. We do not have any plans for portables beyond those additions. Should the April bond fail, I expect that will change.

2) What is the “life” of a portable and what happens to them after they aren’t used any more.  For instance, the portables at the “old” Horace Mann; what happened to them?  

The reasonable life-cycle for a portable is approximately 30 years+.  Many of the LWSD portables are older than that.  

In regards to what happens to old portables or portables that are not needed.  There are several options:
i. If needed elsewhere in the district, portables might be moved to a different school.
ii. If not needed, the district follows the state requirement to surplus the assets.
1. The surplus process requires finding out if other districts/schools might have a need for the portables
2. If no other district/school has need nor wants the portables, then the district can have others bid to take them
3. In some cases portables are deemed to be not in good enough shape to offer to other districts/schools or have others bid on them.  In these cases, the portables are demolished.

3) How much of the proposed bond issue contains money for portables to get us by until the new schools are built?  What will be done with those portables when the new schools are built?

The proposed bond does not have any portables at all in it for handling capacity needs at schools until new schools are built.  If it turns out that portables are needed to house students for project phasing, then those portables would be incorporated into the budget for that project. As for what would happen to them after the school is built, see the answer above. 

4) What is the plan for the “leftover” $10million-ish referenced in this document?  

Good question. The school board has expressed interest, if the bond passes, in using some of it, perhaps $3 million, to partner with the city of Kirkland on a new indoor swimming pool. The pool at Juanita High School is at the end of its useful life and the school board believes that recreation facilities are the city’s responsibility but we do need access to a pool for high school swim team practices. (Kirkland is in fact in a planning process to add a pool now.) 

The board will have to make a decision on what to do with the rest of the money. If the bond passes, it could be used to begin the design and planning processes for those projects. If that means we don’t have to use all of the $404 million in bonds, we won’t sell all of them, which will save taxpayers money. If the bond fails to pass, the board may decide to use the money to help house all those students, through portables or some other means.

Note: in addition to the $10-12 million we may have left over from bond sales, we actually did not sell $12 million in bonds from the 2006 measure, which saves taxpayers the money to pay back the bonds and to pay interest on them. 

By the way, I saw your posting on your website and I’d like to provide information that answers some of the questions you posed there and correct some misinformation. Here is a link to the details on the bond measure, which was posted shortly after the measure was proposed :

It includes the building square feet and the number of students total capacity. 

Please also note that the STEM school currently has 436 students, not 300. Next year, it will add one more class of 150 students and be near its total capacity. 

Impact fees were used for portables at Rosa Parks Elementary School because the 2010 bond did not pass and the new Redmond Ridge East elementary school therefore was not built. Remember that when Rosa Parks was built, an entire classroom wing sat empty. Students eventually did come and the school more than filled up. Students do not arrive from developments in neat sets that can fill a new school and we have found that voters are reluctant to fund new schools when they don’t see the real evidence, i.e., actual students, that they are needed. In the meantime, portables are often the only option we have.

We have announced the sites for the two Redmond Elementary Schools. That information is in the district’s capital facility plan, which is posted on the district website here.   We have not announced the locations for the Kirkland elementary and the Redmond middle school because we have not purchased property yet, although we are trying to. We are not trying to hide anything: we simply don’t have anything to announce yet. 

Boundaries will be set for the entire Redmond Learning community in a public process if the measure passes. That is the standard procedure for our district and every other school district. 

The district asked for many of these projects in 2010 and was turned down by the community. We told the community the need would be coming. I find it ironic that the district is being accused of poor planning when the planning work was done, the community was told that more students were coming and the request was made but turned down. A small request for the most immediate needs was passed in 2011. It is now 2014, three years later, and the students the district predicted were coming are arriving in droves.

The Redmond High School portables were affected by a generous variance process that allowed many Eastlake students to attend Redmond High when it was not their home school. That policy has been changed and many Eastlake students who applied for a variance for next year were turned down. 

Paige, please do continue to send questions my way. I will get the answers to this set as soon as I can.