The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About3091 RESOLUTION NO. 30'\ \ A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, adopting the Bremerton Community School of the Future, Co-Location Project Study. WHEREAS the Washington State Office of Public Instruction (OSPI) and the Department of Community Trade and Economic Development (CTED) held the Summit on School Siting in 2006 and the premise of the summit was that school districts and local jurisdictions can work in concert to combine education facility needs with broader community needs and the growth strategies of cities; and WHEREAS, on October 29,2007 the City of Bremerton (City) and the Bremerton School District (District) was selected by CTED to receive a Competitive Growth Management Act Planning Grant in the amount of$125,000 to work cooperatively to study the concept of locating a new middle school on the west-side of Bremerton using the findings of the Summit of School Siting as a guide; and WHEREAS, the City entered into a contract with NAC Architecture (NAC) of Seattle, Washington to develop a public input process and complete the study for which the grant funds were received; and WHEREAS, the City, District, and NAC began a public outreach program in June 2008, requesting participation from a broad range of community members whom have interest in the future of Bremerton and our schools; and WHEREAS, there was a core group of citizens called the "Key Communicators" that consistently attended the public workshops, had standing in the community and were willing to assist the with project communication; and WHEREAS, the City widely advertised and sponsored four public workshops on the project on July 31, 2008, August 18, 2008, September 22, 2008, and October 27, 2008 and solicited citizen input by providing online questionnaires; and WHEREAS, the draft report was made available to the general public and interested parties for review and comment at City offices and on the City's web page; and WHEREAS, the report finds that there are significant public benefits to developing a middle school in conjunction with a community activity center; and WHEREAS, locating the school closer to the urban core of the city makes the facility more accessible to the population center and is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, Countywide Planning Policies, and the State Growth Management Act; and 1 COLLABORATIVE SCHOOL SITING PROJECT WHEREAS, the City supports the findings and conclusions of the report and urges the District to also enter into similar findings; and WHEREAS, the City supports the findings of the report, and encourages the District in implementation, once student demographics illustrate the need for a new west-side middle school; NOW THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council hereby adopts the Bremerton Community School of the Future, Co-Location Project Study attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 2. Severabilitv. If anyone or more sections, subsections, or sentences of this Resolution are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Resolution and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect and be in force immediately upon its passage. ~p ASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton, was. hington this ~ day of _~.J ,2009. , (' c' ?f .?i ~AJ' t9'l/L--rt-e CECIL McCONNELL, Counci President APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: 2 COLLABORATIVE SCHOOL SITING PROJECT June 1, 2009 Bremerton Community School of the Future The Co-Location Project Study ~~<=IARCHITECTURE Contents Acknowledgments Executive Summary The Purpose and Scope of the Study Study Process and Results Core Coordinating Committee Fact Finding Workshops Workshop 1 - Goal Setting Workshop 2 - Identify Co-location Opportunities - Big Ideas Workshop 3 - Site and Concept Evaluation Workshop 4 - Cost Model and Shared Use Planning Community Outreach Conclusions Appendices Appendix 1 - Workshop 1 Exhibits Appendix 2 - Workshop 2 Exhibits Appendix 3 - Workshop 3 Exhibits Appendix 4 - Workshop 4 Exhibits Appendix 5 - Miscellaneous Exhibits A. Original Project Schedule B. Co-Location Project Examples C. Baseline Area Model D. Middle School Area Comparison E. Cost Models F. Co-Location Talking Points G. Community Outreach 2 4 6 8 9 10 13 15 21 27 28 I 1 31 45 57 71 77 81 129 135 139 143 147 ~~~IARCHITECTURE Acknowledgments This study would not have been possible without the commitment of the citizens of Bremerton and Bremerton School District. The City and School District would also like to thank CTED for the $125,000 grant which funded this study. The following gave of their time to make this study possible: Bremerton City Council Cecil McConnell Nick Wofford Brad Gehring Adam Brockus Roy Runyon Mike Shepard Dianne Robinson Carol Arends Will Maupin District 2, President District 9, Vice-President District 1 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 District 7 District 8 2 Bremerton School Board Pat Jones Vicki Collins DeWayne Boyd Louis Mitchell Cynthia Galloway Committee of Key Communicators Ciana Alverto Ken Aries Nancy Austin Ruth Bond Sam Bossert Mike Brown Tara Broussard Harriette Bryant Chris Craig Stacy Dore Jonee Dubos Larry Eyer Kate Fletcher Wendy Gordon Marilee Hansen DeAnn Irish Holly James Citizen Bremerton School District Bremerton Housing Authority Kitsap Regional Library YMCA Boys & Girls Club / FPH Construction Citizen YWCA Board. President Kitsap County Health District Boys & Girls Club Citizen Kitsap Community Resources Citizen PSNS Former Principal, Bremerton High School Citizen/ Parent Bremerton Symphony Bremerton Community School of the Future I The Co-Location Project Study Catherine Jett Cheryl Knapp Babara Martin Will Maupin Dick Nerf Paul Pazooki Liz Petersen Jerry Reid Steve Rice Diane Robinson Colleen Smidt Linda Sullivan-Dudzic Carollee Valentine Bill Walgren Quevon Wallace Flint Walpole Kurt Weist Ed Wolfe City of Bremerton Andrea Spencer Wyn Birkenthal Lindsey Sehmel Citizen Citizen Olympic College City of Bremerton - City Council City of Bremerton - Parks Board Kitsap Economic Development Alliance Board Member Bremerton Urban Gardeners Boys & Girls Club Rice, Fergus, Miller Architects City of Bremerton - City Council Citizen Early Childhood Representative Bremerton Urban Gardeners YMCA Student Bremerton School District Bremerton Housing Authority Boys & Girls Club I 3 Director of Community Development - City of Bremerton Director of Parks and Recreation - City of Bremerton Long Range Planner, Community Development - City of Bremerton Wayne Lindberg Bremerton School District Director, Finance and Operations Planning Design and Facilitation Consultants - NAqArchitecture Greg Stack Boris Srdar Kevin Hannifan Kevin Flanagan Roger Duryea Real Estate Consultant - Reid Real Estate ~~~IARCHITECTURE Executive Summary While an additional middle school is not needed in Bremerton today, if demographic trends continue, an additional middle school may be needed in the future. In July of 2008 NAqArchitecture was engaged by the City of Bremerton to study the potential for co-locating a middle school with a closely related public recreation facility in west Bremerton. This was in response to a grant from the State of Washington received by the city to study this concept. In addition, Bremerton School District realized that although the overall enrollment in the district is currently declining, population growth is occurring in west Bremerton and a middle school will eventually be needed in that area to accommodate this trend. 4 In concept, schools of the future will be more than just learning places for a single age group; they will be multi-age learning spaces that serve broader community needs. Students are increasingly learning outside of traditional school settings in order to make their learning more relevant while engaging them to become life-long learners. Co- locating other facilities with a school is a natural outgrowth of this trend in that it enriches the experience of learners in the school while meeting the needs of more community members. These facts make the results of the Bremerton Community School of the Future Study applicable well beyond this project. It is a model for how schools and community organizations can work together to efficiently provide facilities for their communities that both enhance learning and meet broader community needs. Working with representatives from the City of Bremerton and Bremerton School District, the NAqArchitecture team developed a plan and schedule for the study. The study process was designed to bring community stakeholders together to consider the idea of a co-located facility and share with the city and school district their thoughts on the pros and cons of this idea. Furthermore, the stakeholders were to recommend where, in general, such a facility should be located and judge how this idea might be accepted by the broader community. Finally, the stakeholders would be "key communicators" of the idea of a co-located facility and be instrumental in getting feedback on the idea from the broader community. The study was conducted using a workshop process spanning several months in 2008 and 2009. The workshops were organized to allow the committee of key communicator-stakeholders to understand the issues involved in co-location and come to conclusion about the best co-location options. Workshop 1 established the reasons for co-location and the goals for a co-located facility. These revolved around the idea that a shared use facility would be more economical and make essential community recreation services available to a broad spectrum of the community. Workshop 2 identified the best uses for co-location Bremerton Community School of the Future I The Co-Location Project Study with a middle school and explored the challenges and opportunities of co-location. The study was not intended to find specific partners for co- location, but rather to identify the most appropriate uses to be located with a middle school. Uses considered ranged from orchestra practice space and a swimming pool to a teen or senior center. Opportunities and challenges included the ability to provide constructive activities for teens after school to concerns that management of shared spaces in a co-located facility would be difficult. The committee concluded that a teen center, community center, or senior center would be the best co-location partner with a middle school. Workshop 3 focused on identifying the configuration of a co-located facility and the desirable characteristics for its location. An evaluation of potential co-location partners' facility needs showed that these were very similar for the most highly ranked candidates. They required approximately 5,000 SF of dedicated space outside the middle school program for activity, storage and similar functions. In turn the middle school would need approximately 91,000 SF for its functions. The resulting 96,000 SF complex would need to be accommodated on any site considered for the facility. Selecting a specific site for the facility was out of the scope of the study so the focus was to determine the characteristics of a location that would best support a co-located use. The committee concluded that an ideal location would be close to potential users 'of the facility, would enhance the vitality of its neighborhood by its presence, would make efficient use of existing city infrastructure, would be environmentally sensitive, and would be likely to attract potential partners due to its location. A review of parcels large enough to accommodate the facility naturally organized potential locations as urban and suburban with Highway 3 being the demarcation between suburban locations to the west and urban locations to the east. The committee determined by comparing locations to their ideal criteria that an urban location would best meet the goals for a co-located facility and support the city's comprehensive plan. Workshop 4 examined costs for urban and suburban options and studied how the areas of a facility might be shared. Cost estimates showed that the urban location would likely be slightly less expensive than a suburban location due to lower site development costs. The committee also determined that a co-located facility should be distinct from the middle school so that both facilities could have their own identity. I 5 The committee reached out to the community to verify their conclusions through forums, informal conversations, and by providing information on the city and district web sites which allowed people to comment. Comments were limited, but supported the concept of co-location and the urban location for the facility. The largest concern uncovered through comments was a questioning of the need for an additional middle school, which highlights the need for additional communication with citizens on this issue. In summary, the committee determined that co-locating a middle school with a teen center, community center, or senior center is a good idea. An urban location is seen as best for such a facility due to its ability to serve the greatest number of citizens. Making the vision for this project a reality will require committed partners and active communication with the greater Bremerton community. ~~~IARCH'TECTURE Purpose and Scope of the Study 6 The City of Bremerton and the Bremerton School District entered into a collaborative facilities planning venture to facilitate co-location of a middle school and community activity center or closely related public recreation facility. The collaborative effort was spurred by the 2006 Summit on School Siting sponsored by CTED and the State Office of Public Instruction. A premise of the Summit was a recognition that school districts and local jurisdictions can work in concert to mesh education facility needs with broader community needs and the growth strategies of cities. The city, along with the school district, applied for a grant from the State of Washington to study this concept and was awarded funds for this study in the fall of 2007. NAqArchitecture was contracted for the study in June of 2008 and began work in July of that year. Currently Bremerton is experiencing growth pressure downtown and at its western edge. This has come after a long period of population and economic decline. Existing school and city facilities do not meet the needs of the expanded youth, adult and senior populations. This project seeks to find ways to meet needs and to link school location with the City's growth plan as envisioned in the 2004 Comprehensive Plan. Project Goals Include: + Explore innovative siting options for a West Bremerton middle school to meet identified education and community needs. + Engage stakeholders and the general public in a facilitated process to determine desired facility components and programming. + Solidify decision maker and broad community support for the co-located facility to set the stage for potential funding options. + Analyze a range of site and programming options for the co-located facility. + Develop a model process that can be replicated by the District and the City. SCOPE A major element of the project was to conduct a thorough community involvement process. Community involvement was intended to identify a range of community needs and preferences, and opportunities for co-location with a potential future school. The process consulted community based agencies such as the Boys & Girls Club, senior organizations, City Parks, the School Board, sports leagues and others. The involvement process also consulted directly with the public for feedback and to gauge support for school siting and co-location options. Bremerton Community School of the Future I The Co-Location Project Study The study translates an array of inputs into findings that can help the District and City make informed decisions. The process also built partnerships among agencies that may lead to a future co-location project. The study built on past and ongoing studies by varied agencies such as the City's Parks & Open Space Master Plan and School District's Facilities Plan. The study developed workable co- location options based on the range of needs and opportunities brainstormed during the involvement process. The project evaluated a range of non- traditional combinations of community facilities with a future school. The study identified potential types of partner organizations but did not attempt to seek commitment from these organizations to be part of a co-located project. Similarly, the study did not explore the operational issues or budget of a co-located facility other than to identify potential obstacles to operating two facilities together. While the scope of the study did not select specific sites, it did evaluate options for physical sites to -' ~, . - - ':-f9"'~ . - '~~7~' "f~... ~~~ . .._.u _ ._---...+ . ~-. - - :.t -, . "l .;,,:;~..:;~<:j;;;';~ ~",._~r:':.- ~_ ,r__.-., ___.J:1-.'-:':. '..t~..M ~ -'. . --- Q. ..-- - ~--=::. , - 1" ~ --~ --9. .~~ :~~. .'- - . ~:." C~._ .,._ ~" k: f'"' - ',', ...--~ .. '. .-' -~ ~ ---~ accommodate program alternatives. Options were developed into conceptual level site plans and designs for evaluation. The findings should assist the School District and/or City on future site selection and acquisition. Tools such as criteria, comparative pros and cons, etc., were developed over the course of the project. Options including traditional 'large footprint' school sites and a compact 'urban footprint' site were developed. I 7 The project also developed schematic cost scenarios for major program / site plan alternatives. The scope of this study did not include detailed proforma analysis since a specific site was not selected. The intent was to compare magnitude costs of co-location options to inform potential funding measures and alternatives for site selection. The City and School District were committed to exploring options outside the boundaries of traditional school siting and community facilities. Progressive approaches to stretch available resources and create a true multi-purpose community facility were developed. ~~~IARCH'TECTURE Study Process and Results .,1 The Bremerton Community School of the Future study goals and scope asked that we envision a future facility housing two separate entities, only one of which was known, on a non-specific site. It required that this be done with considerable community involvement but in such a way that there would be room for future flexibility in decision making. To address these requirements we developed a process designed to establish criteria for success, reach-out to a broad cross section of the community, and develop options that were specific enough to garner reactions but not so specific that they limited future actions. 8 The process was comprised of these steps which are explained in more detail below. + Establish a core coordinating committee to establish communication procedures, schedule, and develop criteria for key communicators. + Determine the facts as known at the inception of the study + Conduct workshops to explore the issues Workshop 1 - Goal Setting Workshop 2 - Identify Co-location Opportunities - Big Ideas Workshop 3 - Site and Concept Evaluation Workshop 4 - Cost Model and Shared Use Planning + Community Outreach The Core Coordinating Committee The Core Coordinating Committee was comprised of the Director of Community Development, the Parks and Recreation Director, a Long Range City Planner from the City of Bremerton, and the Director of Finance and Operations for Bremerton School District. This committee was facilitated by NAC lArch itectu re. This committee was necessary to handle the logistical arrangements necessary for community communications and to arrange meetings. In addition the committee met to review proposed agendas to be sure they were addressing the concerns of all stakeholders. The committee developed the list of key communicators and solicited these individuals to serve on the Citizens Committee. Key communicators were people from all areas of the City and School District that had standing in the community and were willing to talk to others about the work of the committee. Key communicators needed to be willing to participate in the process and be open to the ideas of others. Some of this group was able to attend all of the workshops, while others were only able to manage more Bremerton Community School of the Future I The Co-Location Project Study limited participation. The schedule for the study and for the engagement of the key communicators recognized that these community volunteers would have limited time to devote to the study. Additionally school holidays, availability of the School Board and City Council and necessary preparation time between workshops were all taken into consideration when preparing the schedule for the project. The original schedule anticipated a sixteen to twenty week process comprised of up to 5 workshops along with core committee meetings and community outreach activities. This number of activities did take place but the overall time for the study has taken considerably longer to accommodate the logistics and timing of community input. Fact Finding To begin the study NAqArchitecture reviewed available information available from the City and School District. We also toured the existing middle school and interviewed the principal in order to develop an area model for the middle school component of the co-located school. We interviewed other stakeholders such as the Boys and Girls Club and the Parks Department to determine facility requirements for these sorts of possible co-location partners. Documents which were reviewed included: + City of Bremerton 2004 Comprehensive Plan + City of Bremerton Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan + Bremerton School District attendance maps + Bremerton School District growth information + Bremerton School District Study and I Survey 9 + Letter from HEERY- HLM Design dated September 5, 2007 - Site Evaluation for Future Middle School + West Sound Boys and Girls Club Hope Centers campaign literature + Kitsap Easy Earth information + West Park Development Proposal ~~~IARCHITECTURE Workshop 1 - Goal Setting Workshops The Stakeholders' Workshops convened at various locations in the City of Bremerton in the summer and fall of 2008. Both citizens and representatives of a broad spectrum of community organizations were invited to join in the discovery process, which would occur over this time. Detailed information on the content and results from each workshop is contained in appendices 1 through 4. Below is a description of the content and rationale behind the subjects covered in each workshop. A description of the effort to prepare for some of the workshops is also discussed. The workshops varied in length from two to four hours. 10 I In this foundational workshop the key communicators/stakeholders were introduced to each other and an overview of the entire process was explained to them. The goal of Workshop 1 was to generate priorities and goals for the end product, the eventual facility. An overview of the project and the series of events that led to the co- location study were presented to the committee. The project evolved from a statewide workshop held in 2006 (meeting held in Dee. '06, summary report delivered in Feb. '07) that sought to identify the common and conflicting issues that City/ Regional Planners and School Districts face in regard to effective land management and school facility development. Bremerton was awarded a grant to further explore this issue due to an identified need for a middle school in west Bremerton. More specifically, the study would investigate the opportunities and challenges that shared use with a non-school function presents. The committee was given an overview of the process that would be used in the stakeholders meetings. Small groups would be provided a topic to brainstorm with the goal being to generate as many ideas as possible. At various point in the workshop small groups reported their findings to the larger group, similar ideas were combined, and attendees were given the opportunity to vote for and rank the ideas. Through a series of small group discussions and reporting back to the larger group, they explored three areas: + Belief Statements - Why is co-location a good idea? + Process Goals - How will you know if the process we use is successful for you? + Project Goals - What are your goals for this project? Participants prioritized the belief statements and project goals through a voting exercised and the results of this effort were discussed among the entire group. Bremerton Community School of the Future I The Co-Location Project Study Small Group Session #1: Why is Co-Location a Good Idea? The first small group session sought to identify why co-location is a good idea. What unique opportunities and advantages does it present? A full record of attendee responses can be found in Appendix 1. The following matrix shows the combined responses presented to the group for voting, the number of votes each received, and the resultant ranks: Idea Votes Received Efficient use of resources Synergy of different services working together: Enhances neighborhood, creates a hub, internal networking and sharing of knowledge; Bring different groups together 360 Service for students - meets multiple student needs, helps middle school students with choice making Positive public perception Invigorate west side Reduced travel if facility houses uses that are commonly used by the same people Greater parent involvement likely to increase success Bring in partners to enhance education Consolidation of knowledge that can be shared in facility Enhance student activities if close to school Reduce environmental impact Emergency preparedness opportunity (as center) 23 23 13 8 7 4 4 2 o Small Group Session #2: Process Goals The groups were asked to consider their goals for the co-location study process. The following list was developed as list of goals for the process and helped the committee understand the priorities of other committee members. + Community pride, support revitalization of Bremerton + Part of a neighborhood center/support comprehensive plan + Create a great school/improve academic environment + Bring community together/expand opportunities + Project that gets broad support + Maximize capital, financially responsible + Efficient use of resources + Synergy of services working together + 360 degree service for students + Responds to population centers + Visible, public, central + Environmentally sensitive 111 ~~<=IARCHITECTURE Small Group Session #3: Project! Facility Goals combined responses, votes, and resultant ranks. The establishment of beliefs and goals was crucial to the entire study. These beliefs and goals became the judgment criteria against which options were measured. They enabled a disparate group to agree on common ground and transcend personal preference in decision making. The final session focused on goals for the project and what attendees sought in a co-located facility. Groups were remarkably consistent in their responses, and the attendees voted overwhelmingly for a visible, central facility that would both improve the educational environment and further the revitalization goals laid out in the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan. The matrix below shows the Votes Received Create community pride- continue revitalization, continue to change perception of Bremerton and School District; appealing to students and community Be Consistent with city comprehensive plan for a vibrant Bremerton: Part of a neighborhood center Make building location visible/publidcentral Improve academic environment: services/resources that support students and families and make great schools Multi use facility: brings community together and expand non-school opportunities Increase opportunity for public health No net loss of existing amenities/parks Project to be LEED or environmentally responsible Identify a project that will get broad support and use Identify partners (public and private) to maximize capital; be fiscally sustainable Goal 17 16 12 I 13 9 6 5 4 4 2 Bremerton Community School of the Future I The Co-Location Project Study Workshop 2 Identify Co-location Opportunities - Big Ideas Workshop 2 focused on brainstorming co-location ideas. The focus was on what sorts of public activities it would make sense to co-locate with a middle school given the needs of the greater Bremerton community. The workshop began with a review of co-location project examples from around the world. (See Appendix 5B - Co-location Project Examples) They were divided into four groups to demonstrate the types of spaces incorporated: communal, housing, commercial, and natural. These were intended to show participants a variety of ways others had approached this problem and the creative solutions they developed. Project examples were discussed as a large group and then the committee was broken into smaller groups to develop their own ideas. Ideas were recorded on flip charts and shared with the large group at the end of the breakout session. The facilitators asked clarifying questions to ensure that everyone was interpreting the ideas in the same way. After these "Big Ideas" were shared, the committee again broke into small groups to discuss the limitations and opportunities presented by each idea. Each group recorded their discussion on flip charts and then shared their conclusions with the large group. The facilitators grouped similar ideas together along with the opportunities and limitations they presented and then asked the committee to prioritize the nineteen separate ideas through a voting process. A complete listing of the ideas and their pros and cons can be found in the meeting minutes in Appendix 2. The following is a matrix of each idea, the number of votes received, and the resultant ranks. Idea Teen Center/Boys & Girls Club Daycare/ Afterschool Care/Early Childcare/Early Learning Center Senior Center Environmental Center -Composting -Earth Science - Kitsap EZ Earth -Food growing Family Services- Connection with social services - Parenting Support Multi-Use Activity/Sports Center - Indoor/outdoor activities Community Center - Meeting - Computers - Activities - Parent Room Law Enforcement Space - Connection between students and police Private Business/Professional Services - Restaurant Public Health/Professional Services - Medical Services Transit Center/Park & Ride Non-Profit Space Adult Education Services - Connection with Olympic College Residential Housing Performing Arts Center - Center for all Arts Pool Religious Activities Library Symphony Practice Space Votes Received 19 11 10 9 8 8 113 7 5 5 3 2 2 o o o o ~~<=IARCHITECTURE As can be seen from the matrix, this resulted in the emergence of three top ideas: + Teen Center/ Boys and Girls Club + Daycare/ Afterschool Center + Senior Center The group discussed these ideas and agreed that they should be the focus of additional study with additional highly ranked ideas such as an environmental center with community gardens considered as possible alternative uses. 14 I Establishing Big Ideas was important to the process since it enabled committee members to think freely and share ideas in a non-threatening environment. This allowed for an open minded exchange and resulted in the best ideas being supported by the entire group regardless of personal agenda. Bremerton Community School of the Future I The Co-Location Project Study Workshop 3 - Site and Concept Evaluation Once the options for co-location were identified, the team began to look at the physical requirements for each type of facility in preparation for Workshop 3. After reviewing the voting results from Stakeholder's Workshop 2, a handful of potential uses clearly emerged as the preferred options. With this in mind, the team discussed the co-location project and ongoing initiatives with various community agencies including the Parks Department, YMCA, Boys and Girls Club, United Way, and the Bremerton School District. Several correlations became apparent: + Kitsap Community Resources and the School district were in the process of planning an early learning and childcare center on Naval Avenue. + The United Way is consolidating into a facility downtown that will provide connections to community and health services, family service, and non-profit office space. Given these planned developments, it was reasonable to assume that the early childcare/early learning center and family services center needs identified in Workshop 2 would be met elsewhere in west Bremerton, and need not be included in further co-location project considerations. The committee agreed with this conclusion when it was presented to them. The team developed a baseline model for a co- located facility comprising 96,000 SF. A middle school for 800 students will require approximately 91,000 SF while a partner facility is likely to require an additional 5,000 SF. These space requirements were in turn used to develop the representative site options. The uses and required areas are as follows: Use Administration and Counseling 6th Grade Classrooms 7th Grade Classrooms 8th Grade Classrooms Laboratory Spaces Arts Music Library Physical Education Commons Support Spaces Subtotal Area Required 6,000 ft2 10,500 ft2 10,500 ft2 10,500 ft2 10,500 ft2 5,000 ft2 4,500 ft2 4,500 ft2 16,000 ft2 9,000 ft2 4,000 ft2 91,000 ft2 115 It was noted that the prioritized uses identified in Workshop 2 would all require spaces similar in type and size. For example, a community center would not differ radically in shape and scale from a teen or senior center. Given this rough equivalence, the following areas, dedicated to the co-located use, were added to the prototypical middle school outline above: Use Community Classroom Support Spaces Community Storage Community Space Subtotal Area Required 3,600 ft2 1,200 ft2 200 ft2 5,000ft2 Ideas such as a performing arts facility, housing, and a swimming pool, which have unique space requirements, were not highly ranked so they were not studied further. ~~<=IARCHITECTURE These area models proposed that facilities such as the gym would be shared between the two facilities. Additional areas such as the school library, commons, computer lab, and even some classrooms might be useful to the co-located entity at the school and could be shared through a cooperative management plan developed by the school and the co-located entity. The team used experience from designing these types of facilities to develop typical spatial relationships between functions for purposes of site planning. The team developed diagrams explaining the project components for use by the committee. It became clear from this exercise that the extent to which the two facilities were separate or apart would be a key decision for the committee. MIDDLE SCHOOL - 91000 ff OTHER USES - 5000 ff a -> a 6';, <';'<9- <';'O''$oQ <';'O''$oQ o-?, <1'1>0 ~o <1'1>0 ~o O'~ :>001> o~O'~ q,;O'~ 0<<-0':1- ",/-10 0/ _6';, 'Vo %-1< 'YO' '$0 Q 00 '(s>"" <l'1>0':%, 1/",&'1~ o~O'~ ~1j?'" Q <<-0'<>'$0;., 1/00'", '"1.>>.0-1( 0", 16 I 0<.;..001" O'(/. 001" "'.<> <I'",,-~(/. O'~ 01> %~-').. 0<<-/' O';,~(/. 'f,.O' o-?,~-').. r:=:I Q<<- 3600ft' 1200fe 200ft' 6000 ft' 10500 ft' 10500 ft' 10500 ft' 10500 ft' 5000 ft' 4500 ft' 4500 ft' 16000 ft' 9000 ft' 4000 ft' LL-.~4=+n~llL. ~JJ r:1 ~ E=7I ~ F7'7l n 1"1 F7I F-';~;~:-;.1 D non I 96000 fe LJ tt:ij LilJ t:=J LJJ LJ U W tl~L:i~;~~! u U URBAN SITE FOOTPRINT SUBURBAN SITE 21000ft" . ADMINISTRATION AND COUNSELING . MUSIC . PHYSICAL EDUCATION . COMMONS . SUPPORT SPACES 21000ft' 21000 fe 54000 fe UPPER FLOORS . CLASSROOMS . LABORATORY SPACES . ARTS . LEARNING RESOURCES 75000 ft' Bremerton Community School of the Future I The Co-Location Project Study Once an area model for the co-located facility was developed the team turned to the consideration of the location and site size for the facility. This proved to be a far more difficult task since the study was not intended to select actual sites for options. The team grappled with this problem by reviewing the City's Comprehensive Plan and a previous study the School District conducted to identify potential sites for a future middle school. The Comprehensive Plan urged more urban development in order to place public services in locations most convenient to serve the largest number of community members. The School District study found that very few sites were available in more urban areas, but sites would be available in more suburban or rural areas. ; I I i'll !II II' I ..1 1.11 :II SITE SIZE MINIMUM 9.7 ACRE At the same time the team examined the range of site sizes appropriate for a co-located facility and concluded that the facility would need between ten and thirty acres of land to accommodate the program. The large range is influenced by the number of fields and athletic facilities, extent to which storm water run-off must be accommodated, amount of parking, and compactness of the building on the site. From this study the team prepared diagrams of site size criteria for use by the committee. With this information the team reviewed available sites in west Bremerton with the assistance of Roger Duryea, a realtor familiar with the area. From this analysis it appeared that smaller sites could be identified to the east of Highway 3, while larger sites were identified to the west of the highway. The site sizes correspond to the population density of these areas (rural vs. urban) in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Based on this review Highway 3 was de~ignated as the demarcation between suburban areas to the west and urban areas on the east side of Highway 3. The suburban sites were relatively similar to each other in terms of size, slope, soils conditions, and access. Urban sites were also similar to each other based on these criteria, so the team determined that it would be possible to pick representative sites on which to place urban and suburban options. Suburban solutions would be able to have larger sites with more fields while urban site would be smaller and more compact. With these criteria in mind, the team picked two actual sites as representative sites in order to have realistic planning constraints as we laid out the co- located facility. 117 r,------- -_.-- ':~ Tl t: J'j i ! :::1 NAC I ARC HIT E C T U R E Representative Site A: Suburban Alternative 18 I The National Guard Armory site just east of Pendergast Park was chosen to be representative of suburban sites. Its typography and access characteristics were similartothe other parcels considered. Theteam prepared a 20-30 acre site layoutfor a suburban middle school co-located with anotherfacility. Thevastmajorityof spaces in the suburban school were located on the first level, resulting in a generally larger building footprint. In addition, the suburban option provides space for onsite parking, a football field/track, two baseball/softball fields, and a soccer field. t Suburban Site Analysis Suburban Site Layout Bremerton Community School of the Future I The Co-Location Project Study Representative Site B: Urban Alternative The West Park redevelopment area was chosen as representative of urban sites since access and topography were similar to other urban sites considered. Two options were developed for how a co-located facility might be arranged on the site. Both urban options preserved the 96,000 square foot requirement outlined above, but in contrast to the suburban option, distributed the required spaces over two or three levels. Consequently a much smaller building footprint is required. The primary difference between the two urban layouts can be found in their playfield allowances and the treatment of parking. The first option, Urban Option A, occupies an area of approximately( 9 acres and contains playfields to both the north and east of the facility as well as grade level parking near the north field. Urban option B forgoes the playfields to the east and locates staff parking beneath the playfield to the north, resulting in a 6 acre site. It was assumed that the field to the 119 east of Option 2 would remain a park space, and while not a dedicated school field, shared use would occur. Neither of the sites was available for development which had the advantage of allowing people to look past the reality of each site and evaluate them as concepts. The actual location of the representative sites was deemphasized in the study to further focus evaluators on characteristics of the sites rather than their locations. t .Aa:ESS Urban Site Analysis NAC I ARC H ! TEe T U R E 20 I Armed with these tools Workshop 3 was conducted. The area model and components of the building were explained to the committee. Site size requirements and the concept of representative suburban and urban sites were discussed and site concepts were presented. Next the beliefs and goals for co-location were reviewed so that the criteria for decision making would be fresh in everyone's mind. The committee was divided into groups and asked to brainstorm the pros and cons of each site option, as well as evaluating which option they believed would garner the widest community support. Each smaller group reported their conclusions to the large group and found that their conclusions were similar in that the urban site met many more of the goals established for the project than did the suburban site. Specifically the urban site was: t i ~ J SITE SIZE LARGE 9 ACRES SMALL 8.3 ACRES ; ~ I i i , I I .........."1.'1.. ',.......... !l. ''ZO, '.....;:- , ;/ 1 Urban Site" A" Layout + A more integral part of the neighborhood, thus fostering community pride + In walking distance of users - less need for bussing or cars + Likely to be used more + Potentially able to offer more services + Better at using existing infrastructure + Providing greater opportunities to integrate adults and kids + A more efficient use of land + Safer for after school activities + Less cost for landscaping + Less cost for bussing. + Able to use existing fields + More widely usable, the track could be used by the elderly for walking for example + Small/Compact - less environmental impact. + Better at meeting the goals for the project + Easier to share In general, the committee concluded that developing a co-located school facility close to the city center would serve more people, foster the creation of a "neighborhood," and be most consistent with the city's comprehensive plan. A full summary of each group's response can be found in Appendix 3. The key to this workshop was to adequately prepare exhibits in a way that would allow the committee to quickly and easily understand the options and thinking behind them. In addition, reviewing the original goals for the project gave the committee a frame of reference to judge the options they saw. Applying the criteria to the options allowed the committee to come to conclusion with confidence. Bremerton Community School of the Future I The Co-Location Project Study Workshop 4 Cost Shared Use Planning r After the committee prioritized options in Workshop 3, the team estimated the costs for each option. These were presented to the committee in order to determine if the costs for the options would have an influence on the way the committee prioritized the options. Cost estimates showed that the options were roughly comparable in costs with the cost of the urban site projected to be about $1.2 million less than the suburban site. The smaller site size and availability of utilities such as storm water control on the urban site helped to reduce its costs, while the extensive site development of the suburban site drove its costs up. In a general discussion the committee concluded that their prioritization of the options would not change based on the cost estimate. Representative floor plans for each option along with diagrams showing how spaces might be shared were presented to the committee so they could consider how shared use might work. , \-~i i :",\:,: - t t.J.,. .,- J :' v,"\l~ IL., , I L ;. - .' (--.. if t: I r:- ~.' ,~ '.' .. ;1'CiI(- "rjA~ l'~;tp"r ~ I t ~~! I!t .... /".". ~ \ 'I. I, I '. ~. ' '! Model and The committee was then broken into small groups to discuss how well the plans supported shared use and determine to what degree community functions should be integrated with the school or kept separate. The small groups then reported their conclusions to the large group. The committee concluded that separation was desirable . so that both the middle school and the community function maintained their own identity. This also was seen as facilitating management of the facility while not adversely affecting sharing. I 21 The final subject was a discussion of how to disseminate the conclusions of the committee to the greater community to get broader feedback. It was determined that the team would prepare talking points for use by the committee and a graphic board explaining the process and conclusions that were reached. This workshop had the effect of reaffirming the decisions that the committee had made previously and set the stage for broader community outreach. It gave the committee the confidence to discuss their work. NAC I ARC HIT E C T U R E Urban Cost Model: ESTIMATE SUMMARY Building SF 105,000 SF DESCRIPTION QTY Unit Price TOTAL o GENERAL CONDITIONS 105,000 SF $ 18.86 1,980,000 30 BUILDING FOOTINGS & SLABS 105,000 SF $ 8.06 846,093 50 SUPERSTRUCTURE 105,000 SF $ 22.12 2,322,293 60 ROOFING SYSTEM 105,000 SF $ 8.31 872,117 70 EXTERIOR WALLS 105,000 SF $ 20.50 2,152,371 80 EXTERIOR DOORS & OPENINGS 105,000 SF $ 11.97 1,257,000 81 INTERIOR DOORS & OPENINGS 105,000 SF $ 4.55 477,750 91 INTERIOR PARTITIONS 105,000 SF $ 15.18 1,593,850 92 WALL FINISHES 105,000 SF $ 4.61 483,916 93 FLOOR & BASE FINISHES 105,000 SF $ 5.54 581,430 94 CEILINGS & SOFFITS 105,000 SF $ 4.49 471,000 101 INTERIOR STAIRS & RAILINGS 105,000 SF $ 1.00 105,000 102 ACCESSORIES & SPECIAL TIES 105,000 SF $ 4.81 505,050 110 FIXED EQUIPMENT 105,000 SF $ 7.58 795,900 120 CASEWORK & MILLWORK 105,000 SF $ 5.39 566,000 121 LOOSE EQUIPMENT/FURNISHINGS 105,000 SF $ 1.78 187,250 I 140 MECHANICAL CONVEYANCES 105,000 SF $ 1.43 9/7/2310 22 151 PLUMBING 105,000 SF $ 10.00 1,050,000 152 FIRE PROTECTION 105,000 SF $ 3.70 388,500 153 HVAC SYSTEM 105,000 SF $ 32.50 3,412,500 161 ELECTRIC POWER 105,000 SF $ 11.00 1,155,000 162 LIGHTING 105,000 SF $ 7.25 761,250 163 SPECIAL SYSTEMS 105,000 SF $ 11.00 1,155,000 BUILDING ONLY SUBTOTAL 105,000 SF 221.61 23,269,269 201 DEMOLITION 105,000 SF $ 0.00 0 202 SITE DEVELOPMENT 105,000 SF $ 11.52 1,209,330 203 OFF-SITE WORK 105,000 SF $ 0.48 50,000 204 SITE UTILITIES / DRAINAGE 105,000 SF $ 8.50 892,500 205 LANDSCAPE / FILEDS 105,000 SF $ 6.82 716,125 SITE ONLY SUB TOTAL $ 27.31 2,867,955 SUB TOTAL 26,137,224 DESIGN CONTINGENCY 10% 2,613,722 273.82 28,750,947 OH & PROFIT/BONDS/INSURANCE 7.00% 2,012,566 SUB TOTAL 292.99 30,763,513 ESCALATION CONTINGENCY at 7.5% per yea 4/1/11 7.5% 4,311,105.97 TOTAL PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST $ 334.04 35,074,619 COST WITH TAX $ 38,231,334 EXCLUDES ALL SOFT COST, ALLOW ADDITIONAL- 45% APPROX total with soft cost - excluding land acquisition $57.5 Million Bremerton Community School of the Future I The Co-Location Project Study Rural Cost Model: 682 ESTIMATE SUMMARY Building SF 105,000 SF DESCRIPTION QTY Unit Price TOTAL o GENERAL CONDITIONS 105,000 SF $ 17.14 1,800,000 30 BUILDING FOOTINGS & SLABS 105,000 SF $ 9.59 1,006,989 50 SUPERSTRUCTURE 105,000 SF $ 21.32 2,238,700 60 ROOFING SYSTEM 105,000 SF $ 9.36 982,800 70 EXTERIOR WALLS 105,000 SF $ 20.06 2,106,383 80 EXTERIOR DOORS & OPENINGS 105,000 SF $ 11.60 1,218,500 81 INTERIOR DOORS & OPENINGS 105,000 SF $ 4.55 477,750 91 INTERIOR PARTITIONS 105,000 SF $ 15.18 1,593,850 92 WALL FINISHES 105,000 SF $ 4.61 483,916 93 FLOOR & BASE FINISHES 105,000 SF $ 5.54 581 ,430 94 CEILINGS & SOFFITS 105,000 SF $ 4.49 471,000 101 INTERIOR STAIRS & RAILINGS 105,000 SF $ 1.00 105,000 102 ACCESSORIES & SPECIALTIES 105,000 SF $ 4.81 505,050 110 FIXED EQUIPMENT 105,000 SF $ 7.58 795,900 120 CASEWORK & MILLWORK 105,000 SF $ 5.39 566,000 121 LOOSE EQUIPMENT/FURNISHINGS 105,000 SF $ 1.78 187,250 140 MECHANICAL CONVEYANCES 105,000 SF $ 0.95 100000.00 151 PLUMBING 105,000 SF $ 10.00 1,050,000 152 FIRE PROTECTION 105,000 SF $ 3.70 388,500 153 HV AC SYSTEM 105,000 SF $ 32.50 3,412,500 123 161 ELECTRIC POWER 105,000 SF $ 11.00 1,155,000 162 LIGHTING 105,000 SF $ 7.25 761,250 163 SPECIAL SYSTEMS 105,000 SF $ 11.00 1,155,000 BUILDING ONLY SUBTOTAL 105,000 SF 220.41 23,142,768 201 DEMOLITION 105,000 SF $ 0.00 0 202 SITE DEVELOPMENT 105,000 SF $ 16.31 1,712,640 203 OFF-SITE WORK 105,000 SF $ 2.86 300,000 204 SITE UTILITIES 105,000 SF $ 5.50 577 ,500 205 LANDSCAPE / FILEDS 105,000 SF $ 9.15 960,875 SITE ONLY SUB TOTAL $ 33.82 3,551,015 SUB TOTAL (building + site) 26,693,783 DESIGN CONTINGENCY 10% 2,669,378 279.65 29,363,161 OH & PROFIT/BONDS/INSURANCE 7.00% 2,055,421 SUB TOTAL 299.22 31,418,582 ESCALATION CONTINGENCY at 8% per year to: 4/1/11 7.5% 4,402,905.46 TOTAL PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST $ 341.16 35,821,488 COST WITH TAX $ 39,045,422 EXCLUDES ALL SOFT COST, ALLOW ADDITIONAL- 45% APPROX total with soft cost - excluding land acquisition $ 58.6 Million NAC I ARC HIT E C T U R E Sharing Diagrams: .. .......10 ~ I ~ Inward Orientation 24 Outward Orientation r - SMALL GROUP LEARNING I PROJECT SPACES - SENIOR PAL PROGRAM - SENIORS MENTORING I TUTORING STUDENTS It" ~:, . COMPUTER SKILLS CLASSES .J . SENIOR PAL PROGRAM . STUDENTS TEACHING SENIORS SPACES USED BY TEENS l IN OFF HOURS: MUSIC, ARTS, LIBRARY I 1 , TEEN PAL PROGRAM.J Bremerton Community School of the Future I The Co-Location Project Study ~'.....U...= _ : :~ I I_ I I I- I I- I I_ I I_ I I ......J L COMMUNITY STORAGE Senior Program - DANCING [!JM"""'<CO~~ 1-- --- ~--- I.. I I I I I ......... - :~ I- I I I- I- I- I I . . ......,1 L COMMUNITY STORAGE ~ Teen Program Representative Floor Plan: Suburban Site I 25 First Floor J- I I -.1 Second Floor NAC I ARC HIT E C T U R E Representative Floor Plans: Urban Site 26 I Second Floor r------' r'---l l . I I j f I ~ 1 r Third Floor Bremerton Community School of the Future I The Co-Location Project Study Community Outreach After the committee had concluded that the urban site was a better choice for the co-located facility, the effort shifted to try to test this conclusion with the broader community. Reaching out to the broader community was attempted in several ways: The team developed a number of talking points for committee members to use in discussing their conclusions with friends and neighbors. Committee members were to bring the results of these discussions back to the committee. (See Appendix 5E - Talking Points) The team developed an information handout committee members could use with the talking points in explaining the problem, process, and conclusions. The team prepared a display board that explained the study, told about the process used, described the options investigated, and told of the citizens committee's conclusion that a middle school co- located with a recreation center in an urban area was the best choice. This board was displayed at several school district and city facilities and people were instructed how to give their feedback. The city and school district created input tools on their web sites so that citizens could be informed and comment on the proposals A community forum was held with display boards set up in booths staffed by the team to explain the process and answer questions. A brief survey tool was developed to allow those stopping at the booth to have their input recorded. (See Appendix 5G - Community Outreach) 127 The results of these efforts were generally positive feedback on the committee's conclusions. Although a variety of outreach methods were used additional effort is still required to spread the word about this study and get even more input. Response to the various outreach efforts were not robust, but the main concern expressed by the broader group of citizens that did offer an opinion was whether there was a need for a new middle school given the general declining enrollment in Bremerton School District. The current recession also weighed heavily on people's minds, making them wary of any proposals that might be costly in the current economic climate. This demonstrates the need to better inform the public about where growth is occurring and what the options are for meeting that growth. ~~~IARCHITECTURE Conclusions The Typical Pattern of Development for New School Facilities, and a Change Toward an Alternate Pattern of Development 28 I The typical pattern for new school construction is that the school districts purchases land that has been previously undeveloped or only marginally developed (a green-field site). This land is typically outside of the previously developed areas within the school district. They generally make this land acquisition because they predict significant residential growth in the areas and/or it is an area where they can purchase a land parcel they consider to be an adequate size. The parcel needs to accommodate the school building, parking, all of the related play fields, and area for onsite storm detention and wetlands mitigation. The Office of the Superintendent of Public Instructions (OSPI) has recommendations for school site size based on the class levels served but this is only a recommendation and it is very common for urban schools to have a smaller site. The new school facility generally operates exclusively for school use except for afterhours use of the gym and fields by the Parks Department or community groups. In the course of this study, it was determined that the above noted "typical" pattern of development is likely not the best for the Bremerton School District, or for other school districts with similar characteristics. This study concluded that Bremerton and other communities would benefit by an alternative pattern of development in which non-school/community services are co- located on site with the school. This study also determined that locating the school closer to the developed area / urban core of the city makes the facility more visible, more accessible and more of a center of activity. It is expected that the property size will be smaller than OSPI recommendations in a more urban area due to less available land; the appropriate size of the land would be based on high efficiency use of fields, parking and a small building footprint (likely multiple stories). If possible, school development adjacent to Parks Department land makes additional playfields more available for school needs, thus reducing the amount of land needed by the school. This study determined that for Bremerton (and similar communities) the educational experience is not expected to diminish because of the smaller land size, rather there are more educational opportunities available if the school connects to community partners. The Bremerton School of the Future Co-location Study concludes that there would be significant benefits to developing a middle school with a community activity center. These benefits include: + Efficient use of resources + Synergy of different services working together + Neighborhood enhancement - creates a. hub, + 360 Service for students - meets multiple student needs + Positive public perception + Invigorates west side of Bremerton The study concludes that the best uses to co- locate with a middle school are uses that reach out both to children and the neighborhood in which the facility is located. A teen center, community center, or senior center were seen as the uses most compatible with a middle school. Bremerton Community School of the Future I The Co-Location Project Study The study concludes that a co-located facility in west Bremerton should be located on the east side of Highway 3 on a more urban site. These are some of the advantages the committee cited for this approach: + The facility will be a more integral part of the neighborhood, fostering community pride + The facility will be in walking distance of users - less need for bussing or cars + The facility will potentially able to offer more services and is likely to be used more + The facility will have less environmental impact, be a more efficient use of land, and be a better use of existing infrastructure + The urban location best meets the goals for the project Based on historical trends, the following conditions are expected to occur in the future years: It is expected that there will be reduced availability of open green-field sites as more development occurs; increasing fuel prices will make longer commutes more expensive; environmental regulations on green-fields will increase; community services needs will increase; and educational planning will integrate education with experience outside the classroom. These various factors support the expectation that the alternative pattern of development will become more common for new school development. Additionally, co-located school facilities that serve a broader population will inherently garner more voter support for passage of a bond issue proposal. Finally, the study concludes that a co-located facility located east of Highway 3 in west Bremerton should be well supported by the broader community. The task is now to create momentum for the project by getting the word of these findings out to the broader community, and begin the process of attracting committed partners who will work with the City and School District to further the vision and make the project a reality. I 29 ~~~IARCHITECTURE 30 I Bremerton Community School of the Future I The Co-Location Project Study Appendix 1 : Workshop 1 Agenda + Minutes I 31 ~~~IARCHITECTURE ~~~IARCHITECTURE Bremerton Co-location Project Stakeholders Workshop # 1 - Goal Setting July 31, 2008 Agenda 4:30 - 4:45 Arrival, get name tag, find your table 4:45 - 5:15 Welcome and introductions 5:15 - 5:20 Explanation of the process 5:20 - 6:00 Establish "Belief Statements" Why is co-location a good idea? 5:20 - 5:35 Small groups discuss and record their thoughts in the form of statements Groups report Individuals "vote" on top belief statements Review top belief statements 5:35 - 5:50 5:50 - 6:00 6:00 - 6:05 6:05 - 6:10 Break- Snacks will be provided National talent, local focus 6:10 - 6:40 Establish the goals for this process 6: 10 - 6:25 Small groups discuss and record their thoughts in the form of statements 6:25 - 6:40 Groups report 6:40 - 7:15 Establish the goals for the project 6:40 - 6:55 Small groups discuss and record their thoughts in the form of statements Groups report Individuals "vote" on top goals for the project Review top goals 6:55 - 7:10 7: 10 - 7:20 7:20 - 7:25 7:25 - 7:30 Summary, next steps, next meeting time and date n: \121-08022\200\z- 200-options\a206\a206b-wkshp1agenda-080731.doc www.nacarchitecture.com NAC Inc I 2201 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1405 I Seattle, Washington 98121-1847 I T: 206.441.4522 I F: 206.441.7917 ~~c=IARCHITECTURE Bremerton Collaborative School Siting I Co-Location Project Stakeholders Workshop # 1 - Goal Setting July 31, 2008 Arrival and Introductions Each attendee was assigned to a table with the intent to integrate people from different groups together. Each person introduced themselves and gave a brief statement for why they chose to participate. Andrea Spencer from the City of Bremerton Planning Department welcomed everyone and gave an overview of what this project is about. She noted that the project evolved from a statewide workshop of Planners and School Districts to better understand the common and conflicting issues that each face with effective land management and development of school facilities. Bremerton was awarded a grant to further explore this issue, specifically with the understanding that the School District has a recognized need to provide a middle school facility in West Bremerton. The facility has the opportunity to have some level of shared use with other non-school related functions that are needed in West Bremerton. Greg Stack from NAClArchitecture gave an overview of the process that will be used in today's session. Each table (of 5-6 people) brainstormed their thoughts on specific questions asked of the group. Each group recorded their responses and then at the end of each session, reported their responses to the full group. National talent, Small Group Session 1 local focus Establish "Belief Statements" Why is co-location a good idea? The responses to this question for each group are recorded on subsequent pages. Similar responses from various groups were summarized into one idea. Summary statements were reviewed with the group and each individual was given 3 dots to vote for the 3 responses which most strongly represented their beliefs. Small Group Session 2 Explore the goals people have for this process There are separate goals for the project or facility that will result from this process, but people should also have goals for the process we are using to determine the best co-location opportunities for the project. The responses to this question for each group are recorded on subsequent pages. Small Group Session 3 Determine what goals people have for this project or facility? This session was intended to focus on the goals people have for co-locating another facility with a Middle School. www.nacarchitecture.com NAC Inc I 2201 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1405 I Seattle, Washington 98121-1847 I T: 206.441.4522 I F: 206.441.7917 Bremerton Collaborative School Siting I Co-Location Project Stakeholders Workshop # 1 - Goal Setting July 31, 2008 Page 2 of 11 The responses to this question for each group are recorded on subsequent pages. Similar responses from various groups were summarized into one idea. . Summary statements were reviewed with the group and each individual was given 3 dots to vote for the 3 responses which most strongly represented their beliefs. Bremerton Collaborative School Siting I Co-Location Project Stakeholders Workshop # 1 - Goal Setting July 31, 2008 Page 3 of 11 Small Group Session 1 Responses Group 1: . . . . . . . . Group 2: . Why Is Co-Location a Good Idea? Efficient use of resources, shared use of facilities (cost and energy saving potential) Positive public perception - provide example/model Brings different parts of the community together Enhance student involvement and participation (lower expenses to students, gas, etc.) Global solutions/synergy from multiple organizations working together May improve likelihood of success, e.g. finding available space/land Make west side more desirable to residents and teachers; a family environment Help revitalize the west side Economically feasible o multipurpose o real estate o transportation o dollar goes farther · Logistically- walking distance o within the facility o within the community · Good use of facility, lots of people always there · More efficient to have a central location · Groups feed off each other; networking · Generational interaction: o Role models/adult figures for children o There is something different out there · Public/Corporate partnerships; mentoring · A well built facility good for emergency preparedness · Consolidation of knowledge/skill/ability · Easier to get grants for partnerships · Health benefit possibilities. · Combined recreational activities. (Group 3 was merged with other groups) Bremerton Collaborative School Siting I Co-Location Project Stakeholders Workshop # 1 - Goal Setting July 31, 2008 Page 4 of 11 Group 4: . Efficiency . Resource sharing . Improved services to neighborhoods and families . Improved geographic access (closer to home) . Cost sharing . Greater use- weekends, evenings, summer . Safety and security; prevent vandalism . Reduce trips; multiple services at one location . After-school opportunities for students . Incubator for community service groups . Expanded community engagement . School/Private sector relationship . Improve transit access . Encourage interaction with non-school population Group 5: · Efficiency of space · Construction cost · Bring other activities and info to students · Students surrounded by community · Dual use brings more funding and support · Increased support of tax payers- good value · May be a downside - "just one more thing" · Is a better question what is the best school site? · Draw in support for juvenile health and wellbeing · Difference between school and community libraries · Appeal to adults/parents; create a bond · Increased community involvement · Increase understanding of community resources available · Bring in more partners to assist the School District with resources so they can focus on education · Greater access · Convenience · Neighborhood receives impact of having resources available in close proximity · Positive for students Bremerton Collaborative School Siting I Co-Location Project Stakeholders Workshop # 1 - Goal Setting July 31, 2008 Page 5 of 11 Group 6: . . . . . . . . . . . Efficient use of resources (building, land, cost, etc.) Brings community together Security: More socially and physically secure because of multi-use and total neighborhood investment Community investment- voters more likely to support multi-use concept Brings broad band of community demographics together Brings synergy to a neighborhood Pride brought into the area; jumpstart revitalization Transformation and energizing the neighborhood Non-traditional alliances Reduce NIMBY-ism Reduce environmental impact Bremerton Collaborative School Siting I Co-Location Project Stakeholders Workshop # 1 - Goal Setting July 31, 2008 Page 6 of 11 Small Group Session 2 Responses Group 1: . . . . . . Group 2: . . . . . . Goals for the Process Find out what is important/values Find quality site for Middle School Diversity of thoughts/ideas Chance to voice opinions Ultimate outcome reflects the process and ideas; attendees feel ownership in outcome Outcome reflects community need rather than selective interests Improved community communication to increase desire for project Addresses the needs of all community demographics to appeal to more voters- support for funding Benefit whole community Inter-generational involvement Community centered Antidote to "Screen Time." Group 3 was merged with other groups Group 4: · Lend credibility to project · Level of commitment from stakeholders/citizens · Participants will become advocates · Greater inclusion of adult/elderly services o Elimination of barriers · Builds recipe for success in engaging citizens · Process builds continued community collaboration · Be a pioneer Bremerton Collaborative School Siting I Co-Location Project Stakeholders Workshop # 1 - Goal Setting July 31, 2008 Page 7 of 11 Group 5: . . . . Group 6: . . . . . . · Find a good school location . Attract young families to the west side · Develop excellent and desirable middle school . Understand what the great new possibilities are; stretch our minds · Actually get it done o Successful concept o Open the doors More ways to accomplish learning at the middle school via other community involvement An efficient use of our time Adopt all of our ideas Process outcome is appealing to BSD, which will therefore drive it forward Continue the revitalization of our community All ideas will be considered (free flow of ideas) The end product, best location, best usage. It is not about building a school, but a quality community A plan that can be accomplished (something that the community can buy into) To see our vision become a reality Bremerton Collaborative School Siting I Co-Location Project Stakeholders Workshop # 1 - Goal Setting July 31, 2008 Page 8 of 11 Small Group Session 1 Responses Group 1: . . . . . . . . Group 2: . . . . . . . . Project Goals To build a facility that brings the community together Make site appealing to students and community Project is financially feasible for the School District and at least one other community partner Improve academic atmosphere Raise expectation of quality Expose students to new experiences and opportunities Integrate students with partner populations Environmentally friendly: green building, food growing Well built facility o Energy smart, Green building Multi-use facility Neighborhood community center Dollar goes farther Increase public health Community support Facility increases learning opportunities for all Intergenerationallearningfsharingfrespect Group 3 was merged with other groups Group 4: · Consistent with the existing plans of city, neighborhood and School District · Identify partners to maximize capital contribution (public and private) · Identify a project that would receive wide community support, funding, and use · Lifelong learning for the community as well as students · LEED certified project · No net loss of existing amenities · Create community pride · Focal point for future enhancements of community Bremerton Collaborative School Siting I Co-Location Project Stakeholders Workshop # 1 - Goal Setting July 31,2008 Page 9 of 11 Group 5: . . Group 6: . . . . . . . · The final product would open the doors to an excellent school that would help in the creation of a more vibrant Bremerton · Better School District perception · Promote more community and parent involvement o tutoring (multi-generational) o Drug and alcohol treatment o Truancy court o After school programs for all Visible project in town Multiuse synergy, public/private partnerships Continuation of the revitalization of our community Expanding non-school opportunities and engaging non-traditional alliances Cost reduction by including a variety of funding sources Changing public perception of the Bremerton School District Create community pride Achievable and sustainable To see our vision become a reality Bremerton Collaborative School Siting I Co-Location Project Stakeholders Workshop # 1 - Goal Setting July 31, 2008 Page 10 of 11 Prioritization of Group Responses - Small Group Session 1 Why Is Co-Location a Good Idea? Rank Idea # of votes 1 Efficient use of resources 23 1 Synergy of different services working together: 23 Enhances neighborhood, creates a hub, internal networking and sharing of knowledge Bring different groups together 3 360 Service for students - meets multiple student needs, helps 13 middle school students with choice making 4 Positive public perception 8 5 Invigorate west side 7 6 Reduced travel if facility houses uses that are commonly used 4 by the same people 6 Greater parent involvement likely to increase success 4 8 Bring in partners to enhance education 2 9 Enhance student activities if close to school 1 9 Reduce environmental impact 1 9 Consolidation of knowledge that can be shared in facility 1 12 Emergency preparedness opportunity (as center) 0 Bremerton Collaborative School Siting I Co-Location Project Stakeholders Workshop # 1 - Goal Setting July 31, 2008 Page 11 of 11 Prioritization of Group Responses - Small Group Session 3 What Goals do you have for this Projectl Facility? Rank Goal - # of votes 1 Create community pride- continue revitalization, continue to 17 change perception of Bremerton and School District; appealing to students and community 2 Be Consistent with city comprehensive plan for a vibrant 16 Bremerton: Part of a neighborhood center Make building location visible/public/central 3 Improve academic environment: services/resources that 13 support students and families and make great schools 4 Multi use facility: brings community together and expand non- 9 school opportunities 5 Increase opportunity for public health 6 6 No net loss of existing amenities/parks 5 7 Identify a project that will get broad support and use 4 7 Project to be LEED or environmentally responsible 4 9 Identify partners (public and private) to maximize capital; be 2 fiscally sustainable N :\121-08022\200\Z -200-0ptions\A204\A204a-ColoationMeetingNotes-080812.doc Appendix 2: Workshop 2 Agenda + Minutes I 45 ~~~IARCHITECTURE ~~~IARCHITECTURE Bremerton Co-location Project Stakeholders Workshop # 2 Identify Co-location Opportunities - Big Ideas August 18, 2008 Agenda 4:30 - 4:45 Arrival, get name tag, find your table 4:45 - 4:55 Welcome and introductions 4:55 - 5:00 Explanation of the process 5:00 - 5:15 Review results from the last session 5: 15 - 5:45 Co-location examples from other places 5:45 - 6: 15 Brainstorm co-location ideas for this project 5:45 - 6:00 Small groups discuss and record their thoughts in the form of statements Groups report National talent, local focus 6:00 - 6: 15 6: 15 - 6:45 Critique co-location ideas 6:15 - 6:30 Small groups discuss Limitations and opportunities presented by the "Big Ideas" they previously identified. Groups record their thoughts 6:30 - 6:45 Groups report 6:45 - 6:55 Break and summary of group findings 6:55- 7: 15 Prioritize "Big Ideas" 7:15 - 7:20 7:20 - 7:25 Individuals prioritize "Big Ideas" Review top "Big Ideas" 7:25 - 7:30 Summary, next steps, next meeting time and date n: \121-08022\200\Z- 200-options\a206\a206b-wkshp2agenda-080818.doc www.nacarchitecture.com NAC Inc I 2201 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1405 I Seattle, Washington 98121-1847 I T: 206.441.4522 I F: 206.441.7917 ~~~IARCHITECTURE Bremerton Collaborative School Siting/Co-Location Project Stakeholders Workshop #2 August 18, 2008 Arrival and Introductions Andrea Spencer from the City of Bremerton Planning Department welcomed the group, noted that this is the first collaborative project the city has undertaken with the School District, and introduced the representatives from NAClArchitecture. Greg Stack from NAClArchitecture asked individuals new to the workshop to introduce themselves and then generally described the process we are using. The goal of Workshop 2 is to identify the top potential partners/uses that should be located with a middle school. Workshop 3, to be held in September, will compare the impact of locating potential partners/uses on urban and suburban sites to see how the characteristics of a site might impact the partner selected. It was asked if the District had identified a specific site or sites for the project. Greg responded that the focus of the study is not to choose a site, but rather to explore the relationship between the type of site (urban vs. suburban) and the type of co-location uses that make the most sense for a particular type of site. National talent, local focus Greg then reviewed the outcome of the first Stakeholders Workshop, which generated the goals of the process and why co-location is a good idea. The voting totals, published in the first meeting's minutes, were displayed and Greg noted that the goals would be revisited in later sessions and be used to inform and evaluate future decisions. Greg Stack, Kevin Flanagan, Boris Srdar, and Kevin Hannifan of NAClArchitecture presented examples of co-location projects from the Northwest, the U.S., and around the world. Small Group Session 1 - Generating "Big Ideas" Following the presentation, attendees were divided into four groups and asked to brainstorm potential partners and uses, or "Big Ideas," for the project. Responses were recorded and presented to the entire group. Small Group Session 2 - Pros and Cons of Each "Big Idea" The four groups then generated pros and cons for each "Big Idea" and presented their findings. The "Big Ideas," pros and cons are recorded on subsequent pages. The "Big Ideas" were summarized and similar items from multiple groups combined. Individuals were given 4 dots to vote for their 4 highest priorities. The voting tally is recorded on a subsequent page. www.nacarchitecture.com NAC Inc I 2201 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1405 I Seattle, Washington 98121-1847 I T: 206.441.4522 I F: 206.441.7917 Group 1 : 1. Youth Oriented Indoor and Outdoor space Pro: Community Involvement Fulfill a need Con Security (who's coming and going) Ownership 2. Olympic College Adult Education Facility Pro: Gets services closer to families Make kids aware of college Con: Program compatibility 3. Adult Community Room Pro: Community Involvement in school Promotes volunteers in school Con: Security 4. Early Learning Center (Pre-school) Pro Developing better relationships between age groups Promoting babysitting/child development skills Con: Age appropriate contact 5. Public Health Center Pro: Serve large need Promote Partnerships (Community Health/Harrison) Con: Community Concerns 6. Boys & Girls Club No pros or cons recorded. 7. Family Advocate (connectivity to social services) Pro: Meet large need Bring access to services into community 8. Parent Education Co-Op Pro: Promote parenting skills 9. Office Space for Small Non-Profits Pro: Bring community interests into schools Interface with teachers and Students An opportunity for youth oriented groups Nutrition and Nature programs Con: Selection- personal views 10. Practice space for Bremerton Symphony Pro: Meets a need Student connectivity to Symphony 11. Pool: Pro: Improved Access Well ness/Health Availability for sports teams Group 2: 1. Teen Center/YMCA/Boys & Girls Club Pro: Need Proximity Peer Pressure Con: Competing resources Peer Pressure 2. Restaurant/Cafe: Pro: Get adults to slow down Reason to be on campus Healthy eating/garden Con: Economics of business Compete with school lunch programs 3. Community/School Food Garden Pro: Education Quality interaction with different ages 4. Community/Public Health Center/Clinic Pros: Obvious 5. Family Services: Parenting, Financial, Literacy, Adult Education Pro: Parents on site Coping skills Con: Some services may conflict with School 6. Residential Housing: Pro: Security Helps to pay bill Con: Potential bad neighbor 7. Non-Profit Office/Storage/Meeting Space Pro: Need for small non-profits Shared amenities Con: Can't provide need due to large demand Can't afford monthly expenses 8. Performing Arts (Available To School and Community) Pro: Includes all arts (Le. ceramics) Connecting students to art Arts build community Multi-cultural Exchange Con: Bremerton High School 9. Senior Center/Facilities/Learning Pro: Intergenerational activity Need 10. Computer Lab for Community Use: Pro: Intergenerational activity Need 11. Sports/Ball Field, Courts, Soccer with Lighting Pro: Children outside Community need Con: Neighborhood may not like lighting or activities Competition for other facilities 12. Transportation Hub Pro: Gas Prices Efficiency 13. School On Top Of Ferry Terminal No pros or cons recorded. 14. Law Enforcement No pros or cons recorded. 15. Kitsap EZ Earth No pros or cons recorded. 16. Green Building E.g. environmental education/compost/garden/worms No pros or cons recorded. Group 3: 1. Early Learning and Daycare Pro: Proven Success Parental involvement Attracts parents to neighborhood Community support Raise property values Time savings Safety factor- siblings nearby Stability Mentoring Con: Older students could be a bad influence Difficult to recruit and maintain quality staff 2. After School Programs E.g. music, YMCA, Arts, Technology, Boys & Girls Club, Tutoring No pros or cons recorded. 3. Transit/Park & Ride Pro: Convenient Greenhouse reduction/fuel savings Encourage transit use School bus/funding Con: Safety around moving vehicles 4. Senior Citizen Center Con: Screening for student safety 5. Private Business or Non-Profit E.g. Dental, Doctor's office, health care, social services Pro: Saves parents time Convenience Decrease school absences (for use of related services) Encourage preventative care Career opportunities Easier connection with school and social services Con: Perceived client base limits abuse of services by students Parking for customers 6. Multi-Purpose Indoor/Outdoor Fitness Sports Complex Pro: Encourage fitness Community use/support #1 priority for health department Decrease obesity/increase activity Afterschool availability/use Con: Coordination of Use Liability issues Space availability Group 4: 1. Senior Center Pros: Ease of transportation Builds community Respect for elders Prevent social isolation Voting block Possibility for meal services Cons: Separation of uses when noise is involved Time management Security 2. Social Services Pros: One stop shopping Family planning Reaching a broader population with health services Convenience Ease of dispensing medications to youth Cons: Youth exposed to troubled adults/youth 3. Boys & Girls Club: Pros: Proven commodity as youth service provider Con: Age separation 4. Religious Activities: Pro: Provide background in religion to all Con: Selecting a denomination/religion 5. Private Business Partnership: Pros: Financing maintenance/operations offset Sponsorship of activities Teach responsibility Trade skills Cons: Capitalization of the schools 6. Library Pros: More books/better selection to students Public computer access Study Location Cons: School Noise Competition for books/materials 7. Daycare Pro: Need for more daycare Convenience Early Learning Opportunity 8. Aquatic Facility/Sports Complex Pro: Availability to community Con: Cost Voting Results Proaram Teen Center/Boys & Girls Club Daycare/ Afterschool Care/Early Childcare/Early Learning Center Senior Center Environmental Center -Composting -Earth Science -Kitsap EZ Earth -Food growing Family Services -Connection with social services -Parenting Support Multi-Use Activity/Sports Center -Indoor/outdoor activities Community Center -Meeting -Computers -Activities -Parent Room Law Enforcement Space -Connection between students and police Private Business/Professional Services -Restaurant Public Health/Professional Services/ Medical Services Transit Center/Park & Ride Non-Profit Space Adult Education Services -Connection with Olympic College Residential Housing Performing Arts Center -Center for all Arts Pool Religious Activities Library Symphony Practice Space Votes 19 11 10 9 8 8 7 5 5 3 2 2 o o o o N;\121-0B022\200\2 -200-Qptions\A206\A206b-WkShp2MeetingNotes-OBOB1B.doc Appendix 3: Workshop 3 Agenda + Minutes I 57 ~~~IARCHITECTURE ~~~IARCHITECTURE Bremerton Co-location Project Stakeholders Workshop # 3 Site and Concept Evaluation September 22, 2008 Agenda 4:30 - 4:45 Arrival, get name tag, find your table 4:45 - 4:50 Welcome and introductions 4:50 - 4:55 Explanation of the process 4:55 - 5:15 Review results from the last session 5: 15 - 5:30 Components of this project 5:30 - 5:55 Review representative evaluation sites National talent/ local focus 5:30 - 5:40 Sites considered - comments 5:40 - 5:55 Site analysis of representational sites - comments 5:55 - 6: 15 Site concepts 6:15 - 6:25 Review goals and co-location reasons and other criteria 6:25 - 6:55 Identify pros and cons of site concepts 6:55 - 7: 15 Summary of site concept feedback 7:15 - 7:20 Summary, next steps, next meeting time and date N :\121-08022\200\2- 200-0ptions\A206\WkShp3Agenda.pdf www.nacarchitecture.com NAC Inc I 2201 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1405 I Seattle, Washington 98121-1847 IT: 206.441.4522 I F: 206.441.7917 ~~c:IARCHITECTURE Bremerton Collaborative School Siting/Co-Location Project Stakeholders Workshop #3 September 22, 2008 Greg Stack of NAClArchitecture welcomed the group, asked new members to introduce themselves, and introduced the agenda for the evening. The prioritized uses generated in Workshop #2 were reviewed. Seven uses emerged as clear frontrunners: Teen Center/Boys & Girls Club (19 votes), Daycare/Afterschool Care/Early Childcare/Early Learning Center (11), Senior Center (10), Environmental Center (9), Family Services (8), Multi-Use Activity/Sports Center (8), and Community Center (7). Kevin Flanagan of NAClArchitecture reported on the status of various related projects in west Bremerton. He discussed this collocation project with representative from various other community agencies including the Parks Department, YMCA, Boys and Girls Club, United Way and the School District. The meetings with these various group included discussions about initiatives that they are working on; he noted several correlations between planned community initiatives and the prioritized needs identified by this group at our last workshop. KCR and the School district are in the process of planning an early learning / childcare center on Naval Avenue; and the United Way is consolidating into a building downtown that will provide connection to community and health services, family services as well as providing office space for non-profits. Based on these conversations it National talent, appears that Early Childcare/Early Learning Center and Family Services needs will be met local focus elsewhere in west Bremerton, so for the collocation project we will focus on the other top priorities identified by the committee. In looking at these priorities it is clear that their space requirements are very similar. For instance, the requirements for a community center will be very similar to the requirements for a teen center or a senior center. Based on this outcome the planning ideas presented this evening will retain flexibility in the exact co-location use and focus on how these similar uses would be accommodated on and typical urban and a suburban site. Greg Stack reviewed the goals from Workshop #1: 1. Community pride, support revitalization of Bremerton 2. Part of a neighborhood center/support comprehensive plan 3. Create a great school/improve academic environment 4. Bring community together/expand opportunities 5. Project that gets broad support 6. Maximize capital, financially responsible 7. Efficient use of resources 8. Synergy of services working together 9. 360 degree service for students 10. Responds to population centers 11. Visible, public, central www.nacarchitecture.com NAC Inc I 2201 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1405 I Seattle, Washington 98121-1847 IT: 206.441.4522 I F: 206.441.7917 12. Environmentally sensitive The components of a co-located middle school project were then reviewed with the group. The various functions of a middle school account for approximately 91,000 square feet, with the community uses totaling 5,000 square feet. Given these general space requirements, the resultant building footprints were compared. The majority of spaces in a suburban development would be on the ground level, resulting in a footprint of approximately 75,000 s.f. For a more urban site, a three storey development was proposed with a footprint of 54,000 s.f. In terms of acreage required for development, 9.7 acres was used as the minimum size for a site that would include two sports fields, parking, bus drop-off, and the school itself. This 9.7 acre figure was used as a baseline when evaluating potential representative sites. Boris Srdar of NAClArchitecture presented various ways of orienting and sharing the functions of a middle school and community/teen/senior center. Diagrams showed how simultaneous uses could occur and how activities could be segregated from each other when required. Greg Stack then described the concept of representative sites. Since the scope of the study is not to identify specific sites for the facility, the team looked at sites that were representative of a variety of sites in two areas of west Bremerton. One group of sites is more suburban in that they are west of highway 3, while the other sites are more towards downtown. Using Highway 3 as a dividing line, three more urban sites were considered to the east and three more suburban sites were considered to the west. The urban sites east of the highway, while displaying diverse issues related to development, were commonly close to facilities, parks, and residential development. Similarly, sites to the west shared challenging topographies and limited access. A National Guard Armory site just east of Pendergrast Park was chosen to be representative of suburban sites; and the Westpark redevelopment was chosen to be representative of urban sites. The team from NAClArchitecture then led an analysis of the various issues and opportunities related to the selected representative sites. Simple diagrammatic building, field, and parking layouts were shown to let people judge how the facilities would fit on the sites. Since development on an urban site is more out of the realm of experience for most people, character sketches to explain how the concept of the urban site could work were also presented. A facility using approximately 30 acres was presented for the suburban site. Two facilities requiring 9 and 6 acres, respectively, were presented for the urban site with each using an adjacent park for part of their field requirement. These are referred to in the comments below as options A and B. The group was divided into three groups and asked to brainstorm pros and cons for each site option as well as which option, in their opinions, would be most likely to garner wide community support. Their responses were presented and are recorded below. The three groups had similar responses to the site options, and appeared to agree on the following points: · The suburban siting option does not meet the goals the group defined at the beginning of the process. · The urban sites better meets these goals. · Urban Site A with more fields was preferred over Site B with fewer fields, but people understood that final resolution on an urban site would depend on land availability. Prior to adjourning, the attendees were asked for their questions and comments and a general discussion occurred. Comments from this discussion were as follows: As a person who lives/has lived in more rural settings, I am initially inclined to favor those kinds of sites because of their natural setting and the absence of "bad influences" found in more urban environments. o Also mentioned was the park land adjacent to the National Guard Armory site and the inherent advantage of locating near and utilizing those resources. o This was followed by a brief discussion of the "suburban" site options evaluated, and all of the sites considered had parks/field located nearby. o The location of the school could have a positive impact on the surrounding neighborhoods, and the areas around Pendergrast Park (as well as Westpark) could use the benefit. Klahowya Secondary School (7-12) was mentioned as an example of the type of suburban development that should be avoided and the more suburban site reminded people of this school. Some criticisms of Klahowya were: o The facility was built on a site isolated from existing development and used as a magnet to attract residential development to the area. o The school lacks visible presence and does not contribute to a sense of community as defined in the Goals. o One participant mentioned that she would prefer that type of school for her children because of the rural setting and availability of open space and playfields. o Also mentioned was the grade 7-12 format, which was undesirable due to the potential "bad influence" of older students mixing with younger students. While discussing the urban sites, it was mentioned that including the middle school project as part of the Westpark Redevelopment Master Plan was a unique opportunity and should be pursued in the future. Traffic impact of the suburban site near Pendergrast Park was discussed. The main road leading to the site was not thought to be able to accommodate the additional traffic a school would create. Mitigating the traffic impact through infrastructure improvements was mentioned. It was also pointed out that there would be traffic impacts at the urban site as well. Impacts on district bussing costs were questioned. It was noted that it is difficult to project the relative bussing costs of suburban vs. urban sites because the district would have to generally rearrange their routes and schedules to accommodate a new school. This question was left unresolved, but a school representative indicated that some ballpark figures may be made available. The desire to see the geographic distribution of middle-school aged children was reintroduced (this was also raised at the beginning of the workshop). This question was also left unresolved, but it was mentioned that that kind of information would be more appropriate and informative when considering actual sites instead of representative examples. A participant mentioned the increased likelihood of casual engagement with a facility/service in an urban setting compared to the concerted effort it takes to utilize the same service in a remote location. Concern was raised as to whether enough people knew what was going on in this study and that comments from a broad cross section of citizens are heard. It was noted that the next steps ought to be taking the conclusions of this committee to a broader audience at schools, community centers and through public meetings to get additional input. Concern was expressed as to whether the same conclusions would be reached if the choices the group considered were put to a larger and more diverse section of the community. Pros and Cons of Site Options: Group #1 : Pro Con More fields No sites that large are available Easier construction Increased cost for landscape maintenance Synergy with Parks & Recreation Further away from customers More design flexibility Increased bussing costs Land is less expensive Proximity to recreational areas Plenty of parking space Less likely to have utilities in place Can't walk to it Does not bring community together Suburban Site Urban Sites Pro Con Part of a neiqhborhood; community pride Limited field space Users can walk to community center Increased cost for multistory buildinq Co-location increases use Limited parking Likelihood of qreater services Needs the nearby park to work Infrastructure already in place Underground parking creates a security concern More buildinq sites available Are seniors and kids too close? Greater opportunity to integrate adults and kids More efficient use of land Safer for after school activities Multi-story - better line of site Less cost for landscaping Less cost for bussinq. Group #2: Suburban Site Pro A number of different fields Facility More disconnected (sense of ownershi et can comin Ie when wanted Room for More Growth Surrounding green spaces for environmental education Land is less expensive - easier/more traditional school set u . Con Lack of access/trans ortation issues Walking leads to safety issues La out- Parkin to fields; too reat a distance Classroom location in relation to gym - takes too Ion to walk between classes Does not meet any of the goals. Urban Site A close to I Track would be used by all; elderly walk Pro Con Small/Compact - less environmental Layout leads to concern for making trip imoact. between classes Separate entrances for each use but they Less outdoor space still share common soace Neiahborhood walk Takes away ootions for outside activity Parkinq under field - aood use of space No track; overcrowdinq existina tracks. Buses on street Cut down on transportation; walk or take city bus Meets aoals Urban Site B Group #3: Suburban Site rowth Con Not art of a nei hborhood center More kids would need to be bussed Increased fuel costs Practically invisible services Urban Sites Pro Walkin distance Closer to nei hborhood Easier to share Meets oals 1 , 2 and 4 Uses existing streets. Parking: 75% underground and 25% visible Less responsive to future growth would be a referable arran ement Below ground parking requires walking too far for uick tri s. Where do the ortables o? So different from other schools people would be unwilling to try - no broad communit su ort. Type of Project Most Likely To Garner Community Support: Group #1 : Urban site A or B likely to be most supported (too close) Group #2: Urban options A and B meet all goals Suburban option does not meet goals Community support greater for urban options Group #3: Like the suburban due to access to fields and outdoors Practical - prefers less costly option Parents drive cars to school to be involved; needs to be accessible and convenient. Need safe, wide, level, non-slip walking paths and lighting for the walkways Stop and go without having to park. I want my kids to walk. What percentage of absentee landlords vote on levies? Some raise rent each time a levy passes. N: \121-08022\200\2 -200-0ptions\A206\A206b-WkShp3MeetingNotes-080922.doc ,f... 'I' '11, POSSIBLE ~ BUT LONGER .. CONNECTION .. TO THE PARK ... ... - ... ..... ., ... .... ... ...... - - - ~ :~ .....", ,;",.10',1"'"'", .I-~'''''!~''~' , ,l,I . ~, " # i' ~' ,}. , ;"\' , ~\"\:'" ,,' \', '\- .' "', <, ~J; . '<~~~ SOLAR',,;,,;j\i~, , EXPOSURE t ,\\ 'i/'., f '~ J J ~ J t 1~ (~' Suburban Site Analysis ~ Suburban Site Layout t . - -..-'-,.-'. SOLAR , EXPOSURE 1.;8 ~;" . SMALL SCAJE ..... . RESI0ENTIAL .. Urban Site Analysis I I I i ) it :,I.,,~' U t ~, /!J~ \, Pi " r i, \"....""- . , '......', -~~' \. ~~. (\ ~~')~'> \ \, . \ J' ~I ~t .!1 i I l~l 1 ill ill ~'11 ,;, G! ~~1 ,.J 1 , ~~ :? '. I ~r ~ IJ l "" J: '. '. SITE SIZE LARGE 9 ACRES SMALL 8.3 ACRES 'e I" t~ 19 !I tl : -, ,'1 't; eli t Urban Site" A" Layout , '. r ---~JY If-- ~1 J ' Y" --................ . ~I ! 't lt3 :.1.1__ i, ~~/;'r.~/t . Q ,At ""-- ~ \ If/, : /, :--.. ~ f 'r ~ rit. '. \ ,~'t'...;..:". \ ~~:,,,,,,~ '"" 41'" .' / \ J ~'~'? \ ~ \" 'I'. SITE SIZE URBAN 5.88 ACRES 1~.1 It: '~I '1-; ~J ~ . I I t i ! 1 ,to It ~l I i 1 :llJ ! i 'J ~ i I "I ,. I I ~ "' i~i j 'r! {, !;ll;; ,J V I: ! J' ~: .' i; :'~! " Urban Site "B"Layout Appendix 4: Workshop 4 Agenda + Minutes 171 ~~<=IARCHITECTURE ~~(:IARCHITECTURE Bremerton Co-location Project Stakeholders Workshop # 4 Cost Model and Shared Use Planning October 2ih , 2008 Agenda 5:30 - 5:40 5:40 - 5:45 5:45 - 5:50 5:50 - 6:00 6:00 - 6:15 6:15 - 6:30 National talent, local focus 6:30 - 6:50 6:50 - 7:00 7:00- 7: 10 Arrival, get name tag, find a seat Welcome and outline process for tonight Review results from the last session Present cost models to group Q and A related to cost models Present representative floor plans Discuss how shared use may work Small group break-out, -Discuss how well plans support shared use of facility -Should community functions be more integrated or more separate? -How can more or different community functions be integrated? Report back to full group Summary, next steps, next meeting time and date N: \121-08022\200\2 -200-0ptions\A206\A206b-WkShp4AgendaLtrHd-081027 .doc www.nacarchitecture.com NAC Inc I 2201 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1405 I Seattle, Washington 98121-1847 I T: 206.441.4522 I F: 206.441.7917 ~~c=IARCHITECTURE Bremerton Collaborative School Siting/Co-Location Project Stakeholders Workshop #4 October 2ih, 2008 Location - Norm Dicks Building Council Chambers 1) Reviewed results and discussion from Workshop 3: A. The group discussed the concept of a "representative site" as a real property in Bremerton, but not necessarily "the" site that would be purchased for the project. As a real site in forces the designers to consider real issues such as topography, utilities, access, etc that will be different from site to site but need to be considered. B. Two different representative sites were studied - a more suburban location and a more urban location. National talent, local focus C. Comments on the suburban location included: It is more likely to find a 20+ acre parcel of land in suburban areas - this will allow for more fields and parking. It is more common for School districts to build new schools as standalone facilities on undeveloped land rather than redeveloping land in urban areas. People noted that Klahowya in Central Kitsap is an example of this type of development and they thought this school was very isolated, and not part of the community - this did not align well with the goals identified in this Bremerton project. D. Comments on the urban location included: In an urban area, the property size will be smaller so there will be less field area and less parking. The building will likely be 3 stories to accommodate a smaller foot print compared to a 2 story building in the suburban area. There will need to be compromises to the amount of area for fields and parking sizes. An urban location allows for shorter travel distance, it is more accessible for community people using the non-school functions at the facility and it is more of a visible part of the community. This sort of location met the overall goals that where outlined by the committee for this project. 2) Reported back from joint school board and city council meeting. A. NAC presented the status of the study to date to the City Council plus representatives from the school district on 10/23/08. They had a number of questions on the study and overall were pleased with progress and direction of study. 3) Comparison of a other middle school sites www.nacarchitecture.com NAC Inc I 2201 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1405 I Seattle, Washington 98121-1847 I T: 206.441.4522 I F: 206.441.7917 A. Presented in a power point some examples of actual middle schools that are similar to the development options discussed for Bremerton - a new middle school in Puyallup and a new mid-high in Lake Stevens that both followed the more traditional suburban 20+ acre site development. Madison middle school in Seattle was an example of a school on a smaller urban site (8 acres). 4) Cost models A. What is a Cost Model? A cost model is a way to anticipate the probable construction cost based on average costs per square foot of similar building types (for whole buildings) without using an actual design to quantify specific materials. B. Cost Model disclaimers: The cost model evaluations for this study were based on the most current average construction cost for similar projects bid though spring of 2008. Market factors playa significant role in construction cost. Over the past 5 years, market conditions have been such that construction escalation has exceeded 10% annually while the general inflation rate has been less than 4%. Since the construction time line for this project is likely 4-5 years out, changes in the economy may have significant effects to the actual construction costs. The cost model should be looked at from a basis of relative comparison of the 2 options rather than a prediction for actual dollar amounts. C. This cost model evaluated building and development costs but did not address land acquisition cost since the cost of real-estate can vary widely and is dependent on a specific negotiated deal. D. Cost Model basis for 2 comparative developments: 2 separate cost models were prepared for this project - one based on a representative design on the more urban site and one for the more suburban site. Some design assumptions are made relative to each site: i. An urban site will likely be 3 stories; it is based on 10 acres in an area with utilities available at the site. It will have 2 play fields and a track, and -100 on-site parking stalls. ii. The suburban site is likely 2 stories; it is based on 20+ acres and located in an area where utilities are - ~ mile from site. It will have 3 play fields and - 130 parking. iii. The cost model assumes building of an identical size, quality and construction type. The size basis is 105,000 SF for the combined middle school and community use program. E. Cost Model conclusions: i. The net cost of the urban site calculates to be slightly less (about 2%) than the suburban site. In considering the broad variables that could affect the cost, the 2% difference could be considered nominal. Factors that influenced the costs were: ii. The building only cost for the 3 story building (for the more compact urban site) is about 1 % more than the cost of the 2 story building due to the added steel used for the structure. iii. The cost to develop the suburban site is expected to be about 20% higher than the urban site, because the suburban site affects more area; it has an additional play field plus more parking. The suburban site is also expected to need more cost to bring utilities to the site. 5) Question and answer / comment period followed the cost model (response in italics) A. Y2 mile does not seem very far for bringing utilities to the suburban site - is that a good basis? This number was a very rough estimation and could vary widely depending on the actual site that may be purchased. B. Is there an operational cost difference between the 2 sites? The operational cost was not evaluated in this study though it would be reasonable to estimate that caring for a smaller property and 2 fields will cost less than a larger property with 3 fields. C. Is there a difference in energy performance between a 2 story and 3 story building? A 3 story building will generally perform slightly better for energy efficiency than an equivalent 1 or 2 story building since there is reduced roof area and building perimeter. D. Is there a difference in carbon footprint between rural and suburban? This was not evaluated directly, but an assumption is that there are significantly shorter travel distances on average to an urban location, also more opportunity for walking, biking and mass transit This is in addition to the expected increased efficiency in the building noted above. 6) Small group break-out, A. Discuss how well the plans support shared use of facility i. Volunteers are nearby to assist school ii. Economy is declining so there is an increased need for services iii. School district might be liable if tenants / collocation partner defaults B. Should shared use be more attached or detached with school? i. Attached allows better interaction ii. Attached is easier to share spaces iii. Detached may cost more iv. Detached allows better safety / security v. Detached can ease scheduling issues / reduced disruptions vi. Attached makes it more closely identified with the school vii. Detached allows for a more clear identity for the community group viii. Detached has concern that it may look like an afterthought ix. Detached would need covered walk to connect to hared school spaces x. It really depends on what community function shares the space. C. Does cost information change any preference on suburban vs. urban? i. Urban still preferred if cost is about equal ii. Regardless of cost, it seems a waste to put it far away from most of the population iii. The carbon footprint factor is a "cost" that goes beyond the direct dollar expense that makes the Urban site even more appealing 7) Next steps: Get the word out - where / how? A. NAC will create visual boards and talking points B. Committee needs to take on role of key communicators to talk to the public to get broader feedback. C. Go to head start group, boys and girls club, retirement centers, rood lifeline, housing coalition, School PTA. D. Boards to be set up at schools (during teacher conferences and at concerts etc.) E. Set joint meeting with School Board and city Council for follow up / de -brief F. Write a letter to the editor of Kitsap sun (less than 200 words) G. Request feed back to district and city web sites N: \121-08022\200\2 -200-0ptions\A206\A206b-WkShp4MeetingNotes-081027 .doc Appendix SA: Original Project Schedule 177 ~~~IARCHITECTURE NAC I A R (H IT E (TO R E Bremerton Co-location Project Workshops and Meetings Dates Subject Time July 31,2008 Workshop 1 0 Goal Setting 3 Hrs August 18, 2008 Workshop 2 0 Co-location Opportunities 3 Hrs Sept 22, 2008 Workshop 3 0 Site & Concept Evaluation 3 Hrs National talent, local focus Mid October Workshop 4 0 Option Cost Analysis 2 Hrs Early November Workshop 5 0 Discuss Draft Report 2 Hrs Early December Present Report TBD N:\ 121-08022\2001Z-200-0plionsIA206lA206b-MeetlngSchedule-080827.doc www.nacarchitecture.com NAC Inc 12201 Sixth Avenue, Suite 14051 Seattle, Washington 98121-18471 T: 206.441.45221 F: 206.441.7917 Appendix 58: Co-location Project Examples I 81 ~~~IARCHITECTURE