FACILITY MASTER PLAN

FACILITY MASTER PLAN

For

THE NORTH KITSAP SCHOOL DISTRICT

Developed by Construction Services Group

Educational Service District 112 2500 NE 65th Avenue Vancouver, WA 98661

Spring 2015

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The North Kitsap School District patrons, administration, and staff spent many hours providing valuable information for this document. Without their considerable time and effort, this project would not have been possible. NORTH KITSAP SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Dan Weedin President

Scott Henden, Vice President Cindy Webster-Martinson, Director

Beth Worthington, Director Bill Webb, Director

NORTH KITSAP SCHOOL DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION

Patty Page - Superintendent Time Garrison – Director of Teaching and Learning

Dave Dyess– Director of Maintenance

NORTH KITSAP SCHOOL DISTRICT FACILITY PLANNING COMMITTEE

Brad Anderson Ken Aries Jan Bahr Paula Bailey Monique Bartoldus Barry Berezowsky Chris Dafoe Lindy Dosher Dave Dyess Becky Erickson Chris Franklin Chris Fraser Tim Garrison Rob Gelder Jeff Hale Norma Hamblet Scott Henden Korinne Henry Mark Kluth, Jerry or Nancy Krischner Hope Lash Richard Lockwood

Bruce MacIntyre Tammy Mattson Brian Maule McCafferty Anthony Judson Miller Doug Nichols ESD 112 Val Oas Patrick Olsen Barb Pixton Jeff Prichard Ron Rose Shane Skelley Kim Smith Ed Stern Jeromy Sullivan Val Torrens Mark VanHuis Michael Walton Brenda Ward Ken Weaver Cindy Webster-Martinson David Winn

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Community Background ................................................................. 1-1 1.2 School District Information ............................................................. 1-2 1.3 Facility Planning Policy .................................................................. 1-4 1.4 Purpose of the Study...................................................................... 1-5 1.5 Methodology and Plan of Work ...................................................... 1-6 1.6 Data Sources ................................................................................. 1-6

2.0 EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM

2.1 Educational Programs .................................................................... 2-1 3.0 ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS

3.1 Historical Data................................................................................ 3-1 3.2 Enrollment Projection Methodology ................................................ 3-2 3.3 Enrollment Projections ................................................................... 3-3 3.4 Summary ....................................................................................... 3-12

4.0 CAPACITY AND UTILIZATION

4.1 Capacity Analysis ........................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Enrollment vs. Capacity ................................................................. 4-7

5.0 FACILITY ASSESSMENTS

5.1 Functional Adequacy...................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Physical Assessment ..................................................................... 5-3

6.0 COMMUNITY INPUT

6.1 Facility Planning Task Force .......................................................... 6-1 6.2 Facility Planning Task Force Recommendations ............................ 6-2

7.0 FACILITY MASTER PLAN

7.1 Related Recommendations ............................................................ 7-1

APPENDICES

Appendix A – School Capacities Appendix B - Functional Adequacy Assessments Appendix C – Physical Condition Assessments

North Kitsap School District – Facility Master Plan

Page 1-1

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Community Background

The Kitsap Peninsula is located across the Puget Sound from the City of Seattle. Poulsbo is the largest town on the northern end of the peninsula. Poulsbo sits on the northern shore of Liberty Bay on approximately 5.3 square miles. The population of Poulsbo is estimated at 9,600. Kingston is another town on the northern portion of the peninsula with an estimated population of 2,100. The northern portion of the Kitsap Peninsula is home to the Suquamish Tribe and Port Gamble S'Kallam Tribe, who have lived in Puget Sound for thousands of years. Their ancestors occupied villages and camps on the shorelines over the past 5,000 years, hunted throughout the local forests and floodplains, fished in bays and streams, and collected shellfish along the marine shoreline. The temperate climate for the North Kitsap Area is characterized by warm dry summers and wet semi-mild winters. Average annual precipitation is 56.37 inches with very little snow. Today the North Kitsap area is a well-known destination for eco-recreation, adventure sports, water trail activities, and cycling. The area is rich in heritage and is characterized by many small communities across the peninsula. Having so many small communities, there are many year-round activities. Art walks and art galleries, live music and theater, fiber arts, books, cinemas, museums and cultural centers are designed to engage locals and visitors of all ages. Every community has at least one major festival each year. Greater Poulsbo is a deceptively productive economy. To the south of the Poulsbo area is a large submarine base with the resultant military economic impact. The north end of the Kitsap Peninsula is far less dependent on military spending and the aeronautics industry, which drive the central and southern portions of the county. Diversity is the common denominator, from the larger businesses like Gravitec, Watson, Avalara, Trulife, Marine View Beverage, and Twiss Labs, to the unique entrepreneurships like Blue Frog Solar, Well Being Health Center, Valley Nursery, Orbea Signs and Marina Market. Several casinos are also in the area and are operated by local tribes. Among the most common occupations in Kitsap Peninsula are health care and social assistance – 23%, retail trades - 19%, and accommodations and food services - 13%. Approximately 77% of workers in Kitsap County, Washington work for companies, 17% work for the government and 6% are self-employed. According to government data, the per capita income in Kitsap Count is $30,661, and the median income of households in Kitsap County was $59,374. Exhibit 1-1 shows employment details for Kitsap County


Page 1-2

EXHIBIT 1-1

EMPLOYMENT BY CATEGORY

Category

Number

Employed

Percent

Employed

Agriculture, Mining, Utilities NA <1%

Construction 3,795 7%

Manufacturing 1,829 3%

Wholesale trade 949 2%

Retail trade 10,744 19%

Transportation and warehousing 833 1%

Information 1,158 2%

Finance and insurance 2,115 4%

Real estate and rental and leasing 1,287 2%

Professional, scientific, and technical services 4,492 8%

Administrative, support, waste mgmt. etc 3,042 5%

Educational services 957 2%

Health care and social assistance 12,683 23%

Arts, entertainment, and recreation 1,514 3%

Accommodation and food services 7,172 13%

Other services (except public administration) 3,175 6%

Industries not classified NA <1%

Total for all sectors 56,258 100%

Source: U.S. Census, 2014

The area offers many outdoor and recreation opportunities for residents and visitors alike. Fishing, hiking, hunting, water sports, and sight-seeing are just a few of the many activities that are popular. The North Kitsap School District is a major local employer, and also meets many of the community’s recreational needs through extracurricular programs. 1.2 School District Information

The North Kitsap School District has approximately 6,100 students in grades K-12. It is governed by an elected school board with five members. The board hires a superintendent to serve as their chief executive officer. The educational programs are offered in three “categories” of school organizational types: (1) six K-5 elementary schools, (2) two grade 6-8 middle schools, and (3) two grade 9-12 high schools. The activities of the District are guided by its stated policy on “Annual Goals, Objectives, and Evaluation.” This policy states:


Page 1-3

Each year the board will formulate specific and measurable goals and objectives to guide effective board governance. The goals and objectives may include but are not limited to the board functions of:

A. Responsible school district governance;

B. Communication of and commitment to high expectations for student learning;

C. Creating conditions district-wide for student and staff success;

D. Holding the district accountable for student learning;; and

E. Engagement of the community in education.

1.2.1 Student Learning Goals

The goal of the school district shall be to provide opportunities for all students to become responsible and respectful global citizens, to contribute to their economic well-being and that of their families and communities, to explore and understand different perspectives and to enjoy productive and satisfying lives. Additionally, a goal of the district is to provide opportunities for each student to develop specific academic and technical skills and knowledge essential to meeting four student learning goals:

A. Read with comprehension, write effectively, and communicate successfully in

a variety of ways and settings;

B. Know and apply the core concepts and principles of: mathematics; social,

physical, and life sciences; civics and history, including different cultures and participation in representative government; geography; arts; and health and fitness;

C. Think analytically, logically, creatively, and be able to integrate different

experiences and knowledge to form reasoned judgments and solve problems; and

D. Understand the importance of work and finance and how performance, effort,

and decisions directly affect future career and educational opportunities.

These goals will be placed within a context of a performance-based educational system in which high standards are set for all students. Parents are primary partners in the education of their children, and students take responsibility for their learning. How instruction is provided to meet these learning goals is the decision of the school board and district educators. An assessment system for determining if students have successfully learned the essential academic learning requirements based on the student learning goals shall be adopted by the district as the state board of education implements these assessments.


Page 1-4

1.3 Facilities Planning Policy

In order to provide the best possible physical environment for learning and teaching, the following factors shall be considered in the planning of district facilities:

A. Facilities shall accommodate the educational needs of students and be consistent with the educational philosophy and instructional goals of the district.

B. Facilities shall meet or exceed all health, safety and welfare regulations.

C. The district shall seek state and federal moneys to the maximum extent available to supplement local financial resources.

D. Undesirable environmental impact shall be minimized.

E. Changing demographic factors shall be monitored.

Facilities Master Plan

In order to efficiently manage the district's present and future facility needs, a facilities master plan shall be developed. Such plan shall cover a ten-year period, be developed in conjunction with the local comprehensive land-use plan and other growth management policies, be reviewed annually and include at least the following:

A. A cost analysis of financial ability of the district to implement its facilities program;

B. Existing and projected enrollment figures, including an analysis of the racial composition of the student population;

C. An inventory of the district's undeveloped property and developed facilities, including an analysis of the number of students in each facility and whether the facility is over- or under-crowded.

D. An analysis of the appropriateness of the facilities to meet the needs of students and members of the public, including acceptability to students of both sexes and those with disabilities, all district services, programs and activities, when viewed in their entirety, shall be accessible to individuals with disabilities;

E. Recommendations as to the sale or other disposition of district property not needed in the future; and

F. Recommendations as to the acquisition, construction or modification of new sites or facilities and of how such shall better meet the needs of students and the educational program.

Enrollment Projections


Page 1-5

Enrollment shall be projected for a five-year period using methods acceptable to the state board of education for determining the district's eligibility for state construction grants. This projection shall be reviewed and revised annually and supplemented by an analysis of additional factors that may affect the student population, such as potential zoning and development changes within the district, housing projections and the development of new businesses and public projects. 1.4 Purpose of Study

Preceding this study, the North Kitsap School District was aware of the declining physical condition of its school buildings. In addition, the District was also aware that the older buildings were having limited success in keeping up with the modern curriculum, especially those elements related to technology. The North Kitsap Board of Directors has taken seriously its charge to protect and preserve the school facility assets owned by the community and to ensure that their educational mission is supported by appropriate, cost-effective facilities. Therefore, the District felt it was important to understand the current condition of its educational and support facilities. Further, the Board determined that they needed a data-driven plan to help them map the future of the district and how they might improve educational and support facilities. In commissioning this study, the Superintendent had several guidelines:

� The consultants had to provide the District with an independent, third-party, data-driven professional assessment of the conditions of its facilities, both physically and their adequacy educationally.

� The consultants must coordinate their work with a Long Range Facility Planning Committee.

� The work of the consultants and Long Range Facility Planning Committee had to demonstrate how best to improve existing facilities in this priority order:

a) Provide for the safety and security of students and staff; b) Provide for student enrollments; c) Improve the physical condition of buildings; and d) Improve the educational adequacy of the facilities.

� The work of the consultants and Long Range Facility Planning Committee had to

demonstrate a plan for effective and efficient facilities, especially given “tightening” school finance trends.

� Reduction of personnel was not a goal of this study. � Individual personalities were not factors in the study. � In other words, the collective efforts of the consultants, the Committee, the staff,

and the Board are to determine facility improvement options that will help make an excellent school system even better!


Page 1-6

1.5 Methodology and Plan of Work

Prior to the commencement of the Facility Master Plan effort, a detailed plan of work was developed. The many sub-tasks were grouped under the following major work tasks:

a. Project Initiation

b. Interviews

c. Enrollment Projections

d. Capacity Analysis

e. Facility Assessments

f. Develop Options

g. Final Report

The methodology used for this project primarily fell into three categories: (1) the gathering of information and data, (2) the analysis of that information and data, and (3) the development of options for improving facilities based on the data and the analysis. The consulting team consisted of two individuals with collective experience in architecture, school facility planning, school administration, school finance, and school operations. These two team leaders were assisted by numerous facility assessment specialists. 1.6 Data Sources

Data and information was collected from a variety of sources including, but not limited to:

a. School District policies and procedures,

b. Physical condition reports,

c. Floor plans or diagrams of school facilities,

d. Description of program uses of facilities,

e. Grade configuration information,

f. Student enrollment histories and District projections,

g. School class size protocols, and

h. Miscellaneous websites.


Page 2-1

2.0 EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS

2.1 Educational Programs

The North Kitsap School District offers a comprehensive set of educational programs and services to be supported by their facilities. In addition to thorough basic education classes in language arts, mathematics, social studies and science, the North Kitsap Schools offer electives in a variety of program areas. The District offers K-12 programs in music, art, physical education, computer skills, and library services. It also offers a variety of intervention and special needs programs, and enrichment programs. The facilities that house these programs need to be adequate to deliver an educational program that is diverse and comprehensive. Exhibit 2-1 provides an overview of the educational programs that require adequate spaces to support them.

EXHIBIT 2-1

NORTH KITSAP SCHOOL DISTRICT

EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS

Content Elementary Middle High

Arts

All students participate in music. Dance instruction is provided within the physical education program. Each elementary school has an art docent available to enhance arts education which is aligned with state and national standards. Classes occur in specialized spaces.

In the arts, all middle schools have a music program and a visual arts program. Theater programs are offered as a class or in conjunction with other subject areas. All middle schools offer programs in music (choral and/or instrumental) and visual arts. Classes occur in specialized spaces.

All comprehensive high schools have music (band, orchestra, and/or choir) visual arts, and theater programs. Classes occur in specialized spaces.

Health and

Physical

Education

All students are offered health and physical education programs. Physical education is required

All students are required to take health and physical education classes. Health may be

All students are required to take health and physical education classes. Most students take


Page 2-2


for all students for a minimum of 100 minutes per week. Classes occur both indoor and on fields.

taught as a stand-alone class or integrated into science or physical education classes. Middle School students take an average of 100 minutes per week of physical education each year. Classes occur both indoor and on fields.

the class in 9th grade. Classes occur both indoor and on fields.

Literacy

The literacy program incorporates reading, writing, and communication in a balanced approach that includes guided reading (small group instruction), independent reading, interactive read-aloud, and writing instruction. All schools have a collection of leveled books, allowing teachers to guide students to both fiction and non-fiction books that are appropriate for the student’s individual reading level. Students hear examples of quality literature each year. Writing in a variety of genres begins in first grade. Classes typically occur in

A balanced literacy approach is used in all middle schools. Students become proficient in strategies and skills for reading fiction and non-fiction texts. They also write in a variety of genres, including personal narrative, persuasive, and literary essay. Classes typically occur in general classroom spaces.

Literacy is approached through teaching students to analyze a variety of literature and to develop the critical thinking skills needed to read, interpret and discuss content area literature and informational text at appropriate levels of complexity to support the reading demands of college and career. Writing is integrated throughout all language arts courses, teaching students to write in a variety of genres with an emphasis on informational and argumentative writing. Classes typically occur in


Page 2-3


general classroom spaces.

general classroom spaces.

Math

Math instruction incorporates a balance of conceptual understanding, procedural proficiency, and problem solving/mathematical processes and is supplemented with other computational practice programs. Classes typically occur in general classroom spaces.

Math instruction incorporates a balance of conceptual understanding, procedural proficiency, and problem solving/mathematical processes. In addition to general math courses, Pre-Algebra and Geometry are provided. Classes typically occur in general classroom spaces.

Math instruction incorporates a balance of conceptual understanding, procedural proficiency, and problem solving/mathematical processes. Courses follow a sequence of Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II, Pre-Calculus, and AP Calculus. Classes typically occur in general classroom spaces.

Intervention

Programs

Tier II instruction is provided at every level through Title I, LAP, ELL programs, Special Education programs, and State and District-funded programs. These programs emphasize instruction in literacy, language, and mathematics, but often include other content areas such as life skills, speech and language therapy, physical and occupational therapy, and others. Classes typically occur in either general classroom or




Page 2-4


specialized instructional or therapeutic spaces.



Science

Science instruction is provided using researched-based science kits at each grade level. Science provides every student the opportunity to directly experience scientific principles through guided inquiry. Classes typically occur in general classrooms.

Science is approached from the perspective of scientists. Students engage in an inquiry-based program using researched-based science modules. Classes occur in specialized spaces.

Secondary science

programs lead students to an understanding of key concepts in life and physical science. Classes occur in specialized spaces.

Social

Studies

The social studies

curriculum is comprised of a developmental sequence: Families, neighborhoods, communities, Washington State history up to statehood, U.S. geography, and U.S. history from pre-colonization through the revolution. Classes typically occur in general classroom spaces.

Social Studies includes the study of ancient civilizations, U.S. history to 1877, world geography, and Washington State history from statehood to the present. Classes typically occur in general classroom spaces.

Social Studies is comprised of world history, U.S. history, American government and economics. Classes typically occur in general classroom spaces.

Student

Services

The student services program provides counseling, social skills instruction, and facilitates access to community support

The student services program provides personal and career guidance services for students. These may include

The student services program provides personal and career guidance services for students. These may include


Page 2-5


services for students and their families.

counseling, social work, and health services.

counseling, social work, and health services.

Technology

Technology is incorporated throughout the day in elementary schools. Every student has access to computers both within the classroom and via computer labs housed in each school. Each school has a minimum of two computer labs available for use. Teaching stations are equipped with computers, document cameras and digital projectors to support classroom instruction.

Technology is incorporated throughout the day in middle schools. Every student has access to computers both within the classroom and via computer labs housed in each school. Each school has a minimum of two computer labs available for use. Teaching stations are equipped with computers, document cameras and digital projectors to support classroom instruction.

Technology is incorporated throughout the day in high schools. Every student has access to computers both within the classroom and via computer labs housed in each school. Each school has a minimum of two computer labs available for use. Teaching stations are equipped with computers, document cameras and digital projectors to support classroom instruction.

World

Language

In preparation for world language classes, students explore various cultures and languages through other programs (e.g. social students, literacy, etc. Classes typically occur in general classroom spaces.

At least one world language is offered at the middle school level. Classes typically occur in general classroom spaces.

At least two world languages are offered at the high school level. Classes typically occur in general classroom spaces.


Page 2-6

Advanced

Placement

and Highly

Capable

One elementary school houses 2-3 self-contained highly capable program classes. This program fluctuates in number from year to year and provides academic enriched education to identified students whose homes are in different places throughout the district. Classes typically occur in general classroom spaces.

Each middle school provides accelerated courses (not self-contained) for English Language Arts, Social Studies and Math. Classes typically occur in general classroom spaces.

Advanced Placement courses are offered in every comprehensive high school. Classes typically occur in general classroom spaces or, in some cases, specialized learning spaces.


Page 3-1

3.0 ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS

This chapter is devoted to reviewing community growth issues, planning and zoning information, historical enrollment data, computerized enrollment projection models, and estimating the impact of future enrollments on the capacity of school buildings. The consulting team has used both qualitative and quantitative information to develop the projections. A variety of enrollment projection models have been used as a means of looking at future growth in different ways. Because most of these models use historical information as the basis for projections, the North Kitsap School District is encouraged to update these projections annually. Information from local agencies will be useful in this endeavor.

3.1 Historical Data

Exhibit 3-1 details the enrollment history for North Kitsap School District for K-12 students. Exhibit 3-2 charts the data shown in Exhibit 3-1.

EXHIBIT 3-1


ENROLLMENT HISTORY

Source: ESD 112, 2014

08 - 09 09 - 10 10 - 11 11 - 12 12 - 13 13 - 14

K 454 422 407 441 412 425

1 463 504 447 424 452 431

2 493 476 492 446 449 456

3 461 509 471 488 452 448

4 492 478 524 457 482 447

5 507 495 472 506 458 459

6 496 503 470 476 505 450

7 500 515 503 471 476 503

8 526 531 500 494 481 478

9 537 539 534 528 504 489

10 546 540 560 556 528 505

11 573 538 550 519 515 494

12 570 604 628 641 558 534

K-5 2,870 2,884 2,813 2,762 2,705 2,666

6-8 1,522 1,549 1,473 1,441 1,462 1,431

9-12 2,226 2,221 2,272 2,244 2,105 2,022

Total 6,618 6,654 6,558 6,447 6,272 6,119


Page 3-2

EXHIBIT 3-2


ENROLLMENT HISTORY – GRAPHIC


3.2 Enrollment Projection Methodology

To identify trends and prepare for adequate spaces, materials and supplies, and teaching staff, school leaders use several methods of projecting enrollment. Among the most commonly used models are average percentage growth, cohort survival, linear regression, and student-per-household models. It is important to note that all enrollment projection models provide only estimates of future populations. Because no one model is foolproof, school leaders should consider using more than one method.

3.2.1 Average Percentage Growth

The average percentage growth model calculates future school enrollment growth based on the historical average growth. This model multiplies the historical average percentage increase times the prior year enrollment to project future enrollments.

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

08 - 09 09 - 10 10 - 11 11 - 12 12 - 13 13 - 14

En

ro

llm

en

t

Year

North Kitsap, WA

Enrollment History History


Page 3-3

3.2.2 Linear Regression Model

Linear regression is a mathematical approach to estimating an unknown future value of a variable by performing calculations on known historical values. Once calculated, several future values for different future dates can then be plotted to provide a “regression line” or “trend line”. There are many types of regression formulas. A straight-line model to estimate future enrollment values was chosen here -- a model that finds the “best fit” based on the historical data.

3.2.3 Cohort Survival Model

The cohort survival method calculates the growth or decline in a grade level over a period of five years based on the ratio of students who attend each of the previous years, the “survival rate”. This ratio is then applied to the incoming class to calculate the trends in that class as it “moves” or graduates through the school system. For example, if history shows that between the first and second grades, the classes for the last five years have grown by an average of 3.5%, then the size of incoming classes for the next five years are calculated by multiplying them by 103.5%. If the history shows a declining trend, the multiplying factor will be less than 100%. The cohort survival model accounts for the net effect of students transferring in and out of school for any reason. For example, if 15 students transfer out of the public school system into a charter school and 20 students transfer in as a result of a new business in town, the net effect is five additional students. This increase in students will be reflected in a higher “survival” rate. The determination of future kindergarten enrollments is critical, especially for projections of more than five years. There are two methods of projecting kindergarten enrollments. The first model uses a linear regression line based on the historical kindergarten enrollments. The second model is based on the correlation between historical birth rates (natality rates) and kindergarten enrollments. The natality correlation model works well when projecting kindergarten enrollments for the next five years but must be combined with the regression model when projecting for extended periods.

3.3 Enrollment Projections

3.3.1 Percentage Increase Enrollment Projections

Exhibit 3-3 is a table detailing the projected enrollments using the percentage increase or decrease factors which are calculated by averaging the enrollment increases and decreases over the last five years. Exhibit 3-4 is a graphical representation of the table.


Page 3-4

EXHIBIT 3-3


PERCENTAGE INCREASE MODEL


08 - 09 09 - 10 10 - 11 11 - 12 12 - 13 13 - 14

K 454 422 407 441 412 425

1 463 504 447 424 452 431

2 493 476 492 446 449 456

3 461 509 471 488 452 448

4 492 478 524 457 482 447

5 507 495 472 506 458 459

6 496 503 470 476 505 450

7 500 515 503 471 476 503

8 526 531 500 494 481 478

9 537 539 534 528 504 489

10 546 540 560 556 528 505

11 573 538 550 519 515 494

12 570 604 628 641 558 534

K-5 2,870 2,884 2,813 2,762 2,705 2,666

6-8 1,522 1,549 1,473 1,441 1,462 1,431

9-12 2,226 2,221 2,272 2,244 2,105 2,022

Total 6,618 6,654 6,558 6,447 6,272 6,119 Averages

K-5 0.49% -2.46% -1.81% -2.06% -1.44% -1.46%

6-8 1.77% -4.91% -2.17% 1.46% -2.12% -1.19%

9-12 -0.22% 2.30% -1.23% -6.19% -3.94% -1.86%

Total 0.54% -1.44% -1.69% -2.71% -2.44% -1.55%

Projection

14 - 15 15 - 16 16 - 17 17 - 18 18 - 19

K-5 2,627 2,589 2,551 2,514 2,477

6-8 1,410 1,393 1,377 1,360 1,344

9-12 1,993 1,955 1,919 1,883 1,848

Total 6,030 5,936 5,844 5,754 5,665


Page 3-5

EXHIBIT 3-4


PERCENTAGE INCREASE MODEL - GRAPHIC


3.3.2 Regression Enrollment Projections

Exhibit 3-5 is a table detailing the projected enrollment using the regression model and based on the historical enrollments for the last five years. Exhibit 3-6 is a graphical representation of the table data.

- 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000

08 -

09

09 -

10

10 -

11

11 -

12

12 -

13

13 -

14

14 -

15

15 -

16

16 -

17

17 -

18

18 -

19

K-1

2

School Year

North Kitsap, WA

History Projection

Percentage Annual Increase Model


Page 3-6

EXHIBIT 3-5


LINEAR REGRESSION MODEL


08 - 09 09 - 10 10 - 11 11 - 12 12 - 13 13 - 14

K 454 422 407 441 412 425

1 463 504 447 424 452 431

2 493 476 492 446 449 456

3 461 509 471 488 452 448

4 492 478 524 457 482 447

5 507 495 472 506 458 459

6 496 503 470 476 505 450

7 500 515 503 471 476 503

8 526 531 500 494 481 478

9 537 539 534 528 504 489

10 546 540 560 556 528 505

11 573 538 550 519 515 494

12 570 604 628 641 558 534

K-5 2,870 2,884 2,813 2,762 2,705 2,666

6-8 1,522 1,549 1,473 1,441 1,462 1,431

9-12 2,226 2,221 2,272 2,244 2,105 2,022

Total 6,618 6,654 6,558 6,447 6,272 6,119

Projection

14 - 15 15 - 16 16 - 17 17 - 18 18 - 19

K-5 2,623 2,577 2,531 2,485 2,439

6-8 1,405 1,383 1,362 1,341 1,319

9-12 2,042 2,002 1,962 1,922 1,883

Total 6,069 5,962 5,855 5,748 5,641


Page 3-7

EXHIBIT 3-6


LINEAR REGRESSION MODEL - GRAPHIC


3.3.3 Cohort Survival Enrollment Projections

Exhibit 3-7 is a table detailing the projected enrollments using the cohort survival method based on the enrollment over the last six years and using a linear regression model for the kindergarten projection. Exhibit 3-8 is a graphical representation of the table data. Exhibit 3-9 is a graphical representation of the table data for K-5 with a linear regression projection for kindergarten (K).

- 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000

08

- 0

9

09

- 1

0

10

- 1

1

11

- 1

2

12

- 1

3

13

- 1

4

14

- 1

5

15

- 1

6

16

- 1

7

17

- 1

8

18

- 1

9

K-1

2

School Year

North Kitsap, WA

History Projection

Linear Regression Model


Page 3-8

EXHIBIT 3-7


COHORT SURVIVAL MODEL (LINEAR K)


EXHIBIT 3-8


COHORT SURVIVAL MODEL (LINEAR K) - GRAPHIC


08 - 09 09 - 10 10 - 11 11 - 12 12 - 13 13 - 14 Avg. % 14 - 15 15 - 16 16 - 17 17 - 18 18 - 19

K 454 422 407 441 412 425 Survival 413 409 405 401 397

1 463 504 447 424 452 431 105.64% 449 436 432 428 424

2 493 476 492 446 449 456 101.40% 437 455 442 438 434

3 461 509 471 488 452 448 100.50% 458 439 457 444 440

4 492 478 524 457 482 447 100.27% 449 459 440 458 445

5 507 495 472 506 458 459 98.27% 439 441 451 432 450

6 496 503 470 476 505 450 98.61% 453 433 435 445 426

7 500 515 503 471 476 503 100.73% 453 456 436 438 448

8 526 531 500 494 481 478 100.81% 507 457 460 440 442

9 537 539 534 528 504 489 102.46% 490 519 468 471 451

10 546 540 560 556 528 505 101.75% 498 499 528 476 479

11 573 538 550 519 515 494 95.85% 484 477 478 506 456

12 570 604 628 641 558 534 109.98% 543 532 525 526 556

K-5 2,870 2,884 2,813 2,762 2,705 2,666 2,645 2,639 2,627 2,601 2,590

6-8 1,522 1,549 1,473 1,441 1,462 1,431 1,413 1,346 1,331 1,323 1,316

9-12 2,226 2,221 2,272 2,244 2,105 2,022 2,015 2,027 1,999 1,979 1,942

K-12 6,618 6,654 6,558 6,447 6,272 6,119 6,073 6,012 5,957 5,903 5,848

01,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,000

08

- 0

9

09

- 1

0

10

- 1

1

11

- 1

2

12

- 1

3

13

- 1

4

14

- 1

5

15

- 1

6

16

- 1

7

17

- 1

8

18

- 1

9

K-1

2

School Year

North Kitsap, WA

History Projection

Cohort Survival Model


Page 3-9

EXHIBIT 3-9


COHORT SURVIVAL MODEL (LINEAR K) – K-5 GRAPHIC


Exhibit 3-10 is a table detailing the projected enrollments using the cohort survival method based on the enrollment over the last six years and using a natality correlation model for the kindergarten projection. Exhibit 3-11 is a graphical representation of the table data. Exhibit 3-12 is a graphical representation of the table data for K-5 with a kindergarten projection based on natality.

2,4002,5002,6002,7002,8002,9003,000

08

- 0

9

09

- 1

0

10

- 1

1

11

- 1

2

12

- 1

3

13

- 1

4

14

- 1

5

15

- 1

6

16

- 1

7

17

- 1

8

18

- 1

9

K-5

School Year

North Kitsap, WA

History Projection

Cohort Survival Enrollment Projection


Page 3-10

EXHIBIT 3-10


COHORT SURVIVAL MODEL (NATALITY K) - GRAPHIC


08 - 09 09 - 10 10 - 11 11 - 12 12 - 13 13 - 14 Avg. % 14 - 15 15 - 16 16 - 17 17 - 18 18 - 19

K 454 422 407 441 412 425 Survival 411 415 417 423 416

1 463 504 447 424 452 431 105.64% 449 434 438 440 447

2 493 476 492 446 449 456 101.40% 437 455 440 444 446

3 461 509 471 488 452 448 100.50% 458 439 457 442 446

4 492 478 524 457 482 447 100.27% 449 459 440 458 443

5 507 495 472 506 458 459 98.27% 439 441 451 432 450

6 496 503 470 476 505 450 98.61% 453 433 435 445 426

7 500 515 503 471 476 503 100.73% 453 456 436 438 448

8 526 531 500 494 481 478 100.81% 507 457 460 440 442

9 537 539 534 528 504 489 102.46% 490 519 468 471 451

10 546 540 560 556 528 505 101.75% 498 499 528 476 479

11 573 538 550 519 515 494 95.85% 484 477 478 506 456

12 570 604 628 641 558 534 109.98% 543 532 525 526 556

K-5 2,870 2,884 2,813 2,762 2,705 2,666 2,643 2,643 2,643 2,639 2,648

6-8 1,522 1,549 1,473 1,441 1,462 1,431 1,413 1,346 1,331 1,323 1,316

9-12 2,226 2,221 2,272 2,244 2,105 2,022 2,015 2,027 1,999 1,979 1,942

K-12 6,618 6,654 6,558 6,447 6,272 6,119 6,071 6,016 5,973 5,941 5,906


Page 3-11

EXHIBIT 3-11


COHORT SURVIVAL MODEL (NATALITY K) – K-12 GRAPHIC


01,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,000

08

- 0

9

09

- 1

0

10

- 1

1

11

- 1

2

12

- 1

3

13

- 1

4

14

- 1

5

15

- 1

6

16

- 1

7

17

- 1

8

18

- 1

9

K-1

2

School Year

North Kitsap, WA

History Projection

Cohort Survival Model


Page 3-12

EXHIBIT 3-12


COHORT SURVIVAL MODEL (NATALITY K) – K-5 GRAPHIC


3.4 Summary

The consulting team used three different enrollment projection models to estimate future enrollments. Each model emphasizes different types of data, and therefore is limited in its effectiveness as a predictive tool. Two models, the percentage increase model and the regression model, emphasize historical data. These models are quite effective predictors if there is no forecast of community growth or decline and that student population rates have minimal fluctuation. The other model also uses historical enrollments but also takes into account student mobility patterns and the effects of the natality rates in prior years. The cohort survival model is perhaps the best known predictive tool using this type of data. However, like the percentage increase model and the regression model, the cohort survival model loses its predictive capabilities in communities that experience, or are expected to experience, more rapid growth.

2,4002,5002,6002,7002,8002,9003,000

08

- 0

9

09

- 1

0

10

- 1

1

11

- 1

2

12

- 1

3

13

- 1

4

14

- 1

5

15

- 1

6

16

- 1

7

17

- 1

8

18

- 1

9

K-5

School Year

North Kitsap, WA

History Projection

Cohort Survival Enrollment Projection


Page 3-13

All of the models predict that enrollments will decline somewhat in the next five years. However, the cohort survival model using natality-based K information indicates a “leveling off” of elementary enrollments while the linear K shows a continuing decline in elementary enrollments K. Based on all the available information, the consulting team believes that the North Kitsap School District should use the cohort survival enrollment forecast model but carefully monitor county natality information. Since OSPI uses the linear K model, the differences in the two approaches should be shared fully with the community when having discussions about the future direction of the District. (Note: At the time of publication of this plan, Kitsap County was updating information regarding future housing units. This information, when available, may be added to this plan in the form of an addenda.)


Page 4-1

4.0 CAPACITY AND UTILIZATION The permanent (not including portables) capacity of a school building is driven by four main factors: (1) the physical size of the instructional spaces, (2) the class size limits, (3) the schedule of uses, and (3) the programs that are offered by the school. Because capacity formulas often apply different “weights” to these factors, one can find a number of capacity definitions across the country. For the North Kitsap School District, a single method of calculating capacity was used – the instructional space model. This brings both consistency and clarity to the process of determining capacity. Once capacity is determined, it can be compared to enrollments or projected future enrollments. This comparison produces a “utilization factor” that is discussed later in this chapter.

4.1 Capacity Analysis

Each school in the District underwent an analysis to determine its permanent capacity. School capacity, or the number of students a building is designed to reasonably accommodate, is largely driven by the number of students assigned to each class, the number of square feet in the classroom, the number of periods in the schedule, where teacher preparation periods occur, the ratio of required courses vs. elective courses, and number of programs offered.

4.1.1 Methodology

Existing building capacity information was gathered though analysis of:

a. plans, maps, diagrams, and drawings of existing buildings b. information regarding the numbers of teaching spaces and their uses c. square footage information for each school d. interviews with staff

Many “special needs” programs require smaller class sizes with more area per student, specialized utilities and equipment, and space for specialists to serve their needs. Examples of the programs needing different spaces include programs for the cognitively impaired, learning disabled, seriously emotionally impaired, speech and hearing therapy, Title I (remedial reading and mathematics), gifted education, science, PE, and music. Capacity is then calculated by multiplying the number of teaching spaces in the building by type (e.g. kindergarten rooms, primary grade rooms, intermediate grade rooms, special education rooms, PE teaching spaces, music rooms, secondary general classrooms, art rooms, etc.) times the class size limit (often stated in the negotiated agreement or in Board policy). The sum of the products in each school type would be multiplied by a “scheduling factor.” Scheduling factors are used to reflect the fact that not every classroom can be scheduled to have a “perfect fit” of students in the attendance zone when compared to


Page 4-2

capacity standards. For elementary schools, a scheduling factor of 95% reflects this imperfect fit. In addition, the District must account for the practice of having each middle school and high school teacher use of their classrooms without students for their preparation period. At middle school and high school levels, the enrollment would be multiplied by 83% to reflect the planning period for each teacher in a six period instructional day (5 teaching periods ÷ 6 total periods = 83% scheduling factor).

4.1.2 Current Capacity Standards

The consultants used the instructional space model of calculating permanent capacity which is based on an actual count of the different types of classrooms and their maximum enrollment. Often, general classrooms have a greater capacity than special learning classrooms (e.g., Special education classrooms have lower enrollments due to the legal requirements of handicapped education laws.) Based on North Kitsap School District practices for classroom enrollment sizes, we have used these values:

K-1 = 25 students Grades 2-3 = 26 students Grades 4-5 = 27 students Grades 6-8 = 28 students Grades 9-12 = 30 students Life Skills = 8 students Title I, Resource = 15 students

Exhibit 4-1 details the different types of spaces and their capacity for the K-5 program. Please note that many special learning spaces (computer lab, music, P.E., etc.) do not have student capacity for K-5 because the students are counted in their home rooms. These special learning spaces are used for “pull-out” programs.


Page 4-3

EXHIBIT 4-1

K-5 SPACE STANDARDS CHART

Source: North Kitsap School District, 2014

Exhibit 4-2 details the capacity standards for grades 6-8. The special learning spaces for the Middle School do have capacity since the school is on a seven period schedule. Pull-out programs have smaller class sizes.

Head Start

Pre-K

K - Half Day (FTE) 0

K - Full Day (FTE) 25

Grade 1 25

Grade 2 26

Grade 3 26

Grade 4 27

Grade 5 27

Art 0

Music 0

PE 0

Science 0

Library 0

Computer Labs 0

Self Cont. Sp Ed 8

RR, Title I, or Other Pull Out 0

Gifted 26

Other

Elementary School

Instructional Space Model Standards


Page 4-4

EXHIBIT 4-2

6-8 SPACE STANDARDS CHART


Exhibit 4-3 details the capacity standards for grades 9-12. The special learning spaces for the High School do have capacity since the school is on a six period schedule. Pull-out programs have smaller class sizes.

Grade 6 28

Grades 7-8 28

Art 28

Business Labs 28

Computer Labs 28

Music 28

PE 28

Library 0

Science 28

CTE 28

Self Cont. Sp Ed 8


Other 28

Other 0

Middle School



Page 4-5

EXHIBIT 4-3



4.1.3 Current Capacity

In order to obtain the numbers of each classroom type, the consulting team analyzed a simple floor plan of each school. Once the number of classrooms for each type of space was determined, the capacity for each school was calculated by multiplying the number of spaces (for each space type) times the capacity value from the capacity standards charts (See Exhibits 4-1, 4-2, and 4-3.) For each school, once the capacity was determined, it was multiplied by a scheduling factor. These scheduling factors have been used:

Elementary = 95% Middle and High = 83%

Examples of the calculations for both elementary and secondary schools are detailed in Exhibits 4-4 and 4-5.

Grades 9-12 30

Art 30

Business Labs 30

Computer Labs 30

Music 30

PE 30

Library 0

Science 30

CTE 30

Self Cont. Sp Ed 8


Other 30

Other 0

High School



Page 4-6

EXHIBIT 4-4

SAMPLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CAPACITY CALCULATION

Example

K-1 General Classrooms 6 X 25 = 150

1-3 General Classrooms 6 X 26 = 156


PE, Music, and Art Rooms 3 X 0 = -

Special Education Classrooms 2 X 0 = -

468 X 95% = 445 Source: ESD 112, 2014

EXHIBIT 4-5

SAMPLE SECONDARY SCHOOL CAPACITY CALCULATION

Example:

General Classrooms 12 X 30 = 360

Music and PE Classrooms 4 X 30 = 120

Science and CTE Classrooms 3 X 30 = 90

CTE Classrooms 2 X 30 = 60

Computer Labs 2 X 30 = 60

Resource Rooms 2 X 15 = 30

Special Education Classrooms 1 X 8 = 8

728 X 83% = 604 Source: ESD 112, 2014

Using the capacity standards from the tables in Exhibits 4-1, 4-2, and 4-3 and the methodologies demonstrated in Exhibits 4-4 and 4-5, the permanent capacities for each school have been calculated. Exhibit 4-6 shows the results of the calculations. Detailed tables of capacity calculations for each school are detailed in Appendix A.


Page 4-7

EXHIBIT 4-6

PERMANENT SCHOOL CAPACITIES


4.2 Enrollment vs. Capacity

In order for schools to fully meet their educational goals, capacity and enrollment must be matched. When capacity exceeds enrollment (under-utilization) capital expenditures may be reduced or facilities removed from inventory. When enrollment exceeds capacity (over-utilization) capital expenditures may need to be increased. The formula for calculating utilization is “enrollment ÷ capacity = utilization.”

4.2.1 Elementary Enrollment and Capacity

The current K-5 enrollment exceeds the capacity in each school except Breidablik ES and Wolfle ES. The total current elementary utilization is 102%. The projected future utilization remains at 102%. This utilization rate indicates that the elementary schools will continue to be “overcrowded.” This is in contrast to the middle schools that, as a whole, are underutilized. The middle schools as a whole have a utilization factor of 82% and are expected to decline by 4% in the next five years. Kingston MS is underutilized while Poulsbo MS is overcrowded. The high schools as a whole are currently at 90% utilization (when classrooms at Spectrum included) and are expected to remain close – 91% --- in

Site Capacity

Breidablik ES 391

Gordon ES 320

Pearson ES 296

Poulsbo ES 382

Suquamish ES 345

Vinland ES 467

Wolfle ES 391

ES Total 2,594

Kingston MS 958

Poulsbo MS 721

MS Total 1,678

Kingston HS 806

North Kitsap HS 1,313

Spectrum School 75

HS Total 2,194

Totals 6,466


Page 4-8

the next five years. Kingston High School is overcrowded while North Kitsap High School is underutilized. Exhibit 4-7 is a table showing the current capacity, current enrollment, and current utilization for each school (with and without Breidablik Elementary School). Exhibit 4-8 is a table showing the projected capacity, projected enrollment, and projected utilization (with and without Breidablik Elementary School).

EXHIBIT 4-7

CURRENT FACILITY UTILIZATION


Site

Capa city

with

Bre ida blik

Capa city

without

Bre ida blik

Current

Enrollment

Oct. 2013

Current

Utiliza tion

with

Bre idablik

Current

Utiliza tion

without

Bre idablik

Breidablik ES 391 - - 0%

Gordon ES 320 320 440 137% 137%

Pearson ES 296 296 338 114% 114%

Poulsbo ES 382 382 535 140% 140%

Suquamish ES 345 345 404 117% 117%

Vinland ES 467 467 594 127% 127%

Wolfle ES 391 391 333 85% 85%

ES Total 2,594 2,202 2,644 102% 120%

Kingston MS 958 958 560 58% 58%

Poulsbo MS 721 721 813 113% 113%

MS Total 1,678 1,678 1,373 82% 82%

Kingston HS 806 806 884 110% 110%

North Kitsap HS 1,313 1,313 1,086 83% 83%

Spectrum School 75 75 - 0% 0%

HS Total 2,194 2,194 1,970 90% 90%

Totals 6,466 6,075 5,987


Page 4-9

EXHIBIT 4-8

PROJECTED FACILITY UTILIZATION


Exhibit 4-9 provides three graphic representations of the relationship between permanent capacity and enrollment for the coming five years at each school level using Breidablik Elementary School.

Site

Capacity

with

Bre idablik

Capacity

without

Bre idablik

Projected

Enrollment

2018

Projected

Utiliza tion

2018

with

Bre idablik

Projected

Utiliza tion

2018

without

Bre idablik

Breidablik ES 391 -

Gordon ES 320 320

Pearson ES 296 296

Poulsbo ES 382 382

Suquamish ES 345 345

Vinland ES 467 467

Wolfle ES 391 391

ES Total 2,594 2,202 2,648 102% 120%

Kingston MS 958 958

Poulsbo MS 721 721

MS Total 1,678 1,678 1,316 78% 78%

Kingston HS 806 806

North Kitsap HS 1,313 1,313

Spectrum School 75 75

HS Total 2,194 2,194 1,942 89% 89%

Totals 6,466 6,075 5,906


Page 4-10

EXHIBIT 4-9

PROJECTED FACILITY UTILIZATION GRAPHS



-

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

13 - 14 14 - 15 15 - 16 16 - 17 17 - 18 18 - 19

En

roll

me

nt

School Year

North Kitsap School District

Elementary School Capacity Projected Enrollment

-

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

13 - 14 14 - 15 15 - 16 16 - 17 17 - 18 18 - 19

En

roll

me

nt

School Year


Middle School Capacity Projected Enrollment


Page 4-11

EXHIBIT 4-9 (CONTINUED)



4.2.1 The “McCleary” Effect on Elementary Enrollment and Capacity

In its January, 2012 McCleary decision, the Washington State Supreme Court ordered the state to fully fund K-12 public schools as required by the Washington Constitution. As part of the response to that decision, Initiative Measure 1351 went before Washington voters in 2014. That initiative proposes to reduce class sizes to 17 students in grades K-3 and 25 students in grades 4-12. This proposed reduction in class size will affect the capacity of schools in North Kitsap School District as well as many school districts across Washington. Exhibits 4-10 through 4-12 show how passage of Initiative Measure 1351 may affect space standards in North Kitsap School District.

-

250

500

750

1,000

1,250

1,500

1,750

2,000

2,250

2,500

13 - 14 14 - 15 15 - 16 16 - 17 17 - 18 18 - 19

En

roll

me

nt

School Year


High School Capacity Projected Enrollment


Page 4-12

EXHIBIT 4-10


(WITH INITIATIVE MEASURE 1351)


Head Start

Pre-K



Grade 1 17

Grade 2 17

Grade 3 17

Grade 4 25

Grade 5 25

Art 0

Music 0

PE 0

Science 0

Library 0

Computer Labs 0

Self Cont. Sp Ed 8


Gifted 25

Other

Elementary School



Page 4-13

EXHIBIT 4-11




Grade 6 25

Grades 7-8 25

Art 25

Business Labs 25

Computer Labs 25

Music 25

PE 25

Library 0

Science 25

CTE 25

Self Cont. Sp Ed 8


Other 25

Middle School



Page 4-14

EXHIBIT 4-12



Source: ESD 112, 2014 With these new standards, the capacity for all classrooms is diminished. The result is a higher current utilization and an even higher projected utilization of classroom space. Exhibit 4-13 details the effect of lower capacity and increased utilization under the Initiative Measure 1351 proposal. Exhibits 4-14 through 4-16 provide three graphic representations of the relationship between capacity and enrollment for the coming five years at each school level under the proposed Initiative Measure 1351, assuming that Breidablik Elementary School is used.

Grades 9-12 25

Art 25

Business Labs 25

Computer Labs 25

Music 25

PE 25

Library 0

Science 25

CTE 25

Self Cont. Sp Ed 8


Other 0

High School



Page 4-15

EXHIBIT 4-13

CURRENT AND PROJECTED FACILITY UTILIZATION FOR

NKSD SCHOOLS (WITH INITIATIVE MEASURE 1351)


Site

Ca pa city

with

Bre idablik

Capacity

without

Bre idablik

Current

Enrollment

Oct. 2013

Current

Utiliza tion

with

Bre idablik

Curre nt

Utiliza tion

without

Bre ida blik

Proje cte d

Enrollme nt

2018

Projected

Utiliza tion

2018

with

Bre ida blik

Proje cte d

Utiliza tion

2018

without

Bre idablik


Gordon ES 240 240 440 183% 183%

Pearson ES 224 224 338 151% 151%

Poulsbo ES 295 295 535 182% 182%

Suquamish ES 272 272 404 149% 149%

Vinland ES 359 359 594 165% 165%

Wolfle ES 295 295 333 113% 113%

ES Total 1,981 1,685 2,644 133% 157% 2,648 134% 157%

Kingston MS 858 858 560 65% 65%

Poulsbo MS 648 648 813 125% 125%

MS Total 1,506 1,506 1,373 91% 91% 1,316 87% 87%

Kingston HS 673 673 884 131% 131%

North Kitsap HS 1,105 1,105 1,086 98% 98%


HS Total 1,840 1,840 1,970 107% 107% 1,942 106% 106%

Totals 5,326 5,031 5,987 5,906


Addendum Page 1

FACILITY MASTER PLAN - ADDENDUM

Upon completion of the Facility Master Plan for the North Kitsap School District, Construction Services Group (CSG) was asked to provide additional information regarding the enrollment projections for the two high schools to clarify the effect of the Running Start Program. Running Start is essentially a dual credit program that allows high school juniors and seniors to take courses at the local community college(s). Although the number of students that enroll in the dual credit programs across the state can vary widely, CSG conservatively included their numbers in the high school enrollment projections. However, the North Kitsap School District’s Running Start Program is quite stable in enrollment. Therefore, those students receiving their coursework away from the local high schools should be deducted and the projected high school enrollment should be lowered accordingly. Kingston High School had 37 FTE Running Start students and North Kitsap High School had 76 FTE Running Start Students. When those FTE’s are subtracted from the original enrollment numbers, Kingston High School had 847 students and North Kitsap High School had 1,010 students. The recalculated utilization shows Kingston High School at 105% utilization (down from 110%) and North Kitsap High School at 77% utilization (down from 83%). The 2018 project enrollment when reduced by 113 students to 1,829 students projects a 2018 utilization of 83% (down from 89%). The following table details the calculations.

Site Capacity

Enrollment

Oct. 2013

without

Running

Sta rt

Running

Sta rt FT E

Enrollment

Oct. 2013

with

Running

Sta rt

Current

Utiliza tion

with

Running

Sta rt

Projected

Enrollment

2018

Projected

Utiliza tion

2018

with

Running

Sta rt

Kingston HS 806 884 37 847 105%

North Kitsap HS 1,313 1,086 76 1,010 77%

Spectrum School 75 - - - 0%

HS Total 2,194 1,970 113 1,857 85% 1,829 83%


Page 4-16

EXHIBIT 4-14

PROJECTED FACILITY UTILIZATION GRAPH (ELEMENTARY)

WITH INITIATIVE MEASURE 1351 IN EFFECT


-

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

13 - 14 14 - 15 15 - 16 16 - 17 17 - 18 18 - 19

En

roll

me

nt

School Year




Page 4-17

EXHIBIT 4-15

PROJECTED FACILITY UTILIZATION GRAPH (MIDDLE)



-

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

13 - 14 14 - 15 15 - 16 16 - 17 17 - 18 18 - 19

En

roll

me

nt

School Year




Page 4-18

EXHIBIT 4-16

PROJECTED FACILITY UTILIZATION GRAPH (HIGH SCHOOL)



4.3 Portables

Although classrooms and other spaces contained in portables are not counted as part of a school’s permanent capacity, it is important to quantify their current number and condition as part of the facility planning process since these structures require ongoing maintenance and operating funds. Knowing this information may also allow the District to develop related policy and improvement plans in the future. The number of portables at a school site can also shed light on how efficiently permanent space is being utilized. Exhibit 4-17 contains an inventory of existing portable classrooms and Exhibit 4-18 shows the condition of portable buildings in the District.

-

250

500

750

1,000

1,250

1,500

1,750

2,000

2,250

13 - 14 14 - 15 15 - 16 16 - 17 17 - 18 18 - 19

En

roll

me

nt

School Year




Page 4-19

EXHIBIT 4-177

CURRENT NUMBER OF PORTABLE “CLASSROOMS” AT EACH SCHOOL


EXHIBIT 4-188

CONDITION OF PORTABLE “BUILDINGS”


Location

No. of

Portable

Classrooms

North Kitsap High School 10

Spectrum 2

Poulsbo Middle School 15

Kingston Middle School 3

Pearson Elementary School 2

Poulsbo Elementary School 12

Suquamish Elementary School 7

Wolfle Elementary School 9

Vinland Elementary School 6

Gordon Elementary School 11

Total 77

No. of

Portable

Buildings

Physical

Condition

Score Condition Description

12 1 Needs replacement

8 2 Needs repair for continued use

17 3 Need painting

11 4 Usable in current condition

1 5 New condition

49


Page 4-1

4.0 CAPACITY AND UTILIZATION The permanent (not including portables) capacity of a school building is driven by four main factors: (1) the physical size of the instructional spaces, (2) the class size limits, (3) the schedule of uses, and (3) the programs that are offered by the school. Because capacity formulas often apply different “weights” to these factors, one can find a number of capacity definitions across the country. For the North Kitsap School District, a single method of calculating capacity was used – the instructional space model. This brings both consistency and clarity to the process of determining capacity. Once capacity is determined, it can be compared to enrollments or projected future enrollments. This comparison produces a “utilization factor” that is discussed later in this chapter.

4.1 Capacity Analysis

Each school in the District underwent an analysis to determine its permanent capacity. School capacity, or the number of students a building is designed to reasonably accommodate, is largely driven by the number of students assigned to each class, the number of square feet in the classroom, the number of periods in the schedule, where teacher preparation periods occur, the ratio of required courses vs. elective courses, and number of programs offered.

4.1.1 Methodology

Existing building capacity information was gathered though analysis of:

a. plans, maps, diagrams, and drawings of existing buildings b. information regarding the numbers of teaching spaces and their uses c. square footage information for each school d. interviews with staff

Many “special needs” programs require smaller class sizes with more area per student, specialized utilities and equipment, and space for specialists to serve their needs. Examples of the programs needing different spaces include programs for the cognitively impaired, learning disabled, seriously emotionally impaired, speech and hearing therapy, Title I (remedial reading and mathematics), gifted education, science, PE, and music. Capacity is then calculated by multiplying the number of teaching spaces in the building by type (e.g. kindergarten rooms, primary grade rooms, intermediate grade rooms, special education rooms, PE teaching spaces, music rooms, secondary general classrooms, art rooms, etc.) times the class size limit (often stated in the negotiated agreement or in Board policy). The sum of the products in each school type would be multiplied by a “scheduling factor.” Scheduling factors are used to reflect the fact that not every classroom can be scheduled to have a “perfect fit” of students in the attendance zone when compared to


Page 4-2

capacity standards. For elementary schools, a scheduling factor of 95% reflects this imperfect fit. In addition, the District must account for the practice of having each middle school and high school teacher use of their classrooms without students for their preparation period. At middle school and high school levels, the enrollment would be multiplied by 83% to reflect the planning period for each teacher in a six period instructional day (5 teaching periods ÷ 6 total periods = 83% scheduling factor).

4.1.2 Current Capacity Standards

The consultants used the instructional space model of calculating permanent capacity which is based on an actual count of the different types of classrooms and their maximum enrollment. Often, general classrooms have a greater capacity than special learning classrooms (e.g., Special education classrooms have lower enrollments due to the legal requirements of handicapped education laws.) Based on North Kitsap School District practices for classroom enrollment sizes, we have used these values:

K-1 = 25 students Grades 2-3 = 26 students Grades 4-5 = 27 students Grades 6-8 = 28 students Grades 9-12 = 30 students Life Skills = 8 students Title I, Resource = 15 students

Exhibit 4-1 details the different types of spaces and their capacity for the K-5 program. Please note that many special learning spaces (computer lab, music, P.E., etc.) do not have student capacity for K-5 because the students are counted in their home rooms. These special learning spaces are used for “pull-out” programs.


Page 4-3

EXHIBIT 4-1



Exhibit 4-2 details the capacity standards for grades 6-8. The special learning spaces for the Middle School do have capacity since the school is on a seven period schedule. Pull-out programs have smaller class sizes.

Head Start

Pre-K



Grade 1 25

Grade 2 26

Grade 3 26

Grade 4 27

Grade 5 27

Art 0

Music 0

PE 0

Science 0

Library 0

Computer Labs 0

Self Cont. Sp Ed 8


Gifted 26

Other

Elementary School



Page 4-4

EXHIBIT 4-2



Exhibit 4-3 details the capacity standards for grades 9-12. The special learning spaces for the High School do have capacity since the school is on a six period schedule. Pull-out programs have smaller class sizes.

Grade 6 28

Grades 7-8 28

Art 28

Business Labs 28

Computer Labs 28

Music 28

PE 28

Library 0

Science 28

CTE 28

Self Cont. Sp Ed 8


Other 28

Other 0

Middle School



Page 4-5

EXHIBIT 4-3



4.1.3 Current Capacity

In order to obtain the numbers of each classroom type, the consulting team analyzed a simple floor plan of each school. Once the number of classrooms for each type of space was determined, the capacity for each school was calculated by multiplying the number of spaces (for each space type) times the capacity value from the capacity standards charts (See Exhibits 4-1, 4-2, and 4-3.) For each school, once the capacity was determined, it was multiplied by a scheduling factor. These scheduling factors have been used:

Elementary = 95% Middle and High = 83%

Examples of the calculations for both elementary and secondary schools are detailed in Exhibits 4-4 and 4-5.

Grades 9-12 30

Art 30

Business Labs 30

Computer Labs 30

Music 30

PE 30

Library 0

Science 30

CTE 30

Self Cont. Sp Ed 8


Other 30

Other 0

High School



Page 4-6

EXHIBIT 4-4

SAMPLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CAPACITY CALCULATION

Example

K-1 General Classrooms 6 X 25 = 150



PE, Music, and Art Rooms 3 X 0 = -

Special Education Classrooms 2 X 0 = -

468 X 95% = 445 Source: ESD 112, 2014

EXHIBIT 4-5

SAMPLE SECONDARY SCHOOL CAPACITY CALCULATION

Example:

General Classrooms 12 X 30 = 360

Music and PE Classrooms 4 X 30 = 120

Science and CTE Classrooms 3 X 30 = 90

CTE Classrooms 2 X 30 = 60

Computer Labs 2 X 30 = 60

Resource Rooms 2 X 15 = 30

Special Education Classrooms 1 X 8 = 8

728 X 83% = 604 Source: ESD 112, 2014

Using the capacity standards from the tables in Exhibits 4-1, 4-2, and 4-3 and the methodologies demonstrated in Exhibits 4-4 and 4-5, the permanent capacities for each school have been calculated. Exhibit 4-6 shows the results of the calculations. Detailed tables of capacity calculations for each school are detailed in Appendix A.


Page 4-7

EXHIBIT 4-6

PERMANENT SCHOOL CAPACITIES


4.2 Enrollment vs. Capacity

In order for schools to fully meet their educational goals, capacity and enrollment must be matched. When capacity exceeds enrollment (under-utilization) capital expenditures may be reduced or facilities removed from inventory. When enrollment exceeds capacity (over-utilization) capital expenditures may need to be increased. The formula for calculating utilization is “enrollment ÷ capacity = utilization.”

4.2.1 Elementary Enrollment and Capacity

The current K-5 enrollment exceeds the capacity in each school except Breidablik ES and Wolfle ES. The total current elementary utilization is 102%. The projected future utilization remains at 102%. This utilization rate indicates that the elementary schools will continue to be “overcrowded.” This is in contrast to the middle schools that, as a whole, are underutilized. The middle schools as a whole have a utilization factor of 82% and are expected to decline by 4% in the next five years. Kingston MS is underutilized while Poulsbo MS is overcrowded. The high schools as a whole are currently at 90% utilization (when classrooms at Spectrum included) and are expected to remain close – 91% --- in

Site Capacity

Breidablik ES 391

Gordon ES 320

Pearson ES 296

Poulsbo ES 382

Suquamish ES 345

Vinland ES 467

Wolfle ES 391

ES Total 2,594

Kingston MS 958

Poulsbo MS 721

MS Total 1,678

Kingston HS 806

North Kitsap HS 1,313

Spectrum School 75

HS Total 2,194

Totals 6,466


Page 4-8

the next five years. Kingston High School is overcrowded while North Kitsap High School is underutilized. Exhibit 4-7 is a table showing the current capacity, current enrollment, and current utilization for each school (with and without Breidablik Elementary School). Exhibit 4-8 is a table showing the projected capacity, projected enrollment, and projected utilization (with and without Breidablik Elementary School).

EXHIBIT 4-7

CURRENT FACILITY UTILIZATION


Site

Capa city

with

Bre ida blik

Capa city

without

Bre ida blik

Current

Enrollment

Oct. 2013

Current

Utiliza tion

with

Bre idablik

Current

Utiliza tion

without

Bre idablik


Gordon ES 320 320 440 137% 137%

Pearson ES 296 296 338 114% 114%

Poulsbo ES 382 382 535 140% 140%

Suquamish ES 345 345 404 117% 117%

Vinland ES 467 467 594 127% 127%

Wolfle ES 391 391 333 85% 85%

ES Total 2,594 2,202 2,644 102% 120%

Kingston MS 958 958 560 58% 58%

Poulsbo MS 721 721 813 113% 113%

MS Total 1,678 1,678 1,373 82% 82%

Kingston HS 806 806 884 110% 110%

North Kitsap HS 1,313 1,313 1,086 83% 83%


HS Total 2,194 2,194 1,970 90% 90%

Totals 6,466 6,075 5,987


Page 4-9

EXHIBIT 4-8

PROJECTED FACILITY UTILIZATION


Exhibit 4-9 provides three graphic representations of the relationship between permanent capacity and enrollment for the coming five years at each school level using Breidablik Elementary School.

Site

Capacity

with

Bre idablik

Capacity

without

Bre idablik

Projected

Enrollment

2018

Projected

Utiliza tion

2018

with

Bre idablik

Projected

Utiliza tion

2018

without

Bre idablik

Breidablik ES 391 -

Gordon ES 320 320

Pearson ES 296 296

Poulsbo ES 382 382

Suquamish ES 345 345

Vinland ES 467 467

Wolfle ES 391 391

ES Total 2,594 2,202 2,648 102% 120%

Kingston MS 958 958

Poulsbo MS 721 721

MS Total 1,678 1,678 1,316 78% 78%

Kingston HS 806 806

North Kitsap HS 1,313 1,313

Spectrum School 75 75

HS Total 2,194 2,194 1,942 89% 89%

Totals 6,466 6,075 5,906


Page 4-10

EXHIBIT 4-9




-

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

13 - 14 14 - 15 15 - 16 16 - 17 17 - 18 18 - 19

En

roll

me

nt

School Year



-

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

13 - 14 14 - 15 15 - 16 16 - 17 17 - 18 18 - 19

En

roll

me

nt

School Year




Page 4-11

EXHIBIT 4-9 (CONTINUED)



4.2.1 The “McCleary” Effect on Elementary Enrollment and Capacity

In its January, 2012 McCleary decision, the Washington State Supreme Court ordered the state to fully fund K-12 public schools as required by the Washington Constitution. As part of the response to that decision, Initiative Measure 1351 went before Washington voters in 2014. That initiative proposes to reduce class sizes to 17 students in grades K-3 and 25 students in grades 4-12. This proposed reduction in class size will affect the capacity of schools in North Kitsap School District as well as many school districts across Washington. Exhibits 4-10 through 4-12 show how passage of Initiative Measure 1351 may affect space standards in North Kitsap School District.

-

250

500

750

1,000

1,250

1,500

1,750

2,000

2,250

2,500

13 - 14 14 - 15 15 - 16 16 - 17 17 - 18 18 - 19

En

roll

me

nt

School Year




Page 4-12

EXHIBIT 4-10




Head Start

Pre-K



Grade 1 17

Grade 2 17

Grade 3 17

Grade 4 25

Grade 5 25

Art 0

Music 0

PE 0

Science 0

Library 0

Computer Labs 0

Self Cont. Sp Ed 8


Gifted 25

Other

Elementary School



Page 4-13

EXHIBIT 4-11




Grade 6 25

Grades 7-8 25

Art 25

Business Labs 25

Computer Labs 25

Music 25

PE 25

Library 0

Science 25

CTE 25

Self Cont. Sp Ed 8


Other 25

Middle School



Page 4-14

EXHIBIT 4-12



Source: ESD 112, 2014 With these new standards, the capacity for all classrooms is diminished. The result is a higher current utilization and an even higher projected utilization of classroom space. Exhibit 4-13 details the effect of lower capacity and increased utilization under the Initiative Measure 1351 proposal. Exhibits 4-14 through 4-16 provide three graphic representations of the relationship between capacity and enrollment for the coming five years at each school level under the proposed Initiative Measure 1351, assuming that Breidablik Elementary School is used.

Grades 9-12 25

Art 25

Business Labs 25

Computer Labs 25

Music 25

PE 25

Library 0

Science 25

CTE 25

Self Cont. Sp Ed 8


Other 0

High School



Page 4-15

EXHIBIT 4-13

CURRENT AND PROJECTED FACILITY UTILIZATION FOR

NKSD SCHOOLS (WITH INITIATIVE MEASURE 1351)


Site

Ca pa city

with

Bre idablik

Capacity

without

Bre idablik

Current

Enrollment

Oct. 2013

Current

Utiliza tion

with

Bre idablik

Curre nt

Utiliza tion

without

Bre ida blik

Proje cte d

Enrollme nt

2018

Projected

Utiliza tion

2018

with

Bre ida blik

Proje cte d

Utiliza tion

2018

without

Bre idablik


Gordon ES 240 240 440 183% 183%

Pearson ES 224 224 338 151% 151%

Poulsbo ES 295 295 535 182% 182%

Suquamish ES 272 272 404 149% 149%

Vinland ES 359 359 594 165% 165%

Wolfle ES 295 295 333 113% 113%

ES Total 1,981 1,685 2,644 133% 157% 2,648 134% 157%

Kingston MS 858 858 560 65% 65%

Poulsbo MS 648 648 813 125% 125%

MS Total 1,506 1,506 1,373 91% 91% 1,316 87% 87%

Kingston HS 673 673 884 131% 131%

North Kitsap HS 1,105 1,105 1,086 98% 98%


HS Total 1,840 1,840 1,970 107% 107% 1,942 106% 106%

Totals 5,326 5,031 5,987 5,906


Page 4-16

EXHIBIT 4-14

PROJECTED FACILITY UTILIZATION GRAPH (ELEMENTARY)



-

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

13 - 14 14 - 15 15 - 16 16 - 17 17 - 18 18 - 19

En

roll

me

nt

School Year




Page 4-17

EXHIBIT 4-15

PROJECTED FACILITY UTILIZATION GRAPH (MIDDLE)



-

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

13 - 14 14 - 15 15 - 16 16 - 17 17 - 18 18 - 19

En

roll

me

nt

School Year




Page 4-18

EXHIBIT 4-16

PROJECTED FACILITY UTILIZATION GRAPH (HIGH SCHOOL)



4.3 Portables

Although classrooms and other spaces contained in portables are not counted as part of a school’s permanent capacity, it is important to quantify their current number and condition as part of the facility planning process since these structures require ongoing maintenance and operating funds. Knowing this information may also allow the District to develop related policy and improvement plans in the future. The number of portables at a school site can also shed light on how efficiently permanent space is being utilized. Exhibit 4-17 contains an inventory of existing portable classrooms and Exhibit 4-18 shows the condition of portable buildings in the District.

-

250

500

750

1,000

1,250

1,500

1,750

2,000

2,250

13 - 14 14 - 15 15 - 16 16 - 17 17 - 18 18 - 19

En

roll

me

nt

School Year




Page 4-19

EXHIBIT 4-177

CURRENT NUMBER OF PORTABLE “CLASSROOMS” AT EACH SCHOOL


EXHIBIT 4-188

CONDITION OF PORTABLE “BUILDINGS”


Location

No. of

Portable

Classrooms

North Kitsap High School 10

Spectrum 2

Poulsbo Middle School 15

Kingston Middle School 3

Pearson Elementary School 2

Poulsbo Elementary School 12

Suquamish Elementary School 7

Wolfle Elementary School 9

Vinland Elementary School 6

Gordon Elementary School 11

Total 77

No. of

Portable

Buildings

Physical

Condition

Score Condition Description

12 1 Needs replacement

8 2 Needs repair for continued use

17 3 Need painting

11 4 Usable in current condition

1 5 New condition

49


Page 5-1

5.0 CONDITION OF FACILITIES

5.1 Functional Adequacy

Each facility is also assessed to determine how well it supports the educational program. This functional adequacy assessment, prepared by an educational professional, examines the sizes, adjacencies, utilities, and other features of each space. The assessment describes how well the facility supports the staff as they implement the educational program in each space. School spaces are “tools” that exist for an educational function. Therefore, the design features in a school can make it much easier for educators to accomplish their educational mission. Conversely, if schools are absent these design features, the job of providing an adequate education in those facilities can be compromised. Analysis of functional adequacy is not a clinical, objective effort. It requires an understanding of the educational program being delivered as well as the application of professional judgment to varying pedagogical circumstances. Assessing functional adequacy always has an element of subjectivity, but certain elements are well recognized in the industry and were used in this assessment. For this project, the following areas were assessed:

� Site � General Classrooms � Special Learning Spaces

- Early Childhood-Kindergarten (elementary schools only) - Specials Needs (special education, Title I, SLP, etc.) - Computer labs - Physical Education - Music - Library - Visual Arts - Science - Career Technical Education (secondary schools only) - Performing Arts Areas - Gifted Education

� Support Spaces - Administration - Student Services - Staff Support - Food Service - Custodial-Maintenance


Page 5-2

For each of the above functional spaces, the assessment professional determined the functional adequacy across several recognized categories. This assessment adopted those recognized categories and identified them as follows:

� The proper size of spaces � Adjacencies (appropriate spatial relationships) � Utilities, technology, fixed equipment, surfaces, and storage

Each category has one or more items assessed utilizing District criteria, national norms, and the professional judgment of trained assessors. Each space has “possible points” assigned to it that roughly reflects the proportion of that space to the whole. The assessor then assigns points and a total is calculated. If a space is not included in the education specification or program of studies for that school, those points are removed from possible point total. Each assessment also includes comments that help clarify any deficiencies or cite special circumstances. Once a total score is calculated, a rating of “good,” “fair,” “poor,” or “unsatisfactory” is assigned. The scoring and rating are designed to help compare one facility to another, or prioritize, for capital improvement planning. Exhibit 5-1 details the key for this rating.

EXHIBIT 5-1

KEY FOR FUNCTIONAL ADEQUACY RATINGS

Source: Educational Service District 112, 2014

No schools scored in the “Poor” range. However, Breidablik ES, Poulsbo ES, Suquamish ES, Wolfle ES, Kingston MS, Kingston HS, and North Kitsap HS scored “fair.” All the other school scored in the “Good” range. The ratings for the schools for the North Kitsap School District are summarized in Exhibit 5-2. The detailed assessment for each school can be found in Appendix B.

90+ Good: The facility design supports the educational program

offered. It may have minor functional adequacy problems but

generally meets the needs of the educational program.

75-89 Fair: The facility has some problems meeting the needs of the

educational program and may require some improvements

50-74 Poor: The facility has numerous problems meeting the needs of

the educational program and needs significant improvements

Below 50 Unsatisfactory: The facility is functionally inadequate and does

not support the educational program in many areas.


Page 5-3

EXHIBIT 5-2

SUMMARY OF FUNCTIONAL ADEQUACY RATINGS


5.2 Physical Assessment

Each school facility was also assessed by professional architects with deep backgrounds in school facility design and construction. They assessed the buildings in terms of its physical condition. The physical condition assessments consider a number of factors including the major building components (e.g. exterior building systems, interior building systems, mechanical systems, and safety/building codes systems, etc.). Each of these major components is further broken down and each sub-component is scored. The key for the physical assessment is detailed in Exhibit 5-3.

Site

Functiona l

Ade quacy

Score

Functiona l

Adequa cy

Description

Breidablik ES 86 Fair

Gordon ES 95 Good

Pearson ES 71 Poor

Poulsbo ES 87 Fair

Suquamish ES 86 Fair

Vinland ES 91 Good

Wolfle ES 87 Fair

Kingston MS 78 Fair

Poulsbo MS 91 Good

Kingston HS 77 Fair

North Kitsap HS 88 Fair


Page 5-4

EXHIBIT 5-3

KEY FOR PHYSICAL ASSESSMENT

AND SITE ASSESSMENT RATINGS

90+ Good: The building and/or a majority of its systems are in good

condition and only require routine maintenance. 65-89 Fair: The building and/or some of its systems are in fair condition

and require minor repair. 40-64 Poor: The building and/or a significant number of its systems are in

poor condition and require major repair or renovation. Below 40 Unsatisfactory: The building and/or a majority of its systems should

be considered for replacement. Source: Educational Service District 112, 2014

All schools scored in the “fair” range except Poulsbo ES and the two high schools. They scored in the “good” range. The summary of the scores are in in Exhibit 5-4. The detailed assessment for each school can be found in Appendix C.

EXHIBIT 5-4

SUMMARY OF PHYSICAL ASSESSMENT RATINGS


Site

Physica l

Condition

Score

Physica l

Condtion

Description

Breidablik ES 72 Fair

Gordon ES 74 Fair

Pearson ES 77 Fair

Poulsbo ES 90 Good

Suquamish ES 80 Fair

Vinland ES 83 Fair

Wolfle ES 73 Fair

Kingston MS 82 Fair

Poulsbo MS 83 Fair

Kingston HS 92 Good

North Kitsap HS 85 Good


Page 6-1

6.0 COMMUNITY INPUT

As part of the school facility master planning process, the consulting team and the District sought input from the community:

a. The District established a Facility Planning Task Force (FPTF) that provided feedback to the consulting team and the District throughout the planning process. The FPTF was comprised of a cross section of community members and District staff.

b. The District leadership and FPTF conducted five work sessions to explain the planning process and gauge the community’s responses to the planning data and other local-known facilities issues.

6.1 Facility Planning Task Force

a. The North Kitsap School District convened a Facilities Planning Task Force (FPTF) of 44 members representing staff, students, community members, parents, school board members (2) and alumni. The FPTP’s responsibility was to identify and prioritize major facility improvement needs for North Kitsap School District for the near term (1-3 years), midterm (3-5 years) and long term (5-10 years). It was not the charge of the FPTP to identify specific projects for a future bond. That work will be undertaken by a separate group at a time determined appropriate by the Board.

c. Facility Planning Task Force Members

Brad Anderson Ken Aries Jan Bahr Paula Bailey Monique Bartoldus Barry Berezowsky Chris Dafoe Lindy Dosher Dave Dyess Becky Erickson Chris Franklin Chris Fraser Tim Garrison Rob Gelder Jeff Hale Norma Hamblet Scott Henden Korinne Henry

Mark Kluth, Jerry or Nancy Krischner Hope Lash Richard Lockwood Bruce MacIntyre Tammy Mattson Brian Maule McCafferty Anthony Judson Miller Doug Nichols ESD 112 Val Oas Patrick Olsen Barb Pixton Jeff Prichard Ron Rose Shane Skelley Kim Smith Ed Stern


Page 6-2

Jeromy Sullivan Val Torrens Mark VanHuis Michael Walton

Brenda Ward Ken Weaver Cindy Webster-Martinson David Winn

d. The FPTF spent three months analyzing and discussing facilities information and working together to prioritize facility improvement needs. Data sources included a presentation by Educational Service District 112 consultants on their evaluation of the district’s buildings physical and functional condition, capacity and current and projected utilization.

e. For purposes of the FPTF work, facility needs were separated into the following categories:

• Safety and Security • Building Capacity • Building/Site Physical Condition • Building/Site Functional Adequacy • Other

6.2 Facility Planning Task Force Recommendations

The FPTF invested a significant amount of time reviewing and discussing immediate,

midterm and long-term priorities of students and the greater community before agreeing

upon a list of recommendations. The following tabulation documents the FPTF’s

consensus listing of facilities needs and the time frame in which they should be

undertaken. It will fall to another group to extract elements of this list for any future

capital levies or bonds.

Description CommentsNear Term

Mid TermLong Term

Order of Magnitude Capital Cost (2014 $)

SAFETY AND SECURITY ‐ GENERALA. Consultant needed to evaluate district in a systematic way XXX $3,000 to $5,000 per schoolB. Integrated comprehensive security systems including cameras, access control etc. XX X $20,000 to $100,000 per schoolC. Staff training XX X NA

BUILDING CAPACITYA. Put a limit on the number of portable classrooms Establish policy XX X NAB. Shift district boundaries to reduce the use of portables and balance attendance Needs public discussion XXX NAC. Reconfigure grade levels to relieve capacity issues and balance attendance XX X NAD. Open Breidablik System upgrades and minor repairs needed XXX $200,000 ‐ $300,000E. Increase capacity by building wings on existing schools. X XX $400,000 per classroomF. Add an elementary school as needed in the future XXX $32,000,000G. Demo low building at Pearson, rebuild as two story XXX TBD

BUILDING/SITE PHYSICAL CONDITIONA. Upgrade or eliminate portable classrooms: district wide District policy for use and phase out needed XXX $400,000 per classroomB. Septic System at Pearson elementary school This school is critical with 1‐2 years system life left XXX $625,000C. Septic System at Vinland elementary school XXX $625,000D. Septic at Facilities and Operation X XX $625,000E. Roofs:

o Kingston middle school XX X $1,556,000o Breidablik elementary school X XX $674,000o Suquamish elementary, B‐wing Multiple sub‐components, multiple deficiencies XXX $280,000o North Kitsap high school, building 900 Multiple sub‐components, multiple deficiencies XX X $210,000o District office X X X $196,000o Facilities and operations building X X X $190,400o Pearson elementary Multiple sub‐components, multiple deficiencies XXX $479,000

F. DDC controls o Vinland elementary Whole building systems X XX $327,000o Pearson elementary Whole building systems X XX $239,000o Gordon elementary Whole building systems X XX $277,000o Kingston middle school Whole building systems X XX $778,000

G. Kingston high school ball fields, drainage (engineering work) XX X $100,000

H. North Kitsap High School JV field drainage X X $250,000

I. Paving:o District wide storm water study Scoring by District staff only XXX $100,000o Vinland: widen driveway and extend sidewalks X X X Storm water study dependento Poulsbo elementary X XX Storm water study dependento Poulsbo middle school XX X Storm water study dependento Pool XX X Storm water study dependento North Kitsap high school student lot X XX Storm water study dependent

J. Painting: district wide multi‐year program Annual allowance ‐ 12 year cycle XXX $350,000

K. Fire Alarm Panels: o Poulsbo middle school This school is critical XXX $100,000

Criticality ‐ Based on Facility Advisory Committee

Prioritization (not all items were scored by all 3 groups)

1


Mid TermLong Term




o North Kitsap high school XXX $100,000o Wolfle elementary XXX $100,000

L. Synthetic turf and track replacements (3 fields, two tracks) Prioritize based on condition and likely damage to subsystems XX XTypical field NKHS Stadium, KHS, Strawberry Field $1,000,000 eachTypical track NKHS, KHS $250,000 each

M. Multi‐year floor covering replacement plan Annual allowance ‐ 12 year cycle XX X $250,000N. Window upgrades district office X XX $150,000O. Window upgrades facilities and operation X XX $150,000P. Baseball field North Kitsap High School drainage repair (JV worst) XXX $250,000Q. Poulsbo middle school switchgear gym and pool buildings Safety issue XXX $250,000R. Pearson exterior doors (ADA) and grills Doors not ADA compliant X X X $150,000S. Pearson ceiling finishes X XX $150,000T. North Kitsap high school interior and exterior doors XXX $150,000U. North Kitsap high school lockers X XX $150,000V. Kingston middle school interior finishes XXX $150,000

BUILDING/SITE FUNCTIONAL ADEQUACY (Poor, Unsatisfactory, Unsafe)

Breidablik ElementaryA. Administrative Support Conference room is not adequate size X XX $100,000B. Cafeteria There is no cafeteria X XX $1,260,000C. Food Services Support The kitchen does not have an office, restroom, or locker rooms for the staff.

X XX$250,000

D. Grounds and Fields Some of the playground equipment has been removed and playgrounds are not adequate.

X XX$100,000

Gordon ElementaryA. Food Services Support The kitchen area does not have a staff restroom, office, or locker room X XX $250,000B. Safety‐Security, Signage, Fencing Inadequate lighting in the parking lot. Inadequate internal directional signage.

No direct line of sight to the front entrance XX X$50,000

Pearson ElementaryA. Administrative Support The principal's office is approximately 140 ft.² and is small in size. It does not

have a second exit.XXX

$25,000B. Auditorium The multipurpose room is small and difficult to seat the audience for a musical

program. It's located at the far end of the building and does not have adequate storage.

XXX$500,000

C. Cafeteria There is no cafeteria. Students eat in the gym. XXX $1,260,000D. Circulation There are no sidewalks from the parent drop‐off zone to the building. Students

must cross the bus lane.XXX

$150,000E. Circulation Unsafe bus loading area XXX Deeper analysis neededF. Drama Support The stage area does not have storage for props or materials. The stage is not

equipped with special lighting.XXX

$100,000G. Food Preparation The kitchen is extremely small. The students must pass through a portion of the

kitchen from the hallway to receive their food and then move into the cafeteria. XXX$150,000

H. Food Services Support The kitchen does not have a restroom, office, or locker area. XXX $250,000I. Food Storage The dry storage area is extremely small. XXX $150,000J. Grounds and Fields Unsafe stairs to field XXX Contingent on storm studyK. Physical Education Support There is not an office space for the physical education teacher. XXX $50,000

2


Mid TermLong Term




L. Psychologist The psychologist office is located in a back office and can only be accessed by passing through another office. It is small in size and does not have adequate storage for records and materials.

XXX$50,000

M. Speech Therapy The speech therapy room is small in size and does not have adequate cabinetry.XXX

$50,000N. Stage The stage is located at the end of the multipurpose room. It is utilized to store

physical education equipment. It is small in size and is not ADA accessible. X XXX$50,000

Poulsbo ElementaryA. Cafeteria The cafeteria is small and is located down the hall from the kitchen serving area.

Students must line up outside while waiting to go through the serving area. Due to the size of the cafeteria the school has five lunch periods.

X

$500,000B. Special Education The self‐contained special‐education room is small in size. It does not have a

restroom. There is not adequate storage for equipment and materials. X$150,000

C. Special Education The school utilizes book rooms for small group instruction. The rooms are small and crowded. These rooms do not have adequate storage and natural light. X

$350,000D. Special Education The district severe behavioral program is located in portables adjacent to the

school building. Portables are not equipped with restrooms. X$800,000

E. Special Needs Support The behavior intervention specialist is located in a portable. X $400,000F. Speech Therapy The speech therapy program is located in a portable. X $400,000G. Title I Title I is taught in the rooms which are small in size. They do not have adequate

storage or natural light.X

$250,000

Suquamish ElementaryA. Cafeteria There is no cafeteria. Students eat in the gym. The cafeteria and kitchen area are

separated by a wide hallway causing an awkward serving area. X$1,260,000

B. Circulation The parent drop‐off lane is located in the school parking lot. Cars form two lines to pick up children after school. At the same time parents are trying to park in the parking lot to pick up children.

X$250,000

C. Music Music instruction is located in a portable. X $400,000D. Stage The school does not have lighting and storage that would be associated with a

stage area.X

$50,000

Vinland ElementaryA. Food Services Support The cafeteria staff do not have an office area, adult restroom, or locker room.

The table storage area off of the cafeteria is also used for school uniform storage.

X$250,000

Wolfe ElementaryA. Administrative Support The conference room is extremely small and is not equipped with a digital

projector and screen. The school utilizes a portable as their primary conference room.

X$150,000

B. Cafeteria There is no cafeteria. Students eat in the gym. X $1,260,000C. Food Services Support The kitchen area does not have a restroom, office area, or locker room for the

staff.X

$250,000

3


Mid TermLong Term




D. Music The stage serves as the music room. The HVAC system is extremely noisy. There is some noise infiltration from the gymnasium/cafeteria. There is a small room which is not adequate in size for the storage of supplies and materials.

X

$150,000E. Special Needs Support The occupational therapy the room is very small. The school utilizes a portable

for occupational and physical therapy.X

$400,000

Kingston High SchoolA. Administrative Support The school does not have an adequate number of staff restrooms.

X$200,000

B. Administrative Support No common lounge for faculty and staff. X $200,000C. Auditorium There is no auditorium. See comments for Stage X $3,864,000D. Clinic and Restroom No nurse clinic or sickroom X $150,000E. Computer Labs The school does not have any computer labs. X NAF. Drama Support See comments for Stage X NAG. Engineering Lab Extremely congested environment. The laser printer is not adequately

ventilated.X

NAH. Grounds and Fields The football field‐track lack a press box, adequate bleachers, permanent

concession stand, and restrooms. The baseball, softball, and tennis facilities lack adequate announcing facilities or restrooms. X

$1,000,000I. Gymnasium/Multipurpose Gym lacks adequate bleachers to seat the entire student body. Undersized for

four PE classes each class period. The school lacks an auxiliary gymnasium. X$3,000,000

J. Health Science Multiple comments ‐ poor design and location of the athletic training program and the athletic training room

XNA

K. Lockers The school does not have any visitors locker rooms. X $1,000,000L. Stage No stage, adequate lighting, curtain, or support spaces for props, costumes, etc.

XSee Auditorium

M. Visual Arts Art room has multiple comments ‐ undersized, poor design, poor locations, inadequate storage

X$100,000

North Kitsap High SchoolA. Air handling equipment Technology Center; poor access to equipment X NAB. Circulation Poorly organized; inefficient X NAC. Safety‐Security, Signage, Fencing Supervision of who enters and exit's the building is difficult X $100,000D. Special Education Unsatisfactory adjacency ‐ the district‐wide behavioral special education

program is located across the street from the high school campus and is housed in two portable buildings.

X$800,000

E. Visual Arts The office area for the pottery lab is in the corner of the classroom. The two art programs are in separate buildings from each other and are a significant distance from each other.

XNA

Kingston Middle School

Poulsbo Middle SchoolA. Food Preparation The kitchen area produces all of the lunches for the elementary schools. The

kitchen is small in size.X

$250,000B. Food Storage There is inadequate dry storage. X $50,000C. Lockers Due to the number of students that are utilizing the locker rooms at one time

the number of lockers and the size of the locker rooms are not adequate. X$350,000

4


Mid TermLong Term




D. Special Education The school houses the district behavioral special‐education classroom which is adjacent to the school in two portables.

X$800,000

E. Title I ELL is taught in a faculty planning room. It is small in size and does not have dedicated storage cabinets.

X$50,000

OTHER A. Kingston High School Phase 2 ‐ New Building Assume an addition for 250 students @ 160 sf/student XX X $16,800,000

5


Page 7-1

7.0 FACILITY MASTER PLAN

The Facility Master Plan is portrayed in detail in Chapter 6 of this document as the recommendations of the Facilities Planning Task Force for near term, midterm, and long term improvements.

7.1 Related Recommendations

The following recommendations are intended to provide guidance with the implementation of the Facility Master Plan.

7.1.1 Review School Board Facility Policies

Periodic reviews of school board policies and administrative procedures will help staff and patrons more clearly understand the facility goals for the District and the processes necessary to reach those goals. These written documents will improve communications and provide guidance in the setting of priorities in the Facilities and Maintenance Department.

7.1.2 Update Enrollment Projections Annually

The enrollment projections will need to be updated annually as the Facility Master Plan is implemented. As facility conditions are improved and programs change, demographics will change and the data will need to be updated. Actual enrollments should be compared to projected enrollments. This updated information should then be used to update the enrollment projections. Using updated enrollment projections will help the District address facility needs based upon changing trends in student enrollment and addressing those trends in a timely manner.

7.1.3 Re-Draw Attendance Boundaries

A key component of the Facility Master Plan is the efficient use of existing facilities. To efficiently accomplish this objective, the District will need to regularly update boundaries in order to maximize the use of existing facilities. Care must be taken to balance the need to efficiently utilize facilities with the needs of students. Attendance boundary policies can be developed to address both concerns. Similar policies in other districts often include allowing students to remain at a particular school once enrolled, not requiring a change when safety concerns exist, overcrowding occurs, transportation changes, etc. Any policy on boundary changes should be reviewed on a regular basis.


Page 7-2

7.1.4 Develop Educational Specifications and Other Building Standards

Current school pre-construction processes are complex and time consuming. Before school design can even begin, it often takes many months to develop educational specifications, building standards, and product specifications. The District should develop these written documents and have them in place prior to the selection of the design team. By doing so, the District could enjoy the following benefits:

a. By being “in front” of the planning process and have more time for thoughtful input.

b. By minimizing the “my school” and “my classroom” mentality by developing educational specifications and building standards early.

c. By standardizing building components for maintenance. This will reduce the District’s inventory of different parts and allow economies of scale in the procurement process.

d. By improving integration with maintenance and operations through the early development of standards.

e. By saving money over time, both in fees and a shortened design time. f. By minimizing variance between different A/E firms during design through

District ownership of educational specifications and facility standards. g. By having greater control of the final product.

7.1.5 Update the Facility Master Plan Every Five Years

As facility conditions are improved, enrollment changes, and programs change, this Facility Master Plan will become somewhat outdated. To ensure that a viable, data-driven plan is current, the District should update this plan every five years. By keeping the plan and its data current, the District will be better able to adjust to changing conditions and student needs.


APPENDICES

Page A-1

APPENDIX A – SCHOOL CAPACITIES (WITHOUT AND WITH McCLEARY) Without McCleary With McCleary

# Rooms

Room

Capacity Subtotal

Head Start 0 -

Pre-K 0 -

K Half Day 0 -

K Full Day 3 25 75

Grade 1 3 25 75

Grade 2 3 26 78

Grade 3 2 26 52

Grade 4 2 27 54

Grade 5 2 27 54

Art 0 -

Music 1 0 -

PE 1 0 -

Science 0 -

Library 1 0 -

Computer Labs 3 0 -

Self Cont. Sp Ed 3 8 24

RR, Title I, Pull Out 2 0 -

Gifted 26 -

Other 0 -

Total Room Count 26 412

Scheduling Factor = 95%

Instructional Space Model Capacity = 391

Breidablik ES

# Rooms

Room

Capacity Subtotal

Head Start 0 -

Pre-K 0 -

K Half Day 0 -

K Full Day 3 17 51

Grade 1 3 17 51

Grade 2 3 17 51

Grade 3 2 17 34

Grade 4 2 25 50

Grade 5 2 25 50

Art 0 -

Music 1 0 -

PE 1 0 -

Science 0 -

Library 1 0 -

Computer Labs 3 0 -



Gifted 25 -

Other 0 -




Breidablik ES

Page A-2

Without McCleary With McCleary

# Rooms

Room

Capacity Subtotal

Head Start 0 -

Pre-K 0 -

K Half Day 0 -

K Full Day 3 25 75

Grade 1 2 25 50

Grade 2 2 26 52

Grade 3 2 26 52

Grade 4 2 27 54

Grade 5 2 27 54

Art 0 -

Music 1 0 -

PE 1 0 -

Science 0 -

Library 1 0 -

Computer Labs 2 0 -

Self Cont. Sp Ed 8 -

RR, Title I, Pull Out 0 -

Gifted 26 -

Other 0 -




Gordon ES

# Rooms

Room

Capacity Subtotal

Head Start 0 -

Pre-K 0 -

K Half Day 0 -

K Full Day 3 17 51

Grade 1 2 17 34

Grade 2 2 17 34

Grade 3 2 17 34

Grade 4 2 25 50

Grade 5 2 25 50

Art 0 -

Music 1 0 -

PE 1 0 -

Science 0 -

Library 1 0 -

Computer Labs 2 0 -


RR, Title I, Pull Out 0 -

Gifted 25 -

Other 0 -




Gordon ES

Page A-3


# Rooms

Room

Capacity Subtotal

Head Start 0 -

Pre-K 0 -

K Half Day 0 -

K Full Day 2 25 50

Grade 1 2 25 50

Grade 2 2 26 52

Grade 3 2 26 52

Grade 4 2 27 54

Grade 5 2 27 54

Art 0 -

Music 1 0 -

PE 1 0 -

Science 0 -

Library 1 0 -

Computer Labs 2 0 -



Gifted 26 -

Other 0 -




Pearson ES

# Rooms

Room

Capacity Subtotal

Head Start 0 -

Pre-K 0 -

K Half Day 0 -

K Full Day 2 17 34

Grade 1 2 17 34

Grade 2 2 17 34

Grade 3 2 17 34

Grade 4 2 25 50

Grade 5 2 25 50

Art 0 -

Music 1 0 -

PE 1 0 -

Science 0 -

Library 1 0 -

Computer Labs 2 0 -



Gifted 25 -

Other 0 -




Pearson ES

Page A-4


# Rooms

Room

Capacity Subtotal

Head Start 0 -

Pre-K 0 -

K Half Day 0 -

K Full Day 3 25 75

Grade 1 3 25 75

Grade 2 2 26 52

Grade 3 2 26 52

Grade 4 2 27 54

Grade 5 2 27 54

Art 0 -

Music 1 0 -

PE 1 0 -

Science 0 -

Library 1 0 -

Computer Labs 3 0 -



Gifted 26 -

Other 0 -




Poulsbo ES

# Rooms

Room

Capacity Subtotal

Head Start 0 -

Pre-K 0 -

K Half Day 0 -

K Full Day 3 17 51

Grade 1 3 17 51

Grade 2 2 17 34

Grade 3 2 17 34

Grade 4 2 25 50

Grade 5 2 25 50

Art 0 -

Music 1 0 -

PE 1 0 -

Science 0 -

Library 1 0 -

Computer Labs 3 0 -



Gifted 25 -

Other 0 -




Poulsbo ES

Page A-5


# Rooms

Room

Capacity Subtotal

Head Start 0 -

Pre-K 0 -

K Half Day 0 -

K Full Day 2 25 50

Grade 1 2 25 50

Grade 2 2 26 52

Grade 3 2 26 52

Grade 4 2 27 54

Grade 5 1 27 27

Art 0 -

Music 1 0 -

PE 1 0 -

Science 0 -

Library 1 0 -

Computer Labs 2 0 -



Gifted 3 26 78

Other 0 -




Suquamish ES

# Rooms

Room

Capacity Subtotal

Head Start 0 -

Pre-K 0 -

K Half Day 0 -

K Full Day 2 17 34

Grade 1 2 17 34

Grade 2 2 17 34

Grade 3 2 17 34

Grade 4 2 25 50

Grade 5 1 25 25

Art 0 -

Music 1 0 -

PE 1 0 -

Science 0 -

Library 1 0 -

Computer Labs 2 0 -



Gifted 3 25 75

Other 0 -




Suquamish ES

Page A-6


# Rooms

Room

Capacity Subtotal

Head Start 0 -

Pre-K 0 -

K Half Day 0 -

K Full Day 3 25 75

Grade 1 3 25 75

Grade 2 3 26 78

Grade 3 3 26 78

Grade 4 3 27 81

Grade 5 3 27 81

Art 1 0 -

Music 1 0 -

PE 1 0 -

Science 0 -

Library 1 0 -

Computer Labs 3 0 -



Gifted 26 -

Other 0 -




Vinland ES

# Rooms

Room

Capacity Subtotal

Head Start 0 -

Pre-K 0 -

K Half Day 0 -

K Full Day 3 17 51

Grade 1 3 17 51

Grade 2 3 17 51

Grade 3 3 17 51

Grade 4 3 25 75

Grade 5 3 25 75

Art 1 0 -

Music 1 0 -

PE 1 0 -

Science 0 -

Library 1 0 -

Computer Labs 3 0 -



Gifted 25 -

Other 0 -




Vinland ES

Page A-7


# Rooms

Room

Capacity Subtotal

Head Start 0 -

Pre-K 0 -

K Half Day 0 -

K Full Day 3 25 75

Grade 1 3 25 75

Grade 2 3 26 78

Grade 3 2 26 52

Grade 4 2 27 54

Grade 5 2 27 54

Art 0 -

Music 1 0 -

PE 1 0 -

Science 0 -

Library 1 0 -

Computer Labs 3 0 -



Gifted 26 -

Other 0 -




Wolfle ES

# Rooms

Room

Capacity Subtotal

Head Start 0 -

Pre-K 0 -

K Half Day 0 -

K Full Day 3 17 51

Grade 1 3 17 51

Grade 2 3 17 51

Grade 3 2 17 34

Grade 4 2 25 50

Grade 5 2 25 50

Art 0 -

Music 1 0 -

PE 1 0 -

Science 0 -

Library 1 0 -

Computer Labs 3 0 -



Gifted 25 -

Other 0 -




Wolfle ES

Page A-8


# Rooms

Room

Capacity Subtotal

Grade 6 6 28 168

Grades 7-8 13 28 364

Art 1 28 28

Business Labs 28 -

Computer Labs 3 28 84

Music 2 28 56

PE 4 28 112

Library 1 0 -

Science 6 28 168

CTE 4 28 112


RR/T-1 Pull Out 2 15 30

Other 1 28 28

Other 0 -

Total Room Count 43 1,150

Scheduling Factor = 83.3%


Kingston MS

# Rooms

Room

Capacity Subtotal

Grade 6 6 25 150

Grades 7-8 13 25 325

Art 1 25 25

Business Labs 25 -


Music 2 25 50

PE 4 25 100

Library 1 0 -

Science 6 25 150

CTE 4 25 100



Other 1 25 25

Other 0 -




Kingston MS

Page A-9


# Rooms

Room

Capacity Subtotal

Grade 6 5 28 140

Grades 7-8 7 28 196

Art 1 28 28

Business Labs 28 -


Music 2 28 56

PE 2 28 56

Library 1 0 -

Science 6 28 168

CTE 3 28 84



Other 28 -

Other 0 -




Poulsbo MS

# Rooms

Room

Capacity Subtotal

Grade 6 5 25 125

Grades 7-8 7 25 175

Art 1 25 25

Business Labs 25 -


Music 2 25 50

PE 2 25 50

Library 1 0 -

Science 6 25 150

CTE 3 25 75



Other 25 -

Other 0 -




Poulsbo MS

Page A-10


# Rooms

Room

Capacity Subtotal

Grades 9-12 18 30 540

Art 1 30 30

Business Labs 30 -

Computer Labs 30 -

Music 2 30 60

PE 3 30 90

Library 1 0 -

Science 5 30 150

CTE 3 30 90


RR/T-1 Pull Out 15 -

Other 30 -

Other 0 -




Kingston HS

# Rooms

Room

Capacity Subtotal

Grades 9-12 18 25 450

Art 1 25 25

Business Labs 25 -

Computer Labs 25 -

Music 2 25 50

PE 3 25 75

Library 1 0 -

Science 5 25 125

CTE 3 25 75



Other 25 -

Other 0 -




Kingston HS

Page A-11


# Rooms

Room

Capacity Subtotal

Grades 9-12 28 30 840

Art 2 30 60

Business Labs 1 30 30


Music 2 30 60

PE 5 30 150

Library 1 0 -

Science 6 30 180

CTE 4 30 120



Other 30 -

Other 0 -



Instructional Space Model Capacity = 1,313

North Kitsap HS

# Rooms

Room

Capacity Subtotal

Grades 9-12 28 25 700

Art 2 25 50

Business Labs 1 25 25


Music 2 25 50

PE 5 25 125

Library 1 0 -

Science 6 25 150

CTE 4 25 100



Other 25 -

Other 0 -



Instructional Space Model Capacity = 1,105

North Kitsap HS

Page A-12


# Rooms

Room

Capacity Subtotal

Grades 9-12 3 30 90

Art 30 -

Business Labs 30 -

Computer Labs 30 -

Music 30 -

PE 30 -

Library 0 -

Science 30 -

CTE 30 -



Other 30 -

Other 0 -




Spectrum School

# Rooms

Room

Capacity Subtotal

Grades 9-12 3 25 75

Art 25 -

Business Labs 25 -

Computer Labs 25 -

Music 25 -

PE 25 -

Library 0 -

Science 25 -

CTE 25 -



Other 25 -

Other 0 -




Spectrum School

Page B-1

APPENDIX B – FUNCTIONAL ADEQUACY ASSESSMENTS

Page B-2

Page B-3

Page B-4

Page B-5

Page B-6

Page B-7

Page B-8

Page B-9

Page B-10

Page B-11

Page B-12

Page B-13

Page B-14

Page B-15

Page B-16

Page B-17

Page B-18

Page B-19

Page B-20

Page B-21

Page B-22

Page B-23

Page B-24

Page B-25

Page B-26

Page B-27

Page B-28

Page B-29

Page B-30

Page B-31

Page B-32

Page B-33

Page B-34

Page B-35

Page B-36

Page B-37

Page B-38

Page B-39

Page B-40

Page B-41

Page B-42

Page B-43

Page B-44

Page B-45

Page B-46

Page B-47

Page B-48

Page B-49

Page B-50

Page B-51

Page B-52

Page B-53

Page B-54

Page B-55

Page B-56

Page B-57

Page B-58

Page B-59

Page B-60

Page B-61

Page B-62

Page B-63

Page B-64

Page B-65

Page D-1

APPENDIX C – PHYSICAL CONDITION ASSESSMENTS – REFER TO SEPARATE

STUDY AND SURVEY DOCUMENT CONDUCTED IN 2015

Page D-2

APPENDICES D – TECHNICAL MEMOS

NKSD MS AHU-1-1 Summary Report 1-3-15

Engineering Economics, Inc.

1201 Western Avenue, Suite 325 Seattle, Washington 98101 Telephone: 206.622.1001

February 3, 2015 David Dyess Director of Maintenance and Capital Programs North Kitsap School District Re: NKSD MS AHU-1-1 System Evaluation

Project No. 03-14389 Dear David: This letter serves to summarize the work on the North Kitsap School District Middle School AHU-1-1 system evaluation. It includes, in the appendix, (A) notes and calculation, (B) recommendations and pricing from System Heating, (C) previous project communication reports and (D) drawings showing the locations of the various pieces of equipment evaluated.

Scope

To investigate AHU-1-1 system heating performance issues. For results of this investigation see Appendix C project communication report.

Existing System Description:

Equipment making up the system called AHU-1-1 include:

AHU-1-1 EF-1-1 EF-1-5 EF-1-6

AHU-1-1 is a 100% outside air, multi-zone unit providing heating and cooling air to the six zones noted below. Exhaust fans EF-1-1, EF-1-5, and EF-1-6 provide exhaust/relief.

Zone Room Supply Exhaust 1-1 Classroom S1 AHU-1-1 EF-1-1 1-2 Classroom S2 AHU-1-1 EF-1-1 1-3 Storage AHU-1-1 EF-1-1 1-4 Classroom S3 & Planning AHU-1-1 EF-1-1 1-5 Entry/Toilets AHU-1-1 EF-1-5 1-6 Family & Consumer Science AHU-1-1 EF-1-6

AHU-1-1 was manufactured in 1976 and installed as a DX cooling, gas heat, multi-zone with ducted return from each space. This was changed in 2006 to provide 100% outside air and the return duct work was capped and abandoned and exhaust fans EF-1-1, EF-1-5, and EF-1-6 were added to provide exhaust of the supply air. The intent seems to have been for a lab application however the spaces are now classrooms with no fume hoods and no 100% outside air/exhaust air requirement.

David Dyess February 3, 2015 Page 2

NKSD MS AHU-1-1 Summary Report 1-3-15

AHU-1-1 is approximately 39 years old, well beyond any reasonable lifespan. The DX cooling does not work and the original gas heating capacity is likely undersized for it’s current, 100% outside air configuration. None of the three exhaust fans operate properly or appear to be interlocked with the AHU-1-1.

Recommendations:

Replace or refurbish AHU-1-1, configure the return air plenum for return air duct connection and restore the economizer section. Confirm control and monitoring of all unit functions by existing DDC (Direct Digital Control) system. Evaluate the option of additional stages or modulation of heating and cooling to provide better space temperature control.

Re-connect the return air ductwork to the AHU-1-1 and restore return air ductwork to all spaces. Removes exhaust ductwork as needed and add return air ductwork to connect to existing exhaust ceiling grilles.

Disable and cap off exhaust fan EF-1-1 and ductwork.

Evaluate the continued use of EF-1-6 serving the Family & Consumer Science area. Some exhaust air may be retained for kitchen hoods as required. If retained, interlock with AHU-1-1 operation.

Retain EF-1-5 serving the toilets. Operate on per building occupancy via DDC control.

Rebalance the supply, return and exhaust airflow to original design values and to provide positive air pressurization with respect to outside to minimize outside air infiltration.

Verify control and operation of all systems including DDC sequence of operations by retro-commissioning the systems after construction is complete. Confirm and document final sequences of operations for all equipment and systems.

Cost:

Only the rough order of magnitude differential cost of replacing or refurbishing the AHU-1-1 are provided. See Appendix B for pricing details. All other costs noted in recommendations above require further investigation and a preliminary design for pricing.

Refurbish AHU-1-1 ROM price range (including inspection & report): $78,300 to $98,300

Replace AHU-1-1 ROM price: $180,000

Sincerely,

Dan Frahm, PE, CPMP, CxA

Appendix A: Notes and calculations

10.10.2014 notes

AHU 1-1 2006 dwg schedule informationRefurbished 2006-2007Energy Labs PF-15MZ3 with Industrial Air furnace model A4/B300 (2EA), 11960 cfm @ NA SP., 640 MBH output, 800 MBH input.orig DX capacity 425.7 MBH total, 345.5 MBH sensible, EAT DB/WB: 82/67, LAT DB/WB: 55/54, gas heating capacity 640 MBH

SACFM Output (1) EAT LAT11960 640 23 72.5

(1) per M0.1 schedule. Not sure if this is total or for each gas heater section (there are 2).

EF 1-1 2006 dwg schedule information, Greenheck CUBE 300-50, 8500 cfm @ 1.0” sp., 711 fan rpmEF 1-1 nameplate, Greenheck CUBE-300-50-X

EF 1-5 2006 dwg schedule information, Greenheck GB 141.7, 1860 cfrm @ 1.0” sp., 1442 fan rpmEF 1-5 nameplate, Greenheck GB-141-7-X

EF 1-6 2006 dwg schedule information, Greenheck GB 180-10, 3500 cfm @ 1.0” sp., 1185 fan rpmEF 1-6 nameplate, Greenheck GB-180-15-X

EF 1‐1 EF 1‐5 EF 1‐6Design 6,500 0 0

AHU 1‐1 Design Measured (1)Room Zone Area Supply Exhaust SACFM/SF Supply Exhaust SACFM/SF % DesignS1 1-1 1,140 2,000 2,000 1.75 1,757 1.54 87.9%S2 1-2 1,211 2,000 2,000 1.65 2,325 1.92 116.3%Storage 1-3 898 1,400 1,500 1.56 434 0.48 31.0%S3 1-4 608 1,000 1,000 1.64 1,081 1.78 108.1%Planning 1-4 503 1,000 1,000 1.99 1,244 2.47 124.4%Entry/Toilets 1-5 1,229 1,050 0.85 0.00 0.0%Family & Consumer Science 1-6 2,298 3,510 1.53 2,315 1.01 66.0%

7,887 11,960 1.52 9,156 1.16

(1) Measurements taken with EF-1-1, 1-5 & 1-6 not operating, exhaust airflowsmeasured are relief air from AHU 1-1

Appendix B: Recommendations and pricing from System Heating

Proposal

969 S. Nebraska Street Seattle, Washington 98108 (206) 762-4249 Fax: (206) 763-6995 www.systemheating.com Contractors License Number: SYSTEHA 190BT

Page 1 of 2

January 30 2015, Dan Frahm PE Engineering Economics Inc. 1201 Western Avenue, Suite 325 Seattle, Washington 98101 T: 206.622.1001 F: 206.622.5747 www.eeiengineers.com Subject: NKSD MS AHU1 Refurbishment Considerations and Budget Ref: Energy Labs PF 15MZ3 Dan, Per your request, please find the following information for your review regarding the refurbishment potential for the indirect AHU equipment referenced above. We understand the following:

The equipment serves classroom and lab rooms at Poulsbo Middle school Equipment historical technical data is not available. The unit was manufactured in 1976 (approximately 39 years old.) In 2006 modifications were performed to close the return air supply and revised to 100% outside

air Design modifications to burner, sizing and existing condition are unknown. Original burner was sized for return air and may be undersized for 100% outside air. Reported issues with unit fan/ burner controls.

Objective

Confirm refurbishment potential for the unit including DX and gas heat which are currently experiencing issues.

Provide comment on Budget for refurbishment of AHU Budget ROM. Recommendations: Perform equipment inspection: Given the absence of existing equipment specifications, we recommend confirmation through direct visual observation and or functionality test to confirm feasibility, cost and potential benefit vs replacement. Also, comment on the features of new options vs. those measures that may be achieved and quantified through refurbishment. Rebuilding this type if equipment is usually considered if the anticipated cost is 40% to 65% of the replacement project cost. Historically units of this type may be refurbished within this budgetary constraint. Should refurbishment be considered, we recommend completion of evaluation to determine the following:

Determine the condition of the equipment and components Confirm that services to the equipment are correct and in good working order Determine the level and support, if any, that the manufacturer may provide

Proposal

969 S. Nebraska Street Seattle, Washington 98108 (206) 762-4249 Fax: (206) 763-6995 www.systemheating.com Contractors License Number: SYSTEHA 190BT

Page 2 of 2

Confirm options for refurbishment, scope, cost and work sequence vs replacement Comment on improvement options relative to new

Establish that the performance required upon completion is compatible with the original installation design parameters or revised criteria based on owner objectives. Identify components or systems that may be upgraded to improve performance or efficiency including verification of:

Fan and drive condition Service access verification Sound attenuation Current code requirements Structural Hygiene Dampers and actuators Controls DX evaluation Coil evaluation Burner verification of condition and operation Heat exchanger functionality Condition of vents and stacks Cleanliness and or water intrusion Potential for interior coatings Provide a report to owner regarding observed conditions including scope of work, work sequence

and budget for revisions. Budget for inspection and report: $ 3,288.00 Plus WSST Refurbishment Cost vs. Replacement: Refurbishment: ROM may range $75,000.00 – $95,000.00 Plus WSST

Includes replacement of internal controlled factory devices Does not include temperature DDC interface panel.

Replacement: ROM budget like for like excluding internal envelope revisions may be approximately $ 180,000.00 plus WSST Confirmation of the above budgets and scope may be achieved through the inspection phase one above. Please call if you have any questions or further direction. Thanks, Ryan Brown Vice President

206-762-4249 Ext 105 206-300-2737 cell [email protected]

Appendix C: Project Communication Reports

Page 1 of 4 Engineering Economics Inc

1201 Western Avenue Suite 325 Seattle, Washington 98101

Telephone : 206 622 1001 Facsimile : 206 622 5747

Project Communication Report

Issue Date: 9/26/2014 Report No: 001 To: David Dyess Project: NK MS AHU 1-1 System Eval Project No: 03-14389 Activity Date(s): 9/25/2014 Item: Reference Doc/Dwg:

Design Review Construction Warranty Transmittal Request for Information Observation Test Report Other Document Examination Meeting Minutes Daily Report

Preliminary results & discussion (a final report will be provided later). Summary & next steps We found a few things I would like to get addressed prior to completing the system evaluation. 1. NKMS to approve change to AHU 1-1 zone temperature control setpoint changes. Is there an

NKMS standard for this?

2. EF 1-1, 1-5 & 1-6 do not operate. EF 1-1 & 1-6 should operate with AHU 1-1. ATS to investigate and correct control and operation of EFs.

3. AHU 1-1 DX cooling failure. Is this a known NKMS issue? NKMS/EEI/Vendor to investigate.

4. Once all equipment is operating I would like ATS to trend some points (EEI will provide list) and provide to EEI for review. I would like to verify that the AHU 1-1 operates continually during building occupancy and that heating and cooling temperature control is stable.

5. Once AHU 1-1 DX and Exhaust fans are operating properly, I will come back on site (need ATS?) and do some supply and exhaust airflow spotchecking at the zone level and AHU 1-1 pressure and fan readings.

6. AHU 1-1 heating seems to be single stage. I will follow up with the Vendor (Energy Labs) to see if there are staging options. If possible this will be included in final report recommendations.

Preliminary Results & Discussion Met Steve Alanko on site 6:30 am. Walked lower level classrooms S-1, S-2, S-3, and Family & Consumer science. Looked at AHU 1-1 on roof and located rooftop exhaust fans EF-1-1, EF-1-5, & EF-1-6. HVAC supply diffusers and exhaust grilles locations and rooftop equipment locations matched as-built drawings. Zone thermostat locations matched as-built drawing with the exception of Family Consumer Sciences. This thermostat was relocated to a column in the center of the space. Original location is covered by a cabinet. The S-1 thermostat is partially obscured by cabinet but not enough to re-locate. Discussed heating and cooling issues with S-1 teacher Mr. Matheson, and S-2 teach Mr. Peters. Mr.


Issue Date: 9/26/2014 Report No: 001 To: David Dyess Project: NK MS AHU 1-1 System Eval Project No: 03-14389

Matheson remarked that another science teacher, Mr. Braun had been down in the basement science rooms (now upstairs) and had documented temperature fluctuations. Have contacted Mr. Braun and he has emailed me his data. Preliminary review of data seems to indicate AHU turning on/off. I am following up on this. Noted all exterior doors held open due to space air pressure. Mike Stroh of ATS arrived about 8:30 am. With the help of Rich we found the controls panel in an electrical room at the Gym building. Mike was able to log in locally with his laptop and had full control and graphics. Mike and I reviewed the controls and reverse engineered some of the sequence of operations. We noted setpoints and took some screen shots of control graphics. Per the controls reverse engineering by Mike, AHU 1-1 has two stages of DX cooling and one stage of gas heating. It is enabled/disabled based on schedule. Each of the six zones has a heating or cooling demand signal (0-100%) based on if the space is below or above setpoint. The further above or below setpoint the larger the signal value. The larger overall zone demand signal (heating or cooling determines whether the AHU is in heating (gas) or cooling (DX). Zone heating, cooling, and bypass dampers modulate to maintain zone space temperature setpoint. Mike noted that the six zones served by the AHU 1-1 had cooling/heating setpoints of 73/70. Based on air temperature fluctuation comments by Mr. Matheson, Mike believed that 3 degree deadband (73-70) might be a partial cause and changed to cooling/heating setpoints of 72/67 giving a 5 degree deadband. Night setback cooling/heating setpoints are 85/60. We left these alone. Per the equipment schedule on dwg M0.1 Exhaust fans EF-1 is interlocked to operate when AHU 1-1 operates. EF-5 is a toilet exhaust fan control is not defined on dwg M0.1 but should be operated per schedule or interlocked to operate with AHU 1-1. EF 1-6 serves the Family and Consumer science room. Control is not defined on dwg M0.1 but should be interlocked to operate with AHU 1-1. System operation was checked. AHU 1-1 was enabled and operated and disabled and stopped per DDC controls command. Individual operation of hot deck zone dampers and one cold deck zone damper was verified. All others and not fully accessible with standard man access doors and would require pulling some screw secured access panels. EF 1-1, 1-5, & 1-6 did not operate per DDC controls command. Controls show each fan commanded on but not proofed (Mike not sure how proof was done but believes via a current sensing relay). Failure of fans to proof was NOT alarmed therefore there was no way for the school district to know that the fans were not operating without climbing on the roof. I opened up EF 1-1 and confirmed that the local disconnect was in the on position. Mike spent some time trying to determine control of the exhaust fans but was not able to fully reverse engineer the control code. Mike was not sure if EF on/off issues were software or hardware related. More investigation by ATS is needed. The school district should confirm that there are no breakers off in electrical panels for EF 1-1, 1-5 & 1-6. Mike overrode the zone temperature setpoints to force AHU 1-1 into heating. In heating mode both burners in AHU 1-1 fired to provide a furnace leaving air temperature of 123F (DDC measured) on the west furnace and



85F on the east furnace. Outside air temperature was 65F. We did not want to overheat the spaces below so did not operate the furnace at full capacity. Mike overrode the zone temperature setpoints to force AHU 1-1 into cooling. The DDC commanded both AHU compressors to operate. AHU 1-1 DX cooling did not operate. Is cooling disabled by the District? A nearby AHU DX was operating. Mike overrode the zone temperature setpoints to open all the zone cooling dampers to 100% open for airflow measurements. Measurements were taken with zone exterior and interior doors closed. Most of the classroom supply air terminal were at or above design. All of the classroom exhaust terminals were very low. This makes sense knowing that the exhaust fans are not running. Any airflow through the exhaust grilles is due to the AHU 1-1 supply fan pressurizing the space and pushing air out through the duct and exhaust fans on the roof. This is why the doors are pushed open by air pressure. It is interesting that AHU 1-1 can provide design air without the aid of the exhaust fans. With exhaust fans operating supply air values should be higher. I did not measure AHU 1-1 fan static pressure, fan rpm or fan amps. When the exhaust fans are operating properly I would like to go back and do a supply and exhaust airflow spotcheck and then take final AHU measurements. Some DDC screen shots of AHU 1-1 and Zone 1-1 for reference:



By: Dan Frahm 9/26/2014 Signature Date

Appendix D: Drawings

West Floor Plan

East Floor Plan

West Roof Plan

East Roof Plan

Documents

FACILITY MASTER PLAN