Welcome
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
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.


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.
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.
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.

Amazon to grow Bellevue presence to 25,000 employees in a few years, with large new leases and tower plan
Facebook plans major research development in Redmond
Google expected to reach 1M square feet in Kirkland
Microsoft plans multibillion-dollar expansion, renovation of Redmond campus
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.
-2_t.jpg)


Facilities Advisory Committee's Work
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.
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.
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

Project recommendations
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.


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
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
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.
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
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.

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: $434 Million Phase 2: $397 Million + escalation Total: $831 Million + escalation |
Three phases | Address projected growth needs in three Phases.
|
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
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
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
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
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
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.
