2006, 01-23 Special Joint CVSD, Liberty Lake, BOCC MeetingFILL-: COPY
S`~``~ka0^%W%
ne
Valle
AGENDA
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY JOLITT MEETING
Spokane Valley City Council
Central Valley School District
City of Liberty Lake
Spokane County Board of County Commissioners
Monday, January 23, 2006
6:30 p.m.
Central Valley School District Office, Learning and 'i'eacbing Support Center
19307 L. Cataldo, Spokane Valley, VISA 99016
AGENDA:
Discussion: Central Valley School District Capital Facilities Elan
and Impact Fees
Other Matters of Mutual Concern or Interest
i- Adjournment
Sp"I Mit Meenng 01--23-06
City of Spokane Valley File Copy
CAPITAL
FACILITIES
PLAN
2005-06 through 2010-11
Central Valley School District #356
Board of Directors
Lynn Trantow, Chair
Tom Dingus Debra Long
Ann Long Cynthia McMullen
Michael O. Pearson
Superintendent
CONTENTS
Page
I Central Valley School District 1
fI Capital Planning
Purpose of Capital Facilities Plan
Definitions
Planning Issues 9
III Educational Program Standards 10
1
Current
Future 11
IV Enrollment 12
History 12
Projections 12
Facilities Inventory 22
Sites 22
Permanent Construction 22
Facilities Capacity 26
Relocatable Facilities 28
VT Capital Facilities Plan 30
Facilities and Site Needs 40
Financial Plan 41
Vii Proposed School Impact Fees 49
4
Calculation Criteria
Proposed School District Impact Fee Schedule 53
APPENDICES
Page
A. Central Valley School District Strategic Plan 56
B. CVSD Major Capital Work: 1980-2005 60
C. March 2006 Bond: Proposed Projects 61
D. State Financial Aid for Eligible CVSD Capital Projects 66
E. CVSD Student Generation Rates: Calculation 69
F. CVSD Impact Fee Calculation 73
FIGURES
1. Geographic Boundaries of Central Valley School District
2. Growth in the Central Valley School District
3. CVSD Elementary Attendance Boundaries
4. CVSD Middle School Attendance Boundaries
5. CVSD High School Attendance Boundaries
6. CVSD #356 - School Sites and Support Sites
7. CVSD Outstanding Bond Debt Tax Rates
8. CVSD Bond Debt Tax Rates: Proposed Concept
Page
2
13
14
15
16
24
44
46
iv
TABLES
Page
1. CVSD Program Space Standards 10
2. CVSD School Capacity Standards 11
3. CVSD Enrollment Projections: Fall 2008 17
4. SPI Projection of CVSD Enrollment 19
5. CVSD Enrollment Projections at Buildout 21
3
6. CVSD Sites
7. CVSD Permanent Facilities 25
8. CVSD Support Facilities 26
9. Capacity of CVSD Schools 27
10. CVSD vs. SPI Area Allowances per Student 28
11. CVSD- Portable Classrooms 29
12. Central Valley Schools: Capacity vs. Enrollment 30
13. Eligibility for State-aided Modernization 32
14. Additional Facilities Needs: Elementary Schools 34
15. Additional Facilities Needs: Secondary Schools 36
16. Additional Site Needs: Elementary Schools 37
17. Additional Site Needs: Secondary Schools 39
18. Estimated Present Cost of Permanent Facility and Site Needs
4
at Buildout
19. March 2006 Bond Proposal: Major Projects 42
4
20. Local Area Tax Rates
21. CVSD Long-Range Capital Plan: Phases 2 and 3 48
22. CVSD Student Generation Rates 50
23. Proposed CVSD School Impact Fees: 2005-06 through 2010-11 54
24. Impact Fee Variables - Central Valley School District 55
v
CENTRAL VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT
Geography
Central Valley School District #356 serves an 80-square mile area between the City of
Spokane and the Idaho border (Figure 1). The district serves' approximately 12,100.
students in 22 school facilities. With a workforce of nearly.1500, Central Valley School
District is among the largest employers in Spokane.Couhty.
The district achieved its present configuration. in the 1960's after a decades;long series
of consolidations of smaller school districts. The': district -seives the City of Liberty Lake,
much of the City of Spokane Valley and unincorporated area within Spokane County.
Instructional`Pr!ograms
Central Valley School 'Disirict's'focus is 406 " timing and teaching.
The district offers comprehensive'K='I2irtstructional programs designed to develop
students.Wh'6-'4e :
''Skilled, knowledgeable learners • Quality workers
• Effective communicators • Complex thinkers
• Self-directed learners • Community contributors
• Collaborati`ve`learners
The district offers these programs and works with its community as outlined in the
district's Strategic Plan (Appendix A).
1
I
1
I
1 Figure 1
i
~ .KO~r ,,11J,thi~
iS
1
j r.
•
f
rr
w
r
H
f 1
, y
J p
ti
2a
.J gem
[s
is 1
r
r
2
Central Valley's instructional programs, for both regular and special education students,
are widely recognized. The district offers pre-school instruction at various locations,
and day-care is offered on district property.
CAPITAL PLANNING
As a school district serving part of the Spokane metropolitan area, Central Valley's
service area has long been in transition between rural and suburban land use.
Suburban density residential growth has moved from the;nofthwest part of the district
south and east as transportation systems and employment opportunity have allowed.
In recent decades, the school district's:.Capital.Planning has;relied on recommendations
of periodic planning committees comprised of community members and district staff.
These committees have::rnet`each two or4 rde years t6 examine district enrollment and
facilities needs. The;committees!.,*ork, overtime, has been the impetus for Board of
Directors' action aridzj atron support.resulting~in-numerous major capital projects
(Appendix;B).....The current capital plannieg'group, the Community Linkages
Committee; includes:-representation from each of the three governmental jurisdictions served- Central Valley!,Schobl District. It is charged with projecting district capital
needs based on availablepflpulation, enrollment and facilities data.
The Community Linka&® Committee has relied on demographic surveys prepared by
the Spokane Courity'l6formation Systems Department. The Committee's
recommendations to Central Valley School District's Board of Directors have been
consistent with parameters recommended by previous planning committees. They are
the basis for Central Valley's Capital Facilities Plan.
3
Purpose of Capital Facilities Plan
Spokane County operates under Washington State's Growth Management Act (GMA).
Public schools are among "necessary services" recognized by the GMA.
Central Valley School District's Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) is prepared in accord with
RCW 36.70A.070. It identifies school. facilities required to house the district's growing
enrollment. The district's Capital Facilities Plan describes school facilities needed to
accommodate projected student enrollment at acceptable levels of service through
2010-2011.
In developing the CFP, Central Valley School District relied on population and
enrollment projections provided by Spokane County through use of a Geographic
Information System (GIS). The GIS relies on zoning set forth under the county's GMA
plan. This CFP complies with RCW 36.70.A and, where impact fees are to be
assessed, RCW 82.02. Adoption of this CFP by reference by Spokane County, the City
of Liberty Lake and the City of Spokane Valley constitutes approval of the methodology
used in its preparation.
Definitions
Area Cost Allowance: State recognized per square foot construction cost for public
school facilities. Updated annually. Projected to be $154.22 as of July 1, 2006.
Average Assessed Value: The average assessed value by dwelling unit type of all
residential units constructed within Central Valley School District.
Capital Facilities: School facilities identified in the District's Capital Facilities Plan.
Capital Facilities are "system improvements" as defined by the GMA as opposed to
localized "project improvements".
4
Capital Facilities Plan (CFP): The District's facilities plan adopted by its board of
directors and meeting the requirements of the GMA.
Count : Spokane County.
CVSD: Central Valley School District #356
Developer: The proponent of a development activity.
Development: All plats, short plats, conditional use:or special use permits, binding site
plan approvals, rezones accompanied by an offiaal site plan, or building; permits
(Including building permits for multi-family and-duplex residential structures, and all
similar uses) and other applications requiring land,use piermits or approval by Spokane
County, the City of Spokane Valley-:or the City of Liberty Lake and located within CVSD.
Development Activity: Any residential construction'or_expansion of a building, structure
or use of land or any other change of buildi_ng,-structure or land that creates additional
demand for public.-school facllities;'but exch-ding building permits for attached or
detached accessory;dpartments;=' and.remodelirig or renovation permits which do not
result in additional dwelliig;urnts. Also`excluded from this definition is "Housing for
Older Pe sons- as-dgned t y 46 U.S.C. §3607, when guaranteed by a restrictive
covenant, and new living,units permitted on legal lots created prior to the effective date
of the respective iurisdictidn's school impact fee ordinance.
Development Approval:. 4Nny written authorization from Spokane County, The City of
Liberty Lake or the City of Spokane Valley, which authorizes the commencement of a
development activity.
District: Central Valley School District #356.
5
District Property Tax Levy Rate: The District's current capital property tax rate per
thousand dollars of assessed value.
Encumbered: School impact fees identified by the District to be committed as part of
the funding for capital facilities for which the publicly funded share has been assured,
development approvals have been sought or construction contracts have been let.
Estimated Facility Construction Cost: The planned costs of ;new schools including on-
site and off-site improvements costs.
FTE (Full Time Equivalent Student) is a means-of'measuring student enrollment based
1
on the number of hours per day in attendance;:at the District's schools. A strident is
considered one FTE if he/she is enrolled for the equivaIe-ht of a full schedule each
sir
school day. Kindergarten students #,ho. attend half-day program are counted as Y FTE.
For purposes of this Capital FacilitiesrPlan;,ali;other grade fare considered to contain
one FTE per student.
Grade Span: A category into wt_iich the Distract groups its grades of students (e.g.,
elementary, middle `and. high school. .Grade spans for the Central Valley School District
ii.
include grades.-K-5 for elementary level, d, &s:",6-8 for middle schools and grades 9-12
for high'schools.
Growth' nagement Act JGMA): The Growth Management Act, Chapter 17, Laws of
the State of°Washington of 1',990, 1~ Ex. Sess., as now in existence or as hereafter
amended.
Interest Rate: The current interest rate as stated in the bond Buyer Twenty-Bond
General Obligation Bond Index.
Land Cost Per Acre: The estimated average land acquisition cost per acre (in current
dollars) based on recent site acquisition costs, or appraisals.
6
Multi-Family Dwellinq Unit: Any residential dwelling unit that is not a single-family unit
as defined by the applicable jurisdiction's school impact fee ordinance.
OSPI: Washington State Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction.
Permanent Facilities: Site built school facilities of the District4iih' a fixed foundation.
Portables: Synonym for Relocatable Facilities.
Proiect Cost: Total cost of building or remodelingfacilities. Includes cost,of developing,
but not acquiring, the site.
R.C.W.: The Revised Code of Washington.
Relocatable Facilities (also,referred to as,Portabf s) -,Factory=built structures,
transportable in one or more-,sections, which.are designed to be used as an education
space. Relocatal le- abilities mai Mbe used ta;prevent the overbuilding of school
facilities, to meet thWhieeds of service_areas within the District, or to cover the gap '
fair ~ ~ _ I y, .
between the;time..that faal milies-move iAif&he iv=residential developments and the date
that cons&Ubtion is;completed on permanent school facilities.
)Y,kSs-~- .t
Relocai e. Facilities Cold, The total cost, based on actual costs incurred by the
District, for purchasing and.•nstalling portable classrooms.
Relocatable FacilitiesrStudent Capacity: The capacity for a typical portable classroom
used for a specified grad span.
7'
School Impact Fee: A payment of money imposed upon residential development as a
condition of development approval to help pay for public school facilities needed to
serve the new growth and development.
SEPA: The Washington State Environmental Policy Act.
Single-Family Dwelling Unit Any detached residential dwelling-.unit designed for
occupancy by a single-family or household.
Site: Land on which a structure is, or will be, located. Minimum 'school site sizes for
new schools are assumed to be: Elementary -12`;acres, Middle School;- 20 acres,
High School - 50 acres.
Standard of Service: The area per student stan6aiM::recognized by the District as being
required to house instructional progr`arrik; a Distrids standard of service shall not be
adjusted for any portion of the classrooms hI66 ed-in relocafable facilities which are
used as transitional facilities.:
State Match Percentage: The 0-pp- ortion of~funds that are provided to the District for
specific capital projects-from,tU e79titbs.Lommon School Construction Fund. These
funds are disbursed based'on a formula which calculates district assessed valuation per
pupil relative to the whole State?assessed valuation per pupil to establish the maximum
percentage of the total project etigible to be paid by the State.
Student Factor*'(Student deneration Rate (SGR): The number of students of each
grade span (elementary;: middle, high school) typically housed within a single living unit.
Teaching Station: A facility space (classroom) specifically dedicated to implementing
the District's educational program. In addition to traditional classrooms, these spaces
can include computer labs, auditoriums, gymnasiums, music rooms and other special
education and resource rooms.
8
Unhoused Students: Students housed, or projected to be housed, in classrooms where
class size exceeds standards within the District and students housed, or projected to be
housed, in portable classrooms.
WAC: The Washington Administrative Code.
Planning Issues
Significant issues for planning capital facilities within,-Central Valid" School District
include: -
1. Lack of optimally located school facilities to,serv&population growth in the
northeast part of the district.., -
2. Growth projected at all grade_leuels;through 2010; and at full buildout.
3. Public concern for facilities equ throd'ghout the district.
4. "Regionalism" within_the.district.
5. Future space steeds for'hidh scho&l 6tiadents.
Unless otherwise not6d nrolfinent~and~student capacity data in this CFP are
expressed m Full Time Equivalent (FTE) students as of October 1 of the year indicated.
.ter Sl+,'-• •i~ '
9
EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM STANDARDS
Current
School facility needs are dictated by types and amounts of school space required to
accommodate students participating in the school district's educational program.
Factors affecting educational program standards are the district's adopted curriculum,
grade configuration, class size, optimum facility size, ci!assroom utilization and
scheduling considerations. Non-traditional educational programs such as special
education, preschool, computer labs and music can significantly impact facilities'
student capacity. Table 1 shows Central Valley School District's current Educational
Program Standards and contractual class size maximums.
Table 1
CVSD PROGRAM SPACE STANDARDS
Grade
Sq. Ft./FTE Student
Class Size Maximums
Students
K
101
22
1-3
101
25
4
101
26
5
101
28
6-8
150 a
29
9-12
150
32
Special Ed
(Grades Preschool-12)
Varies by program and
grade level
11
(Varies from 10-14 by
program and grade level)
9 Based on Horizon and Greenacres Middle School size and capacities
10
Table 2 shows the district's optimal and maximum school sizes in terms of capacity to
house regular FTE students. The capacity is reduced depending on need to house
Special Education or such other instructional programs and grade levels as may be
housed from time to time in school facilities. Actual capacity of individual schools may
vary depending on the educational programs and grade levels they house at a given
point in time.
Table 2
CVSD SCHOOL CAPACITY STANDARDS
Grade Level
School Size
Permanent FTE Student Capacity)
K-5
450 optimal a
6-8
650 Optimal b
9-12
1600 Maximum c
a In areas of the district where enrollment is high, but number of school sites are limited, permanent
elementary school capacity can reach 600 students.
b 750 Maximum
c 1800 Maximum Headcount
Future
Current educational program standards are likely to change in the future in response to
factors such as special programs, negotiated class size, technology or physical aspects
of school facilities.
11
IV
ENROLLMENT
History
Public school enrollment is usually measured in two ways - headcount and full time
equivalent (FTE). Headcount numbers record the actual number of students a school
serves, regardless of whether they attend school for the full school day. FTE numbers
record the number of "full time" (all day) students that the school serves. Enrollment
numbers which follow show FTE students.
Central Valley School District enrollment grew quickly in the 1970's. The: district lost
approximately 1000 students in the 1980's, b%it grew again --toroughout 661:990's. The
district experienced relatively consistent enrollment growtFi through that decade.
Between 1990 and 2000, enroll ment:i ncreased at tlhe rate of about eight tenths of a
percent each year (Figure 2). Hous0Zg stockwithin the district has increased more
rapidly since mortgage interest rates declined ri`2000. Th'6 school district's enrollment
growth has averaged aboLit:2A percent pef year since'2000.
- {'Projections
Enrollment projections~~eferet cad below are for existing (2005-06) school attendance
areas.': tiFigures 3, 4, and .5,-show current elementary, middle and high school attendance
areas, respectively.
Short Term f
Table 3 gives enrollment projections, by attendance area, to fall 2008 and to fall 2010.
Figures in this table were developed by the Spokane County Information Systems
Department. They are based on district's enrollment history from 2000-2004. Table 3
suggests continued rapid growth in the east half of the district in the near future.
12
14000
12000
10000
6000
2000
w 0
Figure 2
Growth in the
Central Valley School District
❑
10640
■
10766
■
11027
F
11601
E
12866
N
1992 1996 2000 2004 2008
Central Valley School Di%lricl - tl;lctncnlar~' Boundaries
O.- _ r - - -
~ I
r
Nul all-lima
Will •
121 IV 14
y,. Mc d
ly
SWWCKA PWw
' 2'
'.ul it Osa
Z.)
rownscros
TI
m
w
cL
M ' I
1 I
v '
v
I
i
w
w
1
{c~ l1
j
I
' r
i o
15
Figure 4
Central Valley School Dish ict -
Senior High Boundaries
Mr~1 Symirllln
,Li
.,a~. il-
n
Y
77
Hd
p
ttti~ l; ry i M►-
' ~
~
1.
n
1
Central Valley
~
Y♦
n varsity
1
TABLE 3
CVSD Enrollment Projections: Fall 2008 and Fall 2090
School Attendance
10-01-05
Actual Headcount
Headcount Enrollment Generated by
Attendance Area
Area
Enrollment a
Fall 2008
Projected b
Fall 2010
Projected
Elementary Schools
Adams
465
503
522
Broadway
389
517
529
Chester
310
352.
366
Greenacres
571
686
734
Liberty Lake
738
876
950
McDonald
396
364
358
Opportunity
377
346
346
Ponderosa
360
337
339
Progress
294
311
321
South Pines
403
332
352
Sunrise
520
532
553
University Elementa
418
435
443
Subtotal
5241
5591
5813
Middle Schools
Bowdish
528
589
597
Evergreen
595
630
657
Greenacres MS
647
757
814
Horizon
423
462
473
North Pines
497
551
564
Subtotal
2690
2989
3105
High Schools
Central Valle
1778
1804
1885
University
1835
2005
2121
Subtotal
36131
- 3859
4006
a Includes students attending the schools but not residing within the attendance area (special program
students and choice students)
b Prepared by Spokane County Information Systems Department. Based on (1) projecting 2000-2004
population growth rates in each school attendance area forward to fall 2008 and (2) multiplying the
resulting population figure by the percentage of public school students historically residing in that
attendance area and attending Central Valley Schools.
1) Assumptions: Population growth in each school attendance area continues at the same rate
as in 2000-2004.
2) 2005 population-to-student ratios in each area remain constant.
Based on same methodology as employed in the fall 2008 projection
17
The state Superintendent of Public Instruction projects enrollment for all Washington
state school districts using the cohort survival method. The cohort survival method
tracks groups of students through the system and adjusts the populations to account for
the average year-to-year growth. It is important to remember, however, that the cohort
survival method does not consider additional growth due to population or housing
market share factors or regional trends. It assumes that the past trend is likely to
continue into the future. As a result, it assumes that demographic trends and patterns
will remain similar to what they have been in previous years. -Table 4 shows the state's
projection for Central Valley School District enrollment. Numtiers in the state's
projection are developed from six base years, starting in 1999. Thb.state's projection
for 2008 differs from Spokane County's projection, in that:
• It is significantly higher (6307) for grades:K-S than is,the county's figure.(5813).
• It is moderately higher (3231)•for grades 6-S-ahan the county's figure (3105).
• It is moderately lower (3862j~ii r grades 9-12 than:the county's figure (4006).
Differences in the state and county projections, may, in;part, be due to the six-year
period, 1999-2004, used by thezstate in proteeting enrollments to fall 2008 vs. the five-
year base period;~2000-2004, u96d by the county. State projections are based on the
lftY
number of students k0ally attending Central Valley Schools in the six base years.
County numbers are based on historical percentages of public school students residing
within'sctiool attendance areas:.apd projected total population within those same areas.
18
Table 4
STATE OF WA.9NINOTON REPORT NO. 1048
SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION RUN ON 13:51 NOV 01 '04
OLYMPIA
0 E T E R M I N A T I 0 N O F P R O J E C T E 0 E N R 0 L L M E N T 5
8 Y C O H O R T 8 U R V I V A L KK LINEAR PROJECTION
CENTRAL VALLEY
DISTRICT NO. 358 SPOKANE
COUNTY NO. 32
ACTUAL ENROLLMENTS ON OCTOBER FI
RST—
AVER. %
-----F R
0 J E C T E 0
E N R O
L L N e N T 0--
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
SURVIVAL
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
KINDERGARTEN
083
711
738
724
822
881
890
927
964
1,001
1,039
1,078
GRADE 1
B40
806
783
784
014
931
111.94
988
BOB
1.038
1,079
1,121
1,183
GRADE 2
015
879
823
807
817
854
103.63
985
1,022
1,032
1,078
1,118
1,162
GRADE 3
817
859
902
858
833
853
103.97
888
1,003
1,063
1,073
1,118
1,162
GRADE 4
B33
850
880
897
874
885
102.80
877
913
1,031
1,093
1,103
1,150
GRADE 5
895
870
892
881
928
903
102.57
908
800
936
1,057
1,121
1,131
GRADE! 8
887
886
885
868
670
965
101.82
B19
925
916
953
1,078
1,141
K-6 HEADCOUNT
5,718
5,881
5,873
5,817
5,985
8,272
8,433
6,686
6,980
7,:12
7,697
7,98E
K-6 N/K 0 1/2
5,376
5,506
5.504
5,455
5,554
5,832
5,988
6,223
6,488
6,832
7,178
7,447
GRADE 7
850
873
901
905
887
893
101.89
983
936
942
933
971
1,096
GRADE 8
907
852
989
918
932
922
102.35
918
1,008
958
984
955
994
7-8 HEADCOUNT
1,757
1,727
1,800
1,823
1,819
1,817
1,899
1,942
1,900
1,897
1,826
2,090
GRADE 9
694
908
832
943
975
990
103.01
950
944
1,036
987
993
984
GRADE 10
872
911
914
884
921
943
100.16
992
952
948
1,038
989
995
GRADE 11
801
825
878
880
815
853
95.06
896
943
903
998
987
040
OAAOE 12
784
768
798
045
044
818
95.55
815
858
901
885
858
943
9-12 HEADCOUNT
3,391
3,428
3,410
3,544
3,565
3,602
3,653
3,695
3,788
3,789
3,828
3,862
K-12 HEADCOUNT 10,888 11,016 11,083 11,184 11,339 11,691 11,985 12,323 12,888 13,018 13,451 13,937
J
'W
w
A
Long Term
By considering available residential land and current zoning within the school district,
the county has projected public school enrollment at residential buildout for each current
school attendance area within the district. Based on recent rates of growth in each
attendance area, the county has also estimated when residential saturation (buildout)
may occur.
Enrollment projections at buildout must be considered estimates because change
factors such as in zoning, available residential land under Growth:Management or
change in household size can alter projects in ways that are not foreseen. With this
qualification, the county's current estimates,oftolic school students af64.. ildout within
present Central Valley School District attendarce;areasaretappear in Table-'5.
Based on the county's "build-out" information, we expert .that substantial residential
growth in the current Liberty Lake Elementary School at4 dance area to be largely
completed within about nine,,years. We.ezpect-t' gtantial..residential growth in the
current Greenacres ElementarySchool attendance area to continue for many years.
- 'r
20
Table 5
CVSD Enrollment Projections at Buildout
School Attendance Area
Anticipated Buildout a
(years)
Projected Public School
Enrollment at Buildout
(Headcount) b
Elementary Schools
Adams
20+
730
Broadway
4
556
Chester
20+
601
Greenacres
20+
1478
Liberty Lake
9
1054
McDonald
14
390
Opportunity
4
408
Ponderosa
20+
589
Progress
20+
370
South Pines
0
358
Sunrise
20+
641
University Elements
8
426
Middle Schools
Bowdish
10
614
Evergreen
20+
840
Greenacres MS
20+
1329
Horizon
20+
808
North Pines
6
576
High Schools
Central Valley
20+
2929
University
20+
2396
a. Based on remaining available residential land within the school attendance area and 2000-2002 rates
of residential development.
b Public school students are expected to live within the school's current attendance areas. Anticipated
numbers of public school students shown in Table 5 at buildout are less than the actual number of school-
aged students expected to reside within the respective attendance areas. Projected enrollment is
approximately 90.9% of elementary school aged population in attendance area; 92.2% of middle school
aged population in attendance area, and 92.0% of high school aged student population in attendance
area. Most public school aged students residing in CVSD but not attending the public schools which
serve their residential area are attending private schools, alternative schools, (such as Summit and
Barker High School), are home schooled or are Choicing to other public school districts.
21
V.
FACILITIES INVENTORY
Capital facilities are defined as any land, structure, or improvement that has a useful life
of at least ten years.
This facilities inventory describes what facilities are now availabl®,to Central Valley
School District and what facilities will be needed to accommotlate anticipated enrollment
at acceptable levels of service. Capacity of current and".future facilities is based on
space requirements as described by the district's educational program standards.
Sites
Central Valley School District currehtly;owns,,525 acres16f land, located as indicated in
Table 6. Three hundred sixty seven (367) acresare.now, inactive use as school or
support sites
Figure 6 shows current Central Md ley Schodb i strict schools, support sites and current
reserve (u ndeveloped)``sites4-`-.
'Permanent Construction
Central Valley School District operates 12 elementary schools serving students in pre-
Kindergartehil?rough Grade15, one "choice" school serving K-8 students, five middle
schools for Grad ':6',- students, and three high schools. High schools serve students in
Grades 9-12. Two of'the three high schools each offer comprehensive programs for
1800 students. The third high school, Barker High, is an alternative high school serving
approximately 90 students. Table 7 shows the original construction date,
additions/modernizations and the current size of each school facility.
22
Table 6
Central Valley School District No. 356
SITE SIZE
SITE SIZE
FACILITY
(Acres)
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
Adams
9.27
Broadway
8.74
Chester
10.00
Greenscres
9.42
Liberty Lake
11.45
McDonald
8.73
Opportunity
9.06
Ponderosa
10.00
Progress
9.27
South Pines
8.40
Sunrise
9.64
University
8.02
MIDDLE SCHOOLS
Bowdish
12.26
Evergreen
14.85
G reenacres
22.43
North Pines
14.47
Horizon
22.00
HIGH SCHOOLS
Central Valley
61.05
University High
48.96
SUPPORT SITES
Keystone
8.96
Summit
11.10
University Center
23.93
Learning & Teaching Center
16.70
Barker Center
6.41
S. 123 Bowdish
.5t
RESERVE SITES
32nd & Chapman Road
41.67
401 & Bates Road
17.71
Homestead '
23.85
16~h & Henry Road
48.92
Mission & Long
16.20
TOTAL
523.97
23
S
r
ww+n
i~- -I--'
t..w..'j
. CCCttt
Ft 1
A ll ' •
dam.
TL
iiwr
- - Mti"
I
r. F1(jlN!
bw.
[N/x``n.,~
Y/ 1/M
r....1.I-Ll7
Central Valley
School District
School Sites and Support Slte$
NNV
r+
• ~ Fese~4e Fitt:
C
Table 7
CENTRAL VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT: PERMANENT FACILITIES
ONpMal
Modsrnlzatlone/Additions
Cullen! ftm
FACILITY
Buikling
Si
82
03
#6
ft FL)
ELEMENTARY
Adams
1958
1966
1976
2003
46,879
Broadway
1952
1956
1978
1990
2005
43,135
Chester
1974
38,388
Greenacres
1978
55,875
Liberty Lake
1998
2003
60,477
McDonald
1956
1957
1975
2003
46,504
Opportunity
1968
42,388
Ponderosa
1979
51,377
Progress
1953
1957
1989
37,573
South Pines
1950
1974
2005
45,956
Summit
1963
1991
34,823
Sunrise
1980
53,673
University
1956
1966
1976
1994
37,867
Subtotal
594,915
MIDDLE SCHOOLS
Bowdish
1959
1967
1978
1998
1999
74,738
Evergreen
1974
1990
76,075
Greenacres
1958
1979
2004
91,803
Horizon
1982
84,795
North Pines
1948
1952
1960
1980
1992
105,368
Subtotal
432,779
SENIOR HIGH
Central Valley
2002
239,540
UMversity High
2002
239,540
Subtotal
479,080
SUPPORT
CVLTC
1979
1987
149,500
Barker Center
1953
1958
15,375
University Center
1962
1958
1974
1983
1990
159,222
Storage
4,680
Field house -
1890s
7,202
S. 123 Bowdish
?
33,669
Keystone Center
1970
Subtotal
369,648
TOTAL
1,876,422
25
In addition to school facilities, Central Valley School District operates support facilities
as shown in Table 8.
Table 8
CVSD Support Facilities
Location
Size (Sq. Ft)
Use
S. 123 Bowdish
7,202
Storage Buildings (3)
Learning and Teaching
Center, (includes
E. 19307 Cataldo
149,500
Maintenance, Warehouse
and Transportation support
facilities).
Mission & Long
4,600 Est
Two small storage
buildings.
Temporary housing for
students displaced by
University Center
159,222
school remodel projects'
Transportation support
facility; early childhood
education.
Barker Center
15,375
Alternative high school,
earl childhood education.
ESL, SVLA, ECEAP, Native
Keystone Center
33,669
American Program GED,
and Evenstart
Facilities Capacity
Table 9 shows 2005-2006 capacity of each school facility, given currently negotiated
class sizes. Actual capacities of school facilities vary depending on negotiated class
size maximums, and the nature of instructional programs housed at each facility.
26
Table 9
Capacity of CVSD Schools'
Elementary Schools
Capacity
Middle Schools
Capacity
Adams
466
Bowdish
554
BroadwM
379 b
Evergreen
560
Chester
442
Greenacres
587
Greenacres
591
Horizon
590
Liberty Lake
McDonald
Opportunity
650
450
456
North Pines
700
Ponderosa
488
Hi Schools
Capacity
Progress
416
1800 c
South Pines
460
Central Valle
1600 FTE
Summit
436
1800 c
Sunrise
638
University
(1600 FTE)
Universit
488
a Headcount unless otherwise noted
b Facility capacity figure used by the Community Linkages Committee in 2003-04. Two permanent
dassrooms, with a total capacity of 50 students, were added to Broadway in summer 2005. See Table
14.
c 1600 FTE
SPI also calculates school facility capacity. Central Valley School District's recognized
capacity differs from that calculated by SPI because the state calculates school capacity
by dividing gross square footage of buildings by a standard square footage allowance
per student. School districts' assessments of facility capacity are typically less than the
state's because the districts' instructional programs require more space per student
than envisioned by the state. The state's recognized capacity figures are used for
purposes of allocating available state funds for school construction, but are not
considered to be an accurate overall reflection of space actually required to house
27
Table 10
CVSD vs. SPl Area Allowance Per Student
Area Allowance
Per FTE Student
Grade Level
CVSD Program Space
Standards
(S q. Ft.
SPI Area Allowance
(Sq. Ft.)
K
101
90
1-5
101
90
6-8
150
108
9-12
150
130
S ial Education
144 -77~j
Relocateable Facilities.
Portable classroom facilities are used when necessary to house students until the
school district can provide permanent classroom facilities. A typical portable classroom
provides capacity for a full class of students. Central Valley School District, and the
State of Washington, does not regard portable facilities as satisfactory permanent
school housing. Neither the district nor the Sate of Washington includes portable
facilities when calculating permanent capacity of schools. The district has minimized
use of portable facilities.
Central Valley currently owns portable facilities as noted in Table 11.
28
Table 11
CVSD Portable Classrooms
Estimated
Number
Class-
Location
Age
Portable
rooms
Current Use
Years
Buildinas
Greenac res Elementary
40
1
1
Kindergarten
Greenacres Elementary
6
1
2
Kindergarten
Classrooms
Liberty Lake Elementary
6
1
2
Regular Classrooms
North Pines MS
40
1
1
Parent Assisted
Learning Program
University HS
6
1
2
Regular Classrooms
Barker Center
35
3
3
High School Special
Education
Keystone Center
10
1
1
Spokane Valley
Learning Academy
29
VI
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
Facilities and Site Needs
Facilitie
Table 12 compares capacity of Central Valley's permanent school facilities with current
Table 12
Central Valley Schools' Cepachy vs. Enrnlbnent
Facility
Capacity
Prnjeclad EnroMrr~ent
Capacity vs. EnrolYnent
Over/Under Capacity
(Headoount)
2010
Bwldout
2010
Buldout
Adams
466
522
730
56 Over
264 Over
Bmadwa
379
529
556
150 Over
177 Over
Chester
442
366
801
76 Under
159 Over
Greenacr+es
591
734
1478
143 Over
887 Over
Liberty Lake
650
950
1054
300 Over
444 Over
McDonald
450
358
390
92 Under
60 Under
opportwity
456
346
346
110 Under
110 Under
Pondemea
488
339
589
149 Under
101 Over
Progress
416
321
370
95 Under
48 Under
SoLith Pines
460
352
358
106 Under
102 Under
Sunrise
638
553
641
85 Under
3 Over
University
Elements
488
443
448
45 Under
40 Under
ToW `
am
am
4
MOW
Bowdish
554
589
614
35 Over
60 Over
Evergreen
560
630
840
70 Over
280 Over
Greenac ms
MS
587
757
1329
170 Over
742 Over
Horizon
590
462
808
128 Under
218 Over
North Pines
700
551
576
149 Under
124 Under
Oddb
801 T4401
2001
3"M
MOW
Central Valley
HS
1800
1804
2929
4 Over
1129 Over
University HS
1800
2055
2396
255 Over
596 Over
No
:MOO
400a
meow
' Does not Include Summit School. wNh a capacity of 435. Sumnd is a K-8 magnet school and therefore
does not have a specified attendance area. The capacity of Summit School is. however. included in
Table 9.
30
Capacity figures assume that most classrooms are used to house regular students.
Many classrooms are, in fad, used for Special Education or other programs where
student counts are substantially lower than what would be expected in a regular
classroom. School capacity can thus vary from year to year depending on the mix of
regular and special education classrooms. Schools which appear to be under-utilized
may, in fact, be full because available space has been devoted to programs requiring
specialized instruction.
Instnxtional methods and technologies, building codes and numbers of students in
neighborhoods change. There is periodic need to upgrade or change educational
facilities to respond to these program and life safety issues. The State of Washington
recognizes need to improve public school facilities by offering school districts financial
help in modemizing aging buildings. Facilities built before 1993 are eligible for state
financial assistance in modemization once they reach 20 years of age. They are then
eligible for additional state-aided remodel each 20 years thereafter.
Facilities built after January 1, 1993, are usually designed to be more flexible from a
technology standpoint. They are eligible for state assisted remodel once they reach 30
years of age. After their initial state-aided modernization, these newer buildings qualify
for additional sate aided remodels each 30 years as long as they continue to serve K-12
public school students. Table 13 shows modemization status of all Central Valley
31
Eligibility for State aided Moodemization
Modern
isatlons/Ad
dltbes
Next Eligible for
FACILITY
Original
Building
#1
#2
03
05
Stabs
Modemization
ELEMENTARY
Adams
1958
1988
1976
2003
2023
Summit
1963
1991
2011
Broadway
1952
1956
1978
1990
2005
2010 and 2035
Chester
1974
1994
Greenacres
1978
1998
Liberty Lake
1998
2003
2018 & 2033
McDonald
1958
1957
1975
2003
2023 & 2033
Opportunity
1968
1988
Ponderosa
1979
1999
Progress
1953
1957
1989
2009
South Pines
1980
1974
2005
2025 & 2035
Sunrise
1980
2000
University
1956
1988
1978
1994
2014
MIDDLE SCHOOLS
Bowdish
1959
1957
1978
1998
1999
2018 & 2019
Evergreen
1974
1990
1994 & 2010
Greenacres
1968
1979
2004
2024 & 2034
Horizon
1982
2002
North Pines
1948
1952
1980
1980
1992
2012
SENIOR HIGH
Central Valley
University High
2002
2022
2002
2022
SUPPORT
ort facilities
S
CVESC
1979
1987
upp
not primarily used
Barker Center
1953
1958
for K-12
University Center
1962
1968
1974
1983
1990
instruction: They
Keystone Center
1970
are not eligible
storage
for State-aided
Field house -
1890s
remodel.
S. 123 Bowdish
?
Elementary Schools
Table 14 shows that by 2010 additional elementary space will be needed in the
northwest, east central and east parts of the district The district has begun to meet
these needs on a temporary basis by adding two portable classrooms at Greenac res
and Liberty Lake Elementary Schools. The district has met immediate needs in the
northwest part of the district by adding two permanent classrooms to Broadway
Table 14 shows that at buildout, two additional elementary schools will ultimately be
needed to handle K-5 enrollment in the current Greenacrw Elementary attendance
area, and one additional school to handle enrollment in the current Liberty Lake
attendance area to meet enrollment needs identified in this six-year Capital Facilities
Plan.
Central Valley School District proposes to fund one new elementary school to be
constructed in the current Greenwas atterKM oe area with proceeds of March 2006
bonds.
x
at present to build additional elementary school space
Meal, southwest or east areas of the district. Additional
need to be created in each of these areas.
33
Table 14
Addldonal Fac111t1es Needs: Elementary Schools
Area as defined by
Ele
ments Facilities Nee
ded
Current Elementary
Attendance
Boundaries
By 2010
At Buildout °
Estimated 2005
Cost of Permanent
Facilities
Northwest
.12
.29
$2,640,750
Broadway
Progress
Central
0
.47
$5,287,500 °
Adams
Sunrise
McDonald
West Central
0
.48
$5,400,000
Opportunity
South Pines
University
Southwest
0
.57
$6,412,500
Ponderosa
Chester
East Central
_32
1.97
$22,162,500
Greenacres
East
.67
1.01
$11,362,5W 19
LLiberty Lake
' Based on elementaryschool which serves 450 students.
° 45,450 Sq. Ft. facitily size x .29 = 13.050 Sq. FL needed at buildol/t - 2487 Sq. Ft added to Broadway
Elementary In 2005 -10,563 Sq. Ft. remaining used. 10,563 Sq. Ft. x $250.00 estimated October 2005
project cost per square foot of new elementary construction = $2,640,750.
45,450 Sq. Ft fac*ty size x .47 = 21,150 Sq. Ft needed at buildout x $250.00 estimated October 2005
gr+oject cast per Sq. FL = $5,287,500.
45,450 Sq. FL facility size x.4a = 21,600 Sq. FL needed at buldout x $250.00 estimated October 2005
project cost per Sq. Ft = $5.400,000.
45,450 Sq. Ft. facility size x .57 = 25,650 Sq. Ft. needed at buildout x $250.00 estimated October 2005
project cost per Sq. Ft. = $6,412,500.
45,450 Sq. Ft facility size x 1.97 = 88,850 Sq. Ft. needed at buildout x $250.00 estimated October 2005
project cost per Sq. FL = $22,162,500.
1145,450 Sq. FL facility size x 1.01 = 45,450 Sq. Ft. needed at buildout x $250.00 estimated October 2005
project cost per Sq. Ft. = $11,362,500.
34
Middle Schools
Middle school facilities needs are projected to exist within the six-year planning period.
Central Valley has proposed to meet these needs by construction of a new middle
school in Liberty Lake. The new school is to be funded from proceeds of the March
2006 bonds. If middle school enrollment exceeds capacity of Greenacres Middle
School before the new middle school is available, the district's options will be to
temporarily house Greenacres grades 6-9 students in other facilities or add portable
classroom space to Greenacres Middle school.
Table 15 shows that at buildout the district will probably need significant additional
middle school space in the current Horizon and Evergreen attendance areas. To date,
the district has not developed a specific proposal to provide this space. Future updates
of this CFP will include such planning as required.
High Schools
Table 15 shows minimal need for additional high school space in the short term. The
district has located two port" Gassrooms at University High School as a temporary
means of relieving crowding. Enrollment projections to buildout show need for one
additional high school serving IWO grades 9-12 students. The district owns a site for
this facildy at le Avenue and Henry Road. Present long-range capital planning
envisions construction of this facility. We expect that both central Valley and University
High Schools will experience progressively more crowded conditions until this facility is
built. Options for handling this crowding include adding portable classrooms, extending
the school day or housing high school students in space available elsewhere in the
35
Table 15
Addhbnal Fac thIes Needs: Secondary Schools
Sec
ondary Facilities Need
ed'
Area as defined by
Current Secondary
Attendance Areas
By 2010
At Buildout
Estimated 2005
Cost of Permanent
Facilities
Middle Schools
Northwest
0
0
0
Bowdish
North Pines
Southwest
0
.34
$8, 950, 500
Horizon
Central
.11
.43
$11,319,750 c
Evergreen
East
.26
1.14
$30,010,500
Greene res
High Schools
East 2/3rds
0
.63
$42,940,800
CVHS
West 1/3rd
.14
.33
$22,492,800'
University HS
a. Based on Middle Schools which serve 650 and high schools which serve 1800 headcount students.
b. 97,500 Sq. foot facility size x .34 = 33,150 Sq. Ft. needed at buildout x $270.00 estimated October
2005 project cost per Sq. Ft. = $8.950.500.
c. 97,500 Sq. Ft. facility size x.43 = 41,925 Sq_ Ft. needed at build-out x $270.00 estimated October
2005 project cost per Sq. Ft. = $11,319,750.
d. 97,500 Sq. Ft. facility size x 1.14 = 111,150 Sq. Ft. needed at buildout x $270.00 estimated October
2005 project cost per Sq. Ft. = $30,010,500.
e. 240.000 Sq. R. facility size x.63 =151,200 Sq. Ft. needed at buildout x $284.00 estimated October
2005 project cost per Sq. Ft. = $42,940,800.
f. 240,000 Sq. R. facility size x.33 = 79,200 Sq. R. needed at buildout x $284.00 estimated October
2005 project cost per Sq. Ft. = $22,492.800_
36
Site Needs
Based on enrollment projections and considering the district's current reserve sites,
Central Valley School District will need to acquire additional sites as shown by Tables
16 and 17.
Table 16
Addhlonal Site Needs: Elementary Schools
ementary Sites Needed
Elementary School
Attendance Areas
By 2010
At Buildout
Estimated 2005
Cost
Northwest
.12
.29
0
Broadway
Progress
Central
0
.4711
Adams
Sunrise
McDonald
West Central
0
0
0
O uni
South Pines
University
southwest
0
.57
0
Ponderosa
Chester
East Central
.32
1.97
Pending Offer
Greenacres
East
.67
1.01
$711,600
Liberty Lake
Need can be met by District Reserve Site at 3e & Chapman
b Need will be met by District Reserve Site at W & Bates
° District could use 1) additional land at Progress or 2) Summit School site
One site purchased (Mission & Long). Purchase agreement for second site (Mission 3 Holl) in hand.
Estimated value of Mission & Hop site = :630,000. tt is anticipated that actual cost to district of this
property will be $275,000.00 with the balance of value being offset by school impact fees.
Twelve acres x $59,300.00. Estimated October 2005 land cost per acre = $711,600
37
It appears that there will be no need for additional elementary sites in the West Central
part of the district.
Central Valley School District's existing reserve sites should meet elementary site
needs to buildout in the Central and Southwest parts of the district.
The district has acquired one elementary site, (Long and Mission) in the present
Greenacres Elementary School attendance area. The district is in the process of
acquiring a second elementary site, Mission and Holl, also within the current
Greenacres Elementary attendance area. The dislgriCt has no immediate opportunity to
acquire the needed site in the Liberty Lake attendance area. Liberty Lake Elementary
students in excess of Liberty Lake Elementary's capacity may attend the new
elementary school proposed for March 2006 bond funding
Central Valley School District has no i
elementary school sites in the north vA
acres immediately west of Surr rtnit Sd
adacent to and south of the ProWess
to acquire additional
The district owns two+
two undeveloped acres
school site.
38
Table 97
Additional Site Needs: Secondary Schools
Current Secondary School
Sec
orxlary Sites Nee
ded
Attendance Areas
8 2010
At Buildout
Estimated Cost
Middle Schools
Northwest
0
0
0
Bowdish
North Pines
Southwest
0
.34
0 d
Horizon
Central
.11
.43 "
0
Evergreen
East
.26
1.14 b
0
Greenacres
Hi School
East 213rds
0
.63 c
0
Central Valley HS
West 1/3rd
.14
University HS
.33 c
0
a. Need can be met by District Reserve Site at 3e & Chapman.
b. Need can be met by District's Homestead Reserve Site at Liberty Lake.
c. Need may be met by District Reserve Site at 16b" & Henry.
d. Anticipate that need can be met via 1) ftwdble use of the Chester-Horizon-U-High site, 2) redistricting
attendance boundaries or 3) making use of the district's University Center Site.
The school district anticipates no need for additional middle school sites in the current
Bowdish and North Pines attendance areas.
Middle School site needs in the Central and East parts of the district can probably be
met by existing district reserve sites.
The district has no immediate plans to meet anticipated middle school site needs in the
Horizon attendance area. Long-term options to meet this need could include using the
district's University Center (90 & Herald) property or adjusting boundaries so capacity
39
for some Horizon students is indirectly a~eated by use of the reserve middle school site
at 3e & Chapman.
CVSD FACILITIES NEEDS
Table 18 shows cost of additional buildings and sites which, according to current
projections, will be needed when residential land currently within the urban growth
boundaries, and the current urban reserve area, is developed to the full capacity
currently envisioned under the Spokane County Urban Growth boundaries.
Table !8
Estimated Current Cost of Additional
Permanent Facility and Site Needs at Buildout
Geographic
Estimated Cost
(October 2005)
Area
Elementary
Middle
HS
Northwest
$2,640,750
Central
$5,287,500
West central
$5,400,000
East Central
$22,792,500
Southwest
$6,412,500
$8,950,500
Central
$11,319,750
East
$12,074,100
$30,010,500
East 213rds
$42,940,800
West 1/3rd
$22,492,800
Subtotal
$54,607,350
$50,280,750
$65,433,600
Total
$170,321,700
40
Financial Plan
School sites and facilities can be acquired by either of a public school district's two main
funds, the Maintenance and Operation (M&O) fund or the Capital Projects Fund. Since
M&O monies are typically needed to support school districts' staff, supplies and
operation costs, school districts usually rely almost exclusively on their Capital Projects
Funds to acquire sites and school buildings.
The main source of income for most Washington State school districts' Capital Projects
Funds is proceeds of bonds approved by patrons of the respective districts. A
secondary source of Capital Projects Fund income is state aid money that flows to
school districts as they complete construction or modernization projects which qualify
for state financial assistance. Other sources of capital projects income can include
interest on monies within the Capital Projects Fund arid, in some cases, school impact
fees.
In line with recommendations c
represented the Central Valley
capital plans which address an
support the collection of school
anticipated needs over the nex
f recent capital panning committees, whose membership
community, Central Valley School District has prepared
icipated needs for the next thirteen years. In addition, to
impact fees, the district has specifically addressed
years.
Short Term
Central Valley School District plans to offer a bond proposal in March 2006. This $55.2
million proposal, together with follow-0n state financial help, is slated to meet the
following immediate facilities needs.
41
Table 19
March 2000 Bond Proposal Moor Projects
Pham
Project
Estimated Cost
Scheduleos
Total
Aimed `
Local
Start
End
New elementary school -
$11,700,000
0
$11,700,000
Julyd
2006
July
2007 d
East
Remodel Opportunity
8,800,000
$2,712,800
3,887,400
June
2007
June
2008
Remodel Ponderosa
6,800,000
3,534.800
$5,085,400
July
2007
July
2008
1
New Middle School -
Liberty Lake
20,400,000
0
20,400,000
April
2008
June
2009
Greenneecres Elementary
7,900,000
3,248,900
4,853.100
J2008
July
2009
Total
$55,200,000
$9,494,100
$45,705,900
March 2005 Figures. WE need to be adjusted to projects' respective 'bid' dates
Assumes March 2008 bond approval.
° Assumes historical 41.1% of'projed budget' state match on eligible projects. Numbers are probably
conservative except for new high school project.
d Assumes site is ready for constnwOon to begin (utilities available, zoning appropriate, eta)
In addition to Major Projects identified in Phase I of CVSD's Capital Plan. The following
worts is envisioned:
Cooling and Technology Upgrades:
Parking Improvements:
Technology Infrastructure:
Broadway Elementary
Progress Elementary
Summit School
University Elementary
University Elementary
Chester Elementary
Sunrise Elementary
42
These projects are to be funded by interest earnings on money in the Capital Projects
Fund and by state-aid reimbursements from state-aided remodel projects. Appendix C
gives more detailed information about the March 2006 bond proposal.
Figure 7 shows tax rates required to service Central Valley School District's current
bond debt. These rates, slightly less than $2.04 per $1000 of assessed valuation, are
similar to Spokane School District's bond debt repayment obligations, and substantially
less than those being experienced in Mead School District (Table 20). CVSD's rates
required to retire current bond debt are expected to remain relatively constant through
2018. They assume that the district's overall assessed valuation will increase by four
percent per year.
Table 20
Local Area Tax Rates
2005 Calendar Year
School District
Total Tax Rate
Md0 Levy
Bonds
Capital Levy
West Valley
7.44848
4.50194
2.51423
0.43231
Mead
7.00688
3.73312
3.27276
Nine Mile
6.03891
3.67847
2.36044
Spokane
5.78293
3.81543
1.96751
Froeman
5.77953
3.89819
1.40736
0.47398
East Valley
5.63481
3.48674
2.14806
Central Valley
5.63131
3.59288
2.03843
Cheney
4.89182
3.30938
1.58244
Deer park
4.52643
2.47408
2.05235
Medkel Lake
4.37031
1.57669
2.79462
Riverside
4.09827
2.50794
1.59033
43
Figure 7
Tax Rates
Outstanding Bonds
$,4.00
$3.60
$3.00
$2.60
$2.00
$1.60
$1.00
$050
$0.00
2006 2007 20011 :009 2010 .2411 ~'012 2Q10 2018 2018 201/ M 19 2014 ?020 2021 2022 ?0;/3 2014 2026 20:'% 10'7
t0
C
'd
Tax rates required to service existing bond debt, plus the additional $.60 per $1000
required to service bond debt associated with the proposed $55.2 Million March 2006
bond proposal, are illustrated in Figure 8. These figures also assume a four percent
annual increase in the school district's assessed valuation. Bond debt associated with
the March 2006 bond proposal is scheduled to be retired in 2026-
45
Tax Rates
Outstanding/Proposed Bonds - $55,200,000
$30,000,000 - initial sale, $25,200,000 - two years
Additional 5.60/1.000
54.00
i
i
53.51
i S2, 5c SI 004
BXistn; Bands '--proposed Bonds
5100 000 ncmt - S6CYyear 55 00 ffX"h
hor mo - $90!yenr. $7 3QFmnntn ,
ms w m 2n vc 2a, TI: I-TI 2714 vs V4 14' ?01d 2I"!' 23 = 2C.''' 2711 w Im 23 w 30
Central Valley School District serves these governmental jurisdictions - the City of
Spokane Valley, the City of Liberty Lake, and portions of unincorporated Spokane
County.
• The district, and school space within the district, is considered as a whole by its
patrons and by SPI.
• Two of these jurisdictions, the cities, were recently created. Their boundaries,
and consequently unincorporated county area withi64thi?.district, are subject to
change.
• School attendance areas cross boundahesiof governmental`jurisdictions.
• Enrollment realities may dictate that studerts living in one governmental
jurisdiction be transported to a school``inanother jurisdiction.
For these reasons, Central Valley Sct ool District, when-requesting school impact fees,
asks each of the three jurisdictions to impose'6nd,collect"iinpact fees according to a
common districtwide fee schedule. Thd`district,,' grtikes that any school impact fees
collected must be invested in`ddditional tM66"'llacilities within a limited period of time.
Further, such feesJmust be invested in waysrwhich directly benefit students residing in
homes from which ff &fees are ollected.
Long Term
Certain site aJacilities r eds are identified above (Tables 16, 17 and 18) as being
needed by Nbuitdi6ut;Tf~ekse needs may change if Spokane County amends its current
Urban Growth Boundaries and/or the current land capacity analysis. In addition to
these identified items, district facilities will continue to need modernization as
instructional programs change and as the facilities age. Speck funding for these
projects has not been identified. Table 21 shows major facility work envisioned beyond
2010. Assuming present school funding options continue, these projects, together with
future site acquisition, may rely on approval of future bonds.
47
Table 2'1
CVSD Long Range Capital Plan: Phases 2 and 3
Phase
Project
Estimated Cost a
Total
Stat
d b
Ai
id
Local
New Elementary - East
$11,700,000
0
$11,700,000
Remodel Evergreen MS
12,800,000
$5,260,800
7,539,200
2
Plan and Design Td High School
1,400,000
0
1,400,000
Total
$25,900,000
$5,260,800
$20,639,200
Replace North Pines MS
17,300,000
$7,110,300
10,189,700
3
Build 3`d High School
$59,600,000
$24,495,600
$35,104,400
Total
$76,900,000
$31,605,900
$45,294,100
a. March 2005 Figures. Will need to be adjusted to projects' respective "bid" dates
b. Assumes historical 41.1% of "project budget' State match on eligible projects. State aid numbers are probably
conservative except for new high school project
48
VII
PROPOSED SCHOOL IMPACT FEES
Calculation Criteria
School impact fees can be assessed and collected by GtMA Planning jurisdictions on
behalf of school districts to offset the costs of providing school capacity necessary to
serve new growth. This section discusses the criteria for.catculating school impact fees.
1. Site Acquisition Cost Element
Site Size. The site size gives the optimum acreage for east:school type based on
studies of existing school sties. Central Valley School•District typically requires at least
12 acres for an elementary school;" 2.0,125, acres for a~middle school; and 50 acres or
more for a high school. Actual schooizsites"maywary in size,depending on land
availability, topography and availability'-df adjacent~public facilities such as parks.
ni
Average Land Cost per Acre: TNe cost per'cre is based on recent land purchases and
on recent appraisal's,,. The Central.Valley School District estimates its 2005 land costs to
be $59,300;per acre.
Facility Design Capacity _Facility-design capacities reflect the district's optimum number
of stud6a s-, each school type is designated to accommodate. These figures are based
N..; lKra S 1
on district eicpenence and oammunity input. Central Valley School District recognizes
5: = ~a
optimal size of e.Iementary-schools to be 450, new middle schools to be up to 750
students and new Figf3,schools 1800 (headcount) students. In areas of rapid growth
and limited site availability, the district builds elementary schools to house 600 students.
Student Factor: The student factor (or student generation rate) is the average number
of students generated by each housing type - single-family detached dwellings and
multiple-family dwellings permitted within Central Valley School district during the past
49
five years. A description of methodology for calculating student generation rates is
contained in Appendix E.
Student generation rates for Central Valley School District are shown in Table 22.
Table 22
Student Generation Rates
Elementary
Middle School
Senior High
Single Family
.472
.122
.124
Multiple family
.071
.029
.042
These data show that families moving into new single family housing within Central
Valley School District have relatively few children of middle or high school age. This
pattem appears to be typical of Washington state school districts similar to Central
Valley.
2. School Construction Cost Variables
New Square Footage Required Through Buildout: This number is taken from Tables 14
and 15. It is for informational purposes only. It is not a number used in the calculation
of impact fees proposed for 2005-06 through 2010-2011.
Facility Design Capacity: Elementary Schools - 450; Middle Schools - 650; High
Schools = 1800 (headcount).
Current Facility Square Footage: These numbers are taken from Table 7. They are
used in combination with 'Existing Portables Square Footage" (Table 24) to apportion
impact fee amounts between permanent and temporary capacity figures.
50
Estimated Facility Construction Cost: The estimated facility construction cost is based
on September 2005 cost estimates. Cost estimates were provided by ALSC Architects
and Northwest Architectural Company, Spokane firms specializing in design of public
school facilities. The facility cost is the total cost for new construction projects. Cost for
modernization of existing facilities is not included because modernization does not
typically increase student capacity.
Facility construction costs also include the off-site development costs. Costs vary with
each site and may include such items as sewer line extensions *ater lines, off-site road
and frontage improvements. Off-site developmentcosts are not eligible for State
construction assistance.
3. Relocatable Facilities Cost Element:
Impact fees may be collected to allow`acquisition of portables to help relieve capacity
deficiencies on a temporary, basis. Costs, allocated-,td.,new development must be growth
related and must be in:,Proportion.to the &Arent'permanent vs. temporary space
allocation by the district.
Existing Units; ,This is the',,total' number*of:existing portables in use by the district as
reportedin°Table
'vv '~Gi:i '`r
Cost P&c Unit: This is theaaverage'cost to purchase and set up a portable classroom. It
.
includes site?preparation, but does not include furnishing the unit.
4. State Match Credit Variables
Area Cost Allowance: This number is used by OSPI as a guideline for determining a
school district's eligibility for sate financial help in new school construction. This figure
is adjusted annually for inflation. The July 2006 Area Cost Allowance will be $154.22.
51
State Match Percentage: The state match percentage is the proportion of funds that are
provided to the school districts, for specific capital projects, from the state's Common
School Construction Fund. These funds are disbursed based on a formula which
calculates the district assessed valuation per pupil relative to the whole state assessed
valuation per pupil to establish the percentage of the total project to be paid by the
state.
If a project were eligible for state matching funds, Central Valley School District would
currently receive basic project reimbursement on a state M'atci in-g,.,-ratio of 67.84 percent
of eligible project costs. This district match ratio canjchange annually,'-depending on the
district's assessed valuation per student as compared to the average assessed
valuation per student in Washington State. Recent district- listory is that the :actual
match percentage has been about 41 percent oftotalipibject costs.
Interest Rate (20-year GO Bond): TF isAs th6 interest ratefof.return on a 20-year
General Obligation Bond and is derived4rom the.t and buyet index. The current
assumed interest rateis46"percent.
Levy Rate (in mils): `The capita;coristruction leiry rate is determined by dividing the
district's average.capital<property tax rate,byorie thousand. The current levy rate for
002038434.
Time Rem"ing on Bonds: This is the average amount of time remaining on Capital
Projects/General Obligation Bonds issued by the district. The average time remaining
on bonds is assumedto be 10 years for purposes of calculating this credit. Central
Valley School District, in fact, has fourteen years remaining on current bond debt
(Figure 7).
52
CVSD #356 Proposed School District Impact Fee Schedule
Requested 2005-2011 school impact fees are calculated based on numbers of school
aged children generated by new homes within Central Valley School District and by
"capacity projects" - those which are designed to increase capacity of the district to
house students. Most anticipated capital work within the time frame of this plan is not
intended to increase overall capacity.
Of Phase 1 capital projects, only the new elementary and middle schools are slated to
increase the district's capacity. Published capacity figures show that the district should
have capacity within its current elementary schools to house anticipated elementary
school students through the 2010-2011 school year. As such, the elementary costs are
not included in the fee formula.
The comparatively modest impact fee suggested for new single-family homes within
Central Valley is based on the proposed middle school and on the possibility that the
district may need at least one additional duplex portable classroom building at each of
the three grade levels. The middle school is the sole capacity project needed to house
projected students who cannot be served in middle school space which already exists in
the district.
The very small number of secondary students residing in multi-family housing, together
with anticipated school taxes from these units, result in zero potential for impact fees
from this type of housing through 2010-2011.
Based on calculations shown in Appendix F, potential school impact fees for 2005-06
through 2010-11 for Central Valley School District are shown in Table 23.
53
Table 23
Potential CVSD School Impact Fees for-2005-06 through 2010-11
Housing Type
Impact Fee
Single Family
$1659
Multi-Family
0
Proposed CVSD School Impact Fees: 2005-06 through 2010-11
Central Valley School District discounts the current potential maximum school impact
fees by 15 percent. Table 24 shows proposed school impact fees through 2010-2011.
Table 24
Proposed CVSD School Impact Fees: 2003-06 through 2010-11
Housing Type
Impact Fee
Single Family
$1410
Multi-Family .
0
The school district proposes that manufactured homes intended for occupancy by one
family be considered to be single family housing.
The school district proposes that federally designated °low income" housing, and
housing designed for seniors where continuing covenants preclude residents of public
school age, be exempted from school impact fees. These exemptions, however, are
dependent on the adopted school impact fee ordinance of the relevant local jurisdiction.
54
Table 25
Impact Fee Variables - Central Valley School District
Criteria
Elementary
Middle
High
Site Acquisition Cost Element
Site Needs (acres) to 2010
12
0
0
Cost Per Acre
$59,300
$59,300
$59,300
Facility Design Capacity Headcount
450
650
1800
Student Factor
Single Family (including manufactured home
.472
.122
.124
Mufti-Family 1 Bdrm'
.071
.029
.042
Multi-Family 2 Bdrm'
School Construction Cost Element, 2005-2010
Facility Design Capacity
450
650
1800
Facility Cost
$20,400,000
Estimated Facility Construction Cost ($/Sq. Ft.) a
$250
$270
$284
Relocatable Feci/flies Cost Element
Existing Retocatable Classrooms
6
1
5
New Facilities Planned Through, 2010-11
1
1
1
New Facilities Cost r'Classroom
$70,000
$70,000
$70,000
Relocatable Facility Cost through 2010
$0
$0
$0
Relocatable facilities Capacity /Classrooms
25
25
25
Total new Relocatable Facilities Capacity
through 2010
50
50
50
Existing Portable Square Footage, Estimated
5500
900
4500
State Match Credit
Area Cost Allowance, Jul 2006
$154.22
$154.22
$154.22
School Space r Student. OSPI (S q. Ft.)
90
108
140
Expected State Match:
0%
Tax Payment Credit
Interest Rate
4.6%
4.6%
4.6%
Loan Payoff ears Assumed
10
10
10
Property Tax Levy Rate
.002038434
.002038434
.002038434
a October 2005 cost. Estimated annual inflation to bid dates = 6.25 percent.
55
~Y~fi•
Appen'ix A
Central Valley Sch=ool District Strategic Plan
ii
't•.
The 1997-98 school year m:nked the and of Central Milky Sclsool District's first Strategic
Plan Phase I and the beginning of mar wcs»td lrntg Lunge plan. $traregir Plan 11: Focus
on Learning will provide diroetice for the district into the 21" Century.
Much success can be attributed to our first Strategic Plum. Some outstanding aecomplislunwis ere:
• locre sed stuthent xadcmic achievcmcm as
meautred by national Aandardimd os5essmcnis.
piers achievcrueal galas were sustained over
Use Ina fwt years and ewtince today_
• Successful passage of school tamstniction bonds
alluwcd the district to cnmpletely remodel
Bowdish Junior High, build the new Liberty
Lake Blenutilary SCluKt, and begin the pmeass
of rebuilt ing Univeishy attd CcrAml Valley
Hyrh Schoots.
Fulfillment of a district wide theme focusing
on 'Respect" and the detrloprnent of a Safe
Sch -%pmgmm.
• Snowiful acquisition of funding far four sl:tae
technology grants have Provided schools
with in_ernet anoetu, coutputeis for writing
pmgrami, and the establishment of a
tochnoh,gy training cemer.
• Implemcmation and allgoment of new
nnletiah uod instruction with the Wasibb ton
State Rw;entiul Leanings.
A %f ace STnnky
surr,rnv arr.,t
1-he Centrd Valley School District Sfmlegir Plan 11: A Focus on LeaminS will concentrate on seven grwls,'Ila:ve goals will provide
direction for the district into the 21" Century. Each school will develop annual action plans arrwnd the goals with progress reported to
district patrons each year.
Strategic Plan: Focus on Learning
✓ Student Learning
• Students will meet, or exceed, local and state
academic standards while being supported to
maximize their putential.
• Student learning will be etdmaced through the
use of technology.
• Students and staff will show respect, effort and
self-discipline.
• Instructional activities will pmmnic community
responsibility and a commitment to our enviiunntem.
17 oale
✓ Pamnt6, Community, Bu--:~int;rqo
• Schools, families. and community will collaborate to
form cfTective partnerships.
• Oppxxitmities will bts provided for students to Icnm about
and apply undeNnudings of diverso peoples and cultures.
✓ 5tudent and Staff 5afety
• The district will provide and maintain high quality
facilities, which ertsure a safe, secure, and effective
learning environment.
-1-VIG
j~owm
ywvotjo
We will ensure opportunities for successful
learning according to each student's needs
and abilities. This will be achieved through a
partnership of students, families, schools,
businesses, and government by,%ctting high
expectations, fostering self-discipline, respect,
responsibility, and promoting life-long learning
Beliefs
• Snnlents and staff need to be field to high waaf.7rds of learning.
• Rcgxa. cffnn, self-disripline, nod a p?sitNe, anitude tuft
imperaiiex to karoiug and lift.
A.safe envinnuoraa Is p1 mnolust to leamleg.
• Children Icnrn in diverse sanyx.
Patents we then child's liBL farcnuata. and most infloenlinl fewlem
• Child= nral to develop stramg masmang and thinking ski0s.
Hal a ino is a shared a espnluilldlty ana nlg sthLrds family
rind cortatrain ty.
• Le-knaing is a life-long process.
h is isaporinla for puollt to be able to panitilxlre sncially and
ctnmamically in a glinixd and divasc sik" arty,
• A srriety of career and lire gamis mutt be valued and
supported.
All peuple, cul*.utcs, and individual differrrnxs are of salae.
• Each iodividwl has an environmental znd community
respomibility.
A meooage from the Board of Directors:
Strategic planning begin in the Central Valley School District in the fall of 1993 when the first five year plan was
implemented. Strategic Plan I served as a "road map" to guide district and school educational decisions. As it result,
significant prtrgress has beets made in achieving goals centered on student achievement, communications,
community partnerships, and facilities,
In the fall of 1998, the second phase of the district's strategic planning was set in placc..Srraregic Flan II, "Foots
on Learning," was adopted by the school board after nearly a year of study, dialogue, and input by parents, coniniunity
members, and staff. Strategic Plan IT will guide goal setting and direction for our school district over the next seven years.
As a result, we expect that our schools and community will continue to
improve the. learning environment, achieve high standards, and ensure
that all students have the opportunity to reach their potential. Mm
We extend our appreciation to the numerous dedicated community
members who gave their time to the development of this plan and
to educational excellence in our schools.
cmlrol ttattq se)-at Destrto
10,107 F. r =a A, • Gwaemrs, WA 04016
(500) M -6M • iSap.-,W-icvrda z
FAN. (109.1421-M-2
71,r Camr~d wfiry•schaof blaartl ly LlSvran frdr axlraJ
(b7Y Nisnihaa Crdj MM1aa4a XuY gryalr. Gar? Lame d CrJ,r hSaL r.
pend
980 - 2005
59
Appendix B
CVSD Major Capital Work: 1980 - 2005
Date
School
Work
1980
Bowdish
Add 2" Gym
1980
Sunrise
New School
1980
North Pines
Partial Remodel; add 2 Gym,add Media Center
1982
Horizon
New School
1983
UHS
Field Event Restroom and Stotage Facility
1984
CVHS
Original Building;,y i
Add 2" Gym toe~. _.L.
1985
LTC
Purchase PresTent`Facility; Minor Remodel.
1989
Progress
Full Remodel.,-
1990
Broadway
Full Remodel'<
1990
Evergreen
Add 2" Gym
1990
UHS
Add,2<... Gym to Original Building.
1990
Opportunity
Energy Conservation uPguades
1990
South Pines
Energy Consevation upgrades
1990
Adams
Energy"-Co wpg
1990
McDonald
4Energy C,onservation upgrades
1991
Summit ~ '
tfull Remodel;.
1992
North Pines
`Partial"Remodel, Air conditioning energy conservation
u grades ` .
1994,.
niversity°Elementary;✓,
Full Remodel
1998°;
, Liberty Lake
;New School
1998`'
<8owdish
Remodel all but 2" Gym
1999
BbWdish
Remodel 2" Gym
2002
CVHS ;rfr
New School
2002
UHS
New School
2003
Adams
Full Remodel
2003
Liberty Lake
Two Classroom Addition
2003
McDonald
Full Remodel
2004
Greenacres Middle
Full Remodel
2005
South Pines
Full Remodel
2005
Broadway
Add two classrooms
60
Appendix C
March 2006 Bond: <<'ProposVed
.~,y•y~ jam, _ ~~n`$~~~~~` .i, T,~•. .
Projects
61
About the Proposed Projects
Major Projects - Five Schools:
The proposed $55.2 million bond would fund five major construction projects to address
facilities needs for the next four years.
Opportunity Elementary - opened 1968
Located in the heart of the Spokane Valley,,;Opportunity Elementary is home to more
than 400 students and also serves gifted students from.all .district elementary schools
~Lv:.
and several private schools through_the weekly Atle`Learners Program. The building's
infrastructure is 37 years old. The prdposed•$6.6 million remodel will be similar to the
full remodels recently completed at Adams, McDonald and=_South Pines Elementary
Schools.
Ponderosa Elementary- opened 1979
Tucked into ht .-southwestem comer of Central Valley, Ponderosa Elementary houses
about.330 students1h,"a,neighborhood experiencing a renewal of young families.
Ponderosa Elementary'was builFu5rtg the once-popular "open space" concept, which
no longersupports today ${instructional programs. The proposed $8.6 million remodel
•s7. Jti'i v
will be similar,tofthe full remodels recently completed at Adams, McDonald and South
Pines Elementary Schools.
Greenacres Elementary- opened 1978
Located in the eastern part of Central Valley, Greenacres Elementary currently serves
about 540 students in crowded conditions, in an area of the Valley that is seeing rapid
residential growth. The school was built using the "open space" concept. Popular at
63
the time, this concept no longer supports today's instructional programs. The proposed
$7.9 million remodel will be similar to the full remodels recently completed at Adams,
McDonald and South Pines Elementary Schools.
New Elementary School
Rapid residential growth in the eastern part of the Central Valley'School District is
._y.
putting extreme stress on the capacity of Greenacres Elementary and Liberty Lake
Elementary to accommodate increasing enrollment. Projeat'ians show continued growth
as open areas are transformed into residential neighborhoods. Thie proposed bond
would fund the $11.7 million construction of a new)6lementary schooltin;.the current
Greenacres attendance area, serving the nottf eastern part of the district.'_'To reduce
costs and speed construction, the design used:f6r,-Liberr-t y,:Lake Elementary would be
replicated for the new elementary school. The new. school would relieve crowding and
serve current and future children living h: the,rnortheasfeFn,part of the district.
New Middle School
Enrollment at Greenacres Middle~School, thO,o, ly middle school serving the rapidly
growing eastern part`of Cent~r~ }i~,]~Vall6y. School Distnct is expected to exceed the school's
capacity.;4yf2008 ,'The proposed bond would"fund the $20.4 million construction of a
new.m ddle school on.,a site inbberty Lake owned by the district for more than 20
ti.-
years'. The new school lkbuld sd" - ,current and future children living in the far eastern
• a,c.
part of ttieJdi$trict and stem;overcrowding at Greenacres Middle School.
Other Projects - Six Schools:
Broadway Elementary
Install cooling system.
1Upgrade technology
64
Chester Elementary
• Improve infrastructure supporting technology for leaming and teaching.
• Upgrade equipment including computers, video and phone systems.
Progress Elementary
• Install cooling system
• Upgrade technology
Summit School
• Innovative "choice" school serves students in;grades K- frdm.~a)I parts of Central
Valley with student-centered curriculum.;':;`.'"
• Install cooling system
Upgrade technology.
Sunrise Elementary
• Improve infrastructure supporting.;technology for,learnin'g and teaching.
• Upgrade equipm6nt'mduding computers, video ai 6 phone.
ac..~: 'f^ dUniversity Elementary
`k:,
student safety
65
4
Appendix"
t.
y - '
Financial Aid'for
\Vs ` ital Pro"ects
VSD C,ap ~
66
Appendix D
CVSD Historical
Percentage State Financial Aid
In Eligible Capital Projects
Project
Completed
Total
Project Budget
State Aid
Percent
State Aid
CV High School
Mid 2002
$41,087,209
$11,548,696
28.1
U-High
Mid 2002
40,660,233
11,683,228
28.7
Adams
Mid 2003
5,957,000
2,644,681
44.7
McDonald
Mid 2003
6,261,000
2,167,478
34.6
Greenacres MS
Mid 2004
10,555,000
6,009,589
56.9
South Pines
Mid 2005
6,282,000
3,354,850 est.
53.4 est.
Average
41.1
67
CVSD Student
Akppendix~.
Geni6*gtion •Rates. .
Calculation
68
2005 Central Valley School District Student Generation Rates
Combined SGR
SINGLE FAMILY
# of
students
SGR
Elementary K through 5 883
0.472 = b
Middle School - 6 through 8 228
0.122=:" "
High School - 9 through 12 232
0.124Y_``,.
Total 1343
0:718
MULTIPLE FAMILY
# of
students
SGRr-s
Elementary - K through 5 22
- 0:071
Middle School - 6 through 8 9
;'0.029
High School - 9 through 12 13 *
06042
Total 44
0.1421-
, t
.w-
Y
J
SF
MF
Combined
Combined
'
Grade.',
#
#
YK
402
4
105
i r" i E~ :
2
113
8
'77*
3
88
2
4
95
5
80
0
a
c
6
76
t
: ,
79
1
8
73
4
v
69
6
x'
10
48
3
,rs
11
72
4
12
43
0
Total
1343
44
Total
Units
1870
310
69
i
i
Grade
1
2
4
5
6
7Q
4
10
11
12
Total
Total
Units
9
V
11
12
Total
Total
Units
Single Family
Condos
F (11)
MH (18) (14)
Total
402
0
402
104
1
105
108
5
113
E6
2
88
93
1 1
5
7
0 1
80
72
1 5.; 76
77
2 .4..+-
79
71
1,.
68
4
69
72
43
y5 F
4
1320
v S'{
8
1343
1793
"-3'1.,-
1870
.
5:,.c:.: kk ti.v_
ort
Multip~ :Family
4
1
4
6
2
3
5
282
1
1
9
8
Total
5
4
8
r
G
0
4
.
1
4
6
3
4
0
0 44
310
70
CENTRAL VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT
Residential
144
45251.0909
2311 S STARLIGHT
14 Dwelling _2003 2006 ;
144
45291.2201
17TH
9919 E
LN #201
14 Dwelling 2002 2006
144
-
45291.2202
_
9919 E 17TH
LN #202
14 v Dwelling 2002 - 2006
144
45291.2203
9919 E 17TH
LN 0203
14 ,~.~bweliing , 2002 ' 2006
144
. 45291.2204 '
9919 E 17TH
LN #204
-
14[)welling 2002 2006
144
45291.2205
9919 E 17TH
W #205
-
~1 14 Dweo[ng : 2002 : 2006
144
45291.2206
9919 E 17TH
W #206
_
i ; 14 ciDv elnmg ; 2002 2006
144'
45291 2207
- 9925 E 17TH
LN #401
14 --oweiling~ 2002 20_0_6
1_44-
14 - Dw Nin_9ti: 2002 2006 i
-45291.2208_- 9925 E17TH LN #402'f -
-
l
~
14
4
' 45291.2209
E ! 17TH
9925
_
ing: v-2002 2006
' 14 _ Dwel
_LN #403T'
_
144 T
45291.2210-- 9925E 17TH
Mit #404
: 14 _Dwelling ,''2002 . 2006
144
2211
45291
9925. E , 17TH
LN, t_#405
Dwelling . 2002.x. 2006
; 14
144
T _
.
- 452912212 , 9925 ~E ' 17TH
W #406
14 : DweOing 2002•• 2006
144
45243.3202 `
16221 E 9TH
W
: 14 ' Dwelling ; 2003 y 2006
144
45243.3303
16224 E 9TH
W
- 14Dweging ' 2004 , 2006
144
.
45245.3304
16304 E 9TH j LN
14 Dweying~2004 :2006
144 45245 3203
16305 E 9TH
1 LN
N' 14 Dwelling .2003 _ 2006
144 45244.3204 16311 - E ` 9TH
Dweilin~ 2003 _ 2006
1400
45251.1901
17005 ' E ~110ORNINGSI6~-' LN
=i~~ 4 14 Dwelling _ 20032006
1480
55305.1602
17205:r'E-~!MORNINGSIDE iW , '
14 Dweying _2003 2006
',tb•
L`v
Y, l
_
ArM
r
-
Ylr
71
=~rca
1 ~
Ap Pe n d i x `O',~-•4..
CVSD Impact Feea`CaIc lation
:~~,b^~~ ~`~t,-iii
72
School Impact Fee Calculation Central Valley School District
School Site Acquisition Cost:
((AcresxCost per Acre)/Facility Capacity)xStudent Generation Factor
Student Student
Facility Cost/ Facility Factor Faclor
Cost/
Cost/
Acreage Acre Capacity SFR MFR
SFR
MFR
Elementary 0.00 $0 450 0.472 0.071
$0
$0
Middle 22.00 $59,300 650 0.122 0.029
$245
$58
Sr. High 0.00 $0 1,800 0.124 0.042
$0
$0
TOTAL
$245
58
School Construction Cost:
((Facility Cost/Facility Capacity)xSiudent Generation Factor)x(permonent!(ot61 Sq Ft)
Student Student
%Perm/ Facility Facility Factor Factor
Cost/
Cost/
Total Sq.Ft. Cost Capacity SFR MFR
SFR
MFR
Elementary 98.50% $0 450 0.472 0.071
Y $0
$0
Middle 98.507 $20,400,000 650 0:1.22 0.029
$3,771
$897
Sr. High 98.50% $0 1,800 0A 24 0.042
0
0
TOTAL
``•$3;771
$897
Temporary Facility Cost:
((Facility Cost/Facifity Capacity)xStudent Generation Fact6j)x(Tempo~6ry/Total
Square Feet)
Student..: ' Student
Cost/
Cost/
%Temp/ Faci'l'ity Facility Factor Factor
SFR
MFR
Total Sq.Ft. Cost Srce, : SFR ::7-MFR
Elementary 1.50% $140,000 50':, 0.472 0.071
$20
$3
Middle 1.50% $140,000 50 -:.:-0.1122 0.029
$5
$1
Sr. High 1.50% $140,000 ;-50 4240:042
$5 $2
0 6
TOTAL
State Matching credit:
'
'
fX.Student Factor
%
Boeckh Index X SPI Squdr 'Footage X Ddtnct Match
.y. Student Student
Boecldi ;SPI , District Factor Factor
Cost/
Cost/
Index hootage Match 96 -:SFR' ' MFR
SFR
MFR
Elementary „<'•",<_' 00 90 67.84%1.-"' 0.472 0.071
$0
$0
08 67.84% 0.122 0.029
Middle
1;' .9:
$0
$0
h
Sr. High" f< 30 67.84% 0.108 0.042
$0
$0
TOTAL
so
T
so
Taw Credit-
SFR
MFR
Average Assessed Value
Capital Bond Interest Rate,
Net Present Valuer.&Average'Qwelliing
Years Amortized
Property Tax Levy Rate
Present Vatiic of Revenue Stream
Fee Summary:
Site Acquistion Costs
Permanent Facility Cost
Temporary Facility Cost
State Match Credit
Tax Payment Credit
FEE
$148,730
$60,000
4.60%
4.60%
$1,171,094
$472,437
10
10
$2.0384
$2.0384
$2.387 $963
Single
Multiple
family
family
$244.86
$58.21
$3,771.49
$896.50
$30.16
$5.96
$0.00
$0.00
($2,387.19)
($963.03)
$1,659
($2)
73
School Impact Fees
City, County, School District
Single Family Unit Multi-Family Unit
Battle Ground WA
$3,000
$1,000
Camas, WA (3 Districts
-
Camas
$4,000
$2,156
Ever reen
$3,540
$2,280
Washougal
3362*
$983
Vancouver WA (3 Districts
Vancouver
1725`
1725`
Camas
2500'
2500*
Evergreen
3540*
3540*
Clark County, WA 10 Districts
Battle Ground
$3,000
$1,000
Camas
$4,000
$2,000
Ever reen
$3,540
$2,280
Green Mountain
$2,570
$0
Hockinson
$2,980
$2,280
La Center
$2,000
$1,000
Ridgefield
$3,132
$712
Vancouver
$1,725
$1,450
Washougal
$3,662
$983
Woodland
$2,750
$650
Kennewick, WA
no fee
no fee
Pasco, WA
no fee
no fee
Richland, WA
no fee
no fee
* Differs from Clark Co. School Districts' 2005 Capital Facilities Plans
Clark County Schools
Clark County schools are expected to receive an influx of students through 2011. and
beyond. Tltis handout is intended to show the expected enrollment and the funds
necessary to provide various school districts with facilities to serve new students.
Schools generally collect impact fees .from new single family and multi family dwelling
units. The state of. Washington matches funds collected through impact fees. School
districts also factor in property taxes expected from new development, as well ds those
taxes raised by voter-approved bonds.
Total Enrollment
2005 / Total
Projected
Enrollment 2011
Estimated costs
through 2011
Impact Fee SFR /
MFR* per unit
Battle Ground
12,487 / 15,308
$140,220,059
$3,000 / 1,000
Camas
5,289 / 7,132
$51,000;180
$4,000 / 2,000
Evergreen
25,940 / 29,951
$152,850,000
$3,540 / 2,280
Green Mountain
119/162
$289,500
$2,570/0
Hockinson
2,170 / 2,640
$20,260,000
$2,980 /2,280
La Center
1,405 / 1,617
$16,615,840
$2,000 /1,000
Ridgefield
1,962 / 2,353
$65,223,749
$3,132/712
Vancouver
$*22,335 / 24,497
$60,402,654
$1,725 / 1,450
Washougal
2,928 / 3,435
$18,888,690
$3,662/983
Woodland
2,024 / 2,335 ('2olo)
$53,736,000
$2,750/650
• Single Family Residential (SIZt) Muld Family Residential (MFR)
" Total of elementary school projections and secondary/high school projectituis
Sources: Battle Ground School District Capital Facilities Plan, March 2005
Camas School District Capital Facilities-Plan, March 2005
l-vergrcen School District Capital Facilities Plan, March 2005
Green Mountain School Uistrict.Capital Facilities Plan, April 2005
Hoekinson School District Capital Facilities Plan, May 2005
La Center School District Capital Facilities Plan, March 2005
Ridgefield School District Capital Facilities Plan, April 2005
Vancouver School lit riot CapiU Facilities Plan, April 2005
Washougal School District Capital Facilities Plan, April 2005
Woodlaivi School District Capital Facilities Plan, August 2005
Central Valley School District
CAPITAL
FACILITIES
PLAN
2005-06 THROUGH 2010-11
Central Valley School IN.itrict
f. I
rWa
Central Valley School District: Residential Growth
s a
r: .
r:-
16 S^
C
entral Valley School District: School Location
1
'Am
School Facilities
18 West of Sullivan
4 East of Sullivan
~ v
2
1
1. V.
x,
Central Valley School District - Elementary Boundaries
R S`" M NCbI~ Qrle rwa
Ka -:,It
RIQrO ~~sv ~ '
ra,e.o.. h _ x . Wed Tm more
,a Bwrw.ntwfe. \1
Central Valley School District - Middle School Boundaries
F
R
- ~7" iii ~~5 _ _
r ~3f 7ti ` M61O Nit
,7
Yr
3
Construction Bond: Maior Proiects
Completion
• Remodel Opportunity Elementary ($6.6 m)
Fall 2008
r
- opened 1968; serves 400 students
• Remodel Ponderosa Elementary ($8.6 m)
Fall 2008
j
Y.
- opened 1979; serves 330 students
• Remodel Greenacres Elementary ($7.9 m)
Fall 2009
- opened 1978; serves 514 students
• Build New Elementary School ($11.7 m)
Fall 2007
- serves students in northeastern part of district; relieves
crowding at two schools
• Build New Middle School ($20.4 m)
Fall 2009
`
- serves students in eastern part of district; relieves crawling
at Greenacres Middle School.
4
7
Construction Bond: Other Projects
• Use state reimbursement funding to upgrade six schools:
- Broadway Elementary - cooling system; technology upgrades
' - Chester Elementary - technology infrastructure improvements
- Progress Elementary - cooling system; technology upgrades
- Summit School - cooling system; technology upgrades
- Sunrise Elementary - technology infrastructure improvements
- University Elementary - parking and safety improvements;
cooling system; technology upgrades
What's Next?
• Phase II -future bond proposal
- Evergreen Middle School - full remodel of school built in 1974
- New Elementary School - to be built in the eastern part of district
- New High School -planning and design for third high school
• Phase 111- future bond proposal
- New High School - build school on 49 acre site at 16th and
Henry Road
t - North Pines Middle School - relocate school to a more
appropriate location on current site
5
IMPACT FEES
....A one-time tax assessed on new development to ensure that such
development pays a proportional share of the costs of new capital
facilities it requires. (RCW 36.70A.020, RCW 32.02.050, RCW
82.02.020(1))
.Parks • Roads • Schools . Fire Districts
I
i
a
SCHOOL IMPACT FEE: PHILOSOPHY
• For Impact Fees
New development should pay part of the cost of
new public school space required to serve it - as is
the case with utilities and roads. Without impact
fees, the full cost of new school facilities must be
borne by the existing community.
• Against
g A public school district is a single entity. All property
in the district should contribute equally to schools
required to serve new development - as it has
traditionally done.
6
SCHOOL IMPACT FEES
' • Why?. Helps provide space to serve students from new development
without overcrowding existing school facilities.
- Helps provide space for new students without shifting the full cost
to existing patrons of the school district.
New homes pay their share of the cost of schools which serve
them.
Impact fees help ensure desirable communities by promoting
j stable community schools.
~a
1
SCHOOL IMPACT FEES
• Why Not?
_ Impact fees increase the cost of new homes... possibly resulting in
higher mortgage payments.
Impact fees increase assessed value of the home... increasing property
taxes.
- Impact fees result in higher assessed valuation for previously existing
homes as their value is compared to nearby homes which paid impact
II'.
v fees. Impact fees increase property tax for previously existing homes.
I - Inequity for builders if not all jurisdictions the school district serves
impose impact fees.
- Potential to drive residential growth to areas without school impact
fees.
- Time is required to collect, transfer and track impact fees.
7
HOW DO SCHOOL IMPACT FEES WORK?
• Governmental jurisdiction collects fees on behalf of the school
district.
• Governmental jurisdiction periodically transfers fees to the school
district.
• School district holds fees in an interest-bearing account.
F . School district uses fees to improve district capacity in ways that are
reasonably related to the new residential development and that will
benefit students from the new development.
• If the school district does not use the impact fees within six years of
f their receipt, the district returns them, with interest, to the
homeowner.
Pro osed CVSD School Im
p
act Fees:
2005-06 through 2010-11
Proposed Fee
Proposed Fee
Central Valley (Proposed) $1410
$0
Auburn
$5297
$1832
Bellingham
$1211
$721
South Kitsap
$978
$564
8
School Impact Fees
City, County, School District
Sinqle Family Unit Multi-Familv Unit
Battle Ground, WA
$3,000
$1,000
Camas, WA (3 Districts
Camas
$4,000
$2,156
Evergreen
$3,540
$2,280
Washougal
3362{
$983
Vancouver, WA 3 Districts)
Vancouver
1725*
1725`
Camas
2500°
2500"
Evergreen
3540"
3540*
Clark Coun WA 10 Districts
Battle Ground
$3,000
$1,000
Camas
$4,000
$2,000
Ever reen
$3,540
$2,280
Green Mountain
$2,570
$0
Hockinson
$2,980
$2,280
La Center
$2,000
$1,000
Ridgefield
$3,132
$712
Vancouver
$1,725
$1,450
Washougal
$3,662
$983
Woodland
$2,750
$650
Kennewick, OVA
no fee
no fee
Pasco, WA
no fee
no fee
Richland; VVA '
no fee
no fee
* Differs from Clark Co. School Districts' 2005 Capital Facilities Plans
Clark County Schools
Clark County schools are c pectcd to receive an inil- x of stl>!deats through 201.1 arld
I)e,yond, This handout is itntfnded to bow the expected enrol llnent and the fonds
necessary to provide various school districts with facilities to serve new students-
chooIs generally collect impact fees from new single fanidy and. multi f9 mily dwelling
units- The state of '~la3hilogtojt matches funds collected through impact fees. School
districts also factor in propurty taxes e pected from new dovolopment, as weI1 as those
taxes raised by voter-approved bonds,
Total Enrollment
2005 17'oW
Projected
Enrollment 2011
Estimated costs
6rough 2011
Impact Fee SF 1
WR* per unit
Battle Ground
12,487 / 15,308
$140,220,059
$3,0001 1;000
Camas
5;28.917,132
$51,000;180
$4,000/2,000
Evergreen
25,940 129,951
$152;850,000
13,540 !2,2.80
Green MounLain.
1191162
$289,500
$2,57010
'Hoc uasota
2,170 ! x,640
$20,260,000
$2,980 ! 2,280
La enter
1,405 1 1,617
$16,615,540
$2,0001 1,000
Ridgefield
1,962 12,353
$65,223,749
$3,1321712
Vancouver
**22,335124,47
$60,402,654
$1,725 ! 1,450
Washougal
2,928 13,4.35 -
x$-'18,888,690
$3,662/983
Woodland
2,024 / 2,335 (2010) f
$53,736,000
$2,7501650
* 3ja Fussily Rcsiduidal (SFR) 143<+atri Family l csidenual (nrFR)
* Total of elemeutiuy school µtojections and seomdatylLigl t XtWl. projcc#ions
SD=m' Batdc Ground School Didt ct Capital Facilities Flan, March 2005
Cansas Schaal Distrjct Capi"I Faeil itics-Plan, March 2005
) iwgrum 84,col District Cspilal Facilities Nag, Much 2005
C mw bi6Lntajn School District Capital Facil itieg PI an, April 2W
Idocinsun StA mol District Capiilrl Facilities Dan, hday 2065
La Center .4',chool District C spiW Facil ities 31Iar4 March 2065
Ridgefield School Disvia Capital Fa~iljlies PI mi, April 2005
Vancouver School L Etrict Capital racili[ies Aar4 April 2045
W&Rhougal School District Capital Facilitir,R Plan, April 2005
Woodland School D istrid CapiLd FucIties Rao, August 2005