July 2015

Withycombe Scotten & Associates  Portland, Oregon 

Pasco School District 

Pasco Facilities

Task Force Final Report

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

PASCO FACILITIES TASK FORCE MEMBERS

Brian Ace

Steve Allen

Alayna Bleazard

Rebecca Clark

Noemy Correa

Lance Dever

Lee Ferguson

Richard Garretson

Randy Hayden

Trisha Herron

Steve Hitchman

Richard Job

Christina Johnson

Sheri Mitchell

Ian Mitz

Charles Montgomery

Chase Morgan

Heidi Redfield

Avigail Sanchez

Jamie Southworth

Garrett Stark

Brent Stenson

Darrell Toombs

Rick White

TECHNICAL TEAM MEMBERS

Glenda Cloud, Deputy Superintendent

Liz Flynn, Assistant Superintendent for Instructional Services

Carla Lobos, Executive Director of Teaching and Learning

Kim Marsh, Director of Capital Projects

Janie Mata, Administrative Assistant for Operations and Legal Affairs

Jaime Morales, McClintock STEM Elementary Planning Principal

Randy Nunamaker, Executive Director of Operations

Howard Roberts, Executive Director of Fiscal Services

Sarah Thornton, Assistant Superintendent for Operations and Legal Affairs

Michelle Whitney, Executive Director of Teaching and Learning

OTHER PRESENTERS

Trevor Carlson, Public Finance Investment Banking, Piper Jaffray, Seattle-Northwest Division

KC Flynn, Assistant Principal of Stevens Middle School

Deidre Holmberg, Principal of Rosalind Franklin STEM Elementary School

Susan Sparks, Principal of Ruth Livingston Elementary School

Charlotte Stingley, Principal of Stevens Middle School

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FACILITIES STUDY PROCESS

Task Force Charge 1

Task Force Process 1

TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS

Priority 1: Improvements to Support Services Facilities 2

Priority 2: Additional K-6 Capacity (Elementary School 16) 3

Priority 3: Major Maintenance Needs Related to Safety and Health 4

Priority 4: New Middle School to Serve Central Pasco 5

Priority 5: Additional K-6 Capacity (Elementary School 17) 6

Priority 6: Maintenance Needs Related to Security and Energy 7

Priority 7: Acquisition of Land for Future School Sites 7

PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES BY PRIORITY 8

MEETING MINUTES Appendix A

BUILDING CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE NEED CHECKLIST Appendix B

 

FACILITIES STUDY PROCESS

TASK FORCE CHARGE

The 2015 Pasco Facilities Task Force was charged with formulating recommendations to the 

superintendent regarding the critical projects that should be included in the district’s next bond 

measure.  These recommendations were to be based on their study of: 

the school district’s 2014 Capital Facilities Plan,  

the recommendations of the 2012 Long‐range Facilities Task Force, and  

updated information regarding projected enrollment, school capacity, and facility condition.  

TASK FORCE PROCESS

Membership The membership of the 2015 Pasco Facilities Task Force included 24 parents and other 

community members, including representation of local government agencies.  

Meetings The Pasco Facilities Task Force met 10 times between January and July 2015.  Meetings 

were facilitated and recorded by Withycombe Scotten & Associates; these meeting minutes appear in 

Appendix A.  In the conduct of its study and deliberations, the Task Force had the support of the offices 

of the Assistant Superintendent for Operations and Legal Affairs, the Executive Director of Operations, 

and the Director of Capital Projects.  Other central office administrators provided their assistance as 

needed.  Together, they constituted the Technical Team. 

Study Topics     In the course of their work, the Task Force studied a variety of topics, including the following. 

The 2014 Capital Facilities Plan 

The December 2012 report of the Long‐range Facilities Task Force 

The 2012‐2015 Strategic Plan and District Improvement Plan  

The demographics of the Pasco community  

Current educational programming and anticipated program changes and needs 

Patterns of enrollment growth and projected future enrollment 

School capacities 

Major maintenance needs at all district facilities  

The impact of enrollment growth on support service facilities  

An assessment of the relative value of replacing and modernizing Livingston and McGee 

Elementary Schools and Stevens Middle School 

2  

The inventory of district properties, district land acquisition practices, and immediate land needs 

The provisions of the State of Washington School Construction Assistance Program1 

School district capital projects financing, including the Pasco School District’s existing debt, tax 

rate, and debt capacity   

The Task Force also toured three schools: the district’s newest one, Rosalind Franklin STEM Elementary, 

and two of its oldest schools, Ruth Livingston Elementary School and Stevens Middle School. 

Decision-making     The adoption of recommendations was exclusively a Task Force responsibility.  

Neither the facilitator nor the Technical Team members assigned to support the Task Force participated 

in decision‐making.  

TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Pasco Facilities Task Force adopted its final recommendations unanimously, agreeing to submit 

them as a set of ranked priorities, rather than as a single bond package.  The Task Force defers to the 

Pasco School Board with respect to the size of the bond measure to be put before the voters, however it 

recommends addressing the following needs in the order presented.   

PRIORITY 1: IMPROVEMENTS TO SUPPORT SERVICES FACILITIES

The Pasco Facilities Task Force recommends that the Pasco School District address four critical support services facility needs: adding bus mechanic bays, replacing the transportation office and driver break‐room, updating the maintenance office, and upgrading HVAC2 controls. 

Task Force Findings

The district’s support services are housed at the old airport site, on land leased from the Port of Pasco: 

transportation, transportation mechanics, maintenance/custodial services, nutrition services, the print 

shop, and the warehouse.  All of these services are directly impacted by enrollment growth. 

The 2009 bond program allowed the district to move the print shop into a larger, better ventilated 

space; move the nutrition services office into a portable; and expand bus parking.  However, significant 

needs remain to be addressed. 

1 Administered by the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, the School Construction Assistance Program provides Washington school districts with formula‐based matching funds for the construction of new schools and the renovation or replacement of old ones.   2 Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning 

3  

The impact of continuing enrollment growth is most apparent in the transportation department, which 

now operates and maintains 141 buses and employs 140 drivers, as well as bus aides, office staff, and 

mechanics.  Its buses travel more than 1.6 million miles every school year.   

The transportation department’s greatest needs are for the addition of two, double, pull‐through bus 

mechanic bays and the replacement of the office and driver break‐room.   

The district has just three, single‐bus mechanic bays (only two with lifts) to service 141 buses, a 

much higher ratio (47 buses per bay) than that of other districts in the region.  For example, 

Kennewick has 125 buses and five bus bays (25:1) and Richland has four bays for its 80 buses 

(20:1). 

The transportation office and driver break‐room are housed in portables that are more than 30 

years old (relocated from the district’s old administration center) and undersized for the current 

staff (more than 140 drivers and 13 office staff).  The replacement would be a single, insulated, 

metal building that would be inexpensive to build and energy‐efficient. 

The support services facility also supports the work of 30 maintenance workers (carpenters, plumbers, 

and electricians) and 75 custodians.  Needed upgrades to the maintenance office would require 

compliance with current building codes, including ADA requirements, as well as additional restrooms.    

The district changed to Alterton energy controls about 10 years ago, as new schools were built, because 

they have better service and a longer useful life.  However, nine schools still use an older version of the 

Carrier Comfort Works energy‐management system.  Centrally operated in the maintenance shop, this 

software monitors outside temperature and programs HVAC start‐times to reach the appropriate 

interior temperature by 7:00 a.m.; it also controls temperatures in unused areas.  However, it is 

obsolete; it is difficult to find computers that run the older versions of Windows it requires.  The 

recommended upgrade would replace the four oldest systems with the district’s new standard and save 

the parts to support the five remaining Carrier systems.  The long‐term goal is to move all schools to the 

new standard, for greater maintenance efficiency.   

PRIORITY 2: ADDITIONAL K-6 CAPACITY (ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 16)

The Pasco Facilities Task Force recommends that the Pasco School District construct elementary school 

#16 to add capacity for 800 students. 

Task Force Findings

The district has experienced sustained growth over the last 15 years, nearly doubling its enrollment 

between 2000 and 2014.  The rate of growth has not been as great in the last two years, but the growth 

continues.  Pasco’s K‐12 enrollment is projected to be almost 20,000 students in 2019, when its 

elementary enrollment is expected to exceed 11,000 students (K‐6). 

4  

The district has employed a variety of strategies to accommodate enrollment growth.  Chief among 

them is the addition of portable classrooms to school sites.  The district has 208 portable classrooms and 

will add 14 in 2015‐2016.  Approximately one‐third of Pasco students will be housed in portables.  Most 

school districts do not include portables when calculating school capacity, but Pasco does; with 

approximately 6,000 students in portable classrooms, it is not feasible to replace all of that capacity. 

The district has built five new schools since 2000, but enrollment growth has consistently outstripped 

new construction.  Even with the opening of two new schools, the district’s elementary schools will be 

over capacity in 2015‐2016.  This is due in part to another enrollment strategy: grade reconfiguration.   

Moving the sixth grade from middle school to elementary school in September 2015 will bring much‐

needed relief to the middle schools, but absorb all available elementary capacity and necessitate 

additional accommodations.  In 2015‐2016, the district’s elementary enrollment is expected to exceed 

its permanent elementary capacity by more than 1,300 students.  By 2019‐2020, projected elementary 

enrollment will exceed current permanent capacity by more than 2,000 students.3     

Over‐enrollment forces schools to make accommodations that impact educational programs, such as 

“tennis shoe” teachers; “art‐on‐a‐cart”; temporary portable classrooms; larger class sizes; modular or 

temporary shared facilities; shared classrooms; and repurposing classrooms designed to support 

particular programs. 

PRIORITY 3: MAJOR MAINTENANCE NEEDS RELATED TO SAFETY AND HEALTH

The Pasco Facilities Task Force recommends that the Pasco School District allocate sufficient bond funds to address major maintenance needs related to safety and health at schools districtwide.  

Task Force Findings

Historically, the Pasco school board and its administrative leadership have been proactive about 

providing funds to keep buildings in the best possible condition.  This has enabled the Operations 

Department to complete many needed improvements, although not always in their entirety (e.g., new 

chillers with antiquated delivery systems).  Principals in the older schools visited consistently praised the 

department’s efforts to keep their buildings as clean, attractive, and functional as possible. 

The Operations Department maintains ongoing, collaborative assessments of facilities and sites that 

combine their expert, onsite observations with input from principals and other building occupants.  

These assessments cover site elements and portables, as well as the seven major building systems 

(structure, HVAC, plumbing, lighting, electrical, data, and security/fire).   

The department tracks needs districtwide by facility in the “Building Construction and Maintenance 

Need Checklist,” which appears in Appendix B.  This matrix displays needs by age, construction and 

3 This assessment of elementary capacity needs does not reflect the implementation of the 2014 Washington Class Size Reduction Measure (Initiative 1351). 

5  

renovation dates, and assessment element.  Individual cells are color coded green (good), yellow (needs 

improvement), or red (poor).   

All but the district’s newest facilities have needs that earned them a “poor” rating in the “site” column.  

This is because Pasco schools have been over‐enrolled for many years and overcrowding affects sites in 

multiple ways.  Parking lots, bus‐loading areas, and parent drop‐off places become congested; and 

adding portables shrinks playgrounds.  Other columns with multiple red cells include the “HVAC” and 

“electrical” systems.  The “security and fire systems” column indicates improvement needed at several 

schools, not because these systems do not operate as they should to keep students safe, but because 

they have reached capacity and cannot be expanded further. 

Sound stewardship of taxpayer assets — as well as the desire to ensure that schools continue to be safe, 

secure, comfortable, and healthy for both children and adults — argues for ongoing maintenance of 

buildings and their systems.  This practice has served the district well in the past, and its continuance 

entails major projects that cannot be undertaken within the scope of the maintenance budget and must 

be addressed through capital funding.   

At this time, as in the past, it is not feasible to ask voters for enough money to address all of the needs 

identified in district facilities.  The Task Force chose to place the highest priority on major maintenance 

projects related to safety and health that would benefit multiple schools districtwide.  Examples include:  

sealing parking lots and playgrounds,  

replacing playground toy pads, 

repairing roofs, and  

improving HVAC system components. 

PRIORITY 4: NEW MIDDLE SCHOOL TO SERVE CENTRAL PASCO

The Pasco Facilities Task Force recommends that the Pasco School District construct a new middle 

school to provide an equitable educational experience for students who live in the central area of Pasco. 

Task Force Findings

The Task Force found — in their tour of the school, questioning of its administrators, and review of 

technical information provided by the Technical Team — significant deficiencies at the Stevens Middle 

School facility that affect the educational program, despite the efforts of a dedicated staff. 

Because of the age and original construction of the school’s buildings, these deficiencies would be both 

difficult and costly to correct.  In a study completed this year, MENG Analysis concluded that replacing 

the Stevens facility would be more cost‐effective and more supportive of the district’s educational goals 

than modernizing it.  Looking only at facility condition, they rated Stevens “on the poor side of fair.”  

With respect to educational adequacy, the school was rated “poor,” and one of the three components 

of that rating, environment, was rated “unacceptable.” 

6  

Task Force members shared a strong belief that there should be a middle school in the central area of 

Pasco: that these children should not be bused to a new middle school on the outer edge of the district, 

away from their community.   

At the same time, they recognized that replacing Stevens would present challenges.  The Stevens site is 

undersized for the district’s current middle school design, and there do not appear to be alternative land 

parcels that are both well‐located and appropriate for a middle school.  It would be difficult, perhaps 

impossible, to replace Stevens with students onsite, but the district does not have a “swing school” to 

house them in during construction.  

However, the Task Force believed this is a challenge that could be overcome with commitment and 

creativity and urges the school board to empower the district staff to explore alternatives. 

The following understandings apply to the central‐Pasco middle school recommendation.    

There may be alternative ways to meet the desired objectives of maintaining a middle school in 

central Pasco. 

The district is very strongly encouraged to explore and test alternative solutions prior to the 

next bond measure.  This effort should include both investigation of alternative central sites and 

consideration of alternative design options for the current site.  

The solution may involve adding capacity at one or more other middle schools to compensate 

for the inability to achieve the standard 1,250‐student capacity on the Stevens site. 

PRIORITY 5: ADDITIONAL K-6 CAPACITY (ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 17)

The Pasco Facilities Task Force recommends that the Pasco School District construct elementary school #17 to add capacity for 800 students. 

Task Force Findings

The district’s 2019‐2020 elementary enrollment is projected to exceed its current capacity by more than 

2,000 students.  Even with the construction of elementary #16 and the addition of portables to existing 

sites, the district will require a second new elementary school to house the number of K‐6 students 

expected.    

7  

PRIORITY 6: MAINTENANCE NEEDS RELATED TO SECURITY AND ENERGY

The Pasco Facilities Task Force recommends that the Pasco School District allocate sufficient bond funds 

to address major maintenance needs related to improving security and energy efficiency.  

Task Force Findings

At the Task Force’s request, the Operations Department identified “Priority One” major maintenance 

needs districtwide.  Of these, the majority relate to safety and health and are included in Task Force 

priority 3 above.   

This recommendation urges the school board to fund the remaining first‐priority needs.  This additional 

commitment to addressing major maintenance needs would make it possible to install security cameras 

on the grounds of elementary schools (car and bus pick‐up/drop‐off areas and playgrounds) and to 

upgrade HVAC controls at Pasco High School (resulting in significant savings from reduced energy costs 

and energy rebates).   

PRIORITY 7: ACQUISITION OF LAND FOR FUTURE SCHOOL SITES

The Pasco Facilities Task Force recommends that the Pasco School District allocate bond funds to acquire land that will be appropriate for the construction of new schools in the future. 

Task Force Findings

The citizens who sat on the Task Force were all aware that parcels of land large enough to be suitable 

school sites are becoming not only more costly each year but also more difficult to find.  They 

recognized that the district cannot afford to postpone purchasing the land it will need to construct 

additional schools in the future.   

There seems little doubt those schools will be needed.  The district’s contracted demographer, E.D. 

Hovee and Company, projects an increase in K‐12 enrollment of approximately 3,000 students between 

2019 and 2025.   

8  

PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES BY PRIORITY (Costs to Local Taxpayers Only)

Task Force Priority Estimated Cost

1. Improvements to support services facilities* $2,809,415

2. Additional K-6 Capacity (Elementary school #16)± 15,011,568

3. Major maintenance needs related to safety and health+ 3,725,000

4. New middle school to serve Central Pasco ± 29,927,576

5. Additional K-6 Capacity (Elementary school #17) ± 15,011,568

6. Major maintenance needs related t0 security and energy+ 2,534,000

7. Acquisition of land for future school sites** 3,200,000

Total $72,219,127

* Estimates are based on square footage and like construction; precise estimates would require site visits and/or bids.

± Estimated costs to local taxpayers are based on 2014 state averages for new school construction with 4% per year escalation assuming 2017 construction and 46% state match for elementary, 47% state match for middle school.

+ Estimates are based on like projects; precise estimates would require site visits and/or bids.

** Estimate based on the desired size of a high school site (75 acres) and the average cost of the district’s last two large land purchases, assuming increased cost over time.

Appendix A

MEETING MINUTES

1  

Pasco School District

Facilities Task Force Meeting Date: January 22, 2015

I. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS

Assistant Superintendent of Operations and Legal Affairs Sarah Thornton welcomed task force members and thanked them for their “willingness to make the significant commitment” of helping with this important task.

She asked members of the non‐voting technical team that will support the task force’s work to 

introduce themselves: Kim Marsh, director of capital projects; Randy Nunamaker, executive director of 

operations; Howard Roberts, executive director of fiscal services; Liz Flynn, assistant superintendent; 

Carla Lobos, executive director of teaching and learning; Janie Mata, administrative assistant for 

operations and legal affairs; Jaime Morales, planning principal for McClintock STEM Elementary School; 

and Glenda Cloud, deputy superintendent. 

Sarah introduced Dick Withycombe, who will facilitate the task force process, and he asked task force 

members to introduce themselves.  The 23‐member citizens’ task force includes parents of students, 

former students, and future students as well as representatives of local government agencies and 

community organizations. 

II. TASK FORCE CHARGE

Sarah presented the task force’s charge: to review the priorities identified in the Capital Facilities Plan and the Long­range Facilities Plan and make recommendations to the superintendent, for presentation to the board of directors, that identify projects for the next bond issue, recommend when to run the next bond, and update the 20­year long­range facilities plan.

She said the fundamental question is: what will it take to bring Pasco schools back to their optimal 

capacity and to meet state requirements and community expectations?  The district has determined an 

optimal capacity for each school building, which would ensure each teacher an appropriate place to 

teach.  The state has established requirements both for school facilities and for the educational program 

(e.g., graduation requirements).   

The task force will build on work already done by district staff (2014 Capital Facilities Plan) and by the 

previous Pasco Facilities Task Force (2013 Long‐range Facilities Plan).   

This task force will create an updated long‐range plan, which Sarah described as a road map that 

identifies both a direction and priorities.  She said, “It is critically important for community members to 

be involved in these decisions and to understand the challenges the district faces.” 

III. DISTRICT BACKGROUND

Sarah’s PowerPoint presentation also provided background information, which included the following points.

2  

Pasco’s demographic profile is unique in the state. Comparing its October 2014 enrollment data with 2013 statewide data, Pasco had a larger Latino/Latina population (70%) than the state average (21%) and a smaller white population (24%) than the state average (58%). Its Asian/Pacific Islander, Native American, and other/multiracial populations were all smaller than the state averages.

Comparing Pasco’s October 2014 enrollment data with May 2014 statewide data, Pasco had higher percentages of students who qualified for the federal free/reduced meal program (74% v. 46%) and of students who qualified for English Language Learners services (35% v. 10%).

The Pasco School District is Franklin County’s largest employer, with 1,995 employees in October 2014 (not including substitute teachers).

Over the last 14 years, the district’s enrollment has grown by an average of almost 600 students per year (enough to fill an elementary school), nearly doubling from 8,850 students in 2000 to 17,016 students in 2014.

With the August 2014 opening of Rosalind Franklin STEM Elementary, the district now operates 13 elementary schools, three middle schools, two comprehensive high schools, and an alternative high school (New Horizons High School).

Delta High School, the STEM program jointly operated by the Pasco, Richland, and Kennewick school districts will move to a permanent facility in Pasco next year. It is not part of this facilities study.

Franklin is the first new elementary since Robinson opened in 2005. In the nine years between these school openings, Pasco’s K­8 enrollment increased by approximately 4,700 students. The district has added more than 100 portable classrooms on elementary school sites and is running out of room for additional ones.

The opening of Franklin in 2014 and of Curie and McClintock STEM elementary schools in 2015 will provide short­term relief, but will not enable the district to accommodate projected growth.

Questions and Discussion

Are we still opening an early learning center?1 The original plan was to place kindergarten at McClintock. As of now, that hasn’t changed, but it’s something the district is looking at. One of the cost­reduction elements of the 2013 bond was a primary school, because they cost less per­pupil to build than a full K­6 school.

                                                            1 The comments of task force members appear in italic print, those of presenters and technical team members in regular print.  Unless enclosed in quotation marks, comments have been edited for brevity and clarity. 

3  

Does the district get money from new construction? A city ordinance allows the district to collect impact fees for new residential construction ($4,700 for a single­family unit and $4,500 for an apartment unit). These funds are directed toward managing enrollment growth. The first fees were used to reduce the amount of money the district needed to borrow to complete the 2013 bond program and also to purchase and site portables.

I think it’s important for people here to know that the recommendation about keeping sixth­graders at the elementary schools came from the previous facilities task force.

Will we get information about state matching funds and district bonding capacity? Yes. You will see in the documents in your notebooks what kinds of information the last facilities task force looked at, and that will give you a very good idea what kind of information you will receive.

Do you have a budget for reaching optimal capacity? Not yet, because those estimates will be derived from the task force’s work. The task force will consider alternative ways of adding capacity.

Do we know why bonds have failed in the past? Some information is available, but the pattern of community support bonds has been good.

IV. OVERVIEW OF THE TASK FORCE PROCESS

Dick talked about the task force process. Meetings will start and end on time (6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.) and incorporate a break. Dick encouraged people to get up and stand or move around if they wish, but asked that they signal their interest in talking by raising their hands.

Meeting minutes will be sent to task force members before the following meeting and, when approved 

by the task force, posted on the district website so the community can follow their work.  The public is 

welcome to attend task force meetings as observers.   

Past Pasco facilities task forces made decisions by consensus.  Dick suggested that approach this time as 

well, and the task force agreed to strive toward consensus, with the understanding that they could 

adopt a voting protocol if necessary.  Dick told task force members there may be times when people will 

hold very different opinions, and he will give people time to express themselves and to understand the 

perspectives of others. 

He encouraged people to read the materials provided, to ask questions, and to engage in the 

conversation.  Dick also urged regular attendance “because information accumulates rapidly from 

meeting to meeting.”   

He asked people to let him know if they have concerns or suggestions about the process.  Sarah told task 

force members to feel free to contact her or Janie if they have questions. 

Dick said all information requests will be noted in the minutes, but the technical team will be asked to 

respond only to those that represent shared interests among task force members.  

4  

All meetings will take place in the board room, except the February 5 meeting, which will be at Franklin 

STEM Elementary School because it includes a school tour.  The other meeting dates and tentative 

topics are: 

February 19 (enrollment trends and projections; school condition and capacity utilization; school expansion needs)

March 19 (financial, legal, and election information; land holdings and purchases; support facilities; fields and grounds)

April 9 (development of recommendations for the next bond measure)

April 23 (long­range facilities planning)

May 7 (development of long­range facilities recommendations)

Pasco School District Facilities Task Force

Meeting Date: February 5, 2015

I. WELCOME

Facilitator Dick Withycombe welcomed task force members and asked them to introduce themselves again for the benefit of members attending tonight for the first time. He provided an overview of the meeting and called for approval of the minutes; the task force adopted the January 22 minutes as submitted.

II. SCHOOL TOUR

Principal Deidre Holmberg led task force members on a tour of Rosalind Franklin STEM Elementary School, which opened in August 2014. Some highlights appear below.

Library: Skylights with retractable covers allow the school to make effective use of natural light. As elsewhere in the building, lights are motion­activated, one of many energy­savings features. The library collection reflects the school’s STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) focus. The orchestra meets in the library, an example of the space­sharing that is already necessary.

School entry: The east­facing entry foyer is full of light, especially in the morning; sound baffles dampen the noise of arriving and departing students. The security vestibule, with its bullet­proof glass, requires that everyone entering the building be buzzed in by office staff. For security reasons, the school has very few external doors. Arriving and departing students use just two exterior doors, which lock automatically at 9:00 a.m. Staff members use key cards, to take students to and from recess for example.

5  

Office: The principal and assistant principal share an office in order to free­up a room for an intensive intervention program for first graders who are struggling with reading.

Teacher workroom: The teacher lounge has lockers for the personal belongings of volunteers, paraprofessionals, and substitute teachers who come in to work in the school. Volunteers use the supplies and equipment in the adjacent workroom to prepare materials for teachers.

Gymnasium and cafeteria: The gym sees a lot of community use, including daily use by the Boys and Girls Club and Pasco Parks and Recreation, as will the fields when spring arrives. The adjacent cafeteria has a stage, and the moveable wall between the cafeteria and gym creates space for seating as many as 1,500 people for performances. Cafeteria tables are designed to enable quick cleanup, so the space is available 25 minutes after lunch.

Music room: The music room is on the stage, behind another moveable wall. Displays and equipment in the room evidence the school’s efforts to integrate STEM and music. The school doesn’t call itself a STEAM school, but the arts are also emphasized.

Playground: The good­sized playground includes a large play structure, basketball courts, ball walls, and outdoor kid furniture. The area west of the main playground is roughed in for portables (i.e., utilities are available); the school site is an ample 20 acres.

Computer classroom: Not a traditional computer lab, the computer classroom is where students use resources like Scratch and Computer.org to actually program computers. Students learn skills in applications such as Microsoft Office in their regular classrooms.

Kindergarten classroom: Literacy is the primary emphasis in kindergarten and first grade, but displays reflect the STEM orientation. Rooms in the kindergarten/first grade wing have their own bathrooms, sinks, and drinking fountains. The STEM program benefits from the relatively large classrooms, but could use additional sinks. Classrooms have voice enhancement systems to ensure that all students can hear and participate. All classrooms have Wi­Fi access; in addition to daily instructional use, it supports state assessments.

Restrooms: Hand­washing areas are visible from the hall, easy to supervise.

Maker space: Designed to be a room where students could design and make projects, this space was repurposed as a bilingual classroom in the second week of school because enrollment exceeded forecasts. This means the art teacher must move from classroom to classroom with his supplies on a cart.

6  

Standing workstation: This arrangement puts all of the teaching technology in one place, in a smaller footprint; it is also healthier for teachers.

Special needs classrooms: Franklin houses two, age­group classrooms for students with autism, which have specialized spaces as well as appliances that support life­skills instruction. These classrooms have external doors where special education buses leave and pickup students. Students spend as much time as individually possible in the larger school (e.g., lunch, PE, regular education classrooms).

Upper elementary classroom: Displays of artwork and science experiments illustrate the hands­on STEM approach. Teachers use the periodic­table carpets Deidre designed as a classroom management tool as well as a teaching tool.

Storage room: Student interns from Delta High School assemble science kits as requested by teachers, drawing from a large collection of equipment and supplies.

Mechanical room: The school has several large mechanical spaces with programmable heating, cooling, and ventilation systems that are centrally controlled by the district’s maintenance department for maximum energy efficiency.

Questions and Discussion

What do you like most, and what would you do differently?2 I love the color scheme, the light colors, having lots of natural light; the technology package for all kids and all teachers. I might have a few more entrances, for recess for example, but not many; I understand the value of limiting the number of doors. We really need more bike racks. With 816 students, the traffic patterns could be better, perhaps a larger loop. I like the landscaping; the plantings are good, and they will fill in. I like the external lighting at night, which is designed to minimize light pollution (important for animals and migrating birds). I love having the self­contained special education classrooms at the end of the building where transportation is easy for them, but access to school activities is also easy. I love the laminate on the hallway walls, though it could go higher for the older kids. There’s very little I don’t care for. Of course, we need space; we’re maxed out. And I would move the flagpole away from the middle, because students are tempted to cross the loop there — but we can manage that.

Does this school work for the number of students? It works, yes. It gets complicated at recess, the coming and going, and parents miss the

                                                            2 The comments of task force members appear in italic print, those of the facilitator and presenters in regular print.  Unless enclosed in quotation marks, comments have been edited for clarity and brevity.   

7  

opportunity for daily contact with teachers that classrooms with external doors gave them. But it’s working the way it was designed to do.

What configuration changes would make this a non­STEM school? Actually, this is a non­STEM school adapted to be a STEM school. For a STEM school, I would have separate literacy and STEM libraries. I also think it would be possible to have more separation of younger and older kids on the playground.

Are the other STEM schools basically the same design? The basic designs are the same.

When the other two STEM schools open, will Franklin get some enrollment relief? I don’t know. That depends on the boundaries. (Deputy Superintendent Glenda Cloud reminded people that sixth graders will remain in the elementary schools when the new schools open.)

Is there a plan to make all the other elementaries STEM schools? Right now Franklin, McClintock, Curie, and Captain Gray will be STEM schools next year. The success of this is riding on Franklin, and if we do well on the state assessments (as I expect we will), the idea will gain support. If the idea gains steam, people will want to know more about it, will want to borrow lesson plans. It will grow by attraction. (Glenda added that all elementary schools incorporate some STEM elements and that there is a STEM track that goes through high school.)

III. CHANGES IN THE EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM

Dick introduced Glenda by saying that the educational perspective on school facilities is very important. Often overlooked in facility planning processes elsewhere, it has always been a strong component in Pasco.

Glenda provided a PowerPoint presentation, which task force members received in print.  At the 

conclusion of her presentation, she answered questions, and then invited people to call her if they have 

additional ones. 

Is the district interested in offering a pre­kindergarten program? Right now we have two classrooms, funded by a grant. We would like to build a facility and are working with Olympia on that for 2016­2017. If we had the space, we would start pre­K as soon as possible.

If the state mandates lower class sizes and the district can't do that, what are the potential impacts? That’s what we’re asking the legislature. When the state mandated smaller K­1 classes, districts didn’t get the money if they didn’t do it. Pasco would have lost $1 million. With portables, we will give it a good shot.

8  

How does the personal pathway work? It’s a state program. It asks students to think about what they may want to do and what that means for elective classes as they go into high school. Do they want to take engineering? World language? Agriculture?

If a student chooses a pathway, and then changes their mind, how does that affect the credits they need for graduation? The Personalized Pathway is about elective classes; all students have to earn the same 17 core credits, so it doesn’t affect graduation.

IV. NEXT MEETING

At Dick’s suggestion, the task force agreed to extend their meeting time to 8:30 p.m., at least for February 19. He said he felt they needed more time to cover, and to fully discuss, material related to potential recommendations. The next agenda will include enrollment patterns and projections and needs for additional school capacity. The next set of topics will include facility conditions and portable use.

Note: After the meeting, the technical team decided to add back the March 5 meeting, rather than extend the task force’s meeting time to 2.5 hours.

Pasco School District Facilities Task Force

Meeting Date: February 19, 2015

I. WELCOME AND DISCUSSION OF TASK FORCE PROCESS

Facilitator Dick Withycombe welcomed task force members, asking them to review the minutes of the February 5 meeting, which they approved as submitted.

At the first meeting, Dick talked about how he would approach the task force process and how he saw 

the group working together to complete their charge.  Tonight he assured the group he had been 

serious when he asked them to let him know if they have concerns about the way things are going, so he 

can make adjustments to better meet their needs and interests.  “Apparently, sometime over the past 

several weeks, there have been conversations in which individuals — and it doesn’t matter who they 

were — expressed concerns about the nature and direction of the meetings,” specifically a feeling that 

they were being pushed toward predetermined outcomes.  Dick asked task force members to talk about 

that — and especially about what can be done to prevent people from feeling that way, if they do.  “I 

don’t want people to feel manipulated toward a decision that is already out there in the wind.  I want 

people to feel this was a good use of their time and that the process was genuine.” 

9  

I haven’t got the feeling from anyone in the district that there was an overwhelming agenda behind the information they presented to us. Was there anything more specific in the comments being made?3

I think what’s going on now is because of the westside boundaries. There’s a group of parents who feel the district isn’t being open, and they’re angry. What I tried to say was that, if you’re concerned about what’s going on in the district, this is a good place to participate because what we’re doing here will shape things. Some of what this task force is doing will decide the location of new schools; but maybe they feel like that would take too much time.

They didn’t mention a specific task force. They just said: the district is leading task forces. I’ve been on four different task forces, and I have never once felt the district was pushing anything in particular. I always felt it was led by the people who showed up.

I’ve been on these facilities task forces before, and I have never felt that way about this group. It has always been very open. You can see the way things are; and it is what it is.

One thing I read was that somebody was afraid to ask questions. Don’t ever be afraid to ask questions, not in this group. Questions are how we come to different ideas, different ways of doing things. If they don’t have the answer, somebody can find it. Everybody has been nothing but helpful.

I do have one request. It would be helpful for me to have the materials early so I have time to review them before the meetings.

II. REFLECTIONS ON FRANKLIN TOUR

Dick asked task force members for their thoughts about what they’d seen during their February 5 tour of Rosalind Franklin STEM Elementary School, which opened in August 2014.

I was surprised to learn the school is already over its design capacity.

I wish all Pasco schools were like Franklin; the district should push all schools to the STEM curriculum.

It’s a beautiful school, but there are a lot of things being put into these new schools that kids in the older schools don’t have. I would like to see a common standard of education for all buildings.

Franklin is very functional. There’s no wasted space, and everything seems to be very durable. It’s very nice, but not over the top.

                                                            3 The comments of task force members appear in italic print, those of the technical team and facilitator in regular print.  Unless enclosed in quotation marks, all comments have been edited for brevity and clarity. 

10  

The principal and vice principal have to share an office, to make room for Reading Recovery. Will the designs of the new schools be adjusted, to make space for Reading Recovery? It’s up to the principals, how they use space; and it isn’t possible at this point to make design changes in the two schools that will open next.

We saw an empty school; I would like see it when students are present, to see where the choke points are, at lunchtime for example.

I would be curious to see how it compares to our older schools. We can bring in photos from both new and old schools; and we could schedule midday visits for interested task force members.

I would have liked to hear the perspectives of some teachers too.

The more security you have, the less access you have. That balance between security and flow is probably hard to manage.

My sons go to Franklin, but I didn’t know about the security features until our tour. I was impressed, and I haven’t experienced any inconvenience.

It’s interesting that there isn’t a districtwide standard for building security.

As a task force, we need to be aware of the cost per square foot because we need to build a lot of space with the money taxpayers are willing to give.

My kids are at McGee, where the highest enrollment last year was 1,018 students. There were classes in the closets, in the halls — every space was used. There are 780 students now, and it feels entirely different. It’s still crowded, but it feels totally different. You can walk through the halls. That’s the effect of adding schools.

We want to keep kids safe, but the thought in my head was: if we give up freedom for security, we will have neither. We don’t want a school to be like a prison. At some point, you have to take some risks. You can spend a lot of money, and maybe make things worse, if you have 300 kids trying to get in at one door. It’s about balance.

Balancing the needs for new schools, for upgrades at the older schools, for addressing security at all schools — it will be a challenge.

Everything about our school is amazing, with the exception of technology. Because of where we live, my kids don’t have much access to the things the Franklin principal was talking about. I don't want it to get to the point that kids in the older schools are disadvantaged when they get to the next level.

The district has established targets for the ratio of students to devices and has a plan for adding technology to schools. The issue in some older buildings is how much technology the infrastructure can support.

11  

When we get to that discussion, it’s important to talk about return on investment (ROI), which will be a difficult discussion for us as parents.

III. ENROLLMENT GROWTH AND SCHOOL CAPACITY

Assistant Superintendent of Operations and Legal Affairs Sarah Thornton provided information about past patterns of enrollment growth, projections of future enrollment growth, and the implications of continuing growth for school capacity needs. Task force members received copies of her PowerPoint presentation. Supplemental information appears below.

Enrollment Growth and Projections

October 1 is the state’s official student­count date. Because actual enrollment varies over the school year, for consistency the task force will use October 1 enrollment data.

The district has experienced sustained growth over the last 15 years, nearly doubling its enrollment between 2000 and 2014. The rate of growth hasn’t been as high in the last two years, but the growth continues.

The district has 208 portable classrooms and will add 14 next year. Approximately one­third of Pasco students are housed in portables.

The district has built five schools since 2000, but enrollment growth has outstripped new construction.

Moving the sixth grade to the elementary schools next year will relieve crowding at the middle schools.

The district’s online learning program is an option that both meets the needs of some students and contributes to the capacity solution; however all students may enroll in a school building.

Does the state fund something like that differently? Yes, the state has an alternative­learning formula.

The district uses multiple sources to validate enrollment projections. The annual forecasts from the state Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) are typically very close. Their cohort­survival methodology applies historical patterns to each class of students as they move from kindergarten through twelfth grade. (Note: the OSPI projections in this PowerPoint are more recent than those in the Capital Facilities Plan in the task force notebook; the updated projections are slightly lower.)

The district contracts with a demographer to provide another perspective on enrollment projections. The E.D. Hovee forecasts take into account external factors that affect school enrollment, such as changes in birth rates, employment opportunities, and housing development. The demographer

12  

provides two projections: baseline (low growth) and high growth. Actual enrollments have generally fallen between the two.

Hovee provides an 11­year projection; the state doesn’t forecast enrollment that far ahead. The further out, the more difficult it is to predict growth. As district enrollment increases, each percentage point means a greater number of students.

The average of the OSPI and Hovee forecasts for 2019 is an increase of 2,815 students over the district’s October 1, 2014, enrollment.

Who tracks population and employment growth? The city and county provide those data.

How would Running Start impact enrollment? There are two ways of looking at enrollment: headcount and full­time equivalency (FTE). Programs like Running Start, which take students out of the school for part of the day, affect FTE, but not headcount. For calculating capacity needs, we must use headcount.

School Capacity

Most school districts don’t include portables when calculating school capacity, but Pasco does; with approximately 6,000 students in portable classrooms, it isn’t feasible to replace all of that capacity.

The Quality Education Council (QEC) recommendations are specified in the Capital Facilities Plan. They’re important because they make recommendations for appropriate class size for Washington, which is being considered in current legislation and the McCleary funding case.

The district’s calculation of capacity also takes into account local considerations, including the contract with its teachers and district standards for both the core education program and special programs.

All Pasco schools are at or exceeding capacity, and that impacts program. For example, the art teacher at Franklin whose classroom was repurposed must now move from classroom to classroom and teach with the equipment and supplies that can be loaded onto a cart. In the secondary schools, “tennis­shoe teachers” use other teachers’ classrooms during prep periods.

There are no portables yet at Chiawana High School, although the school is very crowded. There are lots of portables at Pasco High School, but no more than there were when Chiawana opened. There are new portables at PHS, but these are replacements.

The middle schools are over­enrolled by more than 1,200 students; but that will change next year with the move to K­6 elementary schools. Even with

13  

two additional buildings, elementary schools will be over­capacity, but program adjustments (e.g., “art on a cart”) will make it work.

In the long­term (2019­2020), Chiawana and McLoughlin will be the secondary schools most impacted by enrollment growth.

Additional Questions

Task force members asked additional questions related to enrollment growth and school capacity; the technical team will provide the requested information at the next meeting. (See section V, below.)

IV. IMPACT OF ENROLLMENT GROWTH ON SUPPORT SERVICES

Executive Director of Operations Randy Nunamaker provided information about the impact of enrollment growth on support services facilities. The group received copies of his PowerPoint presentation; supplemental information appears below.

All support services are housed at the old Pasco airport site, on land leased from the Port of Pasco.

The transportation department operates and maintains more than 140 buses and employs 130 drivers as well as bus aides, office staff, and mechanics. Its buses travel more than 1.6 million miles every school year, so the district takes safety very seriously; it has received numerous awards from the Washington State Patrol for its maintenance program.

The support services facility also supports the work of 30 maintenance workers (carpenters, plumbers, and electricians) and 75 custodians; nutrition services; the print shop; and the warehouse (including frozen and refrigerated food storage). Like transportation services, these are all affected by enrollment growth.

The 2009 bond program allowed the district to move the print shop into a larger, better ventilated space; move the nutrition services office into a portable; and expand bus parking. However, the transportation department still needs additional bus parking and an appropriate space for the office and driver break room.

Has the district ever considered putting some bus parking on the west side? Yes. The initial capital investment was an issue, and so was routing and access; the current location has direct freeway access. The district is looking at leasing land adjacent to the current parking area. In the winter, the diesel bus engines must be plugged in, so we need electricity.

Does the district stage buses during the school day? Yes. If the gap is just 15 or 20 minutes, drivers can park elsewhere, which saves fuel.

14  

What’s the life span of a school bus? The state says 13 years; and the state depreciation fund will replace four or five buses a year. However Pasco’s enrollment growth has required five or six buses a year. The school board has decided to replace older buses at the rate of seven per year to get to an average age of 20 years.

The transportation department has 141 buses and three single­bus maintenance bays, only two with lifts. This is a higher ratio than that of many districts in the region. For example, Kennewick has 125 buses and five bus bays; and Richland has four bays for its 80 buses.

What work do you send out? Mostly body work; we do most of the other work ourselves.

Does Pasco have reciprocal agreements with other school districts? There is a statewide mutual assistance agreement. If one of our buses breaks down in another district, they will service it; and we will do the same for others.

The nutrition, transportation, and maintenance supervisors do a great job. Their department budgets are so tight, the state will use them as best practices for other school districts.

Pasco’s transportation department has received a 100­percent efficiency rating. One reason is that buses operate on four tiers: middle school, high school, eastside elementary, and westside elementary. Adjusting start times by geography reduces the number of buses needed.

V. INFORMATION REQUESTS

Dick reviewed the information requests he noted during the evening. Technical team members will respond to these at the next meeting.

1. Has the introduction of impact fees had an impact on new construction or school enrollment in Pasco?

2. How does Running Start affect high school enrollment counts?

3. What appears to be the relationship between enrollment and economic development/area employment?

4. How many classrooms are there at each grade level?

5. Are there other school districts with patterns of enrollment growth similar to Pasco’s? Which districts?

6. What is the standard rotation for school buses in the maintenance bays? How frequently are buses in the bays?

7. Are appropriate properties available for relocating bus parking and maintenance and what are the possible costs and savings of a new site?

15  

8. Are enrollment data available for the years before 2000?

9. Does a K­8 grade configuration have potential value in Pasco?

10. What kinds of improvements would be required at existing elementary schools to support the STEM program task force members saw at Franklin?

Pasco School District Facilities Task Force

Meeting Date: March 5, 2015

I. WELCOME AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Facilitator Dick Withycombe welcomed task force members and asked them to review the February 19 minutes, which they accepted as submitted.

Later in the meeting, Board Member Steve Christiansen thanked task force members for their 

participation, saying he hoped they recognized how important their work is to the school board: “your 

input is invaluable to us.”   

II. SCHOOL TOUR

Principal Susan Sparks welcomed the task force to Ruth Livingston Elementary School, saying, “It’s not new, but it’s a great school.” The interior has been reconfigured, doors have been added, and the roof and HVAC4 system have been replaced; but Livingston has had no major upgrades since it opened in 1978. “But the district has done a great job of keeping it looking good,” she said. Highlights of the tour appear below.

Cafeteria: Because the kitchen wasn’t designed to be a production kitchen, it doesn’t have room for food storage. Children walk through canned and packaged­food storage to get to music, and large refrigerators and freezers sit along one wall of the cafeteria. Music stands and chairs for performances are stacked along another wall, and free­standing storage units mark the area shared with the Boys and Girls Club. The first lunch starts at 11:30, the last ends at 1:30. Things like lunch are easier this year, with 200 fewer students; but enrollment will increase again next year when sixth­graders are housed in elementary schools.

Music room: The stage/music classroom occupies a raised area separated from the cafeteria by an accordion wall. Sometimes there is a band playing on one side and an orchestra on the other.

                                                            4 HVAC is the acronym for heating, ventilation, and cooling. 

16  

Gym: The gym has a new floor. Sometimes there are two PE classes, more often just one. Large storage units line a portion of one long wall.

Office: The office area comprises a series of small spaces for reception, staff workstations, principal’s office, and teacher workroom and lounge.

Primary classrooms: Pod A has been reconfigured twice. Now kindergarten and first­grade classrooms ring a shared area where paraprofessionals work with individuals and small groups. The kindergarten classrooms are relatively large; all Pod­A classrooms incorporate toilet rooms. The pod also houses a primary literacy library.

Computer lab: The technology teaching station is separated from the library by a wall that doesn’t reach the ceiling, so noise is sometimes an issue between these instructional spaces, especially during state testing.

Access to technology: Livingston has a second computer lab, which is available to teachers with their classes. In addition, there are seven COWs (computers on wheels) with 30 computers each. Primary students have the least access to technology because students in grades three, four, and five need computers not only to take state tests but also to prepare for them. Primary classrooms have some iPads, but most K­2 access to technology is as a weekly “special.”

Pod B: Children in grades 2 and above use shared restrooms located off the hallways. Students sign out, and teachers limit the number of students released at one time to one boy and one girl.

Security: Students enter their classrooms from the fenced playground. Paraprofessionals allow only students and parents who have checked in at the office to enter the gates, and then lock them when school starts. Exterior classroom doors are locked during the day. The hallway doors into Pods B and C are unlocked because students come and go all day, but that isn’t a problem because the whole site is fenced. There are also security cameras, with monitors in the principal’s office and at the secretaries’ workstations.

Portable classrooms: Livingston has 20 classrooms inside and 15 portable classrooms. The portables are centered behind the school to create two play areas, segregated by age. All but two portables have toilet rooms. The sixth grade will occupy portables next year, using space made available by putting art on a cart, relocating the Somali language program, and returning the resource room to its smaller, interior space.

Pod C: This pod houses three English Spectrum Program classrooms and the second computer lab, which also contains the kiln. (Pottery is an example of the art activities that won’t be possible next year, when the art teacher will move between classrooms teaching from a cart.)

17  

Counseling: The counselor’s small office, opening into the library’s instructional space, makes working with groups of students very difficult.

Questions and Discussion

How long have some of those portables been out there?5 When I came to Livingston, 15 years ago, we had just over 500 students and six portables. They tried first to house students inside the building; that was one reason for reconfiguring the pods, along with how people wanted to teach.

How many kids are there in a classroom? In the kindergarten and first­grade classrooms, 23 to 25 children, in the other grades 29.

Where do the buses drop off students? On the other side of the primary playground; only the special education buses come up to the building.

What maintenance issues do you have? I would say, the heating and cooling system, maintaining a comfortable temperature. The district does a great job making sure maintenance issues are taken care of. At almost 40, the school looks good. We have a full­time day custodian and a part­time night custodian.

We’ve replaced the boiler and chiller to make reliable heating and cooling available, but the delivery system that moves air through the building is almost 40 years old. We’ve replaced parts, but it’s the original system. We just have to do our best to maintain it.

There are other things over time, such as electrical upgrades when we get new equipment, like our new copier.

Livingston is in the county, not the city; originally it was on a septic system. About seven years ago, we worked with the city to run a sewer line to Court Street, which helped tremendously. We had the same issue at Mcloughlin.

What portion of the play area has been lost to portables? About 50 percent of the asphalt area has been lost. There is also a large grass field.

Are there plans for more portables here? You can never count that out.

What are the oldest schools that haven’t been renovated? Next to Pasco High School, Stevens is the oldest building. It has been renovated, but it’s in the same category as Livingston, Markham, and McGee: they were all built or last renovated in the late seventies or early eighties.

What are the banners on the wall about? The last four years, Livingston has been named a School of Distinction because of increased growth in

                                                            5 The comments of task force members appear in italic print, those of presenters and technical team members in regular print.  Unless enclosed in quotation marks, comments have been edited for brevity and clarity. 

18  

reading and math scores on state tests. This is an old school, but great learning happens here. We don’t have the space to focus on it, but our students are taught STEM; teachers integrate science into the curriculum, and we have family STEM nights. Some awesome things happen here.

III. SUPPORT SERVICE PRIORITIES

At the task force’s request, Executive Director of Operations Randy Nunamaker identified the priority support service facility needs. Task force members will receive his PowerPoint presentation after the meeting. Excerpts and supplemental information appear below.

The highest priority is adding two, double, pull­through bus mechanics bays. The preliminary, “good­faith” cost estimate includes architect fees as well as moving the washing bay, but a precise estimate would require a site visit.

Priority 2 is the transportation office and driver break­room. These functions are currently housed in portables that are more than 30 years old (relocated from the old district administration center) and undersized for the current staff (more than 140 drivers and 13 office staff). The replacement would be a single, insulated, metal building that would be inexpensive to build and energy­efficient. The preliminary estimate is based on estimated area and includes sales tax.

Priority 3 is updating the maintenance office. Building codes will require ADA compliance as well as additional restrooms, which are expensive.

Priority 4 is upgrading HVAC controls. Nine schools use the same energy­management system, an older version of Carrier Comfort Works. Centrally operated in the maintenance shop, this software monitors outside temperature and programs HVAC start­times to reach the appropriate interior temperature by 7:00 a.m.; it also controls temperatures in unused areas. However, this system is now obsolete; the contractor finds it difficult to get computers that run the older versions of Windows it requires. The proposal is to replace the four oldest systems with the district’s new standard, saving the parts to support the remaining five Carrier systems. The long­term goal is to move all schools to the new standard, for greater maintenance efficiency. The district changed to Alterton energy controls about 10 years, as new schools were built, because they have better service and a longer useful life.

Additional bus parking is a priority need, but the district may have found another way to address it; so it isn’t included in the above list.

Dick told people they will receive information about needs in other areas, including school construction 

and expansion, major maintenance, portables, and land acquisition.  At that point, the task force will 

19  

determine how these various needs stand in relationship to each other, to the district’s bonding 

capacity, and to taxpayer cost.    

IV. INFORMATION REQUESTS

Assistant Superintendent of Operations and Legal Affairs Sarah Thornton briefly reviewed the handout providing information requested at the last meeting, related to the distribution of computers across schools and grade levels and to the numbers of single­family and multi­family housing units added since 2000.

With respect to computers, Sarah added that: 

some differences among schools reflect building technology decisions (e.g., choosing SMART Boards over additional classroom computers);

the elementary schools will get more computers next year when they add the sixth grade;

the board’s goal is to improve the ratio of students to devices districtwide;

levy funds are the primary source of funds for computer acquisition at existing schools, supplemented by other sources, such as grants; and

bond funds are typically used to purchase technology for new schools.

V. DISCUSSION: IMPLICATIONS OF ENROLLMENT GROWTH

Dick asked task force members for their preliminary thinking regarding the nature of the needs associated with the enrollment projections shared at the last meeting. Excerpts from their conversation appear below.

There are peaks and valleys in the housing data, but enrollment has increased steadily; so it’s hard know how housing construction impacts enrollment.

It’s hard to predict enrollment in the future, but I almost think it’s irrelevant because we already have so many unhoused students that what may happen in the future isn’t applicable. Current enrollment dictates changes in school capacity in this district.

The elementary schools will see the most impact both in the near term, with the addition of sixth grade, and in the forecasts for the next five years.

At our last meeting, we learned Pasco has 6,000 students in portables. That’s a priority. We have facilities that are 40 years old and house half their students in portables. That, more than future growth patterns, tells us what we should do: get those kids into a better educational environment.

Elementary schools are important, but it takes a few years to develop schools. We need to focus on middle schools now because those students will get there.

20  

Just because the middle schools will get some relief next year doesn’t mean they won’t still be way over­capacity.

The first priorities would be housing students, getting as many kids in­house as possible, and looking at our old schools — Stevens too, because those elementary kids will get there.

We can’t get all of the kids into brick­and­mortar schools because we have so many kids coming in. It would take years. I don’t think the portables are going away.

Even if the district continues to be K­6, we would still have three middle schools and three high schools bursting at the seams.

The newer portables are fairly nice, but it would help if the district could modify core facilities like the cafeterias, get the refrigerators out of the eating area. It may be more realistic to talk about how we can modify the shared spaces at older schools and still build new schools.

I thought this might be a classroom crunch, but when I look at the cafeteria, the playground, the bathrooms — we can't portable our way out of this. We need new buildings.

VI. INFORMATION REQUESTS

Dick reviewed the information requests he noted during the evening. Technical team members will respond to these at a future meeting.

What percentage of computers are replaced each year because they are broken or lost?

What is the relationship between housing type and enrollment?

What are the district’s current land­use plans?

How large was the last bond measure, and what was the pattern of voter support?

How do you assess the relative value of modernizing and replacing a school?

The last PFTF reported that the district was spending approximately $370,000 a year at McGee, Livingston, and Mcloughlin. Have the upgrades to those schools reduced that annual maintenance expense?

What is the current cost­per­square foot for school construction?  

21  

Pasco School District Facilities Task Force

Meeting Date: March 19, 2015

I. WELCOME AND OVERVIEW

Facilitator Dick Withycombe welcomed task force members and provided an overview of the meeting. The task force adopted the March 5 minutes as submitted.

II. INFORMATION REQUESTED

Assistant Superintendent of Operations and Legal Affairs Sarah Thornton distributed two handouts summarizing information requested at previous meetings: the current portable inventory by school, with the size of each school and its site; and an overlay graph of district enrollment and city permits for residential construction (single and multi­family units) between 2000 and 2014.

Sarah also brought the answer to a question raised at the last meeting about computer replacement.  

Generally fewer than 10 computers a year are replaced because they are lost or damaged.  The district 

has technology maintenance and repair services, as well as planned replacement cycles.  Devices such as 

network printers, document cameras, and projectors are on a six‐year replacement cycle.  The expected 

life span of a desktop computer is five years, that of a laptop four years.  

III. BUILDING CONDITION SUMMARY

Director of Capital Projects Kim Marsh briefed the task force on the condition of existing schools and support facilities. Excerpts and supplemental information appear below; the PowerPoint presentation accompanies these minutes.

The operations department maintains an ongoing, informal assessment of buildings and sites, based on both onsite observations and input from principals and other facility occupants. (slide 2)

These assessments include site elements and portables, as well as the seven major building systems (structure, HVAC, plumbing, lighting, electrical, data, and security/fire). (slide 3)

These are the major assessment areas; we also look at other things. District leadership has been proactive about providing funds to keep the buildings in the best possible condition. We’ve been able to make a lot of improvements, although not always in their entirety (e.g., the new chiller for reliability at Livingston, with the same delivery system).

The assessment results are displayed in a matrix (school by assessment element), in which the cells are colored red (poor), green (good), or yellow (needs improvement).6 (slide 4)

                                                            6 Building 210 is the maintenance shop. 

22  

All facilities met code in all areas when they were constructed, but some wouldn't meet current codes. Building codes, fire codes, and energy codes all change over time.

There are a lot of red cells in the site column because schools are overcrowded, which affects sites in multiple ways. Parking lots, bus­loading areas, and parent drop­off places become congested. Adding portables shrinks playgrounds; each one consumes about 22 square feet of the site.

McGee lost five or six basketball hoops and some tetherball poles when portables were added, because they needed a fire lane. It isn’t just a matter of the portables themselves.7

Several schools, in addition to Livingston, have had partial HVAC upgrades (new chillers, original systems): Captain Gray, Markham, McGee, and Stevens.

All of the schools are safe for kids; they wouldn't be open otherwise; all of the security and fire systems are tested regularly. There are so many yellow cells in this column because these systems are maxed out; it isn’t possible to add more devices (e.g., alarms, strobe lights).

Some of the needs identified in the matrix are being addressed through the 2013 bond. The district is working with Columbia Basin College to relocate New Horizons High School, which is all portables now, except the core building. Some of the areas coded “poor” at Pasco High School are also being corrected.

The district is increasing data bandwidth and improving wireless access, in part to support state testing.

Has the district gone through energy­efficiency studies? Yes, multiple studies over the years. A lot of the green cells under lighting are because of energy upgrades, and a state grant helped with the chiller upgrades. The district is always looking for energy­saving opportunities.

Why is Markham in such good shape, given its age? It’s small (about 300 students), and it’s easier to maintain a smaller school. Also, Markham isn’t overpopulated. Overcrowding takes a toll, everything from greater wear on carpet to overloading the HVAC system.

IV. NEW CONSTRUCTION VERSUS MODERNIZATION

Kim’s PowerPoint presentation also addressed the question of when to replace, rather than modernize, a school.

                                                            7 The comments of task force members appear in italic print, those of the facilitator, presenters, and technical team members in regular print.  Unless enclosed in quotation marks, comments have been edited for brevity and clarity. 

23  

There’s no pat answer. There are a lot of factors to consider. The most important are: educational goals and program needs, whether there’s a realistic modernization option, the need for additional space, compliance with current building codes, logistical needs, and “surprises” (e.g., a buried oil tank or asbestos). (slide 5)

The central question with respect to educational programming is: would you be able to approximate the programs our new schools support in the modernized building? A modernization generally means keeping the same footprint. Can you provide the programs students enjoy in the newer schools without changing the exterior walls?

Modernization will trigger compliance with current building codes, and those costs will limit what the district can afford to do in the modernization; so a realistic modernization plan has to set parameters.

A key question is whether the school needs more space and, if so, whether the current building can be expanded and whether its systems can support additional space.

The primary logistical need has to do with housing students during modernization. Kennewick has a swing school where they house students during modernization projects; we don’t have that.

All of these factors go into a cost/benefit analysis and building plan. The district hires a third party with special expertise to do that analysis. Their report on the schools that most concerned the previous Facilities Task Force (McGee, Livingston, and Stevens) is expected later this spring.

Statewide, across all grade levels, the average cost/sf of new construction is more than that of modernization. The difference in 2013­2014 was approximately 20%. (slide 6)

Looking at Pasco: Emerson was built in 1999 for $101/sf; Twain was modernized in 2000 for $112/sf; and Chess was built in 2001 for $110/sf.

Are state contributions different for new construction and modernization? The only difference is that the district must modernize more than 40% of the building and certify that it will have an additional life of 20 years.

The state refers to replacement as “new in lieu” (of modernization); it means the analysis determined that it doesn’t make financial sense to modernize.

Does it cost more to build STEM schools? It’s possible, but we don’t know that yet because the three new schools were designed before the STEM program was developed; the program was fit into the building.

What is the life span of a new school? A new school has to be certified to last 30 years; the state won’t help fund modernization before that. With a

24  

modernization, we can seek state help in 20 years. But in Pasco, we build schools to last 50 years.

Does a replacement school need to be on the same site? No, but in order to qualify for state match, it cannot be an additional school.

How many of the schools with lots of yellow and red cells in the assessment could be modernized with students onsite? It may be possible at Livingston, although it would take an engineer with imagination. If the district could swap land with the city, it might be done at McGee. It wouldn't be possible at Stevens. However, if a future bond allowed the district to build a new middle school, we could house the Stevens students there while we modernize their school. Stevens would have to be rebuilt from the ground up, capturing the courtyard spaces.

V. LAND INVENTORY

Kim’s PowerPoint presentation also covered the district’s land inventory.

What the district looks for in property is: where housing is going in or will be going in; size; proximity to city utilities and irrigation, environmental conditions, access (roads and streets), and cost. (slide 7)

For each grade level, there’s an optimal site size. It’s getting harder to find those within the city limits without dealing with multiple owners; and the districts prefers single­owner parcels. Today’s 750­student elementary schools require at least 20 acres. (The average size of our older elementary sites is about five acres, which is why there are so many red cells in the site column of the assessment matrix. Those schools were built for smaller enrollments and to a different standard.) A middle school needs a minimum of 40 acres (the size of Ochoa’s site); and a high school requires 80 acres.

The district prefers land with irrigation, to keep the grass green. We look at environmental conditions, such as hidden contamination, and work with the city on the streets, to make sure we can get buses and large numbers of cars in and out of the site.

The district owns approximately 24 acres between Road 48 and Road 52. Because of a diagonal easement for irrigation drainage, there are only 15 usable acres. It’s in the county, so the district would have to work with the city to get a sewer connection and avoid a septic system. (slide 8)

Twenty acres remain undeveloped on the Franklin site, on Powerline Road. If the 2011 bond had passed, the original 40­acre property would have been the site of a new middle school. (slide 9)

25  

There are 25 acres on Road 84 north of Chiawana, one of two Department of Natural Resources sites. The initial idea was to work with the city to develop a school and an adjacent park. (slide 10)

The district’s last purchase, made possible by the 2013 bond, was a 40­acre parcel north of Powerline Road, east of Road 100. An overlay of Ochoa’s footprint illustrates that it could serve as a middle school site (although it would be tight, because the new middle school would be larger). (slides 11, 12)

These are the larger properties in the district’s inventory; we also have some small holdings that aren’t appropriate school sites.

Are the city’s 10­year growth projections balanced between east and west?

The city expects more residential housing in the west. The problem on the east side is that, although there are big parcels, they’re industrial and not appropriate for housing — or schools.

Between zoning issues and the urban growth boundary, the district is hemmed in on the east side.

Is there a recommendation for land holdings for school districts? No, but the district is always looking for appropriate land at the right price. The only way to buy 80 acres anymore is to include the purchase in a bond.

It’s better to err in the direction of having more land, because it appreciates in value.

Would it be possible to rent the Senior Citizens Center to use for a school? The district is looking at that; we are in discussions with the city.

Would it make sense to co­locate an elementary and high school? Everything is on the table.

Tonight’s Information Requests

The construction costs per square foot of Franklin, McClintock, and Curie

Priority facility­condition needs

The results of the third­party modernization analyses of McGee, Livingston, and Stevens (when possible)

 

26  

Pasco School District Facilities Task Force

Meeting Date: April 23, 2015

I. WELCOME

Facilitator Dick Withycombe welcomed committee members and asked them to review the minutes of the March 19 meeting, which they approved as submitted.

II. CAPITAL PROJECTS FINANCING

Dick recapped the task force’s information gathering: past enrollment patterns and future enrollment projections; school capacity utilization; the use of portables; land holdings and future land needs; priority support­facility needs; and facility conditions. “This study path was meant to help the task force identify and consider the district’s most critical needs,” he said, “but you can't do that without also considering the financial framework, because at the end of the day your recommendations will need to align project interests and financial resources.”

Dick introduced Howard Roberts, the district’s executive director of fiscal services, and Trevor Carlson, 

managing director of public finance investment banking at Piper Jaffray’s Seattle‐Northwest Division.  

Trevor specializes in K‐12 financing and has worked with the district for 11 years, helping to finance 

bonds and to refinance them to benefit taxpayers when the investment market changes.  

Their presentation tonight was a general overview, but Trevor can create specific financing plans if the 

task force decides to recommend bond projects.  Task force members received copies of their 

PowerPoint presentation, “Capital Facilities Funding.”  Supplemental and clarifying information appears 

below. 

Washington school districts have five basic funding sources, which they are required by law to keep separate to ensure that funds are expended for the intended purposes. (Slide 3)

The largest is the general fund, which includes state allocations, grants, and levy and levy­equalization funds, and is used for ongoing operations. Districts are allowed to transfer money from the general fund to the capital projects fund under certain circumstances, and Pasco has done this in the past to buy portables. (Slide 4)

Does the district receive matching funds for portables?8 The State Construction Assistance Program does not help districts purchase or site portables. (Slide 7)

The starting point of the state formula is “eligible area:” the number of unhoused students (students in excess of current capacity) multiplied by a space allowance set by the state. For elementary schools, the state

                                                            8 The comments of task force members appear in italic print, those of the facilitator, presenters, and technical team in regular print.  Unless enclosed in quotation marks, comments have been edited of brevity and clarity. 

27  

allocates 90 square feet per student. Pasco’s funding assistance percentage is relatively high: 81.76%. However, this applies only to expenses the state deems allowable; the state contribution is only 63.0% of actual total cost. (Slide 8)

Impact fees for new residential housing have averaged approximately $107,000 a month since the district began collecting them in May 2012. The district spent $1.25 million in impact fees to reduce the amount borrowed to complete the 2013 bond projects, in order to save taxpayers money. (Slide 10)

Bonds are the primary way Washington school districts finance capital projects. A bond is a debt instrument that requires approval of 60% of the voters and is typically repaid over 20 years. Until repaid, this debt is shared by all taxpayers in the district. The tax rate is expressed as cost per $1,000 of assessed value. The tax rate is reduced when the total assessed value of all property increases, because the amount of debt stays the same and is spread over a larger tax base and more taxpayers. Adding commercial property is especially beneficial because it lowers the tax rate without increasing the number of students who must be housed. (Slides 11­14)

New houses do not increase the amount of money the district receives; the district can collect only the amount specified in the bond measure. But new houses reduce the tax rate because there are more taxpayers to share the repayment obligation. (Slide 15)

Pasco’s assessed valuation per student is relatively low: $302,017, compared to the statewide average of $801,643. That means a higher tax rate is required to raise the same amount of money. (Slide 16)

Is that because we don't have much commercial property? Commercial property is ticking up, but most property in the district is residential.

The other side of that coin is that Pasco gets a much higher state match for school construction.

Are the tax boundaries fixed? Yes. It’s possible for one school district to annex another, but that is very rare and very difficult.

Is the general fund typically all spent on operations? School board guidelines require setting aside a 5% reserve, which is important to the district’s bond rating. Other funds have reserves, totaling approximately $20 million, for replacing such things as textbooks, buses, and technology.

When voters approve a bond measure, there are typically multiple bond sales over time, to maintain a stable tax rate for taxpayers and to comply with state requirements about expenditure timelines. Today’s market is great for borrowers, which means taxpayers pay less to service bond debt. (Slide 17)

28  

The tax rate is the same for all taxpayers, although tax bills will vary according to the value of property. An individual taxpayer’s bill may increase if the property’s value increases, but the tax rate will stay the same.

The better the district’s bond rating, the lower its borrowing cost; so district leadership works to maintain a strong financial standing. Its current rating is Aa3. Moody’s ratings identify both strengths and concerns. One strength was that Pasco’s tax base grew through the recession, which was unusual. One concern was the high level of direct debt, which is the byproduct of having to build schools to house a growing enrollment. (Slide 19)

How often is the district evaluated? Every time it goes to the market to borrow money. Moody’s also has a “surveillance option,” but that’s rare.

Debt capacity projections are based on assumptions about growth in the tax base (total assessed valuation). The district is conservative about its assumptions, to avoid a tax rate that’s higher than the one given to taxpayers during the bond campaign. (Slide 21)

III. INFORMATION REQUESTED

Executive Director of Operations Randy Nunamaker reviewed handouts prepared in response to information requests at previous meetings:

a revision of the Building Construction and Maintenance Needs Checklist that scores and ranks buildings (the higher the score, the greater the need);

a copy of the March 19 PowerPoint presentation on building condition, replacement versus modernization, and land inventory;

a summary of recent bond election results; and

a tabulation of the bids received for the construction of Rosalind Franklin, Barbara McClintock, and Marie Curie elementary schools.

Randy noted that the construction/maintenance checklist doesn’t reflect 2013 bond improvements not 

yet completed.  Those include site improvements at Stevens, science instruction improvements at Pasco 

High School, and the parking lot project at Twain.  New Horizons’ needs will go away as well.  

IV. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION NEEDS

Dick noted that the last facilities task force recommended replacing Livingston and McGee, but couldn't 

include them in the immediate bond measure.  He told the task force that they may or may not confirm 

those recommendations, based on their own analysis of current needs, but that, out of respect for that 

earlier work, the district has commissioned an analysis of those options.  That report will be shared at 

the next meeting.   

Dick asked task force members to identify remaining information needs, as they prepare to enter the deliberations phase of their work.

29  

What’s our planning horizon? Are we looking out five years, 10 years?

If a bond measure with two new elementary schools passes in early 2017, how soon could those schools open?

What were the findings and recommendations of the multi­track, year­round school task force?

What is the district’s projected bonding capacity for 2017?

Has the district’s bonding capacity increased over the last 10 years?

In what circumstances can general fund dollars be spent on capital projects?

V. FUTURE MEETINGS

The task force agreed to add a meeting on June 4, to replace the cancelled April 9 meeting.

Dick told task force members they would spend the next two meetings in small and large‐group 

discussions that will lead to the formulation of recommendations.  To prepare for the May 7 meeting, he 

asked them to review all of the information they have received and consider which they personally feel 

are the most critical needs.   

Their first step as a group will be to identify priority needs, without considering cost.  They will develop 

packages of projects that the technical team will cost‐out between meetings.  Dick said the task force 

recommendations will be “project‐based, but eventually cost‐driven.” 

Pasco School District Facilities Task Force

Meeting Date: May 7, 2015

I. WELCOME

Facilitator Dick Withycombe welcomed people and provided an overview of the meeting. “This is the beginning of the task force’s deliberations about the greatest needs of the district. We have one more meeting after tonight — and another if needed — to develop recommendations for the superintendent. Between meetings, the technical team will develop the cost and bond implications of the interests identified by the task force tonight. We will add a meeting if necessary so no one feels rushed to reach decisions as important as these decisions are.”

He asked the task force to review the minutes, which they adopted as submitted. 

30  

II. NEW-IN-LIEU ANALYSIS

Task force members had an opportunity to review the hard copy of the PowerPoint presentation before MENG Analysis principal Joel Davis joined them by speaker phone. He walked them through the presentation and answered questions. Excerpts and supplemental information appear below.

The district contracted with MENG Analysis to assess the relative value of replacing and modernizing three schools: Livingston Elementary, McGee Elementary, and Stevens Middle School. These schools were identified by the previous Pasco Facilities Task Force as critical needs, and all are (or soon will be) eligible for state assistance for replacement or modernization. (The State Construction Assistance Program refers to school replacement as building new­in­lieu.) (Slide 1)

K­12 specialists, the MENG Analysis team has worked with the Pasco School District since 2000. Our facility condition assessment methodology is aligned with the state’s building condition assessment program. (Slide 2)

Our facility­condition assessment has two parts. The qualitative assessment rates schools on a five­point scale, on which 1 means new and 5 means unacceptable. Livingston, McGee, and Stevens all scored 3.2, which is “on the poor side of fair.” (Slide 3)

The facility­condition assessment also looks at major maintenance needs in the next five years (observed deficiencies costs, ODs) and long­term liability (predicted renewal costs, PRs). The former can be described as “catch­up costs,” the latter as “keep­up costs.” (Slide 3)

In my 18 years of experience, facility condition is less often the driver of the replacement/modernization decision than educational adequacy. On this scale, all three schools scored “on the unacceptable side of poor.” The standards used to measure this are Pasco’s newest schools, supplemented with information about where the district’s education program is going and with principal interviews. (Slide 4)

Our conclusions regarding facility conditions are: that these facilities are on the poor side of fair; that most building systems are near the end of their useful lives; that district maintenance of finishes has been excellent, which enhances curb­appeal but can’t address unseen, high­cost issues; and that there is evidence of appropriate reinvestment in HVAC and building envelope systems. (Slide 5)

With respect to educational adequacy, all three schools are “poor” overall. The environment rating for Stevens is 5.0 (unacceptable). All have served “beyond the call of duty.” (Slide 6)

31  

The high costs of observed deficiencies and predicted renewal do not include any modifications that would improve the educational adequacy of these schools. (Slide 7)

The overall conclusion of our assessment is that it would be more cost­effective and more supportive of the district’s educational goals to replace these schools. (Slide 7)

Questions and Discussion

Do the predicted renewal costs include the observed deficiencies?9 Not exactly, but you wouldn't want to add them together because they cover the same five­year period. You would expect to find the $3.3 million in near­term costs in the $9.8 million in long­term costs for Livingston, for example.

Does this assessment assume continued over­enrollment? Will the new school decreasing Livingston’s enrollment affect its score? No. We were assessing schools as they are, based on existing conditions and their ability to accommodate their design capacity. We acknowledge the bigger picture, the district’s current elementary­enrollment model; and because it doesn’t fit that model, in addition to being overcrowded, Livingston fails on both counts.

How much does the educational adequacy score reflect overcrowding? The three factors — capacity, configuration, and environment — are equally weighted. Even if capacity were at an optimal level, Livingston would still rate about 3.0 overall.

Is it appropriate to compare the predicted renewal costs with the cost of a new school? For a new school, we would run this model out 30 years, because that’s when it would be eligible for state funding assistance. For these older schools, we used a 20­year model; even if they were modernized, there would still be lingering system liabilities. To do an apples­to­apples comparison, we would have to look out over 30 years for these three schools.

When would the modernized school be eligible for state assistance? New or modernized, 30 years. However, if a portion of the school isn’t modernized, that portion would be eligible sooner.

III. INFORMATION REQUESTED

Assistant Superintendent of Operations and Legal Affairs Sarah Thornton reviewed materials prepared in response to task force requests at previous meetings:

                                                            9 The comments of task force members appear in italic print, those of the facilitator, technical team, and presenters in regular print.  Unless enclosed in quotation marks, comments have been edited for brevity and clarity.  

32  

the district’s projected 2017 bonding capacity;

changes in the bonding capacity over the last 10 years;

the circumstances in which general fund dollars can be spent on capital projects; and

preliminary cost estimates by category.

Task force member Rebecca Clark distributed copies of an enrollment‐growth summary she developed 

from data presented at the February 19 meeting, which takes into account next year’s grade 

reconfiguration. 

IV. TASK FORCE DELIBERATIONS

Dick asked the task force to work in groups of about five people each and to begin by giving each person an opportunity to share personal priorities. Two task force members who couldn't be present submitted their priorities in writing, and these were added to separate small group discussions. Dick suggested focusing first on the individual and collective understanding of needs, knowing that cost information will be available at the next meeting. After approximately 45 minutes, the small groups shared their thinking with the group as a whole.

Group 1 Priorities

First priority: building a new middle school and replacing two elementary schools. We also talked about replacing Stevens and about the support facilities (because as enrollment increases, more buses are needed). Our original thought was to modernize the elementary schools, but we decided that would be just a Band­Aid and not as cost­effective as building two new schools. [After hearing the other small group reports, this group agreed that capacity is the district’s primary need and trumps school replacement.]

Group 2

First priority: transportation (support facility needs). Then: increasing capacity (middle school #4, new elementary school #19) and land acquisition. Our reasoning was: (1) increased enrollment means more buses; (2) middle school enrollment is projected to increase and Stevens is too big and in bad shape; (3) once we have a new middle school, Stevens can be replaced with a new elementary school; and (4) land is important because of continued enrollment growth. The issue is capacity. Replacing elementary schools may improve them, but we don’t gain capacity. Maybe we could add replacing one of the elementary schools if money were available. The other thing we talked about was maybe incorporating the early learning program into existing schools rather than having an early learning center.

33  

Group 3

Number 1 was the transportation package. Number 2: We also discussed the capacity issue and would recommend three new elementary schools. Number 3: renovations. Number 4: land. Capacity trumps the need to renew schools, even though school needs are great. (We also didn’t see how it could be done at Stevens.) We recommended adding elementary capacity, rather than middle school capacity, because the K­6 shift will put pressure on the elementary schools. We see a huge capacity problem coming at the elementary level.

Summary and Questions

Dick observed that there is a kind of emerging consensus that the support facility needs, including transportation, need to be addressed and that enrollment will continue to drive the need for additional school capacity.

If a bond passes, would it be possible to have a middle school design ready to go, the way the district has an elementary design? We would need to update the elementary design, and you need to adapt any design to the site; but it still saves time. The district started a middle school design in 2010, based on Ochoa, so we would have a start.

Would it be possible to replace Stevens and add capacity? We would need to check with the engineers, but it may be possible to use the big courtyards to build a two­story middle school for 1,250 students, which was the 2010 design parameter for middle school #4.

The Stevens site is not nearly as large as they say they want for a middle school, but there’s no middle school in central Pasco.

We don’t have a swing school so we would have to build something new to house students while we replace or modernize any of the three old schools.

Dick said he didn’t hear a group interest in replacing Stevens, that there was more interest in building a 

new middle school, but that it might be useful to test whether a new middle school can be wrapped into 

a solution that also helps Stevens. 

Before the next meeting, the technical team will develop cost estimates that enable the task force to 

evaluate the implications of the priorities they identified tonight.  

V. FUTURE MEETINGS

Dick suggested identifying an additional meeting date in case it’s needed; and the task force agreed to hold available the evening of June 15 (6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.). He said he believed they could complete their task June 4, but wanted to ensure enough time to develop thoughtful recommendations. The task force may also wish to have an opportunity to review their final report.

   

34  

Pasco School District Facilities Task Force

Meeting Date: June 4, 2015

I. WELCOME

Facilitator Dick Withycombe welcomed task force members, provided an overview of the meeting, and asked them to review the minutes of their May 7 meeting, which they adopted as submitted.

II. TOUR OF STEVENS MIDDLE SCHOOL

Principal Charlotte Troxel introduced Assistant Principal KC Flynn, who led the tour. Built in 1960, Stevens Middle School is included in the MENG Analysis study of the relative value of school replacement and modernization, presented to the task force on May 7.

Tour Highlights

Electrical and plumbing upgrades are attached to the exteriors of walls because wires and pipes cannot be placed inside the masonry walls.

Confidentiality is a challenge in the school office because added walls don’t provide auditory privacy. An assistant principal’s office opens onto the reception area where students, parents, and visitors would be seated.

The nurse’s station is large enough for only one student, and the nurse’s office is very small (and affected by the same confidentiality issue).

Electrical capacity is limited throughout the building. Some things are placed where they are because there’s an outlet there or a circuit that won’t be tripped, even if it isn’t the most convenient location (e.g., the copier in the office hallway).

Many of the walls between classrooms aren’t adequate acoustic barriers and noise from adjacent spaces sometimes affects instruction.

The science classroom has adequate electrical capacity; water; adequate general storage, but no chemical or refrigerated storage; and a safety shower that has no drain.

Technology wiring runs along hallway walls at ceiling height, enclosed in a black raceway, because, like electrical wiring and plumbing pipes, these upgrades can’t be placed inside the walls.

New freezers line the outside wall of the kitchen. This is also the delivery area, and there are three double portables nearby; so the school has to manage student movement and truck traffic to make sure kids are safe.

35  

The school was eventually able to find food­service carts with lower electrical requirements, but it can’t display the menus on monitors because there isn’t enough electrical capacity. The cafeteria space contains equipment and storage that would normally be kept away from the student area because there isn’t enough space in the kitchen area.

The band room was upgraded recently, to remove the risers, level the floor, and install lockable instrument storage. However, the room still has only two electrical outlets. The choir room was also improved.

The girls’ locker room is so undersized students must change for PE in shifts. Some mirrors and sinks were removed to make room for additional lockers, but there still aren’t enough. Adding one toilet brought the total to two toilets for the 150­165 girls who have PE at the same time. Retrofitted pipes run along the walls, and the large HVAC unit on the ceiling generates a significant amount of noise.

The gym floor is not full­sized, but it’s used for games because this gym has the score board and bleachers. Railings have been added to the original bleachers, which makes them safer. The drama program uses a classroom because the stage area is needed for PE activities.

The annex gym was built without air conditioning. AC was added to one small room off the gym. This is a full­size floor, but there’s nowhere to sit so games aren’t played here. The fitness room upstairs has fans, but they schedule PE activities around the weather (e.g., wrestling in the winter). Small rooms off the gym serve as classrooms and storage; one houses a computer lab because it has extra electrical capacity.

The lights in both gyms were upgraded about two years ago, and both gyms see a high level of community use off­season.

The many portables installed on the former parking lot obstruct public access to the gym facilities. The new parking lot across the street has made a big difference and also contributed to student safety.

An English/language arts classroom was converted to a computer lab because it has enough power, but its southern exposure means significant heat gain by afternoon. This room is an example of how using a space for a purpose other than the one it was designed for can result in lost functionality (in this case, whiteboards the teacher can’t access because of the computer desks).

A large classroom was divided to create 311 West and 311 East, for self­contained classes of 12 students each. A similar arrangement across the hall houses two classes of 16 students, separated by a folding wall. Next year these rooms will be used for other programs, including the drama program.

36  

The former home economics room has been converted into a science room because it has water and electricity. However the conversion didn’t include removal of built­ins and other architectural features that were specific to food preparation and are awkward in a science lab. The adjoining space, formerly a sewing room, is now a computer lab because it has electricity.

The small room that houses the program for hearing impaired students is, like the library across the hall, significantly impacted by HVAC noise. HVAC noise is a consideration in room assignments; for example, the speech program requires a quiet learning environment.

Counseling offices are located wherever they can find space where students feel they can speak confidentially, even if the setting isn’t ideal. HVAC noise is significant in the counseling office near the library, as it is in the library itself.

KC concluded the tour by saying there is a lot of pride at Stevens and its students are doing well despite the facility issues.

Questions and Discussion

Charlotte told the task force that, as she and her staff look to the next generation of learners, they recognize that the Stevens facility has deficits. “Kids are getting so much in elementary school, and we want to continue that so, as they go on to high school, they have a 12­year learning experience.” She said they need a facility that supports the district’s educational initiatives, such as STEM, and that enables the Stevens staff to make the educational impact they are capable of making.

Randy Nunamaker, executive director of operations, joined Charlotte and KC in answering task force 

questions. 

How many students was this school designed for?10 It was built for about 800 students. This year, we have 1,006 students. Next year we expect to have about 700 students.

I appreciate all that you and your staff do to make this facility work. It’s obvious that you’re sending high­quality students on to high school. I applaud you for doing that.

What’s your number­one need? If you could fix one thing, what would it be? I would say electrical (also Wi­Fi) and plumbing. Improving those things would have a significant educational impact. Wi­Fi is an issue because this is a brick­and­mortar building; you can't access Wi­Fi everywhere. We have to make sure the computers are all charged at night because there’s so little electrical capacity in so many places.

                                                            10 The comments of task force members appear in italic print, those of the facilitator, technical team, and presenters in regular print.  Unless enclosed in quotation marks, comments have been edited for brevity and clarity.  

37  

What improvements have been made in the last three­to­five years?

The chiller and boilers have been replaced, so we have heating and cooling supply; but air distribution is a problem. These old vents rattle because they’re so obsolete we have to have the parts manufactured. We’ve done fence repairs. We’ve completed electrical upgrades as needed, though we have to careful because at some point we will be required to replace the whole system.

If Stevens had additional capacity, would neighborhood enrollment fill it?

We are a neighborhood school; very few students are bused. Within our attendance area, we have many instances of families sharing housing units. Population density is high.

Is there extra room at Frost? No.

Randy projected photographs of the building, including some things seen on the tour (e.g., wiring and 

pipes on the walls) and some not seen (e.g., the pipes in utility tunnels).   

III. INFORMATION REQUESTED

Assistant Superintendent of Operations and Legal Affairs Sarah Thornton reviewed requested information about estimated construction costs (taking into account state matching funds) and estimated tax rates (taking into account the impacts of alternative bond recommendations).

She stressed that the tax rate estimates are “very preliminary” because interest rates are changing and other assumptions (e.g., assessed valuation) are also subject to change.

Amounts in the “projected debt capacity” chart are in thousands, which means adding three zeros. (For example, the district’s 1/1/2015 assessed valuation (AV) is listed as $4,944,379 — which is $4,944,379,000.)

In response to questions about the tax rate, Executive Director of Fiscal Services Howard Roberts 

explained how the district structures bond sales to achieve a level tax rate.  The district has existing 

debt, and a new bond would be structured with large principal payments at the back end to keep the tax 

rate as consistent and as low as possible.  A $50 million bond approved in 2016 is estimated to add 38 

cents/$1,000 beginning in 2017.  After the existing debt is paid off in 2028, larger interest and principal 

payments on the 2016 bond would keep the tax rate about the same.  However enrollment pressure is 

likely to force the district to pass additional bonds between now and 2031, which would mean layering 

in new bonds.  The tax rate estimates assume a 3% annual growth in AV.  If AV growth is higher, the tax 

rate would be lower than estimated.   

Randy handed out a site plan of Stevens overlaid with the footprint of the district’s current middle 

school design, which shows it wouldn't be possible to apply that design unaltered on the current site.  

He said it would be necessary to add a second story to add capacity at Stevens.   

38  

IV. TASK FORCE DELIBERATIONS

Dick asked the task force to work in two small groups to identify priority needs: what are the most critical needs the district should address? At the end of the evening, he asked them to report to the group as a whole. Both groups included the support facilities package and a new elementary school in their preliminary lists of priority needs and were still deliberating about additional needs.

They asked for additional information to help them as they continue their deliberations on June 15:  

the estimated cost of replacing Stevens onsite,

whether it would be possible to bus Stevens students to another school,

the additional transportation cost if Stevens is replaced by a new middle school on the Road 100 site,

the current bond tax rate for a $100,000 house, and

a list of critical facility improvement needs at all district schools.

For the next meeting, the technical team will develop alternative middle school models for the task 

force’s consideration.  Withycombe Scotten & Associates will draft the task force report as far as 

possible, including the two emerging recommendations, for task force review.   

Pasco School District Facilities Task Force

Meeting Date: June 15, 2015

I. WELCOME AND MEETING OVERVIEW

Facilitator Dick Withycombe welcomed task force members, thanking them for their continuing participation: “I know everyone in the district, including the board members, appreciates your time and awaits your thinking regarding the district’s immediate facility needs.” The task force reviewed and approved the June 4 minutes.

Dick told the group they would complete the development of their final recommendations, taking up 

where they left off June 4.  That meeting produced two agreements: that the district should address its 

support services facility needs and that it needs at least one additional elementary school.   

That evening also saw significant discussions about alternative ways to address the deficiencies 

observed at Stevens Middle School and the continuing need for elementary capacity.  Other topics 

identified included a districtwide assessment of school improvement needs and the acquisition of land 

for future school sites.  

39  

II. MIDDLE SCHOOL OPTIONS

Responding to their June 4 information request, Director of Capital Projects Kim Marsh told the task force it would not be possible to replace Stevens with a 1,250­student middle school with a design based on that of Ochoa Middle School with students onsite. Such a project would require housing the Stevens students elsewhere during construction.

Kim identified two possible alternatives: building a new middle school and housing the Stevens students 

there while their school is replaced onsite, before opening the new school; or building a very large 

elementary school and using it in the same way.  He said that the elementary option would be 

somewhat problematic because the facility would include features particular to younger students, but 

that it’s an alternative available for discussion. 

Task force member Richard Job shared an alternative version of the June 4 site‐overlay handout that 

flips the Ochoa footprint to make it fit better on the Stevens site. 

Kim said there might be problems with setbacks, but that it would be possible to modify the Ochoa 

design or to create a new design for the Stevens site.  However, even with a modified or new design, it 

wouldn't be possible to replace the school with students present because the construction itself would 

require space on the site (e.g., for equipment and materials).   

In response to a question, Kim said building a large middle school (about 146,000 sf) in two years would 

be “an ambitious project.”  At 110,000 sf, Ochoa took 18 months to complete.   

III. DISTRICTWIDE MAJOR MAINTENANCE NEEDS

Randy Nunamaker, Executive Director of Operations, reviewed the prioritized list of facility needs the task force requested June 4. Districtwide and specific school needs are identified as either priority one (immediate, highest needs) or priority two (anticipated needs that don't need immediate attention). Most priority one needs are highlighted to indicate that they are related to health or safety.

The list does not include needs at the three schools whose replacement was the subject of an outside 

assessment and of task force consideration.  Randy said it would be possible to develop a plan to 

address the most critical needs at those schools if the task force does not recommend replacing them.  

He said that it would be possible to maintain McGee and Livingston at their current levels, but that the 

electrical and HVAC issues at Stevens would be a greater challenge. 

Randy told the task force that major maintenance projects such as these do not qualify for state 

matching funds.  He said the costs listed for these projects are estimates and it isn’t possible to have 

exact costs until projects are bid; however, the district’s staff has had a lot of experience with these 

kinds of projects and their estimates have historically been within 10 percent of actual cost. 

IV. LAND ACQUISITION

Assistant Superintendent of Operations and Legal Affairs Sarah Thornton reviewed the March 19 handout summarizing the district’s current land holdings. These include two parcels that could be used for elementary school sites, one at Road 48 and Road 52 and one north of Chiawana High School. This year, the district acquired 40 acres

40  

north of Powerline Road (east of Road 100), which is the right size for a middle school. Sarah said the gap in the current inventory is a future high school site. The district will eventually need another high school, and it would be good to acquire that land before the cost becomes too great.

Kim said the district is always looking for available land for future schools at all levels, working with city 

and county planners to gauge the rate and direction of residential growth.  At 80 acres, a high school 

site is the greatest challenge.   

V. DISCUSSION OF ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS

Stevens Middle School

There should be a middle school in the central area. It wouldn't be right to bus all of those kids away from the neighborhood.11

The needs of the urban core bump even the need for additional elementary capacity.

Busing these middle school students to outlying middle schools could create hardships for families. For example, students responsible for caring for younger siblings after school wouldn't be home in time to do so.

It would be very difficult to find and to acquire a parcel of land appropriate for the construction of a middle school in central Pasco, so maintaining a downtown middle school probably means using the Stevens site.

The expert study the district commissioned to assess the relative value of modernizing and replacing its oldest schools rated the Stevens facility as the worst of the three and determined that addressing its needs with fixes would not be a good idea.

If there is nowhere to house students while Stevens is replaced, the district may need a new middle school design appropriate to the Stevens site.

If the new design is a campus layout, it may be possible to replace Stevens in phases, one building or area at a time (e.g., start with a two­story classroom wing).

Replacing Stevens with students onsite is a problem that can be solved. There must be architects and engineers who would love to take on that challenge. Maybe it’s not a jumbo middle school, maybe it’s not the Ochoa design.

If we replace Stevens, we would want additional capacity. If the district standard is 1,250 students, is this the place to house that many students?

                                                            11 The comments of task force members appear in italic print, those of the facilitator and of technical team members in regular print.  Unless enclosed in quotation marks, comments have been edited for brevity and clarity. 

41  

The need for middle school capacity depends on grade configuration. If the district builds more elementary schools, the sixth grade could stay there.

A smaller footprint doesn’t necessarily mean a smaller school. It’s possible to build up and house more students.

It makes sense to recommend that a new Stevens support the full 1,250­student middle school capacity, which means adding capacity.

Whether they build up or not, this is still a small, congested area, and the district has to consider the safety of both students and workers.

The middle schools will have fewer students after this year. Would it be possible to bus the Stevens students to the other middle schools while their school is rebuilt? From the capacity side, it would be a challenge; I can't speak to the education side. The sixth grade leaving would help, but that window is closing.

If that’s an option, it would have to be soon; if we waited until the next bond, it wouldn't be possible. It doesn’t make sense to build a new middle school we don’t need just to house the Stevens students.

The Stevens site is about half the size of the district’s 40­acre middle school target.

I understand the idea of having three middle schools the same size, but what about a smaller replacement for Stevens and additions to the others, with boundary changes if necessary?

Another idea is to build two elementary schools, the second one a flex space appropriate for middle school students in the short­run and also appropriate for a future elementary school.

We would still have the busing issue. And elementary and middle school are more different than middle school and high school (e.g., lockers).

Can’t our recommendation be that the district figure out how to build a school on the Stevens site without busing kids or placing them at risk?

Has the district ever used eminent domain? Would it have to pay relocation costs? If the district used eminent domain, it would pay relocation costs; but the district wouldn't do that. It would be a question of agreeing upon fair market value. The problem with closer­in land is that it’s more difficult to negotiate with multiple owners and owners of income­generating properties.

Second New Elementary School

If we build only one elementary, do we have a crisis that cannot be mitigated six years from now? Perhaps not a crisis, but it would be tight.

42  

By 2019, when these new schools would open, the district’s K­6 enrollment will increase by 1,900 students. One new elementary school gets us only halfway there. We would be back where we were before Franklin opened.

New schools qualify for state matching funds. The full cost of a new middle school may be $60 million, a new elementary $25 million; the actual cost to local taxpayers for both schools would be about $45 million.

How likely is the district to get state funds? It’s not guaranteed, but there have been only two years when the state needed to go to a priority system; and in a priority system, Pasco would be at the top.

Maybe the district should use the Stevens site for a new elementary school and look for a larger middle school site south, along the river.

Major Maintenance Needs

It’s important that the bond measure benefit all areas of the district, old schools, as well as new schools; and addressing priority facility needs is the best way to do that.

Would the $2.2 million in control and HVAC improvements at Pasco High School save money? Yes, the district would realize significant savings through efficiency and energy rebates.

Land Acquisition

Looking for land should be an ongoing district priority.

Implications for Taxpayers

The package that’s emerging — the support service facilities, two new elementary schools, a central middle school, priority one major maintenance needs, and some kind of land — comes to about $72 million. That’s adjusted for the state match for the new schools.

That’s about 60 cents/$1,000 assessed value, or $60 a year for a $100,000 house.

VI. ADOPTION OF FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

The Pasco Facilities Task Force adopted its final recommendations for the district’s next bond measure unanimously. They agreed to list their chosen projects by priority, recommending that the school board address these needs in the order presented.

1) Priority improvements to support services facilities

2) New elementary 16 (800 students)

3) Major maintenance needs related to safety and health

43  

4) Central Pasco middle school solution (1,250 students)

5) New elementary 17 (800 students)

6) Remaining priority one major maintenance needs

7) Land acquisition (high school site)

The following understandings apply to the central‐Pasco middle school recommendation.    

There may be alternative ways to meet the desired objectives of maintaining a middle school in central Pasco.

The district has two years to explore and test alternative solutions. This effort should include both investigation of alternative central sites and consideration of alternative design options for the current site.

The solution may involve adding capacity at one or more other middle schools to compensate for the inability to achieve a 1,250­student capacity on the Stevens site.

If no feasible solution emerges, this project would be removed from the task force’s list of priorities.

VI. FINAL MEETING JULY 7

Dick once again expressed his appreciation to task force members, both for their time and for the quality of their work throughout the study process. He went around the room and gave everyone an opportunity to share any final comments.

The task force scheduled one additional meeting to review and adopt their final report (July 7, in the board room). Dick urged all who can to attend, as their names will appear in the report. Task force members will receive the draft report in advance of that meeting.

44  

Pasco School District Facilities Task Force

Meeting Date: July 7, 2015

I. WELCOME, OVERVIEW, REVIEW OF MINUTES

Facilitator Dick Withycombe welcomed task force members to their final meeting, convened for the purpose of reviewing and adopting their final report.

He asked them to review the June 15 minutes, which they adopted with the following correction to page 

1. 

Task force member Richard Garretson Job shared an alternative version of the June 4 site­overlay handout that flips the Ochoa footprint to make it fit better on the Stevens site.

II. REVIEW AND ADOPTION OF FINAL REPORT

The task force went through the review draft of their final report page by page. In addition to several smaller changes, they made the following substantive revisions.

Adding the principals of Franklin, McGee, and Stevens to the acknowledgements page

Adding a second appendix (the Building Construction & Maintenance Need Checklist)

Revisions to Priority 4 (New Middle School to Serve Central Pasco) intended to communicate more clearly the task force’s “very strong” encouragement for finding an appropriate solution and to state its expectation that the district do so before the next bond measure

Inserting a footnote clarifying that the enrollment capacity data do not reflect the impact of the 2014 Washington Class Size Reduction Measure (Initiative 1351)

Inserting a subhead in the preliminary cost estimate table clarifying that it summarizes only local costs

The task force discussed again the needs of McGee and Livingston elementary schools.  Seeing 

themselves as part of an ongoing citizen engagement process, they agreed upon the following 

statement, to acknowledge the 2012 facilities task force and to inform the next one.   

We recognize that the needs identified in 2012 at McGee and Livingston still exist, but once again the urgent need for additional elementary capacity drove facilities task force recommendations. Compelled to choose among the three older schools in need of replacement, we assigned highest priority to Stevens Middle School because:

45  

o the MENG Analysis new­in­lieu study rated its condition poorer than those of the elementary schools,

o its masonry construction makes critical improvements particularly difficult and costly, and

o we believe strongly it is important to maintain a neighborhood middle school for the students, families, and community of central Pasco.

The Pasco Facilities Task Force adopted their final report, with the changes they had agreed upon, by 

consensus.   

III. NEXT STEPS

Three people volunteered to help present the task force’s final report to the school board: Lance Dever, Sheri Mitchell, and Randy Hayden. Executive Director of Operations Randy Nunamaker will let all task force members know when their report is placed on the board agenda.

Appendix B

BUILDING CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE NEED CHECKLIST