Welcome

Thank you for your feedback!

Thank you for your interest in learning more about Lake Washington School District Facilities Advisory Committee and their recommendations.

In November 2019, Lake Washington School District (the District) formed the Facilities Advisory

Committee (FAC) to make recommendations for future facility planning, informed by enrollment trends, community expectations and district programs. These recommendations address the capacity and facility needs of the District to accommodate our rapid enrollment growth. This website provides more context on this issue, provide an overview of the work the FAC has done, and presents the FAC’s draft recommendations.

Last month, we heard from more than a thousand folks about the committee’s draft recommendations. Thank you to everyone who provided feedback.

The Facilities Advisory Committee will meet later this year and consider all the feedback provided. They will determine what changes they want to make and finalize their recommendations to the District and the School Board on how to move forward to address the District’s growth and aging facilities challenges.

How to use this site

Visit the tabbed “stations” to learn more about each aspect of the project.
Share this site with others who may be interested in learning about this effort to accommodate rapid enrollment growth in the Lake Washington School District.
Watch this site for the committee’s final recommendations to be posted.

Capacity Challenges

Enrollment Growth

LWSD has grown by 31% or 7,337 students in the past 11 years. That is the equivalent of 11 elementary schools in growth. Enrollment growth is forecasted to continue. The district anticipates that it will grow by approximately 4,500 students by 2029-30. These forecasts include the number of births in our area, current enrollment patterns and planned development within district borders. LWSD students need additional space for student learning. Currently, LWSD relies heavily on portable classrooms to meet student space needs. There are 162 portable classrooms in the district, which is the equivalent of five elementary schools or 12 percent of the district’s overall capacity.

a graph — The district is the fastest growing district in King County. This chart shows that enrollment has increased 32% between 2008 and 2020. Click the chart to enlarge it.

Portables usage infographic (EI) - in progress

Aging Facilities and Facility Needs

LWSD has a number of aging facilities. In February 2020, the FAC solicited feedback from the community through a Thoughtexchange survey. The community expressed concerns about aging and overcrowded facilities. The thoughts from the community were around updating facilities to accommodate population growth and upgrading aging facilities to make them equal to newer schools. Often, our aging facilities do not meet current educational standards that are being met at newer schools.

Dig a little deeper

LWSD assesses building conditions using state standards and industry best practices. The FAC pored over the conditions reports for all of the district’s facilities as they worked on their recommendations. See the conditions report for more details.

Past election results

Due to rapid enrollment growth LWSD has run a number of ballot measures since 2010 in an effort to reduce overcrowding and address aging facilities. Only two out of five bond measures received the super majority needed to pass. The district has had to implement short-term solutions such as boundary changes, program shifts, and the addition of portables at schools. LWSD still has critical capacity needs that must be addressed. You can learn more about past ballot measures here. You can also learn more about currently funded school construction projects here.

COVID-19 Implications

LWSD started the 2020-21 school year in a remote setting for most students. This decision was based upon recommendations from the Washington Department of Health and Public Health – Seattle and King County.

We are hopeful that the impacts of COVID-19 will be short-term, and LWSD is continuing to plan for long term enrollment growth. We know that many local businesses continue to hire (such as Amazon and Facebook opening new offices in our area). With these new jobs come more families in our community, which in turns means more students that will need space in our schools.

A chart — The district has not been able to build enough permanent space to keep up with enrollment growth. Portables have been added across the district to help bridge the gap. Future growth will outpace total available space. There are actually more capacity challenges in some areas of the district and at some grade levels. This chart represents district wide enrollment data for permanent classrooms and portable classrooms. The graph shows enrollment data collected from 2017 to 2020 as well as a projected enrollment increase of 4,500 students from the 2020-2021 school year to the 2029-2030 school year.

Amazon to grow Bellevue presence to 25,000 employees in a few years, with large new leases and tower plan
—Seattle Times, Sept 4, 2020

Facebook plans major research development in Redmond
—Redmond Reporter, November 16, 2018

Google expected to reach 1M square feet in Kirkland
—Puget Sound Business Journal, July 1, 2019

Microsoft plans multibillion-dollar expansion, renovation of Redmond campus
—Seattle Times, Originally published November 28, 2017. Updated June 12, 2018

Dig in to the data

The charts below show the projected percentage utilization for each school and the number of schools by Elementary, Middle and High School level that are projected to be over capacity by 2029-30. Utilization is determined by taking each school’s total projected enrollment divided by total capacity. These percentages include portable capacity at each site. Utilization percentages based on permanent capacity (without portables) are significantly worse.

A chart showing reduced capacity of school district — 23 out of 29 elementary schools will be at or over capacity in 10 years

Facilities Advisory Committee's Work

About the Facilities Advisory Committee

Lake Washington School District formed the Facilities Advisory Committee in November 2019 to make recommendations for future facility planning, informed by enrollment trends, community expectations and District programs. The FAC was comprised of a variety of community members and representatives, such as parents of students enrolled in the District, local businesses, senior citizens, City government representatives, and District staff.

FAC Role and Purpose

The District directed the FAC to align the facility strategy with the District’s strategic plan and make recommendations to accommodate the District’s rapid enrollment growth and continue to provide quality learning environments. The main purposes of the FAC were to:

Learn about Lake Washington School District’s work to date on long-term facilities planning, including the recommendations from the 2014/2015 Long-Term Facilities Task Force and the 2016 Bond Advisory Committee.
Review current demographic information, student growth projections and capacities
Consider recommendations made by the Long-Term Facilities Task Force and the Bond Advisory Committee in the context of current information and recommend any needed revisions or updates.
Provide recommendations on future facilities needs and financing options.

Meeting Topics and Outcomes

The FAC met monthly for in-person meetings from November 2019 to February 2020. The original schedule was to continue monthly in-person meetings, culminating with conducting communinty outreach to solicit feedback on the FAC’s recommendations in the spring, but this schedule was altered due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Meetings moved to a virtual platform and continued through May 2020 and community outreach was postponed until Fall 2020.

Meeting 1

November 20, 2019

Topic: Getting Oriented and Organized

Outcomes

Grounding FAC with background of LWSD facilities needs
Understanding history of work done and District’s response
Understanding role of the FAC

Meeting 2

December 19, 2019

Topic: Enrollment and Capacity

Outcomes

Understanding of capacity challenges, current shortfalls, and aging facilities
Understanding of how building condition is assessed
Awareness of available property and shortfall based on projected needs

Meeting 3

January 16, 2020

Topic: Managing Growth

Outcomes

Establish understanding of updated demographics and enrollment projections and updated District needs
Understanding of how facilities (condition and overcrowding) contribute to student learning and success
Understanding of how growth affects staff support needs

January – February

Topic: Community Consultation

Outcomes

Hear from the community regarding rapid growth, capacity shortfalls and aging facilities.

Meeting 4

February 27, 2020

Topic: Workshop: What We Build

Outcomes

Develop a revised project plan that incorporates revised enrollment projections

Meeting 5

April 2, 2020

Topic: Funding

Outcomes

Understand facility funding options
Understand facility construction costs
Understand pros and cons of funding options

Meeting 6

April 16, 2020

Topic: What We Build – Cost (Part I)

Outcomes

Revise preliminary project plan as needed to incorporate preliminary cost estimates
Revise funding options as needed in light of preliminary cost estimates

Meeting 7

April 30, 2020

Topic: What We Build – Cost (Part II)

Outcomes

Review revised project recommendations table and validate
Develop proposed project sequence/funding approach
Develop innovations recommendation
Review and confirm recommendations in Long Term Facilities Task Force report

Meeting 8

May 21, 2020

Topic: Refine recommendations

Outcomes

Review and confirm draft of recommendations report

A member of the public pins a piece of paper to a board — Facilities Advisory Committee members participate in a group activity to discuss prioritization of recommended projects.

Project recommendations

What are the FAC’s recommendations so far?

How did the facilities advisory committee come to their recommendations on what projects to build?

The committee looked at the District’s needs in each of the four learning areas, at each level, and attempted to balance needs district wide.

They worked to understand the capacity, age and condition of each school in the district, as well as the anticipated growth in the district and in each learning area. They learned that it was important to understand, when talking about a school’s capacity needs, whether that does or doesn’t include the use of portables. To make their recommendations, the committee looked at future capacity shortfalls with and without portables. Based on that, the committee identified the projects in the table below to meet capacity needs in the next 10 years.

A map of Lake Washington School District — A map of the Lake Washington School District learning areas: Juanita Learning Area in blue, Lake Washington Learning Area in purple, Redmond Learning Area in green, and Eastlake Learning Area in orange.

a group working together at a table — Facilities Advisory Committee members working in small groups.

How to read the project recommendations table:

The projects are divided into the district’s four learning areas (see map above) and by grade level band (high school, middle school and elementary school) within each learning area.
The capacity shortfall is what is projected to be needed by 2029-2030.
The first number (55 | 202) represents Shortfall with portables
The second number (55 | 202) represents Shortfall without portables
If an area is projected to have capacity, the shortfall is shown as 0

	Juanita Learning Area	Lake Washington Learning Area	Redmond Learning Area	Eastlake Learning Area
Capacity Shortfall by 2029-30	0 \| 0	506 \| 506	429 \| 641	0 \| 0
High School	n/a	Build a new choice school	- Build a choice school in either Redmond LC or Eastlake LC - Build an addition at Redmond HS	- Build a choice school in either Redmond LC or Eastlake LC
Capacity Shortfall by 2029-30	55 \| 202	224 \| 473	100 \| 274	0 \| 6
Middle School	- Rebuild or expand Kamiakin to 900 capacity - Reboundary to alleviate Finn Hill capacity or - Move Environmental MS to Kamiakin campus (or move Stella Schola)	- Build addition to bring Kirkland MS to at least 800 capacity - Reboundary Rose Hill MS and Kirkland MS - Move Stella Schola from Rose Hill to Kamiakin campus (or move Environmental MS)	- Reboundary between middle schools	- Rebuild or expand Evergreen MS to at least 900 - Reboundary to alleviate Inglewood MS capacity
Capacity Shortfall by 2029-30	75 \| 397	47 \| 668	0\| 762	85 \| 959
Elementary School	Move existing preschools off elementary campuses to alleviate ES capacity	- Add one new elementary school - Reboundary in areas most effected	- Build capacity on Redmond ES site - Rebuild and expand Rockwell ES - Reboundary to alleviate ES capacity	- Rebuild and expand Alcott ES and Smith ES - Reboundary to alleviate ES capacity
Other	- Refurbish Juanita field house and pool, partner with local government for athletic field use - Build or acquire space for preschools	Build or acquire space for preschools	Build or acquire space for preschools	Build or acquire space for preschools

Recommended Projects Table from Facilities Advisory Committee - 2020

Capacity data from Feb 27, 2020 Flo Analytics Capacity and Space Needs – Capacity through 2029-30

Recommendations rationale and project details

In the committee’s recommendations report, they provide their thinking and why they selected these projects. The committee recognizes there are a lot of projects to be funded and built. They said projects should be prioritized using these criteria:

Prioritize projects that address both capacity needs and aging schools
Spread projects across the District’s learning communities and across grades
Prioritize schools with capacity issues that can be enlarged and have available land that can be used more efficiently

The committee also urged the district to:

Be innovative and look at urban schools
Add smaller (choice) high school(s) since they would require less land and could help manage fluctuating capacity demands
Consider building new schools bigger to accommodate capacity needs

Facility Advisory Committee Project Recommendations

The following table provides additional information for each of these projects:

Project	Project Descriptions/Rationale	Location/ Learning Area	Permanent Student Capacity Added	Estimated Square Footage	Estimated Cost in Millions (in 2022 $$)
Redmond/Eastlake Area Choice HS	New school would provide space for an additional 600 high school students, helping to keep high school enrollments below 2000 students.	TBD/Redmond or Eastlake	600	50,000	$37.5
Lake Washington Area Choice HS	New school would provide space for an additional 600 high school students, helping to keep high school enrollments below 2000 students.	TBD/Lake Washington	600	50,000	$37.5
Redmond High School	Construct 14 additional classrooms to accommodate projected student enrollment increase	Redmond HS/Redmond	372	26,000	$19.5
Kamiakin Middle School Rebuild and Enlarge	Rebuild and enlarge Kamiakin Middle School. Aging facility does not meet current educational specifications. Major building systems not energy efficient.School built in 1974. Provides additional capacity. Rebuild also provides capacity for property to be used for additional buildings	Kamiakin MS/Juanita	900 total (330 increase)	134,000	$101.5
Kirkland Middle School	Construct 8 additional classrooms to accommodate projected student enrollment increase in Kirkland/Rose Hill Middle School areas	Kirkland MS/Lake Washington	199	15,800	$11.9
Evergreen Middle School	Rebuild and enlarge Evergreen Middle School. Aging facility does not meet current educational specifications. Major buildings systems not energy efficient. School built in 1983. School currently has 13 portables housing 324 students.	Evergreen MS/Eastlake	900 total (79 increase)	134,000	$101.5
New Elementary School (LW Area)	New school to address overcrowding at Lake Washington Learning Area Elementary Schools.	TBD/Lake Washington	690	78,000	$58.5
New Elementary School (Downtown Redmond)	New school to address overcrowding at Redmond Learning Area Elementary Schools.	Redmond Elem. site/Redmond	552	66,000	$49.5
Alcott Elementary	Rebuild and enlarge Alcott Elementary School. Aging facility does not meet current educational specifications. Major building systems not energy efficient. Provides additional permanent capacity. School built in 1986. School currently has 12 portables housing 276 students.	Alcott Elem./Eastlake	690 total (207 increase)	78,000	$59.1
Rockwell Elementary	Rebuild and enlarge Rockwell Elementary School. Aging facility does not meet current educational specifications. Major building systems not energy efficient. Provides additional permanent capacity. School built in 1981. School currently has 5 portables housing 115 students.	Rockwell Elem./Redmond	690 total (230 increase)	78,000	$59.1
Smith Elementary	Rebuild and enlarge Smith Elementary School. Aging facility does not meet current educational specifications. Major building systems not energy efficient. Provides additional permanent capacity. School built in 1988. School currently has 8 portables housing 184 students.	Smith Elem./Eastlake	690 total (253 increase)	78,000	$59.1
JHS Fieldhouse	Refurbishment of swimming pool, pool deck, pool locker rooms and field house locker rooms, training, weight and mat rooms. Facility was built in 1971. Swimmingpool needs upgrade to prevent complete failure/shut down.	Juanita HS/Juanita	NA	NA	$22.4
Early Learning Center (LW Area)	Construct 12 classroom Early Learning Center. Will free up capacity in elementary schools and provide for growth.	Rose Hill Elem. site/Lake Washington	276	28,000	$21.0
Early Learning Center (Juanita Area)	Construct 12 classroom Early Learning Center. Will free up capacity in elementary schools and provide for growth.	Kamiakin MS site/Juanita	276	28,000	$21.0

Financing recommendations

How to fund the recommendations

The facilities advisory committee discussed how to fund the recommended projects. The committee discussed which way to raise money to pay for the list of projects. They recommend the district use bonds to raise the money. Further, the majority of members recommend the district develop a phased approach to fund the project list.

How do projects get funded?

The state does not provide funding for construction of new schools to accommodate student growth and provides minimal funding for rebuilding aging facilities. LWSD must use two primary sources for funding construction: Bonds and/or Capital Projects Levies.

School bonds are similar to long-term home loans. They allow the district to borrow funds to build major capital projects and then pay it back over time. Bonds require 60% voter approval to pass. Bonds are repaid by assessments on property taxes that can be spread out for as long as 20 years.

Capital Projects Levies pay for building improvements, such as replacing roofs and other building systems, and can be used to fund construction as well. Levies allow school districts to collect a tax from taxpayers to fund projects. Funds are received over a designated period of time up to six years. Capital levies need 50% voter approval to pass.

Bond vs. Capital Levy:

Bond

Similar to a home loan: all proceeds up front and paid off over a long period of time (20+ years)
Able to receive larger amount of funding for level tax impact
Typically able to fund full school construction projects
60% voter approval required

Capital Levy

Funds received over a designated period of time (up to six years)
Able to receive limited (or smaller) amount of funding for level tax impact
Typically able to fund limited remodel projects, building additions, or other capital improvement projects
50% voter approval required

Committee discussion

Many of the committee members thought the project list should be separated into phases to reduce the number of times the community is asked for funding. Some committee members suggested the district should ask the community to approve one larger bond. They thought this would allow all the projects to be funded sooner. The majority of the committee recommended the district break the project list into phases and ask for a series of bonds to fund the phases. They also recommended the district use the priorities discussed above to decide which projects should go in which phase.

A group sitting around a table — Facilities Advisory Committee members working in small groups

Bond Phasing Options to Consider

Different options for funding

The District, using the recommend projects and input from the committee on prioritization developed three options to fund and build the project list. A no construction option is also shown here for the options.

Facility Advisory Committee Bond Phasing Options

Options	Plan to address facility needs	Estimated Cost
No construction	Build no new facilities or update aging facilities to accommodate enrollment growth of 4,500 students through 2030	$0
All in one phase	Address projected growth needs and aging facilities through 2030 by adding new capacity for 4,600 students.	$831 Million
Two phases	Address projected growth needs in two Phases. Phase 1 would address growth needs and aging facilities by adding new capacity for 2,400 students and includes funds for future property purchases. Phase 2 would address growth needs and aging facilities by adding new capacity for 2,200 students.	Phase 1: $434 Million Phase 2: $397 Million + escalation Total: $831 Million + escalation
Three phases	Address projected growth needs in three Phases. Phase 1 would address growth needs and aging facilities by adding new capacity for 1,800 students and includes funds for future property purchases. Phase 2 would address growth needs and aging facilities by adding new capacity for 1,500 students. Phase 3 would address growth needs and aging facilities by adding new capacity for 1,300 students.	Phase 1: $375 Million Phase 2: $251 Million + escalation Phase 3: $205 Million + escalation Total: $831 Million + escalation

*Cost includes program contingency and necessary property purchases

Specific construction projects, advantages and disadvantages for each phasing option

No Construction Option

Specific construction plans:

New Schools

None

Existing Schools

None

Advantages and disadvantages of this option:

Advantages

None

Disadvantages

Results in overcrowding at schools, significant boundary adjustments, reduced space for support programs
May need to use 4-year capital levy funds to purchase portables which would reduce funds needed for life-cycle upgrades (such as roofs, HVAC, athletic field upgrades, etc.)
May need to evaluate alternative options such as double shifting or year-round schools

All One Phase Option

Specific construction plans:

New Schools

Build two new elementary schools (Lake Washington and Redmond learning areas)
Build two new early learning centers (Juanita and Lake Washington learning areas)
Build two new choice High Schools (Redmond/Eastlake and Lake Washington learning areas)

Existing Schools

Rebuild and expand:

Kamiakin Middle
Evergreen Middle
Alcott Elementary
Smith Elementary
Rockwell Elementary
Build addition at Redmond High
Build addition at Kirkland Middle
Update Juanita High Pool/ Fieldhouse interior

Advantages and disadvantages of this option:

Advantages

Planning done for all projects
Projects could be built faster
Community is asked for larger bond measure less often

Disadvantages

More construction projects need to be built in a short period of time
Construction estimates may change for longer term projects
May impact tax rate long-term

Two Phases Option

Specific construction plans:

Phase 1 - New Schools

Build two new elementary schools (Lake Washington and Redmond learning areas)
Build one new choice High School (Redmond/Eastlake learning area)

Phase 1 - Existing Schools

Rebuild and expand:

Kamiakin Middle
Alcott Elementary
Update Juanita High Pool/ Fieldhouse interior

Phase 2 - New Schools

Build two new early learning centers (Juanita and Lake Washington learning areas)
Build one new choice High School (Lake Washington learning area)

Phase 2 - Existing Schools

Rebuild and expand:

Evergreen Middle
Smith Elementary
Rockwell Elementary
Build addition at Redmond High
Build addition at Kirkland Middle

Advantages and disadvantages of this option:

Advantages

Community is asked for smaller bond measure
Fewer construction projects to do at one time

Disadvantages

Community is asked for smaller bond measure more often
Construction costs continue to escalate
Capacity may not be added when needed

Three phases option

Specific construction plans:

Phase 1 - New Schools

Build one new elementary school (Lake Washington learning area)
Build one new choice High School (Redmond/Eastlake learning area)

Phase 1 - Existing Schools

Rebuild and expand:

Kamiakin Middle
Alcott Elementary

Update:

Juanita High Pool / Fieldhouse interior

Phase 2 - New Schools

Build one new elementary school (Redmond learning area)
Build one new early learning center (Juanita learning area)
Build one new choice High School (Lake Washington learning area)

Phase 2 - Existing Schools

Rebuild and expand:

Evergreen Middle

Phase 3 - New Schools

Build one new early learning center

Phase 3 - Existing Schools

Rebuild and expand:

Smith Elementary
Rockwell Elementary

Build addition at:

Redmond High
Kirkland Middle

Advantages and disadvantages of this option:

Advantages

Community is asked for smaller bond measure
Fewer construction projects to do at one time

Disadvantages

Community is asked for smaller bond measure more often
Construction costs continue to escalate
Capacity will not be added when needed
Overcrowding will continue

Next steps

Thank you for your input!

The Facilities Advisory Committee is reviewing all the community feedback submitted in October. The FAC will reconvene to finalize their recommendations, using community input as a guide, later this year. The final FAC recommendations will be presented to the LWSD Board of Directors in January 2021. The Superintendent and School Board will consider these recommendations as they plan for future ballot measures to fund construction.

This site will remain live for reference. Please look out for updates regarding the recommendations on the Facilities Advisory Committee page of the District’s website.