1 of 38

Long Range Facilities Planning

  • Planning Committee Meeting #1
  • February 26, 2025

2 of 38

WELCOME & INTRODUCTIONS

Shawn Woodward, Superintendent

​

  • Welcome
  • Introduction of Committee

3 of 38

PURPOSE

  • Develop the District’s Long-Range Facility Plan

​

  • Bring together a community-representative committee to review enrollment projection data as well as functional adequacy, capacity, and utilization data alongside physical condition data.

​

  • Recommendations to the School Board

​

4 of 38

OUTCOME

An updated Long-Range Facility Plan

grounded in

District data and educational programming.

5 of 38

PLANNING PROCESS

Gather Data

Group Input and Data Processing

Long Range Facility Master Plan

4

2

3

1

Short & Long- Term Facility Improvements

6 of 38

WHY WE ARE HERE

Develop and agree on the core elements of a Long-Range Facilities Plan

    • Driven by the District’s Educational Programming needs and the focus on student success

​

    • Supported by Data and a shared understanding of that Data

​

    • Incorporates existing facilities needs into overall plan

​

    • Prioritizes projects defined within the Long-Range Facility Plan

​

7 of 38

FACILITY PLANNING DATA

  • Educational Programs
  • Enrollment Projections
  • Capacity Analysis
  • Utilization Analysis
  • Condition Reports
    • Physical
    • Functional

​

8 of 38

PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS

  1. A long-term goal for the district is that all programs should be housed in purposeful, adequate space.

​

  • Secondary teachers will continue to “prep” in their classrooms

​

  • Educational spaces will be utilized for current and emerging district programs.

9 of 38

EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMMING

  • A strong Basic Education program (reading, writing, math, science, social studies, physical education, arts, etc.)
  • Elementary programs to assist students with individual needs (resource rooms, special education, multilingual learning, enrichment, sensory spaces, etc.)
  • After school activities (athletics, fine arts, etc.)
  • Career & Technical Education (STEM, agriculture, manufacturing, health sciences, sports medicine, etc.)
  • College Preparatory Programs (Running Start, College in the High School, CTE Dual Credit)

​

​

10 of 38

EVOLVING SCHOOL SPACES

11 of 38

EVOLVING SCHOOL SPACES

12 of 38

EVOLVING SCHOOL SPACES

13 of 38

ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS

  • Percentage Increase Model
  • Regression Model
  • Cohort Survival Model – Linear Regression K
  • Cohort Survival Model – Natality K
  • Students per Housing Unit

​

14 of 38

ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS

Projections from K12enroll.com

15 of 38

ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS

K-12 (All Models)

16 of 38

ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS

K-12 (Higher)

17 of 38

ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS

K-5

18 of 38

ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS

6-8

19 of 38

ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS

9-12

20 of 38

PROGRAMMATIC CLASS SIZE STANDARDS

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

PK/TK (full day equiv.)

18

K - Full Day (FTE)

23

Grade 1

23

Grade 2

24

Grade 3

24

Grade 4

26

Grade 5

27

Art

0

Music

0

PE

0

Library

0

Structured Learning Classroom

10

RR, Title I, or Other Pull Out

0

Other/Empty

27

Other/Accelerated

27

21 of 38

PROGRAMMATIC CLASS SIZE STANDARDS

MIDDLE SCHOOL

Grades 6-8

29

Art

29

Music

29

PE

29

Science

29

CTE

20

Structured Learning Classroom

10

Resource Room, Support

28

Other/Empty

29

Library

0

22 of 38

CLASS SIZE STANDARDS

HIGH SCHOOL

Grades 9-12

29

Art

29

Business Labs

20

Music

29

PE

29

Science

29

CTE

20

Structured Learning Classroom

10

Resource Room/Support

28

Other/Empty

29

23 of 38

SCHOOL CAPACITY CALCULATION ELEMENTARY

ALL ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

 Room Name

# Rooms

Room Capacity

Subtotal Capacity

PK/TK (full day eqv)

5

18

90

K Full Day

19

23

437

Grade 1

18

23

414

Grade 2

17

24

408

Grade 3

16.5

24

396

Grade 4

14

26

364

Grade 5

15.5

27

419

Art

4

0

-

Music

5

0

-

PE

4

0

-

Library

5

0

-

SLC

5

10

50

RR, Title I, Pull Out

14

0

-

Other/Empty

2

27

54

Other/Accelerated

2

27

54

Total Room Count

141

 

2,596

IF2 (Imperfect Fit Factor)

​

​

95%

Programmatic Capacity

​

​

2,466

24 of 38

SCHOOL CAPACITY CALCULATION

MIDDLE SCHOOL CAMPUS

ALL MIDDLE SCHOOLS

 Room Name

# Rooms

Room Capacity

Subtotal Capacity

Grades 6-8

30

29

870

Art

2

29

58

Music

3

29

87

PE

4

29

116

Science

10

29

290

CTE

5

20

100

SLC

3

10

30

Resource Room, Support

3

28

84

Other/Empty

4

29

116

Library

2

0

-

Total Room Count

66

 

1,751

Scheduling Factor

​

​

83%

IF2 (Imperfect Fit Factor)

​

​

95%

Programmatic Capacity

​

​

1,386

A scheduling factor of 83% = classroom is scheduled 5 of 6 periods

25 of 38

SCHOOL CAPACITY CALCULATION

HIGH SCHOOL

MONROE HIGH SCHOOL

 Room Name

# Rooms

Room Capacity

Subtotal Capacity

Grades 9-12

37

29

1,073

Art

3

29

87

Business Labs

2

20

40

Music

2

29

58

PE

4

29

116

Science

8

18

144

CTE

8

20

160

SLC

2

10

20

Resource Room, Support

4

28

112

Other/Empty

4

28

112

Total Room Count

74

 

1,922

Scheduling Factor

​

​

88%

IF2 (Imperfect Fit Factor)

​

​

95%

Programmatic Capacity

​

​

1,598

A scheduling factor of 88% = classroom is scheduled 7 of 8 periods

26 of 38

UTILIZATION =

ENROLLMENT ÷ CAPACITY

School

Permanent Capacity

Feb 2025 Enrollment

Capacity Surplus (Deficit)

Current

Utilization

Projected Enrollment 2030-31

Projected

Utilization

2030-31

Chain Lake ES

462

436

26

94%

 

 

Frank Wagner ES

652

543

109

83%

 

 

Fryelands ES

403

420

(17)

104%

 

 

Maltby ES

409

335

74

82%

 

 

Salem Woods ES

533

518

15

97%

 

 

Elementary Total

2,459

2,252

207

92%

2,132

87%

Hidden River MS

523

300

223

57%

​

​

Park Place MS

864

764

100

88%

​

​

Middle School Total

1,386

1,064

322

77%

1,086

78%

Monroe HS

1,598

1,406

192

88%

​

​

Leaders HS*

64

57

7

89%

​

​

High School Total

1,662

1,463

199

88%

1,736

104%

Sky Valley Edu Center

-

1,057

0

-

1,120

-

* Leaders High School has a class size of 15 and a scheduling factor of 75%.

27 of 38

BUILDING CONDITION - PHYSICAL

Each system sub-score is “weighed” according to its proportional value to the building as a whole

95+

Excellent: The building and/or a majority of its systems are in excellent condition and only require preventative maintenance

85-94

Good: The building and/or a majority of its systems are in good condition and only require routine maintenance.

62-84

Fair: The building and/or some of its systems are in fair condition and require minor repair.

30-61

Poor: The building and/or a significant number of its systems are in poor condition and require major repair or renovation.

Below 30

Unsatisfactory: The building and/or a majority of its systems should be considered for replacement.

28 of 38

BUILDING CONDITION - PHYSICAL

School

Built / Renovated

Physical Condition Score

Physical Condition Description

Chain Lake ES

1989

81.69 – 83.99

Good

Frank Wagner ES

1989/2019

82.08 - 100

Good - Excellent

Fryelands ES

2005

85.55

Good

Maltby ES

1968/1987/2005

82.97 – 86.81

Good

Salem Woods ES

1980/2018

72.43 - 100

Fair - Excellent

​

​

​

​

Hidden River MS

1999/2002/2005/

2018

90.12 – 94.75

Good

Park Place MS

1974/2018

99.3 - 100

Excellent

​

​

​

​

Monroe HS

1999/2005

85.36 - 100

Good - Excellent

Leaders HS

--

--

--

​

​

​

​

Sky Valley Edu Center

1954/1964/1967/

1980/1990

45.05 – 47.76

Poor

Data provided by Hutteball + Oremus Architecture

29 of 38

BUILDING CONDITION - PHYSICAL

Data provided by Hutteball + Oremus Architecture

30 of 38

BUILDING CONDITION - FUNCTIONAL

​

  • Space sizes, adjacencies, utilities, surfaces, daylight, access, fixed equipment, and storage
  • The program, or “school”, is assessed as a unit

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.

31 of 38

BUILDING CONDITION - FUNCTIONAL

School

Functional Adequacy Score

Functional Adequacy Description

Chain Lake ES

84

Fair

Frank Wagner ES

88

Fair

Fryelands ES

75

Poor

Maltby ES

90

Good

Salem Woods ES

87

Fair

​

​

​

Hidden River MS

85

Fair

Park Place MS

98

Good

​

​

​

Monroe HS

86

Fair

Leaders HS

70

Poor

​

​

​

Sky Valley Edu Center

59

Poor

32 of 38

COMBINED DATA

School

Permanent Capacity

Feb 2025 Enrollment

Current

Utilization

Projected Enrollment 2030-31

Projected

Utilization

2030-31

Physical Condition

Functional Adequacy

Chain Lake ES

462

436

94%

 

 

Good

Fair

Frank Wagner ES

652

543

83%

 

 

Good - Excellent

Fair

Fryelands ES

403

420

104%

 

 

Good

Poor

Maltby ES

409

335

82%

 

 

Good

Good

Salem Woods ES

533

518

97%

 

 

Fair - Excellent

Fair

Elementary Total

2,459

2,252

92%

2,132

87%

​

​

Hidden River MS

523

300

57%

​

​

Good

Fair

Park Place MS

864

764

88%

​

​

Excellent

Good

Middle School Total

1,386

1,064

77%

1,086

78%

​

​

Monroe HS

1,598

1,406

88%

​

Good - Excellent

Fair

Leaders HS

64

57

89%

​

--

Poor

High School Total

1,662

1,463

88%

1,736

104%

​

​

Sky Valley Edu Center

-

1,057

-

1,120

-

Poor

Poor

33 of 38

INITIAL FINDINGS

ENROLLMENT

Elementary enrollment may slightly decrease in the coming years, reflective of state and national trends caused primarily by lower birth rates.

​

Middle School enrollment is anticipated to decline related to smaller elementary class sizes moving through the system.

​

High School enrollment should be examined further to determine impacts of retention and out of district transfers on projections.

​

​

34 of 38

INITIAL FINDINGS

CAPACITY & UTILIZATION

The utilization at two of the elementary schools is near, or exceeds, the programmatic capacity. It is likely that declining enrollment will bring these schools closer into line with, and then under, their programmatic capacity.

​

There is sufficient capacity at both of the Middle Schools. Hidden River has significant capacity to absorb additional students in the future if needed.

​

Monroe High School has sufficient capacity for both growth and reallocation of some learning spaces. Leaders High School is nearing capacity in their current spaces.

​

A deeper analysis of the capacity and utilization of Sky Valley Education Center will occur in the coming weeks.

35 of 38

INITIAL FINDINGS

PHYSICAL CONDITION

The only building in the district scoring Poor in the physical condition review is Sky Valley Education Center. This is also the oldest building in the district that has not had a recent, significant rebuild or replacement.

​

The remainder of the schools were scored in good or excellent condition, with just the older gym building at Salem Woods Elementary scoring Fair.

36 of 38

INITIAL FINDINGS

FUNCTIONAL ADEQUACY

Of the elementary schools, only Fryelands was scored as poor. This is primarily due to the smaller size of the General classrooms and the lack of appropriate spaces and classroom sizes in the Early Childhood/Kindergarten and Special Education classrooms.

​

Leaders High School was scored poor because the entire school is currently in portable classrooms which cannot provide the breadth and type of spaces necessary to appropriately support program delivery.

​

Sky Valley Education Center scored poor for a wide variety of reasons including lack of appropriate spaces, size of classrooms, traffic circulation and building safety.

37 of 38

QUESTIONS - CLARIFICATIONS

38 of 38

Next Meeting

�Wednesday March 26, 2025

​

5:30pm – 7:00pm

​

District Office